text:
# Simple Optimal Wait-free Multireader Registers

## 1 Introduction

Interprocess communication in distributed systems happens by either message-passing or shared variables (also known as shared registers). Lamport  argues that every message-passing system must hide an underlying shared variable. This makes the latter an indispensable ingredient. The multireader wait-free shared variable is (even more so than the multiwriter construction) the building block of virtually all bounded wait-free shared-variable concurrent object constructions, for example, . Hence, understanding, simplicity, and optimality of bounded wait-free atomic multireader constructions is a basic concern. Our constructions are really simple and structured extensions of the basic unbounded timestamp algorithm in , based on a natural recycling scheme of obsolete timestamps.

Asynchronous communication: Consider a system of asynchronous processes that communicate among themselves by executing read and write operations on a set of shared variables only. The system has no global clock or other synchronization primitives. Every shared variable is associated with a process (called owner) which writes it and the other processes may read it. An execution of a write (read) operation on a shared variable will be referred to as a Write (Read) on that variable. A Write on a shared variable puts a value from a pre determined finite domain into the variable, and a Read reports a value from the domain. A process that writes (reads) a variable is called a writer (reader) of the variable.

Wait-free shared variable: We want to construct shared variables in which the following two properties hold. (1) Operation executions are not necessarily atomic, that is, they are not indivisible, and (2) every operation finishes its execution within a bounded number of its own steps, irrespective of the presence of other operation executions and their relative speeds. That is, operation executions are wait-free. These two properties give rise to a classification of shared variables: (i) A safe variable is one in which a Read not overlapping any Write returns the most recently written value. A Read that overlaps a Write may return any value from the domain of the variable; (ii) A regular variable is a safe variable in which a Read that overlaps one or more Writes returns either the value of the most recent Write preceding the Read or of one of the overlapping Writes; and (iii) An atomic variable is a regular variable in which the Reads and Writes behave as if they occur in some total order which is an extension of the precedence relation.

Multireader shared variable: A multireader shared variable is one that can be written by one process and read (concurrently) by many processes. Lamport  constructed an atomic wait-free shared variable that could be written by one process and read by one other process, but he did not consider constructions of wait-free shared variables with more than one writer or reader.

Previous Work: In 1987 there appeared at least five purported solutions for the wait-free implementation of 1-writer $`n`$-reader atomic shared variable from atomic 1-writer 1-reader shared variables:  and the conference version of , of which  was shown to be incorrect in  and only  appeared in journal version. The only other 1-writer $`n`$-reader atomic shared variable constructions appearing in journal version are  and the “projection” of the main construction in . A selection of related work is . A brief history of atomic wait-free shared variable constructions and timestamp systems is given in .

Israeli and Li  introduced and analyzed the notion of timestamp system as an abstraction of a higher typed communication medium than shared variables. (Other constructions are .) As an example of its application,  presented a non-optimal multireader construction, partially based on , using order $`n^3`$ control bits overall, and order $`n`$ control bits locally for each of $`O(n^2)`$ shared 1-reader 1-writer variables. Our constructions below are inspired by this timestamp method and exploit the limited nature of the multireader problem to obtain both simplification and optimality.

This work: We give a surprisingly simple and elegant wait-free construction of an atomic multireader shared variable from atomic 1-reader 1-writer shared variables. Other constructions (and our second construction) don’t use pure timestamps  but divide the timestamp information between the writer’s control bits and the reader’s control bits. Those algorithms have an asymmetric burden on the writer-owned subvariables. Our construction shows that using pure timestamps we can balance the size of the subvariables evenly among all owners, obtaining a symmetric construction. The intuition behind our approach is given in Section 2. Technically:

(i) Our construction is a bounded version of the unbounded construction in  restricted to the multireader case (but different from the “projection” of the bounded version in ), and its correctness proof follows simply and directly from the correctness of the unbounded version and a proof of proper recycling of obsolete timestamps.

(ii) The main version of our construction is the first construction that uses a sublinear number of control bits, $`O(\mathrm{log}n)`$, locally for everyone of the $`n^2`$ constituent 1-reader 1-writer subvariables. It is easy to see that this is optimal locally, leading to a slightly non-optimal global number of control bits of order $`n^2\mathrm{log}n`$. Implementations of wait-free shared variables assume atomic shared (control) subvariables. Technically it may be much simpler to manufacture in hardware—or implement in software—small $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{log}n)`$-bit atomic subvariables that are robust and reliable, than the exponentially larger $`\mathrm{\Theta }(n)`$-bit atomic subvariables required in all previous constructions. A wait-free implementation of a shared variable is fault-tolerant against crash failures of the subvariables, but not against more malicious, say Byzantine, errors. Slight suboptimality is a small price to pay for ultimate reliability.

(iii) Another version of our construction uses $`n`$ 1-writer 1-reader variables of $`n`$ control bits and $`n^2`$ 1-writer 1-reader variables of $`2`$ control bits each, yielding a global $`O(n^2)`$ number of control bits. There need to be $`n^2`$ 1-reader 1-writer subvariables for pairwise communication, each of them using some control bits. Hence the global number of control bits in any construction is $`\mathrm{\Omega }(n^2)`$. We also reduce the number of copies of the value written to $`O(n)`$ rather than $`O(n^2)`$. All these variations of our construction use the minimum number $`O(n)`$ of accesses to the shared 1-reader 1-writer subvariables, per Read and Write operation.

Our construction corrects  by merging pairs $`R_{i,n},R_{i,n+1}`$ of shared variables in that paper into a single shared variable $`R_{i,n}`$ here ($`0i<n`$). We give an informal argument why the construction works correctly; the formal argument is deferred to a later treatment in I/O automata assertional framework surveyed in .

### 1.1 Model, Problem Definition, and some Notations

Throughout the paper, there are $`n`$ readers indexed $`0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$ and a single writer indexed $`n`$. The multireader variable constructed will be called abs (for abstract).

A construction consists of a collection of atomic 1-reader 1-writer shared variables $`R_{i,j}`$, $`i,j\{0,1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, written by process $`i`$ and read by process $`j`$, thus providing a communication path from user $`i`$ to user $`j`$. We say that the writer, process $`i`$, owns the shared variable $`R_{i,j}`$. Stricly speaking, the “diagonal” shared variables $`R_{i,i}`$ ($`0in`$) are superfluous since process $`i`$ can remember in a local variable what it wrote last to a shared variable it owns. We keep the diagonal shared variables nonetheless, since doing so allows us to simplify the protocols. There are two global procedures, Read and Write, to execute a read operation or write operation on abs , respectively. Each of these are expressed in terms of multiple reads and writes on the shared variables involved. Both procedures have an input parameter $`i`$, which is the index of the executing user, and in addition, Write takes a value to be written to abs as input. A return statement must end both procedures, in the case of Read having an argument which is taken to be the value read from abs.

A procedure contains a declaration of local variables and a body. A local variable appearing in can be declared static, which means it retains its value between procedure invocations. The body is a program fragment comprised of atomic statements. Access to shared variables is naturally restricted to assignments from $`R_{j,i}`$ to local variables and assignments from local variables to $`R_{i,j}`$, for any $`j`$ (recall that $`i`$ is the index of the executing user). No other means of inter-process communication is allowed. In particular, no synchronization primitives can be used. Assignments to and from shared variables are called writes and reads respectively, always in lower case. The space complexity of a construction is the maximum size, in bits, of a shared variable. The time complexity of the Read or Write procedure is the maximum number of shared variable accesses in a single execution.

### 1.2 Correctness

A wait-free construction must satisfy the following constraint: Wait-Freedom: Each procedure must be free from unbounded loops. Given a construction, we are interested in properties of its executions, which the following notions help formulate. A state is a configuration of the construction, comprising values of all shared and local variables, as well as program counters. In between invocations of the Read and Write procedure, a user is said to be idle, and its program counter has the value ‘idle’. One state is designated as initial state. All users must be idle in this state.

A state $`t`$ is an immediate successor of a state $`s`$ if $`t`$ can be reached from $`s`$ through the execution of a procedure statement by some user in accordance with its program counter. Recall that $`n`$ denotes the number of readers of the constructed variable abs. A state has precisely $`n+1`$ immediate successors: there is at precisely one atomic statement per process to be executed next (each process is deterministic).

A history of the construction is a finite or infinite sequence of states $`t_0,t_1,\mathrm{}`$ such that $`t_0`$ is the initial state and $`t_{i+1}`$ is an immediate successor of $`t_i`$. Transitions between successive states are called the events of a history. With each event is associated the index of the executing user, the relevant procedure statement, and the values manipulated by the execution of the statement. Each particular access to a shared variable is an event, and all such events are totally ordered.

The (sequential) time complexity of the Read or Write procedure is the maximum number of shared variable accesses in some such operation in some history.

An event $`a`$ precedes an event $`b`$ in history $`h`$, $`a_hb`$, if $`a`$ occurs before $`b`$ in $`h`$. Call a finite set of events of a history an event-set. Then we similarly say that an event-set $`A`$ precedes an event-set $`B`$ in a history, $`A_hB`$, when each event in $`A`$ precedes all those in $`B`$. We use $`a_hb`$ to denote that either $`a=_hb`$ or $`a_hb`$. The relation $`_h`$ on event-sets constitutes what is known as an interval order. That is, a partial order $``$ satisfying the interval axiom $`abcdcbad`$. This implication can be seen to hold by considering the last event of $`c`$ and the earliest event of $`b`$. See  for an extensive discussion on models of time.

Of particular interest are the sets consisting of all events of a single procedure invocation, which we call an operation. An operation is either a Read operation or a Write operation. It is complete if it includes the execution of the final return statement of the procedure. Otherwise it is said to be pending. A history is complete if all its operations are complete. Note that in the final state of a complete finite history, all users are idle. The value of an operation is the value written to abs in the case of a Write, or the value read from abs in the case of a Read.

The following crucial definition expresses the idea that the operations in a history appear to take place instantaneously somewhere during their execution interval. A more general version of this is presented and motivated in . To avoid special cases, we introduce the notion of a proper history as one that starts with an initializing Write operation that precedes all other operations. Linearizability: A complete proper history $`h`$ is linearizable if the partial order $`_h`$ on the set of operations can be extended to a total order which obeys the semantics of a variable. That is, each Read operation returns the value written by that Write operation which last precedes it in the total order. We use the following definition and lemma from :

###### Definition 1

A construction is correct if it satisfies Wait-Freedom and all its complete proper histories are linearizable.

