text:
# Bremsstrahlung from a Microscopic Model of Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions

## I Introduction

The long awaited Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory has now begun operation. It is widely expected that heavy ion collisions at RHIC will result in the creation of hot and dense deconfined QCD matter, termed the Quark-Gluon-Plasma (for a review on the properties and signatures of the plasma, we refer to ). Apart from searching for this plasma, a question of great interest is how bulk matter behaves in a very energetic collision. This is an old question, going back to the 1950’s and therefore pre-dating QCD by 20 years. An early hypothesis, due to Landau , is that matter would come to a complete halt before it is driven to explode by the extremely high pressure. Another hypothesis is due to Bjorken  where projectile and target pass through each other but leave behind a zone of hot and dense matter.

To find out whether the initial nuclei are left with none of their original velocity or whether they will be traveling with almost the original velocity at the end of the collision, the most obvious method is to measure the final hadron rapidity distributions as is done by the various experimental collaborations; for example, see . This method is certainly direct and straightforward, but it is not the simplest. Indeed, to do this properly it is necessary to measure various baryon species in a wide range of acceptance, not an easy task in a collider environment such as RHIC. Furthermore, the measurement of the final-state baryons cannot really distinguish between primordial baryons (initially contained in the two colliding nuclei), which have undergone massive stopping and newly created baryons, which are already produced at their final rapidity values.

Although strong stopping has been observed in collisions of heavy nuclei at the GSI/SIS, BNL/AGS and CERN/SPS accelerators , it is by no means clear whether this trend will continue up to the far higher available collision energies at RHIC (the maximum achievable energy at the SPS is $`\sqrt{s}=8.6`$ GeV/nucleon for Pb+Pb, whereas RHIC will collide Au+Au at up to $`\sqrt{s}=100`$ GeV/nucleon). The pertinent question is what particular measurements will provide information on the degree of energy, momentum, baryon, and electric charge stopping. The degree of stopping correlates with the maximum energy density achieved in the collision, albeit in complicated ways.

Already more than 20 years ago bremsstrahlung was suggested as a simple means to determine the degree of stopping in nucleus-nucleus collisions . That first paper concerned nuclear collisions at laboratory energies of order 1 GeV per nucleon. This was later followed by theoretical studies at laboratory energies of order 100 GeV per nucleon in . More recently, very soft photons were studied in  along with a detector design to measure them at RHIC. This was followed by further theoretical studies in  where it was shown that the coarse grained space-time evolution of central nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC could be discerned by measuring photons with energies up to 200 MeV. Bremsstrahlung exploits the fact that initially the ions are moving relativistically and are highly charged (Z=79 for Au). Therefore they copiously emit bremsstrahlung when they experience any deceleration due to strong interactions. Because of the high energies involved, these relativistically moving, highly charged target and projectile will radiate bremsstrahlung in the extreme forward or backward directions. The intensity is determined mainly by the amount of slowing down experienced during the collisions. So by strategically placing photon detectors around the beam pipe in a narrow cone, the amount of stopping can be determined . In addition, the space-time evolution of the colliding matter can be probed by this much simpler method .

In  and , various models for the time evolution of heavy ion collisions at RHIC were used. There are also some similar earlier works on the subject using numerical dynamical models but at lower energies . In this paper a microscopic hadronic model, referred to as the Ultra-relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics model (UrQMD) , will be used to calculate bremsstrahlung. Since this is a dynamical model that follows the space-time evolution of the initial target and projectile as well as all the produced hadrons, it should allow us to discover what can be expected for bremsstrahlung from realistic collisions. Being able to follow the detailed collision history will give us a better insight into what bremsstrahlung can tell us about the collisions. The method of calculation will be detailed in Sect. II and the results presented in Sect. III.

In  a quantity $`𝒮`$, obtainable both from hadron rapidity distributions and from bremsstrahlung measurements, was defined so that it is equal to unity when there is full charge stopping and to zero when there is total transparency. We will discuss the extraction of $`𝒮`$ from the microscopic evolution of heavy ion collisions as treated by UrQMD. This together with results from UrQMD, will be presented in Sect. III and IV.

## II Ultra-Relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics Model

### A The Model

The UrQMD model is a dynamical transport model that follows the time evolution of a heavy-ion collision in the entire many-body phase space. UrQMD has been applied to heavy-ion collisions in the energy range from a few hundreds of A$``$MeV to several hundreds of A$``$GeV using the same basic concepts and physics inputs at all energies. A detailed description of the underlying concepts and comparisons to experimental data are available in Refs. .

The model includes explicitly 55 different baryon species (nucleons, deltas, hyperons, and their known resonances  up to masses of 2.25 GeV) and 32 different meson species (including the known meson resonances  up to masses of 2 GeV), as well as their respective anti-particles and all isospin-projected states. At RHIC energies, the treatment of subhadronic degrees of freedom is of great importance. These degrees of freedom enter in UrQMD via the introduction of a formation time for hadrons produced in string fragmentation. Hadrons produced through string decays have a non-zero formation time, $`\tau _f`$, which depends on the energy-momentum of the particle. Newly formed particles cannot interact during their formation time. The leading hadrons interact within their formation time with a reduced cross-section, which is taken to be proportional to the number of their original constituent quarks.

All hadrons are propagated (in a relativistic cascade sense) according to Hamilton’s equations of motion, supplemented by a relativistic Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck collision term involving all hadron states. The collision term is based on tabulated or parameterized experimental cross-section (when available). Resonance absorption and scattering is handled via the principle of detailed balance. If no experimental information is available, the cross-section is either calculated via a One-Boson-Exchange model or via a modified additive quark model.

### B The Method

The formula for computing classical bremsstrahlung from a space and time-dependent current is well-known . For our purposes, it is convenient to express the current as a sum of separate currents denoting the flow of individual moving charges. For a charge $`q_i`$ with position $`r_i(t)`$ and velocity $`v_i(t)`$ the current is

$$J_i(r_i,t)=q_iv_i(t)\delta \left(r_ir_i(0)_0^t𝑑t^{}v_i(t^{})\right).$$
(1)
The intensity and number of photons emitted with frequency $`\omega `$ in the direction $`n`$ is

$$\frac{d^2I}{d\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\omega \frac{d^2N}{d\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\omega ^2|𝐀|^2$$
(2)
where the amplitude is

$$𝐀=\underset{i}{}\frac{dtd^3r_i}{4\pi ^{3/2}}\left(n\times [n\times J_i(r_i,t)]\right)e^{i\omega (tnr_i(t))}.$$
(3)
The sum is over all charged particles present in the system at any given time $`t`$. Unlike in , we are using units with $`\alpha =e^2/4\pi =1/137`$ which accounts for the odd factor of $`1/2\sqrt{\pi }`$ in Eq. (3).

For low energy photons the details of the individual hadron collisions, such as whether they are elastic or inelastic, are unimportant. For most of the hadron collisions and decays of relevance in this study the typical proper, physically estimated spatial and temporal extent is on the order of 1 fm. Photons with energy and momentum less than about 200 MeV will not resolve these details. Consider the following examples. Suppose that the center-of-mass of a set of particles involved in one of the microscopic collisions or decays moves with speed $`v`$ along the beam axis with a corresponding Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ relative to the frame in which the bremsstrahlung is computed, which is the nucleus-nucleus center-of-velocity frame. If the proper time for this collision or decay is $`\tau 1`$ fm/c then in the computational frame it takes a time $`\gamma \tau `$. The ability of a photon to resolve this is determined by the phase in Eq. (3) which is $`\omega \gamma \tau (1v\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. A photon with $`\omega <1/\left(\tau \gamma (1v\mathrm{cos}\theta )\right)`$ will not be sensitive to the fine details of this process, only to the gross features: namely, the difference between the incoming and outgoing currents. If $`v=0`$ then $`\omega `$ would have to be comparable to $`1/\tau 200`$ MeV. In the other limit, $`\gamma 1`$, the radiation is strongly peaked at $`\theta 1/(2\gamma )`$ , and so $`\omega `$ would have to be as large as $`\gamma /\tau `$ to resolve the details. These sorts of details are not desired; a proper description of them would require knowledge of the dynamics on the level of quarks and gluons, not hadrons. Since there is very little radiation away from the forward direction, and since one does not expect transverse motion of the afore-mentioned frames of reference with large $`\gamma `$, the limitation to photons with energy less than 200 MeV should be safe.

As a consequence of the above discussion we treat the accelerations of the participating hadrons as instantaneous. In fact, that is exactly how UrQMD treats collisions and decays, even when string formation and decay is involved. For example, a string may decay by emitting a hadron at $`(𝐱_1,t_1)`$, then a second hadron at $`(𝐱_2,t_2)`$, and so on. Electric charge is conserved by each of these instantaneous events. In UrQMD particles created with high energy have an associated formation time. Within this time they are not allowed to interact via the strong interactions. If that hadron has an electric charge it does contribute to the electromagnetic radiation amplitude immediately, otherwise charge conservation would be violated! We do not justify or criticize the UrQMD approach; rather, our goal is to point out that bremsstrahlung can be used to test it and other detailed dynamical models of high energy nuclear collisions.

For each hadron involved in a microscopic event $`e`$ with space-time coordinate $`(𝐱_e,t_e)`$, whether it be a collision or a decay, we write the acceleration as a delta function at the time of the event in terms of its velocity $`v_e^{\text{in}}`$ before and $`v_e^{\text{out}}`$ after the event

$$a_e(t)=(v_e^{\text{out}}v_e^{\text{in}})\delta (tt_e).$$
(4)
Equivalently, the velocity can be written as a stepwise function

$$v_e(t)=v_e^{\text{out}}\theta (tt_e)+v_e^{\text{in}}\theta (t_et).$$
(5)
After some manipulation of Eq. (3) one gets the contribution to the full amplitude $`𝐀`$ contributed by event $`e`$ as

$`𝐀_e={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi ^{3/2}\omega }}e^{i\omega (t_enr_e)}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}`$ $`q_j\left({\displaystyle \frac{(nv_{je}^{\text{out}})nv_{je}^{\text{out}}}{1nv_{je}^{\text{out}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(nv_{je}^{\text{in}})nv_{je}^{\text{in}}}{1nv_{je}^{\text{in}}}}\right)`$ (6)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi ^{3/2}\omega }}e^{i\omega (t_enr_e)}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}`$ $`q_j\left({\displaystyle \frac{nv_{je}^{\text{out}}}{1nv_{je}^{\text{out}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{nv_{je}^{\text{in}}}{1nv_{je}^{\text{in}}}}\right).`$ (7)
This expression is valid for both decays and for elastic and inelastic collisions. The sum over $`j`$ is a sum over all hadrons participating in the event. If a hadron is created in the event its $`v_e^{\text{in}}`$ is set to zero, since that is equivalent to removing it from the incoming current. Similarly, a hadron which is annihilated in the event has its $`v_e^{\text{out}}`$ set to zero. Note also that any hadron whose velocity does not change at $`t_e`$ gives no net contribution to the amplitude.

