format: text

text:
# Images of eigenvalue distributions under power maps

## 1 The classical groups

We first consider the general problem of, given an eigenvalue distribution, determining the distribution of powers of the eigenvalues. We let $`\lambda _1`$ through $`\lambda _n`$ denote complex numbers of norm 1, and define

$$dT:=\underset{0k<n}{}\frac{d\lambda _k}{2\pi i\lambda _k},$$
(3)
so that $`dT`$ is the uniform density on the unit torus $`T`$. The following lemma is straightforward:

###### Lemma 1.1.

Let $`\pi (\lambda )`$ be a Laurent polynomial in the variables $`\lambda _j`$ such that

$$\pi (\lambda )dT$$
(4)
is a probability density on the unit torus. Then for any (monic) Laurent monomial $`\mu (\lambda )`$,

$$_T\pi (\lambda )\overline{\mu (\lambda )}𝑑T$$
(5)
is equal to the coefficient of $`\mu (\lambda )`$ in $`\pi (\lambda )`$.

The following “Main Lemma” is crucial to our later results:

###### Lemma 1.2.

Fix an integer $`p1`$. With $`\pi (\lambda )`$ as above, the joint density of the random variables $`\lambda _j^p`$ is given by

$$\pi ^{(p)}(\lambda ^{1/p})dT,$$
(6)
where $`\pi ^{(p)}(\lambda )`$ is the sum of the $`p`$-divisible monomials of $`\pi (\lambda )`$; that is, monomials in which each exponent is a multiple of $`p`$.

###### Proof.

Since the torus is a compact set, it suffices to show that all joint moments agree. In other words, we need to show that if $`\mu (\lambda )`$ is a monic Laurent monomial, then

$$_T\mu (\lambda )\pi ^{(p)}(\lambda ^{1/p})𝑑T=_T\mu (\lambda ^p)\pi (\lambda )𝑑T.$$
(7)
But this follows immediately from Lemma 1.1. ∎

We now obtain the power-map theorem for the unitary group:

###### Theorem 1.3.

For any integers $`n,p1`$,

$$U(n)^p\underset{0i<p}{}U(\frac{ni}{p});$$
(8)
that is to say that the following two eigenvalue distributions are the same:

$$\mathrm{eig}(U^p)_{0i<p}\mathrm{eig}(U_i),$$
(9)
where $`U`$ is a uniform random element of $`U(n)`$, and for $`0i<p`$ $`U_i`$ is an indepedent uniform random element of $`U(\frac{ni}{p})`$.

###### Proof.

Recall  that the eigenvalue distribution of $`U(n)`$ is given by the density

$$\frac{1}{n!}\underset{\pi _1,\pi _2S_n}{}\sigma (\pi _2\pi _1^1)\underset{0k<n}{}\lambda _k^{\pi _1(k)\pi _2(k)}dT.$$
(10)
Equivalently, if we view $`S_n`$ as acting on the eigenvalues as

$$\pi \lambda _i=\lambda _{\pi ^1(i)},$$
(11)
we have the density

$$\frac{1}{n!}\underset{\pi ^{}S_n}{}\pi ^{}(\underset{\pi S_n}{}\sigma (\pi )\underset{0k<n}{}\lambda _k^{k\pi (k)}).$$
(12)
By the Main Lemma, we must extract the $`p`$-divisible monomials. Clearly, the action of $`\pi ^{}`$ preserves divisibility, so we may restrict our attention to

$$q(\lambda )=\underset{\pi S_n}{}\sigma (\pi )\underset{0k<n}{}\lambda _k^{k\pi (k)}.$$
(13)
A monomial here is $`p`$-divisible if and only if

$$\pi (k)k(modp),0k<n.$$
(14)
Given such a permutation, and given a congruence class $`imodp`$, we can define a new permutation $`\pi ^{(i)}S_{\frac{ni}{p}}`$ by

$$\pi ^{(i)}(k)=\frac{\pi (pk+i)i}{p}.$$
(15)
Then the permutation $`\pi `$ is determined by the permutations $`\pi ^{(i)}`$, and we have

$`\sigma (\pi )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{0i<p}{}}\sigma (\pi ^{(i)})`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{0k<n}{}}\lambda _k^{k\pi (k)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{0i<p}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{0k<\frac{ni}{p}}{}}\lambda _{pk+i}^{pkp\pi ^{(i)}(k)}.`$ (17)
It follows that $`q^{(p)}(\lambda ^{1/p})`$ factors:

$$q^{(p)}(\lambda ^{1/p})=\underset{0i<p}{}\left(\underset{\pi S_{\frac{ni}{p}}}{}\sigma (\pi )\underset{0k<\frac{ni}{p}}{}\lambda _{pk+i}^{k\pi (k)}\right).$$
(18)
Since each factor has the form associated to the density of the unitary group of dimension $`\frac{ni}{p}`$, the result follows. ∎

As a special case, we recover a result of :

###### Corollary 1.4.

Fix an integer $`n1`$, and let $`U`$ be a random element of $`U(n)`$. For any integer $`pn`$, the eigenvalues of $`U^p`$ are i.i.d. uniform.

###### Proof.

Indeed, by the theorem,

$$U(n)^p\underset{0i<p}{}U(\frac{ni}{p})=\underset{0i<n}{}U(1)\underset{ni<p}{}U(0).$$
(19)
But this is precisely the desired result. ∎

For the orthogonal group, the situation is somewhat more complicated, both because the orthogonal group is not connected, and because random orthogonal matrices are sometimes forced to have eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$. There are essentially four cases, depending on whether the dimension is even or odd, and on whether the determinant is $`1`$ or $`1`$.

###### Theorem 1.5.

Fix integers $`n1`$, $`p1`$. Then we have the following identities of eigenvalue distributions. For $`p`$ odd:

$`O^\pm (2n)^p`$ $`O^\pm (2n_0){\displaystyle \underset{0i<(p1)/2}{}}\mathrm{Re}U({\displaystyle \frac{2(nn_0i)}{p1}}).`$ (20)
$`O^\pm (2n+1)^p`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0i<(p1)/2}{}}\mathrm{Re}U({\displaystyle \frac{2(nn_1i)}{p1}})O^\pm (2n_1+1).`$ (21)
For $`p`$ even:

$`O^\pm (2n)^p`$ $`O^\pm (2n_0){\displaystyle \underset{0i<(p2)/2}{}}\mathrm{Re}U({\displaystyle \frac{2(nn_0n_1i)}{p2}})O^{}(2n_1+1).`$ (22)
$`O^\pm (2n+1)^p`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0i<p/2}{}}\mathrm{Re}U({\displaystyle \frac{2(ni)}{p}}).`$ (23)
Here $`n_0=\frac{n}{p}`$, $`n_1=\frac{np/2}{p}`$, $`O^\pm (n)`$ represents the coset of $`O(n)`$ with determinant $`\pm 1`$, $`\mathrm{Re}U(n)`$ represents the image of $`U(n)`$ in the natural representation in $`O(2n)`$, and eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$ should be ignored.

###### Proof.

Again, referring to , the eigenvalue density for a random orthogonal matrix is (up to an overall constant, and ignoring fixed eigenvalues) given by

$$\underset{\rho ^{}B_n}{}\rho ^{}\left(\underset{\rho B_n}{}\sigma (\rho )\lambda ^{\delta \rho \delta }\right)dT$$
(24)
where $`B_n`$ is the hyperoctahedral group (signed permutations), $`\sigma `$ is a certain character of $`B_n`$, $`\delta `$ is a vector in $`[1/2]^n`$, acted on in the obvious way by $`B_n`$, and we define

$$\lambda ^v=\underset{0k<n}{}\lambda _k^{v_k}.$$
(25)
The ingredients $`\sigma `$ and $`\delta `$ are determined as follows:

$`O^+(2n):`$ $`\delta =(0,1,2\mathrm{}n1),\sigma =\sigma _1`$ (26)
$`O^{}(2n+2):`$ $`\delta =(1,2,3\mathrm{}n),\sigma =\sigma _2`$ (27)
$`O^+(2n+1):`$ $`\delta =(1/2,3/2,\mathrm{}n1/2),\sigma =\sigma _2`$ (28)
$`O^{}(2n+1):`$ $`\delta =(1/2,3/2,\mathrm{}n1/2),\sigma =\sigma _1`$ (29)
where $`\sigma _1`$ is the composition of the sign character of $`S_n`$ with the natural projection $`B_nS_n`$, and $`\sigma _2`$ is the natural sign character of $`B_n`$.

Consider a signed permutation $`\rho `$ with $`\rho \delta \delta (modp)`$. Consider $`\rho `$ as a permutation of

$$S=\{n,1n,\mathrm{}2,1,1,2,\mathrm{}n1,n\},$$
(30)
and define $`\delta (x)`$ for $`xS`$ by $`\delta (k)=\delta _k`$, $`\delta (k)=\delta _k`$. (Thus, for instance, for $`O^+(2n)`$, $`\delta (k)=|k|1`$.) Then $`\rho `$ must preserve the partition of $`S`$ induced by $`\delta (x)modp`$. The action of $`\rho `$ on an individual piece of the partition is either as $`S_n`$, if $`\delta (x)\delta (x)modp`$, or as $`B_n`$ if $`\delta (x)\delta (x)modp`$. Thus, the $`p`$-divisible part of the inner sum

$$\underset{\rho B_n}{}\sigma (\rho )\lambda ^{\delta \rho \delta }$$
(31)
factors; we obtain one $`S_n`$-type factor for each pair $`\{imodp,imodp\}`$ with $`iimodp`$, and one $`B_n`$-type factor for each $`imodp`$ with $`iimodp`$. It remains only to determine the nature of the factors (in particular, the character of $`B_n`$ that occurs) we obtain in the eight cases. This is an easy case-by-case analysis which we omit.

We thus deduce the following identities. For $`p`$ odd:

$`O^\pm (2n)^p`$ $`O^\pm (2{\displaystyle \frac{n}{p}}){\displaystyle \underset{1i(p1)/2}{}}\mathrm{Re}U({\displaystyle \frac{ni}{p}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n+i}{p}}1).`$ (32)
$`O^\pm (2n+1)^p`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0i<(p1)/2}{}}\mathrm{Re}U({\displaystyle \frac{ni}{p}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n+1+i}{p}}1)O^\pm (2{\displaystyle \frac{n(p1)/2}{p}}+1).`$ (33)
For $`p`$ even:

$`O^\pm (2n)^p`$ $`O^\pm (2{\displaystyle \frac{n}{p}}){\displaystyle \underset{1i<p/2}{}}\mathrm{Re}U({\displaystyle \frac{ni}{p}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n+i}{p}}1)O^{}(2{\displaystyle \frac{np/2}{p}}+1).`$ (34)
$`O^\pm (2n+1)^p`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0i<p/2}{}}\mathrm{Re}U({\displaystyle \frac{ni}{p}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n+1+i}{p}}1).`$ (35)
The theorem then follows by simple $``$-manipulation. ∎

###### Remark.

Since

$$Sp(2n)O^{}(2n+2),$$
(36)
ignoring the $`\pm 1`$ eigenvalues, this result also tells us the images of $`Sp(2n)`$ under power maps.

###### Corollary 1.6.

Fix an integer $`n1`$, and let $`U`$ be a random element of $`O^\pm (n)`$. For any integer $`pn1`$, the eigenvalues other than $`\pm 1`$ of $`U^p`$ are i.i.d. uniform conjugate pairs. Similarly, if $`U`$ is a random element of $`Sp(2n)`$ and $`p2n+1`$, then the eigenvalues of $`U^p`$ are i.i.d. uniform conjugate pairs.

###### Proof.

It suffices to observe that the conclusion is true whenever $`O^\pm (n)^p`$ is equivalent to a union of cosets $`O^\pm (m)`$ for $`m2`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}(U(m))`$ for $`m1`$. By a case-by-case analysis, this holds whenever $`pn1`$. ∎

Given the appearance of $`\mathrm{Re}(U(n))`$ above, it is appropriate to mention the following relation:

###### Theorem 1.7.

For any $`n0`$,

$$\mathrm{Re}(U(n))O^+(n+1)O^{}(n+1),$$
(37)
ignoring eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$.

###### Proof.

We claim that it suffices to prove

$$g(1)g(1)_{UU(n)}det(g(U))det(g(\overline{U}))=_{OO^+(n+1)}det(g(O))_{OO^{}(n+1)}det(g(O)),$$
(38)
where $`g(z)`$ is an arbitrary function on the unit circle. Indeed, we may take $`g`$ to have the form

$$g(z)=\underset{1im}{}(1x_iz),$$
(39)
at which point comparing coefficients of the $`x_i`$ tells us that all joint moments of the polynomials $`(1\lambda ^2)det(1\lambda U)`$ and $`det(1\lambda O_1)det(1\lambda O_2)`$ agree, where $`UU(n)`$, $`O_1O^+(n+1)`$, $`O_2O^{}(n+1)`$ are uniform and independent. But this implies the desired result.

To prove (38), one can express the integrals as determinants (see, e.g., Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 of ) then use the main lemma of . An alternate proof, given as Corollary 2.4 of , involves expressing the integrals in terms of orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle. ∎

###### Remark.

It is possible to give similar proofs of the the other results of this paper; in particular, one uses the fact that the orthogonal polynomials with respect to a weight $`g(z^p)`$ are simply related to the orthogonal polynomials with respect to $`g(z)`$. However, it is unclear how to apply this approach to nonclassical groups, just as it is unclear how to apply the other approach to prove this result.

## 2 Congruential subgroups of Weyl groups

For the unitary and orthogonal groups, the key observation was that an appropriate subgroup of the Weyl group turned out to be itself a product of Weyl groups. More precisely, we were given a Weyl group $`W`$, a lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and a vector $`v`$ in the ambient space of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and considered the group

$$W^{v+\mathrm{\Lambda }}:=\{\rho :\rho W|\rho (v)v\mathrm{\Lambda }\}.$$
(40)
For instance, for $`O^+(2n+1)`$, we had

$`v`$ $`=(1/2,3/2,\mathrm{}(n1)/2),`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=p^n.`$ (42)
Equivalently, we could divide $`v`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by $`p`$, thus making $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ equal to the root lattice of $`O^+(2n+1)`$. This suggests that we should first study $`W^{v+\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the root lattice of $`W`$.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`W`$ be a (finite) Weyl group (not necessarily simple), and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ be the root lattice of $`W`$. Then for any vector $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, $`W^{v+\mathrm{\Lambda }_a}`$ is the Weyl group generated by the roots of $`W`$ it contains.

###### Proof.

The key observation is that an element $`\rho W`$ is in $`W^{v+\mathrm{\Lambda }_a}`$ if and only if there exists a translation $`t_\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ such that

$$t_\lambda ^1(\rho (v))=v.$$
(43)
Thus instead of considering the stabilizer in $`W`$ of the translate $`v+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we can consider the stabilizer in $`W^+:=W\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ of the vector $`v`$; we have a canonical isomorphism between $`W^{v+\mathrm{\Lambda }_a}`$ and $`(W^+)^v`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ is the root lattice of $`W`$, $`W^+`$ is an affine Weyl group. But then we can apply proposition V.3.3.2 of  to conclude that $`(W^+)^v`$ is generated by the reflections of $`W^+`$ that fix $`v`$. The theorem follows immediately. ∎

###### Corollary 2.2.

With $`W`$, $`v`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ and $`W^+`$ as above, $`W^{v+\mathrm{\Lambda }_a}`$ is isomorphic to a finite parabolic subgroup of $`W^+`$.

###### Proof.

Indeed, $`(W^+)^v`$ is a finite subgroup of $`W^+`$ generated by reflections, so by definition is parabolic. ∎

It will be helpful to refine the above result somewhat. Fix a fundamental chamber of $`W`$. This then forces a choice of fundamental chamber of $`W^+`$, as well as choices of fundamental chambers for the corresponding parabolic subgroups. We recall the notation of : given an element $`\rho W^+`$, $`D\rho `$ is the element $`t_{\rho (0)}\rho `$ which, since it fixes $`0`$, is in $`W`$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

There exists an element $`\rho W^+`$ such that $`\rho (v)`$ is in the fundamental chamber of $`W^+`$ and $`(D\rho )(v)`$ is in the fundamental chamber of $`W^{\rho (v)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_a}W^{v+\mathrm{\Lambda }_a}`$. The resulting points $`\rho (v)`$ and $`(D\rho )(v)`$ are then independent of $`\rho `$.

###### Proof.

Certainly, there exists an element $`\rho _0W^+`$ such that $`\rho _0(v)`$ is in the fundamental chamber of $`W^+`$; the point $`\rho _0(v)`$ is then independent of the choice of $`\rho _0`$. The remaining freedom in the choice of $`\rho _0`$ is simply that we can apply any element of $`(W^+)^{\rho _0(v)}`$. Since

$$D((W^+)^{\rho _0(v)})=W^{\rho _0(v)+\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(44)
there exists an element $`\rho _1`$ of $`(W^+)^{\rho _0(v)}`$ such that

$$(D\rho _1)(D\rho _0)(v)$$
(45)
is in the fundamental chamber of $`W^{\rho _0(v)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_a}`$, and again the resulting point is unique. Taking $`\rho =\rho _1\rho _0`$, we are done. ∎

Given the point $`v`$, we define new points $`\overline{v}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ by

$$\overline{v}:=\rho (v)\text{and}\stackrel{~}{v}:=(D\rho )(v),$$
(46)
with $`\rho `$ as above. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{v}\overline{v}\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not the root lattice, then $`W\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is in general no longer an affine Weyl group, so the above results do not apply. We say that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a “subweight” lattice of $`W`$ if it contains the roots of $`W`$, and satisfies

$$\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda },r}{|r|^2}$$
(47)
for all roots $`r`$. We recall:

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a subweight lattice of $`W`$ contained in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$. Then for each coset of $`(W\mathrm{\Lambda })/W^+`$, there exists a unique representative that preserves the fundamental chamber of $`W^+`$, giving an injection from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ into the group of automorphisms of the Dynkin diagram of $`W^+`$.

This gives the following result:

###### Theorem 2.5.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a subweight lattice of $`W`$, and define $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0:=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_a)`$. Then for any vector $`v^n`$,

$$W^{v+\mathrm{\Lambda }_a}W^{v+\mathrm{\Lambda }};$$
(48)
the quotient is isomorphic to the subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ such that the corresponding transformations of the fundamental chamber preserve $`\overline{v}`$.

###### Proof.

The main complication is the fact that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ might not equal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. If not, let $`V`$ be the orthogonal complement of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and write $`v=v_0+v_1`$ with $`v_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ and $`v_1V`$. Then we can write

$$\rho (v)v=\rho (v_0)v_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_a.$$
(49)
Thus $`\rho (v)v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if and only if $`\rho (v)v\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$.

We may therefore assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, and thus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Furthermore, since the desired result is invariant under conjugation by $`W^+`$, we may assume that $`v=\overline{v}`$. Fix a coset of $`W^+`$ in $`W\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and let $`\psi `$ be the representative of that coset that preserves the fundamental chamber. If $`\psi (v)=v`$, then $`\psi `$ clearly normalizes $`(W^+)^v`$, and

$$(W\mathrm{\Lambda })^v\psi W^+=\psi (W^+)^v.$$
(50)
On the other hand, if $`\psi (v)v`$ then

$$(W\times \mathrm{\Lambda })^v\psi W^+=0.$$
(51)
The result follows. ∎

Thus given $`\overline{v}`$, the group $`W^{\overline{v}+\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ can essentially be read off by inspection.

## 3 General compact Lie groups

Let $`G`$ be a connected compact Lie group, choose a maximal torus $`T`$ of $`G`$, and let $`W`$ be the corresponding Weyl group. Choosing an isomorphism $`TU(1)^n`$, we obtain a set of $`n`$ characters $`\lambda _i`$ of $`T`$ such that for any representation $`R`$ of $`G`$, the eigenvalues of a matrix in $`R(T)`$ are given by appropriate (monic) Laurent monomials in the $`\lambda _i`$. Since every element of $`G`$ can be conjugated into $`T`$, the characters $`\lambda _i`$ can be thought of as “eigenvalue generators”.

There is a one-to-one correspondence between Laurent monomials in the eigenvalue generators and vectors in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^G:=^n`$, given by

$$v\lambda ^v:=\underset{1in}{}\lambda _i^{v_i}.$$
(52)
The Killing form, Weyl group (in its action on $`T`$), and root lattice of $`G`$ thus all induce corresponding structures in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^G`$. We find that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^G`$ is a subweight lattice of $`W`$.

Before considering the eigenvalue distribution of $`G`$, it will be helpful to digress briefly on the relation between $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^G`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ denote the lattice formed by adjoining all weights of $`W`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^G`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ denote the projections of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ onto the root space of $`W`$ and its orthogonal complement, respectively. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\times \mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ is again a subweight lattice of $`W`$, and in fact decomposes as a product of integer lattices (with null inner product) and simple weight lattices. Thus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\times \mathrm{\Lambda }_2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{G^+}`$ for a group $`G^+`$ of the form

$$U(1)^n\times \stackrel{~}{H}$$
(53)
where $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is simply connected. We can then write $`G`$ as the quotient of $`G^+`$ by some discrete subgroup of its center. Indeed, this subgroup is given as a subgroup of $`T(G^+)`$ as the kernel of the natural projection

$$T(G^+)=(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{G^+})^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^G)^{}=T(G),$$
(54)
and is thus naturally isomorphic to $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{G^+}/\mathrm{\Lambda }^G)^{}`$.

Now, the density of the eigenvalue distribution of $`G`$ (with respect to Haar measure) has the form $`f(\lambda )dT`$ where

$$f(\lambda )\underset{\rho ^{}W}{}\rho ^{}\left(\underset{\rho W}{}\sigma (\rho )\lambda ^{\delta \rho \delta }\right),$$
(55)
where $`\delta `$ is the Weyl vector of $`W`$, i.e. half the sum of the positive roots. We thus find that

$`f^{(p)}(\lambda ^{1/p})`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ^{}W}{}}\rho ^{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\rho W^{\delta /p+\mathrm{\Lambda }^G}}{}}\sigma (\rho )\lambda ^{(\delta \rho \delta )/p}\right)`$ (56)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\rho ^{}W}{}}\rho ^{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\rho W^{(p)}}{}}\sigma (\rho )\lambda ^{(\stackrel{~}{\delta }\rho \stackrel{~}{\delta })/p}\right).`$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ^{}W}{}}\rho ^{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\rho _1,\rho _2W^{(p)}}{}}\sigma (\rho _1\rho _2^1)\lambda ^{(\rho _1\stackrel{~}{\delta }\rho _2\stackrel{~}{\delta })/p}\right),`$ (58)
where we define

$$W^{(p)}:=W^{\stackrel{~}{\delta }/p+\mathrm{\Lambda }^G}.$$
(59)
The inner sum thus looks roughly like the eigenvalue density of some different Lie group. For it to actually be an eigenvalue density (or rather, for our methods to prove it an eigenvalue density<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1In particular, we observe that $`O^+(2n)^p`$ and $`Sp(2n)^p`$ violate these conditions!), we need three things to happen. First, we need $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^G`$ to be a subweight lattice of $`W^{(p)}`$; luckily, this is trivial, since every root of $`W^{(p)}`$ is a root of $`W`$. Second, we need

$$W^{(p)}=W^{\stackrel{~}{\delta }/p+\mathrm{\Lambda }_a},$$
(60)
so that the stabilizer is actually a Weyl group. Finally, we need the projection of $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }/p`$ to the root space of $`W^{(p)}`$ to be equal to the Weyl vector of $`W^{(p)}`$.

These last two conditions are, unfortunately, not always satisfied, although we can at least readily determine when they are; see for instance Section 5 below. One partial result is:

###### Theorem 3.1.

The center of $`G`$ is connected if and only if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$. Thus if the center of $`G`$ is connected (in particular if $`G`$ is adjoint), then

$$W^{(p)}=W^{\stackrel{~}{\delta }/p+\mathrm{\Lambda }_a},$$
(61)
and $`W^{(p)}`$ is a Weyl group.

###### Proof.

Writing $`G=G^+/Z`$ as above, we observe that $`G`$ has connected center if and only if for every element $`zZ(\stackrel{~}{H})`$, there exists some element of $`Z`$ that projects to $`z`$. Dualizing, this is precisely the requirement that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$. ∎

Thus, at least in the connected center case, the only obstacle is the third condition. That this is, indeed, a problem can be seen from the tables of Section 5; this is the main obstacle to a truly satisfying result in general.

Similar remarks hold if $`G`$ is not connected. Indeed, much of the structure theory can be extended to this case (see  and <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2The author was unaware of the results in  when writing , and thus most of the structural results of  had already appeared (with different proofs) in , with the notable exceptions of the density formula and the independence result (see below).). A connected component of a compact Lie group is specified by a pair $`(G_0,a)`$, where $`G_0`$ is a connected compact Lie group and $`a`$ is an automorphism of $`G_0`$ (up to conjugation by outer automorphisms and multiplication by inner automorphisms; in particular, $`a`$ may be chosen to have finite order). Using the classification of simple Lie groups, one readily obtains the following irreducible local possibilities, each indexed by a positive integer $`n`$:

* $`{}_{}{}^{n}U`$: $`G_0=U(1)^{\varphi (n)}`$, $`a`$ satisfies the cyclotomic polynomial of order $`n`$.
* $`{}_{}{}^{n}H`$: $`G_0=H^n`$, with $`H`$ simple; $`a`$ acts as a cyclic shift.
* $`{}_{}{}^{n}A_{m}^{(2)}`$: $`G_0=(SU(m+1))^n`$; $`a`$ acts as a cyclic shift, twisted by the outer automorphism of $`SU(m+1)`$.
* $`{}_{}{}^{n}D_{m}^{(2)}`$: $`G_0=(\stackrel{~}{SO}(2m))^n`$; $`a`$ acts as a cyclic shift, twisted by the (classical) outer automorphism of $`\stackrel{~}{SO}(2m)`$.
* $`{}_{}{}^{n}E_{6}^{(2)}`$: $`G_0=(E_6)^n`$; $`a`$ acts as a cyclic shift, twisted by the outer automorphism of $`E_6`$.
* $`{}_{}{}^{n}D_{4}^{(3)}`$: $`G_0=(\stackrel{~}{SO}(8))^n`$; $`a`$ acts as a cyclic shift, twisted by the triality automorphism of $`\stackrel{~}{SO}(8)`$.

The case $`{}_{}{}^{n}U`$ is essentially trivial; either $`n=1`$, in which case the (single) eigenvalue generator is uniformly distributed, or $`n>1`$, in which case there are no eigenvalue generators (because the eigenvalues are constant over the component). In the other cases, if we let $`f_X(\lambda )`$ denote the density for $`{}_{}{}^{1}X`$, then the density for $`{}_{}{}^{n}X`$ is given by $`f_X(\lambda ^n)`$. This implies:

###### Corollary 3.2.

Let $`X`$ either denote a simply connected, compact, simple Lie group or one of $`A_m^{(2)}`$, $`D_m^{(2)}`$, $`E_6^{(2)}`$, or $`D_4^{(3)}`$. Then for all positive integers $`n`$ and $`p`$, the eigenvalue density of $`({}_{}{}^{n}X)^p`$ is given by

$$f(\lambda ^{n/\mathrm{gcd}(n,p)}),$$
(62)
where $`f`$ is the density for $`({}_{}{}^{1}X)^{p/\mathrm{gcd}(n,p)}`$.

Thus it suffices to consider the five “interesting” cases with $`n=1`$. In each case, we find that the density has the expected form corresponding to an appropriate Weyl group (keeping the same Weyl vector), but using a different weight lattice in place of the root lattice. The effective Weyl group and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^G`$ are given as follows:

* $`A_{2m1}^{(2)}`$: $`W=B_m`$. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^G=(1/2)D_m`$ when $`G_0`$ has even fundamental group, and $`(1/2)Z^m`$ when $`G_0`$ has odd fundamental group.
* $`A_{2m}^{(2)}`$: $`W=C_m`$. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^G=(1/2)Z^m`$.
* $`D_m^{(2)}`$: $`W=C_{m1}`$. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^G=Z^{m1}`$ for the adjoint and orthogonal groups, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^G=C_{m1}^{}`$ otherwise.
* $`E_6^{(2)}`$: $`W=F_4`$. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^G=F_4^{}`$.
* $`D_4^{(3)}`$: $`W=G_2`$. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^G=G_2^{}`$.

In each case, if we define $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ to be the weight lattice corresponding to the adjoint group, we find that $`W\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ is an affine Weyl group, and the above results carry over. We observe the following relations in the adjoint case:

$${}_{}{}^{n}A_{2m}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2n}D_{m+1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2n}C_{m}^{}.$$
(63)
## 4 Independence results

In , it was shown that for any connected component $`C`$ of any compact Lie group $`G`$, there exists a threshold $`P`$ such that for any $`p>P`$ and any representation of $`G`$, we have the relation

$$C^pU(1)^r$$
(64)
on the eigenvalue generators; that is, the eigenvalue generators of $`C^p`$ are independent and uniform. Using the above considerations, we can now give an explicit value to the threshold:

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`G`$ be a connected compact Lie group, let $`h`$ be the maximum Coxeter number of the simple factors of $`W(G)`$, and let $`r`$ be the rank of $`G`$. Then

$$p>hG^pU(1)^r$$
(65)
and conversely

$$G^pU(1)^rph.$$
(66)
If the center of $`G`$ is connected, then $`C^hU(1)^r`$.

###### Proof.

The key observation is that $`\delta `$ is not stabilized by any element of $`W`$. Consequently, the sum

$$\underset{\rho W^{(p)}}{}\sigma (\rho )\lambda ^{\delta \rho (\delta )}$$
(67)
is equal to 1 precisely when the group $`W^{(p)}`$ is trivial. If the sum is 1, then clearly $`G^pU(1)^r`$; conversely, if $`G^pU(1)^r`$, then the sum must equal 1.

It thus remains to consider the group $`W^{(p)}`$. Aside from diagram automorphisms, $`W^{(p)}`$ is the product of the groups corresponding to the simple factors of $`G`$; we may thus assume that $`G`$ is simple. In this case, we can explicitly verify that when $`p<h`$, $`W^{(p)}`$ is nonempty (it is straightforward for the classical groups, and a short computation for the exceptional groups). For $`ph`$, we have the following lemma (from Prop. 7.3 of ):

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`W`$ be a simple (finite) Weyl group, and let $`W^+=W\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$. If $`h`$ is the Coxeter number and $`\delta `$ the Weyl vector of $`W`$, then $`\delta /h`$ is the centroid of the fundamental chamber of $`W^+`$, and is thus invariant under all diagram automorphisms of $`W^+`$.

Thus when $`ph`$, $`\delta /p`$ is strictly in the interior of $`W^+`$, so any nontrivial element of $`W^{(p)}`$ must come from a diagram automorphism; since this is impossible when the center of $`G`$ is connected, we obtain the desired result for $`p=h`$. When $`p>h`$, $`\delta /p`$ treats the highest root of $`W^+`$ differently from the other roots, so any diagram automorphism preserving $`\delta /p`$ must preserve the highest root. But this precludes the diagram automorphisms corresponding to the cosets of the root lattice in the weight lattice, giving the desired result. ∎

A similar result holds in the disconnected case (with an appropriate definition of Coxeter number), with $`p`$ replaced by $`p/\mathrm{gcd}(p,n)`$, except for $`{}_{}{}^{n}A_{m}^{(2)}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{n}E_{6}^{(2)}`$, when $`p`$ must be replaced by $`p/\mathrm{gcd}(p,2n)`$, and for $`{}_{}{}^{n}D_{4}^{(3)}`$, when $`p`$ must be replaced by $`p/\mathrm{gcd}(p,3n)`$.

Thus for instance, we find that

$$E_8(n)^pU(1)^8$$
(68)
precisely when $`p30`$. Similarly,

$$SU(n)^pU(1)^{n1}$$
(69)
precisely when $`p>n`$, since $`SU(n)`$ is not adjoint (and we readily verify that $`W^{(n)}`$ has $`n`$ elements in this case); this threshold was incorrectly given as $`n1`$ in .

## 5 Tables

We conclude the paper by giving a table of $`\stackrel{~}{\delta /p}`$ and $`\overline{\delta /p}`$ (for $`1ph`$) for the exceptional groups; from this, it is straightforward to read off the appropriate power-relations.

Vectors in the root space are specified by their inner products with the fundamental affine roots, scaled by the length of the root, except that we use $`\overline{k}`$ to represent $`1/pk`$. We, in fact, give only $`\stackrel{~}{\delta /p}`$ via this scheme; $`\overline{\delta /p}`$ is then obtained by replacing $`k0`$, $`\overline{k}\overline{0}`$ (and is thus essentially given by the locations of the bars). The Dynkin diagram of $`W^{(p)}`$ is then read off as the subdiagram spanned by the indices without bars, and the projection of $`\stackrel{~}{\delta /p}`$ to the root space of $`W^{(p)}`$ is a Weyl vector precisely when all of those indices are 1. Finally, we append an asterisk when $`\overline{\delta /p}`$ is symmetric under the appropriate diagram transformation.

We remark that it is not at all clear why this encoding scheme should happen to work!

* $`G_2`$ $`\begin{array}{c}01<2\end{array}`$                   $`p=`$ $`1:(`$ $`\overline{6}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`2:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$  $`\overline{3}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`3:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`4:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`5:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`6:(`$ $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$
* $`F_4`$ $`\begin{array}{c}01234\end{array}`$                   $`p=`$ $`1:(`$ $`\overline{12}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`2:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$  $`\overline{6}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`3:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$  $`\overline{4}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`4:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{3}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`5:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`6:(`$ $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`7:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`8:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`9:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`10:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`11:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`12:(`$ $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$
* $`E_6`$ $`\begin{array}{ccccc}& & 0& & \\ & & & & \\ & & 1& & \\ & & & & \\ 2& 3& 6& 5& 4\end{array}`$                   $`p=`$ $`1:(`$ $`\overline{12}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`2:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$  $`\overline{6}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`3:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{4}`$ $`)^{}`$  $`p=`$ $`4:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{3}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`5:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`6:(`$ $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$ $`)^{}`$  $`p=`$ $`7:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`8:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`9:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)^{}`$  $`p=`$ $`10:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`11:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`12:(`$ $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)^{}`$
* $`E_7`$ $`\begin{array}{cccc}& & & 4\\ & & & \\ 0& 1& 2& 3& 5& 6& 7\end{array}`$                   $`p=`$ $`1:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{18}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`2:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{9}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ $`)^{}`$  $`p=`$ $`3:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{6}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`4:(`$ $`\overline{3}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{4}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`5:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{3}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`6:(`$ $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{3}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)^{}`$  $`p=`$ $`7:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`8:(`$ $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`9:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`10:(`$ $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)^{}`$  $`p=`$ $`11:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`12:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`13:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`14:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)^{}`$  $`p=`$ $`15:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`16:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`17:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`18:(`$ $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)^{}`$
* $`E_8`$ $`\begin{array}{cccccc}& & & & & 6\\ & & & & & \\ 0& 1& 2& 3& 4& 5& 7& 8\end{array}`$                   $`p=`$ $`1:(`$ $`\overline{30}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`2:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{15}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`3:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{10}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`4:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{7}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`5:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$  $`\overline{6}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`6:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{5}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`7:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{4}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`8:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$  $`\overline{3}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{3}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`9:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{3}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`10:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{3}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`11:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`12:(`$ $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`13:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`14:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`15:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`16:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`17:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`18:(`$ $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`19:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`20:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`21:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`22:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`23:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`24:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`25:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`26:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`27:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`28:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`29:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`30:(`$ $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$
* $`(D_4^{(3)})^3`$ $`\begin{array}{c}01>2\end{array}`$                   $`p=`$ $`1:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$  $`\overline{6}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`2:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{3}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`3:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`4:(`$ $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$
* $`(E_6^{(2)})^2`$ $`\begin{array}{c}01234\end{array}`$                   $`p=`$ $`1:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$  $`\overline{12}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`2:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$  $`\overline{6}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`3:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{4}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`4:(`$ $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`5:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`6:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{2}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`7:(`$ $`\overline{0}`$  $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`8:(`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$  $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$  $`p=`$ $`9:(`$ $`\overline{1}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$  $`\overline{0}`$ $`)`$


text:
# Search for Large Extra Dimensions in Dielectron and Diphoton Production

(August 25, 2000)

## Abstract

We report a search for effects of large extra spatial dimensions in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 1.8 TeV with the DØ detector, using events containing a pair of electrons or photons. The data are in good agreement with the expected background and do not exhibit evidence for large extra dimensions. We set the most restrictive lower limits to date, at the 95% confidence level, on the effective Planck scale between 1.0 TeV and 1.4 TeV for several formalisms and numbers of extra dimensions.

The possibility that the universe has more than three spatial dimensions has long been discussed Riemann . Recent developments in string theory suggest that there could be up to seven additional spatial dimensions, compactified at very small distances, on the order of $`10^{32}`$ m. In a new model ADD , inspired by string theory, several of the compactified extra dimensions (ED) are suggested to be as large as 1 mm. These large ED are introduced to solve the hierarchy problem of the standard model (SM) by lowering the Planck scale, $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, to the TeV energy range. The ED compactification radius, $`R`$, depends on the number of extra dimensions ($`n`$) and on the effective Planck scale, $`M_S`$: $`R\frac{1}{M_S}(M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/M_S)^{2/n}`$ ADD . Since Newton’s law of gravity would be modified in the presence of compactified extra dimensions for interaction distances below the size of the largest extra dimension, current gravitational observations rule out the case of a single large extra dimension. Recent preliminary results from gravity experiments at submillimeter distances tabletop , as well as cosmological constraints from supernova cooling and distortion of cosmic diffuse gamma-radiation cosmology , indicate that the case of $`n=2`$ is likely ruled out as well. However, for $`n3`$, the size of the ED becomes microscopic and therefore eludes the reach of direct gravitational measurements. Cosmological constraints are also weak in this case. Therefore, high energy colliders, capable of probing very short distances, are crucial to test theories of large ED. In these theories, the effects of gravity are enhanced at high energies due to the accessibility of numerous excited states of the graviton (referred to as a Kaluza-Klein KK  graviton, $`G_{\mathrm{KK}}`$), corresponding to multiple winding modes of the graviton field around the compactified dimensions. Since gravitons couple to the energy-momentum tensor, they can be produced in any SM process.

Large ED phenomenology at colliders has been studied in some detail GRW ; HLZ ; Peskin ; Hewett . One of the primary observable effects would be an apparent non-conservation of momentum caused by the direct emission of gravitons, which leave the three flat spatial dimensions. A typical signature would be the production of a single jet or vector boson at large transverse momentum. The other observable effect would be anomalous difermion or diboson production at large invariant masses ($`M`$) via virtual graviton exchange. Direct graviton emission is expected to be suppressed by a factor $`(M/M_S)^{n+2}`$, while virtual graviton effects depend only weakly on the number of extra dimensions GRW ; Hewett . Virtual graviton production therefore offers a potentially more sensitive way to search for manifestations of ED caveat .

Both of the above effects have been sought at LEP LEP , with lower limits on the effective Planck scale set on the order of 1 TeV. Virtual $`G_{\mathrm{KK}}`$ exchange was also sought at HERA HERA , but with less stringent limits. In this Letter, we report the results of the first specific search for ED at a hadron collider. The data are from the DØ experiment D0  at the Fermilab Tevatron, using proton-antiproton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 1.8 TeV, and final states containing pairs of electrons or photons. We analyze the differential distribution KCGL  of dielectron or diphoton events in terms of their invariant mass and the scattering angle in their center-of-mass frame ($`\theta ^{}`$). These two variables completely define the $`22`$ scattering processes, and their properties provide improved separation between the SM contributions and the effects of virtual graviton exchange when compared to analyses of invariant-mass distributions alone KCGL .

Several modifications to the method of Ref. KCGL  are introduced to optimize the sensitivity of the search. First, because the efficiency and resolution for high-energy electromagnetic (EM) objects at DØ are superior to those for muons, we use only the dielectron and diphoton channels, with the sensitivity to ED coming primarily from the diphoton events KCGL . Second, to optimize the efficiency for diphoton and dielectron selection, we eliminate tracking requirements from electron and photon identification, thereby effectively combining them. Ignoring tracking information maximizes both the dielectron and diphoton efficiencies since neither electrons with unreconstructed tracks nor photons with matching tracks from conversion or random overlap are lost. In what follows, we refer to electron or photon objects that do not use tracking information as EM objects. The dominant background at high mass, where ED effects are enhanced, is the irreducible SM background from direct diphoton production, rather than instrumental background from misidentification of jets as EM objects (see, e.g., Ref. GLKM ). Increasing the di-EM identification (ID) efficiency by using looser EM ID criteria therefore results in better sensitivity to ED.

The search is based on the entire sample of data collected during 1992–1996 using a trigger that requires the presence of two EM objects and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $`126.8\pm 5.6`$ pb-1.

Following offline reconstruction, we require each EM object to: (i) deposit more than 95% of its energy in the EM calorimeter; (ii) have an energy deposition pattern consistent with that expected for an EM object; and (iii) be isolated Zvvg . The efficiency for these selections, based on $`Zee`$ events, is $`87\pm 2\%`$ per EM object. We also require (i) two EM objects with $`E_T>45`$ GeV in good fiducial regions of the detector ($`|\eta _d|<1.1`$ or $`1.5<|\eta _d|<2.5`$, where $`\eta _d`$ is the pseudorapidity relative to the center of the detector eta ); (ii) missing transverse energy $`E\text{/}_T<25`$ GeV; and (iii) no additional EM objects with $`E_T>5`$ GeV. The trigger is fully efficient for this set of offline selections. The above selections, with the overall efficiency of $`79\pm 2\%`$ per event, define our base sample, which contains 1282 candidate events. The error on the efficiency includes uncertainties due to the statistics and background parameterization in the $`Zee`$ sample. Other checks on possible variation of selection efficiency with energy, pseudorapidity, and invariant mass indicate that the efficiency is constant within uncertainties.

To determine the hard-scattering vertex, we calculate the most probable direction of each EM object using the transverse and longitudinal segmentation of the EM calorimeter Zvvg . Among all the reconstructed vertices in the event, we choose the one that best matches these directions. We choose this EM-object-based vertex-finding technique since it treats the diphoton and dielectron events in the same way.

We model the effects of ED via the parton-level leading-order (LO) Monte Carlo (MC) generator of Ref. KCGL , augmented with a parametric simulation of the DØ detector. The simulation takes into account detector acceptance and resolution for the EM objects, smearing and misidentification of the primary interaction vertex, initial state radiation, and the effect of different parton distributions. We used leading order CTEQ4LO CTEQ  distributions to estimate the nominal prediction. The parameters of the detector model are tuned using independent samples of collider data. The MC includes SM contributions ($`Z/\gamma ^{}`$ and direct diphoton production), Kaluza-Klein graviton exchange diagrams, and their interference in di-EM object production.

Since the parton-level generator involves only the $`22`$ hard-scattering process, we model next-to-leading order (NLO) effects by adding a transverse momentum to the di-EM system, based on the transverse momentum spectrum of di-EM events observed in the data. In the presence of the NLO corrections, the scattering angle $`\theta ^{}`$ is defined in the di-EM helicity frame, i.e., relative to the direction of the boost of the di-EM system. Since the parton-level cross section is calculated at LO, we account for NLO effects in the SM background by scaling the cross sections by a constant $`K`$-factor of 1.3 K-factor . We assign a 10% systematic uncertainty on the value of the $`K`$-factor to account for a possible growth of the $`K`$-factor at high mass. Because NLO corrections to the Kaluza-Klein diagrams have not yet been calculated, we use the same constant $`K`$-factor for the signal. The $`K`$-factor for graviton exchange is expected to grow with invariant mass, similar to that for $`Z/\gamma ^{}`$ exchange; consequently, our assumption tends to underestimate the ED contribution at high invariant mass and is conservative.

The main SM sources of di-EM production, Drell-Yan and direct diphoton production, are included in the MC. Other SM sources, such as $`W\gamma `$, $`Z\gamma `$, $`WW`$, $`Z\tau \tau `$, and $`t\overline{t}`$ production are negligible, as most have small cross section compared to that for Drell-Yan and direct diphoton processes, and are reduced further by the requirements of low $`E\text{/}_T`$ and exactly two EM objects in the event. The only non-negligible sources of background arise from single-photon and dijet events, in which jet(s) are misidentified as EM objects. We estimate this background using a separate data sample collected with a trigger requiring a single EM object. We require that a combination of a jet and the EM object satisfy all the requirements for signal, except that the EM ID requirements are applied only to the EM object. We obtain the instrumental background by scaling the number of jet-EM combinations passing our selection criteria by the probability of a jet to be mistaken as an EM object, measured to be $`0.18\pm 0.04\%`$, and, within the uncertainties, is independent of $`E_T`$ or $`\eta `$ LQ . The other source of instrumental background, $`W+`$ jets production with a jet misidentified as an EM object, is negligible due to the requirement of low $`E\text{/}_T`$. The total instrumental background in the base sample is $`87\pm 22`$ events, which is less than 7% of the dominant SM background. The sum of the SM background and the instrumental background reproduces the main kinematic characteristics of the base sample, as illustrated in Fig. 1.

The cross section in the presence of large ED is given by GRW ; HLZ ; Hewett :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma }{dMd\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\mathrm{SM}}+f_{\mathrm{int}}\eta _G+f_{\mathrm{KK}}\eta _G^2,`$ (1)
where $`f_{\mathrm{SM}}`$, $`f_{\mathrm{int}}`$, and $`f_{\mathrm{KK}}`$ are functions of $`(M,\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{})`$ and denote the SM, interference, and $`G_{\mathrm{KK}}`$ terms. The effects of ED are parametrized via a single variable $`\eta _G=/M_S^4`$, where $``$ is a dimensionless parameter of order unity, reflecting the dependence of virtual $`G_{\mathrm{KK}}`$ exchange on the number of extra dimensions. Different formalisms use different definitions for $``$:

$``$ $`=`$ $`1,\text{ (GRW }\text{GRW}\text{);}`$ (2)
$``$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_S^2}{M}\right),\hfill & n=2\hfill \\ \frac{2}{n2},\hfill & n>2\hfill \end{array},\text{ (HLZ }\text{HLZ}\text{);}`$ (5)
$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda }{\pi }}=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }},\text{ (Hewett }\text{Hewett}\text{).}`$ (6)
Note that only within the HLZ formalism $``$ depends explicitly on $`n`$.

Figure 2 shows the two-dimensional distribution in $`M`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ for data in (a), total background in (b), and the sum of the background and the ED signal for $`\eta _G=1`$ TeV-4 in (c). The data agree well with the background prediction and do not exhibit evidence for large ED, which would produce an excess of events at large mass and small values of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ (see Fig. 2c). A comparison of Figs. 2b and 2c shows that use of both $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$ can improve the sensitivity over just one variable. The projection on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$ for high mass values in Fig. 2d shows the relative increase of signal over SM processes at small $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$. The use of both variables allows about 10% improvement in the sensitivity to $`\eta _G`$.

In the absence of evidence for ED, we set limits on the effective Planck scale. We perform a Bayesian fit of the sum of the cross section given by Eq. (1) and the instrumental background, to the data in the entire ($`M`$, $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$) plane shown in Fig. 2, with $`\eta _G`$ as free parameter, with an assumed uniform prior distribution. The systematic uncertainties on signal and background in the fit include systematics of the $`K`$-factor (10%), choice of parton distribution functions (5%), integrated luminosity (4%), EM ID efficiency (3%), and the uncertainty on the instrumental background (25%).

The best estimate of the parameter $`\eta _G`$ is consistent with the SM value of $`\eta _G=0`$, and the one-sided 95% CL limits on $`\eta _G`$ are:

$`\eta _G<`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.46}`$ $`\text{TeV}^4(\eta _G0)`$ (7)
$`\eta _G>`$ $`0.60`$ $`\text{TeV}^4(\eta _G0),`$ (8)
in good agreement with the expected sensitivity to $`\eta _G`$, as obtained in an ensemble of MC trials ($`0.44`$ TeV-4 for $`\eta _G>0`$). We can express these results in terms of limits on the effective Planck scale for the three formalisms of Eqs. (2)–(6). In the formalism of Ref. Hewett , both signs of $`\eta _G`$ are possible and therefore both limits (7) and (8) are relevant. In the other two formalisms, $`\eta _G`$ is always positive, and only the first limit is relevant. For the HLZ formalism, the case of $`n=2`$ is special since $``$, and therefore $`\eta _G`$, depend on $`M`$. To relate $`\eta _G`$ to $`M_S`$ for $`n=2`$, we use an average $`M`$ for the $`G_{\mathrm{KK}}`$ term at the Tevatron of (0.6 TeV)2 KCGL . Limits for different formalisms and for different numbers of extra dimensions are given in Table 1. They correspond to the ED compactification radius ranging from $`R<0.3`$ mm ($`n=2`$) to $`R<2`$ fm ($`n=7`$).

In summary, we have performed the first search for large extra spatial dimensions at hadron colliders by looking for effects of virtual Kaluza-Klein gravitons in the production of dielectrons and diphotons at high energies. No evidence is found for large ED, and we set a model-independent 95% CL upper limit of 0.46 TeV-4 on the parameter $`\eta _G`$ that describes the size of the ED contribution. This result corresponds to limits on the effective Planck scale ranging between 1.0 and 1.4 TeV for several formalisms and numbers of ED. These are the most restrictive limits on large ED to date, and are complementary to analogous limits from LEP that probe a different range of invariant masses.

We thank the staffs at Fermilab and at collaborating institutions for contributions to this work, and acknowledge support from the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation (USA), Commissariat à L’Energie Atomique and CNRS/Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), Ministry for Science and Technology and Ministry for Atomic Energy (Russia), CAPES and CNPq (Brazil), Departments of Atomic Energy and Science and Education (India), Colciencias (Colombia), CONACyT (Mexico), Ministry of Education and KOSEF (Korea), CONICET and UBACyT (Argentina), A.P. Sloan Foundation, and the A. von Humboldt Foundation.