format: text

text:
# Instanton Model of QCD Phase Transition Bubble Walls

## I Introduction

At the time 10-5 s the temperature (T) of the universe was approximately 300 MeV. During the time interval between 10-5-10-4s the universe passed through the temperature T$`{}_{c}{}^{}`$ 150 MeV, the critical temperature for the chiral phase transition from the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) to the hadronic phase (HP), the quark-hadron phase transition (QHT). There have been many numerical studies of the QHT. Some lattice gauge calculations indicate the the transition is weakly first order, which would imply bubble formation during the QHT. At the present time lattice calculations cannot determine the order of the transition. Recent numerical calculations in the MIT Bag model find a first order transition with hadronic bubbles stable for nucleation at a scale of 1 fm.

Assuming that the QHT is first-order there have been a number of studies of the bubble nucleation and of possible observational effects of such a phase transition. The latter include the possibility of large scale density perturbations and the seeding of primary magnetic fields that could lead to observational effects in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation(CMBR), or large scale galactic or extra-galactic structure.

The essential property of the bubbles needed to study the nucleation is the surface tension, $`\sigma `$. The most recent lattice calculations give a value of $`\sigma 0.015\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{c}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$, while earlier studies  find a larger value. In our present work we wish to estimate $`\sigma `$ from the QCD Lagrangian, with the result that we obtain the energy momentum tensor that can be used in future work on bubble collisions. For the electroweak phase transition bubble collisions have been studied and interesting estimates of magnetic fields formed during the collisions have been made using an abelian Higgs model plus the QED Lagrangian. However, because of the complexity of nonperturbative QCD, a reliable model of the bubble walls formed in the QHT has not been formulated. It is the goal of the present work to formulate such a model.

Since the main structure of the bubble walls must be gluonic in nature we use pure gluodynamics. Noting that the walls separate the hadronic from the quark/gluon plasma regions of the universe, it is natural to consider an instanton picture of the walls. The QCD instantons are classical solutions for the color field, which were derived in Euclidean space. They connect points in two vacuua with different winding numbers. In analogy with Coleman’s model of regions of true and false vacuua, we consider the instantons connecting vacuua with different winding numbers in the quark-gluon region and the hadronic region on the opposite sides of the bubble. The Euclidean instanton model cannot be used for the treatment of bubble nucleation and collisions (in fact the energy density and surface tension vanish in this picture), but the model must be continued to Minkowski space. In brief, our picture is a Minkowski space analytic continuation of the instanton model for the bubble walls separating the quark/gluon from the hadronic regions during the QHT.

It is well known that the instantons of the instanton liquid model can provide the essential nonperturbative gluonic effects of QCD at the medium length scale of 0.3-0.5 fm, although instantons do not provide confinement. As we show below, this seems to be the crucial length scale needed for QCD bubble walls. In recent work an effective Lagrangian was used to estimate domain wall formation possibly associated with the QCD phase transition. Although the resulting domain wall is within the hadronic bubble it resembles the bubble wall that we obtain with the instanton model in the present work. That model has also been used to examine the possibility of magnetic walls formed during the QHT seeding gallactic magnetic structure. Such a magnetic wall has also been considered for cosmic microwave background radiation polarization correlations. Also, there are recent numerical investigations of the T-dependence of the properties of the QCD instantons, which we need in the present investigation.

In Sec. II we review the instanton liquid model at T=0 and discuss the energy density and equation of motion in Minkowski space. In Sec. III we use recent lattice results for instantons at finite temperature as well as our own recent work on glueballs to estimate the surface tension. The surface tension is derived at time t=0, and serves as an initial condition for bubble nucleation and collisions in Minkowski space. In Sec. IV we discuss the energy momentum tensor for gluonic QCD in Minkowski space and possible applications based on the instanton model for bubble collisions and cosmological observations.

## II Instanton Model At T=0, Continuation to Minkowski Space, and QCD Chirqal Phase Transition Bubbles

In this section we review the instanton model of QCD at T=0, and the extension of the model to treat the bubble walls in the QCD chiral phase transition. Instantons are obtained and studied in Euclidean space. As described in early work on the application of instantons to bubble nucleation and collisions in formulating the instanton bubble itself one proceeds in Eucledean space, while for the study of collisions of nucleating bubbles one must work in Minkowski space. This will be discussed further in Sec. IV.

### A T=0 Instanton Model in Minkowski Space

The Lagrangian density for pure glue is

$`^{glue}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}GG,`$ (1)
where

$`G_{\mu \nu }^n`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ig[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$ (2)
$`A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu ^n\lambda ^n/2,`$ (3)
with $`\lambda ^n`$ the eight SU(3) Gell-Mann matrices. The instantons are the classical solutions of the gauge fields for a pure SU(2) gauge theory. I.e., writing $`A_\mu ^n=A_\mu ^{n,inst}+A_\mu ^{n,qu}`$, where $`A_\mu ^{n,inst}`$ is a pure gauge classical field, if one keeps only the instanton gluonic field , and solves the equation of motion obtained by minimizing the classical action in Euclidean space

$`\delta [{\displaystyle G^{inst}G^{inst}}]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
one obtains the solution

$`A_\mu ^{n,inst}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta _{\mu \nu }^nx^\nu }{(x^2+\rho ^2)}}`$ (5)
$`G_{\mu \nu }^{n,inst}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{\mu \nu }^n4\rho ^2}{(x^2+\rho ^2)^2}},`$ (6)
for the instanton and a similar expression with -n for the anti-instanton, where $`\rho `$ is the instanton size and the $`\eta _{\mu \nu }^n`$ are: $`\eta _{bc}^a=ϵ_{abc};\eta _{\mu 4}^a=\delta _{a\mu };\eta _{4\nu }^a=\delta _{a\nu }`$, with (a,b,c) = (1,2,3) and $`(\mu ,\nu )`$= (1…4). The instanton connects points in two QCD vacua which differ by one unit of winding number. The instanton contribution to the Lagrangian density is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G^{inst}G^{inst}`$ $`=`$ $`48{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^4}{(x^2+\rho ^2)^4}}.`$ (7)
The energy momentum tensor, $`T^{\mu \nu }`$, can be obtained from the Lagrangian, and in Minkowski space is given by (see, e.g., Ref)

$`T^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}(G_a^{\mu \alpha }G_{\alpha a}^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^{\mu \nu }G_a^{\alpha \beta }G_{\alpha \beta a}).`$ (8)
To get the Euclidean space expression for the energy density, $`T^{44}`$, one carries out the analytic continuation giving $`x^2=x^\mu x_\mu `$ = $`\stackrel{}{x}^2+x_4^2`$ in Euclidean space, while it is $`\stackrel{}{x}^2x_0^2`$ in Minkowski space. From this one see that $`g^{44}=g^{00}`$. Therefore in Euclidean space the energy density in the instanton model is

$`T_{44}^{inst}`$ $`=`$ $`G_{a4\alpha }G_{a\alpha 4}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_{a\alpha \beta }G_{a\alpha \beta }`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`0.`$ (10)
The result shown in Eq.(9) follows from Eq.(5) and the properties of the $`\eta _{\mu \nu }^n`$ given in Ref.

For the nucleation of QCD bubles and for bubble collisions one must work in Minkowski space. From Eqs.(8,5) one finds for the energy density in Minkowski space

$`T^{00,inst}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{inst}G^{inst}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`96{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^4}{(x^2+\rho ^2)^4}}`$ (12)
Eq.(11) gives the energy density for an instanton. To complete the instanton model for $`T^{00}`$ one must find the instanton density, n, for the particular system in question. Evaluation of the instanton density is reviewed for both T=0 and finite T in Ref. In the instanton model the density is easily evaluated in terms of the gluon condensate, which is proportional to the vacuum matrix element $`<GG>`$. Thus the instanton vlaue for n, n(inst), is given by

$`n(inst)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{<GG>}{d^4xG^{inst}G^{inst}}}.`$ (13)
From Eq.(5) and the phenonomenological value for the quark constant $`<GG>1.0GeV^4`$, one finds that

$`n(inst)`$ $``$ $`1.0fm^4.`$ (14)
This value is consistent with that determined by the tunneling amplitude. Another evaluation of n can be obtained from the QCD sum rule evaluation of scalar glueballs. Since the correlator for scalar glueballs is given by the Fourier transform of $`<G(x)G(x)G(0)G(0)>`$, the pole term in the dispersion relation for the correlator has a factor of n. By comparing to the 1.5 GeV candidate for a scalar glueball, the best fits were found for values up to about twice the instanton value. Also, some lattice calculations have found larger values.

To evaluate the surface tension of the bubble walls we must also consider instantons at finite temperature during bubble nucleation, which we do in the next section.

### B QCD Chiral Phase Transition Bubble Walls

The equations of motion for pure glue QCD are obtained from the Lagrangian given by Eq.(1). Using

$`\delta [{\displaystyle GG}]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (15)
and working in a SU(2) version of QCD, with $`A_\mu =A_\mu ^a\sigma ^a/2`$, $`\sigma ^a`$ being the Paili spin matrices, and $`[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]=iϵ_{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c\sigma ^a/2`$, the equations of motion are

$`_\mu ^\mu A_\nu ^a+gϵ^{abc}(2A_\mu ^b^\mu A_\nu ^cA_\mu ^b_\nu A^{\mu c})+g^2ϵ^{abc}ϵ^{cef}A_\mu ^bA^{\mu e}A_\nu ^f`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (16)
Recognizing that the instanton form of Eq.(5) is a classical solution to these equations of motion, we try the form

$`A_\mu ^{n,inst}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta _{\mu \nu }^nx^\nu F(x^2),`$ (17)
and sustituting in Eq.(16) find that $`F(x^2)`$ satisfies

$`^2F`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{F}{x^2}}12F^2+8x^2F^3`$ (18)
in the Lorentz gauge, with the gauge condition $`_\mu A_\mu ^a=0`$. By using the initial condition

$`F(x,t=0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_0)^2+\rho ^2}},`$ (19)
one finds that the instanton form is indeed an approximate solution. This is discussed further in Section IV, where collisions of QCD bubbles are discussed.

