format: text

text:
# Low Temperature Properties of the Random Field Potts Chain

## I introduction

Adding disorder to random magnets creates new effects one the prime examples being the random field Ising model (RFIM) review ; rfim-rieger . Since the randomness couples directly to the order parameter one has interesting physics in the groundstate (GS) properties rfim-gs ; gs1 ; gs2 ; gs3 , already. With a finite temperature the disordering effects of entropy and local fields compete.

The purpose of this article is to explore the generalization or extension of the one-dimensional RFIM to the one-dimensional random-field Potts model. The 1d RFPM is defined on a chain of $`L`$ spins (with periodic boundary conditions being used here) where each spin site can be in one of $`q`$ states. The Hamiltonian is given by

$$=J\underset{i,j}{}(q\delta _{\stackrel{}{\sigma _i},\stackrel{}{\sigma _j}}1)\underset{i}{}h_i(q\delta _{\stackrel{}{\sigma _i},\stackrel{}{\alpha _i}}1)$$
(1)
where $`i,j`$ are nearest-neighbour pairs and $`\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}`$ the Kronecker-delta, i.e., $`\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}=1`$ for $`\sigma =\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}=0`$ otherwise . The vector $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }_i`$ is a unit vector pointing randomly in one of the $`q`$ spin directions and $`h_i`$ is the local field strength which is chosen either constant or randomly distributed. In the numerical computations presented below we have used a Gaussian distribution for the random fields with $`h_i=0`$ and $`h_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=h_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},`$ such that $`h_r/J`$ is a measure for the strength of the disorder, except at finite $`T`$ where fields are uniformly distributed between \[$`\delta ,+\delta `$\]. In the following we denote the one-dimensional versions of the RFIM and the RFPM with RFIC(random field Ising chain) and RFPC(random field Potts chain).

Our approach is to explore the RFPC by three different techniques. We compute the exact GS by using a shortest path methodgs1 ; gs2 ; gs3 . This is a generalization of an idea that allows to find the GS of the RFIC, and can be understood as the zero-temperature limit of the transfer matrix computation of the equilibrium spin state. This is also employed here, to compare that state with the GS. Finally we resort to a qualitative description in terms of a random-walk (RW) picture of the groundstate. T his is also an extension of the RFIC case, where an earlier paperSchroeder01  presented a RW description of the exact groundstates.

There is rather little work on the RFPC with the exception of trivial field distributions chains ; Binder . Thus it is worth to recapitulate some of the features of the RFIC or the reasons why it still receives some attention. Due to the fact that the model is one-dimensional one could expect that the basic magnetization properties are more or less trivial. It turns out to be so, however, that in particular for binary random field distributions ($`h_i=\pm h_r`$) these have very peculiar propertiesBruinsma83 ; Andelman86 . The equation for the local magnetization can be considered as a 1d dynamical system with, for suitable parameters, a multifractal probability distributionBene88 . For the RFPC this is perhaps also the case, generalized to higher dimensions if $`q>2`$. In this article we omit such considerations for the sake of the equilibrium and groundstate properties.

One of the points of an exact solution for the GS is that it can be investigated how exactly the introduction of a small, finite temperature breaks up the GS. For the RFPC it is more or less trivial that the overlap between the GS and the $`T>0`$ state stays close to one, contrary to e.g. spin glasses where this question may still be open to a debate. However, it is of interest to study how exactly the GS is modified by the “easy” excitations. These are, as discussed below, related to the almost degenerate regions of the GS. The equilibrium state is also of interest as the asymptotic one for out-of-equilibrium processes. In such one-dimensional systems the domain walls undergo activated dynamics, in particular the RFIC ones perform Sinai walks Bouchaud90 ; LeDoussal .

The structure of the rest of the paper is as follows. First we overview, in section II, the theoretical expectations for the groundstate properties and outline qualitatively the consequences for perturbations from a given GS, whether by temperature or by changing the local fields (by random shifts or by an uniform applied field). Section III is devoted to exact numerical studies of the RFPC. In Section IV the temperature is switched on, and the effect of entropy on the domain structure is analyzed. Section V contains a brief numerical study of the effect of correlated fields. Finally, Section VI finishes the paper with conclusions. The numerical techniques are discussed in the Appendices.

## II Random Walks: decomposition of the groundstate

We have earlier presented a way to divide the sequence of random fields $`h_i`$ for the RFIC in such a way so that one can understand the ensuing domain structure Schroeder01 . The idea is to look at trial random walks: start from a test site, and follow the sum of the random fields left/right (an arbitrary choice). Each of such trials constitutes either an absorbing or non-absorbing one. The terms describe the fact that trials are random walks with absorbing boundaries. One boundary results in an excursion of the RW which is such that enough Zeeman energy ($`2J`$) is accumulated to form a domain, but if the other one is met first the try is finished and a new one is started. Since the RW’s are independent, the GS factorizes. Mathematically such excursions are given by the following rules. An $`absorbing`$ excursion ($`ae`$) is a sequence $`𝒮`$ of spins starting at some lattice site $`i`$ and ending at $`ji`$, with the field sum $`|_{i𝒮}h_i|`$ for the first time becoming greater or equal to $`2J`$. On the other hand a sequence $`𝒮^{}`$ of spins from $`i`$ to $`ji`$ is a non-absorbing excursion ($`nae`$) if $`0<\overline{\sigma }_{l=i}^jh_l<2J`$ $`i<k<j`$ ; where $`\overline{\sigma }=\pm 1`$ is the orientation of the spins within the preceding $`absorbing`$ excursion.

As shown in Figure 1 for each domain one has at least one such absorbing RW (it can contain more than one such large fluctuation) and it will be bounded by the next opposite absorbing RW’s on each side. The rules to be followed are: (1) Determine an absorbing excursion $`𝒮_0`$ for a given field configuration. If it starts at site $`i_0`$ and ends at $`j_0`$, and $`\overline{\sigma }`$ is the sign of its field sum, then $`\sigma _k=\overline{\sigma }`$ $`k𝒮_0`$. (2) Starting from $`j_0+1`$ find all non-absorbing excursions until the next absorbing excursion $`𝒮_1`$ (from $`i_1`$ to $`j_1`$) is found, whose field sum is by definition opposite in sign to the preceding one. The sites $`k`$ belonging to the non-absorbing excursions have the same orientation $`\sigma _k=\overline{\sigma }`$ as those within $`𝒮_0`$. The orientation of the spins at sites $`l`$ within $`𝒮_1`$ is opposite to the later one, $`\sigma _l=\overline{\sigma }`$. (3) Starting at $`j_1+1`$ the search (2) for the next absorbing excursion then leads to the overall GS.

This picture explains also, for binary random fields $`h_i=\pm h`$, the degeneracy of the RFIC. For our purposes it is more important to note that for any kind of perturbations it implies that there are three processes, domain wall-shifts, destruction and creation of domains, that follow naturally from the sequence of RW’s. If one changes the local random fields some of the absorbing excursions become non-absorbing, and thus domains are destructed while new ones may ensue if some non-absorbing ones become absorbing. These are in principle easy and in practice cumbersome (since one needs to be concerned with the exact first passage properties of the perturbed field distributions or random walk step length distributions) to compute for each process. Moreover, the normal outcome is that the domain-walls are shifted. The major results that follow for the RFIC from the RW picture concern the domain structure and optimization. The domain magnetic (Zeeman) energy scales linearly with domain size in contrast to the Imry-Ma argumentImry75 . The domain size distribution is exponential, and for $`h_r1`$ the Imry-Ma result $`l_d1/h_r^2`$ is recovered since both the contributions from the non-absorbing walks and the absorbing ones that contribute to the domain length scale with $`1/h_r^2`$. Thus for the RFPC it will be interesting to compare both the domain structure and the Zeeman energy,

$$H_Z=\underset{i𝒟}{}h_i(q\delta _{\stackrel{}{\sigma _i},\stackrel{}{\alpha _i}}1).$$
(2)
For the Potts model one can use the same thought experiment: assume the spin $`\sigma _i=q^{\prime \prime }`$, and look for “$`absorbing`$ excursions”. Now, in contrast to the $`q=2`$-case the general RFPC is more complicated. For each of the other $`q^{}q^{\prime \prime }`$ one can follow, analogously to the RFIC, the random walk that results from three steps: 1) null step (local field aligned to other direction than $`q^{}`$ and $`q^{\prime \prime }`$), 2) positive and 3) negative steps. One has $`q1`$ such trial walks, with the elementary step directions being correlated or shared. These follow “partial” sums of local random fields, according to the rules 1) - 3). Thus an analogy of the RFIC results in studying the first passage properties of a $`q1`$ dimensional space. Either one of the coordinates is increased, or all of them are decreased ($`q^{\prime \prime }`$-step) at the same time. One is interested in the first-passage through one of the sides of a hyper-cube in $`q1`$ -dimensions, ie. across the plane where $`q^{}=2J`$. The walk starts in the immediate vicinity of the corner $`(0,\mathrm{},0`$) of the hyper-cube. The simplest complication that arises over the $`q=2`$, RFIC case is that for each trial walk that compares any of the spin orientations and the original one there are “empty” steps consisting of local fields aligned with the other $`q2`$ possibilities. This implies that the typical domain length might simply scale with $`q`$, as borne out later by the numerics.

There are two further complications compared to the RFIC, both resulting from the fact that the optimization can not be done as straightforwardly as in the RFIC due to the factorization of the landscape to absorbing and non-absorbing excursions. Namely, for $`q>2`$ the process is slightly non-local. Consider the $`q=3`$ case, and assume that spin $`i`$ has $`q^{}=1`$. If a large fluctuation is found by following the appropriate partial sum of the $`q^{}=2`$-orientation, and the next one is of $`q^{}=3`$-kind, one has to consider whether it is energetically more favorable to create a $`2`$-domain, a $`3`$-domain, or both, since the number of domain walls created can be lowered by omitting in this example the $`2`$-domain. One can also use the argument the other way: if a large $`3`$-fluctuation exists, it is possible to create a $`2`$-domain since one of the domain walls is free. The following structure 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 of total energy $`E_i`$, is changed into 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 of energy $`E_f`$ by flipping a single spin $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ (the local random field $`h_i=h`$ directed along $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ = 3 at the flipped site). The latter configuration would be more favourable than the former one if, $`E_f<E_i`$, yielding $`h>J`$. This shows that the minimum Zeeman energy of a domain of length 1 should at least be $`J(q1)`$.

