text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Let me start by recalling the standard classical dynamical Yang-Baxter equation (CDYBE),

$$[r_{12}(\lambda ),r_{23}(\lambda )]+H_1^i\frac{}{\lambda ^i}r_{23}(\lambda )+\text{cycl. perm.}=0,$$
(1.1)
where $`r(\lambda )𝒢𝒢`$ and the variable $`\lambda =\lambda ^iH_i`$ lies in a Cartan subalgebra of a simple Lie algebra. This equation is the classical limit of the Gervais-Neveu-Felder equation

$$R_{12}(\lambda +\mathrm{}H_3)R_{13}(\lambda )R_{23}(\lambda +\mathrm{}H_1)=R_{23}(\lambda )R_{13}(\lambda +\mathrm{}H_2)R_{12}(\lambda ).$$
(1.2)
These equations govern the classical and quantum exchange algebras of the chiral Bloch waves in the conformal Toda and WZNW field theories on the cylinder . They also appear in the description of the conformal blocks of the WZNW model on the torus  and in the study of Calogero-Moser models . The CDYBE and its quantized version have interesting generalizations that play an important role in quantum algebra and in the theory of integrable systems .

The generalizations of (1.1) introduced by Etingof and Varchenko  result by replacing the Cartan subalgebra by (the dual space of) any subalgebra $``$ of any Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. Of course, one can also consider the spectral parameter dependent variant of these equations. The most important special case, related to affine Kac-Moody algebras, is when the ‘dynamical variable’ $`\lambda `$ belongs to the fixed point set of a Coxeter automorphism of a simple Lie algebra.

In the context of the classical WZNW model, the variable $`\lambda `$ in (1.1) is the logarithm of the monodromy of the chiral WZNW field. Motivated by our longstanding interest in the WZNW model as well as by the intense current research activity around the CDYBE, with J. Balog and L. Palla  we have recently explored the most general Poisson structure that arises on the chiral WZNW phase space without imposing the constraint that the monodromy belongs to a maximal torus. It turned out that these Poisson structures are parametrized by solutions of a generalization of the CDYBE, which we call the $`G`$-CDYBE. We can actually find all solutions of the $`G`$-CDYBE as part of our analysis of the WZNW model, which is meant to be a continuation of the pioneering papers . Among the resulting dynamical $`r`$-matrices there is a particularly interesting class associated with Poisson-Lie symmetries acting on the chiral WZNW phase space. When the Poisson-Lie symmetry degenerates into usual symmetry, then these $`r`$-matrices reduce to a canonical solution of the CDYBE on $`𝒢`$ in the sense of , which upon further Dirac reduction to suitable subalgebras of $`𝒢`$ (and by certain limiting procedures) reproduces many of the known $`r`$-matrices of the Etingof-Varchenko type.

Here I present a brief review of the main results that we obtained in , touching also on their further clarifications published in  . For lack of time, I cannot deal with several related questions elaborated in the papers . More detailed reviews of some aspects of our work can be found in .

## 2 $`G`$-CDYBE from the chiral WZNW phase space

The WZNW model  as a classical field theory on the cylinder can be defined for any (real or complex) Lie group $`G`$ whose Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ is self-dual in the sense that it is equipped with an invariant, symmetric, non-degenerate bilinear form $`,`$. The solution of the classical field equation for the $`G`$-valued WZNW field, which is $`2\pi `$-periodic in the space variable, is given by the product of left- and right-moving chiral WZNW fields that are quasi-periodic. By restricting the ‘monodromy matrix’ to lie in some open submanifold $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}G`$, we thus obtain the chiral WZNW phase space

$$_{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}:=\{gC^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑,G)|g(x+2\pi )=g(x)MM\stackrel{ˇ}{G}\}.$$
(2.1)
If one wishes to induce the Poisson structure of the full WZNW model from Poisson brackets (PBs) of chiral fields varying in $`_{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}`$, then the only possibility is to equip $`_{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}`$ with a PB of the following form:

$$\kappa \left\{g(x)\stackrel{}{,}g(y)\right\}_{WZ}^r=\left(g(x)g(y)\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}C\mathrm{sign}(yx)+r(M)\right),0<x,y<2\pi .$$
(2.2)
Here the interesting object is the ‘exchange r-matrix’ $`r(M)=r^{ab}(M)T_aT_b𝒢𝒢`$; $`C=T_aT^a`$ where $`\{T_a\}`$ and $`\{T^a\}`$ denote dual bases of $`𝒢`$, $`T_a,T^b=\delta _a^b`$. One way to derive this PB is to invert the symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{WZ}^\rho `$ on $`_{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}`$ found by Gawedzki :

$$\frac{1}{\kappa }\mathrm{\Omega }_{WZ}^\rho (g)=\frac{1}{2}_0^{2\pi }𝑑x(g^1dg)\stackrel{}{,}(g^1dg)^{}\frac{1}{2}(g^1dg)(0)\stackrel{}{,}dMM^1+\rho (M)$$
(2.3)
with some 2-form $`\rho `$ on $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}`$. Another method that leads directly to (2.2) uses the requirements that $`J:=\kappa g^{}g^1`$ must be an affine Kac-Moody current with respect to which $`g`$ is a chiral primary field, and that the WZNW solution space must be obtained from the product of two independent chiral phase spaces by imposing first class constraints. Both methods are explained in detail in . In either way, one can show that the PBs in (2.2) are accompanied by

$$\kappa \{g(x)\stackrel{}{,}M\}_{WZ}^r=\left(g(x)M\right)\mathrm{\Theta }(M)\text{and}\kappa \{M\stackrel{}{,}M\}_{WZ}^r=\left(MM\right)\mathrm{\Delta }(M),$$
(2.4)
with

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(M)=r^+(M)M_2^1r^{}(M)M_2,\mathrm{\Delta }(M)=\mathrm{\Theta }(M)M_1^1\mathrm{\Theta }(M)M_1$$
(2.5)
where $`r^\pm :=r\pm \frac{1}{2}C`$, $`M_1=M1`$, $`M_2=1M`$. In fact , the Jacobi identity222As explained in , by setting $`r(M)=0`$ in (2.2) one obtains a quasi-Poisson structure  on $`_G`$. of the PB (2.2) is equivalent to the following equation:

$$[r_{12}(M),r_{23}(M)]+T_1^a\left(\frac{1}{2}𝒟_a^++r_a^b(M)𝒟_b^{}\right)r_{23}(M)+\text{cycl. perm.}=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{f}.$$
(2.6)
Here $`\widehat{f}:=f_{ab}^cT^aT^bT_c`$ with $`[T_a,T_b]=f_{ab}^cT_c`$, $`r_{23}=r^{ab}(1T_aT_b)`$ and $`T_1^a=T^a11`$ as usual; for any function $`\psi `$ on $`G`$ we use

$$𝒟_a^\pm =_a\pm _a\text{with}(_a\psi )(M):=\frac{d}{dt}\psi (Me^{tT_a})|_{t=0},(_a\psi )(M):=\frac{d}{dt}\psi (e^{tT_a}M)|_{t=0}.$$
(2.7)
We call equation (2.6) the $`G`$-CDYBE since it is a generalization of the CYBE for an $`r`$-matrix depending on a $`G`$-valued ‘dynamical variable’. The $`G`$-CDYBE becomes the standard modified-CYBE if $`r`$ is an $`M`$-independent constant.

In the symplectic formalism  based on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{WZ}^\rho `$ (2.3) the need to restrict to some submanifold of $`G`$ arises since the condition $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{WZ}^\rho =0`$ translates  into

$$d\rho =\frac{1}{2}[M^1dM,M^1dM],M^1dM,$$
(2.8)
which in general does not admit a global solution on $`G`$, as is well known. In the alternative approach in which $`(_{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}},\{,\}_{WZ}^r)`$ is required to be a (not necessarily non-degenerate) Poisson space, the only condition is that $`r:\stackrel{ˇ}{G}𝒢𝒢`$ must be a regular (smooth or holomorphic) solution of the $`G`$-CDYBE (2.6) on some open submanifold $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}G`$.

Note that the exchange $`r`$-matrix can be constant, which is the case considered mostly in the early papers (see e.g.  and references therein), if (2.6) has such a solution. The real forms of the simple Lie algebras that admit a constant solution  include the split real form, but exclude the compact one.

## 3 The canonical $`r`$-matrix and its Dirac reductions

We actually have all solutions of the $`G`$-CDYBE locally in a neighbourhood of $`eG`$. More precisely, we have an explicit one-to-one correspondence between the solutions $`\rho `$ of (2.8) and the solutions $`r`$ of (2.6) around $`eG`$. Such a correspondence was derived originally by inverting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{WZ}^\rho `$ , but later a purely finite dimensional proof of it has also been given .

A particularly interesting exchange $`r`$-matrix arises if the PB (2.2) permits the ‘gauge action’ of the group $`G`$ on $`_{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}`$, given by

$$_{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}\times G(g(x),h)g(x)h,$$
(3.1)
to operate as a classical $`G`$-symmetry generated by the logarithm of the monodromy matrix. In this case the PB (2.2) does not change under (3.1) and we have

$$\kappa \{g(x),m_a\}_{WZ}^r=g(x)T_a,\kappa \{m_a,m_b\}_{WZ}^r=f_{ab}^cm_c\text{for}M=e^m,$$
(3.2)
where $`m=\mathrm{log}M`$ lies in a neighbourhood of zero, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒢}𝒢`$, diffeomorphic to $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}`$ by the exponential map. In the notion of ‘classical symmetry’ it is understood that the elements of the symmetry group have zero PBs with everything. Let $`r^0(m)`$ denote an exchange $`r`$-matrix that permits such a symmetry on $`_{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}`$. Upon comparing (2.4), (2.5) with (3.2), it follows that (2.6) can now be rewritten in the form

$$[r_{12}^0(m),r_{23}^0(m)]+T_1^a\frac{}{m^a}r_{23}^0(m)+\text{cycl. perm.}=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{f},$$
(3.3)
and it is also easy to see that $`r^0(m)`$ must be $`G`$-equivariant,

$$r^0(hmh^1)=(hh)r^0(m)(h^1h^1)hG.$$
(3.4)
It is natural to search for an equivariant $`r`$-matrix by using the ansatz

$$r^0(m)=T_a,f_0(\mathrm{ad}m)T_bT^aT^b,$$
(3.5)
where $`f_0(z)`$ is assumed to be a holomorphic, odd complex function in a neighbourhood of zero on the complex plane. Then (3.3) yields a functional equation  for the holomorphic function $`f_0`$, whose unique solution is provided by

$$f_0(z)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{coth}\frac{z}{2}\frac{1}{z}.$$
(3.6)
This joint solution of (2.6) and (3.3) has been derived in  by means of inverting the symplectic form (2.3) for the 2-form

$$\rho _0(M)=\frac{1}{2}_0^{2\pi }𝑑xd\overline{m}\stackrel{}{,}de^{x\overline{m}}e^{x\overline{m}},\overline{m}:=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}M,$$
(3.7)
which satisfies (2.8) and renders $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{WZ}^{\rho _0}`$ invariant under (3.1).

Note that equation (3.3) with (3.4) is the CDYBE on the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ in the sense of  (or ‘modified’ CDYBE on account of the non-zero right-hand side). Somewhat implicitly, the solution of the CDYBE on a simple Lie algebra given by (3.5), (3.6) is already contained in . It was also found in  in the context of equivariant cohomology. Its uniqueness property under the ansatz (3.5) is proven in , where this $`r`$-matrix is called ‘canonical’. (This uniqueness property should be compared with the description of the ‘moduli space’ of the solutions of (3.3), (3.4) given in .)

