text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Study of non-perturbative effects in 4D gauge theories is an important research direction. Unlike ordinary gauge theories where often the only way of understanding strongly coupled dynamics is to do numerical simulation, a large class of phenomena in supersymmetric gauge theories can be understood analytically and exactly. The latter is due to strong restrictions implied by the supersymmetry on the possible structure of perturbative and non-perturbative effects. Typically, the larger the supersymmetry in the theory, the more constraint is its dynamics. Perturbatively, in gauge theories with $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY the superpotential is not renormalized , the beta function in $`𝒩=2`$ theories is not modified beyond one-loop order , and the $`𝒩=4`$ theory is finite . There are no non-perturbative corrections to $`𝒩=4`$ beta function, while perturbative beta function of gauge theories with 8 (or less) supercharges is corrected by instantons .

An interesting question to ask is whether non-perturbative corrections in supersymmetric gauge theories are due only to instantons. There is strong evidence, both from the field theory perspective , and within the framework of the D-brane engineering of gauge theories , that fractional instantons, carrying $`1/N`$ units of instanton charge, are responsible for gaugino condensation and the mass gap in low energy $`𝒩=1`$ $`SU(N)`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. Furthermore, the superpotential of the mass deformed $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ YM-theory (also known as the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory) was shown in the confining vacua to have fractional instanton expansion . The latter result was confirmed in the supergravity dual of $`𝒩=1^{}`$ gauge theory constructed by Polchinski and Strassler . On the contrary, D-brane construction of $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theories  and the analysis of a D3-probe dynamics in gravitational dual of $`𝒩=2^{}`$ gauge theories  suggests that fractional instantons do not play role in the low energy dynamics of these theories.

The purpose of this paper is to study the consequences of presence of fractional instantons in 4D $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theories from the field theoretical perspective. As it is well known, in the standard solution for the low-energy effective action of $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(2)`$ SYM theory , only integer instantons contribute to the prepotential. This is actually an input to the solution, rather than its prediction. In fact, we construct infinitely many new solutions to the Seiberg-Witten $`SU(2)`$ monodromy problem with the same (perturbative) weak coupling asymptotic, and a pair of additional singularities on the moduli space where a monopole and a dyon, with the same charges as in , respectively becomes massless. These new solutions differ from the original one in that the gauge coupling of the low-energy effective action receives non-perturbative corrections of $`1/2`$ unit the instanton charge. Though mathematically acceptable, all the new solutions we find fail physically. Specifically, in , partial supersymmetry breaking by a soft mass term to the chiral superfield in the $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet lifted all vacua of the moduli space, except for those with massless monopole and dyon. One is left then with two $`𝒩=1`$ vacua as predicted in . In our solutions, all the Coulomb branch is lifted under the soft SUSY breaking: the monopole (dyon) condensate is infinite at the moduli space singularities.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we discuss the would-be signature of fractional instantons in supergravity dual of large-N gauge theories with 8 supercharges. Field-theoretical analysis of $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(2)`$ YM theory with fractional instanton contributions to the prepotential is presented in section 3. We conclude in section 4.

## 2 Fractional instantons in $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theories in the framework of Maldacena duality

AdS/CFT duality of Maldacena  relates strongly coupled superconformal gauge theories to supergravity backgrounds. In  it was shown that four dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory, at large values of ’t Hooft coupling and $`N`$, has a weakly coupled description as type IIB string theory compactified on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ with $`N`$ units of the five-form flux through the $`S^5`$. $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ gravitational background represents a near horizon geometry of coincident $`N`$ D3 branes, and is dual to the origin of the Coulomb moduli space of the gauge theory. The classical $`3(N1)`$ complex dimensional moduli space of the gauge theory is not corrected quantum mechanically, and has a very simple interpretation in supergravity as a moduli space of multi-centered solutions with D3-brane charge . The fact that there are no quantum corrections to the moduli space relates to the possibility of moving without obstruction a D3-brane probe in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background.

The situation is different in the case of gravitation dual of gauge theories with reduced supersymmetry. Gauge theories with 8 supercharges has quantum moduli space which is however different from the classical one. A typical example is the classical vacuum of the four dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(2)`$ YM theory with unbroken gauge symmetry which does not survive the quantization . This has profound implications for the probe dynamics in dual gravitational backgrounds. To be more specific we concentrate now on the probe computation in the gravitational background dual to the mass deformed $`𝒩=4𝒩=2`$ $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory, also known as $`𝒩=2^{}`$ gauge theory. The corresponding supergravity background, which we refer to as PW, was constructed in  and the D-brane probe dynamics was discussed in . In the language of four-dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry, the mass deformed $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory consists of a vector multiplet $`V`$, an adjoint chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ related by $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry to the gauge field, and two additional adjoint chiral multiplets $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ which form the $`𝒩=2`$ hypermultiplet. In addition to the usual gauge-invariant kinetic terms for these fields, the theory has additional interactions and hypermultiplet mass term summarized in the superpotential111The classical Kähler potential is normalized $`(2/g_{YM}^2)\mathrm{tr}[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{Q}Q+\overline{\stackrel{~}{Q}}\stackrel{~}{Q}]`$.

$$W=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{g_{YM}^2}\mathrm{tr}([Q,\stackrel{~}{Q}]\mathrm{\Phi })+\frac{m}{g_{YM}^2}(\mathrm{tr}Q^2+\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{Q}^2).$$
(2.1)
The theory has a classical moduli space of Coulomb vacua parameterized by expectation values of the adjoint scalar

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{diag}(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_N),\underset{i}{}a_i=0,$$
(2.2)
in the Cartan subalgebra of the gauge group. For generic values of the moduli $`a_i`$ the gauge symmetry is broken to that of the Cartan subalgebra $`U(1)^{N1}`$, up to the permutation of individual $`U(1)`$ factors. Classically, when two or more moduli $`a_i`$ coincide, the gauge symmetry is appropriately enhanced. The moduli space of a D3-brane probing the PW supergravity background is dual to the projection of the Coulomb branch vacua of $`SU(N+1)U(1)\times U(1)^{N1}`$ to that of the probe $`U(1)`$. If $`u`$ is the modulus of the $`U(1)`$ representing the probe, the classical parametrization of the full moduli space (2.2) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{diag}(u,a_1u/N,a_2u/N,\mathrm{},a_Nu/N),\underset{i}{}a_i=0.$$
(2.3)
Up to coordinate change, $`u`$ identifies the position of the probe brane in the supergravity background. Classically, all values of $`u`$ are allowed. As we already mentioned, this is true quantumly for the corresponding modulus of $`𝒩=4`$ YM theory, resulting in the fact that a D3 probe can be moved freely in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background. In $`𝒩=2^{}`$ gauge theory, the classical $`U(1)`$ probe modulus $`u`$ receives quantum corrections . Here, there are no perturbative corrections, but there are instanton corrections which become increasingly important as $`u(1+1/N)a_i`$ in (2.3)222More precisely, in the large $`N`$ limit, instanton corrections become important as $`|ua_i||u|/N`$ .. As in the case of $`SU(2)`$ YM theory, the vacua with classical nonabelian gauge symmetry, $`u(1+1/N)=a_i`$, are not preserved by quantum corrections. As the result, one should expect boundaries in the D3-probe moduli space of the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ gravitational dual. The boundary of the D3-probe (or more generally Dp-probe) moduli space in gravitational dual of gauge theories with 8 supercharges is nothing but the enhancon of . We would like to emphasize that this boundary is infinitely sharp in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit only if there are no fractional instanton corrections in theories with 8 supercharges. This is precisely what was found in . The metric on the D3-probe moduli space is related by $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry to the imaginary part of the complexified probe $`U(1)`$ gauge coupling $`\tau =\frac{\theta }{2\pi }+i\frac{4\pi }{g_{YM}^2}`$ . This coupling receives both perturbative and nonperturbative corrections. The perturbative corrections are one-loop exact . From the field theory perspective, it was argued in  that nonperturbative corrections due to instantons do not survive ’t Hooft limit, thus the metric on the D3 probe moduli space is one-loop exact even non-perturbatively. This result has been confirmed explicitly in  by comparing the one-loop $`\tau `$ computation in the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ gauge theory with induced metric on the D3 probe moduli space in the PW geometry. Nonperturbative corrections carrying $`p/N`$ unit the instanton charge are suppressed as $`\mathrm{exp}(8\pi ^2p/(Ng_{YM}^2))`$, and thus would contribute in the ’t Hooft limit for any finite $`p`$, invalidating one-loop gauge theory/supergravity agreement of .

## 3 Fractional instantons in $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills theory

In this section we study fractional instantons in Seiberg-Witten theory . We will follow the steps of  while relaxing the requirement of only integer instanton contributions to the low energy effective action.

Consider $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Wills theory in four dimensions. The theory is asymptotically free in the UV and is strongly coupled below dynamically generated scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We would like to study the low energy physics of this theory. Classically, the theory has a Coulomb moduli space parameterized by the expectation value of the adjoint scalar

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{diag}(a,a),$$
(3.4)
in the Cartan subalgebra of the gauge group. At the generic point on the moduli space the gauge symmetry is broken to $`U(1)`$. The entire low-energy effective action $``$ of an Abelian $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet is completely determined in terms of the single prepotential $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)`$ which depends holomorphically on the strong coupling scale of the theory $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and the Coulomb modulus $`a`$

$`8\pi =`$ $`\mathrm{Im}[\tau ]\left(_\mu a^\mu \overline{a}+i\overline{\psi }\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \psi \right)`$ (3.6)
$`+\mathrm{Re}\left\{\tau \left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }2\overline{\lambda }\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \lambda \right)\right\},`$
with

$$\tau =\frac{d^2}{d^2a}.$$
(3.7)
In Eq. (3.6) $`\psi `$ and $`\lambda `$ are fermionic superpartners of the scalar and the gauge boson respectively. Classically, the prepotential is given by

$$_{\mathrm{class}}=\frac{1}{2}\tau _0a^2.$$
(3.8)
where $`\tau _0=\frac{\theta _0}{\pi }+\frac{8\pi i}{g_0^2}`$ is the bare coupling constant. This prepotential receives quantum corrections. The tree level and one-loop contributions add up to

$$_{\mathrm{pert}}=\frac{ia^2}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{a^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right].$$
(3.9)
Higher order perturbative corrections are absent, although there are nonperturbative corrections due to instantons. $`𝒩=2`$ lagrangian (3.6) has $`U(1)_R`$ global symmetry333We assign $`U(1)_R`$ charge two to $`a`$., which is broken by anomaly to a $`Z_8`$. Thus, a full prepotential $``$ should at most respect $`Z_8`$ subgroup of $`U(1)_R`$. One instanton action violates $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry by eight units, so assuming that there are no nonperturbative effects that further break this R-symmetry, Seiberg arrived at the following form of the full prepotential at weak coupling

$$=\frac{ia^2}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{a^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right]+\frac{1}{2\pi i}a^2\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{a}\right)^4\mathrm{},$$
(3.10)
where the $`\mathrm{}`$’th term arises as a contribution of $`\mathrm{}`$ instantons. It is this assumption of the exact $`Z_8`$ symmetry of the low energy effective $`SU(2)`$ prepotential that we want to relax. Specifically, we assume that in addition to instanton corrections, there are nonperturbative corrections which carry $`1/2`$ unit the instanton charge. So we demand only $`Z_4`$ R-symmetry of the quantum prepotential

$$_{1/2}=\frac{ia^2}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{a^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right]+\frac{1}{2\pi i}a^2\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{a}\right)^2\mathrm{}.$$
(3.11)
To proceed with the full solution of the model subject to (3.11), we review physical assumptions of the original Seiberg-Witten solution . We would like to emphasize that in our solution we adopt all constraints listed below. First, the unitarity constrains $`\mathrm{Im}\{\tau \}>0`$ throughout the moduli space. As a result, $``$, $`a^D\frac{d}{da}`$, $`\tau `$ are defined only locally on the moduli space. Low-energy electric-magnetic duality  implies that $`a`$ is a multi-valued section on the moduli space as well, and thus can not be a nice global coordinate. Seiberg and Witten thus introduce global coordinate $`u`$, such that the period section

