text:
# 1 SUSY and 𝑎_𝜇

## 1 SUSY and $`a_\mu `$

The measurement performed by the E821 collaboration is of the muon’s anomalous magnetic moment 111See, however Ref. ., which is to say, the coefficient $`a_\mu `$ of the non-renormalizable operator

$$\frac{a_\mu }{2m_\mu }\overline{\psi }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\psi F_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(1)
Within the Standard Model, $`a_\mu `$ receives contributions from QED, electroweak and hadronic processes, the latter usually separated into contributions from vacuum polarization and light-by-light scattering. While the QED and electroweak contributions are well understood, the hadronic calculations are under scrutiny and require experimental input. For the purposes of this paper we will use the most recent determination of the hadronic contributions available.

The QED and electroweak contributions to $`a_\mu `$ are known:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{QED}}\hfill & =\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}658\hspace{0.17em}470.56}(0.29)& \hfill \text{[13]}\\ a_\mu ^{\mathrm{EW}}\hfill & =\hfill & \hfill 15.2(0.1)& \hfill \text{[14]}\end{array}$$
(2)
where we are expressing $`a_\mu `$ in units of $`10^{10}`$. In the hadronic sector, the next-to-leading order (NLO) contributions have been known for several years, while the and light-by-light (LBL) contributions have been updated in the last year:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had},\mathrm{NLO}}\hfill & =\hfill & \hfill 10.0(0.6)& \hfill \text{[15]}\\ a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had},\mathrm{LBL}}\hfill & =\hfill & \hfill 8.0(4.0)& \hfill \text{[6]}.\end{array}$$
(3)
The calculation of leading order (LO) hadronic contributions requires input from experiment. Davier et al.  have calculated the LO hadronic pieces using $`e^+e^{}`$ scattering data and alternatively with a combination of $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\tau `$-decay data. They find:

$$a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had},\mathrm{LO}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 684.7(7.0)& \text{(no }\tau \text{ data)}\hfill \\ \hfill 701.9(6.2)& \text{(}\tau \text{ data).}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Hagiwara et al. have also calculated the LO hadronic contribution without the $`\tau `$ data in Ref. :

$$\begin{array}{cccc}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had},\mathrm{LO}}\hfill & =\hfill & \hfill 683.1(6.2)& \text{(no }\tau \text{ data)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
which is consistent with the above evaluation. For our estimate of $`a_\mu `$ without $`\tau `$ data we will use the average of the two results stated above and the larger error. Adding the contributions gives the standard model prediction for $`a_\mu `$:

$$a_\mu =\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}167.7}(8.1)& \text{(no }\tau \text{ data)}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}185.7}(7.4)& \text{(}\tau \text{ data)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Since the two values are mutually inconsistent, we will not combine them into a single prediction of $`a_\mu `$.

The new measurement made by E821 is  $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{E821}}=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}204}(7)(5)\times 10^{10}`$ yielding a world average of:

$$a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}203}(8)\times 10^{10}$$
(7)
from which one deduces a discrepancy between the experiment and the Standard Model of

$$\delta a_\mu =\{\begin{array}{ccc}35(11)\times 10^{10}\hfill & \text{(no }\tau \text{ data)}\hfill & \\ 17(11)\times 10^{10}\hfill & \text{(}\tau \text{ data)}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(8)
where we have added the theoretical and experimental errors in quadrature. Thus, the deviation is either $`3.2\sigma `$ or $`1.5\sigma `$, depending on whether or not the $`\tau `$ data is used. In the analysis that follows, we present results using both values of $`\delta a_\mu `$ from Eq. (8).

The SUSY contributions to $`a_\mu `$ have been known since the early days of SUSY and have become more complete with time. In this paper we will follow the notation of Ref.  which has the advantage of using the standard conventions of Haber and Kane ; any convention which we do not define here can be found in either of these two papers.

Prior to the revision of the theoretical calculations and the release of the newest E821 data, there were a number of analyses in the context of SUSY . The present authors also presented an analysis of the full minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with and without gaugino unification and neutralino LSP constraints .

### 1.1 The diagrams

In the mass eigenbasis, there are only two one-loop SUSY diagrams which contribute to $`a_\mu `$, shown in Figure 1. The first has an internal loop of smuons and neutralinos, the second a loop of sneutrinos and charginos. But the charginos, neutralinos and even the smuons are themselves admixtures of various interaction eigenstates and we can better understand the physics involved by working in terms of these interaction diagrams, of which there are many more than two. We can easily separate the leading and sub-leading diagrams in the interaction eigenbasis by a few simple observations.

First, the magnetic moment operator is a helicity-flipping interaction. Thus any diagram which contributes to $`a_\mu `$ must involve a helicity flip somewhere along the fermion current. This automatically divides the diagrams into two classes: those with helicity flips on the external legs and those with flips on an internal line. For those in the first class, the amplitude must scale as $`m_\mu `$; for those in the second, the amplitudes can scale instead by $`m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, where $`m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ represents the mass of the internal SUSY fermion (a chargino or neutralino). Since $`m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}m_\mu `$, it is the latter class that will typically dominate the SUSY contribution to $`a_\mu `$. Therefore we will restrict further discussion to this latter class of diagrams alone.

Secondly, the interaction of the neutralinos and charginos with the (s)muons and sneutrinos occurs either through their higgsino or gaugino components. Thus each vertex implies a factor of either $`y_\mu `$ (the muon Yukawa coupling) or $`g`$ (the weak and/or hypercharge gauge coupling). Given two vertices, the diagrams therefore scale as $`y_\mu ^2`$, $`gy_\mu `$ or $`g^2`$. In the Standard Model, $`y_\mu `$ is smaller than $`g`$ by roughly $`10^3`$. In the minimal SUSY standard model (MSSM) at low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, this ratio is essentially unchanged, but because $`y_\mu `$ scales as $`1/\mathrm{cos}\beta `$, at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ ($`60`$) the ratio can be reduced to roughly $`10^1`$. Thus we can safely drop the $`y_\mu ^2`$ contributions from our discussions, but at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we must preserve the $`gy_\mu `$ pieces as well as the $`g^2`$ pieces.222Pieces which are dropped from our discussion are still retained in the full numerical calculation.

The pieces that we will keep are therefore shown in Figures 2. In Fig. 2(a)-(e) are shown the five neutralino contributions which scale as $`g^2`$ or $`gy_\mu `$; in Fig. 2(f) is the only chargino contribution, scaling as $`gy_\mu `$. The contributions to $`a_\mu `$ from the $`i`$th neutralino and the $`m`$th smuon due to each of these component diagrams are found to be:

$$\delta a_\mu =\frac{1}{48\pi ^2}\frac{m_\mu m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_i}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_m}^2}F_2^N(x_{im})\times \{\begin{array}{cc}g_1^2N_{i1}^2X_{m1}X_{m2}\hfill & (\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B})\\ g_1g_2N_{i1}N_{i2}X_{m1}X_{m2}\hfill & (\stackrel{~}{W}\stackrel{~}{B})\\ \sqrt{2}g_1y_\mu N_{i1}N_{i3}X_{m2}^2\hfill & (\stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{B})\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_1y_\mu N_{i1}N_{i3}X_{m1}^2\hfill & (\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{H})\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_2y_\mu N_{i2}N_{i3}X_{m1}^2\hfill & (\stackrel{~}{W}\stackrel{~}{H})\end{array}$$
(9)
and for the $`k`$th chargino and the sneutrino:

$$\delta a_\mu =\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}\frac{m_\mu m_{\stackrel{~}{C}_k}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2}F_2^C(x_k)g_2y_\mu U_{k2}V_{k1}.(\stackrel{~}{W}\stackrel{~}{H})$$
(10)
The matrices $`N`$, $`U`$ and $`V`$ are defined in the appendix along with the functions $`F_2^{N,C}`$. A careful comparison to the equations in the appendix will reveal that we have dropped a number of complex conjugations in the above expressions; it has been shown previously  that the SUSY contributions to $`a_\mu `$ are maximized for real entries in the mass matrices and so we will not retain phases in our discussion.

In many of the previous analyses of the MSSM parameter space, it was found that it is the chargino-sneutrino diagram at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ that can most easily generate values of $`\delta a_\mu `$ large enough to explain the observed discrepancy. From this observation, one can obtain an upper mass bound on the lightest chargino and the muon sneutrino. However, this behavior is not completely generic. For example, Martin and Wells emphasized that the $`\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}`$ neutralino contribution could by itself be large enough to generate the old observed excess in $`a_\mu `$, and since it has no intrinsic $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence, they could explain the old excess with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as low as 3. We can reproduce their result in a simple way because the $`\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}`$ contribution has a calculable upper bound at which the smuons mix at $`45^{}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}`$, and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_{2,3,4}}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1=\stackrel{~}{B}`$. Then

$$\left|\delta a_\mu \right|_{(\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B})}\frac{g_1^2}{32\pi ^2}\frac{m_\mu m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_1}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}^2}3800\times 10^{10}\times \left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_1}}{100\mathrm{GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{100\mathrm{GeV}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}}\right)^2$$
(11)
where we have used the fact that $`(X_{11}X_{12})\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`F_2^N3`$ and have included a 7% two-loop suppression factor. Though any real model will clearly suppress this contribution somewhat, this is still $`10^2`$ times larger than needed experimentally.

This pure $`\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}`$ scenario is actually an experimental worst-case, particularly for hadron colliders. The only sparticles that are required to be light are a single neutralino (which is probably $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$-like) and a single $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$. The neutralino is difficult to produce, and if stable, impossible to detect directly. The neutralino could be indirectly observed in the decay of the $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ as missing energy, but production of a $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ at a hadron machine is highly suppressed. In the worst of all possible worlds, E821 could be explained by only these two light sparticles, with the rest of the SUSY spectrum hiding above a TeV. Further, even the “light” sparticles can be too heavy to produce at a $`500\mathrm{GeV}`$ linear collider. While this case is in no way generic, it demonstrates that the E821 excess does not provide any sort of no-lose theorem (even at $`1\sigma `$) for the Tevatron, the LHC or the NLC.

