text:
# Stein extensions of Riemann symmetric spaces and some generalization

## 1. Introduction

1.1 Akhiezer-Gindikin domain and Iwasawa domain

Let $`G_{}`$ be a connected complex semisimple Lie group and $`G_{}`$ a connected real form of $`G_{}`$. Let $`K_{}`$ be the complexification in $`G_{}`$ of a maximal compact subgroup $`K`$ of $`G_{}`$. Let $`𝔤_{}=𝔨𝔪`$ denote the Cartan decomposition of $`𝔤_{}=\mathrm{Lie}(G_{})`$ with respect to $`K`$. Let $`𝔱`$ be a maximal abelian subspace in $`i𝔪`$. Put

$$𝔱^+=\{Y𝔱|\alpha (Y)|<\frac{\pi }{2}\text{ for all }\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }\}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the restricted root system of $`𝔤_{}`$ with respect to $`𝔱`$. Then the “Akhiezer-Gindikin domain” $`D`$ in $`G_{}`$ is defined in \[AG\] by

$$D=G_{}(\mathrm{exp}𝔱^+)K_{}.$$

Let $`B`$ be a Borel subgroup of $`G_{}`$ such that $`G_{}B`$ is closed in $`G_{}`$. Then $`K_{}B`$ is the unique open dense $`K_{}`$-$`B`$ double coset in $`G_{}`$ (\[M2\]). Define an open subset

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\{xG_{}x^1G_{}BK_{}B\}$$

in $`G_{}`$. Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is left $`G_{}`$-invariant and right $`K_{}`$-invariant. The connected component $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ containing the identity is often called the “Iwasawa domain”.

###### Remark 1.

Let $`S_j(jJ)`$ be the $`K_{}`$-$`B`$ double cosets in $`G_{}`$ of (complex) codimension one and $`T_j`$ the closure of $`S_j`$. Then the complement of $`K_{}B`$ in $`G_{}`$ is $`_{jJ}T_j.`$ So we can write

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=\{xG_{}x^1G_{}T_j=\varphi \text{ for all }jJ\}`$
$`=\{xG_{}xgT_j^1\text{ for all }jJ\text{ and }gG_{}\}.`$
Thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is Stein because $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the complement of an infinite family $`\{gT_j^1jJ,gG_{}\}`$ of complex hypersurfaces.

The equality

(1.1)
$$D=\mathrm{\Omega }_0$$

was proved in \[GM\] when $`G_{}`$ is classical type or exceptional Hermitian type. Independently, Krötz and Stanton proved $`D\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ for classical cases in \[KS\]. We should note that the proofs in these two papers are based on elementary linear algebraic computations. (Remark that \[FH\] did not refer \[GM\] in their historical reference on (1.1).) On the other hand, Barchini proved the inclusion $`D\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ by a general but elementary argument in \[B\]. Recently, Huckleberry (\[H\], Proposition 2.0.2 in \[FH\]) gave a proof of the opposite inclusion

(1.2)
$$D\mathrm{\Omega }_0$$

by using strictly plurisubharmonicness of a function $`\rho `$ proved in \[BHH\] (revised version).

But we can see that we need no complex analysis to prove (1.2). In this paper, we will generalize the notions of the Akhiezer-Gindikin domain and the Iwasawa domain for real Lie groups as in the next subsection and prove the inclusion (1.2).

1.2 Generalization to real Lie groups

Let $`G`$ be a connected real semisimple Lie group and $`\sigma `$ an involution of $`G`$. Take a Cartan involution $`\theta `$ such that $`\sigma \theta =\theta \sigma .`$ Put $`H=G_0^\sigma =\{gG\sigma (g)=g\}_0`$ and $`H^{}=G_0^{\sigma \theta }`$. Then the symmetric subgroup $`H^{}`$ is called “associated” to the symmetric subgroup $`H`$ (c.f. \[M1\]). The structure of the double coset decomposition $`H^{}\backslash G/H`$ is precisely studied in \[M3\] in a general setting for arbitrary two involutions.

###### Remark 2.

(i) For example, if $`G=G_{}`$, then $`K_{}`$ and $`G_{}`$ are associated.

(ii) We should remark here that all the results on Jordan decompositions and elliptic elements etc. for the decomposition $`G_{}\backslash G_{}/K_{}`$ in Section 3 of \[FH\] were already proved in \[M3\]. In \[FH\], they are not referred at all.

Let $`𝔤=𝔨𝔪=𝔥𝔮`$ be the $`+1,1`$-eigenspace decompositions of $`𝔤=\mathrm{Lie}(G)`$ with respect to $`\theta `$ and $`\sigma `$, respectively. Then the Lie algebra $`𝔥^{}`$ of $`H^{}`$ is written as $`𝔥^{}=(𝔨𝔥)(𝔪𝔮).`$ Let $`𝔱`$ be a maximal abelian subspace of $`𝔨𝔮`$. Then we can define the root space

$$𝔤_{}(𝔱,\alpha )=\{X𝔤_{}[Y,X]=\alpha (Y)X\text{ for all }Y𝔱\}$$

for any linear form $`\alpha :𝔱i`$. Here $`𝔤_{}=𝔤i𝔤`$ is the complexification of $`𝔤`$. Put

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝔤_{},𝔱)=\{\alpha i𝔱^{}\{0\}𝔤_{}(𝔱,\alpha )\{0\}\}.$$

Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ satisfies the axiom of the root system (\[R\]). Since $`\theta (Y)=Y`$ for all $`Y𝔱`$, we can decompose $`𝔤_{}(𝔱,\alpha )`$ into $`+1,1`$-eigenspaces for $`\theta `$ as

(1.3)
$$𝔤_{}(𝔱,\alpha )=𝔨_{}(𝔱,\alpha )𝔪_{}(𝔱,\alpha ).$$

Define a subset $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝔪_{},𝔱)=\{\alpha i𝔱^{}\{0\}𝔪_{}(𝔱,\alpha )\{0\}\}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and put

$$𝔱^+=\{Y𝔱|\alpha (Y)|<\frac{\pi }{2}\text{ for all }\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }(𝔪_{},𝔱)\}.$$

Then we define a generalization of the Akhiezer-Gindikin domain $`D`$ in $`G`$ by

$$D=H^{}T^+H.$$

where $`T^+=\mathrm{exp}𝔱^+`$. (We will show in Proposition 1 that $`D`$ is open in $`G`$.)

Let $`P`$ be an arbitrary parabolic subgroup of $`G`$ such that $`H^{}P`$ is closed in $`G`$. Then $`HP`$ is open in $`G`$ by \[M2\]. Define an open subset

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\{xGx^1H^{}PHP\}=\{xGH^{}xPH\}$$

in $`G`$. Then we may call the connected component $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ a “generalized Iwasawa domain”. As a complete generalization of (1.2), we can prove the following theorem.

Theorem.$`D\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$.

Here we should explain the construction of this paper to prove this theorem. In Section 2, we prove properties on the generalized Akhiezer-Gindikin domain $`D`$. Lemma 2 is the most important basic technical lemma. It implies $`(𝔥^{}\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔥)(𝔮^{}\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔮)𝔨`$ for $`aT^+`$ where $`𝔮^{}=(𝔨𝔮)(𝔪𝔥)`$. Note that $`H^{}aHa^1`$ is the isotropy subgroup of the action of $`H^{}`$ at the point $`aHG/H`$. So the inclusion $`𝔥^{}\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔥𝔨`$ is a generalization of Proposition 2 in \[AG\]. But we do not find statements in \[AG\] corresponding to the inclusion $`𝔮^{}\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔮𝔨.`$ This inclusion is the key of this paper.

In Proposition 1, we show that $`D`$ is open in $`G`$. This is a generalization of Proposition 4 in \[AG\]. We also give a precise orbit structure $`H^{}\backslash D/HT^+/W`$ of $`D`$ where $`W=N_{KH}(𝔱)/Z_{KH}(𝔱)`$ in Proposition 2. This is a generalization of Proposition 8 in \[AG\]. In Section 3, we construct a left $`H^{}`$-invariant right $`H`$-invariant real analytic function $`\rho `$ on $`D`$ and prepare the key lemma (Lemma 3) which follows from Lemma 2. In Section 4, we prove Theorem. Basic formulation is the same as Proposition 2.0.2 in \[FH\]. But we do not need complex analysis.

1.3 Application to cycle spaces

Note that we can exchange the roles of $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$. We can aplly this to the pair of $`K_{}`$ and $`G_{}`$ in $`G_{}`$. Let $`P`$ be a parabolic subgroup of $`G_{}`$ such that $`S=K_{}P`$ is closed in $`G_{}`$. Then $`S^{}=G_{}P`$ is open in $`G_{}`$. Put

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(S)=\{xG_{}x^1K_{}PG_{}P\}.$$

Then by Theorem, we have $`D^1=K_{}T^+G_{}\mathrm{\Omega }(S)_0`$ by the notation in Section 1.1 and therefore $`D\mathrm{\Omega }(S)_0^1.`$ Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }(S)^1=\{xG_{}xK_{}PG_{}P\}=\{xG_{}xSS^{}\},`$ the domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }(S)_0^1`$ is usually called the “cycle space” for $`S^{}`$. Hence we have given a direct proof of the known fact:

Corollary. Akhizer-Gindikin domain $`D`$ is included in all cycle spaces.

