text:
# Two-Loop Superstrings in Hyperelliptic Language II: the Cosmological Constant and the Non-Renormalization Theorem

## 1 Introduction

Although we believe that superstring theory is finite in perturbation at any order , a rigorous proof is still lacking despite great advances in the covariant formulation of superstring perturbation theory á la Polyakov. In particular, there is a non-renormalization theorem . In spite of the efforts of many authors, it is very difficult to verify this theorem explicitly. Even in the case of the cosmological constant, i.e. the vacuum amplitude, this problem has not been completely solved. At two loops these problems were solved explicitly by using the hyperelliptic formalism in a series of papers . The explicit result was also used by Iengo  to prove the vanishing of perturbative correction to the $`R^4`$ term  at two loops, in agreement with the indirect argument of Green and Gutperle , Green, Gutperle and Vanhove , and Green and Sethi  that the $`R^4`$ term does not receive perturbative contributions beyond one loop. Recently, Stieberger and Taylor  also used the result of  to prove the vanishing of the heterotic two-loop $`F^4`$ term. For some closely related works we refer the reader to the reviews . In the general case, there is no satisfactory solution. For a review of these problem we refer the reader to .

Recently two-loop superstring was studied by D’Hoker and Phong. In a series of papers  (for a recent review see ), D’Hoker and Phong found an unambiguous and slice-independent two-loop superstring measure on moduli space for even spin structure from first principles.

Although their result is quite explicit, it is still a difficult problem to use it in actual computation. In , D’Hoker and Phong used their result to compute explicitly the chiral measure by choosing the split gauge and proved the vanishing of the cosmological constant and the non-renormalization theorem . They also computed the four-particle amplitude in another forthcoming paper . Although the final results are exactly the expected, their computation is quite difficult to follow because of the use of theta functions.111In , the two-loop 4-particle amplitude was also computed by using theta functions. Its relation with the previous explicit result  has not been clarified. Also modular invariance is absurd in their computations because of the complicated dependence between the 2 insertion points (the insertion points are also spin structure dependent).

Although the vanishing of the cosmological constant and the non-renorma-lization theorem was proved explicitly in previous works , it would be interesting to study this problem again by using the newly obtained result of D’Hoker and Phong. The main purpose of this study is as a warm up exercise for the computation of the possibly non-vanishing four-particle amplitude. As we will see in this paper, some expressions are non-vanishing after summation over spin structures. Nevertheless the combination of the symmetry of the computed expression and the relevant kinematic factor gives a vanishing result. In a previous paper , we report the main results of our computation of two loop superstring theory by using hyperelliptic language. In this paper we will present the details for the proof of the vanishing of the cosmological constant and the non-renormalization theorem. The computation of the non-vanishing four-particle amplitude is given in another publication .

The organization of this paper is as follows. In the next section we will recall the relevant results of hyperelliptic representation of the genus 2 Riemann surface and set our notations for all the correlators. In section 3 we recall the results of D’Hoker and Phong for the chiral measure. In section 4 we computed explicitly all the relevant quantities in the chiral measure. Here we mainly concentrated on the spin structure dependent parts. In section 5 we established a set of identities and proved the vanishing of the cosmological constant. The identities will also be used in the next section in the verification of the non-renormalization theorem. Here modular invariance is maintained explicitly. In this section we also discuss the importance of taking the limit $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1q_{1,2}`$ and mention the (six) Riemann identities which are not fully modular invariant. In section 6 we proved the non-renormalization theorem. In particular we study carefully the most difficult part of the three-particle amplitude. Here the symmetry of the relevant kinematic factor is very important in the proof of the non-renormalization theorem. The (point-wise) vanishing of all the 1-, 2- and 3-particle amplitude leads a great simplification of the computation of the 4-particle amplitude .

Here we note again that D’Hoker and Phong have proved that the cosmological constant and the 1-, 2- and 3-point functions are zero point-wise in moduli space . They have also computed the 4-particle amplitude . The agreement of the results from these two different gauge choices and two different methods of computations is another proof of the validity of the new supersymmetric gauge fixing method at two loops.

## 2 Genus 2 hyperelliptic Riemann surface

First we remind that a genus-g Riemann surface, which is the appropriate world sheet for one and two loops, can be described in full generality by means of the hyperelliptic formalism.222Some early works on two loops computation by using hyperelliptic representation are  which is by no means the complete list. This is based on a representation of the surface as two sheet covering of the complex plane described by the equation:

$$y^2(z)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2g+2}{}}(za_i),$$
(1)
The complex numbers $`a_i`$, $`(i=1,\mathrm{},2g+2)`$ are the $`2g+2`$ branch points, by going around them one passes from one sheet to the other. For two-loop ($`g=2`$) three of them represent the moduli of the genus 2 Riemann surface over which the integration is performed, while the other three can be arbitrarily fixed. Another parametrization of the moduli space is given by the period matrix.

At genus 2, by choosing a canonical homology basis of cycles we have the following list of 10 even spin structures:

$`\delta _1\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right](a_1a_2a_3|a_4a_5a_6),`$ $`\delta _2\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right](a_1a_2a_4|a_3a_5a_6),`$ (6)
$`\delta _3\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right](a_1a_2a_5|a_3a_4a_6),`$ $`\delta _4\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right](a_1a_2a_6|a_3a_4a_5),`$ (11)
$`\delta _5\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right](a_1a_3a_4|a_2a_5a_6),`$ $`\delta _6\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right](a_1a_3a_5|a_2a_4a_6),`$ (16)
$`\delta _7\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right](a_1a_3a_6|a_2a_4a_5),`$ $`\delta _8\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right](a_1a_4a_5|a_2a_3a_6),`$ (21)
$`\delta _9\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right](a_1a_4a_6|a_2a_3a_5),`$ $`\delta _{10}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right](a_1a_5a_6|a_2a_3a_4).`$ (26)
We will denote an even spin structure as $`(A_1A_2A_3|B_1B_2B_3)`$. By convention $`A_1=a_1`$. For each even spin structure we have a spin structure dependent factor from determinants which is given as follows :

$$Q_\delta =\underset{i<j}{}(A_iA_j)(B_iB_j).$$
(27)
This is a degree 6 homogeneous polynomials in $`a_i`$.

At two loops there are two odd supermoduli and this gives two insertions of supercurrent at two different points $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. Previously the chiral measure was derived in  by a simple projection from the supermoduli space to the even moduli space. This projection does’t preserve supersymmetry and there is a residual dependence on the two insertion points. This formalism was used in . In these papers we found that it is quite convenient to choose these two insertion points as the two zeros of a holomorphic abelian differential which are moduli independent points on the Riemann surface. In hyperelliptic language these two points are the same points on the upper and lower sheet of the surface. We denote these two points as $`x_1=x+`$ (on the upper sheet) and $`x_2=x`$ (on the lower sheet). We made these convenient choices again in  and will make the same choices in this paper and .

