text:
# Minigap in a long disordered SNS junction: analytical results

## Abstract

We review and refine analytical results on the density of states in a long disordered superconductor–normal-metal–superconductor junction with transparent interfaces. Our analysis includes the behavior of the minigap near phase differences zero and $`\pi `$ across the junction, as well as the density of states at energies much larger than the minigap but much smaller than the superconducting gap.

A superconductor in contact with a normal metal induces pairing correlations in the metal, a phenomenon known as the proximity effect. One of the most remarkable consequences of such induced correlations is the appearance of a gap, usually referred to as the “minigap”, in the electronic excitation spectrum of the normal metal . A very common setup exhibiting a minigap is the superconductor–normal-metal–superconductor (SNS) junction made of two superconducting leads connected via a disordered normal layer. The gap in this junction is determined by the diffusion time across the normal layer and is sensitive to the phase difference across the junction, reaching a maximum at zero phase difference and vanishing at the phase difference $`\pi `$ .

The appearance of a minigap and its phase dependence is well understood in the quasiclassical description. Provided the scattering length is much larger than the Fermi wave length but much smaller than the junction dimensions, the motion of the electrons in the normal layer is diffusive and the proximity effect may be described by the Usadel equations . These equations are nonlinear, which complicates their analytical treatment except for several simple limits. One of the cases most accessible to an analytical treatment is the limit of a long disordered SNS junction (with the minigap energy scale much smaller than the superconducting gap) with transparent normal-metal–superconductor interfaces. The spectral properties of such a junction have been previously studied in Refs.  and we find it possible to further improve on those results. In this note we revisit this problem, refining some of the existing results and replacing numerical answers with analytical ones. We design this note as a quick reference on the structure of the minigap in a long disordered SNS junction which may be useful in view of renewed interest in such systems in connection with problems related to $`\pi `$-junctions  and to mesoscopic fluctuations . As a byproduct, we derive two useful identities for solutions to Usadel equations which simplify our analytical calculations.

Assuming a quasi-one-dimensional geometry of the contact, the proximity effect in the normal layer may be described via the Usadel equations (in our paper we conform to the definitions of Ref. )

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_x^2\theta +i\epsilon \mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_x\chi )^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta =0,`$ (1)
$`_x\left(_x\chi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right)=0,`$ (2)
where $`\theta (x,\epsilon )`$ and $`\chi (x,\epsilon )`$ are the variables parameterizing the zero angular momentum component of the Green’s functions, $`g=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`f=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{exp}(i\chi )`$; here, $`\chi `$ is the phase of the superconducting correlations, and the local density of states $`\rho (x,\epsilon )`$ (in units of the normal electron density in the bulk) is given by

$$\rho (x,\epsilon )=\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(3)
Note that we measure lengths in units of the junction width $`L=1`$ and the unit of energy $`\epsilon `$ is the Thouless energy $`E_c=D/L^2`$, with $`D`$ the diffusion constant in the normal metal. We further assume that the Thouless energy $`E_c`$, as well as all other energy scales in the problem, are much smaller than the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In this limit, the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is (to leading order) excluded from the Usadel equations.

Within the superconducting leads, $`\theta =\pi /2`$ (at $`\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }`$) and $`\chi `$ equals the phase of the superconducting order parameter. Inside the junction, both $`\theta `$ and $`\chi `$ turn into complex functions. For simplicity, we choose ideally transparent interfaces and assume the normal metal to be much more disordered than the superconductor; in this case the boundary conditions become “rigid” ,

$`\theta (x=0)=\theta (x=1)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},`$ (4)
$`\chi (x=0)=0;\chi (x=1)=\chi _0.`$ (5)
The equations (2)–(5) form a closed set determining the density of states (with $`\chi _0`$ and $`\epsilon `$ as input parameters). They have been analyzed in Refs.  and in this note we extend their results; we list them first and sketch their derivation afterwards.

(i) The complex integral “density of states” defined as

$$\widehat{\rho }(\epsilon )=_0^1𝑑x\mathrm{cos}\theta (x,\epsilon )$$
(6)
obeys the relations

$`\widehat{\rho }+2\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\rho }}{\epsilon }}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{B}{\epsilon }},`$ (7)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\rho }}{\chi _0}}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{C}{\epsilon }},`$ (8)
where $`B(\epsilon ,\chi _0)`$ and $`C(\epsilon ,\chi _0)`$ are integrals of (2),

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_x\theta )^2i\epsilon \mathrm{cos}\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }},`$ (9)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`(_x\chi )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .`$ (10)
(ii) Near $`\chi _00`$ and $`\chi _0\pi `$, the phase dependence of the minigap $`E_g(\chi _0)`$ (in units of $`E_c`$) involves the leading terms,

$`E_g(\chi _0)`$ $`=`$ $`C_2(1C_1\chi _0^2),\chi _0\pi ,`$ (11)
$`E_g(\chi _0)`$ $`=`$ $`C_3(\pi \chi _0),\pi \chi _0\pi .`$ (12)
The value of $`C_2`$ has been derived in ,

$$C_2=\left[\underset{\vartheta _0}{\mathrm{max}}_0^{\vartheta _0}\frac{d\vartheta }{(\mathrm{sinh}\vartheta _0\mathrm{sinh}\vartheta )^{1/2}}\right]^23.122,$$
(13)
with the maximum attained at $`\widehat{\vartheta }_01.421`$. The value of $`C_1`$ reported in  is incorrect by an order of magnitude and we find the correct value

$$C_1=\frac{_0^{\widehat{\vartheta }_0}\frac{d\vartheta (\mathrm{sinh}\widehat{\vartheta }_0+\mathrm{sinh}\vartheta )}{(\mathrm{sinh}\widehat{\vartheta }_0\mathrm{sinh}\vartheta )^{1/2}\mathrm{cosh}^2\vartheta \mathrm{cosh}^2\widehat{\vartheta }_0}}{4\sqrt{C_2}\left[_0^{\widehat{\vartheta }_0}\frac{d\vartheta }{(\mathrm{sinh}\widehat{\vartheta }_0\mathrm{sinh}\vartheta )^{1/2}\mathrm{cosh}^2\vartheta }\right]^2}0.0921.$$
(14)
For $`C_3`$ we find the analytic result close to the numerical value reported in ,

$$C_3=\frac{\pi ^2}{4}2.467.$$
(15)
(iii) The integral density of states $`\rho (\epsilon )=\mathrm{Re}\widehat{\rho }(\epsilon )`$ has a square-root singularity at $`\epsilon =E_g`$ ,

$$\rho (\epsilon )C_4(\chi _0)\left(\frac{\epsilon E_g}{E_g}\right)^{1/2},$$
(16)
with the coefficient $`C_4`$ diverging at $`\chi _0\pi `$ as

$$C_4(\chi _0)=\alpha (\pi \chi _0)^{2/3}.$$
(17)
This asymptotic form has been found numerically in Refs.  and we confirm it here analytically, together with the value for $`\alpha `$,

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{\pi \sqrt{6}}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{3\pi }{64}\right)^{2/3}2.494.$$
(18)
(iv) At energies $`\epsilon `$ much higher than $`E_c`$ but much lower than the superconducting gap, the leading corrections to the (integral) density of states are

$$\rho (\epsilon ,\chi _0)1\frac{C_5}{\sqrt{\epsilon }}+e^\sqrt{\epsilon }C_6(\epsilon )\mathrm{cos}(\chi _0),$$
(19)
where

$$C_5=2\sqrt{2}0.586,$$
(20)
$$C_6(\epsilon )=16\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\pi }{8}\left[\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{\epsilon }+\frac{\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{\epsilon }\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{\epsilon }}{2\sqrt{\epsilon }}\right].$$
(21)
The verification of (i) is straightforward: We integrate the Usadel equations (2) once and denote the coordinate-independent integrals by $`B`$ and $`C`$ as in (9) and (10). The relations (7) and (8) are then obtained via integration by parts in $`x`$ and repeated use of the Usadel equations, see the Appendix for details. Relation (7) expresses the conservation of the total number of states as a function of $`\chi _0`$; indeed, (7) implies that $`\widehat{\rho }(\epsilon )`$ is a total derivative in energy of the expression $`(2\epsilon \widehat{\rho }iB)`$ which is independent of $`\chi _0`$ at large energies \[this follows from our discussion of the result $`iv)`$ below\]; therefore, the integral of $`\widehat{\rho }(\epsilon )`$ over energies is independent of $`\chi _0`$. The identity (8) follows from the fact that the supercurrent (which equals $`\mathrm{Im}C`$ in appropriate units ) can be expressed as the derivative of the free energy with respect to $`\chi _0`$; we verify (10) directly on the level of Usadel equation in the Appendix.

