text:
# Composite Spectra from the FIRST Bright Quasar Survey

## 1. Introduction

For over three decades, the construction of composite spectra has proven to be a valuable activity in AGN research. The synthesis of broad-band colors of a large number of quasars produced low-resolution “compromise composite” spectra, enabling the average quasar continuum to be studied over a large wavelength range and $`k`$-corrections to be computed (Sandage 1966; Evans & Hart 1977). Emission-line intensity ratios for a large number of quasars over a range of redshifts were combined to determine a composite quasar “spectrum” (Chan & Burbidge 1975), and it was this technique that first identified the low L$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ ratio that posed a problem for photoionization models (Baldwin 1977). A similar bootstrap method established the average emission-line velocity shifts in quasars (Tytler & Fan 1992).

Technological advances led to large samples of quasars with readily manipulated digital data, resulting in myriad composite spectra in the 1990s. These included composite quasar spectra presented by Boyle (1990), Cristiani & Vio (1990), and Francis et al. (1991 – using the LBQS, i.e. the Large Bright Quasar Survey), resulting in identification of many weak emission lines and additional recognition of the significance of the omnipresence of Fe II emission blends throughout the ultraviolet and optical. Zheng et al. (1997) produced a composite spectrum using quasar spectra from the Hubble Space Telescope with unprecedented coverage of short wavelengths. These composites have been used extensively for many applications.

Composite spectra also permit investigation of the spectral dependencies on other properties. Sprayberry & Foltz (1992) compared the composite spectra of quasars with broad absorption lines (BALs) to those without, finding that quasars with low-ionization BALs have significantly redder continua consistent with line-of-sight dust. Francis, Hooper, & Impey (1993), using the LBQS data set, created composite spectra of radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars separately, finding an extra low-velocity emission line component in the former (also see Cristiani & Vio 1990 and Zheng et al. 1997). Brotherton et al. (1994) created composites from two samples of quasars distinguished by the velocity width of the broad lines, finding significant differences in the line ratios of the two. Green (1998) created two composites distinguished by X-ray brightness, finding in particular X-ray bright quasars had significantly stronger narrow-line emission. Baker & Hunstead (1995) created composites using samples distinguished by their radio structure, finding that radio-loud quasars that appear to be more edge-on also appear to be dustier. Malhotra (1997) created a composite spectrum by aligning the redshifts of intervening Mg II absorbers present in quasar spectra and detected the signature of the 2175 Å feature associated with dust from the absorbers.

In this paper, we present a very high-quality composite spectrum constructed using 657 quasars from the FIRST Bright Quasar Survey (FBQS) (White et al. 2000), as well as several composite spectra formed using subsamples of the FBQS. Section 2 describes the sample selection and data set used to construct the composite spectra, as well as the algorithm we use to construct composite spectra. Section 3 describes the composite spectra themselves. Section 4 discusses the properties of the FBQS we can discern from the composite spectra and compares our results with those of the Large Bright Quasar Survey (hereafter LBQS) (Foltz et al. 1987, 1989; Hewett et al. 1991; Chaffee et al. 1991; Morris et al. 1991; Francis et al. 1991; Francis et al. 1992). Section 5 summarizes our results.

## 2. Sample and Data

The FBQS starts with radio sources found using the NRAO111The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.. Very Large Array $`FIRST`$ survey (Becker et al. 1995), a 20 cm survey at $`5\mathrm{}`$ resolution with a detection limit $``$ 1 mJy. Quasar candidates are determined by matching FIRST sources within 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$2 of stellar sources with $`OE<2.0`$ and $`E<17.8`$ from the Automated Plate Measuring Facility (APM) catalog of the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey I (POSS-I) plates (MacMahon et al. 2000). The choice of selection criteria yields quasars and BL Lac objects with 60% selection efficiency and misses very few bright red quasars (Gregg et al. 1996 – the pilot investigation). White et al. (2000) presents the second installment of the FBQS with a catalog of 636 quasars distributed over 2682 deg2, fully characterizing the sample and displaying nearly all the spectra we use to construct our composites. The spectra are a heterogenous set, coming from a half dozen telescopes, although generally have $`10`$ Å resolution and signal-to-noise ratios of 20 or higher. Both radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars are present in approximately equal numbers, as are radio-loud BAL quasars (Becker et al. 2000), and large numbers of radio-intermediate quasars. This is the first radio-selected sample that is competitive in size with optically selected quasar surveys such as the LBQS.

## 3. Composite Spectra

### 3.1. Methodology and Caveats

In constructing our composite spectra, we use essentially the same algorithm described by Francis et al. (1991) which they used to construct their LBQS composite quasar spectrum. In fact, we employ the same code that has been used to construct the composite spectrum of the total LBQS sample (S. Morris 1999, private communication), with which we make a comparison in § 4. Below we describe the procedure, which employs IRAF except as noted.

The spectra are rebinned to the same wavelength range, 3200 Å – 9200 Å. Zeroes are used for regions within this range with no data (these zero-padded regions are given zero weight in the combination). These spectra are then stacked into a single image. A similar procedure is followed to produce a stacked image of noise spectra.

Noise spectra are not available for all the spectra in the FBQS database and we have used a single uniform method to estimate the noise for all spectra which will be used to weight individual spectra in the composite. A high-order continuum fit is used to normalize each spectrum. We then use a VISTA script to measure the average S/N from these. The spectra are smoothed by 9 pixels, their square root is taken, then they are multiplied by the average S/N which provides an estimate of the true S/N spectrum. The S/N is set to 1 across the atmospheric A and B bands to ensure these regions receive low weight in the combination. The spectra are weighted by (S/N)2 when combined.

A separate file is also prepared that contains the redshifts of the input spectra, determined by using cross-correlation against a preliminary composite spectrum and refined in an iterative manner. The final composite spectrum clearly resolves the \[O III\] $`\lambda \lambda `$4959,5007 narrow lines (each with a FWHM of 750 km s-1), while initial versions of the composite using visually assigned redshifts showed broader lines that were somewhat blended. Our success with using cross-correlation redshifts mirrors the experience of Francis et al. (1991) in constructing the LBQS composite.

The flux and noise spectral images are stacked into a single three-dimensional data cube, which is the input for the IRAF procedure provided by Simon Morris. The procedure uses the algorithm described by Francis et al. (1991). Spectra are added, from low-$`z`$ to high-$`z`$, to a running average. All spectra are rebinned to a common dispersion. The squares of the signal-to-noise ratios are used to weight the individual spectra. New spectra are normalized to the running average in the region of overlap only. A standard deviation is computed.

As discussed by Francis et al. (1991), such a procedure has a number of limitations and uncertainties. All of the caveats that applied there also apply to the FBQS composite. Galactic and intrinsic extinction may artificially redden individual spectra, although the FBQS is selected from objects at high Galactic latitude and a (mild) color criterion is imposed. Slit losses from differential refraction may redden individual spectra, although the majority of spectra were obtained at Lick and Keck Observatories where the spectrograph slits were always at the parallactic angle. The appearance of features in the composite spanning large wavelengths (e.g., the overall continuum shape and the 3000 Å “little blue bump”) is sensitive to the order spectra are added to the composite; in the LBQS, Francis et al. (1991) reported that the spectral index $`\alpha `$ varied by $`\pm `$0.2, which is consistent with our own tests we discuss in § 3.2. In a flux-limited sample such as the FBQS or LBQS, quasars at low $`z`$ are typically lower luminosity than those found at high $`z`$ (see Francis et al. 1991 and White et al. 2000 for illustrative plots), and spectral dependencies on luminosity (e.g., Korista et al. 1998) may lead to spurious results in comparing optical to ultraviolet properties. Finally, the arithmetic mean of power-law spectra is not necessarily a power-law spectrum with the mean power-law index.

Below we characterize the total FBQS composite spectrum quantitatively in some detail. We provide less detail for the composites formed from the subsamples based on radio and absorption properties; because of the above caveats the results of our comparisons should be regarded as suggestive but not conclusive without follow-up investigations. These composite spectra are useful tools and a powerful way to graphically illustrate certain dependencies, but the reader is cautioned not to overinterpret these results.

### 3.2. FBQS Composite Quasar Spectrum

About 90% of the 657 spectra used in construction of the FBQS composite are plotted by White et al. (2000) and additional details may be found there. Confirmed and probable BAL quasars have been excluded from the composite. Figure 1 plots the composite spectrum and labels major emission lines. Figure 2 plots the histogram of the number of quasars contributing at each wavelength. Figure 3 plots the standard deviation spectrum; it differs from the mean spectrum most noticeably in the strength of the narrow lines, particularly \[O III\] $`\lambda \lambda `$4959,5007. The signal-to-noise ratio per 0.6 Å pixel peaks at just under 200 (estimated by using the standard deviation spectrum and the number of objects contributing to each pixel to calculate the standard error in the mean); rebinning to 2.5 Å increases the signal-to-noise ratio to just under 400. Figure 4 plots the composite in log-log space in which a power-law is represented as a straight line; a power-law with a spectral index $`\alpha `$ =$``$0.46 (F$`{}_{\nu }{}^{}\nu ^\alpha `$) appears to be a good estimate of an underlying continuum between H$`\beta `$ and L$`\alpha `$.

Table 1 lists emission features present in the spectrum along with measurements of line ratios and equivalent widths. The choices of integration windows are made to match those of Francis et al. (1991) and to facilitate comparison to the LBQS composite spectrum (§ 4). In making measurements of the standard deviation of equivalent widths it is assumed that the continuum and line flux vary independently.

In order to investigate to what extent the spectral energy distribution may be a function of the normalization process, we also constructed a composite beginning with the largest redshift quasars and working backwards to the lowest redshift quasars, the reverse of the procedure used to construct the spectrum in Figure 1. The result was a very similar but slightly redder spectrum, also well fit by a power-law but with a spectral index $`\alpha `$ =$``$0.49 (which gives rise to a 12% difference at L$`\alpha `$ vs. H$`\beta `$); the emission-lines are identical between the two and divide out as expected.

