text:
# Magnetotransport of coupled electron-holes

## Abstract

The carriers in InAs-GaSb double quantum wells are hybrid “electron-holes”. We study the magnetotransport properties of such particles using a two-component Keldysh technique, which results in a semi-analytic expression for the small-field current. We show that zero temperature current can be large even when the Fermi energy lies within the hybridization gap, a result which cannot be understood within a semiclassical (Boltzmann) approach. Magnetic field dependence of the conductance is also affected significantly by the hybridization of electrons and holes.

The concept of electrons and holes as the basic quasiparticles in semiconductor physics is usually very useful for the study of transport properties. However, in InAs-GaSb heterostructures this concept breaks down. The reason for this is that electrons in the InAs layer can be isoenergetic with holes in the GaSb layer. Then, hybridization occurs between conduction and valence band states, and the single-particle excitations in the system are hybrid electron-holes. The effect of hybridization on in-plane transport in the case where the carriers are of the same type was studied in the past, and was shown to result in “resistance resonance” if the scattering times of carriers in the two wells are not the same. Hybridization of electrons in two wells also significantly changes their plasmon spectrum. However, the case of electron-hole hybridization is very different. For example, in contrast to the electron-electron case, it is not immediately clear what charge is carried by the electron-hole excitations. In addition, those excitations follow a strongly non-monotonic dispersion law, and a relatively large hybridization gap (later referred to as plain ’gap’) is formed. As a result, all transport properties are affected by hybridization even if the scattering rates in the wells are the same.

Much experimental effort has been put into studying these particles. The existence of the gap was confirmed and subsequent measurements have revealed more details of the non-monotonic spectrum. Recent transport measurements have shown strong resistance resonance. However, it was shown that the conductance remains finite even when the Fermi level is in the gap. In this regime current carriers are the hybrid electron-holes.

Analyzing theoretically the transport properties of these hybrid particles requires a much more basic approach than in the calculation of the spectrum. This is because natural broadening of levels around the gap plays a crucial role in determining the transport at relevant energies, and, as will be shown below, is the reason for the finite in-gap current. Previous theoretical works studying the transport of particles obeying non-monotonic dispersion laws where based on semiclassical assumptions, and thus could not produce this result. Below we present a full quantum theory for the magnetotransport of hybrid electron-holes. For the sake of definiteness we consider an InAs/GaSb double quantum well system.

Our theory is based on a two component Keldysh technique. In the absence of scattering and at zero electric and magnetic fields, the Hamiltonian for the system takes the form

$$H_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}E_{ek}& (ik_x+k_y)w\\ (ik_xk_y)w& E_{hk}\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where $`E_{ek}=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m_e`$, $`E_{hk}=E_{g0}\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m_h`$, $`𝐤`$ is the in-plane wavevector, $`m_{e,h}`$ are the in-plane electron and hole effective masses, and $`E_{g0}>0`$ is the energy difference between the first hole and electron levels. Under applied electric and magnetic fields, the Hamiltonian takes the same form as in (1), but with the substitution

$$E_{\alpha k}E_{\alpha k}e𝐅𝐫,𝐤i\frac{e}{\mathrm{}c}𝐀(𝐫),$$
(2)
with $`𝐅`$ the electric field, $`𝐀`$ the vector potential, and $`𝐫`$ the in-plane position.

In what follows we calculate the current by first obtaining an explicit expression for the density matrix

$$\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=G^+(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,E)\frac{dE}{2\pi i},$$
(3)
with $`G`$ the Keldysh Green’s function. Note that $`G`$ here has 16 components, 4 Keldysh components for each of the 4 terms in the Hamiltonian. It satisfies the Dyson equation

$`\widehat{G}_{01}^1G_{12}=\sigma _z+\sigma _z\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}G_{32},`$ (5)
$`G_{12}\widehat{G}_{02}^1=\sigma _z+G_{13}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{32}\sigma _z,`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the self energy, $`\sigma _z`$ the Pauli matrix with respect to Keldysh indices, and

$$\widehat{G}_{0j}^1=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t_j}H_{jj},$$
(7)
in which $`/t_j`$ operates on the $`j`$th variable of $`G_{12}`$.

In the presence of magnetic field $`G`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`\rho `$ are not translationally invariant. We therefore work with the translationally invariant functions

$`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ $`(𝐫_1𝐫_2,E)`$ (9)
$`=G(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,Ee𝐅𝐑)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{\mathrm{}c}}\varphi (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\right],`$
and similar definitions for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$. Here $`𝐑=(𝐫_1+𝐫_2)/2`$,

$$\varphi (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=\frac{1}{2}𝐁(𝐫_1\times 𝐫_2)+f(𝐫_1)f(𝐫_2),$$
(10)
$`𝐁`$ is the magnetic field, and $`f(𝐫)`$ is the gauge function, defined by $`𝐀(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2}𝐁\times 𝐫+f(𝐫)`$ . Furthermore, in electric field even $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is not translationally invariant. This complication can be neglected if the energy of the carriers and their wavefunctions are not affected appreciably by the field. The restriction on the field is thus

$$\frac{eF\tau _{e,h}}{\mathrm{}k_F},\frac{eF}{k_F\mathrm{\Delta }}1,$$
(11)
with $`\tau _{e,h}`$ the elastic scattering times of electrons and holes, $`k_F`$ the Fermi wavenumber, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=wk_0`$ the hybridization gap ($`k_0`$ is defined by $`E_{ek_0}=E_{hk_0}`$). When interested in magnetic phenomena this also requires

$$\frac{eFR_L\tau _{e,h}}{\mathrm{}},\frac{E_{ce,h}}{E_F}1,$$
(12)
with $`R_L`$ the Larmor radius and $`E_{c\alpha }=\mathrm{}eB/m_\alpha c`$. In practice, these limitation are not strong and are applicable to a wide range of experiments.

We now expand Eqs. (3) for all their components, use Eq. (9), and transform into $`𝐤`$-space. The resulting equations for the $`(+)`$ components of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ take forms similar to the evolution equation (4.6) of Ref. , but which combine the various $`e`$-$`h`$ components of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$, and with collision integrals given by

$`I_{\alpha \alpha 𝐤}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\alpha \alpha 𝐤}^r\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\alpha \alpha 𝐤}^a\right)\stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \alpha 𝐤}^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\alpha \alpha 𝐤}^+\left(\stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \alpha 𝐤}^a\stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \alpha 𝐤}^r\right),`$ (14)
$`I_{𝐤\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\alpha \alpha 𝐤}^r\stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \beta 𝐤}^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\alpha \alpha 𝐤}^+\stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \beta 𝐤}^a+\stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \beta 𝐤}^r\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\beta \beta 𝐤}^+\stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \beta 𝐤}^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\beta \beta 𝐤}^a,`$ (15)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}^r=\stackrel{~}{G}^{}\stackrel{~}{G}^+`$, $`\stackrel{~}{G}^a=\stackrel{~}{G}^{}\stackrel{~}{G}^+`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^r=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^a=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+`$, and where we omitted the explicit dependence on energy for brevity. We also use the convention that if both $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ appear in the same equation, they are distinctly different (i.e., if $`\alpha =h`$ then $`\beta =e`$ and vice versa).

We now make the physical assumption that scattering in the two wells is not correlated. Formally, this means that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is diagonal. Also, we follow the usual practice and neglect the small renormalization of the spectrum due to scattering. In this case $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ becomes purely imaginary and can be written in the form

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_𝐤^a(E)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_𝐤^r(E)=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ek}(E)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{hk}(E)\end{array}\right).$$
(16)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha k}(E)`$ are found within the self-consistent Born approximation by writing down the general expression for the self energy,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\alpha \alpha 𝐤}(E)=\stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \alpha 𝐤𝐪}(E)u_{\alpha 𝐪}\frac{d^2𝐪}{(2\pi )^2},$$
(17)
where $`u_{\alpha 𝐪}`$ are the elastic scattering matrix elements squared. $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \alpha 𝐤}`$ is then found by solving the general relation

$$E\stackrel{~}{G}^{r,a}\frac{1}{2}\{H,\stackrel{~}{G}^{r,a}\}=1+\frac{1}{2}\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{r,a},\stackrel{~}{G}^{r,a}\},$$
(18)
with $`\{A,B\}=AB+BA`$. The solution of this equation is

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_k^r(E)=\stackrel{~}{G}_k^a(E)=\frac{1}{R(E,k)}\left(\begin{array}{cc}EE_{hk}+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{hk}& w(ik_x+k_y)\\ w(ik_xk_y)& EE_{ek}+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ek}\end{array}\right),$$
(19)
with

$$R(E,k)=(EE_{ek}+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ek})(EE_{hk}+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{hk})w^2k^2,$$
(20)
and where we used Eqs. (1) and (16). In the same approximation, substituting Eq. (19) in Eq. (17) gives

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\alpha \alpha 𝐤}^r(E)=i\mathrm{Im}K_{11}^\beta (E,q)u_{\alpha 𝐤𝐪}\frac{d^2𝐪}{(2\pi )^2},$$
(21)
where the family of kernels $`K_{pq}^\alpha `$ are defined by

$$K_{pq}^\alpha (E,k)=\frac{\left[EE_{\alpha k}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha k}(E)\right]^p}{\left[R(E,k)^q\right]^{}}.$$
(22)
For short-range scattering $`u_{\alpha 𝐤}`$, and therefore $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, do not depend on $`𝐤`$. Its value can be found from Eqs. (21,22) at energies far from the gap, where they are expressed in terms of the relaxation times in non-coupled wells,

