text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

When computing in a fixed gauge an operator product, the operator product expansion (OPE) contains in general contributions from local gauge-dependent operators, even though they should not emerge in the gauge-invariant sector. For example in ref. , a detailed analysis clearly shows that operators such as $`A^2=A_\mu A^\mu `$ contribute to QCD propagators’ OPE through a non-zero expectation value in a non-gauge-invariant “vacuum”. $`A^2`$ is the unique dimension two operator allowed to have a vacuum expectation value (v.e.v.) and is thus the dominant non perturbative contributor, leading to $`1/p^2`$ corrections to the perturbative result.

These expected $`1/p^2`$ have at first sight nothing to do with the possible presence of $`1/p^2`$ terms in gauge invariant quantities such as Wilson loops : since no local gauge invariant gluonic operator of dimension less than 4 exists it is expected from OPE that the dominant power correction should be $`1/p^4`$, originating from the local and gauge-invariant $`G^{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }`$. Of course the operator $`A^2`$ in the Landau gauge can be viewed, by simply averaging it over the gauge orbit, as a gauge invariant non local operator. But then, dealing with non-local operators, we loose the standard OPE power counting rule relating the power behaviour of a Wilson coefficient to the dimension of the corresponding operator: there is no reason for this non-local operator to yield $`1/p^2`$ contributions in a gauge invariant observable. It has been strongly stressed in ref.  that, working in the Landau gauge, the $`A^2`$ operator plays a special role since, imposing the Landau gauge condition is equivalent to asserting that $`A^2`$ is at an extremum or a saddle point on its gauge orbit. Practically, on a lattice, one fixes the Landau gauge by searching for a minimum of $`A^2`$ on the orbit. We are not able to elaborate further on the issue of what relation might exist between the expected $`A^2`$ condensate in the landau gauge and the possible unexpected $`1/p^2`$ terms in gauge invariant quantities . But we are in a position to put the first step of this possible route on a firm ground: to provide a strong evidence that there is indeed an $`A^2`$ condensate in the Landau gauge and that it is not small.

To that aim we will use heavily OPE. We need to be sure that OPE really works in this situation and have to invent some way of verifying this point. A success of this check would achieve several goals. First it would give a strong support to the conjecture that OPE is really working in this situation, i.e. that we do not encounter a strange situation where OPE would have failed like the one discussed in the preceding paragraph about $`G^{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }`$. Second it would confirm that we go far enough in the perturbative expansion (the expansion in $`1/\mathrm{ln}(p^2)`$) to be able to say something sensible about the power expansion (in $`1/p^2`$). Third it would confirm that we really are measuring $`A^2`$. Such checks have of course many consequences which will be further discussed in the conclusions.

From a practical (numerical) point of view, $`1/p^2`$ terms provide a specially convenient way to test OPE since

* they remain visible at much larger energies than the $`1/p^4`$ ones which would result from the gauge invariant $`G^{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }`$
* as already mentioned their OPE analysis is rather simple and unambiguous because $`A^2`$ is the only dimension-two operator to contribute.

A recent study of $`\alpha _s{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}}(p)`$, the Landau gauge coupling constant222$`\alpha _s{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}}(p)`$ stands for the QCD running coupling constant non-perturbatively renormalized in a kinematically asymmetric point by following the momentum subtraction prescriptions ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}`$), regularized on a lattice showed unequivocally the presence of $`1/p^2`$ power corrections still visible at energies $`10`$ GeV for which OPE contributions of the gluon condensate, $`A^2`$, were natural candidates. In this term all the non-perturbative input is contained in $`A^2`$ while the OPE Wilson coefficients can be computed in perturbation. In view of this, we proposed in a previous work  a procedure to test OPE based on the determination, and further comparison, of the two estimates of the gluon condensate, $`A^2`$, obtained from both gluon two- and three-point Green functions by means of a simultaneous matching of the lattice data to the OPE formulas derived by following standard Shifman-Vainshtein-Zakharov (SVZ) techniques . Thus, our OPE matchings of lattice data provides two independent estimates of the renormalized $`A^2`$ condensate. The adequate definition of renormalized condensates and their “universality” when studying different Green functions was discussed in ref.  in connection with the choice of truncation orders for perturbative and OPE series (see also ). In this preliminary work we described the theoretical framework for this testing procedure and we performed a first analysis of previous lattice data  but the perturbative $`\beta `$-function was known at that time only up to two loops and our use of OPE was limited to the sole computation of the Wilson coefficients of $`A^2`$ at tree-level

After this work was completed a computation of the third coefficient of the MOM beta function, $`\beta _2`$ has been published in ref. . The authors of this last work conclude that their computed $`\beta _2`$ and our “prediction” of this coefficient based on OPE consistency  reasonably agree with each other. Thanks to the new information concerning the $`\beta `$-function and to the high accuracy of our lattice results we are now in a particularly favourable situation to address further the questions we have mentionned above. This is the task we shall attack in the present paper, presenting a consistent calculation in the MOM scheme (a symmetric kinematics chosen for the vertex) with the Wilson coefficients of the identity operator computed at three loops  and the ones of $`A^2`$ computed to the leading logarithm in section 2.2. In particular we will compare the check of the “universality” of the condensates when expanding the leading perturbative coefficients to three loops and when one uses only the two loop order.

The theoretical setting of our use of OPE is described in Section 2: the tree-level computation, presented previously in ref. , is only sketched and most attention is paid to the obtention of the one-loop anomalous dimension of the Wilson coefficients. The fitting strategy is explained and the matching test performed in 3. Finally, we discuss and conclude in Section 4.

## 2 OPE for the gluon propagator and $`\alpha _s(p)`$

In the present section we shall expand the three-point Green function, and hence $`\alpha _S(p)`$, as well as the gluon propagator, in the OPE approach up to the the $`1/p^2`$ order. Both gluonic two- and three-point Green functions are renormalized according to the MOM scheme. Let us start with a reminder of the computation of the tree-level Wilson coefficients .

### 2.1 Tree-level Wilson coefficients

In the pure Yangs-Mills QCD, without quarks, OPE yields

$`T\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p)\right)`$ $`=`$
$`(c_0)_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(p)1`$ $`+`$ $`(c_1)_{\mu \nu a^{}}^{ab\mu ^{}}(p):A_\mu ^{}^a^{}(0):+(c_2)_{\mu \nu a^{}b^{}}^{ab\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}(p):A_\mu ^{}^a^{}(0)A_\nu ^{}^b^{}(0):`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{},`$
$`T\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p_1)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p_2)\stackrel{~}{A}_\rho ^c(p_3)\right)`$ $`=`$
$`(d_0)_{\mu \nu \rho }^{abc}(p_1,p_2,p_3)1`$ $`+`$ $`(d_1)_{\mu \nu \rho a^{}}^{abc\mu ^{}}(p_1,p_2,p_3):A_\mu ^{}^a^{}(0):`$
$`+`$ $`(d_2)_{\mu \nu \rho a^{}b^{}}^{abc\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}(p_1,p_2,p_3):A_\mu ^{}^a^{}(0)A_\nu ^{}^b^{}(0):+\mathrm{};`$
where only normal products of local gluon field operators occur and $`A`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{A}`$) stands for the gluon field in configuration (momentum) space, $`a,b`$ being colour indices and $`\mu ,\nu `$ Lorentz ones. The notation $`T()`$ simply refers to the standard $`T^{}`$ product in momentum space. The normal product of Eqs. (1,LABEL:OPEfield2) should be defined in reference to the perturbative vacuum .

Only terms in Eqs. (1,LABEL:OPEfield2) containing an even number of local gluon fields give a non-null . v.e.v. because of Lorentz invariance and of the gauge condition . The coefficients $`c_0`$ and $`d_0`$ are the purely perturbative Green functions. Assuming the Wilson factorization of soft and hard gluon contributions, the relevant Wilson coefficients $`c_2,d_2`$ can be obtained, in perturbation, by computing the diagrams in Fig. 1 which represent the matrix elements of operators in the l.h.s. of Eqs. (1,LABEL:OPEfield2) between soft gluons, indicated by crosses. Using also the tree level expression for the matrix element, between the same two soft gluons, of the local operators in the r.h.s. of Eqs. (1,LABEL:OPEfield2) we obtain $`c_2`$ and $`d_2`$ by matching both sides.

Thus, in the appropriate Euclidean metrics for matching to lattice non-perturbative results, we can write:

$`k^2G^{(2)}(k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`Z^{MOM}(k^2)=Z_{\mathrm{nloops}}^{MOM}(k^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2A^2}{4(N_c^21)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}},`$
$`k^6G^{(3)}(k^2,k^2,k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`k^6G_{\mathrm{pert}}^{(3)}(k^2,k^2,k^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{9g^3A^2}{4(N_c^21)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}};`$ (3)
where the scalar form factors $`G^{(2)},G^{(3)}`$ are defined as follows from the Green functions

$`G^{(2)}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ab}}{N_c^21}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}\right)\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p),`$
$`G^{(3)}(k^2,k^2,k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{abc}}{N_c(N_c^21)}}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p_1)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p_2)\stackrel{~}{A}_\rho ^c(p_3)`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`\left[(T^{\mathrm{tree}})^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}+{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1p_2)^\rho (p_2p_3)^\mu (p_3p_1)^\nu }{2k^2}}\right].`$
For the kinematic configuration $`p_1^2=p_2^2=p_3^2=k^2`$ the three-gluon tree-level tensor is defined as

$`(T^{\mathrm{tree}})_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}=[\delta _{\mu _1^{}\mu _2^{}}(p_1p_2)_{\mu _3^{}}+\mathrm{cycl}.\mathrm{perm}.]{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,3}{}}(\delta _{\mu _i^{}\mu _i}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{i\mu _i^{}}p_{i\mu _i}}{p_i^2}}).`$
(5)
In Eqs. (3)-(5) we have dealt with bare quantities, depending only on the cut-off $`a^1`$ and on the momentum $`k`$. We have omitted to explicitate the dependence on the cut-off in order to simplify the notations. Using Eqs. (3) these Green functions can be conveniently renormalized by MOM prescriptions: the renormalized two-point Green function is taken equal to $`1/k^2`$ for $`k^2=\mu ^2`$,

$`k^2G_R^{(2)}(k^2,\mu ^2){\displaystyle \frac{k^2G^{(2)}(k^2)}{\mu ^2G^{(2)}(\mu ^2)}}=c_0({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))+c_2({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu )){\displaystyle \frac{A^2_{R,\mu }}{4(N_c^21)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}},`$ (6)
The $`c_0`$ Wilson coefficient can be written as

$`c_0({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))={\displaystyle \frac{Z_{\mathrm{nloops}}^{\mathrm{MOM}}(k^2)}{Z^{\mathrm{MOM}}(\mu ^2)}}=c_0(1,\alpha (\mu )){\displaystyle \frac{Z_{\mathrm{nloops}}^{\mathrm{MOM}}(k^2)}{Z_{\mathrm{nloops}}^{\mathrm{MOM}}(\mu ^2)}},`$ (7)
and verifies consequently the perturbative evolution equations of $`Z^{\mathrm{MOM}}`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}c_0(\frac{k^2}{\mu ^2},\alpha (\mu ))}{d\mathrm{ln}k^2}}=\left(\gamma _0{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (k)}{4\pi }}+\gamma _1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (k)}{4\pi }}\right)^2+\gamma _2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (k)}{4\pi }}\right)^3+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (8)
where $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ depend on the perturbative scheme in which the strong coupling constant $`\alpha (k)`$ is defined. The boundary condition to solve Eq. (8) comes from the nonperturbative normalization of $`k^2G_R^{(2)}(k^2,\mu ^2)`$ to 1 at $`k^2=\mu ^2`$, and it results that $`c_0(1,\alpha (\mu ))=1+O(1/\mu ^2)`$.