In the following we will give some formulas in hyperelliptic representation which will be used later. First all the relevant correlators are given by333We follow closely the notation of .

$`\psi ^\mu (z)\psi ^\nu (w)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{\mu \nu }G_{1/2}[\delta ](z,w)=\delta ^{\mu \nu }S_\delta (z,w),`$ (28)
$`_zX^\mu (z)_wX^\nu (w)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{\mu \nu }_z_w\mathrm{ln}E(z,w),`$ (29)
$`b(z)c(w)`$ $`=`$ $`+G_2(z,w),`$ (30)
$`\beta (z)\gamma (w)`$ $`=`$ $`G_{3/2}[\delta ](z,w),`$ (31)
where

$`S_\delta (z,w)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{zw}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z)+u(w)}{2\sqrt{u(z)u(w)}}},`$ (32)
$`u(z)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{zA_i}{zB_i}}\right)^{1/2},`$ (33)
$`G_2(z,w)=H(w,z)+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}H(w,p_1)\varpi _a(z,z),`$ (34)
$`H(w,z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(wz)}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{y(w)}{y(z)}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{y(w)}{y(z)}},`$ (35)
$`G_{3/2}[\delta ](z,w)=P(w,z)+P(w,q_1)\psi _1^{}(z)+P(w,q_2)\psi _2^{}(z),`$ (36)
$`P(w,z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}S_\delta (w,z)\mathrm{\Omega }(z),`$ (37)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$ is an abelian differential satisfying $`\mathrm{\Omega }(q_{1,2})0`$ and otherwise arbitrary. These correlators were adapted from . $`\varpi _a(z,w)`$ are defined in  and $`\psi _{1,2}^{}(z)`$ are the two holomorphic $`\frac{3}{2}`$-differentials. When no confusion is possible, the dependence on the spin structure $`[\delta ]`$ will not be exhibited.

In order take the limit of $`x_{1,2}q_{1,2}`$ we need the following expansions:

$`G_{3/2}(x_2,x_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_1q_1}}\psi _1^{}(x_2)\psi _1^{}(x_2)f_{3/2}^{(1)}(x_2)+O(x_1q_1),`$ (38)
$`G_{3/2}(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_2q_2}}\psi _2^{}(x_1)\psi _2^{}(x_1)f_{3/2}^{(2)}(x_1)+O(x_2q_2),`$ (39)
for $`x_{1,2}q_{1,2}`$. By using the explicit expression of $`G_{3/2}`$ in (36) we have

$`f_{3/2}^{(1)}(q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{q_2}S(q_1,q_2)}{S(q_1,q_2)}}+\psi _2^{}(q_2),`$ (40)
$`f_{3/2}^{(2)}(q_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{q_1}S(q_2,q_1)}{S(q_1,q_2)}}+\psi _1^{}(q_1)=f_{3/2}^{(1)}(q_2)|_{q_1q_2}.`$ (41)
The quantity $`\psi _\alpha ^{}(z)`$’s are holomorphic $`\frac{3}{2}`$-differentials and are constructed as follows:

$$\psi _\alpha ^{}(z)=(zq_\alpha )S(z,q_\alpha )\frac{y(q_\alpha )}{y(z)},\alpha =1,2.$$
(42)
For $`z=q_{1,2}`$ we have

$`\psi _\alpha ^{}(q_\beta )=\delta _{\alpha ,\beta },`$ (43)
$`\psi _1^{}(q_2)=\psi _2^{}(q_1)=S(q_1,q_2)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}S_1(q),`$ (44)
$`\psi _1^{}(q_1)=\psi _2^{}(q_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q),`$ (45)
$`^2\psi _1^{}(q_1)=^2\psi _2^{}(q_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}S_1^2(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(q),`$ (46)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(xa_i)^n}},`$ (47)
$`S_n(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(xA_i)^n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(xB_i)^n}}\right],`$ (48)
for $`n=1,2`$. This shows that $`\psi _\alpha ^{}(q_{\alpha +1})`$ and $`^2\psi _\alpha ^{}(q_\alpha )`$ are spin structure dependent.

## 3 The chiral measure: the result of D’Hoker and Phong

The chiral measure obtained in  after making the choice $`x_\alpha =q_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =1,2`$) is

$`𝒜[\delta ]`$ $`=`$ $`i𝒵\left\{1+𝒳_1+𝒳_2+𝒳_3+𝒳_4+𝒳_5+𝒳_6\right\},`$
$`𝒵`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{a}{}b(p_a)\underset{\alpha }{}\delta (\beta (q_\alpha ))}{det\omega _I\omega _J(p_a)}},`$ (49)
and the $`𝒳_i`$ are given by:

$`𝒳_1+𝒳_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^1\zeta ^2}{16\pi ^2}}[\psi (q_1)X(q_1)\psi (q_2)X(q_2)`$ (50)
$`_{q_1}G_2(q_1,q_2)\psi _1^{}(q_2)+_{q_2}G_2(q_2,q_1)\psi _2^{}(q_1)`$
$`+2G_2(q_1,q_2)\psi _1^{}(q_2)f_{3/2}^{(1)}(q_2)2G_2(q_2,q_1)\psi _2^{}(q_1)f_{3/2}^{(2)}(q_1)],`$
$`𝒳_2+𝒳_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^1\zeta ^2}{8\pi ^2}}S_\delta (q_1,q_2)`$ (51)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\varpi }_a(q_1,q_2)[T(\stackrel{~}{p}_a)+\stackrel{~}{B}_2(\stackrel{~}{p}_a)+\stackrel{~}{B}_{3/2}(\stackrel{~}{p}_a)],`$
$`𝒳_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^1\zeta ^2}{8\pi ^2}}S_\delta (q_1,q_2){\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[_{p_a}_{q_1}\mathrm{ln}E(p_a,q_1)\varpi _a^{}(q_2)`$ (52)
$`+_{p_a}_{q_2}\mathrm{ln}E(p_a,q_2)\varpi _a^{}(q_1)],`$
$`𝒳_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^1\zeta ^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[S_\delta (p_a,q_1)_{p_a}S_\delta (p_a,q_2)`$ (53)
$`S_\delta (p_a,q_2)_{p_a}S_\delta (p_a,q_1)]\varpi _a(q_1,q_2).`$
Furthermore, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{3/2}`$ are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_2(w)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}_{p_a}_w\mathrm{ln}E(p_a,w)\varpi _a^{}(w),`$ (54)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{3/2}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}(G_2(w,q_\alpha )_{q_\alpha }\psi _\alpha ^{}(q_\alpha )+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}_{q_\alpha }G_2(w,q_\alpha )\psi _\alpha ^{}(q_\alpha )).`$ (55)
In comparing with  we have written $`𝒳_2`$, $`𝒳_3`$ together and we didn’t split $`T(w)`$ into different contributions. We also note that in eq. (51) the three arbitrary points $`\stackrel{~}{p}_a`$ ($`a=1,2,3`$) can be different from the three insertion points $`p_a`$’s of the $`b`$ ghost field. The symbol $`\stackrel{~}{\varpi }_a`$ is obtained from $`\varpi _a`$ by changing $`p_a`$’s to $`\stackrel{~}{p}_a`$’s. In the following computation we will take the limit of $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1q_1`$. In this limit we have $`\stackrel{~}{\varpi }_{2,3}(q_1,q_2)=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varpi }_1(q_1,q_2)=1`$. This choice greatly simplifies the formulas and also make the summation over spin structure doable (see below and ).

