text:
# References

question of setting up the quantum mechanics of a particle on a brane configuration in the matrix model of $`M`$-theory . It is by now clear that the matrix model can successfully describe many of the expected features of $`M`$-theory. Smooth brane configurations and solutions of $`M`$-theory can be obtained in the large $`N`$-limit of appropriate $`(N\times N)`$-matrix configurations . Now, brane solutions in M(atrix) theory are examples of noncommutative manifolds, specifically those with an underlying Lie algebra structure. The relationship between the matrix description and $`M`$-theory and strings suggests that noncommutative manifolds with an underlying Lie algebra structure (or their specializations into cosets) would be the most interesting ones from a physical point of view. Therefore we shall focus on such manifolds, although one can, of course, consider the question of quantum mechanics on more general noncommutative manifolds as well.

There is, by now, an enormous number of papers dealing with noncommutative geometry. One line of development has to do with spectral actions and the use of the Dirac operator to characterize the manifold, motivated by quantum gravity . Quantization of such actions has also been attempted . The majority of recent papers deals with noncommutative manifolds with an underlying canonical structure and the construction of field theories on these spaces . There has also been some recent work on manifolds with an underlying Lie algebra structure, including the definition of a star product and the construction of gauge fields which take values in the enveloping algebra . The topic of the present paper fits within the general milieu of these ideas and investigations, but we also have a very specific theoretical context, namely, brane solutions in M(atrix) theory. If the world is a brane , and if it is realizable as a solution in M(atrix) theory, then the quantum mechanics of a particle on a brane is clearly of more than mathematical interest.

Consider a particular brane solution in M-theory, say, the noncommutative spherical membrane. In this case the brane has the topology of $`S^2\times S^1`$, where the $`S^2`$ is the noncommutative part described by matrices and $`S^1`$ denotes the compactified 11-th dimension. The two-sphere is given in terms of three matrix coordinates which may be taken as

$$Q_a=\frac{r}{\sqrt{j(j+1)}}t_a$$
(1)
where $`r`$ is a fixed number which is the radius of the sphere and $`t_a,a=1,2,3`$, are the generators of $`SU(2)`$ in the $`(2j+1)`$-dimensional matrix representation. As the dimension $`(2j+1)\mathrm{}`$, we get a smooth manifold which is $`S^2`$. This limit can be very explicitly understood by the representation

$`T_+=T_1+iT_2=z^2_zNz`$
$`T_{}=T_1iT_2=_z`$
$`T_3=z_z\frac{1}{2}N`$ (2)
A basis of states on which these act is given by $`|\alpha ,\alpha =0,1,\mathrm{},N`$ with $`z|\alpha =1,z,z^2,\mathrm{},z^N`$. The inner product is given by

$$g|f=(N+1)\frac{d^2z}{\pi }\frac{1}{(1+z\overline{z})^{N+2}}\overline{g}f$$
(3)
The matrix elements of $`T_a`$ with the $`(N+1)`$ states $`|\alpha `$ give the standard matrix version of $`t_a`$, viz., $`(t_a)_{\alpha \beta }=\alpha |T_a|\beta `$. By partial integration, we can see that $`T_a`$ can be replaced, in matrix elements, by

$`T_+=\lambda \varphi +z^2_z`$
$`T_{}=\lambda \overline{\varphi }_z`$
$`T_3=\lambda \varphi _3+z_z`$ (4)
where $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}(N+2)`$ and

$$\varphi =\frac{2z}{1+z\overline{z}},\overline{\varphi }=\frac{2\overline{z}}{1+z\overline{z}},\varphi _3=\frac{1z\overline{z}}{1+z\overline{z}}$$
(5)
As $`N\mathrm{}`$, the $`\lambda \varphi `$-terms in the above expressions for $`T_a`$ dominate and we find $`t_a\lambda \varphi _a`$. Thus $`Q_ar\varphi _a`$, with $`\varphi _a\varphi _a=1`$. The membrane is described by the continuous coordinates $`z,\overline{z}`$.

At finite $`N`$, the two-sphere is described by the $`(N+1)`$ states $`|\alpha `$ which may be thought of as approximating the sphere by $`(N+1)`$ points, none of which has sharply defined coordinates. Translations of $`|\alpha `$ can be achieved by the use of $`T_\pm `$. However, this is not what we want. As $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`T_\pm `$ go over to $`\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }`$ and correspond to the mutually commuting coordinates $`z,\overline{z}`$. They do not play the role of momenta conjugate to those coordinates obeying the Heisenberg algebra. We need to identify the momenta which lead to the Heisenberg algebra as $`N\mathrm{}`$. Since the latter does not have finite dimensional matrix representations, it is also clear that we should expect a modified algebra at finite $`N`$. Ultimately, from the point of view of noncommutative spaces, one keeps $`N`$ finite, the limit being taken only to show agreement with the smooth manifold limit.

The classical dynamics of a particle moving on a sphere gives a clue to the choice of a momentum operator or generator of translations. In the classical case, we may write the momentum as $`P_a=(1/q^2)ϵ_{abc}q_bJ_c`$, where $`q_a`$ is the coordinate and $`J_c`$ is the angular momentum operator, here taken as the fundamentally defined quantity. (If we reduce $`J_c`$ in terms of $`q_b`$, and $`p_b`$ conjugate to it, we find $`P_a=\left(\delta _{ab}q_aq_b/q^2\right)p_b`$, which are the correct translation generators consistent with $`q_aq_a=1`$.) Absorbing $`r`$ into the definition of $`Q_a`$, a possible choice of $`P_a`$ is then $`\frac{1}{2}(\lambda /Q^2)ϵ_{abc}(Q_bJ_c+J_cQ_b)`$, where we have symmetrized $`Q_a,J_a`$ to form a hermitian combination. The operators $`Q_a,J_a`$ obey the algebra

$$[Q_a,Q_b]=\frac{i}{\lambda }ϵ_{abc}Q_c$$
(6)
$`[J_a,Q_b]=iϵ_{abc}Q_c`$
$`[J_a,J_b]=iϵ_{abc}J_c`$ (7)
Notice that

$`\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{abc}(Q_bJ_c+J_cQ_b)`$ $`=ϵ_{abc}\left(Q_bJ_c+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵ_{cbk}Q_k\right)`$ (8)
$`=ϵ_{abc}Q_bJ_ciQ_a`$
$`=ϵ_{abc}Q_b(J_c\lambda Q_c)`$
$`=\lambda ϵ_{abc}Q_bK_c`$
where $`\lambda K_a=J_a\lambda Q_a`$. Further

$`[K_a,K_b]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\lambda }}ϵ_{abc}K_c`$
$`[K_a,Q_b]=0`$ (9)
Therefore, rather than starting with $`J_a`$, we might as well consider the mutually commuting $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$-algebra of $`Q_a,K_a`$ and define the momentum operator as

$$P_a=\lambda \frac{ϵ_{abc}}{\sqrt{Q^2K^2}}K_bQ_c$$
(10)
where $`Q^2=Q_aQ_a,K^2=K_aK_a`$. Obviously, $`[P_a,Q^2]=[P_a,K^2]=0`$ so that there is no ordering ambiguity in the definition of $`P_a`$. We have chosen to divide by the symmetric expression $`\sqrt{Q^2K^2}`$ eventhough the classical expression had $`q^2`$. As we shall see below, $`Q^2K^2`$ in the continuous manifold limit. Also the parameter $`\lambda `$ will be related to $`Q^2,K^2`$ below. The commutation rules for $`P_a`$ become

$`[P_a,Q_b]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{Q^2K^2}}}\left[\delta _{ab}QK\frac{1}{2}(Q_aK_b+Q_bK_a){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{abc}P_c}{2\lambda }}\right]`$
$`[P_a,P_b]=iϵ_{abc}{\displaystyle \frac{QK}{Q^2K^2}}J_c`$ (11)
$`J_a=\lambda (Q_a+K_a)`$ are the generators of the diagonal $`SU(2)`$ subgroup.

The smooth manifold limit can be understood by considering large representations for $`Q_a`$ and $`K_a`$, and analyzing representations of the diagonal $`SU(2)`$ of $`J_a`$. Labelling the corresponding spins by lower case letters, we find $`\lambda ^2Q^2=q(q+1),\lambda ^2K^2=k(k+1),J^2=j(j+1)`$ and $`2\lambda ^2QK=j(j+1)q(q+1)k(k+1)`$. If we take $`q,k`$ very large and the combined spin $`j`$ to be small and fixed, and $`\lambda ^2=\sqrt{Q^2K^2}q(q+1)k(k+1)`$, we find that the algebra (6), (9), (11) reduces to

$`[Q_a,Q_b]0`$
$`[P_a,Q_b]i\left(\delta _{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_aQ_b}{Q^2}}\right)`$ (12)
$`[P_a,P_b]iϵ_{abc}{\displaystyle \frac{J_c}{Q^2}}`$
We also have $`Q_aQ_a1`$. Equations (12) are the Heisenberg algebra restricted to a smooth two-sphere of unit radius. (Taking $`\lambda ^2=\sqrt{Q^2K^2}/r^2`$, we can get a radius equal to $`r`$.)

The emergence of the continuous coordinates and the large $`\lambda `$-expansion can be seen in more detail as follows. We write a general $`SU(2)`$-valued $`(2\times 2)`$-matrix as

$$g=\sqrt{1\frac{x^2}{r^2}}+i\stackrel{}{\sigma }\frac{\stackrel{}{x}}{r}$$
(13)
where $`\sigma _a`$ are the Pauli matrices. We then find that

$`g^1dg=i{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _a}{2}}E_{ab}dx^b`$
$`dgg^1=i{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _a}{2}}\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}dx^b`$ (14)
where

$`E_{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}\left[ϵ_{abc}x_c+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ab}(r^2x^2)+x_ax_b}{\sqrt{r^2x^2}}}\right]`$
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}=E_{ba}`$ (15)
The above equations define the frame fields on $`SU(2)`$. The inverses to $`E_{ab}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}`$ are given by

$`E_{ab}^1=\frac{1}{2}\left(ϵ_{abc}x_c+\delta _{ab}\sqrt{r^2x^2}\right)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}^1=E_{ba}^1`$ (16)
The quantities

$`Q_a^{}=i\stackrel{~}{E}_{ka}^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_k}}`$
$`K_a^{}=iE_{ka}^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_k}}`$ (17)
obey mutually commuting $`SU(2)`$ algebras. Further, since $`[x_a,\sqrt{r^2x^2}_b][x_b,\sqrt{r^2x^2}_a]=0`$, we see that we can shift $`Q_a^{}`$ by $`x_a`$ and $`K_a^{}`$ by $`x_a`$ and still obtain the same algebra. In other words, we can define

$`Q_a=\left[x_a+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\lambda }}\left(ϵ_{abc}x_c+\delta _{ab}\sqrt{r^2x^2}\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{x_b}}\right]`$
$`K_a=\left[x_a+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\lambda }}\left(ϵ_{abc}x_c\delta _{ab}\sqrt{r^2x^2}\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{x_b}}\right]`$ (18)
$`J_a=\lambda (Q_a+K_a)=iϵ_{abc}x_b{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_c}}`$
This is in a form suitable for the large $`\lambda `$-expansion for $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$, with the combined total spin being small. As $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, the $`x_a`$-terms are dominant in the expressions for $`Q_a,K_a`$ and we get $`Q_ax_a,K_ax_a`$. The algebra (6), (9), (11) reduces to

$`[P_a,Q_b]i\left(\delta _{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{x_ax_b}{x^2}}\right)`$
$`[P_a,P_b]iϵ_{abc}{\displaystyle \frac{J_c}{x^2}}`$ (19)
$`x^2=x_ax_a=r^2`$ is a constant in this limit. The $`\varphi `$’s given in (5) are a particular parametrization of the $`x_a`$’s subject to $`x_ax_a`$ being constant.

