text:
# Private entanglement over arbitrary distances, even using noisy apparatus

## Abstract

We give a security proof of quantum cryptography based entirely on entanglement purification. Our proof applies to all possible attacks (individual and coherent). It implies the security of cryptographic keys distributed with the help of entanglement-based quantum repeaters. We prove the security of the obtained *quantum channel* which may not only be used for quantum key distribution, but also for secure, albeit noisy, transmission of quantum information.

Quantum cryptography (QC) promises the security of data transmission against any eavesdropping attack allowed by the laws of physics. The first QC protocol was described by Bennett and Brassard as early as 1984 bb84 . Later, in 1991 Ekert presented a scheme based on Bell’s theorem ekert91 . Though the security of these protocols is easy to prove under ideal conditions, a lot of work has been spent to prove the security under realistic circumstances. In all QC protocols, a possible eavesdropper is identified because of the disturbance that he or she introduces when trying to gain information about a quantum state that is transmitted. The problem is that every quantum channel introduces innocuous noise itself, which cannot, in principle, be distinguished from noise introduced by an eavesdropper. For that reason, a proof of unconditional security of QC has to assume that all noise in the channel is due to the interference of an eavesdropper.

Two different techniques have been developed to deal with these difficulties: *Classical privacy amplification* allows the eavesdropper to have partial knowledge about the raw key built up between the communicating parties Alice and Bob. From the raw key, a shorter key is “distilled” about which Eve has vanishing (i. e. exponentially small in some chosen security parameter) knowledge. Despite of the simple idea, proofs taking into account all eavesdropping attacks allowed by the laws of quantum mechanics have shown to be technically involved mayers ; biham ; hitoshi . Recently, Shor and Preskill shor  have given a simpler physical proof relating the ideas in mayers ; biham  to quantum error correcting codes CSS ; steane95 . *Quantum privacy amplification* (QPA) deutsch96 , on the other hand, employs an entanglement purification bennett96 ; bennett96a  protocol that eliminates any entanglement with an eavesdropper by creating a few perfect EPR pairs out of many imperfect (or impure) EPR pairs. In principle, this method guarantees security against any eavesdropping attack. However, the problem is that the QPA protocol assumes ideal quantum operations. In reality, these operations are themselves subject to noise. As shown in briegel ; duer\_briegel ; giedke , there is an upper bound $`F_{\text{max}}`$ for the achievable fidelity of EPR pairs which can be distilled using noisy apparatus. *A priori*, there is no way to be sure that there is no residual entanglement with an eavesdropper. This problem could be solved if Alice and Bob had fault tolerant quantum computers at their disposal, which could then be used to reduce the noise of the apparatus to any desired level. This was an essential assumption in the security proof given by Lo and Chau lo .

In this paper, we show that the standard two-way entanglement purification protocols alone, with some minor modifications to accomodate certain security aspects which will be discussed below, can be used to efficiently establish a *perfectly private quantum channel*, even when both the physical channel connecting the parties and the local apparatus used by Alice and Bob are noisy. This is of particular interest because, as we show, the *security* threshold for the noise-level of the apparatus practically coincides with the *purification* threshold, so that the methods used for long-distance quantum communication, using entanglement-purification-based quantum repeaters briegel ; duer\_briegel  can be used for secure quantum communication *without any further requirements*. In particular, no fault tolerant quantum computers are required. This goal is achieved by proving that the final state of the protocol factorizes into a product state of the eavesdropper on one side, and Alice, Bob and their laboratories (apparatuses) on the other side. Colloquially speaking, we prove that Eve is factored out under the action of the purification protocol, i. e. the finite fidelity at the end of the protocol is only due to entanglement with the apparatus. Our proof applies to all possible attacks (individual, collective, and coherent) and can be utilized directly in long-distance quantum communication. Different from existing work, we (i) prove the security of the entire quantum channel, (ii) do not require fault tolerant quantum computers, and (iii) our results have practical relevance, as the accuracy of the apparatus used by Alice and Bob may be about two orders of magnitude lower than the threshold accuracy for fault tolerant quantum computers briegel ; preskill97 .

The scenario is the following. Initially, Alice and Bob share a numbered ensemble of $`2N`$ qubits $`\{(a_1,b_1),\mathrm{},(a_N,b_N)\}`$, $`N`$ qubits on each side, where $`N`$ is large. Most generally, the state they obtain can be written in the form

$$\rho _{AB}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}{\mu _1^{}\mathrm{}\mu _N^{}}}{}\alpha _{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mu _1...\mu _N}{\mu _1^{}...\mu _N^{}}}|_{\mu _1}^{(a_1b_1)}_{\mu _N}^{(a_Nb_N)}_{\mu _1^{}}^{(a_1b_1)}_{\mu _N^{}}^{(a_Nb_N)}|$$
(1)
where $`|_{\mu _j}^{(a_jb_j)}`$, $`\mu _j=00,01,10,11`$ denote the 4 Bell states associated with the two particles $`a_j`$ and $`b_j`$. Specifically, $`|_{00}|\mathrm{\Phi }^+=\left(|00+|11\right)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`|_{01}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+=\left(|01+|01\right)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`|_{10}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\left(|00|11\right)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`|_{11}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\left(|01|10\right)/\sqrt{2}`$. The qubits have been distributed through some noisy channel, which may also include repeater stations involving additional qubits briegel . In general, (1) will be an entangled state of $`2N`$ particles, which allows for the possibility of so-called coherent attacks coll\_attacks . This state may be used to establish a perfectly secret quantum channel, given that there is one Bell state, say $`|_{00}`$, such that $`_{00}^{(a_jb_j)}|\rho _{a_jb_j}|_{00}^{(a_jb_j)}>F_{\text{min}}>1/2`$ for the reduced density operator of every pair of qubits $`(a_j,b_j)`$, where the exact value of $`F_{\text{min}}`$ depends on the noise parameters of Alice’s and Bob’s apparatus briegel ; giedke .

Upon reception of all pairs, Alice and Bob apply the following protocol to them. Note that steps 1 and 2 are only applied once, while steps 3, 4, and 5 are applied recursively.
Step 1: On each pair of particles $`(a_j,b_j)`$, they apply randomly one of the four bi-lateral Pauli rotations $`\sigma _k^{(a_j)}\sigma _k^{(b_j)}`$, where k = 0,1,2,3.
Step 2: Alice and Bob randomly renumber the pairs, $`(a_j,b_j)(a_{\pi (j)},b_{\pi (j)})`$ where $`\pi (j)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$ is a random permutation.
Steps 1 and 2 are required in order to treat correlated pairs correctly. Note that steps 1 and 2 would also be required — as “preprocessing” steps — for the ideal protocol deutsch96 , if one requires that the protocol converges for arbitrary states of the form (1) to an ensemble of pure EPR states. While in deutsch96  it is possible to check whether or not the protocol converges to the desired pure state, by measuring the fidelity of some of the remaining pairs, this is not possible when imperfect apparatus is used. Since the maximum attainable fidelity $`F_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is smaller than unity, there is no known way to exclude the possibility that the non-ideal fidelity is due to correlations between the initial pairs. In both steps Alice and Bob discard the information which of the rotations and permutations, respectively, were chosen by their random number generator. Thus they deliberately loose some of the information about the ensemble which is still available to Eve. After step 1, their knowledge about the state is summarized by the density operator

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{AB}=\underset{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}{}p_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}|_{\mu _1}^{(a_1b_1)}_{\mu _N}^{(a_Nb_N)}_{\mu _1}^{(a_1b_1)}_{\mu _N}^{(a_Nb_N)}|$$
(2)
which corresponds to a *classically correlated ensemble* of pure Bell states. Since the purification protocol that they are applying in the following steps maps Bell states onto Bell states, it is statistically consistent for Alice and Bob to assume after step 1 that they are dealing with a (numbered) ensemble of pure Bell states, where they have only limited knowledge about which Bell state a specific pair is in. The fact that the pairs are correlated means that the order in which they appear in the numbered ensemble may have some pattern, which may have been imposed by Eve or by the channel itself. By applying step 2, Alice and Bob $`(i)`$ deliberately ignore this pattern and $`(ii)`$ randomize the order in which the pairs are used in the subsequent purification steps. For all statistical predictions made by Alice and Bob, they may consistently describe the ensemble by the density operator 111While, strictly speaking, this equality holds only for $`N\mathrm{}`$, the subsequent arguments also hold for the exact but more complicated form of (3) for finite $`N`$.

$`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }}_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}p_\mu |_\mu _\mu |\right)^N(\rho _{ab})^N`$ (3)
in which the $`p_\mu `$ describe the probability with which each pair is found in the Bell state $`|_\mu `$. At this point, Alice and Bob have to make sure that $`p_{00}F>F_{\text{min}}`$ for some minimum fidelity $`F_{\text{min}}>1/2`$, which they can do by statistical tests on a certain fraction of the pairs. Next, Alice and Bob apply one of the standard purification protocols as described in bennett96 ; deutsch96 . For simplicity, we concentrate on the protocol given in deutsch96 ; for other recurrence protocols, a similar proof could be given 222Note that for noisy local operations the hashing protocol, which requires Alice and Bob to apply a large number of CNOT operations in every distillation step, usually performs much worse that the recurrence protocols. The reason for this lies in the fact that the noise introduced with every CNOT operation accumulates and rapidly shatters the potential information that could ideally be gained from the parity measurement.. The protocol uses these steps:
Step 3: Bi-lateral rotations $`1/2(\mathrm{𝟏}^{(a)}i\sigma _x^{(a)})(\mathrm{𝟏}^{(b)}+i\sigma _x^{(b)})`$ are applied to all pairs $`(a,b)`$.
Step 4: To all pairs of pairs a bi-lateral CNOT operation (BCNOT) is applied.
Step 5: The target pair of the BCNOT operation is measured on both sides in $`z`$-direction. If the measurement results coincide, the control pair is kept, otherwise it is discarded.

Since Alice and Bob use imperfect apparatus, it has been shown briegel ; giedke  that these protocols converge towards a mixed-state ensemble $`\rho _{ab}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ with a maximum attainable fidelity $`F_{\text{max}}<1`$. If the fidelity of the local operations is moderate, the value of $`F_{\text{max}}`$ could be quite low ($`80\%`$, as an example).

In the following we will show that, despite of such a poor attainable fidelity, Alice and Bob may happily proceed to apply the purification protocol to establish a secure quantum channel 333The fact that already the rotations used in steps 1 and 2 will be subject to noise is immaterial. As no measurements are performed, all such noise may be entirely attributed to the channel.. We show that, as $`FF_{\text{max}}`$, the entanglement of the ensemble with the eavesdropper is reduced exponentially fast with the number of purification steps. In each step of the protocol, we assume that the apparatus they use introduces errors described by the following map 444We implicitly assume that Alice and Bob can trust their apparatus. Similar as in the work of Mayers and Yao, quant-ph/9809039, Alice and Bob need *not* trust the apparatus that produces the qubits. In the scenario considered in the present paper the quantum EPR source may be entirely under external control (e. g. repeater stations) and is thus not trusted at all. Alice and Bob merely check, before step 3 of the protocol, the fidelity of the ensemble.

$$\rho _{AB}\underset{\mu ,\nu =0}{\overset{3}{}}f_{\mu \nu }\sigma _\mu ^{(a)}\sigma _\nu ^{(b)}\rho _{AB}\sigma _\mu ^{(a)}\sigma _\nu ^{(b)},$$
(4)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ denote the qubits which are acted upon locally. The $`f_{\mu \nu }`$ can be interpreted as the joint probability that the Pauli rotations $`\sigma _\mu `$ and $`\sigma _\nu `$ are applied to qubits $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively. Eq. (4) includes, for an appropriate choice of the coefficients $`f_{\mu \nu }`$, the one and two qubit depolarizing channel and combinations thereof, as studied in briegel ; duer\_briegel , but is more general.

