format: text

text:
# Vertically coupled quantum dots in the local spin-density functional theory

## I Introduction

The study of systems with a small number ($`N`$) of electrons confined to a quasi two-dimensional (2D) semiconductor quantum dot (QD) constitutes a subject of growing interest (see for instance Refs.  and references therein). One reason for this interest is that their electronic properties can be selected with some freedom by tailoring the shape of the lateral confining potential. In this sense, they are often referred to as artificial atoms. Recently, circular and elliptically disk-shaped QD’s have been built in a very clean way, and their properties have been thoroughly studied  as a function of $`N`$.

Usually, QD’s are described as true 2D systems. This seems justified, as it has been widely tested by comparing theory with experiment. However, this comparison may be obscured by the fact that the parameters defining the confining potential are adjusted and might mask 3D effects. However, complex 2D calculations have been carried out without further restrictions or imposed symmetries.  Full 3D calculations also exist in the Hartree or Hartree-Fock (HF) approximations for very few electrons (see for instance Refs. ), and also within the density functional theory.

A systematic study of the role of dimensionality in QD structure has been presented by Rontani et al. In spite of the success of 2D models in describing the properties of QD’s subjected to perpendicular magnetic fields, the width in the growth direction of most experimentally studied QD’s is around one order of magnitude smaller than their typical radius. The effect of a small but finite vertical extension on the QD structure is worth studying considering that a recent extension of single QD studies to vertically coupled quantum dots may render including the $`z`$ extension of the constituent dots unavoidable to describe the experimental data.

Vertically coupled dots, also called artificial or quantum dot molecules, have been theoretically addressed in a number of works.  Only in Ref.  has the $`z`$ extension of the constituent QD’s been taken into account; in the other references, it was neglected and consequently, their results cannot be reliable when the interdot distance is comparable to their $`z`$ extension, which is an interesting physical situation.

In this work we present a study of vertically coupled, cylindrical QD’s in the local spin-density functional theory (LSDFT). We restrict our description to axially symmetric configurations and identical QD’s, and limit ourselves to zero magnetic field $`B`$. While these two latter conditions are easy to relax without increasing the amount of numerical work too much, axial symmetry breaking would require a more demanding 3D calculation.

Our scheme is based on the application of the so-called imaginary-time method (ITM). It requires a discretization of the Kohn-Sham (KS) equations on a spatial mesh that can be straightforwardly implemented on a personal computer, and avoids expansion of the single-particle (sp) wave functions in a basis, large matrix diagonalizations and tests of the stability of the results against changes in the size of the basis.

In contrast to standard methods for computing molecular structure , we do not postulate from the start that the artificial molecular orbitals can be expressed as linear combinations of artificial atomic orbitals (LCAAO) and consequently, we avoid making approximations such as complete neglect of differential overlap (CNDO) where the individual wave functions of electrons associated with different artificial atoms are taken as being orthonormal, as happens when the QD’s are either two dimensional or far apart.

The present approach to the description of vertically coupled QD’s constitutes a clear improvement on previous LSDFT calculations in which the electrons are located on one of the dots, and as a consequence, can only be electrostatically coupled, even when they lie at short distances. With respect to the generalized Hubbard model plus the diagonalization scheme of Ref. , the present improvement is the possible application of LSDFT to systems with large numbers of electrons. Moreover, one could think of a trivial generalization to non-identical dots, paying the well known token that LSDFT treats the exchange Coulomb term locally, and that LSDFT configurations are usually mixtures of many-electron states with the same value of the total spin projection $`S_z`$, however, with different total spin $`S`$. For small systems, this drawback (which is also inherent to the generalized Hubbard approach) can be removed with a shell-model calculation in a restricted sp valence space. Another difference between our approach and the Hubbard model is that even if the exchange energy is treated locally, it is not restricted to involving only electrons located on the same dot. This might be advantageous in the strong coupling case when the dots are close together and the quantum mechanical coupling due to electron exchange is important.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II we present the formalism and the essentials of the ITM. Results for one single thick QD and for two coupled dots are presented in Section III, and a summary is presented in Section IV. In an Appendix we present the self-interaction correction to the density functional results obtained for two extreme interdot distances and several electron numbers.

## II Methodological approach

Within LSDFT, the ground-state of the system is obtained by solving the Kohn-Sham equations. The problem is simplified by the imposed axial symmetry around the $`z`$ axis, which allows one to write the sp wave functions as $`\varphi _{nl\sigma }(r,z,\theta ,\sigma )=u_{nl\sigma }(r,z)e^{ıl\theta }\chi _\sigma `$ with $`l=0,\pm 1,\pm 2\mathrm{}`$, where $`l`$ is the projection of the sp orbital angular momentum on the symmetry axis.

We have used effective atomic units $`\mathrm{}=e^2/ϵ=m=`$1, where $`ϵ`$ is the dielectric constant, and $`m`$ the electron effective mass. In units of the bare electron mass $`m_e`$ one has $`m=m^{}m_e`$. In this system, the length unit is the effective Bohr radius $`a_0^{}=a_0ϵ/m^{}`$, and the energy unit is the effective Hartree $`H^{}=Hm^{}/ϵ^2`$. In the numerical applications we have considered GaAs, for which we have taken $`ϵ`$ = 12.4, and $`m^{}`$ = 0.067. This yields $`a_0^{}`$ 97.94 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`H^{}`$ 11.86 meV.

In cylindrical coordinates the KS equations read

$`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{z^2}})+V_{cf}(r,z)`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`V^H+V^{xc}+W^{xc}\eta _\sigma ]u_{nl\sigma }(r,z)=ϵ_{nl\sigma }u_{nl\sigma }(r,z),`$ (3)
where $`\eta _\sigma `$=$`+1(1)`$ for $`\sigma `$=$``$$`()`$, $`V_{cf}(r,z)`$ is the confining potential, $`V^H(r,z)`$ is the direct Coulomb potential, and $`V^{xc}=_{xc}(n,m)/n|_{gs}`$ and $`W^{xc}=_{xc}(n,m)/m|_{gs}`$ are the variations of the exchange-correlation energy density $`_{xc}(n,m)`$ in terms of the electron density $`n(r,z)`$ and of the local spin magnetization $`m(r,z)n^{}(r,z)n^{}(r,z)`$ taken at the ground state (gs).

As usual, $`_{xc}(n,m)_x(n,m)+_c(n,m)`$ has been built from 3D homogeneous electron gas calculations. This yields a well-known, simple analytical expression for the exchange contribution $`_x(n,m)`$. For the correlation contribution $`_c(n,m)`$ we have used two different parameterizations, both based on the results of Ceperley and Alder. The first was proposed by Vosko, Wilk and Nusair, and the second by Perdew and Zunger. We have checked that they yield the same results, and all results presented in this work have been obtained with the exchange-correlation energy density proposed by Perdew and Zunger.

For a double QD the confining potential $`V_{cf}(r,z)`$ has been taken to be parabolic with frequency $`\omega _0`$ in the $`xy`$ plane, plus a symmetric double quantum well in the $`z`$ direction. For a single QD we have also used a parabolic confining potential in the $`xy`$ plane, together with a quantum well in the $`z`$ direction. Any other axially symmetric $`V_{cf}(r,z)`$ can be implemented as well.

$`V^H(r,z)`$ was obtained solving the Poisson equation using the conjugate gradient method (CGM). This requires a knowledge of $`V^H(r,z)`$ at the mesh boundary which can be obtained by direct integration. Due to axial symmetry

$$V^H(r,z)=2_0^{\mathrm{}}r^{}𝑑r^{}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑z^{}\mathrm{\Delta }n(\stackrel{}{r}^{})[(r+r^{})^2+(zz^{})^2]^{1/2}𝐄(\alpha ^2),$$
(4)
where E is the complete elliptic integral of the second kind and $`\alpha ^24rr^{}/[(r+r^{})^2+(zz^{})^2]`$.

We have discretized the KS and Poisson equations using $`k`$-point Lagrange formulae for the $`r`$\- and $`z`$-derivatives, and $`k+1`$-point Lagrange formulae for the integrations. The mesh size has to be such that the discretized wave functions $`u(r_i,z_j)`$ at the mesh boundary can be safely taken as zero. This is one boundary condition for physically acceptable solutions to Eq. (LABEL:eq1), the other one is the regularity of the sp wave functions at $`r=0`$. In our scheme the $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ steps may have different values. The high precision demanded by the calculation imposes restrictions on the possible values of $`k`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ and will be discussed below. This space discretization scheme offers an efficient calculation of sp wave functions, thus of the electron densities and direct Coulomb and exchange-correlation potentials.

The imaginary time method is described in detail in Ref. . It is based on the observation that the discretized time-evolution operator $`(t)`$ for the time-dependent KS equations

$$ı\mathrm{}\frac{\varphi _j(t)}{t}=(t)\varphi _j(t)$$
(5)
which formally yields

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(n+1)}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ı}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }t^{(n)}\right)\varphi _j^{(n)},$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the time step and $`n`$ indicates the step iteration, for imaginary $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=ı\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau >0`$) produces a decrease of the KS energy. In imaginary time, the wave functions $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(n+1)}\}`$ are no longer orthonormal, and a Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization has to be carried out after each iteration to obtain $`\{\varphi _j^{(n+1)}\}`$ from $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(n+1)}\}`$. To first order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$, Eq. (6) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(n+1)}=\left(1\frac{^{(n)}\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }{\mathrm{}}\right)\varphi _j^{(n)},$$
(7)
which shows the simplicity of the method and its practical implementation: after discretizing the KS Hamiltonian and wave functions, it essentially reduces to repeated application of the KS Hamiltonian to the previous wave functions. Moreover, it is easy to check from Eq. (7) that upon convergence

$$ϵ_j^{(n+1)}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }\left[1\varphi _j^{(n)}|\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(n+1)}\right]$$
(8)
coincide with the KS sp energies. Equation (7) shows that the ITM belongs to the general class of relaxation methods employed to solve partial differential equations. This provides a simple criterion for fixing $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ in such a way that the imaginary time evolution is stable, namely $`\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{max}/(2m\mathrm{\Delta }^2)<1/4`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the smallest between the $`r`$ and $`z`$ steps. In actual calculations we have taken $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =0.1\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{max}`$.

