text:
# Random Schrödinger operators on manifolds

## 1. Introduction

This paper is devoted to the study of spectral properties of random operators on manifolds. Their counterparts in Euclidean geometry play a prominent part in solid state physics \[BBEE<sup>+</sup>84, ES84, Lif85, LGP88\]. Homogeneous random Hamiltonians are used to describe the propagation of both quantum mechanical and classical waves in random media. The model which most of the mathematical physics literature is devoted to is a Schrödinger operator with random potential, see for instance \[CFKS87, Kir89, CL90, PF92, Sto01\]. Hereby the potentials, more precisely the level of randomness they describe, may take quite different forms. For instance, a random potential generated by a Poissonian stochastic field describes an amorphous medium, whereas a quasi-periodic potential models a medium whose structure is very close to a crystalline one. A model where the randomness lies somewhere between the two just mentioned extremes is the (discrete) Anderson model on $`l^2(^d)`$ and its continuum counterpart on $`L^2(^d)`$, the alloy-type model.

Characteristic for the last mentioned model is, that while the members of the random family of operators act on an $`L^2`$-space over an continuum configuration space, the homogeneity is expressed via the action of the discrete group $`^d`$. We study here analogues of such operators, which act on more general geometries, namely covering Riemannian manifolds with compact quotients. Moreover, we allow also that the randomness enters in the Laplace-Beltrami operator via the metric.

By the variety of the models which fit under the common roof of random (Schrödinger) operators it cannot be expected that they will share all spectral features in detail. In fact, almost-periodic Schrödinger operators alone illustrate that all measure-theoretic types of spectrum may occur (see e.g. Chapter 10 in \[CFKS87\]). However basic spectral features are shared by all models and can be traced back to rather mild, abstract conditions on the considered random family of operators. These features include the non-randomness of the spectrum and existence of a self-averaging integrated density of states (IDS).

These basic spectral properties are presented in this paper for random Schrödinger operators on manifolds and random Laplace-Beltrami operators. Furthermore we indicate their origin from the above mentioned abstract properties using the framework of groupoids and von Neumann algebras.

Let us say something about the physical picture one has in mind when studying these models. Random Schrödinger operators are used to study conductance properties of solids. In certain cases it is known that the boundary plays a important role for the wave transport properties. This suggest the study of spectral properties of the Laplace-Beltrami operator of the two-dimensional surface which forms the boundary of the solid. Since the surface is not perfectly planar, we want to account for its random holes by using a stochastic field as the metric.

If one describes wave propagation properties of thin films or layers — idealized by surfaces — it may be necessary to incorporate an additional random ”effective potential”, cf. for instance \[EK\]. However this zero order term of the operator is part of the kinetic energy and is a reminiscence of the fact that the operator on the surface is an idealization of an operator acting on a very thin layer.

Let us outline the structure of the paper. In the next section we introduce the random operators on manifolds we are dealing with. Sections 3 and 4 are devoted to basic spectral properties of those operators and the existence of an selfaveraging integrated density of states, while Section 5 and 6 provide insight in the groupoid/von Neumann algebra background of these results. In Section 7 we specialize to alloy-type models on manifolds. For those we discuss Wegner estimates. Finally the last section is devoted to some interesting questions for further study.

## 2. Our model

In this section we shortly discuss the geometric situation underlying our model and then introduce the random Schrödinger operators we are dealing with. The model is a generalization of the model introduced in \[PV02\] as has been studied in \[LPVa, LPVb\]. Our treatment here mainly follows \[LPVa, LPVb\] to which we refer the reader for further details.

Our model is based on the following geometric situation: Let $`X`$ be a cover of a compact Riemannian manifold $`M=X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a discrete, finitely generated subgroup of the isometries of $`X`$ with $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`g_0`$ be the fixed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-periodic smooth Riemannian metric on the cover $`X`$, inherited from $`M`$. Denote by $``$ a precompact connected $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-fundamental domain with piecewise smooth boundary. Furthermore, let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },_\mathrm{\Omega },)`$ be a probability space on which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts ergodically by measure preserving transformations $`\gamma :\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega },\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The expectation with respect to $``$ is denoted by $`𝔼`$.

We will consider two types of random objects over $`(\mathrm{\Omega },_\mathrm{\Omega },)`$. The first is a family of random metrics on $`X`$, the second is a family of random potentials. Put together, they will give rise to a family of random operators.

As for the random metrics, the manifold $`X`$ is equiped with a family of metrics $`\{g_\omega \}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ with corresponding volume forms $`\mathrm{vol}_\omega `$ with the following properties: The map $`(\omega ,v)g_\omega (v,v)`$ is jointly measurable for all $`(\omega ,v)\mathrm{\Omega }\times TX`$. There are constants $`C_g,C_\rho >0`$ such that

(1)
$$C_g^1g_0(v,v)g_\omega (v,v)C_gg_0(v,v)(\omega ,v)\mathrm{\Omega }\times TX$$

and

(2)
$$|_0\rho _\omega (x)|_0C_\rho (\omega ,x)\mathrm{\Omega }\times X.$$

Here $`_0`$ denotes the gradient with respect to $`g_0`$, $`\rho _\omega `$ is the unique smooth density satisfying $`d\mathrm{vol}_0=\rho _\omega d\mathrm{vol}_\omega `$, and $`|v|_0^2=g_0(v,v)`$. The Ricci curvature of all metrics $`g^\omega `$ is bounded below by a fixed constant $`K`$. The metrics are compatible in the sense that the deck transformations

$$\gamma :(X,g_\omega )(X,g_{\gamma \omega })$$

are isometries and that the induced maps

$$U_{(\omega ,\gamma )}:L^2(X,\mathrm{vol}_{\gamma ^1\omega })L^2(X,\mathrm{vol}_\omega ),(U_{(\omega ,\gamma )}f)(x)=f(\gamma ^1x)$$

are unitary operators on the family of Hilbert spaces over the manifolds $`\{(X,g_\omega )\}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$.

As for the random potentials, let $`V:\mathrm{\Omega }\times X[0,\mathrm{})`$ be jointly measurable with $`V_\omega V(\omega ,)L_{loc}^1(X,g_\omega )`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Assume furthermore that $`V(\gamma \omega ,x)=V(\omega ,\gamma ^1x)`$ for arbitrary $`xX`$, $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Given a random metric and a random potential, we can now introduce the corresponding random Schrödinger operators as $`H_\omega :=\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega +V_\omega `$ on the Hilbert spaces $`L^2(X,\mathrm{vol}_\omega )`$. In fact, these unbounded operators are defined by means of quadratic forms. Moreover, they satisfy the equivariance condition

(3)
$$H_\omega =U_{(\omega ,\gamma )}H_{\gamma ^1\omega }U_{(\omega ,\gamma )}^{},$$

for all $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. We will refer to $`\{H_\omega \}`$ as a random (Schrödinger) operator on the manifold $`X`$ and denote this model by (RSM).

## 3. General results

In this section we discuss measurability properties of our random operators, almost everywhere constancy of their spectral properties and we introduce the abstract density of states. Again, the results in this section are taken from \[LPVa, LPVb\].

We start by defining the notion of measurability in our setting.

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $`D`$ be an open subset of $`X`$. A family of selfadjoint operators $`\{H_\omega \}_\omega `$, where the domain of $`H_\omega `$ is a dense subspace $`𝒟_\omega `$ of $`L^2(D,\mathrm{vol}_\omega )`$, is called a measurable family of operators if

(4)
$$\omega (f_\omega ,F(H_\omega )f_\omega )_\omega $$

is measurable for all measurable $`F:`$ with $`|F|`$ bounded and all $`f:\mathrm{\Omega }\times D`$ measurable with $`f_\omega L^2(D,\mathrm{vol}_\omega )`$, $`f_\omega (x)=f(\omega ,x)`$, for every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Here, $`(,)_\omega `$ denotes the inner product on $`L^2(D,\mathrm{vol}_\omega )`$.

Our random operators are measurable in this sense as can be seen from the next theorem.

###### Theorem 1.

A random operator $`\{H_\omega \}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ on $`X`$ as well as its restriction $`\{H_\omega ^D\}`$ to an arbitrary open set $`DX`$ with Dirichlet boundary condition is a measurable family of operators.

The proof of the theorem is not too complicated but somewhat technical. In fact, for technical reasons it is needed that the $`\sigma `$-algebra of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is countably generated. In our model this can be established by changing to an equivalent version of the defining stochastic processes given by the random potential and the random metric. This has been done for the potential explicitly in Remark 2.8 in \[LPVa\]. Given the measurabilty one can use the results of \[LPVa\] to establish a result on the non-randomness of the spectrum.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`\{H_\omega \}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ be a random operator on $`X`$. Then there exist $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of full measure and $`\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$, such that $`\sigma (H_\omega )=\mathrm{\Sigma },\sigma _{}(H_\omega )=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}\text{ for all }\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ where $`\{disc,ess,ac,sc,pp\}`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{disc}=\mathrm{}`$.

Note that $`\sigma _{pp}`$ denotes the closure of the set of eigenvalues.

Next, we introduce the (abstract) density of states for a random operator $`\{H_\omega \}`$ as the measure on $``$, given by

(5)
$$\rho _H(f):=\frac{𝔼\left[tr\left(\chi _{}f(H_{})\right)\right]}{𝔼\left[\mathrm{vol}_{}()\right]},\text{ for bounded measurable }f\text{.}$$

The measure $`\rho _H`$ completely determines the spectral theory of the direct integral $`H=_{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}{}_{}{}^{}H_\omega `$ as can be seen from the following proposition. Recall that a measure $`\varphi `$ on $``$ is a spectral measure for the selfadjoint operator $`H`$ with spectral family $`E_H`$ if, for Borel measurable $`B`$, $`\varphi (B)=0E_H(B)=0`$.

###### Theorem 3.

The measure $`\rho _H`$ is a spectral measure for the direct integral operator

$$H:=_{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}{}_{}{}^{}H_\omega 𝑑(\omega ).$$

In particular, the almost sure spectrum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ coincides with the topological support $`\{\lambda :\rho (]\lambda ϵ,\lambda +ϵ[)>0\text{for all }ϵ>0\}`$ of $`\rho _H`$.

###### Remark 3.2.

Of course, the spectral properties of $`H`$ will in general be different and in, fact, “smoother” than the spectral properties of the single operators $`H_\omega `$.

It will turn out that the measure $`\rho _H`$, its distribution function $`E\rho _H(\mathrm{},E)`$ and a certain trace on a suitable von Neumann algebra are intimately connected. This will be studied in the next sections.

## 4. Šubin-Pastur trace formula

In this section we discuss how the distribution function of the abstract density of states can be calculated by an exhaustion procedure. As the distribution function is essentially given by a trace (see below), this gives effectively a way to calculate a trace by an exhaustion procedure. This type of formula is associated to the names of Pastur and Šubin after the seminal work \[Pas71, Šub79, Šub82\]. The material of this section is taken from \[LPVb\].

