format: text

text:
# References

On the Algebraic Bethe Ansatz for XXX spin chain:
creation operators ”beyond the equator”.

A.E. Kovalsky
MIPT, Dolgoprudny, Moscow reg.,
IHEP, Protvino, Moscow reg., Russia,
G.P. Pronko
IHEP, Protvino, Moscow reg., Russia,
International Solvay Institute, Brussels, Belgium

## Abstract

Considering the XXX spin-$`1/2`$ chain in the framework of the Algebraic Bethe Ansatz (ABA) we make the following short comment: the product of the creation operators corresponding to the recently found solution of the Bethe equations ”on the wrong side of the equator”  is just zero (not only its action on the pseudovacuum).

Consider the periodic XXX spin-$`1/2`$ chain with $`N`$ sites in the framework of ABA (see for example ). Let us introduce the Lax operator acting in the two-dimensional local quantum space $`h_n=^2`$ and in the two-dimensional auxiliary space $`V=^2`$:

$`L_n(x)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x+is_n^3& is_n^{}\\ is_n^+& xis_n^3\end{array}\right),`$ (3)
where $`s^i`$ are operators of spin $`1/2`$, $`x`$ is an arbituary complex number (the spectral parameter). The monodromy matrix is the ordered product over all sites:

$$T(x)=L_N(x)L_{N1}(x)\mathrm{}L_1(x)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A(x)& B(x)\\ C(x)& D(x)\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`A(x),B(x),C(x),D(x)`$ are operators acting in the full quantum space $`H=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}h_n`$. In the framework of ABA one looks for the eigenvectors of the transfer matrix

$$\widehat{t}(x)=trT(x)=A(x)+D(x)$$

in the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\{x\})=B(x_1)B(x_2)\mathrm{}B(x_l)\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\omega _n,s_n^+\omega _n=0`$. It follows from the intertwining relations for the monodromy matricies that vector (5) will be an eigenvector of the transfer matrix when the parameters $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_l`$ satisfy the Bethe equations:

$$\left(\frac{x_j+i/2}{x_ji/2}\right)^N=\underset{kj}{\overset{l}{}}\frac{x_jx_k+i}{x_jx_ki}(j=1,2,\mathrm{},l).$$
(6)
Let us denote vectors of the form (5) with parameters $`x_j(j=1,2,\mathrm{},l)`$ satisfying the system (6) by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\{x\}_B)`$. It is well known that vectors $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\{x\}_B)`$ are the highest weights vectors with respect to $`SU(2)`$ generated by $`J^i`$ i.e.

$$J^+\mathrm{\Phi }(\{x\}_B)=0$$
(7)
and

$$J^3\mathrm{\Phi }(\{x\}_B)=(N/2l)\mathrm{\Phi }(\{x\}_B),$$
(8)
where $`J^3,J^\pm `$ are operators of the total spin. It is clear that if $`l>N/2`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\{x\}_B)=0`$. The solution $`\{x\}`$ of (6) with $`lN/2`$ defines the polynomial $`q(x)`$ of the degree $`l`$, whose roots are $`\{x\}`$:

$$q(x)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}(xx_j).$$
(9)
Let $`t(x)`$ be the eigenvalue of transfer matrix $`\widehat{t}(x)`$ corresponding to the eigenvector $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\{x\}_B)`$ i.e. $`\widehat{t}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }(\{x\}_B)=t(x)\mathrm{\Phi }(\{x\}_B)`$. It is a polynomial of degree $`N`$. Then the polynomials $`t(x)`$ and $`q(x)`$ satisfy the Baxter equation  (we consider the case of the simple roots):

$$t(x)q(x)=(xi/2)^Nq(x+i)+(x+i/2)^Nq(xi).$$
(10)
In the paper  was shown that there exist the polynomial $`p(x)`$ of degree $`Nl+1`$ with roots satisfying the Bethe equation (6) 111See also the interesting discussion of the ”beyond equator” solution in . and

$$t(x)p(x)=(xi/2)^Np(x+i)+(x+i/2)^Np(xi),$$
(11)
with the same $`t(x)`$ as in (10). Actually there exists the one-parametric family of such polynomials

$$p(x,\alpha )=p(x)+\alpha q(x),$$
(12)
so there is the one-parametric family of sets of parameters $`(\{x\})`$–the zeroes of $`p(x,\alpha )`$ which belongs to the ”beyond the equator” case. Let us denote these zeroes as $`x_i(\alpha )`$ (it is clear that the zeroes of the polynomial (12) depends on $`\alpha `$). Now consider the creation operator

$$𝐁(\alpha )=B(x_1(\alpha ))B(x_2(\alpha ))\mathrm{}B(x_{Nl+1}(\alpha ))$$

corresponding to the beyond the equator case. The following statement is valid:
Theorem.

$$𝐁(\alpha )=0$$
(13)
Proof.
Consider its action on the basis constructed using the Bethe vectors (in the case of finite $`\{x\}`$ Bethe vectors are the highest weights; to obtain the rest eigenvectors we use the operator $`J^{}`$ (it commutes with the transfer matrix), which also can be considered as a creation operator, since $`B(x)=x^{N1}(J^{}+o(1/x))`$ when $`x\mathrm{}`$; on the hypothesis of the completeness of the Bethe ansatz see ). We immidiatly see that its action is zero due to $`[B(x),B(y)]=0,[B(x),J^{}]=0`$ and $`𝐁(\alpha )\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. So, the action of $`𝐁(\alpha )`$ is zero onto each vector of the basis, then

$$𝐁(\alpha )=0.$$
(14)
To see that this fact is nontrivial let us consider the concrete examples. Let us first analyse the structures of the product of $`B`$-operators. We have the following commutation relation:

$$[B(x),J^3]=B(x),$$
(15)
so for the product of $`l`$ $`B`$-operators

$$e^{\beta J^3}B(x_1)\mathrm{}B(x_l)e^{\beta J^3}=e^{l\beta }B(x_1)\mathrm{}B(x_l)$$
(16)
and we see that each term of expansion of this product necessarily contains the products of $`l`$-operators $`s_j^{}`$ with different $`j`$, since $`(s^{})^2=0`$ (so if $`l>N`$ this product is zero). At $`N=6`$, product of four $`B`$-operators ($`l=4>3`$ i.e. this is the ”beyond the equator” case): $`B(x_1)B(x_2)B(x_3)B(x_4)`$, as was shown by the explicit construction of this product, contains terms, proportional to $`s_2^+s_1^{}s_3^{}s_4^{}s_5^{}s_6^{}`$, $`s_3^+s_1^{}s_2^{}s_4^{}s_5^{}s_6^{}`$, $`s_4^+s_1^{}s_2^{}s_3^{}s_5^{}s_6^{}`$ and $`s_5^+s_1^{}s_2^{}s_3^{}s_4^{}s_6^{}`$ with nonzero coefficients–polynomials in $`x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4`$. The appearance of such terms is not excluded by (16). Its action on the vacuum $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is zero identicaly, so if $`x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4`$ satisfy the system (6), then these terms is zero, not only terms, whose action on the vacuum $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is nonzero, for example the term proportional to $`s_1^{}s_2^{}s_3^{}s_4^{}`$. Such solutions do exist, for example roots of the polynomial

$$p(x)=x^4\frac{6}{\sqrt{13}}x^3+x^2\frac{9}{16}$$
(17)
satisfy system (6). This solution corresponds to the total spin $`J=0`$, the eigenvalue of the transfer matrix

$$t(x)=2x^6+\frac{9}{2}x^4+\frac{23}{8}x^2\frac{3}{\sqrt{13}}x\frac{1}{32}$$

the corresponding eigenvector can be constructed, using the roots of the polynomial

$$q(x)=x^3+\frac{1}{12}x+\frac{1}{4\sqrt{13}}.$$
(18)
and the one-parametric family $`𝐁(\alpha )=0`$ corresponds to the roots of the polynomial

$$p(x,\alpha )=x^4\frac{6}{\sqrt{13}}x^3+x^2\frac{9}{16}+\alpha (x^3+\frac{1}{12}x+\frac{1}{4\sqrt{13}}).$$
(19)
The products of $`l`$ operators $`B(x)`$ with $`l>N/2`$ considered above are not used for the construction of the eigenvectors of the transfer matrix. However, we would like to emphasize that there is another important example, when the product of $`B`$-operators corresponding to the case $`lN/2`$ is zero:

$$B(i/2)B(i/2)=0.$$

This product corresponds to the polynomial

$$q(x)=x^2+1/4$$

and

$$t(x)=(x+i/2)(x3/2i)^{N1}+(xi/2)(x+3/2i)^{N1}$$

and at even $`N4`$ corresponds to some eigenvector of the transfer matrix. In the paper  was shown how one can use the ABA to construct this eigenvector corresponding to this exceptional solution. If we consider the following vector $`B(i/2+ϵ+2iϵ^N)B(i/2+ϵ)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at $`ϵ0`$, then

$$B(i/2+ϵ+2iϵ^N)B(i/2+ϵ)\mathrm{\Omega }=ϵ^N\mathrm{\Phi }(\{i/2,i/2\})+O(ϵ^{N+1})$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\{i/2,i/2\})`$ is the desired eigenvector. The proof of our statement holds true in this case too, since we use again only $`B`$-operators to construct this eigenvector.

This work was supported in part by grants of RFBR 00-15-96645, 01-02-16585, 01-01-00201, CRDF MO-011-0, of the Russian Minestry on the education E00-3.3-62 and INTAS 00-00561.


text:
# An Algebraic Pairing Model with 𝑆𝑝(4) Symmetry and its Deformation

## 1 Introduction

The pairing problem, which was introduced first in atomic physics , was later applied to nuclear physics  in an attempt to describe binding energies of nuclei and their low-lying vibrational spectra . Recently, there has been renewed interest in this problem because of new experimental studies of exotic nuclei with relatively large proton excess or with $`NZ`$. This revival of interest in pairing follows from the recent development of radioactive beam facilities and attempts to bridge from nuclear structure considerations to astrophysical phenomena .

Along with approximate mean field solutions (for a review see ), the pairing problem can be solved exactly by means of various group theoretical methods, which allow one to explore the underlying symmetries. The $`SU(2)`$ seniority model  provides for a good description of nuclei with large proton or neutron excess, where the like-particle pairing plays a dominant role. The simple “quasi-spin” ($`SU(2)Sp(2)`$) approach  not only offers an elegant way to understand the results from the conventional seniority scheme , based on $`U(2j+1)Sp(2j+1)SO(3)`$, but allows for a straightforward expansion to $`SO(5)Sp(4)`$ to include protons and neutrons, which otherwise has proven to be too complicated. The generalization to the $`SO(5)`$ model  introduces a relation between identical-particle and proton-neutron ($`pn`$) isovector (isospin $`\tau =1`$) pairing modes. The addition of an isoscalar ($`\tau =0`$) $`pn`$ pairing channel is described within the framework of the $`SO(8)`$ model  and the Interacting Boson Model ($`IBM`$) .

In the limit of dominant isovector $`pn`$ pairing correlations, a simple $`SO(5)`$ seniority model  is suitable. Our goal is to investigate properties of the isovector pairing interaction within the context of a fermion realization of the symplectic $`sp(4)`$ algebra \[which is isomorphic to $`so(5)`$\]. The model space consists of $`J^\pi =0^+`$ states with pairs coupled to isospin $`\tau =1`$; mixing with $`\tau =0`$ $`pn`$ pairs is not included. The importance of the isovector pairing for binding energies is suggested by experimental data, namely a $`\tau =1`$ ground state for most $`N=Z`$ odd-odd nuclei with mass number $`A>40`$ , and by the results of various theoretical studies .

While coupling to the isoscalar $`pn`$ pairing mode may be important in some cases , we exclude – to the best of our ability – the ground states of nuclei that show fingerprints of isoscalar pairing correlations. In short, the $`Sp(4)`$ model is applied to $`0^+`$ ground states of even-$`A`$ nuclei and to the higher-lying $`0^+`$ isobaric analog states in most of odd-odd nuclei. We refer to these states as isovector-paired states. In this regard, it is important to note that the two-body interaction includes an isoscalar term in addition to the dominant isovector pairing interaction. The isoscalar $`pn`$ force is related to the symmetry energy and is diagonal in the isovector-paired basis states with good isospin . Diagonal high-$`J`$ components of the nuclear interaction are also present in the model. The shell structure and its dimension play an important role in the construction of the fermion pairs and their interaction in accordance with the Pauli principle. The isovector pairing term is assumed to be particle-hole symmetric, which enters naturally in points to a decrease in energy with respect to the mean-field solution of a no-pair theory .

