format: text

text:
# Nonmagnetic Insulating States near the Mott Transitions on Lattices with Geometrical Frustration and Implications for 𝜅-(ET)2Cu2(CN)3

## Abstract

We study phase diagrams of the Hubbard model on anisotropic triangular lattices, which also represents a model for $`\kappa `$-type BEDT-TTF compounds. In contrast with mean-field predictions, path-integral renormalization group calculations show a universal presence of nonmagnetic insulator sandwitched by antiferromagnetic insulator and paramagnetic metals. The nonmagnetic phase does not show a simple translational symmetry breakings such as flux phases, implying a genuine Mott insulator. We discuss possible relevance on the nonmagnetic insulating phase found in $`\kappa `$-(ET)2Cu2(CN)3.

When the kinetic and Coulomb repulsion energies are severely competing, the ground states of many-body electron systems can be highly nontrivial. The Mott transition provides a typical example of such nontrivial behavior. If the electronic orbitals constituting the band near the Fermi level form geometrically frustrated lattice structure, the ground state can be even more nontrivial, because the spin entropy is not easily released by simple symmetry breaking such as the antiferromagnetic (AF) order, and the possiblity of some exotic quantum liquid state opens. Theoretically, regular triangular lattice has been proposed as such a typical structure Anderson , while the nature of the ground state of the Hubbard model on this lattice still remains a challenge because of the lack of theoretical tools. Reliability of mean field approaches becomes questionable under strong quantum fluctuations while the numerical studies have been limited to small clusters because of the lack of efficient algorithm.

In this letter, we obtain the ground-state phase diagram of the Hubbard model on anisotropic triangular lattice called $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-TH model by using recently developed path-integral renormalization group (PIRG) method KashimaImadaPIRG  with systematic inclusion of quantum fluctuations. In the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-TH model, when one of the transfers ($`t^{}`$) on a unit triangle becomes different from the other transfers $`t`$ as in Fig. 1, the model continuously connects the right triangular lattice ($`t^{}/t=1`$) to the regular square one ($`t^{}/t=0`$). We study this general model at half filling.

In particular, the case between $`t^{}/t0.5`$ and $`1.0`$ has attracted a particular interest because tight binding fit of the band structure by the extended Hückel approximation for $`\kappa `$-type BEDT-TTF compound suggests that this region may provide a minimal model after eliminating the internal degrees of freedom in the dimerized two ET molecules Mori . In terms of clarifying the metal-insulator (MI) transition and the accompanied superconductivity, the ground state of this model has been a subject of intensive studies but mainly on the Hartree-Fock or FLEX levels Mackenzie ; Kino ; Moriya ; Kuroki . Because significant correlation and quantum effects are expected as described above, it is desired to clarify the phase diagram of the basic $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-TH models itself by fully taking account of quantum fluctuations.

Our result shows remarkably a generic emergence of nonmagnetic insulating state sandwitched by a Mott MI transition and an AF transition in contrast with the previous mean-field predictions, while a nonmagnetic insulating state is also suggested in different Hubbard models on the square lattice with next-nearest neighbor transfers KashimaImadaMIT . We also find that the nonmagnetic insulators do not show simple symmetry breakings such as dimer, plaquette, and flux phases, in support for the appearance of genuine Mott insulator distinct from band insulators.

The genuine Mott insulating state not adiabatically connected to the band insulator has been a subject of long-standing search since Anderson’s proposal Anderson . This proposed RVB state is in basic sense realized in the 1D systems , while it remains a challenge for multi-dimensional systems. We stress that such RVB state may be found more easily near the bandwidth-control metal to Mott insulator transition, where quantum mechanical fluctuations of spin as well as charge destroy trivial symmetry breakings and the local moment is relatively small. In the light of our results, we argue that this category of genuine Mott insulator may indeed be realized in $`\kappa `$-(ET)2Cu2(CN)3, which seems to be nonmagnetic and insulating at ambient pressure down to 1.4K.

We introduce $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-TH model on a triangular lattice shown in Fig. 1 with the Hubbard Hamiltonian $`H=_{i,j,\sigma }t(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)+_{k,l,\sigma }t^{}(c_{k\sigma }^{}c_{l\sigma }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)+U_{i=1}^Nn_in_i`$ with the standard notation. In this letter, we apply the recently developed PIRG method KashimaImadaPIRG  to clarify the ground state in the plane of $`U/t`$ and $`t^{}/t`$. This algorithm allows us to start from and improve a mean-field Hartree-Fock solution and reach the ground-state by taking account quantum fluctuations in a systematic fashion. By increasing the dimension of truncated Hilbert space in a nonorthogonal basis numerically optimized by the path-integral operation, a variance extrapolation is taken to reach the true ground state of finite size systems in a controlled way. We took number of Slater basis functions up to around 300. This numerical method does not have difficulties such as the negative sign problem in the quantum Monte Carlo calculations. In the present study, we take system size up to $`N=196`$ sites ($`14\times 14`$) with the periodic boundary condition. Using the results at various sizes, we extrapolate to the thermodynamic limit using appropriate scaling procedure and eliminate finite size effects.

To see the MI transition, we calculate the singularity of the ground-state energy $`E_g`$ as a function of the control parameter, $`U/t`$. The level crossing with a first-order transition or singularity with a continuous character is detected as a signature of the MI transition with complementary analysis of the charge gap and the momentum distribution. The AF transition is studied by equal-time spin correlation functions in the momentum space. We also calculate several density wave correlations to discuss possible symmetry breakings such as staggered flux as well as dimer correlations.

In Fig. 2, we show $`E_g/U`$ as a function of $`U`$. Jumps of the averaged double occupancy $`D=n_in_i=E_g/U/N+1/4`$ signal first-order MI transitions induced by level crossings at $`U/t=4.1\pm 0.1`$, and $`5.0\pm 0.2`$ for choices $`t^{}/t=0.5`$, and $`0.8`$, respectively, while a continuous transition is plausible at $`5.2\pm 0.2`$ for $`t^{}/t=1.0`$. These transitions show similar character to MI transitions identified by charge gap formation and qualitative change of the momentum distributions for other types of Hubbard models KashimaImadaMIT . Fig. 3 exemplifies that the momentum distributions of the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-TH model indeed show transition from a typical metallic behavior to that of an insulator across this boundary .

The magnetic transition is probed by the Fourier transform of the equal-time spin correlation, $`S(𝒒)`$ defined by $`S\left(𝒒\right)=\frac{1}{3N}_{i,j}^N𝑺_i𝑺_je^{i𝒒\left(𝑹_i𝑹_j\right)}`$, where $`𝑺_i`$ is the spin of the $`i`$-th site with $`𝑹_i`$ representing the coordinate of the $`i`$-th site. At $`t^{}/t=0.5`$ the spin correlation shows sharp commensurate paek at $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ for $`U/t5.7`$ while it remains rather small and incommensurate for $`U/t5.6`$. The size scaling in Fig. 4 leads to $`U`$ dependence of the staggered moment $`m=\sqrt{lim_N\mathrm{}S(𝒒_{𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒌})/N}`$ as in Fig. 5, where a first-order (or very sharp continuous) AF transition is identified at $`U/t=5.65\pm 0.05`$. A small jump of $`E_g/U`$ seen in Fig. 2 at this point also supports the first-order character. For larger values of $`t^{}/t`$, at $`t^{}/t=0.8`$ and 1.0, the size scaling of the spin correlation shows the absence of magnetic symmetry breaking at all momenta and all $`U`$ studied, namely for $`U/t10`$.

The phase diagram of the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-TH model constructed from our calculations is illustrated in Fig. 6. A remarkable feature is the emergence of nonmagnetic insulating phase sandwitched by MI and AF transitions. This is in contrast with the Hartree-Fock results where the MI transition occurs at larger $`U/t`$ than the AF transition. The triangular lattices were also studied in the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model corresponding to the limit $`U\mathrm{}`$ triangular1 ; triangular2 . Although the decisive conclusion cannot be drawn due to the lack of powerful techniques, it was claimed from a small cluster studies or series expansions that either long-range AF order or dimer order appear in this model on a regular triangular lattice. This suggests a possibility that the reduction of the local moment due to charge fluctuations at $`U`$ reduced to a finite value drives the destruction of the order. In fact, for example, the local moment $`m_l=\sqrt{n2D}/2`$ is reduced to $`m_l0.4`$ at the phase boundary $`U/t=5.2`$ at $`t^{}/t=1.0`$.

Insulators with some translational symmetry breakings such as the AF and dimer orders may be adiabatically continued to band insulators due to the band gap formation through extension of the unit cell and the folded Brillouin zone, and hence do not belong to the genuine Mott insulator discussed above. We first have to note that it is hard to prove the existence of the genuine Mott insulator because it is difficult to prove the absence of all the possible translational symmetry breakings. Under this circumstance, an available way to get insight on this problem is to examine every symmetry breaking ever proposed and judge the plausibility of such a phase.

Along this line of motivation, we have further calculated correlations for several symmetry breakings claimed in the literature such as dimer order triangular2 ; Sachdev , plaquette order Sorellaplaquette  and various density waves Affleck  in this remarkable nonmagnetic insulating phase. Here the density wave correlation is defined by $`D_\alpha (𝒒)=\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha ^{}(𝒒)\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha (𝒒)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha ^{}(𝒒)=_{𝒌,\sigma }f_\alpha (𝒌)c_{𝒌\sigma }^{}c_{𝒌+𝒒,\sigma }`$. We have studied the cases $`f_{1s}(𝒌)=\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y`$, $`f_{2s}(𝒌)=2\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y`$, $`f_{1d}(𝒌)=\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y`$, and $`f_{2d}(𝒌)=2\mathrm{sin}k_x\mathrm{sin}k_y`$. We note the case $`1d`$ represents the order parameter for the staggered flux (or $`d`$-density wave) state Affleck . Fig. 7 shows a typical size scalings of these density wave correlations for the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-TH model. Other types show similar behaviors. It does not seem to show symmetry breakings and the correlation actually remains rather short ranged in all the parameter space we have studied ($`0U/t10`$ and $`0.5t^{}/t1.0`$). The possibility of dimer, plaquette and density wave orders have also been examined in the Hubbard model on a square lattice with diagonally crossing transfers between next-nearest neighbor sites. The size scalings again suggest the absence of these translational symmetry breakings Watanabe . Although these results do not exclude a possiblity for the translational symmetry breakings other than those studied here, we conclude that the theoretically proposed phases so far are unlikely to be realized in our phase hence the existence of genuine Mott insulating state becomes much more plausible.