To start the ITM iteration one needs a set of sp wave functions and energies to build the initial sp level scheme. We have used two such sets. The first consists of the wave functions of an axially symmetric, 3D harmonic oscillator potential of frequencies $`\omega _0`$ and $`\omega _z`$ in the radial and $`z`$ directions, respectively. This potential gives rise to analytical solutions even in the presence of a constant magnetic field in the $`z`$ direction, and is a suitable confining potential for a single QD. In this case, the sp Hamiltonian is separable and the wave function can be written as $`u(r,z)=(r)𝒵(z)/\sqrt{2\pi }`$ with

$`(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n_r!}{2^{|l|}(n_r+|l|)!}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{a}}\right)^{|l|}e^{(r/2a)^2}L_{n_r}^{|l|}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2a^2}}\right)`$ (9)
$`𝒵(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{n_z}n_z!}}}H_{n_z}(\zeta z)e^{\zeta ^2z^2/2},`$ (11)
where $`a\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2m\omega _0}`$, $`\zeta \sqrt{m\omega _z/\mathrm{}}`$, and $`L_{n_r}^{|l|}`$ and $`H_{n_z}`$ are generalized Laguerre and Hermite polynomials, respectively. The sp energies are $`_{n_r,n_z,l}=\mathrm{}\omega _0[2n_r+|l|+1]+\mathrm{}\omega _z[n_z+1/2]`$ with $`n_r`$ and $`n_z`$ equal to 0, 1, …

For a double QD, we have found it convenient to choose $`𝒵(z)`$ as the lowest energy eigenfunctions of a 1D double quantum well. The QD thickness is such that for not too many electrons, only the two lowest states are needed. If the double dot is symmetric, these solutions are either even or odd under reflection $`zz`$. Actually, for one QD, $`𝒵(z)`$ can also be the wave function in the 1D quantum well.

Both for a single QD and for a symmetric double dot, the single-electron wave functions are characterized by the values of $`l_z`$, $`s_z`$ and parity, i.e., they must be either symmetric or antisymmetric under inversion $`\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}`$, and be either even or odd when reflecting $`zz`$. All these symmetries are included in the starting separable wave functions. Indeed, the Hermite polynomials are even or odd depending on $`n_z`$, and the parity of a sp level is simply $`()^{n_z+|l|}`$. As the KS Hamiltonian and the ITM preserve these symmetries, in the course of the iteration procedure the sp wave functions, which are no longer separable, keep their initial quantum numbers (orbital and spin projection on the $`z`$ axis, parity and reflection symmetry with respect to the $`z=0`$ plane) which are conserved quantities.

To check the numerical scheme we have carried out extensive and systematic tests. A first test on the discretization and iteration procedure consisted in numerically solving an axially deformed harmonic oscillator potential. We have exactly reproduced the spectrum $`_{n_r,n_z,l}`$ given after Eqs. (LABEL:eq9). The implementation of the CGM has been successfully tested comparing results computed for a spherical Gaussian charge distribution with the analytical distributions.

As another test of the numerical code, we have compared the total energy calculated from a straightforward integration of the energy density with the expression in terms of the sp energies derived from the KS equations. Writing the correlation energy density as $`_c[n,m]n_{cor}[n,\xi ]`$, where $`_{cor}[n,\xi ]`$ is the correlation energy per electron and $`\xi m/n`$ is the local spin polarization, one obtains

$$E=\underset{j}{}ϵ_j𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\left\{\frac{1}{2}V^H(\stackrel{}{r})n(\stackrel{}{r})+\frac{1}{3}_x[n,m]+\frac{_{cor}[n,\xi ]}{n}n^2(\stackrel{}{r})\right\}$$
(12)
We have checked that in the worst case, the energies calculated with either method agree to within one part in $`10^4`$ for our combination of $`k=7`$ formulae and the values $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=\mathrm{\Delta }z=0.12a_0^{}`$ used in this work. Simpler three point formulae ($`k=3`$) turned out to be inaccurate for reasonable spatial steps, and $`k=9`$ and 11 formulae, which allow larger steps, did not appreciably reduce the computing time. It might be interesting to remark that most of this disagreement arises from the integral of the external confining potential for a quantum well in the $`z`$ direction, due to the sharp discontinuity in the given potential. We have checked that for a parabolic confining potential in the $`z`$ direction, both methods of evaluating the total energy agree to within one part in $`10^7`$.

In the case of double QD’s, we have also checked that the results coincide irrespective of whether we start the iteration from pure harmonic oscillator wave functions, or from the better choice of double quantum well eigenfunctions in the $`z`$ direction. For even-$`N`$ systems we have always started the iteration with non-identical sp potentials for spin-up and spin-down electrons, to avoid artificial configurations with $`S_z=0`$.

## III Results

### A Single quantum dot

We have first addressed the addition energies of one quantum dot hosting up to $`N=21`$ electrons. The confining potential in the $`z`$ direction is a quantum well $`W=12`$ nm wide, which corresponds to the experimental well, and $`V_0=200`$ meV deep. Electrons are laterally confined by the parabolic potential $`m\omega _0^2r^2/2`$ for which we have tried different $`\omega _0`$ values.

Figure 1 shows the addition spectrum $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(N)E(N+1)2E(N)+E(N1)`$ for $`\omega _0`$ = 3, 5, and 10 meV. In addition to local maxima at shell filling values $`N`$ = 2, 6, 12, and 20, other peaks appear at half-filling values $`N`$ = 4 and 9. This is a consequence of Hund’s rule, which establishes that degenerate electronic states in a shell are filled with parallel spins up to half-shell, in order to maximize the exchange interaction.

Up to $`N`$ = 12 the results look very similar to the experimental values, especially for medium and weak $`r`$-confinement. For larger $`N`$ values we have found a conspicuous even-odd effect, instead of the weak maxima experimentally found at $`N`$ = 20, and especially at $`N`$ = 16. This result does not mean that Hund’s rule is violated within this shell. Indeed, we have found spin alignment up to $`N`$ = 16, but the associated energy gain is not enough to produce the local maximum at $`N`$ = 16. It is worth pointing out that the energies involved in the definition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(N)`$ are very large, compared with the second energy difference. For example, for $`\omega _0`$ = 5 meV, $`E(16)`$ = 1.048 eV, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(16)`$ is $``$ 3 meV.

For strong $`r`$-confinement, our results are quite similar to those in Ref. , except for medium and small values. This is not surprising, since in this Ref. the 3D electron-electron energy is treated in first-order perturbation theory, thus one should not expect it to hold if the confinement is not strong enough. The two-dimensional $`E(N+1)E(N)`$ results at $`B`$ = 0 coincide with those in Ref.  when $`\omega _0`$ = 5 meV.

Our 3D dot is rather strongly confined in the $`z`$ direction, and the results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(N)`$ are similar to those obtained for pure 2D dots. We have computed the addition energies using the 2D dot model described in detail in Ref. ; as shown in Fig. 2, 2D and 3D results are very similar and qualitatively better than those from other different 2D models.  As one increases the confinement in the $`z`$ direction up to $`V_0`$ = 300 meV, the addition energies become indistinguishable in the scale of Fig. 1. We shall see that this is not the case for double dots, and that even qualitative differences appear if the dots are strongly coupled.

In spite of this quasi two-dimensional behaviour, the electron density spreads beyond the well up to distances that are relevant for vertically coupled dots. This is illustrated in Fig. 3, where we have plotted the $`n(z)`$ electron density defined as

$$n(z)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rrn(r,z)$$
(13)
corresponding to $`N`$= 12, $`W`$= 12 nm, and $`V_0`$ = 200 and 300 meV \[notice that $`N=2\pi 𝑑zn(z)`$\]. The electron densities spill out of the quantum well, the smaller the confinement, the larger the effect.

Finally, in Fig. 4 we represent the density of a 2D dot hosting 12 electrons, and the $`n(r)`$ density of the corresponding 3D dot defined as $`n(r)=𝑑zn(r,z)`$ \[notice that $`N=2\pi 𝑑rrn(r)`$\], both for $`\omega _0`$ = 5 meV. These radial densities are very similar. The 3D densities $`n(r)`$ for $`V_0=300`$ meV, instead of 200 meV, are indistinguishable within the scale of the figure.

These comparisons allow one to infer that the experimental dots are quasi two-dimensional systems to a large extent, with moderate lateral confinement, $`\omega _0`$ 5 meV.

### B Double quantum dots

We have modelled a symmetric double dot by a parabolic confining potential with frequency $`\omega _0`$ = 5 meV in the $`r`$ direction, and a symmetric double quantum well in the $`z`$ direction. Each quantum well has a width equal to 12 nm, and is separated from the other by a barrier of thickness $`d`$ that varies from 1 to 9 nm. Some experimental results are available for this system at $`d`$ 2.5 nm. Results for well depths $`V_0`$ = 200 and 300 meV will be discussed.

Figure 5 shows the $`n(z)`$ density profiles corresponding to a quantum-mechanically coupled configuration ($`d`$ = 2.5 nm), and to an electrostatically coupled configuration ($`d`$ = 7.5 nm). Only in the former case, are the electrons delocalized. A quantitative measure of this localization is provided by the energy splitting between symmetric and antisymmetric sp states (more precisely between even and odd states with respect to specular reflection $`zz`$), $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SAS}`$. Indeed, for $`N`$ = 1 and large distances, the symmetric and antisymmetric states are degenerate and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SAS}`$ approaches zero. As $`d`$ decreases, the coupling increases and so does $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SAS}`$. This effect depends weakly on $`N`$. We have plotted $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SAS}`$ as a function of $`d`$ in Fig. 6, for the lowest $`l`$ = 0 sp levels of systems with $`N`$ = 1 and 20.

