text:
# Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment and Lepton Flavor Violation

## Abstract

A non-universal interaction, which involves only the third family leptons induces lepton flavor violating couplings and contributes to the anomalous magnetic moment of muon. In this paper, we study the effects of non-universal interaction on muon (g-2) and rare decay $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ by using an effective lagrangian technique, and a phenomenological $`Z^{}`$ model where $`Z^{}`$ couples only to the third family lepton. We find that the deviation from the theory can be explained and the induced $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ rate could be very close to the current experimental limit. In the $`Z^{}`$ model, $`M_Z^{}`$ has to be lighter than 2.6 TeV.

Recently the Brookhaven AGS experiment 821 group has announced a new measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment with three times higher accuracy than it was previously known . The experimental data now is in conflict with the theoretical prediction of the Standard Model (SM) with an excess of 2.6 $`\sigma `$. This may be an indication of new physics if it is more than a statistical fluctuation. Many authors have considered various possibilities of interpreting the discrepancy in models beyond the Standard Model, such as, supersymmetric version of the standard model, muon with substructure in composite model and anomalous gauge boson couplings .

In this paper we consider a class of models where non-universal interactions exist and study the effects of new physics on muon (g-2) and lepton rare decay. We first take a model independent approach (effective lagrangian) to new physics, then consider a phenomenological $`Z^{}`$ model. We find that the non-universal interaction can account for the deviation of muon (g-2) from the SM prediction. Furthermore, our models predict the rare decay rate $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ which can be tested in the planned $`\tau `$-charm factories and in $`Z^{}`$ model $`M_Z^{}`$ has to be lighter than 2.6 TeV which results in many interesting phenomenon .

The tau lepton is the heaviest one in the lepton sector and especially the top quark is heavier than all other fermions, with mass close to the electroweak symmetry breaking scale, the new physics, if exists, is expected to become manifest in the effective interaction of the third family fermions . There are also theoretical and phenomenological motivations that there may exist interactions with generation non-universal couplings . Furthermore, the possible anomalies in the $`Z`$\- pole $`b\overline{b}`$ asymmetries may suggest a non-universal $`Z^{}`$ .

In terms of an effective lagrangian, the new physics is described by higher dimensional operators. At dimension-six, there are two operators  which contribute directly to the anomalous magnetic moment of leptons,

$`𝒪_{\tau B}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{L}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\tau _R\mathrm{\Phi }B_{\mu \nu },`$ (1)
$`𝒪_{\tau W}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{L}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{\sigma }\tau _R\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{}{W}_{\mu \nu },`$ (2)
where $`L=(\nu _\tau ,\tau _L)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the Higgs scalar, $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`W_{\mu \nu }`$ are field strengths of $`U_Y(1)`$ and $`SU_L(2)`$, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ are Pauli matrices.

In the presence of operators $`𝒪_{\tau B}`$ and $`𝒪_{\tau W}`$, the effective Lagrangian $`_{eff}`$ can be written as,

$`_{eff}=_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}(C_{\tau B}𝒪_{\tau B}+C_{\tau W}𝒪_{\tau W}+h.c.),`$ (3)
where $`_0`$ is the standard model lagrangian and $`C_{\tau B}`$, $`C_{\tau W}`$ are constants which represent the coupling strengths of $`𝒪_{\tau B}`$ and $`𝒪_{\tau W}`$. $`C_{\tau B}`$, $`C_{\tau W}`$ are expected to be $`O(\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2})`$ in theories with weakly interaction , however could be large if the fundamental theory is strongly interaction such as the models of composite tau lepton.

After the electroweak symmetry is broken and the mass matrices of the fermions and the gauge bosons are diagonalized, the magnetic moment-type couplings of the leptons to gauge boson $`Z`$ and the photon $`\gamma `$ are

$`_{eff}^{Z,\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`eg^{Z,\gamma }\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{e}\\ \overline{\mu }\\ \overline{\tau }\end{array}\right)^T\{({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_\tau }})(ik_\nu \sigma ^{\mu \nu })S^{Z,\gamma }`$ (6)
$`\times U_l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& & \\ & 0& \\ & & 1\end{array}\right)U_l^{}\}\left(\begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}\right)V_\mu ,`$
$`V_\mu =Z_\mu ,A_\mu ,`$
where $`g^Z=1/(4s_Wc_W),g^\gamma =1`$, and

$`S^Z`$ $`=`$ $`g^Z{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{e}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\left[C_{\tau W}c_WC_{\tau B}s_W\right],`$ (7)
$`S^\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{e}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\left[C_{\tau W}s_WC_{\tau B}c_W\right].`$ (8)
The matrix $`U_l`$ in Eq. (6) is the unitary matrix which diagonalizes the mass matrix of the charged lepton. In the SM, which corresponds to $`_{eff}`$ in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, the matrix $`U_l`$ is not measurable because of the zero neutrino masses. Furthermore, the universality of the gauge interaction guarantees the absence of the flavor changing neutral current and the lepton flavor violation in the lepton sector.

The lagrangian $`_{eff}^{Z,\gamma }`$ in Eq. (6) gives rise to the anomalous magnetic moment of muon (g-2) and the rare decays $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ etc, whose relative size, however, depends on the rotation matrix $`U_l`$. In Ref. , we have shown that $`\mu e\gamma `$ puts a very stringent constraint on the product of the tau-electron and muon-electron mixing angles. So in the following discussion we assume that the tau mixes only with the muon, but not with the electron and for simplicity we have assumed that rotation matrices of left-handed leptons and the right-handed leptons are equal ***We have also considered the case with different left-handed and the right-handed rotation matrices and find our conclusions unchanged.,

$`U_l=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& c& s\\ 0& s& c\end{array}\right),`$ (9)
where $`s=\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ and $`c=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ with $`\theta `$ being mixing angle. The decay width of $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \mu \gamma )={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{8}}m_\tau (scS^\gamma )^2,`$ (10)
and the new contribution to the tau and muon anomalous magnetic moments are given by

$`|\delta a_\tau |=\left|c^2S^\gamma \right|;|\delta a_\mu |=\left|s^2S^\gamma \right|{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }}.`$ (11)
Within the parameter space of $`C_{\tau B},C_{\tau W},\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, we have quantitatively studied the new physics effects on the $`\tau \mu \gamma `$, $`Z\tau \mu `$ , $`\delta a_\tau `$ and $`\delta a_\mu `$. We find that the predicted $`Br(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ is correlated to $`\delta a_\mu `$, which is shown in Fig. 1. The figure also shows that $`Br(Z\tau \mu )`$ could be quite close to the experimental limit. On the other hand, given the current limits on $`Br(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ and $`\delta a_\mu `$, the predicted $`Br(Z\tau \mu )`$ and $`\delta a_\tau `$ are well below the experimental limits. Numerically to fit $`\delta a_\mu `$ to be within 90% C.L. of the new experimental data, we obtain that $`s^2`$ has to be bigger than 0.46, which is quite reasonable in some models . And $`Br(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ could be close to the current experimental limit. For example, taking $`s^20.5`$, $`C_{\tau B},C_{\tau W}1/(4\pi )^2`$  and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }17.5`$ TeV, the new physics contribution to muon (g-2) is,

$$\delta a_\mu =221\times 10^{11},$$
(12)
which is within 90% C.L. of the experimental data

$$a_\mu ^{exp}a_\mu ^{SM}=426\pm 165\times 10^{11},$$
(13)
and $`Br(\tau \mu \gamma )=1\times 10^6`$ which is close to the current experimental limit $`Br^{exp}(\tau \mu \gamma )=1.1\times 10^6`$ . From Fig.1, one can see that increasing the mixing angle $`\theta `$ will decrease the value of predicted $`Br(\tau \mu \gamma )`$, however for a large range of the mixing angle it remains to be close to the current experimental limit.

Now we consider a phenomenological model where a heavy neutral vector boson $`Z_\mu ^{}`$ is introduced and coupled to only the tau lepton,

$$^{int}=gZ_\mu ^{}\overline{\tau }\gamma ^\mu \tau ,$$
(14)
where g is the coupling constant. In Eq. (14) we have considered only the vectorial coupling for simplicity. The couplings of $`Z^{}`$ to other fermions are not given since they are irrelevant for the purpose of this paper.

After diagonalizing the lepton mass matrix by $`U_l`$ in Eq. (9), Eq. (14) becomes

$`^{int}`$ $`=`$ $`gZ_\mu ^{}[c^2\overline{\tau }\gamma ^\mu \tau +sc\overline{\tau }\gamma ^\mu \mu `$ (16)
$`+sc\overline{\mu }\gamma ^\mu \tau +s^2\overline{\mu }\gamma ^\mu \mu ].`$
At one-loop level, the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon is generated as shown in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b). However compared with Fig. 2(a), contribution to muon (g-2) from Fig. 2(b) is less suppressed by the mixing angles in the vertices and is enhanced by the tau lepton mass in the internal propagator, which gives rise to

$`\delta a_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8s^2c^2m_\tau m_\mu }{M_Z^{}^2}}I({\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{M_Z^{}^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{M_Z^{}^2}}),`$ (17)
$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{y(1y)dy}{y^2m_\mu ^2/M_Z^{}^2y(1m_\tau ^2/M_Z^{}^2+m_\mu ^2/M_Z^{}^2)+1}}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{M_Z^{}^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{M_Z^{}^2}}).`$ (19)
Taking $`g^24\pi `$ to make the perturbative calculation reliable and $`s^20.5`$ to maximize $`s^2c^2`$, we find that to fit muon (g-2) to be within 90% C.L. of the experimental data, $`M_Z^{}`$ has to be lighter than 2.6 TeV. With these input parameters of $`g,s`$ and $`M_Z^{}`$, the predicted rate of $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ is $`9.3\times 10^7`$. The result holds unchanged for weakly interaction theory if the ratio of $`g^2/M_Z^{}^2`$ remains the same as of $`4\pi /(2.6TeV)^2`$. In this type of models, there are in general two sources which contribute to $`Z\tau \mu `$. One is the radiative vertex correction by the $`Z^{}`$ vector boson with the result given by

$`Br(Z\tau \overline{\mu })=Br(Zl\overline{l})\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{g^2sc^3}{12\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{M_Z^{}^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^{}^2}{M_Z^2}}\right)\right)^2.`$ (20)
Taking $`g^24\pi `$, $`s^20.5`$ and $`M_Z^{}=`$ 2.6 TeV, we find that the branching ratio of $`Z\tau \overline{\mu }`$ is about $`1.6\times 10^9`$, which is well below the experiment limit $`1.2\times 10^5`$ . If a $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing $`\theta _Z^{}`$ is explicitly introduced, we will have

$`Br(Z\tau \overline{\mu })=Br(Zl\overline{l})\times {\displaystyle \frac{2g^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _Z^{}s^2c^2}{g_Z^2(g_L^2+g_R^2)}},`$ (21)
where $`\theta _Z^{}`$ is the $`Z`$-$`Z^{}`$ mixing angle, $`g_Z`$, $`g_{(L,R)}`$ are the $`Z`$ coupling constants in the SM. Given the experimental limit on $`\theta _Z^{}`$, $`Br(Z\tau \mu )`$ is quite safe with the experimental constraint . For example, taking $`g^24\pi `$, $`s^20.5`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _Z^{}10^3`$, Eq. (21) shows that the branching ratio of $`Z\tau \overline{\mu }`$ is about $`3\times 10^6`$. A full study of the $`Z^{}`$ physics on the electroweak observables depends on the detail of the model parameters. This goes beyond the scope of this paper.