###### Lemma 1

A complete proper history $`h`$ is linearizable iff there exists a function mapping each operation in $`h`$ to a rational number, called its timestamp, such that the following 3 conditions are satisfied:

Uniqueness: different Write operations have different timestamps.

Integrity: for each Read operation there exists a Write operation with the same timestamp and value, that it doesn’t precede.

Precedence: if one operation precedes another, then the timestamp of the latter is at least that of the former.

## 2 Intuition

We use the following intuition based on timestamp systems: The concurrent reading and writing of the shared variable by one writer and $`n`$ readers (collectively, the players) is viewed as a pebble game on a finite directed graph. The nodes of the graph can be viewed as the timestamps used by the system, and a pebble on a node as a subvariable containing this timestamp. If the graph contains an arc pointing from node $`a`$ to node $`b`$ then $`a`$ is dominated by $`b`$ ($`a<b`$). The graph has no cycles of length 1 or 2. First, suppose that every player has a single pebble which initially is placed at a distinguished node that is dominated by all other nodes. A Read or Write by a player consists in observing where the pebbles of the other players are, and determining a node to move its own pebble to. In a Write, the writer puts its pebble on a node that satisfies all of the following: (i) it dominates the previous position; (ii) it is not occupied by a pebble of a reader; and (iii) it is not dominated by a node occupied by a pebble of a reader. In a Read, the reader concerned puts its pebble at a node containing the writer’s pebble. In the pebble game a player can only observe the pebble positions of the other players in sequence, one at a time. By the time the observation sequence is finished, pebbles observed in the beginning may have moved again. Thus, in an observation sequence by a reader, a node can contain another reader’s pebble that dominates the node containing the writer’s pebble. Then, the second reader has already observed the node pebbled by a later Write of the writer and moved its pebble there. In the unbounded timestamp solution below, where the timestamps are simply the nonnegative integers and a higher integer dominates a lower integer, this presents no problem: a reader simply moves its pebble to the observed pebbled node corresponding to the greatest timestamp. But in the bounded timestamp solution we must distinguish obsolete timestamps from active recycled timestamps. Clearly, the above scenario cannot happen if in a Read we observe the position of the writer’s pebble last in the obervation sequence. Then, the linearization of the complete proper history of the system consists of ordering every Read after the Write it joined its pebble with. This is the basic idea. But there is a complication that makes life less easy.

In the implementation of the 1-writer $`n`$-reader variable in 1-writer 1-reader subvariables, every subvariable is a one-way communication medium between two processes. Since two-way communication between every pair of processes is required, there are at least $`(n+1)n`$ such subvariables: Every process owns at least $`n`$ subvariables it can write, each of which is read by one of the other $`n`$ processes. Thus, a pebble move of a player actually consists in moving (at least) $`n`$ pebble copies, in sequence one at a time—a move of a pebble consists in atomically writing a subvariable. Every pebble copy can only be observed by a single fixed other player—the reader of that 1-writer 1-reader subvariable. This way player 0 may move the pebble copy associated with player 1 to another node (being observed by player 1 at time $`t_1`$) while the pebble copy associated with player 2 is still at the originating node (being observed later by player 2 at time $`t_2>t_1`$). This once more opens the possibility that a reader sees a writer’s pebble at a node pebbled by a Write, while another reader earlier on sees a writer’s pebble at a node pebbled by a later Write. The following argument shows that this ‘later Write’ must be in fact the ‘next Write’: A reader always joins its pebble to a node that is already pebbled, and only the writer can move its pebbles to an unoccupied node. Therefore, the fact that a reader observes the writer’s pebble last guaranties that no reader, of which the pebble was observed before, can have observed a Write’s pebble position later than the next Write. Namely, at the time the writer’s pebble was observed by the former reader at the node pebbled by Write, the next Write wasn’t finished, but the latter reader has already observed the writer’s pebble. This fact is important in the bounded timestamp solution we present below, since it allows us to use a very small timestamp graph that contains cycles of length just 3: $`G=(V,E)`$ with $`V=\{,1,\mathrm{},4n+3\}^2`$ and $`(v_1,v_2)E`$ ($`v_1<v_2`$) iff either $`v_1=(i,j),v_2=(k,h)`$ and $`j=k`$ and $`ih`$, or $`(i,j)=(,)`$ and $`h`$.

This approach suffices to linearize the complete proper history of the system if we can prevent a Write to pebble the same node as a Read in the process of chasing an older obsolete Write. This we accomplish by a Read by player $`i`$ announcing its intended destination node several times to the writer, with an auxiliary pebble for the purpose (special auxiliary subvariable) intended for this purpose, and in between checking whether the writer has moved to the same node. In this process either the Read discovers a Write that is intermediate between two Writes it observed, and hence covered by the Read, in which case it can safely report that Write and choose the bottom timestamp $`(,)`$. Alternatively, the Read ascertains that future Writes know about the timestamp it intends to use and those Writes will avoid that timestamp.

## 3 Unbounded

Figure 1 shows Construction 0, which is a restriction to the multireader case of the unbounded solution multiwriter construction of . Line 2 of the Write procedure has the same effect as “$`\text{free}:=\text{free}+1`$” with free initialized at 0 (because the writer always writes free to $`R_{n,n}.\text{tag}`$ in line 4). The processes indexed $`0,\mathrm{},n1`$ are the readers and the process indexed $`n`$ is the writer. We present it here as an aid in understanding Construction 1. Detailed proofs of correctness (of the unrestricted version, where not just process $`n`$ can Write, but every process can do so) are given in  and essentially simple proofs in  and the textbook .

The timestamp function called for in lemma 1 is built right into this construction. Each operation starts by collecting value-timestamp pairs from all users. In line 3 of either procedure, the operation picks a value and timestamp for itself. It finishes after distributing this pair to all users. It is not hard to see that the three conditions of lemma 1 are satisfied for each complete proper history. Integrity and Precedence are straightforward to check. Uniqueness follows since timestamps of Write operations of the single writer strictly increase (based on the observation that each $`R_{i,i}.\text{tag}`$ is nondecreasing).

Restricting our unbounded timestamp multiwriter algorithm of , in the version of , to the single writer case enabled us to tweak it to have a new very useful property that is unique to the multireader case: The greatest timestamp scanned by a reader is either the writer’s timestamp $`\text{from}[n].\text{tag}`$ or another reader’s timestamp that is at most 1 larger. The tweaking consists in the fact that there is a definite order in the scanning of the shared variables in line 2 of the Read procedure: the writer’s shared variable is scanned last (compare Section 2).

###### Lemma 2

The $`\mathrm{max}`$ selected in line 2 of the Read procedure satisfies $`\text{from}[n].\text{tag}\text{from}[\text{max}].\text{tag}\text{from}[n].\text{tag}+1`$.

Proof. At the time the writer’s shared variable $`R_{n,i}`$ is scanned last in line 2 of the $`\text{Read}(i)`$ procedure, yielding $`\text{from}[n].\text{tag}`$, the writer can have started its next write, the ($`\text{from}[n].\text{tag}+1`$)th Write, but no write after that—otherwise the $`\text{from}[n].\text{tag}`$ would already have been overwritten in $`R_{n,i}`$ by the ($`\text{from}[n].\text{tag}+1`$)th Write. Hence, a timestamp scanned from another reader’s shared variables $`R_{j,i}`$ ($`jn,i`$) can exceed the writer’s timestamp by at most 1. $``$

## 4 Bounded

The only problem with Construction 0 is that the number of timestamps is infinite. With a finite number of timestamps comes the necessity to re-use timestamps and hence to distinguish old timestamps from new ones. Our strategy will be as follows. We will stick very close to construction-0 and only modify or expand certain lines of code. The new bounded timestamps will consist of two fields, like dominoes, the tail field and head field.

###### Definition 2

A bounded timestamp is a pair $`(t,h)`$ where $`t`$ is the value of the tail field and $`h`$ is the value of the head field. Every field can contain a value $`t`$ with $`0t4n+2`$ or $`t`$ is the distinguished initial, or bottom, value $``$. ($``$ is not a number and is lower than any number.) We define the domination relation “$`<`$” on the bounded timestamps as follows: $`(t_1,h_1)<(t_0,h_0)`$ if either $`h_1=t_0`$ and $`t_1h_0`$, or $`t_1,h_1=`$ and $`h_0`$.

The matrix of shared variables stays the same, but now every $`R_{i,j}`$ ($`0i,jn`$) contains a $`record`$ consisting of a $`value`$ field, and a bounded timestamp consisting of a $`tail`$ field and a $`head`$ field. The purpose is that process $`j`$ can see (read) whether process $`i`$ has executed a Read ($`0i<n`$) or Write ($`i=n`$) with what timestamp. The readers use this information to select an appropriate “latest” Write value to return in their Read. The shared variables $`R_{i,n}`$ for communication between readers $`i`$ ($`0in1`$) and the writer $`n`$ contains in addition a second such $`record`$. This second $`record`$ is used by the readers to inform the writer of timestamps that are not obsolete, in the sense that they still exist in the local variables of the reader even though they may have already disappeared from every shared variable in the system. These timestamps may possibly be written to a shared variable owned by the reader involved, and hence cannot be recycled yet. The scan executed in line 1 of the Write protocol gathers all timestamps written in both $`record`$s of the $`R_{i,n}`$’s ($`0in`$). These constitute all the timestamps that are not obsolete, and hence the process can determine the $`4n+2`$ values occurring in the fields (two per timestamp, one timestamp per $`record`$, for $`2n+1`$ $`records`$), and select a value that doesn’t occur (there are $`4n+3`$ values available exclusive of the bottom value $``$). The initial state of the construction has all $`record`$s in the $`R_{i,j}`$’s set to $`(0,,)`$.

The lines of Construction-1 are numbered maintaining—or subnumbering—the corresponding line numbers of Construction-0. The only real difference in the Write protocols is line 2 (select new timestamp). In the Read protocols the differences are lines 2.x (determine latest—or appropriate—timestamp) and lines 3.x (assign selected timestamp to local variable $`\text{from}[i]`$), and lines 0.x (start Read by reading writer’s timestamp and writing it back to writer). According to this scheme we obtain the out-of-order line-sequence 2.4, 3.1, 2.5, 3.2 because the instructions in lines 2 and 3 of Construction-0 are split and interleaved in Construction-1.

