format: text

text:
# Fredholm Indices and the Phase Diagram of Quantum Hall Systems

## I Fredholm indices

### I.1 Basic notions

The following is a brief description of Fredholm operators. For more details, see .

###### Definition 1

A bounded operator $`F`$ on a separable Hilbert space is Fredholm if there exists a bounded operator $`B`$ such that $`1FB`$ and $`1BF`$ are compact. The Fredholm index is defined by

$$Index(F)=dimKer(F)dimKer(F^{}).$$
(1)
The simplest example of a Fredholm operator with nonzero index is the unilateral shift operator: Let $`e_0,e_1,e_2,\mathrm{}`$ be the canonical basis for the Hilbert space $`\mathrm{}^2()`$, and let the operator $`a`$ act by

$$a(e_n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}e_{n1}\hfill & ifn>0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & ifn=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
The reason for denoting the unilateral shift operator by $`a`$ is its similarity to the harmonic oscillator lowering operator. The adjoint of $`a`$ acts by

$$a^{}(e_n)=e_{n+1}$$
(3)
Since $`1=aa^{}=a^{}a+|e_0e_0|`$, $`a`$ is Fredholm. The kernel of $`a`$ is 1-dimensional and the kernel of $`a^{}`$ is 0-dimensional. Thus $`Index(a)=1`$ and $`Index(a^{})=1`$.

Although neither the dimension of $`KerF`$ nor that of $`KerF^{}`$ is stable under deformations of $`F`$, the index is stable. For any compact operator $`C`$, for any bounded operator $`B`$, and for $`ϵ`$ sufficiently small, :

$$Index(F)=Index(F+ϵB+C).$$
(4)
The following theorem is standard:

###### Theorem 1

If $`A_1,\mathrm{}A_n`$ are Fredholm operators, then the product $`A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_n`$ is also Fredholm, and $`Index(A_1\mathrm{}A_n)=_{i=1}^nIndex(A_i)`$.

If $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ are Fredholm operators on the same Hilbert space, then there is a continuous path of Fredholm operators from $`F`$ to $`F^{}`$ if and only if $`Index(F)=Index(F^{})`$. (By continuous, we mean relative to the operator norm). Put another way, the path components of $`Fred(H)`$, the space of Fredholm operators on $`H`$, are indexed by the integers. The $`n`$-th path component is precisely the set of Fredholm operators of index $`n`$ .

### I.2 Phase diagrams

Our main concern in this paper is the following problem: Suppose one interpolates between Fredholm operators with different indices. What can one say about the way the indices change? Another way of phrasing this is: What is the phase diagram of Fredholm indices?

The answer to this question depends on the choice of the embedding space. In the space of bounded operators, the “phases”—each labeled by its index—are open sets. But the boundary between phases, as we shall explain, is rather wild: A point on the boundary of one phase is also on the boundary of every other phase. This behavior is difficult to visualize.

Another class of embedding spaces that we consider is associated with Toeplitz operators with various regularity assumptions on a class of functions. Here, at least if the functions are sufficiently smooth, the boundaries between phases have a simple structure and the phase diagrams satisfy simple rules that have the flavor of Gibbs’ phase rule . Typical of our results is the statement that under appropriate conditions, phases whose indices differ by one have a common boundary whose codimension is one, and phases whose indices differ by two meet on a set of codimension two etc. Fig. 1 is an example of one of the phase diagrams we obtain.

## II The Hall conductance as a Fredholm Index

Theories of the quantum Hall effect are roughly of two kinds: those that focus on the bulk of the Hall and those that focus on the edge . It was pointed out by  that the bulk-edge duality is an illustration of the holographic principle. In either approach, the quantized Hall conductance can be related to a Fredholm index.

### II.1 Theories of the bulk

It is common knowledge that the Hall conductance can be identified with a Chern number . For non-interacting electrons in two dimensions, this result is a special case of the fact that the Hall conductance is a Fredholm index. Since this is not common knowledge, we recall how Chern numbers and Fredholm indices are related.

For non-interacting electrons in two dimensions with the Fermi energy in a gap, TKN2, showed that the Hall conductance for Landau Hamiltonians with periodic potential, is related to a Chern number . The (magnetic) Brillouin zone associated with the periodicity plays an role in this theory. Because of this, the interpretation of the Hall conductance as a Chern number does not carry over to random or even quasi-periodic potentials nor to “irrational magnetic fields”, all of which have no (classical) Brillouin zone. Although the quantization of the Hall conductance can be established in these cases by a limiting argument , the interpretation as a Chern number does not survive.

J. Bellissard , in a work that had impact on non-commutative geometry , showed that the Hall conductance with ergodic potential, be it periodic, quasi-periodic or random, and real magnetic field, rational or not, is a Fredholm index. This result was derived in  without using non-commutative geometry.

More precisely, consider the (infinite dimensional) spectral projection $`P`$ on the states below the Fermi energy $`E_F`$ for the one particle Hamiltonian in the plane. Let $`U`$ be the multiplication operator $`e^{i\theta }`$, where $`\theta `$ is the usual polar angle in the plane. $`U`$ is a singular gauge transformation that introduces an Aharonov-Bohm flux tube at the origin of the Euclidean plane. The Hall conductance is the Fredholm index of $`PUP`$ thought of as an operator on the range of $`P`$ . Since the Fredholm index does not need a Brillouin zone, this approach offers a natural framework that accounts for the quantization and stability of the Hall conductance.

### II.2 Theories of the edge

Finite quantum Hall systems have chiral edge currents . Consider the case that the boundary is a circle of circumference $`L`$. The dispersion relation of the edge states is approximately linear in a small neighborhood of the Fermi energy and the Hamiltonian for a single edge channel, with velocity $`v_F`$, is

$$H=i\frac{v_F}{L}_\theta $$
(5)
Now, the projection $`P`$ is associated with the occupied edge states, $`e^{im\theta }`$ with $`mm_0`$. Introducing a flux tube into the system is associated with the unitary $`U=e^{i\theta }`$ and sends $`HUHU^{}`$. This leads to the spectral flow of the edge states. $`PUP`$ is the unilateral shift operator $`a`$ and the number of edge states that cross the Fermi energy is $`IndexPUP=1`$. By an argument of Halperin  this is also the Hall conductance.

An extension of this idea to Harper models with an edge is described in .

## III The phase diagram for bounded operators

We begin with the space of bounded operators with the topology defined by the operator norm, and we wish to understand the phase diagram of a generic family of such operators. As we shall explain, the phase diagram in the entire space is quite wild: Any point on the boundary of the “index = $`k`$” phase is also on the boundary of every other phase.

To understand this bizarre behavior, recall that the zero operator (which is not a Fredholm operator) is on the boundary of every phase: Zero is the limit, as $`\epsilon 0`$, of $`\epsilon a^n`$, with $`a`$ of Eq. (2), for any $`n`$. The point of the theorem is that similar behavior occurs at all boundary points.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`U_n`$ be the set of Fredholm operators of index $`n`$. Every point on the boundary of $`U_n`$ is also on the boundary of $`U_m`$, for every integer $`m`$.

Proof: Let $`A`$ be a (not Fredholm) operator on the boundary of $`U_n`$. Given $`ϵ>0`$, we must find an operator in $`U_m`$ within a distance $`ϵ`$ of $`A`$.

Suppose that the kernel and cokernel of $`A`$ are infinite dimensional, and that there is a gap in the spectrum of $`A^{}A`$ at zero. (If this is not the case, we may perturb $`A`$ by an arbitrarily small amount to make it so). Now let $`B`$ be a unitary map from the kernel of $`A`$ to the cokernel. Let $`P,(P^{})`$ be the orthogonal projection onto $`ker(A),(coker(A))`$, and let $`a`$ be a shift operator on $`ker(A)`$. For each $`m0`$, $`A(ϵ)=A+ϵBa^mP`$ has a bounded right inverse

$$A^{}\frac{1}{P^{}+AA^{}}P_{}^{}+\frac{1}{ϵ}(a^{})^mB^{}P^{}.$$
(6)
It follows that the cokernel of $`A(ϵ)`$ is empty. It is easy to see that the kernel of $`A(ϵ)`$ is $`m`$ dimensional hence $`Index(A(ϵ))=m`$. Similarly, $`A+ϵB(a^{})^mP`$ has index $`m`$.

## IV Linear combinations of shifts

In this section and the next we show that there are interesting and simple “generic” phase diagrams of Fredholm indices in some finite dimensional spaces, and in some infinite-dimensional spaces with sufficiently fine topologies. We shall also see also how control is lost as the space is enlarged and the topology is coarsened.

### IV.1 Shift by one

We begin by considering linear combinations of the shift operator $`a`$ and the identity operator 1. That is, we consider the operator

$$A=c_1a+c_0$$

where $`c_1`$ and $`c_0`$ are constants.

###### Theorem 3

If $`|c_1||c_0|`$, then $`A`$ is Fredholm. The index of $`A`$ is 1 if $`|c_1|>|c_0|`$ and zero if $`|c_1|<|c_0|`$. If $`|c_1|=|c_0|`$, then $`A`$ is not Fredholm.

Proof: First suppose $`|c_0|>|c_1|`$. Then $`A`$ is invertible:

$$A^1=c_0^1(1+(c_1/c_0)a)^1=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^nc_1^n}{c_0^{n+1}}a^n,$$

as the sum converges absolutely. Thus $`A`$ has neither kernel nor cokernel, and has index zero.

If $`|c_1|>|c_0|`$, then the kernel of $`A`$ is 1-dimensional, namely all multiples of $`|\psi =_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}z_0^ne_n`$, where $`z_0=c_0/c_1`$. Notice how the norm of $`|\psi `$ goes to infinity as $`|z_0|1`$. However, $`A^{}`$ has no kernel, since for any unit vector $`|\varphi `$, $`A^{}|\varphi =\overline{c}_1a^{}|\varphi +\overline{c}_0|\varphi \overline{c}_1a^{}|\varphi \overline{c}_0|\varphi =|c_1||c_0|`$. Thus the index of $`A`$ is 1.

