text:
# Effective theory of systems coupled strongly to rapidly-varying external sources.

## I Introduction

The study of quantum systems which interact strongly with their environment often presents serious challenges due to the possibility that these interactions cannot be neglected and, in addition, also vary rapidly and randomly with time . The effects of such external fields is often unavoidable and interesting and can lead to unexpected phenomena such as, for example, those studied under the blanket term of stochastic resonances . In this paper we will study one subset of such systems.

We will assume that the interactions with the environment are described by a time-dependent contribution to the Hamiltonian denoted by $`H^{}(t)`$ which cannot be treated perturbatively. In analogy with a similar problem in mechanics  we will assume self-consistently that the states of the system can be decomposed into a sum of slowly varying modes and high-frequency components of small amplitude. Using this decomposition we will show that the time evolution of the slow modes is determined by an effective Hamiltonian which, to leading order, depends quadratically on the external interaction $`H^{}`$. The formalism assumes that the time scales associated with the interactions with the environment are much shorter than all other frequencies in the problem. Denoting by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ a typical frequency of the interaction $`H^{}`$, we will obtain a solution to Schrödinger’s equation as a series in $`1/\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The effective Hamiltonian describes the average time evolution of the system and can exhibit resonances under some special circumstances which will be illustrated using simple examples. It is also worth noting that the same formalism can be applied to any system evolving according to a Schrödinger-like equation assuming that the operators corresponding to the Hamiltonian contain terms which vary rapidly in the evolution parameter. We also provide examples of this type of generalization: using geometrical optics we study light-ray propagation in a random media, and, we determine the effects of a time-independent potential which varies rapidly with position on the wave functions of a non-relativistic particle.

The paper is organized as follows: in section II we give a description of the formalism and find the effective Hamiltonian that will be used in the applications. The behavior of the effective Hamiltonian under unitary transformations is studied in section III; the formalism is then applied to various illustrative examples in section IV. In section V we give an alternative view of the problem in terms of the Fokker-Planck equation and the results are then compared and contrasted with the formalism used in deriving the standard stochastic resonances (section VI). Paring comments and conclusions are presented in section VII. Finally, a mathematical detail is relegated to the appendix.

## II Quantum systems with rapidly-varying external fields

We consider a generic quantum system with a Hamiltonian of the form

$$H=H_0+H^{},$$
(1)
where $`H^{}`$ is time dependent with characteristic frequencies assumed larger than all the other energy scales in the system (we take units where $`\mathrm{}=1`$). In general we will also allow $`H_0`$ to vary with time, but with the restriction that the time scale(s) associated with $`H_0`$ are much smaller than those associated with the time variation of $`H^{}`$. In addition we assume that $`H^{}`$ is larger than $`H_0`$ so that, symbolically

$$H_0,\dot{H}_0/H_0<H^{}<\dot{H}^{}/H^{}.$$
(2)
More specifically we assume that $`H^{}`$ admits a Fourier expansion of the type

$$H^{}=\underset{|\omega |>\mathrm{\Omega }}{}H_\omega e^{i\omega t},$$
(3)
where the sum is over a set of frequencies $`\{\omega \}`$ such that the differences also obey $`|\omega \omega ^{}|\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In general we will allow the Fourier coefficients $`H_\omega `$ to be time-dependent, but, as for $`H_0`$, we assume that the corresponding frequencies are small compared to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Henceforth “slow” will mean “of frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$”.

In solving the Schrödinger equation for such a system we will assume that the wave function can be separated into a slowly varying piece $`\psi `$ and a rapidly varying (frequency $`>\mathrm{\Omega }`$) “ripple” $`\chi `$ of small amplitude,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{\mathrm{slow}}{\underset{}{\psi }}+\underset{\mathrm{fast}}{\underset{}{\chi }}.$$
(4)
We will then match slow and fast terms, noting that even though $`|\chi |`$ is small, $`\dot{\chi }`$ can be large.

We will assume that all quantities can be written as the sum of a slowly varying piece (containing frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) and a fast piece (in special cases one or the other may vanish). It then proves convenient to introduce the following notation: for any quantity $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$

$`\mathrm{\Xi }:`$ $`\text{slow part of }\mathrm{\Xi }.`$ (5)
For example, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi `$, $`H=H_0`$, $`H^{}=0`$.

To solve Schrödinger’s equation for this class of systems we consider a typical term in (3) and define the expansion parameter

$$\eta \frac{|H_\omega |}{\mathrm{\Omega }}$$
(6)
(alternatively $`\eta |𝑑tH^{}|`$); the previous restrictions imply that $`\eta <1`$. We will now assume that the wave function has an expansion in powers of $`\eta `$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi +\chi _1+\chi _2+\mathrm{},\chi _n\eta ^n.$$
(7)
This expansion is useful for $`n1/\eta `$, beyond this order we typically obtain $`n`$fold products of slowly varying quantities which can generate terms with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the separation between slowly and rapidly varying terms cannot be maintained. These effects are, however, subdominant since their amplitude are suppressed by a small factor $`\eta ^n1`$.

Substituting $`H`$ from (1) and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ from (4) in Schrödinger’s equation

$$H\mathrm{\Psi }=i\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }},$$
(8)
we find, to lowest order in $`1/\mathrm{\Omega }`$

$$i\dot{\psi }+i\dot{\chi }_1+O(\mathrm{\Omega }\eta ^2)=H_0\psi +H^{}\psi +O(H_0\eta ,\mathrm{\Omega }\eta ^2),$$
(9)
whence

$$i\dot{\chi }_1=H^{}\psi ,i\dot{\psi }=H_0\psi .$$
(10)
Since $`\psi `$ is slowly varying, the first equation can be solved to this order in $`\eta `$ by taking $`\psi `$ constant, namely,

$$\chi _1=𝒰\psi ;𝒰=\left(\frac{1}{i}𝑑tH^{}\right)=\underset{|\omega |>\mathrm{\Omega }}{}\frac{1}{\omega }H_\omega e^{i\omega t}.$$
(11)
To the next order we write

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi +𝒰\psi +\chi _2+O(\eta ^3),$$
(12)
and obtain

$$i\dot{\psi }+i𝒰\dot{\psi }+i\dot{\chi }_2=H_0\psi +H_0𝒰\psi +H^{}𝒰\psi +O(\mathrm{\Omega }\eta ^3,H_0\eta ^2).$$
(13)
Note that $`H^{}𝒰`$ contains both slow and fast terms. Using the notation (5) we find

$`i\dot{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(H_0+H^{}𝒰\right)\psi ,`$ (14)
$`i\dot{\chi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left([H_0,𝒰]+H^{}𝒰H^{}𝒰\right)\psi ,`$ (15)
where the second equation can be solved (to the present order in $`\eta `$) by neglecting the time variation in $`H_0`$ and $`\psi `$.

To this order the average wave function then obeys a Schrödinger-like equation with an effective Hamiltonian

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=H_0+H^{}𝒰.$$
(16)
It is easy to see that to this order in $`\eta `$ $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is Hermitian, however, to order $`\eta ^2`$ we find

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=H_0+H^{}𝒰𝒰\left([H_0,𝒰]+H^{}𝒰\right),$$
(17)
which is not Hermitian:

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`H^{}𝒰+𝒰H^{}+[𝒰^2,H_0]+\mathrm{}.`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`i_t𝒰^2+[𝒰^2,H_0]+\mathrm{}`$ (19)
and equals, to this order the total time derivative of the operator $`𝒰^2`$. This property corresponds to the fact that there is some probability “leakage” of order $`\eta ^2`$ from the slowly varying part of the wave function to the rapidly varying ripple. This is to be expected since $`|\chi |^2=O(\eta ^2)`$ and is non-zero in general.

The non-Hermiticity of the effective Hamiltonian for the slowly varying modes frequently appears in expansions similar to the one considered here  ***In  a non-Hermitian term was found already in the first order, the discrepancy between this result and the one obtained here is due to different assumptions concerning the time-dependence and magnitude of the various terms in the Hamiltonian, leading to different expansion parameters.. This result can be better understood by considering the behavior of the above expansion under unitary transformations to which we now turn.

## III Unitary transformations

In this section we determine the behavior of the effective Hamiltonian (17) under unitary transformations. We show below that the non-Hermitian piece in (17) is modified under such transformations and, in fact, can be completely eliminated.

For the case of a constant transformation, $`\mathrm{\Psi }𝒞\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with $`\dot{𝒞}=0`$ it is clear that $`H𝒞^{}H𝒞`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}𝒞^{}H_{\mathrm{eff}}𝒞`$. If the unitary transformation is time-dependent, however, the result is more complicated. We will concentrate on transformations of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=e^F\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }},$$
(20)
where $`F`$ is anti-Hermitian, rapidly varying, and of order $`\eta `$. The Hamiltonian for the transformed states $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`e^FHe^Fie^F_te^F`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`H+[H,F]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[[H,F],F]i\dot{F}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\dot{F},F]{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6}}[[\dot{F},F],F]+O(\eta ^3).`$ (22)
A tedious repetition of the procedure outlined in section II gives the following expression for the corresponding effective Hamiltonian

$`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+H^{}𝒰+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_tF(F2𝒰)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[H_0,[F,𝒰]]`$ (24)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[[H_0,𝒰],𝒰]𝒰H^{}𝒰{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[H_0,(F𝒰)^2]+O(H_0\eta ^3,\mathrm{\Omega }\eta ^4).`$
For a general choice of $`F`$ this expression is still non-Hermitian. However for the special case

$$F=𝒰+O(\eta ^2),$$
(25)
we obtain

$`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[H^{},𝒰]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[[H_0,𝒰],𝒰]𝒰H^{}𝒰+O(H_0\eta ^3,\mathrm{\Omega }\eta ^4),`$ (26)
which is explicitly Hermitian and, in fact, it is identical to the Hermitian part of (17). It is, of course, always possible to return to the original frame using $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{exp}(𝒰+\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

The wave function in the new frame, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$, has an expansion similar to (7)

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\widehat{\psi }+\widehat{\chi }_1+\widehat{\chi }_2+\mathrm{},\widehat{\chi }_n\eta ^n,$$
(27)
where the slowly varying piece $`\widehat{\psi }`$ evolves unitarily in time since (26) is Hermitian (at least to order $`\eta ^2`$). Using (11) we find

$`\widehat{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒰^2\right)\psi +O(\eta ^3),`$ (28)
$`\widehat{\chi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (29)
The $`O(\eta ^2)`$ difference between $`\psi `$ and $`\widehat{\psi }`$ quantifies the probability leak into the rapidly varying sector for the original frame. The second order term in the wave function $`\widehat{\chi }_2`$ cannot be determined without a specific choice for the $`O(\eta ^2)`$ terms in $`F`$. The specific form of the relation between $`\widehat{\psi }`$ and $`\psi `$ can also be understood form the expression for the non-Hermitian part of the effective Hamiltonian obtained in (19).