## III Ground State Properties

### III.1 Correlations among the successive domains and the evolution with increasing disorder

As noted above the sequence of domains is complicated due to the joint optimization. The easiest quantity is to compare the probability that the third domain from the original one is of the same orientation as the first one. We calculate the probability $`P_\sigma (q)`$ of finding the every third domain ($`𝒟_{i+2}`$) to be the same or different as the first ($`𝒟_i`$) one. In absence of any correlations among the successive domains one should expect the probability $`P_\sigma ^{nc}(q)`$ of obtaining $`𝒟_{i+2}`$ same or different with respect to $`𝒟_i`$ to be,

$`P_\sigma ^{nc}(q)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{q1}& ,\mathrm{for}\hfill & 𝒟_i=𝒟_{i+2}\hfill \\ & & \\ \frac{q2}{q1}& ,\mathrm{for}\hfill & 𝒟_i𝒟_{i+2}\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
We carried out computations with the Shortest Path Algorithm (see Appendix A) for $`q=`$2, 3, 4, 5 states, with the field strength $`h_r=0.05`$. It is easy to see that $`P_\sigma (q)`$ deviates some from the $`P_\sigma ^{nc}(q)`$. Evidently, the system prefers to have the third domain different from the first one. One can put this in two ways: creating a 121 configuration costs more energy, on one hand, and on the other hand as noted before one can add a domain at the expense of a single domain wall between two others (131 becoming 1231).

The evolution of the domain structure with increasing field amplitude $`h_r`$ differs fundamentally from the same phenomena in the RFIC. New domains can be created in-between two earlier ones at a smaller cost ($`2J`$ instead of $`4J`$). Figure 3 depicts the evolution of the GS domains for a $`q=5`$ states sample with identical configuration of the random direction of the local fields but increasing disorder $`h_r=`$ 0.05, 0.07, 0.15. The large domains are split into smaller fragments, mostly at their boundaries.

### III.2 Distribution of domain length and Zeeman energy

To compare with the $`q=2`$ or RFIC case we now used a larger system size of $`L`$ = 100000, with $`n=10^5`$ samples. Figure 4 shows the numerical results for the accumulated Zeeman energy $`H_Z`$ as a function of domain length $`l_d`$ for different field amplitudes $`h_r`$. It easy to see that all $`H_Z`$ versus $`l_d`$ curves can be asymptotically (except for the smaller $`l_d`$ region) fitted to a straight line of the formSchroeder01

$$H_Z=qJ+d_qh_r^\gamma l_d.$$
(7)
Here the coefficient $`d_q`$ grows roughly logarithmic for $`q<15`$.

Figure 5 shows the mean domain length $`l_d`$ for different values of $`q`$ as a function of the field amplitude $`h_r`$. The data along the x-axis for $`q=`$ 3, 4, 5 are shifted by factors 2, 4 and 8 respectively. In the limit $`h_rJ`$ the data fits quite well with the Imry-Ma scalingImry75  $`l_d1/h_r^2`$. The prefactor of the domain length is (see the inset of Figure 5), except for $`q=3`$, linearly dependent on $`q`$. Figure 6 finally shows the scaling plots of the probability distribution P($`l_d`$) of the domain lengths. Apart from the initial part, the distribution decays exponentially. We may therefore conclude that in spite of the slight correlations in the domain structure, the RFPC obeys the same scalings in the GS as the RFIC.

### III.3 Response to constant external field

In the presence of an external field favoring one of the spin orientations via an additional term $`h_i(q\delta _{\stackrel{}{\sigma _i},\stackrel{}{\alpha _i}}1)`$ in the Hamiltonian($`\stackrel{}{\alpha _i}`$ arbitrary but fixed and the same for all sites), the magnetization becomes of course non-zero. The ground state magnetization is computed as

$$m_a=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{q\delta _{\stackrel{}{\sigma _i},\stackrel{}{a}}1}{q1}\right).$$
(8)
in a particular direction $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ (here $`a[1,..,q])`$ for $`q`$ different states. Now for a small field strength ($`h_rJ`$) in an infinite system one has

$$m_{\mathrm{}}(h)h.$$
(9)
For a finite system the corresponding finite-size scaling relation can be obtained as followsRieger96 ; Bray85 . In the GS the Zeeman Energy of a block of spins of size $`L`$ is

$$E_ZLh.$$
(10)
Further the random field (variance $`h_r`$) energy of the block is

$$E_{RF}L^{1/2}h_r.$$
(11)
For a non-zero $`h`$ one would expect $`m_L(h)h^1`$ to be a function of the dimensionless ratio of $`E_Z`$ and $`E_{RF}`$ only, yielding

$$m_L(h)=h\stackrel{~}{m}(L^{1/2}h/h_r)$$
(12)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{m}(x)\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{const.}& \text{for }x1\hfill \\ & \\ 1/x& \text{for }x1\hfill \end{array}`$ (16)
Eq. (12) can once again be written as,

$$m_L(h)=L^{1/2}\overline{m}(L^{1/2}h/h_r)$$
(17)
with $`\overline{m}(x)=`$ const. for $`x1`$ and $`\overline{m}(x)=1/x`$ for $`x1`$.

The system is subjected to a constant external field $`h`$ in a fixed direction $`\stackrel{}{a}=1`$ to evaluate $`m_a(S,h)`$ for a sample $`S`$ with some given realization of random fields. To start, $`h=0.0001`$, and the GS magnetization is computed. Then the field is increased after averaging 1000 samples, until saturation. Here $`h_r=0.1`$, $`L\{5000,10000,20000,40000,80000\}`$ while $`h`$ is in the interval \[0.0001, 0.03\]. For smaller systems one has to use higher values of $`h_r`$, since otherwise a single domain may percolate.

### III.4 Chaos Exponent

A slight variation of the random fields in each sample gives rise to “chaos”. In the case of the RFIC or RFIM in general this has already been studiedChaos ; Alava98 . There the general behavior is such that for small amplitudes $`\delta `$ of the local perturbation the overlap between the new and the old GS remains considerable, and the difference is a smooth function of $`\delta `$. This is easy to see if one considers the RW factorization of the GS: a variation of the local fields gives rise to a new RW, in superposition with the original one. In the limit $`\delta 0`$ this has only minute effects except for barely absorbing walks and barely non-absorbing ones that can be affected if $`\delta `$ is large enough.Thus the average overlap $`q`$ is linear for the RFIC in $`\delta `$. Next we look at the chaos properties in the RFPC.

To modify the initial random fields $`h_i`$ at each site $`i`$ they are replaced by $`h_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}=h_i+\delta \stackrel{~}{h}`$. As before, $`h_i`$ and also $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ follow Gaussian distributions and the parameter $`\delta `$ measures the strength of the perturbation. Denoting $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i^0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i^\delta `$ to be the unperturbed and perturbed ground state at site $`i`$ respectively, the ground state overlap correlation function up to a distance $`r`$ is defined by

$$C_\delta (r)=\left[\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{i+r}^0)\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i^\delta ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{i+r}^\delta )\right]_{av}$$
(18)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=2\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}1.$$
(19)
In the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ one would expect a scaling form

$$C_\delta (r)\stackrel{~}{c}(r/\xi (\delta ))$$
(20)
with

$$\xi (\delta )\delta ^1.$$
(21)
In Figure 8 we show the results of our calculation of the GS overlap correlation function $`C_\delta (r)`$. $`r`$ is varied from 4 up to 160 for each perturbation strength $`\delta `$. The obtained data collapse agrees quite well with the argument above.

## IV Domains at finite temperature

### IV.1 Changes with the introduction of a finite temperature

For $`T>0`$ we calculated the expectation values $`\sigma _i`$ using the transfer matrix technique Bruinsma83 ; Crisanti93  as described in Appendix B. The domains start “melting”, i.e. the overlap with the GS, $`\sigma _i\sigma _{i,GS}`$, decreases, as the temperature is switched on from $`T=0`$. The effect of temperature is similar to a random field perturbation in the sense that both should play a role in particular where the fluctuations in the random landscape (absorbing/almost absorbing walks) make it the easiest. On the other hand the effect of temperature is not limited to those regions, only. Next we compare the finite temperature and GS configurations to illuminate the $`T>0`$ physics.

In Figure 9 we represent the destruction of a domain for a system of size of $`L`$= 400 and $`h_r`$ = 0.7, as the temperature is raised to 0.2 from $`T=0`$. The random field distribution is uniform in the interval $`[1,1]`$. The zero temperature domain from $`i`$ = 2 to $`i`$ = 5 is due to a single absorbing excursion, depicted by the large shaded region in the upper part of the Figure 9. The inset in the middle part shows the sensitive region at $`i`$ = 5, where the field sum just crosses the absorbing boundary. As the temperature is increased from zero, the entropy gives weight to states where the whole region or much of it is flipped, to the $`\sigma =1`$ state instead of +1.

Figure 10 shows the melting of a GS domain at $`T=0.1`$ for a system of $`L`$ = 400 and strength of disorder $`h_r`$ = 1.0 (the distribution of local fields is again uniform in \[-1,1\] ). Now the sum-of-fields random walk in the GS from $`i`$ = 1 to 10 is actually part of a non-absorbing excursion inside the embedding domain with $`\sigma =1`$. It is however susceptible to the introduction of temperature (note the spins $`i=`$ 4 and 10 where the RW is closest to creating a domain, in the inset).

At a finite temperature the sites 2, 3, 4 form a “new domain” with $`\sigma =1`$. This new domain contains only one part of the RF fluctuation, from 1 to 4.

