text:
# Many-body Effects on Excitonic Optical Properties of Photoexcited Semiconductor Quantum Wire Structures

## I Introduction

Excitons in low dimensional semiconductor systems have been extensively studied in the recent past. Present interest has focused on one-dimensional excitons in artificially structured semiconductor quantum wire (QWR) systems where spectacular improvements in growth and nanofabrication techniques have led to very narrow wires of nanostructure size ($`<100`$ Å in GaAs) with rather deep conduction band electron confinement energy ($`150`$ meV) and large conduction subband spacing ($`20`$ meV)  so that the electrons in the conduction band of such a QWR most likely form a pure one-dimensional (1D) system. For the holes in the QWR valence band, the bare confinement potential (for example, in GaAs-AlGaAs system) is known to be too shallow ($`10`$ meV) for a hole to be one-dimensionally confined in these QWR structures. Including the Coulomb interaction between electrons and holes along the transverse (i.e. perpendicular to the 1D free motion direction) directions of the wire, however, Glutsch et al find that even the holes in the valence band of QWR can be strongly localized in the transverse plane, leading to both electrons and holes being effectively 1D (or rather quasi-1D) in the dynamical sense. Therefore an exciton in such ultranarrow QWR nanostructures can be effectively thought of as a bound pair of a 1D electron and a 1D hole with the carrier dynamics being free along the 1D wire direction as long as one is interested in low energy (lower than confinement energy $`20100`$ meV) excitonic optical properties. Such strong confinement for both electrons and holes also substantially enhances the excitonic binding energy leading to novel optical phenomena. In the low (electron-hole) density limit without considering the self-energy correction to the conduction and the valence band energies as well as neglecting all dynamical screening effects, the single electron and single hole problem in forming the exciton can be exactly solved as a quasi-1D hydrogenic (Wannier exciton) atom with an exciton radius of about 100 Å for GaAs based QWR systems. This single 1D exciton problem, where an electron and a hole in a QWR form a bound excitonic state, has been studied extensively in the recent literature in the context of understanding QWR excitonic optical properties. Such a non-interacting exciton picture, based on a simple single particle electron-hole hydrogenic bound state scenario, obviously only applies in the dilute low carrier density limit when the excitons or the bound electron-hole pairs are effectively very far from each other forming a noninteracting exciton gas. We will refer to this situation as a Fermi liquid (because in 1D only an effectively noninteracting system may behave as a Fermi liquid) or a noninteracting exciton gas. In the high carrier density situation the excitons must overlap a great deal, and the simple Fermi liquid picture of a noninteracting exciton gas would not apply. Our main goal in this paper is to theoretically study this transition between the low density (Fermi liquid like) exciton gas and the high density system of interacting (and strongly overlapping) excitons in quasi-1D semiconductor (GaAs) QWR systems. This exciton gas to a strongly overlapping and highly correlated electron-hole system crossover with increasing electron-hole density can be thought of as a transition from an insulating exciton gas to a conducting electron-hole plasma (EHP), the Mott transition. A typical feature of this Mott transition, observed in higher dimensional (2D,3D) optical experiments, is the development of optical gain in the absorption spectra where the absorption coefficient becomes negative (gain region) in some frequency range. One of the questions addressed in this paper is whether such an optical gain region exists in 1D photoexcited QWR systems. In this paper we consider the formation, stability, and optical properties of one-dimensional excitons from low to high carrier densities in semiconductor QWR under photoexcitation conditions (i.e. equal electron and hole densities), a problem which has attracted a great deal of both theoretical  and experimental  attention in these years. Consistent with recent interest one of the central issues we focus on is the density-induced exciton gas to EHP Mott transition in 1D QWR systems and its experimental signature.

The motivation of our work arises from recent experimental studies of the photoluminescence spectra of 1D GaAs/Al1-xGaxAs semiconductor QWR systems . The experimentalists use strong lasers to pump photons into the QWR systems, exciting electrons from the filled valence band into the empty conduction band and/or the exciton levels, and observe the spectrum of the subsequently emitted light coming from the eventual recombination of the excited electrons and the holes created in the valence band. The photoluminescence spectrum is proportional to the exciton/EHP optical oscillator strength, which, at first sight (i.e. without incorporating the Sommerfeld factor effect associated with the electron-hole Coulomb interaction), is expected to have an $`\omega ^{1/2}`$ singularity at the band gap energy due to the $`E^{1/2}`$ divergence of the 1D electron density of states  at band edge. However, this 1D plasma band edge singularity is known to be strongly suppressed by the excitonic Coulomb correlation effect  so that the main peak observed in the experimental photoluminescence spectra should result from the excitonic effect rather than the band-edge singularity of the noninteracting electron-hole plasma. The most striking experimental observation in the recent  experimental studies of photoexcited QWR systems has been the finding  that the exciton peak seems to be at an almost constant energy independent of the carrier density, i.e. independent of the laser pumping power. Thus the exciton peak seems to remain well-defined (and unshifted in energy) all the way from very low to very high photoexcitation density ($`3\times 10^6`$ cm-1 ) without any distinct signature of the expected insulator(exciton)-to-metal(EHP) Mott transition and the associated optical gain. The constancy of the exciton energy could, in principle, arise from an almost exact cancelation between the exchange-correlation induced shrinking of the nominal band gap, the so-called band gap renormalization (BGR), and the reduction of the exciton binding energy (with respect to the bottom of the renormalized band edge) due to the screening induced softening of the Coulomb interaction . Such an accidental cancelation between two distinct physical mechanisms (namely, BGR and screening suppression of exciton energy) over a wide range of photoexcitation density needs to be theoretically established in a compelling way . In addition, combining this accidental cancelation explanation with the experimental fact of very a high Mott density (not yet seen experimentally) one may conclude that the BGR of 1D electron-hole (e-h) system should be very weak in the high density situation, which is not consistent with the theoretical calculations upto now . In particular, one must understand why there is no characteristic signature of the EHP in the luminescence spectra even at very high photoexcitation densities. One must be able to answer the question: where has the Mott transition gone ? On this issue, an important and unresolved problem for the photoluminescence experiment is that there is no reliable and direct way of estimating the photoexcited electron-hole density in such highly pumped QWR systems. The theoretical basis of the density estimation methods in the literature , such as from the lineshape analysis of the spectrum, is usually not self-consistent and not appropriate in such high density strongly laser-pumped systems. Although we feel that the precise carrier density of the photoexcited QWR systems may not be known accurately, this issue does not pose any fundamental problem for our theory where the EHP density $`n=n_e=n_h`$ is an input parameter. The problem arises only in trying a direct quantitative comparison with experiments .

From the theoretical point of view, the full many-body calculation in a high electron-hole density semiconductor system is complicated and has not been attempted before except for our own short letter published last year . The exciton mode is a solution of the Bethe-Salpeter equation (BSE) for the interaction vertex which, in the many particle situation of interest to us, should include self-energy and dynamical screening correlations. A complete or exact solution of the BSE is only possible in the dilute exciton limit when it reduces to a simple hydrogenic electron-hole bound state Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation. Our interest in this paper is in the many-particle ”exciton” state in the photoexcited semiconductor QWR system where self-energy correlations of simple electron or hole states and dynamical screening of the electron-hole Coulomb interaction vertex are important. A model of an electron gas with a single hole in a wire  is not appropriate in our problem because a bound state always exists in any attractive potential in 1D systems, which will trivially provide an overestimate of the Mott density. We emphasize that both the quasi-particle self-energy and the dynamical screening of the electron-hole interaction vertex should be included properly (i.e. consistent with each other in a conserving approximation) in the BSE to obtain the correct description of the Mott transition. With the exception of our own short earlier report  most other theoretical calculations use the static (Hartree-Fock) approximation or the quasi-static approximation  to the self-energy and a statically screened interaction vertex to solve the many-particle BSE and obtain the optical absorption/gain spectra. In these simpler approximations, where dynamical screening effects are neglected in an uncontrolled way, the dominant excitonic peak has a weak red-shift (a few meV decrease) with increasing density upto a Mott density, $`n_c`$, above which the excitonic peak completely disappears and the spectrum shows a shallow (and weak) gain region very similar to the behavior of the noninteracting EHP . Including the many-body dynamical screening  in the Coulomb interaction, the exciton peak stays essentially constant in energy (for $`n<n_c`$) and exhibits a pronounced gain spectrum (for $`n>n_c`$), stronger than the quasi-static results. But the predicted Mott densities in the above theories ($`n_c8\times 10^4`$ \- $`8\times 10^5`$ cm-1) are all below the experimentally estimated value ($`n_c>3\times 10^6`$ cm-1) — in fact, it is not clear if experimentally the transition to the EHP has ever been observed even at the highest photoexcitation densities. It is in general hard to include the many-body effects appropriately in a calculationally tractable model over such a wide range of density (over at least 4 orders of magnitude in $`n`$), from the weak coupling dilute exciton gas system to the strong coupling EHP regime.

In this paper, starting with the realistic Coulomb interaction in 1D T-shaped QWR systems, we first evaluate the single particle self-energy for both electrons and holes in the dynamical plasmon pole approximation (PPA) within the so-called GW scheme (i.e. in the leading order dynamically screened interaction) to obtain the electron and hole renormalized Green’s function. This self-energy calculation which by itself does not contain any direct excitonic effects, gives us the BGR or the reduction of the nominal band gap due to exchange-correlation. For comparison, we also calculate the BGR obtained by the quasi-static calculation in both static random phase approximation (RPA) and static PPA in this paper. We then derive analytically the effective electron-hole (e-h) interaction vertex, $`V_{eff}(k,\omega )`$, which includes consistently the electron-hole-plasmon coupling with the external photons within our dynamical GW-RPA-PPA approximation scheme. We use two different methods to study the excitonic properties: one is a variational approximation on an effective exciton Hamiltonian , which depends on the carrier density; the other technique is to solve the dynamical BSE by treating both self-energy renormalization and vertex correction (arising from the Coulomb interaction) on an equal footing (within our plasmon pole approximation scheme), obtaining the optical absorption spectra. Both calculations are carried out over a wide range of e-h density from $`n=10^2`$ cm-1 to $`n=10^6`$ cm-1 at finite temperatures under the quasi-equilibrium condition, i.e. the e-h density is assumed to be a constant parameter for each density calculation (and $`n=n_e=n_h`$). While our dynamical BSE calculation includes exciton and EHP effects equivalently and is directly capable of providing the Mott density $`n_c`$ through the analysis of the absorption spectra, the variational exciton energy has to be compared with the BGR calculation in order to ascertain the Mott transition — in particular, the merging of the effective variational exciton with the renormalized band edge is taken to be the signal for a Mott transition. We find that the absorption peak obtained from solving the dynamical BSE survives with very large broadening well above the critical density $`n_c`$ estimated from the variational approximation, and no optical gain (negative absorption) regime shows up in the spectra even at the highest e-h density. This implies the non-existence of Mott transition in 1D electron-hole systems. This striking result may be physically understood as arising from the fact that the quasi-particle picture underlying the conventional Fermi liquid model fails in high density 1D systems due to strong inelastic scattering by plasmons, associated with the generic non-Fermi liquid behavior in 1D systems. In fact, in 1D systems there is no conventional EHP because there are no single particle excitations in an interacting 1D systems. This non-existence of single particle excitations or quasi-particles also leads to a breakdown of the conventional exciton picture — a quasi-electron and a quasi-hole bound pair. We will discuss this point in more details later in this paper.