Let us remind that in the MOM prescription, the three-point Green function is renormalized by $`G_R^{(3)}(k^2,\mu ^2)G^{(3)}(k^2,k^2,k^2)(Z^{\mathrm{MOM}}(\mu ))^{3/2}`$, and the MOM coupling constant follows from

$`g_R(k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G^{(3)}(k^2,k^2,k^2)}{\left(G^{(2)}(k^2)\right)^3}}\left(Z^{\mathrm{MOM}}(k^2)\right)^{3/2}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`k^6G_R^{(3)}(k^2,\mu ^2)\left(k^2G_R^{(2)}(k^2,\mu ^2)\right)^{3/2}.`$
Analogously to Eq. (6) we define the renormalized three point Green function

$`k^6G_R^{(3)}(k^2,\mu ^2)=d_0({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))+d_2({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu )){\displaystyle \frac{A^2_{R,\mu }}{4(N_c^21)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}.`$ (10)
where the $`d_0`$ Wilson coefficient verifies the perturbative evolution equations of $`k^6G_R^{(3)}(k^2,\mu ^2)`$ and the boundary condition $`d_0(1,\alpha (\mu ))=g_R(\mu ^2)+O(1/\mu ^2)`$ is immediate from Eqs. (9,10).

In the MOM scheme, the gluon condensate, $`A^2_{R,\mu }`$, is renormalized at $`\mu ^2`$ by a standard condition, through division by a renormalization constant $`Z_{A^2}`$.

The $`c_2`$ and $`d_2`$ Wilson coefficients at tree level are

$`c_2(1,\alpha (\mu ))=3g^2,`$
$`d_2(1,\alpha (\mu ))=9g^3.`$ (11)
Since the three point Green function naturally defines the MOM scheme coupling constant (see below (9)), we will perform all the coming calculations in the symmetric MOM scheme where

$`\gamma _0=13/2,\gamma _1=16.9,\gamma _21332.3.`$ (12)
In Eq. (8) $`\alpha (k)`$ is of course taken to be the purely perturbative running coupling constant, $`g_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{pert}}^2(k^2)/(4\pi )`$, obtained by integrating the beta function in the MOM scheme,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}k}}\alpha (k)=\beta \left(\alpha (k)\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{2\pi }}\alpha ^2(k)+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{4\pi ^2}}\alpha ^3(k)+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{(4\pi )^3}}\alpha ^5(k)+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (13)
where

$`\beta _0=11,\beta _1=51,\beta _23088..`$ (14)
### 2.2 Wilson coefficient at leading logs

The purpose is now to compute to leading logarithms the subleading Wilson coefficients in Eqs. (6,10). To this goal, following  it will be useful to consider the following matrix element,

$`g_\tau ^a|\stackrel{~}{A}_\rho ^r(k)\stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma ^s(k)|g_\nu ^b_{R,\mu }=\delta ^{rs}\left(\delta _{\rho \sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{k_\rho k_\sigma }{k^2}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c_2(\frac{k^2}{\mu ^2},\alpha (\mu ))}{k^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\tau ^a|A_R^2|g_\nu ^b_\mu }{4(N_C^21)}}+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (15)
where the external gluons carry soft momenta. Dots inside the brackets refer to terms with powers of $`1/k`$ different from $`4`$ (i.e. corresponding to higher dimension operators or to identity operator 333It should be remembered that other terms, like $`_\mu A_\mu `$, with the same dimension of $`A^2`$, do not survive). From eq. (15) we get

$`4(N_C^21)k^4{\displaystyle \frac{g_\tau ^a|\stackrel{~}{A}_\rho ^r(k)\stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma ^s(k)|g_\nu ^b}{g_\tau ^a|A^2|g_\nu ^b}}\delta ^{rs}\left(\delta _{\rho \sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{k_\rho k_\sigma }{k^2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_3(\mu ^2)Z_{A^2}^1(\mu ^2)c_2({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))+\mathrm{}`$ (16)
$``$ $`\widehat{Z}^1(\mu ^2)c_2({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))+\mathrm{},`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{A}_R=Z_3^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and $`A_R^2=Z_{A^2}^1A^2`$, while $`\widehat{Z}Z_3^1Z_{A^2}`$ is a useful notation denoting the divergent factor of the matrix element coming from proper vertex corrections. If one takes the logarithmic derivatives with respect to $`\mu `$ in both Eq. (16)’s hand-sides, the following differential equation is obtained:

$`\left\{2\gamma \left(\alpha (\mu )\right)_{A^2}+2\gamma \left(\alpha (\mu )\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{ln}\mu }}+\beta \left(\alpha (\mu )\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}\right\}c_2({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))=0;`$ (17)
An analogous differential equation describing the behaviour of the three-point Wilson coefficient on the renormalization momentum, $`\mu `$, can be obtained similarly,

$`\left\{2\gamma \left(\alpha (\mu )\right)_{A^2}+3\gamma \left(\alpha (\mu )\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{ln}\mu }}+\beta \left(\alpha (\mu )\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}\right\}d_2({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))=0.`$ (18)
Here we have defined :

$`\gamma _{A^2}={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2}}\mathrm{ln}Z_{A^2}`$ (19)
and $`\gamma \left(\alpha (\mu )\right)`$ is the gluon propagator anomalous dimension. Reexpressing these evolution equations in terms of

$`\widehat{\gamma }\left(\alpha (\mu )\right)={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{Z}(\mu ^2).`$ (20)
We obtain :

$`\left\{2\widehat{\gamma }\left(\alpha (\mu )\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{ln}\mu }}+\beta \left(\alpha (\mu )\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}\right\}c_2({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))=0;`$ (21)
and

$`\left\{2\widehat{\gamma }\left(\alpha (\mu )\right)+\gamma \left(\alpha (\mu )\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{ln}\mu }}+\beta \left(\alpha (\mu )\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}\right\}d_2({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))=0.`$ (22)
The leading log solution for both Eqs. (21,22) can be written as,

$`c_2({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))`$ $`=`$ $`c_2(1,\alpha (k))\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (k)}{\alpha (\mu )}}\right)^{\frac{\widehat{\gamma }_0}{\beta _0}},`$
$`d_2({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))`$ $`=`$ $`d_2(1,\alpha (k))\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (k)}{\alpha (\mu )}}\right)^{\frac{\gamma _02\widehat{\gamma }_0}{2\beta _0}}.`$ (23)
where $`\widehat{\gamma }_0`$ is defined in analogy with $`\gamma _0`$ :

$`\widehat{\gamma }\left(\alpha (\mu )\right)=\widehat{\gamma }_0{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (k)}{4\pi }}+\mathrm{}`$ (24)
The prefactors $`c_2(1,\alpha (k))`$ and $`d_2(1,\alpha (k))`$ have to be matched at tree level to Eq. (11). The only solutions are of the form :

$`c_2(1,\alpha (k))=3g_R^2(k^2)\left(1+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}(k/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})}}\right)\right),`$
$`d_2(1,\alpha (k))=9g_R^3(k^2)\left(1+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}(k/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})}}\right)\right).`$ (25)
The $`𝒪\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}(k/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})}\right)`$ terms are clearly of the same order as the next-to-leading contributions to the anomalous dimension which are systematically omitted in this paper.

Of course, these solutions of Eqs. (21,22) define the dependence of the Wilson coefficients not only on the renormalization momentum, $`\mu `$, but simultaneously on the momentum scale $`k^2`$. This is a straightforward consequence of standard dimensional arguments: the only dimensionless quantities are the ratio $`k^2/\mu ^2`$ and $`\alpha `$. Then, as soon as one knows perturbatively $`\widehat{\gamma }\left(\alpha (\mu )\right)`$, $`\gamma \left(\alpha (\mu )\right)`$ and $`\beta \left(\alpha (\mu )\right)`$, the leading logarithmic behaviour on $`k`$ is available.

As already mentioned, the gluon propagator anomalous dimension and the beta function are known up to three loops in the MOM scheme and up to three and four loops, respectively, in the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}`$. The anomalous dimension of the $`A^2`$ operator is obviously less stimulating for perturbative QCD community. We have done this calculation to one loop (see appendix), obtaining

$`\widehat{\gamma }\left(\alpha (\mu )\right)=\widehat{\gamma }_0{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\mu )}{4\pi }}+\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{3N_C}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\mu )}{4\pi }}+\mathrm{}.`$ (26)
and

$`\gamma _{A^2}\left(\alpha (\mu )\right)={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2}}\mathrm{ln}Z_{A^2}={\displaystyle \frac{35N_C}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\mu )}{4\pi }}+\mathrm{}`$ (27)
### 2.3 Gluon propagator with leading logs for the condensate coefficient

Let us now specify our approach to lattice results. Using the definitions in Eqs. (3) and (6) we will match our lattice results to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{\mathrm{Latt}}^{\mathrm{MOM}}(k^2,a)}{Z_{\mathrm{Latt}}^{\mathrm{MOM}}(\mu ^2,a)}}=k^2G_R^{(2)}(k^2,\mu ^2)+O(a^2),`$ (28)
where the adequate control of lattice artifacts444See ref. , where we discuss at length the artifacts of the lattice gluon propagator evaluation. reduces the UV discretization errors to an acceptable level. From Eq. (6),

$`k^2G_R^{(2)}(k^2,\mu ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`c_0({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))`$ (29)
$`\times `$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2(\frac{k^2}{\mu ^2},\alpha (\mu ))}{c_0(\frac{k^2}{\mu ^2},\alpha (\mu ))}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^2_{R,\mu }}{4(N_c^21)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}\right);`$
where we explicitly factorize the Wilson coefficient of the identity operator which, as was previously indicated, is known to three loops. Nevertheless, for consistency, all the terms inside the parenthesis in the r.h.s of Eq.(29) will be developed only to leading order, including $`c_0(\frac{k^2}{\mu ^2},\alpha (\mu ))`$,

$`c_{0,\mathrm{LO}}({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (k)}{\alpha (\mu )}}\right)^{\frac{\gamma _0}{\beta _0}}`$ (30)
Terms of the order of $`O(1/(k^2\mu ^2))`$ have been neglected, as well as, of course, those of $`O(1/k^4)`$ coming from higher dimension operators. One free parameter, i.e. a boundary condition, has to be fitted from lattice data. It can be either $`\alpha (\mu )`$ or the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameter, i.e. the position of the perturbative Landau pole. We choose the latter. We write $`c_{0,1\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{p}}`$ in terms of the MOM coupling constant555$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}`$, for instance, or whatever renormalization scheme could be used alternatively. Our preference for the MOM scheme has been explained above. and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameter in Eq. (30) in the MOM scheme666See, for instance, ref. ,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{MOM}}3.334\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}.`$ (31)
We finally obtain

$`Z_{\mathrm{Latt}}^{\mathrm{MOM}}(k^2,a)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{\mathrm{Latt}}^{\mathrm{MOM}}(\mu ^2,a)c_0({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))`$ (32)
$`\times `$ $`\left(1+R^{(2)}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)^{\frac{\gamma _0+\widehat{\gamma }_0}{\beta _0}1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}\right);`$
where

$`R^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{6\pi ^2}{\beta _0(N_c^21)}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)^{\frac{\gamma _0+\widehat{\gamma }_0}{\beta _0}}A^2_{\mathrm{R},\mu }.`$ (33)
### 2.4 Running coupling constant

By taking the OPE expansions in Eqs. (10) and (6) (9) can be written as

$`g_\mathrm{R}(k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{pert}}(k^2)\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{A^2_{R,\mu }}{4(N_c^21)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{d_2(\frac{k^2}{\mu ^2},\alpha (\mu ))}{\left[d_0(\frac{k^2}{\mu ^2},\alpha (\mu ))\right]}}`$ (34)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_2(\frac{k^2}{\mu ^2},\alpha (\mu ))}{c_0(\frac{k^2}{\mu ^2},\alpha (\mu ))}})\};`$
with the identification

$`g_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{pert}}(k^2)d_0({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))\left[c_0({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha (\mu ))\right]^{3/2},`$ (35)
Applying the results given by Eqs. (23,3235), $`\alpha _{\mathrm{MOM}}=g_\mathrm{R}^2/(4\pi )`$ verifies

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{MOM}}(k)=\alpha _{\mathrm{pert}}(k)\left(1+R^{(3)}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)^{\frac{\gamma _0+\widehat{\gamma }_0}{\beta _0}1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}\right);`$ (36)
where

$`R^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{18\pi ^2}{\beta _0(N_c^21)}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)^{\frac{\gamma _0+\widehat{\gamma }_0}{\beta _0}}A^2_{\mathrm{R},\mu }.`$ (37)
Again, we do not retain $`O(1/(k^2\mu ^2),1/k^4)`$-terms.