To obtain the results of paragraph (ii) we follow the usual procedure in integrating the Usadel equations: below the gap, $`\theta (x)`$ takes the form $`\theta =\pi /2+i\vartheta `$, where $`\vartheta (x)`$ is real and varies from $`0`$ at the N–S interface to its maximal value $`\vartheta _0`$ in the middle of the normal layer. From (9) and (10) we obtain the differential equations

$$_x\vartheta =\sqrt{f(\vartheta _0)f(\vartheta )}/\sqrt{\epsilon },_x\chi =C\mathrm{cosh}^2\vartheta ,$$
(22)
where $`f(\vartheta )=\mathrm{sinh}(\vartheta )(C^2/4\epsilon )\mathrm{cosh}^2\vartheta `$. Their integration over half the junction provides us with the solutions of the Usadel equations in the form

$`\sqrt{\epsilon }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\vartheta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\vartheta }{[f(\vartheta _0)f(\vartheta )]^{1/2}}},`$ (23)
$`\chi _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{\sqrt{\epsilon }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\vartheta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\vartheta }{\mathrm{cosh}^2\vartheta [f(\vartheta _0)f(\vartheta )]^{1/2}}},`$ (24)
expressing $`\epsilon `$ and $`\chi _0`$ in terms of the new parameters $`C/\sqrt{\epsilon }`$ and $`\vartheta _0`$. The minigap $`E_g(\chi _0)`$ is defined as the maximal energy $`\epsilon `$ compatible with this solution (with a real $`\vartheta (x)`$). Equation (14) is now easily obtained by expanding in $`C`$ which is the small parameter near $`\chi _0=0`$, while the result (15) is obtained from an expansion in $`\epsilon `$, the small parameter close to $`\chi _0=\pi `$ where the minigap vanishes (see also the derivation below).

A more accurate expansion in small $`\epsilon `$ is necessary to obtain the results of paragraph (iii). The density of states near the gap edge (16) is derived with the help of relation (7). The key idea of the calculation is that most quantities are regular functions of the new parameters $`\vartheta _0`$ and $`\epsilon /C^2`$ \[except for the point $`\chi _0=\pi `$ where the minigap vanishes\]. The square-root singularity (16) appears when inverting regular functions at the extremal point. Remarkably, in this way we can compute the density of states at the gap edge using the solutions to the Usadel equations below the gap and analytically continuing them to energies above the gap.

Close to $`\chi _0=\pi `$ the energy $`\epsilon `$ is small and we can expand (24) in the small parameter $`\delta =\epsilon /C^2`$,

$$\epsilon =\left(\pi ^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\vartheta _0\right)\delta \pi \left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\pi }{8}\right)e^{5\vartheta _0}\delta ^2+\mathrm{},$$
(25)
$$\chi _0=\pi \frac{4\mathrm{cosh}^3\vartheta _0}{\mathrm{sinh}\vartheta _0}\delta +\left(\frac{3\pi }{16}\frac{1}{2}\right)e^{5\vartheta _0}\delta ^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(26)
We will show below that the solutions at the gap edge near $`\chi _0=\pi `$ involve a large parameter $`\vartheta _01`$, and hence we may keep only the leading terms in $`e^{\vartheta _0}`$ in the coefficients of $`\delta ^2`$. Next we invert (26) to find

$$\delta \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\vartheta _0}{4\mathrm{cosh}^3\vartheta _0}(\pi \chi _0)+\left[\frac{3\pi }{16}\frac{1}{2}\right]e^{\vartheta _0}(\pi \chi _0)^2$$
(27)
and substitute the result into (25) to express the energy $`\epsilon `$ as a power series in $`(\pi \chi _0)`$ and as a function of $`\vartheta _0`$,

$$\epsilon \frac{\pi ^2}{4}(\pi \chi _0)\mathrm{tanh}\vartheta _0\left[\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{3\pi ^3}{64}\right]e^{\vartheta _0}(\pi \chi _0)^2.$$
(28)
The gap edge is given by maximizing $`\epsilon `$ in (28) as a function of $`\vartheta _0`$; the corresponding value $`\overline{\vartheta }_0`$ maximizing $`\epsilon `$ is

$$\overline{\vartheta }_0=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\chi _c}{\pi \chi _0},\chi _c=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{3\pi }{64}\right)^184.08;$$
(29)
we see that $`\overline{\vartheta }_0`$ is indeed large at the gap edge (for small $`\pi \chi _0`$), albeit only logarithmically and with a small prefactor $`1/3`$. Upon substitution into (28), this result also gives us the next-order correction to (12),

$$E_g(\chi _0)=\frac{\pi ^2}{4}(\pi \chi _0)\left[16\left(\frac{\pi \chi _0}{\chi _c}\right)^{2/3}\right].$$
(30)
We are now prepared to derive the density-of-states singularity at the gap edge (16)–(18). The maximum of the function $`\epsilon (\vartheta _0)`$ at $`\overline{\vartheta }_0`$ is expressed in the relation $`\epsilon (\vartheta _0)E_g|_{\vartheta _0}^2\epsilon |_{\overline{\vartheta }_0}[\overline{\vartheta }_0\vartheta _0]^2/2`$; its inversion produces a square-root singularity at the gap edge in the function $`\vartheta _0(\epsilon )`$,

$$\vartheta _0(\epsilon )=\overline{\vartheta _0}\pm i\sqrt{\frac{2(\epsilon E_g)}{|_{\vartheta _0}^2\epsilon |_{\overline{\vartheta }_0}}},$$
(31)
and hence $`\vartheta _0`$ develops an imaginary part at energies $`\epsilon >E_g`$. The singularity in $`\vartheta _0(\epsilon )`$ translates into a square-root singularity in $`B(\epsilon )`$; evaluating (9) in the junction middle and expressing $`C`$ with the help of (27), we obtain

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{coth}\vartheta _0}{\pi \chi _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{16}}e^{\vartheta _0}\right]\mathrm{Re}B\pm i\epsilon \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2(\epsilon E_g)}{|_{\vartheta _0}^2\epsilon |_{\overline{\vartheta }_0}}}}`$ (32)
$`\times \left[(\pi \chi _0)^1\mathrm{sinh}^2\overline{\vartheta }_0+3\pi e^{\overline{\vartheta }_0}/16\right].`$ (33)
This singularity in $`B`$ further translates, via (7), into a square-root singularity in the density of states $`\rho (\epsilon )`$. Evaluating the coefficient in (33) with the use of (28) for $`\epsilon (\vartheta _0)`$ and of (29) for $`\overline{\vartheta }_0`$, we arrive at the final results (16)–(18). The coefficient (18) agrees with the numerical findings in .

Another regime where the density of states is amenable to a simple analytic solution is at energies much larger than $`E_c`$ but much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In this limit, the coupling between the superconducting leads is weak, which allows us to derive the results of paragraph (iv). In equation (19), the term proportional to $`\epsilon ^{1/2}`$ is due to the suppression of the density of states near the interfaces, and the exponentially small term proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\chi _0`$ results from the Josephson coupling.

At $`\epsilon 1`$, the Usadel equations may be solved by matching the solutions for the two semi-infinite N–S systems; such a solution takes the form

$$\theta _{\mathrm{NS}}(x,\epsilon )=4\mathrm{arctan}\left(e^{\kappa x}\mathrm{tan}\frac{\pi }{8}\right),$$
(34)
where $`\kappa =\sqrt{2i\epsilon }`$ ($`\mathrm{Re}\kappa >0`$) and the normal layer is at $`x>0`$. Matching of such solutions was performed in Ref.  by observing that for $`|\theta |1`$ (i.e., everywhere in the junction, except for the very thin layers at the interfaces) the Usadel equations become linear in the variables $`f=\theta e^{i\chi }`$ and $`\overline{f}=\theta e^{i\chi }`$. Therefore the solution near the middle of the junction is given through the simple sum

$`f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _{\mathrm{NS}}(x)+e^{i\chi _0}\theta _{\mathrm{NS}}(1x),`$ (35)
$`\overline{f}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _{\mathrm{NS}}(x)+e^{i\chi _0}\theta _{\mathrm{NS}}(1x).`$ (36)
From this solution we easily find, using (9) and (10),

$$C(\epsilon )=32\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\pi }{8}\kappa e^\kappa \mathrm{sin}\chi _0,$$
(37)
$$B(\epsilon )=i\epsilon \left[132\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\pi }{8}e^\kappa \mathrm{cos}\chi _0\right].$$
(38)
With the help of the identities (7) and (8) this immediately implies the results (19) and (21). The value of $`C_5`$ is left undetermined by this method but may easily be obtained from directly integrating the local density of states (3) corresponding to the N–S solutions (34), which leads to the result (20).

We thank Urs Ledermann for discussions and for drawing our attention to Ref.  and Swiss National Foundation for financial support.

