text:
# Mutual Inductance Route to Paramagnetic Meissner Effect in 2D Josephson- Junction Arrays.

\[

## Abstract

We simulate two-dimensional Josephson junction arrays, including full mutual-inductance effects, as they are cooled below the transition temperature in a magnetic field. We show numerical simulations of the array magnetization as a function of position, as detected by a scanning SQUID which is placed at a fixed height above the array. The calculated magnetization images show striking agreement with the experimental images obtained by A. Nielsen et al. The average array magnetization is found to be paramagnetic for many values of the applied field, confirming that paramagnetism can arise from magnetic screening in multiply-connected superconductors without the presence of $`d`$-wave superconductivity.

\]

A DC paramagnetic susceptibility, reported first by Braunisch et al. for BSCCO, occurs in many $`\mathrm{high}T_c`$ superconductors when cooled through their transition temperature in an external magnetic field. This surprising result, known as the paramagnetic Meissner effect (PME), contrasts with the standard diamagnetic response of classical superconductors and has been subject of extensive investigations for the last ten years.

Some theoretical work suggested that the PME provided indirect evidence for $`d`$-wave symmetry in the superconducting order parameter. In this picture, $`\pi `$-junctions formed between misaligned grains were the cause of the anomalous magnetic response.

PME observed in $`\mathrm{low}T_c`$ superconductors with $`s`$-wave order parameters demonstrated that $`\pi `$-junctions were not required for PME. New theories for PME were developed, advocating non-equilibrium phenomena such as flux compression, surface barriers  and a giant vortex state. However, in the case of $`\mathrm{high}T_c`$ samples like BSCCO, experiments  showed clearly that the granular nature of the samples was a crucial ingredient for the occurrence of the phenomenon. This suggested using arrays of (non-$`\pi `$) Josephson junctions as a model system for studying PME in granular $`\mathrm{high}T_c`$ samples, to test whether $`\pi `$-junctions were also an essential ingredient. Numerical simulations of simplified Josephson junction networks (a single multi-junction loop or multi-junction concentric loops ) indeed showed a paramagnetic response. Experiments also gave indirect evidence for PME in the AC susceptibility of arrays.

Because of the many theories predicting PME in both $`s`$ and $`d`$-wave superconductors, more stringent and detailed experimental tests were needed to find the end of this maze. Experiments using scanning SQUIDs were thus performed on $`\mathrm{high}T_c`$ superconductors and on arrays of non-$`\pi `$ junctions. A scanning SQUID microscope (SSM)  measures the spatial distribution of the magnetization. The complexity of the results and the experimental technique pose new theoretical challenges in the qualitative and quantitative interpretation of the magnetic images.

Here we show that a model of 2D arrays with full mutual inductance interactions captures the essential facts about PME in Josephson junction arrays.

The arrays measured in Nielsen et al. had unit a cell size of $`46\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and were cooled in external flux from zero up to $`12\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ per unit cell of the array. A sketch of the array is shown in Fig. 1. The junctions had a $`J_c=600\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ with a junction area of $`5\times 5\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$ and a calculated self-inductance of $`L^{}=64\mathrm{pH}`$, yielding a $`\beta _L=2\pi L^{}I_0(T)/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=30`$ at $`4.2\mathrm{K}`$. The experiment involved cooling the array in an externally applied field and then measuring the magnetization with the field still applied. These parameters are similar to those in BSCCO which exhibits PME and are the parameters used here.

We simulate a network of $`N_r\times N_c`$ junctions. Using a vector notation, the current in each junction can be modeled by the resistively-capacitively shunted junction (RCSJ) model as:

$$\stackrel{}{I}^b=I_0\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{}{\phi }+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi }G\stackrel{}{\dot{\phi }}+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi }C\stackrel{}{\ddot{\phi }}.$$
(1)
Here $`I_0\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ represents the current through the Josephson element ($`\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ is the vector given by applying $`\mathrm{sin}`$ to the components of $`\stackrel{}{\phi })`$, and $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi )\stackrel{}{\dot{\phi }}`$ is the voltage drop across the quasiparticle conductance $`G`$. Finally $`C`$ and $`I_0`$ are the junction capacitance and the Josephson critical current.

To satisfy the Kirchhoff’s law for the currents in each node, we define loop currents $`\stackrel{}{I^s}`$ connected to the junction currents by the relationship $`\stackrel{}{I^b}=\widehat{K}\stackrel{}{I^s}`$ (for a discussion of the role of loop currents cf. Refs. ) where the matrix $`\widehat{K}`$ depends on the array geometry. The fluxoid quantization rule for each elementary loop in the array gives another set of equations:

$$\widehat{M}\stackrel{}{\phi }=2\pi \stackrel{}{n}2\pi \stackrel{}{f}+\frac{2\pi L^{}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\widehat{L}\stackrel{}{I}^s$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{M}`$ performs the (oriented) sum of the phases around a loop; the vector $`\stackrel{}{f}`$ represents the normalized flux $`\varphi ^{ext}=f\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ due to an external field in each loop, i.e., the so-called frustration; $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is a vector of ”quantum numbers” for the flux quanta in each loop; and the last term is the field induced by the currents flowing in all other loops of the array ($`\varphi ^{induced}=L^{}\widehat{L}\stackrel{}{I}^s`$). The matrix $`\widehat{L}`$, the mutual inductance matrix of the array (normalized to the self inductance of the single loop), represents the mutual coupling between loops in the arrays. Here we compute $`\widehat{L}`$ by a thin wire approximation except for the self-inductance of a single loop(cf. Ref. ). Inserting the fluxoid quantization in $`\stackrel{}{I^b}=\widehat{K}\stackrel{}{I^s}`$, using Eq.(1) we obtain a system of equations in normalized units, containing only the phase variables:

$$\frac{\beta _L}{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{}{\phi }+\sqrt{\frac{\beta _L}{\beta _C}}\stackrel{}{\dot{\phi }}.+\stackrel{}{\ddot{\phi }}=\widehat{K}\widehat{L}^1\stackrel{}{m}.$$
(3)
Here time is normalized to a cell frequency ($`\omega ^2=L^{}C`$) and the usual Stewart-McCumber parameter appears, $`\beta _C=2\pi I_0(T)C/\mathrm{\Phi }_0G^2`$. The term $`\stackrel{}{m}`$ represents the normalized loop magnetization (cf. Eq. (2)). An explicit form for magnetization can be written as follows by inverting the static form of Eq.(3):

$$\stackrel{}{m}=\frac{\beta _L}{2\pi }\widehat{L}\left(\widehat{K}^T\widehat{K}\right)^1\widehat{K}^T\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{}{\phi },$$
(4)
which generalizes the single-loop Eq.(1) by Nielsen et al. In the case of a single loop, for large $`\beta _L`$, there are at least four states which are non-degenerate and that are either diamagnetic or paramagnetic. The lowest energy states are diamagnetic for $`\mathrm{}<f<\mathrm{}+1/2`$ with $`\mathrm{}`$ integer, and paramagnetic for $`\mathrm{}+1/2<f<\mathrm{}+1`$. For a single loop, half the states are diamagnetic and half are paramagnetic. This contrasts with the experiments on large arrays by Nielsen et al. that show a clear prevalence of paramagnetism for $`f3`$. In other words, the single- loop model cannot explain the experimental results, even qualitatively.

We can do a mean-field type of treatment of the temperature dependence by using the fact that $`\beta _C`$ and $`\beta _L`$ are the only temperature dependent quantities in these equations. Thus, we simulated field cooling in the arrays solving Eq. (3) for the phases and calculating the resulting currents and magnetization. The simulation starts with a zero screening term in the equation, $`\beta _L=0`$, and $`\beta _C=0`$, as representing $`TT_c`$. Non-zero frustration $`f`$ was fixed in the beginning of the simulation. Then, $`\beta _L`$ and $`\beta _C`$ are increased in steps, until they reach their final, low-temperature value. The dynamical terms, i.e., $`\ddot{\phi }`$ and $`\dot{\phi }`$ go to zero after a transient. A variable transient time permits control of the speed of the simulated field cooling process. We used parameters similar to the experiments, i.e., $`\beta _L(T=4.2\mathrm{K})=30`$, $`\beta _C(T=4.2\mathrm{K})=66`$. The transient time for each step increase in $`\beta _L`$ ranges from $`80`$ to $`400`$ normalized time units, and a typical run takes $`30`$ steps. The initial conditions for the array are chosen with all the phases being zero and a random distribution of ”quantum numbers” $`\stackrel{}{n}`$, simulating the disorder due to the initial diffusion of flux quanta, when the Josephson energy barriers are small. Details of the integration routine are described in Filatrella et al.

In order to have a significant comparison between the numerical simulations and the experiments, we take into account the SQUID–sample separation at a non-zero distance $`z`$ above the array. Typical values of $`z`$ have been chosen within the limits indicated by Ref. , $`40`$ to $`60`$ $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, and we normalized $`z`$ to the array unit cell size, $`46\mu \mathrm{m}`$. The field at a distance $`z`$ was built by superposition of the fields generated by the currents. Each current in the array is modeled using the thin-wire approximation.

Next, the flux within a square corresponding to the SQUID area was calculated, for different positions above the array. We chose to calculate positions corresponding to the centers of the array loops (i.e. one point per loop) at distance $`z`$ above them.

Fig. 2 reports the field-cooled magnetization for a $`10\times 40`$ array with $`f=1.2`$ and clearly shows a diamagnetic behavior both locally and in the average magnetization. Figs. 2a and 2b respectively show the magnetization at $`z=0`$ and $`z=1`$. Figs. 3 and 4 show the same array for $`f=4.8`$ and $`f=12.2`$: Figs. 3a and 4a report the magnetization at $`z=0`$, Figs. 3b and 4b magnetization at $`z=1`$. For values of frustration above 3, the array shows an overall paramagnetic response. It is interesting to note that in all cases, at $`z=0`$, there is a connection between the simulated arrays and the simple single loop picture. If, for a given value of frustration, an isolated loop is diamagnetic (lowest energy state), for the same value of frustration the simulated array shows a larger number of diamagnetic loops. These diamagnetic loops form a ”sea” in which a few paramagnetic loops stand out (cf. Figs. 2a, 4a). If the isolated loop is paramagnetic, the ”sea” is formed by paramagnetic loops with few diamagnetic loops in the array (cf. Fig. 3a).

At $`z=1`$ the mixing of flux lines produces a smeared flux distribution that is very similar to the experiments (cf. Ref. ). We note that for large frustration values (cf. Fig.s 4a and 4b), due to different magnetization strength, the far-field array image is paramagnetic, although the corresponding state for an isolated loop is diamagnetic.

In Figs. 2c, 3c and 4c, histograms of the loop magnetization are reported at $`z=0`$. We find two peaks representing the diamagnetic ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_{tot}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ext}<0`$) and paramagnetic ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_{tot}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ext}>0`$) loops. The peak position essentially corresponds to single loop values for the same frustration. The peak width is determined by mutual inductance effects. Generally only two magnetization peaks are found, one diamagnetic and one paramagnetic (with the exception of a few loops in the $`f=4.8`$ case, which show a higher value of paramagnetic magnetization, cf. Fig. 3). The majority loops magnetize weakly whereas the minority loops magnetize strongly. Figs. 2d, 3d, and 4d show the histograms evaluated at $`z=1`$. Similarly to the measured images, we observe a smearing effect: Histogram peaks merge, so that the overall distributions appear similar to the experimental ones. Merging of histogram peaks starts approximatively at $`z0.3`$. The results discussed for the Figs. 2, 3 and 4 can be extended to other frustration values: Simulations show that for $`\mathrm{}<f<\mathrm{}+1/2`$, with $`\mathrm{}`$ integer, the diamagnetic loops predominate in number, whereas for $`\mathrm{}+1/2<f<\mathrm{}+1`$ the paramagnetic loops dominate. For $`f=\mathrm{}+1/2`$ the solution tends to have an equal number of diamagnetic and paramagnetic loops. The magnetization strength shows a more subtle behavior: For $`\mathrm{}<f<\mathrm{}+1/2`$ the strongest magnetization is paramagnetic, for $`\mathrm{}+1/2<f<\mathrm{}+1`$ the strongest magnetization is diamagnetic. If the frustration equals a half integer, $`f=\mathrm{}+1/2`$ the paramagnetic and diamagnetic peaks are of equal strength, so their average magnetization measures zero.