This paper is organized as follows: in Sec. II we present and discuss the theory we use in various parts of our calculations, e.g. the realistic Coulomb interaction in 1D T-shaped QWR system, the single particle self-energy calculation in the single loop PPA-GW approximation, the different approximation schemes used for screening the long-ranged Coulomb interaction, the dynamical Bethe-Salpeter equation approximations in our theory, and the effective exciton Hamiltonian used in the variational calculation. In Sec. III we show our results for the density dependent exciton energy in the variational method and for the excitonic optical properties from the solution of BSE. In Sec. IV we conclude with a discussion and a summary of our results.

## II Theory

We use the two-band (one conduction band and one valence band) model to study the 1D electron-hole system, neglecting higher subbands and the degenerate valence bands. We also consider the photoexcited quasi-equilibrium regime where the e-h density is assumed to be a constant (in time) so that the Hamiltonian of such a 1D electron-hole system can be expressed as (in the effective mass approximation and assuming purely parabolic band dispersion; we take $`\mathrm{}=1`$ throughout):

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left[\left(E_g^0+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2m_e}}c_k^{}c_k+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2m_h}}d_k^{}d_k\right)\right]`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{},q}{}}\left[V_{c,ee}(q)c_{kq}^{}c_{k^{}+q}^{}c_k^{}c_k+V_{c,hh}(q)d_{kq}^{}d_{k^{}+q}^{}d_k^{}d_k2V_{c,eh}(q)c_{kq}^{}c_kd_{k^{}+q}^{}d_k^{}\right],`$ (2)
where $`c_k(c_k^{})`$ and $`d_k(d_k^{})`$ are the annihilation(creation) operators for conduction band electrons and valence band holes respectively (we will not explicitly show the spin index in summations throughout this paper although spin is included in our calculations), and $`m_{e/h}`$ are the electron/hole effective masses. $`E_g^0`$ is the direct band gap between the top of the valence band and the bottom of the conduction band, taken to be 1550 meV for the GaAs/Al1-xGaxAs QWR system in all our calculations. There are three different Coulomb interactions entering the Hamiltonian: electron-electron ($`V_{c,ee}(q)`$), hole-hole ($`V_{c,hh}(q)`$), and electron-hole ($`V_{c,eh}(q)`$) interactions. The first two give rise to the electron and hole quasi-particle self-energies and the other one, the electron-hole interaction, produces the exciton bound state. One should note that if we neglect the self-energy correction and also dynamical screening effect (i.e. the low density limit of a Wannier exciton), the Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) leads to a 1D hydrogen atom problem  for the Wannier exciton, which in 1D always has a bound excitonic state even for an arbitrarily weak electron-hole (attractive) interaction. Using a model of an electron gas with a single hole therefore gives rises a very high Mott density estimate (even if $`V_{c,eh}`$ is statically screened), which is a reflection of this 1D bound state property. We address both the many-body self-energy effect and the electron-hole excitonic binding effect on an equal footing in the theory, which we accomplish by using the dynamical Bethe-Salpeter equation as described below.

### A Coulomb interaction in QWR

The realistic (bare) Coulomb interaction in 1D QWR is obtained by taking the expectation value of the 3D Coulomb interaction over the electron wave function along the transverse directions ($`y`$ and $`z`$ axes, see the inset of Fig. 1) of the wire. After Fourier transformation along the 1D wire direction ($`x`$), we have  for the Coulomb interaction matrix element:

$`V_{c,ij}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^2}{\epsilon _0}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{𝑑𝑦}\mathrm{𝑑𝑦}^{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{𝑑𝑧}\mathrm{𝑑𝑧}^{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{𝑑𝑥}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{𝑖𝑞𝑥}}|\varphi _i(y,z)|^2|\varphi _j(y^{},z^{})|^2}{\sqrt{x^2+(yy^{})^2+(zz^{})^2}}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{e}^2}{\epsilon _0}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{𝑑𝑦}\mathrm{𝑑𝑦}^{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{𝑑𝑧}\mathrm{𝑑𝑧}^{}|\varphi _i(y,z)|^\mathit{2}|\varphi _j(y^{},z^{})|^\mathit{2}K_\mathit{0}(q\sqrt{(yy^{})^\mathit{2}+(zz^{})^\mathit{2}}),`$ (4)
where $`\varphi _i(y,z)`$ is the QWR confinement wavefunction for the lowest eigenstate of electrons ($`i=e`$) or holes ($`i=h`$). Their exact forms depend on the geometry and the detailed nature of confinement for the QWR system. $`K_0(x)`$ is the zeroth-order modified Bessel function of the second kind  which diverges logarithmically when $`x`$ goes to zero (i.e. in the long wavelength limit).

Following the experimental system of Ref. , we use T-shaped QWR parameters to numerically calculate the 1D Coulomb interaction via Eq. (2). To simplify calculations (and also to have some analytical control) we use the following two approximations in evaluating the wavefunction $`\varphi _i(y,z)`$: (i) we assume the confinement potential for both electrons and holes to be infinitely deep, i.e. both electrons and holes are completely confined by the 2D T-shaped potential well, so that the wavefunctions of electrons and holes are of the same form, independent of their effective mass difference. Consequently the three different interactions ($`V_{c,ee}`$, $`V_{c,hh}`$, and $`V_{c,eh}`$) become the same, denoted by $`V_c`$ throughout this paper. This simplifying approximation is justified by the detailed work of Ref. , as mentioned in the Introduction. (ii) Instead of numerically solving the complicated 2D Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation to get the ground state single particle wavefunction  (which is not the focus of our interest), we simply approximate $`\varphi (y,z)`$ to be the product of two single-variable functions, $`\xi (y)`$ and $`\psi (z)`$ (i.e. $`\varphi (y,z)\xi (y)\psi (z)`$), and assume  a simple and reasonable approximate model form for $`\xi (y)`$ and $`\psi (z)`$ through the following exponential formulae:

$`\xi (y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{3/4}}{W_y^{1/2}\pi ^{1/4}}}e^{(2y/W_y)^2}`$ (5)
$`\psi (z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{5/2}z}{W_z^{3/2}}}e^{2z/W_z},`$ (6)
where $`W_z`$ and $`W_y`$ are the full-plane ($`xy`$ plane) QW width and the half-plane ($`xz`$ plane) QW width respectively. Eqs. (3) and (4) have the maximum electron/hole density at $`y=0`$, $`z=W_z/2`$, with three branches of exponentially decaying density along $`\pm y`$ and $`+z`$ directions (see the inset of Fig. 1). The exponential decaying lengths or confinement sizes are $`W_y/2`$ and $`W_z/2`$ in $`y`$ and $`z`$ directions respectively, and thus in our model of the T-shaped QWR the effect of wire geometry on the Coulomb interaction is entirely contained in the effective ”wire size” $`W_y`$ and $`W_z`$, which are the confinement parameters of our model. This approximation greatly simplifies the calculation of the realistic Coulomb interaction in Eq. (2) and makes our BSE calculations tractable. We believe that our QWR confinement model, as defined in Eqs. (3) and (4), to be quite reasonable . For example, the exciton binding energy calculated in this approximation is 18.2 meV for $`W_y=W_z=7`$ nm wire, very close to the quoted experimental value, 17 meV, for the same wire size . The small over-estimate (about $`7\%`$) is expected because of the assumption of infinite confinement energy and the strong $`e^{y^2}`$ localization of $`\xi (y)`$. In more accurate numerical treatments the confinement is weaker than in our model, leading to a lower binding energy in the QWR system. In Fig. 1 we show the calculated $`V_c(q)`$ from Eqs. (2)-(4) for different wire sizes. We assume only one (the ground) electron and hole subband in the conduction and valence band respectively.

### B Absorption spectra

In order to study the excitonic effect on optical properties of 1D photoexcited electron-hole systems in semiconductor QWR structures, we calculate the dynamical (photon frequency dependent) absorption coefficient, $`\alpha (\omega )`$, and refractive index, $`n(\omega )`$, which are related to the long wavelength dielectric function, $`\epsilon (q0,\omega )`$, by the following formula

$$n(\omega )+i\frac{c\alpha (\omega )}{2\omega }=\epsilon (\omega )^{1/2},$$
(7)
where $`c`$ is the vacuum light velocity. The dynamical refractive index, $`n(\omega )`$, is therefore given in terms of $`\epsilon (\omega )`$ by,

$$n(\omega )=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{Re}\epsilon (\omega )+\left(\mathrm{Re}\epsilon (\omega )^2+\mathrm{Im}\epsilon (\omega )^2\right)^{1/2}\right]}$$
(8)
and the absorption coefficient, $`\alpha (\omega )`$, is given by

$$\alpha (\omega )=\frac{\omega \mathrm{Im}\epsilon (\omega )}{n(\omega )c}.$$
(9)
Using the linear response theory , the dielectric function of the 1D e-h system is expressed as

$$\epsilon (\omega )\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\frac{4\pi \mathrm{e}^2}{\mathrm{𝐴𝐿}}\underset{k,k^{}}{}r_{vc}(k)r_{vc}^{}(k^{})G_{q0}(k,k^{},\omega ),$$
(10)
where the retarded pair Green’s function, $`G_q(k,k^{},\omega )`$, is

$$G_q(k,k^{},\omega )=i_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\omega t}[d_k(t)c_{k+q}(t),c_{k^{}+q}^{}(0)d_k^{}^{}(0)]_0𝑑t,$$
(11)
and $`A=W_yW_z`$ is the cross sectional area of the QWR. In these equations $`q`$ is the center of mass momentum of the exciton which is set to zero (and hence not shown explicitly) in all our calculations below. $`r_{vc}(k)`$ is the dipole matrix element, which can be simplified in the effective mass approximation :

$$|r_{vc}(k)|\frac{M(k)}{\sqrt{4mE_g^0}},$$
(12)
where the reduced mass $`m=m_em_h/(m_e+m_h)`$ and

$$M(k)=\left(1+\frac{k^2}{2mE_g^0}\right)^1.$$
(13)
By introducing a new function

$$Q(k,\omega )=\underset{k^{}}{}M(k^{})G(k,k^{},\omega ),$$
(14)
the dielectric function in Eq. (8) can be expressed to be

$$\epsilon (\omega )\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\frac{\pi \mathrm{e}^2}{\mathrm{𝐴𝐿𝑚𝐸}_g^0}\underset{k}{}M(k)Q(k,\omega ),$$
(15)
and the dynamical function $`Q(k,\omega )`$, which is essentially a two-particle Green’s function, satisfies the Bethe-Salpeter equation described below.

### C Bethe-Salpeter equations

For the results to be presented in this paper, the many-body exciton is given by the so-called Bethe-Salpeter equation  for the two-particle Green’s function shown diagrammatically in Fig. 2(a), which corresponds to a rather complex set of two-component (electrons and holes) coupled non-linear integral equations which must be solved self-consistently with the bare interaction being the Coulomb interaction in the QWR geometry. These equations are notoriously difficult to solve without making drastic approximations, and in fact have never before been solved in the literature in any dimensions (except for our own short report earlier ). In carrying out the full many-body dynamical calculations for BSE we are forced to make some approximations. Our most sophisticated approximation uses the fully frequency dependent dynamically screened electron-hole Coulomb interaction in the single plasmon-pole approximation, which has been shown to be an excellent approximation  to the full random phase approximation (RPA, see Fig. 2(c)) for 1D QWR system. For the self-energy correction we use the single-loop GW diagram shown in Fig. 2(b) with the screened interaction given by PPA. Ward identities then fix the vertex correction, entering Fig. 2(a), to be the appropriate ladder integral equation.

