text:
# Arnoux-Rauzy Subshifts: Linear Recurrence, Powers, and Palindromes

## 1. Introduction

Mainly motivated by the discovery of quasicrystals by Shechtman et al. in 1984 , there has been a lot of research done on the spectral properties of Schrödinger operators with potentials displaying long-range order. The first rigorous mathematical results were obtained in the late eighties. By now, many key issues are well understood, at least in one dimension. The two survey articles  recount the history of this effort up to 1994 and 1999, respectively.

The primary example is given by a discrete one-dimensional Schrödinger operator whose potential is given by the Fibonacci sequence. More generally, one considers Sturmian potentials or potentials generated by (primitive) substitutions. It turned out that all these potentials lead to the same qualitative behavior: The corresponding Schrödinger operator has purely singular continuous zero-measure Cantor spectrum. This has been established for all Sturmian potentials and most substitution potentials. On the other hand, no counterexample is known. This led to the conjecture that these properties are shared by a large class of potentials displaying long-range order in a certain sense. One possible way to measure long-range order is given by the combinatorial complexity function $`f:`$ associated with a potential taking finitely many values, where $`f(n)`$ is given by the number subwords of the potential of a given length $`n`$. Since periodic potentials are well understood, one is interested in the case of an aperiodic potential and, in this case, it is well known that the complexity function grows at least linearly. One possible point of view could be the stipulation that long-range order manifests itself in a slowly (e.g., linearly) growing complexity function, possibly along with further conditions.

This combinatorial approach is further motivated by the fact that the properties above, singular continuous zero-measure Cantor spectrum, can be shown by purely combinatorial methods. The key combinatorial properties that allow one to deduce these spectral properties are linear recurrence and the occurrence of local symmetries such as powers and palindromes. Here, a sequence is linearly recurrent if its subwords occur infinitely often, with gap lengths bounded linearly in the length of the subword. Powers are repetitions of subwords and palindromes are subwords that are the same when read backwards.

Thus, the interplay between the spectral theory of Schrödinger operators and combinatorics of infinite words has enjoyed quite some popularity recently, due to its success in answering long-standing questions (e.g., the completion of the analysis of the Sturmian case  or the proof of zero-measure spectrum for all primitive substitution potentials ). This interplay and its applications will be discussed in detail in .

As was mentioned above, the spectral theory is well understood for the primary example, the Fibonacci case, and more generally, for all Sturmian potentials. Thus it is natural to consider generalizations of Sturmian potentials and to explore whether the combinatorial approach continues to be applicable. There are a number of natural candidates:

* quasi-Sturmian sequences,
* sequences obtained by codings of rotations,
* Arnoux-Rauzy sequences.

Quasi-Sturmian sequences are essentially given by morphic images of Sturmian sequences and the corresponding Schrödinger operators were studied in , confirming all of the above points. Sturmian sequences have a geometric realization as a coding of an irrational rotation on the unit circle with respect to a decomposition of the circle into two half-open intervals, where the rotation number is equal to the length of one of the intervals. By dropping the latter condition, one obtains the more general class of sequences associated to codings of rotations. The corresponding operators display purely singular continuous zero-measure Cantor spectrum in many cases . Finally, Sturmian potentials can be characterized by a scarceness of so-called special factors, that is, aside from being defined over two symbols, there is, for each length, exactly one subword with multiple extensions to the right and one subword with multiple extensions to the left. When considering more than two symbols, this definition leads to the class of Arnoux-Rauzy sequences, originally defined and studied in . For the corresponding operators, no results have been shown yet. Thus, the spectral analysis of these operators via the combinatorial approach mentioned above is the objective of the present paper.

To this end, we shall recall the formal definition and some basic combinatorial properties of Arnoux-Rauzy sequences in Section 2 and then study the relevant combinatorial issues, namely, linear recurrence, powers, and palindromes, in Sections 3–5, respectively. Applications of the combinatorial results obtained in these sections to the corresponding Schrödinger operators are then presented in Section 6.

Acknowledgments. We thank J. Cassaigne for useful discussions. D. D. would like to express his gratitude to the Department of Mathematics at the University of North Texas at Denton for its warm hospitality and financial support through the Texas Advanced Research Program.

## 2. Basic Properties of Arnoux-Rauzy Sequences

In this section we recall some known properties of Arnoux-Rauzy sequences and subshifts. In particular, we explain the two combinatorial descriptions of such subshifts from  since they will be used extensively in later sections.

We begin with some definitions. Let $`𝒜_k=\{1,2,\mathrm{},k\}`$ with $`k2`$. Given a sequence $`x𝒜_k^{}`$ or $`𝒜_k^{}`$, we denote by $`F_x(n)`$ the set of all subwords of $`x`$ of length $`n`$, that is, $`F_x(n)=\{x_j\mathrm{}x_{j+n1}:j\text{ (or }\text{)}\}`$. We write $`F_x=_nF_x(n)`$. The complexity function $`f:`$ of $`x`$ is defined by $`f(n)=|F_x(n)|`$, where $`||`$ denotes cardinality. A factor ($`=`$ subword) $`uF_x(n)`$ of $`x`$ is called right-special if it has at least two extensions to the right, that is, there are $`a,b𝒜_k`$, $`ab`$ such that $`ua,ubF_x(n+1)`$. A left-special factor is defined analogously. If a factor is both right-special and left-special, it is called bispecial. The sequence $`x`$ is called an Arnoux-Rauzy sequence if

* $`x`$ is uniformly recurrent (i.e., each factor of $`x`$ occurs with bounded gaps),
* $`f(n)=(k1)n+1`$,
* each $`F_x(n)`$ contains exactly one right-special factor $`r_n`$ and one left-special factor $`l_n`$.

It can be shown that $`r_n=l_n^R`$ , where the reversal $`u^R`$ of a word $`u=u_1\mathrm{}u_m`$ is defined by $`u^R=u_m\mathrm{}u_1`$. In particular, $`r_1=l_1`$ and this factor is bispecial. Observe that there is a unique symbol $`a𝒜_k`$ such that $`aaF_x(2)`$ (which is given by $`a=r_1=l_1`$). We shall say that $`x`$ is of type $`a`$.

If $`k=2`$, this recovers the definition of a Sturmian sequence. Hence, Arnoux-Rauzy (AR for short) sequences are a natural generalization of Sturmian sequences to larger alphabets. Given an AR sequence $`x`$, we define the associated AR subshift $`X`$ by

$$X=\{y𝒜_k^{}\text{ (or }𝒜_k^{}\text{)}:F_y(n)=F_x(n)\text{ for every }n\}.$$

By definition, we have $`F_y=F_xF_X`$ for every $`yX`$. When we want to be more specific (about the choice of $``$ or $``$), we shall refer to $`X`$ as a one-sided (resp., two-sided) subshift. AR sequences and subshifts were originally defined and studied by Arnoux and Rauzy in .

Since $`x`$ is assumed to be uniformly recurrent, $`X`$ is minimal. Moreover, it was shown in  that $`X`$ is uniquely ergodic, that is, $`X`$ admits a unique shift-invariant probability measure $`\nu `$. Equivalently, for every factor $`uF_X`$ and every $`m`$ (or $`m`$), the limit

$$d(u)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{\#}_u(x_m\mathrm{}x_{m+n1})$$

exists, uniformly in $`m`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\#}_u(v)`$ denotes the number of occurrences of $`u`$ in $`v`$. The number $`d(u)`$ is called the frequency of $`u`$. We have, for every $`m`$,

(1)
$$\nu \left(\{yX:y_m\mathrm{}y_{m+|w|1}=u\}\right)=d(u).$$

Two important objects associated with such a subshift are the index sequence $`(i_n)𝒜_k^{}`$ and the characteristic sequence $`(c_n)𝒜_k^{}`$ which are defined as follows: Let $`\{\epsilon =w_1,w_2,w_3,\mathrm{}\}`$ be the set of bispecial factors ordered so that $`0=|w_1|<|w_2|<|w_3|<\mathrm{}`$. For $`n`$, let $`i_n𝒜_k`$ be the unique symbol so that $`i_nw_n`$ is right-special. The characteristic sequence $`(c_n)`$, on the other hand, is defined to be the unique accumulation point of the set $`\{l_1,l_2,l_3,\mathrm{}\}`$ of left-special factors. Note that $`(c_n)`$ is an element of the one-sided subshift $`X`$ and hence has the same factors as $`x`$. Consequently, it carries all the necessary information and once we find a way of constructing $`(c_n)`$ from $`(i_n)`$, we see that the index sequence completely determines $`X`$.

One such construction is given by the hat algorithm from . Define a function

$$H:𝒜_k^{}𝒜_k^{}$$

as follows. Set

$$𝒜_k^{}=\{1,\mathrm{},k,\widehat{1},\mathrm{},\widehat{k}\}$$

and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ denote the morphism

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒜_k^{}𝒜_k,\mathrm{\Phi }(\widehat{a})=\mathrm{\Phi }(a)=a\text{ for every }a𝒜_k.$$

Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ extends to both $`(𝒜_k^{})^{}`$ and $`(𝒜_k^{})^{}`$. With each sequence $`S=(s_n)𝒜_k^{}`$, we associate a sequence $`(B_n)`$ of words over the alphabet $`𝒜_k^{}`$ as follows: $`B_1=\widehat{s}_1`$ and, for $`n>1`$, $`B_n`$ is obtained from $`B_{n1}`$ according to the following rule. If $`\widehat{s}_n`$ does not occur in $`B_{n1}`$, then

$$B_n=B_{n1}\widehat{s}_n\mathrm{\Phi }(B_{n1}).$$

Otherwise, if $`\widehat{s}_n`$ occurs in $`B_{n1}`$, then we can write $`B_{n1}=x^{}\widehat{s}_ny^{}`$, where $`x^{},y^{}`$ are words over $`𝒜_k^{}`$ (possibly empty) and $`\widehat{s}_n`$ does not occur in $`y^{}`$. In this case we set

$$B_n=B_{n1}\widehat{s}_n\mathrm{\Phi }(y^{}).$$

The sequence $`(B_n)`$ converges to a unique sequence $`B(𝒜_k^{})^{}`$. We set

$$H(S)=\mathrm{\Phi }(B).$$

Then, the following holds:

###### Theorem 2.1 (Risley-Zamboni ).

Let $`X`$ be an AR subshift over $`𝒜_k`$. Let $`I=(i_n)`$ be its index sequence and $`C=(c_n)`$ its characteristic sequence. Then every $`a𝒜_k`$ occurs in $`I`$ an infinite number of times and

$$C=H(I).$$

Conversely, if $`I=(i_n)`$ is a sequence over $`𝒜_k`$ such that every $`a𝒜_k`$ occurs infinitely often in $`I`$, then $`H(I)`$ is the characteristic sequence of an AR subshift.

The key observation is that $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }(B_n):n\}`$ is precisely the set of all bispecial factors (see ). Thus, we can re-interpret the construction above on this level: Let $`w`$ be one of the bispecial factors. Suppose that each symbol $`a𝒜_k`$ occurs in $`w`$ (this holds by minimality if $`w`$ is long enough). Then by the hat algorithm, for each symbol $`a𝒜_k`$, there is a positive integer $`m<|w|`$ (depending on $`a`$) such that the next bispecial factor is obtained from $`w`$ by adjoining to the end of $`w`$ a suffix of $`w`$ of length $`m`$. The quantity $`m`$ is one of the $`k`$ periods of $`w`$. Let $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_k`$ denote the $`k`$ periods of $`w`$. Then we have the following formula :

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(p_i1)=(k1)|w|.$$

We can suppose that $`p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_k`$. In this case it follows that

(2)
$$p_i>\frac{|w|}{k},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}ik1.$$

In fact, if $`p_{k1}|w|/k`$, then $`p_{k1}+p_k|w|`$, implying that $`p_1+p_2+\mathrm{}+p_{k2}(k2)|w|`$, which is a contradiction since each $`p_i<|w|`$.

Another way of constructing the characteristic sequence is given by the following result. For each $`a𝒜_k`$, define the morphism $`\tau _a`$ by $`\tau _a(a)=a`$ and $`\tau _a(b)=ab`$ for $`b𝒜_k\{a\}`$.