We consider the following normalized eigenvalue counting function for the restricted random operator $`\{H_\omega ^D\}`$ on a given open set $`DX`$:

(6)
$$N_\omega ^D(\lambda )=\frac{\mathrm{\#}\{i\lambda _i(H_\omega ^D)<\lambda \}}{\mathrm{vol}_\omega (D)}.$$

Obviously, $`N_\omega ^D`$ is a distribution function and has countably many discontinuity points. Our aim is now to exhaust $`X`$ by an increasing set $`\{D^j\}`$ of open domains. For well-definedness of the limit (at all continuity points) we need that the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is amenable. A geometric description of amenability is the existence of a Følner sequence. Let us introduce the relevant notions in the next definition. The function $`\varphi `$ associates to every finite subset $`I\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a corresponding open set $`\varphi (I)=\mathrm{int}\left(_{\gamma I}\gamma \overline{}\right)`$ of $`X`$, with the help of the fixed fundamental domain $``$ of Section 2.

###### Definition 4.1.

(a) A sequence $`\{I_j\}_j`$ of finite subsets in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called a Følner sequence if $`lim_j\mathrm{}\frac{|I_j\mathrm{\Delta }I_j\gamma |}{|I_j|}=0`$ for all $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$.
(b) A Følner sequence $`\{I_j\}_j`$ is called a tempered Følner sequence if it is monotonously increasing and satisfies $`sup_j\frac{|I_{j+1}I_j^1|}{|I_{j+1}|}<\mathrm{}.`$
(c) A sequence $`\{D^j\}_j`$ of subsets of $`X`$ is called admissible if there exists a tempered Følner sequence $`\{I_j\}_j`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`D^j=\varphi (I_j)`$, $`j`$.

Lindenstrauss shows in \[Lin01\] that every Følner sequence has a tempered subsequence, and uses this to prove an ergodic theorem for locally compact amenable groups.

Using Lindenstrauss results together with suitable heat kernel estimates, it is shown in \[LPVa\] that, for any admissible sequence $`\{D^j\}`$, and the corresponding normalized eigenvalue functions $`N_\omega ^j:=N_\omega ^{D^j}`$, the limit

$$N_H(\lambda )\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}N_\omega ^j(\lambda )$$

exists for almost all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and for all $`\lambda `$ with at most countably many exceptions. The limit is again a distribution function and carries the name *integrated density of states*. It agrees with the (nonrandom) distribution function of the abstract density of states. This result is stated in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.

Let $`\{D^j\}_j`$ be an admissible sequence and $`\{H_\omega \}_\omega `$ be as above. There exists a set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ of full measure such that

$$\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}N_\omega ^j(\lambda )=N_H(\lambda )=\rho _H(]\mathrm{},\lambda [),$$

for every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and every point $`\lambda `$ with $`\rho _H(\{\lambda \})=0`$.

Using Dirichlet-Neumann bracketing, we obtain the following corollary as an immediate consequence of the preceeding theorem (and its proof).

###### Corollary 4.2.

For every $`\lambda `$ with $`\rho _H(\{\lambda \})=0`$ we have

$$\frac{𝔼(tr(\chi _{]\mathrm{},\lambda [}(H_{}^{,D})))}{𝔼(\mathrm{vol}_{}())}N_H(\lambda )\frac{𝔼(tr(\chi _{]\mathrm{},\lambda [}(H_{}^{,N})))}{𝔼(\mathrm{vol}_{}())},$$

where $`\chi _{]\mathrm{},\lambda [}(H_\omega ^{,\mathrm{\#}})`$, $`\mathrm{\#}=D`$ or $`\mathrm{\#}=N`$ denotes the spectral projection of the restricted operator $`H_\omega `$ to $``$ with Dirichlet, resp., Neumann boundary condition onto the interval $`]\mathrm{},\lambda [`$.

## 5. The density of states as a trace on a von Neumann algebra

The abstract density of states $`\rho _H`$ is closely related to a trace $`\tau `$ of a suitable von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$.

In order to describe the von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$, we first introduce the concept of a bounded random operator:

###### Definition 5.1.

A family $`\{A_\omega \}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ of bounded operators $`A_\omega :L^2(X,\mathrm{vol}_\omega )L^2(X,\mathrm{vol}_\omega )`$ is called a bounded random operator if it satisfies:

1. $`\omega g_\omega ,A_\omega f_\omega `$ is measurable for arbitrary $`f,gL^2(\mathrm{\Omega }\times X,\mathrm{vol})`$.
2. There exists a $`C0`$ with $`A_\omega C`$ for almost all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$.
3. For all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega },\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the equivariance condition $`A_\omega =U_{(\omega ,\gamma )}A_{\gamma ^1\omega }U_{(\omega ,\gamma )}^{}`$is satisfied.

Two bounded random operators $`\{A_\omega \}_\omega ,\{B_\omega \}_\omega `$ are called equivalent, $`\{A_\omega \}_\omega \{B_\omega \}_\omega `$, if $`A_\omega =B_\omega `$ for $``$-almost every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Each equivalence class of bounded random operators $`\{A_\omega \}_\omega `$ gives rise to a single bounded operator $`A`$ on the larger Hilbert space $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega }\times X,\mathrm{vol}_{})`$ by $`(Af)(\omega ,x):=A_\omega f_\omega (x)`$, see Appendix A in \[LPVa\]. This allows us to identify the equivalence class of $`\{A_\omega \}_\omega `$ with the bounded operator $`A`$.

Now, the set of bounded random operators form the von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$ (see Theorem 3.1 in \[LPVa\]). This von Neumann algebra possesses a trace \[LPVa\]) which is given by the following procedure: Choose a measurable $`u:\mathrm{\Omega }\times X^+`$ with $`_{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}u_{\gamma ^1\omega }(\gamma ^1x)1`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times X`$ and define

$$\tau (A):=𝔼\left[tr(u_{}A_{})\right]$$

on the set of non-negative operators in $`𝒩`$. This $`\tau `$ is independent of $`u`$ (chosen as above). Under an additional freeness condition (see Theorem 4.2(b) in \[LPVa\]), $`𝒩`$ is a factor of type II and its trace is uniquely determined (up to a constant multiple).

By (3) and the last section, the resolvents, spectral projections and the semigroup associated to $`\{H_\omega \}_\omega `$ are all bounded random operators. This can be used to show how $`\rho _H`$ and $`\tau `$ are related. Namely, the family $`\{E_\omega (\lambda )\}_\omega `$ of spectral projections onto the interval $`]\mathrm{},\lambda [`$ of the random operator $`\{H_\omega \}_\omega `$ is an element of $`𝒩`$ and agrees with the spectral projection of $`H:=_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}H_\omega 𝑑(\omega )`$ onto $`]\mathrm{},\lambda [`$. Hence $`\tau (E(\lambda ))`$ is well defined.

Choosing $`u_\omega (x)=\chi _{}(x)`$ we can summarize these considerations in the following result.

###### Corollary 5.2.

Set $`𝒟𝔼(\mathrm{vol}_{})`$. Then, $`\frac{1}{𝒟}\tau (E(\lambda ))=N_H(\lambda )`$.

## 6. The general framework: Random operators and groupoids

The abstract considerations in the last section motivate naturally a more general abstract framework which covers also random operators arising in various other settings: random operators on abelian (or more general) amenable groups (see, e.g., \[Bel86, Bel92, KX87\]), random operators on Bethe lattices (see e.g. \[Kle96\]), on tilings and Delone sets as (see, e.g., \[BHZ00, Kel95, LS02, LS\]), on foliations and on manifolds (see above). This general framework allows a unified treatment of basic spectral features of random operators in these different contexts by the use of Connes non-commutative integration theory \[Con79\]. This has been done by the authors in \[LPVa\].

There also, as an illustration, the details have been worked out for random Schrödinger operators on manifolds. A corresponding treatment of quasicrystals has been done in \[LS02, LS02\] (see \[Kel95, BHZ00\] as well). For almost periodic operators it can be found in \[Bel86, Bel92, KX87, Len99\].

The abtract framework starts with a measurable groupoid $`𝒢`$ (in our model $`𝒢=\mathrm{\Omega }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }`$). The corresponding set of units, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, carries a measure $`\mu `$ (which is invariant w.r.t. $`𝒢`$) and can in our model (RSM) be canonically identified with the underlying probability space. The groupoid $`𝒢`$ acts on a suitable space $`𝒳`$. This space is a bundle over $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with natural projection map $`\pi :𝒳\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and equiped with a family $`(\alpha ^\omega )`$ of measures s.t. $`\alpha ^\omega `$ is supported in $`𝒳^\omega \pi ^1(\omega )`$.

Given this setting one can easily define random operators. A bounded random operator is a family of operators $`\{A_\omega \}`$ acting on the Hilbert spaces $`L^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )`$ of the fibers $`𝒳^\omega =\pi ^1(\omega )`$ which satisfies the following conditions analogous to the ones given in Definition 5.1

* the map $`\omega A_\omega `$ is measurable and essentially bounded
* the family is equivariant, i.e. compatible with the action of $`𝒢`$.

Note that this setting very naturally produces the two main features of random operators: a family of operators indexed by a probability space and an equivariance condition.

As above, one associates to an equivalence class of a bounded random operator $`\{A_\omega \}`$ in one-one correspondence a single bounded operator $`A`$ on the larger Hilbert space $`:=L^2(𝒳,\mu \alpha )`$, and the set of these operators on $``$ defines a von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$.

While this formalism may seem rather abstract and somewhat vague, we should like to stress that, firstly, it applies to a large number of models and secondly, the involved quantities can in concrete cases often easily be identified. We include the following table to make this transparent. Here, c.m. means counting measure on a discrete space and L.m. means the Lebesque measure:

| Model | Groupoid | Units | Typical fibre | measure |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | of $`𝒢`$ | $`𝒳_\omega `$ of $`𝒳`$ | $`\alpha ^\omega `$ on $`𝒳_\omega `$ |
| Anderson | $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times ^d`$ | $`_^d`$ | $`^d`$ | c.m. |
| model |  |  |  |  |
| Alloy-type | $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times ^d`$ | $`_^d`$ | $`^d`$ | L.m. |
| model |  |  |  |  |
| Lifschitz-Poisson | $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times ^d`$ | $`_^d`$ | $`^d`$ | L.m. |
| model |  |  |  |  |
| Random Gaussian | $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times ^d`$ | $`_^d`$ | $`^d`$ | L.m. |
| potential |  |  |  |  |
| Almost periodic | $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times ^d`$ |  | $`^d`$ | L.m. |
| potential |  | $`\overline{\{f(t)|t^d\}}`$ |  |  |
| (RSM) | $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ | $`(X,g_\omega )`$ | $`\mathrm{vol}_\omega `$ |
| Delone system | $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times ^d`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ | $`\omega `$ | c.m. |
| Tiling $`𝒯`$ | $`𝒢(𝒯)`$ | Tiling space | Tiling | c.m. |
| Foliation | $`𝒢(X,)`$ | $`X`$ | $`_\omega `$ | $`\mathrm{vol}__\omega `$ |

As can be seen in the diagram, in many models the groupoid is given by the product of a group with the underlying probability space.

Now, given this framework as well as some additional technical conditions (see Definition 2.6, Theorem 4.2(b) and Lemma 5.6 in \[LPVa\]) the following properties of the von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$ and an affiliated random family $`\{H_\omega \}`$ can be established \[LPVa\]:

1. Almost sure constancy of the spectral components of $`\{H_\omega \}`$,
2. absence of discrete spectrum for almost every $`\{H_\omega \}`$,
3. existence of a faithful trace $`\tau `$ on $`𝒩`$, which gives rise to a spectral measure of the family $`\{H_\omega \}`$.

