format: text

text:
# Theory of the dc Magnetotransport in Laterally Modulated Quantum Hall Systems Near Filling 𝒱=1/2

## I 1. Introduction and Background

It is well known that the transport properties of a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) in high magnetic fields providing a half filling of the lowest Landau level ($`\nu =1/2`$) are well described by the theory of Halperin, Lee and Read (HLR) one ; two  which corresponds to a physical picture in which electrons are decorated by attached quantum flux tubes. These are the relevant quasiparticles of the system – so-called composite fermions (CFs). The CFs are spinless fermionic quasiparticles with charge $`e`$ which move in a reduced effective magnetic field $`B_{eff}=B4\pi \mathrm{}nc/e`$, where $`n`$ is the electron sheet density. At $`\nu =1/2`$, the CFs form a Fermi sea and exhibit a Fermi surface (FS). For the homogeneous 2DEG, the FS of the CFs is a circle of radius $`p_F=\sqrt{4\pi n\mathrm{}^2}`$ in quasimomentum space.

According to the theory of HLR, the resistivity tensor of the 2DEG is given by $`\stackrel{}{\rho }=\stackrel{}{\rho }_{cf}+\stackrel{}{\rho }_{cs}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_{cf}`$ is the contribution from CFs whereas $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_{cs}`$ arises from the fictitious effective magnetic field in the Chern-Simons formulation of the theory. Here, $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_{cs}`$ has only off-diagonal elements. Therefore, the diagonal elements of the resistivity tensor of the 2DEG are the same as those for the CF resistivity tensor $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_{cf}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{cf}^1`$, where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{cf}`$ is the CF conductivity tensor.

Some interesting features of the magnetoresistivity near $`\nu =1/2`$ have been reported in the transport experiments of a 2DEG whose density is modulated by a weak one-dimensional electrostatic potential. This includes a well-defined minimum at $`\nu =1/2`$ in the resistivity $`\rho _{}`$ corresponding to a current at right angles to the direction of the modulation lines three ; four  as well as a smaller component $`\rho _{||}`$ with a maximum at $`\nu =1/2`$ for a current along the lines of the modulation four . In addition, oscillations in these two components of the resistivity were observed close to filling factor $`\nu =1/2`$. Previous theories for dc magnetotransport in modulated quantum Hall systems near one half filling based on the Boltzmann transport equation for the CF distribution function five ; six ; seven  are succesfull in accounting for the minimum in the magnetoresistivity $`\rho _{}.`$ However, these theories, as well as semiclassical studies of dc magnetotransport properties of modulated 2DEG at low magnetic field eight ; nine ; ten ; eleven , fail to explain the magnetic field dependence of $`\rho _{||}.`$ Up to present the effect of modulations on $`\rho _{||}`$ was treated as a pure quantum effect which cannot be described within semiclassical calculations, although it remains exhibited within that range of magnetic fields where the semiclassical approach could be applied twelve ; thirteen ; fourteen ; fifteen .

We think that the existing theory is mistaken at this point, and the magnetic field dependence of both resistivity components near $`\nu =1/2`$ is dominated with similar mechanism and could be analyzed within a semiclassical approximation. This can be shown if we adopt a correct procedure of averaging of CF response functions over the period of modulations sixteen ; seventeen  which gives semiclassical analogs for the response functions obtained as a result of quantum mechanical calculations. The proposed procedure differs from that used in the existing semiclassical theories eight ; nine ; ten ; eleven  and provides different results for transport coefficients of a modulated 2DEG. In contrast with the corresponding conclusions of the earlier works, our results for the both components of magnetoresistivity tensor are consistent with those obtained as a semiclassical limit of quantum mechanical calculations (see e.g. thirteen ). They also demonstrate a better agreement with experiments on a dc magnetotransport in a modulated 2DEG in low magnetic fields.

In the main body of the paper we use a simplified semiquantitative approach, resembling that used in earlier works of Beenakker eight  and Gerhardts nine . In the experiments of Ref.4 the mean free path $`l`$ of the CFs is larger than their cyclotron radius $`R`$ but smaller or of the same order as the period of modulations $`\lambda .`$ In this ”local” regime $`R,l<\lambda `$ this method of calculations gives reasonably good approximation for the transport coefficients we seek.

In the Appendix, we present calculations of the magnetoresistivity components based on the transport Boltzmann equation within a relaxation time approximation. The results of this analysis corroborate reasonably with the semiquantitative approach developed in the main body of the paper.

## II 2. General Formulation of the Problem

We now consider a sinusoidal density modulation with a single harmonic of period $`\lambda =2\pi /g`$ along the $`y`$ direction and given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }n(𝐫)=\mathrm{\Delta }n\mathrm{sin}(gy)`$. This density modulation influences the CF system through the appearance of an additional inhomogeneous magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Delta }B(𝐫)=4\pi \mathrm{}c\mathrm{\Delta }n(y)/e`$, which is proportional to the density modulation $`\mathrm{\Delta }n(y)`$ as well as through the external modulating electric field. Following Ref. seven , we parameterize the electric potential screened by the 2DEG as

$$U(y)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}E_F\frac{\mathrm{sin}(gy)}{e},$$

where $`E_F`$ is the Fermi energy of the unmodulated CF system.

Our starting point is the Lorentz force equations describing the CF motion along the cyclotron orbits

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_x}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}B(y)v_y;`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_y}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}B(y)v_x+e{\displaystyle \frac{dU(y)}{dy}},`$ (1)
where $`p_x,p_y`$ and $`v_x,v_y`$ are the components of the quasimomentum and velocity of the CF and $`B(y)=B_{eff}4\pi \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }n(y)c/e`$.

For weak modulations, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n/n1`$, we may assume that inhomogeneous terms in Eq. (1) are small for all values of $`B_{eff}`$ except when the filling factor is close to $`\nu =1/2`$, where $`B_{eff}0`$. In this limit, we can write the CF velocity as $`𝐯=𝐯_0+\delta 𝐯`$, where $`𝐯_0`$ is the uniform field velocity and the correction $`\delta 𝐯`$ is due to the density modulation. For a circular CF–FS, we have $`v_{x0}=v_F\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t,v_{y0}=v_F\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t,\mathrm{\Delta }n(y)\mathrm{\Delta }n\mathrm{sin}(gYgR\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the cyclotron frequency, $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity for CFs, $`R=v_F/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the cyclotron radius, and $`Y`$ is the $`y`$ coordinate of the guiding center. Substituting these results for $`𝐯`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }n(y)`$ into Eq. (1) and keeping only the terms to first order in the perturbation, we obtain

$$\frac{d(\delta v_x)}{dt}=\mathrm{\Omega }\delta v_y\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{B_{eff}}\mathrm{\Omega }v_F\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)\mathrm{sin}(gYgR\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)),$$
(2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(\delta v_y)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\delta v_x+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{B_{eff}}}\mathrm{\Omega }v_F\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)\mathrm{sin}(gYgR\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t))`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}}v_F^2g\mathrm{cos}(gYgR\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)).`$
Apart from its effect for a modulation potential in a low magnetic field, it has been shown to order $`\mathrm{\Delta }n/n`$ that the modulating potential $`U(y)`$ gives rise to spatially inhomogeneous corrections to the chemical potential and Fermi velocity of the quasiparticles as well as their scattering rates ten . For the CF system, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n/n`$ may be treated as a much smaller parameter than $`\mathrm{\Delta }B/B_{eff}`$. Therefore, we neglect the corrections to the CF Fermi velocity in Eqs. (12) and (13) as well as the corrections to the relaxation time.

We would like to point out that when some effects of electric modulation are neglected, one misses the possibility of describing an asymmetry in the shape near the minimum of $`\rho _{}`$ near $`B_{eff}=0`$ which was observed in the experiments three ; four . It was shown by Zwerschke and Gerhardts seven  that the small asymmetry of $`\rho _{}`$ as a function of $`B_{eff}`$ near $`B_{eff}=0`$ originates from the effect of interference of the applied electric modulations and induced magnetic modulations. We believe that the observed asymmetry four  in the shape near the maximum in $`\rho _{||}`$ is also due to the same reason. However, we do not analyze this effect here to avoid extra complications arising from additional calculations.

To lowest order in the modulating field, the corrections $`\delta v_x`$ and $`\delta v_y`$ are periodic over the unperturbed cyclotron orbit, as was used in Ref. nine . With this assumption, we calculate the averages of Eqs. (2) and (3) over the cyclotron orbit. After a straightforward calculation, we obtain the following results for the components $`V_x`$ and $`V_y`$ of the velocity of the guiding center

$`V_x(Y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\psi \delta v_x(Y,\psi )=v_F\mathrm{cos}(gY)`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{B_{eff}}}J_1(gR){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gR{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}}J_0(gR)\right],`$
$`V_y(Y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\psi \delta v_y(Y,\psi )=0,`$ (5)
where $`\psi =\mathrm{\Omega }t`$, and $`J_0(gR)`$, $`J_1(gR)`$ are Bessel functions of the first kind. We now calculate the CF conductivity by assuming, as before seventeen , that $`v_x(Y)=v_{x0}+V_x(Y)`$ and that the cyclotron frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be replaced by $`\mathrm{\Omega }(Y)=\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }(Y)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }(Y)`$ is the correction to the cyclotron frequency due to the inhomogeneous effective magnetic field, averaged over the cyclotron orbit,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(Y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{B_{eff}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\psi \mathrm{sin}(gYgR\mathrm{cos}\psi )\right\}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{B_{eff}}}\mathrm{sin}(gY)J_0(gR)\right\}.`$
Within the local limit $`R<<\lambda `$ the guiding center velocity (3) becomes neiligible, and the conductivity tensor $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{cf}(Y)`$ has the Drude form with the cyclotron frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ replaced by $`\mathrm{\Omega }(Y).`$

We now introduce the current density of CFs, averaged over the period of the modulation,

$$𝐣=<𝐣(Y)>=\frac{g}{2\pi }_{\pi /g}^{\pi /g}𝑑Y𝐣(Y).$$
(7)
Within the local limit $`𝐣(Y)`$ related to a driving electric field by the usual linear relation:

$$𝐣(Y)=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{cf}(Y)\left(𝐄+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐄(Y)\right)$$
(8)
with $`𝐄`$ denoting the external electric field and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐄(Y)`$ the inhomogeneous contribution to the total electric field due to the density modulation, averaged over the cyclotron orbit. To proceed we define the effective CF conductivity by the relation

$$𝐣=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{cf}<𝐄+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐄(Y)>.$$
(9)
When an electrostatic modulation is applied along the $`y`$ direction, it affects only the current along the direction of the modulation lines ten , so within the geometry chosen here, $`j_y`$ does not depend on the $`y`$ coordinate. This result follows from the continuity equation. Consequently, we assume that $`j_y`$ is independent of $`Y`$. Also, since $`E_x`$ does not depend on $`Y`$, we can obtain closed form analytic expressions for the effective CF conductivity tensor from Eq. (9). To get these expressions we first assume that $`E_x=0`$ and solve for the conductivity to obtain

$$\sigma _{cf}^{yy}=\frac{1}{\sigma _{cf}^{yy}(Y)}^1.$$
(10)
Solving again for $`E_y`$ and assuming that $`<E_y(Y)>=0`$, we obtain

$$\sigma _{cf}^{yx}=\sigma _{cf}^{xy}=\frac{\sigma _{cf}^{yx}(Y)}{\sigma _{cf}^{yy}(Y)}\frac{1}{\sigma _{cf}^{yy}(Y)}^1.$$
(11)
Finally, substituting the result for $`E_y(Y)`$ into the expression for the $`x`$ component of Eq. (9), and making use of

$$<j_x(Y)>=\frac{\sigma _{cf}^{xy}(Y)}{\sigma _{cf}^{yy}(Y)}j_y,$$

we obtain

$$\sigma _{cf}^{xx}=\sigma _{cf}^{xx}+\frac{\sigma _{cf}^{xy}(Y)}{\sigma _{cf}^{yy}(Y)}\left(\sigma _{cf}^{yx}\sigma _{cf}^{yx}(Y)\right).$$
(12)
Now we define the effective CF magnetoresistivity $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_{cf}`$ as $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{cf}^1`$. The above results for the effective conductivity components are valid in the local regime, regardless of the dc magnetotransport experiments. We use this to analyze the experimental data. Assuming that the current flows along the modulation lines ($`j_y=0`$), we obtain the following result for the magnetoresistivity

$$\rho _{||}=\rho _{xx}=\left\{<\sigma _{cf}^{xx}(Y)>+\frac{\sigma _{cf}^{xy}(Y)^2}{\sigma _{cf}^{yy}(Y)}\right\}^1;$$
(13)
Similarly, when current is driven across the modulation lines, and $`<j_x>=0`$ we get the expression for $`\rho _{}`$ in the form:

$$\rho _{}=\rho _{yy}=\frac{1}{\sigma _{cf}^{yy}(Y)}\frac{{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{cf}^{xy}(Y)}{\sigma _{cf}^{yy}(Y)}}^2}{<\sigma _{cf}^{xx}(Y)>+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{cf}^{xy}(Y)^2}{\sigma _{cf}^{yy}(Y)}}}.$$
(14)
It follows from these results that in the local regime the transverse resistivity $`\rho _{}`$ shows a positive magnetoresistance proportional to $`\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau \mathrm{\Delta }B/B_{eff}\right)^2,`$ whereas the longitudinal resistivity remains unchanged at the presence of modulations and takes on its Drude value which agrees with the current theory ten .