This raises an important experimental question: how many of the MSSM states must be “light” in order to explain the E821 data? In the worst-case, it would appear to be only two. Even in the more optimistic scenario in which the chargino diagram dominates $`\delta a_\mu `$, the answer naively appears to be two: a single chargino and a single sneutrino. In this limit,

$$\left|\delta a_\mu \right|_{(\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{\nu })}\frac{g_2y_\mu }{24\pi ^2}\frac{m_\mu m_{\stackrel{~}{C}_1}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2}\left|F_2^C\right|_{\mathrm{max}}\stackrel{<}{}2600\times 10^{10}\times \left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{C}_1}}{100\mathrm{GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{100\mathrm{GeV}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}}\right)^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta }{30}\right)$$
(12)
where we have bounded $`|F_2^C|`$ by 10 by assuming $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}\stackrel{<}{}1\mathrm{TeV}`$. But this discussion is overly simplistic, as we will see.

### 1.2 Mass correlations

There are a total of 9 separate sparticles which can enter the loops in Fig. 1: 1 sneutrino, 2 smuons, 2 charginos and 4 neutralinos. The mass spectrum of these 9 sparticles is determined entirely by 7 parameters in the MSSM: 2 soft slepton masses($`m_L`$, $`m_R`$), 2 gaugino masses ($`M_1`$, $`M_2`$), the $`\mu `$-term, a soft trilinear slepton coupling ($`A_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}`$) and finally $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Of these, $`A_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}`$ plays almost no role at all and so we leave it out of our discussions (see the appendix). And in some well-motivated SUSY-breaking scenarios, $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are also correlated. Thus there are either 5 or 6 parameters responsible for setting 9 sparticle masses. There are clearly non-trivial correlations among the masses which can be exploited in setting mass limits on the sparticles.

First, there are well-known correlations between the chargino and neutralino masses; for example, a light charged $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i\stackrel{~}{W}`$ implies a light neutral $`\stackrel{~}{N}_j\stackrel{~}{W}`$ and vice-versa.

There are also correlations in mixed systems (i.e., the neutralinos, charginos and smuons) between the masses of the eigenstates and the size of their mixings. Consider the case of the smuons in particular; their mass matrix is given in the appendix. On diagonalizing, the left-right smuon mixing angle is given simply by:

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}\frac{2m_\mu \mu \mathrm{tan}\beta }{M_L^2M_R^2}.$$
(13)
The chargino contribution is maximized for large smuon mixing and large mixing occurs when the numerator is of order or greater than the denominator; since the former is suppressed by $`m_\mu `$, one must compensate by having either a very large $`\mu `$-term in the numerator or nearly equal $`M_L`$ and $`M_R`$ in the denominator, both of which have profound impacts on the spectrum.

There is one more correlation/constraint that we feel is natural to impose on the MSSM spectrum: slepton mass universality. It is well-known that the most general version of the MSSM produces huge flavor-changing neutral currents (FCNCs) unless some external order is placed on the MSSM spectrum. By far, the simplest such order is for sparticles with the same gauge quantum numbers to be degenerate. This requirement is most stringent in the squark sector, but also holds in the slepton sector due to non-observation of $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$. In any case, mechanisms which generate degeneracy in the squarks usually do so among the sleptons as well. Thus we assume $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L}=m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L}m_L`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}=m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R}m_R`$. Then the mass matrix for the stau sector is identical to that of the smuons with the replacement $`m_\mu m_\tau `$ in the off-diagonal elements. This enhancement of the mixing in the stau sector by $`m_\tau /m_\mu 17`$ implies that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}<m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}`$. In particular, if

$$M_L^2M_R^2<m_\tau ^2\mu ^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta $$
(14)
then $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}^2<0`$ and QED will be broken by a stau vev. Given slepton universality, this imposes a constraint on the smuon mass matrix:

$$M_L^2M_R^2>\left(\frac{m_\tau }{m_\mu }\right)^2m_\mu ^2\mu ^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta $$
(15)
or on the smuon mixing angle:

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}<\left(\frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }\right)\frac{2M_LM_R}{M_L^2M_R^2}$$
(16)
where $`M_{L,R}`$ are the positive roots of $`M_{L,R}^2`$. While not eliminating the possibility of $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}45^{}`$, this formula shows that a fine-tuning of at least 1 part in 17 is needed to obtain $`𝒪(1)`$ mixing. We will not apply any kind of fine-tuning criterion to our analysis, yet we will find that this slepton mass universality constraint sharply reduces the upper bounds on slepton masses which we are able to find in our study of points in MSSM parameter space.

(As an aside, if one assumes slepton mass universality at some SUSY-breaking messenger scale above the weak scale, Yukawa-induced corrections will break universality by driving the stau masses down. This effect would further tighten our bounds on smuon masses and mixings.)

The above discussion has an especially large impact on the worst-case scenario in which the $`\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}`$ contributions dominates $`\delta a_\mu `$. For generic points in MSSM parameter space, one expects that $`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}\stackrel{<}{}1/17`$ which reduces the size of the $`\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}`$ contribution by a factor of 17. As a byproduct, the masses required for explaining the E821 anomaly are pushed back toward the experimentally accessible region.

## 2 Numerical results

Now that we have established the basic principle of our analysis, we will carry it out in detail. We will concentrate on three basic cases. The first case is the one most often considered in the literature: gaugino mass unification. Here one assumes that the weak-scale gaugino mass parameters ($`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$) are equal at the same scale at which the gauge couplings unify. This implies that at the weak scale $`M_1=(5/3)(\alpha _1/\alpha _2)M_2`$. The second case we consider is identical to the first with the added requirement that the lightest SUSY sparticle (LSP) be a neutralino. This requirement is motivated by the desire to explain astrophysical dark matter by a stable LSP. Finally we will also consider the most general case in which all relevant SUSY parameters are left free independent of each other; we will refer to this as the “general MSSM” case.

The basic methodology is simple: we put down a logarithmic grid on the space of MSSM parameters ($`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, $`m_L`$, $`m_R`$ and $`\mu `$) for several choices of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The grid extends from $`10\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$, and from $`50\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`m_{L,R}`$, up to $`2\mathrm{TeV}`$ for all mass parameters. For the case in which gaugino unification is imposed $`M_2`$ is no longer a free parameter and our grid contains $`10^8`$ points. For the general MSSM case our grid contains $`3\times 10^9`$ points. Only $`\mu >0`$ is considered since that maximizes the value of $`\delta a_\mu `$. Finally, for our limits on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we used an adaptive mesh routine which did a better job of maximizing $`\delta a_\mu `$ over the space of MSSM inputs. By running with grids of varying resolutions and offsets we estimate the error on our mass bounds to be less than $`\pm 5\%`$.

### 2.1 Bounds on the lightest sparticles

Perhaps the most important information that can be garnered from the E821 data is an upper bound on the scale of sparticle masses. In particular, one can place upper bounds on the masses of the lightest sparticle(s) as a function of $`\delta a_\mu `$. Here we will derive bounds on the lightest slepton and chargino, but we will also derive bounds on the lightest several sparticles, independent of their identity.

These bounds on additional light sparticles provide an important lesson. Without them there remains the very real possibility that the E821 data is explained by a pair of light sparticles and that the remaining SUSY spectrum is out of reach experimentally. But our additional bounds will give us some indication not only of where we can find SUSY, but also of how much information we might be able to extract about the fundamental parameters of SUSY — the more sparticles we detect and measure, the more information we will have for disentangling the soft-breaking sector of the MSSM.

In Fig. 3 we have shown the upper mass bounds for the lightest four sparticles assuming gaugino mass unification. These bounds are not bounds on individual species of sparticles (which will come in the next section and always be larger than these bounds) but simply bounds on whatever sparticle happens to be lightest. The important points to note are: (i) the maximum values of the mass correspond to the largest value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, which is to be expected given dominance of the chargino diagram at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$; (ii) the $`1\sigma `$ limit without (with) the $`\tau `$ data requires at least 2 sparticles to lie below roughly $`490(990)\mathrm{GeV}`$; (iii) for the central value of the E821 data, at least 4 sparticles must lie below $`585(915)\mathrm{GeV}`$; and (iv) for low values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ a maximum value of $`\delta a_\mu `$ is reached (we will return to this later).

The same plots could be produced with the additional assumption that the LSP be a neutralino, but we will only show the case for the LSP bound, in Fig. 4. In this figure, the solid lines correspond to a neutralino LSP, while the dotted lines are for the more general case discussed above (i.e., they match the lines in the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ plot of Fig. 3). Notice that for $`\delta a_\mu \stackrel{>}{}40\times 10^{10}`$ there is little difference between the cases with and without a neutralino LSP. At the extreme upper and lower values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ there is also little difference. It is only for the intermediate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ that the mass bound shifts appreciably; for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ it comes down by as much as $`50\mathrm{GeV}`$ when one imposes a neutralino LSP.

Finally, we consider the most general MSSM case, i.e., without gaugino unification. Here the correlations are much less pronounced, but interesting bounds still exist. For example the central value of the E821 data still demands at least 3 sparticles below $`525(770)\mathrm{GeV}`$. In figure 5 we demonstrate this explicitly by plotting the masses of the four lightest sparticles for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ and a wide range of $`\delta a_\mu `$. (We also plot the mass bound on the LSP in Fig. 4 with the label “General MSSM.”) We see that dropping the gaugino unification requirement has one primary effect: the mass of the LSP is significantly increased. This is because the LSP in the unified case is usually a $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1\stackrel{~}{B}`$ but isn’t itself responsible for generating $`\delta a_\mu `$. In the general case, the LSP must participate in $`\delta a_\mu `$ (otherwise its mass could be arbitrarily large) and so is roughly the mass of the second lightest sparticle in the unified case, whether that be a $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Otherwise the differences between the more general MSSM and the gaugino unified MSSM are small.

