text:
# The local power spectrum and correlation hierarchy of the cosmic mass field

## 1 Introduction

The most popular statistical measure of the cosmic mass density field $`\rho (𝐱)`$ is the Fourier power spectrum. For a homogeneous and isotropic random mass field, the Fourier power spectrum $`P(k)`$ is given by

$$\delta _𝐤\delta _𝐤^{}=P(k)\delta _{𝐤,𝐤^{}}^K,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the average over an ensemble, $`\delta _𝐤`$ is the Fourier transform of the density contrast $`\delta (𝐱)=(\rho (𝐱)\overline{\rho })/\overline{\rho }`$, $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the average density and $`\delta _{𝐤,𝐤^{}}^K`$ the Kronecker-Delta function. Although the power spectrum is only a second order statistical measure of the inhomogeneity of the random density field, it directly reflects the scales on which non-linear physical processes affect structure formation.

The Fourier power spectrum, however, loses spatial information completely because of the non-local nature of the Fourier mode. Thus, it cannot be used to describe position-related statistical features of the mass field. In other words, the power spectrum, or the galaxy-galaxy correlation function cannot detect large scale filaments and sheets in the galaxy distribution. This disadvantage is clearly seen when reconciling the power spectrum description with the singular behavior of the cosmic mass field (Navarro, Frenk, & White 1997; Moore et al. 2000; Jing & Suto 2000). The existence of singular structures, like massive halos with density profiles $`\rho (r)r^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha >0`$) indicates that the power of mass density perturbations on scale $`r1/k`$ is not uniformly distributed in space, but concentrated in rare high power regions. This problem calls for a description of local power spectrum, which provides the information of power distribution with respect to both the scale and physical position of the fluctuation.

The local power spectrum of the underlying mass field of a QSO’s Ly$`\alpha `$ forest has been recently analyzed (Jamkhedkar, Zhan, & Fang 2000). It is found that the local power spectrum of the transmitted flux of the QSO’s absorption shows prominent spiky structures on small scales. That is, the transmitted flux consists of rare but strong density fluctuations randomly scattered in space with very low power of fluctuations in between. Moreover, the spiky features are more significant on smaller scales. This indicates an excess of large fluctuations on small scales in comparison to a Gaussian distribution, i.e. the random mass field traced by the Ly$`\alpha `$ transmitted flux probably is intermittent (Zeldovich, Ruzmaikin, & Sokoloff 1990; Frisch 1995; Shraiman & Siggia 2000). The local power spectrum is especially useful for describing the non-linear features of the cosmic mass field, and thus for testing models of the non-linear clustering of the cosmic mass field.

The purpose of this paper is to test the most popular non-linear clustering model – the hierarchical clustering model. The hierarchical clustering scenario (e.g. White 1979) assumes that the non-linear cosmic mass field satisfies a linked-pair approximation, or correlation hierarchy, i.e. $`\xi _nQ_n\xi _2^{n1}`$, where $`\xi _n`$ and $`\xi _2`$ are the $`n`$\- and 2-point correlation functions of mass density, respectively. The coefficients $`Q_n`$s are assumed to be constant or scale-independent. This model has been widely applied to construct semi-analytic models of gravitational clustering in the universe. With the correlation hierarchy, all high order correlation functions are given by two-point correlation functions and coefficients $`Q_n`$s. Therefore, in hierarchical clustering model, the spiky features of the local power spectrum should also be produced by the two point correlation function and $`Q_n`$s. Thus, the applicable range of the correlation hierarchy can be determined by comparing these predictions with observed local power spectrum.

The paper is organized as follows. The first half (§2 and §3) studies the statistical features of the local power spectrum of the underlying mass field revealed by the QSO’s Ly$`\alpha `$ forest. The second half (§4 and §5) investigates the local power spectrum of the hierarchically clustered field. §2 provides a brief background of local power spectrum in the discrete wavelet transform (DWT) representation. The local power spectra measured from Ly$`\alpha `$ transmitted flux of QSO HS1700+64 are presented in §3. The focus there is on the spiky features and roughness of the local power spectrum. In §4, we investigate the predication of roughness and scale-scale correlation of the spiky structures given by the linked-pair approximation. We then test these predictions with the observed local power spectrum, and obtain the applicable range of the correlation hierarchy for the cases of a constant and scale-dependent $`Q`$. §5 consists of the conclusions and discussions.

## 2 Local power spectrum

### 2.1 Power spectrum in the DWT representation

For the sake of simplicity, we analyze a 1-D density distribution sample $`\rho (x)`$ in the range $`0<x<L`$, which is assumed to be a stationary random field. It is straightforward to extend the results to 2-D and 3-D.

The first generation of the algorithm of local power spectrum is the windowed Fourier analysis (Gabor 1946), which decomposes a distribution $`\rho (x)`$ as

$$\widehat{\rho }(k,x_0)=\rho (x)g(xx_0)e^{ikx}𝑑x,$$
(2)
where $`g(xx_0)`$ is a window function of size $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ around position $`x_0`$. We thus define a local power spectrum at $`x_0`$ as $`|\widehat{\rho }(k,x_0)|^2`$. However, for a given spatial size $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$, the uncertainty in the wavenumber is $`\mathrm{\Delta }k2\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }x`$. Consequently, the local power spectrum $`|\widehat{\rho }(k,x_0)|^2`$ is uncertain on scales $`k2\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }x`$. This problem leads to the development of the discrete wavelet transform (DWT), which decomposes $`\rho (x)`$ with orthogonal and complete bases on successive scales obeying the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }k\mathrm{\Delta }x2\pi `$. Indeed, the transform in eq.(2) is a predecessor of the DWT.

To apply the DWT, we first chop $`L`$ into $`2^j`$ subintervals, each of which spans a spatial range $`L/2^j`$ labeled with $`l=0,\mathrm{}2^j1`$, and the subinterval $`l`$ is from $`Ll/2^j`$ to $`L(l+1)/2^j`$. The density contrast, $`\delta (x)=(\rho (x)\overline{\rho })/\overline{\rho }`$, can be decomposed as111To be exact, the distribution $`\delta (x)`$ in eqs.(3) and (4) is a periodic extension of the density field over an interval of length $`L`$ (Fang & Feng 2000).

$$\delta (x)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{2^j1}{}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}\psi _{j,l}(x),$$
(3)
where $`\psi _{j,l}(x)`$ with $`j=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ and $`l=0,\mathrm{}2^j1`$ are the orthogonal and complete bases of the discrete wavelet transform (DWT) (Daubechies 1992; Fang & Thews 1998). The non-zero range of $`\psi _{j,l}(x)`$ is mainly between $`lL/2^j`$ and $`(l+1)L/2^j`$. The wavelet function coefficient (WFC), $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}`$, in eq.(3) is obtained by projecting $`\delta (x)`$ onto $`\psi _{j,l}(x)`$

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}=\delta (x)\psi _{j,l}(x)𝑑x.$$
(4)
The $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}`$ describes the density perturbation at the position $`lL/2^j`$ on the length scale $`L/2^j`$ (or, the wavelet scale $`j`$). For a Haar wavelet the WFC, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}`$, is the difference between the mean density contrasts in ranges $`lL/2^jx<(l+1/2)L/2^j`$ and $`(l+1/2)L/2^jx<(l+1)L/2^j`$. For other wavelets, the WFC, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}`$, is also a measure of the density contrast difference on a scale $`L/2^j`$ at a position $`l`$. We will use the Daubechies 4 wavelet (Daubechies 1992) in our numerical calculation below.

The decomposition eq.(3) preserves all the information contained in the original field. Consider a sample with a resolution of $`L/2^J`$, which is equivalent to $`2^J`$ grid-points on $`L`$. The degree of freedom of the sample is then $`2^J1`$, where the condition of average $`\overline{\delta }=0`$ reduces one degree of freedom. Since the local density fluctuations have to be measured over at least two neighboring grids, the smallest length, on which the WFCs can be calculated, is $`2\times (L/2^J)`$. The corresponding scale, $`j`$, is then $`J1`$. Thus, the total number of the WFCs ($`j=1\mathrm{}J1`$, and $`l=0\mathrm{}2^j`$) is

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{J1}{}}2^{Jj}=2^J1.$$
(5)
Therefore, the WFCs contain complete information of the random field in the DWT representation. The original distribution, $`\delta (x)`$, can be exactly and unredundantly reconstructed from the WFCs.

Parseval’s theorem for the DWT decomposition is (Fang & Thews 1998)

$$\frac{1}{L}_0^L|\delta (x)|^2𝑑x=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{L}\underset{l=0}{\overset{2^j1}{}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^2,$$
(6)
which implies that the power of perturbations can be decomposed into modes $`(j,l)`$. The power of the mode $`(j,l)`$ is given by $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^2`$. Thus the power spectrum in the DWT representation is given by $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^2`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is for the ensemble average. If the random field is stationary (or homogeneous in higher dimensions), $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^2`$ has to be independent of $`l`$. One can then define the DWT power spectrum as

$$P_j=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^2.$$
(7)
If the “fair sample hypothesis” (Peebles 1980) holds, instead of the ensemble average of eq.(6), we can use the average over $`l`$, i.e.

$$P_j=\frac{1}{2^j}\underset{l=0}{\overset{2^j1}{}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^2$$
(8)
It has been shown that $`P_j`$ is actually a band-averaged Fourier power spectrum $`P(k)`$ around $`k=2\pi 2^j/L`$ (Pando & Fang 1998; Fang & Feng 2000), i.e.

$$P_j=\frac{1}{2^j}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\widehat{\psi }(n/2^j)|^2P(k),$$
(9)
where $`P(k)`$ is the Fourier power spectrum with the wavenumber $`k=2\pi n/L`$, and $`\widehat{\psi }(n/2^j)`$ is the Fourier transform of the basic wavelet $`\psi (x)`$. The non-zero range of $`\widehat{\psi }(n/2^j)`$ is only around $`n/2^jn_g`$, where $`n_g`$ depends on wavelets. For the Daubechies 4 wavelet, $`n_g\pm 1`$.

The wavenumber difference between scales $`j`$ and $`j+1`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=2\pi (2^{j+1}2^j)/L=2\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }x`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=L/2^j`$. Therefore, the resolution of the DWT power spectrum is not as dense as the Fourier power spectrum. The Fourier modes are uniformly distributed over the scale space, while the $`P_j`$’s are distributed on octaves. However, this does not mean that the DWT decomposition losses information (Fang & Feng 2000). Besides the DWT power spectrum $`P_j`$, the second order DWT statistics also provide information about the spatial distribution of the power. Thus, an advantage of the DWT representation is its ability to calculate the local power spectrum.

### 2.2 The local DWT power spectrum

The Fourier power spectrum $`P(k)`$ lacks phase information, and, therefore, cannot reveal the position-related features of clustering. The DWT power spectrum $`P_j`$ doesn’t either, but the DWT mode $`(j,l)`$ contains information of positions as it is localized at $`l`$. Therefore, the power of density fluctuations at the position $`l`$ and on the scale $`j`$ is measured by

$$P_{j,l}=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^2.$$
(10)
That is, $`P_{j,l}`$ vs. $`j`$ is the power spectrum of density perturbations localized at the position $`l`$.