Under suitable additional conditions one can even provide a trace formula, or more precisely:

1. An explicit way to calculate the trace using an exhaustion procedure.

To infer such a formula, one has to have information not only on the groupoid $`𝒢`$, but also on the space $`𝒳`$ and on the family of operators $`(H_\omega )`$ on the Hilbert space $`L^2(𝒳_\omega ,m_\omega )`$. As for the properties of $`𝒳`$, one has to be able to control boundary effects. More precisely, a exhausting sequence of subsets of $`𝒳`$ must exist, such that in the limit the ”area” of the boundaries becomes negligible when compared to the volume of the subsets in the exhaustion sequence. Furthermore, an appropriate ergodic theorem (for $`𝒢`$) must be at disposal. It ensures that spectral quantities are averaged out as one proceeds along the exhaustion sequence. The operators $`H_\omega `$ acting on $`L^2(𝒳_\omega ,m_\omega )`$ — more precisely, certain auxiliary functions of them — must satisfy a ”finite range” condition or a ”principle of not feeling the boundary”. The discrete Laplacians on graphs and continuous Laplacians are examples of such operators.

## 7. Wegner estimates and continuity properties of the IDS

In this section we discuss Wegner estimates and continuity properties of the integrated density of states in our model. The material is taken from \[LPPV\].

Let $`\{H_\omega \}`$ be our random operator. Let $`J\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a finite subset of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`D:=\varphi (J)`$ and denote by $`P_\omega ^J`$ the spectral family of the restricted operator $`H_\omega ^D`$ with Dirichlet boundary condition. An estimate of the form

(7)
$$𝔼(tr(P_{}^J([Eϵ,E+ϵ])))Cϵ^\alpha |J|^\beta $$

with $`C,\alpha ,\beta >0`$ and $`E`$ in a suitable interval $`I`$ in $``$ is called a Wegner estimate after the work \[Weg81\] of Wegner. Wegner estimates play a crucial role in proofs of localization (see e.g. \[FS83, vDK89, CH94, Sto01, GK01\]). Moreover, they can be used to establish continuity properties of the integrated density of states. For example, if (7) holds with $`\beta =1`$ and $`C`$ and $`\alpha `$ independent of $`J`$ for all energies in a certain energy interval $`I`$, then the results of the last section, in particular, Theorem 4 imply

(8)
$$N([Eϵ,E+ϵ])Cϵ^\alpha $$

for all $`EI`$. This means that $`N`$ is Hölder continuous with exponent $`\alpha `$.

To obtain Wegner estimates in our setting, we must further specialize our model. In the following we present two specific examples where it is possible to derive Wegner estimates. In both models one part of the energy, either the kinetic or the potential, is of alloy type. In the fist one the potential has this structure, while in the second it is the metric of the Laplace-Beltrami operator.

We call a random operator $`\{H_\omega \}`$ alloy potential model if the potential $`V_\omega `$ is relatively small with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega `$, uniformly in $`\omega `$ and can be decomposed into two parts $`V_\omega =V_{per}+V^\omega `$. The first one $`V_{per}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-periodic, while the second one is the generalization of the well known Euclidean alloy-type potential

$`V^\omega (x)={\displaystyle \underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}q_\gamma (\omega )v(\gamma ^1x).`$
Here the *coupling constants* $`q_\gamma ,\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are a collection of independent, identically distributed random variables. The distribution measure $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ of $`q_e`$ (which coincides with the distribution measure of $`q_\gamma `$ for every $`\gamma `$) is assumed to have a density $`fL_c^{\mathrm{}}`$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure. The *single site potential* $`vL_c^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a function satisfying $`v\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\chi _{}`$ for some $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }>0`$.

In this model we assume the metric to be non-random, i.e. let $`g_\omega =g_0`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The other model where a Wegner estimate can be derived is a random operator $`\{H_\omega \}`$ with alloy-type metric. Here we again have to assume that the potential $`V_\omega `$ is a relatively small perturbation with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega `$, uniformly in $`\omega `$.

The metric is random and resembles the alloy-type potential above. Namely, for a collection of independently identically distributed random variables $`r_\gamma :\mathrm{\Omega },\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, whose distribution measure $`\mu `$ has a compactly supported density $`f`$ in the Sobolev space $`W_1^1()`$ and a *single site deformation* $`uC_c^{\mathrm{}}(X)`$ with $`u\kappa \chi _{},\kappa >0`$ define for each $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$

$$g_\omega (x)=\left(\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}{}e^{r_\gamma (\omega )}u(\gamma ^1x)\right)g_0(x).$$

In this model we assume that the stochastic process $`V_\omega `$ is independent of $`\{r_\gamma \}_\gamma `$.

In both cases, a Wegner estimate can be established in a suitable energy region. We refer the reader to \[LPPV\] for further details.

## 8. Outlook

The line of research started in \[LPVa, LPVb\] and (partly) summarized above can be pursued in various directions. Two of the main directions are

* the study of more specific spectral features for more specialized models on manifolds,
* to extend the investigation to other models and geometries.

In both of these directions, various questions are immediate. We summarize some of them shortly in the remainder of the section.

As for ($`\alpha `$), the following topics deserve special mentioning:

* Lifshitz tails for our models,
* localization phenomena of Laplacians on manifolds with randomly perturbed metrics,
* decay properties of eigenfunctions,
* random Schrödinger operators with magnetic fields.

As for ($`\beta `$), the following directions are of particular interest to us:

* Integrated density of states for foliations: existence and a Šubin trace formula,
* a Šubin trace formula for random graphs,
* integrated density of states for divergence type operators on manifolds.

Some of these topics are subject of our current research.


format: text

text:
# Some Properties of the Computable Cross Norm Criterion for Separability

## I Introduction

Entanglement of composite quantum systems is a key resource in many applications of quantum information technology. However, theoretically entanglement is not yet fully understood and to decide whether or not a given state is entangled or useful for quantum information processing purposes is in general a difficult question. Therefore the characterization and classification of entangled states is an important area of research that has received much attention in the development of quantum information theory. In recent years considerable progress has been made towards developing a general theory of quantum entanglement. In particular criteria to decide whether or not a given quantum state is entangled are of high theoretical and practical interest. Historically, Bell type inequalities were the first operational criteria to distinguish between entangled and separable states. Due to the importance of entanglement in quantum information processing there has been a dramatic increase in our knowledge and understanding of entangled quantum states. Today, we have much more subtle and effective separability criteria than provided by Bell inequalities. Most notably, in Ref. Peres96,  Peres obtained a powerful computable necessary separability criterion, the so-called positive partial transpose (PPT) criterion. The Peres criterion stipulates that the partial transpose of any separable quantum state is again a state. The Horodecki family formulated a necessary and sufficient mathematical characterization of separable states in terms of positive maps Horodecki96b . Subsequently, the study of separability criteria and their relation to positive maps attracted a great deal of attention and several new criteria were formulated Bruss02 . By now there exists a sophisticated theory based on so-called entanglement witnesses Bruss02 ; Terhal ; Eckert02 . However, for a long time the PPT criterion remained the most powerful and versatile operational separability criterion. It was only relatively recently that a novel *analytical* separability criterion not based on entanglement witnesses or positive maps was derived in Ref. Rudolph02, . The new criterion was derived within the context of an approach that aims to characterize entanglement by using norms Rudolph00 . In Ref. Rudolph02  the new criterion was named *computable cross norm criterion* for reasons to become clear below. In the present paper we shall adopt this terminology and for brevity also use the acronym *CCN criterion*. The CCN criterion is as easy to compute and as versatile as the PPT criterion, but yet independent of it Rudolph02 . The new criterion is the first analytical separability criterion that is known to systematically detect bound entanglement as well as genuine multipartite entanglement Horodecki02 . The power of the new criterion was already demonstrated in Ref. Rudolph02,  where a number of examples were discussed. It was shown there that the CCN criterion is necessary and sufficient for pure states while for mixed states the CCN criterion is not sufficient in dimension $`d3`$. For dimension $`2\times 2`$ the question of sufficiency was left open.

Recently a non-analytical but computationally tractable generalization of the PPT criterion based on semidefinite programming was presented in Ref. Doherty02, . This powerful method is also able to detect bound entanglement. It is clear, however, that the same ideas can also be applied to the CCN criterion. It is therefore natural to conjecture that the tests described in Ref. Doherty02,  together with the analogue generalization of the CCN criterion will provide a very powerful hierarchy of numerical separability tests.

The CCN criterion complements the Peres criterion in several aspects. The aim of the present paper is to study and clarify some important analytical properties of the CCN criterion in detail. We shall demonstrate three important results. In Section III we study the CCN criterion in dimension 2 $`\times `$ 2. We find that the criterion is in general not sufficient in dimension 2 $`\times `$ 2. We also prove that for two qubit states with maximally disordered subsystems the CCN criterion is necessary and sufficient. In Section IV we study the CCN criterion in arbitrary dimension and prove theorems relating upper and lower bounds for the fidelity of quantum states to the CCN criterion. Finally in Section V we study the behaviour of the CCN criterion under local operations. We show that the CCN criterion is not invariant under local operations and therefore also not under LQCC operations (i.e., quantum operations that can be implemented locally with classical communication between the parties). We put forward a generalization of the CCN criterion that is strictly stronger than the CCN criterion. In the course of the present paper we employ key techniques and methods that we hope will prove useful also for further studies and applications of the CCN criterion.

Throughout the paper we adopt the following notation: the set of bounded operators on $`^d`$ (i.e., $`d\times d`$ matrices) is denoted by $`𝚃(^d)`$. The canonical real basis of $`^d`$ is denoted by $`(|i)_{i=1}^d`$ and the maximally entangled wavefunction with respect to this basis is denoted by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_+\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}_{i=1}^d|ii`$.

## II The CCN Criterion

A quantum state $`\varrho `$ on $`^d^d`$ is called *separable* (disentangled) if it can be expressed as a convex combination of product states Werner89 , i.e., in the form

$$\varrho =\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}p_i\varrho _i\stackrel{~}{\varrho }_i.$$

Otherwise $`\varrho `$ is called *entangled*.

The CCN criterion is a necessary separability criterion. It can be formulated in different equivalent ways. A very useful and instructive way is the following procedure. Consider a quantum state $`\varrho `$ defined on a tensor product Hilbert space $`^d^d`$. We denote the canonical real basis in $`^d`$ by $`(|i)_{i=1}^d`$ and expand $`\varrho `$ in terms of the operators $`E_{ij}|ij|`$, i.e., we write

$$\varrho =\underset{ijkl}{}\varrho _{ijkl}E_{ij}E_{kl}.$$
(1)
Next, we define an operator $`𝔄(\varrho )`$ that acts on $`𝚃(^d^d)`$ by

$$𝔄(\varrho )\underset{ijkl}{}\varrho _{ijkl}|E_{ij}E_{kl}|.$$
(2)
Here $`|E_{ij}`$ denotes the ket vector with respect to Hilbert-Schmidt inner product $`A,B\mathrm{tr}(A^{}B)`$ in $`𝚃(^d)`$. We also write $`A_2A,A^{1/2}.`$ The norm $`A_2`$ is often called the *Hilbert-Schmidt norm* or the *Frobenius norm* of $`A`$ and is equal to the sum of the squares of the singular values of $`A`$. The sum of the absolute values of the singular values of $`A`$ is called the *trace class norm,* or simply *trace norm,* and is denoted by $`A_1`$.