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}a^D\\ a\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{i}{\pi }\sqrt{2u}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{u}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right]\\ \sqrt{\frac{u}{2}}\end{array}\right),|u||\mathrm{\Lambda }^2|.$$
(3.12)
The monodromy of the period section due to the semi-classical singularity is determined by the asymptotic (3.12)

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}a^D\\ a\end{array}\right)M_{\mathrm{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}a^D\\ a\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 4\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a^D\\ a\end{array}\right).$$
(3.13)
Second, in addition to the semi-classical singularity on the moduli space at $`u=\mathrm{}`$, there are precisely two other singularities at $`u=\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. The $`u=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ singularity is generated by integrating out massless dyon of charge $`(1,2)`$ (the BPS formula determines its exact mass to be $`m^{(1,2)}=|a^D2a|`$), and the $`u=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ singularity is due to the massless monopole of charge $`(1,0)`$ ($`m^{(1,0)}=|a^D|`$). These two singularities generate the following monodromies of the period section

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}a^D\\ a\end{array}\right)M^{(1,2)}\left(\begin{array}{c}a^D\\ a\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 4\\ 1& 3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a^D\\ a\end{array}\right),|u+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2||\mathrm{\Lambda }^2|,`$ (3.14)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}a^D\\ a\end{array}\right)M^{(1,0)}\left(\begin{array}{c}a^D\\ a\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a^D\\ a\end{array}\right),|u\mathrm{\Lambda }^2||\mathrm{\Lambda }^2|.`$ (3.15)
It is important that (3.14), (3.15) are determined using low-energy electric-magnetic dualities once the charges of the massless states on the moduli space are specified444Actually, one has to specify the nature of only one of the two non-perturbative singularities on the moduli space. The monodromy (and charges of a state that generates it) due to the other one is determined from the monodromy algebra: $`M_{\mathrm{}}=M^{(1,0)}M^{(1,2)}`$. . Using above assumptions, Seiberg and Witten identified $`\tau (u)`$ with the complex structure of the one-parameter family of tori

$$y^2=(x^2u)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^4,$$
(3.16)
and the section $`(a^D,a)`$ with the integral of one-form $`\lambda \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi }x^2\frac{dx}{y}`$ over their homology basis. Note that the strong coupling scale enters as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ in (3.16). As a result, in the semi-classical region $`|a||\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ the prepotential is guaranteed to have only integer instanton expansion (3.10).

We now discuss solution of the $`SU(2)`$ YM theory with low energy effective prepotential (3.11) in the weakly coupled region of the moduli space. We put $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ and assume the existence of a global coordinate $`f`$ on the moduli space. We assume the moduli space singularities to be at $`f=\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$ with the monodromies of the period section $`(a^D(f),a(f))`$ given by $`\{M^{(1,2)},M^{(1,0)},M_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ respectively. The weak coupling asymptotic is assumed to be

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}a^D\\ a\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{2i}{\pi }\sqrt{f}\mathrm{ln}f\\ \sqrt{f}\end{array}\right),f1.$$
(3.17)
Comparing (3.17) with (3.12) we thus have

$$f\frac{u}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2},|u||\mathrm{\Lambda }^2|.$$
(3.18)
The construction of $`SL(2,Z)`$ sections $`(a^D(f),a(f))`$ with required weak coupling asymptotic (3.17) and monodromies (3.13), (3.15) and (3.14) is rather simple. We start with the following ansatz for $`a^D`$:

$$a^D=A\left(1\frac{1}{f}\right)^{\delta _1+1}f_2^{\delta _2+1/2}F_1(\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta +m,1\frac{1}{f}),$$
(3.19)
where $`A`$ is a normalization constant and $`m`$ is an integer. Above ansatz insures that the only singularities of $`a^D`$ occur at $`f=\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$. The third parameter in the hypergeometric function, ($`\alpha +\beta +m`$), is chosen to get a logarithmic singularity in $`a^D`$ as $`f\mathrm{}`$. Furthermore, we assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta +m)`$ is finite to have (3.19) well-defined. A set of useful identities among hypergeometric functions can be found in . Comparing the asymptotics of (3.19) as $`f\mathrm{}`$ with (3.17) we find

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.20)
$`\delta _2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.21)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta )}}.`$ (3.22)
The monodromy of (3.19) around $`f=\mathrm{}`$ determines $`a`$. With (3.22), we find

$$a=f^{1/2}\left(1\frac{1}{f}\right)_2^{\delta _1+1}F_1(\alpha ,\beta ,1,\frac{1}{f}).$$
(3.23)
Using identifies of  it is straightforward to check that the monodromy of $`(a^D,a)`$ about $`f=1`$ requires

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+n,`$ (3.24)
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n+k,`$ (3.25)
$`\delta _1`$ $`=`$ $`d,`$ (3.26)
where $`n,d`$ are arbitrary integers, and $`k`$ is a non-negative integer. Altogether, $`SL(2,Z)`$ sections $`S(k,n,d)`$

$`𝒮(k,n,d)\left(\begin{array}{c}a^D\\ \\ a\end{array}\right)`$ (3.27)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{2i}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+n)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}n+k)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+1)}f^{1/2}\left(1\frac{1}{f}\right)_2^{d+1}F_1(\frac{1}{2}+n,\frac{1}{2}n+k,k+1,1\frac{1}{f})\\ \\ f^{1/2}\left(1\frac{1}{f}\right)_2^{d+1}F_1(\frac{1}{2}+n,\frac{1}{2}n+k,1,\frac{1}{f})\end{array}\right)`$ (3.29)
parameterized by integers $`(n,k,d)`$ with $`k0`$, satisfy monodromies (3.15), (3.13) about $`f=\{1,\mathrm{}\}`$ punctures of the $`f`$-sphere. As the only other singularity of $`S(k,n,d)`$ is at $`f=0`$, the monodromy (3.14) is satisfied automatically.

It is easy to see that if (3.29) solves the monodromy problem, the metric on the moduli space is positive definite. Really, since the structure group of the period section is a subgroup of $`SL(2,Z)`$, the effective coupling

$$\tau _{(k,n,d)}(f)=\frac{da^D/df}{da/df},$$
(3.30)
is a section with the same structure group and thus $`\mathrm{Im}\tau _{(k,n,d)}`$ can not change sign over the whole moduli space. The original Seiberg-Witten solution  is realized by section $`𝒮(1,0,0)`$ (or equivalently $`𝒮(1,1,0)`$). Really, substituting $`f(u+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)/2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ in (3.29) and using certain identities for the hypergeometric functions , we recover

$$𝒮(1,0,0)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{iu^{1/2}}{4}\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{u^2}\right)_2F_1(\frac{3}{4},\frac{5}{4},2,1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{u^2})\\ \\ \frac{u^{1/2}}{\sqrt{2}}_2F_1(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{4},1,\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{u^2})\end{array}\right).$$
(3.31)
A straightforward computation shows that the effective coupling $`\tau _{(k,n,d)}`$ has generically fractional instanton corrections in the semi-classical region of the moduli space $`|a|1`$,

$$\tau _{(k,n,d)}(a)=\frac{2i}{\pi }\left[\mathrm{ln}a^2+t_0+\frac{t_1}{a^2}+\frac{t_2}{a^4}+\frac{t_3}{a^6}+\mathrm{}+\frac{t_p}{a^{2p}}+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(3.32)
with

$`t_0`$ $`=`$ $`2+2\psi (1)\psi \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+n\right)\psi \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n+k\right),`$ (3.33)
$`t_1`$ $`=`$ $`k12d,`$ (3.35)
$`t_2`$ $`=`$ $`12d^212d(1+k+knn^2)+[3(59+136n^2+48n^4`$ (3.38)
$`+4k^2(17+32n+12n^2)8k(16+17n+16n^2+12n^3))]/64,`$
where

$$\psi (z)\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)}{dz}.$$
(3.40)
Though any section $`𝒮(k,n,d)`$ with $`k0`$ solves the Seiberg-Witten monodromy problem, restrictions on $`(k,n,d)`$ come from the conjectured spectrum of BPS states at the singularities. Suppressing numerical constants, we have

$`a^Da`$ $``$ $`f^{knd}\mathrm{ln}f+f^{nd}`$ (3.41)
$`a^D2a`$ $``$ $`f^{knd},\mathrm{if}k>2n,`$ (3.42)
$`a^Da`$ $``$ $`f^{k/2d}\mathrm{ln}f`$ (3.44)
$`a^D2a`$ $``$ $`f^{k/2d},\mathrm{if}k=2n,`$ (3.45)
$`a^Da`$ $``$ $`f^{nd}\mathrm{ln}f+f^{knd}`$ (3.47)
$`a^D2a`$ $``$ $`f^{nd},\mathrm{if}k<2n,`$ (3.48)
as $`f0`$, and

$`a^D`$ $``$ $`(f1)^{d+1}`$ (3.49)
$`a`$ $``$ $`(f1)^{d+1k}+(f1)^{d+1}\mathrm{ln}(f1),\mathrm{if}k>0,`$ (3.50)
$`a^D`$ $``$ $`(f1)^{d+1}`$ (3.52)
$`a`$ $``$ $`(f1)^{d+1}\mathrm{ln}(f1),\mathrm{if}k=0,`$ (3.53)
as $`f1`$. Thus, from (3.53), to have a massless monopole at $`f=1`$ and massive all the electrically charged particles we must have

$$kd+11.$$
(3.54)
Similarly, from (3.48), to have only massless dyon of charge $`(1,2)`$ at $`f=0`$ singularity

$$\left\{n\mathrm{min}[d,kd1]\right\}\left\{n\mathrm{max}[d+1,kd]\right\}.$$
(3.55)
Constraints (3.54), (3.55) are mutually compatible; thus is appears we found new solutions to the $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(2)`$ monodromy problem with the same weak coupling asymptotic and the same massless states at nonperturbative singularities on the moduli space as in . Generically, new solutions have $`1/2`$-instanton corrections in the semi-classical region of the moduli space.

In the rest of this section we show that all new solutions (note that $`𝒮(1,0,0)𝒮(1,1,0)`$ corresponds to the Seiberg-Witten solution) are in fact unphysical: they predict that giving mass to the chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet breaks the supersymmetry completely. On the contrary, when a mass of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is much larger than the strong coupling scale of the $`𝒩=2`$ theory, we should be able to reliably integrate it out, thus ending up with $`𝒩=1`$ $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills theory which is predicted to have two vacua . The analysis below repeat those of .