Our result leads us to an intriguing view for recent experimental results on organic compounds. As we discussed above, the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-TH model provides a simplest effective Hamiltonian for the $`\kappa `$-type ET compounds if we may take the dimerization of two parallel ET molecules large Mori . The HOMO band is split by the dimerization and the upper band provides the effective Hubbard model at half filling. The effective interaction for $`U`$ in this case is taken as $`U_{eff}=2t_{b1}+\frac{U_{ET}}{2}[1\sqrt{1+(\frac{4t_{b1}}{U_{ET}})^2}]`$, where $`U_{ET}`$ is the original onsite Coulomb repulsion for the ET molecule and $`t_{b1}`$ is the intradimer transfer.

Among available compounds, the band structure calculation Kobayashi ; SaitoG  suggests $`\kappa `$-(ET)2Cu2(CN)3 has the largest ratio of $`t^{}/t1.0`$ ($`t0.055`$ eV and $`t^{}0.058`$ eV ) with rather large $`U_{eff}/t8.2`$. This compound is close to the metal-insulator phase boundary because a small pressure around 0.05GPa drives the insulating to the superconducting phase. The ESR measurement of $`\kappa `$-(ET)2Cu2(CN)3 at ambient pressure as well as the susceptibility seems to suggest that the insulating phase remains nonmagnetic with broad structure of the spin susceptibility SaitoG . Very recent NMR data Kanoda  also suggest that the $`1/T_1`$ remains constant above 100K while it starts substantially decreasing below 50K and there exists no signature of the magnetic transition down to 1.4K so far. No indication of lattice distortion has been reported.

It is very attractive to relate these experimental results to our calculated phase diagram with the insulating phase without symmetry breakings, because the parameter values deduced from the band structure calculation correspond to $`t^{}/t=1.0`$ where we obtain large nonmagnetic insulating phase. In other compounds such as deuterated $`\kappa `$-(ET)2Cu\[N(CN)2\]Br, the first-order transition between a superconductor and an AF insulator is observed. These compounds have relatively small parameters $`t^{}/t0.50.6`$ Fortunelli . In our result at $`t^{}/t=0.5`$, there still exists nonmagnetic insulating phase. This discrepancy is speculated to be due to an oversimplification to the effective single-band model. In fact, internal degrees of freedom of dimer stabilizes metals more than insulator, while the geometrical frustration is relaxed by an assymetric distribution of electrons on a dimer and the AF order may not be suppressed strongly, which results in shrink of the nonmagnetic insulator phase. Necessity of multi-band models was also pointed out in different contexts Schmalian ; KurokiMatsuda . Quantitative analysis of this multi-band effect is left for further studies. If the AF and MI transitions become close, lattice distortion accompanied by the MI transition necessarily enhance the first-order nature also leading to the shrink of the nonmagnetic insulator.

The absence of strong AF correlations near the MI transition implies that the mechanism of the superconductivity seen in $`\kappa `$-(ET)2Cu2(CN)3 under pressure may not be directly connected with AF fluctuations. In our PIRG calculation, although the pairing correlations definitely remain short-ranged for $`U/t=3`$ at $`t^{}/t=0.5`$ and for $`U/t=4`$ at $`t^{}/t=0.8`$ and 1.0, the d-wave pairing correlations near the MI boundary does not show a good convergence which indicates the necessity of larger number of Slater determinants in PIRG for this quantity to get converged results, implying large quantum fluctuations. This will be discussed elsewhere.

We also point out, however, a fundamentally interesting region still waits for experimental realization: In ET dimerized compounds, stronger dimerization is required. More sophisticated realization of nonmagnetic insulator and metals near it in the frustrated lattice would be desired also in other materials.

In summary, we have studied the Hubbard model on anisotropic triangular lattice ($`t`$-$`t^{}`$-TH model). The ground state is obtained by the PIRG method, where the Hartree-Fock results are systematically improved to reach the true ground state. The phase boundary of bandwidth control MI and AF transitions in the parameter space of $`t^{}/t`$ and $`U/t`$ shows that a nonmagnetic insulator appears between these two transitions. Simple translational symmetry breakings such as flux phases remain short ranged and genuine Mott insulating state seems to be realized. We have pointed out that $`\kappa `$-(ET)2Cu2(CN)3 may belong to this category of the genuine Mott insulator within the available data. The degeneracy of the ground state as well as the spin excitation gap in the nonmagnetic insulator phase is an intriguing future problem to be clarified.

We thank K. Kanoda for valuable discussions. The work is supported by the ‘Research for the Future’ program from JSPS under grant number JSPS-RFTF97P01103. A part of the computation was done at the supercomputer center in ISSP, University of Tokyo.


text:
# QUASI FREE ²³⁸𝑈(𝑒,𝑒'𝑓) -CROSS SECTION IN MACROSCOPIC-MICROSCOPIC APPROACH

## I INTRODUCTION

A new aspect of investigations of quasi free scattering of high energy electrons (QF) has been opened with the study of decay channels of single hole states in the residual nucleus, created as a result of the QF process. Especially interesting is to study fission following a QF process. In this case we have an essentially single particle process in the first reaction stage, and an essentially collective process in the final reaction stage. The collective degrees of freedom are excited in the intermediate reaction stage due to the residual interaction.

This is a new kind of nuclear reaction which may allow to get unique information on the dissociation of well defined single hole configurations ( which we can select by coincidence $`(e,e^{}p)`$) into complex nuclear configurations, and its role in nuclear fission. In particular, to study the limitations associated with the predictions of the shell model based on the mean field approximation and residual forces for heavy nuclei such as 238U.

The new and most important aspect of this reaction is that, after knocking-out a proton or neutron, we obtain the heavy residual nucleus 237Pa or 237U in a single hole doorway state (see discussion below), which could undergo nuclear fission. Indeed, instead of dealing with collective doorway states, which are coherent sums of a great number of 1p-1h configurations ( a common situation, well-known giant resonances), these non-collective doorway states will be represented by only one, well defined, 1h configurations. The residual interaction mixes these 1h configurations with more complicated 2h-1p and 3h-2p ones and fission may occur either directly from 1h configurations, or, with some delay, from the mixed states (or their components). Since in the case of QF we have in the initial state only one configuration, the fission probability $`P_f`$ should be more sensitive to the individual structure of this initial state as compared with conventional reactions, where the effects of the structure are averaged out over many single particle states forming the doorway. The specific features of the quasi free reaction 238U $`(e,e\mathrm{`}pf)`$ may create a new situation when some of the single hole levels, which coincide in energy position and quantum numbers with the collective levels in the second well, have their fission probability enhanced and thus, the dependence on state structure should be favored, which is also a rather unusual and non-trivial situation.

The unambiguous extraction of single hole contributions is possible only in an exclusive experimental scheme (reaction $`(e,e^{}`$ $`pf)`$) This kind of experiment involves extremely thin targets (fission fragments have to leave the target with small energy losses), high energy resolution and coincidence between the final particles (to separate the single hole states) and has never been performed. The advent of high energy CW electron accelerators, combined with the development of high resolution facilities, opens the possibility of studying the fission channel for quasi free electron scattering in an exclusive experimental setup. The most suitable accelerator for this experiment is at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF).

Some integral properties of the quasi free electrofission could be studied in inclusive experiments: $`(e,f)`$  and $`(e,e^{}f)`$) . These works dealt only with the total issue of the QF contribution in electrofission.

The goal of the present work is the calculation of the quasi free $`(e,e^{}f)`$-differential cross section for $`^{238}`$U, based on the macroscopic-microscopic approach for the description of the quasi free reaction stage, and the statistical theory for an estimate of the fissility for single hole states in the residual nucleus. The comparison with available inclusive experimental data will serve to check the models used for the description of quasi free fission for heavy deformed nuclei.

## II PWIA SIX-FOLD DIFFERENTIAL CROSS SECTION

In the first order Born approximation, the electron with initial four-momentum $`k_{1\mu }=(\stackrel{}{k}_1,i\epsilon _1)`$ and final four-momentum $`k_{2\mu }=(\stackrel{}{k}_2,i\epsilon _2)`$ interacts with the target nucleus and transfers a virtual photon with four-momentum $`q_\mu =(\stackrel{}{q},i\omega )=k_{1\mu }k_{2\mu }`$ , leading to a final state with a knocked-out nucleon with $`p_\mu =(\stackrel{}{p},iE)`$ and a residual nucleus with $`P_{A1\mu }=(\stackrel{}{P}_{A1},iE_{A1})`$.

In the impulse approximation, a virtual photon interacts with a bound nucleon (proton or neutron) of four-momentum $`p_m=`$ $`(\stackrel{}{p}_m,iE_m),`$which exits the nucleus with four-momentum $`p_\mu =(\stackrel{}{p},iE)`$ without further interaction (no FSI). In the PWIA approximation $`\stackrel{}{p}_m=\stackrel{}{P}_{A1}`$ and the missing quantities (momentum and energy of the nucleon before interaction) can be defined from the energy and momentum conservation law in the following way:

$`\stackrel{}{p}_m`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q},`$ (1)
$`E_m`$ $`=`$ $`\omega TT_{A1},`$ (2)
where $`E_m=M_{A1}+mM_A`$ is the nucleon missing (or separation) energy , $`T`$ is the kinetic energy of the outgoing nucleon, and $`T_{A1}`$ is the kinetic energy of the residual nucleus. The momentum and energy of the virtual photon can be varied independently.

In the plane wave impulse approximation (PWIA) the six-fold differential cross section of the $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction in the Laboratory system has the following form:

$$\frac{d^6\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\mathrm{\Omega }_N\text{ }d\epsilon _2dE\text{ }}=pE\sigma _{eN}S(E_m,\stackrel{}{p_m}),$$
(3)
where

$$\sigma _{eN}=\sigma _{mott}\left(V_CW_C+V_TW_T+V_IW_I+V_SW_S\right)$$
(4)
is the off-shell electron-nucleon cross section, and $`S(E_m,\stackrel{}{p_m})`$ is the spectral function which defines the combined probability to find a bound nucleon with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p_m}`$ on the shell with separation energy $`E_m.`$

The kinematic functions $`V`$ in Eq. (4) can be expressed , neglecting the mass of the electron, in the following way:

> $`V_C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q__\mu ^4}{q^4}},`$ (5)
> $`V_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q__\mu ^2}{2q^2}}+\mathrm{tan}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _e}{2}}),`$ (6)
> $`V_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q__\mu ^2}{q^2}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{q__\mu ^2}{q^2}}+\mathrm{tan}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _e}{2}})},`$ (7)
> $`V_S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q__\mu ^2}{q^2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +\mathrm{tan}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _e}{2}}),`$ (8)
> and
>
> $`\sigma _{mott}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta _e}{2}}{4\epsilon _1^2\mathrm{sin}^4\frac{\theta _e}{2}}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\epsilon _1}{m_p}}\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _e}{2}})^1.`$

Above, $`\sigma _{mott}`$ is the Mott cross section, $`\theta _e`$ is the electron scattering angle, and $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the scattering plane and the plane defined by the vectors $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q},`$ $`\alpha =1/137`$ is the fine structure constant.