(Remark: This fact was known by combining (1.2) and Proposition 8.3 in \[GM\] because Proposition 8.3 implies that the Iwasawa domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is included in all the cycle spaces $`\mathrm{\Omega }(S)_0^1`$.)

Aknowledgement: The author would like to express his hearty thanks to S. Gindikin for his encouragement and for many useful discussions.

## 2. A generalization of Akhiezer-Gindikin domain

We will use the notations in Section 1.2 (not in Section 1.1). In this section, we will prepare basic results on a generalization of the Akhiezer-Gindikin domain by extending elementary arguments in \[M3\] Section 3.

First we should note that we have only to consider the problem on each minimal $`\sigma `$-stable ideals of $`𝔤`$. So we may assume that $`𝔤`$ has no proper $`\sigma `$-stable ideals. We may also assume that $`𝔤`$ is noncompact, otherwise we have $`P=G`$ and the problem is trivial.

Let $`[𝔪,𝔪]`$ denote the linear subspace of $`𝔨`$ spanned by $`[Y,Z]`$ for $`Y,Z𝔪`$. Then $`𝔤^{}=[𝔪,𝔪]𝔪`$ becomes a $`\sigma `$-stable ideal of $`𝔤`$ because $`𝔤^{}`$ is $`\sigma `$-stable and $`[𝔨,[𝔪,𝔪]][[𝔨,𝔪],𝔪]+[𝔪,[𝔨,𝔪]][𝔪,𝔪].`$ Since $`𝔤^{}=𝔤`$, we have $`𝔨=[𝔪,𝔪]`$ and therefore

(2.1)
$$𝔨_{}=[𝔪_{},𝔪_{}].$$

###### Lemma 1.

(i) Every root $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`𝔨_{}(𝔱,\alpha )\{0\}`$ is written as a sum of two elements in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝔪_{},𝔱)\{0\}`$.

(ii) If $`Y𝔱^+`$, then $`|\alpha (Y)|<\pi `$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

(iii) If $`Y𝔱`$ satisfies $`\alpha (Y)=0`$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, then $`Y=0`$.

(iv) If $`Y,Z𝔱^+`$ satisfy $`\mathrm{exp}Y(\mathrm{exp}Z)(TH)`$, then $`Y=Z`$. Especially, $`\mathrm{exp}`$ is injective on $`𝔱^+`$.

Proof. (i) Let $`X`$ be a nonzero element in $`𝔨_{}(𝔱,\alpha )`$. Then by (2.1), we can write $`X=_j[Y_j,Z_j]`$ with some nonzero elements $`Y_j𝔪_{}(𝔱,\beta _j)`$ and $`Z_j𝔪_{}(𝔱,\gamma _j)`$ such that $`\beta _j+\gamma _j=\alpha .`$

(ii) is clear by (i) and the definition of $`𝔱^+`$.

(iii) If $`\alpha (Y)=0`$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, then $`Y`$ commutes with $`𝔤_{}(𝔱,\alpha )`$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }\{0\}`$. Hence $`Y`$ commutes with $`𝔤`$ and therefore $`Y=0`$ because $`𝔤`$ is semisimple.

(iv) Suppose $`\mathrm{exp}Y=(\mathrm{exp}Z)h`$ with some $`Y,Z𝔱^+`$ and $`hTH`$. Applying $`\sigma `$, we have $`\mathrm{exp}(Y)=(\mathrm{exp}(Z))h.`$ So we have $`\mathrm{exp}2Y=\mathrm{exp}2Z.`$ Put $`a=\mathrm{exp}2Y=\mathrm{exp}2Z`$ and apply $`\mathrm{Ad}(a)`$ to $`𝔤_{}(𝔱,\alpha )`$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }(𝔪_{},𝔱)`$. Then we have $`e^{2\alpha (Y)}=e^{2\alpha (Z)}.`$ and therefore $`\alpha (Y)\alpha (Z)\pi i`$. Since $`|\alpha (Y)|<\pi /2`$ and $`|\alpha (Z)|<\pi /2`$ by the definition of $`𝔱^+`$, we have $`\alpha (YZ)=\alpha (Y)\alpha (Z)=0\text{ for all }\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }(𝔪_{},𝔱).`$ This implies $`\alpha (YZ)=0\text{ for all }\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by (i) and therefore $`YZ=0`$ by (iii). q.e.d.

Let $`Y`$ be an element of $`𝔱`$ and put $`a=\mathrm{exp}Y`$. Consider the conjugate $`\sigma _a=\mathrm{Ad}(a)\sigma \mathrm{Ad}(a)^1=\sigma \mathrm{Ad}(a)^2`$ of $`\sigma `$ by $`\mathrm{Ad}(a)`$. Then $`\sigma _a`$ is an involution of $`𝔤`$ such that

$$𝔤^{\sigma _a}=\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔥\text{and}G_0^{\sigma _a}=aHa^1.$$

Put $`\tau =\sigma \theta =\theta \sigma `$. The key idea of \[M3\] was to consider the automorphism $`\tau \sigma _a`$ (which is not involutive in general) of $`𝔤`$. Since $`\tau \sigma _a=\tau \sigma \mathrm{Ad}(a)^2=\theta \mathrm{Ad}(a)^2`$ and since $`\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{Ad}(a)`$ commutes, the automorphism $`\tau \sigma _a`$ is semisimple. Hence by Lemma 1 in \[M3\], we have a direct sum decomposition

(2.2)
$$𝔤=(𝔥^{}+\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔥)(𝔮^{}\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔮)$$

where $`𝔮^{}=(𝔨𝔮)(𝔪𝔥)`$. On the other hand, we have the $`+1,1`$-eigenspace decomposition of $`𝔤^{\tau \sigma _a}`$ for $`\tau `$ by

$$𝔤^{\tau \sigma _a}=(𝔤^{\tau \sigma _a}𝔥^{})(𝔤^{\tau \sigma _a}𝔮^{})=(𝔥^{}\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔥)(𝔮^{}\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔮)$$

as in \[M3\] Section 3.

###### Lemma 2.

If $`Y𝔱^+`$, then $`𝔤^{\tau \sigma _a}=𝔷_𝔨(Y)=\{X𝔨[Y,X]=0\}`$.

Proof. By (1.3), we have a direct sum decomposition

(2.3)
$$𝔤_{}=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }\{0\}}{}(𝔨_{}(𝔱,\alpha )𝔪_{}(𝔱,\alpha )).$$

If $`X𝔨_{}(𝔱,\alpha )`$, then we have $`\tau \sigma _aX=\theta \mathrm{Ad}(a)^2X=e^{2\alpha (Y)}X.`$ On the other hand, if $`X𝔪_{}(𝔱,\alpha )`$, then we have $`\tau \sigma _aX=\theta \mathrm{Ad}(a)^2X=e^{2\alpha (Y)}X.`$ Hence the decomposition (2.3) is the eigenspace decomposition of $`𝔤_{}`$ for $`\tau \sigma _a`$. We have only to verify whether every direct summand in (2.3) is contained in $`𝔤_{}^{\tau \sigma _a}`$ or not.

Note that $`\alpha (Y)`$ is pure imaginary. Let $`X`$ be a nonzero element in $`𝔪_{}(𝔱,\alpha )`$. Since $`|\alpha (Y)|<\pi /2`$ by the assumption, we have $`e^{2\alpha (Y)}1.`$ Hence $`X𝔤_{}^{\tau \sigma _a}`$. On the other hand, let $`X`$ be a nonzero element in $`𝔨_{}(𝔱,\alpha )`$. Since $`|\alpha (Y)|<\pi `$ by Lemma 1 (ii), we have $`e^{2\alpha (Y)}=1\alpha (Y)=0.`$ Hence $`X𝔤_{}^{\tau \sigma _a}\alpha (Y)=0.`$ Thus we have proved

$$𝔤_{}^{\tau \sigma _a}=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }\{0\},\alpha (Y)=0}{}𝔨_{}(𝔱,\alpha )=𝔷_𝔨_{}(Y)$$

and therefore $`𝔤^{\tau \sigma _a}=𝔷_𝔨(Y)`$. q.e.d.

Since $`𝔤^{\tau \sigma _a}=𝔷_𝔨(Y)`$ is a compact Lie algebra and since $`𝔱`$ is maximal abelian in $`𝔮^{}\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔮=𝔷_{𝔨𝔮}(Y)`$, we have $`𝔮^{}\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔮=\mathrm{Ad}(H^{}aHa^1)_0𝔱.`$ Moreover if $`U`$ is a neighborhood of the origin $`0`$ in $`𝔱`$, then

(2.4)
$$V=\mathrm{Ad}(H^{}aHa^1)_0U\text{ is a neighborhood of }0\text{ in }𝔮^{}\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔮.$$

###### Proposition 1.

$`D`$ is open in $`G`$.