Breaking $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry down to $`𝒩=1`$ is achieved by adding a superpotential for the chiral multiplet in $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet

$$W=m\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2.$$
(3.56)
In the low energy effective theory the operator $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ is represented by a chiral superfield $`f`$. Its first component is the scalar field $`f`$ whose expectation value is

$$<f>=<\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2>.$$
(3.57)
It was argued in  that adding (3.56) microscopically corresponds to adding

$$W_{eff}=mf,$$
(3.58)
to the low energy effective superpotential. At a generic point on the moduli space there are no light chiral fields, so (3.58) is the complete superpotential. Thus perturbation (3.58) lifts all such $`𝒩=2`$ vacua. The situation is different near the singularities on the moduli space. Near the $`f=1`$ singularity there are massless monopoles. The monopoles can be represented by ordinary (local) chiral superfields $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, as long as we describe the gauge field by the dual to the original photon, $`a^D`$. The complete superpotential is then

$$W_{f=1}=\sqrt{2}a^DM\stackrel{~}{M}+mf,$$
(3.59)
where the first term represents $`𝒩=2`$ superpotential of the $`m=0`$ theory. F-term equations from (3.59) give

$`\sqrt{2}M\stackrel{~}{M}+m{\displaystyle \frac{df}{da^D}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.60)
$`a^DM=a^D\stackrel{~}{M}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3.62)
Using (3.53), eq. (3.62) has a solution (there is $`𝒩=1`$ vacuum) provided

$$\frac{df}{da^D}\mathrm{}\mathrm{at}f=1.$$
(3.63)
Along with (3.54), eq. (3.63) implies that

$$d=0,k1.$$
(3.64)
Identical analysis at the dyon singularity, $`f=0`$, shows that $`𝒩=1`$ vacuum there exists provided

$$\frac{df}{d(a^D2a)}\mathrm{}\mathrm{at}f=0.$$
(3.65)
Eqs. (3.55) and (3.65) give

$$\left\{n=kd1,2d+1k\right\}\left\{n=d+1,2d+1k\right\}.$$
(3.66)
Combining (3.64) and (3.66) we conclude that only sections $`𝒮(1,0,0)𝒮(1,1,0)`$ predict a pair of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric vacua for the mass deformed $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(2)`$ YM theory. These sections are precisely the Seiberg-Witten solution of the model, which do not have fractional instantons in the semi-classical region of the moduli space.

## 4 Conclusion

D3 brane probe computation in gravitational dual of large-N gauge theories with $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry suggests that, unlike $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories, these theories do not have fractional instantons. The evidence comes primarily from the facts that the enhancon is a sharp boundary of a D-brane probe moduli space, and the agreement of the metric on the probe moduli space with the one-loop beta-function computation in the dual gauge theory.

In this paper we studied fractional instantons in the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theories from the field theoretical perspective. On the example of $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills theory we showed that though it is possible to construct new solutions to the Seiberg-Witten monodromy problem with the same perturbative asymptotic, but fractional instanton corrections in the semi-classical region of the moduli space, these solutions are unphysical. Specifically, they predict that the soft mass term to the chiral superfield in $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet breaks the supersymmetry completely. Our analysis points out that allowing fractional instantons in the semi-classical prepotential would drive monopole (dyon) condensate to infinity in mass deformed $`𝒩=2`$ theories.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Per Berglund, Clifford Johnson, Amanda Peet and Joe Polchinski for valuable discussions. This work was supported in part by NSF grants PHY97-22022 and PHY99-07949.


format: text

text:
# Local Group Velocity Versus Gravity: Nonlinear Effects

## 1 Introduction

The dipole anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) temperature is widely believed to reflect, via the Doppler shift, the motion of the Local Group (LG) with respect to the CMB rest frame. When transformed to the barycenter of the LG, this motion is towards $`(l,b)=(276^{}\pm 3^{},30^{}\pm 2^{})`$, and of amplitude $`v_{\mathrm{LG}}=627\pm 22`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$, as inferred from the 4-year COBE data (Lineweaver et al. 1996). Alternative models which assume that the dipole is due to a metric fluctuation (e.g., Paczyński & Piran 1990) have problems with explaining its observed achromaticity and the relative smallness of the CMB quadrupole.

An additional argument in favour of the kinematic interpretation of the CMB dipole is its remarkable alignment with the LG acceleration, inferred from galaxy distribution. The acceleration on the LG (i.e., the galaxy dipole), inferred from the IRAS 1.2 Jy survey points $`25^{}`$ away from the CMB dipole (Strauss et al. 1992; hereafter S92). The recently completed IRAS PSCz survey allowed to make further progress on this topic. Schmoldt et al. (1999; hereafter S99) found the PSCz galaxy dipole to be within $`15^{}`$ of the CMB dipole. Rowan-Robinson et al. (1999), performing a similar analysis of the galaxy dipole but out to a larger distance $`300`$ $`h^1\text{Mpc}`$, obtained the misalignment angle as small as $`13^{}`$.

In the linear theory, (e.g., Peebles 1980) the peculiar velocity of any galaxy, $`𝐯`$, is directly proportional to its gravitational acceleration, $`𝐠`$: $`𝐯=(2f/3H\mathrm{\Omega })𝐠`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denotes the cosmic matter density parameter, $`H`$ is the Hubble constant and

$$f(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Omega }^{0.6}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{70}\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}\right)$$
(1)
(Lahav et al. 1991; note a very weak dependence on the cosmological constant).

The acceleration is caused by the gravitational pull of the surrounding matter,

$$𝐠(𝐫)=G\rho _b\mathrm{d}^3r^{}\delta (𝐫^{})\frac{𝐫^{}𝐫}{|𝐫^{}𝐫|^3}.$$
(2)
Here, $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, $`\rho _b`$ is the background density, and $`\delta `$ is the mass density fluctuation field. If we define the scaled gravity, $`\stackrel{~}{𝐠}(2f/3H\mathrm{\Omega })𝐠`$, then in the linear theory

$$𝐯=\stackrel{~}{𝐠}.$$
(3)
The vector $`\stackrel{~}{𝐠}`$ can be measured from redshift surveys which give an estimate of the three-dimensional galaxy density field, $`\delta _g`$. In the simplest biasing model the galaxy and mass distributions are linearly related, $`\delta _g=b\delta `$, where $`b`$ is a linear biasing factor. The scaled gravity is then

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐠}(𝐫)=\beta \frac{\mathrm{d}^3r^{}}{4\pi }\delta _g(𝐫^{})\frac{𝐫^{}𝐫}{|𝐫^{}𝐫|^3},$$
(4)
where $`\beta f/b`$ and we express distances in units of $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$.

The amplitude of the scaled gravity depends on $`\beta `$. Therefore, a comparison between the LG scaled gravity and the CMB dipole can serve not only as a test for the kinematic origin of the latter but also as a measure of the parameter $`\beta `$. Combined with other constraints on bias, it may yield an estimate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ itself.

However, the estimate (4) of the LG velocity from a particular redshift survey will in general differ from its true velocity, for a number of reasons. We enumerate them here following S99:

* The finite volume of the survey – the galaxy dipole may be affected by contributions from outside;
* Unsurveyed regions within the volume;
* The shot noise – the galaxy density field is sampled discretely, at galaxy’s positions;
* Redshift-space distortions – in redshift surveys the radial coordinate is not the true distance to a galaxy but rather a sum of the distance and the radial component of its a priori unknown peculiar velocity;
* Nonlinear effects – the scaled acceleration is equal to the velocity only in the linear regime, while redshift surveys unveil nonlinear structure of the galaxy distribution.

In the proper process of the LG gravity–velocity comparison, all these effects should be accounted for. In the present paper, we will concentrate on the nonlinear effects (hereafter NE). In general, the NE can be due to both nonlinear gravity and nonlinear biasing. Here, we will only consider the effects of nonlinear gravity, and we will use the term ‘NE’ in this, more narrow, meaning.

NE modify the linear relation (3) in a number of ways. Non-local nature of gravity, somewhat hidden at linear order, manifests itself at higher orders. The relation between the velocity and the scaled gravitational acceleration becomes not only non-linear but also non-local, so at a given point it has a scatter. The NE may also spoil the alignment between the two vectors. Thus, the NE may influence not only the accuracy of estimating $`\beta `$ from Local Group dipole comparisons, but also its precision. In this paper we address both issues.

A common method of constraining cosmological parameters by the LG gravity–velocity comparison is to apply a maximum-likelihood analysis. In a given cosmological model, one maximizes the likelihood of measuring the scaled gravity of the LG given the true (CMB-inferred) value of the LG velocity (Juszkiewicz, Vittorio & Wyse 1990, Lahav, Kaiser & Hoffman 1990, S92, S99). In such an analysis, a proper object describing the nonlinear effects is the decoherence function, i.e. the cross-correlation coefficient of the Fourier modes of the gravity and velocity fields (S92).

Here, we will study the NE in real space. In particular, we will study the evolution of the misalignment angle, and the relation between the amplitudes of the gravity and velocity vectors. This approach is more appropriate in the case of the ‘numerical analysis’ of S99, where they simply equated the LG gravity, inferred from the IRAS PSCz catalog, to the LG velocity. To account for the NE (and other effects mentioned earlier), S99 used mock catalogs to compute the ratio between the reconstructed gravity dipole at the observer’s position and its true N-body velocity. Then they used the average of the ratios calculated from mock catalogs as a multiplicative factor which relates the reconstructed gravity dipole to the real LG velocity. The mock catalogs were constructed for different cosmologies. In our opinion, if the factor varies systematically from model to model, averaging it makes no sense. Rather, the results should be expressed explicitly in a model-dependent way. (This is the case of the likelihood analysis of S99.) One of the goals of the present paper is to clarify this issue.

The NE in real space were studied by means of N-body simulations by Davis, Strauss & Yahil (1991); however, only in a standard CDM model. Here we investigate the effects of varying $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on the NE, also using numerical simulations. Instead of using a N-body scheme, we model cold dark matter as a pressureless cosmic fluid (see Peebles 1987). The outline of this paper is as follows: In Section 2 we present our numerical model of the large scale structure evolution and how we select Local Group candidates in the data. Next we discuss the differences between the Local Group velocity and acceleration: in Section 3 we discuss the angle between the two vectors, in Section 4 – their amplitudes. We summarize our results in Section 5.

## 2 The simulations

### 2.1 The Numerical Model

We have performed our simulations using an Eulerian, uniform-grid based code – CPPA (Cosmological Pressureless Parabolic Advection, see Kudlicki, Plewa & Różyczka 1996, Kudlicki et al. 2000a, Kudlicki et al. 2000c). The main features of CPPA are parabolic density and velocity profiles, variable timestep, periodic boundary conditions and a flux interchange procedure, implemented as an approximation to the solution of the Boltzmann equation. We have studied two cosmological models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$, assuming Gaussian initial conditions. For better statistics we performed 4 realizations of each of the models, varying random phases of the initial density field. The grid we used was $`64^3`$, and the comoving size of the simulation box was $`100`$ $`h^1\text{Mpc}`$ on a side.

The linear velocity depends on the cosmological constant very weakly (see eq. 1); this holds also for higher orders (see Appendix B.3 of Scoccimarro et al. 1998 and Nusser & Colberg 1998), so we were free to assume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ in all our models. To make the simulated gravity of the LG as close as possible to that inferred from the IRAS PSCz survey, for the mass power spectrum we adopted the power spectrum of the PSCz galaxies (Sutherland et al. 1999):

$`P(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Bk}{\{1+[ak+(bk)^{3/2}+(ck)^2]^\nu )^{2/\nu }\}}}`$ (5)
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`6.4/\mathrm{\Gamma }h^1\mathrm{Mpc},b=3.0/\mathrm{\Gamma }h^1\mathrm{Mpc},`$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`1.7/\mathrm{\Gamma }h^1\mathrm{Mpc},\nu =1.13`$
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.2`$ as best fitted value. To normalize the power spectrum we used the observed local abundance of galaxy clusters. The present value of $`\sigma _8`$, $`\sigma _{8,0}`$, is a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and for the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, considered here, it is given by the relation (Eke, Cole & Frenk 1996)

$$\sigma _{8,0}=(0.52\pm 0.04)\mathrm{\Omega }^{0.46+0.10\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(6)
This relation changes only slightly with the shape of the power spectrum. It is also very similar for the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, $`\sigma _{8,0}0.52`$, while for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$, $`\sigma _{8,0}0.87`$.