The canonical $`r`$-matrix described above plays a distinguished role among the solutions of the CDYBE in the Etingof-Varchenko sense. To explain this, let $`𝒢`$ be a self-dual subalgebra (on which $`,`$ remains non-degenerate), and consider the associated decomposition $`𝒢=^{}`$. Then define $`r^{}:\stackrel{ˇ}{}\mathrm{End}(𝒢)`$ by

$$r^{}(\lambda )(X)=f_0(\mathrm{ad}\lambda )(X)X,r^{}(\lambda )(Y)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{coth}(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ad}\lambda )(Y)Y^{}.$$
(3.8)
We here use the Laurent series expansion of $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{coth}(\frac{z}{2})`$ around $`z=0`$, the $`z^1`$ term in the expansion corresponds to the operator $`(\mathrm{ad}\lambda )^1`$ on $`^{}`$. The open domain $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}`$ is restricted by the condition333A non-empty domain exists, for example, if $``$ is a reductive subalgebra of a simple Lie algebra. that $`r^{}(\lambda )`$ must be well defined by formula (3.8) for $`\lambda \stackrel{ˇ}{}`$. By using the identification $`\mathrm{End}(𝒢)𝒢𝒢`$ defined by the scalar product on $`𝒢`$, it can be shown that $`r^{}`$ solves the CDYBE on $`𝒢`$:

$$[r_{12}^{}(\lambda ),r_{23}^{}(\lambda )]+H_1^i\frac{}{\lambda ^i}r_{23}^{}(\lambda )+\text{cycl. perm.}=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{f},\lambda \stackrel{ˇ}{},$$
(3.9)
where $`H^i`$ denotes a basis of $``$.

The standard solution of the original CDYBE (1.1), which first appeared in  (see also ), is recovered from (3.8) by taking $`r:=r^{}\pm \frac{1}{2}C`$ and identifying $``$ with a Cartan subalgebra of a simple Lie algebra.

The passage from $`r^0`$ to $`r^{}`$ corresponds to Dirac reduction in two senses. First, the phase space $`_{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}`$ equipped with the canonical exchange $`r`$-matrix can be reduced by restricting the monodromy to $`\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{ˇ}{})`$, whereby the Dirac brackets of the chiral WZNW field take the same form as the PB in (2.2), but with $`r^{}`$ appearing in the role of the exchange $`r`$-matrix . Second, as developed in , the Dirac reduction can also be implemented on the Poisson-Lie groupoids that enter the geometric interpretation of the CDYBE introduced in .

Finally, it is worth noting that formula (3.8) contains Felder’s celebrated spectral parameter dependent elliptic dynamical $`r`$-matrices  and some generalizations of them, too. They are obtained  by taking $`𝒢`$ to be an affine Kac-Moody type Lie algebra with $``$ being a grade zero subalgebra in an integral gradation, and applying an evaluation homomorphism.

## 4 Exchange $`r`$-matrix compatible with any PL structure

We have seen that by an appropriate choice of the exchange $`r`$-matrix the gauge action (3.1) can be interpreted as a classical $`G`$-symmetry on $`_{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}`$. Interestingly, we can achieve the same with respect to any (coboundary) Poisson-Lie (PL) structure on $`G`$.

Let us equip the group $`G=\{h\}`$ with a PL structure by means of the Sklyanin bracket

$$\kappa \{h\stackrel{}{,}h\}_{R^\nu }=[hh,R^\nu ],$$
(4.1)
where $`R^\nu 𝒢𝒢`$ is a constant $`r`$-matrix satisfying

$$[R_{12}^\nu ,R_{23}^\nu ]+\text{cycl. perm.}=\nu ^2\widehat{f}$$
(4.2)
for some constant $`\nu `$. (Note that $`\nu `$ must be purely imaginary, or zero, if $`G`$ is compact.) Then look for the conditions on $`r(M)`$ that guarantee the standard right action (3.1) of $`G`$ on $`_{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}`$ to be a PL action. In fact, we find the requirement

$$K(hMh^1)=(hh)K(M)(h^1h^1)\text{for}K(M):=r(M)R^\nu .$$
(4.3)
This means that the gauge action (3.1) of $`(G,\{,\}_{R^\nu })`$ on $`(_{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}},\{,\}_{WZ}^r)`$ is a PL symmetry if and only if the exchange r-matrix $`r(M)`$ is such a solution of (2.6) for which the difference $`(r(M)R^\nu )`$ is $`G`$-equivariant.

By using the substitution $`r(M)=R^\nu +K(M)`$ together with (4.2) and the equivariance condition (4.3), the $`G`$-CDYBE (2.6) can be rewritten in the form

$$[K_{12}(M),K_{23}(M)]\frac{1}{2}T_1^a𝒟_a^+K_{23}(M)+\text{cycl. perm.}=(\frac{1}{4}\nu ^2)\widehat{f}.$$
(4.4)
This equation for an equivariant $`K:\stackrel{ˇ}{G}𝒢𝒢`$ may be referred to as the PL-CDYBE on $`G`$ since it guarantees PL $`G`$-symmetry on the chiral WZNW phase space. It is remarkable that the reference $`r`$-matrix $`R^\nu `$ enters into this equation only through the constant $`\nu `$ in (4.2).

In a neighbourhood of $`eG`$, it is natural to search for $`K(M)`$ with the aid of the ansatz

$$K(M)=T_a,f_\nu (\mathrm{ad}m)T_bT^aT^b,m=\mathrm{log}M,$$
(4.5)
where $`f_\nu (z)`$ is assumed to be a holomorphic, odd complex function in a neighbourhood of zero on the complex plane. Then (4.4) yields a functional equation  for the holomorphic function $`f_\nu `$, whose unique solution is found to be

$$f_\nu (z)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{coth}\frac{z}{2}\nu \mathrm{coth}\nu z.$$
(4.6)
The exchange $`r`$-matrices provided by this result were first found in  by using a different (more complicated) method, their uniqueness under the ansatz (4.5) has been established in .

Some further remarks are here in order. First, note that for $`\nu =0`$ $`f_\nu `$ in (4.6) becomes the function $`f_0`$ in (3.6). The corresponding exchange $`r`$-matrix is thus compatible with classical $`G`$-symmetry (for $`R^0=0`$) as well as with PL symmetry for any antisymmetric solution $`R^00`$ of the CYBE. Second, if $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$ then $`r=R^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, which is the case of the constant exchange $`r`$-matrices. Third, as mentioned before, for a compact Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ constant exchange $`r`$-matrices do not exist, because of the negative sign on the right-hand side of (2.6), but the above solutions of (2.6) are available also in this case using a purely imaginary $`\nu `$ in (4.2).

## 5 Finite dimensional phase spaces related to WZNW

The chiral WZNW Poisson structure (2.2) is fixed once a solution of the $`G`$-CDYBE (2.6) is given. It appears interesting that the WZNW exchange $`r`$-matrices also encode the PBs on certain finite dimensional Poisson manifolds. Indeed, it has been found in  that on the manifold

$$P:=\stackrel{ˇ}{G}\times G\times \stackrel{ˇ}{G}=\{(M^L,g,M^R)\},$$
(5.1)
the following formula defines a PB, $`\{,\}_P^r`$, for any solution $`r:\stackrel{ˇ}{G}𝒢𝒢`$ of the $`G`$-CDYBE:

$`\kappa \{g_1,g_2\}_P^r=g_1g_2r(M^R)r(M^L)g_1g_2`$
$`\kappa \{g_1,M_2^R\}_P^r=g_1M_2^R\mathrm{\Theta }(M^R)`$
$`\kappa \{g_1,M_2^L\}_P^r=M_2^L\mathrm{\Theta }(M^L)g_1`$
$`\kappa \{M_1^R,M_2^R\}_P^r=M_1^RM_2^R\mathrm{\Delta }(M^R)`$
$`\kappa \{M_1^L,M_2^L\}_P^r=M_1^LM_2^L\mathrm{\Delta }(M^L)`$
$`\kappa \{M_1^R,M_2^L\}_P^r=0.`$ (5.2)
We use $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ defined in (2.5), and to maintain the obvious similarity to (2.4) we even included the arbitrary constant $`\kappa `$ (the classical level parameter) into this definition. We stress that $`gG`$ is here $`x`$-independent. In fact, $`(P,\{,\}_P^r)`$ is an example of a Poisson-Lie groupoid in the sense of . This PL groupoid ‘extracted’ from $`(_{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}},\{,\}_{WZ}^r)`$ provides a geometric interpretation of the $`G`$-CDYBE analogous to the interpretation of the Etingof-Varchenko $`r`$-matrices . If $`r`$ is associated with classical $`G`$-symmetry on $`_{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}}`$ as described in Section 3, then our PL groupoid is essentially identical with the ‘dynamical PL groupoid’ of  that encodes the CDYBE (3.3) on $`𝒢`$.

In analogy with the CDYBE on $`𝒢`$, the PL-CDYBE (4.4) admits a ‘canonical’ interpretation  in terms of well known objects of PL geometry, which is nicer than the general case (5.2). To describe this, let us now denote the elements of $`P`$ differently as

$$P:=\stackrel{ˇ}{G}\times G\times \stackrel{ˇ}{G}=\{(\mathrm{\Omega }^L,g,\mathrm{\Omega }^R)|\mathrm{\Omega }^{L,R}\stackrel{ˇ}{G},gG\},$$
(5.3)
where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}G`$ is some open submanifold. Then let $`:=R^{\frac{1}{2}}𝒢𝒢`$ be a constant solution of (4.2) with $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$ and let $`𝒦:\stackrel{ˇ}{G}𝒢𝒢`$ be a (smooth or holomorphic) map. Now consider the following ansatz for a PB, $`\{,\}_{can}`$, on $`P`$:

$`\{g_1,g_2\}_{can}=(+𝒦(\mathrm{\Omega }^L))g_1g_2g_1g_2(+𝒦(\mathrm{\Omega }^R))`$
$`\{g_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2^R\}_{can}=g_1(^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^R\mathrm{\Omega }_2^R^+)`$
$`\{g_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2^L\}_{can}=(^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^L\mathrm{\Omega }_2^L^+)g_1`$
$`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^R,\mathrm{\Omega }_2^R\}_{can}=\mathrm{\Omega }_1^R\mathrm{\Omega }_2^R\mathrm{\Omega }_1^R\mathrm{\Omega }_2^R+\mathrm{\Omega }_1^R^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^R+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^R^+\mathrm{\Omega }_1^R`$
$`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^L,\mathrm{\Omega }_2^L\}_{can}=\mathrm{\Omega }_1^L\mathrm{\Omega }_2^L+\mathrm{\Omega }_1^L\mathrm{\Omega }_2^L\mathrm{\Omega }_1^L^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^L\mathrm{\Omega }_2^L^+\mathrm{\Omega }_1^L`$
$`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^R,\mathrm{\Omega }_2^L\}_{can}=0.`$ (5.4)
Note that $`^\pm :=\pm \frac{1}{2}C`$ and that the dynamical $`r`$-matrix $`𝒦`$ appears only in the first line of formula (5.4). We assume that $`𝒦`$ is a $`G`$-equivariant map, since anyhow this is required locally around $`eG`$ by the Jacobi identity $`\{\{g_1,g_2\}_{can},\mathrm{\Omega }_3^L\}_{can}+\text{cycl. perm}=0`$ and its counterpart with $`\mathrm{\Omega }^R`$. The only nontrivial Jacobi identity to check is the one involving $`\{\{g_1,g_2\}_{can},g_3\}_{can}`$. This condition is found to be equivalent to the following version of the PL-CDYBE:

$$[𝒦_{12},𝒦_{23}]+\frac{1}{2}T_1^a𝒟_a^+𝒦_{23}+\text{cycl. perm.}=\text{on}\stackrel{ˇ}{G},$$
(5.5)
where $``$ is an arbitrary $`G`$-invariant constant element of $`𝒢𝒢𝒢`$.

If we set $`𝒦=K`$ and $`=(\frac{1}{4}\nu ^2)\widehat{f}`$, then (5.5) becomes identical to (4.4). If $`K`$ is given by (4.5) with (4.6), then the PB in (5.2) can be converted into (a multiple of) the PB in (5.4) by a certain change of variables. This will be described in detail in a future publication.

In fact , for $`𝒦=0`$ the PB (5.4) becomes the canonical PB of the Heisenberg double of the PL group $`G`$ equipped with the Sklyanin PB that belongs to $``$, if one further sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }^R=g^1\mathrm{\Omega }^Lg`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }^L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^R`$ define directly the momentum maps that generate the natural PL actions of $`G`$ on $`(P,\{,\}_{can})`$ that act by left and right-multiplications on $`g`$.

It is known  how to quantize the Heisenberg double, i.e., the PB (5.4) with $`𝒦=0`$. It is an interesting open problem to perform the quantization of $`(P,\{,\}_{can})`$ in the case

$$𝒦(\mathrm{\Omega })=T_a,f_\nu (\mathrm{ad}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Omega }))T_bT^aT^b$$
(5.6)
with the function $`f_\nu `$ in (4.6), which are the unique solutions of the PL-CDYBE (5.5) given in terms of a complex analytic function. One should consider the quantization of the PB (5.2) also in the general case; the resulting structure should be related to the ‘quantum algebraic properties’ of the WZNW conformal field theory. This appears to be a natural idea in the context of the programme to canonically quantize the WZNW model and to study the associated ‘chiral zero modes’ (see ,  and references therein).

