text:
# Hadronic Parity-Violation on the Lattice

## I Introduction

While flavor-changing parity-violating (PV) interactions are well understood theoretically and a great deal of precise data exists, knowledge of flavor-conserving parity-violation is rather primitive. Flavor-conserving parity-violation continues to be an area of intense investigation in the nuclear physics community. Its study is presently serving both to uncover the structure of the nucleon in electron-scattering experiments such as SAMPLE, and to determine PV flavor-conserving couplings between pions and nucleons. The problems that are encountered in this sector are both experimental and theoretical. On the experimental side, the PV signals, unlike those in flavor-changing processes, appear as small deviations in either a strong or an electromagnetic process, such as PV in $`epep`$, or in the circular polarization of the $`\gamma `$-ray emitted in $`{}_{}{}^{18}F_{}^{}^{18}F\gamma `$ . The current situation is somewhat confused by the fact that measurements of parity-violation in atoms and nuclei do not give rise to a consistent set of couplings between hadrons . However, it is important to keep in mind that many of the “experimental” determinations of these couplings require theoretical inputs with varying degrees of reliability. Recently, it has been reemphasized that measurements of PV observables in the single-nucleon sector would significantly ameliorate the situation by eliminating many-body uncertainties . Despite the inherent difficulty of such experiments, there are ongoing efforts to measure PV processes in systems with only one or two nucleons, such as the angular-asymmetry in $`\stackrel{}{n}pd\gamma `$ . Such measurements should provide a reliable determination of the leading-order (LO), momentum-independent weak $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant, $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$.

On the theoretical side, despite heroic efforts to model  hadronic matrix elements of the four-quark operators that appear in the low-energy effective theory of the standard model, there are no reliable calculations of the PV couplings between hadrons. A first principles calculation of $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$ in lattice QCD would therefore be extremely welcome. This would require a lattice QCD simulation of a correlator with three hadronic sources interacting via a four-quark operator. Unfortunately, chiral symmetry does not allow one to relate the $`\pi NN`$ correlator to a correlator without the pion. On the bright side, the structure of the four-quark weak Hamiltonian requires a flavor change in the nucleon and therefore there are no disconnected diagrams to be computed on the lattice.

A standard difficulty in reliably computing $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$ on the lattice is that present computational limitations necessitate the use of lattice quark masses that are significantly larger than those of nature. In order to make a connection between lattice calculations in the foreseeable future and nature, an extrapolation in the quark masses is required. Chiral perturbation theory ($`\chi `$PT) provides a systematic description of low-energy QCD near the chiral limit, and this technique has been extended to describe both quenched QCD (QQCD)  and partially-quenched QCD (PQQCD) . The hope is that future lattice simulations can be performed with quark masses that are small enough to guarantee a convergent chiral expansion, thus allowing a meaningful extrapolation to the quark masses of nature. Recently, it has been shown how to include the low-lying octet and decuplet of baryons  into partially-quenched chiral perturbation theory (PQ$`\chi `$PT) . In this work we will present $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$ and the anapole moment of the proton at one-loop level in $`SU(4|2)_LSU(4|2)_R`$ PQ$`\chi `$PT with two non-degenerate light quarks. Given that lattice simulations have on-shell particles in both the initial and final states, extraction of $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$ requires the injection of energy at the weak vertex. This energy non-conservation modifies the effective field theory description of the three-point function by requiring the inclusion of operators that are total derivatives. We present a calculation of $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$ at the one-loop level both for the case where energy is conserved and the pion is off its mass-shell with $`P_\pi ^\mu =0`$, and for lattice kinematics where energy is injected at the weak vertex.

## II Hadronic Parity Violating Interactions

The four-quark operators that contribute to flavor-conserving, low-energy PV processes can be classified by how they act in isospin space, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=0,1,2`$. Their QCD evolution from the weak-scale down to the strong interaction scale has been computed previously . In this work we focus on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ interaction, as it is only in this channel that the LO operator in the chiral expansion is momentum independent. In QCD, the effective Lagrange density for $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ interactions at the quark-level is , including strange-quark operators

$`^{\mathrm{\Delta }I=1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left[C_i^{(1)}(\mu )\theta _i(\mu )+S_i^{(1)}(\mu )\theta _i^{(s)}(\mu )\right],`$ (1)
where $`\theta _w`$ is the weak mixing angle, and where the four-quark operators are

$`\theta _1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}^\alpha \gamma ^\mu q_\alpha \overline{q}^\beta \gamma _\mu \gamma _5\tau ^3q_\beta ,\theta _2=\overline{q}^\alpha \gamma ^\mu q_\beta \overline{q}^\beta \gamma _\mu \gamma _5\tau ^3q_\alpha `$ (2)
$`\theta _3`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}^\alpha \gamma ^\mu \gamma _5q_\alpha \overline{q}^\beta \gamma _\mu \tau ^3q_\beta ,\theta _4=\overline{q}^\alpha \gamma ^\mu \gamma _5q_\beta \overline{q}^\beta \gamma _\mu \tau ^3q_\alpha `$ (3)
$`\theta _1^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{s}^\alpha \gamma ^\mu s_\alpha \overline{q}^\beta \gamma _\mu \gamma _5\tau ^3q_\beta ,\theta _2^{(s)}=\overline{s}^\alpha \gamma ^\mu s_\beta \overline{q}^\beta \gamma _\mu \gamma _5\tau ^3q_\alpha `$ (4)
$`\theta _3^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{s}^\alpha \gamma ^\mu \gamma _5s_\alpha \overline{q}^\beta \gamma _\mu \tau ^3q_\beta ,\theta _4^{(s)}=\overline{s}^\alpha \gamma ^\mu \gamma _5s_\beta \overline{q}^\beta \gamma _\mu \tau ^3q_\alpha ,`$ (5)
and their coefficients at the chiral symmetry breaking scale are

$`C^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`(1.10,0.068,0.234,0.697)`$ (6)
$`S^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`(5.61,1.90,4.74,2.67),`$ (7)
where we have neglected inter-generational mixing through the Cabibbo angle. In the limit of vanishing $`\theta _w`$ and degenerate quark weak-isospin doublets, the standard model possesses a global symmetry that forbids $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1,2`$ parity-violation . This symmetry is reflected in the relative magnitudes of the $`S^{(1)}`$ versus the $`C^{(1)}`$. If strange quarks were to play no role in the structure of the nucleon, two-flavor lattice QCD simulations would provide an accurate calculation of the matrix elements of $`\theta _{1,\mathrm{..4}}`$, but to the extent to which strange matrix elements are non-zero, the two-flavor simulations provide only part of the PV matrix elements. The role that strange quarks may play in these matrix elements has been considered in various unjustified approaches, e.g. Ref. ,  and , and the strange quark is found to make a sizable contribution  to the PV momentum independent interaction, $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$. However, the computation of these matrix elements in two-flavor simulations will be a vital first-step towards a rigorous understanding of flavor conserving, hadronic parity-violation.

In order to match onto a chiral Lagrange density that describes low-energy PV processes, it is convenient to introduce the objects $`X_{L,R}^a`$, defined as

$`X_L^a`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^{}\tau ^a\xi ,X_R^a=\xi \tau ^a\xi ^{},`$ (8)
where

$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{iM}{f}}\right),M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\pi ^0/\sqrt{2}& \pi ^+\\ \pi ^{}& \pi ^0/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),`$ (9)
and where $`\xi L\xi U^{}=U\xi R^{}`$, and $`X_{L,R}^aUX_{L,R}^aU^{}`$ under chiral transformations. In our convention, the pion decay constant, $`f=132\mathrm{MeV}`$. At LO in the chiral expansion, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ PV couplings between the pions, the nucleons and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s are described by the Lagrange density  ***Ref.  uses similar notation with $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}=h_\pi `$ and $`h_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(1)}=h_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.,

$`_{\mathrm{wk}}=h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{4}}\overline{N}\left[X_L^3X_R^3\right]Nh_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{4}}\overline{T}^{abc,\mu }\left[X_L^3X_R^3\right]_c^dT_{abd,\mu }`$ (10)
$`i\pi ^{}\left[h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}\overline{n}p+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(1)}}{\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{+\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^{++}+{\displaystyle \frac{2h_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(1)}}{3}}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{0\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^++{\displaystyle \frac{h_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(1)}}{\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^0\right]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$ (11)
## III Extension to Partially-Quenched QCD

The extension of the PV flavor-conserving weak operators from QCD to PQQCD is analogous to the extension of strangeness-changing operators, as discussed in detail in Ref. . It is convenient to rewrite the operators in eq. (5) in terms of operators with well-defined properties under chiral transformations. Neglecting the strange-quark operators one finds,

$`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}^\alpha \tau ^3\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)q_\alpha \overline{q}^\beta \gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)q_\beta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2=\overline{q}^\alpha \tau ^3\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)q_\alpha \overline{q}^\beta \gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)q_\beta `$ (12)
$`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_3`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}^\alpha \tau ^3\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)q_\alpha \overline{q}^\beta \gamma _\mu (1+\gamma _5)q_\beta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta }_4=\overline{q}^\alpha \tau ^3\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)q_\alpha \overline{q}^\beta \gamma _\mu (1+\gamma _5)q_\beta ,`$ (13)
and operators $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_5`$..$`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_8`$, corresponding to the other color-contraction. These objects transform as $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$, respectively under $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ chiral transformations. The most general extension of this operator set to PQQCD is quite messy, as one ends up dealing with objects of the form $`(𝐀,𝐀)`$ of $`SU(4|2)_LSU(4|2)_R`$, where $`𝐀`$ denotes the adjoint representation of $`SU(4|2)`$. Therefore, for simplicity reasons alone, we will only consider extensions of the form $`(𝐀,\mathrm{𝟏})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟏},𝐀)`$ The flavor structure can be further extended when lattice simulations require.. In this case, we can define the weak flavor matrix

$`\overline{\tau }^3`$ $`=`$ $`(1,1,h_j,h_l,h_j,h_l),`$ (14)
where $`h_j`$ and $`h_l`$ are arbitrary weak charges. This matrix is supertraceless and its matrix elements reduce to those of QCD when the sea-quark ($`j`$ and $`l`$) masses become degenerate with the valence-quark masses. The quark mass matrix in PQQCD is given by $`m_Q=\mathrm{diag}(m_u,m_d,m_j,m_l,m_u,m_d)`$. Further, in analogy with QCD  we define

$`{}_{}{}^{(PQ)}X_{L}^{a}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^{}\overline{\tau }^a\xi ,^{(PQ)}X_R^a=\xi \overline{\tau }^a\xi ^{}.`$ (15)
The LO Lagrange density describing the low-energy PV interactions in PQ$`\chi `$PT is

$`_{\mathrm{wk}}`$ $`=`$ $`W_1{\displaystyle \frac{f}{4}}\left(\overline{}\left[{}_{}{}^{(PQ)}X_{L}^{3}^{(PQ)}X_R^3\right]\right)W_2{\displaystyle \frac{f}{4}}\left(\overline{}\left[{}_{}{}^{(PQ)}X_{L}^{3}^{(PQ)}X_R^3\right]\right)`$ (17)
$`W_3{\displaystyle \frac{f}{4}}\left(\overline{𝒯}^\nu \left[{}_{}{}^{(PQ)}X_{L}^{3}^{(PQ)}X_R^3\right]𝒯_\nu \right),`$
where $``$, which contains the nucleons, and $`𝒯_\nu `$, which contains the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonances, transform in the $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟎}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟒}`$ representations of $`SU(4|2)`$, respectively . The contraction of flavor indices, $`\left(\right)`$, can be found in Ref. . At tree-level one can make the identification

$`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2W_1W_2),h_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(1)}=W_3.`$ (18)
The LO weak coupling between the nucleons and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonances involves one derivative and hence is higher order in the chiral expansion.

