text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Instanton effects in string and M-theory are still relatively poorly understood. This is due to the lack of a conventional instanton calculus as we know it from (supersymmetric) field theory. A well-known open problem is to determine the instanton corrections to the hypermultiplet moduli space of type II superstrings or M-theory compactified on a Calabi-Yau (CY) threefold down to four or five dimensions. Supersymmetry requires the hypermultiplet moduli space $`_H`$ to be quaternion-Kähler . The four- (or five-) dimensional dilaton lives in a multiplet which can be dualized into the universal hypermultiplet. Hence, $`_H`$ receives quantum corrections, and the instantons correspond to Euclidean $`p`$-branes wrapping $`p+1`$ cycles of the CY .

The simplest setup for studying this problem, is to consider CY-compactifications of M-theory/type IIA superstrings with Hodge number $`h_{2,1}=0`$, or, for type IIB, $`h_{1,1}=0`$ 111By type IIB with $`h_{1,1}=0`$ we mean the mirror version of IIA with $`h_{1,2}=0`$. As explained in , this model has to be understood in terms of a Landau-Ginzburg description instead of a geometric compactification, since all CY manifolds are Kähler and have $`h_{1,1}>0`$., since this yields a low-energy effective action of $`N=2`$ supergravity coupled to a single hypermultiplet, such that the moduli space $`_H`$ has dimension four. From a type IIB perspective, this hypermultiplet arises from dualizing the *double-tensor* multiplet, whose bosonic components descend from the $`NS`$-$`NS`$ and $`R`$-$`R`$ two-forms and scalars in ten dimensions. This suggests that instanton calculations should be done on the double-tensor multiplet side. In the next section, we shall make another argument, which also applies to type IIA and M-theory, why the double-tensor multiplet is more appropriate for our purposes.

Yet, even in the case of a single hypermultiplet, it is difficult to compute instanton effects directly in string theory, without explicit knowledge of the instanton measure and the details of the wrapped branes along the CY cycles. Therefore, we will study this problem in a pure supergravity context, in which semi-classical instanton calculations can be done in the more conventional and “field-theoretic” way, following a similar strategy as in , or as in  for matter coupled to $`N=1`$ supergravity. Although being an approximation of the exact result, the hope is that the leading supergravity corrections, combined with the constraints from quaternion-Kähler geometry, and together with some knowledge from string theory on the isometries and singularity structure of $`_H`$, should fix the answer uniquely. Such a program has worked succesfully in the context of supersymmetric field theories in three dimensions with eight supercharges, where the hypermultiplet moduli space is hyperkähler . See  for related issues.

In this paper, we carry out the first steps of the supergravity instanton calculation. In section 2, we explain how the Euclidean theory is best understood in terms of the double-tensor multiplet, since then the action is manifestly positive definite, a requirement needed for a semiclassical approximation. In section 3, we derive a Bogomol’nyi bound and show that the instanton action is purely topological and given by a surface term. We then solve the BPS equation explicitly and compute the instanton action for the solutions. A similar approach was followed in  and . Compared to these papers, we propose a different Euclidean version of the universal hypermultiplet Lagrangian, so our results, where comparable, are somehow different. Moreover, we have found new instanton solutions, which will play an important role in understanding the quantum corrected hypermultiplet moduli space, as explained in the discussion at the end of the paper.

## 2 The double-tensor multiplet

As mentioned in the introduction, we are interested in the case of a single hypermultiplet coupled to $`N=2`$ supergravity. Classically, the four scalars of the universal hypermultiplet parametrize the homogeneous quaternion-Kähler manifold

$$_H=\frac{\mathrm{SU}(1,2)}{\mathrm{U}(2)}.$$
(2.1)
In a basis of real fields $`\{\varphi ,\chi ,\phi ,\sigma \}`$, the bosonic Lagrangian takes the form222Throughout this paper, we use form notation. Lagrangians are written as volume forms, and we use the notation $`|\omega _p|^2\omega _p\omega _p`$.

$$_{\mathrm{UH}}=\mathrm{d}^Dx\sqrt{g}R+\frac{1}{2}|\mathrm{d}\varphi |^2+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^\varphi \left(|\mathrm{d}\chi |^2+|\mathrm{d}\phi |^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }|\mathrm{d}\sigma +\chi \mathrm{d}\phi |^2,$$
(2.2)
with $`D=4`$ or $`5`$, depending on whether one is interested in type II or M-theory compactifications. The Lagrangian has a global SU(1,2) isometry group.

For our purposes, it will be convenient to discuss the dual version of $`_{\mathrm{UH}}`$ in terms of a double-tensor multiplet. Consider the first-order Lagrangian

$$_{\mathrm{DT}}=\mathrm{d}^Dx\sqrt{g}R+\frac{1}{2}|\mathrm{d}\varphi |^2+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^\varphi |\mathrm{d}\chi |^2+\frac{1}{2}M_{ab}H^aH^b\lambda _a\mathrm{d}H^a,$$
(2.3)
where the $`H^a`$ are a doublet of $`(D1)`$ forms, the $`\lambda _a`$ are two scalars, and

$$M=\mathrm{e}^\varphi \left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \chi \\ \chi & \mathrm{e}^\varphi +\chi ^2\end{array}\right).$$
(2.4)
The two scalars $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ parametrize the coset SL$`(2,)/\mathrm{O}(2)`$; in terms of the complex combination

$$\tau \chi +2\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}$$
(2.5)
the scalar part of $`_{\mathrm{DT}}`$ can be written as $`2|d\tau /\mathrm{Im}\tau |^2`$. The tensor terms, however, break the global SL$`(2,)`$ symmetry, leaving only shift symmetries of $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$. The shift in $`\chi `$ acts as

$$\tau \tau +b,\left(\begin{array}{c}H^1\\ H^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& b\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}H^1\\ H^2\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda ^1\\ \lambda ^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ b& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda ^1\\ \lambda ^2\end{array}\right),$$
(2.6)
whereas the shift in $`\varphi `$ acts as

$$\tau \mathrm{e}^\kappa \tau ,\left(\begin{array}{c}H^1\\ H^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{e}^\kappa H^1\\ \mathrm{e}^{2\kappa }H^2\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda ^1\\ \lambda ^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{e}^\kappa \lambda ^1\\ \mathrm{e}^{2\kappa }\lambda ^2\end{array}\right).$$
(2.7)
Note that the latter acts like an SL$`(2,)`$ transformation on $`\tau `$, but not on the $`H^a`$. The full type IIB theory compactified to four dimensions (classically) has SL$`(2,)`$ symmetry, due to the presence of additional tensor multiplets which transform nontrivially . Setting the scalars in these multiplets to nonvanishing constants results in a breakdown of the symmetry and leaves only the above transformations as residual invariances.

The equations of motion for the Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda _a`$ imply that the $`H^a`$ are closed. Writing $`H^a=\mathrm{d}B^a`$, one obtains the double-tensor multiplet. Integrating out the tensors instead gives the duality relation

$$\mathrm{d}\lambda _a=M_{ab}H^b.$$
(2.8)
Substituting this back yields the action for the universal hypermultiplet (2.2), upon identifying

$$\lambda _1=\phi ,\lambda _2=\sigma .$$
(2.9)
The dual formulation in terms of the double-tensor multiplet is not unique333This fact was already observed in . The reason is that one can choose inequivalent commuting $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ factors in the isometry group SU(1,2) with respect to which we dualize the universal hypermultiplet into the double-tensor multiplet. The choices above correspond to shifts in $`\phi `$ and $`\sigma `$, and a shift in $`\sigma `$ together with the transformation $`\chi \chi +ϵ`$, $`\sigma \sigma ϵ\phi `$.. We can start with (2.3), but write everywhere $`\phi `$ instead of $`\chi `$. Dualizing the tensors and identifying

$$\lambda _1=\chi ,\lambda _2=\sigma +\phi \chi $$
(2.10)
yields the same hypermultiplet action, as one can easily check.

In addition, the dualization procedure yields a boundary term which has to be added to the hypermultiplet action,

$$_{\mathrm{bnd}}=()^D\mathrm{d}\left[\lambda _a(M^1)^{ab}\mathrm{d}\lambda _b\right],$$
(2.11)
where we used that, when acting on a $`p`$-form in Minkowski space, $`=()^{(D1)p}`$. The different choices corresponding to (2.9) and (2.10) would now give different boundary terms. However, due to the isometries of the scalar manifold, they are related to each other by a field redefinition of the multipliers, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=\sigma +\phi \chi `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\chi `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\phi `$. Substituting (2.10) into (2.11), we get

$$_{\mathrm{bnd}}=()^D\mathrm{d}\left[\mathrm{e}^\varphi \chi \mathrm{d}\chi +\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }\sigma (\mathrm{d}\sigma +\chi \mathrm{d}\phi )\right].$$
(2.12)
The total action for the universal hypermultiplet is then

$$=_{\mathrm{UH}}+_{\mathrm{bnd}}.$$
(2.13)
The fermions have been suppressed here. For hypermultiplets, the supersymmetry transformation rules and the fermion-terms in the Lagrangian are known in general. For the double-tensor multiplet Lagrangian (2.3), the fermion-terms and susy rules can be determined by dualization. However, the most general self-interacting supersymmetric double-tensor multiplet Lagrangian has not been worked out. For a discussion on this in the context of rigid $`N=2`$ supersymmetry, we refer to .

### Euclidean formulation

To find instanton solutions, we need the Euclidean formulation of the universal hypermultiplet, or, equivalently, the Euclidean double-tensor multiplet Lagrangian. For the latter, apart from the usual complications with the Euclidean Einstein-Hilbert term, the Wick rotation acts in the standard way on the scalars and tensors. While the double-tensor multiplet Lagrangian formally stays the same,

$$_{\mathrm{DT}}^E=\mathrm{d}^Dx\sqrt{g}R+\frac{1}{2}|\mathrm{d}\varphi |^2+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^\varphi |\mathrm{d}\chi |^2+\frac{1}{2}M_{ab}H^aH^b,$$
(2.14)
the dual Euclidean universal hypermultiplet Lagrangian has two sign flips in the kinetic terms, due to the fact that we now have $`=()^{(D1)p}`$ when acting on a $`p`$-form in Euclidean space. The dualization procedure yields

$$_{\mathrm{UH}}^E=\mathrm{d}^Dx\sqrt{g}R+\frac{1}{2}|\mathrm{d}\varphi |^2+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^\varphi \left(|\mathrm{d}\chi |^2|\mathrm{d}\phi |^2\right)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }|\mathrm{d}\sigma +\chi \mathrm{d}\phi |^2,$$
(2.15)
together with the boundary term

$$_{\mathrm{bnd}}^E=()^D\mathrm{d}\left[\mathrm{e}^\varphi \chi \mathrm{d}\chi +\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }\sigma (\mathrm{d}\sigma +\chi \mathrm{d}\phi )\right].$$
(2.16)
By setting $`\phi =\chi =0`$, this boundary term is the same as for the $`D`$-instanton of type IIB in ten dimensions, obtained by dualizing the nine-form field strength into the $`R`$-$`R`$ scalar $`\sigma `$ . In four dimensions, we generate more terms due to the fact that we dualize two tensors. The sign flips of the kinetic terms of the two dual fields $`\lambda _a`$ are compatible with the prescription of Wick rotating pseudoscalars $`\lambda _a\mathrm{i}\lambda _a`$ . This is consistent with the duality relation (2.8).

A Euclidean version of the universal hypermultiplet action was also proposed in . Both their bulk Lagrangian and boundary term differ from ours. This has important consequences since the instanton action defines the weight in the path integral, and hence correlation functions and eventually the quantum-corrected hypermultiplet moduli space will be different.