Due to the characteristics of our double quantum well, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SAS}`$ depends exponentially on $`d`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SAS}(d)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{exp}(d/d_0)`$. For $`V_0`$ = 200 meV we have ($`d_0,\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$) = (1.79 nm, 19.2 meV) for $`N`$ = 1 and (1.76 nm, 17.6 meV) for $`N`$ = 20, whereas for $`V_0`$ = 300 meV, ($`d_0,\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$) = (1.44 nm, 17.9 meV) for $`N`$ = 1 and (1.42 nm, 16.5 meV) for $`N`$ = 20. These values are similar to those in Refs.  and . It can be seen from Fig. 5 that for a given interdot distance, enlarging $`V_0`$ decreases the coupling between the dots, as the density overlap diminishes. Figure 7 shows the densities $`n(r,z)`$ for $`N`$ = 12 and for two $`d`$ values corresponding to quantal ($`d`$ = 2.5 nm) and to electrostatic ($`d`$ = 7.5 nm) coupling.

Figure 8 shows the addition spectrum for quantum mechanically coupled ($`d`$ = 2.5 nm), and electrostatically coupled ($`d`$ = 7.5 nm) dots, as well as the results corresponding to the single 3D dot. They have been obtained for $`V_0`$ = 200 meV. Figure 9 shows the same spectrum for $`V_0`$ = 300 meV. As expected, changes mostly appear in the strong coupling case ($`d`$ = 2.5 nm). Unexpectedly enough, these changes are qualitative, with, for example, maxima in $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(N)`$ changed into minima.

Fig. 6 indicates that at $`d`$ = 7.5 nm the dots are well apart, only influenced by the electrostatic coupling, and the addition energies are insensitive to the value of $`V_0`$. There are no experimental results in the literature for $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(N)`$ at this interdot distance. However, the experimental analysis of the derivative of the drain intensity with respect to the drain voltage versus drain voltage indicates that the electrons in the dots are indeed delocalized for $`d`$ = 2.5 nm, and rather localized for $`d`$ = 7.5 nm.

The weak coupling at $`d`$ = 7.5 nm allows us to interpret the appearance of several peaks in $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(N)`$, such as those at $`N`$ = 4, 8 and 12, as due to the fact that 2, 4, and 6 electrons on each dot already yield maxima in the addition spectrum of a single QD. The remaining peak at $`N`$ = 2 corresponds now to half-filling the first shell in each dot, which would close at $`N`$ = 2. This is caused by the localization of one electron on each constituent dot.

Experimental results have been published for $`d`$ = 2.5 nm. We have not attempted to use $`V_0`$ as a fitting parameter, so when comparing with experiment one should bear in mind both the sensitivity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(N)`$ on the value of $`V_0`$ in the strong coupling limit and the results displayed in Figs. 8 and 9. Published calculations correspond to depths lying in between these two values.

One can see that maxima of $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(N)`$ decrease on the average when compared to the isolated QD. This is in agreement with experiment. Notice however that the experimental $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(N)`$ for the strongly coupled double dot is approximately half that corresponding to the single dot, especially when $`N10`$. This feature is not reproduced by the calculations.

Globally, the results for $`d`$ = 2.5 nm are better reproduced with $`V_0`$ = 200 meV up to $`N`$ = 12, and with $`V_0`$ = 300 meV for larger $`N`$ values. Probably, a value of $`V_0`$ in between might improve the agreement with experiment. Other possibilities such as an $`N`$-dependent $`\omega _0`$ might also be considered , or even some asymmetry in the double well.. We have not tried these possibilities, but we have checked that self-interaction corrections (SIC), which are usually not included in these kind of calculations, do not change the addition spectrum. The results are presented in the Appendix.

For a given electron number, the gs configuration may change as a function of the barrier thickness. The new ‘phases’, i.e. gs configurations which appear as a function of $`d`$ have been thoroughly discussed. To label them, we have adopted the standard convention of molecular physics for sp electronic orbitals as $`\sigma ,\pi ,\delta ,\mathrm{},`$ if $`l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, and upper case Greek letters are used for the total orbital angular momentum. We have also used an adapted version of ordinary spectroscopic notation $`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L_{g,u}^{\pm }`$ where $`S`$ is the total $`|S_z|`$, and $`L`$ is the total $`|L_z|`$. The superscript $`+()`$ refers to even (odd) states under reflection with respect to the $`z=0`$ plane, and the subscript $`g(u)`$ refers to positive (negative) parity states.

We show the evolution with barrier thickness of the energy and gs molecular configuration for several $`N`$ values in Fig. 10. The vertical lines have been drawn to guide the eye, and different symbols have been used to identify different phases. All panels in the figure display some common trends. Initially, $`E(d)`$ increases with $`d`$. The reason is twofold. On the one hand, at small $`d`$ all occupied sp levels are specularly symmetric about the $`z`$ = 0 plane $`(\mathrm{`}+`$’ states), the specularly antisymmetric levels $`(\mathrm{`}`$’ states) lie at much higher energies (see Fig. 6). On the other hand, the energies of the symmetric and antisymmetric state respectively increase and decrease with $`d`$, and eventually both states become degenerate at large interdot distances. This is a well-known feature of the one particle, one-dimensional double quantum well problem (see insert in Fig. 6), which remains valid in the interacting many-electron calculation. The first phase transition takes place when the first antisymmetric sp state becomes occupied. At large distances, $`E(d)`$ slowly decreases with $`d`$ due to the decrease of the interdot Coulomb energy. These trends are also present in the Hubbard-like calculations of Ref. , but only the lowering of $`E(d)`$ due to the interdot Coulomb energy is qualitatively reproduced by the calculations of Ref. , which fail to yield the energy growth at short distances.

In spite of the difference between the values of the gs energies reported in Refs. , and also with respect to the present work, which has to be mostly attributed to the different confining potentials in each calculation, up to $`N`$ = 6 the phases are the same but appear at different $`d`$ values. In this respect, our results are in closer agreement with those of Ref. , possibly because the radial frequencies $`\omega _0`$ are similar in both calculations. We wish to point out that the phase diagram obtained for $`V_0`$ = 300 meV is qualitatively similar to the one shown in Fig. 10, but the phase transitions are shifted $``$ 0.5 nm to the left.

## IV Summary

We have used local spin-density functional theory to investigate the zero magnetic field structure of one single and two identical, vertically coupled QD’s of finite thickness. While for one single dot, whose thickness corresponds to that of actual experimental devices, the addition spectrum is quite similar to that predicted by purely two-dimensional models, in the case of double dots, their vertical extension, is essential for a quantitative description of their quantum coupling, which influences the addition spectrum at short distances. For one single dot the calculated addition spectrum compares well with experiment, whereas for two coupled dots the agreement is qualitative. This possibly reflects the fact that in the latter case the spectrum is more sensitive to the actual form of the bare confining potential.

The phase sequence of ground state configurations which appear as a function of interdot distance is quite similar to that found in previous works, evolving from the ‘atomic phase’ of two strongly coupled dots to the ‘atomic phase’ of two weakly coupled dots through a series of ‘molecular-type phases’ at intermediate distances. This is a rather robust picture, as it arises from the underlying single-electron structure of the bare confining potential. Indeed, the vertical confinement is so strong that at short distances only symmetric sp states are occupied, the antisymmetric ones lying at quite high energies. This originates the atomic phase of two strongly coupled dots. As the interdot distance increases the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SAS}`$ gap decreases, and the symmetric and antisymmetric sp states eventually become degenerate, originating the atomic phase of two weakly coupled dots. The molecular-type configurations appear at intermediate distances where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SAS}`$ is similar to the other energy scale of the system, namely $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, and when the number of electrons is large enough so that the system can minimize its energy populating antisymmetric states. The larger the number of electrons, the larger the number of populated antisymmetric states. This causes the number of intermediate molecular phases to increase with $`N`$.

In spite of the mentioned qualitative agreement with previous results, the calculated phase diagrams are as sensitive to the shape of the bare confining potential as the addition spectra. It would be desirable that any prediction of the actual appearance of the phase diagrams should be based on a model that describes, at least qualitatively, the corresponding experimental addition spectrum.

## V acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank Alfredo Poves, Flavio Toigo, and especially Guy Austing for useful discussions. This work has been performed under grants PB98-1247 and PB98-0124 of the DGESIC, and SGR98-00011 of the Generalitat of Catalunya. A.E. acknowledges support from the Dirección General de Enseñanza Superior (Spain).

## A

It is well known that the ‘exact’ density functional for the gs energy is self-interaction-free (see for instance Ref. ), but it is not the case of its current approximations, such as LSDFT. One possible way of removing this drawback is to use the self-interaction correction (SIC) proposed by Perdew and Zunger, which introduces an orbital-dependent single-particle potential, that improves the total energy of the electronic system and yields sp eigenvalues which approximate the physical removal energies more closely, at the price of rendering the KS minimization far more cumbersome. Since SIC’s are relatively more important for few electron systems, which is the present case, we have tested their effect on the results shown in the body of this paper, in two extreme configurations. We refer the reader to Refs.  and  for a thorough description of SIC. Here we only give the essential details of the application of the method to our physical problem.