From the phenomenological applications the instanton liquid model was developed, with $`\rho `$ = 0.33 fm. This gives the thickness of the instanton wall at temperature T=0. To complete our model we need the instanton density at T=Tc, as well s the value of the instanton size at that temperature. This is discussed in the next section.

## III Bubble Wall surface tension

In this section we evaluate the surface tension in the instanton model. In order to do this we must consider the dependence of the instanton size and density on the temperature. We start with calculating the surface tension for an instanton wall.

The surface tension is the essential parameter for classical bubble nucleation. For the treatment of nucleation one must work in Minkowski space. As discussed in detail in Ref., to treat nucleation and collisions with instanton input one makes an analytic continuation from Euclidean to Minkowski space at the initial time, t=0. For our problem this is achieved by replacing t by it, or in Minkowski space $`x_\mu x^\mu =\stackrel{}{x}^2t^2`$. In the present section we study the surface tension at t=0; and the energy density in Minikowski space derived in the previous section from the instanton solutions can be used for the derivation of the surface tension. The results at t=0 which we find will serve as part of the initial conditions for the study of nucleation and collisions, as discussed in Sec. IV.

The surface energy is the surface tension $`\times `$ the area of the wall for a thin wall. Note that the wall thickness is of the order of $`\rho `$, the instanton size, which is a fraction of a fermi, so that a thin-wall formalism is appropriate. Therefore the surface tension with one instanton at t=0 is

$`\sigma ^{inst}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑xT^{00,inst}(x,0,0)}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{1}{2}𝐆𝐆}.`$ (21)
From Eqs.(7,20)

$`\sigma ^{inst}`$ $`=`$ $`32^5{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{\rho ^4}{(x^2+\rho ^2)^4}}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`62^5{\displaystyle \frac{5!!}{6!!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\rho ^3}}.`$ (23)
In order to complete our model, we must work with instantons at the temperature T = Tc, which means using a modified instanton size and density. Moreover, since we are dealing with a gluonic wall separating the two phases, the QGP and the HP, the number density is quite different from the result given in Eqs.(13,14) for the T=0 system. We use the model applied for the lattice calculations, and described in detail in Ref.. In this picture the free energy is calculated using two peaks for the two phases on the two sides of the bubble, separated by a mixed quark/gluon-hadronic phase. There will be a factor of the instanton number density, i.e., the instanton density times the effective four-volume, for each peak. Therefore, from from Eq.(22) the resulting surface tension in our instanton model is

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`65{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \overline{N}^2}{\overline{\rho }^3}},`$ (24)
where $`\overline{N}`$ is the instanton number density at the surface and $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the instanton size at T = Tc. We obtain $`\overline{N}`$ from the T = 0 instanton number per four-volume, n = (N/V) of Eq.(13). Defining n = $`\overline{n}`$ GeV4 at finite T and using V= $`\overline{\rho }^4`$, $`\overline{N}^2`$ = 5.96 $`\overline{n}^2`$, where we use $`\overline{\rho }`$ = 0.25 fm, as discussed next.

At T=0 $`\rho `$ = 0.33 fm in the liquid instanton model. This has also been found in lattice calculations. There have been a number of numerical investigations on the modification of the instanton system at finite T. Based on these calculation we take $`\overline{\rho }`$ = 0.25 fm. There is uncertainty in the value of the instanton density, n, at T=0. In our work on scalar mesons/glueballs we found values of $`\overline{n}`$ = 0.0008-0.0015, with 0.0008 used in the instanton liquid model. These values also cover the range of values of lattice gauge calculaitons over the past decade. From the results of the finite T calculations the n seems to decrease by about a factor of 2 at Tc, so we use the range $`\overline{n}`$ = 0.0004-0.00075. This gives us the result

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`(0.0130.046)T_c^3,`$ (25)
compared to the value $`\sigma =`$ 0.015 T$`{}_{}{}^{3}{}_{c}{}^{}`$ in the most recent lattice calculation. We note that the instanton liquid model of the QCD bubble wall gives a value $`\sigma =`$ 0.013 T$`{}_{}{}^{3}{}_{c}{}^{}`$ in very good agreement with the lattice calculation, and that our model for the bubble wall is quite promising.

## IV Discussion of Applications to Collisions

Although the knowledge of the surface tension is essential for studing the nucleation and collisions of bubbles during the QCD chiral phase transition, there is no observable directly related to these bubbles, so the challenge is to find observable effects related to these bubbles. In our recent work we have investigated the possibility of a magnetic walls being formed by interactions of hadrons with an internal gluon instanton wall which might be formed within the hadronic phase during the QCD chiral phase transition. In this section we discuss this possibility and the relationship to the wall surface tension that has been derived above.

As was discussed in Sec. II the instanton model itself describes a static bubble. For the study of bubble nucleation and collisions one works in Minkowski space. Starting from the instanton Lagrangian and using standard field theory methods one obtains the color $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ fields,

$`E_i^n`$ $`=`$ $`G_{i0}^n`$ (26)
$`B_i^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{ijk}G_{jk}^n,`$ (27)
with the i,j,k indices running 1,2,3. From this the energy-momentum tensor, $`𝐓`$ for an instanton in Minkowski space is given as

$`T^{00,inst}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐄^n𝐄^n+𝐁^n𝐁^n)`$ (28)
$`T^{0i,inst}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{ijk}E_j^nB_k^n`$ (29)
$`T^{ij,inst}`$ $`=`$ $`(E^{ni}E^{nj}+B^{ni}B^{nj})T^{00,inst}\delta _{ij}`$ (30)
From the results of Sec. II and with a straightforward calculation we obtain for the stress energy tensor in the instanton model from Eq.(30)

$`T^{ij,inst}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\overline{\rho }^2}{(x^2+\overline{\rho }^2)^2}}\right)^2\delta _{ij}.`$ (31)
To obtain the color $`𝐄`$ abd $`𝐁`$ fields one must solve the QCd equations of motion. Solutions to the equations of motion with an effective Lagrangian have been found for a pure SU(2) gauge theory in Minkowski space. Using the general picture of Coleman in which one sets the instanton initial conditions at time t=0 and then uses the equations of motion in Minkowski space for the evolution, a SU(2) model of of QCD instantons has been developed and applied to heavy relativistic heavy ion collisions.

We are developing a similar program for our cosmological studies of the QCD chiral phase transition in the early universe based on QCD field theory. During the collision of two bubbles the colliding walls might form an internal wall within the merged bubbles. In classical nucleation theory when two identical bubbles collide they merge to form a bubble with an interior wall having the same surface tension as the original bubble walls. In our case the result would be instanton walls described in the previous sections. Note that in Ref. an estimate of the lifetime of the gluonic domain walls in their model was 10-5s, which allows magnetic walls to be formed. Although the present theory is quite different, a two-dimensional model of bubble collisions starting from the gluonic QCD Lagrangian finds that an internal gluonic wall is formed, and this suggests that magnetic structures could form. Using the standard evolution methods as used for tangled magnetic fields for the scattering  or for metric perturbations one can investigate possible observational effects in the CMBR. A preliminary investigation of this has been carried out assuming the interior instanton wall is formed, which is shown to lead to an interior magnetic wall, and CMBR polarization correlations are found that could be observed in the next few years.

The crucial question is whether an internal wall is formed with the properties of the nucleating QCD bubbles. In a 1+1 dimensional study in pure QCD, the equations of motion of Eq.(18) were solved. This corresponds physically to very large bubbles colliding, as illustrated in Fig.1.

To model collisions one takes an initial condition with two walls, such as

$`F(x,t=0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(xx_0)^2+\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x+x_0)^2+\rho ^2}},`$ (32)
with $`2x_0`$ the separation between the two bubble walls at time t=0, and follows the evolution. In Ref it was found that an interior wall is indeed formed, which seems to be similar to the initial walls. Fig.1 illustrates the process at the instant when the walls are overlapping, and the calculation shows the two bubbles separating with an internal instanton-like structure remaining at the collision region. From this one would conclude that the interior wall would have approximately the same surface tension as discussed in the previous sections, and could result in the magnetic wall of Ref. Moreover, the studies of the QCD chiral phase transition find that in contrast to the electroweak phase transition where many bubles nucleate, the QCD chiral phase transition seems to proceed via inhomogeneous nucleation, with larger distance between bubbles and few nucleating bubbles involved in the transition to the hadronic phase. Thus the large bubble collision of Fig.1 and Ref is well-founded.

To investigate the nucleation and collision of bubbles during the QCD chiral phase transition one must include quark and hadronic degrees of freedom, since they play a major role in the free energy difference between the hadronic and quark/gluon phases. With Eq.(16), however, one can learn a great deal about the bubble walls, and our results for the surface tension in the present paper are quite promising. The full 3+1 dimensional treatment of nucleating QCD bubbles is a subject of future research.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge helpful discussions with Mikkel Johnson, Ernest Henley, Pauchy Hwang and Ho-Meoyng Choi. This work was supported in part by NSF grant PHY-00070888 and by the Taiwan CosPA Project, Taiwan Ministry of Education 89-N-FA01-1-3


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry (SUSY) extension is one of the most promising way to solve the gauge hierarchy problem in the standard model. However, since none of the sparticles have been observed yet, supersymmetry must be broken at low energies. In addition, sparticle masses are severely constrained by experiments, since arbitrary soft supersymmetry breaking masses cause too large flavor changing neutral currents (SUSY flavor problem). Finding a simple mechanism of supersymmetry breaking and its mediation is one of the most important task for realistic supersymmetric theories.

The anomaly mediated supersymmetry breaking (AMSB)   is one of the most attractive scenario in supergravity. This is because it predicts the sparticle mass spectrum being flavor blind and thus solves the SUSY flavor problem automatically. In addition, since SUSY breaking is mediated through the superconformal anomaly, sparticle masses at low energies are insensitive to any high energy theories and mechanism of SUSY breaking, namely, model independent.

In order to realize the AMSB scenario, the sequestering between the visible sector and the hidden sector in supergravity action is necessary. This is naturally realized in the five dimensional brane world scenario  , where the visible and hidden sectors are confined on the different branes geometrically separated111 It is recently pointed out  that the sequestering is not a generic prediction of the string theories, even if two branes are geometrically separated. In this paper, we simply assume that we are on a special point in the string moduli (if the string theory is the ultimate theory behind us), where the sequestering is realized. , or in the models where the contact terms between the hidden and visible sectors are suppressed dynamically by a conformal sector . For simplicity, we assume the sequestering in this paper.