We conjecture that this procedure can be carried order-by-order in $`\eta `$, but since we will not need these higher order corrections we will not pursue this further. The expression (26) is the form of the effective Hamiltonian which will be used in the following examples.

## IV Examples

The previous results can be applied to a variety of systems. In this section we will consider 5 such examples. Our main concern will be to illustrate a wide range of systems that can be studied using the above formalism

### A $`N`$-level quantum systems

In this section we consider a quantum system with a finite number of states. This serves, for example, as a model for spin or flavor changes in elementary particles; it also describes the basic physics of nuclear magnetic resonance and related phenomena. The most general Hamiltonian for these systems can be expanded in terms of the generators of $`SU(N)`$ which we denote by $`\{\lambda ^a\}`$ and which satisfy

$$[\lambda ^a,\lambda ^b]=iC_{abc}\lambda ^c.$$
(30)
We can then write

$$H_0=\underset{a}{}f^a\lambda ^a,H_\omega =\underset{a}{}g_\omega ^a,\lambda ^a$$
(31)
where $`H_\omega `$ are the Fourier coefficients of the rapidly-varying Hamiltonian (see (3)). Note that $`g_\omega ^a{}_{}{}^{}=g_\omega ^a`$ since $`H^{}`$ is Hermitian.

Substituting in (26) we find

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\phi ^a\lambda _a,`$ (32)
$`\phi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`f^ai{\displaystyle \underset{|\omega |>\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\omega ^c{}_{}{}^{}g_{\omega }^{b}}{2\omega }}C_{abc}+{\displaystyle \underset{|\omega |>\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^dg_\omega ^c{}_{}{}^{}g_{\omega }^{b}}{2\omega ^2}}C_{dbe}C_{eca}+{\displaystyle \underset{|\omega |,|\omega ^{}|>\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\omega ^bg_\omega ^{}^cg_{\omega +\omega ^{}}^d^{}}{3\omega ^{}(\omega +\omega ^{})}}C_{dbe}C_{eca}+\mathrm{},`$ (33)
where the ellipsis denote higher order terms in $`\eta `$.

For the particularly simple case of a two-level system with $`C_{abc}=2ϵ_{abc}`$ and $`\lambda _a=\sigma _a`$ (the usual Pauli matrices) this reduces to

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\left(𝐟\underset{|\omega |>\mathrm{\Omega }}{}\frac{𝐠_\omega \times 𝐠_\omega ^{}}{\omega }+\mathrm{}\right)\sigma \sigma \sigma .$$
(34)
It is clear that there is the possibility for the $`H^{}`$-induced terms to generate resonances if we allow the $`f^a`$ to vary slowly in time. To see this explicitly we consider (34) taking for simplicity $`f^2=g_\omega ^3=0`$, and $`f_1=`$constant. Substituting we find

$`\phi _1=f^1,\phi _2=0,\phi _3=f^3E^{}+O(1/\mathrm{\Omega }^2),`$ (35)
where

$$E^{}=2\underset{|\omega |>\mathrm{\Omega }}{}\frac{1}{\omega }\text{Im}g_\omega ^2{}_{}{}^{}g_{\omega }^{1}.$$
(36)
If $`f^3`$ is allowed to vary slowly with time the effective Hamiltonian will exhibit a resonance when $`f^3=E^{}`$ if $`|E^{}||f^2|`$. This resonance will lead to large transition amplitude provided $`f^3`$ varies sufficiently slowly: $`|f^2|\sqrt{|\dot{f}^3|}`$ (which is the usual adiabatic resonance condition ). A specific example is presented in fig. 1.

In fig. 1 we also compare the results obtained using the effective Hamiltonian (34) to those obtained solving the Schrödinger equation exactly with initial conditions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t=0)=\psi (t=0)=1`$. It can be seen that the solutions obtained using $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ do indeed describe the average behavior of the wave-function provided $`\eta `$ is sufficiently small. We conclude that, at least for the case of a 2-level system, the effective Hamiltonian (26) accurately describes the average evolution of the system.

The presence of noise (i.e., $`H^{}`$) can then generate unexpected resonances. The condition for these to occur is, qualitatively,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }H_0H^{}{}_{}{}^{2};$$
(37)
we will see later that these resonances are related, but not identical, to the well-studied stochastic resonances .

### B $`\delta `$-function comb

A simple model where the above formalism can be applied and which is also exactly solvable is provided by a 2-level system with Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{n}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\delta (tt_inT);0<t_i<T,$$
(38)
where the matrices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ are Hermitian. This represents a set of $`N`$ $`\delta `$ functions which repeats with period $`T`$. This type of potential is of interest in signal processing  and is also similar to the one used in the study the effect of a laser beam on a set of charged particles .

For simplicity we will assume

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \lambda _i\\ \lambda _i^{}& 0\end{array}\right);\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\lambda _i=0,$$
(39)
in this case $`H_0=0,`$ so that $`H=H^{}`$, we will also take $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi /T`$.

In order to obtain the effective Hamiltonian we first construct

$$i_0^t𝑑tH^{}=i\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{\Theta }(tt_i),(0<t<T),$$
(40)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denotes the step function. $`𝒰`$ is then the fast part of this quantity,

$$𝒰=i_0^tH^{}+i_0^tH^{}=i\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\left[\mathrm{\Theta }(tt_i)1+\frac{t_i}{T}\right],(0<t<T),$$
(41)
where the slow part of a quantity is obtained by averaging over the period $`T`$.

Using then (39) and substituting in (26) we easily find

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[H^{},𝒰]+\mathrm{}`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i>j}{}}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\lambda _i\lambda _j^{}\right]\sigma _3+\mathrm{}.`$ (43)
For this system we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }1/T`$ so that $`\eta =\text{max}\{|\lambda _i|\}`$; it then follows that (43) will be accurate provided $`|\lambda _i|1`$.

This model can be solved exactly by elementary means. Replacing $`\delta (tt_inT)`$ by a rectangle of height $`1/\tau `$ and width $`\tau `$ centered at $`t=t_i+nT`$ it is easy to see that in the limit $`\tau 0`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t_i^+)=e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}\mathrm{\Psi }(t_i^{}),$$
(44)
where $`t_i^\pm =t_i\pm \delta ,\delta 0`$. It follows that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(T)=e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N1}}\mathrm{}e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}\mathrm{\Psi }(0).$$
(45)
In the limit where the $`\lambda _i`$ are small we obtain

$`e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N1}}\mathrm{}e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i>j}{}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_j]+\mathrm{}\right]`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[iTH_{\mathrm{eff}}+\mathrm{}\right]`$ (47)
which shows that, at least for small $`\lambda _i,`$ $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ determines the leading contributions to the average time evolution of the wave function.

### C Geometrical Optics example

The calculations in the previous sections referred to quantum systems, but it clear that any system whose dynamical equations can be cast into a Schrödinger-like form can be treated in the same way. In particular for this general case there is no need to require $`H`$ to be a Hermitian operator.

An example of this situation is provided by the description of light-ray evolution within geometrical optics . For small angles the position and direction of light ray within geometrical optics can be described using a two-component vector

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}h\\ \alpha \end{array}\right),$$
(48)
where $`h`$ denotes the height with respect to a reference line and $`\alpha `$ the tilt (assumed to be small). Any transformation of a light ray can be described using a $`2\times 2`$ matrix . In particular

$`\text{translation}:`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& x\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (49)
$`\text{refraction}:`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ (n_1/n_21)/R& n_1/n_2\end{array}\right),`$ (50)
where the translation is by a distance $`x`$ and the refraction is from a medium of refraction index $`n_1`$ to another with index $`n_2`$ and $`R`$ denotes the radius curvature of the interface.

We now assume that $`R`$ and the index of refraction change smoothly though rapidly with distance. We define

$$\nu =\frac{1}{n}\frac{dn}{dx},$$
(51)
so that the general matrix which transports a ray by a distance $`\delta x`$ is

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ \zeta ^{}& \nu \end{array}\right).$$
(52)
where primes denote $`x`$ derivatives and

$$\zeta =𝑑x\frac{\nu }{R}$$
(53)
The system then corresponds to a two-level quantum system with “time” $`x`$ and “Hamiltonian” $`H=iM`$. A simple application of (16) yields

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ K^2& 0\end{array}\right),K^2=\zeta ^{}(\mathrm{ln}n)=+\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{ln}n)^2(1/R)^{},$$
(54)
where we assumed $`\zeta ^{}=\nu =0`$ and we kept only the first corrections induced by the rapidly varying terms The second expression for $`K^2`$ follows from $`2\nu (\mathrm{ln}n)/R=(1/R)^{}(\mathrm{ln}n)^2[(\mathrm{ln}n)^2/R]^{}`$ and $`[(\mathrm{ln}n)^2/R]^{}=0`$ to first order in the rapidly varying quantities.. Note that $`K^2`$ can be negative and that it vanishes (at least to lowest order) when $`R`$ or $`n`$ are constant.

The effective operator which determines the translation over a finite distance $`X`$ is then (assuming for simplicity that $`K`$ is position independent)

$$A=e^{iXH_{\mathrm{eff}}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}(KX)& (1/K)\mathrm{sinh}(KX)\\ K\mathrm{sinh}(KX)& \mathrm{cosh}(KX)\end{array}\right)$$
(55)
(the $`K^2<0`$ case is obtained by analytic continuation). This matrix is equivalent to a thick symmetric lens with radius of curvature $`\overline{R}`$ and thickness $`\overline{d}`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{\overline{R}}=\frac{K}{1\overline{n}}\mathrm{tanh}(KX/2)\overline{d}=\frac{\overline{n}}{K}\mathrm{sinh}(KX),$$
(56)
where $`\overline{n}`$ denotes the index of the lens material.

Thus, within the approximations inherent to geometrical optics, the effects of a region of rapidly varying index of refraction and curvature on light rays are equivalent, on average to those of a thick lens of appropriately chosen characteristics. For example, using a thick lens with a high index of refraction, $`\overline{n}1`$ we find

$$K|K|=\frac{2\overline{n}^2}{\overline{R}\overline{d}}.$$
(57)
Conversely, a thick lens can be found which completely cancels the effects of $`A`$ and this can be used to measure the fluctuations in the original system (more specifically, those fluctuations which contribute to $`\zeta `$).

