text:
# Models and Tools for Collaborative Annotation

## 1. Introduction

Annotation graphs provide a comprehensive formal framework for constructing, maintaining and searching linguistic annotations, while remaining consistent with many alternative data structures and file formats. An annotation graph is a directed acyclic graph where edges are labeled with fielded records, and nodes are (optionally) labeled with time offsets. The annotation graph model is capable of representing virtually all types of linguistic annotation in widespread use today \[Bird and Liberman, 2001\].

The Annotation Graph Toolkit (AGTK) provides software infrastructure based on annotation graphs, allowing developers to quickly create special-purpose annotation tools using common components. AGTK consists of three parts: the annotation graph library, which is the internal data structure of annotation graphs, the I/O library, which handles the input and output of files of different formats, and wrappers which provide interfaces for scripting languages Tcl and Python.

AGTK also provides a model and tools to facilitate collaborative annotation. In typical annotation projects, tasks are divided into multiple passes; different people work on different passes individually or together. At any given time, only one person edits an annotation file. With AGTK it is straightforward to develop tools that permit a group of people (who may be geographically dispersed) to collaborate on the same annotation project. AGTK provides a database interface which allows users to load or retrieve annotation graphs from a shared server. The database interface is flexible with respect to the database server software and with respect to the location of the data.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes various kinds of collaborative annotation, while section 3 lays out the database schema and the related API functions. Section 4 is a case study of real world problem and how it was addressed with the model we propose. Section 5 describes our efforts towards more expressive and efficient annotation graph queries, and section 6 concludes the paper.

## 2. Collaborative Annotation

In recent years, annotation projects have grown in size and complexity, and it is now standard for multiple annotators and sites to be involved in a single large project. Managing this collaboration becomes a significant task in its own right.

At a minimum, we would like to be able to control access to different regions and types of annotation, to log modifications, and track the quality checks that have been made. While version control software and database servers may meet these requirements, it is not trivial to incorporate this functionality into annotation tools and expose it to end-users. Instead, we seek lightweight solutions that can easily be integrated with existing tools.

In this section we describe three approaches to this problem that we are pursuing in the context of the Annotation Graph Toolkit. These are treated in order of increasing difficulty.

### 2.1. Exploiting the annotations

Annotation graphs permit labels to contain fielded records. There is constraint on the name and content of the fields, except that they must be strings. There can be an arbitrary number of fields. We can exploit this flexibility in managing an annotation project by storing management information with the annotations themselves. Thus, there could be fields for such things as the identity of the last person who edited the annotation, various significant dates in the lifetime of the annotation, the level of quality control which has been completed, the chapter and verse of the coding manual which justifies the annotation, free text comments about additional checks that should be undertaken, and so forth.

API functions that provide search capabilities over the annotation label data permit exactly the same functionality for this management information. Tools can hide this information, but use it in presenting annotation content to users. For instance, annotations may have a QC feature whose values ranges from 1 to 5. For a particular task, the tool could highlight all annotations with QC level less than 3.

While this management information resides in the live database, it does not need to live in all (or any) exported formats. When saving to particular formats, the appropriate export module only queries the annotation graph library for the relevant fields; all other fields are ignored. Thus, annotation graphs can be enriched with management information in unforseen ways, yet saved in the existing supported formats without any modification to the export modules.

This feature of annotation graphs is amenable to collaborative annotation, since it is easy for the cooperating parties to agree on additional fields which help document and manage their joint work. We will not have anything further to say about this approach here, but want to emphasize that it is adequate for managing many kinds of collaborative annotation.

### 2.2. Exploiting the database

The database access method provided by the annotation graph library uses the ODBC standard (Open Database Connectivity). In the past, if a single program needed to connect to an Oracle database, an Informix database or a MySQL database, it was necessary to maintain three versions of the interface code, one for each database. With ODBC, applications write to the ODBC API and let the ODBC Manager and Driver take care of the database language specifics.

The annotation graph database schema, which is explained in detail in next section, allows annotation graphs to be stored and retrieved in any relational database server that supports ODBC. The annotations can then be queried directly in SQL or in a customized query language. A client-side annotation tool can initiate queries and display annotation content on behalf of the end user. An annotation tool and server, integrated using the model shown below, enables users to access local or remote annotation databases transparently.

Incorporating ODBC support in AGTK greatly facilitates data sharing and collaborative annotation. Different users may be granted different levels of access to the server, e.g. to modify existing annotations, or just to add commentary to existing annotations (e.g. write a prose recommendation that a certain annotation be changed).

Annotation graph based annotation tools can also be tailored to permit certain categories of user to do certain kinds of edits. This supports annotation projects where there is a high degree of specialization amongst the geographically separated collaborators (e.g. if we were annotating discourse and intonation, and if junior annotators were given simple tasks, and senior annotators and researchers added their own specialized annotations, and checked the work of the junior annotators).

Updates may occur at various levels of granularity. For example, with record-level locking, two annotators could be working on the same annotation region without interfering with each other’s work. Section 4 also gives an example of how annotators can collaborate using column locking where different annotators are given different read/write permissions to edit certain annotation features.

So far we have focussed on collaborative annotation as the key benefit derived from moving to a relational database model. There are several other advantages as well.

With ODBC, an annotation application can access remote annotation servers. The user simply tells the application what annotation graph database on which server he/she wants to access by using an ODBC connect string which contains information of the name of the server, the name of the database, the user name and password. Note that the signal data does not need to reside in the same place as the annotation data. Distributed annotators may have local copies of large signal files while storing their annotations in a common central location.

While other annotation tools are able to store their annotations in a database \[Cassidy, 1999\], we are not aware of any projects which use this to support collaborative annotation.

We briefly note one final, significant benefit of storing all annotations in relational form. As Cieri and Bird ?) have discussed, many annotated recordings come with a variety of non-temporal data, such as speaker demographics, lexicons, and the like. These tables can be stored in relational form alongside the annotations, enabling us to integrate all of the data. Now, queries can perform joins across the temporal and atemporal data. For further discussion the reader is referred to \[Cieri and Bird, 2001\].

### 2.3. Exploiting the query language

In many annotation projects, the only way to view an annotation is with the same software that was used to create it. For any large annotation task – especially those involving collaboration – browsing individual annotations is usually not an efficient way to identify annotations requiring further work. The standard solution is to create special-purpose scripts which scan a collection of annotation files, opening the editor on each file which satisfies the user’s requirements.

Storing the annotations in a database is an obvious win since SQL queries can be used to efficiently identify the annotations requiring further attention. Such queries may even operate across multiple corpora. Unfortunately, SQL has some expressive limitations which render it unsuitable for certain kinds of query. For instance, we cannot express kleene closure over the annotation relation, since this requires a variable number of joins. However, regular expressions are a common feature of linguistic queries, and are heavily used in the special-purpose scripts (mentioned above).

In section 5 we will report the result of our experiments on pre-compiling the kleene closure so that these linguistically natural queries can be expressed. This work promises to greatly improve the flexibility of the annotation tools, permitting users to identify and load previously-created annotations according to complex criteria without leaving the annotation tool.

## 3. Relational Representation

This section discusses the database schema and the API that are used for storing and accessing a set of annotation graphs.

The design of the relational database schema is closely related to the AG library’s C++ implementation. Figure 2 depicts how AG library objects relate to each other. As the diagram shows, an AGSet is a collection of timelines and AGs. A timeline is a collection of signals. An AG contains multiple anchors and annotations. The annotation graph library objects also reference each other, for example, an annotation graph can reference a timeline; an annotation references two anchors (the start and end anchor); a Metadata object (’MD’ in the figure) could be referenced by an AGSet, AG, timeline or signal. There are also attributes associated with each library object, as shown in the picture. Please see \[Maeda et al., 2002\] for further details.

### 3.1. Schema

The model described above is represented in a relational database as follows.

Table AGSET stores attributes of all AGSets. XMLNS is the XML namespace of the ATLAS Interchange Format (AIF). XLINK specifies the XML Linking Language (XLink) specification the AGSet is using.

```
CREATE TABLE AGSET (
  AGSETID     VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  VERSION     CHAR(10),
  XMLNS       CHAR(30),
  XLINK       CHAR(30),
  PRIMARY KEY (AGSETID))

```

Table AG stores attributes of all AGs. AGSETID specifies the AGSet an AG belongs to. TIMELINEID indicates the timeline an AG is associated with. An AG can also have an optional type, indicated by TYPE.

```
CREATE TABLE AG (
  AGID        VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  AGSETID     VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  TIMELINEID  VARCHAR(50),
  TYPE        CHAR(10),
  PRIMARY KEY (AGID),
  FOREIGN KEY (AGSETID) REFERENCES AGSET)

```

Table TIMELINE stores attributes of all timelines.

```
CREATE TABLE TIMELINE (
  AGSETID     VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  TIMELINEID  VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (TIMELINEID)
  FOREIGN KEY (AGSETID) REFERENCES AGSET)

```

Table SIGNAL keeps attributes of all signals. AGSETID and TIMELINEID specify the AGSet and timeline a signal belongs to.

```
CREATE TABLE SIGNAL (
  AGSETID     VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  TIMELINEID  VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  SIGNALID    VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  MIMECLASS   VARCHAR(50),
  MIMETYPE    VARCHAR(50),
  ENCODING    VARCHAR(50),
  UNIT        VARCHAR(50),
  XLINKTYPE   VARCHAR(50),
  XLINKHREF   VARCHAR(50),
  TRACK       VARCHAR(50),
  PRIMARY KEY (SIGNALID),
  FOREIGN KEY (AGSETID) REFERENCES AGSET,
  FOREIGN KEY (TIMELINEID) REFERENCES TIMELINE)

```

Table ANNOTATION keeps attributes of all annotations. AGSETID and AGID specifies the AGSet and the AG an annotation belongs to. STARTANCHOR and ENDANCHOR are the IDs of the start anchor and end anchor of the annotation. An annotation also has an type.

```
CREATE TABLE ANNOTATION (
  AGSETID      VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  AGID         VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  ANNOTATIONID VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  STARTANCHOR  VARCHAR(50),
  ENDANCHOR    VARCHAR(50),
  TYPE         VARCHAR(50),
  PRIMARY KEY (ANNOTATIONID),
  FOREIGN KEY (AGID) REFERENCES AG,
  FOREIGN KEY (AGSETID) REFERENCES AGSET)

```

Table ANCHOR stores attributes of all anchors. AGSETID and AGID specify the AGSet and the AG an anchor belongs to. OFFSET is the offset of an anchor. UNIT specifies the unit for the offset. SIGNALS indicates the signals that an anchor refers to.

```
CREATE TABLE ANCHOR (
  AGSETID     VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  AGID        VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  ANCHORID    VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  OFFSET      FLOAT,
  UNIT        VARCHAR(50),
  SIGNALS     VARCHAR(50),
  PRIMARY KEY (ANCHORID),
  FOREIGN KEY (AGID) REFERENCES AG,
  FOREIGN KEY (AGSETID) REFERENCES AGSET)

```

Table METADATA stores all the metadescriptions for AGSet, AG, Timeline and Signal. ID could be AGSETID, AGID, TIMELINEID or SIGNALID. These metadescriptions could use the Dublin Core elements to identify the title, creator and date of the work, and to give a prose description of its contents. For more discussion of the use of metadata for describing language resources, see \[Bird and Simons, 2001\].

```
CREATE TABLE METADATA (
  AGSETID     VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  AGID        VARCHAR(50),
  ID          VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  NAME        VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  VALUE       TEXT,
  PRIMARY KEY (ID,NAME),
  FOREIGN KEY (AGSETID) REFERENCES AGSET)

```

Note that some values of the above tables, such as AGSETID, are stored redundantly to enable efficient loading. For example, this permits all the anchors of an AGSet can be loaded in a single query, which cannot be done if AGSETID is not stored in the ANCHOR table.