If $`|c_1|=|c_0|`$, then $`A`$ is at the boundary between index 1 and index 0, and so cannot be Fredholm.

### IV.2 Finite linear combinations of shifts

Next we consider linear combinations of $`1,a,a^2,\mathrm{}`$ up to some fixed $`a^n`$. That is, we consider operators of the form

$$A=c_na^n+c_{n1}a^{n1}+\mathrm{}+c_0.$$
(7)
This is closely related to the polynomial

$$p(z)=c_nz^n+\mathrm{}+c_0.$$
(8)
###### Theorem 4

If none of the roots of $`p`$ lie on the unit circle, then $`A`$ is Fredholm, and the index of $`A`$ equals the number of roots of $`p`$ inside the unit circle, counted with multiplicity. If any of the roots of $`p`$ lie on the unit circle, then $`A`$ is not Fredholm.

Proof: The polynomial $`p(z)`$ factorizes as $`p(z)=c_k_{i=1}^k(z\zeta _i)`$, where $`k`$ is the degree of $`p`$ (typically $`k=n`$, but it may happen that $`c_n=0`$). But then $`A=c_k_{i=1}^k(a\zeta _i)`$. If none of the roots $`\zeta _i`$ lie on the unit circle, then each term in the product is Fredholm, so the product is Fredholm, and the index of the product is the sum of the indices of the factors. By Theorem 3, this exactly equals the number of roots $`\zeta _i`$ inside the unit circle.

If any of the roots lie on the unit circle, then a small perturbation can push those roots in or out, yielding Fredholm operators with different indices. This borderline operator therefore cannot be Fredholm.

The last theorem easily generalizes to linear combination of left-shifts and right-shifts. The index of an operator

$$A=c_na^n+\mathrm{}+c_1a+c_0+c_1a^{}+\mathrm{}+c_m(a^{})^m$$
(9)
equals the number of roots of

$$p(z)=\underset{i=m}{\overset{n}{}}c_iz^i$$
(10)
inside the unit circle, minus the degree of the pole at $`z=0`$ (that is $`m`$, unless $`c_m=0`$). This follow from the fact that

$$A=(\underset{i=m}{\overset{n}{}}c_ia^{i+m})(a^{})^m.$$
(11)
Since there is no qualitative difference between combinations of left-shifts and combinations of both left- and right-shifts, we restrict our attention to left-shifts only, and consider families of operators of the form (7).

###### Theorem 5

In the space of complex linear combinations of 1, $`a`$, …, $`a^n`$, almost every operator is Fredholm. For every $`kn`$, the points where the index can jump by $`k`$ (by which we mean the common boundaries of regions of Fredholm operators whose indices differ by $`k`$) is a set of real codimension $`k`$.

In the space of real linear combinations of 1, $`a`$, …, $`a^n`$, almost every operator is Fredholm. For every $`kn`$, the points where the index jumps by $`k`$ is a stratified space, the largest stratum of which has real codimension $`(k+1)/2`$, where $`x`$ denotes the integer part of $`x`$.

Proof: Our parameter space is the space of coefficients $`c_i`$, or equivalently the space of polynomials of degree $`n`$. This is either $`\mathrm{IR}^{n+1}`$ or $`\text{ }|\mathrm{C}^{n+1}`$, depending on whether we allow real or complex coefficients. In either case, the set $`U_k`$ of Fredholm operators of index $`k`$ is identical to the set of polynomials with $`k`$ roots inside the unit circle and the remaining $`nk`$ roots outside (if $`c_n=0`$, we say there is a root at infinity; if $`c_n=c_{n1}=0`$, there is a double root at infinity, and so on. Counting these roots at infinity, there are always exactly $`n`$ roots in all.) The boundary of $`U_k`$ is the set of polynomials with at most $`k`$ roots inside the unit circle, at most $`nk`$ outside the unit circle, and at least one root on the unit circle. (Strictly speaking, the zero polynomial is also on this boundary. This is of such high codimension that it has no effect on the phase portrait we are developing.). We consider the common boundary of $`U_k`$ and $`U_k^{}`$. If $`k<k^{}`$, a nonvanishing polynomial is on the boundary of both $`U_k`$ and $`U_k^{}`$ if it has at most $`k`$ roots inside the unit circle and at most $`nk^{}`$ roots outside. It must therefore have at least $`k^{}k`$ roots on the unit circle.

If we are working with complex coefficients, this is a set of codimension $`k^{}k`$. The roots themselves, together with an overall scale $`c_n`$, can be used to parametrize the space of polynomials. For each root, being on the unit circle is codimension 1, while being inside or outside are open conditions. Since the roots are independent, placing $`k^{}k`$ roots on the unit circle is codimension $`k^{}k`$.

If we are working with real coefficients, the roots are not independent, as non-real roots come in complex conjugate pairs. Thus, the common boundary of $`U_k`$ and $`U_k^{}`$ breaks into several strata, depending on how many real roots and how many complex conjugate pairs lie on the unit circle. If $`k^{}k`$ is even, the biggest stratum consists of having $`(k^{}k)/2`$ pairs, and has codimension $`(k^{}k)/2`$. If $`k^{}k`$ is odd, the biggest stratum consists of having $`(k^{}k1)/2`$ pairs and one real root on the unit circle, and has codimension $`(k^{}+1k)/2`$.

Theorem 5 is illustrated in Figure 1, where the phase portrait is shown for $`n=2`$ with real coefficients, with $`c_2`$ fixed to equal 1. The points above the parabola $`c_0=c_1^2/4`$ have complex conjugate roots, while points below have real roots. Notice that the transition from index 2 to index 0 occurs at an isolated point when the roots are real, but on an interval when the roots come in complex-conjugate pairs.

It is clear that an almost identical theorem applies to linear combinations of left-shifts up to $`a^n`$ and right-shifts up to $`(a^{})^m`$. The results are essentially independent of $`n`$ and $`m`$ (their only effect being to limit the size of possible jumps to $`n+m`$). We can therefore extend the results to the space of all (finite) linear combinations of left- and right-shifts, which is topologized as the union over all $`n`$ and $`m`$ of the spaces considered above. Our result, restated for that space, is

###### Theorem 6

In the space of finite complex linear combinations of left- and right-shifts of arbitrary degree, almost every operator is Fredholm. For every integer $`k1`$, the points where the index can jump by $`k`$ (by which we mean the common boundaries of regions of Fredholm operators whose indices differ by $`k`$) is a set of real codimension $`k`$.

If we restrict the coefficients to be real, then, for every $`kn`$, the points where the index jumps by $`k`$ is a stratified space, the largest stratum of which has real codimension $`(k+1)/2`$.

## V Toeplitz operators

Although Theorem 6 refers to an infinite-dimensional space, this space is still extremely small – each point is a finite linear combination of shifts. In this section we consider infinite linear combinations of shifts. This is equivalent to studying Toeplitz operators.

###### Definition 2

The Hardy space $`H`$ is the subspace of $`L^2(S^1)`$ consisting of functions whose Fourier transforms have no negative frequency terms. Equivalently, if we give $`L^2(S^1)`$ a basis of Fourier modes $`e_n=e^{in\theta }`$, where the integer $`n`$ ranges from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, then $`H`$ is the closed linear span of $`e_0,e_1,e_2,\mathrm{}`$.

We think of $`S^1`$ as sitting in the complex plane, with $`z=e^{i\theta }`$. Now let $`f(z)`$ be a bounded, measurable function on $`S^1`$, and let $`P`$ be the orthogonal projection from $`L^2(S^1)`$ to $`H`$. If $`|\psi H`$, then $`|f\psi `$ (pointwise product) is in $`L^2(S^1)`$, and $`P|f\psi H`$. We define the operator $`T_f`$ by

$$T_f|\psi =P|f\psi .$$
(12)
###### Definition 3

An operator of the form (12) is called a Toeplitz operator. We call a Toeplitz operator $`T_f`$ continuous if the underlying function $`f`$ is continuous, and apply the terms “differentiable”, “smooth” and “analytic” similarly.

Remark: Toeplitz operators can be represented by semi-infinite matrices that have constant entries on diagonals, and the various classes we have defined correspond to the decay away from the main diagonal.

Notice that

$$T_{e_m}e_n=\{\begin{array}{cc}e_{n+m}\hfill & ifn+m0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & otherwise\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
so $`T_{e_m}`$ is simply a shift by $`m`$, a right shift if $`m>0`$ and a left-shift if $`m<0`$. All our results about shifts can therefore be understood in the context of Toeplitz operators. Theorem 5 refers to operators $`T_f`$, where $`f`$ is a polynomial in $`z^1`$ of limited degree. Theorem 6 considers polynomials or arbitrary degree in $`z`$ and $`z^1`$. We will see that the results carry over to analytic functions on an annulus around $`S^1`$, and to a lesser extent to $`C^k`$ Toeplitz operators, but with results that weaken as $`k`$ is decreased.

Here are some standard results about Toeplitz operators. For details, see .

###### Theorem 7

A $`C^1`$ Toeplitz operator $`T_f`$ is Fredholm if and only if $`f`$ is everywhere nonzero on the unit circle. In that case the index of $`T_f`$ is minus the winding number of $`f`$ around the origin, namely

$$Index(T_f)=Winding(f)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{S^1}\frac{df}{f},$$
(14)
Given the first half of the theorem, the equality of index and winding number is easy to understand. We simply deform $`f`$ to a function of the form $`f(z)=z^n`$, while keeping $`f`$ nonzero on all of $`S^1`$ throughout the deformation (this is always possible, see e.g. ). In the process of deformation, neither the index of $`T_f`$ nor the winding number of $`f`$ can change, as they are topological invariants. Since the winding number of $`z^n`$ is $`n`$, and since $`T_{z^n}=(a^{})^n`$ (if $`n0`$, $`a^n`$ otherwise), which has index $`n`$, the result follows.