To further investigate the melting of a GS domains at finite temperatures, an overview of the GS and equilibrium configurations at finite temperatures is shown in Figure 11. The calculations for each temperature including the GS are carried out for the same local field configuration. The thick dotted line corresponds to the GS whereas the continuous lines represents the melted configurations with the gradual increase in temperature.

In general, for very low temperatures there are only a few segments of spins, which differ from their respective GS orientations Schroeder01 , growing with increasing temperature in height and width. At high temperatures $`(TJ`$ and $`Th_r)`$ the expectation value $`\sigma `$ of each spin finally fluctuates around the mean value $`1/q`$.

### IV.2 Domains at $`T>0`$

To construct a domain structure at any finite temperature we focus to the melting of individual $`q`$ states. It is easy to calculate the contribution for each of $`q`$ states to the resultant melting by taking a single state in the diagonal matrix, in the transfer matrix calculation, and keeping the others zero. The maximum of these contributions will give rise to a definite local spin state ($`\sigma _i=1,\mathrm{}.q)`$. Figure 12(a) represents the GS (straight bold line) and melted $`\sigma _i`$ at finite temperatures for $`q=3`$. Figures 12(b), (c), (d) shows the components (for each $`q`$) of probability $`P(\sigma _i=1,2,3)`$ at $`T0`$ of individual spins $`\sigma _i`$ at sites $`i`$. Consider the 1st segment of domain in (a). It is evident that the melted domain approaches the state $`q=3`$ as confirmed by the behavior of the same segment in Figures (b), (c) and (d). To analyze the melting process quantitatively we investigate the probability distributions of lengths of the melted segments and the melting rates $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}`$, where $`m_i=\sigma _i`$ for each of $`q=`$2, 3, 4, 5.

We also compute the finite temperature distribution of domain lengths. The simulations are for different temperatures with a system of fixed $`L=300`$ and disorder strength $`h_r=0.7`$. The distribution of local random fields is uniform in \[-1,1\]. The disorder, temperature, and system size are restricted by the fact that one has to compute products of $`L(q\times q)`$ transfer matrices. One also prefers to avoid Gaussian disorder instead of one with a bounded support. It is clear from Figure 13, that except for the initial part, the probability distribution $`P(l_T)`$ varies exponentially with $`l_T`$, similarly to GS domains. With an increasing temperature the decay in the tail becomes faster, indicating that correlations diminish as expected.

We define the probability distribution of melting rates $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}`$ as,

$$P(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }T})=\frac{N(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }T})}{nL},$$
(22)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=|\sigma (T+\mathrm{\Delta }T)\sigma (T)|,$$
(23)
where $`n`$ is the number of samples. We measure the change in magnetisation $`m_i`$ for each spin $`\sigma _i`$ when the temperature changes by $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. For counting we use the resolution $`\delta =0.001`$, for which $`N(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{\mathrm{\Delta }T})`$ is actually the number of spins $`\sigma _i`$ with $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}\frac{\delta }{2},\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}+\frac{\delta }{2}]`$.

Figure 14 shows the distribution $`P(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{\mathrm{\Delta }T})`$ at different temperatures for $`q=`$2, 3, 4, 5; $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=0.05`$ is the same for all temperatures and $`10^5`$ configurations. The data points for $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}`$ are not shown as in this regime we observe a strong maximum at $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}0`$. For $`q=2`$ there is a small but distinct peak in the curve for $`T=0.2`$ which gradually diminishes for higher values of $`q`$.

### IV.3 Finite temperature lengthscales

Finally we investigate how the local regions of the magnetization evolve at finite $`T`$Schroeder01 . We calculate the average length $`l_m(l_m=l_T)`$ from the finite temperature configurations. Figure 15 represents how this lengthscale changes with temperature, if one first scales away the $`T=0`$ dependence on the field. Note that the temperature is restricted so that $`T0.09`$. A further collapse with the right combination of $`h`$ and $`T`$ makes it possible to observe an universal scaling function for $`l_m`$ so that

$$l_m=l_dF(\frac{h^\nu }{T}),$$
(24)
where the scaling function $`F1`$ as $`T0`$. The exponent

$$\nu 2/3$$
(25)
does not change with $`q`$, and thus one has the same scaling for $`q>2`$ as for the RFIC. The implication is basically the same: one has per each domain a number of “easy” excitations that allow the magnetization to change a lot from the GS. The presence of such almost degenerate regions is not affect by the exact value of $`q`$.

## V RFIC with correlated random fields

We have already seen that for an uncorrelated random field distribution the average domain length asymptotically follows the Imry-Ma argument, i.e. $`l_d1/h_r^2`$. This should change for spatially correlated random fields. Now we obtain an exponent $`\gamma `$ with $`l_d1/h_r^\gamma `$ where $`\gamma `$ approaches 2 as the spatial correlations decrease. Consider a power-law correlation function of the form

$$h_ih_{i+r}r^\rho .$$
(26)
To use an analogy of the Imry-Ma argument, the random field energy of a domain of length $`l_d`$ is expressed as

$$E_{RF}\sqrt{\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{l_d}{}}h_ih_j}.$$
(27)
Making use of the correlation function (21) we readily obtain,

$$E_{RF}\sqrt{h_r^2\left(\frac{l_d^{2\rho }}{1\rho }\right)}$$
(28)
with $`0<\rho <1`$. The domain wall energy is as usual

$$E_{DW}J$$
(29)
To create domains, in the GS, $`E_{RF}`$ and $`E_{DW}`$ are of the same order of magnitude, thus

$$l_dh_r^\gamma $$
(30)
where the exponent

$$\gamma =\frac{2}{2\rho }.$$
(31)
for $`\rho <1`$. For $`\rho >1`$ this Imry-Ma type argument predicts the irrelevance of the correlations in the disorder, i.e. $`\rho =2`$.

We computed the probability distribution $`P(l_d)`$ on a large system of size $`L=65536`$, with the local, correlated, Gaussian random fields generated by the Noise Construction AlgorithmPang95 . Statistical averaging was performed over $`10^5`$ samples. As in the case of uncorrelated fields $`P(l_d)`$ is again exponential for all values of $`\rho `$ we studied. The disorder $`h_r`$ was varied for each value of $`\rho `$, to calculate the exponent $`\gamma `$ from the data collapse of $`P(l_d)`$ versus $`l_d`$. $`\gamma `$ deviates significantly from the predicted value as $`\rho `$ approaches unity, but finally approach the value 2 for $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. The deviation might be due to logarithmic corrections to the Imry-Ma prediction (31) close to the critical value $`\rho =2`$. The same properties can also be verified for the RFPC, if the random field magnitudes and their directions obey the same correlations.

## VI Conclusions

It is a fortunate fact that one can solve numerically, but exactly, for the groundstates of the RFPC. For the RFIM one has access to powerful graph optimization methods that work in $`d`$ arbitrary, but for $`q>2`$ it can actually be shown that the problem is NP-complete for $`d>1`$ Preissmann97 . Here we have used this to study the Potts chains, augmented with random walk considerations and with transfer matrix calculations.

As it is already known that the RFIC groundstate is, essentially, separable to independent regions and what the consequences are it is most natural to compare the $`q>2`$ behavior to the RFIC physics. It turns out that essentially all more general scaling behaviors, whether pertaining to the GS or to the finite temperature states, follow similar laws. This is true, in groundstates, for the Zeeman energy, for the form of the domain distribution, and for the average domain length. At $`T>0`$ we have demonstrated that the change from the GS configurations follows a similar course for $`q`$ arbitrary. Finally also for GS chaos the value of $`q`$ has no essential importance.

There are of course slight differences since the local domain structure has correlations due to the “decorations” of large domains with smaller ones that utilize the fact that only one domain wall needs to be created if e.g. induced by increasing the disorder strength. These are of secondary importance for the scaling properties.

The greatest deviations from the expected behavior we observed in the case of the RFIC with correlated fields, where the scaling exponent of the domain length with disorder strength does not seem to take the expected value $`\gamma =2`$ (but is slightly less) for weakly correlated fields. This may be due to corrections to scaling, or to the detailed properties of a RW picture, similarly to the uncorrelated case, when the walks are fractional Brownian motions.

In the case of the RFPC it is possible to propose a number of topics to study. Eg. the generalizations of the multifractal magnetization distributions of the RFIC seem mathematically interesting. Also the detailed properties of the “melting” of the GS might merit further study.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to G. Schröder for contributing to the early stages of this work, in particular for the design of the graph on which the algorithm for finding the ground states of the RFPC operates. This work has been partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft(DFG) and the European Science Foundation (ESF) Sphinx program. MJA acknowledges the contribution of the Center of Excellence program of the Academy of Finland.

## Appendix A

The ground state of $`q`$-State RFPC can be calculated exactly by mapping onto a shortest path problem on an acyclic graph. The graph $`G(L,q)`$ corresponding to a $`q`$-State RF Potts chain of length $`L`$ consists of ($`L`$+1)$`\times q`$ nodes which we consider to be arranged like presented in figure 1 and denoted by ($`x,k`$) with $`x=1,\mathrm{}.,L`$ and $`k=1,\mathrm{}.,q`$. Each node ($`x,k`$) is connected to all of its right neighbours, i.e. to all nodes ($`x+1,k^{}`$) with $`k^{}=1,\mathrm{}.,q`$ by a directed one-way edge with cost

$$c_{(x,x+1,k,k^{})}=J(q\delta _{\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}}}1)h_{x+1}(q\delta _{\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{\alpha }}1).$$
(32)
Fixing the spin at $`x=`$ 0 to be in state $`k`$ the groundstate of RFPC then corresponds to a shortest path from ($`1,k`$) to ($`L,k`$) in $`G`$($`L,k`$). To apply periodic boundary conditions it is necessary to solve $`q`$ shortest path problems, one for each of the $`q`$ (with $`(q,q)`$ spins at sites $`x=`$ 1 and $`x=L`$+1) possible states. One of these shortest paths with minimum energy gives rise to the optimal groundstate.