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{\tau _\alpha }=\frac{u_\alpha }{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\delta (EE_{\alpha k})k𝑑k=\frac{m_\alpha u_\alpha }{2\mathrm{}^2}.$$
(23)
Combining Eqs. (16,21,23) results in two self consistent equations for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (E)=\frac{\mathrm{}^3}{\pi m_\alpha \tau _\alpha }_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Im}K_{11}^\beta (E,k)k𝑑k.$$
(24)
Next, we substitute Eqs. (16) and (19) into Eq. (Magnetotransport of coupled electron-holes) which results in collision integrals depending only on the $`(+)`$ components of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. We then linearize the equations for these components with respect to the electric field, using the unperturbed (zero-order) function $`\stackrel{~}{G}^{+(0)}=f_0(E)\stackrel{~}{G}^a\stackrel{~}{G}^r`$, with $`f_0(E)`$ the Fermi function. After the linearization the equations for the Green’s functions are integrated with respect to energy. With the use of Eq. (3) this leads to four transport equations for the components of the density matrix. The solution to these equations is found in a straightforward, though tedious, manner. It is given in terms of the coefficients $`\stackrel{}{\chi }(k)`$, defined by

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\alpha \alpha }^{(1)}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\chi }^{\alpha \alpha }(k)𝐤,`$ (26)
$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\chi }^{\alpha \beta }(k)𝐤,`$ (27)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{(1)}`$ the term of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ linear in $`F`$. The solution reads

$`\chi _x^{\alpha \alpha }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm 2e\mathrm{}^2F{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{\beta k}\zeta _\alpha (k)\omega _k\zeta _\beta (k)}{\omega _{ek}\omega _{hk}\omega _k^2}},`$ (29)
$`\chi _y^{\alpha \alpha }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_{c\beta }\gamma _k\chi _x^{\beta \beta }(k)E_{c\alpha }\gamma _{\beta k}\chi _x^{\alpha \alpha }(k)}{\gamma _{ek}\gamma _{hk}\gamma _k^2}},`$ (30)
$`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\chi _x^{eh}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_rw^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{E_k^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}\left\{\xi _2^h(k)\xi _2^e(k)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_{ch}\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{2\overline{\gamma }_k^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{E_k}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\right]\chi _x^{hh}(k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_{ce}\mathrm{\Gamma }_h}{2\overline{\gamma }_k^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{E_k}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\right]\chi _x^{ee}(k)\right\},`$ (31)
$`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\chi _y^{eh}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (32)
with the upper sign for $`\alpha =e`$ and the lower for $`\alpha =h`$. Here

$$\zeta _\alpha (k)=\xi _1^\alpha (k)+w^2k^2\eta (k),$$
(33)
$$\eta (k)=\frac{1}{\pi m_r}f_0(E)\mathrm{Im}K_{02}(E,k)𝑑E+\frac{2E_k}{E_k^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}f_0(E)\left[\frac{1}{\pi m_e}\mathrm{Im}K_{12}^h(E,k)\frac{1}{\pi m_h}\mathrm{Im}K_{12}^e(E,k)\right]𝑑E,$$
(34)
$$\xi _1^\alpha (k)=\frac{1}{\pi m_\alpha }f_0^{}(E)\mathrm{Im}K_{11}^\beta (E,k)𝑑E,$$
(35)
$$\xi _2^\alpha (k)=\frac{eF}{\pi m_\alpha }f_0(E)\mathrm{Im}K_{12}^\beta (E,k)𝑑E,$$
(36)
$`\omega _{\alpha k}`$ $`=`$ $`4\gamma _{\alpha k}+{\displaystyle \frac{E_{c\alpha }^2\gamma _{\beta k}}{\gamma _{ek}\gamma _{hk}\gamma _k^2}},`$ (37)
$`\omega _k`$ $`=`$ $`4\gamma _k+{\displaystyle \frac{E_{ce}E_{ch}\gamma _k}{\gamma _{ek}\gamma _{hk}\gamma _k^2}},`$ (38)
$`\gamma _k=w^2k^2\mathrm{\Gamma }/(E_k^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)`$, $`\gamma _{\alpha k}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha +\gamma _k`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_e+\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$, $`E_k=E_{hk}E_{ek}`$, $`1/m_r=1/m_e+1/m_h`$, and $`x`$ is in the direction of the electric field.

The current density is given by

$$𝐣=\frac{ei}{S\mathrm{}}[H,𝐫]$$
(39)
with $`S`$ the area of the sample. Performing the average over the density matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$, and using Eq. (Magnetotransport of coupled electron-holes) results in

$$𝐣=\frac{e\mathrm{}k_F^3}{2\pi }𝑑k\left[\frac{\stackrel{}{\chi }^{ee}(k)}{m_e}+\frac{\stackrel{}{\chi }^{hh}(k)}{m_h}+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\frac{\stackrel{}{\chi }^{eh}(k)}{m_r}\right].$$
(40)
The mixing of electrons and holes is affecting both the diagonal contributions to the current \[see Eq. Magnetotransport of coupled electron-holes(a,b)\], and the unusual off-diagonal contribution (the origin of the latter is solely due to this mixing).

Equations (Magnetotransport of coupled electron-holes,40) present a semi-analytic expression for the current at any temperature and for any value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, provided the conditions (11,12) are met. \[The only numerical tasks required in order to calculate the current are the integration over energy in Eqs. (3436) and the solution of Eqs. 24\]. Results for the sheet conductance at zero magnetic field and zero temperature as a function of Fermi energy are shown in Fig. 1. Magnetoconductance curves for the case where the Fermi level is in midgap are shown in Fig. 2.

Two important conclusions can be drawn from the results shown in Figs. 1,2. First, it is clear that the zero-temperature conductance does not vanish even when the Fermi level is in the gap. This is due to the finite broadening of the levels $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Moreover, as long as the particles are not localized, conductivity is finite even for very small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This is because the scattering mean free time (proportional to the conductivity) scales as $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ while the overlap of levels in the two hybridized bands is linear with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }E_{g0}`$, Eqs. (Magnetotransport of coupled electron-holes,40) result in a crude estimate of the conductivity, $`g(e^2/h)(E_{g0}/\mathrm{\Delta })`$. At very small values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ states in the middle of the gap become localized, and the conductivity falls to a value close to $`e^2/h`$ (this effect cannot be described by the first Born approximation used in this work). It would be interesting to study the competition between this quantum resistance, usually proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(L/l)`$, with $`L`$ the sample length and $`l`$ the mean free path, and our hybridization resistance, proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }/E_{g0}`$. An opportunity to study the two terms is unique to our system because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not play a role in the conductivity due to states outside the mobility gap. In addition, the logarithmic dependence of the quantum correction on $`L/l`$ was obtained only for purely metallic systems. In our case the Fermi level is located in the hybridization gap, and this correction may assume a different form. In any case, it is emphasized that our result of finite conductivity in the gap, which is consistent with recent experimental results , cannot be understood within a semiclassical Boltzmann theory.

Second, it is seen that magnetoconductance curves are affected by the presence of electron-hole coupling. This result may be of practical importance in the characterization of InAs-GaSb samples. That is because the usual characterization routines use sensitive fitting procedures of classical magnetoconductance expressions to measured data in order to extract four independent parameters: the electron and hole densities and mobilities . The corrections to the classical expressions (i.e., to the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$) due to hybridization may significantly affect the apparent value of these parameters.

In summary, we have studied the transport properties of coupled electron-holes within a full quantum approach. We arrived at a semi-analytic expression for the current under weak electric and magnetic fields, Eqs. (Magnetotransport of coupled electron-holes,40). This current shows strong resistance resonance, does not vanish in the gap, and its magnetic-field dependence depends on the strength of coupling.

We are grateful to O. Agam, I. E. Aleiner, L. J. Cooper, N. K. Patel, M. Finkelstein, and L. D. Shvartsman for valuable discussions. The work in Jerusalem was supported by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We study a two-form gauge-field $`B_{MN}`$ with self-dual field strength, on a six-dimensional manifold. In general there is not a unique partition function for the chiral two-form . Therefore it can not be described by any action in the usual sense (since that should have yielded a unique partition function). One way to compute its candidate partition functions is to holomorphically factorize the partition function for a non-chiral two-form gauge field. The (anti-)holomorphic coordinate one uses reflects the (anti-)chirality of the three-form field strength.

We start by briefly reviewing , where such a holomorphic factorization has been done. On any compact smooth orientable six-dimensional space we can introduce a symplectic basis of three-forms $`E_A`$ and $`E_B`$ with intersection numbers,

$`{\displaystyle E_A}E_A^t=0,{\displaystyle E_A}E_B^t=1`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle E_B}E_A^t=1,{\displaystyle E_B}E_B^t=0.`$ (2)
Here $`E_A`$ and $`E_B`$ are infinite-dimensional column vectors whose elements are three-forms, and $`E_A^t`$ denotes the transponated vector. We let $`[E_A^0]`$ and $`[E_B^0]`$ denote the cohomology classes. This far everything has been defined without requiring a metric. When we introduce an Euclidean metric we get a complex structure in the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of three-forms, defined via the Hodge operator \*. As complex coordinates in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we use $`Z=X+iY`$, defined as

$$E_B=XE_A+YE_A.$$
(3)
We also introduce the period matrix $`Z^0=X^0+iY^0`$ defined as

$$E_B^0=X^0E_A^0+Y^0E_A^0,$$
(4)
where $`E_{A,B}^0`$ are the harmonic representants in their corresponding (metric-independent) cohomology classes. The partition function $`𝒵`$ for a chiral two-form $`B`$ is then given by

$$𝒵=\frac{\theta (Z^0|0)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(Z)}$$
(5)
provided that some non-holomorphic factors have cancelled, which we will discuss in a moment. Here $`\theta `$ is one of the Jacobi theta-functions which we have to pick. (To be able to pick the right one we must have more restrictions on the six-manifold ). The quantum fluctuations contribute with the denominator $`\mathrm{\Delta }(Z)=det{}_{}{}^{^{}}(\mathrm{\Pi }_A+Z\mathrm{\Pi }_B)_{}^{1/2}`$. The prime  indicates that the zero-modes are omitted from the determinant. The matrices $`\mathrm{\Pi }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_B`$ are defined as

$$dF=\mathrm{\Pi }_A^tE_A+\mathrm{\Pi }_B^tE_B,$$
(6)
where $`F`$ is a basis for the space of two-forms modulo closed forms (i.e. an infinite dimensional vector whose elements are these two-forms). We note that the expansion-coefficient matrices $`\mathrm{\Pi }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_B`$ are constant over the manifold, and can be chosen to be independent of the metric (and hence of $`Z`$), since the $`dF`$ are orthogonal to the metric-dependent harmonics.