Within the method of Perdew and Zunger, the sp potential in Eq. (LABEL:eq1) becomes orbital-dependent with the change

$`V^H+V^{xc}+W^{xc}\eta _\sigma `$ $``$ (A1)
$`V_{eff}`$ $``$ $`V^H+V^{xc}+W^{xc}\eta _\sigma `$ (A2)
$``$ $`V^H[n_{nl\sigma }]V^{xc}[n_{nl\sigma },n_{nl\sigma }]W^{xc}[n_{nl\sigma },n_{nl\sigma }]\eta _\sigma ,`$ (A3)
where $`n_{nl\sigma }=|u_{nl\sigma }(r,z)|^2`$ is the ‘orbital density’ and $`V^H[n_{nl\sigma }]`$ is obtained solving the Poisson equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^H[n_{nl\sigma }]=4\pi n_{nl\sigma }(r,z)`$ as indicated in Section II. After selfconsistency is achieved, the total energy can be obtained from Eq. (12), which has been written as

$$EE\frac{1}{2}\underset{nl\sigma }{}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}V^H[n_{nl\sigma }]n_{nl\sigma }(\stackrel{}{r})\underset{nl\sigma }{}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}_{xc}[n_{nl\sigma },n_{nl\sigma }].$$
(A4)
We have drawn in Fig. 11 the difference between SIC and LSDFT addition energies defined as $`\mu (N)=E(N)E(N1)`$ corresponding to the $`V_0`$ = 200 meV double quantum dot. The average difference is small, of the order of 0.4-0.5 meV. This difference almost cancels out in the addition spectrum $`\mathrm{\Delta }A(N)`$, as can be seen in Fig. 12. It constitutes an interesting result in itself, indicating that if one only wishes to obtain the addition spectrum, LSDFT does not need to be corrected for self-interaction effects.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12


text:
# TTP01-01 hep-ph/0101100 January 2001 Measuring 𝜎(𝑒⁺𝑒⁻→hadrons) with Tagged Photons at Electron Positron Colliders11footnote 1Talk presented at the Sixth Workshop on Tau Lepton Physics, Victoria, Canada, 2000. To be published in the proceedings

## 1 Introduction

The precise determination of the cross section for electron positron annihilation into hadrons over a large energy range is one of the important tasks of current particle physics. The results are relevant for the analysis of electroweak precision measurements which are affected by the running of the electromagnetic coupling from the Thompson limit up to $`M_Z`$. Also the prediction for the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon depends critically on these data. Last not least the measurement of the energy dependence of R(s) is one of the gold plated tests of QCD and allows for a precise determination of the strong coupling constant.

Depending on the energy region different techniques for the measurement of $`R(s)`$ have been applied up to date. At low energies, say from the two pion threshold up to roughly two GeV, exclusive channels are collected separately. For higher energies inclusive measurements start to become dominant. For energies below $`m_\tau `$ isospin invariance and CVC have traditionally been used to predict $`\tau `$ decays from electron positron annihilation . Clearly this strategy can be inverted , pending irreducible uncertainties from isospin violation and radiative corrections .

To cover a large range of energies, results from many different experiments and colliders have to be combined, and energy scans have to be performed to obtain the full energy dependence. An attractive alternative is provided by the upcoming $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`B`$ meson factories which operate at large luminosities, albeit at fixed energies. Events with radiated tagged photons give access to a measurement of $`R`$ over the full range of energies, from threshold up to the CMS energy of the collider. For events with tagged photons the invariant mass of the recoiling hadronic system is fixed by the photon energy which provides an important kinematic constraint.

To arrive at reliable predictions including angular and energy cutoffs as employed by realistic experiments, a Monte Carlo generator is indispensable. For hadronic states with invariant masses below two or even three GeV it is desirable to simulate the individual exclusive channels with two, three up to six mesons, i.e. pions, kaons, etas etc. which requires a fairly detailed parametrization of the various form factors.

In principle initial and final state radiation would be required for the complete simulation. Such a program has been constructed for the two pion case . There it is demonstrated that suitably chosen configurations, namely those with hard photons at small angles relative to the beam and well separated from the pions, are dominated by initial state radiation. In fact, this separation is possible  even when operating the $`\varphi `$ factory DA$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$NE on top of the $`\varphi `$ resonance where direct radiative $`\varphi `$ decays cannot be ignored.

In a recent paper  this project has been continued with the construction of a generator for the radiative production of the four pion final state, including the $`\omega (3\pi )\pi `$ channel. This mode contributes a large fraction of the rate with invariant masses between one and two GeV. The energy region between 1.5 GeV and 2.5 GeV is difficult to access directly with current electron positron colliders. At the same time the experimental uncertainties are relatively large. This motivates the special effort devoted to this range.

The Monte Carlo program is constructed in a modular form such that the parametrization of the hadronic matrix element can easily be replaced by a more elaborate version. Different final states with three, four or five pions or kaons can be included. The present parametrization of the hadronic matrix element follows closely the form suggested in , correcting only some minor deficiencies. The four pion amplitude is assumed to be dominated by $`\rho \pi a_1`$ plus a direct coupling $`\rho \rho \pi \pi `$ and exhibits the proper behavior in the chiral limit.

## 2 The radiative return

Hard photons observed at small angles relative to the electron or positron beam and at the same time well separated from charged particles in the final state can be used to reduce the effective center of mass energy at electron positron colliders. As shown in Table 1, the event rates are fairly high, of $`𝒪(10^6)`$ both at DAPHNE and at B-meson factories. Performing a detailed analysis of the angular and energy distributions for the $`\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ final state it has been shown that initial and final state radiation can be reasonably well separated . For the four pion case we therefore restrict the discussion to initial state radiation only. The amplitude for the production of an arbitrary hadronic final state

$`=ie^3\overline{v}\left(p_+\right)[\gamma ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_{}/k/m}}ϵ^{}/\left(k\right)`$
$`+ϵ^{}/\left(k\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{k/p_+/m}}\gamma ^\nu ]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^2}}J^{em}_\nu `$
involves the matrix element of the hadronic current

$`J_\nu ^{em}`$ $``$ $`J_\nu ^{em}(q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)`$ (2)
$``$ $`<h(q_1),\mathrm{},h(q_n)|J_\nu ^{em}\left(0\right)|0>`$
which has to be parameterized by form factors to be discussed below. For the two pion case the amplitude is determined by only one function, the pion form factor $`F_{2\pi }`$.

$`J_\nu ^{em,2\pi }=\left(q_\nu ^+q_\nu ^{}\right)F_{2\pi }\left(Q^2\right)`$ (3)
The matrix element for the four pion case will be discussed below. After integrating the hadronic tensor $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ over the hadronic phase space one gets

$`{\displaystyle J_\mu ^{em}(J_\nu ^{em})^{}}d\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n(Q;q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi }}\left(Q_\mu Q_\nu g_{\mu \nu }Q^2\right)R(Q^2)`$
where $`R(Q^2)`$ is $`\sigma (e^+e^{}hadrons)/\sigma _{point}`$. The additional integration of the differential cross section over the photon angles (the azimuthal angle is integrated over the full range and the polar angle within $`\theta _{min}<\theta <\pi \theta _{min}`$ ) leads to the differential distribution

$`Q^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}Q^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha ^3}{3s}}R(Q^2)\{{\displaystyle \frac{(s^2+Q^4)}{s(sQ^2)}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{min}}}{1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{min}}}}`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(sQ^2)}{s}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{min}}\},`$
which can be used to calculate the event rate observed for realistic photon energy and angular cuts (see Tab.1).

## 3 Isospin relations

The emphasis of  was towards final states consisting of four pions and a photon. Before entering a discussion of a model dependent parametrization of the form factors the constraints from isospin invariance must be recalled. They relate the amplitudes of the $`e^+e^{}2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}2\pi ^0`$ processes and those for $`\tau `$ decays into $`\pi ^{}3\pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^+2\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$. The amplitude for $`\tau `$ decay

$$_\tau =\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _c\overline{v}\left(p_\nu \right)\gamma ^\alpha \left(1\gamma _5\right)u\left(p_\tau \right)J_\alpha ^{}$$
(6)
leads to the differential distribution

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dQ^2}}=`$
$`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_e{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _c}{m_\tau ^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m_\tau ^2}}\right)^2\left(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m_\tau ^2}}\right)R^\tau \left(Q^2\right)`$
with

$`{\displaystyle J_\mu ^{}J_\nu ^{}}d\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n(Q;q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}\left(Q_\mu Q_\nu g_{\mu \nu }Q^2\right)R^\tau (Q^2)`$
Note the relative factor of 2 between the definitions in Eq.(2) and Eq.(3).

Final states with an even number of pions are produced through the isospin one part of the electromagnetic current only, whence

$`\sqrt{2}J_\mu ^{em}(2\pi )=J_\mu ^{}(2\pi )`$ (9)
and $`R(Q^2)=R^\tau (Q^2)`$ for two pion final states.

A similar relation for the four pion final state is easily obtained :

$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi _1^0\pi _2^0|J_\mu ^3|0=J_\mu (p_1,p_2,p^+,p^{})`$
$`\pi _1^+\pi _2^+\pi _1^{}\pi _2^{}|J_\mu ^3|0=`$
$`J_\mu (p_2^+,p_2^{},p_1^+,p_1^{})+J_\mu (p_1^+,p_2^{},p_2^+,p_1^{})`$
$`+`$ $`J_\mu (p_2^+,p_1^{},p_1^+,p_2^{})+J_\mu (p_1^+,p_1^{},p_2^+,p_2^{})`$
$`\pi ^{}\pi _1^0\pi _2^0\pi _3^0|J_\mu ^{}|0=J_\mu (p_2,p_3,p^{},p_1)+`$
$`J_\mu (p_1,p_3,p^{},p_2)+J_\mu (p_1,p_2,p^{},p_3)`$
$`\pi _1^{}\pi _2^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0|J_\mu ^{}|0=`$ (10)
$`J_\mu (p^+,p_2,p_1,p^0)+J_\mu (p^+,p_1,p_2,p^0),`$
which connects $`\tau `$ decay and electron positron annihilation ($`J^{em}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}J^3`$). The (in $`Q^2`$) differential rates are then consistent with the familiar relations between $`\tau `$ decays and $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation into four pions:

$`R^\tau \left(000\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R(++)`$ (11)
$`R^\tau (+0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R(++)+R(+00)`$
## 4 The $`\pi ^\pm `$-$`\pi ^0`$ mass difference

All the relations obtained in the previous section are strictly applicable only in case all pions in the final states have the same mass, which is obviously not true. The relatively large (about 3.6%) $`\pi ^\pm `$-$`\pi ^0`$ mass difference will affect the $`R(Q^2)R^\tau (Q^2)`$ relations even if Eq.(9) and Eq.(10) still hold. Let us retain these relations between the amplitudes and incorporate the $`\pi ^\pm `$-$`\pi ^0`$ mass difference in the phase space considerations. This should give at least an indication of the size of these ”kinematic” isospin violations.