In taking the limit as above we have retained $`S^2`$-topology for the smooth manifold. It is important to realize that since we are dealing with $`Q`$’s which obey a Lie algebra, $`Q^2`$ is fixed for any representation and hence we will not get a flat Heisenberg algebra. A way to obtain the flat space algebra would be to take the radius $`r`$ to be very large and then restrict the operators to a small neighbourhood on the sphere. This will lead to a flat two-dimensional Heisenberg algebra as $`r\mathrm{}`$. For example, we can expand around $`x_a=(0,0,r)`$. It is interesting to see how this works out directly in terms of the operators $`Q_a,K_a`$. The neighbourhood of $`x_a=(0,0,r)`$ corresponds to $`Q_3`$ and $`K_3`$ being large. Since $`Q_3r`$ and $`\lambda k/r`$, we see that $`[Q_1,Q_2]ir^2/k`$ and so, the commutativity of coordinates in the large $`k`$-limit requires that $`r^2k^\delta `$ with $`\delta <1`$ as $`k\mathrm{}`$. On the other hand, we also have $`[P_1,P_2]1/r^2`$ and the vanishing of this requires $`\delta >0`$. The simplest and symmetrical choice is to take $`\delta =\frac{1}{2}`$ or $`rk^{\frac{1}{4}}`$. We define eigenstates of $`Q_3,K_3`$ by

$`K_3|m,n=(k+m)|m,n`$
$`Q_3|m,n=(kn)|m,n`$ (20)
Restricting to small neighbourhood of large $`Q_3`$, $`K_3`$ means that the integers $`m,n`$ can be considered to be small compared to $`k`$. In this case, introducing raising and lowering operators $`\alpha ^{},\alpha `$ for $`n`$ and $`\beta ^{},\beta `$ for $`m`$, we find

$`Q_1={\displaystyle \frac{r}{\sqrt{2k}}}(\alpha +\alpha ^{})`$
$`Q_2={\displaystyle \frac{ir}{\sqrt{2k}}}(\alpha ^{}\alpha )`$
$`P_1={\displaystyle \frac{i}{r}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}}(\alpha \alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}\beta )`$ (21)
$`P_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}}(\alpha +\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}+\beta )`$
where we can take $`r=r_0k^{\frac{1}{4}}`$ and, as usual, $`\alpha |m,n=\sqrt{n}|m,n1`$, $`\beta |m,n=\sqrt{m}|m1,n`$, etc. The flat space Heisenberg algebra is now easily verified.

In the usual procedure of quantization, starting with a set of classical coordinates $`q_a`$, one introduces the momenta and the phase space, thereby doubling the number of variables. The quantum theory is then defined by one irreducible representation of the Heisenberg algebra. equivalent to the standard Schrödinger representation. The restriction to irreducibility is equivalent to the requirement that the wavefunctions depend only on half of the phase space variables, the coordinates $`q_a`$, for example. This is the so-called polarization condition. For a given wavefunction, this allows the determination of the momenta as $`p_a\psi =i(\psi /q_a)`$.

In our case, starting with $`Q_a`$, obeying the $`SU(2)`$-algebra (6), we introduce the $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$-algebra (6), (9) of $`Q_a,K_a`$. The set $`Q_a,K_a`$ can be considered as the analogue of the phase space. The analogue of the polarization condition implies that we must choose an irreducible representation of $`Q_a,K_a`$. As we have seen already, the smooth manifold limit corresponds to $`q,k\mathrm{}`$. For a given irreducible representation, labelled by the spin values $`(q,k)`$, there are several representations possible for the angular momentum $`J_a=\lambda (Q_a+K_a)`$, the lowest possible $`j`$-value being $`|qk|`$. The difference $`|qk|`$ may be interpreted as the strength of a magnetic monopole at the center of the sphere, or a uniform magnetic field through the sphere. (I thank Polychronakos for discussions clarifying this point.) In the absence of any magnetic monopole field, we can take $`q=k`$. $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Generalization}\mathrm{to}SU(n)}`$

More general brane solutions require the consideration of $`N`$-dimensional representations of $`SU(n)`$, $`n>2`$, with $`N\mathrm{}`$ eventually. The generalization of our considerations to $`SU(n)`$ is straightforward. Basically one has to consider an $`SU(n)\times SU(n)`$-algebra

$`[Q_a,Q_b]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\lambda }}f_{abc}Q_c`$
$`[K_a,K_b]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\lambda }}f_{abc}K_c`$
$`[K_a,Q_b]=0`$ (22)
The momentum operator can then be defined by

$$P_a=\frac{n\lambda }{2}f_{abc}\frac{K_bQ_c}{\sqrt{Q^2K^2}}$$
(23)
$`P_a`$ is a derived quantity, with $`Q_a,K_a`$ defining the basic algebra, as in the case of $`SU(2)`$. The commutator of $`P_a`$ with $`Q_b`$ can be evaluated without too much trouble, eventhough it is more involved than in the case of $`SU(2)`$. The following identity for the the structure constants is useful for this calculation. Let $`t^a`$ be hermitian $`(n\times n)`$-matrices which form a basis of the Lie algebra of $`SU(n)`$ with $`[t^a,t^b]=if^{abc}t^c,\mathrm{Tr}(t^at^b)=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ab}`$. We can then write

$`f_{amc}f_{bkc}+f_{bmc}f_{akc}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{^4}{x^ax^by^my^k}}F`$
$`F`$ $`=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{[tx,ty][tx,ty]\right\}`$ (24)
The traces can be evaluated using the identity

$$txty+tytx=\frac{xy}{n}+2d_{abc}x_ay_bt_c$$
(25)
where $`d_{abc}=\mathrm{Tr}\{(t_at_b+t_bt_a)t_c\}`$. Equation(24) then becomes the identity

$`f_{amc}f_{bkc}+f_{bmc}f_{akc}`$ $`=[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{n}}\delta _{ab}\delta _{mk}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}(\delta _{am}\delta _{bk}+\delta _{ak}\delta _{bm})`$ (26)
$`+8d_{abc}d_{mkc}4d_{amc}d_{bkc}4d_{akc}d_{bmc}]`$
With the help of this identity, the commutator of $`P_a`$ with $`Q_b`$ is now obtained as

$`[P_a,Q_b]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{K^2Q^2}}}\left[\delta _{ab}KQ\frac{1}{2}\left(K_aQ_b+K_bQ_a\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\lambda }}f_{abc}P_c`$ (27)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{in}{\sqrt{K^2Q^2}}}K_mQ_n\left(2d_{abc}d_{mnc}d_{amc}d_{bnc}d_{bmc}d_{anc}\right)`$
The calculation of $`[P_a,P_b]`$ is more involved. It does not seem to be very illuminating for our discussion.

It is also possible to develop expressions for $`Q_a,K_a`$, which are analogues of equations (13)-(18), in terms of an $`(n^21)`$-vector $`x_a`$ which parametrizes $`SU(n)`$. We can write the variation of a group element $`gSU(n)`$ as $`g^1dg=it_aE_{ab}dx^b`$ and $`dgg^1=it_a\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}dx^b`$. The quantities $`E_{ab}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}`$ are transposes of each other. For example, if we use an exponential parametrization $`g=\mathrm{exp}(itx)`$, we can write

$`E_{ab}`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha 2\mathrm{Tr}\left(t_ae^{i\alpha tx}t_be^{i\alpha tx}\right)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha 2\mathrm{Tr}\left(t_ae^{i\alpha tx}t_be^{i\alpha tx}\right)`$ (28)
This equation shows explicitly that $`E_{ab}=\stackrel{~}{E}_{ba}`$. The left and right translation generators are then

$`L_a`$ $`=i\stackrel{~}{E}_{ka}^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^k}}`$
$`R_a`$ $`=iE_{ka}^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^k}}`$ (29)
with $`L_ag=t_ag,R_ag=gt_a`$. These obey the Lie algebra relations $`[\xi _a,\xi _b]=if_{abc}\xi _c`$, $`\xi =L,R`$. In terms of $`V_a(L_a+R_a)`$ and $`A_a(L_aR_a)`$, this becomes

$`[V_a,V_b]=if_{abc}V_c`$
$`[V_a,A_b]=if_{abc}A_c`$ (30)
$`[A_a,A_b]=if_{abc}V_c`$
Since $`A_a`$ involves the symmetric combination $`E_{ka}^1+\stackrel{~}{E}_{ka}^1`$, the last of these relations is unaltered by shifting the $`A_a`$ by $`x_a`$, i.e., $`[A_a+x_a,A_b+x_b]=if_{abc}V_c`$. Further, $`e^{i\theta V}g=e^{it\theta }ge^{it\theta }`$, showing that $`x_a`$ transforms as a vector under the action of $`V_a`$. The operators $`Q_a`$ and $`K_a`$ can then be defined as

$`Q_a=x_a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda }}(V_a+A_a)`$
$`K_a=x_a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda }}(V_aA_a)`$ (31)
These can be used as the starting pont for a large $`\lambda `$-expansion around some chosen value of $`x_a`$.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation grant PHY-9605216 and a PSC-CUNY-30 award. I thank Professor Bunji Sakita for useful discussions. I also thank Professor N. Khuri and the Rockefeller University for hospitality during part of this work and I. Giannakis for a critical reading of the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Large two-level magnetoresistance effect in doped manganite grain boundary junctions

(received )

## Abstract

We performed a systematic analysis of the tunneling magnetoresistance (TMR) effect in single grain boundary junctions formed in epitaxial La2/3Ca1/3MnO3 films deposited on SrTiO3 bicrystals. For magnetic fields $`H`$ applied parallel to the grain boundary barrier, an ideal two-level resistance switching behavior with sharp transitions is observed with a TMR effect of up to 300% at 4.2 K and still above 100% at 77 K. Varying the angle between $`H`$ and the grain boundary results in differently shaped resistance vs $`H`$ curves. The observed behavior is explained within a model of magnetic domain pinning at the grain boundary interface.

Ferromagnetic tunneling junctions have been studied intensively over the last years due to possible applications in magnetoelectronics devices. The tunneling magnetoresistance (TMR) between two ferromagnetic layers $`i=1,2`$ separated by a thin insulating barrier depends on the relative orientation of the magnetization and the spin polarization $`P_i=2a_i1`$, where $`a_i`$ is the fraction of majority spin electrons in the density of states of layer $`i`$. Within the Jullière model Julliere:75a , the TMR is estimated to

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}=\frac{R_{}R_{}}{R_{}}=\frac{2P_1P_2}{1P_1P_2},$$
(1)
where $`R_{}`$ and $`R_{}`$ is the tunneling resistance for parallel and anti-parallel magnetization orientation. Depending on the spin polarization, for parallel magnetization the tunneling resistance is significantly reduced, since the large density of occupied and empty states for the majority spin electrons in both junction electrodes allow for a large tunneling current. We note that in the Jullière model only elastic tunneling without any spin-flip processes is assumed and the junction electrodes are assumed to be single domain.

So far, most of the investigated TMR devices are based on transition metals and compounds such as Ni, Co, Fe, or Co50Fe50 with $`P50`$% (for recent overviews see Moodera et al. Moodera:99  and Parkin et al. Parkin:99a ). It is evident that $`P`$ close to unity is desired to achieve a high TMR-effect. There are several candidates for materials with large $`P`$ close to 100% such as the Mn-based Heusler alloys deGroot:83 , the oxide ferromagnets as Fe3O4 or CrO2, and the doped manganites of composition La$`{}_{x}{}^{}D_{1x}^{}`$MnO3 with $`D=`$ Ca, Sr, and Ba. While for the former materials the high spin polarization is still under question Kaemper:88 , recently photoemission spectroscopy has provided direct evidence for the half-metallic nature of La0.7Sr0.3MnO3 Park:98  with $`P`$ close to unity. Indeed, using doped manganites high TMR values have been achieved Lu:96 ; Sun:96 , including trilayer spin valve devices with a TMR value above 450% at 4.2 K corresponding to a spin polarization above 80% Viret:97a ; Blamire:2000  and even above 1000% at 4.2 K corresponding to a spin polarization above 90% Lu:00 . We emphasize that the TMR-effect in manganite tunnel junctions is observed at low applied magnetic field of less than 100 mT and has to be distinguished from the intrinsic, high-field colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) of the doped manganites vonHelmolt:93 ; Jin:94 . While most tunnel junctions rely on multilayer technology, one can also form ferromagnetic tunnel junctions by using well-defined individual grain boundaries (GBs) separating two ferromagnetic grains. This is achieved by growing epitaxial manganite films on a SrTiO3 bicrystal substrates Mathur:97a ; Steenbeck:97 ; Klein:99a ; Gross:99a ; Hoefener:00 . In this configuration the barrier is formed by a straight, few nm wide distorted GB interface as shown by transmission electron microscopyGross:99a ; Wiedenhorst:00 ; Gross:00a . After annealing in oxygen atmosphere, single GB junctions (GBJs) with large TMR effects have been achievedMathur:97a ; Steenbeck:97 ; Klein:99a ; Gross:99a ; Hoefener:00 .

