text:
# Entanglement generation and degradation by passive optical devices

## I Introduction

Entangled quantum states containing more than one photon on average have been of increasing interest (see for example ) for several reasons. So, maximally entangled continuous-variable states of EPR type require infinitely large mean numbers of photons. Another reason is that such states might be more robust against decoherence. If, for example, in an experiment with Bell states one photon is lost, e.g. absorbed, during the transmission from a sender to a receiver, the entanglement is immediately gone (the state is projected onto a separable state). States with more than one photon on average have the advantage that even a few photons might get lost on the way (leaving behind some mixed state), but inseparability might still be preserved, that is, maximally entangled photon pairs could still be extracted by means of purification procedures .

The aim of the present article is to investigate entanglement properties of bipartite quantum states that generically live in infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Typical examples are Gaussian states such as two-mode squeezed vacuum states, which are the states commonly used in quantum communication of continuous-variable systems . They are also the states we will be looking at in what follows.

In real experiments, both in quantum-state generation and processing, e.g., transmission through generically lossy optical systems such as fibers, the necessarily existing interaction of the light fields with dissipative environments spoils the quantum-state purity, leaving behind statistical mixtures. Unfortunately, quantification of entanglement for mixed states in infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces is yet impossible in practice. It typically involves minimizations over infinitely many parameters, as it is the case for the entropy of formation as well as for the distance to the set of all separable quantum states measured either by the relative entropy or Bures’ metric . It is, however, possible to derive upper bounds on the entanglement content  by using the convexity property of the relative entropy. For Gaussian states, however, we derive an upper bound based on the distance to the set of separable Gaussian states which is far better than the convexity bound. These bounds may be very useful for estimation of the entanglement degradation in real quantum information systems.

The article is organized as follows. In Section II the influence of losses in the interferometric entanglement generation at a beam splitter is studied. A typical situation in quantum communication is considered in Section III, in which the entanglement degradation of a two-mode squeezed vacuum (TMSV) state is transmitted through a noisy communication channel say, two lossy optical fibers, is examined. Some concluding remarks are given in Section IV.

## II Entanglement generation by mixing squeezed vacua at a beam splitter

### A Lossless beam splitters

Let us first consider the case of a lossless beam splitter and (quasi-)monochromatic light of (mid-)frequency $`\omega `$ (Fig. 1). It is well known  that a lossless beam splitter transforms the operators of the incoming modes $`\widehat{a}_1(\omega )`$ and $`\widehat{a}_2(\omega )`$ to the operators of the outgoing modes $`\widehat{b}_1(\omega )`$ and $`\widehat{b}_2(\omega )`$ according to

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{b}_1(\omega )}{\widehat{b}_2(\omega )}\right)=𝐓(\omega )\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_1(\omega )}{\widehat{a}_2(\omega )}\right),$$
(1)
where $`𝐓(\omega )`$ is the unitary characteristic transformation matrix of the beam splitter. Equivalently, the operators can be left unchanged and instead the density operator is transformed with the inverse matrix $`𝐓^1(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`𝐓^+(\omega )`$ according to

$$\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}=\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{in}}[𝐓^+(\omega )\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_1(\omega )}{\widehat{a}_2(\omega )}\right),𝐓^\mathrm{T}(\omega )\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_1^{}(\omega )}{\widehat{a}_2^{}(\omega )}\right)].$$
(2)
Let each of the two incoming modes be prepared in a squeezed vacuum state, i.e.,

$$\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{in}}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{in}}|$$
(3)
where

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{in}}=\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_2|0,0,$$
(4)
with $`\widehat{S}_i`$ ($`i`$ $`=`$ $`1,2`$) being the (single-mode) squeeze operator

$`\widehat{S}_i=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\xi _i\widehat{a}_i^2\xi _i^{}\widehat{a}_i^2\right)\right]`$ (6)
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}q_i\widehat{a}_i^2\right)\left(1|q_i|^2\right)^{(2\widehat{n}_i+1)/4}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}q_i^{}\widehat{a}_i^2\right)`$
($`q_i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}|\xi _i|e^{i\varphi _i}`$, $`\varphi _i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\xi _i`$). Here, the second line follows from general disentangling theorems . By Eq. (2), the output quantum state is

$$\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}|,$$
(7)
where

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}=\left[(1|q_1|^2)(1|q_2|^2)\right]^{1/4}`$ (10)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{2}q_1(T_{11}\widehat{a}_1^{}+T_{21}\widehat{a}_2^{})^2`$
$`\frac{1}{2}q_2(T_{12}\widehat{a}_1^{}+T_{22}\widehat{a}_2^{})^2]|0,0.`$
The $`T_{ij}`$ are the elements of the characteristic transformation matrix $`𝐓`$ (at chosen mid-frequency), which can be given, without loss of generality, in the form of

$$𝐓=\left(\begin{array}{cc}T& R\\ R^{}& T^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
with $`T`$ $`=`$ $`|T|\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _T}`$ and $`R`$ $`=`$ $`|R|\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _R}`$ being the (complex) transmission and reflection coefficients of the beam splitter.

From inspection of Eq. (7) it is seen that the preparation of an entangled state is controlled by the parameter

$$\xi _{12}=q_1T_{11}T_{21}+q_2T_{12}T_{22}=q_1TR^{}+q_2RT^{}.$$
(12)
When $`\xi _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ is valid, then the output state is separable. This is the case for $`\varphi _1`$ $``$ $`\varphi _2`$ $`+`$ $`2(\varphi _T`$ $``$ $`\varphi _R)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ and $`|q_1|`$ $`=`$ $`|q_2|`$. On the other hand, if again $`|q_1|`$ $`=`$ $`|q_2|`$ $`=`$ $`|q|`$ but $`\varphi _1`$ $``$ $`\varphi _2`$ $`+2(\varphi _T`$ $`\varphi _R)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \pi `$, then for $`|TR|`$ $`=`$ $`1/2`$ the output quantum state is just a TMSV state,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}=|\mathrm{TMSV}=\sqrt{1|q|^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[q\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}\right]|0,0,$$
(13)
where

$$q=|q|^{i(\varphi _2+\varphi _R\varphi _T)}=|q|\mathrm{e}^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _T\varphi _R)}.$$
(14)
Since, according to Eq. (7), the output quantum state is a pure state, entanglement is uniquely measured by the von Neumann entropy of the (reduced) quantum state of either of the output modes,

$$E(\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}})=S_{1(2)}=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\varrho }_{1(2)}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{\varrho }_{1(2)}\right],$$
(15)
where $`\widehat{\varrho }_{1(2)}`$ denotes the (reduced) output density operator of mode $`1(2)`$, which is obtained by tracing $`\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}`$ with respect to mode $`2(1)`$. The result of the numerical calculation is illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3 for a $`50\%/50\%`$ beam splitter. In Fig. 2 the phases are chosen such that the relation $`\varphi _1`$ $``$ $`\varphi _2`$ $`+2(\varphi _T`$ $`\varphi _R)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \pi `$ is valid, thus leading to a TMSV state for $`|q_1|`$ $`=`$ $`|q_2|`$. Figure 3 shows the case where $`\varphi _1`$ $``$ $`\varphi _2`$ $`+2(\varphi _T`$ $`\varphi _R)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$, so that for $`|q_1|`$ $`=`$ $`|q_2|`$ no entanglement is observed. Note that using squeezed coherent states instead of squeezed vacuum states does not change the entanglement. This is due to the fact that coherent shifts are unitary operations on subsystems which leave any entanglement measure invariant.

### B Lossy beam splitters

In practice there are always some losses and things get slightly more complicated. The SU(2) group transformation in Eq. (1) has to be replaced by a SU(4) group transformation, where the unitary transformation acts in the product Hilbert space of the field modes and the device modes . As a result, Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively, have to be replaced by

$$\widehat{𝜷}(\omega )=𝚲(\omega )\widehat{𝜶}(\omega )$$
(16)
and

$$\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}^{(\mathrm{F})}=\mathrm{Tr}^{(\mathrm{D})}\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{in}}[𝚲^+(\omega )\widehat{𝜶}(\omega ),𝚲^\mathrm{T}(\omega )\widehat{𝜶}^{}(\omega )],$$
(17)
where the “four-vector” notation $`\widehat{𝜶}(\omega )`$ for abbreviating the list of operators $`\widehat{a}_1(\omega )`$, $`\widehat{a}_2(\omega )`$, $`\widehat{g}_1(\omega )`$, $`\widehat{g}_2(\omega )`$ \[and $`\widehat{𝜷}(\omega )`$ accordingly\] has been used. The SU(4) group element $`𝚲(\omega )`$ is expressed in terms of the characteristic transformation and absorption matrices $`𝐓(\omega )`$ and $`𝐀(\omega )`$ of the beam splitter as

$$𝚲(\omega )=(\begin{array}{cc}𝐓(\omega )& 𝐀(\omega )\\ 𝐒(\omega )𝐂^1(\omega )𝐓(\omega )& 𝐂(\omega )𝐒^1(\omega )𝐀(\omega )\end{array})$$
(18)
with the commuting positive Hermitian matrices

$$𝐂(\omega )=\sqrt{𝐓(\omega )𝐓^+(\omega )},𝐒(\omega )=\sqrt{𝐀(\omega )𝐀^+(\omega )}.$$
(19)
From the above, the output density matrix in the Fock basis can be given in the form of (Appendix A):

$`m_1,m_2|\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}^{(\mathrm{F})}|n_1,n_2`$ (22)
$`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(1|q_1|^2)(1|q_2|^2)}{m_1!m_2!n_1!n_2!}}}(1)^{m_1+m_2+n_1+n_2}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{g_1,g_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_1!g_2!}}\mathrm{H}_{m_1,m_2,g_1,g_2}^𝐌(\mathrm{𝟎})\mathrm{H}_{n_1,n_2,g_1,g_2}^𝐌(\mathrm{𝟎}),`$
where $`\mathrm{H}_n^𝐌(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ denotes the Hermite polynomial of four variables with zero argument, generated by the symmetric matrix $`𝐌`$ with elements

$$M_{ij}=q_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j1}+q_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j2}.$$
(23)
Note that in Eq. (22) it is assumed that the device is prepared in the ground state.

