text:
# Single Quark Transition Model Analysis of Electromagnetic Nucleon Resonance Excitations in the [70,1⁻] Supermultiplet.

## I Introduction

Resonance excitation of protons and neutrons is a fundamental phenomenon of strong QCD. Descriptions of resonance excitations have made use of a broad range of constituent quark models to describe the excitation of s-channel baryon resonances. These models are often based on approximate $`SU(6)O(3)`$ symmetry for the spin-flavor and orbital excitations. This symmetry is broken by introducing additional interactions such as the one-gluon exchangeisgkar  or Goldstone boson exchange between the constituent quarksriska , leading to the breaking of mass degeneracies between states belonging to the same supermultiplet $`[SU(6),L^P]`$, where $`L^P`$ characterizes the orbital angular momentum $`L`$ and parity $`P`$ of the 3-quark system. The effects of symmetry breaking on the masses are typically O(150 MeV).

The early successes of the non-relativistic constituent quark model in approximately describing many aspects of hadron properties, as well as of nucleon structure, led to a broad application in electromagnetic interaction. Much effort has gone into describing resonance transition amplitudes and form factors review1 . While a reasonable description of many photocoupling amplitudes of low mass states has been achieved, with the Roper resonance $`P_{11}(1440)`$ being a notable exception, a persistent problem in these calculations is the description of the $`Q^2`$ evolution of the transition form factors based on quarks with point like couplings. This reflects our lack of a full understanding of the concept of constituent quarks versus the distance scale probed. Some progress has been made in recent years by introducing phenomenological form factors for the constituent quarkssimula , and by going beyond the simple harmonic oscillator potentialmauro . A promising approach has been taken recently in employing the field correlator method in calculating non-perturbative quark dynamics in baryonssimonov . In this approach, constituent quark masses are generated dynamically.

In the approximation that only a single quark is affected in the transition (Single Quark Transition Model, SQTM), simple relationships can be derived for excitations from the ground state nucleon to states assigned to the same $`[SU(6),L^P]`$ supermultiplet of the $`SU(6)O(3)`$ symmetry group hey ; cottingham ; close . Knowledge of only a few amplitudes from states within the same supermultiplet allows predictions of amplitudes for all other states within the same supermultiplet. In this analysis we will assume factorization of the spin- and spatial transition matrix elements. $`SU(6)O(3)`$ symmetry breaking is accomodated by introducing mixing angles for states with the same spin, parity, and flavor, but different quark spins $`S_{3q}=1/2,3/2`$. We use previously determined mixing angles from the analysis of hadronic decay properties mixing1 ; mixing2 . Resonance photocoupling amplitudes and their $`Q^2`$ dependences, including their signs, have been determined in analyses of pion photo-and electroproduction experiments taking into account the hadronic couplings as extracted from the analyses of hadronic resonance production. We use the signs as published which, by convention, are fixed relative to the pion Born amplitudes that are included in the analyses aimed at extracting resonance photocouplings. Analysis of these amplitudes within the SQTM provides information on the consistency of the ingredients obtained from hadronic interactions such as the mixing angle. The adopted mixing angles can be further tested using the $`Q^2`$-dependence of the amplitudes for the transition to the $`S_{11}(1650)`$ and $`D_{13}(1700)`$ states. Deviations from the predicted $`Q^2`$ dependences may indicate possible violations of the SQTM assumptions. $`SU(6)`$ symmetry and the single quark transition assumption may be further tested with the predictions for other states in the $`[70,1^{}]`$ supermultiplet.

Experimentally, electromagnetic excitation of nucleon resonances (we use nucleon resonances here for both isospin 1/2 and isospin 3/2 non-strange baryons), have been studied mostly using single pion or eta production. With the new and precise photoproduction data which have been collected at MAMI mami and GRAAL graal , and with the new photo- and electroproduction data from JLab jlabc ; hallc ; hallb ; jlabb ; jlabb1 ; ripani , this field is seeing a vast improvement in data volume and precision, and much more is expected in various reaction channels for the near future. It is therefore timely to revisit some of the earlier attempts at coming to a more quantitative understanding of electromagnetic resonance excitations.

This paper is organized as follows: In section II we define kinematical quantities and the formalism, in section III we briefly review the single quark transition model assumptions and summarize the model predictions. In section IV we review the existing photo- and electroproduction data. In section V we present predictions for the transition amplitudes to the $`[70,1^{}]_1`$ supermultiplet and compare with the available data. Finally we discuss the results in section VI.

## II Formalism

The inclusive electron scattering cross section is given by

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_T}\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }dE^{}}=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _T^{1/2}+\sigma _T^{3/2})+ϵ_L\sigma _L$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T`$ is the virtual photon flux, $`ϵ_L`$ describes the degree of longitudinal polarization of the photon, $`\sigma _T^{1/2}`$ is the total transverse absorption cross section with helicity $`1/2`$ for the photon-nucleon system, and $`\sigma _T^{3/2}`$ is the helicity $`3/2`$ cross section. $`\sigma _L`$ is the total cross section for the absorption of a longitudinal photon. In the following we will focus on the transverse part of the cross section as there are insufficient data available for a systematic study of the longitudinal couplings of nucleon resonances.

In the nucleon resonance region it is convenient to expand the cross section for a specific production channel in terms of partial wave helicity elements. For example, in single pion photoproduction $`\gamma p\pi N`$ these are given by:

$`\sigma _T^{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi q}{k}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n+1)(|A_{n+}|^2+|A_{n+1,}|^2)`$ (2)
$`\sigma _T^{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi q}{k}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[n(n+1)(n+2)](|B_{n+}|^2+|B_{n+1,}|^2)`$
where q and k are, respectively, the pion and photon center-of-mass momenta calculated at $`Q^2=0`$,

$$k=\frac{W^2M^2}{2W},$$
(3)
and

$$q=\sqrt{\frac{[W^2(m_\pi ^2M^2)]4W^2m_\pi ^2}{2W}},$$
(4)
and $`A_{l\pm }`$ and $`B_{l\pm }`$, with $`(l=n,n+1)`$, are the transverse partial wave helicity elements for the pion orbital angular momentum $`l`$, and helicity $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\frac{3}{2}`$, respectively. The $`l\pm `$ indicates if the total resonance spin is given by $`J=l\pm \frac{1}{2}`$, $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ being the nucleon helicity in the initial state. These elements are extracted from the experimental data using partial wave analysis techniques.

For a specific resonance the transverse total photoabsorption cross section can be expressed as a function of the transverse photocoupling helicity amplitudes:

$$\sigma _T^{res}=\frac{2M}{W_R\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{1}{2}(A_{1/2}^2+A_{3/2}^2)$$
(5)
where $`W_R`$ is the resonance mass, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the total width.

The $`A_{1/2}`$, $`A_{3/2}`$ are related to the partial wave helicity elements in the following way:

$`A_{l\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`fC_{\pi ^N}^IA_{1/2}`$ (6)
$`B_{l\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`\pm f\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{16}{(2j1)(2j+3)}}}C_{\pi N}^IA_{3/2}`$
where

$$f=\sqrt{\frac{1}{(2j+1)\pi }\frac{k}{q}\frac{M}{W_R}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}.$$
(7)
$`C_{\pi N}^I`$ are Clebsch-Gordan coefficients describing the projection of a resonant state of isospin $`I`$ into the final state $`\pi N`$ (see table 2). The $`A_{l\pm }`$, $`B_{l\pm }`$ can be determined directly from experimental data. Using information from hadronic reactions, the photocoupling helicity amplitudes $`A_{1/2}`$ and $`A_{3/2}`$ can then be determined. In the following sections we will use these amplitudes to describe the resonance transition to specific states, and give the connection to the SQTM amplitudes.

## III Single Quark Transition Model

Properties of nucleon resonances such as mass, spin-parity, and flavor fit well into the representation of the $`SU(6)O(3)`$ symmetry group, which describes the spin-flavor and orbital wave functions of the 3-quark system close . This symmetry group leads to supermultiplets of baryon states with the same orbital angular momentum $`L`$ of the 3-quark system, and degenerate energy levels. Within a supermultiplet the quark spins are aligned to form a total quark spin $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\frac{3}{2}`$, which combines with the orbital angular momentum $`L`$ to the total angular momentum. A large number of explicit dynamical quark models have been developed to describe the electromagnetic transition between the nucleon ground state and its excited states warns ; capstick ; mauro . Measurement of resonance transitions and the dependence on the distance scales, given by the virtuality $`Q^2`$ of the photon, provides information on the nucleon wave function. In order to compute the transition, assumptions on the 3-quark potential and the quark-quark interactions have to be made. These are then tested by predicting photocoupling helicity amplitudes which can then be confronted with experimental data.

In this paper we use algebraic relations derived in the literature for resonance transitions assuming the transition only affects a single quark in the nucleon. The parameters in these algebraic equations are then determined from experimental analysis. Based on the symmetry properties of the SQTM, predictions for a large number of resonance transitions can then be made.

The fundamentals of the SQTM have been described in references hey ; cottingham , where the symmetry properties have been discussed for the transition from the ground state nucleon $`[56,0^+]`$ to the $`[70,1^{}]`$ and the $`[56,2^+]`$ supermultiplets. The $`[70,1^{}]`$ contains states which are prominent in electromagnetic excitations, and it is the only supermultiplet for which sufficient data on resonance couplings of two states are available to extract the SQTM amplitudes and test predictions for other states.