For many applications not only a large TMR effect but also a sharp switching between two distinct resistance values at a well-defined magnetic field is required. Such ideal, almost rectangular shaped $`R(H)`$-curves with a maximum resistance change below 50% Lu:96  have been observed for some devices based on transition metals. However, for tunnel junctions based on doped manganite junctions (and also for many devices based on transition metals), usually strongly rounded and noisy $`R(H)`$ curves Sun:96 , sharply peaked structures Mathur:97a , or multiple resistance level switching is reported. This behavior most likely originates from an uncontrolled domain switching. Here, we present a detailed study of the shape of the $`R(H)`$ curves of GBJs based on doped manganites. We show that an almost perfect two-level resistance switching behavior with a sharp transition between the resistance values can be obtained. We further show that such ideal behavior is achieved with the magnetic field applied within the film plane parallel to the GB barrier. We also demonstrate that it is possible to vary the magnitude of the switching field $`H_s`$ by changing the angle between the GB and the applied field. Our results provide evidence that domain wall pinning structures, intergrain coupling, and the direction of the applied field can be combined to taylor the $`R(H)`$-curves of magnetic tunnel junctions.

GBJs were fabricated by pulsed laser deposition of epitaxial, 80 nm thick La2/3Ca1/3MnO3 films on symmetrical,  tilt SrTiO3 bicrystals with a misorientation angle of 24. After film deposition the samples were annealed ex-situ at 950C in oxygen atmosphere for one hour. X-ray analysis of the films shows only (00$`\mathrm{}`$) reflexes and the FWHM of the (002) rocking curve was 0.04. Microbridges of 30 $`\mu `$m width straddling the GB were patterned using optical lithography and Ar ion beam etching. In this way, well-defined individual GBJs were obtained. The La2/3Ca1/3MnO3 films typically had a Curie-temperature $`T_C`$ of about 225 K. Further details on the transport properties and the microstructure of the GBJs have been reported recently Klein:99a ; Gross:99a ; Hoefener:00 ; Wiedenhorst:00 ; Gross:00a ; Wiedenhorst:99a .

In Fig. 1, typical $`R(H)`$ curves of a La2/3Ca1/3MnO3 GBJ are shown for different angles $`\theta `$ between the GB barrier and the magnetic field $`H`$, which always is applied within the film plane. For $`0^{}<\theta <80^{}`$ rectangular shaped $`R(H)`$-curves are observed clearly indicating a two-level resistance switching behavior. Here, $`\theta =90^{}`$ and $`0^{}`$ corresponds to $`H\mathrm{GB}`$ and $`H\mathrm{GB}`$, respectively. The switching field $`H_s`$ is shifted to larger values with increasing $`\theta `$. At the same time the TMR effect decreases. For $`\theta 80^{}`$ several sharp jumps occur in $`R(H)`$ indicating a multi-level resistance scheme. At $`\theta =90^{}`$, where $`H\mathrm{GB}`$, a broad continuous $`R(H)`$ curve is observed forming the envelope of the $`R(H)`$ curves measured for $`\theta <90^{}`$. In the $`\theta =90^{}`$ curve still some jump-like resistance switches between well-defined states are observed. The field scale for $`H_s`$ is set by the coercivity field $`H_c`$ which varies for differently doped manganites. In addition, the measured switching field $`H_s`$ depends on the velocity of the field sweep and the magnetic history indicating the importance of domain dynamics.

According to Jullière’s model Julliere:75a , a two-level behavior of the $`R(H)`$-curves is expected if the electrodes are considered to be single domain. The two resistance levels correspond to the fully parallel and anti-parallel magnetization configuration of the two ferromagnetic electrodes. That is, the $`R(H)`$-curves observed for $`\theta =0^{}`$ are close to those expected according to the Jullière model for a tunnel junction consisting of electrodes with slightly different $`H_c`$. The $`R(H)`$ curves for $`\theta =0^{}`$ are shown in more detail in Fig. 2 for several field sweeps. The switching between the two resistance levels occurs within less than 10 Oe at 4.2 K. When the direction of the field sweep is reversed on the high-resistance branch (curve 1), the junction stays in the high-resistance (opposite magnetization direction) state on crossing zero field (curve 2). That is, depending on the magnetic history two stable resistance values can be realized for $`H_s<H<H_s`$. When the field is swept from a large negative to a large positive field value or vice versa (curves 3 and 4), the high-resistance state is reached after crossing zero field and has a plateau width of about 50-100 Oe. Increasing $`\theta `$ results in larger $`H_s`$ and also larger plateau width.

From the measured value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R3`$ at 4.2 K a spin polarization of $`P_i77`$% is estimated. At 77 K the TMR effect is still above 100%, but the rectangular shape of the $`R(H)`$ curve starts to round. It still has to be clarified why the measured TMR values are below the Jullière value expected for an almost fully spin-polarized ferromagnet ($`P_i100`$%). Possible reasons are spin-flip processes arising from inelastic transport via localized states in imperfect tunneling barriers Klein:99a  or scattering from magnetic excitations Zhang:97 . Such effects are not included in the Jullière model. Furthermore, strain effects in the manganite films may be responsible for a reduced spin polarization close to the GB. Unfortunately, little is known on the detailed interface and surface properties of doped manganites. Nonetheless, the fact that $`P8090`$% has already been observedViret:97a ; Lu:00  indicates that a further improvement of junction and interface quality will allow for a further increase of the TMR effect both in GBJs and planar tunnel junctions based on doped manganites.

We now discuss the dependence of the shape of the $`R(H)`$-curve on the direction of the applied field using a simple domain model taking into account the magnetic domain pinning at the GB interface. A sketch of the expected domain structure is shown in Fig. 3 for $`H`$GB and $`H`$GB. We first note that at the GB interface the easy axis of magnetization is parallel to the GB. This is well known from surface studies of magnetic materials hubert:98 . Furthermore, for $`|H|H_c`$ the magnetization is parallel to $`H`$ in both junction electrodes, that is, $`R(H)`$ is low. However, on decreasing the field from $`|H|H_c`$ a different domain structure is expected for different field directions. We first discuss the case $`\theta =0^{}`$, where $`H\mathrm{GB}`$, i.e. parallel to the easy axis at the GB. In this case, $`R(H)`$ can be low or high depending on whether the magnetization direction in the electrodes is parallel or anti-parallel. Furthermore, on varying the field in the high- resp. low-resistance state, a small resistance change below 1% is observed due to the formation of small domains with different magnetization direction at the edges of the sample (shaded regions in Fig. 3). Since these domains are small, they do not contribute considerably to the transport behavior and magnetoresistance of the GBJ. In a first approximation, both junction electrodes can be considered single domain as assumed in the Jullière model. We note that for $`H\mathrm{GB}`$ the single domains are strongly pinned by the GB interface. Thus, on decreasing the field amplitude from $`|H|H_c`$ a parallel magnetization orientation and hence low $`R(H)`$ is preserved until the coercivity field of opposite direction is reached. Then, at $`|H|H_c`$ the magnetization direction in one electrode switches resulting in an anti-parallel magnetization configuration and, thus, high resistance state. This anti-parallel magnetization configuration is stabilized in a finite field range around $`H_c`$ due to a reduction of the magnetic energy by reducing stray fields. On further increasing the field also the second electrode switches resulting again in a parallel magnetization configuration and low resistance state.

For $`\theta =90^{}`$, we have $`H\mathrm{GB}`$, i.e. $`H`$ perpendicular to the easy axis at the GB. When the field is decreased, domains form at the GB with magnetization parallel to the GB. Since these perpendicular and non-collinear (with respect to the applied field) oriented domains are located at the GB, they will strongly affect the transport properties and magnetoresistance. In this case, the electrode regions adjoining the GB can no longer be considered as single domain. The measured triangular shaped $`R(H)`$ curves can be attributed to a continuous change of the size of the non-collinear domains. Note that for $`|H|H_c`$ the magnetization configuration at the GB is similar for $`\theta =0^{}`$ and $`\theta =90^{}`$ resulting in similar $`R(H)`$ values in agreement with our experiments. We further note that for $`\theta =90^{}`$ the anti-parallel domain configuration is present along the whole GB, because the applied field has no component parallel to the GB. Such a component destabilizes the anti-parallel configuration and, in turn, causes a switching of the magnetization. This explains why the $`R(H)`$ curves for $`\theta =90^{}`$ form is the envelope of the $`R(H)`$ curves measured for $`\theta <90^{}`$.

For intermediate $`0^{}<\theta <90^{}`$ the behavior can be understood qualitatively within the same picture. An increase of $`\theta `$ is found to increasing $`H_s`$. This is caused by the fact that the field component parallel to the GB which drives the switching transition decreases with increasing $`\theta `$. At the same time the plateau width of the high-resistance state becomes wider since the reduced parallel field component also drives the second switching transition into the low-resistance state by overcoming the energy gain in the anti-parallel configuration due to reduction of stray fields. Fig. 1 clearly shows that only for $`\theta >45^{}`$ a significant angle dependence is observed. This is caused by the strong tendency of the domains to align parallel to the easy axis along the GB. Certainly, the direct imaging of the domain structure in the vicinity of the GB would be helpful to verify our model.Vlasov:2000  In particular, the formation of multiple stable resistance states for large $`\theta `$ that may be related to the microstructure of individual GBs and their interface roughness has to be clarified. Similar effects have also been observed in planar sandwich junctions employing Co and MnFe electrodes with different aspect ratios Gallagher:97 . So far, we have not studied in detail the influence of different GB misorientation angles. However, we suppose that the effect of different misorientation angles is small compared to the effect of the relative orientation between $`H`$ and the GB discussed here.

In summary, we have shown that an almost ideal, two-level resistance switching behavior can be obtained for GBJs based on doped manganites. The switching field, the magnitude of the TMR effect, and the shape of the $`R(H)`$ curves can be varied systematically by varying the orientation of the applied field relative to the GB barrier. The measured $`R(H)`$ characteristics have been interpreted in terms of a simple domain model demonstrating the key role of a strong domain wall pinning at the grain boundary. Our results outline possible roads for the tayloring of the properties of magnetic tunnel junctions based on doped manganites for applications in magnetoelectronic devices.

The authors acknowledge useful discussion with B. Büchner, R. Klingeler, A. Marx, and S. Uhlenbruck. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.


text:
# Attractor Modulation and Proliferation in 1+∞ Dimensional Neural Networks

## 1 Introduction

In real (biological) recurrent neural networks, where information processing is based on the creation and manipulation of attractors, one typically observes an intricate interplay and competition between long-range information processing (via excitatory pyramidal neurons) and short-range information processing (via short-range pyramidal neurons and inhibitory inter-neurons). Studying those properties of such systems which are linked to their spatial structure, using statistical mechanical techniques, requires moving away from the more traditional infinite range models of attractor neural networks . With the latter objective, an alternative type of attractor neural networks was recently proposed and studied , in which neurons (represented by Ising spins) are mutually connected by a combination of infinite range synaptic interactions, and one-dimensional nearest-neighbour interactions. Although real biological network architectures are obviously far more complex, such models, which are still sufficiently simple to be solved exactly, via a combination of mean-field techniques (as in e.g. ) and random field techniques (as in e.g. ), would appear to represent a small but welcome step towards biological reality. Moreover, from a statistical mechanical perspective, the solutions of these models exhibited a remarkably rich behaviour, even in the so-called low storage regime (where the number of patterns stored in the interactions remains finite in the thermodynamic limit), and particularly in those regions in parameter space where the two types of interactions (long range versus nearest-neighbour) compete most strongly. The phase diagrams where found to describe a series of regions with different numbers of ergodic components, separated by both second and first order transitions (representing various dynamical transitions, in addition to the thermodynamic ones), and to increase dramatically in complexity with the number $`p`$ of stored patterns.