To analyze the influence of modulations on the magnetotransport characteristics within a broader range of magnetic fields $`R\stackrel{<}{}\lambda `$ we take into account corrections to the usual Drude conductivity originating from the guiding center drift. For this purpose we now introduce the conductivity tensor $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{cf}(Y)`$ in the form:

$$\sigma _{cf}^{\alpha \beta }(Y)=\frac{e^2m_c\tau }{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{v_{k\alpha }(Y)v_{k\beta }(Y)}{1+ik\mathrm{\Omega }(Y)\tau },$$
(15)
where $`m_c`$ is the cyclotron mass of the CF, $`\tau `$ is the relaxation time, $`v_{k\beta }(Y)`$ denotes the Fourier series coefficients of the velocity components given by
$`v_{kx}={\displaystyle \frac{v_F}{2}}(\delta _{k,1}+\delta _{k,1})+V_x(Y)\delta _{k,0}`$ and
$`v_{ky}={\displaystyle \frac{iv_F}{2}}(\delta _{k,1}\delta _{k,1})`$.
Similar expression for the ”nonlocal” conductivity was used by Gerhardts nine  (see Eqs. (2.10), (2.11) of the above paper), and earlier by Beenakker eight .

Starting from the definition (15), keeping only those terms up to order $`(\mathrm{\Delta }B/B_{eff})^2`$ and using

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{B_{eff}}\mathrm{\Omega }\tau =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}\frac{p_F}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}k_F\mathrm{},$$

we obtain the following results for the effective CF conductivity components (8)–(10):

$`\sigma _{cf}^{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{1+(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau )^2}}\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}}k_F\mathrm{}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau )^2}{1+(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau )^2}}J_0^2(gR)\right\}`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`\sigma _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{B_{eff}}}\right)^2\left(J_1(gR){\displaystyle \frac{g}{2k_F}}J_0(gR)\right)^2,`$
$`\sigma _{cf}^{yx}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{cf}^{xy}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0\mathrm{\Omega }\tau }{1+(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau )^2}}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}}k_F\mathrm{}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{J_0^2(gR)}{1+(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau )^2}}\right\},`$
$`\sigma _{cf}^{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{1+(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau )^2}}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}}k_F\mathrm{}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{J_0^2(gR)}{1+(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau )^2}}\right\},`$ (18)
where, in this notation, $`\sigma _0=ne^2\mathrm{}/p_F`$ is the Drude conductivity for CFs. The last term in Eq.(16) for $`\sigma _{cf}^{xx}`$ shows the drift of the guiding center and represents the diffusion of CFs in the $`x`$ direction. This can be verified by calculating the corresponding $`x`$ component of the diffusion coefficient $`\delta 𝒟`$. Following Ref. eight , we have

$`\delta 𝒟`$ $`=`$ $`\tau <V_x^2(Y)>`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_F^2\tau }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{B_{eff}}}\right)^2\left(J_1(gR){\displaystyle \frac{g}{2k_F}}J_0(gR)\right)^2.`$
Substituting Eq. (18) into the Einstein relation $`\sigma _{cf}^{\alpha \beta }=Ne^2𝒟_{\alpha \beta }`$, where $`N`$ is the density of states for CFs, we obtain the last term in Eq. (19).

Using our expressions (16)–(18) we may calculate the diagonal components of the electronic resistivity tensor from the CF conductivity tensor $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{cf}`$ given by Eqs. (11) and (12). When the density modulation is very weak, i.e., $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}}k_F\mathrm{}1`$, the corrections to the magnetoresistivity due to the density modulation are small and may be neglected. In this case, the nonuniform part of the effective magnetic field does not significantly alter the dc transport. For stronger modulation, i.e., $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}}k_F\mathrm{}1`$, the resistivity components are changed considerably. Keeping only the largest contributions when $`\mathrm{\Delta }B/B_{eff}`$ is treated as a small parameter, we obtain the following approximate results for the components of the electron resistivity $`\rho _{}=\rho _{yy}`$ and $`\rho _{||}=\rho _{xx}`$ corresponding to current flowing perpendicular and parallel, respectively, to the modulation lines.

$`\rho _{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _0}}\left\{1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}}k_F\mathrm{}\right)^2\left[J_1^2(gR)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_0^2(gR)\right]\right\},`$
$`\rho _{||}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _0}}\{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_F}{g}}\right)^2(gR)^2`$ (21)
$`\times `$ $`[J_1(gR){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{k_F}}J_0(gR)]^2\}.`$
We arrived at the expressions (20), (21) for magnetoresistivities as a result of a semiquantitative analysis described above. Our analysis is a merely semiquantitative one for it employs the relation (7) in ”nonlocal” $`(R\stackrel{<}{}\lambda )`$ calculations whereas this relation is completely adequate only within the extremely local regime $`(R<<\lambda ).`$ However, similar considerations were carried out before eight ; nine , and it was shown eight ; nine ; ten  that they yield results which basically agree with those obtained with proper calculations based on the Boltzmann transport equation. Here, we also use the latter to justify our results for resistivity components (see Appendix).

It follows from Eqs. (20) and (21) that both resistivities are influenced by the one-dimensional modulation, ruling out the local limit $`R<<\lambda .`$ This disagrees with the results obtained in Refs. five ; six ; seven ; eight ; nine ; ten ; eleven , where it was stated that only one component of the resistivity, i.e., $`\rho _{}`$, changes as a result of the modulation. Comparison of our theory with the existing semiclassical theories shows that the difference in the results arises from the difference in definitions of the effective magnetoresistivity. Here, we define $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_{cf}`$ as $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{cf}^1`$ where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{cf}`$ is introduced by Eq. (9), whereas Menne and Gerhardts ten  use a different definition for the effective magnetoresistivity, namely:

$$\stackrel{}{\rho }<𝐣>=𝐄.$$

In other words, we first introduce the averaged effective conductivity and then we calculate the magnetoresistivity tensor, as an inverse of the effective conductivity. This is in contrast with Refs. five ; six ; seven ; eight ; nine ; ten ; eleven  where the average was carried out last eighteen .

Our point to justify the averaging procedure based on the definition (7) is that the expressions for transport coefficients obtained either with quantum mechanical or with classical calculations have to be consistent at low magnetic fields where the cyclotron quantum $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is minute compared to the Fermi energy of the system. Quantum mechanical calculations of the magnetoconductivity twelve ; thirteen ; fourteen ; fifteen  insert summation over quantum numbers labeling eigenstates of the unperturbed (homogeneous) 2DEG in an external magnetic field, including the guiding center coordinate $`Y.`$ In the semiclassical limit the resultant conductivity passes into a classical conductivity tensor averaged over the period of modulations, therefore the latter is an accurate semiclassical analog of the conductivity calculated within the proper quantum mechanical approach. Our definition of the effective conductivity (9) agrees with that, so it is correct. A similar definition was already used to analyze the response of a modulated 2DEG to the surface acoustic wave sixteen . On the contrary, the approach of five ; six ; seven ; eight ; nine ; ten ; eleven  is mistaken. Direct calculations of the averaged magnetoresistivity components proposed by Beenakker eight  and further developed by Menne and Gerhardts ten  give results which disagree with the corresponding expressions obtained within the semiclassical (low field) limit of quantum mechanical calculations thirteen . This difference is insignificant for the component $`\rho _{}`$ but it is crucial for $`\rho _{||}.`$

Our results for $`\rho _{}`$ and $`\rho _{||}`$ are different from those obtained in seventeen . The reason is that here we averaged the CF conductivity based on the definition in Eq. (9) consistent with the continuity equation, whereas in Ref. seventeen  the conductivity $`\sigma _{cf}`$ was obtained as a simple spatial average of $`\sigma _{cf}(Y)`$. This procedure led to invalid results for the resistivity component $`\rho _{}`$ which did not compare well with the experimental results.

In comparing the results of our paper in Eqs.(20) and (21) with the experimental results in Ref.four , we note that these expressions cannot be applied for filling factors close to $`\nu =1/2`$ because they are only valid when $`\mathrm{\Delta }B/B_{eff}1`$. However, we may use them when the filling is not close to $`\nu =1/2`$ in order to analyze the dependence of the resistivity on magnetic field. When $`gR1`$ and $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}}k_F\mathrm{}1`$, the correction to the resistivity $`\rho _{}`$ is of the order of unity and increases with the effective magnetic field $`B_{eff}`$ with a minimum at $`B_{eff}=0`$ corresponding to $`\nu =1/2`$, as has been observed experimentally three ; four . For the range of magnetic field when the effective magnetic field is not small, our theory gives good qualitative agreement with that in Refs. five ; six ; seven . Also, our Eq. (20) gives results for $`\rho _{||}`$ in qualitative agreement with experiment over a range of effective magnetic fields corresponding to $`2<gR<4`$, unlike Refs. five ; six ; seven . The magnitude of $`\rho _{||}`$ is smaller than $`\rho _{}`$.

## III III. Numerical Results

We compare our numerical results obtained from Eqs. (21) and (21) with the experimental data by choosing the following values in our numerical calculations, $`n=1.1\times 10^{15}m^2,p_F=1.2\times 10^{26}kg.m/s,\lambda =0.5\mu m,\mathrm{}=1.0\mu m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }n/n=0.025`$. Plots of $`\rho _{xx}`$ and $`\rho _{yy}`$ as functions of $`B_{eff}`$ are presented in Fig. 1.

The oscillations in both $`\rho _{xx}`$ and $`\rho _{yy}`$ are due to the density modulation and depend on the wavelength $`\lambda `$. The ratio $`\rho _{xx}/\rho _{yy}`$ for the range of magnetic fields shown in Fig. 1 is in good agreement with experiment four . In the immediate vicinity of $`\nu =1/2`$, where the condition $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{B_{eff}}<1`$ is not satisfied, our theory breaks down because the magnetic field dependence is strongly influenced by the channeled orbits of CFs which cannot be included in this formalism.

## IV IV. Summary and Concluding Remarks

In this paper, we use a quasiclassical theory based on the Beenakker approximation for dc magnetotransport in a modulated quantum Hall system near filling factor $`\nu =1/2`$. Assuming that a weak one-dimensional electrostatic potential acts on the two-dimensional electron gas, we obtain closed form analytic expressions for the resistivity $`\rho _{}`$ corresponding to a current at right angles to the direction of the modulation lines as well as a smaller component $`\rho _{||}`$ for a current along the direction of the modulation lines. Numerical results are presented for $`\rho _{}`$ and $`\rho _{||}`$ and show some of the features observed experimentally. Our analytic results are not valid at filling factors too close to $`\nu =1/2`$ because our approximation scheme assumes that $`\mathrm{\Delta }B/B_{eff}`$ is a small parameter which can be applied as a perturbation parameter. A completely different approach must be used for filling factors nearer $`\nu =1/2`$ and will be considered elsewhere.