The above expressions suffer corrections form higher-order terms in the expansion in powers of $`\eta `$. Using (17As mentioned previously there is no reason to demand Hermiticity in the effective Hamiltonian for this case we find that the next-order term in (54) is

$$i\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ k^2& 0\end{array}\right),k^2=\zeta ^2\zeta ^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}n\left[\mathrm{ln}n\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}n\right]\zeta ^{},$$
(58)
where we assumed for simplicity that $`(\mathrm{ln}n\mathrm{ln}n)\zeta `$ and $`[\mathrm{ln}n\mathrm{ln}n]^2`$ are independent of $`x`$ (in general the averaged quantities may still vary slowly with $`x`$). The second order correction is negligible provided $`|K^2||k^2|`$.

In addition there are deviations form these predications due to the inherent limitations of geometrical optics (for example, it is assumed the light rays lie on a plane, diffraction is neglected, etc.). In neglecting them we have tacitly assumed that the scale of all fluctuations is large compared to the wavelength and that all reflection and refraction angles are small.

### D The noisy Jaynes-Cummings model

In this example we consider a simplified version of an atom interacting with a photon field, as described by the Jaynes-Cummings model , with the addition of two types of interaction with an external rapidly varying fields. We will show that this problem is also well suited for study using the techniques introduced above. We first assume that the external field are coupled to the photons, and then directly to the atoms. We then show that both situations are unitarily equivalent.

The unperturbed Hamiltonian for this model is

$$H_0=\omega _0a^{}a+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_0(a^{}\sigma _{}+a\sigma _+)+ϵ\sigma _3.$$
(59)
Denoting by $`|n;`$ and $`|n;`$ the states with $`n`$ photons and atomic spin up and down respectively, the eigenstates of $`H_0`$ are

$`|n\pm `$ $`=`$ $`c_n|n;\pm \text{sign}(\kappa )c_{n\pm }|n1;,`$ (60)
$`c_{n\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+n\kappa ^2}}}\right);\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{2ϵ\omega _0}},`$ (61)
with energies

$$E_{n\pm }=\left(n\frac{1}{2}\right)\omega _0\pm \left|ϵ\frac{1}{2}\omega _0\right|\sqrt{1+n\kappa ^2}.$$
(62)
#### a Noisy photon field

We will now couple the photons to external sources which vary rapidly with time. The interaction Hamiltonian is assumed to be

$$H^{}=\xi a^{}+\xi ^{}a.$$
(63)
Substituting (59) and (63) in (26) yields

$$\widehat{H_{\mathrm{eff}}}=H_0+\omega _0|\theta |^2\text{Im}\theta ^{}\dot{\theta }+O(\eta ^3);\xi =i\dot{\theta }.$$
(64)
The difference between $`\widehat{H_{\mathrm{eff}}}`$ and $`H_0`$ is, in this case, trivial and can be eliminated by a simple change in the overall phase of the states.

Non-trivial terms may arise at higher orders but this would require calculating the (Hermitian version of the) effective Hamiltonian to order $`\eta ^3`$. Instead of following this uninspiring approach we consider a different way of introducing the interaction with the external fields and then show that the corresponding effective operator corresponds to the order $`\eta ^3`$ contribution generated by (63). To this end we first consider a unitary transformation of the form

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[a^{}\zeta (t)a\zeta ^{}(t)\right];i\dot{\zeta }\omega _0\zeta +\xi =0.`$ (65)
Then the transformed Hamiltonian is

$`H_{\mathrm{new}}`$ $`=`$ $`S(H_0+H^{})S^{}+i\dot{S}S^{}`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`H_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_0\left(\sigma _{}\zeta ^{}+\sigma _+\zeta \right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Im}(\zeta ^{}\dot{\zeta })\omega _0|\zeta |^2`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`H_0+H_{\mathrm{new}}^{},`$ (68)
which defines $`H_{\mathrm{new}}^{}`$. This shows that the original system is equivalent to one where the external sources are coupled directly to the spin of the atoms through $`\zeta `$. From its definition it can be seen that $`\zeta `$ is of order $`\eta `$ so that, substituting $`H_{\mathrm{new}}^{}`$ in (16), gives the effective Hamiltonian up to and including terms of order $`\eta \zeta ^2\eta ^3`$. The effects of this type of interaction are considered in the next paragraph.

#### b Noisy spin interaction

We now consider

$$H^{}=\zeta \sigma _++\zeta ^{}\sigma _{},$$
(69)
which to lowest order (using (16)) gives

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=H_0\text{Im}\vartheta ^{}\dot{\vartheta }\sigma _3;\zeta =i\dot{\vartheta },$$
(70)
corresponding to the non-trivial replacement

$$ϵϵ_{\mathrm{eff}}=ϵ\text{Im}\vartheta ^{}\dot{\vartheta }.$$
(71)
This replacement also describes the leading (average) effect of (63) provided we identify $`\xi =\ddot{\vartheta }[1+O(\eta )]`$. If $`\xi \eta ^0`$ then the modification is indeed of order $`\eta ^3`$. In order to go back to the original problem we act with $`S`$ on the states.

The effects of the external sources is, to lowest order, summarized by the simple shift (71) which corresponds to a change in the energy gap between the two spin states of the “atom” of this model. In particular, for noise of sufficiently large amplitude, we can have $`ϵ_{\mathrm{eff}}=\omega _0/2`$ in which case the Rabi frequency vanishes, $`E_{n+}=E_n`$ and photon number is conserved.

The shift in $`ϵ`$ can also lead to resonant behavior between states of different $`n`$. For example the energies for the states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ are equal provided

$$ϵ_{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{1}{2}\omega _0=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}{8\omega _0}\pm \frac{1}{2}\omega _0$$
(72)
which has a solution only for $`0<\omega _0/\mathrm{\Omega }_01/2`$.

These results are reliable provided $`\eta 1`$ which corresponds to $`|\vartheta |1`$ and $`|\omega _0|,|\mathrm{\Omega }_0|,|ϵ|\mathrm{\Omega }`$. As in the two level system resonances occur when $`|H_0|/\mathrm{\Omega }\eta ^2`$.

### E Quantum system in an inhomogeneous potential

The ideas presented in the previous sections can be translated to the case of a particle whose Hamiltonian is of the form

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}^2+V_0+V_1,$$
(73)
where $`V_1`$ varies rapidly with position. For this case we consider the time-independent Schrödinger equation $`H\mathrm{\Psi }=E\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and look for solutions $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi +\chi `$ where $`\chi `$ is of small amplitude but exhibits rapid variation in position while $`\psi `$ is slowly varying and of large amplitude. Substituting this Ansatz we find

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}^2+V_0\right)\psi `$ $``$ $`E\psi V_1\chi ,`$ (74)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}^2\chi `$ $``$ $`V_1\psi `$ (75)
which can be solved to lowest order giving

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`E\psi ,`$ (76)
$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}^2+V_0+V_1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{^2}}V_1.`$ (77)
In this case, for any quantity $`A`$, $`A`$ denotes the part of $`A`$ (if any) which varies slowly with position.

In one dimension the same result can be obtained by converting the time-independent Schrödinger’s equation to a first order equation for the vector $`(\mathrm{\Psi },id\mathrm{\Psi }/dx)`$ and substituting in (26) or (17), and using $`x`$ as the evolution parameter.

The additional term in $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is negative definite and will tend to bind the particle. In particular, taking $`V_0=0`$ and assuming $`V_1`$ vanishes at infinity the effective Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ will always exhibit a bound state (of zero angular momentum) in $`2`$ dimensions, that is, in $`2`$ dimensions a rapidly varying potential of zero average will always exhibit localized states. The same is true in higher dimensions provided the amplitude of $`V_1`$ is large enough

## V Probabilistic considerations

In this section we provide an alternative view of the problem using the Fokker-Plank equation. For simplicity we consider the case of a two-level system with Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+H^{},`$ (78)
$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}f^a\sigma _a,`$ (79)
$`H^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}G^a\sigma _a,`$ (80)
where $`\{G^a\}`$ are stochastic variables whose probability function will be described below.

We will study the Fokker-Plank for the polarization vector $`\psi ^{}\sigma \sigma \sigma \psi `$ whose probability density is given by

$$𝒫(𝐫,t)=\delta ^{(3)}\left(\psi ^{}(t)\sigma \sigma \sigma \psi (t)𝐫\right)_G,$$
(81)
where the symbol $`\mathrm{}_G`$ denotes the average over the stochastic variables $`G^a`$. In terms of a functional integral we will use

$`A_G={\displaystyle \underset{a}{}[dG^a]A\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}𝑑t𝑑t^{}\underset{ab}{}G^a(t)𝒦_{ab}(t,t^{})G^b(t^{})\right\}},`$ (82)
with $`𝒦`$ symmetric ($`𝒦_{ab}(t,t^{})=𝒦_{ba}(t^{},t)`$) and positive definite. We denote by $`\sigma `$ the inverse kernel $`𝒦^1`$,

$$𝑑s\underset{c}{}𝒦_{ac}(t,s)\sigma ^{cb}(s,t^{})=\delta _a^b\delta (tt^{}).$$
(83)
It is easy to see that $`\sigma ^{ab}(t,t^{})=G^a(t)G^b(t^{})`$.

We will now restrict further considerations to cases where $`G^a(t)`$ is correlated with $`G^b(t^{})`$ only for $`t`$ close to $`t^{}`$, that is for cases where $`\sigma _{ab}(t,t^{})`$ vanishes except when $`tt^{}`$. In this case we define

$$\overline{\sigma }_{ab}(t)=_{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑t^{}\sigma _{ab}(t,t^{}),$$
(84)
and, following the standard derivation of the Fokker-Plank equation , we obtain,

$$i\dot{𝒫}=\left(2\underset{a}{}L_af^a4i\underset{ab}{}L_aL_b\overline{\sigma }^{ab}\right)𝒫,$$
(85)
where the $`f^a`$ determine $`H_0`$ in (80) and $`L_a,a=1,2,3`$ denote the usual angular momentum operators in 3 dimensions. There are corrections to this equation but these can be ignored provided $`\sigma (t,t^{})`$ is sufficiently localized around $`t=t^{}`$.

We will now restrict ourselves to situations where $`\overline{\sigma }`$ takes the form

$$\overline{\sigma }^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}D\delta ^{ab}\frac{1}{2}\underset{c}{}ϵ^{abc}a_c.$$
(86)
The first term is commonly used in treating this type of problems, the second term implies a correlation between $`G^a`$ and $`G^b`$ with $`ab`$ and is usually assumed to vanish; we will find, however that it is precisely this term that is responsible for the resonances described previously.