We can also define the band-averaged local DWT power spectrum. First, we chop $`L`$ into $`2^{j_s}`$ ($`j_sj`$) sub-intervals labeled as $`l_s=0,1\mathrm{}(2^{j_s}1)`$. Each sub-interval has a length $`L/2^{j_s}`$. Thus, the local DWT power spectrum averaged in the sub-interval $`l_s`$ is given by

$$P_{j,\{j_s,l_s\}}=\frac{1}{2^{jj_s}}\underset{l=l_s2^{jj_s}}{\overset{(l_s+1)2^{jj_s}1}{}}P_{j,l}=\frac{1}{2^{jj_s}}\underset{l=l_s2^{jj_s}}{\overset{(l_s+1)2^{jj_s}1}{}}|\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}|^2.$$
(11)
$`P_{j,\{j_s,l_s\}}`$ generally varies with $`l_s`$, and it measures the spatial distribution of the power on scale $`j`$ among the sub-intervals. Therefore, the spatial distribution $`P_{j,\{j_s,l_s\}}`$ actually is the spatial distribution of $`P_{j,l}`$ smoothed on the scale $`j_s`$.

Obviously, when $`j_s=j`$ (and so $`l=l_s`$), the local power spectrum eq.(11) reduces to eq.(10), i.e.

$$P_{j,\{j,l\}}=P_{j,l}$$
(12)
On the other hand, when $`j_s=0`$ (and so $`l_s=0`$), i.e. the smoothing is done over the entire length $`L`$, $`P_{j,\{j_s,l_s\}}`$ is the power averaged over the entire region $`L`$, i.e.

$$P_{j,\{0,0\}}=P_j=\frac{1}{2^j}\underset{l=0}{\overset{2^j1}{}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^2.$$
(13)
Therefore, $`P_{j,\{j_s,l_s\}}`$ provides a multiresolutional view of the phase space distribution of the power of the density perturbations.

## 3 Local power spectra of Ly$`\alpha `$ transmitted flux

### 3.1 Samples and power spectra

High resolution spectra of Ly$`\alpha `$ forest QSOs are good candidates to study the local power spectrum of the cosmic mass field. The transmission $`F(x)`$ of Ly$`\alpha `$ forests is due to the absorption by gases in cool and low density regions. The pressure gradients are generally smaller than gravitational forces. The distribution of cool baryonic diffuse matter is almost point-by-point proportional to the underlying dark matter density (Bi, Ge & Fang 1995).

We use the normalized Ly$`\alpha `$ transmitted flux of QSO HS1700+64 ($`z`$ = 2.72) for our analysis. This sample has been employed to study the evolution of structures (Bi & Davidsen 1997), and the Fourier and DWT power spectra (Feng & Fang 2000). The data ranges from 3727.012Å to 5523.554Å, with a total of 55882 pixels. In this paper, we use the data from $`\lambda =`$ 3815.6Å to 4434.3Å, which correspond to $`z=2.142.65`$. The lower limit of the wavelength is set to exclude Ly$`\beta `$ absorption. On average, a pixel is about 0.028Å, equivalent to a proper distance of $`5`$ h-1 kpc at $`z2`$ for an Einstein-de Sitter universe. Moreover, we subject DWT directly to pixels without transforming them to physical positions. The physical position is related to the pixel number in a non-linear way, but the departure from linearity is very small and it changes very smoothly across the sample. Since we are interested in the statistical properties of the mass density field on scales much smaller than the whole range of the data, we can ignore the effect of such non-linear relation in our present analysis.

A possible source of contamination comes from the presence of metal lines. We tried three ways to estimate the error. One way is to block the significant metal line regions identified by Dobrzycki and Bechtold (1996), and Scott222See http://qso.as.arizona.edu/ $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ jscott/Spectra/index.html. Since the WFC $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}`$ is localized, the metal line regions have been separated from the rest. The metal line effect can be removed by not counting the DWT modes in the blocked regions. The second way is to fill those regions with random data which has the same mean power as the rest of the original data, and to smooth the data over the boundaries. The third way is to discard the metal line chunks and smoothly connect the good chunks of data. The justification of doing this comes from the fact that we are interested only in the statistical properties of the density field and not in the exact location of a spike in space. We found that different methods of removing metal lines yield different details in the local power spectrum. However, the statistical measures of the local power spectrum are not sensitive to the method of removing metal lines. That is, the uncertainty of metal lines is under control.

Another source of contamination is the noise. To estimate the effect of the noise we smooth the QSO’s spectrum by filtering out all extremely sharp spikes in the local power spectra on finest scales, which are caused by relatively strong fluctuations between two neighboring pixels. Since such events are on the smallest scales only, the analysis on larger scales actually does not depend on whether we smooth the sample or not.

For this sample, the DWT power spectrum $`P_j^F`$ of the transmitted flux is shown in Fig. 1, where $`P_j^F`$ is defined in the same way as eq.(13), but the WFCs are calculated by the transmission $`F(x)`$, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F=F(x)\psi _{j,l}(x)𝑑x`$. The power spectrum of the metal-line-removed-and-smoothed (MLRAS) data, is also shown in Fig. 1. Corresponding to the DWT scale, $`j`$, the length scale equals $`2^{15j}\times 5h^1`$ kpc. The MLRAS power spectrum is the same as the original data in the range $`6j11`$. The smoothing reduces the power on small scales ($`j>11`$). However, the differences between the original and MLRAS power spectra, whether on small scales or large scales, are much lower than the variance, hence the differences are statistically insignificant.

### 3.2 Spiky structures of local power spectrum

Fig. 2 shows the normalized local power spectra $`P_{j,l}^F`$/$`P_j^F`$. Fig. 3 is $`P_{j,\{j_s,l_s\}}^F`$/$`P_j^F`$ with $`j_s=8`$, i.e. the local power spectrum averaged on a scale of $`0.64`$ h-1 Mpc. The right panels of Figs. 2 and 3 represent the corresponding local power spectra of the phase-randomized (PR) data, which is obtained by taking the inverse transform of the Fourier coefficients of the original data after randomizing their phases uniformly over $`[0,2\pi ]`$ without changing the amplitudes. Therefore, the mean powers of the left and the right panels of Figs. 2 and 3 are actually the same on the same scale.

Two main features can be observed in Fig. 2 and 3: First, the local power spectra of the real data (left panels) are significantly different from their counterparts of the phase randomized sample (right panels). The former show spiky structures, while the later are typical noisy distributions. The spiky structures show that the power of the flux perturbations is concentrated within high spikes only, while the power between two spikes is very low, or practically zero. The spiky structures are still remarkable on all scales $`j10`$ even in the local power spectrum averaged on scale $`j_s=8`$.

Second, the spiky structures are more significant on smaller scales, or larger $`j`$. That is, the ratio between the amplitudes of the spikes and the mean power is higher for smaller scales. In other words, the probability distribution function (PDF) of WFCs $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}`$ is significantly long-tailed on small scales. This is a typical behavior of an intermittent field (Shraiman & Siggia 2000.)

It is well known that the random velocity field of baryonic matter generally reduces the power of density perturbations on scales equal or less than the velocity dispersion. As a consequence, the powers (Fig. 1) on small scales generally must be lower than the powers of the underlying mass field of the Ly$`\alpha `$ absorbers. However, Fig. 2 and 3 show that neither the spiky feature of $`P_{j,l}^F`$ nor that of $`P_{j,\{8,l_s\}}^F`$ on small scales is seriously affected by the random velocity field. This is because the DWT modes are localized in $`j`$ and $`l`$, a spike on local mode $`(j,l)`$ can only be affected by a large velocity fluctuation on the same mode $`(j,l)`$, regardless the velocity fluctuation on other modes. This reduces the effect of the velocity field on the spiky structures.

It should be pointed out that the spikes are not always located at the peaks of mass density field, or the position of low transmitted flux. The density peaks are the areas with density $`\rho (x)\overline{\rho }`$ or the density contrast $`\delta (x)1`$, while the spikes of the WFCs $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F`$ correspond to a high difference between densities $`|\rho (x_1)\rho (x_2)|`$ or flux $`|F(x_1)F(x_2)|`$ on scales $`|x_1x_2|L/2^j`$. It is not necessary that a high-density difference (or high transmission difference) event be always located in high density halos (or low transmission region). For instance, Fig. 1 shows that the mean power of transmission fluctuations at $`j=13`$ is as small as $`P_{13}^F=2\times 10^4`$. Thus, even a spike $`>10\sigma `$ at $`j=13`$ means only $`|F(x+L/2^{13})F(x)|0.04\overline{F}`$, which can occur at positions with either high or low $`F(x+L/2^{13})`$ and $`F(x)`$. Therefore, the local power spectrum of the cosmic mass field can be studied with samples not necessarily in high density clumps but also in low density regions like QSOs’ Ly$`\alpha `$ absorption.

### 3.3 Roughness of the local power spectrum

The spiky structures, or the spatial fluctuations of the clustering power, can be measured by the standard deviation of the distribution of the local power $`P_{j,l}^F`$. It is given by

$$\sigma _j^p=\left[(P_{j,l}^F)^2(P_j^F)^2\right]^{1/2}=\left[\frac{1}{2^j}\underset{l=0}{\overset{2^j1}{}}(P_{j,l}^F)^2(P_j^F)^2\right]^{1/2}.$$
(14)
Obviously, the ratio $`\sigma _j^p/P_j^F`$ is larger if spiky structure is stronger. Fig. 1 also plots $`P_j^F+\sigma _j^p`$. It shows that the spatial fluctuations of $`P_{j,l}^F`$ are stronger on smaller scales (larger $`j`$).

It is more convenient to measure the spiky structures by the roughness of the local power spectrum, defined as

$$R_j^F\frac{(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F)^4}{3(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F)^2^2}1=\frac{(1/2^j)_{l=0}^{2^j1}(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F)^4}{3[(1/2^j)_{l=0}^{2^j1}(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F)^2]^2}1.$$
(15)
The roughness is essentially the same as eq.(14), i.e., given by the 4-th order moment of the WFCs. The definition of eq.(15) includes only the irreducible correlation. It ensures that $`R_j=0`$ for a Gaussian PDF of $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}`$, and always $`R_j>1`$, i.e. a non-zero $`R_j`$ is from non-Gaussian clustering.

Fig. 4 presents the roughness of the sample HS1700+64. It shows a significant increase in the roughness on scales less than 0.3 h-1 Mpc. The roughness of the MLRAS sample is also plotted in Fig. 4. The MLRAS sample yields about the same roughness as the original data. The difference on scale $`j12`$ is due to the smoothing.

### 3.4 Power spectrum and roughness of the mass field

Previous sections give the DWT power spectrum $`P_j^F`$ and roughness $`R_j^F`$ for the transmission. To compare with linked pair model (§4), we need the DWT power spectrum $`P_j`$ and roughness $`R_j`$ of the underlying mass field traced by Ly$`\alpha `$ forests. The relation between the $`P_j`$ and $`P_j^F`$ or $`R_j`$ and $`R_j^F`$ is not trivial, because the relationship between the Ly$`\alpha `$ optical depth $`\tau `$ and mass density contrast $`\delta `$ of baryonic matter $`\rho _b`$ is nonlinear, i.e. $`\tau =A(\rho _b/\overline{\rho }_b)^a=A(1+\delta )^a`$ with $`a=1.51.9`$. (e.g. Hui & Gnedin 1997). However, what we need actually is only the shape of the DWT power spectrum of mass field. The over-all normalization of the power spectrum is not important. Therefore, we will only try to show that the shape of $`P_j`$ can be effectively constrained by the Ly$`\alpha `$ transmission.

The WFCs, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F`$, of the transmission essentially measures $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$, i.e. the difference between $`F(x_1)`$ and $`F(x_2)`$ with $`|x_1x_2|L/2^j`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ is small, which is generally true, the DWT is analogous to finite difference. The $`F\delta `$ relation then yields

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}\frac{1}{F(l)_jaA[1+\delta (l)_j]^{a1}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F,$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}`$ is the WFC of the mass contrast $`\delta `$. $`F(l)_j`$ and $`\delta (l)_j`$ are, respectively, the mean flux and mean mass contrast in the spatial range $`Ll/2^jx<L(l+1)/2^j`$.