In summary, we have proposed in this paper a possible solution to the discrepancy of the muon $`(g2)`$ between the standard model prediction and the new experimental data, by introducing the new physics with the third family. Compared to other approaches to $`\delta a_\mu `$ , ours is the only one which relates the new physics responsible for $`\delta a_\mu `$ to another exciting possibility, i.e. lepton flavor violation. Furthermore, in model with $`Z^{}`$, our results show that $`M_Z^{}`$ has to be lighter than 2.6 TeV.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China and by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China under Grant No. NKBRSF G19990754.


format: text

text:
# The Solution of the Modified Helmholtz Equation in a Triangular Domain and an Application to Diffusion-Limited Coalescence

## I introduction

A new method for solving boundary value problems for linear and for integrable nonlinear PDEs has been introduced recently . Here we apply this method to the equation

$$E_{xx}+E_{yy}+\gamma (E_x+E_y)=0,$$
(1)
in the triangular domain $`L/2xyL/2`$, where $`E(x,y)`$ is a scalar function and $`\gamma `$ is a positive constant. A solution of Eq. (1) in the semi-infinite wedge $`0xy`$ has been presented in . Using the substitution $`E(x,y)=1e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}(yx)}q(x,y)`$, Eq. (1) becomes the modified Helmholtz equation

$$q_{xx}+q_{yy}4\beta ^2q=0,\beta =\frac{\gamma }{\sqrt{8}}.$$
(2)
Eq. (1) with $`\gamma =v/D`$ represents the steady state of the diffusion-limited reaction $`A+AA`$ on the line, where the $`A`$-particles diffuse with diffusion constant $`D`$, they merge immediately upon encounter, and split into two particles (the back reaction) at rate $`v`$ . $`E(x,y)`$ represents the probability that the interval $`(x,y)`$ is empty. The concentration profile of the particles is related to $`E(x,y)`$ through $`c(x)=E_y(x,x)`$. Suppose that we limit ourselves to the segment $`L/2xL/2`$, then the domain of Eq. (1) is $`L/2xyL/2`$. The forward reaction is described by the boundary condition (BC) $`E(x,x)=1`$. If there are perfect traps at the edges, $`x=\pm L/2`$, one gets the BCs $`E_x(L/2,y)=0`$, $`E_y(x,L/2)=0`$. These BCs transform into the following BCs for Eq. (2):

$`q(x,x)`$ $`=`$ $`0,{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}x{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}q({\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}},y)+q_x({\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}},y)`$ $`=`$ $`0,{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}y{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}q(x,{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}})+q_x(x,{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`0,{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}x{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}.`$
We rotate and translate the $`(x,y)`$-axes, with the mapping $`(x,y)(y+L/2,x+L/2)`$. Eq. (2) remains invariant, but the domain is now $`0xLyL`$ — the isosceles right triangle with vertices at $`(0,0)`$, $`(0,L)`$, $`(L,0)`$ — and the BCs become

$`q(x,Lx)`$ $`=`$ $`0,0xL,`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}q(x,0)+q_y(x,0)`$ $`=`$ $`0,0xL,`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}q(0,y)+q_x(0,y)`$ $`=`$ $`0,0yL.`$ (6)
For the sake of generality, instead of the BC (Ib), (Ic) we consider

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}q(x,0)+q_y(x,0)`$ $`=`$ $`f(x),0xL,`$ ()
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}q(0,y)+q_x(0,y)`$ $`=`$ $`f(y),0yL,`$ ()
where $`f()`$ is an arbitrary smooth function.

We will show that: (a) Eq. (2) with the BCs (Ia), (Ib’), (Ic’) has a unique solution that can be expressed in closed form. (b) Eq. (2) with the homogeneous BCs (Ia), (Ib), (Ic) has only the trivial solution $`q(x,y)=0`$, i.e., the only steady state of the process $`A+AA`$, in a segment demarcated by traps, is the vacuum — when there are no particles left — regardless of the magnitude of $`v`$, the rate of the back reaction $`AA+A`$. (c) For large back reaction rates, $`\gamma L1`$, the characteristic relaxation time to the empty, absorbing state grows exponentially as $`(D/2v^2)e^{vL/2D}`$.

Let $`z=x+iy`$, let a bar denote the complex conjugate ($`\overline{z}=xiy`$), and let $`z_j`$ denote the corners of the domain $`0xLyL`$ (see Figure 1);

$$z_1=L,z_2=0,z_3=iL.$$
(7)
## II the analysis of the inhomogeneous problem

It is shown in  that the general solution of the modified Helmholtz equation in the above domain can be represented as

$$q(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}_\mathrm{}_je^{ikzi\frac{\beta ^2}{k}\overline{z}}\rho _j(k)\frac{dk}{k},0xLyL,$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{}_1`$, $`\mathrm{}_2`$, $`\mathrm{}_3`$, are the rays on the complex $`k`$-plane defined by $`\mathrm{arg}k=0`$, $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$, $`\frac{5\pi }{4}`$, and oriented from zero to infinity (see Figure 2), while the functions $`\rho _j(k)`$ are defined by

$$\rho _j(k)=_{z_{j+1}}^{z_j}e^{ikz+i\frac{\beta ^2}{k}\overline{z}}[\frac{1}{/}2(q_xiq_y)dz+i\frac{\beta ^2}{k}qd\overline{z}],k𝐂,j=1,2,3,z_4=z_1.$$
(9)
Using the boundary conditions (I) to simplify the expressions for $`\rho _j(k)`$, we find the following:

$`\rho _1(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{/}}2q(0,0)+i\alpha (k)\psi _1(ik)iF(ik),k𝐂,`$ (11)
$`\rho _2(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{/}}2q(0,0)+i\alpha (ik)\psi _2(k)iF(k),k𝐂,`$ (12)
$`\rho _3(k)`$ $`=`$ $`iE(k)\psi _3(ke^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}),k𝐂,`$ (13)
where

$$\alpha (k)=\frac{1}{/}2(\frac{\beta ^2}{k}+k+\frac{\gamma }{2}),E(k)=e^{(k+\frac{\beta ^2}{k})L},F(k)=\frac{1}{2}_0^Le^{(k+\frac{\beta ^2}{k})y}f(y)𝑑y,$$
(14)
and the unknown functions $`\psi _1`$, $`\psi _2`$, $`\psi _3`$ are defined by

$$\psi _1(k)=_0^Le^{(k+\frac{\beta ^2}{k})x}q(x,0)𝑑x,\psi _2(k)=_0^Le^{(k+\frac{\beta ^2}{k})y}q(0,y)𝑑y,\psi _3(k)=_0^{\sqrt{2}L}e^{(k+\frac{\beta ^2}{k})s}q_s(\frac{s}{\sqrt{2}},L\frac{s}{\sqrt{2}})𝑑s.$$
(15)
Indeed, for the derivation of (9a) we use $`z=x`$, and we note that the boundary condition (Ib’) implies

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{/}}2(q_x(x,0)iq_y(x,0))+i{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{k}}q(x,0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{/}}2q_x(x,0)+i({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{4}})q(x,0){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}f(x);`$

integrating by parts the terms involving $`q_x`$ we find (9a). The derivation of (9b) is similar, where we use the condition (Ic’). For the derivation of (9c) we use $`z=iL+xix`$, and we note that the boundary condition $`q(x,Lx)=0`$ implies $`q_x(x,Lx)q_y(x,Lx)=0`$.

In order to simplify the analysis, we have assumed that the same function $`f`$ appears in the BCs (Ib’) and (Ic’). This implies that the PDE (2), the triangular domain, and the BCs (Ia), (Ib’), (Ic’) are invariant under the reflection $`xy`$, thus $`q(x,y)=q(y,x)`$. Hence, $`\psi _1(k)=\psi _2(k)`$.

We introduce the following notations:

$$\psi _1(k)=\psi _2(k)=\phi (k),\psi _3(ke^{i\pi /4})=\psi (),\psi _3(ke^{i\pi /4})=\psi (+),e(k,z,\overline{z})=e^{ikzi\frac{\beta ^2}{k}\overline{z}}.$$
(16)
### A The Analysis of the Global Relation

Eqs. (9) express $`\rho _j(k)`$ in terms of the unknown functions $`\phi (ik)`$, $`\phi (k)`$, and $`\psi (+)`$. These functions satisfy the global condition: $`_{j=1}^3\rho _j(k)=0`$ . This equation, and its complex conjugate, are

$`\alpha (k)\phi (ik)+\alpha (ik)\phi (k)+E(k)\psi (+)`$ $`=`$ $`F(k)+F(ik),k𝐂,`$ (17)
$`\alpha (k)\phi (ik)+\alpha (ik)\phi (k)+E(k)\psi ()`$ $`=`$ $`F(k)+F(ik),k𝐂.`$ (18)
Following  we supplement these equations with the equations obtained from Eqs. (17), (18) by using the transformations in the complex $`k`$-plane which leave invariant the pairs $`\{\phi (ik),\phi (ik)\}`$ and $`\{\psi (+),\psi ()\}`$. The first pair is invariant under $`kk`$, and the second pair is invariant under $`\{kik,kik\}`$. Using the latter transformations, Eqs. (17) and (18) yield

$`\alpha (ik)\phi (k)+\alpha (k)\phi (ik)+E(ik)\psi ()`$ $`=`$ $`F(ik)+F(k),k𝐂,`$ (19)
$`\alpha (ik)\phi (k)+\alpha (k)\phi (ik)+E(ik)\psi (+)`$ $`=`$ $`F(ik)+F(k),k𝐂.`$ (20)
Eqs. (17)–(20) are invariant under $`kk`$, thus we do not obtain any additional equations using this transformation. Eqs. (17)–(20) are the basic equations needed for the determination of the unknown functions $`\phi (k)`$, $`\phi (ik)`$, $`\psi (+)`$. The analysis of the basic equations leads to a matrix Riemann-Hilbert problem. However, in what follows we will show that this problem can be bypassed, and that $`q(x,y)`$ can be obtained using only algebraic manipulations of the basic equations.

Eqs. (17)–(20) imply that $`\phi (ik)`$, $`\phi (k)`$, $`\psi (+)`$ can be expressed in terms of $`\phi (ik)`$ and $`\psi ()`$:

$`\phi (ik)=A(ik)\phi (ik)+{\displaystyle \frac{E(k)}{\alpha (k)\mathrm{\Delta }(k)}}[A(ik)^2E(ik)E(ik)]\psi ()+G_1(k),`$ (22)
$`\phi (k)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (k)}{\alpha (ik)}}\phi (ik){\displaystyle \frac{E(k)}{\alpha (ik)}}\psi ()+G_2(k),`$ (23)
$`\psi (+)={\displaystyle \frac{A(ik)E(k)+A(k)E(ik)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(k)}}\psi ()+G_3(k),`$ (24)
where

$$A(k)=\frac{\alpha (k)}{\alpha (k)},\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=E(k)+A(k)A(ik)E(ik),$$
(25)
and the known functions $`G_j(k)`$, $`j=1,2,3`$, are defined in terms of $`f`$ as follows:

$`G_1(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }(k)\alpha (k)}}\{`$ $`[E(k)+A(ik)E(ik)][F(ik)A(ik)F(ik)]`$ (28)
$`+[1A(ik)][A(ik)E(ik)F(k)+E(k)F(k)]\}.`$
$$G_2(k)=\frac{F(k)+F(ik)}{\alpha (ik)},$$
(29)
$$G_3(k)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }(k)}\{[1A(k)][F(ik)A(ik)F(ik)]+[1A(ik)][F(k)A(k)F(k)]\}.$$
(30)
Indeed, Eq. (II Ab) is Eq. (18). Eliminating $`\phi (k)`$ from Eqs. (19), (20), we find

$`\alpha (k)\phi (ik)`$ $`+E(ik)\psi ()A(ik)[\alpha (k)\phi (ik)+E(ik)\psi (+)]`$ (32)
$`=F(ik)+F(k)A(ik)[F(ik)+F(k)].`$
Replacing in this equation $`\phi (ik)`$ by Eq. (18) and comparing with Eq. (17) we find Eq. (II Ac). Replacing $`\psi (+)`$ in terms of $`\psi ()`$ in Eq. (32), using Eq. (II Ac), we find Eq. (II Aa).

Eq. (8) expresses $`q(x,y)`$ in terms of $`\rho _j(k)`$, and Eqs. (9), (II A) express $`\rho _j(k)`$ in terms of the unknown functions $`\phi (ik)`$, $`\psi ()`$, and the known functions $`G_j(k)`$. The known functions give rise to the contribution

$`G(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{}_1}e(k,z,\overline{z})[\alpha (k)G_1(k)F(ik)]{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{}_2}e(k,z,\overline{z})[\alpha (ik)G_2(k)F(k)]{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}}`$ (34)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{}_3}e(k,z,\overline{z})E(k)G_3(k){\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}}.`$
In what follows we will show that, by using appropriate contour rotations, the integrals involving the functions $`\phi (ik)`$, $`\psi ()`$ can be evaluated in terms of residues. Furthermore, these residues can be computed in terms of the functions $`G_j(k)`$. For the justification of these rotations we use the following facts (see Figure 3).