Limiting cases of $`sp(4)`$ correspond to different reductions of $`sp(4)`$ to $`u(2)`$ and show distinct properties of different coupling modes of the isovector pairing interaction; specifically, proton-neutron ($`pn`$) and like-particle ($`pp`$ and $`nn`$) pairing phenomena. The theory provides for a classification of nuclear states with respect to the number valence protons and neutrons occupying a major shell. The notion of a dynamical symmetry extends this picture to include an isospin-breaking phenomenological interaction which is related to a general microscopic Hamiltonian for the pairing problem. The final result can be written in terms of the second order invariants of the subalgebras of $`sp(4)`$ which then reduces the problem to an exactly solvable theory.

A $`q`$-deformation of the classical algebraic structure is introduced. A quantum extension of the dynamical symmetry approach is realized leading also to an exact $`q`$-deformed solution of the problem and its limiting cases. The motivation behind the $`q`$-deformed generalization is that, as a novel and richer model, it allows us to include non-linear features of the interaction and to investigate the respective changes this may require in the strength parameters and in the pairing gaps. Existing applications of the $`q`$-deformed algebraic structures to the pairing problem  are restricted mainly to the $`SU_q(2)`$ limit  of the dynamical symmetry approach presented here for $`Sp_q(4)`$.

Fully-paired even-even and odd-odd nuclei, $`32A100`$, in $`1d_{3/2}`$, $`1f_{7/2}`$ and $`1f_{5/2}2p_{1/2}2p_{3/2}1g_{9/2}`$ orbitals are considered in details in this investigation. An analysis of the results, obtained by fitting model parameters to experimental data both in the deformed and non-deformed cases, provides for a reasonable prediction of the relevant $`0^+`$ state energies of nuclei classified as belonging to a major shell and gives insight into their pair structure and isospin mixing. It also estimates the broad limits of applicability of such a simple algebraic model and its deformed non-linear extension– which is in agreement with the results of other theoretical approaches for describing pairing phenomena in nuclear systems .

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, the algebraic structure of the fermion realization of $`sp(4)`$ and its deformation $`sp_q(4)`$ is introduced with emphasis on the physical interpretation of the generators. In Section 3 the application of the algebraic constructions is realized through the introduction of a model Hamiltonian in both the deformed and non-deformed cases. In Section 4, the parameters of the Hamiltonians are presented as output of a fitting procedure to the respective experimental energies and the results are analyzed. A summary of our findings and the main conclusions as well as possible further developments of the approach are discussed in the final section.

## 2 Algebraic structure of non-deformed and q-deformed $`sp(4)`$

To introduce notation, we start with a brief review of the algebraic structures that enter into the discussion . The $`sp(4)`$ algebra is realized in terms of the creation (annihilation) fermion operator $`c_{m,\sigma }^{}`$ ($`c_{m,\sigma }`$) $`\sigma =\pm 1,`$ where these operators create (annihilate) a particle of type $`\sigma `$ in a state of total angular momentum $`j=\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{2},\mathrm{},`$ with projection $`m`$ along the $`z`$ axis ($`jmj`$). They satisfy Fermi anticommutation relations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\{c_{m^{},\sigma ^{}},c_{m,\sigma }^{}\}=\delta _{m^{},m}\delta _{\sigma ^{},\sigma }\hfill & \{c_{m^{},\sigma ^{}}^{},c_{m,\sigma }^{}\}=\{c_{m^{},\sigma ^{}},c_{m,\sigma }\}=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
and Hermitian conjugation is given by $`(c_{m,\sigma }^{})^{}=c_{m,\sigma }.`$ For a given $`\sigma ,`$ the dimension of the fermion space is $`2\mathrm{\Omega }_j=2j+1.`$

The deformation of the $`sp_q(4)`$ algebra is introduced in terms of $`q`$-deformed creation and annihilation operators $`\alpha _{m,\sigma }^{}`$ and $`\alpha _{m,\sigma },`$ $`(\alpha _{m,\sigma }^{})^{}=\alpha _{m,\sigma }`$, where $`\alpha _{m,\sigma }^{()}c_{m,\sigma }^{()}`$ in the limit $`q1.`$ The deformed single-particle operators are defined through their anticommutation relation for every $`\sigma `$ and $`m`$ :

$$\begin{array}{cc}\{\alpha _{m,\sigma },\alpha _{m^{},\sigma }^{}\}_{q^{\pm 1}}=q^{\pm \frac{N_\sigma }{2\mathrm{\Omega }_j}}\delta _{m,m^{}}\hfill & \{\alpha _{m,\sigma },\alpha _{m^{},\sigma ^{}}^{}\}=0,\sigma \sigma ^{}\hfill \\ \{\alpha _{m,\sigma }^{},\alpha _{m^{},\sigma ^{}}^{}\}=0\hfill & \{\alpha _{m,\sigma },\alpha _{m^{},\sigma ^{}}\}=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where by definition the $`q`$-anticommutator is given as $`\{A,B\}_{q^k}=AB+q^kBA.`$ A property with physics impact is the dependence of the deformed anticommutation relations on the shell dimension and the operators that count the number of particles, $`N_{\pm 1}=_{m=j}^jc{}_{m,\pm 1}{}^{}c{}_{m,\pm 1}{}^{}.`$

Generators of the symplectic group – The generators of $`Sp(4)`$ and $`Sp_q(4)`$ are expressed in terms of non-deformed  and deformed single-particle operators , respectively,

$$\begin{array}{c}A_{\frac{\sigma +\sigma ^{}}{2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Omega }_j(1+\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}})}}_{m=j}^j(1)^{jm}c_{m,\sigma }^{}c_{m,\sigma ^{}}^{}\hfill \\ B_{\frac{\sigma +\sigma ^{}}{2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Omega }_j(1+\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}})}}_{m=j}^j(1)^{jm}c{}_{m,\sigma }{}^{}c_{m,\sigma ^{}}\hfill \end{array}\}\begin{array}{c}non\\ deformed\end{array}$$
(3)
$$\begin{array}{c}F_{\frac{\sigma +\sigma ^{}}{2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Omega }_j(1+\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}})}}_{m=j}^j(1)^{jm}\alpha _{m,\sigma }^{}\alpha _{m,\sigma ^{}}^{}\hfill \\ G_{\frac{\sigma +\sigma ^{}}{2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Omega }_j(1+\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}})}}_{m=j}^j(1)^{jm}\alpha {}_{m,\sigma }{}^{}\alpha _{m,\sigma ^{}}\hfill \end{array}\}\begin{array}{c}deformed\end{array}$$
(4)
where $`\sigma ,\sigma ^{}=\pm 1`$ and $`A_{0,\pm 1}=(B_{0,\pm 1})^{},F_{0,\pm 1}=(G_{0,\pm 1})^{}`$. These operators create (annihilate) a pair of fermions coupled to total angular momentum and parity $`J^\pi =0^+`$  and thus constitute boson-like objects. The rest of the generators of $`Sp(4)`$ are $`D_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Omega }_j}}_{m=j}^jc{}_{m,\sigma }{}^{}c{}_{m,\sigma ^{}}{}^{},`$ and for $`Sp_q(4)`$ they are $`E_{\pm 1,1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Omega }_j}}_{m=j}^j\alpha {}_{m,\pm 1}{}^{}\alpha {}_{m,1}{}^{},`$ in addition to the number operators, $`N_{\pm 1}`$, which remain non-deformed in this realization of $`sp_q(4)`$. The ten non-deformed (deformed) generators close on the symplectic $`sp_{(q)}(4)`$ algebra with the commutation relations given in . For nuclear structure applications we use the set of the $`q`$-deformed commutation relations that is symmetric with respect to the exchange of the deformation parameter $`qq^1.`$

Physical interpretation of the generators – When considered to be a dynamical symmetry, the $`Sp(4)`$ symplectic group can be used to describe distinct collective nuclear phenomena through different interpretations of the $`\sigma `$ quantum number in the $`Sp(4)U(1)SU(2)`$ reduction. When $`\sigma `$ is used to distinguish between protons ($`\sigma =1`$) and neutrons ($`\sigma =1`$), the Cartan generators of the $`Sp(4)`$ group $`N_{\pm 1}`$ (with eigenvalues $`N_\pm `$) enter as the number of the valence protons and valence neutrons, respectively.

The significant reduction limits of $`sp_{(q)}(4)`$ are summarized for the non-deformed and $`q`$-deformed cases in Table 1, where by definition $`[X]_k=\frac{q^{kX}q^{kX}}{q^kq^k}`$ and $`\rho _\pm =(q^{\pm 1}+q^{\pm \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}})/2`$. Table 1 consists of four different realizations of a two-dimensional unitary subalgebra $`u_{(q)}^\mu (2)u^\mu (1)su_{(q)}^\mu (2)`$ ($`\mu =\{\tau ,0,\pm \}`$) and the corresponding second-order Casimir invariant of $`su_q(2)`$. The “classical” formulae are restored in the limit when $`q`$ goes to $`1`$. In the first realization, $`su^\tau (2)`$, the generators $`\tau _{0,\pm }`$ are associated with the components of the isospin of the valence particles. The $`SU^0(2)`$ limit describes proton and neutron pairs ($`pn`$), while the $`SU^\pm (2)`$ limit is related to coupling between identical particles, proton-proton ($`pp`$) and neutron-neutron ($`nn`$) pairs.

Table 1. Realizations of the unitary subalgebras of $`sp_{(q)}(4)`$: isospin symmetry $`(\mu =\tau )`$, $`pn`$ $`(\mu =0)`$ and $`pp(nn)`$ $`(\mu =\pm )`$ coupling, along with the Casimir invariants of $`su_q^\mu (2)`$.

| $`\mu `$ | $`u^\mu (1)`$ | $`su^\mu (2)`$ | $`su_q^\mu (2)`$ | $`𝐂_2(su_q^\mu (2))𝐂_{2,q}^\mu `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\tau `$ | $`\begin{array}{c}N=\\ N_{+1}+N_1\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}\tau _\pm D_{\pm 1,1}\\ \tau _0=\frac{N_1N_1}{2}\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}T_\pm E_{\pm 1,1}\\ T_0\tau _0\end{array}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j(\{T_+,T_{}\}+\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_j}\right]\left[T_0\right]_{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_j}}^2)`$ |
| $`0`$ | $`\tau _0`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}A_0,B_0\\ D_0\frac{N}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_j\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}F_0,G_0\\ K_0D_0\end{array}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j(\{G_0,F_0\}+\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_j}\right]\left[K_0\right]_{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_j}}^2)`$ |
| $`\pm `$ | $`N_1`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}A_{\pm 1},B_{\pm 1}\\ D_{\pm 1}\frac{N_{\pm 1}\mathrm{\Omega }_j}{2}\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}F_{\pm 1},G_{\pm 1}\\ K_{\pm 1}D_{\pm 1}\end{array}`$ | $`\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_j}{2}(\{G_{\pm 1},F_{\pm 1}\}+\rho _\pm \left[\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_j}\right]\left[K_{\pm 1}\right]_{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_j}}^2)`$ |

Within a representation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$, the space of fully-paired states is constructed by the pair-creation $`q`$-deformed operators $`F_{0,\pm 1}`$ (4) (non-deformed operators $`A_{0,\pm 1}`$ (3)), acting on the vacuum state :

$$|n_1,n_0,n_1)_q=(F{}_{1}{}^{})^{n_1}(F{}_{0}{}^{})^{n_0}\left(F_1\right)^{n_1}|0,$$
(5)
where $`n_1,n_0,n_1`$ are the total number of pairs of each kind, $`pp`$, $`pn`$, $`nn`$, respectively. The basis is obtained by orthonormalization of (5). The $`q`$-deformed states are in general different from the classical ones and coincide with them in the limit $`q1.`$

The generalization of the pairing problem to multi-shells dimension  leads to a natural expansion of the fermion realization of the $`sp(4)`$ algebra, allowing the nucleons to occupy a space of several orbits. The commutation relations between the ten non-deformed (deformed) generators of the generalized $`Sp_{(q)}(4)`$ and the related algebraic formulae (derived in the single-level realization ) remain the same with the substitution $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`2\mathrm{\Omega }=_j2\mathrm{\Omega }_j=_j(2j+1)`$.