Using eq.(16), one can study the relation between $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F`$ at each position $`l`$. At positions with $`|\delta (l)|<1`$, i.e. clustering is weak, we have approximately

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}\frac{1}{aA}\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F}{F(l)_j}=\frac{1}{aA}\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F}{e^A}.$$
(17)
At positions with $`\delta (l)>1`$, we have

$$|\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}|\left|\frac{1}{aA}\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F}{F(l)_j}\right|.$$
(18)
For voids, i.e. $`\delta (l)1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F`$ generally is zero, which has no contribution to $`P_j`$ and $`R_j`$. Thus, eqs.(17) and (18) give an upper limit to the DWT power spectrum of the mass field as

$$P_j\frac{1}{a^2A^2}P_j^{},$$
(19)
where

$$P_j^{}=\frac{1}{2^j}\underset{l=0}{\overset{2^j1}{}}[\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F}{F(l)_j}.]^2$$
(20)
In the DWT analysis, $`F(l)_j`$ can be calculated by (Fang & Feng 2000)

$$F(l)_j=\left(\frac{L}{2^j}\right)^{1/2}ϵ_{j,l}^F,$$
(21)
where

$$ϵ_{j,l}^F=F(x)\varphi _{j,l}(x)𝑑x.$$
(22)
$`\varphi _{j,l}(x)`$ is the scaling function (Fang & Thews 1998), and $`ϵ_{j,l}^F`$ is called scaling function coefficient (SFC) of the transmission. With $`ϵ_{j,l}^F`$, $`P_j^{}`$ can be calculated by

$$P_j^{}=\frac{L}{2^{2j}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{2^j1}{}}\left[\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F}{ϵ_{j,l}^F}\right]^2.$$
(23)
Fig. 1 plots $`P_j^F`$ and $`P_j^{}`$ for the transmitted flux of HS1700. Although there are differences between the power spectra $`P_j^{}`$ and $`P_j^F`$, they have similar shape. On large scales, most places $`l`$ have $`|\delta (l)|<1`$. Therefore, from eq.(17), the DWT power spectrum of mass field on large scales is given by

$$P_j\frac{1}{a^2A^2e^{2A}}P_j^F.$$
(24)
On small scales, more places have $`\delta (l)>1`$. Therefore, the DWT power spectrum of the mass field is constrained by $`P_j^F/a^2A^2e^{2A}`$ as a lower limit, and $`P_j^{}/a^2A^2`$ as an upper limit. The number $`e^A`$ is given by mean transmission, and is in the range 0.5-0.9. Thus, the shape of $`P_j`$ is well constrained by the shapes of $`P_j^F`$ and $`P_j^{}`$, i.e. flat on large scales and rapidly decreasing on small scales.

Similarly, one can estimate the roughness $`R_j`$ of mass field by calculating $`R_j^F`$ and $`R_j^{}`$, where $`R_j^F`$ is defined by eq.(15), and $`R_j^{}`$ is also given by eq.(15) but the WFC $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F`$ is replaced by with $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F/ϵ_{j,l}^F`$. However, roughness is defined as a ratio of WFCs, and the correlation between $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F`$ and $`ϵ_{j,l}^F`$ is not very strong. For roughness, the effect of replacing $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^F/ϵ_{j,l}^F`$ is weak. Thus, roughness $`R_j`$ of mass field can directly be estimated by $`R_j^F`$.

## 4 Local power spectrum of hierarchical clustering

The hierarchical clustering provides a skeleton for modeling the formation of structures via the merging of dark halos. It is assumed that the mass field formed by the non-linear evolution of the cosmic gravitational clustering can be described by the linked-pair approximation, or correlation hierarchy, i.e. the $`n`$-th irreducible correlation function $`\xi _n`$ is given by the two-point correlation function $`\xi _2`$ as $`\xi _n=Q_n\xi _2^{n1}`$, where $`Q_n`$ is the hierarchical coefficient (White 1979). It is, however, well known that correlation hierarchy with constant coefficients $`Q_3`$ cannot match with the skewness of non-linear mass field given by the perturbation calculation and N-body simulation (e.g. Jing & Börner 1998). Moreover, the local power spectrum of the transmission (§3) strongly indicates that the underlying mass field of a QSO’s Ly$`\alpha `$ forest is intermittent. This implies that the correlation hierarchy would be a problem on small scales. In this section, we will find the applicable range of the correlation hierarchy by testing its predictions of the local power spectrum.

### 4.1 Roughness of hierarchically clustered field

The first test is on the roughness. Let us calculate the roughness $`R_j`$ with the linked pair approximation. For $`n=4`$, the hierarchical relation of mass field correlation functions is

$`\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏})\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐})\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟑})\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟒})=`$
$`Q_4^a[\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏})\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐})\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐})\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟑})\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟑})\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟒})+\mathrm{cyc}\mathrm{.\; 12}\mathrm{terms}]`$
$`+Q_4^b[\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏})\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐})\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏})\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟑})\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏})\delta (𝐱_\mathrm{𝟒})+\mathrm{cyc}\mathrm{.\; 4}\mathrm{terms}].`$
where $`Q_4^a`$ is for snake diagrams and $`Q_4^b`$ is for stars.

Because the samples of Ly$`\alpha `$ transmitted flux is 1-dimensional, to calculate 1-D WFCs we use a projection of a 3-D distribution $`\delta (𝐱)`$ onto 1-D as

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\delta (𝐱)\psi _{j,l}(x^1)\varphi _{J^{},m}(x^2)\varphi _{J^{},n}(x^3)𝑑x^1𝑑x^2𝑑x^3,$$
(26)
where $`x^1`$ is for the redshift direction, $`x^2`$ and $`x^3`$ are the dimensions of the sky, and $`\varphi _{j,l}(x)`$ is the scaling function (§3.4). The scaling function $`\varphi _{j,l}(x)`$ in eq.(26) plays the role of a window function on scale $`j`$ at position $`l`$. With eq.(26), a 1-D field with cross-section $`L/2^J^{}\times L/2^J^{}`$ along the $`x^1`$-direction can be decomposed as

$$\delta (𝐱)=\underset{j}{}\underset{l}{}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}\psi _{j,l}(x^1)\varphi _{J^{},m}(x^2)\varphi _{J^{},n}(x^3).$$
(27)
For a QSO Ly$`\alpha `$ absorption spectrum, $`m`$ and $`n`$ denote the position of the QSO on the sky, and scale $`J^{}`$ is determined by the size of the absorption clouds. Actually, we don’t know the exact scale $`J^{}`$. However, the details of $`\varphi _{J^{},m}(x^2)`$ and $`\varphi _{J^{},n}(x^3)`$ do not affect the conclusions below.

Using the decomposition eq.(27), eq.(25) yields

$`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^4_{ir}=Q_4^aB_a[{\displaystyle \underset{j^{},l^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j^{\prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j^{\prime \prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j^{\prime \prime \prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }}{}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j^{},l^{}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j^{\prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j^{\prime \prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j^{\prime \prime \prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}`$
$`{\displaystyle \psi _{j,l}(x_2)\psi _{j^{},l^{}}(x_2)\psi _{j^{\prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime }}(x_2)𝑑x_2\psi _{j,l}(x_3)\psi _{j^{\prime \prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime \prime }}(x_3)\psi _{j^{\prime \prime \prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }}(x_3)𝑑x_3}`$
$`+\mathrm{cyc}\mathrm{.\; 12}\mathrm{terms}]`$
$`+Q_4^bB_b[{\displaystyle \underset{j^{},l^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j^{\prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j^{\prime \prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime \prime }}{}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j^{},l^{}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j^{\prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j^{\prime \prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}`$
$`{\displaystyle }\psi _{j,l}(x_1)\psi _{j^{},l^{}}(x_1)\psi _{j^{\prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime }}(x_1)\psi _{j^{\prime \prime \prime },l^{\prime \prime \prime }}(x_1)dx_1+\mathrm{cyc}\mathrm{.\; 4}\mathrm{terms}],`$
where subscript $`ir`$ stands for the irreducible correlation function, $`B_a=\varphi _{J^{},m}^3(x^2)\varphi _{J^{},n}^3(x^3)𝑑x^2𝑑x^3`$ and $`B_b=\varphi _{J^{},m}^4(x^2)\varphi _{J^{},n}^4(x^3)𝑑x^2𝑑x^3`$. These constants can be absorbed into coefficients $`Q_4^a`$ and $`Q_4^b`$, respectively. We will no longer show the two constants explicitly.

Because, the covariance $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j^{},l^{}}`$ is generally quasi $`j`$-diagonal at least for the clustering referred to QSO Ly$`\alpha `$ absorption (Feng & Fang 2000), the r.h.s. of eq.(28) is dominated by the terms $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^2^3`$. We have then

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^4_{ir}[12Q_4^a(a_j^3)^2+4Q_4^ba_j^4]\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{j,l}^2^3.$$
(29)
where the factors $`a_j^3`$ and $`a_j^4`$ are given by

$$a_j^3=\psi _{j,l}^3(x)𝑑x=\left(\frac{2^j}{L}\right)^{1/2}\psi ^3(x)𝑑x,$$
(30)
$$a_j^4=\psi _{j,l}^4(x)𝑑x=\frac{2^j}{L}\psi ^4(x)𝑑x,$$
(31)
where $`\psi (x)`$ is the basic wavelet (Fang & Thews 1998).

Thus, from eqs.(29) and (15), which include only the irreducible correlation, the roughness of a hierarchically clustered field is given by

$$R_j=Q_4^R2^jP_j,$$
(32)
where the hierarchical coefficient $`Q_4^R`$ is given by

$$Q_4^R=A_aQ_4^a+A_bQ_4^b,$$
(33)
and

$$A_a=\frac{4}{L}\left[\psi ^3(x)𝑑x\right]^2$$
(34)
$$A_b=\frac{4}{3}\frac{1}{L}\psi ^4(x)𝑑x.$$
(35)
As expected, in the linked-pair approximation the roughness is completely determined by the power spectrum $`P_j`$ (two-point correlation function) and coefficient $`Q_4`$.

The dotted-line curve in Fig. 4 is $`R_j`$ calculated by eq.(32), but $`P_j`$ is replaced by $`P_j^{}`$. Therefore, the dotted-line curve in Fig. 4 actually is an upper limit to the linked-pair predicted roughness for mass field. Fig. 4 shows that, with a constant $`Q_4^R`$ fitting, the linked-pair predicted $`R_j`$ cannot match the observation on scales less than $`0.3`$ h-1 Mpc, as the predicted $`R_j`$ is smaller on smaller scales, while the observed result is larger on smaller scales. This result depends only on the shape of the power spectrum. The decrease of the linked-pair predicted roughness $`R_j`$ with $`j`$ on scales less than $`0.3`$ h-1 Mpc is due to the decrease of $`P_j^{}`$ and $`P_j^F`$ with $`j`$. Since the shape of mass field power spectrum $`P_j`$ is constrained by $`P_j^{}`$ or $`P_j^F`$, one can conclude that the hierarchical clustering model with constant $`Q_4`$ is a good approximation on scales $`>0.2`$ h-1 Mpc.