###### Theorem 2.2 (Risley-Zamboni ).

Let $`X`$ be an AR subshift and let $`(i_n)`$ be its index sequence. For each $`a𝒜_k`$, the characteristic sequence $`(c_n)`$ of $`X`$ is given by

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\tau _{i_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{i_n}(a).$$

That is, the characteristic sequence admits an $`S`$-adic representation where the underlying morphisms are given by $`\{\tau _a:a𝒜_k\}`$ and they are iterated in an order dictated by the index sequence.

## 3. Linearly Recurrent Arnoux-Rauzy Sequences

In this section we characterize the set of AR subshifts that are linearly recurrent. Recall that a subshift $`X`$ is called $`K`$-linearly recurrent (or $`K`$-LR) if there is a constant $`K>0`$ such that every $`wF_X`$ is contained in every $`vF_X`$ of length $`K|w|`$. $`X`$ is called linearly recurrent (or LR) if it is $`K`$-LR for some $`K`$. Linear recurrence is a concept that has been quite popular since the late nineties and it is known to have a number of nice consequences; compare . For example, every linearly recurrent $`X`$ is uniquely ergodic and $`N`$-power free (i.e., $`F_X`$ does not contain an element of the form $`u^N`$).

###### Theorem 3.1.

An AR subshift $`X`$ over $`𝒜_k`$ is linearly recurrent if and only if every letter $`a𝒜_k`$ occurs in $`(i_n)`$ with bounded gaps.

Remark. This is Corollary III.9 in . One direction was stated without proof and the proof of the other direction was based on \[16, Proposition 5\] which turned out to be incorrect .

###### Proof.

It clearly suffices to prove the assertion for the characteristic sequence $`(c_n)`$ since the LR property only depends on the set of factors of a sequence and hence is an invariant of a minimal subshift.

We first prove that if some letter $`\stackrel{~}{a}𝒜_k`$ occurs in $`(i_n)`$ with unbounded gaps, then $`(c_n)`$ is not linearly recurrent. A special case of this scenario is easy to handle: If for each $`n`$, there is $`m`$ such that $`i_m=\mathrm{}=i_{m+n1}`$, then $`(c_n)`$ is not LR since it is not $`N`$-power free for any $`N`$ (see \[31, Corollary III.6\] or the next section). Let us therefore assume, in addition, that there is some $`N`$ such that for every $`a𝒜_k`$, $`a^N`$ does not occur in the index sequence. Fix some $`K>0`$. Let $`L>kNK`$ (recall that $`k`$ is the size of the alphabet). Then there exists $`n`$ such that $`i_{n+j}\stackrel{~}{a}`$, $`0jL`$. We shall show that $`w_{n+L}`$ is a word of length $`>(K+1)|w_n|`$ which does not contain an occurrence of $`w_n\stackrel{~}{a}`$. (Recall that $`w_m`$ denotes the $`m`$-th bispecial factor.) This implies that $`(c_n)`$ is not $`K`$-LR. Since $`K`$ was arbitrary, $`(c_n)`$ is not LR. That $`w_{n+L}`$ does not contain $`w_n\stackrel{~}{a}`$ follows from the hat algorithm and the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ does not occur in $`i_n,\mathrm{},i_{n+L}`$. That $`w_{n+L}`$ is of length $`>K|w_n|`$ follows from the fact that for each $`j`$, in passing from $`w_{n+j}`$ to $`w_{n+j+1}`$, one adds on a suffix; all but one of these suffixes are, by (2), of length $`>|w_n|/k`$. Since $`(c_n)`$ is $`N`$-power free, each window of length $`N`$ in the index sequence must contain at least two distinct symbols. Thus

$$|w_{n+jN}|>|w_n|+j\frac{|w_n|}{k},$$

and hence

$$|w_{n+kNK}|>|w_n|+Kk\frac{|w_n|}{k}=(K+1)|w_n|.$$

Consider now the case where each symbol $`a𝒜_k`$ occurs in the index sequence with bounded gaps. That is, there is a number $`g`$ such that for every $`a𝒜_k`$ and every $`m`$, at least one of $`i_m,\mathrm{},i_{m+g1}`$ equals $`a`$. We have to show that $`C=(c_n)`$ is linearly recurrent. Recall from Theorem 2.2 that

(3)
$$C=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}(\tau _{i_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{i_n})(a)\text{ for every }a𝒜_k.$$

Fix some $`\stackrel{~}{a}𝒜_k`$ and define, for $`m`$,

(4)
$$C^{(m)}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}(\tau _{i_m}\mathrm{}\tau _{i_n})(\stackrel{~}{a}).$$

In order to show that $`C`$ is linearly recurrent, we shall employ \[17, Lemma 4\] which provides a sufficient condition for LR: For each $`m`$, let $`d_m`$ be the largest gap between consecutive occurrences of a word of length $`2`$ in $`C^{(m)}`$. If the set $`\{d_m:m\}`$ is bounded, then $`C`$ is linearly recurrent. Fix some $`m`$ and consider the sequence $`C^{(m)}`$. It is an AR sequence of type $`i_m`$ and its factors of length $`2`$ are given by

$$F_{C^{(m)}}(2)=\{ai_m:a𝒜_k\}\{i_ma:a𝒜_k\}.$$

The gaps between occurrences of $`ai_m`$ are bounded by twice the maximal length of the gaps between occurrences of $`a`$ in $`C^{(m+1)}`$, which in turn occurs with gaps bounded by $`2^g`$ since at least one of $`i_{m+1},\mathrm{},i_{m+g}`$ is equal to $`a`$ (the corresponding substitution produces a sequence where the gaps between successive $`a`$’s are bounded by $`2`$, and then the gaps increase under subsequent substitutions at most by a factor $`2`$). The same argument works for words of the form $`i_ma`$ and hence $`d_m2^g`$. ∎

## 4. Powers in Arnoux-Rauzy Sequences

In this section we study the occurrences of powers in a given AR subshift $`X`$. As was noted in , if there are arbitrarily long runs in the index sequence $`(i_n)`$, then there are arbitrarily high powers. Here, we shall prove the converse and provide an explicit expression for the index of $`X`$ (the highest power occurring in $`X`$) in terms of the run lengths in $`(i_n)`$.

To this end, we shall distinguish between two types of runs in $`(i_n)`$, namely, open runs and closed runs. An $`r`$-run in $`(i_n)`$ is a pair $`(a,l)𝒜_k\times `$ such that $`i_m=a`$ for $`lml+r1`$. If the value of $`r`$ is understood, such an $`r`$-run will sometimes be simply referred to as a run. An $`r`$-run $`(a,l)`$ is called open if $`i_ma`$ for $`1ml1`$; otherwise, it is called closed.

Recall that the (integer) index of $`X`$, $`\mathrm{ind}(X)\{\mathrm{}\}`$, is defined by

$$\mathrm{ind}(X)=sup\{p:\text{ there exists }u𝒜_k^{}\text{ such that }u^pF_X\}.$$

The following result provides an explicit formula for the index in terms of the runs in the index sequence and generalizes the corresponding result in the Sturmian case (cf., e.g., ).

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`X`$ be an AR subshift over $`𝒜_k`$ and $`(i_n)`$ its index sequence. If $`\mathrm{ind}(X)`$ is defined as above, then

$$\mathrm{ind}(X)=\mathrm{max}\{N_1,N_2\},$$

where

$`N_1`$ $`=`$ $`1+sup\{r:(i_n)\text{ contains an open }r\text{-run}\},`$
$`N_2`$ $`=`$ $`2+sup\{r:(i_n)\text{ contains a closed }r\text{-run}\}.`$
In particular, we obtain the following corollary which is a generalization of the corresponding result in the Sturmian case, which was proved by Mignosi in .

###### Corollary 4.2.

An AR subshift $`X`$ has finite index if and only if the runs in its index sequence are uniformly bounded.

We begin by proving $`\mathrm{ind}(X)\mathrm{max}\{N_1,N_2\}`$. The key observation is given in the following lemma:

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`a,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n,\alpha ,\beta 𝒜_k`$ with $`a_ia`$, $`1in`$ and $`\alpha \beta `$. Then $`\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}(a)`$ is a prefix of $`\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}(\alpha \beta )`$.

###### Proof.

For $`n=1`$, we have

$$\tau _a\tau _{a_1}(a)=aa_1a$$

and

$$\tau _a\tau _{a_1}(\alpha \beta )=\tau _a(a_1\alpha ^{}\tau _{a_1}(\beta ))=aa_1a\mathrm{},$$

where

$$\alpha ^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\epsilon & \text{if }a_1=\alpha ,\hfill \\ \alpha & \text{if }a_1\alpha .\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus the statement is true for $`n=1`$. Let us now assume that the statement holds for $`n`$. We have

$`\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}\tau _{a_{n+1}}(a)`$ $`=\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}(a_{n+1}a)`$
$`=\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}(a_{n+1})\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}(a).`$
On the other hand, we have (with $`\alpha ^{},\beta ^{}`$ defined as above)

$`\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}\tau _{a_{n+1}}(\alpha \beta )`$ $`=\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}(a_{n+1}\alpha ^{}a_{n+1}\beta ^{})`$
$`=\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}(a_{n+1})\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}(\alpha ^{}a_{n+1}\beta ^{}).`$
Since $`\alpha \beta `$, at least one of them is $`a_{n+1}`$, say $`\alpha `$, and then $`\alpha ^{}=\alpha a_{n+1}`$. Now apply the induction hypothesis. ∎

###### Proposition 4.4.

Suppose $`a,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n,a_{n+1}𝒜_k`$ with $`a_ia`$, $`1in+1`$ and $`x𝒜_k^{}`$ has an occurrence of $`a`$. Then, for every $`r`$,

$$\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}\tau _a^r\tau _{a_{n+1}}(x)\text{ contains }\left(\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}(a)\right)^{r+2}.$$

###### Proof.

Since $`x`$ contains $`a`$ and $`a_{n+1}a`$, $`\tau _{a_{n+1}}(x)`$ contains $`a_{n+1}aa_{n+1}`$. Thus $`\tau _a^r\tau _{a_{n+1}}(x)`$ contains $`a^ra_{n+1}a^{r+1}a_{n+1}a`$. Therefore $`\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}\tau _a^r\tau _{a_{n+1}}(x)`$ contains

$$\left(\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}(a)\right)^{r+1}\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}(a_{n+1}a).$$

By Lemma 4.3, $`\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}(a_{n+1}a)`$ has $`\tau _a\tau _{a_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{a_n}(a)`$ as a prefix. ∎

###### Proposition 4.5.

Let $`X`$ be an AR subshift over $`𝒜_k`$ and $`(i_n)`$ its index sequence. If $`(i_n)`$ contains a run $`a^r`$, then $`X`$ has a factor $`u^{r+1}`$. If the run $`a^r`$ is preceded by $`a`$ somewhere in $`(i_n)`$, then $`X`$ has a factor $`u^{r+2}`$. In particular,

$$\mathrm{ind}(X)\mathrm{max}\{N_1,N_2\}.$$

###### Proof.

Both claims follow immediately from Proposition 4.4 and its proof. ∎

We now aim at proving $`\mathrm{ind}(X)\mathrm{max}\{N_1,N_2\}`$. This will be done by starting from a factor $`u^p`$, $`p3`$ and then performing an iterated desubstitution process which will produce an $`r`$-run in the index sequence. In general, we have $`r=p2`$, but under certain circumstances, we have $`r=p1`$. To illustrate this procedure, let us start with an example. Suppose $`X`$ is an AR subshift over three symbols such that $`F_X`$ contains

(5)
$$(21232121232122123212123212212321)^p.$$

Clearly, $`C^{(1)}=C=(c_n)`$ is of type $`2`$ and hence $`i_1=2`$. Thus, $`C^{(1)}=\tau _2(C^{(2)})`$ and $`C^{(2)}`$ must contain the factor

(6)
$$(13113121311312131)^p.$$

Now, $`C^{(2)}`$ is of type $`1`$ and hence $`i_2=1`$. Thus, $`C^{(2)}=\tau _1(C^{(3)})`$ and $`C^{(3)}`$ must contain the factor

(7)
$$(3132313231)^{p1}313231323\mathrm{?}.$$

Observe that the last symbol in the last block cannot be desubstituted uniquely. We indicate this ambiguity by “?” and note that the last block is one symbol shorter than the other blocks. Next, $`i_3=3`$, $`C^{(3)}=\tau _1(C^{(4)})`$ and $`C^{(4)}`$ must contain the factor

(8)
$$(12121)^{p1}1212\mathrm{?}.$$

The ambiguity on this level comes from the ambiguity on the previous level, that is, the “?” in (7). However, we clearly have $`i_4=1`$ and hence the last $`2`$ in (8) must be followed by a $`1`$, so in fact $`C^{(4)}`$ must contain the factor

(9)
$$(12121)^{p1}12121.$$

This allows us to go up one level and replace the “?” in (7) by a $`1`$. This deciphers all the ambiguities up to this point. Next, $`C^{(4)}=\tau _1(C^{(5)})`$ and $`C^{(5)}`$ must contain the factor

(10)
$$(221)^{p1}22\mathrm{?}$$

and $`i_5=2`$, $`C^{(5)}=\tau _2(C^{(6)})`$ and $`C^{(6)}`$ must contain the factor

(11)
$$(21)^{p1}2\mathrm{?}.$$

Now, $`i_6`$ is either $`1`$ or $`2`$, but in either case, further desubstitution yields a run of length $`p2`$ in the index sequence. Namely, if $`i_6=1`$, then $`i_7=\mathrm{}=i_{7+(p2)1}=2`$, and $`i_6=2`$ gives $`i_7=\mathrm{}=i_{7+(p2)1}=1`$. Note that, contrary to the situation above, the ambiguities in (10) and (11) cannot be removed. We observe:

1. The desubstitution process takes $`u^p`$ to $`a^{p1}\mathrm{?}`$ for some $`a𝒜_k`$ and “?” is either known or not. This yields at least a $`(p2)`$-run in the index sequence.
2. If at no step there is an ambiguity in the desubstitution process, then $`w^p`$ reduces to $`a^p`$ and hence produces a $`(p1)`$-run in the index sequence.