### 3.3. Composites with Different Radio-Loudness

We can categorize the FBQS quasars according to their radio-loudness. As recommended by Weymann (1997), we adopt log R\* as the formal measure of radio-loudness with log R\* = 1.0 dividing radio-loud and radio-quiet subsamples, where R\* is the $`K`$-corrected ratio of radio-to-optical power (Sramek & Weedman 1980; Stocke et al. 1992). Log R\* is tabulated for the FBQS in White et al. (2000). The FIRST quasars, while radio-selected, in fact include a large fraction of radio-quiet quasars. Using the R\* criterion, our data set contains 59% radio-loud quasars with redshifts up to $`z=3.4`$ and 41% radio-quiet quasars with redshifts up to $`z=3.3`$ (see Fig. 14 of White et al. 2000). The range in optical luminosities is also quite similar, although there exist significant differences in the luminosity ranges compared at low $`z`$ vs. high $`z`$ that result from the FBQS being a magnitude-limited sample. Figure 5 plots the radio-loud and radio-quiet quasar composite spectra.

Compared to the radio-quiet composite, the radio-loud spectrum has a redder spectral energy distribution, broader Balmer lines, stronger \[O III\] emission, and a stronger red wing/weaker blue wing asymmetry to the C IV $`\lambda `$1549 emission line profile. Similar differences have been previously noted (e.g., Boroson & Green 1992; Barthel, Tytler, & Thomson 1990).

We also experimented with three divisions of radio-loudness, such that radio-intermediate quasars were distinguished as those with $`0.5<`$ log R\* $`<1.5`$. The FBQS is sensitive to radio-intermediate quasars, which are notably missing from earlier searches (White et al. 2000). The distribution of “radio-loudness” is not significantly bimodal. The radio-intermediate quasar composite spectrum closely resembles that of the radio-loud quasars, and so differs from the radio-quiet quasar composite spectrum in a very similar manner.

### 3.4. BAL Quasar Composites

We have constructed composite spectra of samples of broad absorption line (BAL) quasars in the FBQS. These samples include high-ionization BAL quasars (25 objects) and the low-ionization BAL quasars (18 objects, including 4 metastable Fe absorbed quasars). The majority of objects are cataloged and characterized by Becker et al. (2000) (29 objects, 15 high-ionization BAL quasars and 14 low-ionization BAL quasars); in order to increase our sample sizes and the significance of the results, we used all the BAL quasars in the FBQS database whether published or not. Note that we have erred on the side of inclusivity, as discussed by Becker et al. (2000), and included several confirmed and probable BAL quasars that do not meet the criterion of positive BALnicity index (Weymann et al. 1991), e.g. FIRST J1603+3002, which has been shown to have an intrinsic high-velocity outflow (Arav et al. 1999). Figure 6 plots these composite spectra as well as the total FBQS composite.

The colors of the low-ionization BAL quasar composite are redder than those of the high-ionization BAL quasar composite, which are in turn redder than that of the FBQS composite. The continuum band colors of Yamamoto & Vansevicius (1999) indicate that the BAL quasar composites are consistent with reddening the FBQS composite according to a Small Magallenic Cloud (SMC) extinction law. If we assume such a law, the spectral shape of the high-ionization BAL quasar composite is consistent with the FBQS composite if dereddened by $`E(BV)0.04`$ mag, while the low-ionization BAL quasar composite must be dereddened by $`E(BV)0.1`$ mag. Small color differences in the rest-frame optical such as these become magnified in the rest-frame ultraviolet as seen in the figure.

BALs are not so readily apparent in the high-ionization BAL quasar composite spectrum. This results from a wide range in BAL properties, primarily the velocity offsets from the systemic redshift, coupled with a paucity of quasars with extremely deep and broad troughs (e.g., as seen in PHL 5200). The BAL features are therefore diminished in the averaging process.

## 4. Discussion

We restrict much of our discussion to a comparison between our FBQS composite spectra and similar ones created from the LBQS data set. This is appropriate because of the similarities between the surveys in terms of luminosities, redshift range, and size. This is also appropriate as composites from the LBQS have been extensively used for a decade, and include composites made from subsamples with BALs and with differing degrees of radio loudness. Finally, we can compare our FBQS composite quasar spectrum to a LBQS composite quasar spectrum using exactly the same algorithm and software. Table 2 summarizes the FBQS and LBQS samples explored here with composite spectra, and a few of the properties of the composite spectra.

The LBQS composite spectrum of Francis et al. (1991) was created using 688 of the total LBQS sample of 1018 quasars, or 68%. Following the completion of the LBQS a composite spectrum was created using the total data set and has been made available to us along with the software used to create it (S. Morris 1999, private communication). The properties of the last $``$ 300 quasars are consistent with those which went into the first composite, but the two composites differ significantly in a number of ways. The source of the differences is not entirely clear although it has been speculated that the difference has to do with the vagaries of the normalization procedure (P. Francis 1999, private communication).

Figure 7 compares the LBQS composite quasar spectra of Francis et al. (1991) and Morris (1999, private communication). It is readily apparent that the shape of the spectral energy distributions differ, with 10% excursions in the optical and near-UV, to a 20% difference in the far-UV (keeping in mind the presence of the Lyman $`\alpha `$ forest that depresses the intrinsic quasar continuum at these wavelengths). The original LBQS survey spectra suffered from differential atmospheric slit losses, and the degree of corrections made or not made to the spectra at the time of the construction of the composite spectra likely contribute to the changes in the large scale continuum shape (P. Francis 2000, private communication).

The ultraviolet emission lines also differ between the LBQS composite spectra. Notably, the L$`\alpha `$, N V blend is 25% stronger in the new composite, and the C IV $`\lambda `$1549 line is 10% stronger and may have a rather different profile. These differences should be kept in mind when making comparisons to tabulated line ratios and equivalent widths in Francis et al. (1991). The weakness of the L$`\alpha `$ and C IV $`\lambda `$1549 lines in the Francis et al. (1991) composite may result from the inclusion of objects with strong associated absorption or weak BALs, which are probably appropriate to include for the purpose of making $`k`$-corrections but compromise measuring accurate intrinsic average line ratios.

In comparing the FBQS composite quasar spectrum to that of the LBQS, the different biases in sample selection and the ensuing sample differences should first be made clear. The LBQS used purely optical techniques to select candidate quasars, resulting in a very different distribution of radio-loudness in that sample (approximately 10% radio-loud quasars – see Hooper et al. 1995). While about half the FBQS quasars are formally radio-quiet, the more extreme radio-quiets and all radio-silent quasars are not represented, especially at high redshift. The magnitude range of the LBQS ($`16.0m_{B_J}18.85`$) is different from that of the FBQS ($`E17.8`$). The inclusion of very bright sources in the FBQS may explain why its distribution of redshifts includes a larger fraction of low-$`z`$ objects compared to the LBQS; the redshift ranges are similar.

The overall spectral shape of the FBQS composite spectrum is more similar to that of the total LBQS composite spectrum than that of Francis et al. (1991). The FBQS spectrum is slightly redder. It may be that quasar spectra from the rest-frame ultraviolet through the optical can be better represented by single power laws than suggested by Francis et al. (1991), but this should be investigated more thoroughly by examining spectrophotometry of individual objects with wavelength coverage spanning from Lyman $`\alpha `$ through the Balmer lines. The FBQS spectrum also has stronger Lyman $`\alpha `$ and \[O III\] emission, and the C IV profile has a stronger red wing than blue wing. The differences in the C IV profile and \[O III\] emission are also seen in Figure 5, the comparison between the radio-loud and radio-quiet subsamples of the FBQS.

Figure 5 fails to show a difference in Lyman $`\alpha `$, however. Francis, Hooper, & Impey (1993) created composite ultraviolet spectra of radio-quiet and radio-loud subsamples of the LBQS. These spectra differed at a marginally statistically significant level, in the sense that radio-loud quasars had stronger low-to-intermediate velocity emission, primarily from C IV and Lyman $`\alpha `$. The FBQS may not be sampling sufficient numbers of quasars, nor a sufficient range in radio-loudness. The fraction of radio-quiet quasars containing the Lyman $`\alpha `$ emission line is only 25% (out of $``$ 50 quasars with spectra that blue, cf. 39% with log R\* $`<`$ 1 in the FBQS as a whole), limiting our statistics. These highest redshift radio-quiet quasars also possess the largest log R\* values of the radio-quiet class, and as radio loudness appears to be a more continuous property than once thought (White et al. 2000), it may not be unexpected that Lyman $`\alpha `$ is so similar in the radio-loud and radio-quiet subsamples of the FBQS.

That the FBQS composite has an unusually strong Lyman $`\alpha `$ cannot be denied. Cannonical values of C IV/Ly $`\alpha `$ lie within the range $`0.40.6`$ (Baldwin et al. 1995), although most of these are drawn from optically selected samples. Using an estimate of 25% contamination from N V in the Lyman $`\alpha `$ blend, the FBQS composite spectrum shows C IV/Ly $`\alpha `$ = 0.36, just outside the cannonical range. The C IV/(Ly $`\alpha `$ \+ N V) ratio from Francis et al. (1991) is 0.63, but the ratio in the updated LBQS composite is only 0.37, or 0.47 for C IV/Ly $`\alpha `$ after correcting for an estimated 25% N V contamination. That the Lyman $`\alpha `$ emission line is stronger in the FBQS than in the LBQS is not simply a matter of absorbed quasars.

This difference is probably related to the presence of strong extended narrow-line regions/nebulosity seen preferentially in radio-loud objects (e.g., Heckman et al. 1991). Very large Ly $`\alpha `$/C IV ratios are seen in high-redshift radio galaxies (e.g., McCarthy 1993) and the narrow-line regions of Seyfert 2 galaxies (e.g., Ferland & Osterbrock 1986). Narrow-line emission in general is stronger in radio-loud quasars (Boroson & Green 1992). These differences are tied into the so-called “eigenvector 1” relationships of principal component analysis (e.g., Boroson & Green 1992; Francis et al. 1992; Brotherton et al. 1994; Wills et al. 1999), which places radio-loud quasars with strong narrow and intermediate emission lines at one extreme, and radio-quiet quasars and narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies at the other. The current prevailing explanation for at least a portion of these trends involves the variation in accretion rate and covering fraction (e.g., Boroson & Green 1992).

Sprayberry & Foltz (1992) examined composite spectra of BAL quasar subsamples of the LBQS (see also Weymann et al. 1991). They concluded that the spectral shape of the composite low-ionization BAL quasar composite spectrum was consistent with that of the high-ionization BAL quasar composite spectrum if reddened by an SMC-type extinction law with $`E(BV)0.1`$. This is rather similar to what we find for the FBQS, an entirely consistent result given the small sample sizes and normalization uncertainties. There remains the question of just how many low-ionization BAL quasars were lost from the sample because of the magnitude limit; their existence will probably make the true average low-ionization BAL quasar more reddened than this.