The Lagrange density describing the parity-conserving interactions of the $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟎}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟒}`$ with the pseudo-Goldstone bosons at LO in the chiral expansion is ,

$``$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha \left(\overline{}S^\mu A_\mu \right)+2\beta \left(\overline{}S^\mu A_\mu \right)+2\left(\overline{𝒯}^\nu S^\mu A_\mu 𝒯_\nu \right)`$ (20)
$`+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}𝒞\left[\left(\overline{𝒯}^\nu A_\nu \right)+\left(\overline{}A^\nu 𝒯_\nu \right)\right],`$
where $`S^\mu `$ is the covariant spin-vector , and $`A^\mu =\frac{i}{2}\left(\xi ^\mu \xi ^{}\xi ^{}^\mu \xi \right)`$. A comparison with the LO interaction Lagrange density of QCD yields the tree-level identification

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}g_A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_1,\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}g_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_A,=g_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }},𝒞=g_{\mathrm{\Delta }N},`$ (21)
where $`g_A`$, $`g_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}`$ are the $`NN`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ isovector axial couplings, respectively, and ($`g_A`$+$`g_1`$) is the isosinglet axial coupling. For details about this and other aspects of PQ$`\chi `$PT, we refer the reader to Ref. .

## IV $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$ at One Loop with $`P_\pi ^\mu =0`$

In QCD, the LO pion-nucleon PV interaction is generated by the Lagrange density in eq. (11). At higher orders, the PV pion-nucleon interaction will receive contributions from one-loop diagrams and also from terms at next-to-LO (NLO) in the chiral expansion involving a single insertion of $`m_q`$,

$``$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1{\displaystyle \frac{f}{4}}\overline{N}\{_+^{QCD},X_L^3X_R^3\}N\stackrel{~}{c}_2{\displaystyle \frac{f}{4}}\overline{N}\left(X_L^3X_R^3\right)N\mathrm{tr}\left(_+^{QCD}\right).`$ (22)
Since the pion mass is much greater than the proton-neutron mass difference, one does not have all three particles on their mass-shells. Therefore, we compute the one-loop corrections to the weak vertex in both QCD and PQQCD. The one-loop calculation of the vertex has been performed previously in QCD , and explicit computation in the isospin limit and with vanishing pion four-momentum, $`P_\pi ^\mu `$, gives

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{n}p\pi ^+}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}2\overline{m}\left(\stackrel{~}{c}_1+\stackrel{~}{c}_2\right)`$ (24)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2f^2}}\left[h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_A^2\right)L_\pi +h_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{20}{9}}g_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^2J_\pi \right],`$
where $`\overline{m}=m_u=m_d`$ in the isospin limit. The loop functions are defined as $`L_\pi =m_\pi ^2\mathrm{log}\left(m_\pi ^2/\mu ^2\right)`$, and $`J_\pi =J(m_\pi ,\mathrm{\Delta },\mu )`$ with

$`J(m,\mathrm{\Delta },\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m^22\mathrm{\Delta }^2\right)\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)+2\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2m^2}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2m^2+iϵ}}{\mathrm{\Delta }+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2m^2+iϵ}}}\right),`$ (25)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-nucleon mass splitting. Our results agree with those of Ref. , once differences in conventions are accounted for.

In PQQCD the counterterms involving a single insertion of $`m_Q`$ that contribute to the PV pion-nucleon interaction at the one-loop level are

$`^{(ct)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{2}}[c_1\overline{}^{kji}\{^{(PQ)}X_L^3^{(PQ)}X_R^3,_+\}_i^n_{njk}`$ (33)
$`+c_2()^{(\eta _i+\eta _j)(\eta _k+\eta _n)}\overline{}^{kji}\{^{(PQ)}X_L^3^{(PQ)}X_R^3,_+\}_k^n_{ijn}`$
$`+c_3()^{\eta _l(\eta _j+\eta _n)}\overline{}^{kji}\left({}_{}{}^{(PQ)}X_{L}^{3}^{(PQ)}X_R^3\right)_i^l\left(_+\right)_j^n_{lnk}`$
$`+c_4()^{\eta _l\eta _j}\overline{}^{kji}\left(\left({}_{}{}^{(PQ)}X_{L}^{3}^{(PQ)}X_R^3\right)_i^l\left(_+\right)_j^n+\left(_+\right)_i^l\left({}_{}{}^{(PQ)}X_{L}^{3}^{(PQ)}X_R^3\right)_j^n\right)_{nlk}`$
$`+c_5()^{\eta _i(\eta _l+\eta _j)}\overline{}^{kji}\left({}_{}{}^{(PQ)}X_{L}^{3}^{(PQ)}X_R^3\right)_j^l\left(_+\right)_i^n_{nlk}`$
$`+c_6\overline{}^{kji}\left({}_{}{}^{(PQ)}X_{L}^{3}^{(PQ)}X_R^3\right)_i^l_{ljk}\mathrm{str}\left(_+\right)`$
$`+c_7()^{(\eta _i+\eta _j)(\eta _k+\eta _n)}\overline{}^{kji}\left({}_{}{}^{(PQ)}X_{L}^{3}^{(PQ)}X_R^3\right)_k^n_{ijn}\mathrm{str}\left(_+\right)`$
$`+c_8\overline{}^{kji}_{ijk}\mathrm{str}\left(\left({}_{}{}^{(PQ)}X_{L}^{3}^{(PQ)}X_R^3\right)_+\right)],`$
where $`_+=\frac{1}{2}\left(\xi ^{}m_Q\xi ^{}+\xi m_Q\xi \right)`$. The vertex at one-loop level can be written as

$`{}_{}{}^{(PQ)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{n}p\pi ^+}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2f^2}}\left(\eta ^0+h_j\eta ^j+h_l\eta ^l\right)+c^0+h_jc^j+h_lc^l,`$ (34)
where the diagrams in Fig. 1

give

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(2W_1W_2\right)`$ (35)
$`\eta ^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{6}}\left[L_{ju}+L_{jd}+L_{lu}+L_{ld}+R_{\eta _u,\eta _u}+R_{\eta _d,\eta _d}2R_{\eta _u,\eta _d}\right]+\rho 3g_A^2R_{\eta _u,\eta _d}`$ (40)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_1g_A}{4}}[(W_12W_2)(2L_{ud}L_{jd}L_{ju}L_{ld}L_{lu})`$
$`+6\rho (R_{\eta _u,\eta _u}+2R_{\eta _u,\eta _d}+R_{\eta _d,\eta _d})3W_1(L_{uu}+L_{dd})]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2}{8}}[(W_12W_2)(L_{uu}+L_{dd})6\rho (R_{\eta _u,\eta _u}+2R_{\eta _u,\eta _d}+R_{\eta _d,\eta _d})`$
$`+3W_1(L_{ju}+L_{jd}+L_{lu}+L_{ld}2L_{ud})]`$
$`+`$ $`g_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}W_3(J_{dd}+J_{uu}+4J_{ud}+J_{jd}+J_{ju}+J_{ld}+J_{lu}`$ (42)
$`+2𝒯_{\eta _u,\eta _u}+2𝒯_{\eta _d,\eta _d}4𝒯_{\eta _u,\eta _d})`$
$`\eta ^j`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^l=0`$ (43)
$`c^0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_u+m_d\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(2c_1+4c_2c_3c_4+2c_5\right)\left(m_j+m_l\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(c_6+2c_7\right)`$ (44)
$`c^j`$ $`=`$ $`c^l=0,`$ (45)
where $`R_{x,y}=(L_x,L_y,L_X)`$ and $`𝒯_{x,y}=(J_x,J_y,J_X)`$, with

$`_{ab}(A,B,C)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(m_{jj}^2m_{\eta _a}^2)(m_{ll}^2m_{\eta _a}^2)}{(m_{\eta _a}^2m_{\eta _b}^2)(m_{\eta _a}^2m_X^2)}}A{\displaystyle \frac{(m_{jj}^2m_{\eta _b}^2)(m_{ll}^2m_{\eta _b}^2)}{(m_{\eta _a}^2m_{\eta _b}^2)(m_{\eta _b}^2m_X^2)}}B`$ (47)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_X^2m_{jj}^2)(m_X^2m_{ll}^2)}{(m_X^2m_{\eta _a}^2)(m_X^2m_{\eta _b}^2)}}C],`$
where the mass, $`m_X`$, is given by $`m_X^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(m_{jj}^2+m_{ll}^2\right)`$. The expression in eq. (45) collapses down to the isospin-symmetric QCD expression given in eq. (24) in the limit, $`m_j,m_l,m_u,m_d\overline{m}`$. Wavefunction renormalization can be performed for those particles on their mass-shell using (expressions for $`w_p`$ and $`w_n`$ are given in Ref.  and $`w_\pi `$ in the isospin limit is given in Ref. ),

$`w_\pi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[L_{ju}L_{jd}L_{lu}L_{ld}+2R_{\eta _u,\eta _d}R_{\eta _u,\eta _u}R_{\eta _d,\eta _d}\right]`$ (48)
$`w_p`$ $`=`$ $`g_A^2\left(L_{ud}+L_{uu}+2L_{ju}+2L_{lu}+3R_{\eta _u,\eta _u}\right)`$ (52)
$`+g_1g_A\left(2L_{uu}L_{ud}+L_{ju}+L_{lu}+3R_{\eta _u,\eta _u}+3R_{\eta _u,\eta _d}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2}{4}}\left(L_{uu}5L_{ud}+2L_{lu}+3L_{ld}+2L_{ju}+3L_{jd}+3R_{\eta _u,\eta _u}+6R_{\eta _u,\eta _d}+3R_{\eta _d,\eta _d}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^2\left(5J_{ud}+J_{uu}+J_{ju}+J_{lu}+2J_{jd}+2J_{ld}+2𝒯_{\eta _u,\eta _u}+2𝒯_{\eta _d,\eta _d}4𝒯_{\eta _u,\eta _d}\right)`$
$`w_n`$ $`=`$ $`g_A^2\left(L_{dd}+L_{ud}+2L_{jd}+2L_{ld}+3R_{\eta _d,\eta _d}\right)`$ (56)
$`+g_1g_A\left(2L_{dd}L_{ud}+L_{jd}+L_{ld}+3R_{\eta _u,\eta _d}+3R_{\eta _d,\eta _d}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2}{4}}\left(L_{dd}5L_{ud}+2L_{jd}+3L_{ju}+2L_{ld}+3L_{lu}+3R_{\eta _u,\eta _u}+6R_{\eta _u,\eta _d}+3R_{\eta _d,\eta _d}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^2\left(5J_{ud}+J_{dd}+2J_{ju}+2J_{lu}+J_{jd}+J_{ld}+2𝒯_{\eta _u,\eta _u}+2𝒯_{\eta _d,\eta _d}4𝒯_{\eta _u,\eta _d}\right),`$
by adding a contribution

$`\delta ^{(PQ)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2f^2}}\rho w_j.`$ (57)
## V $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$ at One Loop with Lattice Kinematics

The analysis of the previous section will not be as useful in determining $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$ from the lattice as one would naively assume We are indebted to Steve Sharpe for making this point clear to us.. While the $`P_\pi ^\mu =0`$ limit is natural to use from the viewpoint of a momentum and $`m_q`$ expansion, the fact that lattice simulations only measure on-shell to on-shell amplitudes means that the pions and nucleons are on their mass-shells in both the initial and final states. The extraction of $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$ from $`NN\pi `$ requires an injection of energy at the PV weak vertex which can occur because the weak operator is inserted on one time-slice only. Therefore, we must include contributions from operators that are total derivatives, which usually vanish. Recently, chiral perturbation theory has been used to describe $`K\pi \pi `$ with the kinematics appropriate for a lattice determination of the matrix elements of the relevant four-quark operators, $`m_K^{\mathrm{latt}}=m_\pi ^{\mathrm{latt}}`$ and $`m_K^{\mathrm{latt}}=2m_\pi ^{\mathrm{latt}}`$, including the necessary total derivative terms . In QCD, the LO Lagrange density describing PV interactions is given in eq. (11), while the Lagrange density at NLO is

$`_{\mathrm{wk}}^{(NLO)}=h_D^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ivD\overline{N}\left[X_L^3X_R^3\right]N,`$ (58)
where $`v^\mu `$ is the nucleon four-velocity. This is the leading contribution from a heavy baryon reduction of $`iD^\mu \overline{N}\gamma _\mu \left[X_L^3X_R^3\right]N`$. Given baryon number conservation, the total derivative gives a non-zero contribution from the energy and momentum injected by the $`X_L^3X_R^3`$ insertion. Working in the frame where the initial state nucleon (proton) is at rest, $`v^\mu =(1,0,0,0)`$, the amplitude at NLO resulting from eq. (11) and eq. (58) is

$`𝒜_{\overline{n}p\pi }=n\pi |i{\displaystyle d^3𝐱^{\mathrm{\Delta }I=1}(E)}|p`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{U}_n\left[h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}+h_D^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{f}}\right]U_p.`$ (59)
where $`E`$ is the energy injected by the weak vertex. In order to produce an on-shell $`n\pi `$ final state, the injected energy must exceed $`Em_\pi +M_nM_p`$. Near threshold, where the final state neutron and pion are at rest and $`E=m_\pi +M_nM_p`$, the contribution from the total-derivative operator, $`h_D^{(1)}`$, scales as $`m_q^{1/2}`$, and is formally dominant over the loop corrections and counterterms of the previous section.