In Fig. 5 we report the mean magnetization over a $`10\times 40`$ array, for different frustrations, at $`z=1`$. The mean magnetization depends on the blend of paramagnetic/diamagnetic strength in the loops and their number. A trend shifts the array magnetization toward paramagnetism, starting from $`f3`$. The mean magnetization depends weakly on noise: A test with different random distributions of quantum numbers shows that this accounts for an error of about $`1.2\%`$. Our estimation of $`z`$ adds another source of error, but our simulations show that this error accounts for no more than $`5\%`$, with a $`z`$ variance of $`20\%`$. On the other hand, the mean magnetization depends on the dimension of the array. A direct quantitative comparison with the experiments shows a calculated value of magnetization typically lower. Magnetization strongly depends on array dimension, so the results presented in Fig. 5 can be only qualitatively compared with experiments, in which arrays are larger. We report only positive frustration ($`f>0`$) because Eq.(3) is symmetric changing the sign of frustration (the same array viewed from below simply maintains the same para and diamagnetic loops).

We note that in all cases, i.e., both dia- and paramagnetic, diamagnetic behavior prevails near the array edges. This agrees with the experiments, which show a similar behavior. According to Ref.  this occurs because the array screens the field by generating diamagnetic currents on the array boundary and, as consequence, induces paramagnetic currents in the interior of the array, thus generating an overall paramagnetic offset.

To further support this view, we calculated the densities of paramagnetic loops at the boundary and in the bulk of the array. We find that there is a clear divergence between two data sets with an increase of bulk density, $`\rho _k`$ with respect to boundary density, $`\rho _b`$, for frustration $`f3`$. For example, at $`f=1.2`$ the two densities are roughly equal $`\rho _b=N_{para}/N_{boundary}0.156`$ and $`\rho _k=N_{para}/N_{total}0.162`$, but at $`f=12.2`$ at the boundary we have $`\rho _b0.11`$ and in the bulk $`\rho _k0.26`$. Tests on smaller arrays show that paramagnetic behavior for $`m<f<m+1/2`$ arise about for $`N5`$, this is roughly the value predicted from Eq. (4) of Ref.  for $`\beta _L=30`$.

In conclusion, the PME in Josephson junction arrays can be reproduced via numerical simulations which include the full inductance matrix. The simulation results compare favorably to experimental results: Paramagnetism dominates field cooling for large arrays. Simulations also show that the single loop model is the basic building block describing the field cooled array behavior. Mutual inductance interactions create the actual distribution of loop magnetization in the arrays. The resulting mean magnetization is the product of both single loop states and their occupancy. The observed dominant paramagnetism, in both experiments and simulations, arises from an energetic preference for paramagnetic loops interior to the array.

Beyond this study, a number of open problems still remain to be analyzed. Among these, are simulations of larger arrays in order to make more detailed comparison with experiments and the study of the effect of cooling time and transient dynamics of the array.

We acknowledge support by MURST COFIN98 project ”Dynamics and Thermodynamics of vortex structures in superconductive tunneling,” by AFOSR under grant F4620-98-1-0072 and by NSF under grant DMR 9732800.


format: text

text:
# Separability Properties of Three-mode Gaussian States

## I Introduction

Entanglement of composite quantum systems is central to both the peculiarities and promises of quantum information. Consequently, the study of entanglement of bi- and multipartite systems has been the focus of research in quantum information theory. While pure state entanglement is fairly well understood, there are still many open questions related to the general case of mixed states. The furthest progress has been made in the study of systems of two qubits: it has been shown that a state of two qubits is separable if and only if its partial transpose is positive (PPT-property) QBSepCrit  and a closed expression for the entanglement of formation was derived Wootters . Moreover, it was shown QBdist  that all entangled states of two qubits can be *distilled* into maximally entangled pure states by local operations. This property of distillability is of great practical importance, since only the distillable states are useful for certain applications such as long-distance quantum communication, quantum teleportation or cryptography applics .

In higher dimensions much less is known: the PPT-property is no longer sufficient for separability as proved by the existence of PPT entangled states in $`^2^4`$ systems pptes . These states were later shown to be *bound entangled* BE : even if two parties (Alice and Bob) share an arbitrarily large supply of such states, they cannot transform (“distill”) it into even a single pure entangled state by local quantum operations and classical communication. Meanwhile, a number of additional necessary or sufficient conditions for inseparability have been found for finite dimensional bipartite systems, which use properties of the range and kernel of the density matrix $`\rho `$ and its partial transpose $`\rho ^{T_A}`$ to establish separability (primer  and references therein).

When going from two to more parties, current knowledge is even more limited. Pure multipartite entanglement was first considered in GHZ . A classification of $`N`$-partite mixed states according to their separability properties has been given classent . But even for three qubits there is currently no general way to decide to which of these classes a given state belongs Acin01 . Results on bound entanglement upb  and entanglement distillation multipartact  for multi-party systems have been obtained.

Recently increasing attention was paid to infinite dimensional systems, the so-called continuous quantum variables (CV), in particular since the experimental realization of CV quantum teleportation CVQTelTh ; CVQTelExp . Quantum information with CV in general is mainly concerned with the family of *Gaussian states*, since these comprise essentially all the experimentally realizable CV states. A practical advantage of CV systems is the relative ease with which entangled states can be generated in the lab CVQTelExp ; Leuchs . First results on separability and distillability of Gaussian states were reported in Reid ; Duan99 ; Sim99 ; DCVS ; GBE ; compEM ; GSepCrit . One finds striking similarities between the situations of two qubits and two one–mode CV systems in a Gaussian state: PPT is necessary and sufficient for separability Duan99 ; Sim99 , and all inseparable states are distillable DCVS . Generalizing the methods reviewed in primer  it was shown that for more than two modes at either side PPT entangled states exist GBE . In compEM  a computable measure of entanglement for bipartite Gaussian states was derived.

The study of CV multipartite entanglement was initiated in CVmultipent ; CVghz , where a scheme was suggested to create pure CV $`N`$-party entanglement using squeezed light and $`N1`$ beamsplitters. In fact, this discussion indicates that tripartite entanglement has already been created (though not investigated or detected) in the CV quantum teleportation experiment CVQTelExp .

In this paper we provide a complete classification of tri-mode entanglement (according to the scheme classent ) and obtain – in contrast to the finite dimensional case – a simple, directly computable criterion that allows to determine to which class a given state belongs. We show that none of these classes are empty and in particular provide examples of genuine tripartite bound entangled states, i.e. states of three modes $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$ that are separable whenever two parties are grouped together but cannot be written as a mixture of tripartite product states.

Before we can derive our results we need to introduce some notation and collect a number of useful facts about our main object of study: Gaussian states.

## II Gaussian States

In quantum optics and in other scenarios described by continuous quantum variables, not all states on the infinite dimensional Hilbert space are equally accessible in current experiments. In fact, the set of *Gaussian states* comprises essentially all genuinely CV states that can currently be prepared in the lab. This, and the mathematical simplicity of these states are the reasons why CV quantum information has so far considered almost exclusively Gaussian states, as will the present paper. This section summarizes results on Gaussian states that we need in the following and introduces some notation.

We consider systems composed of $`n`$ distinguishable infinite dimensional subsystems, each with Hilbert space $`=\mathrm{L}^\text{}2()`$. These could be implemented quantum optically by different modes of the electromagnetic field, hence each of these subsystems will be referred to as a “mode”. To each mode belong the two canonical observables $`X_k,P_k,k=1,\mathrm{},n`$ with commutation relation $`[X_k,P_k]=i`$. Defining $`R_k=X_k,R_{n+k}=P_k`$ these relation are summarized as $`[R_k,R_l]=iJ_{kl}`$, using the antisymmetric $`2n\times 2n`$ matrix

$$J=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{𝟙}\\ \mathrm{𝟙}& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
which plays an important role in the following calculations fndimofJ .

For such systems, it is convenient to describe the state $`\rho `$ by its characteristic function

$$\chi (x)=\mathrm{tr}[\rho D(x)].$$
(2)
Here $`x=(q,p),q,p^n`$ is a real vector, and

$$D(x)=e^{i_k(q_kX_k+p_kP_k)}.$$
(3)
The characteristic function contains all the information about the state of the system, that is, one can construct $`\rho `$ knowing $`\chi `$. Gaussian states are exactly those for which $`\chi `$ is a Gaussian function of the phase space coordinates $`x`$ Manu ,

$$\chi (x)=e^{\frac{1}{4}x^T\gamma xid^Tx},$$
(4)
where $`\gamma `$ is a real, symmetric, strictly positive matrix, the *correlation matrix* (CM), and $`d^{2n}`$ is a real vector, the *displacement*. Note that both $`\gamma `$ and $`d`$ are directly measurable quantities, their elements $`\gamma _{kl}`$ and $`d_k`$ are related to the expectation values and variances of the operators $`R_k`$. A Gaussian state is completely determined by $`\gamma `$ and $`d`$. Note that the displacement of a (known) state can always be adjusted to $`d=0`$ by a sequence of unitaries applied to individual modes. This implies that $`d`$ is irrelevant for the study of nonlocal properties. Therefore we will occasionally say, e.g., that “a CM is separable” when the Gaussian state with this CM is separable. Also, from now on in this paper “state” will always mean “Gaussian state” (unless stated otherwise).

Not all real, symmetric, positive matrices $`\gamma `$ correspond to the CM of a physical state. There are a number of equivalent ways to characterize physical CMs, which will all be useful in the following. We collect them in

###### Lemma 1

(Correlation Matrices)
For a real, symmetric $`2n\times 2n`$ matrix $`\gamma >0`$ the following statements are equivalent:

$$\gamma \text{ is the CM of a physical state},$$
(5a)
$$\gamma +J\gamma ^1J0,$$
(5b)
$$\gamma iJ0,$$
(5c)
$$\gamma =S^T(DD)S,$$
(5d)
for $`S`$ symplectic fnsympl  and $`D\mathrm{𝟙}`$ diagonal fnblock .
Proof:  $`(\text{5a})(\text{5b})`$ see Manu ; $`(\text{5a})(\text{5c})`$ see GBE ; $`(\text{5a})(\text{5d})`$ see (Folland, , Prop. 4.22).

A CM corresponds to a pure state if and only if (iff) $`D=\mathrm{𝟙}`$, i.e. iff $`det\gamma =1`$ (e.g. Manu ). It is easy to see from (5d) that for pure states Ineq. (5b) becomes an equality and dim$`\left[\mathrm{ker}(\gamma iJ)\right]=n`$. It is clear from Eq. (5d) that for every CM $`\gamma `$ there exists a pure CM $`\gamma _0`$ such that $`\gamma _0\gamma `$. This will allow us to restrict many proofs to pure CMs only. Note that for a pure $`2n\times 2n`$ CM $`\gamma `$ it holds that $`\mathrm{tr}\gamma 2n`$.