Appendix:

In order to verify Eq. (7) we use the definition (9) of $`B`$ to re-express

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\epsilon }}(iB2\epsilon \widehat{\rho })={\displaystyle \frac{}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(_x\theta )^2\epsilon \mathrm{cos}\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(_x\chi )^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right]`$ (39)
$`={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(_x\theta )_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\epsilon }}\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta +\epsilon \mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(_x\chi )_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{\epsilon }}\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(_x\chi )^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\epsilon }}\right].`$ (40)
The last integral contains five terms. After integrating the first term by parts in $`x`$ (separating $`\theta /\epsilon `$), it vanishes against the third and fifth terms by virtue of the first Usadel equation (2). Integrating the fourth term in (40) by parts in $`x`$ annihilates it due to the second Usadel equation; we thus arrive at

$$\frac{}{\epsilon }(iB2\epsilon \widehat{\rho })=\widehat{\rho },$$
(41)
which is equivalent to (7).

In order to verify Eq. (8) we use the identity $`_{\chi _0}_0^1𝑑x(_x\chi )^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =2C+_0^1𝑑x(_x\chi )^2_{\chi _0}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ to re-express $`C/\epsilon `$ as

$$i\frac{C}{\epsilon }=\frac{i}{2}\frac{}{\epsilon }\frac{}{\chi _0}_0^1𝑑x(_x\chi )^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\frac{i}{2}\frac{}{\epsilon }_0^1𝑑x(_x\chi )^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta \frac{\theta }{\chi _0}.$$
(42)
We use the second Usadel equation to differentiate the first of the two terms in $`\epsilon `$,

$$\frac{}{\epsilon }_0^1𝑑x(_x\chi )^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =2_0^1𝑑x_x\left(\frac{\chi }{\epsilon }\right)(_x\chi )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +_0^1𝑑x(_x\chi )^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta \frac{\theta }{\epsilon }.$$
(43)
In the right-hand side of Eq. (43), the first term is annihilated after integration by parts, and we finally arrive at

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{C}{\epsilon }}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\chi _0}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x(_x\chi )^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x(_x\chi )^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\chi _0}}`$ (44)
$`=i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\chi _0}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x(_x^2\theta +2i\epsilon \mathrm{sin}\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\epsilon }}+i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x(_x^2\theta +2i\epsilon \mathrm{sin}\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\chi _0}}=2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\chi _0}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\chi _0}}\widehat{\rho },`$ (45)
where we have used the first Usadel equation.


format: text

text:
# Multiplicity of zeros and discrete orthogonal polynomials

## 1. Introduction

This paper deals with an old question about the maximal possible multiplicity $`\mu `$ of a zero which a polynomial with a prescribed norm can have at 1. The first important results were obtained by Bloch, Polya and Schur in early 30-s , . Recently Peter Borwein and Támas Erdélyi revived interest in the problem and substantially improved our understanding of the matter, see , ,  and the references therein. Although the most interesting problems arise when the coefficients of the polynomial are integers restricted to a few values, e.g. $`\{1,0,1\},`$ today we hardly know how to exploit those constraints apart from a few cases, such as the result of Boyd . Polynomials with a high vanishing at 1 naturally appear in coding theory. Since this seemingly important connection belongs rather to folklore, let us describe it for the simplest binary case. The relevant definitions can be found in . Let $`C`$ be a binary code of length $`n`$ and size $`|C|,`$ with the distance and the dual distance distributions $`1=B_0,\mathrm{},B_n,`$ and $`B_0^{},\mathrm{},B_n^{},`$ respectively. They are related by the McWilliams transform

$$|C|B_i^{}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}B_jK_i^n(j),$$

where $`K_i^n(j),`$ are the binary Krawtchouk polynomials, defined by the generating function

$$(1z)^x(1+z)^{nx}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}K_j^n(x)z^j.$$

Multiplying both sides by $`x^i`$ and summing up, one gets

$$|C|\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}B_i^{}x^i=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}B_i(1x)^i(1+x)^{ni}.$$

If the code distance is $`d`$, that is $`B_1=B_2=\mathrm{}=B_{d1}=0,`$ then

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(|C|B_i^{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{i}\right)\right)=(1x)^d\underset{i=d}{\overset{n}{}}B_i(1x)^{id}(1+x)^{ni},$$

yielding the sought polynomial. Unfortunately, the distance distribution is usually unknown, and applications of this idea are rather tricky, we refer to  and the references therein.

In this paper we describe how using discrete orthogonality one can derive bounds on $`\mu `$ at a certain point $`c`$ for some more general expansions $`a_iF_i`$. In fact, the point $`c`$ will depend on the chosen basis $`\{F_i\},`$ e.g. $`c=1`$ for $`F_i=x^i`$ and 0 for $`F_i=L_i^{(\alpha )}(x),`$ the Laguerre polynomials. On the other hand, the obtained bounds are independent of the basis and are the same as for polynomials. The definition of the feasible functions $`F_i`$ is rather technical and will be given later on. Our main result is Theorem 2. As an easy corollary we establish some explicit inequalities on $`\mu `$ in weighted $`\mathrm{}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}`$ norm.

Throughout the paper we will use the following notation. Let $`𝒫^m`$ be the set of all complex polynomials of degree $`m`$ or less. We will use $`_{m,n}`$ for the set of integers $`m,m+1,\mathrm{},n.`$ The multiplicity of the zero of $`f(x)`$ at $`c`$ is denote by $`\mu (f,c).`$ Background information on classical discrete orthogonal polynomials can be found in  and .

## 2. Discrete Orthogonality

We start with the following definition describing a feasible system of functions which can be tackled by our method.

###### Definition 1.

Let $`F_0(x),F_1(x),\mathrm{}F_n(x),`$ be a sequence of functions analytic in an open disc centered at $`c.`$ It will be called a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n,c)`$ basis if there are $`n+1`$ polynomials $`R_0(x),R_1(x),\mathrm{},R_n(x),`$ such that
(i) the derivatives $`F_i^{(j)}(c)=R_j(i),`$ $`i,j=0,1,..,n,`$
(ii) $`R_i(x)`$ form a basis in $`𝒫^m.`$

Let us consider a few examples.

###### Example 1.

$`F_i(x)=x^i`$ are a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n,1)`$ basis for any $`n^+`$, with

$$R_j(x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(x+1)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(xj+1).$$

###### Example 2.

$`F_i(x)=(1x)^i(1+x)^{(ni)}`$ are a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n,0)`$ basis with $`R_j(x)=j!K_j^n(x),`$ where $`K_j^n(x)`$ are the binary Krawtchouk polynomials.

###### Example 3.

$$F_i(x)=\frac{L_i^{(\alpha )}(x)}{L_i^{(\alpha )}(0)},\alpha 1,2,\mathrm{}n,$$

where $`L_i^{(\alpha )}(x)`$ are the Laguerre polynomials, are a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n,0)`$ basis for any $`n^+`$, with

$$R_j(x)=(1)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x}{j}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j+\alpha }{j}\right)^1.$$

This readily follows from the well known properties of the Laguerre polynomials :

$$\frac{d}{dx}L_i^{(\alpha )}(x)=L_{i1}^{(\alpha +1)}(x),L_i^{(\alpha )}(0)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i+\alpha }{i}\right).$$

###### Example 4.

Generating functions

$$\varphi (x,z)=\underset{i=0}{}\frac{p_j(x)}{j!}(zc)^j,$$

for different families of polynomials $`p_j,`$ such that $`deg(p_j)=j,`$ give many examples of, not necessarily polynomial, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n,c)`$ bases $`\{\varphi (i,c)\},i=0,1,\mathrm{},n,`$ with $`R_j(x)=p_j(x).`$

Now we should introduce some definitions and notation related to discrete orthogonal polynomials. Denote by $`𝒢(w,g,𝒟)`$, a family of discrete orthonormal polynomials $`g_0(x),g_1(x),\mathrm{};`$ $`deg(g_i)=i,`$ on $`𝒟,`$ with respect to the weight function $`w(x),`$ $`w(x)>0`$ iff $`x𝒟.`$ That is

$$\underset{x𝒟}{}w(x)g_i(x)g_j(x)=\delta _{ij}.$$

Let $`\{F_i(x)\}`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n,c)`$ basis. For given $`𝒢(w,g,𝒟)`$ and $`p(x)=_{i=0}^na_iF_i(x),`$ we set $`𝒮=\{i|a_i0\},`$ and write $`wp`$ if $`𝒮𝒟.`$ We also denote by $`A_w(x)`$ the polynomial of the least degree such that $`\frac{a_i}{w(i)}=A_w(i)`$ for $`i𝒟,`$ and put $`N=deg(A_w(x)).`$ Thus, $`A_w(x)`$ is just the corresponding interpolation polynomial. Notice that in general, $`N`$ can be greater then $`n`$ since one has to put $`a_i=0`$ for $`i𝒟𝒮.`$

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`p(x)=_{i=0}^na_iF_i(x),`$ where $`\{F_i(x)\}`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n,c)`$ basis. Then $`\mu (p,c)=\mu 1,`$ iff either of the following conditions hold
(i) for any $`f(x)𝒫^{\mu 1},`$

