text:
# 1 Differential distributions for the polar angle of the reconstructed 𝑍.

RAL-TR-2000-039

LC-TH-2000-047

August 2000

The implementation of the four-jet matrix elements
in HERWIG and elsewhere111Talk given at the 2nd ECFA/DESY Study on Physics and Detectors for a Linear Electron-Positron Collider, Padova, Italy, 4-8 May 2000.
S. Moretti
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX, UK.

## Abstract

The new version  of the HERWIG event generator  allows one to simulate hadronic final states in electron-positron annihilations using the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ partonic matrix elements (MEs) for $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}gg`$ and $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}Q\overline{Q}`$. The consequent phenomenology is discussed in the case of four-jet signatures of particular relevance to future electron-positron Linear Colliders (LCs), such as in Higgs boson searches. The new approach adopted in HERWIG is compared to the standard $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ description, as well as to other recently presented event generators also based on $`e^+e^{}4`$ parton MEs.

Four-jet events will play a crucial role at future LCs . Just one example is sufficient to make this point. Such machines are an ideal laboratory where to pursue studies in the Higgs sector . In this respect, it should be recalled that $`e^+e^{}4\mathrm{jet}`$ processes from QCD will represent a serious noise in the search for Higgs particles, both in the standard electroweak (EW) theory and in possible extensions. In particular, in the Standard Model (SM), the dominant Higgs production channel proceeds via the ‘bremsstrahlung’ process $`e^+e^{}HZ`$ , followed by the hadronic decay $`Hb\overline{b}`$ (in the intermediate $`M_H`$ regime), with the $`Z`$ boson going into pairs of jets about 70% of the times.

Thus, it is very important that four-jet events from QCD are correctly implemented in the Monte Carlo (MC) programs that are widely used in phenomenological studies of hadron production at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. In this connection, it has always been rather worrying that certain aspects of four-jet production were never well described by the standard ‘$`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ ME + parton shower (PS)’ MC programs. As an illustration, one may recall the four-jet studies performed by the ALEPH Collaboration at LEP1 , which had revealed a significant disagreement between data and MCs in the typical four-jet angular variables (see Ref.  for the definition and the discussion of some of their properties): (i) the Bengtsson-Zerwas angle $`\chi _{\mathrm{BZ}}`$; (ii) the Körner-Schierholz-Willrodt angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{KSW}}`$; (iii) the (modified) Nachtmann-Reiter angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{NR}}^{}`$; (iv) the angle between the two least energetic jets $`\theta _{34}`$.

In Ref. , it was argued that the discrepancy was nothing but the evidence that the standard ‘$`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ ME $`+\mathrm{PS}`$’ MCs do not provide a correct description of the spin correlations among the various partons, particularly at large jet separations. In fact, the above angular quantities are defined in terms of the three-momenta of the particles in the final state and are precisely the spins of the latter that induce very peculiar orientations in (i)–(iv). Conversely, ‘$`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ ME’ programs (for example, the ‘$`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ ME \+ string fragmentation model’ as implemented in JETSET, i.e. with no parton shower) yielded a much better angular description of four-jet final states, see Refs. . In fact, all spin correlations are naturally included in a full $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ ME calculation, but they are not necessarily present in a PS emulation based on the $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ scattering, although their availability (in the infrared limit, where soft and collinear correlations can be factorised in analytic form) is a feature of some of the above mentioned MC codes (for example, for the HERWIG implementation, see Ref. ). However, even an ‘$`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ ME \+ fragmentation’ model, without the PS evolution, is inadequate to describe QCD four-jet production in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions. The problem is that such ME models contain ‘ad-hoc’ hadronisation which is adjusted to produce a good agreement with some data , but they cannot be extrapolated to other energies. Furthermore, their description of the sub-jet structure is very poor (see Ref.  for an overview).

That such deficiencies in the description of four-jet final states could be cured by an ‘$`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ ME $`+\mathrm{PS}`$’ (plus hadronisation) approach has been clear for some time. Now, several event generators have been made available, that resort to this implementation: HERWIG 6.1 , PYTHIA 6.1 , 4JPHACT  and APACIC++ . It is the intent of this note to describe the impact that the new description of four-jet final states can have in some contexts which are particularly crucial to the physics of future LCs. To do so, we will borrow as an example the case of the HERWIG event generator, though many of its features can equally be appreciated in the case of the other MCs. Eventually, we will also highlight the differences and similarities among these various programs.

Ref.  has already made the point, for the case of LEP, that systematic differences exist between the use of the $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ and $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ MEs in the simulation of QCD four-jet events. This is true not only for the case of QCD studies (e.g., in the determination of the QCD colour factors) but also in the context of $`M_{W^\pm }`$ measurements. Here, we illustrate similar effects taking place in a higher energy environment, such as a LC operating at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV.

Before proceeding to the numerical part of our note, we would like to spend a few words about some technical aspects of the HERWIG implementation. The new process describing electron-positron annihilation into four jets can be simulated by setting IPROC=600+IQ, where a non-zero value for IQ guarantees production of quark flavour IQ whereas IQ=0 corresponds to the natural flavour mix. (IPROC=650+IQ is as above but without those terms in the MEs which orient the event with respect to (w.r.t) the lepton beam direction.) The MEs are based on those of Ref.  with orientation terms from . Infrared (soft and collinear) divergences are avoided by imposing a minimum separation among the four partons (hereafter, denoted by $`y_{\mathrm{inf}}`$Y4JT in the code, by default equal to $`0.01`$). At present, the jet separation is calculated using either the Durham or Jade metrics (see, e.g. Ref. , for definitions and a review on jet clustering algorithms). This choice is governed by the logical variable DURHAM (whose default is .TRUE.). Note that the phase space is for massless partons, as are the MEs, though a mass threshold cut is applied. The scale EMSCA for the parton showers is set equal to $`\sqrt{sy_{\mathrm{min}}}`$, where $`y_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the least distance, according to the selected metric, between any two partons. Finally, the jet resolution $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ – used to select a multi-jet final state – should be chosen such that it is always larger than $`y_{\mathrm{inf}}`$.

An ambiguity arises in the treatment of interference terms between diagrams with different colour structures. In fact, apart from the trivial case $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}Q\overline{Q}`$, with $`qQ`$, the MEs for $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}gg`$ and $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$ (i.e. $`q=Q`$) receive contributions from two distinct colour flows each. In general, the interference terms between the latter are not positive definite and a choice has to be made, on how to assign them to one or the other of the two leading colour contributions (although suppressed by $`1/N_C^2`$ w.r.t. the latter, they cannot be neglected without inducing sizable effects in both total and differential rates). For illustration, we describe here the treatment adopted in HERWIG for $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}gg`$ and refer the reader to the forthcoming new HERWIG manual  (see also ) for details on the $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$ subprocess. Things go as follows. Two-quark-two-gluon final states are produced via the following eight Feynman graphs (here, 5 labels the $`e^+e^{}\gamma ,Z`$ current):

$`T_1=\text{}T_2=\text{}T_3=\text{}`$
$`T_4=\text{}T_5=\text{}T_6=\text{}`$
$`T_7=\text{}T_8=\text{}`$
(1)
The two aforementioned colour flows are identified by the terms proportional to $`(t^At^B)_{i_3i_4}`$ and $`(t^Bt^A)_{i_3i_4}`$, where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are the colours of the gluons labelled $`1`$ and $`2`$, respectively. In fact, it should be recalled that the colour pieces associated with the triple-gluon vertices are nothing but the structure constants $`f^{ABX}`$ of the $`SU(N_C)`$ gauge group, for which

$$[t^A,t^B]_{i_3i_4}(t^At^B)_{i_3i_4}(t^Bt^A)_{i_3i_4}=\mathrm{i}f^{ABX}t_{i_3i_4}^X,$$
(2)
$`X`$ being the label of the intermediate gluon and $`i_3,i_4`$ the outgoing quark colour indices. Therefore, one can conveniently group the original eight Feynman amplitudes as

$$M_+=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}T_i+\underset{i=7}{\overset{8}{}}T_i,M_{}=\underset{i=4}{\overset{6}{}}T_i\underset{i=7}{\overset{8}{}}T_i.$$
(3)
The two positive definite contributions $`N_+`$ and $`N_{}`$ corresponding to the two fundamental colour connections needed for the interface to the HERWIG parton shower (see Ref. ) can, for example, be obtained as:

$$N_+=D(|M_+|^2\frac{1}{N_C^2}|M_++M_{}|^2\frac{|M_+|^2}{|M_+|^2+|M_{}|^2}),$$

$$N_{}=D(|M_{}|^2\frac{1}{N_C^2}|M_++M_{}|^2\frac{|M_{}|^2}{|M_+|^2+|M_{}|^2}),$$
(4)
where the colour pre-factor is ($`N_C=3`$)

$$D=\frac{N_C}{4}(N_C^21),$$
(5)
so that the total squared amplitude can be recovered from

$$M^2(q\overline{q}gg)=\underset{i=\pm }{}N_i.$$
(6)
In the right-hand sides of eq. (4), the first terms are the ‘planar’ whereas the second are the ‘non-planar’ ones . Here, $`N_+`$ would correspond to the $`t`$-channel colour flow $`(42,21,13)`$ and $`N_{}`$ to the $`u`$-channel one $`(41,12,23)`$, that is, 2413 and 4123 in the notation of Ref. . This is the default procedure adopted in HERWIG 6.1 that we have maintained in our analysis (see Ref.  for other possible choices).