It is possible to include the laboratories degrees of freedom in the description. Noise of the form (4) can be attributed to some interaction with the apparatus, which is described by a map

$`|E_L|\psi _{AB}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu =0}{\overset{3}{}}}|e_{\mu \nu }_L\sigma _\mu ^{(a)}\sigma _\nu ^{(b)}|\psi ^{(ab)}.`$ (5)
This map explicitly accounts for the state of the apparatus before and after the interaction. The states $`|e_{\mu \nu }`$ are pairwise orthogonal and have the norm $`e_{\mu \nu }|e_{\mu \nu }=f_{\mu \nu }`$. It is important to note that the laboratory degrees of freedom $`|e_{\mu \nu }`$ can, in principle, be identified in any physical environment that generates noise of the form (4), if the specific interaction Hamiltonian is known.

For our purpose, however, the physical details of the environment are of no concern, and we may replace the real process by the following scenario, where both Alice and Bob have a “little demon” (L) in the laboratory. For simplicity, we concentrate on the demon in Alices laboratory only. Note that the generalisation to noise in both labs is trivial. Before every purification step, the demon applies randomly one of the sixteen rotations $`\sigma _\mu ^{(a)}\sigma _\nu ^{(b)}`$ to the qubits involved it this step, and keeps a record of which rotations he chose. For example, in the case of uncorrelated white noise (depolarizing channel), it leaves each qubit in its state ($`\sigma _0I`$) with some probability $`f_0`$, but rotates its state by $`\sigma _j`$ with equal probabilities $`f_j=\frac{1f_0}{3}`$.

By doing this, the demon may accumulate a record of all errors in the history of each qubit throughout the process. Instead of keeping track of this growing list, he updates in each purifications step a single *flag* $`\varphi (ij)`$ that is associated with each of the pairs. The aim of the error flag is to keep the information required for “undoing” the random rotations that occured in the history of each pair. Note that, while this can be done trivially for unitary networks, the situation is quite different with the QPA destillation protocol, which includes measurements. For the proof, we show that there exists a *flag update function* – as discussed below – which enables the lab demon at any time of the protocol, to assign each of the pairs to one out of four subensembles of the total ensemble of pairs and to keep track of each of these subensembles seperately. Technically, the flag consists of two classical bits, called the error phase bit $`i`$ and the error amplitude bit $`j`$. The update is done in the following way: If a $`\sigma _x`$ ($`\sigma _z`$, $`\sigma _y`$) error occurs, L inverts the error amplitude bit (error phase bit, both error bits). Whenever Alice and Bob agree publicly to keep a control pair $`P_1`$ (because of coinciding measurement outcomes on the target pair $`P_2`$, see step 5 of the protocol), L calculates a function of the error flags of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ that updates the flag of $`P_1`$. The function is shown in table 1. Note that the error flag which belongs to a pair is, by construction, only a function of the error records. It is important to realize that, what the lab demon is doing is *not* quantum error correction, as he is not applying any correction operation on the qubits in the course of the entire protocol. Instead of calculating the flags during the run of the protocol, they could equally be calculated after the protocol is finished.

As mentioned earlier, at each purification step, the lab demon divides the total ensemble into four subensembles $`\rho _{\text{AB}}^{(ij)}`$ corresponding to the value $`(ij)`$ of the error flag. Initially, before the QPA protocol starts, he assigns some random or fixed values to the labels, while the subensembles are all in the same state. That is, the error flags and the states of the pairs are initially completely uncorrelated. It is noteworthy that Bell diagonality of the states $`\rho _{\text{AB}}^{(ij)}=A^{(ij)}|_{00}_{00}\left|+B^{(ij)}\right|_{11}_{11}\left|+C^{(ij)}\right|_{01}_{01}\left|+D^{(ij)}\right|_{10}_{10}|`$ is preserved. This is due to the fact that all operations in the protocol map Bell states onto Bell states.

In the following, we analyse the purification process in terms of these four different subensembles $`\rho _{\text{AB}}^{(ij)}`$. In total, we have to keep track of 16 coefficients that occur in the expansion of each of the $`\rho _{\text{AB}}^{(ij)}`$ in the Bell basis. These coefficients after the $`(n+1)`$-th QPA step are functions of the coefficients after the $`n`$-th QPA step:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_n^{(00)}& A_{n+1}^{(00)}(A_n^{(00)},A_n^{(01)},\mathrm{},D_n^{(11)}),\hfill \\ \hfill A_n^{(01)}& A_{n+1}^{(01)}(A_n^{(00)},A_n^{(01)},\mathrm{},D_n^{(11)}),\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \hfill D_n^{(11)}& D_{n+1}^{(11)}(A_n^{(00)},A_n^{(01)},\mathrm{},D_n^{(11)}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
The explicit form of the 16 recurrence relations (6) can be given, but they are rather lengthy. They imply a reduced set of 4 recurrence relations for the quantities $`A_n=_{ij}A_n^{(ij)},\mathrm{},D_n=_{ij}D_n^{(ij)}`$ which describe the evolution of the total ensemble under the purification protocol. For $`n\mathrm{}`$, these quantities converge towards a fixpoint $`(A_{\mathrm{}},B_{\mathrm{}},C_{\mathrm{}},D_{\mathrm{}})`$ where $`A_{\mathrm{}}=F_{\text{max}}`$ is the maximal attainable fidelity duer\_briegel . Different from the fidelity $`F_nA_n`$, we define the *conditional fidelity* $`F_n^{\text{cond}}=A_n^{(00)}+B_n^{(11)}+C_n^{(01)}+D_n^{(10)}`$. This is the fidelity of the ensemble that Alice and Bob could attain, if the lab demon disclosed the error flags (or, for that matter, only the history of the random rotations, from which the flags can be calculated): Depending on the error flag of a pair, Alice could then choose a local rotation that transforms the pair into the Bell state $`|_{00}`$ with probability $`F^{\text{cond}}`$.

Evaluation of the recurrence relation yields that there are three different regimes of noise parameters: In the high-noise regime (low values of $`f_{00}`$), no purification is possible; the protocol converges to completely depolarized pairs. In the low-noise regime (high values of $`f_{00}`$), the protocol purifies *and* the conditional fidelity converges to unity: the protocol is in the security regime. Between these two regimes, just above the purification threshold, there exists a very narrow third regime: The protocol purifies, while the conditional fidelity does *not* converge to unity. It is not known whether or not secure communication is possible in this regime. For the depolarizing channel, for example, the intermediate regime is contained in the interval $`f_0(0.8983,0.8988)`$, while the security regime covers the entire interval $`f_0[0.8988,1]`$. The security regime thus coincides, for all practical purposes, with the purification regime, but it is interesting to see that these regimes are not strictly identical. It shows that the process of factorization is, in the situation of imperfect apparatus, not trivially connected to the process of purification. More details about these regimes will be published elsewhere. When the protocol is in the security regime, both the fidelity $`F_n`$ and the conditional fidelity $`F_n^{\text{cond}}`$ reach their respective fixpoints exponentially fast with the same exponents (see Fig. 2). From this it follows that there exists a polynomial relation between the resources used in the purification process (number of initial pairs) and the security parameter $`1F^{\text{cond}}`$. All results obtained from the evaluation of the recurrence relations (6) were also checked with the help of Monte Carlo simulations, in which the QPA protocol was applied to typical ensembles of Bell states.

Our results imply that the error flags and the states of the subensembles become *strictly correlated* during execution of the purification protocol: The subensemble $`(ij)`$ ends in the state $`|_{ij}`$. In other words, the “little demon” has acquired *complete knowledge* about the states of all pairs after sufficiently many purifications steps; the system consisting of the pairs and the lab is thus in a pure state. Now the same argument as in deutsch96  applies: a system in a pure state cannot be entangled with any other system — any eavesdropper is factored out, as his or her entanglement with the pairs is lost.

This proof can be extended to more general noise models if a slightly modified protocol is used, where step 1 is repeated after every distillation round 555We are grateful to C. H. Bennett for pointing out this possibility.. This effectively regularises any type of local noise process to a process of the type (4) that conserves the Bell diagonality of the ensemble, for which we can apply the lab-demon interpretation 666Here, it is however required that Alice and Bob are able to perform one-qubit rotations used in step 1 well enough to keep the evolution Bell-diagonal..

The fact that the security regime of the protocol almost coincides with the purification regime is of strong practical interest because it implies that EPR pairs distributed over long distances with quantum repeaters can be used for secure quantum communication without any additional effort 777The relevance of this result is underlined by a recent proposal by Pan *et al.* pan01 , who describe a scheme of EPP using only optical elements, with which one would be able to reach the desired error-threshold..

To summarize, Alice and Bob obtain, with the help of a standard entanglement purification protocol, entangled EPR pairs. These pairs have a limited fidelity $`FF_{\text{max}}<1`$ which depends on the noise introduced by local operations in their laboratory. Alice and Bob may nevertheless use these pairs for secure quantum- or classical communication, e. g. teleportation bennett93  or key distribution. At this stage, no further security tests are necessary. Since we have shown that there exists no residual entanglement with an eavesdropper, they may use all the pairs for the key! While there may be a significant error rate in the message, Alice and Bob are allowed to apply classical error correction to the transmitted message without disclosing any valuable information to Eve.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank C. H. Bennett, A. Ekert, L. Hardy, H. Inamori, N. Lütkenhaus, R. Raussendorf, A. Schenzle and H. Weinfurter for valuable discussions. We are grateful to G. Giedke, N. Lütkenhaus, and H.-K. Lo for constructive remarks on the manuscript. This work has been supported in part by the Schwerpunktsprogramm QIV of the DFG.


format: text

text:
# Fragile-strong transitions and polyamorphism in glass former fluids

## I introduction

The dependence of single particle diffusivity $`D`$ (or alternatively viscosity $`\eta `$) on temperature is the main indicator that allows to classify glass formers as “fragile” or “strong”. For strong glass formers (such as SiO2) $`D(T)`$ is well fitted by an Arrhenius plot, indicating that there is a well defined value of the energy barriers which are relevant to diffusion. For fragile glass formers, diffusion is the result of collective rearrangements of the position of particles. As temperature is reduced, the size of the correlated clusters increases, and $`D`$ decreases more rapidly than the Arrhenius form. There is evidence that some materials show a fragile behavior at high temperatures, whereas $`D(T)`$ crosses over to a strong behavior at low temperatures. Water is an example. The microscopic mechanism that originates this behavior is not well understood.

Some materials display the phenomenon of polyamorphism, namely, the existence of different amorphous (solid) configurations at very low temperature. One well known example is, again, water. In this case the two different amorphous states transform into each other through a first order transition when pressure is applied at low temperatures. Polyamorphism has been numerically found in a model for SiO2  and in some tetrahedrally coordinated materials: Si, Al2O3-Y2O3, and others .