Since the underlying graph (Fig. 17) is acyclic no cycle, in particular none with negative weight, can occur and Dijkstra’s algorithm for finding the shortest path in a weighted graph can be applied although not all edge weights are positive. The running time of this algorithm is linear both in number $`n`$ of the nodes and in the number $`m`$ of the edges, thus the overall complexity to find the groundstate of the RFPC with periodic boundary condition is $`𝒪`$($`q^2L`$).

## Appendix B

For temperature $`T>0`$ we generalize the Transfer Matrix Method Crisanti93  for the $`q`$-States RFPC. The calculation of the partition function $`𝒵_N`$ can be reduced to the problem of finding the product of $`N`$ random matrices:

$$𝒵_N=\underset{\{\sigma \}}{}exp(\beta \sigma )=Tr\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}𝐋^{(i)}\right)$$
(33)
where

$$𝐋_{j,k}^{(i)}=\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}[\beta J(q\delta _{\stackrel{}{\sigma _j},\stackrel{}{\sigma _k}}1)+\beta h_i(q\delta _{\stackrel{}{\sigma _j},\stackrel{}{\alpha _i}}1)]\end{array}\right]_{q\times q},$$
(34)
Here ($`j,k=1,\mathrm{},q`$).

Using this expression of partition function the expectation value $`\sigma _r`$ for each spin can be expressed as,

$$\sigma _r=\frac{_{\{\sigma \}}\sigma _rexp(\beta )}{𝒵_N}$$
(35)
It is easy to see from Eq. (23) that

$$\sigma _r=\frac{Tr\left[\left(_{i=1}^N𝐋^{(i+r1)}\right)𝐒\right]}{Tr\left(_{i=1}^N𝐋^{(i+r1)}\right)}$$
(36)
with $`𝐒_{ij}=i.\delta _{ij}`$.

The only computational effort consists in calculating the product of $`N`$ $`q\times q`$ transfer matrices. Since the elements of $`𝐋^{(i)}`$ become very small for low temperatures, arbitrarily small temperatures can not be considered. However, the admissible temperature interval is sufficient for our investigations.


text:
# BCS Diquark Condensation in the 3+1d Lattice NJL Model

## 1 Introduction

Despite recent advances in the study of QCD at small but non-zero density on the lattice  the sign problem still persists in the study of dense, low temperature, exotic matter phases. One approach is to study four-fermi theories which, unlike $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_C`$ QCD (in which the $`qq`$ baryons are bosonic), can display Fermi-surface effects such as BCS superfluidity. Although these models exhibit no confinement, one variant, the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_L\times \mathrm{SU}(2)_R`$ NJL model, possesses the same global symmetries as 2 flavour QCD, which should allow us to investigate the phase structure of this theory.

## 2 Lattice Model and Parameter Choice

The model studied here, which uses staggered lattice fermions, is the 3+1 dimensional version of that studied in  and references therein. In particular the model has the action

$$S=𝚿^{\mathrm{tr}}𝒜𝚿+\frac{2}{g^2}\underset{\stackrel{~}{x}}{}(\sigma ^2+\stackrel{}{\pi }.\stackrel{}{\pi }),$$
(1)
where the bispinor $`𝚿`$ is written in terms of independent isospinor fermionic fields via $`𝚿^{\mathrm{tr}}=(\overline{\chi },\chi ^{\mathrm{tr}})`$, and the auxiliary bosonic fields $`\sigma `$ and $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ are introduced in the standard way. Written in the Gor’kov basis the fermion matrix is

$$𝒜=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{ȷ}\tau _2& M\\ M^{\mathrm{tr}}& j\tau _2\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where the matrix $`M`$ is identical to the $`3+1`$d form of that given in . The diquark sources $`j`$ and $`\overline{ȷ}`$ differ from those in  by a factor of 2 which allows us to identify them with Majorana masses.

Being a theory of point-like interactions the NJL model has no continuum limit for $`d4`$ leaving the physics sensitive to simulation parameters. In order to ensure we simulate in a physical regime these parameters are fitted to physical observables calculated in the large $`N`$ limit at $`\mu =0`$ . In particular we evaluate dimensionless ratios between the pion decay rate $`f_\pi `$, the constituent quark mass $`m^{}`$ and the pion mass $`m_\pi `$, and fit to the phenomenological values of 93MeV, 350MeV and 138MeV respectively. Using these fits we determine the bare quark mass $`am_0=0.002`$ and the inverse coupling $`a^2/g^2=0.565`$. We also extract the large $`N`$ lattice spacing $`a^1=1076`$MeV, which allows us to present results in physical units.

## 3 Preliminary Results

The above model was simulated with a Hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm on $`L_s^3\times L_t`$ lattices with $`L_s=L_t=12`$, $`16`$ and $`20`$. A partially quenched approximation was used in which the diquark sources are set to zero during the update of the auxiliary fields but are non-zero during the measurement of diquark observables.

In order to study chiral symmetry breaking we measure the chiral condensate $`\overline{\chi }\chi `$ and baryon number density $`n_B`$, which are defined by

$$\overline{\chi }\chi =\frac{1}{V}\frac{\mathrm{ln}𝒵}{m__0}$$
(3)
and

$$n_B=\frac{1}{2V}\frac{\mathrm{ln}𝒵}{\mu }.$$
(4)
Plots of $`\overline{\chi }\chi `$ and $`n_B`$ as functions of chemical potential are presented in Figure 1. Both the large $`N`$ solutions and the lattice data have been extrapolated to the limit $`V^10`$. Chiral symmetry is broken in the low $`\mu `$ phase, as signalled by an non-zero chiral condensate, and is approximately restored as $`\mu `$ is increased through what appears to be a crossover. The order of the chiral phase transition in the NJL model is strongly dependent on the parameters used .

In the diquark sector, the operators

$$qq_\pm (x)=\chi ^{tr}\frac{\tau _2}{4}\chi (x)\pm \overline{\chi }\frac{\tau _2}{4}\overline{\chi }^{tr}(x)$$
(5)
allow one to define the diquark condensate as

$$qq_+=\frac{1}{V}\frac{\mathrm{ln}𝒵}{j_+},$$
(6)
where $`j_\pm =j\pm \overline{ȷ}`$.

Figure 2 shows the condensate plotted as a function of $`j`$ extrapolated to $`L_t^10`$ (we simulate with $`j=\overline{ȷ}`$ throughout). For $`\mu =0`$ a quadratic fit through the data is consistent with the condensate vanishing as $`j0`$. For high $`\mu `$ the fit is consistent with a non-zero diquark condensate which is similar in magnitude to the chiral condensate in the vacuum. We believe that finite volume effects cause the points with $`j0.2`$ to fall below the curve. In particular, in the high $`\mu `$ phase as $`j0`$ we expect an exact Goldstone mode which leads the correlation length to diverge. For this reason these points have been ignored during the fits.

Finally, if we define susceptibilities

$$\chi __\pm =\underset{x}{}qq{}_{\pm }{}^{}(0)qq__\pm (x),$$
(7)
we can clearly distinguish between the two phases by studying the ratio

$$R=\underset{j_+0}{lim}\frac{\chi __+}{\chi _{_{}}}.$$
(8)
If a $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ baryon number symmetry is manifest, the two susceptibilities should be identical up to a sign factor and the ratio should equal 1. If the symmetry is broken, the Ward identity

$$\chi _{}|_{j_{}=0}=\frac{qq_+}{j_+}$$
(9)
predicts that $`\chi _{}`$ should diverge and the ratio should vanish.

Figure 3 shows the susceptibility ratio as a function of $`j`$, again extrapolated to $`L_t^10`$. A linear fit through the $`\mu =0`$ data is consistent with a manifest $`\mathrm{U}(1)_B`$ symmetry. For $`\mu a=1.0`$ we see markedly different behaviour, with a fit (again discarding $`j0.2`$) suggesting an intercept close to zero and therefore a broken baryon number symmetry.

## 4 Summary and Outlook

We have provided preliminary evidence of a BCS superfluid phase in the 3+1d NJL model at high $`\mu `$, with an order parameter approximately equal in magnitude to the chiral order parameter at $`\mu =0`$. The behaviour of the susceptibility ratio defined in (8) further supports a broken $`\mathrm{U}(1)_B`$ symmetry in the high $`\mu `$ phase analogous to the broken $`\mathrm{U}(1)_{EM}`$ in BCS superconductors. This study provides the first evidence of a BCS phase in lattice field theory, which we interpret as evidence of a colour-superconducting phase at high $`\mu `$ in QCD.

Clearly, more data are required for intermediate values of $`\mu `$ to understand the nature of the diquark transition. To have more control over the finite volume effects shown in Figures 2 and 3 it may also be necessary to study lattices with $`L_sL_t`$. Finally, in the future we wish to study the fermion dispersion relation. This will allow us to present a comparison between the chiral mass gap $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the BCS superfluid gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which can, in principle, be experimentally determined.

## Acknowledgements

This project is being carried out in collaboration with Simon Hands.


text:
# Conference Summary

## 1 INTRODUCTION AND DEDICATION

This series of conferences was begun in Strasbourg in 1995, largely through the efforts of A. Fridman, or “Fredy,” as he was known, a remarkable individual whom I came to know during one of his visits to Tel Aviv University in 1968 and later when we were both at CERN. My family and I have fond memories of his generous hospitality in Strasbourg in 1973, when he treated us at a restaurant in the nearby French countryside to one of the best meals I have ever had. Fredy cared deeply about physics and had particular tastes (such as heavy baryons) which ensured that topics which were not always fashionable received the attention they deserved. We miss him greatly.

The start of my visit to Canada speaks well for the visibility of particle physics here. At the border the guard asked my wife and me for photo identification and for the purpose of our visit. When I named the conference, he asked: “What’s your favorite subatomic particle? Do you think dark matter will be found? Will the Universe keep expanding or collapse back to a point? Personally, I like the cyclic idea.” I asked him if he wanted to see our proof of citizenship; he answered: “Nope. Have a nice day!” We later learned that the press coverage of particle physics in Vancouver (and the rest of Canada) has been extensive, and that the guards are quite well-informed.