In PQQCD, the lagrange density describing PV interactions at NLO is

$`_{\mathrm{wk}}^{(NLO)}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{W_{D1}}{4}}vD\left(\overline{}\left[{}_{}{}^{(PQ)}X_{L}^{3}^{(PQ)}X_R^3\right]\right)`$ (61)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{W_{D2}}{4}}vD\left(\overline{}\left[{}_{}{}^{(PQ)}X_{L}^{3}^{(PQ)}X_R^3\right]\right).`$
The one-loop calculation of the previous section, with minor modifications, provides the leading non-analytic contributions arising at N2LO in the chiral expansion. All other contributions are formally suppressed in the chiral limit. The matrix element at one-loop can be written as, keeping only leading non-analytic terms,

$`{}_{}{}^{(PQ)}𝒜_{\overline{n}p\pi ^+}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{U}_n\left[\overline{\rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2f^2}}\left(\overline{\eta }^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\rho }\left[w_p+w_n+w_\pi \right]+h_j\overline{\eta }^j+h_l\overline{\eta }^l\right)\right]U_p,`$ (62)
where the wavefunction renormalization contributions, $`w_i`$, can be found in eq. (56). The diagrams in Fig. 3

give, retaining only the leading non-analytic contributions and working in the frame where the initial state proton is at rest,

$`\overline{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`\rho {\displaystyle \frac{E}{3f}}\left(2W_{D1}W_{D2}\right)`$ (63)
$`\overline{\eta }^0`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^0+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{4}}\left[\stackrel{~}{L}_{ud}^{()}\stackrel{~}{L}_{dd}^{()}+\stackrel{~}{L}_{jd}^{()}+\stackrel{~}{L}_{ld}^{()}+\stackrel{~}{L}_{ud}^{(+)}\stackrel{~}{L}_{uu}^{(+)}+\stackrel{~}{L}_{ju}^{(+)}+\stackrel{~}{L}_{lu}^{(+)}\right]`$ (64)
$`\overline{\eta }^j`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^j+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{4}}\left[\stackrel{~}{L}_{uu}^{(+)}\stackrel{~}{L}_{ju}^{(+)}\stackrel{~}{L}_{ud}^{()}+\stackrel{~}{L}_{jd}^{()}\right]`$ (65)
$`\overline{\eta }^l`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^l+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{4}}\left[\stackrel{~}{L}_{ud}^{(+)}\stackrel{~}{L}_{lu}^{(+)}\stackrel{~}{L}_{dd}^{()}+\stackrel{~}{L}_{ld}^{()}\right],`$ (66)
where $`\rho `$, $`\eta ^0`$, $`\eta ^j`$ and $`\eta ^l`$ are given in eq. (45). The functions $`\stackrel{~}{L}_{ij}^{(\pm )}=\stackrel{~}{L}(m_{ij},\pm E,\mu )`$ are

$`\stackrel{~}{L}(m,+E,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`4E\left[E\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)\sqrt{E^2m^2}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E\sqrt{E^2m^2+iϵ}}{E+\sqrt{E^2m^2+iϵ}}}\right)\right].`$ (67)
Note that these functions are enhanced by a chiral logarithm compared with contributions from local counterterms in the chiral limit. When $`E=\pm m_\pi `$, corresponding to the production of a nucleon and pion at rest, $`\stackrel{~}{L}(m,\pm m,\mu )=4m^2\mathrm{log}\left(m^2/\mu ^2\right)`$. The additional non-analytic contributions in eq. (66) result from modifications to diagrams (c) and (d) in Fig. 3, with the other diagrams unchanged.

In the limit where $`m_{j,l,u,d}\overline{m}`$, this matrix element reduces down to that of QCD,

$`𝒜_{\overline{n}p\pi ^+}=\overline{U}_n[h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}h_D^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{f}}`$ (68)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2f^2}}((6g_A^2+4g_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^2)h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}L_\pi +{\displaystyle \frac{20}{9}}g_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^2h_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(1)}J_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{L}_\pi ^{(+)}+\stackrel{~}{L}_\pi ^{()})h_{\pi NN}^{(1)})]U_p.`$ (69)
We have not given the numerous counterterms that are expected to appear at N2LO whose $`\mu `$-dependence will exactly cancel that of the one-loop expressions in eq. (62). The counterterms are expected to make contributions that are smaller than those of the one-loop graphs when a renormalization scale of $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$ is chosen, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$ is the chiral symmetry breaking scale.

For an energy injection of $`E>m_\pi +M_nM_p`$, the amplitude develops an imaginary part due to the rescattering of the pion in the intermediate state (final-state interactions). Therefore, in accordance with the Maiani-Testa theorem , the simulations must be done at threshold, with $`E=m_\pi +M_nM_p`$.

## VI The Anapole Moment and Form Factor of the Nucleon

An object that plays an important role in PV $`eH`$ scattering is the anapole moment of $`H`$, where $`H`$ denotes a generic hadron. The dominant PV contributions to $`eH`$ scattering arise not only from tree-level $`Z^0`$-exchange between $`H`$ and the electron, but also from the exchange of a photon along with hadronic PV from the four-quark operators in eq. (5). For the proton, there is a contribution to the matrix element of the electromagnetic current in the presence of hadronic PV interactions, of the form

$`p|j_{\mathrm{em}}^\mu (q)|p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{M_p^2}}A_p(q^2)\overline{U}_p\left(S^\mu q^2Sqq^\mu \right)U_p,`$ (70)
where $`A_p(q^2)`$ denotes the anapole form factor (the anapole moment is defined to be $`A_p(0)`$) of the proton. While such electromagnetic contributions vanish for on-shell photons, they give rise to local operators involving the proton and $`e`$ (or whatever charged probe is involved in the process). In QCD, the anapole moment and form factor of the proton have been computed in $`\chi `$PT , and are dominated by the $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$ coupling (assuming that it is not anomalously small compared to estimates based on naive dimensional analysis). Further, the anapole moments of a few nuclei have been studied theoretically (e.g. Ref. ). The proton anapole form factor at LO in $`\chi `$PT is found to be

$`A_p(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{eg_Ah_{\pi NN}^{(1)}M_N^2}{48\pi f}}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\pi ^+}(q^2)`$ (71)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\pi ^+}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{A}(q^2,m_{\pi ^+})={\displaystyle \frac{12}{\left(\sqrt{q^2}\right)^3}}\left[\left(m_{\pi ^+}^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{4}}\right)\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{q^2}}{2m_{\pi ^+}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_{\pi ^+}\sqrt{q^2}}{2}}\right]`$ (72)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\pi ^+}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{20m_{\pi ^+}^3}}+\mathrm{},`$ (73)
where the $`q^20`$ limit reproduces the anapole moment calculation of Ref. .

While lattice computations of the proton anapole form factor are of somewhat secondary importance compared to the computation of $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$, it would be extremely interesting to have a lattice QCD determination. To this end, we present expressions for the anapole moment of the proton in two-flavor PQQCD. The LO contribution to the proton anapole form factor, arising from the one-loop diagrams shown in Fig. 4, is

$`A_p^{(PQ)}(k^2)`$ $`=+{\displaystyle \frac{eM_N^2}{48\pi f}}[g_A[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2W_1W_2)\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}`$ (85)
$`+W_1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}q_jh_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}q_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}h_j\right]\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_{ju}\stackrel{~}{A}_{uu}\right)`$
$`+W_1[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}q_lh_l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}q_l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}h_l](\stackrel{~}{A}_{lu}\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud})]`$
$`+g_1[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72}}(W_1(4\stackrel{~}{A}_{ju}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{ld}+4\stackrel{~}{A}_{lu}5\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}4\stackrel{~}{A}_{uu}\stackrel{~}{A}_{dd}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{jd})`$
$`+W_2(4\stackrel{~}{A}_{ju}+4\stackrel{~}{A}_{ld}+4\stackrel{~}{A}_{lu}8\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}4\stackrel{~}{A}_{uu}4\stackrel{~}{A}_{dd}+4\stackrel{~}{A}_{jd}))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{h_j}{72}}\left(W_1\left(4\stackrel{~}{A}_{uu}\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}4\stackrel{~}{A}_{ju}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{jd}\right)+4W_2\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_{uu}\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}\stackrel{~}{A}_{ju}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{jd}\right)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{h_l}{72}}\left(W_1\left(4\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}\stackrel{~}{A}_{dd}4\stackrel{~}{A}_{lu}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{ld}\right)+4W_2\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}\stackrel{~}{A}_{dd}\stackrel{~}{A}_{lu}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{ld}\right)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{q_j}{24}}\left(W_1\left(2\stackrel{~}{A}_{uu}\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}2\stackrel{~}{A}_{ju}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{jd}\right)+W_2\left(2\stackrel{~}{A}_{uu}4\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}2\stackrel{~}{A}_{ju}+4\stackrel{~}{A}_{jd}\right)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{q_l}{24}}\left(W_1\left(2\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}\stackrel{~}{A}_{dd}2\stackrel{~}{A}_{lu}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{ld}\right)+W_2\left(2\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}4\stackrel{~}{A}_{dd}2\stackrel{~}{A}_{lu}+4\stackrel{~}{A}_{ld}\right)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{q_jh_j}{24}}\left(W_1\left(2\stackrel{~}{A}_{ju}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{jd}2\stackrel{~}{A}_{uu}\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}\right)+2W_2\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_{ju}+2\stackrel{~}{A}_{jd}\stackrel{~}{A}_{uu}2\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}\right)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{q_lh_l}{24}}(W_1(2\stackrel{~}{A}_{lu}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{ld}2\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}\stackrel{~}{A}_{dd})+2W_2(\stackrel{~}{A}_{lu}+2\stackrel{~}{A}_{ld}\stackrel{~}{A}_{ud}2\stackrel{~}{A}_{dd}))]`$
$`],`$
where we have used the short-hand $`\stackrel{~}{A}_x=\stackrel{~}{A}_x(q^2)`$ and we have used the electric-charge matrix in PQQCD,

$`𝒬^{(PQ)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},q_j,q_l,q_j,q_l),`$ (86)
where $`q_j`$ and $`q_l`$ are arbitrary charges. The form factor in eq. (85) clearly reduces to the QCD expression in eq. (73) in the appropriate limit.

