text:
# Hybrid adiabatic potentials in the QCD string model

## 1 Introduction

Gluonic degrees of freedom in the nonperturbative region should manifest themselves as QCD bound states containing constituent glue, so one expects that purely gluonic hadrons (glueballs) should exist as well as hybrids where the glue is excited in the presence of $`q\overline{q}`$ pair. General agreement is that the lightest hybrids occur in the mass range between 1.3 and 1.9 GeV, so the absolute mass scale remains somewhat imprecise in the absence of exact analytic methods of nonperturbative QCD. Existing experimental data seem to point towards gluonic excitations being present, and prima facie candidates are identified , but the conclusive evidences have never been presented. There is no hope that in the nearest future data analyses could unambigiously pin-point the signatures for gluonic mesons and settle the issue of constituent glue. The state-of-art is that the predictions of different models on hadronic spectra and decays are involved in order to distinguish between gluonic mesons and conventional ones.

In such situation the lattice gauge calculations remain the only source of knowledge. Lattice calculations are now accurate enough to serve as a guide, so that the results of different QCD-motivated approaches can be compared and contrasted with lattice data. Of particular interest are the measurements of gluelump  and hybrid adiabatic potentials . These simulations measure the spectrum of the glue in the presence of static source in the adjoint colour representation (gluelump) and in the presence of static quark and antiquark separated by some distance $`R`$. These systems are the simplest ones and play the role of hydrogen atom of soft glue studies, as, first, the gluonic effects are not obscured by light dynamical quarks, and, second, the problem of centre-of-mass motion separation is not relevant here.

The large distance limit of hybrid adiabatic potentials is important, as one expects the formation of confining string at large $`R`$. The short range limit is relevant to the heavy hybrid mass estimations. One expects that in the case of very heavy quarks the hybrid resides in the bottom of the potential well given by the adiabatic curve, which, in accordance with lattice results , is somewhere around 0.25 fm for lowest curves.

In the present paper we study hybrid adiabatic potentials in the so-called QCD string model . This model deals with quarks and point-like gluons propagating in the confining QCD vacuum, and is derived from the Vacuum Background Correlators method. In the latter, the confining vacuum is parametrised by the set of gauge-invariant field strength correlators  responsible, among other phenomena, for the area law asymptotics. The basic assumption of the QCD string model is the minimal area law for the Wilson loop, so that the only nonperturbative input is the string tension $`\sigma `$.

The QCD string model describes the spectra of $`q\overline{q}`$ mesons with remarkable agreement ,. It is also quite successfull in describing glueballs , hybrids  and gluelump , as well as meson-hybrid-glueball mixing .

First studies of hybrid adiabatic potentials in the QCD string model were performed in , with special attention paid to the large-distance limit. It was shown that at large interquark distances two kinds of QCD string vibrations take place, the potential-type longitudinal and string-type transverse ones. Here we consider the short-distance behaviour of the excitation curves.

The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 we briefly discuss the essentials of the QCD string approach for gluons. The effective Hamiltonian for a gluon bound by the static quark-antiquark pair is derived in Section 3. It is argued in Section 4 that at short and intermediate interquark distances the potential-type regime of string vibrations is adequate, and the lowest excitation curves are calculated. The spin-dependent forces and the so-called string corrections are considered in Section 5. Results and discussion are given in Section 6 together with conclusions and outlook. Appendices contain the details of our variational calculations.

## 2 Gluons in the confining background

The QCD string model for gluons is derived in the framework of perturbation theory in the nonperturbative confining background . The main idea is to split the gauge field as

$$A_\mu =B_\mu +a_\mu ,$$
(1)
which allows to distinguish clearly between confining field configurations $`B_\mu `$ and confined valence gluons $`a_\mu `$. The valence gluons are treated as perturbation at the confining background.

We start with the Green function for the gluon propagating in the given external field $`B_\mu `$ :

$$G_{\mu \nu }(x,y)=(D^2(B)\delta _{\mu \nu }+2igF_{\mu \nu }(B))^1,$$
(2)
where both covariant derivative $`D_\lambda ^{ca}`$ and field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ depend only on the field $`B_\mu `$:

$$D_\lambda ^{ca}(B)=\delta ^{ca}_\lambda +gf^{cba}B_\lambda ^b,$$
(3)
$$F_{\mu \nu }^a(B)=_\mu B_\nu ^a_\nu B_\mu ^a+gf^{abc}B_\mu ^bB_\nu ^c.$$
(4)
The term, proportional to $`F_{\mu \nu }(B)`$ in (2) is responsible for the gluon spin interaction. We neglect it for a moment, it will be considered in Section 5.

Now we use Feynman-Schwinger representation for the quark-antiquark-gluon Green function , which, for static quark and antiquark, is reduced to the form

$$G(x_g,y_g)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑sDz_g\mathrm{exp}(K_g)𝒲_B,$$
(5)
where angular brackets mean averaging over background field. The quantity $`K_g`$ is the kinetic energy of gluon (to be specified below), and all the dependence on the vacuum background field is contained in the generalized Wilson loop $`𝒲`$, depicted in Fig.1, where the contours $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{Q}}`$ run over the classical trajectories of static quark and antiquark, and the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ runs over the gluon trajectory $`z_g`$ in (5).

The expression (5) is the starting point of the QCD string model, as, under the minimal area law assumption, the Wilson loop configuration takes the form

$$𝒲_B=\frac{N_c^21}{2}\mathrm{exp}(\sigma (S_1+S_2)),$$
(6)
where $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are the minimal areas inside the contours formed by quark and gluon and antiquark and gluon trajectories correspondingly.

## 3 Einbein field form of the gluonic Hamiltonian

To proceed further we are to fix the gauge in the reparametrization transformations group. For the case of static quark and antiquark sources the most natural way to do this is to identify the proper time $`\tau `$ of the Feynman-Schwinger representation with the laboratory time. Then the classical quark and antiquark trajectories are given by

$$z_{Q\mu }=(\tau ,\frac{𝐑}{2}),z_{\overline{Q}\mu }=(\tau ,\frac{𝐑}{2}),$$
(7)
and the action of the system can be immediately obtained from the representation (5):

$$A=_0^Td\tau \{\frac{\mu }{2}+\frac{\mu \dot{r}^2}{2}\sigma _0^1d\beta _1\sqrt{(\dot{w}_1w_1^{})^2\dot{w}_1^2w_1^{}_{}{}^{}2}$$

$$\sigma _0^1d\beta _2\sqrt{(\dot{w}_2w_2^{})^2\dot{w}_2^2w_2^{}_{}{}^{}2}\}.$$
(8)
Here $`𝐫`$ is the three-dimensional gluonic coordinate, and the minimal surfaces $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are parametrized by the coordinates $`w_{i\mu }(\tau ,\beta _i),i=1,2,\dot{w}_{i\mu }=\frac{w_{i\mu }}{\tau },w_{i\mu }^{}=\frac{w_{i\mu }}{\beta _i}.`$ Choosing the straight-line ansatz for the minimal surfaces one has in the laboratory time gauge

$$w_{i0}=\tau ,𝐰_{1,2}=\pm (1\beta )\frac{𝐑}{2}+\beta 𝐫.$$
(9)
The kinetic energy in (8) is given in the so-called einbein field form . The einbein field $`\mu =\mu (\tau )`$ is the auxiliary field introduced to deal with relativistic kinematics. Note that in the case of gluon one is forced to introduce it from the very beginning, as it provides the meaningful dynamics for the massless particle.

In order to pass to the Hamiltonian formulation it is convenient to get rid of Nambu-Goto square roots in (8), introducing continuous set of einbein fields $`\nu _i=\nu _i(\tau ,\beta _i)`$, as it was first suggested in :

$$L=\frac{\mu }{2}+\frac{\mu \dot{r}^2}{2}_0^1𝑑\beta _1\frac{\sigma ^2r_1^2}{2\nu _1}_0^1𝑑\beta _1\frac{\nu _1}{2}(1\beta _1^2l_1^2)$$

$$_0^1𝑑\beta _2\frac{\sigma ^2r_2^2}{2\nu _2}_0^1𝑑\beta _2\frac{\nu _2}{2}(1\beta _2l_2^2),$$

$$l_{1,2}^2=\dot{r}^2\frac{1}{r_{1,2}^2}(𝐫_{1,2}\dot{𝐫})^2,𝐫_{1,2}=𝐫\pm \frac{𝐑}{2}.$$
(10)
Note, that the Lagrangian (10) describes the constrained system. As no time derivatives of the einbeins enter it, the corresponding equations of motion play the role of second-class constraints .

The Hamiltonian $`H=𝐩\dot{𝐫}L`$ is easily obtained from the Lagrangian (10):

$$H=H_0+\frac{\mu }{2}+_0^1𝑑\beta _1\frac{\sigma ^2r_1^2}{\nu _1}+_0^1𝑑\beta _2\frac{\sigma ^2r_2^2}{\nu _2}+_0^1𝑑\beta _1\frac{\nu _1}{2}+_0^1𝑑\beta _2\frac{\nu _2}{2},$$
(11)
$$H_0=\frac{p^2}{2(\mu +J_1+J_2)}+$$

$$\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu +J_1+J_2)}\{\frac{(𝐩𝐫_1)^2}{r_1^2}J_1(\mu +J_1)+\frac{(𝐩𝐫_2)^2}{r_2^2}J_2(\mu +J_2)+$$

$$\frac{2J_1J_2}{r_1^2r_2^2}(𝐫_1𝐫_2)(𝐩𝐫_1)(𝐩𝐫_2)\}$$
(12)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }=(\mu +J_1)(\mu +J_2)J_1J_2\frac{(𝐫_1𝐫_2)^2}{r_1^2r_2^2},J_i=_0^1𝑑\beta _i\beta _i^2\nu _i(\beta _i),i=1,2.$$

The Hamiltonian (11) together with the constraints

$$\frac{H}{\mu }=0,\frac{\delta H}{\delta \nu _i(\beta _i)}=0$$
(13)
completely defines the dynamics of the system at the classical level. To quantize one should first find the extrema of einbeins from the equations (13) and substitute them back to the Hamiltonian (11). Then, the extremal values of einbeins would become the nonlinear operator functions of coordinate and momentum, and, in addition, the problem of operator ordering would arise. To avoid this complicated problem the approximate einbein field method is usually applied in the QCD string model calculations. Namely, einbeins are treated as $`c`$ number variational parameters: the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian (11) are found as functions of $`\mu `$ and $`\nu _i`$, and minimized with respect to einbeins to obtain the physical spectrum. Such procedure, first suggested in , provides the accuracy of about 5-10% for the groud state (for the details see first entry in ).