This Conference has been an enjoyable mixture of topics which, while not all answering the border guard’s deep questions, shed light on many fundamental issues, such as the pattern of quark masses and mixings, the origin of the CP violation in the kaon and $`B`$ meson systems, and possibilities for physics beyond the Standard Model. I first discuss the unitarity of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix as probed via the first two quark families (Sec. 2), and then kaons (Sec. 3) and hyperons (Sec. 4). A trio of sections is devoted to spectroscopy: quarkonium (Sec. 5), particles with charm (Sec. 6) and particles with beauty (Sec. 7). In the last two of these I also discuss weak decays and what they teach us about the strong and weak interactions and the CKM matrix. A separate section (8) is devoted to heavy quark production. I then treat the electroweak sector in Sec. 9, including the neutral-current couplings of heavy quarks and the search for the Higgs boson. Physics beyond the Standard Model (mainly supersymmetry) is discussed in Sec. 10, while Sec. 11 concludes.

## 2 CKM AND THE FIRST TWO FAMILIES

Is the CKM matrix unitary ? Superallowed transitions in nuclei  yield $`|V_{ud}|0.9740(5)`$, while the lifetime and $`g_A/g_V`$ of the neutron yield a slightly smaller value $`0.973`$ . The value of $`|V_{us}|`$ quoted for many years , based on $`K_{e3}`$ decays, has been $`0.220\pm 0.002`$, yielding $`_i|V_{ui}|^2=0.996\pm 0.002`$, a $`2\sigma `$ discrepancy. At this conference we heard of a new analysis of hyperon decays  which gives $`|V_{us}|=0.2250\pm 0.0027`$, while a new $`K_{e3}`$ experiment  is likely to give about a 3% increase in the old value of $`|V_{us}|`$ modulo radiative corrections .

The value of $`|V_{cd}|`$ is roughly 0.22, in accord with unitarity expectations . At this conference we heard of a new value of $`|V_{cs}|`$ extracted from $`W`$ decays . Using precision measurements and theoretical estimates of the $`W`$ production cross section, the LEP II collaborations have measured $`(W\mathrm{hadrons})=(67.92\pm 0.27)\%`$ (67.5% in the Standard Model \[SM\]) and $`(Wl\nu )=(10.69\pm 0.09)\%`$ (10.8% in the SM), where the SM predictions are based on $`\alpha _s(M_W)=0.121\pm 0.002`$. This constrains $`|V_{ij}|^2`$, where $`i=u,c;j=d,s,b`$. Subtracting known values, one finds $`|V_{cs}|=0.996\pm 0.013`$, whereas unitarity would predict $`0.975`$. The agreement is better than $`2\sigma `$.

## 3 KAONS

The KLOE detector at the DAFNE electron-positron collider at Frascati has been studying $`e^+e^{}\varphi \mathrm{}`$, where in addition to $`K\overline{K}`$ the final states include $`f_0\gamma `$ and $`\eta ^{}\gamma `$. The newly measured branching ratio $`(\varphi \eta ^{}\gamma )=(6.8\pm 0.6\pm 0.5)\times 10^5`$ probes the strange quark content of the $`\eta ^{}`$ . Writing $`|\eta ^{}=X|u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}/\sqrt{2}+Y|s\overline{s}+Z|\mathrm{glue}`$, one finds that $`X^2+Y^2=0.95_{0.07}^{+0.11}`$, limiting the amount of glue in the $`\eta ^{}`$ wave function .

Two events of the rare decay $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ have now been seen , corresponding to $`=(1.57_{0.82}^{+1.75})\times 10^{10}`$. This is to be compared with the SM prediction of $`=(0.82\pm 0.32)\times 10^{10}`$; the amplitude probes a combination proportional to $`|1.4\rho i\eta |`$ of the Wolfenstein  parameters $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$. The goals of BNL experiment E949  and the Fermilab CKM experiment  are to record 10 and 100 events of this process, respectively, if the SM prediction is correct.

Events have been seen in $`K_L^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ and in $`K_L^0\pi ^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ at a level consistent with background . Further study of radiative $`K_L^0`$ decays (e.g., to $`\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}`$) and a search for $`K_S\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ will provide useful information. The present limit is $`(K_S\pi ^0e^+e^{})<1.4\times 10^7`$ . The CP-conserving amplitude for this process is fed by rescattering from $`K_L\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$, for which NA48 has presented new results . The amplitude for $`K_L^0\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ is proportional to the CP-violating parameter $`\eta `$. The SM prediction $`=(3.1\pm 1.3)\times 10^{11}`$ will be approached stepwise, with experiments at KEK (E391), the Japan Hadron Facility (JHF) and BNL (KOPIO) .

The parameter $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ in $`K_{S,L}\pi \pi `$ is still evolving. Fermilab E832 presented its value based on the full 1996-7 data set, $`ϵ^{}/ϵ=(20.7\pm 2.8)\times 10^4`$ . A new value from CERN NA48, $`ϵ^{}/ϵ=(14.8\pm 2.2)\times 10^4`$ , when combined with the Fermilab result, yields a world average $`ϵ^{}/ϵ=(17.0\pm 2.9)\times 10^4`$, where I have increased the error from $`\pm 1.7`$ by $`S(\chi ^2)^{1/2}`$ . The Fermilab experiment’s results of its 1999 run should reduce the error further.

The amplitudes contributing to $`K_{S,L}\pi \pi `$ consist of a penguin (with a weak phase, leading only to an $`I=0`$ final state) and a tree (with no weak phase, leading to both $`I=0`$ and $`I=2`$ final states). The relative phase of the $`I=2`$ and $`I=0`$ amplitudes leads to $`ϵ^{}0`$. Despite the difficulty of estimating the relative strength of penguin and tree contributions, the Fermilab and CERN measurements definitely establish the presence of direct CP violation.

Other rare $`K`$ decay process include $`K_Le^+e^{}\gamma `$ and $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma `$, whose dependence on $`m(l^+l^{})`$ probes the form factor in $`K_L\gamma ^{}\gamma `$, useful for estimating the contribution of the long-distance dispersive contribution (and hence also the short-distance contribution) to $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ . It now appears that the $`e^+e^{}\gamma `$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma `$ results give the same form-factor parameters, which was not always the case.

## 4 HYPERONS

The neutral hyperons produced in neutral kaon beams have been studied at Fermilab  and CERN . The decay $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+e^{}\overline{\nu }_e`$ is related to $`npe^{}\overline{\nu }_e`$ by the U-spin transformation $`ds`$; differences between the two probe SU(3) breaking. The Fermilab group  has recently studied a large sample of events for this process. The CERN group  has measured the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ mass much more precisely than previously, allowing a test of the Coleman-Glashow relation $`m(n)m(p)+m(\mathrm{\Xi }^{})m(\mathrm{\Xi }^0)=m(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})m(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)`$. This relation should be good to $`0.1`$ MeV , as it seems to be.

Radiative hyperon decays  have posed a long-standing puzzle. Up to now we have not had a consistent description of all rates and polarization asymmetries for the processes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }n\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\gamma `$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\gamma `$. Early work  showed that an elementary $`sd\gamma `$ transition was not enough, while a quark-model treatment  appeared to disagree with data. Recent CERN NA48 data on the asymmetry parameter in $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$ seems to have resolved the question in favor of the general scheme of predictions of the quark model  and in favor of Hara’s Theorem , which says that polarization asymmetries in these radiative decays should vanish in the limit of exact SU(3).

The HyperCP Experiment at Fermilab has provided new information on charged hyperons. The decay $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ has been oberved with $`=(3.6\pm 0.3)\times 10^4`$ . The mechanism is still unclear; should one see a $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(1530)(3/2^+)`$ intermediate state? The T-violating asymmetry in $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^{}p\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ has been bounded : $`A_{\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Lambda }}=(7\pm 12\pm 6.2)\times 10^4`$, with an error of $`2\times 10^4`$ (still above SM expectations) expected for the full sample.

## 5 QUARKONIUM

The Belle Collaboration has discovered the radial excitation of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ quarkonium ground state, the $`\eta _c^{}(2S)`$ with a mass of 3654 MeV  through the decay $`B\eta _c^{}(2S)KK_SK^\pm \pi ^{}K`$. The $`2S`$ hyperfine splitting $`\psi ^{}\eta _c^{}=32`$ MeV is considerably less than the $`1S`$ splitting $`J/\psi \eta _c=118`$ MeV and less than one would estimate on the basis of the $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ leptonic widths, suggesting the possibility that coupled-channel effects and/or mixing with the $`\psi ^{\prime \prime }(3770)`$ are pushing down the $`\psi ^{}`$ mass .

The search for singlet P-wave $`c\overline{c}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ states has not yet produced a firm candidate. The Fermilab E835 Collaboration  still is mute regarding their previous (E760) claim for a $`h_cc\overline{c}(^1P_1)`$ state at 3526 MeV. Suzuki  has suggested looking for $`Bh_cK`$, with $`h_c\eta _c\gamma `$. As for the $`h_b=b\overline{b}(^1P_1)`$, which should decay largely to $`\gamma \eta _b`$, it should be produced via $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(3S)\pi ^0h_b`$  or $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(3S)\pi ^+\pi ^{}h_b`$ . For other suggestions for P-wave singlet observation, and a summary of mass predictions, see .

The D-wave quarkonium levels  include the observed $`c\overline{c}(^3D_1)`$ state $`\psi ^{\prime \prime }(3770)`$ and a candidate for a $`b\overline{b}(^3D_2)`$ state $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(10162)`$ reported since this conference by the CLEO Collaboration at ICHEP2002 in Amsterdam . Chao  has suggested that the $`c\overline{c}(1D_2)`$ state may be narrow and easily observed.