These observations lead to the following lemma:

###### Lemma 4.6.

Let $`X`$ be an AR subshift over $`𝒜_k`$ and $`(i_n)`$ its index sequence. Suppose there is $`p3`$ and a primitive $`u𝒜_k^{}`$ such that $`u^pF_X`$. Then we have one of the following scenarios:

* There are $`a𝒜_k`$ and $`m`$ such that $`i_{m+j}=a`$, $`1jp1`$.
* There are $`a𝒜_k`$ and $`m`$ such that $`i_{m+j}=a`$, $`1jp2`$ and $`i_j=a`$ for some $`j`$ with $`1jm`$.

###### Proof.

Start with the word $`u^p`$ and perform a continued desubstitution process, as above, using $`\tau _{i_1}^1,\tau _{i_2}^1\tau _{i_1}^1,\tau _{i_3}^1\tau _{i_2}^1\tau _{i_1}^1,\mathrm{}`$, where the last symbol of the desubstituted word may be unknown and hence denoted by “?”. Clearly, this process leads, after, say, $`m`$ steps, to a desubstituted word which has either the form $`a^p`$ or $`a^{p1}\mathrm{?}`$, where $`a`$ is some symbol from $`𝒜_k`$. In particular, we must have $`i_{m+j}=a`$ for $`1jp1`$ (in the first case) or $`1jp2`$ (in the second case). It only remains to be shown that in the second case, we must have applied $`\tau _a`$ somewhere along the way. Notice that each desubstituted word results from the previous word by a deletion of a number of symbols. In particular, the word $`u`$ we started with must contain $`a`$. Consider first the case where $`u`$ contains at least two occurrences of $`a`$. Then, in order to reduce $`u^2`$ (the first two of the $`p3`$ blocks) to $`a^2`$, we necessarily have to apply $`\tau _a`$ along the way. Let us now consider the case where $`u`$ contains exactly one $`a`$. Then we do not apply $`\tau _a`$ until we are left with a desubstituted word of length $`2`$. That is, either the word is $`a`$, in which case we are done (since the $`a`$ in the last block never gets deleted and hence $`u^p`$ reduces to $`a^p`$), or the word is $`ab`$ (or $`ba`$) for some $`b`$. In the next step, either $`\tau _a`$ or $`\tau _b`$ is applied. Remember that the last word still contains $`a`$ (so that it is one of $`ab,ba,a\mathrm{?}`$) so that desubstitution by $`\tau _b`$ leads to $`a^p`$. That is, only desubstitution by $`\tau _a`$ leads to $`a^{p1}\mathrm{?}`$. ∎

###### Proposition 4.7.

Let $`X`$ be an AR subshift over $`𝒜_k`$ and $`(i_n)`$ its index sequence. Then

$$\mathrm{ind}(X)\mathrm{max}\{N_1,N_2\}.$$

###### Proof.

This is an immediate consequence of Lemma 4.6. Namely, a given power $`u^pF_X`$, for some $`p3`$, corresponds to either an open or closed $`(p1)`$-run or a closed $`(p2)`$-run in the index sequence. Note that every AR subshift contains squares (e.g., $`i_1i_1`$) so that powers $`p<3`$ are irrelevant for the computation of the index. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 4.1..

The assertion follows from Propositions 4.5 and 4.7. ∎

One might also be interested in powers that occur for arbitrarily long factors. That is, define $`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ind}(X)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ by

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ind}(X)=sup\{p:\text{ there exist }u_n\text{ with }|u_n|\mathrm{}\text{ such that }u_n^pF_X\}.$$

Then, the above analysis has the following immediate consequence:

###### Corollary 4.8.

Let $`X`$ be an AR subshift over $`𝒜_k`$ and $`(i_n)`$ its index sequence. If $`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ind}(X)`$ is defined as above, then

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ind}(X)=2+\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}e_n,$$

where, for $`n`$,

$$e_n=\mathrm{max}\{l:i_{n+l1}=i_n\}.$$

###### Proof.

Since every symbol from $`𝒜_k`$ occurs in $`(i_n)`$, the index sequence has exactly $`k`$ open runs. Moreover, there is $`N`$ such that beyond $`i_N`$, there are no more open runs. In particular, for the computation of $`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ind}(X)`$, only closed runs are relevant. Thus, the assertion follows in a straightforward way from Proposition 4.5, Lemma 4.6, and their proofs. ∎

## 5. Palindromes in Arnoux-Rauzy Sequences

In this section we study the number of palindromes of a given length that occur in a given AR subshift $`X`$. Recall that a word is called a palindrome if it is the same when read backwards. Given a minimal subshift $`X`$, define its palindrome complexity function $`p:_0`$ by

$$p(n)=|\{pF_X:p=p^R,|p|=n\}|.$$

It was shown by Droubay and Pirillo that all Sturmian subshifts have the same palindrome complexity function, namely,

(12)
$$p(n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}2& \text{if }n\text{ is odd,}\hfill \\ 1& \text{if }n\text{ is even,}\hfill \end{array}$$

and that Sturmian subshifts are in fact characterized by this property . Here, we shall generalize the first part, namely, we show that all AR subshifts over $`𝒜_k`$ have the same palindrome complexity function; and we also prove that the second part does not generalize, that is, for some $`k3`$, there are non-AR subshifts over $`𝒜_k`$ that have the same palindrome complexity function as AR subshifts over $`𝒜_k`$.

###### Theorem 5.1.

The palindrome complexity function $`p:_0`$ of an AR subshift $`X`$ over $`𝒜_k`$ is given by

(13)
$$p(n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}k& \text{if }n\text{ is odd,}\hfill \\ 1& \text{if }n\text{ is even.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

We shall prove the statement

(14)
$$n:p(2n1)=k,p(2n)=1,$$

which is equivalent to the assertion, by induction on $`n`$.

The case $`n=1`$ is readily checked. In fact, $`p(1)=k`$ is obvious, and if $`X`$ is of type $`a𝒜_k`$, then $`aa`$ is the unique palindrome of length $`2`$ which occurs in $`X`$.

Now assume that (14) holds for $`n`$. Let us show (14) for $`n+1`$ by proving that if $`p`$ is a palindrome occurring in $`X`$, then $`p`$ admits a unique extension $`apa`$ to a palindrome of length $`|p|+2`$.

Fix a palindrome $`pF_X`$. We show below that

(15)
$$pF_X\text{ bispecial }\text{there exists a unique }a𝒜_k\text{ such that }apaF_X.$$

Now, either there exists a unique $`a𝒜_k`$ such that $`apaF_X`$, or else $`p`$ is bispecial (and so by (15) there exists a unique $`a𝒜_k`$ such that $`apaF_X`$); hence in either case there exists a unique $`a𝒜_k`$ such that $`apaF_X`$.

Let us show (15). Let $`a𝒜_k`$ be the unique letter for which $`ap`$ is right-special (and, equivalently, $`pa`$ is left-special). Then $`apaF_X`$. Consider any letter $`ba`$. Then, we have that $`bp`$ is not right-special, and $`bpaF_X`$ (since $`pa`$ is left-special), so $`bpbF_X`$. ∎

As we mentioned above, every minimal subshift with palindrome complexity given by (12) is necessarily Sturmian. We are now going to show that this does not extend to the AR case, that is, there are non-AR subshifts with palindrome complexity given by (13). To this end, we consider subshifts $`X_{3\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}}`$, defined over $`𝒜_3`$, associated with three-interval exchange transformations. These dynamical systems have the following combinatorial description, as shown by Ferenczi et al. :

* $`F_{X_{3\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}}}(2)=\{12,13,21,22,31\}`$.
* If $`uF_{X_{3\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}}}`$, then $`u^RF_{X_{3\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}}}`$.
* For every $`n`$, there are exactly two left-special words in $`F_{X_{3\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}}}(n)`$, one beginning in $`1`$ and one beginning in $`2`$.
* If $`w`$ is a bispecial word ending in $`1`$ and $`ww^R`$, then $`w2`$ is left-special if and only if $`w^R1`$ is left-special.

Clearly, no such subshift is an AR subshift. We have the following result:

###### Proposition 5.2.

The palindrome complexity function $`p`$ of $`X_{3\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}}`$ is given by

(16)
$$p(n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}3& \text{if }n\text{ is odd,}\hfill \\ 1& \text{if }n\text{ is even.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 5.1. It follows from the proof of Proposition 2.6 in  that if $`u`$ is a bispecial palindrome factor, then there exists a unique symbol $`a𝒜_3`$ such that $`aua`$ is a factor. In fact, if $`u`$ begins in $`1`$, then $`a\{2,3\}`$, while if $`u`$ begins in $`2`$, then $`a\{1,2\}`$. So now suppose $`u`$ is a palindrome factor of length $`n.`$ We claim there exists a unique symbol $`a𝒜_3`$ such that $`aua`$ is a factor. If no such $`a`$ exists, then there exist distinct symbols $`b,c𝒜_3`$ such that $`buc`$ is a factor. This implies that $`u`$ is bispecial, so from the above there must exist $`a𝒜_3`$ such that $`aua`$ is a factor. Next, suppose there exist distinct symbols $`b,c𝒜_3`$ such that $`bub`$ and $`cuc`$ are factors. Then again $`u`$ is bispecial, and hence this cannot happen. Thus $`p(n)=p(n+2)`$. Since $`p(1)=3`$ and $`p(2)=1`$, the assertion follows. ∎

On the other hand, $`X_{3\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}}`$ has the same factor complexity function as an AR subshift over three symbols, so one may ask whether (16) implies that

(17)
$$f(n)=2n+1.$$

This is not true, at least on the level of individual sequences, as demonstrated by the following result (the example is due to J. Cassaigne ).

###### Proposition 5.3.

There exists a sequence over $`𝒜_3`$ whose palindrome complexity function is given by (16), but whose factor complexity function is not given by (17).

###### Proof.

Let

$$w=121312141213121\mathrm{}$$

be the fixed point of the infinite substitution

$$112,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}13,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}14,\mathrm{}.$$

Let $`w^{}`$ be the morphic image of $`w`$ under the map $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(i)=1^i21^i31^i`$. So

$$w^{}=1213111211311121311112111311112131\mathrm{}.$$

Note that

(18)
$$22,33,21^n2,31^n3,31^n21^n3,21^n31^n2\text{ are not factors of }w^{}.$$

We therefore have for $`w^{}`$,

(19)
$$p(n)=1\text{ for }n\text{ even},$$

since by (18) the only even length palindromes are $`1^n`$,

(20)
$$p(n)=3\text{ for }n\text{ odd},$$

since by (18) the only odd length palindromes are $`1^n,1^{\frac{n1}{2}}21^{\frac{n1}{2}},1^{\frac{n1}{2}}31^{\frac{n1}{2}}`$, and

(21)
$$f\text{ is not given by (}\text{17}\text{).}$$

For example, $`f(3)=9`$. By (19)–(21), we have palindrome complexity as in (16), but factor complexity different from (17). ∎

Note, however, that the sequence $`w^{}`$ above is not uniformly recurrent and hence does not induce a minimal subshift. We consider it an interesting open problem to determine all minimal subshifts $`X`$ over $`𝒜_k`$, with $`k3`$ arbitrary, whose palindrome complexity function is given by (13).