In order to quantify the entanglement content of a mixed state $`\widehat{\varrho }`$, such as $`\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}^{(\mathrm{F})}`$ in Eq. (22), we make use of the relative entropy measuring the distance of the state to the set $`𝒮`$ of all separable states $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ ,

$$E(\widehat{\varrho })=\underset{\widehat{\sigma }𝒮}{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\varrho }\left(\mathrm{ln}\widehat{\varrho }\mathrm{ln}\widehat{\sigma }\right)\right].$$
(24)
For pure states this measure reduces to the von Neumann entropy (15) of either of the subsystems which can be computed by means of Schmidt decomposition of the continuous-variable state . It is also known that when the quantum state has the Schmidt form,

$$\widehat{\varrho }=\underset{n,m}{}C_{n,m}|\varphi _n,\psi _n\varphi _m,\psi _m|,$$
(25)
then the amount of entanglement measured by the relative entropy is given by

$$E(\widehat{\varrho })=\underset{n}{}C_{n,n}\mathrm{ln}C_{n,n}S(\widehat{\varrho }).$$
(26)
Unfortunately, there is no closed solution of Eq. (24) for arbitrary mixed states. Nevertheless, upper bounds on the entanglement can be calculated , representing the quantum state under study in terms of states in Schmidt decomposition and using the convexity of the relative entropy,

$$E\left(\underset{n}{}p_n\widehat{\varrho }_n\right)\underset{n}{}p_nE(\widehat{\varrho }_n),\underset{n}{}p_n=1.$$
(27)
Applying the method to the output quantum state in Eq. (22), i.e., rewriting it in the form of

$`\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}^{(\mathrm{F})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_{k,l,0}|k,kl,l|`$ (30)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_{k,l,m}|k+m,kl+m,l|`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_{k,l,m}|k,k+ml,l+m|`$
$`=`$ $`p_0\widehat{\varrho }_0+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}p_m\widehat{\varrho }_{m,1}+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}p_m\widehat{\varrho }_{m,2},`$ (31)
the inequality (27) leads to

$$E\left(\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}^{(\mathrm{F})}\right)p_0E(\widehat{\varrho }_0)+\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_m\left[E(\widehat{\varrho }_{m,1})+E(\widehat{\varrho }_{m,2})\right],$$
(32)
where $`E(\widehat{\varrho }_0)`$, $`E(\widehat{\varrho }_{m,1})`$, and $`E(\widehat{\varrho }_{m,2})`$ can be determined according to Eq. (26). In the numerical calculation we have used the dielectric-plate model of a beam splitter, taking the $`𝐓`$ and $`𝐀`$ matrices from . The result is illustrated in Fig. 4, which shows the dependence on the plate thickness of the upper bound of the attainable entanglement. The oscillations are due to phase matching and phase mismatch at certain beam splitter thicknesses \[cf. Eq. (12)\]. Note that the local minima of the curve for the lossy beam splitter never go down to zero as do the corresponding minima of the curve for the lossless beam splitter. This obviously reflects the fact that the result for the lossless beam splitter is exact, whereas that for the lossy beam splitter is only an upper bound.

## III Entanglement degradation in TMSV transmission through lossy optical fibers

Let us now turn to the problem of entanglement degradation in transmission of light prepared in a TMSV state through absorbing fibers. The situation is somewhat different from that in the previous section, since we are effectively dealing with an eight-port device as depicted in Fig. 5, where the two channels are characterized by the transmission ($`T_i`$) and reflection ($`R_i`$) coefficients ($`i`$ $`=`$ $`1,2`$). In particular for perfect input coupling ($`R_i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$), the system is essentially characterized by the transmission coefficients $`T_i`$.

From Eq. (13) it is easily seen that in the Fock basis a TMSV state reads

$$|\text{TMSV}=\sqrt{1|q|^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(q)^n|n,n,$$
(33)
whose entanglement content is

$$E\left(|\text{TMSV}\right)=\mathrm{ln}\left(1|q|^2\right)\frac{|q|^2}{1|q|^2}\mathrm{ln}|q|^2.$$
(34)
Application of the quantum-state transformation (17) yields ($`R_i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$)

$`\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}^{(\mathrm{F})}=(1|q|^2){\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[K_{k,l,m}`$ (36)
$`\times (c_m|m+kk|+\text{H.c.})(d_m|m+ll|+\text{H.c.})],`$
where

$`c_m`$ $`=`$ $`(q)^{m/2}T_1^m\left(1\frac{1}{2}\delta _{m0}\right),`$ (37)
$`d_m`$ $`=`$ $`(q)^{m/2}T_2^m\left(1\frac{1}{2}\delta _{m0}\right),`$ (38)
and

$`K_{k,l,m}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[|q|^2(1|T_1|^2)(1|T_2|^2)\right]^aa!(a+m)!}{\sqrt{k!l!(k+m)!(l+m)!}(ak)!(al)!}}`$ (41)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{|T_1|^2}{1|T_1|^2}}\right)^k\left({\displaystyle \frac{|T_2|^2}{1|T_2|^2}}\right)^l`$
$`\times {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a+1,a+m+1}{|kl|+1}};|q|^2(1|T_1|^2)(1|T_2|^2)]`$
\[$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}(k,l)`$\]. Note that in Eq. (36) the fibers are assumed to be in the ground state.

### A Entanglement estimate by pure state extraction

The amount of entanglement contained in the (mixed) output state (36) can also be estimated, following the line sketched in Section II B. In particular, the convexity of the relative entropy can be combined with Schmidt decompositions of the output state in order to calculate, on using the theorem (26), appropriate bounds on entanglement. Before doing so, let us first consider the case of low initial squeezing, for which the entanglement can be estimated rather simply.

#### 1 Extraction of a single pure state

Since, by Eqs. (36) – (41), for low squeezing only a few matrix elements are excited which were not contained in the original Fock expansion (33), we can forget about the entanglement that could be present in the newly excited elements and treat them as contributions to the separable states only. Following , the inseparable state relevant for entanglement can then be estimated to be the pure state

$$\sqrt{1\lambda }|\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{\frac{1|q|^2}{K_{000}}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}K_{00n}c_nd_n|n,n.$$
(43)
It has the properties that only matrix elements of the same type as in the input TMSV state occur and the coefficients of the matrix elements $`|0,0`$ $``$ $`|n,n`$ are met exactly, i.e.,

$$(1\lambda )0,0|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|n,n=0,0|\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}^{(\mathrm{F})}|n,n.$$
(44)
In this approximation, the calculation of the entanglement of the mixed output quantum state reduces to the determination of the entanglement of a pure state :

$`E(\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}^{(\mathrm{F})})(1\lambda )E(|\mathrm{\Psi })`$ (47)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1x}{(1x)^2y}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{(1x)^2y}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1x)\{[y+(1x)^2]\mathrm{ln}(1x)y\mathrm{ln}y\}}{[y(1x)^2]^2}},`$
where

$$x=|q|^2(1|T_1|^2)(1|T_2|^2),$$
(48)
$$y=|qT_1T_2|^2.$$
(49)
Note that for $`T_1`$ $`=`$ $`T_2`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ the entanglement of the TMSV state is preserved, i.e., Eq. (47) reduces to Eq. (34). In Fig. 6, the estimate of entanglement as given by Eq. (47) is plotted as a function of the transmission length and the strength of initial squeezing for $`T_1`$ $`=`$ $`T_2`$ $`=`$ $`T`$, where $`T`$ is given by the Lambert–Beer law of extinction,

$$T=\mathrm{e}^{in_\mathrm{R}(\omega )\omega l/c}\mathrm{e}^{l/l_\mathrm{A}}.$$
(50)
Here, $`n_\mathrm{R}`$ is the real part of the complex refractive index, $`l_\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`c/(n_\mathrm{I}\omega )`$ is the absorption length, and $`l`$ is the transmission length.

It is worth repeating that the estimate given by Eq. (47) is valid for low squeezing only. Higher squeezing amounts to more excited density matrix elements and Eq. (47) might become wrong. Moreover, we cannot even infer it to be a bound in any sense since no inequality has been involved. A possible way out would be to extract successively more and more pure states from Eq. (36). But instead, let us turn to the Schmidt decomposition.

#### 2 Upper bound of entanglement

In a similar way as in Section II B, an upper bound on the entanglement can be obtained , if the density operator (36) is rewritten as the convex sum of density operators in Schmidt decomposition,

$`\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}^{(\mathrm{F})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\{A_{k,l}|k,kl,l|`$ (53)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}B_{k,l,m}|k+m,kl+m,l|`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_{k,l,m}|k,k+ml,l+m|\},`$
and the inequality (27) together with Eq. (26) is applied. The result is illustrated in Fig. 7.

From general arguments one would expect the entanglement to decrease faster the more squeezing one puts into the TMSV, because stronger squeezing is equivalent to saying the state is more macroscopically non-classical and quantum correlations should be destroyed faster. As an example, one would have to look at the entanglement degradation of an $`n`$-photon Bell-type state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_n^\pm `$, $`E(|\mathrm{\Psi }_n^\pm )`$ $``$ $`|T|^{2n}\mathrm{ln}2`$ . Since the transmission coefficient $`T`$ decreases exponentially with the transmission length, entanglement decreases even faster. Note that similar arguments also hold for the destruction of the interference pattern of a cat-like state $`|\alpha +|\alpha `$ when it is transmitted, e.g., through a beam splitter. It is well known that the two peaks (in the $`j`$th output channel) decay as $`|T_{j1}|^2`$, whereas the quantum interference decays as $`|T_{j1}|^2\mathrm{exp}[2|\alpha |^2(1`$ $``$ $`|T_{j1}|^2)]`$.

The upper bound on the entanglement as calculated above seems to suggest that the entanglement degradation is simply exponential with the transmission length for essentially all (initial) squeezing parameters, which would make the TMSV a good candidate for a robust entangled quantum state. But this is a fallacy. The higher the squeezing, the more density matrix elements are excited, and the more terms appear, according to Eq. (53), in the convex sum (27). Equivalently, more and more separable states are mixed into the full quantum state. By that, the inequality gets more inadequate. In order to see this better, we have shown in Fig. 8 the upper bound on the entanglement for just two different (initial) squeezing parameters $`|q|`$ $`=`$ $`0.71`$ (equivalent to the mean photon number of $`\overline{n}`$ $`=`$ $`1`$, solid line) and $`|q|`$ $`=`$ $`0.9535`$ ($`\overline{n}`$ $`=`$ $`10`$, dashed line). For small transmission lengths, hence very few separable states are mixed in, the curves show the expected behavior in the sense that the state with higher initial squeezing decoheres fastest. The behavior changes for larger transmission lengths. We would thus conclude that the upper bound proposed in  is insufficient.

### B Distance to separable Gaussian states

The methods of computing entanglement estimates and bounds as considered in the preceding sections are based on Fock-state expansions. In practice they are typically restricted to situations where only a few quanta of the overall system (consisting of the field and the device) are excited, otherwise the calculation even of the matrix elements becomes arduous. Here we will focus on another way of computing the relative entropy, which will also enable us to give an essentially better bound on the entanglement (for other quantities that characterize, in a sense, entanglement, see ).

Since it is close to impossible to compute the distance of a Gaussian state to the set of all separable states we restrict ourselves to separable Gaussian states. A quantum state is commonly called Gaussian if its quantum characteristic function is Gaussian. By the general relation for a $`N`$-mode quantum state

$$\widehat{\sigma }=\frac{1}{\pi ^N}\mathrm{d}^{2N}𝜶\chi (𝜶)\widehat{D}(𝜶)$$
(54)
it is obvious that the density operator of a Gaussian state can be written in exponential form of

$$\widehat{\sigma }=𝒩\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right)𝐌_\sigma \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}}{\widehat{a}^{}}\right)\right],$$
(55)
where $`𝐌_\sigma `$ is a Hermitian matrix that can be assumed to give a symmetrically ordered density operator, and $`𝒩`$ is a suitable normalization factor. Here and in the following we restrict ourselves to Gaussian states with zero mean. Since coherent displacements, being local unitary transformations, do not influence entanglement, they can be disregarded.