### 2.2 Selection of LG candidates

To study the relation between the velocity and the gravity of the LG, from the simulation grid we selected the cells which have properties resembling those of the LG. We chose these ‘LG candidates’ following the criteria presented in Górski et al. (1989), and used by Davis, Strauss & Yahil (1991): the peculiar velocity of the candidate must be $`|𝐯|=600\pm 10`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$, the candidate must be in a region in which the fractional overdensity, averaged in a radius $`R=500`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$, $`\delta ^R`$, is in the range $`0.2<\delta ^R<1.0`$, and the cosmic flow within this volume is quiet: $`|𝐯𝐯^R|<0.3|𝐯|`$, where $`𝐯^R`$ is the mean velocity within the averaging sphere. In general, the symbol $`x^R`$ denotes the quantity $`x`$ averaged with a top-hat filter of radius $`R`$. The chosen value $`600`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ is not exactly equal to the present estimate of the LG velocity, given in Section 1. However, for the purposes of the present paper the difference between the two is not significant, while the value $`600`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ facilitates a visual analysis of the results.

## 3 The misalignment angle

### 3.1 Analytic predictions

As stated in Section 1, the NE spoil the alignment between the velocity and gravity vectors. In this Section we study the evolution of their misalignment angle, $`\alpha `$, given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\alpha =\frac{𝐯𝐠}{vg}.$$
(7)
In the linear regime, $`𝐯`$ is proportional to $`𝐠`$ and the misalignment angle is exactly zero. The linear velocity depends on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (and only weakly on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) solely via the multiplicative factor $`f`$ (eq. 1). This is also approximately true for the nonlinear velocity (Appendix B.3 of Scoccimarro et al. 1998 and Nusser & Colberg 1998). Moreover, the gravity field scales linearly with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (see eq. 2). As a result, in equation (7) the factors $`f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ cancel out and we expect the misalignment angle to be practically independent of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

If the fields are smoothed on mildly nonlinear scales, the perturbation theory can be applied to predict qualitatively the evolution of $`\alpha `$. Note first that the angle between the velocity and the acceleration equals to the angle between the velocity and the scaled acceleration (eq. 4). Expanding the velocity and the scaled gravity in perturbative series, $`𝐯=𝐯_1+𝐯_2+\mathrm{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝐠}=\stackrel{~}{𝐠}_1+\stackrel{~}{𝐠}_2+\mathrm{}`$, and calculating the expectation value of the angle to the leading order we obtain

$$\alpha ^2=\frac{(𝐯_2\stackrel{~}{𝐠}_2)^2[\widehat{𝐯}_1(𝐯_2\stackrel{~}{𝐠}_2)]^2}{v_1^2}.$$
(8)
Here, $`\widehat{𝐯}_1=𝐯_1/v_1`$, and the symbol $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes ensemble averaging. Perturbative solutions for $`𝐯_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐠}_2`$ (e.g., Goroff et al. 1986) yield the following approximate scaling relations: $`v_2\stackrel{~}{g}_2v_1\delta _1`$. Since to the leading order $`\delta _1=\delta `$ and typically $`\delta \sigma `$, we have

$$\alpha ^2^{1/2}\sigma ,$$
(9)
where $`\sigma \delta ^2^{1/2}`$ is the r.m.s. fluctuation of the mass density field. As described earlier, we expect the coefficient of proportionality in the above relation to be insensitive to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. On the other hand, we expect it to depend on the relative amount of power on small (nonlinear) scales. In equation (8), $`\alpha `$ is expressed in terms of only first and second-order perturbative contributions to the velocity and gravity fields. Despite this, an analytic calculation of the misalignment angle is impossible, because it involves averaging of a ratio of two non-Gaussian variables. In short, the resulting series cannot be truncated.

Thus far, our analysis concerned the evolution of the misalignment angle of the smoothed velocity and gravity fields. In practice, the reconstruction of the LG gravitational acceleration from the redshift-space galaxy field does involve smoothing (to mitigate strong nonlinear effects, to reduce shot-noise and distance uncertainty, etc.). The LG velocity, however, is inferred directly from the CMB dipole, so it is not a subject to any smoothing, except the one needed to reflect the finite size of the LG. As that smoothing, S92 adopt a top-hat of radius $`100`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ (1 $`h^1\text{Mpc}`$). Thus, while the LG acceleration is smoothed, the LG velocity is (almost) unsmoothed. Though in the linear regime $`𝐯^R=𝐠^R`$, if $`𝐯𝐯^R`$, then $`𝐯𝐠^R`$. In other words, if some part of the central velocity is due to matter distribution within the smoothing radius (what is quite natural to expect) we cannot expect unsmoothed velocity to equal smoothed acceleration even in the linear regime (see also Berlind, Narayanan & Weinberg 2000).

### 3.2 Numerical results

We have calculated the misalignment angle from our simulations. First we smoothed both velocity and gravity fields with a top-hat of radius $`500`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$. This radius is equal to the minimum radius of smoothing used for the IRAS gravitational field calculations. As a characteristic angle we adopted the quantity $`\alpha ^2^{1/2}`$, which, for simplictity, we will denote $`\alpha `$.

Figure 1 shows the time-evolution of $`\alpha `$ for all points of the simulation as a function of the r.m.s. value of mass fluctuations in spheres of canonical radius $`800`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$, $`\sigma _8`$. The angle depends linearly on $`\sigma _8`$ up to $`\sigma _80.5`$. Moreover, it is practically independent of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$: the systematic difference between the values for models with the same phases of the initial inhomogeneities and different $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is not greater than the scatter for models with the same $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and different phases.

Our second step is to apply different smoothings to the final gravity and velocity vectors, to mimic better real situation. The gravitational acceleration is smoothed with a filter described earlier, but the velocity should now be smoothed with a top-hat of radius $`100`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ (to reflect the finite size of the LG). Since the cell volume in our simulations corresponds to that of a sphere with radius of 97 $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$, the unsmoothed velocity field is used for simplicity.

Figure 2 shows distributions of $`\alpha `$ for different $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ models with the above normalizations. The mean values of the characteristic angle are $`7.0^{}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and $`7.7^{}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$. On the confidence level of 95 %, $`\alpha `$ is smaller than respectively $`12.6^{}`$ and $`13.9^{}`$ in the model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$. Thus, the measured misalignment angle between the LG velocity and PSCz galaxy dipole ($`13`$$`15^{}`$) is rather unlikely to be caused entirely by nonlinear effects. Other effects must play a role here as well, like, e.g., incomplete sky coverage and shot noise.

The values of the angle we obtained are smaller than the value obtained by Davis et al. (1991) from N-body simulations, $`10.2^{}`$. However, we use the spectrum of the PSCz galaxies, while the power spectrum they used was a standard CDM. This model has more power on small (nonlinear) scales, so we expect a larger effect in this case. We additionally calculated the angle in a standard CDM model (the power spectrum given by eq. 5 with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.5`$). The mean angle indeed increased from $`7.0^{}`$ to $`8.1^{}`$. The rest of the difference we attribute to differencies between the numerical codes (hydro vs. N-body).

## 4 The relation for amplitudes

In the previous Section we have shown that the misalignment angle between the vectors of velocity and gravitational acceleration is small. Therefore, most information about the relation between the two vectors is contained in the relation between their amplitudes. This is also the crucial point in determining $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from the LG dipole. Figure 3 shows this relation for the LG candidates in models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$. Here, both gravity and velocity fields are smoothed with a top-hat filter of radius $`500`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$.

In the top panel of Figure 3, the points agree with the linear prediction (solid line) quite well. The reason of this is twofold. First, the model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ has a low normalization, so the velocity and gravity fields are only weakly nonlinear. Second, the velocity $`600`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ is rather typical for an $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ universe, while the velocity–gravity relation deviates more significantly from the linear prediction only in the high-velocity tail (Kudlicki et al. 2000b). Specifically, the r.m.s. value of the velocity of all points in the simulation is $`458`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$.

Contrary to the previous case, in the lower panel of Figure 3 the points lie farther off the line. This is not surprising, because the normalization of the model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$ is higher, so the fields are more nonlinear. Moreover, the LG velocity of $`600`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ is less typical for an $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$ Universe. Higher normalization of the model compensates for this effect only partly. The r.m.s. value of the velocity of all points in this model is $`340`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$.

The above discussion does not, however, imply that the gravitational acceleration of the LG is a better estimator of the LG velocity in a $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1.0`$ than in a $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$ Universe. As described earlier, in actual comparisons one uses the smoothed gravity of the LG as an estimator of its unsmoothed***Strictly speaking, smoothed over the small volume of the LG. velocity. In Figure 3 we see that, for both models, the mean smoothed velocity of the LG candidates (dashed horizontal line) is smaller than their unsmoothed velocity, $`v=600`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$. As stated in the previous Section, it means that part of the central velocity has been induced by mass fluctuations within the smoothing radius. Since $`v^R<v`$, though for the flat model $`v^Rg^R`$, $`g^R`$ should be smaller than $`v`$. Figure 4 show distributions of the values of $`g^R`$. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, $`g^R=570`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$(dashed vertical line), so indeed $`g^R<v`$. Thus, the smoothed gravitational acceleration of the LG is in this case a slightly biased estimator of its unsmoothed velocity, and essentially all bias results from estimating unsmoothed velocity by its smoothed counterpart, and not from nonlinear gravity. The difference between $`g^R`$ and $`v`$ results in a systematic error of the estimate of $`\beta `$ of 5.3 %.

As for the model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$, the situation is different. The effects of nonlinear gravity act in the opposite direction than the effects of smoothing and turn out to dominate over them. The mean value of $`g^R`$ is here $`642`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$. In other words, in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$ model the smoothed gravitational acceleration of the LG overestimates its unsmoothed velocity. This results in a systematic error of the estimate of $`\beta `$ of $`6.5`$ %.

To sum up, smoothed gravity of the LG underestimates its velocity in a high-$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ Universe, while it overestimates the velocity in a low-$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ Universe. Thus, there is no common bias, independent of the assumed model, that can be corrected for in the data analysis. Therefore, the results should be either expressed in a model-dependent way or they are a subject to this systematic error. Fortunately, this error is in any case relatively small, of a few per cent.

Thus far, we have left aside the scatter in the velocity–gravity relation. This scatter results in a random error in the estimate of $`\beta `$ from the LG velocity–gravity comparison. Unlike the systematic error, this error cannot be reduced in any model, because in practice one does not have at his disposal a whole set of the LG observers, but merely one observer (us). Thus, the NE put also an upper limit on the precision of this method of determining $`\beta `$. The dispersion of the values of $`g^R`$, $`\delta g^R`$, is $`62`$ and $`79`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$, respectively for the models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$. This implies that the $`1\sigma `$ random error in the estimate of $`\beta `$ due to the NE is $`12.3`$ % and $`10.9`$ %, respectively.

The summary of systematic and random errors is presented in Table 1.

## 5 Summary

Using numerical simulations we have studied the relation between the velocity of the Local Group and its gravitational acceleration. This relation underlies both a test for the kinematic origin of the CMB dipole and a method of estimating $`\beta `$.

First, we have investigated the mean misalignment angle between the two vectors. For the case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, we have confirmed the result of Davis et al. (1991), that this angle is small. Actually, the value we have obtained ($`7^{}`$) is even smaller than that of Davis et al. ($`10^{}`$). We attribute a part of the difference to the different power spectrum we used, namely, that of the PSCz survey. The rest of the difference is likely caused by the differences between the numerical codes (hydro vs. N-body). We have verified that the misalignment angle is fairly insensitive to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, in agreement with our theoretical prediction.

The observed misalignment angle is $`14^{}`$, close to the upper limit for the $`95`$ % confidence interval for the simulated angle. Therefore, the NE are unlikely to be responsible for all of the observed misalignment. Other effects must play a role here as well, like, e.g., incomplete sky coverage and/or shot noise.

Next, we have studied the relation between the amplitudes of the LG velocity and gravity vectors. This relation has a scatter, resulting in a $`11`$$`12`$ % random error of the estimate of $`\beta `$. In the model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, the smoothed gravity of the LG turns out to be a biased low estimator of the LG velocity. On the contrary, in the model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$, the estimator is biased high.