Due to the sign changes in (2.15), the geometry of the scalar manifold is no longer SU(1,2)/U(2). Instead, it is given by the coset space

$$_H^E=\frac{\mathrm{SL}(3,)}{\mathrm{SL}(2,)\times \mathrm{SO}(1,1)},$$
(2.17)
which is *not* a quaternion-Kähler manifold. This is not in contradiction with supersymmetry, since only *Minkowskian* supersymmtry requires the target space to be quaternionic . A brief discussion on the geometry of the space (2.17) is given in appendix A.

In four dimensions, the same target space can be obtained by applying the c-map  to pure $`N=2`$ Euclidean supergravity . This turns the four bosonic degrees of freedom contained in the metric and graviphoton into the four scalars of the universal hypermultiplet and gives rise to the two sign flips. Moreover, the c-map maps Reissner-Nordstrom black hole solutions to D-instantons in the universal hypermultiplet, as was shown in .

We remark that it is the inverted signs in the Euclidean hypermultiplet action that make instanton solutions in flat space possible. Indeed, the trace of the Einstein equation sets the bulk Lagrangian to zero, hence nontrivial field configurations would require a nonvanishing curvature scalar if the sigma model part of the Lagrangian were positive definite. The negative signs in (2.15) allow for cancellations that are compatible with $`R=0`$. Note also that since on the hypermultiplet side the bulk action vanishes for any solution, the instanton action comes entirely from the boundary term discussed above. As already stated, the boundary term (2.16) is different from the one proposed in . For this reason, we get different results for the instanton action, and eventually for the instanton corrected hypermultiplet moduli space.

What is more important from the point of view of instanton calculations, is that the Euclidean Lagrangian (2.15) is no longer positive definite. In a path integral formulation, this makes the finite action configurations irrelevant, since the action is not bounded from below. Moreover, perturbative fluctuations around the instanton yield diverging non-Gaussian integrals, and the semiclassical approximation would break down. Similar considerations apply to the $`N=2`$ tensor multiplet, whose Euclidean action is not positive definite.

On the other hand, the Euclidean double-tensor multiplet Lagrangian is bounded from below, since the matrix $`M_{ab}`$ is positive definite. This leads to a well-defined semiclassical treatment, in which the instantons dominate the Euclidean path integral. For this reason, it is important to perform all calculations on the double-tensor multiplet side, and after having computed the instanton corrections there, we can dualize to the hypermultiplet formulation.

## 3 Instanton solutions

### 3.1 Asymptotics

Before finding the explicit instanton solutions, it will be useful to discuss the asymptotic behaviour of the fields that can lead to a finite action. Since the Euclidean action (2.14) consists of three positive definite terms, each term individually should integrate to a finite quantity. For simplicity we consider for the moment flat four-dimensional space. This determines the following behaviour at infinity:

$$\varphi \varphi _{\mathrm{}}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right),\chi \chi _{\mathrm{}}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right),H_{\mu \nu \rho }\frac{1}{r^3}.$$
(3.1)
The asymptotic value of $`\varphi `$ is identified with the four- (or five-) dimensional string coupling constant,

$$g_s\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}/2}.$$
(3.2)
The field strengths determine topological charges, defined by integrating the tensors $`H^a`$ over spheres at infinity,

$$_{S_{\mathrm{}}^{D1}}H^a=Q^{(a)},a=1,2.$$
(3.3)
In the dual (hypermultiplet) formulation, topological charges become Noether charges, corresponding to the Peccei-Quinn symmetries which act as constant shifts in the Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda _a`$. These charges descend from the brane charges in ten or eleven dimensions, and, in the appropriate units, are expected to be quantized.

The Euclidean space we shall concentrate on is actually flat space with a countable number of points, the locations of the instantons, excised444A possible contribution to the action from a Gibbons-Hawking boundary term will then be absent.,

$$={}_{}{}^{D}_i\{\stackrel{}{x}_i\},$$
(3.4)
such that non-trivial cycles with corresponding charges (3.3) exist. Stated differently, in the supergravity approximation it will typically not be possible to find regular solutions at the locations of the instantons, as we will explicitly see below. The only singularity which can still lead to a finite action is a logarithmic singularity in $`\varphi `$ at the origin,

$$\varphi c\mathrm{ln}r,$$
(3.5)
for some constant $`c`$. In our examples below, $`\chi `$ will tend to a constant $`\chi _0`$, and the tensors have the same $`1/r^3`$ behaviour such that the charges stay the same when the $`H^a`$ are integrated around an infinitesimal sphere around the origin.

### 3.2 The Bogomol’nyi bound

The Euclidean double-tensor multiplet action (2.14) is positive semi-definite (apart from the Einstein-Hilbert term). In fact, we can derive a lower bound by writing it as

$$_{\mathrm{DT}}^E=\mathrm{d}^Dx\sqrt{g}R+\frac{1}{2}\left(NH+OE\right)^t\left(NH+OE\right)+()^DH^tN^tOE.$$
(3.6)
Here we have defined

$$H=\left(\begin{array}{c}H^1\\ H^2\end{array}\right),E=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{d}\varphi \\ \mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}\mathrm{d}\chi \end{array}\right),N=\mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}\\ 1& \chi \end{array}\right),$$
(3.7)
such that $`N^tN=M`$, and $`O`$ is some orthogonal (scalar) field-dependent matrix, whose appearance is due to the fact that $`N`$ and the zweibein $`E`$ are determined only modulo local O(2) transformations.

Clearly, the action is bounded from below by

$$S^E_{}\left(\mathrm{d}^Dx\sqrt{g}R+()^DH^tN^tOE\right),$$
(3.8)
where the second term is topological, as it is independent of the spacetime metric. The bound is saturated by field configurations satisfying the BPS condition

$$H=N^1OE.$$
(3.9)
A similar Bogomol’nyi equation was derived for an $`N=1`$, $`D=4`$ tensor multiplet (containing one tensor and one scalar) in . Notice that, if the matrix $`O`$ is invariant, this equation transforms covariantly under (2.6) and (2.7).

Equation (3.9) is a proper BPS condition only if it implies the equations of motion, and this will fix the O(2) degeneracy. It is easily verified that field configurations satisfying (3.9) have vanishing energy-momentum tensors, hence they can exist only in Ricci-flat spaces. We therefore have to amend our BPS condition by the equation $`R_{\mu \nu }(g)=0`$.

For the field equations of the tensors, $`\mathrm{d}(MH)=0`$, to hold we must have

$$\mathrm{d}(N^tOE)=0.$$
(3.10)
This condition also guarantees that the topological term in (3.8) is closed and hence can locally be written as a total derivative. As a consequence, it does not contribute to the equations of motion such that also the field equations for the scalars are guaranteed to be satisfied. The latter follow from requiring that the solution of (3.9) correspond to closed forms for $`H^a`$,

$$\mathrm{d}(N^1OE)=0.$$
(3.11)
To determine the O(2) matrices that are compatible with (3.10), we parametrize $`O`$ by

$$O=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& ϵ\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}c& s\\ s& c\end{array}\right),$$
(3.12)
where the functions $`c(\varphi ,\chi )`$ and $`s(\varphi ,\chi )`$ are constrained by $`c^2+s^2=1`$, and $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ for the two components of O(2) with $`detO=ϵ`$. Equation (3.10) then gives rise to the differential equations

$`0`$ $`=_\varphi c\mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}_\chi s`$
$`0`$ $`=_\varphi s+\mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}_\chi c\frac{1}{2}(2ϵ1)s.`$ (3.13)
We derive the general solution in appendix B. The result is that there are *three* distinct BPS conditions corresponding to the O(2) matrices

$$O_{1,2}=\pm \left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& ϵ\end{array}\right),O_3=\pm \frac{1}{|\tau ^{}|}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Re}\tau ^{}& \mathrm{Im}\tau ^{}\\ \mathrm{Im}\tau ^{}& \mathrm{Re}\tau ^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(3.14)
invariant under both (2.6) and (2.7). Here $`\tau ^{}=\tau \chi _0`$ with $`\tau `$ as in (2.5), $`\chi _0`$ is a real integration constant, and the plus and minus signs refer to the instanton and anti-instanton, respectively.

For these three O(2) matrices the 1-form $`N^tOE`$ is exact,

$$N^tOE=\pm \mathrm{d}Y,$$
(3.15)
where modulo an additive constant

$$Y_{1,2}=\left(\begin{array}{c}ϵ\chi \\ \mathrm{e}^\varphi \frac{1}{2}ϵ\chi ^2\end{array}\right),Y_3=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4\mathrm{e}^\varphi +(\chi \chi _0)^2}\left(\begin{array}{c}2\\ \chi \chi _0\end{array}\right).$$
(3.16)
It follows that the action for BPS configurations is given by a topological boundary term

$$S^E|_{\mathrm{BPS}}=()^D_{}H^tN^tOE=_{}Y^tH.$$
(3.17)
The instanton action is therefore determined by the charges $`Q^{(a)}`$ and the values of the fields $`\chi `$ and $`\mathrm{e}^\varphi `$ at the boundaries.

It is easy to find the corresponding BPS equation in the dual hypermultiplet formulation. Using (2.8), (3.9), (3.15) and the fact that $`M=N^tN`$, we find for the Lagrange multipliers

$$\mathrm{d}\lambda =\pm \mathrm{d}Y,$$
(3.18)
such that, up to a constant, the solutions for the two extra scalars are completely determined in terms of $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$.

### 3.3 Solutions and instanton action

We can solve the BPS condition (3.9) for the three possible matrices $`O`$. For $`O_1=\pm 1`$, the condition reads

$$H=\pm \left(\begin{array}{c}\chi \stackrel{}{\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{e}^\varphi \\ \mathrm{de}^\varphi \end{array}\right).$$
(3.19)
Applying $`\mathrm{d}`$ to the equation and using the Bianchi identities of $`H`$, we find that $`\mathrm{e}^\varphi `$ must be harmonic, and from the first component it then follows that also $`\chi `$ satisfies the Laplace equation,

$$O_1:\mathrm{d}\mathrm{de}^\varphi =0,\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}\chi =0.$$
(3.20)
As mentioned above, scalars satisfying these conditions will also solve their field equations.

In the following, we consider for simplicity spherically symmetric configurations (single instantons) in flat space only. The dilaton equation of motion is then solved by

$$\mathrm{e}^\varphi =\mathrm{e}^\varphi _{\mathrm{}}+\frac{|Q^{(2)}|}{\mathrm{\Omega }_Dr^{D2}}.$$
(3.21)
Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=(D2)\mathrm{Vol}(S^{D1})`$, and we have chosen the location of the instanton ($`\stackrel{}{x}_1`$ in (3.4)) as the origin. The integration constant $`Q^{(2)}`$ appearing in the solution is equal to the topological charge associated with $`H^2`$, as follows from the second equation of (3.19). The ‘selfdual’ instanton (upper sign in (3.19)) is taken for negative $`Q^{(2)}`$, the ‘anti-selfdual’ instanton for positive $`Q^{(2)}`$.