###### Lemma 3

Line 2 of a Write always selects a free integer $`h_1`$ such that the timestamp $`(t_1,h_1)`$ with new head $`h_1`$ and new tail $`t_1`$ (head of the timestamp of the directly preceding Write), assigned in line 3 and written in line 4 of that Write, satisfies $`(t_1,h_1)(t_0,h_0)`$ and $`(t_1,h_1)(t_0,h_0)`$ for every timestamp $`(t_0,h_0)`$ either scanned in line 1 of the Write, or presently occurring in a local variable of a concurrent Read that will eventually be written to a shared variable in line 4 of that Read.

Proof. Intuition: In line 1 of a Write the shared variables with each reader, and a redundant shared variable with itself, are scanned in turn. In assigning a value to free in line 2 the writer avoids all values that occur in the head and tail fields of the shared variables. All local variables of a reader are re-assigned from shared variables in executing the Read procedure, before they are written to shared variables. So the only problem can be that free occurs in a local variable of a concurrently active Read that has not yet written it to a variable shared with the writer at the time that variable was scanned by the Write. If free exists in a local variable temp this doesn’t matter since the timestamp concerned will not be used as a Read timestamp. Hence, the only way in which free can be assigned a value that concurrently exists in a local variable of a Read which already has been used or eventually can be used in selection line 2.5 of a Read, and hence eventually can be part of an offending timestamp written to a shared variable, is according to the following scenario: A $`\text{Read}(i)`$, say $`R`$, is active at the time a Write, say $`W_1`$, reads either one of their shared variables. This $`R`$ will select or has already selected the offending timestamp $`(t_0,h_0)`$, originally written by a Write $`W_0`$ preceding $`W_1`$, but $`R`$ has not yet written it to $`R_{i,n+1}`$ or $`R_{i,n}`$ by the times $`W_1`$ scans those variables. Moreover, $`W_1`$ will in fact select a timestamp $`(t_1,h_1)`$ with either $`(t_1,h_1)<(t_0,h_0)`$ or $`(t_1,h_1)=(t_0,h_0)`$. This can only happen if free in line 2 is $`t_0`$, or $`h_0`$ and the $`t_0=\text{head}`$ of the timestamp of the Write immediately preceding $`W_1`$, respectively. Then, a later Read $`R_0`$ using in its line 2.5 the $`(t_1,h_1)`$ timestamp written by $`W_1`$ and the $`(t_0,h_0)`$ timestamp written by $`R`$ concludes falsely that $`W_1`$ precedes $`W_0`$ or $`W_1=W_0`$. For this to happen, $`R`$ has to write $`(t_0,h_0)`$ in line 4, and has to assign it previously in one of lines 3.1, 3.2, or 3.3. In line 3.1 the timestamp assigned is the bottom timestamp $`(,)`$ which by definition cannot dominate or equal a timestamp assigned by the writer. This leaves assignement of the offending timestamp $`(t_0,h_0)`$ in line 3.2 or line 3.3. This also leads to a contradiction of which the proof is deferred to a future paper using the I/O automata formalism. $``$

The crucial feature that makes the bounded algorithm work is the equivalent of lemma 2:

###### Lemma 4

The timestamp selected in lines 2.x and written in line 4 of a $`\text{Read}(i)`$ is one of the following:

(i) The timestamp $`(,)`$ for a Write that is completely overlapped by the Read concerned;

(ii) Another reader’s timestamp scanned in line 1 (respectively, line 2.3) that is written by the next Write after the Write that wrote the timestamp $`\text{from}[n].(\text{tail},\text{head})`$ scanned in line 1.

(iii) Otherwise, the writer’s timestamp $`\text{from}[n].(\text{tail},\text{head})`$ scanned in line 1.

Proof. Intuition: Only assignments in lines 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 can result in a write in line 4.

(i) If line 3.1 is executed in a Read, then previously we scanned the writer’s timestamp in lines 0.1, 1, 2.3, and obtained three successive timestamps without two successive ones being the same. Hence the Write corresponding to the middle scan, of line 1, is overlapped completely by the Read, and the Read can be ordered directly after this Write, and this has no consequences for the remaining ordering. This is reflected by using the timestamp $`(,)`$ to be written by such a Read in line 4.

(ii) If line 3.2 is executed in a Read then the timestamp assigned is a reader’s timestamp scanned in line 1 or line 2.3. The writer’s timestamp used in the comparison line 2.5 is, say, $`(t,h)`$. According to the semantics of the “$`<`$” sign in definition 2, only a reader’s timestamp of the form $`(h,\text{free})`$ satisfies the condition in line 2.5. The only timestamps in the system are created by the writer. By Lemma 3, existence of the $`(h,\text{free})`$ timestamp somewhere in the system at the time of writing the current instance of timestamp $`(t,h)`$ would have prevented the writer from writing $`(t,h)`$. Thus the writer must have written the $`(h,\text{free})`$ timestamp after it wrote $`(t,h)`$. Using Lemma 3 a second time, the writer can write a timestamp with $`h`$ in the tail field only at the very next Write after the Write that wrote a timestamp with $`h`$ in the head field, since the $`(t,h)`$ timestamp is still somewhere in a shared variable or to be written to a shared variable.

(iii) If line 3.3 is executed in a Read, then items (i) and (ii) were not applicable and the timestamp assigned is the writer’s timestamp scanned in line 1. $``$

###### Theorem 1

Construction-1 is a wait-free implementation of an atomic 1-writer $`n`$-reader register. It uses $`(n+1)(n+2)1`$ atomic 1-writer 1-reader $`2\mathrm{log}(4n+4)`$ bits control shared variables. The Write scans $`2n+1`$ of these variables and writes $`n+1`$ of them; the Read scans $`2n+3`$ of these variables and writes $`n+3`$ of them.

Proof. Complexity: Since the program of Construction-1 contains no loops, it is straightforward to verify that every Read and Write executes the number of accesses to shared variables, and the size of the shared variables, as in the statement of the theorem.

Wait-Freedom: This follows directly from the upper bounds on the complexity (scans and writes) of the shared variables in the construction, and the fact that the program of Construction-1 is loop-free.

Linearizability: Consider a complete proper history (as defined before) $`h`$ of all Writes and only those Read’s that don’t write the bottom timestamp $`(,)`$ in line 4. Let $`_h`$ be the partial order induced by the timing of the Reads and Writes of $`h`$. Lemma 4, items (ii) and (iii), asserts that on this history $`h`$, Construction-0 and Construction-1 behave identically in that the same Read reports the values of the same Write in both constructions. Therefore, with respect to $`h`$, linearizability of Construction-1 follows from the linearizability of Construction-0. Let $`_h^l`$ be the linear order thus resulting from $`_h`$. The remaining Read’s, those that write the bottom timestamp $`(,)`$ in line 4, completely overlap a Write, lemma 4 item (i), and report the value of that overlapped Write. Hence they can, without violating linearizability, be inserted in the $`_h^l`$-order directly following the Write concerned. This shows that Construction-1 is linearizable. $``$

Minimum Number of Global Control Bits: The same algorithm with only $`O(n^2)`$ control bits overall can be constructed as follows. Each register owned by the writer contains $`2n`$ control bits, and each register owned by a reader contains only 2 control bits. The control bits are used to determine the domination relation between readers and the writer. The Protocol stays the same, only the decisions in the protocol are made according to different format data. Since the decisions are isomorphic with that of Protocol 1, the correctness of the new Protocol follows by induction on the total atomic order of the operation executions in each run by the correctness of Construction-1.

Minimum Number of Replicas of Stored Values: In the algorithm, each subregister ostensibly contains a copy of the value to be written. This sums up to $`O(n^2\mathrm{log}V)`$ bits, for the value ranging from 1 to $`V`$. With the following scheme only the registers owned by the writer contain the values. Each register owned by the writer can contain two values. The two fields concerned are used alternatingly. The writer starts its $`t`$th write with an extra write (line 0) to all registers it owns, writing the new value in field $`t(mod2)`$. In line 4 it writes to field $`t(mod2)`$ (it marks this field as the last one written), and finishes by setting $`t:=(t+1)(mod2)`$. The readers, on the other hand, now write no values, only the timestamps. If the reader chooses the writer, it takes the value from the marked field; if it chooses a reader, it takes the value from the unmarked field. Since no observed reader can be more than one write ahead of the actually observed write, this is feasible while maintaining correctness. This results in $`O(n)`$ replications of the value written resulting in a total of $`O(n\mathrm{log}V)`$ value bits. This is clearly the optimal order since the writer needs to communicate the value to everyone of the readers through a separate subregister. (Consider a schedule where every reader but one has fallen asleep indefinitely. Wait-freeness requires that the writer writes the value to a subregister being read by the active reader.)

Acknowledgment: I thank Ming Li and Amos Israeli for initial interactions about these ideas in the late eighties. Other interests prevented me from earlier publication. I also thank Grisha Chockler for pointing out a problem with the previous formulation of Lemma 3, and meticulously reading earlier drafts and providing useful comments.


format: text

text:
# Phase diffusion of Bose-Einstein Condensation close to zero temperature

## I Introduction

The development of the technologies of laser trapping and evaporative cooling has yielded intriguing Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) , a state of matter in which many atoms are in the same quantum mechanical state. The remarkable observations of gaseous BECs have opened up new avenues  of research into the physical properties and nature of Bose-condensed systems. The phase properties of a BEC are of particular interest because the phase of an order parameter, i.e., the macroscopic wave function of the condensate, reflects directly the coherent nature of the condensate.

For BEC created in experiment, one of the most important characters is that all the atoms in the condensate can be described by the wave function (i.e., the order parameter) with a single phase. Due to thermal and quantum fluctuations, however, the single phase of the condensate will become unpredictable beyond the phase diffusion time. After the realization of BECs, the phase diffusion of the condensate has been discussed intensively. In particular, the role of quantum fluctuations on the phase diffusion process was investigated in the pioneering work by Lewenstein and You , and a far off-resonant light scattering experiment was proposed to detect the quantum diffusion. Recently, a Langevin equation was given by Graham  to discuss the phase diffusion due to quantum fluctuations and thermal fluctuations. The calculation of the time scale of the phase diffusion is a very important problem because the phase diffusion time determines when the phase of a BEC would be unpredictable. Recently, the phase correlation has been investigated experimentally by the JILA group . It was found that there is no detectable diffusion of the phase on time scale $`100`$ ms. The stable interference patterns shown in the experiment put forward a question  why the phase correlation is so robust despite the phase diffusion and complicated rearrangement dynamics of the two condensates.