AGTK also creates a feature table for each corpus. Each column of the feature table represents one possible feature of an annotation. The name of the column is the feature name and its value is the feature value. For example, to represent features of corpus ABC with possible feature names GENDER, AGE and POB (place of birth), AGTK creates the following table:

```
CREATE TABLE ABC (
  ANNOTATIONID VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  GENDER      TEXT,
  AGE         TEXT,
  POB         TEXT,
  PRIMARY KEY (ANNOTATIONID),
  FOREIGN KEY (ANNOTATIONID) REFERENCES ANNOTATION)

```

Since an application can add or remove annotation features, AGTK must add or remove columns in the corresponding feature table. AGTK takes care of this when storing data back to the server, i.e. it changes the structure of the table if necessary before it stores annotation data back to the feature table.

### 3.2. AG database API

The AG database interface provides load and store functions.

#### LoadFromDB

```
void LoadFromDB(string connStr, AGSetId agsetId);

```

LoadFromDB loads the specified *AGSet* from the database server to memory. The variable connStr specifies the connection string that ODBC uses to connect to the server. It contains information such as hostname, database name, user name, and password.

Table 1 shows some of the parameters used in a connect string, for a complete list, see \[http://www.mysql.com/doc/M/y/MyODBC\_connect\_parameters.html\].

DSN is the registered ODBC Data Source Name. It should be defined in the .odbc.ini file in user’s home directory. All other arguments can be either defined in the .odbc.ini file, or defined in the connect string itself. To gain access to most ODBC data sources, the user must provide a valid user ID and corresponding password. These values are initially registered by the database administrator. The following is a sample driver section for DSN “talkbank” in the configuration file for iODBC. To make explanation easier, line numbers are included. Note that UID and PWD become USER and PASSWORD in iODBC’s configuration file.

```
1  [talkbank]
2  Driver   = /usr/local/lib/libmyodbc.so
3  DSN      = talkbank
4  SERVER   = talkbank.ldc.upenn.edu
5  USER     = myuserid
6  PASSWORD = mypasswd
7  DATABASE = talkbank

```

Line 1 is the name of the driver section, “talkbank” (the user can have multiple driver sections in a single configuration file). Line 2 specifies which ODBC driver to use. Line 3 gives the name of the DSN, which is “talkbank”. Line 4 specifies the hostname of the machine on which the database server is running. Lines 5 and 6 give the user name and password for connecting to the server. Line 7 identifies the database server to connect to. With a complete .odbc.ini file such as the above, the connection string can be just DSN=talkbank;. If the user has not specified some of the arguments in the configuration file, say USER and PASSWORD, he/she can still specify them in the connect string:

```
DSN=talkbank;UID=myuserid;PWD=mypasswd;

```

#### StoreToDB

```
void StoreToDB(string connStr, AGSetId agSetId);

```

StoreToDB stores the specified AGSet to the database server. The variable connStr contains connection information as explained above.

## 4. Collaborative Annotation with TableTrans

In this section we describe a collaborative annotation need which has been presented to us, and how this need can be addressed using the TableTrans tool. The context is research by Robert Seyfarth, Dorothy Cheney and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania on social behavior and vocal communication in nonhuman primates. These researchers make extended audio recordings of primate interactions, making detailed notes of the social context and physical environment. Later, they listen to the recordings and identify particular vocalizations of interest, noting their start and end times and classifying the call types. Observations may be dense, or very sparse with extended periods in which nothing is coded. Each observation is entered into a row of a spreadsheet, and rows may have upwards of a dozen columns, each covering a different aspect of the observation, e.g.: recording offsets, tape number, date, time, location, animal id, group id, context (foraging/predator), call type, signal quality, and comments. Each row may also contain quantities derived from the corresponding period of the signal, such as mean energy. In this way, many thousands of observations are coded. Quantitative analysis of these tables addresses research questions in behavioral ecology and language evolution.

Much of the coding task is relatively straightforward and does not require highly trained annotators. Working from a digitized recording and field notes, an annotator can convert tape counter numbers to millisecond offsets, and enter such fields as the tape number, date, time and location. This work is typically done at a digitization station; while tapes are being uploaded to disk, the annotator works on previously uploaded materials. The result is a set of spreadsheets in which each row corresponds to an extent of audio, but where certain columns are left empty.

In the original version of this process, annotation files would remain on the digitization station until the first round of annotation was complete, at which time they would be transferred to a specialist – usually the original field researcher – for further annotation. The specialist would fill in columns that require a greater degree of critical judgement, such as the call type. However, during the course of listening to hundreds of calls, the untrained annotator gradually learns to discriminate most call types, and can usefully make a first pass at annotating some of the specialized columns. Later, these can be reviewed and post-edited by the specialist.

The unfortunate consequence of this regime is that the collaboration between the annotator and the specialist requires copies of the annotations to be circulated (e.g. by email) and/or arranging meetings. Neither of these is an efficient way to quickly resolve the unpredictable questions that may arise (and hold up) the annotation process. In addressing this problem, we have added a new capability to the TableTrans tool \[Bird et al., 2002\] which enables the user to choose to store all of its annotations in a central database. The configurations for the trainee and specialist versions of the tool specify which columns are available for read-only access, and which columns are available for read-write access. Even if physically separated, both parties can review the same material, listen to the audio segments, and discuss judgements (e.g. by email or telephone). In this way, collaboration, training and quality control can be done remotely, while each person has full access to the up-to-date annotations. The tool is able to prevent unauthorized modification of read-only columns, and indicates these columns by shading (see Figure 3).

This mode of collaborative annotation is possible because the data resides on a shared server, and because the tool can enforce a simple policy for the permission to edit particular spreadsheet columns.

## 5. Efficient AG Queries

Given that annotation graphs are stored in a relational database, it seems reasonable to use SQL for search. However, SQL turns out to be unsuitable for annotation graphs in terms of expressiveness and optimizability. Thus, a new query language for annotation graphs has been proposed \[Bird et al., 2000\]. In most cases, the new query language can be mapped into SQL. Therefore, it is still possible to utilize SQL and relational database technologies. There are a couple of advantages in this approach. First, given that we are taking full advantage of a relational database system, implementation is straightforward; we only need to map between query languages. Second, the optimization problem is reduced to the optimization of SQL queries, in which there is relatively little room for improvement.

The major problem in mapping between the proposed annotation graph query language and SQL is the arbitrary steps of arc tracing which cannot be expressed well in SQL. In this section, we propose a solution for the problem. Also, with a series of experiments, we probe the feasibility of this mapping approach in terms of efficiency which is critical in real time applications.

### 5.1. The experimental database

For the experiment, we set up a test database on a Linux PC running at 500 MHz. PostgreSQL \[PostgreSQL Global Development Group, 2002\] was used for the relational database. For test data, a part of the TIMIT corpus \[Garofolo et al., 1986\] was used, consisting of 1,680 TIMIT speech annotations. The contents of the database are summarized in the following table:<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 The test database can be tuned up for better performance. For instance, some additional indices can be added, and management queries can be used for clean-up. We used a tuned database in the experiments reported here.

| Object | Count |
| --- | --- |
| Agset | 1 |
| Ag | 1,680 |
| Annotation | 80,378 |
| *txt* | 1,680 |
| *wrd* | 14,553 |
| *phn* | 64,145 |
| Anchor | 67,375 |

### 5.2. AG query example

Consider the following annotation graph query against our test database:

1. Query 1. Find word arcs whose phonetic transcription starts with a ‘hv’ and contains a ‘dcl’.

This query can be depicted by an annotation graph pattern as shown in Figure 4. It matches any *wrd* annotation that starts at anchor $`X`$ and ends at anchor $`Y`$ such that there exist a *phn* annotation labeled ‘hv’ that starts at anchor $`X`$ and ends at anchor $`A`$, a *phn* annotation labeled ‘dcl’ that starts at anchor $`B`$ and ends at anchor $`C`$, paths $`AB`$ and $`CY`$ of *phn* annotations.

This pattern can be written as follows using annotation graph query syntax:

```
    X.[].Y <- db/wrd
    X.[:hv].[]*.[:dcl].[]*.Y <- db/phn

```

Here is a complete annotation graph query for query 1.

```
    SELECT I
    WHERE  X.[id:I].Y <- db/wrd AND
           X.[:hv].[]*.[:dcl].[]*.Y <- db/phn;

```

Note that id:I is added to the pattern to select ids of matched annotations. Also note that there is no direct mapping to SQL for the above query because of the paths of *phn* annotations. The solution for this problem is discussed in the following sections.

### 5.3. $`K^{}`$: Transitive closure of annotations

$`K^{}`$ is a table containing connectability information between anchors. For example, if there is a path from anchor $`A`$ to anchor $`B`$ following annotations of type $`t`$, $`K^{}`$ should contain a tuple $`(A,B,t)`$, and vice versa. The schema for $`K^{}`$ is shown below:

```
CREATE TABLE Kstar (
  StartAnchor  VARCHAR(50),
  EndAnchor    VARCHAR(50),
  Type         VARCHAR(20),
  PRIMARY KEY (StartAnchor,EndAnchor,Type),
  FOREIGN KEY (StartAnchor,EndAnchor) REFERENCES Anchor);

```

Precomputing $`K^{}`$, the transitive closure of annotations, eliminates the mapping problem. In fact, query 1 is now translated to SQL in Figure 5.

#### Domain Restriction

In the query in Figure 5, $`K^{}`$ tuples of type *phn* are used. This is wasteful because it allows irrelevant anchors to be considered in the computation. For example, for two connected anchors, the SQL query will take those anchors into consideration as long as they are connected by *phn* annotations, even though they belong to different words.

To avoid this problem, we can restrict the domain of computation of transitive closure. In the above case, we can compute the transitive closure only for the *phn* annotations that belong to the same word. This will make the size of $`K^{}`$ much smaller, making queries faster. The following table shows statistics for $`K^{}`$ for the test database. The transitive closures are computed for *wrd* and *phn* annotations and for *phn* annotations within the *wrd* domain, denoted by *phn/wrd*.

| Type | Count |
| --- | --- |
| *wrd* | 91,960 |
| *phn* | 1,423,134 |
| *phn/wrd* | 271,323 |
| Total | 1,786,417 |

The following queries are variations of query 1.

1. Query 2. Find word arcs whose phonetic transcription starts with a ‘hv’:

```
SELECT I
WHERE  X.[id:I].Y <- db/wrd
       X.[:hv].[]*.Y <- db/phn;

```
2. Query 3. Find word arcs whose phonetic transcription starts with a ‘hv’ and ends with a ‘ix’:

```
SELECT I
WHERE  X.[id:I].Y <- db/wrd
       X.[:hv].[]*.[:ix].Y <- db/phn;

```
3. Query 4. Find word arcs whose phonetic transcription contains a ‘dcl’:

```
SELECT I
WHERE  X.[id:I].Y <- db/wrd
       X.[]*.[:dcl].[]*.Y <- db/phn;

```

The following table shows the performance of those queries and the effect of domain restriction.

| Query | *phn* | *phn/wrd* |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 2.22 | 1.59 |
| 2 | 0.85 | 0.79 |
| 3 | 2.40 | 2.41 |
| 4 | 22.70 | 3.90 |

Since $`K^{}`$ is a huge table, it is expected that queries with many references to $`K`$ will suffer from the size of $`K^{}`$. In considering this issue, suppose that we have the following general pattern for an annotation graph query:

```
    X.[].Y <- db/wrd
    X.[:*l1*].[]*.[:*l2*].[]*......[:*ln*].[]*.Y <- db/phn

```

The pattern has $`n`$ *phn* annotations and each pair of *phn* annotations has an intervening $`K^{}`$ reference, a total of $`n`$ $`K^{}`$ references. Figure 6 shows how the performance scales as the number of $`K^{}`$ references increases. With 5 $`K^{}`$ references, it took 23 hours and 40 minutes with a lot of memory swapping.