## 4 The chiral measure in hyperelliptic language

The strategy we will follow is to isolate all the spin structure dependent parts first. As we will show in the following the spin structure dependent factors are just $`S(q_1,q_2)`$, $`_{q_2}S(q_1,q_2)`$ and the Szegö kernel if we also include the vertex operators. Before we do this we will first write the chiral measure in hyperelliptic language and take the limit of $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1q_1`$.

Let’s start with $`𝒳_5`$. We have

$$S(z,q_1)_zS(z,q_2)S(z,q_2)_zS(z,q_1)=\frac{i}{4(zq)^2}S_1(z).$$
(56)
So the spin structure dependent factor from $`𝒳_5`$ is effectively $`S(z+,z)`$ as shown by the following formulas:

$`S(q_1,q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`S(q_2,q_1)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}S_1(q),`$ (57)
$`_{q_2}S(q_1,q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`_{q_1}S(q_2,q_1)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}S_2(q).`$ (58)
For $`𝒳_4`$, the spin structure dependent factor is simply $`S_1(q)S(q_1,q_2)`$ as $`\mathrm{ln}E(p_a,q_b)`$ and $`\varpi _a^{}(q_b)`$ are spin structure independent (their explicit expressions are not needed in this paper and will be given in ).

For $`𝒳_2+𝒳_3`$, we first compute the various contributions from the different fields. The total stress energy tensor is:

$`T(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}:_zX(z)_zX(z):+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}:\psi (z)_z\psi (z):`$ (59)
$`:(bc+2bc+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta \gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\beta \gamma )(z):`$
$``$ $`T_X(z)+T_\psi (z)+T_{bc}(z)+T_{\beta \gamma }(z),`$
in an obvious notations. The various contributions are

$`T_X(w)`$ $`=`$ $`10T_1(w),`$ (60)
$`T_\psi (w)`$ $`=`$ $`5\stackrel{~}{g}_{1/2}(w)={\displaystyle \frac{5}{32}}(S_1(w))^2,`$ (61)
$`T_{bc}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g}_2(w)2_wf_2(w),`$ (62)
$`T_{\beta \gamma }(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{3/2}(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}_wf_{3/2}(w),`$ (63)
where

$`f_2(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(w)+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}H(w,p_a)\varpi _a(w,w),`$ (64)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}_2(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(w)`$ (65)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}H(w,p_a)\varpi _a(w,w)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{wp_{a+1}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wp_{a+2}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(w)\right),`$
$`f_{3/2}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(w)}{\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(q_1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}S(w,q_1)\psi _1^{}(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(q_2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}S(w,q_2)\psi _2^{}(w),`$ (66)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}_{3/2}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }(w)}{\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}(S_1(w))^2`$ (67)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(q_1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}S(w,q_1)\psi _1^{}(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(q_2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}S(w,q_2)\psi _2^{}(w).`$
As we said in the last section we will take the limit of $`wq_1`$. In this limit $`T_{\beta \gamma }(w)`$ is singular and we have the following expansion:

$$T_{\beta \gamma }(w)=\frac{3/2}{(wq_1)^2}\frac{\psi _1^{}(q_1)}{wq_1}\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q)\frac{1}{32}S_1^2(q)+O(wq_1).$$
(68)
The dependence on the abelian differential $`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$ drops out. These singular terms are cancelled by similar singular terms in $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{3/2}(w)`$. By explicit computation we have:

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{3/2}(w)={\displaystyle \frac{3/2}{(wq_1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _1^{}(q_1)}{wq_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(q)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_1q}}{\displaystyle \frac{(qp_2)(qp_3)}{(p_1p_2)(p_1p_3)}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(q)+\mathrm{}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p_1q)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(qp_2)(qp_3)}{(p_1p_2)(p_1p_3)}}+\mathrm{}\right)+O(wq_1).`$ (69)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ indicates two other terms obtained by cyclic permutating $`(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$. By using the above explicit result we see that the combined contributions of $`T_{\beta \gamma }(w)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{3/2}(w)`$ are non-singular in the limit of $`wq_1`$. We can then take $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1q_1`$ in $`𝒳_2+𝒳_3`$. In this limit only $`a=1`$ contributes to $`𝒳_2+𝒳_3`$. This is because $`\stackrel{~}{\varpi }_{2,3}(q_1,q_2)=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varpi }_1(q_1,q_2)=1`$. $`T_1(w)`$ and $`T_{bc}(w)`$ are regular in this limit and spin structure independent. In summary, the spin structure dependent factors from $`𝒳_2+𝒳_3`$ are the following two kinds (not including the vertex operators which will be consider later in section 6):

$$S_1(q)S(q_1,q_2),\text{and}(S_1(q))^3.$$
(70)
Here we note that if we don’t take the limit of $`wq_1`$ (or $`wq_2`$ which has the same effect), the spin structure dependent factors from $`𝒳_2+𝒳_3`$ would be much more complicated. For example we will have a factor of the following kind:

$$S_1(q)(S_1(w))^2.$$
(71)
The summation over spin structure with this factor will give a non-vanishing contribution as we will see later in eq. (96). We will discuss this point later in section 7.

Finally we come to $`𝒳_1+𝒳_6`$. By using the explicit results given in eqs. (40)–(41), we have

$`𝒳_1+𝒳_6`$ $`=`$ $`X(q_1)X(q_2)S(q_1,q_2)`$ (72)
$`(_{q_1}G_2(q_1,q_2)+_{q_2}G_2(q_2,q_1))S(q_1,q_2)`$
$`+2(G_2(q_1,q_2)+G_2(q_2,q_1))`$
$`\times (\psi _1^{}(q_1)S(q_1,q_2)_{q_2}S(q_1,q_2)).`$
As $`G_2(q_1,q_2)`$ is spin structure independent, we see that all the spin structure dependent factors are the following two kinds:

$$S(q_1,q_2)=\frac{i}{4}S_1(q),$$
(73)
and

$$_{q_2}S(q_1,q_2)=\frac{i}{8}S_2(q).$$
(74)
Here it is important that the factor $`\psi _1^{}(q_2)`$ cancels the factor $`S(q_1,q_2)`$ appearing in the denominator of $`f_{3/2}^{(1)}(q_2)`$.