Using mock catalogs constructed for different cosmologies, S99 computed the ratio between the reconstructed gravity dipole at the observer’s position and its true N-body velocity. In a ‘numerical analysis’, they subsequently used the average of all ratios as a multiplicative factor which relates the reconstructed gravity of the LG to the true LG velocity. Since biases due to the NE are distinct for different cosmologies (and this is also true for other effects, like, e.g., the effect of finite volume), an attempt to derive a model-independent estimate of $`\beta `$ is illegitimate. Rather, the results should be expressed explicitly in a model-dependent way. Indeed, the estimates of $`\beta `$ for models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$, obtained by S99 using an alternative, model-dependent maximum-likelihood analysis are clearly different. We conclude that the ‘numerical analysis’ of S99 is formally incorrect.

While in principle important, in practice the discussed biases are small: of the order of a few per cent. With this accuracy, therefore, to the LG velocity–gravity comparisons the linear theory can be applied. Furthermore, the random error of the estimate of $`\beta `$ due to the nonlinear effects is small compared to the total random error ($``$ 40%: S99). We thus conclude that in the LG velocity–gravity comparisons the NE are not the major concern.

Acknowledgements. We thank Michał Różyczka for useful comments. This research has been supported in part by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research grants No. 2.P03D.014.19 and 2.P03D.017.19. The numerical computations reported here were performed at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modeling in Warsaw, Poland.

## REFERENCES

* Berlind, A.A., Narayanan, V.K., Weinberg, D.H. 2000, Astrophys. J., 537, 537.
* Davis, M., Strauss, M.A., Yahil, A. 1991, Astrophys. J., 372, 394.
* Eke, V.R., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 263.
* Goroff, M. H., Grinstein, B., Rey, S.-J., Wise, M. B. 1986, Astrophys. J., 311, 6.
* Górski, K., Davis, M., Strauss, M.A., White, S.D.M., Yahil, A. 1989, Astrophys. J., 344, 1.
* Juszkiewicz, R., Vittorio, N., Wyse, R.F.G. 1990, Astrophys. J., 349, 408.
* Kudlicki A., Plewa T., Różyczka M. 1996, Acta Astron., 46, 297.
* Kudlicki A., Chodorowski, M. J., Plewa T., Różyczka M. 2000a, MNRAS, 316, 464.
* Kudlicki, A., Chodorowski, M. J., Strauss, M. A., Cieciela̧g, P. 2000b, MNRAS, in press.
* Kudlicki A., Chodorowski, M. J., Plewa T., Różyczka M. 2000c, in preparation.
* Lahav, O., Rees, M.J., Lilje, P.B., Primack, J.R. 1991, MNRAS, 251, 128.
* Lahav, O., Kaiser, N., Hoffman, Y. 1990, Astrophys. J., 352, 448.
* Lineweaver, C. H., Tenorio, L., Smoot, G. F., Keegstra, P., Banday, A. J., Lubin, P. 1996, Astrophys. J. Letters, 470, 38.
* Nusser, A., Colberg, J.M. 1998, MNRAS, 294, 457.
* Paczynski, B., Piran, T. 1990, Astrophys. J., 364, 341.
* Peebles, P.J.E. 1980, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
* Peebles, P.J.E. 1987, Astrophys. J., 317, 576.
* Rowan-Robinson, M. et al.  2000, MNRAS, 314, 375.
* Strauss, M.A., Yahil, A., Davis, M., Huchra, J.P., Fisher, K. 1992, Astrophys. J., 397, 395.
* Schmoldt, I. et al.  1999, MNRAS, 304, 893.
* Scoccimarro, R., Colombi, S., Fry, J. N., Frieman, J.A., Hivon, E., Melott, A. 1998, Astrophys. J., 496, 586.
* Sutherland, W. et al.  1999, MNRAS, 308, 289.


text:
# Entangled Nonorthogonal States and Their Decoherence Properties

## I Introduction

Entanglement and its information-theoretic aspects have been studied by many authors . Here we give a short survey of the theory of entanglement that we will later apply to quasi-Bell states. For a pure entangled state of a bipartite system $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$, the measure of entanglement defined as

$$E(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB})=\mathrm{Tr}_A\rho _A\mathrm{log}\rho _A,\rho _A=\mathrm{Tr}_B|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }|,$$
(1)
is called the “entropy of entanglement”. This quantity enjoys two kinds of information-theoretic interpretations. One is that $`E`$ gives the entanglement of formation, which is defined as the asymptotic number $`k`$ of standard singlet states required to faithfully locally prepare $`n`$ identical copies of a system in the bipartite state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$ for very large $`k`$ and $`n`$. The other is that $`E`$ gives the amount of distillable entanglement, which is the asymptotic number of singlets $`k`$ that can be distilled from $`n`$ identical copies of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$. With either of these definitions of $`k`$ and $`n`$, $`E`$ satisfies

$$\underset{n,k\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{k}{n}=E(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}).$$
(2)
For pure states we can rewrite

$$E(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB})=H\left(\frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{1C(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB})^2})\right)$$
(3)
where $`H(x)=x\mathrm{log}x(1x)\mathrm{log}(1x)`$ is the binary entropy function and $`C(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB})`$ is the “concurrence” defined by $`C(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB})=|_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{AB}|`$ with $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{AB}=\sigma |\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{}`$. The above expression is valid for mixed states of two qubit systems as well .

For mixed states of qubits one may also define an expression for the entanglement of formation . It is defined as the average entanglement of the pure states of a decomposition $`\rho =_ip_i|\psi _i\psi _i|`$ of the density operator $`\rho `$, minimized over all decompositions

$$E(\rho )=\mathrm{min}p_iE(|\psi _i).$$
(4)
In general, it is difficult to find the exact amount of entanglement of formation except for special cases. However, there is a lower bound which is expressed in terms of a quantity called the “fully entangled fraction”, which we denote by $`f(\rho )`$ and is defined as

$$f(\rho )=\mathrm{max}e|\rho e,$$
(5)
where the maximum is over all completely entangled states $`|e`$. A lower bound on the entanglement of formation is

$$E(\rho )h[f(\rho )],$$
(6)
where

$$h[f(\rho )]=\{\begin{array}{cc}H[\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{f(1f)}]\hfill & (f\frac{1}{2})\hfill \\ 0\hfill & (f<\frac{1}{2})\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
Usually in order to construct entangled states one writes superpositions of orthogonal states. For instance the standard Bell basis uses states like $`|`$ and $`|`$, and of course its properties are well known. Our concern here is what kind of properties appear if we have superpositions of nonorthogonal states. In this paper, we will clarify properties of entangled states of nonorthogonal states such as coherent states based on the above basic theory.

## II Quasi-Bell states

### A General definition

Let us consider entangled states based on two nonorthogonal states $`|\psi _1`$ and $`|\psi _2`$ such that $`\psi _1|\psi _2=\kappa `$ where $`\kappa `$ is real. We can define a set of 4 entangled states as follows:

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}|\mathrm{\Psi }_1_{AB}\hfill & =& h_1(|\psi _1_A|\psi _2_B+|\psi _2_A|\psi _1_B)\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_2_{AB}\hfill & =& h_2(|\psi _1_A|\psi _2_B|\psi _2_A|\psi _1_B)\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_3_{AB}\hfill & =& h_3(|\psi _1_A|\psi _1_B+|\psi _2_A|\psi _2_B)\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_4_{AB}\hfill & =& h_4(|\psi _1_A|\psi _1_B|\psi _2_A|\psi _2_B)\hfill \end{array}`$ (12)
where $`\{h_i\}`$ are normalization constants: $`h_1=h_3=1/\sqrt{2(1+\kappa ^2)}`$, $`h_2=h_4=1/\sqrt{2(1\kappa ^2)}`$. We call these states “quasi-Bell states”. They are not orthogonal to each other. In fact for $`\kappa `$ real their Gram matrix $`G_{ij}=|_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_i|\mathrm{\Psi }_j_{AB}|`$ becomes

$$G=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& D& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ D& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(13)
where $`D=2\kappa /(1+\kappa ^2)`$. If the basic states are orthogonal ($`\kappa =0`$), then these states reduce to standard Bell states. Let us discuss the entropy of entanglement for the above states. We first calculate the reduced density operators of the quasi-Bell states. They are $`\rho _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}=\rho _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}`$ and $`\rho _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}=\rho _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{(4)}`$ with

$$\rho _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2(1+\kappa ^2)}\{|\psi _1\psi _1|+\kappa |\psi _1\psi _2|+\kappa |\psi _2\psi _1|+|\psi _2\psi _2\},$$
(14)
$$\rho _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2(1\kappa ^2)}\{|\psi _1_A\psi _1|\kappa |\psi _1_A\psi _2|\kappa |\psi _2_A\psi _1|+|\psi _2_A\psi _2|\}.$$
(15)
The eigenvalues of the above density operators $`\rho _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}`$(or $`\rho _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}`$) are given in terms of the Gram matrix elements $`G_{ij}`$ as follows,

$$\lambda _{1/1}=\frac{1+G_{13}}{2}=\frac{(1+\kappa )^2}{2(1+\kappa ^2)},\lambda _{2/1}=\frac{1G_{13}}{2}=\frac{(1\kappa )^2}{2(1+\kappa ^2)},$$
(16)
and for $`\rho _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}`$(or $`\rho _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{(4)}`$) we have

$$\lambda _{1/2}=\frac{1+G_{24}}{2}=\frac{1}{2},\lambda _{2/2}=\frac{1G_{24}}{2}=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(17)
Hence, the entropy of entanglement is

$$E(|\mathrm{\Psi }_1_{AB})=E(|\mathrm{\Psi }_3_{AB})=\frac{1+D}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{1+D}{2}\frac{1D}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{1D}{2},$$
(18)
and

$$E(|\mathrm{\Psi }_2_{AB})=E(|\mathrm{\Psi }_4_{AB})=1,$$
(19)
because $`G_{13}=D`$, and $`G_{24}=0`$. Thus $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2_{AB}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4_{AB}`$ are maximally entangled, even though the entangled states consist of nonorthogonal states in each subsystem. These results are true for arbitrary nonorthogonal states with $`\psi _1|\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _2|\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa `$ and do not depend on the physical dimension of the systems. This property may be unexpected but can be understood easily by noting that the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$ are equivalent to $`(|+|\pm ||+)/\sqrt{2}`$ in terms of the orthogonal basis

$$|\pm =(|\psi _1\pm |\psi _2)/\sqrt{N_\pm },$$
(20)
with $`N_\pm =2\pm 2\kappa `$.

### B Mixtures of quasi Bell states

We can construct a quasi-Werner mixed state based on quasi-Bell states by

$$W=F|\mathrm{\Psi }_2_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_2|+\frac{1F}{3}\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_1_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_1|+|\mathrm{\Psi }_3_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_3|+|\mathrm{\Psi }_4_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_4|\},$$
(21)
where $`0F1`$. If $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1_{AB}`$,$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2_{AB}`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3_{AB}`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4_{AB}`$ are Bell states, then the above equation gives a standard Werner state . It is known that the fully entangled fraction of the Werner state is $`F`$, and the entanglement of formation of the Werner state is given by

$$E(W)=H\left(\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{F[1F]}\right).$$
(22)
The fully entangled fraction of the quasi Werner state is analogously given by

$$f(W)=_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_2|W|\mathrm{\Psi }_2_{AB}=F,$$
(23)
because the quasi Bell states are orthogonal to each other, except for the pair of states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1_{AB}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3_{AB}`$, as one can see from the Gram matrix $`G`$. However, the quasi Werner state and Werner state are completely different states. In particular, the eigenvalues of quasi Werner states are different from those of Werner states. The eigenvalues of the density operator are given by those of the modified Gram matrix . For the quasi Werner state, the Gram matrix is

$$G_W=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{3}(1F)& 0& \frac{1}{3}(1F)D& 0\\ 0& F& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{3}(1F)D& 0& \frac{1}{3}(1F)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{3}(1F)\end{array}\right)$$
(24)
As a result, we have $`F`$, $`\frac{1}{3}(1F)`$, $`\frac{1}{3}(1+D)(1F)`$, $`\frac{1}{3}(1D)(1F)`$ as the eigenvalues of the quasi Werner state.

