format: text

text:
# Lax Pair Covariance and Integrability of Compatibility Condition

## 1 Introduction

If a pair of linear problems is simultaneously covariant with respect to a DT, it generates Backlund transformations of the corresponding compatibility condition. In the context of such integrability the joint covariance principle  may be considered as a classification scheme origin. In this paper we examine realizations of such scheme looking for possible covariant form and appropriate basis with a simplest transformation properties. It is important to note that the proof of the covariance theorems for the linear operators incoporates the so-called (generalized) Miura transformation having the form of (generalized) Riccati equation. We give and examine here the explicit form of the equality in both general and stationary case, look  as well. It gives additional nonlinear equation that is automatically solved by DT theory and used for generation of t-chain equations . We show how the form of the covariant operator may be found while some kind of Frechet derivatives of the operator coefficients and the transforms are compared.

Further, it is clear that the choice of DT type defines the class of covariant operators. The ”classic” DT generalization for the polynomials of a differentiation operator results in transformation formulas first obtained in Matveev papers , the form of DT we use below is from . It is also possible to do it in an abstract way: i.e. to define elementary DT (eDT) for any projector (idempotent) element in a differential ring or module . The abstract differentiation is naturally included in the scheme . The appropriate Zakharov - Shabat (ZS) problem which contains some elements as ”potentials” and ”wave functions” (WF) is studied. The results open the way for DT theory applications in arbitrary matrix dimension (including infinite - dimensional or strictly operator case). It is shown  that the sequence of $`n`$ such transformations in $`n\times n`$ matrix case with usual differentiation by a parameter give the standard dressing formulas of ZS problem  .

In refs. ,  eDT for direct and conjugate problems were used to obtain the binary DT (bDT) for matrices and in  \- for three projectors with applications to N-wave interaction, a step from  upto the general case . The symmetric form of the resulting expressions for potentials and wave functions (WF) make almost obvious the heredity of reduction restrictions  and underlying automorphisms  of a generic ZS problems. In  an application to some operator problem (Liuville - von Neumann equation) is studied.

In the Sec. 2 we examine the general non-Abelian version of the operator transformations constructed by means of the above-mentioned Bell polynomials generalization. The resulting transformation formulas do not contain double summation that is convenient for the further analysis as in the context of classification as on the way of dressing chain reformulations , ,  and solution generation. In the last part of the Sec. 2 we list few such polynomials. We show then the equation for the intermediate ($`sigma`$) function that naturally appear during the Darboux theorem proof. This equation generalizes Riccati equation (Miura transformation) for the celebrated KdV theory for general dynamics - it may be called generalized Burgers equation.

In the next Sec 3 we concentrate our attention on the algorithmic derivation of Lax pairs starting from the idea of covariance. We use more simple nonabelian case to show main features of the scheme. The point we demonstrate is based on a comparison of the formal Taylor expansion of the transformed operator (by means of Frechet derivative notion) of a Lax pair and its formal DT expression. The comparison gives differential equations which solutions produce the explicit expressions for the Lax pair coefficients.

Sec 4 introduces binary Bell polynomials and study the transformation of them via the differential forms incorporated. We also prove invariance of some combinations of such BBP with respect to DT.

Next section starts from covariance of generalized ZS equation. Two versions of dressing chain are constructed for stationary spectral problems with nonabelian spectral parameter. We are trying to pick up relations that do not depend on matrix representation . Simple examples are studied by closures of the chain equations on the operator level.

The section 6 is devoted to the nonabelian Lax pairs from the point of view of bDT covariance. The Abelian version of binary transform (commuting ”matrix elements”) reproduces results of the dressing method based on the matrix Riemann-Hilbert problem .

Here we mainly treat the dressing chain equations, sending readers to , where the equation

$$iX_t=[X,h(X)],$$
$`(1.1)`$
h(X) - analytical function, is studied. Further generalizations for essentially nonabelian functions (e.g. $`h(X)=XA+AX,[A,x]0`$, ) are considered in , where abundant set of integrable equations is listed. The list is in a partial correspondence with , and give direct link to solutions via the dressing chains. The papers also contain examples of ”self-scattering solutions” with discussions of possible applications .

## 2 Darboux transformations in terms of Bell polynomials.

The solution of the problem of a polynomial linear differential operator left and right division produces a version of the Darboux theorem. The theorem was reformulated for the classical DT

$$\psi [1]=D\psi \sigma \psi ,$$
$`(2.1)`$
in terms of some generalization of the BeIl polynomials  that give compact expressions for transformed coefficients of the operator. We reproduce here the results with links to further applications, namely with equations for the element ”$`\sigma `$” that appear inside the theorem proof.

Let us start from the linear operator

$$L=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}a_nD^n,$$

and the evolution equation (flow)

$$\psi _t=L\psi .$$
$`(2.2)`$
Here the operator D may be a differentiation by some variable and $`\psi _t`$ is the derivative with respect to another one (see  for generalizations). The transformation of the solutions of the equation is taken in the standard form (2.1), where $`\sigma =(D\varphi )\varphi ^1`$ with a different solution of (2.2) incorporated $`\varphi _t=L\varphi .`$ We would now promote the convenient formulation of Matveev theorem

Theorem. The coefficients of the resulting operator

$$L[1]=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}a_n[1]D^n$$

are defined by

$$a_N[1]=a_N,$$

and for all other n, by

$$a_n[1]=a_n+\underset{k=n+1}{\overset{N}{}}[a_kB_{k,kn}+((Da_k)\sigma a_k)B_{k1,k1n}]$$
$`(2.3)`$
that yields a covariance principle.

It means that the function $`\psi [1]`$ is a solution of the equation

$$\psi _t[1]=L[1]\psi [1],$$

where L has the same structure and order as L. The proof of this statement incorporates the equation that links $`\sigma `$ and coefficients of the operator L. It may be derived inside a factorization theory  and will be useful further

$$\sigma _t=Dr+[\sigma ,r],r=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_kB_k,$$
$`(2.4)`$
where $`B_k`$ are nonabelian Bell polynomials (see, e.g. ). In the stationary case one has

$$\sigma _t=\varphi _{xt}\varphi ^1\varphi _x\varphi ^1\varphi _t\varphi ^1=0.$$
$`(2.5)`$
The functions $`B_{m,n}`$ are introduced in .

We reproduce here the definition and some statements about them.

Definition

$$B_{n,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(\sigma )=1,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$

and recurrence relations

$$B_{n,k}(\sigma )=B_{n1,k}(\sigma )+DB_{n1,k1}(\sigma ),k=\overline{1,n1},n=2,3,\mathrm{}.$$
$`(2.6)`$
$$B_{n,n}(\sigma )=DB_{n1,n1}(\sigma )+B_n(\sigma ),n=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$

define the generalized Bell polynomials $`B_{m,n}`$.

The following formula is extracted,

$$B_{n,nk+1}(\sigma )=\underset{i=k}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i}{k}\right)B_{n,ni}(\sigma )D^{ik}\sigma ,k=\overline{1,n},n=0,1,2,\mathrm{};$$

$$B_{n+1}(\sigma )=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}B_{n,ni}(\sigma )D^i\sigma ,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$
$`(2.7).`$
it gives the link between standard (nonabelian) Bell polynomials and the generalized ones:

$$B_{n+1}(\sigma )=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}B_{n,i}(v)D^{ni}\sigma ,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$

Evaluation of the first three generalized Bell polynomials by the definition gives

$$B_{n,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}(\sigma )=\sigma ;B_{n,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(\sigma )=\sigma ^2+nD\sigma ;B_{n,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}(\sigma )=\sigma ^3+n\sigma ^{}\sigma +(n1)\sigma D\sigma +\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)D^2\sigma ;$$

## 3 Towards the classification scheme. Joint covariance of L-A pairs

The basis of the formalism we introduce is elaborated starting from  and the compact formulas with the generalized differential (Bell) polynomials from the previous section. Note again, that it is valid for nonabelian entries as well, the coefficients $`a_n`$, solutions of the equation (1) $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ we consider as matrices or operators. Let us however start from the scalar case.

To prepare the explicit expressions for such work and show details we would setup a couple of examples of the theory. Let us deliver a very simple analysis for better understanding of the sense of the integrability notion we introduce. First of all we notice that the ”elder” coefficients, with n = N and n = N-1 are transformed almost trivially. It follows that in general the functions rather do not play the role of potentials or unknown functions for a nonlinear equation of a compatibility condition.

If N=2, the general transforms (2.3) reduces to

$$a_2[1]=a_2=a(x,t),$$

$$a_1[1]=a_1(x,t)+Da(x,t)$$

$$a_0[1]=a_0+Da_1(x,t)+2a(x,t)D\sigma +\sigma Da(x,t)$$
$`(3.1)`$
Keep in mind that we touch hear only the scalar (abelian, more precise) case. One can see that the explicit form of the transformations really shows a difference between the coefficients $`a(x,t),a_1(x,t)`$ that transform without solutions account and the $`a_0=u(x,t)`$ to be an unknown function of a forthcoming nonlinear equation that we call potential in the context of Lax (L-A-pair) representation. One may easily recognize the KdV case here. Namely when $`a=const,a_1=0`$ , $`a_0`$ plays the role of the only unknown function of the KdV equation. So we may formulate an

observation: The abelian case N = 2 is the first nontrivial example of covariant operators set with coefficients $`a_{1,2}`$ that depends only on x and additional parameter (say t) but its transforms contain the only functions $`a_{1,2}`$, hence, to be called trivial. The transformation (DT) for u is given by the last equation of (3.1) and depends on both $`a_{1,2}`$ and solutions of the equation (2.2) via $`\sigma `$.

By the next order example we would show more details especially when pairs of operators are analysed simultaneously. Especially it is important when both operators are functions of the only potential. Let us take N = 3.

$$b_3[1]=b_3,$$

$$b_2[1]=b_2+Db_3^{}$$

$$b_1[1]=b_1+Db_2+3b_3D\sigma +\sigma Db_3$$

$$b_0[1]=b_0+Db_1+\sigma Db_2+(\sigma ^2+(2D\sigma ))Db_3+3b_3(\sigma D\sigma +D^2\sigma )$$
$`(3.2)`$
Consider (3.1) and (3.2) as coefficients of a Lax pair operators both depending on the only variable u simultaneously and suppose the coefficients of the operator are analytical functions of u and its derivatives with respect to x. Now we change $`ty`$ and $`LL_1`$ in the equation (2.2) corresponding to the case (3.1) and left the parameter t ($`LL_2`$) for the case (2.5), forming a Lax pair

$$\psi _y=L_1\psi .$$
$`(3.3)`$
$$\psi _t=L_2\psi .$$
$`(3.4)`$
To produce the KdV case generalization we go to a stationary in y solution of (3.3).

$$\varphi _y=\lambda \varphi ,$$

where $`\lambda `$ is a constant.

Let us also recall the KdV case. Then the stationary version of (2.4) for N = 2 is

$$\underset{0}{\overset{2}{}}a_nB_n=c,$$

that reads as

$$\sigma ^2+\sigma ^{}+u=c=const.$$
$`(3.5)`$
Note that the equation (2.5) for N = 3 is still valid for this $`\sigma =\varphi _x\varphi ^1`$, if $`\varphi `$ is a solution to the Lax pair system (3.3,3.4). If in the equations of (3.2) we restrict ourselves by the case of $`b_2=0`$ and $`b_3=b=const`$, we arrive at the second equation of the KdV Lax pair.