From all the above results we see that all the spin structure dependent parts (for the cosmological constant) are as follows:

$$c_1S_1(q)+c_2S_2(q)+c_3S_1^3(q)+\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}d_aS_1(p_a),$$
(75)
where $`c_{1,2,3}`$ and $`d_a`$’s are independent of spin structure. In computing the $`n`$-particle amplitude there are more spin structure factors coming from the correlators of $`\psi `$. We will include these terms when we discuss the non-renormalization theorem.

## 5 The vanishing of the cosmological constant

The vanishing of the cosmological constant is proved by using the following identities:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta S_n(x)=0,`$ (76)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta S_1^3(x)=0,`$ (77)
for $`n=1,2`$ and arbitrary $`x`$. Let us explain these identities in detail.

First we write down explicitly the simplest example:

$$M(x,a)=\underset{\delta }{}\eta _\delta \underset{i<j}{\overset{3}{}}(A_iA_j)(B_iB_j)\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left[\frac{1}{xA_k}\frac{1}{xB_k}\right].$$
(78)
By a Mobius transformation we have:

$`M(x,a)`$ $`=`$ $`y^4(x){\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta {\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{3}{}}}(\stackrel{~}{A}_i\stackrel{~}{A}_j)(\stackrel{~}{B}_i\stackrel{~}{B}_j){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[\stackrel{~}{A}_k\stackrel{~}{B}_k]`$ (79)
$``$ $`y^4(x)M(\stackrel{~}{a}),`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}_i=\frac{1}{xa_i}`$.

As it was shown in , there is a unique set of phases $`\eta _\delta `$ for which $`M(a)`$ (and $`M(x,a)`$) is modular invariant in the following sense: for every interchanging $`a_ia_j`$ ($`ij`$), $`M(a)`$ got an overall “$``$” sign, i.e. $`M(a)`$ is antisymmetric for every interchange of the branch point $`a_i`$’s. The phases are:

$$\eta _1=\eta _2=\eta _3=\eta _4=\eta _5=\eta _6=\eta _7=\eta _8=\eta _9=\eta _{10}=1.$$
(80)
It is tedious to check explicitly that $`M(a)`$ is indeed antisymmetric for every interchange of the branch points by using the above set of phases. In doing so we see quite clearly that the factor $`_{k=1}^3[A_kB_k]`$ is also important because sometimes it also gives a “$``$” sign when we interchange $`a_1`$ with other branch points.

Here we remark that eq. (76) is still true if we neglect the factor $`S_1(x)`$. In fact these are exactly the Riemann identities for the $`\theta `$-constants by using the Thomae formula :

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\delta ^4(0)=\pm \mathrm{det}^2K\underset{i<j}{\overset{3}{}}A_{ij}B_{ij}.$$
(81)
There are 6 set of phases which satisfies eq. (76). These correspond to the convention of setting $`A_1`$ to be any of the one fixed branch points, i.e. a choice of odd spin structures. As we can see from the above, a Riemann identity expression is not fully modular invariant and it is only invariant under the subgroup of modular transformations which leaves the fixed branch point invariant, i.e. any interchange of $`a_ia_j`$ but not with $`A_1`$. Even if the Riemann identities guarantees the vanishing of the cosmological constant if we blindly neglect the extra factors $`S_1(x)`$ and $`S_1^3(x)`$, they are not powerful enough to prove the non-renormalization theorem, not mentioning the explicit computation of the possibly non-vanishing 4-particle amplitude. (See more about this point at the end of this section.)

Now we proved that $`M(a)`$ is indeed modular invariant, it is trivial to prove that it is 0. The trick is as follows (which is quite useful in what follows in the proof of non-renormalization theorem and the calculation of the four-particle amplitude). Because $`M(a)`$ is a homogeneous polynomial (of degree of 7) in $`a_i`$ and it is vanishing whenever $`a_i=a_j`$, it should be proportional to $`P(a)_{i<j}(a_ia_j)`$ which is a homogeneous polynomial of degree 15 in $`a_i`$. One see immediately that the power of $`a_i`$ can’t be matched. So $`M(a)`$ must vanish. An explicit computation by computer also verifies this result.444Expanding $`Q_\delta `$ gives 36 different terms and multiplying with $`(A_1+A_2+A_3B_1B_2B_3)`$ gives 72 different terms. So we have 720 terms in the sum which must cancel each other.

The other identities in eq. (76) and eq. (77) can be proved similarly. We note that the power 3 in eq. (77) is important to make the expression modular invariant. In fact for all odd powers $`n`$, the following expression is modular invariant:

$$M_{1,n}(x,a)=\underset{\delta }{}\eta _\delta Q_\delta S_1^n(x).$$
(82)
By power counting we have

$$M_{1,n}(x,a)=0,\text{for}n=1,3,5,7.$$
(83)
$`M_{1,9}(x,a)`$ has the right power to be non-vanishing and we have

$$M_{1,9}(x,a)=\frac{21\times 2^9\times P(a)}{y^6(x)}.$$
(84)
For $`n=11`$ the resulting summation is also quite simple and we have:

$$M_{1,11}(x,a)=\frac{33\times 2^9\times P(a)}{y^6(x)}\times (6\mathrm{\Delta }_2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(x)).$$
(85)
For even $`n`$ we have the following results:

$`M_{1,2}(x,a)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (86)
$`M_{1,4}(x,a)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32P(a)(xa_1)^4}{y^4(x)_{i=2}^6(a_1a_i)}}.`$ (87)
From the above results we see that although $`M_{1,2n}(x,a)`$ is not modular invariant, it is invariant under a subgroup of the full modular transformation. This subgroup of modular transformations leaves $`a_1`$ fixed. This also explains why $`M_{1,2}(x,a)`$ is vanishing because it should proportional to a homogeneous polynomial $`\stackrel{~}{P}(a)=_{i<j=2}^6(a_ia_j)`$ which has degree 10 while $`M_{1,2}(x,a)`$ is only a homogeneous polynomial of degree 8 apart from the factor $`y^4(x)`$.