## 3 Fitting the data to our ansätze

We shall follow in this section the OPE testing approach proposed in ref. : trying a consistent description of lattice data for two- and three-gluon Green functions from ref. . We are however in a much better position than in . In the latter work, only two-loop information was available for the beta function and $`d_0`$ while the subdominant Wilson coefficients $`c_2`$ and $`d_2`$ were computed only at tree-level. This had the practical inconvenience of preventing a simultaneous fit of both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ and $`A^2`$: the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ parameter had to be taken from outside our matching procedure. Now the new input for three-loop MOM beta function and $`c_0`$ coefficient  enable us to perform a self-consistent test by combining the matching of the gluon propagator and of $`\alpha _s^{\mathrm{MOM}}`$ to formulas in Eqs. (32-33,36-37), where the three quantities, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ and gluon condensates from both Green functions, are taken to be fitted on the same footing. Of course, the test consists in checking the equality of the two gluon condensates obtained from those two different Green functions.

In the case of the gluon propagator, the factor $`c_0(1,\alpha (\mu ))Z_{\mathrm{Latt}}^{\mathrm{MOM}}(\mu ^2,a)`$, which carries all the logarithmic dependence on the lattice spacing, appears as an additional parameter to be fitted. As we explained in ref. , a large fitting window is an important “ace” to restrict the potentially dangerous confusion between Wilson coefficients for different powers. To combine data over such a large energy window we need to match the lattice results obtained with different lattice spacings and the last factor carrying lattice spacing dependence should be independently fitted for each one. On the contrary, the running coupling constant should be regularization independent and the matching of data sets corresponding to different lattice spacing can be imposed without tuning any additional parameter (this is by itself a positive test of the goodness of the procedure used to build our data set). As a matter of fact, this is why the matching of the latter to perturbative formulas is much more constraining than that of the former in order to estimate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$, as discussed in refs. . The details of the lattice simulations, of the procedures used to obtain an artifact-safe data set or of the definition of regularization-independent objects permitting lattice regularized data to be matched to continuum quantities in any scheme, can be found in those references. We will now present the results of the fitting strategy just described.

#### Two loop fit

We first perform the combined fit for two- ant three-gluon Green function at two-loop level for the leading Wilson coefficients. In fig. 2, we plot lattice data and the curves given by Eqs. (32-33,36-37) with the following best-fit parameter:

$`\mathrm{propagator}:\sqrt{A^2_{R,\mu }}=1.64(17)\mathrm{GeV};\alpha ^{\mathrm{MOM}}:\sqrt{A^2_{R,\mu }}=3.1(3)\mathrm{GeV}.`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left\{\sqrt{A^2_{R,\mu }}\right\}_{\mathrm{alpha}}}{\left\{\sqrt{A^2_{R,\mu }}\right\}_{\mathrm{prop}}}}=1.86(4);\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=172(15)\mathrm{MeV}`$ (38)
with a $`\chi ^2/d.o.f1.1`$ for the combined fit.

#### Three loops fit

The present perturbative knowledge allows a three-loop level fit for leading Wilson coefficients. Analogously to the previous paragraph, we plot in Fig. 3 the lattice data and curves given by Eqs. (32-33,36-37), $`Z_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{pert}}^{\mathrm{MOM}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{pert}}`$ taken at three loops, with the following best-fit parameters:

$`\mathrm{propagator}:\sqrt{A^2_{R,\mu }}=1.55(17)\mathrm{GeV};\alpha ^{\mathrm{MOM}}:\sqrt{A^2_{R,\mu }}=1.9(3)\mathrm{GeV}.`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left\{\sqrt{A^2_{R,\mu }}\right\}_{\mathrm{alpha}}}{\left\{\sqrt{A^2_{R,\mu }}\right\}_{\mathrm{prop}}}}=1.21(18);\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=233(28)\mathrm{MeV}`$ (39)
with $`\chi ^2/d.o.f1.2`$. Combining the results obtained from $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{MOM}}`$ and from the propagator in the standard way gives our final result $`\sqrt{A^2_{R,\mu }}=1.64(15)\mathrm{GeV}`$. The renormalization scale $`\mu `$ is taken to be $`10`$ GeV in both combined fits at two- and three-loop level. However we have checked that, varying $`\mu `$ over the fitting window where we can legitimately neglect terms of $`O(1/(\mu ^2k^2))`$ in Eq. (37), the ratios of condensates in Eqs. (38,39) remain essentially unmodified. In fact, that $`R^{(2)}`$ in Eq. (32) does not depend on $`\mu `$ has been explicitly tested over the fitting window (the same is obvious for $`R^{(3)}`$ in Eq. (36) where nothing depends on $`\mu `$).

## 4 Discussion and conclusions

The gluon condensate $`A^2`$ has been computed from the deviations of both the lattice non-perturbative evaluation of the MOM $`\alpha _S`$ and the gluon propagator from their known perturbative behaviour. We have described these non-perturbative deviations using OPE, and fitting the condensate to match both sides. The use of the self-consistent fitting strategy described in the preceding section leads simultaneously to a prediction $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ and to two independent estimates of $`A^2`$.

The fit using the two-loops perturbative expressions for both the MOM $`\alpha _S`$ and the gluon propagator clearly fails: a clear disagreement between the two independent estimates of $`\sqrt{A^2}`$ is found. The ratio of both estimates is $`1.86(4)`$ from Eqs. (38). This confirms the preliminary analysis in ref. , where only tree-level Wilson coefficients were computed.In this preliminary work, a self-consistent three-loop analysis was not possible because the MOM beta function was not known up to three-loops. Nevertheless we tried to fit the third coefficient of the beta function, $`\beta _2`$ to reach a good agreement between the two estimates of $`A^2`$, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ parameter being taken from previous works to be the same for both two- and tree-point Green function matchings. Our estimate, $`\beta _2=7400(1500)`$ was about twice larger than the result $`\beta _2=3088`$ in . Still this fit went in the right direction, whence the authors of  expected their result to lead to a fair fit to lattice data.

This expectation turns out to be correct :

First, the ratio of the two estimates of $`\sqrt{A^2}`$ is equal to $`1.21(18)`$, i.e. compatible with 1, provided the leading Wilson coefficients are consistently expanded at the three-loop level and the subleading coefficients of $`A^2`$ are computed to the leading logarithms. Second, in the same joint fit, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ is estimated to be $`233(28)MeV`$, in amazing agreement with previous estimates of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ appearing in the literature (see for instance ). Thus, the present analysis ends up with a twofold success and we can conclude that OPE leads to a good description of the deviations of the running coupling constant and of the gluon propagator from their perturbative behaviour in terms of perturbatively available coefficients multiplying one phenomelogical condensate: the sole non vanishing non-perturbative contribution up to the order $`1/p^2`$, namely the gluon condensate $`A^2`$.

However, for this OPE description to be consistent, it is unambiguously demonstrated that the leading coefficient must be taken to three loops; on the contrary there is a clear failure at two loops, even though our analysis has been performed at an unusually large energy scale, up to 10 GeV. As was discussed in the preliminary study, such a disagreement indicates that we are, in this case, in the situation described in , i.e. that the perturbative order is too low to give an acceptable precision in the estimate of the power corrections. Taking into account power corrections does not make sense unless the leading contribution is computed perturbativeley to a sufficient accuracy. In a simple mathematical language, it makes no sense to consider the $`1/p^2`$ corrections when one does not consider the $`1/\mathrm{ln}(p^2)`$ corrections to a sufficient order. OPE is often used with the leading coefficients only known to two loops (sometimes to one loop). We believe in view of our results that these attempts should be reconsidered with care.

As for us, we were in a particularly favourable situation to analyse the problem thoroughly. We have rather accurate results. The dimension $`2`$ power correction clearly shows up clearly and can be fully consistently attributed to an $`A_\mu A^\mu `$ condensate in the Landau gauge in full agreement with the theoretical expectations . Since we are working in the Landau gauge we produce (and use later on) bare gauge field configurations which minimize $`A^\mu A_\mu `$ with respect to the gauge group. This has the interesting consequence that the quantities we measure are invariant under infinitesimal gauge transformations in the vicinity of the Landau gauge. Still the link between what we call the $`A^2`$ and the $`A_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ defined in  should be better clarified, which implies a better understanding of the renormalization procedure777it is a pleasure to acknowledge discussions with V.I Zakharov on this topic. Taking such a direct link for granted, we can estimate from Eqs. (39) the tachyonic gluon mass defined in ref. , to be $`.8`$ GeV888We recall that all scale-dependent quantities are evaluated at $`\mu =10`$ GeV.. Using instead the notion of critical mass, $`M_{\mathrm{crit}}^2`$, introduced in ref. , which is the scale at which the non-perturbative condensate contributes $`10\%`$ of the total, we estimate it for the gluon propagator to be $`2.6`$ GeV. Both these scales express a rather large contribution from the $`A^2`$ condensate.

## 5 Acknowledgments

We specially thank D. Becirevic for thorough discussions at the earlier stages of the work. We are grateful to V.I. Zakharov for his illuminating remarks. We are also indebted to Y. Dokshitzer and G. Korchemsky for several inspiring comments and to F. Di Renzo for clarifying the present status of their work concerning power corrections in Wilson loops. J. R-Q thanks J. Rodríguez García and is indebted to Spanish Fundación Ramón Areces for financial support. These calculations were performed on the QUADRICS QH1 located in the Centre de Ressources Informatiques (Paris-sud, Orsay) and purchased thanks to a funding from the Ministère de l’Education Nationale and the CNRS.

## Appendix A One-loop anomalous dimension of $`A^2`$

The task of computing the one-loop anomalous dimension of the matrix element $`A^2`$ (that of the local operator itself is directly obtained from the former as explained in section 2 ) requires only to isolate the UV divergent part of the diagrams in Fig. 4. We follow dimensional regularization prescriptions to write:

$`\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\right]_{ab}^{\mu \nu }(q,q)=\left(g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\mu q^\nu }{q^2}}\right)\delta _{ab}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\left\{3N_c{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _b}{4\pi }}+O\left(\alpha _b^2\right)\right\}+\mathrm{}\right),`$
$`\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_b\right]_{ab}^{\mu \nu }(q,q)=\left(g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\mu q^\nu }{q^2}}\right)\delta _{ab}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}N_C{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _b}{4\pi }}+O\left(\alpha _b^2\right)\right\}+\mathrm{}\right);`$ (40)
where an a(b)-like diagram in Fig. 2 with amputated external gluon legs is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a(b)}`$ and where $`ϵ2d/2`$. The particular kinematics we choose (see the figure), where the incoming momentum flow is non vanishing, eliminates automatically the IR divergences and makes the UV analysis easier. We require the final result for amputated diagrams to be transverse to the external momenta, but this is merely a convention to be also applied to the tree-level term. Furthermore, had we considered two different incoming momenta, the tensors in Eq. (40) would have acquired a more complicated form.