Thus the lower bound of the entropy of formation of quasi Werner state is the same as that of Werner state. For more general mixtures of quasi Bell states we will need a more advanced analysis which is reported on in a subsequent paper.

## III Quasi-Bell states based on bosonic coherent states

Let us consider two coherent states of a bosonic mode $`\{|\alpha ,|\alpha \}`$, e.g., let $`\pm \alpha `$ be the coherent amplitude of a light field. Using previous notation, we have $`\kappa =\alpha |\alpha =\mathrm{exp}\{2|\alpha |^2\}`$. Then one can construct the quasi Bell states as follows:

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}|\mathrm{\Psi }_1_{AB}\hfill & =& h_1(|\alpha _A|\alpha _B+|\alpha _A|\alpha _B)\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_2_{AB}\hfill & =& h_2(|\alpha _A|\alpha _B|\alpha _A|\alpha _B)\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_3_{AB}\hfill & =& h_3(|\alpha _A|\alpha _B+|\alpha _A|\alpha _B)\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_4_{AB}\hfill & =& h_4(|\alpha _A|\alpha _B|\alpha _A|\alpha _B)\hfill \end{array}`$ (29)
Since the coherent states are nonorthogonal, we can apply the results of Section 2 to these states. States of similar form were discussed by Sanders , and Wielinga , who called these states entangled coherent states. From the results in the Section 2, we know that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2_{AB}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4_{AB}`$ have one ebit of entanglement independent of $`\alpha `$. This is an interesting and potentially useful property (see next Section). On the other hand, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1_{AB}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3_{AB}`$ are maximally entangled states only in the limit $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$. In order to avoid confusion with continuous variable states , we should mention here that, of course, the dimension of the space spanned by the quasi Bell states is 4 even though they are embedded in a vector space of infinite dimension. This implies that the maximum value of the von Neumann entropy for the quasi Bell states is unity. Different amplitudes $`\alpha `$ just give the degree of nonorthogonality. It also means that one cannot use coherent entangled states for teleportation of continuous quantum variables . In a separate paper , we will show how to use entangled coherent states for teleportation of Schrödinger cat states. The average photon numbers of the reduced states of the quasi Bell states read

$$n_A^{(1)}=\frac{(1\kappa ^2)}{(1+\kappa ^2)}|\alpha |^2,n_A^{(2)}=\frac{(1+\kappa ^2)}{(1\kappa ^2)}|\alpha |^2.$$
(30)
Thus the quasi Bell states can have arbitrary photon numbers. As said above, however, the quasi Bell states are not truly continuous variable states and in particular do not belong to the class of Gaussian states , in contrast to, e.g., the two mode squeezed state . This is shown in the following way. The characteristic functions of the quasi Bell states are given by

$`C(\xi ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{exp}(\xi \mathrm{a}_A^{})\mathrm{exp}(\xi ^{}\mathrm{a}_A)\mathrm{exp}(\eta \mathrm{a}_B^{})\mathrm{exp}(\eta ^{}\mathrm{a}_B)\right]`$ (31)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{(|\xi |^2+|\eta |^2)/2\}`$ (32)
where $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ are the annihilation and creation operators, respectively. They can be calculated, with the result

$`C(\xi ,\eta |i=1,2)`$ $`=`$ $`h_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{exp}\{(|\xi |^2+|\eta |^2)/2\}\{\mathrm{exp}(A_1B_1)\alpha `$ (33)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(A_1+B_1)\alpha \pm \mathrm{exp}(A_2B_2)\alpha `$ (34)
$`\pm `$ $`\mathrm{exp}(A_2+B_2)\alpha \}`$ (35)
$`C(\xi ,\eta |i=3,4)`$ $`=`$ $`h_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{exp}\{(|\xi |^2+|\eta |^2)/2\}\{\mathrm{exp}(A_1+B_1)\alpha `$ (36)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(A_1B_1)\alpha \pm \mathrm{exp}(A_2+B_2)\alpha `$ (37)
$`\pm `$ $`\mathrm{exp}(A_2B_2)\alpha \}`$ (38)
where $`A_1=(\xi \xi ^{}),A_2=(\xi +\xi ^{}),B_1=(\eta \eta ^{}),B_2=(\eta +\eta ^{})`$. The characteristic functions are indeed not Gaussian. Finally let us explore one more property of a similar set of entangled states. If the amplitudes of the modes A and mode B in $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2_{AB}`$ (or $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4_{AB}`$) are chosen to be different, say, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, respectively, the eigenvalues of the reduced density operator are

$$\lambda _1=\frac{(1+\kappa _A)(1\kappa _B)}{2(1\kappa _A\kappa _B)},\lambda _2=\frac{(1\kappa _A)(1+\kappa _B)}{2(1\kappa _A\kappa _B)},$$
(39)
where $`\kappa _A=\mathrm{exp}(2|\alpha |^2)`$ and $`\kappa _B=\mathrm{exp}(2|\beta |^2)`$. We can then easily see that the entropy of entanglement attains its maximum value of 1 only when the amplitudes of both modes are the same.

## IV Decoherence properties

In this section, we will discuss decoherence properties of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2_{AB}`$. We are concerned with the decoherence due to energy loss or photon absorption. In particular, we would like to demonstrate that entangled coherent states possess a certain degree of robustness against decoherence when compared to a standard bi-photon Bell state. We assume that Alice produces a coherent entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2_{AB}`$, keeps one part ($`A`$) and transmits the other part $`B`$ to Bob through a lossy channel. Bob will receive an attenuated optical state. Thus, Alice prepares

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_2_{AB}=h_2(|\alpha _A|\alpha _B|\alpha _A|\alpha _B)|\mathrm{\Psi }_2(\alpha )_{AB}$$
(40)
where $`h_2=1/\sqrt{2(1\kappa _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}`$, $`\kappa _A=\alpha |\alpha `$. When we employ a half mirror model for the noisy channel, the effect of energy losses is described by a linear coupling with an external vacuum field as follows:

$$U_{BE}|\alpha _B|0_E=|\sqrt{\eta }\alpha _B|\sqrt{(1\eta )}\alpha _E.$$
(41)
where the mode $`E`$ is an external mode responsible for the energy loss, $`\eta `$ is the noise parameter, and $`\alpha `$ is taken as real. If we use $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2(\alpha )_{AB}`$ as the initial state, the final state entangled with the environment is

$`\widehat{I}_AU_{BE}|\mathrm{\Psi }_2(\alpha )_{AB}|0_E`$ (42)
$`=h_2(|\alpha _A|\sqrt{\eta }\alpha _B|\sqrt{(1\eta )}\alpha _E|\alpha _A|\sqrt{\eta }\alpha _B|\sqrt{(1\eta )}\alpha _E).`$ (43)
The normalized density operator shared by Alice and Bob is given by a super operator calculation ,

$`\rho _{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`h_2^2\{|\alpha \alpha ||\sqrt{\eta }\alpha \sqrt{\eta }\alpha |+|\alpha \alpha ||\sqrt{\eta }\alpha \sqrt{\eta }\alpha |`$ (44)
$``$ $`|\alpha \alpha |L|\sqrt{\eta }\alpha \sqrt{\eta }\alpha ||\alpha \alpha |L|\sqrt{\eta }\alpha \sqrt{\eta }\alpha |\}`$ (45)
where $`L=\mathrm{exp}\{2(1\eta )|\alpha |^2\}`$. Let us discuss the entanglement of the above density operator. As discussed in Section 2, we can use the entangled fraction to measure the entanglement of this mixed state. The fully entangled fraction of $`\rho _{AB}`$ is given by

$$f(\rho _{AB})=\underset{\beta }{\mathrm{max}}_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_2(\beta )|\rho _{AB}|\mathrm{\Psi }_2(\beta )_{AB}$$
(46)
because $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2(\beta )_{AB}`$ is indeed maximally entangled. The above is given by

$$f(\rho _{AB})=\underset{\beta }{\mathrm{max}}\frac{(1+L)(\kappa _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\beta )\kappa _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\beta )+\kappa _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\beta )\kappa _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\beta )2\kappa _1(\beta )\kappa _2(\beta )\kappa _3(\beta )\kappa _4(\beta ))}{2(1\kappa _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(1\kappa _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\beta ))}$$
(47)
where $`\kappa _0(\beta )=\mathrm{exp}\{2|\beta |^2\}`$, $`\kappa _1(\beta )=\mathrm{exp}\{|\alpha \beta |^2/2\}`$, $`\kappa _2(\beta )=\mathrm{exp}\{|\beta \sqrt{\eta }\alpha |^2/2\}`$, $`\kappa _3(\beta )=\mathrm{exp}\{|\alpha +\beta |^2/2\}`$, and $`\kappa _4(\beta )=\mathrm{exp}\{|\beta +\sqrt{\eta }\alpha |^2/2\}`$. The maximum is attained for the value

$$\beta =\frac{\alpha +\sqrt{\eta }\alpha }{2}$$
(48)
that is, exactly halfway between the original coherent amplitude and the attenuated amplitude. In Figure 1 we plot $`f(\rho _{AB})`$ as a function of $`|\alpha |`$ for various values of the noise parameter $`\eta `$.

For comparison, we consider the biphoton Bell state:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{2(p)}_{AB}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|_A|_B|_A|_B),$$
(49)
where $`\{|,|\}`$ denotes single photon polarization directions. After passing through the same lossy channel, Alice and Bob share the state

$$\rho _{AB}^{\mathrm{pol}}=\eta |\mathrm{\Psi }_{2(p)}_{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{2(p)}|+(1\eta )\frac{1}{2}I_A|0_B0|$$
(50)
with $`I_A`$ the identity on mode $`A`$. As a result, the fully entangled fraction is

$$f(\rho _A^{\mathrm{pol}})=\eta $$
(51)
in that case, which is clearly less than for entangled coherent states with sufficiently small amplitudes (see Figure 1). Finally, we note that in  we give the analogous decoherence properties for a symmetric noise channel, describing the case where both Alice’s and Bob’s mode suffer losses.

## V Concluding remarks

In this paper, our effort was devoted to clarify several properties of entangled nonorthogonal states. We constructed 4 entangled states that generalize the standard Bell states.

Two out of these 4 “quasi Bell states” possess less than one unit of entanglement, the other two, however, possess exactly one unit. The latter two states were shown to be more robust against decoherence due to photon absorption than are bi-photon Bell states. The most important remaining problem is the physical realization of such states, which is discussed in a forthcoming separate paper .

## Acknowledgment

We are grateful to C.H.Bennett, S.M.Barnett, C.A.Fuchs, A.S.Holevo, R.Jozsa,
M.Sasaki, and P.Shor for helpful discussions. The first idea of quasi Bell state was presented in QCM $`\&`$ C-2000 held in Capri.
This work was supported by the project in CREST Japan.


text:
# Spin Polarization of Two-Dimensional Electrons Determined from Shubnikov-de Haas Oscillations as a Function of Angle.

## Abstract

Recent experiments in the two dimensional electron systems in silicon MOSFETs have shown that the in-plane magnetic field $`H_{sat}`$ required to saturate the conductivity to its high-field value and the magnetic field $`H_s`$ needed to completely align the spins of the electrons are comparable. By small-angle Shubnikov-de Haas oscillation measurements that allow separate determinations of the spin-up and spin-down subband populations, we show to an accuracy $`5`$% that $`H_{sat}=H_s`$.