One route to the appearance of polyamorphism is the possibility of two different local arrangement of particles, of different density. If this is the case (and this will depend on the interaction potential between particles), external pressure can make the structure collapse from the most expanded configuration to the densest one, near some typical pressure $`P_{cr}`$. It has been recently shown in a simple model of spherical, purely repulsive particles with these characteristics , that the dependence of density on pressure at very low temperatures has an anomalously rapid increase (in other words, that the isothermal compressibility has a maximum) for pressures around some crossover value $`P_{cr}`$ at which the two local environments become equally stable. We will call this a ‘weak’ form of polyamorphism. If some kind of attraction between particles is added, this weak polyamorphism may transform (depending on the details of the attraction) in a true polyamorphic first order transition between two different amorphous structures. The interaction potential used in  to obtain two different local environments consists of a hard core at distance $`r_0`$ and a shoulder that extends up to some other distance $`r_1>r_0`$. Interparticle distances $`rr_0`$ are favored at high $`P`$, whereas at low $`P`$, $`rr_1`$ is preferred.

There is an intimate relation between (weak) polyamorphism and fragile-strong transitions. We will show in this paper that a model within the class of those discussed in Ref. , displays (weak) polyamorphism and has a transition from fragile to strong behavior when $`T`$ is reduced. The model also exhibits a maximum in $`D`$ as a function of pressure, which is well known to occur, for instance, in water. All these phenomena are consequences of the existence of two different local environments available for the particles, and the two qualitatively different mechanisms that contribute to the diffusivity in these systems, as explained below.

## II The model

We studied a model similar to that of Ref , with hard core radius $`r_0=0`$. In this way, particles are penetrable, and can overlap. A bidisperse system is considered, to avoid crystallization. Particle $`i`$ is characterized by the value of $`r_1^i`$, which is taken from a bimodal distribution, i.e., $`r_1^i=r_a`$, or $`r_1^i=r_b`$, with equal probability. The interaction potential between particles $`i`$ and $`j`$ takes the form

$`V^{ij}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _0(1r/R)(R/\overline{r})^3\mathrm{for}r<R`$ (1)
$`V^{ij}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`0\mathrm{for}r>R`$ (2)
where $`R=r_1^i+r_1^j`$, $`\overline{r}`$ is the average radius of the particles, and $`\epsilon _0`$ sets the energy scale. In all the results to be presented, we use $`r_a=0.4375\overline{r}`$, and $`r_b=0.5625\overline{r}`$. Temperature will be given in units of $`\epsilon _0/k_B`$, and pressure in units of $`\epsilon _0/\overline{r}^3`$.

We used standard Monte Carlo techniques, in the NPT ensemble. The system is given the dynamics of the Monte Carlo evolution, and diffusivities are calculated using this as the temporal evolution. At each time step the position of a single particle is modified to a new position which is randomly chosen within a sphere of radius 0.06 $`\overline{r}`$ centered at the original position. This trial movement is accepted according to the Metropolis rule. The update is made sequentially for all particles. One Monte Carlo step corresponds to a sweep over all particles.

Previous studies of related potentials  have shown that they display some ‘anomalous’ behavior, such as a line of maximum density and compressibility in the $`P`$-$`T`$ diagram, and regions of anomalous melting in the $`P`$-$`T`$ plane. These anomalies match those of real materials (such as water, SiO2, etc.) where polyamorphism and fragile-strong transitions are observed or expected. We will concentrate here in the fluid phases of the model (see  for a discussion of the crystalline phases which are non-trivial) focusing on the behavior of diffusivity $`D`$. This is calculated from the long time behavior of the distance traveled by the particles, $`<(𝐫(t\mathrm{})𝐫(0))^2>=6Dt`$, where $`𝐫(t)`$ is the position of the particle at time $`t`$. The reported values always correspond to an average over all particles in the system. $`D`$ will be given in units of $`\overline{r}^2/t_0`$, where $`t_0`$ is the time corresponding to one Monte Carlo step. The number of Monte Carlo steps which are necessary to get good statistics greatly depends on the parameters $`P`$ and $`T`$. As much as $`5\times 10^7`$ steps were simulated for the lowest temperatures reported. The results correspond to a system of 200 particles, with periodic boundary conditions.

## III Results

We start showing results indicating the existence of weak polyamorphism in the model. In Fig. 1 we see the evolution of the density $`\rho `$ of the system and the corresponding values of isothermal compressibility $`K_T\rho ^1\rho /P`$ at $`T=0`$ and $`T=0.03`$. Each point was obtained by an independent simulation at fixed pressure, and reducing temperature. There is a rather abrupt raising in density and a maximum in $`K_T`$ around $`P1.3`$ at $`T=0`$. The maximum becomes smoother and its position moves to slightly higher pressures at higher temperatures. The existence of this maximum is easy to understand. At low pressures (and low temperatures) the system behaves as a set of hard spheres, overlapping of particles in the same spatial position is highly improbable due to energetic reasons. Upon increasing external pressure, a value $`P_{cr}`$ is reached beyond which it is energetically more favorable to accommodate particles in pairs, at each spatial position. The change of stability between ‘singled’ and ‘doubled’ local configurations is responsible for the maximum in $`K_T(P)`$ around $`P_{cr}=1.3`$ . This is consistent with the form of the radial distribution function $`S(r)`$, plotted in Fig. 2 for $`T=0.03`$, at different values of $`P`$, where we see the rapid increase of weight around $`r0`$ (indicating the appearance of ‘doubled’ particles) when crossing $`P_{cr}`$. This is the evidence for weak polyamorphism in the model.

Next, we show results for single particle diffusivity as a function of pressure $`D(P)`$, at different values of $`T`$ in Fig. 3. We see clearly a maximum in $`D`$ at $`PP_{cr}`$. The origin of this maximum can be understood in the following way. For pressures much lower (larger) than the crossover value $`P_{cr}`$ mostly singled (doubled) configuration of particles exist . For $`PP_{cr}`$, both singled and doubled particles coexist in the sample. Moreover, local rearrangements in which one particle of a doubled pair moves onto some nearby singled particle are possible. This diffusion mechanism (which is illustrated in Fig. 4) is available only for $`PP_{cr}`$, and produces an enhancement of diffusivity in this pressure range.

The third set of results concerns the temperature dependence of diffusivity. In a standard glass former (i.e., pure hard spheres, or Lennard-Jones particles) diffusivity occurs via rearrangements of clusters of particles. As temperature is reduced, the size of the typical cluster that can rearrange increases, producing the typical temperature dependence of diffusivity of fragile glass formers. This mechanism is present in our system, and is basically the only one active for $`P`$ much larger or lower than $`P_{cr}`$. But for $`PP_{cr}`$ the mechanism discussed in the previous paragraph is also available. Since this is essentially a single particle mechanism (with a well defined activation energy), it account for a contribution to diffusivity which is basically Arrhenius-like. The total diffusivity is the combination of the ‘fragile’ part plus this ‘strong’ part. At large temperature the fragile part dominates. On reducing temperature the fragile contribution decreases much more rapidly, and leaves the strong contribution to be the main part at very low temperatures. In Fig. 5 we see the results for $`D(T)`$ in our system, at three different values of $`P`$. There is, in fact, a crossover between a fragile behavior at high temperature and a strong behavior at low temperature. The fragile part of these curves can be fitted by a Vogel-Fulcher law ($`DD_0\mathrm{exp}(A/(TT_0)`$) for the diffusivity of fragile glass formers, but the whole curve cannot be fitted to a single expression of this type, as we see in the figure. Also to be noticed is the fact that the strong component of diffusivity at low temperature is maximized around $`P_{cr}`$. So it is close to $`P_{cr}`$ than the fragile strong transition is more easily observed. To compare with a more usual case, we made an independent simulation for particles with a strict hard core at $`Rr_1^i+r_1^j`$. In this case the properties of the system depend only on $`P/T`$ (or alternatively, on density), i.e, the system is athermal. But we still plot $`D`$ vs $`T^1`$ at a fixed $`P=1.2`$ to compare with the general case. The results are the symbols at the left of Fig. 5. In this case the whole curve can be nicely fitted by a Vogel-Fulcher law, the fragile behavior extending down to the lowest values of diffusivity that we can detect.

To get a visualization of the two different mechanisms for diffusivity we present the snapshots of Fig. 6. They show the projection of the positions of the particles onto a reference plane, and the displacements of the particles during a simulation of $`5\times 10^7`$ Monte Carlo steps. Panel (a) was obtained at $`P=1.2`$, $`T=0.012`$, in our system of particles interacting through (2). According to Fig. 5, diffusivity has a strong behavior in this case. Panel (b) was obtained for the system with strict hard cores at distance $`R`$, at $`P=1.2`$, $`T=0.039`$. In this case diffusivity has a fragile behavior. Note that the overall values of $`D`$ in both cases (a) and (b) are comparable (see Fig. 5). However, the observable features of diffusivity are clearly different. In the fragile case (Fig. 6(b)) a cluster of particles (approximately delimited by the dotted line, note however that this is only qualitative, since the system is three-dimensional) has rearranged during the simulation time. This is consistent with the collective nature of the rearrangements in the fragile regime. For the strong case however, as Fig. 6(a) shows, we see that mostly independent motions of particles in uncorrelated positions of the sample have occur. This is the manifestation of the single particle character of diffusion in this case, and is consistent with the pictorial image of Fig. 4.

## IV Discussion and Conclusions

We have studied the relation between fragile-strong transitions and polyamorphism in a model glass former. We showed that if the system has a tendency to reach two different amorphous configurations when cooled down below and above some crossover pressure $`P_{cr}`$, then on general grounds we can expect maxima in the diffusivity $`D`$ as a function of $`P`$, occurring precisely around $`P_{cr}`$. In addition, $`D(T)`$ calculated at $`PP_{cr}`$ is expected to have a fragile-strong transition when temperature is reduced.

This behavior is in fact expected in the wide class of tetrahedrally coordinated materials. In all these materials, there are two typical local arrangement of particles, one more expanded (corresponding for instance to the local structure of ice Ih in the case of water) and another more compact (corresponding to local arrangements in high pressure polymorphs of ice), which correlate with our two typical distances between particles in the model. Then we expect in all these cases fragile-strong transitions and maxima of $`D(P)`$ to be present.

Real materials include in general some sort of attraction between particles. With this ingredient weak polyamorphism may develop into a true first order phase transition between two different amorphous phases. This is in fact what happens in water, which is the best known example in which a truly first order polyamorphic transition, a fragile-strong transition and maxima in $`D(P)`$ occur. In this case the two amorphous structures are separated by a first order line that is supposed to end in a critical point in the supercooled liquid region. The effects we have discussed (maxima in $`D(P)`$ and fragile-strong transitions) however do not require the existence of this critical point. Only weak polyamorphism is needed.