For convenience, we use the finite temperature imaginary time Matsubara frequency Green’s function formalism in our analysis. The bare electron-hole two-particle Green’s function without any e-h interaction is

$$G^0(k,k^{},z,\mathrm{\Omega })=G_e(k,\mathrm{\Omega }z)G_h(k,z)\delta _{k,k^{}},$$
(16)
and it corresponds to the two separate Green’s function lines of electron and hole in Fig. 2(a). For each particle line, we have

$$G_i(k,z)=\frac{1}{z\epsilon _{i,k}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(k,z)+\mu _i},(i=e,h)$$
(17)
where $`\epsilon _{e,k}k^2/2m_e+E_g^0`$ and $`\epsilon _{h,k}k^2/2m_h`$ are the bare (noninteracting) band energies for electrons in the conduction band and for holes in the valence band respectively; $`\mu _i`$ is the chemical potential and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(k,z)`$ is the self-energy (for a complex frequency, $`z`$), which we will calculate later within GW approximation. In order to avoid the multi-pole (and any possible branch cut) structure in $`G_i(k,z)`$, we approximate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(k,z)`$ by the momentum-dependent band gap renormalization, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i(k)`$, which is related to the self-energy through the self-consistent Dyson’s equation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i(k)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(k,\epsilon _{i,k}+\mathrm{\Delta }_i(k)\mu _i)`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i(k)`$ is the so-called quasi-particle on-shell self-energy. However, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i(k)`$ can be well approximated  by truncating this equation at the first nontrivial order, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i(k)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(k,\epsilon _{i,k}\mu _i)`$, which should be reasonably valid in our calculations below. Therefore we have the following electron/hole single pole Green’s function,

$$G_i(k,z)\frac{1}{z\epsilon _{i,k}\mathrm{\Delta }_i(k)+\mu _i},$$
(18)
for later calculations in this paper. The details of calculating the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(k,z)`$ within the GW approximation are discussed in the Sec. II-D below.

The Bethe-Salter equation in Fig. 2(a) could be read as (with $`\beta =1/k_BT`$, where $`T`$ is the temperature)

$$G(k,k^{},z,\mathrm{\Omega })=G^0(k,k^{},z,\mathrm{\Omega })\times \left(1+\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{k^{\prime \prime },z}{}V_s(kk^{\prime \prime },zz^{})G(k^{\prime \prime },k^{},z^{},\mathrm{\Omega })\right).$$
(19)
Putting Eqs. (14)-(16) into Eq. (17) we get

$`(\mathrm{\Omega }\epsilon _{e,k}\epsilon _{h,k}\mathrm{\Delta }_e(k)\mathrm{\Delta }_h(k)+\mu _e+\mu _h)G(k,k^{},z,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (20)
$`=\left(G_e(k,\mathrm{\Omega }z)+G_h(k,z)\right)\delta _{k,k^{}}\times \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{k^{\prime \prime },z^{}}{}}V_s(kk^{\prime \prime },zz^{})G(k^{\prime \prime },k^{},z^{},\mathrm{\Omega })\right).`$ (21)
This equation, however, is not of closed form and is difficult to evaluate since it is a rather complex multidimensional singular integral equation. We therefore have to use an additional simplifying approximation first introduced by Shindo , where the two particle Green’s function, $`G(k,k^{},z,\mathrm{\Omega })`$, is replaced by a simple pair Green’s function $`G(k,k^{},\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (whose retarded function yields via Eq. (9) directly the optical dielectric function):

$`G(k,k^{},z,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_e(k,\mathrm{\Omega }z)+G_h(k,z)}{\frac{1}{\beta }_z(G_e(k,\mathrm{\Omega }z)+G_h(k,z))}}G(k,k^{},\mathrm{\Omega }),`$ (23)
where

$$G(k,k^{},\mathrm{\Omega })\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{z}{}G(k,k^{},z,\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(24)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{z}{}}(G_e(k,\mathrm{\Omega }z)+G_h(k,z))=`$ (25)
$`1n_e(\xi _{e,k})n_h(\xi _{h,k}).`$ (26)
Here $`\xi _{i,k}\epsilon _{i,k}+\mathrm{\Delta }_i(k)`$ and $`n_i(\xi _{i,k})`$ is the fermion momentum distribution function, $`(e^{\beta (\mathrm{Re}\xi _{i,k}\mu _i)}+1)^1`$, which keeps the electron and hole density constant by adjusting the chemical potential, $`\mu _i`$, to satisfy the correct density constraint, $`(dk/\pi )n_i(\xi _{i,k})=n`$. Note that the approximation defined by Eq. (19) follows from the exact BSE in a statically screened Coulomb interaction , i.e. if the frequency dependence of the effective dynamically screened interaction is neglected. We expect the Shindo approximation to be a reasonable approximation in our dynamical calculation below, because the dynamical screening effect contributes mostly to the correlation energy, whose real part is dominated by the (static) Hartree-Fock exchange energy in the high density region  (while the imaginary part of the correlation energy plays an important role in our calculations below). We have not been able to find a tractable way of solving the dynamical BSE without making the Shindo approximation.

Using Eqs. (15), (19)-(21) in Eq. (18), we then have the following effective Bethe-Salpeter equation for the pair Green’s function $`G(k,k^{},\omega )`$ (after the analytical continuation $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega +i\delta \mu _e\mu _h`$):

$`G(k,k^{},\omega )=G^0(k,k^{},\omega )`$ (27)
$`\times \left(1{\displaystyle \underset{k^{\prime \prime }}{}}V_{eff}(k^{\prime \prime },k^{},\omega )G(k^{\prime \prime },k^{},\omega )\delta _{ss^{\prime \prime }}\right),`$ (28)
where $`G^0`$ and the dynamically screened effective electron-hole interaction, $`V_{eff}`$, are expressed as

$$G^0(k,k^{},\omega )=\frac{1n_e(\xi _{e,k})n_h(\xi _{h,k})}{\omega +i\delta \epsilon _{e,k}\epsilon _{h,k}\mathrm{\Delta }(k,\omega )}\delta _{k,k^{}},$$
(29)
and

$`V_{eff}(k,k^{},\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{z,z^{}}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{G_e(k,\mathrm{\Omega }z)+G_h(k,z)}{1n_e(\xi _{e,k})n_h(\xi _{h,k})}}V_s(kk^{},zz^{})`$ (30)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_e(k^{},\mathrm{\Omega }z^{})+G_h(k^{},z^{})}{1n_e(\xi _{e,k^{}})n_h(\xi _{h,k^{}})}}]_{\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega \mu _e\mu _h+i\delta }.`$ (31)
The effective BGR, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k,\omega )`$, is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(k,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}\left[(1n_e(\xi _{e,k^{}+q})n_h(\xi _{h,k^{}}))\times V_{eff}(k,k^{},q,\omega )V_c(kk^{})\right]\delta _{ss^{}}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}[n_e(\xi _{e,k^{}+q})+n_h(\xi _{h,k^{}})]V_{eff}(k,k^{},\omega )+{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}[V_{eff}(k,k^{},q,\omega )V_c(kk^{})].`$ (33)
In Eq. (25) the self-energy term, $`(n_e+n_h)V_{eff}`$, and the vertex correction, $`V_{eff}V_c`$, are treated on an equal footing. $`G^0(k,k^{},\omega )`$ in Eq. (23) is the electron-hole pair Green’s function with self-energy correction but without electron-hole attractive interaction, which is now replaced by the dynamically screened effective interaction, $`V_{eff}(k,k^{},\omega )`$, in the BSE, Eq. (22). If we neglect dynamical effects in $`V_s(k,z)`$ (as in the static or the quasi-static approximation described below), then $`V_{eff}(k,k^{},\omega )=V_s(k)`$ according to Eqs. (24) and (21). In the following section, we will discuss the use of different screening models to evaluate $`V_{eff}(k,k^{},\omega )`$ (and BGR, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{e/h}(k)`$, through the screened GW approximation) in calculating the absorption spectrum by solving the BSE.

Combining the Bethe-Salpeter equation, Eq. (22), for $`G(k,k^{},\omega )`$ with Eq. (12), we have the following equation for $`Q(k,\omega )`$:

$$Q(k,\omega )=Q_0(k,\omega )\times \left(1\frac{1}{M(k)}\underset{k^{}}{}V_{eff}(k,k^{},\omega )Q(k^{},\omega )\right),$$
(34)
for $`Q_0(k,\omega )_k^{}M(k^{})G^0(k,k^{},\omega )`$. Once $`Q(k,\omega )`$ is obtained by solving the integral equation, Eq. (26), which is also a BSE, it is straightforward to calculate the absorption and gain spectra from the dielectric function, $`\epsilon (\omega )`$, through Eq. (13).

### D Self-energy, BGR and screening in QWR

In order to solve Eqs. (22) to (26) for the Bethe-Salpeter equation, we have to use a screened interaction, $`V_s(k,z)`$, in Eq. (24) to get $`V_{eff}`$ and also to get the single particle self-energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(k,z)`$, in the Green’s function of Eq. (16). In this section, we discuss and compare both the quasi-static approximation and the dynamical (PPA) approximation in the screening calculation. For convenience, we first discuss the self-energy part and then the screening effect.

In the GW approximation which is the leading-order self-energy in the screened interaction expansion, the self-energy is calculated in the single-loop diagram composed of a noninteracting particle line and a screened interaction line (Fig. 2(b)). Using static screening in the interaction line (i.e. $`V_s(k,z)=V_s(k,0)`$), we get a screened exchange self-energy term only, and all higher order screening effects to the correlation energy are neglected. This approximation (named static approximation) is therefore too simplistic to give correct results , although it has been extensively employed in excitonic calculations because of its simplicity. An improvement to the static approximation is the quasi-static approximation , which neglects the recoil energy during the scattering process so that no dynamical frequency inside the screened interaction potential shows up. This approximation produces an extra constant Coulomb-hole term (the second term of Eq. (27)) in the self-energy in addition to the screened exchange self-energy of the static approximation, so that the full expression for the BGR in this quasi-static approximation becomes

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_i(k)={\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}\left[V_s(kk^{})n_i(\epsilon _{i,k})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V_s(k^{})V_c(k^{}))\right],`$ (35)
where $`V_s(k)V_s(k,\omega =0)=V_c(k)/\epsilon (k,\omega =0)`$ is the statically screened Coulomb interaction, which could be analytically derived either from RPA (using Eq. (29) below)  or PPA (using Eq. (30) below) . In our paper, the former is called quasi-static-RPA and the latter named quasi-static-PPA. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i(k)`$ in Eq. (27) is pure real, i.e. without any imaginary part of the self-energy or inelastic broadening effect, so that the quasi-particle assumption for the Landau-Fermi liquid is completely satisfied in this approximation with an infinite quasi-particle life time. It is well-known, however, that the quasi-particle assumption breaks down in 1D (unlike in 2D or 3D) electronic systems, with a generic non-Fermi liquid behavior . For the purpose of comparison we still use this approximation to calculate the 1D optical properties in order to compare with the full dynamical calculation results and to study the quantitative validity of this widely-used quasi-static approximation both in the higher dimensional systems  and in the 1D system  in the literature. In Fig. 3(a) we show the conduction band energy, $`\xi _{e,k}^0E_g^0=\epsilon _{e,k}+\mathrm{\Delta }_e(k)E_g^0`$, in the quasi-static PPA for different electron densities. The band gap renormalization is almost a wavevector independent rigid shift in the quasi-static approximation.