The coupling of the electromagnetic current is considered for the transverse photon component, and the quarks in the nucleon are assumed to interact freely with the photon. It has been discussed extensively in the literature hey ; cottingham ; close  that in such a model the quark transverse current can be written in general as a sum of four terms:

$$J^+=AL^++B\sigma ^+L_z+C\sigma _zL^++D\sigma ^{}L^+L^+,$$
(8)
where $`\sigma `$ is the quark Pauli spin operator, and the terms with $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, $`D`$ in front operate on the quark spatial wave function changing the component of orbital angular momentum along the direction of the momentum transfer (z- axis). The $`A`$ term corresponds to a quark orbit flip with $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_z=+1`$, term $`B`$ to a quark spin flip with $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_z=0`$, the $`C`$ and $`D`$ terms correspond to simultaneous quark orbit and quark spin flip with orbital angular momentum flips of $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_z=+1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_z=+2`$, respectively. For the transition from the $`[56,0^+]`$ to the $`[70,1^{}]`$ supermultiplet with $`L=1`$, only $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$ are allowed. We limit our discussion to the $`[70,1^{}]`$ supermultiplet as there is currently insufficient experimental information available to extract the SQTM amplitudes for transitions to other supermultiplets.

For the simplest non-relativistic constituent quark modelcko ; koniuk , only the orbit flip ($`A`$) and spin flip ($`B`$) operators are non-zero, showing the incompleteness of these descriptions. The algebraic relations for resonance transitions derived from symmetry properties of the SQTM are given in section V. Knowledge of 3 amplitudes and of two mixing angles for the transition to the $`[70,1^{}]`$ allows predictions for 16 amplitudes of states belonging to the same supermultiplet. If they can be confirmed for some of the amplitudes, we have a measure of the degree to which electromagnetic transitions of nucleon resonance are dominated by single quark transitions at the photon point ($`Q^2=0)`$ and, using electroproduction data, examine if and how this is changing as a function of the distance scale at increasing photon virtuality.

To present the experimental data we will use the quark electric and magnetic multipoles of Cottingham and Dunbar cottingham . They provide direct physical insight into the resonance transition, and also allow simple parameterizations. The $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$ are simply linear combinations of the quark multipoles. For the $`[70,1^{}]`$ multiplet these relations are given by:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`K\times 2\sqrt{3}e^{11}`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`K\times (\sqrt{6}m^{11}\sqrt{6}m^{12})`$ (9)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`K\times (\sqrt{6}m^{11}+\sqrt{6}m^{12}),`$
where

$$K=\frac{e}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{M(W^2M^2)}}.$$
(10)
Similar relations have been derived for the transition from the ground state $`[56,0^+]`$ to the $`[56,2^+]`$ supermultiplet. In this case all four SQTM amplitudes contribute which, due to the lack of data, currently cannot be determined unambiguously. We will, therefore, not discuss the transitions to that multiplet here. However, new data from JLab, covering a more limited $`Q^2`$ range in two-pion electroproductionripani , may allow determination of several states in $`[56,2^+]`$ in the future.

### III.1 Violation of $`SU(6)`$ selection rules

$`SU(6)`$ symmetry results in selection rules for transitions to some of the states in the $`[70,1^{}]`$ multiplet. For example, electromagnetic transitions from proton targets to states in the $`N^4`$ quadruplet with quark spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ are not allowed by the Moorhouse selection rule moorhouse . $`SU(6)`$ symmetry is however broken due to configuration mixing between various baryon states. Mixing is naturally explained as a results of color hyperfine interaction between quarksisgkar  or due to Goldstone boson exchangesriska . We take these effects into account in the usual way by introducing mixing angles for two of the configurations associated with the $`[70,1^{}]`$ multiplet. Mixing is present for the $`N^2`$ and the $`N^4`$ nucleon states. The $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ states are mixed with an angle of $`31^0`$, estimated from hadronic decay properties mixing1 ; mixing2 , leading to the physical states:

$`|S_{11}(1535)`$ $`=`$ $`0.85|N^2,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^{}0.53|N^4,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^{}`$ (11)
$`|S_{11}(1650)`$ $`=`$ $`0.53|N^2,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^{}+0.85|N^4,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^{},`$
where the $`|N^2,\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ and $`|N^4,\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ correspond to the nucleon doublet and quadruplet with quark spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\frac{3}{2}`$, respectively. A much smaller mixing has been observed for the $`|N^2,\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ and $`|N^4,\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ states, with a mixing angle of $`6^0`$, leading to:

$`|D_{13}(1520)`$ $`=`$ $`0.99|N^2,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}^{}0.11|N^4,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}^{}`$ (12)
$`|D_{13}(1700)`$ $`=`$ $`0.11|N^2,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}^{}+0.99|N^4,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}^{}.`$
As mentioned above, in the SQTM $`|N^4,\frac{1}{2}^{}>=|N^4,\frac{3}{2}^{}>=0`$ for proton targets. However, due to the large mixing angle for the $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ states, the SQTM predicts a sizeable excitation of the $`S_{11}(1650)`$, while the $`D_{13}(1700)`$ should only be weakly excited from proton target. The $`D_{15}(1675)`$ cannot mix with any other state, and thus cannot be excited from proton targets with the SQTM approach.

## IV Experimental helicity amplitudes

The test of the SQTM predictions was performed including all photoproduction data and all electroproduction data from proton targets presently available. We did not include electroproduction data from neutron targets as the data quality is too poor for a meaningful comparison with our prediction. The resonance helicity amplitudes at the photon point were taken from the Particle Data Group pdg . This compilation already combines the outcomes of various analyses, such as the ones of Ref. awaji ; arai ; crawford ; metcalf . Electroproduction data on the helicity amplitudes are more sparse and available only for the most prominent states. In this analysis we included data from Bonn bonn , DESY desy , NINA nina , and JLab hallb ; hallc . A compilation of the results obtained at Bonn, DESY, and NINA for $`\pi `$ and $`\eta `$ electroproduction can be found in Ref. foster . In addition to the outcomes of the original analysis, we also included the results obtained in the analysis of Ref. gerhardt ; krosen  and the results of the world data analysis on $`\eta `$-electoproduction at the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ mass presented in Ref. hallb .

## V SQTM fit for the $`[70,1^{}]`$ multiplet

As discussed in Section III, the helicity amplitudes of all the states that belong to $`[70,1^{}]`$ multiplet can be expressed in terms of three SQTM amplitudes at fixed $`Q^2`$, and the mixing angles obtained from hadronic resonance decays. Therefore three experimentally measured amplitudes are sufficient to determine completely the transition from the ground state to this multiplet at fixed $`Q^2`$. For further analysis it is convenient to use the quark multipole moments $`e^{11}`$, $`m^{11}`$, and $`m^{12}`$ introduced in Ref. cottingham . They provide direct physical insight and allow simple parametrizations. The relations between these quantities and the resonance helicities amplitudes can be written as

$`A_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}=K\left[f_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^1m^{12}+f_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^2e^{11}+f_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^3m^{11}\right].`$ (13)
The coefficients $`f_{1/2,3/2}^i`$ for proton and neutron targets are summarized in Table 2 and 3.

To investigate the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the quark multipoles, the equal velocity frame (EVF) was chosen. In this frame the initial and final hadrons have equal and opposite velocities resulting in minimal relativistic corrections. The four-momentum transfer in the equal velocity frame can be written as

$$𝐪_{EVF}^2=\frac{W^2M^2}{4WM}+Q^2\frac{W^2+M^2}{4WM}.$$
(14)
In order to allow for a simple parametrization of the quark multipoles we separate out a common form factor in the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the resonance excitation. We used the usual dipole form:

$$F(𝐪_{EVF}^2)=(1+𝐪_{EVF}^2/0.71)^2$$
(15)
The quark multipoles were then written as

$`e^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{e}^{11}F(𝐪_{EVF}^2)`$
$`m^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}^{11}F(𝐪_{EVF}^2)`$ (16)
$`m^{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}^{12}F(𝐪_{EVF}^2),`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{e}^{11}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}^{11}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{m}^{12}`$ are called reduced quark multipoles. The helicity amplitudes for the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ and $`D_{13}(1520)`$ resonances, which are the best known states of the $`[70,1^{}]`$ multiplet, were used to derive the quark multipoles from the experimental data. The reduced quark multipoles were then fitted to a smooth curve. The fit results are shown by the shaded band in Figure 1, where the band width accounts for the uncertainty of the measured amplitudes. The central values of the band can be written analytically as follows (q$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{EVF}{}^{}`$ $`<`$ 4 GeV2):

$`\stackrel{~}{e}^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.17em}2.67}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.10}𝐪_{EVF}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.21}𝐪_{EVF}^4`$
$`\stackrel{~}{m}^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.17em}1.32}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4.51}𝐪_{EVF}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.10}𝐪_{EVF}^4`$ (17)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}^{12}`$ $`=`$ $`1.34+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}9.20}𝐪_{EVF}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3.39}𝐪_{EVF}^4`$
$`+0.34𝐪_{EVF}^6.`$
The $`𝐪_{EVF}^6`$ term was added as the $`\stackrel{~}{m}^{12}`$ multipole shows a more complicated dependence on $`𝐪_{EVF}`$ than the other multipoles. The quark multipole moments were then used to evaluate the SQTM prediction for all the states of the $`[70,1^{}]`$ multiplet. The results are shown in Figure 3 and 4, where the SQTM predictions represented by the shaded bands are compared with the data. We do not show predictions for the $`D_{15}(1675)`$ on the proton as the state cannot mix and its amplitudes are predicted to be zero.