This kind of IR regularization, by imposing a non-null incoming momentum flow to the local operator, leads of course to UV poles results equivalent to those obtained from any other one. We have tested this by considering a null incoming momentum flow and both introducing a certain cut-off to regularize IR divergences and separating IR and UV poles obtained by dimensional regularization.

If we collect the tree-level results and those from Eqs. (40), we can write:

$`g_\mu ^a|A^2|g_\nu ^b=2\left(g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}}\right)\delta ^{ab}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{3N_C}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _b}{4\pi }}+O\left(\alpha _b^2\right)\right\}+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (41)
where the matrix element in l.h.s. of Eq. (41) is defined for explicitly cut external gluons. Combinatorics gives a multiplicity factor $`2`$ for a-like diagram, $`1`$ for b-like, which have been taken into account in the last result.

We should now renormalize the matrix element defined in Eq. (41). Our aim being to determine its anomalous dimension computation to only one-loop, the simple MS prescription of simply dropping away from bare quantities the poles for $`\epsilon 0`$ can be applied. Discrepancies between such a prescription and MOM or any other one appear only beyond one-loop. Then we will have :

$`\widehat{Z}^{MS}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3N_C}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _b}{4\pi }}+O\left(\alpha _b^2\right)\right)`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3N_C}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{MS}(\mu )}{4\pi }}+O\left(\alpha ^{MS}(\mu )\right)^2\right).`$
From Eq. (42), the anomalous dimension can be written as (see for instance ):

$`\widehat{\gamma }^{\mathrm{MS}}\left(\alpha ^{MS}(\mu )\right)={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{Z}^{\mathrm{MS}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{3N_C}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{MS}(\mu )}{4\pi }}+O\left(\left(\alpha ^{MS}(\mu )\right)^2\right).`$ (43)
Thus we obtain in the MOM scheme,

$`\widehat{\gamma }\left(\alpha (\mu )\right)={\displaystyle \frac{3N_C}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\mu )}{4\pi }}+O\left(\left(\alpha (\mu )\right)^2\right).`$ (44)
From this we deduce finally, including the gluon anomalous dimension

$`\gamma _{A^2}\left(\alpha (\mu )\right)={\displaystyle \frac{35N_C}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\mu )}{4\pi }}+O\left(\left(\alpha (\mu )\right)^2\right).`$ (45)


format: text

text:
# A Characterization of Freeness by a Factorization Property of 𝑅-transform.

## 1. Operator-valued $`R`$-transform.

### 1.1. Multiplicative functions.

Let $`B`$ be a unital algebra. Recall that a *$`B`$-probability space* $`(M,E:MB)`$ (see e.g. , ) is a pair consisting of an algebra $`M`$ containing $`B`$ as a unital subalgebra, and a *conditional expectation* $`E:MB`$. In other words, $`E:MB`$ is unital and $`B`$-bilinear:

$$E(1)=1,E(bmb^{})=bE(m)b^{},b,b^{}B,mM.$$

Elements of $`M`$ are called $`B`$-valued random variables.

Recall that a *multiplicative map* $`\mathrm{}:M^nB`$ is a $``$-multilinear map, (i.e., a sequence of maps $`M^nm_1,\mathrm{},m_nm_1,\mathrm{},m_nB`$) satisfying the $`B`$-linearity conditions

$`bm_1,\mathrm{},m_n`$ $`=`$ $`bm_1,\mathrm{},m_n`$
$`m_1,\mathrm{},m_nb`$ $`=`$ $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_nb`$
$`m_1,\mathrm{},m_kb,m_{k+1},\mathrm{},m_n`$ $`=`$ $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_k,bm_{k+1},\mathrm{},m_n.`$
(Here $`m_iM`$, $`bB`$).

Given a non-crossing partition $`\pi NC(n)`$ and an arbitrary multiplicative map $`\mathrm{}`$, we can construct a *bracketing* $`\pi \mathrm{}:M^nB`$, defined recursively by

$`1_km_1,\mathrm{},m_k`$ $`=`$ $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_k`$
$`(\pi \rho )m_1,\mathrm{},m_k`$ $`=`$ $`\pi m_1,\mathrm{},m_p\rho m_{p+1},\mathrm{},m_k`$
$`\text{ins}(p,\rho \pi )(m_1,\mathrm{},m_k)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi m_1,\mathrm{},m_p\rho m_{p+1},\mathrm{},m_{p+q},`$
$`m_{p+q+1},\mathrm{},m_k.`$
Here $`1_k`$ denotes the partition with the sole class $`\{1,\mathrm{},k\}`$, $`\pi \rho `$ denotes disjoint union (with the equivalence classes of $`\rho `$ placed after those of $`\pi `$), and $`\text{ins}(p,\rho \pi )`$ denotes the partition obtained from $`\pi `$ by inserting the partition $`\rho `$ after the $`p`$-th element of the set on which $`\pi `$ determines a partition.

In other words, each partition $`\pi `$ is interpreted as a recipe for placing brackets $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`\pi \mathrm{}`$ is the value of the resulting expression.

### 1.2. Moments and $`R`$-transform.

The $`B`$-probability space structure of the algebra $`M`$ gives rise to one example of such a multiplicative map, namely, the *moments map*

$$[\mathrm{}]_E:M^nB,$$

given by

$$[m_1,\mathrm{},m_n]_E=E(m_1\mathrm{}m_n).$$

The reason for the name is that, having fixed $`B`$-random variables $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_pM`$, the following values of $`[\mathrm{}]_E`$,

$$[b_0X_{i_1}b_1,\mathrm{},X_{i_{n1}}b_{n1},X_{i_n}b_n]_E$$

are called *$`B`$-valued moments* of the family $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$.

In  and  the notion of $`B`$-valued $`R`$-transform was introduced (we follow the combinatorial approach of , see also ). Like the map $`[\mathrm{}]`$, the $`R`$-transform map is a multiplicative map

$$\{\mathrm{}\}_E:M^nB.$$

The following combinatorial formula actually determines $`\{\mathrm{}\}_E`$ uniquely:

$`[m_1,\mathrm{},m_n]_E={\displaystyle \text{all possible bracketings involving }\{\mathrm{}\}_E}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\pi NC(n)}{}}\pi \{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n\}_E.`$
The uniqueness of the definition can be easily seen by observing that the right-hand side of the equation above involves $`\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n\}_E`$ and that the rest of the terms are products of factors of smaller order (i.e., restrictions of $`\{\mathrm{}\}_E`$ to $`M^k`$, $`k<n`$).

It is important to note that $`[\mathrm{}]`$ determines $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ and vice-versa. Moreover, the value of $`[\mathrm{}]|_{M^n}`$ depends only on $`\{\mathrm{}\}|_{M\mathrm{}M^n}`$, and vice-versa.

### 1.3. Moment and cumulant series.

Given a multiplicative function $`\mathrm{}:M^kB`$, and $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_nB`$, consider the family of multilinear maps

$$M_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{\mathrm{}}:B^{k1}B,i_1,\mathrm{},i_k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}$$

given by

$$M_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{\mathrm{}}(b_1,\mathrm{},b_{k1})=X_{i_1}b_1,\mathrm{},b_{k1}X_{i_k}.$$

In the particular examples above, we get the *moment series* of $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$,

$$\mu _{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}=M_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{[\mathrm{}]_E}$$

and the *cumulant series*,

$$k_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}=M_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{\{\mathrm{}\}_E}.$$

We will sometimes write

$$k_{B;i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}$$

to emphasize that the series is valued in $`B`$.

### 1.4. Freeness with amalgamation.

Let $`M_1,M_2M`$ be two subalgebras, each containing $`B`$. The importance of $`R`$-transform is apparent from the following theorem (, see also ):

###### Theorem.

Let $`S_1,S_2`$ be two subsets of $`M`$. Let $`M_i`$ be the algebra generated by $`S_i`$ and $`B`$, $`i=1,2.`$ Then $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are free with amalgamation over $`B`$ iff whenever $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_nS_1S_2`$,

$$\{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n\}_E=0$$

unless either all $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_nS_1`$, or all $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_nS_2`$.

### 1.5. Canonical random variables.

Let $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_nM`$ be fixed.

Then by  there exists a $`B`$-probability space $`(,E_B:B)`$, elements $`\lambda _1^{},\mathrm{},\lambda _n^{}`$, and elements $`\lambda _p^k`$ satisfying the following properties:

1. $`\lambda _{j_1}^{}b_1\lambda _{j_2}^{}b_2\mathrm{}\lambda _{j_k}^{}b_k\lambda _j^k=k_{j_1,\mathrm{},j_k,j}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}(b_1,\mathrm{},b_k)`$, $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_kB`$;
2. Let $`w=b_0a_1b_1a_2b_2\mathrm{}a_nb_n`$, where $`b_iB`$, $`a_i=\lambda _p^k`$ or $`a_i=\lambda _p^{}`$. Then $`E_B(w)=0`$ unless $`w`$ can be reduced to an element of $`B`$ using relation 1.5(i).

(By convention, we take $`\lambda _p^0=E_B(X_p)B`$). We should clarify that for each $`k`$, $`\lambda _p^k`$ is just a formal variable, and we do not assume any relations between $`\{\lambda _k^p\}_{k,p}`$: for example, $`\lambda _p^k`$ is not the $`k`$-th power of $`\lambda _p^1`$.

It is not hard to show that the properties listed above determine the restriction of $`E_B`$ to the algebra generated by $`\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\{\lambda _p^k\}_{p,k}`$.

Let

$$Y_j=\lambda _j^{}+\underset{k0}{}\lambda _j^k.$$

(This series is formal; however, $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n`$ have moments, since each such moment involves only a finite number of terms from the series defining $`Y_j`$).

It turns out that

$$k_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}=k_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n},\text{and }\mu _{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}=\mu _{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n}.$$

In other words, given a cumulant series, $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n`$ is an explicit family of $`B`$-valued random variables, whose cumulant series is equal to the one given.