### 4.2 Scale-scale correlations of hierarchical clustered field

Figs. 2 and 3 show that some spikes on different scales $`j`$ have the same physical position. That is, the locations of spikes on different scales are correlated. For instance, a singular structure like $`\rho (r)r^\alpha `$ (§1) is a place where the large density difference ($`|\rho (x+r)\rho (x)|`$) events on different scales $`r`$ are in phase. This is known as scale-scale correlation. It can be measured by the correlations between $`P_{j,l}`$ and $`P_{j^{},l^{}}`$ with $`jj^{}`$. In the hierarchical clustering model, the scale-scale correlation is also determined by the linked-pair approximation. This provides the second test for the hierarchical clustering model.

To measure this correlation, we use the normalized local power spectrum as

$$p_{j,l}=\frac{P_{j,l}}{P_j}.$$
(36)
Obviously, $`p_{j,l}=1`$. The correlation between local power spectra on scales $`j`$ and $`j+1`$ can be calculated by

$$C_j^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2^{j+1}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{2^{(j+1)}1}{}}p_{j,[l/2]}p_{j+1,l}$$
(37)
where the brackets denote the integer part of the quantity enclosed. $`C_j^{(2)}`$ is greater than 1 if the spikes on the scale $`j`$ have higher than random probability of appearing at the same physical position as $`j+1`$ spikes. It should be emphasized that although $`C_j^{(2)}`$ is also 4-th order statistics, and it is independent of $`R_j`$. Correlation (37) can be generalized to any pair of scales $`j`$ and $`j^{}`$.

Using a similar approach for deriving eq.(32), one can find the expression of $`C_j^{(2)}`$ for a hierarchically clustered field. However, it is rather complicated. Noting that power on small $`j`$ is always larger than that on large $`j`$, especially on small scales (large $`j`$), we have

$$C_j^{(2)}Q_4^C2^jP_j,$$
(38)
where the hierarchical coefficient $`Q_4^C`$ is

$$Q_4^C=A_a^{}Q_4^a+A_b^{}Q_4^b,$$
(39)
and

$$A_a^{}=\frac{16}{L}\left[\psi ^2(x)\psi (2x)𝑑x\right]^2+\frac{4}{L}\left[\psi ^3(x)𝑑x\right]^2$$
(40)
$$A_b^{}=\frac{2}{L}\psi ^2(x)\psi ^2(2x)𝑑x.$$
(41)
Similar to eq.(32), in the linked-pair approximation the scale-scale correlations are completely determined by the power spectrum $`P_j`$ (two-point correlation function) and coefficient $`Q_4`$.

Again, to test the lined-pair prediction (38), we should calculate $`C_j^{(2)}`$ of mass field. Since $`C_j^{(2)}`$ is also defined by a ratio of WFCs, the effect of $`F\delta `$ nonlinearity on $`C_j^{(2)}`$ is also weak. We calculate the correlation $`C_j^{(2)}`$ by eq.(37) for the sample HS1700+64. The result is plotted in Fig. 5. It shows a strong correlation $`C_j^{(2)}`$ on small scales ($`j>9`$), and in this range we have approximately a power law as

$$C_j^{(2)}2^{j\mu },$$
(42)
with index $`\mu 0.9`$.

Fig. 5 also shows the linked-pair predicted $`C_j^{(2)}`$ given by eq.(38), where $`P_j`$ is replaced by $`P_j^{}`$. The hierarchical clustering with a constant value of $`Q_4`$ basically are able to fit the observation on scales $`j9`$ or $`>0.2`$ h-1 Mpc, but fail on small scales. Similar to Fig. 4, this result depends only on the shape of the power spectrum. The over-all normalization of the power spectrum can be absorbed in the factor $`Q_4^C`$.

### 4.3 Scale-dependent $`Q_4`$

To apply the hierarchical clustering model to small scales, one can assume that the coefficients $`Q_4^R`$ and $`Q_4^C`$ are scale dependent. That is, the deviation between the linked-pair prediction and the observation shown in Figs. 4 and 5 could be eliminated by using scale-dependent $`Q_4^R`$ and $`Q_4^C`$ given by

$$Q_4^R=\frac{R_j}{2^jP_j},$$
(43)
and

$$Q_4^C=\frac{C_j^{(2)}}{2^jP_j}.$$
(44)
However, eqs.(43) and (44) pose a new problem. In the linked-pair approximation eq.(16), there are two coefficients $`Q_4^a`$ and $`Q_4^b`$. Therefore, the 4th order correlation hierarchy, $`\xi _4=Q_4\xi _2^3`$, with scale-dependent $`Q_4`$ is reasonable only if the two coefficients $`Q_4^a`$ and $`Q_4^b`$ possess the same scale-dependence. In other words, that $`Q_4^R`$ and $`Q_4^C`$ have the same scale-dependence is a necessary condition to use the 4th order correlation hierarchy. Therefore, whether $`Q_4^R`$ and $`Q_4^C`$ have the same scale-dependence is a test of the hierarchical clustering with scale-dependent $`Q`$.

This test, however, needs the DWT power spectrum of mass field. An upper limit spectrum given by $`P_j^{}`$ seems not to be enough. Yet, our purpose is not to obtain the values of $`Q_4^R`$ and $`Q_4^C`$, but their behavior of $`j`$-dependence. Fig. 6 shows the $`j`$-dependencies of $`Q_4^R`$ and $`Q_4^C`$ calculated by eqs.(43) and (44) with $`P_j^F`$(lower panel) and $`P_j^{}`$(upper panel). Although the values of $`Q_4^R`$ and $`Q_4^C`$ given by $`P_j`$ and $`P_j^{}`$ are significantly different from each other on small scales, the two hierarchical coefficients ($`Q_4^R`$, $`Q_4^C`$), and so ($`Q_4^a`$, $`Q_4^b`$) have the same $`j`$ dependent behavior in the range from $`j=6`$ to 13. Since $`P_j`$ has the similar shape as $`P_j^F`$ and $`P_j^{}`$, Fig. 6 strongly indicates that one scale-dependent $`Q_4`$ probably is reasonable in the scale range from $`2.5`$ h-1 Mpc to few tens h-1 kpc.

## 5 Conclusions and discussions

The local DWT power spectrum provides an unified description of the power distribution of clustering in both scale space and physical space. That is, it contains information about the amplitudes and phases of the density perturbations. With this tool, the central part (or the variance) of the probability distribution function (PDF) of the density difference $`|\rho (x+r)\rho (x)|`$ can be measured by the averaged local DWT power spectrum, while the tail of the PDF can be measured by the roughness of the local DWT power spectrum. Therefore, it is effective to describe the non-linear evolution of the cosmic mass field.

With the local power spectrum of Ly$`\alpha `$ transmitted flux of QSO HS1700, we find that the underlying cosmic mass field of the transmitted flux with redshift around $`z2.2`$ can be described by the hierarchical clustering model on the physical scales from 2.5 h-1 Mpc to few tens h-1 kpc. But the non-linear features of clustering are different on different scale ranges. 1. On physical scales larger than $`1.3`$ h-1 Mpc, the field is almost Gaussian. 2. On scales 1.3 h-1 Mpc - $`0.3`$ h-1 Mpc, the field is consistent with the correlation hierarchy with a constant value for the coefficient $`Q_4`$. 3. On scales less than 300 h-1 kpc, the field is no longer Gaussian, but essentially intermittent. In this case, the field can still be fitted by the correlation hierarchy, but the coefficient, $`Q_4`$, should be scale-dependent. The above three points are strongly supported by the following result: the scale dependencies of $`Q_4`$ given by two statistically independent measures, i.e. $`Q_4^R`$ by the roughness and $`Q_4^C`$ by scale-scale correlation are the same in the entire scale range considered.

In the clustering of cosmic mass field, the mass perturbation on small scales evolved into the non-linear regime early, followed by the large scale perturbations. Therefore, the above-mentioned result implies that the non-linear evolution of the cosmic mass field underwent the following stages: Gaussian – hierarchical clustering with constant $`Q`$ – intermittent or hierarchical clustering with scale-dependent $`Q`$.

The local power spectrum can detect the scale range of the non-linear evolution as well as the intermittent behavior of the cosmic mass field. It is, hence, a potential discriminator amongst models of structure formation. An advantage of the intermittent discriminator is that the non-linear behavior of the cosmic mass field can be tested not only with high density objects, like the centers of massive halos, but also with low density objects, like QSO’s Ly$`\alpha `$ forests.

It is not difficult to generalize this analysis to $`Q_n`$ with $`n>4`$ if better data are available. Generally, the $`n`$th correlation hierarchy $`\xi _n=Q_n\xi _2^{n1}`$ can be tested by calculating the $`n`$th moment of the PDF of the WFCs.

We thank Dr. Wolung Lee for his support to this work. We also thank Dr. D. Tytler for kindly providing the data of the Keck spectrum HS1700+64. HZ acknowledges the support from Arizona State University through a Chair’s Summer Research Fellowship. PJ would like to thank Dr Jill Bechtold and Jennifer Scott for useful discussions. PJ would also like to thank Dr. Robert Maier for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Femtosecond to picosecond electron-energy relaxation and Fröhlich coupling in quantum dots

## I Introduction

The semiconductor quantum dots (QD) have attracted attention due to the earlier expectations  concerning their use in high efficiency semiconductor lasers. These expectations of the high efficiency were based mainly on the $`\delta `$function like electronic density of states of such zero-dimensional (0D) structures and on an expected narrow gain region. In later experiments the luminescence of these 0D structures was found to decrease with decreasing the lateral size of quantum dots . Besides attributing this luminescence decrease to technological difficulties in the process of realization of the lateral confinement for electrons and holes, a different explanation was suggested , ascribing the luminescence decrease to the so called ’phonon$``$bottleneck effect’ (see ref. ). The phonon-bottleneck hypothesis was supported by an earlier detailed analysis of the electron-phonon interaction in quantum dots based on Born approximation to electron-phonon scattering .

In experiments, the relaxation of electronic energy was often measured on the scale of picoseconds , being therefore fast enough to express doubts about the existence of the bottleneck effect. A significant dependence of the electronic relaxation rate on the quantum-dot size was not reported in papers  and the relaxation efficiency was reported to be rather independent of the relation between the electronic energy-level separations and the optical-phonon energy . Basing on the experimental observations, it has been pointed out that the relaxation process of electrons in quantum dots should be considered as a multiphonon process , and that the multiphonon transitions should be expected to be the main mechanism providing the electron-energy relaxation.

The quantum dot system appears to be relatively simple because the electronic structure of the bound states, unperturbed by the lattice motion, may consist of only several discrete energy levels. It is well known that the electron-phonon system of the quantum dot can be exactly diagonalized when the coupling of the electrons to the lattice vibrations is restricted to the transverse coupling (see below) terms only . Another simple and exactly soluble model, with no dissipation of the electronic energy, is the system with two electronic energy levels coupled to a single mode of the lattice vibrations , with the Hamiltonian formally equivalent to Jaynes Cummings model . A similar non-dissipating electron-phonon system was studied in a one-dimensional system . Although we are aware of several simplified systems in which the electronic subsystem does not relax the energy, it is not yet clear which of their properties can be generalized to a little more complicated realistic systems which we likely meet in the real quantum dots, namely in the systems, in which the carriers, confined in the dots, interact with a large number of the lattice vibrational modes, and in which the electron-phonon coupling is more general than that of the Jaynes Cummings model. Unless a further progress is made in the area of solving the electronic relaxation problem in the zero-dimensional structures by exact methods, the approximative theoretical approaches are in order.