$``$ $`e(k,z,\overline{z})`$, $`e(k,z,\overline{z})E(k)`$, $`e(k,z,\overline{z})E(ik)`$, are bounded for $`0<\mathrm{arg}k<\frac{\pi }{2}`$, $`\frac{\pi }{2}<\mathrm{arg}k<\frac{5\pi }{4}`$, $`\frac{5\pi }{4}<\mathrm{arg}k<2\pi `$, respectively.

$``$ $`E(k)E(ik)`$ and $`\psi ()`$ are bounded for $`\frac{\pi }{4}<\mathrm{arg}k<\frac{3\pi }{4}`$, while $`E(k)E(ik)\psi ()`$ is bounded for $`\frac{3\pi }{4}<\mathrm{arg}k<\frac{7\pi }{4}`$.

$``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)E(k)`$, $`k0`$ and $`k\mathrm{}`$, in $`\frac{\pi }{4}<\mathrm{arg}k<\frac{3\pi }{4}`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)E(ik)`$, $`k0`$ and $`k\mathrm{}`$, in $`\frac{3\pi }{4}<\mathrm{arg}k<\frac{7\pi }{4}`$.

Indeed, since $`x0`$ and $`y0`$, $`e(k,z,\overline{z})`$ is bounded both at $`k=0`$ and $`k=\mathrm{}`$ in the first quadrant of the complex $`k`$-plane. Since $`\frac{\pi }{2}<\mathrm{arg}(zz_3)<\frac{\pi }{4}`$, it follows that if $`\frac{\pi }{2}<\mathrm{arg}k<\frac{5\pi }{4}`$ then $`0<\mathrm{arg}k(zz_3)<\pi `$. Hence $`\mathrm{exp}[ik(zz_3)i\frac{\beta ^2}{k}(\overline{z}\overline{z}_3)]`$ is bounded both at $`k=0`$ and $`k=\mathrm{}`$; using $`z_3=iL`$, this exponential equals $`e(k,z,\overline{z})E(k)`$. Similar considerations apply to $`e(k,z,\overline{z})E(ik)`$.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=E(ik)[E(k)E(ik)+A(k)A(ik)]`$. If $`\frac{\pi }{4}<\mathrm{arg}k<\frac{3\pi }{4}`$, $`E(k)E(ik)`$ is exponentially large at $`k=0`$ and $`k=\mathrm{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)E(k)`$. Similarly, if $`\frac{3\pi }{4}<\mathrm{arg}k<\frac{7\pi }{4}`$, $`E(k)E(ik)`$ is exponentially small, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)E(ik)A(k)A(ik)E(ik)`$.

$`\psi ()`$ involves $`(ke^{i\pi /4}+\frac{\beta ^2}{k}e^{i\pi /4})`$, thus it is bounded for $`\frac{\pi }{4}<\mathrm{arg}k<\frac{3\pi }{4}`$. Similarly for $`E(k)E(ik)\psi ()`$.

The contribution of the integral along $`\mathrm{}_3`$, due to the terms involving $`\psi ()`$ (see Eq. (II Ac)), gives rise to two integrals: one involving $`e(k,z,\overline{z})A(k)E(ik)E(k)\psi ()/k\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$, and one involving $`e(k,z,\overline{z})A(ik)E(k)^2/k\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$. The first integral is bounded in $`\frac{5\pi }{4}<\mathrm{arg}k<2\pi `$, while the second integral is bounded in $`\frac{\pi }{2}<\mathrm{arg}k<\frac{5\pi }{4}`$. Indeed, the integrand of the first integral is dominated by

$`[e(k,z,\overline{z})E(ik)][E(k)E(ik)\psi ()],{\displaystyle \frac{5\pi }{4}}<\mathrm{arg}k<{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi }{4}};[e(k,z,\overline{z})E(ik)][\psi ()],{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi }{4}}<\mathrm{arg}k<2\pi ,`$

and each of the brackets is bounded. Similarly, the integrand of the second integral is dominated by

$`[e(k,z,\overline{z})E(k)][\psi ()],{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}<\mathrm{arg}k<{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{4}};[e(k,z,\overline{z})E(k)][E(k)E(ik)\psi ()],{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{4}}<\mathrm{arg}k<{\displaystyle \frac{5\pi }{4}},`$

and each of the brackets is bounded.

Hence, the integral along $`\mathrm{}_3`$, due to the terms involving $`\psi ()`$, equals an integral along $`\mathrm{}_1`$ involving $`e(k,z,\overline{z})A(k)E(ik)E(k)\psi ()/k\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$, an integral along $`\mathrm{}_2`$ involving $`e(k,z,\overline{z})A(ik)E(k)^2/k\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$, and a contribution due to residues which will be computed below (see Eqs. (37b), (37c)). Combining these integrals with the integrals due to $`\phi (ik)`$ and to $`\phi (k)`$ (see Eqs. (II Aa) and (II Ab)), we find

$`J_1(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_1}{}}e(k,z,\overline{z})[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}q(0,0)+\alpha (k)A(ik)\phi (ik)]{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}},`$ (35)
$`J_2(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e(k,z,\overline{z})}{\mathrm{\Delta }(k)}}A(k)A(ik)^2E(k)E(ik)\psi (){\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}}.`$ (36)
For $`k`$ in the first quadrant of the complex $`k`$-plane, $`E(k)/\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ is dominated by $`1`$, and each of the terms $`e(k,z,\overline{z})`$, $`\phi (ik)`$, $`E(ik)`$, $`\psi ()`$ is bounded. Thus, both $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ can be computed in terms of residues.

The definition of $`A(k)`$ implies

$`A(ik)={\displaystyle \frac{(k+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)(k+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)}{(k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)(k\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)}},A(k)={\displaystyle \frac{(k+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)(k\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)}{(k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)(k+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)}},\mathrm{\Lambda }_1={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{4}}(1+i),\mathrm{\Lambda }_2={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{4}}(1+i),`$

so the poles of $`A(ik)`$ and $`A(k)`$ occur at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, and at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, respectively. Similarly, the poles of $`A(ik)`$ and $`A(k)`$ occur at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, respectively. Using these facts it follows that

$$q(x,y)=G(x,y)+\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}R_j(x,y)+P(x,y),$$
(37)
where $`G(x,y)`$ is defined by Eq. (34), $`P(x,y)`$ is the contribution to $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ due to the poles of $`\alpha (k)A(ik)`$ and of $`A(k)A(ik)^2`$, and the $`R_j`$ are defined as follows:

$`R_1=i{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e(\kappa _j,z,\overline{z})A(\kappa _j)A(i\kappa _j)^2E(\kappa _j)E(i\kappa _j)}{\kappa _j\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\kappa _j)}}\psi (\kappa _j),`$ (39)
$`R_2=i{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e(\lambda _j,z,\overline{z})A(\lambda _j)E(\lambda _j)^2}{\lambda _j\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\lambda _j)}}\psi (\lambda _j)+2{\displaystyle \frac{e(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,z,\overline{z})}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)}}E(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)^2\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_2),`$ (40)
$`R_3=i{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e(\mu _j,z,\overline{z})A(\mu _j)E(i\mu _j)E(\mu _j)}{\mu _j\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\mu _j)}}\psi (\mu _j)2{\displaystyle \frac{e(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,z,\overline{z})}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)}}E(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)E(i\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_2),`$ (41)
$`\psi (k)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(k)`$ denote

$$\psi (k)=\psi (ke^{i\pi /4}),\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(k)=\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }(k)}{dk},$$
(42)
and $`\kappa _j`$, $`\lambda _j`$, $`\mu _j`$ denote the zeros of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ in $`0<\mathrm{arg}k<\frac{\pi }{2}`$, $`\frac{\pi }{4}<\mathrm{arg}k<\frac{5\pi }{4}`$, $`\frac{5\pi }{4}<\mathrm{arg}k<2\pi `$, respectively. Multiplying Eq. (II Ac) by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ and evaluating the resulting expression at $`k_j=\{\kappa _j,\lambda _j,\mu _j\}`$, we find

$$\psi (k_j)=\frac{[1A(k_j)][F(ik_j)A(ik_j)F(ik_j)]+[1A(ik_j)][F(k_j)A(k_j)F(k_j)]}{\delta (k_j)},\delta (k_j)0,$$
(43)
where

$$\delta (k)=A(ik)E(k)+A(k)E(ik),$$
(44)
Noting that $`\alpha (k)=(k+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)(k\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)/2k`$, $`\alpha (ik)=(k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)(k\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)/2ik`$, and evaluating Eq. (18) at $`k=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, we find $`\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)`$. Similarly, evaluating Eq. (19) at $`k=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ we find $`\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)`$:

$$\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)=E(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)[F(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)+F(i\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)],\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)=E(i\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)[F(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)+F(i\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)].$$
(45)
The term $`P(x,y)`$ arises from $`\alpha (k)A(ik)`$ in $`J_1`$, and $`A(k)A(ik)^2/\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ \[$`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)0`$\] in $`J_2`$, each of which has a simple pole at $`k=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$. Evaluation of the pertaining residues yields

$`P(x,y)=2e(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,z,\overline{z})[\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)\phi (i\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)+E(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)].`$

Evaluating Eq. (18) at $`k=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, we find

$`\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)\phi (i\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)+E(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)=F(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)+F(i\mathrm{\Lambda }_1).`$

Thus,

$$P(x,y)=2e(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,z,\overline{z})[F(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)+F(i\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)].$$
(46)
$`\underset{¯}{\text{In summary}}`$: Assume that $`\delta (k_j)0`$, where $`k_j`$ is a zero of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$, and $`\delta (k)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ are defined by Eqs. (25b), (44), respectively. Then $`q(x,y)`$ is given by Eq. (37), where $`G(x,y)`$ is defined by Eq. (34), $`P(x,y)`$ is defined by Eq. (46), and $`R_j(x,y)`$, $`j=1,2,3`$, are defined by Eqs. (37), with $`\psi (k_j)`$, $`\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)`$, $`\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)`$ defined by Eqs. (43), (45).

## III The physical problem

The physical problem corresponds to the homogeneous BCs, i.e., $`f=0`$. In this case Eq. (37) yields $`q(x,y)=0`$. Thus, we only need to consider the assumption that $`\delta (k_n)0`$. If this assumption is violated then the equations $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_n)=0`$ and $`\delta (k_n)=0`$ can be rewritten in the form

$`A(ik_n)^2E(ik_n)^2`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (48)
$`A(k_n)^2E(k_n)^2`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (49)
Eqs. (III) do not have a solution for generic values of $`\gamma `$. Indeed, consider first the limit of infinite back reaction rate, $`\gamma L\mathrm{}`$. Inspection of Eqs. (III) in this limit yields the asymptotic solution $`k_{\mathrm{}}=\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$. If there exists a steady state other than $`q(x,y)=0`$, then it would also exist for $`\gamma L`$ large but finite. We therefore seek solutions of (III) of the form $`k=k_{\mathrm{}}+ϵ`$. Such solutions do not exist: Using $`k_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, Eq. (IIIa) yields $`ϵ=\frac{1}{4L}(1+i)`$ — to first order in $`ϵ`$ — while Eq. (IIIb) yields the contradictory result $`ϵ=\frac{1}{4L}(+1i)`$. The other values of $`k_{\mathrm{}}`$ lead to similar contradictory results. Thus, the only solution to the physical problem is $`q(x,y)=0`$, which corresponds to the trivial case of the vacuum; when no particles are left in the system.