In the present work, we address the question of the phase diffusion process of a condensate close to zero temperature. In general, the phase diffusion of the condensate can have either a thermal or a quantum origin. At extremely low temperature (in the experiment by the JILA group , the temperature is only $`0.1T_c`$, where $`T_c`$ denotes the critical temperature of the Bose gas.), the thermal fluctuations can be omitted and hence the quantum fluctuations become dominant. We give therefore emphasis on the role of collective excitations due to quantum fluctuations in a phase diffusion process. Although the phase diffusion process due to quantum fluctuations has been investigated by several authors such as the recent researches in , the analysis of the time correlation of the quantum fluctuations is not given when the phase fluctuations are calculated. Obviously, the correct consideration of the time correlation of the quantum fluctuations would make more reliable prediction on the phase diffusion process. In particular, researches show that the phase diffusion time is much longer than the correlation time of the quantum fluctuations. In this case, our results show that the phase diffusion time calculated from the correlation function of the quantum fluctuations is much longer than that obtained in the previous theoretical researches .

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we investigate the phase fluctuations of the condensate due to quantum fluctuations. In Sec. III, the phase diffusion time is calculated for the condensate close to zero temperature, where the effect of thermal fluctuations can be omitted. Sec. IV contains a discussion and summary of our results.

## II Phase fluctuations of the condensate due to quantum fluctuations

For temperature below the critical temperature $`T_c`$, the condensate can be described very well by the following order parameter with a phase factor $`\varphi \left(t\right)`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,t)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\left(𝐫\right)e^{i\varphi \left(t\right)},$$
(1)
where the phase of the condensate has the form

$$\varphi \left(t\right)=\mu (N_\mathrm{𝟎},T)t/\mathrm{},$$
(2)
and the time-independent real component $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\left(𝐫\right)`$ is determined by the stationary Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation :

$$\mu (N_\mathrm{𝟎},T)\mathrm{\Phi }_0\left(𝐫\right)=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2+V_{\mathrm{ext}}\left(𝐫\right)+g\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2\left(𝐫\right)\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_0\left(𝐫\right),$$
(3)
where $`V_{\mathrm{ext}}\left(𝐫\right)`$ is an external harmonic potential, and $`g=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_s/m`$ is the coupling constant fixed by the $`s`$wave scattering length $`a_s`$. The chemical potential $`\mu (N_\mathrm{𝟎},T)`$ in the above equation is determined by the normalization condition for the density distribution $`n_0\left(𝐫\right)`$ of the condensate. With a Thomas-Fermi approximation , one gets easily the following expression for the chemical potential:

$$\mu (N_\mathrm{𝟎},T)=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{ho}}}{2}\left(\frac{15N_\mathrm{𝟎}a_s}{a_{\mathrm{ho}}}\right)^{2/5},$$
(4)
where $`\omega _{\mathrm{ho}}=\left(\omega _x\omega _y\omega _z\right)^{1/3}`$ is the geometric average of oscillator frequencies, and $`a_{\mathrm{ho}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega _{\mathrm{ho}}}`$ is the harmonic oscillator length of the system. From Eqs. (2) and (4), we see that the particle number fluctuations of the condensate yield fluctuations in the chemical potential, and hence lead to the phase diffusion of the condensate.

Assuming the mean ground state occupation number is $`N_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, the average phase of the condensate is then given by

$$\varphi (N_\mathrm{𝟎},t)=\mu (N_\mathrm{𝟎},T)t/\mathrm{}.$$
(5)
The phase diffusion of the condensate can be described by considering the phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \left(t\right)=\varphi \left(t\right)\varphi (N_\mathrm{𝟎},t)`$. From Eqs. (2) and (5), it is straightforward to obtain a differential equation on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \left(t\right)`$:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \left(t\right)}{dt}=X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(t\right)=\frac{\mu (N_\mathrm{𝟎},T)}{N_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathrm{\Delta }N_\mathrm{𝟎}\left(t\right)/\mathrm{},$$
(6)
where $`X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(t\right)`$ is determined by collective excitations due to quantum fluctuations. In the above expression, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\mathrm{𝟎}\left(t\right)`$ represents the fluctuations of the ground state occupation number around $`N_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. A similar equation was derived and used by Graham  to discuss the phase diffusion of the condensate. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\mathrm{𝟎}\left(t\right)`$ can be either negative or positive numbers. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\mathrm{𝟎}\left(t\right)<0`$, there are collective excitations created so that the atoms would loss in the condensate. Similarly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\mathrm{𝟎}\left(t\right)>0`$ means the annihilation of collective excitations, and the ground state occupation number would increase in this case. In addition, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\mathrm{𝟎}\left(t\right)`$ should be time-dependent because it originates from quantum fluctuations. Eq. (6) is our starting point to discuss the phase diffusion of the condensate. Because it is obtained from Eqs. (2) and (5), rather than directly from a time-dependent GP equation, we anticipate that Eq. (6) is still correct for longer time where the time-dependent GP equation may be no longer valid .

From Eq. (6), the phase fluctuations of the condensate are given by

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \left(\tau \right)\right)^2=_0^\tau _0^\tau X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi \right)X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi ^{}\right)𝑑\xi 𝑑\xi ^{},$$
(7)
where $`X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi \right)X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi ^{}\right)`$ is the correlation function of the quantum fluctuations. When obtaining Eq. (7), we have assumed that $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right)^2=0`$ at time $`t=0`$. The calculation of $`X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi \right)X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi ^{}\right)`$ plays a crucial role in investigating the phase diffusion process close to zero temperature.

For the Bose gas trapped in a harmonic potential, it is convenient to use the following decomposition of the particle field operator

$$\widehat{\psi }\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)=\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)+\underset{i}{}\left(u_i\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)\alpha _i+v_i^{}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)\alpha _i^{}\right),$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)=\widehat{\psi }\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)`$ is the well known order parameter, and the index $`i`$ labels the elementary excitations of the system. For the collective excitations discussed here, the energy of the collective mode indexed by $`nl`$ is given by the dispersion law

$$\epsilon _{\mathrm{nl}}=\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{ho}}\left(2n^2+2nl+3n+l\right)^{1/2}.$$
(9)
As shown in , the contributions to condensate fluctuations due to quantum fluctuations are dominated by these phonon-type collective excitations. For the collective mode $`nl`$, one obtains the following leading behaviour for $`u_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)`$ :

$$u_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)v_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)\sqrt{\frac{gn_0\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)}{2\epsilon _{\mathrm{nl}}}}\chi _{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right),$$
(10)
where $`\chi _{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)`$ is the velocity potential associated with the collective mode, and satisfies the condition $`𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\chi _{\mathrm{nl}}^{}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)\chi _{\mathrm{ij}}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)d^3\stackrel{}{r}=\delta _{\mathrm{nl},\mathrm{ij}}`$. In addition, the average occupation number of the atoms corresponding to the collective mode indexed by $`nl`$ is given by

$$N_{\mathrm{nl}}=\left(u_{\mathrm{nl}}^2+v_{\mathrm{nl}}^2\right)f_{\mathrm{nl}},$$
(11)
where $`f_{\mathrm{nl}}=\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\epsilon _{\mathrm{nl}}/k_BT\right)1\right]^1`$. When a collective excitation with index $`nl`$ is created from the condensate due to quantum fluctuations, its energy $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{nl}}`$ originates from the energy fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ of the condensate. Under this consideration, a time-energy uncertainty relation can be used to calculate the longevity $`\tau _{\mathrm{nl}}`$ of the collective mode $`nl`$. The longevity $`\tau _{\mathrm{nl}}`$ of the collective mode $`nl`$ is therefore approximated as $`1/\omega _{\mathrm{ho}}\left(2n^2+2nl+3n+l\right)^{1/2}`$. For JILA experiment , this means that the longevity of the collective mode is smaller than $`10`$ ms, which is obviously much smaller than the phase diffusion time.

When all collective modes are considered, $`X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(t\right)`$ can be written as:

$$X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(t\right)=\frac{\mu (N_\mathrm{𝟎},T)}{N_\mathrm{𝟎}}\underset{\mathrm{nl}0}{}\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(t\right)/\mathrm{},$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(t\right)`$ reflects the changes of the ground state occupation number due to the creation and annihilation of the collective mode $`nl`$. Therefore, the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(t\right)`$ can be regarded as $`N_{\mathrm{nl}}`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(t\right)`$ itself can be either positive or negative, and varies with time due to quantum fluctuations. In the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(t\right)<0`$, there are $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(t\right)\right|`$ atoms created from the condensate due to quantum fluctuations, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(t\right)>0`$ represents the annihilation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(t\right)`$ atoms.

From Eq. (12), $`X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi \right)X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi ^{}\right)`$ can be written as:

$$X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi \right)X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi ^{}\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}[\mu (N_\mathrm{𝟎},T)/N_\mathrm{𝟎}]^2\times $$

$$\underset{\mathrm{nl}0}{}\underset{\mathrm{n}^{}\mathrm{l}^{}0}{}\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\xi \right)\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{n}^{}\mathrm{l}^{}}\left(\xi ^{}\right).$$
(13)
Assuming that there is no correlation between different collective modes, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\xi \right)\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{n}^{}\mathrm{l}^{}}\left(\xi ^{}\right)=0`$ when $`nln^{}l^{}`$, one gets the following expression for the correlation function:

$$X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi \right)X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi ^{}\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}[\mu (N_\mathrm{𝟎},T)/N_\mathrm{𝟎}]^2\times $$

$$\underset{\mathrm{nl}0}{}N_{\mathrm{nl}}^2e^{\left|\xi \xi ^{}\right|/\tau _{\mathrm{nl}}}.$$
(14)
When obtaining the above result, we have used the following relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\xi \right)\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\xi ^{}\right)=N_{\mathrm{nl}}^2e^{\left|\xi \xi ^{}\right|/\tau _{\mathrm{nl}}}.$$
(15)
In the above expression, $`\tau _{\mathrm{nl}}`$ is the longevity of the collective excitation $`nl`$. When $`\left|\xi \xi ^{}\right|`$ is much larger than $`\tau _{\mathrm{nl}}`$, the correlation between the collective excitations at times $`\xi `$ and $`\xi ^{}`$ can be omitted. Therefore, $`\tau _{\mathrm{nl}}`$ can be approximated as the correlation time of the correlation function $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\xi \right)\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\xi ^{}\right)`$.