## 6. Applications to Schrödinger Operators

In this section, we discuss applications of our combinatorial results, Theorems 3.1 and 5.1 and Corollary 4.8, to the spectral theory of Schrödinger operators.

A discrete one-dimensional Schrödinger operator acts in the Hilbert space $`=\mathrm{}^2()`$. If $`\varphi `$, then $`H\varphi `$ is given by

$$(H\varphi )(n)=\varphi (n+1)+\varphi (n1)+V(n)\varphi (n),$$

where $`V:`$. The map $`V`$ is called the potential. For our purposes, we can assume $`V`$ bounded. Then $`H`$ is a bounded, self-adjoint operator. Denote the spectrum of $`H`$ by $`\sigma (H)`$. Given an initial state $`\varphi `$, the Schrödinger time evolution is given by $`\varphi (t)=\mathrm{exp}(itH)\varphi `$, where $`\mathrm{exp}(itH)`$ is given by the spectral theorem. One is interested in the question whether $`\varphi (t)`$ will spread out in space, and if so, how fast. One possible way to tackle this issue is to study the spectral measure $`\mu _\varphi `$ associated with $`\varphi `$, which is defined by

$$\varphi ,(Hz)^1\varphi =_{}\frac{d\mu _\varphi (x)}{xz}\text{ for every }z\text{ with }\mathrm{Im}z>0.$$

Roughly speaking, the more continuous $`\mu _\varphi `$, the faster the spreading of $`\varphi (t)`$; compare, for example, . Denote

$`_{\mathrm{ac}}`$ $`=\{\varphi :\mu _\varphi \text{ is absolutely continuous}\}`$
$`_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ $`=\{\varphi :\mu _\varphi \text{ is singular continuous}\}`$
$`_{\mathrm{pp}}`$ $`=\{\varphi :\mu _\varphi \text{ is pure point}\}`$
and

$$\sigma _\epsilon (H)=\sigma \left(H|__\epsilon \right)\text{ for }\epsilon \{\text{ac,sc,pp}\}.$$

We’ll say that $`H`$ has purely absolutely continuous spectrum if both $`\sigma _{\mathrm{sc}}(H)`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{pp}}(H)`$ are empty, etc.

As was mentioned in the introduction, there has been a considerable amount of research dealing with the spectral properties of $`H`$ if $`V`$ displays long-range order. The totally ordered case (i.e., $`V`$ periodic) is well-understood . In this case, $`H`$ has purely absolutely continuous spectrum. If $`V`$ takes on only finitely many values, one popular measure for long-range order is given by the complexity function. It has then been the goal to determine the spectral properties for aperiodic potentials of low combinatorial complexity. A complete understanding has been obtained for Sturmian potentials  and quasi-Sturmian potentials . It turned out that in all these cases, one has purely singular continuous spectrum, supported on a Cantor set of Lebesgue measure zero. Here, a Cantor set is a closed, perfect, nowhere dense set. It is natural to conjecture that these properties are shared by other low-complexity potentials. In fact, these questions can be studied from a purely combinatorial perspective. That is, there are results that deduce singular continuous, zero-measure spectrum from purely combinatorial properties of the potential. Here we study the case of Arnoux-Rauzy potentials which provide a natural class of low-complexity potentials.

Fix a two-sided AR subshift $`X`$ over $`𝒜_k`$ with index sequence $`(i_n)`$ and a non-constant function $`f:𝒜_k`$. Denote the unique ergodic measure on $`X`$ by $`\nu `$. Each element $`x`$ of $`X`$ induces a potential via $`V_x(n)=f(x_n)`$. The Schrödinger operator with potential $`V_x`$ will be denoted by $`H_x`$. Since $`X`$ is minimal, we have that the spectrum and the absolutely continuous spectrum are invariants of $`X`$, that is, there are sets $`\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ac}}`$ such that $`\sigma (H)=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ac}}(H)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ac}}`$ for every $`xX`$. The result for the spectrum follows from strong convergence and is folklore. The result on the absolutely continuous is much deeper and more recent . In fact, aperiodicity implies that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ac}}`$ is empty . Thus, to establish the desired picture, we have to show that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has Lebesgue measure zero and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{pp}}(H)`$ is often/always empty.

We first turn to the zero-measure property. It is a result of Lenz that linear recurrence provides a sufficient condition:

###### Theorem 6.1 (Lenz ).

If $`X`$ is a linearly recurrent subshift and $`X`$ and $`f`$ are such that the resulting potentials $`V_x`$ are aperiodic, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has Lebesgue measure zero.

Combining this with our Theorem 3.1, we immediately obtain the following (the Cantor set properties follow from the zero-measure property by general principles):

###### Corollary 6.2.

If every letter $`a𝒜_k`$ occurs in $`(i_n)`$ with bounded gaps, then $`\sigma (H_x)`$ is a Cantor set of zero Lebesgue measure for every $`xX`$.

Let us now discuss the absence of point spectrum. Both palindromes and powers allow one to prove this property. The palindrome criterion is easy to verify, but it has the slight disadvantage that it only gives generic absence of eigenvalues:

###### Theorem 6.3 (Hof et al. ).

If $`X`$ is a minimal subshift and its palindrome complexity function obeys $`lim\; sup_n\mathrm{}p(n)>0`$, then for a dense $`G_\delta `$-set of $`xX`$, we have $`\sigma _{\mathrm{pp}}(H_x)=\mathrm{}`$.

We immediately deduce from this and Theorem 5.1:

###### Corollary 6.4.

For a dense $`G_\delta `$-set of $`xX`$, we have $`\sigma _{\mathrm{pp}}(H_x)=\mathrm{}`$.

On the other hand, the criterion for empty point spectrum which is based on powers is slightly more complicated to state, requires more effort to be verified, but yields a stronger conclusion. Define the set $`X_n`$ of elements of $`X`$, which have cubes of length $`3n`$, suitably centered around the origin, by

$$X_n=\{xX:x_{n+j}=x_j=x_{n+j},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}jn\}.$$

Then we have the following result (the proof is based on a Gordon-type argument ; see, e.g., ):

###### Theorem 6.5.

Suppose $`lim\; sup_n\mathrm{}\nu (X_n)>0`$. Then, for $`\nu `$-almost every $`xX`$, we have $`\sigma _{\mathrm{pp}}(H_x)=\mathrm{}`$.

We can use this theorem and our Corollary 4.8 to show:

###### Corollary 6.6.

If the index sequence $`(i_n)`$ contains infinitely many $`2`$-runs, we have $`\sigma _{\mathrm{pp}}(H_x)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`\nu `$-almost every $`xX`$.

###### Proof.

Corollary 4.8 shows that if the index sequence $`(i_n)`$ contains infinitely many $`2`$-runs, then $`F_X`$ contains arbitrarily long fourth powers. That is, there are $`u_n𝒜_k^{}`$ with $`|u_n|\mathrm{}`$ and $`u_n^4F_X`$. Since $`X`$ is aperiodic, either $`u_n^4`$ is right-special or one of its conjugates is right-special. Thus, we can assume without loss of generality that $`u_n^4`$ is right-special. It was shown in \[36, Lemma 2.2\] that among all factors of length $`4|u_n|`$, the right-special factor has the largest frequency. Since there are $`4(k1)|u_n|+1`$ words of length $`4|u_n|`$ whose frequencies add up to one, we infer that

$$d(u_n^4)\frac{1}{4(k1)|u_n|+1}.$$

This yields, using (1),

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\nu (X_n)\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\nu \left(X_{|u_n|}\right)\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{|u_n|}{4(k1)|u_n|+1}=\frac{1}{4(k1)}>0.$$

Thus, the assertion follows from Theorem 6.5. ∎

Corollary 6.6 does not cover the prominent case of the Tribonacci subshift $`X_{\mathrm{Trib}}`$, which is defined over three symbols and corresponds to the index sequence

$$(i_n)=1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,\mathrm{}.$$

We shall nevertheless show that the conclusion of Corollary 6.6 holds for this case. By Theorem 2.2, the characteristic sequence $`C=(c_n)`$ is given by

$$C=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\tau _1\tau _2\tau _3\right)^n(1).$$

The substitution $`S=\tau _1\tau _2\tau _3`$ on $`𝒜_3`$ is given by

$$S(1)=1213121,S(2)=121312,S(3)=1213.$$

Note that $`S`$ is primitive (i.e., there is $`l`$, namely $`l=1`$, such that for every $`a𝒜_3`$, $`S^l(a)`$ contains all symbols from $`𝒜_3`$). Recall that a fractional power $`w^q`$ is a word $`w^pw^{}`$ with $`p`$, $`w^{}`$ a prefix of $`w`$, and $`q=p+|w^{}|/|w|`$. We have the following result for subshifts generated by primitive substitutions:

###### Theorem 6.7 (Damanik ).

Suppose the subshift $`X`$ is generated by a primitive substitution $`S`$ and $`F_X`$ contains a fractional power $`w^q`$ with $`q>3`$. Then we have $`\sigma _{\mathrm{pp}}(H_x)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`\nu `$-almost every $`xX`$.

This allows us to prove the following:

###### Corollary 6.8.

For the Tribonacci subshift $`X_{\mathrm{Trib}}`$, we have $`\sigma _{\mathrm{pp}}(H_x)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`\nu `$-almost every $`xX_{\mathrm{Trib}}`$.

###### Proof.

As we have seen above, $`C`$ is the unique fixed point of $`S`$ in $`𝒜_3^{}`$ and we have

$$F_{X_{\mathrm{Trib}}}=\underset{n}{}F_{S^n(1)}.$$

Thus it suffices to find some $`S^n(1)`$ which contains $`w^q`$ with $`q>3`$. The claim then follows from Theorem 6.7. First, $`S^2(1)`$ contains the word $`1121`$. Thus, $`S^3(1)`$ contains the word

$$\mathrm{1213121\hspace{0.17em}1213121\hspace{0.17em}121312\hspace{0.17em}1213121}=(1213121)^32\mathrm{},$$

and hence $`S^4(1)`$ contains

$$(\mathrm{1213121\hspace{0.17em}121312\hspace{0.17em}1213121\hspace{0.17em}1213\hspace{0.17em}1213121\hspace{0.17em}121312\hspace{0.17em}1213121})^3121312\mathrm{},$$

which yields a fractional power $`w^q`$ with $`q=3+3/22>3`$. ∎


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

After the precise confirmation of the standard model of the elementary particles by the LEP, SLD, and Tevatron, main purpose of the high energy colliders are now shifting to discoveries and studies of new physics beyond the standard model. In particular, the Tevatron Run II and LHC experiments are expected to give us strong hints for studying the physics behind the electroweak symmetry breaking . As well as these hadron colliders, however, $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders are an alternative possibility to study the physics at the electroweak scale. Indeed, $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders are considered as serious candidates of the new program of experiments which pursue the energy frontier of the high energy physics .

Compared to the hadron colliders, $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders may provide cleaner environments to study productions and decays of various particles with less background, which enables us to perform precision measurements of the particle properties. In addition, polarized $`e^{}`$ beam will be available at $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders which will be useful to study the properties of the new particles. Thus, $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider will play a complementary role in studying the physics beyond the standard model even if some signals of the new physics are discovered at the Tevatron Run II and/or the LHC before the start of $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider experiments. Therefore, it is important to understand what kind of information will be available from $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders.

Among various possibilities, supersymmetry (SUSY) is one of the most attractive candidates of the new physics and hence it is significant to understand what can be studied at $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders about SUSY models. The study is, however, not straightforward since there are many parameters in the model and the collider phenomenology crucially depends on these parameters. In the simplest set up, capabilities of $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders have been well studied . Most of the studies have, however, assumed some simple mass spectra of the superparticles. For a more complete understanding of the potential of $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders, it is important to study various cases.