## 6 Concluding remarks

The results reported so far in this talk can be extended in several directions. For example, one can consider the dynamical $`r`$-matrices that arise in the classical WZNW model with twisted boundary condition associated with a finite order automorphism, $`\mu `$, of the group $`G`$. Denote also by $`\mu `$ the induced automorphism of $`𝒢`$, of order $`N`$ say, and suppose that it preserves the ‘scalar product’ $`,`$ on $`𝒢`$. In this case the full WZNW field satisfies $`g_{WZ}(\sigma +2\pi ,\tau )=\mu (g_{WZ}(\sigma ,\tau ))`$ and the corresponding chiral fields obey

$$g(x+2\pi )=\mu (g(x))M,MG.$$
(6.1)
Let us assume for simplicity that $`G`$ is a complex simple Lie group, and use the decomposition

$$𝒢=_{a=0}^{N1}𝒢_a,\mu (X)=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\frac{a}{N})XX𝒢_a.$$
(6.2)
In order to obtain a twisted analogue of the canonical $`r`$-matrix, we restrict the monodromy to the form $`M=e^\lambda `$ with $`\lambda `$ varying in an open domain, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒢}_0`$, in $`𝒢_0`$. Then we enquire about the PB of the $`\mu `$-twisted chiral WZNW field under the assumption that it enjoys classical $`G_0`$-symmetry. In fact, we find that such a PB again has the form (2.2) with the exchange $`r`$-matrix $`r_\mu :\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒢}_0𝒢𝒢\mathrm{End}(𝒢)`$ given by

$$r_\mu (\lambda )=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_0(\mathrm{ad}\lambda )& \text{on }𝒢_0\\ \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ad}\lambda i\pi \frac{a}{N}\right)& \text{on }𝒢_a\text{ for }a0,\end{array}$$
(6.3)
where $`f_0`$ appears in (3.6). This dynamical $`r`$-matrix was originally found444In  the simplicity of $`𝒢`$ is not assumed, see also .  as a solution of the CDYBE on $`𝒢_0`$ (eq. (3.9) with $`:=𝒢_0`$). It can be derived by calculating the PBs on the $`\mu `$-twisted chiral WZNW phase space with $`M\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_0`$ and the symplectic form defined by using (2.3) with the restriction of $`\rho _0`$ in (3.7) to $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_0`$. If $`𝒢_0`$ is non-Abelian, then further Dirac reduction to a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝒢_0`$ (and intermediate cases) is also possible, yielding ‘twisted analogues’ of the $`r`$-matrices in (3.8). In the cases for which $`𝒢_0`$ is Abelian, the Wakimoto type free field realizations of the chiral WZNW field can be worked out following the lines of .

So far I have performed the above analysis under the simplifying assumption that $`𝒢`$ is complex and simple, but it should not be difficult to generalize it to any self-dual Lie algebra equipped with a finite order automorphism compatible with the scalar product.

Dynamical exchange $`r`$-matrices appear not only in the (twisted) chiral WZNW model, but also in its intriguing generalization introduced recently by Klimcik. In particular, Felder’s $`r`$-matrix  encodes the PBs of the chiral fields in this model . Therefore it is natural to expect that this model with twisted boundary condition should accommodate in its PBs the generalizations of Felder’s $`r`$-matrices  associated with twisted affine Kac-Moody algebras, but further work is needed to clarify the situation.

Another problem, which is currently under investigation, concerns the correspondence between some of the $`r`$-matrices mentioned in the talk and spin Calogero-Moser type integrable systems. At the classical level, it seems straightforward how to generalize the method of  to any solution of the CDYBE on $`𝒢`$ (3.9) as well as to solutions of the spectral parameter dependent CDYBE on self-dual Lie algebras. It is not clear however if this method will lead to new and interesting integrable systems or not. We also would like to see if the natural generalization of the CDYBE on $`𝒢`$ given by the PL-CDYBE (5.5) is related to (perhaps spin Ruijsenaars type) integrable systems. I hope to report on these questions on another occasion.

Acknowledgements. I wish to thank the organizers of the meeting at IFT for the invitation to Sao Paulo and for the superb hospitality. This work was also supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA) under T034170, T029802, T030099, M028418 and M036804.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Hall effect in a p-type heterojunction with a lateral surface quantum dot superlattice

## I Introduction

Quantum states and transport of 2D Bloch electrons in a magnetic field are the phenomena which show extremely rich variety of physical and topological properties. The fascinating physical problems occurring here are caused by the mutual effects of the lattice periodic potential and the non-periodic vector potential of a uniform magnetic field. It is known that the former leads to the energy band structure while the latter tends to form discrete energy levels. The parameter which plays an important role in the problem is the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ penetrating the lattice elementary cell. If the flux is equal to a rational number $`p/q`$ of flux quanta $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=2\pi \mathrm{}c/|e|`$ where $`p`$ and $`q`$ are mutually prime integers, it is possible to define a new set of translations on the lattice, called magnetic translations  for which the quasimomentum is a good quantum number. For example, if the vector potential of uniform magnetic field $`B`$ be chosen in Landau gauge $`𝐀=(0,Bx,0)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=p/q`$, the simplest form of magnetic translations on a square lattice with the period $`a`$ is $`xx+qna,\mathrm{y}\mathrm{y}+\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}`$ where $`n`$ and $`m`$ are integers. So, the magnetic elementary cell is $`q`$ times larger in $`x`$ direction, and the corresponding magnetic Brillouin zone (MBZ) is defined as following:

$`\pi /qak_x\pi /qa,\pi /ak_y\pi /a.`$ (1)
When the quasimomentum runs over the MBZ (1), the energy varies in a band which is called a magnetic subband. When the amplitude of periodic potential $`V_0`$ is smaller than the cyclotron energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _c`$ one can neglect the influence of neighboring Landau levels and may obtain the set of $`p`$ magnetic subbands arising from a single level . If several electron Landau levels are taken into account, the periodic potential leads to the mixing between magnetic subbands originating from different levels . However, the in-plane properties of the electron wavefunction remain the same both for coupled and uncoupled Landau levels. For example, one can see that, regardless to the particular form and the number of Landau levels taken into account, the electron wavefunction gains an additional phase under the magnetic translations. The relation between the translated and the initial wavefunctions in magnetic field is known as the generalized Bloch conditions (or Peierls conditions)

$`\psi _{k_xk_y}(x,y,z)=\psi _{k_xk_y}(x+qa,y+a,z)\mathrm{exp}(ik_xqa)\times `$ (2)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}(ik_ya)\mathrm{exp}(2\pi ipy/a).`$ (3)
It follows from (3) that the wavefunction gains the phase $`2\pi p`$ after the circulation along the boundary of the magnetic unit cell. As a result, the magnetic field forces the periodic part $`u_𝐤(𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐤𝐫})\psi _𝐤(𝐫)`$ of the wavefunction to have $`p`$ vorticity in the magnetic unit cell which indicates that there are at least $`p`$ zeros of the wavefunction per each magnetic cell . This result has a topological nature because of its independance of the shape and the amplitude of periodic potential.

During last years the researchers have investigated several significant theoretical and experimental features of the systems where a 2D electron gas with additional periodic potential is in the regime of quantum Hall effect (QHE). If a single Landau level is splitted by a 2D periodic potential which has the area of elementary cell corresponding to $`p/q`$ of flux quanta penetrating the cell, the spectrum transforms to the system of $`p`$ magnetic subbands grouped near the unperturbed level. One might expect that each of magnetic subbands gives a Hall conductance $`\sigma _H`$ equal to $`e^2/ph`$, but according to Laughlin each subband must carry an integer multiple of the Hall current carried by the entire Landau level which is equal to $`e^2/h`$. For the first time the confirmation of this rule which describes the quantization of Hall conductance in periodically modulated 2D systems has been obtained by Thouless, Kohmoto, Nightingale, and den Nijs in their pioneer paper . They have studied in detailes a simple quasi-1D model of a strongly anisotropic lattice for which an explicit expression for $`\sigma _H`$ has been derived. If the Fermi energy falls into the rth gap of the Nth splitted Landau level, the Hall conductance can be written as following:

$$\sigma _H=\frac{e^2}{h}(t_r+N1),$$
(4)
where $`t_r`$ is an integer obtained from the Diophantine equation

$$t_rp+s_rq=r.$$
(5)
Equation (5) has integer solutions for some integer values of $`s_r`$, $`|s_r|p/2`$. It was found further that the quantization of $`\sigma _H`$ in periodically modulated systems has a topological nature. Namely, the value of $`\sigma _H`$ for a fully occupied magnetic subband is related to the number and the type of the wavefunction singularities in $`𝐤`$-space. Kohmoto has shown that these singularities determine the first Chern number for a particular nagnetic subband which is, in units of $`e^2/h`$, exactly the Hall conductance of this subband .

An original method for calculation of the Hall conductance of 2D electron gas affected by weak periodical modulation has been proposed by Usov . He has shown that the value of $`\sigma _H`$ is related to the winding numbers $`S_m`$, $`m=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ of the wavefunction singularities in the extended MBZ (28). These singularities are direct consequence of a non-trivial topology of the MBZ or EMBZ, and a winding number $`S_m`$ is determined as the phase mismatch at the beginning and at the end of a circulation around the singular point $`𝐤_m`$. As a result, the Hall conductance of a fully occupied subband $`\alpha `$ is given by:

$$\sigma _H^\alpha =\frac{e^2}{h}\left[\frac{1}{p}+\frac{q}{p}\underset{m}{}S_m\right].$$
(6)
The topological features of the problem have been discussed for the first time by Novikov . Namely, the formation of $`p`$ magnetic subbands near the Landau level was treated as a fiber bundle of magnetic Bloch functions on a $`T^2`$-torus which is the MBZ (1). This problem has also been discussed by Avron, Seiler and Simon using homotopy theory . The generalization of the proof of existance of the topological invariant to the situation where many-body interaction and substrate disorder are present has been obtained by Niu, Thouless, and Wu . It should be mentioned that Simon  made a connection between the topological invariant and Berry’s geometrical phase factor  in the quantum adiabatic theorem. The Berry’s phase links the Hall conductance with a 2D integral over the MBZ (1) of the so called Berry curvature which is a $`𝐤`$-dependent function, and it can be written in the spirit of the Kubo formula for the conductance .

Another approach to the calculation of Hall conductance is based on the Středa formula . If the Fermi level is located in the energy gap, the Hall conductance is given by

$$\sigma _H=ec\frac{N(E)}{B}$$
(7)
where $`N(E)`$ is the number of states per unit area having energy lower than the gap energy. The formula (7) has been widely used for calculations of the Hall conductance of 2D electron gas with periodical modulation, even in the presence of Landau level coupling . It was also applied to 3D systems  were the generalization of (7) is known as the Kohmoto-Halperin-Wu formula . However, the application of Str̆eda formula (7) to the systems with multi-component wavefunction is not justified and thus we shall focus on the analytical approach described above.

During last decade the number of experimental studies have been performed in order to investigate a 2D electron gas laterally modulated by a surface superlattice of quantum dots (antidots). Such a system is convenient for investigation of both classical effects (commensurability of the lattice periods and cyclotron radius, transition to chaos, etc.) and of the energy spectrum consisting of magnetic subbands. For example, the oscillations of longitudinal magnetoresistance have been detected under the conditions where classical cyclotron radius $`2R_c`$ envelopes an integer number of antidots or numerous reflections from one antidot occur . It should be mentioned that the effects of randomly distributed impurities on collision broadening and transport scattering rate in 2D electron gas with periodical modulation, which consideration is of great importance for experimentators, have also been studied theoretically . The first experimental evidences of electron Landau levels splitted into the set of magnetic subbands have been obtained by the measuremets of the longitudinal magnetoresistance . Then, the Hall resistance in a laterally modulated 2D electron gas have been studied experimentally and the confirmations of subband energy spectrum have been found .