## 6 The non-renormalization theorem

For the non-renormalization theorem we need more identities. For graviton and the antisymmetric tensor the vertex operator is (left part only):

$$V_i(k_i,ϵ_i,z_i)=(ϵ_iX(z_i)+ik_i\psi (z_i)ϵ_i\psi (z_i))\mathrm{e}^{ik_iX(z_i,\overline{z}_i)}.$$
(88)
By including the vertex operators we need to consider the following extra spin structure dependent terms:

$`\text{from}𝒳_1+𝒳_6:`$ $`\psi (q_1)\psi (q_2){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}k_i\psi (z_i)ϵ_i\psi (z_i),`$ (89)
$`\text{from}𝒳_2+𝒳_3:`$ $`S_1(q):\psi (q_1)\psi (q_1):{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}k_i\psi (z_i)ϵ_i\psi (z_i).`$ (90)
The other terms are just the direct product of eq. (75) with the correlators from the vertex operators $`_ik_i\psi (z_i)ϵ\psi (z_i)`$. Let’s study these direct product terms (may be called as disconnected terms) first.

To prove the non-renormalization theorem we restrict our attention to 3 or less particle amplitude. For the 3-particle amplitude we have

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}k_i\psi (z_i)ϵ\psi (z_i)S(z_1,z_2)S(z_2,z_3)S(z_3,z_1)+\text{(other terms)}.$$
(91)
By using the explicit expression of $`S(z_1,z_2)`$ we have

$`S(z_1,z_2)S(z_2,z_3)S(z_3,z_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8z_{12}z_{23}z_{31}}}\{2+[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)}{u(z_2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)}{u(z_1)}}]`$ (92)
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)}{u(z_3)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_3)}{u(z_1)}}]+[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)}{u(z_3)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_3)}{u(z_2)}}]\}.`$
These factors combined with the other factors in eq. (75) give vanishing contribution to the $`n`$-particle amplitude by using the following “vanishing identities”:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)}{u(z_2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)}{u(z_1)}}\right\}S_n(x)=0,n=1,2,`$ (93)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)}{u(z_2)}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)}{u(z_1)}}\right\}(S_1(x))^n=0,n=2,3.`$ (94)
These identities can be proved by modular invariance and simple “power counting” which we have explained in detail in the last section.

Here we want to stress the importance of the limit $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1q_{1,2}`$. For arbitrary $`\stackrel{~}{p}_a`$, we would have a spin structure dependent factor $`S_1(q)(S_1(\stackrel{~}{p}_a))^2`$ from $`𝒳_{2,3}`$ (specifically from $`T_\psi `$, and other terms from $`T_{\beta \gamma }`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{3/2}(\stackrel{~}{p}_a)`$ are more complicated as one can see from eqs. (66) and (67)). So we need to compute the following expression:

$$\underset{\delta }{}\eta _\delta Q_\delta \left\{\frac{u(z_1)}{u(z_2)}+\frac{u(z_2)}{u(z_1)}\right\}S_1(q)(S_1(\stackrel{~}{p}_a))^2.$$
(95)
Unfortunately the above expression is not identically 0. We have:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta S_1(x)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)}{u(z_2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)}{u(z_1)}}\right\}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(A_iB_i)\right]^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{8P(a)(xz_1)(xz_2)}{y^2(x)y(z_1)y(z_2)}}(z_1z_2)^2.`$ (96)
Our conjecture is that the combined result would still be 0 and independent of $`\stackrel{~}{p}_a`$’s. Nevertheless the above limit of $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1q_{1,2}`$ greatly simplifies the algebra in the sense of making each term to be 0 identically. This limit also makes the computation of the four-amplitude doable (otherwise the algebra would be much more complicated). Now we turn our attention to the “disconnected” terms appearing in eqs. (89) and (90).

The terms in eq. (89) have already been discussed in . Here we briefly review the argument. We have

$$\psi (q_1)\psi (q_2)\underset{i}{}k_i\psi (z_i)ϵ\psi (z_i)S(q_1,z_1)S(z_1,z_2)S(z_2,z_3)S(z_3,q_2)+\mathrm{}.$$
(97)
By using the explicit expression of $`S(z,w)`$ and note that $`u(q_2)=u(q_1)`$ we have

$`S(q_1,z_1)S(z_1,z_2)S(z_2,z_3)S(z_3,q_2){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(q_1)}{u(z_i)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_i)}{u(q_1)}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_i)}{u(z_j)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_j)}{u(z_i)}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{u(q_1)u(z_2)}{u(z_1)u(z_3)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_3)}{u(q_1)u(z_2)}}.`$ (98)
These terms also give vanishing contributions as we can prove the following identities:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)}{u(z_2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)}{u(z_1)}}\right\}=0,`$ (99)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_2)}{u(z_3)u(z_4)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_3)u(z_4)}{u(z_1)u(z_2)}}\right\}=0.`$ (100)
These identities were firstly proved in . The proof is quite simple by using modular invariance. For example we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)}{u(z_2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)}{u(z_1)}}\right\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{y(z_1)y(z_2)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(z_1A_i)(z_2B_i){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(z_1B_i)(z_2A_i)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(z_1z_2)P(a)}{y(z_1)y(z_2)}},`$ (101)
which must be vanishing as the degrees of the homogeneous polynomials (in $`a_i`$ and $`z_j`$) don’t match. Here we have used again the modular invariance of the above expression.555The minus sign in eq. (99) makes the expression invariant under the all the modular transformations. With a plus sign the expression is only invariant under a subgroup of the modular transformation. Nevertheless eq. (99) is still true with a plus sign. The explicit results are:    $`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)}{u(z_2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_2)}{u(z_1)}}\right\}=0,`$  (102)   $`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_2)}{u(z_3)u(z_4)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_3)u(z_4)}{u(z_1)u(z_2)}}\right\}={\displaystyle \frac{2P(a)z_{13}z_{14}z_{23}z_{24}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}(a_1z_i)}{_{i=1}^4y(z_i)_{i=2}^6(a_1a_i)}}.`$  (103)

The last term we need to compute is the term in eq. (90). We have

$`:\psi (q_1)\psi (q_1):{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}k_i\psi (z_i)ϵ\psi (z_i)_c=K(1,2,3)`$
$`\times (S(q_1,z_1,z_2,z_3)+S(q_1,z_2,z_3,z_1)+S(q_1,z_3,z_1,z_2)`$
$`S(q_1,z_1,z_3,z_2)S(q_1,z_2,z_1,z_3)S(q_1,z_3,z_2,z_1)),`$ (104)
where

$`K(1,2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`k_1ϵ_3k_2ϵ_1k_3ϵ_2k_1ϵ_2k_2ϵ_3k_3ϵ_1`$ (105)
$`+k_1k_2(k_3ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3k_3ϵ_2ϵ_1ϵ_3)`$
$`+k_2k_3(k_1ϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_1k_1ϵ_3ϵ_2ϵ_1)`$
$`+k_3k_1(k_2ϵ_3ϵ_1ϵ_2k_2ϵ_1ϵ_3ϵ_2),`$
$`S(x,z_1,z_2,z_3)`$ $`=`$ $`S(x,z_1)S(z_1,z_2)S(z_2,z_3)_xS(z_3,x).`$ (106)
We note that $`K(1,2,3)`$ is invariant under the cyclicly permutations of (1,2,3). It is antisymmetric under the interchange $`23`$. We have used these properties in eq. (104).