Next, returning to the general case and taking into account the triviality of $`b_3=b(x,t)`$ and $`b_2`$ in the above-mentioned sense, the first non-trivial potential is

$$b_1=F(u,u^{},\mathrm{}).$$
$`(3.6)`$
Suppose further that the covariance principle is valid, or, in shorten arguments notations, we address to an equation for this function F.

$$b_1[1]=F(u[1])=F(u+Da_1+2aD\sigma +\sigma Da)=F(u)+Db_2+3bD\sigma +\sigma Db.$$
$`(3.7)`$
Analyticity of F gives a possibility to use Taylor series expansion in the left side of (3.7)

$$F(u[1])=F(u)+F_u(2aD\sigma +Da_1+\sigma Da)+F_{Du}(\mathrm{})+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(3.8)`$
In fact we compare the transform (3.7) with the Frechet differential (3.8) of the F. The equation holds identically if the coefficients by the $`\sigma ,D\sigma `$ and the free term are the same. Introducing $`F_u=c(x,t)`$ yields

$$2ac=3b,$$
$`(3.9)`$
or

$$F(u)=\frac{3bu}{2a}.$$
$`(3.10)`$
with additional conditions

$$cDa_1=Db;$$
$`(3.11)`$
$$cDa=Db$$
$`(3.12)`$
Plugging c from (3.9) into (3.12), one go either to $`3D(lna)=2D(lnb)`$ and, integrating, obtains

$$b=a^{3/2}c_1(t),$$
$`(3.13)`$
or to $`Da=Db=0`$. In the last case (3.12) is valid with arbitrary c, or independent b(t) and a(t). While (3.11) yields the equation for $`a_1`$ for both cases

$$3Da_1==2aDb/3b$$
$`(3.14)`$
with arbitrary $`c_1(t)`$.

Next conditions follow from the last equation of the system (3.2), i.e., if one introduces next analytical function G and denote

$$b_0=G(u,u^{},\mathrm{}),$$
$`(3.15)`$
the transformed $`b_0`$ gives

$$G(u+Da_1+2aD\sigma +\sigma Da)=G(u)+G_u(Da_1+2aD\sigma +\sigma Da)+G_{Du}D(Da_1+2aD\sigma +\sigma Da)+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(3.16)`$
The DT transformation formula for the potential u is obviously used. The DT for the last coefficient $`b_0`$, see (3.2), yields

$$b_0[1]=G(u)+Db_1+\sigma Db_2+(\sigma ^2+2(D\sigma ))Db+3bD(\sigma ^2/2+D\sigma ).$$
$`(3.17)`$
We should account now the general version of the Miura transformation (3.5) that has the form

$$\underset{0}{\overset{2}{}}a_nB_n=u+a_1\sigma +a(\sigma ^2+D\sigma )=\mu ,$$

by which we would express the $`\sigma ^2`$ in (3.17). Doing this and equalizing the expressions (3.16) and (3.17) yields

$$D\frac{3bu}{2a}+\sigma Db_2+((\mu ua_1\sigma )/a+(D\sigma ))Db+3bD[(\mu ua_1\sigma )/2a+(D\sigma )]=$$

$$G_u(Da_1+2aD\sigma +\sigma Da+G_{Du}D(Da_1+2aD\sigma +\sigma Da)$$
$`(3.18)`$
The equation (3.18) gives for the coefficients: by $`D^2\sigma `$

$$G_(Du)2a=3b,$$
$`(3.19)`$
by $`D\sigma `$, taking (3.19) into account

$$G_u2a+9b(Da)/2a=Db3ba_1/2a,$$
$`(3.20)`$
by $`\sigma `$

$$G_uDa+\frac{3b}{2a}D^2a(x,t)=Db_2a_1/a3bD(a_1/2a),$$
$`(3.21)`$
and the free term is

$$D\frac{3bu}{2a}+((\mu u)/a)Db+3bD[(\mu u)/2a]=G_uDa_1+3b(D^2a_1)/2a.$$
$`(3.22)`$
From (3.19) and (3.20) we express $`G_u`$:

$$G_u=Db/2a3ba_1/4a^29b(Da)/4a^2.$$
$`(3.23)`$
If $`G_u`$ is nonzero, from (3.21) follows

$$(Db/2a3ba_1/4a^29b(Da)/4a^2)Da+\frac{3b}{2a}D^2a=Db_2a_1/a3bD(a_1/2a)$$

The free term (3.22) gives

$$u\frac{Db}{2a}+\mu (Db/a\frac{3bDa}{2a^2}=(\frac{Db}{2a}\frac{3ba_1}{4a^2}\frac{9bDa}{4a^2})Da_1(x,t)+3b(D^2a_1)/2a.$$
$`(3.24)`$
When u is linear independent from $`\sigma `$ and derivatives, and we do not account higher terms in thr Frechet differential, the only choice $`Db=0`$ kills the term with u, and (3.24) simplifies

$$D^2a_1a_1(Da_1)/2a=0.$$

The condition Da=0 as the corollary of (3.12) is taken into account. The equation (3.21) also simplifies

$$Db_2a_1/a3b(Da_1)/2a=0$$

and integration gives the expression for $`b_2`$.

Another possibility is $`G_u=0`$. It gives $`9b(Da)/2a=Db3ba_1/2a`$ instead of (3.23). The free term transforms as

$$u\frac{Db}{2a}+\mu (Db/a3bDa/2a^2)=+3b(D^2a_1)/2a.$$
$`(3.25)`$
and by the same reasons gives the conditions $`Db=Da=0`$. It further means $`a_1=0`$ and, finally, from (3.21),

$$Db_2=0.$$

Hence this case contain KdV equation with the possible $`a(t),b(t),b_2(t)`$.

Remark 1. The results for one isolated equation (3.3) contain rather wide class of coefficients (in a comparison with the joint covariance of (3.3) and (3.4). Namely, the $`a,a_1`$ are arbitrary functions of x,t. It may be useful for construction of potentials and solutions (e.g. - special functions) for the linear Schrödinger and evolution equations of the one-dimentional quantum mechanics . The KdV case may be described separately (denote further Df = f’):

$$G_u\sigma ^{}+G_u^{}\sigma ^{\prime \prime }=3b(1a)u^{}/4a^2+3b\sigma ^{\prime \prime }/4a$$

The only choice is possible, if we consider $`\sigma ,\sigma ^{},u^{}`$ as independent variables

$$G_u=0,$$

$$G_u^{}=3b/4a$$

or, taking into account the condition of zero coefficient by $`u^{}`$, $`a=1`$, one arrives at

$$G(u,u^{},\mathrm{})=3bu^{}/4.$$

The result leads directly to one of equivalent Lax pairs for the KdV equation.

Now we would consider the next natural example with interchanged equations defining a spectral problem and evolution. Hence we should start from the equation (3.3) for the third order spectral operator, using (3.4) as evolution with N=2.

We would restrict ourselves by the case of $`b_2=0`$ and the autonomous $`b_3=1`$ , $`b_1=const=b`$, $`b_0=u`$. The DT yields

$$b_1[1]=b_1+3b\sigma ^{}$$
$`(3.26)`$
$$b_0[1]=b_0+b_1^{}+3b(\sigma _x\sigma +\sigma _{xx}).$$
$`(3.27)`$
As it was shown by analysis of the third order operator, see (3.21-25), the covariant spectral problem has the form

$$\psi _{xxx}+b\psi _x+G\psi =\lambda \psi $$
$`(3.28)`$
The second (evolution) equation of the case is :

$$\psi _t=\psi _{xx}w\psi $$
$`(3.29)`$
If one consider (3.3)( specified in (3.26) and (3.27)) or (3.28,29) as the Lax pair equations both with coefficients depending on the only variable w. Suppose again that the coefficients of the operators are analytical functions of w and its derivatives (or integrals) with respect to x. If one wants to save the form of the standard DT for the variable w (potential) the analysis just similar to the previous example give for the constant $`\alpha `$

$$b=3w/2+\alpha .$$
$`(3.30)`$
Compare with the formula (3.25), or $`w[1]=w+2\sigma _x`$. Then the transformation for the potential w follows from the last equation of the system (3.27), i.e.,

$$G[1]=G+3w_x/2+3(\sigma ^2/2+\sigma _x)_x.$$
$`(3.31)`$
we see that further analysis is necessary due to the possible constraint (reduction) existence. Then, again similar to the previous case of KdV the covariant equations (3.27,28) are accompanied by the following (Burgers) equation.

$$\sigma _t=(\sigma ^2+\sigma _x)_xw_x$$
$`(3.32)`$
for the problem (3.28) and

$$\sigma ^3+3\sigma _x\sigma +\sigma _{xx}+b\sigma +u=const,$$
$`(3.33)`$
see (2.5), compare with (3.5) that was Riccati equation (stationary version) for the second order spectral problem corresponding to KdV. If one would use the equation (3.32) in (3.31), the time-derivative of w appear. Moreover, the further analysis shows that the case we study need to widen the functional dependence in u, namely we should include not only derivatives of w with respect to x, but integrals (inverse derivatives) as arguments of the potential. So, for the equation (3.28) let us introduce next analytical function G and denote

$$G=G(^1w,w,w_x,\mathrm{}^1w_t,w_t,w_{tx},\mathrm{}),$$
$`(3.34)`$
the first terms of Taylor series for (3.34) read

$$G(w+2\sigma _x)=G(w)+G_{w_x}2\sigma _{xx}+G_{^1w_t}2\sigma _t+\mathrm{},$$
$`(3.35)`$
where we show only terms of further importance. The DT transform (24) after substitution of (3.31) gives

$$G(w)+3w_x/2+3(\sigma _tw_x)/2+3\sigma _{xx}/2.$$
$`(3.36)`$
Equalizing (3.36) and (3.35) one obtains

$$G_{w_x}=3/4;G_{^1w_t}=3/4,$$

That leads to the exact form of the Lax pair for the Boussinesq equation from  for the choice of $`\alpha =3/4`$.

Remark 2. As one could see we cut the Frechet differential formulas on the level that is necessary for the minimal flows. The account of higher terms lead to higher flows (higher KdV, for example).

Remark 3 In the second example we obviously restrict the description by the autonomous case within the special choice of DT and do not consider the class of gauge equivalent equations. The general case with account of higher derivatives will be presented elsewere in forthcoming publications.

We would finish with the

Theorem. The Darboux covariant Lax pair (3.3,4) with the stationary equation (3.3) where the operator $`L_1`$ is given by (3.1) has the following coefficients:

$$a_2=a(t),$$

$$a_1=a_1(x,t),$$

is a solution of the equation $`Da_1a_1^2/4a=c_2(t)`$ with arbitrary $`c_2`$,

$$a_0=u.$$

The evolution (3.4), which form is presented by (3.2), contains

$$b_3=b(t),$$

$$b_2=a_1𝑑x/a+3ba_1/2a,$$

$$b_1=3b/2a,$$

$$b_0=3ba_1u/4a^2+3b(Du)/2a.$$

The pair produce the generalization of the KdV equation

$$L_{1t}=[L_1,L_2]$$

that is solved by standard DT.