One of the possibilities is the case with a light stop (top squark). For the stops, due to the large top Yukawa coupling constant, effects of the left-right mixing in the mass matrix are expected to be large and one of the stops can become light. Thus, a light stop is easily realized in wide parameter space and hence it is important to consider what can be done with future high energy colliders. Since the stops affect the potential of the Higgs bosons through radiative corrections , stop study will provide useful information to understand the physics of the electroweak symmetry breaking. There has been several works on the stop productions and decays at future colliders. At $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders, the determination of the mass and mixing of the stop from the stop-production cross section has been discussed in detail in Ref.  for a 180 GeV light stop by using the $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1\chi _1^0c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1\chi ^+b`$ modes. For the case of the LHC, it has been discussed that the end-point analysis of gluino decay processes is useful to understand properties of the stop .

In this paper, we consider the case where the lightest stop $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ is kinematically accessible at $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders, while it is still heavy enough to be able to decay into top quark and the lightest neutralino $`\chi _1^0`$. In particular, we consider the pair production of the lightest stops and the decay of $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ via $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1t\chi _1^0`$ followed by $`tbW`$, and discuss what can be studied. It will be shown that the stop mass and left-right mixing can be measured from the study of the production cross section with polarized beam. Also, the neutralino properties can be extracted by the analysis of the stop decay. The mass of the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) is determined from the end-point of the decay product of $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$. In addition, information on the neutralino mixing is obtained from the angular distribution of the $`b`$-jet. Similar analysis using the measurements of the polarization of $`\tau `$ from stau decays is proposed in Ref. . The angular distribution of the $`b`$-jet carries information on the top-quark helicity. This fact enables us to extract neutralino mixing since the helicity of the top quark from the stop decay is related to the left-right stop mixing and the neutralino mixing effects, i.e., the gauginos (superpartner of gauge boson) couple left- and right-handed stops to left- and right-handed top quark, respectively, while the stop and top quark have opposite helicities at the Higgsino (superpartner of Higgs boson) vertices. It is also discussed that, for gaugino-like LSP, because of the large top Yukawa coupling constant, the angular distribution of the $`b`$-jet may depend on so-called $`\mu `$-parameter and hence our analysis provides some knowledge on $`\mu `$.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we briefly introduce the stop sector and the neutralino sector, presenting the mass and the mixing matrices. In Sec. 3, we illustrate how to determine the lightest-stop mass and mixing angle through the stop pair production with polarized electron beam. In Sec. 4, we discuss in detail the decay mode $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1t\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, followed by $`tbW`$. The LSP mass can be obtained via the end-point of the energy distribution of the top quark. Sec. 5 is focusing on the angular distribution of the $`b`$-jet from the top decay, based on which we could obtain information on the neutralino mixing. We study three different neutralino LSP cases in Sec. 6, and show whether constrains on $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can be extracted. Sec. 7 is devoted to conclusions.

## 2 Top squark and neutralino sectors

In the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), there are two stops: $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$, which are the superpartners of the left- and right-handed top quarks, respectively. After the electroweak symmetry breaking, these stops mix and become mass eigenstates. Mass matrix of the stops in the basis of $`(\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$ is given by

$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}L}^2+m_t^2+D_L& y_t\mu H_1A_tH_2\\ y_t\mu H_1A_tH_2& m_{\stackrel{~}{t}R}^2+m_t^2+D_R\end{array}\right),`$ (3)
where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}L}^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}R}^2`$ are the soft SUSY breaking mass parameters for the left- and right-handed stops, respectively, $`y_t`$ is the top Yukawa coupling constant, $`m_t`$ the top quark mass, $`\mu `$ the SUSY invariant Higgs mass, and $`A_t`$ the tri-linear coupling constant of stop. For simplicity, we assume that all the SUSY parameters are real in our analysis. In addition, $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are down- and up-type Higgs bosons, respectively, and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the vacuum expectation value. The $`D`$-term contributions $`D_L`$ and $`D_R`$ are given by

$`D_L=\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2}{12}}\right)\left(H_1^2H_2^2\right),D_R={\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2}{3}}\left(H_1^2H_2^2\right),`$ (4)
where $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are the gauge coupling constants of the U(1)Y and SU(2)L gauge interactions, respectively.

The stop mass matrix $`_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2`$ can be diagonalized by the unitary matrix $`U_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ to give mass eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2`$:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\\ \stackrel{~}{t}_2\end{array}\right)=U_{\stackrel{~}{t}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{t}_L\\ \stackrel{~}{t}_R\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}& \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{t}_L\\ \stackrel{~}{t}_R\end{array}\right),`$ (13)
with mass eigenvalues $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2`$. $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ is the mixing angle that parametrizes the left-right stop mixing. (We define $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}<m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ and $`\frac{\pi }{2}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}\frac{\pi }{2}`$.) With this definition, the lightest stop becomes purely left-handed if $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=0`$ and right-handed if $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ and $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$. The left-right mixing in the stop sector could be sizable due to the large top Yukawa coupling constant. Consequently, the mass of the lightest stop $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ could be so small that pair production of $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{}`$ is kinematically allowed at $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders.

For the neutralino sector, Bino $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, neutral Wino $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$, neutral down-type Higgsino $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1`$, and neutral up-type Higgsino $`\stackrel{~}{H}_2`$ are mixed together to form mass eigenstates. Mass matrix of the neutralinos in the basis of $`(\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{W},\stackrel{~}{H}_1,\stackrel{~}{H}_2)`$ is given by

$`_{\chi ^0}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_1H_1& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_1H_2\\ 0& M_2& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_2H_1& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_2H_2\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_1H_1& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_2H_1& 0& \mu \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_1H_2& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_2H_2& \mu & 0\end{array}\right),`$ (18)
where $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are the U(1)Y and SU(2)L gaugino masses, respectively. The mass matrix $`_{\chi ^0}`$ can be diagonalized by a unitary matrix $`U_{\chi ^0}`$, such that

$$_{\chi ^0}^{\mathrm{diag}}=U_{\chi ^0}_{\chi ^0}U_{\chi ^0}^T.$$
(19)
The mass eigenstate of neutralino $`\chi _i^0`$ is thus given by

$`\chi _i^0=[U_{\chi ^0}]_{i\stackrel{~}{B}}^{}\stackrel{~}{B}+[U_{\chi ^0}]_{i\stackrel{~}{W}}^{}\stackrel{~}{W}+[U_{\chi ^0}]_{i\stackrel{~}{H}_1}^{}\stackrel{~}{H}_1+[U_{\chi ^0}]_{i\stackrel{~}{H}_2}^{}\stackrel{~}{H}_2,`$ (20)
with $`\chi _1^0`$ being the lightest neutralino (i.e., the LSP in our analysis). The neutralino mass eigenvalues $`m_{\chi _i^0}`$ and mixing matrix $`U_{\chi ^0}`$ are determined by four parameters $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Considering the case where $`H_1,H_1|M_1|,|M_2|,|\mu |`$, the neutralino mass eigenstates are nearly $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$, $`(\stackrel{~}{H}_1\pm \stackrel{~}{H}_2)/\sqrt{2}`$, with mass eigenvalues $``$ $`|M_1|`$, $`|M_2|`$ and $`|\mu |`$. Depending on the relative magnitude of $`|M_1|`$, $`|M_2|`$ and $`|\mu |`$, we would have Bino-like, Wino-like or Higgsino-like lightest neutralino as the LSP.

As one can see, the mass matrices of the stops and the neutralinos depend on various SUSY parameters. Thus the mass spectrum of the superparticles is really model dependent. In this paper, to make our points clear, we assume that the lightest stop $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ is accessible at $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders but the heavier one $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2`$ is not.#1#1#1When $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}<E_{\mathrm{cm}}`$, the associate production $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_2^{}`$ would give us information on the heavy stop. However, we will not discuss such case in this paper.

## 3 Stop pair production

Let us first consider the pair production process of the lightest stop. Importantly, it is expected that the electron beam can be polarized at future $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders, which is extremely useful for the study of the stops . The production cross section with the left-polarized electron beam is given by

$`\sigma (e^+e_L^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi s}}\left(Q_eQ_t+g_Z^{e_L}g_Z^{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{sm_Z^2}}\right)^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}{s}}\right)^{3/2},`$ (21)
where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the center of mass energy of the linear collider. Similar formula for $`\sigma (e^+e_R^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{})`$ is obtained by replacing $`LR`$. The charges and couplings in Eq. (21) are given by

$`Q_e=e,g_Z^{e_L}={\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2+g_1^2}{2g_Z}},g_Z^{e_R}={\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2}{g_Z}},`$ (22)
and

$`Q_t={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e,g_Z^{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_Z}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}g_1^2\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{2g_1^2}{3g_Z}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}},`$ (23)
where $`g_Z=\sqrt{g_2^2+g_1^2}`$, $`e=g_1g_2/g_Z`$, and $`m_Z`$ is the $`Z`$-boson mass.

Diagrams with photon-exchange and $`Z`$-exchange both contribute to the production cross section, which interfere either constructively or destructively depending on the polarization of the electron beam and the stop mixing angle.

In Fig. 1, we plot the contours of constant $`\sigma (e^+e_L^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{})`$ and $`\sigma (e^+e_R^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{})`$ on the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ vs. $`|\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}|`$ plane. (Here and hereafter, we take $`\sqrt{s}=1\mathrm{TeV}`$.) The cross sections are sensitive to both the mass and mixing of the stop, as expected. The behaviors of the cross sections can be understood in the following way. With left-polarized electron beam, photon and $`Z`$-exchange diagrams interfere constructively when the lightest stop is almost left-handed (i.e., when $`|\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}|`$ is small), and destructively when the lightest stop is almost right-handed. Such effect is shown in the left plot of Fig. 1; the cross section decreases as $`|\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}|`$ increases. With right-polarized beam, the interference term flips sign. Therefore, the cross section increases as $`|\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}|`$ increases, which is shown in the right plot of Fig. 1.

Most importantly, both $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ and $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ can be determined simultaneously using the cross-section measurement with polarized beam  since dependences of $`\sigma (e^+e_L^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{})`$ and $`\sigma (e^+e_R^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{})`$ on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ and $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ are significantly different. (See Fig. 1.)

In the following analysis, we use the averaged cross section in estimating the number of events:

$`\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\sigma (e^+e_L^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{})+\sigma (e^+e_R^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{})\right].`$ (24)
## 4 Stop decay

Given that we have known the value of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ and $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ from the measurements of the stop production cross sections, we now study whether the stop decay renders additional information on the stop and neutralino sectors. In our analysis, we use the decay mode $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1t\chi _1^0`$ followed by $`tbW`$. Reconstruction of the top quark events provides us energy distribution of the top quark and angular distribution of the $`b`$-jet. The former may be used to obtain the mass of the LSP. In addition, the latter is sensitive to helicity of the top quark which depends on the LSP properties. Therefore, the angular distribution of the $`b`$-jet can be used to extract informations on the LSP.

Classifying the decay modes of the $`W`$-boson, the possible final states of the $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{}`$ production process are:

* $`2b`$ \+ $`4q`$ \+ missing momentum (48 %),
* $`2b`$ \+ $`2q`$ \+ $`1l`$ \+ missing momentum (43 %),
* $`2b`$ \+ $`2l`$ \+ missing momentum (9 %),

where $`b`$ and $`q`$ are hadronic jets with and without a $`b`$-tag, respectively, and $`l`$ is the charged lepton.#2#2#2We assume that we can identify the $`\tau `$ event even if $`\tau `$ decays into hadrons since the multiplicity of the hadronic decay product from $`\tau `$ is very small. Thus, we treat the $`\tau `$ lepton as other charged leptons. With the vertex detector, we expect that the $`b`$-jet will be distinguished from other hadronic activities with high efficiency. In order to carry out the analysis of the stop decay, at least one of the $`W`$-boson should decay hadronically so that the top quark can be reconstructed. Thus, the events with final states (a) and (b) are used for the following analysis.

We assume that there is no SUSY background, and we expect the standard-model backgrounds from the following processes :#3#3#3The process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$, followed by the decays $`tbW`$, $`W^\pm l\overline{\nu }`$, and $`W^{}\mathrm{hadrons}`$, has the same final state as the signal event. In this process, however, the energy of the top quark is $`\sqrt{s}/2`$. In addition, the invariant mass constructed from the missing energy and momentum vanishes. Thus, we assume that this background can be eliminated by imposing cuts on these variables.