To compute explicitly these expressions we first note the following:

$$_xS(z,x)=\frac{1}{2(zx)^2}\frac{u(z)+u(x)}{\sqrt{u(z)u(x)}}\frac{S_1(x)}{8(zx)}\frac{u(z)u(x)}{\sqrt{u(z)u(x)}}.$$
(107)
In order to do the summation over spin structure we need a “non-vanishing identity”. This and other identities needed in the 4-particle amplitude computations are summarized as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\eta _\delta Q_\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_2)}{u(z_3)u(z_4)}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)u(z_2)}{u(z_3)u(z_4)}}\right\}(S_m(x))^n`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2P(a)\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{j=3}{\overset{4}{}}(z_iz_j)\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}(xz_i)}{y^2(x)_{i=1}^4y(z_i)}}\times C_{n,m},`$ (108)
where

$`C_{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (109)
$`C_{2,1}`$ $`=`$ $`2(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_2\stackrel{~}{z}_3\stackrel{~}{z}_4),`$ (110)
$`C_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(x){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k,`$ (111)
$`C_{3,1}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_2(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2(x)+2\mathrm{\Delta }_1(x){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k`$ (112)
$`+4{\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_k\stackrel{~}{z}_l12(\stackrel{~}{z}_1+\stackrel{~}{z}_2)(\stackrel{~}{z}_3+\stackrel{~}{z}_4),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{z}_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{xz_k}},`$ (113)
$`P(a)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(a_ia_j).`$ (114)
$`C_{1,1}`$ and $`C_{1,2}`$ were derived in . Although other values of $`n,m`$ also gives modular invariant expressions, the results are quite complex.666This is due to the non-vanishing of the summation over spin structures when we set $`z_1=z_3`$ or $`z_1=z_4`$, etc. Fortunately we only need to use the above listed results. The proof of these summation formulas will be given in .

By using these formulas we have:

$$\underset{\delta }{}\eta _\delta Q_\delta S(x,z_1,z_2,z_3)S_1(x)=\frac{P(a)}{16y^2(x)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{xz_i}{y(z_i)}.$$
(115)
We note that the above formula is invariant under the interchange $`z_iz_j`$.

By using this result and eq. (104), we have:

$$\underset{\delta }{}\eta _\delta Q_\delta S(q_1,q_2):\psi (q_1)\psi (q_1):\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}k_i\psi (z_i)ϵ_i\psi (z_i)_\delta =0.$$
(116)
This completes our verification of the non-renormalization theorem at two loops.

## Acknowledgments

Chuan-Jie Zhu would like to thank Roberto Iengo for reading the paper and comments. He would also like to thank E. D’Hoker and D. Phong for discussions and Jian-Xin Lu and the hospitality at the Interdisciplinary Center for Theoretical Study, Physics, University of Science and Technology of China.


format: text

text:
# Spin interactions of interstitial Mn ions in ferromagnetic GaMnAs

## Abstract

The recently reported Rutherford backscattering and particle-induced X-ray emission experiments Yu-prb02  have revealed that in low-temperature MBE grown Ga1-xMnxAs a significant part of the incorporated Mn atoms occupies tetrahedral interstitial sites in the lattice. Here we study the magnetic properties of these interstitial (Mn$`_\text{I}`$) ions. We show that they do not participate in the hole-induced ferromagnetism. Moreover, Mn$`_\text{I}`$ double donors may form pairs with the nearest substitutional (Mn$`_{\text{Ga}}`$) acceptors - our calculations evidence that the spins in such pairs are antiferromagnetically coupled by the superexchange. We also show that for the Mn ion in the other, hexagonal, interstitial position (which seems to be the case in the Ga1-x-yMnxBeyAs samples) the p-d interactions with the holes, responsible for the ferromagnetism, are very much suppressed.

The incorporation of transition metal ions into the III-V host semiconductors by low-temperature molecular beam epitaxy (LT MBE), i.e., the discovery of ferromagnetic dilute magnetic semiconductors (DMS) in the pioneering work by Munekata et al.Munekata , was a major step towards the integration of the spin degrees of freedom with the semiconducting properties in the same material. Still, the prospects for practical applications of DMS in ”spintronic” devices depend crucially on the possibilities to increase in these materials the temperature of the transition to the ferromagnetic phase. The highest Curie temperatures (T$`_\text{C}`$) in DMS have been obtained by a substitution of Mn for Ga in GaAs, which was complemented by a post-growth annealing in temperatures only slightly exceeding the LT MBE growth temperature. Until recently the T$`_\text{C}`$=110 K seemed to be the upper limit for this material Ohno99 ; Potashnik ; Hayashi ; Ishiwata . In the last months, however, considerably higher values of T$`_\text{C}`$ in GaMnAs, even exceeding 150 K for thin films, have been reported by several groupsKuryliszyn ; Edmonds ; Ohno02 ; Samarth02 . This progress has been made basically by an optimization of the annealing time and temperature.

In the theoretical models describing the ferromagnetism in DMS (e.g., in Ref. Dietl, ; Konig, ; Sanvito, ) the T$`_\text{C}`$ is expected to increase with both, the magnetic ions and hole concentrations. In LT MBE grown Ga$`_{\text{1-x}}`$Mn$`_\text{x}`$As this was indeed experimentally established for Mn concentrations up to about x=0.07, Ohno99 . The Mn ion in the substitutional position in the GaAs lattice (Mn$`_{\text{Ga}}`$) acts as an acceptor, but in all Ga$`_{\text{1-x}}`$Mn$`_\text{x}`$As samples the hole concentration is substantially lower than the Mn content. This has been ascribed to the presence of compensating donors, in particular to the formation of arsenic antisites (As$`_{\text{Ga}}`$) during the epitaxial growth of Ga$`_{\text{1-x}}`$Mn$`_\text{x}`$As at As overpressure Sanvito1 ; Sadowski . In Ref.Potashnik, ; Ishiwata,  and Korzhavyi,  the observed annealing-induced changes of the T$`_\text{C}`$ were attributed solely to the decrease of the concentration of arsenic antisites leading to the increase of the hole concentration. These antisites, however, are relatively stable defects - it was shown that to remove As$`_{\text{Ga}}`$ from LT MBE grown GaAs the annealing temperatures above 450 C are needed Bliss . Recently, simultaneous channeling Rutherford backscattering (c-RBS) and particle-induced X-ray emission (c-PIXE) experiments shed new light on this problem Yu-prb02 . Namely, they have revealed that in LT MBE grown ferromagnetic Ga$`_{\text{1-x}}`$Mn$`_\text{x}`$As with high x a significant fraction of incorporated Mn atoms (ca 15% for the as-grown Ga$`_{\text{0.91}}`$Mn$`_{\text{0.09}}`$As sample) occupies well defined, commensurate with the GaAs lattice interstitial positions.