Because the contributions to the quantum fluctuations come mainly from the low-lying collective excitations, as a reasonable approximation, the correlation function $`X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi \right)X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi ^{}\right)`$ can be approximated as an exponential form:

$$X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi \right)X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\xi ^{}\right)=Q_{\mathrm{qua}}e^{\left|\xi \xi ^{}\right|/\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}}.$$
(16)
When the above exponential form is used, $`\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}`$ should be regarded as the average correlation time of the collective excitations, and is determined by the following expression:

$$\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}^2=\frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \tau ^2X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(t\right)X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(t+\tau \right)}{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(t\right)X_{\mathrm{qua}}\left(t+\tau \right)}.$$
(17)
In terms of Eqs. (14) and (17), the correlation time of the quantum fluctuations is given by $`\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}=\sqrt{2}/\omega _{\mathrm{ho}}`$. In addition, in Eq. (16), the magnitude $`Q_{\mathrm{qua}}`$ of the correlation function is given by

$$Q_{\mathrm{qua}}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}\left[\mu (N_\mathrm{𝟎},T)/N_\mathrm{𝟎}\right]^2\delta ^2N_{\mathrm{qua}}.$$
(18)
In the above expression, $`\delta ^2N_{\mathrm{qua}}=_{\mathrm{nl}0}N_{\mathrm{nl}}^2`$ can be taken as the particle number fluctuations  of the condensate due to the collective excitations. Using the formulas (9)-(11), after a straightforward (although rather complex) calculation, we obtain the result of $`\delta ^2N_{\mathrm{qua}}`$:

$$\delta ^2N_{\mathrm{qua}}=0.958\left(\frac{a_s}{a_{\mathrm{ho}}}\right)^{4/5}\left(\frac{T}{T_c}\right)^2N^{22/15}+$$

$$14.174\left(\frac{a_s}{a_{\mathrm{ho}}}\right)^{4/5}N^{12/15},$$
(19)
where $`N`$ is the total number of atoms in the trap. The second term on the right hand side of the above equation represents the fluctuations due to the effect of the quantum depletion which is given in . This term has a finite contribution to the condensate fluctuations when the temperature approaches zero. Thus, we anticipate that there is still phase diffusion in the case of zero temperature.

We now turn to discussing the phase diffusion of the condensate due to quantum fluctuations. From Eqs. (7) and (16), the phase fluctuations of the condensate, which play a crucial role in discussing the phase diffusion, read

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \left(\tau \right)\right)^2=2Q_{\mathrm{qua}}\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}\left(\tau \tau _{\mathrm{qua}}+\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}e^{\tau /\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}}\right).$$
(20)
The phase diffusion time $`\tau _{\mathrm{phase}}`$ can be obtained by setting $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \left(\tau \right)\right)^2=\pi ^2`$ in the above expression.

## III Phase diffusion time of the condensate close to zero temperature

We now turn to discussing the phase diffusion time using the phase fluctuations given by Eq. (20). It is useful to discuss the phase fluctuations given by Eq. (20) for two special cases. When the time $`\tau `$ is much larger than the time scale of the correlation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}`$, the phase fluctuations of the condensate can be approximated as:

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \left(\tau \right)\right)^22Q_{\mathrm{qua}}\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}\tau .$$
(21)
Therefore, if the phase diffusion time $`\tau _{\mathrm{phase}}`$ calculated from Eq. (20) is much larger than $`\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}`$, the phase diffusion time in this situation takes the following analytical form:

$$\tau _{\mathrm{phase}}=\frac{\pi ^2}{2Q_{\mathrm{qua}}\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}}.$$
(22)
In the case of $`\tau <<\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}`$, however, the phase fluctuations of the condensate can be approximated as:

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \left(\tau \right)\right)^2Q_{\mathrm{qua}}\tau ^2.$$
(23)
Different from the result given by Eq. (21), the phase fluctuations are proportional to $`\tau ^2`$ when $`\tau `$ is much smaller than the correlation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}`$. Therefore, if $`\tau _{\mathrm{phase}}`$ calculated from Eq. (20) is much smaller than $`\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}`$, the analytical result of the phase diffusion time $`\tau _{\mathrm{phase}}^{}`$ is then

$$\tau _{\mathrm{phase}}^{}=\frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{\delta N_{\mathrm{qua}}\mu (N_\mathrm{𝟎},T)/N_\mathrm{𝟎}},$$
(24)
where $`\delta N_{\mathrm{qua}}=\sqrt{\delta ^2N_{\mathrm{qua}}}`$.

We now turn to discuss the phase correlation experiment by the JILA group . The experimental values in the experiment are: $`N_\mathrm{𝟎}=5\times 10^5`$, $`T50`$ nk, $`T_c500`$ nk, and $`a_s5\times 10^7`$ cm. It may be helpful to make a comparison between the particle number fluctuations due to quantum fluctuations and thermal fluctuations. For temperature much lower than the critical temperature, the analytical result $`\delta ^2N_{\mathrm{th}}=\pi ^2N\left(T/T_c\right)^3/6\zeta \left(3\right)`$  can give a rather well description for the particle number fluctuations due to thermal fluctuations. For the values typical for the experiment by the JILA group , a simple calculation shows that $`\delta ^2N_{\mathrm{qua}}/\delta ^2N_{\mathrm{th}}=62.6`$. Therefore, the thermal fluctuations can be safely omitted when the phase diffusion process is investigated for the experiment by JILA group . Using the formula (20) (or Eq. (22)), the numerical result of the phase diffusion time $`\tau _{\mathrm{phase}}`$ is $`119`$ s, which is much larger than the correlation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}`$. When obtaining this result, we have used the exponential form of the correlation function given by Eq. (16). In fact, we can obtain $`\tau _{\mathrm{phase}}`$ directly from Eqs. (7) and (14), and it is worth pointing out that there is no important correction to the phase diffusion time, in comparison with the result obtained by using the exponential form (16). The merit of the exponential form (16) is that it clearly shows the role of particle number fluctuations on the phase diffusion process, and the analytical result of the phase fluctuations is rather concise using this exponential form.

If the correlation time of the collective excitations is assumed to be infinity, however, using Eqs. (19) and (24), the numerical result of $`\tau _{\mathrm{phase}}^{}`$ is $`0.62`$ s, which is much smaller than the result given by Eq. (22). Although the phase fluctuations due to quantum fluctuations are investigated in deep in Ref. , the finiteness of the correlation time of the quantum fluctuations was not considered, and the dephasing time was approximated as $`1`$ s. In addition, it is worth pointing out that although a Langevin equation was proposed by Graham  to investigate the phase fluctuations due to thermal fluctuations and quantum fluctuations, the phase fluctuations due to collective excitations were proportional to $`\tau ^2`$, because the finiteness of the longevity of the collective excitations was not considered too.

For temperature close to zero, our result of the phase diffusion time given by Eq. (22) is reasonable because of two reasons: (i) In the experiment by the JILA group , the phase of the condensate was found to be very robust. In fact, the rigidity of the phase was also shown in other experiments, such as the observation of the interference between two BECs , and the recent experiments where the optical lattice  is used to investigate the coherent properties of the BECs. For example, recently a BEC  is created with up to $`2\times 10^5`$ atoms and no discernible thermal component. The radial trapping frequencies are relaxed over a period of $`500`$ ms to $`24`$ Hz such that the harmonic potential becomes spherically symmetric. Then three optical standing waves are aligned orthogonal to each other, in order to form a three-dimensional lattice potential. In this situation, the condensate is distributed over more than $`150,000`$ lattice sites. When the magnetic trap and lattice potential are both switched off, it is interested to find that there is a high-contrast interference pattern, which means that phase is still robust after the BEC has been formed for nearly $`1`$ s, and even after the interference between a large number of BECs. (ii) In the present work, the correlation time of the quantum fluctuations is calculated and found to be much smaller than the time scale of the phase diffusion time. In this situation, we should regard the quantum fluctuations as a white noise to investigate the phase diffusion process. Recall that the particular collective excitations are rather stable when it is created in the experiment  by applying a small time-dependent perturbation, it seems the longevity of the collective excitations is very long. However, we should note that in the problem discussed here for the mechanism of the phase diffusion, the collective excitations are created and annihilated through the quantum fluctuations. As pointed out in this paper, the longevity of these collective excitations is found to be much smaller than the phase diffusion time.

We should note that when obtaining the phase diffusion time, the time-energy uncertainty relation is used to calculate approximately the longevity of the collective modes created due to quantum fluctuations. A more accurate average longevity of these collective modes can be obtained when interparticle interaction effect is included. Nevertheless, a reasonable order of magnitude on the phase diffusion time can be obtained, using Eq. (20) and the time-energy uncertainty relation. Additionally, the collective time $`\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}`$ can be obtained from Eq. (20) when $`\tau _{\mathrm{phase}}`$ is measured in experiment. This gives us a chance to check whether standard many-body theory can be used successfully to investigate the interested quantity $`\tau _{\mathrm{qua}}`$.