(1)
$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_if(i)=0.$$

(ii) for $`j𝒟,`$

(2)
$$\frac{a_j}{w(j)}=\underset{k=\mu }{\overset{N}{}}\lambda _kg_k(j)$$

where $`g_i𝒢(w,g,𝒟)`$ and $`wp.`$

###### Proof.

The condition $`\mu (p,c)=\mu 1,`$ means $`p(c)=p^{}(c)=\mathrm{}=p^{(\mu 1)}(c)=0.`$ Our definition of a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n,c)`$ basis implies $`p^{(j)}(c)=_{i=0}^na_iR_j(i),`$ and, since $`f(i)`$ has a unique representation as a linear combination of $`R_j(i),j=0,\mathrm{},\mu 1,`$ we get for appropriate $`\lambda _j,`$ $`_{i=0}^na_if(i)=\lambda _jp^{(j)}(c)=0.`$ The second claim follows from (1) and the expansion $`\frac{a_j}{w(j)}=A_w(j)=_{k=0}^N\lambda _kg_k(j),`$ by the orthogonality. ∎

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`p(x)=_{i=0}^na_iF_i(x),`$ where $`\{F_i(x)\}`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n,c)`$ basis, and let $`\mu (p,c)=\mu 1.`$ Then
(i) for any $`𝒢(w,g,𝒟)`$ such that $`wp,`$ and $`s𝒟,`$ the following sharp inequality holds

(3)
$$w^2(s)\underset{i𝒟}{}\frac{|a_i|^2}{w(i)}|a_s|^2\left(\underset{j=\mu }{\overset{N}{}}g_j^2(s)\right)^1$$

(ii) for any $`𝒢(w,g,𝒟)`$ such that $`w(p(x)a_sF_s(x)),`$ and $`s𝒟,`$

(4)
$$\underset{k𝒟}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{|a_k|}{w(k)}|a_s|\underset{j=0}{\overset{\frac{\mu 1}{2}}{}}g_j^2(s)$$

###### Proof.

(i) Putting $`A_w(i)=_{j=\mu }^N\lambda _jg_j(i),`$ we get

$$\underset{i𝒟}{}\frac{|a_i|^2}{w(i)}=\underset{x𝒟}{}w(x)|A_w(x)|^2=\underset{x𝒟}{}w(x)|\underset{i=\mu }{\overset{N}{}}\lambda _ig_i(x)|^2=\underset{i=\mu }{\overset{N}{}}|\lambda _i|^2$$

We also have

(5)
$$a_s=w(s)\underset{i=\mu }{\overset{N}{}}\lambda _ig_i(s)$$

The minimum of the quadratic form $`_{i=\mu }^N|\lambda _i|^2`$ subjected to (5) is

$$\frac{|a_s|^2}{w^2(s)}\left(\underset{j=\mu }{\overset{N}{}}g_j^2(s)\right)^1,$$

yielding (3).
(ii) This follows from a well-known extremal property of the Christoffel function. Namely, let $`r=\frac{\mu 1}{2},`$ $`M=\mathrm{max}_{k𝒟}\frac{|a_k|}{w(k)},`$ and $`q(x)=_{j=0}^rg_j(s)g_j(x).`$ Putting $`f(x)=q^2(x)`$ in (1), we get

$$|a_s|q^2(s)\underset{ks}{}|a_k|q^2(k),$$

hence

$$|a_s|q^2(s)\underset{ks}{}|a_k|q^2(k)=\underset{ks}{}\frac{|a_k|}{w(k)}w(k)q^2(k)M\underset{k𝒟}{}w(k)q^2(k)=$$

$$M\underset{k𝒟}{}\underset{j,l=0}{\overset{r}{}}w(k)g_j(k)g_l(k)g_j(s)g_l(s)=M\underset{j,l=0}{\overset{r}{}}g_j(s)g_l(s)=Mq(s).$$

Thus $`M|a_s|q(s),`$ what is equivalent to (4). ∎

## 3. Corollaries

There are four families of classical discrete orthogonal polynomials which can be readily used in Theorem 2. The first two are the Hahn and the Krawtchouk polynomials both orthogonal on $`_{0,n}.`$ Let us write down the corresponding formulae for the orthonormal case .
Hahn Polynomials $`Q_k^n(x,\alpha ,\beta )`$, $`\alpha ,\beta >1`$ or $`\alpha ,\beta <n,`$

$$w(x)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+\alpha }{x}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nx+\beta }{nx}\right).$$

(6)
$$Q_k^n(x,\alpha ,\beta )=\sqrt{d_k}\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^j\frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+\alpha +\beta +j}{j}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x}{j}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j+\alpha }{j}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{j}\right)},$$

where

$$d_k=\frac{(2k+\alpha +\beta +1)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+\alpha }{k}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)}{(n+1)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+\beta }{k}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+k+\alpha +\beta +1}{n+1}\right)}$$

(7)
$$\left(Q_k^n(0,\alpha ,\beta )\right)^2=d_k$$

An important special case is the discrete Chebyshev polynomials $`T_k^n(x)=Q_k^n(x,0,0),`$ corresponding to $`w(x)=1.`$

(8)
$$\left(T_k^n(0)\right)^2=\frac{(2k+1)n!^2}{(nk)!(n+k+1)!}$$

(9)
$$\left(T_k^n(1)\right)^2=\frac{(2k+1)(nk)!(n+k+1)!}{(n+1)!^2}$$

Krawtchouk Polynomials $`K_k^n(x,q)`$, $`0<q<\mathrm{},w(x)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{x}\right)q^x.`$

(10)
$$K_k^n(x,q)=\sqrt{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^1q^k(1+q)^n}\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}(q)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x}{j}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nx}{kj}\right),$$

(11)
$$\left(K_k^n(0,q)\right)^2=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)q^k(1+q)^n$$

Although the substitution of the above expressions in (3) and (4) gives formally the sought result, it has a little meaning without the corresponding asymptotic. To avoid cumbersome formulae we will consider only a few cases which allow relatively simple answer. We formulate the results in terms of $`a_0`$, of course one can easily restate them in terms of $`a_n`$.
We also make use of the following elementary inequality, which can be readily proved by induction on $`k.`$

(12)
$$\frac{(nk)!(n+k)!}{n!^2}e^{2k^2/(2n+1)},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}kn.$$

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`p(x)=_{i=0}^na_iF_i(x),`$ where $`\{F_i(x)\}`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n,c)`$ basis, and let $`\mu =\mu (p,c)1.`$ Then

(13)
$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}|a_i|^2\frac{(n\mu )!(n+\mu )!}{n!^2}|a_0|^2e^{2\mu ^2/(2n+1)}|a_0|^2$$

(14)
$$1+\underset{k1}{\mathrm{max}}|\frac{a_k}{a_0}|\frac{(n\frac{\mu +1}{2})!(n+\frac{\mu +1}{2})!}{n!^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\frac{\mu +1}{2}^2}{2n+1}\right)$$

(15)
$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{|a_i|^2q^i}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{i}\right)}\frac{|a_0|^2}{\left(1(1+q)^n_{i=0}^{\mu 1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{i}\right)q^i\right)}$$

for $`0<q<\mathrm{}.`$

###### Proof.

First notice that the last two inequalities in (13) and (14) follow from (12).
To prove (13) we choose $`g_i(x)=T_i^n(x)`$ in (3). Using (8), we get, with the convention $`(1)!=0`$,

$$\underset{i=\mu }{\overset{n}{}}g_i(0)^2=\underset{i=\mu }{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(2i+1)n!^2}{(ni)!(n+i+1)!}=$$

$$\underset{i=\mu }{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{n!^2}{(ni)!(n+i)!}\frac{n!^2}{(ni1)!(n+i+1)!}\right)=\frac{n!^2}{(n\mu )!(n+\mu )!}.$$

By (3) this yields (13). To prove (14) we consider $`g_k(x)=T_k^{n1}(x1).`$ This system is orthogonal on $`_{1,n}`$ and (9) yields

$$n!^2\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}(g_i(0))^2=\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}(2i+1)(ni1)!(n+i)!=$$

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}\left((ni1)!(n+i+1)!(ni)!(n+i)!\right)=(nr1)!(n+r+1)!n!^2.$$

Choosing $`r=\frac{\mu 1}{2},`$ we get (14) by (4). Using Krawtchouk polynomials and (11) we obtain (15) by (3). ∎

Notice that(14) gives the best currently known bound on $`\mu `$ for polynomials with coefficients $`\{1,0,1\},`$ . Namely, we have $`\mu 2\sqrt{n\mathrm{ln}2}.`$