We now consider functions $`f`$ on $`S^1`$ that can be analytically continued (without singularities) to an annulus $`r_0|z|r_1`$, where the radii $`r_0<1`$ and $`r_1>1`$ are fixed. This is equivalent to requiring that the Fourier coefficients $`\widehat{f}_n`$ decay exponentially fast, i.e. that the sum

$$\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\widehat{f}_n|(r_0^n+r_1^n)$$
(15)
converges. For now we do not impose any reality constraints or other symmetries on the coefficients $`\widehat{f}_n`$. This space of functions is a Banach space, with norm given by the sup norm on the annulus. This norm is stronger than any Sobolev norm on the circle itself.

The analysis of the corresponding Toeplitz operators is straightforward and similar to the proof of Theorem 5. Since $`f`$ has no poles in the annulus, we just have to keep track of the zeroes of $`f`$. For the index of $`T_f`$ to change, a zero of $`f`$ must cross the unit circle. For the index to jump from $`k`$ to $`k^{}`$, $`|kk^{}|`$ zeroes must cross simultaneously. In the absence of symmetry, the locations of the zeroes are independent and can be freely varied, so this is a codimension-$`|kk^{}|`$ event.

If we impose a reality condition: $`f(\overline{z})=\overline{f(z)}`$, then zeroes appear only on the real axis or in complex conjugate pairs. In that case, changing the index by 2 is merely a codimension-1 event. Combining these observations we obtain

###### Theorem 8

In the space of Toeplitz operators that are analytic in a (fixed) annulus containing $`S^1`$, almost every operator is Fredholm. For every integer $`k1`$, the points where the index can jump by $`k`$ is a set of real codimension $`k`$.

If we impose a reality condition $`f(\overline{z})=\overline{f(z)}`$ then, for every $`kn`$, the points where the index jumps by $`k`$ is a stratified space, the largest stratum of which has real codimension $`(k+1)/2`$.

Finally we consider Toeplitz operators that are not necessarily analytic, but are merely $`\mathrm{}`$ times differentiable, and we use the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ norm. Our result is

###### Theorem 9

In the space of Toeplitz $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ operators, almost every operator is Fredholm. For every integer $`k`$ with $`1k2\mathrm{}+1`$, the points where the index can jump by $`k`$ is a set of real codimension $`k`$. For every integer $`k2\mathrm{}+1`$, the points where the index can jump by $`k`$ is a set of real codimension $`2\mathrm{}+1`$.

In other words, our familiar results hold up to codimension $`2\mathrm{}+1`$, at which point we lose all control of the change in index.

Proof: As long as $`f`$ is everywhere nonzero, $`T_f`$ is Fredholm. To get a change in index, therefore, we need one or more points where $`f`$, and possibly some derivatives of $`f`$ with respect to $`\theta `$, vanish. Suppose then that for some angle $`\theta _0`$, $`f(\theta _0)=f^{}(\theta _0)=\mathrm{}=f^{(n1)}(\theta _0)=0`$ for some $`n\mathrm{}`$, but that the $`n`$-th derivative $`f^{(n)}(\theta _0)0`$. This is a codimension $`2n1`$ event, since we are setting the real and imaginary parts of $`n`$ variables to zero, but have a 1-parameter choice of points where this can occur. Without loss of generality, we suppose that this $`n`$-th derivative is real and positive. By making a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-small perturbation of $`f`$, we can make the value of $`f`$ highly oscillatory near $`\theta _0`$, thereby wrapping around the origin a number of times. However, since a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-small perturbation does not change the $`n`$-th derivative by much, the sign of the real part of $`f`$ can change at most $`n`$ times near $`\theta _0`$, so the argument of $`f`$ can only increase or decrease by $`n\pi `$ or less. The difference between these two extremes is $`2n\pi `$, or a change in winding number of $`n`$.

To change the index by an integer $`m`$, therefore, we must have the function vanish to various orders at several points, with the sum of the orders of vanishing adding to $`m`$. The generic event is for $`f`$ (but not $`f^{}`$) to vanish at $`m`$ different points – this is a codimension $`m`$ event, analogous to having $`m`$ zeroes of a polynomial cross the unit circle simultaneously at $`m`$ different points. All other scenarios have higher codimension and are analogous to having 2 or more zeroes of the $`m`$ zeroes crossing the unit circle at the same point.

The situation is different, however, when the function $`f`$ and the first $`\mathrm{}`$ derivatives all vanish at a point $`\theta _0`$. Then the higher-order derivatives are not protected from $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-small perturbations and, by making such a perturbation, we can change $`f`$ into a function that is identically zero on a small neighborhood of $`\theta =\theta _0`$. By making a further small perturbation, we can make $`f`$ wrap around the origin as many times as we like near $`\theta =\theta _0`$. More specifically, if $`f`$ is zero on an interval of size $`\delta `$, then, for small $`ϵ`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}(\theta )=f(\theta )+ϵe^{iN\theta }`$ will wrap around the origin approximately $`N\delta /2\pi `$ times near $`\theta _0`$. By picking $`N`$ as large (positive or negative) as we wish, we can obtain arbitrarily positive or negative indices. As long as we take $`ϵN^{\mathrm{}}`$, this perturbation will remain small in the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ norm.

The results of this section can be extended, with minor modifications, to the algebra of matrix valued Toeplitz operators  where the index is related to the winding of the determinant of a matrix.

## VI Quantum Hall systems

### VI.1 Phase diagrams of soluble models

Phase diagrams of quantum Hall system describe the dependence of the Hall conductance on parameters such as the magnetic field $`B`$ and the Fermi energy $`E`$. There are three idealized models where the phase diagram can be computed explicitly: The Landau Hamiltonian in the Euclidean plane, whose phase diagram is shown in Fig. 2; The Landau Hamiltonian for the hyperbolic plane, whose phase diagram is shown in Fig. 3 and Harper models in the plane , whose phase diagram is associated with the Hofstadter butterfly, shown in Fig. 4 for the case of a tight binding model on a square lattice.

These are not models of Toeplitz operators, and none of these models is generic, especially insofar as all of them have symmetries. However, we consider the extent to which they follow the generic phase rules of (smooth, complex) Toeplitz operators anyway. Where these rules are not followed, we consider how a small generic perturbation might restore the rules.

The phase diagram for the Euclidean plane, Fig. 2 satisfies the generic phase rules away from the line $`B=0`$. On the line $`B=0`$, however, the index takes an infinitely large jump, while at the origin infinitely many phases meet. Both are forbidden by the phase rules.

The phase diagram in the hyperbolic plane, Fig. 3, satisfies the generic phase rules outside the shaded parabolic region. In the shaded region, the operator is not Fredholm and the index is not defined. This is contrary to the phase rules since not being Fredholm is expected to be a codimension 1 event.

The phase diagram of the Harper model, Fig. 4, is in serious conflict with the phase rule for (smooth, complex) Toeplitz operators: It is known , that for a full measure of values of the magnetic field (irrational, of course), the spectrum is a Cantor set. Since the boundary between phases is contained in the spectrum, this suggests that any point on the boundary between any two phases can also be on the boundary between infinitely many other phases. This is the sort of behavior we observed for bounded operators with no restrictions. However, even in this wildness there is some regularity. For example, the center of the figure is on the boundary of all phases with odd indices while Theorem 2 allows for even indices as well.

###### Remark 1

To see how Fig. 4 is obtained, we recall that for a tight-binding model with flux $`\frac{p}{q}`$ through a unit cell, the Hall conductance, $`\sigma _j`$ associated with the j-th gap, (provided all gaps below it are open) satisfies the Diophantine equation

$$p\sigma _j=jmodq.$$
(16)
A similar equation holds for gaps counted from above. In the Harper model it is known  that all gaps except possibly for the central gap, are open.

Finally, consider the phase diagram of the Harper model with a disordered potential. This is not soluble in the same sense that the previous models are, but there are numerical results for it. Fig. 5, which we borrowed from , shows the phase diagram for a split Landau level in the Harper model with disorder. More precisely, the diagram describes a Harper model with fractional flux $`\frac{8}{5}`$ through a unit cell.

Without disorder the conductance $`\sigma `$ of each isolated band satisfies the Diophantine equation similar to Eq. 16, except that for a split Landau band $`p`$ and $`q`$ are interchanged. For flux $`\frac{8}{5}`$ the Diophantine equation fixes the conductances $`(2,3,2)`$ of the bands at the flanks and $`1`$ at the center. Zero disorder is, of course, not generic, and, indeed, there are bands on the $`E`$ axis where the index is not defined, something that the phase rules for Toeplitz forbid. Under perturbation the diagram should might so that these bands where the index is not defined disappear. This is indeed the case. The diagram in  is obtained by drawing $`n`$ lines emanating from each band where $`n`$ is its Hall conductance.

In summary, the wild character of the phase diagram of the Harper model is tamed by disorder and one finds, remarkably, a phase diagram compatible with the phase rules for Toeplitz operators.

### VI.2 Perturbations of Landau Hamiltonians

Motivated by the effect of disorder on the Harper model phase portrait, we next consider the effect of perturbations on the phase portraits of Landau Hamiltonians. Such perturbations will modify the phase diagram near phase boundaries. As a consequence one expects a phase diagram to be qualitatively modified near points of accumulation of phases, even if the perturbation is small.

Figures 2 and 3 satisfy the phase rules in the region of large magnetic fields, but fail to do so for small magnetic fields. We now examine how the two figures might be modified to satisfy the phase rules everywhere.

The phase diagram of the Landau Hamiltonian in the plane, Fig. 2 will be significantly modified near the line $`B=0`$ which, by symmetry, must lie in a region with index $`0`$. A schematic phase diagram that is generic and close to the Landau phase diagram is shown in Fig. 6.

