text:
# Laterally-doped heterostructures for III-N lasing devices

## Abstract

To achieve a high-density electron-hole plasma in group-III nitrides for efficient light emission, we propose a planar two-dimensional (2D) $`pin`$ structure that can be created in selectively-doped superlattices and quantum wells. The 2D $`pin`$ structure is formed in the quantum well layers due to efficient activation of donors and acceptors in the laterally doped barriers. We show that strongly non-equilibrium 2D electron-hole plasma with density above $`10^{12}cm^2`$ can be realized in the $`i`$region of the laterally biased $`pin`$ structure, enabling the formation of interband population inversion and stimulated emission from such a LAteral Current pumped Emitter (LACE). We suggest that implementation of the lateral $`pin`$ structures provides an efficient way of utilizing potential-profile-enhanced doping of superlattices and quantum wells for electric pumping of nitride-based lasers.

Currently AlGaN and InAlGaN based heterostructures are of great interest for short-wavelength optoelectronic devices, i.e., light-emitting diodes (LEDs), laser diodes (LDs) and photodetectors, operating with radiation that covers the spectral range from green to deep-ultraviolet.  Development of light emitting devices in this spectral range is stimulated by a number of practically important tasks including highly-efficient lighting, high-density optical storage, stimulation of chemical processes, bio-medical applications, etc. Pumped by the electrical current, blue LDs and green-, blue-LEDs have been realized in InGaN/InAlN structures and are commercially available.  Efficient UV electroluminescence of AlGaN has also been observed recently.

Further improvement in the performance of group-III nitride based optoelectronics requires solution of an important problem - obtaining high-density hole currents in bipolar structures. It is well established that the difficulties in achieving high hole concentrations mostly come from the deep energy levels of known acceptors.

It has been shown  that in a p-doped superlattice (SL) the average hole concentration can be considerably enhanced due to high activation efficiency of in-barrier acceptors that supply the holes into quantum wells (QWs). The holes, however, are mostly confined inside the QWs where their concentrations can exceed $`10^{13}cm^2`$ The potential barriers that separate the QWs can be as high as 100 meV to 400 meV. These barriers hinder participation of the holes in the vertical transport typical for standard light-emitting devices. In this Letter, we propose to utilize the lateral transport of holes and electrons confined in group-III nitride QWs and SLs for high-intensity light emission.

The main element of the proposed structures is a single QW schematically illustrated in Fig. 1. The QW layer is confined by selectively-doped barriers. Each barrier is doped laterally, so that an initial region doped with acceptors is followed by an undoped (intrinsic) region and, finally, by the region doped with donors. Thermal activation of the dopants in the barrier supplies carriers into the QW layer. Since the nitrides form type-I heterostructures, the QW layer accumulates both types of free carriers which lead to the formation of lateral $`pin`$ structure. Such $`pin`$ structures can be fabricated by using re-growth techniques, position-dependent implantation methods,  etc. The contacts are to be made to $`p`$ and $`n`$ regions as shown in the Fig. 1(a).

The energy band diagram corresponding to an unbiased lateral $`pin`$ structure is shown in Fig. 1(b). The energy barriers separating $`p`$, $`i`$, and $`n`$ regions arise due to the formation of charged regions. Although the band bending is similar to that of a $`pin`$ homostructure, the charge regions in a multilayered system are formed differently. Indeed, for a $`pin`$ homostructure the local charge neutrality takes place in the $`p`$ and $`n`$ regions and the uniformly charged (depletion) layers arise at the $`pi`$ and $`in`$ junctions. In the planar multilayered structure, the barrier and QW layers are electrically charged in the doped regions. The quasi-neutrality occurs on average for any cross-section far from the junctions. For the cross-sections near the junctions, the average charge is not zero. This charge is responsible for the formation of potential barriers at the junctions. In a forward biased structure, the potential barriers decrease providing for an injection of confined holes and electrons into the $`i`$-region. This planar double injection gives rise to a non-equilibrium two-dimensional (2D) electron-hole plasma in the $`i`$ region. Radiative recombination of the plasma in the active region results in stimulated light emission. A SL arranged from QWs considered here will from an efficient souece of radiation - LAteral Current pumped Emitter (LACE).

For the case of vertical transport, the theory of double injection in the $`pin`$-homostructures and heterostructures is well developed.  It is based on a few well proven assumptions: (i) in electrically biased structures, the $`p,i`$ and $`n`$ regions are mostly quasi-neutral, and (ii) the charged (depleted) regions remain very narrow. The assumptions allow one to avoid a detailed description of the processes in the depletion regions. To expand this approach to lateral double injection, we need to analyze and compare the length scales characterizing the structure under consideration. These include different groups of the scales: the geometric scales - the QW layer thickness $`d_{QW}`$, the barrier layer thickness $`d_B`$, and the size of the $`i`$ region $`w`$; the kinetic lengths - diffusion lengths of the electrons $`L_n`$, and holes $`L_p`$ (in general, different for the $`p,n`$ and $`i`$ regions); and the lengths of screening of an electric charge by carriers $`l_{sc}^{n,p}`$. In light emitting devices the $`i`$ region should be extended: $`wL_n,L_p`$, where the macroscopic diffusion lengths are of the order of $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, while the screening lengths $`l_{sc}`$ are less than 10 nm.  Thus, we obtain the following inequalities: $`wL_n,L_pd_{QW},d_Bl_{sc}.`$

The lateral extensions of $`pi`$ and $`in`$ junctions are estimated to be less than, or of the order of, $`d_{QW},d_B`$. Based on the above inequalities, we conclude that the charged layers are very narrow and electron-hole recombination is negligible there. These estimates allow one to study the lateral double injection by the use of the Shockley approach.  We can consider the extended $`i`$ region as quasi-neutral with the carrier transport described by the bipolar drift-diffusion equations. Furthermore, the lateral electric fields inside the $`p`$ and $`n`$ regions are expected to be negligible (due to the uniformity along the x direction). In the narrow charged regions, we subject the equations to the relevant boundary conditions.

In narrow QWs, the electrons and holes are quantized and populate the lowest $`n`$ and $`p`$ subbands. Then, directing the $`x`$ axis along the QW, the equations for the bipolar plasma become:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dj_n}{dx}}={\displaystyle \frac{dj_p}{dx}}=R,`$ (1)
$`j_n=\mu _nnED_n{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{dx}},j_p=\mu _ppED_p{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{dx}},`$ (2)
where $`E`$ is the electric field; $`n,p`$ are the areal concentrations; $`j_n,j_p`$ are the flux densities; $`\mu _n,\mu _p`$ are the mobilities and $`D_n,D_p`$ are the diffusion coefficients for the electrons and the holes, respectively; and $`R`$ is the rate of recombination. We will label these parameters by the upper indices $`p,i`$ and $`n`$ for the respective regions. Equations (1) and (2) have the same form for all regions. In the $`i`$ region, the quasi-neutrality condition yields:

$$E=\frac{J}{e(\mu _p^{(i)}+\mu _n^{(i)})p^i}+\frac{D_p^{(i)}D_n^{(i)}}{(\mu _p^{(i)}+\mu _n^{(i)})p^{(i)}}\frac{dp^{(i)}}{dx},$$
(3)
where $`J`$ is the electric current density calculated per QW. The boundary conditions for Eqs. (1) and (2) are: $`p^{(p)}=p_0,n^{(p)}=0`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$; $`n^{(n)}=n_0,p^{(n)}=0`$ as $`x+\mathrm{}`$. The fluxes of minority carriers at the junctions are determined by the diffusion processes: $`j_n=D_n^{(p)}\frac{dn^{(p)}}{dx}`$ at $`x=0`$ and $`j_p=D_p^{(n)}\frac{dp^{(n)}}{dx}`$ at $`x=w`$. At the $`pi`$ junction, the hole concentration from the $`i`$ side \[$`p^{(i)}(0)`$\] and the electron concentration from the $`p`$ side \[$`n^{(p)}(0)`$\] are determined by the energy barrier $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ (of the $`pi`$ junction) and the hole concentration $`p_0`$ in the $`p`$ side of the structure:

$`p^{(i)}(0)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_pk_BT}{\pi \mathrm{}^2}}ln\left[1+e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}{k_BT}}\left(e^{\frac{\pi \mathrm{}^2p_0}{k_BTm_p}}1\right)\right],`$ (4)
$`n^{(p)}(0)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_nk_BT}{\pi \mathrm{}^2}}ln\left[1+e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}{k_BT}}\left(e^{\frac{\pi \mathrm{}^2p^{(i)}(0)}{k_BTm_n}}1\right)\right].`$ (5)
Here, $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Planck constant, $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`T`$ is the temperature, $`m_n`$ and $`m_p`$ are the effective masses of electrons and holes, respectively. Similarly, at the $`in`$ junction the electron concentration from the $`i`$ side \[$`n^{(i)}(w)`$\] and the hole concentration from the $`n`$ side \[$`p^{(n)}(w)`$\] are determined by the energy barrier $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ (of the $`in`$ junction) and $`n_0`$. The voltage drop across the structure $`V`$ can be found as

$$eV=E_G+E_{Fp}+E_{Fn}\mathrm{\Delta }_p\mathrm{\Delta }_ne_0^wE𝑑x,$$
(6)
where $`E_G`$ is the energy spacing between the electron and hole subbands in the QWs, $`E_{Fp}=k_BTln\left[exp\left(\frac{\pi \mathrm{}^2p_0}{m_pk_BT}\right)1\right]`$ is the Fermi level of the holes in the $`p`$ side of the device, and $`E_{Fn}`$ has the same meaning for the electrons in the $`n`$ side and can be calculated similarly.

For numerical estimates, we assume the linear recombination mechanism with the recombination time $`\tau _R`$ different in the different device regions. As an example, let us consider a GaN/AlGaN LACE. We set $`\tau _R^{(p)}=\tau _R^{(n)}=0.1ns,\tau _R^{(i)}=1ns`$ $`m_n=0.18m_0,`$ and $`m_p=0.8m_0`$, where $`m_0`$ is the free electron mass. Then we assume that $`\mu _n/\mu _p=20`$ and $`\mu _n=500cm^2/sV`$ and that $`D_n`$ and $`D_p`$ can be estimated using the Einstein relationship.  For $`T=80K`$ this results in the ambipolar diffusion length $`L^{(i)}=1.2\mu m`$, and diffusion lengths $`L_n^{(p)}=1.7\mu m`$ and $`L_p^{(n)}=0.4\mu m`$. The carrier concentrations $`p_0,n_0`$ are given in Table I. In Fig. 2(a) we present the distribution of the electrons and holes injected into the $`pin`$ structure. The data are obtained for $`w=3.6\mu m`$ and $`J=16mA/mm`$. In the quasi-neutral region, the concentrations are nonmonotonic with a maximum $`p_M`$ at the $`ni`$ junction and a minimum $`p_m`$ at the middle of this region. In the $`p`$ and $`n`$ regions, the minority carrier concentrations decay over the distances of about $`L_n^{(p)}`$ and $`L_p^{(n)}`$. The corresponding energy diagram is shown in Fig. 2(b). The potential barriers at the junctions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ are finite and decrease with increasing in current. For example, the $`pi`$ junction barrier vanishes first at $`J=188mA/mm`$. The built-in potential related to the diffusion field of Eq. (3) facilitates spreading of ’slow’ holes through the extended $`i`$ region. The total voltage drop across the $`pin`$ structure with 5-$`nm`$ QWs is $`4.22V`$.