The role of the multiphonon states in the formulation of the electron transport problem in quantum dots was emphasized in papers . The need for the self-consistent treatment of the effect of the ”collision broadening” of the electronic energies in quantum dots was emphasized in references . These two requirements were recently taken into account in the study of the electronic spectral density . Very sharp spectral density peaks were obtained. This sharpness was interpreted as an indicator of a very long electronic lifetime, without paying a sufficient attention to the lineshape of the spectral density features. In our previous paper  it was shown that the spectral density peaks may diverge to infinity as the inverse of the square root of the energy variable. Although such maxima in the electronic spectral density function are integrable, the relation of the ”width” of such spectral features to the electronic lifetime may not be as simple as it may be in the case of the Lorentzian peak shape. The relation of the electronic spectral densities to the rate of relaxation of the electronic energy, reported preliminarily in references , is treated in the present paper.

Besides the electron-LO-phonon coupling, other mechanisms were considered recently as possible candidates for the explanation of the experimental data on the fast electronic relaxation in quantum dots. So, the finite lifetime of the optical phonon was shown to provide an efficient mechanism of relaxing the severe restrictions imposed by the energy conservation in the Born approximation upon the electron-LO-phonon scattering . Also, the ultrafast electron energy relaxation in quantum dots has been recently suggested to be explained by the interaction of the carriers with the defect states in the quantum dot, taking into account the lattice relaxation mechanism .

It has been shown recently, that the electronic scattering in the low-dimensional structures should be treated with caution. Namely, the Born approximation to the electronic scattering, giving good results in the Monte Carlo semiclassical simulations of the electronic transport properties of the bulk semiconductor samples, appears sometimes to be rather insufficient in the quasi-two and quasi-one dimensional structures like quantum wells and quantum wires . These observations provide additional arguments in favor of going beyond the Born approximation in the electron-phonon scattering in quantum dots. Understanding the failure of the Born approximation as an implication of the multiple reflections of the charge carrier from the boundaries of the low-dimensional structure, it can be expected that such dimensionality effects should be present in the zero-dimensional structures like quantum dots. In such a case, the multiple scattering of electrons should be taken into account and the multiphonon states of the electron-phonon system of the quantum dot should be of importance.

The purpose of this paper is to develop further the theory of the electronic relaxation in quantum dots, basing on the multiple phonon scattering of the electrons, considering the interaction of the quantum dot electrons with the longitudinal optical phonons of the bulk matrix sample into which the quantum dot is built, and to present the numerical results of the electronic relaxation rate in dependence on the separation of the electronic energies and on the temperature of the lattice.

## II The model and Hamiltonian

Generally, there may be several electrons and several holes in a quantum dot structure. Assuming the charge neutrality of the system one can speak then about single-exciton, bi-exciton, etc., states, which are strongly influenced by the carrier-carrier coupling, expected to be significant in quantum dots . The inclusion of the carrier-carrier coupling may complicate the analysis of the carrier relaxation in quantum dots, although it may be rather significant from the point of view of a quantitative comparison with experimental data. It is the purpose of this paper to concentrate the attention on the electron-phonon mechanism of the carrier relaxation. Therefore, the simplest model system is chosen to be considered, namely that consisting of a single electron in the quantum dot, while the presence of holes in the valence-band states is completely ignored. The authors believe that the basic features of the fast relaxation mechanism of the excited carriers in quantum dots, based on the electron-LO-phonon Fröhlich interaction, are contained already in this relatively simple single-electron model. The inclusion of the carrier-carrier correlation is therefore left to a future work.

In order to simplify the numerical part of the work, the quantum well is assumed to be of cubic shape, with infinitly high electronic potential energy outside the well. The penetration of the electronic stationary wave functions into the potential barriers is therefore neglected. Confining the electronic motion to the lowest lying electronic states is believed to minimize the effect of this infinitly-deep quantum-well approximation. The Schrödinger equation with the electronic effective mass inside the well gives a set of solutions. From these electronic states we consider only two states in the present model: the ground state $`\psi _0`$, with the energy $`E_0`$, which will be put equal zero here, and one excited state $`\psi _1`$ belonging to the triply degenerate first excited energy $`E_1`$. This set of two nondegenerate electronic unperturbed eigenstates provides a minimum basis set for considering the electron-energy relaxation due to electronic transitions between two electronic states coupled via the electron-phonon interaction. The complete electron-phonon Hamiltonian $`H`$ then reads

$$H=H_0+H_1,$$
(1)
where

$$H_0=\underset{n=0}{\overset{1}{}}E_nc_n^+c_n+\underset{𝐪}{}E_{LO}b_𝐪^+b_𝐪,$$
(2)
and $`H_1`$ is Fröhlich coupling

$$H_1=\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{1}{}}\underset{𝐪}{}A_q\mathrm{\Phi }(n,m,𝐪)(b_𝐪b_𝐪^+)c_n^+c_m$$
(3)
of the electron to the system of the dispersionless optical phonons of the whole bulk of the sample with volume $`V`$, inside of which the quantum dot is built. In the latter equation $`q=𝐪`$, $`A_q=(ie/q)[E_{LO}(\kappa _{\mathrm{}}^1\kappa _0^1)]^{1/2}(2\epsilon _0V)^{1/2}`$, where $`\kappa _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\kappa _0`$ are high-frequency and static dielectric constants, $`\epsilon _0`$ is permittivity of free space, $`e>0`$ is electronic charge. The operator $`b_𝐪`$ annihilates the LO phonon with wavevector $`𝐪`$, while $`c_n`$ annihilates electron in state $`\psi _n`$. The electron-phonon coupling depends on the quantum dot size via the form-factor

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(n,m,𝐪)=d^3𝐫\psi _n^{}(𝐫)e^{i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}}\psi _m(𝐫),$$
(4)
where the integration spreads over the quantum dot volume. It has been demonstrated earlier that in the case of calculating integral quantities like the electronic relaxation rate, it is rather plausible to neglect the impact, which the interfaces in a quasi-two dimensional heterostructure of GaAs-AlxGa1-xAs-type might have on the calculated results . It is assumed that the quantum dot structure is based on the GaAs-AlxGa1-xAs-type heterostructure and that the lattice dynamics of this structure can be approximated well enough by that of the bulk GaAs. In other cases, like in CdTe quantum dots dispersed in poly(vinyl butyral)(PVB) , the influence of the interface modes of the optical lattice vibrations may deserve a more detailed attention .

Let us remark, that the operator $`H_1`$ of the electron-phonon coupling contains two kinds of terms. The terms with $`n=m`$ express such an interaction of the electron in the state $`n`$, in which the electron emits or absorbs a phonon, but the state of the electron remains unchanged. These term are called transverse interaction terms. The longitudinal interaction terms, with $`nm`$, are those which lead to a change of the electronic state upon absorbing or emitting a phonon . When the longitudinal terms are omitted, then the remaining Hamiltonian can be diagonalized exactly . Although the longitudinal terms may appear to be the only important ones for the electronic scattering process of the electronic transfer from the excited state to the lower energy state, with emitting or absorbing simultaneously the phonon, both the longitudinal and the transverse terms will be taken into account in this work. The interaction operator $`H_1`$ considered in this work does not have the form of the Jaynes Cummings operator and the electronic system is coupled to a large number of the phonon modes, so that approximative theoretical methods will be used in the following analysis.

## III Relaxation rate

In photoluminescence experiments an electron may be excited by a light pulse from the valence-band states into the conduction band states and can be finally prepared in an electronic excited state in the quantum dot. In the case of a time-resolved detection of the luminescence, corresponding to the process of annihilation of the electron with a hole in the valence-band states, with the simultaneous emission of a light photon, the rise time of the luminescence can be determined experimentally . The value of the rise time is limited from below by the time which is needed for the transport process in which the electron is transferred from the excited state to the electronic ground state in the dot, from which the electron recombines with a hole in the valence band states. In terms of the present simple model of the quantum dot one may say, that in this way the time-derivative $`dN_1/dt`$ of the population $`N_1=<c_1^+c_1>`$ of the electronic state $`\psi _1`$ can be related to the experimental data.

In the present work, the latter transfer mechanism of the electron, between the electronic excited and the ground state, is supposed to be the process of the scattering of the electron on the system of the optical phonons. In the model of the quantum dot, considered here, it is assumed that at time $`t=0`$ the system is prepared in the state with the single electron occupying the excited state only, while the phonon subsystem is found at equilibrium with temperature $`T_L`$.

The process of the electronic relaxation can be theoretically formulated within the theory of the nonequilibrium statistical operator . The rapidity of the relaxation of the electronic energy can be expressed with the help of the time derivative of the population, $`d<c_1^+c_1>/dt`$, of the electronic excited state $`(n=1)`$. In the nonequilibrium statistical operator theory, assuming not too short time scale, the state of the system is assumed to be described by a set of quantities $`<P_k>`$, with the corresponding set $`\{P_1,P_2,\mathrm{},P_k,\mathrm{}\}`$ of operators, suitable for the description of the system. The averaging in $`<P_k>`$ is performed with the nonequilibrium statistical operator. In the case presently considered the electronic subsystem will be characterized by the mean values $`N_1=<c_1^+c_1>`$ and $`N_0=<c_0^+c_0>`$ giving the average population of the electronic excited state and the ground state, respectively. The state of the phonon system, assumed to be permanently at the thermodynamic equilibrium, will be characterized by the mean value $`<b_𝐪^+b_𝐪>`$ given by the Bose-Einstein distribution function at the lattice temperature $`T_L`$, independent of time. Confining our choice of $`\{P_m\}`$ to $`<c_1^+c_1>`$, $`<c_0^+c_0>`$ and $`<b_𝐪^+b_𝐪>`$, the kinetic period of the evolution of the nonequilibrium system under study is presumed.

The well-known expansion of the nonequilibrium statistical operator in powers of the interaction leads to the well-known expansion of the ”collision integral” in the generalized kinetic equation giving the time evolution of the mean value $`<P_k>`$. The lowest-order (in $`H_1`$) terms of the collision term of this equation then read :

$$\frac{<P_k>}{t}=S_k^{(0)}+S_k^{(1)}+S_k^{(2)}+\mathrm{},$$
(5)
where

$$S_k^{(0)}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}<[P_k,H_0]>_q^t$$
(6)
and

$$S_k^{(1)}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}<[P_k,H_1]>_q^t.$$
(7)
The term $`S_k^{(2)}`$, which is at least of the second order in $`H_1`$, contains generally a factor expressing the memory properties of the system . In the markovian approximation , considered here, it simplifies to the following expression:

$$S_k^{{}_{}{}^{}(2)}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑t_1e^{\epsilon t_1}<[H_1(t_1),[H_1,P_k]]>_q^t.$$
(8)
The averaging $`<\mathrm{}>_q^t=Tr(\mathrm{}\rho _q(t))`$ is performed with the so-called quasi-equilibrium statistical operator $`\rho _q`$ defined as

$$\rho _q(t)=Q_q^1\mathrm{exp}\{\underset{k}{}F_k(t)P_k\},$$
(9)
$$Q_q=Tr\mathrm{exp}\{\underset{k}{}F_k(t)P_k\},$$
(10)
in which the quantities $`F_k(t)`$, playing the role of the intensive quantites describing the system at equilibrium (e. g. temperature), are determined from the conditions

$$<P_k>_q^t=<P_k>.$$
(11)
Consistently with our choice of the operator set $`\{P_1,P_2,\mathrm{},P_k,\mathrm{}\}`$, the term $`S_k^{(0)}`$ is zero. The coupling of the electronic subsystem to the laser light, which is not considered here, may lead to the appearence of the interband electronic polarization, which would be then a manifestation of the coherence between the electronic and light systems . Similarly, the field of the LO phonons can be coherently coupled to the system of excitations of the electronic subsystem. These effects could be obtained already from the term $`S_k^{(1)}`$. The right-hand side of eq. (7) gives then the average value of the product of two electronic and one phonon operators. Consistently with our choice of the operator set $`\{P_k\}`$ the term $`S_k^{(1)}`$ will be ignorred. Extending however the operator set in a suitable way, the Rabi oscillations, studied recently by Inoshita et al. , could be considered simultaneously with the term $`S_k^{(2)}`$. The coherent coupling between the electrons and the LO phonons may play a role especially in the range of short time after the light pulse. This effect will not be considered in this work. The lowest-order part of the time derivative of $`<P_k>`$ is then given by the formula (8).