## 2. Freeness from a subalgebra.

### 2.1. $`D`$-cumulants vs. $`B`$-cumulants.

Let now $`DB`$ be a unital subalgebra, and let $`F:BD`$ be a conditional expectation. If $`(M,E:MB)`$ is a $`B`$-probability space, then $`(M,FE:MD)`$ is a $`D`$-probability space.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_nM`$. Assume that the $`B`$-valued cumulants of $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ satisfy

$$k_{B;i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}(d_1,\mathrm{},d_{k1})D,d_1,\mathrm{},d_{k1}D.$$

Then the $`D`$-valued cumulants of $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ are given by the restrictions of the $`B`$-valued cumulants:

$$k_{D;i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}(d_1,\mathrm{},d_{k1})=k_{B;i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}(d_1,\mathrm{},d_{k1}),d_1,\mathrm{},d_{k1}D.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`N`$ be the algebra generated by $`D`$ and $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$. The condition on cumulants implies that

$$\{\mathrm{}\}_E|_{{\scriptscriptstyle N^p}}$$

is valued in $`D`$. It follows from the moment-cumulant formula that $`[\mathrm{}]_E|_{{\scriptscriptstyle N^p}}`$ is valued in $`D`$, and hence that

$$[\mathrm{}]_{FE}|_{{\scriptscriptstyle N^p}}=[\mathrm{}]_E|_{{\scriptscriptstyle N^p}}=\underset{\pi NC(p)}{}\pi \{\mathrm{}\}_E|_{{\scriptscriptstyle N^p}}.$$

Since the moment-cumulant formula determines $`\{\mathrm{}\}_{FE}|_{{\scriptscriptstyle N^p}}`$, it follows that

$$\{\mathrm{}\}_{FE}|_{{\scriptscriptstyle N^p}}=\{\mathrm{}\}_E|_{{\scriptscriptstyle N^p}}.$$

We record an equivalent formulation of the theorem above (which was implicit in the proof):

###### Theorem 2.2.

Let $`NM`$ be a subalgebra, containing $`D`$. Assume that $`\{\mathrm{}\}_E|_{{\scriptscriptstyle N^p}}`$ is valued in $`D`$. Then

$$\{\mathrm{}\}_{FE}|_{{\scriptscriptstyle N^p}}=\{\mathrm{}\}_E|_{{\scriptscriptstyle N^p}}.$$

In general, in the absence of the condition that $`k_B^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}`$ restricted to $`D^p`$ is valued in $`D`$, the expression of $`D`$-valued cumulants of $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ in terms of the $`B`$-valued cumulants is quite complicated. Note, for example, that if $`X`$ is a $`B`$-valued random variable, and $`bB`$, then the $`B`$-valued cumulant series of $`bX`$ are very easy to describe. On the other hand, the $`D`$-valued cumulant series of $`bX`$ can have a very complicated expression in terms of the $`D`$-valued cumulant series of $`X`$ and $`b`$.

The sufficient condition in the theorem above is actually quite close to being necessary in the case that the conditional expectations are positive maps of $``$-algebras. As an illustration, consider the case that $`DB`$ consists of scalar multiples of $`1`$, and $`F:BD`$ is such that $`\tau =FE`$ is a *trace* on $`M`$, satisfying $`\tau (xy)=\tau (yx)`$ for all $`x,yM`$.

Recall that $`X`$ is called a $`B`$-semicircular variable if its cumulant series is given by

$$k_{\underset{p}{\underset{}{1,\mathrm{}1}}}^X(b_1,\mathrm{},b_{p1})=\delta _{p,2}\eta (b_1)$$

for some map $`\eta :BB`$. It is easily seen that if $`X`$ is $`B`$-semicircular, then $`\eta (b)=E(XbX)`$.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`(M,E:MB)`$ be a $`B`$-probability space, such that $`M`$ and $`B`$ are $`C^{}`$-algebras. Let $`F:B=DB`$ be a faithful state. Assume that $`\tau =FE`$ is a faithful trace on $`M`$. Let $`X`$ be a $`B`$-semicircular variable in $`M`$. Then the distribution of $`X`$ with respect to $`\tau `$ is the semicircle law iff $`E(X^2)`$.

###### Proof.

If $`E(X^2)=k_{11}^X(1)`$, it follows that the $`B`$-valued cumulants of $`X`$, restricted to $`D=`$ are valued in $`D`$. Hence by Theorem 2.2, the $`D`$-valued cumulant series of $`X`$ are the same as the restriction of the $`B`$-valued cumulant series; hence the only scalar-valued cumulant of $`X`$ which is nonzero is the second cumulant $`k_{11}^X`$, so that the distribution of $`X`$ is the semicircle law.

Conversely, assume that the distribution of $`X`$ is the semicircle law. Let $`\eta (b)=k_{11}^X(b)`$, $`bB`$. Then we have

$`2\tau (\eta (1))^2`$ $`=`$ $`2\tau (X^2)^2`$
$`=`$ $`\tau (X^4)=FE(X^4)`$
$`=`$ $`F(E(\eta (\eta (1))))+F(E(\eta (1)\eta (1)))`$
$`=`$ $`\tau (X\eta (1)X)+\tau (\eta (1)^2)`$
$`=`$ $`\tau (\eta (1)XX)+\tau (\eta (1)^2)`$
$`=`$ $`2\tau (\eta (1)^2),`$
so that

$$\tau (\eta (1))=\tau (\eta (1)^2)^{1/2}.$$

By the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, we have that if $`\eta (1)`$,

$$\tau (\eta (1))=\eta (1),1<\eta (1)_21_2=\tau (\eta (1)^2)^{1/2},$$

which is a contradiction. Hence $`\eta (1)`$. ∎

We mention a corollary, which is of interest to random matrix theory. Let $`\sigma (x,y)=\sigma (y,x)`$ be a non-negative function on $`[0,1]^2`$, having at most a finite number of discontinuities in each vertical line. Let $`G(n)`$ be an $`n\times n`$ random matrix with entries $`g_{ij}`$, so that $`\{g_{ij}:ij\}`$ are independent complex Gaussian random variables, $`g_{ij}=\overline{g_{ji}}`$, the expectation $`E(g_{ij})=0`$ and the variance $`E(|g_{ij}|^2)=\frac{1}{n}\sigma (\frac{i}{n},\frac{j}{n})`$. The matrices $`G(n)`$ are called Gaussian Random Band Matrices. Let $`\mu _n`$ be the expected eigenvalue distribution of $`G(n)`$, i.e.,

$$\mu _n([a,b])=\frac{1}{n}\times \text{expected number of eigenvalues of }G(n)\text{in }[a,b].$$

###### Corollary 2.4.

The eigenvalue distribution measures $`\mu _n`$ of the Gaussian Random Band Matrices $`G(n)`$ converge weakly to the semicircle law iff $`_0^1\sigma (x,y)𝑑y`$ is a.e. a constant, independent of $`x`$.

The proof of this relies on a result from , showing that $`G(n)`$ has limit eigenvalue distribution $`\mu `$, given as follows. Let $`X`$ be the $`L^{\mathrm{}}[0,1]`$-semicircular variable in an $`L^{\mathrm{}}[0,1]`$-probability space $`(M,E:ML^{\mathrm{}}[0,1])`$, so that $`E(XfX)(x)=_0^1f(y)\sigma (x,y)𝑑y`$. Let $`F:L^{\mathrm{}}[0,1]`$ denote the linear functional $`F(f)=_0^1f(x)𝑑x`$, and denote by $`\tau `$ the trace $`FE`$ on $`W^{}(X,L^{\mathrm{}}[0,1])`$. Then $`\mu `$ is the scalar-valued distribution of $`X`$ with respect to $`\tau `$, i.e.,

$$t^k𝑑\mu (t)=\tau (X^k).$$

It remains to apply Theorem 2.3, to conclude that $`\mu `$ is a semicircle law iff $`E(X^2)`$, i.e., $`_0^1\sigma (x,y)𝑑y`$ is a constant function of $`x`$.

### 2.2. A characterization of freeness.

We are now ready to state the main theorem of this note. The following theorem was earlier proved for $`B`$-valued semicircular variables in , and found many uses in operator algebra theory.

###### Theorem 2.5.

Let $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_nM`$. Assume that $`F:BD`$ satisfies the faithfullness condition that if $`b_1B`$ and if $`F(b_1b_2)=0`$ for all $`b_2B`$, then $`b_1=0`$. Then $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ are free from $`B`$ with amalgamation over $`D`$ iff their $`B`$-valued cumulant series satisfies

(2.1)
$$k_{B;i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}(b_1,\mathrm{},b_{k1})=F(k_{B;i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}(F(b_1),\mathrm{},F(b_{k1})).$$

for all $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_{k1}B`$. In short, $`k=FkF`$. (Here the cumulant series are computed in the $`B`$-probability space $`(M,E:MB)`$). Equivalently,

$$k_{B;i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}(b_1,\mathrm{},b_{k1})=k_{D;i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}(F(b_1),\mathrm{},F(b_{k1})).$$

We note that in the case that $`M`$ is a $`C^{}`$-probability space, the faithfulness assumption above is exactly the condition that the GNS representation of $`B`$ with respect to the conditional expectation $`F`$ is faithful.

Since $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ are free from $`B`$ with amalgamation over $`D`$ iff the algebra $`N`$ generated by $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ and $`D`$ is free from $`B`$ over $`D`$, the theorem above can be equivalently stated as

###### Theorem 2.6.

Let $`NM`$ be a subalgebra of $`M`$, containing $`D`$. Assume that $`F:BD`$ satisfies the faithfullness condition that if $`b_1B`$ and if $`F(b_1b_2)=0`$ for all $`b_2B`$, then $`b_1=0`$. Then $`N`$ is free from $`B`$ over $`D`$ iff

$$\{n_1b_1,n_2b_2,\mathrm{},n_k\}_E=F\{n_1F(b_1),n_2F(b_2),\mathrm{},n_k\}_E$$

for all $`k`$ and $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_kN`$, $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_{k1}B`$.

###### Proof.

We prove the theorem in the first formulation.

Assume that the condition (2.1) is satisfied by the cumulant series of $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$. Let $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n`$ be as in Section 1.5. Since the freeness of $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ from $`B`$ with amalgamation over $`D`$ is a condition on the $`B`$-moment series of $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$, and $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n`$ have the same $`B`$-moment series as $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$, it is sufficient to prove that $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n`$ are free with amalgamation over $`D`$ from $`B`$.

Since (2.1) is satisfied, $`\lambda _j^0=E_B(Y_j)D`$ and hence $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n`$ belong to the algebra $``$ generated in $``$ by $`\lambda _j^{}`$ and $`\lambda _p^q`$, $`1j,pn`$, $`q1`$ and $`D`$. Therefore, it is sufficient to prove that $``$ is free from $`B`$ with amalgamation over $`D`$.

Let $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_s`$, so that $`FE_B(w_j)=0`$, and let $`b_0,\mathrm{},b_sB`$, so that $`F(b_j)=0`$ (allowing also $`b_0`$ and/or $`b_s`$ to be equal to $`1`$). We must prove that

$$FE_B(b_0w_1b_1\mathrm{}w_sb_s)=0.$$

Note that the factorization condition (2.1) as well as the definition of the generators of $``$ (see 1.5(i) and 1.5(ii)) imply that $`E_B|_{}`$ has values in $`D`$. It follows that we may assume that $`E_B(w_j)=0`$ (since $`FE_B(w_j)=E_B(w_j)D`$). By the definition of $`E_B`$, its kernel is spanned by irreducible non-trivial words in the generators $`\lambda _j^{}`$ and $`\lambda _p^q`$. Then

$$W=b_0w_1\mathrm{}w_sb_s$$

is again a linear combination of words in the generators $`\lambda _j^{}`$ and $`\lambda _p^q`$. By linearity, we may reduce to the case that $`W`$ is a single word. If $`W`$ is irreducible, it must be non-trivial (since each $`w_i`$ is non-trivial), hence $`E_B(W)=0`$, so that $`FE_B(W)=0`$. So assume that $`W`$ is not irreducible. Since each $`w_i`$ is irreducible, this means that $`W`$ contains a sub-word of the form

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`W_1d_0\lambda _{i_1}^{}d_1\lambda _{i_2}^{}d_2\mathrm{}`$
$`d_sb_1d_{s+1}\lambda _{i_{s+2}}^{}\mathrm{}b_j\mathrm{}\lambda _{i_k}^{}d_kb_rd_{k+1}\lambda _{i_{k+1}}^{}`$
$`\mathrm{}d_p\lambda _{i_p}^{}d_{p+1}\lambda _j^pW_2.`$
Using the relation (1.5(i)) and the factorization condition (2.1), we get that

$$W=W_1d_0k_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_p,j}(d_1,\mathrm{},F(d_kb_rd_{k+1}),\mathrm{},d_{p+1})W_2=0,$$

since $`F(d_kb_rd_{k+1})=d_kF(b_r)d_{k+1}=0`$. Thus in any case, $`FE_B(W)=0`$.