###### Criterion 1

The CCN criterion asserts that if $`\varrho `$ is separable, then the trace class norm of $`𝔄(\varrho )`$ is less than or equal to one. Whenever a quantum state $`\varrho `$ satisfies $`𝔄(\varrho )_1>1`$, this signals that $`\varrho `$ is entangled.

In Ref. Rudolph02,  it has been shown that the criterion is independent of the basis of $`^d`$ chosen. In fact, there is the following representation for $`𝔄(\varrho )_1`$

$$\tau (\varrho )𝔄(\varrho )_1=inf\{\underset{i}{}x_i_2y_i_2:\varrho =\underset{i}{}x_iy_i\}$$
(3)
where the infimum runs over all decompositions of $`\varrho `$ into finite sums of simple tensors. It is easy to see that the norm $`\tau `$ satisfies the inequality

$$\tau (\sigma _1\sigma _2)\sigma _1_1\sigma _2_1.$$

This inequality is called the *subcross property* in the mathematical literature, which justifies the name *computable cross norm criterion*. From Equations 1 and 2 it is a straightforward and trivial exercise to determine the matrix representation for $`𝔄(\varrho )`$ in the canonical basis. It turns out that $`𝔄(\varrho )`$ is equal to the so-called *Oxenrider-Hill matrix reordering* of $`\varrho `$ that was studied in Ref. OxenriderH85, .

We conclude this section by remarking that also the Peres criterion can be written in the form of a norm criterion. I.e., the Peres criterion is equivalent to the following statement: if a state $`\varrho `$ satisfies $`\varrho ^{𝚃_2}_1>1`$, then $`\varrho `$ is entangled. Here $`𝚃_2`$ denotes the partial transpose with respect to the second subsystem.

## III The CCN criterion for two qubits

In Ref. Rudolph02,  the CCN citerion was computed for several examples, including Werner states, isotropic and Bell diagonal states. In dimension 2 $`\times `$ 2 the CCN criterion turned out to be necessary and sufficient for all these examples. It is the purpose of this section to study the CCN criterion in dimension 2 $`\times `$ 2 in more detail. It is known that any two qubit state $`\varrho `$ can be expressed in terms of Hilbert-Schmidt operators,

$$\varrho =\frac{1}{4}\left(𝟙𝟙+𝐫𝝈𝟙+𝟙𝐬𝝈+\underset{m,n=1}{\overset{3}{}}t_{mn}\sigma _n\sigma _m\right).$$
(4)
Here $`𝟙`$ stands for the identity operator, $`\{\sigma _i\}_{i=1}^3`$ are the standard Pauli matrices, $`𝐫,𝐬^3`$ and $`𝐫𝝈=_{i=1}^3r_i\sigma _i`$. We denote the real matrix formed by the coefficients $`t_{mn}`$ by $`T(\varrho )`$. The separability and distillability properties of two qubit states in the Hilbert-Schmidt space formalism have been discussed in detail in Ref. Horodecki967,  and Horodecki96, . Here we built on these results to study properties of the CCN criterion. First we note that $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐬`$ equal the Bloch vectors of the reductions $`\varrho _1\mathrm{tr}_2\varrho `$ and $`\varrho _2\mathrm{tr}_1\varrho `$ of $`\varrho `$ respectively. A state with maximally disordered subsystems thus has $`𝐫=𝐬=0`$ in Equation 4. We prove that the CCN criterion is necessary and sufficient for two qubit states with maximally disordered subsystems.

###### Proposition 2

Let $`\varrho `$ be a two qubit state with maximally disordered subsystems. Then $`𝔄(\varrho )_1=\frac{1+T(\varrho )_1}{2}`$, i.e., $`𝔄(\varrho )_11`$ if and only if $`\varrho `$ is separable.

*Proof*: Since the Hilbert-Schmidt norm $`_2`$ is invariant under unitaries, it is obvious from the variational expression for $`𝔄(\varrho )_1`$ given above that $`𝔄(\varrho )_1`$ is invariant under local unitary operations of the form $`U_1U_2`$ acting on $`\varrho `$. As shown in Ref. Horodecki96,  we can always choose local unitaries $`U_1,U_2`$ such that $`T(U_1U_2\varrho U_1^{}U_2^{})`$ is diagonal. These two facts imply that without loss of generality we can assume that $`T(\varrho )`$ is diagonal. Then $`\varrho `$ is of the form $`\varrho =\frac{1}{4}\left(𝟙𝟙+_{m=1}^3t_m\sigma _m\sigma _m\right)`$. Correspondingly, we find $`𝔄(\varrho )=\frac{1}{4}|𝟙𝟙\left|+_{m=1}^3\frac{t_m}{4}\right|\sigma _m\sigma _m^{}|`$. Here  denotes complex conjugation. Note that $`(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|𝟙,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|𝝈)`$ is an orthonormal basis with respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product. $`T(\varrho )_1`$ is invariant under local unitary operations acting on $`\varrho `$. Thus $`𝔄(\varrho )_1=\frac{1+_{m=1}^3|t_m|}{2}=\frac{1+T(\varrho )_1}{2}`$. Clearly if $`\varrho `$ is separable, then $`𝔄(\varrho )_11`$. If $`\varrho `$ is not separable, then it follows from Proposition 4 in Ref. Horodecki96,  that $`T_1>1`$. This implies $`𝔄(\varrho )_1>1`$. Alternatively, the last implication also follows from Theorem 2 in Ref. PittengerR00, . $`\mathrm{}`$

We now wish to relate the CCN criterion with the fidelity of two qubit states. The fidelity of a state $`\varrho `$ is defined as $`f(\varrho )\mathrm{max}_\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|\varrho \mathrm{\Psi }`$ where the maximum is over all maximally entangled pure states $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The fidelity is an important quantity that is often employed as a measure of the efficiency of quantum communication protocols. We have

###### Proposition 3

For any two qubit state $`\varrho `$ we have $`f(\varrho )\frac{𝔄(\varrho )_1}{2}`$.

The proof of proposition 3 can be found in Appendix A.

###### Proposition 4

Let $`\varrho `$ be an entangled two qubit state with maximally disordered subsystems. Then $`𝔄(\varrho )_1=2f(\varrho )`$.

*Proof*: Let $`\varrho `$ be an entangled two qubit state with maximally disordered subsystems. Since $`f(\varrho )`$ and $`𝔄(\varrho )_1`$ are both invariant under local unitary operations, we can assume again that $`T(\varrho )`$ is diagonal. From Proposition 2 we know that $`𝔄(\varrho )_1=\frac{1}{2}(1+T(\varrho )_1)`$. On the other hand an argument similar to the proof of Equation (9) in Appendix A leads to

$$f(\varrho )=\frac{1}{4}+\underset{U}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{t_n}{8}\mathrm{tr}(\sigma _n^𝚃U\sigma _nU^{})$$
(5)
where the maximum is over all unitaries $`U`$ on $`^2`$ and T denotes transposition. We observe that for any entangled two qubit state $`\varrho `$ with maximally disordered subsystems the number of negative Eigenvalues of the matrix $`T(\varrho )`$ is either exactly one or exactly three. The latter statement is an immediate consequence of the geometric representation for such states given in Proposition 3 and Proposition 4 in Ref. Horodecki96, . From Proposition 3 above and the proof of Proposition 1 in Ref. Horodecki96,  (in particular Eq.(13) there) it follows that there exist a maximally entangled pure state that compensates the signs of the negative Eigenvalues of $`T(\varrho )`$. More precisely, if the signature of $`T(\varrho )`$ is $`(,,)`$, then in Equation 5 choose $`U=e^{i\varphi }\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right)`$. Moreover, for the signatures $`(+,+,)`$, $`(+,,+)`$ and $`(,+,+)`$ choose $`U=e^{i\varphi }\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$, $`U=e^{i\varphi }𝟙`$ and $`U=e^{i\varphi }\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ respectively. This shows that $`2f(\varrho )=𝔄(\varrho )_1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is worthwhile to note that Proposition 4 is in general not true for separable states. To see this consider a separable state with maximally disordered subsystems for which $`T(\varrho )`$ has two non-positive Eigenvalues. Such a state exists by the results of Ref. Horodecki96, . To achieve $`2f(\varrho )=2\psi |\varrho |\psi =𝔄(\varrho )_1`$ for some maximally entangled pure state $`|\psi `$, we need to have, say, $`T(|\psi \psi |)=diag(1,1,1)`$. However, by the results of Ref. Horodecki96,  there is no state with such a $`T`$ matrix.

Notice that all the main examples for two qubit states for which the CCN criterion was explicitly computed in Ref. Rudolph02,  have maximally disordered subsystems. Thus by Proposition 2 – and in accordance with the results of Ref. Rudolph02,  – the CCN criterion is necessary and sufficent for these states. It is worthwhile to note that there are also families of two qubit states without maximally disordered subsystems for which the CCN criterion is a necessary and sufficient condition for separability. An example is the family of states $`\varrho _p=p|\psi \psi |+\frac{1p}{4}𝟙𝟙`$, where $`|\psi `$ is a (not necessarily maximally entangled) pure state and where $`p[\frac{1}{3},1]`$. It is straightforward to check that for this family of states $`𝔄(\varrho _p)_11`$ if and only if $`p\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\alpha _1\alpha _2}+1}`$ where $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$ denote the Schmidt coefficients of $`|\psi `$. Invoking the PPT criterion shows that $`𝔄(\varrho _p)_11`$ iff $`\varrho _p`$ is separable. In view of these examples one may thus conjecture that the CCN criterion is necessary and sufficient for two qubits. However, it turns out that this conjecture is not true. A counterexample can easily be constructed along the lines of Ref. Verstraete01, . Consider a two qubit state that can be expressed in the form $`\varrho =\frac{1}{4}(𝟙𝟙+s(𝟙\sigma _3)+r(\sigma _3𝟙)+t(\sigma _1\sigma _1)t(\sigma _2\sigma _2)+(1+rs)(\sigma _3\sigma _3))`$ where $`r,s,t`$ and where we assume $`s>r`$. A straightforward calculation shows that the partial transpose of this state is positive if and only if $`t=0`$. On the other hand $`𝔄(\varrho )_1=g(s,r)+|t|`$ where $`g(s,r)`$ is a non-negative function of $`s`$ and $`r`$. Therefore if we pick appropriate values for $`s`$, $`r`$ and $`t`$ such that $`g(s,r)<1`$ and such that $`0<|t|1g(s,r)`$, then the resulting two qubit state is entangled (as the PPT criterion is necessary and sufficient in dimension 2 $`\times `$ 2) but is not detected by the CCN criterion. A possible choice would be, for instance, $`s=\frac{1}{2},r=\frac{1}{4}`$ and $`t=\frac{1}{16}`$. Details of the calculations and the precise form of $`g`$ can be found in Appendix B. Our example proves

###### Proposition 5

The CCN criterion is not a sufficient criterion for separability in dimension 2 $`\times `$ 2.