Since, up to proportionality factors, there is only a unique spherically symmetric harmonic function, $`\chi `$ must be of the form $`\chi =\chi _1\mathrm{e}^\varphi +\chi _0`$ with $`\chi _0`$, $`\chi _1`$ constant. It then follows from (3.19) that $`\chi _0`$ is determined by

$$\chi _0=\frac{Q^{(1)}}{Q^{(2)}},$$
(3.22)
and this relation is consistent with the shift symmetries (2.6) and (2.7), since the charges transform non-trivially. The instanton action for $`O_1`$ is given by

$$S_1^E=_{}\left[\chi H^1+(\mathrm{e}^\varphi \frac{1}{2}\chi ^2)H^2\right],$$
(3.23)
where the boundary consists of the disjoint union of two spheres, $`=S_{\mathrm{}}^{D1}S_0^{D1}`$, with radii as indicated. The terms involving $`\chi `$ will diverge on $`S_0^{D1}`$ since $`\chi `$ is harmonic, so in order to obtain a finite action we have to take $`\chi =\chi _0`$ constant. This was already anticipated from the asymptotic behaviour of the fields, discussed in the beginning of this section. The action then reads

$$S_1^E=\frac{\left|Q^{(2)}\right|}{g_s^2}.$$
(3.24)
This solution was also found in , and should correspond to the fivebrane wrapping the entire Calabi-Yau . The instanton action is positive and hence does not distinguish instantons from anti-instantons. Imaginary theta-angle-like terms will have to be added to make this distinction.

Turning to $`O_2`$, we have the BPS condition

$$H=\pm \mathrm{d}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{e}^\varphi \chi \\ \mathrm{e}^\varphi \end{array}\right).$$
(3.25)
Again, $`\mathrm{e}^\varphi `$ is harmonic, and the same now applies to $`\mathrm{e}^\varphi \chi `$. If one imposes rotational symmetry then

$$O_2:\mathrm{d}\mathrm{de}^\varphi =0,\chi =\chi _1\mathrm{e}^\varphi +\chi _0,$$
(3.26)
and from (3.25), it follows again that $`Q^{(1)}=\chi _0Q^{(2)}`$. Notice that the field $`\chi `$ is now completely regular everywhere, and interpolates between the boundaries according to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\chi \chi _{\mathrm{}}\chi _0=\frac{\chi _1}{g_s^2}.$$
(3.27)
The complete solution agrees with the asymptotics derived in (3.1) and (3.5).

For this solution, with the dilaton again given by (3.21), the instanton action (3.17) then becomes

$$S_2^E=\left|Q^{(2)}\right|\left(\frac{1}{g_s^2}+\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }\chi )^2\right).$$
(3.28)
For the particular case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi =0`$, the solution and instanton action are the same as for the $`O_1`$ solution. Notice also that both terms are positive and invariant under the shift symmetries (2.6) and (2.7), as guaranteed by the properties of the original action. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi 0`$, our instanton solution is new, and this term in the instanton action does not depend on the string coupling constant $`g_s`$. The appearance of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi `$ in the instanton action is one of the new results in this paper. Its presence was somehow anticipated in , and here we have computed it explicitly.

We now turn to $`O_3`$. The BPS equation for this case reads

$$H=\pm \frac{1}{|\tau ^{}|}\left(\begin{array}{c}2\mathrm{d}\varphi +\mathrm{e}^\varphi (\chi +\chi _0)\mathrm{d}\chi +\chi (\chi \chi _0)\mathrm{de}^\varphi \\ (\chi \chi _0)\mathrm{de}^\varphi +2\mathrm{e}^\varphi \mathrm{d}\chi \end{array}\right).$$
(3.29)
We have been unable to find the general solution555The most general spherically symmetric solution was later found in .. Instead, let us consider two Ansätze for which we can explicitly solve the equations. First, we set $`\chi =2\chi _1\mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}+\chi _0`$. Then the equations simplify to

$$H=\pm 2\mathrm{de}^{\varphi /2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{1+\chi _1^2}\\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(3.30)
It follows that now $`\mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}`$ is harmonic, with solution

$$\mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}=\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}/2}+\frac{\left|Q^{(1)}\right|}{2\sqrt{1+\chi _1^2}\mathrm{\Omega }_Dr^{D2}}.$$
(3.31)
The scalar $`\chi `$ is then completely regular and interpolates between the boundaries as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\chi =\chi _{\mathrm{}}\chi _0=\frac{2\chi _1}{g_s}.$$
(3.32)
Since $`H^2=0`$ we have $`Q^{(2)}=0`$, and for the instanton action we find

$$S_3^E=\left|Q^{(1)}\right|\sqrt{\frac{4}{g_s^2}+(\mathrm{\Delta }\chi )^2}=\left|Q^{(1)}\right|\left|\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{}\right|,$$
(3.33)
where $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{}=(\chi _{\mathrm{}}\chi _0)+2\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}/2}`$ is the value of $`\tau ^{}`$ at infinity. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi =0`$, a similar solution was also found in . Following the discussion in , it should correspond, from a IIA point of view, to the D2-brane wrapping a three-cycle in the Calabi-Yau, or to the D1+D3+D5-branes wrapping even cycles in type IIB. Notice again consistency with the symmetries (2.6) and (2.7). Observe also that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi =0`$, the solution is inversely proportional to $`g_s`$, and is for small $`g_s`$ dominating over the fivebrane instanton (3.28).

As a second Ansatz, consider $`\chi =2\chi _1\mathrm{e}^\varphi +\chi _0`$. This differs from the first Ansatz in the power of $`\mathrm{e}^\varphi `$. The BPS condition turns into

$$H=\pm 2\mathrm{d}\sqrt{\mathrm{e}^\varphi +\chi _1^2}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\chi _1\chi _0\\ \chi _1\end{array}\right).$$
(3.34)
Accordingly, the square root must be harmonic, and we find for $`\chi _10`$ (the case $`\chi _1=0`$ is included in the previous Ansatz),

$$\mathrm{e}^\varphi =(h\chi _1)(h+\chi _1),h=\sqrt{\mathrm{e}^\varphi _{\mathrm{}}+\chi _1^2}+\left|\frac{Q^{(2)}}{2\chi _1}\right|\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_Dr^{D2}}.$$
(3.35)
The scalar field $`\chi `$ is regular everywhere and interpolates between zero and infinity as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\chi =\frac{2\chi _1}{g_s^2}.$$
(3.36)
The BPS equation further fixes the constant $`\chi _1`$ to be

$$\chi _1=\frac{Q^{(2)}}{Q^{(1)}\chi _0Q^{(2)}},$$
(3.37)
and the instanton action is easily computed from (3.17),

$$S_3^E=\left|\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{}\right|\left(\left|\widehat{Q}^{(1)}\right|+\frac{1}{2}\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\chi Q^{(2)}\right|\right).$$
(3.38)
We have redefined the $`Q^{(1)}`$ charge according to

$$\widehat{Q}^{(1)}Q^{(1)}\chi _0Q^{(2)},$$
(3.39)
such that it is invariant under (2.6). For $`Q^{(2)}=0`$, the instanton action then clearly reduces to (3.33).

The obtained results for the instanton action carry over to the hypermultiplet side, because the dualization procedure does not affect the real part of the instanton action.

## 4 Discussion

In this paper, we have carried out the first steps of calculating instanton corrections to the hypermultiplet moduli space. An important ingredient was to derive a Bogomol’nyi bound for the double-tensor multiplet Lagrangian, and to solve the corresponding BPS equation. In a supersymmetric formulation, adapted to Euclidean space, we expect our instanton solutions to preserve one half of the supersymmetries. A more general formulation for the double-tensor multiplet Lagrangian, including the fermions and supersymmetry transformation rules, is presently under study. This will be important for finding the fermionic zero modes and eventually for computing instanton corrections to the relevant correlation functions that determine the hypermultiplet quantum-geometry. The exact moduli space must be consistent with the results derived in our paper. In particular, our supergravity instanton solutions should match with the results obtained from wrapping branes in the full ten-dimensional string theory. Stated differently, the universal hypermultiplet metric must contain exponential corrections which, at leading order in the string coupling constant and $`\alpha ^{}`$, agree with the form of our instanton action. Using some results about quaternionic geometry , it should be possible to find quaternionic metrics which asymptotically reproduce our results. We intend to report further on these issues in the near future.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Michael Gutperle and Thomas Mohaupt for discussions and reading an earlier draft of this paper. U.T. thanks the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for financial support.

## Appendix A SL(3,R) / SL(2,R) $`\times `$ SO(1,1)

In this appendix, we discuss some geometrical aspects related to the sigma model corresponding to (2.15), with target space (2.17). The easiest way to study this space is by using the fact that the Minkowskian version of the universal hypermultiplet moduli space is both Kähler and quaternion-Kähler. Since Kähler geometry is simpler to analyze, we will study the coset (2.17) from the point of view of Kähler geometry. Because of the sign flips compared to the Minkowskian version, the target space will no longer be Kähler. It is therefore not possible to define complex coordinates together with a Kähler potential that determines the metric. As we show below, it is still possible to define coordinates and a potential from which the metric can be computed. To see this, we first define the fields

$$a=\sigma +\frac{1}{2}\chi \phi ,C_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(\phi \pm \chi ),$$
(A.1)
in terms of which the sigma model part of the Euclidean Lagrangian (2.15) reads

$$_{\mathrm{UH}}^E=\frac{1}{2}|\mathrm{d}\varphi |^22\mathrm{e}^\varphi \mathrm{d}C_+\mathrm{d}C_{}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }|\mathrm{d}a+C_+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{d}}C_{}|^2.$$
(A.2)
If we further pass to coordinates $`u_\pm ^1,u_\pm ^2`$ via the relations

$$S_\pm =\mathrm{e}^\varphi aC_+C_{}=\frac{1u_\pm ^1}{1\pm u_\pm ^1},C_\pm =\frac{u_\pm ^2}{1\pm u_\pm ^1},$$
(A.3)
then the Lagrangian can be written as

$$_{\mathrm{UH}}^E=2g_{ij}\mathrm{d}u_+^i\mathrm{d}u_{}^j$$
(A.4)
with a metric

$$g_{ij}=\frac{^2}{u_+^iu_{}^j}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+u_+^1u_{}^1+u_+^2u_{}^2\right).$$
(A.5)
The $`u_\pm ^i`$ are inhomogeneous coordinates of the coset space (2.17), transforming under $`M\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ as $`u_+Mu_+`$, $`u_{}(M^1)^tu_{}`$. We have therefore identified a potential in terms of real coordinates which determines the metric components. Such spaces are called para-Kähler666A more general discussion on para-Kähler manifolds, in the context of Euclidean supergravity coupled to vector multiplets, will be given in .. The metric for the Minkowskian universal hypermultiplet moduli space (2.1) is of the same form as in (A.5), but with $`u_\pm ^i`$ treated as complex coordinates, where $`u_{}^i=\overline{u}_+^i`$ under complex conjugation.