Substituting (86) in (85) yields

$$i\dot{𝒫}=2\left[(𝐟𝐚)𝐋iDL^2\right]𝒫.$$
(87)
It is important to note that this choice still corresponds to a positive definite kernel $`𝒦`$ so that (82) is well defined.

In order to relate these expressions to the ones obtained previously we first write $`\overline{\sigma }`$ in terms of the two-point correlator,

$$\overline{\sigma }^{ab}(t,t^{})=_{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑t^{}G^a(t)G^b(t^{})_G.$$
(88)
We then expand $`G^a`$ in a Fourier series,

$$G^a(t)=\underset{\omega }{}G_\omega ^ae^{ı\omega t}$$
(89)
(not necessarily restricted to $`|\omega |>\mathrm{\Omega }`$) and assume that $`G_\omega ^aG_\omega ^{}^b_G0`$ for $`\omega +\omega ^{}0`$ (which is equivalent to assuming that the correlator $`\sigma ^{ab}(t,t^{})`$ is non-zero for $`tt^{}`$ only). In this case

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\delta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta ^2+\omega ^2}}|𝐆_\omega |^2_G,`$ (90)
$`𝐚`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\delta 0}{lim}i{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\delta ^2+\omega ^2}}𝐆_\omega \times 𝐆_\omega )_G.`$ (91)
In obtaining these expressions we included a convergence factor $`e^{\delta t},\delta 0`$ in (89). Note that $`D`$ will vanish unless the $`G_\omega ^a`$ are continuously distributed in an interval containing $`\omega =0`$.

Comparing this result to (34) we find that the term $`𝐟𝐚`$ in (87) corresponds to the leading term in $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. In addition, however, the Fokker-Plank equation contains the non-Hermitian diffusion term $`2iDL^2𝒫`$ which forces $`𝒫`$ to decrease exponentially in time for all but the zero-angular momentum modes . Qualitatively this implies that for large times the polarization vector will end up uniformly distributed and the effects of the $`𝐟𝐚`$ term will be completely washed-out. For intermediate times, however, the presence of the $`𝐟𝐚`$ term can lead to interesting effects.

The general solutions to (87) can be obtained in terms of spherical harmonics §§§It is easy to see that $`𝒫`$ is, in fact, independent of $`|𝐫|`$. $`Y_m^l`$,

$$𝒫=\underset{lm}{}\xi _m^l(t)e^{2Dl(l+1)tiv_0mt}Y_m^l(\widehat{𝐫}),$$
(92)
where the exponential is introduced for later convenience. Since $`𝒫`$ is real the coefficients $`\xi _m^l`$ obey

$$\xi _m^l{}_{}{}^{}=(1)^m\xi _m^l.$$
(93)
The above expansion can be substituted into (87) leading, for each $`l`$, to a set of $`2l+1`$ coupled ordinary differential equations in $`t`$ that can in principle be solved for any choice of f, a and $`D`$.

To illustrate this procedure we will consider a special case which is similar to the one often studied when considering stochastic resonances. We take

$$𝐟𝐚=\frac{1}{2}v_0\widehat{𝐳}+\frac{1}{2}u\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0t)\widehat{𝐱},$$
(94)
corresponding, for example, to $`f^3=G^3=0`$ (so that $`a^1=a^2=0`$), $`f^2=0`$, $`f^1=u\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0t)`$ and $`a^3=v_0`$. The equations for the coefficients $`\xi _m^l`$ in (92) then become

$$\dot{\xi }_m^l+\frac{i}{2}u\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0t)\left[\sqrt{l(l+1)m(m1)}e^{iv_0t}\xi _{m1}^l+\sqrt{l(l+1)m(m+1)}e^{iv_0t}\xi _{m+1}^l\right]=0,$$
(95)
For $`l=0`$ the solution is simply $`\xi _0^0=`$constant which is determines the normalization of $`𝒫`$; the equations for $`ł0`$ can be solved numerically using standard techniques. The case $`ł=1`$ is of special interest since the coefficients $`\xi _m^{l=1}`$ determine the average polarization of the system as a function of time:

$`\psi ^{}(t)\sigma \sigma \sigma \psi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\widehat{𝐫}\left(𝒫\widehat{𝐫}\right)/d^2\widehat{𝐫}𝒫}`$ (96)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2/3}}{\xi _0^0}}e^{4Dt}(\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}\left[\xi _1^1(t)e^{iv_0t}\right],\text{Im}\left[\xi _1^1(t)e^{iv_0t}\right],{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\xi _0^1(t)).`$ (97)
We will be interested in the possibility of the system resonating at the driving frequency $`\omega _0`$. This can be investigated by first solving the above equations and then Fourier transforming the result. We define,

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }_m^l(\omega )=𝑑te^{i\omega t}\xi _m^l(t),$$
(98)
and we study the behavior of $`\left|\xi _1^1(\omega =v_0)\right|`$ as a function of $`v_0`$ for various values of $`\omega _0`$ (note that $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ also depends explicitly on $`v_0`$ since this parameter appears in the differential equation (95)). The result is presented in Fig. 2 which clearly shows an enhancement in the Fourier coefficients of frequency $`v_0`$ when $`v_0=\omega _0`$, the shape of the curves are characteristic of resonant behavior. These resonances are also illustrated by the behavior of $`\psi ^{}\sigma ^3\psi `$ for various values of $`v_0,\omega _0`$. An example is plotted in fig. 3.

The same system can be studied using the time averaging procedure of sections II-III provided we assume that the corresponding restrictions on the parameters are satisfied. Assuming this is the case, the effective Hamiltonian corresponding to the choice (94) is readily seen to be, to lowest order in $`\eta `$,

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}v_0/2& \mathrm{cos}(\omega _0t)\\ \mathrm{cos}(\omega _0t)& v_0/2\end{array}\right).$$
(99)
The corresponding Schrödinger equation for the slow modes $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}\psi =i\dot{\psi }`$ can be solved numerically using standard techniques and the solutions are seen to exhibit resonances whenever $`v_0`$ is an integral multiple of $`\omega _0`$.

There are, of course, differences between the solutions to the Schrödinger equation associated with (99) and the solutions derived from (95). The quantities $`G^a`$ used in obtaining (95) are assumed to be stochastic variables whose distribution is determined by (82, 83, 84, 86). In contrast, when deriving (99) we assumed the $`g_\omega ^a`$ are non-zero only for $`|\omega |>\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and we also required $`\mathrm{\Omega }|\omega _0|,|v_0|,|\dot{g}_\omega /g_\omega |`$.

The values for a obtained in cases become identical if we assume that the average over the stochastic variables in the first case give the same result as the average over time intervals much larger than $`1/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the second case.

The diffusion term $`D`$ will vanish, as mentioned above, unless the $`G_\omega `$ are distributed continuously around $`\omega =0`$. This term corresponds to the non-Hermitian contribution (19) which, for this case is simply proportional to the unit matrix. Taking $`f^{2,3}=g^3=0`$, in the example of section IV A (for the case $`N=2`$) we find

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=id,d=\frac{d}{dt}\underset{|\omega |>\mathrm{\Omega }}{}\left|\frac{g_\omega ^1+ig_\omega ^2}{\omega }\right|^2,$$
(100)
which is of order $`\eta ^2`$. Note that $`d=0`$ if $`g_\omega ^{1,2}`$ are time independent; this corresponds to the vanishing of $`D`$ should $`G_\omega `$ vanish when $`\omega `$ lies in an interval around $`\omega =0`$.

In concluding this section we note that it is possible to generate the required correlation between $`g^1`$ and $`g^2`$ by mixing and filtering two uncorrelated functions $`n^{1,2}`$. The details are presented in the Appendix.

## VI Comparison with the standard stochastic resonances

The resonances described above are reminiscent of the well-studied stochastic resonances  that are characterized by an increased sensitivity to small perturbations when noise of an optimal amplitude is introduced. This feature is also observed when the condition (37) is satisfied, and is illustrated by the behavior of the system studied in the previous section.

More specifically, stochastic resonances occur when there is a match between a noise-induced transition rate, $`r_N`$ and the one produced by an external perturbation. If the latter is assumed to be harmonic of frequency $`\omega _0`$, then typically resonances occur when $`\omega _0\pi r_N`$. This can be understood by considering a system that initially has 2 degenerate minima, such that the harmonic perturbation will first favor one and then the other (alternating with period $`\pi /\omega _0`$). If the resonance condition on $`r_N`$ is realized, then the times at which one minima is disfavored will coincide with the times at which noise-induced transitions to the other minima are most probable, and this enhances the response of the system to the external perturbation. This behavior is also observed in the systems studied above, for example, the resonances in Fig. 2 occur when $`v_0=\omega _0`$ where, according to (99), $`v_0`$ is proportional to the noise-induced transition rate.

There are, however, some technical differences. To illustrate these we consider the following one-dimensional system that exhibits stochastic resonances

$$\dot{x}=V^{}(x,t)+e(t),V(x,t)=V_0(x)+ux\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0t),$$
(101)
where $`e`$ denotes a stochastic variable, $`u`$ is a small coupling constant and $`V_0`$ is a potential with two (degenerate) minima. The noise is assumed to obey

$$e(t)e(t^{})=F\delta (tt^{}).$$
(102)
Following the same steps  described above it is possible to obtain the Fokker-Plank equation for the probability density $`𝒫(y,t)=\delta \left(x(t)y\right)_e`$ and the corresponding average $`x(t)_e`$. The Fourier coefficient of $`x(t)_e`$ corresponding to frequency $`\omega _0`$ has an amplitude proportional to $`(\lambda /F)/\sqrt{\omega _0^2+\lambda ^2}`$ where $`\lambda `$ denotes the noise-induced hopping rate (the Kramers’ rate ), $`\mathrm{ln}\lambda 1/F`$. For fixed $`\omega _0`$ this amplitude also displays an enhancement at a certain value of $`F`$ . Comparing these results with those obtained in the previous section we note that

* The usual stochastic resonances occur for uncorrelated noise obeying (102) while resonance behavior in (80) requires the correlations implied by having $`𝐚0`$ in (86).
* The resonances described above have the usual shape (see Fig. 2) for the resonant curve. This is not necessarily the case for the stochastic resonances usually discussed in the literature.
* Usual stochastic resonances occur whenever the driving frequency is about half the Kramers’ rate, which depends exponentially on the noise level $`F`$. For the case presented in this paper resonances occur when the driving frequency is $`|𝐚|`$ as defined in (91), and is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the stochastic variables $`G^a`$.