The phase diagram in Fig. 3 has a region of full measure, the shaded parabola, where the operator is not Fredholm. This is non-generic, and unstable. A perturbation might produce a phase diagram like 7. Note that the two perturbed diagrams, Fig. 6 and 7 are topologically identical.

How do the phase diagrams, Figs. 6 and 7, compare with what one finds in experiments on the quantum Hall effect? For large magnetic fields one finds phase diagrams that resemble both Figs. 2 and 6 and satisfy the phase rules. For weak magnetic fields one observes a transition to an insulating phase. The emergence of an insulating phase (with index 0) for small magnetic fields is in agreement with the phase rule and Fig. 6. However, some experiments  and numerical simulations  have been interpreted as giving evidence to direct transitions from a Hall conductance of 2 and 3 to the insulating phase. Taken literally, such transitions would violate the phase rule. However, these results may merely indicate that, for $`B`$ small, the phase boundaries of Fig. 6 are too closely spaced to be distinguished numerically and experimentally.

### VI.3 Toeplitz operators

The main gap in our analysis is that we have not established a direct relation between the algebra of Toeplitz operators, where our phase rules are proven, and the class of operators relevant to (disordered) quantum Hall systems.

At the minimum, Toeplitz operators serve as a natural mathematical laboratory. However, there is a more direct justification for considering Toeplitz operators. The most elementary paradigm for a quantum Hall system is the Landau Hamiltonian, in which case one has:

###### Theorem 10

Let $`P`$ be a projection on the lowest Landau level in $`\mathrm{IR}^2`$, and let $`U`$ be the gauge transformation associated with an Aharonov-Bohm flux tube at the origin. Then $`PUP`$, acting on the range of $`P`$, differs from a Toeplitz operator by a compact operator.

Proof: A basis for the lowest Landau level is

$$|n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi n!}}z^ne^{|z|^2/2},n0.$$
(17)
As a consequence

$$n|U|m=\delta _{n,m+1}\frac{(m+1/2)!}{m!\sqrt{m+1}}\delta _{n,m+1}\left(1\frac{1}{8m}\right).\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }$$
(18)
In this case, a compact perturbation of $`PUP`$ is not only a Toeplitz operator; it is a simple shift. However, if the flux tube is placed at a different point, or if the magnetic field is spread out over a finite region, then we obtain a more general Toeplitz operator. If $`P`$ is a projection on a higher Landau level, the same results hold but the calculation is more involved. If $`P`$ is a projection onto multiple Landau levels, then $`PUP`$ is a compact perturbation of a direct sum of Toeplitz operators, one for each Landau level.

This is not to say that Toeplitz operators apply directly to all systems, only that they apply to many. There are basic models where $`PUP`$ fails to be Toeplitz. Indeed, an elementary model for localization is a random multiplication operator, i.e. $`H=V_\omega `$ on $`\mathrm{}(^d)`$. This is a caricature of strong disorder. The eigenfunctions are now concentrated at lattice points. The projection $`P`$ (below a Fermi energy) is

$$P=|nn|,$$
(19)
where the sum is over a random set of lattice points with, $`V_\omega (n)<E`$, in $`^d`$. $`PUP`$ is now a multiplication by a phase. It is an invertible operator and has Fredholm index zero. It is, however, not Toeplitz.

### VI.4 Open problems

It is tempting to directly study the index of $`PUP`$, for spectral projections $`P`$ and unitary operators $`U`$, rather than rely on generic results based on Toeplitz operators. There are, however, several technical obstacles. The first is that $`PUP`$ is thought of as acting on $`RangeP`$, which is a Hilbert space in its own right. This means that a deformation of the parameters of the system leads to a deformation of the space $`RangeP`$. In contrast, our strategy so far is formulated on a fixed space. The second obstacle is that our results depend on continuity properties while spectral projections tend to have bad continuity properties that come from a discontinuity at the Fermi energy.

To overcome the first problem one can replace $`PUP`$ by an operator $`F`$ defined on the entire Hilbert space with coinciding index. There is large arbitrariness in choosing $`F`$, but a natural choice is:

$$F=PUP+P_{}=PUP+P_{}^2=1+P(U1)P,$$
(20)
where $`P_{}=1P`$.

To overcome the second problem one may want to replace $`P`$ by a Fermi function. That is, replace $`P`$ by a smooth version

$$P(\beta ,B,E_F)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta (H(B)E_F))+1}.$$
(21)
In that case, however, $`P^2`$ is no longer equal to $`P`$, and the different expressions for $`F`$ in equation (20) are no longer equivalent. For each choice, it would be interesting to derive a phase portrait for index$`(F)`$ as the temperature, Fermi energy, magnetic field and degree of randomness are varied.

### VI.5 Concluding remark

In this paper we explored what can be said about generic phase diagrams of indices of Fredholm operators. We did not use the fact that the Fredholm operators relevant to the quantum Hall effect are of the form $`PUP`$, with $`P`$ a spectral projection of an ergodic Schrödinger operator. Rather, we considered the index of several natural classes (and algebras) of operators. The weakness of this strategy is that we can not say much that is definitive about quantum Hall systems. In its defense, we recall that replacing the particular by the generic proved to be useful in quantum physics in the hands of Wigner, von Neuman and Dyson . Whether it will turn out to be useful for quantum Hall effect remains to be seen.

## Acknowledgments

We thank A. Kamenev for drawing our attention to ref , and E. Park, M. Reznikov, H. Schultz-Baldes and E. Shimshoni for useful discussions. This research was supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation, the Fund for Promotion of Research at the Technion, the DFG, the National Science Foundation and the Texas Advanced Research Program.


text:
# Jet Quenching versus Jet Enhancement: a quantitative study of the BDMPS-Z gluon radiation spectrum

## I Introduction

It is a longstanding goal to establish observables which characterize in a model-independent way the non-perturbative properties of a nuclear medium. The medium-dependence of perturbatively calculable “hard probes” is studied intensively to this end. A rigorous example available in e-A and p-A collisions is the generalized factorization theorem  of Luo, Qiu and Sterman (LQS) which relates the medium-dependence of a class of high-$`k_t`$ observables to a very small set of higher twist parton distribution functions of the cold target nucleus. For ultrarelativistic A-A collisions, we are not aware of a corresponding factorization theorem for observables which could be measured with existing or designed experiments at RHIC or LHC. This makes it interesting to search outside the framework of higher twist parton distributions for other, rather process-independent medium characterizations which allow to distinguish experimentally between the non-perturbative properties of hot and cold nuclear matter.

A good candidate for a one-parameter characterization of non-perturbative medium properties is the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$ obtained in the QCD dipole picture . It describes the average squared transverse momentum transfered from the medium to an ultrarelativistic hard parton within one unit of pathlength, $`n_0C=𝐪_{}^2/L`$. This parameter increases with increasing nuclear density $`n_0`$ and (as a consequence of the equipartition theorem, $`𝐪_{}^2T`$) with increasing temperature. However, in order to characterize on the basis of $`n_0C`$ differences between hot and cold nuclear matter, one has to understand quantitatively the sensitivity of different observables to $`n_0C`$. To this end, we study here the dependence of the medium-induced one gluon radiation spectrum off a hard quark on the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$.

Medium-induced radiative energy loss and the associated phenomenon of “jet quenching” was proposed a decade ago by Gyulassy and Wang  as a sensitive probe of the non-perturbative properties of excited nuclear matter. Baier, Dokshitzer, Mueller, Peigné and Schiff (BDMPS) established  that its dominant contribution comes from the rescattering of the emitted gluon and results in a quadratic $`L^2`$-increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E`$. An equivalent  path-integral formulation  was derived independently by Zakharov (Z) - we refer to the formalism as BDMPS-Z. Recently, the present author  derived the $`𝐤_{}`$-differential extension (1) of this path-integral formalism which determines the transverse momentum distribution of the emitted gluon. Equation (1), the starting point of the present work, differs from other formulations  by a regularization prescription  which makes it applicable to finite size media. In particular, (1) shows in an opacity expansion  the correct interpolation between totally coherent and totally incoherent radiation spectrum for spatially finite media. As we recall in section III, the medium-dependence of (1) is determined by the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$ only.

Quantitatively, little is known about the one gluon radiation spectrum in the soft multiple scattering approximation. For the total, $`𝐤_{}`$-integrated energy loss $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, numerical results by Zakharov  indicate weak deviations from the BDMPS-$`L^2`$-law. However, a systematic study of its dependence on the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$ and the energy $`E`$ of the incident quark is missing. Moreover, all existing results on $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ are obtained by integrating the transverse gluon momentum up to infinity. In particular, it remains unclear to what extent deviations from the BDMPS-$`L^2`$-law become more significant if the finite kinematical boundary of the $`𝐤_{}`$-integration and the proper regularization of the gluon radiation spectrum are taken into account. Also, there are no results which establish to what extent the main contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ stems from the region of small gluon energy $`\frac{\omega }{E}=x1`$ and small transverse gluon momentum $`|𝐤_{}|\omega `$ to which the multiple soft rescattering formalism applies. This motivates a systematic study of the $`x`$\- and $`𝐤_{}`$-differential gluon radiation spectrum. The only related quantitative study due to Baier, Dokshitzer, Mueller and Schiff  determines from the $`𝐤_{}`$-differential radiation spectrum the phenomenologically important fraction $`R(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ of the energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ radiated outside a cone of opening angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. However, also in this study, the $`|𝐤_{}|`$-integration extends to infinity and the questions listed above remain to be answered. This is done in the present work which is organized as follows:

In section II, we recall the main properties of the one-gluon radiation spectrum derived in the soft multiple scattering approximation. Section III collects analytical expressions obtained in the dipole approximation. Numerical results for the gluon radiation spectrum are presented in section IV and their implications are discussed in the Conclusions.