Now we will now consider the non-holomorphic factors in , and show that they cancel each other, i.e that

$$det{}_{}{}^{^{}}(Z\overline{Z})det(Z^0\overline{Z}^0)=1.$$
(7)
(The prime  indicates that we have removed the $`Z^0`$-part (i.e. the zero mode contribution) from $`Z`$). We then have to define (i.e. regularize) $`det{}_{}{}^{^{}}(Z\overline{Z})`$. We use zeta-function regularization,

$$\underset{p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a=a^{_{p=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|p|^s}|_{s=0}a^{2\zeta (0)+1}=1,$$
(8)
for $`a`$ being any constant number. The zeta-function fulfils $`\zeta (0)=\frac{1}{2}`$. If we construct the symplectic basis by taking the harmonics and eventually some further three-forms to get $`({}_{3}{}^{6})=20`$ independent three-forms $`E^{MNP}`$ ($`M,N,\mathrm{}1,\mathrm{}6`$), in the sense that $`f_{MNP}(x)E^{MNP}=0`$ (x is a point on the six-manifold) implies that the functions $`f_{MNP}0`$, and then multiply these basis-forms by a complete set of functions (all functions, and the basis-forms are constrained by (2)) we have constructed a basis for the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which gives

$$Z_{p,q}(x)=Z_{ext}^0(x)\delta _{p,q}$$
(9)
where $`Z_{ext}^0`$ is a $`20\times 20`$-matrix which arises from the basis-forms, and which contains the contribution from the harmonics as one block. (On $`T^6`$ all the twenty three-forms $`(E_A)_{,0}^{mn}`$ and $`(E_B)_{mn,0}`$, corresponding to $`p=0`$, are associated with harmonics since the $`3^{rd}`$ Betti-number is $`b^3(T^6)=20`$ so in that case $`Z_{ext}^0=Z^0`$.) Zeta-function regularization now yields

$$det(Z\overline{Z})=\underset{p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}det(Z_{ext}^0\overline{Z}_{ext}^0)=1,$$
(10)
where we this time have not omitted the zero-modes (i.e. harmonic forms) from the determinant. Thus we have proved (7).

In the rest of this paper we will compute the determinant in (5), which arose from the quantum fluctuations around the classical solution (to the classical equation of motion $`dH=0`$) in the path integral. We will restrict ourselves to a flat six-torus. We will find that this determinant is equal to the oscillator contribution in the hamilton formalism as obtained in . We then prove that exactly one of the partition functions is modular invariant (i.e. invariant under the mapping class group $`SL(6,Z)`$ of the six-torus). We also show that if we happened to choose another symplectic basis, the partition functions just transform among themselves.

This is a revised version, where we also show (for a suitable choice of our symplectic basis) that $`\theta [{}_{00\mathrm{}0}{}^{00\mathrm{}0}]`$ is the only candidating theta-function as a modular invariant partition function on manifolds of the form $`T_2\times M_4`$, for $`M_4`$ being any compact, simply connected four-manifold. This gives a further motivation of the choice of theta-function made in .

## 2 The computation

We will now compute the contribution from the quantum fluctuations to the partition function for a chiral two-form, $`B`$, on a six-torus. We let $`\theta ^M=(\theta ^m,\theta ^6)[0,1]\times \mathrm{}\times [0,1]`$ ($`m,n,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},5`$) denote the coordinates on the six-torus. As a symplectic basis of three forms we choose

$`(E_A)^{mn}_{,p}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i2\pi p_R\theta ^R}d\theta ^md\theta ^nd\theta ^6`$ (11)
$`(E_B)_{mn}_{,p}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i2\pi p_R\theta ^R}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\epsilon _{mnMNP6}d\theta ^Md\theta ^Nd\theta ^P`$ (12)
and as a set for the space $`F`$ of two forms modulo closed forms we choose

$$F^{mn}{}_{,p}{}^{}=\frac{e^{i2\pi p_R\theta ^R}}{2\pi i}d\theta ^md\theta ^n.$$
(13)
We have then used the gauge fixing condition $`F^{m6}=0`$. Due to periodic boundary conditions we have $`pZ^6`$. We then find

$`(\mathrm{\Pi }_A^t)^{rs}_{mn,p}`$ $`=`$ $`p_6\delta _{mn}^{rs}`$ (14)
$`(\mathrm{\Pi }_B^t)^{rs}_{,p}^{,mn}`$ $`=`$ $`p_p{\displaystyle \frac{G}{2}}\epsilon ^{rspmn6}.`$ (15)
The matrix $`Z`$ for this choice of the symplectic basis is

$$Z_{pq}=Z^0\delta _{p,q}$$
(16)
where

$$(Z^0)_{mn,rs}=\frac{1}{G^{66}}[\frac{1}{2}G^{6t}\epsilon _{mnrst6}i\frac{G_{m[r}G_{|n|s]}}{\sqrt{G}}].$$
(17)
This period matrix is computed in the appendix. We note that it belongs to (a subspace of) Siegel’s upper half-plane ($`Z=Z^t`$ and Im $`Z^1>0`$) and that it is conformally invariant. This should be so because the Hodge dual operator is conformally invariant and the form of our symplectic basis is independent of the metric.

We will now compute the determinant of

$`(\mathrm{\Pi }_+)_{rs}{}_{}{}^{mn}_{,p}`$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_A)_{rs}{}_{,p}{}^{mn}+(Z^0)_{rs,r^{}s^{}}(\mathrm{\Pi }_B)_{,p}^{r^{}s^{},mn}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`p_6\delta _{rs}^{mn}+3p_p{\displaystyle \frac{G^{6t}}{G^{66}}}\delta _{trs}^{pmn}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}p_p{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{G}}{G^{66}}}\epsilon _{rs}^{pmn6}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`p_6\delta _{rs}^{mn}3p^pG_{6t}\delta _{prs}^{tmn}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}p^p{\displaystyle \frac{g}{G^{66}\sqrt{G}}}\epsilon _{rsp}^{mn}`$ (20)
for each fixed $`pZ^6`$. In the last step we have used the relations (86) and (87). We can linearly transform each $`pZ^6`$ separately

$$p^pp\delta _1^p$$
(21)
in such a way that the distances are preserved,

$$g_{pq}p^pp^q=g_{11}p^2,$$
(22)
without changing the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+`$. Then

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }_+)_{rs}{}_{,p}{}^{mn}=p_6\delta _{rs}^{mn}3pG_{6t}\delta _{1rs}^{tmn}\frac{i}{2}p\frac{g}{G^{66}\sqrt{G}}\epsilon _{rs1}{}_{}{}^{mn}.$$
(23)
We note that $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_+)_{1a}{}_{,p}{}^{dc}=0`$, so in order to compute the determinant we only have to consider the two blocks $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_+)_{1a}{}_{,p}{}^{1c}=\frac{1}{2}\delta _a^cp_6`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_+)_{ba}{}_{}{}^{dc}_{,p}`$ ($`a,b,\mathrm{}=2,\mathrm{},5`$). The determinant of the former block is an infinite product which however does not depend on the metric and so can be disregarded. In order to compute the determinant of the second block we determine its eigenvalues by making the ansatz

$$V_{cd}^{[ab]}=Ag_{p1}\epsilon _{cd}{}_{}{}^{pab}+B\delta _{cd}^{ab}$$
(24)
for the six eigenvectors, labeled by the multi-index \[ab\]. ($`A`$ and $`B`$ are some coefficients). Inserting this ansatz in the eigenvalue equation $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+V=\lambda V`$, identifying the coefficients in front of $`\epsilon _{cd1}^{ab}`$ and $`\delta _{cd}^{ab}`$, and solving the secular equation, we find the eigenvalues

$$\lambda _\pm =p_6pG_{61}\pm ip\frac{\sqrt{gg_{11}}}{G^{66}\sqrt{G}}$$
(25)
In order to see the $`p_m`$-dependence better, we transform back:

$$\lambda _\pm =p_6+p_m\frac{G^{m6}}{G^{66}}\pm i\sqrt{\frac{g^{mn}p_mp_n}{G^{66}}}$$
(26)
We have then used the formulas (22), (86) and (88) in appendix. The degeneracy of $`\lambda _\pm `$ is 3 for each sign.111There are 6 eigenvectors to $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_+)_{ab}^{cd}`$. But for each ansatz $`V^{[ab]}`$ we get two solutions, say $`V_\pm ^{[ab]}`$, corresponding to the eigenvalues $`\lambda _\pm `$. These $`6\times 2=12`$ solutions must then be linearly dependent. It turns out that only 3 of the eigenvectors corresponding to $`\lambda _+`$ are linearly independent (and 3 corresponding to $`\lambda _{}`$). To see this we note that if $`V_+^{[ab]}`$ and $`V_+^{[cd]}`$ are linearly independent, then so are also $`V_{}^{[ab]}`$ and $`V_{}^{[cd]}`$, which follows from that $`g^{11}0`$. We note that $`g^{11}0`$ because the metric tensor is a real and symmetric matrix and hence it can be diagonalized by an orthogonal matrix, say $`S`$. Thus $`S^1gS=S^tgS=`$diag$`((R_1)^2,\mathrm{},(R_5)^2)`$. ($`R_m`$ is the radius of circle $`m`$ in the torus.) So $`g^{11}=_mS^1{}_{m}{}^{}S_{}^{1}{}_{m}{}^{}/R_m^2>0`$. We then get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(Z^0)=\underset{p}{}{}_{}{}^{}(\lambda _+\lambda _{})_{}^{3}=\underset{p}{}{}_{}{}^{}|\lambda _+|^6.$$
(27)
(The prime indicates that the product is over non-zero eigenvalues.) Written in this way it is manifestly real and positive.222It must be regularized in an $`SL(6,Z)`$-invariant way first though. This can be done as follows
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(Z^0)\mathrm{exp}\frac{}{s}E(s)|_{s=0}$$
(28) where we define
$$E(s)=\underset{p}{}{}_{}{}^{}|\lambda _+|^{6s},$$
(29) which converges when Re$`(s)>1`$. In the rest of the complex plane we define $`E(s)`$ by its analytic continuation. Then $`E(s)`$ has a simple pole at $`s=1`$ and is regular otherwise. The analytic function $`F(s)E(s)(s1)`$ is real for real s for which Re$`(s)>1`$, which means that the (indeed analytic) function $`\overline{F(\overline{s})}F(s)`$ is zero on this real half-line, and hence vanish identically by a fundamental theorem in complex analysis. Hence $`F(s)`$ is real on the whole real axis, and so $`\mathrm{\Delta }(Z^0)`$ is real and positive. It should be noted that we have only computed $`\mathrm{\Delta }(Z^0)`$ in the subspace of Siegels upper half-plane. It is only in this subspace that we say that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(Z^0)`$ is real and positive. By multiplying the eigenvalues in a different order one can recover the answer obtained in , which however is not manifestly real and positive.

### 2.1 Modular invariance

Different choices of the symplectic basis should yield the same partition function, modulo the different candidate partition functions. The harmonic part of the symplectic basis is unique only up to a $`Sp(10,Z)`$-transformation. The large diffeomorphisms generate the mapping class group. On the six-torus this group is $`SL(6,Z)`$. It can be embedded in $`Sp(10,Z)`$ by noting that a diffeomorphism

$$d\theta ^MU^M{}_{N}{}^{}d\theta ^N$$
(30)
($`USL(6,Z)`$) implies an $`Sp(10,Z)`$-transformation on the harmonic three-forms $`E_{A,B}`$ since $`𝑑\theta ^1\mathrm{}d\theta ^6`$, and thereby the symplectic product, is invariant under $`SL(6,Z)`$-transformations. Thus (30) gives rise to a transformation in Sp(10,Z),333To avoid to much cluttering we will in the following consequently mean the harmonic forms $`E_{A(B)}^0`$ when we write $`E_{A(B)}`$.

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}E_A^{}\\ E_B^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}E_A\\ A_B\end{array}\right)$$
(31)
and

$$Z_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}=(C+DZ^0)(A+BZ^0)^1.$$
(32)
Some symplectic transformations don’t arise from any diffeomorphism. To study the effect of such transformations we keep $`\theta ^M`$ fixed (since the effect of changing the coordinates can be treated separately). These transformations can be chosen to be representatives of the equivalence classes in $`Sp(10,Z)/SL(6,Z)`$. By noting that $`dF=\mathrm{\Pi }_A^tE_A+\mathrm{\Pi }_B^tE_B=(\mathrm{\Pi }_A^t+\mathrm{\Pi }_B^t\widehat{Z})E_A=(\mathrm{\Pi }_A^t+\mathrm{\Pi }_B^t\widehat{Z}^t)E_A=(\mathrm{\Pi }_A+\widehat{Z}\mathrm{\Pi }_B)^tE_A=\mathrm{\Pi }_+^tE_A`$ (here $`\widehat{Z}X+Y`$) and, that under these representative transformations, $`dF^{}=dF`$ where $`E_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=AE_A+BE_B=(A+B\widehat{Z})E_A`$, we get

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{+}^{t}{}_{}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Pi }_+^t(A+BZ)^1.$$
(33)
The non-chiral partition function, $`𝒵(Z^0)\overline{𝒵(Z^0)}`$, is modular invariant (by which we mean invariant under transformations in the mapping class group, in this case $`SL(6,Z)`$) since it is defined from an action which is invariant under diffeomorphisms. Hence the chiral partition function transforms with at most a phase factor under modular transformations. Analyticity of the chiral partition function and reality of the phase implies that this phase must be a constant, i.e. independent of $`Z^0`$. (A real-valued analytic function must be a constant.)

We will temporarily consider manifolds of the form $`M_6=T_2\times M_4`$ where $`M_4`$ is simply-connected . We let $`\{e^i\}`$ be an ON basis of $`H^2(M_4,𝐙)`$ and $`\{a,b\}`$ a symplectic basis of $`H^1(T_2,𝐙)`$, $`_{T_2}ab=1`$. Further we let $`Q^{ij}=_{M_4}e^ie^j`$ be the intersection matrix of $`M_4`$. It fulfils $`Q^{ij}=Q^{ji}`$ and $`Q^2=1`$. We can then define a symplectic basis on $`H^3(T_2\times M_4,𝐙)`$ as

$`E_A^i`$ $`=`$ $`e^ib`$ (34)
$`E_B^j`$ $`=`$ $`Q^{jk}e^ka.`$ (35)
The theta function $`\theta [{}_{\theta }{}^{\varphi }]`$ can be determined from the holonomies  $`H(E_{A(B)})`$ via the relations

$`H(E_A^i)`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{2\varphi ^i}`$ (36)
$`H(E_B^j)`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{2\theta ^j}.`$ (37)
The mapping class group $`SL(2,Z)`$ of $`T_2`$ is generated by $`T:aa+b`$ and $`S:ab`$, $`ba`$. These induce the following transformations of the symplectic basis of three-forms,

$`T:\left(\begin{array}{c}E_A\\ E_B\end{array}\right)`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ Q& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}E_A\\ E_B\end{array}\right)`$ (44)
$`S:\left(\begin{array}{c}E_A\\ E_B\end{array}\right)`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& Q\\ Q& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}E_A\\ E_B\end{array}\right).`$ (51)
Invariance under $`SL(2,Z)`$ implies that the holonomies are constrained by

$$H(E_B)=H(QE_A+E_B)$$
(52)
under the $`T`$-transformation, and by

$`H(E_A)`$ $`=`$ $`H(QE_B)`$ (53)
$`H(E_B)`$ $`=`$ $`H(QE_A)`$ (54)
under the $`S`$-transformation. Further these holonomies are always constrained by

$$H(E+F)=H(E)H(F)(1)^{{\scriptscriptstyle E}F},$$
(55)
for any $`E,F`$ in the lattice $`H^3(T_2\times M_4,Z)`$, generated by $`E_{A(B)}`$ with integer coefficients. So we get first from the $`T`$-transformation

$$H(Q^{ij}E_A^j+E_B^i)=H(Q^{ij}E_A^j)H(E_B^i)(1)^{{\scriptscriptstyle Q^{ij}E_A^j}E_B^i}$$
(56)
which, by using (52), (54) and the fact that $`Q^{ii}=0`$, reduces to

$$H(E_B^i)=1,$$
(57)
and second from the $`S`$-transformation

$$H(E_A^i)=H(Q^{i1}E_B^1)H(Q^{i2}E_B^2)\mathrm{}H(Q^{i,\frac{b_3}{2}}E_B^{\frac{b_3}{2}})=1.$$
(58)
This corresponds to the theta function $`\theta [_{00\mathrm{}0}^{00\mathrm{}0}]`$.

We will now return to the flat six-torus. Then, under the $`SL(2,Z)`$ generated by $`S`$ and $`T`$, the theta-function found above transforms as follows (see e.g. ),444The phase factor can be determined by expressing the spin-structure theta-function in terms of $`D_1`$ conjugacy class theta-functions. We find that $`\theta [{}_{00\mathrm{}}{}^{00\mathrm{}}]=\theta _{[00\mathrm{}0]}+(\theta _{[v0\mathrm{}0]}+\theta _{[0v\mathrm{}0]}+\mathrm{}\theta _{[00\mathrm{}v]})+(\theta _{[vv0\mathrm{}0]}+`$permutations$`)+\mathrm{}+\theta _{[vv\mathrm{}v]}`$. One knows how each conjugacy class theta-function transforms. The $`SL(2,Z)`$-generator $`T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ Q& 1\end{array}\right)`$ can be expressed in terms of the generators $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ E_k& 1\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ F_{kl}& 1\end{array}\right)`$ of $`Sp(10,Z)`$, where    $`(E_k)_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}\delta _{ik}`$  (59)   $`(F_{kl})_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}(\delta _{ki}+\delta _{li})+\delta _{kj}\delta _{li}+\delta _{ki}\delta _{lj}`$  (60) as follows:
$$Q^{ij}=\underset{k,l}{}(2Q^{kl}(E_k)^{ij}+Q^{kl}(F_{kl})^{ij}).$$
(61) Under the $`T`$-transformation the $`D_1`$ conjugacy class theta-function $`\theta _{[x_1\mathrm{}x_{\frac{1}{2}b_3}]}`$, with the conjugacy classes ($`x_i`$) being either (0) or (v), transforms with the phase factor
$$e^{i\pi _{k,l}Q^{kl}(x_kx_l+x_k+x_l)}=1.$$
(62) where we have used $`Q^{ij}=Q^{ji}`$. This leads to (64) for the $`T`$-transformation. The $`SL(2,Z)`$ generator $`S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& Q\\ Q& 0\end{array}\right)`$ can be expressed in terms of the generators $`\stackrel{~}{S}^i:(E_A)^i(E_B)^i`$, $`(E_B)^i(E_A)^i`$ and $`T`$ as
$$S=(\stackrel{~}{S}T)^3\stackrel{~}{S}$$
(63) where we have defined $`\stackrel{~}{S}\stackrel{~}{S}^1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{S}^{\frac{1}{2}b_3}`$. This leads to (64) for the $`S`$-transformation.