We use UrQMD to generate an ensemble of nucleus-nucleus collisions with impact parameter $`b3`$ fm at RHIC energy of $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 100 GeV/nucleon. For each nucleus-nucleus collision we compute the amplitude in the center-of-mometum frame by summing over its space-time evolution of microscopic scatterings and decays. We have computed 160 events for the results in the sections to come. The moduli squared of the individual nucleus-nucleus collisions are then averaged over this ensemble of events. Coherence is included within a given nucleus-nucleus collision, not between different collisions. These data enable one to calculate from Eq. (7) the soft radiation amplitude and therefore the photon intensity distribution that can reasonably be expected at RHIC.

## III Results

### A $`\theta `$ and $`\omega `$ dependence

Using the method described in the previous sections we compute bremsstrahlung arising from central Au-Au collisions at RHIC. The angular dependence of the intensity distribution at $`\omega =10`$ MeV is plotted in Fig. 1. As expected at such high beam energies, relativistic effects tend to focus the radiation in the extreme forward and backward directions. Such focussed emission should facilitate practical measurements of photons. The $`\omega `$ dependence for several different angles are plotted in Fig. 2. In  the $`\omega `$ dependence was studied in both Landau-like and in Bjorken-like scenarios. The Bjorken-like scenario results in an essentially flat $`\omega `$-distribution, while a Landau-like scenario results in an oscillatory behavior. The oscillatory behavior in the latter scenario follows from interference between the stopping phase and the re-acceleration phase of the nuclear collision. Fig. 2 shows Bjorken-like behavior at small angles but Landau-like behavior at larger angles. For $`\theta =10^0`$ and $`20^0`$ there are definitely hints of oscillation.

The oscillation can be better seen in Fig. 3 where only $`\theta =5^o`$ and $`20^o`$ are plotted. The left panels show the total bremsstrahlung (solid lines) and the bremsstrahlung originating from baryons only (dashed lines). In the right panels, we show the result of arbitrarily setting the transverse velocities to zero. It may be seen that bremsstrahlung from the baryons is essentially independent of their transverse motion. We will make use of this fact in a later section on stopping. On the contrary, the charged meson contribution and, therefore, the total receives a noticeable contribution, especially at larger angles. Without the mesons it is clearly apparent that there are oscillations from the baryons, as pointed out in . The relative sensitivity of the mesons has two origins. First, most of the mesonic component comes from pions which are very light compared to protons and therefore suffer proportionately greater acceleration for the same momentum kick. Second, entropy drives a net increase of protons relative to neutrons, with a consequent excess of $`\pi ^{}`$ over $`\pi ^+`$ to conserve charge.

### B A=Z=197 on A=N=197

To elucidate the nature of stopping we have collided an artificial nucleus consisting entirely of 197 protons with another artificial one consisting entirely of 197 neutrons. Initially, the proton nucleus travels in the positive z-direction and the neutron nucleus in the negative z-direction. If the final protons all move with positive rapidity and the neutrons all with negative rapidity then we clearly have a Bjorken-like scenario. With such an asymmetric charge distribution the bremsstrahlung would have a highly asymmetric $`\theta `$-distribution too.

The angular distribution of 10 MeV photons radiated during central collisions of these artificial nuclei, as computed by UrQMD, is plotted in Fig. 4. Instead of two strong peaks in the extreme forward and backward directions, as in Fig. 1, there is now a strong peak only in the forward direction. In the backward direction there is only a weak peak. The reason is that the original protons suffer a massive deceleration to rapidities much less than their original beam rapidity $`y_0`$. This is most clearly seen in the net nucleon rapidity distributions, $`p\overline{p}`$ and $`n\overline{n}`$, shown in Fig. 5. Apart from the remnants of the initial (artificial) nuclei appearing as peaks at $`yy_0`$ for protons and $`yy_0`$ for neutrons, the nucleons spread out rather evenly throughout the entire rapidity range. Since the elementary nucleon-nucleon collisions are known to be strongly forward-backward peaked, this flatness of the nucleon distributions in nucleus-nucleus collisions is as likely a result of repeated charge exchange as it is from single hard nucleon-nucleon scattering or sequential baryon-baryon collisions. From the point of view of electric charge there is no way or means to distinguish. Our conclusion from UrQMD is that electric charge suffers severe deceleration during the collision.

### C Time dependence

Another question of interest is the time scale of nucleus-nucleus collisions. There is a paucity of direct means of getting any estimates and a paucity of meaningful observables. One might think of Hanbury-Brown and Twiss hadron interferometry, but this only relates to the time interval over which the final state hadrons emerge. In  the possibility of using bremsstrahlung for this purpose was discussed but that, in part, relied on the collisions being Landau-like. Theoretically we can examine the time-dependence of the emitted bremsstrahlung. In Fig. 6, the ratio of the instantaneous to final intensity has been plotted at two extreme values of $`\theta `$ as a function of time. It shows that at small angle, for example at $`\theta =1^o`$, most of the soft bremsstrahlung were emitted within the first 5 fm/c. This results from the fact that in the longitudinal direction the bulk of the charges have finished their acceleration within a very brief duration upon first contact. In the transverse direction, on the other hand, it takes much longer, something like 100 fm/c, for 90% of the soft photons to be emitted. This is logical since we expect the transverse expansion to become significant only at the later stages. These facts here are essentially energy independent or weakly dependent in the range $`\omega <200`$ MeV as seen in Fig. 2.

### D Global Charge Stopping Time

In Sect. III A, we have seen that there are signs of oscillation in the intensity versus energy plots in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 which revealed a partial Landau-like collision picture. In  the Landau-like scenario was found to have one advantage over the Bjorken-like scenario, which was that the amplitude and frequency of the oscillation was sensitive to the global charge stopping time $`t_f`$. We now attempt to extract $`t_f`$ from the UrQMD data using the simple Landau-like model in . In that paper a flat rapidity distribution, or using the defined quantity from  $`S=1/2`$, was assumed throughout. We will see below that UrQMD data yields somewhat more than one-half stopping, or $`S>1/2`$. Therefore we have to adjust the intensity distribution from the simple model by a constant upward shift in order to fit the data. At smaller angles the oscillation is either unclear or its amplitude too small to be of practical use. So it is at $`\theta =20^o`$ that the adjusted intensity from the model will be fitted to that of UrQMD. The result is shown in Fig. 7. It is seen that the range 1.2 $`<t_f<`$ 1.4 fm/c essentially covers the data. It can therefore be deduced that the bulk of the charges settled extremely quickly.

To see if this is indeed the case, snapshots of the net-baryon and net-charge rapidity distributions have been taken from UrQMD at several times. These are shown in Fig. 8. We see that these rapidity distributions settled already at times around 1 fm/c and do not change much after thatThe net-charge distribution shows larger fluctuations at $`t=20`$ fm/c than at previous times. This may be due to resonance decays into mesons.. The global stopping time determined above, although very short, is therefore sensible. The point is that the value of $`t_f`$ obtained from bremsstrahlung agrees with the time it takes for the baryon and electric charge rapidity distributions to acquire their final form. We have now shown that $`t_f`$ can be determined from bremsstrahlung, a piece of information that no hadronic measurement could provide.

## IV Inference of Charge vs. Baryon Stopping

In an ideal world for measuring stopping, bremsstrahlung would be emitted only from charged baryons and anti-baryons and the contribution from the many produced mesons, which can be both positively as well as negatively charged, would cancel each other. For Au+Au collisions, the largest contributions do indeed come from baryons and anti-baryons but there remains a non-negligible contribution from mesons, as discussed in Sect. III A. The mesonic contribution has to be subtracted somehow if bremsstrahlung is to be used to probe baryon stopping, as opposed to charge stopping. To do this, we have to understand from the soft photons’ point of view the essential dynamics of the sources. We find it illuminating and instructive to use another, much simpler, model that can reproduce, as far as bremsstrahlung is concerned, the generated data from UrQMD. In this section we will pretend that the bremsstrahlung from UrQMD is experimental data and show that the procedure described below is capable of extracting the degree of stopping in UrQMD.

Several facts from UrQMD prove to be useful in this regard. We notice that for soft photon emission there is a fundamental difference between the contributions from baryons and from mesons. For the emission from baryons and anti-baryons the precise values of their transverse velocities (relative to the beam direction) are unimportant. One could set these to zero without affecting bremsstrahlung very much at all; recall Fig. 3. On the contrary, transverse acceleration of the mesons is very important. We could therefore model the radiation from UrQMD by assuming that baryons and anti-baryons move only longitudinally with no transverse velocity. Information on the charged baryons and anti-baryons for soft photon emission is therefore all encoded in the final rapidity distributions. This is, of course, not sufficient as we have already mentioned that mesons contribute a finite amount to the radiation. In some sense the mesons are “noise” in this context and their transverse velocities are an important part of it. We have found that the “noise” can be reasonably subtracted by modeling the motion of the mesons in the manner to be described below.

In  it was suggested to measure low energy photons at the special angle $`\theta _{1/2}7.93^o`$ at RHIC to determine the amount of stopping via the stopping variable $`𝒮`$.

$$𝒮=1\frac{(1v_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{1/2})}{2v_0^2\mathrm{cos}\theta _{1/2}}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑y\frac{v(y)\rho (y)}{1v(y)\mathrm{cos}\theta _{1/2}}$$
(8)
Here $`v(y)=\mathrm{tanh}(y)`$ is the velocity along the beam axis and $`\rho (y)`$ is the baryon rapidity distribution normalized to 2 for collisions between symmetric nuclei. $`𝒮`$ ranges from 0 for no stopping to 1 for full stopping. The angle $`\theta _{1/2}`$ depends on the beam velocity $`v_0`$ and is chosen so that $`𝒮=1/2`$ for any distribution that belongs intuitively and obviously to one-half stopping, such as $`\rho (y)\delta (yy_0)+\delta (y+y_0)+2\delta (y)`$ or $`\rho (y)=`$ constant. Defining baryon stopping in terms of the above variable permits a direct connection between soft bremsstrahlung and baryon stopping, as discussed in .