In light of new data on quarkonium decays (e.g., ), new approaches based on non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) , and realization of the importance of color octet contributions to quarkonium wave functions, previous $`\alpha _s`$ determinations based on heavy quarkonium decays to light hadrons (e.g., ) should be updated. The BES group  has presented impressive evidence that $`f_J(1710)`$ produced in $`J/\psi f_J\gamma `$ has $`J=0`$; it is a leading candidate for the lightest glueball.

## 6 PARTICLES WITH CHARM

Candidates for doubly-charmed baryons presented by the Fermilab SELEX Collaboration  are summarized in Table 1. These entail several mysteries.

* The FOCUS Collaboration  does not see a signal, though they detect many more $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$’s.
* The isospin splitting between the first two states is enormous. One usually expects isospin splittings to be at most a few MeV.
* The production rate of the doubly-charmed baryons is so large that fully half of all observed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$’s must come from their decays.
* The hyperfine splitting between the last two states (presumably $`J=1/2`$ and $`J=3/2`$ candidates) is larger than one might estimate by elementary means (see, e.g., ).

Impressive results on charmed particle photoproduction have been presented by the FOCUS (E831) Collaboration at the Fermilab Tevatron.

Charmed particle semileptonic decays  have yielded evidence for an S-wave $`K\pi `$ contribution under the dominant $`\overline{K}^{}(890)`$ vector meson resonance in $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu `$. The branching ratio $`(D^+\overline{K}^0\mu ^+\nu _\mu )=(5.5\pm 0.4)\%`$ is larger than the Particle Data Group  value of $`(4.8\pm 0.4)\%`$ but $`1.6\sigma `$ below the CLEO  value of $`(6.7\pm 0.8)\%`$. It was always puzzling why this branching ratio was not larger . The new FOCUS measurement $`(D_s\varphi \mu ^+\nu _\mu )/(D_s\varphi \pi ^+)=0.54\pm 0.06`$ can be helpful in calibrating absolute $`D_s`$ branching ratios if supplemented by theoretical estimates of the $`D_s\varphi `$ form factors.

Charmed baryon decays  have been observed by FOCUS in several Cabibbo-suppressed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ modes, including $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\overline{K}^0`$ (strangeness $`S=2`$), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+K^0(S=0)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}K^+\pi ^+(S=0)`$. Cabibbo-favored $`S=1`$ modes such as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+K^+K^{}`$ also have been observed; in the latter case the Dalitz plot shows a $`\varphi `$ band in $`K^+K^{}`$ and a $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ band in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+K^{}`$. As mentioned, there are no signs of SELEX’s $`ccq`$ baryons.

Charmed particle lifetimes  exhibit a hierarchy which is qualitatively understood from the standpoint of heavy quark symmetry. In Table 2 we compare the FOCUS results with Particle Data Group (2002) averages. The FOCUS $`D_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ values are preliminary.

The CLEO Collaboration  has presented results on $`D^0K_s\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ in which the doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed decay $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ is seen via interference on the Dalitz plot. Through a study of related decay modes one can learn about final-state phase differences  in the same way as for the Cabibbo-favored modes .

Several presentations at this Conference dealt with charmed meson spectroscopy and rare decays. Predictions of the lowest $`ccq`$ state differed greatly: 3241 MeV  or 3640–3690 MeV , where both values refer to the spin-weighted $`J=1/2`$ and $`J=3/2`$ average. The latter is consistent with the SELEX  claim. It would be helpful to have predictions of hyperfine splittings to compare with SELEX’s large value. S. Fajfer  pointed out that in $`DV\gamma `$ and $`D\gamma \gamma `$, long-distance effects are likely to dominate, with $`(D^0\gamma \gamma )2^{\pm 1}\times 10^8`$ and $`(D_s^+\rho ^+\gamma )2^{\pm 1}\times (4\times 10^4)`$. Short-distance effects could lead to a difference between $`(D^0\rho \gamma )`$ and $`(D^0\omega \gamma )`$.

## 7 PARTICLES WITH BEAUTY

### 7.1 Semileptonic decays

#### 7.1.1 Inclusive $`bc`$ transitions

The leading-order expression for the semileptonic $`bc`$ decay width is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\frac{G_F^2m_b^5}{192\pi ^3}|V_{cb}|^2f(m_c/m_b),$$
(1)
where $`f(x)`$ is a known function equal to 1 for $`x=0`$ and about 1/2 for $`x=m_c/m_b`$. This expression is clearly very sensitive to $`m_b`$, though less so when $`m_bm_c`$ is confined within its known limits (about 3.34 to 3.4 GeV). As a result of work reported at this conference , the $`m_b`$ dependence is being tamed; information on $`bs\gamma `$ is helpful. Calculations of the semileptonic spectra agree with experiment and can be used for baryons as well . One finds $`|V_{cb}|0.041`$ with about a 5% error. There seems to be no missing charm problem in $`B`$ decays .

#### 7.1.2 Exclusive $`bc`$ transitions

The measurement of the spectrum in $`BD^{}l\nu `$ and extrapolation to the zero-recoil (maximum $`m_{l\nu }`$ mass) point now has been performed by a number of groups, leading to a world average $`(1)|V_{cb}|=(37.8\pm 1.1)\times 10^3`$. CLEO and ALEPH find values somewhat larger and smaller, respectively, than this average, which also contains values from Belle, DELPHI, and OPAL. The most recent estimate from lattice gauge theory is $`(1)=0.919_{0.035}^{+0.030}`$, so that this exclusive method again gives $`|V_{cb}|0.041`$ with about a 5% error.

#### 7.1.3 Inclusive $`bu`$ transitions

The decay $`BX_ul\nu `$ is plagued by background from $`BX_cl\nu `$, which occurs with about 50 times the rate. There are several ways to isolate the desired signal . The best is to make cuts in both $`q^2=m_{l\nu }^2`$ and $`M_X`$, but this requires neutrino reconstruction. Next best, in that order, are cuts in $`q^2`$, $`M_X`$, and the lepton energy $`E_l`$, but this is exactly opposite to experimental feasibility!

At present CLEO  has used an inclusive method to determine $`|V_{ub}|0.10|V_{cb}|`$ with about a 15% error; reduction to 10% seems feasible.

#### 7.1.4 Exclusive $`bu`$ transitions

The decays $`B(\pi ,\rho ,\omega )l\nu `$ can provide information on $`|V_{ub}|`$ when form factors are specified (e.g., through lattice gauge theory calculations). A value based on Belle data was presented by Piilonen . The study of $`B\pi l\nu `$, in particular, is helpful in estimating the contribution of the tree amplitude in $`B\pi \pi `$ if factorization is assumed .

### 7.2 $`BD\pi `$ isospin triangle

A year ago Belle and CLEO reported observation of some color-suppressed $`D`$ decays, including $`B^0\overline{D}^0\pi ^0`$. The rate for this process was found to be sufficiently large that the triangle of complex amplitudes for $`B^0\overline{D}^0\pi ^0`$, $`B^0D^{}\pi ^+`$, and $`B^+\overline{D}^0\pi ^+`$ appeared to have non-zero area. The branching ratios for the last two processes were based on a sub-sample of the CLEO data. Now CLEO has reported a new analysis of the last two modes , which strengthens the argument for a non-zero final state phase difference between the $`I=1/2`$ and $`I=3/2`$ amplitudes. Defining $`\delta _I=\mathrm{Arg}(A_{3/2}/A_{1/2})`$ (using the convention of ), and the new branching ratios $`(B^0D^{}\pi ^+)=(26.8\pm 2.9)\times 10^4`$, $`(B^+\overline{D}^0\pi ^+)=(49.7\pm 3.8)\times 10^4`$ as well as the Belle-CLEO average $`(B^0\overline{D}^0\pi ^0)=(2.92\pm 0.45)\times 10^4`$, one finds $`\delta _I30^{}`$, $`16^{}\delta _I33^{}`$ with 90% confidence, or $`\mathrm{cos}\delta _I<1`$ at $`2.4\sigma `$.

Non-zero final-state phases in $`B`$ decays would be useful in observing direct CP violation. No such effects have been seen yet; the closest is in $`B\pi \pi `$, where Belle sees a direct CP asymmetry but BaBar does not (see below).

### 7.3 Decays involving $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$

A review of $`B`$ decays involving $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ was presented by B. Brau . Several speakers  were concerned with whether the large branching ratio $`(BK\eta ^{})63\times 10^6`$ represents a serious challenge to theory. The standard penguin amplitude may be represented by $`P`$, and an additional “singlet penguin” contribution, in which the $`\eta `$ or $`\eta ^{}`$ couples to the process in a manner violating the Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka (OZI) rule. We represent

$$\eta (u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}s\overline{s})/\sqrt{3},$$
(2)
$$\eta ^{}(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}+2s\overline{s})/\sqrt{6}.$$
(3)
Then (neglecting a small tree contribution to the charged $`B`$ decay)

$$A(B\eta K)=0P+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}S,$$
(4)
$$A(B\eta ^{}K)=\frac{3}{\sqrt{6}}P+\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}S.$$
(5)
The penguin contributions of nonstrange and strange quarks interfere destructively in $`\eta K`$ and constructively in $`\eta ^{}K`$ . They cancel completely for the particular mixing chosen in (2), which corresponds to octet-singlet mixing with an angle of $`19^{}`$.

Calibrating the strength of the penguin amplitude with the process $`B^+\pi ^+K^0`$, whose branching ratio is $`17\times 10^6`$, one predicts the branching ratios shown in Table 3. A small singlet ($`S`$) contribution is needed to obtain the observed $`\eta ^{}K`$ branching ratio. This contribution is larger than most perturbative QCD estimates, but is obtained satisfactorily by Beneke et al. in their generalized factorization approach .