Two other families of discrete orthogonal polynomial are the Meixner and the Charlier polynomials orthogonal on $`_{0,\mathrm{}}.`$ It is easy to check that the interpolating function $`A_w(x)`$, which is not a polynomial now, converges as only finitely many $`a_i0.`$ Thus the only difference with the previous case is that our bounds cannot be attained by polynomials and all inequalities are strict. Again, we start with listing the relevant formulae.
Meixner Polynomials $`M_k(x,\beta ,q),`$ $`\beta >0`$ and $`0<q<1,`$ $`w(x)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+\beta 1}{x}\right)q^x.`$

(16)
$$M_k(x,\beta ,q)=(1)^k\sqrt{\frac{(1q)^\beta q^k}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+\beta 1}{k}\right)}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x}{j}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x\beta }{kj}\right)q^j$$

(17)
$$\left(M_k(0,1,q)\right)^2=(1q)q^k$$

(18)
$$\left(M_k(1,1,q)\right)^2=(1q)q^k$$

Charlier Polynomials $`C_k(x,\lambda )`$, $`\lambda >0,`$ $`w(x)=\frac{\lambda ^x}{x!}.`$

(19)
$$C_k(x,\lambda )=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda ^ke^\lambda }{k!}}\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}(\lambda )^i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{i}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x}{i}\right)i!$$

(20)
$$\left(C_k(0,\lambda )\right)^2=\frac{\lambda ^ke^\lambda }{k!}.$$

Using (17),(18) and (20), similarly to the previous theorem we obtain

###### Theorem 4.

Let $`\{F_i(x)\}`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n,c)`$ basis, $`p(x)=_{i=0}^na_iF_i(x),`$ and $`\mu =\mu (p,c)1.`$ Then

(21)
$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}|a_i|^2q^i>|a_0|^2q^\mu ,q>1$$

(22)
$$\underset{i}{\mathrm{max}}|a_i|q^i>\left(q^{\frac{\mu 1}{2}}\frac{1}{q}\right)|a_0|,q>1$$

(23)
$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}|a_i|^2q^ii!>\left(1e^q\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mu 1}{}}\frac{q^i}{i!}\right)^1|a_0|^2,q>0$$

It is interesting to compare the obtained bounds, especially (13) and (14), with the following classical result of Schur  (see also  and ). Let $`\nu `$ be the number of real roots of $`p(x)=_{i=0}^ma_ix^i,`$ then

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}|a_i|^22a_0a_ne^{(\nu ^2\nu )/2n},$$

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}|a_i|\sqrt{a_0a_n}e^{\nu ^2/4n}.$$

Although we are not aware of any general claim of this type, one could expect that upper bounds on both numbers $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$ should be very close for a reasonable choice of the norm.
It worth also noticing that one can view Theorem 1 as giving bounds on discrete orthogonal polynomials. It would be very important to learn how to construct polynomials with a small norm and a large value of $`\mu .`$


text:
# Probing Hadronization with Strangeness

## 1 Introduction

Hadron yields and their ratios stemming from the final state of ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions have been extensively used to explore the degree of chemical equilibration  and to search for evidence for exotic states and phase transitions in such collisions . Under the assumption of thermal and chemical equilibrium, fits with a statistical (thermal) model have been used to extract bulk properties of hot and dense matter, e.g. the temperature and chemical potential at which chemical freeze-out occurs .

The application of a statistical model to elementary hadron-hadron reactions was first proposed by Hagedorn  in order to describe the exponential shape of the $`m_t`$-spectra of produced particles in p+p collisions. Recent analyses  on hadron yields in electron-positron and proton-proton interactions at several centre-of-mass energies have shown that particle abundances as well can be described by a statistical ensemble with maximized entropy. In fact, the abundancies are consistent with a model assuming the existence of equilibrated fireballs at a temperature $`T160170`$ MeV. These findings have given renewed rise to the interpretation that hadronization in elementary hadron-hadron collisions is a purely statistical process, which is difficult to reconcile with the popular dynamical picture that hadron production in pp collisions is due to the decay of color flux tubes .

In this article we argue that the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^+/\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ ratio in elementary proton-proton collisions is an unambiguous and sensitive probe to distinguish between particle production via the breakup of a color flux tube from statistical hadronization .

## 2 (Anti-)baryon production in sting models

Color flux tubes, called strings, connect two SU(3) color charges \[ $`3`$ \] and \[ $`\overline{3}`$ \] with a linear confining potential. If the excitation energy of the string is high enough it is allowed to decay via the Schwinger mechanism , i.e. the rate of newly produced quarks is given by:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}N_\kappa }{\mathrm{d}p_{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\pi m_{}^2/\kappa \right]$$
(1)
where $`\kappa `$ is the string tension and $`m_{}=\sqrt{p_{}^2+m^2}`$ is the transverse mass of the produced quark with mass $`m`$.

However, specific string models may differ in their philosophy and the types of strings that are created:

* In UrQMD the projectile and target protons become excited objects due to the momentum transfer in the interaction. The resulting strings, with at most two strings being formed, are of diquark-quark type.
* In NeXuS, the pp interaction is described in terms of pomeron exchanges or ladder diagramms. Both hard and soft interactions happen in parallel. Energy is shared equally between all cut pomerons and the remnants. The endpoints of the cut pomerons (i.e. the endpoints of the strings) may be valence quarks, sea quarks, antiquarks or gluons.
* In PYTHIA, a similar scheme as in UrQMD is employed. However, hard interactions may create additional strings from scattered sea quarks. Most strings are also of diquark-quark form.

Fig.1a depicts the anti-baryon to baryon ratio at midrapidity in proton-proton interactions at 160 GeV. The results of the calculations by NeXuS, UrQMD and PYTHIA, which are the best established string-fragmentation models for elementary hadron-hadron interactions, are included in this figure. In all these models, the $`\overline{B}/B`$ ratio increases strongly with the strangeness content of the baryon. For strangeness $`|s|=3`$ the ratio significantly exceeds unity. In UrQMD and PYTHIA the hadronization of the diquark-quark strings leads directly to the overpopulation of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. In NeXuS however, the imbalance of quarks and anti-quarks in the initial state leads to the formation of $`q_{\mathrm{val}}\overline{s}_{\mathrm{sea}}`$ strings, (the $`s_{\mathrm{val}}\overline{q}_{\mathrm{sea}}`$ string is not possible). These strings than result in the overpopulation of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$,s.

## 3 (Anti-)baryon production in statistical models

In Fig.1 the string model results are compared with the predictions of statistical models (SM). Within the SM, hadron productions is commonly described using the grand canonical (GC) partition function, where the charge conservation is controlled by the related chemical potential. In this description a net value of a given U(1) charge is conserved on average. However, in the limit of small particle multiplicities, conservation laws must be implemented exactly, i.e., the canonical (C) ensemble for conservation laws must be used . The conservation of quantum numbers in the canonical approach severely reduces thermal phase space available for particle production. Thus, exact charge conservation is of crucial importance in the description of particle yields in proton induced processes and in $`e^+e^{}`$ , as well as in peripheral heavy ion collisions .

In Fig.1 the predictions of two different canonical statistical models for $`\overline{B}/B`$ ratios in pp collisions are included. The main difference between these models is contained in the implementation of baryon number and isospin conservation as well as how additional strangeness suppression is introduced.

(I) The calculation in this statistical model  is a full canonical one with fixed baryon number, strangeness and electric charge identical to those of initial state. Also, an extra strangeness suppression is needed to reproduce the experimental multiplicities. This is done by considering the number of newly produced $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs as an additional charge to be found in the final hadrons. The $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs fluctuate according to a Poisson distribution and its mean number is considered a free parameter to be fitted . The parameters used for the prediction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+/\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ ratio ($`T`$, global volume $`V`$ sum of single cluster volumes and $`s\overline{s}`$) have been obtained by a fit to preliminary NA49 pp data  yielding $`T=183.7\pm 6.7`$ MeV, $`VT^3=6.49\pm 1.33`$ and $`s\overline{s}=0.405\pm 0.026`$ with a $`\chi ^2/dof=11.7/9`$. It must be pointed out that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+/\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ ratio is actually independent of the $`s\overline{s}`$ parameter and only depends on $`T`$ and $`V`$ (see also Fig.4).

(II) Here we first approximate the conservation of baryon number and electric charge by the GC ensemble. Under thermal conditions at top SPS energies this approximation leads to deviations from the exact C results in pp collisions by at most 20-30$`\%`$ . Strangeness conservation is, however, implemented on the canonical level following the procedure proposed in . It accounts for strong correlations of produced strange particles due to constraints imposed by the locality of the conservation laws. In pp collisions strangeness is not distributed in the whole volume of the fireball but is strongly correlated. A correlation volume parameter $`V_0=4\pi R_0^3/3`$ is introduced, where $`R_01`$ fm is a typical scale of QCD interactions. Previous analysis of WA97 pA data yields: $`R_01.12`$ fm corresponding to $`V_05.8`$ fm3. Note that hidden strange particles are not canonically suppressed in this approach. Analysis of experimental data in AA collisions has shown that $`T`$ and $`\mu _B`$ are almost entirely determined by the collision energy and only dependent weakly on the number of participants . $`4\pi `$ results of NA49 on $`\overline{p}/\pi `$ and $`\pi /A_{part}`$ ratios in pp and PbPb collisions coincides within 20-30$`\%`$. In terms of the SM this can be understood if $`T`$ and $`\mu _B`$ in pp and PbPb collisions have similar values. We take $`T158`$ MeV and $`\mu _B238`$ MeV as obtained from SM analysis of full phase-space NA49 Pb-Pb data . The volume of the fireball $`V17`$ fm3 and the charge chemical potential in pp was then found to reproduce the average charge and baryon number in the initial state.