## V Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Argentina.


text:
# A NEW INTERPRETATION OF CHAIN GALAXIES AT HIGH REDSHIFT

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Recent high-resolution optical imaging studies of some deep fields have revealed a new population of galaxies at high redshift; chain galaxies \[Cowie et al. 1995 (hereafter C95); van den Bergh et al. 1996 (hereafter vdB96)\]. C95 found 28 candidates of such chain galaxies in their deep HST $`I`$ band (F814W) images of the two Hawaii deep survey fields, SSA 13 and SSA 22. vdB96 also identified such chain galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field (HDF: Williams et al. 1996); HDF 2–234 (the tadpole or head-tail galaxy) and HDF 3–531 (the chain galaxy). The chain galaxies tend to be very straight in morphology; their average major-to-minor axial ratio is $``$ 5. Another interesting property of the chain galaxies is that they are bluer on average than galaxies with similar $`I`$ magnitudes. Based on these observational properties, C95 proposed that the chain galaxies comprise a new population of forming galaxies at high redshift ($`z`$ 0.5 – 3) because there is no local counterpart.

However, Dalcanton & Shectman (1996) proposed a new interpretation that the chain galaxies are edge-on low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies at low redshift ($`z0.03`$). They first estimated true axial ratios of the chain galaxies studied by C95. They showed that the true axial ratios range between 2 and 14 in most cases but some extreme cases have the ratios higher than 20 if the HST images are deconvolved with the typical point spread function. These higher axial ratios may favor the edge-on disk interpretation. They also showed that the ellipticity distributions of low-redshift LSB galaxies are consistent with the low-redshift chain galaxies being edge-on manifestations of disks using their database of Las Campanas redshift survey LSB galaxies.

Recently, Bunker et al. (2000) obtained Keck optical spectroscopy of the Hot Dog galaxy \[= HDF 4-555.1 (Williams et al. 1996) = C 4-06 (Steidel et al. 1996)\] at $`z=2.803`$, which is one of chain galaxies in the HDF. They found that any systemic rotation of this galaxy is fairly small; $`<`$ 100 km s-1. This suggests strongly that this galaxy is not an edge-on disk galaxy. Further, the presence of N v and He ii emission lines needs massive O stars as their ionization sources at least. Its blue color also indicates that the stellar populations should be young ($`<10^8`$ yr). This study reinforces the possibility that some chain galaxies are really forming galaxies with a linear structure at high redshift as suggested by C95 (see also Abraham 1997). Even if the majority of chain galaxies might be edge-on LSB galaxies at low redshift, it seems urgent to investigate possible origins of chain galaxies at high redshift such as the Hot Dog galaxy.

## 2. OBSERVATIONAL PROPERTIES OF CHAIN GALAXIES

Prior to presenting our new model, we summarize important observational properties of chain galaxies found by C95 and vdB96. A brief summary of the two surveys is given in Table 1.

### 2.1. The C95 Sample

C95 found 28 candidates of chain galaxies in the two Hawaii deep survey fields, SSA 13 and SSA 22. The chain galaxies tend to be very straight and their major-to-minor axial ratios range from 1.8 to 9.5 with an average of $`4.8\pm 2.0`$ for 21 galaxies brighter than $`I=25`$. Two of them are intermediate-redshift galaxies; $`z=0.489`$ for Chain 0 and $`z=0.505`$ for Chain 1. Another two galaxies are located at $`z=1.36`$ (SSA 22–16) and at $`z2.4`$ (SSA 22–24) although the latter redshift estimate is based on interpreting a break in the continuum at 4000 Å as the onset of intergalactic Ly$`\alpha `$ forest.

It is found that the chain galaxies are bluer on average than galaxies with similar $`I`$ magnitudes studied by them. In particular, they are very blue in $`BK`$, suggesting that they are not relatively normal galaxies in the rest ultraviolet band and that the peculiar morphologies are not a consequence of the distribution of the star-forming regions.

### 2.2. The vdB96 Sample

vdB96 classified eleven galaxies either as the chain or as the tadpole galaxies. Their basic data are given in Table 2. In order to estimate their linear sizes and absolute magnitudes, we need their redshifts. However, a spectroscopic redshift is available only for the galaxy 3-379, the ID number in vdB96 (Steidel et al. 1996): $`z=2.775`$. It is interesting to note that this redshift is very close to that of the Hot Dog galaxy, 2.803 (Steidel et al. 1996; Bunker et al. 2000). For galaxies in the HDF, Fernández-Soto, Lanzetta, & Yahil (1999) estimated their photometric redshifts by using the SED (spectral energy distribution) fitting method111Hogg et al. (1998) made a comparison between various photometric redshift predictions and spectroscopic redshifts for galaxies in the HDF. They found that the best photometric redshift schemes predict spectroscopic redshifts with a redshift accuracy of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z<0.1`$ for more than 68% of galaxies and with $`\mathrm{\Delta }z<0.3`$ for 90 – 100%. The photometric redshift for 3-379, $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=1.72`$, appears significantly different from the spectroscopic one, $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=2.8`$ (see Table 2). However, when we use a certain set of SEDs generated by using the stellar population synthesis code GISSEL96 (Bruzual & Charlot 1993), one obtains $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}2.2`$.. We use these photometric redshifts for the remaining 10 galaxies. Unfortunately, photometric redshifts are not reliably determined for the two galaxies; 3-367 and 4-627, which are not considered further. Then we obtain a sample of the nine chain galaxies. We use this sample to investigate the observational properties of chain galaxies; although the chain galaxies studied by C95 constitute the largest sample, their photometric data are less available than those found in HDF.

The redshifts of the nine galaxies ranges from 0.5 to 2.8, being similar to the range estimated for the C95 sample of chain galaxies. Adopting a cosmology with the Hubble constant, $`H_0=100h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 where $`h=1`$ and the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.01`$, we estimate the linear size ($`d`$) and the absolute $`V`$ magnitude ($`M_V`$) for each galaxy. The results are given in Table 2. We find that $`d`$ ranges from 1.2 kpc to 3.8 kpc and $`M_V`$ ranges from $`16.2`$ to $`21.5`$. Their average values are $`<d>2.4\pm 0.8`$ kpc and $`<M_V>19.0\pm 1.7`$, respectively. Since any inclination correction has not been made for the linear sizes, they are lower limits. If they are disks viewed edge-on, the linear sizes appear smaller than those of the present-day galaxies. On the other hand, the absolute $`V`$ magnitudes are almost comparable to those of the present-day galaxies. Frequency distributions of the redshifts, sizes, and absolute magnitudes are shown in Figure 1.

The major-to-minor axial ratios of the nine galaxies range from 1.6 to 5.9 and their average is $`3.1\pm 1.3`$, being similar to those of the chain galaxies studied by C95. However, as claimed by Dalcanton & Shectman (1996), these axial ratios should be typically larger than 10 if the images are deconvolved with the point spread function.

In summary, the vdB96 chain galaxies have the following important observational properties; $`d`$ 2.4 kpc, $`M_V19`$ (or $`L_V3.4\times 10^9L_{}`$), and $`z`$ 0.5 – 3, all of which are similar to the chain galaxies of C95. These properties reinforce that a population of chain galaxies does actually exist at intermediate and high redshift, even though edge-on LSBs at low redshifts may share this appearance.

## 3. MODEL

### 3.1. Background and Motivation

A simple explanation for high-$`z`$ chain galaxies may be that linear structures form during the collapse of the protogalactic gas (C95; Bunker et al. 2000). C95 suggested that when star formation turns on it triggers induced star formation along the line of maximum density, being analogous to sequential propagation of OB star associations in molecular clouds. On the other hand, Bunker et al. (2000) suggested that star formation could be triggered by collapse along a filament (see also Abraham 1997). An alternative idea may be string-induced wakes as noted by C95. In this paper, we propose another idea that chain galaxies arise from gaseous filaments which are formed in a large-scale shocked shell caused either by a superwind or by interaction between superwinds of forming galaxies.

The starting point of our model is that the superwind activity occurs in some giant galaxies which were assembled from a number of gaseous clumps at high redshift within the framework of so-called cold dark matter scenarios. This assumption implies that initial starbursts occur in some giant galaxies in their forming phase. We note below that a couple of lines of evidence for such luminous forming galaxies have been obtained recently.

(1) A number of faint dusty galaxies have been found by deep surveys at submillimeter (Smail et al. 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; Hughes et al. 1998; Barger et al. 1998, 1999a, 1999b; Barger, Cowie, & Sanders 1999; Barger, Cowie, & Richards 2000; Ivison et al. 2000b) and at far infrared (Kawara et al. 1998; Eales et al. 1999; Puget et al. 1999). Most of these objects are considered to be located at intermediate and high redshift (e.g., Ivison et al. 2000b) and thus their bolometric luminosities often exceed $`10^{12}L_{}`$, suggesting a very high star formation rate, i.e., $`100M_{}`$ y-1. This implies that they are massive forming galaxies enshrouded by dusty clouds.

(2) Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters have been also found at high redshift $`z2`$ (Hu & McMahon 1996; Cowie & Hu 1998; Keel et al. 1999; Steidel et al. 2000). All these are indeed well-defined candidates of forming galaxies with a high star formation rate. A remarkable class of such Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters is called as “Ly$`\alpha `$ blobs” (Steidel et al. 2000) which are spatially extended ionized nebulae. These blobs may be interpreted as possible evidence for the superwind activity (Taniguchi & Shioya 2000).

Therefore, it seems reasonable to accept that the superwind activity works at high redshift. Although it is unlikely that massive galaxies could be born ubiquitously in the early universe, it seems worthwhile investigating the gravitational instability in shocked shells driven by superwinds from forming galaxies located in some over-dense regions at high redshift; such over-dense regions beyond $`z=3`$ have been found by Steidel et al. (2000) and Ivison et al. (2000a).

It is also noted that we are not simply resurrecting the explosion scenarios proposed by Ostriker & Cowie (1981) and Ikeuchi (1981). What we assume here is that some massive galaxies were assembled from gaseous clumps at high redshift (i.e., the hierarchical clustering scenario) and then intense starbursts occurred in them, leading to the superwind activity in such over-dense regions.

### 3.2. Model

First we give a summary of our model. Step I: Successive merging of subgalactic gas clumps results in the formation of a galaxy with a mass of $`10^{1112}M_{}`$ at redshift $`z5`$. Step II: Subsequently, supernova explosions occur inside the galaxy and then blow out as a galactic wind (or a superwind). This wind expands into the intergalactic space and then causes a large-scale shell with a radius of several hundreds of kpc. Since this radius may be smaller than the typical separation between galaxies, interactions of shells may also occur, resulting in the formation of a large-scale gaseous slab. Step III: Since the shell or the slab can be regarded as a gaseous sheet, filament-like gravitational instability is expected to occur. Step IV: Further gravitational instability occurs in each filament, leading to intense star formation along the filament. This is the chain galaxy phase. Step V: The filament collapses gravitationally into one spheroidal system like an elliptical galaxy within one dynamical timescale of the filament ($`10^8`$ yr). A schematic illustration of our model is shown in Figure 2.

We begin our scenario with the superwind activity expected from forming galaxies at high redshift (e.g., Arimoto & Yoshii 1987). It is considered that intense star formation (i.e., a starburst) occurs at the epoch of galaxy formation in the galaxy center, producing a galactic wind which lasts for a characteristic time $`t_{\mathrm{GW}}(0.5`$ Gyr for an elliptical with a stellar mass of $`10^{11}M_{}`$: Arimoto & Yoshii 1987). Since infalling gas is accreting onto the galaxy at times $`tt_{\mathrm{GW}}`$, the wind interacts with this gas, and shocked gaseous shells form in the outer regions of the galaxy. If the shells are unstable gravitationally, clumps may be formed within them. This explosion-driven formation mechanism has been applied to the formation of galaxies (Ostriker & Cowie 1981; Ikeuchi 1981; Ikeuchi, Tomisaka, & Ostriker 1983), dwarf galaxies (Mori, Yoshii, & Nomoto 1999), and globular clusters (Taniguchi, Trentham, & Ikeuchi 1999).