## VII Conclusions

In this work we propose a formalism which makes possible to study systems under the influence of rapidly-varying external fields (which are not necessarily perturbative) whose typical frequency we denoted by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The formalism provides a solution as a power series in $`1/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and assumes a clear separation of fast (frequencies $`>\mathrm{\Omega }`$) and slow (frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) modes.

We showed that the evolution of the slow modes is determined by an effective Hamiltonian which is not necessarily Hermitian; a point noted in other related calculations . The non-Hermitian contributions to the effective Hamiltonian, however, can be eliminated by performing an appropriate unitary transformation.

The formalism was applied to various classical and quantum systems. In some examples we found that the external field can produce a resonant behavior in the system. These resonances are related, but not identical, to the stochastic resonances studied in the literature  In particular the resonant phenomena studied in this paper occur only when the interaction with the environment involves several correlated terms.

In one particular application of the formalism we argued that the presence of a random time-independent potential will necessarily generate bound states in systems of dimension $`1`$ and $`2`$, and in other dimensions as well provided the amplitude of the potential is sufficiently large. The connection of this result with the phenomenon of Anderson localization  are tantalizing and will be considered in a future publication.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank W. Beyermann, R. deCoss and T.J. Weiler for illuminating comments and insights. This research was supported in part by US DOE contract number DE-FG03-94ER40837(UCR) and by Conacyt (México).

## Appendix

In this appendix we describe a simple construction which generates stochastic variables $`g^a`$ satisfying (86,88), in terms of a set of uncorrelated variables $`n^i`$, specifically, we assume

$$n_i(t)n_j(t^{})=\frac{1}{2}D_i\delta _{ij}\delta (tt^{}),$$
(103)
and search for new variables $`g^a`$ satisfying

$$g^a(t)g^b(t^{})=\frac{1}{2}F(tt^{})\delta _{ab}\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{abc}a^c𝒪(tt^{}),$$
(104)
where $``$ is an even function of its argument while $`𝒪`$ is odd and satisfy

$$_{\mathrm{}}^0(s)𝑑s=_{\mathrm{}}^0𝒪(s)𝑑s=1.$$
(105)
In terms of the Fourier transformed quantities,

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^a(\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}g^a(t),\stackrel{~}{n}_i(\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}n_i(t),$$
(106)
we require

$`\stackrel{~}{g}^a(\omega )\stackrel{~}{g}^b(\omega ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \delta (\omega +\omega ^{})\left[F\delta _{ab}\stackrel{~}{}(\omega )ϵ_{abc}a^c\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\omega )\right],`$ (107)
$`\stackrel{~}{n}_i(\omega )\stackrel{~}{n}_j(\omega ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \delta (\omega +\omega ^{})D_i\delta _{ij},`$ (108)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{}(\omega )^{}=\stackrel{~}{}(\omega )=+\stackrel{~}{}(\omega ),`$ (109)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\omega )^{}=\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\omega )=\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\omega ).`$ (110)
We look for a linear relation between $`\stackrel{~}{g}^a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{n}_i`$, namely

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^a(\omega )=\underset{i}{}K_{ai}(\omega )n_i(\omega ).$$
(111)
Writing

$$K_{ia}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{D_aF\stackrel{~}{}}}\left(Q_++Q_{}\right)_{ia},$$
(112)
with $`Q_\pm (\pm \omega )=\pm Q_\pm (\omega )`$ and assuming $`Q_\pm ^T=\pm Q_\pm `$ (where $`T`$ indicates the transpose) we find

$$Q_+^2+Q_{}^2=1,\{Q_+,Q_{}\}_{ij}=ϵ_{ikj}\nu ^k,$$
(113)
where $`\nu ^k=a^k\stackrel{~}{𝒪}/(F\stackrel{~}{})`$. These equations are solved, for example, by choosing

$$Q_+=\mathrm{cosh}u\left(1+\widehat{𝐚}\widehat{𝐚}\right),(Q_{})_{ij}=\mathrm{sinh}uϵ_{ikj}\widehat{a}^k$$
(114)
with $`\mathrm{sinh}(2u)=|\nu |`$.

It follows that given a set of uncorrelated variables $`n_i`$ it is possible to generate the desired correlated quantities $`g^a`$ through a linear filter defined by the (frequency-dependent) matrix $`K`$.


format: text

text:
# Disorder and transport in cuprates: weak localization and magnetic contributions

\[

## Abstract

We report resistivity measurements in underdoped YBa2Cu3O$`_{6.6}`$and overdoped Tl2Ba2CuO6+x single crystals in which the concentration of defects in the CuO2 planes is controlled by electron irradiation. Low $`T`$ upturns of the resistivity are observed in both cases for large defect content. In the Tl compound the decrease of conductivity scales as expected from weak localization theory. On the contrary in YBa2Cu3O6.6 the much larger low T contribution to the resistivity is proportional to the defect content and might then be associated to a Kondo like spin flip scattering term. This would be consistent with the results on the magnetic properties induced by spinless defects.

\]

The origin of the strange metallic properties of the cuprates, among which the transport properties, is still the key feature to be resolved to progress in the understanding of the physics of these 2D correlated electron systems. As the pseudogap is evidenced both in magnetic and transport properties, some interplay between spin and charge degrees of freedom is required. This interplay can be studied as well from the influence of defects and impurities on the transport properties. Point defects such as Zn impurities induce a strong depression of $`T_c`$ as expected for d-wave superconductivity. This is often considered to result from pure potential (unitary?) scattering . However it has been shown that such spinless defects induce a local moment in their vicinity . One can therefore wonder whether these magnetic degrees of freedom play a role in the charge scattering, and induce for instance a (Kondo like) spin flip contribution to the resistivity.

In presence of Zn impurities, low $`T`$ upturns of the resistivity with a $`\mathrm{ln}T`$ variation have been observed in La2Sr2CuO4 (LSCO) and YBa2Cu3O7-δ (YBCO) . However these observations have required large Zn contents or low hole doping in order to suppress superconductivity. Data were then limited to large values of the 2D resistivity which approach or exceed $`5k\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{}`$ for which deviations from weak localization predictions start to be observed in 2D systems . These experimental constraints have up to now prevented any thorough study either of the impurity contributions to the scattering, or of the applicability of 2D weak localization theory .

Recent accurate NMR measurements in the case of Li impurities, which behave similarly to Zn, have evidenced a Kondo like variation of the induced local moment susceptibility with a Kondo temperature $`T_K`$ which increases with hole doping . One might expect that magnetic contributions to the transport properties should then differ markedly in underdoped and overdoped systems while localization effects should always be present.

In this work, we address both questions for the first time by comparing underdoped and overdoped cuprates. We have used electron irradiation to introduce in-plane point defects which behave similarly to Zn substitutions in YBCO . As measurements could be performed on a single sample, the accuracy on the defect contribution to the resistivity was high enough to study thoroughly its variation with defect content and temperature, even when $`T_c`$ is still high. In the heavily overdoped Tl2Ba2CuO6+x (Tl2201), we find here that $`T_c`$ can be suppressed while the low $`T`$ resistance is still below the strong localization limit. This enables us to demonstrate that weak localization theory applies and that defect scattering is purely elastic in this system. We shall show that this approach fails in underdoped YBCO6.6. The large magnitude of the low $`T`$ upturns of the resistivity and its variation with defect content rather indicates the occurence of a Kondo like inelastic spin-flip scattering. The difference between these two systems will be found consistent with the observed doping dependence of $`T_K`$.

We have taken data on the underdoped YBCO6.6 single crystal, which has already been used in ref . It displayed the usual pseudo gap resistivity temperature dependence with an initial $`T_c`$ of 60K. The highly overdoped Tl2201 sample prepared similarly to those of ref , with an initial $`T_c`$ of 30K, exhibited a power law dependence of $`\rho \left(T\right)`$characteristic of the overdoped state . The samples have been irradiated with 2.5 MeV electrons(∗) in liquid hydrogen to allow high electron flux without sample heating. After a short time defect annealing ($``$ 10 minutes) either at $`T_a`$=100K, 150K or 300K, resistivity measurements were performed between 20K and $`T_a`$. In such conditions the resistivity versus $`T`$ curves plotted in Fig.1 were found absolutely reversible, indicating the absence of further evolution of the defect content. The high fluences required to reach large enough resistivities led us to perform several independent irradiation runs. This forced us to remove the probe from the irradiation facility and to let the samples stay at room $`T`$ for long time (typically a few months) after each run, which reduced subsequently the concentration of defects. The resistivity curves after annealing at 300K are quite identical to those observed in situ for lower irradiation fluences. This indicates that the measured resistivity is only sensitive to the concentration of in-plane defects. After the last run the samples were removed from the irradiation probe and ex-situ measurements were then performed down to lower $`T`$ (1.7K) in a different set-up in which magnetoresistance data could be taken.

As can be seen in Fig.1 the high $`T`$ parts of the resistivity curves are nearly parallel to each other in YBCO6.6, i.e. Mathiessen’s rule extends to large irradiation fluences , which implies also that the hole doping of the CuO2 planes is not significantly modified. Conversely the variation with $`T`$ of the resistivity of the Tl2201 sample increases with defect content showing that in this case the hole doping increases slightly. In both compounds low$`T`$ upturns of the resistivity are observed and increase with defect content. These upturns appear at higher $`T`$ for YBCO6.6, and correspond to larger contributions to the 2D in-plane resistance $`R_{2D}`$ than for Tl2201 .

To see this effect more quantitatively, we have reported in Fig.2 $`\delta R_{2D}`$, the low T increase of $`R_{2D}`$obtained in these two compounds for comparable residual resistances $`R_{2D}^{}4.8k\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{}`$. In order to evaluate $`\delta R_{2D}`$ the resistivity of the non irradiated compound had to be extrapolated below $`T_c`$. For pure YBCO6.6, two different empirical forms $`R_{2D}^0(T)=a+bT+cT^3`$ and $`R_{2D}^0(T)=a+bT^p`$have been used to fit the data between 80K and 150K. This lower T limit has been taken to avoid the $`T`$ range for which superconducting fluctuations contribute to the resistivity. Although their extrapolations differ significantly at low $`T`$, the magnitude and $`T`$ dependence obtained for $`\delta R_{2D}`$ are quite identical in the limited experimental range above $`T_c`$. For Tl 2201, superconductivity has been suppressed for this fluence and the low $`T`$ extrapolation might be more critical than for YBCO6.6. To take into account the slight change of hole doping we have then fitted the high $`T`$ part of each resistivity curve with $`R_{2D}^0(T)=a+bT^p`$. To test the validity of this procedure, two extreme cases have been considered. The fits were performed either between 70K and 150K, or between 150K and 300K. Although $`\delta R_{2D}`$ is naturally found to depart from zero at a slightly higher $`T`$ in the latter case, the overall variation and particularly the $`\mathrm{ln}T`$ dependence found at low $`T`$ is not sensitive to the function chosen for $`R_{2D}^0(T)`$. It is clear in Fig.2 that, whatever the fitting procedure, $`\delta R_{2D}`$ is larger and has a steeper $`T`$ variation in YBCO6.6 than in the Tl compound.