Proof. By the left $`H^{}`$-action and the right $`H`$-action on $`D`$, we have only to show that a neighborhood of $`a=\mathrm{exp}Y`$ for $`Y𝔱^+`$ is contained in $`D`$. Take a neighborhood $`U=\{ZYZ𝔱^+\}`$ of $`0`$ in $`𝔱`$. Then we have $`T^+a^1=\mathrm{exp}U`$. Hence

(2.5) $`e`$ $`H^{}T^+Ha^1=H^{}T^+a^1aHa^1=H^{}(\mathrm{exp}U)aHa^1.`$
$`=H^{}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{Ad}(H^{}aHa^1)_0U)aHa^1=H^{}(\mathrm{exp}V)aHa^1.`$
Since $`V`$ is a neighborhood of $`0`$ in $`𝔮^{}\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔮`$ by (2.4), it follows from (2.2) that $`H^{}T^+Ha^1`$ contains a neighborhood of $`e`$. Hence $`H^{}T^+H`$ contains a neighborhood of $`a`$. q.e.d.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be elements of $`T^+`$. Then $`b=\mathrm{}ah^1\text{ for some }\mathrm{}H^{}\text{ and }hHb=waw^1\text{ for some }wN_{KH}(𝔱).`$ Here $`N_{KH}(𝔱)`$ is the normalizer of $`𝔱`$ in $`KH`$. $`(`$Write $`K=G^\theta `$ as usual.$`)`$

Proof. Since the implication $``$ is clear, we have only to prove $``$. Suppose $`b=\mathrm{}ah^1`$ for some $`\mathrm{}H^{}`$ and $`hH`$. Put $`𝔱^{}=\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{})𝔱=\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{}a)𝔱=\mathrm{Ad}(bh)𝔱.`$ Then $`𝔱^{}`$ is a maximal abelian subspace of $`𝔮^{}\mathrm{Ad}(b)𝔮`$. Since $`(𝔥^{}\mathrm{Ad}(b)𝔥,𝔮^{}\mathrm{Ad}(b)𝔮)`$ is a compact symmetric pair by Lemma 2, there is an $`xH^{}bHb^1`$ such that $`\mathrm{Ad}(x)𝔱^{}=𝔱.`$ Put $`\mathrm{}^{}=x\mathrm{}H^{}`$ and $`h^{}=b^1xbhH`$. Then we have

$$\mathrm{}^{}ah_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=x\mathrm{}ah^1b^1x^1b=xbhh^1b^1x^1b=b$$

and

(2.6) $`\mathrm{}^{}Th_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ $`=x\mathrm{}Th^1b^1x^1b=x\mathrm{}aTh^1b^1x^1b`$
$`=xbhTh^1b^1x^1b=xT^{}x^1b=Tb=T`$
where $`T=\mathrm{exp}𝔱`$ and $`T^{}=\mathrm{exp}𝔱^{}`$.

Since $`\mathrm{}^{}h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=\mathrm{}^{}eh_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}T`$ by (2.6) and since $`\mathrm{}^{}T\mathrm{}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}^{}h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=T`$ also by (2.6), we have $`\mathrm{}^{}T\mathrm{}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=T.`$ Write $`\mathrm{}^{}=k\mathrm{exp}X`$ with $`kKH`$ and $`X𝔪𝔮`$. Then it is well-known that $`[X,𝔱]=\{0\}`$ by a standard argument. (Suppose $`\mathrm{Ad}(k\mathrm{exp}X)Y=Y^{}`$ for some $`Y,Y^{}𝔨`$. Then applying $`\theta `$, we have $`\mathrm{Ad}(k\mathrm{exp}(X))Y=Y^{}`$ and therefore $`\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}2X)Y=Y`$. Since $`\mathrm{ad}X:𝔤𝔤`$ is expressed by a real symmetric matrix, we have $`[X,Y]=0`$.)

Hence we have $`kTk^1=T`$ and $`b=\mathrm{}^{}a\mathrm{}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}^{}h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=kak^1\mathrm{}^{}h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}.`$ We have only to prove $`c=\mathrm{}^{}h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=e`$. Write $`h^{}=k^{}\mathrm{exp}X^{}`$ with $`k^{}KH`$ and $`X^{}𝔪𝔥`$. Then it follows from $`\mathrm{}^{}=ch^{}`$ that $`k\mathrm{exp}X=ck^{}\mathrm{exp}X^{}.`$ Since $`cTK`$, we have $`k=ck^{}`$ and $`X=X^{}=0`$. Hence $`cTH.`$ Since $`kak^1,b\mathrm{exp}t^+`$, we have $`c=e`$ by Lemma 1 (iv). q.e.d.

## 3. Construction of a function $`\rho `$

Write $`W=N_{KH}(𝔱)/Z_{KH}(𝔱)`$. Let $`\rho _0`$ be a $`W`$-invariant real analytic function on $`𝔱^+`$ which has no critical points except the origin. For the sake of later use, we should also assume $`\rho _0(Z)`$ tends to $`+\mathrm{}`$ when $`Z`$ goes to the boundary of $`𝔱^+`$. For example, we may put

(3.1)
$$\rho _0(Z)=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }(𝔪_{},𝔱)}{}\frac{1}{\pi 2i\alpha (Z).}$$

This function (3.1) is clearly convex and therefore it has no critical points except the origin. By Proposition 2 and Lemma 1 (iv), we can define a function $`\rho `$ on $`D`$ by

$$\rho (\mathrm{}(\mathrm{exp}Z)h)=\rho _0(Z)\text{ for }\mathrm{}H^{},hH\text{ and }Z𝔱^+.$$

###### Proposition 3.

$`\rho `$ is real analytic on $`D`$.

Proof. By the left $`H^{}`$-action and the right $`H`$-action on $`D`$, we have only to show $`\rho `$ is real analytic at every $`a=\mathrm{exp}YT^+`$. Consider the right $`a`$-translate

$$\rho _a(x)=\rho (xa)\text{for }xDa^1$$

of $`\rho `$. Since $`\rho _a`$ is left $`H^{}`$-invariant and right $`aHa^1`$-invariant, we have only to show that the function $`\rho _a^{}(X)=\rho _a(\mathrm{exp}X)\text{for }XV`$ is real analytic at $`0`$ by (2.2) and (2.5) where $`U𝔱`$ and $`V=\mathrm{Ad}(H^{}aHa^1)_0U𝔮^{}\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔮`$ are as in the proof of Proposition 1. Since $`\rho _a(gxg^1)=\rho _a(x)`$ for $`gH^{}aHa^1`$ and $`x\mathrm{exp}V`$, $`\rho _a^{}`$ is $`\mathrm{Ad}(H^{}aHa^1)`$-invariant. Note that $`(H^{}aHa^1)_0=(Z_{KH}(Y))_0`$ by Lemma 2 and that

$$\rho _a^{}(Z)=\rho ((\mathrm{exp}Z)a)=\rho _0(Z+Y)\text{for }ZU$$

is invariant under the action of $`wW`$ such that $`w(Y)=Y`$. Since we can easily extend the well-known Chevalley’s restriction theorem to real analytic functions at $`0`$, the function $`\rho _a^{}`$ on $`V=\mathrm{Ad}(H^{}aHa^1)_0U`$ is real analytic at $`0`$. q.e.d.

###### Remark 3.

(i) The function $`\rho `$ on $`D`$ has no critical points outside $`H^{}H=H^{}eH`$ by the assumption on $`\rho _0`$.

(ii) If $`\rho _0`$ is a $`W`$-invariant smooth function on $`𝔱^+`$. Then we can show that $`\rho `$ is a smooth function on $`D`$ by using \[S\].

The tangent space $`T_a(G)`$ of $`G`$ at $`a`$ is identified with $`𝔤=T_e(G)`$ by the right $`a`$-action. In other words, we identify $`T_a(G)`$ with the left infinitesimal action of $`𝔤`$ at $`a`$. Now we have the following key lemma.

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`a=\mathrm{exp}Y`$ with $`Y𝔱^+\{0\}`$. Then the hyperplane in $`T_a(G)`$ defined by $`d\rho =0`$ is orthogonal, with respect to the Killing form on $`𝔤`$, to a nonzero vector $`Z`$ in $`𝔨`$.

Proof. Taking the right $`a`$-translate $`\rho _a`$ of $`\rho `$ as in the proof of Proposition 3, we have only to consider the hyperplane in the tangent space $`T_e(G)𝔤`$ defined by $`d\rho _a=0`$.

Since $`\rho _a`$ is left $`H^{}`$-invariant and right $`aHa^1`$-invariant, the differential $`d\rho _a`$ vanishes on $`𝔥^{}+\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔥`$. Hence the normal vector $`Z`$ is contained in the orthogonal complement $`𝔮^{}\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔮(𝔨`$ by Lemma 2) of $`𝔥^{}+\mathrm{Ad}(a)𝔥`$. q.e.d.