The predictions of the statistical models are shown in fig 1(right). In these approaches the $`\overline{B}/B`$ ratio increases linearly with the strangeness content of the baryon. For comparison, both figures include preliminary data on the $`\overline{B}/B`$ ratio at midrapidity by NA49  (stars). Roughly 45 $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ have been so far extracted, no $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ has been observed. With a 95% confidence level, the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ratio in this measurement is below 0.5 . However, it must be stressed that in the statistical models one can calculate particle production only in full phase space and all quoted predictions refer to fully integrated particle spectra.

Large deviations of statistical models from the data seen in Fig.1b are to be expected as at midrapidity $`\overline{B}/B`$ ratios are known to be much larger than in the whole phase space. To make predictions for particle ratios at midrapidity one can use the canonical model II. Following the procedure described in  we first choose $`T168`$ MeV, from the fit to the midrapidity WA97 PbPb data , and $`\mu _B130`$ MeV to reproduce $`\overline{p}/p0.22`$ in pp collisions. With these parameters the agreement of the model II with NA49 data is seen in Fig.1 to be quite satisfactory.

## 4 Rapidity-, mass- and volume dependencies

The rapidity dependence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ yield is studied in Fig. 2 within different string models. The results were calculated in pp interactions at 160 GeV within PYTHIA, NeXuS and UrQMD (from top to bottom). As can be seen, the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ratio is largest around mid-rapidity.

The $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ratio is fairly robust – different string-model implementations (PYTHIA, UrQMD, NeXuS) all agree in their predictions within $`\pm 20\%`$. The value of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$ in p+p reactions at the SPS is a generic feature of the string-fragmentation. However, as shown in Table I the total $`4\pi `$-yields of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$,s and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$,s may differ by a factor of four among the different string models. The statistical models are in general giving more consistent results, however deviations up to $`20\%`$ are not excluded.

In string models, the particle abundances depend on the parameters chosen for the fragmentation scheme, while in statistical models they reflect the differences between the ensembles chosen. Thus, the absolute yields allow to distinguish between the implementations once experimental data becomes available.

In order to understand the large $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ values predicted by string models one elucidates in Fig.3 the color flux tube break-up mechanism. Fig.3 shows the fragmentation of the color field into quark-antiquark pairs, which then coalesce into hadrons. While in large strings $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$,s and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$,s are produced in equal abundance (a), low-mass strings in UrQMD suppress $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ production at the string ends (b), while in NeXuS $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$,s are enhanced (c). Thus, the microscopic method of hadronization leads to a strong imbalance in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ratio in low-mass strings.

The $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ratio depends in a strongly non-linear fashion on the mass of the fragmenting string. Fig.4 shows the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ratio as a function of the mass of the fragmenting string (i.e. different beam energies in pp). One clearly observes a strong enhancement of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ production at low energies, while for large string masses the ratio approaches the value of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ (which should be reached in the limit of an infinitely long color flux tube).

However, it should be noted that recently a new class of string models utilizing parton-based Gribov-Regge theory has been proposed which are capable of generating an $`\overline{B}/B`$ ratio of less than one .

Statistical models, on the other hand, are not able to yield a ratio of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$. This can be easily understood in the GC formalism, where $`\overline{B}/B`$ ratio is very sensitive to the baryon-chemical potential $`\mu _B`$. For finite baryon-densities, the $`\overline{B}/B`$ ratio will always be $`<1`$ and only in the limit of $`\mu _B=0`$ may $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ be approached. These features survive in the canonical framework, where the GC fugacities are replaced by ratios of partition functions . This is shown in Fig.4(right) where the ratio $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in pp collisions (according to the previously described model I) is plotted as a function of volume for four different temperatures. Hence, finite size corrections in the statistical model actually lead to the opposite behavior in the ratio of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ vs. system-size (i.e. volume replacing string-mass) than that observed in the fragmenting color flux tube picture.

## 5 Balance Functions

While the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ratio provides us with important information on the dynamics of hadronization, it does not yield any information on the time-scales at which hadronization occurs: Balance functions offer a unique model-independent formalism to probe the time-scales of a deconfined phase and subsequent hadronization . Late-stage production of quarks could be attributed to three mechanisms: formation of hadrons from gluons, conversion of the non-perturbative vacuum energy into particles, or hadronization of a quark gas at constant temperature. Hadronization of a quark gas should approximately conserve the net number of particles due to the constraint of entropy conservation. Since hadrons are formed of two or more quarks, creation of quark-antiquark pairs should accompany hadronization. All three mechanisms for late-stage quark production involve a change in the degrees of freedom. Therefore, any signal that pinpoints the time where quarks first appear in a collision would provide valuable insight into understanding whether a novel state of matter has been formed and persisted for a substantial time.

The link between balance functions and the time at which quarks are created has a simple physical explanation. Charge-anticharge pairs are created at the same location in space-time, and are correlated in rapidity due to the strong collective expansion inherent to a relativistic heavy ion collision. Pairs created earlier can separate further in rapidity due to the higher initial temperature and due to the diffusive interactions with other particles. The balance function, which describes the momentum of the accompanying antiparticle, quantifies this correlation. The balance function describes the conditional probability that a particle in the bin $`p_1`$ will be accompanied by a particle of opposite charge in the bin $`p_2`$:

$$B(p_2|p_1)\frac{1}{2}\left\{\rho (b,p_2|a,p_1)\rho (b,p_2|b,p_1)+\rho (a,p_2|b,p_1)\rho (a,p_2|a,p_1)\right\},$$
(2)
where $`\rho (b,p_2|a,p_1)`$ is the conditional probability of observing a particle of type $`b`$ in bin $`p_2`$ given the existence of a particle of type $`a`$ in bin $`p_1`$. The label $`a`$ might refer to all negative kaons with $`b`$ referring to all positive kaons, or $`a`$ might refer to all hadrons with a strange quark while $`b`$ refers to all hadrons with an antistrange quark. Balance functions will be discussed in greater detail in other articles of these proceedings .

## 6 Conclusions

The $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has been found to be extremely sensitive on the dynamics of hadronization in p+p reactions. Within the fragmenting color flux tube models we have predicted that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ratio is significantly above unity. This is in strong contrast to statistical model results which always imply that $`\overline{B}/B`$ ratios are bellow or equal to unity in proton+proton reactions. Since this observable is accessible by NA49 measurements at the SPS it can provide an excellent test to distinguish the statistical model hadronization scenario from that of microscopic color-flux tube dynamics – first very preliminary results seem to support the statistical hadronization hypothesis. Balance functions yield complimentary information and offer a unique, model-independent formalism to probe the time-scale of hadronization in heavy nucleus-nucleus collisions.

## Acknowledgement(s)

We thank K. Kadjia (NA49) for fruitful and stimulating discussions. (S.A.B.) acknowledges support from RIKEN, Brookhaven National Laboratory and DOE grants DE-FG02-96ER40945 as well as DE-AC02-98CH10886. (K.R) acknowledges KBN grant, KBN-2P03B 03018.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The order parameters are very important for the investigation of the phase transitions. In case of the temperature phase transition in lattice QCD with dynamical quarks there is no good definition of the order parameter up to now. The traditional order parameters like Polyakov line and string tension which work well in the quenched case are not valid in case of the full QCD. Even at zero temperature the string between quark and anti-quark can be broken by sea quarks.

We discuss below a quantity which may serve as the order parameter for full QCD if the monopole (or, ”dual superconductor”) confinement mechanism  is valid. In this picture the monopoles – defined with the help of an Abelian projection  – are supposed to be condensed in the confinement phase. The monopole condensate causes a dual analogue of the Abrikosov vortex to be formed between quarks and anti-quarks. As a result the quarks and anti–quarks are confined into the colorless states. In the deconfinement phase the monopoles are not condensed and quarks are not confined. Thus the natural confinement-deconfinement order parameter is the value of the monopole condensate, which should be nonzero in the confinement phase and zero in the deconfinement phase.

There are two (formal) difficulties in the definition of the monopole condensate. At first, the monopole condensate is defined as an expectation value of the monopole field. However, the monopoles are the topological defects in the compact Abelian gauge field and, as a result, the immediate output of the lattice simulations is an information about the monopole trajectories. Then one can apply a known procedure which allows us to rewrite the path integral over monopole trajectories as an integral over the monopole fields. The expectation value of the latter defines the monopole condensate.