For the structure functions W in Eq.(4) we use the off-shell prescription of de Forest :

$`W_C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\overline{E}E}}\{(\overline{E}+E)^2(F_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}_\mu ^2}{4m^2}}\kappa _\text{ }^2F_2^2)q^2(F_1+\kappa _\text{ }F_2)^2\},`$ (9)
$`W_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}_\mu ^2}{2\overline{E}E}}(F_1+\kappa _\text{ }F_2)^2,`$ (10)
$`W_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\overline{E}E}}(\overline{E}+E)(F_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}_\mu ^2}{4m^2}}\kappa _\text{ }^2F_2^2),`$ (11)
$`W_S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma }{\overline{E}E}}(F_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}_\mu ^2}{4m^2}}\kappa _\text{ }^2F_2^2),`$ (12)
where $`\kappa _\text{ }`$is the anomalous magnetic moment of the nucleon in units of the Bohr magneton ( $`\kappa _p=`$ 1.793 , $`\kappa _{n\text{ }}=`$ -1.913),

$$\overline{E}=\sqrt{p_m^2+m^2}\text{,}$$
(13)
$`m`$ is the mass of the nucleon, $`\overline{q}_\mu `$ $`=(\stackrel{}{q},i\overline{\omega }),\overline{\omega }=E\overline{E},`$ $`\gamma `$ is the angle between $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q},`$ and $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are the on-shell Dirac and Pauli nucleon form factors, respectively.

$$F_1(q__\mu ^2)=\frac{1}{1+\frac{q__\mu ^2}{4m^2}}[G_E(q__\mu ^2)+\frac{q__\mu ^2}{4m^2}G_M(q__\mu ^2)],$$
(14)
$$\kappa _pF_2(q)=\frac{1}{1+\frac{q__\mu ^2}{4m^2}}[G_M(q__\mu ^2)G_E(q__\mu ^2)],$$
(15)
where for protons

$$G_E^p(q__\mu ^2)=(\frac{1}{1+\frac{q__\mu ^2}{0.71}})^2,$$
(16)
$$G_M^p(q__\mu ^2)=\mu _pG_E^p(q__\mu ^2)],$$
(17)
and for neutrons

$$G_M^n(q__\mu ^2)=\mu _nG_E^p(q__\mu ^2)],$$
(18)
$$G_E^n(q__\mu ^2)=\left|G_M^n(q__\mu ^2)\right|\frac{q__\mu ^2}{4m^2}(\frac{1}{1+\frac{5.6q__\mu ^2}{4m^2}}),$$
(19)
$`\mu _p=1+\kappa _p=2.793`$ and $`\mu _n=\kappa _n=1.913`$ are the proton and neutron magnetic moments in units of the Bohr magneton, respectively, and $`q__\mu ^2`$ in Eq.(16) is in (GeV/c)$`^2;`$

## III PWIA THREE-FOLD DIFFERENTIAL CROSS SECTION

In the independent particle shell model the spectral function for the spherical orbitals $`\alpha nlj`$ with binding energy $`E_\alpha `$ takes the simple form:

$$S(E_m,\stackrel{}{p_m})=\delta \left(EE_\alpha \right)\text{ }\upsilon _\alpha ^2\text{ }n_\alpha \left(\stackrel{}{p_m}\right),$$
(20)
where $`\upsilon _\alpha ^2`$ and $`n_\alpha \left(\stackrel{}{p_m}\right)`$are the occupation number and momentum distribution of the $`\alpha `$ orbital, respectively. The six-fold $`(e,e^{}p)`$cross section could be transformed into a five-fold one:

$$\frac{d^5\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\mathrm{\Omega }_N\text{ }dE}=pE\sigma _{eN}\upsilon _\alpha ^2n_\alpha \left(\stackrel{}{p_m}\right),$$
(21)
where energy and momentum conservation are imposed for the kinematic variables that appear in $`\sigma _{eN}`$

To obtain the three-fold $`(e,e^{})`$cross sections for each bound proton and neutron orbital we have integrated Eq.(21) over $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_N`$ using a Monte Carlo approach. For each fixed $`\epsilon _2`$ we calculate $`q`$ neglecting the recoil energy of the residual nucleus:

$$q=\sqrt{k_1^2+k_2^22k_1k_2\mathrm{cos}\theta _e},$$
(22)
and the kinetic energy of ejected nucleon:

$$T=\omega E_\alpha .$$
(23)
Then, we generate randomly and uniformly the directions of the ejected nucleon with respect to $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and calculate the corresponding momentum of the internuclear nucleon $`p_m`$. Finally, using the values of $`\upsilon _\alpha ^2`$ and $`n_\alpha \left(p_m\right)`$ (see below) we calculate

$$\frac{d^5\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\mathrm{\Omega }_N\text{ }d\epsilon _2}(p_m)$$
(24)
The three-fold $`(e,e^{})`$cross section was obtained as:

$$\frac{d^3\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\epsilon _2\text{ }}(\epsilon _2)=\text{ }<\frac{d^5\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\mathrm{\Omega }_N\text{ }d\epsilon _2}>4\pi $$
(25)
where the average five-fold cross section is

$$<\frac{d^5\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\mathrm{\Omega }_N\text{ }d\epsilon _2\text{ }}>=\frac{\frac{d^5\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\mathrm{\Omega }_N\text{ }dE_N\text{ }}}{N},$$
(26)
and $`N`$ is the number of Monte Carlo starts

## IV SINGLE PARTICLE BOUND STATES

The single particle bound state energies and momentum distributions were calculated in the framework of the macroscopic-microscopic approach using the BARRIER code .

The energy of the nucleus is given as:

$$E_{tot}=E_{LD}+\delta E_{shell},$$
(27)
where $`E_{LD}`$ is the macroscopic liquid drop part of the energy and $`\delta E_{shell}`$ is the shell correction, which describes the shell and pairing effects. Both shell correction and the macroscopic part of the energy have been calculated according to .

Axially symmetric nuclear shapes have been considered in the present work, and from these potential energy surfaces, the equilibrium (ground state) deformation parameters $`\epsilon `$ (elongation) and $`\alpha _4`$ (hexadecapolar momentum) have been calculated by minimizing the total nuclear energy ( Eq.(27)), obtaining thus, $`\epsilon =0.227`$ and $`\alpha _4=0.059`$.

An Woods- Saxon potential consisting of a central part $`V`$, spin-orbit part $`V_{SO}`$, and Coulomb part $`V_{Coul}`$ for protons was employed:

$$V^{WS}(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })=V(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })+V_{so}(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })+V_{Coul}(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })$$
(28)
The real potential $`V(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })`$ involves the parameters V0, $`r_0`$ and $`a`$ , describing the depth, radius and diffuseness of the central potential, respectively, and is expressed as:

$$V(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })=\frac{V_0}{1+exp\left[\frac{dist(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })}{a}\right]},$$
(29)
where $`dist(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })`$ is the distance between a point and the nuclear surface, and $`\epsilon `$ and $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ are deformation parameters.

The depth of the central potential is parametrized as

$$V_0=V_0[1\pm \kappa (NZ)/(N+Z)],$$
(30)
with the plus sign for protons and the minus sign for neutrons, with the constant $`\kappa =0.63`$.

The spin-orbit interaction is then given by:

$$V_{so}(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })=\lambda \left(\frac{h}{2Mc}\right)^2V(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\times \stackrel{}{p}),$$
(31)
where $`\lambda `$ denotes the strength of the spin–orbit potential and M is the nucleon mass. The vector operator $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ stands for Pauli matrices and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is the linear momentum operator.

The Coulomb potential is assumed to be the one corresponding to the nuclear charge $`(Z1)e`$, uniformly distributed inside the nucleus.

For the ground state deformation of 238U, small changes in $`\lambda `$ (spin-orbit potential strength) and $`r_{0so}`$ (spin-orbit potential radius) of the Chepurnov parameters are introduced in order to reproduce adequately the spin/parity of the levels sequence. Using single particle states obtained by this procedure, the quasiparticle states can be calculated for the first minimum region, providing spin, parity, energy and level spacing for the ground and some low–lying states. The quasiparticle spectrum was obtained by using the semi-microscopic combined method .

The potential parameters were chosen to give the best fit to the spectrum of single-quasiparticle excitations of the neighboring nuclei. The Hamiltonian matrix elements are calculated with the wave functions of a deformed axially symmetric oscillator potential. The wave functions $`\varphi _i`$ in the coordinate space are expanded into eigenfunctions of the axially deformed harmonic oscillator potential. From this expansion, we conveniently express the single particle Woods-Saxon wave function in momentum space. These single particle momentum distributions were averaged over the nuclear symmetry axis directions.The occupation probabilities were calculated in the framework of the BCS model . The results for the occupation number calculations are shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 2 shows 6 typical averaged momentum distribution for proton bound states.

## V FISSILITY

The quasi free knockout of nucleons leads to the excitation of the residual nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa,`$ in the case of $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction, and $`{}_{}{}^{237}U`$ for $`(e,e^{}n).`$The excitation energy $`E^{}`$(nucleus A-1) has two origins: holes in the shells of the nucleus A, which appear as a result of the knockout of nucleons, and final state interaction (FSI) of the outgoing nucleon.

The fast, quasi free reaction stage occurs at zero thermal excitation (ground state) of the initial nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{238}U,`$ and results in a single hole in one of the shells. This single hole configuration forms a doorway for a thermalization process which leads to the thermal excitation $`E^{}`$of the residual nucleus .

The thermalization is a complicate process which involves creation of new many particle-hole configurations in competition with particle emission and fission, and for some doorway configurations it might have non-statistical character, but, as a first guide-line for order of magnitude estimates we calculate the total fission probability (nucleus with energy $`E^{}`$ deexcites in several steps) using the statistical theory, both with and without taking into account the preequilibrium decay.