The relative entropy (24) can now be written as

$`E_R\left(\widehat{\varrho }\right)=\underset{\widehat{\sigma }𝒮}{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{\varrho }\left[\mathrm{ln}\widehat{\varrho }\mathrm{ln}𝒩+\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right)𝐌_\sigma \left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}}{\widehat{a}^{}}}\right)\right]\right\}`$ (57)
$`=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\widehat{\varrho }\mathrm{ln}\widehat{\varrho }\right)+\underset{\widehat{\sigma }𝒮}{\mathrm{min}}\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right)𝐌_\sigma \left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}}{\widehat{a}^{}}}\right)\mathrm{ln}𝒩_{\widehat{\varrho }}.`$
Since we have chosen the density operator $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ to be symmetrically ordered, the last term in Eq. (57) is nothing but a sum of (weighted) symmetrically ordered expectation values $`\widehat{a}^m\widehat{a}^n_{s=0}`$ ($`m`$ $`+`$ $`n`$ $`=`$ $`2`$). For a Gaussian quantum state $`\widehat{\varrho }`$ it can be shown (Appendix B) that Eq. (57) can equivalently be written in terms of the matrix $`𝐃_\varrho `$ in the exponential of the characteristic function of $`\widehat{\varrho }`$ as

$$E_R\left(\widehat{\varrho }\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\widehat{\varrho }\mathrm{ln}\widehat{\varrho }\right)+\underset{\widehat{\sigma }𝒮}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(𝐌_\sigma 𝐃_\varrho \right)\mathrm{ln}𝒩\right].$$
(58)
From the above it is clear that we only need the matrix $`𝐃_\varrho `$ (which is unitarily equivalent to the variance matrix). For a Gaussian distribution with zero mean the elements of the variance matrix $`𝐕`$ are defined by $`V_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\zeta }_i,\widehat{\zeta }_j_{s=0}`$ as the (symmetrically ordered) expectation values of the quadrature components $`\widehat{𝜻}`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{x}_1,\widehat{p}_1,\widehat{x}_2,\widehat{p}_2)`$.

The variance matrix of the TMSV state (33) reads ($`q`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}|\xi |e^{i\varphi }`$, $`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`|\xi |e^{i\varphi }`$)

$$𝐕_\varrho =\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝐗& 𝐙\\ 𝐙^\mathrm{T}& 𝐘\end{array}\right)=(\begin{array}{cccc}c/2& 0& s_1/2& s_2/2\\ 0& c/2& s_2/2& s_1/2\\ s_1/2& s_2/2& c/2& 0\\ s_2/2& s_1/2& 0& c/2\end{array}),$$
(59)
with the notation $`c`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}2|\xi |`$, $`s_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}2|\xi |\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, and $`s_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}2|\xi |\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$. In case $`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ the variance matrix (59) reduces to the generic form

$$𝐕_0=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}x& 0& z_1& 0\\ 0& x& 0& z_2\\ z_1& 0& y& 0\\ 0& z_2& 0& y\end{array}\right)$$
(60)
specified by four real parameters. Note that the variance matrix of any Gaussian state can be brought to the form (60) by local Sp(2,$``$)$``$Sp(2,$``$) transformations , so that we can restrict further discussions to that case.

Application of the input-output relations (16) gives for the elements of the variance matrix of the output state, on assuming that the two modes are transmitted through two four-port devices prepared in thermal states of mean photon numbers $`n_{\mathrm{th}i}`$,

$`X_{11}=X_{22}=`$ (62)
$`\frac{1}{2}c|T_1|^2+\frac{1}{2}|R_1|^2+\left(n_{\mathrm{th1}}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(1|T_1|^2|R_1|^2\right),`$
$`Y_{11}=Y_{22}=`$ (64)
$`\frac{1}{2}c|T_2|^2+\frac{1}{2}|R_2|^2+\left(n_{\mathrm{th2}}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(1|T_2|^2|R_2|^2\right),`$
$`Z_{11}=Z_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}s\mathrm{Re}\left(T_1T_2\right),`$ (65)
$`Z_{12}=Z_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}s\mathrm{Im}\left(T_1T_2\right)`$ (66)
($`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$). With regard to optical fibers with perfect input coupling ($`R_i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$) and equal transmission lengths, we again may set $`|T_i|`$ $`=`$ $`e^{l/l_\mathrm{A}}`$. Moreover, we may assume real $`T_i`$ and thus set $`Z_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$.

First, one can check for separability according to the criterion

$`det𝐗det𝐘+\left(\frac{1}{4}|det𝐙|\right)^2\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{𝐗𝐉𝐙𝐉𝐘𝐉𝐙}^\mathrm{T}𝐉\right)`$ (67)
$`\frac{1}{4}\left(det𝐗+det𝐘\right),`$ (68)
which reduces to

$$4(xyz_1^2)(xyz_2^2)(x^2+y^2)+2|z_1z_2|\frac{1}{4}.$$
(69)
Combining Eqs. (62) – (69), it is not difficult to prove that the boundary between separability and inseparability is reached for

$$l=l_\mathrm{S}\frac{l_\mathrm{A}}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{1}{n_{\mathrm{th}}}\left(1e^{2|\xi |}\right)\right].$$
(70)
It is worth noting that this is exactly the same condition as for the transmitted state still being a squeezed state or not. To show this, we calculate the normally-ordered variance $`:(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{F})^2):`$ of a phase-sensitive quantity such as $`\widehat{F}`$ $`=`$ $`|F_1|e^{i\phi _1}\widehat{a}_1`$ $`+`$ $`|F_2|e^{i\phi _2}\widehat{a}_2`$ $`+`$ H.c.. Using the input-output relations (16), the normally ordered variance of the output field is derived to be

$`:(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{F})^2):_{\mathrm{out}}=2|F_1|^2[|T_1|^2\mathrm{sinh}^2|\xi |+n_{\mathrm{th1}}(1|T_1|^2)]`$ (73)
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}|F_2|^2\left[|T_2|^2\mathrm{sinh}^2|\xi |+n_{\mathrm{th2}}\left(1|T_2|^2\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}|F_1F_2T_1T_2|\mathrm{sinh}2|\xi |\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1+\phi _2+\phi _T+\varphi )`$
\[$`T_i`$ $`=`$ $`|T_i|e^{i\phi _{T_i}}`$, $`i=1,2`$; $`\phi _T`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{T_1}`$ $`+`$ $`\phi _{T_2}`$\]. For equal amplitudes $`|F_1|`$ $`=`$ $`|F_2|`$ $`=`$ $`|F|`$ and equal fibers $`|T_1|`$ $`=`$ $`|T_2|`$ $`=`$ $`|T|`$, $`n_{\mathrm{th1}}`$ $`=`$ $`n_{\mathrm{th2}}`$ $`=`$ $`n_{\mathrm{th}}`$ the (phase-dependent) minimum is obtained to be

$`:(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{F})^2):_{\mathrm{out}}|_{\mathrm{min}}`$ (75)
$`=4|F|^2\left[n_{\mathrm{th}}\left(1|T|^2\right)|T|^2\mathrm{sinh}|\xi |e^{|\xi |}\right].`$
Equation (75) exactly leads to the condition (70), i.e.,

$$:(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{F})^2):_{\mathrm{out}}\left|_{\mathrm{min}}\right\{\begin{array}{cc}<0\mathrm{if}\hfill & l<l_\mathrm{S},\hfill \\ 0\mathrm{if}\hfill & ll_\mathrm{S}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(76)
Therefore, measurement of squeezing corresponds, in some sense, to an entanglement measurement.

In order to obtain (for $`l`$ $`<`$ $`l_\mathrm{S}`$) a measure of the entanglement degradation, we compute the distance of the output quantum state to the set of all Gaussian states satisfying the equality in (69), since they just represent the boundary between separability and inseparability. These states are completely specified by only three real parameters \[one of the parameters in the equality in (69) can be computed by the other three\]. With regard to Eq. (58), minimization is thus only performed in a three-dimensional parameter space. Results of our numerical analysis are shown in Fig. 9. It is clearly seen that the entanglement content (relative to the entanglement in the initial TMSV) decreases noticeably faster for larger squeezing, or equivalently, for higher mean photon number \[the relation between the mean photon number $`\overline{n}`$ and the squeezing parameters being $`\overline{n}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}^2|\xi |`$ $`=`$ $`|q|^2/(1`$ $``$ $`|q|^2)`$\].

It is very instructive to know how much entanglement is available after transmission of the TMSV through the fibers. Examples of the (maximally) available entanglement for different transmission lengths are shown in Fig. 10. One observes that a chosen transmission length allows only for transport of a certain amount of entanglement. The saturation value, which is quite independent of the value of the input entanglement, drastically decrease with increasing transmission length (compare the upper curve with the two lower curves in the figure). This has dramatic consequences for applications in quantum information processing such as continuous-variable teleportation, where a highly squeezed TMSV is required in order to teleport an arbitrary quantum state with sufficiently high fidelity . Even if the input TMSV would be infinitely squeezed, the available (low) saturation value of entanglement principally prevents one from high-fidelity teleportation of arbitrary quantum states over finite distances.

### C Comparison of the methods

In Fig. 11 the entanglement degradation as calculated in Section III B is compared with the estimate obtained in Section III A 1 and the bound obtained in Section III A 2. The figure reveals that the distance of the output state to the separable Gaussian states (lower curve) is much smaller than it might be expected from the bound on the entanglement (upper curve) calculated according to Eq. (32) together with Eqs. (26) and (53), as well as the estimate (middle curve) derived by extracting a single pure state according to Eq. (47). Note that the entanglement of the single pure state (43) comes closest to the distance of the actual state to the separable Gaussian states, whereas the convex sum (53) of density operators in Schmidt decomposition can give much higher values. Both methods, however, overestimate the entanglement. Since with increasing mean photon number the convex sum contains more and more terms, the bound gets worse \[and substantially slower on the computer, whereas computation of the distance measure (58) does not depend on it\].

Thus, in our view, the distance to the separable Gaussian states should be the measure of choice for determining the entanglement degradation of entangled Gaussian states. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that the distance to separable Gaussian states has been considered and not the distance to all separable states. We have no proof yet, that there does not exist an inseparable non-Gaussian state which is closer than the closest Gaussian state.

## IV Conclusions

In the present article the interferometric generation and the transmission of entangled light have been studied, with special emphasis on Gaussian states. The optical devices such as beam splitters and fibers are regarded as being dispersing and absorbing dielectric four-port devices as typically used in practice. In particular, their action on light is described in terms of the experimentally measurable transmission, reflection, and absorption coefficients.

An entangled two-mode state can be generated by mixing single-mode non-classical light at a beam splitter. Depending on the phases of the impinging light beams and the beam-splitter transformation, the amount of entanglement contained in the outgoing light can be controlled. For squeezed vacuum input states and appropriately chosen phases, maximal entanglement is obtained for lossless, symmetrical beam splitters. In realistic experiments, however, losses such as material absorption prevents one from realizing that value.

When entangled light is transmitted through optical devices, losses give always rise to entanglement degradation. In particular, after propagation of the two modes of a two-mode squeezed vacuum through fibers the available entanglement can be drastically reduced. Unfortunately, quantifying entanglement of mixed states in an infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces has been close to impossible. Therefore, estimates and upper bounds for the entanglement content have been developed.

The analytical estimate employed in this article is based on extraction of a single pure state from the output Gaussian state, using its reduced von Neumann entropy as an estimate for the entanglement. However, this method is neither unique, since there are many different ways of extracting pure states, nor is it an upper bound, since nothing is said about the residual entanglement contained in the state which is left over. In principle, more and more pure states could be extracted until the residual state becomes separable.

Instead, an upper bound can be calculated by decomposing the output Gaussian state in a convex sum of Schmidt states as proposed in . The disadvantage of this method is that the bound gets worse for increasing (statistical) mixing. In particular, it may give hints for large entanglement even if the quantum state under consideration is almost separable.

