text:
# WSRT Observations of the Hubble Deep Field Region

## 1 Introduction

Observations of the Hubble Deep Field (HDF) region (Williams et al. (1996), hereafter W96) at centimeter wavelengths are now advancing our understanding of the nature of the faint, microJy radio source population (Richards et al. (1998), hereafter R98; Richards et al. (1999), hereafter R99; Richards (2000), hereafter R00, and Muxlow et al. (1999), hereafter M99). These observations suggest that $`70`$% of faint sub-mJy and microJy radio sources are identified with low radio luminosity ($`L<10^{23}`$W/Hz), steep spectrum, moderate redshift ($`z0.21`$) star forming galaxies. These sources are often identified with morphologically peculiar, merging or interacting galaxies, with blue colours, and HII-like emission spectra (R98). The remaining 20% of the faint radio population are identified with relatively low-luminosity AGN and 20% are optically faint sources with no detections down to I=25.5 in the HFF and I=28.5 in the HDF. These optically faint systems are thought to be distant galaxies, obscured by dust (R99). The vast majority of far infrared ISO detections in the HDF (and the adjacent Hubble Flanking Fields, HFF) are also detected in the radio (Aussel et al. (1999), hereafter A99), suggesting that the same strong correlation between the far infrared and radio continuum flux densities (as observed for nearby star-forming galaxies - see Condon (1992) and references therein) also holds for these fainter, more distant systems Barger et al. (2000).

In order to further advance the study of the faint microJy radio source population, we observed the HDF and the surrounding flanking fields (HFF) with the recently upgraded Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) at 1.4 GHz.

## 2 WSRT Observations and Data Analysis

Observations of the HDF region were made with the upgraded WSRT at 1.38 GHz in the period from 20 April until 6 May 1999. A total of six (uninterrupted) 12 hour observations were made with different array configurations resulting in an excellent uv-coverage with baselines ranging from 36 to 2760 meters (with an increment of 12 meters). The WSRT continuum back-end provided 8 contiguous 10 MHz bands running from 1340-1420 MHz. The visibilities were averaged over 60 seconds. Full polarization information was obtained but is not presented here.

The data analysis was performed in NEWSTAR (Noordam, (1993)) following the standard WSRT processing route. 3C286 was observed once per 12 hour run, and the complex gain solutions thus determined, were transferred to the HDF data. Typically, about 90% of the data proved to be of good and usable quality. The standard WSRT taper was applied to the data and baselines shorter than 100 meter were not used in the image, effectively filtering out large scale $`>5^{}`$ emission features of both instrumental and galactic (foreground) origin. Images of $`2048\times 2048`$ pixels covering an area of $`2.8^{}\times 2.8^{}`$ were generated. The brightest 121 sources in the field, with flux densities ranging from a high of 130 mJy down to 0.35 mJy, were used to self-calibrate the data (with a 60 second solution interval), and then subtracted from the uv-data. The central $`900\times 900`$ pixels in the residual image was then cleaned down to a level of 28 $`\mu `$Jy yielding 8000 clean components. These were restored with a Gaussian beam with half-width $`14.3^{\prime \prime }\times 15.5^{\prime \prime }`$ (RA $`\times `$ DEC). On top of this image we restored the self-calibration model, after first multiplying the residual image with a factor 1.2 to correct for self-calibration noise bias (Wieringa (1992)). The full field has a r.m.s. noise level that varies from about 7.5 to $`8\mu `$Jy/beam, almost identical to the $`7.5\mu `$Jy noise level of the 1.4 GHz VLA image (R00). The local noise level around the strongest off-axis sources is affected by (we presume) pointing problems, however, all these sources are located outside the central $`10^{}\times 10^{}`$ region. Towards the centre of the image the noise appears to go up slightly. We attribute this to source confusion estimated at $`5\mu `$Jy/beam which, when added in quadrature, raises the noise level to about $`9\mu `$Jy/beam in the central region of the field (this noise component is not significant beyond a radius of $`0.3^{}`$ due to the primary beam attenuation). Support for this interpretation comes from the extremely uniform noise level of $`7.5\mu `$Jy in the Stokes Q image.

The final total intensity image of the central HDF and HFF region is presented in Fig.1, superimposed upon the deep CFHT I-band image of Barger et al. (1998). This $`10^{}\times 10^{}`$ WSRT image is corrected for primary-beam attenuation and is centred on the HDF. The HDF/HFF WSRT image was exported from NEWSTAR to AIPS and source positions were fitted using the task IMFIT. Regions of emission with a measured peak flux density in excess of the assumed $`5\sigma `$ noise level ($`45\mu `$Jy) are considered to be bona fide detections. Note that the most negative feature in the analysed area has a flux density of $`42\mu `$Jy. In principle, the accuracy with which we can determine the absolute position of the faintest unresolved radio sources in the field is $`1.5^{\prime \prime }`$ (1/10 of the restoring beam). For extended regions of emission this formal error is rather optimistic, and for the purposes of optical identifications, we adopt a positional error of $`3^{\prime \prime }`$.

## 3 Radio Sources in the central HDF region

Within the central HDF region the WSRT detects eight radio sources. Their positions, flux densities and sizes are presented in table 1. In most cases the deconvolved sizes (major axis, minor axis, PA) are upper-limits since the sources are smaller than the WSRT beam. The 1.4 and 8.5 GHz VLA flux densities (R98, R00), ISO ($`15\mu `$m) flux densities (A99), and the spectroscopic redshifts (Cohen et al. (2000), hereafter C00) of the sources are also presented.

Five of these detections (3644+1247, 3644+1133, 3646+1405, 3649+1314, and 3651+1222), are clearly associated with sources detected at the $`5\sigma `$ level by either the VLA at 8.5 GHz (R98) or the VLA/MERLIN at 1.4 GHz (see R00, M99 & Table 1). Their optical identifications are discussed in R98. In addition, 3647+1427 is clearly associated with the $`4\sigma `$ VLA 8.5 GHz source 3648+1427 (from the supplemental radio source catalogue of R98). Note that there is no formal VLA 1.4 GHz detection of 3644+1247, 3646+1236, 3647+1427, or 3651+1357. In the remainder of this paper we attempt to determine optical identifications for sources in the HDF region that are only detected by the WSRT. We employ the standard likelihood ratio (LR) analysis of Masci et al. (2000) (and references therein). We have compared the WSRT radio source positions in the HDF with the HDF HST Catalogue (W96), and in the HFF with the deep I-band catalogue of Barger et al. (1998) (hereafter B98). The spectroscopic redshifts referred to throughout this paper are taken from Cohen et al. (2000). We assume an error in the source positions of 3′′ in the radio and 0.5′′ in the optical.

One very extended region of emission, 3646+1236, is not detected by the VLA at 8.5 GHz but some fraction of the WSRT emission may be associated with VLA J123646+621226. However, the centroid of this extended region lies 10′′ to the north of the 1.4 GHz VLA source. The most likely optical identification of 3646+1236 (identification probability, $`P>72`$%) is with 4-241 (W96), a bright ($`I20.6^m`$), irregular (possibly merging), $`z=0.321`$ galaxy lying within $`3.5^{\prime \prime }`$ of the radio centroid. Although there is no ISO detection in this area, the morphology of the optical identification suggests that the steep spectrum radio emission ($`\alpha <1`$) is generated by star formation. If half the total radio emission in this area is associated with 3646+1236 itself, then following Haarsma et al. (1999) (and assuming a Salpeter IMF), we derive an upper-limit to the K-corrected star formation rate (SFR) of 17 Myr-1 (taking $`q_0=0.5`$, H$`{}_{0}{}^{}=50`$ km/sec/Mpc).

3651+1357 is not detected by either the VLA at 8.5 GHz or the VLA/MERLIN at 1.4 GHz. The most likely optical identification ($`34\%<P<60`$%) is 2-652.0 (W96), a bright ($`I20.6^m`$), Sbc galaxy lying 4.4′′ to the south-east of the radio centroid with a spectroscopic redshift $`z=0.557`$. There is an ISO $`15\mu `$m detection in this area (A99) also identified with 2-652.0 (Mann et al. (1997)). The non-detection of 3651+1357 in the 10′′ resolution 8.5 GHz VLA image (R98), implies a steep radio spectral index ($`\alpha 1`$). The coincident WSRT and ISO detections suggest that 2-652.0 is a star-forming galaxy. We derive an upper-limit to the K-corrected SFR of $`38`$ Myr-1, in good agreement with the ISO estimate (Rowan-Robinson et al. (1997)).

There is one source in the HDF central region (VLA J123656+621302, a $`z=0.474`$ elliptical galaxy, R98) that is detected by the VLA at 1.4 and 8.5 GHz ($`S_{1.4}49.5\mu `$Jy, S$`{}_{8.5}{}^{}=8\mu `$Jy) but not by the WSRT, even at the $`3\sigma `$ level (the WSRT peak flux in this region is $`13\mu `$Jy/beam). An inspection of each of the six 12 hour WSRT runs shows no emission in this region, suggesting that this source may be variable on a time-scale of months or years. R98 identify this source as a probable low-luminosity AGN. Very little is known about the radio variability properties of faint AGN, but assuming such sources are self-absorbed, for a given magnetic field strength, fainter sources should also be smaller sources. In the $`10^{}\times 10^{}`$ field considered here, only one other VLA 1.4 GHz detection (VLA J123654+621039, S$`{}_{1.4}{}^{}=48\mu `$Jy) is not detected by the WSRT below the $`3\sigma `$ level (the WSRT peak flux density in this region is $`22\mu `$Jy). We have been unable to identify a plausible optical identification for this source from the VLA position. Given that radio variability in distant star-forming galaxies seems unlikely, this source is also a potential AGN candidate.