The present paper is devoted to a further exploration and enlargement of the class of models introduced in . We study two orthogonal extensions, each with their own specific objectives. Our first extension is to include also neuronal interactions between next-nearest neighbours in the 1D-chain (in addition to the mean-field and nearest neighbour ones), and to study their impact on the phase diagrams. Here the motivation is, again, partly biological: short-range pyramidal neurons are believed to act on shorter distances than short-range inter-neurons, and simple models of the type proposed here have indeed been used recently to explain properties of the mammalian visual system . We find, especially when the parameters controlling the new interactions are chosen such as to introduce further competition and frustration into the network, new phases are being created and the complexity of the phase diagram is again significantly increased. Our second extension is primarily motivated by our desire to understand the significant qualitative modification of the phase diagrams as observed in  resulting from just a small increase in the number of stored patterns (e.g. $`p=1`$ versus $`p=2`$). More specifically, in contrast to the traditional long-range models, in models with short-range interactions one finds a stronger disruptive effect of non-condensed patterns on the recall of the condensed ones. In order to shed light on such phenomena we extend the original models of  by modulating the embedding strengths of the individual stored patterns (and therefore the attractors themselves), as in , so that we can smoothly interpolate between, for instance, the $`p=1`$ and $`p=2`$ models. This reveals, as was expected on the basis of the qualitative differences between the $`p=1`$ and $`p=2`$ diagrams, a very complicated and interesting scenario of phase diagram deformation. Both extensions of the original models in  introduce technical complications, but these are largely of a quantitative nature, and the extra work needed to again arrive at exact solutions is more than adequately compensated by the richness of the resultant phase diagrams.

## 2 Definitions

As in , each of our extended models is defined as a collection of $`N`$ binary neuron variables (i.e. Ising spins) $`𝝈=(\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _N)`$, with $`\sigma _i\{1,1\}`$, which evolve in time stochastically and sequentially, following the Glauber-type rule

$$\mathrm{Prob}\left[\sigma _i(t+1)=\pm 1\right]=\frac{1}{2}\left[\text{}1\pm \mathrm{tanh}[\beta h_i(𝝈(t))]\right]h_i(𝝈)=\underset{ji}{}J_{ij}\sigma _j$$
(1)
The parameters $`J_{ij}`$ represent the synaptic interactions, and the parameter $`\beta =1/T`$ controls the amount of stochasticity in the dynamics. If the interaction matrix is symmetric, the process (1) leads to a unique equilibrium state of the Boltzmann type, i.e. with microscopic state probabilities of the form $`p_{\mathrm{}}(𝝈)\mathrm{exp}[\beta H(𝝈)]`$ and with the conventional Ising Hamiltonian $`H(𝝈)=_{i<j}\sigma _iJ_{ij}\sigma _j`$. Information processing in such systems is based on the creation and manipulation of attractors in the system’s configuration space, by a suitable choice of the spin-interactions $`\{J_{ij}\}`$, which shape the energy landscape. In statistical mechanical terms, the two key aspects of these interactions which determine the analytical solvability or otherwise of the the resulting models are (i) the spatial structure defined by the interactions (reflected in which of the $`J_{ij}`$ are non-zero), and (ii) the actual values taken by the non-zero interactions (which will generally be non-trivial, in order to achieve the objective of the creation of specific attractors). For the interaction matrix $`J_{ij}`$ we now make two different choices which both generalise the model class of , but in qualitatively different ways.

Our first generalisation focuses on the values of those interactions which are present, while retaining the mean-field plus nearest neighbour interaction structure of :

$$\mathrm{model}\mathrm{I}:J_{ij}=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{p}{}}[\frac{J_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}}{N}+J_\mu ^s(\delta _{j,i+1}+\delta _{j,i1})]\xi _i^\mu \xi _j^\mu $$
(2)
in which the components $`\xi _i^\mu \{1,1\}`$ are all drawn independently at random, with equal probabilities. Neural networks of this type correspond to the result of having stored in a Hebbian-type fashion a set of $`p`$ binary patterns $`𝝃_i=(\xi _i^1,\mathrm{},\xi _i^p)\{1,1\}^N`$. The neurons can be thought of as arranged on a one dimensional array with mean-field interactions between all pairs $`(i,j)`$ given by $`N^1_\mu J_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}\xi _i^\mu \xi _j^\mu `$, in combination with interactions between nearest neighbours neighbours $`(i,i+1)`$ of strength $`_\mu J_\mu ^s\xi _i^\mu \xi _{i+1}^\mu `$. We will only consider the case where $`lim_N\mathrm{}p/N=0`$. The parameters $`J_\mu ^s`$ and $`J_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}`$ control the embedding strength of pattern $`\mu `$ in the short- and long-range synapses, with negative values corresponding to the creation of ‘repellors’ rather than attractors. For uniform embedding strengths, $`J_\mu ^s=J_s`$ and $`J_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}=J_{\mathrm{}}`$ for all $`\mu `$, we recover .

Our second generalisation affects the spatial structure of the system, rather than the properties of the attractors (although the latter will be indirectly affected). Here our choice of interactions is

$$\mathrm{model}\mathrm{II}:J_{ij}=[\frac{J_{\mathrm{}}}{N}+J_s^{(1)}(\delta _{j,i+1}+\delta _{j,i1})+J_s^{(2)}(\delta _{j,i+2}+\delta _{j,i2})]\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{p}{}}\xi _i^\mu \xi _j^\mu $$
(3)
In neural networks of type II, the short-range synaptic interactions reach beyond nearest-neighbours; here $`J_{\mathrm{}},J_s^{(1)},J_s^{(2)}\mathrm{}`$ control the strengths of long-range, nearest-neighbour and second nearest-neighbour interactions. Alternatively, in these models the neurons can be thought of as lying on a strip, mutually coupled by infinite range interactions of strength $`J_{\mathrm{}}/N𝝃_i𝝃_j`$, in combination with short-range ‘diagonal’ interactions of strength $`J_s^{(1)}𝝃_i𝝃_{i+1}`$ and ‘edge’ interactions of strength $`J_s^{(2)}𝝃_{i1}𝝃_{i+1}`$ (see the figure). Note that the models of type II reduce to those in  for $`J_s^{(2)}=0`$.

The most relevant observables in our models are the so-called overlap order parameters, defined as $`m_\mu (𝝈)=N^1_i\xi _i^\mu \sigma _i`$, which measure the degree of similarity between the actual network state $`𝝈`$ and the $`\mu `$-th stored pattern.

Due to the presence of short-range interactions in the above models (and, similarly, those of ), the solution of even the simplest scenario where $`pN`$ is already significantly more complicated than solving the standard infinite-range (Hopfield-type, ) cases. The solution of both models will be based on a suitable adaptation of the random-field techniques of .

## 3 Physics of Model I

### 3.1 Solution via Random Field Techniques

In order to find the phase diagrams we first isolate the $`p`$ overlap order parameters by inserting $`1=𝑑𝒎\delta [𝒎\frac{1}{N}_i\sigma _i𝝃_i]`$ with $`𝒎=(m_1,\mathrm{},m_p)`$ and $`𝝃_i=(\xi _i^1,\mathrm{},\xi _i^p)`$ in the expression for the asymptotic free energy per site $`f=lim_N\mathrm{}(\beta N)^1\mathrm{ln}Z`$, and subsequently replace the delta functions by their integral representations. For model I this leads to

$$f=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{\beta N}\mathrm{ln}𝑑𝒎𝑑\widehat{𝒎}e^{\beta N\varphi _N(𝒎,\widehat{𝒎})}$$

$$\varphi _N(𝒎,\widehat{𝒎})=i\widehat{𝒎}𝒎\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu }{}J_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}m_\mu ^2\frac{1}{\beta N}\mathrm{ln}R_N(\widehat{𝒎})$$
(4)
where the non-trivial part of the calculation, mainly induced by the short-range interactions, has been concentrated in the term $`R_N(\widehat{𝒎})`$ (we consider non-periodic boundary conditions):

$$R_N(\widehat{𝒎})=\underset{𝝈}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}T_{\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}}e^{i\beta _\mu \widehat{m}_\mu \sigma _N\xi _N^\mu },T_{\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}}=e^{i\beta _\mu \widehat{m}_\mu \sigma _i\xi _i^\mu +\beta _\mu J_\mu ^s(\sigma _i\xi _i^\mu )(\sigma _{i+1}\xi _{i+1}^\mu )}$$
(5)
In the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ the above integral will be evaluated via steepest descent. This results in an expression for $`f`$ in terms of the relevant saddle-point of the asymptotic form of $`\varphi _N`$: $`f=\mathrm{extr}_{𝒎,\widehat{𝒎}}lim_N\mathrm{}\varphi _N(𝒎,\widehat{𝒎})`$. Since the quantity $`R(\widehat{𝒎})`$ does not contain the order parameters $`𝒎`$, we can immediately take derivatives in (4) with respect to $`𝒎`$, which allows us to eliminate the conjugate variables $`\widehat{𝒎}`$ via $`i\widehat{m}_\mu =J_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}m_\mu `$ for all $`\mu `$. Furthermore we observe that, since for each $`\mu `$ the order parameter $`m_\mu `$ is coupled to the infinite-range embedding strengths $`J_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}`$, the so-called ‘pure state’ ansatz $`𝒎=(m,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ will automatically render the solution of the model independent of $`J_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}`$ for all $`\mu >1`$. From now on we will therefore use the notation $`J_1^{\mathrm{}}=J_{\mathrm{}}`$. Upon making the pure state ansatz, the resulting simplifications lead to

$$T_{\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}}=e^{\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\sigma _i\xi _i^1+\beta _\mu J_\mu ^s(\sigma _i\xi _i^\mu )(\sigma _{i+1}\xi _{i+1}^\mu )}$$
(6)
To evaluate (5) we now first define the quantities

$$R_\pm ^{(N)}(𝒎)=\underset{𝝈}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}T_{\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}}e^{\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\sigma _N\xi _N^1}\delta _{\sigma _N,\pm 1}$$
(7)
These allow us to derive a 2$`\times `$2 stochastic recurrence relation, mapping $`\{R_\pm ^{(N1)}\}`$ onto $`\{R_\pm ^{(N)}\}`$:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}R_+^{(N)}(𝒎)\\ R_{}^{(N)}(𝒎)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{\beta (J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _N^1+_\mu J_\mu ^s\xi _{N1}^\mu \xi _N^\mu )}& e^{\beta (J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _N^1_\mu J_\mu ^s\xi _{N1}^\mu \xi _N^\mu )}\\ e^{\beta (J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _N^1+_\mu J_\mu ^s\xi _{N1}^\mu \xi _N^\mu )}& e^{\beta (J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _N^1+_\mu J_\mu ^s\xi _{N1}^\mu \xi _N^\mu )}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}R_+^{(N1)}(𝒎)\\ R_{}^{(N1)}(𝒎)\end{array}\right)$$
(8)
from which the partition sum of (5) follows as

$`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta N}}\mathrm{ln}R_N(𝒎)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta N}}\mathrm{ln}[R_+^{(N)}(𝒎)+R_{}^{(N)}(𝒎)]`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta N}}\mathrm{ln}\left\{\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{N}{}}}𝑻_i\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}R_+^{(1)}(𝒎)\\ R_{}^{(1)}(𝒎)\end{array}\right)\right\}`$
The successive matrix multiplications above can be simplified via the use of the following ratio of the conditioned quantities $`\{R_+^{(j}(𝒎),R_{}^{(j)}(𝒎)\}`$:

$$k_j=e^{2\beta mJ_{\mathrm{}}\xi _j^1}\frac{R_{}^{(j)}(𝒎)}{R_+^{(j)}(𝒎)}$$

It now follows from (8) that these numbers $`k_i`$ are, in turn, generated by the following stochastic process

$$k_{j+1}=\frac{e^{_\mu J_\mu ^s\xi _j^\mu \xi _{j+1}^\mu }+k_je^{_\mu J_\mu ^s\xi _j^\mu \xi _{j+1}^\mu }e^{2\beta mJ_{\mathrm{}}\xi _j^1}}{e^{_\mu J_\mu ^s\xi _j^\mu \xi _{j+1}^\mu }+k_je^{_\mu J_\mu ^s\xi _j^\mu \xi _{j+1}^\mu }e^{2\beta mJ_{\mathrm{}}\xi _j^1}}$$
(14)
The stochasticity here is in the pattern components $`\{\xi _i^\mu \}`$. This allows us to work out the partition sum and express the asymptotic free energy per neuron as $`f=\mathrm{extr}_mf(m)`$, with

$$f(m)=\frac{1}{2}J_{\mathrm{}}m^2\frac{1}{\beta }𝑑k\underset{𝝃,𝝃^{}\{1,1\}^p}{}\rho (k,𝝃,𝝃^{})\mathrm{log}\left\{e^{\beta _\mu J_\mu ^s\xi _\mu \xi _\mu ^{}}+ke^{\beta _\mu J_\mu ^s\xi _\mu \xi _\mu ^{}}e^{2\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _1}\right\}$$
(15)
with

$$\rho (k,𝝃,𝝃^{})=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\delta [kk_i]\delta _{𝝃,𝝃_i}\delta _{𝝃^{},𝝃_{i+1}^{}}$$
(16)
The joint distribution (16), which is the invariant distribution for the process (14) and which can be highly non-trivial  (depending on the choice of system parameters, the associated integrated density can take the shape of a Devil’s Staircase), is in practice calculated numerically. In the present case one can in fact simplify matters further by exploiting symmetry properties of $`\rho (k,𝝃,𝝃^{})`$ resulting from the homogeneous distribution assumed for the $`\{\xi _i^\mu \}`$.