The experiments in $`p`$-type heterojunctions without periodic potential have also become possible due to the progress in technology which substantially improved the quality of $`p`$ channels in GaAs/AlGaAs heterojunctions . Thus, almost all intriguing phenomena found for 2D electron systems were also observed in 2D hole channels. It should be noted that their theoretical investigation has been carried out much earlier, for example, the studies of fractional quantum Hall effect in a 2D hole gas have been performed . In several recent publications the magnetotransport in 2D hole gas with lateral periodic modulation was studied . The corresponding quantum-mechanical model describing the hole subband spectra and the four-component magnetic Bloch wavefunctions has been derived by us recently, and the magnetooptical properties of laterally modulated 2D holes have also been studied . As soon as the transport experiments in laterally modulated 2D hole gas have started , it is now needful to derive a quantum-mechanical description of transport phenomena in such systems, and, in particular, of the quantum Hall effect.

In the current paper we present a new method of calculation of the Hall conductance in a 2D hole gas affected by lateral periodic potential. In Sec. II we briefly describe the magnetic hole Bloch states in a $`p`$ \- type heterojunction subjected to a magnetic field and affected by lateral periodic potential, which have been studied by us previously . In Sec. III we generalize the method derived by Usov  for calculation of the Hall conductance in a system studied in Sec. II where the charged particle is described by a four-component eigenfunction of the Luttinger Hamiltonian. We find an unusual behavior of the Hall conductance as a function of the Fermi energy in comparence to the well-known dependance obtained for Hofstadter ”butterfly”  for the electrons. We propose an explanation of this effect by evaluating the role of the off-diagonal terms of the Luttinger Hamiltonian which provide a highly non-equdistant character of hole Landau levels. The quantization of the Hall conductance has been investigated both at weak and at strong periodic potential. In the latter case we’ve taken into account the magnetic subband mixing which leads to the exchange of the Chern numbers between magnetic subands, changing their impact to the Hall conductance. We believe that the differences between the quantization of Hall conductance in n- and p-type heterojunctions which have been predicted by us can be observed experimentally. In Sec. IV we give the summary of our results.

## II Magnetic hole states in laterally modulated heterojunction

The holes are studied near the upper edge of GaAs $`p`$-like valence band located at $`𝐤=0`$. We assume that the external magnetic field is oriented along $`001`$ crystal direction which is perpendicular to the heterojunction plane $`(xy)`$. The 2D holes are described in the $`|J;m_J`$ basis by the $`4\times 4`$ Luttinger Hamiltonian where both magnetic field and confinement potential $`V_h(z)`$ of a single heterojunction are taken into account . In addition, the periodic potential $`V(x,y)`$ of a quantum dot superlattice is introduced which simplest form is

$$V(x,y)=V_0\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\pi x}{a}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\pi y}{a}.$$
(8)
Here $`a`$ is the superlattice period and the case $`V_0<0(>0)`$ corresponds to the periodic electric potential generated by quantum dot (antidot) superlattice. The Hamiltonian for magnetic Bloch hole quantum states written in atomic units $`\mathrm{}=m_0=1`$ takes the following form in the no-warping approximation :

$`H_L=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}H_{11}& \overline{\gamma }\sqrt{3}(eB/c)a^2& \gamma _3\sqrt{6eB/c}k_za& 0\\ & H_{22}& 0& \gamma _3\sqrt{6eB/c}k_za\\ & & H_{33}& \overline{\gamma }\sqrt{3}(eB/c)a^2\\ & & & H_{44}\end{array}\right],`$ (9)
where

$`H_{11}=(\gamma _1/2\gamma _2)k_z^2(eB/c)\left[(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)\left(a^+a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\kappa \right]+V_h(z)+V(x,y),`$ (10)
$`H_{22}=(\gamma _1/2+\gamma _2)k_z^2(eB/c)\left[(\gamma _1\gamma _2)\left(a^+a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa \right]+V_h(z)+V(x,y),`$ (11)
$`H_{33}=(\gamma _1/2+\gamma _2)k_z^2(eB/c)\left[(\gamma _1\gamma _2)\left(a^+a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa \right]+V_h(z)+V(x,y),`$ (12)
$`H_{44}=(\gamma _1/2\gamma _2)k_z^2(eB/c)\left[(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)\left(a^+a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\kappa \right]+V_h(z)+V(x,y).`$ (13)
The lower half of matrix (9) is obtained by Hermitian conjugation. In Eq.(9) $`a`$ is an annihilation operator, $`e`$ is a modulus of elementary charge, $`\gamma _1`$, $`\gamma _2`$, $`\gamma _3`$ and $`\kappa `$ are the material bulk parameters which are well-known for GaAs. The hole energy is counted as negative from the upper edge of the valence band throughout the paper. In the effective mass approximation the $`k_z`$ component of quasimomentum in (9) is replaced by its operator form $`k_z=i/z`$. This substitution is performed at $`B=0`$ and $`V(x,y)=0`$ which yields an infinite set of doubly degenerate heavy and light hole subband energies and eigenfunctions $`c_j^\nu (z),\nu =1,2,\mathrm{}`$. The $`z`$-dependent envelope functions $`C_j^\nu (z)`$ at finite $`B`$ can be constructed as superpositions of zero-field functions $`c_j^\nu `$ . Now let the periodic potential (8) be applied, corresponding to the rational magnetic flux through the elementary cell with the area $`S=a^2`$:

$$\frac{BS}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}=\frac{BS}{2\pi \mathrm{}c/|e|}=\frac{p}{q}.$$
(14)
If the condition (14) is satisfied, any of four components $`\psi ^j`$ of the vector of hole envelope functions becomes a magnetic Bloch function classified by $`k_x`$ and $`k_y`$ quantum numbers varying in the MBZ (1), and the total hole quantum state can be written as following:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{k_x,k_y}(𝐫)=\psi _{k_xk_y}^1(𝐫)|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+\psi _{k_xk_y}^2(𝐫)|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+`$ (15)
$`+\psi _{k_xk_y}^3(𝐫)|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\psi _{k_xk_y}^4(𝐫)|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}.`$ (16)
The translational properties of each component of the envelope function (16) in $`(xy)`$ plane are the same as for the single-component electron wavefunction . In particular, every component of (16) satisfies to the Peierls condition (3). Hence, one can write the components $`\psi _{k_xk_y}^j(𝐫)`$ of (16) as a superposition of the Landau quantum states , namely

$`\psi _{k_xk_y}^j(𝐫)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{La\sqrt{q}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}C_j^\nu (z){\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{p}{}}}d_{j\nu Nn}(k_x,k_y){\displaystyle \underset{l=L/2}{\overset{L/2}{}}}u_N\left({\displaystyle \frac{xx_0lqanqa/p}{\mathrm{}_H}}\right)\times `$ (17)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(ik_x\left[lqa+{\displaystyle \frac{nqa}{p}}\right]\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi iy{\displaystyle \frac{lp+n}{a}}\right)\mathrm{exp}(ik_yy).`$ (18)
It should be mentioned that the set of basis functions for the hole states in magnetic subbands splitted from interacting hole Landau levels has more complicated structure than those for electrons (the latter is discussed, for example, in Refs. ). Namely, at the absence of periodic potential the four-component eigenvector of Luttinger Hamiltonian in a single subband of size quantization $`\nu `$ has the form :

$$F_{Nk_y}^\nu =e^{ik_y}(C_1^\nu (z)u_{N2},C_2^\nu (z)u_N,C_3^\nu (z)u_{N1},C_4^\nu (z)u_{N+1}).$$
(19)
In Eq.(19) $`u_N(x)`$ is a harmonic oscillator wavefunction which vanish for negative values of its index. Below we shall discuss in details the structure of expression (18).

First, we should restrict ourselves to some limited number of size quantization subbands to be taken into account. In heterojunctions with typical hole concentration $`n_h=5\times 10^{11}cm^2`$ and depletion-layer density $`N_{dep}=10^{15}cm^3`$ only the lowest hole subband of size quantization is occupied . Hence, in the expression (18) for the hole state it seems to be relevant to consider only several subbands of size quantization neighbouring to the lowest one. Besides, for each subband of size quantization in Eq.(18) we take into account only several Landau levels $`N`$. During the investigation of hole states (18) in this Sec. we consider the first three subbands of size quantization which corresponds to two heavy- and one light-hole levels. The basis for the hole state (18) at $`V(x,y)=0`$ consists of the following four-component vectors:

$`e^{ik_y}(0,0,0,C_4^1(z)u_0),e^{ik_y}(0,C_2^1(z)u_0,0,C_4^1(z)u_1),`$ (20)
$`e^{ik_y}(C_1^1(z)u_0,C_2^1(z)u_2,C_3^1(z)u_1,C_4^1(z)u_3),e^{ik_y}(0,0,0,C_4^2(z)u_0),`$ (21)
$`e^{ik_y}(0,0,0,C_4^2(z)u_1),e^{ik_y}(C_1^2(z)u_0,0,0,C_4^2(z)u_3)`$ (22)
where the upper index $`\nu =1,2`$ labels the first or the second subband of size quantization, and the light-hole components for the second subband have been removed. It is easy to see that each term in (21) has the form of (19) with particular values of $`\nu `$ and $`N`$. It should be noted that the group of neighbouring hole levels may not be classified by a monotonous sequence $`N=1,0,1,\mathrm{}`$ in Eq.(19) which is the fundamental difference between hole and electron Landau level (the latter are labeled by increasing index). In the presence of periodic potential $`V(x,y)`$ for which the condition (14) is satisfied, each of Landau levels is splitted into $`p`$ subbands. The summation over $`n=1,\mathrm{},p`$ in Eq.(18) corresponds to this splitting which is a general feature both for the electron and hole magnetic Bloch states . To define the limits for indices $`(\nu ,N)`$ in (18), one should fix the $`|J;m_J`$ projection $`j=1,2,3,4`$ and than take the sum of j-th components of all vectors in (21) with coefficients $`d_{j\nu Nn}(k_x,k_y)`$. The total number of non-zero components in the set of basis vectors (21) is equal to $`11`$ which is smaller than the total number of avaliable components $`4\times 6=24`$ due to the vanish of those components of (19) which have negative indices. Hence, after substituting the total hole wavefunction (16) - (18) into the Schrödinger equation with the Hamiltonian (9) one obtains the $`11p\times 11p`$ eigenvalue problem for the $`11p`$ coefficients $`d_{j\nu Nn}(k_x,k_y)`$ in every of $`11p`$ hole magnetic subbands.

In the Introduction we’ve mentioned that the wavefunction of a Bloch electron has at least $`p`$ zeros per magnetic cell if the magnetic flux is equal to $`p/q`$ of flux quanta, which is a consequence of the Peierls condition (3). It is interesting to generalize this result for a multi-component wavefunction. Namely, if $`\theta _𝐤^j`$ denotes the phase of the $`j`$-th periodic part $`u_𝐤^j(𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐤𝐫})\psi _𝐤^j(𝐫)`$ of the hole component $`\psi _𝐤^j(𝐫)`$ defined by (18), one can introduce the vorticity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ for each component as following:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_j=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑𝐥\frac{\theta _𝐤^j(x,y)}{𝐥}$$
(23)
where the integration path is taken along the boundary of magnetic unit cell in the counterclockwise direction. It was mentioned above that the condition (3) is valid for every component of the vector of hole envelope functions. So, it is not surprising that the vorticity (23) is equal for all hole components:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j=p,j=1,2,3,4.`$ (24)
However, the position inside magnetic cell and the total number of zeros can be different for each of the $`|J;m_J`$ components due to their particular form of basic functions and coefficients in (18). It should be mentioned also that the total number of zeros per magnetic cell can be greater than $`p`$ because of the opposite signs of some vorticities. All of these results are shown on Fig.1 where the probability distributions of all four hole envelope functions are plotted at $`k_x=k_y=0`$ in a non-overlapped magnetic subband at $`p/q=5`$. The zeros are shown as black circles of different size corresponding to their order (see the inset). One can see that different hole components have the different number and (in general) the different order of zeros. Some of the zeros are located on the sides and in the corners of magnetic cell which is reflected by semi- and quarter-circle areas. It should be mentioned that despite of the different positions and the number of zeros for each of $`|J;m_J`$ components, the total vorticity per one magnetic cell (24) is equal for all components at any $`(k_x,k_y)`$ in all magnetic subbands. This result reflects the topological nature of the wavefunction vorticity (23).