Finally, we point out that expressions similar to our results for the magnetoresistivity in Eqs. (20) and (21) can also be used for a semiquantitative analysis of dc madnetotransport in a modulated 2DEG in a weak nonquantizing magnetic field when the modulation is magnetic in nature. This enables us to explain qualitatively the so-called “antiphase” oscillations of the magnetoresistivity $`\rho _{||}.`$ It was observed in experiments twelve  and confirmed with the calculations based on quantum mechanical approach thirteen  that both magnetoresistivity components of a 2DEG in a one-dimensional lateral superlattice show oscillations of the same period at low magnetic fields where quantum oscillations of the electron density of states at the Fermi surface (DOS) are negligible. Oscillations of $`\rho _{}`$ are identified as a commensurability effect (Weiss oscillations) which is also described within a semiclassical approach. As for antiphase oscillations of $`\rho _{||}`$, the current semiclassical theory is enable to explain them, therefore it is proposed twelve ; thirteen ; fourteen ; fifteen  that these oscillations are dominated by quantum mechanism, namely, by modulation-induced amplitude oscillations of DOS. The above explanation is hardly correct. It is true that at the presence of modulations quantum oscillations of DOS are superimposed with the commensurability oscillations. The same effect can be observed in conventional metals, as it was shown before eighteen . However, at low magnetic fields the quantum correction to DOS goes to zero, modulated or not. Only effects originating from classical mechanisms survive within this semiclassical limit. Besides, it is well known that periods of quantum oscillations of DOS and semiclassical commensurability oscillations differ, and their ratio is of the order of $`\mathrm{}g/p_F`$ where $`p_F`$ is the Fermi momentum of the considered system. Based on coincidence of the periods of low field oscillations of both magnetoresistivity components we conclude that they have the same nature and origin. So, we treat the low-field oscillations of $`\rho _{||}`$ as semiclassical commensurability oscillations which are misinterpreted as a quantum effect by the existing theory. Our results (19) and (39) confirm this conclusion. We do not believe that this contradicts the results of thirteen  based on quantum calculations. As in the case of Weiss oscillations, consistent results can be obtained within a classical approach as well as a semiclassical limit of quantum calculations, and we believe that our approach present a correct qualitative semiclassical description of the antiphase oscillations of $`\rho _{||},`$ restoring the self-consistence of the of the theory of magnetotransport in modulated 2D electron systems.

Acknowledgments: NAZ thanks G.M. Zimbovsky for help with the manuscript. GG acknowledges the support in part from a NATO Grant # CRG-972117 (U.S. - U.K. Collaborative Grant), the City University of New York PSC-CUNY grants #664279 and #669456 as well as grant # 4137308-02 from the NIH. JLB acknowledges support in part from an ”in service” grant from the PSC-CUNY research program.

## V V. appendix

In this Appendix, we present a derivation of the expressions for the components of the magnetoresistivity based on the Boltzmann transport equation. Our goal is to show that both $`\rho _{||}`$ and $`\rho _{}`$ can be affected by weak density modulations along the $`y`$ direction with $`\mathrm{\Delta }n(y)=\mathrm{\Delta }n\mathrm{sin}(gy)`$, where $`g`$ is a constant. For simplicity, we neglect a small direct effect due to the screened electric modulating potential $`U(y)`$ on the response functions and we concentrate on the effect of modulations of the effective magnetic field.

The CF current density can be written as

$$𝐣(y)=Ne^2_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\psi }{2\pi }𝐯(\psi )\mathrm{\Phi }(y,\psi ),$$
(22)
where $`N`$ is the CF density of states on their Fermi surface and the distribution function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y,\psi )`$ satisfies the linearized Boltzmann equation

$$v_y\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{y}+(\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }(y))\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\psi }+C[\mathrm{\Phi }]=𝐄𝐯.$$
(23)
Here, $`𝐄`$ is an external electric field. The collision integral $`C[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ in our calculations below is taken in a relaxation time approximation, with the relaxation towards the local equilibrium distribution function, i.e.,

$$C[\mathrm{\Phi }]=\frac{1}{\tau }\left[\mathrm{\Phi }(y,\psi )_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\psi }{2\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }(y,\psi )\right].$$
(24)
The average of this $`C[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ over $`\psi `$ vanishes. As a result, the current density in Eq. (22) has to satisfy the continuity equation.

To proceed, we separate from the distribution function the homogeneous term $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\psi )`$ which describes the linear response of the CF system in the absence of modulations. For this term, we use the expression given in ten , i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\psi )=\rho _0\tau 𝐯𝐣_0,$$
(25)
where $`\rho _0`$ is the Drude resistivity ($`\rho _0=\frac{1}{\sigma _0}`$) and $`𝐣_0`$ is the CF current density for the unmodulated system.

Expressing $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y,\psi )`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(y,\psi )=\mathrm{\Phi }(\psi )+\rho _0\tau \chi (y,\psi ),$$
(26)
we obtain the following transport equation

$$v_y\frac{\chi }{y}+(\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }(y))\frac{\chi }{\psi }+C[\chi ]=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }(y)\left(v_yj_x^0v_xj_y^0\right).$$
(27)
We now expand $`\chi (y,\psi )`$ as a Fourier series in its spatial variable, i.e.,

$$\chi (y,\psi )=\chi _0(\psi )+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\chi _ne^{igny}+\chi _n^{}e^{igny}\right).$$
(28)
This leads to a system of equations for the Fourier components $`\chi _n(\psi )`$ given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _0}{\psi }}`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}C[\chi _0]=i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi _1^{}}{\psi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _1}{\psi }}\right),`$ (29)
$`igR\mathrm{sin}(\psi )\chi _1`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _1}{\psi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}C[\chi _1]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\left(v_xj_y^0v_yj_x^0\right)`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi _0}{\psi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _2}{\psi }}\right).`$
The equations determining the Fourier components $`\chi _n`$ for $`n2`$ are given by

$$ingR\chi _n+\frac{\chi _n}{\psi }+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}C[\chi _n]=i\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(\frac{\chi _{n1}}{\psi }\frac{\chi _{n+1}}{\psi }\right).$$
(31)
It follows from Eqs. (29)-(31) that $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _1^{}`$ are of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }B/B_{eff}`$, whereas $`\chi _0,\chi _2`$ and $`\chi _2^{}`$ are of order $`(\mathrm{\Delta }B/B_{eff})^2`$ and all Fourier components with $`n>2`$ are of order $`(\mathrm{\Delta }B/B_{eff})^3`$ or smaller. Therefore, retaining in the expansion of $`\chi (y,\psi )`$ those terms no less than the square of $`\mathrm{\Delta }B/B_{eff}`$, we can omit all terms with $`n>2`$ in the Fourier series (28). Then, looking for the solutions of (LABEL:ae8)-(31) in the limit when impurity scattering is weak, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }\tau 1`$, we obtain the main approximations for the desired Fourier components, namely,

$`\chi _0(\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}(gR\mathrm{cos}\psi )QE_x,`$ (32)
$`\chi _1(\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{exp}(igR\mathrm{cos}\psi )QE_x,`$ (33)
$`\chi _2(\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)^2\mathrm{exp}(igR\mathrm{cos}\psi )QE_xn`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)^2\mathrm{exp}(2igR\mathrm{cos}\psi )SE_x,`$
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_F}{2}}\sigma _0\mathrm{\Omega }\tau {\displaystyle \frac{J_1(gR)}{1J_0^2(gR)}},`$ (35)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_F}{2}}\sigma _0\mathrm{\Omega }\tau {\displaystyle \frac{J_0(gR)J_1(gR)}{(1J_0^2(gR))(1+J_0(2gR))}}.`$ (36)
Substituting the derived results in Eqs. (32)-(34) into the Fourier expansion (28), we obtain the distribution function $`\chi (y,\psi )`$ which we use to calculate the CF current density for a modulated system.

We see that only the $`j_x`$ component has an extra term due to the modulation, whereas $`j_y`$ remains unchanged and does not depend on the $`y`$ coordinate. This agrees with the continuity equation and is a motivation for us to calculate the averaged CF current density in a simple way:

$$<𝐣(y)>=<\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{cf}(y)>𝐄.$$
(37)
We obtain

$$\sigma _{cf}^{xx}=<\sigma _{cf}^{xx}(y)>=\frac{\sigma _0}{1+(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau )^2}+\sigma _0\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{B_{eff}}\right)^2\frac{J_1^2(gR)}{1J_0^2(gR)}.$$
(38)
The second term in (38) represents the diffusion of the CFs along the $`x`$ direction due to the drift of the guiding center. Other components of the CF conductivity tensor remain unchanged due to the modulation and we obtain the following expressions for the electron magnetoresistivity:

$`\rho _{yy}=\rho _{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _0}}\left\{1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}}k_Fl\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{J_1^2(gR)}{1J_0^2(gR)}}\right\},`$ (39)
$`\rho _{xx}=\rho _{||}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _0}}\left\{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}}k_FR\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{J_1^2(gR)}{1J_0^2(gR)}}\right\}.`$ (40)
These results (38), (39) are obtained using the main approximation in the expansion of the distribution function $`\chi (y,\psi )`$ in the expansion of the distribution function $`\chi (y,\psi )`$ in the inverse powers of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }\tau >>1.`$ Taking into account higher order terms in this expansion does not change the main result, namely, that both resistivities are influenced by the modulations. Corresponding calculations are lengthy, and we do not present them here.

So, our analysis based on the Boltzmann equation gives results which do not contradict our semiquantitative approach which we employed in Section 2. We have shown that both magnetoresistivity components are affected by the modulation, although the effect on $`\rho _{}`$ is larger than on $`\rho _{||}`$. Apart from the denominator $`(1J_0^2(gR))`$, the first terms in the expressions for the corrections due to modulation in our results (20) and (21) coincide with the corrections in the expressions (39) and (40).

We now return to the discrepancy between our results and those in Refs. five ; six ; seven ; eight ; nine ; ten ; eleven . We use of the definitions in ten  for the effective magnetoresistivity tensor $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_{eff}<𝐣>=𝐄`$ and their result $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_𝒟𝐣=𝐄+𝚫`$, where $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_𝒟`$ is the Drude resistivity tensor and the vector $`𝚫`$ is (see ten )

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}=\frac{2\rho _0\tau }{v_F^2}_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\psi }{2\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }(y)v_{y,x}\chi (y,\psi ).$$
(41)
We conclude that for weak modulation, when $`<𝐣>𝐣_0`$, we have

$$\left(\stackrel{}{\rho }_𝒟\stackrel{}{\rho }_{eff}\right)𝐣_0=𝚫.$$
(42)
This means that the components of the vector $`𝚫`$ are linear combinations of the components of the corrections of the linear resistivity tensor. As in the local limit, the effective resistivity tensor is directly calculated in ten , avoiding calculations of the effective conductivity first.

Substituting our expression for $`\chi (y,\psi )`$ into (41), we can obtain $`𝚫`$, and then the components of the electron magnetoresistivity. The results corroborate the corresponding results of ten  and we arrive at their conclusion that only $`\rho _{}`$ is affected by the modulation. This confirms our conclusion that the root of the disagreement between our results and those of five ; six ; seven ; eight ; nine ; ten ; eleven  is in the different ways of averaging the response functions over the period of the modulation.


text:
# Fronts with a Growth Cutoff but Speed Higher than 𝑣^∗

## Abstract

Fronts, propagating into an unstable state $`\varphi =0`$, whose asymptotic speed $`v_{\text{as}}`$ is equal to the linear spreading speed $`v^{}`$ of infinitesimal perturbations about that state (so-called pulled fronts) are very sensitive to changes in the growth rate $`f(\varphi )`$ for $`\varphi 1`$. It was recently found that with a small cutoff, $`f(\varphi )=0`$ for $`\varphi <\epsilon `$, $`v_{\text{as}}`$ converges to $`v^{}`$ very slowly from below, as $`\mathrm{ln}^2\epsilon `$. Here we show that with such a cutoff and a small enhancement of the growth rate for small $`\varphi `$ behind it, one can have $`v_{\text{as}}>v^{}`$, even in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$. The effect is confirmed in a stochastic lattice model simulation where the growth rules for a few particles per site are accordingly modified.

Pulled fronts are those fronts that propagate into a linearly unstable state, and whose asymptotic front speed $`v_{\text{as}}`$ equals the linear spreading speed $`v^{}`$ of infinitesimal perturbations about the unstable state bj ; vs2 ; ebert . The name pulled front refers to the picture that in the leading edge of these fronts, the perturbation about the unstable state grows and spreads with speed $`v^{}`$, while the rest of the front gets “pulled along” by the leading edge. That this notion is not merely an intuitive picture but can be turned into a mathematically precise analysis is illustrated by the recent derivation of exact results for the general power law convergence of the front speed to the asymptotic value $`v^{}`$ ebert . Fronts which propagate into a linearly unstable state and whose asymptotic speed $`v_{\text{as}}>v^{}`$ are refered to as pushed, as it is the nonlinear growth in the region behind the leading edge that pushes their front speed to higher values. If the state is not linearly unstable, then $`v^{}`$ is trivially zero; in such cases the front propagation is always dominated by the nonlinear growth in the front region itself, and hence fronts in this case are in a sense “pushed” too.