### 1  Thermalization without preequilibrium decay.

Firstly, we considered an extreme situation, by assuming that the residual interaction leads to thermalization and formation of compound nucleus just after the fast reaction stage, without any preequilibrium particle emission. In this case, the compound nucleus excitation energy is assumed to be :

$$E^{}=E_\alpha +E_f$$
(32)
where $`E_\alpha `$ and $`E_f`$ are the energies of the bound state (hole) and Fermi level, respectively.

For the calculations of the compound nucleus fissility we used the Bohr-Wheeler  and Weisskopf  models for the description of the evaporation/fission competition. A Monte Carlo algorithm  was developed for the evaporation/fission process which includes not only the neutron evaporation vs fission competition, but also takes into account the proton and alpha-particle contributions.

The Monte Carlo code for Evaporation-Fission  calculates, at the ith step of the evaporation chain, the fission probability $`F_i`$, and then chooses randomly which particle will evaporate (neutron, proton or alpha particle), according to their relative branching ratios. After evaporation, the mass, atomic number and excitation energy of the new residual nucleus are calculated. This process continues until the excitation energy available in the nucleus is not enough to emit any of the possible evaporating particles. At this point, the evaporation process stops, and we can calculate the nuclear fissility by the expression

$$W=\underset{i}{}\left[\underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}(1F_j)\right]F_i,$$
(33)
where

$$F_j=\frac{(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_f}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n})_i}{1+(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_f}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n})_i+(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_p}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n})_i+(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha }{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n})_i},$$
(34)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f,\mathrm{\Gamma }_n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_p,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha `$ are fission, neutron, proton and alpha-particle decay widths, respectively.

The probability for the emission of a particle $`j`$ is calculated within the Weisskopf statistical model . The level density for the initial and final nucleus are calculated from the Fermi gas expression.

The fission barriers were taken as $`6.13`$, $`5.2`$ and $`5.62`$ MeV and the neutron separation energies as $`5.78,5.12`$ and $`5.04`$ MeV in the first step for $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa`$ $`{}_{}{}^{237}U,`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{238}U`$ , respectively. These values reproduce the experimental data for Pf (see below).

For the other steps in the evaporation chain the fission barrier is calculated as,

$$B_f=C(0.22(AZ)1.40Z+101.5)\text{ MeV,}$$
(35)
where $`C=1\frac{E^{}}{B}`$ is the factor which take into account the dynamical effects , $`B`$ is the total nuclear binding energy, and $`E^{}`$ is the nuclear excitation energy.

The neutron separation energy was taken from  for the other steps.

Using the model described above, we have calculated the fissility for $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa,`$ $`{}_{}{}^{237}U`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{238}U`$ (figure 3, solid curves). The peaks observed in the fissility correspond to the opening of the fission channel in the daughter nuclei. In figure 3 the experimental data for the fissility of $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa`$ , $`{}_{}{}^{237}U`$ ( ) and $`{}_{}{}^{238}U`$ ( ,) are also shown by dark strips. Data for $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa`$ were obtained by extrapolation of the neutron to fission width ratios for $`Z=91`$ and $`A=230,231,232,233`$  to $`A=237`$ , using the empirical trend presented in Vandenbosch and Huizenga .

It should be pointed out that in our calculations of the fissility we assumed that the hole excitation energies for an A-1 nucleus correspond to the compound nucleus excitation energies (see Eq. (32)), that is to say, complete thermalization is reached without any preequilibrium decay. Such calculations could be considered as upper limits for the fissility.

### 2  Account of the preequilibrium decay

The calculation of preequilibrium decay ,  was performed only for $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa,`$ since the $`(e,e^{}p)`$-reaction gives the main contribution to the total QF cross section. We used the exciton model , ,  and the code STAPRE. In this model, the states of the system are classified according to the number of excitons $`n`$, which corresponds to the total number of excited particle $`p`$ and hole $`h`$ degrees of freedom, $`n=p+h`$. Starting from a simple configuration of low exciton number, the system is assumed to equilibrate through a series of two-body collisions and to emit particles from all intermediate states. The application of a two-body interaction to states of a $`(p,h)`$ configuration results in states with $`(p+1,h+1)`$, $`(p,h)`$, and $`(p1,h1)`$ excited particles and holes. The transition rates, which are taken to be averages over all states of a configuration, do depend on the number of excited particles and holes, and $`\lambda _+(n)`$ are the average rates for internal transitions from the $`n`$ exciton configuration with a change of exciton number by -2, 0, or +2.

The decay is described using the Hauser-Feshbach formalism. We have considered fission in competition with neutron and gamma emission.

The initial configuration in 237Pa, consistent with the proton knockout reaction for $`{}_{}{}^{238}U`$ initiating the statistical cascade, consists of one-particle at the Fermi level and one-hole in a bound state. Our calculations were performed assuming only an one-hole initial configuration of the l=0 partial wave alone. The particle at the Fermi level contributes negligibly to the equilibration process. The fission barriers, neutron separation energies and level density parameters were taken to be the same as those of the compound nucleus calculations in the previous section.

The exciton model fissility results for single hole states of 237Pa are shown in fig 3 by the dotted curve. We note that these calculations for fissility show a smoother behavior than that for the compound model. The preequilibrium particle emission removes some excitation energy before a equilibrium is reached reducing, therefore, the probability of opening new chances for fission.

## VI DISTORTION CORRECTIONS TO PWIA

An exact treatment of distortions of initial and final electrons and knocked-out nucleon waves, arising from the vicinity of a heavy nucleus, requires the solution of the Dirac equation for a large number of partial waves and is a hard special task. In the case of an inclusive quasi free reaction, the distortion corrections are averaged over directions of ejected nucleon and we will treat these distortions qualitatively in an effective way.

The main effect of electron wave distortions, produced by the attractive Coulomb potential of a nucleus, could be treated as an effective increase of the momentum transfer (effective momentum approximation (EMA) ). For the calculation of $`q_{eff}`$ we use the prescription of , namely

$`\stackrel{}{q_{eff}}=\stackrel{}{q}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3Z\alpha }{2\epsilon _1R}}){\displaystyle \frac{3Z\alpha }{2\epsilon _1R}}\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k_2}}{k_2}},`$

where $`R=1.2A^{1/3}`$ is the equivalent nuclear radius. The account of the Coulomb distortions in EMA reduces the cross section since it goes roughly as $`q_{eff}^4.`$

The distortions arising from FSI of an ejected nucleon with the residual nucleus was included in an effective way  assuming that the nucleon, propagating as a free particle, sees the energy dependent optical potential V, where V is the average depth of the real part of the optical potential in the region of space in which the initial bound state wave functions are not small (r$`<`$8 fm), and as a result carries an effective local momentum $`p_{eff}`$

We have used a phenomenological optical potential with significant dependence on the bombarding energy which is a result of the scattering data analysis over a large energy range. The theoretical model to account for this energy-dependence is based on nonlocal quantum exchange effects ,. Within this model, the nuclear interaction $`V_N`$ is connected with the folding potential $`V_F`$ through

$$V_N(R,E)V_F(R)e^{4v^2/c^2},$$
(36)
where $`c`$ is the speed of light and $`v`$ is the local relative speed between the two partners (proton/neutron and residual nucleus), and

$$v^2(R,E)=\frac{2}{\mu }\left[EV_C(R)V_N(R,E)\right].$$
(37)
The folding potential depends on the densities of the two partners in the collision

$$V_F(R)=\rho _1(r_1)\rho _2(r_2)u_0(\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{r_1}+\stackrel{}{r_2})𝑑\stackrel{}{r_1}𝑑\stackrel{}{r_2}.$$
(38)
The standard M3Y interaction “frozen” at 10 MeV/nucleon  has been assumed for the effective nucleon-nucleon interaction, $`u_0(\stackrel{}{r})`$.

Fig.4 shows the average potential depth ($`<V_n>)`$ as a function of the energy for protons (residual nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa)`$ and neutrons ($`{}_{}{}^{237}U).`$ This average depth effectively incorporates distortions connected with FSI and modifies the asymptotic nucleon kinetic energy:

The effect of the optical potential was introduced by replacing the momentum of the ejected nucleon by an effective momentum,:

$$p_{eff}=p\sqrt{1\frac{<V_n>}{T}}\text{ },$$
(39)
where $`T`$ is the kinetic energy of the ejected nucleon without FSI. This procedure was included in the Monte Carlo simulations.

We did not take into account distortions arising from a focusing of electron waves and from the imaginary part of the optical potential, since these effects are likely to compensate each other.

## VII  DISTORTION CORRECTIONS TO FISSILITY

The fissility $`P_f`$ for each proton and neutron bound state was calculated without and with the effect of FSI.

In the calculation without FSI we assume that the excitation energy of the doorway states is: $`E^{}=E_\alpha +E_F,`$ where $`E_\alpha `$ and $`E_F`$ are the nucleon binding energies for shell $`\alpha `$ and Fermi level, respectively (see tables 1,2) .To estimate the energy deposited by the ejected nucleon in the residual nucleus as a result of the FSI, we assumed that the losses of the nucleon kinetic energy ($`\mathrm{\Delta }T),`$ resulting from its passage through the imaginary part of the optical potential, are deposited in the residual nucleus and the excitation energy of the doorway states is $`E_{FSI}^{}=E_\alpha +E_F+\mathrm{\Delta }T,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=(1\mathrm{exp}(\frac{<W>\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\mathrm{}}))\frac{T}{2},`$ $`<W>`$ is the average depth of the imaginary part of the optical potential, which was taken from the systematics , and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the average nucleon flight time through the imaginary part of the optical potential.

This procedure to take into account the FSI was included in the Monte Carlo simulations. For each fixed transferred $`\omega `$ we choose randomly proton or neutron bound state numbers, and calculate $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ neglecting the recoil energy of the residual nucleus. Then, we generate uniformly the directions of the ejected nucleon with respect to $`\stackrel{}{q},`$ define the kinetic energy of the outgoing nucleon $`T`$ , and finally calculate $`E_{FSI}^{}`$ , the corresponding fissility, and the total $`(e,e^{}f)`$-cross section (see Eq.(40))

## VIII FINAL RESULTS

To check how physically reasonable the microscopic-macroscopic approach used for the description of QF fission is, calculations were done with the kinematics conditions of , which is the only available experimental data for the reaction under study.

Fig.5 shows the three fold quasi free PWIA cross sections for four proton orbitals of 238U at $`\epsilon _1=750`$ MeV and $`\theta e=37.5^0`$. It is seen that the cross sections show different spectral shapes, which is the result of differences in the momentum distributions for these orbitals. The maxima are shifted with respect to each other according to the differences in the separation energies.

The total $`(e,e^{})`$cross section is the incoherent sum of the contributions from all proton and neutron orbitals.