A strong observational constraint on such explosion-driven formation scenarios arises from the very small fluctuation of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation observed by COBE (Fixen et al. 1996); i.e., the dimensionless cosmological distortion parameters are limited to $`|y|<1.5\times 10^5`$ and $`|\mu |<9\times 10^5`$ (95% confidence level)222 Recently, Battistelli, Fulcoli, & Macculi (2000) re-estimated the external calibrator (XCAL) emissivity and then obtained the following new upper limits; $`|y|<3.1\times 10^5`$ and $`|\mu |<4.5\times 10^4`$ (95% confidence level). These values are closer to the previous estimates by Mather et al. (1994). However, in our paper, we adopt the strongest constraints obtained by Fixen et al. (1996).. These limits lead to the fractional energy limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }U/U=4y<6\times 10^5`$ where $`U`$ is the energy of the CMB and $`\mathrm{\Delta }U`$ is the energy converted from other forms. The energy of the CMB per $`L^{}`$ galaxy is estimated to be $`10^{63}(1+z)`$ ergs (Wright et al. 1994). Therefore, the above fractional energy limit implies that the explosion energy per $`L^{}`$ galaxy must be smaller than $`6\times 10^{58}(1+z)`$ ergs. Since the explosion-driven formation of galaxies proposed by Ostriker & Cowie (1981) and Ikeuchi (1981) violates this limit, they are rejected by the COBE observations (Wright et al. 1994).

Therefore, in our model, we take the fractional energy limit into account. Assuming that the superwind activity occurs at $`z=5`$, we obtain the upper limit of the energy ejected from an $`L^{}`$ galaxy, $`3.6\times 10^{59}`$ ergs. This energy corresponds to that released from $`3.6\times 10^8`$ supernovae because the energy released by a single supernova is $`10^{51}\mathrm{ergs}`$. Thus the total number of supernovae allowed per $`L^{}`$ galaxy is $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}=3.6\times 10^8`$. Here we assume that the initial starburst occurs obeying a Salpeter initial mass function with the lower-mass and higher-mass cutoffs, $`M_l=0.1M_{}`$ and $`M_u=100M_{}`$, respectively. It is known that massive stars with a mass of $`m>8M_{}`$ are progenitors of type II supernovae. In the above star formation, the number of such high mass stars per unit gas mass ($`1M_{}`$) is estimated to be $``$ 0.007. Therefore, the mass of a galaxy which produce $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}=3.6\times 10^8`$ is estimated as $`M_{\mathrm{gal}}N_{\mathrm{SN}}/0.0075\times 10^{10}M_{}`$, being roughly comparable to that of an $`L^{}`$ galaxy.

Then we consider the physical conditions of the shell formed by the superwind from such an $`L^{}`$ galaxy following Ostriker & Cowie (1981). In the radiative cooling epoch, the radius of the cooled shell is

$$R_{\mathrm{cool}}=3E_{61}^{0.3}\left[h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z)^3\right]^{0.4}\mathrm{Mpc},$$
(1)
and the gas mass swept out to the shell is

$$M_{\mathrm{cool}}=2\times 10^{13}E_{61}^{0.88}\left[h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z)^3\right]^{0.21}M_{},$$
(2)
together with the cooling time,

$$t_{\mathrm{cool}}=6E_{61}^{0.2}\left[h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z)^3\right]^{0.5}\mathrm{Gyr}.$$
(3)
where $`E_{61}`$ is the explosion energy in units of $`10^{61}`$ ergs. If we assume that a shell is formed from this swept-out gas, its surface mass density is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cool}}=\frac{M_{\mathrm{cool}}}{4\pi R_{\mathrm{cool}}^2}=3.71\times 10^5E_{61}^{0.28}h^{1.18}\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{0.59}(1+z)^{1.77}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2.$$
(4)
Adopting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.01`$, $`h=1`$, $`z=5`$, and $`E_{61}=0.036`$, we obtain $`R_{\mathrm{cool}}=0.81`$ Mpc, $`M_{\mathrm{cool}}=9.1\times 10^{11}M_{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cool}}=2.3\times 10^5`$ g cm-2 for the shell formed by the superwind from the $`L^{}`$ galaxy.

Since the cooling time is estimated as $``$ 2.1 Gyr, the shell will form at redshift $`z_{\mathrm{shell}}1.6`$ given the above cosmological parameters. Since the number density of galaxies in the present-day universe is $`n_\mathrm{G}(0)0.01`$ Mpc-3, $`n_\mathrm{G}(z)`$ is estimated as $`n_\mathrm{G}(0)(1+z)^3`$. Given the adopted cosmology, we obtain $`n_\mathrm{G}(1.6)`$ 0.18 Mpc-3, giving an average separation, $`L_\mathrm{G}=n_\mathrm{G}^{1/3}(4\pi /3)^{1/3}`$ 1.1 Mpc. Although this is slightly larger than $`R_{\mathrm{cool}}`$, it is suggested that such superwinds will overlap in some cases because we assume that the superwinds occur from giant galaxies in over-dense regions of the universe. In either case, a large-scale shocked shell with a radius of $``$ 1 Mpc can be formed in this model. The physical parameters of the shell are summarized in Table 3 for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ = 0.01, 0.1, and 1 and $`h`$ = 0.5, 0.75, and 1.

Then we investigate what happens in such a shell. Since the radius of the shell is so large, the shell can be approximated on sufficiently small scales (i.e., $``$ 10 kpc) by a planer, self-gravitating layer, or sheet (e.g., Elmegreen & Elmegreen 1978). It is known that gravitational instability in an isothermal self-gravitating sheet results in the formation of filaments (Miyama, Narita, & Hayashi 1987a, 1987b; Curry 2000 and references therein). According to Curry (2000), the critical wavelength of the filamentary instability is defined as

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{cr}}=c_\mathrm{s}[2\pi /(G\rho _{\mathrm{shell}})]^{1/2}$$
(5)
where $`c_\mathrm{s}`$ is the sound speed, $`\rho _{\mathrm{shell}}`$ is the mass density of a sheet and $`G`$ is the gravitational constant. If we assume that $`\rho _{\mathrm{shell}}10\rho _{\mathrm{cr}}(z)`$ where $`\rho _{\mathrm{cr}}(z)=\rho _{\mathrm{cr}}(0)(1+z)^3`$, we obtain $`\rho _{\mathrm{shell}}3.34\times 10^{27}`$ g cm-3 at $`z=1.6`$. Since it is expected that the sound velocity is $`c_\mathrm{s}`$ 10 km s-1 (e.g., Ostriker & Cowie 1981), we obtain $`\lambda _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ 54 kpc. Using the mass density together with the surface mass density of the shell, we obtain the thickness of the shell (sheet), $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cool}}/\rho 2.2`$ kpc. Thus an initial major-to-minor axial ratio is $``$ 25, being consistent with the axial ratios estimated for the chain galaxies (see Dalcanton & Shectman 1996). According to Miyama et al. (1987a, 1987b), it is expected that this filament experiences the beads instability and then collapses along the major axis of the filament, forming an elliptical-like galaxy. Even if a cigar-like, prolate galaxy could be formed from the filament, it would be dynamically unstable and thus evolve to a rounder elliptical galaxy (Merritt & Hernquist 1991).

The mass density of the shell leads to the dynamical timescale of the sheet, $`\tau _{\mathrm{dyn}}(G\rho _{\mathrm{shell}})^{1/2}2.1\times 10^9`$ yr. Since this timescale is comparable to the cooling time, it is considered that chain galaxies can be formed at $`z1.6`$. However, we note that chain galaxies could be born preferentially in higher-density regions in the shocked shell and thus the formation epoch may be earlier than the above redshift. In order to explain the formation of chain galaxies at $`z3`$, one may assume that the epoch of the superwind activity occurs at $`z>5`$.

Now let us estimate the mass of the filament considered above. The filament could grow in mass by accumulating gas clouds within a roughly regular square region with a length of $`\lambda _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ and a thickness of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$. Therefore, we estimate the mass of the filament, $`M_{\mathrm{filament}}\lambda _{\mathrm{cr}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }R\rho 3\times 10^8M_{}`$. Since a typical luminosity-to-mass ratio of O stars is $`10^3`$, this filament becomes as luminous as $`10^{11}L_{}`$. Note that this luminosity is achieved if a burst of massive-star formation occurs in it with very high star-formation efficiency (approximately 100%). The reason for such high efficiency is that a filament-like structure is inherently unstable and will disrupt on a time scale comparable to the transverse crossing time; $`\tau _{\mathrm{cross}}0.72\times 10^8(d/2.4\mathrm{kpc})(v/10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)^1`$ yr (C95). The above luminosity is roughly comparable to the observed luminosities of the chain galaxies although they show a large scatter from $`7\times 10^8L_{}`$ to $`4\times 10^{10}L_{}`$ in $`L_V`$ (see Table 2); this scatter may be attributed to the density fluctuation in the shocked shell. After the intense star formation ceases ($`10^8`$ years after the formation; Abraham 1997), this filament rapidly fades and then evolves dynamically to a dwarf elliptical-like galaxy with $`10^8L_{}`$. This may explain why we cannot find remnants of the chain galaxies.

Finally we estimate how many chain galaxies are formed in the shocked shell. Since the mass of the shocked shell is $`M_{\mathrm{cool}}9.1\times 10^{11}M_{}`$ and that of a chain galaxy is $`M_{\mathrm{chain}}3\times 10^8M_{}`$, the maximum number of dwarf galaxies is $`N_{\mathrm{chain}}3000\eta _{\mathrm{chain},100}`$ where $`\eta _{\mathrm{chain},100}`$ is the formation efficiency of chain galaxies in the shell in units of 100%. Since the radius of the shocked shell is $`R_{\mathrm{cool}}`$ 0.81 Mpc, the volume number density of chain galaxies is estimated as $`n_{\mathrm{chain}}1350\eta _{\mathrm{chain},100}`$ Mpc-3. However, it is unlikely that galaxies were formed with such the very high efficiency because the chain galaxy formation could occur preferentially in higher-density regions in the shell. If we adopt $`\eta _{\mathrm{chain},100}=0.1`$ (i.e., 10% efficiency; see section 4.2), we obtain $`n_{\mathrm{chain}}`$ 135 Mpc-3.