## 4  Binary Bell polynomials under Darboux transformation

The binary Bell polynomials (BBP) Y that we are going to use are defined in terms of the exponential differential polynomials:

$$Y_{mx,nt}(f)e^f_x^m_t^ne^f$$
$`(4.1)`$
by means of the link between $`𝒴`$-polynomials and the standard Hirota expressions :

$$D_x^pD_t^qG^{}G\left(_x_x^{}\right)^p\left(_t_t^{}\right)^qG^{}(x,t)G(x^{},t^{})|_{x^{}=x,t^{}=t}.$$
$`(4.2)`$
The connection is given by the identity:

$$𝒴_{mx,nt}(v,w)\mathrm{exp}[\frac{vw}{2}]\mathrm{exp}[\frac{vw}{2}]D_x^mD_t^n\mathrm{exp}[\frac{v+w}{2}]\mathrm{exp}[\frac{wv}{2}]$$
$`(4.3)`$
They inherit the easily recognizable partitional structure of the Bell polynomials (BP):

$$𝒴_x(v)=v_x,𝒴_{2x}(v,w)=w_{2x}+v_x^2,𝒴_{x,t}(v,w)=w_{xt}+v_xv_t,$$

$$𝒴_{3x}(v,w)=v_{3x}+3v_xw_{2x}+v_x^3,\mathrm{}$$
$`(4.4)`$
The expression of the BBP contains the structure we studied in previous sections. Therefore the covariance of the expressions can be examined in similar way. To check the conjecture about covariance of a BBP one should confirm the coincidence of the expressions of such polynomial generated by (4.3) and transformations of functions (2.3) . Let, as the simplest example, consider the second order polynomial from the point of view of preceding analysis reproducing the addition formula from . We get

$$𝒴_{2x}(v,v+q)=P_0B_2(v)+P_{2x}B_0.$$

Here the symbols $`Y_{2x},P_{2x}(q)`$ are also defined in , and $`B_n`$ are usual BP.

$$𝒴_{2x}(v,v+q)=\psi ^1L\psi =\psi ^1(\psi _{xx}+q_{2x}\psi )$$

Thus, as it was shown in the Sec. 3, the polynomial contains D-covariant expression for the operator L (N=2) with the potential $`q_{2x}`$. It means that the spectral problem for KdV case may be expressed by means of the BBP, or

$$Y_{2x}(v,v+q)=\lambda .$$
$`(4.5)`$
This simple example shows how to find the basis in which it is convenient to make the transformations. It turns out easier than the direct test and allows to forward the business for arbitrary N.

The general expression for the BBP, transformed like (2.3)  is the addition formula

$$𝒴_{Nx}(v,v+q)=\underset{p=0}{\overset{E(N/2)}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{2p}\right)P_{2px}Y_{(N2p)x}(v)$$
$`(4.6),`$
where E(N/2) is the integer part of N/2. After the logarithmic linearization (16),

$$𝒴_{Nx}(v,v+q)=\underset{m=N2E(N/2)}{\overset{E(N/2)}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{Nm}\right)P_{(Nm)x}(q)D^m\psi =\underset{m=0}{\overset{N}{}}a_m^PD^m\psi ,$$
$`(4.7)`$
the expression now coincide by the form with the right-hand side of a Lax equation with the operator L. We see the coefficients of the DO in (4.7), which DT is determined by (2.3). The extracted coefficients are

$$a_m^P=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{Nm}\right)P_{(Nm)x}(q),$$

if $`Nm`$ is even, otherwise $`a_m^P=0`$ (for odd $`Nm`$. Or in other words, $`a_m^P`$ are nonzero only in the set of $`m\{N,N2,\mathrm{},N2E(n/2).`$ Substituting the coefficients from (4.7) with m = N - 2p into (2.3), one obtains

$$a_m^P[1]=a_m^P+\underset{j=m+1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{(Nj}\right)qP_{(Nj)x}(q)[B_{j,jm}\sigma B_{j1,j1m}]$$

$$+P_{(Nj)x}(q)^{}B_{j1,j1m}\}.$$
$`(4.8)`$
The terms in the sum of (4.8) are nonzero also if N - j = 2p is even, it is marked by the prime in the sum. The definition, convenient formulas and explicit expressions to the generalized Bell polyinomials $`B_{n,m}`$ are given in the Sec.2.

For more illustration of the technique let us take again the minimal polynomials and evaluate the r.h.s of (4.7) and (4.8). First take an even N and begin with

$$a_{N2}[1]=a_{N2}+a_N(B_{N,2}\sigma B_{N1,1})=a_{N2}+N\sigma ^{}.$$

We have taken into account that $`a_N=P_0=1`$ Compare with the addition formula

$$P_{2x}(q+2v)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2}{0}\right)P_{2x}(q)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2}{2}\right)P_{2x}(2v)=q_{2x}+2v_{2x}=q_{2x}+2\sigma ^{}.$$

We see that in the case of N = 2 the polynomial is invariant.

The example of odd polinomial N =3 yields

$$𝒴_{3x}(v,v+q)=𝒴_{3x}(v)+3q_{2x}v_x=\psi ^1(D^3+3q_{2x}D)\psi $$
$`(4.9)`$
with the known transform of the operator inside (4.9). There are two possible scopes of an incorporation of the polynomials into Lax pairs. Either it belongs to evolution equation or results in a spectral problem of third order and leads to SK or Boussinesq equations.

Let us first comment the KdV case, so the spectral problem

$$𝒴_{2x}(v,v+q)=\lambda .$$
$`(4.10)`$
introduces a potential $`q_{2x}`$ to be a dependent variable for the KdV equation. We should rewrite now the evolution equation in terms of binary Bell polynomials. Starting from (4.10) one notice that the corresponding coefficient of (4.10) are defined by the equation (4.10):

$$a_3^P=1,a_1^P=3q_{2x}^{(3)},$$

$$a_2^P=a_0^P=0.$$

The transforms of them is determined by (4.9) or one may also use the explicit expressions from (4.5). We should write, for example,

$$3a_1^P[1]=3a_1^P+3\sigma ^{}.$$

It follows that the potential (dependent variable) should be choosen as

$$q_{xx}^{(3)}=q_{xx}/2$$
$`(4.11)`$
to fit the transformation law for $`q_{xx}`$. If one examine the transformation of the coefficients of the general operator (e.g.(4.6)), one notices that the ”youngest” coefficient $`b_0`$ is changed by necessity. The addition depends on a potential and $`\sigma `$. So the zero value of $`a_0^P`$ could not be generally preserved. We arrive to the

observation: the isolated $`𝒴_{3x}`$ is not generally covariant.

Therefore there is a stright necessity to incorporate different polynomials to support the covariance. So we take the combination

$$c_3𝒴_{3x}(v,v+q^{(3)})+c_2𝒴_{2x}(v,v+q^{(2)})+c_1𝒴_{1x}$$
$`(4.12)`$
with different potentials $`q_i`$. If we restrict our choice by the unique potential that enter the spectral problem (4.5) and note that the choice of $`q^{(3)}=q/2`$ is fixed by (4.11), we get the link of $`q^{()}`$ and $`q`$ from (4.5) that gives

$$q^{(2)}=q+3c_3q_x/(4c_2)$$
$`(4.13)`$
it means that constants $`c_i`$ are arbitrary and influence only the form of the Lax pair and the compatibility condition.

Proposition. The combination (4.12) by the condition (4.13) is covariant with respect to DT. If $`c_2=c_3=1`$, the compatibility condition of (4.5) - (4.12) is equivalent to the equation

$$u_t=3uu_x/2+u_{xxx}/4$$

that is nothing but one of KdV forms.

Many of other integrable equations may be incorporated into the scheme to be developped.

## 5 The example of nonabelian Zakharov-Shabat problem

Here we outline the general scheme of the dressing chain derivation in the nonabelian case. Let us start from the evolution

$$a_0\mathrm{\Psi }+a_1D\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_t$$
$`(5.1)`$
that contain the simplest form of the polynomial L(D)-operator. The case is the nontrivial example of a general equation (2.3) with non-abelian entries. We would respect $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ or other (necessary for DT construction) solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as operators. The equation enter to the Lax pair of integrable nonlinear equations ( e.g. - Davey-Stewartson) while its stationary versions produce Nonlinear Schrödinger case. It is also interesting by itself: quantum one-dimensional Pauli or Dirac equations after multiplication by the appropriate matrix takes the form of the equation (5.1).

The potential $`a_0`$ may be expressed in the terms of $`\sigma `$ from the stationary version of the equation (2.4,5), when $`\sigma _t=0,`$. Namely, introducing the iteration index i, we have the link

$$Da_0^i+[a_0^i,\sigma _i]=Da_1[a_1,\sigma _i]\sigma _i.$$
$`(5.2)`$
the connection is linear, but contains the commutator. Let us denote $`ad_\sigma x=[\sigma ,x]`$. Then

$$a_0^i=(Dad_{\sigma _i})^1\{Da_1[a_1,\sigma _i]\sigma _i.\}$$
$`(5.3)`$
The existence of the inverse operator in (5.3) need some restriction for the expression in {,} brackets, the expression should not belong to the kernel of the operator $`D+ad_{s_i}`$. In the subspace, where the Lie product is zero, the equation (5.2) simplifies. The DT is also simple.

$$a_0^{i+1}=a_0^i+[a_1,\sigma _i]$$
$`(5.4)`$
Note that $`a_1`$ is not transformed due to the general formulas (2.3). Substituting the link (5.3) for i,i+1 into (5.4) one arrives to the chain equations. One also could express matrix elements of $`a_0`$ in terms of the elements of the matrix $`\sigma `$ and plug into the Darboux transform (5.4) separately.

Let us give more details of the construction in the stationary case. Let us denote $`a_0=u`$, $`a_1=J`$, choosing the case $`DJ=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Phi }`$ correspond $`\lambda ,\mu `$. Note that there are two possibilities for stationary equations from nonabelian (5.1): either

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_t=\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }$$

or

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_t=\mathrm{\Psi }\lambda $$
$`(5.5)`$
and the first of them leads to the essentially trivial connection between solutions and potentials from the point of view of DT theory . Namely, if

$$J\mathrm{\Phi }_x+u\mathrm{\Phi }=\mu \mathrm{\Phi },$$

then

$$\sigma =\mathrm{\Phi }_x\mathrm{\Phi }^1=J^1(\mu u)$$
$`(5.6)`$
and DT do not contains eigen functions. It means, for example, that starting from constant potential one never obtain x-dependent u by iterations.

In the second case one writes

$$\sigma =\mathrm{\Phi }_x\mathrm{\Phi }^1=J^1(\mathrm{\Phi }\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^1u)$$

and DT takes the following form

$$u^{i+1}=u^iJ^1[s^i,J]+J^1[u^i,J]=J^1u^iJJ^1[s^i,J],$$
$`(5.7)`$
where it is denoted $`s=\mathrm{\Phi }\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^1`$, here and further iteration number indices omitted. The potentials $`u^i`$ may be excluded from the equation (2.4) for this case

$$\sigma _t=Dr+[r,\sigma ],$$

with

$$r=J\sigma +u=s$$
$`(5.8)`$
. The stationary case, after the plugging $`u^i`$ from (5.8) and returning indices, gives

$$s^{i+1}=s^i+J\sigma ^{i+1}\sigma ^iJ$$
$`(5.9)`$
and the link of s with a $`\sigma `$ is very simple

$$Ds^i+[s^i,\sigma ^i]$$
$`(5.10)`$
The formal transformation that leads to the chain equations is similar to the (5.3), namely, after substitution

$$\sigma ^i=ad_{s_i}^1Ds^i$$

into the equation (5.9).