### 3.2 Phase Diagrams and Comparison with Numerical Simulations

We can now extract the macroscopic characteristics of model I by generating the variables $`\{k_j;jN\}`$ numerically (together with the $`\{\xi _i^\mu \}`$), which leads us to the joint distribution (16), and by subsequently evaluating (numerically) the local minima of the free energy surface (15). We show in figure 1 the resulting phase diagrams, for $`\beta J_2^s=\{0,3/2,5/2,\beta J_1^s\}`$ and for the simplest non-trivial case $`p=2`$. In all graphs dashed lines correspond to second-order transitions and solid lines to first-order ones.

Note that for $`J_2^s=0`$ (see figure 1, upper left panel) only pattern $`\mu =1`$ is effectively embedded in the spin chain, and the phase diagram of the model is identical to that found earlier in  for $`p=1`$, as it should. In this diagram we observe, apart from strictly null-recall (N) and recall (R) phases, that there is also a region in which the trivial solution and two non-trivial ones (one with positive and one with negative $`m`$) can be locally stable simultaneously (indicated by $`\text{N}_2`$)111From now on regions which allow for locally stable null-recall solutions will be denoted by $`\text{N}_i`$, with $`i`$ indicating the number of simultaneously locally stable recall solutions. Similarly, regions which do not allow for locally stable null-recall solutions will be denoted by $`\text{R}_i`$.. This region corresponds to parameter values for which the two different types of synapses compete most strongly (negative nearest-neighbour interactions versus positive infinite-range ones). It is separated from the recall region by a second-order transition (dashed line), and from the null-recall region by a first-order transition (solid line); these two lines come together at $`\{\beta J_{\mathrm{}},\beta J_1^s\}=\{\sqrt{3},\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}3\}`$. Another benchmark solution of  is recovered for the special case of having uniform short-range embedding strengths $`J_2^s=J_1^s`$ (see figure 1, lower right panel). Here, two ‘pairs’ of first-order transition lines have appeared which separate the regions $`\text{R}_4`$ and $`\text{R}_6`$ (where $`m=0`$ is unstable and where 4 and 6 $`m0`$ solutions are possible, depending on initial conditions) from the N region. Here the second-order transition line does not touch any of the first-order ones.

The remarkable qualitative difference between the phase diagrams which the aforementioned two special cases produce is striking; in our previous study the physical origin of this difference was not studied. In particular, although the correctness of the solution had been tested in  against extensive numerical simulations, it was not at all clear how and why the second-order transition line (dashed line) would change from the exponentially rising curve (figure 1, upper left) to the one in the lower right corner of figure 1. Our present model generalizes , and allows for independent tuning of the short-range embedding strengths: one can now bring the non-condensed pattern to life in a continuous way. The top right and lower left panels of figure 1, where $`J_2^s0`$, show how the system realises the transition from the $`p=1`$ case to the $`p=2`$ case (where $`J_1^s=J_2^s)`$. The four panels in the figure can be thought of as different cross-sections

of an extended graph in the area $`\{\beta J_1^s,\beta J_2^s,\beta J_{\mathrm{}}\}`$, which in combination reveal the underlying complexity of the model; due to the competing short- and long-range forces and the high degree of frustration new regions come to life in parameter space, with multiple locally stable overlap solutions. In contrast to the $`J_1^s=J_2^s`$ phase diagram, where $`m=0`$ is unstable everywhere, apart from the strictly null-recall phase, the other two $`J_2^s0`$ phase diagrams display regions ($`\text{N}_2`$, $`\text{N}_4`$ and $`\text{N}_6`$) where $`m=0`$ coexists as a locally stable state together with multiple locally stable $`m0`$ solutions. These latter new phase diagrams appear significantly richer than those found in , owing to the breaking of the pattern embedding strength symmetry.

To test and verify our results we have performed extensive simulation experiments. Initial configurations $`𝝈(t=0)`$ were chosen randomly, according to

$$p(𝝈(0))=\underset{i}{}\left\{\frac{1}{2}[1+m_0]\delta _{\sigma _i(0),\xi _i^1}+\frac{1}{2}[1m_0]\delta _{\sigma _i(0),\xi _i^1}\right\}$$

In figure 2 we plot the equilibrium value $`m_1(t\mathrm{})`$ of the main order parameter as a function of its initial value $`m_1(t=0)`$ (black circles), in order to probe the existence and location of multiple ergodic components. To enable comparison with the theoretically predicted equilibrium values we also show (insets) the dependence of the asymptotic free energy per neuron on the order parameter $`m=m_1(t\mathrm{})`$, as contructed from equations (15) and (20); its local minima are indeed located at those values which are found as allowed equilibrium states in the simulations, given appropriate initial conditions, and within the experimental margin of accuracy. With our system size $`N=1000`$, finite size effects are expected to be of the order of $`𝒪(N^{\frac{1}{2}})0.03`$. Our restriction to relatively small system sizes was prompted by the appearance of extremely large equilibration times, due to domain formation. For the case of predominant long-range interactions equilibration was achieved within $`10^4`$ flips/spin. For predominant short-range interactions, however, domain formation led to equilibration times which were observed to scale exponentially with the system size, see figure 3. For this reason the observed value of $`m_{\mathrm{equi}}`$ for the ergodic component closest to $`m=0`$ in figure 2 appears to differ from the theoretically predicted value $`m=0`$ by roughly $`0.06>𝒪(N^{\frac{1}{2}})`$. In figure 3 we show that for the parameter choice of figure 2 and for $`m_1(t=0)=0.08`$ the system is indeed approaching the predicted state $`m_{\mathrm{equil}}=0`$, but extremely slowly. Finally, we have also measured the equilibrium overlaps with the non-‘condensed’ pattern, $`m_2(t\mathrm{})`$, which are seen to remain zero (open diamonds in figure 2), which justifies our ‘pure state’ ansatz.

## 4 Physics of Model II

### 4.1 Solution via Random Field techniques

Neural network models of type II can be solved analytically using the same techniques as applied to model type I, although here the calculations will be somewhat more elaborate. Upon again making the ‘pure state’ ansatz: $`𝒎=(m,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ and upon eliminating the conjugate order parameters $`\widehat{𝒎}`$ via saddle-point equations, we find that the asymptotic free energy per neuron is given by $`f=\mathrm{extr}_mf(m)`$, with

$$f(m)=\frac{1}{2}J_{\mathrm{}}m^2\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{\beta N}\mathrm{ln}R_N(m)$$

where the complicated part of the partition sum is in the last term:

$$R_N(m)=\underset{𝝈}{}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{N2}{}}T_{\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _{i+2}}\right]e^{\beta J_s^{(1)}(\sigma _{N1}𝝃_{N1})(\sigma _N𝝃_N)}e^{\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\{\xi _{N1}\sigma _{N1}+\xi _N\sigma _N\}}$$
(17)
$$T_{\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _{i+2}}=e^{\beta J_s^{(1)}_i(\sigma _i𝝃_i)(\sigma _{i+1}𝝃_{i+1})+\beta J_s^{(2)}_i(\sigma _i𝝃_i)(\sigma _{i+2}𝝃_{i+2})+\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m_i\sigma _i\xi _i}$$

(with open boundary conditions). As in model I we next derive a recurrence relation for conditioned partition sums. For the present model we find that this can be achieved in terms of the following four quantities:

$$R_{\pm \pm }^{(N)}(𝒎)=\underset{𝝈}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N2}{}}T_{\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _{i+2}}e^{\beta J_s^{(1)}(\sigma _{N1}𝝃_{N1})(\sigma _N𝝃_N)}e^{\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\{\xi _{N1}\sigma _{N1}+\xi _N\sigma _N\}}\delta _{\sigma _{N1},\pm 1}\delta _{\sigma _N,\pm 1}$$

These are found to be successively generated by a 4$`\times `$4 linear but stochastic iterative process of the form $`𝑹_{N+1}=𝑻_{N+1}𝑹_N`$, where $`𝑹_j=(R_{++}^{(j)},R_+^{(j)},R_+^{(j)},R_{}^{(j)})`$, the stationary state of which will produce the free energy per neuron. The 4$`\times `$4 random matrix $`𝑻_{N+1}`$ can be decomposed further into two coupled 2$`\times `$2 random matrices:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}R_{++}^{(N+1)}\\ R_+^{(N+1)}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _{N+1}}& 0\\ 0& e^{\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _{N+1}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}L_{N,+}& L_{N,}\\ L_{N,+}^1& L_{N,}^1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}R_{++}^{(N)}\\ R_+^{(N)}\end{array}\right)$$
(18)
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}R_+^{(N+1)}\\ R_{}^{(N+1)}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _{N+1}}& 0\\ 0& e^{\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _{N+1}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}L_{N,}^1& L_{N,+}^1\\ L_{N,}& L_{N,+}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}R_+^{(N)}\\ R_{}^{(N)}\end{array}\right)$$
(19)
where

$$L_{N,\pm }=e^{\beta (J_s^{(1)}𝝃_{N1}𝝃_N\pm J_s^{(2)}𝝃_{N1}𝝃_{N+1})}$$

The partition sum in (17) can now be written in terms of the successive multiplication of the random matrices $`𝑻`$:

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{\beta N}\mathrm{ln}R_N=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{\beta N}\mathrm{ln}\left\{(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\\ 1\\ 1\end{array})\left[\underset{i=3}{\overset{N}{}}𝑻_i\right]𝑹_2\right\}$$

Similar to the analysis performed for model I we again define ratios of conditioned partition functions (although here we will need three rather than one):

$$k_j^{(1)}=e^{2\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _j}\frac{R_{++}^{(j)}}{R_+^{(j)}}k_j^{(2)}=e^{2\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _j}\frac{R_+^{(j)}}{R_+^{(j)}}k_j^{(3)}=e^{2\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _j}\frac{R_+^{(j)}}{R_{}^{(j)}}$$

According to (18-19) these ratios are generated by the following stochastic processes:

$$k_{j+1}^{(1)}=\frac{e^{\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃_{j1}𝝃_{j+1}}k_j^{(1)}k_j^{(2)}+e^{\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃_{j1}𝝃_{j+1}}}{e^{\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃_{j1}𝝃_{j+1}}k_j^{(1)}k_j^{(2)}+e^{\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃_{j1}𝝃_{j+1}}}e^{2\beta J_s^{(1)}𝝃_{j1}𝝃_j}$$

$$k_{j+1}^{(2)}=\frac{e^{\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃_{j1}𝝃_{j+1}}k_j^{(1)}k_j^{(2)}+e^{\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃_{j1}𝝃_{j+1}}}{e^{\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃_{j1}𝝃_{j+1}}k_j^{(2)}k_j^{(3)}+e^{\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃_{j1}𝝃_{j+1}}}k_j^{(3)}e^{2\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _j}$$

$$k_{j+1}^{(3)}=\frac{e^{\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃_{j1}𝝃_{j+1}}k_j^{(2)}k_j^{(3)}+e^{\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃_{j1}𝝃_{j+1}}}{e^{\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃_{j1}𝝃_{j+1}}k_j^{(2)}k_j^{(3)}+e^{\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃_{j1}𝝃_{j+1}}}e^{2\beta J_s^{(1)}𝝃_{j1}𝝃_j}$$

The free energy per neuron can now be expressed in terms of the stationary distribution of this stochastic process:

$$f(m)=\frac{1}{2}J_{\mathrm{}}m^2\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{\beta }𝑑𝒌\underset{𝝃,𝝃^{}\{1,1\}^p}{}\rho (𝒌,𝝃,𝝃^{})\mathrm{ln}\left\{e^{\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃𝝃^{}}+e^{\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃𝝃^{}}k^{(2)}k^{(3)}\right\}$$
(20)
with

$$\rho (𝒌,𝝃,𝝃^{})=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N3}{}}\delta [𝒌𝒌_i]\delta _{𝝃,𝝃_i}\delta _{𝝃^{},𝝃_{i+2}^{}}$$
(21)
and $`𝒌_i=(k_i^{(1)},k_i^{(2)},k_i^{(3)})`$.