Given $`\eta _{\mathrm{chain},100}=0.1`$, 300 chain galaxies could be formed in one shocked shell. The shocked shell radius, $`R_{\mathrm{cool}}`$ 0.81 Mpc, corresponds to an angular size of 2.5 arcmin at $`z1`$. This leads to a nominal surface number density of chain galaxies formed in one shocked shell $`\sigma _{\mathrm{chain}}300/(\pi 2.5^2)15`$ arcmin-2. However, since the lifetime of the chain galaxy phase ($`\tau _{\mathrm{chain}}10^8`$ yr) is much shorter than the Hubble time ($`\tau _{\mathrm{Hubble}}10^{10}`$ yr), the surface number density of chain galaxies made in one shocked shell is statistically estimated as $`\sigma _{\mathrm{chain},\mathrm{stat}}\sigma _{\mathrm{chain}}\tau _{\mathrm{chain}}\tau _{\mathrm{Hubble}}^10.15`$ arcmin-2. As summarized in Table 1, the observed surface density of the chain galaxies is a few chain galaxies arcmin-2. Comparing this with the above estimate, we suggest that ten shocked shells at different redshifts (e.g., $`z`$ 0.5 – 3) are included in the sky areas of the deep survey fields. This also implies that only a small number of galaxies could experience the superwind activity leading to the formation of a shocked shell.

Our model also predicts that several chain galaxies can be found at nearly the same redshift because they are associated with one shocked shell. It is again interesting to note that the redshift of the Hot Dog galaxy ($`z=2.803`$) is very close to the chain galaxy 3-379 in vdB96 ($`z=2.775`$). Among the eight galaxies with their photometric redshifts (Table 2), the following two pairs have the same redshifts; 1) $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=0.92`$ for 2-234 and 3-621, and 2) $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=1.60`$ for 4-241 and 3-531. Although most chain galaxies are unfortunately very faint \[$`I_{814}`$(AB) $`23`$\], it should be possible to perform optical/NIR spectroscopy of the chain galaxies found by C95 and vdB96 in the near future.

## 4. DISCUSSION

### 4.1. How Can Parent Galaxies of Chains Be Seen ?

Our model may be one of possible mechanisms to form chain galaxies at high redshift. Our model predict that there should be massive parent galaxies located within 1 Mpc which produced the shells during a burst of star formation at much higher redshift. They can be seen as passively-evolving galaxies at nearly the same redshift as that of certain chain galaxies. Using photometric redshifts of the HDF galaxies provided by Fernández-Soto et al. (1999), we try to search for such parent galaxies.

The most interesting chain galaxy in the vdB96 sample is the chain galaxy 3-367 at $`z=2.775`$ because the Hot Dog galaxy is also located at nearly the same redshift. However, since Fernández-Soto et al. (1999) give its photometric redshift $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=1.72`$ (see Table 2), it seems difficult to search for its parent galaxy candidates. Then, as a trial, we try to search for parent galaxy candidates for the following two pairs of chain galaxies; 1) vdB96 2-234 and 3-621 at $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=0.92`$, and 2 ) vdB96 4-241 and 3-531 at $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=1.60`$.

Since the bin size of photometric redshift studied by Fernández-Soto et al. (1999) is $`\delta z=0.02`$, we try to find galaxies with $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=0.92`$ or 1.60. We have found 40 galaxies at $`z=0.92`$ and 35 ones at $`z=1.60`$ in the HDF. However, parent galaxies should be passively-evolving ones and thus we reject galaxies with blue SEDs such as those of irregular galaxies. Then we find three possible candidates whose SEDs are relatively red at $`z=0.92`$ and only one at $`z=1.60`$. The results are summarized in Table 4. Among the three galaxies at $`z=0.92`$, two galaxies (Nos. 531 and 536) have lower luminosities than $`L^{}`$. Therefore, the remaining galaxy (No. 466) may be the most probable candidate although its projected separation is 0.58 Mpc from vdB96 3-621 and 0.73 Mpc from vdB96 2-234. As for the candidate galaxy at $`z=1.60`$, its luminosity is higher than $`L^{}`$ and the projected separation is 0.26 Mpc from vdB96 3-531 and 0.25 Mpc from vdB96 4-241. Therefore, this seems a promising candidate of the parent galaxy.

Here it is again noted that the accuracy of photometric redshifts is not high enough to identify the parent galaxies conclusively. In order to find firmer candidates, we will need the spectroscopic redshift for a large number of galaxies in the HDF.

### 4.2. Connection to the Formation of Dwarf Galaxies

As described in section 3, it is expected that the chain galaxies formed in our model will evolve to dwarf galaxies because their masses are of the order of $`10^8M_{}`$. Therefore, our scenario may also be related to the formation of dwarf galaxies.

First, we estimate the maximum number of dwarf galaxies formed in the shocked shell. Since we assume that dwarf galaxies are the descendents of chain galaxies, the maximum number is the same as that of the chain galaxies; i.e., $`N_{\mathrm{dwarf}}=N_{\mathrm{chain}}3000\eta _{\mathrm{chain},100}`$. Thus, the volume number density of dwarf galaxies is estimated as $`n_{\mathrm{dwarf}}=n_{\mathrm{chain}}1350\eta _{\mathrm{chain},100}`$ Mpc-3.

Recently, Gnedin (2000) investigated an average star formation law during the first 3 Gyr using the observational data of Local Group dwarf galaxies. His analysis showed that the data are consistent with the orthodox Schmidt law with a star formation efficiency of about 4%. Since our model is applicable to galaxies in over-dense regions, the formation efficiency may be higher than the above estimate. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the formation of chain galaxies in the shocked shell is roughly 10%, as adopted in section 3. Then, the volume number density of dwarf galaxies is down to $`n_{\mathrm{dwarf}}`$ 135 Mpc-3. This is significantly lower than the observed number density of dwarf (elliptical) galaxies in the Virgo cluster (i.e., an over-dense region in the local universe) is $``$ 300 Mpc-3 (Binggeli, Sandage, & Tammann 1988). Although chain galaxies could contribute to the formation of dwarf galaxies, the majority of the dwarf galaxies in the Virgo cluster may be formed from other mechanisms; e.g., the gravitational collapse of less-massive gas clumps or the tidally-induced formation (e.g., Okazaki & Taniguchi 2000 and references therein).

### 4.3. Connection to Lyman Limit Systems and Damped Ly$`\alpha `$ Absorbers

The shocked gaseous shell formed by the superwind activity may be important absorbing material in the intergalactic space. Indeed, the surface mass density of the shocked shell, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cool}}2.3\times 10^5`$ g cm-2, corresponds to the H i column density, $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}1.4\times 10^{19}`$ cm-2. Since the temperature of IGM may be $`10^4`$ K at most, the ionization correction seems modest. Therefore, shocked shells formed by forming massive galaxies may cause some Lyman limit systems ($`N_{\mathrm{HI}}10^{17}`$ cm-2: e.g., Steidel 1990) found in high-$`z`$ quasar spectra. Furthermore, if we see such shells from a highly inclined angle (e.g., $`\theta _{\mathrm{view}}80^{}`$) or their tangential sections, the H i column density exceeds $`10^{20}`$ cm-2, causing damped Ly$`\alpha `$ systems (e.g., Peebles 1993; Wolfe et al. 1995). Or, more likely, the damped Ly$`\alpha `$ systems may arise in the last stages of gravitational collapse of the filaments just as star formation commences. Small cloudlets breaking into intergalactic medium (IGM) may be observed as Ly$`\alpha `$ forests with $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}10^{15}`$ cm-2.

The shock velocity is given by

$$v_{\mathrm{cool}}=200E_{61}^{0.05}\left[h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z)^3\right]^{0.11}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1$$
(6)
(Ostriker & Cowie 1981). Adopting $`E_{61}=0.036`$, $`h=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.01`$, and $`z=1`$, we obtain $`v_{\mathrm{cool}}130`$ km s-1. Therefore, the absorption feature caused by one shocked shell may have the line width of $``$ 260 km s-1. However, the velocity widths observed for most high-column-density absorption systems (determined from unsaturated low-ion species) are much less than 260 km s-1. It is also noted that our model is applicable to the case that an absorbing galaxy is located significantly far from the quasar; i. e., the projected distance up to several hundreds kpc is acceptable.

In our model, some giant galaxies in over-dense regions in the universe could experience initial starbursts and then show the superwind activity. Therefore, shocked shells may not be formed ubiquitously in high-$`z`$ universe. As mentioned in section 3, the observed surface density of chain galaxies suggests that there are only several shocked shells at most in the redshift interval between 0.5 and 3. Therefore, our model predicts a few high-$`z`$ Lyman limit or damped Ly$`\alpha `$ systems per unit redshift along a 1D sight-line.” Stengler-Larrea et al. (1995) showed that the number density of Lyman limit systems as a function of redshift is described by $`N(z)N_0(1+z)^\gamma `$ where $`N_0=0.25`$ and $`\gamma =1.5`$. This gives $`N(3)2`$, being consistent with our prediction.

Another interesting issue related to our model is the metal enrichment in the IGM. One important consequence of our model is that such H i absorber must be polluted chemically because the superwind contains a lot of heavy elements. It has been argued that supernova explosions lead to the chemical enrichment of IGM at high redshift (e.g., Ostriker & Gnedin 1996; Miralda-Escudé & Rees 1997; Aguirre et al. 2000). We estimate the metal enrichment due to the superwind. The mass of metal ejected from a star is $`m_Z=ϵ_Zm_{}`$ where $`ϵ_Z`$ is the mass fraction of metal with respect to the stellar mass. Thus the total metal enrichment due to the superwind can be estimated as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Z=\frac{ϵ_Zm_{}N_{\mathrm{SN}}}{4\pi R_{\mathrm{cool}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }R\rho _{\mathrm{shell}}}4.2\times 10^3ϵ_Z$$
(7)
where we adopt $`m_{}=10M_{}`$ as the typical mass of progenitors of type II supernovae. We then obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }Z4.2\times 10^4`$ if $`ϵ_Z=0.1`$. Since the metal abundance observed in Ly$`\alpha `$ forests (e.g., Pettini et al. 1997; Songaila & Cowie 1996; Lu et al. 1998) is of the order of 0.01 $`Z_{}`$ where $`Z_{}`$ is the solar metal abundance in mass ($`Z_{}=0.02`$); i.e., $`Z_{\mathrm{IGM}}2\times 10^4`$. Therefore, the metal ejection as a result of the superwind from a forming massive galaxy may be responsible for the observed metal abundance in the IGM at high redshift.

## 5. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The chain galaxies found in the recent optical deep surveys have been investigated in terms of the gravitational instability of shocked shells formed by a superwind or by interaction between superwinds of forming galaxies at high redshift. Our new model appears consistent with the observational properties of the chain galaxies. Since the chain galaxies are expected to evolve to dwarf galaxies with a mass of $`10^8M_{}`$, our model explains why there is no local counterpart.

We have also discussed that shocked shells may be responsible for some Lyman limit systems and damped Ly$`\alpha `$ systems observed in quasar spectra because their H i column densities exceed $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}10^{17}`$ cm-2. The metal enrichment up to $`Z0.01Z_{}`$ can be achieved by the pollution from supernova ejecta. In order to investigate this possibility further, we need very high-resolution, emission-line imaging of some counterparts of damped Ly$`\alpha `$ systems at high redshift.

The size of such shocked shells is too large (i.e., $``$ 1 Mpc) to be detected if the sky coverage of deep surveys is not so large. In order to find firm observational evidence for such shocked shells, wide-field, deep surveys will be also very important in future. The SUPRIME-Cam (the Subaru prime focus camera; e.g., http://SubaruTelescope.org/Introduction/instrument.html) seems to be the most efficient tool to perform such surveys.