Finally, consider the relaxation of the system into the absorbing empty state. Instead of Eq. (1), we need to study

$$E_{xx}+E_{yy}+\gamma (E_x+E_y)=E_\tau ,$$
(50)
where $`\tau =Dt`$ is a rescaled time parameter. We turn this into an eigenvalue problem, by writing $`E(x,y,t)=1e^{\sigma \tau }e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}(yx)}q_\sigma (x,y)`$. This results in an equation for $`q_\sigma `$ identical to Eq. (2), valid over the same domain, but with $`4\beta ^2=\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^2\sigma `$. The BCs for this equation are identical to (I). We have already seen that the problem admits no zero eigenvalue: $`q_0(x,y)=0`$. The analysis for $`\sigma >0`$ proceeds along the same lines. Once again, the critical issue is whether there exist solutions of Eqs. (III). This time the asymptotic solution for $`\gamma L\mathrm{}`$ is $`k_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\gamma }{4}[\pm 1\pm i(1\frac{4\sigma }{\gamma })^{1/2}]`$, $`\frac{\gamma }{4}[\pm (1\frac{4\sigma }{\gamma })^{1/2}\pm i]`$. A perturbation analysis shows that solutions exist for finite $`\gamma L1`$, provided that $`\sigma 2\gamma ^2e^{\gamma L/2}`$. The relaxation time to the empty state is therefore $`(D\sigma )^1=(D/2v^2)e^{vL/2D}`$.

It is instructive to compare our analysis of $`A+AA`$ to the mean-field result. The reaction-diffusion equation for the steady state of the process, in a segment demarcated by traps, is

$$D\rho _{xx}+k_1\rho k_2\rho ^2=0,L/2xL/2,$$
(51)
where $`\rho (x)`$ is the local particle density, $`k_1`$ is the rate of the back reaction $`AA+A`$, $`k_2`$ is the rate of $`A+AA`$, and the traps impose the BCs $`\rho (\pm L/2)=0`$. This equation predicts a transition from an empty state ($`\rho =0`$) to an active state ($`\rho >0`$), when $`k_1`$ exceeds a certain critical value . Our exact analysis shows that in the actual system of one-dimensional coalescence the noise destroys the transition and the only existing steady state is the empty state. The nontrivial steady state of the mean-field case is echoed in the exponentially large relaxation time found for large back reaction rates. Although the lack of a transition cannot be established from numerical simulations, especially in view of the long relaxation times for $`\gamma L`$ large, previous work had suggested that a transition does not take place .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Prof. L. Glasser and Prof. D. Kessler for useful discussions, and Prof. A. C. Newell for important suggestions. We gratefully acknowledge the NSF (D.b.-A.) and the EPRSC (A.S.F.) for support of this work.


text:
# Implications of a 300-500𝐺𝑒𝑉/𝑐² 𝑍' boson on 𝑝𝑝̄ collider data at √𝑠=1.8 TeV

## Abstract

Recent analyses of precision low energy electroweak data indicate that the deviation from the Standard Model predictions of the measurement of atomic parity violation ($`2.3\sigma `$), the effective number of massless neutrinos ($`2\sigma `$), and $`A_b`$ ($`2.7\sigma `$) could be better described if the existence of an extra $`Z^{}`$ neutral gauge boson is assumed. We investigate the implications of a 300 – 500 $`GeV/c^2`$ extra $`Z^{}`$ on current $`p\overline{p}`$ collider data at $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV, including the forward-backward charge asymmetry for very high mass $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs, and the invariant mass spectrum of high mass $`e^+e^{}`$, $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs. For example, a 500 $`GeV/c^2`$ $`Z^{}`$ with a total production cross section of $`3pb`$ and enhanced coupling to the third generation, better describes both the low energy and the Tevatron data.

PACS numbers: 12.14.Ji, 12.15.Mm, 12.38.Qk, 12.60.-i,12.60.Cn

Recent analyses  of precision electroweak data indicate that there are several measurements for which the deviations from the Standard Model predictions are larger than two standard deviations ($`\sigma `$). These include the measurements of atomic parity violation  ($`2.3\sigma `$), the effective number of massless neutrinos  ($`2\sigma `$), and $`A_b`$  ($`2.7\sigma `$). These analyses show that the data are better described if an extra $`Z^{}`$ neutral gauge boson is assumed. In this analysis, we investigate if there is evidence for a $`Z^{}`$ boson in current $`p\overline{p}`$ collider data at $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV.

We take the parameters and couplings of the $`Z^{}`$ to the first generation quarks and leptons from the analysis of the atomic parity violation data by Rosner . Rosner’s analysis indicates that the atomic parity violation data  are better described with an $`E_6`$ extra $`Z^{}`$ boson. Within this model  there is a continuum of $`Z^{}`$ possibilities given by $`Z^{}=Z_\psi \mathrm{cos}\varphi +Z_\chi \mathrm{sin}\varphi `$. Rosner’s analysis of the atomic parity violation data yields a best fit for a region of allowed $`Z^{}`$ mass, $`M_Z^{}`$, and $`\varphi `$. For example, For $`\varphi =120^0`$ the data are best fit with an $`E_6`$ $`Z^{}`$ with a mass of about 800 $`GeV/c^2`$. For an $`E_6`$ $`Z^{}`$ with $`M_Z^{}=500GeV/c^2`$, the atomic parity violation data are best fit with $`\varphi =70^0\pm 5^0`$ and $`\varphi =160^0\pm 5^0`$, and for a $`Z^{}`$ with a mass of 350 $`GeV/c^2`$, these data are best fit with $`\varphi =60^0\pm 5^0`$ and $`\varphi =173^0\pm 5^0`$.

Erler and Langacker  extend the $`Z^{}`$ analysis to include all precision electroweak data, and include more general classes of $`Z^{}`$ models. In one of the cases, the analysis is extended to allow for the coupling to the third generation to be different from the coupling to the first two generations. With these additional parameters, they are not able to place a constraint on $`M_Z^{}`$, but the low energy electroweak data prefer a $`Z^{}`$ with a small (but finite) mixing to the $`Z`$, and a large coupling to the third generation, as expected in some models . The larger coupling to $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs is needed to account for the $`2.7\sigma `$ deviation of $`A_b`$  from the Standard Model prediction.

Although the mass limits  from CDF and DO/  for a variety of $`Z^{}`$ models are in the 600 $`GeV/c^2`$ range, the limits are reduced  by 100 to 150 $`GeV/c^2`$, if the $`Z^{}`$ width (typically $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}0.01M_Z^{}`$) is increased to account for the possibility of additional decays modes to exotic fermions (which are predicted in $`E_6`$ models), and/or supersymmetric particles. The limits are even lower if one includes the possibility of a more general model with enhanced couplings to the third generation. Therefore, we investigate the present Run I collider data for high mass $`e^+e^{}`$, $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, $`t\overline{t}`$, and $`b\overline{b}`$ final states, and look for possible signatures for a $`Z^{}`$ extra gauge boson of the kind that is favored by the low energy data. We constrain the relationship between the couplings to the first two generations and the mass of the $`Z^{}`$ to be the same as that for an $`E_6`$ $`Z^{}`$ boson from Rosner’s fits to the low energy measurements.

In hadron-hadron collisions at high energies, massive $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ pairs are produced via the Drell-Yan $`\gamma ^{}/Z`$ process. The presence of both vector and axial-vector couplings in this process gives rise to an asymmetry , $`A_{FB}`$, in the final-state angle of the $`\mathrm{𝑙𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑜𝑛}`$ in the rest frame of the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ pair (with respect to the $`\mathrm{𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑛}`$ direction). Within the Standard Model, for $`MM_Z`$, the large predicted asymmetry ($`0.61`$) is a consequence of the interference between the propagators of the $`\gamma ^{}`$ and $`Z`$. New interactions such as an extra $`Z^{}`$ boson result in deviations from the standard model predictions in both $`d\sigma /dM`$ and $`A_{FB}`$.

Figures 1 and 2 compare the measured high mass Drell-Yan $`d\sigma /dM`$ (CDF  and DO/ ) and $`A_{FB}`$ (CDF ) to theoretical predictions. The Standard Model $`d\sigma /dM`$ curve is a QCD NNLO  calculation with MRST99 NLO PDFs . The predictions in Figure 1(a) are normalized by a factor $`F=1.11`$, the ratio of the CDF measured total cross section in the $`Z`$ region  to the NNLO prediction (the overall normalization uncertainties are 3.9$`\%`$ for the experimental data and $`5\%`$ for the NNLO theory). The Standard Model prediction for $`A_{FB}`$ has been calculated  in QCD-NLO with sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{eff}^{lept}=0.232`$. The measured $`d\sigma /dM`$ and $`A_{FB}`$ values are in good agreement with the standard model predictions. In the two highest mass bins (4 events in the 300 – 600 $`GeV/c^2`$ range), $`A_{FB}`$ is about 2.2 standard deviations below the standard model prediction (there are 3 events in the negative hemipshere and one event in the positive hemisphere). An asymmetry in the 300 – 600 $`GeV/c^2`$ range which is smaller than the Standard Model prediction could result from the exchange of a 300 – 500 $`GeV/c^2`$ $`Z^{}`$ gauge boson.

For the $`E_6`$ $`Z^{}`$ models that were fit to the low energy electroweak data, the couplings to the first two generations are well constrained. Contributions to the $`Z^{}`$ cross section from $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ annihilation are strongly suppressed due to the small $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ parton luminosities, even in the case where the $`Z^{}t\overline{t}`$ and $`Z^{}b\overline{b}`$ couplings are strongly enhanced. For a given $`Z^{}`$ mass and $`\varphi `$, the total $`Z^{}`$ production cross section (in all channels) in $`p\overline{p}`$ collider data at $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV thus is determined by the couplings of the $`E_6`$ $`Z^{}`$ to the first and second generation up and down type quarks. The partial width to electrons is also determined. The integrated cross section for $`e^+e^{}`$ final states, $`\sigma \times `$BR($`Z^{}e^+e^{}`$), is determined by the $`Z^{}e^+e^{}`$ branching ratio, and is therefore proportional to $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}`$. In contrast, the prediction for $`A_{FB}`$, which results from the interference between the Standard Model and the $`Z^{}`$ amplitudes, is quite insensitive to the $`Z^{}`$ width. In this study, we compare the Run I collider data to a model with a $`Z^{}`$ width of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.1M_Z^{}`$ (which is about a factor of 10 larger than the expected width for an $`E_6`$ $`Z^{}`$ boson for the case of universal couplings to all three generations). This allows for enhanced couplings to the quarks of the third generation, or for additional decay modes to exotic fermions or supersymmetric particles.

The predictions for $`d\sigma /dM`$ and $`A_{FB}`$ for the case of the Drell-Yan process including an extra $`E_6`$ $`Z^{}`$ boson (for a given $`M`$ and $`\varphi `$) are first calculated in leading order in QCD (with MRSR2 NLO PDFs), ignoring contributions from $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ annihilation. $`d\sigma /dM`$ is then multiplied by a differential $`K`$-factor, $`K(M)`$, which is determined by comparing the leading order prediction for $`d\sigma /dM`$ including a $`50TeV/c^2`$ $`Z^{}`$ (i.e. effectively no $`Z^{}`$ in the model) to the Standard Model $`d\sigma /dM`$ prediction from the QCD NNLO  calculation (with MRST99 NLO PDFs). In the 300 – 400 and 400 – 600 $`GeV/c^2`$ ranges, we obtain a differential $`K`$-factor of 1.172 and 1.154, respectively. Since we plan to compare to CDF Drell-Yan data, the predictions in Figure 1(a) and 2(a) are normalized by a factor $`F=1.11`$, the ratio of the CDF measured total cross section in the $`Z`$ region  to the NNLO prediction. Because the data show a clustering of events at mass values of 350 and 500 $`GeV/c^2`$, we investigate the signatures for a $`Z^{}`$ boson with these two mass values. As mentioned earlier, in all of the calculations we use a $`Z^{}`$ width of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.1M_Z^{}`$. If we use a smaller width, the cross section in the di-lepton channel would be larger by a factor proportional to $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}`$.