A very important transformation for the study of entanglement is partial transposition QBSepCrit . Transposition is an example of a positive but not completely positive map and therefore may reveal entanglement when applied to part of an entangled system. On phase space transposition corresponds to the transformation that changes the sign of all the $`p`$ coordinates $`(q,p)\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,p)=(q,p)`$ Sim99  and leaves the $`q`$’s unchanged. For $`\gamma `$ and $`d`$ this means $`(\gamma ,d)(\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }d)`$. Using this, the NPT-criterion for inseparability QBSepCrit  translates very nicely to Gaussian states. Consider a bipartite system consisting of $`m`$ modes on Alice’s side and $`n`$ modes on Bob’s ($`m\times n`$-system in the following). Let $`\gamma `$ be the CM of a Gaussian $`m\times n`$-state and denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{𝟙}`$ the partial transposition in A’s system only. Then we have the following criterion for inseparability:

###### Theorem 1

(NPT criterion)
Let $`\gamma `$ be the CM of a $`1\times n`$ system, then $`\gamma `$ corresponds to a inseparable state if and only if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$ is not a physical CM, i.e. if and only if

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_A\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }_AiJ.$$
(6)
We say that $`\gamma `$ “is NPT” if (6) holds.

Proof:  See Sim99  for $`N=1`$ and GBE  for the general case.

Occasionally it is convenient to apply the orthogonal operation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$ to the right hand side of Ineq. (6) and write $`\stackrel{~}{J}_A\mathrm{\Lambda }_AJ\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$.

For states of at least two modes at both sides Condition (6) is still sufficient for inseparability, but no longer necessary as shown by Werner and Wolf, who have considered a family of $`2\times 2`$ entangled states with positive partial transpose GBE . In the same paper, it was shown that

###### Theorem 2

(Separability of Gaussian States)
A state with CM $`\gamma `$ is separable iff there exist CMs $`\gamma _A,\gamma _B`$ such that

$$\gamma \gamma _A\gamma _B.$$
(7)
It is observed in GBE  that if Ineq. (7) can be fulfilled, then the state with CM $`\gamma `$ can be obtained by local operations and classical communication from the product state with CM $`\gamma _p=\gamma _A\gamma _B`$, namely by mixing the states $`(\gamma _p,d)`$ with the $`d`$’s distributed according to the Gaussian distribution $`\mathrm{exp}\left[d^T(\gamma \gamma _p)^1d\right]`$.

Note that while Theorem 2 gives a necessary and sufficient condition for separability, it is not a practical criterion, since to use it, we have to prove the existence or non-existence of CMs $`\gamma _A,\gamma _B`$. Instead, a criterion would allow to directly calculate from $`\gamma `$ whether the corresponding state is separable or not. Theorem 2 and its extension to the 3-party situation are the starting point for the derivation of such a criterion for the case of three-mode three-party states in the following main section of this paper.

## III Tri-mode Entanglement

When systems that are composed of $`N>2`$ parties are considered, there are many “types” of entanglement due to the many ways in which the different subsystems may be entangled with each other. We will use the scheme introduced in classent , to classify three-mode tripartite Gaussian states. The important point is that from the extension of Theorem 2 we can derive a simple criterion that allows to determine which class a given state belongs to. This is in contrast to the situation for three qubits, where up until now no such criterion is known. In particular, we show that none of these classes are empty and we provide an example of a genuine tripartite bound entangled state, i.e. a state of three modes $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$ that is separable whenever two parties are grouped together but cannot be written as a mixture of tripartite product states and therefore cannot be prepared by local operations and classical communication of three separate parties.

### III.1 Classification

The scheme of classent  considers all possible ways to group the $`N`$ parties into $`mN`$ subsets, which are then themselves considered each as a single party. Now, it has to be determined whether the resulting $`m`$-party state can be written as a mixture of $`m`$-party product states. The complete record of the $`m`$-separability of all these states then characterizes the entanglement of the $`N`$-party state.

For tripartite systems, we need to consider four cases, namely the three bipartite cases in which $`AB`$, $`AC`$, or $`BC`$ are grouped together, respectively, and the tripartite case in which all $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$ are separate. We formulate a simple extension to Theorem 2 to characterize mixtures of tripartite product states

Theorem 2 (Three-party Separability)
A Gaussian three-party state with CM $`\gamma `$ can be written as a mixture of tripartite product states iff there exist one-mode correlation matrices $`\gamma _A,\gamma _B,\gamma _C`$ such that

$$\gamma \gamma _A\gamma _B\gamma _C0.$$
(8)
Such a state will be called *fully separable*.

Proof:  The proof is in complete analogy with that of Theorem 7 in GBE  and is therefore omitted here.

A state for which there are a one-mode CM $`\gamma _A`$ and a two-mode CM $`\gamma _{BC}`$ such that $`\gamma \gamma _A\gamma _{BC}0`$ is called $`ABC`$ *biseparable* (and similarly for the two other bipartite groupings). In total, we have the following five different entanglement classes:

*Fully inseparable states* are those which are not separable for any grouping of the parties.

*1-mode biseparable states* are those which are separable if two of the parties are grouped together, but inseparable with respect to the other groupings.

*2-mode biseparable states* are separable with respect to two of the three bipartite splits but inseparable with respect to the third.

*3-mode biseparable states* separable with respect to all three bipartite splits but cannot be written as a mixture of tripartite product states.

The *fully separable* states can be written as a mixture of tripartite product states.

Examples for Class 1 (the GHZ-like states of CVghz ), Class 2 (two-mode squeezed vacuum in the first two and the vacuum in the third mode), and Class 5 (vacuum state in all three modes) are readily given; we will provide examples for Classes 3 and 4 in Subsection IV below.

How can we determine to which Class a given state with CM $`\gamma `$ belongs? States belonging to Classes 1, 2, or 3 can be readily identified using the NPT-criterion (Theorem 1). Denoting the partially transposed CM by $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_x=\mathrm{\Lambda }_x\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }_x,x=A,B,C`$, we have the following equivalences:

###### Lemma 2

(Classification)

$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_AiJ,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_BiJ,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_CiJ`$ $``$ Class 1 (9)
$`()\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_AiJ,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_BiJ,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_CiJ`$ $``$ Class 2 (10)
$`()\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_AiJ,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_BiJ,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_CiJ`$ $``$ Class 3 (11)
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_AiJ,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_BiJ,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_CiJ`$ $``$ $`\text{Class 4 or 5},`$ (12)
where the $`()`$ reminds us to consider all permutations of the indices A, B, and C.

The proof follows directly from the definitions of the different classes and Theorem 1.

What is still missing is an easy way to distinguish between Class 4 and Class 5. Thus to complete the classification we now provide a criterion to determine whether a CM $`\gamma `$ satisfying Ineqs. (12) is fully separable or 3-mode biseparable, that is we have to decide whether there exist one-mode CMs $`\gamma _A,\gamma _B,\gamma _C`$ such that (8) holds, in which case $`\gamma `$ is fully separable. In the next subsection we will describe a small set consisting of no more than nine CMs among which $`\gamma _A`$ is necessarily found if the state is separable.

### III.2 Criterion for Full Separability

This subsection contains the main result of the paper: a separability criterion for PPT $`1\times 1\times 1`$ Gaussian states, i.e. states whose CM fulfills Ineqs. (12). We start from Theorem 2’ and obtain in several steps a simple, directly computable necessary and sufficient condition. The reader mainly interested in this result may go directly to Theorem 3, from where she will be guided to the necessary definitions and Lemmas.

Since the separability condition in Theorem 2’ is formulated in terms of the positivity of certain matrices the following lemma will be very useful throughout the paper. We consider a self-adjoint $`(n+m)\times (n+m)`$ matrix $`M`$ that we write in block form as

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& C\\ C^{}& B\end{array}\right),$$
(13)
where $`A,B,C`$ are $`n\times n,m\times m`$, and $`n\times m`$ matrices, respectively.

###### Lemma 3

(Positivity of self-adjoint matrices)
A self-adjoint matrix $`M`$ as in (13) with $`A0,B0`$ is positive if and only if for all $`ϵ>0`$

$$AC\frac{1}{B+ϵ\mathrm{𝟙}}C^{}0,$$
(14)
or, equivalently, if and only if

$$\mathrm{ker}B\mathrm{ker}C$$
(15a)
and
$$AC\frac{1}{B}C^{}0,$$
(15b)
where $`B^1`$ is understood in the sense of a pseudoinverse (inversion on the range).

Proof:  The only difficulty in the proof arises if $`\mathrm{ker}B0`$. Therefore we consider the matrices $`M_ϵ`$, where $`B`$ in (13) is replaced by $`B_ϵ=B+ϵ\mathrm{𝟙}`$ ($`ϵ>0`$), which avoid this problem and which are positive $`ϵ>0`$ iff $`M0`$. In a second simplifying step we note that $`M_ϵ0`$ $`ϵ>0`$ iff $`M_ϵ^{}=(\mathrm{𝟙}B_ϵ^{1/2})M(\mathrm{𝟙}B_ϵ^{1/2})0`$.

Now direct calculation shows the claim: we can write a general $`fg`$ as $`f\left[(B_ϵ^{1/2}C^{})h+h_{}\right]`$, where $`h_{}`$ is orthogonal to the range of $`(B_ϵ^{1/2}C^{})`$. Then $`(fg)^{}M_ϵ^{}(fg)=f^{}(ACB_ϵ^1C^{})f+(f+h)^{}CB_ϵ^1C^{}(f+h)+h_{}^{}h_{}`$, which is clearly positive, if (14) holds. With the choice $`h_{}=0`$ and $`h=f`$ it is seen that (14) is also necessary.

That the second condition is equivalent is seen as follows: If Ineq. (14) holds $`ϵ>0`$ there cannot be vector $`\xi \mathrm{ker}B`$ and $`\xi \mathrm{ker}C`$ since for such a $`\xi `$ we have $`\xi ^T\left(AC\frac{1}{B+ϵ\mathrm{𝟙}}C^{}\right)\xi <0`$ for sufficiently small $`ϵ>0`$, and if (15a) holds then (14) converges to (15b). Conversely, if (15a) holds, then $`CB^1C^{}`$ is well-defined and Ineq. (15b) implies it $`ϵ>0`$.

As mentioned above, in this section we exclusively consider three-mode CMs $`\gamma `$ that satisfy Ineqs. (12). We write $`\gamma `$ in the form of Eq. (13) as

$$\gamma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& C\\ C^T& B\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
where $`A`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix, whereas $`B`$ is a $`4\times 4`$ matrix. We observe that Ineqs. (12) impose some conditions on $`\gamma `$ that will be useful later on:

###### Observation 1

Let $`\gamma `$ satisfy Ineqs. (12), then

$$\gamma \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma _AiJ& 0& 0\\ 0& \sigma _BiJ& 0\\ 0& 0& \sigma _CiJ\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
where $`\sigma _x\{0,\pm 1\},x=A,B,C`$.

Proof:  Ineqs. (12) say that $`\gamma \pm iJ0`$ and $`\gamma \pm i\stackrel{~}{J}_x0`$ $`x`$. By adding these positive matrices all combinations of $`\sigma _x`$ can be obtained.

From this it follows:

###### Observation 2

For a PPT CM $`\gamma `$ as in Eq. (16)

$$\mathrm{ker}(B+iJ),\mathrm{ker}(B+i\stackrel{~}{J})\mathrm{ker}C,$$
(18)
where $`\stackrel{~}{J}=J(J)`$ is the partially transposed $`J`$ for two modes.

Proof:  Cond. (18) on the kernels is an immediate consequence of Lemma 3 applied to the matrices $`\gamma 0iJ(\pm iJ)`$, which are positive by Obs. 1.

Then the matrices

$`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ $``$ $`AC{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Bi\stackrel{~}{J}}}C^T,`$ (19a)
$`N`$ $``$ $`AC{\displaystyle \frac{1}{BiJ}}C^T`$ (19b)
are well-defined and

###### Observation 3

It holds that both

$$\mathrm{tr}N,\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{N}>0,$$
(20)
Proof:  Cond. (20) is true since, again by Lemma 3 and Obs. 1, both $`N`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ are positive and $`N\pm iJ,\stackrel{~}{N}\pm iJ0`$. This implies that $`N,\stackrel{~}{N}`$ cannot be zero, which is the only positive matrix with vanishing trace. Therefore $`\mathrm{tr}N,\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{N}`$ are strictly positive.