We can at this stage compare these data with the expectations of the weak 2D localization theory, which can apply as long as the elastic mean free path $`l`$ verifies $`k_Fl>>1`$ (where $`k_F`$ is the Fermi wave vector), that is for $`R_{2D}<<26k\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{}`$The weak localization contributions are expected to become sizable at temperatures for which the elastic scattering rate $`1/\tau `$ becomes much larger than the inelastic scattering rate$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/\tau _i`$. Assuming that the in-plane defects only contribute to the elastic scattering, the ratio $`\tau _i/\tau `$ can be estimated from the data, if the inelastic rate is associated to the $`T`$ dependent contribution to $`R_{2D}`$ of the starting pure material. For instance, for the residual resistivity $`R_{2D}^{}4.8k\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{}`$ of Fig.2, $`\tau _i/\tau `$ $`1012`$ and $`7`$ respectively for Tl2201 and YBCO6.6 at 100K ( at 50K the deduced value would be $`\tau _i/\tau `$ $``$40 for the two systems). Therefore, within the above assumptions, weak localization conditions are fulfilled even at such high $`T`$. Let us recall that the theoretical correction to the 2D conductance has a universal behaviour at low $`T`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =\frac{\alpha e^2}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{}}p\mathrm{ln}(T/T_0)$$
(1)
where $`p`$is the exponent of the $`T`$ dependence of the inelastic scattering rate$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}/\tau _iT^p,`$and $`\alpha =1`$ in the absence of electronic interactions, in good agreement with experimental observations .

We have plotted in Fig.3a the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =(R_{2D})^1(R_{2D}^0)^1`$ for the Tl compound. For the in-situ measurements the data are limited to 20K, while they could be pursued down to 3K for the final state of the sample. In this case a good fit with a $`\mathrm{ln}T`$ dependence extends over a decade. One can notice in Fig.3a that the curves for the other defect contents are parallel to each other at 20K, with a slope identical to that found for the lower $`T`$ run, within experimental accuracy. Finally at a given $`T`$ the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ increases with defect concentration, as the upturn in the resistivity curve occurs at higher T as can be seen in Fig.1a. These qualitative observations are more striking in Fig.3b where we have performed the scaling of these curves in $`\mathrm{ln}(T/T_0)`$. Here $`T_0`$ is found to increase progressively from 70K to 120K with defect content. The actual slope obtained experimentally below 30K yields the numerical value $`\alpha p=1.3,`$ when compared to (1). The value of $`p`$ can be independently estimated from the $`T`$ dependence of $`R_{2D}^0(T)`$ and varies from 1.7 to 2.3. This would correspond to $`\alpha 0.7.`$These results provide a strong experimental evidence that 2D weak localization theory explains the Tl2201 data.

Transverse magnetoresistance measurements performed up to 8T after the last irradiation provide an independent evidence which confirms this analysis. It indeed exhibits a negative contribution which decreases with increasing T as expected for weak localization. The field variation was accurate enough at low $`T`$ to allow an analysis along the lines of ref. , which allowed to deduce $`\alpha 0.5`$ and $`\tau _i/\tau 60`$at $`4.2K.`$ While the value of $`\alpha `$ is in good agreement with the $`T`$ dependence of $`R_{2D}`$, the value of $`\tau _i/\tau `$is smaller than that which would be obtained from the extrapolation of the $`T`$ dependent part of the resistivity of the pure sample. Such a trend is quite common, as $`\tau _i`$ is usually found to flatten at low $`T`$, at values smaller, even in order of magnitude, than expected from the pure systems estimates . Further experiments are needed to determine whether interaction effects contribute to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ .

Let us consider now the data for the underdoped compound YBCO6.6, for which we have seen that $`\tau _i`$/$`\tau `$ is weaker or similar, whereas $`\delta R_{2D}`$ is larger than for the overdoped compound. In this case superconductivity prohibits to investigate the low $`T`$ range, and weak localization contributions are not expected to be fully developed. However, as can be anticipated from Fig.2, a plot similar to that of Fig.3 gives much larger values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ than those found for Tl2201. The slope found at the lowest $`T`$ for which $`T/T_0`$ is only 0.5 would extrapolate at low $`T`$ to a value $`\alpha p>5,`$ which is absolutely not sound physically. We could obtain a similar conclusion for electron irradiated YBCO7 for which $`p=1`$ for the well known $`T`$ linear dependence of $`\rho (T)`$. Therefore all these data cannot be explained by weak 2D localization theory, as was also concluded for Zn substitution in YBCO6.7 .

Alternatively, we can wonder whether spin flip scattering effects can account for these large low T contributions. While for weak localization $`\delta R_{2D}`$ scales with $`R_{2D}^2`$ from (1), a Kondo like contribution to $`R_{2D}`$ is expected to scale linearly with the defect content, that is with $`R_d,`$ the increase of the residual resistivity. Indeed one can see in Fig.4 that $`\delta R_{2D}/R_d`$follow the same $`T`$ dependence for a large range of $`R_d`$ values, if one omits to consider the dowturn associated with the proximity of the superconducting transition. Upward deviations with respect to this common behaviour begin to occur at low $`T`$ for$`R_d3.8k\mathrm{\Omega },`$ that is $`R_{2D}5k\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This is even more prominent for the largest defect content in Fig. 1b which varies faster than $`\mathrm{ln}T`$, and might therefore correspond to the onset of strong localization.

It is interesting at this stage to compare these results with that obtained for underdoped Zn substituted samples . In that case refined analyses, as done here, are impossible in the high $`T`$ range as the substituted sample has to be compared to a pure sample which is physically distinct. Systematic errors due to differences in the sample geometries and hole contents can then be hardly avoided. However superconductivity could be nearly suppressed with a 18 T field in YBCO6.7 with 2.7%Zn  which allowed to evidence a $`\mathrm{ln}T`$ contribution to the resistivity (not to the conductivity) below 30K. This would be compatible with a Kondo contribution with a low $`T_K`$ value. A rough estimate for $`\delta R_{2D}/R_d`$ yields a value for this $`\mathrm{ln}T`$ contribution about a factor two smaller than that obtained here. This order of magnitude agreement is quite satisfactory, as we are comparing here the influences of different microscopic defects.

In conclusion, we have evidenced that the low $`T`$ resistivity behaves quite differently in overdoped and underdoped systems. In the former case we have shown the relevance of weak localization theory, as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ has a $`\mathrm{ln}T`$ variation independent of defect content and in rough quantitative agreement with the exponent of $`R_{2D}(T)`$. A negative transverse magnetoresistance has been evidenced at low $`T`$, but further experiments are needed to determine the eventual contribution of interactions to the $`\mathrm{ln}T`$ term and the low $`T`$ variation of $`\tau _i.`$

We have shown that the large $`\delta R_{2D}`$ measured in the underdoped case can be interpreted in terms of a Kondo scattering on the local moment induced by the ”spinless” defects. This implies per se that the scattering by such defects should saturate at low $`T`$  and should only become unitary below $`T_K`$. Therefore, pure potential scattering by spinless impurities is only expected for $`T<<T_K`$. As large $`T_K`$ values, exceeding 200K, have been evidenced by NMR only for the overdoped case , pure elastic scattering is expected at low $`T`$ for these systems. This is then quite coherent with the occurence of weak localization contributions in the Tl2201 compound, if the NMR observations for Li impurities do apply as well for irradiation defects.

It is worth pointing here that -$`\mathrm{ln}T`$ contributions to $`R_{2D}`$ were also observed for the ”pure” underdoped LSCO  and Bi(SrLa)CO 2201 . They have been associated with a ”peculiar” charge localization leading to a metal insulator transition (MIT) with decreasing hole content. It is usually assumed that some disorder is responsible for the anomalously low value of the optimum $`T_c`$ in these compounds and that this disorder might be at the origin of the -$`\mathrm{ln}T`$ term. Our data lead us to suggest that this unknown disorder might result primarily in a scattering on magnetic perturbations induced in the planes, as for spinless impurities. In both cases, one can wonder whether the scattering saturates at low $`T`$ or whether strong localization proceeds before this saturation can be detected. In other words, the MIT might result from the conjunction of uncontrolled disorder and of the enhanced sensitivity of the underdoped regime to this disorder. This would explain why the MIT is strongly dependent on the cuprate family.

We thank P. Lejay and A. Tyler for providing the single crystals and the technical staff of the LSI for their support during irradiation experiments.


text:
# LC-PHSM-2001-020February 20, 2001 Measurement of the leptoquark Yukawa couplings in 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ collisions at TESLA

## 1 Introduction

New result on atomic parity violation (APV) in Cesium and unitarity of the CKM matrix, as well as recent LEP2 hadronic cross-section measurements indicate possible deviations from the Standard Model predictions. Exchange of leptoquark type objects with masses above 250GeV has been proposed as a possible explanation for these effects . If the leptoquark Yukawa couplings are assumed to be small, leptoquark masses of the order of 300 GeV are consistent with the exiting data.

Running at high luminosity LHC experiments will search for leptoquark pair production for leptoquark masses up to about 1.5 TeV . Leptoquark mass can be determined at LHC with high precision, limited mainly by the systematic uncertainty of the energy scale. However, leptoquark pair production in strong interactions is not sensitive to the leptoquark Yukawa couplings. Yukawa couplings could be measured in the Drell-Yan process at LHC for coupling to the mass ratios $`\lambda /M`$ down to about 0.1 TeV-1 . However, the measurement is only possible if the leptoquark type (spin, corresponding quark flavor, coupling chirality) is known.111For different leptoquark models contribution to the Drell-Yan lepton pair production cross-section can differ even by an order of magnitude. The value of the leptoquark pair production cross-section and the leptoquark branching fractions will allow differentiation between some leptoquark models at LHC. But the precise determination of the leptoquark type may not be possible.