## 5. Summary

We have created a composite quasar spectrum of the total non-BAL FBQS sample and additional subsamples of particular interest, including radio-quiet, radio-loud, and high and low ionization BAL quasars. The composite spectra are publically available via the FIRST Survey web page222http://sundog.stsci.edu.. The process used to create the composites is identical to that used in creating the composite spectra of the LBQS (Francis et al. 1991; S. Morris 1999, private communication), to which we have compared our FBQS composite spectra. While as robust as possible, there are unavoidable uncertainties inherent in the procedure of creating composite spectra, and these uncertainties should be considered when using such spectra for particular applications.

We thank Simon Morris, Kirk Korista, and Paul Francis for making available their software and LBQS composite spectra, as well as for additional commentary on this manuscript and the originally published LBQS composite spectrum. We thank everyone who has contributed or is continuing to contribute to the FIRST Bright Quasar Survey. The success of the FIRST survey is in large measure due to the generous support of a number of organizations. In particular, we acknowledge support from the NRAO, the NSF (grants AST-98-02791 and AST-98-02732), the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics (operated under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48), the Space Telescope Science Institute, NATO, the National Geographic Society (grant NGS No. 5393-094), Columbia University, and Sun Microsystems.


format: text

text:
# New complex variables for equations of ideal barotropic fluid

## 1 Introduction

When solving a partial problem of fluid dynamics or exploring general properties of governing equations one often use different choice of the dependent variables. Introduction of a stream function is common practice for two-dimensional problems. For a general case of a 3D time-dependent flow one can use a vector potential, a pair of stream functions (for incompressible case), Clebsch potentials and etc. Clebsch potentials are mainly used with intention to exploit preferences of Lagrange description of a fluid motion. The new representation is based on the use of multi-valued potentials and Euler approach. The paper is composed as follows. In the second section we analyze Madelung transformation that connects a generic Schroedinger equation with a system of Euler-type equations. Some generalization will be made for the case of potential flows of a barotropic fluid. In the next section the generalization of Madelung transformation for a general vector field will be derived, that leads to the system of equations $`(8)`$ for two complex-valued functions with arbitrary potentials. In the fourth section we use this arbitrariness and propose the choice of potentials, that make the system equivalent to Euler equations for an ideal barotropic fluid. To substantiate this we will derive Euler equations from the system $`(8)`$. In the last section we discuss possible preferences of new choice of dependent variables and their relation to vortices.

## 2 Madelung transformation

Since pioneer work by E.Madelung  physical literature contains many examples of connection between Schroedinger equation of quantum mechanics and fluid dynamics. Typical exposition of this connection is the substitution $`\psi =\sqrt{\rho }𝐞^{i\frac{\phi }{\beta }}`$ into

$$i\frac{\psi }{t}=\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi +V\psi $$
(1)
that leads to

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\left(\rho \phi \right)=0$$
(2)
$$\frac{\phi }{t}+\frac{\left(\phi \right)^2}{2}=V+\frac{\beta }{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\rho }}{\sqrt{\rho }}$$
(3)
This trick looks slightly mystical for novice. Some historical notes and elucidation can be found in . More clear is back substitution. Following Madelung , let’s linearize equation (2) using substitution

$$\rho =\psi \overline{\psi },\phi =\frac{i\beta }{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\psi }{\overline{\psi }}\right)$$
(4)
were $`\beta `$ has dimension of kinematical viscosity. After simple algebra one can obtain

$$\overline{\psi }\left(\frac{\psi }{t}\frac{i\beta }{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi \right)+\psi \left(\frac{\overline{\psi }}{t}+\frac{i\beta }{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\psi }\right)=0$$

Choice

$$\frac{\psi }{t}\frac{i\beta }{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi =iV\psi $$

leads to Schroedinger equation. Here $`V`$ is a real-valued function of a time, coordinates and/or $`\psi `$. We can conclude that this equation leads to conservation of probability, but dynamics is completely defined by potential $`V`$.

Now from hydrodynamical viewpoint let’s summarize restrictions that were implicitly used in this derivation. First, interpreting $`\rho `$ as density of some fluid with an arbitrary equation of state, we see that fluid flow is supposed to be potential. Second, we use dimensional constant $`\beta `$.

To describe an ideal fluid, we can to overcome the second restriction using a non-dimensional form of equation (2) $`\left(\beta =1\right)`$ and the potential

$$V=\mathrm{\Pi }\left(\rho \right)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\rho }}{\sqrt{\rho }}$$

This choice give Cauche-Lagrange equation for barotropic fluid

$$\frac{\phi }{t}+\frac{\left(\phi \right)^2}{2}=\mathrm{\Pi }$$

but leads to

$$i\frac{\psi }{t}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\psi \frac{\psi }{\overline{\psi }}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\psi }\right)+\left[\frac{1}{8}\left(\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\psi }{\overline{\psi }}\right)\right)^2+\mathrm{\Pi }\left(\psi \overline{\psi }\right)\right]\psi $$

that differs from Schroedinger equation. This form of equation of an ideal barotropic fluid seems to be unknown.

## 3 Generalization of Madelung transformation

We consider a direct generalization of the previous scheme for the case of two complex-valued functions and introduce definitions

$$\rho =\rho _1+\rho _2,𝐉=\rho 𝐕=\rho _1\phi _1+\rho _2\phi _2$$
(5)
Obviously, permutation of indexes should not have any physical consequence. For velocity and vorticity we obtain

$$𝐕=\frac{\rho _1}{\rho }\phi _1+\frac{\rho _2}{\rho }\phi _2,\times 𝐕=\frac{\rho _1\rho _2}{\rho ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\rho _1}{\rho _2}\right)\times \left(\phi _1\phi _2\right)$$
(6)
The requirement of possibility to represent a vector field with a non-zero total helicity

$$H=\frac{\rho _1\rho _2}{\rho ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\rho _1}{\rho _2}\right)\left(\phi _1\times \phi _2\right)𝑑\overline{\sigma }0$$

implies a multi-valuedness of potentials  (here integral should be taken over some closed surface). That is admissible due to usage of the complex-valued variables.

Linearizing

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+𝐉=0$$
(7)
after some algebra we obtain

$$\overline{\psi }_1\left(\frac{\psi _1}{t}\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _1\right)+\psi _1\left(\frac{\overline{\psi }_1}{t}+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\psi }_1\right)$$

$$+\overline{\psi }_2\left(\frac{\psi _2}{t}\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _2\right)+\psi _2\left(\frac{\overline{\psi }_2}{t}+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\psi }_2\right)=0$$

By inspection one can show that choice

$$\frac{\psi _k}{t}\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _k=U_k\psi _k$$

with

$$U_1=\frac{\rho _2}{2\rho }IiV_1,,U_2=\frac{\rho _1}{2\rho }IiV_2$$

where $`I,V_1,V_2`$ are real-valued functions of time, coordinates and/or $`\psi _k`$ solve this equation. We obtain the following system of equations

$$i\frac{\psi _1}{t}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _1}{2}+\left(\frac{\rho _2}{2\rho }iI+V_1\right)\psi _1,i\frac{\psi _2}{t}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _2}{2}+\left(\frac{\rho _1}{2\rho }iI+V_2\right)\psi _2$$
(8)
Substitutions $`\psi _k=\sqrt{\rho }_kexp\left(i\phi \right)`$ give the equivalent system

$$\frac{\rho _k}{t}+\left(\rho _k\phi _k\right)=\left(1\right)^{k1}\frac{\rho _1\rho _2}{\rho }I,\frac{\phi _k}{t}+\frac{\left(\phi _k\right)^2}{2}=V_k+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\rho }_k}{\sqrt{\rho }_k}$$
(9)
Equation (7) follows from the first two equations of this system.

## 4 New form of Euler equations

To apply the derived system to description of an ideal barotropic flow we need a proper choice of the potentials $`I,V_1,V_2`$. By inspection it was found that

$$V_1=\mathrm{\Pi }\left(\rho \right)\frac{\rho _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\rho ^2}𝐰^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\rho }_1}{\sqrt{\rho }_1}$$
(10)
$$V_2=\mathrm{\Pi }\left(\rho \right)\frac{\rho _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\rho ^2}𝐰^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\rho }_2}{\sqrt{\rho }_2}$$
(11)
$$I=𝐰+\frac{𝐰}{\rho }(\rho _2\frac{\rho _1}{\rho _1}++\rho _1\frac{\rho _2}{\rho _2})$$
(12)
make system equivalent to Euler equations. Here $`𝐰=\left(\phi _1\phi _2\right)`$. The invariance of systems (8),(9) with respect to both Galilei group and indexes permutation can be directly checked.

Substitution of (10-12) into (9) give

$$\frac{\rho _1}{t}+\left(\rho _1\phi _1\right)=\frac{\rho _1\rho _2}{\rho }I,\frac{\rho _2}{t}+\left(\rho _2\phi _2\right)=\frac{\rho _1\rho _2}{\rho }I,$$
(13)
$$\frac{\phi _1}{t}+\frac{\left(\phi _1\right)^2}{2}=\mathrm{\Pi }+\frac{\rho _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\rho ^2}𝐰^2$$
(14)
$$\frac{\phi _2}{t}+\frac{\left(\phi _2\right)^2}{2}=\mathrm{\Pi }+\frac{\rho _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\rho ^2}𝐰^2$$
(15)
From equations (13) follows (7).