The remainder of this section leads in several steps to the separability criterion. First, we simplify the condition (8) by reducing it to a condition which involves only one one-mode CM $`\gamma _A`$.

###### Lemma 4

A PPT 3-mode CM $`\gamma `$ is fully separable if and only if there exists a one-mode CM $`\gamma _A`$ such that

$`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ $``$ $`\gamma _A,`$ (21a)
$`N`$ $``$ $`\gamma _A,`$ (21b)
where $`N,\stackrel{~}{N}`$ were defined in Eqs. (19). Without loss of generality we require $`\gamma _A`$ to be a pure state CM, i.e. $`det\gamma _A=1`$.

Proof:  By Theorem 2’ full separability of $`\gamma `$ is equivalent to the existence of one-mode CMs $`\gamma _A,\gamma _B,\gamma _CiJ`$ such that $`\gamma \gamma _A\gamma _B\gamma _C0`$. Let $`\gamma _x`$ stand for $`\gamma _{A,B,C}`$.

By Lemma 3 this is equivalent to $`\gamma _x`$ such that $`X_ϵBC^T\frac{1}{A_ϵ\gamma _A}C\gamma _B\gamma _C`$, $`ϵ>0`$, where $`A_ϵA+ϵ\mathrm{𝟙}`$. But iff there exist such $`\gamma _x`$ then (Lemma 3) the inequality also holds for $`ϵ=0`$ and the kernels fulfill (15a). This is true iff the matrix $`XX_0^{}`$ is a CM belonging to a separable state, i.e. (Theorem 1) iff $`X^{}i\stackrel{~}{J},iJ`$. Using $`Bi\stackrel{~}{J},iJ`$ \[which holds since $`\gamma `$ fulfills Ineqs. (12)\] we obtain that $`\gamma `$ is separable iff there exists $`\gamma _AiJ`$ such that

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}A\gamma _A& C\\ C^T& B_k^{}\end{array}\right)0,k=1,2,$$
(22)
where $`B_1^{}=BiJ`$ and $`B_2^{}=Bi\stackrel{~}{J}`$. Since Condition (15a) holds, this is (Lemma 3) equivalent to Ineqs. (21). That we can always choose $`det\gamma _A=1`$ follows directly from Eq. (5d) and the remark after Lemma 1.

While we can always find a $`\gamma _A`$ fulfilling Ineq. (21b), since $`\gamma `$ belongs to a PPT state (and there exists a two-mode CM $`\gamma _{BC}iJ`$ such that $`\gamma _A\gamma _{BC}`$ is smaller than $`\gamma `$), it may well happen that Ineq. (21a) cannot be satisfied at all, or that it is impossible to have both Ineqs. (21) fulfilled for one $`\gamma _A`$ simultaneously. Note that due to Ineqs. (12), $`N`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ as above are always positive. From Ineqs. (21) we observe that

###### Observation 4

for the CM $`\gamma `$ of a separable state it is necessary to have

$`\mathrm{tr}N,\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{N}`$ $``$ $`2,`$ (23a)
$`detN,det\stackrel{~}{N}`$ $`>`$ $`0,`$ (23b)
where $`\gamma `$ as in Eq. (16) and $`N,\stackrel{~}{N}`$ as in Eqs. (19).

Proof:  A self-adjoint $`2\times 2`$ matrix is positive iff its trace and determinant are positive. Since the trace of the RHS of both Ineqs. (21) is $`2`$ \[remark after Lemma 1\] the same is necessary for the LHS. Also, since $`det\gamma _A=1`$, which implies that $`\gamma _A`$ has full rank, any matrix $`\gamma _A`$ must also have full rank 2xNpaper  and thus a strictly positive determinant.

For a self-adjoint positive $`2\times 2`$ matrix

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b^{}& c\end{array}\right),$$
(24)
we show

###### Lemma 5

There exists a CM $`\gamma _AR`$ if and only if there exist $`(y,z)^2`$ such that

$`\mathrm{tr}R`$ $``$ $`2\sqrt{1+y^2+z^2},`$ (25a)
$`detR+1+L^T\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y}{z}}\right)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{tr}R\sqrt{1+y^2+z^2},`$ (25b)
where

$$L=(ac,2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}b).$$
(26)
Proof:  As noted in Lemma 4 we need only look for $`\gamma _A`$ with $`det\gamma _A=1`$. We parameterize

$$\gamma _A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x+y& z\\ z& xy\end{array}\right),$$
(27)
with real parameters $`x,y,z`$ and $`x^2=1+y^2+z^2`$ for purity. This is a CM iff $`\gamma _AiJ0`$ (Lemma 1), that is iff $`\mathrm{tr}\gamma _A=2x0`$ (where we use that positivity of the a $`2\times 2`$ matrix is equivalent to the positivity of its trace and determinant and $`det(\gamma _AiJ)=0`$ by construction). By the same argument, $`R\gamma _A0`$ leads to the two conditions (25).

The inequalities (25) have a simple geometrical interpretation that will be useful for the proof of the promised criterion: Ineq. (25a) restricts $`(y,z)`$ to a circular disk $`𝒞^{}`$ of radius $`\sqrt{(\mathrm{tr}R)^2/41}`$ around the origin, while Ineq. (25b) describes a (potentially degenerate) ellipse $``$ (see Fig. 2), whose elements are calculated below, and the existence of a joint solution to Ineqs. (25) is therefore equivalent to a nonempty intersection of $`𝒞^{}`$ and $``$.

Applying this now to the matrices (19) we find that in order to simultaneously satisfy both conditions in Lemma 4, the intersection between the two ellipses $`,\stackrel{~}{}`$ and the smaller of the two concentric circles $`𝒞^{},\stackrel{~}{𝒞}^{}`$ (which we denote in the following by $`𝒞`$) must be nonempty. This condition leads to three inequalities in the coefficients of the matrices $`\stackrel{~}{N},N`$ which can be satisfied simultaneously if and only if the PPT trimode state is separable. Thus we can reformulate the condition for separability (Lemma 4) as follows

###### Lemma 6

(Reformulated Separability Condition)
A three-mode state with CM $`\gamma `$ satisfying Ineqs. (12) is fully separable if and only if there exists a point $`(y,z)^2`$ fulfilling the following inequalities:

$`\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{tr}N,\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{N}\}`$ $``$ $`2\sqrt{1+y^2+z^2},`$ (28a)
$`detN+1+L^T\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y}{z}}\right)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{tr}N\sqrt{1+y^2+z^2},`$ (28b)
$`det\stackrel{~}{N}+1+\stackrel{~}{L}^T\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y}{z}}\right)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{N}\sqrt{1+y^2+z^2}.`$ (28c)
Proof:  According to Lemma 4 $`\gamma `$ belongs to a separable state iff we can find $`\gamma _A`$ smaller than $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and smaller than $`N`$. According to Lemma 5 we can find such a $`\gamma _A`$ iff we can find $`(y,z)`$ such that Ineqs. (25) are satisfied for both $`N`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$.

In the following paragraphs we have a closer look at the sets $`,\stackrel{~}{}`$, and $`𝒞`$. The goal of this discussion is to identify a few special points – directly computable from $`\gamma `$ – among which a solution to Ineqs. (28) will be found iff the state under consideration is separable. This will then lead to the final practical form of the separability criterion which is stated at the end of this section.

By squaring Ineq. (28b) we obtain

$$\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y}{z}\right)\mu L\right]^TK\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y}{z}\right)\mu L\right]m,$$
(29)
where $`\mu =(detN+1)/k_1`$, $`m=\frac{k_2}{k_1}\left[(detN+1)^2k_1\right]`$, and the matrix $`K`$ is fnLnot0

$$K=k_1P_L+k_2P_L^{},$$

with the orthogonal projectors $`P_L,P_L^{}`$ on $`L,L^{}`$ and

$`k_1`$ $`=`$ $`4\left[detN+(\mathrm{Im}b)^2\right],`$
$`k_2`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{tr}N)^2.`$
Due to Ineqs. (23) $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are strictly positive, $`\mu ,m`$ are well-defined and $`K`$ is a positive matrix of rank $`2`$. Let us now distinguish the cases $`m<0`$ and $`m0`$. For $`m<0`$ Ineq. (29) can never be fulfilled since $`K`$ is a positive matrix. In the case $`m0`$, Ineq. (29) describes an ellipse $``$ which is centered at $`m_e=\mu L`$ with major axis $`L`$ and minor axis $`L^{}`$ of lengths $`\sqrt{m/k_1}\sqrt{m/k_2}`$, respectively. From Ineq. (28c) we obtain the same equations for the tilded quantities derived from $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$.

The final argument for the derivation of the separability criterion is as follows. By Lemma 6 the state is separable if and only if the three sets described by Ineqs. (28) have a common intersection, i.e. iff $`I\stackrel{~}{}𝒞\mathrm{}`$. The border of $`I`$ is contained in the union of the borders of the ellipses and circle: $`I\stackrel{~}{}𝒞`$. Now we can distinguish two cases, both of which allow to calculate a definite solution to the Ineqs. (28) if the state is separable: Either $`I`$ has nonempty intersections with the borders of two of the sets $`,\stackrel{~}{},𝒞`$ or $`I`$ coincides with the border of one of the three. In the latter case this whole set is contained in $`I`$. In the former case, at least one of the points at which the borders intersect must be in $`I`$ and thus a solution. If no solution is found this way the state is inseparable. This argument is made more precise in the final theorem. Formulas for the nine candidate solutions – the centers $`m_c,m_e,m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ and the intersections points $`i_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}^\pm ,i_{ce}^\pm ,i_{c\stackrel{~}{e}}^\pm `$ – are given in Appendix A.

###### Theorem 3

(Criterion for full separability)
A three-mode state corresponding to the CM $`\gamma `$ satisfying Ineq. (12) is fully separable if and only if Ineq. (23b) holds and there exists a point $`\xi _{sol}`$

$$\xi _{sol}\{m_c,m_e,m_{\stackrel{~}{e}},i_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}^\pm ,i_{ce}^\pm ,i_{c\stackrel{~}{e}}^\pm \}$$
(30)
fulfilling the Ineqs. (28).

Proof:  We already saw (Obs. 4) that $`detN,det\stackrel{~}{N}>0`$ are necessary for separability. If this holds, the quantities used in (28, 30) and in their derivation are all well-defined.

According to Lemma 6 $`\gamma `$ is fully separable iff there exists a point $`(y,z)^T`$ such that the Ineqs. (28) are fulfilled. Therefore, if one of the points (30) satisfies Ineqs. (28) then it determines a $`\gamma _A`$ fulfilling Ineqs. (21) thus proving that the state is separable. To complete the proof, we show that if the state is separable, then we find a solution to Ineqs. (28) among the points (30).

As pointed out before, the condition that Ineqs. (28) can simultaneously be satisfied has the geometrical interpretation that the circle $`𝒞`$ and the two ellipses $`,\stackrel{~}{}`$ have a nonempty intersection, i.e. $`I\stackrel{~}{}𝒞\mathrm{}`$.

Thus it remains to prove that if $`I`$ is nonempty then one of the nine points in (30) lies in $`I`$. But if $`I\mathrm{}`$ there are only the following two possibilities: since all the sets considered are convex and closed, either the border of $`I`$ coincides with that of one of the sets $`𝒞,,\stackrel{~}{}`$ (which means that one of these sets, call it $`𝒮`$, is contained in *both* others) or at least two of the borders $`𝒞,,\stackrel{~}{}`$ contribute to $`I`$, in which case the points at which these two intersect belong to $`I`$ and thus to $`I`$.