Data collected in Table I for GaN and InN QWs allow one to conclude that under the planar double injection, high densities of electron-hole plasma - above $`10^{12}cm^2`$ \- can be achieved. For 5-$`nm`$ QWs, the radiative recombination of the plasma will produce light emission centered at $`344nm`$ and $`587nm`$ for GaN and InN QWs, respectively; the wavelength can be scaled readily to the deep-ultraviolet range by using AlGaN or AlGaInN LACEs. Our calculations show that under lateral injection, the interband population inversion occurs across the entire $`i`$ region for all cases presented in Table I. The population inversion can be reached at quite modest currents and biases. For instance, in a GaN-based LACE with ten QWs, a strip of area of $`100\times 3.6\mu m^2`$ can be inverted in currents less than $`16mA`$ at $`T=80K`$ \[Fig. 2(b)\].

In conclusion, contemporary group-III nitride technology allows fabrication of novel structures for light emitters - laterally, selectively doped QWs and SLs. In such sructures, planar $`pin`$ regions with high concentrations of 2D electrons and holes are formed and highly-efficient double injection occurs when a bias is applied along the QWs. This results in high densities of 2D electron-hole plasma in an extended $`i`$ region and population inversion of the conduction and valence bands. We suggest that planar double injection that occurs in LACEs is an efficient method for electrical pumping of short-wavelength nitride-based lasers.

This work was supported in part by the US Army Research Office.

Table I. Parameters characterizing the lateral double injection in the nitride-based $`pin`$ structures with (a) $`p_0=n_0/2=5\times 10^{12}cm^2`$ and (b) $`p_0=n_0=10^{13}cm^2`$. U/e is the applied voltage.

| QW | $`T`$ | J | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ | U | $`p_m`$ | $`p_M`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Material | $`K`$ | mA/mm |  | $`meV`$ |  | $`10^{12}`$ | $`cm^2`$ |
| GaN |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| (a) | 80 | 16 | 11 | 92 | 66.6 | 0.9 | 2.3 |
| (b) | 250 | 80 | 20 | 42 | 284 | 2 | 6 |
| InN |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| (a) | 80 | 37 | 12 | 153 | 74 | 1 | 2.9 |
| (b) | 300 | 110 | 27 | 73 | 285 | 2.4 | 6.6 |


format: text

text:
# STRESS ENERGY TENSOR IN 𝐂=0 LOGARITHMIC CONFORMAL FIELD THEORY

## 1 Introduction

The study of conformal invariance in two dimensions has been an extremely interesting and fruitful area of research for the last twenty years.

During the last ten years an interesting class of conformal field theories (CFTs) has emerged called logarithmic conformal field theories (LCFTs). In Ref.  the concept of LCFT was introduced and the presence of logarithmic structure in the operator product expansion was explained by the indecomposable representations that can occur in the fusion of primary operators. These occur when there are fields with degenerate scaling dimensions having a Jordan block structure. It was shown that in any LCFT one of these degenerate fields becomes a zero norm state coupled to a logarithmic partner. This together with another property – extra (hidden) symmetries, coming from extra conserved currents in our theory, will be important for our analysis of the stress-energy tensor structure in LCFT. The above-mentioned hidden symmetry means that there are extra fields with integer conformal dimensions. One can even get extra states with zero dimension which means that we have a theory with a non-trivial vacuum. These operators play a prominent role in the Quantum-Hall effect, In this case the descendents of this extra zero dimension operator may form logarithmic pairs with currents or higher dimension fields. It is therefore interesting to see what will happen in the case of the stress tensor itself – can it have logarithmic partners or not? – and will these partners be primary fields or descendents.

In our previous paper  we addressed this issue and suggested some kind of classification for LCFT based on the structure of the vacuum and the character of the degeneracy of the stress-energy tensor. In particular the structure of the partners to $`T`$ in LCFTs with non-zero central charge and LCFTs with zero central charge behave very differently. The second class, $`c=0`$ theories, are a very special sub-class of LCFTs. They are of utmost importance for both disordered systems and critical strings. We showed that at $`c=0`$ in order to get a non-trivial theory there must exist a state which is orthogonal to $`T`$ and is *not* a descendant of any other field. There could of course also be other states which are descendants but these are not required by general arguments. The appearance of such a state is characterised by at least two coefficients when we restricted ourselves to holomorphic sector only. In Ref.  we discussed the arguments presented in Refs.  \-  concerning the existence of a logarithmic partner $`t`$ for the stress-energy tensor. In particular the emergence of logarithmic behaviour is not universal if we can decompose the theory into a sum of non-interacting sectors. It is the mixing between these sectors which makes the theory logarithmic. This issue was previously discussed in string theory with a ghost-matter mixing term.

In Ref.  only the holomorphic sector was considered. Here we shall include the antiholomorphic sector for $`c=0`$ and demonstrate how these become non-trivially mixed.

## 2 General properties of logarithmic operators

In LCFT there are logarithmic terms in some correlation functions but the theories are nonetheless compatible with conformal invariance. An LCFT appears when several operators, or their descendents , become degenerate. Here we shall discuss the simplest situation in which only two operators become degenerate and form a logarithmic pair, denoted by $`C`$ and $`D`$. The OPE of the stress-energy tensor T with the logarithmic operators $`C`$ and $`D`$ is non-trivial and involves mixing

$`T(z)C(w,\overline{w})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{(zw)^2}}C(w,\overline{w})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)}}_zC+\mathrm{},`$ (1)
$`T(z)D(w,\overline{w})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{(zw)^2}}D(w,\overline{w})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)^2}}C(w,\overline{w})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)}}_zD+\mathrm{},`$
where $`h`$ is the conformal dimension of the operators with respect to the holomorphic stress-energy tensor $`T(z)`$. The OPE with $`\overline{T}`$ has the same form but with $`\overline{h}`$ instead of $`h`$; as usual the scaling dimension is $`h+\overline{h}`$ and the spin of the field is $`h\overline{h}`$.

It is a consequence of Eq. (1) that under a conformal transformation $`zw=z+ϵ(z)`$ the logarithmic pair is transformed as

$`\delta C`$ $`=`$ $`_zϵ(z)hC+ϵ(z)_zC+\mathrm{},`$
$`\delta D`$ $`=`$ $`_zϵ(z)(hD+C)+ϵ(z)_zD+\mathrm{},`$ (2)
which can be written globally as

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}C(z,\overline{z})\\ D(z,\overline{z})\end{array}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{z}}\right)^{\left(\begin{array}{cc}h& 0\\ 1& h\end{array}\right)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{w}}{\overline{z}}}\right)^{\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{h}& 0\\ 1& \overline{h}\end{array}\right)}\left(\begin{array}{c}C(w,\overline{w})\\ D(w,\overline{w})\end{array}\right).`$ (11)
One can see that even holomorphic (antiholomorphic) fields with dimensions $`(h,0)`$ or $`(0,\overline{h})`$ are transformed under the action of both $`T`$ and $`\overline{T}`$, i.e. there is some sort of holomorphic anomaly for logarithmic pair.

From this conformal transformation one can derive the full two point functions for the logarithmic pair

$`C(x,\overline{x})D(y,\overline{y})`$ $`=`$ $`C(y,\overline{y})D(x,\overline{x})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _D}{(xy)^{2h}(\overline{x}\overline{y})^{2\overline{h}}}},`$
$`D(x,\overline{x})D(y,\overline{y})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(xy)^{2h}(\overline{x}\overline{y})^{2\overline{h}}}}\left(2\alpha _D\mathrm{ln}|xy|+\alpha _D^{}\right),`$
$`C(x,\overline{x})C(y,\overline{y})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (12)
where the constant $`\alpha _D`$ is determined by the normalization of the $`D`$ operator and the constant $`\alpha _D^{}`$ can be changed by the redefinition $`DD+C`$. Note that Eq. (12) is absolutely universal and valid in any number of dimensions, because only the global properties of conformal symmetry were used to derive it. One can easily generalize these formulas to the case when there are $`n`$ degenerate fields and the Jordan cell is given by an $`n\times n`$ matrix, in which case the maximal power of the logarithm will be $`\mathrm{ln}^{n1}z`$.

## 3 Towards the classification of LCFT

LCFTs can be naturally divided into classes based on the dimension of the Jordan blocks involved. Here we shall concentrate on the case of rank 2 (one logarithmic partner) however it is obvious that our results will generalise to higher rank Jordan cells. It is perhaps still an interesting problem to understand if there can be a more complicated structure at higher rank.

These theories can be further grouped, as we shall show, into four distinct categories in which the stress tensor and its partners have different structures:

* $`c=0`$ Theories

+ 0A: Non-degenerate vacua ($`SU(2)_0`$, Disordered Models)
    + 0B: Degenerate vacua ($`OSp(2|2)_k`$ for certain $`k`$)
* $`c0`$ Theories

+ IA: Non-degenerate vacua
    + IB: Degenerate vacua ($`c_{p,1}`$).

Throughout this paper we use the notation that non-degenerate and degenerate refer to the single vacuum and the vacuum with logarithmic pair respectively. There may also be other primaries at $`h=0`$ with a trivial Jordan cell structure and we do not consider this possibility here.

Only in the case of the $`c_{p,1}`$ models  and in particular the $`c=2`$ triplet model has the structure of the theory been fully elucidated . For the others some of the structure is known from explicit correlation functions. As far as we are aware there has been no examples of type IA in the literature. It is easy to see that a logarithmic partner for $`T`$ can only exist in cases $`0A`$, $`0B`$, $`IB`$ by the following simple arguments.

If $`T`$ has a logarithmic partner then $`T`$ itself must be a zero norm state

$`T(z)T(w)=0.`$ (13)
Now consider the standard OPE for the stress tensor

$`T(z)T(w){\displaystyle \frac{cI}{2(zw)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2T(w)}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{T(w)}{zw}}+\mathrm{}`$ (14)
where $`I`$ is the identity operator. For consistency with (13) we see that we must have

$`cI=c0|I|0=c0|0=0.`$ (15)
For $`c0`$ this implies that the vacuum $`|0`$ must have zero norm and thus must be part of a logarithmic pair which excludes case IA. Thus partners to the stress tensor $`T`$ cannot occur in type IA theories. For this reason in the next section when discussing non-degenerate vacua we shall only discuss the case of $`c=0`$.