Further progress in the development of this programme is connected with the choice of the additional algebraic structure over the field we consider. It can be useful for the concrete representation of solutions of the equation (5.10). For example, if the elements $`s^i,\sigma ^i`$ belong to a Lie algebra with structure constants $`C_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$, then, after the choice of the basis $`e_\alpha `$ one introduces the expansions

$$s^i=\xi _\alpha ^ie_\alpha $$

and

$$\sigma ^i=\eta _\alpha ^ie_\alpha .$$

Plugging into (5.10) gives the differential equation

$$D\xi _\alpha ^i+C_{\gamma \beta }^\alpha \xi _\gamma ^i\eta _\beta ^i=0.$$

If one defines the matrix

$$B_{\beta \alpha }=C_{\gamma \beta }^\alpha \xi _\gamma ^i,$$
$`(5.11)`$
then, outside of the kernel of B

$$\eta _\beta ^i=B_{\beta \alpha }^1\xi _\alpha ^i.$$

By the definition of the Cartan subalgebra C the correspondent subspace does not contribute in the Lie product of (5.10).

Statement. If, further, J belongs to a module over the Lie algebra, $`Je_\alpha =J_{\beta \alpha }e_\beta `$ and there exist an external involutive automorphism such that $`e_\alpha ^+=e_\alpha ,`$ $`C_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma =C_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$, $`e_\alpha J=J_{\alpha \beta }e_\beta `$. Then, the chain equation for the variables $`\xi _\alpha ^i`$ takes the form

$$\xi _\alpha ^{i+1}=\xi _\alpha ^iB_{\beta \gamma }^1\xi _\gamma ^{i+1}J_{\beta \alpha }+J_{\alpha \beta }B_{\beta \gamma }^1\xi _\gamma ^i,$$

where the matrix B is defined by (5.11) and the components $`e_\alpha `$ outside of C. Otherwise

$$D\xi _\gamma ^i=0,$$

if $`e_\gamma C`$.

The system of differential equations is hence nonlinear as the matrix B depends on $`\xi _\gamma ^i.`$ The related scheme is developed in .

Remark. The scheme may be generalized for a nonstationary equation (2.5). The equation (5.2) then have the additional term $`D\sigma _t^i`$ from the r.h.s.

## 6 Covariance with respect to Binary DT and Dressing Chains

In this section, as in previous, we do not touch directly the joint covariance with respect to binary DT (bDT)and classification problem, sending the reader to the publications ,, an, especially to most general , where the nobelium functions and rational dependence on parameter are admissible. Those papers are devoted to evolution in quantum statistics: the equation of Liuville-von Neumann is considered as compatibility condition of stationary ZS problem algebraic reduction and equation that introduce a time variable.

Hence we continue to study stationary version of the ZS problem (5.1)

$$JD\mathrm{\Psi }+u\mathrm{\Psi }=z\mathrm{\Psi }$$
$`(6.1)`$
and dressing chains of bDT (see the Introduction, , compare with e.g. , the definition of which we use here). The algebraic reduction imply $`D\mathrm{\Psi }=\mu \mathrm{\Psi },D\mu =0,\mu isascalar.[`$ After the reduction we use the straight corollary of (6.1), changing the notation as in , $`JA,u\rho `$:

$$\mu A\phi +\rho \phi =z_\mu \phi ,$$
$`(6.2)`$
and the conjugate problem

$$\nu \chi A+\chi \rho =z_\nu \chi ,$$
$`(6.3)`$
Let the projector P have a representation

$$P=\phi (\chi ,\phi )_p^1\chi ,$$
$`(6.4)`$
for a given constant idempotent p . The bDT formula connects the elements (operator valued potentials - density matrix in the physical context),

$$\rho [i+1]=\rho [i]+(\mu _i\nu _i)[P_i,A]$$
$`(6.5)`$
. We would rewrite the conjugate spectral problems  in terms of P, by means of the definition (6.4)

$$(\rho \mu A)P=z_\mu P$$

$$P(\rho \nu A)=z_\nu P$$

Each equation links the ”potential” $`\rho `$ and the projector $`P`$ that plays the role of the element $`\sigma `$ of previous sections.

$$\rho P=\mu AP+z_\mu P$$

$$P\rho =\nu PA+z_\nu P.$$
$`(6.6)`$
The importance of both of them is obvious from the following corollaries

$$P(\rho \mu A)P=(\rho \mu A)P$$

$$P(\rho \nu A)P=P(\rho \nu A).$$

Let us also note that

$$(\nu \mu )PAP=(z_\mu z_\nu )P$$
$`(6.7)`$
and

$$P\rho P=\frac{\nu z_\mu \mu z_\nu }{\nu \mu }$$
$`(6.8)`$
One can check that the DT may be treated as similarity transformation

$$\rho [i+1]=\left(1+\frac{\mu _i\nu _i}{\nu _i}P_i\right)\rho [i]\left(1+\frac{\nu _i\mu _i}{\mu _i}P_i\right)$$
$`(6.9).`$
Multiplying (6.9) by $`P_{i+1}`$ from the left side and by $`P_i`$ by the right side, changing $`\rho [n+1]=\rho _n`$ one obtains:

$$P_{n+1}\rho _{n+1}P_n=P_{n+1}(1+\frac{\mu _n\nu _n}{\nu _n}P_n)\rho _nP_n(1+frac\nu _n\mu _n\nu _nP_n)$$

or, using the links (6.6) for the appropriate n,

$$P_{n+1}(\nu _{n+1}A+z_{\nu ,n+1})P_n=P_{n+1}(1+\frac{\mu _n\nu _n}{\nu _n}P_n)(\mu _nAP_n+z_{\mu ,n}P_n)(1+frac\nu _n\mu _n\nu _nP_n).$$

Simplifying, one arrives to the chain equation.

$$(\nu _{n+1}\nu _n)P_{n+1}AP_n+(z_{\nu ,n+1}z_{\nu ,n})P_{n+1}P_n=0.$$
$`(6.10)`$
or, similarly, after the right multiplication by $`P_{n+1}`$ and left one by $`P_n`$,

$$(\mu _{n+1}\mu _n)P_nAP_{n+1}+(z_{\mu ,n+1}z_{\mu ,n})P_nP_{n+1}=0.$$
$`(6.11)`$
These equations are recurrences and define the solution via parameters. The dependence of the parameters on the additional variable t is introduced by the ”master” equation (see ):

$$ıP_t=(APPAP)/\mu (PAPAP)/\nu .$$
$`(6.12)`$
The ”minimal” closure $`P_{n+1}=\lambda P_n=P_n\lambda `$, is possible only if $`\lambda =1`$ for the $`P_n`$ is a projector. In this case

$$P_{n+1}=P_n=P,z_{\nu ,n+1}=z_{\nu ,n}=z_\nu $$

So the equations (6.10,11) are valid authomatically.Other simple closure

$$P_{n+1}=a_nP_n+b_n$$

with $`a_n,b_nK`$ leads to $`P_{n+1}=P_n(1(1)^n/2.`$

Next possibility is when some element A do not commute with $`P_n`$. For example

$$P_{n+1}=P_nA,z_{\mu ,n+1}=\lambda _nz_\mu $$

that for (6.11) leads to

$$(\lambda _n1)z_{\mu ,n}S_n^2=(\mu _n\nu _n)S_n$$

where, $`S_n=P_nA,`$ is proportional to some projector, or, by recurrence, it means

$$P_n=p_0(t)A^n$$

where the function $`p_0(t)`$ is defined from (6.12).

Finally, we arrive to a conjecture:

The chain equations (6.11,12) may help to construct particular solutions of the compatibility condition for the Lax pair (see ) if each $`P_n`$ is a solution of the equation (6.13).

## 7 Conclusion

We conclude that our approach

a) give a connection between a class of a bilinearizable NLPDE, and its Lax form. The class is formed by a certain combination of binary Bell polynomials that satisfy the covariance principle.

b) produce automatically a technique of integration of the equations that belong to this class. The underlying Darboux covariance of the both linear operators permits to generate a rich set of solutions. Between them are multisolitons, positons, periodic and rational solutions with abundant combinations that introduce their interaction.\[

We add that a platform for a nonabelian generalization is prepared. The joint covariance principle application presumably cover the items of classification that appears inside most of symmetry approaches , and contain the direct link to solutions via dressing chains - iterations of DT.

Mention also the generalization of the theory of small deformations of iterated transforms  with respect to intermediate parameters that appear within the iteration procedure of bDT . Infinitesimal invariance generated by extended Backlund transformation was considered in  . The perturbation formulas allow to define and investigate generators of the corresponding group, that is a symmetry group of a given hierarchy associated with the ZS problem under consideration.

We continue to develop the dressing method for linear and soliton problems. The procedure of dressing includes both solutions and potentials of underlying linear system. The other reductions and generalizations may be introduced if in the ring there exist an involutive automorphism.

There are abundant possibilities for generalizations based on recent results of V.B. Matveev , where the DT transformation operations is defined via some automorphism at rings.

Acknowledgments

99


text:
# Nonadiabatic conditional geometric phase shift with NMR

## Abstract

A conditional geometric phase shift gate, which is fault tolerant to certain types of errors due to its geometric nature, was realized recently via nuclear magnetic resonance(NMR) under adiabatic conditions. By the adiabatic requirement, the result is inexact unless the Hamiltonian changes extremely slowly. However, in quantum computation, everything must be completed within the decoherence time. High running speed of every gate in quantum computation is demanded because the power of a quantum computer can be exponentially proportional to the maximum number of logic gate operations that can be made sequentially within the decoherence time. The adiabatic condition makes any fast conditional Berry phase(cyclic adiabatic geometric phase) shift gate impossible. Here we show that by using a newly designed sequence of simple operations with an additional vertical magnetic field, the conditional geometric phase shift gate can be run nonadiabatically. Therefore geometric quantum computation can be done at the same rate as usual quantum computation.

A fault-tolerant quantum logic gate is the central issue in realizing the basic constituents of a quantum information processor. Quantum computation via the controlled geometric phase shift provides a nice scenario to this purpose. Due to its geometric property, a geometric phase shift can be robust with respect to certain types of operational errors. In particular, suppose that the spin(qubit) undergoes a random fluctuation about its path in the evolution. Then the final value of the geometric phase shift will not be affected provided that the random fluctuation does not change the total area.

Recently, it was reported that the conditional Berry phase( adiabatic cyclic geometric phase) shift can be used in quantum computation. In particular, in ref, an experiment was done with NMR under the adiabatic condition.