$`\theta [{}_{00\mathrm{}0}{}^{00\mathrm{}0}](Z_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{})=\sqrt{det(A+BZ^0)}\theta [{}_{00\mathrm{}0}{}^{00\mathrm{}0}](Z^0).`$ (64)
The flat six-torus corresponds to $`M_4=T_4`$. Now $`T_4`$ is not simply-connected, which implies that there are three-forms in $`H^3(T_6,Z)`$ which can not be written in the form (35). If we as a typical two-torus choose that with $`a=d\theta ^1`$ and $`b=d\theta ^6`$, then $`d\theta ^ad\theta ^1d\theta ^6`$ and $`d\theta ^ad\theta ^bd\theta ^c`$ ($`a,b,c,\mathrm{}2,\mathrm{},5`$) are those three-forms which are not in the form (35). However, under the modular group of this two-torus, these three-forms are invariant. On the remaining three-forms,

$`(E_A)^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`d\theta ^ad\theta ^bb`$ (65)
$`(E_B)_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _{1abcd}d\theta ^cd\theta ^da,`$ (66)
the $`S`$ and $`T`$ transformations act as

$`S:\left(\begin{array}{cc}(E_A)^{ab}& \\ (E_B)_{cd}& \end{array}\right)`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{g}{2}\epsilon ^{1abgh}\\ \frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{1cdef}& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}(E_A)^{ef}\\ (E_B)_{gh}\end{array}\right)`$ (73)
$`T:\left(\begin{array}{c}(E_A)^{ab}\\ (E_B)_{cd}\end{array}\right)`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta _{ef}^{ab}& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{1cdef}& \delta _{cd}^{gh}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}(E_A)^{ef}\\ (E_B)_{gh}\end{array}\right).`$ (80)
For the transformations $`S`$ and $`T`$ we find that $`\sqrt{det(A+BZ^0)}`$ is real and positive (being equal to, respectively, $`(\lambda _+\lambda _{})^{3/2}|_{p_M=(1,0,0,0,0,0)}`$ and to $`1`$). The mapping class group $`SL(6,Z)`$ of $`T_6`$ can be generated by the $`SL(2,Z)`$ above together with transformations between various two-tori, such as $`d\theta ^1d\theta ^2`$, $`d\theta ^2d\theta ^1`$, for which $`det(A+BZ^0)=1`$ ($`A`$ becomes a permutatation and $`B=0`$). Since (64) holds also for such transformations (which is most easily seen by taking $`Z^0`$ to be a fixed point under permutations), we have that $`\sqrt{det(A+BZ^0)}`$ is real and positive for any $`SL(6,Z)`$ transformation.

Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }(Z^0)`$ also was found to be real and positive for any $`Z^0`$ related to some metric, we must thus have the transformation rule

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(Z_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{})=\sqrt{det(A+BZ^0)}\mathrm{\Delta }(Z^0)$$
(81)
under the mapping class group $`SL(6,Z)`$. Hence the partition function is modular invariant.

For the representative transformations in $`Sp(10,Z)/SL(6,Z)`$ we find

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(Z^0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}det(\mathrm{\Pi }_{+,p})^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}det(\mathrm{\Pi }_{+,p}(A+BZ^0)^1)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}det(\mathrm{\Pi }_{+,p})^{1/2}\right){\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}det(A+BZ^0)^{1/2}`$ (82)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{det(A+BZ^0)}{\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}det(\mathrm{\Pi }_{+,p})=\sqrt{det(A+BZ^0)}\mathrm{\Delta }(Z^0),`$ (83)
where we have applied (8). Noting that the Jacobi $`\theta `$-functions transform in a similar way among each other, we have thus proved that the partition function is independent of which symplectic basis we choose, modulo the different candidate partition functions. Actually each of the $`2^{20}`$ theta-functions corresponds to some choice of the symplectic basis $`E_{A(B)}`$.555By applying on the symplectic basis (66) the following $`Sp(10,Z)`$-transformation
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}(E_A^{})^{ab}\\ (E_B^{})_{cd}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta _{ef}^{ab}& (E_{ij})^{ab,gh}\\ 0& \delta _{cd}^{gh}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}(E_A)^{ef}\\ (E_B)_{gh}\end{array}\right)$$
(84) where $`(E_{ij})^{ab,gh}=\delta _{ij}^{ab}\delta _{ij}^{gh}`$, we get, from (55), that $`H((E_A^{})_{}^{ij}{}_{}{}^{})=1`$ and all the other holonomies equal to $`+1`$. By then applying the $`Sp(10,Z)`$-transformation
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}(E_A^{})^{ab}\\ (E_B^{})_{cd}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta _{ef}^{ab}(E_{ij})^{ab}_{ef}& (E_{ij})^{ab,gh}\\ (E_{ij})^{ab}_{ef}& \delta _{cd}^{gh}(E_{ij})_{cd}^{gh}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}(E_A)^{ef}\\ (E_B)_{gh}\end{array}\right)$$
(85) we get instead $`H((E_B^{})^{ij})=1`$ and all other equal to $`+1`$. By repeatedly applying these two kinds of $`Sp(10,Z)`$-transformations we can reach any theta function. Such transformations of course also changes the period matrix at the same time.

I want to thank Måns Henningson, Bengt E. W. Nilsson and Per Salomonson for discussions.

## Appendix A Appendix - Computation of the period matrix

There are in this paper some frequently used relations between the five-dimensional tensors (the metric $`g_{mn}`$ and $`\epsilon _{mnpqr}`$, $`m,n,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},5`$) and the six-dimensional tensors ($`G_{MN}`$ and $`\epsilon _{MNPQRS}`$, $`M,N,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},6`$. Here $`\epsilon _{123456}1`$):

$`G^{6r}g_{rt}`$ $`=`$ $`G^{66}G_{6t}`$ (86)
$`G\epsilon ^{rspmn6}`$ $`=`$ $`g\epsilon ^{rspmn}`$ (87)
$`G^{66}`$ $`=`$ $`g/G`$ (88)
where $`G`$ and $`g`$ are determinants of corresponding metrices.

The period matrix $`Z^0=X^0+iY^0`$ (which acts on three-forms in the isomorphic form $`\widehat{Z}^0=X^0+Y^0`$) on a six-torus can be obtained as follows:

$`d\theta ^md\theta ^nd\theta ^p\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Z}}^{mnp}{}_{rs}{}^{}d\theta ^rd\theta ^sd\theta ^6`$ (92)
$`\stackrel{~}{X}^{mnp}{}_{rs}{}^{}d\theta ^rd\theta ^sd\theta ^6+\stackrel{~}{Y}^{mnp}{}_{rs}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{G}}{6}}\epsilon ^{rs6}{}_{MNP}{}^{}d\theta ^Md\theta ^Nd\theta ^P`$
$`=(\stackrel{~}{X}^{mnp}{}_{rs}{}^{}+\stackrel{~}{Y}^{mnp}{}_{uv}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{G}}{2}}\epsilon ^{uv6}{}_{rs6}{}^{})d\theta ^rd\theta ^sd\theta ^6`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{Y}^{mnp}{}_{uv}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{G}}{6}}\epsilon ^{uv6}{}_{m^{}n^{}p^{}}{}^{}d\theta ^m^{}d\theta ^n^{}d\theta ^p^{}`$
$``$ (95)
$`\stackrel{~}{X}^{mnp}{}_{rs}{}^{}+\stackrel{~}{Y}^{mnp}{}_{uv}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{G}}{2}}\epsilon ^{uv6}{}_{rs6}{}^{}=0`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Y}^{mnp}{}_{uv}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{G}}{6}}\epsilon ^{uv6}{}_{m^{}n^{}p^{}}{}^{}=\delta _{m^{}n^{}p^{}}^{mnp}`$
$``$ (98)
$`\stackrel{~}{Y}^{mnp}{}_{uv}{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{G}\epsilon ^{mnp}_{uv}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{X}^{mnp}{}_{rs}{}^{}=3\delta _{rst}^{mnp}g^{tp^{}}G_{p^{}6}`$
$``$ (102)
$`(Z^0)_{mn,uv}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\epsilon _{mnrst}\stackrel{~}{Z}^{rst}_{uv}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _{mnuvp}g^{pp^{}}G_{p^{}6}i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{G}}{g}}g_{m[u}g_{|n|v]}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{G^{66}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{6p}\epsilon _{mnuvp6}i{\displaystyle \frac{G_{m[u}G_{|n|v]}}{\sqrt{G}}}]`$


text:
# New Measurements of Nucleon Structure Functions from the CCFR/NuTeV Collaboration

## Abstract

We report on the extraction of the structure functions $`F_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3=xF_3^\nu `$-$`xF_3^{\overline{\nu }}`$ from CCFR $`\nu _\mu `$-Fe and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$-Fe differential cross sections. The extraction is performed in a physics model independent (PMI) way. This first measurement for $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$, which is useful in testing models of heavy charm production, is higher than current theoretical predictions. The $`F_2`$ (PMI) values measured in $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\mu `$ scattering are in good agreement with the predictions of Next to Leading Order PDFs (using massive charm production schemes), thus resolving the long-standing discrepancy between the two sets of data.