In the formula (8), giving the lowest-order markovian contribution to the relaxation rate $`<P_k>/t`$, the operator $`H_1(t_1)`$ is the interaction operator $`H_1`$ expressed in the Heisenberg representation. When approximating this Heisenberg representation by the interaction representation, the formula (8) leads directly to the well-known Born approximation to the collision integral. On the other hand, the Heisenberg representation of the interaction operator $`H_1`$ in (8) makes it possible to sum partially the terms contributing to $`S_k^{(2)}`$ up to infinite orders in $`H_1`$ .

The emphasis will be put now on the obtaining the kinetic equation for the time evolution of the population $`<c_1^+c_1>`$ of the upper electronic state. At first, the commutator $`[H_1,c_1^+c_1]`$ is calculated. As a result, several terms are obtained, each being a product of two electronic and one phonon operators. The average in the formula (8) then reads:

$`<[H_1(t_1),[H_1,c_1^+c_1]]>_q^t={\displaystyle \underset{r,s,n,𝐪,𝐩}{}}A_qA_p\mathrm{\Phi }(r,s,𝐩)`$ (12)
$`\times `$ $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }(n,1,𝐪)<[(b_𝐩(t_1)b_𝐩^+(t_1))c_r^+(t_1)c_s(t_1),(b_𝐪b_𝐪^+)c_n^+c_1]>_q^t`$ (13)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1,n,𝐪)<[(b_𝐩(t_1)b_𝐩^+(t_1))c_r^+(t_1)c_s(t_1),(b_𝐪b_𝐪^+)c_1^+c_n]>_q^t\}.`$ (14)
Writing down the commutators in the latter equation explicitly according to the definition, the average quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=<[H_1(t_1),[H_1,c_1^+c_1]]>_q^t`$ appears to consist of a number of terms. Each of these terms is an average of the product of six particle operators, three of them being in the Heisenberg representation. An example of these terms contributing to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is:

$$\underset{r,s,n,𝐩,𝐪}{}A_pA_q\mathrm{\Phi }(r,s,𝐩)\mathrm{\Phi }(1,n,𝐪)<b_𝐩^+(t_1)c_r^+(t_1)c_s(t_1)b_𝐪c_1^+c_n>_q^t.$$
(15)
The average value in the latter formula, and in the other terms contributing to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, will be decoupled according to the following scheme:

$$<b_𝐩^+(t_1)b_𝐪c_r^+(t_1)c_s(t_1)c_1^+c_m>_q^t<b_𝐩^+(t_1)b_𝐪>_q^t<c_r^+(t_1)c_m>_q^t<c_s(t_1)c_1^+>_q^t,$$
(16)
in which only the particle operators belonging to different interaction operators are paired. All the anomalous averages of the type like $`<b_𝐩^+(t_1)b_𝐪^+>`$ and $`<c_r^+(t_1)c_m^+>`$ are considered to be zero. The latter kind of the decoupling of the averages of the operator products in the relaxation rate formula was studied earlier in connection with the electron energy collision broadening and the electronic relaxation  in bulk samples. It was shown, that the above type of the decoupling leads to the relaxation rate formula with plausible thermodynamical properties. Although this decoupling scheme appears to work well in the bulk structures, it is not obvious whether it is suitable enough in the presently considered two-level zero-dimensional system. This decoupling is only an approximation to the full correlation function (13). The question of the validity of this decoupling will not be studied in this work.

In the above obtained single-particle correlation functions, like $`<c_s(t_1)c_1^+>_q^t`$, the diagonal approximation

$$<c_s(t_1)c_r^+>_q^t<c_s(t_1)c_r^+>_q^t\delta _{s,r}$$
(17)
is assumed to hold. This assumption means that the quantum number $`n`$, indexing the unperturbed electronic states $`\psi _n`$, remains a good quantum number and that the effects of the quantum coherence, included eventually in terms like $`<c_1(t_1)c_0^+>_q^t`$, do not change considerably, in materials with a rather weak electron-phonon coupling like GaAs, the resulting picture provided by the diagonal approximation. The way of decoupling the average $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is consistent with the above-made assumption about the choice of the operators $`P_k`$ describing the system under study. Nevertheless, the possible influence of the nondiagonal terms like $`<c_1(t_1)c_0^+>_q^t`$ remains to be verified in a future work.

The phonon correlation functions will be taken into consideration in the diagonal approximation too. This approximation would not be appropriate when considering the hot phonon effect with the LO phonons produced in the area of the quantum dot. The hot-phonon effect will be neglected here. Assuming that the phonon one-particle correlation functions like $`<b_𝐪^+b_𝐪(t_1)>`$ are invariant under the operation of $`𝐪𝐪`$, we get:

$`<[H_1(t_1),[H_1,c_1^+c_1]]>_q^t`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`2Re{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}A_q^2\mathrm{\Phi }(1,0,𝐪)^2\{(<b_𝐪(t_1)b_𝐪^+>_q^t+<b_𝐪^+(t_1)b_𝐪>_q^t)`$ (20)
$`\times (<c_1^+(t_1)c_1>_q^t<c_0(t_1)c_0^+>_q^t<c_1(t_1)c_1^+>_q^t<c_0^+(t_1)c_0>_q^t)\},`$
where $`Re`$ denotes the real part of a complex number. The knowledge of the time $`t_1`$-dependence of the single-particle correlation function in the latter equation would make it possible to perform the integration over $`t_1`$ in (8) and to get in this way the rate of change of the population $`<c_1^+c_1>_q^t`$ as a function of the time $`t`$.

In calculating the single-particle correlation function we shall proceed in the following way: The single-particle correlation function will be determined formally for the system with the Hamiltonian (1), in the case of the thermodynamic equilibrium at a temperature $`T`$ and the obtained functional dependence of the electronic and phonon quantities on the temperature will be formally transferred to the case of electrons and phonons having different respective temperatures $`T_e`$ and $`T_L`$.

In the following the electronic correlation functions will be expressed in terms of spectral densities (see eqs. (A12), (A13) and (A14) in Appendix A). The electrons and phonons will be assumed to have different temperatures. Namely, at time $`t=0`$ with $`N_1=1`$, the phonon distribution function $`\nu _{LO}=<b_𝐪^+b_𝐪>`$ will be given by the Bose-Einstein distribution function taken at a temperature $`T_L`$. In the two-level electronic system, unperturbed by the electron-phonon interaction, with the energy levels $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$, the chemical potential is $`\mu =(E_0+E_1)/2`$. The population $`N_1`$ of the excited electronic state at a temperature $`T_e`$ is

$$N_1=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(\frac{E_1E_0}{2k_BT_e})},$$
(21)
($`k_B`$ is Boltzmann constant). For example, the state of the electronic subsystem with one electron in the excited state and with the empty ground state then corresponds to the limit of $`T_e0_{}`$. In this way the population of this two-level system can be formally expressed with the help of the electronic temperature $`T_e`$. For the purpose of the present calculation it is suitable to describe the state of the two-level electronic system in terms of the population of the electronic state rather than in terms of an electronic temperature.

Considering the process of the electron-energy relaxation as a markovian process and taking into account the decoupling (16), the theory of the nonequilibrium statistical operator leads finally to the following formula for the rate of change $`dN_1/dt`$ of the population of the electronic state with $`n=1`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_1}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}\alpha _{01}[N_1(1N_0)((1+\nu _{LO}){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dE\sigma _1(E)\sigma _0(EE_{LO})`$ (22)
$`+\nu _{LO}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dE\sigma _1(E)\sigma _0(E+E_{LO}))`$ (23)
$`N_0(1N_1)((1+\nu _{LO}){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dE\sigma _0(E)\sigma _1(EE_{LO})`$ (24)
$`+\nu _{LO}){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dE\sigma _0(E)\sigma _1(E+E_{LO}))].`$ (25)
where $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma _1`$ are electronic spectral densities (see eq. (A14)), $`\nu _{LO}`$ is Bose-Einstein distribution of LO-phonons at temperature $`T_L`$ of the lattice. The constant $`\alpha _{mn}`$ is defined as

$$\alpha _{mn}=\underset{𝐪}{}A_q^2\mathrm{\Phi }(n,m,𝐪)^2,\alpha _{mn}=\alpha _{nm}.$$
(26)
The first two terms in the square brackets in eq. (22) are the only terms contributing at the the initial moment of time ($`t=0`$), at which $`N_0=0`$. The first term provides the production of phonons, while the second term has the meaning of decreasing the electronic population $`N_1`$ while absorbing an LO phonon. This second term, with the absorption of a phonon, appears in the formula from two reasons: First, the relaxation rate formula (18) does not contain the energy conservation $`\delta `$-function as it would appear in the first order of the time dependent perturbation calculation formula. Second, the term with the absorption of a phonon depends on the overlap of the two spectral densities, $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _0`$. This overlap of $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _0`$ is determined by the properties of the interacting electron-phonon system, namely, by the multiple-phonon nature of the eigenstates of this system, which may allow for the non-zero contribution of this phonon-absorption term to the relaxation rate at $`t=0`$. In fact, the presently used approximation to the electronic self-energy (see below) assumes the multiple-phonon property of the eigenstates of the system. The numerical values of the contribution of the phonon-absorption term comes out nevertheless rather small in GaAs (see below). This is in agreement with the fact, that the electron-LO-phonon coupling in the bulk GaAs is not strong. The last two terms in the square brackets have the meaning of a transfer of the electron from the state $`n=0`$ to the excited state $`n=1`$. These terms would play a role at the later stages of the relaxation, namely at $`t>0`$, which is however not treated here.

The electronic self-energy is determined in the self-consistent Tamm-Dancoff (or the self-consistent Born) approximation . The use of the self-consistent Tamm-Dancoff approximation makes it possible to include the states in which the electron is coupled various numbers of phonons and to go beyond the Born approximation when determining the self-energy of this highly singular system with $`\delta `$function type unperturbed electronic density of states. It is shown in the Appendix B that after a simplification, concerning the electronic distribution function $`N_m`$, the Dyson equation of the (retarded) electronic self-energy for the electron in the state $`n`$ can be brought to the following form :

$`M_n(E)={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{1}{}}}\alpha _{nm}`$ (27)
$`\times `$ $`\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1N_m+\nu _{LO}}{EE_mE_{LO}M_m(EE_{LO})+i0_+}}`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_m+\nu _{LO}}{EE_m+E_{LO}M_m(E+E_{LO})+i0_+}}\},`$ (29)
where $`N_m`$ is the electronic population of the $`m`$-th state. In the numerical evaluations below it is assumed that the system is at the initial state with $`N_1=1`$ and $`N_0=0`$. The above Dyson equation for $`M_n(E)`$ assumes that the electronic Green’s function, being generally a matrix in the index $`n`$ in the representation of the states $`\psi _n`$, can be approximated upon taking the nondiagonal terms as zero. This assumption means that we regard the index $`n`$ to be a ”good quantum number”. Also this means, that we assume that the mixing of the electronic states $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _0`$ via the operator $`H_1`$ does not contribute seriously to the leading terms of the resulting relaxation rate. This approximation to the electronic Green’s functions is in agreement with what was assumed above concerning the correlation functions. The extent of the validity of such approximations in a quantum dot structure can be decided by a more detailed study.