Demanding on both running speed and precision of every gate in a quantum computer is quite high. It has been reported recently that, due to the requirement of adiabatic condition, faster running speed causes severe distortions to the results. The adiabatic condition makes the fast speed and high precision conflict each other in the conditional Berry phase shift gate. Increasing the running speed of the logic gate can exponentially increase the power of a quantum computation such as quantum factorization. It seems that the geometric phase shift gate will only be practical if it can run at a speed comparable to that of the usual quantum gate. Therefore one is tempted to find an easy way to make the conditional geometrical phase shift through nonadiabatic state evolution. In this letter, we present an easy scheme to make the geometric phase shift $`non`$adiabatically with NMR. We start from the exact control of the state evolution on a cone.
Exact state evolution on the cone. It is well known that a spin half nucleus can gain a geometric phase shift in the conical evolution. We now assume that the initial spin state is on the cone and we will demonstrate a method to make it evolve nonadiabatically. The Hamiltonian for a spin in a constantly rotating magnetic field We shall extend it to the case of arbitrary time-dependent rotating speed in the end of this section. is

$`H(t)=\left[\omega _0\sigma _z+\omega _1\sigma _x(t)\right]/2.`$ (1)
Here $`\sigma _x(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i\gamma t}\\ e^{i\gamma t}& 0\end{array}\right)`$, $`\omega _0`$ is the amplitude of vertical field and $`\omega _1`$ is the amplitude of the horizontal field, which is rotating around $`z`$axis in the constant angular speed $`\gamma `$. The initial state $`|\psi _0`$ is an eigenstate of $`H_0=H(0)`$. Explicitly, $`|\psi _0=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}|+\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}|`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\omega _0/\sqrt{\omega _0^2+\omega _1^2}`$. To know the cause of the state distortion, we study the time evolution first.(The similar idea has been used for the adiabatic rotational splitting with NQR previously.) The time evolution operator $`U`$ generated by the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ is determined by the time-dependent Schrodinger equation

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}U_0=H(t)U_0.`$ (2)
Solving this equation we obtain

$`U_0(t)=e^{i\gamma \sigma _zt}e^{i(H_0\gamma \sigma _z/2)t}.`$ (3)
In particular, at time $`t=\tau =2\pi /\gamma `$, when the external field completes a $`2\pi `$ rotation, the state is evolved to

$`\psi (\tau )=e^{i\pi i(H_0\gamma \sigma _z/2)\tau }|\psi _0.`$ (4)
The adiabatic approximation assumes that at time $`\tau `$, the state completes a cyclic evolution provided that $`\gamma `$ is small. However, due to the decoherence time limitation, $`\gamma `$ cannot be too small. The non-zero $`\gamma `$ distorts the state in the evolution and makes it noncyclic at time $`\tau `$ . This non-zero $`\gamma `$ in the adiabatic approximation causes two types of errors. One is that the noncyclic completion of the evolution at time $`\tau `$ will cause further errors in the succeeding operations in the sequence. (A sequence of operations is used to remove the dynamic phase in realizing the geometric quantum gate.) The other is that the geometric phase acquired over period $`\tau `$ is not $`\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, as for the ideal adiabatic cyclic evolution.

Now we give an easy way to exactly control the state evolution on the cone. Here the external field can be rotated around $`z`$axis arbitrarily fast. We use $`|\psi _0`$, the eigenstate of $`H_0`$ for the initial state. We switch on a static vertical magnetic field $`\omega _z=\gamma `$ while the external field is rotated around $`z`$axis. In this way, the new time-dependent Hamiltonian is $`H_W(t)=\frac{1}{2}\left[(\omega _0+\gamma )\sigma _z+\omega _1\sigma _x(t)\right]`$. The time evolution operator $`U_W(t)`$ generated by this Hamiltonian satisfies the Schrodinger equation

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}U_W(t)=H_W(t)U_W(t)`$ (5)
with the boundary condition $`U_W(0)=1`$. The state at time $`t`$ is related to the state at time $`0`$ by $`|\psi (t)=U_W(t)|\psi _0`$, $`\psi _0=\psi (0)`$. Denoting $`R=e^{i\gamma t\sigma _z/2}`$ we obtain the following equivalent equation

$`i(RU_W)/t=H_0(RU_W).`$ (6)
Noting that $`H_0`$ is time-independent therefore we have $`RU_W(t)=e^{iH_0t}`$. This is equivalent to

$`U_W(t)=e^{i\gamma t\sigma _z/2}e^{iH_0t}.`$ (7)
Consequently, at any time $`t`$, state $`|\psi (t)=e^{i\lambda t}e^{i\gamma t\sigma _z/2}|\psi _0`$ is exactly the instantaneous eigenstate of Hamiltonian $`H(t)`$, where $`\lambda `$ is the eigenvalue of $`H_0`$ for eigenstate $`|\psi _0`$. In particular, at time $`\tau `$, $`|\psi (\tau )=e^{i\pi i\lambda \tau }|\psi _0`$. It only differs to $`|\psi _0`$ by a phase factor. Note that the time evolution operator $`U_W(t)`$ here is generated by the Hamiltonian $`H_W(t)`$ instead of $`H(t)`$.

Here the additional vertical field $`\gamma `$ plays an important role. Without this field, the time evolution operator generated by $`H(t)`$ is

$`U(t)=e^{i\gamma t\sigma _z/2}e^{iH_1t}`$ (8)
and $`H_1=H_0\gamma \sigma _z/2`$. Obviously, this time evolution operator $`U(t)`$ will distort a qubit with the initial state $`|\psi _0`$ in the evolution. But this $`U(t)`$ can exactly control the qubit with the initial state $`|\psi _1`$, the eigenstate of $`H_1`$. If initially we set the spin state to $`|\psi _1`$, then the spin will evolve exactly on its cone without the additional field $`\gamma `$. So, we have two ways to control the spin evolution exactly. We can use the additional field $`\gamma `$, if the initial state is set to be $`|\psi _0`$. Alternatively, we can also set the initial state to be $`|\psi _1`$ and then we need not add any additional field when the external field is rotated. In this letter, we adopt the former one, i.e. we set the initial spin state to $`|\psi _0`$. §§§Our main motivation is to give the nonadiabatic quantum gate in the most general case, i.e., we shall allow the time-dependent rotation of horizontal field $`\omega _1`$. For this purpose, only the method using additional vertical field will work.

We have assumed above that the field rotates at a constant speed. Actually, we can easily modify the above scheme for arbitrary time-dependent rotating speed $`\gamma _a(t)`$, $`_0^\tau \gamma _a(t)𝑑t=2\pi `$. In this case, we need only change the term $`\gamma t`$ in $`H_W(t)`$, $`U_W(t)`$, $`R`$ and $`\psi (t)`$ into $`_0^t\gamma _a(t^{})𝑑t^{}`$ accordingly. Consequently, the the additional vertical field is now a time-dependent field $`\omega _z(t)=\gamma _a(t)`$ instead of a static field. This extension is important in case it is difficult to rotate the field (or the fictitious field) in a constant angular speed. Punctual results can be obtained here through the exact feedback system where the value of additional vertical field is always instantaneously equal to the angular velocity of the rotating field.

Thus we see, by adding an additional magnetic field that is equal to the rotating frequency of the external field, we do get the exact result. Obviously if we rotate the field inversely, additional vertical field should be in the inverse direction($`z`$) accordingly.

NMR system and the rotational framework. Consider the interacting nucleus spin pair(spin $`a`$ and spin $`b`$) in the NMR quantum computation. If there is no horizontal field the Hamiltonian for the two qubit system is $`H_i=\frac{1}{2}(\omega _a\sigma _{za}+\omega _b\sigma _{zb}+J\sigma _{za}\sigma _{zb})`$, where $`\omega _a(\omega _b)`$ is the resonance frequency for spin $`a(b)`$ in a very strong static magnetic field(e.g. $`\omega _a`$ can be $`500`$MHz) , $`J`$ is the interacting constant between nuclei and $`\sigma _{za}=\sigma _{zb}=\sigma _z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$. After adding a circularly polarized RF field in horizontal plane, the Hamiltonian for spin $`a`$ in static framework is

$`H^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _0\sigma _z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _a^{}\sigma _z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _1\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i\omega _a^{}t}\\ e^{i\omega _a^{}t}& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (11)
Here $`\omega _a^{}`$ and $`\omega _1`$ are the angular frequency and amplitude of the RF field respectively, $`\omega _0=\omega _a\omega _a^{}\pm J`$ and the $`\mathrm{"}\pm \mathrm{"}`$ sign in front of $`J`$ is dependent on the specific state of spin $`b`$, up or down respectively. To selectively manipulate spin $`a`$, we shall use the rotational framework that is rotating around $`z`$axis in speed $`\omega _a^{}`$. We assume $`\omega _a^{}`$ close to $`\omega _a`$ but obviously different from $`\omega _b`$. The Hamiltonian for spin $`a`$ in the rotational framework is

$`H_a=R^{}H^{}R^1+i(R^{}/t)R^1=H_0`$ (12)
and $`R^{}=e^{i\omega _a^{}\sigma _zt/2}`$. Note here $`H_0`$ is dependent on state of spin $`b`$ through $`\omega _0`$. In the rotational framework, if the horizontal field is rotated in the angular speed $`\gamma `$, the Hamiltonian for spin $`a`$ is just $`H(t)`$, as defined in eq(1). In the NMR system, we require $`|\psi _0`$ to be the eigenstate of $`H_0`$ in rotational the framework. Previously, state $`|\psi _0`$ for spin $`a`$ was produced adiabatically. In the following we demonstrate how to nonadiabatically produce the state $`|\psi _0`$.
Creating the conditional initial state with NMR. In rotating the state around $`z`$axis, we have started from state $`|\psi _0`$, which is the eigenstate of $`H_0`$. State $`|\psi _0`$ must be created from the spin state $`|`$ or $`|`$. We need a $`non`$adiabatic way to create state $`|\psi _0`$ for spin $`a`$. Note that we are working in the rotational framework. We denote $`\delta =\omega _a\omega _a^{}`$. We can use the following sequence of operations to create the conditional angle $`\theta `$.(For simplicity we will call the following sequence as $`S`$ operation later on.) We have $`S=`$

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right]^yJ^{}(\phi _\pm (t_c))\left[\delta t_c\right]^z\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right]^x\left[\phi ^{}\right]^y`$ (13)
Here all terms inside the $`[\mathrm{}]`$ represent the Bloch sphere rotation angles caused by RF pulses. The superscripts indicate the axis the Bloch sphere is rotated around. $`J^{}(\phi _\pm (t_c))`$ is the time evolution over period $`t_c`$ by the Hamiltonian $`\frac{1}{2}(\delta \pm J)\sigma _z`$. This evolution rotates spin $`a`$ around $`z`$axis for an angle $`\phi _\pm =(\delta \pm J)t_c`$. (Or $`\phi _\pm +\pi `$, if spin $`a`$ is down initially. For clarity we omit this case and alway assume spin $`a`$ is initially up.) After this $`S`$ operation, the angle between spin $`a`$ and the $`z`$-axis is $`\theta _\pm =\frac{\pi }{2}(\phi ^{}+\phi _\pm )`$(see Fig. 1). To ensure the state to be eigenstate of Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ after $`S`$ operation we require $`\mathrm{tan}(\phi ^{}+Jt_c)=\frac{\delta +J}{\omega _1}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}(\phi ^{}Jt_c/2)=\frac{\delta J}{\omega _1}`$ simultaneously. This is equivalent to