For the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(k,\omega )`$ calculated in the one-loop GW approximation with dynamically screened interaction, we have

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(k,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{k^{},z^{}}{}}V_s(kk^{},zz^{})G_i(k^{},z^{})`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{k^{},z^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_c(kk^{})}{\epsilon (kk^{},zz^{})}}G_i(k^{},z^{}),`$ (37)
where we can use either RPA or PPA (which is an excellent approximation to RPA ) to calculate the dynamical dielectric function, $`\epsilon (k,\omega )`$. For zero temperature RPA, $`\epsilon (k,\omega )`$ is obtained by including the non-interacting polarizabilities of electrons ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_e^0(k,\omega )`$) and holes ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_h^0(k,\omega )`$:

$`\epsilon (k,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`1V_c(k)\mathrm{\Pi }_e^0(k,\omega )V_c(k)\mathrm{\Pi }_h^0(k,\omega )`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`1V_c(k){\displaystyle \underset{i=e,h}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i}{\pi k}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2[(k^2/2m_i)kv_{F,i}]^2}{\omega ^2[(k^2/2m_i)+kv_{F,i}]^2}}\right],`$ (39)
where $`v_{F,e/h}`$ is the (Fermi) velocity of electrons/holes at Fermi momentum in the conduction/valence band. In this paper we will use RPA in only calculating the quasi-static screening via Eq. (27) by setting $`\omega =0`$ in Eq. (29), not in the full dynamical BSE (Eq. (26)), because the pole structure (and branch cut properties) of screened interaction, $`V_c(k)/\epsilon (k,\omega )`$, in the full dynamical RPA is too complicated to deal with in the frequency summation of Eq. (24) and in the integral equation of Eq. (26). In the dynamical PPA, however, the dielectric function $`\epsilon (k,\omega )`$ is defined by the following expression where screening is induced by a single (plasmon) pole satisfying the corresponding $`f`$sum rule :

$$\frac{1}{\epsilon (k,\omega )}=1+\frac{\omega _{pl}^2(k)}{(\omega +i\delta )^2\omega _k^2},$$
(40)
where $`\omega _{pl}(q)=\sqrt{nV_c(q)q^2/m}`$ is the 1D plasmon oscillator strength and $`\omega _q`$ is the effective plasmon frequency given by a simple formula

$$\omega _q^2=\omega _{pl}^2(q)+\frac{nq^2}{m\kappa }+\frac{q^4}{4m^2},$$
(41)
where $`\kappa `$ is the inverse screening length. It has been shown that PPA is a very good approximation to RPA in 1D systems, where plasmon excitations dominate the single particle excitations . The great virtue of the single-pole PPA for our theory is that it makes our calculation of $`V_{eff}`$ in Eq. (24) tractable because the integral equation in frequency becomes simple. In the PPA the self-energy of electron ($`i=e`$) or hole ($`i=h`$) can be expressed as a sum of the usual exchange or Hartree-Fock energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{ex}(k)`$, and the correlation energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{cor}(k,\omega )`$:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(k,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{ex}(k)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{cor}(k,\omega )`$ (42)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{ex}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}V_c(k^{})n_i(\epsilon _{i,k^{}})`$ (43)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{cor}(k,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_c(k^{})\omega _{pl}^2(k^{})}{2\omega _k^{}}}\times `$ (45)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{n_B(\omega _k^{})+n_i(\epsilon _{i,k+k^{}})}{\omega +\omega _k^{}\epsilon _{i,k^{}+k}i\gamma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{n_B(\omega _k^{})+1n_i(\epsilon _{i,k+k^{}})}{\omega \omega _k^{}\epsilon _{i,k^{}+k}+i\gamma }}\right],`$
where $`n_B(\omega _k)`$ is the bosonic momentum distribution function, $`(e^{\beta \omega _k}1)^1`$, for the plasmons; $`\gamma `$ is a small phenomenological damping term incorporating impurity scattering and all other possible broadening process (see the discussion in Sec. III-B). From Eq. (32) we see that the dynamical effect as well as the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(k,\omega )`$ arises entirely from the correlation energy (and is absent in the static (Hartree-Fock) or quasi-static theory). This will play an important role (which is crucial in 1D) in our following calculations. Figs. 3(b) and 3(c) show the real and imaginary parts of electron energy, $`\xi _{e,k}E_g^0=\epsilon _{e,k}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_e(k,\epsilon _{e,k}\mu _e)E_g^0`$, taking into account the dynamical PPA self-energy renormalization.

Defining the on-shell self-energy to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i(k)\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(k,\epsilon _{i,k}\mu _e)`$ where $`i=e,h`$, the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_e(k)`$ is proportional to the electron inelastic-scattering rate  arising from electron-electron interaction, which is very small when $`k`$ is below some threshold momentum $`k_c`$. For $`k>k_c`$ a new collective mode scattering channel opens up in which electrons lose energy by emitting plasmons. At zero temperature and for zero impurity scattering (clean system limit), it can be shown that the inelastic scattering rate diverges as $`(kk_c)^{1/2}`$ when $`k`$ approaches $`k_c`$ from above in 1D . Note that this divergence in Im$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{e/h}(k)`$ also exists in the RPA calculation , and is therefore a characteristic of the interacting 1D system in the dynamical GW approximation, causing a gap to open up at $`k=k_c`$ in the real part of the self-energy as shown in Fig. 3(b). The existence of this gap in BGR (or the divergence in Im$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{e/h}(k)`$) reflects the breakdown of the quasi-particle picture in the 1D electron system  within the perturbative GW approximation. An interacting 1D electron system is known to be better described by the Luttinger liquid (LL) model than the Fermi liquid model due to the strong plasmon scattering effect arising from the limited phase space in 1D. A Luttinger liquid, in contrast to a Fermi liquid, does not have any discontinuity in its momentum distribution function, and does not, therefore, have any true quasi-particles. The existence of a Luttinger liquid is a purely nonperturbative effect of interaction and happens in 1D even for arbitrarily weak electron-electron interaction. We therefore cannot get a true Luttinger liquid within our perturbative GW approximation, but the opening of the gap in the real part of the self-energy (or equivalently the divergence in the imaginary part of the self-energy) is the perturbative signature of the breakdown of the Fermi liquid picture. At finite temperature and for finite impurity scattering, the single particle properties calculated in the 1D Fermi liquid model via the dynamical GW approximation are similar to the results calculated in the Luttinger liquid theory. Therefore we believe that the strong inelastic scattering shown in Fig. 3(c) qualitatively reflects the LL character of 1D systems, and our self-energy calculation is qualitatively correct for our purpose of calculating excitonic optical properties. Our inclusion of the strong inelastic scattering by plasmons catches some essential aspects of 1D phase space restriction, which eventually leads to the nonperturbative formation of a 1D Luttinger liquid, which is beyond the scope of this work.

We evaluate the effective interaction, $`V_{eff}`$ in Eq. (24), by using the same PPA approximation and obtain:

$$V_{eff}(k,k^{},\omega )=V_c(kk^{})\left[1+\frac{1}{N_{eh}(k)}\frac{1}{N_{eh}(k^{})}\chi _{eh}(k,k^{},\omega )\right],$$
(46)
where $`N_{eh}(k)1n_e(\xi _{e,k})n_h(\xi _{h,k})`$ and $`\chi _{eh}`$ is given by the the following complicated formulae containing eight different terms associated with various dynamical processes in the 1D e-h system.

$`\chi _{eh}(k,k^{},\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{pl}^2(kk^{})}{2\omega _{kk^{}}}}\times `$ (47)
(48)
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{(1+n_B(\omega _{kk^{}}))n_e(\xi _{e,k})+n_B(\omega _{kk^{}})n_e(\xi _{e,k^{}})+n_e(\xi _{e,k})n_e(\xi _{e,k^{}})}{\xi _{e,k}\xi _{e,k^{}}\omega _{kk^{}}}}`$ (49)
(50)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n_B(\omega _{kk^{}})n_e(\xi _{e,k})+(1+n_B(\omega _{kk^{}}))n_e(\xi _{e,k^{}})n_e(\xi _{e,k})n_e(\xi _{e,k^{}})}{\xi _{e,k}\xi _{e,k^{}}+\omega _{kk^{}}}}`$ (51)
(52)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+n_B(\omega _{kk^{}}))n_h(\xi _{h,k})+n_B(\omega _{kk^{}})n_h(\xi _{h,k^{}})+n_h(\xi _{h,k})n_h(\xi _{h,k^{}})}{\xi _{h,k}\xi _{h,k^{}}\omega _{kk^{}}}}`$ (53)
(54)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n_B(\omega _{kk^{}})n_h(\xi _{h,k})+(1+n_B(\omega _{kk^{}}))n_h(\xi _{h,k^{}})n_h(\xi _{h,k})n_h(\xi _{h,k^{}})}{\xi _{h,k}\xi _{h,k^{}}+\omega _{kk^{}}}}`$ (55)
(56)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n_e(\xi _{e,k})n_h(\xi _{h,k^{}})+(1+n_B(\omega _{kk^{}}))(1n_e(\xi _{e,k})n_h(\xi _{h,k^{}}))}{\omega +i\gamma +\mu _e+\mu _h\xi _{e,k}\xi _{h,k^{}}\omega _{kk^{}}}}`$ (57)
(58)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n_e(\xi _{e,k})n_h(\xi _{h,k^{}})+n_B(\omega _{kk^{}})(1n_e(\xi _{e,k})n_h(\xi _{h,k^{}}))}{\omega +i\gamma +\mu _e+\mu _h\xi _{e,k}\xi _{h,k^{}}+\omega _{kk^{}}}}`$ (59)
(60)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n_e(\xi _{e,k^{}})n_h(\xi _{h,k})+(1+n_B(\omega _{kk^{}}))(1n_e(\xi _{e,k^{}})n_h(\xi _{h,k}))}{\omega +i\gamma +\mu _e+\mu _h\xi _{e,k^{}}\xi _{h,k}\omega _{kk^{}}}}`$ (61)
(62)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n_e(\xi _{e,k^{}})n_h(\xi _{h,k})+n_B(\omega _{kk^{}})(1n_e(\xi _{e,k^{}})n_h(\xi _{h,k}))}{\omega +i\gamma +\mu _e+\mu _h\xi _{e,k^{}}\xi _{h,k}+\omega _{kk^{}}}}],`$ (63)
where we use the same phenomenological damping parameter, $`\gamma `$, to broaden the resonant threshold energies in the denominators. The first two terms in the bracket of Eq. (34) describe the coupling of electron excitations with the plasmon, having the corresponding particle filling factors in the numerator and the resonance energy in the denominator. The third and the fourth terms describe the same plasmon coupling process for the holes. The first four terms are static and $`\omega `$-independent in our approximation. The last four terms are dynamical and depend explicitly on $`\omega `$. These last four dynamical terms describe processes which couple both electron and hole systems with the plasmon modes, and are extremely important in the dynamics of the photoexcited system.