### 4.2 Phase Diagrams and Comparison with Numerical Simulations

Numerical evaluation of the energy surface defined by (20) leads to the phase diagrams shown in figures 4 and 5, which describe the cases $`p=1`$ and $`p=5`$, respectively. They are drawn in the $`\{\beta J_s^{(1)},\beta J_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ plane, for four different values of the next-nearest neighbour embedding strength $`J_s^{(2)}`$. In all phase diagrams the solid lines represent continuous (second-order) phase transitions, whereas the dashed lines correspond to discontinuous (first-order) ones. In the absence of next-nearest second neighbour interactions, i.e. for $`J_s^{(2)}=0`$ (upper left graph in figure 4) our model reduces to that of . For $`J_s^{(2)}>0`$ one finds no new phase regimes, compared to the $`J_s^{(2)}=0`$ case; the two transition lines of the $`J_s^{(2)}=0`$ phase diagram are found to simply move towards $`\beta J_s^{(1)}=\mathrm{}`$. However, as soon as $`J_s^{(2)}<0`$, frustration effects become more important, with new regions appearing in the phase diagram as a result. In the upper right graph of figure 4, where $`\beta J_s^{(2)}=0.6`$, we observe that three new regions have been created: region D (with $`m0`$), region F (where $`m=0`$ and $`m0`$ are simultaneously locally stable) and region E (with two positive and two negative locally stable $`m0`$ states). In the lower left graph, where $`\beta J_s^{(2)}=0.8`$, we see that, in addition to the previously created regions, a further new region G comes to life, where the trivial state as well as four $`m0`$ ones are all simultaneously locally stable. For $`p>1`$, first-order transition lines are found to emerge as boundaries of ‘islands’ in the $`\{\beta J_s^{(1)},\beta J_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ plane, where four $`m0`$ solutions are simultaneously locally stable. For increasingly negative values of $`J_s^{(2)}`$ these islands expand in size, and at some point start overlapping, which creates additional new regions. In figure 5 we show typical phase diagrams for the case $`p=5`$. Extensive numerical work also shows that increasing the number of patterns $`p`$ further leads to the appearance of further transition lines in the phase diagrams. This is due to the explicit dependence of the free energy per neuron, as defined by equation (20), on $`p`$. Unlike the more conventional long-range Hopfield-type networks , where after the ‘pure state’ ansatz has been made the macroscopic observables have become independent of $`p`$, in the present model the short-range interactions ensure that thermal fluctuations around a pure state will always induce no-negligible $`p`$-dependent interference on the recall of the pure state.

To test our results we have again performed extensive numerical simulation experiments, the results of which are shown in figure 6. The initial states were drawn similar to those in the simulations of model type I. We plot the equilibrium overlap oder parameter $`m_1(t\mathrm{})`$ as a function of its initial value $`m_1(t=0)`$, to probe different ergodic components, and compare the locations of these components (in terms of the associated values of $`m_1(t\mathrm{})`$) with the

theoretical prediction by also showing (inset graphs) the asymptotic free energy per site as constructed from equations (15) and (20). The agreement between the two is quite satisfactory, and well within the error margin given by the finite size effects (with $`N=1000`$ these are estimated at $`𝒪(N^{\frac{1}{2}})0.03`$).

## 5 Discussion

In this paper we presented an equilibrium statistical mechanical analysis of a generalized family of recurrent neural network models, with information stored in the form of attractors in the neuronal state space, but with 1D spatial structure and competition between short-range and long-range information processing. We have solved two specific classes of problems. In the first class, patterns are embedded in both the long-range and nearest neighbour interactions of the neuronal chain, but with pattern-dependent embedding strengths (similar to ). This generalizes a previous study , where all embedding strengths were independent of the pattern labels. The breaking of the previous embedding strength symmetry is found to yield significantly richer phase diagrams, and, moreover, serves to elucidate the remarkable structural differences which were observed (but not understood) in  between the phase diagrams for the two simplest cases $`p=1`$ and $`p=2`$. In our second class of models, which is a qualitatively different generalization of the models in , our neurons are equipped with next-nearest neighbour interactions (in addition to the long-range and the nearest-neighbour ones), which increases significantly the potential for frustration and competition, given appropriate choices of the various pattern embedding strengths. We have been able to solve our models exactly, dealing with the random transfer matrix multiplications in the relevant partition sums (generated by the short-range interactions) using suitable adaptations of the random-field techniques presented in . Alternatively, one could solve our present models using the random-field techniques of , which provides an independent theoretical test of our solution: we have carried out this test, and found full agreement (see appendix). For both model types we found surprisingly rich phase diagrams, with qualitatively distinct topologies, and interesting scenarios of phase diagram deformation when appropriate control parameters are varied. Extensive numerical simulation experiments support our theoretical results convincingly, in terms of the appearance and location of the multiple ergodic components in phase space.

Note that we have concentrated in this paper on the analysis of the phenomenology of dynamical phase transitions, i.e. we have concerned ourselves with the local stability of extremal points of the free energy, written as a function of the main order parameter, rather than with the actual value of the free energy in the various locally stable states. In the case of large recurrent neural networks one is simply not interested in thermodynamic transitions, since the time-scales relevant to their operation as associative memories are much smaller than the escape times of locally stable states (which diverge with the system size); the locally stable states, and their domains of attraction, determine the relevant physical properties. The models and methods in this paper can be adapted in a straightforward manner to cover systems with non-binary neuron states, or other types of one-dimensional architectures; the inclusion of more distant short-range interactions, however, will lead to higher dimensional random transfer matrices, and the calculations will become more involved. Alternatively, one could turn to models with synchronous rather than sequential dynamics.

Long-range models, as in , have been of immense value in shaping our understanding of information processing in attractor neural networks, but are far removed from biological reality. Our present study emphasizes once more the richness of attractor neural networks with spatial structure, and their analytical solvability (at least, within the context of $`1+\mathrm{}`$ dimensional models). Not only can exact solutions be obtained beyond the familiar infinite range models, but one can also generalize the relatively simple but solvable $`1+\mathrm{}`$ dimensional models of , increasing again (albeit with small steps) their biological relevance. This allows one to investigate further (quantitatively) the significant impact of simple forms of spatial structure on information processing via the manipulation of attractors in recurrent neural networks.

## Appendix A Comparison with Rujan’s Solution

An alternative method to calculate the partition sums (5) and (17) is provided by the random-field technique of . This requires the result of each of the individual spin summations to be written in the form

$$\mathrm{model}\mathrm{I}:\underset{\sigma _{j1}}{}T_{\sigma _{j1}\sigma _j}=e^{h_j(\xi _{j1}^\mu ,\xi _j^\mu )\sigma _j+L_j(\xi _{j1}^\mu ,\xi _j^\mu )}$$
(22)
for some $`\{h_j,L_j\}`$, for $`\sigma _j\{1,1\}`$. This transformation allows us to evaluate for $`N\mathrm{}`$ the non-trivial part of (4)

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{\beta N}\mathrm{ln}R(𝒎)=$$

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2\beta N}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{ln}\left[4\mathrm{cosh}[\beta \underset{\mu }{}(J_\mu ^s\xi _i^\mu \xi _{i+1}^\mu )+\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _i^1+h_i]\mathrm{cosh}[\beta \underset{\mu }{}(J_\mu ^s\xi _i^\mu \xi _{i+1}^\mu )+\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _i^1h_i]\right]$$

where in the thermodynamic limit we will assume that the asymptotic distribution of the stochastic variables $`\{h_i\}`$ is uniquely generated by the process

$$h_{i+1}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}[\beta _\mu (J_\mu ^s\xi _i^\mu \xi _{i+1}^\mu )+\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _i^1+h_i]}{\mathrm{cosh}[\beta _\mu (J_\mu ^s\xi _i^\mu \xi _{i+1}^\mu )+\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _i^1h_i]}$$
(23)
becomes stationary.

In a similar fashion one can perform for $`N\mathrm{}`$ the partition sum in (17) requiring

$$\mathrm{model}\mathrm{II}:\underset{\sigma _{j1}}{}T_{\sigma _{j1}\sigma _j\sigma _{j+1}}=e^{h^{(1)}\sigma _j\sigma _{j+1}+h^{(2)}\sigma _j+h^{(3)}\sigma _{j+1}+L_{j1}}$$
(24)
to be true for $`\sigma _j,\sigma _{j+1}\{1,1\}`$. This allows us to write

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{\beta N}\mathrm{ln}R(m)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{4\beta N}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{ln}\left\{2^4\mathrm{\Omega }_{++}^{(i)}\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{(i)}\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{(i)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{(i)}\right\}$$

where the quantities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{(i)}`$ are obtained iteratively as functions of three stochastically evolving variables $`\{h_{j1}^{(1)},h_{j1}^{(2)},h_{j2}^{(3)};ji\}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{(i)}=\mathrm{cosh}[(\beta J_s^{(1)}𝝃_i𝝃_{i+1}+h_{i1}^{(1)}\theta (i2))\lambda +\beta J_s^{(2)}𝝃_i𝝃_{i+2}\lambda ^{}+\beta J_{\mathrm{}}m\xi _i+h_{i1}^{(2)}\theta (i2)+h_{i2}^{(3)}\theta (i3)]$$

where $`\theta (j)=1`$ if $`j0`$ and $`\theta (j)=0`$ otherwise, and with

$$h_i^{(1)}=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{++}^{(i)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{(i)}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{(i)}\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{(i)}}h_i^{(2)}=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{++}^{(i)}\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{(i)}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{(i)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{(i)}}h_i^{(3)}=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{++}^{(i)}\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{(i)}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{(i)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{(i)}}$$
(25)
Numerical iteration of the processes (23) and (25) and subsequently evaluation of the asymptotic free energies and of the order parameters shows excellent agreement with the results found earlier for models I and II.


text:
# Influence of incommensurate dynamic charge-density wave scattering on the line shape of superconducting high-Tc cuprates