In the former case, the center of $`𝒮`$ is a solution and given by one of the Eqs. (A); in the latter, one can find a solution among the intersections of the borders of the sets $`,\stackrel{~}{},𝒞`$. That these are given by the $`i_x^\pm `$ is shown in Appendix A.

If a CM $`\gamma `$ belongs to a separable state according to the above theorem then the point $`\xi _{sol}`$ provides us with a pure one-mode CM $`\gamma _A`$ such that $`N,\stackrel{~}{N}\gamma _A`$. By construction $`\gamma ^{}=BC(A\gamma _A)^1C^T`$ is a separable $`2\times 2`$ CM and by repeating a similar procedure as above with $`\gamma ^{}`$ we can calculate a pure product-state decomposition of the original state with CM $`\gamma `$.

## IV Examples of Bound Entangled States

In this section we construct states belonging to Classes 3 and 4. Our construction makes use of ideas that were first applied in finite dimensional quantum systems to find PPT entangled states (PPTES) pptes  and then generalized in edge  to construct so-called *edge states*, i.e. states on the border of the convex set of states with positive partial transpose. Similarly, one can define “edge CMs” as those that lie on the border of the convex set of PPT CMs (they are called “minimal PPT CMs” in GBE ).

This section is divided into three subsections. In the first one we define “edge CMs” and characterize them. In the second and third subsections we present two different families of CMs which contain edge CMs. We also show that within those families we have CMs belonging to all classes.

### IV.1 Edge CMs

In the following we will consider CMs $`\gamma `$ corresponding to PPT states, i.e. fulfilling

$$\gamma i\stackrel{~}{J}_x0,\text{ for all }x=0,A,B,C,$$
(31)
where $`\stackrel{~}{J}_0J`$.

###### Definition 1

(Edge Correlation Matrices)
A CM $`\gamma `$ is an edge CM if it corresponds to a non–separable state, fulfills (31), and $`\gamma ^{}\gamma P`$ does not fulfill (31) for all real operators $`P`$ with $`0P0`$.

Note that a state with an edge CM automatically belongs to class 4 (i.e. edge CMs correspond to 3-mode biseparable states). In order to fully characterize them, we will need the following definition. Let us consider the complex vector space $`V^6`$ of dimension $`d`$ spanned by the vectors belonging to the kernels of all $`\gamma i\stackrel{~}{J}_x`$ ($`x=0,A,B,C`$). We will define $`K(\gamma )`$ as a real vector space which is spanned by the real parts and imaginary parts of all the vectors belonging to $`V`$. More specifically, let us denote by $`B=\{f_R^k+if_I^k\}_{k=1}^d`$ a basis of $`V`$, such that $`f_R^k`$ and $`f_I^k`$ are real. We define

$$K(\gamma )=\left\{\underset{k}{}\lambda _kf_R^k+\mu _kf_I^k,\lambda _k,\mu _k\right\}^6;$$
(32)
that is, the real span of the vectors $`f_R^k`$ and $`f_I^k`$. Note that this definition does not depend on the chosen basis $`B`$ \[As it is pointed out in Appendix B, $`K(\gamma )`$ coincides with the real vector space spanned by all the vectors in the kernels of $`\gamma +\stackrel{~}{J}_x\gamma ^1\stackrel{~}{J}_x`$\]. We then have the following

###### Theorem 4

(Characterization of $`1\times 1\times 1`$ edge CMs)
A CM $`\gamma `$ fulfilling (31) is an edge CM if and only if there exist no CMs $`\gamma _A,\gamma _B,\gamma _C`$ such that $`\gamma =\gamma _A\gamma _B\gamma _C`$ and $`K=^6`$.

Proof:  We will use the fact 2xNpaper  that, given two positive matrices $`A,B0`$, there exists some $`ϵ>0`$ such that $`AϵB0`$ iff ran($`B`$)$``$ ran($`A`$). According to the Def. 1 we cannot subtract any real positive matrix from $`\gamma `$ without violating the conditions (31). This is equivalent to imposing that there is no real vector in the intersection of the ranges of the matrices $`\gamma i\stackrel{~}{J}_x`$. This is again equivalent to saying that there is no real vector orthogonal to all the ker($`\gamma i\stackrel{~}{J}_x)`$, which in turn is equivalent to $`K=^6`$, since that vector should be orthogonal to all the real and imaginary parts of the vectors spanned by those kernels. Now, if $`\gamma `$ corresponds to an entangled state it is clear that $`\gamma \gamma _A\gamma _B\gamma _C`$. Conversely, if $`\gamma \gamma _A\gamma _B\gamma _C`$ was separable, then there must exist some real positive $`P`$ such that $`\gamma P=\gamma _A\gamma _B\gamma _C`$ is separable, and therefore fulfills (31), which is not possible.

Note that this Theorem generalizes easily to the cases of more than three parties and more than one mode at each site.

In the construction of the following two examples of tripartite bound entangled states we are going to use this theorem. The idea is to take a CM $`\gamma _0`$ of a pure entangled state \[which, of course, does not fulfill (31)\] and add real positive matrices until the conditions (31) as well as $`K=^6`$ are fulfilled. If the resulting CM is not of the form $`\gamma _A\gamma _B\gamma _C`$ then Theorem 4 implies that it is an edge CM. In fact, we can add more real positive matrices keeping the state entangled \[and fulfilling (31)\]. In order to see how much we can add, we can use the criterion derived in the previous section.

This method of constructing CMs belonging to Class 4 also indicates how the corresponding states may be prepared experimentally. Adding a positive matrix $`P`$ to the CM $`\gamma _0`$ corresponds to the following preparation process: start with an ensemble of states with CM $`\gamma _0`$, displace them randomly by $`d`$ according to the Gaussian probability distribution with covariance matrix given by the inverse of $`P`$. This is a *local* operation (that potentially needs to be supplemented by classical communication) on each individual mode. The state produced by this randomization has CM $`\gamma +P`$ GBE .

### IV.2 Example 1

In the first example we start out with an entangled state between the two parties Alice and Bob and the vacuum state in Charlie and add two projectors to the corresponding CM. More specifically, we consider the CMs of the form $`\gamma _{a_1,a_2}=\gamma +a_1P_1+a_2P_2`$, where

$$\gamma =\gamma _{AB}\mathrm{𝟙}_C,$$
(33)
and

$$\gamma _{AB}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a& 0& c& 0\\ 0& a& 0& c\\ c& 0& a& 0\\ 0& c& 0& a\end{array}\right),$$
(34)
with $`a=\sqrt{1+c^2}`$ and $`c`$ can take any value different from zero. Here, $`P_1=\stackrel{~}{p}_1\stackrel{~}{p}_1^T`$ and $`P_2=\stackrel{~}{p}_1\stackrel{~}{p}_1^T`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1=(0,1,0,1,1,2)^T`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}_2=(1,0,1,0,0,1)^T`$.

In order to explain why the CM $`\gamma _{a_1,a_2}`$ achieves our purposes, let us first consider the two–mode case in which the correlation matrix is $`\gamma _{AB}`$. We denote now by $`p=p_1+ip_2`$ \[where $`p_1=(0,1,0,1)^T`$ and $`p_2=(1,0,1,0)^T`$\] the eigenvector corresponding to the negative eigenvalue of $`\gamma _{AB}i\stackrel{~}{J}_A`$ fndimofJ . Since $`(i\stackrel{~}{J}_A)^{}=i\stackrel{~}{J}_B`$ we have that the eigenvector corresponding to the negative eigenvalue of $`\gamma _{AB}i\stackrel{~}{J}_B`$ is $`p^{}=p_1ip_2`$. By adding a sufficiently large multiple of the projectors onto those vectors, we obtain a CM whose partial transposes are positive. Note that in this case (just two modes) this would already make the state separable.

In the case of three modes with a correlation matrix $`\gamma `$ the same argumentation applies, namely that by adding some projectors we can make the partial transposes with respect to A and B positive. However, we have to involve $`C`$ and thereby smear out the initial entanglement between $`A`$ and $`B`$ among all three parties. This is exactly what is achieved by adding the projectors $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. If we choose now, for instance, $`c=0.3`$, $`a_1=1`$, and $`a_20.5531095`$, then one can show that the set $`K(\gamma _{a_1,a_2})`$ defined as in Eq. (32) spans $`^6`$. As mentioned at the end of the previous subsection, since the resulting CM is not of the form $`\gamma _A\gamma _B\gamma _C`$ it corresponds to an edge CM.

In Fig. 1 we illustrate to which class $`\gamma _{a_1,a_2}`$ belongs as a function of the parameters $`a_{1,2}`$. In order to determine this, we have used the criterion derived in the previous section. It is worth noting that $`\gamma _{a_1,a_2}`$ never becomes separable. This follows from Theorem 3 and the fact that both $`m=\stackrel{~}{m}=0`$ for all values of $`a_{1,2}`$, as can be easily verified. This implies that the two ellipses \[c.f. Ineq. (29)\] are just two points \[which coincide with the centers given in Eq. (A)\]. Thus, the only possibility that the circle and the two ellipses intersect is that the centers of the ellipses are the same and lie inside the circle. It is easy to show that for all values of $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ the centers of the two ellipses are never the same. Thus the state corresponding to the CM $`\gamma _{a_1,a_2}`$ is never separable and is a PPTES for all values of $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$ for which the partial transposes are positive.

### IV.3 Example 2

Here we present a family of states which belong either to Class 1, 4, or 5. The states of this family are obtained from a pure GHZ-like state CVghz  by adding a multiple of the identity, i.e.,

$$\gamma _\alpha =\gamma +\alpha \mathrm{𝟙},$$
(35)
where

$$\gamma =\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}a& 0& c& 0& c& 0\\ 0& b& 0& c& 0& c\\ c& 0& a& 0& c& 0\\ 0& c& 0& b& 0& c\\ c& 0& c& 0& a& 0\\ 0& c& 0& c& 0& b\end{array}\right),$$
(36)
with $`a>1`$ and

$`b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(5a\sqrt{9a^28}),`$ (37)
$`c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(a\sqrt{9a^28}).`$ (38)
For the following discussion, we pick $`a=1.2`$. It is clear that for $`\alpha =0`$ the state is fully inseparable, i.e., it belongs to Class $`1`$, whereas for $`\alpha 1`$ the state will be fully separable (Class $`5`$). We will show now that for $`\alpha _0\alpha \alpha _1`$, where $`\alpha _00.29756`$ and $`\alpha _10.31355`$ the state is biseparable and belongs therefore to Class $`4`$.

The CM $`\gamma _\alpha `$ is symmetric with respect to permutations between the parties, and therefore the negative eigenvalues of the matrices $`\gamma i\stackrel{~}{J}_x,x=A,B,C`$ are the same. We denote its absolute value by $`\alpha _00.29756`$. It is easy to determine the real and imaginary part of the corresponding eigenvectors. One finds that all those vectors are linearly independent. If we add now $`\alpha _0\mathrm{𝟙}`$ to $`\gamma `$ then all those vectors belong to $`K(\gamma _{\alpha _0})`$ which immediately implies that $`K(\gamma _{\alpha _0})=^6`$. Since $`\gamma _{\alpha _0}\gamma _A\gamma _B\gamma _C`$ we have that it is an edge CM.