## 4 Potential regime of the QCD string vibrations

The einbeins $`\mu `$ and $`\nu _i(\beta _i)`$ play the role of constituent gluon mass and energy densities along two strings. Note that even with simplifying assumptions of the einbein field method these quantities are not introduced as model parameters, but are calculated in the formalism. It is clear from the form (12) of the kinetic energy that two kinds of motion compete to form the spectrum: the potential-type longitudinal with respect to $`𝐑`$ vibrations due to gluonic mass $`\mu `$ and string-type transverse ones due to the string inertia.

It was shown in  that for large interquark distances, $`R1/\sqrt{\sigma }`$, these two types of motion decouple, displaying the corrections to the leading $`\sigma R`$ behaviour proportional to $`(\frac{\sigma }{R})^{1/3}`$ in the case of longitudinal vibrations and proportional to $`\frac{1}{R}`$ for transverse ones.

On the contrary, for small $`R`$ one can neglect the terms $`J_i`$ responsible for string inertia in the kinetic energy (12). Then the Hamiltonian takes the form

$$H=\frac{p^2}{2\mu }+\frac{\mu }{2}+_0^1𝑑\beta _1\frac{\sigma ^2r_1^2}{2\nu _1}+_0^1𝑑\beta _2\frac{\sigma ^2r_2^2}{2\nu _2}+_0^1𝑑\beta _1\frac{\nu _1}{2}+_0^1𝑑\beta _2\frac{\nu _2}{2}.$$
(14)
The spectrum of the Hamiltonian (14) was found in . At small $`R`$ it reads

$$E_n(R)=2^{3/2}\sigma ^{1/2}\left(n+\frac{3}{2}\right)^{1/2}+\frac{\sigma ^{3/2}R^2}{2^{3/2}(n+\frac{3}{2})^{1/2}}.$$
(15)
The extremal values of einbeins are given by

$$\mu _n(R)=2^{1/2}\sigma ^{1/2}\left(n+\frac{3}{2}\right)^{1/2}\frac{\sigma ^{3/2}R^2}{2^{5/2}(n+\frac{3}{2})^{1/2}},$$
(16)
$$\nu _{1,2n}(R)=\frac{(n+\frac{3}{2})^{1/2}\sigma ^{1/2}}{2^{1/2}}+\frac{3\sigma ^{3/2}R^2}{2^{7/2}(n+\frac{3}{2})^{1/2}},$$
(17)
where $`n`$ is the number of oscillator quanta.

The expressions (16), (17) immediately yield $`J_{1,2}/\mu \frac{1}{6}`$, so the neglect of string inertia is justified. The curves $`\mu _n(R)`$ and $`\nu _n(R)`$ for arbitrary $`R`$ from  are shown at Fig.2 for $`n=0,1,2,3`$ and $`\sigma =0.21`$ GeV. It is clear that the potential-type Hamiltonian can be employed at $`R1`$ fm for $`n=0,1`$ and at $`R1.5`$ fm for $`n=2,3`$, and the corrections due to string inertia can be taken into account perturbatively.

The form (14) allows to eliminate einbeins and arrive at the potential-type Hamiltonian

$$H=\sqrt{p^2}+\sigma r_1+\sigma r_2.$$
(18)
Nevertheless, as we are going to calculate the spin-dependent forces and string correction, we prefer to eliminate only einbeins $`\nu _i`$, treating the quantity $`\mu `$ in the framework of the einbein field method.

If only confining force is taken into account, the QCD string model predicts the oscillator potential (15) with the minimum at $`R=0`$. However, the minimum is shifted, if the long-range confining force is augmented by the short-range Coulomb potential,

$$V_c=\frac{3\alpha _s}{2r_1}\frac{3\alpha _s}{2r_2}+\frac{\alpha _s}{6R}.$$
(19)
The coefficients in (19) are in accordance with the colour content of the $`Q\overline{Q}g`$ system . The $`Q\overline{Q}`$ Coulomb force in (19) is repulsive, and it is compatible with the behaviour of gluon energies  at small $`R`$. Note, that such behaviour comes out naturally in the QCD string model, as point-like gluon does carry colour quantum numbers.

The final form of our Hamiltonian reads

$$H=\frac{p^2}{2\mu }+\frac{\mu }{2}+\sigma r_1+\sigma r_2+V_c.$$
(20)
The angular momentum is not conserved in the Hamiltonian (20), but it is a good quantum number in the einbein field Hamiltonian (14). For the case of pure confining force we have compared the spectra of exact and einbein-field Hamiltonians, and have found that angular momentum is conserved within better than 5% accuracy. The same phenomenon is observed in the constituent gluon model , and seems to be a consequence of linear potential confinement embedded there.

The eigenvalue problem for the Hamiltonian (20) was solved variationally with wave functions

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝐫)=\varphi _l(r)\underset{\mu _1\mu _2}{}C_{l\mu _11\mu _2}^{j\mathrm{\Lambda }}Y_{l\mu _1}(\frac{𝐫}{r})\stackrel{}{\chi }_{1\mu _2},$$
(21)
where $`\stackrel{}{\chi }_{1\mu }`$ is the spin 1 wave function, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left|\frac{𝐣𝐑}{R}\right|`$ is the projection of total angular momentum $`𝐣`$ onto $`z`$ axis, $`𝐳𝐑`$. The radial wave functions $`\varphi _l(r)`$ were taken to be Gaussian, that is of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta ^2r^2/2)`$ multiplied by the appropriate polynomials, with $`\beta `$ treated as variational parameter. The eigenvalues $`E_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\mu ,R)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}|H(\mu ,R)|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ were found in such a way, and the resulting adiabatic potentials,

$$V_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}^0(R)=E_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\mu ^{}(R),R),$$
(22)
depend on the extremal value $`\mu ^{}`$ defined from the condition

$$\frac{E_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\mu ,R)}{\mu }=0.$$
(23)
The details of this variational procedure are given in the Appendix A.

In the QCD string model the gluon is effectively massive, and has three polarizations ,. Only two of them are excited with magnetic components of field strength correlators, used in lattice calculations. We list these states in Table 1, in terms of $`j,l,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and standard notations borrowed from physics of diatomic molecules. For more details justifying such correspondence see .

Fitting the ground lattice state with Coulomb+linear potential yields the values of parameters $`\alpha _s=0.4`$ and $`\sigma =0.21`$ GeV2.

## 5 String correction and spin-dependent interaction

Now we turn to the calculations of corrections to the leading potential regime (22).

Let us first consider the correction due to string inertia. It corresponds to the terms in (12) linear in $`J_i`$:

$$H^{\mathrm{sc}}=\frac{J_1+J_2}{2\mu ^2}p^2+\frac{1}{2\mu ^2}\left(\frac{(𝐩𝐫_1)^2}{r_1^2}J_1+\frac{(𝐩𝐫_2)^2}{r_2^2}J_2\right).$$
(24)
In the potential regime $`\nu _i=\sigma r_i`$, and $`J_i=\sigma r_i/3`$. So the string correction Hamiltonian takes the form

$$H^{\mathrm{sc}}=\frac{\sigma }{6\mu ^2}\left(\frac{1}{r_1^2}L_1^2+\frac{1}{r_2^2}L_2^2\right),$$
(25)
where

$$𝐋_i=𝐫_i\times 𝐩.$$
(26)
The choice (26) solves the ordering problem in (25), as it assures the hermiticity of the operator $`H^{\mathrm{sc}}`$.

In actual calculations it is convenient to rewrite (25) as

$$H^{\mathrm{sc}}=\frac{\sigma }{6\mu ^2}\left\{\left(\frac{1}{r_1^2}+\frac{1}{r_2^2}\right)\left(L^2+\frac{R^2}{4}H_1\right)+\left(\frac{1}{r_1^2}\frac{1}{r_2^2}\right)RH_2\right\},$$
(27)
where

$$H_1=\left(_\rho ^2+\frac{1}{\rho }_\rho +\frac{1}{\rho ^2}_\varphi ^2\right),$$
(28)
$$H_2=zH_1+\rho _\rho _z+_z.$$
(29)
The adiabatic potentials of string correction are listed in the Appendix B.

The spin-dependent force originates from the term, proportional to $`F_{\mu \nu }(B)`$ in (2). This term generates the spin-dependent interaction, as

$$iF_{ik}=(𝐒𝐁)_{ik},$$
(30)
where spin operator $`𝐒`$ acts at the vector function $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ as

$$\left(S_i\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)_j=iϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Psi }_k.$$
(31)
One averages this term over the background, as it was done in , and, in our case, it gives

$$H^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{np})}=\frac{\sigma }{2\mu ^2}\left(\frac{1}{r_1}(𝐋_1𝐒)+\frac{1}{r_2}(𝐋_2𝐒)\right),$$
(32)
$$H^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{p})}=\frac{3\alpha _s}{4\mu ^2}\left(\frac{1}{r_1^3}(𝐋_1𝐒)+\frac{1}{r_2^3}(𝐋_2𝐒)\right),$$
(33)
for nonperturbative and perturbative forces respectively. One easily recognizes the contribution of Thomas precession in (32), (33).

The spin-dependent interaction is conveniently represented as

$$H^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{np})}=\frac{\sigma }{2\mu ^2}\left\{\left(\frac{1}{r_1}+\frac{1}{r_2}\right)(𝐋𝐒)+\left(\frac{1}{r_1}\frac{1}{r_2}\right)\frac{R}{2}H_R\right\},$$
(34)
$$H^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{p})}=\frac{3\alpha _s}{4\mu ^2}\left\{\left(\frac{1}{r_1^3}+\frac{1}{r_2^3}\right)(𝐋𝐒)+\left(\frac{1}{r_1^3}\frac{1}{r_2^3}\right)\frac{R}{2}H_R\right\},$$
(35)
where

$$H_R=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi }}{2}(_\rho +\frac{i}{\rho }_\varphi )S_++\frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi }}{2}(_\rho +\frac{i}{\rho }_\varphi )S_{},$$
(36)
$$S_\pm =S_x\pm iS_y.$$

Spin-dependent potentials are given in the Appendix C.