For masses below 400 GeV leptoquarks can be also pair produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at TESLA, at $`\sqrt{s}=800`$ GeV. The value of the total cross-section and the angular distribution of the produced leptoquark pairs depend on the leptoquark type and the leptoquark Yukawa couplings. Also the single leptoquark production can be used to constrain leptoquark parameters.

In this note, precision with which leptoquark Yukawa couplings can be determined at TESLA is studied. The leptoquark models used in this analysis are described in section 2. Results from the global analysis of available experimental data  and the possible leptoquark signal are briefly summarized in section 3. Leptoquark production at TESLA is described in section 4 and the event selection methods in section 5. Yukawa coupling determination from the observed angular distributions is described in section 6.

## 2 Leptoquark models

In this paper a general classification of leptoquark states proposed by Buchmüller, Rückl and Wyler  will be used. The Buchmüller-Rückl-Wyler (BRW) model is based on the assumption that new interactions should respect the $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ symmetry of the Standard Model. In addition leptoquark couplings are assumed to be family diagonal (to avoid FCNC processes) and to conserve lepton and baryon numbers (to avoid rapid proton decay). With all these assumptions there are 10 possible states (isospin singlets or multiplets) of scalar and vector leptoquarks. Table 1 lists these states according to the so-called Aachen notation . An S(V) denotes a scalar(vector) leptoquark and the subscript denotes the weak isospin. A tilde is introduced to differentiate between leptoquarks with different hypercharges.

Listed in Table 1 are the leptoquark fermion number F, electric charge Q, and the branching ratio to an electron-quark pair (or electron-antiquark pair), $`\beta `$. For a given electron-quark branching ratio $`\beta `$, the branching ratio to the neutrino-quark is by definition $`(1\beta )`$. Also included in Table 1 are leptoquark-electron-quark couplings, in units of the Yukawa couplings $`\lambda _L`$ and $`\lambda _R`$, and the flavors of the lepton-quark pairs coupling to a given leptoquark type. Strong bounds from rare decays  indicate that leptoquarks couple only either to left- or to right-handed leptons, i.e. $`\lambda _L\lambda _R=0`$. With this additional constraint, four leptoquark models ($`S_{}`$, $`S_{1/2}`$, $`V_{}`$ and $`V_{1/2}`$) have to be considered separately for left- and right-handed couplings (assuming $`\lambda _R=0`$ and $`\lambda _L=0`$ respectively). In that case, an additional superscript indicates the coupling chirality. Present analysis takes into account only leptoquarks which couple to the first-generation leptons ($`e`$, $`\nu _e`$) and first-generation quarks ($`u`$, $`d`$), as they can be best studied at TESLA. Second- and third-generation leptoquarks as well as generation-mixing leptoquarks will not be considered in this paper. It is also assumed that one of the leptoquark types gives the dominant contribution, as compared with other leptoquark states and that the interference between different leptoquark states can be neglected. Using this simplifying assumption, different leptoquark types can be considered separately. Finally, it is assumed that different leptoquark states within isospin doublets and triplets have the same mass.

## 3 Current limits from global analysis

In a recent paper available data from HERA, LEP and the Tevatron, as well as from low energy experiments are used to constrain the Yukawa couplings $`\lambda `$ and masses $`M`$ for scalar and vector leptoquarks. To compare the data with predictions of the BRW model the global probability function $`𝒫(\lambda ,M)`$ is introduced, describing the probability that the data come from the model described by parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`M`$. The probability function is defined in such a way that the Standard Model probability $`𝒫_{SM}1`$. Constraints on the leptoquark couplings and masses were studied in the limit of very high leptoquark masses (using the contact interaction approximation ) as well as for finite leptoquark masses, with mass effects correctly taken into account. Excluded on 95% confidence level are all models (parameter values) which result in the global probability less than 5% of the Standard Model probability: $`𝒫(\lambda ,M)<0.05`$. For models which describe the data much better than the Standard Model ($`𝒫_{max}\underset{\lambda ,M}{\mathrm{max}}𝒫(\lambda ,M)1`$) the 95% CL signal limit is defined by the condition: $`𝒫(\lambda ,M)>0.05𝒫_{max}`$.

Current limits on the leptoquark masses are mainly based on the negative search results at the Tevatron. For scalar leptoquark models considered in this paper 95% CL exclusion limits on the leptoquark masses are between 213 and 245 GeV. Data sensitive to the virtual leptoquark exchange result in limits on the leptoquark mass $`M`$ to the Yukawa coupling $`\lambda `$. 95% CL exclusion limits on $`M/\lambda `$, obtained from the global analysis of existing data, range for the scalar leptoquarks from about 2 to 4 TeV. Assuming leptoquark mass of 350 GeV, this corresponds to the limits on the scalar leptoquark Yukawa coupling between 0.09 and 0.17 ( 0.27$`e`$ to 0.53$`e`$ ; $`e=\sqrt{4\pi \alpha _{em}}`$).

Four leptoquark models are found to describe the existing experimental data much better than the Standard Model ($`𝒫(\lambda ,M)>20`$). The signal limits for these models, at 68% and 95% CL are compared with exclusion limits in the $`(\lambda ,M)`$ space in Figure 1. For $`S_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{}`$ leptoquarks the observed increase in the global probability by factor 367 and 142 respectively corresponds to more than a 3$`\sigma `$ effect. The leptoquark “signal” is mostly resulting from the new data on the atomic parity violation (APV) in cesium. After the theoretical uncertainties have been significantly reduced, the measured value of the cesium weak charge is now 2.5$`\sigma `$ away from the Standard Model prediction. Also the new hadronic cross-section measurements at LEP2, for $`\sqrt{s}`$=192–202 GeV, are on average about 2.5% above the predictions. The effect is furthermore supported by the slight violation of the CKM matrix unitarity and HERA high-$`Q^2`$ results. Existence of leptoquark state with mass of 300–400 GeV and Yukawa coupling of the order of 0.3$`e`$ could explain these effects.

## 4 Leptoquark production at TESLA

Taking into account existing experimental constraints it is rather unlikely that leptoquarks have masses below 250 GeV, so they can be pair produced at TESLA at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV. Therefore, only the high energy TESLA running option is considered in this paper, with $`\sqrt{s}=800`$ GeV and expected integrated luminosity $`=500`$ fb-1.

In $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, leptoquarks can be pair-produced via photon and $`Z`$ boson $`s`$-channel exchange and via $`t`$-channel exchange of quarks, as shown in Figure 2.

Contribution from $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ exchange is determined by the leptoquark type: its spin, charge and weak isospin. Only the process with the $`t`$-channel quark exchange is sensitive to the leptoquark-electron-quark Yukawa coupling. The value of the Yukawa coupling influences both the total pair production cross-section value222Because of the interference with the $`s`$-channel $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ exchange, $`t`$-channel quark exchange can increase or decrease the total leptoquark pair production cross-section. as well as the angular distribution of the produced leptoquark pairs. Analysis of the leptoquark pair production presented in this paper is based on the formulae and prescriptions given in  and implemented in the LQPAIR program 333Generation of the leptoquark decay angles in LQPAIR has been corrected..

High energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions can be also used to study single leptoquark production in $`e^\pm \gamma `$ collisions. Considered in this paper are $`e^\pm \gamma `$ collisions resulting from the effective electron and positron photon flux, described by the Weizsäcker-Williams Approximation (WWA), and from the electron and positron beam beamstrahlung, as simulated by CIRCE . It is assumed that the leptoquark is produced in the electron fusion with a quark inside the photon,444An alternative approach is to consider direct process $`e\gamma LQq`$ . Both approaches give very similar results . as shown in Figure 3 and implemented in PYTHIA .

In addition to the leptoquark production, following background processes has been generated with PYTHIA version 6.152:

* Z-pair production: $`e^+e^{}Z^{}Z^{}`$,
* W-pair production: $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}`$,
* top quark pair production: $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$,
* other (“light”) fermion pair production: $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$, ($`ft`$),
* Neutral Current $`e^\pm \gamma `$ deep inelastic scattering (NC DIS): $`e^\pm \gamma e^\pm X`$.

Cross-section values for selected signal and background samples, numbers of generated Monte Carlo events and effective Monte Carlo luminosities are summarized in Table 2. When generating signal and background events, radiative effects were taken into account in both LQPAIR and PYTHIA. Incoming beams energies were smeared using CIRCE package (version 5, revision 1998 05 05) . Parton showering and hadronisation was done with JETSET. Detector response was simulated using a parametric Monte Carlo program SIMDET (version 3.01) . Energy flow algorithm implemented in SIMDET was used to join tracker and calorimeter information. Durham jet finding algorithm was then used to group energy flow objects (corresponding, in most cases, to single particles) into given number of clusters.

## 5 Event selection

Three leptoquark production and decay channels were considered in this analysis:

* pair-production, with both leptoquarks decaying to $`e^\pm `$ and jet ($`eejj`$ events),
* pair-production, with one leptoquark decaying to $`e^\pm `$ and jet and the other one to neutrino and jet ($`e\nu jj`$ events),
* single-production, with leptoquark decaying to $`e^\pm `$ and jet ($`ej(j)`$ events).

For all channels, event selection cuts were introduced to suppress background from other processes and allow good event reconstruction. Selection algorithms were optimized for reconstruction of leptoquark production events with $`M_{LQ}`$=350 GeV.

### 5.1 Selection of $`eejj`$ events

Cuts used to select leptoquark pair-production candidate events, with both leptoquarks decaying into electron (positron) and jet:

$`e^+e^{}`$ $`LQ\overline{LQ}`$ $`eejj`$
* Pre-selection cuts:

+ total energy $`E`$ of an event: $`E>0.9\sqrt{s}`$,
    + total transverse energy $`E_t`$ of an event: $`E_t>0.4\sqrt{s}`$,
    + total transverse momentum $`p_t`$ to $`E_t`$ ratio: $`p_t/E_t<0.1`$,
* Four energy clusters, with transverse momenta $`p_t^i>20`$ GeV, are reconstructed using the Durham jet algorithm ($`y_{cut}`$ not constrained):

+ two clusters are identified as an isolated electron and positron,
    + two clusters are identified as high multiplicity ($`N_p5`$) jets.
* Z-pair background rejection.
Rejected are events fulfilling any of the following conditions:

+ invariant mass of the $`e^+e^{}`$ system $`80<M_{ee}<100`$ GeV,
    + invariant mass of the two jet system $`70<M_{jj}<100`$ GeV,
    + sum of two masses $`M_{ee}+M_{jj}<200`$ GeV.
* difference between reconstructed masses of leptoquark ($`e^{}`$-jet) and anti-leptoquark ($`e^+`$-jet): $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{ej}<60`$ GeV,
* difference between leptoquark and anti-leptoquark azimuthal angle555Emission angle measured in the plane perpendicular to the beam axis.: $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \pi |<0.15`$,
* reconstructed mass within $`\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}25}`$ GeV from the nominal value.