In the soft photon limit, due to destructive interference, only the initial and final charges contribute to the bremsstrahlung. This permits a well-known simplification. That is, the detailed collision history can be ignored and only the initial and final particles need to be taken into account. In the presence of the above mentioned “noise” the relation between $`𝒮`$ given above and the soft photon intensity distribution needs to be modified. Without loss of generality, we choose the directional vector $`n`$ to be $`n=(\mathrm{sin}\theta ,0,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. We define

$$M=\underset{i\text{mesons}}{}\frac{q_iv_i}{1nv_i}$$
(9)
for the sum over products of the charge and velocity factor over the final mesons. With the aforementioned mesonic “noise” included we have to modify the relation between $`𝒮`$ and the bremsstrahlung intensity distribution $`dI/d\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at the angle $`\theta _{1/2}`$. The required modification amounts to simply replacing $`𝒮`$ as appeared in Eq. (13) of ref. , which is repeated here for convenience

$$𝒮=\frac{1v_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{1/2}}{v_0^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{1/2}}\left(\frac{4\pi ^2}{\alpha Z^2}\frac{d^2I}{d\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }}|_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega 0}{\theta =\theta _{1/2}}}\right)^{1/2},$$
(10)
by

$$𝒮\left\{\left(𝒮\frac{(1v_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{1/2})(M_zM_x\mathrm{cot}\theta _{1/2})}{2Zv_0^2\mathrm{cos}\theta _{1/2}}\right)^2+\frac{(1v_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{1/2})^2}{4Z^2v_0^4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{1/2}}M_y^2\right\}^{1/2}.$$
(11)
Here $`v_00.999956`$ at RHIC.

With the above replacement, the procedure to get $`𝒮`$ is less straightforward but nevertheless possible. We find that the final meson contribution to soft photon emission is consistent with that of $`N_+`$ positively and $`N_{}`$ negatively charged particles emerging from the collisions, apart from the expected forward-backward bias, in random directions. With this observation we arrive at the following procedure to obtain an estimate of $`𝒮`$.

* $`N_+`$ and $`N_{}`$, which represent the approximate numbers of the corresponding charged mesons, are generated randomly within a given range. Models such as UrQMD can provide reasonable values; for example, on average $`N_+N_{}3000`$ at RHIC.
* The difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q=N_+N_{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }QN_+,N_{}`$, need not be equal to zero but is bounded within the range $`0\mathrm{\Delta }Q<2Z`$. In fact, as seen in experiment at SPS and from the UrQMD model, the average value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ is in the lower end of the range below 40. The upper limit is only a statistically improbable theoretical possibility.
* Equal numbers of these charges will have positive and negative longitudinal velocities. Apart from that rapidities are randomly assigned according to the triangular distribution shown in Fig. 9 (this is the simplest yet reasonable distribution which agrees fairly well with realistic distributions). This gives a sensible forward-backward bias.
* The velocities of the majority of the charges are close to the speed of light. Slower longitudinally moving charges contribute negligibly to the bremsstrahlung because of the denominator in Eq. (9). For these charges, the transverse component of $`M_x`$ and $`M_y`$ are not negligible. For the purpose of giving transverse velocities to our simulated mesonic charges, a maximum transverse velocity $`v_{\text{max}}`$ close to the initial speed $`v_0`$ is necessary to give reasonable results. Note that this limit on the velocities is for $`v_x`$ and $`v_y`$. It does not affect $`v_z`$, which is distributed according to the discussion in point (3) above.
* The direction of the transverse motion of each individual charged particle is picked randomly subject to the constraint that the total sum of the transverse velocities is approximately zero.
* With the above steps in setting the velocities, directions and numbers of the mesonic charges, the 3-vector $`M`$ and therefore the intensity distribution are calculated over a number of events. Using the relation between Eq. (11) and the intensity distribution given in , the mean $`dI/d\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the soft photon limit and the standard deviation $`\sigma `$ of the intensity generated from UrQMD can be recovered by suitable choice of the value of $`𝒮`$.
* When experimental information becomes available, one simply replaces the intensity from the UrQMD model at the angle $`\theta _{1/2}`$ with experimental measurements and repeat the above procedure to obtain $`𝒮`$.

For Au+Au at RHIC and at the angle $`\theta _{1/2}`$ from the beam direction the intensity distribution and its standard deviation of soft photons from the UrQMD model are, respectively

$$\frac{dI}{d\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }}|_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega 0}{\theta =\theta _{1/2}}}=94.1\text{ and }\sigma =71.8.$$
(12)
(Note the large intrinsic fluctuation in the intensity; this is characteristic of soft photons as computed in UrQMD.) The other relevant quantities from the model are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Q19\text{ and }𝒮=0.547.$$
(13)
The latter means that there is just over half stopping  in the collisions predicted by UrQMD at RHIC. In Fig. 10, the net-proton and net-neutron rapidity distribution from Au+Au at RHIC are plotted. They show exactly what the quantity $`𝒮`$ is designed to indicate, which is there is just over half stopping. The standard deviation of the intensity, $`\sigma `$, is quite large, indicating very large fluctuations in the charge rapidity distribution on an event by event basis. There are no such fluctuations in hydrodynamic treatments of heavy ion collisions, of course.

To the parameters already introduced, we now add $``$

$$(\theta )=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑y\frac{v(y)\rho (y)}{1v(y)\mathrm{cos}\theta }.$$
(14)
In terms of $``$ the baryon stopping parameter $`𝒮`$ is

$$𝒮=1\frac{(1v_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{1/2})}{2v_0^2\mathrm{cos}\theta _{1/2}}(\theta _{1/2}).$$
(15)
We can now vary them to see if it is possible to recover the results from UrQMD.

After some trial and error, certain facts can be established. Of all the parameters the intensity is most sensitive to $`𝒮`$, which is good. The next most important parameter is $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$. The rest are for fine tuning the results. These are tabulated in Table I with various input parameters. Initially setting both $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ and $``$ to zero gives a result that is too large (see the first row of the table). $`v_{\text{max}}`$ is temporarily set to 0.997 here for exploratory purpose. Next, increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ to the largest but very unlikely value of $`2Z`$ is still not sufficient to reduce the intensity to the actual value. This is shown in the second row of the table. On the other hand, by setting $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q=0`$ and increasing $``$ to about 48.5 reasonable agreement can be obtained. From experiments at SPS, from models, and from very general considerations, we expect that some of the initial positive charge will be transferred to the mesons. Reasonable values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ are within the range 10–30. This range can help us get a bound on the value of $`𝒮`$ because once a fit has been established for, say $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q=10`$, increasing this to 30 will require a corresponding decrease in $``$ to compensate.

The next question is what value should $`v_{\text{max}}`$ be used. Fortunately, it turns out that $`𝒮`$ is not very sensitive to $`v_{\text{max}}`$. To see this, we picked the angle $`\theta =5^o`$. From UrQMD we know the following results.

$$\frac{dI}{d\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }}|_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega 0}{\theta =5^o}}=280\text{ and }\sigma =171$$
(16)
Also the value $``$ at this angle is $`(5^o)=95.0`$. In the next four rows in the table, it is shown that only with $`v_{\text{max}}=0.999`$ or higher is this value of $``$ able to yield intensities that can agree with that from the model. Below this value, the resulting intensities are just short. $`𝒮`$ is only defined and meaningful at $`\theta _{1/2}`$ so the $`𝒮`$ column was left blank. Although in real experiments one does not know a priori the value of $``$, the remaining entries in Table I should be enough to show that a precise knowledge of the value of $`v_{\text{max}}`$ is unnecessary. The range of values of $`v_{\text{max}}`$ from 0.997 to 0.999 and higher produce a range of $``$ that covers the correct value. Here the covered range based on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q=`$10 and 30 limit for $`v_{\text{max}}=`$0.997 and 0.999 are shown. They are sufficiently narrow to convey the fact that baryon stopping is somewhat over halfway, exactly what has been plotted in Fig. 10.

Our procedure yields the value of stopping around $`𝒮=`$ 0.537 – 0.585, which is close enough to the value 0.547 from UrQMD in Eq. (13). So, with our extraction procedure to separate the charged baryon and charged meson contribution, soft bremsstrahlung from nuclear collisions can definitely be used to probe the degree of stopping. The procedure described here is relatively simple for subtracting the charged meson contributions. When experimental data are available eventually, one could of course use other more complex models such as UrQMD itself for the subtraction but the advantages of our procedure are that it is much simpler, more efficient therefore can be done by almost anyone using a very small program under fifty lines of codes.

## V Conclusion

In this paper we have used the microscopic, dynamical model UrQMD to compute bremsstrahlung emitted by baryons and mesons as they are created, annihilated, and scattered during a central collision between Au nuclei at RHIC. Fine grained details on time and length scales shorter than about 1 fm do not matter from the point of view of emission of photons of energy less than about 200 MeV. Therefore, as discussed in earlier papers and demonstrated here with a specific microscopic model, bremsstrahlung measurements can probe the space-time evolution of high energy heavy ion collisions. UrQMD suggests that electric charge easily diffuses in rapidity space, giving rise to an approximately flat charged rapidity distribution. This was concretely demonstrated by colliding pure proton nuclei on pure neutron nuclei in the computer. We also examined the connection between charge stopping and baryon stopping, and showed that the noise caused by net charge transfer from protons to mesons can be simulated sufficiently accurately so that the two measures of stopping can still be related. In particular, the bremsstrahlung intensity at small angles approximately scales with the degree of stopping as quantified in the variable $`𝒮`$.

Bremsstrahlung is an interesting and useful way to study the dynamics of high Energy heavy ion collisions. Unfortunately, it is unlikely than the initial round of experiments at RHIC will be able to measure photons of sufficiently low energy as to be useful in this context. Fortunately, there are still two collision halls vacant at RHIC which could accommodate a dedicated soft photon detector. Future experiments should take advantage of these unique possibilities.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant no. DE-FG02-87ER40328. S.A.B was supported by the National Science Foundation, grant no. PHY-00-70818 and M.B. received support by the A. v. Humboldt Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Addition on a Quantum Computer

## 1 Introduction

Traditionally, addition algorithms designed for a quantum computer have mirrored their classical counterparts, with the necessary extensions for reversible computation. Faster quantum addition algorithms implement carry-save techniques, but still follow a classical model. However, the ideal addition algorithm for a quantum computer may not be similar to its classical counterpart. This paper presents a new paradigm for addition on a quantum computer.

The addition method used takes two values $`a`$ and $`b`$, computes $`F(a)`$ the quantum Fourier transform (QFT) of $`a`$ and then uses $`b`$ to evolve $`F(a)`$ into $`F(a+b)`$. The inverse quantum Fourier transform may then be applied and the sum recovered. Since there is a cost of computing the transform before and after the sum, as much computation as possible should be performed in the transform range before leaving.

This paper assumes a rudimentary background in the ideas of quantum computation. For an introduction to quantum computation the reader is encouraged to read Art Pittenger’s, ”An Introduction to Quantum Computing Algorithms” or Andrew Steane’s, ”Quantum Computing”. For further study, an excellent searchable pre-print server is maintained by Los Alamos laboratories. Papers on quantum computing/cryptography may be found at http://xxx.lanl.gov/quant-ph.

## 2 Classical Addition

A number of papers have been published concerning the implementation of addition on a quantum computer . All of the implementations use at least $`3n`$ qubits to add two $`n`$-bit numbers. The method presented here follows the outline in . The adder is composed of two basic unitary computational units.