## VII Conclusions

With a new generation of experiments designed to determine the PV nucleon-nucleon interaction, it is time for a lattice QCD calculation of the flavor-conserving PV coupling $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$. Near future lattice simulations will be partially-quenched with quark masses significantly larger than those of nature. Therefore we have presented the one-loop level expressions required for the extraction of $`h_{\pi NN}^{(1)}`$, both with vanishing pion four-momentum and with lattice kinematics. Furthermore, we have –with extreme optimism– given the one-loop expressions necessary to determine the proton anapole moment and form factor.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Steve Sharpe for very illuminating discussions and critical comments on this work. This work is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grants No. DE-FG03-97ER4014.


format: text

text:
# On a new approach to classification of associative algebras

## 1 Introduction

The study of associative algebras has usually centered on studying subalgebras, ideals, homomorphisms and identities - i.e. properties describable within the category of algebras and their modules. One of the most famous results include the study of commutative algebras by use of multiplicative functionals and primitive ideals and the ”classification” theorem stating that any finite dimensional associative algebra is a semi-product of its Jacobson radical and direct sum of matrix algebras over a skew-field.

Unfortunately, these results do not help in a situaton when the researcher has a multiplication table for the algebra and wishes to learn as much as possible about it.

In this paper we introduce a method by using which one can decompose a finite dimensional associative algebra into subspaces which provide valuable information about the structure of the algebra. These subspaces generally will not be ideals, or even algebras, and their value is in simplifying the operation of multiplication when considered in basis subordinate to this decomposition.

## 2 The method

We start with a finite dimensional associative algebra $`𝔄`$, which we will assume contains unity $`1`$. Pick any basis $`\left\{e_i\right\}`$ in $`𝔄`$. The matrix $`A=\left\{e_ie_j\right\}`$ is the multiplication table of $`𝔄`$ written in the basis $`\left\{e_i\right\}`$.

Pick a linear functional $`F𝔄^{}`$. This choice will affect the properties of the resulting decomposition. We define $`A|_F`$ to be the matrix $`\left\{F(e_ie_j)\right\}`$.

Let

$$\text{ker}^LA|_F=\{x𝔄:y𝔄A(xy)=0\}$$

$$\text{ker}^RA|_F=\{x𝔄:y𝔄A(yx)=0\}$$

$$\text{Nil}_F=\text{ker}^LA|_F\text{ker}^RA|_F$$

###### Theorem 1

The spaces $`\text{ker}^LA|_F`$, $`\text{ker}^RA|_F`$ and $`\text{Nil}_F`$ obey the following relations with respect to multiplication in $`𝔄`$:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}1.& \text{ker}^LA|_F𝔄\hfill & & \text{ker}^LA|_F\hfill \\ 2.& 𝔄\text{ker}^RA|_F\hfill & & \text{ker}^RA|_F\hfill \\ 3.& \text{ker}^LA|_F\text{ker}^RA|_F\hfill & & \text{Nil}_F\hfill \\ 4.& \text{ker}^LA|_F\text{Nil}_F\hfill & & \text{Nil}_F\hfill \\ 5.& \text{Nil}_F\text{ker}^RA|_F\hfill & & \text{Nil}_F\hfill \\ 6.& \text{Nil}_F𝔄\hfill & & \text{ker}^LA|_F\hfill \\ 7.& 𝔄\text{Nil}_F\hfill & & \text{ker}^RA|_F\hfill \end{array}$$

* 1. Let $`x\text{ker}^LA|_F`$, $`y𝔄`$. Then for all $`z𝔄`$ we have

$$F((xy)z)=F(x(yz))=0$$

2. Let $`x𝔄`$, $`y\text{ker}^RA|_F`$. Then for all $`z𝔄`$ we have

$$F(z(xy))=F((zx)y)=0$$

3. True because the image should be a subset of both $`\text{ker}^LA|_F`$ and $`\text{ker}^RA|_F`$.

4. A special case of 3.

5. A special case of 3.

6. A special case of 1.

7. A special case of 1.

Define $`N=dim𝔄`$ and $`K=dim𝔄dim\text{Nil}_F`$. Let us now change the basis in such a way that the last $`NK`$ vectors span $`\text{Nil}_F`$. Upon rewriting $`A`$ in the new basis we discover that elements in the last $`NK`$ columns and in the last $`NK`$ rows are all zero. Let $`\stackrel{~}{A}|_F`$ be the submatrix formed by the first $`K`$ columns and the first $`K`$ rows.

Since $`\text{Nil}_F`$ was defined as two-sided kernel of $`A|_F`$ the matrix $`\lambda \stackrel{~}{A}|_F+\mu \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F`$ is non-degenerate and can be considered as a matrix of a bilinear form on $`𝔄/\text{Nil}_F`$.

We define the characteristic polynomial $`\chi _F(\lambda ,\mu )`$ of $`𝔄`$ as

$$\chi _F(\lambda ,\mu )=det\left(\lambda \stackrel{~}{A}|_F+\mu \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)$$

The characteristic polynomial is a homogeneous polynomial. The points $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ of the projective line in which it vanishes form the spectrum of $`𝔄`$. For convenience we assume the following parameterization of $`^1`$:

$$(\lambda ,\mu )=(1,\alpha )$$

We now define $`\text{Stab}_F(\alpha )=\text{ker}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)`$, with $`\text{Stab}_F(\mathrm{})=\text{ker}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)`$. The sign in front of alpha was chosen so that $`\text{Stab}_F(1)`$ would correspond to the stabilizer of $`F`$ in Lie algebra $`𝔄^L`$.

Since, in general, $`\stackrel{~}{A}|_F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F`$ do not commute we should expect the need to use Jordan spaces. And indeed, even though $`\text{Stab}_F(\alpha )`$ are transversal, their sum is commonly smaller than $`𝔄/\text{Nil}_F`$.

Since $`\chi _F(\lambda ,\mu )`$ is non-zero there exists a value $`\alpha _0`$ in which it does not vanish. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F=\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)\left(\alpha \alpha _0\right)\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F=\hfill \\ =\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)\left(\alpha \alpha _0\right)\left(\frac{1}{\alpha \alpha _0}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)^1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

We define $`\stackrel{~}{V}^k(\alpha )`$ to be the $`k`$-level Jordan space of the operator

$$\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)^1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F$$

corresponding to the eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{\alpha \alpha _0}`$. Recall, that by definition we have

$$\stackrel{~}{V}^0(\alpha )=\text{ker}\left(\frac{1}{\alpha \alpha _0}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)^1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{V}^{k+1}(\alpha )=\{x:y\stackrel{~}{V}^k(\alpha )\left(\frac{1}{\alpha \alpha _0}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)^1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)x=y\}$$

Simple transformations show that

$$\stackrel{~}{V}^0(\alpha )=\text{Stab}_F(\alpha )$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{V}^{k+1}(\alpha )=\{x:y\stackrel{~}{V}^k(\alpha )\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)x=\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y\}$$

with the special case

$$\stackrel{~}{V}^{k+1}(\mathrm{})=\{x:y\stackrel{~}{V}^k(\mathrm{})\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_Fx=\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y\}$$

Since $`𝔄`$ is finite-dimensional the spaces $`\stackrel{~}{V}^k(\alpha )`$ stabilize, we will use $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\alpha )`$ to denote $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{dim𝔄}(\alpha )`$. We have

$$𝔄/\text{Nil}_F=_\alpha \stackrel{~}{V}(\alpha )$$

We now define $`V(\alpha )`$ ($`V^k(\alpha )`$) to be the preimage of $`\stackrel{~}{(}V)(\alpha )`$ (correspondingly $`\stackrel{~}{V}^k(\alpha )`$) under the projection $`𝔄𝔄/\text{Nil}_F`$. Restating the conditions defining $`\stackrel{~}{V}^k(\alpha )`$ we obtain:

$$V^0(\alpha )=\text{Stab}_F(\alpha )$$

and

$$V^{k+1}(\alpha )=\{x𝔄:yV^k(\alpha )z𝔄F(xz)\alpha F(zx)=F(yz)\alpha _0F(zy)\}$$

with the special case

$$V^{k+1}(\mathrm{})=\{x𝔄:yV^k(\mathrm{})z𝔄F(zx)=F(yz)\alpha _0F(zy)\}$$

Also, from the Jordan decomposition and definition of $`V(\alpha )`$ we have

$$\alpha :\text{Nil}_FV(\alpha )$$

and

$$𝔄/\text{Nil}_F=_\alpha V(\alpha )/\text{Nil}_F$$

###### Theorem 2

The spaces $`V(\alpha )`$ do not depend on the choice of $`\alpha _0`$. Furthermore, when considering $`V(\alpha )`$ for a particular $`\alpha `$ we can use any $`\alpha _0\alpha `$. Also for $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ we can define $`V^{k+1}(\alpha )`$ as

$$V^{k+1}(\alpha )=\{x:y\stackrel{~}{V}^k(\alpha )\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)x=\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_Fy\}$$

* Indeed, all statements hold for $`V^0(\alpha )=\text{Stab}_F(\alpha )`$ by definition. We have for a $`k0`$

$$V^{k+1}(\alpha )=\{x:y\stackrel{~}{V}^k(\alpha )\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)x=\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y\}$$

Starting with

$$\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y$$

we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y& =& \left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y(\alpha _0\alpha _1)\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_Fy=\hfill \\ & =& \left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y+\frac{\alpha _0\alpha _1}{\alpha \alpha _1}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y\hfill \\ & & \frac{\alpha _0\alpha _1}{\alpha \alpha _1}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y=\hfill \\ & =& \left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y+\frac{\alpha _0\alpha _1}{\alpha \alpha _1}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)z\hfill \\ & & \frac{\alpha _0\alpha _1}{\alpha \alpha _1}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y=\hfill \\ & =& \left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)\left(y+\frac{\alpha _0\alpha _1}{\alpha \alpha _1}z\frac{\alpha _0\alpha _1}{\alpha \alpha _1}y\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`z`$ is either zero (when $`k=0`$) or such that

$$\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y=\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)z$$

(from definition of $`V^k(\alpha )`$).

For the special case $`\alpha =\mathrm{}`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y& =& \left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y(\alpha _0\alpha _1)\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_Fy=\hfill \\ & =& \left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y(\alpha _0\alpha _1)\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)z=\hfill \\ & =& \left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)\left(y(\alpha _0\alpha _1)z\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

The last statement is proved similarly. Starting with

$$V^{k+1}(\alpha )=\{x:y\stackrel{~}{V}^k(\alpha )\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)x=\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y\}$$

we derive

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y& =& \left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y+(\alpha \alpha _0)\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_Fy=\hfill \\ & =& \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_Fz+(\alpha \alpha _0)\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_Fy=\hfill \\ & =& \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\left(z+(\alpha \alpha _0)y\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`z`$ is either $`0`$ (when $`k=0`$) or such that $`\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y=\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_Fz`$. In the opposite direction, given

$$V^{k+1}(\alpha )=\{x:y\stackrel{~}{V}^k(\alpha )\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)x=\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_Fy\}$$

we compute

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_Fy& =& \frac{1}{\alpha _0\alpha }\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y\frac{1}{\alpha _0\alpha }\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y=\hfill \\ & =& \frac{1}{\alpha _0\alpha }\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)z\frac{1}{\alpha _0\alpha }\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y=\hfill \\ & =& \left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)\frac{zy}{\alpha _0\alpha }\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`z`$ is either $`0`$ (when $`k=0`$) or is such that

$$\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)y=\left(\stackrel{~}{A}|_F\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)z$$

## 3 Properties of the spaces $`V^k(\alpha )`$

We will now investigate how the spaces $`V^k(\alpha )`$ interact with respect to the operation of multiplication.

###### Theorem 3

For all $`\alpha \mathrm{},\beta \mathrm{}`$ we have

$$V^k(\alpha )V^m(\beta )V^{k+m}(\alpha \beta )$$

* First, let us establish this property for $`V^0(\alpha )=\text{Stab}_F(\alpha )`$ and $`V^0(\beta )=\text{Stab}_F(\beta )`$. We have

$$\text{Stab}_F(\alpha )=\{x_1𝔄:z𝔄F(x_1z)\alpha F(zx_1)=0\}$$

and

$$\text{Stab}_F(\beta )=\{x_2𝔄:z𝔄F(x_2z)\beta F(zx_2)=0\}$$

For all $`z𝔄`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}F((x_1x_2)z)\alpha \beta F(z(x_1x_2))=\hfill \\ =F(x_1(x_2z))\alpha F((x_2z)x_1)+\alpha F(x_2(zx_1))\alpha \beta F((zx_1)x_2)=0\hfill \end{array}$$

and thus $`(x_1x_2)\text{Stab}_F(\alpha \beta )`$.