Let us now use Theorem $`3`$ in order to determine $`\alpha _1`$. First of all, we show, independently of the discussion above that $`\gamma _{\alpha _0}`$ belongs to Class 4. In particular, we find that $`m=\stackrel{~}{m}=0`$ \[cf. Eq. (29)\], which implies that there exists a solution to the Ineqs. (28) only if the centers of the two ellipses are the same and lie within the circle. Here one can also show that the two centers are not the same and so the state corresponding to the CM $`\gamma _{\alpha _0}`$ is a PPTES. Let us determine the values of $`\alpha `$ for which it is still the case that there exists no intersection of the two ellipses and the circle given by the Ineqs. (28). It is easy to show that if $`\alpha >\alpha _0`$ then $`\mathrm{tr}N\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{N}`$, which implies that the circle that has to be considered has radius $`r_c=\sqrt{(\mathrm{tr}N)^2/41}`$. One can also easily verify that the two ellipses never intersect the border of the circle, which simplifies the problem. The ellipses must always lie inside the circle (since if they where outside it would never be possible to obtain a separable state even for $`\alpha >1`$). Thus, the problem reduces to check at which point the ellipses intersect each other. This occurs when $`\alpha =\alpha _10.31355`$. Thus the CM $`\gamma _\alpha `$, where $`\alpha _0\alpha <\alpha _1`$ corresponds to a PPTES, whereas for $`\alpha \alpha _1`$, the corresponding state is fully separable. In Fig. 2 we have plotted the circle and the two ellipses, which are almost circles in this case, for (a) $`\alpha <\alpha _1`$ and (b) $`\alpha >\alpha _1`$.

## V Conclusions

We have discussed nonlocal properties of Gaussian states of three tripartite modes. We have distinguished five classes with different separability properties and given a simple necessary and sufficient criterion that allows to determine which of these classes a given Gaussian state belongs to. The first three classes contain only NPT states and positivity of a state under the three partial transpositions suffices to determine to which of those it belongs. The separability criterion, which allows to distinguish PPT entangled states from separable states is the main result of this paper. For the case of three qubits such a criterion is still missing. Lastly, we have constructed examples for all the classes and in particular for tripartite entangled state with positive partial transpose. Using the separability criterion for multi-mode bipartite Gaussian states GSepCrit  the results presented above can be extended to cover the case of $`n`$ modes at location C. Nothing changes in the argumentation to distinguish 3-party biseparable from fully separable states \[the additional modes are taken care of automatically in Eqs. (19)\]. However, the separability criterion of GSepCrit  is now necessary to determine the properties under bipartite splitting, since for AB-C we deal with a $`2\times n`$ state and PPT is then no longer sufficient for biseparability GBE .

It is worth pointing out that the separability criterion can be checked experimentally. The CM $`\gamma `$ can be measured, and thus the criterion is entirely formulated in terms of quantities that are measurable with current technology.

Gaussian CV states promise to be a fruitful testing ground for quantum nonlocality: Pure entanglement is comparatively easy to create in quantum optical experiments, as described in CVghz . Likewise, tripartite bound entangled states are experimentally accessible: the states discussed in the examples Subsec. IV.2 and IV.3 can be obtained by mixing differently displaced pure Gaussian states.

The study of entanglement of multi-party Gaussian states is still in a very early stage. For example, no work has to our knowledge been done on the interesting cases of more parties and modes. But even for the simple three-mode case there are important open question. In particular nothing is known about the distillability of tripartite states. As in Ref. classent  for qubits, it is easy to see that Gaussian states in Classes 3 and 4 cannot be distilled at all and are therefore bound entangled. For this, we consider $`N`$ copies of a Class 3 state $`\rho `$, and apply an arbitrary local quantum operation $`𝒫_{locc}`$ consisting of a classically correlated sequence of operations of the form $`𝒫=𝒫_A𝒫_B𝒫_C`$. Since $`\rho `$ is in Class 3 we can write $`\rho ^N`$ as a mixture of $`ABC`$ product states $`_kp_k\rho _{AB,k}^{(N)}\rho _{C,k}^{(N)}`$ and as a mixture of $`ACB`$ product states $`_kp_k^{}\rho _{AC,k}^{(N)}\rho _{B,k}^{(N)}`$. After applying an operation such as $`𝒫`$ the resulting state $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=𝒫(\rho ^N)`$ will still be separable along these cuts, and no sequence of operations $`𝒫`$ can change this. Thus $`\rho `$ is bound entangled.

Whether all states in Class 2 may be distilled to maximally entangled states between the two non-separable parties is an open question. If this were shown, it would follow that all states in Class 1 could be distilled into arbitrary tripartite entangled states.

###### Acknowledgements.

G.G. acknowledges financial support by the Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung. B.K. and J.I.C. thank the University of Hannover for hospitality. M.L., B.K., and J.I.C. acknowledge the hospitality of the Erwin Schrödinger Institute. This work was supported by the Austrian Science Foundation under the SFB “Control and Measurement of Coherent Quantum Systems” (Project 11), the European Union under the TMR network ERB–FMRX–CT96–0087 and the project EQUIP (contract IST-1999-11053), the European Science Foundation, the Institute for Quantum Information GmbH, Innsbruck, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 407 and Schwerpunkt ”Quanteninformationsverarbeitung”).

## Appendix A Points of Intersection

As shown in Theorem 3 a state is separable iff solutions to Ineqs. (28) are found among the points of intersection of the curves described by the *equalities* (28), or the centers of the three sets. Here we give the formulas to directly calculate these points from $`\gamma `$.

The centers of circle and the ellipses have already been shown to be

$`m_c`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0)^T,`$
$`m_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{detN+1}{k_1}}L,`$ (39)
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{det\stackrel{~}{N}+1}{\stackrel{~}{k}_1}}\stackrel{~}{L},`$
where $`N,\stackrel{~}{N}`$ were defined in (19), $`L`$ in (26), and $`k_1,\stackrel{~}{k}_1`$ after (29). The intersections of the borders of $`𝒞,,\stackrel{~}{}`$ are calculated as follows. Consider first the two ellipses, whose borders are defined by the *equalities* (28b, 28c). Dividing by $`\mathrm{tr}N`$, respectively by $`\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and subtracting the two equalities we find that a point on both $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ must lie on the straight line $`𝒢_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ defined by

$$(detN+1+L^T\xi )/\mathrm{tr}N=(det\stackrel{~}{N}+1+\stackrel{~}{L}^T\xi )/\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{N},$$
(40)
where $`\xi =(y,z)`$. $`𝒢_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ can be parameterized with $`s`$ as $`g_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}+sf_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}`$, where

$$g_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}=\left(\frac{detN+1}{\mathrm{tr}N}\frac{det\stackrel{~}{N}+1}{\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{N}}\right)L^{}/L^{}^2,$$
(41)
where $`L^{}=\stackrel{~}{L}/\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{N}L/\mathrm{tr}N`$ fnLprime0  and $`f_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ is a vector orthogonal to $`L^{}`$.

Inserting $`𝒢_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ in the equation (28b) for $``$ we obtain a quadratic polynomial in $`s`$, whose roots $`s_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}^\pm `$ (if they are real) give the intersection points. For the intersections of $`𝒞`$ with the ellipses we proceed similarly. In summary, we get for the intersection points

$$i_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}^\pm =g_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}+s_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}^\pm f_{e\stackrel{~}{e}},$$
(42)
$$i_{ce}^\pm =g_{ce}+s_{ce}^\pm f_{ce},$$
(43)
$$i_{c\stackrel{~}{e}}^\pm =g_{c\stackrel{~}{e}}+s_{c\stackrel{~}{e}}^\pm f_{c\stackrel{~}{e}},$$
(44)
where the vectors $`g_x,x=ce,c\stackrel{~}{e}`$ are

$`g_{ce}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{tr}N\sqrt{r_c^2+1}detN1\right)L/L^2,`$ (45a)
$`f_{ce}`$ is a vector orthogonal to $`L`$, and $`r_c`$ is the smaller of the two radii

$$r_c=\mathrm{min}\{\sqrt{(\mathrm{tr}N)^2/41},\sqrt{(\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{N})^2/41}\}.$$
(46)
$`g_{c\stackrel{~}{e}},f_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ are defined likewise for tilded quantities. And, finally, by $`s_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}^\pm ,s_x^\pm `$ we denote the real roots of the quadratic polynomials

$`P_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(L^T(g_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}+sf_{e\stackrel{~}{e}})+detN+1\right)^2`$ (47a)
$`(\mathrm{tr}N)^2\left(1+g_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}+sf_{e\stackrel{~}{e}}^2\right),`$
$`P_x(s)`$ $`=`$ $`r_c^2g_x+sf_x^2,x=ce,c\stackrel{~}{e}.`$ (47b)
Thus all the nine candidates are given in terms of $`N,\stackrel{~}{N}`$ which can be directly obtained from $`\gamma `$.

## Appendix B Characterization of $`K`$

Here we show that $`K(\gamma )`$ as defined in Eq. (32) coincides with the (real) span of the vectors belonging to the kernels of $`\gamma +\stackrel{~}{J}_x\gamma ^1\stackrel{~}{J}_x`$. This fact automatically follows from the following

###### Lemma 7

(Characterization of $`K(\gamma )`$)
Let $`f=f_R+if_I`$, where $`f_R`$ and $`f_I`$ are real. Then $`f\mathrm{ker}(\gamma i\stackrel{~}{J}_x)`$ iff $`f_I=\gamma ^1\stackrel{~}{J}_xf_R`$ and both $`f_R`$ and $`f_I`$ belong to the kernel of $`\gamma +\stackrel{~}{J}_x\gamma ^1\stackrel{~}{J}_x`$.

Proof:  Taking the real and imaginary part of the equation $`(\gamma i\stackrel{~}{J}_x)f=0`$ we find $`\gamma f_R+\stackrel{~}{J}_xf_I=0`$ and $`\gamma f_I\stackrel{~}{J}_xf_R=0`$. Since $`\gamma `$ must be invertible we obtain from the second equation that $`f_I=\gamma ^1\stackrel{~}{J}_xf_R`$. Using now the first equation we find that $`(\gamma +\stackrel{~}{J}_x\gamma ^1\stackrel{~}{J}_x)f_R=0`$. Analogously, $`(\gamma +\stackrel{~}{J}_x\gamma ^1\stackrel{~}{J}_x)f_I=0`$. The same argumentation holds for the other direction of the proof.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Theories with extra spacelike dimensions have recently attracted a great deal of attention. It was observed  that for suitably large extra dimensions, it is possible to lower the fundamental mass scale of gravity $`M_f`$ down to a few TeV. This suggests a new way for a solution of the gauge hierarchy problem without invoking supersymmetry (SUSY). In this approach all the standard model particles are localized on a $`3`$-brane, and only gravity propagates in the bulk. Assuming that the $`n`$ compact dimensions have a typical size $`R`$, the four dimensional Planck scale is expressed as:

$$M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2M_f^{2+n}R^n.$$
(1)
In order to reproduce the correct behavior of gravity one should take $`R\stackrel{<}{_{}}`$ mm (the behavior of gravity at this distance is now being studied). Interestingly, already for $`n=2`$, $`R1`$ mm and $`M_f`$ few$``$TeV, $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ has the required magnitude $`10^{19}`$ GeV. Detailed studies of phenomenological and astrophysical implications of these models, were presented in . We note that our Universe as a membrane embedded in higher dimensional spacetime was also considered in earlier works .

An alternative solution of the gauge hierarchy problem invoking an extra dimension was presented in . The desired mass hierarchy is generated through a non-factorizable metric obtained from higher dimensional gravity (see also ). In the minimal setting  there are two three branes - hidden and visible, separated by an appropriate distance. The non-factorizable metric is given by:

$$ds^2=e^{2k|y|}ds_{3+1}^2dy^2,$$
(2)
where $`y`$ denotes the fifth spacelike dimension, $`ds_{3+1}^2`$ is the ordinary $`4`$D interval, and $`k`$ is a mass parameter close to the fundamental scale $`M_f`$. On the visible brane all mass parameters are rescaled due to the warp factor in (2), such that $`m_{\mathrm{vis}}=M_fe^{k|y_0|}`$ ($`y_0`$ is the distance between branes). For $`M_f10^{19}`$ GeV and $`k|y_0|37`$ one finds that $`m_{\mathrm{vis}}`$ few$``$ TeV, the desired magnitude. It was also shown that Newton’s law still holds on the visible brane. It is worth noting that in this approach the extra dimension can be infinite , provided it’s volume remains finite. Generalization of this non-factorizable model to scenarios with open codimensions and with intersecting multiple branes was presented in .