In order to overcome the disadvantage, the distance of the output Gaussian state to the set of separable Gaussian states measured by the relative entropy is considered. It has the advantage that separable states obviously correspond to zero distance. Although one has yet no proof that there does not exist a non-Gaussian separable state which is closer to the Gaussian state under consideration than the closest separable Gaussian state, one has good reason to think that it is even an entanglement measure. In any case, it is a much better bound than the one obtained by convexity. In particular, it clearly demonstrates the drastic decrease of entanglement of the output state with increasing entanglement of the input state. Moreover, one observes saturation of entanglement transfer; that is, the amount of entanglement that can maximally be contained in the output state is solely determined by the transmission length and does not depend on the amount of entanglement contained in the input state.

###### Acknowledgements.

S.S. likes to thank V.I. Man’ko for helpful discussions on multivariable Hermite polynomials. The authors also acknowledge discussions about Gaussian quantum states with E. Schmidt.

## A Fock-state expansion of multimode squeezed vacuum states

Let us consider an incoming field prepared in the squeezed vacuum state (4) and an absorbing beam splitter in the ground state. The quantum-state transformation formula (17) then leads to

$`\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}^{(\mathrm{F})}={\displaystyle \underset{g_1,g_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}`$ $`g_1,g_2|\widehat{S}_{a_1^{}}(\xi _1)\widehat{S}_{a_2^{}}(\xi _2)|0,0,0,0`$ (A2)
$`0,0,0,0|\widehat{S}_{a_2^{}}^{}(\xi _2)\widehat{S}_{a_1^{}}^{}(\xi _1)|g_1,g_2`$
where the transformed operators $`\widehat{a}_i^{}`$ are defined by

$$\widehat{a}_i^{}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ji}^{}\widehat{a}_j$$
(A3)
according to the rules of quantum-state transformation. Equivalently, the Fock-state expansion of the density matrix reads

$`m_1,m_2|\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}^{(\mathrm{F})}|n_1,n_2=`$ (A6)
$`m_1,m_2|g_1,g_2|\widehat{S}_{a_1^{}}(\xi _1)\widehat{S}_{a_2^{}}(\xi _2)|0,0,0,0`$
$`0,0,0,0|\widehat{S}_{a_2^{}}^{}(\xi _2)\widehat{S}_{a_1^{}}^{}(\xi _1)|g_1,g_2|n_1,n_2.`$
Expanding the Fock states in terms of coherent states and using the squeeze operator in the form given in the second line in Eq. (6), we obtain after performing all integrals

$`m_1,m_2|\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{out}}^{(\mathrm{F})}|n_1,n_2=`$ (A9)
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(1|q_1|^2)(1|q_2|^2)}{m_1!m_2!n_1!n_2!}}}(1)^{m_1+m_2+n_1+n_2}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{g_1,g_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_1!g_2!}}H_{m_1,m_2,g_1,g_2}^𝐌(\mathrm{𝟎})H_{n_1,n_2,g_1,g_2}^𝐌(\mathrm{𝟎}),`$
where the Hermite polynomials of four variables are generated by the symmetric matrix $`𝐌`$ with elements

$$M_{ij}=q_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j1}+q_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j2}.$$
(A10)
Using the relation between Hermite polynomials of one variable and those of several variables ,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1+\mathrm{}+m_n=m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^{m_1}}{m_1!}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{a_n^{m_n}}{m_n!}}H_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}^𝐌(x_1,\mathrm{}.x_n)`$ (A12)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{[\frac{1}{2}\varphi (𝐚)]^{m/2}}{m!}}H_m\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (𝐚,𝐱)}{\sqrt{2\varphi (𝐚)}}}\right],`$
where

$$\varphi (𝐚,𝐱)=\underset{i,j}{}a_iM_{ij}x_j$$
(A13)
and $`\varphi (𝐚)`$ $``$ $`\varphi (𝐚,𝐚)`$, we get for the multivariable Hermite polynomial of zero argument

$`H_{m_1,m_2,g_1,g_2}^𝐌(\mathrm{𝟎})={\displaystyle \frac{H_m(0)}{2^{m/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_1!m_2!g_1!g_2!}{m!}}`$ (A15)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{𝒫}{}}\underset{m/2\text{ terms}}{\underset{}{M_{i_1,j_1}M_{i_2,j_2}\mathrm{}M_{i_{m/2},j_{m/2}}}}`$
($`m`$ $`=`$ $`m_1+m_2+g_1+g_2`$). Here, the $`𝒫`$-sum runs over all $`m!/(m_1!m_2!g_1!g_2!)`$ possible combinations to distribute $`m_1`$ indices $`1`$, $`m_2`$ indices $`2`$, $`g_1`$ indices $`3`$, and $`g_2`$ indices $`4`$ among the indices $`i_1`$, $`j_1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`i_{m/2}`$, $`j_{m/2}`$.

In particular, if we restrict ourselves to two dimensions, Eq. (A15) simplifies to

$`H_{m_1,m_2}^𝐌(\mathrm{𝟎})=`$ (A18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_m(0)}{2^{m/2}}}M_{11}^{(m_1m_2\nu )/4}M_{22}^{(m_2m_1\nu )/4}m_1!m_2!\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\right)!`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{n=\frac{1}{2}\nu }{\overset{\left[\frac{\mu }{2}\right]}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!(\mu 2n)!(n\frac{1}{2}\nu )!}}M_{11}^n(2M_{12})^{\mu 2n}M_{22}^n`$
\[$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}(m_1,m_2)`$, $`\nu `$ $`=`$ $`|m_1m_2|`$\]. The sum can also be calculated leading to Gegenbauer, Jacobi or associated Legendre polynomials .

Another way of writing is the one we used for the numerical calculation of the density matrix elements. The method, however, is only applicable in cases where the number of variables the Hermite polynomial depends on is sufficiently small. The multivariable Hermite polynomial (now in four variables) of zero argument can be written as

$`(1)^{m_1+m_2+g_1+g_2}H_{m_1,m_2,g_1,g_2}^𝐌(\mathrm{𝟎})=`$ (A20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^{m_1+m_2+g_1+g_2}}{\lambda _1^{m_1}\lambda _2^{m_2}\lambda _3^{g_1}\lambda _4^{g_2}}}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{2}𝝀^\mathrm{T}𝐌𝝀]_{𝝀=\mathrm{𝟎}},`$
with $`𝐌`$ being given by Eq. (A10). Expanding the rhs of Eq. (A20), the only surviving term is the one proportional to $`(𝝀^\mathrm{T}𝐌𝝀)^{(m_1+m_2+g_1+g_2)/2}`$. Multinomial expansion of this term then leads to Eq. (22).

## B Multimode Gaussian density operators and Wigner functions

Given the Wigner function of an $`N`$-mode Gaussian state of the form of

$$W_N(𝜻)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^N\sqrt{det𝐕}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}𝜻^\mathrm{T}𝐕^1𝜻\right),$$
(B1)
where $`𝜻`$ $`=`$ $`(x_1,p_1,\mathrm{},x_N,p_N)`$ is the $`2N`$-dimensional “vector” of the quadrature components of the $`N`$ (complex) variables $`\widehat{a}_i`$ and $`𝐕`$ is the $`2N\times 2N`$ variance matrix of the quadrature components. The characteristic function defined by the Fourier transform reads

$$\chi _N(𝜼)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}𝜼^\mathrm{T}𝐕𝜼\right).$$
(B2)
Alternatively, the quantum state can can be given by the density operator

$$\widehat{\varrho }=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right)𝐌\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}}{\widehat{a}^{}}}\right)\right]}{\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right)𝐌\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}}{\widehat{a}^{}}}\right)\right]\right\}}$$
(B3)
(where $`\widehat{a}`$ is actually an $`N`$-dimensional “vector” with “components” $`\widehat{a}_i`$).

In order to relate the matrix $`𝐌`$ to the matrix $`𝐕`$, we introduce a unitary transformation

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}}{\widehat{a}^{}}\right)^{}=\widehat{U}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}}{\widehat{a}^{}}\right)\widehat{U}^1=𝐔\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}}{\widehat{a}^{}}\right),$$
(B4)
where the matrix $`𝐔`$ is chosen such that it diagonalizes $`𝐌`$, hence $`𝐔^+\mathrm{𝐌𝐔}`$ $`=`$ $`𝚯`$ (with $`𝚯`$ being diagonal). Note, that $`𝐔`$ satisfies the generalized unitary relation

$$\mathrm{𝐔𝐉𝐔}^+=𝐉\text{with}𝐉=\text{diag}(𝐈_N,𝐈_N).$$
(B5)
Then, the characteristic function of the density operator (B2) is

$`\chi _N(𝝀,𝝀^{})=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\varrho }\widehat{D}(𝝀)\right]`$ (B10)
$`=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{\varrho }\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝝀}{𝝀^{}}}\right)\right]\right\}`$
$`=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{U}\widehat{\varrho }\widehat{U}^1\widehat{U}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝝀}{𝝀^{}}}\right)\right]\widehat{U}^1\right\}`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝝀}{𝝀^{}}}\right)^+𝐔\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{coth}\frac{1}{2}𝚯\right)𝐔^+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝝀}{𝝀^{}}}\right)\right]`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝝀}{𝝀^{}}}\right)^+𝐃\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝝀}{𝝀^{}}}\right)\right]`$
with an obvious definition of the matrix $`𝐃`$, thus establishing a relation between the matrix $`𝐌`$ in the exponential of the density operator and the matrix $`𝐃`$ in the exponential of the characteristic function. From the third to the fourth line in Eq. (B10) we have used the expression for the characteristic function of a thermal state . In due course, the normalization of the density operator is obtained as

$$𝒩=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}2\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_i}{2}.$$
(B11)
The above description shows a way to compute the entropy of a Gaussian quantum state $`\widehat{\varrho }`$ as well as the relative entropy between two Gaussian quantum states $`\widehat{\varrho }`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ as

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left(\widehat{\varrho }\mathrm{ln}\widehat{\varrho }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{ln}\left(2\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_i}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(𝐌_\varrho 𝐃_\varrho \right),`$ (B12)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\left(\widehat{\varrho }\mathrm{ln}\widehat{\sigma }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{ln}\left(2\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _i}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(𝐌_\sigma 𝐃_\varrho \right),`$ (B13)
where the $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$ and $`\vartheta _i`$ are respectively the eigenvalues of $`𝐌_\varrho `$ and $`𝐌_\sigma `$.


format: text

text:
# On the ”spin-freezing” mechanism in underdoped superconducting cuprates

## Abstract

The letter deals with the spin-freezing process observed by means of NMR-NQR relaxation or by muon spin rotation in underdoped cuprate superconductors. This phenomenon, sometimes referred as coexistence of antiferromagnetic and superconducting order parameters, is generally thought to result from randomly distributed magnetic moments related to charge inhomogeneities (possibly stripes) which exhibit slowing down of their fluctuations on cooling below Tc . Instead, we describe the experimental findings as due to fluctuating, vortex-antivortex, orbital currents state coexisting with d-wave superconducting state. A direct explanation of the experimental results, in underdoped Y1-xCaxBa2Cu3O6.1 and La2-xSrxCuO4, is thus given in terms of freezing of orbital current fluctuations.