## IV The CCN criterion in arbitrary dimension

The aim of the present section is to prove generalized versions of the Propositions 2, 3 and 4 in arbitrary dimensions. In particular we prove that $`\frac{1}{d}\mathrm{tr}(𝔄(\varrho ))`$ and $`\frac{1}{d}𝔄(\varrho )_1`$ are lower and upper bounds for the fidelity $`f(\varrho )`$ respectively. The examples studied in Ref. Rudolph02,  imply that the CCN criterion is not sufficient for separability in dimension greater than 2. In this section we use the generalized $`d`$-level spin matrices that were studied in Ref. Bennett93,  and PittengerR00a, . If we denote the canonical basis by $`(|i)_{i=1}^d`$, then the $`d`$-level spin matrices are given by

$$S_{jk}\underset{r=0}{\overset{d1}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi ijr/d\right)|rrk|$$

where $``$ denotes addition modulo $`d`$. It was shown in Ref. PittengerR00a,  that $`\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}S_{jk}\right)_{jk}`$ forms an orthonormal basis of the Hilbert-Schmidt space in $`d`$ dimensions. Moreover, for $`(j,k)(0,0)`$ the matrix $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}S_{jk}`$ has vanishing trace. We arrange the matrices $`\left(S_{jk}\right)_{(j,k)(0,0)}`$ into a $`(d^21)`$-vector $`𝐒=(S_{01},S_{02},\mathrm{},S_{d1d1})=:(S_1,S_2,\mathrm{},S_{d^21})`$. With this notation we can easily generalize the representation in Equation 4. We arrive at that every bipartite quantum state $`\varrho `$ on $`^d^d`$ can be expanded in Hilbert-Schmidt space as

$$\varrho =\frac{1}{d^2}\left(𝟙𝟙+𝐫𝑺𝟙+𝟙𝐬𝑺^{}+\underset{m,n=1}{\overset{d^21}{}}t_{mn}S_nS_m^{}\right).$$
(6)
Here $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐬`$ are complex vectors in $`^{d^21}`$ and the $`t_{mn}`$ form a $`(d^21)\times (d^21)`$ complex matrix $`T(\varrho )`$.  denotes complex conjugation. The reduced states of the subsystems of $`\varrho `$ are given by $`\varrho _1=\mathrm{tr}_2(\varrho )=\frac{𝟙+𝐫𝐒}{d}`$ and $`\varrho _2=\mathrm{tr}_1(\varrho )=\frac{𝟙+𝐬𝐒^{}}{d}`$. From Equation 6 we infer

$$𝔄(\varrho )=\frac{1}{d^2}\left(|𝟙𝟙|+\underset{i}{}r_i|S_i𝟙|+\underset{i}{}s_i|𝟙S_i|+\underset{m,n=1}{\overset{d^21}{}}t_{mn}|S_nS_m|\right).$$
(7)
We now wish to relate the operator $`𝔄(\varrho )`$ to the fidelity $`f(\varrho )`$ of $`\varrho `$. The results of Ref. Rudolph02, ; Horodecki97,  imply that if $`\varrho `$ is pure or an isotropic state, then $`df(\varrho )=𝔄(\varrho )_1`$. In general we will see that equality does not hold. However, Proposition 3 immediately generalizes to arbitrary dimension, i.e., we have

###### Proposition 6

Let $`\varrho 𝚃(^d^d)`$ be a bipartite state. Then $`df(\varrho )𝔄(\varrho )_1`$.

For a proof we refer to Appendix A. Moreover we have the following proposition

###### Proposition 7

Let $`\varrho `$ be a bipartite state on $`^d^d`$. Then

$$df(\varrho )=\underset{U}{\mathrm{max}}|\mathrm{tr}𝔄((𝟙𝕌)\varrho (𝟙𝕌^{}))|$$

where the maximum is over all unitary operators $`U`$ on $`^d`$. Moreover, $`d\mathrm{\Psi }_+|\varrho |\mathrm{\Psi }_+=\mathrm{tr}(𝔄(\varrho ))df(\varrho ).`$ If in addition $`𝔄(\varrho )0`$, then $`df(\varrho )=|\mathrm{tr}(𝔄(\varrho ))|=𝔄(\varrho )_1`$.

*Proof*: From Equation 7 we infer $`\mathrm{tr}(𝔄(\varrho ))=\frac{1}{d}\left(1+_nt_{nn}\right).`$ On the other hand note that DonaldHR02  $`f(\varrho )=\mathrm{max}_\psi \psi |\varrho \psi =\mathrm{max}_U\mathrm{\Psi }_+|(𝟙𝕌)\varrho (𝟙𝕌^{})\mathbb{\Psi }_+`$. The first maximum is with respect to all maximally entangled states $`\psi `$ while the second is with respect to all unitary operators on $`^d`$. Moreover, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}_i|i,i`$ where $`(|i)`$ denotes the canonical real basis of $`^d`$. A straightforward calculation shows that

$$f(\varrho )=\frac{1}{d^2}\left(1+\underset{U}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{1}{d}\underset{mn}{}t_{mn}S_m|U^𝚃S_nU^{}\right).$$
(8)
This implies the variational expression in Proposition 7 and also that $`\mathrm{tr}(𝔄(\varrho ))df(\varrho )`$. Moreover we find $`\mathrm{tr}(𝔄(\varrho ))=d\mathrm{\Psi }_+|\varrho |\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ (corresponding to $`U=𝟙`$). If $`𝔄(\varrho )0`$, then $`\mathrm{tr}(𝔄(\varrho ))df(\varrho )𝔄(\varrho )_1=\mathrm{tr}(𝔄(\varrho )).`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 8

Let $`\varrho `$ be a bipartite state on $`^d^d`$. If $`\mathrm{tr}(𝔄(\varrho ))>1`$, then $`\varrho `$ is distillable.

*Proof*: This follows immediately from Proposition 7 and the results of Ref. Horodecki97, .

###### Corollary 9

Let $`\varrho `$ be a bipartite state on $`^d^d`$. Then $`\mathrm{tr}(𝔄(\varrho ))0`$.

Note that $`𝔄(\varrho )`$ is in general not Hermitean. The following proposition is our generalization of Proposition 2.

###### Proposition 10

Let $`\varrho `$ a bipartite state with maximally disordered subsystems. Then $`𝔄(\varrho )_1=\frac{1}{d}\left(1+T(\varrho )_1\right)`$. If $`T(\varrho )0`$ and $`𝔄(\varrho )_1>1`$, then $`\varrho `$ is distillable.

*Proof*: Let $`\varrho `$ be a bipartite state with maximally disordered subsystems. Then as in the proof of Proposition 2

$$𝔄(\varrho )=\frac{1}{d^2}\left(|𝟙𝟙|+\underset{𝕞,𝕟=\mathrm{𝟙}}{\overset{𝕕^\mathrm{𝟚}\mathrm{𝟙}}{}}𝕥_{𝕞𝕟}|𝕊_𝕟𝕊_𝕞|\right).$$

Since $`(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}|𝟙,\frac{\mathrm{𝟙}}{\sqrt{𝕕}}|𝕊_𝕟)`$ forms an orthonormal basis of the Hilbert-Schmidt space in dimension $`d`$, we find that $`𝔄(\varrho )_1=\frac{1}{d}(1+T(\varrho )_1)`$. This proves the first half of Proposition 10. From Equation 7 we see that for states $`\varrho `$ with maximally disordered subsystems $`T(\varrho )0`$ if and only if $`𝔄(\varrho )0`$. Now if $`T(\varrho )0`$, then by Proposition 7 $`df(\varrho )=𝔄(\varrho )_1`$. Thus $`𝔄(\varrho )_1>1`$ is equivalent to $`f(\varrho )>\frac{1}{d}.`$ By the results of Ref. Horodecki97,  this implies that $`\varrho `$ is distillable. This proves the proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

## V The CCN criterion under local operations

In the paradigmatic situation studied in quantum information theory two parties, traditionally called Alice and Bob, share parts of composite quantum systems and are able to perform local operations on their respective parts and communicate classically. An essential requirement for measures of entanglement is to be non-increasing under LQCC operations, i.e., operations that can be implemented locally with classical communication between the parties. In the present section we study the behaviour of the quantity $`𝔄(\varrho )_1`$ under local operations. An operation is a completely positive linear map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that is trace non-increasing for positive operators. In the following we are only interested in trace preserving operations. Such quantum operations are all those operations that can be composed out of the following elementary operations DonaldHR02 : (O1) adding an uncorrelated ancilla system; (O2) tracing out part of the system; (O3) unitary transformations; (O4) Lüders-von Neumann measurements: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{LvN}}:𝚃(𝙷)𝚃(𝙷),\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{LvN}}(\rho )=_{i=1}^rP_i\rho P_i`$ where $`(P_i)_{i=1}^r`$ is a complete sequence of pairwise orthogonal projection operators on $`𝙷`$.

###### Proposition 11

The quantity $`𝔄(\varrho )_1`$ remains invariant under local operations of the type (O3). It is non-increasing under local operations of type (O1) and (O4). $`𝔄(\varrho )_1`$ may increase, decrease or stay invariant under local operations of type (O2).

###### Corollary 12

The CCN criterion is not invariant under local operations.

The statement of the Corollary means that if $`\varrho `$ is a state satisfying, say, $`𝔄(\varrho )_11`$, then there may be a state $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varrho )`$ obtained from $`\varrho `$ by a local trace non-increasing operation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`𝔄(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varrho ))_1>1.`$

*Proof of Proposition 11*: The invariance of $`𝔄(\varrho )_1`$ under local unitary operations is an immediate consequence of the representation in Equation 3. Similarly, it is immediate from Equation 3 that $`𝔄(\varrho )_1`$ is non-increasing under adding a local ancilla (O1). To see that $`𝔄(\varrho )_1`$ is non-increasing under operations of type (O4), let $`(P_k)_k`$ be a complete family of mutually orthogonal projectors on $`^d`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{LvN}}(\varrho )_k(P_k𝟙)\varrho (_𝕜𝟙)`$. Then using Equation 3 yields

$`𝔄(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{LvN}}(\varrho ))_1`$ $``$ $`inf\{{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}P_kx_iP_k_2y_i_2:\varrho ={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_iy_i\}`$
$``$ $`inf\{{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_i_2y_i_2:\varrho ={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_iy_i\}=𝔄(\varrho )_1`$
where in the second line we used that the Hilbert-Schmidt norm is non-increasing under *pinching*, i.e., $`_kP_k\sigma P_k_2\sigma _2`$ for all families of mutually orthogonal projectors with $`_kP_k=1`$ and all $`\sigma `$. Finally consider two bipartite states $`\varrho _1`$ and $`\varrho _2`$ that satisfy $`𝔄(\varrho _1)_1<1`$ and $`𝔄(\varrho _2)_1>1`$. Then $`𝔄(\varrho _1\varrho _2)_1=𝔄(\varrho _1)_1𝔄(\varrho _2)_1`$. It is immediate that if Alice and Bob locally trace out $`\varrho _1`$, then the value of $`𝔄(\varrho )_1`$ will increase, while tracing out $`\varrho _2`$ decreases $`𝔄(\varrho )_1`$. \[If $`\varrho _1`$ would satisfy $`𝔄(\varrho _1)_1=1`$, tracing out $`\varrho _1`$ would obviously leave the value of $`𝔄(\varrho )_1`$ invariant.\] $`\mathrm{}`$

*Proof of Corollary 12*: The argument in the proof of Proposition 11 also implies that the CCN criterion is not invariant under local operations. To see this, choose $`\varrho _1`$ and $`\varrho _2`$ such that $`𝔄(\varrho _1\varrho _2)_1=𝔄(\varrho _1)_1𝔄(\varrho _2)_1<1`$ and $`𝔄(\varrho _2)_1>1`$. I.e., the state $`\varrho _1\varrho _2`$ satisfies the CCN criterion. Tracing out $`\varrho _1`$ leaves Alice and Bob with $`\varrho _2`$, i.e., with a state that violates the CCN criterion. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 11 and Corollary 12 show that an entangled state $`\varrho `$ that satisfies the CCN criterion may be transformed into a state violating it by locally tracing out part of the system. This suggests the following extension of the CCN criterion.