* $`t\overline{t}Z`$ followed by $`Z\nu \overline{\nu }`$ ($`1\mathrm{fb}`$)
* $`t\overline{t}\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e`$ ($`0.5\mathrm{fb}`$)
* $`ZW^\pm W^{}`$ followed by $`Zb\overline{b}`$, $`W^\pm l\overline{\nu }`$, and $`W^{}\mathrm{hadrons}`$ ($`3\mathrm{fb}`$)
* $`e^\pm \nu _e(\overline{\nu }_e)W^{}Z`$ followed by $`Zb\overline{b}`$, and $`W\mathrm{hadrons}`$ ($`11\mathrm{fb}`$)

We assume that the backgrounds (iii) and (iv) can be eliminated by imposing relevant cut since the invariant mass of two $`b`$-jets is equal to $`m_Z`$. On the contrary, the processes (i) and (ii) provide irreducible backgrounds. These are, however, standard-model processes and hence their cross sections are calculable. Therefore, we can subtract the number of backgrounds from the number of signal candidates in the measurements of the cross sections. In addition, the cross sections for these processes are order-of-magnitude smaller than the signal cross section. Thus, as we will see later, effects of these backgrounds are insignificant.

In a stop pair production event, if all the lightest stop decays into $`t`$ and $`\chi _1^0`$, the averaged number of stops available for the analysis (process (a) and (b)) is

$`ϵ=2ϵ_b^2Br(W\mathrm{had}.),`$ (25)
where $`ϵ_b`$ is the efficiency of the $`b`$-tagging and $`Br(W\mathrm{had}.)0.69`$ is the hadronic branching ratio of the $`W`$-boson. With $`ϵ_b=60\%`$ , we use $`ϵ0.50`$. Notice that if additional stop decay modes are available, for example, $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\chi _1^\pm `$ in Wino-LSP and Higgsino-LSP case, $`ϵ`$ should be multiplied by an additional factor of $`Br(\stackrel{~}{t}_1t\chi _1^0)`$.#4#4#4In certain cases, the additional decay modes of the lightest stop result in the same final state as the signal and become SUSY background. Analysis in such a situation is beyond the scope of the current study. In this case, measurement of the branching ratio of $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ provides additional information on the neutralino/chargino sector.

Once the top quark from the decay of $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ is reconstructed, the mass of the LSP can be determined by measuring the energy distribution of the top quark. Indeed, the maximum and minimum energy of the top quark in the lab frame, $`E_t^{(\mathrm{max})}`$ and $`E_t^{(\mathrm{min})}`$, respectively, are given by

$`E_t^{(\mathrm{max})}={\displaystyle \frac{E_t^{}+p_t^{}\beta _{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}}{\sqrt{1\beta _{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}}},E_t^{(\mathrm{min})}={\displaystyle \frac{E_t^{}p_t^{}\beta _{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}}{\sqrt{1\beta _{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}}},`$ (26)
where

$`E_t^{}={\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_{\chi _1^0}^2+m_t^2}{2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}}},p_t^{}=\sqrt{(E_t^{})^2m_t^2},`$ (27)
and $`\beta _{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=(14m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2/s)^{1/2}`$. By measuring these end-points, we obtain information about the mass of the LSP (as well as that about the stop mass) . At this stage, the parameters $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, and $`m_{\chi _1^0}`$ are determined from the stop production cross sections and stop decay kinematics. In the following analysis, we assume that these three parameters are well understood.

## 5 Angular distribution of $`b`$-jet

Stop couples to the gauginos and to up-type Higgsino through the gauge and Yukawa interactions, respectively. One striking difference between the couplings to the gauginos and that to the Higgsino is that the left-handed (right-handed) stop couples only to left-handed (right-handed) top quark via gaugino interactions, while the helicity is flipped via the Higgsino interaction. Therefore, information about the stop and the LSP is imprinted in the helicity of the top quark and hence the measurement of the helicity of the top quark provides some knowledge of these particles. This point becomes clearer by looking at the top-stop-neutralino vertex. The coupling of the lightest stop $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ with the top and the lightest neutralino is given by

$`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{}\overline{\chi }_1^0(f_LP_L+f_RP_R)t+\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{t}(f_L^{}P_R+f_R^{}P_L)\chi _1^0,`$ (28)
where $`P_{L/R}=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _5)`$, respectively, and

$`f_L`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}g_2[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{W}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}}g_1[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{B}}\right]\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}y_t[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{H}_2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}},`$ (29)
$`f_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}g_1[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{B}}^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}y_t[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{H}_2}^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}.`$ (30)
Thus, for the case where the lightest stop is $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$, for example, the top quark becomes left-handed if $`\chi _1^0`$ is gaugino-like while it becomes right-handed if $`\chi _1^0`$ is Higgsino-like.

In order to measure the helicity of the top quark, it is efficient to study the angular distribution of decay products from the top, like the $`b`$-quark . The angular distribution of $`b`$-jet from the decay of a top quark with certain helicity can be obtained via direct computation, or by using the spin vector method. Here we use the latter. With Eq. (28), the spin vector $`S^\mu `$ for the top quark in the decay process $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1t\chi _1^0`$ is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N(\overline{)P}_t+m_t)(1+\overline{)S}\gamma _5)`$
$`(\overline{)P}_t+m_t)(f_L^{}P_R+f_R^{}P_L)(\overline{)P}_\chi m_{\chi _1^0})(f_LP_L+f_RP_R)(\overline{)P}_t+m_t),`$ (31)
with $`P_t`$ and $`P_\chi `$ being four-momenta of the top quark and the LSP, respectively. Then,

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_t^2m_{\chi _1^0}^2)(|f_L|^2+|f_R|^2)4m_tm_{\chi _1^0}\mathrm{Re}(f_L^{}f_R),`$ (32)
$`NS^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_t}}\left[2m_t^2P_\chi ^\mu (m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_t^2m_{\chi _1^0}^2)P_t^\mu \right](|f_L|^2|f_R|^2).`$ (33)
For the process $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1t\chi _1^0`$ followed by $`tbW`$, the angular distribution of the $`b`$-jet in the rest frame of the top quark is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{t}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{t}}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+A_b\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}),`$ (34)
where $`\theta _{tb}`$ is the angle between top and bottom quark jets in the rest frame of the top quark,#5#5#5 The opening angle $`\theta _{tb}`$ in the rest frame of the top quark is given by the relation $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}=(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}^{}\beta )/(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}^{})`$, where $`\theta _{tb}^{}`$ and $`\beta `$ are the opening angle and the velocity of the top quark in the lab-frame, respectively. Alternatively, we can obtain the angle by the energies of the top and the bottom quarks in the lab-frame by $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}=(E_b/E_b^{\mathrm{rest}}\gamma )/\gamma \beta `$, where $`E_b`$ and $`E_b^{\mathrm{rest}}`$ are the bottom energy in the lab-frame and in the rest frame of the top quark, respectively, and $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1\beta ^2}`$.  and the coefficient $`A_b`$ is related to the spin vector $`S^\mu `$ via

$`A_b={\displaystyle \frac{m_t^22m_W^2}{m_t^2+2m_W^2}}\widehat{S}_t,`$ (35)
with

$`\widehat{S}_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_t|𝐏_\chi |}{N}}(|f_L|^2|f_R|^2)`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2(m_tm_{\chi _1^0})^2]^{1/2}[m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2(m_t+m_{\chi _1^0})^2]^{1/2}}{(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_t^2m_{\chi _1^0}^2)(|f_L|^2+|f_R|^2)4m_tm_{\chi _1^0}\mathrm{Re}(f_L^{}f_R)}}(|f_L|^2|f_R|^2).`$
Here $`𝐏_\chi `$ is the three-momentum of the LSP in the rest frame of the top quark and $`\widehat{S}_t^2=S^\mu S^\mu `$. Notice that $`A_b`$ depends only on $`f_L/f_R`$ and there is a two-fold degeneracy.

We can also obtain the angular distribution of the $`s`$-jets assuming that the $`W`$-boson decays into $`c`$ and $`s`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{t}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{t}}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ts}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+A_s\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ts}),`$ (37)
with

$`A_s=\widehat{S}_t.`$ (38)
In this case, there is no suppression factor which appears in Eq.(35). However, it is difficult to directly identify the $`s`$-jet, although one possibility may be to tag the $`c`$-jet as well as $`b`$-jet. Thus, we believe it is challenging to measure $`A_s`$ and, in the following, we concentrate on the analysis of $`A_b`$.

Given the fact that it is difficult to measure the total decay width of $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$, the only information is given in the form of the angular distribution of the bottom quark from the decay chain of $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$. Even so, the ratio $`f_L/f_R`$ can be, in principle, determined and hence we obtain the information about the properties of the stop and the LSP. Indeed, the $`A_b`$-parameter has strong dependence on the ratio $`f_L/f_R`$. In Fig. 2, we plot $`A_b`$ as a function of $`f_L/f_R`$ for several values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ and $`m_{\chi _1^0}`$. Here, we define the angle $`\theta _{L/R}`$ as

$`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{L/R}=f_L/f_R.`$ (39)
$`A_b`$ is asymmetric with respect to the sign of $`\theta _{L/R}`$ because of the $`\mathrm{Re}(f_L^{}f_R)`$ term in the denominator of Eq. (36). As one can see, $`A_b`$ changes from about $`0.4`$ to $`0.4`$ as $`\theta _{L/R}`$ varies; the steepest dependence on $`\theta _{L/R}`$ occurs around $`\theta _{L/R}\pi /4`$ (i.e., $`f_L/f_R1`$). Thus, measurement of the $`A_b`$-parameter provides constraint on the ratio $`f_L/f_R`$ although, unfortunately, the two-fold ambiguity always remains.

In order to discuss the statistical uncertainties in the measurement of $`A_b`$, we express $`A_b`$ in terms of numbers of signal events $`N_\mathrm{S}^\pm `$, where the superscripts “$`+`$” and “$``$” are for the events with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}>0`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}<0`$, respectively: $`N_\mathrm{S}^\pm 1/2\pm A_b/4`$. Similarly, we define number of the background events as $`N_\mathrm{B}^\pm `$. With these variables, total number of events are given by $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}^\pm =N_\mathrm{S}^\pm +N_\mathrm{B}^\pm `$, and the $`A_b`$-parameter is expressed as

$`A_b={\displaystyle \frac{2(N_\mathrm{S}^+N_\mathrm{S}^{})}{N_\mathrm{S}^++N_\mathrm{S}^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2(N_{\mathrm{tot}}^+N_{\mathrm{tot}}^{})2(N_\mathrm{B}^+N_\mathrm{B}^{})}{N_{\mathrm{tot}}N_\mathrm{B}}},`$ (40)
where $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}=N_{\mathrm{tot}}^++N_{\mathrm{tot}}^{}`$ and $`N_\mathrm{B}=N_\mathrm{B}^++N_\mathrm{B}^{}`$. Notice that $`N_\mathrm{B}^\pm `$ are calculable quantities. Then, the statistical uncertainty in the measurement of $`A_b`$ is estimated to be

$`(\delta A_b)^2={\displaystyle \frac{16[N_{\mathrm{tot}}^+(N_{\mathrm{tot}}^{}N_\mathrm{B}^{})^2+N_{\mathrm{tot}}^{}(N_{\mathrm{tot}}^+N_\mathrm{B}^+)^2]}{(N_{\mathrm{tot}}N_\mathrm{B})^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{N_{\mathrm{tot}}}},`$ (41)
where, in the second equality, we use the relations $`N_\mathrm{B}N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ and $`A_b^21`$. Without these simplifications, $`(\delta A_b)^2`$ increases about 10 %.#6#6#6 The error from the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}`$ can be safely neglected. To discuss this issue, it is convenient to use the fact that $`A_b`$ is experimentally determined by using the following formula instead of Eq. (40):    $`A_b={\displaystyle \frac{3}{N_S}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb,i},`$   where the sum is over the signal events and $`\theta _{tb,i}`$ is $`\theta _{tb}`$ for $`i`$-th event. $`N_S`$ is the numbers of the signal events. Then, the error in $`A_b`$ associated with the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}`$ is estimated as    $`(\delta A_b)^2={\displaystyle \frac{9}{N_S}}(\delta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb})^2,`$   where $`\delta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}`$ is the error in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}`$. (Here, we neglect backgrounds to discuss effects of $`\delta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}`$.) $`\delta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}`$ is estimated using the following formula:    $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}={\displaystyle \frac{(E_b/E_b^{\mathrm{rest}})(E_t/m_t)}{\sqrt{(E_t/m_t)^21}}},`$   where $`E_b`$ and $`E_t`$ are energies of the bottom and top quarks in the laboratory frame, respectively, and $`E_b^{\mathrm{rest}}`$ is the bottom-quark energy in the rest frame of the top quark. Imposing relevant kinematical constraints, $`E_b`$ and $`E_WE_tE_b`$ are determined at the linear collider with uncertainties of about 5 GeV and 3 GeV, respectively . With such uncertainties, $`\delta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}`$ is estimated to be at most 0.15. Thus, the error in $`A_b`$ induced from $`\delta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tb}`$ is much smaller than the statistical error.