We have therefore seen that the factorization condition implies freeness with amalgamation.

To prove the other implication, assume that $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ are free with amalgamation over $`D`$ from $`B`$. Let $`Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n`$ be $`B`$-valued random variables, so that

$$k_{B;i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n}(b_1,\mathrm{},b_{k1})=F(k_{D,i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}(F(b_1),\mathrm{},F(b_{k1}))).$$

where $`k_D`$ denote $`D`$-valued cumulants. (Note that the first occurrence of $`F`$ is actually redundant, as $`k_{D,i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n}(F(b_1),\mathrm{},F(b_{k1})D`$). Then by the first part of the proof, $`Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n`$ are free from $`B`$ with amalgamation over $`D`$. Moreover, by Theorem 2.2, the $`D`$-valued distributions of $`Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n`$ and $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ are the same. By assumption, $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ are free with amalgamation over $`D`$ from $`B`$. This freeness, together with the $`D`$-valued distribution of $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$, determines their $`B`$-valued distribution. Indeed, the freeness assumptions determine

$$FE(b^{}b_0X_{i_1}b_1X_{i_2}\mathrm{}b_{n1}X_{i_n}b_n),b^{},b_iB$$

which in view of the assumptions on $`F`$ determines

$$E(b_0X_{i_1}b_1X_{i_2}\mathrm{}b_{n1}X_{i_n}b_n),b_iB.$$

It follows that the $`B`$-valued distributions of $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ and $`Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n`$ coincide. Hence the $`B`$-valued cumulants of $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ satisfy (2.1). ∎

As an application, we have the following proposition (see e.g. \[4, Lemma 2.7\]):

###### Proposition 2.7.

Let $`NM`$ be a subalgebra. Let $`BCDM`$ be subalgebras, and $`E_C:MC`$, $`E_B:MB`$, $`E_D:MD`$ be conditional expectations, so that $`E_B=E_BE_C`$, $`E_C=E_CE_D`$. Assume that $`E_C`$ and $`E_B`$ and $`E_D`$ satisfy the faithfullness assumptions of Theorem 2.5. Assume that $`N`$ is free from $`C`$ with amalgamation over $`B`$, and also free from $`D`$ with amalgamation over $`C`$. Then $`N`$ is free from $`D`$ with amalgamation over $`B`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`N`$ is free from $`D`$ with amalgamation over $`C`$, we have that for all $`n_jN`$ and $`d_jD`$,

$$\{n_1d_1,n_2d_2,\mathrm{},n_k\}_{E_D}=E_C\{n_1E_C(d_1),\mathrm{},n_k\}_{E_C}.$$

Since $`N`$ is free from $`C`$ with amalgamation over $`D`$, we get similarly that for all $`c_jC`$,

$$\{n_1c_1,n_2c_2,\mathrm{},n_k\}_{E_C}=E_B\{n_1E_B(c_1),\mathrm{},n_k\}_{E_B}.$$

Applying this with $`c_j=E_C(d_j)`$ and combining with the previous equation gives

$$\{n_1d_1,n_2d_2,\mathrm{},n_k\}_{E_D}=E_B\{n_1E_B(d_1),\mathrm{},n_k\}_{E_B},$$

since $`E_B=E_BE_C`$. Hence $`N`$ is free from $`D`$ with amalgamation over $`B`$. ∎

We mention as a corollary the following identity. Let $`BCD`$ be $`C^{}`$-algebras, $`E_B^N:NB`$, $`E_B^C:CB`$ and $`E_C^D:DC`$ be conditional expectations, having faithful GNS representations. Consider the reduced free product

$$(((N,E_B^N)_B(C,E_B^C)),E_B^N\text{id})_C(D,E_C^D),$$

where $`E_B^N\text{id}`$ denotes the canonical conditional expectation from the free product $`(N,E_B^N)_B(C,E_B^C)`$ onto $`C`$. Then

$`(((N,E_B^N)_B(C,E_B^C)),E_B^N\text{id})_C(D,E_C^D)`$
$`(N,E_B^N)_B(D,E_B^CE_C^D).`$
To see this, it is sufficient to prove that $`N(((N,E_B^N)_B(C,E_B^C)),E_B^N\text{id})_C(D,E_C^D)`$ is free from $`D`$ with amalgamation over $`B`$, since both $`(((N,E_B^N)_B(C,E_B^C)),E_B^N\text{id})_C(D,E_C^D)`$ and $`(N,E_B^N)_B(D,E_B^CE_C^D)`$ are generated by $`N`$ and $`D`$ as $`C^{}`$-algebras. But $`N`$ is free from $`D`$ over $`C`$, and from $`C`$ over $`D`$, by construction. Hence by the proposition above, $`N`$ is free from $`D`$ over $`B`$.


text:
# Low Temperature Magnetothermodynamics of Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3

## I Introduction

The rare earth perovskite manganites (R1-xAxMnO3) are associated with a wide variety of fascinating physics due to the strong coupling between their electronic, magnetic and lattice degrees of freedom. Phenomena observed in these materials include $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$colossal$`\mathrm{"}`$ magnetoresistance, real-space charge ordering, electronic phase separation, and a diverse variety of magnetoelectronic ground states (Ramirez 1997, Coey $`etal.`$ 1999).

Although this entire class of materials displays unusual behavior, one composition, Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3, has been shown to display a particularly rich set of phenomena. Upon cooling from high temperatures in low fields, this material undergoes a charge-ordering transition at Tco $``$ 230 K (Jirák, $`etal.`$ 1980, Jirák $`etal.`$ 1985, Cox $`etal.`$ 1998) and an antiferromagnetic (AFM) transition (at T $``$ 150K) (Yoshizawa $`etal.`$ 1995). At lower temperatures (T$`{}_{CAFM}{}^{}`$ 110K), the system enters a different state which we will label canted antiferromagnetic (CAFM) based on earlier neutron scattering results, although some recent papers suggest that the CAFM phase is actually an inhomogeneous mixed phase (Frontera $`etal.`$ 2000, Radaelli $`etal.`$ preprint, Deac $`etal.`$ preprint). At lower temperatures (T $``$ 60 K), application of a field (H $``$ 2.5 T), induces a first-order irreversible transition to a ferromagnetic (FM)) metallic state, i.e. the system remains in the FM metallic state even after the external field has been removed (although the charge ordered state is reestablished on subsequent heating above T $``$ 60 K (Tomioka $`etal.`$ 1996). The strong hysteresis associated with this transition is indicated by the hatched region in figure 1 which illustrates where the state is history dependent.

Like several other manganite compounds, the resistivity of Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 is reduced by orders of magnitude in a magnetic field due to the irreversible field-induced transition (Tomioka $`etal.`$ 1996, Hwang $`etal.`$ 1995, Tomioka $`etal.`$ 1995, Lees $`etal.`$ 1996, Anane $`etal.`$ 1999). What sets Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 apart from the other manganites is that the metastable insulating state also can be driven metallic by electric field (Asamitsu $`etal.`$ 1997, Stankiewicz $`etal.`$ 2000), high pressure (Morimoto $`etal.`$ 1997), exposure to visible light (Miyano $`etal.`$ 1997, Fiebig $`etal.`$ 1998), or x-rays (Kiryukhin $`etal.`$ 1997, Cox $`etal.`$ 1998)). To characterize the irreversible transition between these two magnetic states, we have made a detailed study of both single crystal and polycrystalline samples of this compound through resistivity, magnetization, field-dependent specific heat, and magnetocaloric measurements. We find that there is an enormous release of heat at the field-induced transition at low temperatures, sufficient to raise the sample temperature by a factor of 2, which explains the irreversibility of the transition. In the FM state at low temperatures, our specific heat and magnetization measurements indicate a ferromagnetic spin wave stiffness which is far below that seen in any other manganite. The data can most easily be explained as a result of ferromagnetism among the moments associated with the Pr ions, and the results imply that the Pr magnetism may be important to understanding the unusual low temperature properties of this material. Some of these results have been published previously elsewhere (Roy $`etal.`$ 2000b).

## II Experimental Details

We studied both a polycrystalline sample of Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 synthesized by a standard solid state method and a single crystal grown in a floating zone mirror furnace. Both samples were judged to be single-phase based on x-ray diffraction studies, and the results discussed below were qualitatively and quantitatively consistent between the two samples (data for the single crystal are shown). Resistivity was measured by a standard four probe ac in-line method and magnetization was measured in a Quantum Design SQUID magnetometer. Specific heat was measured by a semi-adiabatic heat-pulse method calibrated against a copper standard (Roy 1999, unpublished).

Magnetocaloric measurements were performed using our calorimeter. The calorimeter with the sample attached was temperature-controlled at a few degrees above the surrounding cryostat temperature after zero-field cooling. The field was then swept while recording the heat required to maintain the sample at constant temperature. The difference between the input heat required during the field sweep and that required at constant field was attributed to magnetocaloric effects since other sources of heating (e.g. eddy currents) were found to be negligible.

## III Thermodynamics of the Field-Induced CAFM - FM Transition

In this section we describe the field dependence of the low temperature thermodynamic properties of Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 with particular attention to the field induced CAFM-FM transition at $``$ 4 T. The insulating CAFM phase has been shown to have spin-glass-like properties (consistent with phase separation (Cox $`etal.`$ 1998, Yoshizawa $`etal.`$ 1995, Tomioka $`etal.`$ 1995, Frontera $`etal.`$ 2000, Radaelli $`etal.`$ preprint, Deac $`etal.`$ preprint)), and the spin-glass-like nature is evident in the low field temperature dependence of the magnetization, M(T). At TCAFM we observe a sharp rise in M(T), but at lower temperatures we see a large difference between the zero-field-cooled and the field-cooled magnetization for H $``$ 0.5 T (see figure 2). While the magnetization after field-cooling displays an increase with decreasing temperature, magnetization after the sample had been zero-field cooled drops at a lower temperature, and continues to decrease with decreasing temperature. The extent of this difference between the zero-field-cooled and the field-cooled magnetization decreases with increasing field with the two curves becoming nearly identical at fields above 0.5 T.

Upon raising the field after zero-field-cooling, the magnetization, M(H), shows a sharp rise. The slope of M(H) decreases with increasing field until $``$ 3 T when there is an increase in dM/dH corresponding to the transition from the CAFM state to the FM state (see figure 3). At high fields, M(T) reaches a value consistent with $``$ 95$`\%`$ of full saturation magnetization of the Mn lattice. On subsequent field sweeps, however, M(T) follows the FM magnetization curve – confirming the irreversibility of the first-order field-induced transition. The field required to induce the transition decreases with increasing temperature, and at T $``$ 60 K, M(T) becomes non-hysteretic, indicating the maximum temperature for which the FM phase is stable in zero field.

We measured the field-dependence of the specific heat, C(H), by zero-field cooling the sample and then measuring the specific heat every 0.25 T while sweeping the field from 0 $``$ 9 T $``$ -9 T $``$ 9 T. We find that C(H) decreases monotonically with increasing field which is consistent with suppression of spin excitations in a highly magnetized system (see figure 4). Upon raising the field after zero-field-cooling, there is a sharp drop in C(H) at H $``$ 4 T corresponding to the CAFM-FM transition. The large difference between the specific heats of the CAFM and the FM states reflects the first order nature of the transition, and is plotted at H = 0 in the inset to figure 4. Even within the FM state, the specific heat is extraordinarily sensitive to magnetic field, changing by $``$ 70 mJ/mole-K or $``$ 40$`\%`$ between 0 and 9 T. The magnitude of this change, and its implications for the thermodynamics of Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 will be discussed below.