For the field $`\varphi (x,t)`$, the dynamics of fronts that we consider in this paper is given by the usual nonlinear diffusion equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{^2\varphi }{x^2}}+f(\varphi ).`$ (1)
In the standard case, the growth function $`f(\varphi )`$ has the form $`f(\varphi )=\varphi \varphi ^n`$, with $`n>1`$. Equation (1) has two stationary states for $`\varphi (x,t)`$: $`\varphi (x,t)=0`$ and $`\varphi (x,t)=1`$. Of these, $`\varphi (x,t)=1`$ is stable and $`\varphi (x,t)=0`$ is unstable. The asymptotic speed of (pulled) fronts propagating from $`\varphi (x,t)=1`$ into $`\varphi (x,t)=0`$ in Eq. (1) is $`v^{}=2`$.

The sensitivity of pulled fronts to the precise dynamics for small perturbations about the unstable state has recently surfaced in a remarkable way bd . Often, in equations like (1), the field $`\varphi (x,t)`$ is the density of particles in a continuum description. If one then considers fronts in stochastic particle model versions of (1), the linear growth term in $`f(\varphi )`$ implies that for small particle density, the rate at which new particles are created is proportional to the density itself. Brunet and Derrida bd  were the first to realize the fact that for new particles to be created in any given realization, the density must be at least one “quantum” of particle density strong, and that this provides a natural lower cutoff for the growth that strongly affects the front speed. Indeed, to mimic this effect, they considered a deterministic front of the type in Eq. (1) with $`n=3`$, and by hand introduced a cutoff of the type sketched in Fig. 1a in the growth function at $`\varphi =\epsilon 1`$. In this paper, we denote their growth function by $`f(\varphi ,\epsilon )[\varphi \varphi ^3]\mathrm{\Theta }(\varphi \epsilon )`$ where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the unit step function. For small $`\epsilon `$, the asymptotic front speed $`v_{\text{as}}(\epsilon )`$ was then found to be bd

$`v_{\text{as}}(\epsilon )v^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{(\mathrm{ln}\epsilon )^2}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (2)
Brunet and Derrida subsequently identified $`\epsilon `$ with $`1/N`$, where $`N`$ is the average number of particles at the saturation state of the front, corresponding to the stable state $`\varphi (x,t)=1`$ of the density field. The slow logarithmic convergence to the asymptotic front speed from below as a function of $`N`$, implied by Eq. (2), has been confirmed in various studies of stochastic lattice models bd ; breuer ; vanzon ; kns ; levine ; PvS . Note that for $`\varphi <\epsilon `$, the growth function $`f`$ vanishes, and as a result, strictly speaking, the state $`\varphi =0`$ is not linearly unstable; hence fronts in this model are always weakly pushed for any nonzero value of $`\epsilon `$ deb2 .

In this paper, we demonstrate an even more surprising aspect of the sensitivity to small changes in the growth function $`f`$ of the “pulled” fronts, that we have at $`\epsilon =0`$: if $`f`$ is sufficiently enhanced in a range of $`\varphi `$ of the order of $`\epsilon `$, the asymptotic front speed $`v_{\text{as}}`$ can become larger than $`v^{}`$ and not converge to $`v^{}`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$. For fluctuating fronts, this implies that if the stochastic growth rates for small occupation densities $`n_i`$ are somewhwat enhanced over a linear behavior $`n_i`$, then such stochastic fronts may move faster than $`v^{}`$ and never converge to their naive mean field limit for $`N\mathrm{}`$. This effect may be of relevance for the coarse-grained field theory for DLA, as it is empirically known to be essential to modify the growth function for small cluster densities brener .

We now discuss our results first, and then summarize their derivation.

To be specific, we consider the nonlinear diffusion equation (1) with the growth function sketched in Fig. 1b,

$`f(\varphi ,\epsilon ,r)`$ $`=`$ $`f(\varphi ,\epsilon )\text{for}\varphi <\epsilon \text{and for}\varphi >\epsilon /r`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\epsilon /r\text{for}\epsilon \varphi \epsilon /r,`$
with $`r<1`$. We show that while for any fixed value of $`r`$,

$`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}f(\varphi ,\epsilon ,r)=f(\varphi ),`$ (4)
the asymptotic front speed $`v_{\text{as}}(\epsilon ,r)`$ has the property that

$`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}v_{\text{as}}(\epsilon ,r)`$ $`=`$ $`v^{}\text{for}r>r_c,`$
$`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}v_{\text{as}}(\epsilon ,r)`$ $`>`$ $`v^{}\text{for}r<r_c.`$ (5)
where

$`r_c={\displaystyle \frac{1+e^{(v^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})}}{v^2}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.283833}\mathrm{}.`$ (6)
Hereafter, to save writing, we denote $`v_{\text{as}}(\epsilon ,r)`$ simply by $`v`$. For $`\epsilon 0`$, the asymptotic speed at a given value of $`rr_c`$ in our model is given by the relation

$`r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{v}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{4}}1}}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{v}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{4}}1}}}e^{\left\{v^2\frac{2}{1+\frac{2}{v}\sqrt{\frac{v^2}{4}1}}\right\}}\right],`$ (7)
from which the value of $`r_c`$, given by Eq. (6), follows.

These expressions show that the limits do not commute for $`r<r_c`$: taking the limit $`\epsilon 0`$ first in $`f`$ yields a front speed $`v^{}`$ but the limit $`v_{\text{as}}(\epsilon 0,r)>v^{}`$. The reason is that for $`r<r_c`$ there is always a little tail of the front that runs faster than $`v^{}`$ and makes $`\varphi `$ nonzero. Once $`\varphi `$ is nonzero, growth continues and the region behind it just has to follow it with the same asymptotic speed.

Our analysis is corroborated by numerical results obtained by solving Eq. (1) forward in time, (with Gaussian initial conditions). The data for $`v`$ vs. $`r`$ at $`\epsilon =2\times 10^5`$ are shown as solid dots in Fig. 2. Note that for $`r<r_c`$, the solid dots fall on top of our prediction (7) drawn with a solid line, while for $`r>r_c`$, they systematically fall below the solid line $`v=v^{}`$. The reason for it is the difference between the rates of convergence as $`\epsilon 0`$, which is illustrated in the inset of Fig. 2 by means of the schematically drawn dashed line. The arrows in the inset indicate the rate of convergence of the dashed $`r`$-$`v`$ curve towards the limiting one, given by Eq. (7). For $`r>r_c`$, the convergence is $`\mathrm{ln}^2\epsilon `$ like in the case for $`r=1`$, analyzed in Ref. bd ; but for $`r<r_c`$ the convergence is much faster, $`\epsilon ^{n1}`$. This latter behavior is illustrated for $`r=0.2`$ and $`n=2,3`$ in Fig. 3 — note the fine scale on the vertical axis!

That the effect of increasing asymptotic speed with decreasing $`r`$ below $`r_c`$ is a real effect for stochastic fronts too is illustrated by the crosses in Fig. 2: these represent the data for the average speed of fronts in a reaction-diffusion system X$`2`$X, for discrete X particles on a lattice with $`N=10^4`$ correspond , where the growth rates have been modified when the number of particles $`n_i`$ on a lattice site $`i`$ is less than $`1/r`$. In accord with the shape of the growth function $`f`$ illustrated in Fig. 1b, the rate at which particles are created at a lattice site $`i`$ with $`1n_i<1/r`$ particles is simply taken to be the same as the rate for $`n_i=1/r`$ (corresponding to the integral values $`1/r=1,2,3,4,5,7`$ and $`10`$, due to the discreteness of particles). As one can see from Fig. 2, already when $`r=0.5`$, i.e., when only the growth rate at lattice sites with one particle is increased by a factor 2, the asymptotic growth speed is above the value $`v^{}=2`$.

In the remainder of this paper, we derive the analytical results for the nonlinear diffusion equation with the growth function (3). Our analysis is based on the following observation: for $`\epsilon =0`$, it is well known that the nonlinear diffusion equation allows a continuous family of front solutions with $`vv^{}`$. When such fronts solutions are parametrized by their velocity $`v`$, and when the growth rate is modified to allow a transition to a “pushed” front with velocity $`v^{}`$, it is also known vs2 ; ebert  that solutions with $`v<v^{}`$ are unstable to a localized mode. In our analysis, we therefore consider a front with a given fixed velocity $`v`$ and, for small $`\epsilon `$, determine when upon decreasing $`r`$ a localized mode of the stability operator crosses the eigenvalue zero. In the limit $`\epsilon 0`$ this marks the selected pushed front in the $`r`$-$`v`$ diagram.

To carry out the linear stability analysis of the front solution, it is convenient to follow the standard route of transforming the linear eigenvalue equation into a Schrödinger eigenvalue problem bj ; ebert . We consider a function $`\varphi (x,t)`$, which is infinitesimally different from the asymptotic front solution $`\varphi _{\text{as}}(\xi )`$ in the comoving frame $`\xi =xvt`$, i.e., $`\varphi (x,t)=\varphi _{\text{as}}(\xi )+\eta (\xi ,t)`$. Upon linearizing Eq. (1) in the comoving frame, one finds that the function $`\eta (\xi ,t)`$ obeys the following equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{t}}=v{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{^2\eta }{\xi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi }}|_{\varphi =\varphi _{\text{as}}}\eta .`$ (8)
Since this equation is linear in $`\eta `$, the question of stability can be answered by studying the spectrum of the temporal eigenvalues. To this end, we express $`\eta (\xi ,t)`$ as

$`\eta (\xi ,t)=e^{Et}e^{v\xi /2}\psi _E(\xi ),`$ (9)
which converts Eq. (8) to a one-dimensional Schrödinger equation for a particle in a potential with $`\mathrm{}^2/2m=1`$:

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{d\xi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi }}|_{\varphi =\varphi _{\text{as}}}\right]\psi _E(\xi )=E\psi _E(\xi ),`$ (10)
In Eq. (10), the quantity $`V(\xi )=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi }}|_{\varphi =\varphi _{\text{as}}}\right]`$ plays the role of the potential. It is easily obtained explicitly from the expression (3) for $`f(\varphi ,\epsilon ,r)`$ as

$`V(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{4}}1+n\varphi _{\text{as}}^{n1}(\xi )\right]\mathrm{\Theta }(\xi _1\xi )`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{4}}\mathrm{\Theta }(\xi \xi _1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{rv}}\delta (\xi \xi _0),`$
where $`\varphi (\xi _0)=\epsilon `$ and $`\varphi (\xi _1)=\epsilon /r`$. The form of the potential for $`v>v^{}`$ and small $`\epsilon `$ is sketched in Fig. 4. Keep in mind that $`\varphi _{\text{as}}(\xi )`$ is a monotonically increasing function from $`\epsilon /r`$ at $`\xi _1`$ towards the left, and that $`\varphi _{\text{as}}(\xi \mathrm{})=1`$. As a result, in Fig. 4, $`V(\xi )`$ also increases monotonically towards the left for $`\xi <\xi _1`$. On the right of $`\xi _1`$, $`V(\xi )`$ is constant at $`v^2/4`$, and at $`\xi _0`$, there is an attractive $`\delta `$-function potential of strength $`(rv)^1`$ notedelta . The crucial feature for the stability analysis below is the fact that $`V(\xi )`$ stays remarkably flat at a value $`2\epsilon /r`$ over a distance $`(\xi _1\xi _2)|\mathrm{ln}\epsilon /r|`$ deb2 , and on the left of $`\xi _2`$, it increases to the value of $`v^2/4+n1`$, over a distance of order unity.