## II The medium-induced radiation spectrum

We are studying the medium-induced, $`𝐤_{}`$-differential one gluon radiation spectrum off a hard quark. In the multiple soft rescattering formalism, it reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma ^{()}}{d(\mathrm{ln}x)d𝐤_{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^2}}N_CC_F\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _z_{}^{z_+}}𝑑y_l{\displaystyle _{y_l}^{z_+}}𝑑\overline{y}_le^{ϵ|y_l|ϵ|\overline{y}_l|}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }d𝐮e^{i𝐤_{}𝐮}e^{\frac{1}{2}_{\overline{y}_l}^{z_+}𝑑\xi n(\xi )\sigma (𝐮)}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐲}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐮}}𝒦(𝐲=0,y_l;𝐮,\overline{y}_l|\omega ).`$ (1)
Here, $`𝒦`$ denotes the two-dimensional path-integral

$$𝒦(𝐫(y_l),y_l;𝐫(\overline{y}_l),\overline{y}_l|\omega )𝒟𝐫\mathrm{exp}\left[_{y_l}^{\overline{y}_l}𝑑\xi \left(i\frac{\omega }{2}\dot{𝐫}^2\frac{1}{2}n(\xi )\sigma \left(𝐫\right)\right)\right].$$
(2)
The medium-dependence of (1) stems from the factor $`n(\xi )\sigma (𝐫)`$, where $`n(\xi )`$ determines the density of scattering centers in the medium. The dipole cross section

$$\sigma (𝐫)=2C_A\frac{d𝒒_{}}{(2\pi )^2}|a_0(𝒒_{})|^2\left(1e^{i𝒒_{}𝐫}\right)$$
(3)
contains configuration space information on the strength of a single elastic differential scattering cross section $`|a_0(𝒒_{})|^2`$.

The spectrum (1) describes: i) Gluon radiation off a hard nascent quark ($`=nas`$) produced during the collision inside the medium at $`z_{}=0`$. This is the medium-dependence of the QCD analogue of the radiation spectrum associated to $`\beta `$-decay. ii) Gluon radiation off an incoming quark ($`z_{}=\mathrm{}`$, $`=in`$) contained in the wavefunction of the projectile. This is the medium-dependence of the Gunion-Bertsch radiation spectrum .

In the configuration-space formulation (1), the quark radiates a gluon at longitudinal position $`y_L`$ ($`\overline{y}_L`$) in the amplitude (complex conjugate amplitude). The $`ϵ`$-regularization of this cross section does not commute with the $`z_\pm \pm \mathrm{}`$ limit which removes the cut-off of the longitudinal integration. To do this analytically, we consider a medium of finite longitudinal extension positioned along the longitudinal axis between 0 and $`L`$. We split the longitudinal integrals into six parts

$$\underset{z_{}}{\overset{z_+}{}}\underset{y_l}{\overset{z_+}{}}=\underset{z_{}}{\overset{0}{}}\underset{y_L}{\overset{0}{}}+\underset{z_{}}{\overset{0}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}+\underset{z_{}}{\overset{0}{}}\underset{L}{\overset{z_+}{}}+\underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}\underset{y_L}{\overset{L}{}}+\underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}\underset{L}{\overset{z_+}{}}+\underset{L}{\overset{z_+}{}}\underset{y_L}{\overset{z_+}{}}.$$
(4)
The six corresponding contributions to the cross section are labelled in an obvious way:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma ^{()}}{d(\mathrm{ln}x)d𝐤_{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi ^2}}N_cC_F{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}}I_j.`$ (5)
Explicit expressions for the $`I_j`$’s, in which the limits $`z_\pm \pm \mathrm{}`$, $`ϵ0`$ are taken, are listed in Appendix A, Eqs. (37)-(42). They are the starting point of the following discussion. We recall several technical points:

1. Region of validity of (1)
Eq. (1) is obtained by assuming small angle multiple scattering for both the projectile quark and the radiated gluon . Its region of validity is limited to $`x1`$ and $`|𝐤_{}|\omega `$. For the calculation of the total radiative energy loss, integration over $`x`$ and $`𝐤_{}`$ is required. As discussed below, the $`x`$-integration is not problematic since the integrand has its main support at small $`x`$. The $`𝐤_{}`$-integration, however, has significant support in the infrared and the ultraviolet regime.

2. Infrared behaviour of (1)
For vanishing medium thickness, the gluon radiation (1) off a nascent quark is proportional to $`\frac{1}{𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$, and the $`𝐤_{}`$-integration is logarithmically divergent in the infrared. To subleading order $`O(x)`$, an additional term $`\mathrm{exp}\left[i\overline{q}(y_L\overline{y}_L)\right]`$ appears in the integrand of (1), with $`\overline{q}m_q^2`$ the quark mass . This term provides a natural infrared cut-off. In the following analysis, however, we shall not modify (1) by terms subleading in $`O(x)`$. We shall rather subtract from (1) the medium-independent hard radiation associated with the quark production in vacuum. The medium-dependent remainder turns out to be infrared finite. This allows us to give a numerical analysis of the medium-induced radiative energy loss without depending on an infrared cutoff parameter.

3. Ultraviolet behaviour of (1)
The $`𝐤_{}`$-integration over (1) is ultraviolet divergent even if the medium-independent part is subtracted off. This is no fundamental problem, since the transverse momentum is kinematically bound by the total energy of the gluon, $`|𝐤_{}|[0,\omega ]`$. It indicates, however, that the total radiative energy loss calculated from (1) is sensitive to the high transverse momentum modes $`|𝐤_{}|=O(\omega )`$ which lie outside the region of validity of its derivation. This is discussed in section IV.5.

## III Dipole approximation

Two approximation schemes are known for the spectrum (1): the opacity expansion and the dipole approximation. In the first, one expands the spectrum in powers of the density of scattering centers . This also gives access to the radiation off a small finite number of scattering centers. In the dipole approximation, one exploits that the integrand of (1) has its main support at small transverse distances $`r=|𝐫|`$. This allows to write the dipole cross section (3) to logarithmic accuracy as

$`\sigma (𝐫)=Cr^2.`$ (6)
This approximation is used in all discussions of BDMPS  and of Zakharov . It allows to explore the multiple soft rescattering regime in which Brownian motion dominates . Due to (6), the path-integral in (1) simplifies to that of a harmonic oscillator

$`𝒦_{\mathrm{osz}}(𝐲,y_l;𝐮,\overline{y}_l|\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{\pi i}}\mathrm{exp}\left[iAB(𝐲^2+𝐮^2)2iA𝐲𝐮\right],`$ (7)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \mathrm{\Omega }}{2\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Delta }y)}},B=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Delta }y),`$ (8)
with complex oscillator frequency

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1i}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\frac{n_0C}{\omega }}.$$
(9)
Here, the dipole strength $`C`$ appears multiplied by the homogeneous density $`n_0`$ of scattering centers, $`n_0C`$. This is the only model parameter in the following discussion.

In Appendix A, Eqs. (43)-(48), we write the six contributions $`I_j`$ to the gluon radiation spectrum (5) in the dipole approximation. For numerical evaluation, the integrands are expressed in dimensionless variables by rescaling the transverse gluon energy and the longitudinal distance with the modulus of the oscillator frequency $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_{}^2}{2\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}|\mathrm{\Omega }|}},\stackrel{~}{z}=\sqrt{2}|\mathrm{\Omega }|z,\stackrel{~}{L}=\sqrt{2}|\mathrm{\Omega }|L.`$ (10)
For radiation off a nascent quark, the contributions $`I_1`$, $`I_2`$, $`I_3`$ to (5) vanish. The remaining three terms can be represented by the diagrams

(11)
They denote the direct production term $`I_4`$ for gluon emission inside the target in both amplitude and complex conjugate amplitude, the destructive interference term $`I_5`$ which is the characteristic interference term between gluon emission in and beyond the target, and the hard vacuum radiation term $`I_6`$. The analytical expressions read (see Appendix A for intermediate steps)

$`I_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega \sqrt{2}|\mathrm{\Omega }|}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{L}}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{z}_1{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{z}_1}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{z}_2\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_{}^2\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{1+i}{2}(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_2)\right)}{N}}\right]`$ (12)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\stackrel{~}{z}_2}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2+2i)\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_{}^2\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{1+i}{2}(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_2)\right)}{N^3}}\right],`$
$`N`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{z}_2\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+i}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_2)\right)+(1i)\mathrm{cosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+i}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{z}_1\stackrel{~}{z}_2)\right),`$ (13)
$`I_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega \sqrt{2}|\mathrm{\Omega }|}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{L}}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{z}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\frac{1+i}{2}\stackrel{~}{z}\right)}}`$ (14)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[(1+i)\stackrel{~}{𝐤}_{}^2\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{z}\right)\right],`$
$`I_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝐤_{}^2}}.`$ (15)
The contribution $`I_6`$ is exactly (i.e. without taking recourse to the dipole approximation) the medium-independent contribution associated to the hard radiation off a nascent quark jet propagating in the vacuum . This follows from the leading $`O(x)`$ approximation in which only the rescattering of the radiated gluon contributes. Subtracting the medium-independent term $`I_6`$, the medium-induced modification to the hard radiation spectrum is given by $`I_4`$ and $`I_5`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma _{med}^{(nas)}}{d(\mathrm{ln}x)d𝐤_{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi ^2}}N_cC_F\left(I_4+I_5\right).`$ (16)
The radiation spectrum (5) is positive, of course, since one cannot radiate less than no gluon. This positivity is guaranteed by the sum $`I_4+I_5+I_6>0`$ which according to (11) forms a complete square. For the difference (16) between the radiation spectrum (5) and the corresponding vacuum contribution, positivity is not warranted: if less gluons are emitted from the nascent off-shell quark in the medium than in the vacuum, then the medium-induced deviation turns negative. The interplay between negative (jet enhancement) and positive (jet quenching) values of (16) will be studied in what follows.