### E Effective Hamiltonian and variational method

Before solving the full dynamical Bethe-Salpeter equation, it is instructive to study the excitonic and the EHP effects separately by treating the influence of the EHP on the excitonic states as a perturbation . Using an effective Hamiltonian derived from the Bethe-Salpeter equation, we can variationally obtain the exciton ground state energy by minimizing the energy expectation value through an 1$`s`$ exciton trial wavefunction. The effective Hamiltonian treats the EHP as a perturbative effect and is written as $`H_{pp^{}}(\omega _n)=H_{pp^{}}^0+H_{pp^{}}^{}(\omega _n)`$, where

$$H_{pp^{}}^0=\left(E_g^0+\frac{p^2}{2m}\right)\delta _{pp^{}}V_c(pp^{})$$
(64)
is the Hamiltonian for the single electron-hole pair with an unscreened Coulomb interaction (similar to a 1D hydrogen atom) and the perturbation $`H^{}`$ is

$`H_{pp^{}}^{}(\omega _n)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,\omega _n)\delta _{pp^{}}+V_c(pp^{})`$ (66)
$`(1f_e(\xi _{e,p})f_h(\xi _{h,p}))V_{eff}(p,p^{},\omega _n),`$
for the $`n`$th eigenstate of energy $`\omega _n`$. Here we can explicitly see the physical meaning of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,\omega )`$ and $`V_{eff}(p,p^{},\omega )`$ analytically derived in Eqs. (24) and (25). We expect that the wave function of the exciton satisfies the corresponding Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger’s equation in the low density limit, where the screening effect is negligible. Thus this exciton effective Hamiltonian approach may be a reasonable approximation to calculate exciton energies and wavefunctions.

For the exciton trial wavefunction, $`\varphi _n(p)`$, in the momentum space, we use the two parameter variational wavefunction first introduced by Nojima  to express the 1D exciton ground state as

$$\varphi _0(p)=\sqrt{\frac{2\sigma \lambda }{K_1(2\sigma )}}\frac{K_1(\sigma \sqrt{\lambda ^2p^2+1})}{\sqrt{\lambda ^2p^2+1}},$$
(67)
where $`\lambda `$ and $`\sigma `$ are two independent (positive) variational parameters in our calculation. $`K_1(x)`$ is the first order modified Bessel function of the second kind. This variational bound state wave function has the following form in the real space,

$$\varphi _0(x)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[\sqrt{(x/\lambda )^2+\sigma ^2}\right]}{\sqrt{2\sigma \lambda K_1(2\sigma )}},$$
(68)
where one can see that the variational parameter $`\lambda `$ represents the exciton radius and $`\sigma `$ smoothens or broadens the center of mass wavefunction at $`x=0`$. We do not study the first excited state wave function, $`\varphi _1(p)`$, in this paper because it is not particularly relevant to the Mott transition process we are interested in, although the variational technique can be adapted to study excited excitonic states .

## III Results

We first show the variational results because conceptually this is the simplest approach since it is based on an effective single particle Hamiltonian. We obtain the BGR and the exciton binding energy by variational method in both the quasi-static approximation and the dynamically screened GW approximations for various photoexcited carrier (e-h) densities. The crossover between the exciton energy and the BGR gives us an estimated Mott transition critical density, $`n_c`$, where the exciton bound state ceases to exist, and an insulator-to-metal transition occurs. The idea here is that at $`n_c`$ the exciton merges with the e-h continuum and is no longer a stable bound state. Finally we carry out the full Bethe-Salpeter integral equation solution by a matrix inversion method and obtain the absorption spectra and refractive index in a large range of e-h density (from $`10^2`$ to $`10^6`$ cm-1) to compare with the variational effective Hamiltonian results. Details are described below.

### A Effective Hamiltonian result

In Fig. 4(a), we show the calculated density dependence of the exciton ground state energy variationally obtained from the effective Hamiltonian method and the BGR ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_e(0)+\mathrm{\Delta }_h(0)`$) calculated in both the quasi-static approximation and the dynamically screened GW approximation as described in the section II-D. Both RPA and PPA are used in the quasi-static calculation (Eq. (27)) for comparison whereas the full dynamical calculations are done only in PPA. The intersection between the exciton energy (dashed lines) and the BGR (solid lines) indicates the Mott transition, where the exciton merges with the band continuum and the system has a phase transition from an insulating exciton gas to a conducting EHP. Note that the variational method introduced in Sec. II-E loses its accuracy near the Mott density (and becomes essentially meaningless for $`n>n_c`$), because the variational energy expectation value, $`E(\lambda ,\sigma )\varphi _0(\lambda ,\sigma )|H^0+H^{}(E(\lambda ,\sigma ))|\varphi _0(\lambda ,\sigma )`$, has a very flat minimum region in the $`\lambda \sigma `$ space around $`nn_c`$, i.e. the exciton wave function is highly broadened, so that its minimum energy is hard to determine in such perturbation-based variational method. In Fig. 4(b) we show the variationally calculated trial exciton 1$`s`$ (ground state) wavefunction, $`\varphi _0(x)`$, for different exciton densities. The exciton density dependences of variational parameters, $`\lambda `$ and $`\sigma `$, are also shown in the inset of Fig. 4(b). The sharp divergences of $`\lambda `$ and $`\sigma `$ at $`n_c2\times 10^5`$ cm-1 indicate the delocalization of exciton ground state wave function, a signal of exciton-to-EHP Mott transition. In Fig. 4(a) we terminate the variationally calculated exciton line (dashed) at $`n=2\times 10^5`$ cm-1 and use the dotted line to represent the peak position of the absorption spectra obtained from solving the full dynamically screened BSE (discussed below) to continue the exciton line to higher densities upto $`6\times 10^5`$ cm-1.

We can make the following comments about the results shown in Fig. 4(a): (i) For density below $`10^4`$ cm-1 the exciton energy has only a few meV density-dependent red-shift in the quasi-static-RPA/PPA approximations and almost no shift (less than 0.5 meV) in the dynamical screening approximation. This shows the almost complete cancelation between the exchange-correlation induced BGR (a density-dependent shift) and the blue-shift of the exciton energy (due to screening) over a wide range of density. On the other hand, using the static screening (i.e. exchange energy only) approximation in the same calculation does not lead to this cancelation , showing that the experimentally observed constancy of the exciton energy as a function of the photoexcited e-h density is a dynamical effect, which may not manifest itself in simpler approximations. (ii) For an e-h density higher than $`10^4`$ cm-1, the exciton energy in the quasi-static-RPA has a rather large red-shift until it merges with the BGR line smoothly at $`n_c6\times 10^4`$ cm-1, indicating a rather low density Mott transition in this system. On the other hand, the exciton energies calculated in both the quasi-static-PPA and the full dynamical PPA are almost constant upto $`n=n_c3\times 10^5`$ cm-1, where the band continuum meets the exciton energy. (iii) In the full dynamical results obtained by solving the dynamical BSE directly, the excitonic absorption peak (dotted line) seems to survive even for densities higher than the ”critical density”, $`n_c`$, at which the calculated exciton energy crosses the band continuum BGR line. This shows that there must be reasonably strong hybridization between the exciton and the EHP in the dynamical BSE (note that the dotted line in Fig. 4(a) is not from the variational calculation, but is obtained from the BSE solution), so that the effective BGR, including excitonic effects in the BSE, is actually less than the result we calculate from Eq. (32) by adding the electron and hole self-energies without incorporating exciton effects. This also demonstrates the limitation of the quasi-static approximation and confirms the necessity of the full dynamical BSE calculation in the high density 1D e-h system.

### B Dynamical Bethe-Salpeter equation result

In Fig. 5, we show our calculated absorption and gain spectra by solving the full Bethe-Salpeter (integral) equation in the quasi-static and the full dynamical screening approximations for $`W_y=W_z=7`$ nm wire at a low temperature of $`T=10`$ K. The integral equation for the two-particle Green’s function, Eq. (26) (or equivalently Eq. (22)), is solved by the matrix inversion method with maximum momentum upto $`k_{max}=(\pi /2)\times 10^8`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{1}(=100k_F`$ for $`n=10^6`$ cm-1). The poles of the dynamical screened interaction, $`V_{eff}`$, in Eqs. (33) and (34), together with the logarithmic singularity of the 1D Coulomb interaction in the long wavelength limit, produce a multi-singular kernel with multiple momentum-dependent singularities which have never been solved before in the literature (except for our earlier work ), because the usual singularity-removal method is ineffective here . In our calculations presented in this paper, we use a rather large matrix ($`1500\times 1500`$ in a Gaussian quadrature for $`|k|k_{max}`$) in the matrix inversion method in order to get good overall accuracy, i.e. the same calculations using even larger ($`2000\times 2000`$) matrix size (which is extremely time-consuming and not shown here) do not show any significant difference (within 10%) in the whole absorption (and refractive index) spectrum from the results we present in Figs. 5-7. The broadening $`\gamma `$ used in our calculation is a phenomenological parameter which simulates in a simple manner the effects of all possible scattering and broadening processes not explicitly included in our theory. These are, for example, impurity and defect scattering, inhomogeneities in the system (e.g. fluctuations in the wire width), broadening associated with optical excitation process itself, and phonon scattering. We mention that inelastic plasmon scattering life time effects are explicitly included in our theory. Note that $`\gamma `$ should be small compared with the bare excitonic binding energy ($`1020`$ meV in GaAs semiconductor QWR systems), and as long as $`\gamma `$ is small, its precise value has no qualitative effect on our conclusions and results. We typically choose $`\gamma =0.5`$ meV in our calculations.

In Fig. 5(c) and 5(d) we show the absorption spectra in the dynamical PPA for two different values of impurity scattering $`\gamma `$ (different by a factor of 2.5) to show that $`\gamma `$ does not affect the qualitative behavior of the spectra, but does control the linewidths of the absorption peaks as one would expect. Some important features of the optical spectra (calculated by solving the full BSE) shown in Fig. 5 are: (i) there are generally two absorption peaks in the low density ($`n<10^4`$ cm-1) spectra of all the three approximations, one is the exciton ground state (1$`s`$) peak at about 1532 meV and the other one is the exciton first excited state (2$`s`$) at, for example, 1547.5 meV for $`n=10^2`$ cm-1 (this peak is off the plot region in Fig. 5(a)). Note that this low density spectrum is almost the same in all the three different approximations, showing that the dynamical effect is not important in the low density region. (ii) When the density increases but is still less than $`10^4`$ cm-1, the exciton peak does not shift much ($`<2`$ meV) with increasing carrier density in all approximations, indicating the constancy of the exciton energy. (iii) At higher densities ($`10^4`$ cm-1 $`<n<`$ $`10^5`$ cm-1), however, the quasi-static-RPA result (Fig. 5(a)) shows some additional red-shift in the excitonic peak, consistent with the result shown in Fig. 4(a) which is obtained from the variational method. On the other hand, the excitonic peak positions in the quasi-static-PPA and in the full dynamical approximation are almost (density independent) constants in this region. A significant difference between the quasi-static-PPA and the dynamical calculation results, however, is that the exciton peak of the quasi-static-PPA results (Fig. 5(b)) has an almost constant oscillator strength, while the oscillator strength of the peak in the full dynamical calculation results (Fig. 5(c)) decays at high density to about one-third of its low density value. (iv) For $`n>10^5`$ cm-1, both quasi-static-RPA and quasi-static-PPA results show negative absorption (gain) for the photon frequency below some critical value, $`\omega _c`$, while the full dynamical result is still positive (i.e. no gain) with a weaker broadened peak upto $`n6\times 10^5`$ cm-1 or higher. In other words, we do not explicitly find the expected exciton (insulator) to plasma (metal) Mott transition when both the self-energy and the screened interaction are included dynamically in the full BSE theory upto a rather high e-h density. We believe that this behavior arises from the strong plasmon scattering effects in 1D as discussed in Sec. IV of this paper. (Such strong inelastic scattering was not included in our earlier short report , leading to the appearance of a gain in the high density spectra above the Mott density.) In Fig. 6, we show the refractive index, $`n(\omega )`$, calculated by solving the Bethe-Salpeter equation in both the quasi-static-PPA and the full dynamical approximation for different photoexcitation densities. The calculated refractive indices in these two approximations are similar in structure.