## VI Discussion

Comparison of the SQTM predictions with the data shows globally good agreement with the sparse data indicating that the model accounts for the main features of the excitations to the $`[70,1^{}]`$ for $`Q^21`$ GeV2. We find that for states for which the signs of the amplitudes are known they are correctly predicted by the SQTM analysis. There is also quantitative agreement for most amplitudes at the photon point, and for amplitudes where good data on the $`Q^2`$ evolution are available, e.g. for the $`S_{11}(1650)`$ on the proton, excellent agreement is seen as well. The SQTM predictions, using a $`31^o`$ mixing angle agree both in magnitude at the photon point, as well as with the $`Q^2`$ dependence. We take this as a confirmation of the adopted mixing angle, and as an indication that the SQTM works at a reasonable level for this state. Good agreement is also seen at the photon point for most other states. The poor quality of the electroproduction data for all other states does not allow drawing more definit conclusions.

In the case of the neutron states, both of the $`D_{13}(1700)`$ amplitudes, as well as the $`D_{13}(1520)`$ amplitudes, agree very well with the predicted ones at the photon point, while there are no electroproduction data available. Similarly, both $`D_{15}(1675)`$ amplitudes are in good agreement with the photoproduction data. This may be interpreted as a more direct confirmation of the SQTM assumptions as the latter state is not affected by mixing.

In the case of the $`D_{33}(1700)`$, the very large value of $`A_{1/2}`$ at $`Q^2=0.5`$ GeV2 is likely unphysical, as it would produce a prominent enhancement in the inclusive cross section, which is not seen in the data. The $`Q^2=1`$ GeV2 points are in disagreement with each other, while their average agrees with our prediction. A similar discrepancy between two data sets is seen for the $`Q^2=1`$ GeV2 points of the $`S_{31}(1620)`$. Our prediction agrees with one of them. Given such systematic uncertainties in the electroproduction data we conclude that the SQTM predictions for the electromagnetic transition from the nucleon ground state to the $`[70,1^{}]`$ supermultiplet compare favorably with the available data. Obviously, much improved data are needed for more stringent tests of the model assumptions. It will be very interesting to see if and where the SQTM predictions break down. Such a breakdown could be due to non-quark contributions at lower $`Q^2`$, for example pion cloud effects. Such effects are currently being studiedmorel . It may also indicate sizeable multi-quark transitions.

Additional experimental information on at least one state in the $`[56,2^+]`$ supermultiplet, e.g. the $`P_{13}(1720)`$, is needed to uniquely extract the SQTM amplitudes for that supermultiplet. The main reason for the lack of data for states in the $`[70,1^{}]`$ and $`[56,2^+]`$ supermultiplets is that many states couple only weakly to the $`N\pi `$ channel, the main source of information on resonance excitations. Most states have rather strong couplings to the $`N\pi \pi `$ channels. These channels are currently being studied in several experiments at JLab, GRAAL, and ELSA. Recent measurements of 2-pion electroproduction at JLab may give access to several other states assigned to the $`[56,2^+]`$ supermultiplet. This will allow more stringent tests of the SQTM predictions than are currently possible. No photo- or electroproduction data exist for any of the higher supermultiplets.


format: text

text:
# On a Theorem of Macaulay on Colons of Ideals∗

## Abstract.

Let $`R`$ be a polynomial ring over a field of dimension $`n.`$ Let $`𝔪`$ be the maximal homogeneous ideal of $`R.`$ Let $`I`$ be a complete intersection homogeneous ideal of $`R`$ minimally generated by polynomials of degrees $`d_1,d_2,\mathrm{},d_n.`$ F. S. Macaulay showed that for all integers $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},\delta +1,`$ $`I:𝔪^i=I+𝔪^{\delta +1i}`$ where $`\delta =d_1+d_2+\mathrm{}+d_nn.`$ We provide a modern proof of a generalization of this result to standard graded Gorenstein rings.

Presented at the Third National Conference on Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Geometry, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India, October 16-21, 2000

Dedicated to my teacher William Heinzer

In §86 of his monograph \[M\] of 1916, F. S. Macaulay proved the following

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`R`$ be the polynomial ring $`k[X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n]`$ over a field $`k`$. Let $`I`$ be a height $`n`$ ideal of $`R`$ generated by homogeneous polynomials $`f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_n`$ of degrees $`d_1,d_2,\mathrm{},d_n`$ respectively. Set $`𝔪=(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)R`$ and $`\delta =d_1+d_2+\mathrm{}+d_nn.`$ Then for all integers $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},\delta +1,`$

$$I:𝔪^i=I+𝔪^{\delta +1i}.$$

In his expository paper \[G\] P. Griffiths used Macaulay’s theorem in Hodge theory of smooth hypersurfaces in projective space. He also provided a proof of this theorem by using the local duality theorem in the complex case involving the Grothendieck residue symbol. The objective of this note is to provide a modern algebraic proof which seems to be lacking in the literature. We will generalize Macaulay’s theorem to $`𝔪`$-primary ideals in standard graded Gorenstein rings.

By taking the quotient of $`R`$ by $`I`$, it is enough to prove the theorem for standard graded Artinian Gorenstein rings.

A crucial result used in our proof is a theorem of Macaulay about Hilbert series of Gorenstein graded algebras. For a modern proof, see Corollary 4.4.6 of \[BH\]. This has been generalized to Gorenstein graded rings over Artinian rings in \[JV\]. We shall use the zero dimensional case of this. We recall the statement for the convenience of the reader. Let $`\mathrm{}(.)`$ denote length.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Suppose that $`S=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}S_n`$ is a standard graded Artinian Gorenstein algebra over an Artinian local ring $`S_0.`$ Let $`\delta =\mathrm{max}\{n|S_n0\}.`$ Then $`\mathrm{}(S_i)=\mathrm{}(S_{\delta i})`$ for all $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},\delta .`$

We recall certain standard facts from \[BH\] about local cohomology. Let $`R=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}R_n`$ be a $`d`$-dimensional finitely generated standard graded algebra over a Noetherian local ring $`R_0.`$ Let $`𝔪`$ denote the irrelevant ideal $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}R_n`$. The $`a`$-invariant of $`R`$ is defined by

$$a(R)=\mathrm{max}\{n|\left[H_𝔪^d(R)\right]_n0\}.$$

If $`R`$ is Cohen-Macaulay and $`f`$ is a homogeneous nonzerodivisor of degree $`d`$ then $`a(R/fR)=a(R)+d.`$ If $`R`$ is a polynomial ring over a field in $`n`$ variables then $`a(R)=n.`$ Thus If $`𝐟=(f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_n)`$ is a regular sequence in a polynomial ring with deg$`(f_i)=d_i`$ for all $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ then $`a(R/𝐟)=d_1+d_2+\mathrm{}+d_nn.`$ This explains the value of $`\delta `$ in Macaulay’s theorem.

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`(R,𝔪)`$ be an Artinian Gorenstein local ring. Let $`I`$ be an $`𝔪`$-primary ideal. Put $`H(I,n)=\mathrm{}(I^n/I^{n+1}).`$ Let $`\delta =\mathrm{max}\{i|I^i0\}.`$ Then $`0:I^i=I^{\delta +1i}`$ for all $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},\delta `$ if and only if $`H(I,i)=H(I,\delta i)`$ for all $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},\delta `$.

###### Proof.

Since $`R`$ is Gorenstein, it is the injective hull of its residue field. Hence by Matlis duality $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{Hom}(R/I^i,R))=\mathrm{}(R/I^i)`$ for all $`i.`$ Since $`I^{\delta +1i}(0:I^i)`$ and $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{Hom}(R/I^i,R))=\mathrm{}(0:I^i),`$ we conclude that $`0:I^i=I^{\delta +1i}`$ for all $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},\delta `$ if and only if $`\mathrm{}(R/I^i)=\mathrm{}(I^{\delta +1i})`$ for all $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},\delta `$ if and only if $`H(I,0)+\mathrm{}+H(I,i)=H(I,\delta i)+\mathrm{}+H(I,\delta )`$ for all $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},\delta `$. It is easy to see that the last statement is equivalent to the condition $`H(I,i)=H(I,\delta i)`$ for all $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},\delta .`$

###### Corollary 1.4.

Let $`R`$ be a standard graded Artinian Gorenstein ring over an Artinian local ring $`(S,𝔫).`$ Let $`𝔪`$ be the graded ideal of $`R`$ generated by elements of positive degree with $`𝔪^\delta 0`$ and $`𝔪^{\delta +1}=0.`$ Then for all $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},\delta ,`$

$$0:𝔪^i=𝔪^{\delta +1i}.$$

###### Proof.

Since $`R`$ is standard, the associated graded ring of $`R`$ with respect to $`𝔪`$ is $`R`$ itself. Since $`R`$ is Gorenstein, its Hilbert function is symmetric by \[JV\].