Unfortunately, the pure AMSB scenario is obviously excluded, since it predicts slepton squared-masses being negative. There have been many attempts to solve this “tachyonic slepton” problem by taking into account additional positive contributions to the sparticle squared-masses at the tree level   or at the quantum level   .

One of elegant scenarios is the so-called “deflected anomaly mediation” scenario proposed by Pomarol and Rattazzi . We introduce the messenger sector with $`N`$ flavors of messengers such that

$`W={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _iS\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i\mathrm{\Psi }^i,`$ (1)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^i`$ are the messengers in $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}+\mathrm{𝟓}`$ representation under the gauge group $`SU(5)`$222 We use the conventional $`SU(5)`$ GUT notation in this paper. In this notation, the beta function coefficient $`b_1=33/5`$ and the quadratic Casimir $`C=3/5Y^2`$ for the $`U(1)_Y`$ hypercharge. , and $`S`$ is the singlet superfield. If vacuum expectation values of the scalar component ($`S`$) and the F-component ($`F_S`$) of the singlet superfield are generated, new contributions to sparticle masses develop through the same manner as in the gauge mediation scenario  . As a result, sparticle masses are deflected from the pure AMSB trajectory of the renormalization group equations, and the tachyonic slepton problem can be fixed. In addition, this scenario predicts the specific sparticle mass spectrum . Furthermore, detailed phenomenology was discussed , and the extension to the model with axion was proposed .

The crucial difference from the gauge mediation scenario is that the SUSY breaking in the messenger sector is originated from the anomaly mediation. Therefore, non-zero F-component of the compensating multiplet ($`F_\varphi `$) is the unique source of SUSY breaking in this scenario. This fact allows us to parameterize the SUSY breaking order parameter in the messenger sector such as (see Eq. (3) for our notation)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_S}{S}}=dF_\varphi .`$ (2)
Here we introduced the parameter $`d`$ which characterizes how the sparticle masses are deflected from the pure AMSB trajectory. We call $`d`$ “deflection parameter” in this paper. Note that $`d`$ should be real and, at most, of order one, $`|d|𝒪(1)`$, since all the quantities accompanied by SUSY breaking should be originated from the anomaly mediation.

In the conventional deflected anomaly mediation scenario, only the negative values for the deflection parameter $`d<0`$ have been taken into account. In this paper we generalize the conventional scenario to the case with positive deflection parameter. We examine, in the next section, how non-zero deflection parameter occurs based on a simple superpotential, and find that the deflection parameter can be positive. In Sec. 3, we present a simple concrete model which can realize our scenario. The sparticle mass spectrum is presented in Sec. 4. We will see that our result is quite different from that in the conventional deflected anomaly mediation scenario, but is similar to that of the gauge mediation scenario. The lightest sparticle (LSP) is mostly B-ino in our scenario. We give a conclusion in the last section.

## 2 Generalization and positive deflection parameter

In order to fix the tachyonic slepton problem, a sizable deflection parameter, $`|d|𝒪(1)`$, is necessary. In general, this case occurs when the superfield $`S`$ is lighter than $`F_\varphi `$ in the SUSY limit and the SUSY breaking effect plays an essential role to determine the potential minimum of $`S`$.

There are two typical cases. One is that $`S`$ has no superpotential or an extremely flat potential in the SUSY limit, and the potential minimum is determined essentially by the effective Kahler potential including the anomaly mediation. The other case is that $`S`$ has a superpotential, which plays an essential role to determine the potential minimum after the SUSY breaking effects are taken into account. In the first case, the deflection parameter is found to be $`d1`$. This is nothing but the case mainly discussed in the conventional deflected anomaly mediation scenario. On the other hand, the deflection parameter can generally be positive in the latter case. In fact, we can construct a model which realizes $`d>0`$.

Let us begin with the supergravity Lagrangian for $`S`$ in the superconformal framework   (supposing SUSY breaking in the hidden sector and fine-tuning of the vanishing cosmological constant),

$`={\displaystyle }d^4\theta \varphi ^{}\varphi 𝒵(S^{},S)S^{}S+\{{\displaystyle }d^2\theta \varphi ^3W(S)+h.c.\},`$ (3)
where $`𝒵`$ is the supersymmetric wave function renormalization coefficient, $`W`$ is the superpotential (except for Eq. (1)), and $`\varphi `$ is the chiral compensating multiplet expanded as $`\varphi =1+\theta ^2F_\varphi `$ with the unique SUSY breaking source $`F_\varphi `$ being the same order as the gravitino mass. The scalar potential can be read off as

$`V={\displaystyle \frac{^2𝒦}{S^{}S}}|F_S|^2𝒦|F_\varphi |^23F_\varphi W3F_\varphi ^{}W^{}`$ (4)
with the auxiliary field given by

$`F_S=\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2𝒦}{S^{}S}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒦}{S^{}}}F_\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{W^{}}{S^{}}}\right),`$ (5)
where $`𝒦=𝒵(S^{},S)S^{}S`$ is the effective “Kahler potential” in the superconformal framework.

Let us first consider the case where $`S`$ has no superpotential or the superpotential plays no essential role to determine the potential minimum. In this case, the superpotential term in Eq. (5) can be ignored. In addition, since $`𝒵1`$ is usually a very slowly varying function of $`S^{}`$ and $`S`$ in perturbation theory, $`𝒵/S^{}`$, $`𝒵/S`$ and $`^2𝒵/S^{}S`$ can be all neglected. As a result, we obtain $`F_S/SF_\varphi `$, namely, the deflection parameter $`d1`$ independent of $`S`$ at the potential minimum. This is the case discussed in the conventional deflected anomaly mediation scenario. We arrive at the same result in the case where the potential is bounded by higher dimensional Kahler terms if $`S`$ is much smaller than the Planck scale .

Next consider the case that the potential minimum is determined through the superpotential. We can take the canonical Kahler potential, $`𝒦S^{}S`$, as a good approximation, and Eqs. (4) and (5) are reduced to simple forms. Using the stationary condition, $`V/S=0`$, and Eq. (5), we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_S}{S}}2F_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\frac{W}{S}}{S\frac{^2W}{S^{}S}}}.`$ (6)
This is a useful formula, from which we can understand that $`S`$ should be light in the SUSY limit in order to obtain a sizable deflection parameter $`|d|𝒪(1)`$.

Suppose that $`S=S_0F_\varphi `$ and $`S`$ is much heavier than the gravitino in the SUSY limit. After taking the supergravity effects into account, the vacuum expectation value of $`S`$, in general, shifts from the value in the SUSY limit such as $`SS_0+𝒪(F_\varphi )`$ . In this case, Eq. (6) can be expanded with respect to the small variable $`F_\varphi /S_0`$ with the SUSY vacuum condition $`W/S(S_0)=0`$, and we can find that $`F_S/SF_\varphi \times 𝒪(F_\varphi /S_0)`$, that is, $`d𝒪(F_\varphi /S_0)1`$. This is the one discussed as the decoupling case in the literatures   . Note that this example also implies a possibility that there would be a sizable effect if $`S_0F_\varphi `$. In this case, detailed analysis of higher order corrections is necessary .

As a simple and interesting example which can incorporate the generalization of the deflected anomaly mediation scenario, let us introduce the superpotential,

$`W=M^{3p}S^p,`$ (7)
where $`M`$ is a mass parameter, and $`p`$ is a real parameter. From the general formula of Eq. (6), we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_S}{S}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{1p}}.`$ (8)
Note that the deflection parameter becomes positive for $`p<1`$. Since the case $`p3`$, or $`d<0`$, has been discussed in the conventional scenario, we discuss about only the case with the positive deflection parameter in the following333 For $`p>1`$, we can find new consistent solution for $`2<p<3`$, which generalize the conventional scenario to the region $`2<d<0`$. .

There is an upper bound on the deflection parameter. To see this, we analyze the potential in detail. It is useful to redefine the superfield by $`\varphi SS`$, so as to eliminate the compensating multiplet in the (canonical) Kahler potential. In this notation, Lagrangian is found to be

$`={\displaystyle }d^4\theta S^{}S+\{{\displaystyle }d^2\theta \varphi ^{3p}M^{3p}S^p+h.c.\}.`$ (9)
Here $`M`$ has been taken to be real and positive by $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry rotation without loss of generality. Changing variables such that $`S=re^{i\mathrm{\Omega }/p}`$ and $`F_\varphi =|F_\varphi |e^{i\omega }`$ by using only real parameters, the scalar potential is found to be

$`V=p^2M^{62p}r^{2p2}2(3p)|F_\varphi |M^{3p}r^p\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }+\omega ).`$ (10)
From the minimization conditions, $`V/\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ and $`^2V/\mathrm{\Omega }^2>0`$, we obtain the solution $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega `$ with the assumption $`0<r<\mathrm{}`$. With this solution, the stationary condition with respect to $`r`$ leads to

$`r^{p2}={\displaystyle \frac{3p}{p(p1)}}M^{p3}|F_\varphi |.`$ (11)
We can find a solution in the region $`0<r<\mathrm{}`$ only for $`p<0`$. Thus, the upper bound on the deflection parameter is found to be $`d<2`$. This result is consistent with our expectation $`d𝒪(1)`$.

Constraints on the parameter $`M`$ is given by consistency of our scenario. We have been assuming that $`d0`$ is originated from the anomaly mediation. This point is nothing but the crucial difference of our scenario from the gauge mediation scenario. Therefore, SUSY breaking in the messenger sector should be negligible compared with the original SUSY breaking in the hidden sector. This requirement is described as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{|W|}{M_{pl}^2}}|F_\varphi |m_{3/2},`$ (12)
where $`M_{pl}`$ and $`m_{3/2}`$ are the reduced Planck mass and the gravitino mass, respectively. Using the above solutions, we find

$`M\left({\displaystyle \frac{p(p1)}{3p}}\right)^{\frac{p}{2(3p)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|F_\varphi |}{M_{pl}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3p}}M_{pl}.`$ (13)
Note that this condition is also consistent with a natural requirement $`rM_{pl}`$.