## 4 Non-degenerate vacua and $`𝐜0`$ limit

### 4.1 $`c=0`$ catastrophe

Here we review the construction given in Refs. , , .

For a primary field of conformal dimension $`h`$ we use the normalisation

$`V(z_1,\overline{z}_1)V(z_2,\overline{z}_2)={\displaystyle \frac{A}{z_{12}^{2h}\overline{z}_{12}^{2\overline{h}}}}.`$ (16)
Then we consider the correlator

$`T(z)V(z_1,\overline{z}_1)V(z_2,\overline{z}_2)={\displaystyle \frac{Ah}{(zz_1)^2(zz_2)^2z_{12}^{2h2}\overline{z}_{12}^{2\overline{h}}}}.`$ (17)
The coefficient of the three point function is uniquely fixed by considering the limit $`zz_1`$ and using the property of a primary field,

$`T(z)V(w,\overline{w}){\displaystyle \frac{hV(w,\overline{w})}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V(w,\overline{w})}{zw}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (18)
Of course we have similar results following from insertions of $`\overline{T}(\overline{z})`$ in the correlator and we have taken $`h=\overline{h}`$ for simplicity. We now use

$`T(z)T(0)={\displaystyle \frac{c}{2z^4}},0|I|0={\displaystyle \frac{c}{2z^4}};0|0=1,`$ (19)
and are explicitly using the fact that the identity field has non-zero norm. If $`T`$ is the only $`h=2`$ field present in our model we can deduce

$`V(z,\overline{z})V(0,0){\displaystyle \frac{A(c)}{z^{2h}\overline{z}^{2h}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{2h}{c}}z^2T(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{h}}{c}}\overline{z}^2\overline{T}(0)+\mathrm{}\right].`$ (20)
We have also assumed $`c=\overline{c}`$. Clearly for $`c=0`$ if $`A(0)0`$ then the above OPE becomes ill-defined. However suppose that as $`c`$ approaches zero there is another spin $`0`$ field $`X`$ with dimension $`(2+\alpha ,\alpha )`$ and approaches $`(2,0)`$. For most of the following we shall concentrate on the operators with dimensions that converge to $`(2,0)`$ however a similar pattern occurs for the $`(0,2)`$ operators. Then for $`c0`$ we have

$`V(z,\overline{z})V(0,0){\displaystyle \frac{A(c)}{z^{2h}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{2h}{c}}z^2T(0)+2X(0,0)z^{2+\alpha (c)}\overline{z}^{\alpha (c)}+\mathrm{}\right].`$ (21)
Our starting point will be the two point functions for $`c0`$. Non-chiral fields $`X(z,\overline{z})`$, $`\overline{X}(z,\overline{z})`$ are of dimensions $`(2+\alpha ,\alpha )`$ and $`(\alpha ,2+\alpha )`$, respectively. The only non-trivial 2-point correlators (up to relation by conjugation) are

$`T(z_1)T(z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{z_{12}^4}},`$ (22)
$`X(z_1,\overline{z}_1)X(z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{B(c)}{z_{12}^{4+2\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{12}^{2\alpha (c)}}},`$ (23)
where we used the fact that $`T(z_1)X(z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$ vanishes as they have different dimensions. We have exactly the same relations for the fields related by conjugation. We define the new fields $`t`$, $`\overline{t}`$ via

$`t={\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X,\overline{t}={\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}\overline{T}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}\overline{X}.`$ (24)
The parameter $`b`$ is defined through

$`b^1\underset{c0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (c)}{c}}=\alpha ^{}(0).`$ (25)
We can now calculate the two point function,

$`T(z_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`T(z_1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_2,\overline{z}_2)={\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T(z_1)T(z_2)`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_{12}^4}}.`$
Also,

$`t(z_1,\overline{z}_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_1,\overline{z}_1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{c^2}}T(z_1)T(z_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{h^2}}X(z_1,\overline{z}_1)X(z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{2c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_{12}^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2B(c)}{h^2c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_{12}^{4+2\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{12}^{2\alpha (c)}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{2c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_{12}^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2B(c)}{h^2c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_{12}^4}}\left(12\alpha (c)\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2+\mathrm{}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_{12}^4}}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{2c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2B(c)}{h^2c}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2b^2B(c)\alpha (c)}{h^2c}}\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2+\mathrm{}\right\}.`$
As this is to be well defined we see that we must have $`B(c)=\frac{1}{2}h^2+B_1c+O(c^2)`$. Now using (25) we get the standard OPEs for a logarithmic pair,

$`T(z_1)T(z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`T(z_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2z_{12}^4}},`$ (28)
$`t(z_1,\overline{z}_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B_1b\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2}{z_{12}^4}}.`$
As discussed earlier $`B_1`$ can be removed by a redefinition of $`t`$ and we shall assume that this has been done. Note that although $`t`$ is a $`(2,0)`$ field it is not chiral as $`\overline{}t0`$. We have similar expressions for the correlation functions related to these by conjugation. Also,

$`T(z_1)\overline{t}(z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`T(z_1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_2,\overline{z}_2)=0,`$ (29)
$`t(z_1,\overline{z}_1)\overline{t}(z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_1,\overline{z}_1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_2,\overline{z}_2)=0.`$ (30)
The OPE (21) now becomes,

$`V(z,\overline{z})V(0,0){\displaystyle \frac{A(0)}{z^{2h}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{2h}{b}}z^2\left(T\mathrm{ln}|z|+t\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2h}{b}}\overline{z}^2\left(\overline{T}\mathrm{ln}|z|+\overline{t}\right)+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (31)
which now only involves quantities that are perfectly well defined in the limit as $`c0`$.

We can now continue and insist that $`t`$ is also well defined in the three point functions (See Appendix). Assuming now that the algebra closes these are then sufficient to determine the OPEs. These are,

$`T(z_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2){\displaystyle \frac{b}{2z_{12}^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)+T(z_2)}{z_{12}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)}{z_{12}}}+\mathrm{},`$ (32)
$`T(z_1)\overline{t}(z_2,\overline{z}_2){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{T}(\overline{z}_2)}{z_{12}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{t}(z_2,\overline{z}_2)}{z_{12}}}+\mathrm{},`$ (33)
$`t(z_1,\overline{z}_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2){\displaystyle \frac{b\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2}{z_{12}^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_{12}^2}}[(14\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{2a}{b}}\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^22\mathrm{ln}^2|z_{12}|^2)T(z_2)]`$ (34)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{z}_{12}^2}{z_{12}^4}}\left[\overline{t}(z_2,\overline{z}_2)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2f}{b}}+\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2\right)\overline{T}(\overline{z}_2)\right]+\mathrm{},`$
$`t(z_1,\overline{z}_1)\overline{t}(z_2,\overline{z}_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{z}_{12}^2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{2f}{b}}\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2\right)T(z_2)+\mathrm{}\right]`$ (35)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_{12}^2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{2f}{b}}\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2\right)\overline{T}(\overline{z}_2)+\mathrm{}\right].`$
The appearance of a state $`|t=t|0`$ in this way is equivalent to postulating a logarithmic partner for the null vector $`T`$. This prevents $`T`$ from decoupling despite the fact that it is a zero-norm state. Note that once one fixes

$`L_0|t`$ $`=`$ $`2|t+|T,`$ (36)
$`\overline{L}_0|t`$ $`=`$ $`|T`$ (37)
then the parameter $`b`$ cannot be removed by rescaling and thus different values of $`b`$ correspond to inequivalent representations.

Let us note that in our notation parameter $`b`$ is different by a factor of 2 from a definition given in Ref. . We also want to stress that the $`t(z)t(0)`$ OPE is determined by several parameters, not by only $`b`$ as in Ref. . The constant terms $`\frac{2a}{b}`$, $`\frac{2f}{b}`$ cannot be removed by scale transformation – one can absorb it in $`\mathrm{ln}|z|`$ term, but not into $`\mathrm{ln}^2|z|`$. One of the important open problems is to find if the classification of all $`c=0`$ theories of this type can be reduced to the classification of all possible triplets $`(a,b,f)`$. The parameter $`a`$ cannot be determined from singular terms in (31), but only from the full 3-point functions of $`(T,t)`$ pair (see Appendix).

### 4.2 $`c=0`$ and separability

There is a third rather trivial way out of the paradox at $`c=0`$. It is simply that the full theory is constructed from two parts $`T=T_1T_2,c=c_1+c_2=0`$ both having $`c_i0`$. Then in the OPE of two fields from one part we will only see the stress tensor for that part rather than the full one. Operators in the full theory are just the direct product $`V=V_1V_2`$. Then (writing only the holomorphic part)

$`V(z)V(0)=V_1(z)V_1(0)V_2(z)V_2(0)`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^{2h_1}}}\left(1+z^2{\displaystyle \frac{2h_1}{c_1}}T_1(0)+\mathrm{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^{2h_1}}}\left(1+z^2{\displaystyle \frac{2h_2}{c_2}}T_2(0)+\mathrm{}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^{2h}}}\left[1+z^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2h_1T_1}{c_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2h_2T_2}{c_2}}\right)+\mathrm{}\right].`$
This expression is now perfectly well defined as $`c_1,c_20`$. Of course this is as expected as the two decoupled theories are perfectly regular.

In critical string theory the ghost and matter sectors are normally assumed to be non-interacting. However this may not be the most general if we wish to allow not just positive but also zero norm states in our final theory.

## 5 Conclusions

We studied here the stress tensor and its partners in LCFT. In particular in non-trivial $`c=0`$ theories we have demonstrated that it is necessary for there to be a primary field of dimension $`2`$ orthogonal to the stress tensor. The indecomposable representations are characterised by at least three parameters: $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`f`$. The third parameter $`f`$ emerges when we include antiholomorphic sector. In a logarithmic theory one can not avoid mixing between holomorphic and antiholomorphic sectors.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank J. Cardy and V. Gurarie for interesting comments. A.N. is funded by the Martin Senior Scholarship, Worcester College, Oxford. I.I.K. is partly supported by PPARC rolling grant PPA/G/O/1998/00567 and EC TMR grant HPRN-CT-1999-00161.