## Appendix B Determination of O(2) matrices

We need to solve the differential equations

$`0`$ $`=_\varphi c\mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}_\chi s`$ (B.1)
$`0`$ $`=_\varphi s+\mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}_\chi c\frac{1}{2}(2ϵ1)s,`$ (B.2)
where $`c`$ and $`s`$ are subject to the constraint $`c^2+s^2=1`$. We first multiply (B.1) by $`s`$ and (B.2) by $`c`$, respectively, and use $`ss=cc`$ to write the equations as

$`0`$ $`=s_\varphi c+\mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}c_\chi c`$ (B.3)
$`0`$ $`=c_\varphi s+\mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}c_\chi c\frac{1}{2}(2ϵ1)cs.`$ (B.4)
Multiplying the difference of these equations by $`c`$ gives

$$0=c\left[c\stackrel{}{_\varphi }s\frac{1}{2}(2ϵ1)cs\right]=_\varphi s\frac{1}{2}(2ϵ1)(1s^2)s,$$
(B.5)
which involves only $`s`$ and can easily be integrated:

$$\frac{s^2}{1s^2}=\frac{1c^2}{c^2}=f^2(\chi )\mathrm{e}^{(2ϵ1)\varphi }.$$
(B.6)
The positive integration constant $`f^2`$ may depend on $`\chi `$. These expressions we plug into the sum of (B.3) and (B.4),

$`0`$ $`=\mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}_\chi c^2+_\varphi (cs)\frac{1}{2}(2ϵ1)cs`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2f\mathrm{e}^{(34ϵ)\varphi /2}}{(f^2+\mathrm{e}^{(12ϵ)\varphi })^2}}\left[_\chi f\pm \frac{1}{2}(2ϵ1)\mathrm{e}^{(ϵ1)\varphi }f^2\right],`$ (B.7)
where the sign ambiguity originates from taking the square root of $`(cs)^2`$. The equation is satisfied if the expression in square brackets vanishes. For $`ϵ=1`$, this is only possible if $`f=0`$ since $`f`$ is independent of $`\varphi `$. For $`ϵ=+1`$, which corresponds to $`O\mathrm{SO}(2)`$, we find

$$f=0\text{or}f=\pm \frac{2}{\chi \chi _0},$$
(B.8)
with $`\chi _0`$ an integration constant. $`f=0`$ implies $`c=\pm 1`$ and $`s=0`$. For nontrivial $`f`$ we obtain (with the relative sign fixed by the original equations (B.1) and $`(\text{B.2})`$)

$$c=\pm \frac{\chi \chi _0}{\sqrt{4\mathrm{e}^\varphi +(\chi \chi _0)^2}},s=\pm \frac{2\mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}}{\sqrt{4\mathrm{e}^\varphi +(\chi \chi _0)^2}},$$
(B.9)
or in terms of $`\tau ^{}=(\chi \chi _0)+2\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}^{\varphi /2}`$,

$$c+\mathrm{i}s=\pm \frac{\tau ^{}}{|\tau ^{}|}.$$
(B.10)


format: text

text:
# On the nature of ferromagnetism in diluted magnetic semiconductors: GaAs:Mn, GaP:Mn.

## Abstract

A microscopic Hamiltonian for interacting manganese impurities in diluted magnetic semiconductors (DMS) is derived. It is shown that in p-type III-V DMS the indirect exchange between Mn impurities has similarities with the Zener mechanism in transition metal oxides. Here the mobile holes and localized states near the top of the valence band play the role of unoccupied oxygen orbitals which induce ferromagnetism. The Curie temperature estimated from the proposed kinematic exchange agrees with recent experiments on GaAs:Mn. The model is also applicable to the GaP:Mn system.

The discovery of ferromagnetism (FM) with $`T_C`$=110K in Ga0.947Mn0.053As Ohno10  stimulated the systematic study of the III-V dilute magnetic semiconductors (DMS). Recently, above room temperature FM order was found in p-type GaP and GaN doped with Mn Reed .

Most of the existing theories of FM in III-V DMS are based on semi-phenomenological models, which postulate the existence of local magnetic moments on the Mn sites, indirect exchange between these moments and holes in the valence band of the host crystals (see, e.g. Dietl ) and sometimes emphasizes the role of shallow acceptor levels Duga . In this paper we present a microscopic model, which takes into account the origin of localized magnetic moments and shallow acceptor levels induced by the Mn impurity and derive the effective kinematic exchange from the generic two-impurity Hamiltonian. This mechanism cannot be reduced to any previously proposed models, but it is based on Zener’s idea Zener  of double exchange via unoccupied $`p`$-orbitals.

In the present paper the basis for a microscopic description of an isolated magnetic impurity is the Anderson Hamiltonian Anderson  which was modified in Refs. fleurov1 ; Haldane  to the case of a semiconductor host. A two-impurity generalization of the Anderson model for metals was proposed in Ref. Alex  (hereafter referred as AA). An indirect exchange between magnetic moments arises as a result of virtual electron transitions into unoccupied states shared by two impurities.

It is known (see Refs. Zunger ; Kikoin ) that $`3d`$ impurities create both deep localized states in the energy gap and resonance states in the valence and conduction bands. Three types of states are generated by the $`3d`$ impurities in zinc blende semiconductors Hemstreet ; Picoli ; Singh : non-bonding states retaining the angular $`e`$-symmetry of the states in a cubic crystal field and two types of $`t_2`$ states (bonding and antibonding). The latter arise due to a strong hybridization between the atomic $`t_2`$ orbitals and the $`p`$-states of the same symmetry belonging mainly to the heavy hole (hh) band Zunger ; Kikoin . They are called crystal field resonance (CFR, predominantly $`d`$-type) and dangling bond hybrid (DBH, predominantly $`p`$-type). One of these states, as a rule, gives an impurity level in the energy gap and another manifests itself as a resonance within the valence band. According to its position in a series of transition metal elements, the Mn-impurity in the Ga-site should have the configuration $`3d^4`$. However, the Mn ion retains its fifth electron in the $`3d`$ shell because of a specific stability of a high-spin half-filled state $`d^5`$ and the impurity state is $`\mathrm{Mn}(3d^5\overline{p})`$, $`\overline{p}`$ is the bound hole state. Actually, in GaAs:Mn the mobile hole concentration is about 30% of the nominal Mn concentration omiya .

The $`pd`$-hybridization together with the Anderson-Hubbard repulsion $`U`$ is eventually the source of the magnetic interaction in DMS. To describe the indirect exchange, we start with the single impurity resonance scattering model fleurov1 ; Haldane  for $`t_2`$ electrons and generalize it to the case of two impurities along the lines of the AA approach Alex . The ’passive’ non-bonding $`e`$-states contribute to the localized moment, but do not participate in the indirect exchange. Therefore, the minimal two-impurity Hamiltonian involves $`t_2`$-electrons:

$$H=\underset{𝐩,\sigma }{}\epsilon _𝐩^hc_{𝐩h\sigma }^{}c_{𝐩h\sigma }+\underset{𝐩,\sigma ;j}{}(V_{𝐩d}c_{𝐩h\sigma }^{}d_{i\sigma }e^{i\frac{𝐩}{\text{h}\text{ }\text{ }}𝐑_j}+h.c.)+\underset{\sigma ,i}{}(E_d\widehat{n}_i^\sigma +\frac{U}{2}\widehat{n}_i^\sigma \widehat{n}_i^{\overline{\sigma }}),$$
(1)
where only hh states are retained in the band Hamiltonian. Here $`c_{𝐩h\sigma }^{}(c_{𝐩h\sigma })`$ is the creation (annihilation) operator of a hh with the momentum $`𝐩`$ and spin $`\sigma `$. The second term describes the resonant impurity scattering induced by the $`pd`$-hybridization $`V_{𝐩d}`$. The last term contains the atomic energy levels of the localized $`d`$ electrons with the $`t_2`$-electron occupation operator $`\widehat{n}_i^\sigma =d_{i\sigma }^{}d_{i\sigma }`$ of the Mn impurity in the Ga sites labelled by $`i=1,2`$.

The system of Dyson equations for the d-electron Green’s functions $`G_{dii^{}}^\sigma `$ ($`i,i^{}=1,2`$) has the following form:

$$G_{dii^{}}^\sigma (\epsilon )=g_{i\sigma }(\epsilon )\left(\delta _{ii^{}}+V^2\underset{j}{}L_{ij}(\epsilon )G_{dji^{}}^\sigma (\epsilon )\right),$$
(2)
where $`g_{i\sigma }(\epsilon )=(i\epsilon E_dUn_i^\sigma )^1`$ is the single site Green’s function for a $`t_2`$ electron, $`L_{ij}(\epsilon )=_𝐩e^{i\frac{𝐩}{\text{h}\text{ }\text{ }}(𝐑_i𝐑_𝐣)}(i\epsilon \epsilon _𝐩^h)^1`$ is the lattice Green’s function for hh. The momentum dependence of the hybridization matrix elements is neglected, i.e. $`V_{𝐩d}V`$. The solution of the system of Eqs (2) is $`G_{dii}^\sigma =\left[g_{j\sigma }^1(\epsilon )V^2L_{jj}^\sigma (\epsilon )\right]/𝖱^\sigma (\epsilon ),G_{dij}^\sigma =V^2L_{ij}^\sigma (\epsilon )/𝖱^\sigma (\epsilon ),`$ $`(i=1,2;j=2,1)`$ and the two-impurity levels are found from

$$𝖱^\sigma (\epsilon )=\underset{i=1,2}{}\left[g_{i\sigma }^1(\epsilon )V^2L_{ii}^\sigma (\epsilon )\right]V^4L_{12}^\sigma (\epsilon )L_{21}^\sigma (\epsilon )=0.$$
(3)
The zeros of the expression in the square brackets describe the impurity $`d`$-level renormalized by their hybridization with the hh band. For sufficiently large hybridization (or narrow valence band) the DBH states arise above the top of the valence band, whereas the CFR levels appear deep in the valence band below the bottom of the hh subband (the left panel of Fig. 1). The inter-site interaction $`V^4|L_{12}^\sigma |^2`$ results in mixing of the CFR and the DBH states belonging to the two impurities (right panel of Fig. 1).

The occupied CFR levels $`E_{i\sigma }`$ correspond to the states $`d^5/d^4`$ of the Mn ions, whereas the empty $`d^6/d^5`$ CFR levels ($`E_{i\overline{\sigma }}`$) are shifted to the conduction band by the Anderson-Hubbard repulsion $`U`$ (Fig. 1) responsible for the spin-dependent inter-impurity interaction and eventually for the FM order.

Both in GaAs:Mn and GaP:Mn the deep CFR states are completely occupied, and the DBH states in the energy gap are empty (see, e.g., Refs. Kikoin ; Singh ). Two competing mechanisms of the magnetic interaction arise, since the indirect exchange between neighboring impurities involves either the empty states near the top of the valence band and the empty ($`d^6/d^5`$) CFR levels. To determine the type of magnetic ordering, we consider the indirect exchange between two neighboring magnetic ions and calculate its sign and magnitude.

The impurity related correction to the energy of the system is given by the standard formula

$$E^{magn}=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{G}[\epsilon i\delta \mathrm{sign}(\epsilon \epsilon _F)]𝑑\epsilon \frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}U\overline{n}_{di}\overline{n}_{di},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{G}\left(E\right)=(EH)^1`$ is the full Green’s function. We estimate first the contribution of the CFR levels. In this case the two-site lattice Green’s function $`L_{12}(\epsilon )`$ $`L_{12}(E_{b\sigma })L`$ is approximated by its value for the CFR $`d`$ -level position

$$E_{i\sigma }=E_d+V^2L_{ii}(E_{i\sigma }).$$
(5)
The quantity $`L`$ depends exponentially on the intersite distance $`R_{12}`$: $`L\mathrm{exp}(\kappa _bR_{12})/\left(\kappa _bR_{12}w\right)`$ where $`\kappa _b=\sqrt{2m\left(\epsilon _{b_h}E_{i\sigma }\right)}/\mathrm{}`$, with $`\epsilon _{bh}`$ standing for the bottom of the hh band, $`w`$ is the hh bandwidth, $`E_{i\sigma }`$ is the energy of the CFR level below the bottom of the hh band.

Due to the on-site repulsion U, the structures of discrete CFR levels differ for FM and antiferromagnetic (AFM) orientations of neighboring impurity spins. For the AFM alignment the occupation numbers are $`\overline{n}_1=\overline{n}_2=1,`$ $`\overline{n}_1=\overline{n}_2=0`$ . As a result, the tunneling processes which influence energy positions of the occupied states involve large $`U`$, and the secular equation (3) yields the following expressions for the occupied impurity levels (see Fig. 1): $`E_bE_1J_A,E_bE_2J_A`$, where the indirect exchange parameter

$$J_A=V^4L^2/U.$$
(6)
is the Anderson superexchange, which favors AFM order in transition metal oxides.