### 3.1 Detections in the HFF Region

A complete radio catalogue of sources in the WSRT HDF and HFF region (including optical identifications) is in preparation (a preliminary catalogue is online at `www.jive.nl/~mag/hdf`). 85 distinct regions of emission are clearly detected with the WSRT above the $`5\sigma `$ limit within a $`10^{}\times 10^{}`$ field centred on the HDF. Of these 85 regions of emission, 55 are associated with discrete, single component VLA 1.4 GHz sources, 8 are associated with multiple VLA 1.4 GHz sources (for the WSRT these blend together to form a complex region of extended emission), and 22 are clearly detected by WSRT alone. As discussed earlier, some fraction of these WSRT-only detections are blends of sources that are presumably resolved by the higher resolution VLA/MERLIN 1.4 GHz observations. However, some fraction of the WSRT-only detections are clearly discrete sources and some of these are identified with bright, nearby galaxies.

An inspection of Fig 1 highlights two clear cases of this: 3720+1247 - coincident and clearly identified ($`P>99`$%) with an $`I18.4^m`$, z=0.106 spiral galaxy, and 3636+1132 - coincident and clearly identified ($`P>99`$%) with a $`I18.6^m`$, z=0.078 spiral galaxy. The latter source falls within the region surveyed by ISO and is coincident with a ISO $`15\mu `$m detection (A99). These two sources have radio powers that are a factor of $`2`$ higher than the typically brightest extragalactic radio supernovae (Wilkinson & de Bruyn, 1990) and in principle, they could be recent radio SNe that have sharply increased in flux density over the 2.5 years that separate the VLA and WSRT observations. However, we consider it more likely that these detections are cases of resolved extended disk emission. If all the radio emission associated with these sources is due to star formation, we estimate modest SFRs of $`5`$ Myr-1 for 3720+1247 and $`3`$ Myr-1 for 3636+1132. The fact that they are not detected by the VLA at 1.4 GHz, suggests that the radio emission could arise from a substantial area of the optical disk ($`>510`$ kpc across).

## 4 Conclusions

Deep 1.4 GHz WSRT observations have detected 2 new radio sources in the HDF. These are associated with moderate redshift star-forming galaxies. In the full $`10^{}\times 10^{}`$ field, 22 new regions of radio emission are detected by the WSRT that are presumably resolved out by the VLA/MERLIN. At least two of these are clearly associated with relatively bright, nearby star-forming galaxies with modest SFRs. Further analysis of the full field is required to distinguish how many of the remaining regions are associated with discrete, extended radio sources, and how many are blends of closely separated, faint radio sources confused in the WSRT beam. The non-detection of 2 sources previously detected by the VLA at 1.4 GHz, hints at variability in the microJy AGN radio source population.

###### Acknowledgements.

The WSRT is operated by the Netherlands Foundation for Research in Astronomy (ASTRON) with financial support by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).


format: text

text:
# Quantum Complexity of Integration

## 1. Introduction and Results

### 1.1. Computation of the mean

Consider the following problem: Compute the mean

$$S_n(x)=\frac{1}{n}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i$$

of $`n`$ numbers $`x_i`$, where $`|x_i|1`$, up to some error $`0<\epsilon <1/2`$. The complexity of this problem depends on $`n`$ and $`\epsilon `$ and in the real number model we obtain

(1)
$$\mathrm{comp}(n,\epsilon )n(1\epsilon ).$$

Here we consider the worst case setting, with the worst case cost and the worst case error. With randomized methods we can do much better, at least if $`n`$ is large compared to $`\epsilon ^2`$. The cost is of the order

(2)
$$\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{random}}(n,\epsilon )\mathrm{min}(n,\epsilon ^2).$$

Now the error of a method is a random variable and the requirement is that its expectation is bounded by $`\epsilon `$. The statements (1) and (2) follow easily from well known upper and lower bounds. See, for example, Novak (1988).

If we allow only random bits (restricted Monte Carlo methods, coin tossing) instead of arbitrary randomized methods then one gets the upper bound

(3)
$$\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{coin}}(n,\epsilon )C\mathrm{min}(n,\epsilon ^2\mathrm{log}n)$$

which follows easily from (2).

For the results (1–3), and for all classical algorithms, we use the real number model of computation, with unit cost for each arithmetic operation. In addition we allow for (2) the instruction “choose a random number $`x[0,1]`$”and for (3) the instruction “flip a coin” or “choose randomly $`\{0,1\}`$” and also the cost of these instructions is one. See Novak (1995) for more details.

A further improvement is possible by a quantum computer. The upper bound $`\epsilon ^1`$ for the query complexity, defined by the number of times the real valued oracle is accessed to solve the problem, is proved in Brassard, Høyer, Mosca, Tapp (2000). See Theorem 12 of this paper. Using also the lower bounds from Nayak, Wu (1998) one can see that the exact order of this query complexity is

(4)
$$\mathrm{comp}_{\mathrm{query}}^{\mathrm{quant}}(n,\epsilon )\mathrm{min}(n,\epsilon ^1).$$

The bound (4) is very important for the present paper. Grover (1998) states the upper bound $`\epsilon ^1`$ and says that it is optimal “up to polylogarithmic factors”.

If we consider, for the quantum computer, the bit number model then we need a slightly larger cost. Høyer (2000) proves the upper bound

(5)
$$\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{quant}}(n,\epsilon )C\mathrm{min}(n,\epsilon ^1(\mathrm{log}n+\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}\epsilon ^1),$$

see Section 2 for details on the model of computation. The term $`n`$ on the right side of (5) comes from the trivial classical algorithm. This term is $`n(\mathrm{log}n+\mathrm{log}\epsilon ^1)`$ in the classical bit number model. The output of a quantum algorithm is a random variable $`A(x,\epsilon )`$, we always request that

(6)
$$|A(x,\epsilon )S_n(x)|\epsilon \text{ with probability at least }3/4.$$

Of course we can run the algorithm several times and, taking the median from several measurements, we increase the probability of success.

### 1.2. Computation of integrals

How can we apply these results to the problem of numerical integration? Let us first consider the computation of the integral

$$I(f)=_{[0,1]^d}f(x)𝑑x$$

for functions from the Hölder classes

$$F_d^\alpha =\{f:[0,1]^df_{\mathrm{}}1,|f(x)f(y)|xy^\alpha \},$$

$`0<\alpha 1`$. Consider, for $`d=1`$, the midpoint rule

$$Q_{\mathrm{}}^1(f)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f\left(\frac{2i1}{2\mathrm{}}\right)$$

and for $`d>1`$ the respective tensor product $`Q_n^d`$ that uses $`n=\mathrm{}^d`$ function values. By well known estimates for $`d=1`$ together with the technique of Haber (1970, p. 489) we get the estimate

(7)
$$e(Q_n^d,F_d^\alpha )Cdn^{\alpha /d}$$

for the worst case error of the product rule. To obtain $`e(Q_n^d,F_d^\alpha )\epsilon `$, we have to take

(8)
$$n(F_d^\alpha ,\epsilon )\left(\frac{Cd}{\epsilon }\right)^{d/\alpha }$$

function values. We can now use the results from above to obtain upper bounds for the complexity of numerical integration. Using the (trivial) result (1) we get a bound for the (worst case) complexity of integration,

(9)
$$\mathrm{comp}(F_d^\alpha ,\epsilon )\left(\frac{Cd}{\epsilon }\right)^{d/\alpha }.$$

With (2) we obtain

(10)
$$\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{random}}(F_d^\alpha ,\epsilon )C\epsilon ^2$$

and if we only allow random bits then we obtain, using (3) and (8),

(11)
$$\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{coin}}(F_d^\alpha ,\epsilon )C\frac{d}{\alpha }\epsilon ^2(\mathrm{log}d+\mathrm{log}\epsilon ^1).$$

In the same way we obtain for the quantum computer the upper bounds

(12)
$$\mathrm{comp}_{\mathrm{query}}^{\mathrm{quant}}(F_d^\alpha ,\epsilon )C\epsilon ^1$$

and

(13)
$$\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{quant}}(F_d^\alpha ,\epsilon )C\frac{d}{\alpha }\epsilon ^1(\mathrm{log}d+\mathrm{log}\epsilon ^1).$$

Observe that all these bounds (9)–(13) are just upper bounds which we get by a particular proof technique. Actually it is known that the order in (9) is optimal,

(14)
$$\mathrm{comp}(F_d^\alpha ,\epsilon )C_{d,\alpha }\epsilon ^{d/\alpha },$$

while the upper bounds for Monte Carlo methods are not optimal, we have

(15)
$$\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{random}}(F_d^\alpha ,\epsilon )C_{d,\alpha }\epsilon ^{2d/(2\alpha +d)}$$

and

(16)
$$\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{coin}}(F_d^\alpha ,\epsilon )C_{d,\alpha }\epsilon ^{2d/(2\alpha +d)}\mathrm{log}\epsilon ^1.$$

For the proof of (15) see Heinrich (1993), Novak (1988), or Traub, Wasilkowski, Woźniakowski (1988). It is not difficult to show that (16) follows from (15). Actually we will improve the exponent in the log-term slightly and prove such an upper bound with the factor $`(\mathrm{log}\epsilon ^1)^{1/(1+2\alpha /d)}`$, see (21).