We would like to stress here, that, in spite of apparently nonrelativistic form of the expressions (27) and (34), (35), these are not the nonrelativistic inverse mass expansion. The mass $`\mu `$ entering these expressions is replaced in matrix elements by the value $`\mu ^{}`$, obtained from stationary point equation (23). The latter plays the role of effective mass of the gluon, and is not large. The $`R`$-dependence of corrections is shown at Figs.3, 4.

## 6 Results and discussion

The results of full QCD string calculations are given at Fig.5 for the excitation curves listed in Table 1, together with the lattice data . As it is seen from the Fig.5, at small distances the calculated curves are in good agreement with lattice results, with the accuracy better that 100 MeV. The level ordering is reproduced too, with the exception of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ levels (Fig.5c). Note, that the lattice data claim only one $`\mathrm{\Pi }_g`$ level, and its $`R`$-behaviour is rather peculiar (see dashed thick grey curve at Fig.5b). One expects that the curves should tend to form degenerate levels as the distance $`R`$ decreases, fulfilling the angular momentum conservation demands at $`R=0`$. This feature is made explicit in the QCD string model: our calculations reproduce the gluelump spectrum  for $`R=0`$ after subtracting the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ Coulomb force (last term in (19)) and with obvious replacement $`2\sigma \sigma _{adj}=\frac{9}{4}\sigma `$, $`2\alpha _s\frac{9}{4}\alpha _s`$.

Lattice data indeed seem to follow such tendency. Moreover, the curvatures of all potentials but $`\mathrm{\Pi }_g`$ are compatible with the dominance of Coulomb force acting between static sources in octet colour representation. Thus one suspects , , that something goes wrong with the lattice $`\mathrm{\Pi }_g`$ level, and its strange behaviour could be due to the presence of several levels, severely mixed and poorly resolved by present simulations.

The most pronounced feature of the QCD string approach is the following. It was already mentioned that the gluon here is effectively massive, and has three polarizations. As a consequence, the level ordering follows the increasing dimension of valence gluon operator, or, in other words, the increasing orbital momentum $`l`$. This is in contrast to the standard viewpoint of constituent glue studies, see  and realization of this idea in the framework of potential NRQCD . The level ordering there is supposed to follow the increasing dimension of the operators $`E_i`$, $`B_i`$, $`D_iB_k`$ etc. The equations of motion, which relate different operators with the same quantum numbers, are involved to exclude spurios states in such picture.

In our approach, we expect an extra family of levels to appear, namely, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_g`$, and the corresponding gluelump limit achieved with $`1^{}`$ quantum numbers. The wave functions of these states contain mostly the $`l=0`$ component, so these levels should be the lowest one-gluon ones. The search for this family, accessible only with electric field correlators, is of paramount importance both in gluelump and adiabatic potentials settings. The presence or absence of such states would allow to discriminate among models.

The flux-tube model , as well as its relativistic version , assumes that soft glue is string-like, with phonon-type effective degrees of freedom. These string phonons are colourless, so that the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair is in colour-singlet state. Thus the Coulomb $`Q\overline{Q}`$ interaction is to be attractive. Adiabatic potentials are calculated in , and, in order to improve the short-range behaviour of adiabatic curves, the Coulomb interquark repulsion was added, which obviously contradicts the general phylosophy of flux-tube. Without essential modifications of dynamical picture at small interquark distances, the flux-tube-type models seem to be ruled out by lattice data . A rather elaborated constituent gluon model , based on field-theoretical Hamiltonian approach, agrees with lattice data on hybrid potentials at short and intermediate interquark distances only under rather confusing assumption of gluon parity taken to be positive.

The gluelump spectrum, as well as small $`R`$-limit of hybrid adiabatic potentials, is successfully calculated in the bag model . The lowest bag-model gluelump state is $`1^+`$, and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Pi }`$ splitting at small interquark distances is in accordance with lattice data. In this regard we stress once more the importance of lattice measurements with electric field correlators. If the ground state $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+\mathrm{\Pi }_g`$ family is not found, then, with above-mentioned drawbacks of flux-tube and constituent-gluon pictures, it would mean that soft glue is bag-like rather than string-like or point-like.

To conclude, we have presented full QCD string calculations of hybrid adiabatic potentials. The results are in general agreement with lattice data. We outline the problems, connected with restricted set of gluonic operators used in lattice simulations, and call for further studies of excitation curves with electric field operators.

We are grateful to Yu.A.Simonov for numerous stimulating discussions. The financial support of RFFI grants 00-02-17836 and 00-15-96786, and INTAS OPEN 2000-110, 2000-366 is acknowledged.

## Appendix A Variational calculations of adiabatic potentials

In this Appendix we derive the explicit variational equations for adiabatic potentials (22).

The average momentum for oscillatory wave finction with orbital momentum $`l`$ is given as

$$p^2_l=\frac{2l+3}{2}\beta ^2,$$
(A.1)
where $`\beta `$ is the variational parameter with dimension of mass. Thus the calculation of extremum over $`\mu `$ (23) leads to expression

$$\mu ^{}=\beta \sqrt{\frac{2l+3}{2}}.$$
(A.2)
Due to the symmetry of wave functions,

$$r_1=r_2,\frac{1}{r_1}=\frac{1}{r_2}.$$
(A.3)
Let us introduce the dimensionless variables

$$x=\beta \frac{R}{2}\text{ }\stackrel{~}{r}_1=\beta r_1$$
(A.4)
and define the dimensionless averages

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_1f(x),\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{r}_1}g(x).$$
(A.5)
For the energy levels we will get

$$E(\beta ,x)=\frac{1}{\beta }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sigma f(x)+\beta \left(\sqrt{\frac{2l+3}{2}}3\alpha _sg(x)+\frac{\alpha _s}{12x}\right).$$

Let us perform now the extremum of the last equation over $`\beta `$ provided that $`x`$ is the function of $`\beta `$ and $`f(x(\beta ))/\beta =f^{}(x)x/\beta `$. So we find that

$$\beta ^2(x)=\frac{2\sigma (f(x)xf^{}(x))}{\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2l+3}{2}}}3\alpha _s(g(x)+xg^{}(x))},$$
(A.6)
$$E(x)=\frac{2\sigma }{\beta (x)}f(x)+\beta (x)\left(\sqrt{\frac{2l+3}{2}}3\alpha _sg(x)+\frac{\alpha _s}{12x}\right),$$
(A.7)
$$R(x)=\frac{2x}{\beta (x)}.$$
(A.8)
The equations (A.7), (A.8), along with calculated functions $`f(x),g(x),\beta (x)`$ define explicitly adiabatic potentials (22). Note that all expressions for the averages contain the error function

$$\mathrm{erf}(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_0^x𝑑t\mathrm{e}^{t^2}.$$
(A.9)
We present them below for the levels of Table 1.

$`\text{}\stackrel{~}{r}_1_{110}`$ $`=`$ $`x\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x^2}}\right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{r}_1}}_{110}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\right\}`$ (A.10)
$`\beta _{110}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{4\sigma }{x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\right\}}{\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _s}{x^3}}\left(\mathrm{erf}(x){\displaystyle \frac{2x\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\right)}}`$
$`\text{}\stackrel{~}{r}_1_{111}`$ $`=`$ $`x\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8x^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x^2}}\right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{r}_1}}_{111}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x}}\right)\right\}`$ (A.11)
$`\beta _{111}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{x}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right)\right\}}{\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _s}{x^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{erf}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{x\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(1+2x^2+2x^4\right)\right)}}`$
$`\text{}\stackrel{~}{r}_1_{120}`$ $`=`$ $`x\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{14}{15x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{20x^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{11}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{10x^2}}\right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{r}_1}}_{120}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{10x^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{x\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{5\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{8x^2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{28}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{x^2}}\right)\right\}`$ (A.12)
$`\beta _{120}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{5x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{28}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{x^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(9+{\displaystyle \frac{22x^2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4x^4}{3}}\right)\right\}}{\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _s}{5x^3}}\left(7\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{f}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{2x\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(7+{\displaystyle \frac{22x^2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16x^4}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8x^6}{3}}\right)\right)}}`$
$`\text{}\stackrel{~}{r}_1_{121}`$ $`=`$ $`x\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{77}{60x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{40x^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{5\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{14}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4x^2}}\right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{r}_1}}_{121}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{7}{20x^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{5\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{7}{2x}}{\displaystyle \frac{7x}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2x^3}{3}}\right)\right\}`$ (A.13)
$`\beta _{121}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{5x}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{erf}(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{77}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{x^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(9{\displaystyle \frac{11x^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2x^4}{3}}\right)\right\}}{\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _s}{5x^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\mathrm{erf}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{x\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(7+{\displaystyle \frac{2x^2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8x^4}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4x^6}{3}}\right)\right)}}`$
$`\text{}\stackrel{~}{r}_1_{220}`$ $`=`$ $`x\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4x^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2x^6}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^4}}\right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{r}_1}}_{220}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^2}}\right)\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2x^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\right\}`$ (A.14)
$`\beta _{220}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{x^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{6\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^2}}\right)\right\}}{\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _s}{x^3}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{12}{x^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(12+7x^2+2x^4\right)\right\}}}`$
$`\text{}\stackrel{~}{r}_1_{221}`$ $`=`$ $`x\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{12x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^6}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{12x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^4}}\right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{r}_1}}_{221}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^4}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2x^3}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7x}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{6x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^3}}\right)\right\}`$ (A.15)
$`\beta _{221}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{13}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{x^4}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2x^3}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11x}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{12}{x^3}}\right)\right\}}{\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _s}{x^3}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{x^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(16+{\displaystyle \frac{35x^2}{3}}+6x^4+{\displaystyle \frac{8x^6}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4x^8}{3}}\right)\right\}}}`$
$`\text{}\stackrel{~}{r}_1_{222}`$ $`=`$ $`x\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x^6}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x^4}}\right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{r}_1}}_{222}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\right)\right\}`$ (A.16)
$`\beta _{222}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2x^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(4+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^2}}\right)\right\}}{\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _s}{x^3}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{7x^2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2x^4}{3}}\right)\right\}}}`$
$`\text{}\stackrel{~}{r}_1_{230}`$ $`=`$ $`x\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{81}{70x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{33}{70x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{39}{28x^6}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4x^2}{35}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{35}}+{\displaystyle \frac{14}{5x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{39}{14x^4}}\right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{r}_1}}_{230}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1\frac{36}{35x^2}+\frac{33}{14x^4}\right){\displaystyle \frac{x\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(\frac{33}{7x^4}+\frac{26}{5x^2}+\frac{26}{7}+\frac{44x^2}{35}+\frac{8x^4}{35}\right)\right\}`$ (A.17)
$`\beta _{230}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{2\sigma }{7x}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(\frac{81}{5}+\frac{66}{5x^2}+\frac{117}{2x^4}\right)\frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}\left(\frac{117}{x^3}+\frac{522}{5x}+\frac{278x}{5}+\frac{68x^3}{5}+\frac{8x^5}{5}\right)\right\}}{\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{3\alpha _s}{7x^3}\left\{6\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{f}(x)\left(\frac{12}{5}+\frac{11}{x^2}\right)\frac{4\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}\left(33+\frac{146x^2}{5}+\frac{76x^4}{5}+\frac{32x^6}{5}+\frac{12x^8}{5}+\frac{4x^{10}}{5}\right)\right\}}}`$
$`\text{}\stackrel{~}{r}_1_{231}`$ $`=`$ $`x\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{93}{70x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{35x^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{14x^6}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{7\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{13}{x^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15x^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{23}{5x}}{\displaystyle \frac{4x}{15}}\right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{r}_1}}_{231}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+\frac{18}{35x^2}\frac{11}{7x^4}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{7\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(\frac{22}{x^3}+\frac{112}{15x}\frac{98x}{15}\frac{44x^3}{15}\frac{8x^5}{15}\right)\right\}`$ (A.18)
$`\beta _{231}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{2\sigma }{7x}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(\frac{93}{5}+\frac{88}{5x^2}\frac{39}{x^4}\right)\frac{4\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}\left(\frac{39}{2x^3}+\frac{21}{5x}\frac{107x}{30}\frac{17x^3}{15}\frac{2x^5}{15}\right)\right\}}{\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{12\alpha _s}{7x^3}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(\frac{9}{5}+\frac{11}{x^2}\right)+\frac{2\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}\left(11\frac{83x^2}{15}\frac{14x^4}{15}+\frac{8x^6}{15}+\frac{2x^8}{5}+\frac{2x^{10}}{15}\right)\right\}}}`$
$`\text{}\stackrel{~}{r}_1_{232}`$ $`=`$ $`x\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{129}{70x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{121}{140x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{56x^6}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{149}{105x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{28x^4}}\right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{r}_1}}_{232}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{36}{35x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{28x^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{11}{14x^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{23}{15x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8x}{105}}\right)\right\}`$ (A.19)
$`\beta _{232}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{7x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{129}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{121}{5x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{39}{4x^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{39}{2x^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{177}{5x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16x}{15}}\right)\right\}}{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{6\alpha _s}{7x^3}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{36}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2x^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(11{\displaystyle \frac{106x^2}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{52x^4}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{8x^6}{15}}\right)\right\}}}`$
## Appendix B String corrections