If there exist negative eigenvalues of the Schrödinger equation (10), then according to Eq. (9), $`\eta (\xi ,t)`$ grows in time in the comoving frame, i.e., the front solution $`\varphi _{\text{as}}(\xi )`$ is unstable. For our purpose, therefore, we look for the value of $`r`$ at which there is a bound state of Eq. (10) with eigenvalue $`E`$, such that $`E0`$ for the potential sketched in Fig. 4. This is a problem in elementary quantum mechanics. For $`\epsilon 0`$, the potential $`V(\xi )`$ is essentially constant in the left neighbourhood of $`\xi _1`$, and hence for $`v>v^{}`$ and $`E0`$, $`\psi _E(\xi )`$ can be written as

$`\psi _E(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`A_{}e^{\lambda _1(\xi \xi _1)}\text{for}\xi \xi _1`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`Ae^{\lambda _2(\xi \xi _0)}+Be^{\lambda _2(\xi _0\xi )}\text{for}\xi _1\xi \xi _0`$
$`=`$ $`A_2e^{\lambda _2(\xi \xi _0)}\text{for}\xi >\xi _0,`$
where $`\lambda _1=\sqrt{v^2/41}`$ and $`\lambda _2=v/2`$. The function $`\psi _E(\xi )`$ must be continuous at $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _0`$, while its slope is continuous at $`\xi _1`$, but not at $`\xi _0`$. Matching of these boundary conditions to determine the value of $`r`$, where the bound state eigenvalue $`E`$ crosses zero, also requires an expression for the distance $`\xi _0\xi _1`$. To this end, we divide the range of $`\varphi `$ values between $`0`$ and $`1`$ into the three regions marked in Fig. 4: (i) region I, where $`\varphi _{\text{as}}<\epsilon `$, (ii) region II, where $`\epsilon \varphi _{\text{as}}<\epsilon /r`$, and (iii) region III, where $`\varphi _{\text{as}}\epsilon /r`$. In the comoving frame, the asymptotic shape $`\varphi _{\text{as}}(\xi )`$ of the front is the solution of the differential equation $`\varphi _{\text{as}}^{\prime \prime }+v\varphi _{\text{as}}^{}+f(\varphi _{\text{as}},\epsilon ,r)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, where a prime denotes a derivative with respect to $`\xi `$. The solutions of $`\varphi _{\text{as}}(\xi )`$ in the regions I and II that satisfy the continuity of $`\varphi _{\text{as}}(\xi )`$ and $`\varphi _{\text{as}}^{}(\xi )`$, are respectively given by

$`\varphi _{\text{as}}(\xi )=\epsilon e^{v(\xi \xi _0)}\text{and}`$ (13)
$`\varphi _{\text{as}}(\xi )=\left[\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{rv^2}}\right]e^{v(\xi _0\xi )}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon (\xi _0\xi )}{rv}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{rv^2}}.`$
The length $`\xi _0\xi _1`$ of region II is obtained by equating $`\varphi _{\text{as}}(\xi _1)`$ from the second line of Eq. (13) to $`\epsilon /r`$. After dividing out a factor of $`\epsilon /r`$, this condition becomes

$`\left[r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}}\right]e^{v(\xi _0\xi _1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _0\xi _1}{v}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.`$ (14)
Thereafter, using Eqs. (12) and (13), one arrives at Eq. (7).

The above analysis yields the relation between $`v`$ and the critical value of $`r`$ in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$. The convergence with $`\epsilon `$, i.e., the rate of approach with $`\epsilon `$ of the dashed curve to the solid one in Fig. 2, can be obtained by considering the effect of the $`n\varphi _{\text{as}}^{n1}(\xi )`$ term of $`V(\xi )`$ on the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues. For $`v>v^{}`$, this term is simply a correction of order $`\epsilon ^{n1}`$ to the finite bottom value of the potential. This term can be included perturbatively, and accordingly it leads to a shift of order $`\epsilon ^{n1}`$ in the critical value of $`r`$. As Fig. 3 illustrates, this prediction is confirmed numerically. The case $`v=v^{}`$ calls for a more detailed analysis, since the bottom value of the potential vanishes in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$. In this case, it is known ebert ; bd  that $`\varphi _{\text{as}}(\xi )(C\xi +D)e^\xi `$, so $`V(\xi )n(\epsilon /r)^{n1}(\xi /\xi _1)^{n1}e^{(n1)(\xi _1\xi _)}`$ in the leading order of $`\epsilon `$. In dominant order, we need to keep only the exponential behaviour, and the solution of $`\psi _E(\xi )`$ is then given by the Bessel function $`A_{}K_0(2\sqrt{n\epsilon ^{n1}e^{(n1)(\xi _1\xi )}/r^{n1}})`$ in the left neighbourhood of $`\xi _1`$. The $`|\mathrm{ln}^1\epsilon |`$ scaling for the asymptotic approach of the dashed curve to the solid one is then easily obtained once the boundary conditions at $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _0`$ are matched with the use of Eq. (14).

The logarithmic convergence of $`v`$ to $`v^{}`$ from below for $`r>r_c`$ can be understood from an argument along the lines of that for $`r=1`$ bd . For $`v<v^{}`$, the front profile $`\varphi _{\text{as}}(\xi )`$ in region III is of the form $`\varphi _{\text{as}}(\xi )C\mathrm{sin}[k(\xi \xi _2)+\beta ]e^\xi `$. For $`r=1`$, region II is absent; in that case, the matching to the profile in region I and the divergence of the width $`\xi _0\xi _2|\mathrm{ln}\epsilon |`$ implies $`k\pi |\mathrm{ln}\epsilon |^1`$. For $`r_c<r<1`$, the matching to region II will change the prefactor, but $`k`$ will still scale as $`|\mathrm{ln}\epsilon |^1`$ because the width of region III still diverges logarithmically. As for $`r_cr<1`$, this translates into a scaling of $`v^{}v`$ as $`|\mathrm{ln}\epsilon |^2`$, with a prefactor that depends on $`r`$. Note that this scaling is nicely consistent with the convergence of the $`r`$-$`v`$ curve towards the point $`(r_c,v^{})`$ from the left, due to the fact that the slope of this curve vanishes at this point, and the convergence from below to this point scales as the square of the convergence from the left.

We finally end this paper with the note that if the (nonnegative) growth rate is bounded from above by $`f(\varphi ,\epsilon )`$ in the interval $`\varphi \epsilon /r`$, but is equal to $`f(\varphi ,\epsilon )`$ for $`\varphi >\epsilon /r`$, then as $`\epsilon 0`$, the asymptotic front speed converges to $`v^{}`$ with the same logarithmic convergence of Eq. (2) for any $`r`$. It simply follows from the inequality $`v_{\text{as}}(\epsilon /r)<v<v_{\text{as}}(\epsilon )`$, where $`v_{\text{as}}(\epsilon )`$ is given by Eq. (2).

D. P. wishes to acknowledge financial support from “Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie” (FOM).


text:
# State transformations after quantum fuzzy measurements

## 1 Introduction

If a quantum system interaction with the surroundings is subject to some restrictions like ”quasi-isolation”, i.e. it can interact up to a non-relativistic conservative quasi-classical field of forces, its evolution is given by the Schrödinger equation, which yields the unitary dynamical group (UG) $`\{\widehat{U}_t\}_t`$:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(t\right)=\widehat{U}_t|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)$$

Otherwise, if it cannot be considered quasi-isolated, its evolution is well-described by master-type equations (which are the most general evolution equations which preserve the trace of the density operator $`\widehat{\rho }`$ ). They actually yield some completely positive quantum dynamical semigroups (SG)  $`\{\widehat{V}_t\}_{t0}`$. However, if one can accept freely an ontological interpretation of the conceptual apparatus of Quantum Physics in the first case, one has to be careful when asserting ontological-type sentences for the open quantum systems. This is due to pure quantum correlations which appear between the system and the surroundings, which cannot be destructed by any type of interaction. Of course, one can work perfectly, from the epistemological point of vue , with the up-mentioned SG’s and master equations, but one has to be aware on the possible implications of explicitly or hidden ontological presuppositions.

Due to Born probabilistic interpretation, one has to accept - in the same epistemological perspective - the duality between states and observables, which is clearly illustrated in the two pictures of quantum evolution (Heisenberg and Schrödinger) and by the concept of instrument in Operational Quantum Physics (OQP) . In OPQ the state transformer after a quantum measurement is defined as an instrument, and this aims for the mathematical formalization of the so-called Projection Postulate (a to much debated topic in Quantum Physics, often carrying an ontological ballast). The evolution due to SG yield, in the Schrödinger picture, the mixing of initially pure states, while in Heisenberg picture a sharp observable $`\{\widehat{E}(B)\}_B`$ goes to a fuzzy observable $`\{\widehat{F}(B)\}_B`$ . If one consider the fuzzyfication map as a dynamical map in Heisenberg picture, one can compute the corresponding dual dynamical map in Schrödinger picture, an interpret it as a state transformer - which is different to the state transformer in OQP. This is a pure epistemological variant of OQP. Its study is useful in a twofold perspective: its adequacy to the real experimental physics could yield some changes in the present conceptual apparatus, while its inadequacy could emphasize the ontological importance of the usual OQP.

## 2 State transformations

### 2.1 General topics

One of the main results of OQP is that one can define the state transformation after a filter-measurement (state-preparation procedure) using a quantum instrument , that is a map: $`(,)`$: $`\times ()()`$, where ($`\mathrm{\Omega },`$) is a Borel space on the set of experimental data $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`()`$ is the space of the bounded operators on the Hilbert space $``$, and for fixed $`\widehat{A}()`$ $`(,\widehat{A})`$ is a $`\sigma `$-additive measure on $`(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$, while the values $`(B,),`$ $`B`$ are bounded completely positive operators $`()()`$ for which:

$$(\mathrm{\Omega },\widehat{I})=\widehat{I}$$

The evolution of the system is given, in Heisenberg image, by the map:

$$\widehat{A}(B,\widehat{A})$$

while the state transformation (Schrödinger image) is given by the dual instrument:

$$\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }_{post}(B;\widehat{\rho })=^{}(B,\widehat{\rho })$$
(1)
where $`B(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the Borel set of data, which the filter-measurement is looking for. Beyond positivity and monotonicity, $`^{}(,\widehat{\rho })`$ is asked to fulfil the following condition :

$$Tr(^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },\widehat{\rho }))=Tr(\widehat{\rho })$$
(2)
The sense of (1) is given by the convention used in usual OQP which accepts non-trace-preserving state transformers for $`B\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in order to limit the mathematical apparatus only to linear transformations . The apparatus of OQP is trivial for sharp quantum observables and is, in general, due to von Neumann . However, measurement is, by its very nature, a process of interaction which cannot, in general, fulfil the conditions for the unitary evolution of the investigated system, so one has to consider also, the case of fuzzy observables . The operators:

$$\widehat{F}(B)=(B,\widehat{1})$$

are usually named effects or fuzzy operators. The probability of obtaining the measurement result in the Borel set $`B`$ is given in the terms of the instrument by:

$`p(B)`$ $`=`$ $`Tr(\widehat{F}(B)\widehat{\rho })=Tr((B,\widehat{1})\widehat{\rho }))=`$
$`=`$ $`Tr(^{}(B,\widehat{\rho }))=Tr(\widehat{\rho }_{post}(B;\widehat{\rho }))`$
In  and  it is given a representation theorem for the most general form of a quantum instrument $`B,\widehat{A}()`$:

$$(B,\widehat{A})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_0}{}}\alpha _i_{\omega B}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N(\omega )}{}}\widehat{W}_{in}^+(\omega )\widehat{A}\widehat{W}_{in}(\omega )\nu (d\omega ),$$
(4)
where the operators $`\{\widehat{W}_{in}(\omega )\}_{i,n;\omega }`$ have to observe the relation:

$$_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N(\omega )}{}}\widehat{W}_{jn}^+(\omega )\widehat{W}_{in}(\omega )\nu (d\omega )=\delta _{ji}$$
(5)
(4) and (5) are to be understood in the weak sense. They give the most general form of the effects:

$$\widehat{F}(B)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_0}{}}\alpha _i_{\omega B}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N(\omega )}{}}\widehat{W}_{in}^+(\omega )\widehat{W}_{in}(\omega )\nu (d\omega )$$
(6)
However, the set of these mathematical objects have not mandatory correspond one-to-one to physical-significative objects, which have to observe some restrictions (for example the case of regular effects, which are neither less then $`\frac{1}{2}\widehat{1}`$, nor greater than it).

The definition of the state transformer as an instrument aims to the mathematical formalization of the so-called Projection Postulate (via relation (2.1)), which is a too much debated topic in Quantum Mechanics literature. It is known , that the conceptual status of state projection (reduction), is still polemical in measurement theory , whereas the concept of (nonselective) state change is rather straightforward, and can be easy handled in the Quantum Physics of Open Systems .

In  it is shown that $`(,\widehat{\rho })`$ (nonselective state transformation) has a unique decomposition in (the selective) state transformations:

$$(,\widehat{\rho })=\underset{m}{}(\{m\},\widehat{\rho })$$

which it is claimed to support the (selective) state reduction without assuming the Projection Postulate. However, the ideas presented above are consistent, also, with a Quantum Mechanics without Projection Postulate (without selection). If

$$\widehat{E}(B)\widehat{F}(B)$$

is the dynamical map in Heisenberg picture (the sharp effects go to fuzzy ones), one can write the probability using the Schrődinger image of the dynamical map (see eq. II.2.1 in )

$$p(B)=Tr(\widehat{F}(B)\widehat{\rho })=Tr(\widehat{E}(B)\widehat{\rho }_{post}^{(E)})$$
(7)
Of course, this is applicable only for those generalized effects which can be obtained by fuzzyfication procedures from sharp ones. (But, for the moment, there is no physical grounded theory for the most general form of the physical effects, as it is done in  for the mathematical objects (6), while fuzzyfication of sharp obsevables is usual).