## III Quantization of Hall conductance

The Hall conductance $`\sigma _H`$ is quantized in units of $`e^2/h`$ as soon as the Fermi energy lays in the energy gap. The value of $`\sigma _H`$ is determined by the sum of partial conductances of filled magnetic subbands. Thus, we shall study at first the Hall conductance of one fully occupied magnetic subband $`\alpha `$. In the absence of disorder and at zero temperature, its contribution to Hall conductance is given by

$`\sigma _H^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle Im\frac{u_𝐤}{k_y}|\frac{u_𝐤}{k_x}d^2k}`$ (25)
where $`u_𝐤=\mathrm{\Psi }_{k_xk_y}(𝐫)e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐫}}`$ is the periodic part of the Bloch function in the current subband $`\alpha `$. For the four-component hole state (16) one obtaines from (25) the following expression for $`\sigma _H`$:

$`\sigma _H^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle Im\frac{u_𝐤^j}{k_y}|\frac{u_𝐤^j}{k_x}d^2k}`$ (26)
where $`u_𝐤^j=\mathrm{\Psi }_{k_xk_y}^{(j)}(𝐫)e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐫}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{k_xk_y}^{(j)}(𝐫)`$ is defined by (18). In this Section we shall focus on the magnetic subbands originating from the lowest subband of size quantization and thus will ignore the second heavy-hole subband, omitting the last three vectors in (21). This will reduce the number of non-zero components from $`11`$ to $`7`$. After substituting $`u_𝐤^j`$ into (25) and taking into account the orthogonality and normalization of the basis functions in (18), one may express the Hall conductance (26) through the partial derivations of the components $`d_{j\nu Nn}(k_x,k_y)`$ desribing the quantum state. For brevity, in the following we shall replace the set of indices $`(j\nu Nn)`$ by a single index $`n=1,\mathrm{},7p`$ which runs sequentially all the required values. We get

$`\sigma _H={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle Im\left[\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{}_H^2+\underset{n=1}{\overset{7p}{}}\frac{d_n^{}}{k_y}\frac{d_n}{k_x}\right]d^2k}`$ (27)
The expression (27) has been initially derived  for the Hall conductance of a magnetic subband splitted from a single electron Landau level. We claim that (27) is valid for the case of several interacting electron or hole levels as long as the spectrum is non-degenerate. The differences with the single-level problem is only in the size of the matrix equation which is now equal to $`Np`$ instead of $`p`$. The orthogonality and normalization of the basis functions used for construction of the hole envelope function (18) is of the same kind as the basis set for a single-level problem. This feature allows us to expand directly the approach used by Usov for the case of several interacting levels. So, we use the expression (27) for calculations of the Hall conductance for the hole Landau levels which are coupled even at zero superlattice potential by the off-diagonal elements of the Luttinger Hamiltonian.

It is evident from (27) that for calculation of the Hall conductance one should study first the analytical properties of coefficients $`d_n`$ as the functions of quasimomentum. First, one can transform the 2D integral (27) into a 1D contour integral. In order to simplify the integration and to reduce it to the summation of the winding numbers over the singularities (see the right side of (6)), one has to introduce the extended magnetic Brillouin zone (EMBZ) which is derived from the previously determined magnetic Brillouin zone (1) by extending it $`p/q`$ times in the $`k_y`$ direction:

$`\pi /qak_x\pi /qa,p\pi /qak_yp\pi /qa.`$ (28)
It was shown by Usov  that the integration along the ”boundaries” of the EMBZ (28) gives no impact to the value of $`\sigma _H`$ which is explicitly determined only by the contour integrals around the singularities (winding numbers). We shall briefly repeat the outline of the derivation of this result. One can choose a representaion for which one of the components of the vector $`𝐝=(d_1,\mathrm{}d_{Np})`$, say, $`d_1`$, is real. The singular points $`𝐤_m`$, $`m=1,2\mathrm{}`$ are thus determined as points where $`d_1(𝐤_m)=0`$. The other components will be written as $`d_j=|d_j|\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _j)`$, $`j=2,3,\mathrm{}`$. The winding numbers appear to be equal for any of these components. To be specific, let us consider the calculation of the winding numbers for $`d_2`$. At a particular singular point $`𝐤_m`$ its winding number $`S_m`$ can be calculated as an algebraic sum of rotations (modulo $`2\pi `$) of the vector with the components $`(Red_2,\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{d}_2)`$. A typical behavior of $`d_1`$ and both $`Red_2`$ and $`Imd_2`$ in two magnetic subbands is illustrated on Figures 2-3 for the magnetic flux $`p/q=3/2`$, $`a=80`$ nm and the amplitude of periodic potential $`V_0=0.7`$ meV which corresponds to the case of non-overlapped magnetic subbands.

The contours $`L_{1,2}`$ of circulations around the singularities are shown schematically. It is evident from Figures 2-3 that while approaching the singular point where $`d_1=0`$ which is marked by black dot, both real and imaginary parts of $`d_2`$ have different limits depending on the direction in $`(k_x,k_y)`$ plane and thus do not have a true limit in this point. The impact of the component $`d_j`$ at a singular point $`𝐤_m`$ to the Hall conductance is proportional to $`|d_j|^2S_m^j`$ where $`S_m^j`$ is the winding number for the component $`d_j`$. It was shown  that for all components $`j=2,3,\mathrm{},Np`$ the winding numbers are equal, $`S_m^j=S_m`$. So, the summation over all components gives the impact to the Hall conductance provided by a singular point $`𝐤_m`$:

$$\underset{j}{}|d_j|^2S_m^j=S_m\underset{j}{}|d_j|^2=S_m,$$
(29)
where we’ve used the normalization of the vector $`𝐝=(d_1,\mathrm{}d_{Np})`$. As soon as the winding numbers are calculated, the Hall conductance of a particular magnetic subband is given by Eq.(6). By examining the expression (6), one can mention that the first term in the square brackets is just the contribution of one out of $`p`$ subbands to the free-electron Hall conductivity. The remaining term in (6) is stipulated by the presence of periodic potential and by a non-trivial topology of the wavefunction in the EMBZ (28). At least one singular point can be found for every magnetic subband when $`𝐤`$ runs over EMBZ. As a result, the expression in brackets in (6) is always an integer, which is the first Chern class of magnetic subband .

The quantization of $`\sigma _H`$ as a function of the number of filled magnetic subbands (or, equivalently, of the position of the Fermi level) is shown on Figures 4 - 5 both for non-overlapped and overlapped magnetic subbands. When the amplitude $`V_0`$ of the periodic potential (8) is smaller than the distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{12}`$ between neighbouring Landau levels, none of the subbands are overlapped (see Fig.4) and possible deviations in the quantization of $`\sigma _H`$ from the sequences obtained for the Hofstadter ”butterfly”  are caused by the non-equidistant character of hole Landau levels which leads to hole subband spectra with another structure than the ”butterfly” for electrons . The quantization of $`\sigma _H`$ in the gaps between non-overlapped subbands as a function of Fermi energy is plotted on Fig.4. It should be noted that when the Fermi level is swept through a subband centered at $`E_n`$ (or through a region of overlapped subbands, see below), the Hall conductivity interpolates smoothly between the adjacent quantized values. These values are shown by solid lines on Figures 4 - 5 and the interpolation curves are the dashed lines.

If the amplitude $`V_0`$ is increased, the neighbouring magnetic subbands from different hole Landau levels can touch each other at some point in the MBZ. This touch means that the degeneracy of the spectrum has occured, and the application of the expression (6) is invalid. However, the further increase of $`V_0`$ leads to the repulsion of the touched subbands and to the breaking of the degeneracy. So, one can use (6) at higher $`V_0`$ when the condition $`V_0>\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is satisfied and some of magnetic subbands are overlapped but the spectrum remains to be non-degenerate. The spectrum for $`V_0=3`$ meV is shown on the inset of Fig.5. One can see that the number and the maximum width of gaps on Fig.5 has decreased with respect to the system of non-overlapped subbands on Fig.4 which will reduce the number and maximum width of Hall plateaus. For convenience, on Fig.5 we’ve labeled the remaining gaps and the corresponding Hall plateaus by numbers. Again the dashed line serves as a guide to the eye and it qualitatively shows the impact to the Hall conductance provided by those subbands which are fully occupied at the current position of $`E_F`$ when it is swept through the region of overlapped subbands. The unusially high and low, even negative values of $`\sigma _H`$ are marked by arrows. It should be stressed that the differences between the behavior of $`\sigma _H`$ on Figures 4 and 5 are provided by only two changes in the $`\sigma _H^\alpha `$ for subbands $`\alpha =4`$ and $`\alpha =8`$ (see Fig.4). We found that these subbands have been degenerated at some intermediate values of $`V_0`$ which are greater than on Fig.4 but lower than on Fig.5. According to the topological point of view , the subband touches have caused the exchange of the Chern classes $`\mathrm{\Delta }c=\pm q`$ between these subbands where $`q=2`$ in our examples. It can be easily seen that such exchange ($`2`$ for subband 4 and $`+2`$ for subband 8) exactly transforms the quantization shown on Fig.4 to the dependence on Fig.5. We suppose that the novell features of the quantization of Hall conductance in laterally modulated hole gas which have been discussed in this paper can be detected in transport experiments.

## IV Summary

We presented a new method of calculation of the Hall conductance in a 2D hole gas affected by lateral periodic potential which is a generalization of the method derived by Usov  for a system where the charged particle is described by a four-component eigenfunction of the Luttinger Hamiltonian. An unusual behavior of the Hall conductance in comparence to the well-known dependance for Hofstadter ”butterfly”as a function of the Fermi energy is found for holes. The explanation of this effect is proposed by evaluating the role of the off-diagonal terms of the Luttinger Hamiltonian which provide a highly non-equdistant character of hole Landau levels. The quantization of the Hall conductance is investigated both at weak and at strong periodic potential. In the latter case the magnetic subband mixing is taken into account which leads to the exchange of the Chern numbers between magnetic subands, changing their impact to the Hall conductance. The experimental observation of the differences between the quantization of Hall conductance in n- and p-type heterojunctions is discussed.

## Acknowledgments

We thank D. Weiss, R.R. Gerhardts and D. Pfannkuche for useful discussions and M. Kohmoto for sending us the hardcopy of his paper . This work was supported by the RFBR (Grants No. 01-02-17102, 02-02-06440), by the Russian Ministry of Education (Grants No. E00-3.1-413, UR 0101.020) and by the BRHE Program (Project REC - 001).


text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction

Quark mass effects play an important role in the production of quarks and gluons in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations. Jet definition schemes, event shape variables, heavy flavour momentum correlations and the polarization of quarks and gluons are affected by the presence of quark masses for charm and bottom quarks even when they are produced at the scale of the $`Z^0`$ mass . A careful investigation of quark mass effects in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations may even lead to an alternative determination of the quark mass values .

There is an obvious interest in quark mass effects for $`t\overline{t}`$ production where quark mass effects cannot be neglected in the envisaged range of energies to be covered by the Next Linear Collider (NLC). The longitudinal polarization of massive quarks affects the shape of the energy spectrum of their secondary decay leptons, the longitudinal spin-spin correlation effects in pair produced quarks and antiquarks will lead to correlation effects of the energy spectra of their secondary decay leptons and antileptons. Quark mass effects are important in the $`m0`$ calculation of radiative corrections to quark polarization variables because residual mass effects change the naive no-flip pattern of the $`m=0`$ polarization results .

In this talk I present $`O(\alpha _s)`$ radiative corrections to different polarization observables, namely the longitudinal and transverse single-spin polarization of the quark , the polarization of the gluon , and the longitudinal spin-spin correlation  for massive quark pairs produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations, always including the polar angle dependence. As a byproduct of our calculations I discuss the $`m0`$ limit and the role of the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ residual mass effects. I explain how residual mass effects contribute to the various spin-flip and no-flip terms in the $`m0`$ limit for each of the three structure functions that describe the polar angle dependence.

## 2 The joint quark-antiquark density matrix

Let us start with the joint quark-antiquark density matrix $`d\text{ }\sigma ^\alpha =d\sigma _{\lambda _1\lambda _2;\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}}^\alpha `$ where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ denote the helicities of the quark and antiquark, respectively. In the applications covered by this talk, only the diagonal case $`\lambda _1=\lambda _1^{}`$ and $`\lambda _2=\lambda _2^{}`$ is of importance. The label $`\alpha `$ specifies the polarization of the initial $`\gamma ^{}`$, $`Z`$ or interference contributions thereof. This index will be specified later on by the labels $`U`$ (unpolarized transverse), $`L`$ (longitudinal), $`F`$ (forward–backward), and the two labels $`A`$ and $`I`$ for the case of transverse polarization of the final state quarks.