For an $`E_6`$ gauge boson with $`M_Z^{}=350GeV/c^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.1M_Z^{}`$, and $`\varphi =60^0`$ ($`173^0`$), the theoretical prediction ($`\times 1.11`$) for the integrated total cross section of $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs in the $`300400GeV/c^2`$ mass range is 73 (31) $`fb`$. The corresponding cross section for the Standard Model prediction ($`\times 1.11`$) in this range is 54 $`fb`$. Both the Standard Model cross section, and the cross section including an additional 350 $`GeV/c^2`$ $`Z^{}`$ are consistent with the observed CDF cross section in this range of $`81\pm 47fb`$. Our predicted theoretical curves for $`d\sigma /dM`$ and $`A_{FB}`$ with an extra $`E_6`$ boson, for $`M_Z^{}=350GeV/c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.1M_Z^{}`$, are shown in Figure 1. The total production cross section ($`\times 1.11`$) for this $`Z^{}`$ for $`\varphi =60^0`$ ($`173^0`$) is 17 (11) $`pb`$. For $`A_{FB}`$, $`\varphi =60^0`$ results in a better agreement of theory and data than $`\varphi =173^0`$. In the $`300600GeV/c^2`$ range, the probabilty that the forward backward asymmetry predicted by the Standard Model agrees with CDF data is 2.4% (see Table I). For $`M_Z^{}=350GeV/c^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.1M_Z^{}`$, and $`\varphi =60^0`$ ($`173^0`$), the corresponding probability is 13.4% (7.7%).

Because the couplings of the $`E_6`$ $`Z^{}`$ to the first two generations of quarks and leptons are constrained by the fit to the low energy electroweak data, most of this cross section should appear in the form of decay modes to either exotic fermions (which are predicted in $`E_6`$ models) and/or supersymmetric particles, or decays to third generation quarks. Since the analysis of Erler and Langacker  indicates that a larger coupling to the third generation is needed to account for the $`2.7\sigma `$ deviation from the Standard Model of $`A_b`$ , we look for $`Z^{}`$ signatures in the invariant mass spectra of $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ high mass pairs. The CDF 95% CL limit on the $`b\overline{b}`$ cross section  for a 350 $`GeV/c^2`$ $`Z^{}`$ varies from 12 $`pb`$ for a very narrow $`Z^{}`$ to 28 $`pb`$ for a $`Z^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.3M_Z^{}`$. Therefore, a production cross section of 11 to 17 $`pb`$ for a 350 $`GeV/c^2`$ $`Z^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.1M_Z^{}`$ (which predominantly decays to $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs) is consistent with these $`b\overline{b}`$ limits. Note that $`Z^{}t\overline{t}`$ decays are either forbidden or strongly phase space suppressed for $`M_Z^{}=350GeV/c^2`$.

The Standard Model $`e^+e^{}`$ Drell-Yan cross section for the $`300400GeV/c^2`$ mass range and the $`Z^{}e^+e^{}`$ cross section for $`M_Z^{}=350GeV/c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.1M_Z^{}`$, with $`\varphi =60^0`$ and $`\varphi =173^0`$ are summarized in Table II. The $`Z^{}e^+e^{}`$ branching ratio and the total $`Z^{}`$ production cross section are also shown in the table.

For an $`E_6`$ gauge boson with $`M_Z^{}=500GeV/c^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.1M_Z^{}`$, and $`\varphi =70^0`$ ($`160^0`$), the theoretical prediction ($`\times 1.11`$) for the integrated total cross section of $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs in the $`400600GeV/c^2`$ mass range is 17 (7) $`fb`$. The corresponding cross section for the Standard Model prediction ($`\times 1.11`$) in this range is 17 $`fb`$. Both the Standard Model cross section, and the cross section including an additional $`500GeV/c^2`$ $`Z^{}`$ are consistent with the observed CDF cross section in this range of $`28\pm 28fb`$. Our predicted theoretical curves for $`d\sigma /dM`$ and $`A_{FB}`$ with an extra $`E_6`$ boson, for $`M_Z^{}=500GeV/c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.1M_Z^{}`$, are shown in Figure 2. The total (with decay to all channels) production cross section ($`\times 1.11`$) for this $`Z^{}`$, together with the $`Z^{}e^+e^{}`$ branching ratio and the Standard Model Drell-Yan cross section in the $`400600GeV/c^2`$ mass range are listed in Table II. For $`A_{FB}`$, the prediction for $`\varphi =70^0`$ gives better agreement with the data than that for $`\varphi =160^0`$. For $`\varphi =70^0`$ ($`160^0`$), the probability that theory and data agree is 6.3% (3.7%) (see Table I).

We now look for possible signatures of a $`Z^{}`$ with these production cross sections in the $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ channels. In the $`b\overline{b}`$ channel, the CDF 95% CL cross section limit for a $`Z^{}`$ boson with 500 $`GeV/c^2`$ varies from 3.1 $`pb`$ for a very narrow $`Z^{}`$ to 5.5 $`pb`$ for a $`Z^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.3M_Z^{}`$. In the $`t\overline{t}`$ channel, the CDF 95% CL cross section limit for a $`Z^{}`$ boson with $`M_Z^{}=500GeV/c^2`$ is 7.5 $`pb`$. Therefore, a production cross section of 1.7 to 3.2 $`pb`$ for a 500 $`GeV/c^2`$ $`Z^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.1M_Z^{}`$ (see Table II), which predominantly decays to $`b\overline{b}`$ and/or $`t\overline{t}`$ pairs, is consistent with these limits. It is interesting to note that the published $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ mass distributions show a slight excess of events in the 500 $`GeV/c^2`$ region.

Figure 3 shows the CDF published  invariant mass distribution of $`t\overline{t}`$ pairs (assuming $`m_t=175GeV/c^2`$). The $`1.4\sigma `$ excess at 500 $`GeV/c^2`$ in the invariant mass spectrum corresponds  to $`\sigma \times `$BR($`t\overline{t})=2.3\pm 1.7pb`$. Therefore, the CDF $`t\overline{t}`$ data support the hypothesis of a $`Z^{}`$ boson with a large coupling to the third generation. Although DO/ has not searched for resonances in the $`t\overline{t}`$ channel, the published DO/ mass spectrum  for $`t\overline{t}`$ events is consistent with an enhancement in the $`460500GeV/c^2`$ region at a similar level. There is also small $`1\sigma `$ excess at 500 $`GeV/c^2`$ in the CDF $`b\overline{b}`$ invariant mass spectrum which corresponds to $`\sigma \times `$BR($`b\overline{b})=1\pm 1pb`$. Therefore, the CDF $`b\overline{b}`$ data are also consistent with the hypothesis of a $`Z^{}`$ boson with a total production cross section of 1.7 to 3.2 $`pb`$ which has a small branching ratio to di-leptons and predominantly decays to top and bottom quarks. Note, that for a $`Z^{}`$ that mixes with the $`Z`$, the fits to low energy electroweak data at the $`Z`$ peak already constrain  the level of the coupling of a $`Z^{}`$ to $`\tau `$ leptons to be similar to the couplings to electrons and muons. Therefore, an enhanced signal in the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channel is not expected for a $`Z^{}`$ which mixes with the $`Z`$.

In summary, we find that either a 350 or a 500 $`GeV/c^2`$ extra $`Z^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}=0.1M_Z^{}`$ and enhanced couplings to the quarks in the third generation not only gives a better description of the low energy electroweak data, but also better describes the forward-backward asymmetry for $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs in the 300-600 $`GeV/c^2`$ range. A 500 $`GeV/c^2`$ extra $`Z^{}`$ also accounts for the $`1.4\sigma `$ excess at 500 $`GeV/c^2`$ in the invariant mass spectrum of high mass of $`t\overline{t}`$ events at CDF. A $`Z^{}`$ in the $`350500GeV/c^2`$ mass range is also compatible  with the latest measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment . With the upgraded CDF and DO/ detectors, and the anticipated factor of 20 higher luminosity in Run II, improved searches for $`Z^{}`$ bosons could be made in the invariant mass spectrum and in the forward-backward asymmetry for all three di-lepton channels ($`ee`$, $`\mu \mu `$ and $`\tau \tau `$). In addition, the improved silicon vertex detectors in both experiments will increase the sensitivity of such searches in $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ final states.

One of us (UB) would like to thank the Fermilab Theory Group, where part of this work was carried out, for its generous hospitality. This work has been supported in part by Department of Energy contract No. DE-FG02-91ER40685 and NSF grant PHY-9970703.


text:
# On root systems in spaces with degenerate metric

hep-th/0102053

## Abstract

A root systems in Carroll spaces with degenerate metric are defined. It is shown that their Cartan matrices and reflection groups are affine. With the help of the geometric consideration the root system structure of affine algebras is determined by a sufficiently simple algorithm.

It is known that nonsemisimple Lie groups and algebras may be obtained by introducing the degenerate (nilpotent) directions into the main notions of semisimple Lie groups and algebras theory . It is algebraic approach to the limit passage from simple to nonsemisimple groups suggested by E.Inönü and E.P.Wigner . A further kind of algebraic contractions is graded contractions .

All models of modern physics are appeared due to underlying symmetries. Simple finite Lie algebras and infinite affine Kac–Moody algebras takes an important part in describing such symmetries. Interest in models with nonsemisimple symmetry is growing  and this models may be investigated with the help of contractions. There are some models manufactured by contractions from some initial ones, for example usual Toda chains may be obtained from affine Toda chaines by contractions , in this case infinite-dimensional affine Lie algebra pass to finite-dimensional simple Lie algebra. The properties of models with different Lie algebras may be related if there is the relations between their algebras. In this paper relations between root systems of finite/infinite-dimensional algebras are proposed. This relations are determined by geometric way.

It is poorly known , that all $`3^n`$ $`n`$-dimensional spaces of constant curvature may be obtained by multiplications of an orthonormal basis elements of Euclidean space by certain products of the parameters $`j_k=1,\iota _k,i,k=1,\mathrm{},n,`$ where the dual units $`\iota _k`$ are nilpotent $`\iota _k^2=0`$ and obey the commutative law of multiplication $`\iota _k\iota _m=\iota _m\iota _k0`$. The dual values of the parameters $`j`$ are corresponded to the spaces with degenerate metrics. The main difference of affine root system is the presence of a special (imaginary) root $`\delta `$ with the nilpotent property $`\delta ^2=0.`$ A comparison of the nilpotent properties of the imaginary root and of the dual unit suggests that root systems in spaces with degenerated metric correspond to affine algebras. This geometrical interpretation of root system of affine Lie algebras may be a help in understanding their properties.

Kac-Moody algebras are characterized by Chevalley relations

$$[h_i,h_j]=0,[h_i,e_j]=a_{ij}e_j,[h_i,f_j]=a_{ij}f_j,[e_i,f_j]=\delta _{ij}h_j,$$
(1)
and Serre relations

$$\left(ade_i\right)^{1a_{ij}}e_j=\left(adf_i\right)^{1a_{ij}}f_j=0,$$
(2)
where $`h_i,e_i,f_i,i=1,2,\mathrm{},r`$ are Weyl generators. Cartan matrix $`A=(a_{ij})`$ may be given algebraically: 1) $`a_{ij}ZZ`$, 2) $`a_{ij}<0`$ for $`ij`$, 3) $`a_{ij}a_{ji}3,`$ 4) $`a_{ij}=0a_{ji}=0`$ , 5) $`det(a_{ij})0`$ — for a simple Lie algebras and 1), 2), 4), as well $`3^a)`$ $`a_{ij}a_{ji}4,`$ $`5^a)`$ det$`(a_{ij})=0,`$ the equation $`a_{ij}x_j=0`$ has only one solution — for an affine algebras. All such matrices are classified and hence all simple and affine Lie algebras are listed. Affine Kac–Moody algebras was discovered by algebraic way .

Cartan matrix may be also given geometrically with the help of a root system. A root system of a simple Lie algebra is a finite set of vectors $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0=\{\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}\}`$ in Euclidean space $`V(r)`$ with a positive defined nondegenerate metric if 1) $`s_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0`$ for all $`\alpha \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0;`$ 2) for all $`\alpha ,\beta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0,2n(\alpha ,\beta )=\frac{(\alpha ,\beta )}{(\alpha ,\alpha )}ZZ`$ are integers; 3) the linear span of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0`$ coincides with $`V(r):`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0)=V(r),`$ where

$$s_\alpha (\beta )=\beta 2\frac{(\alpha ,\beta )}{(\alpha ,\alpha )}\alpha $$
(3)
is the reflection of $`\beta `$ with respect to $`\alpha `$. A subset $`K\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ is called a basis $`K=\{\alpha _i,i=1,\mathrm{},r\}`$ of root system $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ if the following conditions hold: 1) $`K`$ form a basis of $`V(r),`$ 2) $`\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_0\alpha =_{i=1}^rm_i\alpha _i,`$ where $`\alpha _iK,m_iZZ`$ and all $`m_i0`$ (positive roots) or all $`m_i0`$ (negative roots). A matrix

$$(\stackrel{~}{A})_{ij}=n(\alpha _i,\alpha _j)=2\frac{(\alpha _i,\alpha _j)}{(\alpha _i,\alpha _i)},\alpha _i,\alpha _jK$$
(4)
is called a Cartan matrix $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ of root system. A set of reflections form a group $`W_0`$ called a Weyl group of root system.