The next difficulty is the following. The expectation value of the (e.g., scalar) field $`\varphi `$ should always be zero regardless whether this field is condensed or not. The reason is very simple: the path integral includes the integration over all possible gauges while the charged field is gauge dependent. These two problems were solved in paper , where the gauge invariant monopole creation operator for compact QED (cQED) was explicitly constructed. The numerical calculations in lattice cQED  and in the Maximal Abelian projection of lattice $`SU(2)`$ gluodynamics, Ref. , show that this operator provides the order parameter for confinement – deconfinement phase transition. Later the other forms of the monopole creation operators were constructed and investigated numerically  in lattice gluodynamics.

But recently it appears the claim  that the monopole creation operator suggested in  depends on the shape of the Dirac string if dynamical electrically charged fields are present in the considered theory. Just this situation appears in the Abelian projection of QCD: the off-diagonal gluons become electrically charged dynamical fields while the diagonal gluons become compact Abelian gauge fields which contain monopoles. The authors of  suggested a “new” monopole creation operator, which does not depend on the shape of the Dirac string even in the presence of the dynamical electric charges.

Below we study this new creation operator in the compact Abelian Higgs model, having in mind the future application of this operator for the full QCD.

In the next Section we give the explicit construction of the “new” and the “old” monopole creation operator. In Section 3 we present the results of the numerical calculations in the compact Abelian Higgs model.

## 2 “Old” and “new” monopole creation operators.

The gauge invariant creation operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ was suggested by Dirac :

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi (x)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle E_k(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})A_k(\stackrel{}{y})d^3y}\right\},`$ (1)
here $`\varphi (x)`$ and $`A_k(x)`$ are the electrically charged field and gauge potential, which transform under the gauge transformations as

$`\varphi (x)\varphi (x)e^{i\alpha (x)},A_k(x)A_k(x)+_k\alpha (x).`$ (2)
The Coulomb field, $`E_k(x)`$, satisfies the equation:

$`_kE_k=\delta ^{(3)}(x).`$ (3)
It is easy to see that the operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, eq. (1), is invariant under the gauge transformations (2).

Now we describe the Fröhlich–Marchetti construction  of the monopole creation operator in cQED. At first step the partition function of cQED is transformed to a dual representation. For the general form of the cQED action it can be shown  that the dual theory is an Abelian Higgs model (AHM) in the limit when the Higgs boson mass and the gauge boson mass are infinite. In this theory the Higgs field, $`\varphi _x`$, corresponds to the monopole in the original cQED. The gauge field $`^{}B`$ is dual to the original gauge field $`\theta `$. Thus the gauge invariant creation operator (1) for the AHM model, corresponds to the monopole creation operator in the original cQED. The explicit expression for this operator on the lattice is ($`cf`$. eq.(2)):

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_x^{\mathrm{mon}}=\varphi _xe^{i(^{}B,^{}H_x)},$$
(4)
where $`^{}H_x`$ is the Coulomb field of the monopole, $`\delta ^{}H_x=^{}\delta _x`$, and $`^{}\delta _x`$ is the discrete $`\delta `$–function defined on the dual lattice. Here and below we will use the differential form notations on the lattice: $`(a,b)=_ca_cb_c`$ is the scalar product of the forms $`a`$ and $`b`$ defined on the $`c`$–sells; $`(a,a)a^2`$ is the norm of the form $`a`$; $`d`$ is the forward derivative (an analog of the gradient); $`\delta `$ is the backward derivative (an analog of the divergence) and $`\delta `$–operation transfers a form to the dual lattice. For a description of the language of the differential forms on the lattice see, $`e.g.`$, review .

Performing the inverse duality transformation for the expectation value of the creation operator (4) we get the expectation value, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{mon}`$, of this operator in cQED. The explicit expression in the lattice notations is:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{mon}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒵}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝒟\theta \mathrm{exp}\{S(\text{d}\theta +W)\},`$
$`𝒵`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝒟\theta \mathrm{exp}\{S(d\theta )\},`$ (5)
here $`\text{d}\theta `$ is the plaquette angle, the lattice action is a periodic function: $`S(\text{d}\theta +2\pi n)=S(\text{d}\theta )`$, $`nZZ`$; $`W=2\pi \delta \mathrm{\Delta }^1^{}(H_x\omega _x)`$ and $`^{}\omega _x`$ is the Dirac string which starts at the monopole: $`\delta ^{}\omega _x=^{}\delta _x`$. The Dirac string $`^{}\omega _x`$ is defined on the dual lattice. The numerical investigation of this creation operator in cQED shows  that it can be used as the confinement–deconfinement order parameter.

The operator (4) is well defined for the theories without dynamical matter fields. However, if an electrically charged matter is added, then the creation operator (4) depends on the position of the Dirac string. To see this fact let us consider the compact Abelian Higgs model with the Villain form of the action:

$`𝒵_{AHM}={\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝒟\theta {\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝒟\phi {\displaystyle \underset{nZZ(c_2)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{lZZ(c_1)}{}}e^{\beta \mathrm{d}\theta +2\pi n^2\gamma \mathrm{d}\phi +q\theta +2\pi l^2}.`$ (6)
Here $`\theta `$ is the compact Abelian gauge field and $`\phi `$ is the phase of the dynamical Higgs field. The integer $`q`$ is the charge of the Higgs field. For the sake of simplicity we consider the London limit (the Higgs mass is infinitely large while the Higgs condensate is constant).

Let us perform the Berezinsky-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transformation  with respect to the compact gauge field $`\theta `$:

$`\text{d}\theta +2\pi n=\text{d}A+2\pi \delta \mathrm{\Delta }^1j,\text{with}A=\theta +2\pi \delta \mathrm{\Delta }^1m[j]+2\pi k.`$ (7)
Here $`A`$ is the non–compact gauge field, $`^{}m[j]`$ is a surface on the dual lattice spanned on the monopole current $`^{}j`$ ($`\delta ^{}m[j]=^{}j`$), $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the lattice Laplacian and $`k`$ is the integer–valued vector form111A detailed description of the duality and BKT transformations in terms of the differential forms on the lattice can be found, $`e.g.`$, in Ref. .. We substitute eqs.(7) in eq.(6) and make the shift of the integer variable, $`ll+qk`$.

Next we perform the BKT transformation with respect to the compact scalar field $`\phi `$:

$`\text{d}\phi +2\pi l=\text{d}\vartheta +2\pi \delta \mathrm{\Delta }^1\sigma ,\text{with}\vartheta =\phi +2\pi \delta \mathrm{\Delta }^1s[\sigma ]+2\pi p.`$ (8)
Here $`\vartheta `$ is the non–compact scalar field, $`^{}s[\sigma ]`$ is a $`3D`$ hyper–surface on the dual lattice spanned on the closed surface $`^{}\sigma `$ ($`\delta ^{}s[\sigma ]=^{}\sigma `$) and $`p`$ is the integer–valued scalar form.

Substituting eqs. (7,8) into the partition function (6) and integrating the fields $`A`$ and $`\phi `$ we get the representation of the compact AHM in terms of the monopoles and strings (”the BKT–representation”):

$`𝒵_{AHM}𝒵_{BKT}={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{^{}jZZ\left(^{}c_3\right)}{\delta ^{}j=0}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{^{}\sigma _jZZ\left(^{}c_2\right)}{\delta ^{}\sigma _j=q^{}j}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\{`$ $``$ $`4\pi ^2\beta (j,(\mathrm{\Delta }+m^2)^1j)`$
$``$ $`4\pi ^2\gamma (\sigma _j,(\mathrm{\Delta }+m^2)^1\sigma _j)\},`$
where we have introduced the new dual surface variable $`^{}\sigma _j=^{}\sigma +q^{}m[j]`$ which is spanned $`q`$–times on the monopole current $`j`$: $`\delta ^{}\sigma _j=q^{}j`$. The flux of the unit charged magnetic monopole can be taken out by $`q`$ strings carrying the unit flux. The mass of the gauge boson $`\theta `$ is $`m=q\sqrt{\gamma /\beta }`$.