The diagonal part of the differential joint density matrix can be represented in terms of its components along the products of the unit matrix and the $`z`$-components of the Pauli matrix $`\text{ }\sigma _3`$ ($`\text{ }\sigma _3=\widehat{p}_1\stackrel{}{\text{ }\sigma }`$ for the quark and $`\text{ }\sigma _3=\widehat{p}_2\stackrel{}{\text{ }\sigma }`$ for the antiquark, $`\widehat{p}_i=\stackrel{}{p}_i/|\stackrel{}{p}_i|`$). One has

$$d\text{ }\sigma ^\alpha =\frac{1}{4}\left(d\sigma _\alpha 1\text{l}1\text{l}+d\sigma _\alpha ^{(\mathrm{}_1)}\text{ }\sigma _31\text{l}+d\sigma _\alpha ^{(\mathrm{}_2)}1\text{l}\text{ }\sigma _3+d\sigma _\alpha ^{(\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2)}\text{ }\sigma _3\text{ }\sigma _3\right)$$
(1)
as formulated for longitudinal polarization, the first and the second Pauli matrices stand for the quark and the antiquark, respectively. An alternative but equivalent representation of the longitudinal spin contributions can be written down in terms of the longitudinal spin components $`s_1^{\mathrm{}}=2\lambda _1`$ and $`s_2^{\mathrm{}}=2\lambda _2`$ with $`s_1^{\mathrm{}},s_2^{\mathrm{}}=\pm 1`$ (or $`s_1^{\mathrm{}},s_2^{\mathrm{}}\{,\}`$). The spin dependent parts of the differential cross section are given by

$$d\sigma _\alpha (s_1^{\mathrm{}},s_2^{\mathrm{}})=\frac{1}{4}\left(d\sigma _\alpha +d\sigma _\alpha ^{(\mathrm{}_1)}s_1^{\mathrm{}}+d\sigma _\alpha ^{(\mathrm{}_2)}s_2^{\mathrm{}}+d\sigma _\alpha ^{(\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2)}s_1^{\mathrm{}}s_2^{\mathrm{}}\right).$$
(2)
Eq. (2) is easily inverted,

$`d\sigma _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`d\sigma _\alpha ()+d\sigma _\alpha ()+d\sigma _\alpha ()+d\sigma _\alpha (),`$
$`d\sigma _\alpha ^{(\mathrm{}_1)}`$ $`=`$ $`d\sigma _\alpha ()+d\sigma _\alpha ()d\sigma _\alpha ()d\sigma _\alpha (),`$
$`d\sigma _\alpha ^{(\mathrm{}_2)}`$ $`=`$ $`d\sigma _\alpha ()d\sigma _\alpha ()+d\sigma _\alpha ()d\sigma _\alpha (),`$
$`d\sigma _\alpha ^{(\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2)}`$ $`=`$ $`d\sigma _\alpha ()d\sigma _\alpha ()d\sigma _\alpha ()+d\sigma _\alpha ().`$ (3)
The first line is the unpolarized contribution, the second line the contribution due to a single polarized quark, while the last line is the correlation between quark and antiquark. While all these contributions will be considered in the following, the polarisation of a single antiquark (third line) is not considered because it is equivalent to the case of a single polarized quark.

### 2.1 The differential cross section

According to Fermi’s “golden rule” the differential cross section is given by

$$d\sigma =2\pi |T_{fi}|^2dPS.$$
(4)
Using conventional Feynman rules, especially

$$ieQ_f\gamma _\mu \text{and}ie(v_f\gamma _\mu a_f\gamma _\mu \gamma _5)$$
(5)
for the vertex of the fermion line with a photon or a $`Z`$ boson, respectively, and

$$\frac{ig^{\mu \nu }}{q^2}\text{and}\chi _Z(q)\frac{ig^{\mu \nu }}{q^2}$$
(6)
for the boson propagators with momentum $`q`$, one can write

$`T_{fi}=\overline{v}(p_2)\left[ieQ_f\gamma ^\mu \right]u(p_1){\displaystyle \frac{i}{q^2}}\overline{v}(p_+)\left[ieQ_e\gamma _\mu \right]u(p_{})+`$ (7)
$`+\overline{v}(p_2)\left[ie(v_f\gamma ^\mu a_f\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5)\right]u(p_1)\chi _Z(q){\displaystyle \frac{i}{q^2}}\overline{v}(p_+)\left[ie(v_e\gamma _\mu a_e\gamma _\mu \gamma _5)\right]u(p_{})`$
where $`p_{}`$ and $`p_{}`$ are the moments of the electron and positron, $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are the moments of the quark and antiquark, and $`q=p_{}+p_+=p_1+p_2`$ is the moment of the boson. Possible polarisation degrees of freedom enter the squared matrix element by replacing for instance $`u(p_1)\overline{u}(p_1)`$ by $`(\gamma _\mu p_1^\mu +m)(1+\gamma _5\gamma _\nu s_1^\nu )/2`$ instead of summing over the polarisations of the final state. $`m`$ is the mass of the quark (and antiquark). The squared matrix element reads

$$|T_{fi}|^2=g_{ij}L_{\mu \nu }^iH^{j\mu \nu }$$
(8)
where $`L_{\mu \nu }^i`$ contains all elements due to electron and positron (lepton tensor), $`H^{j\mu \nu }`$ contains all elements due to the quark and antiquark (hadron tensor), and $`g_{ij}`$ contains the elements due to the intemediate bosons (photon and $`Z`$ boson) which mix up. These parts will be considered in turn.

### 2.2 The hadron tensor

The hadron tensor is determined by the hadron dynamics, i.e. by the current-induced production of a quark-antiquark pair which, in the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ case, is followed by gluon emission. In the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ case one also has to add the one-loop contribution. The index $`i=1,2,3,4`$ in Eq. (8) specifies the current composition in terms of the parity-even (for $`i=1,2`$) and parity-odd ($`i=3,4`$) products of the vector and the axial vector currents according to

$`H_{\mu \nu }^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(H_{\mu \nu }^{VV}+H_{\mu \nu }^{AA}),`$ $`H_{\mu \nu }^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(H_{\mu \nu }^{VV}H_{\mu \nu }^{AA}),`$
$`H_{\mu \nu }^3={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(H_{\mu \nu }^{VA}H_{\mu \nu }^{AV}),`$ $`H_{\mu \nu }^4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(H_{\mu \nu }^{VA}+H_{\mu \nu }^{AV}).`$ (9)
In order to be specific, the unpolarized hadron tensor $`H_{\mu \nu }^{VA}`$ is e.g. given by the matrix element

$$H_{\mu \nu }^{VA}=q\overline{q}|J_\mu ^V|00|(J_\nu ^A)^{}|q\overline{q}.$$
(10)
In the two-body case $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ the components of the cross section are given by

$$\sigma _\alpha ^{i(P)}=\frac{\pi \alpha ^2v}{3q^4}H_\alpha ^{i(P)}\left(\text{with }v=\sqrt{14m^2/q^2}\right)$$
(11)
where $`(P)`$ stands for unpolarized, single-spin or spin-spin correlation contributions. In the three-body case $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}g`$ the hadron tensor components $`H_\alpha ^{i(P)}(y,z)`$ are related to the components of the differential cross section by

$$\frac{d\sigma _\alpha ^{i(P)}}{dydz}=\frac{\pi \alpha ^2v}{3q^4}\left\{\frac{q^2}{16\pi ^2v}H_\alpha ^{i(P)}(y,z)\right\}.$$
(12)
The two energy-type variables $`y=12p_1q/q^2`$ and $`z=12p_2q/q^2`$ are used as kinematic variables. Note that the three-body helicity structure functions $`H_\alpha ^{i(P)}(y,z)`$ have a different dimension than their two-body counterparts in Eq. (12) which we indicate by explicitly referring to the $`(y,z)`$-dependence of the three-body structure functions. An example for the phase space in terms of $`y`$ and $`z`$ is shown in Fig. 4.

### 2.3 The electro-weak form factors

The second building block $`g_{ij}`$ ($`i,j=1,2,3,4`$) specifies the electro-weak model dependence of the $`e^+e^{}`$ cross section. For the present discussion we need the components $`g_{11}`$, $`g_{12}`$, $`g_{43}`$ and $`g_{44}`$. They are given by

$`g_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_f^22Q_fv_ev_fRe\chi _Z+(v_e^2+a_e^2)(v_f^2+a_f^2)|\chi _Z|^2,`$
$`g_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_f^22Q_fv_ev_fRe\chi _Z+(v_e^2+a_e^2)(v_f^2a_f^2)|\chi _Z|^2,`$
$`g_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`2Q_fv_ea_fIm\chi _Z,`$
$`g_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`2Q_fv_ea_fRe\chi _Z2(v_e^2+a_e^2)v_fa_f|\chi _Z|^2,`$ (13)
$`g_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`q_f^22Q_fv_ev_fRe\chi _Z+(v_e^2a_e^2)(v_f^2+a_f^2)|\chi _Z|^2,`$
$`g_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`q_f^22Q_fv_ev_fRe\chi _Z+(v_e^2a_e^2)(v_f^2a_f^2)|\chi _Z|^2,`$
$`g_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`2Q_fv_ea_fIm\chi _Z,`$
$`g_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`2Q_fv_ea_fRe\chi _Z2(v_e^2a_e^2)v_fa_f|\chi _Z|^2,`$ (14)
$`g_{31}`$ $`=`$ $`2Q_fa_ev_fIm\chi _Z,`$
$`g_{32}`$ $`=`$ $`2Q_fa_ev_fIm\chi _Z,`$
$`g_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`2Q_fa_ea_fRe\chi _Z,`$
$`g_{34}`$ $`=`$ $`2Q_fa_ea_fIm\chi _Z,`$ (15)
$`g_{41}`$ $`=`$ $`2Q_fa_ev_fRe\chi _Z2v_ea_e(v_f^2+a_f^2)|\chi _Z|^2,`$
$`g_{42}`$ $`=`$ $`2Q_fa_ev_fRe\chi _Z2v_ea_e(v_f^2a_f^2)|\chi _Z|^2,`$
$`g_{43}`$ $`=`$ $`2Q_fa_ea_fIm\chi _Z,`$
$`g_{44}`$ $`=`$ $`2Q_fa_ea_fRe\chi _Z+4v_ea_ev_fa_f|\chi _Z|^2`$ (16)
where $`\chi _Z(q^2)=gM_Z^2q^2/(q^2M_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z)`$, with $`M_Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ the mass and width of the $`Z^0`$ ($`M_Z=91.1887\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z=2.487\mathrm{GeV}`$ ) and $`g=G_F(8\sqrt{2}\pi \alpha )^14.49\times 10^5\text{GeV}^2`$. $`Q_f`$ are the charges of the final state quarks to which the electro-weak currents directly couple; $`v_e`$ and $`a_e`$, $`v_f`$ and $`a_f`$ are the electro-weak vector and axial vector coupling constants. For example, in the Weinberg–Salam model, one has $`v_e=1+4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, $`a_e=1`$ for leptons, $`v_f=1\frac{8}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, $`a_f=1`$ for up-type quarks ($`Q_f=\frac{2}{3}`$), and $`v_f=1+\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, $`a_f=1`$ for down-type quarks ($`Q_f=\frac{1}{3}`$). The left- and right-handed coupling constants are then given by $`g_L=v+a`$ and $`g_R=va`$, respectively. In the purely electromagnetic case one has $`g_{11}=g_{12}=g_{21}=g_{22}=Q_f^2`$ and all other $`g_{r^{}r}=0`$. The terms linear in $`Re\chi _Z`$ and $`Im\chi _Z`$ come from $`\gamma Z^0`$ interference, whereas the terms proportional to $`|\chi _Z|^2`$ originate from $`Z`$-exchange.

The generalization of the case where one starts with longitudinally polarized beams is straightforward and amounts to the replacement

$$g_{1i}(1h^{}h^+)g_{1i}+(h^{}h^+)g_{4i}g_{4i}(1h^{}h^+)g_{4i}+(h^{}h^+)g_{1i}$$
(17)
where $`h^{}`$ and $`h^+`$ ($`1h^\pm +1`$) denote the longitudinal polarization of the electron and the positron beam, respectively. Clearly there is no interaction between the beams when $`h^+=h^{}=\pm 1`$.