Fig.6 shows the total quasi free $`(e,e^{})`$ cross section for $`\epsilon _1=750`$ MeV and $`\theta e=37.5^0`$. The upper part shows the results of the calculations in PWIA, that is, without any corrections arising from the distortions of electron and nucleon waves in the vicinity of the nucleus, while in the lower part the distortions were considered (substitution $`qq_{eff\text{ }},`$ $`p`$ $``$ $`p_{eff}`$ ). The dark circles show the proton contributions, dark triangles - neutron, and light circles- total cross section. The hatched area shows the experimental data  after extraction of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance peak. It is seen that optical/mean-field distortions significantly reduce the cross section and slightly shift it to a lower $`\omega .`$ The calculations with distortions qualitatively reproduce the experimental data without any fitting parameters. All parameters used in the calculations were fixed at the microscopic stage.

The differential cross section of the $`(e,e^{}f)`$-reaction was obtained for each proton $`(p)`$ and neutron $`(n)`$ bound state $`\alpha ,`$ assuming an isotropic angular distribution for the fission fragments and taking the fissility of the residual nucleus as a factor $`P_f`$ :

$$\frac{d^5\sigma _{p,n,\alpha }}{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\epsilon _2d\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }_f}(\epsilon _2)=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{d^3\sigma _{_{p,n,\alpha }}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\epsilon _2}(\epsilon _2)P_f$$
(40)
The total inclusive quasi free $`(e,e^{}f)`$ cross section was obtained as a sum of proton and neutron contributions:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^5\sigma _{tot}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\epsilon _2d\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }_f}}(\epsilon _2)={\displaystyle \frac{d^5\sigma _{p,a}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\epsilon _2d\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }_f}(\epsilon _2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{d^5\sigma _{n,a}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\epsilon _2d\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }_f}(\epsilon _2)\text{ .}}`$

Fig. 7 shows the cross section for $`\epsilon _1=750`$ MeV and $`\theta e=37.5^0.`$ The upper part shows the calculation in PWIA with distortion corrections to the cross section (by using $`q_{eff},`$ $`p_{eff}`$) , but without correction of the fissility arising from additional excitation (FSI) of the residual nucleus. The lower part shows results similar to the upper part but with FSI corrections to fissility. Light circles in both parts of the fig. 7 show the results of calculations which take into account the preequilibrium emission, dark circles - without accounting of the preequilibrium emission, and the dark triangle with error bars show the experimental data. One sees a strong influence of FSI fissility corrections on the $`(e,e^{}f)`$ cross section, and the calculations with this effect taken into account agree with experimental data. The calculations without and with preequilibrium emission gave close results. Inclusive cross sections are not sensitive to the difference in the reaction mechanisms.

## IX CONCLUSIONS

We presented in this paper a theoretical study of the inclusive quasi free electrofission of $`{}_{}{}^{238}U.`$ The proton and neutron bound state characteristics were calculated in the framework of the macroscopic-microscopic approach, using the axially deformed Woods-Saxon single particle potential. The occupation numbers were calculated in the BCS approach. The differential cross sections for the quasi free scattering reaction stage were calculated in PWIA, using off-shell electron-nucleon cross section corrected for Coulomb distortions of electron waves, and FSI distortions for ejected nucleons. The corrected quasi free cross sections reproduce the experimental data fairly well.

The fissility for the single hole states of the residual nuclei was calculated with and without FSI in the framework of two approaches: compound nucleus model without the preequilibrium emission of particles, and the exciton model, which allows for the preequilibrium emission of particles. The account of the FSI corrections to fissility strongly increases it and the calculations agree with available experimental data for the quasi free electrofission of $`{}_{}{}^{238}U.`$

The calculations with and without the preequilibrium emission give close results, showing that in inclusive cross sections the effect of preequilibrium emission, averaged over all shells, become small.

In conclusion, the approach based on the microscopic-macroscopic description of nucleon bound states, in conjunction with the plane wave impulse approximation and mean field distortions, give adequate description of inclusive quasi free electrofission at GeV energy range.

## X ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors thank the Brazilian agencies CNPq and FAPESP for the partial support to this work, and the graduate student M.S. Vaudeluci for the help in the development of the Monte Carlo code.

## XI Table 1

n \[MeV\] $`\pi `$J  \[N nz $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\] n \[MeV\] $`\pi `$J  \[N nz $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\] n \[MeV\] $`\pi `$J  \[N nz $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\]    1 -33.685 1/2 1/2 \[ 0 0 0\] 23 -16.192 -3/2 3/2 \[ 3 0 1\] 45 -7.491 3/2 3/2 \[ 4 0 2\]  2 -31.397 -1/2 1/2 \[ 1 1 0\] 24 -15.490 -1/2 1/2 \[ 3 0 1\] 46 -7.195 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 0 0\]  3 -30.043 -3/2 3/2 \[ 1 0 1\] 25 -15.415 7/2 7/2 \[ 4 1 3\] 47 -6.277 5/2 5/2 \[ 6 4 2\]  4 -29.670 -1/2 1/2 \[ 1 0 1\] 26 -14.529 9/2 9/2 \[ 4 0 4\] 48 -6.189 -5/2 5/2 \[ 5 2 3\]  5 -28.141 1/2 1/2 \[ 2 2 0\] 27 -14.302 3/2 3/2 \[ 4 2 2\] 49 -5.348 -3/2 3/2 \[ 5 2 1\]  6 -26.630 3/2 3/2 \[ 2 1 1\] 28 -13.984 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 3 0\] 50 -4.827 7/2 7/2 \[ 6 3 3\]  7 -25.963 1/2 1/2 \[ 2 1 1\] 29 -13.111 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 2 0\] 51 -4.340 -7/2 7/2 \[ 5 1 4\]  8 -25.542 5/2 5/2 \[ 2 0 2\] 30 -13.091 -3/2 3/2 \[ 5 4 1\] 52 -3.949 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 2 1\]  9 -24.473 3/2 3/2 \[ 2 0 2\] 31 -12.383 5/2 5/2 \[ 4 1 3\] 53 -3.667 1/2 1/2 \[ 6 5 1\]  10 -24.025 -1/2 1/2 \[ 3 3 0\] 32 -11.735 -5/2 5/2 \[ 5 3 2\] 54 -3.465 -5/2 5/2 \[ 5 1 2\]  11 -22.836 1/2 1/2 \[ 2 0 0\] 33 -11.053 7/2 7/2 \[ 4 0 4\] 55 -3.417 9/2 9/2 \[ 6 2 4\]  12 -22.716 -3/2 3/2 \[ 3 2 1\] 34 -10.831 3/2 3/2 \[ 4 1 1\] 56 -3.051 -9/2 9/2 \[ 5 0 5\]  13 -21.614 -1/2 1/2 \[ 3 2 1\] 35 -10.388 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 4 1\] 57 -2.261 11/2 11/2 \[ 6 1 5\]  14 -21.292 -5/2 5/2 \[ 3 1 2\] 36 -10.280 -7/2 7/2 \[ 5 2 3\] 58 -2.207 -1/2 1/2 \[ 7 5 0\]  15 -20.333 -7/2 7/2 \[ 3 0 3\] 37 -9.794 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 1 1\] 59 -2.182 7/2 7/2 \[ 5 0 3\]  16 -19.621 -3/2 3/2 \[ 3 1 2\] 38 -9.301 5/2 5/2 \[ 4 0 2\] 60 -1.773 3/2 3/2 \[ 6 4 2\]  17 -19.254 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 2 0\] 39 -9.054 -9/2 9/2 \[ 5 1 4\] 61 -1.669 1/2 1/2 \[ 6 4 0\]  18 -18.229 -5/2 5/2 \[ 3 0 3\] 40 -8.356 -3/2 3/2 \[ 5 3 2\] 62 -1.553 -3/2 3/2 \[ 7 4 1\]  19 -18.189 3/2 3/2 \[ 4 3 1\] 41 -8.276 1/2 1/2 \[ 6 4 0\] 63 -1.459 13/2 13/2 \[ 6 0 6\]  20 -18.130 -1/2 1/2 \[ 3 1 0\] 42 -8.217 -11/2 11/2 \[ 5 0 5\] 64 -1.118 -3/2 3/2 \[ 5 1 2\]  21 -16.730 5/2 5/2 \[ 4 2 2\] 43 -7.624 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 3 0\] 65 -1.065 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 1 0\]  22 -16.416 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 3 1\] 44 -7.597 3/2 3/2 \[ 6 5 1\] 66 -0.393 -5/2 5/2 \[ 7 5 2\]