The pattern of interference of contributions to the penguin amplitude of the nonstrange and strange quarks is reversed for $`BK^{}(\eta ,\eta ^{})`$ in comparison with that for $`BK(\eta ,\eta ^{})`$ . Thus, one gets contructive interference in $`BK^{}\eta `$ and destructive interference in $`BK^{}\eta ^{}`$. With the mixing pattern adopted above, one has (again neglecting small tree contributions to $`B^+`$ decays)

$$A(B\eta K^{})=\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}P_{PV}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}S_{PV},$$

$$A(B\eta ^{}K^{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}P_{PV}+\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}S_{PV}.$$

Here it is the $`\eta K^{}`$ decay which is seen, with a branching ratio of about $`2\times 10^5`$ . If the singlet penguin contribution $`S_{PV}`$ were neglected, one would have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta ^{}K^{})=(1/8)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta K^{})`$, in the absence of phase space suppression, whose inclusion leads to the prediction $`(B\eta ^{}K^{})=2\times 10^6`$. Deviation from this prediction would indicate evidence for the singlet penguin .

The sign flip just mentioned arises from the behavior under charge conjugation when one compares penguin amplitudes in which the spectator quark ends up in the $`\eta `$ or $`\eta ^{}`$ with those in which the $`K^{()}`$ contains the spectator. Other evidence for a similar sign flip arises in the differing relative phases of $`I=1/2`$ and $`I=3/2`$ amplitudes in $`DK^{}\pi `$ and $`DK\rho `$ , and in the observation  that $`(D^+K^+\overline{K}^0)=(3.1\pm 1.4)\%`$ shows an enhancement while $`(D^+K^+\overline{K}^0)=(0.42\pm 0.05)\%`$ does not, presumably because of constructive vs. destructive interference of “annihilation” and “tree” amplitudes.

### 7.4 $`B_s`$$`\overline{B}_s`$ mixing and CKM elements

Experimental  and theoretical  aspects of $`B_s`$$`\overline{B}_s`$ mixing may be summarized by noting that the present lower limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s14.9`$ ps<sup>-1</sup> was not expected until recently to be much below the actual value. This was based on the estimate

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_d}=\xi ^2\frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}},\xi \frac{f_{B_s}\sqrt{B_{B_s}}}{f_B\sqrt{B_B}},$$

with lattice gauge theory estimates in the vicinity of $`\xi 1.14\pm 0.06`$. However , the error on $`\xi `$ may have been underestimated in applying chiral perturbation theory when extrapolating to light masses of the $`u,d,s`$ quarks; the new value is $`\xi =1.30\pm 0.10`$, which for fixed Wolfenstein parameters $`(\rho ,\eta )`$ changes $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ by $`+30\%`$, allowing values up to 30 ps<sup>-1</sup>. For fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ it allows larger values of $`|V_{td}|`$, $`|1\rho i\gamma |`$, and $`\gamma `$.

A quark model estimate  used the near-equality of hyperfine splittings in the $`D_s^{}`$$`D_s`$ and $`D^{}`$$`D`$ systems to estimate $`f_{D_s}/f_D1.25`$, with the relation  $`f_{B_s}/f_Bf_{D_s}/f_D`$ then yielding a similar ratio for $`f_{B_s}/f_B`$. There are good prospects for measuring $`f_{D_s}/f_D`$ at CLEO-c .

### 7.5 Angles of the unitarity triangle

The angles of the unitarity triangle were called $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2`$, and $`\varphi _3`$ (opposite the sides corresponding to the products $`V_{ib}^{}V_{id}`$ for the first, second, and third families) in 1987 . These “hiragana” names, used by the Belle Collaboration, are expressed in “katakana” by the BaBar Collaboration as $`\alpha \varphi _2`$, $`\beta \varphi _1`$, and $`\gamma \varphi _3`$.

D. Marlow  reported a world average $`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _1)=0.78\pm 0.08`$ based on the CP asymmetries in $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ and closely related decays, driven mainly by the BaBar and Belle data. These have subsequently been updated, with BaBar  now reporting $`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _1)=0.741\pm 0.067\pm 0.033`$ and Belle  reporting $`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _1)=0.719\pm 0.074\pm 0.035`$. My average of these two values is $`0.731\pm 0.055`$.

The best information on $`\varphi _2=\alpha `$ comes from $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, whose penguin amplitude (about 0.3 of the dominant tree) complicates the analysis. One can obtain the penguin from $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ (where it dominates) with the help of flavor SU(3) and an estimate of symmetry-breaking. Time-dependent asymmetries in this process are proportional to $`S_{\pi \pi }\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)C_{\pi \pi }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)`$. The “indirect” $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ term is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _{2\mathrm{e}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}})`$, where $`\varphi _{2\mathrm{e}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}}\varphi _2`$ in the limit of a vanishing penguin amplitude. The “direct” $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ term is proportional to the sine of a strong phase difference between penguin and tree amplitudes, expected to be small in the generalized factorization approach . As pointed out by Morii , present data are beginning to constrain $`\varphi _2`$. Datta  (reporting on work in collaboration with D. London) has noted that analysis of several $`B^0K^{()0}\overline{K}^{()0}`$ modes may allow a clean determination of $`\varphi _2`$.

The angle $`\varphi _3=\gamma `$ is harder to pin down in a model-independent way, though there are ways to measure it to about $`\pm 10^{}`$ using various manifestations of tree-penguin interference . These occur in such processes as $`B\pi \pi `$, $`B_{(s)}K\pi `$, $`B_sK\overline{K}`$, and modes involving one light pseudoscalar and one light vector meson. For these (as well as for the modes $`B^+\pi ^+\eta `$ and $`B^+\pi ^+\eta ^{}`$ which exhibit direct CP asymmetries) it will be necessary to measure branching ratios with an accuracy of $`\pm `$ (1–2) $`\times 10^6`$.

### 7.6 SCET and factorization

The “generalized factorization” approach we have mentioned has been simplified considerably thanks to work by Stewart and collaborators , who developed a technique known as the soft collinear effective theory (SCET). They are able to prove factorization to all orders in $`B^0D^{}\pi ^+`$. Corrections of order $`1/m_c`$ are responsible for the fact that $`(\overline{D}^0\pi ^+)1.85(D^{}\pi ^+)`$. They are comfortable with the range of $`\delta _I=\mathrm{Arg}(A_{3/2}/A_{1/2})`$ reported by CLEO . An investigation of $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is in progress. At stake is whether the strong relative phase between tree and penguin amplitudes is small (e.g., ) or large (e.g., ). At the moment experiment is no help in deciding this question, since BaBar and Belle report very different values of the direct asymmetry parameter $`C_{\pi \pi }`$, as shown in Table 4.

One point in favor of small $`C_{\pi \pi }`$  is the flavor-SU(3) relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }(B^0K^+\pi ^{})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(BPP)\mathrm{\Gamma }(BPP)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}\overline{P}\overline{P})`$. Since the direct CP asymmetry in $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ is small, one may also expect it to be small in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$.

Applying the SCET, Leibovich  reported on a study of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ radiative decays near the end point, where one can justify the use of a nonperturbative “shape function” near $`z2E_\gamma /M_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=1`$. The effect of the color-octet admixture in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ wave function is found to be surprisingly small. Calculations are now in progress for the color-singlet component of the wave function.

Colangelo  reported on a study of three-body $`B^0D^{}D^{()0}K^+`$ decays in which one can select the effects of contributing $`D_s^{()+}`$ poles; factorization (like Niels Bohr’s horseshoe) works even when it isn’t supposed to, as has been found elsewhere .

### 7.7 $`B(s\gamma ,sl^+l^{},l^+l^{})`$ decays

The experimental situation on radiative $`b`$ decays continues to improve. Brau  reported on a branching ratio $`(BX_s\gamma )=(3.22\pm 0.40)\times 10^4`$, to be compared with the standard model prediction  of $`(3.54\pm 0.49)\times 10^4`$. A lot of the theoretical uncertainty arises from uncertainty in $`m_c/m_b`$. With 500 fb<sup>-1</sup> the experimental error is anticipated to be $`\pm 1.8\%`$, making $`\pm 3\%`$ a useful theoretical goal. BaBar has an upper limit on $`B\rho \gamma `$ entailing $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|<0.36`$, approaching the SM level of 0.2.

Both BaBar  and Belle  now see a $`B^\pm K^\pm l^+l^{}`$ signal, with BaBar newly reporting $`=(0.84_{0.240.18}^{+0.30+0.10})\times 10^6`$. Belle’s inclusive branching ratios $`(BX_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})=(8.9_{2.11.7}^{+2.3+1.6})\times 10^6`$ and $`(BX_sl^+l^{})=(7.1\pm 1.6_{1.2}^{+1.4})\times 10^6`$ are a bit above the SM predictions  of $`(BX_se^+e^{})=(6.9\pm 1.0)\times 10^6`$ and $`(BX_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})=(4.2\pm 0.7)\times 10^6`$.

In a discussion of radiative $`b`$ decays and related gateways to new physics, Hiller  listed the “Top 10 observables beyond $`bs\gamma `$.” Briefly, these are: (1) CP violation and (2) photon helicity in $`bs\gamma `$, (3) $`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _1)`$ in $`B\varphi K`$, (4) the dilepton mass spectrum and (5) the forward-backward asymmetry in $`bsl^+l^{}`$, (6) the question of where and whether this asymmetry vanishes as a function of dilepton mass, (7) CP violation in this forward-backward asymmetry, (8) $`B_s`$$`\overline{B}_s`$ mixing and the effects of $`Z`$ penguins, (9) Higgs boson exchange in $`Bl^+l^{}`$, and (10) the neutron electric dipole moment. Geng  has suggested looking for new physics in T-violating observables in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }e^+e^{}`$; P. Cooper pointed out in the discussion that one should first look for the much more abundant process $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+pe^+e^{}`$. Huang  notes that an interesting level for $`(B^0l^+l^{})`$ to display non-standard physics is in excess of $`2\times 10^8`$, which sets an initial goal for high-statistics studies of this low-background process.