In the FM case: $`\overline{n}_1=\overline{n}_2=1,`$ $`\overline{n}_1=\overline{n}_2=0`$. Then the states, which mediate exchange between the impurity spins, are the mobile hole states below the top of the valence band and the localized DBH states above its top. The role of these states in the DMS is the similar to the that of the empty atomic states in the conventional Zener double exchange mechanism for (La, A2+)MnO3 Zener . An important difference is that in Zener’s case the Mn ions are in different valence states (Mn3+ and Mn4+). In other words, one of the two levels $`E_b`$ is empty. Since in our case both of these states are occupied, the Zener mechanism in its original form does not work. Formally, one gets a pair of bonding/antibonding CFR states $`E_{(b,a)}=E_i\pm J_Z`$ from (3) without any energy gain, since both levels are occupied. It will be shown below that FM order arises only at a finite hole concentration in the valence band.

Impurity related corrections to the band energy are obtained from the integrations in Eq. (4). (cf. Ref. Haldane  where a similar procedure was carried out for a single impurity). Then, the variation of the total band energy due to the two-impurity scattering is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_b=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}_{\epsilon _{hb}}^{\epsilon _F}𝑑\epsilon \mathrm{ln}\{[g_d^1(i\epsilon )V^2L_{11}(i\epsilon )]^2V^4L_{12}^2(i\epsilon )\}.$$
(7)
Here $`L_{ij}(i\epsilon )=P_{ij}(\epsilon )+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}(\epsilon )`$ and

$`P_{11}(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`P_{22}(\epsilon )={\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \frac{\rho (\omega )}{\epsilon \omega }},P_{12}(\epsilon )={\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \frac{\mathrm{sin}kR_{12}}{kR_{12}}\frac{\rho (\omega )}{\epsilon \omega }},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}(\epsilon )`$ $``$ $`2\pi \rho (\epsilon )\mathrm{sin}kR_{12}/kR_{12},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}(\epsilon )\pi \rho (\epsilon )=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}(\epsilon ).`$ (8)
Only the spin-up (majority spin) band contributes to $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_b`$. Here and below the spin index is omitted for the sake of brevity. The value of the wave-vector $`k`$ is found from the equation $`\epsilon =\epsilon _{hh}(k)`$, where $`\epsilon _{hh}(k)`$ is the hh energy dispersion. Since $`V/\left(g_d^1V^2P_{11}\right)=V/\left(\epsilon E_dV^2P_{11}\left(\epsilon \right)\right)1`$ one can extract from Eq. (7) the spin-dependent hh band contribution to the exchange energy, which reads

$$E_{ex}=\frac{V^4}{4\pi }(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2+3)\left\{_{\epsilon _F}^0𝑑\epsilon \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}(\epsilon )P_{12}(\epsilon )}{[\epsilon E_dV^2P_{11}(\epsilon )]^2+\frac{V^4}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^2}+3x\frac{P_{12}(\epsilon _i)P_{12}^{}(\epsilon _i)}{\left[1V^2P_{11}^{}(\epsilon _i)\right]^2}\right\}$$
(9)
where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{1,2}`$ are the vectors of Pauli matrices. The terms in curly brackets correspond to the contribution of mobile and localized holes. The factor 3 appeared due to the degeneracy of the localized acceptor $`p`$-levels $`\epsilon _i.`$ The function $`P_{ij}^{^{}}(\epsilon )=dP_{ij}(\epsilon )/d\epsilon `$ is negative at $`\epsilon =\epsilon _i`$; (see left panel of Fig. 1).

Eq. (9) is the main result of our theory from which we obtain $`T_C`$. In the evaluations of Anderson-type and Zener-type coupling constants we use the estimates: $`P_{ij}w^1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}\epsilon _F^{1/2}w^{3/2}`$, $`\epsilon _FE_dV^2P_{11}(\epsilon _F)=4\alpha V^2/w`$ with $`\alpha <1`$ (see left panel of Fig. 1). Then one finds from Eqs. (6) and (9) that $`J_AV^4\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\kappa _bR_{12}\right)/\left(\kappa _bR_{12}\right)\right]^2/(Uw^2)`$, with $`\kappa _b=\sqrt{2m\left(\epsilon _{b_h}E_{d\sigma }\right)}/\mathrm{}`$, $`J_F2\epsilon _F\left(\epsilon _F/w\right)^{1/2}/\left[\left(4\alpha \right)^2+\epsilon _F/\left(4w\right)\right]`$ and FM pairing is realized provided $`J_F>J_A.`$

To calculate the exchange energy Eq.(9), one needs the dependence of the Fermi level on the Mn concentration $`\epsilon _F(x)`$. It is governed by the equation $`x_s=2_{\epsilon _F}^0\rho _v(\epsilon )𝑑\epsilon ,`$ where $`x_s`$ is the hole concentration per site. We assume a semi-elliptical density of states, $`\rho _v(\epsilon )=2\left[\pi w^2\right]^1\sqrt{\epsilon (\epsilon +w)\theta (\epsilon )},`$ where $`w=2.9`$ eV Mod . The hole concentration per site, $`x_s`$, is proportional to the hole density per volume $`p_h`$: $`x_s=1/8a^3p_h`$, as there are four III-V pairs in a unit cell volume $`a^3`$ in zinc-blende structures. Based on the experimental data $`p_h(x)`$ of Ref.fmatsukara  we used a polynomial fit for the hole density dependence on the Mn concentration in GaAs:Mn.

To compare the values of $`J_A`$ and $`J_F`$ we use the calculated $`\epsilon _F(x=5.3\%)=50`$meV, $`U4.5`$ eV, the hybridization parameter $`V=1.27`$eV obtained from (5) for the acceptor level $`\epsilon _i=85`$ meV ( $`\epsilon _i^{\mathrm{exp}}=110`$ meV Zunger ) and the CFR level $`E_i=3.0`$eV ($`E_i^{\mathrm{exp}}=3.4`$eV Asklund ). At these values $`\alpha =w\left[\epsilon _FE_dV^2P_{11}(\epsilon _F)\right]/\left(4V^2\right)=0.32`$ and the ratio $`r=2.13`$ justifies the dominance of FM coupling in GaAs:Mn: $`J_F>J_A`$

Eq. (9) allows one to compute the Curie temperature $`T_C(x)=E_{ex}(x)/k_B`$. The results are presented in Fig. 2. The calculated dependence $`T_C(p_h)`$ is given in Fig. 3 for different values of the Mn concentration.

Although we neglected in this paper formation of an impurity band around $`x5\%`$ our results for $`T_C(x)`$ and $`T_C(p_h)`$ are in good agreement both with available experimental data, and the theoretical phenomenological estimates. The dielectric structure parameters such as DBH, lower CFR energies and $`V`$ are calculated self-consistently (Eq. (5) and see the left panel of Fig.1) for the graphical solution). Even our estimated value of $`V=1.27eV`$ is in a reasonable agreement with the hybridization parameter $`1.4eV`$ which can be extracted from the data of Ref.Okabayashi . This implies that the present theory, in fact, has no real fitting parameters. Note that in Ref. Ohno2  the authors took into account the magnetic correlation mediated by holes originating from shallow acceptors without a proper regard of the role of the impurity levels, which we consider to be important, and later calculated $`T_C`$ by minimizing the Landau free energy.

In conclusion, we proposed a microscopic model for a double exchange in p-type III-V:Mn DMS based on the known mechanism of interaction between substitutional transition metal impurities and the host semiconductor Zunger , Kikoin . A presence of holes is crucial for the FM double exchange between neighboring Mn ions. Our model there does not require an introduction a *adhoc* phenomenological pd\- or RKKY-type exchanges. The source of the magnetic coupling is the energy gain in the kinetic energy of holes in case when neighboring ion spins are parallel. Among existing approaches the closest one to ours is the LSDA+U methodsanvito , in which the system of $`t_2\sigma `$\- and $`e\sigma `$\- levels and the hole pocket for majority spin density of states correlates with our spectrum presented in Fig. 1. However, instead of extracting the pd-exchange from this band structure we calculated the genuine Zener-like exchange which emerges since the band energy is lower in the FM case then in the AFM case akai . In our model this exchange is defined by Eq. (9). Similar ideas were applied to DMS CdGeP2:Mn (maha ), where the interplay between CFR and DBH states turned out to be crucial for the onset of FM order. The theory may be applied to GaP:Mn which has a similar structure of chemical bonds around the Mn ion Singh ; however, experimental data on the CFR and DBH states as well as the dependencies $`p_h\left(x\right)`$ and $`T_C(x)`$ are not available. The proposed kinematic exchange can also be applied to other DMS including GaN:Mn and A2+GeP2:Mn, which is left for future work.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Flemish Science Foundation (FWO-VI), the Belgian Inter-University Attraction Poles (IUAP), the “Onderzoeksraad van de Universiteit Antwerpen” (GOA) and the Israel Physical Society.


text:
# Novel electronic wave interference patterns in nanographene sheets

## 1 Introduction

Nanographene sheets are attractive materials, because their magnetic and transport properties show novel and peculiar properties, originating from nonbonding states localized at the zigzag-edges . Theoretical works \[2-5\] have been performed to clarify the mechanisms of the unique magnetism. It has been found that the A-B stacking and the presence of the localized electronic spins originating in the open shell nature are the favorable conditions for the magnetism.

On the other hand, direct observation by scanning tunneling microscope (STM) is powerful for structural analysis as well as for investigation of electronic properties. Previously, we have reported that the interlayer distance of a single nanographene on a highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG) substrate is about 0.35-0.37 nm and is larger than that of bulk material . In recent study, we have found superperiodic patterns with extremely long periodicity in the STM images of a nanographene sheet, which varies spatially . In this paper, we give an explanation for this novel results in terms of the interference of electronic wave functions.

In order to understand the origins of the long-distance oscillations which were observed, we will make a comparison with the theoretical electron densities using the free electron model confined within an infinite square well, and also using the $`𝒌𝒑`$ model  for two-dimensional graphene sheet. One of the present authors has used the model for the understandings of the multi channel Kondo effect  and the Cooper pair propagation  in metallic carbon nanotubes. In the graphene sheets, superperiodic patterns in STM images due to the moiré origins for the A-B stacking  and structural deformations  have been reported in the literatures. However, the observed superperiodic patterns with quite long periods over 10 nm seem not coming from the moiré mechanism, and our finding calls for new interpretations. We assume the presence of a static potential with a linear decrease in one direction. The calculated local electron density will be compared with the experiments. We will clarify that the long-distance oscillations are due to the presence of electrons with the band structure of a two-dimensional graphene sheet.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, the experimental results are briefly reviewed. In section 3, calculations by the free electron model are compared with experiments. In section 4, the analysis with the $`𝒌𝒑`$ model is performed. The paper is closed with summary in section 5.

## 2 STM observations

In this section, the experimental data is briefly reviewed. In Fig. 1, a STM image of the graphene sheet with a necktie shape is shown. The detail will be published elsewhere. The observation has been done with the following condition: bias voltage V = 200 mV and current I = 0.7 nA. The distance between the graphene necktie and the substrate is over 0.8 nm, suggesting that it consists of a stacking of two graphene layers, which interact weekly with the HOPG substrate. Interestingly, the period and the amplitude of the oscillations decrease from the top to the bottom along the graphene necktie. The oscillation period is one order of magnitude larger than that of the moiré pattern due to stacking , and therefore this possibility can be excluded. We can assume effects of long-distance periodic-structural deformations  in the graphene surface or interference effects of electronic wave functions.

We have also observed that the oscillation period becomes longer by placing a nanographene flake on the graphene necktie, as shown in Fig. 2. The oscillations period seems to be double in the upper region of the necktie after addition of one flake. The oscillation below the flake seems to be only slightly modified by the flake. Such effect on the oscillations cannot be explained by some structural modulations. Therefore, the oscillation patterns could be the effect of interference of the electronic wave functions in the graphene surface.