A carry gate with the dark bar on the left side is considered to be a normal carry gate executed in reverse order. The following diagram shows how these two unitary gates are combined to form a reversible adder.

Reversible Adder for Two 3-bit Numbers

The construction of an n-bit reversible adder is a straightforward extension of the 3-bit adder. Note that an additional $`n`$ qubits were needed as temporary carry bits. These qubits are reversibly set back to zero after they are used so they may be used for later computation. Therefore, even though the input and output may be stored using only $`2n`$ qubits, $`3n`$ qubits must be used for the computation.

## 3 The Quantum Fourier Transform

For simplification of notation, let $`e(t)=e^{2\pi it}`$. Let $`a𝐙_{2^n}`$, the additive group of integers modulo $`2^n`$. Let $`a_na_{n1}\mathrm{}a_2a_1`$ be the binary representation for $`a`$, where $`a=a_n2^{n1}+a_{n1}2^{n2}+\mathrm{}+a_22^1+a_12^0`$. Then $`|a=|a_n|a_{n1}\mathrm{}|a_2|a_1`$. The quantum Fourier transform (QFT) of $`|a`$ is the mapping

$$|a\stackrel{F_{2^n}}{}\frac{1}{2^{\frac{n}{2}}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{2^n1}{}}e(ak/2^n)|k.$$
(1)
It turns out that (1) is unentangled. Let

$$|\varphi _k(a)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+e(a/2^k)|1).$$
(2)
Then (1) factors as

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{2^n1}{}}e(ak/2^n)|k=|\varphi _n(a)\mathrm{}|\varphi _2(a)|\varphi _1(a).$$

It is also helpful to notice that $`e(a/2^k)=e(0.a_k\mathrm{}a_1)`$, where $`(0.a_k\mathrm{}a_1)`$ is a binary fraction. Therefore, each $`|\varphi _k(a)`$ contains the lower $`k`$ binary digits of $`a`$. Consider the following two gate operations:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\text{Conditional Rotation}& & \text{Hadamard Transform}\\ R_k=\begin{array}{c}\text{}\\ \text{}\end{array}=\begin{array}{c}\text{}\\ \text{}\end{array}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e(\frac{1}{2^k})\end{array}\right]& \text{and}& \begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right]\end{array}$$

The conditional rotation gate performs a phase rotation between two qubits conditioned on their superposition. For example, if the state between two qubits was $`\alpha |00+\beta |01+\gamma |10+\delta |11`$, then after performing a conditional $`k`$ rotation gate their joint state would be $`\alpha |00+\beta |01+\gamma |10+e(1/2^k)\delta |11`$. The Hadamard transform gate operates on a single qubit and transforms the state $`\alpha |0+\beta |1`$ to $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}((\alpha +\beta )|0+(\alpha \beta )|1)`$. Computing the QFT may be done according to the following wire diagram.

| Quantum Fourier Transform | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`|a_n`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`|\varphi _n\left(a\right)`$ |
| $`|a_{n1}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`|\varphi _{n1}\left(a\right)`$ |
| $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| $`|a_2`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`|\varphi _2\left(a\right)`$ |
| $`|a_1`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`|\varphi _1\left(a\right)`$ |

To see the effect of the transform on a qubit, we will follow what each gate does to the qubit $`|a_n`$.

| $`|a_n`$$``$ | $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+e(0.a_n)|1)`$ | Hadamard transform |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $``$ | $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+e(0.a_na_{n1})|1)`$ | $`R_2`$ rotation conditioned on $`a_{n1}`$ |
|  | | ⋮ |
| $``$ | $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+e(0.a_na_{n1}\mathrm{}a_1)|1)`$ | $`R_n`$ rotation conditioned on $`a_1`$ |
| $`=|\varphi _n(a)`$ | |  |

## 4 The Approximate QFT

As $`k`$ gets large, the conditional rotation associated with $`k`$ gets very small, and hence, the rotation matrix approaches the identity. It is natural to ask how good an approximation may be if we do not perform, or are unable to perform, gates below a certain tolerance. Barenco, et. al. proved that in the presence of decoherence, an approximate quantum Fourier transform (AQFT) may in fact be more accurate than a full QFT. Depending on the decoherence present, the optimal value for $`k`$ needed is around $`\text{log}_2n`$. This reduces the number of operations needed for a quantum Fourier transform from $`\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)`$ operations to $`\frac{1}{2}(2n\text{log}_2n)(\text{log}_2n1)n\text{log}_2n`$ operations.

## 5 Quantum Addition

The quantum addition is performed using a sequence of conditional rotations which are mutually commutative. The structure is very similar to the quantum Fourier transform, but the rotations are conditioned on $`n`$ external bits. This is helpful if we wish to add classical data to quantum data. Since all the control bits are known a priori, it is just a matter of programming to implement the resulting rotations. The addition is performed according to the following diagram.

| Transform Addition | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`|b_n`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | $`|b_n`$ |
| $`|b_{n\text{-}1}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | $`|b_{n\text{-}1}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| $`|b_2`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`|b_2`$ |
| $`|b_1`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`|b_1`$ |
| $`|\varphi _n\left(a\right)`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`|\varphi _n\left(a+b\right)`$ |
| $`|\varphi _{n\text{-}1}\left(a\right)`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`|\varphi _{n\text{-}1}\left(a+b\right)`$ |
| $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |
| $`|\varphi _2\left(a\right)`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | $`|\varphi _2\left(a+b\right)`$ |
| $`|\varphi _1\left(a\right)`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | $`|\varphi _1\left(a+b\right)`$ |

Once again it is helpful to trace the state of one qubit during the computation.

| $`|\varphi _n(a)`$$``$ | $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+e(0.a_na_{n1}\mathrm{}a_1+0.b_n)|1)`$ | $`R_1`$ rotation from $`b_n`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $``$ | $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+e(0.a_na_{n1}\mathrm{}a_1+0.b_nb_{n1})|1)`$ | $`R_2`$ rotation from $`b_{n1}`$ |
|  | | ⋮ |
| $``$ | $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+e(0.a_na_{n1}\mathrm{}a_1+0.b_nb_{n1}\mathrm{}b_1)|1)`$ | $`R_n`$ rotation from $`b_1`$ |
| $`=|\varphi _n(a+b)`$ | |  |

Since the implementation of the quantum addition is very similar to the QFT, it is not surprising that there is a more efficient approximate implementation of quantum addition using the same technique as the AQFT. Using analogous reasoning, it is quite clear that the approximate quantum addition can be computed efficiently using only $`n\text{log}_2n`$ operations as well.

The critical difference between quantum addition and the QFT is that all of the operations commute with each other in quantum addition, whereas the Hadamard transforms necessary to do the QFT require certain ordering. It follows that if a quantum computer can implement numerous independent gate operations simultaneously, the run time will decrease proportionally with its capabilities. Therefore, a quantum computer capable of computing $`\frac{n}{2}`$ independent 2-qubit gate operations simultaneously, can perform quantum addition in about $`n+1`$ time slices. If we are using the AQFT technique of eliminating rotations below a certain threshold, the quantum addition may be performed in $`\text{log}_2n`$ time slices. One possible parallel method would be to execute all depth 1 rotations simultaneously, and then all depth 2 rotations, etc. It is clear that each of these are operating on independent qubits. In , Zalka discusses why we may expect this type of parallelism in a quantum computer.

| Parallel Transform Addition | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`|b_n`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | $`|b_n`$ |
| $`|b_{n\text{-}1}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | $`|b_{n\text{-}1}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| $`|b_2`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  | $`|b_2`$ |
| $`|b_1`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  | $`|b_1`$ |
| $`|\varphi _n\left(a\right)`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  | $`|\varphi _n\left(a+b\right)`$ |
| $`|\varphi _{n\text{-}1}\left(a\right)`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  | $`|\varphi _{n\text{-}1}\left(a+b\right)`$ |
| $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |
| $`|\varphi _2\left(a\right)`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  |  | $`|\varphi _2\left(a+b\right)`$ |
| $`|\varphi _1\left(a\right)`$ |  |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | $`|\varphi _1\left(a+b\right)`$ |
|  | $`\underset{}{}`$ | | | | | $`\underset{}{}`$ | | |  |  |  |  |
|  | 1st time slice | | | | | 2nd | | |  |  |  |  |
|  | $`\underset{}{}`$ | | | | | | | | | | |  |
|  | $`\text{log}_2n`$ time slices | | | | | | | | | | |  |

## 6 Implications

In Zalka’s paper, he outlines a number of methods for computing Shor’s factorization algorithm on a quantum computer. The impact of the quantum addition algorithm has the greatest impact if we are trying to minimize the qubits necessary to perform a computation. Zalka shows that with a number of refinements, Shor’s algorithm may be computed using only $`3n`$ qubits. Replacing the addition used by Zalka with quantum addition allows us to perform Shor’s algorithm using only $`2n`$ qubits. It should be noted that these run times are both $`O(n^3)`$ in the number of operations. There exist faster algorithms with a run time of $`O(n^2\text{log}n)`$, but these algorithms require substantially more qubits and the qubit reduction from the quantum addition is not nearly so dramatic.


text:
# Asteroseismology for the Masses

## 1. Introduction

The Whole Earth Telescope (WET) is an informal collaboration between astronomers around the world who monitor pulsating white dwarfs continuously for up to two weeks to avoid the aliasing problems inherent in single-site data and to resolve the many frequencies present in these stars (Nather et al. 1990). The WET first observed the helium-atmosphere variable (DBV) white dwarf GD 358 in 1990 (Winget et al. 1994) and found a series of nearly equally-spaced periods in the Fourier Transform which they interpreted as non-radial g-mode pulsations of consecutive radial overtone.

Bradley & Winget (1994) attempted to match theoretical models to the 11 identified periods and to the period spacing. Their best-fit model had a thin helium layer, about $`10^6`$ times the mass of the star, and this posed a problem for theory which still hasn’t been adequately resolved. Computational resources have improved significantly since the original fit, so we decided to explore a larger region of parameter-space than was possible at the time. Our goal was to establish a method for fitting pulsation models to the data that is both more global, and more objective.

## 2. Computational Method

### 2.1. Model Parameters

Aside from the core composition, the three most important parameters that determine the pulsation characteristics of DBV white dwarf models are the stellar mass, the temperature, and the helium layer mass.

The observed mass distribution of white dwarfs is strongly peaked near 0.6 $`M_{}`$ with a FWHM of about 0.1 $`M_{}`$ (Napiwotzki Green & Saffer 1999). We decided to explore a range of masses from 0.45 (the theoretical cutoff for C/O white dwarfs) to 0.95 $`M_{}`$.

The most recent temperature determinations for the eight known DBV stars, depending on various assumptions, place the lowest temperature pulsator at about 22,000 K and the highest temperature pulsator at nearly 28,000 K (Beauchamp et al. 1999). We decided to explore all temperatures between 20,000 and 30,000 K.