The string correction potentials, $`V_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\mathrm{sc}}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}|H^{\mathrm{sc}}|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, have the following form:

$`V_{110}^{\mathrm{sc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\sigma x}{15\beta }}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{4x^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2x^2}}\right)\right\},`$ (B.1)
$`V_{111}^{\mathrm{sc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma x}{15\beta }}\left\{3\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{f}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{6x^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(5+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{x^2}}\right)\right\},`$ (B.2)
$`V_{120}^{\mathrm{sc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma x}{105\beta }}\{\mathrm{erf}(x)({\displaystyle \frac{28}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{67}{3x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2x^4}})+`$ (B.3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3x}}16x{\displaystyle \frac{16x^3}{3}})\},`$
$`V_{121}^{\mathrm{sc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma x}{210\beta }}\{\mathrm{erf}(x)({\displaystyle \frac{77}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{139}{6x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2x^4}})+`$ (B.4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{47}{3x}}8x{\displaystyle \frac{8x^3}{3}})\},`$
$`V_{220}^{\mathrm{sc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma x}{21\beta }}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2x^6}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{9}{x^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}\right)\right\},`$ (B.5)
$`V_{221}^{\mathrm{sc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma x}{21\beta }}\{\mathrm{erf}(x)({\displaystyle \frac{13}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{59}{12x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4x^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^6}})+`$ (B.6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}({\displaystyle \frac{6}{x^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{6x}}4x{\displaystyle \frac{4x^3}{3}})\},`$
$`V_{222}^{\mathrm{sc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma x}{21\beta }}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4x^6}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2x^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3x}}\right)\right\},`$ (B.7)
$`V_{230}^{\mathrm{sc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma x}{27\beta }}\{\mathrm{erf}(x)({\displaystyle \frac{81}{35}}+{\displaystyle \frac{237}{70x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{87}{70x^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4x^6}})+`$ (B.8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}({\displaystyle \frac{9}{2x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{18}{35x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{131}{35}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8x^2}{7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8x^4}{35}})\},`$
$`V_{231}^{\mathrm{sc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma x}{27\beta }}\{\mathrm{erf}(x)({\displaystyle \frac{93}{35}}+{\displaystyle \frac{277}{70x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2x^6}})+`$ (B.9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{5x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{53}{21}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8x^2}{2}}1+{\displaystyle \frac{8x^4}{105}})\},`$
$`V_{232}^{\mathrm{sc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma x}{27\beta }}\{\mathrm{erf}(x)({\displaystyle \frac{129}{35}}+{\displaystyle \frac{41}{10x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{59}{140x^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8x^6}})+`$ (B.10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{47}{35x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{53}{15}})\}.`$
## Appendix C Spin-orbit corrections

Nonperturbative spin-orbit potentials, given as $`V_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{np})}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}|H^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{np})}|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, are

$`V_{110}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{np})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{5\beta x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\right\},`$ (C.1)
$`V_{111}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{np})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{5\beta x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\right\},`$ (C.2)
$`V_{120}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{np})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{18\sigma }{35\beta x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{8x^2}{9}}\right)\right\},`$ (C.3)
$`V_{121}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{np})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\sigma }{35\beta x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(7{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2x^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{4x^2}{3}}\right)\right\},`$ (C.4)
$`V_{220}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{np})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{7\beta x}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^2}}\right)\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2x^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\right\},`$ (C.5)
$`V_{221}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{np})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{7\beta x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^4}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{x\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^4}}\right)\right\},`$ (C.6)
$`V_{222}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{np})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{7\beta x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }x}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\right)\right\},`$ (C.7)
$`V_{230}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{np})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{63\beta x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(16+\frac{54}{5x^2}+\frac{21}{x^4}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(\frac{21}{4x^3}+\frac{31}{5x}+4x+\frac{4x^3}{5}\right)\right\},`$ (C.8)
$`V_{231}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{np})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\sigma }{9\beta x}}\{\mathrm{erf}(x)({\displaystyle \frac{26}{21}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^4}})+`$ (C.9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15x}}{\displaystyle \frac{16x}{35}}{\displaystyle \frac{8x^3}{105}})\},`$
$`V_{232}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{np})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{9\beta x}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(\frac{64}{21}\frac{69}{35x^2}+\frac{1}{2x^4}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(\frac{1}{x^3}+\frac{344}{105x}\frac{8x}{105}\right)\right\}.`$ (C.10)
Perturbative spin-dependent potentials, $`V_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{p})}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}|H^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{p})}|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{jl\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, read as

$`V_{110}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{p})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _s\beta }{5x^3}}\left\{\mathrm{erf}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{2x\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\right\},`$ (C.11)
$`V_{111}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{p})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}\alpha _s\beta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{erf}(x)}{2x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\right)\right\},`$ (C.12)
$`V_{120}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{p})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{7}}\alpha _s\beta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{f}(x)}{5x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{5\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(6+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^2}}+8x^2\right)\right\},`$ (C.13)
$`V_{121}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{p})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{7}}\alpha _s\beta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{f}(x)}{10x^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{5\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(6{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^2}}+4x^2\right)\right\},`$ (C.14)
$`V_{220}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{p})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{7}}\alpha _s\beta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{erf}(x)}{x^3}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{x^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{x^4}}\right)\right\},`$ (C.15)
$`V_{221}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{p})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{7}}\alpha _s\beta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{f}(x)}{x^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{3\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^2}}+x^2\right)\right\},`$ (C.16)
$`V_{222}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{p})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{7}}\alpha _s\beta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{erf}(x)}{x^3}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^4}}\right)\right\},`$ (C.17)
$`V_{230}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{p})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{21}}\alpha _s\beta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{erf}(x)}{x^3}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4x^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{18}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{12x^2}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8x^4}{5}}\right)\right\},`$ (C.18)
$`V_{231}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{p})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{21}}\alpha _s\beta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{erf}(x)}{x^3}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{14}{15}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4x^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{8x^4}{15}}\right)\right\},`$ (C.19)
$`V_{232}^{\mathrm{LS}(\mathrm{p})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{21}}\alpha _s\beta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{erf}(x)}{x^3}}\left(4+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2x^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8x^2}{15}}\right)\right\}.`$ (C.20)


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Theoretical calculations , and a variety of experimental data  support the assumption that the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates are characterized by dynamical stripe-like inhomogeneities, where narrow charged stripes form antiphase domain walls separating wider antiferromagnetic (AF) stripes. Experimental observations have been pointing to the presence of both itinerant and almost localized (or polaron-like) carriers in the cuprates. First-principles calculations  support an approach based on the existence of both large-$`U`$ and small-$`U`$ orbitals in the vicinity of the Fermi level ($`E__\mathrm{F}`$).

The fermion creation operator of a small-$`U`$ electron in band $`\nu `$, spin $`\sigma `$ (which can be assigned a number $`\pm 1`$), and wave vector $`𝐤`$ is denoted here by $`c_{\nu \sigma }^{}(𝐤)`$. The creation operators of the large-$`U`$ electrons in the CuO2 planes are expressed using the “slave-fermion” method . Such an electron in site $`i`$ and spin $`\sigma `$ is created by $`d_{i\sigma }^{}=e_i^{}s_{i,\sigma }^{}`$, if it is in the “upper-Hubbard-band”, and by $`d_{i\sigma }^{}=\sigma s_{i\sigma }^{}h_i^{}`$, if it is in a Zhang-Rice-type “lower-Hubbard-band”. Here $`e_i^{}`$ and $`h_i^{}`$ are (“excession” and “holon”) fermion operators, and $`s_{i\sigma }^{}`$ are (“spinon”) boson operators. These auxiliary operators have to satisfy the constraint: $`e_i^{}e_i^{}+h_i^{}h_i^{}+_\sigma s_{i\sigma }^{}s_{i\sigma }^{}=1`$.