It is clearly important to inquire about the origin of the 3-branes in the above scheme with the warped metric. In this paper we present one such scenario with a complex scalar field coupled to $`5`$D gravity. The theory possesses $`5`$D Poincare invariance and $`Z_2`$ discrete symmetry. The 3-brane and warped geometry emerge dynamically from spontaneous breaking of the $`Z_2`$ symmetry. The 3-brane describes a topologically stable domain wall, an axion-type solution of the sine-Gordon equation in curved space-time. Analytical solutions for the domain wall profile and warp factor are presented. As expected, the $`5`$D space turns out to be Anti-de-Sitter (AdS). Questions of compactification, Kaluza-Klein (KK) decomposition, graviphoton mass and other related issues are also discussed.

## 2 The Model

In this section we will consider higher dimensional ($`D=5`$) gravity plus a complex scalar field which turns out to possess a non-factorizable solution of equation (2). The motivation for the choice of complex scalar is that with the help of $`Z_2`$ symmetry we naturally obtain a potential with a cosine profile  familiar from axion models. This yields a non trivial analytical solution for the $`\theta `$-domain wall whose core can be identified as a $`3`$-brane.

### 2.1 Complex Scalar Coupled to $`5`$D Gravity

Consider $`5`$D gravity coupled to a complex scalar field333For higher dimensional non-factorizable scenarios, extended with real scalar fields, see -. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ through the action

$$S=d^5x\sqrt{G}\left(\frac{1}{2}M^3R\mathrm{\Lambda }+(\mathrm{\Phi })\right),$$
(3)
with

$$(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{1}{2}G^{AB}\left(_A\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_B\mathrm{\Phi }+_B\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_A\mathrm{\Phi }\right)V(\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(4)
Here $`G_{AB}`$ is the $`5`$D metric tensor and $`G=\mathrm{Det}G_{AB}`$ ($`A,B=1,\mathrm{},5`$). The Einstein equation derived from (3) is given by

$$R_{AB}\frac{1}{2}G_{AB}R\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M^3}G_{AB}=\frac{V}{M^3}G_{AB}+\frac{1}{M^3}(_A\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_B\mathrm{\Phi }+_B\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_A\mathrm{\Phi })$$

$$\frac{1}{2M^3}G_{AB}G^{CD}(_C\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_D\mathrm{\Phi }+_D\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_C\mathrm{\Phi }),$$
(5)
while the equation of motion for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ follows from

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{G}}_A\left(\sqrt{G}\frac{\delta }{\delta (_A\mathrm{\Phi })}\right).$$
(6)
Terms on the right hand side of (5) effectively play the role of energy-momentum tensor $`T_{AB}`$, which will be the source for the dynamical generation of the 3- brane and yield a non-factorizable geometry.

Before proceeding to the specific model, which fixes $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, let us derive the appropriate equations of motion \[from (5), (6)\]. We are looking for a metric of the form:

$$G_{AB}=\mathrm{Diag}(A(y),A(y),A(y),A(y),1),$$
(7)
which conserves $`4`$D Poincare invariance:

$$ds^2=A(y)\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu dy^2,\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+\overline{h}_{\mu \nu },$$
(8)
where

$$\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{Diag}(1,1,1,1)$$
(9)
and $`\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the $`4`$D graviton ($`\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{},4`$). The (1, 1) and (5, 5) components of (5) respectively give

$$\frac{A^{\prime \prime }}{A}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+V}{M^3}\frac{2}{3M^3}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{},$$
(10)
$$\left(\frac{A^{}}{A}\right)^2=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+V}{M^3}+\frac{2}{3M^3}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{},$$
(11)
where primes denote derivatives with respect to the fifth coordinate $`y`$. Subtracting (11) and (10), we get:

$$\frac{A^{\prime \prime }}{A}+\left(\frac{A^{}}{A}\right)^2=\frac{4}{3M^3}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}.$$
(12)
Using the substitutions:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=ve^{\mathrm{i}\theta },$$
(13)
$$A=A_0e^\sigma ,$$
(14)
and assuming that $`v`$ in (13) does not depend on $`y`$ \[see discussion in sec. (1.2)\], from (12) and (11) we derive:

$$\sigma ^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\frac{4v^2}{3M^3}\theta ^{}{}_{}{}^{2},$$
(15)
$$\sigma ^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+V}{M^3}+\frac{2v^2}{3M^3}\theta ^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.$$
(16)
With our assumption $`v=\mathrm{const}.`$, from (6) we obtain the equation of motion for $`\theta `$:

$$2v^2\theta ^{}{}_{}{}^{}4v^2\sigma ^{}\theta ^{}\frac{V}{\theta }=0.$$
(17)
The three equations (15)-(17) are not independent. Namely, differentiating (16) and using (15), we obtain (17). However, in order for these three equations to have a solution, one fine tuning between the parameters is unavoidable. This can be seen from the following discussion: Solving equations (16) and (17) we have three parameters of integration $`\theta (y_0)`$, $`\theta ^{}(y_0)`$ and $`\sigma (y_0)`$, where $`y_0`$ is some arbitrary point (In principle there is also a fourth parameter which expresses translation invariance. But it is irrelevant, since the equations are invariant under translations). $`\sigma (y_0)`$ is also irrelevant, since the equations contain only derivatives of $`\sigma `$. From (15), $`\theta (y_0)`$ is also irrelevant. Since for the brane solution we have to impose the condition $`\theta ^{}(\mathrm{})=0`$, the third parameter $`\theta ^{}(y_0)`$ is fixed from this condition. Therefore, there remains no free parameters, and for satisfying (15), one fine tuning must be done (for detailed discussions about this issue see ). This will be explicitly seen for the model discussed below.

### 2.2 Axionic Brane and Warped Geometry

We introduce a $`Z_2`$ symmetry under which $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The relevant potential is given by

$$V=\frac{\lambda _1}{4}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }v^2)^2\frac{\lambda }{2}(\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\mathrm{\Phi }^2).$$
(18)
The first term in (18) is $`(U(1))`$ invariant under $`\mathrm{\Phi }e^{\mathrm{i}\theta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, while the last term explicitly breaks it to $`Z_2`$. This avoids the appearance of a Goldstone mode because of non-zero $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ VEV444For models with $`Z_2`$ replacing the PQ symmetry and avoiding an undesirable axion, see papers , where various phenomenological and cosmological implications are also studied.. We restrict our attention in (18) to terms needed to implement the scenario. The couplings $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4+\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ can be included if so desired, but this makes analytic calculations more difficult. As noted in , such terms are absent in some models. Higher powers in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ would complicate the discussion even further. We assume that the U(1) violating term is such that

$$\lambda _1v^2\lambda .$$
(19)
Therefore, the VEV $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|`$ is mainly determined by the first term in (18),

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }v^2,$$
(20)
from which

$$\mathrm{\Phi }ve^{\mathrm{i}\theta }.$$
(21)
Substituting (21) in (18), the $`\theta `$ dependent part of the potential is given by

$$V_\theta =\lambda v^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta .$$
(22)
This type of potential was also used for brane formation in . In our case we have obtained it through a $`Z_2`$ symmetry acting on a complex scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Assuming $`\lambda >0`$, (22) acquires its minima for $`\theta =0,\pi `$. The $`\theta `$ VEV breaks the symmetry $`\theta \theta `$. This causes the creation of topologically stable domain wall. The wall is stretched between two energetically degenerate minima, $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$. With assumption (19) it is consistent to consider $`v`$ to be (essentially) $`y`$-independent.

Introducing the dimensionless coordinate $`\xi `$

$$\xi =\sqrt{2\lambda }y,$$
(23)
(15) and (17) respectively become:

$$2\frac{^2\theta }{\xi ^2}4\frac{\sigma }{\xi }\frac{\theta }{\xi }\mathrm{sin}2\theta =0,$$
(24)
$$\frac{^2\sigma }{\xi ^2}=\alpha \left(\frac{\theta }{\xi }\right)^2,$$
(25)
where

$$\alpha =\frac{4v^2}{3M^3}.$$
(26)
Nontrivial solutions of (24) and (25), with boundary conditions

$$\theta (\mathrm{})=0,\theta (+\mathrm{})=\pi ,\sigma (\pm \mathrm{})\pm y,$$
(27)
\[Note that due to the breaking of the U(1) symmetry to $`Z_2`$ in (18), the wall here is not ’bounded by strings’, a phenomenon encountered in $`SO(10)`$ and axion models .\] will indicate the existence of ’warped’ geometry and the axion(or $`\theta `$)-brane (since $`\theta `$ breaks $`5`$D invariance). The point $`\theta =\frac{\pi }{2}`$ will be identified as the location of the $`3`$-brane describing $`4`$D theory.

Using the substitution

$$\theta =2\mathrm{arctan}f(\xi ),$$
(28)
(24), (25) can be rewritten as

$$(f^21)f^{\prime \prime }+2f(f^{\prime \prime }ff^2)2\sigma ^{}(f^2+1)f^{}+f(f^21)=0,$$
(29)
$$(f^2+1)^2\sigma ^{\prime \prime }=4\alpha f^2,$$
(30)
where primes denote derivatives with $`\xi `$. The form for $`f`$

$$f=ae^{m\xi },$$
(31)
is a reasonable choice, where the parameters $`a,m>0`$ are undetermined for the time being. Substituting (31) in (30), the latter can be integrated:

$$\sigma ^{}=s_02\alpha m\frac{1}{1+f^2},$$
(32)
where $`s_0`$ is some constant. Substituting (32) into (29) and taking into account that $`f^{\prime \prime }=mf^{}=m^2f`$, we find:

$$(f^21)m^22m[s_0(f^2+1)2\alpha m]+f^21=0.$$
(33)
Comparing appropriate powers of $`f`$ in (33), it is easy to verify that (33) is satisfied if

$$m=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+2\alpha }},s_0=\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{1+2\alpha }}.$$
(34)
Integration of (32) gives

$$\sigma =\alpha \mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{cosh}(m\xi +\delta )]+\mathrm{ln}C,\delta =\mathrm{ln}a$$
(35)
($`C=`$constant and we have taken into account (34)).

Finally, for $`\theta `$ and the warp factor $`A(=A_0e^\sigma )`$ we will have:

$$\theta =2\mathrm{arctan}(ae^{m\xi }),$$
(36)
$$A=A_0[\mathrm{cosh}(m\xi +\delta )]^\alpha .$$
(37)
where the constant $`C`$ is now absorbed in $`A_0`$, and $`a`$ still remains undetermined, which reflects translational invariance in the fifth direction $`\xi `$ ($`y`$).

Let us note here that these solutions are obtained for $`\lambda >0`$ and a negative sign in front of the last term in (18). In case of a positive sign, the potential is minimized for $`\theta =\pm \frac{\pi }{2}`$, and instead of the solution (36), we would have $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\theta \frac{\pi }{2}`$. Indeed, under these modifications, equations (24), (25) are satisfied \[for this case the sign in front of $`\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ in (24) will be positive, which reflects a change of sign of the last term in (18)\].

From (37), taking into account (34), we will get the desirable asymptotic forms for $`A`$:

$$Ae^{s_0\xi },\xi \mathrm{},$$

$$Ae^{s_0\xi },\xi +\mathrm{}.$$
(38)
The solutions (35), (36) should also satisfy (16), which in terms of $`\xi `$ has the form

$$\sigma ^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+V}{3\lambda M^3}+\frac{\alpha }{2}\theta ^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.$$
(39)
From (32), (36) and (34) we have

$$\sigma ^{}=\alpha m\frac{f^21}{f^2+1},\theta ^{}=\frac{2mf}{f^2+1},\mathrm{cos}2\theta =1\frac{8f^2}{(f^2+1)^2}.$$
(40)
Substituting all of this in (39), we can see that the latter is satisfied if

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda v^2(14\alpha m^2)=\lambda v^2\frac{12\alpha }{1+2\alpha }.$$
(41)
Therefore, as we previously mentioned, one fine tuning between the parameters of the theory is necessary. The effective $`5`$D cosmological constant is determined to be

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}=\mathrm{\Lambda }+V=\mathrm{\Lambda }+V_\theta (\theta =0,\pi )=4\lambda v^2\frac{\alpha }{1+2\alpha }.$$
(42)
As expected, the initial $`5`$D space-time is AdS.