Expected signal and background event distributions in the main selection variables and in the reconstructed leptoquark production angle are presented in Figure 4. The selection efficiency for scalar and vector leptoquark pair-production, for leptoquark mass $`M_{LQ}=350`$ GeV and $`\sqrt{s}=800`$ GeV, is about 50%. Estimated background from Z-pair production666No other background Monte Carlo events survive the cuts corresponds to the cross-section of about 0.015 $`fb`$ (7 events in 500 $`fb^1`$) and is considered to be negligible.

### 5.2 Selection of $`e\nu jj`$ events

Main cuts used to select leptoquark pair-production candidate events, with one leptoquark decaying to electron (positron) and jet and the other one to neutrino and jet:

$`e^+e^{}`$ $`LQ\overline{LQ}`$ $`e\nu jj`$
* Pre-selection cuts:

+ total transverse energy $`E_t`$ of an event: $`E_t>0.25\sqrt{s}`$,
    + total transverse momentum $`p_t`$ to $`E_t`$ ratio: $`p_t/E_t>0.1`$,
    + total invariant mass $`M_{tot}`$ of an event: $`M_{tot}>0.5\sqrt{s}`$,
* Three energy clusters, with energy $`100<E_i<300`$ GeV and transverse momenta $`p_t^i>50`$ GeV, are reconstructed using the Durham jet algorithm, with $`y_{cut}`$=0.006:

+ one cluster is identified as an isolated electron or positron,
    + two clusters are identified as high multiplicity ($`N_p5`$) jets.
* W-pair background rejection.
Rejected are events fulfilling any of the following conditions:

+ invariant mass of the two jet system $`M_{jj}<110`$ GeV,
    + reconstructed $`e\nu `$ invariant mass $`M_{e\nu }<150`$ GeV,
    + sum of two masses $`M_{jj}+M_{e\nu }<350`$,
* difference between mass of the (anti-)leptoquark reconstructed from electron-jet and neutrino-jet final state, $`80<M_{ej}M_{\nu j}<50`$ GeV,
* lepton emission angle in the (anti-)leptoquark rest frame $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _l^{}>0.7`$,
* mass reconstructed from electron-jet final state $`M_{ej}`$ within $`\pm 20`$ GeV from the nominal value.

Expected signal and background event distributions in the main selection variables and in the reconstructed leptoquark production angle are presented in Figure 5. The selection efficiency for scalar and vector leptoquark pair-production, for leptoquark mass $`M_{LQ}=350`$ GeV and $`\sqrt{s}=800`$ GeV, is about 30%. Estimated background from $`W^\pm `$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ pair-production corresponds to the cross-section of about 0.13 $`fb`$ (65 events for 500 $`fb^1`$) and is taken into account in the presented analysis.

### 5.3 Selection of $`ej(j)`$ events

Leptoquarks can be also single-produced at TESLA, in $`e^\pm \gamma `$ collisions:

$`\gamma e^{}`$ $`LQ+X`$ $`ej+X`$
where $`X`$ is the “photon remnant”: hadronic state remaining after leptoquark production in electron-quark fusion. Reconstruction of the remnant jet turns out to be very important for efficient leptoquark selection and background reduction. Direction of the remnant production gives an independent tag on the charge of the scattered $`e^\pm `$, strongly suppressing background from NC $`e^\pm \gamma `$ DIS event with wrong reconstruction of the scattered lepton charge.

Cuts used to select single leptoquark production events:

* Pre-selection cuts:

+ total energy $`E`$ of an event: $`E>0.5\sqrt{s}`$,
    + total transverse energy $`E_t`$ of an event: $`E_t>50`$ GeV,
    + total transverse momentum $`p_t`$ to $`E_t`$ ratio: $`p_t/E_t<0.1`$,
    + total invariant mass $`M_{tot}`$ of an event: $`300<M_{tot}<600`$ GeV,
* Three energy clusters are reconstructed using the Durham jet algorithm (without constraining $`y_{cut}`$). These clusters are identified as:

+ an isolated electron or positron with transverse momentum $`p_t^e>80`$ GeV,
    + hadronic jet from leptoquark decay with transverse momentum $`p_t^j>80`$ GeV,
    + photon remnant with transverse momentum $`p_t^r<50`$ GeV and $`p_t^r<0.1p_t^j`$; remnant emission angle w.r.t. the photon direction $`\mathrm{cos}\theta >0.8`$.
* mass reconstructed from decay electron energy and direction777For high electron scattering angles, leptoquark mass resolution for “electron” method (from electron energy and scattering angle only; using incident beam energy) is better than from electron-jet invariant mass (about 4 GeV and 6 GeV respectively). $`M_e`$ within $`\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8}`$ GeV from the nominal value.

Expected signal and background event distributions in the selected variables are presented in Figure 6. The selection efficiency for scalar leptoquark production, for leptoquark mass $`M_{LQ}=350`$ GeV and $`\sqrt{s}=800`$ GeV, is about 15%. Large, irreducible background comes from $`e^\pm \gamma `$ NC DIS. However, NC DIS background results in the steeply falling distribution of the electron emission angle in the leptoquark rest frame $`\theta _e^{}`$, whereas for scalar leptoquark production the distribution is flat at high $`\theta _e^{}`$ (see Figure 6d). Estimated background from remaining processes is about 8 event (in the selected mass window), mainly from $`W`$-pair production, and is taken into account.

## 6 Determination of the Yukawa couplings

Considered in this note is the possibility of the leptoquark Yukawa coupling measurement from the observed angular leptoquark distributions. Three distributions are considered: leptoquark production angle distribution in the pair-production process, in $`eejj`$ channel and in $`e\nu jj`$ channel, and the decay electron emission angle in the single leptoquark production process ($`ej(j)`$ channel). Yukawa coupling determination has been studied for three leptoquark types: $`S_{}`$ (iso-singlet), $`S_{1/2}`$ (iso-doublet) and $`S_1`$ (iso-triplet). For $`S_{}`$ and $`S_{1/2}`$ leptoquarks both left-handed and right-handed Yukawa couplings ($`\lambda _L`$ and $`\lambda _R`$) are considered, whereas $`S_1`$ leptoquark couples only to left-handed leptons.

Observed angular distributions, in three considered channels, for $`S_{}^L`$ leptoquark production are presented in Figure 7. Events were generated assuming $`M_{LQ}=`$350GeV and $`\lambda _L`$=0.15$`e`$ ($`\lambda _R`$=0). Numbers of observed events shown on the plots correspond to the integrated luminosity of 500 fb-1. Result of the simultaneous log-likelihood fit to the three distributions is indicated by the solid line. Precision of the coupling determination, for the assumed parameter values is about 6%. This high precision results mainly from the measurement of the single leptoquark production process. However, single leptoquark production does not distinguish between left- and right-handed Yukawa couplings. Measurement of other distributions, related to the leptoquark pair-production, is required to verify the chirality of the coupling. This is demonstrated in Figure 8. 2$`\sigma `$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}=2`$) contours in $`(\lambda _L,\lambda _R)`$, resulting from the two parameter fits to the separate distributions are compared with 1$`\sigma `$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}=0.5`$) and 2$`\sigma `$ contours from the simultaneous fit to the three distributions, as show in Figure 7. Using information from both single leptoquark production and pair-production $`\lambda _L`$ and $`\lambda _R`$ can be simultaneously constrained. The value of the leptoquark Yukawa coupling can be precisely determined and its chirality unambiguously defined.

Measurement of the Yukawa couplings for $`S_{}`$ would be the most difficult one at TESLA, as $`S_{}`$ pair-production cross-section is the smallest. Much better measurement is possible for $`S_{1/2}`$ and $`S_1`$ leptoquarks. Corresponding results are shown in Figures 9 and 10 (for $`S_{1/2}^R`$, assuming $`\lambda _R`$=0.15$`e`$), and in Figures 11 and 12 (for $`S_1`$, assuming $`\lambda _L`$=0.15$`e`$). Presented results confirm that precise determination of the Yukawa couplings at TESLA will be possible even in the domain, which will not be accessible at LHC.888Coupling values chosen are just below the expected exclusion limits from Drell-Yan electron pair-production at LHC, with 100 fb-1 .

Precision of the leptoquark Yukawa coupling determination, for different scalar leptoquark models, has been also studied as a function of the coupling value (for leptoquark mass $`M_{LQ}`$=350 GeV) and as a function of the leptoquark mass (for fixed value of coupling: $`\lambda _L`$=0.15$`e`$ or $`\lambda _R`$=0.15$`e`$). Results are shown in Figures 13 and 14 respectively. Determination of the leptoquark Yukawa coupling, seems to be possible down to the coupling values or about 0.05$`e`$. Precision of the measurement very slowly deteriorates with the increasing leptoquark mass (for masses up to 390 GeV), as it results mainly from the single leptoquark production measurements. Shown in Figures 15 are 1$`\sigma `$ and 2$`\sigma `$ contours in $`(\lambda _L,\lambda _R)`$, for $`S_{1/2}`$ leptoquark with $`\lambda _L`$=0.15$`e`$ or $`\lambda _R`$=0.15$`e`$, for leptoquark mass $`M_{LQ}=`$330, 350, 370 and 390 GeV. Measurement of the leptoquark pair-production process will allow to distinguish between left- and right-handed Yukawa couplings even for leptoquark masses very close to the pair-production kinematic limit.

## 7 Summary

Measurement of the Yukawa couplings of the first-generation leptoquarks has been studied for $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at TESLA, at $`\sqrt{s}=`$800 GeV. By combining measurements from different production and decay channels, determination of Yukawa couplings with precision on the few per-cent level is possible. TESLA will be sensitive to very small leptoquark Yukawa couplings not accessible at LHC, down to $`\lambda _{L,R}0.05e`$. Distinction between left-handed and right-handed Yukawa couplings is feasible even for leptoquark masses very close to the pair-production kinematic limit.

TESLA sensitivity to very small Yukawa couplings is limited mainly by the statistics of single leptoquark production events. In $`e^+e^{}`$ running mode of TESLA, considered in this paper, single leptoquark production is suppressed by a very small flux of high energy bremsstrahlung and beamstrahlung photons. If TESLA collider is run in $`e\gamma `$ mode, cross-section for single leptoquark production will increase significantly and much smaller Yukawa couplings can be searched for.