Further details on results presented here are given elsewhere .

## 2 Auxiliary Space and Fields

An auxiliary space is introduced within which a chemical-potential-like Lagrange multiplier imposes the constraint on the average. The projection of observable quantities to the physical space is achieved by expressing them as combinations of Green’s functions of the auxiliary space, whose time evolution is determined by a Hamiltonian obeying the constraint rigorously. Thus it is expected to be maintained as long as justifiable approximations are used.

In the zeroth order, the spinon field is diagonalized by applying the Bogoliubov transformation : $`s_\sigma ^{}(𝐤)=\mathrm{cosh}(\xi _𝐤)\zeta _\sigma ^{}(𝐤)+\mathrm{sinh}(\xi _𝐤)\zeta _\sigma ^{}(𝐤)`$. The “bare” spinons, created by $`\zeta _\sigma ^{}(𝐤)`$, have energies $`ϵ^\zeta (𝐤)`$ with a V-shape zero minimum at $`𝐤=𝐤_0`$. Bose condensation results in AF order at wave vector $`𝐐=2𝐤_0`$.

Along the one dimensional charged stripes the spin-charge separation approximation is expected to be valid. Thus it is justified there to decouple two-particle spinon-holon (spinon-excession) Green’s functions into single-auxiliary-particle Green’s functions, and to interpret the auxiliary particles as physical quasiparticles. We refer to holons (excessions) along the charged stripes as “stripons”, created by $`p_\mu ^{}(𝐤)`$, having bare energies by $`ϵ_\mu ^p(𝐤)`$, and carrying charge $`\mathrm{e}`$.

Since the dynamical stripe-like inhomogeneities are highly disordered, we find it appropriate to assume zeroth order localized stripon states. Their $`𝐤`$ wavenumbers present $`𝐤`$-symmetrized combinations of degenerate localized states to be treated in a perturbation expansion. Their values are within a Brillouin zone (BZ) based on periodic supercells which are large enough to approximately contain (each) the entire spectrum $`ϵ_\mu ^p`$ of bare stripon energies. These supercells introduce an approximate long-range order in spite of the local inhomogeneities.

We do not assume spin-charge separation away from the charged stripes, and construct approximate fermion creation operators of coupled holon-spinon and excession-spinon basis states as follows:

$`f_{\lambda \sigma }^{}(𝐤^{},𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`e_\lambda ^{}(𝐤^{})s_{\lambda ,\sigma }^{}(𝐤^{}𝐤)/\sqrt{n_\lambda ^e(𝐤^{})+n_{\lambda ,\sigma }^s(𝐤^{}𝐤)},`$ (1)
$`g_{\lambda \sigma }^{}(𝐤^{},𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma h_\lambda ^{}(𝐤^{})s_{\lambda \sigma }^{}(𝐤𝐤^{})/\sqrt{n_\lambda ^h(𝐤^{})+n_{\lambda \sigma }^s(𝐤𝐤^{})},`$ (2)
where the index $`\lambda `$ accounts for the structure of the unit cell, and: $`n_\lambda ^e(𝐤)e_\lambda ^{}(𝐤)e_\lambda ^{}(𝐤)`$, $`n_\lambda ^h(𝐤)h_\lambda ^{}(𝐤)h_\lambda ^{}(𝐤)`$, $`n_{\lambda \sigma }^s(𝐤)s_{\lambda \sigma }^{}(𝐤)s_{\lambda \sigma }^{}(𝐤)`$.

The states created by $`f_{\lambda \sigma }^{}(𝐤^{},𝐤)`$ and $`g_{\lambda \sigma }^{}(𝐤^{},𝐤)`$ are orthogonalized to the stripon states, and depleted to avoid over-completeness. Together with the small-$`U`$ states \[created by $`c_{\nu \sigma }^{}(𝐤)`$\] they form, within the auxiliary space, a basis to “quasi-electron” (QE) states whose creation operators are denoted by $`q_{\iota \sigma }^{}(𝐤)`$, and mean-field bare energies by $`ϵ_\iota ^q(𝐤)`$. These energies form quasi-continuous ranges of bands within the BZ around $`E__\mathrm{F}`$.

The hopping and hybridization terms of the Hamiltonian introduce strong coupling between the QE, stripon and spinon fields. This can be expressed through a coupling Hamiltonian term whose parameters can be in principle derived self-consistently from the original Hamiltonian. For the case of p-type cuprates this coupling Hamiltonian can be expressed as:

$`^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\iota \lambda \mu \sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐤^{}}{}}\{\sigma ϵ_{\iota \lambda \mu }^{qp}(𝐤,𝐤^{})q_{\iota \sigma }^{}(𝐤)p_\mu ^{}(𝐤^{})[\mathrm{cosh}(\xi _{\lambda ,𝐤𝐤^{}})\zeta _{\lambda \sigma }^{}(𝐤𝐤^{})`$ (3)
$`+\mathrm{sinh}(\xi _{\lambda ,𝐤𝐤^{}})\zeta _{\lambda ,\sigma }^{}(𝐤^{}𝐤)]+h.c.\},`$
where the $`𝐤`$ values correspond to the stripons BZ, within which the other fields have been embedded. $`^{}`$ introduces a vertex between the QE, stripon and spinon propagators .

A localized stripon modifies the lattice around it . Consequently, physical process induced by $`^{}`$, in which a stripon is transformed into a QE, or vice versa, and a spinon is emitted and/or absorbed, involves also the emission and/or absorption of phonons. This can be described by multiplying a spinon propagator, linked to the $`^{}`$ vertex with a power series of phonon propagators . Such a phonon-“dressed” spinon is referred to as a “svivon”, carrying spin and lattice distortion, and the $`^{}`$ vertex is re-interpreted as coupling between a QE, stripon, and svivon propagators.

## 3 Auxiliary Spectral Functions

The electrons spectral function are expressed in terms of auxiliary spectral functions $`A_\iota ^q(𝐤,\omega )`$, $`A_\mu ^p(𝐤,\omega )`$, and $`A_\lambda ^\zeta (𝐤,\omega )`$ of the QE’s, stripons, and svivons, respectively \[$`A(\omega )\mathrm{}𝒢(\omega i0^+)/\pi `$, where $`𝒢`$ are the Green’s functions\]. Since the resulting stripon bandwidth is much smaller than the QE and svivon bandwidths, a phase-space argument as in the Migdal theorem results in negligible vertex corrections to the $`^{}`$ vertex. Consequently  the following expressions are obtained for the QE, stripon, and svivon scattering rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^q(𝐤,\omega )`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^p(𝐤,\omega )`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\zeta (𝐤,\omega )`$ \[$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,\omega )2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega i0^+)`$\]:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\iota \iota ^{}}^q(𝐤,\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \mu 𝐤^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega ^{}ϵ_{\iota \lambda \mu }^{qp}(𝐤^{},𝐤)ϵ_{\iota ^{}\lambda \mu }^{qp}(𝐤^{},𝐤)^{}A_\mu ^p(𝐤^{},\omega ^{})}`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`[\mathrm{cosh}{}_{}{}^{2}(\xi _{\lambda ,𝐤𝐤^{}})A_\lambda ^\zeta (𝐤𝐤^{},\omega \omega ^{})`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}{}_{}{}^{2}(\xi _{\lambda ,𝐤𝐤^{}})A_\lambda ^\zeta (𝐤𝐤^{},\omega ^{}\omega )][f__T(\omega ^{})+b__T(\omega ^{}\omega )],`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \mu ^{}}^p(𝐤,\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\iota 𝐤^{}\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega ^{}ϵ_{\iota \lambda \mu }^{qp}(𝐤^{},𝐤)^{}ϵ_{\iota \lambda \mu ^{}}^{qp}(𝐤^{},𝐤)A_\iota ^q(𝐤^{},\omega ^{})}`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`[\mathrm{cosh}{}_{}{}^{2}(\xi _{\lambda ,𝐤^{}𝐤})A_\lambda ^\zeta (𝐤^{}𝐤,\omega ^{}\omega )`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{sinh}{}_{}{}^{2}(\xi _{\lambda ,𝐤^{}𝐤})A_\lambda ^\zeta (𝐤^{}𝐤,\omega \omega ^{})][f__T(\omega ^{})+b__T(\omega ^{}\omega )],`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^\zeta (𝐤,\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\iota 𝐤^{}\mu }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega ^{}ϵ_{\iota \lambda \mu }^{qp}(𝐤^{},𝐤^{}𝐤)^{}ϵ_{\iota \lambda ^{}\mu }^{qp}(𝐤^{},𝐤^{}𝐤)}`$ (6)
$`\times `$ $`[\mathrm{cosh}(\xi _{\lambda 𝐤})\mathrm{cosh}(\xi _{\lambda ^{}𝐤})A_\iota ^q(𝐤^{},\omega ^{})A_\mu ^p(𝐤^{}𝐤,\omega ^{}\omega )`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}(\xi _{\lambda 𝐤})\mathrm{sinh}(\xi _{\lambda ^{}𝐤})A_\iota ^q(𝐤^{},\omega ^{})A_\mu ^p(𝐤^{}𝐤,\omega \omega ^{})]`$
$`\times `$ $`[f__T(\omega ^{}\omega )f__T(\omega ^{})],`$
where $`f__T(\omega )`$ and $`b__T(\omega )`$ are the Fermi and Bose distribution functions at temperature $`T`$.