## XII Table 2

n \[MeV\] $`\pi `$J $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$\[N nz $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\] n \[MeV\] $`\pi `$J $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$\[N nz $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\] n \[MeV\] $`\pi `$J $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$\[N nz $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\]    1 -42.0542 1/2 1/2 \[ 0 0 0\] 31 -19.7288 -3/2 3/2 \[ 5 4 1\] 61 -9.3350 1/2 1/2 \[ 6 4 0\]  2 -39.0049 -1/2 1/2 \[ 1 1 0\] 32 -18.9901 7/2 7/2 \[ 4 0 4\] 62 -9.20000 11/2 11/2 \[ 6 1 5\]  3 -37.9568 3/2 3/2 \[ 1 0 1\] 33 -18.9635 3/2 3/2 \[ 4 1 1\] 63 -8.6428 -1/2 1/2 \[ 7 5 0\]  4 -37.6894 -1/2 1/2 \[ 1 0 1\] 34 -18.4784 -5/2 5/2 \[ 5 3 2\] 64 8.4314 13/2 13/2 \[ 6 0 6\]  5 -35.3282 1/2 1/2 \[ 2 2 0\] 35 -18.1710 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 1 1\] 65 -8.3129 -3/2 3/2 \[ 5 0 1\]  6 -34.0676 3/2 3/2 \[ 2 1 1\] 36 -17.7626 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 4 1\] 66 -8.2710 -5/2 5/2 \[ 5 0 3\]  7 -33.5860 1/2 1/2 \[ 2 1 1\] 37 -17.6098 5/2 5/2 \[ 4 0 2\] 67 -7.9719 -3/2 3/2 \[ 7 6 1\]  8 -33.1312 5/2 5/2 \[ 2 0 2\] 38 -17.1797 -7/2 7/2 \[ 5 2 3\] 68 -7.6257 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 0 1\]  9 -32.3233 3/2 3/2 \[ 3 2 1\] 39 -16.2814 3/2 3/2 \[ 4 0 2\] 69 -7.4628 5/2 5/2 \[ 6 3 3\]  10 -31.2577 1/2 1/2 \[ 2 0 0\] 40 -16.0693 -9/2 9/2 \[ 5 1 4\] 70 -7.4347 3/2 3/2 \[ 6 3 1\]  11 -30.9731 -1/2 1/2 \[ 3 3 0\] 41 -15.9987 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 0 0\] 71 -6.8936 -5/2 5/2 \[ 7 5 2\]  12 -29.7758 -3/2 3/2 \[ 3 2 1\] 42 -15.9048 -3/2 3/2 \[ 5 3 2\] 72 -6.1818 1/2 1/2 \[ 6 3 1\]  13 -28.9791 -1/2 1/2 \[ 3 2 1\] 43 -15.3084 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 3 0\] 73 -5.6980 -5/2 5/2 \[ 6 2 2\]  14 -28.5603 -5/2 5/2 \[ 3 1 2\] 44 -15.2725 -11/2 11/2 \[ 5 0 5\] 74 -5.5954 -7/2 7/2 \[ 7 4 3\]  15 -27.6884 -7/2 7/2 \[ 3 0 3\] 45 -14.7923 1/2 1/2 \[ 6 4 0\] 75 -5.5815 7/2 7/2 \[ 6 2 4\]  16 -27.2878 -3/2 3/2 \[ 3 1 2\] 46 -14.0318 3/2 3/2 \[ 6 5 1\] 76 -4.4142 -1/2 1/2 \[ 7 7 0\]  17 -26.2258 -1/2 1/2 \[ 3 1 0\] 47 -14.0081 -5/2 5/2 \[ 5 2 3\] 77 -4.3051 7/2 7/2 \[ 6 1 3\]  18 -26.0583 -5/2 5/2 \[ 3 0 3\] 48 -13.2796 -3/2 3/2 \[ 5 2 1\] 78 -4.2459 -9/2 9/2 \[ 7 3 4\]  19 -26.0283 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 4 0\] 49 -12.8670 5/2 5/2 \[ 6 4 2\] 79 -4.0132 9/2 9/2 \[ 6 1 5\]  20 -24.9930 3/2 3/2 \[ 4 3 1\] 50 -12.3859 -7/2 7/2 \[ 5 1 4\] 80 -3.9400 1/2 1/2 \[ 6 2 0\]  21 -24.5673 -3/2 3/2 \[ 3 0 1\] 51 -12.2367 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 2 1\] 81 -3.7016 3/2 3/2 \[ 6 2 2\]  22 -24.0164 -1/2 1/2 \[ 3 0 1\] 52 -11.6318 -5/2 5/2 \[ 5 1 2\] 82 -3.3495 9/2 9/2 \[ 6 0 4\]

23 -23.7133 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 3 1\] 53 -11.5394 7/2 7/2 \[ 6 3 3\] 83 -3.0797 -1/2 1/2 \[ 7 6 0\]  24 -23.7025 5/2 5/2 \[ 4 2 2\] 54 -11.2224 1/2 1/2 \[ 6 5 1\] 84 -3.0058 -11/2 11/2 \[ 7 2 5\]  25 -22.5412 7/2 7/2 \[ 4 0 4\] 55 -11.2192 -9/2 9/2 \[ 5 0 5\] 85 -2.8563 11/2 11/2 \[ 6 0 6\]  26 -21.8511 3/2 3/2 \[ 4 2 2\] 56 10.4881 -7/2 7/2 \[ 5 0 3\] 86 -2.6835 -3/2 3/2 \[ 7 6 2\]  27 -21.7120 9/2 9/2 \[ 4 0 4\] 57 -10.2634 9/2 9/2 \[ 6 2 4\] 87 -2.3053 3/2 3/2 \[ 6 1 1\]  28 -20.9447 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 2 0\] 58 -9.8951 -3/2 3/2 \[ 5 1 2\] 88 -2.2208 1/2 1/2 \[ 8 6 0\]  29 -20.6103 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 5 0\] 59 -9.8517 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 1 0\] 89 -1.9882 -13/2 13/2 \[ 7 1 6\]  30 -20.1878 5/2 5/2 \[ 4 1 3\] 60 -9.4457 3/2 3/2 \[ 6 4 2\] 90 -1.8461 5/2 5/2 \[ 6 1 3\]

## XIII Figure Captions

Fig.1. Occupation probabilities for the single particle bound states of $`^{238}`$U. Upper part corresponds to protons, lower to neutrons.

Fig.2. Typical momentum distribution for proton bound states.

Fig.3. Fissility for $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa`$ and$`^{\text{ }237,238}`$U. The solid (dotted) curve shows the results of calculations on the statistical approach without (with) account of preequilibrium particle emission. The dark strips show the experimental data (see text for details).

Fig.4. Average real potential depth as a function of the nucleon energy. The dashed curve corresponds to protons (residual nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa);`$ solid curve to neutrons ($`{}_{}{}^{237}U).`$

Fig.5. PWIA quasi free $`(e,e^{})`$ cross section for four proton orbitals of 238U and $`\epsilon _1=750`$ MeV, $`\theta e=37.5^0`$. The dark triangles correspond to n=1 (see table 1), light triangles to n=11, light circles to n=21, and dark circles to n=31.

Fig.6. Quasi free $`(e,e^{})`$cross section for $`\epsilon _1=750`$ MeV and $`\theta e=37.5^0`$. The upper part shows the results of calculations in PWIA, lower -with account of distortion corrections (see text for details) . The dark circles show the proton contribution, dark triangles - neutron, and light circles - total cross section. The hatched area represents the experimental data

Fig. 7. Total quasi free $`(e,e^{}f)`$cross section for $`\epsilon _1=750`$ MeV and $`\theta e=37.5^0`$ . The upper part shows the calculation in PWIA with account of distortion corrections to the cross section, but without account of FSI corrections to the fissility (see text for details). The lower part shows results similar to the upper part, but with account of FSI corrections to the fissility. The light circles show the results of calculations which take into account the preequilibrium emission, and dark circles - without accounting of the preequilibrium emission. The dark triangle with error bars represents the experimental data

## XIV Table Caption

Table 1. Proton single-particle levels of $`^{238}`$U. The Fermi level is the level 46.

Table 2. Neutron single-particle levels of $`^{238}`$U. The Fermi level is the level 73.


text:
# A Half-Composite Standard Model at a TeV and sin²{𝜃_𝑊}

## 1 Introduction

The one quantitative success of physics beyond the standard model (SM) is the prediction of the weak mixing angle by supersymmetric grand unified theories (GUTs) . Running the $`SU(5)`$ prediction $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=3/8`$  from the GUT scale to the weak scale in supersymmetric theories produces the measured value of $`0.231`$ within theoretical uncertainties. This requires the existence of a large energy desert above the weak scale. For a theory with a low cutoff, a different approach is necessary.

Recently, a new mechanism for predicting the weak mixing angle with TeV-physics was proposed . It leads to the unification of the two electroweak gauge couplings into their $`SU(3)`$-symmetric value, giving $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=.25`$ at tree level. Since this value is close to the experimental value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=.231`$ at $`M_Z`$, “SU(3)-unification” occurs at a few TeV .

In this paper we show how this mechanism can be incorporated in models with composite quarks and leptons. Specifically, we consider models with an $`SU(2)_R`$ gauge group that becomes strong and confines at around a TeV. The resulting composite fermions are all the right handed quarks and leptons of the standard model. All the models predict the correct value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ to within a few percent, provided that the compositeness scale is near a TeV – as motivated by the hierarchy problem. In general, it is difficult to analyze the spectrum of strongly coupled field theories, let alone predict any quantities to within a few percent. Yet, in the models we propose all the properties of interest can be reliably analyzed. One reason is that the strongly coupled phase of our models is “complementary” to the weakly coupled Higgs phase which can be studied within perturbation theory .

The crucial ingredient guaranteeing complementarity is that all the Higgs fields that develop VEVs are in the fundamental representation of the gauge group. As a result, the Wilson line is always screened by the Higgs field and does not discriminate the confinement and Higgs phases – leading to the conjecture that there is no essential difference between the two . In particular, the spectrum of massless composite fermions produced by the strong confinement dynamics is deduced by the much easier task of reading-off the massless fermions in the Higgs phase. An important check of this strategy is ’t Hooft’s anomaly matching condition. It states that any exact global symmetry spontaneously unbroken by the strong confinement dynamics, must have the same global anomalies in the infrared as it does in the ultraviolet. In others words, the anomalies of the of the unbroken global currents must be the same weather evaluated by using the elementary fermions or the massless composite fermions produced by the strong dynamics. Complementarity is a good strategy for looking for theories satisfying ’t Hooft’s matching conditions. We will use both of these tools to ensure that we indeed get the spectrum of the standard model in our theories.

In the section 2 we will discuss a minimal realistic composite model predicting $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$. In section 3 we will generalize it and we will conclude with experimental signatures in section 4.

## 2 The Strong Left-Right Model

Before we describe the model, we review the mechanism which predicts the correct low energy value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ with relatively small theoretical uncertainties.

Start with the SM, $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ with all matter and Higgs in their normal representations, and add an $`SU(3)_W`$ gauge symmetry. A single scalar representation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ connects the $`SU(3)_W`$ to $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ – it is a triplet of $`SU(3)_W`$ and has the Higgs quantum numbers $`(2,+1/2)`$ under the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$. A generic potential allows $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to get a VEV which breaks $`SU(3)_W\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ to the diagonal $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. If the gauge couplings of the original $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ are at least somewhat bigger than the $`SU(3)_W`$ coupling, then there is a large region in parameter space in which the low energy couplings reflect the $`SU(3)`$ symmetry up to a few percent correction . The symmetry insures that at the breaking scale $`M`$, the low energy gauge couplings approximately satisfy the $`SU(3)`$ relation $`g/g^{}=\sqrt{3}`$ or $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=.25`$ .

Now we gauge $`SU(2)_R`$. The full gauge sector of the model contains an $`SU(3)_W\times SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_{\stackrel{~}{L}}\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_X`$ symmetry. The fermion content consists of three generations of quarks $`q:(1,3,2,1,+1/6)`$ and $`q^c:(1,\overline{3},1,2,1/6)`$ and leptons $`\mathrm{}:(1,1,2,1,1/2)`$ and $`\mathrm{}^c:(1,1,1,2,+1/2)`$, which become the standard model content plus right handed neutrinos after left-right breaking.