Now we start derivation of equation for flux $`𝐉`$. First, multiplying (14),(15) by $`\rho _k`$ respectively, summing and taking gradient of result, then adding to obtained equation (13), multiplied by $`\phi _k`$ respectively, one can obtain

$$\frac{𝐉}{t}+\left(\frac{𝐣_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\rho _1}+\frac{𝐣_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\rho _2}\right)+\left[\rho _1\frac{\phi _1}{t}+\rho _2\frac{\phi _2}{t}\right]$$

$$+\left(\frac{𝐣_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐣_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\rho _1}+\frac{𝐣_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐣_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\rho _2}\frac{\rho _1\rho _2}{\rho }I𝐰\right)=\left(\rho \mathrm{\Pi }\frac{\rho _1\rho _2}{\rho }\frac{𝐰^2}{2}\right)$$

where $`𝐣_𝐤=\rho _k\phi _k`$. Using identities

$$\frac{𝐉^2}{2\rho }=\frac{𝐣_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\rho _1}+\frac{𝐣_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\rho _1}\frac{\rho _1\rho _2}{\rho }\frac{𝐰^2}{2}$$

$$\frac{𝐉𝐉}{\rho }=\frac{𝐣_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐣_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\rho _1}+\frac{𝐣_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐣_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\rho _2}\frac{\rho _1\rho _2}{\rho }\left(\frac{𝐣_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\rho _1}\frac{𝐣_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\rho _2}\right)𝐰$$

after some algebra one can obtain

$$\frac{𝐉}{t}+\left(\frac{𝐉^2}{2\rho }\right)\frac{𝐉^2}{2\rho }\frac{\rho }{\rho }+\frac{𝐉𝐉}{\rho }$$

$$+\left[\rho _1\frac{\phi _1}{t}+\rho _2\frac{\phi _2}{t}+\frac{𝐉^2}{2\rho }\frac{\rho }{\rho }+\mathrm{\Pi }\rho \right]$$

$$+\frac{\rho _1\rho _2}{\rho }\left(\frac{𝐣_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\rho _1}\frac{𝐣_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\rho _2}I\right)𝐰=\rho \mathrm{\Pi }$$

Algebraic transformations of terms in square braces with account for first identity and (14),(15) lead to equation

$$\frac{𝐉}{t}+\left(\frac{𝐉^2}{2\rho }\right)\frac{𝐉^2}{2\rho }\frac{\rho }{\rho }+\frac{𝐉𝐉}{\rho }$$

$$+\frac{\rho _1\rho _2}{\rho }\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\rho _1}{\rho _2}\right)\left(\frac{\phi _1}{t}\frac{\phi _2}{t}\right)+\left(\frac{𝐣_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\rho _1}\frac{𝐣_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\rho _2}I\right)𝐰\right]=\rho \mathrm{\Pi }$$

Using definition of velocity and equations (14),(15) after direct algebra one can show that terms in square braces give Lamb vector

$$𝐕\times \times 𝐕=\frac{\rho _1\rho _2}{\rho ^2}\left(\left(𝐕𝐰\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\rho _1}{\rho _2}\right)𝐕\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\rho _1}{\rho _2}\right)𝐰\right)$$

We obtain the equation

$$\frac{𝐉}{t}+\left(\frac{𝐉𝐉}{2\rho }\right)\frac{𝐉𝐉}{2\rho }\frac{\rho }{\rho }𝐉\times \times 𝐕+𝐕𝐉=\rho \mathrm{\Pi }$$
(16)
To make last step in derivation one should use continuity equation to obtain from (16) Euler equation in Gromeka-Lamb form

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+𝐉=0,\frac{𝐕}{t}+\left(\frac{𝐕𝐕}{2}\right)𝐕\times \times 𝐕=\mathrm{\Pi }$$
(17)
The result is as follows: System (8) is equivalent to system of Euler equation (17).

## 5 Discussion

First of all, the attractive feature of (8) is the homogeneity both dependent variables and equations in contrast to the non-homogeneity of velocity/density and form of equations in (18). This property can be used both numerically and analytically. Homogeneity and elimination of the convective derivative can substantially simplify numerical algorithm. As far as multivaluedness is concerned, the possibility of use multi-valued potentials was clearly demonstrated in . In analytical way the aforementioned property can simplify proof of existence and uniqueness theorems. Also application of geometrical methods to partial differential equations (8) is looking quite natural.

This formulation of Euler equation can have another interesting property. Zeroes of solution of nonlinear Schoedinger equation correspond to a vortex axes (topological defects) . At a moment the condition $`\psi =0`$ defines two surfaces, and their intersection defines a space curve (possibly, disconnected). Note similarity with definition of a vortex as zero of an analitical complex-valued function in two-dimensional hydrodynamic of ideal incompressible fluid. If the system (8) inherits this property from its prototype (1) the known problem of a vortex definition  can be solved in general case.

## 6 Acknowledgments

Author express his gratitude to Prof. S.K.Nemirovsky and Dr. G.A.Kuz’min.


text:
# Electron-Phonon Dynamics in an Ensemble of Nearly Isolated Nanoparticles

## 1 Introduction

Nanocrystals exist in a size regime which lies between that of atomic and bulk matter, thus making them ideal for the study of extreme quantum effects in condensed matter systems. In particular, the vibrational properties of nanoparticles are strikingly different than their bulk counterparts: A spherical nanoparticle of diameter $`d`$ cannot support internal vibrations at frequencies less than about $`2\pi v/d`$, where $`v`$ is a characteristic bulk sound velocity. Any property of the nanoparticle that depends on the vibrational spectrum, such as its thermodynamic properties or electron-phonon dynamics, will be very different at low energies than in bulk crystals. This will be especially true for nanoparticles—for example, in powder form—only weakly coupled to their surroundings.

One way to probe the vibrational spectrum of a nanoparticle is to optically excite an electron-hole pair and study the intraband electronic energy relaxation prior to radiative recombination . However, the excitonic states, being only weakly localized, will suffer significant quantum-confinement effects in the nanoparticle, making comparison with bulk relaxation rather indirect. An alternative probe of the vibrational spectrum is provided by well-localized electronic impurity states in a doped nanocrystal . The impurity states can be used to probe both energy relaxation by phonon emission  and phonon-induced dephasing . In these cases, the difference between the nanocrystal and bulk behavior is almost entirely a consequence of their differing vibrational modes.

In a recent experiment, Yang et al.  measured the phonon emission rate in Eu-doped Y2O3 nanoparticles between two electronic states separated by 3 cm-1 in energy. The experiment was performed on a powder of nanoparticles, prepared by gas-phase condensation, with a mean diameter of 13 nm. Regarding the nanoparticles as isotropic elastic spheres , the lowest internal vibrational mode (a five-fold degenerate torsional mode) has a frequency of about 11 cm-1. The excited-state population was found to decay exponentially with a lifetime of 27 $`\mu `$s, more than two orders of magnitude longer than that between the same levels in the bulk (about 220 ns). Although there is no quantitative theory available yet to explain their results, the inhibited phonon emission is consistent with a large suppression of the low-frequency vibrational density-of-states (DOS) expected for these small crystals.

Experiments such as the one by Yang *et al.*  present an exciting opportunity to study the crossover of phonon dynamics from bulk to nanoscale systems. However, the following question immediately arises: Given the large apparent modification of the DOS by finite-size effects, is it still correct to expect exponential relaxation and to use perturbation theory (Fermi’s golden rule and so on) to relate the relaxation rate to the phonon DOS? After all, the energy in a nanoparticle that is completely isolated from its surroundings would have to be exchanged between the electron and vibrational degrees of freedom in a Rabi-like manner, and no relaxation would be observed. Indeed, an isolated nanoparticle may be regarded as a phonon analog of a two-level atom in a cavity, which is known to exhibit oscillatory population dynamics .

It should be possible to detect oscillatory population dynamics experimentally using the techniques of Ref. , but what would be the effect of the unavoidable distribution of nanoparticle sizes and corresponding vibrational-mode frequencies? In the limit where each nanoparticle has a two-level system interacting with only the lowest-frequency vibrational mode, called the Lamb mode, each nanoparticle would exhibit vacuum Rabi oscillations . However, the Rabi frequency, which is a function of the electron-phonon interaction strength and the energy mismatch between the two-level system and Lamb mode, would vary from nanoparticle to nanoparticle.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the electron-phonon dynamics of an ensemble of nearly isolated nanoparticles. We find that at short times the ensemble-averaged excited-state population oscillates in a fashion that depends on the detailed size distribution of the nanoparticles, but that at long times the oscillations become purely sinusoidal about a “plateau” population fraction, with the frequency of the oscillation determined by the electron-phonon interaction strength alone, and with an envelope that decays algebraically as $`t^{1/2}`$. In the infinite-time limit, the excited-state population approaches the constant, finite plateau value. (Of course, the small damping of the Lamb mode, produced by the weak but nonzero interaction of a nanoparticle with its environment, will eventually cause the electrons to relax irreversibly.)

In the next section we derive a general expression for the average excited-state population in an ensemble of nanoparticles at zero temperature, and study its short-time and long-time behavior. The rotating-wave-approximation (RWA) we use there limits the application of our results to situations where the detuning energies (the energy mismatch between the two-level system and Lamb mode) are not much larger than the electron-phonon interaction strength. In Section 3 we apply this theory to an ensemble of Y2O3:Eu3+ nanoparticles similar to that of Yang et al. , and give quantitative predictions for the average excited-state population as a function of the mean nanoparticle size and standard deviation. Section 4 contains our conclusions and a discussion of questions for future investigation.

## 2 Ensemble-averaged population dynamics

To begin, we consider a single doped nanoparticle. We assume this nanoparticle to be an isotropic elastic sphere with a single localized electronic two-level system embedded within. We limit our investigation to small detuning energies, thus allowing for the use of the RWA, which discards non-energy-conserving terms in the Hamiltonian . In addition, we will neglect the five-fold degeneracy of the lowest vibrational mode that would be present in a perfectly spherical nanoparticle , and will assume a single nondegenerate Lamb mode. We shall return to this point below in Section 4.

“Dissipation terms” in the Hamiltonian are neglected as well. By dissipation terms we mean interactions of the nanoparticle with its surroundings that allow vibrational energy to be carried away irreversibly. For weak dissipation, these terms would cause an exponential decay of the population at large times, causing the “plateau” population to fall exponentially to zero. This effect would be negligible at small times and therefore would have no impact on the short-time calculations given below. For large dissipation, the exponential decay would be noticeable at all times and would therefore render our results invalid.

We assume that there is only one vibrational mode available for the electronic system to couple to—the next vibrational mode being so high in energy as to make the effect of its coupling negligible. Therefore, as stated, our doped nanoparticle system consists of a two-level atom coupled to single vibrational mode. The Hamiltonian, in units where $`\mathrm{}=1`$, is given by

$$H=\underset{\alpha }{}ϵ_\alpha c_\alpha ^{}c_\alpha +\omega _0a^{}a+\underset{\alpha \alpha }{}g_{\alpha \alpha }c_\alpha ^{}c_\alpha (a+a^{}),$$
(1)
where $`\alpha =1,2`$. The first term in $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian for a noninteracting two-level system with energies $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$, and fermionic creation and annihilation operators $`c_\alpha ^{}`$ and $`c_\alpha `$. The second term is the Hamiltonian for a vibrational mode with frequency $`\omega _0`$ and phonon creation and annihilation operators $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$. The third term is the ordinary first-order interaction between the two-level system and the vibrational mode. $`g_{\alpha \alpha }`$ is the electron-phonon interaction energy, with $`g_{12}=g_{21}=g`$, and the other terms equal to zero.