###### Example 1.5.

We present an example due to U. Storch which shows that Macaulay’s theorem is not valid for Gorenstein local rings. Let $`k`$ be a field of characteristic $`2.`$ Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be indeterminates. Put $`R=k[X,Y]/I`$ where $`I=(X^2+Y^2,X^2+XY+Y^3).`$ Then $`R`$ is a Gorenstein local ring. The Hilbert series $`H(G,\lambda )=_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}(𝔪^i/𝔪^{i+1})\lambda ^i`$ of the associated graded $`G`$ of $`R`$ with respect to its maximal ideal $`𝔪`$ is given by

$$H(G,\lambda )=1+2\lambda +\lambda ^2+\lambda ^3.$$

Thus the Hilbert function is not symmetric. Hence Macaulay’s theorem does not hold for $`R`$ by Theorem 1.3.

Acknowledgement : The author thanks U. Storch and B. Singh for useful conversations.


text:
# Light Quark Spectroscopy and Charm Decays

## 1 Introduction

Forty years have passed since the birth of the Constituent Quark Model (CQM). This model provided a very successful description of almost all the hadronic spectrum. The nonets of pseudo-scalar, vector and tensor mesons are now well identified. There is, however, one remaining and crucial problem: the identification of the scalar meson nonet(s). The solution of this enigma is of vital importance for understanding QCD at the low energy limit.

On the other side, there has been tremendous progress in charm physics in the past decade. High quality data allowed the basic properties of charm mesons to be well measured. Recently hadronic decays of charm mesons started being used to study properties of scalar mesons, abundant products of these decays.

Charm decays have unique features, making them a very interesting tool for light quark spectroscopy: large couplings to scalar mesons and very small (less than 10%) non-resonant components; an initial state which is always well defined: the spin-0 D meson; and a spectrum that is not constrained by isospin and parity conservation.

There are, however, some conceptual issues related to the formalism commonly used in the analysis of resonant substructure of hadronic decays: the correct representation of overlapping broad states, which is closely connected to the issue of formulating the unitarity constraint in three and four-body problems. Moreover, there is the question of how to relate the observations from charm to those from scattering.

In what follows I will briefly state the problem of the scalar mesons. Then I will discuss how we can use charm decays for new insights on the scalars. Finally, I will discuss the picture so far offered by hadronic decays of charm.

## 2 The puzzling light scalars

The light scalars are, in some sense, victims of their own simplicity. Due to their broad widths and the lack of a distinctive angular distribution, the distinction between scalar mesons and the non-resonant background is rather difficult. Moreover, there are many overlapping states within a limited range of the mass spectrum (up to 1.8 GeV). An additional difficulty is the fact that non-$`q\overline{q}`$ states, like the lightest scalar glueball or multiquark states, all sharing the same quantum numbers ($`J^P=0^+`$), are expected to populate the same region of the spectrum. We can say that the identification of the scalar mesons will always be a difficult subject. Comprehensive reviews on scalar mesons can be found in  and references therein.

The main candidates, according to their isospin, are: f0(600) or $`\sigma `$(500), f0(980), f0(1370), f0(1500) and f0(1710) ($`I=0`$); $`\kappa `$(800) and $`K_0^{}`$(1430) ($`I=1/2)`$; a0(980) and a0(1450) ($`I=1`$).

If all these states are confirmed, we have 19 states! Too many candidates to fit even in two nonets. While the actual existence of some of these states - the $`\sigma `$(500) and $`\kappa `$(800) - is controversial, other states just have poorly known parameters - f0(980), a0(980), f0(1370). The interpretation of most of the scalar candidates is also controversial. Are they genuine $`q\overline{q}`$ mesons or more complex objects? Take the case of the a0(980), for instance. Its expected width is 500 MeV, according to the CQM, whereas the measured width is in the range 50-100 MeV. This fact leads to the interpretation of this state as a $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$.

The most problematic states are the isoscalars. In addition to the controverse about the $`\sigma `$(500), the nature of the f0(980), there is the issue of the f0 family above 1 GeV and a possible mixing with the scalar glueball . The remaining of this note is devoted to isoscalars and to what can we learn about them from charm decays. The $`I=1/2`$ states states including the $`\kappa `$(800), will be addressed in the talk by Carla Göbel, to appear in these proceedings.

## 3 Charm decays and light scalars

Hadronic decays of charm mesons are a natural place to look for scalars, with unique features that provide new and complementary insights on this problem.

Scalars are copiously produced in charm decays. In 3 and 4-body hadronic decays of D mesons, one always has a $`\pi \pi `$, a $`K\pi `$ or a $`KK`$ pair, important decay modes of scalar mesons. The quantum interference between broad scalars and the usually large non-resonant background, which is a plague in scattering experiments, does not affect charm decays because the non-resonant component is always very small.

But the most appealing features of D decays, when compared to scattering experiments, are related to the difference in the constraints that build the $`\pi \pi `$, $`K\pi `$ and $`KK`$ spectra. In scattering experiments, only the strong interaction is involved. The observed spectrum is determined by the conservation of isospin and parity. Parity and isospin are violated in D meson decays, where the observed spectrum is determined by the quark content of the initial state, after the weak decay of the c quark.

It is illustrative to compare, for instance, in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ final state, the Dalitz plots from $`D^+`$, $`D_s^+`$ decays (see figLight Quark Spectroscopy and Charm Decays) and from $`p\overline{n}`$ annihilation, which is most similar to D decays. The differences due to production dynamics are apparent at a glance. Comparing the $`D^+`$ and $`D_s^+`$ Dalitz plots we see clearly the effects of the different quark content of the initial state.

There is a related aspect which is also crucial: the bulk of the hadronic decay widths can be explained by a model in which resonances couple directly to the D meson. There is no need to add couplings to other states, like glueballs: $`q\overline{q}`$ states alone seem to be enough to account for the observed rates. Take the decay $`D_s^+K^{}K^+\pi ^+`$ as a typical case. The main amplitudes are the external and internal W-radiation (see figLight Quark Spectroscopy and Charm Decays). The decay modes corresponding to these amplitudes are $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ and $`D_s^+K^{}K^{}`$. These modes account for almost 100% of the $`D_s^+K^{}K^+\pi ^+`$ decay rate. The same argument could be made using many other final states. Hadronic D decays are an extremely complex process, and these types of quark diagrams are only an aproximation. This descripton, however, seems to work fairly well.

It is generally accepted that a resonance, being a real particle, must have the same parameters in whichever process it appears. The question one may ask is whether the states produced in different processes are really the same. Consider, for instance, the $`f_0`$(1370), $`f_0`$(1500) and $`f_0`$(1710) imbroglio. All three states have been observed by many experiments, with fairly well measaured parameters (except for the $`f_0`$(1370)). But according to the CQM, only two $`q\overline{q}`$ states are expected: one being mostly $`s\overline{s}`$ and another being mostly $`u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}`$. So, the three $`f_0`$’s could not belong to the same $`q\overline{q}`$ multiplet.

Glueballs are expected to be produced in ”gluon-rich” reactions, like central production, in addition to the genuine $`q\overline{q}`$ mesons. Mixing between the scalar glueball and the $`q\overline{q}`$ states is expected. If this is really the case, then the observed states would be mixtures of $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`gg`$, rather than pure states.

On the other hand, in a ”gluon-poor” reaction, like D decays, glueballs are not expected to be produced. In D decays one would access directly the $`q\overline{q}`$ states with no mixing. In this case masses and widths measured in charm decays would be different than those obtained in central production. Also, the number of states present in D decays would be smaller.

One last aspect deserves some attention: the role of final state interactions in charm decays. The Dalitz plots of charm decays can only be describe by models allowing interference between amplitudes in which the resonance and the bachelor pseudo-scalar are in different states of relative orbital angular momentum. The role the bachelor pseudo-scalar plays is decisive, which seems not to be the case in $`N\overline{N}`$ annihilations. In this sense Dalitz plot and partial wave analysis are not quite the same. The case of the $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ is typical. We see in the Dalitz plot that the upper lobe of the $`K^{}(892)`$ band is shifted with respect to the lower one. This effect is caused by the interference between the $`l`$=1 $`D^+K^{}(892)\pi ^+`$ and the $`l`$=0 amplitudes, like $`D^+K_0^{}(1430)\pi ^+`$.

We conclude this section by noting that relating results from scattering and charm decays is not so simple. The $`D\pi \pi \pi `$, for instance, cannot be explained on the basis of pure elastic $`\pi \pi `$ scattering. The energy dependent s-wave phase from $`D\pi \pi \pi `$ (or $`K\pi \pi `$) may not be the same as the $`\pi \pi `$ (or $`K\pi `$) phase shifts from peripheral hadron-hadron reactions.

## 4 What have we learned so far from charm decays?

There are only a few experimental results on light scalars from charm decays. I will concentrate on the isoscalars: the $`\sigma `$ and the $`f_0`$ family.

### 4.1 $`\sigma `$(500) or $`f_0`$(600)

This is certainly the most controversial state. In charm decays it appears as an excess of signal events at low $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mass. This effect is observed in the Dalitz plots of $`D^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$, from E791 and FOCUS, and of $`D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, from CLEO. The same structure was also observed in $`J/\psi \omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay, from BES. No such effect is observed in $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ scattering, where the $`\sigma `$ is interpreted not as a real particle, but as a dynamical threshold effect.