### 2.4 The polar angle dependence

As mentioned in the introduction, the polar angle dependence will be determined. The rest frame of the boson is a natural choice for the considerations. However, two coordinate systems are in use here, the event frame for the outgoing particles and the beam frame for the incoming particles. Transforming from one to the other system brings in a relative polar angle $`\theta `$ (and in case of transverse spin vectors also a azimuthal angle $`\phi `$ which is averaged out normally). The polar angle $`\theta `$ is given by the angle between the colliding electron beam direction and the outgoing quark direction. Transformed to the event frame, the lepton tensor $`L_{\mu \nu }^i`$ leads to the different angular distributions. While for massless leptons the components $`L_{\mu \nu }^2`$ and $`L_{\mu \nu }^3`$ vanish, one can decompose the remaining lepton tensor components according to

$`L^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\mathrm{\Pi }_U+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{\Pi }_L+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{\Pi }_I\right\},`$
$`L^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}}\left\{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{\Pi }_F+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{\Pi }_A\right\}.`$ (18)
Remark that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_I`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_A`$ depend linearly on $`\mathrm{sin}\phi `$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\phi `$. The matrices $`\mathrm{\Pi }_U`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_L`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_I`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_A`$ are called projectors because in contracting the lepton tensor with the hadron tensor they project out the contribution of the hadron tensor to the different angle dependences. Explicit projectors are

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_U^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_1^\mu \widehat{p}_1^\nu }{p_{1z}^2}},\mathrm{\Pi }_L^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_1^\mu \widehat{p}_1^\nu }{p_{1z}^2}},\mathrm{\Pi }_F^{\mu \nu }=i\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_{1\alpha }q_\beta }{p_{1z}\sqrt{q^2}}},`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_I^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`s_1^\mu \widehat{p}_1^\nu +\widehat{p}_1^\mu s_1^\nu ,\mathrm{\Pi }_A^{\mu \nu }=i\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q_\alpha s_{1\beta }(\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }=g^{\mu \nu }q^\mu q^\nu /q^2,\widehat{p}_i=\stackrel{}{p}_i/|\stackrel{}{p}_i|)`$
The decomposition in Eq. (2.4) covers all possible angle dependences which occur in the process with a single polarized quark. This decomposition gives rise to the decomposition of the differential cross section according to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{(P)}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\sigma _U^{(P)}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \sigma _L^{(P)}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \sigma _F^{(P)}+`$ (20)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \sigma _I^{(P)}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \sigma _A^{(P)}`$
## 3 Unpolarized and polarized structure functions

In Ref.  the mean longitudinal polarization of the quark (i.e. the average over the polar angle $`\theta `$) was calculated, while in Refs.  the polar angle dependence was determined, including beam polarisation effects. The polar angle dependence of the transverse polarisation was considered in Ref. . In this section I present the results and show a few instructive steps of the calculations.

### 3.1 Born term contributions

The Born term contributions are easy to calculate. The Feynman diagrams for the hadronic part (in case of the single polarized case) are shown in Fig. 1. The unpolarized contributions are given by

$`H_U^1(\mathrm{𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛})=2N_cq^2(1+v^2),`$ $`H_L^1(\mathrm{𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛})=N_cq^2(1v^2)=H_L^2(\mathrm{𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛}),`$
$`H_U^2(\mathrm{𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛})=2N_cq^2(1v^2),`$ $`H_F^4(\mathrm{𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛})=4N_cq^2v.`$ (21)
where $`N_c`$ is the number of colours. The longitudinally polarized contributions read

$`H_U^4\mathrm{}(\mathrm{𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛})=4N_cq^2v,`$ $`H_F^1\mathrm{}(\mathrm{𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛})=2N_cq^2(1+v^2),`$
$`H_L^4\mathrm{}(\mathrm{𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛})=0,`$ $`H_F^2\mathrm{}(\mathrm{𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛})=2N_cq^2(1v^2).`$ (22)
For the transverse polarization we finally obtain

$`H_I^4(\mathrm{𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛})=2N_cq^2v\sqrt{\xi },`$ $`H_A^1(\mathrm{𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛})=2N_cq^2\sqrt{\xi }=H_A^2(\mathrm{𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛}),`$ (23)
$`H_A^{3N}(\mathrm{𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛})=2N_cq^2\sqrt{\xi }`$
where $`\xi =4m^2/q^2=1v^2`$ and “$``$” and “$`N`$” indicate the transverse polarisations perpendicular and normal to the event plane.

### 3.2 First order loop contributions

The calculation of loop contributions can be formally be done by using the vertex form factors, i.e. by replacing the vector and axial vector vertices according to

$$\gamma ^\mu (1+A)\gamma ^\mu +B(p_1p_2)^\mu ,\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\left((1+C)\gamma ^\mu +D(p_1+p_2)^\mu \right)\gamma _5.$$
(24)
The squared matrix element including first order loop corrections contains the Born term contributions as well as first and second order contributions. Only the first order contributions, as shown in Fig. 2, are used for a first order calculation. The non-vanishing contributions read

$`H_U^1(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝})`$ $`=`$ $`4N_cq^2\left((1+v^2)ReA2v^2ReB\right),`$
$`H_U^2(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝})`$ $`=`$ $`4N_cq^2\left((1v^2)ReA+2v^2ReB\right),`$
$`H_L^1(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝})`$ $`=`$ $`2N_cq^2\left((1v^2)ReA+v^2ReB\right)=H_L^2(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝}),`$
$`H_F^4(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝})`$ $`=`$ $`8N_cq^2v\left(ReAReB\right),`$
$`H_U^4\mathrm{}(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝})`$ $`=`$ $`8N_cq^2v\left(ReAReB\right),H_L^4\mathrm{}(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝})=0,`$
$`H_F^1\mathrm{}(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝})`$ $`=`$ $`4N_cq^2\left((1+v^2)ReA2v^2ReB\right),`$
$`H_F^2\mathrm{}(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝})`$ $`=`$ $`4N_cq^2\left((1v^2)ReA+2v^2ReB\right),`$
$`H_I^3(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝})`$ $`=`$ $`2N_cq^2v\sqrt{\xi }(1+\xi )ImB/\xi ,`$
$`H_I^4(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝})`$ $`=`$ $`2N_cq^2v\sqrt{\xi }\left(2ReA+(13\xi )ReB/\xi \right),`$
$`H_A^1(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝})`$ $`=`$ $`2N_cq^2\sqrt{\xi }\left(ReAv^2ReB/\xi \right)=H_A^2(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝}),`$
$`H_I^{1N}(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝})`$ $`=`$ $`2N_cq^2v\sqrt{\xi }(1\xi )ImB/\xi =H_I^{2N}(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝}),`$
$`H_A^{3N}(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝})`$ $`=`$ $`2N_cq^2v\sqrt{\xi }\left(2ReA+(13\xi )ReB/\xi \right),`$
$`H_A^{4N}(\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝})`$ $`=`$ $`2N_cq^2v\sqrt{\xi }(1+\xi )ImB/\xi ,`$ (25)
the vertex form factors $`A`$ and $`B`$ are given by

$`ReA`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}\{(2+{\displaystyle \frac{1+v^2}{v}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1v}{1+v}}\right))\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }q^2}{m^2}}\right)+3v\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1v}{1+v}}\right)+4`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1+v^2}{v}}(\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2v}{1+v}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1v}{1+v}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}})\},`$
$`ReB`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1v^2}{v}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1v}{1+v}}\right),ImB={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1v^2}{v}}\pi `$ (26)
were we already have replaced the axial-vector form factor $`C`$ by $`A`$ according to $`C=A2B`$, and where $`m_G^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }q^2`$ is the squared mass of the gluon which we use for the regularization of the first order tree contributions and which is replaces the parameter $`\epsilon =(4D)/2`$ of the dimensional regularization by means of $`1/\epsilon \gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}(4\pi \mu ^2/m^2)\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }q^2/m^2)`$.

### 3.3 First order tree graph contributions

Even though ending up with a different final state, namely a three particle state including quark, antiquark and gluon, the first order tree graph contributions are needed for a full first order result. For vanishing gluon momentum the (soft) gluon cannot be resolved by the detector, the event is counted as two particle final state. In this soft region the infrared singularity of the three graph contribution cancels the infrared singularity of the loop contribution. This is a general result formulated in the Lee–Nauenberg theorem .

The hadronic part of the diagrams is shown in Fig. 3. The additional degree of freedom given by the gluon leads to two additional integration measures, expressible in the energy type variables $`y`$ and $`z`$ mentioned earlier. The three particle phase space for some specified center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{q^2}`$ is shown in Fig. 4.

Integrals to be calculated are of the general type ($`p`$ and $`q`$ take integer values in a finite range around zero)

$$I(\xi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })=y^pz^q𝑑y𝑑z$$
(27)
where the integration limits are given by the phase space boundary,

$`y_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }\xi }+\mathrm{\Lambda },y_+=1\sqrt{\xi }`$ (28)
$`z_\pm (y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2y}{4y+\xi }}\left\{1y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi +\mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{y}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}\sqrt{(y\mathrm{\Lambda })^2\mathrm{\Lambda }\xi }\sqrt{(1y)^2\xi }\right\}`$ (29)
where $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }q^2}`$ is again the gluon mass. While the integration over $`z`$ can be performed easily, the second integration is not so easy to perform, the most complicated (logarithmic) integrals are of the shape

$$I^{}(\xi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })=_{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }\xi }}^{1\sqrt{\xi }}y^n\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z_+(y)}{z_{}(y)}\right)𝑑y.$$
(30)
Two issues should be mentioned here. First, the gluon mass is necessary only for regularizing the integrals. Therefore, the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ need to appear only at places where the integral at the lower limit would lead to singular expressions if the parameter were absent. A lot of integrals, therefore, can be calculated for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. On the other hand, the singular integrals can be calculated by subtracting and adding a (simpler) integral which has the same singular structure. According to

$$I^{}(\xi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\left(I^{}(\xi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })I_0^{}(\xi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })\right)+I_0^{}(\xi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{\Delta }I^{}(\xi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })+I_0^{}(\xi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(31)
for the difference term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ can be chosen. The integral $`I_0^{}`$ can be obtained from $`I^{}`$ by taking approximations for the integrand close to the lower (infrared singular) limit, $`y=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }\xi }+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. So

$$z_\pm \frac{1}{\xi }\left((2\xi )y\pm 2\sqrt{(y\mathrm{\Lambda })^2\mathrm{\Lambda }\xi }\sqrt{1\xi }\right)$$
(32)
and a substitution $`y=\mathrm{\Lambda }+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }\xi }\mathrm{cosh}\zeta `$ helps for the integration. For the integrals with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, on the other hand, a combined substitution $`y=1\sqrt{\xi }(1+z^2)/(1z^2)`$ works to separate the integral into integrable pieces. The results can be finally expressed in a very compact form by using the so-called decay rate terms. At this point I only show the results for the unpolarized case for reasons of brevity, the spin-dependent parts are only different but not more complicated, ($`N=\alpha _sN_cC_f/4\pi v`$)

$`H_U^1(\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`N\{2(2+7\xi )v+(4848\xi +7\xi ^2)t_3+2\sqrt{\xi }(27\xi +\sqrt{\xi }(2+3\xi ))t_4`$
$`2\xi (2+3\xi )t_54(2\xi )((2\xi )(t_8t_9)+2v(t_{10}+2t_{12}))\},`$
$`H_U^2(\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi N\{12v+2(6\xi )t_3+2\sqrt{\xi }(1\sqrt{\xi })t_4`$
$`+2\xi t_54((2\xi )(t_8t_9)+2v(t_{10}+2t_{12}))\},`$
$`H_L^1(\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`N\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1646\xi +3\xi ^2)v+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{4}}(8832\xi +3\xi ^2)t_3`$
$`2\sqrt{\xi }\left(27\xi +\sqrt{\xi }(2+3\xi )\right)t_4+2\xi (2+3\xi )t_5`$
$`2\xi ((2\xi )(t_8t_9)+2v(t_{10}+2t_{12}))\},`$
$`H_L^2(\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi N\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(10\xi )v+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(2416\xi 3\xi ^2)t_3`$
$`2\sqrt{\xi }(1\sqrt{\xi })t_42\xi t_52((2\xi )(t_8t_9)+2v(t_{10}+2t_{12}))\},`$
$`H_F^3(\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`8\xi Nv\pi ,`$
$`H_F^4(\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`N\{16\sqrt{\xi }(1\sqrt{\xi })16(t_1t_2)+8(23\xi )vt_3`$ (33)
$`4(45\xi )t_68v((2\xi )(t_8t_7)+2v(t_{10}+t_{11}))\}`$
where the decay rate terms, containing logarithms and dilogarithms, are found in Ref.  together with the polarized contributions. More interesting at this point are the results we obtain. In Fig. 6 (top) the total cross section for pair production of top quarks is shown in dependence on the center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{q^2}`$, with and without the first order radiative correction. The polar angle dependence of the longitudinal polarization

$$P=\frac{d\sigma ()d\sigma ()}{d\sigma ()+d\sigma ()}$$
(34)
of the top quark is shown in Fig. 6 (bottom). In Fig. 7 the polar angle dependence of the normal (top) and perpendicular polarization (bottom) of the top quark is displayed. What is not shown here is the change with respect to the Born term contribution. It figures out that despite the fact of rather large corrections to the total cross section, the corrections to the polarizations are quite small (about 5%). A detailed discussion of the results can be found in Refs. . Quantities like the polarization can be measured by the asymmetry of the decay products of the top quark.