We have summarized all this data on the LSP in Table 1 where we have shown the mass bounds using the $`1\sigma `$ limit of the E821 data on the LSP for various $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values with our various assumptions. The numbers represent the bounds without (with) the inclusion of the $`\tau `$ decay data. The last line in the table represents an upper bound for any model with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$: $`m_{\mathrm{LSP}}<475\mathrm{GeV}(1\mathrm{TeV})`$ for the E821 $`1\sigma `$ lower bounds of $`\delta a_\mu `$. But perhaps of equal importance are the bounds on the next 2 lightest sparticles (the “2LSP” and “3LSP”): Using $`a_\mu `$ calculated without $`\tau `$-decay data, $`m_{2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{P}}<485\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_{3\mathrm{L}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{P}}<630\mathrm{GeV}`$; for the value of $`a_\mu `$ calculated with the $`\tau `$ data, $`m_{2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{P}}<1\mathrm{TeV}`$, while $`m_{3\mathrm{L}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{P}}`$ is pushed somewhat above $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$. Note that the bound on the 2LSP is essentially identical to that on the LSP. The central value of the E821 anomaly further implies a fourth (third) sparticle below $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$ even in this most general case.

### 2.2 Bounds on the sparticle species

In the previous subsection, we derived bounds on the lightest sparticles, independent of the identity of those sparticles. Another important piece of information that can be provided by this analysis is bounds on individual species of sparticles, for example, on the charginos or on the smuons. These bounds will of necessity be higher than those derived in the previous section, but still provide important information about how and where to look for SUSY. In particular, they can help us gauge the likelihood of finding SUSY at Run II of the Tevatron or at the LHC.

There is one complication in obtaining these bounds. At low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the data is most easily explained by the neutralino diagrams and as such there must be at least one light smuon and one light neutralino. At larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ contributions from the chargino diagrams dominate, implying a light chargino and sneutrino. However the correlations already discussed preserve the bounds on the various species over the whole range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. A bound on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ implies a bound on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}`$, and a bound on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{C}_1}`$ implies a bound on at least one of the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_i}`$, and in certain cases (such as gaugino unification), the converses may be true as well.

We have shown in Fig. 6 the mass bounds on $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ under the assumption of gaugino unification; a plot for $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$/$`\stackrel{~}{N}_2`$ will appear later in our discussion of Tevatron physics. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1`$ must lie below $`500(950)\mathrm{GeV}`$, even for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, thanks to the gaugino unification condition, while $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1`$ can be heavier but must still lie below $`915(1800)\mathrm{GeV}`$ at $`1\sigma `$.

Finally, we can consider the general MSSM without gaugino unification. The results are shown schematically in Fig. 7 where the general MSSM bounds (solid lines) are shown alongside the gaugino unification bounds (dashed lines).

We can see from the figure that the bound on the $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1`$ is essentially identical to that in the gaugino unification picture. However the gaugino masses have shifted, and the reason is no mystery. Once again, the lightest neutralino is no longer a $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$-like spectator to the magnetic moment, but is a $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$-like partner of a participating $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$-like chargino.

The results of these plots for the current discrepancy are summarized as follows. For the MSSM with gaugino unification, the lightest neutralino must fall below $`500(950)\mathrm{GeV}`$ for a $`1\sigma `$ deviation. The lighter smuon must lie below $`915\mathrm{GeV}`$ ($`1.8\mathrm{TeV}`$). Without the $`\tau `$-decay data, the lighter chargino falls below $`890\mathrm{GeV}`$; using the $`\tau `$ data, the bound rises above $`2\mathrm{TeV}`$.

For the worst case, the general MSSM, the smuon bound increases by only about $`50\mathrm{GeV}`$ over the gaugino unification limits and the neutralino bounds increase to $`890\mathrm{GeV}`$ (over $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$), only slightly higher than the unified case. However, the bounds on the lighter chargino jump above $`2\mathrm{TeV}`$.

### 2.3 Bounds on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$

The final bound we will investigate using the E821 data is on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. There had been, after the appearance of the original E821 data, some discussion in the literature about which values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ were capable of explaining it. In particular, at lower $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ there is a real suppression in the maximum size of $`\delta a_\mu `$. In Figure 8 we have shown the maximum attainable value of $`\delta a_\mu `$ as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the general MSSM; adding the assumption of gaugino unification changes the figure only slightly.

The limit in Fig. 8 clearly divides into two regions. At $`\delta a_\mu >36\times 10^{10}`$ the chargino contribution dominates and thus $`\delta a_\mu y_\mu `$, scaling linearly with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. At lower $`\delta a_\mu `$, however, both neutralino and chargino contributions can be important so it becomes possible to generate $`\delta a_\mu `$ with much smaller values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ than would be possible from the charginos alone. The E821 data does not therefore imply any bound on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ whatsoever, neither at $`1\sigma `$ nor at the experimental central value. Further reductions in the size of the error bars will not change this result, so long as the central value remains at or below its current $`1\sigma `$ upper bound.

### 2.4 Implications for the Tevatron

At its simplest level, the measurement of $`\delta a_\mu `$, an anomaly in the lepton sector, has little impact on the Tevatron, a hadron machine. In particular, the light smuons associated with $`\delta a_\mu `$ cannot be directly produced at the Tevatron, occurring only if heavier non-leptonic states are produced which then decay to sleptons. In the calculation of $`a_\mu `$, the only such sparticles are the neutralinos and charginos. These states can be copiously produced and in fact form the initial state for the “gold-plated” SUSY trilepton signature.

Of particular interest for the trilepton signature are the masses of the lighter chargino ($`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$) and 2nd lightest neutralino ($`\stackrel{~}{N}_2`$). Studies of mSUGRA parameter space indicate that the sensitivity to the trilepton signature at Run II/III of the Tevatron depends strongly on the mass of sleptons which can appear in the gaugino decay chains. For heavy sleptons, the Tevatron is only sensitive to gaugino masses in the range  $`m_{\stackrel{~}{C}_1,\stackrel{~}{N}_2}\stackrel{<}{}130`$ to $`140\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`10\text{fb}^1`$ of luminosity and $`145`$ to $`155\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`30\text{fb}^1`$, where the quoted ranges take one from low to high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. However, for light sleptons (below about $`200\mathrm{GeV}`$) the range is considerably extended, up to gaugino masses around 190 to $`210\mathrm{GeV}`$.

It is impossible in the kind of analysis presented here to comment on the expected cross-sections for the neutralino-chargino production (for example, there is no information in $`a_\mu `$ on the masses of the $`t`$-channel squarks) but we can examine the mass bounds on $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}_2`$. In Fig. 9 we have shown just that: the upper bound on the heavier of either $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{N}_2`$ as a function of $`\delta a_\mu `$ for several values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

A few comments are in order on the figure. First, this figure assumes gaugino unification; dropping that assumption can lead to significantly heavier and unequal masses for the $`\stackrel{~}{N}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$. Second, we have also assumed a neutralino LSP; this is to be expected since the event topology for the trilepton signal assumes a stable, neutralino LSP. Finally, on the $`y`$-axis is actually plotted $`m_{\stackrel{~}{C}_1}`$, but in every case we examined with gaugino unification, the difference in the maximum masses of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}_2`$ differed by at most a few GeV. This is because they are both dominantly wino-like in the unified case and thus have masses $`M_2`$.

From the figure it is clear that one cannot devise a no-lose theorem for the Tevatron from current E821 data. However, if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is small and $`\delta a_\mu 35\times 10^{10}`$ (the current central value using only $`e^+e^{}`$ data) then the gauginos may be within the Tevatron’s reach. We must also emphasize that these are upper bounds on the sparticle masses and in no way represent best fits or preferred values. Thus, for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, there is reason to hope that the Tevatron will be able to probe the gaugino sector in Run II or III; for larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ there is little information about SUSY at the Tevatron to be garnered from $`a_\mu `$.

### 2.5 Implications for a Linear Collider

A consensus has emerged in favor of building a $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ linear collider, presumably a factory for sparticles with masses below $`250\mathrm{GeV}`$. What does the measurement of $`a_\mu `$ tell us with regards to our chances for seeing SUSY at $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$? And how many sparticles will be actually accessible to such a collider?

The analysis of the previous section can put a lower bound on the number of observable sparticles at a linear collider as a function of $`\delta a_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and we show those numbers as a histogram in Fig. 10. In this figure, we have shown the minimum number of sparticles with mass below $`250\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, 10, 30 and 50, assuming gaugino unification. In the graph, the thinner bars represent smaller $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. As is to be expected, the number of light states increases with increasing $`\delta a_\mu `$ and with decreasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. However note that there are no $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$ lines for $`\delta a_\mu 40\times 10^{10}`$ since there is no way to explain such large $`\delta a_\mu `$ values at low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

We see from the figure that at low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, there is a $`1\sigma `$ “guarantee” that at least 1 to 4 sparticles will be produced at a $`500\mathrm{GeV}`$ linear collider, depending on whether the $`\tau `$-decay is used. This counting does not include extra sleptons due to slepton mass universality; for example, a light muon sneutrino also implies light tau and electron sneutrinos, and likewise for the charged smuon. We see also that for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}30`$ there is no such guarantee that a $`500\mathrm{GeV}`$ machine would produce on-shell sparticles; this is not to be taken to mean that one should not expect their production, simply that $`a_\mu `$ cannot guarantee it.

A similar bar graph can also be made for a $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$ machine, though we do not show it here. However the relevant numbers can be inferred from Fig. 3.

Note that any particular class of models, such as gravity- or gauge-mediated SUSY-breaking, may not saturate the bounds presented here. That is, other constraints may rule out all regions of parameter space in which $`\delta a_\mu `$ exceeds some maximum value. However if a model does allow a particular value of $`\delta a_\mu `$, then pursuant to the conditions discussed here, that model must have at least as many light particles as the number given above.

## 3 Conclusions

Deviations in the muon anomalous magnetic moment have long been advertised as a key hunting ground for indirect signatures of SUSY. However, the current experimental excess is too small, given the large theoretical uncertainties, to provide statistically significant evidence for SUSY.