## 4. Proof of Theorem

Proof of Theorem. Basic formulation is the same as Proposition 2.0.2 in \[FH\]. Suppose that $`DPH.`$ We will deduce a contradiction.

Let $`PxH`$ be a $`P`$-$`H`$ double coset with the least dimension among the $`P`$-$`H`$ double cosets intersecting $`D`$. So the intersection $`PxHD`$ is relatively closed in $`D`$. Since $`H^{}P=(KH)P`$ by \[M2\], we have $`H^{}=(KH)(PH^{})=(PH^{})(KH)`$. Hence $`PxH`$ intersects $`(KH)T^+`$ and the image of $`\rho |_{PxHD}`$ is equal to the image of $`\rho |_{PxH(KH)T^+}`$. The set $`\{x(KH)T^+\rho (x)m\}`$ is compact for any $`m`$ because we carefully assumed that $`\rho _0`$ is $`+\mathrm{}`$ on the boundary of $`𝔱^+`$. Hence the function $`\rho |_{PxHD}`$ attains its minimum on some point $`ka`$ with $`kKH`$ and $`aT^+`$. Replacing $`P`$ by the $`k`$-conjugate $`k^1Pk`$, we may assume $`k=e`$. Since $`aPxH`$ and $`PxHPH=\varphi `$, we have $`ae`$.

By Lemma 3, there is a nonzero element $`Z`$ in $`𝔨`$ such that $`Z`$ is orthogonal to $`𝔭=\mathrm{Lie}(P)`$. But this leads a contradiction because $`Z𝔨`$ is also orthogonal to $`\theta 𝔭`$ and therefore $`Z\text{ is orthogonal to }𝔭+\theta 𝔭=𝔤`$ which cannot happen since the Killing form is nondegenerate on $`𝔤`$. q.e.d.


format: text

text:
# The Tangled Nature model as an evolving quasi-species model

## I Introduction

Explaining observed macro-evolutionary patterns as collective emergent properties of systems with many interacting degrees of freedom, whether these be single individuals or ‘species’, is an alluring challenge for researchers with a background in statistical physics . The quasi-species model by Eigen et al.  has proved useful when investigating the behaviour of populations in a given fixed fitness landscape and it provides a firm paradigm for many models .

The fundamental idea in the approach by Eigen et al. is to identify species with sequences in genotype space. Positions in genotype space which are assigned particularly high fitness are called wildtypes, that is, the forms that predominate in a population are well adapted to the environment. During the reproduction event, mutations are seen as errors of the replication of the parental sequence. The effect is thus to spread the population from the original point to neighbouring positions in genotype space. If one were to use a classical Darwinian view on such a process, the population would then be sharply localised in genotype space on the position which corresponds to a high fitness: all other positions would be cancelled by their low fitness. This can only be true if the replication process is by and large accurate. A replication process with a too high mutation rate would produce copies of the original fit parent with so many errors that selection is unable to maintain the population at the original point.

By lowering the mutation rate progressively, variation would be less effective in dispersing the population since the offspring are more similar to the parents. The quasi-species model defines the presence of a threshold, in the mutation rate, where the multiplication process changes drastically. The gradual decrease of the mutation rate sees the transition from a random population, diffused as scattered points in genotype space, to a population constrained to a few positions.

The transition of the process from a random state to an ordered one is a phase transition, with the mutation rate acting as a control parameter. The nature of the transition has been extensively studied. In the seminal paper by Eigen et al., where the transition was first noticed , the species have a predetermined fixed fitness associated. Subsequently, the quasi-species model has been analysed in different fitness landscapes , for different topologies of the genotype space , and for spatially resolved models , each confirming the original results. Finally, the error threshold in a model with a dynamical fitness landscape  has been analysed. In this case however, the dynamics is regulated artificially from outside.

It has been shown that it is possible to map the original quasi-species model onto a two-dimensional Ising system with nearest-neighbour interaction in one direction , and that, in this representation, for simple fitness landscapes, the correspondence links the error threshold with a first-order phase transition . A relation of fundamental importance by Galluccio et al.  proves that the error-threshold naturally arises as a consequence of the model introduced and that, more generally, for a given mutation rate $`p_{mut}`$ and a given reproduction rate $`p_{off}`$ it is possible to determine uniquely an upper limit for the length of the genetic sequence.

We show that the Tangled Nature model, introduced in detail in Refs. , can be considered as a general formulation of the quasi-species model. The generalisation is provided by a relaxation on the condition of fixed population size, which, in the original formulation, acts as selection principle on the sequences. The most important features of the Tangled Nature model, for details see Refs. , is that of creating multiple co-evolving quasi-species in a frequency dependent fitness landscape, where the dynamics of the landscape is an inherent property of the model. In this paper, we present in detail the theoretical calculation of the mutation threshold which fits the experimental accurately .

It is also interesting to point out the connection between the Tangled Nature model and game theoretical non-linear replicator dynamics . In both cases the reproduction of a given type of individuals depends on the configuration of the entire population. One therefore expects to find stable solutions to the dynamics of the Tangled Nature model similar to the Nash equilibria or Evolutionary Stable Strategies found for replicator dynamics. We have stressed this relation by using the term quasi-Evolutionary Stable Strategies to denote the quasi-stable configurations of the Tangled Nature model.

In Sec. II we review briefly the quasi-species model by Eigen et al. Section III briefly discusses the definition of the Tangled Nature model with an intrinsically generated dynamic fitness landscape. We discuss in detail the dynamics of the model in terms of difference equations. Section IV contains a discussion of the error threshold theoretically and numerically and finally in Sec. V we discuss the relation between the Tangled Nature model and the quasi-species model by Eigen et al.

## II The quasi-species model

Eigen et al.  introduced a model in which the effects of various mutation rates on a process of replication of finite sequences of binary values is explored. Each sequence $`𝐒^a=\{S_1^a,S_2^a,\mathrm{},S_L^a\}`$, where $`S_i^a=\{1,+1\},i=1,2,\mathrm{},L`$ in genotype space represents a species. Each existing sequence $`𝐒^a`$ replicates, with a constant rate $`p_{off}^a=p_{off}(𝐒^a)`$ and degrades with a constant and universal (i.e., independent of position) rate $`p_{kill}`$. The number $`n_a(t)=n(𝐒^a)(t)`$ of copies of a given sequence $`𝐒^a`$ varies with time. The replication process is not exact but prone to error. During the replication, the rate of mutation per gene is $`p_{mut}`$.

The model has been solved analytically in the limit where one particular sequence is assumed to have a high fitness, while mutants are less fit. For low mutation rate, the population is concentrated around the top of the mountain in the fitness landscape. The dominant sequence with its surrounding mutants is called a quasi-species. As the mutation rate increases, the population drifts away from the top down to the ridges. Eventually, when the mutation rate reaches a threshold value $`p_{mut}^{th}`$, the population is spread evenly throughout the fitness landscape, that is, a phase transition occurs at $`p_{mut}^{th}`$.

## III The Dynamics of the Tangled Nature model

The dynamics of the Tangled Nature model is defined via an elementary time step where (a) one organism is randomly selected and killed with constant probability $`p_{kill}`$ (b) one organism is randomly selected and with probability $`p_{off}`$, that depends on the current composition of the population in genotype space, two offspring are reproduced and the parent is then removed from the ecology .

By analysing the dynamics it is possible to characterise the stable configurations that may develop in the Tangled Nature Model.

The difference equation describing the variation of the number of individuals of a position $`𝐒^a`$ during a single time step can be derived as follow. Let $`n_a(t)`$ denote the number of individuals at position $`𝐒^a`$. Then

$$n_a(t+1)=n_a(t)+\underset{E}{}\mathrm{\Delta }n_a(E)P(E),$$
(1)
where $`t`$ is the number of time steps, $`E`$ refers to any event that can affect $`n_a`$, that is, an annihilation event or reproduction event, by an amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_a(E)`$. The event $`E`$ occurs with probability $`P(E)`$.

For a killing event, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_a(E)=1`$ and the probability of a killing event is the product of the probability of choosing an organism in position $`𝐒^a`$ times the killing rate, that is, $`P(E)=\rho _a(t)p_{kill}`$, where we have introduced the density $`\rho _a(t)=\frac{n_a(t)}{_an_a(t)}`$ of organisms at position $`𝐒^a`$.

For a reproduction event, distinction has to be made between the case where reproduction originates from position $`𝐒^a`$, see Fig. 1(a) and reproduction originating from any other position $`𝐒^b`$ different from $`𝐒^a`$, which we will call the “back-flow” contribution, see Fig. 1(b).