As for the helium layer, above a fractional mass of about $`10^2`$, helium will start to burn at the base of the envelope. Thinner than about $`10^8`$ and our models no longer pulsate (Bradley 1993). We didn’t go quite this thin in order to keep our models running in a fully automated way, for reasons which will become clear later.

To give you a sense of how much more parameter-space we are covering, Figure 1 shows a front and side view of the 3-dimensional search space we’ve defined. The dashed boxes show the range of parameters considered by Bradley & Winget, while the solid boxes show the range we are considering. Our search space has more than $`100\times `$ the volume and a much finer resolution (100 points in each dimension).

At this point, we clearly have an approach that is more global. Now we could just calculate all of these models and compare them to the data, and we would get an objective solution. But we don’t have to do that—there’s a better, more efficient way.

### 2.2. Genetic Algorithms

A genetic algorithm (GA) uses an optimization method based on an analogy with biological evolution. You can think of GAs as a sort of iterative Monte Carlo method directed by a memory of what worked well in the past, and what didn’t work so well. For our white dwarf models, this method can actually find the global minimum with about 1/10th the number of model evaluations that would be required to calculate the full grid. This is better, but it’s still pretty computationally intensive, so we built a specialized computational instrument just for the job (see Figure 2).

We call this new instrument Darwin. It consists of 64 minimal PCs connected by a network, and can compute our models in parallel with a speedup factor of about 60 (see Metcalfe & Nather 1999a,b). Each box contains only a processor, 32 Mb of memory, and an ethernet card with a custom Linux bootrom.

### 2.3. Proof of Principle

Once our code was running on this machine, the first thing we did was generate a set of pulsation periods from a model within the search space, and then let the GA try to find the input parameters.

In 9 out of 20 runs using different random number sequences, the GA found the exact answer. In an additional 4 runs, it ended up with an answer close enough to the correct one for a small grid to yield the exact answer. This means that for a given run, there is a 35% chance that we won’t find the right answer, but if we perform 5 independent runs there will be a 99% probability of finding the right answer.

Next, we added noise to the input model to double check that the 5 run method was sufficient. We estimated the level of noise present on the observed frequencies in two ways. First, we used the identifications of the 63 linear combination frequencies (Vuille et al. 2000) to determine the distribution of differences between the observed and predicted frequencies. The best-fit Gaussian to this distribution had $`\sigma =0.17\mu `$Hz. Second, we passed 100 synthetic light curves through a simulation of the standard WET reduction procedure, and looked at the distribution of differences between the input and output frequencies. This distribution was slightly narrower, having a best-fit Gaussian with $`\sigma =0.053\mu `$Hz. We ran the GA method on several realizations of each estimate of the noise, and in all cases it found the right answer.

## 3. Results

Finally, we applied the new method to the real data for GD 358. To facilitate comparison with earlier work we ran the GA on six different combinations of core composition and transition profiles: pure carbon, pure oxygen, and mixed 50:50 & 20:80 C/O cores with both “steep” and “shallow” transition profiles (see Bradley Winget & Wood 1993).

The first thing we noticed was that there were two families of solutions in the larger search space, corresponding to thick and thin helium layers. These two families did not contain equally good solutions—one was always clearly better than the other—but which family was preferred depended on the core composition. Notably, when we restricted the GA to looking in the region of parameter-space searched by Bradley & Winget, it found the same answer that they found.

In general, reasonably good fits were possible for every core composition, but excellent fits were only possible in one specific case: the 20:80 C/O “shallow” mix. This new best-fit model is shown in the top panel of Figure 3 with the solution of Bradley & Winget shown in the bottom panel for comparison. The root-mean-square (r.m.s.) period difference between the new best-fit model and the observations is 1.50 seconds, compared to 2.69 seconds for Bradley & Winget’s solution. The second best fit found by the GA had an r.m.s. of 1.76 seconds—significantly worse considering that the noise on the individual periods amounts to only a few hundredths of a second.

## 4. Future Work

Although the new best-fit model is significantly better than the previous solution, it clearly still needs improvement. It’s possible that the duality between thick and thin helium layers for GD 358 is an indication that composition transitions exist in both places. This idea has been followed up in the context of possible 3He diffusion by Montgomery Metcalfe & Winget in these proceedings.

Another possibility is that more realistic C/O transition profiles, such as those of Salaris et al. (1997), will provide the extra structure needed by the models to fit the observed data. Combining the use of these profiles with a treatment of the central oxygen abundance as a free parameter by the GA, we can realistically expect to measure the central C/O ratio in GD 358. During helium burning the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ and the $`3\alpha `$ reactions are competing for the available $`\alpha `$-particles, so the final carbon to oxygen ratio in the core provides a direct measure of the relative rates of these two reactions (Buchman 1996). This is especially significant considering the difficulty of measuring the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ reaction in the laboratory.

Finally, we may be able to reverse-engineer the shape of the C/O transition profile by parameterizing the Brunt-Väisälä frequency and investigating what changes to the shape yield significantly better fits to the data. This would provide an independent check on the theoretical profiles, and would open up an entirely new approach to improving our models.

#### Acknowledgments.

I would like to thank Ed Nather and Don Winget for their guidance; Mike Montgomery, Paul Bradley, S.O. Kepler and Craig Wheeler for helpful discussions; Paul Charbonneau for supplying an unreleased version of the PIKAIA genetic algorithm; and Gary Hansen for arranging the donation of 32 computer processors through AMD.

## References

Beauchamp, A., Wesemael, F., Bergeron, P., Fontaine, G., Saffer, R. A., Liebert, J. & Brassard, P. 1999, ApJ, 516, 887

Bradley, P. A. 1993, Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas-Austin

Bradley, P. A. & Winget, D. E. 1994, ApJ, 430, 850

Bradley, P. A., Winget, D. E. & Wood, M. A. 1993, ApJ, 406, 661

Buchman, L. 1996, ApJ, 468, L127

Metcalfe, T. S., & Nather, R. E. 1999a, Linux Journal, 65, 58

Metcalfe, T. S., & Nather, R. E. 1999b, Baltic Astronomy, 8, in press

Napiwotzki, R., Green, P. J. & Saffer, R. A. 1999, ApJ, 517, 399

Nather, R.E., Winget, D.E., Clemens, J.C., Hansen, C.J. & Hine, B.P. 1990, ApJ, 361, 309

Salaris, M., Dominguez, I., Garcia-Berro, E., Hernanz, M., Isern, J. & Mochkovitch, R. 1997, ApJ, 486, 413

Vuille, F., O’Donoghue, D., Buckley, D.A.H., Massacand, C., Solheim, J.E., Bard, S., Vauclair, G., Giovannini, O., Kepler, S.O., Kanaan, A., Provencal, J.L., Wood, M.A., Clemens, J.C., Kleinman, S.J., O’Brien, M.S., Nather, R.E., Winget, D.E., Nitta, A., Klumpe, E.W., Montgomery, M.H., Watson, T.K., Bradley, P.A., Sullivan, D.J., Wu, K., Marar, T.M.K., Seetha, S., Ashoka, B.N., Mahra, H.S., Bhat, B.C., Babu, V.C., Leibowitz, E.M., Hemar, S., Ibbetson, P., Mashals, E., Meistas, E., Moskalik, P., Zola, S., Krzesiński, J. & Pajdosz, G., 2000, MNRAS, 314, 689

Winget, D.E., Nather, R.E., Clemens, J.C., Provencal, J.L., Kleinman, S.J., Bradley, P.A., Claver, C.F., Dixson, J.S., Montgomery, M.H., Hansen, C.J., Hine, B.P., Birch, P., Candy, M., Marar, T.M.K., Seetha, S., Ashoka, B.N., Leibowitz, E.M., O’Donoghue, D., Warner, B., Buckley, D.A.H., Tripe, P., Vauclair, G., Dolez, N., Chevreton, M., Serre, T., Garrido, R., Kepler, S.O., Kanaan, A., Augusteijn, T., Wood, M.A., Bergeron, P. & Grauer, A.D. 1994, ApJ, 430, 839


text:
# Some identities for determinants of structured matrices

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we prove identities that involve the determinants of several types of structured matrices such as Hankel matrices, symmetric Toeplitz + Hankel matrices and skewsymmetric Toeplitz matrices. After having established these identities we show how they can be used in order to obtain asymptotic formulas for these determinants.

Let us first recall the underlying notation. Given a sequence $`\{a_n\}_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of complex numbers, we associate the formal Fourier series

$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_nt^n,t𝕋.`$ (1.1)
The $`N\times N`$ Toeplitz and Hankel matrices with the (Fourier) symbol $`a`$ are defined by

$$T_N(a)=\left(a_{jk}\right)_{j,k=0}^{N1},H_N(a)=\left(a_{j+k+1}\right)_{j,k=0}^{N1}.$$
(1.2)
Usually $`a`$ represents an $`L^1`$-function defined on the unit circle, in which case the numbers $`a_n`$ are the Fourier coefficients,

$`a_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }a(e^{i\theta })e^{in\theta }𝑑\theta ,n.`$ (1.3)
To a given symbol $`a`$ we associate the symbol $`\stackrel{~}{a}(t):=a(t^1)`$. The symbol $`a`$ is called even (odd) if $`\stackrel{~}{a}(t)=\pm a(t)`$, i.e., $`a_n=\pm a_n`$.

For our purposes it is important to define another type of Hankel matrix. Given a function $`bL^1[1,1]`$ with moments defined by

$`b_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _1^1}b(x)(2x)^{n1}𝑑x,n1,`$ (1.4)
the $`N\times N`$ Hankel matrices generated by the (moment) symbol $`b`$ are defined by

$`H_N[b]`$ $`=`$ $`\left(b_{1+j+k}\right)_{j,k=0}^{N1}.`$ (1.5)
We indicate the difference in the definition by using the notation $`H_N()`$ and $`H_N[]`$. The function $`b`$ is called even if $`b(x)=b(x)`$.

Our motivation to prove in the following sections identities for the above mentioned determinants comes from several problems. The best known problem, called the Fisher-Hartwig conjecture, concerns the asymptotics of the determinants of Toeplitz matrices for singular symbols. One would like to be able to compute the asymptotics of the determinant of $`T_N(a)`$ when the symbol $`a`$ has jump discontinuities, zeros, or other singularities of a certain form. A history of this problem and many known results and applications can be found in  or . In section five of this paper we prove some Fisher-Hartwig type results for certain skewsymmetric Toeplitz matrices.

Another interesting problem is to compute asymptotically the determinants of the matrices

$$T_N(a)+H_N(a)$$

where the symbol $`a`$ also has singularities. The interest in these asymptotics, especially in the case where $`a`$ is even, arose in random matrix theory (see  and the references therein). The determination of these asymptotics will be done in a forthcoming paper .