Deep inelastic lepton-nucleon scattering experiments have been used to determine the quark distributions in the nucleon. However, the quark distributions determined from muon and neutrino experiments were found to be different at small values of $`x`$, because of a disagreement in the extracted structure functions. Here, we report on a measurement of differential cross sections and structure functions from CCFR $`\nu _\mu `$-Fe and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$-Fe data. We find that the neutrino-muon difference is resolved by extracting the $`\nu _\mu `$ structure functions in a physics model independent way.

The sum of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ differential cross sections for charged current interactions on an isoscalar target is related to the structure functions as follows:

| $`F(ϵ)`$ | $`\left[\frac{d^2\sigma ^\nu }{dxdy}+\frac{d^2\sigma ^{\overline{\nu }}}{dxdy}\right]\frac{(1ϵ)\pi }{y^2G_F^2ME_\nu }`$ $`=2xF_1[1+ϵR]+\frac{y(1y/2)}{1+(1y)^2}\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$. |
| --- | --- |

Here $`G_F`$ is the Fermi weak coupling constant, $`M`$ is the nucleon mass, $`E_\nu `$ is the incident energy, the scaling variable $`y=E_h/E_\nu `$ is the fractional energy transferred to the hadronic vertex, $`E_h`$ is the final state hadronic energy, and $`ϵ2(1y)/(1+(1y)^2)`$ is the polarization of the virtual $`W`$ boson. The structure function $`2xF_1`$ is expressed in terms of $`F_2`$ by $`2xF_1(x,Q^2)=F_2(x,Q^2)\times \frac{1+4M^2x^2/Q^2}{1+R(x,Q^2)}`$, where $`Q^2`$ is the square of the four-momentum transfer to the nucleon, $`x=Q^2/2ME_h`$ (the Bjorken scaling variable) is the fractional momentum carried by the struck quark, and $`R=\frac{\sigma _L}{\sigma _T}`$ is the ratio of the cross-sections of longitudinally- to transversely-polarized $`W`$-bosons. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ term, which in leading order $`4x(sc)`$, is not present in the $`\mu `$-scattering case. In addition, in a $`\nu _\mu `$ charged current interaction with $`s`$ (or $`\overline{c}`$) quarks, there is a threshold suppression originating from the production of heavy $`c`$ quarks in the final state. For $`\mu `$-scattering, there is no suppression for scattering from $`s`$ quarks, but more suppression when scattering from $`c`$ quarks since there are two heavy quarks ($`c`$ and $`\overline{c}`$) in the final state.

In previous analyses of $`\nu _\mu `$ data, light-flavor universal physics model dependent (PMD) structure functions were extracted by applying a slow rescaling correction to correct for the charm mass suppression in the final state. In addition, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ term (used as input in the extraction) was calculated from a leading order charm production model. These resulted in a physics model dependent (PMD) structure functions. In the new analysis reported here, slow rescaling corrections are not applied, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ and $`F_2`$ are extracted from two parameter fits to the data. We compare the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ to various charm production models. The extracted physics model independent (PMI) values for $`F_2^\nu `$ are then compared with $`F_2^\mu `$ within the framework of NLO models for massive charm production.

The CCFR experiment collected data using the Fermilab Tevatron Quad-Triplet wide-band $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ beam. The raw differential cross sections per nucleon on iron are determined in bins of $`x`$, $`y`$, and $`E_\nu `$ ($`0.01<x<0.65`$, $`0.05<y<0.95`$, and $`30<E_\nu <360`$. GeV). Figure 1 (a) shows typical differential cross sections at $`E_\nu =150`$ GeV. Next, the raw cross sections are corrected for electroweak radiative effects, the $`W`$ boson propagator, and for the 5.67% non-isoscalar excess of neutrons over protons in iron (only important at high $`x`$). Values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ and $`F_2`$ are extracted from the sums of the corrected $`\nu _\mu `$-Fe and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$-Fe differential cross sections at different energy bins according to Eq. (1). It is challenging to fit $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$, $`R`$, and $`2xF_1`$ using the $`y`$ distribution at a given $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ because of the strong correlation between the $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ and $`R`$ terms, unless the full range of $`y`$ is covered by the data. Covering this range (especially the high $`y`$ region) is hard because of the low acceptance. Therefore, we restrict the analysis to two parameter fits. Our strategy is to fit $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ and $`2xF_1`$ (or equivalently $`F_2`$) for $`x<0.1`$ where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ contribution is relatively large, while constraining $`R`$ using the $`R_{world}^{\mu /e}`$ QCD inspired empirical fit to all available $`R`$ from electron- and $`\mu `$-scattering data. The $`R_{world}^{\mu /e}`$ fit is also in good agreement with NMC $`R^\mu `$ data at low $`x`$, and with the most recent NNLO QCD calculations (including target mass effects) of $`R`$ by Bodek and Yang

For $`x<0.1`$, $`R`$ in neutrino scattering is expected to be somewhat larger than $`R`$ for muon scattering because of the production of massive charm quarks in the final state. A correction for this difference is applied to $`R_{world}^{\mu /e}`$ using a leading order slow rescaling model to obtain an effective $`R`$ for neutrino scattering, $`R_{eff}^\nu `$. The difference between $`R_{world}^{\mu /e}`$ and $`R_{eff}^\nu `$ is used as a systematic error. Because of the positive correlation between $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$, the extracted values of $`F_2`$ are rather insensitive to the input $`R`$. If a large input $`R`$ is used, a larger value of $`xF_3`$ is extracted from the $`y`$ distribution, thus yielding the same value of $`F_2`$. In contrast, the extracted values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ are sensitive to the assumed value of $`R`$, which is reflected in a larger systematic error. The values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ are sensitive to the energy dependence of the neutrino flux ($``$ $`y`$ dependence), but are insensitive to the absolute normalization. The uncertainty on the flux shape is estimated by using the constraint that $`F_2`$ and $`xF_3`$ should be flat over $`y`$ (or $`E_\nu `$) for each $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ bin.

Because of the limited statistics, we use large bins in $`Q^2`$ in the extraction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ with bin centering corrections from the NLO Thorne & Roberts Variable Flavor Scheme (TR-VFS) calculation with the MRST PDFs. Figure 1 (b) shows the extracted values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ as a function of $`x`$, including both statistical and systematic errors, compared to various theoretical methods for modeling heavy charm productions within a QCD framework. The three-flavor Fixed Flavor Scheme (FFS) assumes that there is no intrinsic charm in the nucleon, and all scattering from $`c`$ quarks occurs via the gluon-fusion diagram. The concept behind the Variable Flavor Scheme (VFS) proposed by ACOT is that at low scale, $`\mu `$, one uses the three-flavor FFS scheme, and above some scale, one changes to a four-flavor calculation and an intrinsic charm sea (which is evolved from zero) is introduced. The concept in the RT-VFS scheme is that it starts with the three-flavor FFS scheme at a low scale, becomes the four-flavor VFS scheme at high scale, and interpolates smoothly between the two regions. Shown are the predictions from the TR-VFS scheme (as corrected after DIS-2000 and implemented with MRST PDFs), with their suggested scale $`\mu =Q`$, and the predictions of the other two NLO calculations, ACOT-VFS (implemented with CTEQ4HQ and the recent ACOT suggested scale $`\mu =m_c`$ for $`Q<m_c`$, and $`\mu ^2=m_c{}_{}{}^{2}+cQ^2(1m_c{}_{}{}^{2}/Q^2)^n`$ for $`Q<m_c`$ with $`c=0.5`$ and $`n=2`$), and the FFS (implemented with the GRV94 PDFs and GRV94 recommended scale $`\mu =2m_c`$). Also shown are the predictions from $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_34Ks(x,Q^2)`$ from a leading order model (LO(CCFR)) Buras-Gaemers type fit to the CCFR dimuon data (here K is a slow rescaling correction). Figure 1 (b) (right) also shows the sensitivity to the choice of scale. The data do not favor the ACOT-VFS(CTEQ4HQ) predictions if implemented with an earlier suggested scale of $`\mu =2Pt_{max}`$. With reasonable choices of scale, all the theoretical models yield similar results. However, at low $`Q^2`$ our $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ data are higher than all the theortical models. The difference between data and theory may be due to an underestimate of the strange sea (or gluon distribution) at low $`Q^2`$, or from missing NNLO terms.