## 3 Theoretical model with $`Sp(4)`$ dynamical symmetry

In the deformed and non-deformed cases, the basis states $`|n_1,n_0,n_1)_{(q)}`$ (5) give the isovector-paired $`0^+`$ states of a nucleus with $`N_+=2n_1+n_0`$ valence protons and $`N_{}`$ $`=2n_1+n_0`$ valence neutrons. This yields a simultaneous classification of the nuclei in a given major shell and of their corresponding isovector-paired states. The classification scheme is illustrated for the simple cases of $`1d_{3/2}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{j=3/2}=2`$ (Table 2a) and $`1f_{7/2}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{j=7/2}=4`$ (Table 2b). The total number of the valence particles, $`n=N_++N_{}`$, enumerates the rows and the eigenvalue $`i`$ of the third projection of the valence isospin $`\tau _0`$ enumerates the columns. Isotopes of an element are situated along the right diagonals, isotones – along the left diagonals, and the rows consist of isobars for a given mass number. The shape of the table is symmetric with respect to $`i`$ (with the exchange $`n_1n_1`$), as well as with respect to $`n2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (middle of the shell). This is a consequence of the charge independent nature of the interaction and the Pauli principle, respectively.

Table2a. Classification scheme of nuclei, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{3/2}=2.`$

| $`n\backslash i`$ | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 |  |  | $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{16}{}^{32}S_{16}^{}\hfill \end{array}`$ |  |  |
| 2 |  | $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{18}{}^{34}Ar_{16}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{17}{}^{34}Cl_{17}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{16}{}^{34}S_{18}^{}\hfill \end{array}`$ |  |
| 4 | $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{20}{}^{36}Ca_{16}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{19}{}^{36}K_{17}^{}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{18}{}^{36}Ar_{18}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{17}{}^{36}Cl_{19}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{16}{}^{36}S_{20}^{}\hfill \end{array}`$ |
| 6 |  | $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{20}{}^{38}Ca_{18}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{19}{}^{38}K_{19}^{}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{18}{}^{38}Ar_{20}\hfill \end{array}`$ |  |
| 8 |  |  | $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{20}{}^{40}Ca_{20}\hfill \end{array}`$ |  |  |

Table2b. Classification scheme of nuclei, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{7/2}=4`$. The shape of the table is symmetric with respect to the sign of $`i`$ and $`n2\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The basis states for each nucleus are labeled by the numbers of particle pairs $`|n_1,n_0,n_1)`$.

| $`n\backslash i`$ | 0 | -1 | -2 | -3 | -4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | $`\begin{array}{c}|0,0,0)\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}{}_{20}{}^{40}Ca_{20}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$ |  |  |  |  |
| 2 | $`\begin{array}{c}|0,1,0)\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}{}_{21}{}^{42}Sc_{21}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}|0,0,1)\hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}{}_{20}{}^{42}Ca_{22}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$ |  |  |  |
| 4 | $`|1,0,1)`$  $`|0,2,0)`$  $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{22}{}^{44}Ti_{22}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}|0,1,1)\hfill \\ \\ \begin{array}{c}{}_{21}{}^{44}Sc_{23}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}|0,0,2)\hfill \\ \\ \begin{array}{c}{}_{20}{}^{44}Ca_{24}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$ |  |  |
| 6 | $`|1,1,1)`$  $`|0,3,0)`$  $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{23}{}^{46}V_{23}^{}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`|1,0,2)`$  $`|0,2,1)`$  $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{22}{}^{46}Ti_{24}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}|0,1,2)\hfill \\ \\ \begin{array}{c}{}_{21}{}^{46}Sc_{25}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}|0,0,3)\hfill \\ \\ \begin{array}{c}{}_{20}{}^{46}Ca_{26}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$ |  |
| 8 | $`|2,0,2)`$  $`|1,2,1)`$  $`|0,4,0)`$  $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{24}{}^{48}Cr_{24}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`|1,1,2)`$  $`|0,3,1)`$  $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{23}{}^{48}V_{25}^{}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}|0,2,2)\hfill \\ |1,0,3)\hfill \\ \\ \begin{array}{c}{}_{22}{}^{48}Ti_{26}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}|0,1,3)\hfill \\ \\ \\ \begin{array}{c}{}_{21}{}^{48}Sc_{27}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}|0,0,4)\hfill \\ \\ \\ \begin{array}{c}{}_{20}{}^{48}Ca_{28}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$ |

Model Hamiltonian – As a natural approach within a microscopic picture, the most general Hamiltonian of a system with $`Sp(4)`$ symmetry, which preserves the total number of particles, can be expressed through the group generators as following :

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`ϵNGA_0B_0F(A_{+1}B_{+1}+A_1B_1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E(\{\tau _+,\tau _{}\}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}})`$ (6)
$`C{\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)}{2}}D(\tau _0\tau _0{\displaystyle \frac{N}{4}}),`$
where $`G,F,E,C`$ and $`D`$ are phenomenological constant interaction strength parameters ($`G0,F0`$ for attraction), $`ϵ>0`$ is a Fermi level energy.

An important feature of the phenomenological Hamiltonian (6) is that it not only breaks the isospin symmetry ($`D\frac{E}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}`$) but it also mixes states with definite isospin values ($`FG`$). This is different from other applications of non-deformed and deformed $`sp(4)`$ or $`o(5)`$ algebras with isospin-invariant Hamiltonians . Although the degree of mixing is expected to be smaller than for isoscalar-isovector mixing, it may still add an interesting contribution to the study of the isospin mixing .

Possible applications of the Hamiltonian to real nuclei can be determined through a detailed investigation of the various terms introduced in (6). The first two terms ($`G,F`$) of the Hamiltonian (6) account for $`J=0`$ isovector pairing between non-identical and identical particles, respectively. To reflect the assumption that a zero pairing energy corresponds to a state with no possible breaking of a pair , a particle-hole concept is incorporated in these two terms (but not in the $`ϵ`$-, $`C`$\- and $`D`$-terms). Hole pair-creation (annihilation) operators can be introduced not only for identical particle pairs ($`pp`$ or $`nn`$) , but also for $`pn`$ pairs. This corresponds to a change from the particle to the hole number operator, $`N_\pm 2\mathrm{\Omega }N_\pm `$ for $`N_\pm >\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`N4\mathrm{\Omega }N`$ for $`N>2\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The next term ($`E`$) can be related to the symmetry energy  as its expectation value in states with definite isospin is

$$n,\tau ,i\left|\frac{E}{2}\{\tau _+,\tau _{}\}\right|n,\tau ,i=E\frac{\tau ^2\tau _0^2}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}=E\frac{\tau \left(\tau +1\right)i^2}{2\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(7)
which enters as a symmetry term in many nuclear mass relationships . The second order Casimir invariant of $`sp(4)`$  sets linear dependence between the terms in (6), which yields to a direct relation between the symmetry and pairing contributions: a fact that has been already pointed out in a phenomenological analysis based on the experimental nuclear masses and excitation energies .

The two-body interaction in (6), which is written in terms of the group generators, arises naturally from the microscopic picture. In the single-$`j`$ case its form is

$`H_{int}^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\left\{\sigma \right\}}{}}\sigma _1,\sigma _2\left|V\right|\sigma _4,\sigma _3{\displaystyle \underset{M,m,m^{}}{}}c_{j,m,\sigma _1}^{}c_{j,Mm,\sigma _2}^{}c_{j,Mm^{},\sigma _3}c_{j,m^{},\sigma _4}`$ (8)
where $`\left\{\sigma \right\}=\left\{(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3,\sigma _4)\right\}=\{(+,+,+,+),`$ $`(+,,+,),`$ $`(+,,,+),`$ $`(,,,)\}`$. The coefficient $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2\left|V\right|\sigma _4,\sigma _3`$ is the expectation value of the two-body interaction potential between pairs of quantum numbers $`\sigma _4,\sigma _3`$ and $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2`$. The second sum in (8) can be expanded into three terms. The first term corresponds to pairing to total angular momentum $`J=0(M=0)`$, the second term includes high-$`J`$ ($`J0,m=m^{}`$) components of the interaction and can be represented by $`\{\tau _+,\tau _{}\}N/(2\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`N(N1)`$ and $`\tau _0\tau _0N/4`$. The rest of the sum is the residual interaction that is neglected. A multi-shell generalization of the microscopic Hamiltonian (8) can be related to the phenomenological one (6) and the interaction strengths can be obtained in terms of the phenomenological parameters

$$\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}J=0pairing\\ interaction\end{array}\hfill & \{\begin{array}{c}++\left|V_{P_0}\right|++=\left|V_{P_0}\right|=F/\mathrm{\Omega }\\ +\left|V_{P_0}\right|+=+\left|V_{P_0}\right|+=G/\mathrm{\Omega }\end{array}\\ & \begin{array}{c}++\left|V\right|++=\left|V\right|=C+D/2\hfill \\ +\left|V\right|+=2CD,+\left|V\right|+=E/\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(9)
This connection (9) with the interaction matrix elements gives a real physical meaning to the constant phenomenological strength parameters, and, therefore, their estimation can lead to a microscopic description of the nuclear interaction.

The three terms $`C,D`$ and $`E`$ in (6) that arise from the dynamical $`Sp(4)`$ symmetry are related to the microscopic nature of the $`pn`$ isoscalar correlations. As can be clearly seen from the expression $`\frac{E}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}(\tau ^2+\frac{3N}{4}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{N(N1)}{2})(C+\frac{E}{4\mathrm{\Omega }})\frac{N(N1)}{2}(D\frac{E}{2\mathrm{\Omega }})(\tau _0^2\frac{N}{4})`$ \[see (6)\] and from relation (9), for $`D=E/2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`C+D/2=0`$ we obtain the $`J`$-independent $`pn`$ isoscalar force. It is closely related to the symmetry energy ($`E`$), is diagonal in the pairing basis with $`G=F`$ and can be compared to . Therefore, the $`Sp(4)`$ model interaction consists of isovector ($`pp,nn,pn`$) pairing and isoscalar ($`pn`$) force in addition to a possible isospin-breaking term and $`J>0`$ identical-particle pairing correlations.

In this way, the phenomenological Hamiltonian (6) can be used to describe general properties of the nuclear interaction, which serves as a motivation to fit the theoretical expectation values of (6) to the energies of the corresponding $`0^+`$ states of nuclei in a very broad region.

Within the algebraic framework, the important reduction chains of the symplectic algebra to the unitary two-dimensional subalgebras allow the Hamiltonian (6) to be expressed through second-order operators $`C_2^{\tau ,0,\pm }`$ (Table 1):

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _1C_2^\tau \eta _2\tau _0^2\eta _3C_2^0\eta _4D_0^2\eta _5(C_2^++C_2^{})\eta _6(D_{+1}(D_{+1}1)+`$ (10)
$`D_1(D_11))\eta _7N+\eta _8.`$
The $`\eta _i`$-coefficients ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},8`$) in (10) are not linearly independent; they are related to the phenomenological parameters of the model (6) in the following way:

$`\eta _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}};\eta _2=(D{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}E);\eta _3={\displaystyle \frac{G}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}};\eta _4=({\displaystyle \frac{G}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}2C);\eta _5=\eta _6={\displaystyle \frac{F}{\mathrm{\Omega }}};`$
$`\eta _7`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}ϵC(14\mathrm{\Omega })/2D/4(EG)/(4\mathrm{\Omega }),N2\mathrm{\Omega }\\ ϵC(14\mathrm{\Omega })/2D/4+(EG)/(4\mathrm{\Omega }),N>2\mathrm{\Omega };\end{array}`$ (13)
$`\eta _8`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}2C\mathrm{\Omega }^2+G/2,N2\mathrm{\Omega }\\ 2C\mathrm{\Omega }^2+G/2+(EG),N>2\mathrm{\Omega }.\end{array}`$ (16)
The ratios $`\eta _2/\eta _1,\eta _4/\eta _3,`$ $`\eta _6/\eta _5`$ determine the extent to which the symmetry in each limit is broken .