## IV Discussion and conclusion

In summary, the phase diffusion time of the condensate due to quantum fluctuations is discussed at extremely low temperature. Because the correlation time of the quantum fluctuations is much smaller than the time scale of the phase diffusion, the quantum fluctuations can be regarded as white noise when the phase diffusion of the condensate is investigated for extremely low temperature. In this situation, the phase diffusion time calculated here is much longer than the result obtained in the previous theoretical researches . It is obvious that the present work can not be applied directly to the experiment conducted by the JILA group , where the complicated rearrangement of the two condensates would be very important to the phase diffusion process. We shall extend our idea in a future work to the case of the specific situation realized by the JILA group  and discuss the phase diffusion at finite temperature. Recently, BECs have been realized in quasi-one and quasi-two dimensions , where new phenomena such as quasicondensates with a fluctuating phase  may be observed. A simple method is developed recently  to discuss the particle number fluctuations of the low-dimensional condensate. This makes it possible to discuss the phase diffusion process in low-dimensional condensates.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of China. One of us (G. H.) is indebted to National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the French Ministry of Research for a visiting grant at Universitè Paris 7.


text:
# Probing CKM parameters through unitarity, 𝜀_𝐾 and Δ𝑚_𝐵_{𝑑,𝑠}

## 1 Introduction

In the context of CKM phenomenology several important developments have taken place in the last decade. On the one hand, there is considerable refinement in the data pertaining to CKM parameters, on the other hand several phenomenological inputs have also refined the CKM elements further. However, despite a good deal of knowledge of CKM matrix elements, the CP violation still remains one of the least tested aspect of the CKM paradigm. In this context, an intense amount of experimental activity is being carried out in a variety of experiments at B-factories, KEK-B, SLAC-B, HERA-B and will be carried out at LHC-B and B-TeV, both of which will become operational by 2006. The main goal of the current phase of experiments will be to observe CP violation in the B system. It is expected that the data provided by these factories would throw new lights on the CP violating B decays, in particular it will lead to the construction of unitarity triangle involving first and third columns of the CKM matrix.

In this context, the recent flurry of activity created by the preliminary BABAR  and BELLE  results regarding the time dependent CP asymmetry $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ in $`B_d^\mathrm{o}(\overline{B}_d^o)\psi K_S`$, has given lot of impetus to the study of CKM phenomenology. Not withstanding the agreement of the latest BABAR results  with the SM (Standard Model) -, the activity generated by their preliminary results has thrown open several interesting possibilities of discovering new physics beyond the SM. In this context, it has also been emphasized by several authors in their recent works - that there could be new physics in the loop dominated processes such as $`K^\mathrm{o}\overline{K^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing and $`B^\mathrm{o}\overline{B^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing, as well as in some of the CP violating amplitudes.

In view of the possibility of signals of new physics in $`K^\mathrm{o}\overline{K^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing and $`B^\mathrm{o}\overline{B^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing, it is desirable to sharpen their implications on the CKM parameters, particularly on the CP violating phase $`\delta `$ as well as on the angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ of the much talked about unitarity triangle. In this context, in the last few years some very detailed and extensive analyses of CKM phenomenology - have been carried out. These analyses primarily concentrate on finding CKM parameters in the Wolfenstein representation  and the angles of unitarity triangle. Apart from unitarity, usual inputs for such analyses are CP violating parameter $`\epsilon _K`$ as well as the mass difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{d,s}`$, between the light and heavy mass eigenstates of the $`B_{d,s}^\mathrm{o}\overline{B_{d,s}^\mathrm{o}}`$ system. A careful perusal of these analyses indicates that these do not adequately emphasize the evaluation of Jarlskog’s rephasing invariant parameter J , a key quantity measuring the CP violating effects, as well as these do not investigate independently the implications of unitarity, $`\epsilon _K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ respectively. To closely scrutinize the effects of unitarity, $`K^\mathrm{o}\overline{K^\mathrm{o}}`$ and $`B^\mathrm{o}\overline{B^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing on the CKM parameters, one should study their implications separately. We believe, this would facilitate deciphering the signals of new physics in the loop dominated CP violating amplitudes in the K as well as B mesons.

Recently Randhawa et al. , have studied in detail the implications of unitarity on J and on the CP violating phase $`\delta `$, as well as a “reference triangle” has been constructed purely from the considerations of unitarity of the CKM matrix. The purpose of the present communication is to extend the analysis carried in references  by including independently the implications of $`K^\mathrm{o}\overline{K^\mathrm{o}}`$ and $`B^\mathrm{o}\overline{B^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing, along with the unitarity on the CKM parameters. Besides comparing our results with one of the most recent analyses , we also intend to study the effect of the future refinements in the data.

The plan of the paper is as follows. To facilitate the discussion as well as to make the mss. readable, in section 2 we detail the essentials of the unitarity based analysis carried out in reference . In the section 3, we determine the CKM phase $`\delta `$ from unitarity and the $`K^\mathrm{o}\overline{K^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing parameter $`\epsilon _K`$ and then use it to evaluate CKM matrix elements and the angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ of the CKM triangle. Similarly, in the section 4 we evaluate above mentioned CKM parameters using unitarity and the mass differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$. In section 5, we discuss our results obtained after incorporating all the constraints, for example, unitarity, $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{d,s}`$, simultaneously. A comparison of our results with those of Buras  is also included in this section. The implications of the future refinements in the data have been discussed in section 6. Finally, section 7 summarizes our conclusions.

## 2 Unitarity and its implications

Unitarity of the CKM matrix implies nine relations, three are diagonal and the six non-diagonal relations can be expressed through the six unitarity triangles in the complex plane, for example,

$`uc`$ $`V_{ud}V_{cd}^{}+V_{us}V_{cs}^{}+V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}=0,`$ (1)
$`db`$ $`V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}=0,`$ (2)
$`ds`$ $`V_{ud}V_{us}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cs}^{}+V_{td}V_{ts}^{}=0,`$ (3)
$`sb`$ $`V_{us}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cs}V_{cb}^{}+V_{ts}V_{tb}^{}=0,`$ (4)
$`ut`$ $`V_{ud}V_{td}^{}+V_{us}V_{ts}^{}+V_{ub}V_{tb}^{}=0,`$ (5)
$`ct`$ $`V_{cd}V_{td}^{}+V_{cs}V_{ts}^{}+V_{cb}V_{tb}^{}=0,`$ (6)
where the letters $`\mathrm{`}uc^{}`$ etc. represent the corresponding unitarity triangle for further discussions. The areas of all the six triangles (equations 1-6) are equal and the area of any of the unitarity triangle is related to Jarlskog’s rephasing invariant parameter J as

$$\mathrm{J}=2\times \mathrm{Area}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{any}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{Unitarity}\mathrm{Triangle}.$$
(7)
In principle, J can be evaluated by using above relation through any of the six unitarity triangles, however in practice there are problems associated with the evaluation of area of the triangles. Apart from triangle $`uc`$, all other triangles involve elements involving $`t`$ quark, which are not experimentally measured as yet. Apparently, it seems that the triangle $`uc`$ is ideal for evaluating J as it involves the elements known with fair degree of accuracy. However, on a closer look one finds that $`uc`$ is a highly squashed triangle, for example, the sides $`|V_{ud}^{}V_{cd}|`$ and $`|V_{us}^{}V_{cs}|`$ are of comparable lengths while the third side $`|V_{ub}^{}V_{cb}|`$ is several orders of magnitude smaller compared to the other two, hence it is not easy to evaluate its area unambiguously. Assuming the existence of CP violation through the CKM mechanism, in reference  we have detailed the procedure for evaluation of J through triangle $`uc`$. Using the experimental values of CKM matrix elements, listed in the Table 1, we obtain

$$\mathrm{J}=(2.59\pm 0.79)\times 10^5.$$
(8)
In view of the fact that the triangle is highly squashed, therefore to ascertain whether J given by equation 8 faithfully incorporates the constraints of unitarity, it is very much desirable to compare our results in this regard with those of PDG , who have also calculated CKM matrix by incorporating unitarity and experimental data pertaining to $`|V_{ud}|`$, $`|V_{us}|`$, $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$, $`|V_{cd}|`$, $`|V_{cs}|`$ and $`|V_{cb}|`$. In the context of PDG CKM matrix, it may be noted that once CKM elements are known, one can calculate J corresponding to any of the six triangles, however the two unsquashed triangles $`db`$ and $`ut`$ provide the best opportunity in this regard. The J values evaluated from PDG CKM matrix corresponding to the triangles $`db`$ and $`ut`$ are given as

$`\mathrm{J}_{db}`$ $`=`$ $`(2.51\pm 0.87)\times 10^5,`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{J}_{ut}`$ $`=`$ $`(2.45\pm 0.91)\times 10^5.`$ (10)
The agreement between the equations 8, 9 and 10 strongly supports our evaluation of J through the triangle $`uc`$ as detailed in .

To evaluate $`\delta `$ from J, we first consider the standard representation of CKM matrix , for example,

$$V_{\mathrm{CKM}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}\hfill & s_{12}c_{13}\hfill & s_{13}e^{i\delta }\hfill \\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }\hfill & c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }\hfill & s_{23}c_{13}\hfill \\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }\hfill & c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }\hfill & c_{23}c_{13}\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(11)
with $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$ for $`i,j=1,2,3`$. In terms of the CKM elements, J can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{J}=s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}c_{12}c_{23}c_{13}^2\mathrm{sin}\delta .$$
(12)
Calculating $`s_{12}`$, $`s_{23}`$ and $`s_{13}`$ from $`|V_{us}|`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$, listed in the table 1, one can plot a distribution for $`\delta `$, using equations 8 and 12 yielding

$$\delta =50^\mathrm{o}\pm 20^\mathrm{o},$$
(13)
which in the second quadrant translates to

$$\delta =130^\mathrm{o}\pm 20^\mathrm{o}.$$
(14)
This value of $`\delta `$ apparently looks to be the consequence only of the unitarity relationship given by equation 1. However, on further investigations, as shown by Branco and Lavoura , one finds that this $`\delta `$ range is a consequence of all the non trivial unitarity constraints. In this sense, the above range could be attributed to the unitarity of the CKM matrix.

Having found $`\delta `$, it is desirable to examine whether its above range and the mixing angles $`s_{12}`$, $`s_{23}`$ and $`s_{13}`$, as calculated from the experimental values of $`|V_{us}|`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$, are able to reproduce the CKM matrix given by PDG. The CKM matrix thus evaluated is given as

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0.97510.9761& 0.21730.2219& 0.00250.0048\\ 0.21690.2219& 0.97420.9754& 0.03830.0421\\ 0.0050.0138& 0.03650.0420& 0.99910.9993\end{array}\right].$$
(15)
The above matrix has a good deal of overlap with that of PDG matrix. To facilitate a more detailed comparison, we present below the PDG matrix ,

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0.97420.9757& 0.2190.226& 0.0020.005\\ 0.2190.225& 0.97340.9749& 0.0370.043\\ 0.0040.014& 0.0350.043& 0.99900.9993\end{array}\right].$$
(16)
Comparison of 15 and 16 reveals that for most of the elements, we have an excellent overlap, justifying the procedure followed in carrying out the present analysis. It should be noted that there is an excellent agreement in the case of $`|V_{td}|`$, the element having a sensitive dependence on $`\delta `$.