The BKT–representation (2) of the AHM partition function (6) can be also transformed to the dual representation using simple Gaussian integrations. We use two dual compact fields $`^{}B`$ (vector field) and $`^{}\xi `$ (scalar field) in order to represent the closeness properties of the currents $`^{}\sigma _j`$ and $`^{}j`$, respectively. We also introduce two dual non–compact fields, $`^{}F`$ (vector field) and $`^{}G`$ (rank-2 tensor field) in order to get a linear dependence, correspondingly, on the currents $`^{}\sigma _j`$ and $`^{}j`$ under the exponential function:

$`𝒵_{BKT}=\mathrm{const}.{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝒟^{}F{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝒟^{}G{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝒟^{}B{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝒟^{}\xi `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{^{}jZZ(^{}c_3)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{^{}\sigma _jZZ(^{}c_2)}{}}\mathrm{exp}\{^{}\beta (^{}G,(\mathrm{\Delta }+m^2)^{}G)^{}\gamma (^{}F,(\mathrm{\Delta }+m^2)^{}F)`$
$`+i(^{}F,^{}\sigma _j)+i(^{}G,^{}j)+i(^{}B,\delta ^{}\sigma _jq^{}j)i(^{}\xi ,\delta ^{}j)\},`$ (10)
where

$`^{}\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2\gamma }},^{}\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2\beta }}.`$ (11)
Note that in this representation the integer variables $`^{}\sigma _j`$ and $`^{}j`$ are no more restricted by the closeness relations. Therefore we can use the Poisson summation formula with respect to these variables and integrate out the fields $`^{}F`$ and $`^{}G`$. Finally, we obtain the dual field representation of the partition function (6):

$`𝒵_{BKT}`$ $``$ $`𝒵_{dualfield}={\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝒟^{}B{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝒟^{}\xi {\displaystyle \underset{^{}uZZ(^{}c_3)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{^{}vZZ(^{}c_2)}{}}`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\{^{}\beta (\text{d}^{}B+2\pi ^{}u,(\mathrm{\Delta }+m^2)(\text{d}^{}B+2\pi ^{}u))`$
$``$ $`^{}\gamma (\text{d}^{}\xi +q^{}B+2\pi ^{}v,(\mathrm{\Delta }+m^2)(\text{d}^{}\xi +q^{}B+2\pi ^{}v))\},`$
where $`^{}u`$ and $`^{}v`$ are the integer valued forms defined on the plaquettes and links of the dual lattice, respectively. Clearly, this is the dual Abelian Higgs model with the modified action. The gauge field $`^{}B`$ is compact and the radial variable of the Higgs field is frozen. The model is in the London limit and the dynamical scalar variable is the phase of the Higgs field $`^{}\xi `$.

Thus in the presence of the dynamical matter the dual gauge field $`^{}B`$ becomes compact222Another way to establish this fact is to realize that the pure compact gauge model is dual to the non–compact $`U(1)`$ with matter fields (referred above as the (dual) Abelian Higgs model). Reading this relation backwards one can conclude that the presence of the matter field leads to the compactification of the dual gauge field $`^{}B`$.. The compactness of the dual gauge field implies that it is transforming under the gauge transformations of the following form:

$$^{}B^{}B+\text{d}^{}\alpha +2\pi ^{}k,$$
(13)
where the integer valued field $`k`$ is chosen in such a way that $`^{}B(\pi ,\pi ]`$.

One can easily check that the operator (4) is not invariant under these gauge transformations:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_x^{\mathrm{mon}}(H)\mathrm{\Phi }_x^{\mathrm{mon}}(H)e^{2\pi i(^{}k,^{}H_x)}.$$
(14)
The invariance of the operator (4) under the gauge transformations (13) can be achieved if and only if the function $`^{}H_x`$ is an integer–valued form.

Thus, if we take into account the Maxwell equation $`\delta ^{}H_x=^{}\delta _x`$, we find that $`^{}H_x`$ should be a string attached to the monopole (”Mandelstam string”): $`^{}H_x^{}j_x`$, $`^{}j_xZZ`$, $`\delta ^{}j_x=^{}\delta _x`$. The string must belong to the three–dimensional time–slice. However, one can show  that for a fixed string position the operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ creates a state with an infinite energy. This difficulty may be bypassed  by summation over all possible positions of the Mandelstam strings with a measure $`\mu (^{}j)`$:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_x^{\mathrm{mon},\mathrm{new}}=\varphi _x{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{j_xZZ}{\delta ^{}j_x=^{}\delta _x}}{}}\mu (^{}j_x)e^{i(^{}B,^{}j_x)}.`$ (15)
If Higgs field $`\varphi `$ is $`q`$–charged ($`qZZ`$), the summation in eq.(15) should be taken over $`q`$ different strings with the unit flux.

An example of a “reasonable” measure $`\mu (j_x)`$ is :

$`\mu (^{}j_x)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}^{}j_x^2\right\}.`$ (16)
This measure corresponds to the dual formulation of the $`3D`$ XY–model with the Villain action:

$$S(\chi ,r)=\frac{\kappa }{2}\text{d}\chi 2\pi B+2\pi r^2.$$
(17)
Due to the compactness of the spin variables $`\chi `$ the model (17) possesses vortex defects which enter the XY–partition function with measure (16).

We thus defined “old” (4) and “new” (15) monopole creation operators.

## 3 Numerical results

Below we present results of the numerical simulation of the new monopole creation operator. We investigate it in the simplest model which contains both the monopoles and the electrically charged fields: the Abelian Higgs model with compact gauge field and with the potential on the Higgs field corresponding to the London limit. The partition function for this model is given in eq.(6). The model has a nontrivial phase structure and we study both the phase where monopoles are condensed and the phase where monopoles are not condensed.

First we substitute the monopole creation operator (15,16) into the dual representation of the compact AHM (2). Then we perform the transformations back to the original representation:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{mon},\mathrm{new}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{^{}jZZ\left(^{}c_3\right)}{\delta ^{}j=^{}\delta _x}}{}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }D\theta \mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}||\text{d}^{}j||^2`$
$`\beta \mathrm{cos}(\text{d}\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{q}}\stackrel{~}{j})\gamma \mathrm{cos}(q\theta )\},`$ (18)
where we used the Wilson form of the action which is more suitable for the numerical simulations. The current $`\stackrel{~}{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(4)}j`$ means that duality operation was first applied in the 3D time slice and then in the full 4D space. We have fixed the unitary gauge therefore the Higgs field was eaten up by the corresponding gauge transformation.

The value of the monopole order parameter, $`\varphi `$, corresponds to the minimum of the (effective constraint) potential on the monopole field. This potential can be estimated as follows:

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{ln}\left(\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{mon},\mathrm{new}})\right).`$ (19)
We simulated the 4D Abelian Higgs model on the $`4^4,6^4,8^4`$ lattices, for $`\gamma =0.3`$. The larger the charge of the Higgs field, $`q`$, the easier the numerical calculation of $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is. We performed our calculations for $`q=7`$. For each configuration of 4D fields we simulated 3D model to get the ensemble of the Mandelstam strings with the weight $`\mu (j_x)`$. We generated 60 statistically independent 4D field configurations, and for each of these configurations we generated 40 configurations of 3D Mandelstam strings. We imposed the anti-periodic boundary conditions in the $`3D`$ space (the single monopole charge can not exist in the finite volume with periodic boundary condition).

As we have stated above the weight function (16) corresponds to the 3D XY–model with the Villain action. This model has the phase transition at $`\kappa _c(B=0)0.32`$ . Our numerical observation has shown that in presence of the external field $`B`$, the critical coupling constant gets shifted: $`\kappa _c^B0.42`$.

Two configurations of the Mandelstam strings which correspond to condensed (large $`\kappa `$) and non–condensed (small $`\kappa `$) phases of these strings are shown in Figures 1.

We can expect that the operator (15) plays the role of the order parameter in the $`\kappa >\kappa _c`$ phase, where the Mandelstam strings are condensed ($`\kappa >\kappa _c`$).

In Figures 2 we present the effective potential (19) in the confinement ($`\beta =0.85`$) and deconfinement ($`\beta =1.05`$) phases. The potential is shown for two values of the $`3D`$ coupling constants $`\kappa >\kappa _c`$ corresponding to high densities of the Mandelstam strings. In the confinement phase, Figure 2(a), the potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ has a Higgs form signaling the monopole condensation. According to our numerical observations this statement does not depend on the lattice volume. In the deconfinement phase, Figure 2(b), the potential has minimum at $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ which indicates the absence of the monopole condensate.

For small values of the $`3D`$ coupling constant $`\kappa `$ (in the phase where Mandelstam strings $`j_x`$ are not condensed), we found (Figure 3) that the potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ has the same behaviour for the both phases of $`4D`$ model. Thus the operator (15) serves as the order parameter for the deconfinement phase transition, if Mandelstam strings are condensed, i.e. $`\kappa `$ should be larger than $`\kappa _c(B)`$.

Summarizing, the new operator suggested in  can be used as a test of the monopole condensation in the theories with electrically charged matter fields. Our calculations indicate that the operator should be defined in the phase where the Mandelstam strings are condensed. The value of the monopole field which corresponds to the minimum of the effective potential, is zero in deconfinement phase and non zero in the confinement phase.

## Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to F.V. Gubarev for useful discussions. V.A.B. and M.I.P were partially supported by grants RFBR 02-02-17308, RFBR 01-02-17456, INTAS 00-00111 and CRDF award RP1-2364-MO-02. M.I.Ch. is supported by JSPS Fellowship P01023.