The first case happens with probability $`P=\rho _a(t)p_{off}^a(t)`$, that is, the probability of picking an organism of position $`𝐒^a`$, times the fitness of $`𝐒^a`$. In this event, $`n_a`$ can decrease by one unit ($`\mathrm{\Delta }n_a=1`$), increase by one unit ($`\mathrm{\Delta }n_a=+1`$), or remain constant ($`\mathrm{\Delta }n_a=0`$), with relative probabilities as calculated in Fig. 1(a).

The probability of having $`i`$ mutations during a single replication is

$$p_i=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L}{i}\right)p_{mut}^i(1p_{mut})^{Li},i=0,1\mathrm{},L\text{with }_{i=0}^Lp_i=1.$$
(2)
From Fig. 1(a) we can deduce the net contribution to the population at position $`𝐒^a`$ by summing over all possible events:

$$\underset{E}{}\mathrm{\Delta }n_a(E)P(E)=p_0^2(1p_0)^2=2p_01.$$
(3)
The “back flow” contribution occurs with probability

$$\underset{ba}{}\rho _b(t)p_{off}^b(t).$$
(4)
In this case, the variations and the probabilities involved are shown in Fig. 1(b).

In order to mutate from $`𝐒^b`$ to $`𝐒^a`$, $`Ld_{ab}`$ mutations are necessary, where

$$d_{ab}=d(𝐒^a,𝐒^b)=\frac{1}{2L}\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}\left|S_i^aS_i^b\right|$$
(5)
so

$$\stackrel{~}{p}=p_{mut}^{Ld_{ab}}(1p_{mut})^{L(1d_{ab})}$$
(6)
is the probability of creating an organism in position $`𝐒^a`$ originating from position $`𝐒^b`$.

As $`Ld_{ab}`$ mutations are needed, the probability involved in a back-flow contribution from position $`𝐒^b`$ is, see Fig. 1(b),

$$\underset{E}{}\mathrm{\Delta }n_a(E)P(E)=2\stackrel{~}{p}(1\stackrel{~}{p})+2\stackrel{~}{p}^2=2\stackrel{~}{p}=2p_{mut}^{Ld_{ab}}(1p_{mut})^{L(1d_{ab})}.$$
(7)
Thus, the full expression for the difference equation is,

$`n_a(t+1)`$ $`=`$ $`n_a(t)\rho _a(t)p_{kill}+\rho _a(t)p_{off}^a(t)(2p_01)`$ (8)
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \underset{ba}{}}\rho _b(t)p_{off}^b(t)p_{mut}^{Ld_{ab}}(1p_{mut})^{L(1d_{ab})}.`$
This is the equivalent of the quasi-species equation by Eigen et al. The main difference is that the rates of production depend on the current composition in population space.

Summing Eq.(8) over all positions in genotype space we find, as expected,

$$N(t+1)=N(t)p_{kill}+p_{off}.$$
(9)
From the simulations we know that in the limit of strong interactions among the individuals, the dynamics is intermittent . Extended periods are dominated by a network of few heavily occupied positions. These periods, called quasi-Evolutionary Stable Strategies (q-ESS), are interrupted by sharp bursts where the configuration of the species change rapidly and significantly. In order to describe the dynamics, we impose a stability condition on the difference equation: we require that within a single q-ESS, the average number of individuals remains constant. Moreover, the q-ESS states are dominated by some very fit positions surrounded by unfit neighbouring positions. Thus we can neglect the back-flow contribution in the difference equation, Eq.(8), and obtain

$$n_a(t+1)=n_a(t)+\rho _a(t)\left[p_{off}^a(t)(2p_01)p_{kill}\right].$$
(10)
Averaging over time, the equation becomes

$$\overline{n_a}=\overline{n_a}+\overline{\rho _ap_{off}^a}(2p_01)\overline{\rho _a}p_{kill}.$$
(11)
Assuming that $`\overline{\rho _ap_{off}^a}=\overline{\rho _a}\overline{p_{off}^a}`$, the fitness for all positions in the set $`𝒮_{p_{off}=p_q}`$:

$$\overline{p_{off}^a}=\frac{p_{kill}}{2p_01}p_q.$$
(12)
With $`p_{mut}=0.008`$ we have $`p_0=(1p_{mut})^L=0.852`$ for $`L=20`$; using $`p_{kill}=0.2`$, we find $`p_q=0.284`$ consistent with the observation of Fig. 2.

Neglecting the back flow is valid if all terms

$$\rho _b(t)p_{off}^b(t)p_{mut}^{Ld_{ab}}\left[1p_{mut}\right]^{L(1d_{ab})}=\rho _b(t)p_{off}^b(t)p_{mut}^{Ld_{ab}}\left[1L(1d_{ab})p_{mut}+\mathrm{}\right]$$

are small. Since $`p_{mut}1`$, the leading term is $`\rho _b(t)p_{off}^b(t)p_{mut}^{Ld_{ab}}`$. This can be neglected if $`Ld_{ab}>1`$. With $`Ld_{ab}=1`$ it can be neglected since none of the nearest neighbours are fit, as $`p_{off}^b(t)1`$.

## IV The error threshold

The discussion of the q-ESS state was made with the implicit assumption of the existence of q-ESS states. We will find here that we can establish qualitative arguments that ensure the existence of the q-ESS states.

We have seen that q-ESS states are possible only if the interactions are important in the weight function. Furthermore, the average fitness $`p_q`$ of the fit positions in the q-ESS state is given by

$$p_q=\frac{p_{kill}}{2(1p_{mut})^L1}$$
(13)
and thus is related to the mutation rate. This relation states that the fit positions are those that are able to counterbalance the killing by the production of offspring.

Equation (13) is the starting point for determining a necessary condition for the existence of a q-ESS state. We have investigated the behaviour of the dynamics as a function of mutation rate. The results are illustrated in Fig. 3.

For increasing $`p_{mut}`$, the duration of q-ESS states decreases. Above a threshold $`p_{mut}^{th}`$ of the mutation rate $`p_{mut}`$, there are no more q-ESS states: the dynamics is completely hectic. For intermediate values of $`p_{mut}`$, the transitions between two q-ESS states are extended and the initial transient can be very long.

This numerical result shows that the model defines an error threshold for the mutation rate above which no q-ESS state exists.

From Eq.(13) we obtain for the weight function

$$H_q=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p_q}{1p_q}\right)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p_{kill}}{2p_01p_{kill}}\right).$$
(14)
When the mutation rate is close to $`p_{mut}^{th}`$, most of the simulations are in hectic states, for which the fitness is equal to $`p_{kill}`$ and therefore we might assume that the weight function is equal to

$$H_{hectic}=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p_{kill}}{1p_{kill}}\right).$$
(15)
Stable q-ESS states can only develop from a hectic phase when some positions, due to fluctuations, acquire sufficient fitness to be consistent with the q-ESS balance given by Eq.(13). That is, fluctuations in the weight functions in the hectic phase must allow

$$H_{hectic}+\frac{\alpha }{C}H_q$$
(16)
where $`\alpha (0,1)`$ describes the width of the distribution of weight functions in the hectic phase, see Fig. 2 and $`C`$ determines the width of the distribution of the possible coupling strengths between the individuals. Small $`C`$ corresponds to the strong coupling regime while large $`C`$ corresponds to the weak coupling limit. Using Eq.(14) and Eq.(15) we obtain

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p_{kill}}{1p_{kill}}\right)+\frac{\alpha }{C}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p_{kill}}{2p_01p_{kill}}\right)$$
(17)
which, translated to the mutation rate $`p_{mut}`$, becomes

$$p_{mut}1\left[\frac{e^{\alpha /C}(1p_{kill})+1+p_{kill}}{2}\right]^{1/L}=p_{mut}^{th}$$
(18)
Eq.(18) defines the functional dependency of the error threshold in terms of $`\alpha `$, $`C`$ and $`p_{kill}`$. In Fig. 4 we use $`\alpha `$ as a fitting parameter and show $`p_{mut}^{th}`$ as a function of $`C`$.

The error threshold has been determined numerically by iterating many simulations with increasing value of the mutation rate for a given $`C`$. When no q-ESS emerges, we have reached the error threshold; the lowest $`p_{mut}`$ for which only a hectic states exists is the estimated value of $`p_{mut}^{th}`$.

The numerical results confirm the theoretical predictions given by Eq.(18) and, qualitatively, are in line with the results of Eigen et al. . The transition in the Tangled Nature model appears to be sharp, that is, for values of $`p_{mut}`$ greater than $`p_{mut}^{th}`$ q-ESS states are impossible, while for $`p_{mut}p_{mut}^{th}`$ q-ESS are possible, see Fig 3.

Since the factor $`\alpha `$ represents the width of the distribution of the weight function during a hectic state it is linked to $`𝐉=\left\{J_{ab}\right\}`$, the set of interactions, and also to $`\mu `$. This makes it difficult to analytically determine $`\alpha `$.