Constraints on the $`A_b`$-parameter can be translated to the bound on the ratio $`f_L/f_R`$. In order to estimate the expected bound on $`f_L/f_R`$ for a certain underlying value of $`f_L/f_R`$, we first fix the masses ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ and $`m_{\chi _1^0}`$) and the stop mixing angle $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$. Then, we determine $`A_b`$ with Eqs. (35) and (36) by inputting the underlying value of $`f_L/f_R`$. Simultaneously, with neglecting the backgrounds, we calculate the total number of events $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}=ϵL\sigma `$ for a given integrated luminosity $`L`$ and estimate the uncertainty of $`A_b`$ using Eq. (41). Then, to put the bound, we postulate the hypothetical value of $`f_L/f_R`$ and calculate $`A_b`$, and determine if such a value is within the experimental bound on $`A_b`$.

In Fig. 3, we plot the expected upper and lower bounds on $`\theta _{L/R}`$ as a function of the input value of $`\theta _{L/R}`$. Here, we take $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=350\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\pi /4`$, $`m_{\chi _1^0}=100\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`L=100\mathrm{fb}^1`$ (left plot) and $`L=1000\mathrm{fb}^1`$ (right plot). With these parameters, the total number of events is given by $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}650`$ ($`L=100\mathrm{fb}^1`$) and 6500 ($`L=1000\mathrm{fb}^1`$), which give $`\delta A_b0.08`$ and 0.02, respectively.

For one $`\theta _{L/R}^{\mathrm{input}}`$, there are two possible regions of $`\theta _{L/R}^{\mathrm{output}}`$, due to the two-fold ambiguities that we mentioned earlier. For $`\theta _{L/R}^{\mathrm{input}}`$ close to 0 and $`\pi /2`$, which corresponds to the region where $`A_b`$ is at its minimum or maximum, two regions merge. In the case of $`\theta _{L/R}>0`$, higher precision is obtained compared to the case of $`\theta _{L/R}<0`$ since the $`A_b`$ dependence on $`\theta _{L/R}`$ becomes steeper when $`\theta _{L/R}`$ is positive. With $`L=100\mathrm{fb}^1`$, the uncertainty of $`\theta _{L/R}/\pi `$ can be as small as 0.05 (0.1) at 1-$`\sigma `$ (2-$`\sigma `$) although the two-fold ambiguity exists.

## 6 $`\mu `$-parameter

Since the parameters $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, and $`m_{\chi _1^0}`$ are determined without information about $`A_b`$, the measurement of $`\theta _{L/R}`$, which depends on the neutralino mixing matrix $`U_{\chi ^0}`$, can be used to study the neutralino sector. However, information we could obtain depends on what the lightest neutralino is. So, we consider the three typical cases: Bino-like LSP, Wino-like LSP, and Higgsino-like LSP cases. To make our point clear, we assume that the lightest stop can decay only into one of the Bino-like, Wino-like, or Higgsino-like particles (including chargino). Such a situation is realized when there is some hierarchy among the parameters $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, and $`\mu `$.

### 6.1 Bino-like LSP

Even if the LSP is “Bino-like,” there can be sizable contaminations of the Higgsino components in the LSP which affect the $`f_L`$\- and $`f_R`$-parameters. It is instructive to consider the case $`H_1,H_2|M_1|,|M_2|,|\mu |`$ in order to study effects of the Higgsino components. In this case, the mixing matrix elements are approximately given by $`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{B}}1`$, $`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{W}}0`$,

$`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{H}_1}{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z\mathrm{sin}\theta _W(M_1\mathrm{cos}\beta +\mu \mathrm{sin}\beta )}{\mu ^2M_1^2}},`$ (42)
and

$`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{H}_2}{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z\mathrm{sin}\theta _W(M_1\mathrm{sin}\beta +\mu \mathrm{cos}\beta )}{\mu ^2M_1^2}},`$ (43)
where $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$ is the weak mixing angle and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is the ratio of the two vacuum expectation values of the Higgs fields, i.e., $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =H_2/H_1`$. Thus, even if $`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ is close to 1, $`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{H}_2}O(0.1)`$ is possible in a large parameter space. In addition, it is important to note that $`y_t`$ is large and hence the Higgsino contributions to the coupling constants $`f_L`$ and $`f_R`$ are enhanced. Since $`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{H}_2}`$ has strong dependence on $`\mu `$, the $`\mu `$-parameter may be constrained from the measurement of $`A_b`$. $`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{H}_2}`$ also depends on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is small. On the contrary, when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large, the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence becomes weak.

In Fig. 4, we plot $`A_b`$ as a function of $`\mu `$ for several values of $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$. As expected, $`A_b`$ varies depending on the value of $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$. More interestingly, when $`0.5\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}0`$, $`\mu `$ dependence of $`A_b`$ becomes sizable. This behavior can be understood as follows. As seen in Fig. 2, $`A_b`$ becomes sensitive to $`f_L/f_R`$ when $`f_L/f_R1`$. In the limit $`|[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{H}_2}|1`$, this relation is realized when $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\frac{1}{4}`$ for the Bino-like LSP case. Thus, when $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}\frac{1}{4}`$, $`A_b`$ becomes the most sensitive to $`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{H}_2}`$ and hence $`A_b`$ acquires a strong dependence on $`\mu `$. Take the line of $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=0.5`$ as an example, for negative $`\mu `$ (left plot), $`A_b`$ reaches its asymptotic value when $`\mu 550`$ GeV, while for positive value of $`\mu `$ (right plot), $`A_b`$ remains sensitive to $`\mu `$ up to a larger value of $`\mu `$. This behavior can be understood using Eq. (43). With $`M_1>0`$ with $`|\mu |`$ fixed, $`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{H}_2}`$ is more enhanced when $`\mu >0`$. Thus, positive $`\mu `$ renders larger contamination of Higgsino component in $`\chi _1^0`$, which in turn makes $`\mu `$ dependence of $`A_b`$ stronger. Notice that the results with $`M_1<0`$ is obtained by the previous results with opposite sign of $`\mu `$.

In Fig. 5, we plot contours of constant $`A_b`$ on the $`\mu `$ vs. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ plane for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=400\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{\chi _1^0}=200\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=0.5`$. With this choice of parameters, $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}480`$ for $`L=100`$ fb-1 and hence we expect the experimental uncertainty of $`\delta A_b0.1`$. Thus, quite a severe constraint may be derived on the $`\mu `$ vs. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ plane. For negative $`\mu `$, regions up to $`500`$ GeV is sensitive to $`A_b`$ measurements at a linear collider. While for positive $`\mu `$, the $`\mu `$ dependence becomes stronger in much wider region. Especially for a fixed value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the $`\mu `$-parameter may be determined with an accuracy of $`\delta \mu 20\mathrm{GeV}`$.

### 6.2 Wino-like LSP

If the LSP is the Wino-like neutralino,#7#7#7For the Wino-like LSP, $`|M_2|<|M_1|`$ is required. This relation can be realized, for example, in the minimal anomaly-mediated model . a similar analysis is possible. Of course, in the Wino-like LSP case, the lightest chargino is almost degenerate with the LSP and hence the stop may also decay into the chargino and the bottom quark. The mass splitting between $`\chi _1^\pm `$ and $`\chi _1^0`$ is expected to be $`O(100\mathrm{MeV})`$ to a few GeV  and hence $`\chi _1^\pm `$ decays into $`\chi _1^0`$ and soft lepton(s) or (light) meson(s). Thus, it is possible to distinguish the stop event with $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1t\chi _1^0`$ and that with $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\chi _1^\pm `$. In addition, we calculated the branching ratio going into top and the LSP, and found that $`Br(\stackrel{~}{t}_1t\chi _1^0)`$ becomes $`O(0.1)`$ in a large parameter space. Thus, even if we cannot use all of the stop events, it is still possible to do the same analysis as before.

In Wino-like LSP scenario, the neutralino mixing matrix elements are approximately given by $`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{W}}1`$, $`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{B}}0`$,

$`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{H}_1}{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z\mathrm{cos}\theta _W(M_2\mathrm{cos}\beta +\mu \mathrm{sin}\beta )}{\mu ^2M_2^2}},`$ (44)
and

$`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{H}_2}{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z\mathrm{cos}\theta _W(M_2\mathrm{sin}\beta +\mu \mathrm{cos}\beta )}{\mu ^2M_2^2}}.`$ (45)
Similarly to the Bino-LSP case, contamination of the Higgsino component in the LSP also induces $`\mu `$ dependence of $`A_b`$. The ratio $`f_L/f_R`$ is now given by

$$\frac{f_L}{f_R}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{g_2}{y_t[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1H_2}}+\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}.$$
(46)
Since $`[U_{\chi ^0}]_{1\stackrel{~}{H}_2}`$ is usually small and negative (we have adopted the convention that $`M_2>0`$), the relation $`f_L/f_R1`$ requires a negative $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ with $`|\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}|1`$. This is shown in Fig. 6, where we plot $`A_b`$ as a function of $`\mu `$-parameter for the Wino-like LSP case. The parameters are chosen to be $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=400`$ GeV, $`m_{\chi _1^0}=200`$ GeV, and $`M_1=`$ 500 GeV. $`A_b`$ becomes sensitive to the $`\mu `$-parameter for $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}4`$. For smaller values of negative $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, the curve shifts to the right (left) for $`\mu >0`$ ($`\mu <0`$). Such a behavior can be explained by using Eq. (45); a larger value of $`|\mu |`$ is needed to compensate smaller value of (negative) $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$. The different behaviors for the positive and negative $`\mu `$ cases are due to the same reason as explained in the Bino-like LSP case. The dependence on $`M_1`$ is rather weak for large values of $`M_1`$.

In Fig. 7, we plot the contours of constant $`A_b`$ on the $`\mu `$ vs. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ plane for the Wino-like LSP case with $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=4`$. The constraint on $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ from the $`A_b`$ measurement is obtained in the same way as the Bino LSP case but the statistical error of $`A_b`$ depends on the branching ratio $`Br(\stackrel{~}{t}_1t\chi _1^0)`$ since $`\delta A_b1/\sqrt{Br(\stackrel{~}{t}_1t\chi _1^0)}`$. Although the number of events is reduced, we still have a possibility of constraining the values of $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as one can see in Fig. 7. Interestingly, very steep dependence on $`\mu `$ is realized in some parameter region, as shown in Fig. 7.

One should also note that we can use the branching ratio $`Br(\stackrel{~}{t}_1t\chi _1^0)`$ as another observable in the Wino LSP case. In Fig. 8, we plot the contours of $`Br(\stackrel{~}{t}_1t\chi _1^0)`$ on the $`\mu `$ vs. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ plane for $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=4`$. As one can see, $`Br(\stackrel{~}{t}_1t\chi _1^0)`$ has sizable dependence on $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, so that independent information on these parameters can be obtained.

### 6.3 Higgsino-like LSP

Finally we comment on the Higgsino-like LSP case. In this case, $`f_L`$ and $`f_R`$ are both dominated by the top-Yukawa contribution and hence the ratio $`f_L/f_R`$ becomes $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$. In this case, $`A_b`$ is insensitive to the gaugino masses and it is difficult to derive a constraint on $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$. In the Higgsino-like LSP case, however, mass splitting between $`\chi _1^0`$ and $`\chi _1^\pm `$ is typically $`10`$ GeV or larger  and hence direct studies of the chargino will be possible. In addition, the second lightest neutralino is also quite degenerate with $`\chi _1^0`$ and hence is likely to be kinematically accessible. Thus, in this case, rather than studying the production and the decay of $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$, one should better study the productions and decays of $`\chi _1^\pm `$ and $`\chi _2^0`$ to understand the properties of the neutralinos and charginos .