Now let us apply induction. Assume that for all $`k+m<T`$ the statement is true and consider the case $`k+m=T`$. By theorem 2 we have

$$V^k(\alpha )=\{x_1𝔄:y_1V^{k1}(\alpha ):z𝔄F(x_1z)\alpha F(zx_1)=F(zy_1)\}$$

and

$$V^m(\beta )=\{x_2𝔄:y_2V^{m1}(\beta ):z𝔄F(x_2z)\beta F(zx_2)=F(zy_2)\}$$

For any $`z𝔄`$ we have:

$$\begin{array}{c}F(x_1x_2z)\alpha \beta F(zx_1x_2)=\hfill \\ =F(x_1(x_2z))\alpha F((x_2z)x_1)+\alpha F(x_2(zx_1))\alpha \beta F((zx_1)x_2)=\hfill \\ =F(x_2zy_1)+\alpha F(zx_1y_2)=\hfill \\ =\beta F(zy_1x_2)+F(zy_1y_2)+\alpha F(zx_1y_2)=\hfill \\ =F\left(z\left(\beta y_1x_2+y_1y_2+\alpha x_1y_2\right)\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

By induction hypothesis we have $`\left(\beta y_1x_2+y_1y_2+\alpha x_1y_2\right)V^{T1}(\alpha \beta )`$ and thus $`x_1x_2V^T(\alpha \beta )`$.

###### Theorem 4

For all $`\alpha 0,\beta 0`$ we have

$$V^k(\alpha )V^m(\beta )V^{k+m}(\alpha \beta )$$

* Let us notice that if we create a new algebra $`𝔄^{}`$ with new multiplication operation

$$ab:=ba$$

the space $`V_𝔄(\alpha )`$ corresponding to the algebra $`𝔄`$ is exactly the space $`V_𝔄^{}(1/\alpha )`$ corresponding to the algebra $`𝔄^{}`$. Thus, the statement of this theorem is a consequence of theorem 3.

The symmetry $`\alpha 1/\alpha `$ is also reflected in the dimensions of spaces $`V(\alpha )`$ and $`\text{Stab}_F(\alpha )`$. Because of the fact that

$$det\left(\lambda \stackrel{~}{A}|_F+\mu \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)=det\left(\lambda \stackrel{~}{A}|_F+\mu \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)^T=det\left(\lambda \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F+\mu \stackrel{~}{A}|_F\right)$$

and theory of Jordan decomposition (stating that multiplicities of roots of characteristic polynomial are equal to $`dimV(\alpha )/\text{Nil}_F`$) we must have

$$dimV(\alpha )/\text{Nil}_F=dimV(1/\alpha )/\text{Nil}_F$$

and

$$dimV(\alpha )=dimV(1/\alpha )$$

Similarly for $`\text{Stab}_F(\alpha )`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}dim\text{Stab}_F(\alpha )=dim\text{ker}\left(\lambda \stackrel{~}{A}|_F+\mu \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)=\hfill \\ dim\text{ker}\left(\lambda \stackrel{~}{A}|_F+\mu \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F\right)^T=\hfill \\ dim\text{ker}\left(\lambda \stackrel{~}{A}^T|_F+\mu \stackrel{~}{A}|_F\right)=dim\text{Stab}_F(1/\alpha )\hfill \end{array}$$

due to the well known fact $`\text{rank }A=\text{rank }A^T`$ of linear algebra.

## 4 Multiplicative functionals, ideals and $`A|_F`$

An important classical method of exploring associative algebras is the study of ideals and homomorphisms. Multiplicative functionals (homomorphisms into the base field) have long played an important role in commutative algebras - especially in commutative $`C^{}`$-algebras.

It is easy to see that when $`F`$ is a multiplicative functional $`A|_F`$ is symmetric and has rank $`1`$. It turns out that all functionals with $`\text{rank }A|_F=1`$ are multiplicative.

###### Theorem 5

Assume that $`F`$ is such that $`\text{ker}^LA|_F=\text{ker}^RA|_F=\text{Nil}_F`$. Then $`\text{Nil}_F`$ is an ideal.

* Indeed this is so because of statements 6 and 7 of theorem 1.

###### Theorem 6

Let $`F`$ be a functional on $`𝔄`$ such that $`F(1)=1`$ and $`\text{rank }A|_F=1`$. Then $`F`$ is multiplicative.

* Let us count the dimensions. Since $`\text{rank }A|_F=1`$ it must be that $`dim𝔄/\text{ker}^LA|_F=dim𝔄/\text{ker}^RA|_F=1`$ and $`dim𝔄/\text{Nil}_F2`$. Also, since $`1`$ is always an element of $`Stab_F(1)`$ and $`F(\text{Nil}_F)=0`$ it must be that $`dim\text{Stab}_F(1)/\text{Nil}_F1`$. Yet, since the factor spaces $`\text{ker}^LA|_F/\text{Nil}_F`$, $`\text{ker}^RA|_F/\text{Nil}_F`$ and $`\text{Stab}_F(1)/\text{Nil}_F`$ are transversal we must have

$$dim\text{ker}^LA|_F/\text{Nil}_F+dim\text{ker}^RA|_F/\text{Nil}_F+dim\text{Stab}_F(1)/\text{Nil}_F2$$

The only way this is possible is when

$$dim\text{ker}^LA|_F/\text{Nil}_F=dim\text{ker}^RA|_F/\text{Nil}_F=0$$

Thus $`\text{Nil}_F`$ is an ideal and $`\text{ker}F=\text{Nil}_F`$. Consequently, as $`F(1)=1`$, $`F`$ must be multiplicative.

Note that this theorem holds even for an infinite-dimensional algebra, the cause being that, due to the condition $`\text{rank }A|_F=1`$, the bulk of $`𝔄`$ is residing inside $`\text{Nil}_F`$ and hence all factor spaces have finite dimension.

## 5 Jacobson’s radical and spaces $`V^k(\alpha )`$

The following famous result (see \[??\]) describes the structure of finite dimensional associative algebras:

###### Theorem 7

Any finite dimensional associative algebra is a semi-direct sum of its Jacobson radical and direct sum of matrix rings over skew-fields.

Since full matrix rings are well-studied the question arises whether the spaces $`V^k(\alpha )`$ provide anything beyond this result. For example, the Jacobson’s radical would be contained within $`\text{Nil}_F`$ for any $`F`$ produced by the pullback from the dual space to the factor of $`𝔄`$ by its Jacobson’s radical. However, it is easy to see that $`F`$ must vanish completely on any space $`V(\alpha )`$, when $`\alpha 1`$. As Jacobson’s radical is an invariant feature of an associative algebra there are plenty of functionals which do not vanish on it.

## 6 Analysis of matrix algebra

We will now consider the case when $`𝔄=\text{Mat}_n()`$. The dual space $`𝔄^{}`$ can be modeled as $`\text{Mat}_n()`$, with

$$F(X)=tr(FX)$$

Consider the case of generic $`F`$, i.e. when $`F`$ is invertible and has distinct eigenvalues $`\left\{\nu _i\right\}`$. Observe that conjugation is an algebra isomorphism - and thus similar $`F`$ produce equivalent decompositions. (This is not specific to $`\text{Mat}_n()`$, but common to all algebras). Pick a basis that diagonalizes $`F`$. Let $`\left\{e_{ij}\right\}`$ be the matrix elements in this basis. We have:

$$e_{ij}e_{km}=\delta _{jk}e_{im}$$

The matrix $`F(e_{ij}e_{km})`$ has the form:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccc}& & & e_{ii}& & & & e_{ij}^+& & & & e_{ij}^{}& & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & \nu _1& & 0& & & & & & & & & & & & \\ e_{ii}& & & \mathrm{}& & & & 0& & & & 0& & & & & \\ & & 0& & \nu _n& & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & \nu _j^{}& & 0& & & & \\ e_{ij}^+& & & 0& & & & 0& & & & \mathrm{}& & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & 0& & \nu _{j^{\prime \prime }}& & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \nu _i^{}& & 0& & & & & & & & \\ e_{ij}^{}& & & 0& & & & \mathrm{}& & & & 0& & & & & \\ & & & & & & 0& & \nu _{i^{\prime \prime }}& & & & & & & & \end{array}$$

where $`e_{ij}^+`$ denote those $`e_{ij}`$ with $`j>i`$ and $`e_{ij}^{}`$ denote $`e_{ij}`$ with $`j<i`$.

It is easy to see that the $`\text{Nil}_F=0`$. The characteristic polynomial is

$$\chi _F(\lambda ,\mu )=(1)^{\frac{n(n1)}{2}}(\lambda +\mu )^n\underset{i}{}\nu _i\underset{ij}{}(\lambda \nu _i+\mu \nu _j)=(1)^{\frac{n(n1)}{2}}\underset{i,j}{}(\lambda \nu _i+\mu \nu _j)$$

We find that $`V(1)`$ is spanned by $`e_{ii}`$, and $`V(\nu _i/\nu _j)=e_{ij}`$.

## 7 Analysis of $`()`$

We will now consider the algebra $`()`$ of bounded operators on countable Hilbertian space. The dual space of continuous functionals on this algebra is dependent upon the topology defined on $`()`$: for normed topology it consists of all operators of trace class, with the familiar formula $`F(X)=\text{tr }(FX)`$. For weak and strong operator topologies (which are both weaker than normed one) the dual space is restricted to operators of finite rank. Obviously, in the latter case, the $`\text{Nil}_F`$ space will have finite codimension - and the rest of analysis will follow closely the case of $`\text{Mat}_n()`$.

The case of normed topology is also similar to $`\text{Mat}_n()`$. Operators of trace class are compact. Assume $`F`$ to have point spectrum with simple multiplicities and $`0`$ to be the only value outside of point spectrum. The characteristic polynomial is not well-defined. However the spaces $`V(\alpha )`$ are. $`V(1)`$ is the space of all bounded operators that commute with $`F`$. The space $`V(\alpha =\nu _i/\nu _j)`$, where $`\nu _i,\nu _j`$ belong to the point spectrum of $`F`$, has dimension $`1`$.

The remarkable property of this situation is that the only functionals available are degenerate ones - i.e. those for which $`\lambda A|_F+\mu A|_F^T`$ is never invertible.

## 8 Regular functionals

Following \[D1\] we first prove the following lemma:

###### Lemma 8

Let $`W`$ be a vector subspace of $`𝔄`$. Fix $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$. The set $`R`$ of all $`F𝔄^{}`$ such that $`W\text{ker}\left(\lambda A|_F+\mu A|_F^T\right)0`$ is closed in $`𝔄^{}`$.

* Let $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ be the basis of $`𝔄`$ such that the first $`p`$ vectors form the basis of $`W`$. The system of equations

$$\left(\lambda A|_F+\mu A|_F^T\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}ϵ_ie_i=0$$

is equivalent to

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}ϵ_i\left(\lambda F(e_ke_i)+\mu F(e_ie_k)\right)=0$$

where $`k`$ ranges from $`1`$ to $`n`$. The matrix of the latter system has entries that are linear in $`F`$. The existence of the non-zero solution is equivalent to requirement that all $`p`$-minors vanish. This proves that the set $`R`$ can be defined as a solution to the system of polynomial equations. Hence it is closed.

###### Theorem 9

Let $`S`$ be a subspace of $`𝔄^{}`$. Let $`F`$ be such that for a fixed pair $`\lambda _0,\mu _0`$ the dimension of $`\text{ker}\left(\lambda _0A|_F+\mu _0A|_F^T\right)`$ is the smallest among functionals in small neighbourhood of $`F`$ inside affine set $`F+S`$.