As discussed above, values of $`F_2`$ (PMI) for $`x<0.1`$ are extracted from two parameter fits to the $`y`$ distributions. In the $`x>0.1`$ region, the contribution from $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ is small and the extracted values of $`F_2`$ are insensitive to $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$. Therefore, we extract values of $`F_2`$ with an input value of $`R`$ and with $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ constrained to the TR-VFS(MRST) predictions. As in the case of the two parameter fits for $`x<0.1`$, no corrections for slow rescaling are applied. Fig. 2 (a) shows our $`F_2`$ (PMI) measurements divided by the predictions from the TR-VFS(MRST) theory. Also shown are $`F_2^\mu `$ and $`F_2^e`$ from the NMC divided by the theory predictions. In the calculation of the QCD TR-VFS(MRST) predictions, we have also included corrections for nuclear effects, target mass and higher twist corrections at low values of $`Q^2`$. As seen in Fig. 2, both the CCFR and NMC structure functions are in good agreement with the TR-VFS(MRST) predictions, and therefore in good agreement with each other. A comparison using the ACOT-VFS(CTEQ4HQ) predictions yields similar results.

In the previous analysis of the CCFR data, the extracted values of $`F_2`$ (PMD) at the lowest $`x=0.015`$ and $`Q^2`$ bin were up to $`20\%`$ higher than both the NMC data and the predictions of the light-flavor MRSR2 PDFs. (see figure 2 (b) ). About half of the difference originates from having used a leading order model for $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ versus using our new measurement. The other half originates from having used the leading order slow rescaling corrections, instead of using a NLO massive charm production model, and from improved modeling of the low $`Q^2`$ PDFs (which changes the radiative corrections and the overall absolute normalization to the total neutrino cross sections).

In conclusion, the $`F_2`$ (PMI) values measured in neutrino-iron and muon-deuterium scattering show good agreement with with the predictions of Next to Leading Order PDFs (using massive charm production schemes), thus resolving the long-standing discrepancy between the two sets of data. The first measurements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ are higher than current theoretical predictions.


text:
# Gravitational Wave Chirp Search: Economization of PN Matched Filter Bank via Cardinal Interpolation

## I Introduction

Black hole (BH) and neutron star (NS) binaries end their lives by emitting a chirp-like burst of gravitational wave (GW) radiation. The inspiral radiation from NS-NS sources located within a distance of 20 Mpc, and BH-BH sources within 200 Mpc, should be observable by a first-generation network of ground-based long-baseline interferometric GW detectors review . Correlating the detector output (data) with a family of expected waveforms (templates) and using the largest correlator as a detection statistic, provides the best detection strategy for Gaussian colored stationary noise (maximum likelihood, matched filtering SigTh ), but as we will not know the waveform parameters beforehand, a bank of 10-100 thousands of templates will have to be used so as not to miss out any source Owe\_Sat99 . Data analysis groups have been, therefore, steadily looking for data analysis economization strategies.

In setting up a bank of templates to search for a signal with uknown parameters the quantity of interest why  is the (frequency domain) scalar product between the signal $`h()`$ and the template(s) $`g()`$. The scalar product defined in this context is similar to the usual vector space definition, except that the measure is derived from the detector noise power spectral density $`S_n(f)`$:

$$h,g2[_0^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{h}(f)\stackrel{~}{g}^{}(f)\frac{df}{S_n(f)}+\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{C}.],$$
(1)
where C.C. denotes the complex conjugate. It is customary to use unit-norm templates, for which $`gg,g^{1/2}=1`$. Under this assumption the scalar product is also called deflection, and denoted by $`d`$ deflec . The normalized deflection obtained by further dividing $`g,g`$ by $`h`$ is the overlap or ambiguity function. It is a real number in $`[0,1]`$, and is a measure of how similar the template and the signal are.

Given a binary inspiral signal and a template, the (nominal) times at which they coalesce and the phases at the times of coalescence are unimportant for the purpose of data analysis. We can, therefore, preliminarily maximise the overlap over these parameters how . Such a maximised overlap is called the match Owe\_96 , and is a function of the remaining (intrinsic) source and template parameters NCC .

The minimal match $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the smallest overlap of a signal of arbitrary parameters with the template closest to it in the template bank FF . It is immediately related to the fraction $`(1\mathrm{\Gamma }^3)`$ of potentially observable sources which might be missed out Owe\_Sat99 .

In a recent paper verbum  it has been pointed out that (under certain assumptions) the match is a quasi band-limited function of the difference between the intrinsic source and template parameters. As such, it can be approximated by a cardinal imterpolating expansion, which uses only a fraction of the templates needed by the std. lattice for a prescribed minimal match. The same economized template set can be used to build a cardinal-interpolated formula for the partially maximised correlator, under the same minimal match constraint.

This was shown in verbum  for the simplest (but rather unrealistic) case of Newtonian (0PN) chirp signals. At the lowest Newtonian (0PN) order an inspiral waveform depends only on a single parameter chirpmass . In this one-parameter template space, the cardinal-interpolation method verbum  leads to a reduction in the number of templates by a factor $`1.4`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.97`$, and the resulting template density is close to an absolute minimum set by the theory of quasi-band-limited functions. As anticipated in verbum , one expects an even larger reduction in the number of templates for multi-parameter PN models, in view of well known properties of cardinal interpolating expansion in several dimensions (see references quoted in verbum ).

In this Rapid Communication we present results for the case of first-post-Newtonian (1PN) signals and templates, which support the above expectation. We show that in the two-dimensional 1PN template space the reduction in the number of templates is by a factor $`4`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.97`$. A similar reduction in the computational resources is implied, which we believe the interferometric detector projects such as TAMA, GEO, LIGO and VIRGO might benefit from. In the following we present only essential ideas and results, deferring the details to a longer version. Throughout this paper we use geometrized units (i.e., $`G=c=1`$).

## II The post-Newtonian Waveform

We shall use the restricted PN approximation, where the amplitude of the waveform is kept to lowest (Newtonian) PN order, while the phase is expanded to the highest PN order available restricted .

The evolution of the instantaneous orbital phase $`\phi `$ of an (adiabatically) inspiraling compact circular-orbit binary is obtained (in parametric form) by solving a pair of ordinary differential equations Dam\_etal98 :

$$\frac{dt}{dv}=\frac{m}{F}\frac{dE}{dv},\frac{d\phi }{dv}=\frac{v^3}{F}\frac{dE}{dv},$$
(2)
where $`v`$ is the gauge independent relative velocity of the two stars, $`F(v)`$ is the gravitational wave flux (luminosity), and $`E(v)`$ the dimensionless relativistic binding energy of the system, related by $`F(v)=m(dE/dt)`$. The instantaneous gravitational wave frequency $`f_{GW}`$ is related to the orbital phase, and hence via (2) to $`v`$, by:

$$f_{GW}=\pi ^1\frac{d\phi }{dt}=\frac{v^3}{\pi m}.$$
(3)
The flux and energy functions are presently known to order $`v^5`$ (2.5 PN) for non-spinning binaries Blanchet .

The gravitational wave (dominant, $`m=2`$ multipole, $`2nd`$ harmonic of orbital frequency) emitted by an inspiraling compact binary and sensed by an interferometric antenna is described by the waveform signal :

$$h(t)=4C\eta \frac{m}{r}v^2(t)\mathrm{cos}[2\phi (t)],$$
(4)
where $`r`$ is the distance to the source, and $`C`$ is a constant in the range $`[0,1]`$ dependent on the relative source/detector orientation with r.m.s value $`2/5`$ (average over all orientations and wave polarisations) directivity .

It is straightforward to obtain an explicit frequency-domain (Fourier transform) representation of the waveform (4) using the stationary phase approximation Sat\_Dhu91 ; SP\_discuss :

$$\stackrel{~}{h}(f)=2C\eta \frac{m}{r}\frac{v^2(t_f)}{\sqrt{\dot{f}_{GW}(t_f)}}e^{i[\psi _f(t_f)\pi /4]},$$
(5)
where $`t_f`$ is the stationary point stat\_phas  and an overdot denotes the derivative w.r.t. $`t`$. On substituting for the stationary point $`t_f`$, and consistently using the available PN expansions of the flux and energy functions, the phase in Eq. (5) takes on the simple form:

$$\psi _f(t_f)=2\pi fT_C\varphi _C+2_{v_f}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑v(v_f^3v^3)\frac{dE/dv}{F}=2\pi fT_C\varphi _C+\underset{0}{\overset{4}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_k(f)\tau ^k,$$
(6)
where $`v_fv(t_f)=(\pi mf)^{1/3}`$, $`T_C`$ is the (nominal) time of coalescence Tc\_warn , $`\varphi _C`$ is the phase at $`t=T_C`$. The $`\tau ^k`$ are the so-called (dimensionless) PN chirp times Sat\_94 ; PN\_note :

$$\tau ^0=\frac{5}{256\eta v_0^5},\tau ^1=0,\tau ^2=\frac{5}{192\eta v_0^3}\left(\frac{743}{336}+\frac{11}{4}\eta \right),\tau ^3=\frac{\pi }{8\eta v_0^2},\tau ^4=\frac{5}{128\eta v_0}\left(\frac{3058673}{1016064}+\frac{5429}{1008}\eta +\frac{617}{144}\eta ^2\right),$$
(7)
where $`v_0=(\pi mf_0)^{1/3}`$, $`f_0`$ is a scaling frequency (to be specified below), and the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_k`$ are given, in terms of the scaled frequency $`\nu f/f_0`$, by:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\frac{6}{5\nu ^{5/3}},\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0,\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\frac{2}{\nu },\mathrm{\Psi }_3=\frac{3}{\nu ^{2/3}},\mathrm{\Psi }_4=\frac{6}{\nu ^{1/3}}.$$
(8)
In the restricted PN approximation the amplitude in (5) depends on frequency simply through a factor $`f^{7/6}`$.