To estimate these effects for the two-pion case assume that the cross section $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ is well measured and the squared form factor

$`|F(Q^2)|^2={\displaystyle \frac{3Q^2}{\pi \alpha ^2\beta _\pi ^3}}\sigma (e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})(Q^2),`$ (12)
$`\left(\beta _\pi =\left(14m_\pi ^{}^2/Q^2\right)^{1/2}\right)`$ then used to predict the $`\tau ^{}\nu _\tau \pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ decay rate The size of the corrections depends critically on the details of the assumptions.

If the form factor and the form of the current

$`J_\mu ^{em}(2\pi )=\sqrt{2}J_\mu ^{}(2\pi )=(q_{1,\mu }q_{2,\mu })F(Q^2)`$ (13)
remain unchanged, the integral for the $`\tau `$ rate receives an S-wave contribution which can be eliminated by replacing Eq.(13) by

$`\sqrt{2}J_\mu ^{}(2\pi )=`$ (14)
$`(q_{1,\mu }q_{2,\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{q_{1,\mu }+q_{2,\mu }}{Q^2}}Q.(q_1q_2))F(Q^2)`$
Numerically the contribution to the integral of this latter term is tiny – nevertheless we shall adopt the second choice.

The introduction of the $`\pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ mass difference raises the prediction for the $`\tau `$ decay rate by 0.86%. It seems, however, plausible, that the energy dependent width of the $`\rho `$\- meson, which is present in the form factor, has to be modified accordingly, leading to an effective increase of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho `$ by 0.74%. The two effects nearly compensate in the integral. Hence the relation between $`\tau ^{}\nu _\tau \pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ partial decay width and the $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ cross section would only be corrected by 0.06%. However, a sizable $`Q^2`$ dependence of the ratio of the two spectral functions ($`V(Q^2)|F(Q^2)|^2\beta ^3`$ ) is expected, with a reduction approximately 0.74 % close to the peak of the $`\rho `$ resonance and enhancements at the tails.

At present, however, $`\tau `$ data provide an important input for the prediction of the QED coupling at the scale of $`M_Z`$ and the hadronic contribution to g-2 . Let us, for the moment, assume that the aforementioned kinematic effects are indeed present. If the $`e^+e^{}`$ cross section is deduced from $`\tau `$ data through Eq.(4)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ^{}\nu _\tau \pi ^{}\pi ^0)}{dQ^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _c}{2\pi \alpha ^2m_\tau ^2}}`$ (15)
$`Q^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m_\tau ^2}}\right)^2\left(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m_\tau ^2}}\right)\sigma (e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$
and the contributions to g-2 and $`\alpha (M_Z)`$ are evaluated without kinematic corrections of phase space and form factor the former are overestimated by 0.58% and 0.16% respectively (Tab.2).

The situation is more complicated for the four pion case. To estimate the size of the effect the quantities $`R(+0)`$ etc. were evaluated once assuming that all masses are equal to $`m_{}`$ and once taking the real masses. The corrections to the integrated quantities modify the integrated version of the Eq.(3) accordingly:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1.050}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(000)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(++)`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1.024}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(+0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(++)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1.046}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(+00)`$
## 5 The hadronic current

Employing isospin relations it is thus sufficient to construct the hadronic current for the $`(+00)`$ mode only. The basic building block of the current contains a part built on the assumption of $`a_1`$ vector dominance plus an $`\omega `$ exchange contribution. By adding an $`f_0`$ contribution one indeed recovers the proper chiral limit . The three contributions are depicted schematically in Fig.1 and described in detail in .

To test the physical predictions of the current, let us start with the $`\tau `$ decay branching ratios, summarized in Tab.3. The agreement between the predictions of the current  and the data is satisfactory for the $`\tau ^{}\nu _\tau \pi ^{}3\pi ^0`$ decay mode. Comparing however the results for the $`\tau ^{}\nu _\tau 2\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ and $`\tau ^{}\nu _\tau \pi ^{}\omega \left(\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0\right)`$ modes it seems that the $`\omega `$ part of the current does not represent the data well, even if the total branching ratio for the $`\tau ^{}\nu _\tau 2\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ decay mode agrees with the data.

In  also the predictions for the $`e^+e^{}2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}2\pi ^0`$ cross sections are compared with data, and satisfactory agreement between the Monte Carlo and the data is observed.

## 6 The Monte Carlo program

The idea behind the structure of the Monte Carlo program is to allow for a simple addition of new final state modes into the program and for a simple replacement of the current(s) of the existing modes. The program thus exhibits a modular structure. For the generation of the four momenta of the mesons no sophisticated method of a variance reduction was applied. This slows down the generation, but could be accounted for if a faster Monte Carlo generator would be required. It has, however, the advantage of being universal and no change of the variance reduction method is required with each modification of the hadronic current. The process to be simulated by the program in its final stage is $`e^+e^{}\gamma +hadrons`$ with an exclusive description of final states, even if till now only $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ hadronic final states are implemented. The LL radiative QED corrections were taken into account using structure function method as developed in  and limited to the initial emission only. In fact the program can run in one of two modes (chosen by a user) one with collinear radiation and one without it. Hard large angle photon emission is limited to initial state radiation, which is justified by  where it was demonstrated for the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ hadronic state that the contribution from the final state emission as well as the initial-final state interference can be reduced to a negligible level by applying suitable cuts.

Let us now discuss the cuts, which reduce the contribution of final state radiation to a negligible level. We recall that in  it was shown that the following set of angular cuts

$`\mathrm{cuts1}:`$
$`\left(7^{}<\theta _\gamma <20^{}or160^{}<\theta _\gamma <173^{}\right)`$
$`and30^{}<\theta _\pi <150^{},`$
( $`\theta _\gamma `$ ($`\theta _\pi `$ ) is the photon (pion) polar angle) fulfils this requirement for the $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ cross section at DAPHNE. It reduces, however, the observed cross section significantly. This starts to become dramatic, when one runs at energies well above 1 GeV. The following set of cuts

$`\mathrm{cuts2}:`$
$`\left(7^{}<\theta _\gamma <20^{}and30^{}<\theta _\pi <173^{}\right)`$
$`or\left(160^{}<\theta _\gamma <173^{}and7^{}<\theta _\pi <150^{}\right)`$
also reduces the contribution from final state radiation to a negligible level due to the fact that the pions and photon are well separated as in the previous case.

At the same time the cross section reduction is much smaller, especially for higher beam energies and higher energies of the observed photons. The effect of the two sets of cuts on the cross sections with four charged pions in the final state is presented in Fig.2 for $`2E_{beam}`$ = 3 GeV. “No cuts” corresponds to $`7^{}\theta _\gamma 173^{}`$ and not cuts on the pions. For higher beam energies the effect of the cross section reduction is much stronger and at 2 $`E_{beam}`$ = 10 GeV the cross sections for the cuts specified in Eq.(6) is reduced almost to zero. For the cuts specified in Eq.(6) the reduction remains tolerable (Table 4).

One may even restrict photon and pions detection angles to the central region, e.g. $`25^{}<\theta _\gamma <155^{}`$ and $`30^{}<\theta _\pi <150^{}`$ respectively if a minimal angle of $`20^{}`$ between photon and charged and neutral pions is required in order to suppress final state radiation and to clearly separate neutral pions and the photon. With this cut one obtains ($`\sqrt{s}=10GeV`$ and $`=100fb^1`$ ) a rate of $`1.1710^5`$ events with $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and $`1.5310^5`$ events with $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$.

Additional collinear emission always present in the real experiment reduces slightly the cross sections. Its actual size depends on the cuts on the invariant mass of the $`4\pi +\gamma `$ system. The effect is similar for different energies and for both charge modes.

## 7 Summary

As an alternative to a direct measurement of the cross section for $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{hadrons}`$ at the relevant energy one may use initial state radiation to reduce the effective energy of electron positron colliders, exploiting the large luminosity of “factories” and accessing thus a continuum of hadronic final states.

With this motivation a Monte Carlo generator has been constructed to simulate the reaction $`e^+e^{}\gamma +2\pi `$ and $`\gamma +4\pi `$, where the photon is assumed to be observed in the detector. Once more accurate data become available, the modular structure of the program will allow for modification or replacement of the hadronic current in a simple way. Additional collinear photon radiation has been incorporated with the technique of structure functions.

Predictions are presented for cms energies of 1GeV, 3GeV and 10GeV, corresponding to the energies of DA$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$NE, BEBC and of $`B`$-meson factories. Even after applying realistic cuts the event rates are sufficiently high to allow for a precise measurement of $`R(Q^2)`$ in the region of $`Q`$ between approximately 1GeV and 2.5GeV.

Acknowledgments. The author would like to thank H. Czyż for the pleasant collaboration on the topics discussed in this talk. Work supported by BMBF under grant BMBF-057KA92P.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In perturbative quantum field theory, the full physics can be derived from the quantum effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\chi ]`$, depending on the quantized fields $`\varphi `$ and the external sources $`\chi `$ coupled to local composite operators $`𝒪(x)`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\chi ]`$ admits a formal power series expansion in the loop parameter $`\mathrm{}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\chi ]={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{}^n\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}[\varphi ,\chi ].`$ (1)
The zeroth order coefficient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ is identified with the classical action and it is assumed to be a local functional of $`\varphi ,\chi `$.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\chi ]`$ is known, S matrix elements can be computed by using the LSZ reduction formulae . Connected amplitudes are generated by the Legendre transform $`W[J,\chi ]`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\chi ]`$ with respect to the quantized fields $`\varphi `$:

$`W[J,\chi ]=\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\chi ]+{\displaystyle d^4x\varphi J},J={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\chi ]}{\delta \varphi }}.`$ (2)
The physics is then recovered by computing the functional derivatives of $`W`$ with respect to those external sources coupled to physical composite operators at $`J=\chi =0`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ is power-counting renormalizable, the renormalization procedure  provides a way to compute all higher-order terms in the expansion in eq.(1), by fixing order by order only a finite set of local action-like counterterms. This procedure is a recursive one, since it allows to construct $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}`$ once that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(j)}`$, $`j<n`$ are known. From a combinatorial point of view, it turns out that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the generating functional of the 1-PI renormalized Feynman amplitudes.