## IV Numerical Results and Analytical Approximations

The $`𝐤_{}`$-integration of (12)-(14) is infrared finite. Using polar coordinates

$$\overline{I}_j=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\phi _k_0^{\chi \omega }k_{}𝑑k_{}I_j,$$
(17)
one finds

$`\overline{I}_4`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{L}}}d\stackrel{~}{z}_1{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{z}_1}}d\stackrel{~}{z}_2({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\mathrm{cosh}[(1+i)\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{z}]}}`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e^{2M_c^2\mathrm{sinh}[(1+i)\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{z}/2]/2}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{N^2}}),`$
$`F`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{z}_2^22i\mathrm{coth}[(1+i)\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{z}/2][(1+i)(M_c^2+\stackrel{~}{z}_2)`$ (19)
$`+\mathrm{coth}[(1+i)\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{z}/2]],`$
$`\overline{I}_5`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{L}}}d\stackrel{~}{z}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+i}{\mathrm{sinh}[(1+i)\stackrel{~}{z}]}}`$ (20)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+i)e^{(1+i)M_c^2\mathrm{tanh}[(1+i)\stackrel{~}{z}/2]}}{4\mathrm{sinh}[(1+i)\stackrel{~}{z}/2]\mathrm{cosh}[(1+i)\stackrel{~}{z}/2]}}).`$
Here, $`\chi [0,1]`$ denotes the fraction of the maximal transverse momentum up to which we integrate, and $`M_c`$ denotes the corresponding upper integration limit $`\chi \omega `$ in dimensionless rescaled variables

$$M_c=\frac{\chi \omega }{\sqrt{2\omega \sqrt{2}|\mathrm{\Omega }|}}.$$
(21)
These expressions determine the $`x`$-differential radiation spectrum

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{med}^{(nas)}}{d(\mathrm{ln}x)}}(n_0C,L,E,\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{|𝐤_{}|\chi \omega }}𝑑𝐤_{}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma _{med}^{(nas)}}{d(\mathrm{ln}x)d𝐤_{}}}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi ^2}}N_cC_F\left(\overline{I}_4+\overline{I}_5\right),`$
which is a function of the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$, the pathlength $`L`$ of the quark in the medium, the energy of the quark $`E`$ and the kinematical cut-off $`\chi `$. The $`\chi `$-dependence of (22) allows to extract $`𝐤_{}`$-differential information from the $`𝐤_{}`$-integrated expression (22), see section IV.5 below. The $`x`$-integrated total radiative energy loss $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}}(n_0C,L,E,\chi )={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{med}^{(nas)}}{dx}}.`$ (23)
### IV.1 Analytical Expansion for small $`L`$

#### IV.1.1 Radiation off projectile quark

For the gluon radiation off an incoming quark, a Taylor expansion of the radiation spectrum (1) around $`\stackrel{~}{L}=0`$ does not exist . One finds

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma ^{(in)}}{d(\mathrm{ln}x)d𝐤_{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi ^2}}N_cC_F({\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐪_{}}{(2\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{n_0CL}}\right)e^{\frac{𝐪_{}^2}{2n_0CL}}`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(𝐪_{}𝐤_{})^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐪_{}𝐤_{})𝐤_{}}{(𝐪_{}𝐤_{})^2𝐤_{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝐤_{}^2}}]\left)\right(1+O(L^2))+O(L^2),`$ (24)
which is non-analytic in $`L`$. The three contributions in the bracket \[\] of (24) combine to

$$\frac{d^2𝐪_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\frac{2\pi }{n_0CL}\right)e^{\frac{𝐪_{}^2}{2n_0CL}}\frac{𝐪_{}^2}{(𝐪_{}𝐤_{})^2𝐤_{}^2}.$$
(25)
This is the Gunion-Bertsch gluon radiation spectrum  for a target momentum transfer $`𝐪_{}`$ which is acquired by the transverse Brownian motion of the incoming projectile,

$$𝐪_{}^2=2n_0CL.$$
(26)
The dipole approximation does not break down for $`L0`$ where the multiple soft rescattering formalism is questionable. Taking $`L0`$ for $`n_0CL=\mathrm{fixed}`$, (25) matches smoothly onto the single Gunion-Bertsch rescattering result .

#### IV.1.2 Quark production in the medium

The medium-dependence (22) of the gluon radiation spectrum off a nascent quark can be expanded in a Taylor series for small in-medium pathlength. We find

$`\overline{I}_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\stackrel{~}{L}^2M_c^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\stackrel{~}{L}^3M_c^2+O(\stackrel{~}{L}^4),`$ (27)
$`\overline{I}_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\stackrel{~}{L}^2M_c^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\stackrel{~}{L}^3M_c^2+O(\stackrel{~}{L}^4).`$ (28)
Here, the destructive interference term $`\overline{I}_5`$ overcompensates for thin media the direct production term $`\overline{I}_4`$. The resulting medium-induced deviation from the jet energy loss in the vacuum is negative,

$$\overline{I}_4+\overline{I}_5=\frac{1}{24}\stackrel{~}{L}^3M_c^2+O(\stackrel{~}{L}^4).$$
(29)
The negative sign of this result indicates jet enhancement, i.e., the medium-dependence leads for small $`L`$ to harder jet fragmentation functions. Shortly after the discovery of the EMC effect, Nachtmann and Pirner  proposed a phenomenological picture which predicts harder fragmentation functions. To our knowledge, Eq. (29) is the first indication for such a jet enhancement effect in a QCD-motivated calculation. It will be discussed quantitatively in sections IV.2-IV.5.

#### IV.1.3 QCD dipole phenomenology

The rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$ is the only model-dependent input of the medium-dependent gluon radiation spectrum (16). It characterizes the average squared transverse momentum transfered from the medium to the projectile per unit pathlength, see Eq. (26). We study this spectrum for four different values of $`n_0C`$:

1. $`n_0C=0.1\mathrm{fm}^3=(63\mathrm{MeV})^2/\mathrm{fm}`$
2. $`n_0C=0.5\mathrm{fm}^3=(141\mathrm{MeV})^2/\mathrm{fm}`$
3. $`n_0C=1.0\mathrm{fm}^3=(200\mathrm{MeV})^2/\mathrm{fm}`$
4. $`n_0C=2.0\mathrm{fm}^3=(280\mathrm{MeV})^2/\mathrm{fm}`$

We chose these values after finding in exploratory calculations that they scan the region between negligible total energy loss ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E<3\%`$ for $`n_0C=0.1\mathrm{fm}^3`$) and very significant energy loss ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E>20\%`$ for $`n_0C=2.0\mathrm{fm}^3`$).

Baier, Dokshitzer, Mueller and Schiff  described the rescattering properties of the medium by the transport coefficient $`\widehat{q}`$ which satisfies $`\widehat{q}=2n_0C`$. They estimate $`n_0C=0.05\mathrm{GeV}^3=(500\mathrm{MeV})^2/\mathrm{fm}`$ for hot matter at a temperature $`T=250`$ MeV. For cold nuclear matter, their estimate $`n_0C=0.0025\mathrm{GeV}^3=(111\mathrm{MeV})^2/\mathrm{fm}`$ is based on the relation between the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$ and the gluon distribution $`xG(x)`$. In comparison, the two lower values ($`n_0C=0.1\mathrm{fm}^3`$ and $`n_0C=0.5\mathrm{fm}^3`$) of our study scan a reasonable range of possible values for cold nuclear matter, and the larger values of $`n_0C`$ may be associated to excited nuclear matter.

In principle, the parameter $`n_0C`$ can be determined phenomenologically for cold nuclear matter from the medium-dependence of hard processes. One approach  is to relate $`n_0C`$ to the parameter $`\lambda _{\mathrm{LQS}}`$ which characterizes in the LQS-factorization approach  the amount of transverse momentum transfered to the hard parton. A first determination from the dijet imbalance resulted in $`\lambda _{\mathrm{LQS}}^2=0.050.1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ corresponding to an extremely large value $`n_0C=0.30.6\mathrm{GeV}^2/\mathrm{fm}`$ . More recent studies  use the much smaller value $`\lambda _{\mathrm{LQS}}^2=0.01\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. This is still larger than the above estimate based on the gluon distribution. Significant experimental and theoretical uncertainties remain. Especially, the connection between $`n_0C`$ and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{LQS}}`$ assumes a direct connection between multiple soft and single secondary (hard) rescattering . As a consistency check, one should extract $`n_0C`$ also from observables sensitive to the multiple soft rescattering, as e.g. DIS nuclear structure functions . There, however, existing parametrizations show a non-negligible dependence of the dipole strength $`C`$ on Bjorken $`x_{\mathrm{bj}}`$  or $`\sqrt{s}`$  and it becomes important to compare the extracted parameters in the corresponding kinematical regimes. The present work does not aim at a phenomenological evaluation of existing $`eA`$ and $`pA`$ data which takes the above considerations into account. It rather scans the parameter space in the region $`0.1\mathrm{fm}^3<n_0C<2.0\mathrm{fm}^3`$ which interpolates between cold and hot nuclear matter.

### IV.2 $`L`$-dependence of radiative energy loss

As long as not stated otherwise, we present the $`𝐤_{}`$-integrated expressions (22), (23) for the kinematical boundary $`\chi =1`$. All numerical results are for a strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s=1/3`$ and $`N_c=3`$.

Fig. 1(a) shows the $`L`$-dependence of the total radiative energy loss (23) off a hard quark of initial energy $`E=100`$ GeV. Irrespective of the value of the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$, the total radiative energy loss $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E`$ increases stronger than linear. The double logarithmic plot Fig. 1(b) of the same calculation displays deviations from the BDMPS-$`L^2`$-law .

For sufficiently large $`L`$ ($`L<14\mathrm{fm}`$), the increase of the radiative energy loss is approximately $`L^{2.5}`$. At smaller values of $`L`$ ($`L<6\mathrm{fm}`$), the radiation spectrum shows a numerically very small increase and turns negativ. This is consistent with the analytical result (29) and prevents us from extending the double logarithmic plot Fig. 1(b) into the small $`L`$ region.