The spectral densities $`\sigma _n(E)`$ can be obtained (see eq. (A14)) from the real and imaginary part of the retarded self-energy $`M_n(E)`$, $`M_n(E)=R_n(E)iY_n(E)`$, $`Y_n0`$, which is determined by the equation eq. (27). The derivation of this equation, together with the approximations applied, is presented in Appendix B. The solution of equation (27) can be performed in two ways: (i) after some simplification this equation allows for an analytical solution, (ii) the full numerical solution of eq. (27) can be performed in the present model.

## IV An analytical solution

An approximation can be made, under which the Dyson equation (27) can be solved analytically. This approximation consists of several simplifications, as follows:

The first approximation step is the neglection of the real part of the self energy. The relaxation rate (22) is proportional to the product of the spectral densities, which depend significantly on the imaginary part of the self-energy. It will be seen later, that the direct comparison with the result of the numerical solution of the full equation (27) shows, that neglecting the real part of self-energy does conserve important properties of (27).

On the basis of a simple Born approximation approach, it may be expected that for the relaxation process it holds approximately that an electron with energy $`E_1`$ will make a transition to the state with the energy $`E_0`$ and emits an optical phonon with the energy $`E_{LO}`$ and that the transverse part of the electron-LO-phonon coupling can therefore be neglected. In fact, the constants $`\alpha _{00}`$ and $`\alpha _{11}`$ characterizing the transverse coupling are larger than $`\alpha _{01}`$ characterizing the longitudinal interaction. The dependencies of $`\alpha _{mn}`$ on the detuning between the electronic excitation energy $`E_1`$ and the optical phonon energy $`E_{LO}`$ are shown in Fig. 1 for GaAs. It may also be expected that the imaginary part of the self-energy, $`Y_n(E)`$, is significantly nonzero near the energy of $`E=E_n`$. Therefore, one of the terms on the rhs of equation (27) gives the leading contribution, while the other term can be neglected. Under these approximations the Dyson equation (27) can be written in the form of the following set of equations for $`Y_n(E)`$ (reminding that $`M_n(E)=R_n(E)iY_n(E)`$):

$$Y_1(E)=\alpha _{01}Im\left\{\frac{1N_0+\nu _{LO}}{EE_0E_{LO}+iY_0(EE_{LO})+0_+}\right\},$$
(30)
$$Y_0(E)=\alpha _{01}Im\left\{\frac{N_1+\nu _{LO}}{EE_1+E_{LO}+iY_1(E+E_{LO})+0_+}\right\}.$$
(31)
The real part of the self-energy was neglected in this equation. The non-negative solutions of this equation set are:

$$Y_0(E)=\frac{\sqrt{E}}{\sqrt{EE_1+E_{LO}}}\sqrt{\xi EEE_1+E_{LO}},$$
(32)
$$Y_1(E)=\frac{\sqrt{EE_1}}{\sqrt{EE_{LO}}}\sqrt{\xi EE_1EE_{LO}},$$
(33)
where $`\xi =\alpha _{01}(1+\nu _{LO})`$ and we have put $`E_0`$ equal to zero. It is seen, that the imaginary part of the self-energy $`Y_n`$ goes to zero as $`\sqrt{E}`$ at the energy $`E=E_n`$. Also, $`Y_1`$ diverges at $`E=E_{LO}`$ and $`Y_0`$ diverges at $`E=E_1E_{LO}`$, both like $`1/\sqrt{E}`$. The corresponding spectral densities (see (A14)) then diverge at these points on the energy axis like $`\sqrt{E}`$.

The plot of $`Y_0(E)`$ and $`Y_1(E)`$ was presented in the Rapid Communication  and will not be repeated here. It is demonstrated there, that some peaks in $`\sigma _n(E)`$ of a state with a given $`n`$ can be understood as being phonon satellites of the electronic state with $`mn`$. This property of the self-energy and of the spectral density guarranties, that the two spectral densities, as they occur in the formula (22) for the relaxation rate, have always a nonzero overlap, no matter how large the quantum dot is, or, in other words, how large the detuning between $`E_1E_0`$ and $`E_{LO}`$ is. This property of the self-energy can be seen as a formal expression of the idea of the absence of the phonon bottleneck, even in the present case of electrons interacting with dispersionless phonons.

The relaxation rate $`dN_1/dt`$ (at $`t>0`$) computed in the approximation of the equations (22) and (23) to the electronic self-energy, is shown in Fig. 2. In this Figure the relaxation rate reaches the order of $`1/ps`$ in a range of the dot size, in which $`E_{LO}E_1`$ varies in the range of about 30 meV. The relaxation rate in Fig. 2 demonstrates, that the present mechanism of the electronic energy relaxation, with the transverse electron-LO-phonon interaction neglected, can give the relaxation times in the range of picoseconds or hundreds of femtoseconds in a rather broad range of the detuning. The double-maximum shape of the relaxation rate in Fig. 2 is probably due to the approximations introduced in the analytical solution and due to the satellite structure of the electronic spectral densities obtained in this approximation to the self-energy .

## V Numerical solution

In this section the numerical solution of the full equation (27) is presented. That part of the electron-phonon coupling, which is proportional to the constant $`\alpha _{01}`$, was shown in the previous section to give the effect of the absence of the phonon bottleneck and the relaxation times in the range of picoseconds. In the present section the coupling constants $`\alpha _{00}`$ and $`\alpha _{11}`$, characterizing the transverse coupling of electrons to the phonons, are taken into account and both the real and imaginary parts of the self-energy are included into the computation.

The numerical calculations are performed for GaAs, InAs and InP . The Dyson equation (27) for the retarded self-energy is solved by iterations. In contrast to the previous section, the Eqs. (27) are solved numerically, substituting a positive finite number $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ instead of $`0_+`$ in (27). We used $`\mathrm{\Delta }=10^3`$ meV. The real and imaginary parts of the self-energy are presented in Fig. 3 for GaAs for the detuning chosen to be $`E_{LO}E_{LO}=8`$ meV at $`T_L=77`$ K. This Figure shows the rather complicated satellite structure of the electron self-energy obtained in the Tamm-Dancoff approximation. In the curves, displayed in the Figure, the phonon satellites of both the electronic ground and excited states are observed.

The spectral density of the electron in the excited state would be $`\delta (EE_1)`$ in the noninteracting case ($`H_1=0`$). In the interacting electron-phonon system the spectral densities $`\sigma _0(E)`$ and $`\sigma _1(E)`$ have a rather complex structure displayed in Fig. 4. In this Figure the numerical data are computed for the parameters of GaAs at the detuning $`E_{LO}E_1=8`$ meV at $`T_L=77`$ K. Namely, the optical-phonon energy $`E_{LO}=36.2`$ meV and the value of the energy of the excited unperturbed electronic state is chosen to be 44.2 meV. Both Figs. 4a and 4b show multiple peaks. It is seen that one of the characteristic energy separations among the individual graphs is 36.2 meV. This can be interpreted as follows: an electronic state in the quantum dot with the electron-phonon interaction appears to consist of such components, which correspond to the two unperturbed electronic states coupled to various numbers of LO-phonons. For example, the peak near $`E=0`$ in Fig. 4a corresponds to the phonon-less $`n=0`$ line, while the peak near 36 meV corresponds to a one-phonon satellite of the electronic ground state feature ($`n=0`$). In the same Fig. 4a the feature near 8 meV can be seen as a one-phonon satellite of the excited state ($`n=1`$), having the energy decreased from $`E_1`$ by $`E_{LO}`$. Similar energy relations are observed in the Fig. 4b. The main peaks in Fig. 4 appear to be spread over an interval of several meV. The shape of the peaks was characterized in the previous paper , where it was shown, that the shape of the individual maxima in the pattern of the spectral density on the quantum dot described by the present model, do not have the form of a Lorentzian. Although the present results do not allow to compare with the known experimental data on luminescence, it may be said that the occurence of the phonon satellites in the spectral densities is in a qualitative agreement with the experimental data on luminescence, in which luminescence maxima separated by one optical-phonon energy use to be observed (see e. g. ).

A considerable attention has been recently paid in experiment to the width of the luminescence lines  in connection with the coherent phonons in the nanocrystals and semiconductor quantum dots. The issue of the variation of the ”width” of a spectral line, whether it decreases or increases, with changing such parameters like the quantum dot size or the detuning, might help to judge the relevance of a particular theoretical model of the quantum dot or a nanocrystal. As it is seen in Fig. 4, and as it was discussed using analytical arguments in the reference , the shape of a feature in the spectral density differs from a Lorentzian, so that it not straightforward to speak about the linewidth, at least in the case of the present model based on the LO phonons. An attention should be given to generalizing the present model in order to include the acoustic phonons and the electron-hole interaction. This question will not be further analyzed in this work.

A significant property of the spectral densities $`\sigma _0(E)`$ and $`\sigma _1(E)`$ is their mutual overlap. Namely, from Fig. 4 it is observed that despite of the ’nearly discrete’ structure of these spectral densities, the function $`\sigma _0(E\pm E_{LO})`$ has a nonzero overlap with $`\sigma _1(E)`$, in a rather broad and continuous range of the detuning $`E_{LO}E_1`$. This property of the spectral densities guarranties a nonzero electronic relaxation rate in the broad range of the detuning $`E_{LO}E_1`$.

The numerical results giving the rate of the excited state depopulation, $`dN_1/dt`$, as a function of the detuning $`E_{LO}E_1`$, are displayed in Fig. 5 for GaAs. The relaxation rate is computed for the initial state with $`N_1=1`$ and $`N_0=0`$ and with two chosen temperatures of the lattice. The most intensive relaxation occurs, when the optical-phonon energy is at resonance with the excited-state energy $`E_1`$. In the region of small dots ($`E_{LO}E_1<0`$) the rate displays an overall decrease with decreasing the dot size, at both temperatures. At such a detuning, which corresponds to $`E_1`$ equal to $`2E_{LO}`$, $`3E_{LO}`$ and $`4E_{LO}`$ ($`E_{LO}E_1`$ equal to about $``$36 meV, $``$72 meV and $``$108 meV, respectively) further resonance maxima appear. Although the sharp peaks of the spectral densities, as they are displayed in Fig. 4, broaden when the lattice temperature is increased, the overall values of the relaxation rate decrease with increasing temperature. This decrease of the electronic relaxation rate with increasing the temperature of the lattice can be explained taking into account the nature of the electronic states determined in the self-consistent Tamm-Dancoff approximation to the electronic self-energy. The electron is coherently coupled to a number of the LO-phonons. This property of this electron-phonon system is responsible for the effect of a non-zero relaxation even at the condition of nonzero detuning $`E_{LO}E_1`$. As the temperature of the lattice increases, this coherence weakens, which leads to a decrease of the relaxation rate.

It may be interesting to see, how much the process accompanied by the absorption of the LO-phonon (the term proportional to $`N_1(1N_0)\nu _{LO}`$ in eq. (18)) contributes to the total relaxation rate at $`t=0`$. The contribution of the latter term is given by the dashed line in Fig. 6, while the contribution of the main term, the one proportional to $`N_1(1N_0)(1+\nu _{LO})`$, is given by the full line. We see, that in accord with the fact that the electron-LO-phonon coupling in GaAs is rather weak, the phonon-absorption term gives only a rather small contribution to the total rate $`dN_1/dt`$.