The warp factor (37) reaches its maximum at $`\xi _0=\mathrm{ln}a/m`$ and decays exponentially far from $`\xi _0`$. For a realistic model which solves the gauge hierarchy problem, we may regard the axion wall as a hidden brane, located at $`\xi _0`$. By placing the visible brane (which can describe our $`4`$D Universe) at a distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\xi 74/(\alpha m)`$ from $`\xi _0`$, all masses on the visible brane will be rescaled as $`m_{\mathrm{vis}}=MA(\xi _0+\mathrm{\Delta }\xi )^{1/2}Me^{\alpha m\mathrm{\Delta }\xi /2}10^{16}M`$. For $`M10^{19}`$ GeV, the desired scale $`m_{\mathrm{vis}}`$ few$``$ TeV will be naturally generated.

## 3 Kaluza-Klein Decomposition

In this section we will present the KK reduction of the $`5`$D model to $`4`$D. We will calculate the graviphoton \[($`\mu ,5`$) component of metric tensor\] mass, as well as the effective $`4`$D Planck scale and the radius of the extra dimension. For KK reduction within models with non-factorizable geometry, also see papers in , while for works addressing the effects of spontaneous breaking of higher Poincare invariance, Goldstone phenomenon and other relevant issues within models with non-warped geometry, see .

For performing a KK decomposition, it is convenient to rewrite the metric in (8) in a conformally ’flat’ form:

$$ds^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(z)g_{MN}dx^Mdx^N,$$
(43)
where:

$$dz=A^{1/2}(y)dy,\mathrm{\Omega }^2(z)=A\left(y(z)\right),$$
(44)
$$G_{MN}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2g_{MN}.$$
(45)
With the standard KK decomposition

$$\begin{array}{cc}g_{MN}=& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }k^2A_\mu A_\nu ,& kA_\mu & \\ kA_\nu ,& 1& \end{array}\right),\end{array}\begin{array}{cc}g^{MN}=& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }& kA^\mu & \\ kA^\nu & k^2A_\alpha A^\alpha 1& \end{array}\right),\end{array}$$
(46)
where $`A_\mu `$ is the graviphoton, equation (43) reads

$$ds^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu (dz+kA^\mu dx_\mu )^2\right).$$
(47)
We omit the graviscalar field in (46) since it is not relevant for our discussion. See  for a discussion involving this field. Eq. (47) acquires the ‘usual’ form for $`A_\mu =0`$. For $`A_\mu 0`$, it is invariant under the following transformations:

$$x_\mu ^{}=x_\mu ,z^{}=z+ϵ(x_\mu ),$$

$$A_\mu ^{}=A_\mu \frac{1}{k}_\mu ϵ.$$
(48)
Note that this is a $`U(1)`$ transformation for $`A_\mu `$, where $`z`$ plays the role of Goldstone field. The $`Z_2`$ symmetry breaking creates the brane and translational invariance in the fifth direction is spontaneously broken. The breaking of the corresponding generator gives rise to a massive $`A_\mu `$ field. By considering $`z`$ as $`x_\mu `$ dependent (which corresponds to brane vibrations), the term $`(_\mu z)^2`$ (see below) appear in the $`4`$D action. This tell us that from the point of view of $`4`$D observer, $`z(x_\mu )`$ is a Goldstone field which becomes the longitudinal component of $`A_\mu `$. From this discussion it is clear that the fields $`z(x_\mu )`$ and $`A_\mu `$ reside on the $`4`$D brane.

We now calculate the graviphoton mass. Taking into account (45), for the Einstein Tensor

$$𝒢_{MN}=R_{MN}\frac{1}{2}G_{MN}R,$$
(49)
we have

$$𝒢_{MN}^G=𝒢_{MN}^g+(D2)\left(_M\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }_N\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }_M_N\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }\right)+$$

$$(D2)g_{MN}\left(_P^P\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{1}{2}(D3)_P\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }^P\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }\right),$$
(50)
where $`𝒢^G`$ and $`𝒢^g`$ are calculated using $`G`$ and $`g`$ respectively. The covariant derivatives $`_M`$ are built from $`g`$, such that for a scalar function $`𝒮`$

$$_M𝒮=_M𝒮,$$
(51)
while for a vector $`𝒱`$

$$_M𝒱^N=_M𝒱^N+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MP}^N𝒱^P,_M𝒱_N=_M𝒱_N\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MN}^P𝒱_P.$$
(52)
From (49) we have

$$R=\frac{2}{D2}G^{MN}𝒢_{MN},$$
(53)
and taking into account (50), we get:

$$R(G)=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(R(g)2(D1)_M^M\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }(D^23D+2)_M\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }^M\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }\right)=,$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(R(g)2(D1)\frac{_M^M\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(D^25D+4)\frac{_M\mathrm{\Omega }^M\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\right).$$
(54)
Calculating $`R(g)`$ through (46) and keeping only relevant terms, we have

$$\sqrt{G}=\sqrt{\overline{g}}\mathrm{\Omega }^5,$$

$$R(g)=\overline{R}(\overline{g})+\frac{k^2}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{},$$
(55)
where

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ,$$
(56)
and $`\overline{R}(\overline{g})`$ is the $`4`$D curvature, built from the physical $`4`$D metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$.

Taking into account (51), (52) and (46), we have:

$$_M^M\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Omega }+2kA^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Omega }^{}+(k^2A^\mu A_\mu 1)\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(57)
$$_M\mathrm{\Omega }^M\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(^\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }+2k\mathrm{\Omega }^{}A^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Omega }+(k^2A^\mu A_\mu 1)(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})^2\right),$$
(58)
where primes here denote derivatives with respect to $`z`$. Using

$$_\mu =\frac{\overline{z}}{x^\mu }\frac{}{z}=_\mu \overline{z}\frac{}{z},\overline{z}z(x_\mu ),$$
(59)
from (54), (57) and (58) it finally follows that

$$R(G)=\mathrm{\Omega }^2R(g)\mathrm{\Omega }^2(2(D1)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}+(D^25D+4)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2})\times $$

$$\left(^\mu \overline{z}_\mu \overline{z}+2kA^\mu _\mu \overline{z}+k^2A^\mu A_\mu 1\right).$$
(60)
From (60) we see that the field $`\overline{z}`$ can be absorbed by $`A_\mu `$ by a suitable $`U(1)`$ transformation.

From the Einstein equation (5) we have:

$$(\mathrm{\Lambda }+V)=\frac{M^3}{2}\frac{D2}{D}R+\frac{1}{2}\frac{D2}{D}G^{AB}(_A\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_B\mathrm{\Phi }+_B\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_A\mathrm{\Phi })$$
(61)
and substituting this in (3), we get:

$$S=d^5x\sqrt{G}\left[\frac{M^3}{2}\frac{2(D1)}{D}R+\frac{2(D1)}{D}\frac{1}{2}G^{AB}(_A\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_B\mathrm{\Phi }+_B\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_A\mathrm{\Phi })\right].$$
(62)
With

$$\frac{1}{2}G^{AB}(_A\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_B\mathrm{\Phi }+_B\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_A\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{\Omega }^2v^2\theta ^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(^\mu \overline{z}_\mu \overline{z}+2kA^\mu _\mu \overline{z}+k^2A^\mu A_\mu 1),$$
(63)
After integrating over the fifth dimension in (62), we obtain the reduced $`4`$D action:

$$S^{(4)}=d^4x\sqrt{\overline{g}}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{2}\overline{R}(\overline{g})T\frac{k^2}{4}B_{\mu \nu }B^{\mu \nu }+M_V^2(B_\mu +\frac{1}{k}_\mu 𝒵)(B^\mu +\frac{1}{k}^\mu 𝒵)\right),$$
(64)
where the $`4`$D Planck mass is

$$M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2=\frac{2(D1)}{D}M^3\mathrm{\Omega }^3𝑑z,$$
(65)
the $`4`$D brane tension is

$$T=M^3\frac{D1}{D}\mathrm{\Omega }^3\left[2(D1)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}+(D^25D+4)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}+\frac{2v^2}{M^3}\theta ^2\right]𝑑z$$
(66)
and the mass of the graviphoton is

$$M_V^2=\frac{M^3}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}\frac{D1}{D}k^2\mathrm{\Omega }^3\left[2(D1)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}+(D^25D+4)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}+\frac{2v^2}{M^3}\theta ^2\right]𝑑z.$$
(67)
In obtaining (64) we have used

$$B_\mu =M_{\mathrm{Pl}}A_\mu ,B_{\mu \nu }=M_{\mathrm{Pl}}F_{\mu \nu },𝒵=M_{\mathrm{Pl}}\overline{z}.$$
(68)
Comparing (66) and (67),

$$M_V^2=\frac{T}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}k^2=\frac{T}{g_V^2M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}.$$
(69)
Simplifying (66) yields:

$$T=\frac{4}{5}M^3𝑑yA^2\left(4\frac{A_y^{\prime \prime }}{A}+\frac{A_y^2}{A^2}+\frac{2v^2}{M^3}\theta _y^2\right)=$$

$$\frac{16}{5}\sqrt{2\lambda }M^3A_0^2m\left(2\alpha ^2I(2\alpha )+(\alpha /22\alpha ^2)I(2\alpha +2)\right),$$
(70)
where we have put $`D=5`$, the subscript $`y`$ denotes derivatives with respect to $`y`$, and

$$I(\alpha )=_0^1\left(\frac{1\rho ^2}{1+\rho ^2}\right)^\alpha \frac{d\rho }{1\rho ^2}=_0^{\frac{\pi }{4}}\left(\mathrm{cos}2t\right)^{\alpha 1}𝑑t.$$
(71)
is some finite number whose value depends on the positive parameter $`\alpha `$. For $`\alpha =1,I=\pi /4`$, and for $`\alpha =2,I=1/2`$.

Note that the relation (69) between the graviphoton mass and brane tension, has same form as for models with non warped geometry .

Simplifying (65) one finds:

$$M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2=\frac{8}{5}M^3_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}A(y)𝑑y=M^3R_{eff},$$
(72)
where

$$R_{eff}=\frac{8}{5\sqrt{2\lambda }}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}A(\xi )𝑑\xi =\frac{8A_0}{5\sqrt{2\lambda }}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}[\mathrm{cosh}(m\xi +\delta )]^\alpha 𝑑\xi =\frac{32A_0}{5m\sqrt{2\lambda }}I(\alpha ).$$
(73)
Thus, even though the extra dimension $`y`$ is non-compact, its ‘effective’ size $`R_{eff}`$ is finite. In this sense the extra space is effectively compact. Expression (72) resembles the well known relation $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2M^{2+n}L^n`$ (for $`n=1`$), which relates the effective $`4`$D Planck scale to the fundamental scale $`M`$ and the volume ($`L^n`$) of the $`n`$ extra dimensions . The crucial difference from models  is that even for values $`MM_{\mathrm{Pl}},R_{eff}1/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ in (72), the desired hierarchy is obtained, thanks to the warped geometry.

In conclusion, it would be interesting to investigate the possibility of introducing a second domain wall, located at a suitable distance from the first and characterized by the TeV scale . ’Double wall’ solutions that are dynamically stabilized in axion type models with Minkowski background have been studied in ref. . Some extension of the model considered here may well be required to implement such a scenario.