The best description of charm decay data requires the presence of a broad, scalar (in E791 analysis different spin assignments were also tested), complex amplitude at low $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mass. A crucial aspect is that good fits can only be obtained allowing the phase of this complex amplitude to vary across the Dalitz plot. The above experiments have fitted their data assuming a Breit-Wigner function for this state, although it is known that for states like the $`\sigma `$ a Breit-Wigner is only an approximation. Different functional forms may yield different values of mass and width. The very concept of mass and width is model dependent in this case. The CLEO Collaboration do not claim evidence for the $`\sigma `$ meson due to the uncertainty in the best parameterization of this amplitude. Anyway, good fits were obtained in all cases, and the values for the mass and width (see table 1) are in good agreement - $`M`$ 480 MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ 320 MeV.

It would be interesting, definitely, to show the phase variation across the Dalitz plot without assuming any functional form for the $`\sigma `$ amplitude. This is, unfortunately, very difficult because it involves a very large number of free parameters. In any case, it remains to be explained why in charm decays the $`\sigma `$ seems to be a real particle, but not in low energy elastic $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ scattering.

### 4.2 $`f_0`$(980)

The width of this state is poorly known. The reason is that the $`f_0`$(980) seems to behave differently depending on the reaction in which it is produced. While in scattering it looks broader and with a large coupling to the $`K\overline{K}`$ channel, in charm decays it looks just like a narrow regular $`q\overline{q}`$ resonance decaying mostly into pions. In the decay $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ the $`f_0`$(980)$`\pi ^+`$ component correspond to over 50% of the decay rate.

E791 used a coupled channel Breit-Wigner (the Flatté formula) in its fit . The coupling to $`K\overline{K}`$ channel was found to be consistent with zero. An equally good fit was obtained using a regular Breit-Wigner, yielding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=`$ (44$`\pm `$3) MeV. This is in agreement with preliminary results from FOCUS ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ 55 MeV, from $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$) and BES ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ 45 MeV, from $`J/\psi \varphi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$).

The large rate in $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ suggests a strong affinity of the $`f_0`$(980) with $`s\overline{s}`$, if we take the W-radiation amplitude to be the dominant decay mechanism. In spite of a large $`s\overline{s}`$ in its wave function, the lack of a significant coupling to $`K\overline{K}`$ is due essentially to the narrow $`f_0`$(980) width.

The above situation reinforces the interpretation of this state as a 4-quark state surrounded by a $`K\overline{K}`$ molecular cloud. At short distances, as in D decays, we would access the $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ component, whereas in peripheral processes the molecular component would manifest itself.

### 4.3 $`f_0`$(1370)/$`f_0`$(1500)

The situation here is still rather confusing. The third state of the $`f_0`$ family above 1 GeV, $`f_0`$(1710), which would be mostly $`s\overline{s}`$, is difficult to access, since it lies near the edge of the $`D_s^+`$ decay phase space.

Charm decays are useful not only to measure the $`f_0`$(1370) and $`f_0`$(1500) masses and widths, but also to infer the quark content of these two states. If both are $`q\overline{q}`$ resonances, both should appear in charm decays. If, in addition, there is a significant $`s\overline{s}`$ component in their wave function, these states should appear in the $`D_s^+K^+K^{}\pi ^+`$ decay.

Both E791 and FOCUS/E687, when analysing the $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ decay, have found that only one state is necessary to describe the Dalitz plot, although they do not agree on the measured parameters for this state. While E687  found a state with mass near 1475 MeV and a width of about 100 MeV (very similar to FOCUS preliminary numbers, and very close to the well measured $`f_0`$(1500) parameters), E791  found a somewhat wider state with a lower mass: $`M_0=`$ (1434$`\pm `$20) MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=`$ (172$`\pm `$32) MeV.

BaBar  have found no evidence of neither one of the $`f_0`$ states in the $`D^0\overline{K}^0K^+K^{}`$ decay. FOCUS (see L. Edera’s talk in these proceedings) have found a small component of $`f_0`$(1370)$`\pi ^+`$ in the $`D_s^+K^+K^{}\pi `$ decay, but the sum of all decay fractions is over 160%. This is due to a large destructive interference, which is likely to be unphysical.

A large $`D\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ (and also $`D\pi ^+\pi ^0\pi ^0`$) sample are necessary to disentangle the $`f_0`$(1370)/$`f_0`$(1500) contribution. Apparently only one of the two $`f_0`$ would be a $`q\overline{q}`$ state (mostly $`n\overline{n}`$), reinforcing the interpretation of the other one as the ground-state scalar glueball.

## 5 Conclusions

The picture offered so far by charm decays points to the existence of two scalar meson nonets, one having states with mass below 1 GeV and the other with masses above 1 GeV.

In the low mass states we have the large rates of the $`\sigma \pi `$ in $`D^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ and of the $`f_0(980)\pi `$ in $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ decay as an indication that both are $`q\overline{q}`$, or, perhaps $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ states. The evidence for the neutral $`\kappa (800)`$ would be endorsed if evidence for the charged $`\kappa `$ is also found. In the cases of both $`\sigma `$ and $`\kappa `$, a demonstration of the phase variation would be very welcome. It is also important to measure the $`a_0`$(980) width in either $`D_sK^+K^{}\pi `$ or $`D_s\overline{K}^0K^+K^{}`$ decays.

In the region above 1 GeV more data is necessary to show which of the $`f_0`$’s are genuine $`q\overline{q}`$ states. Perhaps the answer is none of those observed in scattering experiments, since the mixing between the bare $`q\overline{q}`$ resonances and the scalar glueball would not occur in charm decays. Apparently only one state appears in charm decays, although it is not clear yet which state this is. In any case, this state has no significant coupling to $`K\overline{K}`$.

There are important conceptual issues to be addressed. The most important is to formulate the unitarity constraint in multi-body decays. The assumption of two-body elastic scattering as the basic process is not trivial and may not be justified. Even in the case of two-body elastic scattering, the introduction of a relative phase can restore unitarity, which would be violated in models in which the amplitude is written as a sum of Breit-Wigners.

Decays of charm mesons, with their unique features, offer a new way to look at the light scalar mesons.

Figure 1 - Dalitz plots from $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ (left) and $`D^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ (right) decays from Fermilab E791.

Figure 2 - Dominant amplitudes for $`D_s^+K^{}K^+\pi ^+`$ decay.


text:
# Multipartite entangled states in coupled quantum dots and cavity-QED

## I Introduction

Quantum information processing offers important capabilities for quantum communications and quantum computation in a variety of physical systems, and the solid-state implementation is one of the most promising candidates. Semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) are appealing for the realization of quantum computer and quantum information processing. Spatial confinement of excitons in three dimensions leads to discrete energy levels, and the main causes of phase decoherence, namely scattering events, are highly suppressed . In this respect, QDs are very promising compared to other semiconductor structures with band states. Moreover a quantum computer scheme based on quantum dot arrays is scalable up to $`100`$ qubits.

Entanglement is a essential source for quantum computing and quantum information processing. It is well-known that a controlled-NOT gate can generate a maximally entangled state. Various schemes for the realization of controlled-NOT gates in QDs  are proposed with either the electron spin  or the discrete electronic charge degree of freedom as qubits. For example, Imamoḡlu et al.  proposed a scheme that realized a controlled-NOT gate $`C_{\text{NOT}}^{ij}`$ between two distant quantum dots $`i`$ and $`j`$ via the cavity quantum electromagnetic dynamics (CQED) techniques. Here the first superscript $`i`$ in $`C_{\text{NOT}}^{ij}`$ denotes the control and the second denotes the target. These controlled-NOT gates in turn can be used to generate a tripartite maximally entangled Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) state as $`|0|0|0+|1|1|1=C_{\text{NOT}}^{13}C_{\text{NOT}}^{12}(|0+|1)|0|0.`$ Quiroga et al. showed  that an optically controlled exciton transfer process can generate maximally entangled Bell states  and GHZ states. To demonstrate that excitons in coupled quantum dots are ideal candidates for reliable preparation of entangled states in solid-state systems, Chen et al. experimentally investigated how to optically induce entanglement of excitons in a single gallium arsenide QD: the entanglement is identified by the spectrum of the phase-sensitive homodyne-detected coherent nonlinear optical response.

Although no experimental observation of entanglement of many-exciton systems has yet occurred, the theoretical studies are necessary if we desire to have a large-scale quantum computing device. In a recent investigation by Liu $`etal`$   for generating bipartite entangled coherent exciton states in a system of two coupled quantum dots and CQED with dilute excitons, they found that the bipartite maximally entangled coherent exciton states can be generated when the initial cavity field is in an odd coherent state. The relation between entanglement of exciton and photon numbers in the cavity was also discussed.

It is interesting to extend to multipartite entanglement in such systems. Multipartite entanglement is not only of intrinsic interest itself but also of practical importance in quantum information proposals such as quantum teleportation and quantum cryptography. One motivation to consider multipartite entanglement in many QDs is that around 10 QDs can be embedded in a microdisk structure and coupled to a single cavity mode in the quantum information process scheme proposed by Imamoḡlu et al. We will first extend the model of Ref.  to the case of many QDs , and then study how to generate multipartite entangled states and examine multipartite entanglement in such systems.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we present a model for coupled QDs in CQED and determine the exact state vector at any time $`t`$, which will be shown to be a multipartite entangled state in some time ranges. In Sec. III, we use three different methods to examine the multipartite entanglement in the state. Then in Sec. IV, we show that multipartite entangled coherent exciton states can be generated at certain times during the dynamical evolution. In Sec. V, we analyse the effects of environment on the generation of multipartite entanglement. The conclusions are given in Sec. VI.