Then for any $`GS`$, any $`x\text{ker}\left(\lambda _0A|_F+\mu _0A|_F^T\right)`$ and any $`y\text{ker}\left(\mu _0A|_F+\lambda _0A|_F^T\right)`$ we have

$$G\left(\lambda _0xy+\mu _0yx\right)=0$$

* Pick any $`GS`$. Let $`F_ϵ=F+ϵG`$. Choose any subspace $`W𝔄`$ of complementary dimension that is transversal to $`\text{ker}\left(\lambda _0A|_F+\mu _0A|_F^T\right)`$. The set of $`ϵ`$ for which $`V_ϵ=\text{ker}\left(\lambda _0A|_{F_ϵ}+\mu _0A|_{F_ϵ}^T\right)`$ remains transversal to $`W`$ is open by lemma 8 and thus contains a small neighbourhood of $`0`$. Let $`\left\{e_i\right\}`$ be the basis of $`𝔄`$ with first $`p`$ vectors forming the basis of $`W`$.

Pick $`x\text{ker}\left(\lambda _0A|_F+\mu _0A|_F^T\right)`$. As $`W`$ and $`\text{ker}\left(\lambda _0A|_{F_ϵ}+\mu _0A|_{F_ϵ}^T\right)`$ form a decomposition of $`𝔄`$ there exists $`wW`$ such that

$$xw\text{ker}\left(\lambda _0A|_{F_ϵ}+\mu _0A|_{F_ϵ}^T\right)$$

I.e. for all $`i`$

$$\lambda _0F_ϵ((xw)e_i)+\mu _0F_ϵ(e_i(xw))=0$$

Hence

$$\lambda _0F_ϵ(we_i)+\mu _0F_ϵ(e_iw)=\lambda _0F_ϵ(xe_i)+\mu _0F_ϵ(e_ix)$$

The homogeneous part of this system is the linear system that defines $`W\text{ker}\left(\lambda _0A|_{F_ϵ}+\mu _0A|_{F_ϵ}^T\right)`$. As this intersection is trivial the rank of it must be $`p`$. Noticing that the right hand part can be derived by substituting $`w=x`$ (i.e. our system is of the type $`Qw=Qx`$) we conclude that there is a unique solution $`w_ϵ`$. As $`F_ϵ`$ is linear in $`ϵ`$ $`w_ϵ`$ is a rational function in $`ϵ`$.

Pick now any $`y\text{ker}\left(\lambda _0A|_F+\mu _0A|_F^T\right)`$. We have:

$$\lambda _0F_ϵ((xw_ϵ)y)+\mu _0F_ϵ(y(xw_ϵ))=0$$

Differentiating by $`ϵ`$ produces:

$$\lambda _0G_ϵ((xw_ϵ)y)+\mu _0G_ϵ(y(xw_ϵ))\left(\lambda _0F_ϵ(w_ϵ^{}y)+\mu _0F_ϵ(yw_ϵ^{})\right)=0$$

After setting $`ϵ=0`$ we have:

$$\lambda _0G(xy)+\mu _0G(yx)=0$$

Corollary 1. Let $`F`$ be a functional such that $`\text{Stab}_F(\alpha )`$ has the smallest dimension in a neighbourhood of $`F`$. ($`\alpha `$ is fixed). Then for all $`x\text{Stab}_F(\alpha )`$ and $`y\text{Stab}_F(1/\alpha )`$ we have:

$$xy\alpha yx=0$$

Corollary 2. Let $`F`$ be a functional with the smallest dimension of $`\text{Stab}_F(1)`$. Then $`\text{Stab}_F(1)`$ is a commutative subalgebra of $`𝔄`$.

Corollary 3. Let $`F`$ be a functional with the smallest dimension of $`\text{Stab}_F(0)`$. Then

$$\text{Stab}_F(0)\text{Stab}_F(\mathrm{})=\left\{0\right\}$$

In this case $`\text{Nil}_F`$ is a subalgebra of $`𝔄`$ with trivial (identically $`0`$) multiplication law.

## References

1. Vladimir Dergachev and Alexandre Kirillov, Index of Lie algebras of Seaweed type, to appear in Journal of Lie theory.
2. Vladimir Dergachev, Some properties of index of Lie algebras, math.RT/0001042.
3. J.Dixmier, “Enveloping algebras”, American Mathematical Society, Providence (1996) 1-379.
4. Elashvili, A. G, Frobenius Lie algebras, Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. 16 (1982), 94–95.
5. —, On the index of a parabolic subalgebra of a semisimple Lie algebra, Preprint, 1990.
6. I.M.Gelfand and A.A.Kirillov, Sur les corps liés aux algébres enveloppantes des algébres de Lie, Publications mathématiques 31 (1966) 5-20.
7. R.S. Pierce, Associative algebras, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982.


text:
# Relations between structural distortions and transport properties in Nd0.5Ca0.5MnO3 strained thin films.

## I Introduction

Perovskite type manganites such as R1-xAxMnO3 (R=rare earth ion and A=alkaline earth ion) have been extensively investigated due their properties of colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) . The CMR effects originates from a competition between a ferromagnetic metallic (FMM) state and an antiferromagnetism insulating (AFMI) state. The appearance of the FMM state is explained by the double exchange (DE) mechanism , whereas the AFMI state originates from the Jahn-Teller (JT) distortions , leading in the case of small A-site cations to the charge/orbital ordered (CO/OO) phenomenon . The efforts made for understanding the magnetotransport properties of manganite thin films  have shown that the physical properties are often different from the bulk materials. The main reason deals with the strains included the substrate-induced strains which modify the lattice parameters of the film and change the properties as shown recently for $`Pr_{0.5}Ca_{0.5}MnO_3`$ , $`La_{1x}Ba_xMnO_3`$  and $`Nd_{0.5}Ca_{0.5}MnO_3`$ .

In manganite thin films, the strains are susceptible to modify the Mn-O-Mn angles and Mn-O distances. Consequently, this affects the bandwidth and also the JT distortions, so that DE and CO/OO phenomena may be drastically influenced. Based on these considerations, the strain effects should decrease as the thickness increases and it should be possible to establish relationships between the structural distortions and the transport properties, by studying the properties of the films with various thicknesses.

Starting from $`Nd_{0.5}Ca_{0.5}MnO_3`$ films where a spectacular CMR effect was previously evidenced , compared to the bulk , we have carried out a systematic study of films with different thickness grown in situ using the Pulsed Laser Deposition technique (PLD) on both (100)-SrTiO3 and (100)-LaAlO3 substrates. In this paper, a clear correlation between the structural distortions and the transport properties (insulator-to-metal $`T_{IM}`$ transition under a magnetic field, CO/OO $`T_{CO}`$ transition). We suggested that for small films thickness the elongation of the Mn-O bonds prevails, reinforcing the JT distortion and consequently the CO/OO state, whereas for large thickness the flattering of the Mn-O-Mn bond angles prevails, increasing the bandwidth favoring the insulator-to-metal transition to the detriment of the CO/OO state.

## II Experimental

Films with different thicknesses were deposited on single crystal substrates of (100)-SrTiO3 (STO) and (100)-LaAlO3 (LAO) from a dense targets of Nd0.5Ca0.5MnO3 using the PLD technique. Detailed of the process can be found elsewhere . The structural study was done by X-ray diffraction (XRD) using a Seifert XRD 3000P for the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-2$`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ scans and a Phillips MRD X’pert for the in-plane measurements (Cu K$`\alpha `$, $`\lambda `$=1.5406Å). The in-plane lattice parameters were obtained from the (103)C reflection (where C refers to the ideal cubic perovskite cell, $`a_C`$=3.9Å). An electron microscope JEOL 2010 equipped with an Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) analysis, was used for the electron diffraction (ED) study. The EDS has shown that the cationic composition of the film is homogeneous and remains very close to the nominal one ”Nd0.5±0.02Ca0.5±0.02MnOx” within experimental error.

The resistivity ($`\rho `$) of the films was measured with a PPMS Quantum Design as a function of the magnetic field ($`H`$) and the temperature ($`T`$) using four-probe contacts. The thickness ($`t`$) of the films is measured using a Dektak3ST surface profiler.

Besides the classical growth parameters such as the deposition temperature, the oxygen pressure, we found that the energy of the laser was also important in order to obtain a single phase. The optimum energy value is $`200mJ`$ which corresponds to $`2J/cm^2`$ on the target. This is evidenced on Fig.1 for a 2000Å thick film of NCMO on STO. A low ($`132mJ`$) or a high ($`240mJ`$) laser energy leads to a poor crystallization of the film with appearance of a secondary phase.

## III Results

### A Structural properties

The structure of bulk NCMO is orthorhombic ($`Pnma`$) with $`a=5.4037`$Å, $`b=7.5949`$Å and $`c=5.3814`$Å . Some area of the film have been investigated by ED and we found that the films are single phase, -oriented, i.e. with the -axis perpendicular to the STO substrate plane, and -oriented, i.e. with the -axis perpendicular to the LAO substrate plane in the space group $`Pnma`$. This orientation is not surprising and resulting from the lattice mismatch between the film and the substrate as previously reported for Pr0.5Ca0.5MnO3 thin films grown on (100)-SrTiO3 and (001)-LaAlO3 substrates . Details of the transmission electron microscopy study are currently undertaken and will be published elsewhere.

Fig.2a shows the evolution of the lattice parameters of the NCMO film grown on STO versus thickness. One observed that the in-plane lattice parameter $`d_{101}`$ decreases as the thickness of the film increases while at the same time, the out-of-plane lattice parameter $`d_{020}`$ increases. The lattice parameters of films on LAO were also determined (Fig.2b) but, due to the twins of this substrates, we were not able to obtain the in-plane lattice parameters. The out-of-plane lattice parameters are almost constant on LAO when the thickness is changing, suggesting that the film is quasi-relaxed even for small thickness.

### B Transport properties

Figure 3a shows the resistivity dependence of the temperature for NCMO films on STO. Without a magnetic field, all films present a semiconducting behavior with an anomaly around 275K, corresponding to the $`T_{CO}`$. A similar effect is observed on the bulk, but at a lower temperature close to 250K . In fact, this anomaly in the $`\rho (T)`$ curves is more clear (inset of Fig. 3a), when the resistance is plotted in a logarithmic scale versus the inverse of the temperature. When applying a magnetic field of 7T, while the thinner film ($`t=670`$Å) remains insulating in the whole temperature range of 4-300K, the thicker films ($`t>1340`$Å) show an insulator-to-metal transition ($`T_{IM}`$) at 100K and 130K for the 1340Å and 2000Å films respectively. Such an effect is typical of the metastability of the CO/OO state where a magnetic field (abbreviated $`H_C`$) can induce a metallic behavior at low temperature. However, the magnetic field required is much higher in the bulk compound (close to 20T for the same temperature) . In fact, there is a dependence of the critical field with the temperature (Figure 3b). The resistivity shows an important decrease on a logarithmic scale at a critical field ($`H_C`$) indicating the field-induced melting of the CO/OO state. This field-induced insulator-to-metal transition, which accompanies the collapsing of the CO/OO state takes place below $`T_{CO}`$. This decrease can be viewed as a CMR of about four orders of magnitude at 75K. A clear hysteresis (between the lower and the upper critical fields) is seen at these temperatures as previously reported on several CO/OO compounds  but this hysteretic region is more pronounced when the temperature is decreasing (see $`\rho (H)`$ at 25K in Fig.3b). In addition, the temperature dependence of the large hysteresis region is a feature of a first order transition and has been extensively studied for the composition Nd0.5Sr0.5MnO3 in Ref. . Note also the reentrant nature of the CO at 25K due to the fact that a 7T magnetic field is not enough to completely melt this state.