The most recent Standard Model calculations indicate an excess of either $`1.5\sigma `$ or $`3.2\sigma `$. If one were to accept the E821 anomaly as evidence for SUSY (at either of these values), then a number of statements can be inferred at the $`1\sigma `$ confidence level:

* The lightest sparticle must lie below $`475\mathrm{GeV}(1\mathrm{TeV})`$;
* For models with unified gaugino masses, there must be at least 2 sparticles with masses below $`585\mathrm{GeV}(1\mathrm{TeV})`$;
* There is no lower bound on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Bounds on individual species of sparticles are weaker, usually falling at or above $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$.

However, these pessimistic bounds are over all $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, which means effectively that they are the bounds when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$, the maximum value we considered. For low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the bounds on sparticle masses are much smaller. At $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$ and with gaugino unification and a neutralino LSP, there must be a sparticle below $`115(215)\mathrm{GeV}`$, within the range accessible in the very near future. So, while the bounds placed on SUSY by $`a_\mu `$ are relatively weak when no constraints are placed on the MSSM, constraining the model by demanding gaugino unification or low(er) $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can bring down the mass bounds into the experimentally interesting region.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to S. Martin for discussions during the early parts of this project. CK would also like to thank the Aspen Center for Physics where parts of this work were completed, and the Notre Dame High-Performance Computing Cluster for much-needed computing resources. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant NSF-0098791. The work of MB was supported in part by a Notre Dame Center for Applied Mathematics Graduate Summer Fellowship.

## Appendix

The supersymmetric contributions to $`a_\mu `$ are generated by diagrams involving charged smuons with neutralinos, and sneutrinos with charginos. The most general form of the calculation, including phases, takes the form (we follow Ref. ):

$`\delta a_\mu ^{(\stackrel{~}{N})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,m}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{12m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_m}^2}}(|n_{im}^L|^2+|n_{im}^R|^2)F_1^N(x_{im})+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_i}}{3m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_m}^2}}\mathrm{Re}[n_{im}^Ln_{im}^R]F_2^N(x_{im})\right\}`$
$`\delta a_\mu ^{(\stackrel{~}{C})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{12m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2}}(|c_k^L|^2+|c_k^R|^2)F_1^C(x_k)+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_{\stackrel{~}{C}_k}}{3m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2}}\mathrm{Re}[c_k^Lc_k^R]F_2^C(x_k)\right\}`$ (17)
where $`i=1,2,3,4`$, $`m=1,2`$, and $`k=1,2`$ label the neutralino, smuon and chargino mass eigenstates respectively, and

$`n_{im}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}g_1N_{i1}X_{m2}+y_\mu N_{i3}X_{m1},`$
$`n_{im}^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(g_2N_{i2}+g_1N_{i1}\right)X_{m1}^{}y_\mu N_{i3}X_{m2}^{},`$
$`c_k^R`$ $`=`$ $`y_\mu U_{k2},`$
$`c_k^L`$ $`=`$ $`g_2V_{k1},`$ (18)
$`y_\mu =g_2m_\mu /\sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{cos}\beta `$ is the muon Yukawa coupling, and $`g_{1,2}`$ are the U(1) hypercharge and SU(2) gauge couplings. The loop functions depend on the variables $`x_{im}=m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_i}^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_m}^2`$, $`x_k=m_{\stackrel{~}{C}_k}^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2`$ and are given by

$`F_1^N(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(1x)^4}}\left[16x+3x^2+2x^36x^2\mathrm{ln}x\right]`$
$`F_2^N(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{(1x)^3}}\left[1x^2+2x\mathrm{ln}x\right]`$
$`F_1^C(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(1x)^4}}\left[2+3x6x^2+x^3+6x\mathrm{ln}x\right]`$
$`F_2^C(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2(1x)^3}}\left[34x+x^2+2\mathrm{ln}x\right]`$ (19)
For degenerate sparticles ($`x=1`$) the functions are normalized so that $`F_1^N(1)=F_2^N(1)=F_1^C(1)=F_2^C(1)=1`$. We can also bound the magnitude of some of these functions; in particular $`|F_2^N(x)|3`$ while $`|F_2^C(x)|`$ is unbounded as $`x0`$.

The neutralino and chargino mass matrices are given by

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{N}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& m_Zs_Wc_\beta & m_Zs_Ws_\beta \\ 0& M_2& m_Zc_Wc_\beta & m_Zc_Ws_\beta \\ m_Zs_Wc_\beta & m_Zc_Wc_\beta & 0& \mu \\ m_Zs_Ws_\beta & m_Zc_Ws_\beta & \mu & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(20)
and

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{C}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_2& \sqrt{2}m_Ws_\beta \\ \sqrt{2}m_Wc_\beta & \mu \end{array}\right)$$
(21)
where $`s_\beta =\mathrm{sin}\beta `$, $`c_\beta =\mathrm{cos}\beta `$ and likewise for $`\theta _W`$. The neutralino mixing matrix $`N_{ij}`$ and the chargino mixing matrices $`U_{kl}`$ and $`V_{kl}`$ satisfy

$`N^{}M_{\stackrel{~}{N}}N^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_1},m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_2},m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_3},m_{\stackrel{~}{N}_4})`$
$`U^{}M_{\stackrel{~}{C}}V^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(m_{\stackrel{~}{C}_1},m_{\stackrel{~}{C}_2}).`$ (22)
The smuon mass matrix is given in the $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R\}`$ basis as:

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_L^2& m_\mu (A_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^{}\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )\\ m_\mu (A_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}\mu ^{}\mathrm{tan}\beta )& M_R^2\end{array}\right)$$
(23)
where

$`M_L^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_L^2+(s_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$
$`M_R^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_R^2s_W^2m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (24)
for soft masses $`m_L^2`$ and $`m_R^2`$; the unitary smuon mixing matrix $`X_{mn}`$ is defined by

$`XM_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^2X^{}=\mathrm{diag}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}^2).`$ (25)
We will define a smuon mixing angle $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}`$ such that $`X_{11}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}`$ and $`X_{12}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}`$. In our numerical calculations we will set $`A_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}=0`$. At low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we have checked that varying $`A_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}`$ makes only slight numerical difference, while at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ it has no observable effect whatsoever. Finally, the muon sneutrino mass is related to the left-handed smuon mass parameter by

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2=m_L^2+\frac{1}{2}m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta .$$
(26)
The leading 2-loop contributions to $`\delta a_\mu `$ have been calculated  and have been found to suppress the SUSY contribution by a factor $`(4\alpha /\pi )\mathrm{log}(m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}/m_\mu )0.07`$; we will include this 7% suppression in all our numerical results.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Hall ferromagnets, cooperative transport anisotropy, and the random field Ising model

Also at \]Also at A. F. Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute, 194021 St. Petersburg, Russia. Also at \]Also at Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, 188350, St Petersburg, Russia.

## Abstract

We discuss the behaviour of a quantum Hall system when two Landau levels with opposite spin and combined filling factor near unity are brought into energetic coincidence using an in-plane component of magnetic field. We focus on the interpretation of recent experiments under these conditions \[Zeitler et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 866 (2001); Pan et al, Phys. Rev. B 64, 121305 (2001)\], in which a large resistance anisotropy develops at low temperatures. Modelling the systems involved as Ising quantum Hall ferromagnets, we suggest that this transport anisotropy reflects domain formation induced by a random field arising from isotropic sample surface roughness.

Two very striking experimental observations of large electronic transport anisotropy for quantum Hall systems in tilted magnetic fields have been reported recently.Zeitler ; Pan  In both cases, anisotropy appears at integer values of the filling factor $`\nu `$ with an in-plane magnetic field component tuned to bring two Landau levels of opposite spin into energetic coincidence. While the in-plane magnetic field component itself defines an axis within the sample, the fact that large anisotropy appears in resistivity only below a characteristic temperature of about $`1`$ kelvin suggests it has a cooperative origin. Our aim in this paper is to develop a theoretical treatment of such systems and to discuss the source of the observed anisotropy.

In view of the phenomenological similarities, it is natural to make comparisons between these Landau level coincidence experiments and the earlier discovery of resistance anisotropy in quantum Hall systems near half-filling of high Landau levels,Eisenstein  attributed to the formation of a uniaxial charge density wave with a period set by the cyclotron radius.CDW  Some distinctions are, however, clear. Most importantly, the nature of the electron states near the chemical potential and their average occupation is quite different in each case: two separate orbital Landau levels with opposite spin and a combined filling factor close to unity are involved in the coincidence experiments, as against a single, spin-polarised and roughly half-filled Landau level in the other case. In this context it is desirable to examine a range of possible explanations for low-temperature anisotropy.

The study of cooperative effects in coincident Landau levels has a long history. Consider a system with fixed magnetic field strength $`B_{}`$ perpendicular to the two-dimensional electron or hole gas, as a function of total field strength $`B_{\mathrm{tot}}`$. In a single-particle description there are pairs of Landau levels having opposite spin orientations and orbital quantum numbers differing by $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$, which are separated in energy by $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\mathrm{}\omega _cg^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}B_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, where $`\omega _cB_{}`$ is the cyclotron frequency and $`g^{}\mu _\mathrm{B}B_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the Zeeman contribution. This energy gap falls to zero at coincidence. Inclusion of exchange interactions leads, at a combined filling factor of unity for the crossing levels, to a first-order transition between two ground states in which one or other level is completely filled. Within a Hartree-Fock treatment, the excitation gap remains non-zero through this transition.Quinn  Early observations of a quantised plateau in Hall resistivity $`\rho _{xy}`$ and deep minimum in diagonal resistivity $`\rho _{xx}`$, both persisting through the transition,Koch  provide support for such a picture, while measurements of the temperature dependence of $`\rho _{xx}`$ allow determination of an activation energy gapDaneshvar  which has the variation with $`B_{}`$ expected theoretically. This Landau level coincidence transition is one example of a broad class of cooperative phenomena in quantum Hall systems, involving ferromagnetism of either spin or pseudospin variables, which have been a focus for much recent work.Sondhi ; Girvin  From such a perspective, representing the two Landau levels involved using two states of a pseudospin, interactions between pseudospins are ferromagnetic with Ising anisotropy,Jungwirth  while $`B_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ measured from its value at coincidence acts on pseudospins as a Zeeman field.