In Fig. 7, we show the calculated absorption/gain spectra obtained in both the quasi-static-PPA (Fig. 7(a)) and the full dynamical calculations (Fig. 7(b)) for the same wire width, $`W_y=W_z=7`$ nm, but at a higher temperature ($`T=100`$ K) for various densities. We find that the higher temperature (100 K) low density ($`n<10^4`$ cm-1) absorption spectrum is almost the same as the corresponding lower temperature ($`T=10`$ K) spectra in Figs. 5(b) and (c), while in the higher density region ($`n>10^4`$ cm-1) the high temperature exciton absorption peak of the full dynamical calculation has a smaller red-shift in energy with a much larger broadening than the quasi-static-PPA result. The quasi-static-RPA result at such high temperature (not shown here) has an even larger red-shift and broadening. We mention that the gain in the absorption spectra of the quasi-static calculation at the lower temperature (Fig. 5(b)) is flattened and almost disappears in the higher temperature (100K) calculation results.

## IV Conclusion

In this paper, we theoretically study, using reasonably realistic Coulomb interaction, the excitonic optical properties of a 1D QWR system by solving the many-body Bethe-Salpeter equation using a number of approximations, the most sophisticated one being a treatment of both the self-energy and the vertex function in the dynamically screened GW approximation. Our calculation is applied to the experimentally studied T-shaped GaAs-AlxGa1-xAs 1D QWR systems for various densities and temperatures. We calculate the electron and hole self-energies in the one-loop GW approximation diagram using different screening approximations: the quasi-static-RPA, the quasi-static-PPA, and the dynamical (PPA) approximation. The quasi-static approximations give an almost rigid shift (the BGR effect) to the band energy (see Fig. 3(a)), and there is no imaginary part of the self-energy, i.e. the quasi-particle life time is infinite. This approximation may work well in 2D and 3D systems but fails completely in 1D systems, because unlike in the higher dimensional systems, the electrons in 1D system suffer very strong inelastic scattering effect by virtue of restricted phase space. Therefore the validity of the quasi-static approximation applied to 1D systems, which has been extensively used in many theoretical works , is doubtful. In the dynamical calculation we find that the electron and hole band gap renormalization has a gap opening up in its real part and a consequent divergent singularity in its imaginary part at $`k=k_c`$ (Figs. 3(b) and (c)), where the quasi-particle energy is transferred to the plasmon excitations due to very strong inelastic scattering by 1D plasmons. Although this perturbative GW self-energy is ”unphysical” due to the failure of the Fermi liquid model in the 1D system , it still gives a rather good qualitative description of the single-particle and the collective mode properties (compared to the correct Luttinger liquid model), particularly at finite temperatures and for finite impurity scattering . Our results in Figs. 3(b) and (c) reflect an important generic feature of 1D systems: the quasi-particle excitation has a very short life time (in fact, it does not exist) if the excitation momentum is higher than some value $`k_c`$. This 1D feature associated with Luttinger liquid properties of 1D systems strongly affects the stability of 1D excitons, the bound quasi-electron and quasi-hole pairs, as we can see from the calculated absorption and gain spectra (Fig. 5).

In Fig. 5 we find that the quasi-static approximation, which excludes inelastic scattering, gives rise to a negative absorption (gain) region in the highly photoexcited system. The existence of gain means that the exciton state is saturated (fully occupied), and therefore manifests a spontaneous emission, rather than absorption. On the other hand, the overall positive absorption (no gain) spectrum found in the dynamical calculation (Fig. 5(c)) upto the highest density is caused by the large imaginary part of the electron/hole on-shell self-energy, Im$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{e/h}(k)`$ (see Fig. 3(c), and Eq. (32)), which is proportional to the inelastic-scattering rate and results from the energy scattering through plasmon channel. In other words, the excitons, composed of bound pairs of quasi-electrons and quasi-holes, are unstable due to strong inelastic scattering by 1D plasmon excitations in the high density region. Consequently in the dynamical calculation, the exciton absorption peak is suppressed in strength and broadened in width as the photoexcitation density increases leading to stronger plasmon scattering. The absorption spectrum does not exhibit a negative (gain) region even in the high density regime because the quasi-particle EHP band continuum is so strongly inelastically scattered by plasmons that it is not a proper eigenstate (i.e. it decays) and is never saturated. The disappearance of the exciton line and the non-negativity in the absorption spectra (at the same time) in our dynamical calculation suggest that there is no insulator (exciton) to metal (EHP) Mott transition in 1D systems, since both excitons and quasi-particles are strongly inelastically scattered by plasmons leading to neither of them being well-defined coherent states of the high density 1D system. This result is consistent with the well-known non-Fermi-liquid properties of 1D electronic systems, where the quasi-particle (and hence the exciton) picture fails. The quasi-static approximation, which ignores any plasmon effect and works well in 2D and 3D systems , does not work in 1D systems because the 1D excitation spectrum is completely dominated by plasmons.

Another clue in support of the importance of plasmons in such high density 1D e-h system comes from the temperature dependence of the absorption spectra shown in Fig. 7. Our results show that the high temperature ($`T=100`$ K) absorption peak in the dynamical calculation (Fig. 7(b)) is suppressed and broadened so greatly that there is almost no spectral structure observed for $`n10^5`$ cm-1, while the high temperature quasi-static-PPA result (Fig. 7(a)) still has a rather strong peak at the same density. This is because the plasmon excitation occupancy, whose energy distribution function, $`n_B(\omega _k)`$, follows the Bose-Einstein statistics, depends strongly on temperature, leading to a qualitative difference between the $`T=10`$ K and $`T=100`$ K results in the dynamical calculation, while such plasmon dynamics is not included in the quasi-static calculation. This characteristic strong temperature dependence is also consistent with very recent experimental results .

Based on our results and the discussion above, we propose that a crossover from a low density (essentially noninteracting) Fermi liquid to a high density interacting non-Fermi liquid is occurring in the optical spectra of the 1D e-h system as the photoexcitation density increases (see Fig. 5(c)). In the low density limit, say $`n10^2`$ cm-1, we have a dilute and noninteracting exciton system, whose absorption spectrum is independent of the many-body screening approximations we use — plasmons are just not that important in this regime. This shows that excitons in this situation are isolated quasi-electron and quasi-hole pairs, reflecting the validity of the quasi-particle picture in the effective noninteracting Fermi liquid model in the low density limit. In the higher density region, however, the plasmon effect on the quasi-particle self-energy becomes important, because the band curvature at $`k=k_F`$ is less for higher $`k_F`$ (i.e. higher density) and the relative importance of collective mode excitations (plasmons) is then strongly enhanced as in the Luttinger liquid model. Therefore the oscillator strength of the exciton absorption peak is then reduced and broadened in our dynamical calculation (Fig. 5(c)). When the density is roughly the nominal ”Mott transition” critical density, $`n_c`$, where the band continuum energy equals the exciton energy (see Fig. 4(a)), the plasmon excitation becomes so dominant that both exciton and band continuum (EHP) states become unstable, showing a crossover to effectively non-Fermi liquid properties. We therefore do not expect to see the real Mott transition from an excitonic insulator to an EHP metal in 1D highly photoexcited systems, in contrast to the results of previous theories. For an electron-hole plasma without any backward scattering in the usual Luttinger liquid model (no band curvature at all, which is unrealistic in our case), we can prove that gain in the optical spectra does exist below the Fermi energy at all densities with a complicated power-law singularity at the Fermi surface. Including the electron-hole attractive backward interaction (assuming a short-ranged interaction as in the so-called $`g`$ology formalism), the electron-hole system most likely undergoes a charge density wave ground state transition with a mass gap in the elementary plasmon excitation . While this scenario is consistent with our results, further work for the excitonic effect at energy far below the Fermi energy is still needed, because the regular Luttinger liquid model cannot include band curvature in an appropriate way in order to study the Mott transition at an energy level around the band edge.

In reference to the experimental data, we note that our results from solving the dynamically screened Bethe-Salpeter equation are in excellent qualitative and quantitative agreement with the recent experimental findings . In particular, the effective constancy of the exciton peak as a function of the photoexcited carrier density as well as the possibility of excitonic absorption well into the high density regime (even for $`n>6\times 10^5`$ cm-1) turn out to be characteristic features of the full dynamical theory (but not of the static and the quasi-static approximation). A full dynamical self-consistent theory as developed in this paper is thus needed for an understanding of the recent experimental results. Moreover we find that in our theory, the plasmon effect is crucial in the high density regime leading to the non-existence of any observable Mott transition in our calculation. This is consistent with recent experimental results , which do not observe an actual Mott transition in the semiconductor QWR system even in the high photoexcitation density ($`3\times 10^6`$ cm-1) regime. We emphasize that only our dynamical theory, and not the static or quasi-static approximation, is in agreement with the experimental results.

In summary, our main accomplishments reported in this paper are the following: (i) the first fully dynamical theory of a photoexcited electron-hole system in semiconductors which treats self-energy, vertex corrections, and dynamical screening in a self-consistent scheme within a realistic Coulomb interaction-based Bethe-Salpeter theory; (ii) a reasonable qualitative and quantitative agreement with the recent experimental observations of a constant (photoexcitation density-independent) excitonic absorption peak in energy, which in our dynamical theory arises from an approximate cancelation between the self-energy and the vertex corrections in the Bethe-Salpeter equation; (iii) inclusion of the plasmon effect in the quasi-particle self-energy calculation in our dynamical theory, leading to our theoretical proposal that no Mott transition should be observed in 1D electron-hole systems (at least in optical experiments) even at very high photoexcitation density, i.e. there should be no optical gain region; (iv) instead, we suggest an experimentally observable crossover from a low density noninteracting Fermi liquid behavior (quasi-particle/exciton favored) to a high density interacting non-Fermi liquid behavior (no stable quasi-particles and excitons). A more precise and nonperturbative theoretical model for the high density 1D electron-hole system is needed for future study — such a study should somehow incorporate both band curvature and Luttinger liquid behavior in analyzing the optical properties, although we believe that the qualitative features of such a theory are already contained in our work.

This work has been supported by the US-ONR and the US-ARO.


format: text

text:
# The Local Moduli of Sasakian 3-Manifolds

## I Introduction

Sasakian geometry consists of a riemannian metric and a contact structure adapted to the metric in a certain sense. First introduced in 1960 , Sasakian geometry is the odd-dimensional equivalent of Kähler geometry. For review papers see Boyer and Galicki  .

Geiges  has classified the topology of all closed Sasakian 3-manifolds:

Theorem

A closed 3-manifold admits a Sasakian structure iff it is diffeomorphic to one of the following:

$`S^3`$

$`\stackrel{~}{SL_2R}`$

$`Nil`$

or a quotient by a discrete subgroup of the appropriate isometry group acting freely.

The proof of this theorem rests on the fact that if $`M`$ is a closed Sasakian 3-manifold, then $`M\times R`$ is a locally conformally Kähler manifold with parallel Lee form. In addition, Belgun  has classified the CR structures associated with closed non-spherical Sasakian 3-manifolds. It has also been shown that any Sasakian-Einstein structure on $`R^3`$ is diffeomorphic to the standard Sasakian structure on an open subset of $`S^3`$ .