Consider $`(r+1)`$-dimensional vector space $`V(r,1)`$ equipped with a degenerate metric of signature $`(0,+,\mathrm{},+,),`$ i.e. the scalar product of vectors $`\nu =(\nu _0,\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _r)`$ and $`w=(w_0,w_1,\mathrm{},w_r)`$ is define as $`(\nu ,w)=_{k=1}^r\nu _kw_k.`$ According with geometric viewpoint $`V(r,1)`$ is a product bundle with $`r`$-dimensional Euclidean subspace $`V(r)`$ as a base and one-dimensional orthogonal to $`V(r)`$ subspace as a fiber. The projection is given by mapping $`\pi :V(r,1)V(r)`$. At $`r=3`$ the space $`V(3,1)`$ may be interpreted as one of the possible four-dimensional space-time models, namely Carroll kinematic . Therefore we shall call $`V(r,1)`$ as Carroll space.

Above mentioned property of the imaginary root gives reazons for the following definitions. A vector set $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ in Carroll space $`V(r,1)`$ is called degenerate root system (DRS), if the properties 1)–3) of root system (with the replacement $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }},`$ $`V(r)`$ by $`V(r,1)`$) and 4) $`\alpha \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\pi \alpha 0`$ are satisfied. A root system is called reduced if there are no parallel roots (the roots $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha `$ are antiparallel). A root system $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ is called reducible if $`V(r,1)=V_1V_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}=\mathrm{\Pi }_1\mathrm{\Pi }_2,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ are the root systems in $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ respectively. Otherwise a root system is called irreducible. The reduced irreducible root system will be denoted by $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. A basis $`B=\{\alpha _i,i=0,\mathrm{},r\}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is defined similarly to the ordinary root system. A matrix $`\overline{A},`$ defined by (4) for $`\alpha _i,\alpha _jB`$ is called a Cartan matrix of DRS. It is natural to associate with the imaginary root the vector $`\epsilon _0`$ in $`V(r,1),`$ pointing out the degeneracy direction.

Proposition 1. The projection $`\pi `$ of degenerate root system $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ onto $`V(r)`$ gives the root system $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0,`$ $`\pi :\mathrm{\Pi }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0.`$

Proof. Let us separate the vectors of DRS $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\{\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}\}`$ onto collinear and perpendicular to $`\epsilon _0`$ components: $`\alpha =\alpha _0+\alpha _{},`$ $`\beta =\beta _0+\beta _{},\mathrm{}.`$ From the property 4) of DRS we get $`\alpha _{}0,\beta _{}0,\mathrm{}.`$ The reflections in $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ are passed into reflections in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0`$ under the projection $`\pi :`$ $`s_{\alpha _0+\alpha _{}}\left(\beta _0+\beta _{}\right)=s_\alpha _{}\left(\beta _{}\right),`$ i.e. for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0=\{\alpha _{},\beta _{},\mathrm{}\}`$ the property 1) of root system is held. Further from $`n(\alpha ,\beta )=n(\alpha _{},\beta _{})`$ it follows that the property 2) of root system is fulfilled. Finally, from $`(\mathrm{\Pi })=V(r,1)`$ we obtain that the linear span of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0`$ coincides with $`V(r),`$ i.e. the property 3) is valid. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0`$ is a root system of simple Lie algebra.

Remark. An unreduced root system may be obtained at the projection of the reduced DRS. Running ahead note that it will occur if DRS corresponds to the twisted affine Lie algebra $`\widehat{A}_{2l}^{(2)}.`$

Proposition 2. The Cartan matrix of the degenerate root system is affine.

Proof. It is enough to show that the conditions 1), 2), $`3^a`$), 4), $`5^a`$) for affine Cartan matrix follow from the definition of degenerate root system. The integerness 1) follows from the property 2) of DRS. Further, similarly to the case of ordinary root system  one may show that the difference $`\alpha \beta `$ is the root if $`n(\alpha ,\beta )>0,`$ i.e. the angle between projections of vectors onto $`V(r)`$ is acute. For simple (basis) roots $`n(\alpha ,\beta )<0,`$ i.e. the angle between projections is obtuse therefore the condition 2) is held. Let $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Pi }`$ are an arbitrary roots. We have the equation $`n(\alpha ,\beta )n(\beta ,\alpha )=4\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$ where in contrast to nondegenerate case, $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the projections of vectors onto $`V(r).`$ Since the collinearity of projections does not means the collinearity of vectors itself, the case $`\varphi =0`$ can not be rejected now, in full correspondence with $`3^a).`$ The condition 4) follows from the symmetry of scalar product. It remains to proof the conditions 5). It is clear that all metric properties of DRS are determined by the properties of vector projections. It was shown in Proposition 1 that these projections form the root system of simple Lie algebra. All basis roots of DRS are projected onto subspace $`V(r),`$ forming nonacute angles with each other. In this case one of the roots becomes linearly dependent since the number of basis roots of root system, forming by the projections of roots of DRS, is just one less. Therefore, the condition 5) is held for the Gramm matrix, composed by the basis roots of DRS. Dividing its columns by corresponding square lenght of basis roots, we obtain the same property for Cartan matrix.

Degenerated root systems are called equivalent, if their Cartan matrices are the same. Since Cartan matrix of DRS is determined by its projection an equivalence class is formed by all DRS with the same projections onto $`V(r).`$ In general case the projection $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ onto $`V(r)`$ is not contained in $`\mathrm{\Pi }.`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is called canonical DRS if $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }\backslash P=\mathrm{\Pi }_0\mathrm{\Pi },`$ where $`P=\{\beta \pi \mathrm{\Pi }|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\beta \pi \mathrm{\Pi }\}`$ or $`P=\{\beta \pi \mathrm{\Pi }|\frac{1}{2}\beta \pi \mathrm{\Pi }\},`$ i.e. if reduced root system $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ is contained in subspace $`V(r)`$.

Let us construct the basis $`B=\{\alpha _0,K\}=\{\alpha _0,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _r\}`$ of canonical DRS. It is clear that as $`K`$ should be taken the basis of root system $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0.`$ It remains to construct the $`(r+1)`$-th basis root $`\alpha _0=\pi \alpha _0+\delta ϵ_0V(r,1),\delta R,`$ that is in fact to choose the projection $`\pi \alpha _0`$ in subspace $`V(r)`$ in such a way that the set of vectors $`\{\pi \alpha _0,K\}`$ generate according to the Proposition 2 affine Cartan matrix. It is clear that $`\pi \alpha _0`$ is such linear combination of vectors from $`K,`$ that $`(\pi \alpha _0,\alpha _k)0,k=1,\mathrm{},r.`$ As it was mentioned in Proposition 1 $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0=\pi \mathrm{\Pi }`$ may be both reduced and irreducible root system.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0=\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ be a reduced root system, then $`\pi \alpha _0\mathrm{\Pi }_0.`$ When roots of different length are presented in $`K=\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _r\},`$ then two cases are possible.

1) $`|\pi \alpha _0|=|\alpha _l|.`$ All root systems $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ of simple Lie algebras have the highest vector $`\theta =_{k=1}^ra_k\alpha _k,`$ where $`a_k`$ are the marks on Dynkin diagramms of simple Lie algebras. The properties $`(\theta ,\alpha _k)0,k=1,\mathrm{},r,`$ are satisfied for this highest root and also $`|\theta |=|\alpha _l|`$. (When all roots in $`K`$ has the same length, we consider their as long roots). By setting $`\pi \alpha _0=\theta `$ we obtain the bases $`B`$ of root systems of all untwisted affine algebras .

2) $`|\pi \alpha _0|=|\alpha _s|.`$ Root systems $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ of simple Lie algebras $`C_r,B_r,F_4,G_2`$ contain, except $`\theta ,`$ the root $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=_{k=1}^r\stackrel{~}{a}_k\alpha _k,`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{a}_k`$ are Kac marks on Dynkin diagramm of affine algebras. The properties $`(\stackrel{~}{\theta },\alpha _k)0,k=1,\mathrm{},r,`$ are satisfied and $`|\stackrel{~}{\theta }|=|\alpha _s|.`$ We obtain the bases $`B`$ of root systems of all twisted affine Lie algebras, except $`\widehat{A}_{2r}^{(2)},`$ by setting $`\pi \alpha _0=\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ .

Let now $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0=\mathrm{\Pi }_0P`$ be a nonreduced root system (there are collinear vectors with the length twice as little of the length of long roots $`\alpha _l\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ or with the length twice as much of the length of short roots $`\alpha _s\mathrm{\Pi }_0).`$ If $`\pi \alpha _0\mathrm{\Pi }_0,`$ then it follows from above consideration, that $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ is reduced root system. But in our case $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0`$ is nonreduced, therefore the required DRS can not be constructed in this way. It remains to regard the case $`\pi \alpha _0\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$. When $`|\pi \alpha _0|=\frac{1}{2}|\alpha _l|,`$ then $`\pi \alpha _0=\frac{1}{2}\theta `$ and when $`|\pi \alpha _0|=2|\alpha _l|,`$ then $`\pi \alpha _0=2\theta ,`$ where $`\theta `$ is a highest root of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$. In this case we obtain the bases $`B`$ of root systems of twisted affine algebras $`\widehat{A}_{2r}^{(2)}`$ .

Thus we have constructed the bases of root systems of all affine Lie algebras, relying on the properties of root systems of simple Lie algebras and on the properties of DRS.

Reflections of DRS form Weyl group $`W`$. This group is generated by the basic reflections $`s_{\alpha _0},s_{\alpha _1},\mathrm{},s_{\alpha _r}.`$ It is obvious that last $`r`$ basic reflections generate the subgroup $`W_0.`$ Consider the $`k`$-th power of translation operator of root $`x`$ along $`\epsilon _0`$, which is constructed from reflections

$$t_\alpha ^k(x)\stackrel{df}{=}s_{k\delta \epsilon _0\alpha }s_\alpha (x)=x2\frac{(\alpha ,x)}{(\alpha ,\alpha )}k\delta \epsilon _0,$$
(5)
where $`\alpha ,k\delta \epsilon _0\alpha ,x\mathrm{\Pi }`$, $`(\alpha ,x)0.`$ The set of translations generates a commutative translation subgroup $`T.`$ It is easily to show that Weyl group $`W`$ is a semidirect product of its subgroup $`W=W_0T.`$

Now we determine the structure of DRS. It is enough to take into account the fact, that the root length and its component $`\epsilon _0`$ are not changed under reflections: $`w(\delta \epsilon _0)=\delta \epsilon _0,wW_0,`$ i.e. subgroup $`W_0`$ acts transitively on the set of equal length roots with the same $`\epsilon _0`$ coordinate and to construct the shifts operators for different length roots. The complete root system is the join of imaginary and real roots: $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }_{re}\mathrm{\Pi }_{im},`$ where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{im}=\{n\delta \epsilon _0|nZ\}`$. It remains to build $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{re}`$.