## V Discussion

In the Tangled Nature model the competition of the organisms is described by the mutual interactions, creating a dynamical rugged fitness landscape where the fitness of a position is determined by the temporal evolution of the ecology. The dynamics, illustrated in  selects few heavily occupied positions in genotype space surrounded by other sequences in the immediate vicinity. The central positions are the only able to reproduce actively. They sustain themselves and all the surrounding ecology. This situation is possible only as long as the mutual interactions, are sufficient to counterbalance the dispersive action caused by mutations.

Thus we have derived an interpretation of the Tangled Nature model as an evolutionary quasi-species model. In the Tangled Nature model however, the fitness landscape is not fixed. Due to the frequency dependent fitness landscape, the Tangled Nature model allows the emergence of multiple co-existing quasi-species during q-ESS states. Also, it should be noted, that in contrast to the model by Eigen et al. , the quasi-species in the Tangled Nature model are not absolute quantities but may change from one q-ESS to another.

We have discussed and identified the error threshold in the Tangle Nature model as the mutation rate at which the model is unable to support, over extended periods in time, the occupation of well defined multiple co-existing genotypes. A formula for the parameter dependence of the error threshold was derived, see Eq.(18). In particular, the error threshold depends on genome length as $`1/L`$, (for large L) which is consistent with the findings in the quasi-species models, see Refs. . This result suggests that the mutation rate per base pair itself is subject to selection in a way to make the mutation per base pair decrease with increasing genome length. This is indeed observed in nature.

We are extremely grateful to Matt Hall for very helpful discussions. K. C. gratefully acknowledges the financial support of U.K. EPSRC through Grant No. GR/R44683/01.


text:
# Anomalous Behavior of 2+ Excitations around 132Sn

## I Introduction

As experiment pushes towards the nuclear drip line, it is becoming possible to examine isotopic chains over increasingly large ranges of $`N`$ and $`Z`$. We have new opportunities to test systematics and the ideas that underlie them. One region in which experimental progress has been made recently surrounds the neutron-rich doubly magic isotope 132Sn. In particular, recent Ref. \[Rad02\]  reports measurements of the transition strengths $`B(E2;0^+2^+)`$ (or $`B(E2)`$ for short) from the ground state to the lowest 2+ state for 132Te, 134Te, and 136Te. The authors discovered that $`B(E2)`$’s and the energies of the lowest 2+ states ($`E_{2^+}`$) behave differently in the Te isotopes (with $`N`$ = 80, 82, and 84) than in those of Xe, Ba, and Ce which have more protons. In most isotopic chains, including those three, a decrease in $`E_{2^+}`$ is accompanied by an increase in $`B(E2)`$ as the states become collective. This is not the case in 132,136Te, where the $`B(E2)`$ decreases as $`E_{2^+}`$ decreases.

Our work explains this unusual behavior. Our tool is the quasiparticle random phase approximation (QRPA), in conjunction with a simple schematic interaction, which we apply to even-even nuclei in the mass region $`50Z58`$ and $`80N84`$ (and a much larger range of $`N`$ for the Sn chain). The QRPA is a well-established method for describing vibrational states \[Kis63\]  and has advantages of simplicity, particularly when separable interactions are used and exchange terms neglected. One should mention, that there exist large-scale shell-model calculations for selected nuclei around 132Sn \[Cov02\] ; \[Rad02\] ; \[Ots02\] . However, at the present stage, these calculations use different spaces (and interactions) for nuclei above and below the $`N`$=82 magic gap. Our model, albeit more phenomenological, uses the same Hamiltonian in both regions.

This paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II we review phenomenological and simple microscopic approaches to the systematics of $`E_{2^+}`$ and $`B(E2)`$. In Sec. III we give an overview of the experimental data around 132Sn and discuss their significant properties. In Sec. IV we use the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) method to discuss static properties of the ground states. The QRPA model is described in Sec. V. We show results of the QRPA calculation for the lowest $`2^+`$ states in Sec. VI and discuss the origin of the irregular behavior of $`B(E2)`$ from a microscopic point of view in Sec. VII. The $`g`$ factors for Xe, Te, and Sn isotopes are treated in Sec. VIII. Finally, Sec. IX summarizes this work.

## II Relation between $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟐}^\mathbf{+}}`$ and $`𝑩\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$

The systematic relation between $`E_{2^+}`$’s and $`B(E2)`$’s is an old topic. One early phenomenological relation (by Grodzins \[Gro62\] ) is

$$B(E2;0^+2^+)=14.9\frac{1}{[E_{2^+}/\mathrm{keV}]}\frac{Z^2}{A}[e^2b^2],$$
(1)
and another (by Raman et al\[Ram01\] ) is

$$B(E2;0^+2^+)=3.26\frac{1}{[E_{2^+}/\mathrm{keV}]}\frac{Z^2}{A^{0.69}}[e^2b^2].$$
(2)
The latter reproduces most of more than 300 experimental data points to within a factor of 2. Both these formulae, after factoring out a gentle dependence on $`Z`$ and $`A`$, assert that $`B(E2)`$’s are inversely proportional to $`E_{2^+}`$’s. For vibrational states, this result is predicted, if mass parameter is constant, by the liquid drop model \[Boh75\] , which gives

$$B(E2;n_2=0n_2=1)=5\left(\frac{3}{4\pi }ZeR^2\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2D_2E_{2^+}},$$
(3)
where $`R`$ is the nuclear radius, and $`D_2`$ the quadrupole mass parameter. $`n_2`$ denotes the number of $`2^+`$ phonons. It also falls out of an RPA treatment of collective excitations in the simple microscopic model of Brown and Bolsterli \[Bro59\]  and others \[Hey90\] ; \[Rin80\] . In physical terms, collectivity lowers the energy of attractive modes while at the same time increasing the transition strength because nucleons contribute coherently to the transition.

Another successful way of classifying collective $`2^+`$ states is the $`N_pN_n`$ scheme \[Ham65\] ; \[Cas85\] ; \[Cas90a\] . Both the $`E_{2^+}`$’s and $`B(E2)`$’s lie on smooth curves when plotted as functions of $`N_pN_n`$, where $`N_p`$ $`(N_n)`$ is the number of valence proton (neutron) particles or holes. The plot for some nuclei around those considered in this work is shown in Fig. 1. The data points can be divided, approximately, into two well-correlated groups: those for $`N<82`$ (the upper $`E_{2^+}`$ and the lower $`B(E2)`$ branches) and those for $`N>82`$ (the lower $`E_{2^+}`$ and the upper $`B(E2)`$ branches). The plots reveal a clear asymmetry in the $`2^+`$ states with respect to $`N=82`$. That is, the $`N>82`$ systems have lower $`E_{2^+}`$ and higher $`B(E2)`$ as compared to their $`N<82`$ $`N_pN_n`$ partners. This would suggest increased quadrupole collectivity in the region above $`N>82`$. However, as discussed in the following, deviation from this general trend can be found.

## III Overview of data around 132Sn ($`𝒁\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}`$)

Let us survey the experimental data relevant to this paper. Figure 2 shows $`E_{2^+}`$’s and $`B(E2)`$’s for the lowest $`2^+`$ states of even-even nuclei as functions of neutron number. Both observables are fairly symmetric around $`N=82`$ for the Xe–Ce isotopes indicating that particle and hole excitations in those nuclei play similar roles. Actually, some of the $`B(E2)`$’s in Ce and Ba in the region $`N>82`$ are slightly larger than those with the same $`N_n`$ in $`N<82`$; similarly the $`E_{2^+}`$’s for $`N>82`$ are lower than those for $`N<82`$, in a way consistent with the $`N_pN_n`$ plots of Fig. 1. Clearly these isotopes follow the usual relation between $`B(E2)`$ and $`E_{2^+}`$.

On the other hand, 132Te, 134Te, and 136Te behave differently. The $`B(E2)`$ is not symmetric adjacent to $`N`$ = 82, a fact that is even more significant when looking at the corresponding energies in Fig. 2. The state in 136Te lies 370 keV lower than that of 132Te, but nevertheless the $`B(E2)`$ in 136Te is smaller than that in 132Te. The situation violates the pattern of typical collective behavior discussed above. \[This behavior does not appear anomalous on the $`N_pN_n`$ plots of Fig. 1 because of the scale of the figure, however, $`N_pN_n`$ = 4 for both 132Te and 136Te, and $`E_{2^+}(^{132}\mathrm{Te})`$ = 0.974 MeV, $`E_{2^+}(^{136}\mathrm{Te})`$ = 0.606 MeV, $`B(E2,^{132}\mathrm{Te})`$ = 0.172 $`e^2b^2`$, and $`B(E2,^{136}\mathrm{Te})`$ = 0.103 $`e^2b^2`$.\]

## IV HFB calculations

As a prelude to our QRPA treatment of the $`2^+`$ vibrations, we calculate static shape and pairing deformations in the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) model of Refs. \[Sto99\] ; \[Sto98b\] ; \[Sto98c\] ; \[Dob02\] ; \[Sto02\] . We perform axially deformed HFB calculations with the particle-hole Skyrme forces SLy4 \[Cha97\]  and an intermediate contact delta pairing force \[Dob02\] . The resulting quadrupole deformation parameter $`\beta =\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{5}}\frac{1}{A}\frac{1}{R^2}Q`$, $`Q`$ being total quadrupole moment and R – rms radius, is shown in Fig. 3. It indicates that the static deformation of the nuclei with $`N`$ = 80 and 84 is zero or small ($`0.1`$) compared to those of the mid-shell nuclei. We can therefore treat the $`2^+`$ states in these nuclei as vibrations around a spherical shape.