### 1.3. The problem and the results

Can the upper bounds (12) and (13) be improved, similarly as the upper bounds (10) and (11)? What is the optimal rate of convergence (or the rate of the complexity) for numerical integration with a quantum computer?

In this paper we answer this question for classes such as the $`F_d^\alpha `$. We consider the more general Hölder classes

$$F_d^{k,\alpha }=\{f:[0,1]^df_{\mathrm{}}1,fC^k,|D^if(x)D^if(y)|xy^\alpha ,D^i\},$$

where $`D^i`$ runs through the set of all partial derivatives of order $`k`$ and $`k_0`$, $`0<\alpha 1`$. For $`k=0`$ we obtain $`F_d^{0,\alpha }=F_d^\alpha `$. It is convenient to use the notation

$$\gamma =\frac{k+\alpha }{d},$$

because this number is a good measure for the smoothness and appears in all the estimates. First of all, the optimal orders for deterministic and (general) randomized methods are known, see, e.g., Novak (1988). We have

(17)
$$\mathrm{comp}(F_d^{k,\alpha },\epsilon )\epsilon ^{1/\gamma }$$

and

(18)
$$\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{random}}(F_d^{k,\alpha },\epsilon )\epsilon ^{2/(1+2\gamma )}.$$

Therefore we have to study only the quantities $`\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{quant}}`$, $`\mathrm{comp}_{\mathrm{query}}^{\mathrm{quant}}`$, and $`\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{coin}}`$. For the upper bounds we use a technique called “variance reduction” in the literature on Monte Carlo methods. For the lower bound we use a decomposition technique of Bakhvalov, together with the lower bound of Nayak and Wu, see (4). We obtain the following optimal rates of convergence.

###### Theorem 1.

Define $`\gamma =(k+\alpha )/d`$, as above.

(19)
$$\mathrm{comp}_{\mathrm{query}}^{\mathrm{quant}}(F_d^{k,\alpha },\epsilon )\epsilon ^{1/(1+\gamma )},$$

(20)
$$\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{quant}}(F_d^{k,\alpha },\epsilon )C_{d,k,\alpha }\epsilon ^{1/(1+\gamma )}(\mathrm{log}\epsilon ^1)^{1/(1+\gamma )},$$

(21)
$$\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{coin}}(F_d^{k,\alpha },\epsilon )C_{d,k,\alpha }\epsilon ^{2/(1+2\gamma )}(\mathrm{log}\epsilon ^1)^{1/(1+2\gamma )}.$$

To summarize the results one can say that

* there is an exponential speed-up of quantum algorithms over deterministic (classical) algorithms, if $`\gamma `$ is small; the multiplicative speed-up is roughly $`(1/\epsilon )^{1/\gamma }`$;
* there is a (roughly) quadratic speed-up of quantum algorithms over randomized classical methods, if $`\gamma `$ is small.

### 1.4. Some comments

So far, most papers on quantum computing deal with discrete problems, such as factoring numbers or searching a database. Quantum computing also helps for the continuous problems of numerical analysis or information-based complexity. Grover (1998) studies, among other things, the computation of the mean of finitely many real numbers. Related problems and algorithms are investigated also in the papers Boyer, Brassard, Høyer, Tapp (1998), Brassard, Høyer, Tapp (1998), Grover (1996), and Mosca (1999). The paper Nayak, Wu (1998) contains new lower bounds, while the recent paper Brassard, Høyer, Mosca, Tapp (2000) contains new upper bounds.

Excellent surveys on quantum computing are Shor (1998) and Cleve, Ekert, Henderson, Macchiavello, Mosca (1999). Also the paper Abrams, Williams (1999) discusses the computation of sums and integrals, “as long as the function is not pathological”.

In numerical analysis and information-based complexity we usually assume the real number model with an oracle that gives function values, see Traub, Wasilkowski, Woźniakowski (1988) and, more formally, Novak (1995). For an expository account of continuous complexity on a classical computer see Traub, Werschulz (1998). Concerning the “allowed randomness” of the algorithms we may distinguish between three different cases. If a random number generator is available that can produce random $`\omega [0,1]`$ according to the Lebesgue measure then we obtain the well known result (18). Also the other extreme case, where no randomness is available, is well studied and we obtain the result (17). Hence we only have to consider the case of restricted Monte Carlo methods where coin tossing is allowed (and has unit cost), but not general random number generators. This case somehow corresponds to quantum computation where such a randomness can be easily realized.

In Section 2 we give a little tutorial on quantum computation and present the search algorithm of Grover. We explain the model of computation and the cost of a quantum computation. Our proofs are contained in Section 3. We add a section where we discuss the computation of arbitrary bounded random variables by a quantum computer with a random number generator. Here we use a rather unrealistic model of computation because we assume that there is a random number generator without cost.

## 2. The Model of Computation and the Search Algorithm of Grover

In this section we describe the model of computation and the search algorithm of Grover (1996), see also Boyer et al. (1998). This section does not contain new results.

Let $`H_1`$ be a 2-dimensional Hilbert space over $``$ and let $`e_0`$ and $`e_1`$ be two orthonormal vectors in $`H_1`$. The space $`H_1`$ represents a quantum bit, in the Dirac notation we have

$$e_0=|0\text{and}e_1=|1.$$

For $`m`$ quantum bits we use the $`2^m`$-dimensional tensor product space

$$H_m=H_1\mathrm{}H_1$$

with $`m`$ factors. An orthonormal basis is given by the $`2^m`$ vectors

$$b_{\mathrm{}}=e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_m},$$

where $`i_j\{0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\}`$ and

(22)
$$\mathrm{}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}i_j\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{mj},\mathrm{}=0,\mathrm{},2^m1.$$

There are $`2^m`$ different $`b_{\mathrm{}}`$ and this corresponds to the $`2^m`$ different possibilities of an information that is given by $`m`$ classical bits. The Dirac notation for $`b_{\mathrm{}}`$ is just $`|\mathrm{}`$, instead of $`e_{i_1}e_{i_2}`$ one finds $`|i_1,i_2`$ or also $`|i_1|i_2`$. The formally different objects $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ or $`b_{\mathrm{}}`$ are often identified and called “classical state”.

One more piece of Dirac-notation is often used: $`|xy|`$ is a mapping, defined by

$$(|xy|)(|z):=(y,z)|x.$$

Here we write $`(y,z)=yz`$ for the scalar product. Therefore the projection $`P_x`$ on a normed vector $`x`$ is written as $`|xx|`$. It is defined by $`y(x,y)x`$.

The Fourier series of $`xH_m`$ is given by

(23)
$$x=\underset{i_j\{0,1\}}{}\alpha _{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)}e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_m}=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{2^m1}{}}\beta _{\mathrm{}}b_{\mathrm{}}.$$

We are only interested in normed vectors, $`x=1`$. All such vectors are called (pure) “quantum states”. For each quantum state there is a probability distribution on the classical states: the probability of $`\mathrm{}`$ is $`|\beta _{\mathrm{}}|^2`$.

A quantum algorithm starts with a classical state $`k\{0,\mathrm{},2^m1\}`$ which we identify with $`b_kH_m`$. Then a number of unitary transformations $`U_1,\mathrm{},U_r`$ are applied, the result is the quantum state

$$x_k=U_r\mathrm{}U_1(b_k)$$

and can be written in the form (23). Allowed are only those unitary transformations that are “efficient” in the sense that at most two quantum bits are changed. This means that, for example, $`U_i`$ changes the first two bits and is of the form

$$U_i(v_1\mathrm{}v_m)=\stackrel{~}{U}_i(v_1v_2)v_3\mathrm{}v_m,$$

for some unitary $`\stackrel{~}{U}_i:^4^4`$. In the quantum bit number model, which we use for the numbers $`\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{quant}}`$, one such unitary operation has cost one. The output of the algorithm, given by a final measurement, is a classical state $`\mathrm{}\{0,\mathrm{},2^m1\}`$, or certain bits of $`\mathrm{}`$. The probability of $`\mathrm{}`$ is $`|\beta _{\mathrm{}}|^2`$, where $`\beta _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the respective Fourier coefficient of $`x_k=U_r\mathrm{}U_1(b_k)`$. We say that a quantum algorithm computes a given function if the probability of a correct output is at least $`3/4`$.

Now we describe the search problem and quantum computations with an oracle. Let $`m`$ and $`X_m=\{0,1,\mathrm{},2^m1\}`$. Assume that $`f:X_m\{0,1\}`$ is an arbitrary mapping which, of course, can be identified with a subset of $`X_m`$. We define a corresponding unitary mapping $`S_f`$ on $`H_m`$ by

$$S_f(b_{\mathrm{}})=b_{\mathrm{}}\text{if}f(\mathrm{})=1\text{and}S_f(b_{\mathrm{}})=b_{\mathrm{}}\text{if}f(\mathrm{})=0.$$

We also put $`S_0=S_f`$ for $`f(\mathrm{})=\delta _{0,\mathrm{}}`$. A black box or oracle $`Q_f`$ for $`f`$ is defined on $`H_{m+1}`$ by

$$Q_f(b_{\mathrm{}}e_i)=b_{\mathrm{}}e_{i+f(\mathrm{})}.$$

Here the plus sign in $`e_{i+f(\mathrm{})}`$ means addition modulo 2, also called exclusive or. Then one can easily show that

$$S_f(b_{\mathrm{}})e_0=Q_fPQ_f(b_{\mathrm{}}e_0),$$

and therefore the oracle $`Q_f`$ can be used to compute function values of $`S_f`$. Here $`P`$ is defined by

$$P(b_{\mathrm{}}e_i)=(1)^ib_{\mathrm{}}e_i.$$

One can even simulate $`S_f`$ with $`Q_f`$ using only one application of $`Q_f`$: simply apply $`Q_f`$ on $`(b_{\mathrm{}}(e_0e_1))`$.