## 3 Free electron model

We will characterize the interference patterns theoretically. Two dimensional coordinate is defined so that the $`y`$-axis is along with the long direction of the graphene necktie. The $`x`$-axis is perpendicular to the $`y`$-axis. By assuming the electric static potential $`Fy`$ which is proportional to the $`y`$-axis, and the confinement effect due to the well-shaped potential within $`d/2<x<d/2`$, we obtain the Schrödinger equation:

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\left(\frac{^2}{x^2}+\frac{^2}{y^2}\right)+V_{\mathrm{well}}(x)Fy\right]\psi (x,y)=E\psi (x,y),$$
(1)
where $`V_{\mathrm{well}}(x)`$ means the well potential with the infinite depth. The electron density with the energy $`E`$ is written as:

$$|\psi (x,y)|^2=\underset{n}{}a_n|\psi _x(E_n)\psi _y(EE_n)|^2,$$
(2)
where $`a_n`$ is the coefficient of the occupancy with the quantum number $`n`$, $`\psi _x(E_n)`$ is the solution in the well in the $`x`$-direction, and $`\psi _y(EE_n)`$ is the solution for the potential term $`Fy`$. The solution in the well is:

$$\psi _x(E_n)=\{\begin{array}{c}A\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{n\pi x}{d}\right)\text{for odd }n\\ A\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{n\pi x}{d}\right)\text{for even }n\end{array},$$
(3)
with $`E_n=\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2n^2/2md^2`$ and $`A=\sqrt{2/d}`$. The solution for the linear potential is:

$$\psi _y(EE_n)=\mathrm{\Phi }\left[\left(\frac{2mF}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)^{1/3}\left(x+\frac{E}{F}\frac{E_n}{F}\right)\right],$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ is the Airy function

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{u^3}{3}+ux\right)du.$$
(5)
The local density of states of electrons with $`a_n=1`$ only for $`n=4`$ is shown in Fig. 3. We can theoretically explain the decrease of the oscillation period and the amplitude along the $`y`$-direction. This property is owing to the form of the Airy function. There is a standing wave in the $`x`$-direction. However, we cannot explain the details of oscillations in the $`x`$-direction of Fig. 1, possibly by the effects of the complex shapes of the boundary in the graphene necktie.

Even though the oscillation in the well is uniform spatially, we can compare the oscillation patterns in the $`y`$-direction at least. Figure 4 shows comparison with the experiment where the peak positions along the long axis of the necktie are plotted. The decrease of the amplitude of the theoretical curve seems more rapid than that of the experimental data. The strength of the static potential is $`F=5.26\times 10^6`$ eV/nm with using the free electron mass. The potential variation over the distance 200 nm is $`1.1\times 10^3`$ eV, and this is quite small. Phonon fluctuation effects or the presence of impurities can override such the small potential change. This difficulty might be due to the assumption of the free electron model of this section.

## 4 Continuum $`𝒌𝒑`$ model

In order to substantiate analysis of the interference patterns, we give comparison with the calculation of the model for the graphene plane. Here, we use the continuum $`𝒌𝒑`$ model . The hamiltonian around the K point with the linear potential $`Fy`$ is:

$$H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Fy& i\gamma \frac{}{x}\gamma \frac{}{y}\\ i\gamma \frac{}{x}+\gamma \frac{}{y}& Fy\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
where $`\gamma (\sqrt{3}/2)a\gamma _0`$, $`a`$ is the bond length, and $`\gamma _0`$ is the hopping integral between neighboring carbon atoms. This model is solved together with the infinite well potential $`V_{\mathrm{well}}(x)`$ as used in the previous section. The Schrödinger equation $`H\mathrm{\Psi }=E\mathrm{\Psi }`$ gives a oscillating solution:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=2A\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{E_nx}{\gamma }\right)\\ i\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{E_nx}{\gamma }\right)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{1}{\gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{E}y+\frac{1}{2}Fy^2\right)\right]\\ \mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{1}{\gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{E}y+\frac{1}{2}Fy^2\right)\right]\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
where $`E_n=n\pi \gamma /d`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}=EE_n`$. The electron density at the A-sublattice point is calculated as:

$`|\psi _\mathrm{A}(𝑹_\mathrm{A})|^2`$ $`=`$ $`4A^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi x}{d}}\right)`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{1+\mathrm{cos}[(𝑲𝑲^{\mathbf{}})𝑹_\mathrm{A}]\mathrm{sin}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma }}\left(\stackrel{~}{E}y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Fy^2\right)\right]\right\}`$
where $`𝑹_\mathrm{A}`$ is the lattice point of the A-sublattice, $`𝑲`$ and $`𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ are the K and K’ points in the wave number space. We pay attention to the long period oscillating component:

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{n\pi x}{d}\right)[\mathrm{const}.+\mathrm{sin}(\frac{Fy^2}{\gamma }\frac{2n\pi }{d}y)],$$
(9)
where we take $`E=0`$ at the Fermi energy. This functional form for the quantum number $`n=4`$ is plotted in Fig. 5 with the assumption $`d=1`$. The amplitude is spatially constant, and the oscillation period becomes smaller as $`y`$ becomes larger. We can explain the decrease of the oscillation period found in experiments of Fig. 1, though the uniform array of the standing wave would be the result of the simplified theory and this is in contrast with the observations.

The peak positions of the electron density in the long direction of the graphene necktie of Fig. 1 are plotted in Fig. 6, and comparison with the result of eq. (9) is given. The slight decrease found in the experiments cannot be reproduced by the result of the $`𝒌𝒑`$ model. However, the decrease of the oscillation period fairly agrees with the experiments. The fitting gives the parameter of the potential gradient $`F=6.49\times 10^3`$ eV/nm. The total potential variation over the distance 200 nm becomes 1.3 eV. Such magnitude of the potential change would survive thermal lattice fluctuations and can really exist in experiments. The present result by no means implies that the wave functions observed with superperiodic amplitudes are of the electrons which have energy levels of the graphene plane.

## 5 Summary

Superperiodic patterns in a nanographene sheet observed by STM can be explained with two models of electronic wave functions in terms of the interference. First, the experimental results have been briefly introduced. The period and the amplitude of the oscillations decrease spatially in one direction along with the long direction of the graphene necktie. The patterns are superperiodic, and the period is one order of the magnitudes longer than that of the well known moiré pattern observed in A-B stacked graphite systems. This is a novel finding in our experiments.

Next, theoretical characterizations have been reported. We have explained the interference patterns with the static linear potential by using a free electron model and also by the continuum $`𝒌𝒑`$ model. In the free electron model, we have derived the decrease of the oscillation period and the amplitude along the decreasing direction of the linear potential. However, the strength of the linear potential turned out to be unrealistically too small. In the $`𝒌𝒑`$ case, the oscillation period decreases, and the amplitude is constant. The spatial difference of the static potential is estimated as 1.3 eV for the distance 200 nm, and this value seems to be natural. It turned out that the long distance oscillations come from electrons with the band structures of the two dimensional graphene sheet.

## Acknowledgements

Useful discussion with members of the Nanomaterials Theory Group, Nanotechnology Research Institute (http://unit.aist.go.jp/nanotech/), AIST and the Enoki-Fukui Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, Tokyo Institute of Technology is acknowledged. This work has been partly supported by NEDO under the Nanotechnology Materials Program (http://www.nedo.go.jp/kiban/nano/), and also partly by the Grant-in-Aid for “Research for the Future Program”, Nano-carbons.

## References

$`[1]`$ Y. Shibayama, H. Sato, T. Enoki, and M. Endo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1744 (2000).
$`[2]`$ K. Harigaya and T. Enoki, Chem. Phys. Lett. 351, 128 (2002).
$`[3]`$ K. Harigaya, N. Kawatsu, and T. Enoki, in “Nanonetwork Materials: Fullerenes, Nanotubes, and Related Systems”, (American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 529-532. $`[4]`$ K. Harigaya, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 13, 1295 (2001).
$`[5]`$ K. Harigaya, Chem. Phys. Lett. 340, 123 (2001).
$`[6]`$ A. M. Affoune, B. L. V. Prasad, H. Sato, T. Enoki, Y. Kaburagi, and Y. Hishiyama, Chem. Phys. Lett. 348, 17 (2001).
$`[7]`$ Y. Kobayashi, K. Takai, J. Ravier, T. Enoki, and K. Harigaya, (unpublished results).
$`[8]`$ H. Ajiki and T. Ando, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 62, 1255 (1993).
$`[9]`$ T. Ando and T. Nakanishi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67, 1704 (1998).
$`[10]`$ K. Harigaya, New J. Phys. 2, 9 (2000).
$`[11]`$ K. Harigaya, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 12, 7069 (2000).
$`[12]`$ K. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. B 53, 11091 (1996).
$`[13]`$ T. M. Bernhardt, B. Kaiser, and K. Rademann, Surface Science 408, 86 (1998).


text:
# Modified Fragmentation Function and Jet Quenching at RHIC

## 1 INTRODUCTION

It is with a great respect that I present this talk on this special occasion of celebrating Helmut Satz’s scientific career and his unwavering role in high-energy heavy-ion physics. I first met Helmut when I was still a graduate student at my first Quark Matter meeting in 1988. His name was already synonymous to quark-gluon plasma and $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ suppression for me at that time. Because of our common interests in hard processes in heavy-ion collisions, we started working together in 1994 to coordinate a working group called Hard Probes Collaboration. Since then this working group has become a forum where we meet regularly together with other colleagues to discuss problems related to hard processes in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. Helmut has been an inspiration for all of us in the working group and in the community of high-energy nuclear physics.

The subject of jet quenching and parton energy loss is one aspect of hard processes in heavy-ion collisions. However, with the advent of the RHIC facility and experiments, jets of high-energy partons will become an important and useful tool to the study of the properties of dense matter formed in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. Because large $`p_T`$ partons are produced very early in heavy-ion collisions and their production rates can be calibrated in $`pp`$ and $`pA`$ collisions at the same energy, they are ideal probes of the dense matter that is formed in the same reaction. What probes the dense medium is the scattering induced energy loss suffered by an energetic parton as it propagates through the matter. The parton energy loss is directly related to the parton density of the medium.

Theoretical studies of the parton energy loss in hot medium date back to the first attempt by Bjorken  to calculate elastic energy loss of a parton via elastic scattering in the hot medium. A simple estimate can be given by the thermal averaged energy transfer $`\nu _{\mathrm{el}}q_{}^2/2\omega `$ of the jet parton to a thermal parton with energy $`\omega `$, $`q_{}`$ being the transverse momentum transfer of the elastic scattering. The resultant elastic energy loss

$$\frac{dE_{\mathrm{el}}}{dx}=C_2\frac{3\pi \alpha _\mathrm{s}^2}{2}T^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{3ET}{2\mu ^2}\right)$$
(1)
is sensitive to the temperature of the thermal medium but is in general small compared to radiative energy loss. Here, $`\mu `$ is the Debye screening mass and $`C_2`$ is the Casimir of the propagating parton in its fundamental presentation. The elastic energy loss can also be calculated within finite temperature QCD  with a similar result, but with a more careful and consistent treatment of screening effect.