## 3 A concrete model

In the previous section, we have generalized the deflection parameter to the positive region. The simple example consistent with our assumption is the superpotential with negative $`p`$. We can hardly imagine that any perturbative theories have such a superpotential, the so-called runaway-type superpotential. However, there occurs the case in the SUSY gauge theories through non-perturbative gauge dynamics . Now we present a concrete model.

Our model is based on the strong gauge group $`SU(N_c)`$ ($`N_c2`$) with the particle contents as follows.

|  | $`SU(N_c)`$ | $`U(1)_R`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\overline{Q}`$ | $`\overline{𝐍}`$ | $`1N_c`$ |
| $`Q`$ | $`𝐍`$ | $`1N_c`$ |
| $`Z`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ | $`2N_c`$ |
| $`S`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ | $`1N_c`$ |

The general (renormalizable) superpotential is given by

$`W=Z\left(\left(\overline{Q}Q\right)S^2\right)+(N_c1){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{3N_c1}{N_c1}}}{(\overline{Q}Q)^{\frac{1}{N_c1}}}},`$ (14)
where the second term is the dynamically generated superpotential , and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the dynamical scale. We have omitted dimensionless free parameters for simplicity.

After integrating out the superfields $`\overline{Q}`$, $`Q`$ and $`Z`$ under their SUSY vacuum conditions, we obtain the effective superpotential,

$`W_{eff}=(N_c1)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{3N_c1}{N_c1}}S^{\frac{2}{1N_c}},`$ (15)
which corresponds to the superpotential of Eq. (7) with the identifications, $`p=2/(N_c1)<0`$ and $`M=(N_c1)^{\frac{N_c1}{3N_c1}}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The deflection parameter is found to be $`d=2(N_c1)/(N_c+1)>0`$.

For simplicity, let us take a special limit $`N_c1`$, which leads to $`p0`$ and thus $`d2`$. The condition of Eq. (13) gives the upper bound on the dynamical scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(F_\varphi /N_cM_{pl})^{1/3}M_{pl}`$. Taking a reasonable value $`F_\varphi 𝒪(10\text{TeV})`$ in the AMSB scenario, we can find that the messenger scale $`r\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/F_\varphi }\mathrm{\Lambda }M_{GUT}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^{12}`$ GeV are consistent with the condition with $`N_c𝒪(10)`$, where $`M_{GUT}10^{16}`$ GeV is the grand unification scale.

## 4  Sparticle mass spectrum

Now let us figure out the sparticle mass spectrum in our scenario. General formulas are given by the method developed in Ref.  (see also ). For the general case with $`F_S/S=dF_\varphi `$, they are found to be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\lambda _i}}{\alpha (\mu )}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_\varphi }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{\text{ln}\mu }}d{\displaystyle \frac{}{\text{ln}|S|}}\right)\alpha ^1(\mu ,S)`$
$`m_i^2(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|F_\varphi |^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{\text{ln}\mu }}d{\displaystyle \frac{}{\text{ln}|S|}}\right)^2\text{ln}Z_i(\mu ,S).`$ (16)
All we have to know is the dependence of the gauge coupling $`\alpha (\mu ,S)`$ and the wave function $`Z_i(\mu ,S)`$ on the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ and on the singlet $`S`$ after integrating out the messengers. In the parentheses, the first and the second terms correspond to the purely anomaly mediated contribution and the additional corrections through the messengers, respectively. Note that the limit $`|d|1`$ reduces the formulas to that in the gauge mediation scenario .

For a simple gauge group, the gauge coupling and the wave functions are given by

$`\alpha ^1(\mu ,S)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^1(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cut})+{\displaystyle \frac{bN}{4\pi }}\text{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S^{}S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cut}^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{4\pi }}\text{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{S^{}S}}\right),`$ (17)
$`Z_i(\mu ,S)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_i(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cut})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cut})}{\alpha (S)}}\right)^{\frac{2c_i}{bN}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (S)}{\alpha (\mu )}}\right)^{\frac{2c_i}{b}},`$ (18)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cut}`$ is the ultraviolet cutoff, $`b`$ is the beta function coefficient, and $`c_i`$ is the quadratic Casimir. Substituting them into Eq. (16), we obtain

$`m_\lambda (\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\mu )}{4\pi }}F_\varphi (b+dN),`$ (19)
$`m_i^2(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`2c_i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\mu )}{4\pi }}\right)^2|F_\varphi |^2bG(\mu ,S),`$ (20)
where

$`G(\mu ,S)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{b}}\xi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{b^2}}(1\xi ^2)\right)d^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{N}{b}}d+1`$ (21)
with

$`\xi {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (S)}{\alpha (\mu )}}=\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{4\pi }}\alpha (\mu )\text{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S^{}S}{\mu ^2}}\right)\right]^1.`$ (22)
In $`d=0`$, Eq. (20) leads to the squared-masses negative for an asymptotically non-free gauge theory ($`b<0`$ ). This occurs as the tachyonic slepton problem in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM).

Let us extract the threshold corrections due to the heavy messengers to the sparticle squared-masses. Taking $`\xi =1`$ at the messenger scale $`\mu =S`$ and subtracting the purely anomaly mediated contribution, we obtain

$`m_i^2|_{th}`$ $`=`$ $`2c_i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (S)}{4\pi }}\right)^2|F_\varphi |^2Nd(d+2).`$ (23)
We can see that $`m_i^2|_{th}<0`$ for the conventional scenario, $`(2<)d<0`$. This is the reason that the scenario is called the “anti-gauge mediation”. On the other hand, in our scenario, the threshold correction has just the same sign as in the gauge mediation scenario. For this reason, we may call our scenario “anomaly induced gauge mediation”.

It is straightforward to extend the above formulas to that for the sparticles in the MSSM. Neglecting the effects of Yukawa couplings, the sparticle masses (in GeV) evaluated at $`\mu =100`$ GeV are depicted in Fig. 1 as a function of $`\text{Log}_{10}[S/\text{GeV}]`$ for the case $`d=2`$ and $`N=2`$ with $`F_\varphi =20`$ TeV. Here we have taken the gauge couplings in the standard model such that $`\alpha _3(m_Z)0.12`$, $`\alpha _2(m_Z)0.033`$, and $`\alpha _1(m_Z)0.017`$. We can find that the resultant spectrum is similar to that of the gauge mediation scenario. However, our result is the distinctive one, since the deflection parameter is, at most, of order one, and far from the “gauge mediation limit”, $`d1`$. We also present the result of conventional deflected anomaly mediation scenario  in Fig. 2 with $`d=1`$ and $`N=4`$. It is interesting to compare these two graphs. The opposite sign of the deflection parameter causes the big difference. Note that we need less number of the messenger fields than that in the conventional scenario in order to fix the tachyonic slepton problem. For example, introduction of only one pair of messengers is enough in the case $`d=2`$ as can be seen in Fig. 3.

The lightest sparticle is B-ino in Fig. 1, and is a candidate of the LSP. There is another candidate in the conventional scenario, the fermionic partner of $`S`$. Analyzing the scalar potential, we find that its mass is of order $`F_\varphi `$ due to the superpotential. Therefore, in our scenario, the LSP is always the sparticle in the MSSM. Although what is the LSP depends on the parameters, $`d`$ and $`N`$, and the messenger scale, we can find that the LSP is mostly B-ino providing the solution of the tachyonic slepton problem. This result may be reasonable, since existence of charged LSP is usually problematic in the cosmological point of view.

## 5 Conclusion

Although the AMSB is very attractive scenario in supergravity, it cannot be phenomenologically viable because of its prediction of the tachyonic slepton. It is inevitable that the AMSB scenario should be extended in order to fix the problem, even if its beautiful feature, namely, model independence, is somewhat lost.

As one elegant scenario, we considered the deflected anomaly mediation scenario. If there is a sizable deflection parameter, the messenger sector plays the essential role so that the tachyonic slepton problem can be fixed. In the conventional scenario, only negative deflection parameter has been taken into account. Based on the simple superpotential, we generalized the scenario to the case with the positive deflection parameter. Furthermore, we presented the concrete model which could naturally realize this scenario.

Sparticle masses were found to be quite different from that in the conventional scenario, but similar to that in the gauge mediation scenario. However, it is the distinctive one, since the corrections through the messengers and the purely AMSB contributions are of the same order. This is because the SUSY breaking in the messenger sector is originated from the superconformal anomaly. This point is the crucial difference from the conventional gauge mediation scenario. It may be reasonable to call our scenario “anomaly induced gauge mediation”.

An elegant mechanism to solve the $`\mu `$-problem was proposed in the original deflected anomaly mediation scenario . Since the mechanism is independent of the sign of the deflection parameter, we can follow the same manner, and obtain the $`\mu `$-term of the same order as the sparticle masses.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Markus Luty for useful discussions and comments.


text:
# Projection and ground state correlations made simple

## I Introduction

Self-consistent mean-field models are nowadays the standard tool for nuclear structure calculations. Their quality has reached a level where one needs to take into account correlation effects beyond mean field, particularly those which are related to low-energy- or symmetry-modes. Typical examples are center-of-mass projection, particle-number projection, angular-momentum projection or quadrupole surface vibrations. There is a large variety of techniques to deal with those correlations, for a review see correlrev . The most widely used ones are the random phase approximation (RPA), see e.g. Rowe ; BB94 , and the generator coordinate method (GCM), see e.g. GCM ; heenenGCM . The latter has close links to projection formulae. The RPA has the advantage that it provides simple equations because it employs only second order commutators of the basic one-body operators with the Hamiltonian. However, it runs into difficulties with soft modes which arise typically near transition points. The GCM is very general and extremely robust, but also very cumbersome to handle. Thus one has developed simplifications in the aim to use also preferably second order expressions. This is achieved by the Gaussian overlap approximation (GOA) to GCM, for details see the review GCM . GCM-GOA is a fair compromise between the generality of GCM and the simplicity of RPA. It uses up to second order anti-commutators but can still deal with large amplitude collective motion. Second order approximation within the spirit of GOA have also been widely applied to projection schemes. The standard recipe $`E_{\mathrm{cm}}=\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{cm}}^2/2mA`$ for center of mass correction belongs to this class schmid . The similarly simple rotational correction $`\widehat{J}^2/2\mathrm{\Theta }`$ has been widely employed, e.g. in the large scale fits of goriely . And there is the well known Lipkin-Nogami approach for particle-number projection Pra73a .