The behavior of the renormalized quantum effective action under an infinitesimal variation of the quantized fields is embodied in the so-called Quantum Action Principle . It states that for every local bilinear operator $`𝒮`$, depending on a set of external sources $`\varphi _i^{}`$ coupled to local operators $`\delta \varphi _i`$ polynomial in the fields and their derivatives, the following relation holds true, to all orders in perturbation theory:

$`𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma }){\displaystyle d^4x\underset{i}{}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi _i^{}(x)}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi _i(x)}}={\displaystyle d^4x\underset{k}{}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \zeta _k(x)}}|_{\zeta _k=0}.`$ (3)
The operators $`\delta \varphi _i`$ can be identified at the classical level with the infinitesimal transformations of the fields $`\varphi _i`$. In the R.H.S. of eq.(3) $`\zeta _k`$ are external sources coupled to suitable local composite operators $`𝒪_k(x)`$, with bounded dimension. Notice that in general the external sources can have negative dimensions. Eq. (3) states that the application of the operator $`𝒮`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is equivalent to the insertion of the set of local operators $`𝒪_k(x)`$, to all orders in perturbation theory.

In some cases it happens that

$`𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)})=0`$ (4)
but no choice of the local action-like counterterms to be fixed order by order in perturbation theory can be made in such a way that the R.H.S. of eq.(3) is zero. In this case a classical symmetry is violated at the quantum level by the R.H.S. of eq.(3) and one usually speaks of an anomaly to describe this kind of behavior of the quantum effective action .

In actual calculations, the possible breaking terms are considered order by order in the loop-wise expansion. Assume then that the effective action has been constructed up to order $`n1`$ so that

$`𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{(j)}=0,j=0,\mathrm{},n1.`$ (5)
From eq.(3) we see that

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{(n)}`$ (6)
is a local integrated polynomial in the fields and external sources and their derivatives, with bounded dimension.

Let us now specialize to gauge theories. We identify $`𝒮`$ with the Slavnov-Taylor operator corresponding to the classical BRST symmetry . It turns out in this case that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ is further constrained by a set of consistency conditions , stemming from the nilpotency of the BRST transformation. These consistency conditions are written in a functional way as

$`𝒮_0\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}=0,`$ (7)
where $`𝒮_0`$ denotes the classical linearized ST operator

$`𝒮_0\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}={\displaystyle d^4x\underset{i}{}\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \varphi _i^{}(x)}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}}{\delta \varphi _i(x)}+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}}{\delta \varphi _i^{}(x)}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \varphi _i(x)}\right)}.`$ (8)
Due to the nilpotency of $`𝒮_0`$ and the locality of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$, eq.(7) provides a way to characterize $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ by studying the cohomology of $`𝒮_0`$ in the space of Lorentz-invariant local functionals with bounded dimension and Faddeev-Popov (FP) charge $`+1`$ . If the only solutions to eq.(7) are cohomologically trivial, then it can be shown that the ST identities can be restored at the $`n`$-th order by a suitable choice of $`n`$-th order action-like counterterms. Otherwise the breaking term $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ can never be reabsorbed by a choice of the $`n`$-th order action-like counterterms, and the theory is truly anomalous.

We notice that the recursive assumption in eq.(5) is essential in this process: if one fails to restore the ST identities at lower orders, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ actually turns out to be a non-local functional of the fields and external sources and their derivatives, hence it cannot be removed by a suitable choice of $`n`$-th order action-like counterterms even for cohomologically non-anomalous theories .

In this standard approach of studying which symmetries are preserved upon quantization, only a small consequence of the QAP is used, i.e. the locality of the operators $`𝒪_k(x)`$ in the R.H.S. of eq.(3) is invoked to guarantee that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ in eq.(6) is a classical local polynomial in the fields and external sources and their derivatives of bounded dimension, provided that eq.(5) is satisfied. The full power of the QAP in eq.(3), i.e. the fact that the application of the operator $`𝒮`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is equivalent to the insertion of the set of local operators in the R.H.S. of eq.(3), to all orders in perturbation theory and independently of the action-like local counterterms chosen order by order in perturbation theory, remains somewhat unexploited.

A more effective, alternative approach to use eq.(3) would be to regard the anomaly as a quantum modification of the operator $`𝒮`$, whose deformation is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma }){\displaystyle d^4x\underset{k}{}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \zeta _k(x)}}|_{\zeta _k=0}.`$ (9)
In this way there is a symmetry obeyed by the quantum effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

$`(𝒮+\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)(\mathrm{\Gamma })=0.`$ (10)
Recently it has also been pointed out that the introduction of suitably defined external sources $`\zeta _k`$ allows to construct an extended linearized classical ST operator, trivializing the cohomology of the model .

In the present paper we apply this approach to chiral QED with one family of massless fermions. We introduce the Stueckelberg field in order to give mass to the Abelian gauge field in a BRST invariant way. We study the quantization of the model and show that an extended ST identity can be introduced and fulfilled to all orders in perturbation theory by a suitable choice of the local action-like counterterms, order by order in the loop-wise expansion. This ST identity incorporates the Adler-Bardeen anomaly.

We point out that the corresponding linearized classical ST operator is nilpotent. However, the physical observables (defined as the cohomology classes of the linearized classical ST operator in the space of local FP neutral functionals) turn out to be modified with respect to the ones induced by the classical BRST differential $`s`$. Moreover, the space of asymptotic states which are physical according to the classical BRST differential $`s`$ is not invariant under the S matrix. This is a consequence of the extended ST identities obeyed by the quantum effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

## 2 Extended ST identities for chiral QED

We consider the classical Lagrangian of chiral QED with one family of massless fermions and a massive gauge field $`A_\mu `$:

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^2+i\overline{\psi }D/\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2A_\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}b^2\alpha bA+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu B^\mu B{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2\alpha }}B^2+\alpha \overline{c}\mathrm{}c+m^2\overline{c}c.`$ (11)
$`D_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative

$`D_\mu =_\mu ie{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\gamma ^5)}{2}}A_\mu .`$ (12)
$`B`$ is the Stueckelberg field , $`b`$ is the Nakanishi-Lautrup field . $`c,\overline{c}`$ are the ghost and antighost fields. $`\alpha `$ is the gauge-fixing parameter.

We assign the FP charge by requiring that $`A_\mu ,\psi ,\overline{\psi },b,B`$ have FP charge $`0`$, $`\overline{c}`$ has FP charge $`1`$ and $`c`$ has FP charge $`+1`$.

$``$ is invariant under the following BRST transformations:

$`sA_\mu =_\mu c,s\overline{c}=b+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\alpha }}B,sb={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}c,sB=mc,`$
$`s\psi =ie{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\gamma ^5)}{2}}\psi c,s\overline{\psi }=iec\overline{\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{(1\gamma ^5)}{2}},sc=0.`$ (13)
$`s`$ is nilpotent. In order to define at the quantum level the composite operators $`s\psi ,s\overline{\psi }`$ appearing in eq.(13) one has to couple them in the classical action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ to classical external sources $`\overline{\eta },\eta `$ (known as antifields in the Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism ):

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}={\displaystyle d^4x\left(ie\overline{\eta }\frac{(1+\gamma ^5)}{2}\psi ciec\overline{\psi }\frac{(1\gamma ^5)}{2}\eta \right)}.`$ (14)
The invariance of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ under the BRST differential $`s`$ is now expressed as

$`𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}){\displaystyle }d^4x(_\mu c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta A_\mu }}+(b+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\alpha }}B){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \overline{c}}}+mc{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta B}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta b}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \overline{\eta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \psi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \overline{\psi }}})=0.`$ (15)
In the above equation we have introduced the ST operator $`𝒮`$. The bilinear part is only reduced to the fermion sector since the BRST variations of $`A_\mu ,\overline{c}`$, being linear in the quantized fields, do not require the introduction of the corresponding antifields. The requirement that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ is FP neutral implies that the antifields $`\eta ,\overline{\eta }`$ carry FP charge $`1`$.

The dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ on $`b,B,\overline{c}`$ is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta b}}=\alpha b\alpha A,{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta B}}=\left(\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}\right)B`$ (16)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \overline{c}}}=\alpha \mathrm{}c+m^2c.`$ (17)
The last equation is known as the classical ghost equation. The R.H.S. of eqs.(16-17) is linear in the quantized fields, hence we can preserve the above equations at the quantum level by a suitable choice of local action-like counterterms, order by order in the perturbative expansion.

So we require that the full quantized effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ satisfies the conditions:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta b}}=\alpha b\alpha A,{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta B}}=\left(\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}\right)B`$ (18)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{c}}}=\alpha \mathrm{}c+m^2c.`$ (19)
The second of eqs.(18) entails that $`B`$ is a free field. By eq.(19) the ghost field decouples.