## Appendix: Three point functions

We now consider the three point functions. They are the following:

$`T(z_1)T(z_2)T(z_3)={\displaystyle \frac{c}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^2}},`$ (39)
$`T(z_1)X(z_2,\overline{z}_2)X(z_3,\overline{z}_3)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{C(c)}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^{2+2\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{23}^{2\alpha (c)}}},`$
$`X(z_1,\overline{z}_1)X(z_2,\overline{z}_2)X(z_3,\overline{z}_3)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{D(c)}{z_{12}^{2+\alpha (c)}z_{13}^{2+\alpha (c)}z_{23}^{2+\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{12}^{\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{13}^{\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{23}^{\alpha (c)}}},`$
$`T(z_1)\overline{X}(z_2,\overline{z}_2)\overline{X}(z_3,\overline{z}_3)={\displaystyle \frac{E(c)}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^{2\alpha (c)2}\overline{z}_{23}^{4+2\alpha (c)}}},`$
$`X(z_1,\overline{z}_1)X(z_2,\overline{z}_2)\overline{X}(z_3,\overline{z}_3)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{F(c)}{z_{12}^{4+\alpha (c)}z_{13}^{\alpha (c)}z_{23}^{\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{12}^{\alpha (c)2}\overline{z}_{13}^{2+\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{23}^{2+\alpha (c)}}}.`$
We note that all correlators are single-valued for any $`\alpha (c)`$ and therefore must also be at the critical point. This is important as logarithmic terms should only emerge in the form $`\mathrm{ln}|z|`$.

We have already fixed the normalisation of the two point functions (22). Then by expanding the three point functions we see that

$`C(c)`$ $`=`$ $`(2+\alpha (c))B(c)=(2+\alpha (c))\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2+B_2c^2+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (40)
$`E(c)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (c)}{c}}B(c)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (c)}{c}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2+B_2c^2+\mathrm{}).`$ (41)
As we wish to have well defined operators $`T,t,\overline{T},\overline{t}`$ they must in particular have regular 3-point functions. This will be enough to determine the leading behaviour of the functions above. Consider

$`T(z_1)T(z_2)t(z_3,\overline{z}_3)=T(z_1)T(z_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_3,\overline{z}_3)={\displaystyle \frac{b}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^2}}.`$ (42)
$`T(z_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)t(z_3,\overline{z}_3)`$ $`=`$ $`T(z_1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_2,\overline{z}_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_3,\overline{z}_3)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{h^2c}}{\displaystyle \frac{C(c)}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^{2+2\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{23}^{2\alpha (c)}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C(c)}{h^2c}}\left(12\alpha (c)\mathrm{ln}|z_{23}|^2+\mathrm{}\right)\right].`$
Now using the form of $`C(c)`$ (40) we get

$`T(z_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)t(z_3,\overline{z}_3)={\displaystyle \frac{2b\mathrm{ln}|z_{23}|^2+\frac{b}{2}}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^2}},`$ (44)
and

$`t(z_1,\overline{z}_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)t(z_3,\overline{z}_3)`$
$`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_1,\overline{z}_1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_2,\overline{z}_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_3,\overline{z}_3)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{b^3}{c^3}}T(z_1)T(z_2)T(z_3)+{\displaystyle \frac{b^3}{h^2c}}(X(z_1,\overline{z}_1)X(z_2,\overline{z}_2)T(z_3)`$
$`+X(z_1,\overline{z}_1)T(z_2)X(z_3,\overline{z}_3)+T(z_1)X(z_2,\overline{z}_2)X(z_3,\overline{z}_3))`$ (45)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{b^3}{h^3}}X(z_1,\overline{z}_1)X(z_2,\overline{z}_2)X(z_3,\overline{z}_3)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{b^3}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b^3}{h^3c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{D(c)}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^2}}z_{12}^{\alpha (c)}z_{13}^{\alpha (c)}z_{23}^{\alpha (c)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{b^3}{h^2c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{C(c)}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^2}}\left[z_{12}^{2\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{12}^{2\alpha (c)}+z_{13}^{2\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{13}^{2\alpha (c)}+z_{23}^{2\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{23}^{2\alpha (c)}\right].`$
Now expanding this and using (25):

$`t(z_1)t(z_2)t(z_3)={\displaystyle \frac{b^3}{h^3c^2}}\left(2h^3+D_0\right)`$ (46)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{h^3c}}\left[(D_02h^3)(\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2+\mathrm{ln}|z_{13}|^2+\mathrm{ln}|z_{23}|^2)+bD_1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}h^3\right]+O(1).`$
Thus if this is to be regular in the limit we must have

$`D_0=2h^3,D_1={\displaystyle \frac{3h^3}{2b}}.`$ (47)
Then from the $`O(1)`$ terms we get

$`t(z_1,\overline{z}_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)t(z_3,\overline{z}_3)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^2}}\{b(\mathrm{ln}^2|z_{12}|^2+\mathrm{ln}^2|z_{13}|^2+\mathrm{ln}^2|z_{23}|^2)`$
$`+2b\left(\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2\mathrm{ln}|z_{13}|^2+\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2\mathrm{ln}|z_{23}|^2+\mathrm{ln}|z_{13}|^2\mathrm{ln}|z_{23}|^2\right)`$ (48)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}(\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2+\mathrm{ln}|z_{13}|^2+\mathrm{ln}|z_{23}|^2)+a\},`$
where we have defined the constant $`a`$ by

$`a{\displaystyle \frac{b^3}{2h^3}}\left(2D_212hB_2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}h^3\alpha ^{\prime \prime }(0)\right).`$ (49)
Now consider correlators involving the $`\overline{T},\overline{X}`$ fields as well. For instance

$`T(z_1)T(z_2)\overline{t}(z_3,\overline{z}_3)=T(z_1)T(z_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}\overline{T}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}\overline{X}\right](z_3,\overline{z}_3)=0,`$ (50)
$`T(z_1)\overline{T}(\overline{z}_2)t(z_3,\overline{z}_3)=T(z_1)\overline{T}(\overline{z}_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_3,\overline{z}_3)=0,`$
$`T(z_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)\overline{t}(z_3,\overline{z}_3)=T(z_1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_2,\overline{z}_2)[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}\overline{T}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}\overline{X}](z_3,\overline{z}_3)=0.`$
More non-trivially

$`T(z_1)\overline{t}(z_2,\overline{z}_2)\overline{t}(z_3,\overline{z}_3)=T(z_1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}\overline{T}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}\overline{X}\right](z_2,\overline{z}_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}\overline{T}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}\overline{X}\right](z_3,\overline{z}_3)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{h^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E(c)}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^{2\alpha (c)2}\overline{z}_{23}^{4+2\alpha (c)}}}.`$ (51)
Inserting the known expression for of $`E(c)`$ we get

$`T(z_1)\overline{t}(z_2,\overline{z}_2)\overline{t}(z_3,\overline{z}_3)={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{b}{2}}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^2\overline{z}_{23}^4}}.`$ (52)
The last correlator we have to consider is the following:

$`t(z_1,\overline{z}_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)\overline{t}(z_3,\overline{z}_3)`$ (53)
$`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_1,\overline{z}_1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}X\right](z_2,\overline{z}_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}\overline{T}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{h}}\overline{X}\right](z_3,\overline{z}_3)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{b^3}{ch^2}}X(z_1,\overline{z}_1)X(z_2,\overline{z}_2)\overline{T}(z_3,\overline{z}_3)+{\displaystyle \frac{b^3}{h^3}}X(z_1,\overline{z}_1)X(z_2,\overline{z}_2)\overline{X}(z_3,\overline{z}_3)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{b^3E(c)/ch^2}{z_{12}^{4+2\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{12}^{2\alpha (c)2}\overline{z}_{13}^2\overline{z}_{23}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b^3F(c)/ch^3}{z_{12}^{4+\alpha (c)}z_{13}^{\alpha (c)}z_{23}^{\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{12}^{\alpha (c)2}\overline{z}_{13}^{2+\alpha (c)}\overline{z}_{23}^{2+\alpha (c)}}}.`$
Thus we find

$`F(c)={\displaystyle \frac{h^3}{2b}}+F_1c+O(c^2).`$ (54)
Finally we get

$`t(z_1,\overline{z}_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)\overline{t}(z_3,\overline{z}_3)={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{b}{2}\left(\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2\mathrm{ln}|z_{13}|^2\mathrm{ln}|z_{23}|^2\right)+f}{z_{12}^4\overline{z}_{12}^2\overline{z}_{13}^2\overline{z}_{23}^2}},`$ (55)
where the coefficient $`f=b^3(\frac{1}{2}h^3\alpha ^{\prime \prime }(0)2F_1)/(2h^3)`$.

In summary we have found the following correlators which yield the OPEs given in the text:

$`T(z_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2z_{12}^4}},`$ (56)
$`t(z_1,\overline{z}_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2}{z_{12}^4}},`$ (57)
$`T(z_1)T(z_2)t(z_3,\overline{z}_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^2}},`$ (58)
$`T(z_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)t(z_3,\overline{z}_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2b\mathrm{ln}|z_{23}|^2+\frac{b}{2}}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^2}},`$ (59)
$`t(z_1,\overline{z}_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)t(z_3,\overline{z}_3)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^2}}\{b(\mathrm{ln}^2|z_{12}|^2+\mathrm{ln}^2|z_{13}|^2+\mathrm{ln}^2|z_{23}|^2)`$
$`+2b\left(\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2\mathrm{ln}|z_{13}|^2+\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2\mathrm{ln}|z_{23}|^2+\mathrm{ln}|z_{13}|^2\mathrm{ln}|z_{23}|^2\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}(\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2+\mathrm{ln}|z_{13}|^2+\mathrm{ln}|z_{23}|^2)+a\},`$ (60)
$`T(z_1)\overline{t}(z_2,\overline{z}_2)\overline{t}(z_3,\overline{z}_3)={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{b}{2}}{z_{12}^2z_{13}^2z_{23}^2\overline{z}_{23}^4}},`$ (61)
$`t(z_1,\overline{z}_1)t(z_2,\overline{z}_2)\overline{t}(z_3,\overline{z}_3)={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{b}{2}\left(\mathrm{ln}|z_{12}|^2\mathrm{ln}|z_{13}|^2\mathrm{ln}|z_{23}|^2\right)+f}{z_{12}^4\overline{z}_{12}^2\overline{z}_{13}^2\overline{z}_{23}^2}}.`$ (62)
References


text:
# Interactions and Disorder in Quantum Dots: Instabilities and Phase Transitions

\[

## Abstract

Using a fermionic renormalization group approach we analyse a model where the electrons diffusing on a quantum dot interact via Fermi-liquid interactions. Describing the single-particle states by Random Matrix Theory, we find that interactions can induce phase transitions (or crossovers for finite systems) to regimes where fluctuations and collective effects dominate at low energies. Implications for experiments and numerical work on quantum dots are discussed.

\]

A variety of finite many-body physical systems are so complex that one can only approach them statistically. Random Matrix Theory (RMT) has emerged as a unifying language to describe nucleii, atoms, and molecules at intermediate energies. In these systems, the low-energy physics is well described in terms of single-particle levels forming shells, but many-body states at high enough excitation energy are randomized by interactions, and well described by RMT. More recently, RMT has been applied to quantum chaos and mesoscopic physics, including quantum dots. Here, in contrast to earlier applications, RMT is a valid description of single-particle states, with the external disorder potential now inducing the randomization between these states. What happens when disorder and interactions are both present? This question is relevant to the tunnelling of electrons through realistic quantum dots, which has been the focus of much recent experimental and theoretical interest. In this Letter we show, using renormalization group (RG) methods, that the introduction of interactions into quantum dots can produce phase transitions (actually sharp crossovers for finite system size) in the limit of weak disorder, leading to behavior qualitatively different from the noninteracting case.