$`\{\begin{array}{c}Jt_c=(\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\delta +J}{\omega _1}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\delta J}{\omega _1})/2\\ \phi ^{}=(\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\delta +J}{\omega _1}+\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\delta J}{\omega _1})/2\end{array}.`$ (16)
From this constraint, given specific values of $`\delta `$, $`J`$ and $`\omega _1`$, we can easily obtain the scaled time $`Jt_c`$ (Fig. 2) and the angle $`\phi ^{}`$(Fig. 3) in controlling the $`S`$ operation. In particular, for $`\delta /J=1.058`$, the value adopted in the recent NMR experiment, the relation curves for $`Jt_c`$ vs $`\omega _1`$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ vs $`\omega _1`$ are shown in Fig. 4.
The nonadiabatic conditional geometric phase shift. After the $`S`$ operation, the state of spin $`a`$ is an eigenstate of Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ no matter whether spin $`b`$ is up or down. After this $`S`$ operation we can use the additional magnetic field to nonadiabatically control the state evolution on the cone. However, after the state completes a loop, the total phase shift includes both dynamic and geometric contribution. It is possible for the state to evolve on the dynamic phase path if we choose certain specific value of the rotating speed $`\gamma `$( and also the additional field $`\gamma `$). For this task, we require

$`\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _1^2+\omega _0^2}{\omega _0}}.`$ (17)
The negative sign in the right hand side indicates that tha additional field $`\gamma `$ is anti-parallel with the field $`\omega _0`$. By this setting, the total magnetic field in $`H_1`$ is always "perpendicular" to the state vector expressed in the Block ball. One can easily show that the instantaneous dynamical phase

$`<\psi _0|U_W^{}(t)H(t)U_W(t)|\psi _0>=0.`$ (18)
In case that $`\gamma `$ is time dependent, to remove the dynamical phase, we can use the time-dependent magnetic field $`\omega _1(t)`$ and $`\omega _0(t)`$. We require

$`\gamma (t)={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _1^2(t)+\omega _0^2(t)}{\omega _1(t)}}`$ (19)
and

$`\omega _0(t)/\omega _1(t)=\omega _0(0)/\omega _1(0)=\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ (20)
The two qubit case is a bit different from the single qubit case. Qubit $`b`$ could be either up or down. We need choose the appropriate $`\gamma `$ value so that the instantaneous dynamic phase for qubit $`a`$ is always zero no matter qubit $`b`$ is up or down. For this purpose, besides equation(17), we require

$`\omega _1=\sqrt{\delta ^2J^2}.`$ (21)
With this setting we propose the following scheme to make the $`non`$adiabatic conditional geometric phase shift.

$`S\left(\begin{array}{c}\omega _z\\ C\end{array}\right)S^1.`$ (24)
The term $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\omega _z\\ C\end{array}\right)`$ represents doing operation $`C`$ with an additional vertical field $`\gamma `$. $`C`$ represents rotating the external field around $`z`$axis for $`2\pi `$ in a uniform speed $`\gamma `$. We should choose the rotating direction so that additional field $`\gamma `$ is anti-parallel the field $`\delta \pm J`$, ($`\delta >J`$). The dynamical phase shift after the operations is $`0`$. So the scheme raised here can remove the dynamic phase and retain only the geometric phase. It can be shown that the geometric phase acquired after the total sequence of operations is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ respectively for the four different initial state ($`|,|,|,|`$), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm =\pi 2\pi \mathrm{cos}\theta _\pm ,`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pm =\frac{\delta \pm J}{\sqrt{(\delta \pm J)^2+\omega _1^2}}=\sqrt{\frac{\delta \pm J}{2\delta }}`$.

Concluding remark. To make the conditional geometric phase shift gate we need be able to control two elementary operations. One is to exactly control the cyclic state evolution on a cone; the other is to produce the initial state on the cone with an angle $`\theta _\pm `$ conditional on the other bit. Previously, these two elementary operations were done adiabatically. We have shown that both of these two tasks can be done nonadiabatically. We have designed a new scheme for the nonadiabatic conditional geometric phase shift gate. This makes it possible to run the geometric quattum gate in a speed comparable to that of the normal quantum gate. The idea on nonadiabatic geometric phase shift gate demonstrated by the NMR system here should in principle also work for the other two level systems, such as Josephson Junction system and the harmonic oscillator system, where the decoherence time can be much shorter.

Acknowledgment We thank Prof Imai Hiroshi for supporting, Dr Hachimori M., Mr Tokunaga Y and Miss Moriyama S for various helps. W.X.B thanks Prof. Ekert A(Oxford) for suggestions. W.X.B. also thanks Dr. Pan J.W.(U. Vienna), Dr Kwek LC(NIE) for discussions and Prof Oh CH(NUS) for pointing out ref.

Note added: This manuscript is a revised version of Ref. with corrections made according to Ref.. In this version, we removed all unpublished contents in the old versions therefore the new version includes only the contents published in. For an extended version with all details, one may refer to quant-ph/0108111, which was posted to the arXiv one year ago. The original scheme appeared in Ref. does not filter the dynamical phase. This was first pointed out by Tim Piller et al in August 2001. We then replaced the old multiloop scheme by a new single loop scheme with dynamical phase free path. This correction was first presented as the version 4 of this manuscript and also as quant-ph/0108111 in August 2001, and finalized in 2002.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Both of the CDF and DØ detectors, are undergoing major upgrades in Run II, which will start in March, 2001. The Tevatron will deliver approximately 2 fb-1 integrated luminosity to each experiment, a factor of 20 more than the Run I data samples. This will provide a unique opportunity for both experiments to search for the Higgs boson in the mass range of 110 to 200 GeV until new LHC data arrives. At the same time, a wide range of other physics topics will be present. Among these we expect to study various rare decays of $`B`$ mesons, search for CP violation and $`B_{d,s}`$ oscillations. In this note we discuss various aspects of Standard Model (SM) Higgs production and $`B`$ physics in Run II.

## 2 Experimental Layouts

Details of the DØ detector can be found elsewhere . Here, we briefly summarize the main features of the detector relevant for Higgs and $`B`$ physics. The heart of the DØ detector is a silicon tracking system (SMT), which consists of six barrel segments with a disks in between and three more disks located at each end of the tracker. The barrel and disks are based on 50 $`\mu m`$ pitch silicon microstrip detectors, providing spatial resolution $`10\mu m`$. At each end of this system the two large disks are placed in order to increase $`\eta _{det}`$ coverage. The SMT system is enclosed in fiber tracker (CFT). They represent a complete robust tracking system of the detector. DØ detector will allow us to have momentum resolution at the level of $`\sigma (p_T)/p_T=0.020.05`$ for low $`p_T`$ tracks with quite high tracking efficiency for charged particles at $`|\eta _{det}|<3`$. Vertex reconstruction resolution is expected to be $`1530\mu m`$ in ($`r\varphi `$) plane for primary vertices and for secondary vertices it is expected to be $`40\mu m`$ in the ($`r\varphi `$) and $`100\mu m`$ in the $`(rz)`$ planes, respectively. A major upgrade of the muon system together with central and forward scintillators will allow us to trigger charged tracks. Electron and muon identification will be possible in the central and forward regions.

The CDF detector has similar capabilities such as a new silicon and central outer trackers, plug calorimeter, muon chambers, and data acquisition system. Owing an additional silicon layer near the beam pipe, a time of flight system, they are expect to have slightly better vertex reconstruction resolution .

## 3 Higgs Production at the Tevatron

In the Standard Model, Higgs bosons are expected to be produced in gluon fusion or in conjunction with a $`W`$ or $`Z`$ boson. The expected cross sections at the Tevatron are shown in Fig. 1 .

Although the gluon fusion mode is expected to be largest contributor to Higgs boson production, it will be overwhelmed by the huge QCD background. Therefore pay most attention to the $`WH`$ and $`ZH`$ production modes. The Higgs boson will mainly decay into $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`WW`$ final states for the mass range below and above 135 GeV, as shown in Fig. 2 .

In the low mass range, $`m_H90130`$ GeV, in 90% of the cases the Higgs will decay into a $`b\overline{b}`$ pair giving a $`(q\overline{q},\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{},\mathrm{}\nu ,\nu \overline{\nu })b\overline{b}`$ final state where the leptonic decay of the $`W`$ or $`Z`$ will serve as a trigger. The high-$`p_T`$ lepton ($`e`$ or $`\mu `$) trigger is expected to use in selection of $`HW`$ mode where $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$. We assume that such a trigger will be efficient for leptons with $`p_T20`$ GeV. Also a large amount of missing transverse energy $`/E_T20`$ GeV is expected. Two $`b`$-tagged central jets are expected to survive in the “loose” and “tight” selection cuts. The main background for this mode will be $`Wb\overline{b}`$ and $`WZ`$ decays. For the $`\nu \overline{\nu }b\overline{b}`$ final state the selection criteria are based on missing transverse energy from the escaping neutrinos and two distinct $`b`$-jets. Here the main backgrounds come from $`Zb\overline{b}`$ and $`ZZ`$ events. For the $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}b\overline{b}`$ final state, the trigger threshold for final leptons could be reduced to $`p_T10`$ GeV. The invariant mass of two outgoing leptons should be consistent with $`Z`$ boson mass. Two separate $`b`$-jets are also required in this case. The main background will come from real $`Z`$’s produced in conjunction with $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs, or from $`W`$’s decaying hadronically. Finally, for the $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}`$ case, the expected background from QCD events is expected to be unreduceable. The cross sections of di-jet and four-jet events are expected to be of the order of $`𝒪(10^6)`$ and $`𝒪(10^4)`$ pb, respectively.

For the mass range, $`m_H120190`$ GeV, where the Higgs boson produced in conjunction with a vector bosons, it will mainly decay into $`W^{}W^{}`$ states 111Hereafter, the $`W^{}(Z^{})`$ denotes a $`W(Z)`$ boson of either on- or off-mass-shell. with subsequent decay $`(W,Z)W^{}W^{}\mathrm{}^\pm \nu \mathrm{}^\pm \nu jj`$. For this case selection criteria requires two leptons with $`p_T10`$ GeV having the same charge and two separate jets with $`p_T15`$ GeV and at least $`10`$ GeV $`/E_T`$. The main background in this case is $`WZjj`$ production. Also it is possible to consider tri-lepton final states produced in $`W^\pm H\mathrm{}^\pm \nu W^{}W^{}\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}\nu `$ chain. The main attraction of this case is a small background. One could find the best combination of trileptons and fit their invariant masses to be consistent with $`W^\pm W^{}W^{}`$ and $`W^\pm W^{}Z^{}`$ final states. Nevertheless we do not expect much to gain from this channel due to its small branching fraction.

In the case of gluon fusion production of the Higgs boson the four possible combinations are allowed:

$`H`$ $``$ $`W^{}W^{}\mathrm{}\nu jj\mathrm{and}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\nu \overline{\nu },`$
$`H`$ $``$ $`Z^{}Z^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj\mathrm{and}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\nu \overline{\nu }.`$
For the $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ channel we expect to have a large background from $`WW`$, $`WZ`$, $`ZZ`$, and $`t\overline{t}`$ production. It can be reduced requiring two leptons with $`p_T10`$ GeV and $`\eta _{det}`$ constrain. One could possible use a transverse and a “cluster mass” mass constrains and perform likelihood analysis, see . The rest of the two final states can be considered using proper cut for outgoing leptons and requiring two distinct jets.