We now describe the scalars and their roles in the breaking to the standard model when the theory is in the Higgs phase. First, it includes $`\varphi :(1,1,1,2,+1/2)`$, responsible for breaking $`SU(2)_R\times U(1)_XU(1)_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}`$. A field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:(3,1,2,2,0)`$ is responsible for breaking $`SU(3)_W\times SU(2)_{\stackrel{~}{L}}\times U(1)_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$, the electroweak sector of the standard model. This breaking results in the value $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W.25`$ when the Left-Right and $`x`$ couplings are somewhat large . Finally, the standard model Higgs field is contained in $`h:(1,1,2,2,0)`$.

Next we switch to the confinement picture by taking the $`SU(2)_R`$ gauge coupling strong. Since all scalars are in the fundamental representation of $`SU(2)_R`$ we expect complementarity between the Higgs and confining descriptions to hold. Physics below the confining scale looks like the standard model; this matches the physics of the Higgs picture below the breaking scale.

’t Hooft Anomaly Matching: While the tools of complementarity allow us to construct the theory in the infrared, we perform a non-trivial check that the low energy spectrum is correct via ’t Hooft anomaly matching . To do so, we find all of the global anomalies in the ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) and see if they are equal for the symmetry not spontaneously broken by the strong dynamics.

When the $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_{\stackrel{~}{L}}\times U(1)_X`$ couplings and all Yukawa couplings are turned off, there exists a global $`SU(12)_f`$ symmetry which transforms the 12 fermion $`SU(2)_R`$ doublets – three quarks and one lepton per generation – as the fundamental representation111Classically the symmetry is $`U(12)_f`$ but the $`U(1)`$ is anomalous.. This symmetry has a global $`SU(12)_f^3`$ anomaly with two $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}`$s contributing and no $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathrm{𝟐}`$s.

Turning off the gauge coupling of the $`SU(3)_W`$ along with any scalar potential couplings leaves a global $`U(9)_s`$ symmetry under which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`h`$ together form a nine-dimensional representation. We will number the $`SU(2)_R`$ doublets in these scalars as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\begin{array}{ccccc}& & \mathrm{𝟐}_𝐋& & \\ & (\mathrm{}& 1& 2& )\mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{𝟑}_𝐖& 3& 4\\ & 5& 6\end{array}`$
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ \mathrm{𝟐}_𝐋& (\mathrm{}& 7& )\mathrm{}\\ & 8\end{array}`$ (1)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`(9)`$
Because these global symmetries only rotate scalars, there are trivially no additional global anomalies beyond $`SU(12)_f^3`$ mentioned above.

Thus the full global symmetry of the theory at high energies is $`SU(12)_f\times SU(9)_s\times U(1)_s`$ and the matter content is the fermion doublets $`\{q^c,\mathrm{}^c\}\psi ^a`$ in the fundamental representation of $`SU(12)_f`$ and scalar doublets $`\{\mathrm{\Sigma },h,\varphi \}H^i`$ in the fundamental representation of $`SU(9)_s`$ and carrying a unit of $`U(1)_s`$ charge.

We postulate the existence of a pair of condensates due to the $`SU(2)_R`$ gauge coupling getting strong which breaks the weakly coupled gauge groups $`SU(3)_W\times SU(2)_{\stackrel{~}{L}}\times U(1)_X`$ to the electroweak group $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. This breaking is accomplished by

$`H^{}H`$ $``$ $`\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & 1& & 4& & & 9& \\ 1& (\mathrm{}& M^2& & M^2& & & & )\mathrm{}\\ & & & & & & \\ 4& M^2& & M^2& & & \\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ 9& & & & & & 𝒱^2\end{array}`$ (2)
$`HϵH`$ $``$ $`\begin{array}{cccccccc}& & 1& & 4& & 9& \\ 1& (\mathrm{}& & & & & M𝒱& )\mathrm{}\\ & & & & & \\ 4& & & & & M𝒱\\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ 9& M𝒱& & M𝒱& & \end{array}`$ (3)
where the $`SU(2)_R`$ indices are contracted and $`M𝒱`$. This is the vev that would arise by plugging in the vev for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\varphi `$ from the weakly-coupled version of this story.

The first of the condensates above break $`SU(9)_s\times U(1)_s`$ to $`SU(7)_s\times U(1)_s^3`$. The second breaks one linear combination of the $`U(1)`$s so the remaining global symmetry group is $`SU(7)_s\times U(1)_s^2`$. The low energy theory will contain the light scalars which are the goldstone bosons as a result of the symmetry breaking (though some will be eaten since a portion of these symmetries are gauged), and light fermions which will reproduce the global anomalies of the UV theory as required by anomaly matching .

In the IR we need to find composite fermions which produce the same anomalies in the global symmetries as those in the UV theory. The simplest set of composites, and their representations under the global $`SU(12)_s\times SU(7)_s\times U(1)_s^2`$ symmetry are

$`(H^iϵ\psi ^a):`$ $`(12,1,a,b)`$
$`+`$ $`(12,7,0,c)+(12,1,a,b)`$
$`(H_i^{}\psi ^a):`$ $`(12,1,a,b)`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`(12,\overline{7},0,c)+(12,1,a,b)`$
where $`a,b,c0`$.

The $`U(1)`$ charges can be understood as follows: The two unbroken $`U(1)`$s must act trivially on the non-zero elements in (3). If we diagonalize the matrix in eq. (2) using $`SU(9)_s`$ transformations making only the (1,1) and (9,9) entries non-zero, the other condensate (3) under the same rotation becomes:

$`HϵH`$ $``$ $`\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & 1& & & 9& \\ 1& (\mathrm{}& & & & M𝒱& )\mathrm{}\\ & & & & \\ & & & & \\ & & & & \\ & & & & \\ 9& M𝒱& & & \end{array}`$ (5)
Thus the unbroken $`U(1)_s`$ charges of the first and ninth components of $`H`$ (the $`SU(7)_s`$ singlets) must be equal and opposite. One $`U(1)_s`$ can be taken as a subgroup of the full $`SU(9)_s`$, and is therefore traceless. There exists a basis for the two $`U(1)`$s such that the charges chosen in eq. (4) are the most general set.

Now, to reproduce the $`SU(12)_s^3`$ anomaly of the UV theory, we need two and only two 12-dimensional representations of fermions. Therefore, anomaly matching requires that only the $`SU(7)_s`$ singlets can be the chiral matter in the low-energy theory. The remaining global anomalies must all vanish. This is accomplished by choosing two $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}`$s which are vector-like under the remaining quantum numbers. The choice is then just one of each linear combination of $`SU(7)_s`$ singlets with the same quantum numbers.

Finally, we need to indentify the quantum numbers of the composite fermions under the unbroken gauge symmetries. Since the unbroken $`SU(2)_L`$ acts trivially on the original UV fermions $`\psi ^a`$, then the composite fermions which are $`SU(7)_s`$ singlets will be $`SU(2)_L`$ singlets. The unbroken $`U(1)_Y`$ is a direct sum of the $`U(1)_X`$ generator and the $`T^8`$ generator of $`SU(3)_W`$ with the normalization $`T^8=diag\{1/2,1/2,+1\}`$ as it acts on triplets. The action of $`U(1)_Y`$ on the fermions $`\psi `$ and scalars $`H`$ is via the following representations of the generator, respectively:

$`diag\{({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),(\mathrm{}),(\mathrm{})\}`$
$`diag\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},1,0,0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\}`$
where we construct the fermion multiplet as $`\psi =\{q_1^{\alpha _1},\mathrm{}_1,q_2^{\alpha _2},\mathrm{}_2,q_3^{\alpha _3},\mathrm{}_3\}`$; the subscripts indicate generation number and the $`\alpha _i`$ are color indicies. We see that the $`SU(7)_s`$-singlet parts of $`H`$ (the first and last components) have hypercharges $`\pm 1/2`$ and thus the composite quarks have hypercharges $`1/21/6=2/3`$ and $`1/21/6=1/3`$ and composite leptons have hypercharges $`1/2+1/2=0`$ and $`1/2+1/2=1`$ giving three generations of $`u^c`$, $`d^c`$, $`\nu _R^c`$ and $`e^c`$ respectively. The low energy theory has exactly the fermion content of the SM plus three generations of right-handed neutrinos.

Fermion Masses: The light scalars will be the goldstone bosons associated with the breaking of approximate global symmetries. They can be defined as the variations around the condenstates (2) and (3). Nearly all of them can be described as variations around the first condensate:

$$\delta H^{}HU=e^{i\pi /M}$$
(6)
where $`\pi =\pi ^at^a`$ is sum over only the broken generators of the original $`SU(9)_s`$ global symmetry and contains two complex 7 representations of $`SU(7)_s`$ and a complex singlet. The 7 contains the Higgs and components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, some of which are eaten by $`SU(3)_W`$ breaking.

Without Yukawa couplings in the UV theory, Yukawas do not appear in the IR and an exact chiral symmetry leaves the fermions massless. If we introduce Yukawa couplings $`\lambda ^uqhq^c`$ and $`\lambda ^dqh^{}q^c`$ in the UV theory, we can treat $`\lambda ^qq`$ as spurions for global symmetry breaking. The global-symmetry-invariant operator becomes $`(\lambda ^qq)H\psi `$, where $`(\lambda ^qq)`$ transforms as a $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathrm{𝟐},\overline{\mathrm{𝟗}},1)`$ under $`SU(12)_s\times SU(9)_s\times U(1)_s`$. Using naïve dimensional analysis (NDA) , we estimate the size of the operators to be

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{g^2}\left[\frac{\lambda ^qq}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3/2}}U\frac{g\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3/2}}\right]$$
(7)
where we take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/g=\mathrm{\Lambda }/4\pi =f_MM`$. Thus when $`U`$ is expanded to first order, NDA gives a Yukawa strength in the IR equal to that in the UV – a result which agrees with what one would have expected from complementarity.

The theory is a two-Higgs-doublet version of the SM. If only the “up-type” Higgs gets a VEV, then the couplings $`\lambda ^uqhq^c`$, $`\lambda ^dqh^{}q^c`$ and $`\lambda ^e\mathrm{}h^{}\mathrm{}^c`$ in the UV theory produce the necessary charged fermion masses in the low energy theory. The neutrino masses would come from the coupling $`\lambda ^\nu \mathrm{}h\mathrm{}^c`$ thus requiring $`\lambda ^\nu `$ to be extremely small. This can be ameliorated if a singlet neutrino is added which couples as $`\lambda ^s\mathrm{}^c\varphi \nu _s`$ to the right-handed neutrino. With only this and the above Yukawa terms, there exists a massless neutrino state. A small Majorana mass $`m_s`$ for the singlet produces a light neutrino with mass $`m_s(\lambda ^\nu h/\lambda ^s\varphi )^2`$. This gives a symmetry reason for the existence of a small quantity – the fact that non-zero $`m_s`$ violates fermion number. This mechanism becomes more important for the case described below.