## 7 Conclusions

We have studied the lightest stop pair production and the stop decay mode of $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1t\chi _1^0`$, followed by $`tbW`$ at future $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders. From the naturalness point of view, stop should not be very heavy since it has a strong Yukawa interaction with the Higgs particle. Large top Yukawa coupling constant also makes one of the stop mass eigenstates light through left-right mixing in the stop mass matrix. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that linear colliders can produce the lightest stops in pair directly. If so, due to the large top Yukawa coupling constant, rich information on the model parameters is obtained by the analysis of the stop production and decay processes.

We discuss that information on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ and $`m_{\chi _1^0}`$ can be obtained through the measurement of the lightest stop pair production cross section using polarized electron beam and by studying the end-point energy of the top quark. We also show that the analysis of the angular distribution of the $`b`$-jets is useful to extract information on the neutralino sector such as neutralino mixing. We found a parameter region where it is possible to give a strong constraint on a combination of the $`\mu `$-parameter and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ assuming $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, and $`m_{\chi _1^0}`$ are known. Even if we cannot obtain a strong constraint on $`\mu `$ or $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the analysis of $`A_b`$ is important since the value of $`f_L/f_R`$ varies depending on what the LSP is. For example, let us consider the case where there is no chargino with a nearly degenerated mass with the LSP. In such a case, one might naively expect that the LSP is Bino-like. The stop analysis we proposed provides independent information on the properties of the LSP. Such a test is significant since the value of $`A_b`$ may deviate from that in the Bino-LSP case if there is an extra neutralino such as the superpartner of the singlet Higgs boson.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank K. Fujii and Y. Sumino for useful discussions and comments. T.M. and S.S. thank the Aspen Center for Physics where a part of this work has been done. The work of R.K. is supported by JSPS. The work of T.M. is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan, No. 12047201 and No. 13740138. The work of S.S is supported by the DOE under grant DE-FG03-92-ER-40701 and by the John A. McCone Fellowship.


text:
# Robustness of Entanglement for Bell Decomposable States

## 1 Introduction

During the past decade an increasing study has been made on the entanglement, although it was discovered several decades ago by Einstein and SchrÖdinger . This is because of the central role that entanglement plays in the theory of quantum information . Entanglement as the most non classical features of quantum mechanics is usually arised from quantum correlations between separated subsystems which can not be created by local actions on each subsystem. By definition, a mixed state $`\rho `$ of a bipartite system is said to be separable (non entangled) if it can be written as a convex combination of pure product states

$$\rho =\underset{i}{}p_i|\varphi _i^A\varphi _i^A||\psi _i^B\psi _i^B|,$$
(1-1)
where $`|\varphi _i^A`$ and $`|\psi _i^B`$ are pure states of subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$, respectively. Although, in the case of pure states of bipartite systems it is easy to check whether a given state is, or is not entangled, the question is yet an open problem in the case of mixed states.

There is also an increasing attention in quantifying entanglement, particularly for mixed states of a bipartite system, and a number of measures have been proposed . Among them the entanglement of formation has more importance, since it intends to quantify the resources needed to create a given entangled state.

Also a useful quantities which is introduced in  as a measure of entanglement is the robustness of entanglement. It corresponds to the minimal amount of mixing with separable states which washes out all entanglement. Analytical expression for pure states of binary systems have given in . Authors in  gave a geometrical interpretation of robustness and pointed that two corresponding separable states needed to wipe out all entanglement are necessarily on the boundary of separable set. Unfortunately, above mentioned quantity as most proposed measures of entanglement involves extremization which are difficult to handle analytically.

In this paper we consider Bell decomposable (BD) states. We provide a simple geometrical approach and we give an analytic expression for robustness of entanglement and show that the corresponding separable states are on the boundary of separable states as pointed out in . Our approach of determination of robustness of entanglement is geometrically intuitive. It is shown that for considered states the robustness is equal to the concurrence of states. Finally we obtain random robustness for BD states.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we review BD states and we present a perspective of their geometry. The robustness of entanglement of these states is obtained in section 3 via a geometrical approach. Finally the random robustness is obtained in section 4. The paper is ended with a brief conclusion.

## 2 Bell decomposable states

In this section we briefly review Bell decomposable (BD) states and some of their properties. A BD state is defined by:

$$\rho =\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}p_i|\psi _i\psi _i|,0p_i1,\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}p_i=1,$$
(2-2)
where $`|\psi _i`$ is Bell state, given by:

$`|\psi _1=|\varphi ^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|+|),`$ (2-3)
$`|\psi _2=|\varphi ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(||),`$ (2-4)
$`|\psi _3=|\psi ^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|+|),`$ (2-5)
$`|\psi _4=|\psi ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(||).`$ (2-6)
In terms of Pauli’s matrices, $`\rho `$ can be written as,

$$\rho =\frac{1}{4}(II+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}t_i\sigma _i\sigma _i),$$
(2-7)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill t_1=& p_1p_2+p_3p_4,\hfill \\ \hfill t_2=& p_1+p_2+p_3p_4,\hfill \\ \hfill t_3=& p_1+p_2p_3p_4.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2-8)
From the positivity of $`\rho `$ we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1+t_1t_2+t_3& 0,\hfill \\ \hfill 1t_1+t_2+t_3& 0,\hfill \\ \hfill 1+t_1+t_2t_3& 0,\hfill \\ \hfill 1t_1t_2t_3& 0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2-9)
These equations form a tetrahedral with its vertices located at $`(1,1,1)`$, $`(1,1,1)`$, $`(1,1,1)`$, $`(1,1,1)`$ . In fact these vertices denote the Bell states given in Eqs. (2-3) to (2-6), respectively.

According to the Peres and Horodecki’s condition for separability , a 2-qubit state is separable if and only if its partial transpose is positive. This implies that $`\rho `$ given in Eq. (2-7) is separable if and only if $`t_i`$ satisfy Eq. (2-9) and,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1+t_1+t_2+t_3& 0,\hfill \\ \hfill 1t_1t_2+t_3& 0,\hfill \\ \hfill 1+t_1t_2t_3& 0,\hfill \\ \hfill 1t_1+t_2t_3& 0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2-10)
Inequalities (2-9) and (2-10) form an octahedral with its vertices located at $`O_1^\pm =(\pm 1,0,0)`$, $`O_2^\pm =(0,\pm 1,0)`$ and $`O_3^\pm =(0,0,\pm 1)`$. So, tetrahedral of Eqs. (2-9) is divided into five regions. Central regions, defined by octahedral, are separable states. There are also four smaller equivalent tetrahedral corresponding to entangled states. Each tetrahedral takes one Bell state as one of its vertices. Three other vertices of each tetrahedral form a triangle which is its common face with octahedral (See Fig. 1).

## 3 Robustness of entanglement

According to  for a given entangled state $`\rho `$ and separable state $`\rho _s`$, a new density matrix $`\rho (s)`$ can be constructed as,

$$\rho (s)=\frac{1}{s+1}(\rho +s\rho _s),s0,$$
(3-11)
where it can be either entangled or separable. It was pointed that there always exits the minimal $`s`$ corresponding to $`\rho _s`$ such that $`\rho (s)`$ is separable. This minimal s is called the robustness of $`\rho `$ relative to $`\rho _s`$, denoted by $`R(\rho \rho _s)`$. The absolute robustness of $`\rho `$ is defined as the quantity,

$$R(\rho S)\underset{\rho _sS}{\mathrm{min}}R(\rho \rho _s).$$
(3-12)
Du et al. in  gave a geometrical interpretation of robustness and pointed that if $`s`$ in Eq. (3-11) is minimal among all separable states $`\rho _s`$, i.e. $`s`$ is the absolute robustness of $`\rho `$, then $`\rho _s`$ and $`\rho (s)`$ in Eq. (3-11) are necessarily on the boundary of the separable states.

Here in this section we obtain the absolute robustness for all Bell diagonal states, and we give an explicit form for the corresponding $`\rho _s`$ and $`\rho (s)`$ which are on the boundary of the separable states.

Let us consider Fig. 2, we connect $`t`$, which denotes density matrix $`\rho `$, to the center of octahedral such that it cuts the plane $`x_1+x_2+x_3+1=0`$ (the boundary of separable octahedral) at $`t^{}`$. Then we extend this segment, so that it cuts the other plane $`x_1+x_2+x_31=0`$ at $`t^{\prime \prime }`$.

These three points are along the same line but they posses different lengths. Also it is not difficult to see that they also lie on planes $`x_1+x_2+x_3+\eta =0`$, $`x_1+x_2+x_3+1=0`$ and $`x_1+x_2+x_31`$, respectively. Using the above argument, we arrive after some elementary algebra at the following results,

$`t_i^{}={\displaystyle \frac{t_i}{\eta }}={\displaystyle \frac{t_i}{t_1+t_2+t_3}}`$ (3-13)
$`t_i^{\prime \prime }={\displaystyle \frac{t_i}{\eta }}={\displaystyle \frac{t_i}{t_1+t_2+t_3}}.`$ (3-14)
Now using the convexity of the set of density matrices, we can write $`\rho _s^{}`$ as,

$$\rho ^{}=\frac{1}{1+s}(\rho +s\rho ^{\prime \prime }),$$
(3-15)
where parameter $`s`$, called the robustness of $`\rho `$, can be written as

$$s=\frac{tt^{}}{t^{}t^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{1+t_1+t_2+t_3}{2}=C,$$
(3-16)
where $`C`$ is the concurrence of $`\rho `$ . The numerical calculations indicate that thus obtained quantity is minimal with respect to all separable planes of the octahedral.

In the pioneering paper , robustness of entanglement of Werner states (as a particular kind of BD states), has been obtained from an entirely different approach. We see that thus obtained robustness of entanglement of Werner states via our proposed procedure is in agreement with the results of Reference .

Finally, we would like to emphasis that our treatment is capable to give an explicit expression for the separable matrices $`\rho _s^{}`$ and $`\rho _s^{\prime \prime }`$. Since, using Eqs. (3-13) and (2-7) we can write $`\rho _s^{}`$ and $`\rho _s^{\prime \prime }`$ as

$$\rho _s^{}=\frac{1}{4(t_1+t_2+t_3)}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}t_1+t_2& 0& 0& t_1+t_2\\ 0& t_1+t_2+2t_3& t_1t_2& 0\\ 0& t_1t_2& t_1+t_2+2t_3& 0\\ t_1+t_2& 0& 0& t_1+t_2\end{array}\right)$$
(3-17)
$$\rho _s^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{4(t_1+t_2+t_3)}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}t_1+t_2+2t_3& 0& 0& t_1t_2\\ 0& t_1+t_2& t_1+t_2& 0\\ 0& t_1+t_2& t_1+t_2& 0\\ t_1t_2& 0& 0& t_1+t_2+2t_3\end{array}\right)$$
(3-18)
## 4  Random Robustness

Also Vidal And Tarrach  have defined another quantity so called random robustness, which is defined as robustness of $`\rho `$ relative to maximally random state $`I/n`$. For Bell decomposable states considered here we can evaluate it as follows. Using the convexity of the set of density matrices, we can write $`\rho _s^{}`$ as,

$$\rho ^{}=\frac{1}{1+s_0}(\rho +s_0\rho _0),$$
(4-19)
where $`\rho _0=\frac{I}{4}`$ and

$$s_0=\frac{tt{}_{}{}^{}}{t^{}O}=(1+t_1+t_2+t_3)=2C,$$
(4-20)
is random robustness of $`\rho `$. Note that for the states considered here, the separable matrix $`\rho _s^{}`$ has the same form as given in Eq. (3-17) but with $`\rho _s^{\prime \prime }=\frac{I}{4}`$.

## 5 Conclusion

We have obtained in this work the robustness of entanglement for Bell decomposable states. It is shown that the corresponding separable states which wipe out all entanglement of the states are on the boundary of separable states. The random robustness of these states is also obtained.

Figure Captions

Figure 1: All BD states are defined as points interior to tetrahedral. Vertices $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$, $`P_3`$ and $`P_4`$ denote projectors corresponding to Bell states given in Eqs. (2-3) to (2-6), respectively. Octahedral corresponds to separable states.

Figure 2: Entangled tetrahedral corresponding to singlet state. Point $`t`$ denotes a generic state $`\rho `$ and points $`t^{}`$ and $`t^{\prime \prime }`$ are on the separable boundary planes defined by equations $`x_1+x_2+x_3+1=0`$ and $`x_1+x_2+x_31=0`$, respectively.