On LAO substrates, the $`\rho (T)`$ curves are practically similar (Fig.4a) to those on STO except that in this case, even the thinnest film (670Å) displays an insulator-to-metal transition when applying a magnetic field of 7T. Moreover, the $`T_{IM}`$ is higher than in the case of STO which is consistent with the quasi-relaxed NCMO film found on LAO (for a 1340Å film, $`T_{IM}<100K`$ on STO and $`T_{IM}=110K`$ on LAO). Large hystereses indicating the first-order phase transition are also observed (Fig.4b) and, in the same way, there is an increase of the $`T_{CO}`$ when the thickness of the film decreases (inset of Fig. 4a).

### C Discussion

This study shows that the thickness of NCMO films deposited on STO influences strongly the transport properties of the material. For the largest thickness ($`t=2000`$Å), an insulator-to-metal transition is induced under 7T in contrast to the bulk , although the cell parameters reach values close to those of the bulk ceramics . Moreover, the $`T_{IM}`$ under 7T magnetic field decreased as the thickness decreases whereas at the same time, the $`T_{CO}`$ increases so that for a small thickness ($`t=650`$Å) the film remains insulator.

Though it was suggested by several authors in bulk samples of the same composition that electronic phase separation can be at the origin of the drop in resistivity , no evidence of such phase separation was found in the thin films. We have indeed observed a continuous variation of the lattice parameters with the thickness of the films.

Thus, in order to explain this evolution, we have take into consideration the following features concerning the strains induced by the STO substrates

(i) The tensile stain along the  direction (in the plane of the substrate) can increases both the Mn-O-Mn angles and Mn-O distances in the equatorial plane (see Fig.5a). The increase of the Mn-OEQ-Mn  bond angle increases the bandwith , the angles tending toward $`180^{}`$, so that DE is involved. Consequently this structural effect should destabilize the CO/OO state and favor the $`T_{IM}`$. The increase of the Mn-O bond length induces the antagonist effect, favoring the distortion of the MnO6 octahedra, i.e. the Jahn-Teller distortion, so that the CO/OO state should be stabilized.

(ii) The compression of the structure along the  direction (along the out-of-plane direction on STO), which appears simultaneously, results in a decrease of the Mn-OAX-Mn  angle along this direction. Consequently, this decreases the bandwidth and stabilizes the CO/OO state.

(iii) In the $`Pnma`$ structure (such as NCMO), there are eight Mn-OEQ-Mn bonds against four Mn-OAX-Mn bons. Thus, the bandwidth along the Mn-OEQ is consistently larger than the bandwidth along the Mn-OAX direction which indiquates that the DE along the  direction prevails over the  direction .

(iv) Viewing these remarks, it is reasonable to assume that the substrate-induced strains modify in a first step the tilting of the octahedra, i.e. the Mn-O-Mn angles and only in a second step the Mn-O bond lengths in the plane of the substrate.

For the larger films thickness ($`t>2000`$Å), the cell parameters are close to those of the bulk leading consequently to a tilting of the octahedra rather than a modification of the bond lengths. In other words, the variation of the Mn-O-Mn angles prevails over the variation of the Mn-O distances. Thus, as $`d_{101}`$ increases the Mn-OEQ-Mn angles increases with respect to the bulk. In contrast, as $`d_{010}`$ decreases the Mn-OAX-Mn angle decreases, resulting in an increase of the bandwidth along the  direction and a decrease of the bandwidth along the  direction. But as pointed out above, the first effect prevails over the second one. As a consequence, the DE favored with respect to the bulk, so that the CO/OO state is less stable and an $`T_{IM}`$ is obtained under a 7T magnetic field contrary to the bulk.

As the thickness of the film decreases from 2000Å, $`d_{101}`$ increases significantly so the Mn-OEQ-Mn bond angle reached 180 rapidly and the Mn-OEQ bond length increases. The increase of the Mn-OEQ distance induces a JT distortion of the octahedra, stabilizing the CO/OO state at the detriment of the $`T_{IM}`$ transition. This explains why the $`T_{CO}`$ transition increases as the thickness of the film decreases and the $`T_{IM}`$ transition under 7T decreases correlatively. Finally, for the smaller film thickness ($`t=650`$Å), the $`d_{101}`$ is very close to the STO parameter, and the bond angle Mn-OEQ effects prevails over the Mn-OEQ-Mn effect, so that the CO/OO state is the most stable. Note that the simultaneous decrease of the $`d_{010}`$, i.e. decrease of Mn-OAX-Mn also favors the stabilization of the CO/OO state.

In the case of NCMO films grown on LAO, the substrate-induced strains lead in fact to rather similar effects. Indeed, one observes a compression along the -axis in the plane of the substrate. As shown in Fig.5b, this induces a decreases of the Mn-OAX-Mn angles and of the Mn-OAX bond lengths similar to what occurs for STO; an increase of the Mn-OEQ-Mn out-of-plane bond angle is induced, but in this case the increase of the Mn-OEQ bond distance does not prevail over the Mn-OEQ-Mn angle (not imposed by the substrate). For small thickness ($`t=650`$Å), the $`T_{IM}`$ transition is favored with respect to the CO/OO state.

## IV Conclusion

In conclusion, we grown high quality thin films of Nd0.5Ca0.5MnO3 on SrTiO3 and LaAlO3 using the PLD technique. We have shown that we are able to induce an insulator-to-metal transition at a magnetic field much lower than the corresponding bulk compound by the modification of the structure through the utilization of the appropriate substrate. Moreover the substrate-induced strains increases the Mn-OEQ-Mn bond angles on both LAO and STO substrates (even if the orientation of the film is different) favoring the double exchange and consequently destabilizing the charge/orbital state leading to a decrease of the critical magnetic field as compared to the bulk.

Figures Captions:

Fig.1: Room temperature XRD in the range 40-55 of a 2000Å NCMO film on STO grown with various energy of the laser beam.

Fig.2: : (a): Evolution of the lattice parameters of NCMO on STO as a function of the thickness. (b): Evolution of the out-of-plane lattice parameters of NCMO on LAO as a function of the thickness The values of the bulk are indicated as a dot line (see text for details). Lines are only guide for the eyes.

Fig.3: NCMO films on STO with various thickness. (a): $`\rho (T)`$ under 0T (empty symbols) and 7T (full symbols). The inset depicts the evolution of the logarithmic resistivity versus the inverse of the temperature under 0T (empty symbols) and 7T (full symbols). Note the anomaly associated to the $`T_{CO}`$ (marked by arrow). (b): $`\rho (H)`$ at various temperature for a 2000Å film.

Fig.4: NCMO films on LAO with various thickness. (a): $`\rho (T)`$ under 0T (empty symbols) and 7T (full symbols). The inset depicts the Evolution of the logarithmic resistivity versus the inverse of the temperature under 0T (empty symbols) and 7T (full symbols). Note the anomaly associated to the $`T_{CO}`$ (marked by arrow). (b): $`\rho (H)`$ at various temperature for a 2000Å film.

Fig.5a: Idealized  NCMO structure on STO. The directions of the stress are indicate by arrows. F and S refer to the film and to the substrate.

Fig.5b: Idealized  NCMO structure on LAO. The directions of the stress are indicate by arrows. F and S refer to the film and to the substrate.


text:
# Counterclockwise magnetic fields in the Norma spiral arm

## 1 Introduction

The origin of galactic magnetic fields is a long-debated issue, which relies heavily on good observational descriptions of the structure and strength of magnetic fields in a galaxy (Zweibel & Heiles, 1997; Kronberg, 1994). The current magnetic field configuration could be the result of a frozen-in primordial field in a protogalactic gas cloud which was strengthened during the collapse and formation of a galaxy (e.g., Kulsrud, 1990). The strength of the primordial field should be $`10^9`$ G to give the typical field strength (a few $`\mu `$G) presently seen in galaxies. A field of primordial origin would have many reversals of field direction in the galactic disk. However, the presently favored model for the field origin is dynamo amplification of a seed field by the inductive effects of the fluid motions of the interstellar medium (e.g., Ruzmaikin et al., 1988). Seed fields of at least $`10^{13}`$ G are required. Computer simulations of dynamo action in galaxies, although far from mature, show a variety of field structures depending on the initial conditions and the details of the dynamics of medium. Usually the fastest-growing mode is axisymmetric in configuration (Ferrière & Schmitt, 2000).

In the last two decades, polarization observations of synchrotron emission at centimeter wavelengths have revealed that in nearby galaxies the intrinsic magnetic field “vectors”, i.e. E+90$`\mathrm{°}`$ B with Faraday rotation corrected, are impressively aligned along the optical arms (Beck et al., 1996; Beck, 2000). Such polarization can arise not only from the regular large-scale magnetic fields as conventionally believed but also from an anisotropy in random fields (Laing, 2002), for example, compressed in one dimension by a density wave shock in spiral galaxies. Evidence for coherence of field directions, that is, including the sense of the field, over large scales in the disks of external galaxies is fairly weak at present (e.g. Han et al., 1999a). In our Galaxy, however, rotation measures (RMs) for pulsars and extragalactic radio sources have revealed large-scale ordering of magnetic field directions in the Galactic disk, with several reversals between or within the spiral arms (e.g. Simard-Normandin & Kronberg, 1980; Rand & Lyne, 1994; Han et al., 1999b). Determination of the form of such directional coherence is crucially important for studies of the origin of galactic magnetic fields. Field reversals could be preserved from seed fields or there could be a mixture of dynamo modes generating the field.

Pulsar RM data suggest that the pitch angle of the local field is about $`8\mathrm{°}`$ and its strength is about 1.5 $`\mu `$G (Han, 2001). Between the Perseus and the Carina-Sagittarius arms the field direction is clockwise if viewed from the North Galactic pole111We use this convention throughout this Letter, as illustated by thick arrows in Fig. 1. In the outer Galaxy, Lyne & Smith (1989), Clegg et al. (1992) and Han et al. (1999b) suggested that the direction of the regular field reverses exterior to the Perseus arm, while Canadian groups argued for no reversal between the local arm and the Perseus arm (Brown & Taylor, 2001) or in the outer Galaxy (Vallée, 1996). In the inner Galaxy, RMs of pulsars and extragalactic sources suggested reversed or counter-clockwise fields between the Carina-Sagittarius arm and the Crux-Scutum arm (Thomson & Nelson, 1980; Simard-Normandin & Kronberg, 1980; Rand & Kulkarni, 1989), later confirmed by new pulsar observations (Rand & Lyne, 1994). Magnetic fields beyond the Crux-Scutum arm but closer than the Norma arm may have a clockwise direction, as indicated by the negative RMs around $`l20\mathrm{°}`$ at about 5kpc (Rand & Lyne, 1994) and an RM increase at about the same distance around $`l325\mathrm{°}`$.

It would be intriguing to know if the regular local fields are parts of a larger scale coherent field structure and if the regular fields in distant parts of the Galactic disk show reversals. Since we sit within the disk, it is not possible to have a birds-eye view of the polarized emission of our Galaxy, as for suitably oriented nearby galaxies (Beck et al., 1996). Analyses of starlight and Galactic background polarization data show magnetic properties only relatively locally to the Sun (e.g. Heiles, 1996; Fosalba et al., 2002) or the transverse field in polarized features (Duncan et al., 1997; Uyanıker et al., 1999). Zeeman splitting of OH (or other) masers yields the line-of-sight direction and magnitude of the magnetic fields only within star-forming regions (Reid & Silverstein, 1990; Caswell & Vaile, 1995). RMs of extragalactic radio sources are integrated along the line of sight through the entire Galactic disk, and are always affected to some extent by Faraday rotation local to the sources222The RM arising within extragalactic radio sources can be more than 100 rad m-2, as shown by the RMs of sources (Simard-Normandin et al., 1981) near the two Galactic poles ($`|b|>70\mathrm{°}`$) where the Galactic RM contribution is only $`(+)3`$ rad m-2 (see Sect.3.3 in Han et al., 1999b).. Pulsars do not seem to have such intrinisic RM contributions. Moreover, pulsars cover a range of distances and therefore offer the best opportunity to investigate the 3-dimensional structure of the interstellar magnetic field over a substantial fraction of the Galactic disk.