## 8 HEAVY QUARK PRODUCTION

The fragmentation of $`c`$ and $`b`$ quarks produced in $`Z`$ decays turns out to be an important source of charmed and $`b`$ flavored baryons. The DELPHI Collaboration  has presented evidence for $`c\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`b\mathrm{\Xi }_b\mathrm{\Xi }^{}lX`$ with branching ratios $`5`$$`6\times 10^4`$.

The color-octet part of the quarkonium wave function seems to be needed to explain $`J/\psi `$ production at the Tevatron, but it is not so clearly required in some other cases . It is also claimed to be needed in the description of decays to light hadrons (see, e.g., ), raising the question of how the value of $`\alpha _s(m_b)`$ extracted in older analyses (e.g., ) would be affected. In production models, one of the hardest things to get right is the $`J/\psi `$ polarization, reminiscent of the difficulties that Regge pole fits in the 1960s had in coping with polarization data.

The production cross section for $`b`$ quarks at the Tevatron  (and also in $`ep`$  and $`\gamma \gamma `$ reactions) exceeds the predictions of non-leading-order (NLO) QCD, by as much as a factor of 2.5 in the case of $`\overline{p}p`$ collisions at 1.8 TeV. Is this due to a subtlety in the choice of QCD scale or an indication of new physics? One proposed scenario  involves a light gluino and $`b`$ squark, whereby gluino pair production boosts the $`b`$ quark production cross section. It seems difficult to rule out this scenario based on the $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`\alpha _s`$ . Hadronic and $`ep`$ charm production, paradoxically, seems less out-of-line .

Leading-quark effects in hadronic charm production have been studied by the SELEX Collaboration . The presence of a specific quark or antiquark in the beam governs the nature of the leading $`D`$ or $`\overline{D}`$, which will contain that quark. An interesting difference between $`x_F`$ distributions occurs between $`D^+`$ and $`D^+`$ produced by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ beams.

The HERA-b Collaboration has measured the $`b`$ production cross section for $`920`$ GeV protons on a fixed nuclear target: $`\sigma (b\overline{b})=32_{127}^{+14+6}`$ nb/nucleon . At this energy, roughly 1/3 of prompt $`J/\psi `$ particles come from $`\chi _cJ/\psi \gamma `$.

In a tour de force of track finding and scanning, the CHORUS Collaboration has measured $`D^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ yields in charged-current neutrino interactions at average beam energy 27 GeV :

$$\frac{\sigma (D^0)}{\sigma _{cc}}=(1.99\pm 0.13\pm 0.17)\%,$$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c)}{\sigma _{cc}}=(1.39\pm 0.18\pm 0.27)\%.$$

A cut $`p_\mu <30`$ GeV was imposed in order to ensure sufficient hadronic boost in the hybrid emulsion detector.

Heavy-ion hyperon and charm production has been studied at CERN . There appears to be an enhancement of hyperon production in nucleus-nucleus collisions, while an abrupt suppression of $`J/\psi `$ production occurs as the atomic number of the colliding particles is increased, suggesting the onset of production of a quark-gluon plasma in which quarkonium is dissociated.

## 9 ELECTROWEAK SECTOR

A persistent problem in fits to precision electroweak data has been the forward-backward asymmetry in $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}`$ . It is given in terms of couplings of left-handed and right-handed fermions $`i`$ to the $`Z`$ by

$$A_{FB}^b=\frac{3}{4}A_bA_e,A_i\frac{g_{Li}^2g_{Ri}^2}{g_{Li}^2+g_{Ri}^2}.$$

In the SM one has $`g_{Le}=(1/2)+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, $`g_{Re}=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, $`g_{Lb}=(1/2)+(1/3)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, $`g_{Rb}=(1/3)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$. The observed value of $`A_{FB}^b`$ entails $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =0.23218\pm 0.00031`$, to be compared with $`0.23149\pm 0.00017`$ in the overall fit. This could be interpreted as a discrepancy in $`g_{Rb}`$, with the data implying $`0.095\pm 0.008`$ to be compared with $`0.077`$ in the SM. However, $`g_{Lb}`$ seems to agree roughly with its SM value of $`0.42`$. Other data, such as the polarization asymmetry $`A_{LR}`$ measured at SLD , suggest a lower value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, entailing a value of the Higgs boson mass $`M_H`$ lower than the experimental lower bound! (See  for a discussion.) Above the $`Z`$ , there seem to be no anomalies in electroweak couplings. The $`\tau `$ lepton appears to behave as a standard-model sequential fermion .

If one also includes recent data from the NuTeV Collaboration  on the neutral current cross section $`\sigma _{NC}(\nu N)`$ for deep-inelastic scattering of neutrinos on nucleons, which entail a higher value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, the overall quality of the fit to electroweak data is degraded, but the bound on $`M_H`$ is relaxed . Higgs boson searches will tell us whether this is the correct alternative. At LEP , only ALEPH claims a signal ($`3\sigma `$, 115.6 GeV), diluted to $`2.1\sigma `$ when data from DELPHI, L3, and OPAL are included. The measurement of four-fermion production at LEP II  is instrumental in understanding backgrounds. Inclusion of NuTeV data in electroweak fits relaxes the upper bound on $`M_H`$ to 212 GeV, assuming only Higgs doublets acquire vacuum expectation values (VEVs). With less than a 3% admixture of weak-SU(2) triplet VEVs, this bound is removed for all practical purposes .

## 10 BEYOND THE STANDARD MODEL

The reigning candidate for physics beyond the Standard Model is supersymmetry, a beautiful concept which implies that there may be quantities more fundamental than space and time. Its implementation at the electroweak scale is problematic for model-builders, perhaps because of a lack of experimental clues. I am tempted to ask, as A. Pais used to do on other occasions, “Where’s the joke?” Are we simply going to be confronted with a whole new set of superpartner masses and mixings as inexplicable as those of the quarks and leptons? Or will supersymmetry help us understand something about the pattern of quark and lepton families?

A very nice review of LEP searches for supersymmetry was presented by B. Clerbaux . I am partial to one scheme based on the grand unified group E<sub>6</sub> that is at least partly supersymmetric. Start with the grand unified group SO(10), in which each quark and lepton family – including a right-handed neutrino – is represented by a 16-dimensional spinor. The simplest scalars in this scheme correspond to the 10-dimensional vector representation. Superpartners of these states would be 16-dimensional scalars (squarks and sleptons) and 10-dimensional fermions (higgsinos). By adding one more SO(10) singlet per family, one can form families which belong to the 27-dimensional (fundamental) representation of E<sub>6</sub>. The three SO(10) singlet fermions correspond to sterile neutrinos. The E<sub>6</sub> group fits nicely into superstring schemes, and has been discussed recently by Bjorken, Pakvasa, and Tuan .

Present $`e^+e^{}`$ searches for supersymmetry (or for any particles coupling with at least electroweak strength to the $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$) typically exclude most superpartners with masses less than the beam energy minus a small model-dependent amount. Unsurprisingly, lower limits at the Tevatron tend to be higher but require a larger mass difference between the next-to-lightest and lightest superpartner.

## 11 PROSPECTS

Future experiments on beauty, charm, and hyperons hold great promise. BaBar and Belle each are approaching integrated luminosities of 100 fb<sup>-1</sup> and expect to have 500 fb<sup>-1</sup> by 2006. The CDF and D0 detectors have new capabilities for studying $`b`$ physics with high statistics and may have a shot at the Higgs boson . The CLEO-c project  is on track to make a major impact on charm studies in the next few years. In the longer run, the forward special-purpose detectors BTeV  and LHCb  will be designed to take advantage of the relatively large hadronic $`b`$ production cross section while suppressing backgrounds. The general-purpose ATLAS and CMS detectors at the LHC also will have many capabilities related to topics discussed at this Conference .

Examples of questions I would like to see answered are the following.

(1) What value of $`\varphi _2=\alpha `$ is implied by the indirect CP asymmetry in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$? The BaBar-Belle discrepancy should be resolved. The branching ratio $`(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ is itself of interest. It can be combined with information on $`B\pi l\nu `$, using factorization, to estimate the effects of tree-penguin interference .

(2) What is $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$? This will be an early Tevatron result if all goes well.

(3) Can we obtain a value of $`\varphi _3=\gamma `$ by studying such decays as $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`B_sK^+K^{}`$, and $`(B^0\mathrm{or}B_s)K^\pm \pi ^{}`$, or will symmetry-breaking and rescattering effects prove uncontrollable? Measurements of branching ratios at the level of $`10^7`$ will help settle these questions.

(4) Can we exploit $`B_sJ/\psi \varphi `$ by employing transversity analyses to separate out CP-even and CP-odd final states? The CP eigenstates $`J/\psi \eta `$ or $`J/\psi \eta ^{}`$ may also be useful. The Standard Model predicts the CP asymmetries in these modes to be small but there could always be surprises.

(5) If we see non-standard physics (e.g., in $`B\varphi K_S`$), will we able to identify it? Hiller’s “top 10” list  is an interesting starting point; what then?

(6) If we see a Higgs boson, will we be able to tell whether it is the Standard Model or supersymmetric variety?

(7) Are we sufficiently attuned to the wide variety of new things we could see (supersymmetry, extra dimensions, exotic quarks and leptons, $`\mathrm{}`$) at Tevatron Run II?

(8) What will the LHC reveal (and when)?

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The smooth arrangements made by our hosts have made us all feel exceptionally welcome at UBC. I would like to thank the Conference Assistants: Travis Beale, Patrick Brukiewich, Janet Johnson, Mark Laidlaw, and Douglas Thiessen, for their efforts, and the Organizing Committee: Janis McKenna, Tom Mattison, John Ng, Marco Bozzo, Calvin Kalman, Zoltan Ligeti, Miguel-Antonio Sanchis-Lozano, and Paul A. Singer, for putting together a varied and informative program. We in Chicago look forward to welcoming you to our city for the Sixth Conference on Beauty, Charm, and Hyperons in 2004.

I am grateful to the Theory Groups of Fermilab and Argonne National Laboratory for hospitality during the preparation of the written version of this talk, and to Matthias Neubert for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy through Grant No. DE FG02 90ER40560.