In the $`q`$-deformed case, a Hamiltonian can be constructed that is analogous to (10) and is chosen to coincide with the non-deformed one (6) in the limit $`q1`$

$`H_q`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ϵ}^qNG_qF_0G_0F_q(F_{+1}G_{+1}+F_1G_1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E_q(\{T_+,T_{}\}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right])`$ (17)
$`C_q2\mathrm{\Omega }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right](\left[K_0\right]_{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}^2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]_{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}^2)D_q\mathrm{\Omega }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right]\left[T_0\right]_{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}^2,`$
where $`ϵ^q=\overline{ϵ}^q+(\frac{1}{2}2\mathrm{\Omega })C_q+\frac{D_q}{4}>0`$ is the Fermi level of the nuclear system, $`K_0`$ is related to $`N`$ (Table 1), $`G_q,F_q,E_q,C_q`$ and $`D_q`$ are constant interaction strength parameters and in general they may be different than the non-deformed phenomenological parameters.

Matrix elements of the Hamiltonian – In the $`SU^0(2)`$ limit ($`pn`$-coupling) the energy eigenvalue of the non-deformed pairing interaction $`GA_0B_0`$ is

$`\epsilon _{pn}={\displaystyle \frac{G}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}n_0{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }n+n_0+1}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{G}{8\mathrm{\Omega }}}(n2\nu _0)(4\mathrm{\Omega }n2\nu _0+2)`$ (18)
and in the $`SU^\pm (2)`$ limit (like-particle coupling) the energy of the non-deformed pairing interaction $`FA_{\pm 1}B_{\pm 1}`$ is

$`\epsilon _{pp(nn)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}n_{\pm 1}(\mathrm{\Omega }+n_{\pm 1}N_\pm +1)={\displaystyle \frac{F}{4\mathrm{\Omega }}}\left(N_\pm \nu _1\right)(2\mathrm{\Omega }N_\pm \nu _1+2).`$ (19)
In each limit, $`\nu _0=n_1+n_1`$ and $`\nu _1=n_0`$ are the respective seniority quantum numbers that count the number of remaining pairs that can be formed after coupling the fermions in the primary pairing mode and they vary by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{0,1}=2`$.

To investigate the influence of the deformation on the pairing interaction, the eigenvalue of the deformed pairing Hamiltonian is expanded in orders of $`\varkappa `$ ($`q=e^\varkappa `$) in each limit

$`\epsilon _{pn}^q`$ $`=G_q\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{n2\nu _0}{2}}\right]_{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Omega }n2\nu _0+2}{2}}\right]_{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{G_q}{G}}`$ $`\epsilon _{pn}`$ $`\{1+\varkappa ^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n_0^24\mathrm{\Omega }^21)+\left(\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }\epsilon _{pn}}{n_0G}\right)^2}{24\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}+O(\varkappa ^4)\},`$ (20)
$`\epsilon _{pp(nn)}^q`$ $`=F_q\rho _\pm \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N_\pm \nu _1}{2}}\right]_{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }N_\pm \nu _1+2}{2}}\right]_{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{F_q}{F}}`$ $`\epsilon _{pp(nn)}`$ $`\{1\pm \varkappa \frac{1+2\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\mathrm{\Omega }}+\varkappa ^2\frac{(n_{\pm 1}^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2}\frac{5}{8})+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\epsilon _{pp(nn)}}{n_{\pm 1}F}\right)^2}{6\mathrm{\Omega }^2}+O(\varkappa ^3)\},`$ (21)
where the non-deformed energies (18) and (19) are the zeroth order approximation of the corresponding deformed pairing energies. While the proton-neutron interaction is even with respect to the deformation parameter $`\varkappa ,`$ the identical particle pairing includes odd terms as well through the coefficient $`\rho _\pm .`$ The expansions in the pairing limits ((20) and (21)) introduce non-linear terms with respect to the pair numbers, space dimension and the non-deformed pairing energies. They serve as a simple example of the contribution of the $`q`$-deformation compared to the non-deformed model, which is a straightforward result of the quantum definition.

In general, the Hamiltonian (6) is not diagonal in the basis set (Table 2b). The linear combinations of the basis states describe the spectrum of the isovector-paired $`0^+`$ states for a given nucleus. The pairing Hamiltonian $`H_{pair}`$ ((6) with $`E=C=D=0`$ and $`ϵ=0`$) gives a transition between the states with different kinds of pairing while preserving the total number of pairs, $`N`$, that is, two $`pn`$ pairs scatter into a $`pp`$ and a $`nn`$ pair, and vice versa

$`\left|H_{pair}\right||n_1,n_0,n_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(\epsilon _{pn}+\epsilon _{pp}+\epsilon _{nn})|n_1,n_0,n_1){\displaystyle \frac{G}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}n_1n_1|n_11,n_0+2,n_11)`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}n_0(n_01)|n_1+1,n_02,n_1+1),`$
where $`\epsilon _{pn,pp,nn}`$ are given in (18) and (19) and $`n_1,n_0,n_1`$ are particle or hole pairs.

We are also able to find an analytical form of the $`q`$-deformed analog of (22)

$`\left|H_{q,pair}\right||n_1,n_0,n_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(\epsilon _{pn}^q+\epsilon _{pp}^q+\epsilon _{nn}^q)|n_1,n_0,n_1){\displaystyle \frac{G}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\stackrel{~}{n}_1\stackrel{~}{n}_1|n_11,n_0+2,n_11)`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\rho _+\rho _{}}}{\left[2\right]}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n_01}{}}}S_q(k)|n_1+1,n_02,n_1+1),`$
where $`\epsilon _{pn,pp,nn}^q`$ are given in (20) and (21). We define $`\stackrel{~}{n}_{\pm 1}\frac{1}{[2]}\sqrt{\rho _+\rho _{}}\left[n_{\pm 1}\right]_{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\left[2_{n_{\pm 1}\mathrm{\Omega }1/2}\right]_{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`\stackrel{q1}{}n_{\pm 1}`$, $`S_q(k)[2_{k\mathrm{\Omega }1/2}]_{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{i=0}^{k1}\frac{\left[2\right]^i}{2^i}[2_{k1i}]_{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\stackrel{q1}{}4k`$ and $`[2_X]_{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\frac{\left[2X\right]_{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}}{\left[X\right]_{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}}\stackrel{q1}{}2`$.

## 4 Applications to nuclear structures

### 4.1  0<sup>+</sup>-state energy for even-A nuclei. Discussion of the results.

The eigenvalues of the Hamiltonians (6) and (17) describe nuclear isovector-paired $`0^+`$ state energies, which are fit to experimental values . For even-even nuclei and for some odd-odd nuclei ($`ZN`$), the lowest $`0^+`$ state is the nuclear ground state and the positive value of its energy is defined as the binding energy, $`|BE|`$. The binding energy of a nucleus is an important quantity because it is related to the nuclear mass and lifetime. Other odd-odd nuclei have a higher-lying $`0^+`$ excited state which is an isobaric analog of the corresponding even-even neighbors.

The phenomenological parameters in (6) and (17) are determined by a non-linear least-squares fit of the lowest isovector-paired $`0^+`$ state energies (maximum eigenvalues of $`|H|`$ (6) and $`|H_q|`$ (17)) to the Coulomb corrected experimental values:

$$E_0^{\mathrm{exp}}(N_+,N_{})=|E_{\mathrm{exp}}(N_+,N_{})||E_{\mathrm{exp}}|_{core}+V_{Coul}(N_+,N_{}),$$
(24)
where the binding energy of the core $`|E_{\mathrm{exp}}|_{core}`$ is subtracted in order to focus only on the contribution from the valence shell. The energies need to be corrected for the Coulomb repulsion since it is not accounted for by the model Hamiltonian. In (24) the Coulomb potential is taken relative to the core and is derived in .

The parameters and statistics, obtained from the fitting procedure, are shown in Table 3. In both the non-deformed (“non-def” column) and deformed cases (“$`q`$-def” column), three groups of even-$`A`$ nuclei are considered: $`(𝐈)`$ $`1d_{3/2}`$ $`(\mathrm{\Omega }=2)`$ with a core $`{}_{16}{}^{32}S`$ (Table 2a); $`(\mathrm{𝐈𝐈})`$ $`1f_{7/2}`$ $`(\mathrm{\Omega }=4)`$ with a core $`{}_{20}{}^{40}Ca`$ (Table 2b); and (III) $`1f_{5/2}2p_{1/2}2p_{3/2}1g_{9/2}`$ major shell ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=11`$) with a core $`{}_{28}{}^{56}Ni`$. In each group, the number of the valence protons (neutrons) varies in the range $`N_\pm =0,\mathrm{},2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the total number of nuclei that enter into the $`Sp(4)`$ systematics is $`2\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }+1)+1`$ (13 for $`(𝐈)`$, 41 for $`(\mathrm{𝐈𝐈})`$ and 265 for $`(\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈})`$). The residual sum of squares $`S\left(\left|E_0^{th}\right|\left|E_0^{\mathrm{exp}}\right|\right)^2`$ and the chi-statistics $`\chi \sqrt{\frac{S}{N_dn_p}}`$ define the goodness of the fit, where $`n_p`$ is the number of the fitting parameters and $`N_d`$ is the number of nuclei with available data ($`N_d`$ is $`13`$ in (I), $`36`$ in (II) and $`100`$ in (III)).

Analysis of the results (Table 3) shows that for $`1d_{3/2}`$ the pairing parameters are almost equal $`(GF)`$ as it is expected for light nuclei, and they differ, $`G>F,`$ for $`1f_{7/2}`$ by $`0.07`$ and for $`(\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈})`$ by $`0.06`$. Based on the estimation of the parameters (Table 3) and the correlations (16) the extent to which the symmetry in each limit is broken can be evaluated. In the limit $`SU^\tau (2)`$, the breaking of the isospin invariance $`\eta _2/\eta _1`$ is in general small for light nuclei ($`\eta _2/\eta _1=0.090`$ for $`1d_{3/2}`$ and $`\eta _2/\eta _1=\mathrm{0.\hspace{0.17em}133}`$ for $`1f_{7/2}`$), which is in agreement with the experimental data for this region. For medium nuclei in the $`1f_{5/2}2p_{1/2}2p_{3/2}1g_{9/2}`$ major shell the isospin breaking is significantly greater, $`\eta _2/\eta _1=\mathrm{0.\hspace{0.17em}628}`$.

Table 3. Fit parameters and statistics. $`G`$, $`F`$, $`C`$, $`D`$, $`ϵ`$ and $`\chi `$ are in$`MeV,S`$is in$`MeV^2`$. Quantities marked with the symbol * are fixed for a given fit.

|  | (I) | | (II) | | (III) | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`1d_{3/2}`$ | | $`1f_{7/2}`$ | | $`1f_{5/2}2p_{1/2}2p_{3/2}1g_{9/2}`$ | |
|  | non-def | $`q`$-def | non-def | $`q`$-def | non-def | $`q`$-def |
| $`\varkappa `$ | 0\* | -0.015 | 0\* | 0.124 | 0\* | 0.215 |
| $`q=e^\varkappa `$ | 1\* | 0.985 | 1\* | 1.132 | 1\* | 1.240 |
| $`G/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ | 0.709 | 0.709\* | 0.525 | 0.525\* | 0.352 | 0.352\* |
| $`F/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ | 0.702 | 0.702\* | 0.453 | 0.453\* | 0.296 | 0.296\* |
| $`C`$ | 0.815 | 0.815\* | 0.473 | 0.473\* | 0.190 | 0.190\* |
| $`D`$ | -1.282 | -1.282\* | -0.971 | -0.971\* | -0.796 | -0.796\* |
| $`E/(2\mathrm{\Omega })`$ | -1.409 | -1.409\* | -1.120 | -1.120\* | -0.489 | -0.489\* |
| $`ϵ`$ | 9.012 | 9.012\* | 9.359 | 9.359\* | 9.567 | 9.567\* |
| $`S`$ | 1.720 | 1.719 | 16.095 | 15.673 | 300.284 | 238.280 |
| $`\chi `$ | 0.496 | 0.378 | 0.732 | 0.669 | 1.787 | 1.551 |

An observation about the $`pn`$-pairing strength is that most of $`pn`$-coupling study has been done assuming good isospin, that is $`F=G`$. However, the free nucleon-nucleon data  indicates that the $`\tau =1pn`$-pairing strength ($`G`$) is slightly bigger than the like-particle pairing strength ($`F`$), which is confirmed by the fits presented in Table 3 and is investigated in other studies . There are many different values for the like-particle pairing strength used in literature. The most common value is taken to be proportional to $`1/A`$  and is consistent with the experimental pairing gaps derived from the odd-even mass differences . The values of $`F`$, obtained by our theoretical symplectic model, fall within the limits of their estimation. In this way, they are expected to reproduce the low-lying vibrational spectra of spherical nuclei in the $`SU^\pm (2)`$ limit. When the results from all the three non-deformed fits are considered (Table 3), the identical-particle parameter $`F/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is found to decrease with the mass number as $`\mathrm{23.\hspace{0.17em}9}/A`$. In a similar way, one can find the dependence of the $`pn`$ pairing strength parameter $`G/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on the mass number to be $`\mathrm{25.\hspace{0.17em}7}/A`$.