## II Multipartite entangled states

We consider quantum dots embedded in a single-mode cavity. We assume that the QDs are sufficiently large and there are only a few electrons excited from valence band to conduction band . In the assumption of low exciton excitation density, exciton operators can be approximated by boson operators, and all nonlinear dynamics such as exciton-exciton interaction can be neglected. As the distance between any two excitons is also assumed to be large, the interaction between any two excitons can be safely neglected. There exists a resonant interaction between the excitons and the cavity field. The Hamiltonian under the rotating wave approximation is given by ($`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$H=\omega b_0^{}b_0+\omega \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}b_n^{}b_n+\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}g_n(b_n^{}b_0+b_0^{}b_n),$$
(1)
where $`b_0^{}`$ $`(b_0)`$ is the creation (annihilation) operator of the cavity field with frequency $`\omega ,`$ $`b_n^{}(b_n)`$ ($`n=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$) denote the creation (annihilation) operator of the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ exciton with the same frequency $`\omega ,`$ $`g_n`$ is the coupling constant between the cavity field and $`n^{\text{th}}`$ exciton, and $`N`$ is the number of excitons.

It is convenient to write the coupling constants $`g_i`$ in generalized spherical coordinates  as

$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`G\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1,`$
$`g_2`$ $`=`$ $`G\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2,`$
$`g_3`$ $`=`$ $`G\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _3,`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`g_{N1}`$ $`=`$ $`G\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{N1},`$
$`g_N`$ $`=`$ $`G\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{N1},`$
where $`G=\sqrt{_{k=1}^Ng_k^2}.`$ The evolution operator corresponding to the Hamiltonian is then obtained as

$`U(t)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{N1,N}^{}(\varphi _{N1})\mathrm{}V_{2,3}^{}(\varphi _2)V_{1,2}^{}(\varphi _1)\stackrel{~}{V}_{0,1}(t)V_{1,2}(\varphi _1)`$ (3)
$`\times V_{2,3}(\varphi _2)\mathrm{}V_{N1,N}(\varphi _{N1})U_0(t),`$
where

$`V_{i,j}(\varphi _i)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[\varphi _i(b_i^{}b_jb_j^{}b_i)]\text{ }(ij),`$ (4)
$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{0,1}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[iGt(b_0^{}b_1+b_1^{}b_0)],`$ (5)
$`U_0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[i\omega t(b_0^{}b_0+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}b_i^{}b_i)].`$ (6)
Both $`V_{i,j}(\varphi _i)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{0,1}(t)`$ are operators for the beam splitters. We see that the evolution operator can be written as a free evolution $`U_0(t)`$ followed by a series of beam splitter operators.

Let us assume that the initial state is $`|\psi (0)=|\alpha __0|0__1\mathrm{}|0__N,`$ i.e., the cavity field is in a coherent state $`|\alpha __0`$ with $`\alpha 0`$ and all the excitons are in vacuum states. After the action of the unitary operator $`U(t),`$ the state evolves into

$$|\psi (t)=|\alpha _0(t),\alpha _1(t),\mathrm{},\alpha _N(t)_{0\mathrm{}N},$$
(7)
where $`|\alpha _0(t),\mathrm{},\alpha _N(t)_{0\mathrm{}N}|\alpha _0(t)_0|\alpha _1(t)_1\mathrm{}|\alpha _N(t)_N`$ and

$`\alpha _0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \mathrm{cos}(Gt)e^{i\omega t},`$ (8)
$`\alpha _n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i\alpha \mathrm{sin}(Gt)g_n/Ge^{i\omega t},n=1,2,\mathrm{},N.`$ (9)
Thus, if the initial state of the cavity field is in a superposition of coherent states, the resulting state will be an entangled coherent state. Let us assume the initial state of the cavity field to be in a superposition of two coherent states $`|\pm \alpha `$ and the excitons to be in vacuum states, i.e.,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ $`=`$ $`[2+2\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{exp}(2|\alpha |^2)]^{1/2}`$ (11)
$`(|\alpha __0+e^{i\theta }|\alpha __0)|0__1\mathrm{}|0__N.`$
Specifically, for $`\theta =0,`$ $`\pi ,`$ and $`\pi /2,`$ the cavity superposition state reduces to even, odd, and Yurke-Stoler coherent states, respectively. Then the state vector at time $`t`$ is given by

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩(|\alpha _0(t),\alpha _1(t),\mathrm{},\alpha _N(t)_{0\mathrm{}N}`$ (13)
$`+e^{i\theta }|\alpha _0(t),\alpha _1(t),\mathrm{},\alpha _N(t)_{0\mathrm{}N}),`$
where

$$𝒩=[2+2\mathrm{cos}\theta \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}p_k(t)]^{1/2}$$
(14)
is the normalization constant, and $`p_k(t)\mathrm{exp}(2|\alpha _k(t)|^2)`$ is the overlap of the two coherent states $`|\pm \alpha _k(t).`$ The resulting state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ is a multipartite entangled coherent state.

We now choose the orthogonal basis

$$|\mathrm{𝟎}_k|\alpha _k(t),\text{ }|\mathrm{𝟏}_k(|\alpha _kp_k(t)|\mathrm{𝟎})/_k(t),$$
(15)
where $`_k(t)=\sqrt{1p_k(t)^2}.`$ It then follows that

$$|\alpha _k(t)=_k(t)|\mathrm{𝟏}+p_k(t)|\mathrm{𝟎}.$$
(16)
Using this basis the state vector at time $`t`$ can be rewritten as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩\{|\mathrm{𝟎}_0\mathrm{}|\mathrm{𝟎}_N+e^{i\theta }[_0(t)|\mathrm{𝟏}_0+p_0(t)|\mathrm{𝟎}_0]`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{}[_N(t)|\mathrm{𝟏}_N+p_N(t)|\mathrm{𝟎}_N]\}.`$
After the ‘encoding’ this state is a multiqubit state. Then we can fully exploit the sophisticated tools available for examining multipartite entanglement of qubits to study our state and determine if it is genuinely multipartite entangled.

## III Examination of multipartite entanglement

We study the multipartite entanglement by examining (i) Mermin-Klyshko inequality, (ii) state preparation fidelity , and (iii) the square of the multiqubit concurrence. The first two, namely the Mermin-Klyshko inequality and the state preparation fidelity, are related to two sufficient conditions that distinguish between genuinely $`N`$-partite entangled states and those in which only $`M`$ particle are entangled ($`M<N`$). The last one, the square of the multiqubit concurrence, is not by itself a measure of $`N`$-particle entanglement, but it appears to be related to some kind of multipartite entanglement. That is, we can gain some information about the degree of multipartite entanglement by calculating the square of the multiqubit concurrence.

### A Mermin-Klyshko inequality

Let us first use the Mermin-Klyshko inequality to examine the $`N`$-partite entanglement. This inequality generalizes the Bell inequality and Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality, which not only tests the predictions of quantum mechanics against those of local hidden variable theory but also distinguishes entangled from non-entangled states. The Mermin-Klyshko inequality is

$$|_N|2,$$
(19)
where $`_N`$ is the Bell operator defined recursively as

$$_N=\frac{1}{2}(A_N+A_N^{})_{N1}+\frac{1}{2}(A_NA_N^{})_{N1}^{},$$
(20)
$`_N^{}`$ is obtained from $`_N`$ by exchanging primed and unprimed terms,

$$_N^{}=\frac{1}{2}(A_N+A_N^{})_{N1}^{}\frac{1}{2}(A_NA_N^{})_{N1},$$
(21)
$`_1=2A_1`$, and $`_1^{}=2A_1^{}`$. All $`A_i`$ and $`A_i^{}`$ are dichotomous observables. Let $`S_n`$ denote the set of all $`N`$-particle states and $`S_N^{N1}`$ denote the subset of those states which are at most $`(N1)`$-partite entangled. Then, from the results of Refs. , for a state $`\rho `$ we have

$`\rho S_N^{N1}:|_N|2^{N/2},`$ (22)
$`\rho S_N:|_N|2^{(N+1)/2},`$ (23)
which implies that a sufficient condition for $`N`$-partite entanglement is the violation of the inequality given by Eq. (22). Now we define a quantity $`B`$

$$B(\rho )=\frac{|_N|2^{N/2}}{2^{(N+1)/2}2^{N/2}}.$$
(24)
Then the state $`\rho `$ is $`N`$-partite entangled when $`B(\rho )>0`$ and maximally entangled when $`B(\rho )=1`$.

Let $`A_i=\sigma _x`$ and $`A_i^{}=\sigma _y`$ for any $`i`$. Then the Bell operator $`_N`$ and $`_N^{}`$ become

$`_N`$ $`=`$ $`2^{(N+1)/2}(e^{i\beta _N}\sigma _+^N+e^{i\beta _N}\sigma _{}^N),`$ (25)
$`_N^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2^{(N+1)/2}(ie^{i\beta _N}\sigma _+^N+ie^{i\beta _N}\sigma _{}^N),`$ (26)
where $`\beta _N=\pi /4(N1),\sigma _+=|\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏}|,`$ and $`\sigma _{}=|\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟎}|`$. For our state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ (18) we have

$`(|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|)`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{(N+1)/2}}{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{2|\alpha |^2}}}[\mathrm{cos}(\theta \beta _N)+\mathrm{cos}(\beta _N)e^{2|\alpha |^2}]`$ (29)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}}\sqrt{1p_k^2}.`$
We choose $`\theta =\beta _N`$. Then the above equation reduces to

$$=2^{(N+1)/2}\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{1p_k^2}.$$
(30)
Therefore this sufficient condition becomes

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{1p_k^2}>1/\sqrt{2}.$$
(31)
Numerical results are provided later. Next we discuss another method based on state preparation fidelity to examine multipartite entanglement.