Among various analyses underway in both collaborations, the most promising ones are based on a neural networks technique. Various sets of kinematic variables is used to discriminate signal from background. Among them are transverse momentum of the isolated lepton, its pseudorapidity, the missing transverse energy of the event, the invariant mass of the final $`b\overline{b}`$-pair, and the separation between the $`b`$-tagged jets, the lepton and the first $`b`$-tagged jet, and between the lepton and the second $`b`$-tagged jet. One of the important tasks is to find the best possible $`b`$-tagging efficiency and mass resolution which are expected to be at the level of 55-60% and 10%, respectively. It looks like that it will be impossible to choose a golden channel, and that success in a Higgs search will require a combination of all possible channels. The details of various techniques as well as latest results for Higgs search can be found in Ref.  and/or under web . As a result of preliminary analyses, we show in Fig. 3 the integrated luminosity delivered per experiment which would be required to either exclude the SM Higgs at the level of 95% or to make a discovery at the $`3\sigma `$ and $`5\sigma `$ levels.

The wide bands in the plot represent the calculated threshold plus uncertainties in the $`b`$-tagging efficiency, background rate, mass resolution, and other effects. As the plot shows, in order to cover the full possible spectrum of Higgs mass allowed at Tevatron energies, the total integrated luminosity should be extended up to 30 fb-1 per experiment. Even though a combination of all channels as well as the data from both experiments are needed, new approaches and robust reconstruction algorithms will also be required.

## 4 $`B`$ physics at the Tevatron

The weak decays of $`B_d`$ and $`B_s`$ mesons play crucial roles in the study of CP violation effects both within and beyond the Standard Model. The CKM  matrix elements, determined from various $`B`$ decay channels, can be represented in the Wolfenstein parameterization  as a set of four parameters $`A,\lambda ,\rho ,\eta `$. The parameters $`A`$ and $`\lambda `$ are known with good accuracy :

$$\lambda =0.2196\pm 0.0023,|V_{cb}|=(39.5\pm 1.7)\times 10^3A=\frac{|V_{cb}|^2}{\lambda ^2}=0.819\pm 0.035.$$

The $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ parameters can be extracted mostly from four processes: CP violation in the neutral kaon system, oscillations of $`B_d^0`$ and $`B_s^0`$ mesons, and charmless semileptonic $`b`$ decays. The last three of these are the subject of great interest in the Run II $`B`$ physics program.

The expected luminosity of the Tevatron, $`2\times 10^{32}`$ cm-2s-1, in Run II will lead to a huge rate of $`b\overline{b}`$ production, $`10^{11}`$ events/year. This enormous statistics will allow us to study various $`B`$ decays modes, search for CP violation and $`B_{d,s}`$ mixing. Primary interest will focus on the study of CP-violation, and related constraints on $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|`$ from $`B_s`$ mixing. Oscillations in $`B`$ system occurs because of high-order corrections, as shown in Fig. 4.

The light and mass eigenstates, $`B_L`$ and $`B_H`$, are different from the CP eigenstates $`B_q^0`$ and $`\overline{B_q^0}`$:

$$|B_L=p|B_q^0+q|\overline{B_q^0}|B_H=p|B_q^0q|\overline{B_q^0},q=d,s\mathrm{quarks}.$$

Unlike the kaon system, the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_q=m_{B_H}m_{B_L}`$ is the key feature of the physics. Many analyses of $`B_d^0\overline{B_d^0}`$ oscillations have been performed by several collaborations and their results have been combined to give : $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.472\pm 0.017\mathrm{ps}^1`$. For the case of $`B_s^0`$ mesons, due to their large mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$, the $`B_s^0`$ oscillation frequency is thought to be much higher then the well measured $`B_d^0`$ one. Existing data, mostly from CERN experiments, exclude small values of the mixing parameter $`x_s`$, $`x_s=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s^0}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_s^0}>14.0`$ at the 95% CL .

Various decay modes of $`B_s^0`$ mesons are under investigation by the DØ collaboration. Among them

$`B_s^0`$ $``$ $`D_s^{}(K^{}K^+\pi ^{})\pi ^+,(B=1.1\times 10^4),`$
$`B_s^0`$ $``$ $`D_s^{}(K^{}K^+\pi ^{})3\pi ,(B=2.8\times 10^4),`$
$`B_s^0`$ $``$ $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }K^{},(B=5.1\times 10^6),`$
$`B_s^0`$ $``$ $`D_s^{}(K^{}K^+\pi ^{})\mathrm{}^+\nu ,(B=1.1\times 10^4).`$
The final data sample will be determine by the quality of the track and secondary vertex reconstruction algorithms. Final states of $`B`$’s are expected to be fully reconstructed and tagged by the charge of the lepton and reconstructed charm meson and/or kaon. The initial state required for a $`B_s`$ mixing search can be tagged in one of two possible ways, either by applying same-side tagging or opposite-side tagging techniques. Using the good SMT resolution, we can tag $`B`$ decays using displaced secondary vertices or tracks with large impact parameters. For a 10% $`B`$ reconstruction efficiency and with 12% of $`B_s`$ having $`p_T>0.5`$ GeV and $`|\eta _{det}|<1.5`$ for all final state particles, we expect approximately 2500 reconstructed events. We will be sensitive for $`x_s20`$. A new limit for $`|V_{ts}/V_{td}|`$ can be establish using the well-known relation:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_d}=\frac{m_{B_s^0}}{m_{B_d^0}}\xi ^2\left|\frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}\right|^2=\frac{m_{B_s^0}}{m_{B_d^0}}\frac{\xi ^2}{\lambda ^2}\frac{1}{(1\rho )^2+\eta ^2},$$

where theoretical uncertainties are included in the quantity $`\xi `$ :

$$\xi =\frac{f_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}}}{f_{B_s}\sqrt{B_{B_s}}}=1.14\pm 0.08.$$

The CDF detector is expected to obtain a better constrain on the $`x_s`$ parameter. Using their time-of-flight system, $`K/\pi `$ separation at the level of $`2\sigma `$ and opposite kaon tagging, they expect to reach $`x_s60`$ .

A second major component of the $`B`$ physics studies will be a CP violation search in $`B`$ decays. It is well known that an asymmetry in the $`B`$ system is generated if both decay amplitudes are nonzero and if the weak decay phase, $`\varphi _{decay}`$, is different from the mixing one, $`\varphi _{mixing}`$. Defining mass eigenstates as $`|B_1=p|B^0+q|\overline{B^0}`$ and $`|B_2=p|B^0q|\overline{B^0}`$ we have the following definition of $`\varphi _{mixing}`$ and $`\varphi _{decay}`$:

$$\frac{q}{p}=\sqrt{\frac{m_{12}^{}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{}/2}{m_{12}+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}/2}}\frac{V_{tb}^{}V_{td}}{V_{tb}V_{td}^{}}=e^{2i\varphi _{mixing}},\overline{\rho }(f)=\frac{f|H|\overline{B^0}}{f|H|B^0}=\eta _fe^{2i\varphi _{decay}}$$

Experimentally, we need to look for the asymmetry of the final state, $`f`$:

$$A_{CP}(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\overline{B_q^0}f\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(B_q^0f\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\overline{B_q^0}f\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(B_q^0f\right)}=\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_qt),$$

and try to measure the quantity $`A_{obs}=D_{mix}D_{tag}D_{bgd}A_{CP}`$. Here the dilution factor $`D_{tag}=12p_{misstag}`$ is defined via the correct tag probability $`p_{misstag}`$ and together with efficiency $`\epsilon `$ defines the tag’s effectiveness, $`\epsilon D_{tag}^2`$; where the mixing factor $`D_{mix}=\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_qt)=x_q/(1+x_q)`$ and $`D_{bgd}=\sqrt{S/(S+B)}`$. The uncertainties on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$:

$$\mathrm{sin}2\beta =\mathrm{Im}\left[\left(\frac{V_{tb}^{}V_{td}}{V_{tb}V_{td}^{}}\right)\left(\frac{V_{cs}^{}V_{cb}}{V_{cs}V_{cb}^{}}\right)\left(\frac{V_{cd}^{}V_{cs}}{V_{cd}V_{cs}^{}}\right)\right],$$

are defined as

$$\delta (\mathrm{sin}2\beta )=\frac{1}{D_{mix}D_{bgd}}\sqrt{1/(\epsilon D^2)_{tag}N_{rec}},$$

where $`N_{rec}`$ is the number of reconstructed events. The three major blocks in $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ comes from $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing, $`\left(\frac{V_{tb}^{}V_{td}}{V_{tb}V_{td}^{}}\right)`$, final decay fraction $`\overline{\rho }(f)`$, $`\left(\frac{V_{cs}^{}V_{cb}}{V_{cs}V_{cb}^{}}\right)`$ and $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing, $`\left(\frac{V_{cd}^{}V_{cs}}{V_{cd}V_{cs}^{}}\right)`$. Flavor tagging efficiency will play a crucial role in final purity of the samples. We have summarized it in Table 1.

All numbers are based on our knowledge from Run I and MC studies. As can be seen from the table our tag effectiveness will not exceed 10%. The golden mode is expected to be the decay of $`BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+K`$ which is quite easy to trigger when $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. The following cuts can be applied in this case: $`p_T>1.5`$ GeV for muon tracks, $`p_T(K)>0.5`$ GeV and $`|\eta _{det}|<2`$. We expect to have approximately 40000 $`B^\pm J/\mathrm{\Psi }+K^\pm `$ and 20000 $`B^0J/\mathrm{\Psi }+K^0`$ events with statistical errors dominating the systematics. For the time-independent analysis, assuming 2 fb-1 integrated luminosity, $`S/B0.75`$, and a tag effectiveness $`(\epsilon D^2)_{tag}9.8\%`$, our expectation leads to $`\delta (\mathrm{sin}2\beta )0.04`$ for the case of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\delta (\mathrm{sin}2\beta )0.05`$ for the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }e^+e^{}`$ channel. With 20 fb-1 we will go down to $`\delta (\mathrm{sin}2\beta )0.01`$. Such precision, together with other measurements, will tune the position of the unitary triangle in the $`\rho \eta `$ plane and help us better understand the SM parameters.

Among other possibilities a large area of $`B`$ physics can be covered in Run II: individual hadron masses and lifetimes ($`B^\pm `$, $`B^0`$, $`B_s`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$) search for $`B_c`$ meson ($`B_cJ/\mathrm{\Phi }+\pi `$) search for rare b-decays ($`bX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, $`b\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, $`B_sK^{}\gamma `$, $`B_sD_s^+D_s^{}`$), and a non-SM CP violation search via the $`B_sJ/\mathrm{\Psi }+\varphi `$ channel, but they are out of topic of this discussion.