We would like to thank S. Ikeuchi, S. Miyama, and M. Hattori for giving us useful scientific input and S. Okamura for useful discussion on the capability of SUPRIME-Cam on the Subaru telescope. We would also thank an anonymous referee for his/her very useful comments and suggestions which improved this paper significantly. YS is a JSPS fellow. This work was financially supported in part by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture (Nos. 10044052, and 10304013).


text:
# Investigation of the Two-Particle-Self-Consistent Theory for the Single-Impurity Anderson Model and an Extension to the Case of Strong Correlation

## 1 Introduction

The single impurity Anderson model (SIAM)$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ is not only a model for the magnetic impurity in metals, chemisorption$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ and a quantum dot in mesoscopic systems,$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ but also the most important model for the study of the strongly correlated electron systems. It was proved that the lattice models with strong correlation is reduced to a generalized impurity Anderson model with energy-dependent hybridization in the limit of infinite spatial dimensions.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ In that theory, a knowledge on the excitation spectrum of the impurity is indispensable.

It is, however, not possible to obtain an exact solution to the dynamical properties of SIAM. The best way known to date is to resort to the numerical renormalization group method,$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ but it needs heavy numerical tasks, especially when both finite temperature, finite magnetic field and finite excitation energy must be taken into account. Therefore, it is desirable to find an approximate but a simpler scheme which is applicable to the problems in realistic materials with strong correlation.

Various approximate schemes proposed to date have several deficiencies despite their advantages. The non-crossing approximation (NCA)$`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ cannot reproduce the Fermi liquid properties at low frequencies and low temperatures, and the slave boson mean field or $`1/N`$ expansion theory$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ cannot avoid redundant phase transitions. The second-order perturbation theory exhibits Fermi liquid properties and happens to reproduce the correct atomic limit in the symmetric case,$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ but it is not the case when there is an electron-hole asymmetry. This point is recently overcome by introducing an interpolative form for the self-energy phenomenologically.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$

Therefore, it is of much importance to establish a method to calculate the static and dynamic properties of SIAM in the wide range of parameters efficiently. Such a method must be free from the Hartree-Fock instability and have proper energy scales. In the present paper, we first apply the two-particle self-consistent theory (TPSC)$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ to SIAM in §2. TPSC has proved to be successful in the study of the Hubbard model in the weak and the intermediate correlations, and is considered to be superior to the fluctuation-exchange approximation (FLEX)$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ in that only TPSC can reproduce the side peaks in the single-particle spectrum. Application of FLEX to SIAM is already reported,$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ which has clarified that FLEX is poor on magnetic susceptibility than the simple perturbation theory,$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ in addition to the above-mentioned deficiency on the spectrum. Despite the superiority of TPSC, we will find below that it cannot reproduce a small energy scale in SIAM in the strong correlation limit.

TPSC can be also regarded as an extension of the self-consistently renormalized spin-fluctuation theory (SCR).$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ The author previously proposed an extension of SCR theory$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ to the case of the strong correlation on a microscopic basis.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ In §3 we apply a similar scheme to SIAM in combination with TPSC instead of SCR, and establish a scheme which can be applied to the case of strong correlation. We also investigate the self-energy using the same vertex corrections and find that under certain assumptions our theory reproduces the modified perturbation theory (MPT),$`^{\text{?, }\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ which interpolates the weak and strong correlation limits. Thus the phenomenological character of MPT is partially resolved.

## 2 The Two-Particle-Self-Consistent Theory for the Single-Impurity Anderson Model

The Hamiltonian for SIAM is written as

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k\sigma }{}}ϵ_kc_{k\sigma }^+c_{k\sigma }+E_\text{d}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}n_{d\sigma }`$ (2.1)
$`+V{\displaystyle \underset{k\sigma }{}}(d_\sigma ^+c_{k\sigma }+c_{k\sigma }^+d_\sigma )+Un_dn_d`$
in the ordinary notation, where $`ϵ_k`$ and $`E_\text{d}`$ denote the energy of the conduction and d electrons, respectively, $`V`$ the hybridization, and $`U`$ the Coulomb repulsion between d-electrons. In the following, the subscript d in $`n_{d\sigma }`$ will be dropped.

In TPSC, the charge and the spin susceptibilities are expressed in the form similar to those of RPA, but with the renormalized interaction parameter $`U_c`$ and $`U_s`$ for charge and spin channels, respectively. These parameters are determined by the sum rules,

$`T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )}{1+U_c\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )}}`$ $`=`$ $`n+2n_{}n_{}n^2,`$ (2.2)
$`T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )}{1U_s\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )}}`$ $`=`$ $`n2n_{}n_{}.`$ (2.3)
Here $`\omega `$ denotes the Matsubara frequency, $`n=n_{}+n_{}`$ and $`U_s`$ are related to $`n_{}n_{}`$ by $`U_s=Un_{}n_{}/n_{}n_{}`$. Thus, $`U_s`$ can be determined from the second equation, while $`U_c`$ can be obtained by solving the first equation once $`U_s`$ is solved. We assume the symmetric case $`E_d=U/2`$ and the paramagnetic state $`n_\sigma =n/2`$ throughout the present paper. An extension to the asymmetric case is straightforward. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\omega )`$ denotes the polarization function for $`U=0`$, which is calculated at $`T=0`$ as$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\omega )=\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi \omega (\omega +2\text{i}\mathrm{\Delta })}\mathrm{log}\left(1\frac{\text{i}\omega }{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right),$$
(2.4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denotes the resonance width of the impurity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\pi \rho _cV^2`$ ($`\rho _c`$ is the density of states of conduction electrons at the Fermi energy). At low frequencies, it behaves as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\omega )\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_0}{1\text{i}\omega /\mathrm{\Delta }}(\omega \mathrm{\Delta }),$$
(2.5)
with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0=1/\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Using this form, the sum rule eq.(2.3) reads

$$1\frac{U_s}{2U}\frac{2}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\omega _c}{\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(2.6)
where $`\omega _c`$ denotes a cutoff frequency of the order $`O(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }U_s/\pi `$.

For $`U\mathrm{}`$, we have $`n_{}n_{}0`$ and hence $`U_s0`$. Then the above equation is solved as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\omega _c\mathrm{exp}(\pi ^2/2)\omega _c/139`$. Namely, we obtain

$$U_s=\pi [\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _ce^{\pi ^2/2}].$$
(2.7)
If we set $`g\mu _B=1`$ ($`g=2`$ is the $`g`$-factor), the static susceptibility $`\chi \chi ^{zz}`$ is given by

$$\chi (\omega =0)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_0}{1U_s\mathrm{\Pi }_0}=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(2.8)
Therefore, if we define the Kondo temperature $`T_\text{K}`$ by $`\chi (\omega =0)=1/4T_\text{K}`$, we obtain $`T_\text{K}=(\pi /2)\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\pi /2)\omega _c\mathrm{exp}(\pi ^2/2)`$, which is finite even for $`U\mathrm{}`$. Of course, the correct formula is $`T_\text{K}=\sqrt{U\mathrm{\Delta }/2}\mathrm{exp}(\pi U/8\mathrm{\Delta })`$,$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ which vanishes for $`U\mathrm{}`$. For $`U<\mathrm{}`$, a similar analysis yields $`T_\text{K}(U)=(\pi /2)\omega _c\mathrm{exp}[(\pi ^2/2)(1U_s/2U)]`$, which is larger by $`\mathrm{exp}[(\pi ^2/2)(U_s/2U)]`$ than $`T_\text{K}(U=\mathrm{})`$.

Thus, in TPSC, the renormalized interaction $`U_s`$ is reduced at $`U\mathrm{\Delta }`$ so as to avoid the magnetic instability, but does not reach $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$, namely, $`U_s\pi [\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _c\mathrm{exp}(\pi ^2/2)]`$ and hence the Kondo temperature remains finite even at $`U=\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, TPSC cannot describe the case of strong correlation properly. We will seek for an improvement of TPSC in the next section. Before it, however, we briefly discuss on the self-energy in TPSC.

The self-energy for the d-electrons is calculated as$`^{\text{?)}}`$

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (\text{i}ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`Un_\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{U}{4}}T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2U_s\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )}{1U_s\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )}}`$ (2.9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2U_c\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )}{1+U_c\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )}}]G_0(\text{i}ϵ+\text{i}\omega ).`$
In the weak coupling limit $`U0`$, this is reduced to the second-order self-energy

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (\text{i}ϵ)=Un_\sigma +U^2T\underset{\omega }{}\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )G_0(\text{i}ϵ+\text{i}\omega ).$$
(2.10)
It is well known, however, that the second-order self-energy does not have an expected spectral properties in the electron-hole asymmetric cases. For example, the positions of the $`E_d`$ and $`E_d+U`$ peaks are not correct, and the Friedel sum rule is not satisfied. These difficulties can be most easily overcome by the use of the interpolative form of the self-energy$`^{\text{?)}}`$ and by subtracting $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(0)`$ from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)`$ as pointed out by Yamada.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ More improved treatment is possible by introducing the effective d-level position.$`^{\text{?, ?)}}`$

## 3 Improvement of Two-Particle-Self-Consistent Theory

The dynamical susceptibility of the Anderson impurity can be generally expressed by the diagram shown in Fig.1 and the equation,

$$\chi ^+(\text{i}\omega )T\underset{ϵϵ^{}}{}\chi ^+(\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}\omega ),$$
(3.1)
$`\chi ^+(\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}\omega )=G_{}(\text{i}ϵ)G_{}(\text{i}ϵ^{}+\text{i}\omega )`$
$`\times \left[\delta _{ϵ,ϵ^{}}+T{\displaystyle \underset{ϵ^{\prime \prime }}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}ϵ^{\prime \prime },\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}\omega )\chi ^+(\text{i}ϵ^{\prime \prime },\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}\omega )\right].`$ (3.2)
We calculate the irreducible vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}\omega )`$ approximately by taking account of the maximally crossed diagrams (Fig.2) as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}\omega )=\frac{U}{1+UK(\text{i}ϵ+\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}\omega )},$$
(3.3)
$$K(\text{i}ϵ+\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}\omega )=T\underset{ϵ^{\prime \prime }}{}G_{}(\text{i}ϵ+\text{i}ϵ^{}\text{i}ϵ^{\prime \prime })G_{}(\text{i}ϵ^{\prime \prime }+\text{i}\omega ).$$
(3.4)
We use the unperturbed Green’s function $`G_{0\sigma }`$ for $`G_\sigma `$ and denote $`K`$ by $`K_0`$. Then, we find that $`K_0(0,\omega )=\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\omega )`$, $`K_0(\omega ,0)=\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\omega )`$ (note that $`ϵ+ϵ^{}`$ is bosonic) and thus at low frequencies

$$K_0(0,\omega )=K_0(\omega ,0)\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{1}{1\text{i}\omega /\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(3.5)
If we approximate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}\omega )`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}\omega )\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,0,\text{i}\omega )`$, then we obtain

$$\chi ^+(\text{i}\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )}{1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}\omega )\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )},$$
(3.6)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}\omega )=\frac{U}{1+U\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )}.$$
(3.7)
Note that at $`T=0`$ and the low frequency limit, the effective interaction becomes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)=\frac{U}{1+U/\pi \mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(3.8)
which smoothly interpolates between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)=U`$ for small $`U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ for $`U\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, the magnetic susceptibility $`\chi ^{zz}(0)=(1/2)\chi ^+(0)`$ diverges when and only when $`U\mathrm{}`$. This is a desired property. Within the present approximation, eq.(3.6) becomes

$$\chi ^+(\text{i}\omega )=\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )[1+U\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )].$$
(3.9)
Namely, the terms higher than the second order with respect to $`U`$ in the perturbational expansion of $`\chi (\omega )`$ are completely canceled out with the terms from the vertex correction, which is of course an artifact of the approximation. Note also that eq.(3.9) is correct up to $`O(U)`$.$`^{\text{?, ?)}}`$