The relaxation rate reaches the maximum of the order of about 1 electron per 100 femtoseconds. This value has the order of magnitude of the experimental observations in some studied samples , in which the electronic relaxation rate was characterized by the relaxation time of several hundreds of fs. The relaxation rate computed at the room temperature of the lattice, at which the relaxation rate is decreased with respect to the low temperature case, is still at the scale of tens of picoseconds. These theoretical results, obtained within the present simple model of the quantum dot, therefore contradict the assumption of an existence of the phonon bottleneck in the electron-energy relaxation in quantum dots in polar semiconductors, at least in the case of small dots, such, in which the detuning is near to zero or negative. Let us remind, that the present theory is formulated for small dots (negative detuning). For large dots ($`E_{LO}E_1>0`$) the present model has to be extended to include the effect of more unperturbed electron energy levels. This generalization of the model of the quantum dot is not done in this work.

The overall efficiency of the presently considered mechanism of the electron energy relaxation depends on the strength of the Fröhlich coupling. This dependence is presented in Fig. 7, in which the relaxation rate is displayed for InAs, GaAs and InP at 77 K of the lattice temperature.

Summing up, using a single-electron model of quantum dot with two electron energy levels and with the electron coupled to dispersionless bulk optical phonons, this work presents the calculation of the electron-energy relaxation in quantum dots in polar semiconductors. The relaxation time is found to be in the interval from hundreds of femtoseconds to tens of picoseconds in such quantum dots, in a broad range of the detuning, in which the energy of the electronic excited state is equals from about one LO-phonon energy to about three or four times the energy of the LO-phonon. This overall agreement of the present results with the theoretical data suggests, that the electron-LO-phonon interaction provides an effective multiphonon mechanism giving the femtosecond or picosecond electron-energy relaxation time in a rather broad range of the quantum dot size of small quantum dots. Such conclusions apply to the temperature range from low temperatures of the lattice to the room temperature.

## A Equilibrium correlation functions

In this Appendix several formulas are reminded, connecting the correlation functions with the spectral density and the self-energy in an equilibrium system at nonzero temperature. In particular, an approximate formula expressing the time dependent correlation functions in terms of the self-energy, suitable for a generalization to the case of a nonequilibrium system, is presented.

In the thermodynamic equilibrium at temperature $`T`$ the time-dependent single-particle correlation functions can be spectrally decomposed in the well-known way  according to the formulas:

$$=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}J_{BA}(\omega )e^{i\omega (t^{}t)}𝑑\omega $$
(A1)
and

$$=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}J_{BA}(\omega )e^{\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{k_BT}}e^{i\omega (t^{}t)}𝑑\omega ,$$
(A2)
where $`J_{BA}(\omega )`$ is spectral intensity of the correlation function $`<B(t^{})A(t)>`$. The spectral intensity can be obtained from the knowledge of the retarded thermodynamic Green’s function

$$A(t);B(t^{})_r=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}\theta (tt^{})<[A(t),B(t^{})]_\eta >,$$
(A3)
where the symbol $`<\mathrm{}>`$ denotes the averaging performed over the grand-canonical ensemble, $`A(t)`$$`=`$$`\mathrm{exp}(it/\mathrm{})A\mathrm{exp}(it/\mathrm{})`$, $`=H\mu N`$, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential and $`N`$ is operator of number of particles. Also, $`[A,B]_\eta =AB\eta BA`$, in which $`\eta =\pm 1`$ for Bose and Fermi particles, respectively. Defining the Fourier picture $`A;B\omega _r`$ as

$$A(t);B(t^{})_r=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\omega (tt^{})}d\omega A;B\omega _r$$
(A4)
and when the spectral intensity is real, then there is the relation between the Green’s function and the spectral intensity

$$ImA;B\omega _r=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}(e^{\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{k_BT}}\eta )J_{BA}(\omega ).$$
(A5)
Assuming in the present work that the influence of the electron-phonon interaction on the characteristics of the phonons is only minor, the phonon correlation functions will be determined in the zero-order approximation. Realizing that

$$b_𝐪;b_𝐪^+\omega _r=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}\omega E_{LO}+i0_+},$$
(A6)
one obtains

$$<b_𝐪(t_1)b_𝐪^+>+<b_𝐪^+(t_1)b_𝐪>=(\nu _{LO}+1)e^{i\omega _{LO}t_1}+\nu _{LO}e^{i\omega _{LO}t_1},$$
(A7)
with

$$\nu _{LO}=\frac{1}{e^{\frac{E_{LO}}{k_BT}}1}.$$
(A8)
The electronic time-dependent correlation functions will be calculated with nonzero electron-phonon coupling $`H_1`$. In this case the spectral intensity will be expressed in terms of the electronic self-energy. In the diagonal approximation neglecting the inter-level correlations due to the electron-phonon coupling, the retarded Green’s function of the $`n`$-th electronic state can be written as

$$c_n;c_n^+\omega _r=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}\omega E_n+\mu M_n^{(r)}(\mathrm{}\omega )+i0_+},$$
(A9)
where $`M_n^{(r)}(\mathrm{}\omega )`$ is the retarded self-energy of the $`n`$-th electronic state. Working with the retarded self-energy only we shall drop the index $`(r)`$ in the symbol $`M_n^{(r)}(\mathrm{}\omega )`$. Defining $`R_n(\mathrm{}\omega )=ReM_n(\mathrm{}\omega )`$ we shall write $`M_n(\mathrm{}\omega )=R_n(\mathrm{}\omega )iY_n(\mathrm{}\omega )`$. Such a decomposition of the self-energy into the real and imaginary parts allows one to work with the real and non-negative quantity $`Y_n(\mathrm{}\omega )`$ in what follows.

With (A2) the correlation function $`<c_n(t_1)c_n^+>`$ reads:

$$<c_n(t_1)c_n^+>=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(1\frac{1}{e^{\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{k_BT}}+1}\right)\frac{Y_n(\mathrm{}\omega )+0_+}{(\mathrm{}\omega E_n+\mu R_n(\mathrm{}\omega ))^2+(Y_n(\mathrm{}\omega )+0_+)^2}e^{i\omega t_1}𝑑\omega .$$
(A10)
Let us notice, that in the zero-order approximation, in which $`R_n`$ and $`Y_n`$ go to zero, the expression $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\omega /k_BT)`$ in the latter formula can be substituted by $`\mathrm{exp}((E_n+\mu )/k_BT)`$. In formula (A10) we shall approximately substitute the expression $`1/(\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\omega /k_BT)+1)`$ by the value of the Fermi-Dirac distribution function, giving the average number of electrons in the $`n`$-th electronic state. In this work therefore the electronic population will be approximated by

$$N_n=\frac{1}{e^{\frac{E_n\mu }{k_BT}}+1}.$$
(A11)
Two correlation functions then are:

$$<c_n(t_1)c_n^+>=\mathrm{}(1N_n)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\sigma _n(\omega )e^{i\omega t_1}𝑑\omega ,$$
(A12)
$$<c_n^+(t_1)c_n>=\mathrm{}N_n_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\sigma _n(\omega )e^{i\omega t_1}𝑑\omega ,$$
(A13)
where the spectral density $`\sigma _n(E)`$ is

$$\sigma _n(\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{Y_n(\mathrm{}\omega )+0_+}{(\mathrm{}\omega E_n+\mu R_n(\mathrm{}\omega ))^2+(Y_n(\mathrm{}\omega )+0_+)^2},$$
(A14)
going to the $`\delta `$-function in the limit of zero self-energy and fulfiling the rule

$$1=\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\sigma _n(\omega )𝑑\omega ,$$
(A15)
for $`n=0,1`$.

The formulas (A7), (A12) and (A13) provide the dependence of the spectral densities on the temperatures, or on the populations, of the electrons and phonons, within the theory of the real time thermodynamic Green’s functions. These functional dependences will be assumed to be valid for the correlation functions, which we meet in the formula (16) in the general case of nonequilibrium state of the system. In this way, the electronic relaxation rate (22) can be expressed in terms of the electronic spectral density and in terms of the electronic self-energy.

The above given method of obtaining the single-particle correlation functions in the nonequilibrium system under study is accompanied by an inaccuracy, which may depend on the strength of the electron-phonon coupling. The reason for this is obvious upon comparing the statistical operators, with the help of which the averaging is performed. In the case of the thermodynamical equilibrium the averaging is performed in the grandcannonical ensemble of the system with the electron-phonon interaction included, while in the averages like $`<c_i^+(t)c_j>_q`$, appearing in the formula (16), the quasi-equilibrium statistical operator does not depend on the electron-phonon interaction, at least in the approximation we assumed in this work. This question can be clarrified with the use of a more systematic approach to this nonequilibrium system.

## B Electronic self-energy

Using the language of the Feynman diagrams for the Matsubara Green’s functions , the self-consistent Tamm-Dancoff approximation (or the self-consistent Born approximation) to the electronic self-energy can be expressed as a diagram containing two bare interaction vertexes connected with two lines, one of them corresponds to the full electronic Green’s function $`G`$, while the other corresponds to the bare phonon Green’s function $`D^{(0)}`$. The equation for the self-energy of the electron in the $`n`$-th state, $`M_n(i\mathrm{}\omega _p)`$, defined on the set of imaginary frequencies $`\omega _p=(2n+1)\frac{\pi k_BT}{\mathrm{}}`$, $`n`$ is integer, is

$`M_n(i\mathrm{}\omega _p)=k_BT{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}A_q^2\mathrm{\Phi }(m,n,𝐪)^2{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}G_m(i\omega _pi\omega _r)D^{(0)}(i\omega _r).`$ (B1)
Using the Lehmann’s representation of the Green’s functions , the summation over the discrete imaginary frequencies $`\omega _r=2r(\pi k_BT/\mathrm{})`$, $`r`$ being an integer, can be performed. In this way the equation for the retarded electronic self-energy in the state $`m`$ of is obtained:

$`M_n(E)={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\alpha _{nm}[G_m^{ret}(EE_{LO})(1n_F(EE_{LO})+\nu _{LO})`$ (B2)
$`+G_m^{ret}(E+E_{LO})(n_F(E+E_{LO})+\nu _{LO})],`$ (B3)
where $`n_F(E)=1/(\mathrm{exp}(E/K_BT_e)+1)`$ and $`\nu _{LO}=1/(\mathrm{exp}(E_{LO}/k_BT_L)1)`$ Here $`G^{ret}`$ denotes the retarded electronic Green’s function. Note, that in the latter equation the electronic Fermi-Dirac distribution function $`n_F(E)`$ appears as a function of the energy variable $`E`$. Assuming the knowledge of the electronic temperature, this function would present no difficulty. However, in this work we approximate these electronic distributions by the Fermi-Dirac distribution function value $`N_m`$, which is the value of the Fermi-Dirac distribution function in the state with the unperturbed electronic energy $`E_m`$, at which the corresponding retarded Green’s function in the latter equation (B2) would have the pole in the case of no electron-phonon coupling. In this way the treatment of the electronic temperature can be avoided.

The equation for the retarded self-energy is ($`E_{LO}=\mathrm{}\omega _{LO}`$):

$`M_n(E)={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\alpha _{nm}[{\displaystyle \frac{1N_m+\nu _{LO}}{EE_mE_{LO}M_m(EE_{LO})+i0_+}}`$ (B4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_m+\nu _{LO}}{EE_m+E_{LO}M_m(E+E_{LO})+i0_+}}].`$ (B5)
The equation (B5) closely resembles the similar equation for the self-energy of Frenkel excitons studied earlier . In the reference  this equation is derived with help of the real-time thermodynamic Green’s functions.

In (B5) the chemical potential is not written. This form of the equation corresponds to the choice of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ in the equation of motion for the Green’s function, instead of the Hamiltonian $`=H\mu N`$, although the statistical averaging is still performed with the grand-canonical ensemble. Consistently with this choice of Hamiltonian, the chemical potential $`\mu `$ is dropped in eq. (A14).