### 5.4. $`K^{}`$array: Alternative to $`K^{}`$

$`K^{}`$ shows poor performance when the query contains large number of $`K^{}`$ references. In this section, we propose an alternative to $`K^{}`$ to solve the problem.

Consider a boolean $`n\times n`$ matrix, where $`n`$ is the number of anchors in an annotation graph. We require a distinct matrix for each type $`t`$. The value of cell $`(i,j)`$ is *true* iff there is a path from anchor $`i`$ to anchor $`j`$ following annotations of type $`t`$.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Note that it is still possible to apply domain restriction. For example, the value of cell $`(i,j)`$ is *false* if both $`i`$ and $`j`$ don’t belong to the same domain. In general, the number of matrices required for an annotation graph is $`N_t`$ (number of annotation types) + $`N_d`$ (number of domain restrictions). Therefore, if tuples have a matrix as their attribute, the size of the $`K^{}`$ table can be reduced to ($`N_t`$+$`N_d`$) $`\times `$ (number of annotation graphs).

A table is built as described above, using PostgreSQL’s array data type, and we call it $`K^{}`$array. The schema is shown below:

```
CREATE TABLE Kstar (
  AGId         VARCHAR(50),
  A            BOOL[][],
  Type         VARCHAR(20),
  PRIMARY KEY (AGId, Type),
  FOREIGN KEY (AGId) REFERENCES AG);

```

The size of $`K^{}`$array for our test database is 5,040; remember the size of $`K^{}`$ is 1.8 million. Note that $`K^{}`$array reduces not only the size of the table but also the number of joins. For instance, Figure 7 is the $`K^{}`$array version of the SQL query in Figure 5, where two connectability tests are done by one $`K^{}`$array join. (anchor\_num() is a function to map anchor ids to a natural number.) We can expect that this will improve performance for queries involving a large number of joins.

The following table shows the effect of the $`K^{}`$array for queries 1-4. There are clearly time savings, although there is little benefit from domain restriction.

|  | $`K^{}`$ | | $`K^{}`$array | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Query | *phn* | *phn/wrd* | *phn* | *phn/wrd* |
| 1 | 2.22 | 1.59 | 1.24 | 1.24 |
| 2 | 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.57 | 0.57 |
| 3 | 2.40 | 2.41 | 2.40 | 2.40 |
| 4 | 22.70 | 3.90 | 2.42 | 2.24 |

Figure 8 demonstrates that the $`K^{}`$array can handle queries having a large number of joins.

### 5.5. Future work

The result of these experiments shows that this approach to implementing annotation query is quite promising. There are, however, remaining tasks to complete the implementation. Tasks include: (i) implementation of translator (or mapper) from annotation graph query to SQL, (ii) further experimentation on vertical queries to allow efficient search on hierarchical information between annotations such as inclusion and overlapping, and (iii) specifying details of the query language syntax.

## 6. Conclusion

This paper has reported on models and tools for collaborative annotation based on annotation graphs. Annotation graphs are an extremely general and versatile data model for representing all kinds of annotation data. Moreover, they can be stored in a relational database and accessed remotely. The Annotation Graph Toolkit supports connections to ODBC-compliant database servers, making it easy for developers to create annotation tools that store all their data in a server. Apart from the obvious benefits for data management, this storage method opens up new possibilities for collaborative annotation, as reported above. We hope to have shown that it is completely straightforward to support a variety of different levels of collaborative annotation with existing AGTK-based tools, with a minimum of additional programming effort.

## Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 9978056 and 9980009 (Talkbank).


format: text

text:
# Particle-Antiparticle Metamorphosis of Massive Majorana Neutrinos and Gauginos

## 1 Introduction

Spacetime structures in supersymmetric theories find themselves deeply intertwined with the Majorana realization of fermionic representation spaces.

In its simplest form, the algebra of supersymmetry is generated by fourteen operators. These consist of ten generators of the Poincaré group, and four anticommuting generators. The latter are called “supertranslations,” and are components of a Majorana spinor . So, it comes about that spacetime structure of supersymmetry finds itself deeply connected with the Majorana aspect.

In this context, recent results of Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et al., , which provided a first direct evidence for neutrinoless double beta decay, $`0\nu \beta \beta `$, are of particular interest.

In its simplest interpretation, the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ experimental signal arises from the Majorana nature of massive $`\nu _e`$. Even though the experiment by itself does not necessarily require a supersymmetric framework for its explanation, the indication towards a Majorana spacetime structure suddenly acquires a pivotal importance.

In this Letter we, therefore, undertake an ab initio look at the spacetime structure of the massive Majorana particles — whether they be neutrinos or gaugions. In particular, we focus our attention on the $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ metamorphosis.

In the next section, we present a critique of the conventional Majorana construct in the context of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$. The critique also provides additional motivation for undertaking the reported work. In Sec. 3, we present an ab initio formulation Majorana spinors. In Sec. 4, we examine to what extent it is possible to associate them with negative and positive energies. There we find that the particle/antiparticle interpretation of self/antiself conjugate Majorana spinors fails, thus opening the door to the $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ metamorphosis leading to $`0\nu 2\beta `$ decay. In Sec. 5, we show the insensitivity of Majorana self/antiself conjugate spinors to the arrow of time. The explicit construct of the particle-antiparticle metamorphosis is presented in Sec. 6 in terms of the momentum-space Feynman propagator. The Letter closes with some brief remarks and a summary.

## 2 A critique of conventional Majorana construct in $`\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂𝜷𝜷`$

As already noted, in the simplest scenario, the recent results of Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et al. are interpreted as arising from the Majorana nature of neutrinos. The essential physics of interest lies in the following. A virtual $`W^{}`$, which induces a weak $`np`$ transition, decays into $`e^{}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$,

$`W^{}e^{}+\overline{\nu }_e,`$ (1)
and the emitted $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ is reabsorbed as an $`\nu _e`$,

$`\nu _e+W^{}e^{},`$ (2)
where the second (virtual) $`W^{}`$ takes responsibility for the second $`np`$ transformation. The net result is the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$,

$`A(N,Z)A(N2,Z+2)+2e^{},`$ (3)
where $`A(N,Z)`$ represents a nucleus carrying $`N`$ neutrons, and $`Z`$ protons. Now, the Majorana nature of $`\nu _e`$ does not mean ($`\times `$) that one can naively identify the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ of (1) with the $`\nu _e`$ of (2),

$`\times :\overline{\nu }_e=\nu _e.`$ (4)
This is so because a neutrino carries a negative helicity in the $`m_{\nu _e}/E_{\nu _e}0`$ limit, and transforms as a $`(0,1/2)`$ object; while an antineutrino carries a positive helicity in the $`m_{\nu _e}/E_{\nu _e}0`$ limit, and transforms as a $`(1/2,0)`$ object. As such there is a $`m_{\nu _e}/E_{\nu _e}`$ suppressed amplitude for the above identification . This result arises in a framework in which the Majorana field  is obtained from the Dirac field,

$`\psi (x)={\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{m}{2p_0}\underset{h=,}{}\left[a_h(𝐩)u_h(𝐩)e^{ipx}+b_h^{}(𝐩)v_h(𝐩)e^{+ipx}\right]},`$ (5)
through the identification,

$`b_h^{}(𝐩)=\zeta a_h^{}(𝐩),`$ (6)
where $`\zeta `$ is a “creation phase factor” .

As is apparent, the above Fock space construct ceases to place fundamentally neutral fields at the same footing as the intrinsically charged fields. Instead, it patches together the old Dirac spacetime structure of the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space, $`u_h(𝐩)`$ and $`v_h(𝐩)`$, with a new Fock-space constraint as suggested by Majorana (6). In other words, the Fock space is treated correctly, via Eq. (6), as is required for a fundamentally neutral field. However, the underlying representation space is still obliged to the Dirac spinors. The Majorana construct, as used by the high-energy physics community, is a hybrid and it asks for the formulation of a framework that is of Majorana type both in spinor- and Fock- spaces.

The question now is, whether it is possible to create a fully symmetric framework for the intrinsically neutral fields that carries an explicit counterpart of Eq. (6) for its $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ spinorial structure. In this Letter we provide such a formulation. In the process we shall arrive at a deeper understanding of the spacetime structure underlying the $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ metamorphosis.

The presented formulation is self contained. It carries its interest beyond understanding $`0\nu \beta \beta `$, in terms of Majorana neutrinos, to theorists and phenomenologists interested in left-right symmetric theories  and gauginos.

## 3 Ab initio formulation of Majorana spinors

The boost generator for the $`(1/2,0)`$ representation space is $`i𝝈/2`$, and that for $`(0,1/2)`$ is $`+i𝝈/2`$. Consequently, the respective boosts are

$`B_R`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(+{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈}{2}}𝝋\right)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}}\left(1_2+{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{E+m}}\right),`$ (7)
$`B_L`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝝈}{2}}𝝋\right)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}}\left(1_2{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{E+m}}\right),`$ (8)
where the boost parameter is defined as:

$`\mathrm{cosh}(\phi )={\displaystyle \frac{E}{m}},\mathrm{sinh}(\phi )={\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{m}},\widehat{𝝋}={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩}{|𝐩|}}.`$ (9)
The boosts take a particle at rest to a particle moving with momentum $`𝐩`$ in the “boosted frame.” We use the notation in which $`1_n`$ and $`0_n`$ represent $`n\times n`$ identity and null matrices, respectively.

These well-known results allow for the observation:

$`B_{L,R}^1=B_{R,L}^{}.`$ (10)
Further, if $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Wigner’s spin-$`1/2`$ time reversal operator,111 We refrain from identifying $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with $`i\sigma _2`$ because such identification does not exist for higher-spin $`(j,0)(0,j)`$ representation spaces. The existence of Wigner time reversal operator for all $`j`$, allows, for fermionic $`j`$’s, the introduction of $`(j,0)(0,j)`$ Majorana objects.

$`\mathrm{\Theta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (13)
then

$`\mathrm{\Theta }\left[𝝈/2\right]\mathrm{\Theta }^1=\left[𝝈/2\right]^{},`$ (14)
The above observations imply that:

1. If $`\varphi _L(𝐩)`$ transforms as a left handed spinor, then $`\left(\zeta _\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }\right)\varphi _L^{}(𝐩)`$ transforms as a right handed spinor – where, $`\zeta _\lambda `$ is an unspecified phase.
2. If $`\varphi _R(𝐩)`$ transforms as a right handed spinor, then $`\left(\zeta _\rho \mathrm{\Theta }\right)^{}\varphi _R^{}(𝐩)`$ transforms as a left handed spinor – where, $`\zeta _\rho `$ is an unspecified phase.

As a consequence, the following spinors (in Weyl basis) belong to the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space :

$`\lambda (𝐩)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\left(\zeta _\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }\right)\varphi _L^{}(𝐩)\\ \varphi _L(𝐩)\end{array}\right),\rho (𝐩)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _R(𝐩)\\ \left(\zeta _\rho \mathrm{\Theta }\right)^{}\varphi _R^{}(𝐩)\end{array}\right).`$ (19)
The operation of charge conjugation is,

$`C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0_2& i\mathrm{\Theta }\\ i\mathrm{\Theta }& 0_2\end{array}\right)K,`$ (22)
where the operator $`K`$ complex conjugates any object that appears on its right. Demanding $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ and $`\rho (𝐩)`$ to be self/anti-self conjugate under $`C`$,

$`C\lambda (𝐩)=\pm \lambda (𝐩),C\rho (𝐩)=\pm \rho (𝐩),`$ (23)
restricts the phases, $`\zeta _\lambda `$ and $`\zeta _\rho `$, to two values:

$`\zeta _\lambda =\pm i,\zeta _\rho =\pm i.`$ (24)
The plus sign in the above equation yields self conjugate, $`\lambda ^S(𝐩)`$ and $`\rho ^S(𝐩)`$ spinors; while the minus sign results in the anti-self conjugate spinors, $`\lambda ^A(𝐩)`$ and $`\rho ^A(𝐩)`$.