Using the low frequency form for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\omega )`$, we obtain

$$\chi ^+(\omega )\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0}{1\text{i}\omega /\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}},$$
(3.10)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0=(1/2\pi \mathrm{\Delta })(\pi \mathrm{\Delta }+U)/\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }/[1+U/(\pi \mathrm{\Delta }+U)]`$. On increasing $`U`$ from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0`$ varies from $`1/(2\pi \mathrm{\Delta })`$ to $`U/2(\pi \mathrm{\Delta })^2\mathrm{}`$. Thus the Kondo temperature $`T_\text{K}=1/4\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0`$ vanishes for $`U\mathrm{}`$ as we desired, but more slowly as $`T_\text{K}(\pi \mathrm{\Delta })^2/2U`$ than the correct behavior. This must be improved in the future by taking account of better vertex corrections. On the contrary, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is reduced from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ only to $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$ for $`U=0\mathrm{}`$, and remains finite at $`U=\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, we replace $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ with an effective parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and determine it so as to satisfy the sum rule eq.(2.3) with $`U_s=\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)`$. Namely, in the symmetric case and at $`T=0`$,

$`1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)}{2U}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\omega _c}}\text{d}\omega \text{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{4\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0}{1\text{i}\omega /\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}}`$ (3.11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{\pi }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}}.`$
For $`U=0`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)=0`$, and the cutoff $`\omega _c`$ should be chosen as $`\omega _c=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}(\pi ^2/4)`$ since $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0=1/(2\pi \mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For $`U>0`$, the cutoff may also be chosen as a similar form $`\omega _c=\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{exp}(\pi ^2/4)`$. Then we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }\times 2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }/(\pi \mathrm{\Delta }+U)`$, which vanishes as $`U`$ increases. If we use eq.(2.5) for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\omega )`$, the integration converges without a cutoff. In that case, we previously proposed$`^{\text{?)}}`$ to modify $`\chi ^+(\omega )`$ into

$$\chi ^+(\omega )^{}=\frac{1}{\chi ^+(\omega )^1\text{i}C\omega },$$
(3.12)
and determine the parameter $`C`$ by the sum rule. This is essentially corresponding to modifying $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ as mentioned above. At low frequencies, $`\chi ^+(\omega )^{}`$ behaves as

$$\chi ^+(\omega )^{}\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0}{1\text{i}\omega /\mathrm{\Delta }^{}},$$
(3.13)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1+2C\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0)^1$$
(3.14)
which tends to $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\pi /C)\pi \mathrm{\Delta }/(\pi \mathrm{\Delta }+U)0`$ for $`U\mathrm{}`$. In Fig.3, we show this $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and compare it with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }\times 2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }/(\pi \mathrm{\Delta }+U)`$ in the above analysis using eq.(3.11). Both are in good agreement for $`U\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and become smaller than $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ for $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }>7`$ although the reduction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is not sufficient quantitatively. The first rise of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ at $`U`$$`\stackrel{<}{}`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is to compensate the decrease of the left-hand side of the sum rule

$$\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\text{d}\omega \text{Im}\frac{2\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\omega )}{1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\omega )}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)}{2U}=1$$
(3.15)
from 1 to 0.9 for $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ to 2 when the $`C`$ term is not included (see Fig.4). This decrease is traced back to the decrease of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)/2U=(1/2)/(1+U/\pi \mathrm{\Delta })`$. For $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }>2`$, the increase of the first term of the l.h.s. of the above equation dominates and l.h.s. increases again. The imaginary parts of the dynamical susceptibility calculated with this $`C`$ term correction are shown in Fig.5. We set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ here and henceforth.

Next, we investigate the self-energy. The Feynman diagram is shown in Fig.6, which may be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(\text{i}ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`Un_{}+\mathrm{}`$ (3.16)
$`+`$ $`T^3{\displaystyle \underset{ϵ^{},ϵ^{\prime \prime },\omega ,\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}\omega )G_{}(\text{i}ϵ^{})G_{}(\text{i}ϵ^{}+\text{i}\omega )`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}ϵ^{\prime \prime },\text{i}\omega )\mathrm{}G_{}(\text{i}ϵ^{\prime \prime })G_{}(\text{i}ϵ^{\prime \prime }+\text{i}\omega )`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}ϵ^{\prime \prime },\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}\omega )\times G_{}(\text{i}ϵ+\text{i}\omega )+\mathrm{}.`$
Keeping the behaviors of $`K_0(0,\omega )`$ and $`K_0(ϵ,0)`$ in mind, we approximate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}\omega )`$ at the left and the right ends by the separable form $`[\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}(\text{i}ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}\omega )]^{1/2}`$,where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}(\text{i}ϵ)`$ denotes some average of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}\omega )`$ on $`ϵ^{}`$ and $`\omega `$. To fix $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}(\text{i}ϵ)`$, we consider the first order self-energy due to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}\omega )`$ (Fig.7):

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(\text{i}ϵ)=T\underset{\omega }{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}\omega )G_{}(\text{i}ϵ+\text{i}\omega ),$$
(3.17)
which is expanded for small $`U`$ as

$`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}\left[UU^2K_0(\text{i}ϵ+\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}\omega )+\mathrm{}\right]G_{}(\text{i}ϵ+\text{i}\omega ).`$ (3.18)
$`=`$ $`Un_{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{(2)}(\text{i}ϵ)+\mathrm{},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{(2)}(\text{i}ϵ)`$ denotes the second-order self-energy. On the other hand, if we replace $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}\omega )`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(\text{i}ϵ)`$ with the average $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\text{i}ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}\omega )_\omega `$,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(\text{i}ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\text{i}ϵ)T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}G_0(\text{i}ϵ+\text{i}\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`Un_{}U^2n_{}K_0(\text{i}ϵ+\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}\omega )_\omega +\mathrm{}.`$
Comparing these two expressions, we obtain

$$K_0(\text{i}ϵ+\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}\omega )_\omega =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{(2)}(\text{i}ϵ)/U^2n_{}.$$
(3.21)
Therefore, we approximate $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\text{i}ϵ)`$ as

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\text{i}ϵ)=\frac{U}{1B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{(2)}(\text{i}ϵ)/Un_{}},$$
(3.22)
where $`B^{}`$ is an adjustable parameter to take account of the effects of the higher order terms. Approximating $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}(\text{i}ϵ)`$ by $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\text{i}ϵ)`$ and replacing the intermediate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}ϵ,\text{i}ϵ^{},\text{i}\omega )`$ by the previous $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}\omega )`$, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(\text{i}ϵ)Un_{}+`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\text{i}ϵ)T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )}{1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}\omega )\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )}}G_0(\text{i}ϵ+\text{i}\omega ).`$ (3.23)
We further note that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}\omega )}{1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{i}\omega )\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )}=U,$$
(3.24)
which holds within the present approximation. Therefore we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(\text{i}ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`Un_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{U^2T_\omega \mathrm{\Pi }_0(\text{i}\omega )G_0(\text{i}ϵ+\text{i}\omega )}{1B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{(2)}(\text{i}ϵ)/Un_{}}}`$ (3.25)
$`=`$ $`Un_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{(2)}(\text{i}ϵ)}{1B\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{(2)}(\text{i}ϵ)}},`$
where $`B=B^{}/Un_{}`$. This is exactly the same form as the interpolative self-energy proposed by Martin-Rodero, et al.,$`^{\text{?)}}`$ which bridges between the second-order and the atomic limit self-energies in both the symmetric and the asymmetric cases. $`B`$ was determined so as to reproduce the correct self-energy in the atomic limit when $`U\mathrm{}`$. Namely, one obtains $`B=(12n_\sigma )/Un_\sigma (1n_\sigma )`$.

Since the above formula for the self-energy does not satisfy the Friedel sum rule, one has to introduce an effective d level energy to be adjusted to fulfil the sum rule,$`^{\text{?, ?)}}`$ or to subtract $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(0)`$ from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ)`$$`^{\text{?)}}`$ to approximately satisfy it. Details of the calculations will be found in ref.?. Note that $`B`$ vanishes for the symmetric case. Namely, the self-energy becomes equal to the second-order one due to the cancelation of the higher order terms in the present approximation. Recently, it was pointed out that the second-order self-energy becomes exact when the width of the conduction band becomes zero.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ The cancelation of the higher order terms in our treatment may be related to this finding.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper, we have applied the two-particle self-consistent approximation to the single-impurity Anderson model, and found that it is not suitable for the description of the strong correlation limit. The form of the dynamical susceptibility was assumed to be of RPA type in TPSC, and the effective interaction $`U_s`$ is determined by the sum rule eq.(2.3). In this scheme, a magnetic instability was avoided but $`U_s`$ remained to be too small in $`U\mathrm{}`$. Thus, the low energy scale remains finite and does not vanish even at this limit. This is understandable since TPSC was devised originally for the cases of weak and intermediate correlations. We needed an improved treatment of the vertex corrections for the dynamical susceptibility.

Then, we have proposed a modification of TPSC applicable to the strong correlation. We have used the renormalized interaction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )=U/[1+U\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\omega )]`$ instead of $`U_s`$, and assumed the modified form of $`\chi (\omega )`$ as

$$\chi ^+(\omega )=\frac{2\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\omega )}{1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )\mathrm{\Pi }_0(\omega )2\text{i}C\omega \mathrm{\Pi }_0(\omega )},$$
(4.1)
determining the parameter $`C`$ by the same sum rule. This scheme has realized the vanishment of the energy scale in the strong correlation limit, although the decrease of the energy scale is slow compared to the correct behavior (Kondo temperature). Apparently, this is due to our use of the approximate vertex corrections to $`\chi (\omega )`$ which is not exactly consistent with the self-energy diagram. It is known that the calculation of the static susceptibility by the numerical differentiation of the electron numbers $`n_{}n_{}`$ within MPT leads to a rather correct values if it is combined with the Friedel sum rule.$`^{\text{?)}}`$ But one cannot apply it to the calculation of the dynamics.

We have also investigated the self-energy within the same vertex correction and found that with an appropriate approximation it reproduces the so-called modified perturbation theory which interpolates the perturbative regime and the atomic limit. Although the present derivation includes a crude approximation, it suggests that an appropriate treatment of the vertex correction may lead to a theory which bridges the weak and strong correlation limits. Extension of the present scheme to the asymmetric case is straightforward. In order to improve the present theory further, we need a better vertex function. It would be of much interest to calculate the set of eqs.(3.1-4) exactly.

We have already applied a theory, which is similar to the present one but is combined with SCR theory, to the description of the quantum critical phenomena.$`^{\text{?)}}`$ It will be improved by the application of the present formulation to lattice problems. Such a study is now in progress, and will be useful for the investigation of the realistic materials with strong correlation when it is combined with the band calculations.