However, one has to be aware that the GOA is not always performing well. For example, it fails for rotational motion in weakly deformed systems and for particle number projection in the regime of weak pairing. The failure can be related to the topology of the collective coordinate under consideration. GOA is well suited for Cartesian coordinates which extend in the interval $`(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$ with constant volume element. The best example is here center of mass motion. But GOA is not necessarily appropriate for other topologies as, e.g., rotational motion whose coordinates are defined on a sphere. It can still work if the overlaps are falling off very quickly. But regimes of weak coupling have broad overlaps and thus the topology of the underlying coordinates is fully explored. It needs to be built in into the approximation. An example for rotational motion is found in rot . A most general construction for any topology is discussed in pom . The changes are, in fact, obvious and simple. It amounts to building the topology of the coordinates into the parameterization of the GOA. We call the emerging approach a topologically corrected Gaussian overlap approximation (topGOA).

It is the aim of this paper to investigate the accuracy of the topGOA for two cases most relevant in nuclear structure calculations, deformations and particle-number projection. We compare topGOA with RPA as well as full GCM and simple GOA. Furthermore, we derive a small amplitude limit of topGOA which gives at the end very simple and compact formulae for the collective ground-state correlations, in a sense comparable to RPA. We call that approach topRPA. In both test cases we employ a suitable generalization of the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model LMG .

## II Conventional approaches

This section provides a brief summary of traditionally well known approaches for collective correlations, RPA and GCM up to GOA.

### II.1 RPA correlations

The RPA theory is perhaps the most straightforward treatment of correlations beyond mean field theory. It gives the leading corrections in the limit of large number of interacting particles. With the RPA, one calculates an excitation spectrum of eigenfrequencies $`\omega _n`$ and the associated particle-hole operators $`\widehat{C}_n^+`$ that generate the eigenmodes. These modes are also present in the RPA ground state as zero-point motion, leading to a RPA theory of the ground state correlation energy, see e.g. Rowe ; ring . For a single mode, the RPA correlation energy is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=\frac{\omega }{2}\left(1\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\{\widehat{C},\widehat{C}^+\}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right)$$
(1)
where

$$\omega =\mathrm{\Phi }_0|[\widehat{C},[\widehat{H},\widehat{C}^+]]|\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$
(2)
and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the mean field ground state. In the case the mode corresponds to a broken continuous symmetry, $`\omega =0`$ and the formula should be applied by taking the $`\omega 0`$ limit. It is also advantageous in that case to separate the generators into time-even and time-odd

$$\widehat{Q}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{C}^++\widehat{C}),\widehat{P}=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{C}^+\widehat{C}).$$
(3)
The $`\widehat{P}`$ is usually the generator of a collective deformation, for example a center-of-mass shift in case of the translational mode. Particle-number projection is an example where the time-even operator $`\widehat{N}`$ spans the collective space.

The RPA correlation energy (1) can fail due to double counting if one employs a sum over a large RPA spectrum fukuda64 , but double counting is negligible if only a few collective modes are used rowe68 . That is the line of approach followed here. For a most recent survey of RPA correlations along that line, see hagber . It will be taken up explicitly in the applications later on.

### II.2 Generator coordinate method

#### II.2.1 General framework

The most general technique for constructing collective modes is the generator coordinate method (GCM). It utilizes a superposition of wave functions defined along some collective deformation path $`\left\{|\mathrm{\Phi }_q|q\right\}`$. Each state $`|q`$ along this path is an independent particle state (or independent quasi-particle state in case of BCS). The correlated wave function is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=𝑑q|qf(q).$$
(4)
where the superposition function $`f`$ is determined by the Griffin-Hill-Wheeler equation

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑q^{}\left[(q,q^{})E(q,q^{})\right]f(q^{})}=0,`$ (5a)
$`(q,q^{})=q|\widehat{H}|q^{},`$ (5b)
$`(q,q^{})=q|q^{}.`$ (5c)
Normalizing $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the correlation energy is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{H}|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\widehat{H}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$
(6)
where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0|0`$ is the ground state of the underlying independent particle model. The GCM can be easily generalized to multiple modes. One simply generalizes $`q`$ to a vector of deformations and extends $`𝑑q^{}`$ to a multi-dimensional integral, see e.g. JanSch ; brink68 ; GCM . The GCM is often applied in this straightforward, but tedious, manner where the overlaps and the solution of the Griffin-Hill-Wheeler equation are determined numerically, see e.g. Egi89a ; heenenGCM ; heenenGCM2 .

#### II.2.2 The Gaussian Overlap Approximation (GOA)

The full GCM is much more elaborate than RPA because one deals with the overlaps for any combination of $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$ and the highly non-local Griffin-Hill-Wheeler equation. A dramatic simplification is achieved by the Gaussian overlap approximation (GOA). It represents the dependence of the overlaps on the difference $`(qq^{})`$ by a Gaussian times a polynomial in $`(qq^{})^n`$. The overlap is represented as a pure Gaussian,

$$(q,q^{})=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\lambda }{4}(qq^{})^2\right),$$
(7)
with

$$\lambda (\overline{q})=\frac{1}{2}\left(i_qi_q^{}\right)^2(q,q^{})|_{q=q^{}=\overline{q}},$$
(8)
One usually goes up to second order derivatives in the expression for the Hamiltonian

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(q,q^{})}{(q,q^{})}}`$ $`=`$ $`_0(\overline{q}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(qq^{})^2_2(\overline{q}),`$ (9a)
$`_0(\overline{q})`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{q},\overline{q}),`$ (9b)
$`_2(\overline{q})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(i_qi_q^{}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{(q,q^{})}{(q,q^{})}}|_{q=q^{}=\overline{q}},`$ (9c)
$`\overline{q}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q+q^{}}{2}}.`$ (9d)
For further details, see GCM . The GOA yields a dramatic simplification of the Griffin-Hill-Wheeler equation. Assuming that the coefficients depend only weakly on $`\overline{q}`$, one can recast the Griffin-Hill-Wheeler equation into a collective Schrödinger equation with a simple second derivative as operator for the kinetic energy. Large amplitudes in average collective deformation $`\overline{q}=(q+q^{})/2`$ are still allowed. Thus the GCM-GOA is applicable to conditions of large fluctuation as are typical for low-energy modes and for symmetry projection.

A further dramatic simplification emerges if one restricts the considerations to small amplitudes also in $`\overline{q}=(q+q^{})/2`$. Then collective dynamics becomes harmonic and all expressions can be worked out analytically. The final result is then just the RPA JanSch ; rowe68 ; brink68 . The correlations from GCM-GOA become then identical to the RPA correlations as given the above subsection II.1.

#### II.2.3 Beyond GOA

However, the GOA has its limitations. The Gaussian ansatz assumes tacitly that the collective coordinate spans the interval

$$q(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}).$$
(10)
In other words, the dynamics is fundamentally Cartesian in the collective coordinates. This is certainly true for some situations, e.g. the center-of-mass motion where each coordinate $`R_x`$, $`R_y`$, and $`R_z`$ runs over $`(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$. But the presupposition is violated in many cases. In particular, in rotational motion the rotation angles are restricted to finite intervals with periodic boundary conditions. For such situations the GOA can be generalized by modifying the the arguments of the Gaussian to correctly include the topology of the collective mode rot ; pom . We call this generalization the topological GOA (topGOA). The details of topGOA depend, of course, on the actual mode under considerations. In the following, we exemplify and test topGOA for two typical and most important applications in nuclear physics: deformations and particle-number projection. The projection is straightforward and yields immediately expressions in second order throughout. The efficient treatment of deformations remains an important problem in nuclear structure. The theory should provide accurate correlation energies, going from the small-amplitude vibrational limit to the large amplitude static deformations and including the soft region in between. These applications will serve as a critical testing ground for the topRPA, and the small amplitude approximation to topGOA.

## III Vibrations and rotational projection

### III.1 The three-level model

The usual two-level Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick Hamiltonian has been widely used to model the collective motion of in a deformation coordinate, as it contains the vibrational and static deformation limits with the mean-field phase transition in between. However, the model does not have a continuous symmetry, which is an important aspect of the deformations. To include a continuous symmetry, we have extended the space in the Lipkin-Meskov-Glick model to three levels, and call the extended model the three-level model. Two of the levels are degenerate in the three-level, and the interactions treats those levels identically. This introduces a symmetry mode with the topology of rotations in a plane. For clarity we repeat here the definition of the three-level model; for details see hagber . The three levels are labelled 0,1, and 2. The basic $`1ph`$ transitions $`01`$ are induced by $`\widehat{K}_{+,1}`$ and those to state 2 by $`\widehat{K}_{+,2}`$. The amount of excitation is measured by $`\widehat{K}_{0,i},i\{1,2\}`$. The $`\widehat{K}`$ operators obey a quasi-spin algebra. The Hamiltonian of the model reads

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\widehat{K}_{0,i}\chi {\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2(N1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\widehat{K}_{+,i}^2+\widehat{K}_{,i}^2),`$ (11a)
$`\widehat{K}_{0,i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _{im}^+\alpha _{im}^{},`$ (11b)
$`\widehat{K}_{+,i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}}a_{im}^+a_{0m}^{},`$ (11c)
$`\widehat{K}_{,i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}}a_{0m}^+a_{im}^{}.`$ (11d)
The exact solution of this Hamiltonian is obtained by diagonalization in the space of $`\widehat{K}_x^n\widehat{K}_y^m`$. The three-level Hamiltonian is the first term in eq. (11a). It defines the energetic relations amongst the levels. Note that the two excited states $`i=1,2`$ are degenerate. This gives the model the rotational symmetry. The second term in (11a) models a two-body interaction. It is again symmetric in $`i=12`$ which maintains rotational symmetry. The strength is regulated by $`\chi `$, defined to be dimensionless coupling strength. We will see later that $`\chi 1`$ is the critical point in the model separating weak and string coupling.