The sensitivity of the total radiative energy loss on the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$ depends strongly on the size of the in-medium pathlength. For $`L>8`$ fm, a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E`$ with an accuracy of $`5\%`$ would be sufficiently sensitive to distinguish between different values of the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$. For smaller in-medium pathlengths, however, this sensitivity is lost rapidly. To further analyze the region of negative $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E`$ and the delayed onset of significant total radiative energy loss, we turn now to the $`x`$-dependence of this spectrum.

### IV.3 $`x`$-dependence of the gluon radiation spectrum

Fig. 2 shows for relatively large in-medium pathlengths $`L`$ the $`x`$-differential radiation spectrum (22) which enters the calculation of the total medium-induced radiative energy loss (23). The spectrum peaks generically at very small values of $`x`$. This is an important consistency check since the derivation of the radiation spectrum (1) is based on the assumption $`x1`$.

The maximal radiation probabilities shown in Fig. 2 exceed unity for sufficiently large pathlength $`L`$. This may be taken as an indication that multiple gluon emission plays an important role for sufficiently extended targets.

In Fig. 3, the same $`x`$-differential radiation spectrum is plotted for relatively small in-medium pathlengths. The distinction between “large” and “small” is made empirically by the onset of more complicated structures in the radiation spectrum. The only purpose of presenting Fig. 3 separately from Fig. 2 is to make these structures better visible.

Irrespective of the value of the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$, the $`x`$-differential medium-induced gluon radiation spectrum Fig. 3 turns negative for very small pathlengths $`L`$. This is a consequence of the destructive interference between hard and medium-induced radiation. As one increases $`L`$, more medium-induced radiation amplitudes become available. Whether these lead to a stronger destructive interference with the hard radiation associated to the quark production vertex, or whether they lead to an increasing gluon emission probability depends on the quantitative interplay between in-medium pathlength $`L`$ and the rescattering property $`n_0C`$ of the medium. For $`n_0C=0.1\mathrm{fm}^3`$ in the upper right panel of Fig. 3, we observe e.g. that the destructive interference effect increases up to $`L<4`$ fm. Only for larger pathlengths, the medium-induced gluon production probability finally overcompensates the destructive interference term and the $`x`$-differential and $`x`$-integrated medium-induced energy loss turns positive.

According to Fig. 3, the pathlength at which exact compensation between medium-induced radiation and destructive interference occurs shows a strong $`n_0C`$-dependence. It decreases from $`L5`$ fm at $`n_0C=0.1\mathrm{fm}^3`$ via ($`L3`$ fm, $`n_0C=0.5\mathrm{fm}^3`$) and ($`L2.5`$ fm, $`n_0C=1.0\mathrm{fm}^3`$) up to ($`L2.0`$ fm, $`n_0C=2.0\mathrm{fm}^3`$). This decrease with increasing $`n_0C`$ is consistent with the picture that a significant transverse momentum transfer to the gluon is needed to kick it out of the kinematical region in which destructive interference can occur.

Quantitatively, jet enhancement ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E<0`$) at small pathlengths is very small. It is almost invisible in the $`x`$-integrated radiation spectrum of Fig. 1. However, it delays the onset of a positive jet quenching contribution. As seen from Fig. 3, this offset depends significantly on the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$ of the medium. It will be further quantified in the next subsection.

### IV.4 Energy dependence of the gluon radiation spectrum

In the gluon radiation spectrum (1), the energy $`E`$ of the initial quark comes always multiplied by the fraction $`x`$ of the energy carried away by the gluon. This implies a trivial $`x`$-scaling of the radiation spectrum as a function of energy,

$$\frac{d\sigma _{med}^{(nas)}}{d(\mathrm{ln}x)}(nC,L,E,x)=\frac{d\sigma _{med}^{(nas)}}{d(\mathrm{ln}x)}(nC,L,E^{},\frac{E}{E^{}}x).$$
(30)
In Fig. 4, we show illustrative examples of this scaling behaviour for a small pathlength (where destructive interference effects are important) and for a large pathlength.

If the $`x`$-differential radiation spectrum vanishes sufficiently fast at large $`x`$, the $`x`$-scaling (30) results (as a function of $`1/E`$) in a linear increase of the area under the $`x`$-differential radiation spectrum. Then, the total radiative energy loss $`\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}\right]`$ scales as a function of energy like

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}\right](E)=\frac{E^{}}{E}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}\right](E^{}).$$
(31)
As can be seen from Fig. 5, the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E`$ doubles approximately if one scales the initial parton energy by a factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$. This is consistent with the scaling law (31). It holds to good accuracy for all values of the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$ and for all physically realistic pathlengths $`L`$:

Fig. 5 also illustrates a property of the radiation spectrum consistent with factorization: One expects on general grounds that for increasing incident quark energy and fixed spatial extension of the medium, the medium-induced changes to the parton fragmentation become negligible in the limit $`E\mathrm{}`$. This is the naive factorization limit in which high momentum spectra depend on the initial parton distributions only, and do not test properties of the medium. Fig. 5 shows a significant decrease of the medium-induced fraction of radiative energy loss $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E`$ with increasing jet energy $`E`$. However, it indicates a kinematical sweetspot where initial parton energies are sufficiently high ($`E>50100`$ GeV) to make jet quenching a perturbatively calculable quantity and yet sufficiently small ($`E<1`$ TeV say) so that the dependence on $`n_0C`$ is still significant and makes jet quenching a sensitive probe of non-perturbative medium properties.

Another way of looking at Fig. 5 is by plotting the corresponding critical length $`L_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ above which the total radiative energy loss is larger than one percent,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E/E(L_{\mathrm{crit}})0.01.$$
(32)
As seen in Fig. 6, $`L_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ increases slowly with the incident energy of the parton. This is a consequence of the factorization limit: for a medium of finite extension, there is an initial parton energy above which medium-induced deviations of the parton fragmentation function become negligible. Also, $`L_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ increases obviously if the medium transfers less transverse momentum to the rescattering partion. $`L_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ ranges typically between $`3`$ fm and more than $`6`$ fm. This is a consequence of the interplay between jet enhancement at small $`L`$ and jet quenching at large $`L`$ which shifts the onset of a significant radiative energy loss to larger values of the in-medium pathlength $`L`$. Taking the finite geometry of ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions into account , this effect may lead to a significant reduction of the jet quenching signal at RHIC and LHC since $`L_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ is of the same order as the in-medium pathlength of a substantial fraction of the produced jets.

### IV.5 Angular contribution to the radiative energy loss radiation spectrum

The $`\chi `$-dependence of the radiation spectrum (22) allows to calculate the gluon radiation within an angular segment $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐤_{}[|𝐤_1|,|𝐤_2|]`$, specified by $`\chi _1=(|𝐤_1|/\omega )`$ and $`\chi _2=(|𝐤_2|/\omega )`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{med}^{(nas)}}{d(\mathrm{ln}x)}}(nC,L,E,\mathrm{\Delta }𝐤_{})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{med}^{(nas)}}{d(\mathrm{ln}x)}}(nC,L,E,\chi _2){\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{med}^{(nas)}}{d(\mathrm{ln}x)}}(nC,L,E,\chi _1).`$ (33)
In Fig. 7, this spectrum is shown for $`\chi _1=0`$ and small values of $`\chi _2=\chi 1`$. For very small transverse momenta $`|𝐤_{}|<0.05\omega `$, we find that the radiation spectrum is significantly depleted over the whole range of available gluon energies $`x[0,1]`$. This depletion continues to increase with increasing path length $`L`$ even for rather large L, $`L=14`$ fm. Increasing the upper bound on the transverse momentum $`|𝐤_{}|<\chi \omega `$ to $`\chi =0.15`$ and $`\chi =0.25`$, one observes that the depletion turns into an enhancement for sufficiently large pathlength.

Even for large $`x`$ ($`x>0.5`$), a significant depletion of the spectrum occurs at small transverse momenta ($`\chi =0.05`$) but disappears if higher transverse momenta are included ($`\chi =0.15`$). This cannot be the result of destructive interference since it does not show up in the $`𝐤_{}`$-integrated radiation spectrum. It comes from the shifting of the gluon transverse phase space distribtion which can be understood in terms of a classical multiple soft rescattering. In a classical picture, one expects a characteristic broadening of the hard radiation (16),

$$\frac{1}{𝐤_{}^2}\frac{1}{(𝐤_{}+𝐪_{})^2}$$
(34)
as a function of the $`𝐪_{}`$-momentum transfer which grows by Brownian motion $`𝐪_{}^2L`$. This leads to a depletion of the low $`𝐤_{}`$ momentum region of the radiation spectrum without affecting the $`𝐤_{}`$-integrated spectrum. In contrast, the destructive interference between hard and medium-induced radiation discussed in section IV.3 and also present in Fig. 7 affects the $`𝐤_{}`$-integrated spectrum.

Comparing the absolute values of the radiation spectrum for $`\chi =0.05`$, $`0.1`$ and $`0.15`$ shown in Fig. 7 with the absolute values of the $`\chi =1`$ radiation spectrum in Figs. 2 and 3, one finds that the main contribution to the radiative energy loss (23) comes from gluons emitted at relatively large transverse momenta $`|𝐤_{}|>0.25\omega `$. However, the derivation of the gluon radiation spectrum (1) assumes $`|𝐤_{}|\omega `$ . We conclude that the calculation of the BDMPS-Z total radiative energy loss receives its main contribution from a kinematical region in which the validity of the BDMPS-Z approximation is not guaranteed. This is not a feature of the dipole approximation studied here: numerical results of Gyulassy, Levai and Vitev  indicate that also in the opacity expansion the dominant contribution to the radiative energy loss is obtained from gluons with significant transverse momentum.