Consider first $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{re}`$ of untwisted affine Lie algebras. The root $`\alpha _0`$ has maximal length $`|\alpha _0|=|\alpha _l|`$ for this algebras. The subset of shifted long roots $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^l+\delta \epsilon _0\}`$ is obtained by acting of reflections from $`W_0`$ on $`\alpha _0=\pi \alpha _0+\delta \epsilon _0,\pi \alpha _0\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$. The short root $`\alpha _m`$ is shifted by operator $`t_{\alpha _{m1}}(\alpha _m)=\alpha _m+\delta \epsilon _0,`$ where $`\alpha _{m1}`$ is a long root, connected with $`\alpha _m`$ on Dynkin diagramm. Here $`m=1`$ for $`C_r^{(1)},m=2`$ for $`G_2^{(1)},m=3`$ for $`F_4^{(1)},m=r`$ for $`B_r^{(1)}.`$ Using reflections from $`W_0`$ we obtain a set $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^s+\delta \epsilon _0`$ of shifted short roots. As far as $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^l\mathrm{\Pi }_0^s=\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ for untwisted algebras, then $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0V(r)`$ pass to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0+\delta \epsilon _0V(r,1).`$ The next step is the shift of long root $`\alpha _0:`$ $`t_{\alpha _p}(\alpha _0)=\alpha _0+\delta \epsilon _0,`$ where $`p=6`$ for $`E_6^{(1)},p=2`$ for $`B_r^{(1)},D_r^{(1)},p=1`$ for remaining untwisted affine algebras. The repetition of shift procedure of long and short roots leads to the set $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0+2\delta \epsilon _0\}`$. Shift of the set $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ in negative direction of axis $`\epsilon _0`$ is constructed in a similar way. Thus DRS of untwisted affine Lie algebras is as follows

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{re}=\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0+n\delta \epsilon _0|nZ\}.$$
(6)
For twisted algebras (except of $`A_{2r}^2`$) the root $`\alpha _0`$ has minimal length $`|\alpha _0|=|\alpha _s|`$. The subset of short shifted roots $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^s+\delta \epsilon _0\}`$ is obtained by acting of reflections from $`W_0`$ on $`\alpha _0=\pi \alpha _0+\delta \epsilon _0,\pi \alpha _0\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$. The long root $`\alpha _m`$ is shifted by operator $`t_{\alpha _{m1}}(\alpha _m)=\alpha _m+2\delta \epsilon _0,`$ where $`\alpha _{m1}`$ is a short nonorthogonal to $`\alpha _m`$ root. Here $`m=1`$ for $`D_{r+1}^{(2)},m=2`$ for $`D_4^{(3)},m=3`$ for $`E_6^{(2)},m=r`$ for $`A_{2r1}^{(2)}.`$ The set $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^l+2\delta \epsilon _0\}`$ is obtained with the help of reflections from $`W_0`$. The next step is the shift of short roots. The root $`\alpha _0`$ is shifted by $`t_{\alpha _p}(\alpha _0)=\alpha _0+\delta \epsilon _0=\pi \alpha _0+2\delta \epsilon _0,`$ $`p=1`$ for $`D_4^{(3)},E_6^{(2)},p=2`$ for $`A_{2r1}^{(2)}`$ and the root $`\alpha _r`$ is shifted by $`t_{\alpha _{r1}}^2(\alpha _r)=\alpha _r+2\delta \epsilon _0`$ in the case of $`D_{2r1}^{(2)}`$ algebra. (The operator $`t_{\alpha _{r1}}=s_{\delta \epsilon _0\alpha _{r1}}s_{\alpha _{r1}}`$ is not defined now because $`\delta \epsilon _0\alpha _{r1}\mathrm{\Pi },`$ therefore we have use the operator $`t_{\alpha _{r1}}^2)`$. The shifted short roots are transformed by subgroup $`W_0`$ to the set $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^s+2\delta \epsilon _0\}`$. The set $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^l+2\delta \epsilon _0\}`$ of shifted long roots is transformed by $`W_0`$ and by the operator $`t_{\alpha _{m1}}^2(\alpha _m)=\alpha _m+4\delta \epsilon _0`$ to the set $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^l+4\delta \epsilon _0\}.`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{re}`$ of twisted affine algebras (except of $`A_{2r}^{(2)}`$) is the join of the sets of long and short shifted roots.

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{re}=\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^s+n\delta \epsilon _0\}\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^l+nk\delta \epsilon _0\},nZ,k=2,3.$$
(7)
Now we find the construction of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{re}`$ for algebras $`A_{2r}^{(2)},`$ where $`|\alpha _0|=\frac{1}{2}|\alpha _l|<|\alpha _s|<|\alpha _l|`$ and $`\pi \alpha _0\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$. The operator $`t_{\alpha _0}`$ shifts the short root $`\alpha _1\mathrm{\Pi }_0,|\alpha _1|=|\alpha _s|`$ on $`2\delta \epsilon _0`$: $`t_{\alpha _0}(\alpha _1)=\alpha _1+2\delta \epsilon _0.`$ The operator $`t_{\alpha _1}=s_{(\delta \epsilon _0\alpha _1)}s_{\alpha _1}`$ is not defined since $`\delta \epsilon _0\alpha _1\mathrm{\Pi },`$ therefore the shift operators of short roots $`\alpha _k`$ look as follows: $`t_{\alpha _k}^2(\alpha _{k+1})=\alpha _{k+1}+2\delta \epsilon _0,k=1,2,\mathrm{},r2.`$ The shifted short roots are transformed by $`W_0`$ to the set $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^s+2\delta \epsilon _0.`$ The short roots are shifted with the help of operators $`t_{\alpha _0}^n,`$ $`t_{\alpha _k}^n,nZ`$ on $`2n\delta \epsilon _0`$ and then are reproduced by $`W_0`$. As a result we obtain a subset $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1=\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^s+2n\delta \epsilon _0|nZ\}.`$ The long root $`\alpha _r\mathrm{\Pi }_0,|\alpha _r|=|\alpha _l|`$ is shifted on $`4\delta \epsilon _0:`$ $`t_{\alpha _{r1}}^2(\alpha _r)=\alpha _r+4\delta \epsilon _0.`$ Similarly, using the shift operators $`t_{\alpha _{r1}}^{2n}`$ and reflections from $`W_0,`$ we obtain the subset of long roots $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2=\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^l+4n\delta \epsilon _0|nZ\}`$.

It remains to explain the construction of roots of length $`|\alpha _0|=\frac{1}{2}|\alpha _l|.`$ The reflections from $`W_0`$ transform the basis root $`\alpha _0=\pi \alpha _0+\delta \epsilon _0`$ to the set of roots $`\{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^l+\delta \epsilon _0\},`$ since $`\pi \alpha _0=\frac{1}{2}\theta `$. Operator $`t_{\alpha _1}^2`$ shift $`\alpha _0`$ on $`2\delta \epsilon _0`$: $`t_{\alpha _1}^2(\alpha _0)=\alpha _0+2\delta \epsilon _0=\pi \alpha _0+3\delta \epsilon _0`$ and then this shifted root is reproduced by reflections from subgroup $`W_0`$ to the set $`\{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^l+3\delta \epsilon _0\}.`$ Operators $`t_{\alpha _1}^{2n},nZ`$ and reflections from $`W_0`$ generate the subset $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3=\{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^l+(2n+1)\delta \epsilon _0|nZ\}.`$ Then the set of real roots of $`A_{2r}^{(2)}`$ is the join of subsets

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{re}=\{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^l+(2n+1)\delta \epsilon _0\}\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^s+2n\delta \epsilon _0\}\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^l+4n\delta \epsilon _0\},nZ.$$
(8)
Thus, whith the help of geometric consideration using shifts operators of basic roots along $`\epsilon _0`$ and reflections from subgroup $`W_0`$ we have obtained sufficiently simply the structure of DRS in Carroll spaces. It is natural that our results are coincided with the analogous ones for affine root systems in pure algebraic consideration.

An analysis of other types of Kac-Moody algebras which are discussed in literature shows that their Cartan matrices may be obtained with the help of geometric consideration. For example, root systems in pseudoeuclidean spaces are connected with hyperbolic Kac-Moody algebras  and Borcherds algebras ,. In this case the algebraic condition $`a_{ii}=0`$ on symmetrized Cartan matrix is corresponded geometrically to the case, when a basic root belong to the con $`(x,x)=0`$ and the condition $`a_{ii}<0`$ means, that basis roots have both positive and negative length, i.e. they are situated in different con sectors.

Root systems in the space with twice degenerate metric are connected apparently with toroidal algebras ,. This geometric interpretation make possible to establish some properties of their Cartan matrices. So the condition $`5^a`$) is changed and the property $`a_{ij}<0`$ at $`ij`$ is not more held since it is impossible to distribute $`n+2`$ projections of basis roots on $`n`$-dimensional Euclidean space so that all angles between these roots are nonacute, i.e. all scalar products between them are nonpositive. It is clear that this imply the modification of Serre relations.

A generalization of the observation indicated in the letter leads to the suggestion: to regard root systems in spaces of constant curvature (especially with degenerate metric) and to construct corresponding Lie algebras.  Work on this problem is continued.


text:
# Two-dimensional algorithm of the density matrix renormalization group

## I Introduction

The density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) is an optimized iterative numerical method. Since its development by White in 1992, this method has achieved tremendous success in studying ground state properties of one-dimensional (1D) interacting electrons. It has also been successfully extended to finite temperatures, to momentum space , and to the calculation of dynamic correlation functions.

The DMRG starts from a small system which can be handled rigourously. A large chain, called superblock, is then built up from this small system by adding a number of sites at a time. At each stage, the superblock consists of system and environment blocks in addition to a number of extra sites. Graphically, a superblock can be represented as $`\left(S_s_eE\right)`$, where $`S`$ and $`E`$ represent the system and environment blocks and $`_s`$ and $`_e`$ the extra sites added to $`S`$ and $`E`$, respectively. $`S`$ and $`_s`$ (similarly $`E`$ and $`_e`$) form an augmented block, which becomes the system (environment) block in the next iteration. However, in order to keep the size of the superblock basis from growing, the basis for the augmented blocks is truncated. Hence the DMRG is a basis truncation method. However, unlike the conventional renormalization group method, the truncation is done for each augmented subblock and the basis states retained are determined not by their energies but by their probabilities projecting onto the ground state (or other targeted states) of the superblock. These probabilities are determined by the reduced density matrix of the augmented system (or environment) block.

To construct the density matrix, the ground state $`|\psi `$ of the superblock is first diagonalized with the Lanczos or other sparse matrix diagonalization algorithm. The reduced density matrix of the augmented system (or environment) is defined by tracing out from $`|\psi \psi |`$ all the degrees of freedom that do not belong to this block:

$$\rho =Tr_{(E_e)}|\psi \psi |.$$
(1)
Thus $`(E_e)`$ is considered as a statistical bath to the augmented system. The density matrix is semi-positive definite. Its eigenvalue is equal to the projection probability of the corresponding eigenvector in $`|\psi `$, i.e.

$$\lambda _l=\underset{j}{}\left|\lambda _l,e_j|\psi \right|^2,$$
(2)
where $`(\lambda _l,|\lambda _l)`$ is an eigenpair of $`\rho `$ and $`\left\{|e_j\right\}`$ is a basis set of $`(E_e)`$.

Given the density matrix, an entropy can be defined for the augmented system according to the standard thermodynamic relation

$$S=Tr\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho =\underset{l}{}\lambda _l\mathrm{ln}\lambda _l.$$
(3)
The maximum of the function $`f(\lambda )\lambda \mathrm{ln}\lambda `$ is located at $`\lambda =e^1`$. When $`0\lambda <e^1`$, $`f(\lambda )`$ increases monotonically with $`\lambda `$. When $`\lambda >e^1`$, $`f(\lambda )`$ decreases with $`\lambda `$. No more than two $`\lambda _l`$ can be larger than $`e^1`$ since $`_l\lambda _l=1`$. Thus if the contribution to the entropy from the largest $`\lambda _l`$ is larger than that from the largest discarded eigenvalue of $`\rho `$, the DMRG is also a maximum entropy method.

There are two approaches in forming a superblock. In literature they are often referred as the finite and infinite lattice approaches. In the infinite lattice approach in one dimension, the environment block is generally chosen as the space reflection of the system. In the finite lattice approach, the size of the superblock is fixed and the environment block is chosen as the remaining part of the lattice for a given system block. The infinite lattice approach allows the size of the superblock to be flexible and can be used to study the thermodynamic limit directly. However, the finite size approach is more accurate in calculating quantities for a system with fixed lattice size.

The DMRG can also be used to study thermodynamic properties of a 1D quantum  or 2D classical system. In this case, the transfer matrix of a Hamiltonian system, instead of the Hamiltonian itself, is diagonalized. The free energy and other thermodynamic quantities are determined by the maximum eigenvalue of the transfer matrix. The transfer-matrix DMRG method treats directly an infinite lattice system and has therefore no finite lattice size effect.