Dilute two-dimensional electron (or hole) systems which display unexpected metallic behavior are currently the subject of great interest . These strongly interacting systems also exhibit enormous magnetoresistances in response to a magnetic field applied parallel to the electron plane : with increasing field, the resistivity rises sharply and saturates to a constant value for $`H>H_{sat}`$; the saturation field $`H_{sat}`$ is of the order of several tesla and varies with temperature and electron density.

Two experiments have recently shown that the behavior of the resistance is related to the spin polarization of the electrons. On the assumption that the product $`gm^{}`$ of the interaction-enhanced g-factor $`g`$ and effective mass $`m^{}`$ measured in small field does not change in a strong in-plane magnetic field, Okamoto et al.  found that the saturation field $`H_{sat}`$ is close to the field at which the 2D electron system in silicon MOSFETs becomes fully spin polarized. Similar conclusions were drawn by Vitkalov et al. , who demonstrated that the frequency of small angle SdH oscillations versus filling factor $`\nu `$ in high fields $`H>H_{sat}`$ is double the frequency at low fields $`H<H_{sat}`$. This signals a decrease of the density of states by a factor of two and the complete depopulation of one of the spin subbands when $`H>H_{sat}`$. The equivalence between the field $`H_{sat}`$ at which the resistance saturates and the field $`H_s`$ required to obtain complete alignment of the electron spins was established in these experiments to an accuracy of $`10`$ to $`15`$%. By using a modification of the small-angle Shubnikov-de Haas method of measurement which allows a determination of the population of each spin subband separately, we show in the present paper that $`H_{sat}=H_s`$ with accuracy of$`5`$% .

The method is based on the following considerations. The populations of the spin-up and spin-down subbands are governed by the Zeeman energy which is determined by the total magnetic field. The splitting of the Landau levels is controlled by the normal component of the magnetic field $`H_{}`$: $`\mathrm{}\omega _c=eH_{}/mc`$. By rotating the 2D electron plane relative to the direction of the magnetic field we change the normal component of the magnetic field and, therefore, the Landau level spitting in each band. For a fixed total magnetic field $`H`$, the sizes of the Fermi circles $`k_F^,`$, formed by the spin-up and spin-down electrons are different and constant. The frequency of the SdH oscillations with $`1/H_{}`$ is proportional to the area of the Fermi circle and therefore the density of spin-up (or spin-down) 2D carriers Thus, the ratio of the frequencies of the SdH oscillations due to the spin-up and spin-down Fermi circles yields the ratio of populations of the spin subbands for a given value of in-plane magnetic field. Analyzing the data obtained by this method, we show that the saturation field $`H_{sat}`$ is the same as the field required for complete spin polarization with an accuracy of $`5`$%.

Measurements were taken on a silicon MOSFET; the mobility $`\mu `$ at $`0.1`$ K was $`26,000`$V/(cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}s)`$. Contact resistances were minimized by using a split-gate geometry, which allows a higher electron density in the vicinity of the contacts than in the 2D system under investigation. Standard $`AC`$ four-probe techniques were used to measure the resistance with $`AC`$ currents in the linear regime, typically below 5 nA, at frequency 3Hz. Data in high magnetic fields up to 20T were obtained at the National Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida. The sample was mounted at the end of a low temperature probe on a rotating platform. The sample was rotated in constant magnetic field by a stepper motor. The electron density $`n_s`$ was fixed during the sample rotation and measurements were taken at a temperature of about $`100`$ mK. The longitudinal and the Hall voltages were detected simultaneously.

For small angles $`\varphi `$ between the electron plane and the magnetic field direction, the Hall resistance is proportional to the normal component of the magnetic field $`H_{}`$: $`R_{xy}=H_{}/(n_se)`$, with $`H_{}=H`$sin$`\varphi `$. The Hall coefficient does not depend on the degree of the spin polarization of the 2D electrons in silicon MOSFETs. This was demonstrated in recent experiments  with an accuracy $`5`$% for electron densities below $`n_s=2.75\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2. We note that the proportionality of $`R_{xy}`$ with $`H_{}`$ is sufficient to guarantee the correct $`ratio`$ between the two periods of the SdH oscillations, regardless of whether the constant of proportionality varies with in-plane magnetic field.

The angle between the magnetic field and the 2D plane was determined also from the known gearing number of the stepper motor. Both methods give the same ratio of frequencies with accuracy about $`3`$%. The filling factor was calculated, using the relation $`\nu =n_s\mathrm{\Phi }_0/H_{}`$.      FIG. 1. (a) Small-angle Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations of the two-dimensional system of electrons in a silicon MOSFET at density $`3.72\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 in the presence of a magnetic field of $`18`$ T, which close to the saturation field $`H_{sat}`$ for this density. (b) Fourier transform of the data shown in part (a); the inset is a schematic band diagram, corresponding to the complete spin polarization at $`H=H_s`$.

FIG. 2. (a) Small-angle Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations of the two-dimensional system of electrons in a silicon MOSFET at density $`9.28\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 in the presence of a magnetic field of $`18`$ T. (b) Fourier transform of the data shown in part (a); the inset is a schematic band diagram, corresponding to partial spin polarization of the 2D electrons at $`H<H_s`$.

In a constant total magnetic field of $`18`$ tesla, the longitudinal resistivity is shown in Fig. 1(a) plotted as a function of filling factor $`\nu `$ for electron density $`n_s=3.72\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2. Clean periodic Shubnikov de Haas oscillations are observed with a period $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =2`$. Taking into account the two-fold valley degeneracy of 2D electrons in silicon MOSFETs , the period $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =2`$ is found to correspond to quantum oscillations in a single spin band. In other words, at $`H=18`$ T and $`n_s=3.72\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 the electrons are spin polarized completely. The sharp dip at $`\nu =3`$ corresponds to valley spitting. The Fourier spectrum of these oscillations is shown in Fig. 1(b). The main peak in the spectrum corresponds to the period $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =2`$ which is clearly dominant in Fig. 1(a). The two smaller maxima at higher frequencies are second and third harmonics. Valley splitting, oscillations of the Fermi energy, and various other effects may be responsible for these higher order peaks. The schematic band diagram in Fig. 1(b) shows the population of the spin up and spin-down bands for full spin polarization and $`H=H_s`$, the condition that obtains at the density shown. A similar pattern of oscillations with period $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =2`$ is observed for a lower electron density $`n_s=2.75\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2.

Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations are shown in Fig. 2(a) for the same magnetic field $`H=18T`$ for a substantially higher density $`n_s=9.28\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2. In contrast with Fig. 1, the oscillations do not have a single period. Instead they demonstrate a beating pattern. The main frequencies that create the beats are easily identified in Fig. 2(b), which shows the Fourier components of the oscillations. The schematic band diagram in Fig. 2(b) shows the population of the spin up and spin-down bands corresponding to the high-density case, where $`H<H_{sat}`$ and the electons are partially polarized. The two main peaks of Fig. 2(b) are at frequencies $`0.167`$ and $`0.330`$, corresponding to quantum oscillations in the spin-down and spin-up subbands. They are proportional to the Fermi energies (and therefore the populations) of the spin-down and spin-up bands. The Fourier spectrum contains several additional peaks associated with obvious and strong nonlinearity of the SdH spectrum. A complete interpretation of the different peaks will require detailed analysis.

The ratio of the frequencies of the oscillations in the two spin subbands is proportional to the ratio of the densities of spin-up and spin-down electrons: $`f^{}/f^{}=n_s^{}/n_s^{}`$. The ratio $`f^{}/f^{}`$ determined from our experiments is plotted in Fig. 3(a) for different total electron densities $`n_s`$. At high electron density $`n_s=9.28\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 the 2D electron system is partially spin polarized at $`H=18T`$ and the ratio $`f^{}/f^{}`$ is $`0.5`$. Decreasing the total electron density $`n_s`$ reduces both the spin-up and the spin-down populations, yielding a smaller $`f^{}/f^{}`$. Finally, for $`n_s=3.72\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 and below, the spin-down subband is depopulated completely at $`18`$ Tesla, and the 2D system is fully spin polarized. The ratio $`f^{}/f^{}`$ is equal to zero for $`n_s<n_{sat}(18`$ T$`)=3.72\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2.

The magnetic field $`H_s`$ required to achieve full spin polarization of the electron system can be calculated from the following simple considerations. The Fermi energy of the spin-up and spin-down electrons measured relative to the bottom of each subband is

$$ϵ^,=ϵ_F^0\pm \mu gH/2=n/(2D)\pm \mu gH/2$$
$`(1)`$
where $`ϵ_F^0=n/(2D)`$ is the Fermi energy of each band when $`H=0`$, and the density of states $`D`$ of the electrons in two dimensions is constant . The ratio

$$\frac{f^{}}{f^{}}=\frac{n^{}}{n^{}}=\frac{ϵ^{}D}{ϵ^{}D}=\frac{1(g\mu HD)/n}{1+(g\mu HD)/n}.$$
$`(2)`$
The condition for full spin polarization in a magnetic field $`H_s`$ is that $`n^{}=0`$, thus $`ϵ^{}=0=n/(2D)\mu gH_s/2`$, and $`n/D=\mu gH_s`$. Substitution  into Eq. (2) yields:

$$\frac{f^{}}{f^{}}=\frac{(1H/H_s)}{(1+H/H_s),}$$

an expression that is valid when $`H<H_s`$ ($`H=18`$ T in our experiments). The field $`H_s`$ can thus be calculated from the expression:

$$H_s=\frac{(1+f^{}/f^{})}{(1f^{}/f^{})}.H$$
$`(3)`$
FIG. 3. (a) The ratio $`f^{}/f^{}`$ versus electron density $`n_s`$ in a magnetic field $`H=18`$ T applied at a small angle relative to the plane of a silicon MOSFET; the line is drawn to guide the eye. (b) Open circles denote the field $`H_{sat}`$ at which the conductivity saturates to its high-field value, as shown in the inset. The closed circles are the fields $`H_s`$ required to achieve full spin polarization of the electrons, calculated using Eq.(3). The solid line is a linear fit to the data for $`H_{sat}`$.

The solid circles shown in Fig. 3 (b) denote $`H_s`$ calculated for the data of Fig. 3 (a), using Eq.(3). Values of $`H_{sat}`$ denoted by the open circles are obtained from the saturation of the in-plane magnetoconductivity, as illustrate in the inset to Fig. 3 (b). The line is a fit to the data for $`H_{sat}`$. In the narrow range where the two data sets overlap, $`H_{sat}H_s`$ within about $`5`$%.

In summary, small angle Shubnikov-de Haas measurements taken at a fixed total magnetic field of $`18`$ T as a function of the angle $`\theta `$ between the magnetic field direction and the electron plane have allowed separate determination of the populations of the spin-down and spin-up subbands. Analysis of the data yields the field $`H_s`$ required to achieve complete spin polarization of the electrons. We find that $`H_s`$ is the same as the field $`H_{sat}`$ which signals the saturation of the conductivity with an accuracy of $`5`$% at $`n>3\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2.

This work was supported by the US Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-84ER45153. Partial support was provided by NSF Grant No. DMR 98-03440.


text:
# Microscopic kinetics and time-dependent structure factors

## A “two-fluid” model.

To motivate this approach, we briefly recall the key ingredients of the mean-field theory . Coarse-graining the microscopic dynamics in space and time, we identify two slow variables, namely, the local vacancy and magnetization densities, $`\phi (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ and $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$. In the intermediate regime, the vacancy distribution has already reached its equilibrium value, $`\phi _o=L^d`$, so that the only non-trivial dynamics is embodied in $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, which obeys a simple diffusion equation: $`_t\psi =D^2\psi `$. Here, the diffusion coefficient $`D\phi _o`$ reflects the presence of a single vacancy. The solution, with initial condition $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r},0)=`$ $`\mathrm{sgn}(x)`$, $`|x|L/2`$, and periodic boundary conditions, is $`\psi (x,t)=_k\frac{4}{ikL}\mathrm{e}^{ikx}\mathrm{e}^{Dk^2t}\delta _{n\text{ odd}}`$, where $`k=2\pi n/L`$ and $`\delta _{n\text{ odd}}1`$ for $`n=\pm 1,\pm 3,\mathrm{}`$ and $`0`$ otherwise.