### IV.6 Radiative energy loss outside a finite jet cone

From the $`\chi `$-dependence of the $`x`$-integrated radiative energy loss (23), we can calculate the quantity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}}(\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{arcsin}(\overline{\chi }))={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}}(\chi =1){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}}(\overline{\chi }).`$ (35)
This describes the fraction of the medium-induced relative radiative energy loss $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}`$ radiated outside a cone of opening angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Our notation in (35) suppresses the dependence of $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ on the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$, the in-medium pathlength $`L`$, the quark energy $`E`$ and the fraction $`x`$ of the energy taken away by the gluon. Numerical results for (35) are shown in Fig. 8 for relatively large in-medium pathlengths and in Fig. 9 for the small pathlengths for which the destructive interference between hard and medium-induced gluon production is significant.

As seen from Fig. 8, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ does not decrease monotonously with increasing $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ but has a maximum at finite jet opening angle. The reason is that the radiative energy loss outside a cone angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ receives additional contributions from the Brownian $`𝐤_{}`$-broadening (34) of the hard vacuum radiation term $`I_6`$. Such contributions do not affect the total $`𝐤_{}`$-integrated yield $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}(\mathrm{\Theta }=0)`$, since they result only in a shifting of the transverse momentum phase space distribution of the emitted gluon. However, this shift in transverse phase space shows up as soon as a finite cone size is chosen. We conclude from Fig. 8 that the total $`𝐤_{}`$-integrated radiative energy loss$`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}(\mathrm{\Theta }=0)`$ is not the upper bound for the radiative energy loss outside a finite jet cone angle $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$. Depending on the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$ and the in-medium pathlength, the latter can be larger by more than a factor $`2`$.

Fig. 9 displays the angular dependence (35) for a small in-medium pathlength where destructive interference becomes important. For the total $`𝐤_{}`$-integrated radiative energy loss$`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}(\mathrm{\Theta }=0)`$, the figure shows the small negative values discussed above and consistent with the analytical result (29). Outside a small opening angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }5^{}`$, however, the medium-induced radiative energy loss turns positive. This is again the effect of Brownian $`𝐤_{}`$-broadening which populates the high transverse momentum region.

## V Conclusion

In the above analysis of the medium-induced one-gluon radiation spectrum (16), we found that the hard radiation component associated to the in vacuum production of a hard quark is affected by i) medium-induced radiation and ii) medium-induced rescattering. Both effects are non-negligible in a quantitative analysis.

The first phenomenon is the destructive interference between hard (vacuum) and medium-induced radiation. For small in-medium pathlength, analytical and numerical results indicate that the hard parton radiates less energy in the medium than in the vaccum. This jet enhancement effect is numerically small. At larger pathlength, it is overcompensated by a positive medium-induced radiative energy loss. However, a quantitatively important remainder of jet enhancement is the delayed onset of significant jet quenching. In comparison to an unmodified $`L^2`$-law, the hard parton has to propagate through a medium of larger spatial extension $`L>L_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ in order to loose a detectable fraction of its total energy. In relativistic heavy ion collisions, the finite geometry limits the maximal extension of the in-medium pathlength. The values of $`L_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ between 3 and 6 fermi found in our analysis, may thus imply a significant reduction of the observed jet quenching signal.

The second phenomenon is the Brownian $`𝐤_{}`$-broadening of the hard radiation due to multiple scattering. This shifts the $`𝐤_{}`$-distribution of the hard (vacuum) component to higher transverse momenta. Subtracting the vacuum contribution, one finds that the fraction of the total radiative energy loss $`R(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ in (35) emitted outside a jet angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ can be more than a factor $`2`$ larger than the total medium-induced radiative energy loss obtained for $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0^{}`$. In contrast to naive expectation, the total $`𝐤_{}`$-integrated medium-induced radiative energy loss is not an upper bound on the medium-induced radiation outside a finite cone. In relativistic heavy ion collisions, this rescattering effect may imply a significant enhancement of the jet quenching signal.

Quantitative statements about the gluon radiation spectrum depend on the energy $`E`$ of the projectile parton, the in-medium pathlength $`L`$ and the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$ which is the only model-parameter in our discussion. For the spectrum (16), we have studied these dependencies in detail. The suggested analysis strategy for experimental data is to determine $`n_0C`$ for normal cold nuclear matter phenomenologically and then to compare to the values extracted in relativistic heavy ion collisions. The rescattering parameter can be related in model calculations to the non-perturbative rescattering properties of the hot or cold nuclear medium. In this sense, $`n_0C`$ is a model parameter which can be extracted from experimental data and which allows to distinguish between different physical pictures of the excited nuclear medium.

The present work is restricted to the analysis of the one-gluon radiation spectrum (16) derived in the BDMPS-Z formalism. It was one purpose of our quantitative study to clarify the kinematical region of validity of this approach. In particular, we found that the small-$`x`$ gluon emission probabilities are very high. This indicates the importance of multiple gluon radiation which is not contained in the BDMPS-Z formalism. Moreover, the BDMPS-Z formalism is based on the assumption of small transverse gluon momentum $`|𝐤_{}|\omega `$ while we find the main contribution to radiative energy loss for $`|𝐤_{}|=O(\omega )`$. Both features question the validity of the BDMPS-Z formalism and await further work. We emphasize, however, that the physical origin of the two qualitatively novel effects discussed here, appears to be very generic. Even outside the BDMPS-Z formalism, we expect that the destructive interference between hard and medium-induced radiation, and the strong implications of Brownian $`𝐤_{}`$\- broadening for radiation outside a finite jet cone, leave similar, quantitatively important traces in the medium-induced gluon radiation spectrum.

## Appendix A Simplifying the radiation spectrum (16)

This appendix contains details of how to turn the radiation cross section (1) into a numerically accessible form. We consider a nuclear medium of homogeneous density affecting the propagation of the hard quark in the longitudinal interval $`[0,L]`$. Replacing the in-medium propagator $`𝒦(𝐲,y_l;𝐮,\overline{y}_l|\omega )`$ outside $`[0,L]`$ by the free propagator $`𝒦_0`$,

$$𝒦_0(𝐲,y_l;𝐮,\overline{y}_l|\omega )=\frac{\omega }{2\pi i(\overline{y}_ly_l)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\omega (𝐲𝐮)^2}{2(\overline{y}_ly_l)}\right),$$
(36)
the $`ϵ`$-regularization in (1) can be removed analytically . Replacing the constraint $`𝐲=0`$ in (1) by a representation of the $`\delta `$-function, $`𝑑𝐲\frac{d𝐩_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐩_{}𝐲\right)`$, one finds

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐩_{}}{(2\pi )^2}𝑑𝐮e^{i𝐮(𝐤_{}+𝐩_{})}e^{\frac{1}{2}n_0\sigma (𝐮)}\frac{1}{𝐩_{}^2}}`$ (37)
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}}{\omega }}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑\overline{y}_L{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐩_{}}{(2\pi )^2}𝑑𝐮𝑑𝐫e^{i𝐩_{}𝐫i𝐤_{}𝐮}}`$ (38)
$`\times e^{\frac{1}{2}(L\overline{y}_L)n_0\sigma (𝐮)}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_{}}{𝐩_{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐮}}𝒦(𝐫,0;𝐮,\overline{y}_l|\omega ),`$
$`I_3`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐩_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{𝐩_{}𝐤_{}}{𝐩_{}^2𝐤_{}^2}𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2e^{i𝐩_{}𝐫_1i𝐤_{}𝐫_2}𝒦(𝐫_1,0;𝐫_2,L|\omega )},`$ (39)
$`I_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}}{4\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑y_L{\displaystyle _{y_L}^L}𝑑\overline{y}_L{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐮e^{\frac{1}{2}(L\overline{y}_L)n_0\sigma (𝐮)}}`$ (40)
$`\times e^{i𝐤_{}𝐮}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐲}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐮}}𝒦(𝐲=0,y_l;𝐮,\overline{y}_l|\omega ),`$
$`I_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}}{2\omega }}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑y_L{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐮e^{i𝐤_{}𝐮}\frac{𝐤_{}}{𝐤_{}^2}\frac{}{𝐲}𝒦(𝐲=0,y_L;𝐮,L|\omega )},`$ (41)
$`I_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝐤_{}^2}}.`$ (42)
In the dipole approximation, these expressions take the form

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐩_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{𝐩_{}^2}\left(\frac{2\pi }{n_0CL}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(𝐤_{}+𝐩_{})^2}{2n_0CL}\right]}`$ (43)
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}}{\omega }}{\displaystyle _0^L}dy_L({\displaystyle \frac{A(1B^2)}{DB+iA(1B^2)}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{B𝐤_{}^2}{4[DB+iA(1B^2)]}}]`$ (44)
$`\times \left(1+\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_{}^2}{4[DB+iA(1B^2)]}}{\displaystyle \frac{A}{AB+iD}}\right]\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{A}{DB+iA(1B^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{iD}{AB+iD}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_{}^2}{4(DiAB)}}])`$
$`I_3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{iA(1B^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{𝐩_{}𝐤_{}}{𝐩_{}^2𝐤_{}^2}}`$ (45)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\left(B𝐩_{}^2+2𝐩_{}𝐤_{}+B𝐤_{}^2\right)}{4A(1B^2)}}\right],`$
$`I_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\omega ^2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑y_l{\displaystyle _{y_l}^L}𝑑\overline{y}_l\left({\displaystyle \frac{4A^2D}{(DiAB)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{iA^3B𝐤_{}^2}{(DiAB)^3}}\right)`$ (46)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_{}^2}{4(DiAB)}}\right],`$
$`I_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{i}{B_z^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_{}^2}{4A_zB_z}}\right],`$ (47)
$`I_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝐤_{}^2}}.`$ (48)
The variables $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`D`$ introduced here have different arguments for the different terms:

$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`A_5={\displaystyle \frac{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}{2\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }y_L)}},B_2=B_5=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }y_L),`$ (49)
$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}{2\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }L)}},B_3=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }L),`$ (50)
$`A_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}{2\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }(\overline{y}_Ly_L))}},B_4=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }(\overline{y}_Ly_L)),`$ (51)
$`D_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_0C(Ly_L),D_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_0C(L\overline{y}_L).`$ (52)