NMR-NQR and $`\mu `$SR experiments show that in underdoped cuprates, on cooling from about Tc, divergent behaviour of the relaxation rates occur. This phenomenon, generally interpreted in terms of ”glassy spin-freezing” or of ”coexistence of superconductivity and magnetic ordering”, is believed to be related to magnetic moments resulting from charge inhomogeneties, possibly stripes. For 139La NMR-NQR observations in La2-xSrxCuO4, see Julien et al. and References therein; a review of early data is given in Ref. ; the muon longitudinal relaxation rate and spin precessional frequencies in La2-xSrxCuO4 and in Y1-xCaxBa2Cu3O6 have been measured by Niedermayer et al.. More recently the low-temperature spin-freezing process in underdoped Y1-xCaxBa2Cu3O6.1 ( T$`{}_{c}{}^{}`$ 35 K) has been studied by 89Y NMR relaxation in a field H0 = 9.4 T(Ref. ). The occurrence of a fast-relaxing component in the 89Y spin-lattice relaxation below Tc confirmed the $`\mu `$SR findings interpreted in terms of coexistence of superconductivity and spin-freezing process. A new significant aspect was the detection of the stretched character of the relaxation time, while the $`\mu `$SR data had been discussed in terms of a single exponential recovery.

Very recently Mook et al. by means of inelastic neutron scattering measurements in underdoped superconducting YBCO detected longitudinal with respest to $`c`$-axis magnetic moments of unknown origin , with fluctuation frequencies well below the energy resolution of 1 meV. Similar observation, but with transverse magnetic moments , was reported by Sidis et al.. NMR-NQR and $`\mu `$SR spin-lattice relaxation data have been interpreted in terms of fluctuations of a local $`𝐡(t)`$ originating from magnetic moments associated to hole localization or from staggered moments within locally ordered mesoscopic domains , with non-zero effective spin or from stripes. The microscopic origin of the fluctuating field $`𝐡(t)`$ is still an open issue. Here we address this problem within a substantially different picture , namely the one of the extended charge density waves with imaginary order parameter ($`id`$-CDW). Important features of this new scenario are described here and it is pointed out that the fluctuating field originates from vortex- antivortex orbital currents.

We start from the so- called $`tJ`$ model by including the inter-site Coulomb interaction:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle t_{ij}\psi _i^{pd,\sigma }\psi _j^{\sigma ,dp}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle J_{ij}\left[\left(S_iS_j\right)\frac{n_in_j}{4}\right]}+`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle G_{ij}\delta _i\delta _j}`$
with $`\delta _i`$ being the number of extra holes per unit cell of bilayer, $`\psi _i^{pd,\sigma }`$, ($`\psi _j^{\sigma ,dp}`$) creation (annihilation) operator constructed on the basis of the singlet combination of copper ($`d`$) and oxygen states ($`p`$) ( see Ref.  for details). It should be noted that the temperature dependence of Cu(2) Knight shift in YBa2Cu4O8, the evolution of the Fermi surface in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+y and the k-dependence of the pseudogap in the normal state have been successfully explained  in the framework of that model, including the $`d`$-wave orbital symmetry of the superconducting state (SC) . The $`d`$-wave SC can coexist with extended charge density waves (for short $`id`$-CDW) . Chakravarty et al.  have stressed that the corresponding ordered phase is a staggered pattern of orbital currents. The region in which $`d`$-wave SC coexists with $`id`$-CDW strongly depends on doping . For $`\delta _{opt}`$ the SC phase forces out $`id`$-CDW state (see Fig. 1 in Ref. ), but when T/T$`{}_{c}{}^{}`$2.5 then SC and $`id`$-CDW state can coexist even at low temperatures. Non-monotonic temperature dependence of energy gap parameter, due to the competition of SC and $`id`$-CDW, was predicted in Ref.  and confirmed by Ekino et al.  by means of break-junction tunneling spectroscopy in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+y. Starting from another form of Hamiltonian Murakami  has predicted (for $`G<0`$) the coexistence $`id`$-CDW, antiferromagnetic (AF) and $`\eta `$-triplet states near half filling. Coexistence of d-CDW and spin density waves (SDW) was also derived by Bouis et al. .

The main issue related to the scenario recalled above is whether it is possible to have a coexistence of $`d`$-SC and AF or SDW in the frame of the singlet - correlated band Hamiltonian (2). Using the Roth - type decoupling scheme , in a mean field approximation, from Eq.(1) one has

$$H^{MF}=\underset{k}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_k^+M_k\mathrm{\Psi }_k$$
(3)
where the matrix $`M_k`$ is

$$M_k=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\epsilon _k\mu & \eta _{k,Q}^{}& \mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}& U_{k,Q}^{}\\ \eta _{k+Q,Q}^{}& \epsilon _{k+Q}\mu & U_{k+Q,Q}^{}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{k+Q}^{}\\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{})^{}& (U_{k,Q}^{})^{}& \epsilon _k+\mu & (\eta _{k,Q}^{})^{}\\ (U_{kQ,Q}^{})^{}& (\mathrm{\Delta }_{kQ}^{})^{}& (\eta _{kQ,Q}^{})^{}& \epsilon _{kQ}+\mu \end{array}\right)$$
(4)
Let us focus now at the order parameters:

$`\eta _{k,Q}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`G^{ph}+\left[t_{k+Q}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(s_is_jt_{ij}\right)_k}{(P_{pd})^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_Q+s_Q^z`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2NP_{pd}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}\left\{J_{k^{}k}\psi _{k^{}+Q}^{pd,}\psi _k^{}^{,dp}+2G_{k^{}k}\psi _{k^{}+Q}^{pd,}\psi _k^{}^{,dp}\right\}`$
and

$`U_k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{NP_{pd}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}\left(t_{k^{}+Q}+t_k^{}\right)\psi _k^{}^{,dp}\psi _{k^{}Q}^{,dp}+`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2NP_{pd}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}\left[J_{k^{}k}+J_{k^{}+k+Q}2G_{k^{}k}\right]\psi _k^{}^{,dp}\psi _{k^{}Q}^{,dp}`$
where $`t_k`$ ,$`J_k`$, $`G_k`$ are the Fourier transforms of transfer, superexchange and Coulomb coupling parameters, respectively. $`e_Q`$ and $`s_Q^z`$ are the Fourier amplitudes of the conventional charge density waves and spin density waves. For the commensurate instability wave vector Q =($`\pi ,\pi `$) as it was observed in neutron scattering  one derives the following relations

$`\eta _{k,Q}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{1k}^{}+S_{2k}^{}+iD_k^{}`$ (9)
$`\eta _{k+Q,Q}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(S_{1k}^{})^{}+(S_{2k}^{}+iD_k^{})^{}`$ (10)
$`(\eta _{k,Q}^{})^{}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{1k}^{}+S_{2k}^{}iD_k^{}`$ (11)
$`(\eta _{kQ,Q}^{})^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(S_{1k}^{})^{}(S_{2k}^{}iD_k^{})^{}`$ (12)
Let us consider now the quantities

$$S_{1k}^{}=\left[t_{k+Q}^{(1)}\frac{\left(s_is_jt_{ij}^{(1)}\right)_k}{(P_{pd})^2}\right]\frac{1}{2}e_Q+s_Q^z$$
(13)
and

$$S_{2k}^{}=G^{ph}+\left[t_{k+Q}^{(2)}\frac{\left(s_is_jt_{ij}^{(2)}\right)_k}{(P_{pd})^2}\right]\frac{1}{2}e_Q+s_Q^z$$
(14)
where the indexes 1 and 2 refer to the first and the second nearest neighbour hopping parameters. $`S_{1k}^{}`$ changes the sign under the transformation $`𝐤𝐤+𝐐`$ and as one can see from Eq. (4) this yields a damping factor, since the energy dispersion becomes complex. The value $`S_{2k}^{}`$ is invariant under such transformation and can generate $`s`$-wave CDW and SDW. Therefore, for open Fermi surface one finds that at the hopping parameter t1 larger enough the expectation values $`<e_q>`$ and $`<s_q>`$ must be zero, and conventional SDW/CDW do not exist. This conclusion is in agreement with the one derived in Ref.  on the basis of neutron scattering data. However, we stress that the above conclusion is valid only for the energy dispersion of the form ($`\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y`$), but not for the case $`ϵ_k=(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)^2`$ when pockets are formed around the points ($`\pm \pi /2,\pm \pi /2`$) in the Brillouin zone. In our picture this happens when antiferromagnetic correlation (parameter $`J`$) hampers the nearest neighbour hopping i. e. $`t_1\left(P_{pd}+\frac{s_is_j}{P_{pd}}\right)0`$. It is noted that the order parameter $`U_k`$ resembles the so-called $`\eta `$-singlet pairing introduced by Yang . Formally the $`U_k`$-order parameter construction in Eq.(8) also resembles the Larkin-Ovchinnikov, Fulde-Ferrell parameter  with the important difference that the instability wave vector q is completely different. The leading term of $`U_k`$

$$U_0^{}=\frac{1}{NP_{pd}}\underset{k^{}}{}\left(t_{k^{}+Q}+t_k^{}\right)\psi _k^{}^{,dp}\psi _{k^{}Q}^{,dp}$$
(15)
is determined by the second- and third- neighbours hopping integrals. Numerical solution of Eq. (15) in correspondence to the parameters ($`t_1`$=80 meV, $`t_2`$ = 0 and $`t_3`$= 12 meV) used  for the Fermi surface near optimal doping, yields a critical temperature of the onset $`U`$-phase below 1 K. One should remark that the onset of this inhomogeneous superconducting state is very sensitive to magnetic impurities and to the details of the Abrikosov’s vortex lattice. In addition we note that the $`U`$-ordering is particle-particle pairing at opposite spin orientations and must be sensitive to the external magnetic field. Since there is no evidence of such an effect of the magnetic field (see the data later on) we conclude that the peak in relaxation rate is not related to phase transition involving this $`U`$ order parameter. In the matrix given by Eq. (4) there are two imaginary components $`iD^{}`$ and $`iD^{}`$. It is useful to introduce their combinations

$$i(D_{k,Q}^{}+D_{k,Q}^{})=\frac{1}{2NP_{pd}}\underset{k^{}}{}\left(J_{k^{}k}+2G_{k^{}k}\right)\left\{\psi _{k^{}+Q}^{pd,}\psi _k^{}^{,dp}+\psi _{k^{}+Q}^{pd,}\psi _k^{}^{,dp}\right\}$$
(16)
$$i(D_{k,Q}^{}D_{k,Q}^{})=\frac{1}{2NP_{pd}}\underset{k^{}}{}\left(J_{k^{}k}2G_{k^{}k}\right)\left\{\psi _{k^{}+Q}^{pd,}\psi _k^{}^{,dp}\psi _{k^{}+Q}^{pd,}\psi _k^{}^{,dp}\right\}$$
(17)
the first corresponding to charge current and the second one to spin current  or, in other terminology, to the spin-nematic state . It is clear from Eqs. (16)-(17) that $`T^{cr}(id`$CDW$`)>>T^{cr}(id`$SDW$`)`$, and when $`2GJ`$ Eq. (17) has no solution at all. Concluding this theoretical analysis, we see that the real situation is strongly dependent on the Fermi surface. Because there are no indication about pockets-like Fermi-surface in superconducting underdoped cuprates, we do expect coexistence of the $`d`$-SC, $`id`$-CDW and $`id`$-SDW or $`U`$-state at low temperatures. Let us see now what the experimental findings tell us .