With this background in mind, we return to a discussion of transport anisotropy. Following the suggestions of Refs. Zeitler,  and Pan, , it is clear that the presence of a spin or charge density wave could potentially explain this observation. From the original Hartree-Fock calculations,Quinn  which were for a one-band model and considered only trial states with homogeneous charge density, it was found that instability to a spin density wave is preempted by the first-order coincidence transition. An escape from this conclusion might be provided by the fact that the sample involved is in one experiment a Si/GeSi heterostructure,Zeitler  and in the other a wide quantum well:Pan  the former has valley degeneracy and the latter has two occupied subbands. Alternatively, it might be that a better trial state in Hartree-Fock theory, or calculations which go beyond this approximation, would yield a stripe phase as the true ground state near coincidence. However, recent Hartree-Fock calculations for bilayer systemsDemler  give only ferromagnetic pseudospin order with parameters relevant in the present context, as do calculations for one-band models, in which Hartree-Fock solutions with both spin and charge density modulations are considered,Evers  or the Hamiltonian with realistic interaction potentials is diagonalised exactly for a small number of electrons.Rezayi

The observations of Refs. Zeitler,  and Pan,  therefore present a puzzle, which we argue in the following can be understood in terms of domain formation, with a characteristic size much larger than the relevant scale for stripe phases, the cyclotron radius. Our account involves three distinct ingredients. First, we suggest that domains are induced by a random Zeeman field acting on the pseudospins, which arises from the interplay between isotropic sample surface roughness and the in-plane component of magnetic field. Second, we show that a random field generated by this mechanism is intrinsically endowed with anisotropic correlations, and that the correlation anisotropy is large enough to explain the observed anisotropy in resistivity. Third, we argue that transport in a multi-domain sample occurs along domains walls, via the processes discussed recently in Refs. Falko, ; Mitra, ; Brey, . The onset temperature for transport anisotropy arising by this mechanism is the Curie temperature of the Ising quantum Hall ferromagnet, and we note that the reportedZeitler ; Pan  onset temperature of about $`1`$ K is similar to the value for the Curie temperature expectedJungwirth  and observed elsewhere.Piazza

As a starting point for a more detailed discussion, consider an energy functional for the system. Introducing coherent state creation operators $`c_{}^{}(𝐫)`$ and $`c_{}^{}(𝐫)`$ for the two Landau levels involved, correlations are characterised by the expectation value of pseudospin, $`𝐒(𝐫)=c_\alpha ^{}𝝈_{\alpha \beta }c_\beta `$, where $`𝝈`$ is the vector of Pauli matrices. The order parameter has magnitude $`|𝐒(𝐫)|=S`$, where $`S=1`$ at a combined filling factor of unity for the two Landau levels and is smaller otherwise. For variations of $`𝐒(𝐫)`$ which are smooth on the scale of the cyclotron radius, one expects the energy functional to have the form

$$E=\left(DS_z^2+J|𝐒|^2+\delta J|_n𝐒(𝐫)|^2hS_z\right)d^2𝐫.$$
(1)
Here $`D>0`$ represents Ising anisotropy, $`J`$ is the spin stiffness, the derivative $`_n\widehat{𝐧}`$ acts in the direction of the in-plane magnetic field, denoted by $`\widehat{𝐧}`$, and $`\delta J`$ represents spatial anisotropy in the spin stiffness (for simplicity, we omit anisotropy in spin-space from the stiffness). The effective Zeeman field acting on pseudospins is $`h`$. In experiment, the strength of this field varies through zero as the tilt angle $`\theta `$ of the sample in the applied magnetic field is varied through the Landau level coincidence point; its strength depends also on field magnitude $`B_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ and on carrier density $`n`$.

For a homogeneous system, the ground state of Eq. (1) is uniform with $`S_z=\mathrm{sgn}(h)S`$ and $`𝐒_{}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Domains may arise either in metastable states or because they are induced by quenched disorder. While metastability and hysteresis are observed in some examples of quantum Hall ferromagnets,Piazza  this is not reported to be an important aspect of observations in Refs. Zeitler,  and Pan, . We therefore turn to domains induced by disorder. Potentially the most important source of disorder in Eq. (1) is randomness in $`h`$, and behaviour of the random field Ising model has been studied very extensively.Imry  It is useful to distinguish the weak and strong disorder regimes: taking $`h`$ to fluctuate about mean value zero with amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and correlation length $`l`$, and supposing $`l`$ is greater than the domain wall width $`w=\sqrt{J/D}`$, the boundary between the two regimes lies at $`l\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{JD}`$. At weak disorder, domain size $`\xi `$ is much larger than $`l`$ and domain morphology depends, amongst other things, on the difference in energy per unit length of domain walls running parallel or perpendicular to the in-plane magnetic field component: this energy difference is of order $`\sqrt{\delta JD}`$. At strong disorder, which we shall argue is the limit relevant here, the domain pattern is simply that of $`\mathrm{sgn}(h)`$.

To apply these ideas, it is necessary to identify a microscopic origin for such a random field. One possibility is that variations in carrier density $`n`$, arising either from impurity scattering or from large-scale inhomogeneities, produce changes in the value of $`h`$. Randomness of this kind is expected to be spatially isotropic, but may give rise to transport anisotropy via dependence of the domain wall energy on spatial orientation. A second possibility is that sample surface roughness changes the local value of $`\theta `$, and hence $`h`$. To compare the likely importance of these two, we appeal to experiment, noting (for example, from Fig. 2 of Ref. Zeitler, ) that while the coincidence transition has a rather small width ($`0.5^{}`$) in $`\theta `$, it has a much larger width ($`20\%)`$ in $`B_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, which is indicative of its width in $`n`$. The existence of sample surface roughness of the required amplitude, with $`l1\mu \mathrm{m}`$, is noted in Ref. Zeitler,  and well-established in a variety of other contexts.roughness  Moreover, it can account for transport anisotropy, as we now show.

Let $`z(𝐫)`$ denote height of the sample surface above an average reference plane, and let $`\theta _c`$ be the critical angle at which the Landau level coincidence transition occurs. Then for small-angle roughness

$$h(𝐫)=\alpha (\theta \theta _c)+\alpha _nz(𝐫),$$
(2)
where $`\alpha `$ is a proportionality constant. Crucially, by this mechanism surface roughness with a correlation function

$$C(𝐫)=z(𝐫^{})z(𝐫+𝐫^{})z(𝐫^{})z(𝐫+𝐫^{})$$
(3)
which is isotropic generates a random field with spatially anisotropic correlations, since

$$h(𝐫^{})h(𝐫+𝐫^{})h(𝐫^{})h(𝐫+𝐫^{})=_n^2C(𝐫).$$
(4)
To establish the characteristic degree of this anisotropy, we have carried out numerical simulations. Taking $`z(𝐫)`$ to be a superposition of overlapping Gaussian functions of position, with centers placed at random points in the plane and amplitudes distributed uniformly about zero, and setting $`\theta =\theta _c`$, the resulting random field $`h(𝐫)`$ in a typical realisation is illustrated in Fig. 1. Anticipating our discussion of transport on domain walls, we quantify the anisotropy evident in this figure by following the classical dynamics of a particle that moves along contours of $`h(𝐫)`$, using methods described previously.Evers\_old  Averaging over randomly-placed starting points, we expect diffusive motion in the sense that mean square displacements grow linearly in time. Taking $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ parallel to the $`y`$-axis, the quantities $`D_{xx}(t)x^2(t)/t`$ and $`D_{yy}(t)y^2(t)/t`$ should then approach the eigenvalues, $`D_{xx}`$ and $`D_{yy}`$, of the diffusion tensor, for times $`t`$ which are large compared to the correlation time, $`t_0`$. Evidence that $`D_{xx}(t)`$ and $`D_{yy}(t)`$ indeed tend to a finite limit, with $`D_{xx}8D_{yy}`$, is presented in Fig. 2. The orientation of this anisotropy, with the larger diffusion constant in the direction perpendicular to the in-plane magnetic field component, is as observed in Refs. Zeitler, ; Pan, , and its magnitude is about the same as that determined at low temperature using a Hall bar sample.Zeitler  The precise value of $`D_{xx}/D_{yy}`$ will be dependent on disorder distribution, but we see no reason to expect large variations.

Our calculations also provide an opportunity to test the universality class of our anisotropic percolation problem, since diffusive growth in mean square displacement arises at long times from a balance between bounded motion on closed trajectories and super-diffusive motion on trajectories which remain open up to the observation time.Ziff  Averaging only over open trajectories, one expects $`x^2(t)y^2(t)t^{8/7}`$, if the anisotropic problem is in the same universality class as the standard classical percolation problem: data shown in the inset to Fig. 2 support this conclusion.

The foregoing discussion is based on the idea that transport occurs along boundaries between domains. In order to substantiate this, we next examine transport properties of domain walls between oppositely magnetised phases of the Ising quantum Hall ferromagnet. Recalling that the domain wall forms the boundary between a region on one side with filling factors for the coincident Landau levels of $`\nu _{}1`$ and $`\nu _{}0`$, and a region on the other with interchanged filling factors, $`\nu _{}0`$ and $`\nu _{}1`$, the simplest structure one might imagine is that shown in Fig. 3(a). In this picture, the wall supports two counter-propagating modes with opposite spin polarisation, which arise as edge states of the occupied Landau levels in the domains on either side. Such an Ising domain wall, in which $`𝐒_{}(𝐫)=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ everywhere and $`𝐒(𝐫)=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ at the wall centre, may be stabilised by short-range scattering, which allows solutions with $`|𝐒(𝐫)|<1`$,Yarlagadda  in contrast to Eq. (1). For a sample without short-range scattering, however, Hartree-Fock theory yieldsBrey  the Bloch domain wall structure shown in Fig. 3(b). Here, $`𝐒_{}(𝐫)\mathrm{𝟎}`$ within the wall. In consequence, within Hartree-Fock theory there is mixing and an avoided crossing of edge states arising from occupied Landau levels on either side of the wall.