The resulting model in the IR is simply the SM in which all right-handed fermions are composite with a “pion decay constant” of $`M34`$ TeV and in which $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ is acurately predicted to order a few percent.

Theoretical Uncertainty: The main contributors to the uncertainty in the prediction of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ come from the, in principle, uncorrelated values of the $`SU(2)_{\stackrel{~}{L}}\times U(1)_X`$ gauge couplings. As discussed in a previous paper , these contributions are of order a few percent over a large region of parameter space in which their couplings are greater than unity. Another source is the unknown value of the $`SU(3)_W`$-breaking scale. If we assume it is in the few TeV range, motivated by theories which explain the hierarchy problem with a low cutoff, the uncertainty is again reduced to the few percent level.

The corrections to the value of the weak mixing angle from strong dynamics can be estimated by NDA and come in the form of operators such as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{g^2}\left[U\frac{g_i^2F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}\right]$$
(8)
where the gauge fields are $`SU(3)_W`$ or $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_X`$ fields, $`g_i`$ are their gauge couplings and $`U`$ breaks the gauge symmetry. From this operator, we estimate fractional contributions to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ to be of order $`(\alpha _i/4\pi )/g_W^2few\%`$. Thus, although this is a strongly coupled theory, a measured observable can be accurately predicted.

## 3 Variations

One obvious question is why not take the minimal module of $`SU(3)_W\times SU(2)_{\stackrel{~}{L}}\times U(1)_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}`$ and let $`SU(2)_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$ get strong. This model does in fact support complementarity and it can be shown via ’t Hooft anomaly matching that the gauge symmetry must be broken in the IR. The low energy theory is just the SM with composite left-handed fermions. In addition, there is one less theoretical uncertainty as the $`SU(2)_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$ coupling has been removed and only the extra $`U(1)_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}`$ remains.

However, this model is ruled out. If we make the very reasonable restriction that the $`U(1)`$ Landau pole is at least a factor of $`4\pi `$ larger than the breaking scale $`M`$, then the coupling $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{}<2`$. These values of the coupling decrease the value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ at the breaking scale $`M`$ thus requiring a smaller $`M`$ to reproduce the measured result at $`M_z`$. For $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{}=2`$, the measured value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ predicts a breaking scale of 1.1 TeV. The bounds on four-fermion operators from atomic parity violation measurements require $`M>34`$ TeV, with a slightly weaker bound coming from other operators. A more concrete number comes from LEP bounds on a SM-like $`Z^{}`$ gauge boson. The bound is from the elecroweak fit and is about $`M_z^{}>900`$ GeV. This limit, though, comes from virtual effects and so the coupling-independent bound on the $`U(1)`$-breaking scale is 900 GeV/$`g_z2`$ TeV.

These limits can be avoided by noticing that the leptons make up complete $`SU(3)_W`$ triplets. If we introduce three generations of vector-like leptons in triplet representations, $`L_i`$ and $`\overline{L}_i`$ with a technically natural small mass term and promote $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to the $`(3,2,1/2)+(3,1,1)`$ representation, then the couplings $`y\overline{L}_i\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{},e^c)`$ produces a mass for the leptons in the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ sector. The SM leptons now do not feel the strong dynamics or the coupling to a single $`Z^{}`$. Bounds on charged extra gauge bosons from LEP put a limit on $`M`$ of about 1 TeV due to the leptons coupling to the rest of the $`SU(3)`$ gauge multiplet. The strongest bound, however, comes from non-observation of muonium-antimuonium conversion which puts a limit of $`M>1.4`$ TeV and $`M>850`$ GeV at 90% and 95% C.L. respectively . Versions of the model where only one generation lives in a triplet may avoid these bounds. Four quark operators also put a bound on the breaking scale at $`1`$ TeV.

Another possible model is to put $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}`$ into the Pati-Salam group . The full gauge group is $`SU(3)_W\times SU(4)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$, a semi-simple group in which case charge quantization is guaranteed. The fermions are three generations of $`Q:(1,4,2,1)`$, $`Q^c:(1,\overline{4},1,2)`$ and $`\nu _s:(1,1,1,1)`$. These multiplets become, after Higgsing to the SM, the normal fermion content plus three generations of right-handed and sterile neutrinos.

The scalars are $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:(3,1,2,2)`$, $`h:(1,1,2,2)`$ and $`\varphi :(1,4,1,2)`$, where $`\varphi `$ is responsible for breaking Pati-Salam to the SM-like groups. The relevant global symmetries are $`SU(12)_f\times SU(12)_s\times U(1)_s`$ analogous to those in the left-right model. We postulate the existence of condensates similar to Eqs. (2) and (3) which break the global symmetries to $`SU(12)_f\times SU(10)_s\times U(1)_s^2`$. Again the SM is the IR field content (with extra singlet neutrinos) and the set of goldstones contains the Higgs scalar.

A new constraint due to the Pati-Salam group is on the Yukawa couplings. The couplings $`\lambda ^uQhQ^c`$ and $`\lambda ^dQh^{}Q^c`$ will eventually give Dirac masses to all the fermions in the IR, including the neutrinos. The neutrino masses are equal to the up-type quark masses with these Yukawas alone. Again, as in the left-right model, we add the coupling $`\lambda ^sQ^c\varphi \nu _s`$. If we don’t add Majorana masses for the singlets $`\nu _s`$, then the IR theory has a set of left-handed massless neutrinos. A small Majorana mass $`m_s`$ produces a small Majorana mass for the low-energy neutrinos of size $`m_s(m_q/M)^2`$.

The down-type quarks and charged leptons also have equal Yukawa couplings in the UV. However, at the scale $`Mfew`$ TeV, assuming just the SM particle content up to that scale, the bottom Yukawa is expected to be about 50% larger than that of the $`\tau `$. This discrepancy can be understood in the case when the theory has a low cutoff. Non-renormalizable operators of the form:

$$\frac{\lambda ^{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}Q^c\varphi \varphi ^{}h^{}Q$$
(9)
contribute to Yukawa couplings at the Pati-Salam-breaking scale $`M`$. If the $`SU(4)_c`$ indices on the $`\varphi `$s are contracted with the $`Q`$s, then this operator only contributes to the leptons. Otherwise, when $`Q`$s and $`\varphi `$s are contracted with themselves, the contribution is quark-lepton universal. If the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is around 30 TeV, these contributions can be as large as $`10^2`$, easily enough to explain the dicrepancy. As complementarity suggests, this should be true in the strongly coupled picture and we leave this as an exercize for the reader.

Besides charge quantization, a nice feature of this model is the reduction of theoretical inputs. Since the gauge coupling of $`SU(2)_R`$ gets strong and the $`SU(4)_c`$ coupling is fixed by the measured value of the QCD coupling, only the $`SU(2)_L`$ can be a significant unknown contribution to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ at the scale $`M`$. There is a large region in this coupling’s parameter space for which the contribution to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ is order a few percent. This can be seen by looking at the right-most boundary of the plot in Figure 2 of .

The examples of this section have fundamental scalars whose masses are quadratically sensitive to the cutoff. One option for avoiding this is a $``$ TeV-scale cutoff. Others are the possibility that the scalars are composite, or TeV-scale supersymmetry.

## 4 Experimental Signatures and Bounds

The models presented here have two ingredients: those responsible for the prediction of the weak mixing angle (such as SU(3)), and the strong $`SU(2)_R`$ sector. The experimental consequences associated with the first are the presence of a weakly coupled SU(3), an $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ with intermediate-strength coupling, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which bridges the two. These have already been introduced in reference . The new physics introduced in this paper is the $`SU(2)_R`$ force, which becomes strong at a few TeV and leads to composite right handed particles.

The main experimental bounds to compositeness come from limits on 4-fermi interactions. Parametrizing their coefficients as $`\frac{1}{M_c^2}`$, we obtain the following limits to $`M_c`$: Atomic parity violation limits the coefficient of the operator llqq, $`M_c4`$ TeV. The strongest bound on the four-lepton operator implies $`M_c3`$ TeV, whereas the limit on the four-quark operator gives $`M_c1`$ TeV (assuming left-left and right-right bounds are about equal). Naive dimensional analysis gives coefficients of the four-fermion composite operators that are of order $`\frac{1}{M^2}`$, where M is the analogue of $`f_\pi `$, leading to the identification $`MM_c`$. This shows that these constraints are consistent with the range of $`M`$ suggested by the weak mixing angle as well as the hierarchy problem.

In models where the leptons are in $`SU(3)`$ triplets they couple to doubly-charged gauge bosons and therefore are most sensitively probed by experiments which look for muonium-antimuonium conversion ($`\mu ^+e^{}\mu ^{}e^+`$). The current limits on V-A and V+A interactions are

$$G_{\mathrm{M}\overline{\mathrm{M}}}3.0\times 10^3\mathrm{G}_\mathrm{F}(90\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.)$$
(10)
These bounds already cover an interesting regions in parameter space. If higher muonium production efficiency can be achieved, the entire parameter space of most models could be probed.

Perhaps the most exciting signature of the $`SU(2)_R`$ force comes from its instantons. Since $`SU(2)_R`$ gets strong, the instanton amplitude is large – just as in QCD. It emits twelve fermions (nine quarks and three leptons), one for each right-handed doublet. At the LHC this will result in spectacular events with many jets and three leptons. The $`SU(2)_R`$ instantons can also mediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=\mathrm{\Delta }L=3`$ nuclear transitions, such as the decay of tritium or helium-3 to three leptons. The strongest bound comes from the decay of oxygen into a state which contains thirteen nucleons and three leptons; this is tested in the Super-Kamiokande water-stability experiment. Since the instanton is a dimension 18 operator, the rate is supressed by 28 powers of M and is adequately small.

The simplest theory with composite right-handed particles is the three-family $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_x`$ model, with $`SU(2)_R`$ getting strong near a TeV. This model does not have the new $`SU(3)_W`$ symmetry (so, it does not predict $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$), nevertheless it has all the signatures associated with composite right-handed particles –including $`SU(2)_R`$ instantons. The model is complementary, and it is straightforward to verify ’t Hooft’s matching conditions.

Acknowledgments: We happily thank David B. Kaplan, Ann Nelson and Leonard Susskind, and Neal Weiner for helpful conversations and comments. This work is supported by NSF grant PHY-9870115 and DOE grant DE-AC03-76SF00515.