Let us focus on a two-dimensional quantum dot (QD) of linear size $`L`$. The average single-particle level spacing is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the mean free path is $`l_{mf}`$, and the diffusion constant is $`D=v_Fl_{mf}/2`$, where $`v_F=k_F/m^{}`$ is the Fermi velocity, $`k_F`$ is the Fermi momentum, $`m^{}`$ is the effective mass of the electron, and $`\mathrm{}`$ has been set to 1. The diffusion constant is related to another important energy scale, the Thouless energy $`E_T=D/L^2`$, which is the inverse of the diffusion time through the QD. When the QD is strongly coupled to leads the incoming electron’s energy becomes uncertain upto $`E_T`$, and therefore the electron “samples” $`g=E_T/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ single-particle states, leading to a tunnelling conductance of $`ge^2/h`$.

We will be interested in QDs with weak disorder ($`g1`$), very weakly coupled to the leads. In this case within any energy band of width $`E_T`$ (the Thouless band) the energy levels are coupled by correlations described by RMT. These correlations make the energies rigid so that the probability of finding two close levels vanishes as $`|ϵ_1ϵ_2|^\beta `$. Depending on the symmetries of the problem, there are ten universal random matrix ensembles. We focus on the orthogonal ensemble with spin degeneracy for which $`\beta =1`$. Experiments can indirectly measure the energy to add an electron to the dot (called $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$). For the case with spin degeneracy the distribution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ is the sum of the distribution of single particle spacings (given approximately by the famous Wigner surmise) and a delta function at zero energy, to account for an opposite spin electron going into a singly occupied state, leading to the prediction

$$p_{RMT}(\mathrm{\Delta }_2)=\frac{1}{2}[\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }_2)+\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{exp}(\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_2^2)]$$
(1)
This distribution is bimodal and has a peak at zero energy. What is observed in experiments has no bimodality, and looks more like a symmetric gaussian around some nonzero average. These features are also observed in numerics which makes it clear that the change of shape and shift of the distribution is the result of electron-electron interactions.

The simplest extension of the noninteracting model is the constant exchange and interaction (CEI) model, where the direct interaction is modelled by a capacitive term $`\widehat{Q}^2/2C`$, and the exchange by a $`J\stackrel{}{S}^2`$ term in the Hamiltonian. The CEI model (or “universal Hamiltonian” $`H_U`$) is a very natural starting point in the $`g\mathrm{}`$ limit. Using $`H_U`$ does improve comparison with experiments, but the bimodality remains at very low temperatures. This does not agree with numerics which are carried out at $`T=0`$ and do not show bimodality.

Motivated by these questions, we have carried out a systematic study of how interactions affect low-energy properties in a disordered QD. We use a fermionic RG method developed by one of us, based on the formalism of Shankar, in which one integrates out high-energy states and looks at the flow of couplings in the low-energy theory. A divergent flow signals a transition to a phase whose low-energy physics is not perturbatively connected to the noninteracting limit. For a finite QD the phase transition will be replaced by a sharp crossover. The advantage of RG over perturbative methods is that the presence of regimes of qualitatively different low-energy behavior is made manifest.

We will assume that the interactions are strong compared to the disorder. The renormalization of the interactions proceeds as in the clean limit, leading to a Fermi liquid (FL) theory near the Fermi surface. For spinless fermions the FL is charaterized by a single-particle energy $`ϵ_0(\stackrel{}{k})v_F|\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}_F|`$, and an interaction function $`f(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{})`$ which parameterizes how the energy of a quasiparticle (QP) of momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ depends on the occupation of other QPs

$$ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})=ϵ_0(\stackrel{}{k})+\underset{\stackrel{}{k}^{}}{}f(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{})\delta n(\stackrel{}{k}^{})$$
(2)
with $`\delta n(\stackrel{}{k})`$ denoting the change of occupation of state $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ with respect to the filled Fermi sea, which is the ground state. The low-energy effective FL Hamiltonian is

$$H_{FL}=\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}ϵ_0(\stackrel{}{k})\widehat{n}(\stackrel{}{k})+\frac{1}{2}\underset{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{}}{}f(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{}):\widehat{n}(\stackrel{}{k})\widehat{n}(\stackrel{}{k}^{}):$$
(3)
where $`\widehat{n}(\stackrel{}{k})=c^{}(\stackrel{}{k})c(\stackrel{}{k})`$, and the creation and annihilation operators obey canonical anticommutation relations. We will focus on the Thouless band centered on the Fermi surface. In particular, there are $`g`$ momemtum states in this band which are completely and randomly mixed to produce the eigenstates of the single-particle Hamiltonian (including disorder) $`\varphi _\alpha (\stackrel{}{k})`$, with energies $`ϵ_\alpha `$. In terms of these states the disordered FL Hamiltonian is

$$H_{DFL}=ϵ_\alpha \psi _\alpha ^{}\psi _\alpha +\frac{1}{2}V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\psi _\alpha ^{}\psi _\beta ^{}\psi _\gamma \psi _\delta $$
(4)
We de-dimensionalize the FL interaction by $`f(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{})=E_Tu(\theta ,\theta ^{})/g`$. Note that $`u`$ depends only on the angular position. One resolves the interaction into Fourier components

$$u(\theta ,\theta ^{})=u(\theta \theta ^{})=u_0+\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}u_m\mathrm{cos}(m(\theta \theta ^{}))$$
(5)
We will be interested in the case with spin rotation invariance, where there are two FL functions, $`f_s`$ for the singlet channel, and $`f_t`$ for the triplet channel. The corresponding (anti)symmetrized matrix elements are

$`V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^{(s,t)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{}}{}}u_{s,t}(\theta ,\theta ^{})(\varphi _\alpha ^{}(\stackrel{}{k})\varphi _\beta ^{}(\stackrel{}{k}^{})\pm \varphi _\alpha ^{}(\stackrel{}{k}^{})\varphi _\beta ^{}(\stackrel{}{k}))`$ (6)
$`(\varphi _\delta (\stackrel{}{k})\varphi _\gamma (\stackrel{}{k}^{})\pm \varphi _\delta (\stackrel{}{k}^{})\varphi _\gamma (\stackrel{}{k}))`$ (7)
where the $`+`$ sign is to be taken with the singlet and the $``$ with the triplet. Parameterizing the FL interaction as $`f(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{})=\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{})+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{}Z(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{})`$, where the spin of the electron is $`\stackrel{}{S}=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$, the singlet and triplet interactions can be expressed as $`u_s=\mathrm{\Phi }3Z`$ and $`u_t=\mathrm{\Phi }+Z`$.

In RMT, wavefunctions at different energies are uncorrelated (except for orthogonality). Denoting an ensemble average by $`<>`$ we have, for the orthogonal ensemble

$$<\varphi _\alpha ^{}(\stackrel{}{k})\varphi _\beta (\stackrel{}{k}^{})>=<\varphi _\alpha (\stackrel{}{k})\varphi _\beta (\stackrel{}{k}^{})>=\frac{\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{}}}{g}$$
(8)
The only matrix elements with nonzero average are $`<V_{\alpha \beta \beta \alpha }^{(s)}>=u_{s0}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`<V_{\alpha \beta \beta \alpha }^{(t)}>=u_{t0}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`<V_{\alpha \alpha \beta \beta }^{(s)}>=u_s(\pi )\mathrm{\Delta }/g`$. The first two terms when rearranged produce the CEI model, while the last term is a Cooper interaction, which however, is suppressed for our Fermi liquid by $`1/g`$. Since $`g`$ is assumed large we ignore it henceforth.

One can similarly calculate the variances of the matrix elements. Here one has to pay attention to the subtle correlations between different eigenfunctions induced by orthogonality. One finds that $`u_{s0}`$ and $`u_{t0}`$ produce no fluctuations. The general expression is

$$<V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^2><V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }>^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4g^2}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}u_m^2$$
(9)
Kurland et al argued that since these fluctuations vanish in the limit $`g\mathrm{}`$ the universal Hamiltonian is exact in this limit. On the other hand, because of their large number, fluctuation terms can have important effects. The best way to see whether the fluctuation terms are important for low-energy physics (such as the conductance peak spacing experiments) is to carry out an RG analysis and see how these terms scale. If interactions beyond the universal Hamiltonian grow, they will dominate the low-energy physics no matter how weak they are in the microscopic Hamiltonian.

We begin with $`g`$ states in the Thouless band around the Fermi surface. We successively integrate out single-particle states farthest from the Fermi surface, and at some stage in the procedure we have $`g^{}`$ states. We will define the flow parameter $`l`$ of the RG by $`g^{}(l)=ge^l`$ (with $`\frac{d}{dl}=g^{}\frac{d}{dg^{}}`$). We do not rescale the energy, since that would also rescale $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which we want to retain as a physical parameter. We want to integrate out the states at $`\pm g^{}/2`$ to 1-loop order. However, all 1-loop diagrams have two internal lines. One of these lines is the state at $`\pm g^{}/2`$. The other should be summed over all lower energy states $`|g^{\prime \prime }||g^{}|/2`$. This abolishes all reference to the states $`g^{}/2`$ and higher in the effective theory. Each set of internal lines contributes the following change to the interaction matrix elements

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^{(s)}}{dl}}={\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{2}}G_1(\mu ,\nu )V_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }^{(s)}V_{\nu \mu \gamma \delta }^{(s)}+g^{}G_2(\mu ,\nu )\times `$ (10)
$`(V_{\alpha \mu \nu \gamma }^{(s)}V_{\beta \nu \mu \delta }^{(s)}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}V_{\alpha \mu \nu \gamma }^{(s+t)}V_{\beta \nu \mu \delta }^{(s+t)}+(\alpha \beta ))`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^{(t)}}{dl}}={\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{2}}G_1(\mu ,\nu )V_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }^{(t)}V_{\nu \mu \gamma \delta }^{(t)}+g^{}G_2(\mu ,\nu )`$ (12)
$`(V_{\alpha \mu \nu \gamma }^{(t)}V_{\beta \nu \mu \delta }^{(t)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}V_{\alpha \mu \nu \gamma }^{(s+t)}V_{\beta \nu \mu \delta }^{(s+t)}(\alpha \beta ))`$ (13)
where $`V^{(s+t)}=V^{(s)}+V^{(t)}`$, $`G_1(\mu ,\nu )=(1n_{F\mu }n_{F\nu })/(ϵ_\mu +ϵ_\nu )`$ and $`G_2(\mu ,\nu )=(n_{F\nu }n_{F\mu })/(ϵ_\mu ϵ_\nu )`$.