A solution with low-energy singularities is obtained  for the intermediary energy range ($`\mathrm{}>0.02`$eV), where energies above few tenths of an eV are cut off, introducing spurious logarithmic divergences at $`\pm \omega _c`$. Expressions are derived, where the dependencies on $`𝐤`$ and band indices are omitted for simplicity (all the coefficients are positive, and analyticity is restored within the low-energy range $`\mathrm{}<0.02`$eV):

$`A^q(\omega )`$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}a_+^q\omega +b_+^q,\hfill & \text{for }\omega >0\text{,}\hfill \\ a_{}^q\omega +b_{}^q,\hfill & \text{for }\omega <0\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
$`A^p(\omega )`$ $``$ $`\delta (\omega ),`$ (8)
$`A^\zeta (\omega )`$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}a_+^\zeta \omega +b_+^\zeta ,\hfill & \text{for }\omega >0\text{,}\hfill \\ a_{}^\zeta \omega b_{}^\zeta ,\hfill & \text{for }\omega <0\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^q(\omega )}{2\pi }}`$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}c_+^q\omega +d_+^q,\hfill & \text{for }\omega >0\text{,}\hfill \\ c_{}^q\omega +d_{}^q,\hfill & \text{for }\omega <0\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^p(\omega )}{2\pi }}`$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}c_+^p\omega ^3+d_+^p\omega ^2+e_+^p\omega ,\hfill & \text{for }\omega >0\text{,}\hfill \\ c_{}^p\omega ^3+d_{}^p\omega ^2e_{}^p\omega ,\hfill & \text{for }\omega <0\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\zeta (\omega )}{2\pi }}`$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}c_+^\zeta \omega +d_+^\zeta ,\hfill & \text{for }\omega >0\text{,}\hfill \\ c_{}^\zeta \omega d_{}^\zeta ,\hfill & \text{for }\omega <0\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^q(\omega )`$ $``$ $`\omega _c(c_+^qc_{}^q)+\left(d_+^q\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \omega _c}{\omega }}\right|d_{}^q\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega +\omega _c}{\omega }}\right|\right)`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`\omega \left(c_+^q\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \omega _c}{\omega }}\right|+c_{}^q\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega +\omega _c}{\omega }}\right|\right),`$
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^p(\omega )`$ $``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c^3}{3}}(c_+^pc_{}^p)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c^2}{2}}(d_+^pd_{}^p)+\omega _c(e_+^pe_{}^p)\right]`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`\omega [{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c^2}{2}}(c_+^p+c_{}^p)+\omega _c(d_+^p+d_{}^p)+e_+^p\mathrm{ln}|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \omega _c}{\omega }}|`$
$`+`$ $`e_{}^p\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega +\omega _c}{\omega }}\right|]+\omega ^2[\omega _c(c_+^pc_{}^p)+d_+^p\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \omega _c}{\omega }}\right|`$
$``$ $`d_{}^p\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega +\omega _c}{\omega }}\right|]+\omega ^3[c_+^p\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \omega _c}{\omega }}\right|+c_{}^p\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega +\omega _c}{\omega }}\right|],`$
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^\zeta (\omega )`$ $``$ $`\omega _c(c_+^\zeta +c_{}^\zeta )+\left(d_+^\zeta \mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \omega _c}{\omega }}\right|+d_{}^\zeta \mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega +\omega _c}{\omega }}\right|\right)`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`\omega \left(c_+^\zeta \mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \omega _c}{\omega }}\right|c_{}^\zeta \mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega +\omega _c}{\omega }}\right|\right).`$
The auxiliary-particle energies are renormalized: $`\overline{ϵ}=ϵ+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{ϵ})`$. This renormalization is particularly strong on the stripon energies where the bandwidth drops down to the low energy range.

For the discussed case of p-type cuprates the following inequalities between the coefficients in Eqs. (7–12) are generally expected :

$`a_+^q>a_{}^q,b_+^q>b_{}^q,c_+^q>c_{}^q,d_+^q>d_{}^q,`$ (16)
$`a_+^\zeta >a_{}^\zeta ,b_+^\zeta >b_{}^\zeta ,c_+^\zeta >c_{}^\zeta ,d_+^\zeta >d_{}^\zeta .`$ (17)
For “real” n-type cuprates (namely, ones where the stripons are based on excession and not holon states) the direction of the inequalities is reversed for the QE coefficients (16).

## 4 Consequences for Electron Spectroscopies

In order to apply the auxiliary spectral functions in Eqs. (7–9) for physical properties, a projection into the physical space is required. The low-energy signature of the stripon spectral functions is not detected by spectroscopies, like ARPES, which measure the effect of transfer of electrons into, or out of, the crystal. It is smeared over few tenths of an eV through convolution with svivon spectral functions, and contributes an “incoherent” background. On the other hand, transport properties measure the electrons within the crystal, and can detect the stripon energy scale. The physical contribution of the quasi-continuum of QE bands to the electron spectral functions is strong only for few QE bands for which the expansion coefficients in terms of their basis states \[created by (1,2) $`f_{\lambda \sigma }^{}(𝐤^{},𝐤)`$, $`g_{\lambda \sigma }^{}(𝐤^{},𝐤)`$, and $`c_{\nu \sigma }^{}(𝐤)`$\] closely correspond to those of real electron states, and they contribute “coherent” $`\overline{ϵ}^q(𝐤)`$ bands. The other QE states also contribute to the incoherent background. The dependence of the QE basis states (1,2) on $`n_\lambda ^e`$, $`n_\lambda ^h`$, and $`n_{\lambda \sigma }^s`$ is reflected in the observed dependence  of strongly correlated electrons spectrum on these occupation factors.

The characteristics of the auxiliary spectral functions are maintained in their projection to the physical space (detected, e.g., by ARPES). The fact that the QE field is coupled to the stripon and svivon fields is reflected, e.g., in “shadow bands”. The results for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^q`$ (10) are reflected in the observed non-Fermi-liquid bandwidths, having a $`\omega `$ and a constant term. The results for $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^q`$ (13) are reflected in the renormalization of band slopes, compared to LDA predictions. The consequence of the logarithmic singularity in $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^q`$ at $`\omega =0`$ \[due to the $`(d_+^qd_{}^q)\mathrm{ln}|\omega |`$ term in Eq. (13)\], for p-type cuprates (16), is that as an $`\overline{ϵ}^q(𝐤)`$ band approaches $`E__\mathrm{F}`$ from below it is becoming flatter (though it does not narrow accordingly) while from above it becomes steeper, and may pass through an infinite slope resulting in an S-shape triply valued band (causing smearing of the spectral weight, and blurring the band). The effect of the singularity is truncated and smoothened on an energy scale $`\mathrm{}<0.02`$eV. For “real” n-type cuprates these behaviors below and above $`E__\mathrm{F}`$ are expected to switch. ARPES data reflects the behavior below $`E__\mathrm{F}`$, and results of such band-flattening have been reported in p-type cuprates (and attributed to electron coupling with phonons  or with the neutron scattering resonance mode ). The behavior above $`E__\mathrm{F}`$ would be detected in ARIPES measurements. Further measurements of the bands of n-type cuprates very close to $`E__\mathrm{F}`$ are necessary to determine their behavior there.

The renormalization of svivon energies (from $`ϵ^\zeta `$ to $`\overline{ϵ}^\zeta `$) due to $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^\zeta (\omega )`$ (15), and specifically its logarithmic singularity at $`\omega =0`$ due to the $`(d_+^\zeta +d_{}^\zeta )\mathrm{ln}|\omega |`$ term (which is smoothened at low energies) results in a negative shift close to the minimum at $`𝐤_0`$; and as $`𝐤_0`$ is approached, the slope of $`\overline{ϵ}^\zeta (𝐤)`$ increases first \[compared to the almost constant slope of $`ϵ^\zeta (𝐤)`$\] and it may become infinite, resulting in a range of an S-shape triply valued and blurred band; but as $`𝐤_0`$ is further approached, the slope of $`\overline{ϵ}^\zeta (𝐤)`$ decreases and becomes smaller than the slope of $`ϵ^\zeta (𝐤)`$ at its minimum at $`𝐤_0`$. From analyticity arguments (due to the absence of long-range AF order) it is expected that $`\overline{ϵ}^\zeta (𝐤)`$ has a smooth minimum, rather than the V-shape minimum of $`ϵ^\zeta (𝐤)`$. Thus $`\overline{ϵ}^\zeta (𝐤_0)`$ presents the crossover energy from the intermediary to the low energy range. Since spin-flip excitations are, largely, double-svivon absorption or emission processes, $`2\overline{ϵ}^\zeta (𝐤_0)`$ is expected to be the energy of such an excitation at $`𝐤=𝐐`$. This result is consistent with the neutron-scattering resonance found at this wave number . It is observed that this resonance is at a local energy maximum, for $`𝐤`$ around $`𝐐`$, consistently with our result that $`\overline{ϵ}^\zeta (𝐤_0)`$ is at a minimum below zero.

An anomalous optical conductivity has been observed for the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates , consisting of Drude and mid-IR terms. This is consistent with our results, where the Drude term is due to transitions between QE states, and between stripon states, while the mid-IR term largely results from transitions between stripon states and QE+svivon states. The mid-IR term becomes negligibly small for $`\omega 0`$, where the conductivity could be decoupled into QE and stripon terms.

## 5 Transport Properties

Normal-state transport expressions \[not including the effect of the pseudogap (PG)\] are obtained  using linear response theory, where the zero-energy singularities in the auxiliary spectral functions and (7–9) are smoothened in the low-energy scale \[and $`A^\zeta (\omega =0)=0`$\]. Also it is taken into account that the electric current can be expressed as a sum $`𝐣=𝐣_0^q+𝐣_0^p`$ of contributions of “bare” QE and and stripon states, where $`𝐣_0^p0`$ since the bare stripon states are localized.

Results for the electrical resistivity $`\rho `$, the Hall constant $`R__\mathrm{H}`$, the Hall number $`n__\mathrm{H}=1/\mathrm{e}R__\mathrm{H}`$, the Hall angle $`\theta __\mathrm{H}`$ (through $`\mathrm{cot}\theta __\mathrm{H}=\rho /R__\mathrm{H}`$), and the thermoelectric power (TEP) $`S`$, are presented in Fig. 1. Their anomalous temperature dependencies result both from the low energy scale stripon band (8), modeled here by a “rectangular” shape $`A^p`$ of width $`\omega ^p`$ and fractional occupation $`n^p`$, and from those of the scattering rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^q(T,\omega =0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^p(T,\omega =0)`$, derived using Eqs. (4,5) to which temperature independent terms are added to account for impurity scattering.