It is convenient to analyze the many-particle wave function in terms of collective variables $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. The collective wave function is defined

$$|\alpha \beta =e^{\mathrm{tan}(\alpha )\widehat{K}_+(\beta )}|0𝒩^{1/2}(\alpha ),$$
(12)
where

$$\widehat{K}_+(\beta )=\mathrm{cos}(\beta )\widehat{K}_{+,1}+\mathrm{sin}(\beta )\widehat{K}_{+,2},$$
(13)
and the normalization is given by

$$𝒩(\alpha )=0|e^{\mathrm{tan}(\alpha )\widehat{K}_{}}e^{\mathrm{tan}(\alpha )\widehat{K}_+}|0=\mathrm{cos}^{2N}(\alpha ).$$
(14)
Note that the model is rotationally invariant in the angle $`\beta `$. The motion in $`\alpha `$ corresponds to collective vibrations. The system is close to a good vibrator for small residual interaction, $`\chi <1`$. It is a rigid rotator for large $`\chi >1`$. The transitional regime $`\chi 1`$ explores collective motion with large amplitude fluctuations. Two subtle details need to be mentioned: First, there is only one rotational degree-of-freedom which means that the model corresponds to rotations in a plane. Second, the vibrational degree-of-freedom contains relevant information only in the interval $`\alpha \{0,\pi \}`$, similar to the vibrational mode in the usual Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model. This is the price one pays to have a simple model.

The simplicity of the model allows one to write down the exact overlaps analytically:

$`(\alpha \beta ,\alpha ^{}\beta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )\mathrm{cos}(\alpha ^{})+\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )\mathrm{sin}(\alpha ^{})\mathrm{cos}(\beta \beta ^{})\right]^N,`$ (15a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \beta ,\alpha ^{}\beta ^{})}{(\alpha \beta ,\alpha ^{}\beta ^{})}}`$ $`=`$ $`Nϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\alpha ^{}\mathrm{cos}(\beta \beta ^{})}{\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\alpha ^{}+\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\alpha ^{}\mathrm{cos}(\beta \beta ^{})}}\chi {\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}N{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\alpha ^{}+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\alpha ^{}}{(\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\alpha ^{}+\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\alpha ^{}\mathrm{cos}(\beta \beta ^{}))^2}}.`$ (15b)
The Hartree-Fock (HF) solution is obtained simply by minimizing the expectation value of the Hamiltonian in a state $`|\alpha \beta `$,

$`E_{\mathrm{mf}}(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha \beta ,\alpha \beta )`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`Nϵ\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha )\chi ϵN\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha )\mathrm{cos}^2(\alpha ).`$
with respect to the deformation $`\alpha `$,$`\beta `$. This yields the Hartree-Fock energy as $`E_{\mathrm{HF}}=E_{\mathrm{mf}}(\alpha _{\mathrm{HF}})`$ where the deformation of the minimum is denoted by $`\alpha _{\mathrm{HF}}`$. Note that the energy is independent of the actual value of $`\beta `$ due to rotational invariance of the three-level model.

### III.2 The RPA modes

Small amplitude motion around the HF minimum induces collective excitations of the system. They can be worked out analytically for the three-level model hagber . There are two collective modes to be considered. At spherical shape $`\alpha _{\mathrm{HF}}0`$, there are two degenerate vibrational modes. The degeneracy is lifted with increasing $`\alpha _{\mathrm{HF}}`$. With further increasing $`\alpha _{\mathrm{HF}}`$, there comes a critical point where the RPA solutions become unstable. A different scenario develops after the transition point. The two modes separate into a rotational mode along $`\beta `$ and a vibrational mode along $`\alpha `$. The two eigenfrequencies are $`\omega =0`$, associated with the rotational mode, and $`\omega =ϵ\sqrt{\chi ^21}`$ for vibrations. Having these two modes at hand, one can compute the RPA correlation energy applying eq. (1) for each mode separately and add up the result to the total correlations.

### III.3 The topGOA for the three-level model

The standard GOA overlaps can be obtained by expanding eq. (15) with respect to $`(\alpha \alpha ^{})`$ and $`(\beta \beta ^{})`$ up to the second order. We exemplify it here for the norm kernel at $`\alpha =\alpha ^{}`$ and expansion in $`\beta \beta ^{}`$. GOA reads

$`(\alpha \beta ,\alpha \beta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{cos}^2(\alpha )+\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha )\mathrm{cos}(\beta \beta ^{})\right]^N,`$
$`=`$ $`\left[12\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha )\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \beta ^{}}{2}}\right)\right]^N,`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha )(\beta \beta ^{})^2\right).`$
The problem is obvious: the exact overlap is periodic in $`\beta \beta ^{}`$ while the GOA is not.

To develop an appropriate ansatz for topGOA we have to look at the topology of the collective coordinates. The pair of coordinates $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ extends over the surface of the unit sphere. The exact overlaps (15) hint already the combinations of coordinates which is generated by this topology: $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )\mathrm{cos}(\alpha ^{})+\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )\mathrm{sin}(\alpha ^{})\mathrm{cos}(\beta \beta ^{})`$. It is the measure for a distance on the sphere. The idea of topGOA is to apply to the norm overlap the Gaussian limit theorem for the shape of the overlap function while preserving the topological combination of the arguments. Similar combinations are to be used for expanding the Hamiltonian overlap. This yields then for the three-level model the form

$`(\alpha \beta ,\alpha ^{}\beta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\lambda _\alpha }{4}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\alpha \alpha ^{}}{2}\right)\frac{\lambda _\beta }{4}𝒮_\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\beta \beta ^{}}{2}\right)},`$ (17a)
$`\lambda _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(i_\alpha i_\alpha ^{}\right)^2(\alpha \beta ,\alpha ^{}\beta )|_{\alpha =\alpha ^{}=\overline{\alpha }}`$ (17b)
$`\lambda _\beta 𝒮_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(i_\beta i_\beta ^{}\right)^2(\alpha \beta ,\alpha \beta ^{})|_{\beta =\beta ^{}=\overline{\beta }}`$ (17c)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \beta ,\alpha ^{}\beta ^{})}{(\alpha \beta ,\alpha ^{}\beta ^{})}}`$ $`=`$ $`_0_2^\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \alpha ^{}}{2}}\right)`$ (17d)
$`_2^\beta 𝒮_\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \beta ^{}}{2}}\right),`$
$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta },\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta })`$ (17e)
$`_2^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_\alpha _\alpha ^{}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \beta ,\alpha ^{}\beta )}{(\alpha \beta ,\alpha ^{}\beta )}}|_{\alpha =\alpha ^{}=\overline{\alpha }}`$ (17f)
$`_2^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2𝒮_\alpha }}\left(_\beta _\beta ^{}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \beta ,\alpha \beta ^{})}{(\alpha \beta ,\alpha \beta ^{})}}|_{\beta =\beta ^{}=\overline{\beta }}`$ (17g)
$`𝒮_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{s}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \alpha ^{}}{2}}\right)`$
$`\overline{s}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\overline{\alpha }),\overline{c}=\mathrm{cos}(\overline{\alpha }),`$
$`\overline{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\alpha ^{}}{2}}.`$
Thus far we have the topGOA overlaps for any system where the collective coordinates form the topology of a sphere. The specific coefficients for the present three-level model are

$`\lambda _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`8N`$ (18a)
$`\lambda _\beta `$ $`=`$ $`8N`$ (18b)
$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`Nϵ\overline{s}^2N\chi ϵ\overline{s}^2\overline{c}^2,`$ (18c)
$`_2^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`Nϵ(\overline{c}^2\overline{s}^2)+N\chi ϵ(4\overline{s}^2\overline{c}^2+1),`$ (18d)
$`_2^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`2Nϵ\overline{c}^2+4N\chi ϵ\overline{s}^2\overline{c}^2.`$ (18e)
The effect of GOA versus topGOA for the norm overlap is demonstrated in figure 1. For large deformations (upper panel), the norm overlap decays rather quickly in angle $`\beta `$. The conventional GOA is here a reliable approximation. The situation is much different at small deformation. The overlaps become broad and hit the periodicity limits. This yields a dramatic difference between GOA and topGOA. Note that topGOA is still an excellent approximation to the exact overlap while GOA fails badly.

### III.4 Performance of topGOA

The conventional GOA (9a) maps the Griffin-Hill-Wheeler equation (5) into a collective Schrödinger equation of second order order in the collective momentum GCM ; heenenGCM . This feature is lost in topGOA. Further approximation steps would be needed to come to that end. We will not pursue them further here and solve directly the Griffin-Hill-Wheeler equation (5) inserting the topGOA overlaps (17).

Figure 2 compares the RPA and topGOA with HF and the exact result for a large variety of coupling strengths. The uppermost panel shows total energies. One sees that both approaches correct the HF energy very far towards the exact energy. However the RPA shows irregularities near the critical point $`\chi 1`$.

A more detailed look is given in the three lower panels of figure 2 where we show the correlation energies $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=EE_{\mathrm{HF}}`$ for the various approaches and for a series of system sizes. The RPA provides a useful correction in the limits of sphericity and well developed deformations, but fails badly around the critical point. The topGOA performs very well in all regimes. The results improve with increasing system size as one could expect from the Gaussian limit theorem inherent in topGOA. Acceptable results are obtained from topGOA also for $`N`$=4. But all approaches become inaccurate for $`N`$=2 which is obviously not collective enough.

### III.5 Angular momentum projection

When the mean-field ground state breaks a symmetry of the Hamiltonian, one can get an improved wave function and energy by projection, i.e. take a minimal set of states $`q`$ and appropriate $`f`$ in eq. (4) to enforce the symmetry. This is particularly useful for deformations and projection of the $`J=0`$ ground state ground state out of a deformed intrinsic state. The questions before us are, how does this technique compare with the RPA or the topGOA for computing the correlation energy? It should be noted that the projection method has a formal advantage in that the calculated energy is an upper bound of the true energy associated with the Hamiltonian.

#### III.5.1 The projected state

We will examine how well the projection technique works for the three-level model as test case. Rotational projection on the ground state angular momentum $`M=0`$ reads simply

$$|\alpha _{\mathrm{proj}}_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\beta |\alpha \beta .$$
(19)
The rotationally projected energy is computed as expectation value which amounts to integrating the overlaps over the angular coordinate $`\beta `$, i.e.

$$E_{\mathrm{proj}}(\alpha )=\frac{d(\beta \beta ^{})(\alpha \beta ,\alpha \beta ^{})}{d(\beta \beta ^{})(\alpha \beta ,\alpha \beta ^{})}.$$
(20)
This is simple and straightforward for the topGOA overlaps of the form (17). We thus can skip the details.