In general, the HFB calculations follow the $`N_pN_n`$ trend discussed earlier. The $`\beta `$ values above the $`N=82`$ gap are systematically increased for $`N_n>4`$. The strongest asymmetry in the pattern of $`\beta `$ is predicted for the Te isotopes.

Figure 4 shows predicted neutron pairing gaps. Since pairing is a symmetry-restoring interaction, the calculated pairing gaps are anticorrelated with the quadrupole deformations. Consequently, the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ are systematically lower as one crosses the $`N=82`$ gap. In particular, in most cases $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n(N=80)>\mathrm{\Delta }_n(N=84)`$.

## V QRPA calculation

The Hamiltonian we use in our QRPA calculation is

$$H=\underset{\mu }{}(\epsilon _\mu \lambda _\tau )c_\mu ^{}c_\mu \underset{\tau }{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\tau (P_\tau ^{}+P_\tau )+H_\mathrm{Q}^{\mathrm{is}}+H_\mathrm{Q}^{\mathrm{iv}}+H_\mathrm{Q}^\mathrm{p},$$
(4)
where $`\epsilon _\mu `$ is the single-particle energy, and $`c_\mu ^{}`$ is the creation operator of a nucleon in the state $`\mu `$. $`\lambda _\tau `$ is the chemical potential, which depends on the isospin z-component $`\tau `$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\tau `$ is the pairing gap, and $`P_\tau ^{}`$ is the monopole pair creation operator.

As a residual two-body interaction, we use the sum of an isoscalar quadrupole force $`H_\mathrm{Q}^{\mathrm{is}}`$, an isovector quadrupole force $`H_\mathrm{Q}^{\mathrm{iv}}`$, and a quadrupole pairing force $`H_\mathrm{Q}^\mathrm{p}`$, defined as follows:

$`H_\mathrm{Q}^{\mathrm{is}}={\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{T=0}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(Q_{m}^{\mathrm{pr}}{}_{}{}^{}+Q_{m}^{\mathrm{ne}}{}_{}{}^{})(Q_m^{\mathrm{pr}}+Q_m^{\mathrm{ne}}),`$
$`H_\mathrm{Q}^{\mathrm{iv}}={\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{T=1}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(Q_{m}^{\mathrm{pr}}{}_{}{}^{}Q_{m}^{\mathrm{ne}}{}_{}{}^{})(Q_m^{\mathrm{pr}}Q_m^{\mathrm{ne}}),`$
$`Q_m^{\mathrm{pr}}={\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu }{}^{\mathrm{proton}}}\mu |r^2Y_{2m}|\nu c_\mu ^{}c_\nu ,`$
$`Q_m^{\mathrm{ne}}={\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu }{}^{\mathrm{neutron}}}\mu |r^2Y_{2m}|\nu c_\mu ^{}c_\nu ,`$
$`H_\mathrm{Q}^\mathrm{p}={\displaystyle \underset{\tau }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_2^\tau }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}P_{m}^{\tau }{}_{}{}^{}P_m^\tau ,`$
$`P_{m}^{\tau }{}_{}{}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu }{}^\tau }\mu |r^2Y_{2m}|\nu c_\mu ^{}c_{\overline{\nu }}^{},`$
$`P_\tau ^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}^\tau }c_\mu ^{}c_{\overline{\mu }}^{},`$ (5)
where $`\overline{\mu }`$ denotes the time-reversed state of $`\mu `$. For $`\chi _{T=0}`$, we use the self-consistent values of Ref. \[Dob88\] ; for $`\chi _{T=1}`$, we use the value $`\chi _{T=1}=\chi _{T=1}(\mathrm{std})=92.9A^{7/3}`$ MeV fm-4. (As will be seen later, the results of QRPA calculations are fairly insensitive to the choice of $`\chi _{T=1}`$.) We fix the quadrupole pairing strengths $`G_2^\tau `$ according to the prescription proposed in Ref. \[Kub96\] . \[We refer to this value as $`G_2^\tau `$(self).\] Our QRPA equations are in the standard matrix form, as in Ch. 14 of Ref. \[Row70\] , and, as usual, we neglect the exchange terms of the multipole-multipole interactions.

Our calculations are performed in a single-particle (s.p.) space of several harmonic-oscillator shells ($`N_{\mathrm{osc}}`$ = 2–6 for protons and $`N_{\mathrm{osc}}`$ = 2–7 for neutrons). Since our configuration space is large, we use the bare, rather than effective, charges in calculating $`B(E2)`$. We take s.p. energies $`\epsilon _\mu `$ from experimental data around 132Sn, shown in Fig. 5. (When the levels are not available this way, we use Woods-Saxon energies \[Cwi87\]  for bound levels and Nilsson energies \[Nil69\]  for unbound levels.) It is worth noting that the neutron level density just below the 82 shell gap is much larger than it is above the gap. This is due to the near-degeneracy of $`1h_{11/2}`$, $`2d_{3/2}`$, and $`3s_{1/2}`$ shells and a fairly large energy gap between the $`2f_{7/2}`$ and $`3p_{3/2}`$ shells. As we will see, this difference plays a crucial role in the anomalous behavior of the Te isotopes.

Figure 6 shows the experimental pairing gaps obtained from odd-even mass differences, according to the prescription of Ref. \[Dob01\] , and gaps calculated by the HFB-Lipkin-Nogami method \[Dob02b\] . We note that the HFB-Lipkin-Nogami calculation, which partly corrects for particle number fluctuations, reproduces experimental trends very well. The neutron pairing gap in the Sn, Te, and Xe isotopes decreases as $`N`$ increases and crosses $`N`$ = 82. This effect, clearly seen also in the HFB calculation of Fig. 4, has been noticed earlier, cf. Ref. \[Dob02\] . In our QRPA calculations, we used renormalized experimental pairing gaps. The renormalization factors, reflecting the reduction of pairing in excited $`2^+`$ states, were adjusted to experimental data in the Sn isotopes. The renormalization factor turned out to be 0.6 (0.9) for neutrons (protons). For magic nuclei with $`N=82`$ and/or $`Z=50`$, we took $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ = 0.4 MeV, a somewhat arbitrary value, reflecting the weak pairing correlations in magic nuclei. (Experimental odd-even mass differences for magic nuclei do not determine pairing gaps well \[Dob01\] .) We used the average of the proton pairing gaps at $`N=80`$ and 84 for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ at $`N=82`$ to avoid the sudden decrease at the magic number.

## VI Results of QRPA Calculations

We carried out QRPA calculations for even-$`N`$ isotopes of Sn with $`N`$ = 64–84, and for the $`N`$ = 80, 82, 84 isotopes of Te, Xe, Ba, and Ce, which are nearly spherical in our HFB calculations. Figure 7 shows the calculated lowest 2+ energies and $`B(E2)`$’s, along with the experimental data. The calculations reproduce the experimental trend quite well, in particular the asymmetry around $`N=82`$ of the $`B(E2)`$’s in the Te isotopes. We also predict an inverted, and more symmetric, curve for the $`B(E2)`$’s in the Sn isotopes with $`N`$ = 80–84. This kind of inversion is well known to occur in the Pb region around $`N`$ = 126 \[Ram01\] . (For more discussion of this point, see Sec. VII.) For comparison, Fig. 8 shows the results with the pure Nilsson spectrum (parameters from Ref. \[Nil69\] ). The collectivity in the $`N`$ = 68–76 isotopes of Sn is enhanced here, but otherwise Figs. 7 and 8 are fairly similar. Kubo et al. \[Kub96\]  performed calculations in Sn isotopes up to $`N`$ = 74 with a similar Hamiltonian and obtained similar results. In the shell-model calculation of Ref. \[Rad02\] , $`B(E2)`$ for 134Te (136Te ) turned out to be 0.088 (0.25) $`e^2b^2`$, i.e., the transition rate has been predicted to increase when going from $`N`$=82 to $`N`$=84.

We checked the stability of our calculations by varying the strengths of the isovector quadrupole force and the quadrupole pairing force. Figures 9 and 10 show the results in Te. The unusual behavior around $`N=82`$ clearly is not sensitive to the strengths of these forces. Based on all these results, we conclude that the QRPA prediction of the unusual behavior around 136Te is robust and does not depend significantly on model details, except for neutron pairing.