Though there had been estimates of the radiative parton energy loss using the uncertainty principle , a first theoretical study of QCD radiative parton energy loss incorporating Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal interference effect  is by Gyulassy and myself  where multiple parton scattering is modeled by a screened Coulomb potential model. Baier et al. (BDMPS)  later considered the effect of gluon rescattering which turned out to be very important for gluon radiation induced by multiple scattering in a dense medium. These two studies have ushered in many recent works on the subject, including a path integral approach to the problem  and opacity expansion framework  which is more suitable for multiple parton scattering in a thin plasma. The radiative parton energy loss to the leading order of the opacity $`\overline{n}=L/\lambda `$ in the thin plasma of size $`L`$ is estimated as

$$\frac{dE_{\mathrm{rad}}}{dx}C_2\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}\mu ^2}{4}\frac{L}{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2E}{\mu ^2L}\right),$$
(2)
where $`\lambda `$ is the gluon’s mean-free-path in the medium. The unique $`L`$ dependence of the parton energy loss is a consequence of the non-Abelian LMP interference effect in a QCD medium. It is also shown in a recent study  that thermal absorption and stimulated emission in a thermal environment can be neglected for high energy partons ($`E\mu `$) while they are important for intermediate energy partons.

Using this latest result one can estimate the total energy loss for a parton with initial energy $`E=40`$ GeV to be about $`\mathrm{\Delta }E10`$ GeV after it propagates a distance of $`L=6`$ fm in a medium with $`\mu =0.5`$ GeV and $`\lambda =1`$ fm. For an expanding system, the total energy loss is reduced by a factor of $`2\tau _0/L`$ from the static value . Assuming that most of this energy loss is carried by gluons outside the jet cone , measuring the energy loss would require the experimental resolution $`\delta E`$ to be much smaller than the total energy loss $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. With the measured total multiplicity density $`dN/d\eta 900`$  and energy density $`dE_T/d\eta 500`$ GeV  in central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV, one can estimate that the average total background energy within the jet cone ($`\delta \eta =1`$ and $`\delta \varphi =1`$) is about $`\mathrm{\Sigma }E_T80`$ GeV with a fluctuation of $`\delta E_T10`$ GeV. It is therefore very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the energy of a jet on a event-by-event base . Since high $`p_T`$ hadrons in hadron and nuclear collisions come from fragmentation of high $`E_T`$ jets, energy loss naturally leads to suppression of high $`p_T`$ hadron spectra. Miklos Gyulassy and I then proposed  that one has to reply on measuring the suppression of high $`p_T`$ hadrons to study parton energy loss in heavy-ion collisions. Since inclusive hadron spectra is a convolution of jet production cross section and the jet fragmentation function in pQCD, the suppression of inclusive high $`p_T`$ hadron spectra is a direct consequence of the medium modification of the jet fragmentation function induced by parton energy loss. Assuming that jet fragmentation function is the same for the final leading parton with a reduced energy, the modified fragmentation function can be assumed as

$$\stackrel{~}{D}(z)\frac{1}{1\mathrm{\Delta }E/E}D\left(\frac{z}{1\mathrm{\Delta }E/E}\right).$$
(3)
Therefore, in this effective model the measured modification of fragmentation function can be directly related to the parton energy loss.

## 2 MODIFIED FRAGMENTATION FUNCTIONS

Since a jet parton is always produced via a hard process involving a large momentum scale, it should also have final state radiation with and without rescattering leading to the DGLAP evolution equation of fragmentation functions. Such final state radiation effectively acts as a self-quenching mechanism softening the leading parton momentum distribution. This process is quite similar to the induced gluon radiation and the two should have strong interference effect . It is therefore natural to study jet quenching and modified fragmentation function in the framework of modified DGLAP evolution equations in a medium .

The simplest case for jet quenching is deeply inelastic scattering of an electron off a nucleus target where the virtual photon knocks one quark out of a nucleon inside a nucleus. The quark then will have to propagate through the rest of the nucleus and possibly scatter again with other nucleons with induced gluon radiation. The induced gluon radiation reduces the quark’s energy before it fragments into hadrons with a modified fragmentation function. One can study the nuclear modification of the fragmentation function by comparing it with the same measurement in DIS with a nucleon target.

We work in an infinite momentum frame, where the photon carries momentum $`q=[x_Bp^+,q^{},\stackrel{}{0}_{}]`$ and the momentum of the target per nucleon is $`p=[p^+,0,\stackrel{}{0}_{}]`$ with the Bjorken variable defined as $`x_B=Q^2/2q^{}p^+`$. The differential semi-inclusive hadronic tensor in a collinear factorization approximation to the leading twist can be written as

$$\frac{dW_{\mu \nu }^S}{dz_h}=\underset{q}{}𝑑xf_q^A(x,\mu _I^2)H_{\mu \nu }(x,p,q)D_{qh}(z_h,\mu ^2),$$
(4)
where $`f_q^A(x,\mu _I^2)`$ is the quark distribution of the nucleus, $`H_{\mu \nu }(x,p,q)`$ is the hard part of $`\gamma ^{}+q`$ scattering and $`D_{qh}(z_h,\mu ^2)`$ is the quark fragmentation function in vacuum as measured in the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation process. The scale $`\mu ^2`$ dependence of the fragmentation function comes from the radiative correction as shown in Fig. 2. Taking into account of both the radiative (central cut diagram) and the virtual correction (virtual cut diagram), the renormalized fragmentation function is defined as,

$`D_{qh}(z_h,\mu ^2)D_{qh}(z_h)`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{}_T^2}{\mathrm{}_T^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{z_h}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\gamma _{qqg}(z)D_{qh}(z_h/z)+\gamma _{qgq}(z)D_{gh}(z_h/z)\right],`$
which satisfies the DGLAP evolution equation,

$$\frac{D_{qh}(z_h,\mu ^2)}{\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2}=\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z}\left[\gamma _{qqg}(z)D_{qh}(z_h/z,\mu ^2)+\gamma _{qgq}(z)D_{gh}(z_h/z,\mu ^2)\right].$$
(6)
Here $`\gamma _{qqg}(z)=\gamma _{qgq}(1z)=C_F[(1+z^2)/(1z)_++(3/2)\delta (1z)]`$ is the splitting function.

In a nucleus target, the outgoing quark can scatter again with another parton from the nucleus. The additional scattering may induce additional gluon radiation and cause the leading quark to lose energy. Such induced gluon radiation will effectively give rise to additional terms in the evolution equation leading to modification of the fragmentation functions in a medium. Contributions from multiple parton scattering are always non-leading twist. However we will consider only those that are enhanced by the nuclear size $`A^{1/3}`$.

We work in the LQS framework  in which the twist-four contributions can be expressed as the convolution of partonic hard parts and four-parton matrix elements. At the lowest order (processes without gluon radiation) in this framework, rescattering with collinear gluons gives the eikonal contribution to the gauge-invariant leading-twist and lowest-order result, assuming collinear factorization of the quark fragmentation function. The radiative correction to double scattering processes with another gluon from the nucleus, shown in Fig. 2 as an example, generally involves matrix elements of four parton fields and the cross section of four parton scattering. In the LQS framework, one makes collinear expansion of the four-parton scattering cross section in terms of the transverse momentum of the scattering gluons. The first term in the collinear expansion corresponds to rescattering with collinear gluons. Similar to the leading order case, it contributes only to the eikonal correction of the radiative processes at the leading twist as a consequence of the cancellation between different cut diagrams (central, right and left cut). The leading twist-four contribution then comes from the second derivative of the four-parton scattering cross section in the central-cut diagrams. With the quadratic term $`k_{}^\alpha k_{}^\beta `$, this contribution depends on the gluon field strength, because $`k_{}^\alpha A^+k_{}^\beta A^+F^{\alpha +}F^{\beta +}`$ by partial integrations.

Considering all possible diagrams in addition to the example shown in Fig. 2, including the virtual corrections (virtual cut), one get the leading twist-four contribution to the semi-inclusive cross section from double scattering,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_{\mu \nu }^D}{dz_h}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑xH_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(xp,q)\frac{2\pi \alpha _s}{N_c}\frac{d\mathrm{}_T^2}{\mathrm{}_T^4}_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z}\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }C_A}`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`\{D_{qh}(z_h/z)[{\displaystyle \frac{1+z^2}{(1z)_+}}T_{qg}^A(x,x_L)+\delta (z1)\mathrm{\Delta }T_{qg}^A(x,\mathrm{}_T^2)]`$
$`+`$ $`D_{gh}(z_h/z)[{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1z)^2}{z_+}}T_{qg}^A(x,x_L)+\delta (z)\mathrm{\Delta }T_{qg}^A(x,\mathrm{}_T^2)]\},`$
where

$`T_{qg}^A(x,x_L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dy^{}}{2\pi }𝑑y_1^{}𝑑y_2^{}e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^{}+ix_Tp^{}(y_1^{}y_2^{})}(1e^{ix_Lp^+y_2^{}})(1e^{ix_Lp^+(y^{}y_1^{})})}`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`A|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\gamma ^+F_\sigma ^+(y_2^{})F^{+\sigma }(y_1^{})\psi _q(y^{})|A\theta (y_2^{})\theta (y^{}y_1^{})`$
is the quark-gluon correlation function which essentially contains four independent twist-four parton matrix elements in a nucleus. Here $`x_L=\mathrm{}_{}^2/2p^+q^{}z(1z)`$ and $`x_T=k_T^2/2p^+q^{}z(1z)`$. In the central-cut diagrams (Fig. 2 for example) where the leading higher-twist result comes from, there are typically four contributions from each cut diagram. The radiated gluon can either come as the final state radiation of the $`\gamma `$-quark scattering or as the initial state radiation of the secondary quark-gluon scattering. The amplitudes of these initial and final state radiation have opposite signs with also a phase difference $`x_Lp^+y^{}`$. The sum of these two radiation processes and their interferences gives rise to the dipole-like factor $`(1e^{ix_Lp^+y_2^{}})(1e^{ix_Lp^+(y^{}y_1^{})})`$ in the effective two-parton correlation function that enters into the double-scattering cross section with induced gluon radiation. This is exactly the LPM effect of bremsstrahlung in medium.

Summing up the single and double scattering contributions to the semi-inclusive process, one can define the effective modified fragmentation function as

$$\frac{dW_{\mu \nu }}{dz_h}=\frac{dW_{\mu \nu }^S}{dz_h}+\frac{dW_{\mu \nu }^D}{dz_h}=\underset{q}{}𝑑xf_q^A(x,\mu _I^2)H_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(x,p,q)\stackrel{~}{D}_{qh}(z_h,\mu ^2),$$
(9)
$`\stackrel{~}{D}_{qh}(z_h,\mu ^2)`$ $``$ $`D_{qh}(z_h,\mu ^2)+\mathrm{\Delta }D_{qh}(z_h,\mu ^2)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }D_{qh}(z_h,\mu ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{}_T^2}{\mathrm{}_T^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{z_h}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{qqg}(z)D_{qh}({\displaystyle \frac{z_h}{z}})+\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{qgq}(z)D_{gh}({\displaystyle \frac{z_h}{z}})\right],`$ (10)
where $`D_{ah}(z_h,\mu ^2)`$ is the leading-twist parton fragmentation function and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{qqg}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+z^2}{(1z)_+}}T_{qg}^A(x,x_L)+\delta (1z)\mathrm{\Delta }T_{qg}^A(x,\mathrm{}_T^2)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{C_A2\pi \alpha _s}{(\mathrm{}_T^2+k_T^2)N_cf_q^A(x,\mu _I^2)}}`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{qgq}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{qqg}(1z).`$ (12)
are the modified splitting functions for the induced gluon radiation. Similar as the vacuum case, the $`\delta `$-function part is from the virtual correction contribution with $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{qg}^A(x,\mathrm{}_T^2)`$ defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_{qg}^A(x,\mathrm{}_T^2)_0^1𝑑z\frac{1}{1z}\left[2T_{qg}^A(x,x_L)|_{z=1}(1+z^2)T_{qg}^A(x,x_L)\right].$$
(13)
Such virtual corrections are important to ensure the infrared safety of the modified fragmentation function and the unitarity of the gluon radiation processes. This virtual correction is equivalent in nature to the absorption processes in some effective models .