The wave function can be written as a superposition of the two electronic states, together with all possible populations of the single vibrational mode,

$$|\psi (t)=\underset{\alpha n}{}C_{\alpha n}(t)e^{i(ϵ_\alpha +n\omega _0)t}|\alpha n,$$
(2)
where

$$|\alpha n\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}(a^{})^nc_\alpha ^{}|0.$$
(3)
The coefficients $`C_{\alpha n}(t)`$ satisfy the coupled equations,

$$_tC_{1n}(t)+ig\sqrt{n+1}e^{i(\omega _0+\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ)t}C_{2,n+1}(t)+ig\sqrt{n}e^{i(\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ)t}C_{2,n1}(t)=0,$$
(4)
$$_tC_{2n}(t)+ig\sqrt{n+1}e^{i(\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ)t}C_{1,n+1}(t)+ig\sqrt{n}e^{i(\omega _0+\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ)t}C_{1,n1}(t)=0,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵϵ_2ϵ_1`$ is the electronic energy-level separation.

In the RWA, which is valid near resonance (defined by the condition $`\omega _0=\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$), these coupled differential equations reduce to

$$_tC_{1n}(t)+ig\sqrt{n}e^{i\nu t}C_{2,n1}(t)=0,$$
(6)
and

$$_tC_{2n}(t)+ig\sqrt{n+1}e^{i\nu t}C_{1,n+1}(t)=0,$$
(7)
where

$$\nu \omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ$$
(8)
is the detuning frequency.

These equations can be solved by Laplace transformation using the boundary condition $`C_{\alpha n}(0)=\delta _{\alpha 2}\delta _{n0}`$. The amplitude for the upper state is

$$C_{2n}(t)=\delta _{n0}\left[\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}t\right)+i\frac{\nu }{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}t\right)\right]e^{i\nu t/2},$$
(9)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{\nu ^2+4g^2}$$
(10)
plays the role of the Rabi frequency in this problem .

The probability that the electron is in state $`\alpha `$, irrespective of the number of phonons present, is

$$N_\alpha (t)\underset{n}{}\left|C_{\alpha n}(t)\right|^2.$$
(11)
Then $`N_2(t)=\left|C_{20}(t)\right|^2`$ is given by

$$N_2(t)=1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\nu ^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}t\right),$$
(12)
and

$$N_1(t)=1N_2(t).$$
(13)
The dependence of $`N_1(t)`$ and $`N_2(t)`$ on $`\nu `$ will be suppressed for simplicity.

In an ensemble of such nanoparticles, a variation in diameter yields a similar variation in detuning frequency, $`\nu `$. We assume this to be a Gaussian distribution. To obtain values for the mean detuning $`\overline{\nu }`$, and standard deviation in detuning $`\sigma `$, we assume each nanoparticle to be an isotropic elastic continuum with stress-free boundary conditions. Then, as shown by Lamb , the lowest vibrational frequency is

$$\omega _0(d)\frac{2\pi v_\mathrm{t}}{d},$$
(14)
where $`v_\mathrm{t}`$ is the bulk transverse sound velocity and $`d`$ is the nanoparticle diameter. The mean detuning is then

$$\overline{\nu }=\omega _0\left(\overline{d}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ,$$
(15)
where $`\overline{d}`$ is the mean particle diameter. Using these relationships, we assume a distribution in detuning frequency given by

$$P(\nu )\frac{e^{\left(\nu \overline{\nu }\right)^2/\sigma ^2}}{\sqrt{\pi }\sigma }.$$
(16)
The ensemble-averaged population of electronic state $`|\alpha `$ is then given by

$$\overline{N}_\alpha (t)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu P(\nu )N_\alpha (t).$$
(17)
The behavior of $`\overline{N}_2(t)`$ at short times is sinusoidal with a decaying envelope dependent on the specifics of the particle size distribution. We will give examples of the short-time dynamics below.

The long-time behavior of $`\overline{N}_2(t)`$ can be obtained analytically by an asymptotic expansion. We begin by writing (17) as

$$\overline{N}_2(t)=\overline{N}_2(\mathrm{})+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}^2}{2\sqrt{\pi }\sigma }\mathrm{Re}I(t),$$
(18)
where

$$\overline{N}_2(\mathrm{})1\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}^2}{2\sqrt{\pi }\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu \frac{e^{\left(\nu \overline{\nu }\right)^2/\sigma ^2}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}^2+\nu ^2}$$
(19)
is a constant independent of time, and

$$I(t)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu \frac{e^{\left(\nu \overline{\nu }\right)^2/\sigma ^2}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}^2+\nu ^2}e^{it\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}^2+\nu ^2}},$$
(20)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}2g$$
(21)
is the *resonant* Rabi frequency. It will turn out that the constant $`\overline{N}_2(\mathrm{})`$ is simply the value of $`\overline{N}_2(t)`$ in the $`t\mathrm{}`$ limit. Values of this plateau population are given in Table 1.

The integral $`I(t)`$ can be evaluated at large times by analytically continuing $`\nu `$ into the complex plane and expanding around the saddle-point at $`\nu =0`$. This leads to the asymptotic result

$$I(t)e^{\overline{\nu }^2/\sigma ^2}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{t\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}^3}}e^{i(t\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}+\pi /4)},$$
(22)
and hence

$$\overline{N}_2(t)\overline{N}_2(\mathrm{})+\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{e^{\overline{\nu }^2/\sigma ^2}}{\sigma /\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(t\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}+\pi /4)}{\sqrt{t\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}}}(t\mathrm{}).$$
(23)
Note that at long times the population oscillates at the *resonant* Rabi frequency, independent of the mean detuning $`\overline{\nu }`$. This occurs because the higher-frequency components tend to average out faster. However, the amplitude of the asymptotic oscillations decreases with $`\overline{\nu }`$.

To illustrate the short-time behavior of $`\overline{N}_2(t)`$ as a function of $`\overline{\nu }`$ and $`\sigma `$, we present several plots showing $`\overline{N}_2(t)`$ as a function of $`t\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}`$. In choosing values for $`\overline{\nu }`$ and $`\sigma `$, we attempted to cover the entire range of these parameters which could be reasonably addressed in the RWA.

In Fig. 1, we study the resonant case where $`\overline{\nu }=0`$. By choosing three values of $`\sigma `$ we are able to directly observe the effects that it has on the envelope function. As $`\sigma `$ increases, the envelope function decays faster and the time at which asymptotic behavior becomes observable decreases. In this case of $`\overline{\nu }=0`$, changing $`\sigma `$ has little effect on the frequency at which $`\overline{N}_2(t)`$ oscillates.

Fig. 2, where $`\overline{\nu }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}`$, illustrates the effects of an intermediate value of $`\overline{\nu }`$. The short-time envelope function decays faster and the plateau population is increased. As in Fig. 1, increasing $`\sigma `$ increases the rate at which the short-time envelope function decreases, but here it can be seen to lower the frequency of oscillation in $`\overline{N}_2(t)`$. Unlike Fig. 1, Fig. 2 clearly shows how increasing $`\sigma `$ up to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}`$ increases the amplitude of oscillations at large times \[see Eqn. (23)\].

The last plot, Fig. 3, illustrates the limits of the RWA. The effects of increasing $`\overline{\nu }`$ are now taken to the extreme: the short-time envelope functions decay very rapidly, making asymptotic behavior apparent at early times, and the plateau population approaches unity. Altering $`\sigma `$ has similar effects as in Figs. 1 and 2, only more pronounced. \[$`\overline{N}_2(t)`$ for $`\sigma /\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}=0.1`$ levels off to its plateau population shortly past $`t\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}=50`$.\]

## 3 Population dynamics in Y2O3:Eu3+ nanoparticles

Here we use the results of Section 2 to address possible future experiments. We examine the case of Y2O3:Eu3+ nanoparticles, specifically the electron dynamics between two crystal-field split 5D1 levels separated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ=3`$ cm-1, such as in the experiment by Yang *et al.* . To make quantitative predictions for such nanoparticles, the only parameters that need to be specified are the mean detuning frequency $`\overline{\nu }`$, and the standard deviation in detuning $`\sigma `$. We also need the electron-phonon interaction strength $`g`$. Our treatment requires that $`\overline{\nu }`$ be not much greater than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}`$.

In the case of Y2O3:Eu3+ nanoparticles, we can estimate the electon-phonon interaction strength by using the experimentally observed bulk phonon emission rate . We obtain a value for $`g_{\mathrm{micron}}`$, the electron-phonon interaction strength in micron-size particles, and then scale this value to get $`g`$ for the nanoparticles. The scaling is achieved by assuming that $`g`$ varies with energy and system volume as it does in a bulk crystal. In principle, this method is only correct between two systems with continuous vibrational spectra. However, using this technique should provide a reasonable estimate of $`g`$ in the nanoparticle.

In the micron-scale crystal, Fermi’s golden rule states that for an electron-phonon interaction of the form given in Eqn. (1), the phonon emission rate is

$$\tau ^1=\frac{2\pi }{h}g^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ)V,$$
(24)
where $`V`$ is the crystal volume and $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$ is the electronic level spacing. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ)`$, the phonon DOS (per volume) as a function of phonon energy $`ϵ`$, is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ)\frac{1}{V}\underset{n}{}\delta (ϵ\mathrm{}\omega _n),$$
(25)
where $`\omega _n`$ are the phonon frequencies, and in a bulk crystal at low energies

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ)=\frac{ϵ^2}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3\overline{v}^3},$$
(26)
where

$$\overline{v}\left(\frac{1}{3}\underset{\lambda }{}\frac{1}{v_\lambda ^3}\right)^{1/3}$$
(27)
is a branch-averaged sound velocity.

The lifetime in the micron-sized crystal was observed to be $`\tau =220`$ ns , and in Y2O3 the sound velocities are approximately ,

$$v_\mathrm{l}=6.7\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(28)
$$v_\mathrm{t}=4.3\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(29)
and

$$\overline{v}=4.7\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(30)
$`g`$ is then given by

$$g=\frac{\pi \mathrm{}^2\overline{v}^{3/2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}\sqrt{\frac{2\tau ^1}{3V}}.$$
(31)
The mean diameter of these nanoparticles was about 5 $`\mu `$m, leading to $`g_{\mathrm{micron}}=2.04\times 10^6`$ cm-1.