The estimate of the parameters (Table 3) reveals the properties of the nuclear interaction as interpreted by connection (9). The $`J=0`$ pairing interaction ($`V_{P_0}`$) is always attractive, while the overall high-$`J`$ component of identical-nucleon coupling $`\pm \pm \left|V\right|\pm \pm `$ might be repulsive. The $`J>0`$ proton-neutron “direct” interaction $`+\left|V\right|+`$ is attractive, but not the “exchange” part of it $`+\left|V\right|+`$ ($`E<0`$).

In all cases there is a good agreement with experiment (small $`\chi `$), as can be seen in Table 3, as well as in Figure 1 for region $`(\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}).`$ Part of our results, namely for the binding energies (but not for the excited $`0^+`$ state energies), can be compared to other theories. A direct comparison of the chi statistics is impossible because of the different data sets and energy levels determined by the various theories. However, if we select only the data subsets that are equivalent for the nuclei in the $`1d_{3/2}`$ and/or $`1f_{7/2}`$, our results are much closer to the experimental numbers than those for the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov ($`HFB`$) model  and the semi-empirical model  and comparable with those of the $`jj`$-coupling shell model  and the isovector and isoscalar pairing plus quadrupole model . In this way the simple $`Sp(4)`$ model is tested and proves its validity when applied to light nuclei in single-$`j`$ level. In this region many symmetries are conserved allowing for a possible reduction of the number of fitting parameters. However, the free parameters in the fits presented in Table 3 reflect the symmetries observed in light nuclei and the non-negligible symmetry breaking in medium-mass nuclei.

Properties of the pairing interaction – A model with the $`Sp(4)`$ dynamical symmetry permits an independent investigation of the different kinds of pairing interactions in the limiting cases of the non-deformed (18), (19) as well as the deformed versions (20), (21) of the theory. In the $`SU^\pm (2)`$ limit, the symplectic model reproduces the properties of the identical-nucleon pairing ($`\epsilon _{pp}+\epsilon _{nn}`$) (19), for which the usual parabolic dependence of $`\epsilon _{pp(nn)}`$ on $`N_\pm `$ holds . The dependence of the like-particle energy on the isospin projection $`i`$ (Figure 2(a)) reveals another property of the pairing mode, a $`\mathrm{}i=1`$ staggering of the identical-nucleons pairing energies of the odd-odd and even-even nuclei.

In contrast with this, the $`pn`$ limit ($`\epsilon _{pn}`$) shows a smooth behavior (Figure 2 (b)). The $`SU^0(2)`$ limiting case yields a proton-neutron coupling that has its maximum when $`N_+=N_{}`$ ($`i=0`$), which is consistent with $`\alpha `$clustering theories  and the charge independence in the region of light nuclei when protons and neutrons fill the same shell . In both limits ($`SU^\pm (2)`$ and $`SU^0(2)`$ ), the pairing energy decreases when the difference between proton and neutron numbers increases.

In most nuclei the different pairing interactions coexist and the contribution of each of the pairing modes, $`H_{pp}+H_{nn}`$ $`=`$ $`FA_{+1}B_{+1}+A_1B_1`$ and $`H_{pn}=GA_0B_0`$, to the total pairing energy $`H_{pair}=H_{pn}+H_{pp}+H_{nn}`$ can be investigated. A $`\mathrm{}N=2`$ staggering exists for both pairing interactions (Figure 3(a)) . For $`N_+=N_{}`$ odd-odd nuclei the $`\tau =1pn`$ pairs give the dominant contribution, while for the even-even $`N_+=N_{}`$ nuclei both pairing modes contribute almost equally with a slightly greater like-particle contribution. Although difference between even-even and odd-odd nuclei exists in each pairing contribution, the total pairing energy has a surprisingly smooth behavior. The contribution from the symmetry term ($`E`$ term in (6))  restores the staggering, as it decreases the energy of the odd-odd nuclei with respect to their even-even neighbors (Figure 3(b)).

Rough measures for the number of $`pn`$ and like-particle pairs are the quantities $`\frac{1}{G}H_{pn}`$ and $`\frac{1}{F}H_{pp}+H_{nn}`$, respectively, which are related to the pairing gaps . The “number” of $`pn`$ pairs (Figure 4) is bigger than the “number” of $`pp(nn)`$ pairs for odd-odd $`N_+=N_{}`$ nuclei, and is of the same order as for the even-even nuclei .

Deformed non-linear model – To investigate the role of the $`q`$-deformation, we performed again the fitting procedures for the same regions ($`(𝐈)`$, $`(\mathrm{𝐈𝐈})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈})`$) but using the deformed Hamiltonian (17). For each group of nuclei, the outcome of a fit with all possible parameters ($`G_q,F_q,E_q,C_q,D_q,ϵ^q`$ and $`q`$) indicates that the introduction of the $`q`$-deformation does not vary the rest of the parameters. Based on this result, we considered the deformation to be independent of the other parameters and varied only $`q`$ in the fit (the rest of the parameters were kept fixed with values obtained from the non-deformed fit). The results are shown in the “$`q`$-def” columns in Table 3. The fits with and without a deformation can be compared by using the residual sum of squares ($`S`$), which is always smaller in the deformed case (Table 3).

Although it stands in contrast with other $`q`$-deformed applications , the decoupling of the $`q`$-deformation from the interaction strengths is not an assumption but results from comparisons to experimental data over total of $`149`$ nuclei. It implies that while leaving the strength of the two-body interactions unchanged, the $`q`$-deformation allows one to take into account, in a prescribed way, complicated dependence of the energy eigenvalues on the number of nucleons/pairs and space dimension that cannot be reproduced by any two-body interaction (for example, see (20) and (21)). Moreover, similar terms are expected to arise from higher-order interactions between the particles. In this way the $`q`$-parameter introduces some non-linear residual interaction not present in the two-body Hamiltonian (6).

The observed independence of the pairing strengths on the $`q`$-parameter, suggests that while the deformation does not change the strength to couple two particles, it can model many-pair effects and can influence the energy spectrum. As an illustration, in each of the dynamical limits we investigate the quantities $`R_{pn}=\epsilon _{pn}^q/\epsilon _{pn}`$ and $`R_{pp+nn}=(\epsilon _{pp}^q+\epsilon _{nn}^q)/(\epsilon _{pp}+\epsilon _{nn})`$ that give an additional contribution to the pairing energy in the deformed case (Figure 5) (compare to the analytical expansion with respect to $`\varkappa `$ of the energies, (20) and (21)). In the limit of $`pn`$-pairing, $`R_{pn}`$ does not significantly change when $`q`$ is close to one and it decreases for all $`q1`$. The ratio $`R_{pp+nn}`$ increases (decreases) monotonically with $`q`$ only for nuclei with a primary $`pp`$ ($`nn`$) coupling. Even though both $`SU_q^\pm (2)`$ groups are complementary, the different behavior of the multiplication constants $`\rho _\pm `$ (Table 1) is responsible for different impact of the deformation in various isotopes. This accounts for the differences in the experimental data between mirror nuclei even after the Coulomb energy correction. In the limit of identical-particle coupling, when $`q`$ increases from one ($`q>1`$) neutron pairs are less bound and proton pairs give a larger pairing gap, and vice versa for $`q<1`$. In this way, the deformation parameter can determine the degree to which the $`pp`$ coupling differs from the $`nn`$ coupling.

The significance of the higher-order terms that enter through the $`q`$-deformed theory can be estimated through a comparison with experiment. In general, the fitting procedures determine values for $`\varkappa `$ (Table 3) that are small. The reason may be that while higher-order effects may be significant in nuclei they probably cancel on average when the $`q`$-parameter is one and the same for all nuclei. However, in two of the cases, $`(\mathrm{𝐈𝐈})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈})`$, it is of an order of magnitude greater than the estimation of other physical applications ( and references there) and for the shell $`1f_{7/2}`$, our value ($`q=\mathrm{1.\hspace{0.17em}132}`$) is comparable to the values obtained in a $`q`$-deformed like-particle seniority model : $`q=\mathrm{1.\hspace{0.17em}1585}`$ for the neutron pairs and $`q=\mathrm{1.\hspace{0.17em}1924}`$ for protons. For the nuclei in the multi-$`j`$ shell our model yields a bigger $`q`$-parameter than for the lighter nuclei in single-$`j`$ shell (Table 3), where the small number of valence nucleons is not sufficient to build strong non-linear correlations. This suggests that the $`q`$-deformation is more significant for masses $`A>56`$.

### 4.2 Predicted energies

The fitting procedure not only estimates the magnitude of the pairing strength and describes the type of the dominant coupling mode, it also can be used to predict nuclear energies that have not been measured. From the fit for the $`1f_{7/2}`$ case the binding energy of the proton-rich $`{}_{}{}^{48}Ni`$ nucleus is estimated to be $`348.19`$ MeV, which is by $`0.07\%`$ greater than the sophisticated semi-empirical estimate of . Likewise, for the odd-odd nuclei that do not have measured energy spectra the theory can predict the energy of their lowest $`0^+`$ isobaric analog state: $`358.75`$ MeV ($`{}_{}{}^{44}V`$), $`359.49`$ MeV ($`{}_{}{}^{46}Mn`$), $`357.56`$ MeV ($`{}_{}{}^{48}Co`$), $`394.16`$ MeV ($`{}_{}{}^{50}Co`$). The predicted energies are calculated for $`q=1.132`$ (Table 3 (II)) as the fit with deformation has a smaller uncertainty compared to the non-deformed one. The $`Sp_{(q)}`$ model predicts the relevant $`0^+`$ state energies for additional 165 even-$`A`$ nuclei in the medium mass region (III). The binding energies for 25 of them are also calculated in . For these even-even nuclei, we predict binding energies that on average are by $`0.05\%`$ (non-deformed case) and by $`0.008\%`$ (for $`q=1.240`$) less than the semi-empirical approximation .

## 5 Conclusion

We constructed a model with a symplectic dynamical symmetry group $`Sp_{(q)}(4)U(1)SU_{(q)}(2)`$ in the non-deformed limit as well as in the $`q`$-deformed generalization. A phenomenological Hamiltonian was written in terms of the generators of the group and this in turn was used to describe pairing correlations in nuclei. The relation of this approach to a general microscopic pairing Hamiltonian was obtained. The theory was tested by fitting calculated energies to the relevant experimental $`0^+`$ state energies for single-$`j`$ levels, namely $`1d_{3/2}`$ and $`1f_{7/2}`$, and for a multi-$`j`$ $`1f_{5/2}2p_{1/2}2p_{3/2}1g_{9/2}`$ shell. In general, the fitting procedure yielded results that were in good agreement with the experiment. The theory predicted the lowest $`0^+`$ isovector-paired state energy of nuclei with a deviation of at most $`0.5\%`$ in the energy range considered. It was used to predict the binding energy for even-even nuclei and the lowest isovector-paired $`0^+`$ state energy of odd-odd nuclei in the proton-rich region. The phenomenological pairing parameters and the strength of the pairing interaction were determined. In agreement with experimental analysis, breaking of the isospin invariance, $`\eta _2/\eta _10`$, and isospin mixing, $`G>F`$, is observed, except for light nuclei in the $`1d_{3/2}`$ level.