### 3.1 The $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ spinors

To obtain explicit expressions for $`\lambda (𝐩)`$, we first write down the rest spinors. These are:

$`\lambda ^S(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}+i\mathrm{\Theta }\varphi _L^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})\\ \varphi _L(\mathrm{𝟎})\end{array}\right),\lambda ^A(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{\Theta }\varphi _L^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})\\ \varphi _L(\mathrm{𝟎})\end{array}\right).`$ (29)
Next, we choose the $`\varphi _L(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ to be helicity eigenstates,

$`𝝈\widehat{𝐩}\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})=\pm \varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎}),`$ (30)
and concurrently note that222Derivation of Eq. (31): Complex conjugating Eq. (30) gives,
$$𝝈^{}\widehat{𝐩}\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}=\pm \left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}.$$
Substituting for $`𝝈^{}`$ from Eq. (14) then results in,
$$\mathrm{\Theta }𝝈\mathrm{\Theta }^1\widehat{𝐩}\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}=\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}.$$
But $`\mathrm{\Theta }^1=\mathrm{\Theta }`$. So,
$$\mathrm{\Theta }𝝈\mathrm{\Theta }\widehat{𝐩}\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}=\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}.$$
Or, equivalently,
$$\mathrm{\Theta }^1𝝈\mathrm{\Theta }\widehat{𝐩}\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}=\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}.$$
Finally, left multiplying both sides of the preceding equation by $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and moving $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ through $`\widehat{𝐩}`$, yields Eq. (31).

$`𝝈\widehat{𝐩}\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}=\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}.`$ (31)
We are thus led to four rest spinors. Two of which are self-conjugate,

$`\lambda _{}^S(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}+i\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\varphi _L^+(\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}\\ \varphi _L^+(\mathrm{𝟎})\end{array}\right),\lambda _{}^S(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}+i\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\varphi _L^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}\\ \varphi _L^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})\end{array}\right),`$ (36)
and the other two, which are anti-self conjugate,

$`\lambda _{}^A(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\varphi _L^+(\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}\\ \varphi _L^+(\mathrm{𝟎})\end{array}\right),\lambda _{}^A(\mathrm{𝟎})=\left(\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\varphi _L^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})\right]^{}\\ \varphi _L^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})\end{array}\right).`$ (41)
The boosted spinors are now obtained via the operation:

$`\lambda (𝐩)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}B_R& 0_2\\ 0_2& B_L\end{array}\right)\lambda (\mathrm{𝟎}),`$ (44)
where the $`B_R`$ and $`B_L`$ are given by Eqs. (7) and (8). In the boost, we replace $`𝝈𝐩`$ by $`𝝈\widehat{𝐩}|𝐩|`$, and then exploit Eq. (31). After simplification, Eq. (44) yields:

$`\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{E+m}}\right)\lambda _{}^S(\mathrm{𝟎}),`$ (45)
which, in the massless limit, identically vanishes, while

$`\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{E+m}}\right)\lambda _{}^S(\mathrm{𝟎}),`$ (46)
does not. We hasten to warn the reader that one should not be tempted to read the two different prefactors to $`\lambda ^S(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ in the above expressions as the boost operator that appears in Eq. (44). For one thing, there is only one (not two) boost operator(s) in the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ representation space. The simplification that appears here is due to a fine interplay between Eq. (31), the boost operator, and the structure of the $`\lambda ^S(\mathrm{𝟎})`$. Similarly, the anti-self conjugate set of the boosted spinors reads:

$`\lambda _{}^A(𝐩)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{E+m}}\right)\lambda _{}^A(\mathrm{𝟎}),`$ (47)
$`\lambda _{}^A(𝐩)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{E+m}}\right)\lambda _{}^A(\mathrm{𝟎}).`$ (48)
In the massless limit, the first of these spinors identically vanishes, while the second does not. Representing the unit vector along $`𝐩`$, as,

$`\widehat{𝐩}=(\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ),\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ),\mathrm{cos}(\theta )),`$ (49)
the $`\varphi _L^\pm (\mathrm{𝟎})`$ take the explicit form:

$`\varphi _L^+(\mathrm{𝟎})=\sqrt{m}e^{i\vartheta _1}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi /2}\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi /2}\end{array}\right),`$ (52)
$`\varphi _L^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})=\sqrt{m}e^{i\vartheta _2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi /2}\\ \mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi /2}\end{array}\right).`$ (55)
On setting $`\vartheta _1`$ and $`\vartheta _2`$ to be zero — a fact that we explicitly note — we find the following bi-orthonormality relations for the self-conjugate Majorana spinors,

$`\overline{\lambda }_{}^S(𝐩)\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)=0,\overline{\lambda }_{}^S(𝐩)\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)=+2im,`$ (56)
$`\overline{\lambda }_{}^S(𝐩)\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)=2im,\overline{\lambda }_{}^S(𝐩)\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)=0.`$ (57)
Their counterpart for antiself-conjugate Majorana spinors reads,

$`\overline{\lambda }_{}^A(𝐩)\lambda _{}^A(𝐩)=0,\overline{\lambda }_{}^A(𝐩)\lambda _{}^A(𝐩)=2im,`$ (58)
$`\overline{\lambda }_{}^A(𝐩)\lambda _{}^A(𝐩)=+2im,\overline{\lambda }_{}^A(𝐩)\lambda _{}^A(𝐩)=0,`$ (59)
while all combinations of the type $`\overline{\lambda }^A(𝐩)\lambda ^S(𝐩)`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }^S(𝐩)\lambda ^A(𝐩)`$ identically vanish.

We take note that the bi-orthogonal norms of the Majorana spinors are intrinsically imaginary. The associated completeness relation is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2im}}\left(\left[\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)\overline{\lambda }_{}^S(𝐩)\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)\overline{\lambda }_{}^S(p)\right]\left[\lambda _{}^A(𝐩)\overline{\lambda }_{}^A(𝐩)\lambda _{}^A(𝐩)\overline{\lambda }_{}^A(𝐩)\right]\right)=1_4.`$
### 3.2 The $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ and $`\rho (𝐩)`$ spinors

Now, $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ is a four dimensional representation space. Therefore, there cannot be more than four independent spinors. Consistent with this observation, we find that the $`\rho (𝐩)`$ spinors are related to the $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ spinors via the following identities:

$`\rho _{}^S(𝐩)=i\lambda _{}^A(𝐩),\rho _{}^S(𝐩)=+i\lambda _{}^A(𝐩),`$ (61)
$`\rho _{}^A(𝐩)=+i\lambda _{}^S(𝐩),\rho _{}^A(𝐩)=i\lambda _{}^S(𝐩).`$ (62)
Using these identities, one may immediately obtain the bi-orthonormality and completeness relations for the $`\rho (𝐩)`$ spinors.

In the massless limit, $`\rho _{}^S(𝐩)`$ and $`\rho _{}^A(𝐩)`$ identically vanish.

A particularly simple orthonormality, as opposed to bi-orthonormality, relation exists between the $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ and $`\rho (𝐩)`$ spinors:

$`\overline{\lambda }_{}^S(𝐩)\rho _{}^A(𝐩)=2m=\overline{\lambda }_{}^A(𝐩)\rho _{}^S(𝐩)`$ (63)
$`\overline{\lambda }_{}^S(𝐩)\rho _{}^A(𝐩)=+2m=\overline{\lambda }_{}^A(𝐩)\rho _{}^S(𝐩).`$ (64)
An associated completeness relation also exists, and it reads:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left(\left[\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)\overline{\rho }_{}^A(𝐩)+\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)\overline{\rho }_{}^A(p)\right]+\left[\lambda _{}^A(𝐩)\overline{\rho }_{}^S(𝐩)+\lambda _{}^A(𝐩)\overline{\rho }_{}^S(𝐩)\right]\right)=1_4.`$
(65)
The results of this section are in spirit of Refs. .

### 3.3 Reflection-less Majorana spinors

In the massless limit, the Majorana spinors are reflection-less. This can be proved by taking note of the fact that, e.g., under the Parity operation $`\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)`$ transforms to $`i\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)`$. The latter, in the indicated limit, identically vanishes, as already explained in subsection (3.1). As a consequence, for instance, in the ordinary beta decay

$`np+e^{}+\overline{\nu }_e,`$ (66)
if one identifies $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ with $`\rho _{}^A(𝐩)`$ \[which equals $`i\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)`$, according to the first equation in Eq. (62)\], then its Parity transform $`\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)`$, identically vanishes in the massless limit. This picture is in accord with the empirical observation that the origin of parity violation in ordinary beta decay lies in the absence of its mirror image. For massive neutrinos, this would be no longer true.

Note a rather subtle aspect of the Majorana framework: Parity violation occurs despite the apparent parity covariance of the Majorana construct.333 This circumstance is akin to the violation of special relativity in Rarita-Schwinger framework despite its fully Poincaré covariant structure (see, Refs. ). No such kinematic conclusion can be drawn if neutrinos are described by Dirac spinors without explicitly invoking parity violation via the standard projectors $`(1/2)(1\pm \gamma _5)`$.

### 3.4 Wave equations for Majorana spinors

To analyze the time-evolution of the $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ and $`\rho (𝐩)`$ Majorana spinors one needs relevant equations of motion. After taking into account the observations of Ref. , these can be obtained following a text-book procedure similar to that of Ryder . The result is:

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_2& 𝒪_\lambda ^+\\ 𝒪_\lambda ^{}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_2\end{array}\right)\lambda (𝐩)=0,\left(\begin{array}{cc}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_2& 𝒪_\rho ^+\\ 𝒪_\rho ^{}& +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_2\end{array}\right)\rho (𝐩)=0.`$ (71)
In the above equations we have used the following abbreviations:

$`𝒪_\lambda ^\pm `$ $``$ $`\zeta _\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left(\pm 𝝈𝝋/2\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\eta \mathrm{exp}\left(\pm 𝝈𝝋/2\right),`$ (72)
$`𝒪_\rho ^\pm `$ $``$ $`\zeta _\rho \mathrm{exp}\left(\pm 𝝈𝝋/2\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\eta \mathrm{exp}\left(\pm 𝝈𝝋/2\right),`$ (73)
where

$`\eta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\varphi }& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi }\end{array}\right).`$ (76)
These wave equations cannot be reduced to the Dirac equation.

## 4 Indiscernibility between negative and positive energy solution for Majorana particles

We note that for self-, as well antiself- conjugate Majorana spinors (i.e., irrespective of whether $`\zeta _\lambda =+i`$, or $`\zeta _\lambda =i`$)

$`\text{Det}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_2& 𝒪_\lambda ^+\\ 𝒪_\lambda ^{}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_2\end{array}\right)=\left(3m^2+4Em𝐩^2+E^2\right)^2\left(m^2+𝐩^2E^2\right)^2.`$ (79)
That the determinant must vanish for non-trivial solutions, $`\lambda (𝐩)`$, translates into, $`\left(m^2+𝐩^2E^2\right)=0`$. The $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ spinors are thus consistent with the causal dispersion relation. To check the hypothesis if the sign of $`\zeta _\lambda `$ can determine the sign of energy associated with the $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ spinors, it suffices to look at the rest spinors. The wave equation for the latter, irrespective of the helicity, or the sign of $`\zeta _\lambda `$, then reduces to the conditions of the type444Equation below is written for $`\lambda _{}^S(\mathrm{𝟎})`$.