###### Criterion 13

Consider the quantity

$$𝔸(\varrho ):=\underset{K_A,K_B}{sup}𝔄(\mathrm{tr}_{K_aK_B}(\varrho ))_1$$

where the supremum is over all local spaces $`K_A`$ and $`K_B`$ (on Alice’s and Bob’s side respectively) that can be traced out locally. The extended CCN criterion asserts that if $`\varrho `$ is separable, then $`𝔸(\varrho )1`$. Whenever a quantum state $`\varrho `$ satisfies $`𝔸(\varrho )>1`$, this signals that $`\varrho `$ is entangled.

This new criterion is stronger than the CCN criterion. A trivial example has been given above in the proof of Corollary 12. Since there are infinitely many ways of realizing an isomorphism $`^{d_1d_2}^{d_1}^{d_2}`$ the quantity $`𝔸(\varrho )`$ will in general not be computable and thus the criterion 13 is not fully operational. By fixing an isomorphism it is obviously always possible to pass to a weaker but operational criterion. However, we have not yet identified a non trivial example where the extended criterion detects entanglement that is not already detected by the CCN criterion. This problem is thus left as an open problem.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank Shashank Virmani for stimulating discussions. Funding by the EC project ATESIT (contract IST-2000-29681) is gratefully acknowledged.

## Appendix A Proof of Propositions 3 and 6

First we extend the definition of fidelity to arbitrary trace class operators on $`\varpi 𝚃(^d^d)`$ by

$$f(\varpi ):=\underset{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{max}}|\mathrm{\Psi }|\varpi |\mathrm{\Psi }|$$

where the maximum is over all maximally entangled pure states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Every maximally entangled wavefunction is of the form $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=(𝟙U)|\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ for some unitary $`U`$ DonaldHR02 . It is straightforward to check that for all operators of the form $`\varpi _1\varpi _2`$ we have

$$f(\varpi _1\varpi _2)=\frac{1}{d}\underset{U}{\mathrm{max}}|\mathrm{tr}(\varpi _1^𝚃U\varpi _2U^{})|$$
(9)
where T denotes transposition. This implies that

$$f(\varpi _1\varpi _2)\frac{1}{d}\varpi _1_2\varpi _2_2.$$

In other words $`df`$ satisfies the *subcross property* with respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt norm $`_2`$. This implies immediately that $`df(\varpi )𝔄(\varpi )_1`$, as $`𝔄(\varpi )_1`$ is the greatest cross norm with respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt norm. (Note that this should be carefully distinguished from the greatest cross norm with respect to the trace class norm that was studied in Ref. Rudolph00, ). Namely let $`\varpi =_{i=1}^kx_iy_i`$ be a decomposition of $`\varpi `$ into a finite sum of simple tensors, then

$$f(\varpi )\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}f(x_iy_i)\frac{1}{d}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}x_i_2y_i_2.$$

Taking the infimum over all possible finite decompositions on the right hand side yields (compare Equation 3)

$$df(\varpi )𝔄(\varpi )_1.$$

## Appendix B The counterexample in dimension $`2\times 2`$

The matrix representation of the state $`\varrho =\frac{1}{4}(𝟙𝟙+s(𝟙\sigma _3)+r(\sigma _3𝟙)+t(\sigma _1\sigma _1)t(\sigma _2\sigma _2)+(1+rs)(\sigma _3\sigma _3))`$ in the canonical basis is given by

$$\varrho =\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1+r& 0& 0& t\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& sr& 0\\ t& 0& 0& 1s\end{array}\right).$$

The Eigenvalues are given by $`\lambda _1=0,\lambda _2=\frac{sr}{2},\lambda _{3,4}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{rs}{4}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{t^2+\frac{(s+r)^2}{4}}`$. $`\varrho `$ is a state if the parameters $`s,r,t`$ are chosen such that each $`\lambda _i0`$. We assume that $`s>r`$. By considering the subsystems of $`\varrho `$, we see that $`|s|1`$ and $`|r|1`$. The Eigenvalues of the partial transpose of $`\varrho `$ are easily confirmed to be $`\lambda _1=\frac{1+r}{2},\lambda _2=\frac{1s}{2},\lambda _{3,4}=\frac{sr}{4}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{(sr)^2}{4}+t^2}`$. Therefore $`\varrho ^{𝚃_2}`$ has a negative Eigenvalue if and only if $`t0`$. Now $`𝔄(\varrho )`$ is given by

$$𝔄(\varrho )=\frac{1}{4}\left(|𝟙𝟙\left|+s\right|\sigma _3𝟙\left|+r\right|𝟙\sigma _3\left|+(1+rs)\right|\sigma _3\sigma _3\left|+t\right|\sigma _1\sigma _1\left|+t\right|\sigma _2\sigma _2|\right).$$

The matrix representation of $`𝔄(\varrho )`$ is

$$𝔄(\varrho )=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& r\\ 0& t& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& t& 0\\ s& 0& 0& 1+rs\end{array}\right)$$

The trace class norm of this operator is easily computed. We set $`\psi (s,r)(1+r)^2+(sr)^2+(1s)^2`$. The Eigenvalues of the operator $`𝔄(\varrho )^{}𝔄(\varrho )`$ are then

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(\psi (s,r)+\sqrt{\psi (s,r)^24(1+r)^2(1s)^2}\right)`$
$`\lambda _4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(\psi (s,r)\sqrt{\psi (s,r)^24(1+r)^2(1s)^2}\right)`$
and $`\lambda _2=\lambda _3=\frac{t^2}{4}`$. Therefore if we set $`g(s,r):=\sqrt{\lambda _1}+\sqrt{\lambda _4}`$, we arrive at

$$𝔄(\varrho )_1=g(s,r)+|t|.$$


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

In recent work  two of us (together with A. Fabbri) have considered black holes localized on branes in Anti-deSitter (AdS) braneworlds, as proposed by Randall and Sundrum (RS2) . Our main result was deducing a connection between the classical bulk dynamics of black holes localized on branes in AdSD+1 and the semiclassical description of black holes in the dual CFT+gravity theory in one dimension fewer111The basic rules of this duality have been considered in, for example, .. This connection is summarized in our conjecture  that the black hole solutions localized on the brane, found by solving the classical bulk equations in AdSD+1 with brane boundary conditions, correspond to quantum-corrected black holes in $`D`$ dimensions, rather than classical ones. This follows naturally from the AdS/CFT correspondence adapted to AdS braneworlds. Ref.  provides a substantial amount of evidence supporting this result.

An immediate application of this conjecture determines the evolution of black holes in the RS2 model. The evolution of black holes larger than the AdS radius $`L`$ can be fully described either by the classical bulk dynamics or by the semiclassical large $`N`$ dynamics of the dual CFT+gravity. Resorting to the latter, we can see that the presence of a large number of CFT degrees of freedom accelerates the decay of a black hole via Hawking radiation. This has also been noticed in Ref. .

This is qualitatively different from black hole evaporation in braneworld models where the curvature of extra dimensions can be ignored, as studied in . Our picture applies only to models which admit a dual CFT+gravity description, which exists when the bulk is asymptotically AdS as in RS2 braneworlds (unlike, e.g. ADD scenarios ). Further, black holes must be larger than the asymptotic AdS radius $`L`$. Then, as long as the CFT+gravity dual is valid, regardless of how cold a black hole is, it can always access a large number of CFT modes, because the asymptotic AdS geometry in the bulk means that there is no gap to suppress the CFT emission. From the bulk point of view, this effect is a classical one, which arises because a black hole stuck on a brane is accelerating through the AdS bulk. The classical emission of bulk radiation by these large black holes will overshadow the quantum radiation considered in . The radiation we are considering only looks quantum once one turns to the dual CFT+gravity, where the largesse of this effect compared to the emission of brane modes is due to the huge number of CFT degrees of freedom – which is in turn the dual of the huge ratio $`(L/L_{P4})^2`$.

Black holes which are smaller than the AdS radius should radiate more slowly. Indeed, the dual CFT+gravity description breaks down, because the bulk graviton modes are needed to describe the black hole geometry itself and cannot be interpreted as dual CFT degrees of freedom . The evolution of small black holes can still be described by a semiclassical bulk theory without evoking the dual CFT+gravity. This description is very sensitive to the details of the UV completion of the bulk theory. Still, one sees from it that the rate of Hawking evaporation diminishes significantly, as suggested by the classical bulk picture argument. A small black hole Hawking-radiates mostly along the brane, since the dominant s-wave channel cannot discriminate between the bulk and the localized gravity . This evaporation is much slower than the emission of a large number of CFT modes.

A complete picture of the evolution of black holes in RS2 braneworlds which start out larger than the AdS radius therefore comprises of two stages: a period of rapid mass loss, during which the CFT+gravity description remains valid, and a period of slow evaporation, during which the black hole continues to lose mass at a much lower rate. The latter stage can last a very long time if the AdS radius is close to the observational bounds. However, these black holes are so small that their observational signatures are weak and could only become important due to the cumulative effect of exciting too much relativistic CFT after inflation. We will therefore focus on the effects of large black holes in what follows.

The most dramatic observable consequence of the classical picture of black hole evaporation is that the black hole lifetime can be tremendously shortened. In this article we will exploit the consequences of this observation for two complementary purposes: (1) deriving bounds on the AdS radius $`L`$ in RS2 braneworlds from the observation of astrophysical black holes, and, somewhat more speculatively, (2) proposing new ways for observing large, or infinite warped extra dimensions. We find that the black hole lifetime provides the most sensitive probe of the number of CFT degrees of freedom. In the former case, they lead to bounds on $`L`$ which are 3 to 5 orders of magnitude stronger than the table-top and cosmological limits, which at present constrain $`L`$ to less than about $`10^1`$ mm . In the latter case, they lead to a rapid mass loss of large black holes, which could deplete the population of super-solar mass black holes in the universe.