### 3.4 Finite gluon energy cut

Besides the comparison with the massless case, resulting in anomalous spin-flip contributions which will be shown later, additional work has been investigated in the exact calculation of the contributions for a given gluon energy cut, dividing the phasespace up into a soft and a hard part . This “excurse” will not be taken here.

## 4 Longitudinal spin correlation

If both quark and antiquark are considered to be polarized, the correlation between their spins can be measured. In Ref.  the correlation of longitudinal polarized quark and antiquark is considered, in Ref.  the angular dependence is considered as well. Because of the representation

$`(s_1^{\mathrm{}})^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_1^{\mathrm{}}}{\sqrt{\xi }}}(\sqrt{(1y)^2\xi };0,0,1y)`$ (35)
$`(s_2^{\mathrm{}})^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_2^{\mathrm{}}}{\sqrt{\xi }}}(\sqrt{(1z)^2\xi };(1z)\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12},0,(1z)\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12})`$
for the longitudinal spins where

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}=\frac{yz+y+z1+\xi }{\sqrt{(1y)^2\xi }\sqrt{(1z)^2\xi }},$$
(36)
there occurs an additional square root $`\sqrt{(1z)^2\xi }`$ in the denominator which makes the integrations more complicated. However, the same integration methods work also in this case, an appropiate substitution could be found to make the integration feasible. New decay rate terms had to be defined in order to describe the final result (see Ref. ).

### 4.1 Result for the correlation

The correlation is defined as

$$C=\frac{d\sigma ()d\sigma ()d\sigma ()+d\sigma ()}{d\sigma ()+d\sigma ()+d\sigma ()+d\sigma ()}$$
(37)
The polar angle dependence of this result is shown in Fig. 5.

### 4.2 Anomalous spin-flip contributions

It is an easy task to calculate results for polarized structure functions also in the case where the quark mass is assumed to be massless, even though this calculation have to be performed in dimensional regularization. The results, however, differ from results one obtains by taking the results for the massive quark as obtained earlier and calculating the limit $`m0`$. By adding in the Born term contributions one finally obtains in the $`m0`$ limit ($`C_F=4/3`$ is made explicit here)

$`H_U^1(s_1^{\mathrm{}},s_2^{\mathrm{}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(H_U^1+H_U^{1(\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2)}s_1^{\mathrm{}}s_2^{\mathrm{}}\right)=`$
$`=`$ $`N_cq^2\left((1s_1^{\mathrm{}}s_2^{\mathrm{}})\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}s_1^{\mathrm{}}s_2^{\mathrm{}}\right]\right),`$
$`H_L^1(s_1^{\mathrm{}},s_2^{\mathrm{}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(H_L^1+H_L^{1(\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2)}s_1^{\mathrm{}}s_2^{\mathrm{}}\right)=`$
$`=`$ $`N_cq^2(1s_1^{\mathrm{}}s_2^{\mathrm{}})\left(0+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}+[0]\right),`$
$`H_F^1(s_1^{\mathrm{}},s_2^{\mathrm{}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(H_F^{1(\mathrm{}_1)}s_1^{\mathrm{}}+H_F^{1(\mathrm{}_2)}s_2^{\mathrm{}}\right)=`$
$`=`$ $`N_cq^2(s_1^{\mathrm{}}s_2^{\mathrm{}})\left(1+0\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right]\right),`$
$`H_U^4(s_1^{\mathrm{}},s_2^{\mathrm{}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(H_U^{1(\mathrm{}_1)}s_1^{\mathrm{}}+H_U^{1(\mathrm{}_2)}s_2^{\mathrm{}}\right)=`$
$`=`$ $`N_cq^2(s_1^{\mathrm{}}s_2^{\mathrm{}})\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right]\right),`$
$`H_L^4(s_1^{\mathrm{}},s_2^{\mathrm{}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(H_L^{1(\mathrm{}_1)}s_1^{\mathrm{}}+H_L^{1(\mathrm{}_2)}s_2^{\mathrm{}}\right)=`$
$`=`$ $`N_cq^2(s_1^{\mathrm{}}s_2^{\mathrm{}})\left(0+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}+[0]\right),`$
$`H_F^4(s_1^{\mathrm{}},s_2^{\mathrm{}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(H_F^4+H_F^{4(\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2)}s_1^{\mathrm{}}s_2^{\mathrm{}}\right)=`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`N_cq^2\left((1s_1^{\mathrm{}}s_2^{\mathrm{}})\left(1+0\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}s_1^{\mathrm{}}s_2^{\mathrm{}}\right]\right)`$
where the anomalous spin-flip contributions are made explicit by the square bracket notation. These contributions have their origin in the collinear limit where the spin-flip contribution proportional to $`m`$ survives since it is multiplied by the $`1/m`$ collinear mass singularity. Because the anomalous spin-flip terms are associated with the collinear singularity, the flip contributions are universal and factorize into the Born term contribution and an universal spin-flip bremsstrahlung function . This explains why there is no anomalous contribution to $`H_L^4`$ and why the anomalous flip contributions to $`H_U^4`$ and $`H_F^1`$, for instance, are equal. In fact the strength of the anomalous spin-flip contribution can directly be calculated from the universal helicity-flip bremsstrahlung function listed in Ref. .

## 5 Gluon polarization

The polarization of gluons in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation , in deep inelastic scattering  and in quarkonium decays  has been studied in a series of papers dating back to the early 80’s. Several proposals have been made to measure the polarization of the gluon among which is the analytic proposal to angular correlation effects in the splitting process of a polarized gluon into a pair of gluons or quarks.

Results for the linear and circular polarization of gluons produced in the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation process for massive quarks with subsequent gluon emission are presented in this section. Similar to the joined quark-antiquark density matrix the two-by-two differential density matrix $`d\text{ }\sigma =d\sigma _{\lambda _G\lambda _G^{}}`$ of the gluon is used with gluon helicities $`\lambda _G=\pm 1`$ in terms of its components along the unit matrix and the three Pauli matrices. Accordingly one has

$$d\text{ }\sigma =\frac{1}{2}(d\sigma 1\text{l}+d\sigma ^x\text{ }\sigma _x+d\sigma ^y\text{ }\sigma _y+d\sigma ^z\text{ }\sigma _z),$$
(39)
where $`d\sigma `$ is the unpolarized differential rate and $`d\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(d\sigma ^x,d\sigma ^y,d\sigma ^z)`$ are the three components of the (unnormalized) differential Stokes vector. After azimuthal averaging the $`y`$-component of the Stokes vektor $`d\sigma ^y`$ drops out, one is left with the $`x`$\- and $`z`$-components of the Stokes vector which are referred to as the gluon’s linear polarization in the event plane and the circular polarization of the gluon, respectively.

### 5.1 The differential cross section

The differential unpolarized and polarized cross section, differential with regard to the polar beam-event orientation and the two energy-type variables $`x=2p_3q/q^2`$ and $`w=2(p_1p_2)q/q^2`$ (with $`q=p_1+p_2+p_3`$) are then given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{(x)}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dxdw}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\left(g_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _U^{1(x)}}{dxdw}}+g_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _U^{2(x)}}{dxdw}}\right)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(g_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _L^{1(x)}}{dxdw}}+g_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _L^{2(x)}}{dxdw}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{cos}\theta g_{44}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _F^{4(x)}}{dxdw}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^z}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dxdw}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )g_{14}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _U^{4z}}{dxdw}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(g_{41}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _F^{1z}}{dxdw}}+g_{42}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _F^{2z}}{dxdw}}\right).`$ (41)
The notation $`d\sigma ^{(x)}`$ stand for either $`d\sigma `$ or $`d\sigma ^x`$, and the same for $`d\sigma _\alpha ^{i(x)}`$. Of course, in this case no Born terms occur, the first order tree diagram is the leading order contribution. The phase space in terms of the variables $`x`$ and $`w`$ is similar to the one in $`y`$ and $`z`$ (see Fig. 4), standing on the sharp corner. The phase space limits are therefore symmetric,

$`x_{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,x_+=1\xi ,`$
$`w_\pm (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm x\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{12x\xi }{12x}}}.`$ (42)
### 5.2 Results for the gluon polarization

The integration can be done also in this case by using an appropiate substitution (see Refs. ). However, it is also worth to consider the results still depending on the gluon energy variable $`x`$. The results are given by

$`H_U^1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`32\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{x}}4+x\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_+(x)+32\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}2+x\right)t_+^{\mathrm{}}(x),`$
$`H_U^2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`32\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_+(x)+16\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{x}}2\right)t_+^{\mathrm{}}(x),`$
$`H_L^1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`16(4+\xi )\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_+(x)8\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{6\xi }{x}}2x\right)t_+^{\mathrm{}}(x),`$ (43)
$`H_L^2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`16\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_+(x)+8\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{x}}2x\right)t_+^{\mathrm{}}(x),`$
$`H_F^4(x)`$ $`=`$ $`64\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\xi }{x}}1\right)32\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}2+x\right)t_{}^{\mathrm{}}(x),`$
$`H_U^{1x}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`128\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_+(x)+64({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}1)t_+^{\mathrm{}}(x)`$
$`H_U^{2x}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`32\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_+(x)+16\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{x}}2\right)t_+^{\mathrm{}}(x),`$
$`H_L^{1x}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`16(4+\xi )\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_+(x)8\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{6\xi }{x}}2\right)t_+^{\mathrm{}}(x),`$ (44)
$`H_L^{2x}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`16\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_+(x)+8\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{x}}2\right)t_+^{\mathrm{}}(x),`$
$`H_F^{4x}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`64\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\xi }{x}}1\right)64\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}1\right)t_{}^{\mathrm{}}(x),`$
$`H_U^{4z}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`64(1\xi x)32(2x)t_{}^{\mathrm{}}(x),H_L^{4z}(x)=0,`$
$`H_F^{1z}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`32(43x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_+(x)+32(2x)t_+^{\mathrm{}}(x),H_F^{2z}(x)=0`$ (45)
where

$$w_+(x)=x\sqrt{\frac{1x\xi }{1x}},t_+^{\mathrm{}}(x)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sqrt{1x}+\sqrt{1x\xi }}{\sqrt{1x}\sqrt{1x\xi }}\right),t_{}^{\mathrm{}}(x)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1x}{\xi }\right).$$
(46)
For different values of $`x`$ in terms of $`x_{\mathrm{max}}=1\xi `$ the polar angle dependence of the linear and circular polarization of the top quark is shown in Fig. 8.

## 6 Conclusion

First order radiative QCD corrections for polarization observables can be done analytically and are done in most of the cases. The corrections for the polarization observables figure out to be small. This, however, proves the quality of perturbation theory estimates. The polarization observables can be measured by the asymmetry in the decay rate of final state leptons. The consideration of massive quarks are important especially at the high energies which are reached by the NLC. The calculation techniques can be combined with other techniques like the high spin tools developed in the theory group at Tartu University, a future collaboration is scheduled.

### Acknowledgements:

I want to thank my J.G. Körner, M.M. Tung, J.A. Leyva, and V. Kleinschmidt for a fruitful collaboration on this field. My work is supported by a habilitation grant given by the DFG.