We propose to describe the local spin density by the incoherent sum of two components (“fluids”), representing the ordered and disordered fractions. The ordered component, starting from being 100% phase segregated and ending at zero, can be taken as $`\psi (x,t)`$. The remaining component, with density $`1|\psi (x,t)|`$, is fluctuating so that it will be represented by $`(1|\psi (x,t)|)\eta (x,t)`$, where $`\eta (x,t)`$ is a delta-correlated noise with zero mean. Summarizing, we write the spin density $`s(x,t)`$ as

$$s(x,t)=\psi (x,t)+(1|\psi (x,t)|)\eta (x,t),$$
(1)
Taking the Fourier transform of $`s(x,t)`$ and averaging over $`\eta `$ to obtain $`S_k(t)`$, we find the final result

$$S_k(t)=L^d\left[\frac{2e^{n^2t/\tau }}{\pi n}\right]^2\delta _{n\text{ odd}}+\underset{n^{}\text{ odd}}{}\left[2\frac{1e^{n^2t/\tau }}{\pi n^{}}\right]^2.$$
(2)
where $`\tau L^2/(4\pi ^2D)`$ plays the role of $`t_L`$. The first term captures the decay of the initial ordered fraction. Note that only the odd $`k`$’s are present. By contrast, the second term is $`k`$-independent and reflects the buildup of the disordered component.

The origin of the dips is now apparent: The first term starts with a macroscopic amplitude, but decays on the time scale $`\tau /2n^2`$. Meanwhile, due to the sum over all $`n^{}`$, the second term rises to unity with $`\tau `$, regardless of $`n`$. Therefore, $`S_k(t)`$, for odd $`k`$, does not decay to unity monotonically. Further, these dips occur at earlier times for larger $`k`$’s, a feature which agrees with the data, at least qualitatively (Fig. 1). We believe that the contrasting terms may be interpreted physically, the first being associated with the relatively fast deterioration of the initial phase boundary while the second represents the slower buildup of the disordered component.

Eq. (2) leads us to another prediction, namely, how the final state is approached. By Poisson resummation , it can be shown that the second term increases as $`t^{1/2}`$ for times $`t\tau `$. This effect is most easily seen in the even $`S_\stackrel{}{k}`$’s where the ordered contribution is absent. The simulation data show excellent agreement with this behavior for both VMD and KD (Fig. 1).

Not surprisingly, this simple approximation has its shortcomings, such as $`_kS_k(t)L^d`$. Also, according to Eq. (2), all even structure factors share the same behavior, which is clearly not borne out by the simulations. Moreover, Eq. (2) gives no indication of an early-time crossover from a $`t^\gamma `$ to a $`t^{1/2}`$ behavior. To improve our understanding, we now turn to an exact formulation of the dynamics.

## Exact lattice calculation.

In the following, we analyze the microscopic motion of the vacancy on the lattice. The resulting equation of motion for the structure factor is, of course, exact. Remarkably, it can be solved in the case of KD, providing us with detailed information about different temporal regimes and finite size effects. Here, we summarize the key features of this approach, while deferring all details to a later publication.

Clearly, the dynamics at each time step (for both VMD and KD) depends on the exchange of only two spins, so that the Liouvillian in the master equation $`_tP(\{s_\stackrel{}{ı}\};t)=_{\{s_\stackrel{}{ı}^{}\}}`$ $`(\{s_\stackrel{}{ı}\};\{s_\stackrel{}{ı}^{}\})P(\{s_\stackrel{}{ı}^{}\};t)`$ consists of a sum over terms of the form $`\delta (s_\stackrel{}{ı}^{};s_\stackrel{}{ȷ})\delta (s_\stackrel{}{ı};s_\stackrel{}{ȷ}^{})`$. As a result, the equation for $`G(\stackrel{}{x};t)`$, the two-point function, is linear and involves no higher correlations. Specifically, in the KD case, one obtains (for $`\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{0}`$)

$$\frac{dL^d}{2}_tG(\stackrel{}{x};t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_\stackrel{}{x}G(\stackrel{}{x};t)+\underset{\{\stackrel{}{b}\}}{}\delta _{\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{b}}\left[G(\stackrel{}{b};t)G(\stackrel{}{0};t)\right]$$
(3)
where $`_t`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\stackrel{}{x}`$, and $`\{\stackrel{}{b}\}`$ stand for discrete time differences, the lattice Laplacian and the set of $`2d`$ lattice vectors, respectively. Of course, we may replace $`G(\stackrel{}{0};t)`$ by unity. Taking the Fourier transform of Eq. (3), we may write an equation for the structure factor in the form:

$$_tS_\stackrel{}{k}=\underset{\stackrel{}{k}^{}}{}X_{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{}}S_\stackrel{}{k}^{}.$$
(4)
An alternative approach starts with an equation of motion : $`_ts_\stackrel{}{ı}(t)=\left[s_{\stackrel{}{v}+\stackrel{}{b}}(t)s_\stackrel{}{v}(t)\right](\delta _{\stackrel{}{ı}\stackrel{}{v}}\delta _{\stackrel{}{ı},\stackrel{}{v}+\stackrel{}{b}})`$, where $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is the position of the tag at time $`t`$, and $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ is a lattice vector which specifies the direction of the exchange. In Fourier space, $`\stackrel{~}{s}_\stackrel{}{k}(t+1)=_\stackrel{}{k}^{}M_{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{}}(\stackrel{}{v},\stackrel{}{b})\stackrel{~}{s}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}(t)`$, where $`M_{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{}}=\delta _{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{}}\mathrm{e}^{i(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})\stackrel{}{v}}(1\mathrm{e}^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{b}})(1\mathrm{e}^{i\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{b}})/L^d`$. Since the structure factor is defined by $`S_\stackrel{}{k}(t)=\stackrel{~}{s}_\stackrel{}{k}(t)\stackrel{~}{s}_\stackrel{}{k}(t),`$ where the average is over all possible moves over the entire time period $`[0,t],`$ we obtain, formally,

$$\begin{array}{c}S_\stackrel{}{k}(t)=\underset{\{\stackrel{}{p}_i\},\{\stackrel{}{q}_i\}}{}M_{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p}_{t1}}M_{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}_{t1}}M_{\stackrel{}{p}_{t1}\stackrel{}{p}_{t2}}M_{\stackrel{}{q}_{t1}\stackrel{}{q}_{t2}}\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}M_{\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_0}M_{\stackrel{}{q}_1\stackrel{}{q}_0}\stackrel{~}{s}_{\stackrel{}{p}_0}(0)\stackrel{~}{s}_{\stackrel{}{q}_0}(0).\end{array}$$
(5)
For VMD, the allowed moves are correlated leading to a non-trivial average. For KD, however, the position of the vacancy is randomized before each exchange, so that the above average factorizes into $`t`$ factors. Cast in the form of an evolution equation, the result is precisely Eq. (4), with $`X_{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{}}=M_{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{}}M_{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{}}_{\stackrel{}{v},\stackrel{}{b}}\delta _{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{}}`$ .

With either approach, thanks to the simplicity of $`X`$, the eigenvectors and eigenvalues can be found exactly in the $`L\mathrm{}`$ limit. Deferring details to , we quote only the result for $`d=2`$. With the reminder that $`\stackrel{}{k}=(2\pi n/L,0)`$ and the initial value $`S_\stackrel{}{k}(0)=\left(2L/\pi n\right)^2\delta _{n\text{ odd}}`$, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}S_\stackrel{}{k}(t)=S_\stackrel{}{k}(0)e^{\left(2\pi n/L^2\right)^2t}\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{4}{\pi ^2}\underset{ln}{}\frac{n^2\left[1e^{\left(2\pi l/L^2\right)^2t}\right]\delta _{l\text{ odd}}}{l^2(n^2l^2)}\end{array}$$
(6)
As in the “two-fluid” model, the two terms carry the same interpretations, confirming a key mean-field result: the associated crossover time scaling with $`L^4`$. In addition, comparing the first terms in Eqs. (2,6), we may identify the diffusion constant $`D`$ as $`1/\left(2L^2\right)`$. This value may be interpreted as the rate of spin-exchange being equal to the hole density ($`L^2`$) and the two independent directions of its moves. The main improvement is the $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-dependence in the disordered component. In more detail, Eq. (6) correctly accounts for the presence (absence) of dips in the odd structure factors for $`n>1`$ ($`n=1`$). Turning to early behavior within the intermediate regime, we may extract remarkably detailed information. For short times ($`tL^2`$), the behavior of the sum in Eq. (6) is controlled by the large $`l`$ contributions, whence $`l^2n^2l^2`$. Using Poisson resummation, we find $`S_\stackrel{}{k}(t)n^2t^{3/2}`$. Both the $`t`$\- and the $`n`$-dependence are borne out by the data. For larger times, $`n^2t/L^41`$, a third power law emerges which is particularly noticeable for large $`n`$. Here, the sum is dominated by smaller $`l`$, so that $`n^2l^2n^2`$. Resummation now yields $`t^{1/2}`$, with an $`n`$-independent amplitude. For large $`n`$, this power law sets in at earlier times, so that structure factors with larger $`n`$ merge before being joined by $`S_\stackrel{}{k}`$’s with smaller $`n`$. Fig. 3 shows a direct comparison of MC data with Eq. (6). Excellent agreement is observed over many orders of magnitude without any fit parameters.

## Conclusions.

Using MC simulations and analytic arguments, we analyzed two types of microscopic kinetics (vacancy-mediated and Kawasaki dynamics). The structure factors display several remarkable features, which characterize different temporal regimes. Just before the onset of equilibration, the competition of surface- vs. bulk-dominated time scales generates unexpected minima in several structure factors. These are particularly prevalent in the “odd” structure factors that are sensitive to the initial order. In contrast, the “even” structure factors grow via a sequence of different power laws before saturating. This sequence includes a $`t^{3/2}`$ regime for KD and a $`t`$ regime for VMD. Moreover, VMD generates dips in even structure factors which are absent in KD. All of these features carry over to larger system sizes and $`d=3`$; in fact, the range of the power law behaviors increases significantly with system size. Thus, the structure factors carry a clear signature of the underlying microscopic dynamics. We believe that this could lead to a simple experimental identification of the dominant kinetic mechanism in a material, e.g., via small-angle X-ray or neutron scattering.

Two complementary theoretical approaches – a phenomenological coarse-grained two-fluid model and an exact lattice calculation – provide quantitative insight into the physical origin of these features. Several questions remain open. First, our exact lattice analysis can be carried out only for KD, where the dynamics of the spins is Markovian. For VMD, in contrast, though the vacancy path is random, it induces non-trivial correlations in the spins. Work is in progress to extend our analysis to this case . Presumably, these correlations are also at the root of the observation that VMD equilibrates more slowly than KD, by a factor of about 4.5 in $`d=2`$. It is not clear at this stage, however, whether this this effect can be captured by an appropriate generalization of correlation factors . Finally, the effect of several vacancies or tags should be investigated, as well as upquenches to temperatures other than infinity. These cases have so far only been studied at the mean-field level .

## Acknowledgements.

We thank W. Triampo for discussions and A. Zippelius for hospitality at the University of Göttingen. This work is supported by the NSF under grant DMR-9727574 and the DFG under Zi209/5-1.