### 2.2 Purely discrete case

In  it is taken the case (4) when $`N_0=1`$ and the measure $`\nu `$ is the Heaviside one :

$$(B,\widehat{A})=\underset{mB}{}\widehat{𝒜}_m^+\widehat{A}\widehat{𝒜}_m$$
(8)
$$^{}(B,\widehat{\rho })=\underset{mB}{}\widehat{𝒜}_m\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝒜}_m^+$$
(9)
where:

$$\underset{m}{}\widehat{𝒜}_m^+\widehat{𝒜}_m=\widehat{1}$$

On the next step, the case of a sharp observable with a purely discrete spectrum $`\{\widehat{E}_i\}_i`$ will be considered; it is consistent with (9). The standard fuzzyfication procedure for a sharp observable is given by the relation :

$$\widehat{F}_\alpha =\underset{m}{}\omega _{\alpha m}\widehat{E}_m\alpha $$
(10)
$$\widehat{F}(B)=\underset{\alpha B}{}\underset{m}{}\omega _{\alpha m}\widehat{E}_m$$
(11)
where the positive constants $`\left\{\omega _{\alpha m}\right\}_{\alpha ,m}`$ have to observe the relation:

$$\underset{\alpha }{}\omega _{\alpha m}=1m$$
(12)
(simple stochasticity) and may depend on some fuzzyfication parameters (like $`\sigma `$ which, for the moment, will be dropped).From (2.1), (10) and (9) one gets:

$$\widehat{𝒜}_m\widehat{𝒜}_m^+=\underset{k}{}\omega _{mk}\widehat{E}_k=\widehat{F}_m$$

Here, usually, one takes a non-complex solution:

$$\widehat{𝒜}_m=\widehat{𝒜}_m^+=\underset{k}{}\sqrt{\omega _{mk}}\widehat{E}_k=\sqrt{\widehat{F}_m}$$
(13)
so (9) becomes:

$$^{}(B,\widehat{\rho })=\underset{mB}{}\underset{k,n}{}\sqrt{\omega _{mk}\omega _{mn}}\widehat{E}_k\widehat{\rho }\widehat{E}_n$$
(14)
$$^{}(B,\widehat{\rho })=\underset{mB}{}\sqrt{\widehat{F}_m}\widehat{\rho }\sqrt{\widehat{F}_m}$$
(15)
The result (15) is often taken as the main objective of OQP (see page 138 of ). Of course, in the sharp situation, when $`\omega _{mk}=\delta _{mk}`$, one gets the usual von Neumann result:

$$_{vN}^{}(B,\widehat{\rho })=\underset{mB}{}\widehat{E}_m\widehat{\rho }\widehat{E}_m$$
(16)
Meanwhile, using (7) the probabilities of measuring the fuzzy observable (10) $`\{\widehat{F}_\alpha \}_\alpha `$ for a system in the state $`\widehat{\rho }`$ are given by:

$$p_\alpha =Tr(\widehat{F}_\alpha \widehat{\rho })=\underset{m}{}\omega _{\alpha m}Tr(\widehat{E}_m\widehat{\rho })=\underset{m}{}\omega _{\alpha m}\rho _{mm}$$
(17)
and the dynamical map in Schrődinger image can be to write using (17) in the terms of a completely positive map, similar to that of the dual instrument (9):

$$\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }_{post}^{(E)}=(,\widehat{\rho })=\underset{m}{}\widehat{𝒜}_m^{(E)}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝒜}_m^{(E)+}$$

$$p_\alpha =Tr(\widehat{E}_\alpha \widehat{\rho }_{post}^{(E)})=Tr(|\alpha \alpha |\underset{m}{}\widehat{𝒜}_m^{(E)}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝒜}_m^{(E)+})\alpha $$

$$\underset{m}{}\omega _{\alpha m}\rho _{mm}=\underset{m}{}\alpha |\widehat{𝒜}_m^{(E)}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝒜}_m^{(E)+}|\alpha \alpha $$
(18)
In (18) one can identify:

$`\widehat{𝒜}_m^{(E)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{\omega _{km}}|km|`$ (19)
$`\widehat{𝒜}_m^{(E)+}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{\omega _{km}}|mk|`$
which are clearly different from (13).

One is looking for a positive operator $`\widehat{}_d`$ which yields:

$$\omega _{km}=m|\widehat{}_d^+|kk|\widehat{}_d|m$$
(20)
If one takes the real-positive solution $`k|\widehat{}_d|m=\sqrt{\omega _{km}}`$, one can write:

$$\widehat{\rho }_{post}^{(E)}=\widehat{}_d\underset{m}{}\widehat{E}_m\widehat{\rho }\widehat{E}_m\widehat{}_d^+$$
(21)
which can be written as (9) for

$`\widehat{𝒜}_m^{(E)}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{}_d\widehat{E}_m`$ (22)
$`\widehat{𝒜}_m^{(E)+}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{E}_m\widehat{}_d^+`$
The ideal case of von Neumann can be obtained, again, for $`\widehat{}_d=\widehat{1}`$.

Using (20) one can write (13) as:

$$\widehat{𝒜}_m=\widehat{𝒜}_m^+=\underset{k}{}m|\widehat{}_d|k\widehat{E}_k$$

#### 2.2.1 Example

An interesting case is that of a (symmetrical) Gaussian convolution in (10):

$$\omega _{km}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\sigma )}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{(km)^2}{\sigma ^2})$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\sigma )=\underset{m}{}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{k^2}{\sigma ^2})`$ is a function whose properties can be found using Poisson summation formula  ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\sigma )1`$ for $`\sigma [0;0.4]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\sigma )\sqrt{\pi }\sigma `$ for $`\sigma [0.8;\mathrm{})`$. Also, one can define $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1/2}(\sigma )=\underset{m}{}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{(k+\frac{1}{2})^2}{\sigma ^2})`$ and find that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1/2}(\sigma )0`$ for $`\sigma [0;0.2]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1/2}(\sigma )\sqrt{\pi }\sigma `$ for $`\sigma [0.8;\mathrm{})`$). In this case one has:

$$k|\widehat{}_d|m=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\sigma )}}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{(km)^2}{2\sigma ^2})$$
(24)
### 2.3 Purely continuous case

For the purely continuous spectrum, say the position operator case:

$$\widehat{x}=\underset{}{}x\widehat{E}(dx)=\underset{}{}x|xx|𝑑x$$

one takes in (4) $`\mathrm{\Omega }=`$ and $`N(\omega )=N_0=1`$. For the fuzzy effect one takes:

$$\widehat{F}(B)=\underset{}{}(f\chi _B)(x)\widehat{E}(dx)=\underset{B}{}𝑑\lambda \underset{}{}f(\lambda x)\widehat{E}(dx)$$

where $`\underset{}{}f(x)𝑑x=1`$ is a condition similar to (12) and $`f(x)>0x`$. The next step is looking for the positive operator $`\widehat{}_c`$ for which:

$$f(\lambda x)=x|\widehat{}_c^+|\lambda \lambda |\widehat{}_c|x$$

Of course:

$$\lambda |\widehat{}_c|x=\sqrt{f(\lambda x)}$$
(25)
and looking for a state transformer like (7) one finds:

$$\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }_{post}^{(E,c)}=\underset{}{}𝑑x\widehat{}_c|xx|\widehat{\rho }|xx|\widehat{}_c^+$$
(26)
The OPQ state transformer is (equations 4.6.3 and 4.6.4 in ):

$$\widehat{\rho }_{post}^{(c)}=\underset{}{}𝑑x\widehat{𝒜}_x\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝒜}_x^+$$
(27)
where:

$$\lambda |\widehat{𝒜}_x|\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{f(\lambda x)}\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )\lambda ,\mathrm{\Psi }$$

$$\widehat{𝒜}_x=\widehat{𝒜}_x^+=\underset{}{}\sqrt{f(xy)}\widehat{E}(dy)=\underset{}{}x|\widehat{}_c|y\widehat{E}(dy)$$

while (26) can be written in the form:

$$\widehat{\rho }_{post}^{(E,c)}=\underset{}{}𝑑x\widehat{𝒜}_x^{(E)}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝒜}_x^{(E)+}$$
(28)
where:

$`\widehat{𝒜}_x^{(E)}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{}_c|xx|`$
$`\widehat{𝒜}_x^{(E)+}`$ $`=`$ $`|xx|\widehat{}_c^+`$
#### 2.3.1 Example

As an example it will be discussed only the continuous analogue of (24) which is given by:

$$x|\widehat{}_c|x^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sqrt{\pi }\sigma }}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{(xx^{})^2}{2\sigma ^2})$$
(29)
$$\widehat{}_c=\sqrt{2\sqrt{\pi }\sigma }\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^2\widehat{k}^2)$$

where $`\widehat{k}`$ is the wave-number operator, conjugate to $`\widehat{x}`$.

In  it is shown that $`^{}(B,\widehat{\rho })`$, the corresponding instrument to (27), is a solution of the covariance condition:

$$^{}(B+a,\widehat{\rho })=\widehat{U}_a^+^{}(B,\widehat{U}_a\widehat{\rho }\widehat{U}_a^+)\widehat{U}_a$$

where $`\widehat{U}_a`$ is the shift-operator on $``$,

$$\widehat{U}_a=\mathrm{exp}(ia\widehat{k})$$

Starting from (25) one can calculate the matrix elements in the wave-numbers space, and find that:

$$k|\widehat{}_c|k^{}=(\sqrt{f})^\mathrm{~}\delta (kk^{})$$

$$\widehat{}_c=(\sqrt{f})^\mathrm{~}(\widehat{k})$$

where $`(\sqrt{f})^\mathrm{~}`$ is the Fourier Transform of $`\sqrt{f(x)}`$. One follows that $`[\widehat{}_c,\widehat{U}_a]=0`$, so one can easy prove that the completely positive map (28) is also covariant w.r.t. space translations.

## 3 Calculations with the two variants of state-transformation

### 3.1 Discrete case

Calculating the moments of the observable $`\widehat{E}`$ for the two states (27) and (21) one obtains:

$`M_1^{(O)}`$ $`=`$ $`Tr(\widehat{\rho }_{post}^{(c)}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}m|mm|)={\displaystyle \underset{m,k}{}}m\omega _{km}\rho _{mm}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\omega _{km}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}m\rho _{mm}={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}m\rho _{mm}=`$
$`=`$ $`Tr(\widehat{\rho }{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}m|mm|)=M_1`$
One can notice that $`M_1^{(O)}`$, and also all the superior moments, do not depend on the fuzzyfication parameters. In the other case, by the contrary, one has:

$`M_1^{(E)}`$ $`=`$ $`Tr(\widehat{\rho }_{post}^{(E,c)}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}m|mm|)={\displaystyle \underset{m,k}{}}m\omega _{mk}\rho _{kk}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}k\rho _{kk}+{\displaystyle \underset{m,u}{}}u\omega _{m+u,m}\rho _{mm}`$
Let $`\underset{u}{}u\omega _{m+u,m}=M_1(\omega ,m)`$. One will consider only homogeneous distributions, that is $`\omega _{m+u,m}=\omega _u`$, for which $`M_1(\omega ,m)=M_1^{(\omega )}`$. Then:

$$M_1^{(E)}=M_1+M_1^{(\omega )}$$

and, in general:

$$M_n^{(E)}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}k\hfill \\ m\hfill \end{array}\right)M_kM_{nk}^{(\omega )}$$

which is a well-known formula of statistical physics.