The theoretical model with $`Sp(4)`$ dynamical symmetry and its $`q`$-deformed version was used to investigate in greater detail the properties of the isovector pairing interaction. The study reveals that the pairing energy along with the symmetry energy are responsible for the experimentally observed staggering between even-even and odd-odd nuclear isovector-paired $`0^+`$ state energies. Overall, the results show that the symplectic model can be used to provide a reasonable description of isovector-paired $`0^+`$ states in nuclei, confirming in its limit results previously published for like-particle pairing correlations. When only the nuclei with $`0^+`$ ground states are considered, the non-deformed $`Sp(4)`$ model is comparable, for the region of light nuclei, to earlier theories. At the same time it gives some insight into the study of symmetry breaking and isovector pairing correlations, and it is based on a simple approach that is applicable in a broad region of the nuclear chart, including odd-odd and exotic nuclei.

The $`q`$-deformed case gives the best overall results. The $`Sp_q(4)`$ dynamical symmetry approach yielded a $`q`$-deformed exact solution and we were able to derive the $`q`$-deformed matrix elements of the interaction in a simple analytical form. In addition to the broken symmetries of the non-deformed model, the $`q`$-deformation breaks the symmetry between protons and neutrons, which again is small for light nuclei and consistent with experiment. The introduction of $`q`$ leads to a decrease of the like-particle pairing gap for neutrons and an increase for protons as $`q`$ increases from one. The $`q`$-parameter was found decoupled from the interaction strength parameters. This observation suggests that while the deformation does not influence the two-body interaction, it introduces higher-order interactions between the particles, which are neglected in most non-deformed models. The $`q`$-deformation is mass and shell dimension dependent and its effects are more significant in the medium mass region. In the present study, the $`q`$-parameter was found as high as $`1.240`$ and is expected to be greater if its influence is not averaged over all nuclei in a major shell. This suggests the need for a more elaborate investigation of the role of the $`q`$-deformation in each individual nucleus and the relation of the $`q`$-parameter to the underlying nuclear structure.

This work was supported by the US National Science Foundation, Grant Numbers 9970769 and 0140300. The authors appreciate the encouraging discussions of this work with Professor Feng Pan, Dr. Chairul Bahri and Dr. Carl E. Svensson, as well as with Dr. Vesselin G. Gueorguiev, whom we thank also for his computational MATHEMATICA programs for non-commutative algebras.


text:
# Quantum Monte Carlo study of the three-dimensional attractive Hubbard model

## Abstract

We study the three-dimensional (3D) attractive Hubbard model by means of the Determinant Quantum Monte Carlo method. This model is a prototype for the description of the smooth crossover between BCS superconductivity and Bose-Einstein condensation. By detailed finite-size scaling we extract the finite-temperature phase diagram of the model. In particular, we interpret the observed behavior according to a scenario of two fundamental temperature scales; $`T^{}`$ associated with Cooper pair formation and $`T_c`$ with condensation (giving rise to long-range superconducting order). Our results also indicate the presence of a recently conjectured phase transition hidden by the superconducting state. A comparison with the 2D case is briefly discussed, given its relevance for the physics of high-$`T_c`$ cuprate superconductors.

The existence of a smooth crossover between the two paradigms of quantum superfluidity, the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) superconductivity and the Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) is firmly established legett ; nsr . In this context, the attractive Hubbard model (AHM) has appeared as an ideal presentation of the whole evolution between the BCS and BEC physics randeria . A concrete property of this Hamiltonian is the existence of two (not always) distinct energy scales: one associated with the formation of Cooper pairs ($`T^{}`$) and another with the onset of long-range order in the system ($`T_c`$) ranninger . Although their qualitative behavior is well-known, a quantitative determination is still missing, due to the fact that it is hard to access the intermediate regime by a controlled approximation scheme. In this respect the Determinant Quantum Monte Carlo (DQMC) method hirsch ; lohgub  is a powerful tool as it provides results free of systematic errors. A detailed finite-size analysis is however necessary in order to extract the thermodynamic limit properties, which can then be compared with the outputs of other methods recently applied to the same problem keller ; capone . At this point we should stress the role of dimensionality that determines the nature of the superconducting phase transition at $`T_c`$; the strictly 2D realization of the model is characterized by a Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless type phase transition, whereas the 3D case displays a “normal” second-order one, which is more easily accessible by DQMC. Since the intermediate regime of the AHM constitutes the simplest model for a short-coherence-length superconductor, the considerations presented hereafter may as well help to clarify the influence of the dimensionality on some properties exhibited by the 3D strongly anisotropic high-$`T_c`$ superconductors.
In this Letter, we present the results of extensive DQMC simulations for the finite-temperature properties of the AHM in three dimensions. In spite of finite-size effects, we show that it is possible by a scaling analysis to quantitatively establish the phase diagram of $`T_c(U,n)`$ as a function of the interaction strength and density of a model that exhibits a genuine second-order phase transition (unlike its 2D version). Furthermore, the pair formation temperature $`T^{}`$ is studied in detail, revealing the existence of a transition in the non-superconducting state taking place at a critical coupling strength. These results complete recent calculations which have postulated the existence of such a transition in the infinite-dimension version of the model keller ; capone .
Model and method. — The attractive Hubbard model is defined by the following Hamiltonian,

$$=t\underset{<i,j>,\sigma }{}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+\text{H.c.})U\underset{i}{}n_in_i\mu \underset{i,\sigma }{}n_{i,\sigma },$$
(1)
where $`<i,j>`$ denotes a pair of nearest neighbors on a cubic lattice with $`N=L^3`$ sites, $`c_{i\sigma }^{}(c_{i\sigma })`$ is a fermion creation (annihilation) operator of spin $`\sigma =`$ and $`n_{i,\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$. We take $`t>0`$, $`U>0`$ and the chemical potential $`\mu `$ is tuned to yield a fixed density $`0<n<2`$. Outside half-filling ($`n1`$) this model presents a finite-temperature transition into a phase characterized by long-range $`s`$-wave superconducting order associated with the breaking of the U(1) gauge symmetry.
To study the finite temperature properties of this system we use the conventional DQMC hirsch ; lohgub  simulation method. Since the attractive interaction does not lead to a minus-sign problem, the whole $`U`$-$`n`$-$`T`$ phase diagram can be reliably studied. Because of the grand-canonical nature of DQMC, it is necessary to estimate the function $`\mu =\mu (T,n,U,L)`$ in order to work at a fixed density $`n`$. This presents a considerable load in this work compared to similar DQMC simulations at half-filling staudt . Typically we take $`n=0.5`$ (quarter-filling) for which results using other methods have already been presented keller ; capone . We also restrict ourselves to finite-temperature static correlation functions lohgub , such as the $`s`$-wave pair-pair correlation function $`C_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the Pauli spin susceptibility $`\chi _P`$, given by:

$`C_\mathrm{\Delta }(T,N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{\Delta }_j^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_j\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}`$ (2)
$`\chi _P(T,N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}𝐒_i𝐒_j.`$ (3)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=c_ic_i`$ and $`𝐒_i=_{\mu ,\nu =,}c_{i\mu }^{}𝝈_{\mu \nu }c_{i\nu }`$, $`𝝈`$ being the vector of Pauli matrices. $`C_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ allows to determine the superconductiong transition temperature $`T_c`$, since it signals the breaking of the U(1) gauge symmetry. We recall that this approach is not applicable to the strictly 2D case where more sophisticated quantities have to be calculated fakher . On the other hand $`\chi _P`$ indicates the presence of pairing in the system, related to the temperature scale $`T^{}`$ as discussed below.
Regarding the DQMC simulations, the imaginary time discretization is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =0.125t^1`$ and lattices of size $`N=4^310^3`$ (with periodic boundary conditions) are considered in order to keep the CPU time into reasonable limits. Two types of finite-size effects are present: first, the discreteness of the spectrum introduces artificial features at low temperatures $`T0.1t`$ and weak couplings $`U2t`$ (signaled by $`(\frac{\mu }{T})_n>0`$); second, the superconducting phase transition is rounded and corresponds to the point where the correlation length $`\xi (T)`$ becomes larger than the linear system size $`L`$.
Determination of $`T_c`$. — Extracted by finite-size analysis of very good quality data, the value of $`T_c`$ is in principle free of systematic errors, except a small uncertainty ($`5`$ percents) due to the statistical error and to the finite imaginary time discretization $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau >0`$. Given $`U`$ and $`n`$, the pair-pair correlation function $`C_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (Eq.2) is evaluated for various temperatures $`T`$ and sizes $`N`$. This shows clearly that $`C_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is characterized by a low- and a high-temperature regime, related by a transition region that becomes sharper and sharper as $`N`$ increases. The latter observation agrees well with the behavior expected in the thermodynamic limit, where $`C_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ displays a discontinuous derivative at the phase transition and becomes non-zero only below $`T_c`$. This behavior, typical for all the parameter values used in our calculations, is shown in Fig. 1 for the special case $`U=6t`$ and $`n=0.5`$.

Although it does not correspond to a genuine phase transition, it allows to define a size-dependent transition temperature $`T_c(N)`$ which we can use to deduce the value of $`T_cT_c(\mathrm{})`$. A convenient choice for $`T_c(N)`$ is given by the inflexion point of the curve $`C_\mathrm{\Delta }(T,N)`$ versus $`T`$ obtained by a (stable) Lagrange polynomial interpolation of the DQMC data. Plotting the obtained $`T_c(N)`$ versus $`N^1`$, we extrapolate to $`N\mathrm{}`$ using a linear fit of the data, as shown in the inset of Fig. 1. The validity of this procedure is confirmed by the evaluation of the specific heat $`c_V(T)`$ whose well-defined peak can be used to define another size-dependent critical temperature $`T_c^{th}(N)`$. $`c_V(T)`$ is obtained by the numerical derivative of the expectation value of the energy thesis . A fit of the values for $`T_c^{th}(N)`$ with a functional form $`T_c(\mathrm{})=T_c^{th}(N)+𝒪(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}})`$ (corresponding to a superconducting phase transition in the universality class of the 3D $`XY`$ model engelbrecht ; schneider ) is shown on the inset of Fig. 1. It reveals that the finite-size corrections to $`T_c`$ are very weak and in particular not larger than the statistical errors resulting from the DQMC method. Thus both approaches presented above are fully compatible and yield an uncertainty on the extrapolated value of $`T_c`$ which is typically of the order of 5 percent.
The critical temperature $`T_c(U,n)`$. — The above procedure, applied to a range of parameters $`U`$ and $`n`$, determines quantitatively the $`U`$-$`n`$-$`T_c`$ phase diagram of the AHM. First we consider half-filling (i.e. $`n=1`$) which provides a useful check for our method. This case is equivalent to the repulsive model that has been recently studied by Staudt et al. using the same method staudt . The agreement on the values of $`T_c(U,n=1)`$ is almost perfect thesis ; a small difference ($`<3`$ percents) appearing systematically is due to the extrapolation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 0`$ performed by these authors and not done here due to calculation time restrictions. Turning now to quarter-filling, we obtain the results presented on Fig. 2. Before discussing the intermediate $`U`$ regime, we observe that,

as long as the DMQC method works properly ($`2tU12t`$), the extreme values of $`T_c(U)`$ are joining progressively the corresponding asymptotic curves, given by the BCS gap equation for small $`U`$ and by the 3D BEC formula for large $`U`$. Their respective dependences in $`U`$ follow essentially $`T_c\mathrm{exp}(1/U)`$ and $`T_c1/U`$, with the assumption that in the latter case the bosons are noninteracting and have an effective hopping amplitude $`t_B=2t^2/U`$. In the crossover region we observe, as expected, a smooth interpolation between the BCS and BEC regimes, with a maximal value of $`T_c=0.35t`$ situated at $`U8t`$. It is now interesting to compare our results with those proposed in recent works. In Fig. 2 the data obtained using the Dynamical Mean-Field Theory (DMFT) and a $`𝐤`$-independent $`T`$-matrix approximation (TMA) keller  are also plotted, rescaled by a factor $`2`$ so that the dimensionless product $`U`$ times the density of states at the Fermi level is the same as in our model thesis ; dos . Similarly to the half-filling case staudt , we observe a good overall agreement with DMFT results, the discrepancy at strong coupling ($`U>6t`$) being attributed to the mean-field character of DMFT; on the other hand TMA clearly fails outside the BCS regime. We also mention a recent $`𝐤`$-dependent $`T`$-matrix calculation engelbrecht  for $`U=4t`$ with a $`T_c`$ in quantitative agreement with our results.
In addition to $`U`$, $`T_c`$ also depends upon the density $`n`$. Our results show that the function $`T_c(U=\text{const.},n)`$ is not monotonic dossantos  in $`0n1`$ ($`1n2`$) unlike it was previously assumed ranninger . The maximal transition temperature for a given $`U`$ is situated around $`n=0.75`$ ($`1.25`$). This feature is illustrated on Fig. 2 for the case $`U=6t`$ and is reminiscent of the two-dimensional case where the higher symmetry of the Hamiltonian (1) at half-filling (SO(3) instead of U(1)) reduces $`T_c`$ to zero, as discussed recently tremblay . The appearance of an additional charge-density wave (CDW) ordering has been studied by means of the corresponding static correlation function thesis .
The pairing temperature scale $`T^{}(U,n)`$.— As mentioned previously, $`T^{}`$ is besides $`T_c`$ another temperature scale that characterizes the BCS-BEC crossover. In the case of the AHM, $`T^{}`$ can be interpreted within a pairing scenario as signaling a re-arrangement of fermionic quasiparticles into $`s`$-wave singlet pairs. As a consequence, the spectral weight of low-energy spin excitations is reduced and the spin response weakens. This process can be studied by considering the Pauli susceptibility $`\chi _P`$ (Eq. 3). Although $`T^{}`$ may not always correspond to a single point, but to an extended energy scale, it can nevertheless be identified with the position of the maximum of $`\chi _P(T)`$ dossantos . This definition has the advantage of satisfying the expected asymptotic behavior of $`T^{}`$, i.e. $`T^{}=T_c`$ in the BCS case and $`T^{}U/\mathrm{ln}(U/ϵ_F)^{3/2}`$ for the BEC limit randeria . The way the Pauli spin susceptibility evolves between these two regimes is shown on Fig. 3.