At this level of approximation, for a Bloch wall the chemical potential lies within a quasiparticle gap. To account for transport under these conditions, it is necessary to consider collective excitations. The combined consequences of continuous symmetry for the Hartree-Fock solution under rotations of $`𝐒_{}(𝐫)`$ about the Ising axis, and the connection between spin or pseudospin and charge that is standard for quantum Hall ferromagnetsSondhi  have been examined in a related context in Ref. Mitra, . Introducing pseudospin rotation angle $`\phi `$, as a function of position coordinate $`x`$ along the wall and imaginary time $`\tau `$, the action

$$S=\frac{\rho }{2}\left[\left(\frac{\phi }{x}\right)^2+\frac{1}{u^2}\left(\frac{\phi }{\tau }\right)^2\right]𝑑x𝑑\tau $$
(5)
is obtained for domain wall excitations,Mitra  where in our context $`\rho Jwe^2/ϵ`$ and $`ue^2/ϵ\mathrm{}`$. A charge density $`(2\pi )^1\phi /x`$ is associated with these modes. This is the action for a spinless Luttinger liquid. A vital property for our argument is that left and right-moving excitations propagate independently, provided rotation symmetry about the pseudospin easy axis is exact. In short, Fig. 3(a) remains a useful picture even without short-range disorder to stabilise an Ising wall, provided only that there is no spin-orbit scattering. In this picture, transport in a multidomain sample occurs at domain boundaries, via two independent, counter-propagating sets of modes. Neglecting quantum interference effects, we arrive at the problem for which numerical results are given above.

In conclusion, we have argued that the observations of anisotropic transport reported in Refs. Zeitler,  and Pan,  can plausibly be attributed to formation of anisotropically shaped domains, induced as a result of sample surface roughness. Our numerical work demonstrates that this mechanism generates an anisotropy comparable to that found experimentally.Zeitler  In addition, the onset temperature for strongly anisotropic transport is comparable to the critical temperature expectedJungwirth  and observedPiazza  in other Ising quantum Hall ferromagnets. For future work it would be interesting to investigate transport in systems with deliberately induced surface features.

We thank U. Zeitler for extensive discussions, and E. H. Rezayi for correspondence. The work was supported by the A. v. Humboldt Foundation (J. T. C.) and by the Schwerpunktprogramm “Quanten-Hall-Systeme” der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft.


text:
# Robust dynamical decoupling with bounded controls

(July 15, 2002)

## Abstract

We propose a general procedure for implementing dynamical decoupling without requiring arbitrarily strong, impulsive control actions. This is accomplished by designing continuous decoupling propagators according to Eulerian paths in the decoupling group for the system. Such Eulerian decoupling schemes offer two important advantages over their impulsive counterparts: they are able to enforce the same dynamical symmetrization but with more realistic control resources and, at the same time, they are intrinsically tolerant against a large class of systematic implementation errors.

Dynamical decoupling provides a well-defined framework for addressing a variety of issues associated with the manipulation of open quantum systems and interacting quantum subsystems. Inspired by coherent averaging methods in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy Haeberlen and Waugh (1968), and cast in control-theoretic terms in Viola and Lloyd (1998); Viola et al. (1999a), decoupling techniques are attracting growing interest from the quantum control and quantum information processing (QIP) communities. Significant applications have resulted in the area of reliable QIP, where decoupling has been instrumental in the development of quantum error suppression schemes Viola et al. (1999a); Zanardi (1999); Viola et al. (1999b), with the potential for noise-tolerant universal quantum computation on dynamically generated noiseless subsystems Viola et al. (2000). In addition, variants of the basic decoupling concepts play a role in protocols for universal quantum simulation of both closed- and open-system dynamics Wocjan et al. (2002); Dodd et al. (2002); Lloyd and Viola (2002), with implications for encoded simulation Lidar and Wu (2001); Viola (2002). In a broader context, applications of dynamical decoupling to problems that range from inhibiting the decay of unstable states Agarwal et al. (2001), to suppressing magnetic state decoherence Search and Berman (2000), or reducing heating effects in linear ion traps Vitali and Tombesi (2002) have been recently envisaged.

From the point of view of implementation, dynamical decoupling has relied on the ability of effecting sequences of arbitrarily strong, instantaneous control pulses. That is, it required the ability to impulsively apply a set of control Hamiltonians with unbounded strength (the bang-bang (b.b.) assumption Viola and Lloyd (1998)). While providing a convenient starting point, such a scenario suffers from being extremely unrealistic for applications. In a physical control setting, additional disadvantages associated with b.b. decoupling include the difficulty of simultaneously describing the evolution under the natural (drift) Hamiltonian and the control terms, as well as the poor spectral selectivity of b.b. pulses, with substantial off-resonance effects. Finally, although compensation techniques based on composite rotations exist for stabilizing control pulses against operational imperfections Tycko (1983), they are hard to reconcile with the b.b. framework, which does not easily lend itself to incorporating robustness features.

In this Letter, we overcome the shortcomings of the b.b. formulation by showing how to implement dynamical decoupling based on continuous modulation of bounded-strength Hamiltonians. If $`𝒢`$ is the discrete group specifying the desired b.b. decoupler, the basic idea is to constrain the motion of the control propagator during each cycle along a path that interpolates between the elements of $`𝒢`$. Under mild assumptions on the control Hamiltonians, a decoupling prescription inducing the same symmetry structure as in the b.b. limit can be constructed by exploiting Eulerian cycles on a Cayley graph of $`𝒢`$. In addition to significantly weakening the relevant implementation requirements, Eulerian decoupling turns out to be largely insensitive to control faults, opening the way to the robust dynamical generation of noise-protected subsystems.

Decoupling setting.$``$ Let the target system $`S`$ be defined on a finite-dimensional state space $`_S`$, and let End$`(_S)`$ be the corresponding operator algebra. Thus, $`_S^d`$, End$`(_S)\text{Mat}_d()`$ for some $`d`$, with $`d=2^n`$ for an $`n`$-qubit system. $`S`$ may be coupled to an uncontrollable environment $`E`$, whereby the evolution on the joint state space $`_S_E`$ is ruled by a total drift Hamiltonian $`H_0=H_S𝟙_𝔼+𝟙_𝕊_𝔼+_\alpha 𝕊_\alpha 𝔼_\alpha `$ for appropriate traceless noise generators $`S_\alpha \text{End}(_S)`$ Viola et al. (1999a). A decoupling problem is concerned with characterizing the effective evolutions that can be generated from $`H_0`$ via the application of a control field $`H_c(t)𝟙_𝔼`$ acting on $`S`$ alone Viola et al. (1999a). Let the control propagator be

$$U_c(t)=𝒯\mathrm{exp}\left\{i_0^t𝑑t^{}H_c(t^{})\right\},$$
(1)
with $`\mathrm{}=1`$. In a frame that removes the control field, the dynamics is governed by a time-dependent Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}(t)`$$`=U_c^{}(t)H_0U_c(t)`$, and the overall evolution in the Schrödinger picture results from the net propagator

$$U(t)=U_c(t)𝒯\mathrm{exp}\left\{i_0^t𝑑t^{}\stackrel{~}{H}(t^{})\right\}.$$
(2)
Assuming that the control action is cyclic, $`U_c(t+T_c)=U_c(t)`$ for some cycle time $`T_c>0`$ and for all $`t`$, the stroboscopic dynamics $`U(t_M=MT_c)`$, $`M`$, can be identified with the effective evolution induced by $`\stackrel{~}{H}(t)`$ in (2). First-order decoupling aims at generating the desired evolution to lowest order in $`T_c`$, $`U(t_M)=\mathrm{exp}(i\overline{H}^{(0)}t_M)`$, where

$$\overline{H}^{(0)}=\frac{1}{T_c}_0^{T_c}𝑑t^{}U_c^{}(t^{})H_0U_c(t^{}).$$
(3)
While higher-order corrections can be systematically evaluated, the approximation (3) tends to become exact as the fast control limit $`T_c0`$ is approached Haeberlen and Waugh (1968); Viola et al. (1999a, b).

In the simplest b.b. decoupling setting, the time-average in (3) maps directly into a group-theoretical average. Let $`𝒢`$ be a discrete group of order $`|𝒢|>1`$, $`𝒢=\{g_j\}`$, $`j=0,\mathrm{},`$ $`|𝒢|1`$, acting on $`_S`$ via a faithful, unitary, projective representation $`\mu `$, $`\mu (𝒢)𝒰(_S)`$. Let images of abstract quantities under $`\mu `$ be denoted as $`\mu (g_j)=\widehat{g}_j`$, and so forth not (a). Then b.b. decoupling according to $`𝒢`$ is implemented by specifying $`U_c(t)`$ over each of the $`|𝒢|`$ equal sub-intervals defining a control cycle Viola et al. (1999a):

$$U_c\left((\mathrm{}1)\mathrm{\Delta }t+s\right)=\widehat{g}_\mathrm{}1,s[0,\mathrm{\Delta }t),$$
(4)
with $`T_c=|𝒢|\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }t>0`$, and $`\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},|𝒢|`$. The resulting control action corresponds to extracting the $`𝒢`$-invariant component of $`H_0`$, $`\overline{H}^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}(H_0)`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}(X)=\frac{1}{|𝒢|}\underset{g_j𝒢}{}\widehat{g}_j^{}X\widehat{g}_j,X\text{End}(_S),$$
(5)
is the projector onto the commutant $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ of $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ in End($`_S)`$ Viola et al. (1999a); Zanardi (1999). According to (4), $`U_c(t)`$ jumps from $`\widehat{g}_\mathrm{}1`$ to $`\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{}}=(\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{}}\widehat{g}_\mathrm{}1^{})\widehat{g}_\mathrm{}1`$ through the application of an arbitrarily strong, instantaneous control kick at the $`\mathrm{}`$’th endpoint $`t_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, realizing the b.b. pulse $`p_{\mathrm{}}=\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{}}\widehat{g}_\mathrm{}1^{}`$ Viola et al. (1999b).