Several kinematic quantities can be used to disentangle Higgs events from the backgrounds at a LC. One example is the polar angle of the reconstructed $`Z`$ boson. In fact, in the case of the signal, one expects the gauge vector to be very central, owning to the $`s`$-channel and spin dynamics of the Higgs process . In contrast, no such a behaviour would appear in the QCD noise. Fig. 1 shows this variable as obtained by using $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ (from HERWIG 5.9, IPROC=105) and $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ (from HERWIG 6.1, IPROC=605) MEs, supplemented by the subsequent PS and the hadronisation stage. The four-jet final state has been selected by using the Durham (D) jet-clustering algorithm with resolution $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.001`$222Notice that exactly four jets are required to be reconstructed at hadron level. To allow for $`n4`$ jets in the final state (eventually clustered into four) would not alter our conclusions. Note that we use the so-called E recombination scheme: two tracks are clustered by summing their four-momenta.. Furthermore, we have imposed that one pair of jets reproduce the $`Z`$ mass within 10 GeV, i.e. $`|M_{\mathrm{jj}}M_Z|<10`$ GeV, as illustration of a typical selection procedure of $`e^+e^{}HZ4\mathrm{jet}`$ events. These are the two jets that we will consider to be produced in the $`Z`$ 2 jet decay. For reference, we also have superimposed the same angular spectrum as obtained from the Higgs process, again generated by using HERWIG (IPROC=305). As self-evident from the choice of the IPROC numbers, we always require two $`b`$-jets in the final state, for both QCD and Higgs processes. The HERWIG default choice $`M_H=150`$ GeV is used for the SM Higgs mass. Also notice that we normalise the cross sections of all processes to unity. In other terms, we implicitly assume that the two QCD descriptions produce the same event rate, for a given choice of $`\alpha _s`$, jet-clustering scheme and $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. In reality, there exist differences in the total production rates between the two QCD implementations, that could be source of further systematic uncertainties. However, we leave these aside for the time being, as we only concentrate on the kinematic effects. It is clear from Fig. 1 that not only the two QCD descriptions show significant differences between each other in the polar angle distribution of the di-jet system emulating a $`Z`$ decay, but these also persist where the Higgs process accumulates. Similar effects can be appreciated in the distribution of the relative angle between the two jets reconstructing the gauge vector, see Fig. 2. This quantity too is used in the selection of Higgs events at a LC . Thus, although the behaviour of the two QCD implementations is rather similar in the vicinity of the Higgs peak, see Fig. 3, the effect of cuts enforced on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{beam}}`$ and/or $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{jj}}`$ can be dramatically different for the actual number of background events falling around $`M_{\mathrm{recoil}}M_H`$. This can be appreciated in Tab. 1.

As mentioned earlier on, at least three other MCs exist that have the option of generating multi-jet final states starting from the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ MEs. Among these, we consider here PYTHIA 6.1 and 4JPHACT. The former makes use of the same (massless) MEs implemented in HERWIG (with a similar approximate procedure to account for mass effects ), the main differences being in the treatment of the PS and hadronisation. The latter, while using showering and fragmentation dynamics borrowed from PYTHIA, employs the fully massive MEs of Ref.  and a massive four-body phase space as well. A comparison among these MCs has been performed by Silvia Bravo for ALEPH and we present here just a selection of the results she obtained333Others can be found at http://www.pd.infn.it/ecfa/.. This is done in Fig. 4, where the $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ dependence of the four-jet rates (all flavour combinations), as obtained in the three MC environments, is presented at three different stages. First, at the four-parton level before showering effects, then after the latter have taken place, finally after hadronisation. The comparison is performed at $`\sqrt{s}=M_Z`$ and exactly four jets are required to be selected by the Durham jet finder (using E-scheme recombination), for a given $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ value. Normalisation is to the number of generated events: 1,000,000 in each case. The overall agreement is quite good, particularly at the experimentally more relevant hadron level. In the end, systematic errors induced by the different treatment of MEs, phase space, PS and hadronisation in the three MCs are typically much smaller than those between any $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ description and the standard $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ ones.

In summary, we have shown that there exist sizable differences in the MC simulation of key LC phenomenology in four-jet final states, depending upon whether $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}g`$ or $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}gg`$ plus $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}Q\overline{Q}`$ partonic scatterings are used to initiate the PS of the event generator. However, several reliable MC programs exist by now, each exploiting a different implementation of either approach. Thus, new, more sophisticated analyses of four-jet events will soon be available, these allowing one to pin down to even better accuracy the physic potential of a future $`e^+e^{}`$ collider operating at the near-TeV scale.

Before concluding, we would like to briefly remark on other aspects that enter the description of hadronic final states with arbitrary jet multiplicity, that were beyond the scope of this note. Here, we have been concerned with what we should like to call the procedure of ‘interfacing’ MEs to the subsequent PS, that is, of generating hadronic events through higher-order MEs, but limiting the event generation to a phase space region where the former are reliable, without any attempt to resort to the latter otherwise. In fact, another important issue is that of ‘matching’ MEs and PS, by which we mean the procedure of exploiting a combined approach that uses MEs for large phase space separations, PS in the infrared limit and modified MEs (by Sudakov form factors) in the overlapping region . This is what is currently done within the APACIC++ event generator , which uses exact leading-order (LO) MEs for $`e^+e^{}n\mathrm{partons}`$, with $`n5`$444A similar implementation, for $`n4`$, is also provided in the HERWIG context .. Note that the procedure of Ref.  is correct to next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) accuracy and could possibly be extended to next-to-leading order (NLO) as well . The interface/matching to the PS of higher-order MEs including loops  (hence, generating negative weights) remains instead a challenge for the future . Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Silvia Bravo for the kind permission to reproduce here some of her unpublished material. Useful conversation with A. Ballestrero, M.H. Seymour, T. Sjöstrand and B.R. Webber are also acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Fate of Chiral Symmetries in Supersymmetric Quantum Chromodynamics *footnote **footnote *Talk given by M.Y. at XXXth International Conference on High Energy Physics, July 27-August 2, 2000, Osaka, Japan

## I Prologue

In supersymmetric quantum chromodynamics (SQCD) with $`N_c`$-colors and $`N_f`$-flavors of quarks, we have chiral $`SU(N_f)`$ symmetry. At low energies, we have its dynamical breakdown to vectorial $`SU(N_f)`$ symmetry, for $`N_f`$ $``$ $`N_c`$. For remaining cases, we have restoration of chiral $`SU(N_f)`$ symmetry including the case with $`N_f`$ = $`N_c`$. For $`N_f`$ $``$ $`N_c`$+2, we need $`\mathrm{}`$magnetic” degrees of freedom, namely, $`\mathrm{}`$magnetic” quarks. And, especially, for $`3N_c`$/2 $`<`$ $`N_f`$ $`<`$ 3$`N_c`$, the well-defined $`N`$ = 2 duality supports this description based on the $`N`$ = 1 duality.

In this talk, I will add the $`\mathrm{}`$electric” description expressed in terms of mesons and baryons instead of $`\mathrm{}`$magnetic” quarks to SQCD with $`N_c`$+2 $``$ $`N_f`$ $``$ 3$`N_c`$/2. In the $`\mathrm{}`$electric” phase, however, since anomaly-matching is not satisfied, we expect spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetries. The residual symmetries will include vectorial $`SU(N_c)`$ symmetry and chiral $`SU(N_fN_c)`$ symmetry, which are found by inspecting vacuum structure of our effective superpotential to be discussed.

## II Anomalous $`U(1)`$ Symmetry and Superpotential

We follow the classic procedure to construct our effective superpotential, which explicitly uses $`S`$ composed of two chiral gauge superfields. We impose on the superpotential the relation: $`\delta `$ $``$ $`F^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ under the anomalous $`U(1)`$ transformation, where $``$ represents the lagrangian of SQCD and $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F^{\rho \sigma }`$) is a gluon’s field strength. As a result, the anomalous $`U(1)`$-term is reproduced by the $`F`$-term of $`S`$.

We find a superpotential, where mesons and baryons are denoted by $`T`$, $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$:

$`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`S\{\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{S^{N_cN_f}\mathrm{det}\left(T\right)f(Z)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_cN_f}}}\right]`$ (2)
$`+N_fN_c\}`$
with an arbitrary function, $`f(Z)`$, to be determined, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the scale of SQCD and $`Z`$ is defined by (with abbreviated notations) $`BT^{N_fN_c}\overline{B}/\mathrm{det}(T)`$. This is the superpotential to be examined. It looks familiar to you except for the function $`f(Z)`$ here. In the classical limit, $`Z`$ is equal to one and the function $`f(Z)`$ can be parametrized by $`f(Z)`$ = $`\left(1Z\right)^\rho `$, where $`\rho `$ is a positive parameter. The parameter $`\rho `$ is probably equal to 1. If $`\rho `$ = 1, we recover the superpotential for $`N_f`$ = $`N_c`$+1 given by $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ = $`S\{\mathrm{ln}[(det(T)`$-$`BT\overline{B})/S\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_cN_f}]`$ \+ $`1\}`$.

## III Strategy

To examine dynamical properties of our superpotential, we

1. first go to slightly broken SUSY vacuum, where symmetry behavior of the superpotential is more visible.
2. use universal scalar masses of $`\mu _L`$ and $`\mu _R`$, which respect global symmetry and only break SUSY.
3. check the consistency with SQCD in its SUSY limit, after determining the SUSY-broken vacuum.

The SQCD defined in the SUSY limit of the so-obtained SUSY-broken SQCD should exhibit the consistent anomaly-matching property and yield the compatible result with instanton calculus.