It is instructive to analyze these DQMC results by considering the sensitivity of $`T^{}`$ to finite-size effects. For the “weak coupling” case $`U4t`$, one observes that the shape of $`\chi _P(T)`$ in the region around its maximal value depends strongly on the system size $`N`$, becoming sharper as $`N`$ increases. In this case the extracted value of $`T^{}`$ turns out to be nearly equal to $`T_c`$, given the accuracy on the numerical results ($`5`$ percents). On the other hand, a “strong coupling” behavior appears for $`U5t`$, characterized by a much smoother susceptibility around its maximum. In this region finite-size effects have disappeared, indicative of an effect characterized by a short coherence length. Here, $`T^{}`$ is definitely different from $`T_c`$. In the interval $`[T_c,T^{}]`$ the interesting phenomenon of *precursor pairing* takes place, a point which will be further discussed below. We can thus present the complete phase diagram on Fig.4 by adding the function $`T^{}(U,n=\text{const.})`$

that clearly displays the two different regimes described above. In the weak coupling regime one observes that $`T^{}`$ does not correspond to a BCS critical temperature extrapolated at $`U2t`$. On the strong coupling side $`T^{}`$ defines an energy scale, which is approximately quantified by the errobars on Fig.4, and resembles to a straight line situated below the diagonal, in qualitative agreement with the asymptotic expression given above.
Discussion.— A first remark concerns the recent observation of a (first-order) phase transition in the *non-superconducting* solution of the AHM keller ; capone . Since this state is metastable below $`T_c`$, it cannot be accessed by DQMC (applying a magnetic field would cause a minus-sign problem). However the manifestations of this transition may be present above $`T_c`$ as well and the previous analysis of the Pauli spin susceptibility constitutes an ideal illustration. Indeed, it turns out that the high-temperature behavior of $`\chi _P(T)`$, observed for $`U4t`$ and characterized by a *monotonic* decrease with $`T`$, may correspond to a Fermi liquid normal state where the interaction amounts only to a renormalization of parameters. On the other hand, the regime $`U5t`$, which displays the phenomenon of precursor pairing for $`T_c<TT^{}`$, fits well to a phase containing “incoherent pairs” keller ; capone . Consequently a “critical” coupling strength $`U_c`$ may be situated around $`U=(4.3\pm 0.1)t`$, as it can be deduced by extrapolation at $`T=0`$ on Fig. 4. This value argrees very well with the (rescaled) DMFT result $`0.56\times W\times 24.5t`$, $`W=4t`$ being the bandwidth keller ; dos . One also remarks that $`U_c`$ does not correspond to the point where the chemical potential $`\mu `$ (including the Hartree shift $`U/2`$) becomes lower than the bottom of the non-interacting band (for $`n=0.5`$, we would get $`U_c10t`$). In fact, to our knowledge, there exists no criterion that yields a good estimate of $`U_c`$ in three dimensions.
In contrast to 3D where the effects of the thermal pairing fluctuations are rather weak babaev ; preosti , in 2D they are very important schneider  leading apparently to a $`T^{}`$ joining *smoothly* $`T_c`$ singer . This confirms the observation by Moukouri et al. moukouri  that precursor phenomena in the AHM have two origins: enhanced thermal pairing fluctuations (in 2D only) and a strong pairing interaction (in both cases). The fact that the AHM contains a transition between a Fermi liquid and a state of “incoherent pairs” may be of interest in the context of the high-$`T_c`$ superconductors phase diagram, where the scenario of a hidden quantum phase transition has been proposed loram . Of course the driving parameter in this case is the doping and the symmetry of the superconducting phase is $`d`$-wave.

###### Acknowledgements.

The numerical calculations presented in this work were performed on the Eridan server of the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL). This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, IRRMA project, the University of Fribourg and the University of Neuchâtel. We thank F. Gebhard, F. Assaad, and T. Schneider for interesting discussions.


text:
# References

HU-EP-02/15

DECAY CONSTANTS OF HEAVY-LIGHT MESONS

IN THE RELATIVISTIC QUARK MODEL

D. EBERT

Institut für Physik, Humboldt–Universität zu Berlin, Invalidenstr.110, D-10115 Berlin, Germany

R. N. FAUSTOV and V. O. GALKIN

Institut für Physik, Humboldt–Universität zu Berlin, Invalidenstr.110, D-10115 Berlin, Germany

and

Russian Academy of Sciences, Scientific Council for Cybernetics, Vavilov Str. 40,

Moscow 117333, Russia

The decay constants of pseudoscalar and vector heavy-light mesons are calculated in the framework of the relativistic quark model with the completely relativistic treatment of the light quark. It is argued that relativistic effects play a significant role. Good agreement of the model predictions with recent lattice and QCD sum rule calculations as well as available experimental data is found.

The pseudoscalar and vector decay constants of the heavy-light mesons are important hadronic characteristics of these mesons. They determine such quantities as the weak decay rates of mesons to lepton pairs and the magnitude of $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$ and $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ mixings. These constants also enter the nonleptonic decay rates, considered in the factorization approximation. In this brief note we consider them in the framework of the relativistic quark model.

The decay constants $`f_P`$ and $`f_V`$ of the pseudoscalar ($`P`$) and vector ($`V`$) mesons parameterize the matrix elements of the weak current between the corresponding meson and the vacuum. In the case of a meson, composed from a heavy antiquark $`\overline{Q}`$ and a light quark $`q`$, they are defined by

$`0|\overline{Q}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5q|P(𝐊)`$ $`=`$ $`if_PK^\mu ,`$ (1)
$`0|\overline{Q}\gamma ^\mu q|V(𝐊,\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`f_VM_V\epsilon ^\mu ,`$ (3)
where $`𝐊`$ is the meson momentum, $`\epsilon `$ and $`M_V`$ are the polarisation vector and mass of the vector meson.

In the relativistic quark model the decay constants can be expressed through the meson wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{P,V}(p)`$ in the momentum space and are given by?,?

$`f_{P,V}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{12}{M_{P,V}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left(\frac{ϵ_q(p)+m_q}{2ϵ_q(p)}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{ϵ_Q(p)+m_Q}{2ϵ_Q(p)}\right)^{1/2}}`$ (5)
$`\times \left\{1+\lambda _{P,V}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩^2}{[ϵ_q(p)+m_q][ϵ_Q(p)+m_Q]}}\right\}\mathrm{\Phi }_{P,V}(p),`$
with $`\lambda _P=1`$ and $`\lambda _V=1/3`$. In the nonrelativistic limit $`p^2/m^20`$ these expressions for decay constants give the well-known formula

$$f_P^{\mathrm{NR}}=f_V^{\mathrm{NR}}=\sqrt{\frac{12}{M_{P,V}}}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{P,V}(0)\right|,$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{P,V}(0)`$ is the meson wave function at the origin $`r=0`$. In the case of the heavy-light $`B`$ and $`D`$ mesons, considered in the infinitely heavy quark mass limit $`m_Q\mathrm{}`$, the meson wave function is determined by the light quark only. Therefore in this limit, as it follows from Eq. (5), the decay constants scale inversely proportional to the square root of the meson mass: $`f_P\sqrt{M_P}=\mathrm{const}`$. This leads to the relation $`f_B^{\mathrm{NR}}/f_D^{\mathrm{NR}}=\sqrt{M_D/M_B}`$ between $`B`$ and $`D`$ decay constants. However, the relativistic effects break down this scale behaviour. Expanding expression (5) in $`1/m_Q`$, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_B}{f_D}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{M_D}{M_B}}}\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_b}}){\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{𝐩^2}{\sqrt{2ϵ_q(p)[ϵ_q(p)+m_q]}}\mathrm{\Phi }_P(p)}}{{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left(\frac{ϵ_q(p)+m_q}{2ϵ_q(p)}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Phi }_P(p)}}}`$ (10)
$`+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_Q^2}}\right)\}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{M_D}{M_B}}}\{1+0.20+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_Q^2}}\right)\}.`$
Thus we see that the first order corrections in $`1/m_Q`$ shift the ratio of the pseudoscalar decay constants of $`D`$ and $`B`$ mesons by about $`20\%`$. As a result, relativistic values of $`f_B`$ and $`f_D`$ are closer to each other than nonrelativistic ones. As it will be seen later, this fact is important for bringing quark model predictions in agreement with recent lattice and QCD sum rule calculations.

The calculated values of the pseudoscalar and vector decay constants of heavy-light mesons in our model are displayed in Table 1. In the first row we show nonrelativistic predictions and in the second row relativistic results (5). For these calculations we used the wave functions of the heavy-light mesons obtained in the relativistic quark model based on the quasipotential approach in quantum field theory in calculating their mass spectra?. It is important to stress that the light quark was treated completely relativistically, without employing an unjustified expansion in inverse powers of the light quark mass. Only the heavy quark expansion was used in order to simplify calculations. The relativistic treatment of the light quark has a significant impact on the wave functions and, as a result, on the decay constants of the heavy-light mesons. It increases the ratio $`f_B/f_D`$ from 0.64 in the nonrelativistic limit to 0.74 and decreases the ratios $`f_{B_s}/f_B`$ from 1.3 to 1.1 and $`f_{D_s}/f_D`$ from 1.2 to 1.1, respectively.

In Table 1 we compare our predictionsaaaWe roughly estimate the error in our calculations (mainly coming from the wave functions) to be about $`10\%`$. for pseudoscalar decay constants of the heavy-light mesons as well as their ratios with other theoretical results and available experimental data. The pseudoscalar decay constants of $`B`$ and $`D`$ mesons were studied rather extensively in different theoretical approaches. In this Table we present the averaged lattice data obtained both in quenched and unquenched approximations from the recent review?. We also list the most recent QCD sum rule predictions?,?,?. Reliable experimental data at present exist only for $`f_{D_s}`$, which was measured by several experimental collaborations (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, Beatrice, CLEO, E653, WA75, BES) both in the $`D_s\mu \nu _\mu `$ and the $`D_s\tau \nu _\tau `$ decay channels. Unfortunately, experimental errors are still large. In Table 1 we present two experimental averages: one from PDG? and the other from the recent experimental review?. There exists also the first experimental value for $`f_{D^+}=300_{15040}^{+180+80}`$ MeV, but based on only one $`D^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu `$ event? and thus with very large errors. We see from Table 1 that there is good (within error bars) agreement between all presented theoretical predictions as well as with available experimental data. However, the QCD sum rules seem tend to prefer for the $`f_B/f_D`$ ratio the value close to 1, while somewhat smaller values are favoured by the lattice (0.85) and by our model (0.74).