Finally, Hankel matrices defined by the moments of a function given on a line segment play an important role in orthogonal polynomial theory and again in random matrix theory. We refer the reader to  for orthogonal polynomial connections and to  for a general account of random matrix theory. In section five we prove two results for the asymptotics of the determinants of the Hankel moment matrices. These results allow the function $`b`$ to have jump discontinuities, but require the function to be even.

The paper is organized as follows. Sections 2, 3, and 4 contain all the linear algebra type results which prove the exact identities for the various types of matrices and are self-contained. The asymptotic results are contained in section 5 and use the results of the previous sections and some already known results for Toeplitz matrices.

## 2 Hankel determinants versus symmetric Toeplitz + Hankel determinants

We begin with a preliminary result which will allow us to show the relationship with symmetric Toeplitz plus Hankel matrices and the Hankel moment matrices.

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`\{a_n\}_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of complex numbers such that $`a_n=a_n`$ and let $`\{b_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence defined by

$`b_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k}}\right)(a_{1n+2k}+a_{2n+2k}).`$ (2.6)
Define the one-sided infinite matrices

$$A=\left(a_{jk}+a_{j+k+1}\right)_{j,k=0}^{\mathrm{}},B=\left(b_{j+k+1}\right)_{j,k=0}^{\mathrm{}},$$
(2.7)
and the upper triangular one-sided infinite matrix

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\xi (0,0)& \xi (1,1)& \xi (2,2)& \mathrm{}\\ & \xi (1,0)& \xi (2,1)& \mathrm{}\\ & & \xi (2,0)& \\ 0& & & \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)\text{ where }\xi (n,k)=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{[\frac{k}{2}]}}\right).`$ (2.12)
Then $`B=D^TAD`$.

Proof. The assertion is equivalent to the statement that for all $`n,m0`$ the following identity holds:

$`b_{n+m+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(a_{njm+k}+a_{nj+mk+1})\xi (n,j)\xi (m,k),`$ (2.13)
where $`b_{n+m+1}`$ is given by

$`b_{n+m+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n+m}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+m}{r}}\right)(a_{2rnm}+a_{2rnm+1}).`$ (2.14)
In order to prove this identity it is sufficient to prove that for each $`s0`$ the terms $`a_s=a_s`$ occur as many times in (2.13) as in (2.14). In fact, $`a_s`$ and $`a_s`$ occurs in (2.13) exactly $`N_1+N_2+N_3`$ times if $`s1`$ and $`N_1=N_2`$ times if $`s=0`$, where

$`N_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{ccc}0jn& & \\ 0km& & \\ jk=nms& & \end{array}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{[\frac{j}{2}]}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{[\frac{k}{2}]}}\right)={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{ccc}0jn& & \\ m+1k2m+1& & \\ j+k=n+ms+1& & \end{array}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{[\frac{j}{2}]}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{[\frac{k}{2}]}}\right),`$ (2.21)
$`N_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{ccc}0jn& & \\ 0km& & \\ jk=nm+s& & \end{array}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{[\frac{j}{2}]}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{[\frac{k}{2}]}}\right)={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{ccc}n+1j2n+1& & \\ 0km& & \\ j+k=n+ms+1& & \end{array}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{[\frac{j}{2}]}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{[\frac{k}{2}]}}\right),`$ (2.28)
$`N_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{ccc}0jn& & \\ 0km& & \\ j+k=n+m+1s& & \end{array}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{[\frac{j}{2}]}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{[\frac{k}{2}]}}\right).`$ (2.32)
In the expression for $`N_1`$ we have made a change of variables $`k2m+1k`$ and in $`N_2`$ a change of variables $`j2n+1j`$. Hence it follows that

$`N_1+N_2+N_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j,k0}{j+k=n+m+1s}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{[\frac{j}{2}]}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{[\frac{k}{2}]}}\right).`$
Moreover, $`N_1=N_2=\frac{N_1+N_2+N_3}{2}`$ for $`s=0`$ since then $`N_3=0`$.

On the other hand, $`a_s`$ and $`a_s`$ occurs in (2.14) exactly $`M_1+M_2`$ times if $`s1`$ and $`M_1=M_2`$ times if $`s=0`$, where

$$M_1=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+m}{[\frac{n+m+s}{2}]}\right),M_2=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+m}{[\frac{n+ms}{2}]}\right).$$

Thus we are done as soon as we have shown that $`M_1+M_2=N_1+N_2+N_3`$ for each $`s0`$.

We distinguish two cases. If $`n+m+1s`$ is even, then we substitute $`j2j`$, $`k2k`$, and $`j2j+1`$, $`k2k+1`$ in the above expression for $`N_1+N_2+N_3`$ and arrive at

$`N_1+N_2+N_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j,k0}{2j+2k=n+m+1s}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{j}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j,k0}{2j+2k=n+m1s}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{j}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}}\right).`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+m}{\frac{n+m+1s}{2}}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+m}{\frac{n+m1s}{2}}}\right)=M_1+M_2.`$
If $`n+m+1s`$ is odd, then we substitute $`j2j`$, $`k2k+1`$, and $`j2j+1`$, $`k2k`$ in the expression for $`N_1+N_2+N_3`$ and obtain

$`N_1+N_2+N_3`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j,k0}{2j+2k=n+ms}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{j}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+m}{\frac{n+ms}{2}}}\right)=M_1+M_2,`$
which also completes the proof.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 2.2

Let $`\{a_n\}_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\{b_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ fulfill the assumptions of the previous proposition. For $`N1`$ define the matrices

$$A_N=\left(a_{jk}+a_{j+k+1}\right)_{j,k=0}^{N1},B_N=\left(b_{j+k+1}\right)_{j,k=0}^{N1}.$$
(2.33)
Then $`detA_N=detB_N`$.

Proof. $`A_N`$ and $`B_N`$ are the $`N\times N`$ sections of the infinite matrices $`A`$ and $`B`$ of the previous proposition. Let $`D_N`$ be the $`N\times N`$ sections of the infinite matrix $`D`$. Because of the triangular structure of $`D`$, it follows that $`B_N=D_N^TA_ND_N`$. Noting that the entries on the diagonal of $`D`$ are equal to $`\xi (n,0)=1`$, we obtain the desired assertion.  $`\mathrm{}`$

The previous theorem shows the connection between the determinants of a symmetric Toeplitz + Hankel matrix on the one hand and a Hankel determinant on the other hand. We now express this relationship by using the standard notation for these matrices.

###### Theorem 2.3

Let $`aL^1(𝕋)`$ be an even function, and define $`bL^1[1,1]`$ by

$`b(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`a(e^{i\theta })\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }}}.`$ (2.34)
Then $`det(T_N(a)+H_N(a))=detH_N[b]`$.

Proof. The moments of $`b`$ are given by

$`b_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _1^1}b(x)(2x)^{n1}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }a(e^{i\theta })(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )(2\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{n1}𝑑\theta `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }a(e^{i\theta })(1+e^{i\theta })(e^{i\theta }+e^{i\theta })^{n1}𝑑\theta `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }a(e^{i\theta })\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(e^{i(n12k)\theta }+e^{i(n22k)\theta })\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k}}\right)\right)𝑑\theta `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k}}\right)\left(a_{n+1+2k}+a_{n+2+2k}\right).`$
Here we have made a change of variables $`x=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and written $`(e^{i\theta }+e^{i\theta })^{n1}`$ using the binomial formula. With regard to (2.6) and Theorem 2.2 this completes the proof.  $`\mathrm{}`$

In regard to relation (2.34) we remark that $`bL^1[1,1]`$ in and only if $`a(e^{i\theta })(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )L^1(𝕋)`$.

Thus at this point we have shown that if $`a`$ and $`b`$ satisfy the relation (2.12), then

$$detH_N[b]=det(T_N(a)+H_N(a)).$$

But actually more can be done in the case that the symbol $`a`$ satisfies a quarter wave symmetry property. Then, in fact, certain Hankel moment determinants can be written as Toeplitz determinants. The symbol $`b(x)L^1[1,1]`$ of these Hankel determinants is of the form

$`b(x)`$ $`=`$ $`b_0(x)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+x}{1x}}}`$ (2.35)
where $`b_0(x)=b_0(x)`$ for all $`x[1,1]`$.

We first begin with the following auxiliary result. In what follows, let $`W_N`$ stand for the matrix acting on $`^N`$ by

$$W_N:(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{N1})(x_{N1},\mathrm{},x_1,x_0),$$

and let $`I_N`$ denote the $`N\times N`$ identity matrix.

###### Proposition 2.4

Let $`aL^1(𝕋)`$ and assume that $`a(t)=a(t^1)=a(t)`$. Define

$`d(e^{i\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`a(e^{i\theta /2}).`$ (2.36)
Then $`det(T_N(a)+H_N(a))=detT_N(d)`$.

Proof. Note first that $`d(t)`$ is well defined since $`a(t)=a(t)`$. Moreover, $`a_{2n+1}=0`$ and $`a_{2n}=d_n`$. By rearranging rows and columns of $`T_N(a)+H_N(a)`$ in an obvious way, it is easily seen that this matrix is similar to

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(a_{2j2k}\right)_{j,k=0}^{N_11}& 0\\ 0& \left(a_{2j2k}\right)_{j,k=0}^{N_21}\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \left(a_{2j+2k+2}\right)_{j=0,k=0}^{N_11,N_21}\\ \left(a_{2j+2k+2}\right)_{j=0,k=0}^{N_21,N_11}& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (2.41)
where $`N_1=\left[\frac{N+1}{2}\right]`$ and $`N_2=\left[\frac{N1}{2}\right]`$. This matrix equals

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}T_{N_1}(d)& H_{N_1,N_2}(d)\\ H_{N_2,N_1}(d)& T_{N_2}(d)\end{array}\right),$$

where $`H_{N_1,N_2}(d)`$ and $`H_{N_2,N_1}(d)`$ are Hankel matrices of size $`N_1\times N_2`$ and $`N_2\times N_1`$, respectively. Multiplying the last matrix from the left and the right with the diagonal matrix $`\mathrm{diag}(W_{N_1},I_{N_2})`$ we obtain the matrix $`T_N(d)`$. Notice in this connection that $`d_n=d_n`$ since $`a(t^1)=a(t)`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2.5

Let $`bL^1[1,1]`$ and suppose (2.35) holds with $`b_0(x)=b_0(x)`$ for all $`x[1,1]`$. Define the function

$`d(e^{i\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`b_0(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}).`$ (2.42)
Then $`detH_N[b]=detT_N(d)`$.

Proof. Since $`b_0(x)=b_0(x)`$ it follows from definition (2.34) that $`a(t)=a(t^1)=a(t)`$. Now we can apply Theorem 2.3 and Proposition 2.4 in order to obtain the identity $`detH_N[b]=det(T_N(a)+H_N(a))=detT_N(d)`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Concerning the previous corollary, we wish to emphasize that the function $`d`$ is even, and hence the matrices $`T_N(d)`$ are symmetric.