To evaluate the modified fragmentation, one needs to know the two-parton correlation function $`T_{qg}^A(x,x_L)`$ which consists of both diagonal and off-diagonal twist-four parton matrices. We generalize the factorization assumption of LQS  to both types of matrices. Assuming a Gaussian nuclear distribution in the rest frame, $`\rho (r)\mathrm{exp}(r^2/2R_A^2)`$, $`R_A=1.12A^{1/3}`$ fm, we express $`T_{qg}^A`$ in terms of single parton distributions,

$$T_{qg}^A(x,x_L)=\stackrel{~}{C}m_NR_Af_q^A(x)(1e^{x_L^2/x_A^2}),$$
(14)
where $`x_A=1/m_NR_A`$, and $`m_N`$ is the nucleon’s mass. The off-diagonal terms involve transferring momentum $`x_L`$ between different nucleons inside a nucleus and thus should be suppressed for large nuclear size or large momentum fraction $`x_L`$. Notice that $`\tau _f=1/x_Lp^+`$ is the gluon’s formation time. Thus, $`x_L/x_A=L_A/\tau _f`$ with $`L_A=R_Am_N/p^+`$ being the nuclear size in the infinite momentum frame.

Because of the LPM interference effect, the above effective parton correlation and the induced gluon emission vanishes when $`x_L/x_A1`$. Therefore, the formation time of the gluon radiation due to the LPM interference requires the radiated gluon to have a minimum transverse momentum $`\mathrm{}_T^2Q^2/MR_AQ^2/A^{1/3}`$. The nuclear corrections to the fragmentation function due to double parton scattering will then be in the order of $`\alpha _sA^{1/3}/\mathrm{}_T^2\alpha _sA^{2/3}/Q^2`$, which depends quadratically on the nuclear size. For large values of $`A`$ and $`Q^2`$, these corrections are leading and yet the requirement $`\mathrm{}_T^2Q^2`$ for the logarithmic approximation in deriving the modified fragmentation function is still valid.

Shown in Fig. 3 are the calculated nuclear modification factor of the fragmentation function for $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{84}Kr`$ targets as compared to the recent HERMES data . The predicted shape of the $`z`$ dependence and the quadratic nuclear size dependence agrees well with the experimental data. The energy dependence of the suppression also has excellent agreement with our prediction . What is amazing is the clear quadratic $`A^{2/3}`$ nuclear size dependence of the suppression which is a true QCD non-Abelian effect. In fitting the data of the overall suppression for $`{}_{}{}^{14}N`$ target we obtain the only parameter in our calculation, $`\stackrel{~}{C}\alpha _\mathrm{s}^2=0.00065`$ GeV2. This parameter is shown to be related to the transverse momentum nuclear broadening of Drell-Yan dilepton in $`pA`$ collisions , $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_{}^2=\stackrel{~}{C}\pi \alpha _\mathrm{s}/N_cx_A`$. With an experimental value  of $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_{}^2=0.016A^{1/3}`$ GeV2 and with $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}=0.21`$ (at $`M^2=40`$ GeV2), one finds $`\stackrel{~}{C}\alpha _\mathrm{s}^2=0.00057`$ GeV2. This indicates that $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ might have some $`Q^2`$ dependence. With this value of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ we can also predict the nuclear transverse momentum broadening of single jets in DIS .

With the modified fragmentation function in Eq. (10), one can calculate theoretically the average energy loss by the quark, which is the energy carried away by the radiated gluons,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\nu \mathrm{\Delta }z_g\stackrel{~}{C}\alpha _\mathrm{s}^2m_NR_A^2(C_A/N_c)3\mathrm{ln}(1/2x_B).`$ (15)
With the value of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^2\stackrel{~}{C}`$, and $`L_A=R_A\sqrt{2\pi }`$ one gets the quark energy loss $`dE/dx0.5`$ GeV/fm for a $`Au`$ nucleartarget.

## 3 JET QUENCHING IN HEAVY-ION COLLISIONS

In high-energy heavy-ion collisions, the jet production rate is not affected by the formation of dense matter and the final state multiple scattering. One can assume that the high $`p_T`$ hadron spectra can then be given by the convolution of the jet production cross section and the medium modified jet fragmentation function $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{h/c}(z_c,Q^2)`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{AB}^h}{dyd^2p_T}}`$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle d^2bd^2rt_A(r)t_B(|𝐛𝐫|)\underset{abcd}{}𝑑x_a𝑑x_bd^2k_{aT}d^2k_{bT}g_B(k_{bT},Q^2,|𝐛𝐫|)}`$ (16)
$`\times `$ $`g_A(k_{aT},Q^2,r)f_{a/A}(x_a,Q^2,r)f_{b/B}(x_b,Q^2,|𝐛𝐫|){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{D}_{h/c}(z_c,Q^2)}{\pi z_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{abcd}}{d\widehat{t}}},`$
where $`t_A(r)`$ is the thickness function of the nucleus $`A`$, $`f_{a/A}(x_a,Q^2,r)`$ is the parton distribution in a nucleus, $`g_A(k_{aT},Q^2,r)`$ is the distribution of parton intrinsic transverse momentum with nuclear broadening .

In principle, one should use the modified fragmentation function evaluated according to the pQCQ calculation for a dense medium. However, before that can be done in a practical manner, we have used the effective approach in Eq. (3) by rescaling the fractional momentum by $`1\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ to take into account of the parton energy loss. To verify whether such an effective approach is adequate, we compare the two modified fragmentation functions in Fig. 4. We found that the effective model (dashed lines) can reproduce the pQCD result (solid lines) of Eq. (10) very well, but only when $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is set to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }z0.6z_g`$. Therefore the actual averaged parton energy loss should be about 1.6 times of that used in the effective modified fragmentation function. This difference is caused by the absorptive processes or unitarity correction effect in the full pQCD calculation.

Unlike in DIS nuclear scattering, the dense medium in high-energy heavy-ion collisions is not static. It has to go through rapid expansion which should also affect the effective total parton energy loss. The total energy loss extracted from experiments should be a quantity that is averaged over the whole evolution history of the expanding system. It is therefore useful to convert the averaged quantity to an energy loss in a static system that has the same parton density as the expanding system at its initial stage. If the averaged total parton energy loss in a longitudinally expanding system with a transverse size $`R`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1\mathrm{d}}`$, one finds  that the corresponding parton energy loss in a static system with the same initial parton density would be $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1\mathrm{d}}(R/2\tau _0)`$. Here $`\tau _0`$ is the initial formation time of the dense medium.

Comparing the recent PHENIX data  with Eq. (16) as shown in Fig. 6, one can extract a value of $`dE/dx=0.23\mathrm{ln}E/\mathrm{ln}5`$GeV/fm with a logarithmic energy dependence that one needs to use in the effective modified fragmentation function in fitting the data. Taking into account the unitarity correction effect and the expansion, this corresponds to an effective energy loss $`dE/dx=1.6\times 0.23(R/2\tau _0)\mathrm{ln}E/\mathrm{ln}5`$. in a static system with a density similar to the initial stage of the expanding system at $`\tau _0`$. With $`R6`$ fm and $`\tau _01/p_0=0.2`$ fm, this would give $`dE/dx7.3`$ GeV/fm for a 10 GeV parton, which is about 15 times of that in a cold nuclear matter as extracted from the DIS processes. Since the parton energy loss is directly proportional to gluon density, this implies that the gluon density in the initial stage of $`Au+Au`$ collisions is about 15 times higher than that inside a cold nucleus.

## 4 GLOBAL CONSTRAINTS OF PARTON ENERGY LOSS

When a fast parton experiences multiple scattering and induced gluon radiation, the radiated gluon would also contribute to the final parton production leading to the enhancement of modified fragmentation function at small $`z`$ as shown in Fig. 4. These partons might get thermalized in the medium, but will contribute to the final hadron production. In the HIJING model  with the default setting, a simple $`dE/dx`$=2 GeV/fm is assumed for every jet with $`p_T>2`$ GeV/$`c^2`$. Such a default setting predicted an enhancement of the total hadron multiplicity in the central region  and a strong energy dependence  which is now excluded by the new PHOBOS data  of $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV. This either implies that the $`dE/dx=2`$ GeV/fm used in HIJING is too large or the onset of jet quenching is set at too low $`p_T`$ or both. According to the recent study of parton energy loss with detailed balance , gluon absorption by the fast parton in the thermal medium reduces the parton energy loss significantly for low energy partons. Taking into account this strong energy dependence of $`dE/dx`$, one might expect that the threshold for gluon radiation could be higher than what HIJING used. In fact, if one increases the threshold to 3 GeV in HIJING, one can still fit both $`dN_{\mathrm{ch}}/d\eta `$ and the suppressed hadron spectra at high $`p_T`$. Since the production rate of mini-jets with $`p_T>3`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ is very small, their contribution due to induced bremsstrahlung to the total charged multiplicity is negligible at the RHIC energies. By similar argument, the effect of parton thermalization on the total hadron multiplicity might also be small.

Neglecting the effect of jet quenching on the total multiplicity, one can assume the final $`dN\mathrm{ch}/d\eta `$ to be proportional to the total number of mini-jets produced in addition to the soft particle production. Assuming that the mini-jet production is proportional to the number of binary collisions and the soft part is proportional to the number of participating nucleons, one get in this simple two-component model

$$\frac{dN_{ch}}{d\eta }=\frac{1}{2}N_{\mathrm{part}}n_s+n_hN_{\mathrm{binary}}\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{jet}}^{AA}(s)}{\sigma _{\mathrm{in}}},$$
(17)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{jet}}^{AA}(s)`$ is the averaged inclusive jet cross section per $`NN`$ in $`AA`$ collisions. The energy dependence of the above multiplicity is shown in Fig. 6. The parameters $`n_\mathrm{s}=1.6`$ and $`n_\mathrm{h}=2.2`$ is fixed by the $`p+p(\overline{p})`$ data. The average number of participant nucleons and number of binary collisions for given impact-parameters can be estimated using HIJING Monte Carlo simulation. If one assumes that the jet production cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{jet}}^{AA}(s)`$ is the same as in $`p+p`$ collisions, the resultant energy dependence of the multiplicity density in central nuclear collisions is much stronger than the RHIC data. Therefore, one has to consider nuclear effects of jet production in heavy-ion collisions. Using a more recent parameterization , we found that the RHIC data requires a stronger nuclear shadowing of gluon distributions than quarks.

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

We have calculated the medium modification of the jet fragmentation functions due to gluon radiation induced by the multiple parton scattering. The predictions of the shape, energy dependence, and the quadratic nuclear size $`A^{2/3}`$ dependence of the modification agree well with the recent HERMES data. The resultant parton energy loss in the cold nuclear medium is estimated to be about 0.5 GeV/fm inside $`Kr`$ nuclei. Comparing to the QCD result of the modification of fragmentation function, we found that the actual averaged energy loss is about 1.6 times that of the effective energy loss used in a earlier effective model for the same modification. Considering the effect of expansion, we found that the recent PHENIX data imply a medium induced energy loss in central $`Au+Au`$ collisions equivalent to 7.3 GeV/fm in a static medium with the same gluon density as in the initial stage of the collision. This is about 15 times larger than the energy loss in a cold nucleus. Due to detailed balance in induced radiation and absorption, we argue that parton energy loss for small and medium high energy jets is very small. Therefore, the contribution from their induced radiation to the hadron multiplicity is negligible.

This work is supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of Nuclear Physics, and by the Office of Basic Energy Science, Division of Nuclear Science, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by NSFC under project 19928511.