In order to make further analytical progress we ensemble average the internal lines of the diagram $`(\mu ,\nu )`$. The rationale is that in the course of integrating out states we will have to sum over many many states $`(\mu ,\nu )`$. In order to carry out the average we use

$$<\varphi _\mu ^{}(1)\varphi _\mu (2)\varphi _\nu ^{}(3)\varphi _\nu (4)>=\frac{\delta _{12}\delta _{34}}{g^2}\frac{\delta _{1,3}\delta _{2,4}+\delta _{14}\delta _{23}}{g^3}$$
(14)
At any stage in the RG it is $`g`$, and not $`g^{}`$, that appears in these averages, since at one-loop there is no wavefunction renormalization, and the original wavefunction correlations remain unchanged. With this averaging, the change in interaction matrix elements can be absorbed into a change in the FL parameters. The resulting flow equations to zeroth order in $`1/g`$ (for $`n0`$) are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{du_{sn}(l)}{dl}}=Ce^l\left((u_{sn}(l))^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(u_{sn}(l)+u_{tn}(l))^2\right)`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{du_{tn}(l)}{dl}}=Ce^l\left((u_{tn}(l))^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(u_{sn}(l)+u_{tn}(l))^2\right)`$ (16)
where $`C=\mathrm{log}(2)`$ comes from the integration over energies less than $`g^{}`$. Each moment $`n`$ of the Fermi liquid function is not mixed with any other moment $`n^{}`$, and $`u_{s0},u_{t0}`$ do not flow. The flow equations have an explicit dependence on the flow parameter $`l`$, but this dependence can be removed by defining a new coupling $`\stackrel{~}{u}_n(l)=e^lu_n(l)`$, which are the FL parameters for a “rescaled” QD with a rescaled Thouless energy $`E_T^{}=e^lE_T`$ (corresponding to $`g^{}=e^lg`$ completely randomized states). Rewriting the above equations in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n=(\stackrel{~}{u}_{sn}+3\stackrel{~}{u}_{tn})/4`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_n=(\stackrel{~}{u}_{tn}\stackrel{~}{u}_{sn})/4`$ we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n(l)}{dl}}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n2C\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^2`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{Z}_n(l)}{dl}}=\stackrel{~}{Z}_n2C\stackrel{~}{Z}_n^2`$ (18)
The decoupling of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_n`$ is a consequence of spin rotation invariance. From these flow equations we now construct the phase diagram that is the central result of our paper. Clearly, there are unstable fixed points at $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n=1/2C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_n=1/2C`$ which separate weak and strong coupling phases.

There are four phases (Figure 1): (i) A phase where both $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ and $`Z_n`$ have small fluctuations, whose low-energy physics is controlled by the universal Hamiltonian. (ii) A phase where $`Z_n`$ diverges but $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ remains small, in which the capacitance will have small fluctuations but the exchange interaction will acquire large fluctuations. (iii) A phase where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ diverges but $`Z_n`$ remains small, in which there are large capacitance fluctuations, but the exchange energy has small fluctuations. (iv) Finally, a phase in which both $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ and $`Z_n`$ flow to strong coupling.

The same flow equations and phase diagram are obtained in the unitary case if time-reversal symmetry is broken by the coupling of an applied magnetic field to the orbital sector only, as happens in GaAs dots.

Let us consider the implications for a real quantum dot. Here $`g10100`$ is typical, which is not particularly large. This means that the RG flow should be stopped when $`g^{}=ge^l1`$. In the strongly fluctuating phases the fluctuations will increase, but the flow will be cutoff at the nonuniversal scale $`l^{}\mathrm{log}(g)`$ and the putative phase transition will be replaced by a crossover. Nevertheless, we can expect that fluctuations of the matrix elements play an important role at low energies.

The peak spacing distribution can be qualitatively understood by a two-level example, considered by Levit and Orgad. The resulting peak spacing distribution is approximately gaussian with a mean position controlled by the constant interaction (which is $`u_{s0},u_{t0}`$ in our language), and a variance given approximately by

$$<\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2>=4\left[<V_{1221}^2><V_{1221}>^2\right]+\frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\pi }$$
(19)
If bare interaction matrix elements are used in the above equation, their contribution is down by $`1/g^2`$ compared to the single-particle contribution and negligible (assuming that $`|u_n(l=0)|g`$). In the regime of weak fluctuations this remains true, and the width of the distribution is controlled mainly by single-particle effects. However, it is clear that in the regime of strong fluctuations the variance of the interaction matrix elements can dominate the single-particle contribution, and thus the width of this distribution should increase with interaction strength, as has been observed in numerical work.

The flow equations also have implications for interaction effects on the width of the quasiparticle levels. Based on bare matrix elements, the prediction is that quasiparticle peaks should be relatively well-defined for energies $`ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{g}`$, while they acquire a width larger than the single particle spacing at larger energies. If one is well into a strongly fluctuating phase, one expects that this threshold energy is pushed down and may even become zero. In this case the system would not be a Fermi liquid and the conductance peaks will have a finite width even at $`T=0`$ (which has been seen experimentally).

Consider now FL instabilities. In the clean system, the FL becomes unstable whenever any of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n,Z_n1`$. In the two-level example, the energy to add a particle is controlled by $`V_{\alpha \beta \beta \alpha }`$ where one of the levels is occupied and the other empty. In turn this matrix element is the sum of its average (controlled by $`u_{s0},u_{t0}`$) and a fluctuation part (controlled by $`u_{sn},u_{tn}`$). If the fluctuations overpower the constant interaction, this matrix element can become negative, leading to a “bunching” instability in which more than one particle can be added to the QD. The charge/spin density wave instability of the clean system when $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n,Z_n1`$ will be modified by disorder and finite-size effects. The characterization of such a ground state is an open problem.

Our approach can be easily generalized to other ensembles and the results will be reported in forthcoming work. It is tempting to speculate about the connection with a putative metal-insulator transition in an infinite two-dimensional system. However, our analysis is limited to the zero-dimensional case. Strong fluctuations in the matrix elements would have implications for the distribution of persistent currents in mesoscopic structures. Also relevant is the effect of a weak magnetic field, which enhances fluctuations, on the phase diagram. Finally, for realistic QD’s, corrections to universal RMT behavior (of order $`1/g`$) may be important.

In closing, RMT is a rich field with applications to nucleii, atoms and molecules, where interactions randomize excited states. We have shown that in QD’s interactions and disorder can combine to produce a state in which fluctuations in interaction matrix elements become large, in which quasiparticles may cease to be well-defined at arbitrarily low energies, and the behavior is dominated by collective effects.

We gratefully acknowledge partial support from the NSF from grants DMR- 98-04983 (HM) and DMR-0071611 (GM), and helpful conversations with R. Shankar.


text:
# Globular Clusters at High Redshift

## 1 Introduction

Globular clusters contain some of the oldest stars in the universe and have long been vital clues to the earliest phases of the star formation in galaxies (Searle & Zinn, 1978; Harris, 1991; Cote Marzke & West, 1998). In our own galaxy the known globular clusters are very old (VandenBerg, 2000) but there is evidence that they can form at lower redshift in suitably extreme conditions, generally associated with merging galaxies (Zepf et al., 1999; Zhang & Fall, 1999; Ashman & Zepf, 2001; Cen, 2001; Larsen et al., 2001). The great age and low metallicity of globular cluster systems indicates that they should be present at very high redshifts and predate the bulk of their eventual host galaxies’ stars.

The exciting prospect is that direct studies of globular cluster formation and evolution will soon become possible. The next generation of optical-infrared telescopes on the ground and in space will have the capability to detect objects at the nano-Jansky level. An estimate of the faint number counts in the optical was undertaken for HST (van den Bergh, 1979) but we concentrate on the IR where the redshifts and rise in numbers is much more dramatic. In the 2 to 5 micron bands, the combination of large k-corrections and substantial stellar brightening raises the fluxes from high redshift clusters into the range of 29-32 AB mag. These nanojansky flux levels are within the capabilities expected of future telescopes.

Today’s globular globular clusters are likely the survivors of a larger population present at the various times of formation (Fall & Rees, 1977; Fall & Zhang, 2001). If their co-moving density increases by an order of magnitude over those at low redshift then the globular clusters are likely to appear with numbers at a given flux level that are comparable to sub-galactic mass dark matter halos which are the sites of the “first stars” (Couchman & Rees, 1986; Haiman & Loeb, 1997; Haiman Abel & Madau, 2001).

This paper calculates the magnitude limited distribution of the expected numbers, $`n(m)`$, the redshift distribution, $`n(z|m)`$, and estimates the angular clustering properties of the globular cluster population relative to their host galaxies. The predictions are made for filter pass bands sufficiently red that Lyman $`\alpha `$ trough absorption will not normally be an issue. In the next section we describe the calculation of the co-moving number density of globular clusters (GC) as a function of redshift for different evolutionary assumptions. In Section 3 we present the results of the number calculations. Section 4 considers the apparent sky clustering of the distant GC. We conclude with a discussion of the opportunities and complications that this population presents. The calculations are presented in a cosmology for which $`H_0=70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$.

## 2 An Evolving Globular Cluster Luminosity Function

The expected sky density of GCs at magnitude $`m`$ and redshift $`z`$ depends on the product of the cosmological volume element and their luminosity function, $`\varphi _{GC}(L,z)`$, integrated with the volume element along the line of sight. The luminosity function has three sources of evolution. First, it is generally accepted that galactic tidal fields and stellar dynamical “shocks” erode a more numerous high redshift GC population into the remnant population we see today. We use the results of a relatively secure theoretical analysis of the evolution of the population, but also show results for a non-evolving distribution. Second, as the stellar population becomes younger with increasing redshift its spectral energy distribution changes. Third, the GCs form at some high, but as yet poorly determined, redshift. Our approach to each of these evolutionary terms along with the normalization to the present day globular cluster population is discussed in the following section.

### 2.1 An Evolving Mass Distribution

Recently Fall & Zhang (2001, hereafter referred to as FZ) have discussed a generalized dynamical model for the evolution of the mass distribution of GCs. They find that within 1-2 Gyr of origin, a wide range of initial GC mass distribution assumes a characteristic form which then evolves in a nearly self-similar way. At small mass, all clusters (in the same tidal field) go to zero mass at the same rate due to two-body relaxation driven evaporation. At high mass, gravitational shocks impose a characteristic maximum mass above which there is a rapid cutoff of numbers. The continual depletion of GCs implies that over a Hubble time about 10% of the initial cluster population survives, under the assumptions that the system is not replenished and that the galactic potential does not change. FZ have kindly made their results for the evolution of the globular cluster mass distribution available for use in this paper. Specifically we use the differential number of GCs at mass $`M`$ at time $`t`$, $`n_{GC}(M,t)dM`$, which FZ present in their Figure 3.