The sample mounted on the calorimeter is only weakly thermally linked to the surrounding cryostat, and in the course of measuring C(H) it became evident that a significant amount of heat was being released by the sample upon passing through the CAFM-FM transition. This self-heating is illustrated in figure 5 which shows the temperature of the sample (TS) during a field sweep. For this measurement, the sample was cooled in zero field and stabilized at the temperature of the surrounding cryostat, then the sample temperature was measured as the field was swept from 0 $``$ 9 T, 9 T $``$ 0 and 0 $``$ 9 T at 0.0006 T/second. As seen in figure 5, when the field is raised from 0 to 9 T for the first time, TS increases remarkably with increasing field, displaying a steady rise between around 2.5 T to 4 T. At higher fields (4 T $``$ H $``$ 5.5T), while dTS/dH is negative, the large temperature difference between the sample and the base temperature indicates continued self-heating. This was confirmed by stopping a field sweep at 4T, allowing the sample to equilibrate to the surrounding cryostat temperature, and then observing a rise in TS upon resuming the field sweep. The sample continues to show some heating effect even at higher fields, although not as pronounced as that at low fields. On decreasing the field and during subsequent field sweeps, TS remains largely constant except for small changes attributable to demagnetization effects.

To quantify this self-heating, we measured the actual heat released by the sample through magnetocaloric measurements. These measurements were conducted by monitoring the input power (P) required to maintain the calorimeter at a constant temperature during field sweeps. Figure 6 shows a typical dataset at low temperatures in which we first cooled in zero field and then swept the magnetic field 0 $``$ 9 T $``$ -9 T $``$ 9 T while keeping both the calorimeter and the surrounding cryostat at constant temperature. When the field is raised for the first time after zero field cooling, we see a series of small features in P(H) for H $`<`$ 1 T. We attribute these reproducible features to heat release associated with the spin-glass-like character of the zero-field-cooled CAFM state (Yoshizawa $`etal.`$ 1995, Anane $`etal.`$ 1999, Deac $`etal.`$ preprint), i.e. irreversible relaxation of the spin configuration during the initial field sweep (Mydosh 1993, Tsui $`etal.`$ 1999). These low field features are not seen in P(H) in the FM phase after field cooling or after a large field has been applied and removed, although there is a slight drop near H = 0 which we attribute to domain effects. The most dramatic feature in the magnetocaloric data, however, is the heating at higher fields (H $``$ 2.5 T) during the initial sweep up in field, as reflected by the negative peak in P(H). This peak is associated with the first order CAFM-FM phase transition and, on subsequent field sweeps, the sample displays essentially no heating, demonstrating the irreversible nature of this heat release. We calculated the total heat released in this process between H $`=`$ 2.5T and 9 T using

$$Q=\underset{2.5T}{\overset{9T}{}}\frac{P(H)}{dH/dt}𝑑H.$$
(1)
Since the sweep rate (dH/dt) is constant, the total heat released by the sample can be evaluated quite easily by using equation 1 and subtracting the background (using the data from subsequent field sweeps as the baseline). The total heat released in this process is found to be around 15 $`\pm `$ 1 J/mole which is enormous – large enough to increase the sample temperature of a perfectly thermally isolated sample from 5 to 15 K. Moreover, this heating is not an artifact of eddy current heating, since Q remains unchanged (within a few percent) even when the sweep rate is increased by a factor of 4 (see figure 7). Similar studies were performed at different temperatures, and we find that Q is only weakly dependent on temperature at low temperatures (T $``$ 30 K). At higher temperatures, Q decreases monotonically with increasing temperature above T $``$ 30 K, before finally disappearing at T $``$ 50 K as shown in figure 8.

The magnitude of Q from the magnetocaloric measurements is extraordinarily large compared with the other thermal energy scales in the system, as evidenced by the large self-heating. The 15 J/mole obtained at low temperatures is, in fact, significantly larger than what one would calculate for the free energy based on an integration of the specific heat. On the other hand, the source of this large amount of heat is readily apparent from our measurements of M(H) at low temperatures. The increment in magnetization associated with the CAFM-FM transition occurs in a magnetic field, and therefore must be associated with a decrease in the Zeeman energy of the sample, the release of which should be observed as heat. One can calculate this magnetic heat release QM from simple thermodynamics using the following integral:

$$Q_M=\underset{H_{min}}{\overset{H_{max}}{}}H𝑑MQ_M=\underset{H_{min}}{\overset{H_{max}}{}}H\frac{M}{H}𝑑H,$$
(2)
where Hmin and Hmax are defined by the width of the transition. This integral is readily evaluated from our measurements of M(H), and, at low temperatures, we find QM $``$ 10 $`\pm `$ 1 J/mole with error bars calculated from the uncertainty in determining the limits of the integral. This magnitude is consistent with the magnetocaloric measurements discussed above, confirming that this is the source of the large heat release at the transition. We find that QM decreases with increasing temperature (see figure 8), consistent with the disappearance of this field induced transition at T $``$ 60 K. The thermodynamic origin of this large heat release is discussed below in context of ferromagnetism among the Pr ions.

## IV Thermodynamics of the Ferromagnetic Phase

One of the most striking features of the data discussed above is the rather strong field dependence of the low temperature specific heat in the FM phase (i.e. after the material undergoes the irreversible field induced transition). The absolute value of the drop in C(H) between 0 and 9 T in the FM state is at least a factor of 15 larger than that of the other FM conducting manganites such as La0.7Ca0.3MnO3 or La0.7Sr0.3MnO3 (Roy $`etal.`$ 2000a). In order to understand the origin of this large drop in the specific heat, we also measured the specific heat as a function of temperature at various fields. In order to enter the FM state, we either field-cooled the sample (for H $`>`$ 4T) or raised the field to 9 T at low temperatures and then reduced it to the desired value (for H $`<`$ 4T). As shown in figure 9, we find that C(T) in the FM state is well described by a combination of phonon and spin wave terms:

$$C(T)=\beta T^3+\delta T^{3/2}$$
(3)
where the first term corresponds to the lattice specific heat and the second corresponds to the specific heat of FM magnons at H = 0. This choice of fitting function can be justified by subtracting the lattice contribution ($`\beta T^3`$) from the raw data. The result follows a power law temperature dependence with an exponent of 1.5 as seen in the inset to figure 9, confirming that the remainder is the magnetic contribution Cmag $`=`$ $`\delta T^{3/2}`$. This form is appropriate for H = 0, and it fits the zero-field data well. That it also appears to fit the data at higher fields, even though the corrections for field dependence have not been included, may be attributable to some temperature dependence in the spin stiffness which would be reflected in $`\delta `$. It should also be noted, that while this form fits the data well, we cannot rule out the possibility of some additional contribution, such as a linear term which would arise from free electrons or a spin glass (Smolyaninova $`etal.`$ 2000). Given the quality of the fit and also the fits to C(H) discussed below, however, we expect such a contribution to be negligible.

\>From our fits to C(T) we find that $`\beta `$ remains independent of H (within experimental uncertainty), but that $`\delta `$ decreases rapidly with increasing field (see figure 10). This implies that the field dependence of the specific heat at low temperatures can be attributed to the spin-wave contribution and the decrease in specific heat with increasing field can be attributed to the field suppression of the spin-waves. We can fit the C(H) data to the form expected for a Heisenberg ferromagnet (Kittel 1964):

$$C(H)=A+\frac{k_B^{5/2}T^{3/2}V_{mole}}{4\pi ^2D^{3/2}}\underset{g\mu _BH/k_BT}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x^2e^x}{(e^x1)^2}\sqrt{x\frac{g\mu _BH}{k_BT}}𝑑x,$$
(4)
where $`V_{mole}`$ is the molar volume and the only two fitting constants A and D parameterize the lattice contribution and the stiffness constant of the spin wave spectrum respectively. Such a fit is illustrated by the solid line in 4. We fit for $`|`$H$`|`$ $`>`$ 1 T to avoid domain effects which are evident also in our magnetocaloric and magnetization data described above. The fits to C(H) at T = 5.5K yield a stiffness constant (D $``$ 28.0 $`\pm `$ 0.3 meV-Å2) which is at least a factor of 4 smaller than that of other ferromagnetic metallic manganites (see table LABEL:t4.1 (Martin $`etal.`$ 1996, Perring $`etal.`$ 1996, Fernandez-Baca $`etal.`$ 1998, Lynn $`etal.`$ 1996), accounting for the much larger suppression of specific heat by an applied field. A fit at T = 12 K, is of similarly high quality, and yields D = $``$ 22.0 $`\pm `$ 0.5 meV-Å2, suggesting a slight temperature dependence to the spin stiffness. The very soft spin wave spectrum implied by the fits to C(H) is quite surprising since there should be little difference in the Mn-Mn exchange energies in Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 and other manganites which have similar structures and lattice constants. The value of D can be checked, however, from the fits to the temperature dependence of the specific heat C(T). The fit parameter $`\delta `$ for H $`=`$ 0 is related to the spin stiffness constant through $`C_{magnon}=0.113k_BV_{mole}\left(\frac{k_B}{D}\right)^{3/2}`$, and thus we can calculate the stiffness constant using the value of $`\delta `$ from the fit to FM state C(T) at H = 0. We find that this value of D (25.3 $`\pm `$ 0.5 meV-Å2) is close to that calculated from the C(H) data.

To further test the extraordinarily low value of D obtained from specific heat data, we measured the low temperature field-cooled temperature dependence of the magnetization in the FM state at H $`=`$ 7 T. When proper corrections are made for the field-induced spin gap in an external field, M(T) is consistent with spin-wave excitations with the exception of the lowest temperature data which is suppressed by around 0.3$`\%`$ possibly due to a minute presence of a second phase as shown in figure 11. Modeling the data as a simple Heisenberg ferromagnet and assuming that there is no spin gap at H $`=`$ 0, the spin-wave dispersion relation at an external field H is

$$\omega _k=g\mu _B(HNM)+Dk^2,$$
(5)
where NM is the demagnetization field and M is the magnetization. Using the standard spin-wave picture, the magnetization is given by (Kittel 1964, Kunzler $`etal.`$ 1960, Henderson $`etal.`$ 1969, Smolyaninova $`etal.`$ 1997):

$$M(0,H)M(T,H)=g\mu _B\left(\frac{k_BT}{4\pi D}\right)^{3/2}f_{3/2}(g\mu _B(HNM)/k_BT),$$
(6)
where

$$f_p(y)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{e^{ny}}{n^p}.$$
(7)
Our sample had dimensions 1.04mm$`\times `$0.904mm$`\times `$0.4mm, and thus the demagnetization field at 7 T was calculated to be around 0.54 T. The summation f$`{}_{3/2}{}^{}(y)`$ in equation 7 is evaluated at discrete temperatures, and the stiffness constant, D is calculated from a plot of $`(M(0,H)M(T,H))/f_{3/2}T^{3/2}`$ as shown in the inset to figure 11. We find that the measured value of D of this compound is around 25 $`\pm `$ 2 meV-Å2, this is again at least a factor of four smaller than that of other ferromagnetic metallic perovskite manganites (see table LABEL:t4.1), and consistent with the specific heat data.