Having found $`\delta `$, one can evaluate the angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ of the unitarity triangle $`db`$, likely to be measured in the near future. The angles of the triangle can be expressed in terms of the CKM elements as

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}{V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}}}\right),`$ (17)
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}}\right),`$ (18)
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}}{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}}\right).`$ (19)
Making use of the PDG representation of CKM matrix, experimental values of $`|V_{us}|`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$ from table 1 and the range of $`\delta `$, given by equations 13 and 14, one can easily find out the corresponding ranges for the three angles, listed in column II of Table 2.

The range of sin$`2\beta `$, corresponding to $`\delta `$ given by equations 13 and 14, is

$$\mathrm{sin2}\beta =0.28\mathrm{to}0.88,$$
(20)
which is in good agreement with the latest BABAR results , for example,

$$\mathrm{sin2}\beta =0.59\pm 0.14\pm 0.05\mathrm{BABAR}.$$
(21)
This range of sin2$`\beta `$ is in agreement with the earlier result of BELLE, however has marginal overlap only with the lower limit of recent BELLE results , for example,

$$\mathrm{sin2}\beta =0.99\pm 0.14\pm 0.06\mathrm{BELLE}.$$
(22)
Most of the analyses of the unitarity triangle have been carried out using the Wolfenstein parametrization , therefore to facilitate the comparison of our results with other contemporary analyses, we have also evaluated $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ defined as

$$\overline{\rho }=\rho \left(1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}\right),\overline{\eta }=\eta \left(1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}\right)$$
(23)
where $`\rho =\frac{s_{13}}{s_{12}s_{23}}\mathrm{cos}\delta ,\eta =\frac{s_{13}}{s_{12}s_{23}}\mathrm{sin}\delta `$ and $`\lambda s_{12}`$. It may be mentioned that while evaluating $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$, we have used the method of “full scanning” of the input parameters as employed by Buras et al. . Our results in this regard are listed in the Table 2.

## 3 $`K^\mathrm{o}\overline{K^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing and its implications

From the previous section, it is clear that unitarity alone doesn’t give any significant constraints on $`\delta `$ and $`|V_{td}|`$. However, in view of the fact that the CP violating parameter $`\epsilon _K`$ is experimentally very well determined, it is therefore interesting to examine its implications on $`\delta `$ and $`|V_{td}|`$. To this end, we consider the following QCD corrected and quark loop dominated expression for $`\epsilon _K`$ ,

$$|\epsilon _K|=\frac{G_F^2F_K^2m_Km_W^2}{6\sqrt{2}\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_k}B_K\mathrm{Im}\lambda _t[\mathrm{Re}\lambda _c(\eta _1F(x_c)\eta _3F(x_c,x_t))\mathrm{Re}\lambda _t\eta _2F(x_t)],$$
(24)
where $`F(x_i)`$ are Inami-Lim functions, $`x_i=m_i^2/M_W^2`$ and $`\lambda _i=V_{id}V_{is}^{}`$, $`i=c,t`$. In terms of the mixing angles and the phase $`\delta `$, Im$`\lambda _t`$, Re$`\lambda _t`$ and Re$`\lambda _c`$ can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{Im}\lambda _t`$ $`=`$ $`s_{23}s_{13}c_{23}\mathrm{sin}\delta ,`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{Re}\lambda _t`$ $`=`$ $`s_{23}s_{13}c_{23}(c_{12}^2s_{12}^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta s_{12}c_{12}(s_{23}^2c_{23}^2s_{13}^2),`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{Re}\lambda _c`$ $`=`$ $`s_{23}s_{13}c_{23}(s_{12}^2c_{12}^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta s_{12}c_{12}(c_{23}^2s_{23}^2s_{13}^2).`$ (27)
To examine the exclusive role played by $`\epsilon _K`$ in restricting $`\delta `$, we have calculated $`\epsilon _K`$ by varying $`\delta `$ from 0o to 180o and by “ full scanning” of the various input parameters. The experimental limits on $`\epsilon _K`$, for example

$$\epsilon _K=(2.280\pm 0.013)\times 10^3,$$
(28)
yield $`\delta `$ in the range

$$\delta =33^o\mathrm{to}163^o.$$
(29)
The above range of $`\delta `$ when combined with the constraints obtained in the last section from unitarity becomes

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`33^\mathrm{o}\mathrm{to}70^\mathrm{o}(\mathrm{in}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{quadrant}),`$ (31)
$`110^\mathrm{o}\mathrm{to}150^\mathrm{o}(\mathrm{in}\mathrm{II}\mathrm{quadrant}).`$
In the Table 2, we have listed the ranges for $`|V_{td}|`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ obtained from the unitarity constraints, the results corresponding to the combined constraints of unitarity and $`\epsilon _K`$ are presented in column III of the same table.

There are several important points which need to be discussed further. It is interesting to note that even a well determined $`\epsilon _K`$, despite its direct proportionality to sin$`\delta `$, is not able to improve upon the range of $`\delta `$ implied by unitarity. This could be understood presumably by closely examining the expression for $`\epsilon _K`$, which involves parameters such as $`B_K`$, $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$ and $`|V_{cb}|`$, having much larger uncertainties than that of $`\epsilon _K`$.

Similarly, one finds that $`\epsilon _K`$ is not able to constrain $`|V_{td}|`$ much in comparison to the unitarity. This looks to be a consequence of not so improved constraints on $`\delta `$ in comparison with the unitarity. To examine this more closely, we consider the expression for $`V_{td}`$ in the standard parametrization, for example,

$$V_{td}=s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }.$$
(32)
In figure 1, we have plotted $`\delta `$ versus $`|V_{td}|`$, depending upon $`s_{12},s_{23},s_{13}`$ and $`\delta `$, the solid curve corresponding to maximum $`|V_{td}|`$ and the other one corresponding to minimum $`|V_{td}|`$. It is clear from the figure that for low values of $`\delta `$ in the first quadrant and correspondingly for large values of $`\delta `$ in the second quadrant, $`|V_{td}|`$ is not very sensitive to variations in $`\delta `$. For example, examining the solid curve, one finds that variation in $`\delta `$ from $`0^\mathrm{o}`$ to 20o corresponds to $`|V_{td}|`$ from 0.0046 to 0.0049, while in the case when $`\delta `$ varies from 70o to 90o, there is a sharp variation in $`|V_{td}|`$, for example it varies from 0.0078 to 0.0094. Similar conclusions follow from the other curve. Hence $`\epsilon _K`$ constraint is not able to register any noticeable improvement in the range of $`|V_{td}|`$ in comparison to the unitarity constraints.

After having examined the reasons for not so sharp limits on $`\delta `$ and $`|V_{td}|`$ by $`\epsilon _K`$, it may be of interest to investigate which parameters are primarily responsible for this. We have already noted that $`\epsilon _K`$ depends on $`B_K`$, $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$ and $`|V_{cb}|`$ etc., it is therefore likely that the uncertainties in $`B_K`$ and the CKM elements $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$ and $`|V_{cb}|`$ might be playing an important role in giving not so sharp limits on $`\delta `$. To examine this point further, in figure 2 we have plotted $`\epsilon _K`$ versus $`\delta `$ scanning full range of $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$, keeping other parameters fixed. The uppermost curve is for $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$=0.115 and the lowermost curve corresponds to $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$=0.065, the curves corresponding to other values of $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$ lying in between. Horizontal lines represent the experimental range for $`\epsilon _K`$. From the figure, it is evident that there is no value of $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$ which is excluded by $`\epsilon _K`$ constraints. Further, it is also clear from the figure that the refinements in $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$ would not lead to any significant improvements in the range of $`\delta `$ beyond that given in equation 29, however if the upper limit of $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$ comes down, then the lower limit of $`\delta `$ will go up slightly. In the same manner, one can find that for the present experimental range of $`|V_{cb}|`$, no value of $`|V_{cb}|`$ is excluded by the $`\epsilon _K`$ constraints, as well as further refinements in $`|V_{cb}|`$ will not affect the $`\delta `$ range significantly. From the above discussion, one may conclude that the reason for not so sharp cuts on $`\delta `$ basically emanates from the ‘large uncertainties’ in $`B_K`$.

## 4 $`B^\mathrm{o}\overline{B^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing and its implications

We have already seen that $`\epsilon _K`$ and unitarity are not able to constrain $`\delta `$ much. However, it is well known that the $`B^\mathrm{o}\overline{B^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing is a loop dominated process with major contributions coming from the $`t`$ quark, consequently from $`V_{td}`$. Therefore $`B_d^\mathrm{o}\overline{B_d^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing parameter $`x_d`$, related to the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, is expected to yield significant constraints on $`|V_{td}|`$. To this end, we consider the QCD corrected expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ , for example

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=\frac{G_F^2}{6\pi ^2}\eta _{QCD}m_{B_d}B_{B_d}F_{B_d}^2M_W^2F(x_t)|V_{td}|^2.$$
(33)
Using the input values of various parameters listed in table 1, and carrying out full scanning of all the parameters, we obtain

$$|V_{td}|=0.0064\mathrm{to}0.0089.$$
(34)
Comparing this range with that obtained from unitarity and $`\epsilon _K`$ given in table 2, we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ considerably improves the constraints on $`|V_{td}|`$. The above improved constraints on $`|V_{td}|`$ can be used to yield constraints on $`\delta `$. Using $`|V_{us}|`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$, listed in the table 1, along with the equation 32 and above range of $`|V_{td}|`$, we obtain the following limits on $`\delta `$

$$\delta =1^\mathrm{o}\mathrm{to}104^\mathrm{o}.$$
(35)
It may be noted that the above range of $`\delta `$ is exclusively a consequence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ constraint. This range when combined with the unitarity constraints, obtained in section 2, yields

$$\delta =30^\mathrm{o}\mathrm{to}70^\mathrm{o}.$$
(36)
Thus, the combined constraints from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and unitarity limit $`\delta `$ to the first quadrant. The corresponding ranges of $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ are listed in the column IV of Table 2.