Eulerian dynamical decoupling.$``$ We seek a way for smoothly steering $`U_c(t)`$ from $`\widehat{g}_\mathrm{}1`$ to $`\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{}}`$ by a control action distributed along the whole $`\mathrm{}`$’th sub-interval. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\gamma _\lambda \}`$, $`\lambda =1,\mathrm{},|\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$ be a generating set for $`𝒢`$. The Cayley graph $`G(𝒢,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of $`𝒢`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the directed multigraph whose edges are coloured with the generators Bollobás (1998), where vertex $`g_\mathrm{}1`$ is joined to vertex $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ by an edge of colour $`\lambda `$ if and only if $`g_{\mathrm{}}g_\mathrm{}1^1=\gamma _\lambda `$ i.e., $`g_{\mathrm{}}=\gamma _\lambda g_\mathrm{}1`$. Physically, imagine that we have the ability to implement each generator $`\widehat{\gamma }_\lambda `$, by the application of control Hamiltonians $`h_\lambda (t)`$ over $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$,

$$\widehat{\gamma }_\lambda =𝒯\mathrm{exp}\left\{i_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t}𝑑t^{}h_\lambda (t^{})\right\},\lambda =1,\mathrm{},|\mathrm{\Gamma }|.$$
(6)
The choice of $`h_\lambda (t)`$ is not unique, allowing for additional implementation flexibility. Once a choice is made, the control action is determined by assigning a cycle time and a rule for switching the Hamiltonians $`h_\lambda (t)`$ during the cycle sub-intervals. We show how a useful rule results from sequentially implementing generators so that they follow a Eulerian cycle on $`G(𝒢,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. A Eulerian cycle is defined as a cycle that uses each edge exactly once Bollobás (1998). Because a Cayley graph is regular, it always possesses Eulerian cycles, whose length is necessarily $`L=|𝒢||\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$ Bollobás (1998).

Let a Eulerian cycle beginning at the identity $`g_0`$ of $`G`$ be given by the sequence of edge colours used, $`𝒫_E=(p_{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{}}`$, with $`\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},L`$, and $`p_{\mathrm{}}=\gamma _\lambda `$ for some $`\lambda `$, for every $`\mathrm{}`$. Note that each vertex has exactly one departing edge of each colour, so that $`𝒫_E`$ determines a well defined path. We define Eulerian decoupling according to $`𝒢`$ by letting $`T_c=L\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and by assigning $`U_c(t)`$ as follows:

$$U_c\left((\mathrm{}1)\mathrm{\Delta }t+s\right)=u_{\mathrm{}}(s)U_c\left((\mathrm{}1)\mathrm{\Delta }t\right),$$
(7)
where $`s[0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, and $`u_{\mathrm{}}(s)=𝒯\mathrm{exp}(i_0^s𝑑t^{}h_{\mathrm{}}(t^{}))`$, $`u_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\widehat{p}_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},L`$. This decoupling prescription means that during the $`\mathrm{}`$’th sub-interval one chooses as a control Hamiltonian the one that implements the generator $`\widehat{\gamma }_\lambda `$, with $`\gamma _\lambda `$ colouring the edge $`p_{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`𝒫_E`$. The effective Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}^{(0)}`$ under Eulerian decoupling is obtained by evaluating the time average (3) based on (7). The resulting $`L`$ terms can be partitioned into $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$ families, each corresponding to a fixed generator $`\gamma _\lambda `$. Because $`𝒫_E`$ contains exactly one $`\gamma _\lambda `$-coloured edge ending at any given vertex $`g_j`$, each family effects a sum over the group elements as in (5). Thus, the quantum operation $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ corresponding to (7) can be expressed as

$$𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(X)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}(F_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}(X)),X\text{End}(_S),$$
(8)
with the map $`F_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ implementing an average over both the group generators and control sub-interval:

$$F_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}(X)=\frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Gamma }|}\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{|\mathrm{\Gamma }|}{}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t}𝑑su_\lambda ^{}(s)Xu_\lambda (s).$$
(9)
Thanks to the way $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ enters (8), $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(X)`$$`\widehat{𝒢}`$ for an arbitrary input $`X`$. This property will be repeatedly used in the following. The link between Eulerian decoupling and $`𝒢`$-symmetrization is established upon enforcing some additional compatibility between $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ and $`F_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$.

Theorem. Let $`X`$ be any (time-independent) operator on $`_S`$, and let $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ be defined as above. If the controls are chosen in the decoupling group algebra, $`h_{\mathrm{}}(t)\widehat{𝒢}`$ for all $`t[0,\mathrm{\Delta }t]`$ and for all $`\mathrm{}=1,`$$`\mathrm{}L`$, then

$$𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(X)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}(X),X\text{End}(_S).$$

Proof. The assumption on the controls implies that $`u_\lambda (s)\widehat{𝒢}`$ $`\lambda `$, $`s[0,\mathrm{\Delta }t]`$. Thus, $`F_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}(Y)=Y`$ for every (time-independent) $`Y\widehat{𝒢}`$. Now let $`X\text{End}(_S)`$ and calculate $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}^2(X)=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}(𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(X))`$ $`=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}(F_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}(X))=𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(X)`$. Thus, $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ is a projector. Because $`\text{Range}𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}\widehat{𝒢}`$, $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ iff $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ has identity action on $`\widehat{𝒢}`$. Let $`Y\widehat{𝒢}`$, then $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(Y)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}(F_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}(Y))`$ $`=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}(Y)`$.

The b.b. limit is formally recovered by letting $`F_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ be the identity map. In the Eulerian approach, at the expense of lengthening the control cycle by a factor of $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$, the same $`𝒢`$-symmetrization can be attained using bounded controls. The maximum strengths achievable in implementing the generators (6) directly affects the minimum attainable $`T_c`$, and therefore the accuracy of the averaging Viola et al. (1999a). While the overhead $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$ depends on the specific group, it is worth noting that, similar to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ Zanardi (1999), $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ satisfies the property that $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(X)=𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢/𝒢_0}}(X)`$ whenever $`𝒢_0`$ is a normal subgroup of $`𝒢`$ and $`X\widehat{𝒢_0}`$ not (b). Thus, if the dynamics is already $`𝒢_0`$-invariant, Eulerian decoupling according to $`𝒢`$ can be accomplished by using a Cayley graph of the smaller quotient group $`𝒢/𝒢_0`$.

Robustness analysis.- The fact that control actions are now distributed along finite time intervals translates into major gains in terms of resilience of Eulerian schemes against imperfections in the controls themselves. Imagine that systematic implementation errors result in a faulty control Hamiltonian $`H_c^{}(t)`$, and partition $`H_c^{}(t)`$ into

$$H_c^{}(t)=H_c(t)+\mathrm{\Delta }H_c(t),$$
(10)
such that $`H_c(t)`$ $``$$`\widehat{𝒢}`$ is the intended control Hamiltonian, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_c(t)`$ is the error component. Now work in the same frame used earlier, which only removes the ideal control part from the effective Hamiltonian. Because $`H(t)=H_0+H_c^{}(t)=[H_0+\mathrm{\Delta }H_c(t)]+H_c(t)`$, this maps the evolution under $`H_0`$ with the faulty control $`H_c^{}(t)`$ into the evolution under $`H_0+\mathrm{\Delta }H_c(t)`$ with the ideal control. Thus, the new effective dynamics is obtained by replacing $`H_0`$ with $`H_0+\mathrm{\Delta }H_c(t)`$ in (3).

Suppose that the faults are properly correlated with the underlying path, meaning that every time a particular generator $`\widehat{\gamma }_\lambda `$ is implemented, the same imperfection occurs at equivalent temporal locations within the sub-interval, regardless of the position of $`\gamma _\lambda `$ along $`𝒫_E`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_c((\mathrm{}1)\mathrm{\Delta }t+s)=\mathrm{\Delta }h_\lambda (s)`$, $`\lambda `$ being the colour of the edge that $`𝒫_E`$ uses during the $`\mathrm{}`$’th sub-interval. By a similar calculation as in the ideal case, the quantum operation $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ is modified as follows:

$$𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}^{}(X)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}(X)+𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(\mathrm{\Delta }H_c),X\text{End}(_S),$$
(11)
where $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(\mathrm{\Delta }H_c)`$ can be computed as in (8) and (9), but with the operator $`X`$ in the integral replaced by one that depends on $`s`$ and $`\lambda `$. Thus, $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(\mathrm{\Delta }H_c)`$ is a functional of the fault history over $`[0,\mathrm{\Delta }t]`$, which characterizes the residual control errors experienced by the system. Notably, two useful features emerge: without extra assumptions, such residual control errors belong to $`\widehat{𝒢}`$. If, in addition, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_c(t)`$ is itself (as $`H_c(t)`$) in $`\widehat{𝒢}`$, then all control effects remain in $`\widehat{𝒢}`$, and the residual control errors belong to the center $`Z_{\widehat{𝒢}}=\widehat{𝒢}\widehat{𝒢}`$.

The effects of $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(\mathrm{\Delta }H_c)`$ may still adversely impact the performance of the system. However, they can be compensated for by encodings in appropriate subsystems Viola et al. (2000). Let $`J𝒥`$ label the irreducible components of $`\widehat{𝒢}`$. Then $`_S`$ can be represented as

$$_S_J_J_J𝒞_J𝒟_J_J^{n_J}^{d_J},$$
(12)
with $`n_J,d_J`$, $`_Jn_Jd_J=d`$, and the action of the decoupling group algebra and its commutant given by $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ $`_J𝟙_{𝕟_𝕁}\text{Mat}_{𝕕_𝕁}()`$, $`\widehat{𝒢}`$$`{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`_J\text{Mat}_{n_J}()𝟙_{𝕕_𝕁}`$, respectively. Because both $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}(S_\alpha )`$ and $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(\mathrm{\Delta }H_c)`$ are in $`\widehat{𝒢}`$, $`𝒟_J`$-subsystems are noiseless and their dynamical generation robust regardless of whether $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_c(t)`$ belongs to $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ or not. This applies in particular if $`𝒢`$ acts irreducibly on $`_S`$, in which case a robust implementation of maximal decoupling is achievable by averaging over a nice error basis on $`^d`$ Viola et al. (1999a); Wocjan et al. (2002). In fact, encoding into $`𝒟_J`$-subsystems may be valuable even in situations where the assumption that the controls are in $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ cannot be met: as $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(S_\alpha )`$ $``$ $`\widehat{𝒢}`$, $`𝒟_J`$-subsystems remain unaffected by the noise. Note that for such subsystems, both the implementation of the decoupling scheme and the execution of encoded control operations are to be effected through fast modulation of Hamiltonians along the control cycle Viola et al. (1999b, 2000).