On general physical grounds NMR-NQR or muon relaxation rates can be written

$$1/T_1\gamma _n^2h_{eff}^2J(\omega _m,\tau _e)$$
(18)
where $`h_{eff}^2`$ is a mean square amplitude of the transverse effective field at the nuclear or muon site and $`(\omega _m,\tau _e)`$ is the spectral density of the fluctuations at the measuring frequency $`\omega _m`$ and an effective correlation time $`\tau _e`$ is assumed. The stretched exponential recovery, of the form $`\mathrm{exp}[t/T_1^e]^{1/2}`$ observed experimentally  is naturally explained by charge density waves scenario, as it was pointed out by Philips . Usually this process is described as a superposition of Debye relaxation or in an ideal limit as a Laplace transform

$$\mathrm{exp}[\frac{t}{T_1^e}]^{1/2}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho (1/T_1)\mathrm{exp}[t/T_1]d(1/T_1)$$
(19)
where $`\rho (1/T_1)=\frac{T_1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\left(\frac{T_1}{T_1^e}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{T_1}{4T_1^e}\right]`$ is the distribution function. It is conceivable to assume that the distribution of (1/T1) is related to a distribution of correlation time $`\tau _e`$ and in turn to a distribution of the energy barrier $`E`$ pinning the fluctuating - sliding current motions. Then we write

$$\tau _e=\tau _0\mathrm{exp}(E/k_BT)$$
(20)
and

$$J(\omega _m,\tau _e)=\frac{2\tau _e}{1+\omega _m^2\tau _e^2}$$
(21)
When the progressive slowing-down , on cooling, of the orbital current excitations causes $`<\tau _e>\omega _m^1`$, one has the maximum in the relaxation rates (frequently used to define $`T_g`$, commonly called ” spin -glass” freezing temperature). From this maximum one can extract the effective magnetic field induced by the currents at the nuclear or muon site:

$$\sqrt{h_{eff}^2}=\frac{1}{\gamma _n}\left[\frac{\omega _m}{\left(T_1^e\right)_{\mathrm{max}}}\right]^{1/2}$$
(22)
One could remark that on the basis of the above equation a slight underestimate of $`\sqrt{h_{eff}^2}`$ is obtained, since the distribution of correlation times tends to level the maximum of the spectral function. The distribution also accounts from the deviation of the experimental data from the simple law ( Eq. (20)) in the low temperature region (see Fig. 1). The values of $`\sqrt{h_{eff}^2}`$ derived from the experimental data on the basis of Eq. (22) are collected in Table 1.

In Fig. one sees that Eq. (18), with Eqs. (20)-(21) rather well fits the observed temperature dependence of relaxation time in spite of the roughness of the assumptions. The energy barrier $`<E>`$ is roughly the same, for different kind of experiments and systems (see also Table 1). It is naturally related to periodic lattice potential. It should be stressed that the energy barrier is almost independent on the applied magnetic field. This fact would be hard to explain in the spin-freezing scenario. On the contrary, in our picture the correlation functions entering Eq.(16) are of particle - hole type and they are proportional to difference of Fermi functions with the same spin orientation . Therefore, Zeeman energy comes out from these functions and they become independent of the external magnetic field. As a result the pseudo- gap temperature $`T^{}`$ and the pinning process caused by the lattice periodic potential are insensitive to the magnetic field.

As one can see from Table that the order of magnitude $`\sqrt{h_{eff}^2}`$ of the magnetic field agrees with theoretical estimation made on the basis of similar bond currents patterns (flux-phase) Ref. .

The $`z`$axis of the electric field gradient at $`{}_{}{}^{139}La`$ site is almost parallel to $`c`$axis ( see for Ref. ). Therefore we can interpret $`\sqrt{h_{eff}^2}=`$255Gs as a field transeverse with respect to $`c`$-axis. The effective field at $`Y`$ site (9Gs) is relatively small. This means that transeverse components within $`CuO`$ bilayer are almost compensated. Two magnetic field components at nuclear spin occur: a direct component - $`h(1)`$ as dicussed above and so-called hyperfine and supertransferred fields from adjacent Cu(2) states - $`h(2)`$. The $`id`$-CDW state contributes to both. The modulation of the hyperfine coupling yields the effective magnetic field which is proportional to charge-spin correlation function

$$h(2)F(qq^{})e_qS_q^{}$$
(23)
where $`F(q)`$ is the form factor involved in the Mila-Rice Hamiltonian (see Ref. ). This factor is different for $`La`$ and $`Y`$ nuclei sites and for electronic shell of ions $`Yb^{3+}`$ and $`Er^{3+}`$ as well.

In summary , we have described the so- called spin-freezing process in superconducting state of underdoped cuprates with non-zero first neighbours hopping in a frame of a regime of coexistence of $`d`$SC and $`id`$CDW states .

We have shown:

i) that this scenario is naturally derived in a frame of singlet - correlated band model (or on the basis of the t-J model including inter -site Coulomb repulsion) and it is consistent with recent neutron scattering data and tunneling spectroscopy measurements. ii) the progressive slowing down of the sliding current motions, due to pinning barrier related to periodic lattice potential explains the temperature behavior of the relaxation rates detected in NMR-NQR, $`\mu `$SR and EPR experiments; in particular it directly justifies the stretched exponential character of the recovery curves; the fluctuating frequency lying in 10-1000 MHz range explain why the resolution limit ($``$ meV) makes them invisible in neutron scattering measurements iii) the fact that practically no difference is observed in the relaxation rates upon increasing the magnetic field from zero $`(NQR)`$ up to 23 Tesla and when the field is applied parallel or perpendicular to the c- axis ( that is not explained in a spin-freezing scenario ) is explained by the insensitivity of the current correlation functions to the external magnetic field .

Thus we believe that our picture brings a new and suggestive perspective, which is fully supported by the experimental findings and reveals new insights on a much debated issue.

Useful discussions with R. Zeyher, P. Carretta, M. Corti , A. Dooglav ,I. Eremin and F. Tedoldi are acknowledged. M. V. Eremin is grateful to Landau-Network-Centro - Volta foundation for the fellowship and possibility to stay at University of Pavia.His work in Russia was supported by Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant N 7SUPJ062258) and Russan Program ” Superconductivity” (Project N 98014-1). The work is a part of the project of advanced recearch ( PRA - SPIS) of INFM.


text:
# Black hole X-ray transients: mass accumulation in the disk - constraints for the viscosity

## 1 Introduction

Soft X-ray transients (SXT), also known as X-ray novae, contain a black hole or neutron star primary and a low-mass companion star. We consider here the black hole sources. These systems are characterized by the high luminosity X-ray outburst after a long-lasting quiescence and are usually detected in X-rays. An optical counterpart is known for a number of systems. During quiescence the optical light is dominated by the secondary star allowing detailed photometry and spectroscopy to determine the system parameters of the binary. A0620-00 was the first low-mass X-ray binary proven in this manner to contain a black hole (McClintock & Remillard 1986). For this well observed system at the distance of only about 1kpc two outbursts in optical light were observed, originally interpreted as classical nova outbursts, 1917 (Nova Mon 1917) and 1975. For several systems only one outburst is known, their recurrence time is longer than 30, possibly 50 years. See Tanaka & Shibazaki (1996) and Tanaka (2000) for a comprehensive description of the observations of X-ray transients. Chen et al. (1997) collected and discussed the available data for properties of X-ray and optical light curves. Charles (1998) also reviewed the X-ray, optical, radio and IR observations of black hole X-ray binaries.

SXTs and dwarf novae are similar in the respect that mass is transferred from a Roche lobe-filling low mass secondary star to a compact primary, a neutron star or black hole in SXTs, a white dwarf in the dwarf nova case. Accretion occurs via a disk. The evolution of the accretion disk and the triggering of an outburst therefore were modeled in the same way as for the dwarf nova outbursts. In the framework of the “disk instability model” the outburst cycles are understood as a thermal relaxation oscillation between a hot ionized and a cool unionized disk (Meyer& Meyer-Hofmeister 1981). Whether the disk is in the cool or the hot state at certain radii depends on the depends the mass flow rate in the disk and the amount of mass accumulated, and this on the viscosity. The size of the disk is important, irradiation can be an essential fact. The first investigations for SXTs were carried out by Huang & Wheeler (1989) and Mineshige & Wheeler (1989). Later detailed investigations (Cannizzo et al. 1995, Cannizzo 1998, review 1999, 2000) focussed on modeling the exponential decline of the outburst lightcurve.

For the evolution of the disk during quiescence one feature is important in SXTs: it is necessary to have a truncated inner disk. Otherwise the disk cannot be cool throughout. Even with a very low mass flow rate the disk would reach high temperatures in the inner region. This hot region and the further outward cool region cannot exist together in a quasi-stationary state. Instead cooling and heating fronts would move inward and outward in the disk and change the disk back and forth between the hot and the cool state (Meyer 1981). This truncation of the geometrically thin cool disk naturally results from evaporation of mass in the inner disk region into a hot corona (Meyer & Meyer-Hofmeister 1994). For the region further in the concept of an advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF) was developed as a mode of accretion which allows to explain the low luminosity of X-ray transients in quiescence as well as in AGN. The review paper by Narayan et al. (1998) gives a detailed description of the physics of ADAFs as well as the investigations of this mode of accretion by several authors. The application to galactic black hole X-ray binaries and galactic nuclei was very successful in modeling the observed spectra. Best studied systems are A0620-00, V404 Cyg (Narayan et al. 1996, 1997), Nova Muscae (Esin et al. 1997) and GRO J1655-40 (Hameury et al. 1997).

The ADAF in the inner disk region together with the geometrically thin disk further out provides a consistent picture for the accretion in SXTs. From observations for the quiescent state properties of the accretion disk can be derived. The “standard disk instability model” for dwarf nova outbursts allows to understand the triggering of the outbursts in SXTs after the long recurrence time. This has been proven in the application to A0620-00 (Meyer-Hofmeister & Meyer 1999, hereafter MHM99), using the viscosity values typically found for dwarf novae. There it was assumed that the disk is practically empty after the outburst due to the strong irradiation of the disk which prevents the disk from changing back to the cool state and causes the long lasting outburst decline (King & Ritter 1998). If this is the case the accumulation of mass in the disk is independent of the details of the outburst. In view of the difficulties which arise in modeling the observed outburst decline (see e.g. Cannizzo 2000) it is an advantage to separate the two phases of disk evolution.

Since the result of King & Ritter (1998) has important consequences for our treatment we shortly repeat here their argumentation. They discuss the optical/X-ray flux ratios already found in earlier investigations and point out that the optical emission during the outburst of X-ray transients is far too high to result from intrinsic dissipation only. They argue that irradiation from the central source is important during the outburst. The irradiation then prevents the disk from returning to the cool state until central accretion is greatly reduced. This is consistent with the long-lasting outburst decline. This is a convincing picture and it seems difficult to explain the outburst duration without such a long-lasting accretion and the consequential essential reduction of disk mass. The analysis of Shabaz et al. (1998) gives further confirmation for this picture (see Sect. 3.3).

Menou et al. (2000) model the full outburst cycle of A620-00 in a way that about 90% of the mass in the disk remain there during the outburst. Evaporation was taken into account in a rough approximation (details will be discussed later). They conclude that the viscosity in quiescence has to be very low ($`\alpha _{\mathrm{cold}}`$=0.005) to reproduce the long recurrence times. In their investigation the effect of disk irradiation during the outburst is not included, also the possibility to model A0620-00 with standard viscosity values as in MHM99 was not noted apparently.

The aim of the present investigation is a critical comparison of the predictions of various theoretical models, including earlier results from Cannizzo (1998), with the available data for black hole transients.