The purpose of this paper is to complete the local classification of Sasakian structures. Our main theorem is

Theorem The local space of smooth Sasakian structures is given by a real function of two variables.

In essence, the structure theorem says that locally, all Sasakian structures arise as a Kaluza-Klein construction on a line bundle over an open set $`UR^2`$, the real function mentioned above being the conformal factor of the riemann metric on $`U`$, when written in isothermal coordinates. The Sasakian structures are in one to one correspondence with the riemann structures on $`U`$. In addition, all Sasakian $`\eta `$-Einstein structures are found. These include $`S^3`$, $`Nil`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{SL_2R}`$, as well as the Berger spheres. Many of these are examples of Sasakian 3-manifolds with negative scalar curvature.

The main tool used here is the Newman-Penrose-Perjes spin coefficient formalism, details of which can be found in . This technique is also used to show that there are no non-Einstein conformally flat Sasakian 3-manifolds, a theorem first proved by Tanno .

This paper is organized as follows. In the next Section the Newman-Penrose-Perjes formalism for riemannian 3-manifolds is outlined. In Section 3 Sasakian structures are introduced and are characterized in terms of the divergence, shear and twist of the associated geodesic foliation. The main theorem for the moduli space of Sasakian structures is also proven. Section 4 addresses Sasakian $`\eta `$-Einstein metrics and finds that there are three families of these, each with examples of (constant) negative curvature. In Section 5, we give a short proof of the fact that the only conformally flat Sasakian 3-manifolds are of constant curvature.

## II The Newman-Penrose-Perjes Formalism

Let ($`M`$, $`g`$) be a riemannian 3-manifold and consider an orthonormal frame $`\{e_0,e_1,e_2\}`$, and dual basis of 1-forms $`\{\theta ^0,\theta ^1,\theta ^2\}`$. Introduce a complex frame $`\{e_0,e_+,e_{}\}`$ by

$`e_+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(e_1ie_2\right)e_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(e_1+ie_2\right),`$

with dual basis of 1-forms $`\{\theta ^0,\theta ^+,\theta ^{}\}`$.

We define the complex spin coefficients by

$`\gamma _{mnp}=_je_{mi}e_n^ie_p^j,`$

where $``$ is the covariant derivative associated with $`g`$ and the indices $`m`$, $`n`$, $`p`$ range over $`0`$, $`+`$, $``$. Thus

$`\gamma _{mnp}=\gamma _{nmp}.`$

We break covariance and introduce the complex optical scalars

$`\gamma _{+0}=\rho \gamma _{+0+}=\sigma \gamma _+=\tau `$

$`\gamma _{+00}=\kappa \gamma _{+0}=ϵ.`$

Geometrically, $`\kappa =0`$ if and only if $`e_0^i`$ is tangent to a geodesic congruence in $`M`$. The real part of $`\rho `$ measures the divergence, the imaginary part of $`\rho `$ measures the twist and $`|\sigma |`$ measures the shear of the congruence of geodesics.

We introduce the differential operators

$`D=e_0^i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}\delta =e_+^i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}\overline{\delta }=e_{}^i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}},`$

and if $`f`$ is any function, the commutators of these operators work out to be

$`(D\delta \delta D)f=[(\overline{\rho }+ϵ)\delta +\sigma \overline{\delta }+\kappa D]f`$

$`(\delta \overline{\delta }\overline{\delta }\delta )f=[\overline{\tau }\overline{\delta }\tau \delta +(\overline{\rho }\rho )D]f.`$

The components of the Ricci tensor in terms of the spin coefficients are:

$`R_{00}=D\rho +D\overline{\rho }\overline{\delta }\kappa \delta \overline{\kappa }+\tau \kappa +\overline{\tau }\overline{\kappa }2\kappa \overline{\kappa }2\sigma \overline{\sigma }\rho ^2\overline{\rho }^2`$

$`R_{++}=\delta \kappa +D\sigma 2ϵ\sigma \overline{\tau }\kappa \kappa ^2\sigma \overline{\rho }\rho \sigma `$

$`R_{0+}=\overline{\delta }\sigma +\delta \rho +2\tau \sigma +\kappa \rho \kappa \overline{\rho }`$

$`R_0=\overline{\delta }ϵ+D\tau +\kappa \overline{\sigma }\rho \overline{\kappa }+ϵ\tau ϵ\overline{\kappa }+\overline{\tau }\overline{\sigma }\tau \rho `$

$`R_+=\overline{\delta }\kappa +D\rho +\delta \tau +\overline{\delta }\overline{\tau }+ϵ\rho ϵ\overline{\rho }\kappa \overline{\kappa }+\kappa \tau \rho \overline{\rho }\rho ^22\tau \overline{\tau },`$

while the scalar curvature is

$`{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}R=2\delta \overline{\kappa }+2D\overline{\rho }+\delta \tau +\overline{\delta }\overline{\tau }2\kappa \overline{\kappa }+2\overline{\kappa }\overline{\tau }2\overline{\rho }^2\sigma \overline{\sigma }+ϵ\rho ϵ\overline{\rho }\rho \overline{\rho }2\tau \overline{\tau }.`$

In addition, we have the following identities from the symmetries of the curvature tensor

$$D\rho \overline{\delta }\kappa +\kappa \tau \rho ^2=D\overline{\rho }\delta \overline{\kappa }+\overline{\kappa }\overline{\tau }\overline{\rho }^2$$
(1)
$$\delta \overline{\sigma }\overline{\delta }\overline{\rho }\overline{\tau }\overline{\sigma }\overline{\kappa }\overline{\rho }=\overline{\delta }ϵD\tau \kappa \overline{\sigma }ϵ\tau +ϵ\overline{\kappa }+\tau \rho .$$
(2)
and the Bianchi identities

$$DE_{00}+\overline{\delta }E_{0+}+\delta E_0+(\rho +\overline{\rho })(E_+E_{00})+(2\overline{\kappa }\tau )E_{0+}+(2\kappa \overline{\tau })E_0+\overline{\sigma }E_{++}+\sigma E_{}=0$$
(3)
$$DE_{0+}+\overline{\delta }E_{++}+\delta E_++\kappa (E_+E_{00})(ϵ+2\rho +\overline{\rho })E_{0+}\sigma E_0+(\overline{\kappa }2\tau )E_{++}=0$$
(4)
where the energy momentum tensor is defined by $`E_{ij}=R_{ij}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}Rg_{ij}`$.

## III Sasakian Structures

In 1960 Sasaki introduced a type of metric-contact structure which can be thought of as the odd-dimensional version of Kähler geometry. There are many equivalent ways of defining such a structure, and we will adopt the following:

A riemannian manifold ($`M`$, $`g`$) is Sasakian if there exists a unit length Killing vector field $`e_0`$ on $`M`$ so that the riemannian curvature satisfies the condition

$$R(X,e_0)Y=g(e_0,Y)Xg(X,Y)e_0,$$
(5)
for any vector fields $`X`$ and $`Y`$ on $`M`$.

We connect this with the spin coefficients by adapting the frame to the Killing vector in the following:

Proposition 1

A unit length vector $`e_0`$ is a Killing vector on a riemannian 3-manifold if and only if it is tangent to a divergencefree, shearfree congruence. In addition, such a congruence is geodesic.

Proof:

Suppose that $`e_0`$ is a unit Killing vector. That is

$`e_{0i}e_0^i=1_{(i}e_{0j)}=0.`$

The contraction of the second of these says that $`e_0`$ is tangent to a divergencefree congruence. From the definition of the shear, it is clear then that the congruence is shearfree.

Conversely, suppose that the congruence is divergencefree and shearfree. Then, from the definition of the shear

$`0=_{(i}e_{0j)}^{(i}e_0^{j)}.`$

Since $`g`$ is positive definite, we can conclude that $`e_0`$ is a Killing vector field. Finally

$`0=e_0^j_{(j}e_{0i)}=e_0^j_je_{0i}+e_0^j_ie_{0j}=e_0^j_je_{0i},`$

since $`e_0`$ has constant length. Thus the congruence is geodesic. $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 2

A riemannian 3-manifold ($`M`$, $`g`$) is Sasakian if and only if there exists a geodesic congruence which

is divergence-free

is shear-free

has twist equal to one.

Proof:

In the spin coefficient notation adapted to the Killing vector field a Sasakian 3-manifold has $`\kappa =\sigma =0`$, $`\rho =\overline{\rho }`$ and, by a choice of frame, $`ϵ=0`$. By the identity (1) $`D\rho =0`$ and projecting the curvature condition (5) onto the orthonormal frame we find that it reduces to the single condition $`\rho ^2=1`$.

Thus ($`M`$, $`g`$) is Sasakian if and only if it admits a divergencefree, shearfree geodesic of constant twist.

$`\mathrm{}`$

In such a case, writing $`\rho =i`$, we have that

$$R_{00}=2R_0=D\tau \tau iR_+=\delta \tau +\overline{\delta }\overline{\tau }2\tau \overline{\tau }R_{++}=R_{0+}=0$$
(6)
$${\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}R=\delta \tau +\overline{\delta }\overline{\tau }2\tau \overline{\tau }+1.$$
(7)
and the Bianchi identity (3) reduces to

$`D(\delta \tau +\overline{\delta }\overline{\tau }2\tau \overline{\tau })=0.`$

Thus we conclude that $`DR=0`$, that is, the scalar curvature is constant along the geodesic congruences.

The equations then to be solved are

$$D\tau =\tau i$$
(8)
$$\delta \tau +\overline{\delta }\overline{\tau }=2\tau \overline{\tau }1+\frac{1}{2}R$$
(9)
$$D\mathrm{\Omega }=i\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(10)
$$D\xi ^a=i\xi ^a$$
(11)
$$\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\overline{\delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=\overline{\tau }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\tau \mathrm{\Omega }2i$$
(12)
$$\delta \overline{\xi }^a\overline{\delta }\xi ^a=\overline{\tau }\overline{\xi }^a\tau \xi ^a.$$
(13)
The solutions to equations (8), (10) and (11) are

$`\tau =\tau _0e^{ir}`$

$`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0e^{ir}`$

$`\xi ^a=\xi _0^ae^{ir}.`$

where a subscript 0 indicates independance from $`r`$.

We can choose coordinates ($`x^2,x^3`$) so that

$`\xi _0^a=P_0(\delta _2^a+i\delta _3^a),`$

and a frame so that $`P_0`$ is a real non-zero function of ($`x^2,x^3`$). The remaining equations (9), (12) and (13) become

$$2P_0\left[\frac{\tau _0}{\overline{z}}+\frac{\overline{\tau }_0}{z}\right]+(\mathrm{\Omega }_0\tau _0\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0\overline{\tau }_0)i=2\tau _0\overline{\tau }_01+\frac{1}{2}R$$
(14)
$$2P_0\left[\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0}{\overline{z}}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{z}\right]+2\mathrm{\Omega }_0\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0i=\overline{\tau }_0\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0\tau _0\mathrm{\Omega }_02i$$
(15)
$$2\frac{P_0}{\overline{z}}=\overline{\tau }_0\mathrm{\Omega }_0i,$$
(16)
where we have introduced the complex coordinates $`z=x^2+ix^3`$ and $`\overline{z}=x^2ix^3`$ and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x^2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x^2}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^3}}\right).`$

Now, differentiating (16) and using (14) and (15) yields

$$8P_0^2\frac{^2\mathrm{ln}P_0}{z\overline{z}}=1+\frac{1}{2}R.$$
(17)
A relabelling of the rays $`rr^{}=r+f(x^2,x^3)`$ allows us to set the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ to zero. The final equation to be solved (equation (15)) is

$`P_0^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{P_0}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{P_0}}\right)\right]=i`$

or, if ($`x^2=u`$, $`x^3=v`$)

$$P_0^2\frac{}{v}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{P_0}\right)=1.$$
(18)
Thus we have the following local moduli theorem for Sasakian structures:

Theorem 3

For any Sasakian structure on $`R^3`$ there exists local coordinates ($`r,u,v`$) such that the Killing vector is $`\frac{}{r}`$ and the metric is

$`ds^2=[dr+{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P_0^2}}dv.du]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2P_0^2}}[du^2+dv^2],`$

where $`P_0`$ is an arbitrary nowhere zero function of $`u`$ and $`v`$. The arbitrary function of integration can be removed by a relabelling of $`r`$.