In a bulk crystal (with deformation-potential coupling), $`g`$ varies as $`(ϵ/V)^{1/2}`$, so we scale $`g_{\mathrm{micron}}`$ in $`ϵ`$ and $`V`$ to get a value for $`g_{\mathrm{nano}}`$, the electron-phonon interaction strength in the nanoparticle,

$`g_{\mathrm{nano}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{10\mathrm{cm}^1}{3\mathrm{cm}^1}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{13\mathrm{nm}}{5\mu \mathrm{m}}}\right)^{3/2}g_{\mathrm{micron}},`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`2.8\times 10^2\mathrm{cm}^1.`$ (33)
Then the resonant Rabi frequency, as defined in Eqn. (21), is about

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}=5.6\times 10^2\mathrm{cm}^1.$$
(34)
In the experiment of Yang *et al.*, the mean particle diameter was 13 nm and the standard deviation in particle size was 5 nm . By Eqns. (14) and (15), these values yield $`\overline{\nu }=71\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}`$ and $`\sigma =44\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{res}}`$. This detuning is large enough that higher-energy vibrational modes can no longer be ignored, making our single mode treatment inapplicable. Furthermore, these values are too far off resonance to be reliably addressed by the RWA.

To observe the behavior predicted in Section 2 for Y2O3:Eu3+ nanoparticles, the mean diameter should be about 46 nm, and standard deviation in diameter no more than about 3 nm \[see Eqns. (14) and (15)\].

## 4 Discussion

We have shown that the unavoidable size-dispersion in a collection of nanoparticles can effect the ensemble-averaged electronic population dynamics considerably, affecting even the oscillation frequency at long times. However, our analysis has been restricted to near-resonant conditions in an idealized single-mode nanocrystal. A comprehensive theory of electron-phonon dynamics in nearly isolated nanoparticles will have to address a number of additional issues.

First, the vibrational modes of a nanoparticle will be broadened due to intrinsic mechanisms and from interaction to the environment. For example, anharmonicity will broaden the Lamb mode at finite temperature , as will mechanical coupling to a substrate or to a cluster of other nanoparticles . This broadening will cause the envelope of the population oscillations to decay exponentially at long times. For weak damping, however, we do not expect any qualitative changes in the short-time dynamics.

Second, nanoparticles will generally have large detuning frequencies, making the inclusion of higher-frequency modes necessary, and making the RWA invalid. One way to include these effects would be to do exact-diagonalization studies in models with a truncated Hilbert space; for example, having bounded phonon occupation numbers for one or more modes.

Finally, it will be necessary to understand the effects of vibrational-mode degeneracy, which has been neglected here. The presence of degeneracy means that the Lamb mode has a vector-like internal degree of freedom, the components of the vector describing the phonon amplitude in each branch. Although there has been work done in the quantum optics literature on the multi-mode generalizations of the our Hamiltonian (1), that work has focused on the two-photon resonance case where $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ=2\omega _0`$ . One way to approach the degenerate case nonperturbatively would be to assume $`N`$ degenerate modes in the limit of large $`N`$. By analogy with other quantum systems with internal degrees of freedom, like particles with $`N`$ spin components, it is reasonable to expect that quantum effects will be diminished in the large $`N`$ limit. In a nanoparticle this would suggest a suppression of the Rabi oscillations.

## 5 Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a Research Innovation Award from the Research Corporation. It is a pleasure to thank Bill Dennis, Richard Meltzer, and Kelly Patton for useful discussions.


text:
# Determinations of |𝑉_{𝑢𝑏}| with inclusive techniques at LEP

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The accuracy in the determination of the $`|V_{ub}|`$ element in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing matrix  plays an important role in the study of the unitarity triangle and in the related tests of the Standard Model (SM). In particular, a non-vanishing $`|V_{ub}|`$ is essential to preserve the possibility to describe CP violation within the SM and its value places a direct constraint on the magnitude of the CP violating phase $`\beta `$.

The first determination of the magnitude of $`|V_{ub}|`$ was obtained from the yield of leptons produced with momentum above the kinematic limit for $`bX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ transitions, first reported by Cleo  and soon confirmed by Argus . However this method is sensitive to only $``$ 10% of the inclusive charmless semileptonic (s.l.) yield, and the extraction of $`|V_{ub}|`$ is subject to a large model dependence.

More recently, exclusive $`B\pi \mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ and $`B\rho \mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays have been measured by Cleo . The determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$ from exclusive s.l. decays has still a significant model dependence. First lattice estimates of the relevant form factors indicate that a significant reduction of these uncertainties may be expected in the future.

The extraction of $`|V_{ub}|`$ from the distribution of the invariant mass $`M_X`$ of the hadronic system recoiling against the lepton pair peaked, for $`bX_u\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$, at a significantly lower value than for $`bX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ was proposed several years ago , and it has recently been the subject of new theoretical calculations . If $`bu`$ transitions can be discriminated from the dominant $`bc`$ background up to $`M_XM(D)`$, this method is sensitive to $``$ 80% of the charmless s.l. $`B`$ decay rate. Further, if no preferential weight is given to low mass states in the event selection, the non-perturbative effects are expected to be small and the OPE description of the transition has been shown to be accurate away from the resonance region.

The experimental challenge comes from the requirement to isolate the $`bu`$ contribution to the s.l. yield from the $``$ 60 times larger $`bc`$ one while ensuring a uniform sampling of the decay phase space to avoid biases towards a few exclusive low-mass, low-multiplicity states, such as $`\pi \mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ and $`\rho \mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$. In principle, this method is well suited for the LEP experiments, where the recorded statistics is not sufficient for studying the exclusive decay modes with good accuracy while the significant boost of the $`B`$ hadrons, the separation of $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ decay products in opposite hemispheres, and the good secondary vertex reconstruction capabilities make the study of inclusive decay $`B`$ decays possible. The analysis techniques adopted by the Aleph , Delphi  and L3  Collaborations are based on the observation that $`bX_u\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays can be inclusively discriminated from $`bX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ by exploiting the differences in the invariant mass and kaon content of the secondary hadronic system, in the decay multiplicity and in the decay vertex topology. These features have been used differently in the three analyses, resulting in determinations of the charmless s.l. branching fraction obtained from samples with varying efficiency and purity and with systematic uncertainties that are only partially correlated.

## 2 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The analyses consist of three main steps: i) inclusive selection of s.l. $`B`$ decay candidates, ii) definition of a subsample enriched in $`bu`$ transitions and iii) measurement of the charmless s.l. branching fraction. All experiments started from a sample of events containing an identified electron or muon selected from a combined data set of $``$ 8.2 M hadronic $`Z^0`$ decays. Aleph and Delphi also imposed $`b`$-tag criteria to reject light quark and charm backgrounds.

Aleph used two neural networks (NN) to separate charged and neutral $`B`$ decay products from fragmentation particles, reconstructed the secondary hadronic system and the $`B`$ rest frame and computed twenty $`bu`$ discriminating kinematical variables in this frame. Delphi also reconstructed the secondary hadronic system mass and the $`B`$ rest frame, but using a particle likelihood variable and an iterative topological reconstruction procedure and estimated the lepton energy in the $`B`$ rest frame $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ for each event. L3 adopted a consecutive cut analysis based on the kinematics of the two most energetic hadrons in the same hemisphere as the tagged lepton. All the three experiments observed a significant excess of events with the characteristics expected for $`bX_u\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays.

Aleph combined the selected discriminating variables by means of another NN to obtain a global discriminant variable NNbu (see Figure 1). The number of $`bX_u\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ candidates in the data was extracted by a binned likelihood fit to the NNbu and converted into the charmless s.l. BR.

Delphi divided the reconstructed events in four classes on the basis of the $`M_X`$ value and of enrichment criteria based on the relative position of the lepton w.r.t. the secondary vertex and the presence of tagged kaons. Of these classes the $`M_X<`$ 1.6 GeV/$`c^2`$ \- $`bu`$ enriched one was expected to contain almost 70% of the s.l. $`bu`$ decays while the other classes, depleted of signal events, were used to monitor the background modeling in the simulation (see Figure 2). The ratio $`|V_{ub}|/|V_{cb}|`$ was extracted, together with the overall data/MC normalization, from the fraction of $`bX_u\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ candidates observed in the data using a two parameter likelihood fit to the number of events in each of the four classes and to their $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ distributions.

Finally L3 extracted the charmless s.l. $`B`$ branching fraction by counting the excess of events over the estimated background after having applied their selection criteria.

Starting from a natural signal-to-background ratio, S/B, of about 0.02, Aleph obtained S/B = 0.07 with an efficiency $`ϵ=`$ 11%, Delphi S/B = 0.10 with $`ϵ=`$ 6.5% and L3 S/B = 0.16 with $`ϵ=`$ 1.5%. The results are summarized in Table 1. Several consistency checks were performed by the three experiments. Aleph explicitly used vertexing variables, Delphi performed a search for fully reconstructed $`B\pi \mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$, $`\rho \mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays and L3 validated the excess of events by constructing a $`bu`$ discriminating NN (see Figure 3).

## 3 AVERAGE BR($`bX_u\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$) AND
EXTRACTION OF $`|V_{ub}|`$

The three measurements of BR($`bX_u\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$) have been averaged using the Best Linear Unbiased Estimate (B.L.U.E.) technique . This technique provides with an unbiased estimate $`\mathrm{BR}_{\mathrm{LEP}}`$ that is a linear combination of the different measurements $`\mathrm{BR}_\mathrm{i}`$ corresponding to the minimum possible uncertainty $`\sigma `$:

$$\mathrm{BR}_{\mathrm{LEP}}=\frac{_{i=1}^3_{j=1}^3\mathrm{BR}_\mathrm{i}(E^1)_{ij}}{_{i=1}^3_{j=1}^3(E^1)_{ij}}$$
(1)
with $`\sigma ^2=\frac{1}{_{i=1}^3_{j=1}^3(E^1)_{ij}}`$ where $`E`$ is the error matrix including the off-diagonal terms giving the correlations between pairs of measurements.