## 2 A Qualitative Picture of the Black Hole Evolution

The evaporation time of a black hole larger than the AdS5 radius $`L`$ in the RS2 setup is easily derived using the dual 4D CFT+gravity description. As a first estimate of their lifetime, to be refined below, recall that in the presence of quantum fields with a number $`g_{}`$ of light degrees of freedom, a black hole will evaporate in a time roughly given by

$$\tau \frac{10^{64}}{g_{}}\left(\frac{M}{M_{}}\right)^3\mathrm{yr}.$$
(1)
The number of CFT degrees of freedom is related to the bulk AdS radius $`L`$ by $`g_{}(L/L_{P4})^2`$ where $`L_{P4}`$ is the $`4D`$ Planck length, so $`g_{}10^{64}(L/1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m})^2`$ and

$$\tau \left(\frac{M}{M_{}}\right)^3\left(\frac{1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}}{L}\right)^2\mathrm{yr}.$$
(2)
Hence, as described above, the decay is extremely rapid when compared to more conventional cases, such as the Standard Model (SM) coupled to $`4D`$ gravity, with a number of matter degrees of freedom $`𝒪(100)`$ . For example, in the case of SM+gravity it would take an age of the universe for a black hole the size of Mount Everest, of mass $`M10^{15}`$ g, and size $`R10^{15}`$ m, to completely disappear , whereas in RS2 with $`L<0.1`$ mm, a black hole of a few solar masses might evaporate most of its mass in a time of the order of millenia. Note that our approach is valid for $`G_4M>L`$, which is satisfied by most astrophysically relevant black holes. Indeed,

$$M>10^6\left(\frac{L}{1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}}\right)M_{}10^{51}\left(\frac{L}{1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}}\right)\mathrm{GeV},$$
(3)
so we see that, even with the current upper bound from table-top experiments limit , $`L<0.1`$ mm, the dual CFT+gravity description of black holes applies to most of the interesting cases for astrophysical considerations, the more so the smaller $`L`$ is. Thus, black holes in the range (3), including quite heavy ones, would evaporate away most of their mass very quickly. If this process actually takes place, it can significantly deplete the population of large, solar mass black holes in the universe. Hence, observations of such black holes would imply the absence of this effect and enable us to derive an upper bound on the number of CFT degrees of freedom $`g_{}`$, which translates into a bound on the bulk AdS radius $`L`$. Alternatively, one might under special circumstances end up with a situation in which all the observed black holes come from black hole progenitors that have managed to accrete enough mass from the environment to compensate for the evaporation. In this case, one could search for the disappearance of X-ray sources on the sky, corresponding to the transition of a black hole from being larger to being smaller than the AdS radius, i.e. smaller than the bound (3).

We note that recently an attempt was made to study the evolution of primordial black holes (PBHs) in RS2 . However  does not take into account the effects we study here, and therefore misses the most relevant physics for black holes larger than the AdS radius. We now turn to the more precise determination of the evaporation time.

## 3 The Evaporation Time of Large Black Holes

We now make formula (2) more precise. The rate of mass loss for a neutral, non-rotating black hole in vacuum due to Hawking evaporation is

$$\frac{dM}{dt}=\frac{\alpha }{(G_4M)^2}$$
(4)
where $`\alpha `$ is a factor that accounts for the Stefan-Boltzmann factors and greybody corrections for the particles of each spin that are emitted,

$$\alpha =n_0\alpha _0+n_{1/2}\alpha _{1/2}+n_1\alpha _1.$$
(5)
Here $`n_0`$, $`n_{1/2}`$ and $`n_1`$ are the numbers of real scalars, Weyl (or Majorana) fermions, and gauge vectors, respectively. The coefficients $`\alpha _s`$ have been computed as222$`\alpha _{1/2}`$ and $`\alpha _1`$ were computed numerically in , while $`\alpha _0`$ was obtained in the optical approximation in . See also .

$$\alpha _0=7.0\times 10^5,\alpha _{1/2}=8.0\times 10^5,\alpha _1=3.4\times 10^5.$$
(6)
The specific matter content, $`n_s`$, of the dual CFT depends on the details of the UV completion of the theory, e.g. on how the model is embedded into string theory (or any consistent quantum gravity theory). In the absence of a concrete embedding, we will use the simplest case where the full space is the AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ background of IIB string theory. This is dual to $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory, which for a large $`N`$ yields $`n_0=6N^2`$, $`n_{1/2}=4N^2`$ and $`n_1=N^2`$. On the other hand, AdS/CFT gives $`N^2=\pi L^3/2G_5`$ , while RS2 implies $`G_5=LG_4`$, so $`N^2=\pi L^2/2G_4`$. Thus one obtains

$$\frac{dM}{dt}=2.8\times 10^3\left(\frac{M_{}}{M}\right)^2\left(\frac{L}{1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}}\right)^2M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1.$$
(7)
Integrating this equation and dropping the corrections of order of the critical mass of Eq. (3), gives the time within which a large black hole initially of a mass $`M`$ will shrink to below the size of $`L`$:

$$\tau 1.2\times 10^2\left(\frac{M}{M_{}}\right)^3\left(\frac{1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}}{L}\right)^2\mathrm{yr},$$
(8)
which is larger than the estimate (2), that neglected greybody corrections and other factors. From Eq. (8), we note that in the extreme case where $`L0.1`$ mm, a black hole of a mass $`M<50`$ $`M_{}`$ which could have formed by the collapse of early stars would have evaporated by today down to a small mass below the bound of Eq. (3). Thus the strongest bounds and signatures will come from either primordial or stellar-mass black holes.

The assumption that the matter content of the dual CFT is that of $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ SYM is not essential. For other embeddings of AdS5 the final result Eqs. (7) and (8) may be modified only by factors of order unity: whenever the bulk geometry is asymptotically AdS5, the dual theory will contain a large number $`(L/L_{P4})^2`$ of light fields. Any such theory must reproduce exactly the same Weyl anomaly, regardless of its matter content, so the final result must always be quite close to the above. This picture would not apply if the AdS5 geometry were modified at some distance away from the brane such that the dual theory develops a mass gap greater than the black hole temperature333This is one of the reasons why our arguments do not apply to ADD.. Observe that, from the CFT+gravity viewpoint, the quickened evaporation rate is entirely due to the vast increase in the phase space available to black hole emission. The temperature of black holes that are larger than $`L`$ is essentially unaffected by the presence of the extra dimensions, taking the usual form

$$T6\times 10^8\frac{M_{}}{M}\mathrm{K},$$
(9)
which is extremely small for astrophysical black holes. However, if the bulk is modified far from the brane, the dual theory has a gap and ceases to be a CFT in the IR. The gap would suppress the emission of Hawking radiation from black holes whose temperature is below it. In such instances our constraints could be significantly weakened, depending on the scale of the gap.

The main practical obstacle for deriving the bounds comes from the fact that realistic black holes do not live in a vacuum. They are surrounded by a distribution of matter, such as the thermal background photons and the interstellar medium for isolated black holes, and even more importantly, the dense environment for black holes inside galaxies. Examples are the gas of a companion star in the case of X-ray binaries, which typically form accretion disks, like in microquasars , and the halo of ionized infalling matter stripped from nearby stars, in the case of large quiescent black holes in the centers of galaxies. Any black hole colder than the environment will absorb energy from its surroundings and accrete mass onto itself . The rate at which a black hole accretes mass depends very much on its environment and ranges from $`10^9M_{}`$ yr-1, for isolated black holes and low mass X-ray binaries, to $`M_{}`$ yr-1 for high redshift quasars.

The processes of evaporation and accretion compete with each other. However they work quite differently: while the evaporation rate decreases with the black hole mass as $`M^2`$, the accretion grows proportionally to the horizon area and hence to $`M^2`$. The dynamical law describing the rate of mass change of a black hole with accretion included is

$$\dot{M}=\beta (G_4M)^2\rho \frac{\alpha }{(G_4M)^2},$$
(10)
where the first term encodes the accretion of matter with energy density $`\rho `$ surrounding the black hole and the second term encodes Hawking evaporation (7). Here $`\beta `$ is a numerical coefficient measuring the efficiency of accretion, which may depend on the velocity of the black hole moving through the intergalactic medium. Ignoring details we will assume that it is of order unity. Now, the accretion will be smaller when the evaporation proceeds faster, i.e. when the black hole is smaller. From (10) we see that this will happen when $`\rho (G_4M)^4<10^{64}(L/1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m})^2`$. For example, massive black holes in the core of AGNs have accretion rates444Estimated from their observed luminosity, see e.g. Ref. . of order $`110^4M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, which completely overwhelm the evaporation rate (7).

For stellar mass black holes the situation is more complicated, but it is expected that the typical rate at which a normal star is dumping gas onto a companion black hole is around $`10^9M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. This gives a rather wide margin for the evaporation to dominate. Thus, isolated or smaller black holes, while harder to detect, will end up being dominated by the evaporation into CFT modes. In this instance, it is straightforward to check that the accretion of CMB photons is negligible, even if the CMB is much hotter than the black hole. For example, for a solar mass black hole in theories where $`L0.1`$ mm, the mass increase due to the accretion of CMB photons at temperatures below the MeV is negligible compared to the mass loss coming from CFT Hawking evaporation. Thus even primordial black holes will end up mostly evaporating CFT throughout their lifetime. This allows us to place bounds on $`L`$, and also argue for new ways of looking for the signatures of RS2. We now turn to the best sources of the bounds.

## 4 The Bounds on L

Sub-solar-mass black holes and MACHOs.

It is clear from the arguments above that CFT evaporation affects most dramatically smaller black holes, whose horizon exceeds the AdS radius $`L`$ just barely, such that they are the hottest black holes allowing dual CFT+gravity description. Specifically, the sub-solar-mass black holes will yield the strongest bounds. They could not have formed by collapse of matter because of the Oppenheimer-Volkoff bounds, and hence must be primordial, forming during some violent process in the very early universe . Such black holes must have lived at least as long as the age of the Universe, $`\tau _U14`$ Gyr. An observation of a single such black hole would thus strongly constrain the parameter $`L`$. From this $`\tau _U`$ and Eq. (8) we obtain

$$L\stackrel{<}{}10^4\left(\frac{M}{M_{}}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{mm}.$$
(11)
Hence any evidence for a small black hole with mass in the range $`M0.11M_{}`$ would impose a bound on $`L`$ that may be as tight as

$$L\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{few}\times 10^6\mathrm{mm},$$
(12)
which is some five orders of magnitude stronger than the current limits from table-top experiments and cosmology .

What are the chances of observing such black holes? It has been argued recently that they might actually comprise a significant portion of the dark matter in the galaxy halo, to avoid problems with having too many baryons if the MACHOs were all brown dwarfs . If this is true, the most obvious difficulty for their detection is to distinguish the PBH MACHOs from other compact, nonluminous objects in the same mass range. At present, the best strategy for identifying such light objects as black holes is to search for the gravitational waves emitted during the merger phase of a coalescing binary containing a black hole . This challenge has apparently been taken by the GEO-600 collaboration, which has plans to search for binaries containing black holes in the MACHO range .

Isolated few-solar-mass black holes.

CFT emission could have played a significant role for black holes with a mass in the range $`1100M_{}`$, formed by stellar collapse, if they were old enough. If the AdS radius $`L`$ is sufficiently large, say, more than a fraction of a micron, this will be the case for black holes formed in the supernova explosion of first-generation stars, $`t5\times 10^9`$ yr ago. An additional requirement is that the black hole be isolated, so it does not accrete from a companion star. While their detection is difficult, it is possible in principle, through the emission of X-rays via accretion of gas from the interstellar medium (ISM), see Ref. . It has been argued by Brown and Bethe  that there must be a large population ($`10^9`$) of black holes in our galaxy with a mass around $`1.5M_{}`$. If so, there should be many microlensing events with such a mass towards the galactic bulge. In the future such black hole candidates spotted with microlensing can be checked with X-ray measurements by XMM and Chandra, which could give crucial information about the low-mass black holes in the galaxy. As a first step, recently both MACHO and OGLE collaborations have claimed discovery of nearby black holes through long-lasting microlensing events .

Isolated black holes are expected to accrete ISM matter at a very low rate , $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{accr}}1.5\times 10^{11}M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, and therefore their rate of evaporation into CFT modes (7) would be significantly larger $`|\dot{M}_{\mathrm{evap}}|1.2\times 10^3(L/1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m})^2M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, unless the AdS radius is $`L<10^4`$ mm. In this case a few-solar-mass black hole could retain most of its mass for few billion years. Verifying the existence of a population of black holes with masses of few $`M_{}`$ would therefore impose a stringent bound on $`L`$,

$$L\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{few}\times 10^4\mathrm{mm},$$
(13)
about three orders of magnitude stronger than the limits from table-top experiments .