It should be noted that the FZ model predicts the mass of the peak. To test this aspect of the models FZ have put the Milky Way globular clusters on a mass scale using $`M/L_V=3`$, as is appropriate for an old, metal poor stellar population. The agreement between model and observation is impressively good. The extensive testing of FZ shows that the results should not change much with galaxy mass or galaxy type.

The FZ model results are specified at times of 0.01, 1.5, 3, 6 and 12 Gyr. We use a double spline function in the variable $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{log}t`$ to interpolate to other times. We extrapolate slightly beyond their 12 Gyr model to the age of 13.4 Gyr age of our cosmology. The minimum age of their models is a 0.01 Gyr, where the “formation distribution” is close to a power law in mass. We will show the sensitivity of our results to the GC number evolution.

### 2.2 The Redshift Dependent Luminosity Function

We require the redshift dependent globular cluster luminosity function, $`\varphi _{GC}(L_{\overline{\lambda }},z)`$, where $`L_{\overline{\lambda }}`$ is the observed luminosity in some filter band centered around $`\overline{\lambda }`$. The conversion from $`n_{GC}(M)`$ to $`\varphi _{GC}(L)`$ is made using a spectral synthesis model which gives the entire spectral energy distribution, $`F_\lambda `$, as a function of model age for given metallicity and star formation history. We use the PEGASE.2 code (Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange, 1997) to calculate $`\mathrm{}_{\overline{\lambda }}`$, the observed frame luminosity per unit mass in the filter band $`\overline{\lambda }`$,

$$\mathrm{}_{\overline{\lambda }}=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}T(\lambda )F_\lambda ((1+z)\lambda )𝑑\lambda }{(1+z)_0^{\mathrm{}}T(\lambda )𝑑\lambda },$$
(1)
where $`F_\lambda [(1+z)\lambda ]/(1+z)`$ is the model’s mass normalized absolute flux in the observed frame and $`T(\lambda )`$ is the filter transmission function. Noting that the photon redshift and the time dilation are included in Eq. 1, an object of mass $`M`$ gives an observed flux in the $`\overline{\lambda }`$ filter of

$$f_{\overline{\lambda }}=\frac{M\mathrm{}_{\overline{\lambda }}}{4\pi r^2(z)},$$
(2)
where $`r(z)`$ is the co-moving distance in the adopted cosmology. The observed flux is converted to magnitudes using the definition $`m_{\overline{\lambda }}2.5\mathrm{log}_{10}(f_{\overline{\lambda }})+C`$, where $`C`$ is 31.4 AB magnitudes at 1 nano-Jansky.

### 2.3 Normalizing the Luminosity Function

The luminosity functions of the GC systems of the Milky Way and more than 50 nearby galaxies have been studied (Harris, 1991, 1996). A single galaxy’s GC luminosity function is conventionally described as a Gaussian (in absolute magnitude, hence a lognormal distribution in luminosity) centered at $`M_V=7.27+5\mathrm{log}_{10}(H_0/75)`$ mag with a dispersion of about 1.2 magnitudes. Although a more complex function, the FZ mass model appears to describe the data at least as well as a Gaussian. Moreover, it is based on a dynamical theory that allows its history to be predicted. To use the FZ function in our calculation we need to fix the volume normalization and we will also introduce a small shift in the $`M/L`$ value.

#### 2.3.1 Mass-Luminosity Normalization

The mass normalization of the FZ models is determined by the dynamics of the GCs within the model galaxy. Although fairly insensitive to variations in the potential, the mass function does shift slightly depending on the specific galactic potential. Here we need the luminosity function typical of a mix of galaxies. We adopt the functional form of the FZ mass function and could adopt their $`M/L_V=3`$ value, however we prefer to make a small adjustment to provide an alternate match to the observational data. The FZ mass function is a power law on the low mass side and much steeper than a Gaussian on the high mass side. Here we chose an $`M/L_V`$ value that brings the mean luminosities of the FZ distribution to the mean of the Gaussian fits. A numerical integration finds that $`M_V=7.27`$ mag should be identified as $`\mathrm{log}M/\mathrm{M}_{}=5.36`$, which implies an $`M/L_V=3.3\mathrm{M}_{}/\mathrm{L}_{}`$. This small $`M/L`$ change is well within the uncertainty of stellar population modeling. In particular, $`M/L_V`$ is $`2.1\mathrm{M}_{}/\mathrm{L}_{}`$ for the $`Z=0.1`$ solar PEGASE models we compute at an age of 13.4 Gyr. Our normalization effectively raises the $`M/L`$ values of the PEGASE models by a multiplicative factor of 1.57.

The V band luminosity is widely used to describe low redshift clusters. However, it is beneficial for the accuracy of our application to high redshift galaxies main application to use K band luminosities. Furthermore, the GC population is most closely connected to the old stellar population which is most accurately measured at low redshift by K band luminosities. The conversion from V to K must use the IR colors of a population with a metal abundance of about one-tenth solar, $`VK=2.93+0.5Z/Z_{}`$ mag (Aaronson Cohen Mould & Malkan, 1978). The $`Z=0.1Z_{}`$ PEGASE models find $`VK=2.4`$ mag at 13.4 Gyr which is in essentially exact agreement with the observational relation. Using this color we find that the mean peak K band luminosity for GCs is $`M_K=9.70+5\mathrm{log}_{10}(H_0/75)`$. This value is converted to the flux based AB magnitude system with the addition of $`AB(K)=+1.88`$ mag.

#### 2.3.2 Number Density Normalization

The mean co-moving density of GCs for a single galaxy is modeled as being directly proportional to its luminosity, (Harris & van den Bergh, 1981; Harris, 1991),

$$S_N=N_t10^{0.4(M_V+15)},$$
(3)
where $`M_V`$ is the galaxy’s absolute magnitude in the V band and $`N_t`$ is the total number in a Gaussian luminosity function. The $`S_N`$ relation has significant variations with Hubble type and possibly environment but appears to be accurate in the mean (Harris, 1991). Since GC are most clearly associated with old stellar light it is natural to use a K band luminosity function, in which case,

$$S_N=N_t10^{0.4(M_K+17.9)},$$
(4)
where a galaxy with solar metallicity has $`VK2.9`$ mag (Aaronson Cohen Mould & Malkan, 1978). Adopting the Gardner et al. (1993) luminosity function (for our purposes, similar to the recent Cole et al. 2001 results), for which $`M_{}(K)=23.1`$ mag, we find that in the K band the number of globular clusters around a galaxy rises linearly with luminosity,

$$N_t(L_K)=120S_N\frac{L_K}{L_{}(K)}.$$
(5)
To convert the normalization from globular cluster per galaxy to a volume normalization we use the luminosity density of galaxy light in the K band, $`j(K)`$. The normalizing constant for the GC luminosity function is defined such that the integral over all GC luminosities must be equal to the mean number of GC expected for the mean amount of galaxy light in that volume. That is,

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{GC}(L_{\overline{\lambda }},z=0)𝑑L=120S_N\frac{j(K)}{L_{}(K)}.$$
(6)
For Gardner’s (1993) $`\alpha =1`$ Schechter luminosity function fit $`j(K)=\varphi _{}(K)L_{}(K)`$, where $`\varphi _{}(K)=0.0166h^3`$ Mpc-3. Note that the dependence on $`L_{}(K)`$ cancels in Eq. 6. Then the co-moving volume density is GCs is $`n_{GC}(0)=2.0h^3S_N`$ Mpc-3, where $`h=H_0/100`$. We adopt $`S_N=2`$ as a reasonable and somewhat conservative value, given that the bulk of the K light emerges from relatively luminous early type galaxies. Figure 4 and Table 3 of Harris (1991) might suggest a value of about 3 for the early type galaxies, with evidence that strongly clustered early type galaxies have higher $`S_N`$. Of course the origin of these effects may well be directly visible in the future. The outcomes is that our complete GC luminosity function is,

$$\varphi _{GC}(L_{\overline{\lambda }},z)dL_{\overline{\lambda }}=n_{GC}(0)n_{GC}[L_{\overline{\lambda }}/\mathrm{}_{\overline{\lambda }}(t),t(z)]dL_{\overline{\lambda }}.$$
(7)
The redshift distribution per unit sky area of GC at a given flux level, is simply

$$n(z|f_{\overline{\lambda }})d\mathrm{ln}f_{\overline{\lambda }}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{GC}(4\pi r^2(z)f_{\overline{\lambda }},z)\frac{dV}{dz}𝑑zd\mathrm{ln}f_{\overline{\lambda }}.$$
(8)
where $`dV/dz`$ is the volume element within the model cosmology. Integrating over the redshift distribution gives the number-magnitude relation In practice, these calculations are done using magnitudes rather than fluxes.

## 3 Counts and Distributions

With the modeling apparatus in hand we first pause to show the low redshift $`n(z)`$ at $`m_R(AB)=25,26,27`$ and $`28`$ mag in Figure Globular Clusters at High Redshift. The total sky densities of the FZ model at these depths are 87, 321, 1,260 and 4,840 per square degree per magnitude, respectively. These GCs will be clearly associated with relatively bright galaxies, typically about $`m_R(AB)=1317`$ mag, with the redshift distributions shown.

### 3.1 Number Redshift Distributions

Precisely how globular clusters form is, at this time, unknown. Part of the point of this paper is that the plausible formation redshifts for the bulk of GCs will shortly come within reach of telescopes. To try to bracket the situation, we examine a number of somewhat extreme alternative models and look at the effects of co-ordinated bursts in a galaxy. To examine the importance of “luminosity spikes” at the time of formation, we use (arbitrarily, for the purpose of illustration) 10 bursts of star formation of duration 10 Myr spread over the 0 to 1 Gyr time interval. The formation age of all of the GC is put at 0.5 Gyr. The results are shown in Figure Globular Clusters at High Redshift. Such bursts would only effect the counts in an area small enough that only a few dozen actively GC forming galaxies were present.

In Figure Globular Clusters at High Redshift we use the same set of ten star formation bursts but shifted in time to the 1 to 2 Gyr time interval with a uniform formation age of 1 Gyr. Clearly the bursts of star formation produce spikes in the redshift distribution but those effects quickly die away. It could be that the earliest phases of globular cluster formation are cloaked in dust which later disperses, following an age-extinction relation (Shapley et al., 2001). In that case the high luminosity peaks will be a briefly obscured phase in the life of GCs. However the Figures show that if those short-lived bright spikes are removed, neither the counts or redshift distribution will be greatly altered.

The difference between the no-evolution and FZ density evolution models are small at redshifts below about three, under the assumption that most globular clusters were formed at redshifts greater than three. The differences would be much larger if significant globular cluster formation continued to much lower redshift. The numbers predicted with a non-evolving mass model are nearly a full decade below the evolving model beyond redshifts of five. Since density and luminosity evolution are independent in these models the same difference applies to all formation histories.