The sources of correlated systematics belong to both the description of background $`bc`$ and to the modeling of signal $`bu`$ transitions. The differences in the analysis techniques adopted by the three experiments are reflected by differences in the sizes of the systematic uncertainties estimated from each common source. Important common systematics are due to the charm topological branching ratios and to the rate of $`DK^0`$ decays. Aleph and L3 are also sensitive to the uncertainties in the $`b`$ fragmentation function due to the use of kinematical variables for enriching in $`bX_u\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$. The Delphi result depends on the assumed composition in $`b`$ hadron species due to the use of kaon anti-tagging to reject $`bc`$, thus rejecting also $`B_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ decays. The signal $`bu`$ systematics have been grouped in inclusive model and exclusive model and assumed to be fully correlated. The first corresponds to the uncertainty in modeling the kinematics of the $`b`$-quark in the heavy hadron. It has been estimated from the spread of the results obtained with the ACCMM model , a shape function, describing the distribution of the light-cone residual momentum of the heavy quark inside the hadron  and the parton model  in the Aleph and Delphi analyses and from the uncertainties in the single $`\pi `$ and the lepton energy spectra for L3. The exclusive model uncertainty arises from the modeling of the hadronic final state in the $`bX_u\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay. These uncertainties have been estimated by replacing the parton shower fragmentation model in JETSET  with the fully exclusive ISGW2  model by Aleph and Delphi and by propagating a 100% uncertainty on the $`B\pi \mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ rate by L3. Using the inputs from Table 1, the LEP average value for BR($`bX_u\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$) was found to be: BR($`bX_u\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$) = (1.74 $`\pm `$ 0.37 (stat.+exp.) $`\pm `$ 0.38 ($`bc`$) $`\pm `$ 0.21 ($`bu`$)) $`\times `$ 10-3 = (1.74 $`\pm `$ 0.57) $`\times `$ 10-3 with a confidence level for the combination of 0.723 .

The value of the $`|V_{ub}|`$ element has been extracted by using the following relationship derived in the context of Heavy Quark Expansion

$$|V_{ub}|=.00445(\frac{\mathrm{BR}(bX_u\mathrm{}\overline{\nu })}{0.002}\frac{1.55\mathrm{ps}}{\tau _b})^{\frac{1}{2}}\times A$$
(2)
with $`A=(1\pm 0.020(\mathrm{QCD})\pm 0.035(\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{b}))`$ where the value $`m_b`$ = (4.58 $`\pm `$ 0.06) GeV/c$`^2`$ has been assumed . The uncertainties have been convoluted together assuming them to be Gaussian in BR($`bX_u\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$), with the exception of the theoretical uncertainty on $`A`$ assumed to be Gaussian in $`|V_{ub}|`$. The resulting probability density distribution is shown in Figure 4 and gives $`|V_{ub}|=(4.13_{0.75}^{+0.63})\times 10^3`$ at 68% C.L. and $`|V_{ub}|=(4.13_{1.71}^{+1.18})\times 10^3`$ at 95% C.L. The part of this function in the negative, unphysical region is negligible, corresponding to only 0.12%. By repeating this procedure separately for each systematic, the detailed result for the 68% C.L. is: $`|V_{ub}|=(4.13_{0.47}^{+0.42}(\mathrm{stat}.+\mathrm{det}.)_{0.48}^{+0.43}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{syst}.)`$ $`{}_{0.25}{}^{+0.24}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{sys}.)`$ $`\pm 0.02(\tau _b)\pm 0.20(\mathrm{HQE}))\times 10^3`$.

## 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The LEP analyses have demonstrated the feasibility of an inclusive determination of the charmless s.l. $`B`$ branching fraction by discriminating $`bu`$ from $`bc`$ decays on the basis of the mass, multiplicity and kaon content of their secondary hadronic system and of their decay topology. Differently exploited by three of the LEP experiments, these event characteristics have been used to obtain clear signals for the decay, to measure its branching fraction and to derive a LEP combined value of $`|V_{ub}|=(4.13_{0.75}^{+0.63})\times 10^3`$ at 68% C.L. with the relative uncertainty due to the $`bu`$ model below 10%. This result agrees with the recent Cleo determination  using the exclusive $`B\rho \mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay branching fraction giving $`|V_{ub}|=(3.25_{0.64}^{+0.61})\times 10^3`$ where the uncertainty is dominated by a 17% model systematic mostly uncorrelated with that of the LEP measurement. The agreement between the inclusive and exclusive determinations, as in the case of $`|V_{cb}|`$, is encouraging as a test of the underlying theory assumptions and to control possible violations of quark-hadron duality in semileptonic $`B`$ decays.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel greatly indebted to my DELPHI colleagues P.M. Kluit, P. Roudeau and W. Venus and to the members of the LEP $`V_{ub}`$ Working Group for their contributions of results, ideas and comments. In the definition of the analysis methods and in the estimate of the model systematics, we greatly profited from the suggestions and the results from M. Beneke, I. Bigi, F. De Fazio, A. Hoang, Z. Ligeti, M. Neubert and N. Uraltsev.


text:
# SUPERFIELD COVARIANT QUANTIZATION WITH BRST SYMMETRY

## 1 Introduction

In previous years it has been realized that two principles are essential in the formulation of appropriate quantum versions of a classical theory considered in the covariant, i.e. Lagrangian, approach, namely, the invariance under the BRST transformations , and the gauge-independence of the $`S`$-matrix.

It is well-known that the first principle can be replaced by the requirement of BRST–antiBRST symmetry , which also leads to possible versions of quantization methods, such as the $`Sp(2)`$-covariant quantization , the triplectic quantization , or the extended superfield BRST quantization .

For the first time, the two above-mentioned principles were realized in the framework of the BV quantization method  for general gauge theories, proposed by Batalin and Vilkovisky.

It should be noted that the requirements of (extended) BRST symmetry and gauge-independence are two independent principles, which can be exemplified by the method of $`Osp(1,2)`$-covariant quantization  that satisfies the requirement of extended BRST symmetry, while violating the requirement of gauge-independence.

Note also that there is arbitrariness in the realization of the above principles, which implies that there can be off-shell different quantum versions of a classical theory. The existence of this arbitrariness may be exemplified by different extensions of the BV quantization method (see, e.g., ).

The purpose of this report is to demonstrate the fact that extending the method of the BV quantization in the part of gauge-fixing, while retaining the principles of BRST symmetry and gauge-independence, can lead to off-shell different quantum theories. To do so, we consider the superfield form  of the BV quantization rules, which provides another realization of the principles of BRST symmetry and gauge-independence. By extending  in the part of gauge-fixing, we obtain a quantization scheme  that differs from a natural generalization of the gauge-fixing procedure inherent in the BV quantization.

## 2 Batalin–Vilkovisky Formalism

Let us remind the basic ingredients of the BV quantization method for general gauge theories .

The starting point is a classical gauge-invariant action $`S_0(A)`$ of fields $`A^i`$. The action may belong to the class of irreducible or reducible theories, with a closed or open algebra of gauge transformations. The complete configuration space $`\varphi ^A`$ is introdiced, spanned by the initial fields $`A^i`$, the ghost fields, and the auxiliary fields. The content of the complete configuration space is determined by the properties of the initial theory, i.e. by the fact whether the theory is an irreducible or reducible one. Note that the explicit structure of the complete configuration space is not essential for the following considerations.

With each field $`\varphi ^A`$, a corresponding antifield $`\varphi _A^{}`$ is accociated, having the opposite Grassmann parity, $`\epsilon (\varphi _A^{})=\epsilon _A+1`$. In the space of the field-antifield variables one defines the antisimplectic operation $`(,)`$ called the antibracket

$`(F,G)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \varphi ^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta G}{\delta \varphi _A^{}}}(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (G)+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta G}{\delta \varphi ^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \varphi _A^{}}}`$ (1)
and the nilpotent operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=(1)^{\epsilon _A}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \varphi ^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _A^{}}},\mathrm{\Delta }^2=0.`$ (2)
The basic object of the BV quantization is the quantum action $`S=S(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})`$ that satisfies the generating equation

$$\frac{1}{2}(S,S)=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }S,$$
(3)
or equivalently

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S\right\}=0,$$
(4)
with the boundary condition

$$S|_{\varphi ^{}=\mathrm{}=0}=S_0.$$

The vacuum functional $`Z`$ is defined as an integral over the fields of the complete configuration space $`\varphi ^A`$,

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi )\right\}},`$ (5)
where

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi )=S_{\mathrm{ext}}(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})|_{\varphi ^{}=0}.`$ (6)
In eq. (6), $`S_{\mathrm{ext}}=S_{\mathrm{ext}}(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})`$ is the gauge-fixed quantum action constructed as the symmetry transformation

$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}S_{\mathrm{ext}}\right\}=\mathrm{exp}\left([\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Psi }]_+\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}S\right\},`$ (7)
retaining the form of the generating equation (4)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S_{\mathrm{ext}}\right\}=0,$$
(8)
and introduced with the help of the gauge fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ that removes the degeneracy of the functional integral (5).

Equivalently, the vacuum functional (5) can be represented in the form of an integral over the variables $`\varphi ^A`$, $`\varphi _A^{}`$, $`\lambda _A`$,

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[S_{\mathrm{ext}}(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})+\varphi _A^{}\lambda ^A\right]\right\}},`$ (9)
where $`\lambda _A`$ are additional fields with the Grassmann parity opposite to that of the fields $`\varphi ^A`$, $`\epsilon (\lambda _A)=\epsilon _A+1`$.

By virtue of eq. (8), the integrand in eq. (9) is invariant under the global supersymmetry transformations

$`\delta \varphi ^A=\lambda ^A\mu ,\delta \varphi _A^{}=\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{ext}}}{\delta \varphi ^A}},\delta \lambda ^A=0`$ (10)
with an anticommuting parameter $`\mu `$. Eqs. (10) realize the transformations of BRST symmetry in the space of the variables $`\varphi ^A`$, $`\varphi _A^{}`$, $`\lambda _A`$.

It follows from eqs. (4), (7) and (9) that the vacuum functional $`ZZ_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ does not depend on the choice of the gauge fermion, $`Z_{\mathrm{\Psi }+\delta \mathrm{\Psi }}=Z_\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and hence, by the equivalence theorem , the corresponding $`S`$-matrix is gauge-independent.