Some straightforward calculations can be done for the linear entropy  (see also papers: ):

$$S=Tr(\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }^2)=1Tr(\widehat{\rho }^2)$$
(30)
For (27) one has:

$$S^{(O)}=1\underset{n,k}{}(\underset{m}{}\sqrt{\omega _{mk}\omega _{mn}})^2\rho _{kn}\rho _{nk}$$
(31)
while for (21):

$$S^{(E)}=1\underset{n,k}{}(\underset{m}{}\sqrt{\omega _{mk}\omega _{mn}})^2\rho _{nn}\rho _{kk}$$
(32)
#### 3.1.1 Example

For (23) one has: $`M_1^{(E)}=M_1`$, but for $`n>1`$, $`M_n^{(E)}M_n`$. The entropies (31) and (32) become:

$$S^{(O)}=1\underset{k}{}\underset{m}{}[\rho _{k,k+2m}\rho _{k+2m,k}\mathrm{exp}(2\frac{m^2}{\sigma ^2})+$$

$$+(\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{1/2}(\sigma )}{\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\sigma )})^2\rho _{k,k+2m+1}\rho _{k+2m+1,k}\mathrm{exp}(2\frac{(m+\frac{1}{2})^2}{\sigma ^2})]$$

$$S^{(E)}=1\underset{k}{}\underset{m}{}[\rho _{k,k}\rho _{k+2m,k+2m}\mathrm{exp}(2\frac{m^2}{\sigma ^2})+$$

$$+(\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{1/2}(\sigma )}{\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\sigma )})^2\rho _{k,k}\rho _{k+2m+1,k+2m+1}\mathrm{exp}(2\frac{(m+\frac{1}{2})^2}{\sigma ^2})]$$

For a fuzzy initial state like:

$$\widehat{\rho }=\widehat{}_d^{(\alpha )}|aa|\widehat{}_d^{(\alpha )+}a,\alpha _+$$
(33)
(31) and (32) are equal even in the general case:

$$S^{(O)}=S^{(E)}=1\underset{n,k}{}(\underset{m}{}\sqrt{\omega _{mk}^{(\sigma )}\omega _{mn}^{(\sigma )}})^2\omega _{n,a}^{(\alpha )}\omega _{k,a}^{(\alpha )}$$

which for (23) is:

$`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\alpha )\right)^2}}[\mathrm{\Psi }_0({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}})\mathrm{\Psi }_0({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \sigma }{\sqrt{2(\alpha ^2+2\sigma ^2)}}})+`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{1/2}(\sigma )}{\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\sigma )}})^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{1/2}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}})\mathrm{\Psi }_{1/2}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \sigma }{\sqrt{2(\alpha ^2+2\sigma ^2)}}})]`$
Using the approximations from the example (2.2.1), for a sharp initial position $`(\alpha <0.2)`$, the result is independent on the fuzzyfication parameter $`\sigma `$, $`S=0`$ (the state remains almost pure), while for $`\alpha >1.6`$ (fuzzy initial position), the result is $`1\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{\pi }}`$ for sharp measurements $`(\sigma <0.2)`$ and $`1\frac{\sigma }{\sqrt{2(\alpha ^2+2\sigma ^2)}}`$ for unsharp measurements (if still $`\alpha \sigma `$ this becomes the maximum value for (30), $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$)

### 3.2 Continuous case

One will obtain similar formulas for the position operator $`\widehat{x}=\underset{}{}x\widehat{E}_{(x)}(dx).`$ For the canonically conjugate operator: $`\widehat{k}=\underset{}{}k\widehat{E}_{(k)}(dk)`$ one has:

$$M_1^{(O)}(\widehat{E}_{(k)})=Tr(\widehat{\rho }_{post}^{(c)}\underset{}{}k\widehat{E}_{(k)}(dk))=$$

$`=`$ $`Tr({\displaystyle \underset{}{}}𝑑x\widehat{𝒜}_x\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝒜}_x^+{\displaystyle \underset{}{}}k\widehat{E}_{(k)}(dk))=`$
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{}{}}𝑑y[({\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{y^{}}})_{(y,y^{}=y)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho (y,y){\displaystyle \underset{}{}}𝑑x({\displaystyle \frac{f}{x^{}}})_{(x^{}=xy)}]`$
$`M_1^{(E)}(\widehat{E}_{(k)})`$ $`=`$ $`Tr(\widehat{\rho }_{post}^{(E,c)}{\displaystyle \underset{}{}}k\widehat{E}_{(k)}(dk))=`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`Tr({\displaystyle \underset{}{}}𝑑x\widehat{𝒜}_x^{(E)}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝒜}_x^{(E)}{\displaystyle \underset{}{}}k\widehat{E}_{(k)}(dk))=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{}{}}𝑑y\rho (y,y){\displaystyle \underset{}{}}𝑑x({\displaystyle \frac{f}{x^{}}})_{(x^{}=xy)}`$
The difference between (3.2) and (35) is given by the term $`i\underset{}{}(\frac{\rho }{y^{}})_{(y,y^{}=y)}𝑑y`$, which is a memory term for the quantum coherence of the initial state (prior to the fuzzy measurement of position), which, however, does not depend on the fuzzyfication parameters, as one may expect.

## 4 Conclusions

Starting with a fuzzyfication process as a dynamical map in Heisenberg picture, an alternate expression for the state transformer after a (fuzzy-)filter measurement was proposed. It is a completely positive map, similar to the dual quantum instrument of OQP, which is, also, subject to covariance conditions. Calculations distinguished some different predictions to that of the OPQ solution.

The author is grateful to Dr. H. Scutaru for stimulating discussions.

## References


text:
# On the formation of neon-enriched donor stars in ultracompact X-ray binaries

## 1 Introduction

Recently, Juett et al. (2001) reported the discovery of the excess of neon in four low-mass X-ray binaries: 4U 0614+091, 2S 0918-549, 4U 1543-624, and 4U 1850-0857. It is suggested that the Ne is local to these objects. 4U 1850-0857, which belongs to a globular cluster, has a measured orbital period of 20.6 min. From the optical properties of the systems, Juett et al. suggest that all of them are ultracompact: $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}<80`$ min. A local excess of neon is found also in the ultracompact ($`P_{\mathrm{orb}}=41.4`$ min) binary pulsar 4U 1626-67 (Angelini et al. 1995; Schulz et al. 2001). Juett et al. propose that in all these binaries the donors are low-mass, neon-rich degenerate dwarfs. Schulz et al. (2001) suggest that the donor in 4U 1626-67 is the core of a carbon-oxygen (CO) or oxygen-neon (ONe) white dwarf which has previously crystallised. However, the evolution of neutron star+white dwarf \[henceforth, (wd,ns)\] binaries to the Ne-enrichment stage was not studied.

Below, we explore the evolution of white dwarfs which fill their Roche lobes having neutron star companions. We discuss the mechanism of mass exchange and limiting masses of the donors in these binaries in Sect. 2. The process of chemical fractionation that could lead to Ne-enrichment is briefly outlined in Sect. 2.3. The observed systems are discussed in Sect. 3. Some uncertainties of the model and related problems are considered in Sect. 4. Our conclusions follow in Sect. 5.

## 2 Evolution of ultracompact binaries

### 2.1 Formation of ultracompact binaries

After pioneering work of Paczyński (1967) on the ultrashort-period ($`18`$ min) cataclysmic variable AM CVn, it is commonly accepted that the donors in semi-detached systems with the orbital periods of several tens of minutes may be degenerate dwarfs and that the driving force of the binary evolution is angular momentum loss (AML) due to gravitational wave radiation (GWR).

The basic features of the scenario for the formation of (wd,ns) systems which can evolve into ultracompact X-ray binaries may be summarized as follows (see e. g. Tutukov & Yungelson 1993; Iben et al. 1995, for details). In the Galactic disk stars with masses $`>10`$$`M_{}`$ that are born in binaries evolve into neutron stars, experiencing underway one or two common envelope stages which strongly decrease the orbital separation. Next, their companions experience dynamically unstable mass loss and become white dwarfs. If the resulting systems have orbital separation $`R_{}`$, AML via GWR may bring the white dwarf to Roche-lobe overflow (RLOF) within the lifetime of the Galactic disk and under certain conditions (see below) stable mass exchange leading to exposure of the Ne-enriched core may ensue.

In globular clusters neutron stars most probably acquire their companions via exchange interactions with primordial binaries (e. g. Rasio et al. 2000). The subsequent evolution is similar to that of the disk binaries.

### 2.2 Mass transfer in ultracompact binaries: the nature of the donors and the limits of their initial mass

In systems with degenerate donors, at the onset of Roche-lobe overflow the mass transfer rate $`\dot{M}`$ may be several orders of magnitude higher than the Eddington limiting accretion rate ($`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$) for a white dwarf or neutron star accretor (Vila 1971; Tutukov & Yungelson 1979), \[see Fig. 1\]. Formation of a common envelope engulfing the whole system and merger of components or collapse of the neutron star into a black hole may be avoided if the excess of the matter which cannot be accreted leaves the system taking away the specific orbital angular momentum of the accreting component \[“isotropic re-emission” (Soberman et al. 1997)\]. This role may be accomplished by radiatively driven outflows (King & Begelman 1999; Tauris & Savonije 1999). The equation for the mass loss rate by a white dwarf in the presence of AML by GWR and “isotropic re-emission” used in this study may be found in Yungelson et al. (1996).

Figure 1 shows this mass loss rate for a (wd,ns) system with initial masses of donor and accretor $`M_\mathrm{d}=0.83M_{}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{a}=1.433M_{}`$, respectively111We neglect the effects of an X-ray irradiation induced stellar wind which may enhance mass loss by the donor (Tavani & London 1993).. Since all white dwarfs approach zero-temperature radii after cooling for several 100 Myr (Panei et al. 2000) and since most systems will be very much older than this when their orbits have decayed sufficiently to start mass transfer, we use in our computations the mass – radius $`(MR)`$ relation for cold spheres derived by Zapolsky & Salpeter (1969) in the form given by Rappaport et al. (1987), assuming equal mass fractions of carbon and oxygen. For this $`MR`$ relation, if the mass retention efficiency of the accretor is close to zero, (wd,ns) systems with $`M_\mathrm{d}\stackrel{>}{}0.83`$$`M_{}`$ are dynamically unstable.

All matter in excess of $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ can be lost from the system only if the liberated accretion energy of the matter falling from the Roche lobe radius of the neutron star to the neutron star surface is sufficient to expel the matter from the Roche-lobe surface around the neutron star, i.e. $`\dot{M}<\dot{M}_{\mathrm{max}}=\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}(r_{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{ns}}/r_{\mathrm{ns}})`$, where $`r_{\mathrm{ns}}`$ is the radius of the neutron star (King & Begelman 1999; Tauris et al. 2000). The dependence of $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ on the mass of the donor is also plotted in Fig. 1. Since the mass-loss line in Fig. 1 holds as well for initial $`M_\mathrm{d}<0.83M_{}`$, within our assumptions “isotropic re-emission” from a neutron star is actually possible for donors with initial $`M_\mathrm{d}\stackrel{<}{}0.44M_{}`$. Unless there is an even more efficient way to stabilise the mass transfer than by “re-emission”, this excludes ONe white dwarfs as donors as these have $`M\stackrel{>}{}1.1M_{}`$ (Gil-Pons & García-Berro 2001). Similarly also massive CO dwarfs are excluded as donors.

The overabundance (relative to solar) of Ne suggests, that the progenitors of the donors in the X-ray systems under consideration have experienced core helium burning including the $`{}_{}{}^{14}\mathrm{N}(\alpha ,\gamma )^{18}\mathrm{F}(\alpha ,\gamma )^{22}\mathrm{Ne}`$ reactions chain. Thus the donors cannot be low-mass helium white dwarfs.

This leaves as the last option the so called “hybrid” white dwarfs which have CO cores and thick He mantles. They are formed from components of close binaries with initial masses in the range from 2.5 to 5 $`M_{}`$ which experience RLOF prior to core He ignition, become He-burning stars and, after completion of core He burning, evolve directly into white dwarfs. Their mass is $`(0.30.7)`$$`M_{}`$ (Iben & Tutukov 1985; Han et al. 2000).

In a calculation of the model of the population of compact stars in the Galaxy (Nelemans et al. 2001) the birthrate of such (wd,ns) systems with $`M_{\mathrm{wd}}0.4`$$`M_{}`$ is $`2.7\times 10^6`$yr-1. For comparison, the birthrate of progenitors of X-ray binaries with hydrogen-rich donors in the same model is $`1.3\times 10^5`$yr-1.

### 2.3 Neon-enrichment

Even after core helium exhaustion the abundance of Ne in the cores of hybrid white dwarfs is low, so to observe the strong Ne enrichment, the cores have to be crystallised and fractionated. These processes take several Gyr, depending on the mass of the dwarf, transparency of the outer layers, total amount of $`{}_{}{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}`$ and uncertainties in phase diagrams (Hernanz et al. 1994; Montgomery et al. 1999). Figure 2 shows that the orbital periods of (wd,ns) pairs enter the observed range of $`10`$ min in less than 10 Myr. (The meaning of the lines and asterisks in Fig. 2 is the same as in Fig. 1). Hence, the enrichment of the white dwarf core by Ne, must have happened before RLOF.