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}ie^{i\varphi /2}\left(m^2E^2\right)\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\\ ie^{i\varphi /2}\left(m^2E^2\right)\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\\ e^{i\varphi /2}\left(m^2E^2\right)\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\\ e^{i\varphi /2}\left(m^2E^2\right)\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right).`$ (88)
Clearly, this condition cannot determine the sign of energy associated with the $`\lambda _{}^S(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ to be either plus, or minus. The same remains true for the remaining $`\lambda (\mathrm{𝟎})`$ spinors, and results readily extend to all $`\lambda (𝐩)`$.

The above discussion is equally valid for the $`\rho (𝐩)`$ spinors

## 5 Insensitivity of Majorana spinors to the direction of time

The plane waves for the $`\lambda (𝐱,t)`$ and $`\rho (𝐱,t)`$ are, $`\mathrm{exp}(iϵpx)\lambda (𝐩)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(iϵpx)\rho (𝐩)`$, where $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ (depending upon whether the propagation is forward in time, or backward in time). To determine $`ϵ`$, it suffices to study the wave equations in the rest frame of the particles. In that frame, the $`\lambda (𝐱,t)`$ satisfies the following (simplified)differential equation:555To obtain the simplified equation below we first multiplied the momentum-space wave equation by $`2m(E+m)`$. Then, we exploited the fact that in configuration space, $`𝐩=\frac{1}{i}\mathbf{}`$. When it acts upon $`\lambda (\mathrm{𝟎})`$ the resulting eigenvalue vanishes (so we dropped this term), and that $`E=i\frac{}{t}`$.

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}𝒪_a& 0& 0& 𝒪_b\\ 0& 𝒪_a& 𝒪_c& 0\\ 0& 𝒪_b& 𝒪_a& 0\\ 𝒪_c& 0& 0& 𝒪_a\end{array}\right)\lambda (\mathrm{𝟎})e^{iϵmt}=0`$ (93)
where

$`𝒪_a2m\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+m\right),`$ (94)
$`𝒪_b\zeta _\lambda e^{i\varphi }\left(m^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}+2im{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\right),`$ (95)
$`𝒪_c\zeta _\lambda e^{i\varphi }\left(m^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}+2im{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\right).`$ (96)
This equation does not fix the sign of $`ϵ`$. It only determines $`ϵ^2`$ to be unity. That is, Majorana spinors are insensitive to the forward and backward directions in time so important in the Feynman-Stückelberg interpretation of particles and antiparticles. Same result, and similar analysis, holds true for the $`\rho `$ spinors. The conventional distinction between particles and antiparticles disappears. However, a distinction does reside in the behavior of these spinors as regards the high-energy/massless limit and the associated helicity. In that limit, as is apparent from Eqs. (45) and (46), only the negative helicity $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ survive. Similarly, Eqs. (47) and (48) show that in the same limit only the positive helicity $`\rho (𝐩)`$ survive. This circumstance suggests that we identify the $`\lambda (𝐩)`$ as the particle spinors; and call the $`\rho (𝐩)`$ spinors antiparticle spinors, in accord with the common terminology prevalent in neutrino physics. However, this identification is very different in spirit from the original notion of particles and antiparticles. As such, it appears advised to introduce a new term that specifies these particles and antiparticles as Majorana particles/antiparticles.

As regards their properties under the charge and charge conjugation operators, there are thus two type of particles in Nature. The $`e^\pm `$, $`\mu ^\pm `$, $`\tau ^\pm `$, and the known quarks, are all of the first — Dirac — type. They are eigenstates of the charge operator. The Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et al.  experiment addresses itself to $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$; and finds them to be of Majorana type. This second type of particles are eigenstates of the charge conjugation operator. So beyond pinning down the masses of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, discovering lepton number violation, the Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et al. experiment for the first time takes us into a realm of spacetime structure which so far had remained only in the sphere of theoretical constructs. That newly unearthed structure, as we are making the case here, must be treated in its own right, and not as an afterthought to the celebrated Dirac construct.

## 6 Metamorphosis of Majorana $`\overline{𝝂}`$ to $`𝝂`$: Propagator for the Majorana field

The completeness relation (3.1) suggests that we define the Majorana field operator as:

$`\mu (x)={\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{2p_0}\underset{h}{}\left(\lambda _h^S(𝐩)a_h(𝐩)e^{ipx}+\lambda _h^A(𝐩)a_h^{}(𝐩)e^{ipx}\right)}.`$ (97)
Parenthetically, we take note of the fact that, using Eqs. (61), it may be re-written entirely in terms of the self-conjugate $`\lambda ^S(𝐩)`$ and $`\rho ^S(𝐩)`$ spinors. Any relative signs that different helicity Majorana spinors may carry in the indicated sum are implicitly assumed to be absorbed in the annihilation, $`a_h(𝐩)`$, and creation, $`a_h^{}(𝐩)`$, operators. The latter are assumed to satisfy the bi-orthogonality respecting fermionic anticommutators,

$`\{a_h(𝐩),a_h^{}^{}(𝐩^{})\}=(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}p_0\delta ^3(𝐩𝐩^{})\delta _{h,h^{}}.`$ (98)
By postulating this field-theoretic structure we hope to avoid negative norm states, while preserving the essential bi-orthonormality of the underlying $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ Majorana representation space. In equation (98), if, $`h=`$, then $`h`$ represents $``$, and if, $`h=`$, then $`h`$ represents $``$. With these definitions in mind, the configuration-space Feynman-Dyson (FD) propagator is obtained as

$`x|S_{FD}|y=\text{vac}|T\left[\mu (x)\overline{\mu }(y)\right]|\text{vac},`$ (99)
in the standard contextual meaning of the used symbols. A straightforward calculation yields:

$`x|S_{FD}|y=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p_0}}[\lambda _h^S(𝐩)\overline{\lambda }_{\{h\}}^S(𝐩)e^{ip(xy)}\theta (x^0y^0)`$ (100)
$`\lambda _h^A(𝐩)\overline{\lambda }_{\{h\}}^A(𝐩)e^{ip(xy)}\theta (y^0x^0)].`$
As a consequence, the momentum-space propagator is obtained to be,

$`p^{}|S_{FD}|p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4x}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^4y}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ipx}e^{ip^{}y}x|S_F|y}`$ (101)
$`=`$ $`i\delta ^4(p^{}p){\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _h^S(𝐩)\overline{\lambda }_{\{h\}}^S(𝐩)}{p_0E(𝐩)+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _h^A(𝐩)\overline{\lambda }_{\{h\}}^A(𝐩)}{p_0+E(𝐩)iϵ}}\right),`$
where $`E(𝐩)=+\sqrt{m^2+𝐩^2}`$. As the above propagator explicitly exhibits, an exchanged Majorana particle is emitted with one helicity, at one vertex, and is absorbed with opposite helicity, at the second vertex. This is the spacetime picture of $`\overline{\nu }\nu `$ metamorphosis for Majorana particles. Using Eqs. (61) and (62), the preceding statement can be made more transparent. Exploiting the indicated identities, one may re-express $`p^{}|S_{FD}|p`$ by replacing the $`\overline{\lambda }_{\{h\}}^S(𝐩)`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_{\{h\}}^A(𝐩)`$ in terms of $`\overline{\rho }_{\{h\}}^A(𝐩)`$ and $`\overline{\rho }_{\{h\}}^S(𝐩)`$, respectively,

$`p^{}|S_{FD}|p=\delta ^4(p^{}p)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)\overline{\rho }_{}^A(𝐩)+\lambda _{}^S(𝐩)\overline{\rho }_{}^A(𝐩)}{p_0E(𝐩)+iϵ}}`$ (102)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{}^A(𝐩)\overline{\rho }_{}^S(𝐩)\lambda _{}^A(𝐩)\overline{\rho }_{}^S(𝐩)}{p_0+E(𝐩)iϵ}}),`$
In the massless limit, depending on $`h`$, either $`\lambda _h(𝐩)`$, or $`\rho _h(𝐩)`$, identically vanishes. Thus, each of the $`\lambda _h(𝐩)\overline{\rho }_h(𝐩)`$ terms contained in $`p^{}|S_{FD}|p`$ also vanishes. In the massless limit, this results in a non-existent (i.e., identically vanishing) propagator. This implication is in accord with the conventional framework which also predicts that the amplitude for $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ vanishes for massless neutrinos. The new propagator, in addition, manifestly shows how the $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ metamorphosis arises from the underlying spacetime structure.

For comparison, the standard Dirac propagator can be cast  into a form similar to (101):

$`p^{}|S_{FD}|p=i\delta ^4(p^{}p){\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_h(𝐩)\overline{u}_h(𝐩)}{p_0E(𝐩)+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_h(𝐩)\overline{v}_h(𝐩)}{p_0+E(𝐩)iϵ}}\right).`$ (103)
## 7 Concluding remarks

Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et al. experiment provides first evidence towards the Majorana nature of massive $`\nu _e`$, and the associated $`\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e`$ metamorphosis. It is an encouraging development towards discovering new spacetime structures beyond the time-honored spacetime constructs. Of these supersymmetry is the most natural and sought after.666 Besides predictions of supersymmetry, discovery of Wigner-type particles , where a massive spin one particle and its antiparticle carry opposite relative intrinsic parities, would be a significant benchmark for new type of matter fields in nature. Equally important would be confirmation of the new spacetime structures associated with massive gravitino  and the massive gauge fields .

Here, we defined Majorana spinors as self/antiself conjugate eigenspinors of the charge conjugation operator. These spinors have null norm; and their bi-orthonormal norm is necessarily imaginary. We obtained the associated completeness relation, and the relevant wave equation. We considered the notion of particle and antiparticle for Majorana particles, and examined the latter aspect in the context of Dirac and Feynman-Stückelberg frameworks. Finally, we presented the Majorana field as a quantum object, and obtained the Feynman-Dyson propagator. The latter explicitly exhibits the $`\overline{\nu }\nu `$ metamorphosis for Majorana particles, whether they be neutrinos, or massive gaugions.

Figure 1 presents the $`\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e`$ metamorphosis as it emerges from the formalism presented in this Letter. In presenting this spacetime picture we do not necessarily assume the neutrinos to be left-handed objects; thus leaving room for physics beyond the standard model. Generalization of this spacetime picture to supersymmetric frameworks, and left-right symmetric theories, is implicit in the presented formalism.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT, Mexico) under grant number 32067-E, and by an affiliate agreement with the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Thanks are extended to T. Goldman, Y. Liu, and U. Sarkar for useful remarks on an earlier draft of this work.


text:
# On the atomic polarization of the ground level of Na I

## 1 Introduction

The observation and theoretical modeling of weak polarization signatures in spectral lines are opening a new window on the investigation of the weak magnetism of the solar atmosphere (see, e.g., the recent reviews by Stenflo 2001; Trujillo Bueno 2001; Trujillo Bueno & Manso Sainz 2002). To this aim, it is important to investigate carefully within the framework of the quantum theory of polarization (e.g., Landi Degl’Innocenti 1983) the observable effects of the atomic polarization of the energy levels involved in the line transitions of interest, including their subtle modification by the presence of magnetic fields.

In this respect, in a recent letter (Trujillo Bueno et al. 2002b, hereafter Paper I), we reported on an interesting property of the polarizability of the levels of the D1 line of Na I: in spite of the fact that those levels can both be aligned,111 Atomic alignment is a condition of population imbalances between the Zeeman substates of a level, such that the total populations of substates with different values of $`|M|`$ are different. One speaks instead of atomic orientation when, for a given value of $`|M|`$, the substates labeled by $`M`$ and $`M`$ have different populations. See, e.g., Landi Degl’Innocenti (1984), or the recent review by Trujillo Bueno (2001). when proper account is taken of the additional quantum numbers introduced by the hyperfine structure (HFS) of Na I, the alignment is drastically reduced for fields larger than $`10\mathrm{G}`$, and practically vanishes for $`B100\mathrm{G}`$, irrespective of the relative directions of the magnetic field and of the incident radiation. Accordingly, any contribution to the linear polarization in the core of D1 that arises from atomic alignment is suppressed for magnetic fields sensibly larger than $`10\mathrm{G}`$, so the only expected linear-polarization signal for such field strengths must be due to the transverse Zeeman effect (see Fig. 2 of Paper I; the reader should note how the Stokes-$`Q`$ signature of single-scattering events taking place in the presence of a vertical magnetic field changes from antisymmetric for $`B<10\mathrm{G}`$ to symmetric for $`B50\mathrm{G}`$).