### B State preparation fidelity

The so-called state preparation fidelity $``$ of an $`N`$-qubit state $`\rho `$ is defined as

$$(\rho )=\psi _{\text{GHZ}}|\rho |\psi _{\text{GHZ}},$$
(32)
where

$$|\psi _{\text{GHZ}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{}|\mathrm{𝟎}+e^{i\gamma }|\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{}|\mathrm{𝟏})$$
(33)
is the GHZ state. A sufficient condition for $`N`$-partite entanglement is given by

$$(\rho )>1/2.$$
(34)
From Eqs. (32) and (18) the state preparation fidelity for the multipartite state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ is obtained as

$`(|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|)`$ (35)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4+4\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{2|\alpha |^2}}}[1+{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(1p_k^2)+e^{4|\alpha |^2}`$ (36)
$`+2\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{2|\alpha |^2}+2\mathrm{cos}(\theta \gamma ){\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}}\sqrt{1p_k^2}`$ (37)
$`+2\mathrm{cos}\gamma e^{2|\alpha |^2}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}}\sqrt{1p_k^2}].`$ (38)
Let $`\theta =\gamma =\pi /2`$. The above equation then reduces to

$$=\left(1+\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{1p_k^2}\right)^2/4+e^{4|\alpha |^2}/4,$$
(39)
and the sufficient condition (34) becomes

$$\left(1+\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{1p_k^2}\right)^2+e^{4|\alpha |^2}>2.$$
(40)
For convenience we define

$$F=21.$$
(41)
When $`F>0`$ the state is $`(N+1)`$-partite entangled.

In Fig. 1 we plot the quantity $`B`$ and $`F`$ against time $`t`$. Henceforth we assume $`g_1=g_2=\mathrm{}=g_N`$ and $`G=1`$. The period of $`B`$ and $`F`$ with respect to time is $`2\pi .`$ We can clearly see the two sufficient conditions can be satisfied in some time ranges which means that the state is a genuine multipartite entangled state. Moreover, we find the time range in which the sufficient condition is satisfied based on the state preparation fidelity is larger than that based on the Mermin-Klyshko inequality.

### C Square of the multiqubit concurrence

Recently Coffman et al  used concurrence  to examine three-qubit systems, and quantified the amount of tripartite entanglement in three-qubit systems by the quantity $`\tau _{0,1,2}`$

$$\tau _{0,1,2}=C_{0(12)}^2C_{01}^2C_{02}^2,$$
(42)
where $`C_{0(12)}`$ denotes the concurrence between qubit 1 and qubits 2 and 3. Applying the general result for concurrence of bipartite nonorthogonal pure states  to the state (18) for $`N=2`$ yields

$$C_{0(12)}=\frac{\sqrt{(1p_0^2)(1p_1^2p_2^2)}}{1+p_0p_1p_2\mathrm{cos}\theta }.$$
(43)
By the standard method for calculating the concurrence , we find

$`C_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_2\sqrt{(1p_0^2)(1p_1^2)}}{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta p_0p_1p_2}},`$ (44)
$`C_{02}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_1\sqrt{(1p_0^2)(1p_2^2)}}{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta p_0p_1p_2}}.`$ (45)
The concurrence $`C_{02}`$ is obtained by a transformation $`12`$ in the expression of $`C_{01}`$. From Eqs. (42), (43), and (45), we obtain

$$\tau _{0,1,2}=\frac{_{n=0}^2(1p_n^2)}{(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{2|\alpha |^2})^2}.$$
(46)
Now consider the case of odd $`N`$ excitons ($`N>2`$). Wong and Christensen  proposed the square of the multiqubit concurrence as a potential measure of the multipartite entanglement for an even-number pure qubit state. The $`(N+1)`$-qubit concurrence for a pure state $`|\psi `$ is defined as

$$C_{0,1,\mathrm{},N}|\psi |\sigma _y^{N+1}|\psi ^{}|,$$
(47)
where $`\sigma _y=i(|\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏}||\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟎}|)`$ is a Pauli matrix.

Then applying Eq. (47) to the state (18) leads to the square of the multiqubit concurrence

$$\tau _{0,1,\mathrm{},N}=C_{0,1,\mathrm{},N}^2=\frac{_{n=0}^N(1p_n^2)}{(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{2|\alpha |^2})^2}.$$
(48)
From the expression of the square of multiqubit concurrence we can see that the multiqubit concurrence is unchanged by permutation of qubits, which implies that it really represents $`(N+1)`$-partite entanglement. We note that although the above formula is obtained for odd $`N,`$ by comparing (48) and (46), it is also applicable to $`N=2.`$ We also note that Eqs. (48) and (46) are applicable to the more general state $`(|\psi _0|\psi _1\mathrm{}|\psi _N+e^{i\theta }|\varphi _0|\varphi _1\mathrm{}|\varphi _N)`$ with real overlap $`\psi _i|\varphi _i(i=0,1,\mathrm{},N)`$ up to a normalization constant.

In Fig. 2 we plot the square of the multiqubit concurrence against time for $`N=2,N=3,`$ and $`N=5.`$ We observe that the entanglement periodically reaches its maximum twice per period, and the multipartite entanglement is suppressed with the increase of the number of excitons. One way to overcome this suppression is to increase the parameter $`|\alpha |^2`$. From Eq. (48) we know that the larger the parameter $`|\alpha |^2`$, the larger the multipartite entanglement.

From Eq. (48) we know that the square of the $`(N+1)`$-qubit concurrence reaches a maximum value at $`\theta =\pi `$ when other parameters are fixed. This implies that the best input state is the odd coherent state in order to generate multipartite entanglement. On the other hand we know that the average photon number of the cavity field in the initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ is

$$b_0^{}b_0=\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{2|\alpha |^2}}{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{2|\alpha |^2}}|\alpha |^2.$$
(49)
We see that the mean photon number of the cavity field reaches its maximum when the field is in the odd coherent state ($`\theta =\pi `$) when other parameters are fixed. The mean photon number represents the energy of the system. Therefore, it turns out that the more energy contained in the initial cavity field, the larger the multipartite entanglement.

By three different methods we have examined multipartite entanglement and found that the state (18) is a genuine multipartite entangled state over a large range of parameters by each of the indicators.

## IV Multipartite entangled coherent exciton states

It is clear that the cavity field and excitons are decoupled when $`t=n\pi /(2g)`$ for integer $`n.`$ Without loss of generality we examine the state vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ at times $`\pi `$ and $`\pi /2`$ in one period. From the discussion of the last section, at these times there is no global multipartite entanglement. At time $`t=\pi ,`$ the state vector returns to the initial state (11) with $`\alpha `$ $`\alpha e^{i\omega \pi },`$ and the excitons are in the vacuum state. It is interesting to see that at time $`t=\pi /2`$ the cavity field is decoupled from the excitons; however the excitons are left in a multipartite entangled coherent exciton states given by

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{excitons}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩^{}(|\beta ,\beta ,\mathrm{},\beta _{1\mathrm{}N}`$ (51)
$`+e^{i\theta }|\beta ,\beta ,\mathrm{},\beta _{1\mathrm{}N}),`$
where $`\beta =i(\alpha /\sqrt{N})e^{i\omega \pi /2},`$ and the normalization constant $`𝒩^{}=[2+2\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{exp}(2|\beta |^2)]^{1/2}`$. Now the cavity field is in a vacuum state, and all its energy has been transferred to the excitons.

Multipartite entanglement for the entangled coherent exciton state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{excitons}}`$ can be studied using the methods of the last section. From Eqs. (30), (39), and (48) we obtain the quantities $``$, $``$, and the square of the multiqubit concurrence for our state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{excitons}}`$ as

$``$ $`=`$ $`2^{N/2}(1e^{4|\alpha |^2/N})^{N/2},`$ (52)
$``$ $`=`$ $`[1+(1e^{4|\alpha |^2/N})^{N/2}]^2/4+e^{4|\alpha |^2}/4,`$ (53)
$`\tau _{1,\mathrm{},N}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1e^{4|\alpha |^2/N})^N}{(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{2|\alpha |^2})^2}}.`$ (54)
In Fig. 3 we plot the quantity $`B`$, $`F`$, and $`\tau `$ against $`|\alpha |`$. We observe that the state is multipartite entangled when $`|\alpha |`$ is large enough. Quantitively the corresponding Bell inequality is violated when $`|\alpha |>1.601`$, and the state preparation fidelity $``$ is larger than 1/2 when $`|\alpha |>1.228`$. We also observe that the square of the $`(N+1)`$-qubit concurrence is significantly larger than zero only if $`|\alpha |`$ is large enough. For fixed $`N`$ and very large $`|\alpha |`$ the square of the $`(N+1)`$-qubit concurrence $`\tau _{1,\mathrm{},N}1`$ which implies that the entangled coherent exciton states becomes a GHZ-like state. On the other hand $`\tau _{1,\mathrm{},N}0`$ for fixed $`N`$ and small enough $`|\alpha |^2.`$ As discussed in Ref. the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{excitons}}`$ with $`\theta =\pi `$ reduces to the multiqubit W state in the limit of $`|\alpha |^20.`$ It means that we can also prepare the W state in our system at time $`t=\pi /2`$ with the initial cavity field in a Fock state with one photon and all excitons initially in the vacuum states. For the case of only two excitons the W state is just the maximally entangled state (one Bell state) as discussed by Liu et al..