For the sake of completeness, we have also investigated whether $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ could also constrain $`\delta `$. In this regard, we find that the presently available lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$$`>`$ 15.0 $`ps^1`$ ) does not lead to any appreciable constraints on $`\delta `$ and other quantities mentioned above. This is because of the fact that in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$, the $`\delta `$ dependence comes through $`V_{ts}`$, an element which is not very sensitive to variations in $`\delta `$. However, our calculations reveal that the lower bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ yields a constraint on the upper bound of $`\delta `$, for example, if in future $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ is found to be greater than 27ps-1, then one can show that this would imply $`\delta `$$`138^o`$. Therefore, until and unless one finds a remarkable change in the lower limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$, one may not be able to improve upon a much better bound on $`\delta `$ due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$.

## 5 Unitarity, $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{d,s}`$ together

In most of the past analyses of the CKM phenomenology the constraints from unitarity, $`\epsilon _K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ have been simultaneously applied to obtain $`\overline{\rho }`$, $`\overline{\eta }`$ and the CP angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$. To facilitate comparison of our results with other recent analyses  as well as to construct the unitarity triangle by incorporating all the available constraints, we have also carried out an analysis wherein the implications of unitarity, $`K^\mathrm{o}\overline{K^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing and $`B^\mathrm{o}\overline{B^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing have been studied together. The corresponding results have been listed in the last column of the Table 2. A closer look at the Table 2 reveals several interesting points. The combined constraints of unitarity, $`K^\mathrm{o}\overline{K^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing and $`B^\mathrm{o}\overline{B^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing force $`\delta `$ to lie in the range $`37^\mathrm{o}\mathrm{to}70^\mathrm{o}`$, implying a very restricted range for $`|V_{td}|`$, for example

$$|V_{td}|=0.0065\mathrm{to}0.0089.$$
(37)
The corresponding range of sin$`2\beta `$ is

$$\mathrm{sin2}\beta =0.50\mathrm{to}0.88,$$
(38)
which is almost within the latest BABAR results, however the lower limit is slightly above that of BABAR. In case the recent BELLE result (equation (22)) is confirmed, it will have serious implications for CKM paradigm as well as the origin of CP violation in the Standard Model. These issues will be discussed in detail elsewhere. It may be of interest to mention that when we carry a full scanning of $`s_{12}`$, $`s_{23}`$ and $`s_{13}`$, we find that $`\mathrm{sin2}\beta 0.88`$ for all values of $`\delta `$, the equality is achieved for $`\delta `$$`60^\mathrm{o}`$. Therefore, in case the upper limit of sin$`2\beta `$ is found to be less than 0.88, it would imply $`\delta `$ being less than $`60^\mathrm{o}`$ having implications for $`|V_{td}|`$.

Coming to the question of comparison of our results with those of other recent analyses, our results can best be compared with those of Buras et al. , as we have also used the “full scanning” approach for inputs. In the table 2, we have listed their results as well as ours. On comparing, one finds that the results obtained by us are almost in agreement with their results. In fact, except $`\overline{\rho }`$, all other parameters have excellent overlap with their results. This lends strong support to our evaluation of J and $`\delta `$, which has not been carried out earlier.

A critical perusal of our calculations reveals several interesting points. From the table 2, one finds that the lower limit of $`\delta `$ is mostly determined by unitarity, constraints from $`\epsilon _K`$ push the lower limit on $`\delta `$ slightly up, while constraints from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ are instrumental in determining the upper limit of $`\delta `$. In particular, considering unitarity and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$simultaneoulsy, $`\delta `$ is restricted to the first quadrant only.

## 6 Implications of refinements in data

In the last section, we have seen that the combined constraints of unitarity, $`K^\mathrm{o}\overline{K^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing and $`B^\mathrm{o}\overline{B^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing have significant impact in constraining $`\delta `$ and consequently other CKM elements, particularly $`|V_{td}|`$. It, therefore, becomes interesting to examine the implications of future refinements in the data on $`\delta `$ and other quantities mentioned in table 2.

The unitarity analysis involves the elements of first two rows of CKM matrix, all of which are known with the reasonable accuracy except for $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$ and $`|V_{cs}|`$, where the uncertainties are more than 15$`\%`$. Therefore, it would be interesting to examine the consequences of the future refinements in these two elements. In this context, we have repeated the unitarity based analysis with the future value of $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$, $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$=0.090 $`\pm `$ 0.010, whereas for $`|V_{cs}|`$, we consider the latest LEP value $`|V_{cs}|=0.996\pm 0.013`$ . The corresponding results for $`\delta `$, $`|V_{td}|`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ are summarized in the Table 3. From the table, one finds that the future refinements in $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$ and $`|V_{cs}|`$ may result in the relatively stronger bounds on the quantities mentioned above. In particular, the lower limit of $`|V_{td}|`$ and sin$`2\beta `$ goes up noticeably.

As has already been mentioned, the $`\epsilon _K`$ analysis with the future refinements of data will not have significant implications. However, in the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ a refinement in $`F_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}}`$ to the value 0.230 $`\pm `$ 0.010 GeV, along with refinement in $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$ mentioned above, has quite marked implications on $`|V_{td}|`$ and $`\delta `$. In particular, $`\delta `$ range will improve from $`1^\mathrm{o}104^\mathrm{o}`$ to $`38^\mathrm{o}80^\mathrm{o}`$, the corresponding improved range for $`|V_{td}|`$ is, 0.0070 to 0.0084. In the table 3, we have listed the ranges for $`\delta `$ , $`|V_{td}|`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ found by using future refinements of data corresponding to different combinations of constraints due to unitarity, $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{d,s}`$.

It is of interest to discuss the implications of the refinements in the measurement of sin$`2\beta `$. In this context, it may be noted that the lower and upper limit on $`\delta `$, given by equation 36, can be attributed respectively to unitarity and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$. One can easily check that with $`\delta `$ in the first quadrant, the lower and upper limits of sin$`2\beta `$ correspond to the lower and upper limits of $`\delta `$ respectively. Therefore, refinements in the upper limit of sin$`2\beta `$ will have significant implications for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, whereas the lower limit will have implications for unitarity.

## 7 Summary and conclusions

A recently carried out unitarity based analysis  involving the evaluation of Jarlskog’s rephasing invariant parameter J as well as the CP violating phase $`\delta `$ is extended to include the effects of $`K^\mathrm{o}\overline{K^\mathrm{o}}`$ and $`B^\mathrm{o}\overline{B^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixings. The present analysis attempts to evaluate CP violating phase $`\delta `$, $`|V_{td}|`$ and the angles of the unitarity triangle $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ by invoking the constraints imposed by unitarity, $`K^\mathrm{o}\overline{K^\mathrm{o}}`$ and $`B^\mathrm{o}\overline{B^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixings independently as well as collectively. As discussed in references , the unitarity constraints have been included via J evaluated through the triangle $`uc`$. Using the $`\delta `$ range, found from the constraints of unitarity only, we are able to reproduce the PDG CKM matrix rather well, also found from the considerations of unitarity. It may be mentioned that we have used the method of “full scanning” of the input parameters, also employed by Buras et al. . The $`K^\mathrm{o}\overline{K^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing and $`B^\mathrm{o}\overline{B^\mathrm{o}}`$ mixing constraints have been incorporated through $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{d,s}`$ respectively. The implications of above mentioned phenomena have been studied one by one on the CKM parameters, in particular on the CP violating phase $`\delta `$ and $`|V_{td}|`$. This enables one to explore their role clearly and independently of each other in constraining $`\delta `$ and consequently $`|V_{td}|`$ and the angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ of the unitarity triangle $`db`$. Finally we incorporate all the constraints together in order to compare our result with the other recent analyses, in particular with Buras et al..

Using the latest data listed in table 1 and incorporating the unitarity constraints, we get $`\delta `$ = 50$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{o}}\pm 20^\mathrm{o}`$ (in I quadrant), 130$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{o}}\pm 20^\mathrm{o}`$ (in II quadrant) and $`5.1\times 10^3|V_{td}|13.8\times 10^3`$. The combined constraints of unitarity and $`\epsilon _k`$ yield, 33$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{o}}\delta 70^\mathrm{o}`$ (in I quadrant), 110$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{o}}\delta 150^\mathrm{o}`$ (in II quadrant) and $`5.8\times 10^3|V_{td}|13.6\times 10^3`$, thus slightly improving only the lower limit of $`\delta `$ over and above unitarity. However, the combined constraints of unitarity and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ restrict $`\delta `$ and $`|V_{td}|`$ significantly, for example, $`30^\mathrm{o}\delta 70^\mathrm{o}`$ and $`6.4\times 10^3|V_{td}|8.9\times 10^3`$. We find that the presently available lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$$`>`$ 15.0 $`ps^1`$) doesn’t yield any significant constraints on $`\delta `$. Finally, incorporating all the constraints together we get, 37$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{o}}\delta 70^\mathrm{o}`$, $`6.5\times 10^3|V_{td}|8.9\times 10^3`$ , and the corresponding ranges for $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are, $`80^\mathrm{o}\alpha 124^\mathrm{o}`$, $`15.1^\mathrm{o}\beta 31^\mathrm{o}`$ and $`37^\mathrm{o}\gamma 70^\mathrm{o}`$, which are in agreement with the recent results of Buras et al.. Also, the calculated range of sin2$`\beta `$ is within the recently updated BABAR results. This range is in agreement with the earlier result of BELLE, however has marginal overlap only with the lower limit of recent BELLE results.

We have also examined the implications of future refinements in data and have found that the future refinements in $`|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$, $`|V_{cs}|`$ and $`F_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}}`$ etc. would considerably narrow the range of $`\delta `$ and consequently of $`|V_{td}|`$. Since, with $`\delta `$ in the first quadrant, the lower and upper limits of sin$`2\beta `$ correspond to the lower and upper limits of $`\delta `$ respectively, therefore, the refinements in the measurements of upper limit and the lower limit of sin$`2\beta `$ will have implications for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and unitarity of the CKM matrix respectively.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
M.G. would like to thank S.D. Sharma for useful discussions. M.R. would like to thank CSIR, Govt. of India, for financial support and also the Chairman, Department of Physics, for providing facilities to work in the department.