## 5 Conclusion

As we have shown, the forthcoming Run II at the Tevatron collider is expected to give us a unique opportunity to study various exciting aspects of the SM, such as Higgs search and CP violation. Thanks to the huge effort from many people, the DØ and CDF detectors are on the final road and ready to start collecting data in March 2001. The main improvements in Run II that make us optimistic for the physics are based on increased integrated luminosity, at least factor of 20x more then in Run I, and major upgrades of both detectors. For both goals, Higgs search and $`B`$ physics, the main gains will come from $`b`$ identification and from the $`b\overline{b}`$ invariant mass measurement. Now our focus is concentrated on building a robust, reliable reconstruction algorithm, in order to fully explore the detector capabilities. Preliminary studies by the Higgs search working group show that there is no golden channel in the analysis, and in order to be successful, we need to combine all data and all decay modes from both experiments. Initial luminosity of the Tevatron, 2 fb-1, will allow us to explore Higgs mass at the level of LEP2, but with 10 fb-1, we will be able to exclude at 95% C.L. an SM Higgs up to $`180`$ GeV and with 20 fb-1 we could see its evidence at the level of 3$`\sigma `$. DØ and CDF will significantly contribute to $`B`$ physics in Run II. The main focus of our attention will be the $`B_s`$ oscillation search and CP violation. Several different modes are under investigation. We expect to improve the lower limit on the $`x_s`$ parameter up to a level of 20 (DØ) and 60 (CDF) and extend our knowledge about the unitary triangle by measuring $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ with an accuracy of 0.01-0.05.

## 6 Acknowledgments

This talk would not have been possible without the help of a large number of people. I would especially thanks the wise comments of my colleagues Ella Barberis, Anna Goussiou, Maria Rocco, Rick Jesik, Su Yong Choi, John Ellison, Ann Heinson and Dennis Shpakov. Finally, I would like to thanks all members of organizer committee, especially Natalia Sotnikova and Edward Boos, for choosing a nice place for the meeting and for their help during the conference.


text:
# GRBS: STANDARD MODEL & BEYOND

## 1 Observational Features

$`\gamma `$-ray burst (or shortly, GRB) was discovered by R.W. Klebesadel et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in 1967 and published in 1973. Although more than 2000 GRBs have been discovered, they are still among the most mysterious astronomical objects even at present time $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

The GRB duration ($`T`$) is very short, usually only a few seconds or tens of seconds, or occasionally as long as a few tens of minutes or as short as a few milli-seconds. Their time profiles are diverse, may be rather complicated. The time scales of variability ($`\delta T`$) may be only milli-seconds or even sub-milli-seconds. The photon energy radiated in GRB is typically in the range of tens keV to a few MeV. However, high energy tail up to GeV or even higher than 10 GeV does exist. The spectra are definitely non-thermal and can usually be fitted by power law $`N(E)dEE^\alpha dE`$ (or break power law) with $`\alpha 1.8`$ to $`2.0`$. The cosmological distances of GRBs were first inferred statistically by the BATSE observation of their highly isotropic spatial distribution $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The definite results of their cosmological origin come from the observations of the red-shifts of their host galaxies after the discovery of afterglows by BeppoSAX and various Satellites and Observatories since 1997. Thus, GRBs are known to be the most energetic events ever known since the Big Bang.

Afterglows are the counterparts of GRBs at wave bands other than $`\gamma `$-rays. They are variable, typically decaying according to power laws: $`F_\nu t^\alpha `$ ($`\nu =`$ X, optical, ……) with $`\alpha =1.11.6`$ for X-ray, $`\alpha =1.12.1`$ for optical band. Their spectra appear to be also of power law or broken power law. X-ray afterglows can last days or even weeks; optical afterglows and radio afterglows months or even one year. The light curves of afterglows are much more smooth and simple than that of GRBs themselves.

## 2 The Standard Fireball Shock Model

First of all, the millisecond variabilities indicate that the GRBs should be compact stellar events only. In other words, the size of their initial burst region should be less than 300 km and the mass of a GRB source should be less than 100 M. As GRBs are at cosmological distances, their radiation (if isotropic) should be about $`10^{51}`$ to $`10^{54}`$ ergs. So large an energy contained in so small a volume, it must be a fireball. The free path of a photon in the fireball can be shown to be less than its radius by a factor of about $`10^{14}`$, it is highly optically thick. Such a fireball must be a black body. However, the observed radiations from GRBs are non-thermal, they must not come directly from the fireball. So large an optical depth also means that its pressure must be very high, and the fireball will expand relativistically to be a shell. If its expansion reaches ultra-relativistic speed with Lorentz factor of more than 100, the shell can then begin to be optically thin, and the non-thermal radiation of GRB can be observed. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

Now, people have obtained a simple standard picture of GRBs. The inner engine at the center of the GRB source can send out several shells impulsively. As shell expansion reaches ultra-relativistic speed, the late fast shell can catch up and collide with the early slow shell and produce shocks (known as internal shocks), and all shells will finally sweep the interstellar medium and produce shocks (known as external shocks). The electrons accelerated by shocks will emit synchrotron radiations. The internal shocks appear at about $`10^{13}`$ cm from the center and give out GRBs, and the external shocks at about $`10^{16}`$ cm and give out afterglows.

## 3 The Post-standard Effects

The standard model described above is based on the following simple assumptions: (1) the fireball expanding relativistically and isotropically; (2) impulsive injection of energy from inner engine to the fireball(s); (3) synchrotron radiation as the main radiation mechanism; (4) uniform environment with typical particle number density of $`n=1`$ cm-3. This model is rather successful in that its physical picture is clear, results obtained are simple, and observations on GRB afterglows support it at least qualitatively but generally. However, various quantitative deviations have been found. Thus, the simplifications made in the standard model should be improved. These deviations may reveal important new information. In the following, we will present some work of our group on the effects due to these deviations (the post-standard effects).

The fireball expansion is initially ultra-relativistic and highly radiative, this phase has been well described by some simple scaling laws. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ The key equation $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ here is

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{\mathrm{d}m}=\frac{\gamma ^21}{M},$$
(1)
$`m`$ denotes the rest mass of the swept-up medium, $`\gamma `$ the bulk Lorentz factor, and $`M`$ the total mass in the co-moving frame including internal energy $`U`$. This equation was originally derived under ultra-relativistic condition. The widely accepted results derived under this equation are correct for ultra-relativistic expansion. Accidentally, these results are also suitable for the non-relativistic and radiative case. However, for the important non-relativistic and adiabatic case, they will lead to wrong result “$`vR^3`$” ($`v`$ and $`R`$ is the velocity and radius of the fireball), perfectly different from the famous Sedov result of “$`vR^{3/2}`$”, as first pointed out by Huang, Dai and Lu $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. It is important to note that a fireball will usually become non-relativistic and adiabatic only several days after the burst $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, while the afterglows can remain observable for several months or even about one year, so any useful model should be able to account for both relativistic and non-relativistic, and both radiative and adiabatic phases. In order for solving this problem, Huang, Dai & Lu $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ further pointed out that the above equation (1) should be replaced by

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{\mathrm{d}m}=\frac{\gamma ^21}{M_{ej}+ϵm+2(1ϵ)\gamma m},$$
(2)
here $`M_{ej}`$ is the mass ejected from GRB central engine, $`ϵ`$ (assumed to be approximately a constant) is the radiated fraction of the shock generated thermal energy in the co-moving frame. This equation leads to correct results for all cases including the Sedov limit for the non-relativistic and adiabatic phase. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$

In the early days after the discovery of afterglows, Dai and Lu $`^\mathrm{?}`$ studied the possible non-uniformity of the surrounding medium. They used the general form of $`nR^k`$ to describe the non-uniform environment number density. By fitting the X-ray afterglow of GRB970616, they found $`k=2`$ which is just the form of a wind environment. This indicates that the surrounding medium of GRB970616 was just a stellar wind. After the detailed studies by Chevalier and Li $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, the stellar wind model for the environment of GRBs has now become widely interested. As the properties of GRBs’ environment contain important information related with their pregenitors, this stellar wind model provides strong support to the view of massive star origin of GRBs.

Another environment effect is due to the deviation from the standard number density of $`n=1`$ cm-3. Some afterglows of GRBs show that their lightcurves obey a broken power law. For example, according to Fruchter et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$, the optical lightcurve of GRB990123 shows a break after about two days, its slope being steepened from -1.09 to -1.8. Dai and Lu $`^\mathrm{?}`$ pointed out that a shock undergoing the transition from a relativistic phase to a non-relativistic phase may show such a break in the light curve. If there are dense media and/or clouds in the way, this break may happen earlier to fit the observed steepening. Recently, Wang, Dai & Lu $`^\mathrm{?}`$ proved that the dense environment model can also explain well the radio afterglow of GRB 980519 $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Lightcurves of some optical afterglows even show the down-up-down variation such as GRB970228 and 970508. These features can be explained by additional long time scale energy injection from their central engines $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. In some model, a millisecond pulsar with strong magnetic field can be produced at birth of a GRB. As the fireball expands, the central pulsar can continuously supply energy through magnetic dipole radiation. Initially, the energy supply is rather small, the afterglow shows declining. As it becomes important, the afterglow shows rising. However, the magnetic dipole radiation should itself attenuate later. Thus, the down-up-down shape would appear naturally. Dai & Lu $`^\mathrm{?}`$ further analysed GRB980519, 990510 and 980326, with dense environment also being taken into account, and found results agreeing well with observations.

Recently, the GRB000301c afterglow shows three break appearance in the R-band light curve, and extremely steep decay slope $`3.0`$ at late time. This unusual afterglow can be explained by assuming more complicated additional energy injections and dense medium $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Though synchrotron radiation is usually thought to be the main radiation mechanism, however, under some circumstances, the inverse Compton scattering may play an important role in the emission spectrum, and this may influence the temporal properties of GRB afterglows $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Wang, Dai & Lu $`^\mathrm{?}`$ even consider the inverse Compton scattering of the synchrotron photons from relativistic electrons in the reverse shock. Under appropriate physical parameters of the GRBs and the interstellar medium, this mechanism can excellently account for the prompt high energy gamma-rays detected by EGRET, such as from GRB930131.

As some GRBs showed their isotropic radiation energy to be as high as $``$Mc2, this has been regarded as an energy crisis. A natural way to relax this crisis is to assume that the radiation of GRB is jet-like, rather than isotropic. However, we should find out its observational evidences. Rhoads $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ analysed this question, and predicted that the sideways expansion in jet-like case will produce a sharp break in the GRB afterglow light curves (see also Pugliese et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$, Sari et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and Wei & Lu $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$). Kulkarni et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ regarded the break in the light curve of GRB 990123 as the evidence for jet. However, Panaitescu & Mészáros $`^\mathrm{?}`$, Moderski, Sikora & Bulik $`^\mathrm{?}`$ performed numerical calculation and denied the appearence of such a sharp break. Wei and Lu $`^\mathrm{?}`$ re-analysed the dynamical evolution of the jet blast wave and found that a sharp break can only exist in the case of extremely small beaming angle. Recently, Huang et al. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ made a detailed calculation and proved that the breaks in the lightcurves are mainly due to the relativistic to non-relativistic transition, not due to edge effect and lateral expansion effect of the jet, and may appear only for small electron energy fraction and small magnetic energy fraction. However, they stressed that the afterglows of jetted ejecta can be clearly characterized by rapid fading in the non-relativistic phase with index $`\alpha 2.1`$.. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

Gou et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ used a set of refined dynamical equations and a realistic lateral speed of the jet, calculated the evolution of a highly collimated jet that expands in a stellar wind environment and the expected afterglow from such a jet. They found that in the wind environment, no obvious break will appear even at the time when the blast wave transits from the relativistic phase to the non-relativistic phase, and there will be no flattening tendency even up to $`10^9`$ s.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

## References