A search problem is defined as follows. Let $`F_m`$ be the set of all $`f_{\mathrm{}}:X_m\{0,1\}`$ with $`f_{\mathrm{}}(j)=1`$ iff $`j=\mathrm{}`$. Of course we may identify the sets $`F_m`$ and $`X_m`$, and to each $`\mathrm{}X_m`$ or $`f_{\mathrm{}}F_m`$ there is exactly one $`b_{\mathrm{}}`$. The problem is to find $`\mathrm{}`$ if $`f=f_{\mathrm{}}`$ is given by the oracle $`Q_f`$.

The algorithm of Grover works as follows. First we define the Walsh-Hadamard transform $`W_1:H_1H_1`$ by

$$W_1(e_i)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e_0+(1)^ie_1)$$

and $`W_m=W_1\mathrm{}W_1`$. Now the algorithm is defined by

(24)
$$(W_mS_0W_mS_f)^k(W_m(b_0)),$$

where $`k`$ has the order $`2^{m/2}`$. It is shown in Boyer, Brassard, Høyer, Tapp (1998) that $`k\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{m/22}`$ is a very good choice that leads to a high probability of success.

The cost, in the quantum bit number model, of every iteration in (24) is about $`m`$, the total cost (to find the element $`\mathrm{}`$ with high probability) is about $`m2^{m/2}`$ or, with $`N=2^m`$, about $`\sqrt{N}\mathrm{log}N`$. Formally the algorithm is slightly different because $`S_f`$ is only given by the oracle $`Q_f`$, hence we work with $`m+1`$ instead of $`m`$ quantum bits. We assume that an application of $`Q_f`$ has unit cost.

For the problem “compute the mean of $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$” we assume, when we consider the quantum bit number model and the numbers $`\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{quant}}`$, that there is a Boolean oracle $`Q`$ that gives the $`j`$th bit (digit) of $`x_i`$. For the quantum query complexity we allow real valued oracles and only count the number of oracle calls. In the case $`0x_{\mathrm{}}1`$ a real number quantum oracle has the form

$$Q(b_{\mathrm{}}e_0)=b_{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{x_{\mathrm{}}}e_0+b_{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{1x_{\mathrm{}}}e_1.$$

For all classical algorithms we allow real-valued oracles for the $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$.

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1

We fix a space $`F_d^{k,\alpha }`$. First we prove the upper bounds for quantum computers. We use an algorithm of the form

(25)
$$A(f)=I(P_nf)+\stackrel{~}{Q}_N^d(fP_nf).$$

Here $`I(P_nf)`$ is the integral of a function $`P_nf`$ and $`Q_N^d`$ is the $`d`$-dimensional midpoint rule, as in Section 1.2, which we apply to $`(fP_nf)`$. We now explain the operators $`P_n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_N^d`$. By $`P_n`$ we mean a projection operator by interpolation, one can use piecewise polynomials, which uses $`n`$ function values and gives an order

$$fP_nf_{\mathrm{}}n^\gamma ,$$

for $`fF_d^{k,\alpha }`$. It is well known that this is the optimal order of convergence, see Novak (1988). One evaluation of $`(fP_nf)`$ can be implemented at a constant cost (where the constant depends on $`d`$ and $`k`$, but not on $`n`$).

By $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_N^d`$ we mean that we do not really apply the midpoint rule $`Q_N^d`$. Instead we evaluate this midpoint rule by a quantum computer up to some error $`\epsilon _1n^\gamma `$ with the cost

$$\mathrm{cost}_{\mathrm{query}}^{\mathrm{quant}}(N,\epsilon _1)C\epsilon _1^1$$

or

$$\mathrm{cost}^{\mathrm{quant}}(N,\epsilon _1)C\epsilon _1^1(\mathrm{log}N+\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}\epsilon _1^1),$$

respectively. The error of this method is bounded by

(26)
$$e(f)CN^\beta +n^\gamma \epsilon _1,fF_d^{k,\alpha },$$

which is the sum of the error by discretization (the integral being replaced by $`Q_N^d`$) and the error made by the approximate evaluation of $`Q_N^d`$. This error bound is valid for all $`\beta \alpha /d`$, if $`k=0`$, and $`\beta =1/d`$, if $`k>0`$. In addition we have to assume that $`N`$ is at least of the order $`n`$. To simplify the presentation we use a $`\beta `$ which is always smaller than 1. The complete cost of the method is bounded by

(27)
$$\mathrm{cost}_{\mathrm{query}}^{\mathrm{quant}}(N,\epsilon _1)C(n+\epsilon _1^1)$$

or

(28)
$$\mathrm{cost}^{\mathrm{quant}}(N,\epsilon _1)Cn+C\epsilon _1^1(\mathrm{log}N+\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}\epsilon _1^1),$$

respectively. In the query-complexity case we simply choose $`n\epsilon _1^1`$ and

$$N^\beta n^\gamma \epsilon _1$$

and observe that we may apply (26), because of $`\beta <1`$. We obtain a cost of the order $`n`$ and an error of the order $`n^{\gamma 1}`$ and so obtain the upper bound in (19).

In the quantum bit number model we take

$$n\epsilon _1^1\mathrm{log}\epsilon _1^1,$$

again with

$$N^\beta n^\gamma \epsilon _1.$$

Then we get the cost bound

$$C\epsilon _1^1\mathrm{log}\epsilon _1^1$$

and the error bound

$$e(f)C\epsilon _1^{\gamma +1}(\mathrm{log}\epsilon _1^1)^\gamma .$$

We obtain

$$e(f)^{1/(\gamma +1)}C\epsilon _1^1(\mathrm{log}\epsilon _1^1)^{\gamma /(\gamma +1)}$$

and therefore

$$\mathrm{comp}^{\mathrm{quant}}(F_d^{k,\alpha },\epsilon )C\epsilon ^{1/(1+\gamma )}(\mathrm{log}\epsilon ^1)^{1\gamma /(\gamma +1)}.$$

Now we prove the lower bound in (19). The space $`F_d^{k,\alpha }`$ contains $`n\epsilon _1^{1/\gamma }`$ functions $`f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_n`$ with disjoint supports such that

* $`_{[0,1]^d}f_i𝑑x=\epsilon _1^{1+1/\gamma }`$ and
* $`_{i=1}^n\lambda _if_iF_d^{k,\alpha }`$ if $`|\lambda _i|1`$,

see Novak (1988, p. 35). Consider now the following problem. Compute the mean value of the integrals $`_{[0,1]^d}\lambda _if_i𝑑x`$, where $`|\lambda _i|1`$, up to some error $`\epsilon _2`$. We can apply the lower bound of Nayak, Wu (1999), see (4), to obtain the lower bound

$$\mathrm{cost}C\mathrm{min}(\epsilon _1^{1/\gamma },\epsilon _1^{1+1/\gamma }\epsilon _2^1).$$

Of course we put $`\epsilon _2=\epsilon _1^{1+2/\gamma }`$ and obtain

$$\mathrm{cost}C\epsilon _1^{1/\gamma }.$$

What we estimated was the cost to compute the mean value. Since $`_{[0,1]^d}_{i=1}^n\lambda _if_idx`$ is actually the sum, the error is to be multiplied by $`n`$, hence $`\epsilon =\epsilon _2n\epsilon _1^{1+1/\gamma }`$. Since the cost to obtain this error is at least of the order $`\epsilon _1^{1/\gamma }`$ we obtain

$$\mathrm{comp}_{\mathrm{query}}^{\mathrm{quant}}(F_d^{k,\alpha },\epsilon )C\epsilon ^{1/(1+\gamma )}.$$

We finally prove the upper bound for restricted Monte Carlo. Instead of the arbitrary random numbers of a (general) Monte Carlo method we can only use random bits or coin tossing. We use a discretized version of a well known variance reduction technique and write the method in the form

(29)
$$A(f)=I(P_nf)+\stackrel{~}{Q}_N^d(fP_nf),$$

and only the meaning of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_N^d`$ is different from (25). By $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_N^d`$ we mean that we do not really apply the midpoint rule $`Q_N^d`$. Instead we evaluate this midpoint rule by the classical Monte Carlo method, again up to some error $`\epsilon _1n^\gamma `$ with the cost

$$\mathrm{cost}^{\mathrm{coin}}(N,\epsilon _1)C\epsilon _1^2\mathrm{log}N+n.$$

The bound $`\epsilon _1^2`$ is the classical Monte Carlo bound, the factor $`\mathrm{log}N`$ comes in because we need (about) $`\mathrm{log}N`$ random bits to select one node from the possible $`N`$ nodes. The error of this method is bounded by

$$e(f)CN^\beta +n^\gamma \epsilon _1,fF_d^{k,\alpha },$$

see (26). Again we use a $`\beta `$ which is always smaller than 1. We put $`N^\beta n^\gamma \epsilon _1`$ and $`n\epsilon _1^2\mathrm{log}\epsilon _1^1`$ and obtain

$$\mathrm{cost}^{\mathrm{coin}}(N,\epsilon _1)C\epsilon _1^2\mathrm{log}\epsilon _1^1$$

and

$$e(f)Cn^\gamma \epsilon _1C\epsilon _1^{1+2\gamma }(\mathrm{log}\epsilon _1^1)^\gamma $$

and therefore (21).

## 4. A Remark on Randomized Quantum Algorithms

We present an algorithm to compute the expectation of arbitrary bounded random variables up to some error $`\epsilon >0`$. A classical randomized method needs time $`\epsilon ^2`$. The proposed algorithm uses the algorithm of Grover and a random generator. We assume that the random generator is for free and this is certainly not a realistic assumption. Let $`(X,B,m)`$ be a probability space and let

$$F=\{f:Xf\text{ is measurable and }f_{\mathrm{}}1\}.$$

We want to compute the integral of a function (or the expectation of a random variable)

$$I(f)=_Xf(x)𝑑m(x),$$

for $`fF`$. With (5) one obtains the complexity bound

(30)
$$\mathrm{comp}_{\mathrm{quant}}^{\mathrm{random}}(F,\epsilon )C\epsilon ^1\mathrm{log}\epsilon ^1,$$

with a constant $`C`$ that does not depend on the particular space $`(X,B,m)`$. If we use the quantum query model, together with a free random generator, then we get in the same way the upper bound $`C\epsilon ^1`$. We prove (30).

To compute an approximation $`A(f,\epsilon )`$ of $`I(f)`$ for $`fF`$ and $`0<\epsilon 1/2`$ (with the understanding that (6) should be true) we proceed as follows:

* First we randomly select $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_nX`$ using the random generator, where

(31)
$$n=72\epsilon ^2.$$

If we put<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Of course $`Q_n`$ is simply the classical Monte Carlo algorithm for the computation of the integral. Here we only define the points $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$, we do not compute $`Q_n(f)`$. This expression is only used for the analysis and the intuition.

$$Q_n(f)=\frac{1}{n}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}f(x_i)$$

then it follows from Chebyshev’s inequality that

(32)
$$|I(f)Q_n(f)|\frac{\epsilon }{3}\text{with probability at least }7/8.$$
* We assume that an oracle is available for the computation of $`f(x_i)`$, up to a maximal error of $`\epsilon /3`$. On input $`i`$ the oracle gives $`\stackrel{~}{f}(x_i)`$ such that

$$|f(x_i)\stackrel{~}{f}(x_i)|\frac{\epsilon }{3}.$$
* Quantum computation. Let

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_n(f)=\frac{1}{n}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\stackrel{~}{f}(x_i).$$

Then we know $`|Q_n(f)\stackrel{~}{Q}_n(f)|\epsilon /3`$ and therefore

$$|I(f)\stackrel{~}{Q}_n(f)|\frac{2}{3}\epsilon \text{with probability at least }7/8.$$

Hence we compute an approximation $`A(f,\epsilon )`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_n(f)`$ such that

(33)
$$|A(f,\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{Q}_n(f)|\frac{\epsilon }{3}\text{with probability at least }7/8$$

and get (6). With (5) and (31) one obtains the bound (30) for the complexity of the problem.

### Acknowledgments

I thank Peter Høyer very much for his helpful comments. Peter gave me the reference  and we had a very interesting discussion about different models of \[quantum\] computation and about different upper and lower bounds for the computation of the mean of $`n`$ numbers. Peter also was so kind to give me his results that will appear in .

I also thank several other referees and editors for valuable remarks. Peter Hertling found some minor mistakes that are corrected in this version. This work was done during my time as a fellow at the university in Leuven. I thank the colleagues from the Department of Computer Science, in particular Ronald Cools, for the kind hospitality.

## References

1. D. S. Abrams, C. P. Williams (1999): Fast quantum algorithms for numerical integrals and stochastic processes. LANL preprint quant-ph/9908083.

2. M. Boyer, G. Brassard, P. Høyer, A. Tapp (1998): Tight bounds on quantum searching. Fortschritte der Physik 46, 493–505. See also LANL preprint quant-ph/9605034.

3. G. Brassard, P. Høyer, A. Tapp (1998): Quantum counting. Lect. Notes on Comp. Science 1443, 820–831. See also LANL preprint quant-ph/9805082.

4. G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, A. Tapp (2000): Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. LANL preprint quant-ph/0005055.

5. R. Cleve, A. Ekert, L. Henderson, C. Macchiavello, M. Mosca (1999): On quantum algorithms. LANL preprint quant-ph/9903061.

6. L. Grover (1996): A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. Proc. 28 Annual ACM Symp. on the Theory of Computing, ACM Press New York, 212–219. See also LANL preprint quant-ph/9706033 and Physical Review Letters 79, 325–328.

7. L. Grover (1998): A framework for fast quantum mechanical algorithms. Proc. 30 Annual ACM Symp. on the Theory of Computing, ACM Press New York. See also LANL preprint quant-ph/9711043 and Physical Review Letters 80, 4329–4332.

8. S. Haber (1970): Numerical evaluation of multiple integrals. SIAM Review 12, 481–526.

9. S. Heinrich (1993): Random approximation in numerical analysis. In: Functional Analysis, K. D. Bierstedt et al. (eds.), Marcel Dekker, New York, 123–171.

10. P. Høyer (2000): Quantum complexity of the mean problem. Paper in preparation.

11. M. Mosca (1999): Quantum Computer Algorithms. Thesis. University of Oxford.

12. A. Nayak, F. Wu (1998): The quantum query complexity of approximating the median and related statistics. STOC, May 1999, 384–393. See also LANL preprint quant-ph/9804066.

13. E. Novak (1983): Eingeschränkte Monte Carlo-Verfahren zur numerischen Integration. In: Proc. of the 4th Pannonian Symp. on Math. Stat., Bad Tatzmannsdorf, Austria, W. Grossmann et al. (eds.), 269–282.

14. E. Novak (1988): Deterministic and Stochastic Error Bounds in Numerical Analysis. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1349, Springer.

15. E. Novak (1995): The real number model in numerical analysis. J. Complexity 11, 57–73.

16. P. W. Shor (1998): Quantum computing. Documenta Mathematica, extra volume ICM 1998, I, 467–486.

17. J. F. Traub, G. W. Wasilkowski, H. Woźniakowski (1988): Information-Based Complexity. Academic Press.

18. J. F. Traub, A. G. Werschulz (1998): Complexity and Information. Cambridge University Press.

19. J. F. Traub, H. Woźniakowski (1992): The Monte Carlo algorithm with a pseudorandom generator. Math. Comp. 58, 323–339.


text:
# On the 𝑛 → 0 limit of 𝛾_{𝑔𝑔}(𝑎) in QCD

Abstract. We consider the $`n`$ $``$ $`0`$ limit of the DGLAP splitting function $`\gamma _{gg}(a)`$ at all orders in the strong coupling constant, $`a`$, by analysing the leading order large $`N_f`$ form of the associated $`d`$-dimensional critical exponent. We show that for unpolarized scattering the pole at $`n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ which appears in successive orders in perturbation theory is absent in the resummed expression.

LTH 483

The DGLAP equation, , is widely used to evolve the parton structure functions of the nucleon constituents over a large range of energy scales. Central to the equation are the splitting functions which depend on the variable $`x`$ which represents the fraction of the momentum carried by that parton in the nucleon. Alternatively one can work with the anomalous dimension of the underlying twist-$`2`$ operators built out of the quark and gluon fields of QCD which depend on the variable $`n`$. They are related to the splitting functions via a Mellin transform restricted to the unit interval in $`x`$. It is generally accepted that the solution of the DGLAP evolution which effectively represents perturbative QCD, fits the data extremely well. See, for example, . Moreover, it appears to transcend the region where the perturbative approximation ought not to be valid. Therefore, one would hope that either by resumming perturbation theory in some fashion or developing non-perturbative methods, such as the BFKL formalism , it might be possible to begin to explore phenomena in the more extreme non-perturbative regions. One recent issue, , has been the problem of understanding the $`n`$ $``$ $`0`$ behaviour of the DGLAP splitting functions in QCD. It is known that in perturbation theory each term of the expansion of the operator anomalous dimensions in the strong coupling constant has successively higher order poles at $`n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$, . However, other considerations suggest that the function is finite at $`n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$, , though there is some disagreement with this point of view, . In this letter we provide some more insight into the $`n`$ $``$ $`0`$ limit of the gluon-gluon splitting function, $`\gamma _{gg}(a)`$, where $`a`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _s/(4\pi )`$ is the strong coupling constant. This is achieved by examining the large $`N_f`$ result for $`\gamma _{gg}(a)`$ which has been computed in  where $`N_f`$ is the number of quark flavours. Essentially the $`1/N_f`$ expansion sums a different set of Feynman diagrams from those which are ordinarily computed in the loop or coupling constant expansion of perturbation theory. Moreover, the resummation is to all orders in $`a`$. This technique has been used in  to determine the anomalous dimensions of all the twist-$`2`$ operators used in deep inelastic scattering for both unpolarized and polarized processes at $`O(1/N_f)`$. The all orders results are expressed as a function of $`d`$, where $`d`$ is the dimension of spacetime, known as critical exponents. The coefficients of the corresponding renormalization group function are deduced from knowledge of the $`d`$-dimensional fixed point of the QCD $`\beta `$-function and properties of the critical renormalization group equation. The results have been shown to be in agreement with all known explicit two and three loop perturbative results, , which puts the validity of the large $`N_f`$ results in relation to deep inelastic scattering on a firm footing. Hence, in this letter we will examine the $`n`$ $``$ $`0`$ limit of the singlet gluon splitting function at $`O(1/N_f)`$ and all orders in $`a`$.

First, we recall the basic formalism of the problem. As the flavour singlet gluonic twist-$`2`$ operator mixes with the fermionic operator under renormalization in perturbation theory, one has to deal with a matrix of anomalous dimensions, $`\gamma _{ij}(a)`$. Since we will be considering it in the large $`N_f`$ expansion we define the coefficients of its perturbative expansion formally by

$$\gamma _{ij}(a)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _{qq}(a)\hfill & \gamma _{gq}(a)\hfill \\ \gamma _{qg}(a)\hfill & \gamma _{gg}(a)\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(1)
where

$`\gamma _{qq}(a)`$ $`=`$ $`a_1a+(a_{21}N_f+a_{22})a^2+(a_{31}N_f^2+a_{32}N_f+a_{33})a^3+O(a^4)`$
$`\gamma _{gq}(a)`$ $`=`$ $`b_1a+(b_{21}N_f+b_{22})a^2+(b_{31}N_f^2+b_{32}N_f+b_{33})a^3+O(a^4)`$
$`\gamma _{qg}(a)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1N_fa+c_2N_fa^2+(c_{31}N_f^2+c_{32}N_f+c_{33})a^3+O(a^4)`$
$`\gamma _{gg}(a)`$ $`=`$ $`(d_{11}N_f+d_{12})a+(d_{21}N_f+d_{22})a^2+(d_{31}N_f^2+d_{32}N_f+d_{33})a^3+O(a^4).`$ (2)
The explicit values of the coefficients to two loops as a function of $`n`$ are given in  and exact values for the low operator moments at three loops are found in . In particular we note

$$d_{11}=\frac{4}{3}T(R)$$
(3)
where $`T(R)`$ is given by $`\text{tr}(T^aT^b)`$ $`=`$ $`T(R)\delta ^{ab}`$ and $`T^a`$ are the generators of the colour group whose structure constants are $`f^{abc}`$. In  it was argued that the set of coefficients of the $`C_2(G)`$ sector of $`\gamma _{gg}(a)`$ at leading order in $`1/N_f`$, corresponding to $`d_{l1}^{C_2(G)}`$ at the $`l`$th loop, could be written compactly in the critical exponent form as

$`\lambda _{+,1}^{C_2(G)}(a_c)`$ $`=`$ $`[[32\mu ^5n^2+32\mu ^5n+32\mu ^5+8\mu ^4n^4+16\mu ^4n^3120\mu ^4n^2128\mu ^4n`$
$`160\mu ^432\mu ^3n^464\mu ^3n^3+160\mu ^3n^2+192\mu ^3n+316\mu ^3`$
$`+48\mu ^2n^4+96\mu ^2n^378\mu ^2n^2126\mu ^2n306\mu ^231\mu n^462\mu n^3`$
$`+31\mu n+146\mu +7n^4+14n^3+7n^228]\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+2\mu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu )`$
$`/[8n(\mu 1)^3(n+2)(n^21)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu +n)]`$
$`[32\mu ^5n^2+32\mu ^5n+32\mu ^5144\mu ^4n^2144\mu ^4n160\mu ^44\mu ^3n^4`$
$`8\mu ^3n^3+240\mu ^3n^2+244\mu ^3n+316\mu ^3+16\mu ^2n^4+32\mu ^2n^3`$
$`180\mu ^2n^2196\mu ^2n306\mu ^220\mu n^440\mu n^3+59\mu n^2`$
$`+79\mu n+146\mu +8n^4+16n^36n^214n28]`$
$`/[8n(\mu 1)^3(n+2)(n^21)]`$
$`+2(\mu 1)S_1(n){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}]{\displaystyle \frac{\mu C_2(G)\eta _1^\text{o}}{(2\mu 1)(\mu 2)T(R)}}`$
where $`S_l(n)`$ $`=`$ $`_{r=1}^{\mathrm{}}1/r^l`$, $`d`$ $`=`$ $`2\mu `$, $`f^{acd}f^{bcd}`$ $`=`$ $`C_2(G)\delta ^{ab}`$ and

$$\eta _1^\text{o}=\frac{(2\mu 1)(\mu 2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mu )}{4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\mu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu +1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mu )}.$$
(5)
We recall that a feature of the large $`N_f`$ approach to computing information on the perturbative coefficients of (2) was that the anomalous dimensions of the eigen-operators of (1) at criticality were determined and denoted by $`\lambda _\pm (a_c)`$ $`=`$ $`_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _{\pm ,i}(a_c)/N_f^i`$, . That eigen-operator which was predominantly gluonic in content corresponds to the eigen-critical exponent $`\lambda _+(a_c)`$ whilst $`\lambda _{}(a_c)`$ corresponds to the dimension of the mainly fermionic eigen-operator. The location of the fixed point, $`a_c`$, is given by the non-trivial zero of the $`d`$-dimensional QCD $`\beta `$-function and in the present notation, ,

$`a_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3ϵ}{4T(R)N_f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T^2(R)N_f^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{33}{16}}C_Aϵ({\displaystyle \frac{27}{16}}C_F+{\displaystyle \frac{45}{16}}C_A)ϵ^2+({\displaystyle \frac{99}{64}}C_F+{\displaystyle \frac{237}{128}}C_A)ϵ^3`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{77}{64}}C_F+{\displaystyle \frac{53}{128}}C_A)ϵ^4{\displaystyle \frac{3}{1024}}[(288\zeta (3)+214)C_F+(480\zeta (3)229)C_A]ϵ^5+O(ϵ^6)]`$
to $`O(1/N_f^3)`$ in the large $`N_f`$ expansion where $`d`$ $`=`$ $`4`$ $``$ $`2ϵ`$ and $`\zeta (r)`$ is the Riemann zeta function. From (LABEL:exponent) and (LABEL:critcoup), we find, for instance,

$`d_{51}^{C_2(G)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{128[9n^4+18n^3+79n^2+70n+32]S_3(n)}{243(n+2)(n+1)^2(n1)n^2}}`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{256[9n^4+18n^3+79n^2+70n+32]S_1^3(n)}{243(n+2)(n+1)^2(n1)n^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{128[63n^6+189n^5+821n^4+1327n^3+1176n^2+544n+96]S_1^2(n)}{243(n+2)(n+1)^3(n1)n^3}}`$
$`256[4n^{10}+20n^9+17n^852n^7414n^6976n^51521n^41516n^3`$
$`930n^2320n48]S_1(n)/[243(n+2)(n+1)^4(n1)n^4]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2048[n^2+n+1]\zeta (4)}{27(n+2)(n^21)n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1024S_1(n)\zeta (4)}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{10240S_1(n)\zeta (3)}{243}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{128[3n^6+9n^5+307n^4+599n^3+746n^2+448n+96]\zeta (3)}{243(n+2)(n+1)^2(n1)n^2}}`$
$`+4[155n^{12}+930n^{11}+1455n^{10}1250n^99879n^821786n^7`$
$`47107n^680550n^597392n^478336n^340000n^2`$
$`11776n1536]/[243(n+2)(n+1)^5(n1)n^5].`$
This illustrates earlier remarks in that this coefficient clearly has a fifth order pole at $`n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ which is a degree larger than the previous loop order, . Clearly to all orders this degree of divergence will increase. However, since (LABEL:exponent) encodes the structure of this particular coefficient of $`\gamma _{gg}(a)`$ to all orders in the coupling constant in leading order in $`1/N_f`$ as a function of $`n`$, we can examine the form of the exponent for $`n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$. In other words prior to making the connection with explicit perturbation theory. Therefore setting $`n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ in (LABEL:exponent) we can determine if the expression is divergent which would indicate that such a pole persists in $`\gamma _{gg}(a)`$ or if it is finite. The latter case would indicate consistency with the supposition from more general principles, . First, by inspection of (LABEL:exponent) the $`S_1(n)`$ independent terms each have simple poles in $`n`$. However, by careful examination of the numerators of each term and in particular their $`n`$-independent terms, it is evident that the residue at $`n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ is the same for both whilst the relative sign between the terms means that overall the residue is zero for the simple pole at $`n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$. Also for the term involving $`S_1(n)`$ one writes

$$S_{l+1}(n)=\frac{(1)^l}{l!}\left[\psi ^{(l)}(n+1)\psi ^{(l)}(1)\right]$$
(8)
for general $`l`$, which vanishes in the limit $`n`$ $``$ $`0`$ where $`\psi (x)`$ is the derivative of the logarithm of the Euler $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function. Hence the exponent (LABEL:exponent) is in fact finite at $`n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$. This is consistent with the resummed splitting function being non-singular at this point. However, it is important to recall that we have only demonstrated this property for that part of the series which is leading order in the $`1/N_f`$ expansion. Moreover that this part is not inconsistent with general considerations is, we believe, an important observation and the central result of this article. Furthermore, we record that when $`n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ the exponent (LABEL:exponent) is

$`\lambda _{+,1}^{C_2(G)}(a_c)|_{n=0}`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}[16\mu ^464\mu ^3+94\mu ^259\mu +14](\mu 1)(\mu 2)[\psi (\mu 1)\psi (3\mu )]`$ (9)
$`+\mu (8\mu ^426\mu ^3+23\mu ^24){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}]{\displaystyle \frac{\mu C_2(G)\eta _1^\text{o}}{8(2\mu 1)(\mu 1)^3(\mu 2)^2}}.`$
For completeness, we also comment on the $`n`$ $``$ $`0`$ limit of the critical exponents of the other twist-$`2`$ operators at $`O(1/N_f)`$. We recall that, ,