The transport results in Fig. 1 correspond to five stoichiometries, ranging from underdoped ($`n^p=0.8`$) to overdoped ($`n^p=0.4`$) p-type cuprates. The parameter $`N_e^q`$, corresponding to the QE contribution to the electrons density of states at $`E__\mathrm{F}`$, is assumed to increase with doping, reflecting transfer of QE spectral weight towards $`E__\mathrm{F}`$. Consequently (5) $`\omega ^p`$ is assumed to decrease with doping. The parameters $`n__\mathrm{H}^q`$ and $`n__\mathrm{H}^p`$ represent effective QE and stripon contributions to the density of charge carriers (reflected in the Hall number). Since they both contribute through the current $`𝐣_0^q`$ of the bare QE states, they are expected to have same sign (corresponding to these states). The values of these parameters are assumed to increase with doping, where $`n__\mathrm{H}^p`$ increases considerably faster than $`n__\mathrm{H}^q`$, and a little faster than $`1n^p`$ (since $`n__\mathrm{H}^p`$ reflects an overall stripon-related carriers density, while $`n^p`$ is the fractional occupation of stripon states within the charged stripes whose number increases with doping). Doping-independent values are taken for the QE TEP parameter $`S_1^q`$ \[which is negative for p-type cuprates by the inequality (16)\], and for the stripon and QE scattering rate parameters $`\gamma _0^p`$, $`\gamma _2^p`$, $`\gamma _0^q`$, and $`\gamma _1^q`$.

The TEP results depend strongly on $`n^p`$, and reproduce very well the doping-dependent experimental behavior . The position of the maximum in $`S`$ depends on the choice of $`\omega ^p`$, and it may occur below or above $`T_c`$ (a PG may shift it to a higher temperature than predicted here). Also the other transport coefficient in Fig. 1 reproduce very well the experimental behavior . Cases where the linear $`T`$ dependence of the resistivity persists at very low temperatures are expected as a PG effect.

The TEP in “real” n-type cuprates is expected to behave similarly to p-type cuprates, but with an opposite sign and slope. Results for NCCO  reveal that for doping levels where it is superconducting (SC), the TEP slope actually corresponds to those of p-type cuprates \[Fig. 1(a)\], but with an opposite effect of doping. Thus $`S`$ for lower doping levels is typical of the p-type overdoped regime. This points to the possibility that NCCO is not a “real” n-type cuprate, and its stripons are also based on holon states, where the extra doped negative charge occupies another QE band. The Hall constant in NCCO  is also consistent with this scenario and our results. Another possibility is that the TEP slope in NCCO is determined by electrons which are not strongly coupled to the CuO2 planes.

## 6 Mechanism — BCS–BEC Crossover

The electronic structure of the cuprates discussed here provides SC pairing due to transitions between pair states of stripons and QE’s through the exchange of svivons . Since such transitions enable long-range hopping of local stripon pairs, without an associated hopping of svivons (necessary for single-stripon hopping), this type of pairing results in a large gain in the “kinetic” energy of the stripons. Thus this can effectively be expressed as a strong attractive stripon-stripon interaction. Thus, pair-breaking is then expected to result in both QE and stripon+svivon excitations. This is confirmed by ARPES results in the SC state , showing a sharp peak at $`0.04`$eV over a wide range of the BZ, and a “hump” starting at $`0.1`$eV and merging with a normal-state band at higher energies, corresponding to these excitations. The hump is consistent with the QE pair-breaking excitation, and the peak with the stripon+svivon pair-breaking excitation at the svivon minimum $`\overline{ϵ}^\zeta (𝐤_0)`$. In the SC state this minimum is within the gap, and thus is considerably narrower than in the normal state \[reflected also in the width of the neutron-scattering resonance energy $`2\overline{ϵ}^\zeta (𝐤_0)`$\].

When the pairing energy is comparable to the relevant bandwidth, a crossover is expected  to occur between BCS and preformed-pairs Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) behaviors. This condition is fulfilled here due to the small stripon bandwidth, and the underdoped cuprates are characterized by BEC behavior, where singlet pairs are formed at $`T_{\mathrm{pair}}`$, and SC occurs below $`T_{\mathrm{coh}}(<T_{\mathrm{pair}})`$ where phase coherence sets in. The normal-state PG is a pair-breaking gap at $`T_{\mathrm{coh}}<T<T_{\mathrm{pair}}`$, having similarities to the SC gap, and accounting for most of the pairing energy, as observed . The coherence temperature can be expressed  as: $`T_{\mathrm{coh}}n_s/m_s^{}`$, where $`m_s^{}`$ and $`n_s`$ are the pairs effective mass and density, in agreement with the “Uemura plots”. Since we expect \[Fig. 1(a)\] the stripon band to be half full ($`n^p={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}`$) for slightly overdoped cuprates, the “boomerang-type” behavior  of these plots is understood as a crossover between a stripon band-top $`T_c=T_{\mathrm{coh}}`$ behavior in the underdoped cuprates, and a stripon band-bottom $`T_c=T_{\mathrm{pair}}`$ behavior in overdoped cuprates.

## 7 Conclusions

It was shown that a treatment of the cuprates on the basis of both large-$`U`$ and small-$`U`$ orbitals and dynamical stripe-like inhomogeneities resolves puzzling normal-state spectroscopic and transport properties and provides a mechanism for high-$`T_c`$ and the peudogap.


text:
# Optimal dimensionality for quantum cryptography

## Abstract

We perform a comparison of two protocols for generating a cryptographic key composed from d-valued symbols: one exploiting a string of independent qubits and another one utilizing d-level systems prepared in states belonging to d+1 mutually unbiased bases. We show that the protocol based on qubits is optimal for quantum cryptography, since it provides higher security and higher key generation rate.

Quantum cryptography is a technology allowing two distant parties to share a random string of symbols (cryptographic key) in such a way that any eavesdropping from the third party will cause a detectable disturbance. This can be achieved by using for communication quantum systems in states highly sensitive to measurement. Since its discovery by Bennett and Brassard (BB84 protocol) BB84 , quantum cryptography plays a central role in the field of quantum information processing QI , being the most experimentally advanced application in this field and serving as a ’testing ground’ for new ideas Gisin-Review . In particular, recently it has been shown that the exploiting of quantum systems of dimension higher than two (qudits) results in higher disturbance cost of information, making the protocol tougher to eavesdrop BP-T ; BP-P ; Bour ; Cerf ; BM . This situation differs dramatically from that of classical information, where the length of the alphabet does not play any role, and therefore the most simple binary encoding is commonly used Shannon .

However, the comparison between qubit and qudit protocols seems to us to be incomplete, since the qudit encoding is not compared to the case where a dit (d-valued symbol) is encoded in a sequence of independent qubits. Indeed, to share a key composed from dits (for simplicity we consider $`d=2^n`$) the communicating parties can use the standard binary cryptographic protocol with the corresponding mapping of classical data, e.g. a four-valued symbol (quart) can be decomposed into two bits, an eight-valued symbol - in three bits et cetera.

In the present paper our aim is to consider the protocol for distributing a $`2^n`$-letter cryptographic key by means of 6-state protocol for qubits Bruss ; BP-G  and to compare it to the protocol utilizing $`2^n`$-level quantum systems with states chosen from mutually unbiased bases BP-T ; BP-P ; Bour ; Cerf ; BM . Our comparison will be significant for two practical problems. On one hand, if one has two-level systems, such as single photons with different polarizations, one can compose a $`2^n`$-level system from a sequence of $`n`$ qubits, but the access to any state in the Hilbert space of such a system will require entanglement between the qubits, i.e. an additional quantum resource. Our analysis will show, how much one gains with respect to security and the key generation rate in exchange to this resource. On the other hand, if one has a $`2^n`$-level system, one can represent its Hilbert space as a direct product of $`n`$ two-dimensional systems, and use it for standard cryptography based on qubits, restricting oneself to factorizing states of $`n`$ subsystems. Our analysis should show if this strategy yields any benefice.

Let us first recall the details and notations of the 6-state extension of BB84 protocol for quantum cryptography Bruss ; BP-G . In this protocol the sender (Alice) generates a random bit and encodes it in a state of a qubit, choosing randomly one of three possible bases. The first basis is denoted as $`|0`$ and $`|1`$. The other two are

$$|0^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0+|1\right),|1^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0|1\right),$$
(1)
and

$$|0^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0+i|1\right),|1^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0i|1\right).$$
(2)
The qubit is sent to the receiver (Bob), who measures it in a randomly chosen basis. This procedure is repeated many times. After the public disclosure of bases, chosen by Alice and Bob, both parties keep only those bits for which the bases coincide. In this way Alice and Bob generate a shared random string of bits. A part of this string can be communicated via public channel to determine Bob’s disturbance - the percentage of incorrectly received bits. On the basis of the measured disturbance a standard procedure of privacy amplification is performed in order to decrease the information of possible eavesdropper Privacy . As a result, a secure shared cryptographic key is generated.

The same protocol can be used for generating a cryptographic key composed from $`2^n`$-valued symbols. Alice generates a random string of symbols, writes each symbol in binary and communicates with Bob as described above. After the binary key is generated, each $`n`$ successive bits are mapped back into $`2^n`$-valued symbols. Now we need to consider how this protocol is affected by intervention of an eavesdropper (Eve). We restrict ourselves to individual attacks, for which at most one qubit at a time is attacked.