## V Discussion

Since the fits to C(T), C(H) and M(T) consistently yield a spin stiffness constant which is much smaller than that obtained in other manganites, we must look for an explanation as to what might be different in Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3. To answer this question, we note that the FM saturation magnetization of Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 is at least 10$`\%`$ higher than that in other FM metallic rare-earth manganites such as La1-xCaxMnO3 (see table LABEL:tmag) (Tomioka $`etal.`$ 1995, Lees $`etal.`$ 1996, Thomas $`etal.`$ 1999, Gong $`etal.`$ 1995, Urushibara $`etal.`$ 1995, Ju $`etal.`$ 1995, Martinez $`etal.`$ 1996). Since the Mn spins display considerable canting (Yoshizawa $`etal.`$ 1995) in Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 even at high fields, an additional FM moment such as that associated with the rare-earth is required to explain this excess magnetization. Recent neutron diffraction studies (Cox $`etal.`$ 1998) have indeed observed ferromagnetic ordering of the Pr3+ ions for T $`<`$ 60 K. Moreover, we also observe a distinct small rise in M(T) at T $``$ 50-60K in figure 2 with an accompanying peak in C(T), presumably associated with the weak FM ordering of the Pr moments. Based on the similarity in the lattices, there is no reason to expect that the Mn-Mn FM interaction is more than 4 times weaker in Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 than that in other FM manganites, and in fact preliminary neutron scattering measurements of D for the Mn spins in the field-induced ferromagnetic phase of Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 yield D $``$ 150 meV-Å2 (Fernandez-Baca and Dai, unpublished). We therefore hypothesize that the weak FM ordering of the Pr ions is responsible for small spin stiffness in Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3. This hypothesis implies that excitations among the Pr spins dominate the low temperature thermodynamics of Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 since the softer spin wave spectrum of the Pr moments is more sensitive to thermal excitations than that of the Mn spins.

We now discuss the origin of the large heat release at the first order CAFM-FM transition, which, at first consideration, might be considered as the latent heat of the transition. If a system undergoing a first order phase transition is in equilibrium throughout the transition, then the free energy changes continuously through the transition. The latent heat associated with such a transition results from a discontinuity in the first temperature derivative of the free energy, i.e. a discontinuous change in the entropy of the system even though the system is always in equilibrium. In addition to the latent heat, more energy can be released at a first order transition if the system is not in equilibrium when the transition occurs, e.g. in the case of supercooling or supermagnetization. In such cases, there is an energetic barrier to the nucleation of the equilibrium phase which is typically characterized as a positive surface energy of the interface between the two phases. Homogeneous nucleation of the equilibrium phase only occurs when the system is driven so far out of equilibrium that the free energy difference between the two phases becomes large enough for thermal fluctuations to overcome this surface energy barrier. Once the equilibrium phase nucleates, the excess free energy is typically released as heat.

In the case of Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 cooled in zero field, the CAFM state seems to be the lowest energy state for T $``$ 60 K, the same temperature at which the Pr moments order ferromagnetically. Below 60 K, the FM state apparently becomes energetically more favorable than the CAFM state even at H = 0 since application of x-rays induces metallicity which is then quenched upon raising the field above 60 K. Thus for T $``$ 60 K, the CAFM state resulting from zero-field cooling is metastable and effectively strongly supercooled. At this low temperature, however, the energetic advantage of the FM state is apparently insufficient to cause it to nucleate spontaneously through thermal fluctuations, presumably due to a relatively large effective surface energy, and thus the system remains in the non-equilibrium CAFM state. A large applied field can, however, make the FM state more energetically favorable, and in a large enough field the non-equilibrium free energy difference between the two phases becomes sufficient to allow homogeneous nucleation of the FM phase. When the phase transition is induced, this free energy difference associated with the applied field is released as heat, which is what we observe in our magnetocaloric measurements. Once the system is in the FM state, there is no equivalent energetic advantage to reverting to the CAFM state when the field is removed, and thus the transition is irreversible. This scenario for the low temperature zero-field thermodynamics is shown schematically in figure 12.

Within this scenario we can also understand the reversible nature of the light-induced insulator-metal transition in Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3. When light is applied to Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 at low temperatures, it drives small regions of the sample into the FM conducting state. When the light and applied voltage are removed, however, the sample returns to the CAFM insulating state (Miyano $`etal.`$ 1997, Fiebig $`etal.`$ 1998). Based on the stability of the low temperature CAFM phase after cooling in zero field, one expects that the surface energy at the interface between the CAFM and FM states is large. Thus the small regions of the FM conducting phase will be "swallowed" by the CAFM phase when the external stimuli are removed, since the system will gain more energy by shrinking the interface between the two phases than by growing the FM phase from these small regions.

## VI Conclusions

We have presented a variety of thermodynamic data on Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3 including magnetization, magnetocaloric and specific heat measurements, both as a function of temperature and applied magnetic field. Our data suggest that the Pr ferromagnetism and its coupling with Mn spins may be important to the physics of this system at low temperature, and that excitations among the Pr spins might dominate the thermal excitations in the material at low temperatures. The Pr ordering temperature (T $``$ 60) is coincident with the maximum temperature at which FM phase is stable at H = 0 (induced either by pressure or a previously applied field). Furthermore, this is also the temperature above which the x-ray induced metallicity is quenched (Kiryukhin $`etal.`$ 1997). It thus appears possible that the onset of Pr ferromagnetism destabilizes the CAFM phase relative to the FM phase, so that in zero field the CAFM phase is stable for T $`>`$ 60 K but then becomes unstable to the FM phase below T $``$ 60 K when the Pr spins order. In this scenario, both the Pr ferromagnetism and its coupling to the Mn moments are crucial to understanding the physics and are therefore inseparable from the numerous unique phenomena observed in Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3.

REFERENCES

Anane, A., Renard, J. -P., Reversat, L., Dupas, C., Veillet, P., Viret, M., Pinsard, L. and Revocolevschi, A. 1999, $`Phys.Rev.`$ B59, 77.

Asamitsu, A., Tomioka, Y., Kuwahara, H. and Tokura, Y. 1997, $`Nature`$ 388, 50.

Coey, J. M. D., Viret, M. and von Molnar, S., 1999 $`Adv.Physics`$ 48,167.

Cox, D. E., Radaelli, P. G., Marezio, M. and Cheong, S. -W., 1998, $`Phys.Rev.`$ B57, 3305.

Deac, I. G., Mitchell, J. F., Schiffer, P. (preprint, cond-mat/0012143)

Fernandez-Baca, J. A., Dai, P., Hwang, H. Y., Kloc, C. and Cheong, S. -W. 1998, $`Phys.Rev.Lett.`$ 80, 4012.

Fernandez-Baca, J. A. and Dai, P. (unpublished).

Fiebig, M., Miyano, K., Tomioka, Y. and Tokura, Y., 1998, $`Science`$ 280, 12.

Frontera, C., Garcia-Munoz, J. L., Llobet, A., Respaud, M., Broto, J. M., Lord, J. S. and Planes, A. 2000, $`Phys.Rev.`$ B62, 3381.

Gong, G. Q., Canedy, C., Xiao, G., Sun, J. Z., Gupta, A. and Gallagher, W. J., 1995, $`Appl.Phys.Lett.`$ 67, 1783.

Henderson, A. J., Onn, D. G., Meyer, H. and Remeika, J. P., 1969, $`Phys.Rev.`$ 185, 1218.

Hwang, H. Y., Cheong, S. -W., Radaelli, P. G., Marezio M. and Batlogg, B., 1995, $`Phys.Rev.Lett.`$ 75, 914.

Jirák, Z., Krupička, S., Nekvasil, V., Pollert, E., Villeneuve, G. and Zounová, F., 1980, $`J.Mag.Mag.Mater.`$ 15-18, 519.

Jirák, Z., Krupǐcka, S., Simsa, Z., Dlouha, M. and Vratislav, Z., 1985, $`J.Mag.Mag.Mater.`$ 53, 153.

Ju, H. L., Gopalkrishnan, J., Peng, J. L., Li, Q., Xiong, G. C., Venkatesan, T. and Greene, R. L., 1995 $`Phys.Rev.`$ B51, 6143.

Kiryukhin, V., Casa, D., Hill, J. P, Keimer, B., Vigliante, A., Tomioka Y. and Tokura, Y., 1997, $`Nature`$ 386, 813.

Kittel, C., 1964 Quantun Theory of Solids (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.).

Kunzler, J. E., Walker L. R and Galt, J. K., 1960, $`Phys.Rev.`$ 119, 1609.

Lees, M. R., Barratt, J., Balakrishnan, G., McK Paul D. and Dewhurst, C. D., 1996, $`J.Phys.Condens.Matter.`$ 8, 2967.

Lynn, J. W., Erwin, R. W., Borchers, J. A., Huang, Q. and Santoro, A., 1996, $`Phys.Rev.Lett.`$ 76, 4046.

Martin, M., Shirane, G., Endoh, Y., Hirota, K., Moritomo, Y. and Tokura, Y., 1996, $`Phys.Rev.`$ B53, R14285.

Martínez, B., Fontcuberta, J., Seffar, A., García-Muñoz, J. L., Piñol, S. and Obradors, X., 1996, $`Phys.Rev.`$ B54, 10001.

Miyano, K., Tanaka, T., Tomioka, Y. and Tokura, Y., 1997, $`Phys.Rev.Lett.`$ 78, 4257.

Morimoto, Y., Kuwahara, H., Tomioka Y. and Tokura, Y., 1997, $`Phys.Rev.`$ B 55, 7549.

Mydosh, J. A., 1993 Spin Glasses: An Experimental Introduction, (London: Taylor and Francis).

Perring, T. G., Aeppli, G., Hayden, S. M., Carter, S. A., Remeika, J. P. and Cheong, S. -W., 1996 $`Phys.Rev.Lett.`$ 77, 711.

Radaelli, P. G., Iberson, R. M., Cheong, S. -W. and Mitchell, J. F. (preprint,cond-mat/0006190).

Ramirez, A. P., 1997 $`J.Phys.Condens.Matter`$ 9, 8171.

Roy, M., Mitchell, J. F., Potashnik, S. J. and Schiffer, P., 2000a, $`J.Mag.Mag.Mat.`$, 218, 191.

Roy, M., Mitchell, J. F., Potashnik, S. J. and Schiffer, P., 2000b, $`Phys.Rev.B`$.

Roy, M., 1999, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Notre Dame (unpublished).

Smolyaninova, V. N., Biswas, A., Zhang, X., Kim, K. H., Kim, B. -G., Cheong, S. -W. and Greene, R. L., 2000, $`Phys.Rev.`$ B 62, 6093.

Smolyaninova, V. N., Hamilton, J. J., Greene, R. L., Mukovskii Y. M. and Karabashev, S. G. and Balbashov, A. M., 1997, $`Phys.Rev.`$ B 55, 5640.

Stankiewicz, J., Sese, J., Garcia, J., Blasco, J. and Rillo, C. 2000 $`Phys.Rev.`$ B61, 11236.

Thomas, R. -M., Skumryev, V., Coey, J. M. D. and Wirth, S., 1999, $`J.Appl.Phys.`$ 85, 5384.

Tomioka, Y., Asamitsu, A., Kuwahara, H., Moritomo, Y. and Tokura, Y., 1996, $`Phys.Rev.`$ B53, R1689.

Tomioka, Y., Asamitsu, A., Moritomo, Y. and Tokura, Y., 1995, $`J.Phys.Soc.ofJapan.`$ 64, 3626.

Tsui, Y. K., Burns, C. A., Snyder, J. and Schiffer, P., 1999, $`Phys.Rev.Lett.`$ 82, 3532.

Urushibara, A., Moritomo, Y., Arima, T., Asamitsu, A., Kido, G. and Tokura, Y., 1995, $`Phys.Rev.`$ B51, 14103.

Yoshizawa, H., Kawano, H., Tomioka, Y. and Tokura, Y., 1995, $`Phys.Rev.`$ B 52, R13145.