## I Introduction

There is an increasing experimental evidence  that the peculiar properties of the superconducting cuprates, both in the normal and the superconducting phase are related to the occurrence of a Quantum Critical Point (QCP) located near (slightly above) the optimal doping. These evidences corroborate the consensus that quantum criticality related to some “exotic”  or more traditional  type of ordering is at work in these systems. Accordingly the phase diagram of the cuprates is naturally partitioned in a (nearly) ordered, a quantum critical, and a quantum disordered region naturally corresponding to the under-, optimally, and over-doped regions of the phase diagram of the cuprates respectively. In this framework a key open issue is to determine the type of ordering which is established (at least in a local and slowly dynamical sense) in the underdoped phase of the cuprates. While the direct detection of the exotic order is more difficult and elusive, it is quite natural that the spin and charge fluctuations associated to the more traditional proposals  affect in a rather apparent way the physical properties. Especially one would expect that the modification of the electronic structure due to dynamical spin- or charge scattering should be observable in angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES). In fact, ARPES data of high-Tc Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ (Bi2212) compounds show several specific features in the superconducting state which can be interpreted in terms of a coupling of the electrons to a collective mode . Below $`T_c`$, these spectra are characterized by an unsual lineshape around $`(\pi ,0`$) (M-point) which consists of a sharp peak at low energy followed by a hump at higher energies. Both features are separated by a dip. In addition the sharp peak persists at low energy over a large region in k-space whereas the hump correlates well with the underlying normal state dispersion . Since the energy difference between dip and peak position is similar to the energy of the $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ resonance observed in inelastic neutron scattering  is has been suggested that the mode responsible for the ARPES features corresponds to collective spin fluctuations . Although this proposal is quite appealing one needs to understand by which mechanism the substantial spin fluctuations can be sustained in optimally and overdoped materials. In fact, since doping rapidly disrupts the antiferromagnetic (AF) order and with the occurrence of an AF-QCP in the very underdoped region where the Neél temperature vanishes, spin scattering should be a minor effect at large dopings. This difficulty can be overcome by considering the (traditional) ordering in the underdoped phase to be driven by the charge. Then the occurrence of (a local and possibly slowly dynamical) charge ordering is naturally accompanied by substantial spin fluctuations since the spin coupling resurrects in the hole-depleted regions. This strong spin and charge coupling is also an effective mechanism driving the weak charge modulation around the second-order quantum transition to strongly anharmonic charge (and spin) stripes in the deeply underdoped materials. The relevant role of charge ordering has a solid experimental support at least in some classes of cuprates. First evidence for incommensurate stripe structures in the high-Tc compounds was given by neutron scattering experiments  in Nd-doped lanthanum cuprate. Here the Low-Temperature Tetragonal (LTT) lattice structure is suitable to effectively pin the charge stripes giving rise to static stripe ordering so that both magnetic and charge-order peaks become detectable. However, also in Nd-free materials including the YBCO compounds where the magnetic incommensurate peak has been observed  the simultaneous occurence of charge order has been claimed in Ref.  and from NQR measurements in Refs. . Moreover, it has has been argued  that the QCP can be deduced from the incommensurate neutron peak intensity which vansishes in the slightly overdoped regime x$`0.19`$. This coincides surprisingly well with experiments in La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO) compounds where superconductivity has been suppressed by pulsed magnetic fields  showing an underlying metal-insulator transition at about the same critical doping. Recent photoemission experiments  on superconducting underdoped La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO) have also revealed a broad quasiparticle peak (QP) around the $`(\pi ,0)`$ point. On the other hand no QP can be identified along the $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$ direction in contrast to the Bi2212 compound where along the diagonals a clear Fermi surface crossing has been observed. Exact diagonalization studies of the t-t’-t”-J model with an additional phenomenological stripe potential  have demonstrated that these features may be due to the coupling of the holes to vertical charged (static) stripes.

In the present paper we want to focus on the dynamic aspect of incommensurate charge-density wave (CDW) scattering within the framework of a QCP scenario. In this context we discuss the differences between the photoemission spectra of Bi2212 and LSCO respectively. Especially we show that the different features can be explained by the assumption that in Bi2212 the charge carriers couple to an incommensurate CDW oriented along the $`(1,0)`$ and $`(0,1)`$ directions whereas in LSCO the dynamic CDW scattering is along the diagonals. The results presented below supplement considerations of Ref.  where we have shown that a two-dimensional ’eggbox-type’ charge-pattern can reproduce the essential features of the normal state Bi2212 Fermi surface, namely the reduction of spectral weight around the M-points associated with the opening of a pseudogap in these regions of k-space. Here we extend our considerations to the case of LSCO assuming that the k-dependence of the electron self-energy is an essential ingredient in the description of ARPES data.

We note that in a recent paper  Eschrig and Norman have analyzed ARPES data within a model of electrons interacting with a magnetic resonance using a similar approach than in the present paper. Comparing their results with those reported below one can see that AF and CDW scattering have similar effects on the electronic states around the M-points and the similarity between our results and those in Ref.  provides a support to the idea that spin and charge fluctuations coexist and cooperate in determining the spectral properties.

After having introduced the formalism in Sec. II we will present in Sec. III the analysis of ARPES spectra for both LSCO and Bi2212 materials. We finally conclude our discussion in Sec. IV.

## II Formalism

We consider a system of superconducting electrons exposed to an effective action

$$S=\lambda ^2\underset{q}{}_0^\beta 𝑑\tau _1_0^\beta 𝑑\tau _2\chi _q(\tau _1\tau _2)\rho _q(\tau _1)\rho _q(\tau _2)$$
(1)
describing dynamical incommensurate CDW fluctuations. Using Nambu-Gorkov notation the unperturbed Matsubara Greens function matrix $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}`$ is given by

$`G_{11}^0(k,i\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_k^2}{i\omega E_k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v_k^2}{i\omega +E_k}}`$ (2)
$`G_{22}^0(k,i\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_k^2}{i\omega E_k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_k^2}{i\omega +E_k}}`$ (3)
$`G_{12}^0(k,i\omega )=G_{21}^0(k,i\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`u_kv_k\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\omega E_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\omega +E_k}}\right]`$ (4)
where the BCS coherence factors are defined as $`u_k^2=\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{ϵ_k\mu }{E_k})`$ and $`v_k^2=\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{ϵ_k+\mu }{E_k})`$ respectively. The leading order one-loop contribution to the self-energy reads as

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}(k,i\omega )=\frac{\lambda ^2}{\beta }\underset{q,ip}{}\chi _q(ip)\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\tau _zG}}^0(kq,i\omega ip)\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\tau _z}}$$
(5)
which in turn allows for the calculation of $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}`$ via

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}=\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}^0+\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}^0\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}.$$
(6)
It should be mentioned that the self-energy eq. (5) differs from the analogous expression for the coupling to spin-fluctuations by the $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\tau _z}}`$ Pauli matrices. Finally the spectral function can be extracted from $`A_k(\omega )=ImG_{11}(k,\omega )`$.

Note that our approach differs from the standard Elisahberg treatment by the fact that already the unperturbed system displays coherent superconducting order. Since the incommensurate CDW fluctuations have been shown to be strongly attractive in the d-wave channel  the idea is to incorporate this feature already on the zeroth order level by a frequency independent d-wave order parameter. Thus the self-energy is gapped by $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}^0`$, however, for our present considerations this approximation is sufficient since we are interested in line shape phenomena occuring at energies $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }^{SC}`$.

## III Results

In order to simplify the calculations we consider a Kampf-Schrieffer-type model susceptibility  which is factorized into an $`\omega `$\- and q-dependent part, i.e.

$$\chi _q(i\omega )=W(i\omega )J(𝐪)$$
(7)
where $`W(\omega )=𝑑\nu g(\nu )2\nu /(\omega ^2+\nu ^2)`$ is some distribution of dispersionless propagating bosons and

$$J(𝐪)=\frac{𝒩}{4}\underset{\pm q_x^c;\pm q_y^c}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+2\mathrm{cos}(q_xq_x^c)\mathrm{cos}(q_yq_y^c)}.$$
(8)
$`𝒩`$ is a suitable normalization factor introduced to keep the total scattering strength constant while varying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The above susceptibility contains the charge-charge correlations which are enhanced at the four equivalent critical wave vectors $`(\pm q_x^c,\pm q_y^c)`$. As we will show below the static limit $`g(\nu )=\delta (\nu )`$ together with an infinite charge-charge correlation length $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ allows one to relate the coupling parameter $`\lambda `$ to the parameter set of the Hubbard-Holstein model with long-range Coulomb interaction by following the approach in Ref. . Concerning the normal state dispersion we use a tight-binding fit to normal state ARPES data  including the hopping between first, second and third nearest neighbors, i.e. $`ϵ_k=t(\mathrm{cos}(k_x)+\mathrm{cos}(k_y))/2+t^{}\mathrm{cos}(k_x)\mathrm{cos}(k_y)+t^{\prime \prime }(cos(2k_x)+cos(2k_y))/2`$. For Bi2212 we take $`t=0.59,t^{}=0.164,t^{\prime \prime }=0.052`$ and for LSCO $`t=0.35,t^{}=0.042,t^{\prime \prime }=0.028`$. The BCS gap is assumed to be d-wave symmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\mathrm{cos}(k_x)\mathrm{cos}(k_y))`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$(Bi2212)$`=32`$meV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$(LSCO)$`=10`$meV respectively.

### A Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ

In Ref.  we have already demonstrated that a static two-dimensional eggbox-type charge modulation with $`𝐪_𝐜`$ oriented along the vertical directions can account for the basic Fermi surface (FS) features in the optimally and underdoped Bi2212 compounds. Here we supplement these considerations by a detailed analysis of the photoemission lineshape in the superconducting state. Concerning the frequency dependent part of the susceptibility we restrict ourselves to the simplest case of a single energy excitation, i.e. we choose $`g(\nu )=\delta (\nu \omega _0)`$.

The coupling of electrons with a dispersionless bosonic mode is a well known subject in solid state theory and has been intensively investigated in . In the present context the new feature is a) the inclusion of superconductivity and b) the role of a strongly q-dependent coupling between electrons and the incommensurate CDW mode.

In Figs. 1 (a) and (b) we show the spectral function for two “vertical” cuts, one through the order parameter node at the Fermi energy $`(0.2\pi ,0.36\pi )(0.5\pi ,0.36\pi )`$ and the other for a cut from $`(0.5\pi ,0)(\pi ,0)(\pi ,0.3\pi )`$. Parameters have been choosen in approximate analogy to the ones used in .

The effect of the weight function $`J(𝐪)`$ is to strongly reduce the scattering along the diagonals since the states $`(𝐤,\omega )`$ and $`(𝐤+𝐪_𝐜,\omega \omega _0)`$ which are coupled via the CDW fluctuations are very different in energy. As a consequence the quasiparticles are poorly scattered by the charge collective modes. Therefore the hump feature is suppressed near the node and one observes a single dispersive quasiparticle peak at the Fermi energy. Scanning away from the node towards $`(0.2\pi ,0.36\pi )`$ (Fig. 1a) the low energy peak rapidly looses weight in favor of the hump feature at higher binding energy. This latter broad peak arises because moving away from the Fermi surface the quasiparticles have enough energy to excite charge fluctuations with $`𝐪𝐪_c`$ and are strongly damped. In this region of the momentum space the lower-energy narrow peak progressively acquires the character of the collective mode while the hump becomes dispersive as a remnant of the underlying quasiparticle band. The behavior of the spectral density along this first cut is rather similar to the case of electrons coupled to a dispersionless phonon . In this latter case, however, the phonons are coupled to the quasiparticles for any momentum transfer leading to broad incoherent features at high energy even for quasiparticles on the Fermi surface. On the contrary, in the present case, the scattering between the quasiparticles near the node is severely suppressed by the factor $`J(𝐪)`$ and the incoherent hump is nearly absent when the quasiparticle is close to the Fermi surface (i.e. near the node at $`(0.36\pi ,0.36\pi )`$). The switching of the underlying quasiparticle from the low-energy peak to the hump structure leads to a break in the dispersion. This break of the dispersion is also observed experimentally  however, only for momentum scans far from the node. We want to note that the dicrepancy of the break-location is a consequence of our approximation of a factorized susceptiblity and should be less pronounced in a more realistic model. An additional possible difficulty for the present scheme is that the quasiparticles near the node are only weakly scattered and therefore, according to the standard Landau theory of Fermi liquids, they shoud have a damping rate proportional to $`T^2`$ and to (binding energy)2. This Fermi-liquid behavior is violated in recent experiments carried above and below $`T_c`$ . However, these experiments were not carried out at very low temperatures, where a fair comparison can be done with our $`T=0`$ analysis, and where heat-transport experiments report a rather standard Fermi-liquid behavior of the quasiparticles  (thereby supporting our finding of well-defined quasiparticles near the nodes). This issue obviously deserves further experimental and theoretical investigation.

Fig. 1b displays the spectral functions for states from $`(0.5\pi ,0)(\pi ,0)(\pi ,0.3\pi )`$. The appearance of states with positive energy is due to coherence effects related to the finite superconducting gap in this region of momentum space. Since the M-point defines the ’hot’ region for incommensurate CDW scattering the superconducting states couple strongly to the CDW mode and as a result the spectrum (dashed line) is characterized by the peak-dip-hump feature as observed in ARPES. For a suitable choice of parameters we can obtain a quite satisfactory fit of our curve with experimental data from photoemission experiments (see inset of Fig. 1b).

Note that the structure of the hump feature is mainly determined by the charge-charge correlation function $`J(𝐪)`$. From our fit to the experimental data we can therefore deduce that in Bi2212 the underlying CDW fluctuations are rather short-ranged i.e. the stripe correlations extend over 2-3 unit cells only. The spectra for the scan $`(0.5\pi ,0)(\pi ,0)`$ show an interesting feature which is also observed in ARPES (see e.g. , Fig. 3): The sharp peak at low energies is essentially non-dispersive whereas the hump exhibits a maximum binding energy $`\omega _{max}`$. For energies large than $`\omega _{max}`$ the hump dispersion again corresponds to the underlying (normal state) band structure. The maximum in the hump dispersion is due to the reduced scattering efficiency (determined by $`J(𝐪)`$) when moving away form the M-point. Since along $`(\pi ,0)(0,0)`$ the underlying dispersion $`ϵ_k`$ initially is rather flat this leads to a shift of the hump to lower energies. With $`k_x`$ becoming smaller the increasing band dispersion then starts to determine the dispersion of the hump which accordingly shifts to higher binding energies.

Scanning from M towards $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ the hump moves to lower energies and looses weight again in agreement with photoemission experiments . We want to point out that our result for the spectral functions in Fig. 1 are rather similar to analogous results of Ref.  where the coupling of electrons to an AF mode has been considered. Indeed for both AF and incommensurate CDW scattering the states around $`(\pi ,0)`$ are the ’hot points’, i.e. are most strongly affected by the scattering.

This indicates that in the real systems the spin and the charge fluctuations may well coexist and cooperate in determining the spectral properties. Of course for a quantitative comparison with experiments one should include both scattering channels. On the contrary, since we aim to explore and underline the role of charge fluctuations only, in the inset of Fig. 1(b) we fitted for an illustrative purpose, the experimental data with the charge channel only.

### B La2-xSrxCuO4

In underdoped La2-xSrxCuO4 the incommensurate magnetic fluctuations display a four-fold pattern around $`(\pi ,\pi )`$. For the Nd-doped lanthanum cuprate it has been argued  that this may be related to two types of twin domains, each with a single stripe orientation suitably pinned by the underlying LTT lattice structure. However, this kind of argument no longer holds in case of underdoped LSCO where both the (tetragonal) a- and b- axes are at about 45 with respect to the CuO6 tilt direction. Moreover it has been demonstrated in Refs.  that the positions of the elastic magnetic peaks in La1.88Sr0.12CuO4 and excess-oxygen doped La2CuO4+y are shifted off of the high-symmetry Cu-O-Cu directions by a tilt angle of $`\mathrm{\Theta }3^{}`$. For a one-dimensional stripe model this would correspond to one kink every $`19`$ Cu sites on the charge domain wall. However, as explicitly stated in Ref.  a grid pattern of orthogonal stripes oriented along the two orthorombic directions adequately describes the data as well.

In the following we therefore examine the consequences of this kind of two-dimensional dynamic stripe fluctuations on the electronic structure of LSCO and compare with photoemission experiments. Denoting the two orthogonal charge scattering vectors (which for simplicity we assume to have equal magnitude) by $`𝐪_𝐜^\pm =q_c(1,\pm 1)`$ the charge modulation can be written as $`\rho (𝐑)\mathrm{cos}(q_cx)\mathrm{cos}(q_cy)`$. Fig. 2 shows a sketch of the corresponding charge pattern which can be thought of an array of stripes running along the $`(1,1)`$ and $`(1,1)`$ directions respectively. Although our calculations are restricted on the charge channel we want to note that the corresponding pattern of the spin order can be constructed by assuming a sign change of the AF order parameter upon crossing the stripes perpendicular to their orientation. This antiphase correlation between the spins across a charge stripe makes easier the transversal delocalization of the charges in the stripes and therefore it is energetically favorable. Hence these antiphase domain walls which are observed in Nd-doped LSCO around 1/8 of filling  seem also to be a rather common feature of the theoretically investigated stripe structures. As a consequence, in our charge-spin structure, the spin order follows the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{spin}(𝐑)\mathrm{cos}[q_c(x+y)/2]\mathrm{cos}[q_c(xy)/2]\mathrm{cos}(𝐪_𝐬^+𝐑)+\mathrm{cos}(𝐪_𝐬^{}𝐑)`$ where the spin scattering vectors are given by $`𝐪_𝐬^+=q_c(1,0)`$ and $`𝐪_𝐬^{}=q_c(0,1)`$ respectively. Thus this kind of two-dimensional scattering displays a deviation between charge- and spin direction of 45 where the latter is compatible with the results of neutron scattering experiments . Only in case of a LTT distortion both charge- and spin scattering collapse into a single direction leading to a reduction of Tc .

As in the case of Bi2212 we restrict in the following on the charge channel and as discussed above we consider scattering along the $`𝐪_𝐜^\pm =(1,\pm 1)`$ directions. To gain some qualitative insight we consider first the static non-superconducting case inspired by the approach described in Ref.  where we have derived an effective interaction $`\frac{1}{2N}_qV_q\rho _q\rho _q`$ for charge carriers close to an incommensurate CDW instability. Upon factorizing the interaction the two-dimensional eggbox-type charge modulation can be implemented by $`<\rho _q>^{egg}=<\rho _q>[\delta _{q,q_c^+}+\delta _{q,q_c^{}}]`$ which in the static limit identifies the coupling parameter $`\lambda `$ with the order parameter of the CDW $`V(𝐪_𝐜)<\rho _{𝐪_𝐜}>`$. The resulting one particle hamiltonian can now be diagonalized and as a result we show in Fig. 3 the Fermi surface for an eggbox-type charge modulation with scattering vectors $`𝐪_𝐜=\pi /5(1,\pm 1)`$.

Obviously diagonal CDW scattering strongly reduces the spectral intensity of the Fermi surface along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }X`$ direction. This is connected with the fact that along the diagonals the scattering vector is parallel to the contours of the bare bandstructure. As a consequence the CDW scattering is most efficient in these regions since $`𝐪_𝐜`$ can connect states with equal energies leading to a redistribution of spectral weight near ($`\pi /2,\pi /2`$). Note that since the band disperses rather rapidly along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }X`$ the vertical scattering we have adopted in case of Bi2212 would leave the electronic structure in this direction nearly unchanged and would not reproduce the experimental suppression of spectral weight along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }X`$ direction .

Quite obviously our simplified approach, where the spin degrees of freedom are neglected, cannot provide a quantitative description of the Fermi surface. However, we notice that a model based on spin degrees of freedom only, constrained by the neutron experiments to have hot spots near the M points could hardly account for the suppression of spectral weight along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }X`$ direction.

Let us now extend the photoemission lineshape analysis to the superconducting state including dynamic incommensurate CDW scattering. We have found that for the LSCO compound a linear frequency distribution $`g(\nu )=\frac{2\nu }{\omega _0^2}\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega _0\nu )`$ up to a cutoff energy $`\omega _0`$ is more appropriate consistent with the experimental observation of low energy magnetic fluctuations in this compound. Fig. 4 shows selected energy distribution curves along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }MX`$ (Fig. 4a) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }X`$ (Fig 4b).

In the $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$ direction (Fig. 4b) one observes only a broad and weak incoherent feature which disappears beyond $`k_x=k_y0.45\pi `$ corresponding to the FS crossing of the underlying bare bandstructure. In contrast the spectra around $`(\pi ,0)`$ (Fig. 4a) are composed of an also broadened but still well pronounced quasiparticle peak. Due to the small cutoff energy $`\omega _0`$ in comparison with Bi2212 and the additional linear frequency distribution the hump feature is no longer separated from the sharp peak but both collapse into the broadened peak shown in Fig. 4b. Note that we were forced to use a rather large charge-charge correlation length ($`100`$ lattice constants) in order to effectively suppress the quasiparticle peak along $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$. This finding needs to be commented. On the one hand it is surely conceivable that the poor quality of the surface in 214 materials is responsible for the width of the photoemission peaks. In this case this would be a spurious effect as far as the bulk electronic properties are concerned and our need of a large charge-charge correlation length would be fictitious. On the other hand the authors of Refs.  claim that a careful attention was paid to the surface treatment. Moreover, recent photoemission experiments  on overdoped LSCO have revealed a sharp spectral feature along the diagonal direction that is comparable to that of Bi2212. From this one would not expect strong disorder effects in the underdoped samples which should improve with decreasing Sr content. In this regard our finding of a large charge-charge correlation length could be taken seriously at least from a qualitative point of view. The presence of rather long-ranged charge-ordering correlations would rather naturally correspond to the much more visible presence of stripe correlations in 214 materials. Indeed, but for some inelastic neutron scattering  and some NMR/NQR  experiments in YBCO, the evidence for stripes is rather clear in 214 materials only, while it remains more elusive in the other classes of cuprates.

## IV Conclusion

We have demonstrated that the coupling of a superconducting system to dynamical incommensurate CDW fluctuations can account for the observed ARPES photoemission lineshapes in both Bi2212 and LSCO materials. According to our analysis the vertically oriented CDW fluctuations in Bi2212 are rather fast and short ranged leading to the experimentally observed dip-hump structure around the M-points whereas the lineshape along the diagonals is hardly affected by the scattering.

We emphasize again here that our analysis shares many similarities (both in the technical framework and in the results) with the one carried out in Ref.  (the renormalization function $`Z(\omega )`$ obtained from our approach is quasi identical to Fig. 1 in Ref. ). Therefore our work is not in contrast with Ref.  but rather complementar since the stripe fluctuations we consider here are anharmonic CDW’s with the strong correlation playing a relevant role in the hole-poor regions, where antiferromagnetism is quite pronounced. For the sake of simplicity we only investigated the charge sector of the fluctuations. Nevertheless, the effects of spin  and charge (this work) fluctuations are similar indicating that these fluctuations may easily coexist and that there is no competition but rather cooperation between the two sectors. Of course a long way is still to be followed in order to integrate the two approaches by formalizing the interplay between charge and spin degrees of freedom. In particular an open relevant issue is to establish how the critical properties related to the charge instability are mirrored in the spin criticality. This intriguing but difficult issue is definitely beyond the present scope.

In case of LSCO the photoemission data can be described by a two-dimensional, diagonally oriented CDW which is slowly fluctuating and characterized by a rather large correlation length. This is consistent with the idea of long-range AF order coexisting with superconductivity in the 214 systems and also with the more pronounced tendency to form static charge textures in these materials. We have shown that within this scenario the QP along the $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$ direction can be effectively suppressed whereas around the M-points a broad quasiparticle peak persists. Finally we want to emphasize that since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}`$ enters the calculation as an input parameter, our model does not include the phase fluctuations of the particle-particle pairs. These fluctuations should play a major role in destroying the quasiparticle peak above Tc . However, the measurements in Refs.  on LSCO were done at rather low temperatures (T=15K) where such phase fluctuations are uneffective justifying our simplified model for the photoemission spectra.

At the present stage of the research in the field of superconducting cuprates our simplified analysis is particularly urgent since it illustrates that charge fluctuations can generically be quite effective sources of scattering between the quasiparticles providing spectral features which are not in contrast with experiments both in LSCO systems, where there seem to be little doubt that (dynamical) stripes are present, and in Bi2212 compounds, where no stringent evidence for stripe fluctuations is available. In this regard we show that different kinds of charge fluctuations can operate in different materials. Moreover, in the present situation, where even the experimental situation is rapidly evolving, we believe that our results can be useful in keeping the community flexible enough to effectively determine the intricate physical mechanisms of the superconducting cuprates.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank J. Mesot for providing the experimental data in Fig. 1. We also greatfully acknowledge useful discussions with S. Caprara, C. Castellani and C. Di Castro.