In Paper I, we were concerned mainly with a detailed calculation of the polarizability of the Na I levels, and with the consequences it bears for our understanding of the magnetic-field distribution and topology in the solar atmosphere. In the present work, we focus instead on the investigation of the atomic physics that is behind the polarization properties of those lines.

To this end, we follow our approach of Paper I, and apply the quantum theory of line formation in the limit of complete frequency redistribution (CRD) and in the collisionless regime, as developed by Landi Degl’Innocenti (1983, 1984, 1985), to investigate the statistical equilibrium (SE) of an ensemble of Na I atoms illuminated by anisotropic radiation (see also Landolfi & Landi Degl’Innocenti 1985). The hypothesis of CRD corresponds to the requirement that the incident radiation field coming from the underlying photosphere, and illuminating the scattering atoms, be spectrally flat over an interval much larger than the energy separation between atomic levels whose wavefunctions sensibly overlap (leading to the phenomenon of quantum interferences). In the case of the D1 and D2 lines forming in the solar atmosphere, this is a good assumption only if we neglect the quantum interferences between the upper levels of D1 and D2. More specifically, these are interferences between the levels P1/2 and P3/2 pertaining to the same atomic term. Whereas the role of these so-called super-interferences is important for a correct interpretation of line polarization in the wings of D1 and D2, the line-core polarization of those lines, which was the subject of the investigation of Paper I, is expected to be largely unaffected by them.

In § 2, we summarize our qualitative description of the polarization properties of the levels of Na I (see Paper I), and introduce some useful new concepts and terminology. In § 3, we put those concepts on a more quantitative basis, and provide an algebraic proof that the alignment of the levels of D1 is suppressed when a magnetic regime of complete decoupling of the angular momenta $`𝐉`$ and $`𝐈`$ is reached in the excited state P3/2. Finally, in the conclusive section, we provide further arguments to illuminate this interesting phenomenon.

## 2 Polarizability of the Na I levels: qualitative description

The stable isotope of sodium has a nuclear spin $`I=3/2`$, therefore we must take into account the role of HFS in the solution of the SE problem of Na I. HFS was already indicated by Landi Degl’Innocenti (1998) as the only possible mechanism allowing for the existence of atomic alignment in the levels of the D1 line. In fact, levels with total angular momentum $`J=1/2`$ cannot be aligned, whereas both hyperfine levels $`F=1`$ and $`F=2`$, into which a level $`J=1/2`$ splits in the coupling process with a nuclear spin $`I=3/2`$, can be aligned.

For this reason, it is convenient to introduce the concept of intrinsic polarizability (IP), for those levels whose values of $`J`$ allow the presence of atomic alignment, and of extrinsic polarizability (EP), for those levels that can carry atomic alignment only through the “internal” $`F`$ quantum numbers, because of the presence of HFS. (What distinguishes the roles of $`J`$ and $`F`$ as quantum numbers, in this context, is the assumption we made at the beginning, that quantum interferences can exist only between different $`F`$ levels, but not between different $`J`$ levels.) In this sense, we can speak of EP only in the cases of $`J=0`$ and $`J=1/2`$. Therefore, both levels of the D1 line of Na I are EP, whereas the upper level of D2 is IP, because $`J=3/2`$.

This nomenclature has a direct link with the physics of the interaction processes of the atom with the incident radiation field. We speak of IP of an atomic level when this level has the possibility of absorbing the multipole order $`K=2`$ of the polarization tensor of the incident radiation field (Landi Degl’Innocenti 1983; see also Trujillo Bueno 2001), expressed in the irreducible spherical tensor representation, $`J_Q^K`$ ($`Q=K,\mathrm{},K`$). In particular, if we assume that the incident radiation field is unpolarized, and has cylindrical symmetry around the local solar vertical through the scattering centre, only the multipole orders $`K=0`$ (intensity) and $`K=2`$ (anisotropy) are present in the radiation-field tensor. In this case, it is found that an EP level can only absorb the multipole order $`K=0`$, so there is no atomic polarization directly induced by the incident radiation field. Any atomic alignment ($`K=2`$, in the irreducible spherical representation of the density matrix) that such level can show—when proper account is taken of its sub-structure associated with HFS—can only come from the transfer of atomic alignment from other atomic levels that are instead IP. In the case of Na I, for instance, if the two levels of D1 were isolated (i.e., not radiatively connected with other levels in the atom), no atomic alignment could be created, even accounting for the presence of HFS. Because of the presence of the upper level P3/2 of D2 in the SE problem of Na I, instead, transfer of atomic polarization from such IP level to the lower level of D1 can occur, via the radiative de-excitation associated with the formation of the D2 line. Once EP has been created in the level S1/2, this can be transferred via absorption processes to the upper level of D1 as well. In our case, the two levels of D1 manifest their EP because of the alignment induced onto the corresponding HFS levels, with $`F=1,2`$ (see Fig. 1 of Paper I; also Fig. 1 introduced below).

On the other hand, the transfer of atomic alignment from an IP level to an EP level can be inhibited under particular conditions. For the three-level model of the Na I atom considered here, and for the prescribed radiation field, we determined that the atomic polarization in the two EP levels vanishes when the IP level P3/2 reaches the regime of the complete Paschen-Back effect, in which the Zeeman splittings of the $`F`$ levels due to the local magnetic field become much larger than the HFS separations between those levels. In this regime, the HFS coupling of the electronic and nuclear angular momenta, $`𝐉`$ and $`𝐈`$, of the Na I atoms in the excited state P3/2, is “relaxed” by the presence of the strong magnetic field, through the electronic Zeeman effect.222The nuclear Zeeman effect is completely negligible in our picture, up to field strengths of the order of $`10^5\mathrm{G}`$. \[To understand the meaning of such decoupling process, we must observe that, in the regime of complete Paschen-Back effect, and assuming the direction of $`𝐁`$ as the quantization axis, $`J_z`$ becomes a conserved quantity (rigorously, an element of the complete set of commuting observables of the atomic system), along with $`F_z`$. Because $`I_z=F_zJ_z`$ must be conserved as well, both $`M_J`$ and $`M_I`$ become good quantum numbers, so the eigenvectors of the atomic system take the form $`|JM_J,IM_I`$.\]

The inhibition of the transfer of atomic alignment from an IP level to an EP level for increasing magnetic strengths is clearly illustrated by the results presented in Paper I. In Figure 1, we reproduce similar results. We calculated the atomic alignment of the levels of D1 and D2 for magnetic strengths between $`10^4\mathrm{G}`$ and $`10^3\mathrm{G}`$. A vertical field (i.e., aligned along the symmetry axis of the radiation cone from the photosphere illuminating the scattering atom) was chosen, in order to clarify that the obtained trend of the alignment against the magnetic field strength is not due to Hanle-effect depolarization. As we see, atomic alignment in the levels of D1 is drastically reduced for fields larger than $`10\mathrm{G}`$, and practically vanishes for fields of the order of $`100\mathrm{G}`$ or larger. In Figure 2, we show analogous results for the atomic orientation ($`K=1`$, in the irreducible spherical representation of the density matrix; see Note 1 for a description of atomic orientation), for magnetic strengths between $`10^3\mathrm{G}`$ and $`10^4\mathrm{G}`$. Also in this case, the orientation of the levels of the D1 line practically vanishes for $`B100\mathrm{G}`$. (We note that, for $`B>100\mathrm{G}`$, the level P3/2 approaches the regime of complete Paschen-Back effect. In fact, for $`B500\mathrm{G}`$, the typical Zeeman splitting is already 10 times larger than the typical HFS separation for that level.)

On the other hand, as suggested by the work of Lehmann (1969) concerning optical-pumping processes in cadmium, a sufficient condition for the vanishing of atomic alignment in the EP level is that the HFS frequency separation of the IP level be negligible with respect to the Einstein $`A`$-coefficient of the atomic transition. This condition is very general, as it holds regardless of the magnetic-field strength (in particular, it is valid also for zero magnetic fields). In the case of Na I, the HFS frequency separation of the IP level P3/2 is comparable with the Einstein $`A`$-coefficient of the D2 line.333Coincidentally, this implies that the regime of complete Paschen-Back effect in the upper level also corresponds to the saturation regime of the Hanle effect for that level. For this reason, transfer of atomic alignment from the IP upper level to the EP lower level is possible when $`B<100\mathrm{G}`$, since $`𝐉`$ and $`𝐈`$ are still significantly coupled in the IP level P3/2 (cf. also Paper I, end of §3).

These results suggest that the inhibition of the transfer of atomic alignment from an IP level to an EP level should be regarded as an aspect of the so-called principle of spectroscopic stability applied to the IP level: Whenever the hyperfine structure of the IP level becomes negligible, whether because a magnetic field is present which is strong enough to reach the complete Paschen-Back regime for that level, or because the HFS separation of that level is much smaller than its radiative width, the transfer of alignment from the IP level to the EP level is inhibited, so the EP level behaves as if the atomic HFS were not present at all. The reason for this is hidden in the complexity of the SE problem, and it is addressed in the following section.

## 3 Polarizability of the Na I levels: analytical description

We consider an IP level with total electronic angular momentum $`J`$. We assume that this level can only interact with EP levels in the atom. Beyond this restriction, the atomic system can be arbitrary, so the following formalism applies also for atoms other than Na I. If a nuclear spin is present, of angular momentum $`I`$, the density matrix for the IP level in the irreducible spherical tensor representation is (cf. Landi Degl’Innocenti 1984)

$${}_{}{}^{JI}\rho _{Q}^{K}(F,F^{})=\underset{M_FM_F^{}}{}(1)^{FM_F}\sqrt{2K+1}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}F& F^{}& K\\ M_F& M_F^{}& Q\end{array}\right){}_{}{}^{JI}\rho (FM_F,F^{}M_F^{}).$$
(1)
We write explicitly

$${}_{}{}^{JI}\rho (FM_F,F^{}M_F^{})=(JI)FM_F|\rho |(JI)F^{}M_F^{},$$
(2)
where

$$|(JI)FM_F=\underset{M_JM_I}{}C(JM_JIM_I;FM_F)|JM_J,IM_I.$$
(3)
In the previous equation, $`C(JM_JIM_I;FM_F)`$ are Clebsh-Gordan coefficients, which can be expressed in terms of $`3j`$ symbols as

$$C(JM_JIM_I;FM_F)=(1)^{JI+M_F}\sqrt{2F+1}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J& I& F\\ M_J& M_I& M_F\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
Substitution of eq. (3) into eq. (2), using eq. (4), gives

$`{}_{}{}^{JI}\rho (FM_F,F^{}M_F^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{M_FM_F^{}}\sqrt{(2F+1)(2F^{}+1)}`$ (5)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{M_JM_IM_J^{}M_I^{}}{}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J& I& F\\ M_J& M_I& M_F\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J& I& F^{}\\ M_J^{}& M_I^{}& M_F^{}\end{array}\right)JM_J,IM_I|\rho |JM_J^{},IM_I^{}.`$
We now make the assumption that the electronic spin and the nuclear spin are decoupled (or very weakly coupled) when the atom is in the IP level. As anticipated in the previous section, this can be the case if the HFS separation is much smaller than the natural width of that level, or, in the presence of a magnetic field, if the level is in the regime of complete Paschen-Back effect. In either case, the atomic density matrix for the IP level can be factorized as

$$JM_J,IM_I|\rho |JM_J^{},IM_I^{}=\rho (JM_J,JM_J^{})\rho (IM_I,IM_I^{}).$$
(6)
We introduce at this point the formalism of the irreducible spherical tensors for both $`\rho (JM_J,JM_J^{})`$ and $`\rho (IM_I,IM_I^{})`$,