Recently, the Parkes multibeam pulsar survey (Manchester et al., 2001) has discovered more than 600 pulsars, many of which are widely distributed over more than half of the Galactic disk. This sample therefore provides a unique opportunity for investigation of the magnetic field structure in the inner Galaxy. We have observed about 240 southern pulsars with the Parkes 64-m telescope of the Australia Telescope National Facility and obtained 202 new and improved RMs. Based on these data, we report the first firm detection of counterclockwise magnetic fields in the Norma spiral arm. A more comprehensive analysis of the full data-set will be published in a future paper.

## 2 Pulsar observations and rotation measures

Pulsar polarization observations were made in two observation sessions, 1999 December 12 – 17 and 2000 December 14 – 19, using the Parkes 64-m telescope with the central beam of the multibeam receiver (Staveley-Smith et al., 1996) which is sensitive to orthogonal linear polarizations. Bands centered on 1318.5 MHz with a bandwidth of 128 MHz were processed in the Caltech correlator (Navarro, 1994), which gives 128 lags in each of four polarization channels and folds the data synchronously with the pulsar period with up to 1024 bins per pulsar period. The data were transformed to the frequency domain, calibrated and dedispersed to form between 8 and 64 frequency sub-bands, with the number depending on the pulsar dispersion measure (DM), in each of the four Stokes parameters ($`I,Q,U,V`$), and corrected for variations in parallactic angle and ionospheric Faraday rotation. Because of reduced gain near the band edges, about a quarter of the bandwidth (mostly at the lower end) was abandoned, making an effective bandwidth of about 90 MHz. To reduce residual instrumental effects such as feed cross-coupling, observations of each pulsar were made in pairs with the receiver rotated to orthogonal feed angles of $`45\mathrm{°}`$ and $`+45\mathrm{°}`$.

In off-line analysis, we summed the sub-band data over a set of trial RMs, searching for a peak in the linearly polarized intensity $`L=(Q^2+U^2)^{1/2}`$. Normally, a range of at least $`\pm `$2000 rad m-2 was searched with a step of about 20 rad m-2. The sub-band data were then summed with the RM at which the most significant peak was found, to form two sets of Stokes profiles for the upper and lower halves of the available bandpass. A final value for the RM and its uncertainty were then determined from weighted position-angle differences across the pulse profiles. We obtained a total of 202 RMs in two sessions. Comparing the RM values of 11 pulsars with independent measurements by Costa et al. (1991) and van Ommen et al. (1997), we found that our results are consistent with and generally have better precision than previous values.

To study the magnetic field in the Galactic disk we consider only pulsars with $`|b|<8\mathrm{°}`$. There are now 357 such pulsars with measured RMs, 170 of which are new measurements. The new negative RMs at direction around $`l310\mathrm{°}`$ and distance of 7 kpc confirm the continuity of counterclockwise fields between the Carina-Sagittarius and Crux-Scutum arms, which was originally suggested by the dominant positive RMs in the area between the two arms in the first quadrant (see Fig. 1). The fields are therefore coherent over a scale of 10 kpc along the arm. The RM data in the region $`325\mathrm{°}<l<25\mathrm{°}`$, together with previously published values, enable us to identify clearly and to measure the regular magnetic field in the vicinity of the Norma arm, which we will discuss in detail below.

The mean line-of-sight component of the magnetic field (in $`\mu `$G) along the path to the pulsar, weighted by the local electron density, is given by

$$B_{||}=1.232\mathrm{RM}/\mathrm{DM}$$
(1)
where RM is in units of rad m-2 and the DM is in units of cm-3 pc (Manchester, 1974). The mean field strength between any two points at distances of $`d0`$ and $`d1`$ in a given direction can be found from the gradient of the RM

$$B_{||}_{d1d0}=1.232\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{RM}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{DM}}$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{RM}=\mathrm{RM}_{d1}\mathrm{RM}_{d0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{DM}=\mathrm{DM}_{d1}\mathrm{DM}_{d0}`$. Of course, in practice, it is not possible to have sources at different distances along exactly the same line of sight, so that sources within a small area on the sky, typically a few degrees across, are taken to represent the column in that direction.

This method of using RM gradients was used first by Lyne & Smith (1989) and Clegg et al. (1992) to show the field reversals near the Perseus arm using RM data for pulsars and extragalactic radio sources. Later, Rand & Lyne (1994) and Han et al. (1999b) used it to show the field reversal near the Carina-Sagittarius arm and near the Crux-Scutum arm. The RM effects of local bubbles which are tens of degrees across (see Vallée, 1984) have no effect on the differential analysis for more distant regions.

In Fig. 2 we plot the RM against DM for pulsars having RM uncertainties of $`<50`$ rad m-2 and lying within $`3\mathrm{°}`$ of six lines of sight which cross or are tangential to the Norma spiral arm. It is very clear that for DMs greater than $`300`$ cm-3 pc, the pulsar RMs are systematically decreasing in the longitude range of $`l325\mathrm{°}`$ to $`350\mathrm{°}`$ and increasing in the range of $`l10\mathrm{°}`$ to $`25\mathrm{°}`$. We have used both the more detailed electron density model of Taylor & Cordes (1993) and the simple axisymmetric model of Gómez et al. (2001) to estimate the pulsar distances from dispersion measure values. Both models suggest that these pulsars are either associated with or beyond the Norma arm, although with a distance uncertainty of about 20% in general. Since the simple model is almost unconstrained interior to a Galactocentric radius ($`R`$) of 4 kpc, we have plotted pulsars in Fig. 1 using distances given by the model of Taylor & Cordes (1993).

The strength of the regular fields can be estimated directly from the gradient of the RM versus DM variations (Equation 2). We fitted straight lines using a least-squares procedure to the RM versus DM data for pulsars with 300 cm-3 pc $`<`$ DM $`<`$ 700 cm-3 pc in the longitude range of $`l325\mathrm{°}`$ to $`350\mathrm{°}`$, and DM $`>400`$ cm-3 pc in the range of $`l10\mathrm{°}`$ to $`25\mathrm{°}`$. These DM ranges correspond to pulsars which lie in the vicinity of the Norma arm. In directions toward $`l=340\mathrm{°}`$, pulsars with DM in the range 200 – 300 cm-3 pc were also fitted, giving information on the field between the Crux and Norma arms. The results are shown Fig. 2. Pulsars around $`l335\mathrm{°}`$ show the strongest evidence for a systematic field within or inside the Norma arm with an average field strength of $`4.4\pm 0.9\mu `$G. Data in other panels of Fig. 2 support or are consistent with this result. These fits are also shown as vectors in Fig. 1, where an azimuthal configuration for the field has been assumed.

The derived field strength is two or three times greater than the local regular fields (Han & Qiao, 1994; Indrani & Deshpande, 1998). Since the ‘vertical’ and ‘radial’ components of the large-scale field are about an order of magnitude weaker that the azimuthal component (Han & Qiao, 1994; Han et al., 1999b), this is good evidence for a large-scale counterclockwise magnetic field in and interior to the Norma arm, with directional coherence over at least 5 kpc along the arm. Based on the RM data in the Galactic longitude range $`320\mathrm{°}<l<335\mathrm{°}`$, this counterclockwise field may extend over more than 2 kpc in Galactocentric radius, roughly in the range 4 – 6 kpc.

## 3 Discussion

The directions of large-scale regular fields in the Norma region shown in Fig. 1 clearly reveal for the first time the counter-clockwise large-scale field within and interior to the Norma spiral arm. Extragalactic radio sources between longitudes of $`325\mathrm{°}`$ to $`330\mathrm{°}`$ have large negative RMs (Gaensler et al., 2001), consistent with a regular magnetic field parallel to the line of sight near the arm tangent.

Although evidence for a clockwise field between the Crux-Scutum arm and the Norma arm is relatively weak at present, the presence of a counterclockwise field in the Norma arm indicates another reversal in the directions of large-scale azimuthal fields in the Galactic disk. Further observations in the longitude ranges $`310\mathrm{°}325\mathrm{°}`$ and $`25\mathrm{°}40\mathrm{°}`$ are needed to confirm the existence and extent of the clockwise field between the Crux-Scutum and Norma arms. If this is confirmed, there will be good evidence for four reversals in the azimuthal field. Present indications are that these occur within the spiral arms, although this is not yet clear.

These field reversals are consistent with the bisymmetric spiral model for the Galactic disk field (Simard-Normandin & Kronberg, 1980; Sofue & Fujimoto, 1983; Han & Qiao, 1994; Indrani & Deshpande, 1998). They appear inconsistent with the axisymmetric model of Vallée (1996), since this model does not allow any field reversal exterior to the Perseus arm or interior to the Crux-Scutum arm. The field reversals are most probably a remnant of primordial fields at the time our Galaxy formed. These act as ‘seed’ fields for dynamos operating in the conductive interstellar medium (Kulsrud, 1999). Dynamo action is necessary to counteract diffusion of the large-scale field structure. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that such a bisymmetric field could be the result of a strong non-axisymmetric configuration of the dynamo induced, for example, by tidal interaction with the Magellanic Clouds (see Moss, 1995).

It is desirable to understand why our Galaxy has several reversals in the thin Galactic disk as revealed by pulsar and extragalactic RMs, while few reversals are known in nearby galaxies. Reversals are known to exist in M51 (Berkhuijsen et al., 1997), in M81 (Krause et al., 1989b) and possibly in NGC2997 (Han et al., 1999a). Polarization observations of external galaxies alone cannot distinguish reversals in the field direction. RM maps deduced from multifrequency polarization maps generally have a lower resolution than interarm separations or field-reversal scales, and hence it is difficult to identify reversed fields (see also Heiles, 1995). The polarized emission observed in nearby galaxies mainly comes from a thin disk and it indicates the orientation of regular fields or possibly the anisotropy of random fields in the disk. However, the Faraday rotation of the polarized emission, which has been used to infer the presence or absence of field reversals in nearby galaxies, may originate mainly in the intervening thick disk or halo. Even if the thin disk field has reversals, the halo field may be axisymmetric and have no reversals. For example, there is evidence that our Galaxy has an axisymmetric halo field generated by an A0 dynamo (Han et al., 1997). The mixture of axisymmetric and bisymmetric spiral fields in external galaxies (Beck, 2000) may be explained if the thin disk, thick disk and halo are together responsible for the RM distribution.

The coherence of field directions in our Galaxy revealed by pulsar RMs independently show that the regular magnetic fields do indeed exist on galactic scales. Though we can not exclude that some of the linear polarization is caused by anisotropic random fields, our results show that at least some of the linear polarization arises from large-scale coherent fields. Therefore, it is likely that polarization “vectors” observed in the external galaxies (Beck et al., 1996; Beck, 2000) represent the large-scale regular magnetic field.

An increase in strength of the large-scale field with decreasing Galactocentric radius is expected in both dynamo models (Ruzmaikin et al., 1988) and for fields of primordial origin (Kulsrud, 1990). With a few more measurements, it will be possible to determine if the field strength obeys the relation $`B1/R`$, which is a critical profile for the field to affect the dynamics of the Galaxy (Battaner & Florido, 2000; Kronberg, 1994).

## Acknowledgments

We thank the referee for helpful comments and Rainer Beck and Richard Wielebinski for useful discussions, all of which led to improvements in the paper. JLH thanks the exchange program between CAS and CSIRO for support of the visits at the Australia Telescope National Facility in 1999 and 2000. His research in China is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation (NNSF) of China (19903003 and 10025313) and the National Key Basic Research Science Foundation of China (G19990754) as well as the partner group of MPIfR at NAOC. GJQ thanks the NNSF of China for support for his visits at ATNF. The Parkes radio telescope is part of the Australia Telescope which is funded by the Commonwealth Government for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO.