text:
# Coherence-controlled transparency and far-from-degenerate parametric gain in a strongly-absorbing Doppler-broadened medium

## Abstract

An inversionless amplification of anti-Stokes radiation above the oscillation threshold in an optically-dense far-from-degenerate double-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Doppler-broadened medium accompanied by Stokes gain is predicted. The outcomes are illustrated with numerical simulations applied to sodium dimer vapor. Optical switching from absorption to gain via transparency controlled by a small variation of the medium and of the driving radiation parameters which are at a level less than one photon per molecule is shown. Related video/audio clips see in: A.K. Popov, S.A. Myslivets, and T.F. George, Optics Express 7, No 3, 148 (2000), http://epubs.osa.org/oearchive/source/22947.htm, or download: http://kirensky.krasn.ru/popov/opa/opa.htm

OCIS codes: 020.1670; 030.1670; 190.0190; 190.4970

The concept of quantum coherence and interference in multilevel schemes as an origin of difference in probabilities of absorption and induced emission Rau  plays an important role in optical physics. A mechanism for achieving amplification without bare-state population inversion (AWI) in an optical transition based on this concept was explicitly proposed, numerically illustrated for the $`V`$-type scheme of Ne transitions AWI , and experimentally proved Bet . Coherence and interference effects have been extensively explored to manipulate energy level populations, nonlinear-optical response, refraction, absorption and amplification of optical radiation in resonant media over the past decade (for a review, see Ref. 4). Recent theoretical and experimental investigations have demonstrated a slowing down of the light group speed to a few meters per second, highly efficient frequency conversion, optical switches, and potential sources of squeezed quantum state light for quantum information processing on this basis Har ; QN . In this Letter we propose a scheme for coherent quantum control (CQC) that enables one to form upconverted AWI without incoherent excitation in an initially strongly absorbing optically dense medium as well as to accomplish optical switching. All this is shown to be possible by application of driving fields at the level of one photon per several molecules. Unlike other major approaches, the proposed scheme does not require coherent population trapping. In contrast to the research reported in Ref. 7, for which the frequencies of all the coupled fields are almost equal, we consider far-from-degenerate CQC, for which the features of an optically dense Doppler-broadened medium play a crucial role. The interplay of absorption, gain, four-wave mixing (FWM) and their interference at inhomogeneously broadened transitions is shown to result in substantial enhancement of the gain by proper resonance detuning, which was not realized in a recent experiment Hin .

Let us consider four-level scheme \[Fig. 1(a)\]. The fields $`E_1(\omega _1)`$ and $`E_3(\omega _3)`$ are driving, whereas $`E_4(\omega _4)`$ and $`E_2(\omega _2)`$ are weak probes. The problem under consideration reduces to the solution of a set of the coupled equations for four waves, $`(E_i/2)\mathrm{exp}[i(k_iz\omega _it)]+c.c.(i=1\mathrm{}4)`$, copropagating in an optically thick medium:

$`dE_{4,2}(z)/dz=i\sigma _{4,2}E_{4,2}+i\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{4,2}E_1E_3E_{2,4}^{},`$ (1)
$`dE_{1,3}(z)/dz=i\sigma _{1,3}E_{1,3}+i\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{1,3}E_4E_2E_{3,1}^{}.`$ (2)
Here $`\omega _4+\omega _2=\omega _1+\omega _3`$, $`k_j`$ are wave numbers in vacuum; $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_j=2\pi k_j\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j`$, and $`\sigma _j=2\pi k_j\chi _j=\delta k_j+i\alpha _j/2`$; and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j`$, $`\alpha _j`$, and $`\delta k_j`$ are intensity-dependent cross-coupling susceptibilities, absorption indices, and dispersion parts of $`k_j`$.

If $`E_{1,3}`$ are homogeneous along $`z`$ (e.g., at the expense of saturation), the system of Eqs. (1) and (2) reduces to two coupled equations for $`E_4`$ and $`E_2`$, where the medium parameters are homogeneous as well. Their solution is:

$`E_2^{}=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{2}}z\beta z)\{i{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2^{}}{R}}E_{40}\mathrm{sinh}(Rz)`$
$`+E_{20}^{}[\mathrm{cosh}(Rz)+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{R}}\mathrm{sinh}(Rz)]\},`$
$`E_4=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _4}{2}}z+\beta z)\{i{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _4}{R}}E_{20}^{}\mathrm{sinh}(Rz)`$
$`+E_{40}[\mathrm{cosh}(Rz){\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{R}}\mathrm{sinh}(Rz)]\}.`$ (3)
Here $`R=\sqrt{\beta ^2+\gamma ^2},\beta =\left[(\alpha _4\alpha _2)/2+i\mathrm{\Delta }k\right]/2,\mathrm{\Delta }k=\delta k_1+\delta k_3\delta k_2\delta k_4,\gamma ^2=\gamma _2^{}\gamma _4`$$`\gamma _{4,2}=\chi _{4,2}E_1E_3`$, and $`E_{20}^{}`$ and $`E_{40}`$ are input values (at $`z=0`$). The first terms in braces indicate FWM and second – optical parametic amplification (OPA) processes. If either of the driving fields is switched off, $`\gamma _{4,2}=0`$, and the weak radiations are described as $`|I_{4,2}|^2=|I_{40,20}|^2exp\{\alpha _{4,2}z\}`$ ($`I_{4,2}=|E_{4,2}|^2`$). Owing to FWM coupling, probe radiation $`E_4`$ generates a wave $`E_2`$ close to $`\omega _{gn}`$, which in turn contributes to $`E_4`$ because of FWM. This process results in correlated propagation of two waves along the medium. A gain or absorption of any of them influences the propagation features of the other. If an absorption (gain) exceeds the rate of the FWM conversion $`(|\gamma ^2|/\beta ^21)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=0`$; if $`E_{20}=0`$, and $`E_{40}0`$, we obtain at $`z=L`$ the result that $`I_4/I_{40}=|\mathrm{exp}(\alpha _4L/2)+[\gamma ^2/(2\beta )^2]\left[\mathrm{exp}(g_2L/2)\mathrm{exp}(\alpha _4L/2)\right]|^2`$, where $`g_2\alpha _2`$. Alternatively, if $`E_{40}=0`$, and $`E_{20}0`$, $`\eta _4=I_4/I_{20}=[|\gamma _4|^2/(2\beta )^2]\left|\mathrm{exp}(g_2L/2)\mathrm{exp}(\alpha _4L/2)\right|^2`$. One can see that achieving gain requires large optical lengths $`L`$ and significant Stokes gain on the transition $`gn`$ (\[$`\mathrm{exp}(g_2L/2)]|(2\beta )^2/\gamma ^2|`$), as well as effective FWM at both $`\omega _2`$ and $`\omega _4`$. The dependence $`I_4(L)`$ is predetermined by the sign of $`Im\gamma _{4,2}`$ and $`Re\gamma _{4,2}`$.

The important feature of the far-from-degenerate interaction is that the magnitude and the sign of the multiphoton resonance detunings and, consequently, of the amplitude and phase of the lower-state coherence $`\rho _{nl}`$ differ for molecules at different velocities because of the Doppler shifts. Such is not the case in near-degenerate schemes. The interference of elementary quantum pathways, with Maxwell’s velocity distribution and saturation effects taken into account, results in a nontrivial dependence of the macroscopic parameters on the intensities of the driving fields and on the frequency detunings from the resonances Mys . A density matrix solution was found exactly with respect to $`E_{1,3}`$ and to a first approximation for $`E_{4,2}`$. We use these formulas here for numerical averaging over velocities, for analysis of the quantities $`\alpha _{4,2}`$ and $`\gamma _{4,2}`$, and also to obtain a numerical solution of the system of Eqs. (1)-(2), with the inhomogeneity of the coefficients taken into account. We stress that the effect under consideration is AWI rather than conventional OPA accompanied by absorption and Stokes gain, because the quantum interference involved in resonant schemes is so crucial role that thinking in terms of the Manley-Raw conservation law would be misleading TAR .

The main outcomes of the simulations the conditions of the experiment are illustrated in Figs. 1(b), 2 and 3. The transitions of Fig. 1(a) and relaxation parameters are attributed to those of $`Na_2`$: $`\lambda _{14}`$ = 655, 756, 532, 480 nm, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m,g,n}`$ = 260, 200, 30, $`\gamma _{mn,ml,gn,gl}`$ = 24, 20, 10, 40, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nm,lm}`$ = 110, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{gm}`$ = 130, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ng,lg}`$ = 140 (all in $`10^6\times s^1`$). Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ is the population, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}`$ are the coherence, and $`\gamma _{ij}`$ are the spontaneous interlevel relaxation rates. At $`T=450`$ C, the Doppler FWHM of the transition at $`\lambda _4`$ is 1.7 GHz, and the Boltzmann population of level $`n`$ is 2% of that of level $`l`$. The Rabi frequencies $`G_1=E_1d_{lg}/2\mathrm{}`$ and $`G_3=E_3d_{nm}/2\mathrm{}`$ of $`100`$ MHz correspond to 100-mW beams focused on a spot with sizes of a few parts of a millimeter, i.e. one photon per several molecules.

However, the presence of such fields give rise to substantial modification of both absorption and gain \[Figs. 2(a) and 2(b)\] and the cross-coupling \[Figs. 2(c)-2(f)\] parameters. Significant amplification in one of the nonlinear resonances in $`\alpha _2`$ \[Fig. 2 (a)\] is accompanied by absorption peaks and transparency windows in $`\alpha _4`$ \[Fig. 2(b)\]. The resonances in $`\alpha _2`$ do not coincide with a Raman resonance \[labeled with an arrow in Fig. 2(a)\]. The modules of the dressed velocity-averaged parameters $`\gamma _{4,2}`$ differ by approximately factor of four, whereas their imaginary parts take on even different signs \[as in Fig. 2(c)-2(f)\]. This behavior is in marked contrast to that of solid-state and off-resonant nonlinear optics.

The inhomogeneity of the driving fields \[Fig. 3(a)\] gives rise to a significant change of the material parameters along the medium (dashed curves in Fig. 2), so $`\alpha _4`$ may even increase above its value in the weak-field limit. The interplay of these effects determines the spatial dynamics, optimum parameters, and achievable gain \[Fig. 1(b)\]. Along a substantial medium length, the probe field is only being depleted \[Fig. 3(b)\]. Its growth begins at the length where the generated and enhanced field $`E_2`$ \[dashed curves in Fig. 3(b)\] becomes comparable with $`E_{40}`$. The simulations explicitly reveal that the fully resonant conditions explored in Ref. 8 are far from optimal \[inset in Fig. 3(b)\], and most probably the gain reported in Ref. 8 is a misinterpretation of the experiment. The maximum gain in Fig. 1(b) is 1050, which is well above the characteristic threshold for self-oscillation to be established inside the optical cavity from the spontaneous radiation. This gain can readily be increased further to the mirrorless oscillation level. Both linear and laser-induced nonlinear dispersion inhomogeneous along the medium are taken into account in Figs. 1(b) and 3. Our results also demonstrate that the problem of AWI in similar schemes may not be reduced to the condition of a sign change of $`\alpha _4`$, as was done in the research reported in Ref. 11. The solid curve in Fig. 3(b) shows that there is an optical thickness controlled by the driving radiations whose small variation results in a switching from the absorption regime to transparency and further to amplification. Figure 3(c) presents the possibility of controlling this switching with a small change of either the frequency of the probe radiation or the intensity of the driving radiation (inset, Fig. 3). Obviously, the same processes can be employed for generating and manipulating large dispersion without the accompanying depletion of radiation. The required intensity can be further decreased in identical but more favorable atomic schemes. Owing to the generated molecular coherence, fields $`E_4`$ and $`E_2`$ may possess nearly perfect quantum correlations that yield almost complete squeezingQN .

We thank S.A. Myslivets for assistance in the numerical simulations and the U.S. National Research Council - National Academy of Sciences for support through the international Collaboration in Basic Science and Engineering program. AKP acknowledges stimulating discussions with B. Wellegehausen and B. Chichkov, and support from the International Association of the European Community for the promotion of co-operation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union (grant INTAS-99-19), the Russian and Krasnoyarsk Regional Foundations for Fundamental Research (grant 99-02-39003) and from the Center on Fundamental Natural Sciences at St. Petersburg University (Russia) (grant 97-5.2-61). Thomas F. George’s e-mail address is tgeorge@uwsp.edu; that of Alexander K. Popov is popov@ksc.krasn.ru.


format: text

text:
# Center Vortices and Monopoles without lattice Gribov copies

## I Introduction

Ever since the advent of QCD, one has tried to isolate a subset of collective degrees of freedom (d.o.f.) which would be responsible for the non-perturbative features of the $`SU(2)`$ or $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory, in particular for confinement. It is natural to associate non-perturbative effects with topological excitations. Therefore, all the non-trivial homotopy groups $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3(SU(2))=𝐙`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2(SU(2)/U(1))=𝐙`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(SU(2)/Z_2)=Z_2`$, and their $`SU(N)`$ homologues have been considered. The corresponding topological excitations have codimension 4, 3 and 2 respectively, and are instantons, Abelian monopoles and center vortices. Among these, the latter have been emerging as particularly worthy of attention. Center vortices correspond to non-contractible Wilson loops in the adjoint representation. The simplest example is obtained with an $`SU(2)`$ gauge field along a Wilson loop of length $`L`$: $`A_\mu ^1=A_\mu ^2=0,A_\mu ^3(x)=2\pi /L`$. The Wilson loop $`exp(i_L𝑑x_\mu A_\mu ^a(x)\frac{\sigma ^a}{2})=exp(i\pi \sigma _3)`$ has trace $`exp(2i\pi \sigma _3)=1`$ in the adjoint representation, but is not contractible to the identity.

Numerical lattice simulations have given evidence for the relevant role played by center vortices. Now, topology is a feature of continuum field theory, and studying topological excitations on the lattice requires some kind of interpolation. Non-contractible adjoint loops are rather elusive under direct investigation, so that an indirect approach has been successfully developed , in analogy with the detection of Abelian monopoles. Any topological excitation can be exposed as a local gauge-fixing singularity in an otherwise smooth gauge. Abelian monopoles appear as singularities in the Maximal Abelian Gauge, which minimizes the non-Abelian components $`d^4x_\mu (|A_\mu ^1(x)|^2+|A_\mu ^2(x)|^2)`$. Similarly here, gauge-fixing is used to bring each gauge link as close as possible to a center element, hence the name Maximal Center Gauge. This is equivalent to bringing all adjoint links close to the identity, that is, making the adjoint field as smooth as possible. Each fundamental link matrix $`U`$ is then decomposed into a part $`U^{}SU(N)/Z_N`$, which reproduces the smooth adjoint field and in addition remains close to the $`SU(N)`$ identity, and a $`zZ_N`$ part. The latter seems at first sight irrelevant for the detection of non-contractible adjoint loops. However, such a loop as in the $`exp(i\pi \sigma _3)`$ example above, will have a trace in the fundamental representation equal to $`1`$, or more generally to a non-trivial $`Z_N`$ element. If one neglects the fluctuations of the $`U^{}`$ part, center vortices should appear as non-trivial $`Z_N`$ excitations, localized on plaquettes and called $`P`$-vortices. $`P`$-vortices form closed co-dimension 2 surfaces in the dual space–time, which disorder the $`Z_N`$ ensemble $`\{z\}`$. They are localized defects, associated with macroscopic center vortices via gauge-fixing. This indirect strategy, called center projection, has been used to assess numerically the importance of center vortices. Numerical evidence has been accumulating, which shows that this $`P`$-vortex disorder generates a $`Z_N`$ string tension close in value to the original $`SU(N)`$ one . A physical density of vortices per $`\mathrm{fm}^2`$ can be extracted . $`SU(N)`$ chiral symmetry breaking induces a quark condensate and Dirac zeromodes in the $`Z_N`$ ensemble also . On the other hand, the coset $`\{U^{}\}`$ ensemble shows no confinement, no chiral symmetry breaking, and no topological charge . While this may be a simple kinematic effect, it is tempting to adhere to the idea of center dominance, according to which center vortices, and nothing else, are responsible for the non-perturbative Yang-Mills features. One implication of center dominance is that the string tension produced by center vortices should match the Yang-Mills string tension exactly.

However, this construction rests on shaky ground. The connection between $`Z_N`$ excitations which are located on a plaquette and their $`SU(N)`$ ancestors, center vortices believed to be of macroscopic size – smooth examples of which have been explicitly constructed  – proceeds via gauge fixing. When each adjoint link is maximally close to the identity, the assignment of a $`Z_N`$ center element to the fundamental link, i.e. the center projection itself, can be performed with the most confidence. However, the technical difficulty of fixing a smooth gauge on the lattice is well known. Gauge fixing proceeds by iterative local maximization of a gauge functional, and this procedure terminates when a local maximum is reached, without any guarantee, or in fact any reasonable hope, of reaching the global maximum. Which local maximum is reached depends on the starting point along the gauge orbit. The various gauges reached correspond to “lattice Gribov copies”. This technical problem, which plagues the Landau and Coulomb gauges on the lattice, is commonly believed to be rather harmless there. In Maximal Center Gauge, its harmful effects have been exhibited : the copy obtained when starting the gauge-fixing procedure from Landau gauge corresponds to a very high value of the gauge-fixing functional, higher than a typical local maximum, but gives, after center projection, $`Z_N`$ excitations which do not confine. Evidence has been produced that, the higher the value of the local maximum one reaches, the smaller the $`Z_N`$ string tension . Although this evidence is currently under dispute , the technical problem of lattice Gribov copies prevents a reasonable degree of confidence in the idea of center dominance.

The present paper, we believe, should restore full confidence in this idea. Here, we address and solve the problem of the gauge ambiguity. This problem was already solved for the Landau gauge in Ref.. There, a different gauge was proposed, the Laplacian gauge, which is Lorentz-symmetric and produces a smooth gauge field like the Landau gauge, but has no lattice Gribov copies. The advantages of such an unambiguous gauge have barely been explored . In the present paper, we generalize the construction of  to $`SU(N)`$ in the adjoint representation, since we want the adjoint field to be smooth. In our “Laplacian Center Gauge”, the adjoint $`SU(N)/Z_N`$ field is uniquely gauge-fixed – aside from exceptional configurations which are genuine Gribov copies–, and a remaining local $`Z_N`$ gauge freedom subsists. Now, even though the adjoint field is uniquely gauge-fixed in general, there exists a sub-manifold of points where the gauge remains ill-defined. These local gauge ambiguities are the necessary companions of macroscopic topological excitations. As explained earlier, a non-contractible adjoint Wilson loop will prevent the adjoint field from being smooth everywhere; similarly, an Abelian monopole will correspond to a singularity of the Abelian projected field. Indeed, by studying the details of the gauge condition, we show that on some subset of points the gauge freedom is locally enlarged from $`Z_2`$ to $`U(1)`$, and from $`U(1)`$ to $`SU(2)`$, defining two types of local ambiguities which can be readily identified with center vortices and Abelian monopoles, the latter being embedded in the former, as anticipated in . These topological objects appear naturally together as local gauge defects. This unified description reconciles with center dominance the large body of numerical evidence in favor of monopole dominance: Abelian monopoles do not represent an alternative to center vortices as effective degrees of freedom; they are their undissociable partners. In particular, the condensation of monopoles in the confined phase of the $`SU(N)`$ theory  implies the percolation of center vortex surfaces, by the following simple argument. A non-zero monopole condensate means that a single monopole can be created at point $`(x,t)`$, or equivalently that monopoles are not pair-wise confined. Since monopole world–lines are closed loops, the monopole at $`(x,t)`$ must have a partner at $`(x^{},t)`$, and a “single” monopole simply has a partner at infinity. This in turn means that monopole world–lines percolate. Since we show that monopole world–lines are embedded in center vortex surfaces, percolation of one implies percolation of the other.

We complement the qualitative study of local gauge defects outlined above with a quantitative study, for $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$. We show that, in Laplacian Center Gauge, the center-projected ensemble confines, while the coset ensemble does not. This confirms earlier $`SU(2)`$ results , and firms up the sketchy $`SU(3)`$ evidence , all obtained in the ambiguous Maximal Center Gauge. But the scenario of center dominance demands exact equality of the $`Z_N`$ and $`SU(N)`$ string tensions. We test this scenario by considering different Laplacian Center Gauges, obtained from different lattice discretizations of the Laplacian. At finite lattice spacing $`a`$, different gauges give widely different $`Z_N`$ string tensions, which at first sight looks like a terrible blow to center dominance. Nevertheless, we show that, in all three gauges we consider and presumably in any –unambiguous– gauge, equality of the $`Z_N`$ and $`SU(N)`$ string tensions is approached as $`a0`$. Therefore, our results support the restoration of center dominance in the continuum limit, and only then.

Section II of our paper gives an explicit construction of the Laplacian Center Gauge for $`SU(N)`$. Section III discusses the local gauge ambiguities and their identification as monopoles and center vortices. Section IV presents our numerical results for $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$. Section V shows the effect of alternative gauges and discusses center dominance. A final summary and discussion is presented in Section VI.

## II Laplacian Center Gauge fixing

The Laplacian gauge was originally proposed by Vink and Wiese , who suggested to use the eigenvectors of the covariant Laplacian operator to fix the gauge in a non–Abelian gauge theory: the eigenvectors transform covariantly, and one can fix the gauge by prescribing their color orientation at each space-time point. This method takes advantage of a non–local procedure to fix a covariant smooth gauge in an unambiguous way. There are exceptional cases, genuine Gribov copies, in which the gauge fixed configuration is not unique: however such cases can be easily detected by the presence of degenerate eigenvalues and – from the viewpoint of numerical simulations – never occur. The perturbative formulation of the Laplacian gauge in $`SU(2)`$ has been studied in , while the problem of its renormalizability is still open. Since we are interested in reducing the symmetry of the gauge group from $`SU(N)`$ to its center $`Z_N`$, it is useful to consider the Laplacian operator in the adjoint representation. In fact, since the adjoint representation is invariant under gauge transformations in $`Z_N`$, the adjoint Laplacian procedure fixes unambiguously the gauge up to the center symmetry, and the Laplacian Center Gauge is just another name for the adjoint Laplacian gauge. The first step towards this construction was already considered, in $`SU(2)`$, by A. van der Sijs .

Consider 4–dimensional lattice $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory. The adjoint Laplacian operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{xy}^{ab}(\dot{U})`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{xy}^{ab}(\dot{U})=\underset{\mu }{}\left(2\delta _{x,y}\delta ^{ab}\dot{U}_\mu ^{ab}(x)\delta _{y,x+\widehat{\mu }}\dot{U}_\mu ^{ba}(x\widehat{\mu })\delta _{y,x\widehat{\mu }}\right)$$
(1)
where $`a`$,$`b=1,\mathrm{}(N^21)`$ are color indices and $`x`$,$`y`$ are space–time lattice coordinates. The dotted $`\dot{U}_\mu (x)`$ are the link variables in the adjoint representation and are related to the links $`U_\mu (x)`$ in the fundamental by

$$\dot{U}_\mu ^{ab}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\left(\lambda _aU_\mu (x)\lambda _bU_\mu ^{}(x)\right)$$
(2)
$`\lambda _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},(N^21)`$ being the generators of $`SU(N)`$ with the normalization $`\text{Tr}(\lambda _a\lambda _b)=2\delta _{ab}`$. If $`V`$ is the volume of the lattice, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\dot{U})`$ is a $`[(N^21)V]\times [(N^21)V]`$ real symmetric matrix which depends on the gauge field. The eigenvalues $`\mu _j`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are real and the eigenvector equation is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{xy}^{ab}(\dot{U})\varphi _b^{(j)}(y)=\mu _j\varphi _a^{(j)}(x)$$
(3)
where $`\varphi ^{(j)}`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},[(N^21)V]`$ are the $`[(N^21)V]`$–dimensional (real) eigenvectors. So we can associate $`(N^21)`$–dimensional real vectors $`\varphi ^{(j)}(x)`$ to every lattice site.
Let us consider a gauge transformation $`U_\mu ^{}(x)=\mathrm{\Omega }(x)U_\mu (x)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })`$ on the fundamental links. Then, making use of the property $`\dot{(AB)}=\dot{A}\dot{B}`$, the eigenvector equation (3) becomes

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}{}_{}{}^{ai}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{xy}^{ik}(\dot{U}^{})\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{kb}(y)\varphi _b^{(j)}(y)=\mu _j\varphi _a^{(j)}(x)$$
(4)
This relation shows that the eigenvalues are gauge invariant and the eigenvectors transform according to $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{ab}(x)\varphi _b^{(j)}(x)=\varphi _a^{(j)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$. This transformation law can be rewritten as follows

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }^{(j)}(x)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{(j)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)$$
(5)
where we have defined the $`su(N)`$ matrices (i.e. in the $`SU(N)`$ algebra) $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(j)}(x)=_{a=1}^{N^21}\varphi _a^{(j)}(x)\lambda _a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(j)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)=_{a=1}^{N^21}\varphi _a^{(j)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)\lambda _a`$. Gauge transformations rotate the vectors $`\varphi ^{(j)}(x)`$ in color space and so we can fix the gauge by requiring a conventional arbitrary orientation for the $`\varphi ^{(j)}(x)`$. This orientation may depend on the lattice site and it is fixed once and for all; the simplest choice is to make it space–time independent. We will see below that to perform the reduction of the gauge symmetry from $`SU(N)`$ to $`Z_N`$ we only need to fix the orientation of two eigenvectors of the Laplacian operator. Since we are interested in fixing a smooth gauge, we consider the two lowest eigenmodes $`\varphi ^{(1)}`$ and $`\varphi ^{(2)}`$, associated with the smallest eigenvalues of the Laplacian.

The gauge fixing procedure can be split in two steps. In the first, one rotates $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x)`$ at every $`x`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$ is diagonal, i.e. in the Cartan subalgebra of $`su(N)`$. This leaves a residual symmetry corresponding to gauge transformations belonging to the Cartan subgroup $`U(1)^{N1}`$. Therefore, at that stage we already have obtained an unambiguous Abelian gauge, called Laplacian Abelian Gauge in . Nothing more can be done with only one eigenvector. To further reduce the gauge freedom we must consider a second step where the second eigenvector $`\varphi ^{(2)}`$ is taken into account. The gauge transformation that has rotated $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x)`$ to the Cartan subalgebra, maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(x)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$. While $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$ is invariant under gauge transformations in $`U(1)^{N1}`$, this is in general not the case for $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$ (special cases are discussed later). The gauge symmetry can now be reduced to $`Z_N`$ by considering gauge transformations in $`U(1)^{N1}`$ which make some conventionally chosen color components of the twice rotated matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ vanish. The remnant center gauge freedom, consistently with the construction, can not be fixed within the described procedure in the adjoint representation. In fact, as follows from equation (5), the matrices $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(j)}(x)`$ are invariant under gauge transformations in the center group $`Z_N`$ (these gauge transformations are the identity in the adjoint representation). Now we describe explicitly how to perform the presented two–step program.

Step 1
The starting point is equation (5) for the first eigenvector $`\varphi ^{(1)}`$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x)`$ is an $`N\times N`$ (traceless) hermitian matrix, and so there exist $`N\times N`$ unitary matrices $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ which diagonalize it (we recall that the diagonal elements are the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x)`$). Diagonalizing $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x)`$ is equivalent to requiring that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$ be in the Cartan subalgebra of $`su(N)`$. Since we want $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ to be a gauge transformation in $`SU(N)`$, we must require that $`det(\mathrm{\Omega }(x))=1`$. The condition that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$ is diagonal does not specify $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ – i.e. the gauge symmetry – up to $`U(1)^{N1}`$ transformations yet. In fact there are non-diagonal $`SU(N)`$ gauge transformations which, when applied to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$, have the only effect of exchanging the position of the eigenvalues along the diagonal. In order to eliminate this permutation arbitrariness, it is necessary to impose an ordering of the eigenvalues. This is simple to do since the eigenvalues of a hermitian matrix are real. Once some conventional ordering has been chosen, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ is really defined up to $`U(1)^{N1}`$ transformations. A last remark concerns the explicit evaluation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$, which, in view of (5), is the problem of diagonalizing a hermitian matrix. For the $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ gauge groups, this evaluation can be performed analytically. For larger groups $`SU(N4)`$, one can simply make use of numerical methods.

Step 2
In Step 1 we have found $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ defined up to gauge transformations $`V(x)U(1)^{N1}`$. A second step is necessary to reduce the symmetry from $`U(1)^{N1}`$ to $`Z_N`$; this means that we must introduce a criterion which specifies $`V(x)`$ up to $`Z_N`$. Consider the second eigenvector $`\varphi ^{(2)}`$ and apply the gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(x)`$ so as to obtain $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)=\mathrm{\Omega }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(x)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(x)`$. Now we look for $`V(x)`$ such that the vector $`\varphi ^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)`$, obtained from $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)=V(x)\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)V^{}(x)`$, has a conventional orientation in color space. Also in this case there is no need that this orientation be the same at all $`x`$ but, however, this is the simplest choice. In order to make the discussion more transparent, we explicitly consider the $`SU(3)`$ case; the generalization to $`SU(N)`$ is straightforward.

A generic matrix $`V(x)U(1)^2`$ can be written in the form $`V(x)=\text{diag}(\text{e}^{i(2\alpha (x)+\beta (x))},\text{e}^{i(\alpha (x)+\beta (x))},\text{e}^{i(\alpha (x)+2\beta (x))})`$ with $`\alpha (x)`$, $`\beta (x)[0,2\pi )`$. We can fix $`V(x)`$ up to gauge transformations in $`Z_3`$ by imposing the following requirements:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{1) }\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)\lambda _2\right)=0\hfill \\ \text{2) }\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)\lambda _7\right)=0\hfill \\ \text{3) }\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)\lambda _1\right)>0,\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)\lambda _6\right)>0\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
The meaning of these three conditions becomes clearer when one writes explicitly $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\varphi _3^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\varphi _8^{(2)}^{}\hfill & (\varphi _1^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}i\varphi _2^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{})\text{e}^{3i\alpha }\hfill & (\varphi _4^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}i\varphi _5^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{})\text{e}^{3i(\alpha +\beta )}\hfill \\ (\varphi _1^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}+i\varphi _2^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{})\text{e}^{3i\alpha }\hfill & \varphi _3^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\varphi _8^{(2)}^{}\hfill & (\varphi _6^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}i\varphi _7^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{})\text{e}^{3i\beta }\hfill \\ (\varphi _4^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}+i\varphi _5^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{})\text{e}^{3i(\alpha +\beta )}\hfill & (\varphi _6^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}+i\varphi _7^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{})\text{e}^{3i\beta }\hfill & \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\varphi _8^{(2)}^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(7)
For example, $`\alpha (x)`$ and $`\beta (x)`$ can be fixed requiring that

$$\text{e}^{3i\alpha (x)}=\frac{\varphi _1^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)+i\varphi _2^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)}{\sqrt{\varphi _1^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}(x)+\varphi _2^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}(x)}}$$
(8)
$$\text{e}^{3i\beta (x)}=\frac{\varphi _6^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)+i\varphi _7^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)}{\sqrt{\varphi _6^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}(x)+\varphi _7^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}(x)}}$$
(9)
making the elements $`(1,2)`$ and $`(2,3)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ real, i.e. satisfying conditions 1) and 2). The condition 3) in (6) is introduced to eliminate the sign ambiguities $`\pm (\varphi _1^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)+i\varphi _2^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x))`$ and $`\pm (\varphi _6^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)+i\varphi _7^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x))`$. In conclusion, after this second step, we have obtained the transformation $`W(x)=V(x)\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ which fixes uniquely the gauge up to the center symmetry $`Z_3`$. In the $`SU(N)`$ case, the symmetry must be reduced from $`U(1)^{N1}`$ to $`Z_N`$ by fixing $`(N1)`$ phases. This can be accomplished, in a simple and elegant way, by requiring that the $`(N1)`$ sub–diagonal elements of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ be real positive. Moreover, with this choice of constraints, the conditions defining the monopoles turn out to be particularly simple.

Two last important remarks concern the accidental degeneracy of $`\mu _1`$ or $`\mu _2`$ in (3) and the sign arbitrariness in the eigenvectors $`\varphi ^{(j)}`$. In the described procedure we have assumed that the two lowest eigenvalues $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ of the Laplacian operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are both non-degenerate. If either one is degenerate, the gauge fixing can not be carried out in an unambiguous way; however these cases are really exceptional and in the numerical simulations never occur. Moreover this degeneracy is easy to check and so these events can be detected. The second point is about the arbitrariness in the eigenvectors $`\varphi ^{(j)}`$, since they are defined up to a global scale factor and a global sign. The two–step method to fix the gauge makes use of the orientation of the vectors $`\varphi ^{(1)}(x)`$ and $`\varphi ^{(2)}(x)`$ in color space. So, while the rescaling can not give rise to any ambiguity in the procedure, the freedom in the choice of the global sign can. This freedom can be eliminated with a conventional choice on $`\varphi ^{(j)}`$.

## III Local gauge ambiguities

Local defects may occur in the Laplacian Center Gauge fixing procedure. In this section we discuss how they show up and how they can be associated with monopoles and center vortices. This association is consistent with the initial proposal by ’t Hooft of identifying gauge fixing defects and topological features of the gauge fixed theory. Moreover, in this approach, we will make apparent the close relation which exists between monopoles and center vortices in the Laplacian Center Gauge. Let us start by showing the conditions that give rise to defects at each step of the gauge fixing procedure.

Step 2 ill–defined
In Step 2 we fix the $`U(1)^{N1}`$ symmetry by looking for gauge transformations $`V(x)`$ in the Cartan subgroup that make some color components of $`\varphi ^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ vanish. This is equivalent to requiring that particular entries in the complex matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ be real positive. If it happens that, at some point $`x`$, any of these entries is zero, the second step can not be carried out completely. Let us illustrate the argument by considering $`SU(3)`$. The conditions (6) specify $`V(x)`$ via the phases $`\alpha (x)`$ and $`\beta (x)`$ given by (8) and (9). If, at some point $`x`$, one of the following cases takes place

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{1) }\varphi _1^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)i\varphi _2^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)=0\hfill \\ \text{2) }\varphi _6^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)i\varphi _7^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
the corresponding phase – $`\alpha (x)`$ for 1) and $`\beta (x)`$ for 2) – is not defined. Thus, at point $`x`$ the gauge symmetry cannot be reduced to $`Z_3`$ and one of the two $`U(1)`$ subgroups is left unfixed. The conditions 1) or 2), and more generally the corresponding ones for $`SU(N)`$, set two constraints, and so the points $`x`$ where the remaining gauge freedom is enlarged from $`Z_N`$ to include a continuous $`U(1)`$ group form 2–dimensional surfaces in the 4–dimensional space–time. For $`SU(2)`$, these surfaces are defined by the collinearity of $`\varphi ^{(1)}`$ and $`\varphi ^{(2)}`$.

Step 1 ill–defined
In Step 1 we reduce the gauge symmetry from $`SU(N)`$ to $`U(1)^{N1}`$ by diagonalizing $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x)`$ with a conventional ordering for the eigenvalues along the diagonal. If, at some point $`x`$, two eigenvalues happen to be equal, the conventional ordering is no longer unique and the procedure becomes ill-defined at that point. For instance, let us consider $`SU(3)`$. The traceless matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$ can be written in the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2a(x)+b(x)\hfill & & \\ & a(x)+b(x)\hfill & \\ & & a(x)2b(x)\hfill \end{array}\right)=a(x)\lambda _3^{}+b(x)\lambda _8$$
(11)
where $`a(x)`$ and $`b(x)`$ are non-negative and $`\lambda _3^{}=\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{3}\lambda _3+\lambda _8)`$ ($`\lambda _3`$ and $`\lambda _8`$ are the diagonal Gell–Mann matrices). In writing (11) we have assumed a conventional decreasing ordering along the diagonal for the eigenvalues. $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$ has two equal eigenvalues in one of the following two cases:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{1) }a(x)=0\hfill \\ \text{2) }b(x)=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
When one of these occurs, the residual gauge symmetry is $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ (or more precisely $`U(2)`$) instead of $`U(1)^2`$. Suppose that case 1) takes place, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$ is invariant under gauge transformations generated by $`\lambda _8`$, $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ and the last three matrices generate an $`SU(2)`$ subgroup. For the generic $`SU(N)`$ group, the symmetry is $`SU(2)\times U(1)^{N2}`$ <sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*More precisely, by this notation we mean that the group symmetry is generated by the elements of the Cartan subalgebra plus two more $`su(N)`$ matrices which, together with one of the already considered diagonal generators, form an $`su(2)`$ subalgebra.. Let us now show that these points $`x`$ where the first step can be performed only partially and the gauge symmetry is reduced to $`SU(2)\times U(1)^{N2}`$, form 1–dimensional strings in 4–dimensional space–time. Imagine that the matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ which diagonalizes $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x)`$ is computed in two stages. In the first stage, we partially diagonalize $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x)`$ so as to leave only two (symmetric) off–diagonal elements different from zero. In the second stage, an $`SU(2)`$ transformation is considered which makes these last two off–diagonal elements vanish. This second stage is equivalent to the diagonalization of an $`su(2)`$ matrix $`s(x)=_1^3s_k(x)\sigma _k`$. Without loss of generality, we can always suppose that the $`(N2)`$ diagonal elements found after the first stage and not touched by the $`SU(2)`$ transformation of the second stage, are all different, and that the equality of two eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x)`$ can show up only in the second stage (this means that, in general, the position of the non-zero off–diagonal elements in the partially diagonalized matrix depends on $`x`$ and on the conventional ordering). Then the equality of two eigenvalues takes place at the points $`x`$ where $`s_1(x)=s_2(x)=s_3(x)=0`$: since three constraints must be satisfied, the points $`x`$ form 1–dimensional strings in 4–dimensional space–time.

Having established that the local gauge ambiguities at Step 1 and 2 have co-dimension 3 and 2 respectively, we now proceed to associate them with monopoles and center vortices. Let us first show that the gauge fixing defects of Step 2 ill–defined can be associated with center vortices. Again we consider $`SU(3)`$ and the extension to $`SU(N)`$ is straightforward.

Suppose that, at some point $`x_0`$, case 1) of (10) takes place. Let us define $`\varphi _{1,2}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)=\varphi _1^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)+i\varphi _2^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$ and consider its Taylor expansion around $`x_0`$:

$$\varphi _{1,2}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)=(xx_0)\varphi _{1,2}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x_0)+𝒪(xx_0)^2$$
(13)
obtained keeping in mind that $`\varphi _{1,2}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x_0)=0`$. Consider then a plane passing through $`x_0`$. Moving on this plane in the neighborhood of $`x_0`$, $`\varphi _{1,2}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$ has, up to some complex rescaling factor, a hedgehog shape that we can parametrize in polar coordinates

$$\varphi _{1,2}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(r,\theta )f(r,\theta )\text{e}^{i\theta }$$
(14)
with $`f(r,\theta )`$ a real positive function. If we now impose the gauge fixing conditions (6) and we take into account (7), we obtain that, in the neighborhood of $`x_0`$ and on the considered plane, the Step 2 gauge transformation is given by $`V(x)=\text{diag}(\text{e}^{i\frac{2\theta }{3}},\text{e}^{i\frac{\theta }{3}},\text{e}^{i\frac{\theta }{3}})`$. In this argument we do not consider the $`U(1)`$ subgroup parametrized by $`\beta (x)`$, since its contribution can be factored out. Applying the gauge transformation $`V`$

$$A_\mu V(A_\mu +\frac{i}{g}_\mu )V^{}$$
(15)
we obtain that, moving in the plane in the neighborhood of $`x_0`$, the gauge field gains the term

$$\frac{i}{g}V_\mu V^{}=\frac{1}{3gr}\lambda _3^{}\stackrel{}{\text{e}}_\theta $$
(16)
If we now integrate over a closed path $`C`$ around $`x_0`$ we have

$$_C\frac{1}{3gr}r𝑑r𝑑\theta =\frac{2\pi }{3}$$
(17)
This means that a Wilson loop belonging to the considered plane and encircling $`x_0`$ gets a non-trivial factor $`\text{e}^{i\frac{2\pi }{3}}1`$ I with respect to the center group $`Z_3`$. A similar discussion can be carried out for case 2) of (10). According to the presented argument, we establish a connection between center vortices and gauge fixing defects arising from Step 2.
As for those arising from Step 1, ’t Hooft already has shown how such gauge fixing defects can be identified with monopole world–lines. He has also explained that, in $`SU(N)`$, all monopoles are composite of $`(N1)`$ elementary ones corresponding to the degeneracy of two neighbouring eigenvalues. Here we discuss the feature that, in the Laplacian Center Gauge, center vortices and monopoles turn out to be closely related in a unified description. Take the $`SU(3)`$ theory and consider the 2–dimensional surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the center vortices defined by $`\varphi _1^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)=0`$, $`\varphi _2^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)=0`$. Similarly to equation (11), we can write the diagonal elements of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ in the form $`c(x)\lambda _3^{}+d(x)\lambda _8`$. Now $`c(x)`$ and $`d(x)`$ can be also negative, since the permutation freedom has already been used to order the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}`$. At every point $`x`$, $`a(x)`$ and $`c(x)`$ may have identical or opposite signs. Let us restrict ourselves to $`x\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and suppose that $`a(x)`$ and $`c(x)`$ have identical sign in some parts of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, opposite sign in others. By continuity, this implies that these patches must be separated by 1–dimensional closed strings where $`a(x)=0`$ or $`c(x)=0`$, the former of which defines a monopole world–line. Thus the 2–dimensional surface of center vortices contains embedded monopole world–lines. Moreover, all monopole world–lines are embedded in center vortex surfaces. To see this, consider an $`SU(2)`$ static monopole at some point $`x_0`$ in 3–dimensional space. By definition, $`\varphi ^{(1)}`$ vanishes at the monopole core $`x_0`$, and in its neighborhood it has a hedgehog shape in color space. So there will necessarily exist some direction along which $`\varphi ^{(1)}(x)`$ is parallel to $`\varphi ^{(2)}(x)`$ – which is the condition identifying center vortices in $`SU(2)`$ –. Thus the core of a monopole is nested in the 1–dimensional closed string of a center vortex, which appears as two half-Dirac strings. Considering now the time evolution also, we see that a monopole world–line is always embedded in a 2–dimensional surface of center vortices. Since, in general, the pattern of the gauge symmetry promotion at the monopole core is $`U(1)^{N1}SU(2)\times U(1)^{N2}`$ – i.e. one of the $`U(1)`$ subgroups is promoted to $`SU(2)`$ –, the argument given here for $`SU(2)`$ can be extended to a generic $`SU(N)`$. Fig.1 sketches the embedding of monopole world–lines in center vortex surfaces just discussed.

This close connection between monopoles and center vortices has actually been observed on the lattice , and even presented as a puzzle : on a cooled $`SU(2)`$ lattice configuration, almost all Abelian monopoles, identified as a $`3d`$ cube through which one measures a $`2\pi `$ magnetic flux, are attached to two opposite center vortex plaquettes. This is precisely the situation we describe: as correctly anticipated in , Abelian monopoles and anti-monopoles are like alternating beads on a necklace formed by the center vortex string.

## IV Numerical results

We have performed numerical simulations to investigate the role of the center degrees of freedom in the $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ lattice gauge theories. According to the discussion of the two previous sections, we have made use of the Laplacian Center Gauge fixing to reduce the symmetry to the center subgroup. In this approach – considering for instance $`SU(3)`$ – we have described how center vortices can be detected by looking for the points $`x`$ where, for example, $`\varphi _{1,2}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)=0`$ or, equivalently, $`\varphi ^{(2)}(x)`$ describes a $`2\pi `$ rotation in color space around the $`\lambda _3^{}`$ axis, moving along a closed contour encircling $`x`$. The method is the same for a generic group $`SU(N)`$. As a by-product, monopole world–lines are identified by the points $`x`$ where two eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$ are equal; but our aim here is to study the center degrees of freedom and not the Abelian ones. Numerical simulations are performed on a lattice and so the eigenvectors of the adjoint Laplacian operator can be computed only at discrete points. This implies that an interpolation procedure must be defined to detect center vortices and, if desired, monopoles. We have tried several interpolation methods in order to investigate the robustness of the results with respect to different choices. Unfortunately, the arbitrariness introduced by this necessary step seems large at the lattice spacings we considered. We have found only one plaquette-based interpolation scheme which guarantees that center vortex surfaces are closed. It is identical to the construction of , eq.(10). Remarkably, this interpolation scheme gives center vortices at locations which coincide with the $`P`$-vortices obtained after center projection by Greensite and collaborators . Following this prescription, every gauge fixed link $`U_\mu (x)`$ is decomposed as the product of two parts

$$U_\mu (x)=Z_\mu (x)U_\mu ^{}(x)$$
(18)
where $`Z_\mu (x)`$ is the center projected link living in $`Z_N`$ and $`U_\mu ^{}(x)`$ is the coset link taking values in $`SU(N)/Z_N`$. For instance, this splitting can be carried out by requiring that $`|\text{arg(Tr}(U_\mu ^{}(x)))|\pi /N`$. Thus, starting from an $`SU(N)`$ gauge fixed configuration, one builds up two projected configurations, made of the $`Z_\mu (x)`$ and the $`U_\mu ^{}(x)`$ links. Then, if $`W(C)`$ is a Wilson loop along the closed contour $`C`$, making use of the decomposition (18), one can write

$$W(C)=\sigma (C)W^{}(C)=\left[\underset{p\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}\sigma (p)\right]W^{}(C)$$
(19)
where $`\sigma (p)`$ is the plaquette built from center links $`Z_\mu (x)`$, and $`W^{}(C)`$ and $`\sigma (C)_{p\mathrm{\Sigma }}\sigma (p)`$ are the Wilson loops evaluated with the coset links $`U_\mu ^{}(x)`$ and with the center links $`Z_\mu (x)`$ respectively. $`_{p\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is the product over all the plaquettes $`p`$ belonging to a surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ supported on $`C`$; the value of $`\sigma (C)`$ does not depend on the choice of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and, for simplicity, we can suppose that it is the planar surface bounded by $`C`$. Since we have fixed a gauge where $`U_\mu ^{}`$ is smooth, we expect that, to a reasonable approximation, $`W(C)`$ has a non-trivial value with respect to $`Z_N`$ if and only if $`\sigma (C)`$ does. In this approach, a non-trivial value for $`\sigma (p)`$ is the “signal” for a center vortex. We stress again that the vortices identified in this way coincide with interpolated gauge defects, which brings center projection on firmer theoretical ground.

We have collected 1000 $`SU(2)`$ configurations at three different values of the coupling constant $`\beta =2.3`$, $`2.4`$ and $`2.5`$ on a $`16^4`$ lattice; for $`SU(3)`$ we have generated 500 configurations on a $`16^4`$ lattice at $`\beta =6.0`$.

The following figure shows our measurement of the Creutz ratios $`\chi (R)=\mathrm{ln}(W(R,R)W(R1,R1)/W(R,R1)^2)`$ for $`SU(2)`$ at $`\beta =2.4`$ ($`W(R,T)`$ is the Wilson loop $`R\times T`$).

Empty circles refer to $`SU(2)`$, full circles to center projection after Laplacian Center Gauge fixing, and triangles to the coset part. The continuous strip is the value in the literature  of the $`SU(2)`$ string tension for the chosen set of parameters. These numerical results show, on one hand, the flattening of the Creutz ratios in the $`Z_2`$ sector and, on the other hand, the vanishing of the Creutz ratios computed with the coset links. We have obtained similar behaviour for the other two values of $`\beta `$: $`2.3`$ and $`2.5`$. We have also carried out the same study for the $`SU(3)`$ lattice gauge theory. The next figure shows our results for the Creutz ratios in the $`Z_3`$ sector after Laplacian Center Gauge fixing of 500 configurations.

The continuous strip is the value in the literature of the $`SU(3)`$ string tension at the considered set of parameters. Also in this case, one clearly sees a nice flattening to a non-vanishing value of the Creutz ratios evaluated with the center projected links.

Therefore, our $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ results are qualitatively similar to those previously obtained in Direct Maximal Center gauge in $`SU(2)`$. They confirm the finding that the center-projected ensemble of gauge defects confines, with a string tension close to that of the original non-Abelian theory, whereas the coset ensemble does not. One difference however is apparent: the Creutz ratios tend to an asymptotic value much more slowly in Laplacian gauge than in DMC gauge. This is caused by the presence of many more close pairs of center vortices. Indeed, the vortex density is much higher, by a factor 3 to 5, than that measured in DMC gauge. A similar increase in the density of Abelian monopoles was observed previously in the Laplacian Abelian gauge . One may consider this a practical nuisance, since these additional vortex pairs make the extraction of the projected string tension more noisy. One may instead consider that the center-projected ensemble represents the original one more closely, since it partially reproduces the short-distance increase of the force.

Finally, one can compare DMC and Laplacian Center gauges from the point of view of the computer effort. Because two eigenvectors of the adjoint Laplacian must be computed, one may get the impression that the Laplacian gauge is computationally expensive. That impression is misleading. Using the public-domain package ARPACK  to solve the eigenvalue problem, the computer time needed to gauge fix one $`16^4`$ configuration is about the same as for 50 Monte Carlo sweeps in the case of $`SU(2)`$, and 300 to 500 for $`SU(3)`$. This is far less than required to fix to DMC gauge iteratively.

## V Interpretation of the numerical results

The figures presented in the previous section show good agreement between the Creutz ratios evaluated from the center projected ensemble of gauge defects and the value of the string tension in the literature for $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ at the same $`\beta `$. However, the importance of this numerical agreement should not be overestimated. Numerical simulations are performed at a finite value of the lattice spacing, and we see no reason to believe that, if lattice artifacts are negligible for the $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory, their effect is equally small on the results obtained from the center projected model. Nevertheless, our conjecture is that, even if the value of the string tension in the center sector is appreciably modified by lattice artifacts at finite lattice spacing, this dependence has to vanish in the continuum limit. The observation of such a behaviour would be a robust confirmation of the relevance of the center degrees of freedom in the confinement mechanism. In order to investigate this issue, we have considered three different lattice Laplacian operators to fix the gauge. They differ by terms which vanish in the continuum limit, i.e. higher derivatives or irrelevant operators. In practice, these new Laplacians have been obtained very simply, by smearing the links $`U_\mu `$ and substituting smeared links in the construction of the Laplacian (1). Specifically, we have considered $`0`$, $`1`$ and $`5`$ smearing steps (staple weight = $`0.5`$) on the $`U_\mu `$ links. We stress that the smeared links are used only to obtain different gauge fixing operators; the gauge transformations are always applied to the non-smeared link configurations, as well as the center projection and measurements.

The same sample of configurations has been fixed in each one of the three gauges, and the string tension has been measured in the center sector after center projection each time. In order to estimate more accurately the string tension from the $`Z_\mu `$ links, we have constructed smeared Wilson loops, where the spatial sides are made of links recursively smeared with a fixed time coordinate. This procedure is identical to that commonly used in the measurement of the $`SU(N)`$ static potential. It reduces the contribution of excited states, thus improving the statistical accuracy on the string tension. Although in the center projected theory, the existence of a transfer matrix is doubtful, we verified that spatial smearing did not introduce a measurable bias. From the Wilson loop data, we have extracted the $`Z_N`$ string tension using the same fitting procedure as employed for the $`SU(N)`$ case, with an ansatz of the form $`V_0+\sigma R\frac{e}{R}`$ for the static potential $`V(R)`$ We gratefully acknowledge G. Bali for providing us with a data analysis program similar to that used in , so that possible systematic errors in the evaluation of the $`Z_N`$ and the $`SU(N)`$ string tensions largely cancel out when considering their ratio.

To illustrate our results, we show in the following figures the $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_3`$ Creutz ratios measured in the three gauges. The gauge dependence of the projected string tension is dramatic.

The string tensions $`\sigma _i`$ ($`i=0,1,5`$ is the number of smearing steps performed on the links $`U_\mu `$ entering in the Laplacian operator eq.(1)) obtained from our 1000 $`SU(2)`$ configurations at $`\beta =2.3`$, $`2.4`$, $`2.5`$ in the three different Laplacian Center Gauges are then compared with the $`SU(2)`$ string tension $`\sigma _{SU(2)}`$ reported in the literature. We denote by $`R_i`$ the ratio $`R_i=\sqrt{\sigma _i/\sigma _{SU(2)}}`$. The following table summarizes our results:

|  | $`\beta =2.3`$ | $`\beta =2.4`$ | $`\beta =2.5`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`R_0`$ | $`0.813(23)`$ | $`0.860(20)`$ | $`0.978(18)`$ |
| $`R_1`$ | $`0.592(12)`$ | $`0.720(11)`$ | $`0.804(12)`$ |
| $`R_5`$ | $`0.547(8)`$ | $`0.653(7)`$ | $`0.739(11)`$ |

As the number of smearing steps $`i`$ of the links entering the Laplacian increases, the projected string tension $`\sigma _i`$ quickly decreases. This effect has nothing to do with the variation of the string tension (or absence thereof) under cooling or smearing. Here the gauge configuration is always the same unsmeared one. Only the operator used for gauge fixing changes. In this case, the reduction of the projected string tension is qualitatively easy to understand. The Laplacian made of smeared links becomes increasingly blind to short-range features of the gauge field, so that, after gauge fixing, the factorization of the Wilson loop eq.(19) into a smooth non-Abelian part $`W^{}(C)`$ and a disordered center part $`\sigma (C)`$ is less effective. The smooth part $`W^{}(C)`$ is less smooth and carries some disorder, while the center part $`\sigma (C)`$ is less disordered, showing a reduced string tension. However, as $`\beta `$ increases, the physical smearing radius $`\rho `$ shrinks to zero, and one expects full identification of all center vortices. Our Table shows that the numbers in each row increase with $`\beta `$ towards 1. The more reliable the identification of the gauge defects in the Laplacian Center Gauge, the closer the matching between the projected and the full string tensions. Thus, our numerical evidence supports the idea that a complete matching takes place in the continuum limit, i.e. center dominance (see Note Added).

If, on the other hand, the amount of smearing in our covariant Laplacian was adjusted as a function of the lattice spacing so that the physical smearing radius $`\rho `$ would remain constant, then one would achieve a continuum limit where, presumably, the center-projected string tension would be a fraction of the non-Abelian one. This fraction should decrease as the smearing radius $`\rho `$ grows. When $`\rho `$ reaches the physical size of a center vortex, the smeared Laplacian becomes blind to center vortices and the decomposition (19) becomes completely ineffective. This simple reasoning shows that the covariant operator used for the gauge fixing must be local for the center dominance scenario to be correct. Indeed, according to our Table, the more local the operator, the more faithful center projection appears to be at any finite lattice spacing.

A similar analysis has been carried out for $`SU(3)`$ and the following table shows the corresponding results:

|  | $`\beta =6.0`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`R_0`$ | $`0.93(6)`$ |
| $`R_1`$ | $`0.818(32)`$ |
| $`R_5`$ | $`0.739(24)`$ |

The trend is similar to $`SU(2)`$. Furthermore, the ratios $`R_i`$ are very close to those measured in $`SU(2)`$ at $`\beta =2.5`$. Following the argument presented above, this indicates that the typical vortex size, in lattice units, is the same in both cases. With $`a(SU(3),\beta =6.0)0.1`$ fm and $`a(SU(2),\beta =2.5)0.085`$ fm, we obtain that the ratios of $`SU(3)`$ over $`SU(2)`$ center vortex sizes is about $`0.1/0.0851.18`$. Such a slight increase is consistent with the expected increase of the adjoint string-breaking distance , which is connected to the center vortex size .

## VI Summary and discussion

The standard iterative local maximization methods used to fix the gauge on the lattice are ambiguous: they stop when any local maximum has been reached. Because of this ambiguity, one tends to mistrust measurements performed in such ill-defined gauges, as well as the physical models based on these measurements. This applies in particular to the scenario of vortex dominance, according to which the string tension of the non-Abelian theory can be exactly reproduced by considering only its center degrees of freedom, identified after gauge-fixing. Evidence for this scenario comes exclusively from lattice studies using ambiguous gauges. Some amount of counter-evidence  has also been reported, again in similar ambiguous gauges.

Motivated by our skepticism, we have constructed, by generalizing the approach of , a gauge which smooths the adjoint $`SU(N)/Z_N`$ field like the usual Maximal Center Gauge (MCG), but has no ambiguity. After gauge fixing to this Laplacian Center Gauge, a remaining local $`Z_N`$ gauge freedom subsists. The local gauge defects which appear in this gauge are of two types: co-dimension 2, where the remaining gauge freedom is enlarged from $`Z_N`$ to $`U(1)`$, i.e. to accommodate a $`U(1)`$ subgroup; and co-dimension 3, where it is further enlarged to accommodate an $`SU(2)`$ subgroup. These two types of defects can be identified with center vortices and Abelian monopoles respectively, with the latter embedded in the former. Thus we provide a natural, unified description of these two objects which had been considered as alternative choices of effective degrees of freedom.

We have numerically implemented the Laplacian Center Gauge for $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$. In addition to being free of the ambiguities which plague the Maximal Center Gauge, our gauge is also computationally cheaper. The gauge defects obtained by local interpolation of the Laplacian eigenvectors coincide with the $`P`$-vortices obtained by center projection. A measurement of Creutz ratios in the center-projected $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_3`$ ensembles superficially confirms earlier observations made in MCG, albeit with a higher density of center vortices: the center-projected ensemble confines like the original one, while the coset $`SU(N)/Z_N`$ ensemble does not. Upon closer scrutiny however, the center-projected string tension is smaller than the original one. The difference between the two can be varied by arbitrary amounts, by adding higher derivative terms to the Laplacian used for the gauge fixing. Nevertheless, we have shown evidence that this difference decreases as the continuum limit of the lattice theory is approached. The gauge dependence of the center-projected string tension, clearly visible at finite lattice spacing $`a`$, appears to go away as $`a0`$. Therefore, while our study calls attention to lattice artifacts in the center projection, it gives support to the center dominance scenario.

Since the center degrees of freedom (d.o.f.) reproduce the non-Abelian confinement, one may wonder if the center-projected model can also reproduce other non-perturbative features of the non-Abelian one, like chiral symmetry breaking or topological susceptibility. Indeed, one would expect this to be the case, since the coset $`SU(N)/Z_N`$ ensemble appears deprived of all these non-perturbative features . However, one encounters two difficulties when trying to measure the appropriate observables in the $`Z_N`$ model: lattice artifacts and non-positivity of the transfer matrix.

We have already emphasized how lattice artifacts, in the choice of the discretized Laplacian or in the interpolation/center projection step, can affect the matching of the $`Z_N`$ string tension with the $`SU(N)`$ one. Lattice artifacts modify the center vortex density so strongly that we cannot really quote a value for this important quantity. They also strongly influence the measurement of the chiral condensate in the $`Z_N`$ ensemble. Naturally, they also make it conceptually difficult to define a topological charge on the lattice, especially for a discrete $`Z_N`$ theory.

Another, fundamental, difficulty comes from the non-locality of the gauge condition. After gauge fixing, all gauge links are correlated with each other, and this correlation persists after center projection. Furthermore, it may not die out exponentially at large distances in the center-projected ensemble, making it impossible to define a local effective Hamiltonian and a positive transfer matrix. Indeed, we have observed symptoms of this disease when attempting to measure glueball masses in the $`Z_N`$ ensemble: in several cases, correlations at large distances would become significantly negative, and impossible to interpret as the Euclidean-time propagator of a superposition of eigenstates of a Hamiltonian. Difficulties have also been reported for the Abelian projection . Symptoms may even be present for the string tension, since in Ref., Creutz ratios measured after Abelian projection in the Maximal Abelian Gauge appear to increase with distance; a proper, normal decrease was restored when using instead the Laplacian Abelian Gauge. We also observed a similar increasing behaviour for the $`Z_N`$ Creutz ratios when we applied Direct Maximal Center Gauge to our $`SU(2)`$ configurations . One may wonder if the center d.o.f. are responsible for some non-perturbative features of the Yang-Mills theory, like the string tension, and not for others, like the glueball mass. Or one may speculate that a local effective Hamiltonian can indeed be defined after center projection, but that an imperfect identification of the center d.o.f. spoils this construction: this would be one way to explain why a proper, decreasing behaviour of the Creutz ratios is restored in the Laplacian gauge. One bold attitude towards this problem is to make an ansatz for this effective Hamiltonian and test its consequences . Much work remains to be done in studying the role and the interaction of the center d.o.f.

Here we have tried to put on firmer numerical ground the first step in this ambitious program, namely that $`Z_N`$ center degrees of freedom are responsible for the full string tension of the $`SU(N)`$ theory. In this process, we have clarified the meaning of center vortices and Abelian monopoles as local gauge defects: each monopole is pierced by a center-vortex string. Monopoles and anti-monopoles alternate along the center-vortex string like beads on a necklace. Furthermore, the eigenvectors of the covariant adjoint Laplacian, whose color orientations are used to fix the gauge, are analogous to the adjoint Higgs field in the Georgi-Glashow model. And our Abelian monopoles, which we identify via zeros of the Higgs field, are analogous to the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopoles. Center vortices appear when a second adjoint Higgs field is considered.

Let us speculate further on a possible scenario for the complementary role of monopoles and center vortices. We consider 3 distance regimes for the force between static charges: $`(i)`$ At large distances $`r>r_2`$, center vortices are the relevant degrees of freedom; they govern the behaviour of the Wilson loop in all group representations, and in particular give the correct fundamental string tension and the correct, vanishing adjoint string tension. $`(ii)`$ At intermediate distances $`r_1<r<r_2`$, center d.o.f. are insufficient to describe the non-Abelian theory, and the Abelian monopoles must be considered; this generates a linearly rising potential in the adjoint and higher representations, with Abelian Casimir ratios (2 instead of 8/3 for adjoint $`SU(2)`$). $`(iii)`$ At short distances $`r<r_1`$, the full non-Abelian nature of the color field must be considered, to ensure recovery of the one-gluon exchange perturbative potential. In other words, the original non-Abelian d.o.f. can be progressively decimated, down to Abelian then center ones, as one considers larger distances.

In this scenario, the distances $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ separating the three regimes are related to the typical sizes of a monopole and a center vortex respectively: $`(i)`$ an Abelian description of the monopole field is sufficient when one stays outside its core; and $`(ii)`$ at large distances, the monopole field can be further approximated by that of the center vortex which pierces it. Statement $`(i)`$ is well-known: the regular $`SU(2)`$ gauge field of a ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole can be gauge-transformed to a “stringy” gauge, where the gauge field is singular along a Dirac string (e.g. $`x=y=0,z<0`$), and where the flux of the Dirac string is cancelled by the Higgs field. In that gauge, the gauge field is Abelian outside the core of the monopole. To justify statement $`(ii)`$, one can choose a gauge where the gauge field is singular along a whole line ($`x=y=0`$) rather than a half-line ($`x=y=0,z<0`$) . In that gauge also, the gauge field is Abelian outside the monopole core. Moreover, at large $`|z|`$ it is the same as that given by a center vortex piercing the monopole along $`x=y=0`$.

However, while the existence of a scale $`r_1`$ below which an Abelian description breaks down seems inevitable, that of a separate scale $`r_2>r_1`$ where center d.o.f. “kick in” is less so. One may say that center vortices screen the monopoles. We also find support for this scenario in theoretical studies of the Georgi-Glashow model , which argue that the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopoles present in this model become irrelevant at large distances, and that confinement is produced by center vortices instead. Ref. in particular builds explicitly a classical solution which looks like a ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole at short distances, and a pair of center vortices at large distances.

Note Added. Since the completion of this paper, further work  extending the study of  has appeared. The results of Refs. can be summarized as follows: in the iterative Maximal Center Gauge, a larger value of the gauge-fixing functional yields a smaller value of the center-projected string tension. It is then doubtful whether the latter can be equal to the non-Abelian string tension in the limit where the global maximum of the gauge-fixing functional is approached and the physical volume sent to infinity. The authors of  and those of  vary in the interpretation of these numerical results, but concur that they put the usefulness of the Maximal Center Gauge in jeopardy. Our own interpretation is the following. Because of the lattice periodic boundary conditions, every gauge defect (monopole in a time-slice, center vortex in a plane) must be paired with another opposite one. Therefore, a gauge which is sufficiently non-local may bring together the locations of the members of each pair, and produce no net defect at all after projection. This may well be what happens: in the effort to approach the global maximum, defect pairs annihilate and the projected string tension drops. This illustrates that the pursuit of the global maximum is of marginal interest, whereas it is essential to pay attention to the locality of the gauge condition (in our case, of the operator used to fix the gauge), as we have emphasized in the discussion Section V. A similar claim that the Maximal Abelian Gauge suppresses monopoles excessively, but that the Laplacian gauge does not, was already argued in .

Acknowledgements: We thank C. Alexandrou, L. Cosmai, S. Dürr, M. D’Elia, J. Fröhlich, M. García Pérez, J. Greensite, J. Stack and T. Tomboulis for helpful discussions.


text:
# Confinement symmetry, mobility anisotropy, and metallic behavior in (311)A GaAs 2D holes

\[

## Abstract

We study two dimensional hole systems confined to GaAs quantum wells grown on the (311)A surface of GaAs substrates. Such samples exhibit an in-plane mobility anisotropy. At constant 2D hole density, we vary the symmetry of the quantum well potential and measure the temperature dependence of the resistivity along two different current directions, in a regime where the samples exhibit metallic behavior. The symmetry has a significant and non-trivial effect on the metallic behavior. Moreover, differences between the temperature-dependence of the resistivity along the two mobility directions point to specific scattering mechanisms being important in the expression of the metallic behavior.

\]

The unexpected metallic behavior first observed in an Si/SiO2 two-dimensional (2D) electron system , and subsequently in many other 2D systems  has generated significant interest. We study the metallic behavior in 2D hole systems confined to GaAs quantum wells (QWs) grown on the (311)A surface of GaAs substrates. The data we report demonstrates that both the QW symmetry and the in-plane mobility anisotropy of (311)A GaAs samples have significant effects on the low-temperature behavior of the resistivity $`\rho `$ over a large range of densities.

Hole systems in GaAs QWs have a large spin-orbit interaction, which in the presence of the inversion asymmetries of the zincblende crystal structure and of the confining potential, causes substantial zero-magnetic-field spin-splitting . Using metal gates placed both above and below the QW, we tune the symmetry of the QW confinement potential, and therefore the spin-splitting, while keeping the density constant . Our goal is to determine the effect of spin-splitting on the temperature- ($`T`$) dependence of $`\rho `$.

GaAs (311)A samples also exhibit an in-plane mobility anisotropy. The anisotropy is caused by irregular corrugations that form at the interfaces between the GaAs QW and the AlGaAs barriers on either side . They run parallel to the $`[\overline{2}33]`$ direction, causing the mobility along the $`[01\overline{1}]`$ direction to be significantly smaller than the mobility along the $`[\overline{2}33]`$ direction. Transport studies suggest that the scattering mechanisms for current ($`I`$) along the two directions have significant differences : the mobility of the $`[01\overline{1}]`$ direction is limited primarily by interface-roughness scattering, while the mobility of the $`[\overline{2}33]`$ direction is limited by remote ionized impurities. In order to study the transport properties along both mobility directions simultaneously, we patterned all of our samples with the Hall bar of Fig. 1.

Our samples are grown by molecular beam epitaxy on undoped (311)A GaAs substrates, and each consists of a 200 Å-wide GaAs QW flanked by AlGaAs barriers which are selectively doped with Si. They are lithographically patterned with the Hall bar shown schematically in Fig. 1 and have metal front and back gates. Measurements are done in a dilution refrigerator at temperatures from 0.8 K to 25 mK and in perpendicular magnetic fields up to 16 T. We use the low-frequency lock-in technique to measure the longitudinal ($`\rho `$) and Hall resistivities. Experiments are done on samples from four different wafers at 2D hole densities $`p`$ from $`3.3\times 10^{11}`$ to $`2.5\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2. These $`p`$ range from deep in the metallic regime to near the apparent metal-insulator transition . Typical 25 mK mobilities are around 50 m2/Vs. We concentrate here on data from two samples in the low-$`p`$ regime ($`p1.2\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2); higher-$`p`$ data are presented elsewhere .

The metal front and back gates are used to alter the symmetry of the QW, which controls the spin-splitting. To change the symmetry at constant $`p`$, we set the front gate ($`V_{fg}`$) and back gate ($`V_{bg}`$) voltages, and measure the Hall resistivity of the sample. Then, at a small magnetic field, $`V_{fg}`$ is increased and the change in $`p`$ is noted. $`V_{bg}`$ is then reduced to recover the original $`p`$. This procedure applies an electric field ($`E_{}`$) perpendicular to the plane of the QW while maintaining $`p`$ constant (to within 3% in our experiments). The change in $`E_{}`$ can be calculated accurately from the dependence of $`p`$ on the gate voltages. These steps are repeated until we have probed the range of $`V_{fg}`$ and $`V_{bg}`$ that are accessible without causing gate leakage. In some samples, this was done at multiple $`p`$. While the above method allows accurate calculation of the change in $`E_{}`$ when gate voltages are changed, it does not directly measure the absolute magnitude of $`E_{}`$. In the higher $`p`$ measurements, the absolute magnitude can be determined directly from the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations . In the lower $`p`$ measurements, where the sample quality and the magnitude of the spin-splitting are reduced, we estimate it from the growth parameters of the samples , from mobility changes, and from the magnitude of a magnetoresistance feature at low magnetic field . We believe our estimate to be accurate to within $`\pm 1.5`$ kV/cm. In our study, we define $`E_{}`$ as positive (negative) if it points to the surface (substrate). Here we report data for $`E_{}0`$; in cases where we have been able to explore the $`E_{}>0`$ regime , we find the $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho `$ to be nearly symmetric for $`E_{}<0`$ and $`E_{}>0`$.

Overall, the data show that over a large range of $`p`$, the spin-splitting has a significant effect on the $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho `$, and that the specific nature of the different scattering mechanisms along the two mobility directions is important as well. This is in contrast to recent suggestions that in this $`p`$ regime, knowledge of the mean free path and the Fermi energy is sufficient to explain the behavior of $`\rho `$ .

As an example, we start with data from sample M367 at $`p=8.5\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 (Fig. 2), after which we will show that similar effects are observed over a wide range of $`p`$.

Concentrating on the top part of Fig. 2a, we see that increasing $`|E_{}|`$ at constant density causes the change in $`\rho `$ to become larger as $`T`$ is increased from 25 mK to 0.8 K . However, changing $`E_{}`$ also affects the resistivity at 25 mK ($`\rho _0`$), and it has been suggested that these changes in $`\rho _0`$ are responsible for the increased $`T`$-dependence . Looking at data from both arms of the Hall bar, we are able to determine that it is mainly the changes in spin-splitting, not in $`\rho _0`$, that are causing the changes in the $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho `$. The traces in the top part of Fig. 2a (above 140 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$/sq.) are for the $`[01\overline{1}]`$ direction, and those in the bottom part are for $`[\overline{2}33]`$. As $`|E_{}|`$ is increased, $`\rho _0`$ for the $`[01\overline{1}]`$ direction traces increases, but it decreases for the $`[\overline{2}33]`$ direction. However, it is clear that for both current directions, as $`|E_{}|`$ becomes larger the increase in $`\rho `$ with $`T`$ also becomes larger. Figure 2b quantifies these statements. The upper two panels show the fractional change in $`\rho `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^T/\rho _0`$, as $`T`$ is increased from 25 mK to $`0.8`$ K. Clearly the data from both $`I`$ directions have the same behavior as $`|E_{}|`$ is increased. The lower two panels show the two $`\rho _0`$, which do not have the same behavior as a function of $`E_{}`$.

These data provide strong evidence that the changes in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^T/\rho _0`$ with $`E_{}`$ are not driven simply by the change in the sample disorder as the QW symmetry is varied. They suggest that the QW symmetry plays a role in the $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho `$ through its effect on the spin-splitting. We do not mean to imply by this statement that the value of $`\rho _0`$ does not have an effect on the $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho `$. On the contrary we expect that it does, for in the limit of a highly disordered sample with very large $`\rho _0`$ we expect conventional insulating (strongly localized) behavior. However, the data of Fig. 3 do show that, for small changes in $`\rho _0`$ with $`E_{}`$, the more important parameter is the symmetry of the QW.

An interesting feature of the data, related to the differences between the two mobility directions, is that the shapes of the curves in the top two panels of Fig. 2b are very similar, but the magnitudes are different. For a given $`E_{}`$, the spin-splitting is the same regardless of the $`I`$-direction in the sample, but the $`T`$-dependencies of $`\rho `$ are larger, in both absolute magnitude and percent change, for the $`[01\overline{1}]`$ direction than for $`[\overline{2}33]`$. This emphasizes the subtle nature of the effect of spin-splitting on the $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho `$. The relationship between the spin-splitting and the magnitude of the $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho `$ is modified differently by the different scattering mechanisms along the two directions.

We now discuss data from a broad range of $`p`$. Since plotting the raw data, as in Fig. 2a, results in the traces crossing each other due to their different $`\rho _0`$, in Fig. 3 we plot $`\rho /\rho _0`$ to make comparison of the traces more straightforward. As a function of $`p`$, the data behave qualitatively as has been observed in previous experiments : for the highest $`p`$ ($`p7.0\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2), $`\rho `$ monotonically increases with increasing $`T`$ without inflection, and a reduction in $`p`$ leads to a stronger $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho `$; for intermediate $`p`$ ($`p=3.3\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2), an inflection point appears in the measured $`T`$ range; and for the lowest $`p`$ ($`p=2.5\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2), $`\rho `$ shows both an inflection point and a maximum in the measured $`T`$ range. If $`p`$ were decreased further, we would expect conventional insulating behavior .

At a given $`p`$, we can see that the effect on $`\rho `$ vs. $`T`$ of an increase in $`|E_{}|`$ is qualitatively similar to the effect of a reduction in $`p`$. For the higher $`p`$ data ($`p7.0\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2), increasing $`|E_{}|`$ increases the magnitude of the $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho `$. In the $`p=3.3\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 data, increasing $`|E_{}|`$ both strengthens the $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho `$ and moves the inflection point to lower $`T`$. In the $`p=2.5\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 data, increasing $`|E_{}|`$ causes both the inflection point and the maximum to shift to lower $`T`$ and leads to weaker overall $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho `$ (again qualitatively similar to the effect of reducing $`p`$ in this regime). An interesting point is that there is likely a $`p`$ where $`\rho `$ may show very similar fractional change with $`T`$ as $`E_{}`$ is varied. There is another possible reason for the different behavior in the lowest $`p`$ data: at $`p=2.5\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2, $`\rho _0`$ increases significantly more as a function of $`E_{}`$ than it does at the other $`p`$.

As was done in the data at $`p=8.5\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 (Fig. 2), at the other $`p`$ differences in the behaviors of $`\rho _0`$ vs. $`E_{}`$ from the two arms of the Hall bar can be used to separate the effects of $`E_{}`$ and $`\rho _0`$. Along the $`[01\overline{1}]`$ direction, it is typical for $`\rho _0`$ to increase as $`E_{}`$ is increased. This is because interface roughness scattering is the limiting factor for the mobility . As the QW is made more asymmetric, the hole wavefunction is pushed towards one edge of the QW, so it is more affected by the interface roughness, and $`\rho _0`$ increases. Along the $`[\overline{2}33]`$ direction, however, the interface roughness plays a much smaller role, so $`\rho _0`$ is limited by ionized impurity scattering. While the behavior of $`\rho _0`$ along $`[01\overline{1}]`$ as a function of $`E_{}`$ in all samples is qualitatively similar to that in Fig. 2b, the behavior of $`\rho _0`$ along $`[\overline{2}33]`$ varies significantly with sample and $`p`$. For example, it is non-monotonic in sample M353 at $`p=1.2\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2, and in M367 at $`p=8.5`$ and $`3.3\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 . In all samples at all measured $`p`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^T/\rho _0`$ has the same qualitative dependence on $`E_{}`$ in both $`I`$ directions.

The data presented in this report, along with those reported in Refs.  and , show that for seven densities, measured in samples from four different wafers, covering more than an order of magnitude of $`p`$ ($`2.5\times 10^{10}`$ to $`3.3\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2), the asymmetry of the QW, and therefore the magnitude of the spin-splitting, has an effect on the low-$`T`$ temperature-dependence of $`\rho `$. In the range $`p3.3\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2, as $`p`$ is reduced the magnitude of the $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho `$ becomes larger. Interestingly, in this range the effect of $`E_{}`$ also becomes larger, in that the same $`E_{}`$ causes a larger increase in $`\rho /\rho _0`$ with increasing $`T`$. This is especially noteworthy because the spin-splitting is becoming smaller as $`p`$ is reduced, so the effect of spin-splitting on the metallic behavior is becoming much stronger as $`p`$ is reduced from $`3.3\times 10^{11}`$ to $`3.3\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 . Note also that the data of Fig. 3 imply that the effect of $`E_{}`$ is strongest at $`p`$ where the metallic behavior is most pronounced. This emphasizes the link between the spin-splitting and the metallic behavior in GaAs 2D holes .

In summary our data reveal two specific parameters which affect the $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho `$ significantly. First, the symmetry of the QW plays a role through spin-splitting in both the magnitude of the change in $`\rho `$ with $`T`$ and in the shape of the curve. Second, the absolute and fractional changes in $`\rho `$ are quantitatively different for the two mobility directions, pointing out that interface roughness scattering also has an important role. A model including only ionized impurity scattering has reproduced some of the qualitative features of $`\rho `$ vs. $`T`$ . We propose that the $`T`$-dependencies of both inter-spin-subband scattering and interface roughness scattering should also be included in calculations which attempt to explain $`\rho `$ vs. $`T`$ data. The different dependencies of $`\rho `$ on the various parameters reveal that the metallic behavior cannot be simply characterized by any overall parameter such as mean free path or Fermi energy .

We gratefully acknowledge the NSF and DOE for supporting this work.


text:
# Almost continuous extension for taut foliations

## Abstract.

A taut foliation $``$ of a hyperbolic $`3`$–manifold $`M`$ has the continuous extension property for leaves in almost every direction; that is, for each leaf $`\lambda `$ of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and almost every geodesic ray $`\gamma `$ in $`\lambda `$ the limit of $`\gamma `$ in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is a well–defined point in the ideal boundary of $`\stackrel{~}{M}=^3`$.

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank the referee for some useful comments.

Let $``$ be a taut foliation of an atoroidal $`3`$–manifold $`M`$. Then a theorem of Candel () says that there is a path metric on $`M`$ such that with their induced path metrics, leaves of $``$ are locally isometric to $`^2`$. In particular, it follows that for any metric on $`M`$, the leaves of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ with their induced path metrics are uniformly quasi–isometric to $`^2`$, and therefore have a well–defined circle at infinity. For a leaf $`\lambda `$ of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ we denote this circle at infinity by $`S_{\mathrm{}}^1(\lambda )`$. Actually, one only needs to know leaves of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ are quasi–isometric to hyperbolic planes to construct these circles at infinity, a fact which is much easier to prove than Candel’s theorem.

If $`M`$ is hyperbolic, there is an identification $`\stackrel{~}{M}=^3`$ and there is a natural ideal boundary which we denote by $`S_{\mathrm{}}^2`$.

A basic problem in the theory of foliations of $`3`$–manifolds is to understand the relationship between the intrinsic geometry of the leaves of the foliation and the extrinsic (coarse) geometry of the ambient manifold (usually in the universal cover). In particular, a question that has received a lot of attention has been the following

###### Question 1.

Let $``$ be a taut foliation of a hyperbolic $`3`$–manifold. Does the inclusion $`i:\lambda \stackrel{~}{M}=^3`$ extend continuously to a map on the ideal boundaries $`i_{}:S_{\mathrm{}}^1(\lambda )S_{\mathrm{}}^2(^3)`$?

This is a difficult question, and the (positive) answer is only known in certain cases. In particular, the answer is known for surface bundles over the circle (), for depth one and certain other finite depth taut foliations (,) and other special cases. The problem is that leaves of taut foliations are far from being quasi–isometrically embedded in the universal cover, so a path which is quasi–geodesic in a leaf may potentially fail to limit to a definite point in the ideal boundary of the ambient space. The subtlety of the question is evidenced by the complicated structure of the image of such $`i_{}`$; limit sets of leaves are frequently “exotic” geometric sets such as dendrites, gaskets or sphere–filling curves.

It is easy to see, from the properness of leaves of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, that if $`i_{}`$ is defined for each point then it is continuous. It turns out that if we only want to show that $`i_{}`$ is defined almost everywhere, then there is a surprisingly simple proof, which works immediately for all taut foliations of hyperbolic $`3`$–manifolds.

###### Theorem 1.

With notation as above, for every leaf $`\lambda `$ of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, for almost all geodesic rays $`r\lambda `$, the ray $`r^3`$ converges to a definite point in $`S_{\mathrm{}}^2`$, and defines a measurable map $`i_{}:S_{\mathrm{}}^1(\lambda )S_{\mathrm{}}^2(^3)`$.

Proof: Actually, the only property of a taut foliation we use is that $`\lambda `$ is quasi–isometric to $`^2`$ and the embedding $`i:\lambda ^3`$ is proper with bounded geometry and extends to a collar neighborhood of $`\lambda `$. That is, there is an $`ϵ`$ so that there is a quasi–isometric embedding $`I:\lambda \times [ϵ,ϵ]^3`$ such that $`I(p,0)=i()`$.

That the geometry of the embedding is bounded follows from the compactness of $`M`$. To see that there is a uniform collar neighborhood of $`i(\lambda )`$, observe that there is a uniform $`\delta `$ so that the $`\delta `$–neighborhood of any point in $`M`$ is contained in a ball foliated as a product. If $`\lambda `$ were to intersect such a lift of a product ball in two distinct disks in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ we could find a transversal $`\tau `$ to $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ from $`\lambda `$ to itself, and therefore by perturbation, a closed loop $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{M}`$ transverse to $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. This contradicts the well–known fact that for a taut foliation of a $`3`$–manifold, transverse loops are homotopically essential.

Pick a basepoint $`a^3`$ through which the basepoint $`p`$ of $`\lambda `$ passes, and let $`S`$ be the visual sphere of $`a`$. There is an obvious visual projection $`\pi :^3aS`$ which is basically just a version of the Gauss map for hyperbolic space. Let $`B`$ be the ball of radius $`1`$ about $`a`$.

For a point $`b^3`$ with $`\text{dist}_^3(a,b)=t`$ and a vector $`vUT_b^3`$ the norm $`|d\pi (v)|`$ is $`O(e^t)`$. The area of a sphere of radius $`t`$ in $`^3`$ is $`O(e^{2t})`$. Therefore we can estimate

$$_{^3B}d\pi (x)^\alpha 𝑑\text{vol}_^3_1^{\mathrm{}}\text{const.}e^{t(2\alpha )}𝑑t<\mathrm{}\text{ when }\alpha >2$$

where $``$ denotes the operator norm on $`d\pi :T^3TS`$.

Since $`I`$ is an embedding, we obviously have

$$_{I(\lambda \times [ϵ,ϵ])\backslash B}d\pi (x)^\alpha 𝑑\text{vol}_^3<\mathrm{}$$

with the same assumption on $`\alpha `$, namely that $`\alpha >2`$.

The value of $`d\pi (x)`$ depends only on the distance from $`x`$ to $`a`$. So, away from $`B`$, the fact that $`I`$ is a quasi–isometry implies that this value varies only a bounded amount over $`q\times [ϵ,ϵ]`$ for each $`q\lambda \backslash B`$ independently of $`q`$, and so there is a bounded cost in replacing the integral of this value over the interval with the value at $`q\times 0`$.

Moreover, we know $`dI`$ has uniformly bounded distortion over $`\lambda `$, by the comments above, so that in particular $`d\text{vol}_\lambda dt\text{const.}I^{}d\text{vol}_^3`$. Thus

$$_{\lambda \backslash B}d\pi i(x)^\alpha 𝑑\text{vol}_\lambda <\mathrm{}$$

In particular, using spherical co–ordinates on $`\lambda `$, we can conclude that for almost every geodesic ray $`\gamma \lambda `$ emanating from $`p`$,

$$_c^{\mathrm{}}\left|\frac{d\pi (\gamma (t))}{dt}\right|^\alpha e^t𝑑t<\mathrm{}$$

so in particular, $`e^{t/\alpha }\frac{d\pi (\gamma (t))}{dt}`$ is in $`L^\alpha `$. On the other hand, $`e^{t/\alpha }`$ is certainly in $`L^{\alpha /(\alpha 1)}`$, so by Hölder’s inequality $`\frac{d\pi (\gamma (t))}{dt}`$ is in $`L^1`$. That is, the position of $`\pi (\gamma (t))`$ in $`S`$ moves only a bounded amount and therefore has a well–defined limit. (Here we have chosen a hyperbolic metric on $`\lambda `$ according to Candel’s theorem; such a metric is quasi–isometric to the path metric on $`\lambda `$ inherited as a subspace of $`^3`$.)

It remains to show that $`i_{}`$ is measurable. Recall that $`\pi :^3aS`$ is just radial projection onto the visual sphere at $`a`$. Let $`\varphi :SS_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ be the visual identification. For any positive real number $`r`$, let $`S_r(p)`$ denote the circle of radius $`r`$ in $`\lambda `$ centered at $`p`$, and let

$$f_r:S_r(p)S_{\mathrm{}}^1(\lambda )$$

be radial projection in $`\lambda `$. Then

$$\varphi \pi f_r^1:S_{\mathrm{}}^1(\lambda )S_{\mathrm{}}^2$$

is continuous for each $`r`$, and converges pointwise a.e. to $`i_{}`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$. In particular, this limit is measurable.

###### Remark 1.

Basically the point of the proof is the following: hyperbolic $`3`$–space grows in volume like $`O(e^{2t})`$; a leaf of a taut foliation grows in area like $`O(e^{kt})`$ where $`k`$ is the “coarse” negative curvature on a large scale of the leaf with respect to the induced subspace metric (obviously $`1k2`$ and can be estimated from a quasi–isometry constant of a uniformizing map $`\lambda ^2`$). Since the embedding of the leaf in $`^3`$ is a quasi–isometry into its $`ϵ`$–neighborhood for some $`ϵ`$, the volume of a collar neighborhood of the leaf can be efficiently measured by its area. Since the growth rate of both $`\lambda `$ and $`^3`$ are exponential, it follows that “most” paths in $`\lambda `$ make roughly comparable progress in $`^3`$ and in $`\lambda `$; that is, “most” quasigeodesic rays in $`\lambda `$ limit to a definite point in $`S_{\mathrm{}}^2`$.

###### Remark 2.

A more subtle analysis of the properties of proper embedded minimal planes in $`^3`$ shows that we can actually estimate $`k\sqrt{2}`$ (see ).

###### Remark 3.

The proof applies essentially without modification to show that leaves of the universal covers of essential laminations have measurable extensions to $`S_{\mathrm{}}^2`$. The only technical issues are, firstly, that essential laminations do not admit homotopically trivial tight transverse loops (by ), and secondly that the leaves of the universal cover of an essential lamination of a hyperbolic manifold, with their induced path metrics, are uniformly quasi–isometric to hyperbolic planes. This follows from Candel’s theorem.