We can also compare our prediction for the vector decay constant $`f_B^{}`$ with the recent lattice calculation in quenched approximation?:

$$f_B^{}=177\pm 6\pm 17\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{and}f_B^{}/f_B=1.01\pm 0.01{}_{0.01}{}^{+0.04}.$$

The ratios of vector and pseudoscalar decay constants $`f_V/f_P`$ are also predicted by heavy quark effective theory? (HQET)

$$f_B^{}/f_B1.07\pm 0.03,f_D^{}/f_D1.31\pm 0.08.$$

For these ratios in our model we have

$$f_B^{}/f_B1.09,f_D^{}/f_D1.30$$

in good agreement with both lattice and HQET results.

In summary, we calculated the decay constants of the pseudoscalar and vector heavy-light mesons in the framework of the relativistic quark model paying special attention to the complete relativistic treatment of the light quark. It was found that the relativistic effects significantly reduce the values of the decay constants and violate the scaling behaviour with masses of the decay constants which emerge in the nonrelativistic and heavy quark limits. As a result the ratio $`f_B/f_D`$ is considerably increased bringing relativistic quark model predictions in agreement with recent lattice and QCD sum rule calculations.

The authors express their gratitude to A. Ali Khan, M. Müller-Preussker and V. Savrin for support and discussions. Two of us (R.N.F and V.O.G.) were supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under contract Eb 139/2-1, Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research under Grant No. 00-02-17768 and Russian Ministry of Education under Grant No. E00-3.3-45.

References


text:
# Yaroslavl State UniversityPreprint YARU-HE-02/02hep-ph/0204168 Electron mass operator in a strong magnetic field

## Abstract

The electron mass operator in a strong magnetic field is calculated by summation of the leading log contributions in all orders of the perturbation theory. An influence of the strong field on the virtual photon polarization operator is taken into account. The contribution of higher Landau levels of virtual electrons, along with the ground Landau level, is shown to be essential in the leading log approximation.

Keywords: electron mass operator; strong magnetic field asymptotics; rainbow Feynman diagram

PACS numbers: 11.10.Jj, 12.20.Ds, 14.60.Cd

Submitted to Modern Physics Letters A

Investigations of the asymptotic properties of diagrams and operators of the quantum electrodynamics in strong magnetic fields $`BB_e(B_e=m_e^2/e4.4110^{13}`$111 We use natural units in which $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$ and the pseudo-Euclidean metric with a $`(+)`$ signature. Hereafter $`e`$ is the elementary charge.) is of conceptual interest both from the standpoint of the searches of the borders of the perturbation theory applicability, and in view of possible astrophysical applications. The researches of this type are being performed by many authors during a rather long time. For example, a history of calculations of the electron mass operator in a strong magnetic field lasts more than 30 years already. However, as we show in this letter, the problem has not been resolved yet.

The electron mass operator in a strong magnetic field with the one-loop contribution taken into account obtained by Jancovici  in the leading log approximation can be written as

$`M^{(1)}=m\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{m^2}}\right).`$ (1)
The origin of the double logarithm asymptotics can be easily illustrated by using of the electron propagator in a strong magnetic field  for presenting the one-loop contribution in the form of the following integral

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha }{2\pi ^3}}m{\displaystyle d^2k_{}e^{k_{}^2/2eB}\frac{d^2k_{}}{[(kp)_{}^2m^2](k_{}^2k_{}^2)}}|_{p_{}^2=m^2},`$ (2)
where the notations are used: $`k_{}^2=k_1^2+k_2^2,k_{}^2=k_0^2k_3^2`$, (the magnetic field is directed along the 3d axis). The Wick rotation in the complex plane of $`k_0`$, $`k_0=i\stackrel{~}{k}_0`$ yields $`k_{}^2=\stackrel{~}{k}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_3^2\stackrel{~}{k}_{}^2`$. With the main contribution into the integral coming from the region $`k_{}^2\stackrel{~}{k}_{}^2m^2`$, one obtains

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}m{\displaystyle \underset{m^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{}^2}{k_{}^2}}e^{k_{}^2/2eB}{\displaystyle \underset{m^2}{\overset{k_{}^2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{k}_{}^2}{\stackrel{~}{k}_{}^2}}.`$ (3)
It is seen that the result contains the logarithm squared, and coinsides with the second term of eq. (1).

Later on, in the papers by Loskutov and Skobelev  the attempts were performed to calculate the two-loop contribution and to summarize all the many-loop contributions in the same leading log approximation. A rather effective technique of “two-dimensional electrodynamics” in a strong magnetic field, developed by the authors was used and it was shown that the main contribution into the electron mass operator arises from the rainbow Feynman diagram depicted in Fig. 1. The result of summation over all orders of the perturbation theory was obtained in Ref.  in the exponential form:

$`M_{LS}=m\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{m^2}}\right).`$ (4)
However, in the recent paper by Gusynin and Smilga  the summation over all orders of the perturbation theory was remade giving another result:

$`M_{GS}=m/\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{m^2}}\right).`$ (5)
Obviously, the double logarithmic terms are also collected here because $`x^2`$ is the parameters of the $`\mathrm{cos}x`$ expansion. The first terms of expansion over $`\alpha `$ of both equations, (4) and (5), coinside and reproduce the one-loop result (1) of the paper . The difference manifests itself at the two-loop level where the corresponding contributions from Eqs. (4) and (5) have the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{LS}^{(2)}=m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}^4{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{m^2}},`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{GS}^{(2)}=m{\displaystyle \frac{5}{96}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}^4{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{m^2}}.`$ (7)
From the computation standpoint, in the frame of the approximation used by the authors, we confirm the result (7). It is intriguing to compare the Eqs. (6) and (7) with the earlier result for the two-loop contribution calculated in Ref. , see Eq. (5) of that paper. The numerical coefficient presented there, 5/48, was erroneous, to be replaced to 1/32, as it was pointed out in the next paper . In fact, the true coefficient appeared to be 5/96.

However, both equations (1) and (7) had a restricted area of application because they were obtained without taking account of a crucial influence of the strong magnetic field on the virtual photon polarization operator. As was shown for the first time in Ref. , due to the photon polarization in the field, the double logarithm asymptotics is only valid at $`BB_e/\alpha `$. For the larger field values, a photon acquires the effective mass $`m_\gamma ^2=(2\alpha /\pi )eB`$. Turning back to Eq. (2), we should replace the factor $`k^2=k_{}^2k_{}^2`$ in the denominator arising from the massless photon propagator, to the expression $`k^2m_\gamma ^2`$. It changes the result essentially, because in one of the two logarithms the electron mass is replaced to the photon mass,

$$\mathrm{ln}(eB/m_\gamma ^2)\mathrm{ln}(1/\alpha ),$$

so, the dependence of the electron mass operator on the field becomes not double but single logarithmic:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(1)}=m{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\alpha }}\gamma _E\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{m^2}},`$ (8)
where $`\gamma _E=0.577\mathrm{}`$ is the Euler constant.

However, the influence of the strong magnetic field on the photon polarization properties should be considered in more details. As was shown by Shabad, see, e.g.  where the earlier references can be found, the photon propagator in a magnetic field can be presented in the form

$`𝒟_{\mu \nu }(k)=i{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2𝒫^{(\lambda )}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_\mu ^{(\lambda )}b_\nu ^{(\lambda )}}{\left(b^{(\lambda )}\right)^2}},`$ (9)
where $`b_\mu ^{(\lambda )}`$ are the eigenvectors and $`𝒫^{(\lambda )}`$ are the eigenvalues of the photon polarization operator,

$$b_\alpha ^{(1)}=(q\phi )_\alpha ,b_\alpha ^{(2)}=(q\stackrel{~}{\phi })_\alpha ,b_\alpha ^{(3)}=q^2(q\phi \phi )_\alpha q_\alpha (q\phi \phi q),$$

$`\phi _{\alpha \beta }=F_{\alpha \beta }/\sqrt{F_{\mu \nu }^2/2}`$ is the dimensionless tensor of the external magnetic field, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }\phi _{\mu \nu }`$ is the dual tensor. The indices of four-vectors and tensors inside the parentheses are contracted consecutively, e.g. $`(q\phi )_\alpha =q_\beta \phi _{\beta \alpha }`$, etc.

It is well-known that only the photons, both real and virtual, with the $`\lambda =2`$ polarization participate in all the electron - photon processes in a strong magnetic field. Taking into account that the electron mass being the physical value is gauge independent, it is convenient to calculate it in the gauge where the photon propagator of the mode 2 takes the form

$`𝒟_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}(k)=i𝒟(k^2)\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{\mu \rho }\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{\rho \nu },𝒟(k^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2𝒫^{(2)}}}.`$ (10)
To calculate the electron mass operator in the leading log approximation, it is enough to know the mode 2 photon polarization operator at the one-loop level :

$`𝒫^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\pi }}eBH\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^2}{4m^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3\pi }}k^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{m^2}}.`$ (11)
Here, the first term arises from virtual electrons at the ground Landau level, while the second term is determined by the higher Landau levels. The function $`H(k_{}^2/4m^2)`$ for $`k_{}^2<0`$ has the form

$`H(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{z(z+1)}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{z+1}+\sqrt{z}}{\sqrt{z+1}\sqrt{z}}}1,z={\displaystyle \frac{|k_{}^2|}{4m^2}}.`$ (12)
For the region of parameters we are interested in, $`|k_{}^2|4m^2`$, we have $`H(z)1`$. Consequently, the first term in Eq. (11) acquires the meaning of the effective photon mass squared, $`m_\gamma ^2=(2\alpha /\pi )eB`$, induced by a magnetic field. Substituting (11) into Eq. (10), and multiplying by $`\alpha `$, we obtain for the function $`\alpha 𝒟(k^2)`$:

$`\alpha 𝒟(k^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{k^2k^2(\alpha /3\pi )\mathrm{ln}(eB/m^2)m_\gamma ^2(\alpha )}}.`$ (13)
It is seen from Eq. (13) that the contribution of the higher Landau levels leads in fact to the electron charge renormalization in a strong magnetic field

$`\alpha \alpha _R={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{1(\alpha /3\pi )\mathrm{ln}(eB/m^2)}}.`$ (14)
Based on this, the Eq. (13) can be presented in the form

$`\alpha 𝒟(k^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _R}{k^2m_\gamma ^2(\alpha _R)}}.`$ (15)
By this means the mode 2 photon manifests itself in a strong magnetic field as a massive vector boson interacting with an electron with the renormalized coupling constant $`\alpha _R`$.

For the $`n`$-loop contribution into the electron mass operator in the leading log approximation, which is defined by the rainbow diagram, we have obtained

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(n)}=m\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _R}{2\pi }}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\alpha _R}}\gamma _E\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{m^2}}\right]^n.`$ (16)
Finally, for the electron mass operator in a strong magnetic field one obtains

$`M=m/\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _R}{2\pi }}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\alpha _R}}\gamma _E\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{m^2}}\right].`$ (17)
It should be noted that our expression (17) for the electron mass operator in the single logarithm field asymptotics is different from the analogous result obtained in Ref. , which had the form

$`M=m\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\alpha }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{eB}{m^2}}\right).`$ (18)
To the first order in the parameter $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}(eB/m^2)`$, the results (17) and (18) almost coinside 222The Euler constant $`\gamma _E`$ is lost in Ref. . and are reduced to our formula (8). However, already in the second order in $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}(eB/m^2)`$ the results are different because of two reasons. First, the arithmetic error was made in Ref.  in the calculation of the $`n`$-loop rainbow diagram which led to an incorrect summation of the perturbation expansion. Second, the authors  did not take into account the contribution of the higher Landau levels which is essential in the logarithm asymptotics. The fundamental difference of our result (17) from the result (18) of Ref.  is in the fact that the electron mass as the function of the field strength, $`M(B)`$, is the singular one, because the denominator of Eq. (17) can, in principle, tend to zero. It should be noted, however, that the singular behaviour of the function $`M(B)`$ could manifest itself only in a superstrong field $`B10^{75}`$ G.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to V.A. Rubakov and to the participants of the seminar of the Theoretical Department of the Institute for Nuclear Research of RAS for fruitful discussion.

This work was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research under the Grant N 01-02-17334 and by the Ministry of Education of Russian Federation under the Grant No. E00-11.0-5.