The question of uniqueness is dealt with by:

Theorem 4

Two Sasakian structures given by

$`ds^2=[dr+{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P_0^2}}dv.du]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2P_0^2}}[du^2+dv^2]`$

$`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=[d\stackrel{~}{r}+{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{P}_0^2}}d\stackrel{~}{v}.d\stackrel{~}{u}]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{P}_0^2}}[d\stackrel{~}{u}^2+d\stackrel{~}{v}^2],`$

are contact isometric if and only if

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_0^2\left(\frac{dz}{dw}\right)\overline{\left(\frac{dz}{dw}\right)}=P_0^2,$$
(19)
where $`z=u+iv`$ is an analytic function of $`w=\stackrel{~}{u}+i\stackrel{~}{v}`$.

Proof:

Here, two smooth riemannian manifolds ($`M_1`$, $`g_1`$) and ($`M_2`$, $`g_2`$) with contact structures given by contact 1-forms $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$, respectively, are contact isometric if there exists a diffeomorphism $`\varphi :M_1M_2`$ such that $`\varphi ^{}g_2=g_1`$ and $`\varphi ^{}\alpha _2=\alpha _1`$.

Suppose then that the two Sasakian structures are contact isometric. Then

$`dr+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P_0^2}𝑑v}.du=d\stackrel{~}{r}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{P}_0^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{v}}.d\stackrel{~}{u},`$

and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P_0^2}}\left[du^2+dv^2\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{P}_0^2}}\left[d\stackrel{~}{u}^2+d\stackrel{~}{v}^2\right].`$

From these we see that

$`r=\stackrel{~}{r}+f(\stackrel{~}{u},\stackrel{~}{v})u=u(\stackrel{~}{u},\stackrel{~}{v})v=v(\stackrel{~}{u},\stackrel{~}{v}).`$

Moreover, we must have $`z=z(w)`$ where $`z=u+iv`$ is an analytic function of $`w=\stackrel{~}{u}+i\stackrel{~}{v}`$, and $`P_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}_0`$ are related by (19), as required.

Conversely, suppose (19) holds. Then by Theorem 3 there must be a relabelling of the rays $`r=\stackrel{~}{r}+f(w,\overline{w})`$ such that the transformation

$`r=\stackrel{~}{r}+f(w,\overline{w})z=z(w)\overline{z}=\overline{z(w)}`$

takes the first Sasakian structure to the second.

$`\mathrm{}`$

In addition, we have the following

Corollary 5

Given any smooth function $`R`$ of $`u`$ and $`v`$, there exists a Sasakian structure on $`R^3`$ such that $`R`$ is the scalar curvature of the associated metric.

Proof:

By a theorem of Kazdan and Warner , equation (17) has a non-zero solution $`P_0`$ for a given smooth function $`R(u,v)`$. Then, integrating equation (18) gives the required Sasakian structure.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## IV  Sasakian $`\eta `$-Einstein Structures

A Sasakian structure is said to be $`\eta `$-Einstein if there exist constants $`a`$ and $`b`$ such that

$$R_{ij}=ag_{ij}+b\eta _i\eta _j,$$
(20)
where $`\eta `$ is the 1-form associated with the unit Killing vector. For such a structure on a 3-manifold the scalar curvature is constant

$`R=3a+b.`$

Indeed, it is not hard to see that a constant scalar curvature Sasakian 3-manifold must be $`\eta `$-Einstein. Projecting (20) onto the Killing vector direction, using equation (6), we find that $`a+b=2`$, and so $`R=2(a+1)`$.

The Tanaka-Webster curvature of a Sasakian structure on a 3-manifold is given by

$`W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(R+2),`$

and so a constant scalar curvature Sasakian 3-manifold has constant Tanaka-Webster curvature. For a Sasakian $`\eta `$-Einstein manifold this simplifies to

$`W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a+2).`$

In order to find all such structures we start with equation (17):

$$4P_0^2\frac{^2\mathrm{ln}P_0}{z\overline{z}}=W.$$
(21)
To solve this, we need to consider the cases $`W>0`$, $`W=0`$ and $`W<0`$ separately.

### A Sasakian structures with constant $`W>0`$

In an appropriate coordinate system, the solution to (21) is

$`P_0=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{W}(1+z\overline{z}),`$

while equation (18) yields

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{v}{1+u^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+u^2+v^2)}{(1+u^2)^{3/2}}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{\sqrt{1+u^2}}}\right)\right].`$

In fact, the metric can be much simplified by the transformation ($`r,u,v`$)$``$($`\rho ,\theta ,\varphi `$) to Euler coordinates given by

$`r={\displaystyle \frac{\rho +\varphi }{W}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{tan}({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\theta }{2}})}{W\sqrt{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{tan}^2({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\theta }{2}}})}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{tan}({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\theta }{2}})}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{tan}^2({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\theta }{2}})}}}\right]`$

$`u=\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{tan}({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\theta }{2}})`$

$`v=\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{tan}({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\theta }{2}}).`$

The metric reduces to the form:

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2W}}\left[d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{W}}(d\rho +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi )^2\right],`$

and the contact 1-form becomes:

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{W}}(d\rho +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi ).`$

The special case $`W=2`$ gives the standard Sasakian structure associated with the round metric on $`S^3`$ (see ), while for $`W2`$ the metric is not Einstein. Remarkably, for $`0<W<2`$ the metric is homothetic to the Berger sphere . This metric can be obtained from the round metric on $`S^3`$ by deforming the metric along the fibres of the Hopf fibering, which form the shearfree geodesic congruences. This is an Einstein-Weyl space and the Weyl 1-form is just a constant multiple of the contact 1-form $`\alpha `$.

### B Sasakian structures with $`W=0`$

In this case, the solution to (21) can be set to

$`P_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},`$

while equation (18) yields

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\sqrt{2}v.`$

Thus the metric is

$`ds^2=\left[dr+2vdu\right]^2+du^2+dv^2.`$

which has negative scalar curvature $`R=2`$. This is homothetic to the standard Sasakian structure on the 3-manifold $`Nil`$.

### C Sasakian structures with constant $`W<0`$

An appropriate choice of coordinate gives the solution to (21) as

$`P_0=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{W}(1z\overline{z}),`$

while equation (18) now yields

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{v}{1u^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1u^2v^2)}{(1u^2)^{3/2}}}\mathrm{tanh}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{\sqrt{1u^2}}}\right)\right].`$

The metric can be much simplified by the transformation ($`r,u,v`$)$``$($`\rho ,\theta ,\varphi `$) given by

$`r={\displaystyle \frac{\rho +\varphi }{W}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{tanh}({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\theta }{2}})}{W\sqrt{1\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{tanh}^2({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\theta }{2}}})}}\mathrm{tanh}^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{tanh}({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\theta }{2}})}{\sqrt{1\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{tanh}^2({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\theta }{2}})}}}\right]`$

$`u=\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{tanh}({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\theta }{2}})`$

$`v=\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{tanh}({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\theta }{2}}).`$

The metric reduces to the form:

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2W}}\left[d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta d\varphi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{W}}(d\rho +\mathrm{cosh}\theta d\varphi )^2\right],`$

and the contact 1-form becomes:

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{W}}(d\rho +\mathrm{cosh}\theta d\varphi ).`$

For $`W=2`$ this is the locally homogenous metric on $`\stackrel{~}{SL_2R}`$

## V Conformally Flat Sasakian Structures

In this section we prove the following theorem:

Theorem 6

A conformally flat Sasakian 3-manifold is covered by $`S^3`$ with the standard structure.

Proof:

A metric is conformally flat in three dimensions iff the Weyl-Schouten tensor vanishes:

$$_{[i}C_{j]k}=0,$$
(22)
where

$`C_{ij}=R_{ij}\frac{1}{4}Rg_{ij}.`$

For a Sasakian structure the non-zero components of $`C_{ij}`$ are

$`C_{00}=\frac{1}{2}(\delta \tau +\overline{\delta }\overline{\tau }2\tau \overline{\tau }3)`$

$`C_+=\frac{1}{2}(\delta \tau +\overline{\delta }\overline{\tau }2\tau \overline{\tau }1).`$

Projecting equation (22) onto the frame adapted to the Sasakian structure we find that

$`\delta C_{00}=0`$

$`C_{00}C_+=0`$

$`DC_++2i(C_{00}C_+)=0`$

$`\delta C_+=0.`$

From these we conclude that $`C_{00}=C_+=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`R=6`$ and finally

$`R_{ij}=\frac{1}{3}Rg_{ij}.`$

Thus, the metric is Einstein. Geiges  has shown that if the manifold is closed then it is diffeomorphic to $`S^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If it is open it has been shown  that it is locally covered by $`S^3`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## VI Remarks

Consider a closed 3-manifold $`M`$ with a regular Sasakian structure, that is, the integral curves of the Killing vector $`e_0`$ are generated by a free $`S^1`$ action on $`M`$. Then $`M`$ fibres over a riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Since $`e_0`$ is Killing, the metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is just the induced metric from $`M`$, while the contact form $`\theta ^0`$ is a connection in the principal bunble $`M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The curvature of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the Tanaka-Webster curvature $`W`$, so the Euler characteristic of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is

$`\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}W𝑑A`$

On the other hand the Euler number of the bundle can be defined in terms of the curvature of the connection $`\theta ^0`$

$`e={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}F={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝑑\theta ^0=\lambda {\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\theta ^1\theta ^20`$

Amongst the eight locally homogenous geometries, the ones that can admit Sasakian structures are seifert fibred spaces with $`e0`$, which turn out to be

| Euler Characteristic | $`\chi >0`$ | $`\chi =0`$ | $`\chi <0`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Manifold | $`S^3`$ | $`Nil`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{SL_2R}`$ |

Theorems 3 and 4 essentially say that, locally, all Sasakian structures come from a line bundle over a riemann surface (a Kaluza-Klein construction) and that the moduli space of such structures corresponds to the riemann structure on the surface. When $`W`$ is constant we have found the complete set of Sasakian structures which includes the three locally homogenous geometries as listed above. In addition, we have found many examples of Sasakian structures with negative scalar curvature:

Sasakian $`\eta `$-Einstein 3-manifolds
$`R>0`$ $`R=0`$ $`R<0`$    $`W>0`$ $`W>{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`W={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`0<W<{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}`$  $`W=0`$ None None All  $`W<0`$ None None All

Finally, the function $`P_0`$ is related to the recently discovered  Sasakian potential $`K`$ by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P_0^2}}=4{\displaystyle \frac{K}{z\overline{z}}},`$

although we have used different coordinate conditions for the description of the contact 1-form.