Whenever $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(\mathrm{\Delta }H_c)`$ originates from faults in $`\widehat{𝒢}`$, additional options are viable. If the representation $`\mu `$ is primary, $`Z_{\widehat{𝒢}}=𝟙`$, then any systematic error is effectively eliminated, and no encoding is necessary as long as noise suppression is ensured, that is, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}(S_\alpha )=0`$ for all $`\alpha `$. If $`\mu `$ is not primary, then elements in the center are diagonal over each irreducible component. Thus, encodings into either a $`_J`$-subspace or a $`𝒞_J`$-subsystem are insensitive to the control faults and protected against the noise generator if $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}(S_\alpha )Z_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ as well. In practice, choosing a $`𝒞_J`$-subsystem may be especially appealing, because not only is universal encoded control achievable by less-demanding, slow application of Hamiltonians in $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ Viola et al. (1999b), but added robustness against arbitrary control errors in $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ is automatically provided Viola et al. (2000). Next, we outline some applications relevant to QIP.

Example 1: Eulerian Carr-Purcell decoupling on a qubit.- Consider a single decohering qubit, $`\{S_\alpha \}=`$ $`\{\sigma _z\}`$ Viola and Lloyd (1998). The decoupling group $`𝒢=𝒵_2=\{0,1\}`$ is represented in $`𝒰(^2)`$ as $`\widehat{𝒢}=\{𝟙,\sigma _𝕩\}`$. There is one generator, $`\gamma _1=1`$, hence $`L=2`$ with no overhead with respect to the b.b. case. Let $`u_x(s)=`$$`𝒯\mathrm{exp}(i_0^s𝑑t^{}h_x(t^{}))`$, for a Hamiltonian $`h_x(t)\widehat{𝒢}`$ realizing $`\widehat{\gamma }_1=\sigma _x`$ (6). If $`h_x(t)=f(t)\sigma _x`$ for some $`f(t)`$, any choice such that $`|_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ $`dsf(s)|`$$`=\pi /2`$ is acceptable. On $`G(𝒢,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ choose $`𝒫_E=`$ $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _1)`$. Then Eulerian decoupling is accomplished by letting $`U_c(t)=u_x(t)`$, for $`t[0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, and $`U_c(t)=u_x(s)\sigma _x`$ for $`t[\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }t+s)`$, $`s[0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$. By explicit calculation of $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(\mathrm{\Delta }H_c)`$, one sees that systematic errors along $`\sigma _y,\sigma _z`$ produce no effect. Elimination of residual control errors in $`Z_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ requires using the full Pauli group.

Example 2: Eulerian Pauli decoupling on qubits.- Let $`\widehat{𝒢}=\{𝟙,`$ $`X,`$ $`Y,Z\}`$ be the Pauli error basis for a qubit, with $`X=\sigma _x`$, $`Z=\sigma _z`$, and $`Y=XZ`$. This corresponds to $`𝒢=𝒵_2`$$`\times 𝒵_2`$, projectively represented in $`𝒰(^2)`$. $`𝒢`$ has two generators, e.g. $`\gamma _1=(0,1)`$, $`\gamma _2=(1,0)`$, realized as $`\widehat{\gamma }_1=X`$, $`\widehat{\gamma }_2=Z`$, respectively. An Eulerian path on $`G(𝒢,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is $`𝒫_E=(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _2,\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _1)`$, of length $`L=8`$. The assumption that both $`h_\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }h_\lambda `$, $`\lambda =1,2`$, are in $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ is automatically satisfied, as $`\widehat{𝒢}=\text{Mat}_2()`$. Then (7) results into a robust implementation of maximal averaging, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}(\sigma _u)=0`$, $`u=x,y,z`$. For $`n`$ qubits, $`𝒢=𝒵_d`$$`\times 𝒵_d`$, with $`d=2^n`$. Thus, $`|𝒢|`$ = $`4^n`$ and since 2 generators are needed for each qubit, $`L=n2^{2n+1}`$, causing the procedure to be (as in the b.b. limit Viola et al. (1999a)) inefficient.

Example 3: Eulerian collective spin-flip decoupling.- For $`n`$ qubits, let $`𝒢=𝒵_2`$$`\times 𝒵_2`$ act via the $`n`$-fold tensor power representation in $`𝒰((^2)^n)`$, which is projective for $`n`$ odd, and regular for $`n`$ even. For any $`n`$, $`\widehat{𝒢}=\{`$$`𝟙,`$ $`X,`$ $`Y,Z\}`$, where $`X=_{k=1}^n\sigma _x^{(k)}`$, $`Z=_{k=1}^n\sigma _z^{(k)}`$, and $`Y=XZ`$. Decoupling according to $`𝒢`$ averages out arbitrary linear noise, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{𝒢}}(S_\alpha )=0`$, $`S_\alpha `$ span$`\{\sigma _u^{(k)}\}`$ Viola et al. (1999b). For Eulerian implementation, the same path of Example 2 may be used, under the appropriate realization of the collective generators $`\widehat{\gamma }_1=X`$, $`\widehat{\gamma }_2=Z`$. Ensuring $`𝒢`$-symmetrization requires that the control Hamiltonians $`h_{1,2}(t)\widehat{𝒢}`$. Because both $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ and $`Z_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ are non-trivial, residual control errors arise due to $`𝒬_{\widehat{𝒢}}(\mathrm{\Delta }H_c)`$. The situation is simpler for $`n`$ even, as $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ is abelian hence supporting four $`(n2)`$-dimensional irreducible subspaces $`_J`$. Besides being noiseless in the decoupling limit and insensitive to arbitrary control errors in $`\widehat{𝒢}`$, encoding into a $`_J`$-subspace is further motivated by the possibility to achieve encoded universality via slow application of two-body Hamiltonians in $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ Viola et al. (2000). For $`n`$ odd, both $`𝒞_J`$ and $`𝒟_J`$ factors may occur. Leaving aside details here, we note that $`𝒟_J`$-subsystems may be useful if implementing $`\widehat{\gamma }_1,\widehat{\gamma }_2`$ via Hamiltonians in $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ is difficult in practice.

Example 4: Eulerian symmetric decoupling.- Let $`𝒢=𝒮_n`$ be the symmetric group of order $`n`$, acting on $`_S`$ $``$ $`(^2)^n`$ via $`\widehat{g}_j_{k=1}^n`$ $`|\psi _k=`$ $`_{k=1}^n|\psi _{g_j(k)}`$, $`g_j𝒮_n`$. In particular, the action corresponding to a transposition $`(k1k)`$, $`k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, effects an exchange gate between qubits $`k1,k`$, denoted by swap<sub>k-1,k</sub>. Symmetric decoupling allows, in principle, to engineer collective error models on $`S`$ starting from arbitrary linear interactions between $`S`$ and $`E`$ Zanardi (1999); Viola et al. (2000). A minimal generating set for $`𝒮_n`$ is given by $`\gamma _1=(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2})`$, $`\gamma _2=(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{}n)`$ i.e., an adjacent transposition and the cyclic shift, respectively. $`\widehat{𝒮_n}`$ contains the Heisenberg couplings $`h(k,l)=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_k\stackrel{}{\sigma }_l`$. In fact, every operator in $`\widehat{𝒮_n}`$ can be realized by applying Heisenberg Hamiltonians Kempe et al. (2001). Focus, for instance, on $`𝒮_3`$-symmetrization, which may be relevant for inducing collective decoherence on blocks of 3 qubits Wu and Lidar (2002). Then $`\widehat{\gamma }_1=`$ swap<sub>1,2</sub> and $`\widehat{\gamma }_2=`$swap<sub>1,2</sub> swap<sub>2,3</sub>, with $`L=12`$. Because $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi h(k,l)/4)`$ =swap<sub>k,l</sub>, $`\widehat{\gamma }_1`$ can be implemented by choosing $`h_1=a_1h(1,2)`$, with strength $`a_1=\pi /4\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, while $`\widehat{\gamma }_2`$ can be realized by a piecewise-constant Hamiltonian $`h_2(t)=a_2`$$`h(2,3)`$ for $`t[0,\mathrm{\Delta }t/2)`$, $`h_2(t)=a_2`$$`h(1,2)`$ for $`t[\mathrm{\Delta }t/2,\mathrm{\Delta }t]`$, $`a_2=\pi /2\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. A Eulerian path on $`G(𝒮_3,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is $`𝒫_E`$ $`=(\gamma _2,\gamma _2,`$ $`\gamma _2,\gamma _1,`$ $`\gamma _2,\gamma _1,`$ $`\gamma _1,\gamma _2,`$ $`\gamma _1,\gamma _1,`$ $`\gamma _2,\gamma _1)`$. Eulerian decoupling (7) then allows for a robust dynamical generation of the smallest non-trivial noiseless subsystem Knill et al. (2000); Viola et al. (2001), supported by a factor $`𝒟_J^2`$ carrying the two-dimensional irreducible component $`J=[\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}1}]`$ of $`𝒮_3`$.

Conclusion.- We developed an approach to dynamical decoupling that combines the group-theoretical essence of the b.b. setting with graph-theoretical control design according to Eulerian cycles. Besides allowing for considerable leeway in the physical implementation of the basic control generators, Eulerian decoupling eliminates the need for unfeasible b.b. pulses and naturally incorporates robustness against realistic control faults. Combined with quantum coding techniques, our results significantly improve the prospects that dynamical decoupling becomes a practical tool for reliably controlling quantum systems and quantum information.

###### Acknowledgements.

Supported by the DOE (contract W-7405-ENG-36) and by the NSA. L.V. also gratefully acknowledges support from a J.R. Oppenheimer Fellowship.