## V Effects of environment on multipartite entanglement

Environmental losses and decoherence are important effects in quantum information processing. The lifetime of both cavity photon and exciton is generally considered to be on the order of picoseconds. Whereas, if we assume $`\mathrm{}g=0.5`$ meV , the time we need to get maximal entanglement in our model is also on the order of picoseconds. However, dynamical evolution suffers from decay of photons and excitons. Recent experiments show that the lifetime of photons and excitons can be prolonged. In particular, for cavity decay, recent experiments display an elongated decay time of photons in the microwave domain. Thus, we only consider the decay of excitons in the following discussions.

We follow the method of Ref. , and assume that the environment is at zero temperature and the system dissipates by interaction between excitons and a multimode electromagnetic field. Under the rotating-wave approximation we write the Hamitonian as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\omega b_0^{}b_0+\omega {\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}b_n^{}b_n+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\omega _ka_k^{}a_k`$ (55)
$`+`$ $`g{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(b_n^{}b_0+b_0^{}b_n)`$ (56)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\lambda _k(b_n^{}a_k+b_na_k^{}),`$ (57)
where $`a_k^{}`$ ($`a_k`$) denotes the creation (annihilation) operator of the multimode magnetic field with frequency $`\omega _k`$. We assume $`g_1=g_2=\mathrm{}=g`$ implying that the excitons are equally coupled to the cavity mode, and $`n`$-independence of the $`\lambda _k`$ implying that the excitons are also equally coupled to the environment.

Now we use the Heisenberg picture to study the problem. The Heisenberg equations for related operators are obtained as follows:

$`b_0/t`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega b_0+ig{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}b_n,`$ (58)
$`b_n/t`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega b_n+igb_0+i{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\lambda _ka_k,`$ (59)
$`a_k/t`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega _ka_k+i\lambda _k{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}b_n.`$ (60)
Note that we use a slightly different Heisenberg picture for our purpose to obtain the final state vector at time $`t`$. We let an operator evolve as $`A(t)=\mathrm{exp}(iHt)A(0)\mathrm{exp}(iHt)`$ and it satisfies $`iA(t)/t=[H,A(t)]`$.

Now we introduce the collective exciton operator $`b_c=1/\sqrt{N}_{n=1}^Nb_n`$ which can be considered as a boson since $`[b_c,b_c^{}]=1`$. In terms of the collective boson operator we rewrite the above equation as

$`b_0/t`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega b_0+ig_Nb_c,`$ (61)
$`b_c/t`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega b_c+ig_Nb_0+i{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\lambda _{N,k}a_k,`$ (62)
$`a_k/t`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega _ka_k+i\lambda _{N,k}b_c,`$ (63)
where $`g_N=g\sqrt{N}`$ and $`\lambda _{N,k}=\lambda _k\sqrt{N}`$. If we let

$$b_0=B_0e^{i\omega t},b_c=B_ce^{i\omega t},a_k=A_ke^{i\omega t},$$
(64)
Eq. (63) reduces to

$`B_0/t`$ $`=`$ $`ig_NB_c,`$ (65)
$`B_c/t`$ $`=`$ $`ig_NB_0+i{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\lambda _{N,k}A_k,`$ (66)
$`A_k/t`$ $`=`$ $`i(\omega _k\omega )A_k+i\lambda _{N,k}B_c.`$ (67)
To solve the above equation we make the Laplace transform

$$\overline{f}(s)=_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{st}f(t)𝑑t.$$
(68)
We obtain after minor algebra

$`s\overline{B}_0`$ $`=`$ $`B_0(0)+ig_N\overline{B}_c,`$ (69)
$`\overline{B}_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B_c(0)+ig_N\overline{B}_0+i_k\frac{\lambda _{N,k}A_k(0)}{s+i(\omega _k\omega )}}{s+N_k\frac{\lambda _k^2}{s+i(\omega _k\omega )}}}.`$ (70)
The above equation cannot be solved exactly. So we resort to the Wigner-Weisskopff approximation. After the approximation, from the above two equations we obtain

$$\overline{B}_0=\frac{(s+\frac{N\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2})B_0(0)+ig\sqrt{N}B_c(0)_k\frac{g_N\lambda _{N,k}A_k(0)}{s+i(\omega _k\omega )}}{s^2+\frac{N\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}s+Ng^2},$$
(71)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi ϵ(\omega )\lambda ^2(\omega )`$ and $`ϵ(\omega )`$ is a distribution function of the multimode electromagnetic field. We assumed that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =𝑑\omega _kϵ(\omega _k)\lambda ^2(\omega _k)/(\omega _k\omega )=0`$ in the derivation of the above equation.

From Eq. (71) we obtain the operator $`b_0(t)`$ in the Heisenberg representation

$`b_0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`u(t)b_0(0)+v(t){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}b_n(0)+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}w_k(t)a_k(0),`$ (72)
$`u(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{N\mathrm{\Gamma }t/4}[\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_Nt)+{\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{\Gamma }}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_N}}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_Nt)]e^{i\omega t},`$ (73)
$`v(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{\mathrm{\Delta }_N}}e^{N\mathrm{\Gamma }t/4}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_Nt)e^{i\omega t},`$ (74)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N=\sqrt{Ng^2N^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/16}`$. Let the cavity field be an odd coherent state and other systems in the vacuum states. Then, from Eq. (74) we obtain the state vector at time $`t`$ as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`[22\mathrm{exp}(2|\alpha |^2)]`$ (77)
$`\times (|\alpha _u|\alpha _v^N{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|\alpha _{w,k}`$
$`|\alpha _u|\alpha _v^N{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|\alpha _{w,k}),`$
where $`\alpha _u=\alpha u^{}(t)`$, $`\alpha _v=\alpha v^{}(t)`$, and $`\alpha _{w,k}=\alpha w_k^{}(t)`$.

We use the state preparation fidelity $``$ to examine multipartite entanglement in the above state and choose the following GHZ state for consideration,

$$|\psi _{\text{GHZ}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\alpha _u|\alpha _v^N|\alpha _u^{}|\alpha _v^{}^N),$$
(78)
where

$`|\alpha _x^{}=(|\alpha _xp_x|\alpha _x)/_x,`$ (79)
$`p_x=\mathrm{exp}(2|\alpha _x|^2),`$ (80)
$`_x=\sqrt{1p_x^2},x=u,v.`$ (81)
From Eqs. (77) and (78) we obtain the state preparation fidelity as

$``$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|\psi _{\text{GHZ}}\psi _{\text{GHZ}}|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ (82)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{44e^{2|\alpha |^2}}}[1+2e^{2|\alpha |^2}(_u_v^Np_u^1p_v^N1)`$ (84)
$`+(_u_v^Np_up_v^N)^2].`$
In the derivation of the above equation we have used the relation

$$|\alpha |^2=|\alpha _u|^2+N|\alpha _v|^2+\underset{k}{}|\alpha _{w,k}|^2,$$
(85)
which results from the normalization of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ and implies the energy conservation.

Figure 4 shows the fidelity against time $`t`$ for different numbers of excitons. From the figure we see that the fidelity is not a periodic function of $`t`$ due to the dissipation of energy to the environment. When there is no dissipation ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$), the fidelity attains the ideal case of being a periodic function of $`t`$. We observe that multipartite entanglement occurs only in the beginning of the evolution. When the number of excitons becomes larger, the generation of the multipartite entanglement becomes more difficult. In the limit of $`t\mathrm{}`$ the fidelity becomes 0.5 as we expected. In this case there is no multipartite entanglement and all the energy of the cavity-excitons system dissipate to the environment. The environment diminishes the generation of multipartite entanglement when the number of excitons increases. From Eq. (74) we can see that the decay rate is proportional to the number of excitons when the intensity of the cavity field is fixed. In addition, we find a similar result as that of Ref.  if we fix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and vary $`|\alpha |`$, i.e., the multipartite entanglement decays rapidly with increasing the cavity field density.

## VI Conclusions

In conclusion, we have investigated the dynamical evolution of multipartite entanglement in a system of quantum dots embedded in a microcavity. The entanglement is studied via two sufficient conditions for multipartite entanglement and the square of the multiqubit concurrence. We observed the global multipartite entanglement and at certain times the entanglement becomes maximal. We can also produce the multipartite entangled coherent exciton states and multiqubit W state by preparing different initial states. Finally, we study the effects of environment on the generation of multipartite entangled states, and find that the decay rate is proportional to the number of excitons. We also find that the entanglement decays rapidly with increasing the cavity field density.

Although multipartite entanglement studied here has not yet been observed experimentally, the potential application of excitons in quantum computing as well as rapid development of CQED technique suggest that our analysis will find applications in this field.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We appreciate the helpful discussions with Paolo Zanardi, Irene D’Amico, and Ehoud Pazy. This work has been supported by the European Commission through the Research Project SQUID within the FET Program and IST, Q-ACTA, and by an Australian Research Council Large Grant.