In Sect. 2 we show examples of computed disk evolution for A0620-00. Evaporation in the inner region reduces the accumulation of mass and for low mass transfer rates the instability can only marginally be triggered. The evaporation of mass therefore is the important feature which governs the disk evolution during the long-lasting quiescence and needs to be taken into account for the evolutionary computations in a way, so that the physics is included. In Sect. 3 we discuss how far the models agree with the requirements from observation. In Sect. 4 we focus on the total amount of mass accumulated when the outburst occurs and compare with collected data for several black hole SXTs. In Sect. 5 we discuss consequences for the viscosity in the case of long recurrence time. Additional computations shed light on the situation in systems with short recurrence time where an essential part of the mass in the disk might be left over after the outburst.

## 2 Disk evolution during quiescence - models for A0620-00

### 2.1 Computational method

Diffusion governs the evolution of the mass distribution in the disk. Given a black hole mass and an orbital period the mass transfer rate determines the disk evolution (given an initial mass distribution). For systems with long recurrence time we assume that the disk becomes depleted during the long-lasting outburst, caused by the irradiation which prevents the disk to go back to the cool state (King & Ritter 1998). This has an essential consequence for the conclusions.

Our computer code includes the variation of the outer and inner disk edge during the evolution. The disk size changes as determined by redistribution of matter and angular momentum. The size is limited by the 3:1 resonance radius (Whitehurst 1988, Lubow 1991), which lies inside the tidal truncation radius for systems with a small mass ratio as the SXTs. For the initial size of the disk we assume 90% of the resonance radius. The maximal disk size is related to the orbital period and the secondary star mass. We take the secondary star mass according to the mass of a Roche-lobe filling main-sequence star for the given period. The location of the inner disk edge also varies. It is determined by the evaporation of matter into the corona. The total evaporation efficiency computed in a one-zone model is applied to this interval. For mass flow rates lower than about 0.01 $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ ($`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}=40\pi GM/\kappa c`$, $`\kappa `$ electron scattering opacity) and a coronal $`\alpha `$-parameter of 0.3 the evaporation rate (in g/s) can be approximated by the following formula

$`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{evap}}(M,r)`$ $`=`$ $`10^{14.9}(M/M_{})^{2.3}(r/10^{9.5})^{1.2}`$ (1)
with $`M`$ the mass of the compact star (see Liu et al. 1995, Meyer et al. 2000). Coronal friction like that of a standard disk leads to redistribution of angular momentum and also to a partial outward flow that is taken into account (Liu et al. 1997, application to evaporation around a white dwarf). A detailed description of the computational method is given in MHM99. The black hole mass an important parameter for the disk evolution, unfortunately can be deduced from the observations only within some range of uncertainty. We choose the rate of mass transferred from the secondary star to meet the requirements from observations. \** The initial surface density was assumed to be very low, of order of the critical surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{A}`$ (viscosity parameter 0.3) or even lower. Without irradiation the surface density remaining after an outburst usually is between the two critical surface densities $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{B}`$. The specific choice does not matter for the outcome of the simulation, due to the accumulation of much more mass during the long quiescence until the outburst is triggered.\*

### 2.2 Requirements from observations

Given the orbital period (known from observations) and a black hole mass there are only two free parameters left, the rate of mass transfer from the companion star and the viscosity parameter in the cool disk $`\alpha _{\mathrm{cold}}`$. But several requirements have to be fulfilled connected with quiescence and outburst (this is the same situation for all X-ray transients). The relevant data with which the results of modeling should agree are:
(1) The accretion rate in quiescence derived from ADAF model based spectral fits (Narayan et al. 1998);
(2) the radius of the transition from the outer geometrically thin disk to the inner ADAF region derived from the Kepler velocity which corresponds to the maximum velocity width of the accretion disk H$`\alpha `$ emission line (e.g. see Marsh et al.(1994) and Orosz et al. (1994) for A0620-00);
(3) the amount of matter accreted during the outburst estimated from the outburst light curve (for an assumed distance);
(4) The outburst recurrence time.

The mass transfer rate affects the outcome for all these requirements. In the accretion disk the transition to an coronal flow occurs where the evaporation rate exceeds the mass flow rate in the disk. The computed evolution then self-consistently determines the location at each time. The transition radius becomes smaller with proceeding mass accumulation and hence increasing mass flow rate in the inner disk (compare Fig. 3, MHM99). The viscosity value affects the amount of mass in the disk, higher for lower viscosity.

### 2.3 Matter accumulation

For different models, all designed to describe the X-ray nova A0620-00, we show in Fig. 1 how the mass in the disk accumulates with time. The amount is highest in the model of Cannizzo (1998, Fig. 9, model with long recurrence time). The viscosity is chosen as proportional to $`(h/r)^{1.5}`$, $`h`$ pressure scale height. Less than 10% of the mass in the disk is accreted during the outburst. This is the scheme used successfully in modeling of dwarf nova outbursts, but probably not adequate if irradiation affects the mass flow during outburst. In recent computations of only the outburst (Cannizzo 2000) irradiation is included and much more mass accretes. In the modeling of Menou et al. (2000) $`\alpha _{\mathrm{cold}}`$=0.005 is taken, irradiation is not included and most of the mass remains in the disk during the outburst. (In their investigation the disk evolution was computed with and without a truncated disk. But for the non-truncated disk and their further parameters chosen for modeling A0620-00 the recurrence time is only 5 years, see Fig. 1. We compare with their result for a truncated disk, Fig. 7). The dashed line gives the total amount of mass transferred (in Cannizzo’s model the total amount of mass transferred is practically the same as the amount accumulated).

The two lower curves in Fig. 1 (solid lines) show the mass accumulation in our models for 4 and 6 $`M_{}`$ black holes (viscosity in the cool disk $`\alpha _{cold}`$=0.05). The mass transfer rates were chosen to meet the constraints from observations (compare Table 1 in MHM 1999), $`1.910^{10}M_{}/yr`$ and $`3.410^{10}M_{}/yr`$, respectively. The higher amount for the disk around the 6 $`M_{}`$ black hole results from the then higher evaporation rate (see Eq. 1). This has the consequence that the critical surface density can only be reached at larger distance $`r`$ and more mass needs to be stored in the disk before an outburst occurs (see Fig. 5, MHM99). The dashed line indicates the total amount of matter transferred for 4 $`M_{}`$. During the late quiescence an increasing part of the matter transferred is evaporated and accreted, less and less mass is still accumulating until the critical surface density for triggering the outburst is reached.

For comparison we show the disk evolution for a mass transfer rate only 5% lower (dot-dashed line - note that this is not a fluctuation but a difference of the average over several decades): no outburst occurs, the disk becomes stationary. Such a system resembles a case of faint nontransient X-ray binaries. As discussed in earlier work (Meyer-Hofmeister & Meyer 2000) the consideration of such a stationary disk raises the question how many black hole binaries exist in permanent quiescent state (see also Menou et al. 1999). Certainly there is a range of transfer rates around the marginal rate where fluctuations could bring the system to the other class. Thus the division into the two classes, stable/unstable, is not sharp. But we do not expect this to be a model for the SXT outbursts as suggested with the “globally stable disks” where an essential part of all mass accumulated is transferred in a rare mass transfer fluctuation, discussed below.

Menou et al. (2000) also considered a model of a “globally stable truncated disk”, that means a disk where the surface density remains below the critical value for triggering an outburst. For this the mass transfer rate $`10^{15}`$ g/s was taken, one third of the rate used for their “truncated disk instability model” where the outburst is triggered when the critical surface density is reached. In the globally stable disk model the outburst is thought to occur due to an increase of the rate of mass transfer from the secondary star. This means that an essential part of the mass needed for the onset of the outburst is brought over during the assumed phase of higher mass transfer. The authors mention that in such a case the finally accumulated mass in the disk and the resulting outburst is similar to that in the truncated disk instability model with a continuous accumulation of mass (compared before).

### 2.4 \**Mass transfer variations\*

Since an increase of the mass transfer rate is sometimes appealed to in connection with triggering an accretion disk instability we want to discuss here the timescales involved.

We note that what the recurrence time measures is the average of the mass transfer rate over the long time of quiescence, e.g. 50 years. This is a long time scale for atmospheres of late type companion stars. Thermal timescales of the outer layer relevant for mass transfer and other oscillation and relaxation times are much shorter. Variations of the mass transfer rate that might occur on such short timescales are thus averaged out and do not affect the cycle length. Long-term fluctuations of the transfer rate, on the other hand, are not achieved easily. It is a misconception that a fluctuation or change of the braking rate (e.g. by magnetized wind) results immediately in corresponding changes of the mass transfer rate as the secondary star otherwise will over- or under fill its Roche lobe. In order to change the mass transfer rate by a significant factor one must change the distance between stellar surface and inner Lagrangian point by a value of the order of an atmospheric scale height. This is typically of order $`10^4`$ of the stellar radius. With orbital evolution timescales of $`10^9`$ years this gives $`10^5`$ years before any change of braking leads to the response of the mass transfer rate. Braking rate fluctuations on shorter timescales are smoothed out. For a discussion of this see Ritter (1988).

Observational evidence for a very stable transfer rate is present in the case of WZ Sge, a dwarf nova system with very long recurrence time, transferring mass via Roche lobe overflow. That system shows a repetitive cycle that is observed twice with nearly exactly the same cycle length of 32.6 and 32.4 years. *

How well do the various models for A0620-00 now meet the requirements from observations?

## 3 Comparison of models for A0620-00 with the observation

### 3.1 Observational requirement (1), evaporation rate - mass accretion rate

The accretion rate found from the ADAF model ($`M`$=6.1$`M_{}`$) fit of the spectrum of A0620-00 is 3-6$`10^{15}`$g/s (Narayan et al. 1997, 1998). In Table 1 we summarize the results of the models with respect to the evaporation rate. To compare with the observations we consider the theoretical values for 20 years after the outburst that occurred 1975, reduced by the wind loss ($``$ 20%, Meyer et al. 2000). The theoretical evaporation rate should roughly agree with the accretion rate derived from observations. In Cannizzo’s model the assumed evaporation gives values as low as 2$`10^{14}`$g/s. In the model of Menou et al. (2000) an assumed evaporation rate is taken, designed to be significantly smaller than the mass transfer rate and a parameter value $`\epsilon `$ is chosen to ensure that the maximally truncated disk is still unstable. The value of the accretion rate after 20 years is 9 $`10^{14}`$ g/s, less than one third of the value derived from the observations. In our models the evaporation rate (Eq.1) is determined according to the evaporation theory and is not free. Only the parameter for the viscosity in the hot corona enters, chosen as 0.3 in all our computations (comparable to the parameter in the ADAF modeling and to results of numerical simulations of MHD turbulence (Hawley et al. 1995).

### 3.2 Observational requirement (2), transition radius

For Cannizzo’s model no results are given for the inner truncation of the disk. In the model of Menou et al. the transition radius follows from their choice of an evaporation formula and is about $`10^{10}`$cm 20 years after outburst. In our treatment of evaporation the transition radius depends on the mass flow rate in the disk, the location therefore changes during the evolution. For 20 years after an outburst the radii found from our computations for 4 and 6 $`M_{}`$ are close to $`10^{10}`$ cm, in good agreement with observations. The inner disk edge derived from the maximum velocity of the H$`\alpha `$ emission line, $`v_{\mathrm{in}}=2100`$km (Orosz et al. 1994), is located at 1.3 or 1.1$`10^{10}`$cm for a 4.4 or 6.1 $`M_{}`$ black hole (Narayan et al. 1996, 1997).