#### III.5.2 Variation before and after projection

The energy (20) can be computed for any given deformation $`\alpha `$. The HF ground state deformation $`\alpha _{\mathrm{HF}}`$ is obtained from minimizing the mere HF energy (17e). Applying the projection on this state corresponds to the scheme “variation-before-projection”. It serves to correct for the angular momentum fluctuations in the deformed HF ground state. A much better approach is obtained when performing “variation-after-projection” ring . Here one minimizes the projected energy (20). This is an involved task for exact projection. The topGOA approach yields a simple expression for the projected energy on which a variation is still feasible. It is, of course, particularly simple in the present test case. We just have to search for the deformation $`\alpha _{\mathrm{proj}}`$ which minimizes $`E_{\mathrm{proj}}`$.

Variation-before-projection and variation-after-projection are compared in figure 3 for a large range of coupling strengths. The upper panel shows the ground state deformations. The variation-before-projection state stays spherical up the critical point and switches to deformation with a discontinuous derivate (second order transition). The variation-after-projection states develop more smoothly and show a steady growth of deformation. variation-after-projection can afford intrinsic deformations because it “knows” that projection will restore spherical symmetry. The freedom which variation-after-projection exploits will yield a lower energy. This is shown in the lower panel of figure 3. It is obvious that variation-after-projection picks up a large fraction of the correlation energy at any coupling strength $`\chi `$, 80% for strongly deformed systems and even more for weakly deformed ones. This makes it obvious that variation-after-projection is the superior strategy. Mind that topGOA helps to simplify variation-after-projection considerably. We will test it now in the next paragraph.

#### III.5.3 Performance of topGOA for a.m. projection

The performance of topGOA for rotational projection is checked in figure 4 for the case of $`N`$=12. Conventional GOA has obviously problems at small deformation up to beyond the critical point. But topGOA provides a very good approximation to exact projection throughout. And it does that on the grounds of a simple expression for the projected energy which can be deduced from second order moments only. This is welcome for an efficient variation-after-projection and it is particularly helpful in connection with effective energy functionals because double (anti-)commutators with $`\widehat{H}`$ can still be safely derived from second functional derivatives, see Sec. IV E.

The rotational projection can still be done with second order information around the minimum point. It is thus as simple to compute as RPA. And this simple part provides the dominant portion of the correlation energy. The most costly part of the correlation energy is computing the small final contribution from vibrations. It is tempting to consider mere angular projection as a first guess for the correlation energy. That is, in fact, a strategy pursued in the large scale fits of goriely . Our result here provides a welcome substantiation of their “rule of thumb”.

### III.6 A thoroughly second order approach: topRPA

The conclusions from the previous subsection encourage the quest for a more efficient estimator of the vibrational correlation energy. And the typical pattern of variation-after-projection add reasons to that. We have seen in figure 3 that the variation-after-projection ground state is nearly always deformed. The projected energy as function of $`\alpha `$ has always a fairly well developed minimum much in contrast to the HF energy which is rather soft around the critical point. This hints that one is allowed to perform a small amplitude expansion about the projected minimum $`\alpha _{\mathrm{proj}}`$. Once having accepted this idea, the remaining steps are obvious and simple:

1. One performs variation-after-projection using topGOA for rotational projection. This yields the variation-after-projection ground state deformation $`\alpha _0`$.
2. One computes the topGOA projected energy

$$E_{\mathrm{proj}}(\overline{\alpha })=E_{\mathrm{proj}}(\alpha _0)+\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\alpha }\alpha _0)^2_{\overline{\alpha }}^2E_{\mathrm{proj}}(\alpha _0)$$
(21)
in the vicinity of $`\alpha _0`$ and deduces the curvature $`_{\overline{\alpha }}^2E_{\mathrm{proj}}`$ of this effective potential.
3. For the remaining vibrational correction, one applies the simple correlation energy from harmonic approximation

$`\delta E_{\mathrm{vib}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{_{\overline{\alpha }}^2E_{\mathrm{proj}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{_{\overline{\alpha }}^2E_{\mathrm{proj}}}{4\lambda _{\mathrm{proj}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{\mathrm{proj}}}{4}}\right),`$ (22a)
$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2_2^\alpha (\alpha _0)}{\lambda _{\mathrm{proj}}^2}}.`$ (22b)
$`\lambda _{\mathrm{proj}}`$ $`=`$ $`2_\alpha _\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{}|\alpha _{\mathrm{proj}}|_{\alpha =\alpha ^{}=\alpha _0},`$ (22c)
$`_2^\alpha (\alpha _0)`$ $`=`$ $`2_\alpha _\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}|\widehat{H}|\alpha _{\mathrm{proj}}}{\alpha ^{}|\alpha _{\mathrm{proj}}}}|_{\alpha =\alpha ^{}=\alpha _0}.`$ (22d)
4. The total energy is then finally

$$E=\delta E_{\mathrm{proj}}(\alpha _0)\delta E_{\mathrm{vib}}.$$

Note that this scheme requires only information on second order derivatives in $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ about the deformed ground state. In that sense it is much similar to RPA. We thus call that scheme topologically corrected RPA (topRPA). The essence is, of course, that topological constraints are exploited to construct from the given second order information the final ground state energy in topRPA.

Figure 5 compares the performance of topRPA and topGOA for the correlation energy in the three-level model. It is obvious that topRPA provides a good approximation to topGOA, equally good for all system sizes. Both schemes constitute a reliable approach to the exact result, better for larger systems. For completeness, we show also the correlation from angular momentum projection alone. We see again that this exhausts the leading part of correlations and could be considered as quick and simple approach. However, topRPA is not much more expensive and comes close to the final result.

## IV Particle-Number-Projection

The second test cases in this paper is concerned with particle-number projection. It becomes necessary when starting Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) states, or its BCS approximation, are involved. The HFB approximation produces independent quasi-particle states which have mixed particle number $`N`$. One needs to project the HFB states onto good particle number. This is important in any nuclear structure calculation because doubly magic nuclei (where mere HF suffices) are an extremely rare species. Similar as in the previous example of rotations-vibrations there is, in principle, a pair of modes, namely particle number projection and pairing vibrations. We confine here the discussion to projection alone because that is the widely used strategy and because it will again exhaust the dominant part of the correlations.

### IV.1 Exact projection

Let $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ be a HFB state with average particle number

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\widehat{N}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0=N_0.$$
(23)
The projected state with exact particle number $`N_0`$ is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{2\pi }d\eta |\eta ,|\eta =e^{i\eta \stackrel{~}{N}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$
(24a)
where
$$\stackrel{~}{N}=\widehat{N}N_0.$$
(24b)
The construction of the path from straightforward $`\mathrm{exp}(i\eta \stackrel{~}{N})`$ makes the norm overlap a function of the difference alone, i.e. $`=(\eta \eta ^{})`$. The number conservation $`[\widehat{H},\stackrel{~}{N}]=0`$ causes also $`=(\eta \eta ^{})`$. The projected energy thus becomes

$$E=\frac{𝑑\eta \mathrm{\Phi }_0|\widehat{H}e^{i\eta \stackrel{~}{N}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{𝑑\eta \mathrm{\Phi }_0|e^{i\eta \stackrel{~}{N}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0}=\frac{𝑑\eta (\eta )}{𝑑\eta (\eta )}.$$
(25)
### IV.2 The topGOA for particle number projection

#### IV.2.1 Overlaps and correlation energy

The collective path is $`|\eta `$ as given in eq. (24a). The collective coordinate is defined in the interval $`[0,2\pi )`$ and is periodic as $`\eta \eta +2\pi `$. This periodicity is not reproduced by the standard GOA overlaps (9a). One has to modify GOA to account for that structure, in other words one has to employ topologically correct GOA (topGOA). Taking up the experience from the previous test case, we can postulate that the periodic structure of the coordinates is properly taken into account by the argument in GOA through

$$\frac{\eta }{2}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\eta }{2}\right).$$

One may wonder why we use this particular assignment for the for the generalization. The choice is unique in that it corresponds to the base period of the squared sine function. Other fractions would not have the correct periodicity of the Hamiltonian. The generalized overlaps for particle-number projection are then

$`(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(2\stackrel{~}{N}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}\right)),`$ (26a)
$`(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`(\eta )\left[_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}\right)_2\right],`$ (26b)
$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\widehat{H}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0=E_{\mathrm{BCS}},`$ (26c)
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`\{\stackrel{~}{N},\{\widehat{H}\widehat{H},\stackrel{~}{N}\}\}.`$ (26d)
Note that the width $`\lambda =2\stackrel{~}{N}^2`$ and the coefficients $`_i`$ of the Hamiltonian overlap are still defined as in standards GOA, see eq. (9a). What changes is the way how these overlaps are extrapolated. It is obvious that the conventional GOA is recovered in case of steeply decaying norm overlap, i.e. for $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$.

The projected energy (25) can then be expressed in rather compact fashion as

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\mathrm{BCS}}\delta E_{\mathrm{PNP}},`$ (27a)
$`\delta E_{\mathrm{PNP}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\stackrel{~}{N}^2\right)_2,`$ (27b)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(y\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_0^{2\pi }𝑑\eta e^{2y\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\eta }{2}\right)}2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\eta }{2}\right)}{_0^{2\pi }𝑑\eta e^{2y\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\eta }{2}\right)}}}.`$ (27c)
The limiting case standard GOA is recovered by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }1/(2\stackrel{~}{N}^2)\text{for}\stackrel{~}{N}^2\mathrm{}.$$

This corresponds to a HFB state deep in the pairing regime where one gathers substantial particle number fluctuations. The opposite limit is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }1\text{for}\stackrel{~}{N}^20.$$

It corresponds to the break down of pairing towards a pure HF state. Standard GOA fails here. It is obvious that only topGOA can cope properly with that pairing transition.

As in case of angular momentum projection, there is the choice between variation-before-projection and variation-after-projection, see section III.5.2. And again variation-after-projection is the preferred method. Variation means here in general variation with respect to the single particle wave functions in the HFB state and its occupation amplitudes $`u`$ and $`v`$. The wave functions are fixed in the model which we use later on and only the variation of $`u`$ and $`v`$ remains to be done.