Let $`\pi _i`$ be $`0|T_i^i|0`$, $`\pi _\lambda `$ be $`0|S|0`$ and $`z`$ be $`0|Z|0`$. Since the dynamics requires that some of the $`\pi `$ acquire non-vanishing VEV’s, suppose that one of the $`\pi _i`$ ($`i`$=1 $``$ $`N_f`$) develops a VEV, and let this be labeled by $`i`$ = $`1`$: $`|\pi _1|`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. This VEV is determined by solving $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}/\pi _i`$ = 0, yielding

$`G_TW_{\mathrm{eff};a}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _\lambda }{\pi _a}}\left(1\alpha \right)=G_SW_{\mathrm{eff};\lambda }^{}\left(1\alpha \right)`$ (4)
$`+\beta X+M^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _a}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right|^2,\left(a=1N_c\right),`$
where $`\alpha `$ = $`zf^{}(z)/f(z)`$; $`\beta `$ = $`z\alpha ^{}`$; $`M^2`$ = $`\mu _L^2`$ \+ $`\mu _R^2`$ \+ $`G_T^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2_{i=1}^{N_f}\left|W_{\mathrm{eff};i}\right|^2`$; $`X`$ = $`G_T_{a=1}^{N_c}W_{\mathrm{eff};a}^{}\left(\pi _\lambda /\pi _a\right)G_B_{x=B,\overline{B}}W_{\mathrm{eff};x}^{}`$ $`\left(\pi _\lambda /\pi _x\right)`$; $`W_{\mathrm{eff};\mathrm{i}(\lambda )}`$ = $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}/\pi _{i(\lambda )}`$; $`G`$’s come from field-dependent K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler potentials. The SUSY breaking effect is specified by $`(\mu _L^2+\mu _R^2)|\pi _1|^2`$ through $`M^2`$ because of $`\pi _1`$ $``$ 0.

Without knowing the details of solutions to these equations, we can find that

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _a}{\pi _1}}\right|^2=1+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}(\left|\pi _1\right|^2\left|\pi _a\right|^2)}{G_SW_{\mathrm{eff};\lambda }^{}\left(1\alpha \right)+\frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\left|\pi _a\right|^2+\beta X}},`$ (5)
which cannot be satisfied by $`\pi _{a1}`$ = 0. In fact, $`\pi _{a1}`$ = $`\pi _1`$ is a solution to this problem, leading to $`|\pi _a|`$ = $`|\pi _1|`$. Then, you can see the emergence of the vectorial $`SU(N_c)`$ symmetry.

## IV Symmetry Breaking

Using the input of $`|\pi _{i=1N_c}|`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^2`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ just obtained, we reach the solutions given by $`|\pi _B|`$ = $`|\pi _{\overline{B}}|`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B^{N_c}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{N_c}`$, $`|\pi _{i=N_c+1N_f}|`$ = $`ϵ|\pi _{1N_c}|`$ and $`|\pi _\lambda |`$ $``$ $`ϵ^{1+\frac{\rho }{N_fN_c}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$. Notice that $`\pi _i`$ ($`i`$ = $`N_c`$+1 $``$ $`N_f`$) and $`\pi _\lambda `$ accompany the factor $`ϵ`$. This parameter $`ϵ`$, defined to be $`|1z|`$, measures the SUSY breaking effect. So, taking the SUSY limit with $`ϵ`$ $``$ 0, we reach the SUSY vacuum specified by these VEV’s. The solutions clearly show the presence of vectorial $`SU(N_c)`$ symmetry and chiral $`SU(N_fN_c)`$ symmetry. The resulting breaking pattern is described by $`G`$ = $`SU(N_f)_L`$ $`\times `$ $`SU(N_f)_R`$ $`\times `$ $`U(1)_V`$ $`\times `$ $`U(1)_A`$ down to $`H`$ = $`SU(N_c)_{L+R}`$ $`\times `$ $`SU(N_fN_c)_L`$ $`\times `$ $`SU(N_fN_c)_R`$ $`\times `$ $`U(1)_V^{}`$ $`\times `$ $`U(1)_A^{}`$.

We find consistent anomaly-matching property due to the emergence of the Nambu-Goldstone superfields associated with $`G`$ $``$ $`H`$, where massless bosons responsible for the anomalies of the broken part, $`G/H`$, and massless fermions for those of the unbroken part, $`H`$. Therefore, the anomaly-matching is a purely dynamical consequence. We have further checked that our superpotential is consistent with holomorphic decoupling and instanton calculus for SQCD with $`N_f`$ = $`N_c`$ reproduced by massive quarks with flavors of $`SU(N_fN_c)`$. The detailed description can be found in the literature.

## V Summary

Dynamical breakdown of chiral symmetries are shown to be determined by the effective superpotential: $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ = $`S`$ $`\{\mathrm{ln}[`$ $`S^{N_cN_f}`$ $`\mathrm{det}(T)`$ $`f(Z)`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{N_f3N_c}]`$ \+ $`N_fN_c\}`$ with $`f(Z)`$ dynamically determined to be $`\left(1Z\right)^\rho `$ ($`\rho `$ $`>`$ 0), It will be realized at least in SQCD with $`N_c`$+2 $``$ $`N_f`$ $``$ 3$`N_c`$/2. This superpotential exhibits

1. holomorphic decoupling property,
2. spontaneously breakdown of chiral $`SU(N_c)`$ symmetry and restoration of chiral $`SU(N_fN_c)`$ symmetry described by $`SU(N_f)_L\times SU(N_f)_R\times U(1)_V\times U(1)_ASU(N_c)_{L+R}\times SU(N_fN_c)_L\times SU(N_fN_c)_R\times U(1)_V^{}\times U(1)_A^{}`$,
3. consistent anomaly-matching property due to the emergence of the Nambu-Goldstone superfields, and
4. correct vacuum structure for $`N_f`$ = $`N_c`$ reproduced by instanton contributions when all quarks with flavors of $`SU(N_fN_c)`$ become massive.

In this end, we have two phases in SQCD: one with chiral $`SU(N_f)`$ symmetry for $`\mathrm{}`$magnetic” quarks and the other with spontaneously broken chiral $`SU(N_f)`$ symmetry for the Nambu-Goldstone superfields. This situation can be compared with the case in the ordinary QCD with two flavors: one with proton and neutron and the other with pions.

Finally, I mention related three works here, which are characterized by

* Dynamical evaluations of condensates,
* Instable SUSY vacuum in the ”magnetic” phase,
* Slightly different effective superpotential in the ”electric” phase.

All these works indicate spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in the $`\mathrm{}`$electric” phase.


text:
# Hybrid quantum computing

## Abstract

Necessary and sufficient conditions are given for the construction of a hybrid quantum computer that operates on both continuous and discrete quantum variables. Such hybrid computers are shown to be more efficient than conventional quantum computers for performing a variety of quantum algorithms, such as computing eigenvectors and eigenvalues.

Quantum computers are devices that process information in a way that preserves quantum coherence ,  The most common model of quantum computation deals with coherent logical operations on two-state quantum variables known as qubits. Quantum computation can also be performed on variables with three or more states, and is well-defined even when the underlying degrees of freedom are continuous . This paper investigates hybrid quantum computers that operate on both discrete and continuous quantum variables. It is shown that a simple set of operations (hybrid quantum logic gates) can be used to approximate arbitrary tranformations of the variables. Hybrid versions of quantum algorithms are discussed and a hybrid version of an algorithm for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors is presented. Hybrid quantum algorithms can have a number of advantages over conventional quantum algorithms, including lower computational complexity and an enhanced resistance to noise and decoherence.

The primary reason for investigating hybrid quantum computers is that nature contains both discrete quantum variables such as nuclear spins, photon polarizations, and atomic energy levels, and continuous variables such as position, momentum, and the quadrature amplitudes of the electromagnetic field. In conventional quantum computation, continuous variables are something of a nuisance: either they figure as sources of noise and decoherence, as in the case of environmental baths of harmonic oscillators, or they must be restricted to a discrete set of states by cooling, as in the case of the oscillatory modes of ions in ion-trap quantum computers. In hybrid quantum computation, by contrast, the full range of continuous quantum variables can be put to use.

The basic model for performing quantum computation using a hybrid of continuous and discrete variables follows the normal model for performing quantum computation using discrete or continuous variables on their own. Assume that one has the ability to ‘turn on’ and ‘turn off’ the members of a set Hamiltonian operators $`\{\pm H_j\}`$, corresponding to the ability to apply unitary transformations of the form $`e^{\pm iH_jt}`$. The set of transformations that can be constructed in this fashion is the set of transformations of the form $`e^{iHt}`$ where $`H`$ is a member of the algebra generated from the $`H_j`$ via commutation: i.e., since $`e^{iH_2t}e^{iH_1t}e^{iH_2t}e^{iH_1t}=e^{[H_1,H_2]t^2}+O(t^3)`$, the ability to turn on and turn off $`\pm H_1`$ and $`\pm H_2`$ allows one effectively to turn on and off $`H=\pm i[H_1,H_2]`$, etc. Transformations of the form $`e^{iHt}`$ for non-inifinitesimal $`t`$ can then be built up from infinitesimal transformations to any desired degree of accuracy.

For the sake of ease of exposition, concentrate here on discrete variables (qubits) that are spins, characterized by the usual Pauli operators $`\sigma _x,\sigma _y,\sigma _z`$ and to continuous variables (qunats) that are harmonic oscillators characterized by the usual annihilation and creation operators $`a,a^{}`$ ($`[a,a^{}]=1`$), and by the ‘position’ and ‘momentum’ operators $`X=(a+a^{})/2`$, $`P=(aa^{})/2i`$, ($`[X,P]=i`$). It is convenient to think of the harmonic oscillators as modes of the electromagnetic field with $`X`$ and $`P`$ proportional to the quadrature amplitudes of the mode. The generalization to discrete variables with more than two states and to other forms of continuous variable is straightforward and will be discussed below.

To perform quantum computations one must be able to prepare one’s variables in a desired state, perform quantum logic operations, and read out the results. Assume that it is possible to prepare the discrete variables in the state $`|0|_z`$, and the continuous variables in the vacuum state $`|0`$: $`a|0=0`$. Assume that it is possible to measure $`\sigma _z`$ for the discrete variables and $`X`$ for the continuous variables.

Now look at performing transformations of the variables. Begin with just a pair — one spin and one oscillator. Suppose that one can turn on and turn off the Hamiltonians

$$\{\pm \sigma _xX,\pm \sigma _zX,\pm \sigma _zP\},$$
(1)
As will now be seen, the ability to turn on and off Hamiltonians from this set allows one to enact Hamiltonians that are arbitrary polynomials of the $`\sigma `$’s, $`X`$ and $`P`$. Note that these Hamiltonians all represent interactions between qubits and oscillators: this is physically realistic in the sense that transformations on physical spins or atoms are accomplished by making the spins interact with the electromagnetic field, and vice versa. In physically realizable situations, such as the ion traps and optical cavities discussed below, the interactions in 1 are turned on and off by applying laser or microwave pulses to couple discrete to continuous degrees of freedom.

Now investigate what can be accomplished by turning on and off these interactions. If the spin is prepared in the state $`|0`$, then turning on the Hamiltonian $`\sigma _zP`$ is equivalent to turning on the Hamiltonian $`P`$ for the oscillator on its own. The Hamiltonian $`X`$ can be turned on in a similar fashion. In order to apply this Hamiltonian for a finite amount of time, the spin must be constantly reprepared in the state $`|0`$ or new spins in this state must be supplied. This operation allows the construction of coherent states of the oscillator.

Now start constructing effective Hamiltonians by the method of commutation above. Since $`i[P,\sigma _xX]=\sigma _x`$, we can effectively turn on the Hamiltonian $`\sigma _x`$. Similarly for the Hamiltonian $`\pm i[P,\sigma _zX]=\pm \sigma _z`$. And since $`i[\sigma _z,\sigma _x]=2\sigma _y`$, any single qubit transformation $`e^{i\sigma t}SU(2)`$ can be enacted by turning on and off Hamiltonians in the set. Since $`i[\sigma _zP,\sigma _zX]=2`$, an arbitrary overall phase can also be turned on and off. That is, we can enact arbitrary single qubit transformations.

Now systematically build up higher order transformations. Since $`i[\sigma _zX,\sigma _xX]=2\sigma _yX^2`$, and $`i[\sigma _yX^2,\sigma _xX]=2\sigma _zX^3`$, etc., we can effectively turn on and off Hamiltonians of the form $`\sigma X^n`$, for arbitrary $`\sigma `$, $`n`$. Similarly, we can turn on and off Hamiltonians of the form $`\sigma P^n`$. By preparing the spin in the state $`|0`$ and turning on and off the Hamiltonians $`\sigma _zX^m`$, $`\sigma _zP^n`$, we can enact single oscillator transformations corresponding to Hamiltonians that are arbitrary Hermitian polynomials in $`X`$ and $`P`$. (Not all such Hamiltonians are bounded. Nonetheless, one can build up infinitesimal versions of such Hamiltonians and apply them for finite time to states for which they are bounded.)

So the simple set of Hamiltonians above allows the construction of arbitrary single qubit transformations and arbitrary polynomial transformations of the continuous variable, along with arbitrary interactions between the spin and the oscillator. Let us now look at more than one spin and one oscillator.

Since $`i[\sigma _z^1P,\sigma _z^2X]=\sigma _z^1\sigma _z^2`$, we can turn on the interaction Hamiltonian $`\sigma _z^1\sigma _z^2`$ between two spins $`1`$ and $`2`$ by making them both interact with the same oscillator. But the ability to turn on this Hamiltonian together with the ability to turn on arbitrary single-spin Hamiltonian translates into the ability to perform arbitrary transformations on sets of spins: that is, one can perform arbitrary quantum logic operations on the qubits alone.

Similarly, since $`i[\sigma _yX_1,\sigma _xX_2]=2\sigma _zX_1X_2`$, the ability to make two oscillators interact with the same spin, initially in the state $`|0`$, allows one to turn on the Hamiltonian $`X_1X_2`$ between the two oscillators $`1`$ and $`2`$. But this ability, together with the ability to turn on single oscillator Hamiltonians that are arbitrary Hermitian polynomials in $`X`$ and $`P`$, translates into the ability to turn on Hamiltonians that are arbitrary Hermitian polynomials of $`X_i,P_i`$ for all the oscillators together. So one can perform universal quantum computation on the continuous variables on their own.

Continuing with constructing Hamiltonians via commutation, the ability to prepare the $`|0`$ states for spins and oscillators, together with the ability to turn on and off the simple set 1 of Hamiltonians given above, allows one to effectively turn on and off Hamiltonians that are arbitrary Hermitian polynomials in $`1,\sigma _x^j,\sigma _y^j,\sigma _z^j,X_k^m,P_k^n`$. That is, one can perform universal quantum computation on the hybrid quantum computer.

How might such a hybrid quantum computer be realized? As it turns out, many existing designs for quantum computers are easily modified to perform hybrid quantum computation. For example, ion trap quantum computers  operate by coupling together the internal states of ions in an ion trap (qubits) via their motional state (harmonic oscillators). Existing schemes for performing quantum computation using ion traps only use the ground and first excited state of the oscillator corresponding to the fundamental mode of the ions in the trap, effectively treating the oscillator as a qubit. But the same methods that are used to couple the ions to the oscillator can just as well be used to apply the Hamiltonians in the set 1 above. An ion trap with many ions has many modes, each of which can be used as a continuous variable in the hybrid quantum computation. Similarly, the Pellizzari scheme for coupling together trapped atoms (qubits) via a cavity mode of the electromagnetic field can readily be altered to use the quadrature amplitudes of the modes of the cavity, rather than simply using the lowest two energy eigenstates of a mode as a qubit . Other potential continuous variables that might be used for hybrid quantum computation are the translational states of atoms in a Bose condensate, the continuum states of electrons in semiconductors, or the state of a Josephson junction circuit. Essentially any hybrid system that affords precise control over the interactions between discrete and continuous variables is a good candidate for a hybrid quantum computer.

An important concern in the construction of hybrid quantum computers is the problem of noise and decoherence. At first it might seem that continuous variables are likely to be more susceptible to noise than discrete variables. It is indeed true that more things can go wrong with a continuous variable than with a discrete variable. However, quantum error correction routines for continuous variables have been developed and require no greater overhead than those for discrete variables. Although these routines are not yet technologically practical on existing devices, it may well be that improved versions of these routines combined with existing discrete quantum error correction routines will allow efficient quantum error correction for hybrid devices. In addition, as noted above, hybrid devices have the advantage that they include in the computation states and degrees of freedom that would normally be sources of noise, decoherence, and loss.

Now turn to applications of hybrid quantum computers. Where does the ability to perform manipulations of continuous variables as well as qubits give an advantage? The first point to note in constructing hybrid algorithms is that we must be careful to assume physically reasonable uses of hybrid variables—i.e., uses that do not require infinite or exponentially high precision. Even in the classical case, the use of continuous variables can give remarkable computational speed ups (the ability to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time, the ability to find the the answer to uncomputable problems in finite time, etc.) if one allows arbitrary precision in manipulating and measuring continuous variables. By giving an explicit construction of the operations that can be used to perform continuous variable and hybrid quantum computation, however, we have implicitly avoided the use of infinite or excessive precision: all such operations would require infinite or excessive computational resources to construct, manipulate, and measure the desired over-precise states.

With this caveat in mind, turn to the operations that are relatively easy to perform using continuous quantum variables. A particularly useful subroutine in a variety of quantum algorithms is the quantum Fourier transform: $`|x_{y=1}^qe^{ixy}|y`$. In the case of discrete quantum variables the quantum Fourier transform on $`N`$ qubits takes on the order of $`N`$ quantum logic operations to perform. Although this is an efficient algorithm it is nonetheless difficult at present to perform quantum Fourier transforms on more than a few qubits (the current record is three). By contrast, in the case of the continuous quantum variables $`X`$ and $`P`$, the quantum Fourier transform is trivial. If the eigenstates of $`X`$ with eigenvalue $`x`$ are written $`|x`$, then the eigenstates of $`P`$ with eigenvalue $`p`$ can be written $`|p=(1/\sqrt{2\pi })_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{ipx}|x𝑑x`$. That is, the eigenstates of $`P`$ are the quantum Fourier transform of the eigenstates of $`X`$. Applying the Hamiltonian $`X^2+P^2`$ for a period of time $`\pi /2`$ takes $`XP`$ and performs the Fourier transform. The quantum Fourier transform on a continuous variable is accomplished by a single-step operation. The ease of performing the quantum Fourier transform on continuous variables suggests that in devising algorithms for hybrid quantum computers we look for problems in which the quantum Fourier transform plays a central role.

Perhaps the best known quantum algorithm in which the quantum Fourier transform plays a central role is Shor’s algorithm for factoring large numbers. Setting aside the difficulty of performing the other operations in this algorithm (such as modular exponentiation), it is immediately clear that using a continuous variable as the register on which to perform the quantum Fourier transform in Shor’s algorithm would require an exponentially high precision in the preparation and manipulation of the continuous variable. (Hybrid quantum computation might still be used to speed up some aspects of Shor’s algorithm; this possibility will be investigated elsewhere.)

A second problem in which the quantum Fourier transform plays a key role is that of simulating the dynamics of quantum systems . Comparison with  shows that the ability of hybrid quantum computers to turn on and off simple Hamiltonians involving a few discrete and a few continuous variables at a time translates into the ability to perform efficient quantum simulations of hybrid systems.

A particularly valuable type of quantum simulation is one that allows the computation of spectra: using methods developed in  Abrams and Lloyd have developed algorithms for computing eigenvalues and eigenvectors of quantum systems and for obtaining improved estimates of the ground state. In its original discrete form, the algorithm is somewhat involved. However, the fact that quantum Fourier transforms are straightforward to perform on continuous variables makes the Abrams-Lloyd algorithm particularly simple in the case of hybrid quantum computation. Here we show how to perform a quantum computation that computes the eigenvectors of a hybrid system and that writes the eigenvalues of the system onto a register consisting of a single continuous variable. The algorithm is a hybrid version of the discrete algorithms proposed in  and is closest in form to the discrete algorithm proposed in  for simulating von Neumann measurements on a quantum computer. Independently, Travaglione and Milburn  have shown how methods of hybrid quantum computation can be used to compute the eigenvectors of a continuous system and write the eigenvalues onto a discrete register.