When formulating the rules of the BV quantization, the choice of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the symmetry transformation (7) was made in the form of a functional depending on the fields, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi )`$. In this case the corresponding vacuum functional (5) reduces to the well-known expression

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[S(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})+\left(\varphi _A^{}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }}{\delta \varphi ^A}\right)\lambda ^A\right]\right\}}.`$ (11)
## 3 Modified Superfiled BRST Quantization

Recently, a closed superfield form of the BV quantization rules was proposed . In this formalism all variables of the BV approach are combined into so-called superfields and super-antifields in a superspace spanned by space-time coordinates and a scalar Grassmann coordinate. The vacuum functional (11) of the BV formalism is contained in the superfield approach as a particular case of gauge-fixing and solutions of the generating equation.

We now generalize  the superfield BRST formalsim  in such a way that the gauge is introduced by means of a bosonic functional depending on all variables of the superfield formalism, including the super-antifields. The gauge-fixing functional is subject to a generating equation similar to the equation that determines the quantum action.

Let us introduce a superspace $`(x^\mu ,\theta )`$ spanned by space-time coordinates $`x^\mu `$, $`\mu =(0,1,\mathrm{},D1)`$, and a scalar anticommuting coordinate $`\theta `$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ be a set of superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$, accompanied by a set of the corresponding super-antifields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$ with the Grassmann parities $`\epsilon (\mathrm{\Phi }^A)\epsilon _A,\epsilon (\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{})=\epsilon _A+1`$. The superfields are subject to the boundary condition

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )|_{\theta =0}=\varphi ^A.`$ (12)
Define the vacuum functional $`Z`$ as the following integral:

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\rho [\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(S[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]+X[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\right\}}.`$ (13)
In eq. (13), $`S=S[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$ is the quantum action determined by the generating equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(S,S)+VS=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }S,`$ (14)
while $`X=X[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$ is the gauge-fixing functional that satisfies the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(X,X)UX=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }X.`$ (15)
In eqs. (13), (14) and (15), we have used the antibracket $`(,)`$ expressed in terms of arbitrary functionals $`F=F[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$, $`G=G[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$ by the rule

$`(F,G)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\theta \{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta G}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}}(1)^{\epsilon _A+1}`$
$`(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (G)+1)}(FG)\}.`$
We have also used the operators $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`V`$ and $`U`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta (1)^{\epsilon _A}\frac{\delta _l}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}\frac{}{\theta }\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}},`$ (17)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}{\theta }\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}},`$ (18)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}{\theta }\frac{\delta _l}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}}`$ (19)
(derivatives with respect to $`\theta `$ are understood as acting from the left) as well as the functionals $`\rho [\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$`\rho [\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \left({\displaystyle 𝑑\theta \mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\theta )}\right),`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}.`$ (21)
The algebra of the above operators (17), (18) and (19) reads as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }^2=0,U^2=0,V^2=0,& \\ & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }U+U\mathrm{\Delta }=0,\mathrm{\Delta }V+V\mathrm{\Delta }=0,UV+VU=0.& \end{array}$$
(22)
The equations (14) and (15) can be represented in the equivalent form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S\right\}& =& 0,\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}X\right\}& =& 0\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
with the help of the operators

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}V,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}U,`$
having the algebraic properties

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2=0,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2=0,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=0.`$
By the nilpotency (22) of the operator $`U`$ (19), any functional

$$X=U\mathrm{\Psi }[\mathrm{\Phi }]$$
(24)
with a fermionic functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ is a solution of the equation (15). The above expression (24) has the exact form of the gauge-fixing functional applied by the method of superfield BRST quantization .

By virtue of eqs. (14) and (15), the integrand in eq. (13) is invariant under global supersymmetry transformations with an anticommuting parameter $`\mu `$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )\hfill & =& \hfill \mu U\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )+(\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta ),XS)\mu ,\\ \delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )\hfill & =& \hfill \mu V\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )+(\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta ),XS)\mu .\end{array}$$
(25)
Eqs. (25) are the transformations of BRST symmetry in the framework of the modified superfield BRST quantization.

By virtue of eqs. (14), (15), (22) and (25), the vacuum functional $`ZZ_X`$ in eq. (13) does not depend on the choice of the gauge boson, $`Z_{X+\delta X}=Z_X`$, which, consequently, ensures  the gauge-independence of the $`S`$-matrix.

The method of modified superfield BRST quantization permits to generalize the BV quantization scheme with respect to the gauge-fixing procedure. In fact, consider the component representation of the superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ and super-antifields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )=\varphi ^A+\lambda ^A\theta ,\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )=\varphi _A^{}\theta J_A.`$
The set of the variables $`\varphi ^A`$, $`\varphi _A^{}`$, $`\lambda ^A`$ and $`J_A`$ coincides with the complete set of variables applied by the BV method, where the components $`J_A`$, $`\epsilon (J_A)=\epsilon _A`$, are identified with the sources to the fields $`\varphi ^A`$.

In the component form, the antibracket (3) and the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (17) coincide with the corresponding objects (1) and (2) of the BV method.

Let us now represent the integration measure (20) in the component form

$`d\mathrm{\Phi }d\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\rho [\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]=d\varphi d\varphi ^{}d\lambda dJ\delta (J).`$
Solutions of the generation equation that determine the action $`S`$ when $`J_A=0`$ may be sought among solutions of the master equation (3) applied by the BV method, since the operator $`V`$ (18)

$`V=J_A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _A^{}}}`$
vanishes when $`J_A=0`$.

Let us choose the functional $`S`$ to be independent of $`\lambda ^A`$. Taking into account the component form of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in eq. (21)

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi _A^{}\lambda ^AJ_A\varphi ^A,`$
we obtain the following representation of the vacuum functional (13):

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[S(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})+X(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\lambda )+\varphi _A^{}\lambda ^A\right]\right\}}.`$ (26)
The above result (26) may be considered as a natural extension of the BV quantization procedure to a more general case of gauge-fixing. In fact, the functional $`X=U\mathrm{\Psi }[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ is a solution of the generating equation (15). Note that the component representation of the operator $`U`$ (19) reads

$`U=(1)^{\epsilon _A}\lambda ^A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \varphi ^A}}.`$
Let us choose the functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to be independent of the fields $`\lambda ^A`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi )`$. Then we find that the gauge-fixing functional $`X`$

$`X(\varphi ,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi ^A}}\lambda ^A`$ (27)
becomes identical with the gauge applied by the BV quantization method, and therefore in the above particular case (27) of solutions that determine $`X`$ the vacuum functional (26) of the modified superfiels BRST formalism coincides with that of the BV method (11). This means, given the established gauge-independence within the BV approach as well as within the modified superfield BRST formalism, the coincidence of the $`S`$-matrices in both these methods, including the case when the gauge-fixing of the BV method is extended to an arbitrary (admissible) gauge fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the symmetry transformation (7).

Let us show, however, that the extension of the gauge-fixing procedure of the BV method obtained as a generalization of the gauge fermion does not coincide with that provided by the modified superfield BRST formalism. Consider the generalization of the BV vacuum functional (11) following from eq. (5) with the symmetry transformation (7) extended to the case of the gauge fermion chosen as a functional of fileds and antifields, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})`$. Then the original vacuum functional (5) can be represented in the form

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[S(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})+S_\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ,\lambda )+\varphi _A^{}\lambda ^A\right]\right\}},`$ (28)
where the corresponding gauge-fixed part $`S_\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ,\lambda )`$ of the quantum action,

$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}S_\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ,\lambda )\right\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\varphi {}_{}{}^{}d\varphi ^{^{}}\delta (\varphi \varphi {}_{}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }}{\delta \varphi ^{^{}}}})\delta (\varphi ^{^{}})\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\left[\left(\varphi ^{^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }}{\delta \varphi ^{}}}\right)\lambda +i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\right]\right\},`$
does not depend on the antifields. In this sense, the introduction of gauge with the help of the bosonic functional $`X`$ (15) and (26) in the framework of the modified superfield BRST approach can be considered as a formal extension of the gauge-fixing procedure introduced by means of the symmetry transformation (7) within the BV quanization method.

Note that gauge-fixing in terms of the bosonic functional $`X`$ (15), or (23), aslo leads to a generalization of the usual Ward identities. Indeed, define, as we return to the vacuum functional (26), the extended generating functional $`Z(J,\varphi ^{})`$ of Green’s functions by the rule

$`Z(J,\varphi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\varphi {}_{}{}^{}d\varphi ^{^{}}d\lambda \mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[S(\varphi {}_{}{}^{},\varphi ^{^{}})+X(\varphi {}_{}{}^{},\varphi ^{^{}},\lambda )`$ (29)
$`+(\varphi ^{^{}}\varphi ^{})\lambda +J\varphi {}_{}{}^{}]\},`$
where we have introduced the sources $`J_A`$ to the fields $`\varphi ^A`$.

In the particular case when the bosonic functional $`X`$, by analogy with the BV method (28), does not contain dependence on the antifields, $`X=X(\varphi ,\lambda )`$, the generating equation (23) that determines $`X`$ takes on the form

$`U\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}X\right\}=0.`$ (30)
From eqs. (29) and (30), with allowance for eq. (3), follow the well-known Ward identities for gauge theories

$`J_A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _A^{}}}Z(J,\varphi ^{})=0.`$
When extending eq. (30) to the case (23) that corresponds to the presence of antifields in the gauge-fixing functional, $`X=X(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\lambda )`$, the form of the corresponding Ward identities is modified to

$`J_A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _A^{}}}Z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}J_A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta X}{\delta \varphi _A^{^{}}}}Z,`$
where we have used the notation $`\delta X/\delta \varphi _A^{^{}}`$ for the vacuum expectation value of the functional $`\delta X/\delta \varphi _A^{^{}}`$ , $`X=X(\varphi {}_{}{}^{},\varphi ^{}{}_{}{}^{},\lambda )`$.

## 4 Conclusion

In this report, we have considered the modified scheme  of superfield Lagrangian quantization based on the principles of BRST symmetry and the gauge-independence of the $`S`$-matrix. We have shown that the formalism  provides a generalization of the gauge-fixing procedure of the BV quantization method , different from the natural extension of the gauge-fixing inherent in . Thus we conclude that the above two extensions of the BV approach provide off-shell different realizations of the principles of BRST symmetry and gauge-independence, while leading to identical $`S`$-matrices.

Acknowledgements The work was partially supported by a grant of the Ministry of General and Professional Education of the Russian Federation in the field of fundamental sciences, as well as by grant RFBR 99-02-16617. The work of P.M.L. was also partially supported by grants INTAS 991-590 and RFBR-DFG 99-02-04022.