$`\rho (JM_J,JM_J^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{K_JQ_J}{}}(1)^{JM_J}\sqrt{2K_J+1}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J& J& K_J\\ M_J& M_J^{}& Q_J\end{array}\right)\rho _{Q_J}^{K_J}(J),`$ (7a)
$`\rho (IM_I,IM_I^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{K_IQ_I}{}}(1)^{IM_I}\sqrt{2K_I+1}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}I& I& K_I\\ M_I& M_I^{}& Q_I\end{array}\right)\rho _{Q_I}^{K_I}(I).`$ (7b)
Substitution of eq. (6) into eq. (5), using eqs. (7a) and (7b), gives

$`{}_{}{}^{JI}\rho (FM_F,F^{}M_F^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{J+IM_F^{}}\sqrt{(2F+1)(2F^{}+1)}{\displaystyle \underset{K_JQ_J}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{K_IQ_I}{}}\sqrt{(2K_J+1)(2K_I+1)}\rho _{Q_J}^{K_J}(J)\rho _{Q_I}^{K_I}(I)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{M_JM_J^{}M_IM_I^{}}{}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J& I& F\\ M_J& M_I& M_F\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J& I& F^{}\\ M_J^{}& M_I^{}& M_F^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J& J& K_J\\ M_J& M_J^{}& Q_J\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}I& I& K_I\\ M_I& M_I^{}& Q_I\end{array}\right).`$
Finally, this equation must be substituted into eq. (1). We then obtain an expression which involves the contraction over all magnetic quantum numbers of a product of five $`3j`$ symbols. This contraction can be evaluated using, e.g., eq. (14), p. 456, of Varshalovich, Moskalev & Khersonskii (1988), yielding the expression

$`{}_{}{}^{JI}\rho _{Q}^{K}(F,F^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{KQ}\sqrt{(2K+1)(2F+1)(2F^{}+1)}{\displaystyle \underset{K_JK_I}{}}\sqrt{(2K_J+1)(2K_I+1)}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J& I& F\\ J& I& F^{}\\ K_J& K_I& K\end{array}\right\}`$ (8)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{Q_JQ_I}{}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}K& K_J& K_I\\ Q& Q_J& Q_I\end{array}\right)\rho _{Q_J}^{K_J}(J)\rho _{Q_I}^{K_I}(I).`$
As a particular case, if nuclear polarization is absent ($`K_I=Q_I=0`$), eq. (8) reduces to

$${}_{}{}^{JI}\rho _{Q}^{K}(F,F^{})=(1)^{J+I+F^{}+K}\rho _0^0(I)\sqrt{\frac{(2F+1)(2F^{}+1)}{2I+1}}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J& J& K\\ F& F^{}& I\end{array}\right\}\rho _Q^K(J).$$
(9)
In this case, the (electronic) atomic polarization of the $`J`$ level translates directly (i.e., with the same $`K`$ and $`Q`$) into the atomic polarization of the $`(F,F^{})`$ pair.

### 3.1 The effect of very weak $`J`$-$`I`$ coupling on the SE problem

As an application of the former development, we consider a two-level atom $`(J_u,J_l)`$ endowed with HFS. Neglecting stimulated emission for simplicity, the SE equations for the two levels read (Landi Degl’Innocenti 1983, 1984, 1985)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{}_{}{}^{J_uI}\rho _{Q_u}^{K_u}(F_u,F_u^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \underset{F_u^{\prime \prime }F_u^{\prime \prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{K_u^{}Q_u^{}}{}}{}_{}{}^{J_uI}\rho _{Q_u^{}}^{K_u^{}}(F_u^{\prime \prime },F_u^{\prime \prime \prime })N(F_uF_u^{}K_uQ_u;F_u^{\prime \prime }F_u^{\prime \prime \prime }K_u^{}Q_u^{})`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{F_u^{\prime \prime }F_u^{\prime \prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{K_u^{}Q_u^{}}{}}{}_{}{}^{J_uI}\rho _{Q_u^{}}^{K_u^{}}(F_u^{\prime \prime },F_u^{\prime \prime \prime })R_\mathrm{E}(F_uF_u^{}K_uQ_u;F_u^{\prime \prime }F_u^{\prime \prime \prime }K_u^{}Q_u^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{F_lF_l^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{K_lQ_l}{}}{}_{}{}^{J_lI}\rho _{Q_l}^{K_l}(F_l,F_l^{})T_\mathrm{A}(F_uF_u^{}K_uQ_u;F_lF_l^{}K_lQ_l)`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{}_{}{}^{J_lI}\rho _{Q_l}^{K_l}(F_l,F_l^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \underset{F_l^{\prime \prime }F_l^{\prime \prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{K_l^{}Q_l^{}}{}}{}_{}{}^{J_lI}\rho _{Q_l^{}}^{K_l^{}}(F_l^{\prime \prime },F_l^{\prime \prime \prime })N(F_lF_l^{}K_lQ_l;F_l^{\prime \prime }F_l^{\prime \prime \prime }K_l^{}Q_l^{})`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{F_l^{\prime \prime }F_l^{\prime \prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{K_l^{}Q_l^{}}{}}{}_{}{}^{J_lI}\rho _{Q_l^{}}^{K_l^{}}(F_l^{\prime \prime },F_l^{\prime \prime \prime })R_\mathrm{A}(F_lF_l^{}K_lQ_l;F_l^{\prime \prime }F_l^{\prime \prime \prime }K_l^{}Q_l^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{F_uF_u^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{K_uQ_u}{}}{}_{}{}^{J_uI}\rho _{Q_u}^{K_u}(F_u,F_u^{})T_\mathrm{E}(F_lF_l^{}K_lQ_l;F_uF_u^{}K_uQ_u).`$
To understand how atomic polarization is created in an EP level, assuming that the other level is IP, we must consider explicitly the expressions of the transfer rates for absorption and spontaneous emission processes, respectively,

$`T_\mathrm{A}(F_uF_u^{}K_uQ_u;F_lF_l^{}K_lQ_l)`$ $`=`$ $`(2J_l+1)B_{J_lJ_u}\sqrt{(2F_u+1)(2F_u^{}+1)}`$ (12)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{K_rQ_r}{}}\sqrt{3(2K_u+1)(2K_l+1)(2K_r+1)}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}K_u& K_l& K_r\\ Q_u& Q_l& Q_r\end{array}\right)J_{Q_r}^{K_r}(\omega _{ul})`$
$`\times (1)^{F_l^{}F_l+K_l+Q_l}\sqrt{(2F_l+1)(2F_l^{}+1)}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}F_u& F_l& 1\\ F_u^{}& F_l^{}& 1\\ K_u& K_l& K_r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_u& J_l& 1\\ F_l& F_u& I\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_u& J_l& 1\\ F_l^{}& F_u^{}& I\end{array}\right\}`$
and

$`T_\mathrm{E}(F_lF_l^{}K_lQ_l;F_uF_u^{}K_uQ_u)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{K_lK_u}\delta _{Q_lQ_u}(2J_u+1)A_{J_uJ_l}\sqrt{(2F_l+1)(2F_l^{}+1)}`$ (13)
$`\times (1)^{F_l^{}+F_u^{}+K_l+1}\sqrt{(2F_u+1)(2F_u^{}+1)}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}F_l& F_l^{}& K_l\\ F_u^{}& F_u& 1\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_u& J_l& 1\\ F_l& F_u& I\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_u& J_l& 1\\ F_l^{}& F_u^{}& I\end{array}\right\}.`$
The relaxation rate due to spontaneous emission, $`R_\mathrm{E}`$, is completely diagonal, so it can only relate each of the elements $`{}_{}{}^{JI}\rho _{Q}^{K}(F,F^{})`$ to itself. The relaxation rate due to absorption, $`R_\mathrm{A}`$, is a necessary ingredient of this demonstration. However, the only fact we will rely upon is the presence in that rate of the $`6j`$ symbol

$$\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_l& J_l& K_r\\ 1& 1& J_u\end{array}\right\}.$$
(14)
The rate $`N`$, in both eqs. (10) and (11), describes magnetic and HFS depolarization. The importance of this rate is that it accounts for the conversion mechanism of atomic alignment ($`K=2`$) into atomic orientation ($`K=1`$) discussed by Kemp, Macek & Nehring (1984). This is related to the fact that, in the algebraic expression of the rate (not given here), $`K_u`$ and $`K_u^{}`$ (cf. eq. ) or $`K_l`$ and $`K_l^{}`$ (cf. eq. ) can have different parity. If the radiation illuminating the atom is not circularly polarized (which is the case of the present discussion), this conversion mechanism is the only process capable of creating orientation in the atomic system (see, e.g., Landolfi & Landi Degl’Innocenti 1985). On the other hand, this mechanism is only effective when quantum interferences between different $`F`$ levels are important, which corresponds to a regime of magnetic fields such that level crossing between $`F`$ levels can occur. Therefore, for magnetic fields such that the upper level approaches the regime of complete Paschen-Back effect ($`B>100\mathrm{G}`$), the conversion of atomic alignment into atomic orientation is drastically reduced (see Fig. 2). For this reason, the role of the rate $`N`$ is not of immediate concern for the following arguments.

We first consider the case in which $`J_u`$ is the IP level. When this level is in a regime of very weak coupling between $`𝐉`$ and $`𝐈`$ (whether because the HFS separation is much smaller than $`A_{J_uJ_l}`$, or because a magnetic field is present that is strong enough to establish a regime of complete Paschen-Back effect in that level), the irreducible components of the density matrix for that level, $`{}_{}{}^{J_uI}\rho _{Q_u}^{K_u}(F_u,F_u^{})`$, can be written according to eq. (8). It is then found that the double summation over $`F_u`$ and $`F_u^{}`$ in eq. (11) can be performed algebraically. This corresponds to a contracted product of a $`9j`$ symbol with three $`6j`$ symbols, which is evaluated using, e.g., eq. (36), p. 471, of Varshalovich, Moskalev & Khersonskii (1988). The result is that the overall contribution of the transfer rate $`T_\mathrm{E}`$ to eq. (11) is proportional to the product (notice that $`K_l=K_u`$)

$$\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_l& I& F_l\\ J_l& I& F_l^{}\\ K_{J_u}& K_I& K_l\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_l& J_l& K_{J_u}\\ J_u& J_u& 1\end{array}\right\}.$$
(15)
Since $`J_l<1`$ for the EP level, the former product vanishes unless $`K_{J_u}<2`$. In particular, to create alignment in the EP lower level ($`K_l=2`$), either both electronic and nuclear orientations ($`K_{J_u}=1,K_I=1,3`$) or only nuclear alignment ($`K_{J_u}=0,K_I=2`$) must be present when the atom is in the excited state $`J_u`$.