Black holes in X-ray binaries.

The best observational candidates for black holes are X-ray binaries. They come in two classes, low mass (LMXB) and high mass (HMXB) X-ray binaries, depending on the mass of the companion, which can be determined reliably from the orbital properties of the companion in a binary system. Most of the best known black holes, with masses measured to better than 10% error, correspond to LMXB and, more precisely, to the so called Soft X-ray Transients, also known as X-ray Novae . A dozen of them are known to date, with their orbital properties and masses detailed in Table 1. of Ref. . Their average mass is $`M7M_{}`$, but the dispersion is large, since the masses range from $`3M_{}`$ to $`14M_{}`$. Most of these LMXB were formed when the heavy star of the binary exploded in a supernova, without completely blowing the system apart, and leaving behind a black hole. Their typical accretion rates from their companion stars are of order of $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{accr}}=10^{10}M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ . This accretion rate sets a benchmark with which to compare the emission of Hawking radiation in the CFT sector.

Unfortunately, less is known about the lifetimes of X-ray binaries. Most black holes in binaries were formed from heavy stars in the disk of the galaxy, so their lifetime is estimated to be $`t<t_{\mathrm{disk}}10`$ Gyr. However, reliable ages are difficult to determine, and there are very few examples of reliable estimates. These involve young binary systems, such as the X-ray transient XTE J1118+480 and the microquasar GRO J1655-40 (also known as Nova Scorpii 1994). The mass of the black hole in XTE J1118+480 is $`M=6.8\pm 0.4M_{}`$, and its age has been estimated by using the properties of its eccentric halo orbit which happened to pass close to Earth. This led to the suggestion that this black hole may have originated in the galaxy disk 240 Myr ago and went out of the plane due to a supernova explosion . Substituting the mass and the age in Eq. (8), we find the bound on $`L`$ to be

$$L<1.3\times 10^2\mathrm{mm},$$
(14)
already an order of magnitude better than table-top experiments. A systematic uncertainty in the age of the black hole towards larger values  could give a somewhat stronger constraint on $`L`$. This alone would make it hard for table-top experiments to detect the subleading corrections to $`4D`$ gravity in RS2. We note that the age estimate of XTE J1118+480 has been questioned in , where the possibility was raised that the black hole may have originated in a globular cluster 7 Gyr ago and followed a path in the halo characteristic of globular clusters. This would significantly improve the bound on the AdS radius, leading to

$$L<2.4\times 10^4\mathrm{mm},$$
(15)
which is three orders of magnitude better than the bounds from table-top experiments.

The GRO J1655-40 microquasar has a black hole whose mass is $`M=5.4\pm 0.3M_{}`$ . Its age can be estimated from a peculiar chemical abundance of the surface of the companion, with elements that can be traced back to a supernova explosion of type II. Since the rate at which the companion loses matter towards the accretion disk is known, one can place the limit of $`\stackrel{<}{}10^6`$ yr on the age of the black hole . Very recently, multiple wavelength observations of GRO J1655-40 were used to determine its velocity and possible origin in the sky . From these observations, providing the first direct evidence for stellar black hole formation in supernovae explosions, one can estimate the age of the black hole to be 0.7 Myr . Altogether this gives only a mild bound on $`L<0.2`$ mm, comparable to table-top experiments.

Future measurements of the dozen or so X-ray novae with XMM and Chandra satellites may reveal their origin and their age. Any black hole as old as the galaxy would then impose a strong bound on the AdS radius, of order

$$L<\mathrm{few}\times 10^3\mathrm{mm}.$$
(16)
Improved bounds from rotating black holes.

So far we have been considering evaporating black holes which are static, without any angular momentum. This is probably unrealistic: most black holes are expected to be spinning, some with angular momenta close to the unattainable extremal limit $`aJ^2/M^2=a_{max}=1`$ in geometric units. There is some observational evidence for black holes in the stellar mass range with spins up to $`a=0.94`$, and also of galactic black holes with similarly large spins .

A black hole loses its angular momentum by Hawking emission of particles with both orbital and intrinsic angular momentum . Indeed, a quickly rotating black hole is more likely to emit particles of higher spin, an amplification closely related to superradiance . Explicit calculations show that the addition of some spin to the black hole does not, in fact, change its lifetime by more than a factor of about 2 . Hence our estimates above which ignored the effects of spin are still reliable.

However, there remains the possibility that measurements of the spin of a black hole, rather than of the mass, may yield improved bounds on the number of CFT modes, and thus on the curvature scale $`L`$ of the extra dimension. A quickly spinning black hole, $`a<1`$, will shed off a large fraction of its spin quite fast until it is reduced to more modest values of $`a`$. In our context, the enhanced evaporation rate into CFT modes will amplify this effect and prevent a black hole from retaining a large angular momentum for a long time. From the analysis in  we infer that a black hole with an angular momentum above $`a=0.9`$ will spin-down below this value in a time equal to around 1/50 of its total lifetime. Thus, the existence of angular momenta in the range $`0.9a<1`$ that have been held for a sufficiently long time will further improve the bounds on $`L`$ by as much as an order of magnitude beyond those obtained from the total lifetime of the black hole. As an example, if the candidate spinning black hole of Ref.  is as old as $`10^9`$ yr, then

$$L<10^4\mathrm{mm}.$$
(17)
## 5 Black Hole Detonations as a Signature of RS2

So far we have been focusing on the bounds on the AdS radius which come from requiring that black holes with masses $`\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{few}\times M_{}`$ evaporate sufficiently slowly to be around today, even if they were formed billions of years ago. However, the numbers of the observational black hole candidates in this mass range are in the teens. Thus while it may not be very likely, it is possible that those which really are black holes ended up surviving for so long because of accretion, that might have won over fast CFT emission. This would give rise to an exciting possibility for very significant signatures of RS2 with as large an AdS radius as currently allowed by observations, given by our Eq. (14), $`L\stackrel{<}{}`$ 0.01 mm.

In this instance, Hawking evaporation of CFT modes from a black hole with a mass close to a solar mass in a X-ray binary in the last stages of evaporation would lead to a decay time $`\tau `$ of order of few million years, rendering the mass time-dependent, $`M(t)=M_{\mathrm{BH}}(1t/\tau )^{1/3}`$. In the final stages of the evaporation into the CFT sector, the mass of the black hole would change rapidly: it would reduce to one-tenth of its initial value in the final millenium, and to one-hundredth in the last year, and so forth. Since these time scales are much shorter than any dynamical (gravitational collapse) time scales, the potential well holding the rotating accretion disk together (as well as the companion star in its orbit) would disappear suddenly, and the disk would fly apart by the action of centrifugal forces, sending the companion outward like a slingshot. No events of this kind have been observed yet. However, if the initial mass function for stellar formation favors the formation of lower-mass objects, there could be a large population  of solar mass black holes ready to go away. An observation of such a dramatic event would immediately suggest sudden black hole evaporation. One could also imagine searching for stars that have been catapulted in the past from their place of origin, e.g. away from the plane of the galaxy, and estimate the force required. If it exceeds the force which could have been exerted by a supernova, it might suggest an event of the sudden evaporation of a solar mass black hole which ejected its companion. This could be taken as an indication of a gapless CFT in the hidden sector, as in the RS2 framework. We note however that even a slight improvement of our bound (14) would prolong the decay time of such black holes, deferring the detonations to much larger timescales which would make their observations much less likely.

## 6 Summary and Future Directions

In this article we have discussed phenomenological and astrophysical aspects of black holes in the infinite Randall-Sundrum model . Our analysis is based on the picture proposed in , whereby a black hole larger than the AdS radius, which is stuck on the brane, is described in the dual CFT+gravity as a copious source of Hawking CFT radiation. This will in general shorten the lifetime of a black hole, and specifically, it will make large black holes lose a huge part of their mass very quickly. We have shown that because of this effect black holes are the most sensitive indicator of the presence of a large number of CFT degrees of freedom in the hidden sector. A black hole with a mass $`\stackrel{<}{}M_{}`$ would impose stronger constraints on the AdS radius $`L`$ than the table-top experiments  and cosmology . Already at the moment, X-ray binaries require that $`L\stackrel{<}{}10^2`$ mm. The bounds could be as strong as $`L\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{few}\times 10^9`$ m if MACHOs are proven to be primordial black holes. We note that it is quite fascinating that the bounds are still fairly weak, in spite of the fact that the ensuing number of CFT degrees of freedom may be huge, as large as $`\stackrel{<}{}10^{60}`$. This is a consequence of the weakness of gravity and the weakness of direct couplings of CFT to the visible sector . We have also seen that there remains a less likely, but exciting prospect of black hole detonations as a signature of RS2, in the case when the AdS radius is close to the observational bounds.

We close with some remarks on cosmological implications of black holes in RS2 and more generally in any theory with a large number of CFT degrees of freedom in the hidden sector in IR. Black hole physics in such models can lead to stringent bounds on the models of the early universe in theories with a large number of CFT degrees of freedom. Namely the hidden sector CFT and the visible sector (including the Standard Model) interact with each other only very weakly, with direct couplings that are weaker than gravitational in the infrared. Black holes provide for a stronger channel of interaction between these two sectors. Indeed, because CFT and CMB couple only very weakly, they can be viewed essentially as two separate vessels of gas, insulated from each other. A black hole acts as a pipe connecting these two vessels. The gas can flow through the pipe from the hotter into the colder vessel as long as there is a temperature gradient, or until the flow of heat deteriorates the pipe, i.e. when the black hole completely evaporates away. If the universe starts mostly populated by the visible sector particles, ie CMB, black holes will mostly accrete hot CMB, and will mostly evaporate colder CFT, which has many more flavors to take away the entropy. Thus black holes will eventually lead to the heating of the CFT sector in the universe.

On the other hand, having a realistic cosmology requires that there was very little production of CFT radiation in the early universe, to avoid disturbing the fine balances required for nucleosynthesis. As shown in , the weak direct CFT-visible sector couplings lead to a very slow production of the CFT radiation, consistent with nucleosynthesis, as long as $`L<`$ 1 mm. Black holes can accelerate the conversion of the visible sector into CFT radiation if their primordial abundances were large. Thus requiring that the initial abundance of primordial black holes is low enough so that the CFT radiation remains cold enough during nucleosynthesis will give new constraints on the early cosmology of RS2 with a large $`L`$. There may also arise bounds from structure formation, because CFT would behave as hot dark matter (a possibility touched upon in ). However, we refrain from a detailed investigation of these issues here because the new bounds will depend on the specifics of the early universe evolution and on the details of CFT self-interactions. They may be a useful guide for building the early universe models in RS2.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge useful discussions with Jorge Casares, John March-Russell, Félix Mirabel, Lisa Randall, Robert Wagoner and Jun’ichi Yokoyama. N.K. and J.G-B. would like to thank the Theory Division at CERN for hospitality while this work was being initiated. The work of R.E. has been partially supported by CICYT grants AEN-99-0315 and FPA-2002-02037. The work of J.G-B. has been partially supported by a CICYT grant FPA-2000-980. The work of N.K. has been supported in part by UCD, in part by an award from the Research Corporation and in part by the NSF Grant PHY-9870115 to the Stanford ITP.