$`\lambda _{,1}(a_c)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu (\mu 1)C_2(R)\eta _1^\text{o}}{(2\mu 1)(\mu 2)T(R)N_f}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(\mu 1)(n1)(2\mu +n2)}{2\mu (\mu +n1)(\mu +n2)}}+[\psi (\mu 1+n)\psi (\mu )]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mu )}{4(\mu +n1)(\mu +n2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mu 1+n)}}`$
$`\times [(n^2+n+2\mu 2)^2+2(\mu 2)(n(n1)(2\mu 3+2n)+2(\mu 1+n))]{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}]`$
for the flavour singlet fermionic operator where $`T^aT^a`$ $`=`$ $`C_2(R)`$. The critical exponent for the non-singlet operator dimension corresponds to the first two terms of (LABEL:fermdim) and it is clear that in the limit we are interested in that that exponent is finite. In particular

$$\lambda _{,1}^{\text{non-singlet}}(a_c)|_{n=0}=\frac{4(2\mu ^24\mu +1)C_2(R)\eta _1^\text{o}}{(2\mu 1)(\mu 2)^2T(R)N_f}.$$
(11)
By contrast, the singlet fermionic eigen-operator, which in perturbation theory corresponds to the combination of coefficients $`(a_{l1}b_{l1}c_1/d_{11})`$ at $`l`$th loop, diverges at $`n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ having the behaviour

$$\lambda _{,1}(a_c)\frac{4\mu (\mu 1)(2\mu 3)C_2(R)\eta _1^\text{o}}{n(\mu 2)^2T(R)N_f}$$
(12)
as $`n`$ $``$ $`0`$ with the singularity arising from the final term of (LABEL:fermdim) which corresponds to Feynman diagrams with the operator inserted in a closed quark loop.

To conclude with we have demonstrated that for unpolarized scattering the behaviour of $`\gamma _{gg}(a)`$ at $`n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ at leading order in the large $`N_f`$ expansion is consistent with the function being finite at this point. However, it is worth putting this result in context with other observations from the BFKL formalism which has also been used to study the anomalous dimensions discussed here. In  it was shown that the $`C_2(G)`$ sector of $`\gamma _{gg}(a)`$ in the BFKL approach not only does not contain any poles in $`n`$ but has in fact three branch points. Indeed this does not appear to be just a feature of QCD. If one examines the toy model of scalar $`\varphi ^3`$ theory in six dimensions the complete analogous anomalous dimension was resummed at leading order without reference to the small $`x`$ limit and again only branch points and no poles were observed, . For other anomalous dimensions in QCD, the non-singlet and polarized dimensions also do not have poles at $`n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ but branch points, . (For a recent review of these issues see, for example, .) Therefore it is reassuring that our large $`N_f`$ observation is also not inconsistent with the BFKL formalism. In light of this it would be interesting to go beyond our leading order $`1/N_f`$ analysis to confirm the absence of the $`n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ pole at next order as well as being able to understand the branch point structure in the large $`N_f`$ point of view. To compute the $`O(1/N_f^2)`$ correction to $`\lambda _+(a_c)`$, though, would involve the evaluation of a large set of $`1/N_f`$ graphs which contain, for example, several six loop diagrams and is therefore, we believe, not attainable in the near future.

Acknowledgement. This work was carried out with the support of PPARC through a Postgraduate Studentship (JFB) and an Advanced Fellowship (JAG).


text:
# References

Tilted Rotation and Wobbling Motion in Nuclei

W.D. Heiss1 and R.G. Nazmitdinov1,2

1 Center for Nonlinear Studies and Department of Physics

University of the Witwatersrand, 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa

2 Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics

Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 141980 Dubna, Russia

## Abstract

The self-consistent harmonic oscillator model including the three-dimensional cranking term is extended to describe collective excitations in the random phase approximation. It is found that quadrupole collective excitations associated with wobbling motion in rotating nuclei lead to the appearance of two– or three–dimensional rotation.

PACS numbers: 21.60.Jz, 21.60 Ev

Nuclear states grouped into $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ sequences are remarkably well described in terms of the principal axis rotation which is the basis of the cranking model . The principal axis cranking rotation was intuitively justified by a classical rigid body rotation which is favorable for a uniform rotation around the long or the short principal axis. However, if the classical body is not rigid, it may also uniformly rotate about an axis which does not coincide with the principal axes of the density distribution. In fact, more than a century ago Riemann  pointed out that such a situation could occur in the ellipsoidal self-gravitating fluid. The physical mechanism behind it is the vortex motion in a macroscopic system.

Numerous experimental observations implying $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ sequences in near spherical nuclei  raised the question about a new type of rotation and its physical nature in a finite quantum many body system. For particular nuclei the proton and neutron spin vectors may be oriented along different axes. Consequently, the total angular momentum could lie at an angle different from one of the principal axes, i.e. at a tilted angle. It seems shell effects are the driving forces in this case which can be described within the Tilted Axis Cranking Model  which assumes a two–dimensional rotation. Other intriguing examples are the rotational bands observed in $`Hf`$, $`W`$ and $`Os`$ $`(Z=7276)`$ nuclei with $`A180`$ . These bands are characterized by high K-values, where K is the angular momentum projection on the body-fixed symmetry axis . At finite rotational frequency a competition could occur between states with large collective angular momentum oriented perpendicular to the symmetry axis and high-K states. Such competition gives rise to the new backbending phenomenon which is expected to be caused by the crossing of the ground and tilted rotational bands . The one–dimensional cranking model based on the signature concept (the invariance of the wave function under rotation by $`\pi `$ around the rotational axis) fails in this situation, since signature is not conserved for tilted rotations. Furthermore, according to the standard Alaga rules , the quadrupole B(E2) transitions to the ground band are forbidden due to the K selection rules $`(\mathrm{\Delta }K>2)`$. However, it is observed that some K-isomer states do decay via quadrupole transitions to the ground state. It was suggested that either fluctuations in the orientation of the angular momentum or shape fluctuations  or tilting degrees of freedom in the rotation axis  are responsible for this phenomenon. It was also observed that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ sequence of the rotational states has been superseded by $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ transitions in the yrast rotational band at high rotational frequency. In the present paper we considerably extend a previous study  and demonstrate that tilted rotations naturally occur beyond a critical rotational frequency as an instability of collective vibrations caused by the wobbling motion.

At high spin, the dynamical fluctuations of the shape and angular momentum vector can be described by the cranking random phase approximation (CRPA) as formulated in  for a one–dimensional rotation. This approach is the main theoretical tool used for the analysis of collective excitations in rotating nuclei (see  and references therein). To understand the main features of the formation of tilted bands, we assume the angular momentum and shape fluctuations to be dominant. For comparison with experimental data pairing vibrations  should be taken into account, but this degree of freedom does not change our main conclusions; it involves tedious calculations to be postponed for future publication. The CRPA and many RPA calculations for non-rotating nuclei suffer from the inconsistency between the basis generated by the mean field and the residual two-body interaction. To facilitate analytical and numerical results and to avoid spurious solutions due to such inconsistencies, we base our analysis upon the three–dimensional harmonic oscillator model.

We start with the single-particle Routhian

$$H_\mathrm{\Omega }=H_0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{}{L}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(\frac{1}{2m}\stackrel{}{p}_j^2+\frac{m}{2}(\omega _x^2x_j^2+\omega _y^2y_j^2+\omega _z^2z_j^2)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{}{l}_j)$$
(1)
where the rotational vector $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ of the cranking term has the components $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_x,\mathrm{\Omega }_y,\mathrm{\Omega }_z)=\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. The Hamiltonian, Eq.(1), represents the simplest mean field Hamiltonian which reproduces quite well the main properties of rotating nuclei . The spectrum of this Hamiltonian, i.e. the eigenmodes, is obtained by solving a third order polynomial in $`E^2`$. The normal mode operators $`a_k^{}`$ and $`a_k,k=1,2,3`$ ($`[a_k,a_l^{}]=\delta _{k,l}`$) are linear transformations in the coordinates $`q_i`$ and momenta $`p_i,(i=x,y,z)`$ with complex coefficients. In this way we obtain $`H_\mathrm{\Omega }=_{j=1}^N_{i=1,2,3}E_i(n_i+1/2)_j`$ with $`n_i=a_i^{}a_i`$. The normal modes are filled from the bottom which gives the ground state energy in the rotating frame $`E_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑜𝑡}}=E_1_1+E_2_2+E_3_3`$ where $`_k=<_j^N(n_k+1/2)_j>`$ and the configuration is determined by $`_1_2_3`$.

The minimization of the Hamiltonian Eq.(1) with respect to the three frequencies $`\omega _i`$, subject to the volume conservation condition $`\omega _x\omega _y\omega _z=\omega _0^3`$, yields the self–consistency relation

$$\omega _x^2x^2=\omega _y^2y^2=\omega _z^2z^2.$$
(2)
These energy minima and their corresponding values for $`\omega _i`$ depend on the rotational vector $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. For given $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we search for tilted solutions by seeking the minimum in the $`\theta \varphi `$–plane . Three major results are reported here:

1. starting from oblate, prolate or tri–axial shapes, for sufficiently high values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ a local minimum, which is characterized by an oblate shape with the symmetry axis coinciding with the rotational axis, ($`\theta =90^0`$, $`\varphi =0^0`$) is always obtained;
2. increasing further the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ this local minimum shifts away from $`\theta =90^0`$ to $`\theta <90^0`$ and possibly $`\varphi >0^0`$ thus giving rise to a two– or three–dimensional rotation;
3. only when starting from tri–axial, near oblate, nuclei is this specific local minimum a global and stable minimum. For prolate nuclei, this local minimum is attained only for values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ so large that other (possibly unphysical) minima with different configurations occur at a considerably lower energy, see Fig.1. When starting from the outset with an oblate nucleus, the global minimum is obtained for the rotational axis perpendicular to the symmetry axis; the specific local minimum referred to above is then the second lowest minimum with the same configuration.

We first focus our attention to tri–axial near oblate nuclei. Here we encounter two critical values. At $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cr}}^{(1)}`$ there is a shape transition from tri–axial to axial (oblate) symmetry. This axial shape remains unchanged for a range $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cr}}^{(1)}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cr}}^{(2)}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cr}}^{(2)}`$ signifies the onset of a tilted rotation where the rotational axis no longer coincides with a principal axis. Note that for $`0\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cr}}^{(2)}`$ the rotational axis is aligned to a principal axis which becomes the symmetry axis for $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cr}}^{(1)}`$. At this point there is a confluence in the energy contours $`E(\omega _y,\omega _z)`$ of two minima into one at $`\omega _{}=\omega _y=\omega _z`$. In contrast, at the larger value $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cr}}^{(2)}`$ the minimum at $`\theta =90^0,\varphi =0^0`$ bifurcates into two minima as illustrated in Fig.2. The two minima occurring at $`\theta =75^0`$ and $`\theta =105^0`$ ($`\varphi =0^0`$) appear at first glance physically equivalent. However, they are not as can be seen when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is increased further in which case they move into positions with different values of $`\varphi `$ (and $`\theta `$) and only one is the global minimum. In fact, the directions of $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ play a different role in the different octants . We interpret the rotation for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cr}}^{(1)}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cr}}^{(2)}`$ as a K-isomer. For the tilted rotation the symmetric shape no longer prevails.

While these findings are obtained from the numerical minimization procedure we now further substantiate our analysis by an analytical procedure. Using the fact that the first critical rotational frequency is associated with a one-dimensional rotation, we exploit in Eq.(2) that at the transition point $`\omega _y=\omega _z=\omega _{}`$ and obtain a third order equation

$$u^3\frac{u}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{r1}{r+1}=0$$
(3)
where $`u=\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _{}`$ and $`r=_3/_2`$. From the discriminant of Eq.(3) we obtain the critical value $`r_{\mathrm{𝑐𝑟}}=(\sqrt{27}+\sqrt{2})(\sqrt{27}\sqrt{2})`$. It was shown in  that a prolate system becomes eventually oblate with the rotational axis coinciding with the symmetry axis, if the initial deformation obeys $`rr_{\mathrm{𝑐𝑟}}`$. However, according to our results, this case is not a global energy minimum, in fact the global minimum is unphysical. In general, for $`r<r_{\mathrm{𝑐𝑟}}`$ we obtain three solutions

$`u=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\chi +2\pi n}{3}})n=0,1,2`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{cos}\chi =3\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1r}{1+r}}`$ (5)
These values of the rotational frequency correspond to three bifurcation points. Below we demonstrate that one of these solutions is the critical point $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{𝑐𝑟}}^{(1)}`$ where the lowest vibrational frequency tends to zero.

The variations in the one-body potential around the equilibrium deformation determine the effective quadrupole–quadrupole interaction . The total Hamiltonian can be presented as

$$H=H_\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{\kappa }{2}\underset{\mu =2}{\overset{2}{}}Q_\mu ^{}Q_\mu \stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{}{L}$$
(6)
While the mean field Hamiltonian Eq.(1) breaks the rotational symmetry, the Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ in the total Hamiltonian Eq.(6) fulfills the commutation rules $`[\stackrel{~}{H},L_i]=0`$, $`i=x,y,z`$. Note that the self-consistent condition Eq.(2) fixes the quadrupole strength constant $`\kappa `$ in the RPA calculations. We solve the RPA equation of motion for the general coordinates $`𝒳_\lambda `$ and momenta $`𝒫_\lambda `$ (see for details )

$$[H,𝒳_\lambda ]=i\omega _\lambda 𝒫_\lambda ,[H,𝒫_\lambda ]=i\omega _\lambda 𝒳_\lambda ,[𝒳_\lambda ,𝒫_\lambda ^{^{}}]=i\delta _{\lambda ,\lambda ^{^{}}}.$$
(7)
Here $`\omega _\lambda `$ is the RPA eigenfrequency in the rotating frame and the associated phonon $`O_\lambda ^{}=(𝒳_\lambda i𝒫_\lambda )/\sqrt{2}`$. In contrast to the CRPA approach, the phonon is in the present model a superposition of different signature phonons. The degree of the mixture depends on the tilted angle: the signature and $`|\mathrm{K}|`$ are good quantum numbers, respectively, for rotations perpendicular and parallel to the symmetry axis. The non-zero solutions appear in pairs $`\pm \mathrm{}\omega _\lambda `$, we choose solutions with positive norm.

Let us first focus on the RPA solution which leads to the transition from the non-axial to the oblate regime of rotation. Since at this transition point the minimal solution corresponds to a one–dimensional rotation ($`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\mathrm{\Omega },0,0)`$) around the symmetry axis, the angular momentum becomes a good quantum number. The RPA states can be characterized by the projection of the angular momentum because $`[L_x,O_\lambda ^{}]=\lambda O_\lambda ^{}`$. Consequently, we obtain

$$[H,O_\lambda ^{}]=[\stackrel{~}{H}\mathrm{\Omega }L_x,O_\lambda ^{}]=(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\lambda \lambda \mathrm{\Omega })O_\lambda ^{}\omega _\lambda O_\lambda ^{}$$
(8)
From Eq.(8) it follows that at the rotational frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{𝑐𝑟}}=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\lambda /\lambda `$ one of the RPA frequency should be equal zero. The solution of the RPA equation for the positive signature quadrupole phonons with the largest projection $`\lambda =2`$ gives

$$\omega _{\lambda =2}=\omega _{}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}(\mathrm{cos}\frac{\chi +\pi }{3}\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\chi +\pi }{3})+2\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(9)
This mode corresponds to the quadrupole de–excitation which leads to the state with two units angular momentum less then the vacuum state (K-isomer state). From Eq.(9) we obtain the first critical value of the rotational frequency at which the transition from the non-collective rotation to the non-axial collective rotation takes place

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{{}_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{}\mathrm{r}}^{(1)}=\frac{\omega _{}}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}(\mathrm{cos}\frac{\chi +\pi }{3}\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\chi +\pi }{3})$$
(10)
Therefore, the positive signature quadrupole de-excitation leads from the K-isomer state to the yrast state with non-axial quadrupole shape.

Quantum excitations describing the wobbling motion correspond to the negative signature quadrupole phonons. These excitations are connected to the yrast line by means of the quadrupole transitions which carry one unit of the angular momentum. Similar to the positive signature phonons, the negative signature phonons can have zero excitation energy at particular rotational frequency. Solution of the RPA equation for the negative signature phonons with $`\lambda =1`$ for the oblate rotation regime leads to the result

$`\omega _{\lambda =1}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _x^2+\omega _{}^2}{3}}}(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{3}}\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{3}})+\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{cos}\psi =3\sqrt{3}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _x^2\omega _{}}{(\omega _x^2+\omega _{}^2)^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r1}{1+r}}`$ (12)
The condition $`\omega _{\lambda =1}=0`$ yields the second critical frequency

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cr}}^{(2)}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _x^2+\omega _{}^2}{3}}(\mathrm{cos}\frac{\psi }{3}\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\psi }{3}).$$
(13)
Beyond this rotational frequency the mean field solution corresponds to the stable tilted rotation. We recall that the expressions given in Eqs.(10) and (13) coincide exactly with the transitional points found in the numerical minimization procedure. Note that, in contrast to the familiar phase transition from spherical to deformed shape owing to the variation of a strength parameter , it is here the rotation that leads to a phase transition from tri–axial to oblate shape and then to the tilted rotation associated again with a non–axial shape for the same strength parameter of the residual quadrupole-quadrupole interaction.

According to our analysis, only nuclei near to oblate shape, when non–rotational, exhibit at a certain rotational frequency tilted rotation which, for lesser rotational speed, leads to the high K-isomer states. These states decay through non-axial shapes to the ground states. Nuclei which are oblate when non–rotational also can have this behavior which corresponds to the second (local) minimum discussed above. However, they also have states of good signature with an even lower energy for the same rotational speed and the same configuration. In contrast, for prolate nuclei the local minimum with these characteristics occurs only at a value $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ so large that the global minimum occurs for an absurdly unphysical configuration; for this reason it is doubtful to attach particular physical significance to the local minimum.

R.G.N. acknowledges financial support from the Foundation for Research Development of South Africa which was provided under the auspices of the Russian/South African Agreement on Science and Technology. He is also thankful for the warm hospitality which he received from the Department of Physics during his visit to South Africa. W.D.H. is grateful for the congenial hospitality at the JINR. This project has been supported in part by the RFFI under the Grant 00-02-17194.

Figure Captions

Fig.1 Energy contours in the $`\omega _x\omega _y`$plane for a rotational speed where the onset of an oblate shape has just taken place and corresponds to the local minimum shown in the top. However, for the nucleus considered ($`N=44`$, tri–axial near prolate) a much deeper minimum has developed as an instability as seen in the top right corner of the bottom picture. The section of the top illustration is indicated in the bottom part.

Fig.2 Energy minimum in the $`\varphi \theta `$–plane just before (top) and just after (bottom) the onset of tilted rotation. Note the local maximum developing at the centre. The example chosen is $`N=36`$, a tri–axial near oblate nucleus.