### IV.3 RPA correlations

The correlation energy in RPA is computed with eq. (1). The mode corresponding to particle-number phase is given by the path (24a). It is found as zero-energy mode in the RPA spectrum because of $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{N}]=0`$. Thus one knows already the combination $`\widehat{N}\widehat{Q}=\left(\widehat{C}^++\widehat{C}\right)/\sqrt{2}`$. The conjugate combination (3) has to be determined by linear response $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{P}_N]\widehat{N}`$. Once having the pair $`(\widehat{N},\widehat{P}_N)`$, one can easily compute the correlation energy (1).

### IV.4 A simple model as test case

#### IV.4.1 The model

For further testing of the approximate scheme, we need a schematic model. It should have a gap in the single-particle spectrum to model the interplay between this gap and the pairing strength. Thus we take a two-shell model with lower band $`s=1`$ and upper band $`s=+1`$. Each band is $`N`$-fold degenerated as $`m=(N1)/2,\mathrm{},+(N1)/2`$. The states $`\pm m`$ are considered as the pairing conjugate partners. This yields the generalized Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model introduced in Ref. feldman . It is simply a two-level model with seniority pairing. The model Hamiltonian reads

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{sm}{}}s\alpha _{sm}^+\alpha _{sm}^{}`$ (28)
$`\chi {\displaystyle \frac{2ϵ}{N}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{s,m>0}{}}\alpha _{sm}^+\alpha _{sm}^+\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{s,m>0}{}}\alpha _{sm}^{}\alpha _{sm}^{}\right).`$
We associate the following single-particle energies and occupation amplitudes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\epsilon _1=\epsilon \hfill & v_1=u_1=u=\sqrt{1v^2}\hfill \\ \epsilon _1=\epsilon \hfill & v_1=u_1=v\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
Note that the Fermi energy is $`\epsilon _F=0`$ for symmetry reasons.

The exact solution can be obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian (28) using the quasi-spin formalism, for details see HB00 .

#### IV.4.2 The energy in topGOA

The model is sufficiently simple that everything can be worked out analytically. The final result projected energy in topGOA becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{\mathrm{BCS}}}{N\epsilon }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\sqrt{1(2uv)^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2}}(2uv)^2\right),`$ (30a)
$`\delta E_{\mathrm{PNP}}`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\mathrm{BCS}}\left[1+(2uv)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}(2uv)^2\right)\right].`$ (30b)
This energy needs now to be compared with the BCS approximation $`E_{\mathrm{BCS}}`$, the RPA energy, and the exact energy.

#### IV.4.3 The energy in RPA

As shown in HB00 , there are two collective modes in this model. For small values of $`\chi `$, the mean field approximation does not support the BCS solution and only the trivial solution with zero pairing gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ appears. In this regime, the two RPA frequencies are similar to each other, see Ref. HB00  for the explicit expressions. At $`\chi N/(N1)`$, the system undergoes phase transition to the superfluid phase, and the number fluctuating BCS solution becomes the ground state in the mean field approximation. Consequently, one of the RPA frequencies becomes zero due to the number conservation of the Hamiltonian (28). Applying eq.(1) with the symmetry mode yields the the RPA correlation energy

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{RPA}}=\frac{ϵ\chi }{2}.$$
(31)
The RPA frequency of the other mode is given by 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }=4ϵ\chi (uv)`$. This mode corresponds to the pairing vibration whose contribution is omitted here because we study just the projection part.

#### IV.4.4 A few words on the Lipkin-Nogami approach

Full projection is often difficult, the more so if used in connection with variation-after-projection. Thus one often employs approximate schemes for particle-number projection.

A widely used approximation scheme for particle-number projection is the Lipkin-Nogami approach, see e.g. Pra73a  and references cited therein. It provides a good numerical approximation of the variation-after-projection in situations where both the HFB equations predict a collapse of the pairing correlations. The prescription of Lipkin-Nogami amounts to modify the energy by adding the second-order Kamlah correction $`\lambda _2(\widehat{N}\widehat{N})^2`$ where $`\lambda _2`$ is computed from mixed variances of $`\widehat{N}`$ and $`\widehat{H}`$, see e.g. for Skyrme-Hartree-Fock Rei96 . The modification of the HFB equations associated with the Lipkin-Nogami prescription is obtained by a restricted variation of where $`\lambda _2`$ is not varied although its value is calculated from self-consistent expectation values. For a thorough discussion of the approximations involved see Flo97a ; DN93 . Note that the Kamlah expansion, and therefore the Lipkin-Nogami approach, uses the similar expansion as the naive GOA and does not take into account the topology of the gauge angle $`\eta `$.

### IV.5 Results and discussion

The upper part of figure 6 shows the total energy in the two-level model with seniority pairing for $`N`$=12 particles. Various approximations are considered. The BCS is the uncorrelated result. It decreases with constant slope up to $`\chi 1.1`$ which is the transition point from pure HF (for smaller $`\chi `$) to a truly pairing HFB state (for larger $`\chi `$). The exact energy is the goal. In addition to RPA and topGOA, we show also the results from the Lipkin-Nogami scheme (see section IV.4.4). It is obvious from the figure that all corrections improve the BCS energy towards the exact result. The RPA correction works fine except for the region around the critical point. That is understandable because the critical point is distinguished by large fluctuations and RPA is designed to be a theory for small amplitude. The Lipkin-Nogami result has a smoother trend than RPA and correct the energy in the wanted direction. However the correction is incomplete, particularly at small coupling $`\chi `$ HB00 . Last but not least, the topGOA provides a very good approximation throughout all coupling strengths. It is clearly superior to the competing projection approach, the Lipkin-Nogami scheme, and it is more robust than RPA around the transition point.

A more detailed comparison of the various approaches is shown in the lower panels of figure 6. It displays the correlation energies which point out the differences more clearly. First of all, the correlation energy stays about independent of system size while the total energy grows $`N`$. This means that the relative importance of correlations shrinks as $`1/N`$. This corroborates the known effect that mean field models, here represented by BCS, become exact in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. The Lipkin-Nogami scheme maintains its feature to produce a “half-way” correction. It is a little bit surprising that the mismatch becomes even more pronounced with increasing system size. The RPA, on the other hand, clearly improves for larger systems. That is not surprising because mean field theories are restored in the large $`N`$ limit, and RPA is a theory of vibrating mean fields. Finally, the topGOA provides a reliable and robust approximation to the exact correlation energy at all system sizes and coupling strengths. There are regions where it is near to perfect. There are regions where one obtains visible deviations of a few percent. But the trends are always smooth and the average performance is excellent.

There are two more particularly appealing aspect of particle-number projection with topGOA:

1. The project energy (27) is a closed expression in terms of expectation values of $`\widehat{H}`$ in combination with $`\widehat{N}`$ and of the occupation amplitudes $`u`$ and $`v`$. One can easily use that as starting point for “variation after projection”. Variation with respect to the single particle wave functions yields the appropriate correction terms to the mean field equations. These terms can easily be incorporated in existing codes.
2. The full GCM is not applicable in connection with nuclear density functionals, as e.g. the Skyrme-Hartree-Fock energy. The energy-density functional is given for an expectation value with one mean field state. The extension to overlaps with different states at $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$ is ambiguous. But an extension of the functional is still feasible in the immediate vicinity of a mean field state. Thus the second order expression $`_2`$ in (26d) can still be derived within the safe grounds of density-functional theory. The topGOA thus provides a means to compute particle number projection safely for Skyrme-Hartree-Fock.

## V Conclusions

We have investigated the efficient computation of ground state correlations for low-energy modes and projection. Starting point is the generator coordinate method (GCM). It is considered in the Gaussian overlap approximation (GOA) which reduces the formal and numerical expense dramatically because it involves only expectation values and second order variations therefrom. We have shown that GOA runs into troubles in cases of weak coupling (thus broad overlaps) for coordinates with non-trivial topology. A slight modification of the scheme allows to tune a topologically correct GOA (topGOA). We have demonstrated and tested topGOA for two typical cases of collective coordinates, rotation-vibration and particle-number projection. To that end, we employed exactly solvable models in the spirit of the Lipkin-Meskov-Glick model.

The straightforward cases are mere projection (test cases: angular momentum and particle number). It was found that topGOA provides an excellent approximation to full projection. Performing variation after projection (variation-after-projection) allows to incorporate already a great deal of correlations into the projected states. The topGOA is particularly well suited for variation-after-projection because the projected energy is expressed in simple and compact expressions on which one can perform variation with moderate expense, far simpler than for exact projection (where non-orthogonal overlaps complicate matters). In particular for particle number projection, topGOA thus offers a simple and in all regimes reliable scheme which allows a thoroughly variational formulation. It is superior to the Lipkin-Nogami scheme in that respect.

Mere angular momentum projection with variation-after-projection was shown to grab a large portion of the correlation energy. Yet it is incomplete without the vibrational part. We have tested topGOA for the coupled rotations-vibrations and it performs well in all regimes, near sphericity, at the transition point, and for well deformed nuclei. As one could expect for a Gaussian limit, the performance improves with system size. The reverse is also true: small systems are more critical and a two-particle system is off limits.

The topGOA for vibrations involves, in principle, large amplitude motion. This can become inconvenient in practice because a whole collective deformation path has to be mapped. The better defined deformation of the variation-after-projection ground state allowed a small amplitude expansion of topGOA. The result is a scheme which can live with second order expression around the projected ground state. We consider it as a topological generalization of the random-phase approximation (RPA) which also deals with second order expressions throughout and call this new scheme topological RPA (topRPA). We find that topRPA provides a good approximation to the results of topGOA and thus to the exact correlation energy for rotations-vibrations.

Altogether, we have developed with the help of topologically corrected Gaussian overlaps a palette of useful approximations for computing very efficiently collective correlations on top of nuclear mean-field calculations. The next step is to implement that into practical calculations. Work in that direction is in progress.

## Acknowledgment

This work was supported in part by Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Project No. 06 ER 808, by the Department of Energy under Grant DE-FG06-90ER40561, and by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Contract No. 12047203, from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology.