text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A precision measurement of the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ oscillation frequency is of great importance since it is sensitive to the CKM matrix element $`|V_{td}|`$ and, in combination with knowledge of the $`B_s`$$`\overline{B}_s`$ oscillation frequency, provides a stringent constraint on the Unitarity Triangle.

The mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$ between the two mass eigenstates of the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ system may be measured by comparing the rate for pairs of neutral $`B`$ mesons to decay with the same $`b`$ quark flavor with the rate to decay with the opposite flavor sign at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ in the following time dependent asymmetry:

$$\frac{N(B^0\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0})(\mathrm{\Delta }t)(N(B^0B^0)(\mathrm{\Delta }t)+N(\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0})(\mathrm{\Delta }t))}{N(B^0\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0})(\mathrm{\Delta }t)+(N(B^0B^0)(\mathrm{\Delta }t)+N(\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0})(\mathrm{\Delta }t))}=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}\mathrm{\Delta }t),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the difference between the two $`B`$ meson decay times in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ center of mass system. The simplest way to determine the $`b`$ quark flavor of the decaying neutral $`B`$ is to use leptons as tagging particles. By counting the number of “like” events $`(l^+,l^+)+(l^{},l^{})`$ and “unlike” events $`(l^+,l^{})`$, a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$ may be extracted through the asymmetry :

$$A_{obs}(|\mathrm{\Delta }t|)=\frac{N(l^+,l^{})(N(l^+,l^+)+N(l^{},l^{}))}{N(l^+,l^{})+(N(l^+,l^+)+N(l^{},l^{}))}.$$
(2)
The semileptonic (muon or electron) branching ratio of B mesons is about 20%. Therefore, the dilepton events useful for this analysis represent 4% of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4\mathrm{S})B\overline{B}`$ decays. In statistical terms, the dilepton tagging is more efficient than the semi-exclusive tagging performed at the ARGUS  and the CLEO  experiments. Moreover the new asymmetric $`B`$ factories, like PEP-II, allow a time-dependent measurement, which is radically different from measurements of the time-integrated probability $`\chi _d`$ performed at the previous $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders operating at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$, where $`\chi _d=x_d^2/(2(1+x_d^2))`$ and $`x_d=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B^0}`$. Previous measurements of the time-dependence of $`B^0`$$`\overline{B}^0`$ oscillations have been done by the LEP, SLD and CDF experiments .

The present measurement is performed on events collected by the BABAR detector at the PEP-II asymmetric $`B`$ Factory between January and June 2000. The corresponding integrated luminosity is 7.7$`\text{ fb}^1`$ taken on the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance and 1.2$`\text{ fb}^1`$ taken 40$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ below resonance. The BABAR detector and its performance are described elsewhere . The event selection and particle identification criteria are described in section 2. The selection of signal events and a study of the fraction of events with the wrong flavor tagging (mistag) are detailed in Section 2.4. The method to determine the time-separation of the two $`B`$ semileptonic decays is explained in Section 3. Section 4.2 shows the details of the fit on data and the result of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$ measurement. A list of cross-checks of the result is in Section 5, while the evaluation of systematic uncertainties is reported in Section 6.

## 2 Selection of dilepton events

In this study of the oscillation frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$ , the flavor of the $`B`$ meson at decay is determined by the sign of leptons produced in semileptonic $`B`$ decays. To reduce the mistag rate, an attempt is made to suppress cascade leptons (produced in $`bc\mathrm{}`$ transitions).

### 2.1 Lepton identification

Electron and muon candidates are required to pass the very tight selection criteria fully described in . Electrons are selected by specific requirements on the ratio of the energy deposited in the Electromagnetic Calorimeter (EMC) and the momentum measured in the Drift Chamber (DCH), on the lateral shape of the energy deposition in the calorimeter, and on the specific ionization density measured in the DCH. Muons are identified by the use of the energy released in the calorimeter, as well as the strip multiplicity, track continuity and penetration depth in the Instrumented Flux Return. The performance of the very tight selection criteria are estimated on data control samples, as a function of the particle momentum as well as the polar and azimuthal angles. The electron and muon selection efficiencies are about 92% and 75%, respectively, with pion misidentification probabilities around 0.3% and 3%, respectively. Lepton candidates consistent with the kaon hypothesis as measured in the Detector of Internally Reflected Cherenkov light (DIRC) are rejected. More than 60% of the kaon contamination in the muon sample is rejected with negligible effect on lepton identification efficiency.

### 2.2 Background rejection

Non $`B\overline{B}`$ events are suppressed by requiring the Fox-Wolfram ratio of second to zeroth order moments to be less than 0.4.

The residual contamination from radiative Bhabha and two-photon events is reduced by requiring the event squared invariant mass to be greater than 20 ($`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$)2, the event aplanarity to be greater than 0.01, and the number of charged tracks to be greater than 4.

Electrons from gamma conversions are identified (see ) and rejected with a negligible loss of efficiency for signal events. Leptons from $`J/\psi `$ decays are identified by pairing them with the other oppositely-charged candidates of the same lepton species, selected with looser criteria. We reject the whole event if any combination has an invariant mass within 40$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the $`J/\psi `$ mass.

### 2.3 Track quality requirements

We finally apply selection criteria on the quality of the tracks, in order to improve the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ reconstruction, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is the difference between the decay points of the two $`B`$ mesons along the beam direction. Any lepton candidate must have a distance of closest approach to the nominal beam position in the transverse plane, $`d_0`$, less than 1 cm, and a distance of closest approach along the beam direction, $`|z_0|`$, less than 6$`\mathrm{cm}`$, at least 20 hits in the DCH, at least 4 $`z`$-coordinate hits in the Silicon Vertex Tracker, a momentum range in the center of mass system between 700$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$ and 2.5$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, a momentum range in the laboratory system between 500$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$ and 5$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, and a polar angle in the range between 0.5 and 2.6 radians. We also require the total error on $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, computed on an event-by-event basis to be less than 175$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$. When estimating the event-by-event error, it should be noticed that, due to non-zero flight length of the B mesons in the transverse plane, the two leptons do not actually originate from the same point in that plane. The total error is therefore the quadratic sum of the tracking error and of this additional uncertainty. As reported in Section 3, the non-negligible effect of the track quality requirements on signal efficiency yields only a small degradation of the resulting statistical uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$.

### 2.4  Selection of the direct dileptons

The discrimination between direct and cascade leptons is based on a neural network which combines five discriminating variables, all calculated in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ center of mass system:

* the momenta of the two leptons with highest momenta, $`p_1^{}`$ and $`p_2^{}`$;
* the total visible energy, $`E_{tot}`$, and the missing momentum, $`p_{miss}`$, of the event;
* the opening angle between the leptons, $`\theta _{12}`$.

The distributions of these variables are shown in Figure 1, for data and Monte Carlo simulation. The first two variables, $`p_1^{}`$ and $`p_2^{}`$, are very powerful in discriminating between direct and cascade leptons. The last variable, $`\theta _{12}`$, efficiently removes direct-cascade lepton pairs coming from the same $`B`$ and further rejects gamma conversions. Some additional discriminating power is also provided by the other two variables. The chosen neural network architecture (5:5:2) is composed of 3 layers, with 2 outputs in the last layer (one for each lepton). The network is trained with 40,000 dileptons from generic $`B^0`$ and $`B^\pm `$, and the outputs are chosen to be 1 and 0 for direct and cascade leptons respectively.

Figure 2 shows good agreement between data and simulation for the neural network outputs of the two leptons. We require both outputs to be greater than 0.8.

The combined effect of the above cuts gives, from simulated events, signal purity and efficiency of 78% and 9%, respectively. The remaining background consists of 12% direct-cascade events (8% with the wrong tagging), 5% $`B\overline{B}`$ events with one or more fake leptons, 2% $`B\overline{B}`$ events with one or more non-prompt leptons, a negligible contribution from cascade-cascade events, and 3% from continuum events. The latter was determined in data by rescaling the number of off-resonance events that pass the selection with the ratio of on- and off-resonance luminosities. The total number of selected on-resonance events is 36631 (10742 electron pairs, 7836 muon pairs, and 18053 electron-muon pairs).

## 3 Determination of $`𝚫𝒕`$

A determination of the $`z`$ coordinate of the $`B`$ decay vertex using only the lepton track can be obtained, to first approximation, by taking the $`z`$ of the point of closest approach between the track and the beam spot in the transverse plane. This estimator is a fairly good way to determine the $`z`$ position of the $`B^0`$ decays vertices since the selected direct leptons have rather high momenta. However, it is possible to use the two lepton tracks and a beam spot constraint in a simple $`\chi ^2`$ vertex fit to obtain a better estimate of the primary vertex of the event in the transverse plane, and to compute the points of closest approach of the two tracks to this new point. The corresponding $`z`$ coordinates represent a better approximation of the $`z`$ coordinate of the $`B`$ decay vertices, and the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ resolution function has much reduced tails. For this reason we adopt the latter method to compute the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$.

Further studies show that a requirement on the total error to be less than 175$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ reduces the tails of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ resolution function by a factor four and reduces the signal efficiency by 30%. However, due to the improved resolution, the total statistical uncertainty on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$ is degraded only by 3% despite the loss of efficiency. A two-Gaussian fit to the resulting $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ resolution function from simulated dilepton events gives $`\sigma _n=87`$$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and $`\sigma _w=195`$$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ for the narrow and wide Gaussian, respectively, and 76% of the events in the narrow Gaussian.

The time difference between the two $`B`$ decay times is defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\mathrm{\Delta }z/(<\beta \gamma >c)`$, with $`<\beta \gamma >=0.554`$. This approximation neglects the $`B`$ meson motion in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ rest frame. In this inclusive approach it is not possible to determine the exact boost. Therefore, the effect of this shift was studied with Monte Carlo by comparing the fitted value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$ with the true $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and with $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/(<\beta \gamma >c)`$. This study shows that the effect is negligible compared to the current level of accuracy of this analysis.

## 4 Fitting procedure

### 4.1 Time dependence of the fraction of mistagged events

Even after a cut on the neural net output, a non-negligible fraction of events are mistagged (i.e. a true $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ pair is tagged as a $`B^0B^0`$ or $`\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\overline{B}^0`$ pair and vice versa for $`B^0B^0`$ or $`\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\overline{B}^0`$ events). The fraction of mistagged events is directly determined in the fit. However we have to take into account that the time dependence of cascade leptons from the same $`B`$, or from the other $`B`$, are different. In the case of a cascade from a same $`B`$ (Fig. 3(a)),

we observe a peak at low $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, due the flight length of the charm hadron, which is fitted by an exponential decay. For the cascade leptons from the other $`B`$, (circles in Fig. 3(b)), the fraction of mistagged events as a function of the true $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ between the two leptons shows a linear dependence which comes from the fact that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ measured between the two leptons contains the additional flight length of the charm hadron. The same distribution, determined using the $`z`$ distance of the true $`B`$ vertices, is flat to first order (squares in Figure 3). Actually, the linear dependence on $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ can be explained by considering the time distribution of the cascade lepton. Assuming that the flight length of the charmed hadron is small compared to that of the $`B`$, the time distribution of the cascade lepton from the other $`B`$ can be approximated by:

$$\eta e^{t/(\tau _B+<\tau _c>)}\eta (1+\frac{<\tau _c>}{\tau _B^2}t)e^{t/\tau _B},$$

where $`\tau _B`$ and $`<\tau _c>`$ are the $`B`$ meson lifetime and an average lifetime of the $`D`$ mesons, respectively. In the final fit procedure, the linear dependence is taken into account by a free parameter; the time shape of the cascade lepton from a same $`B`$ is determined from the Monte Carlo simulation.

### 4.2 Measurement of $`𝚫𝒎_{𝑩^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$

The value and statistical error for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$ are extracted with a $`\chi ^2`$ minimization fit to the dilepton asymmetry (see Eq. 2). The fit function, $`A_{fit}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, takes into account the various time distributions of the dilepton signal ($`f^{unmix}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, $`f^{mix}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$), the cascade lepton and the non-$`B\overline{B}`$ backgrounds ($`f_{other}^{OS}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, $`f_{other}^{SS}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$):

$$A_{fit}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\frac{(f^{OS}f^{SS})f_{reso}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)+(f_{other}^{OS}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)f_{other}^{SS}(\mathrm{\Delta }t))}{(f^{OS}+f^{SS})f_{reso}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)+(f_{other}^{OS}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)+f_{other}^{SS}(\mathrm{\Delta }t))},$$

where $``$ stands for the convolution product with the resolution function $`f_{reso}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ (see Section 3), and the $`f`$-functions are expressed in terms of the various signal and background contributions as

$`f^{OS}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`f^{unmix}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)(1(1+f_c)\eta _0)+f_{mistag}^{SB}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)f_c\eta _0`$
$`+f^{mix}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)(\eta _0+\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }t)`$
$`f^{SS}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`f^{mix}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)(1(1+f_c)\eta _0)+f^{unmix}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)(\eta _0+\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }t),`$
The signal contributions for unmixed and mixed events are given respectively by

$`f^{unmix}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1+R)}}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^0e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^0|\mathrm{\Delta }t|}(1+\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}\mathrm{\Delta }t))+2R\mathrm{\Gamma }^+e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^+|\mathrm{\Delta }t|}],`$
$`f^{mix}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1+R)}}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^0e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^0|\mathrm{\Delta }t|}(1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}\mathrm{\Delta }t))],`$
where $`R`$ is proportional to the ratio $`(b_+^2f_+)/(b_0^2f_{00})`$ ($`b_+`$ and $`b_0`$ are respectively the semileptonic branching ratio of charged and neutral $`B`$, and $`f_+/f_{00}`$ is the production ratio of charged and neutral $`B`$ pairs at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$).

The time distribution of direct-cascade events where both leptons originate from the same $`B`$ is represented by $`f_{mistag}^{SB}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=[<\mathrm{\Gamma }^c>e^{<\mathrm{\Gamma }^c>|\mathrm{\Delta }t|}]`$, with $`<c/\mathrm{\Gamma }^c>=60`$$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ as determined from simulated events (Fig. 3). The difference in the fraction of direct-cascade events between the cascade lepton from the same $`B`$ and from the other $`B`$ (due, for instance, to the cut on the angle between the 2 leptons) is estimated by the parameter $`f_c`$, determined to be 0.6 from simulated events (Fig. 3).

The time dependence observed for the mistag fraction of direct-cascade events where the cascade lepton comes from the other $`B`$, as discussed in Section 4.1, is parametrized by a constant term, $`\eta _0`$, and a slope, $`\alpha `$. The same functional dependences as for signal events, $`f^{unmix}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ and $`f^{mix}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, are used.

The time distributions of the non-$`B\overline{B}`$ background, $`f_{other}^{OS}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ and $`f_{other}^{SS}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, and their absolute normalizations, are obtained from off-resonance data.

Four parameters, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$, $`\eta _0`$, $`R`$, and $`\alpha `$, are fitted directly to the observed asymmetry. The lifetimes of the charged and neutral $`B`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$, are fixed to their world average values .

The off-resonance data is used to measure the fraction of the non-$`B\overline{B}`$ background to be $`(0.7\pm 0.1)\%`$ for same-sign dileptons and $`(2.2\pm 0.3)\%`$ for opposite-sign dileptons, respectively. A fit to the time distribution of these events yields an effective lifetime equal to 130$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and 135$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ for same-sign and opposite-sign dileptons, respectively.

The fit to the measured asymmetry $`A_{fit}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ shown in Fig. 4 and obtained with an integrated luminosity of $`7.73fb^1`$, yields the following values: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}=(0.507\pm 0.015)\times 10^{12}\mathrm{}s^1`$, $`\eta _0=0.109\pm 0.004`$, $`R=1.34\pm 0.11`$ and $`\alpha =(1.7\pm 3.3)\times 10^5`$, with a $`\chi ^2`$ of 20.8 for 21 degrees of freedom.

## 5 Cross-checks and stability of the $`𝚫𝒎_{𝑩^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ measurement

### 5.1 Enrichment of the neutral $`𝑩`$ with a soft pion

In the inclusive approach proposed in this analysis, the final dilepton sample contains both charged and neutral mesons $`B`$ in almost equal proportions. Therefore, the observed oscillation amplitude is reduced by the presence of the non-oscillating charged $`B`$. To enrich the $`B^0`$ fraction, the direct lepton can be correlated with the soft pion produced by a $`D^{}`$+ decay. Charged $`B`$ mesons can only produce a direct lepton and a charged $`D^{}`$ through the $`D^{}`$ decay or through the non-resonant 4 body decay $`B^{}D^+\pi ^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$. The branching fractions of these modes are not perfectly measured, but they should represent roughly 10-20% of the semileptonic decays.

The identification of an event with a soft pion is based on a method proposed by the CLEO Collaboration : only tracks with momentum less than 190$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$ in the center-of-mass system are considered. The direction of motion of the $`D^{}`$ is very close to that of the soft pion (the $`D^0`$ and the soft pion are produced almost at rest in the $`D^{}`$ system) and the energy $`E_D^{}^{}`$ of the $`D^{}`$ in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ system is approximated by using the energy of the soft pion $`E_\pi ^{}`$ in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ system and the energy of the soft pion $`E_\pi ^D^{}`$ in the $`D^{}`$ system: $`E_D^{}^{}(E_\pi ^{}/E_\pi ^D^{})M_D^{}`$. With the four-vector of the lepton and the $`D^{}`$, one can compute the missing mass squared $`M_m^2`$ of the neutrino. In the analysis, events are kept if $`|M_m^2|1.0(\mathrm{GeV}/c^2)^2`$.

The fit of this sub-sample gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}=(0.518\pm 0.017)\times 10^{12}\mathrm{}s^1`$, in good agreement with the value obtained with the dilepton sample. Even though the fraction of events with the additional soft pion represents only 16.5% of the total dilepton sample, the statistical errors are comparable. While, for the moment, this preliminary method constitutes an excellent cross-check, it may later become an alternative approach in its own right.

### 5.2 Stability studies

We have investigated the stability of the fit results against various changes in selection criteria. The fit was performed in several ranges of azimuthal angles, as well as for a range of values for the cut on the neural network outputs, ($`0.60.9`$), on the total error of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ ($`150\mu \mathrm{m}300\mu \mathrm{m}`$) and for a range in $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$. Subsamples composed of only $`\mu \mu `$, $`ee`$ and $`e\mu `$ were also considered. In all cases, variations in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$ were found to be small or consistent with the nominal value within statistical errors.

## 6 Systematic uncertainties

In this analysis the fraction of mistagged events $`\eta _0`$ is directly extracted from the fit of the asymmetry but a time dependence of this component, as well as the fraction of misidentified leptons, may induce a bias in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$ determination. These effects are corrected by using the time distribution of the mistagged events determined from the Monte Carlo, and by fitting a slope to the mistag fraction time dependence. The systematic error is determined by assuming that the Monte Carlo corrections are known at the 30% level.

A conservative estimate of the uncertainty due to fake leptons is taken to be the difference between the results of the fit to Monte Carlo with perfect and simulated particle identification.

Another important source of systematic errors comes from the determination of the resolution function, which is taken from simulated events. To estimate the uncertainty involved in this procedure, we have compared the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ resolution between data and Monte Carlo using $`J/\psi `$ events, where the leptons are known to come from the same vertex. From this comparison, shown in Figure 5, we estimate an uncertainty on the width of the narrow and wide Gaussians of the resolution function of 5% and 10%, respectively.

The effect of a charge asymmetry in the identification of the lepton ($`\epsilon ^+\epsilon ^{}`$) or a mistag asymmetry $`\eta ^+\eta ^{}`$ on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$ measurement is negligible since the effects cancel in the asymmetry. However, the mistag probability $`\eta `$ may be different for the charged and neutral $`B`$. The impact of such an effect on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$ measurement is negligible because the bias is fully absorbed by the parameter $`R`$, which implies that the fitted value of this ratio need not necessarily be unity.

The list of systematic effects is summarized in Table 1. The sum of the different contributions gives a total systematic uncertainty of $`0.022\times 10^{12}\mathrm{}s^1`$.

## 7 Conclusions

We present a preliminary study of the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ oscillation frequency with an inclusive sample of dilepton events corresponding to a total luminosity of $`7.73fb^1`$ collected by the BABAR experiment. We obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}=(0.507\pm 0.015\pm 0.022)\times 10^{12}\mathrm{}s^1`$. The accuracy is already comparable with the current world average.

## 8 Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the contributions of our PEP-II colleagues in achieving the excellent luminosity and machine conditions that have made this work possible. We acknowledge support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada), Institute of High Energy Physics (China), Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Germany), Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy), The Research Council of Norway, Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation, Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom), the Department of Energy (US), and the National Science Foundation (US). In addition, individual support has been received from the Swiss National Foundation, the A. P. Sloan Foundation, the Research Corporation, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The visiting groups wish to thank SLAC for the support and kind hospitality extended to them.


format: text

text:
# Semiclassical cross section correlations

## I Introduction

Quantum systems whose classical limit is chaotic show fluctuations in cross sections and eigenvalue positions whose statistical properties seem to fall into a few universality classes . Among the many measures that have been applied to characterize these statistical features, much attention has been given to two-point correlation functions since they can under certain assumptions be related to the classical dynamics . For the case of spectra of bounded systems this has worked remarkably well and in addition one of the main predictions of the semiclassical analysis, the existence of long range correlations due to periodic orbits , has been confirmed many times .

More recently investigations of the statistical behaviour of directly observable quantities, such as cross sections, have been worked out within the nonlinear sigma model for disordered systems . The correlation function was found to have two contributions, a Lorentzian and a derivative of a Lorentzian with respect to its parameter. The ratio between the two terms is fixed and depends on symmetry only. Since there is no semiclassical expression for the individual wave functions from which the cross sections could be calculated, the derivation of such correlation functions within semiclassics poses a serious challenge. A first step in this direction was undertaken by Agam , who exploits quantum properties of the matrix elements and does not use previously established formulas for diagonal matrix elements . The derivation presented here is similar in spirit but starts from the semiclassical expression for diagonal matrix elements and specializes to the case of the cross section in the end. In particular, we show how the relative weight between the two contributions to the correlation function can be changed. The final expressions are compared with data for cross sections in an open kicked rotor model.

In section 2 we present the semiclassical derivation of the correlation function between cross sections. This calculation is actually straightforward and closely patterned after calculations for other two point correlations . In section 3 we discuss the limit that has to be taken in the observable to arrive at the correlation function for cross sections. In section 4 we discuss numerical simulations for an open kicked rotator. Some concluding comments are given in section 5.

## II Semiclassical correlation functions for smooth operators

Quantum cross sections for the transition from an initial state $`|i`$ to a set of final states $`|n`$ which are eigenstates of a Hamiltonian, $`H|n=E_n|n`$, are proportional to

$$\sigma (E)\underset{n}{}n|D|ii|D|n\delta (EH)$$
(1)
where $`D`$ denotes the dipole operator. Using the projection operator

$$A=D|ii|D$$
(2)
and Greens function $`G=1/(EH)`$ the cross section becomes (dropping the proportionality factors implied in (1))

$$\sigma _A(E)=\frac{1}{\pi }\text{Im tr}(GA).$$
(3)
If the operator $`A`$ is sufficiently smooth and has a non-singular classical limit, there is a semiclassical expression for $`\sigma (E)`$ which naturally divides into two pieces ,

$$\sigma _A^{(sc)}(E)=\sigma _0(E)+\sigma _{A,fl}(E).$$
(4)
The first term, a smoothly varying background contribution from paths of ‘zero length’, is determined by integration over the energy shell of the Wigner transform $`A_W`$ of the observable with the measure $`d\mu =d^dpd^dq/h^d`$ (in $`d`$-degrees of freedom),

$$\sigma _0(E)=𝑑\mu A_W\delta (EH).$$
(5)
The second term describes the fluctuations around it and is determined by classical periodic orbits,

$$\sigma _{A,fl}(E)=\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{}}\text{Re }\underset{p}{}A_pw_pe^{iS_p/\mathrm{}}$$
(6)
where $`S_p`$, $`T_p`$ and $`w_p`$ are the action, period and weight of the periodic orbit $`p`$, respectively, and

$$A_p=_0^{T_p}𝑑tA_W(p(t),q(t))$$
(7)
is the integral of the observable (again the Wigner transform of $`A`$) over the periodic orbit $`p`$. This result is derived under the condition that the observable is sufficiently smooth so that it does not affect the stationary phase evaluation that singles out periodic orbits. Wigner transformations of projection operators are critical in this respect since they typically approach delta functions in momenta as $`\mathrm{}`$ goes to zero, i.e. become rather singular. This is the main limitation that prevents a direct application of the above expression to the calculation of the autocorrelation function of the cross sections. We therefore adopt the following strategy: We first calculate the auto-correlation function for $`\sigma _A(E)`$ within a semiclassical approximation for a smooth observable $`A`$ and then discuss the limit of a singular operator.

The object we want to calculate is the normalized autocorrelation function of the fluctuations around the mean cross section $`\sigma _0(E)`$,

$$C(\epsilon )=\sigma _{A,fl}(E+\epsilon /2)\sigma _{A,fl}(E\epsilon /2)/\sigma _0^2$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes an average over energy. The energy scale is set quantum mechanically by the mean spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between neighboring levels, calculated from the mean density of states

$$\rho _0=1/\mathrm{\Delta }=𝑑\mu \delta (EH).$$
(9)
The associated time scale is the Heisenberg time $`T_H=2\pi \mathrm{}\rho _0=h/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The scale for the observable is set by the phase space average of its Wigner transform,

$$\overline{A}=\frac{𝑑\mu A_W\delta (EH)}{𝑑\mu \delta (EH)}$$
(10)
so that $`\sigma _0=\overline{A}\rho _0=\overline{A}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Substituting the fluctuating part from the periodic orbits gives

$`C(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2\overline{A}^2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}}\times `$ (11)
$`\text{Re}{\displaystyle \underset{p,p^{}}{}}A_p^{}A_p^{}w_p^{}w_p^{}e^{i(S_p(E+\epsilon /2)S_p^{}(E\epsilon /2))/\mathrm{}}.`$ (12)
The classical action in the exponent can be expanded for small $`\epsilon `$,

$`S_p(E+\epsilon /2)`$ $``$ $`S_p^{}(E\epsilon /2)`$ (13)
$`S_p(E)S_p^{}(E)+\epsilon (T_p+T_p^{})/2.`$ (14)
In the diagonal approximation  the correlation function becomes

$$C_{diag}(\epsilon )=\frac{g\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2\overline{A}^2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}\text{Re}\underset{p}{}|A_p|^2|w_p|^2e^{iT_p\epsilon /\mathrm{}}$$
(15)
the factor $`g`$ accounts, as usual, for degeneracies in case of real symmetric Hamiltonians, $`g=2`$, while for hermitian Hamiltonians $`g=1`$.

For the next step we use the periodic orbit sum rule  and follow the steps in . The periodic orbits proliferate exponentially with time so that the sum on $`p`$ can be replaced by an integral over time. The density of orbits is given by $`e^{\mu T}/T`$ with $`\mu `$ the topological entropy and their weight by $`|w_p|^2=e^{\lambda T}`$ with $`\lambda `$ the Lyapunov exponent. The difference between the Lyapunov exponent and the topological entropy is the classical escape rate,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\lambda \mu .$$
(16)
The integrals $`A_p`$ of the observable along the orbit vary considerably among orbits of similar length. The high density of periodic orbits allows to capture this probabilistically through the distribution $`P(A)`$ of values obtained for all orbits with periods in a small interval around $`T`$. If the correlations in the classical dynamics fall off sufficiently rapidly, the distribution will be Gaussian,

$$P(A)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }s_A}e^{(A\stackrel{~}{A})^2/s_A^2}$$
(17)
with a mean $`\stackrel{~}{A}=\overline{A}T`$ following from ergodicity and a variance $`s_A^2=\alpha T`$ that increases linearly with time. With this distribution function and the assumption that there are no correlations between weights $`w_p`$ and observables $`A_p`$, the mean square average of the $`A_p`$’s from orbits with periods near $`T`$ changes with time like

$$|A_p|^2(T)=\overline{A}^2T^2+\alpha T.$$
(18)
Thus summing the contributions of orbits in the diagonal approximation we obtain

$`C_{diag}(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2\overline{A}^2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}}\times `$ (19)
$`\text{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{T_H}}𝑑T{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\mu \lambda +i\epsilon /\mathrm{})T}}{T}}\left(\overline{A}^2T^2+\alpha T\right).`$ (20)
For bounded systems ($`\mu =\lambda `$) and for $`ϵ=0`$ we obtain the expression for the variance of matrix elements derived in  and tested and verified in many situations . If the system is sufficiently open so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T_H1`$ the contributions from the off-diagonal terms can be neglected and the integration continued to infinity (as explained in the next paragraph). Then

$$C_{diag}(\epsilon )\frac{g\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2\overline{A}^2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}\text{Re }\left(\alpha \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }i\epsilon /\mathrm{}}+\overline{A}^2\frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }i\epsilon /\mathrm{})^2}\right).$$
(21)
With the energy and time scales mentioned above, i.e. $`\epsilon =\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}/T_H=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}`$, the correlation function becomes

$$C(\epsilon )\frac{g}{\pi }\left(\frac{\alpha }{\overline{A}^2T_H}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2+\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^2}+\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^2}{(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2+\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^2)^2}\right).$$
(22)
As in the calculation of Fyodorov and Alhassid  the correlation function has two terms, a Lorentzian and a derivative of a Lorentzian with respect to the width. However, in contrast to their formula, where the relative weight between the two terms was fixed, it here depends on the observable and the Heisenberg time. This point will be taken up again in the next section.

The above derivation is based on the usual assumptions on the diagonal approximation, the validity of a periodic orbit sum rule and the replacement of a sum over orbits by an integral in time. As a consequence deviations can be expected for short times where isolated periodic orbits dominate, an effect that should be particularly noticeable near bifurcations. Deviations from the diagonal approximations are strong for the orthogonal ensemble and absent for the unitary ensemble, at least up to the Heisenberg time . The extension of the time integration up to infinity rather than the Heisenberg time is justified if the system is very open, i.e. if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T_H1`$, so that the corrections due to off-diagonal terms for times beyond the Heisenberg time can be neglected. When approaching bounded systems $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vanishes and the corrections have to be taken into account. The final expression is thus reasonable only for sufficiently open systems where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In this limit the contributions from long orbits are quickly suppressed and the differences between the unitary and orthogonal ensembles should disappear, except of course for the factor of $`2`$. It is possible to go beyond this by assuming that the form factor is the random matrix form factor times an exponential damping, as suggested also by Alhassid and Fyodorov .

The derivative of the Lorentzian in the second term, weighted by the mean of the operator can be traced back to the autocorrelation function of the density of states (without operator) as calculated earlier . The width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that enters here is the classical escape rate, since that is what determines the modification of the classical sum rule. The prediction then is that the quantum resonances have half that width, since it is the probabilities and not the amplitudes that have to follow the classical behaviour. In many cases, especially with a finite number of channels, the situation presumably is more complex, since the quantum resonances have a distribution of widths and it is not clear which quantity (average width, maximum of distribution, longest life time etc) dominates the form factor . In the semiclassical limit of an infinite number of channels some information can be drawn from the results of Fyodorov and Sommers for random matrix models with fixed transmission  and from the distribution of resonance widths calculated by Haake et al. : in both cases a single width parameter, given by half the classical escape rate in the first case and by half the gap in the distribution in the second case suffices to describe the correlation function.

Finally, we note that if the classical correlations do not decay sufficiently rapidly the average of the square of the integrals along the orbits can be expressed as an integral over the correlation function as in the previous calculation of matrix elements .

## III The limit of projection operators

The final result for the correlation function given in Eq. (22) has the two functional dependencies also identified in Alhassid and Fyodorov , but the relative weighting depends on the observable. Even worse, the first term contains $`T_H`$ in the denominator and therefore seems to vanish in the semiclassical limit where $`T_H`$ diverges. Then the correlation function is of the form of a derivative of the Lorentzian only. So how can one obtain Alhassid and Fyodorov’s result $`\alpha /\overline{A}^2T_H=1`$ within this semiclassical approach?

The key to the problem is the observation that the semiclassical approximation assumes the observable to have a nonsingular classical limit whereas the quantum cross sections are obtained from observables that are projectors on the initial state (weighted with the dipole operator). The Wigner transform of a projector is itself a function of Planck’s constant and becomes singular in the semiclassical limit. More specifically, one can visualize the Wigner transform of a projector as a characteristic function that in $`d`$ dimensions lives on a phase space cell of volume $`h^d`$, since that is the phase space volume occupied by a single state. The observables for which the semiclassical trace formula was derived were smooth with a non-singular limit, that is to say they covered an increasing number of quantum states in the semiclassical limit. This smearing over many states suppresses the first term in the correlation function.

It is possible to estimate the consequences of this observation on the operator $`A`$ in a simple model of a uniformly damped quantum map. Consider a 2-d chaotic map on a finite phase space and its quantum representation by an $`N\times N`$ unitary operator $`U`$. The dimension $`N`$ of $`U`$, Planck’s constant $`h`$ and the volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ of the classical phase space are connected by $`h=\mathrm{\Omega }_0/N`$. Damping is introduced uniformly everywhere in phase space and on all quantum states. The projector is modelled by an observable that takes on the value $`a_0`$ in some part of phase space of area $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A`$ and vanishes everywhere else.

On the classical side the integrals of the observable along the periodic orbit are replaced by sums over the points of the orbit. If there are no correlations between different time steps, the average value of the $`A_p`$ over all orbits with period $`n`$ is given by $`A_p=na_0p`$, where $`p=\mathrm{\Omega }_A/\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is the probability for a randomly chosen point to lie in the phase space area where the observable does not vanish. The second moment of the distribution is given by

$$A_p^2=a_0^2p^2n^2+a_0^2p(1p)n.$$
(23)
By comparison with Eq. (18) we read off $`\overline{A}=a_0p`$ and $`\alpha =a_0^2p(1p)`$. The Heisenberg time is $`T_H=N`$, the dimension of the Hilbert space. Therefore,

$$\frac{\alpha }{\overline{A}^2T_H}=\frac{a_0^2p(1p)}{a_0^2p^2N}=\frac{1p}{pN}.$$
(24)
With an escape rate $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ expressed in units of the Heisenberg time the correlation function then becomes

$$C(\epsilon )=\frac{g}{\pi }\left(\frac{1p}{pN}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2+\epsilon ^2}+\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2\epsilon ^2}{(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2+\epsilon ^2)^2}\right).$$
(25)
This expression clearly shows the suppression of the first term in the semiclassical limit of large $`N`$ if $`p`$ is fixed.

However, if the observable is a projector onto a single state its Wigner transform should localize on a cell of phase space volume $`h`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A=\mathrm{\Omega }_0/N`$ and $`p=1/N`$, so that the product $`pN=1`$. Except for the tiny correction $`1/N`$ to the correct ratio of $`1`$ this is the result obtained by Alhassid and Fyodorov . In addition, it suggests a way to modify the relative weighting between the two terms: consider transitions not from a single state but from $`M`$ states in an incoherent superposition, i.e.,

$$A=D\underset{m}{}|mm|D.$$
(26)
Then the phase space area covered by $`A`$ will increase $`M`$-fold and the weight of the Lorentzian will decrease correspondingly,

$$C(\epsilon )\frac{g}{\pi }\left(\frac{1}{M}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2+\epsilon ^2}+\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2\epsilon ^2}{(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2+\epsilon ^2)^2}\right).$$
(27)
(where it is assumed that $`MN`$). The resolution to the problem of the relative weight between the two terms in the correlation function posed at the beginning of this section thus is that by focusing on initial states which are projectors the classical observable also depends on $`\mathrm{}`$, and this $`\mathrm{}`$-dependence influences the classical quantities as well. Indeed, if the classical observable becomes very localized in phase space, it is rarely visited, the return time becomes large and the variance increases much more slowly, on a timescale also set by the return time. In this way the Heisenberg time enters the classical quantities.

## IV Numerical tests on the kicked rotor

The model of the previous section clearly stretches the applicability of the semiclassical expressions for the matrix elements to their limits and requires numerical tests. We use the kicked rotor in the momentum space quantization of Izrailev  for this purpose,

$$U_{nm}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}e^{iKNV(2\pi l/N)}e^{2i\pi l(nm)/N}e^{i2\pi m^2/N},$$
(28)
where  $`V(\varphi )=\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )`$ is the kicking potential. This model is known to belong to the unitary universality class ($`g=1`$) due to the second term in the potential that breaks the conjugation symmetry . If the kicking strength is sufficiently large the correlations decay very quickly and one ends up with essentially random values for the momenta. The calculations were done for $`K=7`$  and matrix sizes $`N=101`$, $`201`$, $`401`$, $`801`$ and $`1601`$. The initial states were taken to be momentum eigenstates of the unperturbed map. From the eigenstates $`|\nu `$ and eigenphases $`\varphi _\nu `$ a cross section was formed with the operator $`A`$ from Eq. (26) according to

$$\sigma (\varphi )=\text{Re}\underset{\nu }{}\frac{\nu |A|\nu }{1\mathrm{exp}(i(\varphi \varphi _\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)}.$$
(29)
The damping $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$ is uniform for all eigenstates and models the coupling of the system to a continuum (for a discussion of this point see the previous section and the references cited there). The role of the energy is now taken over by the phase $`\varphi `$ and the mean and correlation function are calculated over the periodicity interval $`2\pi `$. The mean separation between eigenphases is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2\pi /N`$. Figure 1 shows the correlation function obtained for a different number of initial states and constant damping. For a single initial state the contribution from the derivative of a Lorentzian is barely noticeable but as the number of initial states increases the deviations from the Lorentzian become larger. In particular, the correlation function develops a zero for $`M/2\pi >\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. Fitting Eq. (22) with the coefficient of the Lorentzian and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ as free parameters yields a broadening $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ independent of $`M`$ and the coefficient of the Lorentzian in Eq. (22) is proportional to $`M^1`$ as expected from Eq. (27).

A random matrix calculation  shows that the quantity that controls the relative weight between the two terms is the ratio between the variance $`s_A^2`$ of the matrix elements and the square of the average for different matrix sizes. This quantity, $`(s_A/A)^2`$ should equal $`(1p)/pN`$. As shown in Figure 2, the renormalized quantity $`(s_A/A)^2pN`$ follows the expected $`1p`$ behaviour rather closely, albeit with large fluctuations. It thus seems that the assumptions that enter in our semiclassical derivation of the correlation function can be satisfied in chaotic systems.

## V Final remarks

We have shown how within a semiclassical approximation correlation functions for cross sections in open systems can be calculated. The calculations could be supported with simulations in the standard map and in particular the changes in the relative weight between the two contributions to the correlation function could be demonstrated.

Actually, the calculation works much better than can reasonably be expected: it is well known that the calculation of wave function usually requires in addition to periodic orbits also recurrent orbits . Their importance depends on the width of the initial state . It may happen, however, that in a statistical sense the differences between the contributions from recurrent and periodic orbits cancel. A related problem concerns the higher moments of the distribution and thus the form of the full distribution. Even in the singular limit of small $`p`$ considered in the model, the distribution of classical contributions remains Gaussian, or perhaps Poissonian, but the distribution for transition strengths expected from random matrix theory is exponential (for the unitary ensemble) or Porter-Thomas (for the orthogonal ensemble). Further calculations indeed show that while the first and second moments agree, the higher moments and the full distributions differ .

Among the consequences that seem worthwhile to pursue are the dependence on the initial state and the possibility to highlight the non-Lorenzian part, the modification to allow for non-exponential classical escape  and the singular contributions from periodic orbits near bifurcations .

## Acknowledgments

We thank O. Agam, Y. Alhassid and Y. Fyodorov for discussions. This work was supported in part by the Alexander von Humboldt foundation the Minerva Center for Non–linear Physics of Complex Systems and by OTKA grants No. T029813, T032116 and F024135.


text:
# Vortex Lines or Vortex-Line Chains at the Lower Critical Field in Anisotropic Superconductors?

## Abstract

The vortex state at the lower critical field, $`H_{c1}`$, in clean anisotropic superconductors placed in an external field tilted with respect to the axis of anisotropy (c-axis) is considered assuming two possible arrangements: dilute vortex-lines or dilute vortex-line chains. By minimizing the Gibbs free energies in the London limit for each possibility we obtain the corresponding lower critical fields as a function of the tilt angle. The equilibrium configuration at $`H_{c1}`$ for a given tilt angle is identified with that for which $`H_{c1}`$ is the smallest. We report results for parameter values typical of strong and moderate anisotropy. We find that for strong anisotropy vortex-line chains are favored for small tilt angles ($`<7.9^\mathrm{o}`$) and that at $`7.9^\mathrm{o}`$ there is coexistence between this configuration and a vortex-line one. For moderate anisotropy we find that there is little difference between the vortex-line and the vortex-chain lower critical fields.

Motivated by the discovery of high-Tc superconductivity in the cuprates, calculations of vortex properties in uniaxially anisotropic superconductors were carried out by several workers . One surprising result is that the interaction between a pair of straight vortex lines parallel to each other, tilted and coplanar with respect to the c-axis is attractive at distances larger than a value of the order of the penetration depth, as was first found by Grishin, Martynovich and Yampol’skii. As a consequence, a chain of such lines has lower energy than the same vortex lines placed far apart. On the basis of this result it was suggested that at $`H_{c1}`$ the mixed state consists of a vanishing small density of vortex-line chains instead of vortex lines .

However, this is not correct in general for tilted vortex lines. The reason is that in order to determine the $`H_{c1}`$ configuration it is necessary to minimize the Gibbs free energy in the limit of vanishing vortex density for each candidate vortex arrangement and, from it, obtain the corresponding $`H_{c1}`$. The equilibrium configuration is the one with the smallest $`H_{c1}`$. In this paper we carry out this calculation in detail assuming two possible arrangements: dilute vortex lines (DVL) or dilute vortex-line chains (DVLC).

The Gibbs free-energy minimization for the DVL was carried out by Sudbø, Brandt and Huse  in the London limit with the goal of studying coexistence of vortex states at $`H_{c1}`$. They find that, over a range of parameter values, there is one external field tilt angle for which two DVL states, differing by the vortex-line orientation with respect to the c-axis, coexist at $`H_{c1}`$. In this paper we also investigate how these results are modified by vortex-line chain states.

To carry out the Gibbs free-energy minimization we proceed along lines similar to those developed by Sudbø, Brandt and Huse . We obtain $`H_{c1}`$ as a function of the external field tilt angle for parameter values typical of strong and moderate anisotropy, both for DVL and DVLC, and determine which one of these is the equilibrium one at $`H_{c1}`$. For strong anisotropy we predict coexistence between DVL and DVLC at a particular external field tilt angle.

We consider a bulk uniaxially anisotropic superconductor placed in a magnetic field $`𝐇`$, with magnitude $`H`$ and tilted with respect to the c-axis by an angle $`\alpha `$. We assume that the vortex lines are straight and point in a direction making an angle $`\theta `$ with the c-axis.

In the London limit the superconductor is characterized by the penetration depths $`\lambda _{ab}`$ and $`\lambda _c`$, for currents parallel to the ab-plane and to the c-direction, respectively. The free energy per unit length of a generic arrangement of these vortex lines, $`F`$, can be written as the sum of pairwise interactions

$$F=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2}{8\pi }\underset{i,j}{}f(𝐫_i𝐫_j),$$
(1)
where $`𝐫_i`$ is the i-th line position vector in the plane perpendicular to the vortex line direction and $`f(𝐫)`$ is the Fourier transform of

$$f(𝐤)=e^{2g(𝐤)}\frac{1+\lambda _\theta ^2k^2}{(1+\lambda _{ab}^2k^2)(1+\lambda _\theta ^2k_x^2+\lambda _c^2k_y^2)},$$
(2)
where $`\lambda _\theta ^2=\lambda _{ab}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\lambda _c^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$, $`x`$ and $`y`$ refer to two directions perpendicular to one another and to the vortex lines, with $`x`$ coplanar with the c-axis, and $`g(𝐤)`$ is the vortex core cutoff function .

For both DVL and DVLC, $`F`$ can be cast in the form

$$F_0(N_v,\theta )=n_vA\epsilon (\theta ),$$
(3)
where $`n_v`$ is the vortex-line density and $`A`$ is the sample area perpendicular to the vortex lines direction. For the DVL we can neglect interactions between lines, so that $`\epsilon (\theta )=\epsilon _{sf}(\theta )`$, the vortex-line self-energy ($`\epsilon _{sf}(\theta )=(\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2/8\pi )f(0))`$. For DVLC we can neglect interchain interactions, so that $`\epsilon (\theta )=\epsilon _{sf}(\theta )+\epsilon _{ch}(\theta )`$, where $`\epsilon _{ch}(\theta )`$ is the energy of interaction per vortex-line of a chain running along the $`x`$-direction ($`\epsilon _{ch}(\theta )=(\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2/8\pi )_{n0}f(x=nL_1,y=0)`$, $`L_1`$ being the vortex-chain period).

In order to calculate $`H_{c1}(\alpha )`$ we have to minimize the Gibbs free energy with $`𝐇`$ and the sample volume fixed. The Gibbs free energy per volume for the above described vortex states is given by

$$G_0(B,\theta ;H,\alpha )=\frac{B}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}[\epsilon (\theta )\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{4\pi }H\mathrm{cos}(\theta \alpha )],$$
(4)
where $`B=\mathrm{\Phi }_0n_v`$ is the modulus of the magnetic induction.

We adopt for $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{sf}}(\theta )`$ the expression derived by Sudbø and Brandt , using an elliptic core cutoff function,

$$\epsilon _{\mathrm{sf}}(\theta )=\epsilon _0\frac{\lambda _\theta }{\lambda _c}[\mathrm{ln}(\kappa \gamma )+\frac{\lambda _c^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\lambda _c^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\lambda _\theta ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\gamma ^2(\lambda _c^2+\lambda _\theta ^2)}{2\lambda _\theta ^2}],$$
(5)
where $`\epsilon _0=(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/4\pi \lambda _{ab})^2`$, $`\gamma =\lambda _{ab}/\lambda _c`$, $`\kappa =\lambda _{ab}/\xi _{ab}`$, $`\xi _{ab}`$ being the ab-plane coherence length. This line energy was derived from the anisotropic Ginzburg-Landau theory using the Klemm-Clem transformations . The elliptical core cut off has semimajor axis $`\xi _{ab}^1`$, and semiminor axis $`(\xi _{ab}^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\xi _c^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^{1/2}`$.

Taking the derivatives of $`G_0`$ with respect to $`B`$ and $`\theta `$ and equating to zero we obtain, respectively

$$\epsilon (\theta )\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{4\pi }H\mathrm{cos}(\theta \alpha )=0$$
(6)
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\epsilon (\theta )}{\mathrm{d}\theta }+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{4\pi }H\mathrm{sin}(\theta \alpha )=0.$$
(7)
The first equation is the familiar condition $`G_0=0`$ at $`H_{c1}`$, whereas the second results from torque balance.

To solve this system of equations we first obtain $`H`$ from Eq. (6) and substitute it in Eq. (7). The following relationship between $`\alpha `$ and $`\theta `$ results

$$\alpha =\theta +\mathrm{tan}^1[\frac{1}{\epsilon (\theta )}\frac{\mathrm{d}\epsilon (\theta )}{\mathrm{d}\theta }].$$
(8)
Finally, we obtain $`H_{c1}(\alpha )`$ by substituting the function $`\theta (\alpha )`$ obtained by inverting Eq. (8) into Eq. (6)

$$H_{c1}(\alpha )=\frac{4\pi \epsilon [\theta (\alpha )]}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{cos}[\theta (\alpha )\alpha ]}.$$
(9)
As we shall see shortly, $`\theta (\alpha )`$ may be a multivalued function. Multivalued solutions for $`H_{c1}`$ in anisotropic materials have been first noticed by Klemm and Clem. If this is so, according to Eq. (9), for each $`\alpha `$ there are several, generally distinct, $`H_{c1}(\alpha )`$ and corresponding vortex configurations satisfying the minimization conditions. The physical solution is the one with the smallest $`H_{c1}(\alpha )`$.

Now we obtain numerically the solutions of these equations for the following choices of parameters, typical of strong and moderate anisotropy:

Moderate anisotropy: $`\kappa =50`$, $`\gamma =1/5`$

Strong anisotropy: $`\kappa =10`$, $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{200}`$

The results are as follows.

i) Dilute arrangement of vortex lines (DVL). As expected, our results are identical to those obtained by Sudbø, Brandt and Huse . For strong anisotropy there is a region where $`\theta (\alpha )`$ is multivalued: for each $`\alpha `$ there are three values of $`\theta `$ and of $`H_{c1}(\alpha )`$ as shown in Fig. 1. The physical solution for each $`\alpha `$ is the one with the smallest $`H_{c1}(\alpha )`$ (Fig. 1). At $`\alpha =7.5^o`$ the solutions $`\theta _1=35^o`$ and $`\theta _2=86^o`$ give the same $`H_{c1}`$ ((Fig. 1), indicating coexistence of DVL with vortex lines oriented in these directions. The region $`\theta _1<\theta <\theta _2`$ is forbidden for vortex-line tilt angles. For moderate anisotropy there is a single $`\theta `$ and $`H_{c1}(\alpha )`$ for each $`\alpha `$ as show in Fig. 2.

ii)Dilute arrangement of vortex-line chains (DVLC). First we calculate $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{ch}}(\theta )`$ by numerically minimizing the energy per vortex line of a single chain with respect to the chain period, $`L_1`$, using a simulated annealing algorithm based on a fast convergent series for the energy . The results for $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{ch}}(\theta )`$ and for $`L_1`$ are shown in Fig. 3. Our results are similar to those obtained in Ref..

It turns out that $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{ch}}(\theta )`$ is small compared to $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{sf}}(\theta )`$ for all $`\theta `$: less than 6% for strong anisotropy and less than 0.5% for moderate anisotropy. However, as we shall discuss in detail shortly, this small correction has non-trivial consequences for strong anisotropy.

It is interesting to analyze in some detail the chain structure. In Fig. 3 we show the interaction energy of a vortex-line pair and the equilibrium positions of the six nearest neighbors of a given vortex line for strong anisotropy and $`\theta =70^o`$. We note that the chain period is considerably smaller than the distance where the vortex-line pair interaction is minimum. This results from the long range of the attractive interaction between vortex lines. Indeed, in order to reproduce our calculated value for $`\epsilon _{ch}`$ in this case it is necessary to add the contributions of all six neighbors shown in Fig. 3.

We accurately fit our numerical data for $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{ch}}(\theta )`$ to an analytical function and obtain the solutions of Eqs. (6) and (7) with $`\epsilon (\theta )=\epsilon _{sf}(\theta )+\epsilon _{ch}(\theta )`$ following the same steps as in i).

For moderate anisotropy we find that the $`\theta (\alpha )`$ and $`H_{c1}(\alpha )`$ for the DVLC are practically identical with the same quantities for the DVL. This results from the very small $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{ch}}(\theta )`$ in this case.

For strong anisotropy, we find that $`\theta (\alpha )`$ for the DVLC is multivalued in a range of $`\alpha `$ values, with three values of $`\theta `$ and $`H_{c1}(\alpha )`$ for each $`\alpha `$, similarly to the DVL case. The smallest $`H_{c1}(\alpha )`$, and the corresponding $`\theta (\alpha )`$, are the full curves shown in Fig. 4. Comparing the results for the two configurations we conclude that for $`\alpha <7.9^o`$ $`H_{c1}(\alpha )`$ for DVLC is smaller than that for lines, whereas for $`\alpha >7.9^o`$ there is practically no difference between the $`H_{c1}(\alpha )`$ for these configurations (the same is true for $`\alpha 0^o`$). At $`\alpha =7.9^o`$ there is coexistence between a DVLC arrangement with $`\theta _3=61^o`$ and a DVL one with $`\theta _4=\theta _1=86^o`$. The region $`\theta _3<\theta <\theta _4`$ is forbidden for vortex-line tilt angles.

In conclusion then, we determine if a dilute arrangement of vortex-lines or of vortex-line chains is the equilibrium vortex configuration at lower critical field by calculating $`H_{c1}`$ for each case and by identifying the equilibrium configuration with that for which $`H_{c1}`$ is the smallest. We find that the vortex-line chain configuration is favored for strong anisotropy and small external field tilt angles ($`<7.9^o`$). For larger tilt angles the vortex lines are nearly parallel to the a-b plane, where there is little difference between the two configurations. For moderate anisotropy we find no significant difference between the two $`H_{c1}`$. The values chosen in our calculation of the anisotropy parameter $`\gamma `$ for what we call moderate and strong anisotropy are typical of YBCO and BSCCO, respectively. The parameter $`\kappa `$ for moderate anisotropy is typical of YBCO, but for strong anisotropy is about five times smaller than those typical of BSCCO . This difference does not alter significantly the above stated conclusions because the chain interaction energy does not depend on $`\kappa `$. Only the self-energy does.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by MCT/CNPq, FAPERJ and CAPES.


text:
# Introduction.

## Introduction.

In contrast to the classical cryptography based on the laws of classical physics, quantum cryptography employs the fundamental laws of non-relativistic quantum mechanics . Security of classical cryptography is based on the unproved computational complexity of some functions, for example the discrete logarithm, which are assumed to be computed using a physical device operating according to the laws of classical physics. It is also implicitly assumed that the exchange of information between the legitimate users is performed employing the classical objects. Since the laws of classical physics do not prohibit simultaneous measurements of any dynamical variables of a classical system without any disturbances, it is impossible to reliably detect the eavesdropping attempts during the exchange of information between the legitimate users within the framework of classical physics. Therefore, the security of quantum cryptosystems cannot be based on the detection of eavesdropping attempts during the key distribution and can only be associated with the exponential computational complexity of some functions.

The laws of classical physics constitute only an approximate description of physical reality. A more accurate description is provided by the non-relativistic quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanics allow in principle to construct a computational device (quantum computer) which for some problems is more powerful than the classical computers. The factorization problem which is faced by eavesdropper when attempting to extract (compute) the key in some open key classical cryptosystems is unsolvable (possesses exponential complexity) for a classical computer, but becomes solvable (possesses only polynomial complexity) for a quantum computer . Therefore, the laws of non-relativistic quantum mechanics do not allow the unconditionally secure information exchange using the available classical algorithms (the unconditional security is understood as the security following from the fundamental laws of nature rather than that based on computational complexity).

Prohibiting the unconditionally secure (in the above sense) classical cryptography, the quantum mechanics opens new possibilities for quantum cryptography which is based on reliable detection of the eavesdropping attempts guaranteed by the laws of quantum mechanics if the information is carried by quantum systems.

The non-relativistic quantum cryptography is based on the following two consequences of the postulates of non-relativistic quantum mechanics:

* The unknown quantum state cannot be copied (no cloning theorem) .
* No information about the states belonging to a non-orthogonal basis can be obtained without disturbing them .

For the orthogonal states this restriction does not hold. Moreover, there exist no restrictions on the instantaneous distinguishability of the orthogonal states without any disturbance. Therefore the usage of orthogonal states in the non-relativistic quantum cryptosystems has not even been discussed.

The non-relativistic quantum cryptosystems actually do not employ the spatio-temporal structure of the quantum states (since both the no-cloning theorem and the statement concerning the impossibility of acquiring any information about the states belonging to a non-orthogonal basis without disturbing them have a completely general nature). Used in the non-relativistic quantum protocols are only the properties of the Hilbert state space of the information carriers. The effects of state propagation between two distant users are not taken into account explicitly since they are not important. To be more precise, the attempts to take into account the spatio-temporal structure of the states do not seem promising from the cryptographic point of view because of the absence of any restrictions on the maximum speed of information transfer in the non-relativistic theory.

A rigorous proof of the unconditional security of non-relativistic quantum protocols when both the eavesdropper and legitimate users are only limited by the laws of quantum mechanics presents a very difficult problem. Several proofs characterized by different levels of complexity and employing different assumptions have been proposed until now. However, because of the complexity of the problem, no generally accepted view on the proof of the unconditional security has yet evolved .

Just as the classical physics, the non-relativistic quantum mechanics provides only an approximate description of nature. A more accurate description taking into account the spatio-temporal structure of quantum states and the restrictions imposed by general relativity is provided by the relativistic quantum theory which, because of the absence of any sensible interpretation of relativistic quantum mechanics, arises from the very outset as the quantum field theory.

The quantum field theory does not close the non-relativistic quantum cryptography because the states of quantum field systems are also described by the rays in physical Hilbert space , just as in the non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Since the non-relativistic quantum cryptographic protocols employ only the properties of the states in the Hilbert space, the non-relativistic protocols survive in the quantum field theory. For the cryptographic problems the quantum field theory can only contribute a substantially new aspect if the spatio-temporal structure of the states is explicitly considered in the protocols. To be more precise, one should take into account that the quantum states, although being described by the rays in the Hilbert space just as in the non-relativistic quantum mechanics, are generated by the field operators (to be more precise, operator-valued distributions) which contain information about the structure of the space-time. The field operators satisfy the commutation relations expressing the microcausality principle. The latter follows from the restrictions imposed by special relativity according to which there should be no causal relation between any two points of Minkowski space-time separated by a space-like interval. In addition the field theory allows to explicitly take into account and employ in the construction of cryptographic protocols the effects of state propagation in the Minkowski space-time.

The restrictions imposed by the filed theory and special relativity result in substantial differences in some problems of quantum information theory (see details in Refs. ) compared with the non-relativistic case.

Presented below is a simple example of an unconditionally secure relativistic quantum cryptosystem in a noisy channel employing the quantum field states (photons) as the information carriers. Because of more restrictive laws of the relativistic quantum field theory, the proof of the unconditional security is substantially simplified compared with the non-relativistic case. In addition, the proposed scheme can be rather easily realized experimentally, in contrast to the unconditionally secure exchange protocols in the non-relativistic case where the proof of security substantially employs the collective measurements which are very difficult for experimental realization. The proposed scheme explicitly employs the causality effects and only the individual measurements.

The below arguments are induced by the paper  which, in our opinion, has not been assessed correctly . Further improvements  have in fact reduced it to a non-relativistic cryptosystem based on non-orthogonal states actually discarding the key new idea.

The key idea is to use the internal degrees of freedom of a quantized field (the photon helicity) to code the transmitted information while the spatial degrees of freedom are used to detect the eavesdropping attempts. This is a substantially new aspect compared with the non-relativistic case which, combined with the special relativity, allows to reliably detect any attempts by eavesdropper to delay the transmitted states and to guarantee that the eavesdropper obtains no information about them. The fact that the transmitted states are the states of a quantum field is also important for the protocol.

The quantum field theory allows to use even orthogonal states in the cryptosystems. Since in the relativistic case the system states are also described by the rays in the Hilbert state space just as in the non-relativistic quantum mechanics, both the no-cloning theorem and the statement on impossibility of reliable distinguishability of non-orthogonal states without disturbing them remain valid because their proofs employ only the properties of the Hilbert state space.

Important for further analysis are the following two circumstances dictated by the quantum field theory (see details in Refs. ):

* Reliable distinguishability of a pair of orthogonal states of a free quantum field requires access to the entire domain of the Minkowski space-time where the state supports are located. Formally, any two orthogonal states of a free quantum field can only be reliably distinguished without disturbing them in an infinite time because of the inherent unlocalizability of quantum field states (no field state with a compact support in the position space can be constructed whose support in the four-dimensional momentum space is defined on the mass shell).
* The theory allows the existence of free quantum field states arbitrarily strongly localized in the space-time (with any localization degree and decaying at infinity according to a law arbitrarily close to the exponential one).

The fundamental unlocalizability of the states is a consequence of the local nature of quantum field theory.

The latter circumstance is important for cryptography since it allows to prepare arbitrarily strongly localized states which have any required arbitrarily small tails decaying arbitrarily close to the exponential law beyond the space-time domains controlled by the legitimate users. The probability of distinguishing two orthogonal states of a quantum field can vary due to the effects of field propagation from the controlled domain of the Minkowski space-time to the domain accessible for the measurement procedure from 1/2 (complete indistinguishability) to 1 (reliable distinguishability). To be more precise, due to the preparation of strongly localized field states, the probabilities of obtaining the measurement results in a finite time can be made arbitrarily close to 1/2 or 1, the deviation being the smallest parameter in the considered problem. Because of the restriction on the maximum speed of both field propagation and motion of classical objects (including measuring apparatus), the access to the entire domain of the existence of the field consisting of two arbitrarily strongly localized but spatially separated “halves” inevitably requires a finite time and cannot be performed instantly. Therefore, as the information is being acquired, the distinguishability probability changes from 1/2 to 1 in a finite time interval. Strong localization of the field “halves” separated by $`\tau _d`$ allows to construct the protocol in such a way that the distinguishability probability $`P(\tau )=1/2`$ at $`0\tau <\tau _d`$ and then jumps to $`P(\tau )=1`$ at $`\tau =\tau _d`$ (the jump is smeared by the state localization length $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \tau _d`$). The jump smearing is controlled by the localization of each “halves” and can be made arbitrarily small.

Since the relativistic quantum cryptography explicitly employs the spatio-temporal structure of the states, the protocol security cannot be proved without taking the geometry of a specific cryptosystem into account, in contrast to the non-relativistic case where only the structure of the state space is used.

## Measurements used in the protocol.

Consider now the measurements used in the protocol. Since we should necessarily take into account the specific geometry of the cryptosystem, we shall consider a simple one-dimensional model containing all the important features dictated by the field theory. We shall consider the particles (field quanta) moving with the speed of light and the spectrum residing on the one-dimensional mass shell (front part of the one-dimensional light cone in the momentum representation, $`k^2k_0^2=0`$).

Each of the users A and B controls the neighbourhoods of points $`x_{A,B}`$ (see the figure). The sizes of the controlled domains are dictated by the localization degree of the states and can be made arbitrarily small (should be of the order of the state localization length). In this geometry it is sufficient to consider the states propagating from $`x_A`$ to $`x_B`$ with positive momenta $`k>0`$. All the states are defined on one part of the light cone $`\tau =xt`$ ($`c=1`$). The Hilbert state space of the information carriers is $`_k𝐂^2`$, where $`_k`$ is related to the spatial while $`𝐂^2`$ to internal (polarizational) degrees of freedom.

Consider a pair of orthogonal states

$$|\psi _{0,1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}_0^{\mathrm{}}f(k)|k(|+\pm |)𝑑k,$$
(1)
where $`|\pm 𝐂^2`$ are the orthogonal basis states, and

$$k|k^{}=\delta (kk^{}),k,k^{}>0,_0^{\mathrm{}}|f(k)|^2𝑑k=1.$$

In the position representation the states on the branch of the one-dimensional light cone have the form

$$|\psi _{0,1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(\tau )|\tau (|+\pm |)𝑑\tau ,\tau =xt,$$
(2)
$$|\tau =_0^{\mathrm{}}\text{e}^{ik\tau }|k𝑑k,f(\tau )=_0^{\mathrm{}}\text{e}^{ik\tau }f(k)𝑑k.$$

The basis $`\{|\tau \}`$ is not orthogonal, $`\tau |\tau ^{}=\delta _+(\tau \tau ^{})\delta (\tau \tau ^{})`$.

The measurement allowing to reliably distinguish the specified pair of orthogonal states is given by an appropriate identity resolution in $`_k𝐂^2`$ (and, similarly, by a resolution in $`_\tau 𝐂^2`$ where $`_\tau `$ is the space isomorphic to $`_k`$ spanned by the basis $`\{|\tau \}`$).

The measurement is given by

$$_0+_1=I_kI_{𝐂^2},_{0,1}=I_k𝒫_{0,1}=I_\tau 𝒫_{0,1},$$
(3)
$$𝒫_0=|00|,𝒫_1=|11|,|0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|++|\right),|1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|+|\right),$$

$$I_k=_0^{\mathrm{}}|kk|dk=I_\tau =_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|\tau \tau |𝑑\tau =_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}(d\tau ),$$
(4)
$$(d\tau )=\left(_0^{\mathrm{}}\text{e}^{ik\tau }|k𝑑k\right)\left(_0^{\mathrm{}}\text{e}^{ik^{}\tau }k^{}|𝑑k^{}\right)d\tau .$$

Note that the measurement (4) is non-local on the light cone.

Support of the state $`f(\tau )`$ on the light cone can be chosen arbitrarily strongly localized, in the extreme case $`|f(\tau )|^2\delta (\tau )`$. Strictly speaking, in the field theory the states defined on the mass shell cannot have a compact support in the Minkowski space-time. However, one can construct arbitrarily strongly localized states with the tails arbitrarily close to the exponential ones . The latter means that it is possible to choose a time window $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ such that the probability of detecting the state in this window can be made arbitrarily close to unit. We shall assume that the state (actually the packet shape $`f(\tau )`$) and the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ are chosen such that the probability of detecting the state outside the time window $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ due to the state tails extending beyond $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ can be made exponentially arbitrarily close to zero. In the rest of the paper we shall assume this parameter to be the smallest one in the problem. To be more precise, the probability of detecting the input states $`|\psi _{0,1}`$ in the time window $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ in the channel 0 (the channel corresponding to $`𝒫_0`$) and, respectively, in the channel 1 ($`𝒫_1`$) (see Eq.(4)) is

$$\text{Pr}\{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ,|\psi _{0,1}\}=\text{Tr}\left\{\left(\left(_{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }(d\tau )\right)𝒫_{0,1}\right)|\psi _{0,1}\psi _{0,1}|\right\}=_{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }|f(\tau )|^2𝑑\tau =1\delta ,$$

where $`\delta `$ is only different from zero due to the state tails

$$_{|\tau |>\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }|f(\tau )|^2𝑑\tau =\delta 0.$$

In other words, there are two different parameters in the problem: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$, the typical state localization (the interval is chosen so that the squared amplitude state $`f(\tau )`$ integrated over it is arbitrarily close to unit) and $`\tau _d`$, the separation between the two “halves” of the state chosen to make the overlap between the tails of the two “halves” arbitrarily small ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \tau _d`$). In the further analysis we shall assume for convenience (with the above reservations) the support to be a compact set since this assumption will not affect the final result.

It should be noted here that the measurement under consideration cannot be interpreted as the one having duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$. In each measurement act the obtained result (reading of a classical device, e.g. of a fast photodetector with a small response time (in the limit, formally infinitely small) operating in the waiting mode) arises at a random time moment in the interval $`(\tau ,\tau +d\tau )`$ with the probability density

$$\text{Pr}\{d\tau ,|\psi _{0,1}\}=\text{Tr}\left\{\left(\left((d\tau )\right)𝒫_{0,1}\right)|\psi _{0,1}\psi _{0,1}|\right\}=|f(\tau )|^2d\tau .$$

This interpretation is very natural and is consistent with the classical limit when a classical signal with the temporal shape $`f(\tau )`$ is measured.

Let the states $`|\psi _0`$ (or $`|\psi _1`$) are prepared at time $`\tau _i`$ (to within $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$; this requires the control over the spatio-temporal domain of size $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$)

$$|\psi _{0,1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}(f(\tau \tau _i)|\tau (|+\pm |))𝑑\tau ,$$
(5)
and then a unitary transformation is performed which does not depend on the prepared state:

$$|\psi _{0,1}(\tau _d)=U|\psi _{0,1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(f(\tau \tau _i\tau _d)|\tau |+\pm f(\tau \tau _i)|\tau |\right)𝑑\tau .$$
(6)
The accuracy of the moment of preparation is determined by the width of the state support.

Matrix elements of the unitary operator have the form

$$+|\tau ^{}|U|\tau |+=\delta _+(\tau \tau ^{}\tau _d)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\text{e}^{ik(\tau \tau ^{}\tau _d)}𝑑k,$$
(7)
$$|\tau ^{}|U|\tau |=\delta _+(\tau \tau ^{}),\pm |\tau ^{}|U|\tau |=0.$$

This unitary transformation is non-local on the light cone $`\tau =xt`$ (for $`\tau _d0`$) which means that its realization requires access to a domain of the size $`\tau _d`$ (to within $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$) on the light cone. Physically, this unitary transformation corresponds to a shift (delay) of the “half” of the state with the $`|`$ polarization along the light cone. If this transformation is performed at fixed $`x`$ (locally in the ordinary position space), then it requires time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\tau _d`$ (since $`\tau =xt`$), or it requires the spatial domain of size $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=c\tau _d`$ ($`c=1`$) if the transformation is performed at a fixed moment of time but non-locally in space (in a spatial domain of size $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=c\tau _d`$).

The spatio-temporal interval $`\tau _d`$ on the branch of the light cone does not depend on the choice of the reference frame since the light cone is Lorentz-invariant. Hence the eavesdropper cannot use the twin paradox .

The extended states $`|\psi _0(\tau _d)`$ and $`|\psi _1(\tau _d)`$ are orthogonal.However, the orthogonality is a non-local property in the sense that to find out whether or not the two states are orthogonal one has to have access to the spatio-temporal domain (interval) of length $`\tau _d`$ to within $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 0`$. In other words, the orthogonality is also a non-local property in the Hilbert space $`_\tau `$ in the sense that one has to have access to all states $`|\tau `$ (access to the spatio-temporal domain $`\tau \tau _d`$), on which the space $`_\tau `$ is spanned.

All the non-relativistic quantum cryptographic protocols assume that the entire Hilbert state spaces are always accessible to both the legitimate users and eavesdropper. In the relativistic case the access can be changed by the effects of the state propagation from the domain controlled by the legitimate user to the domain accessible to the eavesdropper. “Extension” of the state and the limitation on the maximum speed of motion of classical objects and propagation of quantum states allows to construct a protocol in such a way that the state is never available to the eavesdropper as a whole. To be more precise, the attempts to get access to the entire state requires access to the whole interval where the state is present. However, because of the finite speed of light the attempts to get access to a finite spatio-temporal domain result in inevitable delay in the state detection by a legitimate user. This is actually the reason why the collective measurements which are efficient in the non-relativistic case (because of the availability of the entire state space to all the participants) and which present the major obstacle in the proof of the unconditional security, are insignificant here. One can only consider the individual measurements in each transmission since the presence of eavesdropper is detected by the delay of state detection by a legitimate user in each event.

If one has access to the interval $`2T`$ centered about $`\tau _0`$, $`T_0=(T+\tau _0,\tau _0+T)`$ and $`2T<\tau _d+\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$, then no measurement over the states $`|\psi _0(\tau _d)`$ and $`|\psi _1(\tau _d)`$ can distinguish between them (the states seem to be identical). The latter is formally expressed by the restriction of the density matrix to the subspace $`_{T_0}`$ spanned by the states $`|\tau `$ whose support belongs to the interval $`T_0`$. For the density matrix we have

$$\rho _T=\text{Tr}_\tau \left\{\left(\left(_{T_0}(d\tau )\right)I_{𝐂^2}\right)|\psi _{0,1}(\tau _d)\psi _{0,1}(\tau _d)|\right\}=$$
(8)
$$\frac{1}{2}_{T_0}|f(\tau )|^2d\tau |++|+\frac{1}{2}_{T_0}|f(\tau \tau _d)|^2d\tau ||.$$

If the interval $`T_0<\tau _d+\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ does not cover simultaneously the supports of the states with different polarizations (see figure) then only one of the functions $`f(\tau )`$, or $`f(\tau \tau _d)`$ is different from zero. Thus, no measurement in the spatio-temporal domain (interval $`T_0<\tau _d+\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$) can distinguish the orthogonal states. The probability of distinguishing the states is 1/2 (equal to the probability of simply guessing). Because of the limitation on the maximum speed the access to the interval $`\tau _d`$ cannot be obtained faster than the length of the interval itself.

## Description of the protocol.

Legitimate users A and B control the neighbourhoods of points $`x_A`$ and $`x_B`$, $`x_A<x_B`$ (see the figure). Their clocks are assumed to be synchronized. The size of the controlled neighbourhoods should be $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_{A,B}\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$. The state support width $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 0`$ is assumed to be known and is the smallest parameter in the problem. The communication channel length ($`x_Bx_A=\tau _{ch}`$) is also assumed to be known (however, the absolutely exact knowledge of $`\tau _{ch}`$ is not required).

1. User A prepares with equal probabilities one of the states corresponding to 0 or 1 at a random time $`\tau _i`$ (to within $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$)

$$|\psi _{0,1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(\tau \tau _i\tau _A)|\tau (|+\pm |)𝑑\tau ,\tau _A=x_A.$$
(9)
Formally, the integration over $`d\tau `$ in Eq. (9) is performed over the entire branch of the light cone, although actually only the basis vectors $`|\tau `$ from the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ are involved in the state formtaion.

2. The “half” of the state (with the component $`|+`$) is sent into the communication channel while the second “half” with the component $`|`$ is delayed which is described by the unitary transformation $`U_A(\tau _d)`$ (this interpretation of the unitary transformation is natural since $`U_A(\tau _d)`$ has matrix elements relating the states shifted along the light cone only for the polarization component $`|+`$)

$$|\psi _{0,1}(\tau _d)=U_A(\tau _d)|\psi _{0,1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(f(\tau \tau _i\tau _A\tau _d)|+\pm f(\tau \tau _i\tau _A)|\right)|\tau 𝑑\tau .$$
(10)
The transformation is non-local, its realization in the neighbourhood of point $`x_A`$ requires time $`\tau _d`$ and does not depend on whether the state 0 or 1 is considered.

3. State propagation from A to B is formally described by a unitary translation $`U(\tau _{ch})`$ along the branch of the light cone by the interval $`\tau _{ch}`$ ($`\tau _{ch}=x_Bx_A`$)

$$|\psi _{0,1}(\tau _{ch})=U(\tau _{ch})|\psi _{0,1}(\tau _d)=$$
(11)
$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(f(\tau \tau _i\tau _A\tau _d\tau _{ch})|+\pm f(\tau \tau _i\tau _A\tau _{ch})|\right)|\tau 𝑑\tau .$$

4. User B performs a unitary transformation $`U_B(\tau _d)`$ which does not depend on the input state which merges the “halves” of the states back together (the shift of the “half” with the component $`|+`$ from and towards $`|`$ can be preformed using the beam splitters, mirrors, and delay line)

$$U_B(\tau _d)|\psi _{0,1}(\tau _{ch})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(\tau \tau _i\tau _A\tau _{ch})(|+\pm |)|\tau 𝑑\tau .$$
(12)
Matrix elements of the operator $`U_B(\tau _d)`$ are similar to those of $`U_A(\tau _d)`$, but with $`\tau _d`$ changed to $`\tau _d`$

$$+|\tau ^{}|U_B(\tau _d)|\tau |+=\delta _+(\tau \tau ^{}+\tau _d),$$

$$|\tau ^{}|U_B(\tau _d)|\tau |=\delta _+(\tau \tau ^{}),\pm |\tau ^{}|U_B(\tau _d)|\tau |=0.$$

5. After the transformation $`U_B(\tau _d)`$ the user B preforms the measurement realizing the identity resolution given by Eqs.(3,4). The space of all possible measurement outcomes (results) is the set $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\{i,\tau :i=0,1;\tau (\mathrm{},\mathrm{})\}`$ (index $`i=0,1`$ describes the outcomes in channels 0 and 1),

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}(d\tau )\left(𝒫_0+𝒫_1\right)=I_\tau I_{𝐂^2}.$$
(13)
This measurement describes the probabilities of obtaining a result in the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ in the channel 0 or 1 which is given by the expression

$$\text{Pr}\{(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )\}=_{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }|f(\tau \tau _i\tau _A\tau _{ch})|^2𝑑\tau .$$
(14)
The result is different from zero if the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ covers the state support. Because of the orthogonality of the states the outcomes in the detection channels of user B coincide identically with the values sent by user A (if the noise is neglected).

The choice $`\tau _d>\tau _{ch}`$ means that only a part of the state is always available in the channel (only a part of the state space $`_\tau `$ is accessible), the access to only a part of the state space guaranteeing that the information about the states being zero (the probability of distinguishing the states is 1/2). Because of the restriction on the maximum propagation speed the access to the second “half” of the state requires access to the interval $`\tau >\tau _d>\tau _{ch}`$ which inevitably results in a delay of the detection moment by the legitimate user B.

6. User B announces through the public channel the detection time $`\tau _B`$ of the state (which is known to within $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 0`$ because of the narrow support of $`f(\tau )`$). If the detection did not occur, the transmission is discarded. After user B announced the detection time, user A announces the sending time $`\tau _i`$. If the detection time obtained by user B $`\tau _B=\tau _i+\tau _d+\tau _{ch}`$ (to within $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$), the attempt is accepted. If the detection time is found to by delayed (by more than $`\tau _d`$), the attempt is discarded.

It is fundamentally important, that the absence of delay in the detection moment measured by user B already guarantees that the eavesdropper has zero information about the states sent by user A (the probability of distinguishing the states is 1/2). Deviation of this probability from 1/2 is due to the exponential tails of the states which can be made arbitrarily small by separating the “halves” (increasing $`\tau _d`$). If the state $`f(\tau )`$ has a compact support, the absence of a delay means that the information obtained by eavesdropper is strictly zero.

7. In the accepted transmissions the eavesdropper has zero information. However, because of the noise in the channel (decoherence processes) the sequences of 0 and 1 possessed by legitimate are not yet identical. The differences can be caused both by the eavesdropper and by the natural noise. For example, the eavesdropper can detect the first “half” of the state which is being sent by user A. This detection requires time $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 0`$ (hence the eavesdropper determines time $`\tau _i`$). Then immediately after the detection the eavesdropper arbitrarily prepares his state $`f(\tau )`$ which will not cause any delay for user B but result in the inconsistency with the state sent by user A that will be interpreted as a noise in the channel. It follows from Eq.(8) that the probability of determination of the state preparation time is 1/2 (because of the accessibility of only a “half” of the state), the state detection itself giving to the eavesdropper zero information. The probability of guessing the state is 1/2. The total probability of correct determination of the state in the channel is $`1/21/2=1/4`$. It should be noted that the probability of correctly guessing the state by the eavesdropper in each transmission when he undertakes no attempt to obtain any information from the channel is 1/2. At first glance this seems strange since the probability of correct determination of the state by the eavesdropper is lower by a factor of 2 when he has access to the channel than when he simply guesses the state without access to the communication channel. However, actually there is nothing strange in this fact since the simple guessing involves only two outcomes (0 or 1). On the other hand, when detecting the state in the channel one should also determine the state preparation moment $`\tau _i`$ (so that this event is not discarded by the legitimate users) and the detection probability for a “half” of the state is 1/2. Therefore, if the eavesdropper attempts to access the channel the probability of erroneous interpretation of the intercepted state (which is equal 3/4) includes also the probability of erroneous determination of the very fact of sending any state at all in the considered time interval (which is equal 1/2): since the detection itself yields zero information about the state, one has to guess it and the probability of guessing is 1/2.

Hence, if the legitimate users keep only the transmissions in which no delay in photon detection was observed (to be more prices, the delay did not exceed $`\tau _d+\tau _{ch}`$) they can be sure that the probability of correct identification of the state by the eavesdropper intruding into the communication channel does not exceed 1/4. The latter is twice as low as the probability of correctly guessing the state without intruding into the channel.

We have here a curious situation which does not take place in the non-relativistic case. If we remember that the aim of the eavesdropper is to obtain maximum information about the key simultaneously minimizing the probability of being detected by legitimate users, then in this sense his optimal strategy consists in simply guessing the state sent in each attempt (the access to the communication channel is not required). It is only sufficient to have access to the classical communication channel (in order to know the total number of accepted transmissions) which in all quantum cryptographic problems is always assumed to be public. In that case the probability of detecting the eavesdropper is of course zero since he does not disturb the channel. Attempts to intrude into the communication channel are only sensible if the probability of the state identification (restricted to the transmissions accepted by the legitimate users) exceeds the probability of simple guessing which is 1/2.

Hence the maximum probability of correct identification by the eavesdropper of each transmission accepted by the legitimate users is 1/2.

8. Now the only problem to be solved is to ensure that the legitimate users have identical keys. Consider first a noiseless channel. After the sending session is completed and $`2N`$ transmissions are accepted, the users A and B perform $`m<2N`$ rounds of random hashing (parity check with a random bit string, see details in Ref. ). The length of the original sequence of $`2N`$ bits is reduced by 2 after each round. If the parity check succeeds in $`m`$ rounds, the probability of having at least one difference in the left strings of $`2N2m`$ bits possessed by users A and B does not exceed $`2^m`$ which means that users A and B have identical keys with the probability exponentially close to unit. The above analysis implies also that the probability for the eavesdropper to have complete information about the key without being detected does not exceed $`2^{2(Nm)}`$.

Suppose now that the channel is noisy leading to the errors in the detection results obtained by user B, for example, due to the polarization rotation and let the probability this process is $`p<1`$ (probability of user A sending 0 and user B detecting 1 and vice versa). As in the previous case, the legitimate users accept only the transmissions where no delay was observed. After completing a series in which $`4N`$ transmissions are accepted, users A and B disclose $`2N`$ transmissions and estimate the noise level in the channel (probability $`p`$). Knowledge of the error in sending one bit allows in principle (for a sufficiently long sequence) to choose a suitable classical block code  which actually permits to reduce the error in code words to an arbitrarily small value.

For example, user A announces to B through a public channel only the numbers of transmissions where he sent 1, combining them into the groups of $`2k`$ transmissions, and similarly for 0 producing the blocks of size $`2k`$ (coded 1 and 0). Then user B applies the majority voting to fix the errors in each group (this coding allows to fix $`k1`$ errors). The blocks where $`k`$ errors were detected are rejected (user B announces the numbers of these blocks through the public channel). In the groups left after this procedure the error probability does not exceed $`p^kp`$. Now the users have the sequences of the groups (new $`\stackrel{~}{1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{0}`$) of length $`2\stackrel{~}{N}`$. Then the hashing procedure consisting of $`m`$ rounds similar to that described above is performed resulting in a sequence of length $`2(\stackrel{~}{N}m)`$. The probability of users A and B having identical sequences of length $`2(\stackrel{~}{N}m)`$ under the condition that $`m`$ rounds of random hashing gave successful parity tests is not less than $`12^{(\stackrel{~}{N}m)}`$. The block coding is only required to increase the surviving probability of the accepted sequence in the hashing procedure. The hashing procedure can also be applied to the original (rather than block) sequence. However, in that case the probability of missing the parity error during hashing will be small because of the noise. However, if the sequence passes the test, it is secure and identical for both users with the above probabilities. The probability of eavesdropper obtaining complete information about the key and remaining undetected is well below $`2^{2(\stackrel{~}{N}m)}`$ (because it is sufficient to guess one bit from each code group). This simple coding scheme obviously is not the optimal one, but it allows to formulate the cryptographic protocol in the simplest and most transparent way.

The authors are grateful to Prof. V.L.Golo for the interest to this work and discussion of the obtained results.

This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project No 99-02-18127) as well as the project “Physical foundations of quantum computer” and Russian Federal Program “Advanced technologies and micro- and nanoelectronic devices” (project No 02.04.5.2.40.T.50).