Eve can exploit different strategies for individual eavesdropping, e.g., the simple intercept-resend strategy, where she intercepts a qubit, measures it in a random basis and resends to Bob a qubit, prepared in the measured state. In this way Eve gains some information in exchange to disturbance introduced into Bob’s key. In order not to be detected, Eve is interested in increasing her information and decreasing the Bob’s disturbance. The best known at present strategy for that end is the asymmetric cloning of qubit Bour ; Cerf ; BM . In this type of attack Eve attaches to the Alice’s qubit two additional qubits denoted $`E`$ and $`M`$, performers a unitary transformation of all three qubits, and sends the first qubit further to Bob, keeping the other two. After the disclosure of bases used by Alice and Bob, Eve measures her two qubits in the basis chosen by Alice. The cloning transformation, written in ”correct” basis, is Bour :

$`|\psi _k_A`$ $``$ $`|\psi _k_B\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\right|0_E\right|0_M+|1_E|1_M)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\sqrt{2}}}|\psi _k_E|\psi _k_M)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\sqrt{2}}}|\psi _{k+1}_B|\psi _k_E|\psi _{k+1}_M`$
where the two states of the basis are denoted as $`|\psi _0=|0`$ and $`|\psi _1=|1`$, and the summation in index is taken modulo 2. The real positive numbers $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are parameters of the cloning machine, they satisfy the relation

$$\alpha ^2+\alpha \beta +\beta ^2=1.$$
(4)
The first term in the r.h.s. of Eq. (Optimal dimensionality for quantum cryptography) corresponds to Bob having no error, while the second term corresponds to a flip of Bob’s qubit. After the measurement of her qubits Eve accepts the value of the measurement of qubit $`E`$ as the corresponding bit in the eavesdropped key. There are three possible outcomes of measurements by Eve and Bob of the state described by Eq. (Optimal dimensionality for quantum cryptography): (i) Eve and Bob receive correct values of Alice’s bit with probability $`p_0=\left(\alpha +\beta \right)^2/2`$; (ii) Bob receives the correct value, but Eve receives the incorrect one with probability $`p_e=\alpha ^2/2`$; and, finally, (iii) Bob receives the incorrect value, while Eve receives the correct one with probability $`p_b=\beta ^2/2`$. Bob in no way can guess which of the cases takes place (without revealing his bit to Alice). In the meanwhile, Eve can distinguish first two cases from the third one by comparing the outcomes of measurements of her two qubits $`E`$ and $`M`$. Let us denote the difference (modulo 2) of these outcomes as $`m`$. If the outcomes coincide ($`m=0`$), then the first or the second case occurs, if they differ ($`m=1`$), then the third one takes place. Given $`m=0`$ Eve’s probability to get the correct value is $`q=p_0/(p_0+p_e)`$. On the basis of these probabilities one can calculate information got by Bob and Eve. We perform this calculation for keys composed from $`2^n`$-valued symbols.

First we consider the case of $`n=2`$. In this case two qubits are used for sending a 4-valued symbol (quart). Eve clones each qubit separately, measures her qubits in correct basis and keeps the values of $`E`$ qubits for her key. Besides she calculates differences of outcomes of measuring her qubits $`E`$ and $`M`$ \- $`m_1`$ for the first qubit and $`m_2`$ for the second one. Four possible cases should be distinguished depending on the values of $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$. Let us suppose, without loss of generality, that the value 00 was sent by Alice. Then the four cases are as follows.

For $`m_1=m_2=0`$, which happens with probability $`\xi _{00}=(p_0+p_e)^2`$, the distribution of Eve’s quart is $`P_E^{(00)}=(q^2,q(1q),q(1q),(1q)^2)`$, while that of Bob’s one is $`P_B^{(00)}=(1,0,0,0)`$. Here we write the distribution in the vector form $`(p_{00},p_{01},p_{10},p_{11})`$, where $`p_{ij}`$ denotes the probability for quart to have value $`ij`$ in binary notation.

Similarly, for $`m_1=0`$, $`m_2=1`$ (first bit being the major one), which happens with probability $`\xi _{01}=p_b(p_0+p_e)`$, we have $`P_E^{(01)}=(q,0,1q,0)`$, $`P_B^{(01)}=(0,1,0,0)`$.

For $`m_1=1`$, $`m_2=0`$, which happens with probability $`\xi _{10}=p_b(p_0+p_e)`$, we have $`P_E^{(10)}=(q,1q,0,0)`$, $`P_B^{(10)}=(0,0,1,0)`$.

And, finally, for $`m_1=m_2=1`$, which happens with probability $`\xi _{11}=p_b^2`$, we have $`P_E^{(10)}=(1,0,0,0)`$, $`P_B^{(10)}=(0,0,0,1)`$.

Now we are ready to calculate the information on Alice’s quart received by Bob and Eve. This information is calculated as $`I=2H(P)`$, where $`H(P)`$ is the Shannon entropy function calculated for the distribution $`P`$:

$$H(P)=\underset{i,j=0,1}{}p_{ij}\mathrm{log}_2p_{ij}.$$
(5)
However, averaging over $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ is performed differently for Bob and Eve. Bob does not know the values of $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, and therefore for him the average distribution $`P_B=\xi _{ij}P_B^{(ij)}`$ is found first, and then the information for this distribution is calculated $`I_B=2H(P_B)`$. Eve, on the contrary, knows the values of $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ and her information is calculated for each case and then averaged: $`I_E=2H(P_E)`$. In this way we obtain

$`P_B`$ $`=`$ $`((1p_b)^2,p_b(1p_b),p_b(1p_b),p_b^2),`$ (6)
$`I_B`$ $`=`$ $`22h(p_b),`$ (7)
$`I_E`$ $`=`$ $`22h(q)(1p_b),`$ (8)
where $`h(q)q\mathrm{log}_2q(1q)\mathrm{log}_2(1q)`$. Informations of Bob and Eve are exactly twice that for the case of bits, as could be expected. If one considers the dependence of $`I_B`$ and $`I_E`$ from $`p_b`$ (note that $`q`$ can be expressed through $`p_e`$, using Eq. (4)), one finds that $`I_B`$ decreases with $`p_b`$ while $`I_E`$ increases. The intersection of two curves defines the border value of $`p_b`$, below which Bob’s information exceeds Eve’s one and therefore the standard procedure of privacy amplification if applicable. This value is the solution of equation

$$22h(p_b)=22h(q)(1p_b),$$
(9)
and is the same as for the 6-state protocol for quantum cryptography with qubits, $`p_b=0.1564`$. In the case of generating binary key $`p_b`$ has the sense of disturbance, i.e. probability for Bob to get incorrect symbol in his key. In the case of cryptography with quarts, considered here, the intersection of two curves occurs at the same value of $`p_b`$, but the border disturbance is now $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{(4)}=1(1p_b)^2=0.2883`$. The growth of disturbance reflects the fact that an incorrect quart can be received when only one bit is wrong and another one is correct. This point was mentioned in Ref. BP-G , but did not deserve a detailed consideration up to now.

The considered cryptographic protocol for generating a key consisting from quarts can be compared to the protocol where 5 mutually unbiased bases in four-dimensional Hilbert space are used Bour ; Cerf ; BM . In the latter protocol Alice and Bob use for encoding such bases that the overlap of two any states from different bases is the same. The rest of the protocol resembles BB84. The use of mutually unbiased bases guarantees that no information on the encoded symbol is got if an incorrect basis is chosen for measurement. Therefore the protocol implementing such bases should provide the best security for cryptography with qudits. The analysis of eavesdropping by means of asymmetric cloning of qudits shows that in this case Bour ; Cerf

$`P_B`$ $`=`$ $`(1D,D/3,D/3,D/3),`$ (10)
$`I_B`$ $`=`$ $`2+(1D)\mathrm{log}_2(1D)+D\mathrm{log}_2{\displaystyle \frac{D}{3}},`$ (11)
$`I_E`$ $`=`$ $`2+(1D)(1\mu )\mathrm{log}_2(1\mu )`$
$`+(1D)\mu \mathrm{log}_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}},`$
where $`\mu =D_E/(1D)`$, $`D`$ and $`D_E`$ being Bob’s and Eve’s disturbances respectively, connected by the following parametric relations: $`D_E=3\overline{\alpha }^2/4`$, $`D=3\overline{\beta }^2/4`$, where $`\overline{\alpha }`$ and $`\overline{\beta }`$ are real positive parameters of the cloning machine for four-level quantum systems, satisfying the normalization relation

$$\overline{\alpha }^2+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }+\overline{\beta }^2=1.$$
(13)
The solution of equation $`I_B=I_E`$ in this case gives the result $`D^{(4)}=0.2666`$. We see that $`D^{(4)}<\stackrel{~}{D}^{(4)}`$, that is the cryptographic protocol exploiting qubit pairs for generating a key of quarts is more secure against eavesdropping attacks, than the protocol, utilizing four-level systems prepared in one of 5 mutually unbiased bases. Besides, the former protocol provides higher key generation rate, since $`1/3`$ of systems is used for the key, against $`1/5`$ in the latter case.

This result is easily generalized to any value of $`n`$. If a sequence of $`n`$ qubits is used for generating a key of $`2^n`$-valued symbols, then Bob’s disturbance corresponding to intersection of informational curves for Bob and Eve is $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{(2^n)}=1(10.1564)^n`$. The corresponding disturbance $`D^{(2^n)}`$ for the case where $`2^n`$-dimensional systems are used, being prepared in a state chosen from $`2^n+1`$ mutually unbiased bases, is calculated as a solution of equation $`I_B=I_E`$ where Bour ; Cerf

$`I_B`$ $`=`$ $`n+(1D)\mathrm{log}_2(1D)+D\mathrm{log}_2{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2^n1}},`$ (14)
$`I_E`$ $`=`$ $`n+(1D)(1\mu )\mathrm{log}_2(1\mu )`$
$`+(1D)\mu \mathrm{log}_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{(2^n1)}},`$
where again $`\mu =D_E/(1D)`$, but this time $`D`$ and $`D_E`$ are connected by equations $`D_E=(12^n)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2`$, $`D=(12^n)\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2`$, where

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2+\frac{1}{2^{n1}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2=1.$$
(16)
The both disturbances $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{(2^n)}`$ and $`D^{(2^n)}`$, calculated numerically, are plotted in Fig.1 as functions of $`n`$. The plot shows, that $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{(2^n)}`$ is always greater than $`D^{(2^n)}`$, i.e. a protocol based on qubits is more secure than that based on qudits. Note that for symbols with more than two values the disturbance is not limited by 1/2.

One could conjecture that a sequence of qubits encoding one quart could be effectively eavesdropped by a collective attack. But this is not so, since any collective attack produces correlation between attacked qubits, and therefore can be easily detected by Bob. Undetectable collective attack should address randomly chosen qubits, i.e. it may to be expected to be equally successful for qubits and qudits. Moreover, it is still unclear at present, if collective attacks are more effective than individual ones Gisin-Review .

We conclude that the optimal dimensionality for quantum cryptography is 2, i.e. two-dimensional systems are the best tool for information encoding, like in the classical information theory. This result leads us to two practical recommendations concerning implementation of quantum cryptography. First, if one has two-level systems available for quantum cryptography, there is no sense in entangling them for producing systems of higher dimensions. Second, if one has multilevel systems at hand, it is more profitable to decompose the states of each system into direct product of two-dimensional spaces and use them for standard cryptographic protocol with qubits. This strategy provides better security and better key generation rate.

Authors gratefully acknowledge support from INTAS, Open call 2001 project 2097 and from Belorussian Republican Foundation for Fundamental Research.