By the QAP and eq.(15), the first order ST breaking term

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{(1)}`$ (20)
is a Lorentz-invariant integrated polynomial in the fields and the external sources and their derivatives with dimension less or equal to $`5`$ and FP charge $`1`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}`$ satisfies the Wess-Zumino consistency condition

$`𝒮_0(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)})=0`$ (21)
where $`𝒮_0`$ is the classical linearized ST operator given by

$`𝒮_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x(_\mu c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta A_\mu }}+(b+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\alpha }}B){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{c}}}+mc{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta B}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta b}}`$ (22)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \overline{\eta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \psi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \psi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\eta }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\psi }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \overline{\psi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \eta }}).`$
The solution of eq.(21) is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}=r{\displaystyle d^4xcϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^\mu A^\nu ^\rho A^\sigma }+𝒮_0(\mathrm{\Xi }^{(1)})`$ (23)
for some local action-like functional $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{(1)}`$. The breaking term $`𝒮_0(\mathrm{\Xi }^{(1)})`$ can be reabsorbed by adding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ the counterterm functional $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{(1)}`$. This amounts to change the first order normalization conditions .

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}`$ is thus reduced to the following Adler-Bardeen chiral anomaly:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{AB}}^{(1)}=r{\displaystyle d^4xcϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^\mu A^\nu ^\rho A^\sigma }.`$ (24)
for some non-zero c-number $`r`$. $`r`$ cannot be set equal to zero by any choice of the local action-like first order counterterms in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$. The ST breaking in eq.(24) is an anomalous one. As a consequence, the second order ST breaking term $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}=𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{(2)}`$ turns out to be a non-local functional of the fields and external sources and their derivatives .

Due to the Abelian character of the model, we can write from eq.(24)

$`𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{(1)}=r{\displaystyle d^4xcϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^\mu A^\nu ^\rho A^\sigma }={\displaystyle d^4xc\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}}{\delta K}}.`$ (25)
This is only possible since the ghost field decouples in the Abelian case, due to the ghost equation in eq.(19). $`K`$ is an external source coupled in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ to the Adler-Bardeen term $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^\mu A^\nu ^\rho A^\sigma `$. Notice that $`K`$ has dimension $`0`$.

In the spirit of eq.(10), we can deform the operator $`𝒮`$ into $`𝒮^{}`$ defined by

$`𝒮^{}𝒮+{\displaystyle d^4xc\frac{\delta }{\delta K}}.`$ (26)
It then follows that

$`𝒮^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{(1)}=0.`$ (27)
One should regard the operator $`𝒮^{}`$ in eq.(27) as defining the (extended) chiral symmetry of the model.

We now show that the ST identity associated with $`𝒮^{}`$ can be restored to all orders in perturbation theory. The proof is a recursive one.

For $`n=0`$ we have

$`𝒮^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)})=0`$ (28)
since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ does not depend on $`K`$. For $`n=1`$ the extended ST identity is satisfied (see eq.(27)). Assume that it is fulfilled till order $`n1`$:

$`𝒮^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{(j)}=0,j=0,1,\mathrm{},n1.`$ (29)
We shall prove that the extended ST identity can be fulfilled at the $`n`$-th order by a suitable choice of the $`n`$-th order local counterterms. We point out that, since $`K`$ has dimension zero, power counting arguments cannot be effectively used to constrain the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ on $`K`$.

We first notice that the following algebraic identity holds true for every bosonic functional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(𝒮^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }))=0,`$ (30)
where $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is the linearized extended ST operator for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}={\displaystyle }d^4x(_\mu c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta A_\mu }}+(b+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\alpha }}B){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{c}}}+mc{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta B}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta b}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{\eta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \psi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \psi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\eta }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\psi }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{\psi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \eta }}+c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta K}}).`$ (31)
By using eq.(30) and eq.(29) we obtain the following Wess-Zumino consistency condition for the $`n`$-th order breaking term $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}𝒮^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{(n)}`$:

$`𝒮_0^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)})=0,`$ (32)
where $`𝒮_0^{}`$ is the extended classical linearized ST operator given by

$`𝒮_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x(_\mu c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta A_\mu }}+(b+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\alpha }}B){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{c}}}+mc{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta B}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta b}}`$ (33)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \overline{\eta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \psi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \psi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\eta }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\psi }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \overline{\psi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \eta }}+c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta K}})`$
$`=`$ $`𝒮_0+{\displaystyle d^4xc\frac{\delta }{\delta K}}.`$
Notice that $`𝒮_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0`$. By the QAP, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ is a local functional of the fields and external sources with dimension less or equal to $`5`$ and FP charge $`+1`$.

By explicit computation it can be shown by using eqs.(18) and (19) that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ does not depend on $`b,B,\overline{c}`$ and is a functional of $`A^\mu ,c,\overline{\psi },\psi ,\eta ,\overline{\eta }`$ only.

Moreover, by power counting $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ cannot depend on $`\eta ,\overline{\eta }`$. Having ruled out the dependence on all fields and external sources with negative FP charge, we see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ depends on the ghost field $`c`$ only linearly:

$`{\displaystyle d^4xc\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}}{\delta c}}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}.`$ (34)
We notice that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ is a polynomial with respect to the quantized fields $`A^\mu ,\psi ,\overline{\psi }`$, since they have positive dimension. However, it can be a truly formal power series in the dimensionless external source $`K`$.

We now show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ is the $`𝒮_0^{}`$-image of a local action-like functional (i.e. the cohomology of $`𝒮_0^{}`$ is empty). For this purpose we introduce the counting operator for $`K`$:

$`𝒩={\displaystyle d^4xK\frac{\delta }{\delta K}}`$ (35)
and decompose $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ according to the degree induced by $`𝒩`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_j^{(n)},𝒩\mathrm{\Delta }_j^{(n)}=j\mathrm{\Delta }_j^{(n)}.`$ (36)
We can always reabsorb $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{(n)}`$ in eq.(36). Indeed, by standard cohomological results  it is known that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{(n)}`$ can always be reduced by adding suitable local $`n`$-th order counterterms independent of $`K`$ to the Adler-Bardeen term:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{(n)}=r^{(n)}{\displaystyle d^4xcϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^\mu A^\nu ^\rho A^\sigma }.`$ (37)
This is compensated by the counterterm

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_0^{(n)}r^{(n)}{\displaystyle d^4xKϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^\mu A^\nu ^\rho A^\sigma }.`$ (38)
Assume now that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j^{(n)}=0`$ for $`j=0,\mathrm{},m1`$. We show that one can add suitably defined local action-like counterterms to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}`$ in such a way that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m^{(n)}`$ is also zero.

For this purpose we define the operator

$`={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle d^4xK\lambda _t\frac{\delta }{\delta c}}.`$ (39)
In the previous equation we have introduced the operator $`\lambda _t`$ given by

$`\lambda _t\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}(c,K,\phi )=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}(tc,tK,\phi ),`$ (40)
where we have denoted by $`\phi `$ all fields and external sources other than $`c,K`$ on which $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ might depend. $``$ is a contracting homotopy for the differential

$`\sigma ={\displaystyle d^4xc\frac{\delta }{\delta K}},`$ (41)
since

$`\{,\sigma \}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}(K,c,\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle d^4x\left(K\lambda _t\frac{\delta }{\delta K}+c\lambda _t\frac{\delta }{\delta c}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}(K,c,\phi )}`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}(K,c,\phi )\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}(0,0,\phi ).`$
We now notice that the following identity holds true for any functional $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ obeying eq.(34):

$`\{,\sigma \}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}(K,c,\phi )=𝒮_0^{}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}\right)𝒮_0\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}\right).`$ (43)
so that by eq.(42)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}(K,c,\phi )\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}(0,0,\phi )=𝒮_0^{}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}\right)𝒮_0\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}\right).`$ (44)
By assumption we can write

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}={\displaystyle \underset{km}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{(n)}.`$ (45)
Inserting eq.(45) in eq.(44) we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}(K,c,\phi )\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}(0,0,\phi )={\displaystyle \underset{km}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{(n)}=𝒮_0^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)})𝒮_0(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)})`$ (46)
and finally

$`{\displaystyle \underset{km}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{(n)}𝒮_0^{}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}\right)=𝒮_0\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}\right).`$ (47)
Since $`𝒮_0`$ does not depend on $`K`$, the R.H.S. of eq.(47) admits an expansion according to the degree induced by $`𝒩`$ starting from $`m+1`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m^{(n)}`$ can be set equal to zero by adding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ the counterterm

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_m^{(n)}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}={\displaystyle d^4x_0^1𝑑tK\lambda _t\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}}{\delta c}}.`$ (48)
This concludes the proof that the extended ST identity can be restored to all orders in perturbation theory.

## 3 Physical observables

We have shown that the quantum effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ satisfies the extended ST identity

$`𝒮^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })=0.`$ (49)
Moreover, the corresponding linearized classical ST operator $`𝒮_0^{}`$ is nilpotent. We now investigate the consequence on the physics of the extended ST identity in eq.(49).

We identify physical observables with the cohomology classes of the extended linearized ST operator $`𝒮_0^{}`$ in the space of local functionals with FP charge $`0`$. The physical observables generated by $`𝒮_0^{}`$ are different from the ones obtained from $`𝒮_0`$. In the present model the latter coincide with the ones obtained from $`s`$ . We first work out an example and then discuss the general situation.

We consider the gauge mass term

$`={\displaystyle d^4x\frac{1}{2}m^2A_\mu ^2}.`$ (50)
$``$ is neither a $`𝒮_0`$-invariant nor a $`𝒮_0^{}`$-invariant. However, the functional

$`_K+m^2{\displaystyle d^4x\left(KA\frac{1}{2}K\mathrm{}K\right)}`$ (51)
is a $`𝒮_0^{}`$-invariant. By explicit computation it can be verified that $`_K`$ is not the $`𝒮_0^{}`$-variation of any local functional with FP charge $`1`$, hence it identifies a true observable of the theory. Notice that $``$ is not a $`𝒮_0`$-invariant, thus it does not belong to the cohomology of $`𝒮_0`$ in the space of local functionals with FP charge zero.

We now go on shell by imposing the conditions

$`J={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi }}=0,\chi =0.`$ (52)
The second of the conditions in eqs.(52) entails $`K=0`$, hence on-shell the representative $`_K`$ has to be identified with $``$: the mass term for the gauge field is an on-shell observable of the model.