## VII Abnormal pattern of Quadrupole Collectivity in the neutron-rich Te isotopes

What is the reason for the unusual behavior of the Te isotopes around $`N=82`$, i.e. the fact that both $`E_{2^+}`$ and the $`B(E2)`$ are smaller in 136Te than in 132Te? The ingredient in our calculations that displays the most asymmetry around $`N=82`$ is the neutron pairing gap. To understand how it affects the results, we performed QRPA calculations in 136Te for different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$. The results are shown in Fig. 11. As $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ decreases from 0.6 MeV to 0.4 MeV, both the $`E_{2^+}`$ and $`B(E2)`$ decrease, indeed suggesting that this quantity plays the key role in the unusual trend we want to explain. To get more insight, we consider the forward ($`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$) and backward ($`\phi _{\mu \nu }`$) QRPA amplitudes in the lowest-energy $`2^+`$ excitation

$$|2^+=\underset{\mu <\nu }{}(\psi _{\mu \nu }a_\mu ^{}a_\nu ^{}\phi _{\mu \nu }a_\nu a_\mu )|\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.,$$
(6)
where $`a_\mu ^{}`$ and $`a_\mu `$ create and annihilate a quasiparticle in the state $`\mu `$, and $`|\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.`$ is the QRPA ground state. The QRPA amplitudes $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\phi _{\mu \nu }`$ depend on the ratios

$$\frac{\mu Q^\tau \nu }{_\mu +_\nu E_{2^+}}\mathrm{and}\frac{\mu Q^\tau \nu }{_\mu +_\nu +E_{2^+}},$$
(7)
respectively, where $`_\mu =\sqrt{(\epsilon _\mu \lambda _\tau )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_\tau ^2}`$ is the BCS quasiparticle energy. The bottom portion of Fig. 11 shows that these quantities depend significantly on the neutron pairing gap as well.

The reason for the unusual behavior can be surmised from these figures. The decreased neutron pairing gap in 136Te means that the lowest neutron quasiparticle energies are lower than those in 132Te (0.792 MeV for 132Te and 0.460 MeV for 136Te). As a result, the energy of the lowest $`2^+`$ state decreases when one crosses $`N=82`$. But the low-lying neutron quasiparticle energies also cause the neutron amplitudes in the wave function to increase and the proton amplitudes to decrease, as Fig. 11 and Table I show. Since the $`B(E2)`$ is determined solely by protons, it decreases as well. In other words, the behavior of the lowest $`2^+`$ states reflects properties of the s.p. spectrum — the fact that it is more dense below $`N=82`$ than above (see Sec. V), giving rise to a larger pairing gap — more than collective quadrupole effects induced by the residual interaction. This is not a total surprise given that both isotopes have only 2 valence neutrons (or neutron holes).

In the Xe, Ba, and Ce, isotopes, the increased number of protons makes proton pairing and the neutron-proton quadrupole-quadrupole interaction more important and reduces the effectiveness of the s.p. mechanism just described. This is nicely illustrated in Fig. 12 for 138Xe. One can see the usual relation between $`E_{2^+}`$ and $`B(E2)`$ and a clear difference between Te and Xe in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$-dependence of $`B(E2)`$. In Xe, $`B(E2)`$ increases as the proton amplitude decreases, indicating increased collectivity.

The value of $`B(E2)`$ in 134Te is smaller than that of 132Te, in spite of the large proton amplitude (see Table I). However, the $`2^+`$ state in 134Te corresponds to one two-quasiparticle configuration $`(g_{7/2})^2`$, while the strength in 132Te and 136Te is more fragmented, indicating the collective character of the $`2^+`$ state.

We close this section by discussing the behavior of $`B(E2)`$ of 130Sn–134Sn mentioned in Sect. VI (see Fig. 7). For this purpose, Fig. 13 shows summed QRPA amplitudes for protons and neutrons in the Sn isotopes. It is clear that the neutron amplitudes are dominant in all cases. However, at 132Sn, both proton and neutron low-energy excitations are hindered; therefore the neutron amplitude decreases and the proton contribution increases, compared to the other isotopes. This change causes a local increase in $`B(E2)`$ at 132Sn. (When the collectivity is small, $`B(E2)`$ reflects the magnitude of the proton amplitudes directly.) Since the nucleus is in a neutron-rich region, however, matrix elements of the quadrupole operators of the neutrons are larger, on average, near the Fermi surface than those of the protons. Thus, excitations of the neutrons are still dominant in the $`2^+`$ state of 132Sn.

## VIII $`𝒈`$ factors of Xe, Te, and Sn isotopes

The abnormal behavior of the $`E_{2^+}`$’s and $`B(E2)`$’s around 132Sn reflects the variations of proton and neutron amplitudes in the wave function of the lowest $`2^+`$ state. Therefore, we analyze the $`g`$ factor in neighboring nuclei; they are very sensitive to relative proton/neutron compositions.

We have calculated the $`g`$ factors of 134Xe, 136Xe, and 138Xe, and compare with recent data \[Jak02\]  in Table II. As usual, we multiplied the bare spin $`g_s`$ factors by 0.7, and took bare $`g_l`$ factors \[Boh75\] ; \[Rin80\] ; \[Hey90\] . Our $`g`$ factor in 136Xe is larger than in 134Xe, though not by as much as the data (see also Ref. \[Kis63\] ). We show the corresponding proton and neutron QRPA amplitudes of 2+ states in Table I. Protons are more important in 134Xe and 136Xe, while neutrons are more important in 138Xe. We found by analyzing the amplitudes that the main component of the 2+ states of 134Xe and 136Xe is $`\pi `$(1$`g_{7/2}`$)2, while those of 138Xe are $`\pi `$(1$`g_{7/2}`$)2 and $`\nu `$(2$`f_{7/2}`$)2. It is interesting to compare the $`g`$ factors with those of the single-particle states in Table III. The observed $`g`$ factors for 134Xe and 136Xe support the idea that the states of these nuclei consist mainly of proton excitations (see Ref. \[Jak02\] ); our calculation is consistent with this picture. The large $`g`$ factors of the proton 1$`h_{11/2}`$, 3$`s_{1/2}`$, and 2$`d_{5/2}`$ orbitals suggest that the nuclear $`g`$ factors are sensitive to the small admixtures of these orbitals. The Xe isotopes therefore provide a severe test case of the many-body wave function.

Table IV displays calculated $`g`$ factors of the neutron-rich Te isotopes. The neutron dominance in our 136Te wave function clearly lowers the predicted $`g`$ factor there. It would be interesting to test this prediction experimentally.

Finally, Fig. 14 shows calculated $`g`$ factors of Sn isotopes compared to the experimental data. The behavior of the $`g`$ factors up to $`N`$ = 74 can be understood in terms of the negative single-neutron $`g`$-factors of the 1$`h_{11/2}`$, 2$`d_{5/2}`$, and 3$`s_{1/2}`$ shells (see Table III and Ref. \[Has80\] ). Around $`N`$=78, however, the 2$`d_{3/2}`$ orbital carrying a positive $`g`$ factor becomes occupied, and this gives rise to positive $`g`$-factors in 128,130,132Sn. Above $`N`$=82, the structure of the lowest 2+ state is dominated by $`2f_{7/2}`$ shell, and $`g`$-factors drop again.

## IX Summary

In this paper, we have investigated the irregular behavior of $`E_{2^+}`$’s and $`B(E2)`$’s in 132Te–136Te through the QRPA with a simple separable interaction. Our QRPA calculations reproduce the behavior seen in experiment, and we trace the cause to the difference in neutron pairing below and above $`N=82`$. The decrease in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ with $`N`$ is clearly seen in experimental systematics and in self-consistent calculations. The results of our phenomenological model are fairly robust and depend only weakly on other model parameters. A related finding is that the $`B(E2)`$ in 132Sn should be larger than in its immediate Sn neighbors, as is the case around 208Pb. We hope that this prediction will stimulate further measurements in the neutron-rich region around 132Sn.

To strengthen our argument about neutron dominance in the wave function of the $`2^+`$ state in 136Te, we also calculated $`g`$ factors of the Xe, Te, and Sn isotopes. We reproduced the experimental trends and found that while protons dominate the excitation amplitudes in 134Xe and 136Xe, the $`g`$ factor of the $`2^+`$ state of 136Te is dramatically reduced. The experimental discovery of this effect as well as significant behavior of 128Sn–134Sn would validate our understanding of the structure of nuclei around 132Sn.

###### Acknowledgements.

Discussions with C. Baktash, D.C. Radford, H. Sakamoto, and K. Matsuyanagi are gratefully acknowledged. We are indebted to A. Stuchbery for information on the recently measured $`g`$ factors. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract Nos. DE-FG02-96ER40963 (University of Tennessee), DE-AC05-00OR22725 with UT-Battelle, LLC (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and DE-FG02-97ER41019 (University of North Carolina), and by the National Science Foundation Contract No. 0124053 (U.S.-Japan Cooperative Science Award).


text:
# 1 Multiplicities, wrapping numbers and Chan-Paton phases for the D4-brane models, (𝑝≠𝑞≠𝑟≠𝑝).

## Acknowledgements

This research is supported in part by PPARC and the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research (GIF).