## III The First post-Newtonian Match and the Standard Template Bank

In the stationary phase restricted PN approximation for $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$, the match (or reduced normalized deflection, in the jargon of verbum ), can be written:

$$\overline{D}=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{\left|{\displaystyle _{f_\mathrm{i}}^{f_\mathrm{s}}}𝑑f{\displaystyle \frac{f^{7/3}}{S_n(f)}}e^{i(2\pi f\mathrm{\Delta }T_c+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi })}\right|}{{\displaystyle _{f_\mathrm{i}}^{f_\mathrm{s}}}𝑑f{\displaystyle \frac{f^{7/3}}{S_n(f)}}},$$
(9)
where $`[f_\mathrm{i},f_\mathrm{s}]`$ is the antenna spectral window, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$ is the difference in the coalescence times of the signal and template, and, at the 1PN level of approximation,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }(\nu )=\frac{6}{5\nu ^{5/3}}\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^0+\frac{1}{\nu }\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^2,$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^i=\tau _S^i\tau _T^i`$, $`i=0,2,`$ are the differences in the chirp times of the source ($`S`$) and template ($`T`$), respectively, $`\nu =f/f_0`$, and $`f_0`$ is the frequency at which $`S_n(f)`$ is minimum. In the sequel we shall adopt the LIGO form LIGO\_noise  of the (one-sided) noise power spectral density,

$$S_n(\nu )=\frac{S_0}{5}\left[\nu ^4+2\left(1+\nu ^2\right)\right].$$
(11)
The reduced deflection Eq. (9) depends on $`f_\mathrm{i}`$, $`f_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`f_0`$ only through the integration limits, which become $`\nu _\mathrm{i}f_\mathrm{i}/f_0`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{s}f_\mathrm{s}/f_0`$.

Following Owen Owe\_96  we shall perform a coordinate transformation which, asymptotically in a neighbourhood of the peak $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^0=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^2=0`$, re-shapes the surface $`z=\overline{D}`$ into a convex circular paraboloid:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^0=\mathrm{\Delta }x^0\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Delta }x^1\mathrm{sin}\vartheta ,\hfill \\ \\ \mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^2=\mathrm{\Delta }x^0\mathrm{sin}\vartheta +\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Delta }x^1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta .\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
The above transformation depends on the choice of $`f_0`$, $`\nu _\mathrm{i}`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{s}`$. In the following, for illustrative purposes, we let $`f_0=200`$ Hz (initial LIGO), $`\nu _\mathrm{i}=0.2`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{s}=4`$, whereby $`\vartheta 0.489`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=15.203`$. The resulting function $`\overline{D}(\mathrm{\Delta }x^0,\mathrm{\Delta }x^1)`$ is shown in Fig. 1.

In the standard lattice approach, the template spacing $`\delta _L`$ is obtained by enforcing the minimal match condition, whereby for any admissible source, there exists at least one template such that $`\overline{D}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The curves $`\overline{D}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, shown in the inset of Fig. 1, are nearly circular foot1  down to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.95`$, which includes all values of practical interest for a single-step search. Thus, $`\delta _L`$ is the side-length of the inscribed square. In the inset of Fig. 2 we display $`\delta _L`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

## IV The Cardinal Interpolation for the 1-PN Match

In the cardinal-interpolation approach the template spacing $`\delta _C`$ is obtained by enforcing the minimal match condition on the cardinal expansion of the match verbum . The $`2D`$ cardinal expansion of the 1PN match is:

$$\overline{D}_B(\mathrm{\Delta }x^0,\mathrm{\Delta }x^1)=\underset{m,n}{\overset{\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}}{}}\overline{D}_B(\mathrm{\Delta }x_m^0,\mathrm{\Delta }x_n^1)\text{sinc}\left[\frac{\pi }{\delta _C}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }x^0\mathrm{\Delta }x_m^0\right)\right]\text{sinc}\left[\frac{\pi }{\delta _C}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }x^1\mathrm{\Delta }x_n^1\right)\right],$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_{m+1}^0\mathrm{\Delta }x_m^0=\mathrm{\Delta }x_{n+1}^1\mathrm{\Delta }x_n^1=\delta _C`$ is the cardinal spacing to be determined. This expansion represents exactly verbum  the function:

$$\overline{D}_B=_{[\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{y}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{x}]}^1\left\{W\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{y}}{B}\right)_{[\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{y}]}\overline{D}(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{x})\right\},$$
(14)
where $``$ is the Fourier-transform operator,

$$W(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }y^0}{B},\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }y^1}{B})=\{\begin{array}{c}1,|\mathrm{\Delta }y^0|<B,|\mathrm{\Delta }y^1|<B,\hfill \\ \\ 0,\text{elsewhere,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
and $`B=(2\delta _C)^1.`$ Similar to the Newtonian case verbum , the 1PN match Eq. (9) is a quasi-band-limited function in the $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ norm, namely,

$$\gamma ,B_c^+:sup|\overline{D}\overline{D}_B|=\mathrm{exp}[\gamma (BB_c)].$$
(16)
The cardinal expansion Eq. (13) can be shown to approximate the function Eq. (9) in the $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ (and $`L^2`$) norm, using the minimum 2D sample density $`1/\delta _C^2`$ compatible with a prescribed accuracy (see verbum , and references cited therein). The exponential decay of the error (16) is exemplified in Fig. 3.

We shall now discuss the template spacing to be used in Eq. (13), for a prescribed minimal match $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The source and template parameters can be always conveniently written as follows:

$$\stackrel{}{x}_S=\stackrel{}{x}_Q+\stackrel{}{\alpha }_S\delta _C,\stackrel{}{x}_T=\stackrel{}{x}_Q+\stackrel{}{\alpha }_T\delta _C,$$
(17)
where $`\alpha _{S,T}^{0,1}[0,1]`$ and $`\stackrel{}{x}_Q`$ correspond to the lower left corner of a suitable template-space cell.

For any given value of $`\delta _C`$, as the source coordinates $`\stackrel{}{x}_S`$ move in the template-space cell, the location $`\stackrel{}{x}_T^{\mathrm{max}}`$ where the cardinal-interpolated match $`\overline{D}_B`$ attains its maximum value and the maximum value itself $`\overline{D}_B^{\mathrm{max}}`$ change. The minimal match condition should be enforced for the special value $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }_{}`$ of $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }_S`$ where the interpolated maximum is a minimum.

Numerical experiments show that $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }_{}=(0.5,0.5)`$, which corresponds to the center of the cell, below some critical value $`\delta _\times `$ of $`\delta _C`$. Above this critical value, a bifurcation occurs, i.e., two (equal) minima exist foot2  located on the descending diagonal of the cell, where

$$\alpha _S^0=0.5+\xi ,\alpha _S^1=0.5\xi ,$$
(18)
symmetrically with respect to the cell center, viz. at:

$$\xi =\pm \xi _{}(\delta _C),\xi _{}(\delta _C)[0,0.5].$$
(19)
This is illustrated in Fig. 4, where we show the density plots of $`\overline{D}_B^{\mathrm{max}}`$ as a function of $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }_S`$ in the fundamental cell, for the representative cases $`\delta _C=0.078<\delta _\times `$ and $`\delta _C=0.099>\delta _\times `$.

The values of $`\overline{D}_B^{\mathrm{max}}`$ on the descending diagonal of the cell, where the minima are located and Eq. (18) holds, are plotted in Fig. 5, as a function of the displacement $`\xi `$ off the cell center, for several values of $`\delta _C`$. The values of $`\overline{D}_B^{\mathrm{max}}`$ at the minima of these curves, occurring at $`\xi =\xi _{}(\delta _C)`$, are the minimal matches.

It is seen, e.g., that for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.97`$ one has $`\delta _C0.104`$. By comparison with Fig. 2, where $`\delta _L=0.052`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.97`$, we deduce that $`\delta _C/\delta _L2`$. Hence the reduction in the 2D template density is of the order of $`(\delta _C/\delta _L)^24`$, which is quite remarkable. It is also seen that, similar to the 0PN case, the 1PN template density reduction with respect to the plain lattice increases with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as shown in Fig. 2.

## V Conclusions

The number of 1PN templates required to keep the minimal match above a given threshold $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be significantly (by a factor $`4`$ at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0.97`$) reduced by using cardinal interpolation. The statistical properties of the 1PN cardinal-interpolated (partially maximised) correlator bank will be the subject of a forthcoming paper. Extension to 2.5PN templates should be straightforward, in principle, using the (almost-flat parameter space manifold) coordinates introduced by Tagoshi and Tanaka TaTa .

## Acknowledgements

This work has been sponsored in part by the EC through a senior visiting scientist grant to I.M. Pinto at NAO, Tokyo, JP. I.M. Pinto wishes to thank the TAMA staff at NAO and in particular prof. Fujimoto Masa-Katsu and prof. Kawamura Seiji for gracious hospitality and stimulating discussions. D. Churches and B.S. Sathyaprakash thank R. Balasubramanian for helpful discussions.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1 - The function $`z=\overline{D}(\mathrm{\Delta }x^0,\mathrm{\Delta }x^2)`$, and some of its contour levels (inset).

Fig. 2 - The plain 1PN lattice spacing $`\delta _L`$ (inset), and the $`2D`$ template density reduction $`(\delta _C/\delta _S)^2`$, achieved by use of cardinal interpolation, both plotted as functions of the match $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Fig. 3 - The L error as a function of $`\delta _C^2.`$

Fig. 4 - Density plot of $`\overline{D}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ vs. $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }_S`$ for $`\delta _C=0.0078`$ (left) and $`\delta _C=0.0099`$ (right).

Fig. 5 - $`\overline{D}_B^{\mathrm{max}}`$ vs. $`\xi `$, for several values of $`\delta _C`$.