First, prepare a single continuous variable such as a mode of the electromagnetic field in the squeezed state $`|x=0=(1/\sqrt{2\pi })_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|p𝑑p`$. In any practical experiment, of course, such perfectly squeezed states are unavailable. Imperfectly squeezed or unsqueezed states will also work, however. As discussed below, the effect of imperfect squeezing is to decrease the resolution to which the spectrum can be obtained. Prepare a second system in the state $`|\psi `$ whose decomposition into energy eigenstates $`|\psi =_i\psi _i|E_i`$ one wishes to obtain. Here we assume that the system is discrete; in general, however, system may be continuous, discrete, or a hybrid of continuous and discrete variables.

Next, using the methods of hybrid quantum computation described above, couple the system to the continuous variable via the coupling Hamiltonian $`HP`$, where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian whose eigenvalues and eigenvectors are to be obtained. For $`H`$ to be efficiently simulatable, it must be equal to $`_kH_k`$, where each $`H_k`$ acts on only a few variables at a time. Since $`HP=_kH_kP`$, if $`H`$ is efficiently simulatable, so is $`HP`$, by the methods of hybrid quantum computation described above. Writing $`H=_jE_j|E_jE_j|`$, the time evolution of the state of the system and the continuous variable is

$`|\psi |x=0`$ (2)
$``$ $`e^{iHPt}|\psi |x=0`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`e^{i_jE_j|E_jE_j|Pt}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\psi _j|E_j|x=0`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}e^{iE_jtP}\psi _j|E_j|x=0`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\psi _i|E_j|x=E_jt,`$ (6)
since $`e^{iPt}|x=|x+t`$. Clearly, at this point, a measurement of the variable $`X`$ on the continuous variable will yield the result $`x=tE_i`$ with probability $`\psi _i`$, leaving the system in the state $`|E_i=x/t`$. That is, one can sample the spectral decomposition of $`|\psi `$, obtaining the eigenvalues $`E_i`$ together with their corresponding weights $`|\psi _i|^2`$ and eigenvectors $`|E_i`$. The process is highly efficient, requiring only the ability to prepare the initial squeezed state $`|x=0`$ and to apply the Hamiltonian $`HP`$.

The hybrid eigenvalue and eigenvector finding algorithm using a continuous variable to register the eigenvalue is more efficient than the corresponding algorithm using qubits to register the eigenvalue. Since the quantum Fourier transform is performed implicitly in the continuous register, fewer steps are required in the hybrid algorithm. In addition, unlike the conventional version of the algorithm, the hybrid version is insensitive to approximate decoherence of the register in the course of the computation: measuring the value $`x`$ of the register in the course of the coupling does not affect the ability of the algorithm to find eigenvectors and eigenvalues.

The requirement that the initial state of the continuous variable be perfectly squeezed can also be relaxed. Suppose that the initial state is in a Gaussian state $`e^{\beta x^2/2}|x𝑑x`$. For example, $`\beta =1`$ gives the unsqueezed $`n=0`$ vacuum state, while $`\beta >1`$ gives partial squeezing in $`X`$. With this initial state for the continuous variable, after the algorithm has been run, the continuous variable and the system are in the state

$$\underset{j}{}e^{\beta x^2/2}|E_j|x+E_jt𝑑x.$$
(7)
That is, the eigenvalues and eigenvectors are resolved to within an accuracy $`1/t\sqrt{\beta }`$. By coupling the system to the continuous variable for a sufficiently long time, the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of $`H`$ may be determined to an arbitrary degree of accuracy, even when the initial state is unsqueezed. Note that resolving the eigenvalues of a system with an exponentially large number of states requires exponential squeezing of the pointer state. But as noted in , this algorithm still provides a potentially exponential speedup over classical algorithms even when the eigenvalues are not determined to an exponential degree of accuracy.

Hybrid quantum computers are devices that perform quantum computations using both discrete variables such as spins and continuous variable such as position and momentum, or the quadrature amplitudes of the electromagnetic field. Hybrid quantum computation represents a natural extension of quantum computation using quantum bits alone: as the example of finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors presented here shows, hybrid quantum computations can be more efficient and less sensitive to noise and decoherence than conventional quantum computations. Nature supplies us with both discrete and continuous quantum variables: it is advantageous to use them.

This work was supported by DARPA/ARO under the QUIC initiative.
slloyd@mit.edu


text:
# Direct Observation of the Quantum Energy Gap in 𝑆=1/2 Tetragonal Cuprate Antiferromagnets

\[

## Abstract

Using an electron spin resonance spectrometer covering a wide range of frequency and magnetic field, we have measured the low energy excitations of the $`S`$=$`\frac{1}{2}`$ tetragonal antiferromagnets, Sr2CuO2Cl2 and Sr2Cu3O4Cl2. Our observation of in-plane energy gaps of order 0.1 meV at zero external magnetic field are consistent with a spin wave calculation, which includes several kinds of quantum fluctuations that remove frustration. Results agree with other experiments and with exchange anisotropy parameters determined from a five band Hubbard model.

\]

The fact that many systems containing copper oxide planes become high-$`T_c`$ superconductors when suitably doped  has led to a continuing effort to understand in detail the magnetic properties of the undoped parent systems. Most of these systems contain weakly coupled CuO2 planes, and the $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ spins $`𝐒_i`$ on the Cu ions are well described as an antiferromagnet governed by the Hamiltonian $`=_{ij}𝐒_i𝐉_{ij}𝐒_j`$, where $`𝐉_{ij}`$ is the tensor for exchange interactions between ions $`i`$ and $`j`$, and $`ij`$ restricts the sum to pairs of nearest neighboring Cu spins. Above the Néel temperature $`T_\mathrm{N}`$, most experiments can be fully explained by specializing to only intraplanar isotropic coupling, so that $`𝐉_{ij}=J`$, where $``$ is the unit tensor and $`J130`$ meV. For isotropic coupling the spin-wave spectrum is doubly degenerate and the spin-wave energy $`\omega (𝐪)`$ goes to zero as $`q0`$. The existence of 3D long range antiferromagnetic (AF) order, with $`T_\mathrm{N}250400`$ K, and the existence of some non-zero spin-wave gaps at $`q=0`$ require an anisotropic exchange tensor in the plane, and/or some 3D exchange coupling. However, some of these small gaps, predicted by theory, have not yet been observed experimentally.

Although some of the phenomena in the cuprates can be explained by a classical treatment of anisotropic Heisenberg models which ignore quantum fluctuations, the cuprates still have several interactions which are frustrated at the mean-field level, and would lead to a ground state degeneracy. One example concerns the in-plane exchange anisotropy in the planar square lattice common to most tetragonal cuprates. Symmetry implies that the principal axes of $`𝐉_{ij}`$ in the plane are parallel to the $`ij`$ bond ($``$), perpendicular to the bond in the plane ($``$), and perpendicular to the plane ($`z`$). Thus, the spin interaction along this bond is of the form $`J_{}S_iS_j+J_{}S_iS_j+J_zS_{iz}S_{jz}`$. Indeed, a five-band Hubbard model, in the limit when the on-site Coulomb repulsion dominates the hopping matrix elements , including both spin-orbit and Coulomb exchange interactions, yields deviations of the principal values $`J_\alpha `$ by a few parts in $`10^4`$ from their average, $`J`$. The out-of-plane gap, $`\omega _{\mathrm{out}}=5`$ meV, observed in many cuprates , is related to the out-of-plane anisotropy field, $`H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{out}}(2J_{}+2J_{}4J_z)S`$:

$$h\nu \omega \sqrt{2H_\mathrm{E}H_\mathrm{A}}\sqrt{8JSH_\mathrm{A}},$$
(1)
where $`h`$ is Planck’s constant. (In what follows, we give $`\nu `$ in units of GHz, and $`\omega `$ in meV: 1 meV/$`h=241.8`$ GHz.) Since $`J_{}J_{}`$, one might expect a similar gap, $`\omega _{\mathrm{in}}`$, for in-plane spin waves at $`𝐪=0`$. However, for a classical spin model at $`T=0`$, the sum over perpendicular bonds yields an isotropic planar energy and hence $`\omega _{\mathrm{in}}=0`$. This isotropy is removed by quantum fluctuations, and detailed calculations yield an in-plane anisotropy field

$$H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{K}}=8K/S=C(J_{}J_{})^2/J,$$
(2)
where $`C0.16`$ and the quantum four-fold energy per unit cell is $`_4=K\mathrm{cos}4\theta `$ ($`\theta `$ is the angle between the staggered moment and a Cu–Cu bond, and there are two Cu ions per cell) . $`H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{K}}/S`$ is of order $`1/S`$ ($`KS`$), emphasizing that $`H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{K}}`$ is a manifestation of quantum fluctuations . The fact that $`H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{out}}`$ is linear in the exchange anisotropy, whereas $`H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{K}}`$ is quadratic in that small quantity, indicates why the in-plane gap due to $`H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{K}}`$ is too small to be detected by inelastic neutron scattering, thus requiring the present electron spin resonance (ESR) experiments.

A second (and more familiar) example of frustration occurs in materials like Sr2CuCl2O2 (“2122”), which has the body centered tetragonal K2NiF4 structure with the CuO2 layers in the $`c`$ plane; each Cu couples to four equidistant Cu’s in a neighboring plane. For isotropic inter–plane exchange, the mean field sum of these four interactions vanishes. Nevertheless, below $`T_\mathrm{N}`$251 K, the spins have a well defined AF structure, with the easy axis believed to be parallel to the  direction. The magnetic structures of such cuprates have been explained by considering, in addition to $`K`$, two competing energies, which also relieve the frustration. The first of these is an effective bilinear interplanar coupling  of the form $`j_{\mathrm{eff}}(𝐒_i𝐒_j)^2`$ which is generated by quantum fluctuations of the otherwise frustrated isotropic interactions. This effective coupling favors colinearity of the spins in neighboring planes. The second additional energy, $`A_{\mathrm{pdip}}`$, arises from the small interplanar “pseudodipolar” exchange anisotropic interaction (not yet calculated), which adds to the dipolar interaction $`A_{\mathrm{dip}}`$, giving a contribution,

$$H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{d}}4A/S4(A_{\mathrm{dip}}+A_{\mathrm{pdip}})/S,$$
(3)
to the in-plane anisotropy, where the parameter $`A`$ was defined in Ref. .

Sr2Cu3O4Cl2 (“2342”) combines the above quantum effects. In 2342, the CuO planes have an additional Cu ion (denoted CuII) at the center of every alternate CuI plaquette. The CuI subsystem shows AF ordering at $`T_{\mathrm{NI}}`$$``$380 K. Although the isotropic molecular field acting on the CuII sites from the CuI’s vanishes (similar to the interplanar field in 2122), the CuII subsystem exhibits a small ferromagnetic moment below $`T_{\mathrm{NI}}`$, and shows AF ordering at $`T_{\mathrm{NII}}`$40 K, with its staggered moment colinear to that of the CuI’s, i. e. along  (parallel to a CuI–CuI bond). Both the magnetic structure  and spin-wave spectrum have been explained by including all the three mechanisms mentioned above.

Here we report on ESR measurements of the in–plane fluctuation induced gap in both 2342 and 2122. The observation of these small gaps in the predicted range of energy gives decisive confirmation both of the model, in which the gaps are attributed (at least partly) to quantum fluctuations, and also of our fundamental understanding of the electronic structure of the cuprates which is used to calculate $`J_\alpha `$. Also, the magnetic field dependence of the gap gives values for the anisotropic g tensor for the Cu spins, which roughly agree with theory.

The single crystals of 2122 and 2342 used in this study were grown at MIT by slow cooling from the melt. The ESR measurements were performed using the spectrometer installed in RIKEN. Several Klystrons and Gunn oscillators were used to cover the frequency range from 20 to 100 GHz. We also used a vector network analyzer, bought from the AB millimetre Company, operating in the frequency range 50-700 GHz. Magnetic fields up to 20 T were generated with a superconducting magnet from Oxford Instruments. Since the ESR signals in these samples were weak at low frequencies, we used resonant cavities at respective frequencies below 70 GHz and a field modulation technique to enhance the sensitivity.

Figure 1 shows typical ESR signals, observed at 70 K in a single crystal of 2342 with the external magnetic field ($`𝐇`$) parallel to the easy axis  at the designated frequencies. Because we use different resonant cavities for different frequencies, a direct comparison of the absorption intensity is difficult. However, we see a tendency of the intensity (which is obtained by a double integration of the spectrum with respect to $`H`$) to decrease with decreasing frequency. The intensity in the 2122 sample is much weaker than that of the 2342 sample.

Since 2342 has two transitions, we measure the antiferromagnetic resonance (AFMR) at two temperatures: 70 K, between $`T_{\mathrm{NI}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{NII}}`$, and 1.5 K ($`<T_{\mathrm{NII}})`$. In Figs. 2 and 3 we plot the frequency ($`\nu `$) dependence of the resonance fields observed in single crystals of 2342 and 2122, at the indicated temperatures and field directions. The experimental points constitute separate branches, each showing clearly an energy gap at $`H`$=0. Each set of data has been fitted by

$$\nu (H)^2=\nu (0)^2+(g\mu _BH/h)^2,$$
(4)
where $`g`$ is the g value for the corresponding orientation of $`𝐇`$, and $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ the Bohr magneton. The fitted coefficients, with their statistical errors, are given in Table I.

Now we compare the experimental results with the theory, beginning with 2342 at 70 K. Ignoring the small ferromagnetic moment (which only introduces a negligible shift in the effective $`K`$), the intermediate phase ($`T_{\mathrm{NII}}`$$`<`$$`T`$$`<`$$`T_{\mathrm{NI}}`$) is similar to the “usual” AF phase of other cuprates. The AF ordering of the CuI’s generates only two low energy modes, $`\omega _{\mathrm{out}}`$ and $`\omega _{\mathrm{in}}`$, given by Eq. (1) with $`H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{out}}`$ and $`H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{K}}`$. The former has an energy of order 5 meV, which is too large for our AFMR measurements (but has been measured by neutrons in Ref. ). Using the experimental value of $`\omega _{\mathrm{in}}`$ at 70 K in Eqs. (1) and (2) gives $`K=\omega _{\mathrm{in}}^2/(64J)=(5.2\pm 0.3)\times 10^7`$ meV . This roughly agrees with the static experimental value of Kastner et al. , $`K=(10\pm 3)\times 10^7`$ meV. Returning to Eq. (2), these two values of $`K`$ imply that $`\delta J|J_{}J_{}|=\sqrt{8JK/(SC)}0.080.11`$ meV, where we use $`J`$=130 meV and $`S=1/2`$ . This value of $`\delta J`$ is a factor of two larger than that estimated theoretically by Entin-Wohlman et al. , for the geometry of 2122. A larger value of $`\delta J`$ for 2342, compared to 2122, could result from the difference in environment (due to insertion of CuII’s), from the uncertainties in the Hubbard model parameters used in Refs. , or from higher order renormalizations. Unlike the other gaps discussed below, $`\omega _{\mathrm{in}}`$ at 70 K for 2342 is purely due to fluctuations, which are of quantum origin at $`T=0`$; $`H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{d}}=0`$ for the CuI spins (which sit on top of each other in neighboring planes). Thus, this measurement presents a clear confirmation of the theory involving $`_4`$.

Before continuing with 2342, we now turn to 2122. Unlike 2342 above $`T_{\mathrm{NII}}`$, where minimizing $`_4`$ causes the spins to point along the CuI–CuI bond, in 2122 the spins are believed to point colinearly along , i. e. at $`45^o`$ with the Cu-Cu bond . This implies that $`H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{K}}`$ from Eq. (2) enters into the in-plane gap with a negative sign, and that the actual gap must also have positive contributions from the interplanar exchange anisotropies, which dominate $`_4`$. Our analysis  indeed yields

$`\omega _{\mathrm{in}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2H_\mathrm{E}(H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{d}}H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{K}})`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`32J(A_{\mathrm{dip}}+A_{\mathrm{pdip}})8JSH_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{K}},`$ (6)
where we used Eq. (3). We now show that this equation is reasonably fulfilled. We take $`\delta J=0.04`$ meV from Ref. , and thereby get $`H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{K}}=2\times 10^6`$ meV. We also take $`A_{\mathrm{dip}}2.7\times 10^6`$ meV . The experimental value $`\omega _{\mathrm{in}}0.048`$ meV then implies that $`A_{\mathrm{pdip}}2\times 10^6`$ meV. Writing $`A_{\mathrm{pdip}}=2S^2\delta J_{\mathrm{int}}`$, where $`\delta J_{\mathrm{int}}`$ is the anisotropy of the interlayer exchange interaction, we find $`\delta J_{\mathrm{int}}10^5`$ meV. Assuming that $`|\delta J_{\mathrm{int}}|10^4J_{\mathrm{int}}`$, we estimate an interplanar exchange energy $`J_{\mathrm{int}}`$ 0.1 meV, of the same order of magnitude as the estimate for La2CuO4, $`J_{\mathrm{int}}`$ 0.25 meV . Thus we have corroborated Eq. (5).

We now return to the low$`T`$ phase ($`T`$$`<`$$`T_{\mathrm{NII}}`$) in 2342. This phase has six spins per unit cell, and four low energy modes, of which two, denoted in Ref.  by $`\omega _3`$ and $`\omega _4`$, with energies above 5 meV, were used there to measure the parameter $`j_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ related to the I–II biquadratic coupling. The two new modes at lower frequency, which we call $`\omega _{\mathrm{in}}^<`$ and $`\omega _{\mathrm{out}}^<`$, represent respectively in-plane and out-of-plane fluctuations, mostly on the CuII ions (these were denoted $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ in Ref. ). $`\omega _{\mathrm{out}}^<`$ concerns out-of-plane fluctuations of the CuII spins. These are practically not affected by $`H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{K}}`$, and $`\omega _{\mathrm{out}}^<`$ is equal to $`\omega _2`$ in Kim et al.. Using the parameters as listed in, we predict $`\omega _{\mathrm{out}}^<=1.77`$ meV, which agrees nicely with the present result 422.5 GHz (=1.747 meV).

The effective in-plane anisotropy energy was neglected in the theoretical expressions in Ref. , because it had only insignificant effects on the modes studied there. In contrast, $`\omega _{\mathrm{in}}^<`$ is determined by this energy. Accordingly we use Eq. (1), but now we have $`H_\mathrm{E}=4SJ_{\mathrm{II}}`$, where $`J_{\mathrm{II}}10.5`$ meV is the CuII-CuII exchange energy , and $`H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in}}`$ has contributions from both CuI and CuII. Our new spin wave analysis yields

$$H_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{in}}=(8k_{\mathrm{eff}}/S)J/(JJ_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{II}}+2J_{\mathrm{II}}),$$
(7)
where $`J_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{II}}=10`$ meV  and the relevant anisotropies are contained in the parameter $`k_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, where

$$k_{\mathrm{eff}}=k+\frac{1}{/}2AK_{\mathrm{II}}.$$
(8)
The first term, $`k`$, contains the four-fold anisotropy energy of the CuI’s, and contributions from the ferromagnetic canting of both the CuI and CuII. Unlike the higher $`T`$ phase, the canting of the CuII is now not negligible, and we recover

$`k=2K+8J_{pd}^2M_\mathrm{I}^2[0.53/(8J_{\mathrm{II}})]`$ (9)
($`M_\mathrm{I}^{}`$ is the staggered moment on the CuI’s, and $`J_{pd}`$ is the pseudodipolar part of the CuI–CuII exchange). The last two terms in Eq. (8) come from the CuII spins. Since the spin structure of the CuII ions is similar to that of the Cu’s in 2122 (the spins point at 45o to the CuII-CuII bond), these two terms are analogous to those in Eq. (5). Using Eq. (2), with $`|J_{}J_{}|10^4J`$ for the CuII’s, we estimate that $`K_{\mathrm{II}}K/10`$. At low $`T`$, $`k_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is thus dominated by the interplanar dipolar term $`\frac{1}{/}2A`$. Assuming for simplicity only real dipolar interactions, we have $`A=3(g\mu _BM_{\mathrm{II}}^{})^2X`$, where $`X`$ is the lattice sum in Eq. (10) of Ref. , which we evaluated as $`7\times 10^4\AA ^3`$. Thus, at $`T=0`$ we estimate $`k_{\mathrm{eff}}24\times 10^6`$ meV, in reasonable agreement with the static value . The mysterious dramatic increase in $`k_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ observed in Ref.  below $`T_{\mathrm{NII}}`$ is thus explained by the additional dominant term $`\frac{1}{/}2A`$ (which is proportional to $`M_{\mathrm{II}}^2`$). Using this estimate in Eq. (7) yields $`\omega _{\mathrm{in}}^<0.12`$ meV, not far from the experimental value 0.15 meV.

The g-tensor is calculated from $`=\mu _B𝐇(𝐋+2𝐒)`$. The quantum average is calculated for the ground state, so one has $`g=2+g_L`$, where $`<𝐋>=g_L<𝐒>`$. The latter is calculated perturbatively, with the spin-orbit term $`\lambda 𝐋𝐒`$, i. e.

$`<L_\alpha >`$ $`=`$ $`<L_\alpha (1/E)\lambda 𝐋𝐒>+<\lambda 𝐋𝐒(1/E)L_\alpha >`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`2\lambda <S_\alpha ><L_\alpha (1/E)L_\alpha >,`$ (11)
where $`E`$ represents the energy of an intermediate state.

Thus,

$`g_{x,y}`$ $`=`$ $`2+2\lambda /e_{x,y}`$ (12)
$`g_z`$ $`=`$ $`2+8\lambda /e_z.`$ (13)
Taking $`e_x=e_y=e_z=1.8`$ eV and $`\lambda =0.1`$ eV gives $`g_{x,y}=2.11`$, $`g_z=2.45`$, in reasonable agreement with the present results 2.08 and 2.30.

In conclusion, we have measured the low energy excitations of the $`S`$=$`\frac{1}{2}`$ tetragonal antiferromagnets, Sr2CuO2Cl2 and Sr2Cu3O4Cl2 using an ESR spectrometer covering a wide range of frequency and magnetic field. At 70 K for 2342, we have been successful in observing the quantum in-plane energy gap at $`H`$=0 predicted theoretically. The other in-plane gaps which we have measured reflect additional anisotropies, which we have shown to have the expected orders of magnitude.

This work was supported by the MR Science Research Program of RIKEN, a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation (at TAU, MIT and Penn.), and the MRSEC Program of the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR 9808941(at MIT). Z. H. is supported by the Research Fellowships of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists. J.S. is supported by the Special Researcher’s Basic Science Program of RIKEN.


text:
# Driven diffusive system: A study on large n limit

## I Introduction

In nature, a large class of phenomena are far-from-equilibrium in origin. Unlike the equilibrium systems, depending on the complexity and the relevant questions involved, there are different ways to treat non-equilibrium systems. In equilibrium, due to the random energy imparted by the environment (thermal noise), all possible energy states are accessible and there is no net flow of probability (i.e. no net current) from one configuration to the other. As a result there is a straight forward way of obtaining the free energy and hence the thermodynamic properties by just summing over all the Boltzmann factors $`\mathrm{exp}[E/K_BT]`$ for all the states, where $`E`$ is the energy of the state. In general, although one may write down a master equation describing the time evolution of the probability of a system being in a state, in the large time limit, the equilibrium dynamics ensures a Boltzmann distribution. This behavior is preserved by the so called detailed balance principle. This shows up also in the Langevin equation which describes the time evolution of the degrees of freedom (say e.g. the order parameter in a spin system, or the height of a growing surface). In the equilibrium case, the Langevin equation can be obtained from the Hamiltonian representing all the relevant interactions of the system. However, in the non-equilibrium cases, such a description through a Hamiltonian is not possible due to one or more terms. These terms are purely of non-equilibrium origin and appear due to, say, a finite driving force in the driven dynamics of particles  or in random deposition of particles in the case of crystal growth . There are non-equilibrium systems where detailed balance may also hold good. In these cases the dynamics reduces to the equilibrium dynamics of a system described with appropriate Hamiltonian .

These aspects of non-equilibrium dynamics are present in different variants of driven diffusive systems (DDS)  where particles with diffusive dynamics have biased hopping due to a driving force in a particular direction. In the case of fixed time independent driving force, a formulation of the Langevin equation through a Hamiltonian is not possible due to the term responsible for the drive. This is not necessarily true for all the driven systems. In particular, we shall later be concerned with a driven system with an annealed random drive where the problem effectively reduces to the equilibrium dynamics of a specific magnetic system. In general, without the driving force, the equilibrium system is like a lattice gas where particles randomly occupy lattice sites and also due to a nearest neighbor attraction a particle prefers to have its next neighboring site occupied by another particle. In this sense the equilibrium static properties are the same as that of the Ising model with a ferromagnetic interaction. Even though, the dynamics, unlike the spin case, is different due to the total particle number conservation in the lattice gas, the static properties of the two models are the same due to the equivalence of canonical and grand-canonical ensembles. With a finite driving force , the dynamics of lattice gas is significantly different from the equilibrium order parameter conserving dynamics. Three key features, such as, the boundary condition, particle number conservation and the driving force together affect the dynamics in a nontrivial way and as a result one observes generic power law correlation far above the criticality and anisotropy in the exponents of different correlation functions .

Due to the time dependent probability distribution, and lack of detailed balance, many questions remain unresolved for this system. Although in the steady state, where the distribution settles to a time independent form, one can write down a local detailed balance form for the transition rates in the Master equation, obtaining the physical properties from this is, in practice, difficult. However, even working with very small lattices, certain interesting features can be observed . For example, on a small size half filled lattice, in the ground state, unlike the equilibrium case, one can see a strip-like occupied region in the presence of a large driving force. A careful analysis of the internal energy fluctuation and specific heat also reveals new consequences of the driving force .

In view of the complications, it is, therefore, often useful to adopt different approximation schemes or numerical techniques. Since in many cases the interest is mostly on long wavelength and long time features, the continuum formulation in terms of the Langevin equation comes quite handy. The continuum formulation provides a fruitful basis for performing the mean field type calculations or field theoretic renormalization group analysis  with the latter being especially successful in explaining the new features at the critical point. In this scheme, the existence of a non-equilibrium stable fixed point that governs the new universal properties, anisotropic non-Gaussian scaling exponents associated with it, is clearly observed. The fact that far above the criticality, the two point or three point correlation exhibits a power law behavior, can be directly shown using the above continuum formulation and averaging with $`\mathrm{exp}[𝒥]`$ with $`𝒥`$ as the dynamic functional. This weight factor essentially plays a role that is analogous to the Boltzmann weight for the equilibrium system.

Although significant progress has been made in understanding the properties far above and at criticality, the situation below criticality is relatively unclear. Below the critical temperature, one would expect phase separated occupied and unoccupied regions provided the filling is not too far away from the half filling where one would remain out of the coexistence regime. In the presence of the driving force, the shape of the coexistence curve changes from the equilibrium situation  and also the shape of the phase separated regions gets distorted. The basic questions that still remain are related to these aspects. Although numerical simulations show that the particle occupied regions are somewhat elongated in the direction of the field, sufficient analytical progress is yet to be made.

Along with this development, several variants of this simple case of driven lattice gas have appeared in order to understand more realistic phenomena in nature. One simple choice of the boundary condition is the periodic one in both transverse and longitudinal direction. In that case the system looks like a torus with the driving field, possibly a uniform electric field looping around it. To obtain such a situation in laboratory, one would require a magnetic flux increasing linearly in time. Therefore due to these practical purposes, a demand for more abundant situations with non-uniform drive or different boundary conditions was obvious. Thus came up a simpler but more realistic model of DDS with annealed random drive . Interestingly, this model exhibits new universal properties that are different from the uniformly driven Ising model.

In this paper, we are interested in studying a driven diffusive system with annealed random drive with $`n`$ component order parameter in the large $`n`$ limit. In this limit the problem is exactly solvable at zero temperature. It is known that the large time behavior of a system, quenched below the critical temperature, is characterized by the equal time structure factor

$`c(k,t)=\varphi _i(𝐤,t)\varphi _i(𝐤,t)=L^\alpha (t)F(kL(t)),`$ (1)
where $`L(t)t^{1/z}`$, with $`z`$ being the dynamic exponent, represents the characteristic size of the correlated regions growing with time . In the above definition, the subscript $`i`$ denotes the component of the order parameter field $`\varphi `$. This scaling law is preserved in the case of quenching of a system with a non-conserved order parameter. However, this scaling form is not maintained in a system with a conserved order parameter. In the latter case one has two length scales, obeying two different scalings . While the growth of one length scale with time is governed by the usual dynamic exponent, for the other length scale, an additional time dependence appears. The reason for such multi-scaling is understood to be the non-commutativity of the large $`n`$ and large $`t`$ limits .

## II Model

In the lattice gas systems with a fixed total number of particles, there is an underlying continuity equation obeyed by the particle density $`\rho `$, $`_t\rho =J`$, where $`J`$ is the current. In the absence of the driving force, the current can be expressed as the gradient of the chemical potential $`\lambda \mu `$, where $`\lambda `$ is the transport coefficient, $`\mu =\delta /\delta \rho `$, with $``$ as the appropriate lattice gas Hamiltonian. With an attractive interaction among the particles, the complete description of the dynamics involves only one field, the particle density which plays the role of the order parameter. Near equilibrium, the equation of motion for the conserved dynamics of such attracting particles can be written using the continuity equation and the Hamiltonian, expressed in terms of the local magnetization $`\varphi (𝐱,t)=2\rho (𝐱,t)1`$, as

$$(\varphi )=d^dx\{\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2+\frac{\tau }{2}\varphi ^2+\frac{u}{4!}\varphi ^4\}.$$
(2)
The drive, which is actually responsible for the far-from-equilibrium behavior, gives rise to an additional current, which must vanish if there is no hole or no particle. Thus, the simplest choice for the current may be $`J_E=4\rho (1\rho )E=(1\varphi ^2)E`$, where $`E`$ is the strength of the driving field. The system is anisotropic due to the driving force in a particular direction, henceforth denoted by $`z`$. In the equation of motion, this $`z`$ direction and the transverse $`d1`$ dimensional space are distinguished by different coefficients  as shown below

$`_t\varphi (𝐱,t)=\lambda \{(\tau _{}^2)^2\varphi +(\tau _{}\alpha _{}^2)^2\varphi `$ (3)
$`\alpha _\times ^2^2\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{u}{3!}}(^2\varphi ^3+\chi ^2\varphi ^3)+E\varphi ^2\}(\xi +\zeta ),`$ (4)
Here and in the following discussion, $``$ in general extends over the $`d1`$ dimensional space and $``$ denotes the derivative with respect to $`z`$ only. The last two terms in the Langevin equation originate from the usual noisy part of the current and have short range correlations both in space and time with variances $`n_{}`$ and $`n_{}`$. The coefficients associated with the derivatives with respect to transverse or parallel coordinates have subscripts $``$ and $``$ respectively. As the critical temperature is approached, the most realistic choice of parameters is $`\tau _{}>0`$ and $`\tau _{}0`$ . In fact, it can be explicitly shown that while the transverse direction, and hence $`\tau _{}`$, remain unaffected by the driving force, $`\tau _{}`$ is renormalized upwards due to the driving force and remains uniform for the whole system.

The focus of the present paper is on an annealed random drive which has a correlation $`E(𝐱,t)E(𝐱^{},t^{})=\sigma \delta (𝐱𝐱^{})\delta (tt^{})`$. A well-known starting point for the dynamics is to write down the dynamic functional $`𝒥`$ that involves the Martin-Siggia-Rose response field $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ . After averaging out the drive, and ignoring all the redundant or irrelevant terms, the generating functional can be written as

$`𝒥_b={\displaystyle }dtd^dx\lambda \{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(𝐱,t)[\lambda ^1_t(\tau ^2)^2^2]\varphi (𝐱,t)`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{3!}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2\varphi ^3+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\}.`$ (6)
Since the non-Gaussian interaction term has no longitudinal operator, it does not affect $`\tau _{}`$, which, as a result, has been considered to be a constant (unity) in (6). The coefficient of the last term in the curly bracket has also been set to unity by suitable reparametrization. For convenience we have denoted $`\tau _{}`$ in this equation by $`\tau `$.

It is now appropriate to point out that there exists a direct connection between the driven system and uniaxial ferromagnets with dipolar interaction . The generating functional can be written in the detailed balance form as

$$𝒥_b=\{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_t\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\lambda ^2[\frac{\delta _d}{\delta \varphi }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }]\},$$
(7)
where

$`_d[\varphi ]={\displaystyle _k}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi (k)S_0^1(k)\varphi (k)+`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{4!}}{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2,k_3}}\varphi (k_1)\varphi (k_2)\varphi (k_3)\varphi (k_1k_2k_3),`$ (9)
with $`S_0^1(k)=k_{}^2[\tau k_{}^2+k_{}^4+k_{}^2]`$. This Hamiltonian represents the static system of uniaxial ferromagnet with dipolar interaction . Therefore studying this driven system with annealed random drive also implies studying the order parameter conserved dynamics of uniaxial ferromagnets.

## III Results

Our starting point for the large $`n`$ analysis is essentially an $`n`$ component generalization of the Hamiltonian $`_d`$ appearing in the detailed balance form above. To proceed further, we start with the Langevin equation which represents the dynamics of the driven diffusive system of our interest as well as the conserved dynamics of the uniaxial dipolar system

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _i}{t}}=_\alpha [_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi _i}}+\zeta _\alpha (x,t)],`$ (10)
where $`\zeta _\alpha (x,t)`$ represents the short range correlated Gaussian noise. Here $`\alpha (=1,2,\mathrm{}d)`$ stands for the dimension of the space and $`i(=1,\mathrm{}.n)`$ denotes the order parameter component. For the present discussion, we shall restrict ourselves to the zero temperature situation where we need not bother about the noise term.

In Fourier space the, Langevin equation becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _i}{t}}=(\tau k_{}^2k_{}^4k_{}^2)\varphi _i{\displaystyle \frac{u_0}{3!}}a(t)k_{}^2\varphi _i,`$ (11)
where $`\varphi ^2=_{j=1}^n\varphi _j^2=n\varphi _i^2=a(t)`$. Solving (11), we obtain

$`\varphi _i(k,t)=\varphi _i(k,0)e^{(\tau k_{}^2+k_{}^4+k_{}^2)t(u_0/3!)k_{}^2b(t)},`$ (12)
with $`b(t)=_0^ta(t^{})𝑑t^{}`$. Therefore

$`\varphi _i(x,t)\varphi _i(x,t)={\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{n}}\times `$ (13)
$`e^{(2\tau k_{}^2+2k_{}^4+2k_{}^2)t(u_0/3)k_{}^2b(t)},`$ (14)
where we have used the initial condition

$`\varphi _i(𝐤,0)\varphi _j(𝐤^{},0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{n}}\delta _{ij}\delta (𝐤+𝐤^{}).`$ (15)
Therefore we have

$`a(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle d^{d1}k_{}𝑑k_{}e^{(2\tau k_{}^2+2k_{}^4)t2k_{}^2t(u_0/3)k_{}^2b(t)}}`$ (16)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{(2\pi )^d}}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2t}})^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^{(d1)/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(d1)/2]}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k_{}k_{}^{d2}e^{(2\tau ^{}k_{}^2+2k_{}^4)t}},`$ (17)
where $`\tau ^{}=\tau +\frac{u_0}{6}\frac{b(t)}{t}`$. Substituting $`(\frac{1}{\tau ^{}})^{1/2}k_{}=x`$, this equation simplifies to

$`a(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{(2\pi )^d}}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2t}})^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^{(d1)/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(d1)/2]}}(\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{u}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{b(t)}{t}})^{(d1)/2}\times `$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑xx^{d2}e^{(x^2+x^4)2t\tau ^2}}.`$ (19)
To solve this equation, we shall consider different dimensions separately. At $`d=2`$, the saddle point is at the origin. Therefore we obtain

$`a(t)^2=B_0(\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{u}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{b(t)}{t}})/t,`$ (20)
where $`B_0=\mathrm{\Delta }^2/4\pi `$. Differentiating this equation once, we have

$`2t^2a(t){\displaystyle \frac{da(t)}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{uB_0}{6}}a(t)+B_0\tau 2ta(t)^2.`$ (21)
The numerical solution of this equation in terms of three constants $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$ is

$`a(t)=c_1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{t^{1/2}}}+c_3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}t}{t}}.`$ (22)
In the large time limit, the dominant time dependence is of the form $`a(t)t^{1/2}`$. Finally, since the factor $`2t\tau ^2`$ in the argument of the exponential approaches infinity as $`t\mathrm{}`$, the saddle point approximation turns out to be an exact one.

Let us consider $`d=3`$. Starting with (19), we again replace the integral by the maximum value of the integral. This occurs at

$`x^2={\displaystyle \frac{2c_0\pm \sqrt{4c_0^2+16c_0}}{8c_0}},`$ (23)
where $`c_0=2\tau ^2t`$. As $`t\mathrm{}`$, one can approximate $`x^21/2c_0`$. Therefore in the large time limit,

$`a(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{4(2\pi )^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}\mathrm{exp}[(1/2+1/4c_0)]`$ (24)
Therefore at $`d=3`$, $`a(t)`$ scales as $`1/t`$ at large time. To obtain the relevant length scale, we rewrite $`\varphi _i(k,t)`$ as

$`\varphi _i(k,t)=\varphi _i(k,0)e^{k_{}^2t}e^{[(\tau t+(u/3!)b(t))^2/4t]\{1((k/k_L)^2+1)^2\}}`$ (25)
Apart from the length scale in the parallel direction growing as $`L_{}t^{1/2}`$, we find that the length scale in the direction perpendicular to the driving force acquires a logarithmic correction in addition to the expected scaling behavior. At $`d=3`$, the length scale in the transverse direction scales with time as

$`L_{}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{1/4}}{(1+u\mathrm{ln}t/6t^{1/2})^{1/2}}}t^{1/4}\mathrm{for}t\mathrm{},`$ (26)
This is somewhat different from the multiscaling observed before, where there are two different scaling lengths. Here due to the anisotropy originally present in the system, the transverse and longitudinal length scales $`L_{}`$ and $`L_{}`$ respectively, have different scaling properties with time even at the Gaussian level. $`L_{}`$, due to the non-Gaussian interaction, relevant only in the transverse direction, has modified scaling behavior due to a logarithmic correction in addition to the scaling expected at the Gaussian level. As expected, the scaling of $`L_{}`$ remains unaltered from the Gaussian level.

To summarize, we have studied the large $`n`$ limit of a generalized $`n`$ component driven diffusive model with annealed randomness at zero temperature. This model also corresponds to the order parameter conserved dynamics of uniaxial ferromagnets with dipolar interaction. This model is exactly soluble in the large $`n`$ limit. The scaling of the length scale transverse to the drive is only modified due to an additional logarithmic correction. This is quite different from the multiscaling behavior observed before in conserved dynamical models.

I thank H. W. Diehl for the hospitality at Universität Gesamthochschule Essen, where part of this work was performed.