This mechanism of extension of the cohomology due to the introduction of the source $`K`$ applies to the whole FP neutral sector of local functionals. Let $`𝒢`$ be a local functional with FP charge $`0`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}𝒮_0^{}(𝒢)`$ is a local functional with FP charge $`+1`$ and by the arguments of the previous section there exists a local functional $`R`$ depending on $`K`$ and all other fields and external sources of the model such that

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=𝒮_0^{}().`$ (53)
$``$ is not uniquely defined. Notice in particular that $``$ can be chosen in such a way that $`|_{K=0}=0`$. This follows from the arguments of sect. 2.

Hence

$`𝒮_0^{}(𝒢)=0.`$ (54)
This means that

$`𝒢_K𝒢`$ (55)
is a representative of the cohomology class of a local observable $`𝒪`$.

Going on-shell $`𝒢_K`$ reduces to $`𝒢`$, hence in the extended theory governed by $`𝒮_0^{}`$ every functional whose $`𝒮_0^{}`$-variation is non-zero is actually a representative of an on-shell local observable.

We conclude that the physical content of the quantized theory governed by $`𝒮_0^{}`$ has changed with respect to the classical theory, whose physics is described by the local FP neutral cohomology classes of the classical BRST differential $`s`$.

This can also be checked by studying the time-evolution of the asymptotic states which are physical according to the classical BRST differential $`s`$.

We follow the technique discussed in . According to the reduction formulae the connected S matrix can be expressed as

$`S=:\mathrm{\Sigma }:W[J,\chi ]|_{J=\chi =0}`$ (56)
where the operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is defined by

$`:\mathrm{\Sigma }:=:\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle }d^4xd^4y\phi _i(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}(xy){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_j(y)}}\right):,`$ (57)
and $`::`$ stands for normal ordering.

$`\phi _i`$ are linear combinations of the asymptotic fields $`\varphi _i^{as}`$

$`\phi _i=a_{ij}\varphi _j^{as},`$ (58)
where the matrix $`a_{ij}`$ is invertible . In eq.(57) we have denoted by subscripts the functional differentiation with respect to the arguments of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\chi ]`$ evaluated at $`\varphi =\chi =0`$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}(xy){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi _i(x)\varphi _j(y)}}|_{\varphi =\chi =0}.`$ (59)
In the following $`J_c`$ denotes the external source coupled to $`c`$, $`J_\mu `$ the source coupled to $`A_\mu `$, $`J_{\overline{c}}`$ the one coupled to $`\overline{c}`$ and so on.

The extended ST identity on the connected generating functional $`W[J,\chi ]`$ reads

$`𝒮^{}(W)=𝒮(W){\displaystyle d^4x\frac{\delta W}{\delta J_c}\frac{\delta W}{\delta K}}=0,`$ (60)
with $`𝒮(W)`$ given by

$`𝒮(W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x(_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta J_c}}J_\mu +({\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta J_b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta J_B}})J_{\overline{c}}+m{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta J_c}}J_B`$ (61)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta J_c}}J_b+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta \overline{\eta }}}J_\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta \eta }}J_{\overline{\psi }}).`$
We introduce the operator $`Q`$  acting on the fields $`\phi _i`$ defined by

$`[Q,A_\mu ]=_\mu c,\{Q,c\}=0,\{Q,\overline{c}\}=b+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\alpha }}B,[Q,B]=mc,`$
$`[Q,b]={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}c,\{Q,\psi \}=0,\{Q,\overline{\psi }\}=0.`$ (62)
$`Q`$ expresses the action induced by the classical BRST differential $`s`$ on the fields $`\phi _i`$. Notice that $`Q`$ is nilpotent. The physical subspace corresponding to the cohomology generated by the classical BRST differential $`s`$ can be identified with $`\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{Q}/\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{Q}`$. However, $`Q`$ does not commute with the S matrix.

For that purpose, we first compute $`[Q,:\mathrm{\Sigma }:]`$ and get (in the momentum space representation)

$`[Q,:\mathrm{\Sigma }:]`$ $`=`$ $`:{\displaystyle }d^4p[c(ip^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b\nu }+m\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B\nu }){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_\nu }}+c(ip^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu B}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bB}+m\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BB}){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_B}}`$ (63)
$`+c(ip^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu b}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bb}+m\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Bb}){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_b}}+(b+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\alpha }}B)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{c}c}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_c}}]\mathrm{\Sigma }:`$
$`=`$ $`:{\displaystyle }d^4p[c(ip^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b\nu }){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_\nu }}+cm\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BB}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_B}}`$
$`+c(ip^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu b}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bb}){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_b}}+(b+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\alpha }}B)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{c}c}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_c}}]\mathrm{\Sigma }:.`$
In the second line of the above equation we have taken into account eqs.(18).

We then use the extended ST identity to constrain the two-point functions appearing in eq. (63):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2𝒮^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{\delta c\delta A_\nu }}|_{\varphi =\chi =0}=ip^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu b}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu K}=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2𝒮^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{\delta c\delta B}}|_{\varphi =\chi =0}=m\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BB}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{c\overline{c}}=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2𝒮^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{\delta c\delta b}}|_{\varphi =\chi =0}=ip^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu b}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{c\overline{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bb}=0,`$ (64)
by using again eqs.(18). We now insert eqs.(64) into eq.(63) and get

$`[Q,:\mathrm{\Sigma }:]=:{\displaystyle }d^4p[c\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu K}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_\nu }}+b\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{c}c}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_c}}c\mathrm{\Gamma }_{c\overline{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\alpha }}c\mathrm{\Gamma }_{c\overline{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\alpha }}B\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{c}c}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_c}}]\mathrm{\Sigma }:`$ (65)
One also gets

$`[:\mathrm{\Sigma }:,𝒮]=:{\displaystyle }d^4p[(A^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu K}+b\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{c}c}){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_c}}c\mathrm{\Gamma }_{c\overline{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\alpha }}B\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{c}c}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\alpha }}c\mathrm{\Gamma }_{c\overline{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_B}}]\mathrm{\Sigma }:`$ (66)
This follows by explicit computation once that eqs.(64) are taken into account. By combining eqs.(65) and (66) we get

$`[Q,:\mathrm{\Sigma }:]`$ $`=`$ $`[:\mathrm{\Sigma }:,𝒮]+:{\displaystyle }d^4p(A^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu K}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_c}}c\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu K}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_\nu }})\mathrm{\Sigma }:.`$ (67)
We now notice that

$`[:\mathrm{\Sigma }:,𝒮](W)|_{J=\chi =0}`$ $`=`$ $`:\mathrm{\Sigma }:\left({\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta J_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta K}}\right)|_{J=\chi =0}.`$ (68)
In the Abelian case we can use the ghost equation in eq.(19) to obtain from eq.(68)

$`[:\mathrm{\Sigma }:,𝒮](W)|_{J=\chi =0}`$ $`=`$ $`:{\displaystyle }d^4xc(x){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta K(x)}}\mathrm{\Sigma }:W|_{J=\chi =0}.`$ (69)
Hence by eq.(69)

$`[Q,S]=[Q,:\mathrm{\Sigma }:]W|_{J=\chi =0}=:{\displaystyle }d^4p(A^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu K}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_c}}c\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu K}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_\nu }}+c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta K}})\mathrm{\Sigma }:W|_{J=\chi =0}.`$ (70)
The R.H.S. of eq.(70) is zero if

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta K}}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta K}}=0.`$ (71)
The above equation is satisfied at tree level, but cannot hold true at the quantum level due to the appearance of the Adler-Bardeen anomaly. We thus conclude that the physical subspace associated to the classical BRST differential $`s`$ is not invariant under the application of the S matrix.

As a final point of this section, we notice that the cohomology of a nilpotent differential $`\delta `$ is known to be independent of the doublet $`(z,w)`$, $`\delta z=w,\delta w=0`$ whenever

$`[\delta ,𝒩]=0`$ (72)
where $`𝒩`$ is the counting operator for the doublet $`(z,w)`$:

$`𝒩={\displaystyle d^4x\left(z\frac{\delta }{\delta z}+w\frac{\delta }{\delta w}\right)}.`$ (73)
The analysis carried out in this section shows that this result cannot be extended to more general situations where eq.(72) is not fulfilled: for the extended linearized ST operator $`𝒮_0^{}`$ eq.(72) is not satisfied and the cohomology of $`𝒮_0^{}`$ in the FP neutral sector is actually $`K`$-dependent.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have performed the quantization of chiral QED with one family of massless fermions. We have introduced the Stueckelberg field in order to give mass to the Abelian gauge field in a BRST invariant way and we have shown that an extended ST identity can be introduced and fulfilled to all orders in perturbation theory by a suitable choice of the local action-like counterterms, order by order in the loop-wise expansion.

This ST identity incorporates the Adler-Bardeen anomaly and involves the introduction of an external source $`K`$ of dimension zero. By a purely algebraic argument we have shown that the introduction of the source $`K`$ trivializes the cohomology of the extended linearized classical ST operator $`𝒮_0^{}`$ in the FP charge $`+1`$ sector.

We have then discussed the physical content of the extended ST identity. We have shown that the cohomology classes associated with $`𝒮_0^{}`$ are modified with respect to the ones of $`𝒮_0`$. This provides a counterexample showing that, if the counting operator for the doublet $`(z,w)`$ does not commute with the nilpotent differential $`\delta `$ under which $`(z,w)`$ form a doublet, the cohomology of $`\delta `$ actually depends on $`(z,w)`$.

Hence the local physics generated by $`𝒮_0^{}`$ is modified with respect to the one issued from $`𝒮_0`$. Since the latter is the same as the one generated from the classical BRST differential, the physical states corresponding to $`s`$ do not survive quantization. We have explicitly checked this result by showing that the subspace of the physical states corresponding to $`s`$ is not left invariant under the application of the S matrix, as a consequence of the extended ST identity satisfied by the quantum effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

### Acknowledgments

We acknowledge a partial financial support by MURST.