In the diamond cubic crystal lattice there are two possible interstitial positions, the so called tetrahedral and hexagonal sites, in which the atoms are shadowed along $`100`$ and $`111`$ direction and exposed in the $`110`$ axial channel, as seen at the experiment. They can be distinguished by studying angular scans around the $`110`$ axial direction Feldman . The scans presented in Ref. Yu-prb02,  suggested that the interstitial Mn ions (Mn$`_\text{I}`$) observed in Ga$`_{\text{1-x}}`$Mn$`_\text{x}`$As occupy the tetrahedral sites, in which the interstitial is surrounded by four nearest neighbors, as presented in Fig. 1.

The Mn$`_\text{I}`$ serve, like As$`_{\text{Ga}}`$, as double donors, decreasing the hole concentration. The results presented in Ref. Yu-prb02,  directly showed that in the process of LT annealing the Mn$`_\text{I}`$ ions are moved to random, incommensurate with the GaAs lattice positions (e.g., MnAs clusters), in which the Mn ions are electrically inactive. Thus, in the annealed samples the concentration of the compensating Mn$`_\text{I}`$ donors decreases considerably whereas the hole concentration increases and the observed Curie temperature is much higher. Moreover, it was demonstrated that the appropriate annealing increases the saturation magnetization, i.e., that the presence of Mn$`_\text{I}`$ reduces the net magnetic momentYu-prb02 ; Yu-apl02 ; Kuryliszyn ; JB02 .

The described above experimental results stimulated theoretical studies on the formation and properties of interstitial Mn in the GaMnAs ternary compound. First, the electronic structure of the GaMnAs with Mn in substitutional and interstitial position was calculated by ab initio methods, showing that indeed Mn interstitials act as double donors Maca . In a recent paper Erwin  the self-compensation of Mn in such semiconductors was studied within the density-functional theory. In Ref. Erwin,  it was shown that interstitial Mn can be easily formed near the surface. Here we consider the spin properties of interstitial magnetic ions. We study the spin interactions for the Mn$`_\text{I}`$ ion in the tetraheadral interstitial position in order to provide theoretical basis for the understanding of the experimental findings concerning the magnetic behavior of the as-grown and annealed Ga$`_{\text{1-x}}`$Mn$`_\text{x}`$As samples. We analyze the hybridization of the d-orbitals of these ions with the valence band p-states. This effect is essential for both, the superexchange and the RKKY-type, dominant ion-ion interactions in DMS. It is widely accepted that the latter mechanism is responsible for the hole-induced ferromagnetism in III-V DMS and that the T$`_\text{C}`$ depends crucially on the p-d hybridization - within the Zener model Dietl  T$`_\text{C}`$ is proportional to the square of the kinetic p-d exchange constant $`\beta `$, i.e., to the fourth power of the hybridization constant V at the centre of the Brillouin zone.

The valence band states in Ga$`_{\text{1-x}}`$Mn$`_\text{x}`$As are built primarily from the anion p-orbitals, thus the p-d hybridization for a given magnetic ion is determined by the positions of its nearest-neighbor anions. In zinc-blende lattice of GaAs, the Mn ion in the cation substitutional position has four anion nearest neighbors at the distances $`a\sqrt{3}/4`$ (where $`a`$ is the lattice constant) along the , \[1,-1,-1\], \[-1, 1,-1\] and \[-1,-1, 1\] directions. For these positions the inter-atomic matrix elements, $`E_{x,xy}`$, $`E_{x,yz}`$, $`E_{x,zx}`$, etc., expressed in terms of the Harrison parameters $`V_{pd\sigma }`$ and $`V_{pd\pi }`$ Harrison , add up constructively to the hybridization constant V in the hybridization Hamiltionian $`\widehat{H}_h`$, with different weights for different points of the Brillouin zone. At the point $`\stackrel{}{k}`$=0 of the Brillouin zone they sum up to the value: $`4(V_{pd\sigma }2/\sqrt{3}V_{pd\pi })`$.

In contrast, the ion in a tetrahedral interstitial position, e.g., ($`\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{4}\frac{3}{4}`$) as in Fig. 2, has 6 anion neighbors on \[0, 0, $`\pm `$ 1\], \[0, $`\pm `$ 1, 0\] and \[$`\pm `$1, 0, 0\] directions, at the distances $`a/2`$ (see Fig. 1). In this case all not equal zero inter-atomic matrix elements are proportional to the appropriate $`\mathrm{sin}(ak_i/2)`$ (where $`k_i`$, $`i=x,y,z`$, are the components of the wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$) and they vanish at the centre of the Brillouin zone. Thus, the Mn$`_\text{I}`$ d-orbitals do not hybridize with the p-states of the holes at the top of the valence band (i.e. for the tetrahedral interstitials the kinetic exchange constant $`\beta _{I_t}`$= 0) and they do not contribute to the hole-induced ferromagnetism. This means that the formation of Mn interstitials decreases not only the hole concentration but also the number of Mn ions participating in the Zener-type ferromagnetism. Still, these effects do not explain why the removal of interstitials leads to the increase of magnetization and to the higher T$`_\text{C}`$ than expected from the rise of the hole concentration Yu-apl02 .

As pointed out already by Yu et al.Yu-prb02  the electrostatic attraction between positively charged Mn$`_\text{I}`$ donors and negative Mn$`_{\text{Ga}}`$ acceptors stabilizes the otherwise highly mobile Mn$`_\text{I}`$ in the interstitial sites adjacent to Mn$`_{\text{Ga}}`$, forming a Mn$`_{\text{Ga}}`$-Mn$`_\text{I}`$ pair, as shown in Fig. 2. One notices that despite the fact that for the interstitials the p-d kinetic exchange and, consequently, the hybridization mediated spin interactions with holes in the vicinity of the top of the valence band vanish, the ionic spins in the pair can be coupled by superexchange mechanism. In the latter process the spins of the two ions, $`\stackrel{}{S}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{S}_2`$, are correlated due to the spin-dependent p-d exchange interaction between each of the ions and the valence band electrons in the entire Brillouin zone. The superexchange Hamiltonian:

$$\widehat{H}_{superexchange}=2J(\stackrel{}{R}_{12})\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}}_1\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}}_2$$
(1)
can be obtained by a proper selection of spin-dependent terms in the matrix of the fourth order perturbation with respect to the hybridization for a system of two ions in the crystal:

$$\underset{l,l^{},l^{\prime \prime }}{}\frac{f\widehat{H}_hl^{\prime \prime }l^{\prime \prime }\widehat{H}_hl^{}l^{}\widehat{H}_hll\widehat{H}_hi}{(E_{l^{\prime \prime }}E_0)(E_l^{}E_0)(E_lE_0)}$$
(2)
Using the virtual transition picture, one can say that the superexchange is a result of four virtual transitions of an electron - from the band onto the d-shell of the ion and from the ionic d-shell to the band, in different sequences Kacman . The quantitative determination of the superexchange constant $`J`$ requires the knowledge of the energies of these virtual transitions, which are represented by the energy differences between the intermediate and initial states of the system of two ions and the completely filled valence bands, in the denominator of Equation (2). Of primary importance it is, however, to determine the sign of the superexchange interaction for the Mn$`_{\text{Ga}}`$-Mn$`_\text{I}`$ pair. In the following, we calculate the exchange constant $`J`$ within a simplified model, in which we neglect the dispersion of the valence bands but we account for the wave-vector dependence of the hybridization matrix elements. The resulting formula for the exchange constant $`J`$ reads:

$`J(\stackrel{}{R}_{12})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{25}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_{a_1}E_{a_2}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_{a_1}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_{a_2}}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_{a_1}^2(E_{a_1}+E_{d_2})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_{a_2}^2(E_{a_2}+E_{d_1})}}]\times `$ (3)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\nu _1,\nu _2,\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,m,n}{}}V_{\nu _1,\stackrel{}{k}_1,m}^{}(2)V_{\nu _2,\stackrel{}{k}_2,m}(2)V_{\nu _2,\stackrel{}{k}_2,n}^{}(1)V_{\nu _1,\stackrel{}{k}_1,n}(1)`$
In Equation (3) the summation runs over the valence band indices $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$, the wave-vectors $`\stackrel{}{k}_1`$, $`\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ from the entire Brillouin zone, and over the Mn d-orbitals $`m`$, $`n`$. The energies $`E_{a_i}`$ and $`E_{d_i}`$ (i = 1,2) are the transfer energies for the electron from the valence band onto the ion i (”acceptor”) and from the ion i to the valence band (”donor”), respectively. It should be noted that these energies for the interstitial Mn ion are completely unknown. Still, since all these energies as well as the sum, which we calculated numerically, are positive, we can conclude that the Mn$`_{\text{Ga}}`$-Mn$`_\text{I}`$ pair is antiferromagnetically coupled. Thus, Mn ions when in tetrahedral interstitial positions not only do not contribute to the hole-induced ferromagnetism but they also make some of the substitutional Mn ions magnetically inactive by forming with them close pairs, in which the spins of the ions are antiferromagnetically coupled by the superexchange mechanism. This explains the experimental observations that the removal of Mn$`_\text{I}`$ ions by low-temperature annealing leads not only to an increase of the hole concentration, but also to a significant increase of the magnetization.

To estimate the strength of this coupling we compare $`J`$ with the superexchange constant $`J^{}`$ for a Mn$`_{\text{Ga}}`$-Mn$`_{\text{Ga}}`$ closest pair, obtained within the same simple model. Using the same transition energies for both Mn$`_{\text{Ga}}`$ and Mn$`_\text{I}`$ ions, we obtain $`J/J^{}1.6`$. This is not surprising in view of the small distance between the interstitial and the nearest substitutional Mn ions and the larger number of anion neighbors for Mn$`_\text{I}`$. With a reasonable value of 3 eV for the Mn$`_{\text{Ga}}`$ charge transfer energies, with the values of Harrison parameters $`V_{pd\sigma }`$=1.1 eV Okabayashi , and $`V_{pd\pi }=\frac{1}{2}V_{pd\sigma }`$, (which for the Mn$`_\text{I}`$ we scale according to the Harrison’s prescription) Harrison  the absolute values of $`J`$ and $`J^{}`$ constants are by far not negligible: $`J`$ 71 K and $`J^{}`$ 43 K.

The role of interstitial Mn ions occurred to be even more pronounced in Ga1-x-yMnxBeyAs samples, grown at Notre Dame with the hope to increase the hole concentration, and hence T$`_\text{C}`$, by introducing another acceptor Wojtowicz . Instead, it turned out that adding Be to Ga1-xMnxAs increases the concentration of Mn$`_\text{I}`$ at the expense of Mn$`_{\text{Ga}}`$JB02 ; ICPS02 . At the same time, although the hole concentration does not change significantly, the T$`_\text{C}`$ drops dramatically Wojtowicz ; Wojtowicz1 , in agreement with the presented above result that the Mn$`_\text{I}`$ do not participate in the hole-induced ferromagnetism. Recently performed angular scans seem to suggest, however, that the Be$`_{\text{Ga}}`$ acceptor stabilizes the Mn interstitial donor not in the tetrahedral but in the hexagonal, ( $`\frac{3}{8}\frac{5}{8}\frac{3}{8}`$ ) positionpreprint . In this site the Mn$`_\text{I}`$ has three anion nearest neighbors, as shown in Fig. 3, on the \[-1, -3, -1\], \[3, 1, -1\] and \[-1, 1, 3\] directions, at the distance $`a\sqrt{11}/8`$. In such case one does not expect the kinetic p-d exchange constant $`\beta `$ to be equal to zero - it can be rather expected that the hybridization for the ion in this site should be stronger, due to the smaller distance to the anions, what increases the Harrison parameters $`V_{pd\sigma }`$ and $`V_{pd\pi })`$. Surprisingly enough, the most of the inter-atomic matrix elements in the hybridization constant $`V`$ for the hexagonal interstitial Mn mutually cancel at the centre of the Brillouin zone. This leads to a considerably smaller than for the substitutional Mn ion value of the kinetic exchange constant $`\beta _{I_h}`$, i.e., $`\beta /\beta _{I_h}5`$. As the Curie temperature in the Zener model depends on $`\beta ^2`$, we conclude that the contribution to the hole-induced ferromagnetism from the Mn ions occupying the hexagonal interstitial sites is as well very much suppressed.

In conclusion, we have shown that not only the compensating properties of the interstitial magnetic ions impose a limit to the Curie temperature in the ferromagnetic Ga1-xMnxAs and Ga1-x-yMnxBeyAs samples. Also their magnetic properties in both (tetrahedral and hexagonal) interstitial sites, i.e., the negligible kinetic exchange constant and strong antiferromagnetic superexchange with the adjacent substitutional Mn ion, act towards diminishing the transition temperature.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are very much obliged to J. Furdyna, T. Wojtowicz and W. Walukiewicz for making their unpublished results available to us and for valuable discussions and comments. Support of the FENIKS project (EC:G5RD-CT-2001-00535) and of the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research grant PBZ-KBN-044/P03/2001 is also gratefully acknowledged.