### 3.2 Number Magnitude Relations

The number-magnitude relation is shown in Figure Globular Clusters at High Redshift in the V, R, J, K, L and M bands (spanning roughly 0.5 to 5 microns) for our model with ten, bursts of 10% of the mass, spread between 0 and 1 Gyr. There are two effects. At low redshift the counts rise with increasing magnitude at a rate governed by the volume element, enhanced by k-corrections in an old, low metallicity, population. Although not shown, at 1 nJy in the V band the $`n(z)`$ peaks at about redshift 0.3. At 1 nJy in the R band $`n(z)`$ peaks at about redshift 0.5, with a few of the actively star-forming $`z=5`$ clusters in formation being visible. Clearly deep optical band observations are not the ideal way to probe the formation epoch. The character of the redshift distribution changes in the infrared bands as the peak of the spectrum is redshifted into them. The combination of k-correction and luminosity evolution causes the counts in the redder bands to rapidly climb to several million per square degree. As Figure Globular Clusters at High Redshift shows, the counts are steeper than Euclidean near 30 AB mag in the IR bands.

The predicted counts for a wide range of model star formation histories are shown in Figure Globular Clusters at High Redshift. We display the L band counts for models having ten bursts of 10% of the final mass star formation extending over 10 Myr in the 0-1 Gyr interval (triangles), the 1-2 Gyr interval (diamonds), and exponential models with $`\tau =1`$ pentagons), 2 (heptagons) and 4 Gyr (hexagons) for both evolving and non-evolving mass function. The number-magnitude relation shows substantial model dependencies beginning at about 1 nJy ($`m_{AB}=31.4`$ mag). However, the result that the L band counts will be around $`10^8`$ per mag per square degree at 0.2 nJy is reasonably robust. It does not depend a lot on star formation, internal internal dust shrouding in the early phases, and is not unduly sensitive to the exact amount of GC density evolution. The biggest potential over-prediction of numbers is if GC initially form in dusty disk environments which makes them hard to detect. As long as the clusters become visible within about 2 Gyr of formation the numbers predicted here should be fairly accurate. The basic prediction that the sky density becomes about $`10^7`$ per square degree around 1 nJy is difficult to escape, given the assumptions about globular cluster origins, evolution and visibility made in this paper.

## 4 Angular Clustering

Globular clusters are strongly concentrated around their host galaxies. At the very low flux levels we are investigating here it is natural to ask to what degree this clustering will remain evident and whether the nano-Jansky sky will effectively be covered with a nearly uniform distribution of GC. A prediction of clustering uses the results above but requires additional information about the degree to which galaxies and their GC systems merge into larger and larger units. Furthermore, the host galaxies may not always be visible at the highest redshifts considered here, since galaxies are generally younger and much lower surface brightness than GCs. Hence, the following estimates of galaxy-GC cross-correlations will be upper limits, although we do incorporate a model for galaxy merging into our calculations.

The real space cross-correlation of galaxies and GCs can be derived from the average radial profile of GCs in their host galaxies. As shown below the auto-correlation of galaxies makes no significant contribution at the angles of interest. The FZ calculations find that after approximately 1 to 2 Gyr the radial distribution converges to a stable, nearly power-law form. An approximate power law fit to the Milky-Way data of Harris (1996) is,

$$n(r)=3\times 10^2\left(\frac{r}{10\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}}\right)^{3.5}\mathrm{kpc}^3.$$
(9)
If there is a core in the radial distribution it appears at a radius of order a few kpc where the GCs become superimposed on significant galaxy light and hard to find. The Milky Way is probably somewhat less than $`L_{}`$ in luminosity and its GC system, with a total of $`160\pm 20`$ clusters (Harris, 1991), has numbers about 2/3 half of the 240 expected at $`L_{}`$. To calculate the cross-correlation function with galaxies we need $`\delta (r)=(n(r)n_0)/n_0`$, where $`n_0`$ is the mean density. We normalize these numbers to the volume average for $`L_{}`$ galaxies. The mean GC density of $`4.0h^3`$Mpc-3 we derived above becomes a physical density of $`1.2\times 10^8`$ kpc-3 for $`H_0=70`$. Consequently we can re-express Eq. 9, as the over-density,

$$\delta (r)=2.5\times 10^{10}\left(\frac{r}{10\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}}\right)^{3.5}.$$
(10)
Converting this to the standard correlation length form and using co-moving co-ordinates ($`H_0=70`$),

$$\xi _{gGC}(x)=\left(\frac{9.4\mathrm{Mpc}}{x}\right)^{3.5}\frac{L_h}{L_{}},$$
(11)
where we have included the luminosity dependence, with $`L_h`$ being the luminosity of the host galaxy. Note that an alternate description of this correlation length is $`6.6h^1\text{Mpc}`$. In this calculation we have assumed that the low redshift $`S`$ relationship holds in the earliest phases of the life of a galaxy which needs to be tested. An overall density normalization change has no effect on the correlations since the mean field density changes at the same rate, leaving $`\delta `$ invariant.

GC systems appear to always be associated with more or less virialized galaxies. They are not part of a clustering hierarchy that extends into the linear regime. Therefore we describe the over-density distribution as being fixed in physical co-ordinates. We therefore multiply Eq. 11 by the correlation function evolution term $`(1+z)^ϵ`$. The quantity $`ϵ`$ is equal to $`\gamma 3`$ for fixed over-density in physical co-ordinates, as is appropriate here.

Galaxies are assembled over time through the merger process. A simple model for the increase of mass $`M`$ is $`dM/dt=(1+z)^{}`$. Approximating $`1+z=t_0/t`$ (as in an empty universe) this integrates to

$`M_0(t_0)^1(1+z)^1,`$ $`>1,`$ (12)
$`M(z)=\{`$ (13)
$`M_0t_0\mathrm{log}(1+z),`$ $`=1.`$ (14)
Note that $`M(z)`$ goes to zero for finite $`z`$ for $`>1`$. Reasonable values are $`13`$ and $`t_00.20.5`$ (Carlberg, et al., 2000; Le Fèvre et al., 2000). The resulting redshift dependent co-moving correlation function, $`\xi _{gGC}(x|z)`$, is,

$$\left(\frac{r_0(z)}{x}\right)^\gamma =(1+z)^ϵ\left(\frac{r_{00}}{x(z)}\right)^\gamma \frac{M(z)}{M_0}.$$
(16)
The angular correlation function is simply related to the volume correlation through a projection over redshift,

$$\omega (\theta )=A(\gamma )\theta ^{1\gamma }N^2n^2(z)\left(\frac{r_0(z)}{x}\right)^\gamma x\frac{H(z)}{c}𝑑z,$$
(17)
where $`N=n(z)𝑑z`$, $`A(\gamma )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }((\gamma 1)/2)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma /2)`$, and $`H(z)=H_0[\mathrm{\Omega }_M(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_R(1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }]^{1/2}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_R+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$.

We express the results as an angular correlation $`\omega (\theta )=(\theta _0/\theta )^{\gamma 1}`$. We evaluate the integral using the L band $`n(z)`$ at 1nJy. For our $`r_{00}=6.6h^1\text{Mpc}`$ Mpc, $`\gamma =3.5`$, $`ϵ=0.5`$, we find $`\theta _0=22`$ and $`18\mathrm{}`$, with $`t_0=0.5`$ for $`=1`$, and $`2`$, respectively and 21 and $`17\mathrm{}`$ for $`t_0=0.3`$ for the same $``$. Correlation angles of $`20\mathrm{}`$ correspond to physical distances of about 100 kpc around redshift three. Therefore the bulk of the GCs will be clearly associated with their host galaxies. The galaxies, if they exist and are not obscured, will be some $`1012`$ mag brighter than the GCs, depending on the relative roles of merging and luminosity evolution. At $`K_{AB}2022`$ mag galaxies have mean sky separations of $`2040\mathrm{}`$, so the sky will be effectively covered, albeit with a concentration toward galaxies, or, the still-dark halos that will become the sites of galaxies.

The GC-galaxy cross-correlation calculation ignores the contribution due to galaxy-galaxy clustering. The same of calculation shows that the much shallower $`\gamma =1.8`$ of galaxy clustering the auto-correlation angle is about 2 arcsec, for $`r_{00}=5h^1\text{Mpc}`$. For the GCs their steep cross-correlation with galaxies allows them to rapidly climb out of the projected distribution, which does not occur for the galaxy-galaxy correlation. The galaxy-galaxy contribution will only be visible at about an arc-minute, where the projected clustering amplitude is only $`0.03`$. At angles less than 20″ the contribution is less than 10%, given our modelling for clustering. Of course globular cluster formation during merging is a special case.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

Globular clusters are, in the main, very old objects, likely formed in the first quartile of the age of the universe, implying strong luminosity evolution at high redshift. The combination of k-corrections and luminosity evolution put the bulk of their energy in the 3 to 5 micron bands. For a fairly wide range of density and luminosity evolution models there should be approximately $`10^7`$ GC per square degree per magnitude, with a continuing steep rise in counts. In the optical bands the counts rise slowly with few GC appearing beyond redshift one.

Source confusion noise in flux and position measurements increases in proportion to the density of sources relative to the beam density, $`(\mathrm{ln}2/\pi )(D/\lambda )^2`$ (Scheuer, 1974; Condon, 1974). The problems associated with confusion begin to arise when the source density is about $`5`$% of the beam density. Moreover the strong clustering of GC toward galaxies will create enhanced confusion in the neighborhood of galaxies. A diffraction limited 6m telescope operating at $`4\mu `$ will have one source per beam (severe confusion) at a sky density $`1.5\times 10^8`$ per square degree. For the relatively steep source counts found here and the high confidence detections that would be of interest to photometric redshift estimation techniques, the source density below about 1 nJy presents an issue to be carefully approached. In detail this problem could be more quantitatively addressed with simulated observations using the predicted counts. In a future paper we will also consider a more detailed model that incorporates dust and emission line nebula effects and a number of potential astrophysical complications.

The large density of high redshift GCs is both an opportunity and a challenge. In as much as GC are key indicators of how the extended low metallicity stellar halos of galaxies came into being, observations at nJy flux levels will directly probe their origins. On the other hand, the sky densities and flux levels are similar to those predicted for zero metallicity, “first light” objects. It will require some care to distinguish a young cluster of fairly normal stars with strong ionizing radiation from the unusual zero metallicity stars that are the first luminous objects. It will be fascinating to understand the relationship between these two “early light” populations.

I thank Mike Fall & Qing Zhang for providing the results of their mass evolution models. Mike’s comments also improved the presentation of the results. Chris Pritchet and Sidney van den Bergh provided inspiration and comments on this subject. Research support from NSERC and CIAR are gratefully acknowledged.