To convince ourselves that these conditions cannot be met, let us assume that initially (i.e., before irradiation) atomic polarization is completely absent, in particular $`K_l=0`$. Since the level $`J_l`$ is EP, it is only sensitive (through the relaxation rate $`R_\mathrm{A}`$; cf. the $`6j`$ symbol ) to the intensity of the incident radiation field, so lower-level polarization ($`K_l>0`$) cannot be created directly by irradiation. Therefore, when irradiation begins, from eqs. (10) and (12) we see that the prescribed radiation field ($`K_r=0,2`$) can only induce atomic alignment in the upper level (besides populating it), because of the selection rule introduced by the $`3j`$ symbol in eq. (12). Since the atom was initially unpolarized, and by assumption the electronic and nuclear systems are decoupled in the excited state, $`J_u`$, the atomic alignment of the upper level can only be electronic. In fact, electric-dipole transitions cannot affect the nuclear system, so the nuclear Zeeman sublevels remain naturally populated in all cases of interest, even if strong $`J`$-$`I`$ coupling is present in the EP level. From this argument, we conclude that $`K_{J_u}=0,2`$, and $`K_I=0`$, as a result of the excitation process. As anticipated above, we can dismiss the alignment-to-orientation conversion mechanism as a possible source of upper-level orientation ($`K_{J_u}=1`$), because of the assumed regime of weak $`J`$-$`I`$ coupling. Also, upper-level alignment ($`K_{J_u}=2`$) cannot be transferred in the de-excitation process, because the product (15) vanishes. Therefore, nuclear polarization can never be created in this regime, and eq. (9) applies to the upper level. Under these conditions, the product (15) vanishes identically for $`K_l>0`$, so lower-level polarization cannot be created. This is in agreement with the results of Paper I, and of Figures 1 and 2 in this paper.

In summary, when the IP upper level is in a regime of very weak $`J`$-$`I`$ coupling, the creation of atomic alignment in the EP lower level ($`K_l=2`$) by transfer of atomic alignment from the IP upper level ($`K_{J_u}=2`$) is inhibited. In the case of Na I, this implies that the ground level $`S_{1/2}`$ cannot be aligned, and consequently also the upper level P1/2 of D1 must have zero alignment, as illustrated in Paper I and by Figure 1 in this paper. Lower-level orientation ($`K_l=1`$) can in principle be created directly by irradiation, if $`J_l=1/2`$, although it requires that the incident radiation be circularly polarized ($`K_r=1`$; cf. the $`6j`$ symbol ). In our case, because of the prescribed radiation field, lower-level orientation can only be created by the transfer of atomic orientation from the upper level ($`K_{J_u}=1`$), which is not inhibited in principle. On the other hand, the alignment-to-orientation conversion mechanism in the upper level becomes very inefficient for very weak $`J`$-$`I`$ coupling (see Fig. 2), so also upper-level orientation can only be created if the incident radiation field is circularly polarized.

We checked our conclusion that eq. (9) must apply to the IP upper level, in the regime of very weak $`J`$-$`I`$ coupling, against the numerical results of Paper I (cf. also Fig. 1 in this paper). In particular, we verified that the ratio of the quantities $`\sigma _0^2(3)`$ and $`\sigma _0^2(1)`$ for the upper level $`\text{P}_{3/2}`$ of Na I ($`I=3/2`$) in the strong-field limit ($`B=1000\mathrm{G}`$; see rightmost panels of Fig. 1 in Paper I; also Fig. 1 in this paper) is correctly reproduced by eq. (9). This equation also accounts for the curious vanishing of the quantity $`\sigma _0^2(2)`$ in the same limit, which is due to the fact that $`\rho _Q^2(2,2)`$ vanishes identically because of the (non-trivial) nullity of the $`6j`$ symbol in eq. (9).

Within the same approximation of the two-level atom $`(J_u,J_l)`$, we now assume that the decoupling of $`𝐉`$ and $`𝐈`$ is reached first in the lower level, while strong coupling is still present in the upper level. This time we assume that $`J_l`$ is the IP level, whereas $`J_u`$ is the EP level. Since we assumed that the lower level is in a regime of very weak coupling between $`𝐉`$ and $`𝐈`$, the irreducible components of the density matrix for that level, $`{}_{}{}^{J_lI}\rho _{Q_l}^{K_l}(F_l,F_l^{})`$, can be written according to eq. (8). It is then found that the double summation over $`F_l`$ and $`F_l^{}`$ in eq. (10) can be performed algebraically. This corresponds to a contracted product of two $`9j`$ symbols with two $`6j`$ symbols that is evaluated using, e.g., eq. (37), p. 471, of Varshalovich, Moskalev & Khersonskii (1988). The result is that the overall contribution of the transfer rate $`T_\mathrm{A}`$ to eq. (10) is proportional to the sum

$$\underset{k}{}(1)^k(2k+1)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}1& J_l& J_u\\ 1& J_l& J_u\\ K_r& K_{J_l}& k\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}I& F_u& J_u\\ I& F_u^{}& J_u\\ K_I& K_u& k\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K_r& K_{J_l}& k\\ K_I& K_u& K_l\end{array}\right\}.$$
(16)
Since $`J_u<1`$ for the EP level, this sum is limited to $`k=0,1`$. Again, we assume that the atomic polarization is absent before irradiation. Because the lower level is IP, lower-level alignment can be created when irradiation begins. However, since $`𝐉`$ and $`𝐈`$ are decoupled in the lower level, nuclear polarization remains zero ($`K_I=0`$), so all the alignment of the lower level must be electronic ($`K_{J_l}=2`$). Under these conditions, the sum (16) is restricted to $`k=0`$ only, because the first $`9j`$ symbol in the sum (16) vanishes for $`k=1`$ unless $`K_r+K_{J_l}`$ is an odd integer. Therefore atomic polarization in the upper level ($`K_u>0`$) can never be created, because of nullity of the second $`9j`$ symbol in the sum (16).

This shows, in particular, that the concept of EP is also valid for an upper level. In this case, the EP upper level is sensitive to the anisotropy of radiation ($`K_r=2`$) through the transfer rate $`T_\mathrm{A}`$, but nonetheless creation of alignment in the upper level through the absorption of that anisotropy is not possible when the IP lower level is in a regime of very weak $`J`$-$`I`$ coupling, because of the selection rules implied by the sum (16). Upper-level orientation ($`K_u=1`$) is not excluded in principle, if $`J_u=1/2`$, although it can only be created by transfer of atomic orientation from the lower level ($`K_{J_l}=1`$; see eq. ). However, when the lower level is in the regime of weak $`J`$-$`I`$ coupling, its orientation can only be due to the presence of circular polarization in the incident radiation field.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we demonstrated analytically that the presence of $`J`$-$`I`$ coupling in the IP level P3/2 of Na I is a necessary condition for the transfer of atomic alignment from that level to the EP ground level S1/2. We based our demonstration on the quantum theory of line formation, as developed by Landi Degl’Innocenti (1983, 1984, 1985), and assuming unpolarized incident radiation without spectral structure over the frequency intervals encompassing the HFS components of the atomic transitions of interest. Under these conditions, we relied on the argument that nuclear polarization cannot be created in an atom having only one IP level, if $`𝐉`$ and $`𝐈`$ are completely decoupled in that level, because the assumed incident radiation cannot induce directly nuclear transitions in the atom. It follows, from the results of §3, that atomic polarization cannot be created in the EP levels, when $`𝐉`$ and $`𝐈`$ are completely decoupled in the IP level.

We can further strengthen this argument by showing that the possibility of nuclear polarization actually resides in the presence of $`J`$-$`I`$ coupling in the IP level, whereas the presence of $`J`$-$`I`$ coupling in the EP level is not relevant. To this purpose, we repeated the calculation of Figure 1 after artificially zeroing the HFS separation in the level S1/2 of Na I. The results of this calculation are shown in Figure 3. Since $`𝐉`$ and $`𝐈`$ are completely decoupled in the “modified” level S1/2, the factorization (6) always applies to this level. On the other hand, any atomic alignment in this modified EP level requires the presence of nuclear polarization (cf. eq. ), since the electronic angular momentum of the level is $`J=1/2`$. Such nuclear polarization in the EP level S1/2 can only come from the atomic polarization of the IP level P3/2 (which is transferred to the EP level via radiative de-excitation), since it is not possible for the prescribed radiation field to directly create atomic polarization in the EP level. From the results of Figure 3, it is evident that the nuclear polarization in the modified level S1/2 vanishes when the regime of complete Paschen-Back effect is reached in the level P3/2, and eq. (6) also applies to that level. Comparing the results of Figures 1 and 3, we see that the suppression of $`J`$-$`I`$ coupling in the level S1/2 does not alter substantially the SE of the model atom. On the basis of these arguments, it seems safe to conclude that, even in the real case, nuclear polarization cannot be created in the atom, when the regime of complete Paschen-Back effect is reached in the (only) IP level.

Finally, we must emphasize that the presence of atomic alignment in the upper level of the D1 line induces a characteristic antisymmetric signature in the core of the Stokes-$`Q`$ profile resulting from the scattering of the anisotropic radiation illuminating the atom (see Fig. 2 of Paper I). This applies particularly to the optically thin “prominence case” considered in Paper I, where the scattering polarization is solely due to the emission events following atomic excitation by the anisotropic radiation. Currently we are investigating to what extent such antisymmetric signature can be modified through dichroism and radiative transfer effects, because of the presence of atomic alignment in the ground level of Na I (see, e.g., Trujillo Bueno & Landi Degl’Innocenti 1997; for the observable effects of dichroism and ground-level polarization on the He I 10830 Å multiplet, see Trujillo Bueno et al. 2002a).

In this respect, it is interesting to note that spectropolarimetric observations of the Na I D-lines obtained with THÉMIS444THÉMIS is a polarization-free solar telescope operated by CNRS-CNR in the Spanish Observatorio del Teide of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias. in quiet regions close to the solar limb show an antisymmetric signature in the fractional linear polarization $`Q/I`$ of the D1 line (see Fig. 1 of Trujillo Bueno & Manso Sainz 2001, which was adapted from Trujillo Bueno et al. 2001; see also Bommier & Molodij 2002). There seems to be an indication of a similar antisymmetric signature in the $`Q/I`$ atlas of Gandorfer (2000), which was obtained with the polarimeter ZIMPOL-II attached to the Gregory Coudé Telescope (GCT) of IRSOL at Locarno (Italy). On the contrary, analogous observations that Stenflo, Gandorfer & Keller (2000) had obtained previously with the polarimeter ZIMPOL-I attached to the McMath-Pierce facility of the National Solar Observatory show almost symmetric profiles with a central positive peak (see their Fig. 3).555These $`Q/I`$ observations of quiet solar regions were obtained in March 1998 (i.e., two years earlier than the above mentioned THÉMIS observations), when the Sun had not yet reached the maximum of its magnetic activity cycle.

As shown in Paper I, for single-scattering events, one should expect a symmetric shape of the Stokes-$`Q`$ signature in the core of the D1 line for magnetic fields $`B50\mathrm{G}`$ (see Fig. 2 of Paper I; note that such symmetric signature would change its sign if we considered, say, a horizontal canopy-like field instead of the vertical field assumed for the calculation of that figure). Nevertheless, we think that the above mentioned linear-polarization observations of the D1 line in very quiet regions of the solar disk, with THÉMIS and ZIMPOL, both have the same physical origin, i.e., atomic alignment in the levels of the Na I D1 line. Now that we understand how the ground level of Na I becomes polarized, and how its polarization is modified by the presence of weak magnetic fields, it will be worthwhile to investigate the sodium polarization problem by means of full radiative transfer simulations, taking also into account the quantum interferences among the two upper levels of the “enigmatic” Na I D-lines.

The authors are grateful to Philip Judge and Arturo López Ariste (both of HAO), and to Rafael Manso Sainz (Università di Firenze, Italy), for reading the manuscript, and for helpful comments and suggestions. They also thank Maurizio Landi Degl’Innocenti (Italian Council for National Research) for helpful discussions about the principle of spectroscopic stability during the early stages of this work. Thanks are also due to Jan Stenflo and co-workers for some useful discussions and clarifications concerning their spectropolarimetric observations. One of the authors (J.T.B.) acknowledges the support of the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología through project AYA2001-1649.