## 3 Symmetric Toeplitz + Hankel determinants versus skewsymmetric Toeplitz determinants

The main result of this section has been established in \[7, Lemma 18\] and proved in \[6, Lemma 1\] and \[9, Proof of Thm. 7.1(a)\]. We give a slightly simplified and self-contained proof here.

###### Theorem 3.1

Let $`\{a_n\}_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of complex numbers such that $`a_n=a_n`$. Let $`c_n`$ be defined by

$`c_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=n+1}{\overset{n}{}}}a_k\text{ for }n>0,`$ (3.43)
and put $`c_0=0`$ and $`c_n=c_n`$. Then $`detT_{2N}(c)=(det(T_N(a)+H_N(a)))^2`$.

Proof. First of all we multiply the matrix $`T_{2N}(c)`$ from the left and right with $`\mathrm{diag}(W_N,I_N)`$. We obtain the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}T_N(\stackrel{~}{c})& H_N(\stackrel{~}{c})\\ H_N(c)& T_N(c)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}T_N(c)& H_N(c)\\ H_N(c)& T_N(c)\end{array}\right)$$

by observing that $`\stackrel{~}{c}=c`$. Next we claim that

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}T_N(1t)& 0\\ T_N(t)& I_N\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}T_N(c)& H_N(c)\\ H_N(c)& T_N(c)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}T_N(1t^1)& T_N(t^1)\\ 0& I_N\end{array}\right)`$ (3.50)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_N& 0\\ 0& T_N(1+t)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}X_N& T_N(a)H_N(a)\\ T_N(a)+H_N(a)& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_N& 0\\ 0& T_N(1+t^1)\end{array}\right)`$ (3.57)
with a certain matrix $`X_N`$. If we take the determinant of this equation, we obtain the desired determinant identity.

In order to proof the above matrix identity it suffices to show that the following three equations hold:

$`T_N(c)T_N(t)T_N(c)T_N(t^1)+H_N(c)T_N(t^1)T_N(t)H_N(c)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0},`$ (3.58)
$`T_N(t)T_N(c)T_N(1t^1)+H_N(c)T_N(1t^1)`$ $`=`$ $`T_N(1+t)\left(T_N(a)+H_N(a)\right),`$ (3.59)
$`T_N(1t)T_N(c)T_N(t^1)+T_N(1t)H_N(c)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(T_N(a)+H_N(a)\right)T_N(1+t^1).`$ (3.60)
Notice that (3.60) can be obtained from (3.59) by passing to the transpose. Moreover, by employing (3.58) equation (3.59) reduces to

$`T_N(1t)\left(T_N(c)+H_N(c)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`T_N(1+t)\left(T_N(a)+H_N(a)\right).`$ (3.61)
Let us first prove (3.58). We introduce the $`N\times 1`$ column vectors $`e_0=(1,0,0,\mathrm{},0)^T`$ and $`\gamma _N=(0,c_1,c_2,\mathrm{},c_{N1})^T`$. Then

$$T_N(c)T_N(t)T_N(c)T_N(t^1)=\gamma _Ne_0^Te_0\gamma _N^T=T_N(t)H_N(c)H_N(c)T_N(t^1),$$

whence indeed (3.58) follows.

Next we remark that from the definition of the sequences $`\{a_n\}_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\{c_n\}_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ it follows that $`c_nc_{n1}=a_n+a_{n1}`$ for all $`n`$. Introducing the column vectors $`\widehat{\gamma }_N=(c_1,\mathrm{},c_N)^T`$, $`\alpha _N=(a_0,\mathrm{},a_{N1})^T`$ and $`\widehat{\alpha }_N=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_N)^T`$, it can be readily verified that

$`T_N(1t)T_N(c)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(c_{jk}c_{jk1}\right)_{j,k=0}^{N1}e_0\widehat{\gamma }_N^T,`$
$`T_N(1+t)T_N(a)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(a_{jk}+a_{jk1}\right)_{j,k=0}^{N1}e_0\widehat{\alpha }_N^T,`$
$`T_N(1t)H_N(c)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(c_{j+k+1}c_{j+k}\right)_{j,k=0}^{N1}+e_0\gamma _N^T,`$
$`T_N(1+t)H_N(a)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(a_{j+k+1}+a_{j+k}\right)_{j,k=0}^{N1}e_0\alpha _N^T.`$
Using the above relation $`c_nc_{n1}=a_n+a_{n1}`$, it follows that

$`T_N(1t)T_N(c)T_N(1+t)T_N(a)`$ $`=`$ $`e_0\widehat{\gamma }_N^T+e_0\widehat{\alpha }_N^T`$
$`T_N(1+t)H_N(a)T_N(1t)H_N(c)`$ $`=`$ $`e_0\alpha _N^Te_0\gamma _N^T.`$
Since $`\widehat{\gamma }_N\gamma _N=\widehat{\alpha }_N+\alpha _N`$ by the same relation, this implies equation (3.61).  $`\mathrm{}`$

The results of this theorem are not easy to rephrase by using the classical notation for Toeplitz and Hankel matrices. Consider, for instance, the simplest case where $`a(t)1`$. Then $`c_n=\mathrm{sign}(n)`$ which are not the Fourier coefficients of an $`L^1`$-function. For more information on how one can nevertheless express the relationship between the symbols $`a`$ and $`c`$, and how the asymptotics for certain of the above determinants can be determined we refer to .

## 4 Hankel determinants versus skewsymmetric Toeplitz determinants

The results of the previous two sections allow us to establish an identity between Hankel determinants and determinants of skewsymmetric Toeplitz matrices. The next theorem is an additional needed ingredient for the identity.

###### Theorem 4.1

Let $`\{c_n\}_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of complex numbers such that $`c_n=c_n`$ for all $`n`$. Define numbers $`\{b_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ by

$`b_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\left[\frac{n}{2}\right]}{}}}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k1}}\right)\right\}c_{n2k}.`$ (4.62)
Moreover, define the matrices

$$B_N=\left(b_{j+k+1}\right)_{j,k=0}^{N1},C_{2N}=\left(c_{jk}\right)_{j,k=0}^{2N1}.$$

Then $`detC_{2N}=(detB_N)^2`$.

Proof. In formula (3.43) the numbers $`c_n`$ are defined in terms of the numbers $`a_{n+1},\mathrm{},a_n`$. By a simple inspection of this formula, it is easy to see that for any given sequence $`\{c_n\}_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ there exists a sequence $`\{a_n\}_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that (3.43) and $`a_n=a_n`$ holds for all positive $`n`$.

Now let us define the numbers $`b_n`$ not by (4.62) but by (2.6). Then with $`B_N`$ and $`C_{2N}`$ defined as above it follows from Theorem 2.2 and Theorem 3.1 that $`detC_{2N}=(detB_N)^2`$. It remains to show that (4.62) holds.

Indeed, we have that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\left[\frac{n}{2}\right]}{}}}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k1}}\right)\right\}c_{n2k}={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\left[\frac{n}{2}\right]}{}}}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k1}}\right)\right\}{\displaystyle \underset{j=n+2k+1}{\overset{n2k}{}}}a_j`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+2k+1jn2k}{02kn}}{}}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k1}}\right)\right\}a_j`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=n+1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{min}\{\left[\frac{nj}{2}\right],\left[\frac{n+j1}{2}\right]\}}{}}}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k1}}\right)\right\}a_j`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=n+1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{\mathrm{min}\{\left[\frac{nj}{2}\right],\left[\frac{n+j1}{2}\right]\}}}\right)a_j`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=n+1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{\left[\frac{nj}{2}\right]}}\right)a_j={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k}}\right)(a_{2k+1n}+a_{2k+2n}).`$
By formula (2.6) this is equal to $`b_n`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

We again express the above relationship in terms of the standard notation.

###### Theorem 4.2

Let $`bL^1[1,1]`$ and define $`cL^1(𝕋)`$ by

$`c(e^{i\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{sign}(\theta )b(\mathrm{cos}\theta ),\pi <\theta <\pi .`$ (4.63)
Then $`detT_{2N}(c)=(detH_N[b])^2`$.

Proof. Obviously, $`c(e^{i\theta })=c(e^{i\theta })`$. Hence $`c_n=c_n`$. It is sufficient to verify formula (4.62) for the Fourier coefficients and moments. First of all,

$`c_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }b(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{sin}(n\theta )𝑑\theta .`$
Hence

$`b_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }b(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\left[\frac{n}{2}\right]}{}}}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k1}}\right)\right\}\mathrm{sin}((n2k)\theta )\right)𝑑\theta .`$
The expression in the big braces equals (by a change of variables $`knk`$ in the second part of the sum)

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\left[\frac{n}{2}\right]}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k}}\right)\mathrm{sin}((n2k)\theta ){\displaystyle \underset{k=n\left[\frac{n}{2}\right]}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{nk1}}\right)\mathrm{sin}((2kn)\theta )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k}}\right)\mathrm{sin}((n2k)\theta )=(2\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{n1}\mathrm{sin}\theta .`$
Hence

$`b_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }b(\mathrm{cos}\theta )(2\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{n1}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta .`$
Now it is easy to see that $`b_n`$ are the moments of the function $`b`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Regarding relation (4.63) we remark that $`cL^1(𝕋)`$ if and only if $`b(x)/\sqrt{1x^2}L^1[1,1]`$.

At this point we have three main identities for Hankel moment determinants, one which follows from Theorem 2.3, one which follows from Corollary 2.5 and finally one which follows from the previous theorem. If we desire to find the asymptotics of the determinants of the Hankel moment matrices it is clear that the corresponding asymptotics for Toeplitz matrices need to be derived. In particular, in light of Theorem 4.2 and formula (4.22), it is desirable to compute the asymptotics of the Toeplitz determinant $`detT_{2N}(c)`$, where $`c`$ satisfies $`c(e^{i\theta })=c(e^{i\theta })`$ and accordingly implies that the Toeplitz matrices are skewsymmetric. Note from this it follows that $`detT_{2N+1}(c)=0`$ for all $`N`$. However, this implies that a single asymptotic formula for the determinants, such as the one given in the classical Szegö limit theorem, or the more general Fisher-Hartwig formulas would not make sense here. In the following section we nevertheless compute the asymptotics of such Toeplitz determinants in some cases and raise a conjecture about more general cases.

## 5 Asymptotics of certain skewsymmetric Toeplitz determinants and Hankel determinants

Our goal of this section is to consider Toeplitz determinants with generating function $`c(e^{i\theta })=\chi (e^{i\theta })a(e^{i\theta })`$ where $`a`$ is an even functions and

$`\chi (e^{i\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{sign}(\theta ),\pi <\theta <\pi .`$ (5.64)
Let $`t_\beta (e^{i\theta })`$ stand for the function

$`t_\beta (e^{i\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\beta (\theta \pi )},0<\theta <2\pi .`$ (5.65)
This function has a single jump at $`t=1`$ whose size is determined by the parameter $`\beta `$.