For an initial metallicity Z=0.02, after completion of He-burning, the mass abundance of $`{}_{}{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}`$ in the core of the star cannot be larger than $`X_{{}_{}{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}}=0.02`$. During crystallisation of binary mixtures of (C/Ne) and (O/Ne), Ne settles in the center and forms a Ne-enriched nucleus which contains all $`{}_{}{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}`$ formed in the dwarf and has the so called azeotropic abundance $`X_{{}_{}{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}}^\mathrm{a}`$ of Ne (Isern et al. 1991).

The mass of this Ne-rich nucleus is

$$M_{\mathrm{Ne}\mathrm{r}}=\left(X_{{}_{}{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}}/X_{{}_{}{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}}^\mathrm{a}\right)M_{\mathrm{wd}}.$$
(1)
If, following Bravo et al. (1992), one assumes $`X_{{}_{}{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}}^\mathrm{a}=0.07`$ – an intermediate value of $`X_{{}_{}{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}}^\mathrm{a}`$ for O/Ne and C/Ne mixtures – and takes for $`M_{\mathrm{wd}}`$ the maximum mass of the convective core of a 0.378 $`M_{}`$ “hybrid” dwarf – 0.2 $`M_{}`$ (Iben & Tutukov 1985), then the mass $`M_{\mathrm{Ne}\mathrm{r}}`$ of the Ne-enriched core is $`0.06`$$`M_{}`$.

If the white dwarf didn’t have enough time to crystallise, the mass loss uncovers material of the convective core of the progenitor of the dwarf. Then the mass fraction of Ne may be down to the initial $`0.001`$.

## 3 Comparison with the observed Ne-rich X-ray binaries

### 3.1 4U 0614+091, 2S 0918-549, 4U 1543-624, and 4U 1850-0857

Figure 2 shows the evolution of a semidetached system which initially contained a “hybrid” white dwarf and a neutron star, in orbital period – mass loss rate coordinates. Taking the mass of the Ne-enriched core of 0.06 $`M_{}`$ estimated in Sect. 2.3 as typical, one obtains a rough lower limit of the orbital periods of binaries with the Ne-rich white dwarf donors of about 10 min. The white dwarf enters the range of periods (or masses) for which Ne-enrichment is possible in several Myr following the onset of RLOF (Fig. 2).

Our calculations of the mass loss rate also give the mass of the donor as a function of the orbital period. We thus infer the donor masses for 4U 1850-0857 and 4U 1626-67 to be 0.027 and 0.01 $`M_{}`$, respectively (see more detailed discussion of the latter system in Sect. 3.2).

The abundance of Ne relative to solar found in the observed Ne-rich X-ray binaries ranges from $`1.9\pm 0.3`$ to $`2.87\pm 0.16`$. For oxygen an underabundance is reported: $`0.37\pm 0.06`$ to $`0.52\pm 0.04`$. Taken at face value, these relative abundances translate into a local Ne/O ratio of 0.63 – 0.77. If true, these values are considerably higher than one would expect for the above used abundance of Ne in the nucleus of the dwarf $`X_{{}_{}{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}}^\mathrm{a}=0.07`$. But Isern et al. (1991) notice, that $`X_{{}_{}{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}}^\mathrm{a}`$ may be well underestimated by a factor $`3`$. If this is true, the Ne/O ratio comes into better agreement with observed values. The mass of the Ne-enriched core then becomes slightly higher than 0.02 $`M_{}`$, still comparable with our estimates of the masses of the white dwarfs in 4U 1850-0857 and 4U 1626-67.

The problem of a low predicted Ne/O ratio would also hold for initially more massive donors, if stable mass loss would be possible for them. In the core of a 1.1 $`M_{}`$ ONe dwarf the Ne/O ratio is $`0.4`$ (Gil-Pons & García-Berro 2001). For a “standard” 0.6 $`M_{}`$ CO white dwarf with an initially equimolar distribution of C/O and traces of Ne, a final Ne/O ratio $`0.25`$ is expected in the core (Segretain et al. 1994).

All four Ne-enriched X-ray binaries contain, presumably, weakly magnetised neutron stars. This may be a result of the decay of the magnetic field by accretion (Taam & van de Heuvel 1986).

### 3.2 4U 1626-67: an accretion induced collapse?

4U 1626-67 differs from the binaries discussed above by the presence of a 7.7 s X-ray pulsar with a strong magnetic field estimated from cyclotron emission: $`(3.2\pm 0.1)(1+z)\times 10^{12}`$ G, where $`z`$ is gravitational redshift (Orlandini et al. 1998). Applying a polytropic $`MR`$ relation, Verbunt et al. (1990) estimated its donor mass as $`0.02M_{}`$. A similar estimate of $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ was obtained by Schulz et al. (2001) under the assumption that velocities of the lines in the Ne/O complex and their Doppler shifts reflect Keplerian motions in the accretion disk. Thus, existing estimates of $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ are consistent with Ne-enrichment of the donors. A very low value of $`M_\mathrm{d}`$ in 4U 1626-67 is also favoured by the probability of detection considerations (Verbunt et al. 1990).

The high magnetic field strength suggests that the neutron star is young and accretion was negligible. The absence of enhanced abundances of O-group elements in the spectrum of 4U 1626-67 argues against the origin of the neutron star in a SN II event (Angelini et al. 1995). Taam & van de Heuvel (1986) suggested that this X-ray pulsar was formed recently – $`(210)\times 10^7`$ yrs ago – by an accretion induced collapse (AIC) of a white dwarf. Verbunt et al. (1990) rejected the AIC model, based on the argument that the time between AIC and resumption of mass transfer is $`10^8`$ yr, longer than then assumed e-folding decay time ($`10^7`$ yr) for the magnetic fields of neutron stars. Later, the analysis of magnetic fields of isolated radio pulsars have shown that magnetic field decay scale is probably $`\stackrel{>}{}10^8`$ yr (Bhattacharya et al. 1992). This, along with the discovery of Ne-enrichment in the system, suggests that one should reconsider the formation of 4U 1626-67 via AIC, especially, since the details of pre-collapse evolution were never studied before.

In the model for the population of compact stars in the Galaxy (Nelemans et al. 2001) the birthrate of ONe white dwarfs with $`M1.2`$$`M_{}`$ accompanied by “hybrid” white dwarfs with $`0.35M0.5`$$`M_{}`$ which get into contact within 10 Gyr is $`1.25\times 10^6`$yr-1. This rate is within the limits for occurrence of AIC’s in the Galaxy set by nucleosynthesis considerations (Fryer et al. 1999).

The initial binary may contain e. g. a 0.38 $`M_{}`$ “hybrid” white dwarf \[for which we know the internal structure from Iben & Tutukov (1985)\] and a 1.2 $`M_{}`$ oxygen-neon one (Fig. 3). At the beginning of the RLOF $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}=2`$ min. The outer 0.12 $`M_{}`$ of the donor consist of He. The maximum rate of stable He-burning at the surface of a massive white dwarf is about $`10^5M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ (Kato & Hachisu 1999), lower than the mass loss rate by the donor in the initial stages of mass transfer. Mass exchange in this case may be also stabilised by isotropical re-emission of optically thick wind from accretor, generated by He-burning (Hachisu et al. 1996). Therefore stable helium burning is likely to set in on the surface of the 1.2 $`M_{}`$ accreting white dwarf.

Like Verbunt et al. (1990), we assume that the white dwarf collapses into a 1.26 $`M_{}`$ neutron star after the increase in mass to 1.44 $`M_{}`$. This happens after 240 Myrs of accretion, when $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}2000`$ s. The mass of the donor is at that moment 0.0132 $`M_{}`$. The Ne/O ratio in the core for azeotropic abundance of Ne (0.1 to 0.3, see 2.3) doesn’t contradict the measured Ne/O ratio in 4U 1626-67 (Schulz et al. 2001): $`0.22\pm 0.15`$.

The collapse interrupts mass transfer for $`1.56\times 10^8`$ yr due to the loss of binding energy of the dwarf (see for details Verbunt et al. 1990). This time span may not be sufficient for the decay of the magnetic field of the pulsar. When after resumption of the contact the period of the system has increased to 41.4 min, the mass of the donor is 0.0101$`M_{}`$.

Until this moment the neutron star in our model system has lived after the AIC for about 350 Myr. If magnetic fields do not decay on long time scale its field will not have decayed sufficiently. The accretion of 0.003 $`M_{}`$ onto a neutron star is most probably insufficient for destruction of its magnetic field (if the frozen field and incompressible fluid approximations (Cheng & Zhang 1998) are assumed). Assuming solid body rotation and conservation of angular momentum, one gets $`1.3`$ ms for the initial spin period of the neutron star. The present spin period of the neutron star in 4U 1626-67 is 7.7 s, close to the “death-line” of radio pulsars for $`B=3\times 10^{12}`$ G (Bhattacharya 1996). Thus, it is conceivable that 4U 1626-67 harbours a neutron star which ceased to be a radio pulsar, but didn’t spin down sufficiently to experience recycling.

At the stage when our model system resembles 4U 1626-67, the mass exchange rate is $`4\times 10^{12}M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. As already noticed before (Chakrabarty 1998; Schulz et al. 2001), all model $`\dot{M}`$ for 4U 1626-67 based on $`MR`$ relations are considerably lower than the estimates of $`\dot{M}`$ based on the observed spin-up rate and simple angular momentum conservation considerations. It is plausible that the secular $`\dot{M}`$ is consistent with model expectations, while mass transfer rate $`\dot{M}`$ inferred from the observed spin-up of the pulsar (if correct) reflects the accretion rate from an unstable accretion disk (Schulz et al. 2001). The latter experiences thermal ionization instability if $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{a}\stackrel{<}{}7.4\times 10^{10}`$ and $`\stackrel{<}{}2.5\times 10^9`$$`M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, for a pure C or O disk, respectively (Menou et al. 2002).

## 4 Discussion

White dwarfs may be considered as a ternary C/O/Ne ionic mixture. For such mixtures Ogata et al. (1993) predict the formation of an almost pure Ne core upon solidification for any C:O ratio. If this core ultimately contains all $`{}_{}{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}`$ generated in the white dwarf its mass is only $`0.004M_{}`$, much less than given by Eq. (1) and this would require much larger $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ for X-ray binaries showing Ne enrichment.

On the other hand, according to Segretain (1996), if a 0.6 $`M_{}`$ white dwarf is considered as a ternary mixture with $`X_\mathrm{C}=X_\mathrm{O}=0.495,X_{{}_{}{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}}=0.01`$, almost all Ne concentrates in a thin layer around $`M_r/M_{\mathrm{wd}}0.7`$. Then spilling of Ne-enriched matter over the neutron star would require extremely fine tuning of the model.

Another intriguing problem concerns X-ray bursts. They were reported for 4U 0614+091, 2S 0918-549, and 4U 1850-0857. None of the bursts have shown atypical behaviour (Juett et al. 2001). Carbon flashes at $`\dot{M}<0.1\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ were never studied. Extrapolation of the calculations of Cumming & Bildsten (2001) over 2 orders of magnitude may be not very relevant. However, it shows that for $`X_\mathrm{C}0.2`$, characteristic for “hybrid” dwarfs and $`\dot{M}10^{11}`$$`M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, accreted carbon possibly burns stably. Thus, the origin of the bursts in systems with any low-mass C-rich donors deserves further attention.

## 5 Conclusion

We have shown that within the framework of the white dwarfs cooling model developed by Isern et al. (1991), Bravo et al. (1992), Segretain et al. (1994), Hernanz et al. (1994) it is possible to explain the formation of the Ne-enriched donors in X-ray binaries if their progenitors were low-mass CO white dwarfs with thick He mantles. A necessary condition is that the white dwarfs had enough time to be substantially chemically fractionated. This means that the mass transfer had to start several Gyr after the formation of the white dwarfs. We estimate that the masses of Ne-rich donors in these systems are $`\stackrel{<}{}0.06M_{}`$ and their orbital periods have to be $`\stackrel{>}{}10`$ min. The expected Ne/O ratios are $`(0.10.4)`$.

Finally we conclude that the X-ray pulsar 4U 1626-67 could follow an evolutionary path similar to the other Ne-rich systems, with the only difference that it used to have a massive ONe white dwarf component that collapsed into a neutron star relatively recently. We estimate the current mass of the donor in this system as 0.01 $`M_{}`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge fruitful discussions with A. Kudrjashoff, O. Pols, G.-J. Savonije, E. García-Berro, J. Isern, R. Ramachandran. Our thanks a due to Z. Han for communicating his unpublished results. LRY acknowledges the warm hospitality and support of the Astronomical Institute “Anton Pannekoek”. This work was supported by a NOVA grant, NWO Spinoza grant 08-0 to E. P. J. van den Heuvel, and “Astronomy” Program.