### 3.3 Observational requirement (3), total amount of mass in the disk

Fig. 2 shows the amount of mass $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ (total amount of mass in the cool disk) from model computations for A0620-00, together with data from observations. The computations for 4$`M_{}`$ agree better with the total amount of mass derived from observations. In earlier investigations (Narayan et al. 1996) a value of 4.4$`M_{}`$, corresponding to an inclination of $`70^{}`$, was used to model A0620-00, later Barret et al. (1996) suggested an inclination of $`55^{}`$ which leads to a black hole mass of 6.1 $`M_{}`$. The evaporation efficiency still depends on the exact value of the viscosity used for the hot coronal gas. The result might change somewhat if another value would be chosen, further investigations are planned. The results of Cannizzo (1998) and Menou et al. (2000) are based on model computations where during the outburst most of the mass remains in the disk. In Fig. 2 we therefore also give the amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\mathrm{d}`$ accreted during the outburst. If irradiation during the outburst were not important the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\mathrm{d}`$ of Menou et al. (2000) would be in agreement with the estimates from observations. The key assumption of an empty disk after the outburst, used in our models, leads to a much lower amount of mass. (In the recent investigation of Cannizzo (2000) irradiation during the outburst is included and more mass than in the foregoing model is accreted; but the disk evolution in quiescence is not computed). In the next section we compare more general results for disks of different size with observations.

### 3.4 Observational requirement (4), recurrence time

The models of Cannizzo (1998) and Menou et al. (2000) were developed to show that long recurrence times can be achieved. Slight changes in the parameters choosen might reproduce the exact recurrence time, certainly involving also changes in the mass accumulation. Our computations yield the observed recurrence time together with all the other requirements from observations.

## 4 Mass accumulation in disks around black holes of different mass

### 4.1 SXTs and WZ Sge stars

A similarity of SXTs and WZ Sge stars, a subgroup of dwarf novae, was often pointed out (see e.g. Kuulkers 1999). This similarity concerns the long recurrence times and the long duration of the outbursts, the best example being WZ Sge (Patterson et al. 1981). For a review on the modeling of WZ Sge stars see Osaki (1995). The total amount of mass accreted on to the white dwarf during an outburst (1-2 $``$ $`10^{24}`$g, Smak 1993) is actually of the same order of magnitude as the amount of mass involved in SXT outbursts (Chen et al. 1997).

However the different disk size in these two classes of systems has interesting consequences for the viscosity (in Sect. 5.3 we discuss its possible origin). The size of the disk in WZ Sge (orbital period 81.3 minutes) is only 1.6$`10^{10}`$cm, limited by the 3:1 resonance radius. In A0620-00 the disk is roughly ten times larger. To store the same amount of mass as accumulated in SXT disks in the much smaller disk of WZ Sge requires a lower value of the viscosity parameter $`\alpha _{cold}`$ in WZ Sge systems (0.001 Meyer-Hofmeister et al. 1998). In the larger SXT disks, on the other hand, the similar amount of accumulated mass points to a standard value of a few times 0.01.

### 4.2 Data from observations of SXTs

In Table 2 we give data for systems established as black hole transient sources. Knowledge of the distance of the sources is important for the estimate of the luminosity and therefore also the outburst energy and amount of accreted mass. Unfortunately for some systems, e.g. GS 1124-68, the values are very uncertain. For J0422+32 recently the distance 1.39 kpc was derived (Webb et al. 2000). The properties of black hole transients compiled in the reviews of Tanaka and Shabazaki (1996), Chen et al. (1997), Charles (1998) and Tanaka (2000) mainly differ with respect to the black hole mass estimates.

For our modeling the black hole masses are important, since the evaporation efficiency depends on it. Chen et al. (1997) derived estimates for the amount of mass accreted during the outburst from the outburst light curves of the systems. In the analysis of Shabaz et al. (1998) the exponential/linear decays of the light curves were studied and estimates for the amount of mass heated during the outburst were derived.

### 4.3 Comparison with observations

In Fig. 2 we show more general results for mass accumulation in disks around 4 and 6$`M_{}`$ black holes. The disk size depends on the orbital period. We computed the disk evolution for periods from 4 to 12 hours and different mass transfer rates. The range of rates was taken as follows: the minimal rate arises from the fact that for too low rates no outburst occurs anymore (the higher the rate the more often outbursts are triggered), we took the maximal rate as the one which initiates outbursts every ten years. We did not want to consider shorter recurrence time cycles for our analysis of transients. The shaded areas in Fig. 2 mark the range of values of total mass accumulated corresponding to this range of transfer rates. Our two models for A0620-00 lie in these ranges. Later in this paper we compare with data for a number of SXTs observations.

In a very detailed investigation of outburst light curves of SXTs Chen et al.(1997) derived estimates for the amount of mass accreted. We show these values in Fig. 2 (for GS 1124-68 we have taken the smaller distance 4 kpc as used in Shabaz et al. 1998). These values are uncertain if the distance is not well known. In their investigation of the effect of irradiation of the accretion disk during the outburst Shabaz et al. (1998) give estimates for the mass in the disk heated in the outburst. \**The question is whether this amount of mass includes all mass present in the disk at the time an outburst is triggered. The authors found that the radius of the hot disk at the peak of the outburst is comparable to the circularization radius. For A0620-00 they give the value $`\mathrm{0.6\hspace{0.17em}10}^{11}`$ cm. Therefore the main part is indeed hot. We give the values of heated mass in Fig. 2. All estimates for the amount of mass accreted in the outburst or heated are in the range $`10^{24}`$ to 1.2$`10^{25}`$g.\*

## 5 Viscosity in the cold disk

### 5.1 Systems with long recurrence time

We first discuss the situation in systems with long recurrence time and long-lasting outbursts. If in these systems the irradiation causes the long-lasting decay (King & Ritter 1998) the disk is depleted. The triggering of the outbursts after decades can well be modelled with a standard value around 0.05 as usual for dwarf nova outburst computations (all the observational requirements are fulfilled, see Sect. 3 and earlier work (MHM99)). Inspite of this result Menou et al. (2000) claimed that the viscosity would have to be low ($``$ 0.005) to model the SXT outbursts. Disk structure calculations show that the surface density and therefore the mass in the disk scales with $`\alpha ^{0.8}`$ approximately. For a viscosity ten times lower the amount of mass accumulated and the outburst energy would be roughly ten times higher. In the modeling with low viscosity the way out always is that only a small part of the total mass accretes. This is in conflict with the effect of irradiation and in general disagrees with the above mentioned amounts of mass heated up in the disk.

### 5.2 Systems with short recurrence time

There are a few systems with more frequent outbursts. 4U 1630-472 e.g. has outbursts about every two years. Their duration differs, also the observed luminosity which reaches values around 4$`10^{38}`$ erg/s. The amount of mass accumulated in the disk is derived as several $`10^{25}`$g, based on the uncertain distance of 10 kpc (values from Chen et al. 1997). It is unclear whether the disk is empty after the outburst.

In an earlier investigation such short cycles were already computed assuming a depleted disk and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{cold}}`$=0.05 (Meyer-Hofmeister & Meyer 2000). Now we performed test computations to clarify whether, in principle, these short outburst cycles can also be modeled with a not depleted disk and the standard viscosity value $`\alpha _{\mathrm{cold}}`$=0.05. The black hole mass and the orbital period of 4U 1630-472 are not known. We performed test calculations for 6$`M_{}`$ and 7.75 hours (period as A0620-00). For the initial mass distribution we assume a surface density distribution as adequate from dwarf nova outburst modeling experience (log$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{initial}}(r)`$= 0.5(log$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{A}(r)`$+log$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{B}(r)`$), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{B}`$ critical surface density values), viscosity in the hot state 0.3). The mass transfer rate 2 $`10^9M_{}`$/y is high enough to produce the outburst after two years. The accumulated amount of mass in the disk is 1.1$`10^{25}`$g, in rough agreement with the observations. We conclude that values of order 0.05 are also suitable to describe the short outbursts in cases where the disks are not depleted.

### 5.3 The general picture of the origin of the viscosity in cold SXT disks during quiescence

The values, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{cold}}`$0.05, in quiescent X-ray transients appear to support a general picture of magnetic friction in disks in SXTs and dwarf novae. In outburst the magnetic field caused viscosity (Balbus & Hawley 1991, 1992) is high sustained by dynamo action in the accretion disk (for recent numerical simulations see Hawley et al. 1995, Brandenburg et al. 1995, Armitage 1998, Hawley 2000). As the disk returns to the quiescent state and becomes cool the electrical conductivity drops and the dynamo can no longer operate (Gammie & Menou 1998), the high outburst viscosity vanishes. However a magnetosphere of the secondary star in which the accretion disk is embedded can still provide magnetic flux through the disk on which the Balbus-Hawley mechanism can work and supply a smaller magnetic friction in quiescence than that in outburst. WZ Sagittae systems have probably lost this source of magnetic flux since their secondaries have become cool degenerate brown dwarfs which can not sustain dynamo action or keep fossil fields in their interior. This could explain why their remaining viscosity is so much smaller than that of all other systems in quiescence though they have similar viscosity in outburst (Meyer & Meyer-Hofmeister 1999). Then the derived $`\alpha `$-values for SXTs in quiescence would indicate that their secondaries have magnetospheres. In this respect we also note that these stars appear to be evolved (King et al. 1996) and tend to have outer convective zones, an ingredient for solar type dynamos.

## 6 Conclusions

King & Ritter (1998) argued that strong irradiation during the long-lasting outbursts of SXTs keeps the disk hot, and almost all mass in the disk flows towards the black hole. We make the key assumption that in black hole transients with long recurrence time the disk is significantly depleted at the end of the outburst. The estimates for the amount of mass in the disk heated during the outburst (Shabaz et al. 1998) confirm this picture. When one follows the disk evolution and mass accumulation one finds that the long recurrence times can well be modelled with a “standard” viscosity value $`\alpha _{\mathrm{cold}}`$=0.05. Evaporation of the inner disk region is an important feature in such disk evolution. All constraints from observation are fulfilled. For a full outburst cycle, where the disk evolution during quiescence computed here would be completed with the computation of the run of the outburst follows: the amount of matter accumulated agrees with the estimates from the outburst lightcurve. Only the features of the detailed lightcurve are not determined, those depending on parameters as the viscosity in the hot state and irradiation. We point out that the evaporation efficiency is taken from a physical model (Meyer & Meyer-Hofmeister 1994) and no ad hoc parameter fitting was used. The computations of Menou et al. (2000) are based on a simulation of evaporation with free parameters which ensure that the evaporation rate is significantly below the mass transfer rate and, more severe, the maximally truncated disk is still unstable. Such a strategy does not allow a discrimination between stable and unstable models.

The models of Cannizzo (1998, $`\alpha `$ proportional to $`(h/r)^{1.5}`$, $`h`$ pressure scaleheight) and Menou et al. (2000, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{cold}}`$=0.005), suggest that only a small part of the total mass in the disk is accreted during an outburst. But, even if the disk in A0620-00 would not be depleted the models only agree marginally with the other requirements from observations.

We further find that SXTs with a recurrence time as short as two years can also be modeled with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{cold}}`$=0.05, assuming a depleted or a not depleted disk.

We thus conclude that the accretion disk in SXTs in quiescence display rather standard cold disk friction common to SXTs and dwarf novae and do not need nor indicate very low $`\alpha `$-values of order 0.005.