In the following proposition we assume that $`a`$ is not necessarily an even function but satisfies instead a rotation symmetry condition.

###### Proposition 5.1

Assume that $`aL^1(𝕋)`$ satisfies the relation $`a(t)=a(t)`$ for $`t𝕋`$. Define the functions

$`d(e^{i\theta })=a(e^{i\theta /2}),d_1(e^{i\theta })=t_{1/2}(e^{i\theta })d(e^{i\theta }),d_2(e^{i\theta })=t_{1/2}(e^{i\theta })d(e^{i\theta }).`$
Then $`detT_{2N}(a)=(detT_N(d))^2`$ and $`detT_{2N}(\chi a)=detT_N(d_1)detT_N(d_2)`$.

Proof. From the assumptions $`a(t)=a(t)`$ it follows that the Fourier coefficients $`a_{2n+1}`$ are zero. Hence $`T_{2N}(a)`$ has a checkered pattern, and rearranging rows and columns it is easily seen that $`T_{2N}(a)`$ is similar to the matrix $`\mathrm{diag}(T_N(d),T_N(d))`$.

The Fourier coefficients $`c_{2n}`$ of $`c(t)=\chi (t)a(t)`$ are equal to zero. By rearranging the rows and columns of $`T_{2N}(\chi a)`$ in the same way as above it becomes apparent that $`T_{2N}(\chi a)`$ is similar to a matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& D_2\\ D_1& 0\end{array}\right)\text{ where }D_1=\left(c_{2(jk)+1}\right)_{j,k=0}^{N1}\text{ and }D_2=\left(c_{2(jk)1}\right)_{j,k=0}^{N1}.$$

From the identity

$`\chi (e^{i\theta })=t_{1/2}(e^{i\theta })t_{1/2}(e^{i(\theta \pi )})=t_{1/2}(e^{i\theta })t_{1/2}(e^{i(\theta \pi )})`$ (5.66)
it follows that $`d_1(e^{i\theta })=e^{i\theta /2}c(e^{i\theta /2})`$ and $`d_2(e^{i\theta })=e^{i\theta /2}c(e^{i\theta /2})`$. Hence $`D_1=T_N(d_1)`$ and $`D_2=T_N(d_2)`$. Since $`detT_{2N}(c)=(1)^NdetD_1detD_2`$, this completes the proof.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Hence we have reduced the computation of $`detT_{2N}(\chi a)`$ to the Toeplitz determinants $`T_N(d_1)`$ and $`T_N(d_2)`$, for which in the case of piecewise continuous functions it is possible to apply the Fisher-Hartwig conjecture under certain assumptions.

The following result, which is taken from , makes this explicit. Therein $`G()`$ is the Barnes $`G`$-function , $`d_{0,\pm }`$ are the Wiener-Hopf factors of the function $`d_0`$,

$`d_{0,\pm }(e^{i\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[\mathrm{log}d_0]_{\pm k}e^{\pm ik\theta }\right),`$ (5.67)
and

$`d_\pm (e^{i\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`d_{0,\pm }(e^{i\theta }){\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{R}{}}}\left(1e^{\pm i(\theta \theta _r)}\right)^{\pm \beta _r}`$ (5.68)
are the generalized Wiener-Hopf factors of $`d`$.

###### Proposition 5.2

Let

$`d(e^{i\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`d_0(e^{i\theta }){\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{R}{}}}t_{\beta _r}(e^{i(\theta \theta _r)}),`$ (5.69)
where $`d_0`$ is an infinitely differentiable nonvanishing function with winding number zero, $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _R(0,2\pi )`$ are distinct numbers, and $`\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _R`$ are complex parameters satisfying $`|\mathrm{Re}\beta _r|<1/2`$ for all $`r=1,\mathrm{},R`$. Then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{detT_N(t_{1/2}d)}{detT_N(d)}}`$ $``$ $`N^{1/4}G(1/2)G(3/2)d_+(1)^{1/2}d_{}(1)^{1/2},N\mathrm{},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{detT_N(t_{1/2}d)}{detT_N(d)}}`$ $``$ $`N^{1/4}G(1/2)G(3/2)d_+(1)^{1/2}d_{}(1)^{1/2},N\mathrm{}.`$
Moreover,

$`detT_N(d)`$ $``$ $`F^NN^\mathrm{\Omega }E,N\mathrm{},`$ (5.70)
where $`F=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }\mathrm{log}d_0(e^{i\theta })𝑑\theta \right)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{r=1}{\overset{R}{}}\beta _r^2`$, and $`E`$ is another constant.

(The constant $`E`$ is quite complicated, so in the interest of brevity, we omit the exact formula from this paper and refer to  for an explicit representation.)

The previous propositions yield the following results. We keep the same notation.

###### Corollary 5.3

Let $`d`$ be a function of the form (5.69) and assume that the same conditions as above are fulfilled. Let $`a(e^{i\theta })=d(e^{2i\theta })`$. Then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{detT_{2N}(\chi a)}{detT_{2N}(a)}}`$ $``$ $`N^{1/2}G^2(1/2)G^2(3/2),N\mathrm{},`$ (5.71)
and

$`detT_{2N}(a)`$ $``$ $`F^{2N}N^{2\mathrm{\Omega }}E^2,N\mathrm{}.`$ (5.72)
The following corollary gives an asymptotic formula for the determinants of Hankel moment matrices in the special case where the symbol is even.

###### Corollary 5.4

Let $`bL^1[1,1]`$ such that $`b(x)=b(x).`$ Define $`d(e^{i\theta })=b(\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2))`$ and suppose that $`d`$ is of the form (5.69). Then

$`detH_N[b]`$ $``$ $`F^NN^{\mathrm{\Omega }1/4}G(1/2)G(3/2)E,N\mathrm{}.`$ (5.73)
Proof. Define $`a(e^{i\theta })=b(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. Then Theorem 4.2 implies that $`(detH_N[b])^2=detT_N(\chi a)`$. Since $`b(x)=b(x)`$ the function is well defined and $`a(e^{i\theta })=d(e^{2i\theta })`$. Now the formula follows from Corollary 5.3 and by taking square roots.  $`\mathrm{}`$

The interesting point in Corollary 5.3 is that the asymptotic limit of (5.71) does not depend on the underlying function $`a`$. We remark that we have proved this limit relation for certain piecewise continuous functions $`a`$ subject to the condition $`a(t)=a(t)`$. Our primary goal was however to determine the limit for certain functions $`a`$ satisfying the relation $`a(t^1)=a(t)`$. Our conjecture is that the asymptotic limit is given by the above expression in general also for those functions.

In order to support this hypothesis we resort to the generalization of the Fisher-Hartwig conjecture, which has not yet been proved, but is strongly suggested by examples. Since $`detT_{2N+1}(\chi a)=0`$ for all $`N`$ (under the assumption $`a(t^1)=a(t)`$), the asymptotics of $`T_N(\chi a)`$ can only be described by the generalized but not the original conjecture. The crucial observation is that one has several possibilities for representing $`\chi a`$ in a form like (5.69). Indeed, from (5.66) it follows that

$$\chi (e^{i\theta })a(e^{i\theta })=t_{1/2}(e^{i\theta })t_{1/2}(e^{i(\theta \pi )})a(e^{i\theta })=t_{1/2}(e^{i\theta })t_{1/2}(e^{i(\theta \pi )})a(e^{i\theta }),$$

tacitly assuming that $`a`$ admits also representation of the form (5.69) with appropriate properties.

Then the generalized conjecture predicts  that

$`detT_N(\chi a)`$ $``$ $`detT_N(t_{1/2}(e^{i\theta }))detT_N(t_{1/2}(e^{i(\theta \pi )}))detT_N(a)E_1`$
$`+(1)^NdetT_N(t_{1/2}(e^{i\theta }))detT_N(t_{1/2}(e^{i(\theta \pi )}))detT_N(a)E_2,`$
where $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are the “correlation” constants

$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`E(t_{1/2}(e^{i\theta }),t_{1/2}(e^{i(\theta \pi )}))E(t_{1/2}(e^{i\theta }),a)E(t_{1/2}(e^{i(\theta \pi )}),a)`$
$`E_2`$ $`=`$ $`E(t_{1/2}(e^{i\theta }),t_{1/2}(e^{i(\theta \pi )}))E(t_{1/2}(e^{i\theta }),a)E(t_{1/2}(e^{i(\theta \pi )}),a)`$
with $`E(,)`$ defined by

$`E(b,c)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{r10}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(k[\mathrm{log}h_rb_+]_k[\mathrm{log}h_rc_{}]_k+k[\mathrm{log}h_rb_{}]_k[\mathrm{log}h_rc_+]_k\right)\right),`$
$`h_rb_\pm `$ and $`h_rc_\pm `$ denoting the harmonic extensions of the Wiener-Hopf factors of $`b_\pm `$ and $`c_\pm `$.

From all this it follows that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{detT_{2N}(\chi a)}{detT_{2N}(a)}}`$ $``$ $`(2N)^{1/2}G^2(1/2)G^2(3/2)(E_1+E_2),`$
where a straightforward computation of the constants gives

$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`2^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_+(1)a_{}(1)}{a_{}(1)a_+(1)}}\right)^{1/2},`$
$`E_2`$ $`=`$ $`2^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_+(1)a_{}(1)}{a_{}(1)a_+(1)}}\right)^{1/2}.`$
The assumption that $`a(t^1)=a(t)`$ implies that $`a_{}(t)=\gamma a_+(t^1)`$ with a certain constant $`\gamma 0`$. Hence

$`E_1=E_2=2^{1/2},`$
which leads to the conjecture that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{detT_{2N}(\chi a)}{detT_{2N}(a)}}`$ $``$ $`N^{1/2}G^2(1/2)G^2(3/2),N\mathrm{}.`$ (5.74)
Using Theorem 4.2 we arrive at a conjecture for the Hankel moment matrices:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{detH_N[b]}{\sqrt{detT_{2N}(a)}}}`$ $``$ $`N^{1/4}G(1/2)G(3/2),N\mathrm{},`$ (5.75)
where $`a(e^{i\theta })=b(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. We remark that this formula is in accordance with Corollary 5.4.

We end this section by noting one other result that follows from our identities and Corollary 2.5. This result applies to Hankel moment matrices with a special case of Jacobi weights and computes the asymptotics for $`detH_N[b]`$ where $`b`$ is of the form $`b_0(x)\sqrt{\frac{1+x}{1x}}`$ with an even function $`b_0`$.

###### Corollary 5.5

Suppose $`bL^1[1,1]`$ is of the above form with an even function $`b_0`$. Let $`d(e^{i\theta })=b_0(\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2))`$ and suppose the $`d`$ is of the form (5.69). Then

$$detH_N[b]F^NN^\mathrm{\Omega }E,N\mathrm{}.$$