A simple extension of the DMRG to more than 1D would be to replace the single sites added between the blocks with a row of sites, either along a principal axis or along a diagonal. However, the extra degrees of freedom added to the system would make the size of the Hilbert space prohibitively large. Therefore, the two-dimensional algorithm should be developed so that only a single site is added to each subblock at a time.

In practice the extension of the DMRG to more than 1D is to map a higher dimensional lattice onto a 1D one, namely to choose a path to order all lattice sites. The mapping breaks the lattice symmetry and introduces long range interactions among lattice sites. Therefore, the 2D procedure differs from the 1D one in that there are additional connections between the system and environment blocks.

A typical mapping, as illustrated in Fig. 1, is to fold a 1D zipper into 2D. This is basically a multi-chain approach since the length of the folded zipper is unlimited but the width is fixed. For a 2D gas of non-interacting electrons, Liang and Pang found that the number of states needed to maintain a certain accuracy grows exponentially with the width of the lattice . This convergence was also confirmed for an algorithm where a row of sites was added at each step. Although no proof has been given, this statement is often referred to as most probably valid for any 2D DMRG calculation.

This multi-chain approach is simple to implement in the DMRG iteration. However, with this approach, the calculations on $`(L1)\times (L1)`$ and $`L\times L`$ are performed independently. The information obtained from the iterations on a $`(L1)\times (L1)`$ lattice is not used in the preparation of the initial sub-block matrices in the calculation for a $`L\times L`$ lattice. This is undoubtedly a loss of the efficiency. It may result in the loss of the accuracy as well, since the topological characteristics of square lattices is not well manifested in the preparation of the initial block states and the sweeping procedure of DMRG iterations.

The momentum space DMRG provides an alternative way to implement the DMRG in two or higher dimensions. In this representation the momentum is conserved. This leads to a strong restriction on the basis states and allows the number of states kept to increase substantially. Unlike its real space counterpart, the momentum space DMRG treats the kinetic energy rigorously. Hence this method works better in the weak coupling limit. However, the application of the momentum space DMRG has its own limitations. For example, it is very difficult, if not completely impossible, to apply this method to a pure spin system like the Heisenberg model.

In this paper, we introduce a new approach to implement the DMRG in real space in 2D. Instead of ordering the lattice sites row by row as in the multi-chain approach, we order the lattice sites by the order along the diagonal direction. As will be shown later, this is a truly two-dimensional method which allows us to build up the initial system and environment of a $`L\times L`$ lattice system based on the results on a $`(L1)\times (L1)`$ lattice and is particularly suitable for handling 2D lattice models.

The rest of the paper is arranged as the following. In Sec. II a truly 2D algorithm of the DMRG is introduced. In Sec. III, as an example of the application of the algorithm, the ground state energy of the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model is evaluated on both square and triangle lattices. The study is summarized in Sec. IV.

## II A 2d algorithm of the DMRG

In this section we will take the square lattice as an example to show how to build up initial blocks of a $`L\times L`$ lattice from a $`(L1)\times (L1)`$ lattice. The extension to any 2D lattice which can be topologically transformed to a square lattice by adding or removing some of the nearest or next nearest neighbor interactions from the square lattice, such as triangle, hexagonal and Kagomi lattices (an example for such a transformation is given in Fig. 2), is straightforward.

Let us start from a $`2\times 2`$ lattice. Fig. 3a shows the order of the sites after the $`2D1D`$ mapping. As the system is small, the Hamiltonian can be fully diagonalized.

Fig. 3(b) shows the configuration of the initial superblock for a $`3\times 3`$ lattice system. As indicated by the number shown in the figure, the lattice sites are ordered from the lower left corner to the uppper right corner along the diagonal. The initial system contains three sites linked by the solid line in the lower left corner. The initial environment contains all the four sites in the upper right $`2\times 2`$ lattice. All the matrix elements for these initial subblocks can be obtained from the results previously obtained on the $`2\times 2`$ lattice. We add site $`4`$ to the system and site $`6`$ to the environment to form the augmented system and environment blocks. Unlike in a real 1D system, these two added sites are not nearest neighbors in the mapped 1D system. After a standard DMRG calculation for this superblock, the augmented system block can be updated and taken as the new system in the next iteration.

In the next iteration (Fig. 3c) the system contains four sites (i.e. sites 1-4) and the environment contains only three sites at the upper right corner (i.e. sites 7-9). Since the two sites (i.e. sites 5 and 6) to be added to the system and environment are nearest neighbors in the mapped 1D lattice, from now on the DMRG finite system sweeping can be done exactly as in a true 1D system.

Similarly, the DMRG iterations on a $`4\times 4`$ lattice can be done based on the results of the $`3\times 3`$ lattice. As for a $`3\times 3`$ lattice, a $`4\times 4`$ lattice (Fig. 4a) can be formed by two corner cut off $`3\times 3`$ lattices with two isolated sites. The initial system contains 6 sites linked by a solid line in the lower left corner (i.e. sites $`16`$) and the initial environment contains $`8`$ sites, also linked by a solid line, in the upper right $`3\times 3`$ lattice (i.e. sites $`8,9,1116`$). The configurations of these two blocks can be found from the previously studied $`3\times 3`$ lattice with or without a space reflection. We add site $`7`$ to the system and site $`10`$ to the environment to form the augmented system and environment blocks. Again, these two sites are not nearest neighbors in the mapped 1D system. But the standard DMRG calculation can be done as usual. The augmented system block is then updated and taken as the new system in the next iteration.

In the next iteration (Fig. 4b), the augmented system in the last iteration becomes the new system. It contains seven sites (i.e. sites $`17`$). In this case, since the total number of sites in the environment is also seven, the environment can therefore be taken as the space reflection of the system with respect to the center of the $`4\times 4`$ lattice, i.e. sites $`1016`$. All the matrix elements of this environment can be obtained from the space reflection of the system. The sites now added into the system and environment are the two nearest neighboring sites in the mapped 1D system. Thus starting from this iteration, the standard finite system sweeping can be done as in a 1D system, without considering how the $`4\times 4`$ lattice is constructed from the $`3\times 3`$ lattices.

The above procedure can be repeated to larger square lattices. In general, the initial superblocks of a $`L\times L`$ lattice can be formed based on the results of the system and environment blocks in a $`(L1)\times (L1)`$ lattice. We order all the lattice sites like a folded zipper with inequal width along the diagonal. If the first site at the lower left corner of the $`L\times L`$ lattice is labeled as 1, then the two sites to be added in will have the coordinates $`X_1=(L1)L/2+1`$ and $`X_2=L(L+1)/2`$ in the mapped 1D system, respectively. (An example is given in Fig. 5 for a $`5\times 5`$ lattice system.) We take the first $`(L1)L/2`$ sites in the lower left corner as the initial system and all the sites in the upper right $`(L1)\times (L1)`$ square lattice not used by the system as the initial environment. The DMRG calculation can be done as before. The system is always augmented and updated. At the first few iterations, the site which is added to the environment is fixed at $`X_2`$ and is not exactly next to $`X_1`$ in the mapped 1D lattice. This continues until the environment can be generated by the center reflection of the system and the two sites added to these two blocks become nearest neighbors in the mapped 1D system. After that the standard finite system sweeping can be done as in an ordinary 1D lattice.

## III The 2d Heisenberg model

In this section, we take the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model as an example to demonstrate how good our approach is compared with the multi-chain approach. The ground state energies on both square and triangle lattices are evaluated. For these 2D systems, there are currently rather precise results available, mainly from large-scale Monte Carlo calculations and series expansions. Therefore the accuracy of our results can be assessed by comparing with these results.

The Heisenberg model is defined by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{ij}{}𝐒_i𝐒_j$$
(4)
where $`𝐒_i`$ is the spin operator and the summation runs over all nearest neighbors. In real space at the same parameters and number of states, the truncation error in a system with periodic boundary conditions is usually much higher than with free boundary conditions, therefore we use free boundary conditions.

The total spin $`𝐒^2`$ is a good quantum number for the isotropic Heisenberg model. This symmetry has been used in obtaining all the results presented below. We have also performed finite system iterations using both our algorithm and the multichain one. In the multichain calculations, we have used an algorithm introduced in Ref  to build up the initial system or environment blocks.

Table I compares the ground state energy per bond obtained by the true 2D approach, $`E_{2d}`$, with that obtained by the multichain approach, $`E_{mc}`$, on both square and triangle lattices. For square lattices, $`E_{2d}`$ is always lower than $`E_{mc}`$. Since the DMRG satisfies the variational principle, this means that the true 2D results are more accurate than the multichain ones. Moreover, the difference $`\left(E_{mc}E_{2d}\right)/\left|E_{mc}\right|`$ increases with increasing lattice. Thus the improvement of the true 2D approach over the multichain approach becomes more and more significant as the lattice size is increased. For triangle lattices, $`E_{2d}`$ is slightly higher than $`E_{mc}`$ when $`L`$ is small. However, for large lattices $`E_{2d}`$ is much more accurate than $`E_{mc}`$. The increase of $`\left(E_{mc}E_{2d}\right)/\left|E_{mc}\right|`$ with increasing size in the triangle lattice is even larger than in the square one.

For a given $`L`$, an accurate estimate of the ground state energy (similarly other physical quantities) can be obtained by extrapolating $`E_{2d}`$ to the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$. This can also be done by extrapolating $`E_{2d}`$ with respect to the truncation error $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon `$, since the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$ is equivalent to the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon 0`$. The extrapolation with respect to the number of retained states is difficult to implement since the asymptotic behavior of $`E_{2d}`$ in the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$ is unknown and there is some uncertainty in determining the function used in the extrapolation. However, we find that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon `$ dependence of $`E_{2d}`$ is generally very simple and can be well described by a power law in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon 0`$. An example is given in Fig. 6 where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon `$ dependence of $`E_{2d}`$ on a $`6\times 6`$ square lattice is shown. In the figure, the solid line is a polynomial fit (up to the quadratic term in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon `$) to the data. From the fit the ground state energy per bond for this $`6\times 6`$ system is estimated to be $`0.36212`$. For other cases, this fitting procedure can be similarly done.

To obtain the ground state energy in the thermodynamic limit, we need to do a finite size scaling for the results obtained from the above extrapolation. In a periodic system, the leading size correction to the ground state energy per bond is of order $`1/L^3`$. However, in an open system as considered here, the finite size effect is stronger and the leading size correction is of order $`1/L`$.

Figs. (7) and (8) show the scaling behavior of the ground state energy on square and triangle lattices, respectively. For the square lattice, the extrapolated ground state energy in the limit $`1/L0`$ is $`E_{\mathrm{}}0.3346`$. This agrees very well with the probably best currently available estimate, obtained from large-scale quantum Monte Carlo calculations, of $`E_{\mathrm{}}0.334719(3)`$. The result of spin wave theory is $`E_{\mathrm{}}=0.33475`$ up to the fourth order correction. For the triangle lattice, the extrapolated result is $`E_{\mathrm{}}0.1814`$. It is also consistent with the quantum Monte Carlo results obtained by Capriotti et al , $`E_{\mathrm{}}0.1819`$, and by Bernu et al, $`E_{\mathrm{}}0.1825`$. The second order spin wave result is $`E_{\mathrm{}}=0.1822`$.

The above comparison indicates that accurate results for the ground state energy can be obtained using the algorithm introduced above. In obtaining these results, the symmetry of the total spin $`𝐒^2`$ is considered and up to $`300`$ states are retained. This calculation can be readily done on a moderate workstation. With the aid of modern parallel computers, we should be able to keep more number of states (e.g. $`3000`$ states) and to further increase the accuracy.

## IV Conclusion

We have developed a new approach to implement the real space DMRG in 2D. We point out that a $`L\times L`$ lattice can be taken as an assembly of two partially overlapped $`(L1)\times (L1)`$ lattices plus two extra sites and therefore the initial blocks of a $`L\times L`$ system can be built up directly from the blocks of a $`\left(L1\right)\times \left(L1\right)`$ system. This is a truly 2D algorithm of the DMRG. It preserves a higher degree of the symmetry of 2D lattice than the multichain approach and can be readily used in the DMRG calculation. For the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model on both square and triangle lattices, the ground state energies obtained with this approach are consistent with the quantum Monte Carlo results and better than those obtained with the multichain approach for large lattice systems.

TX acknowledges the hospitality of the Interdisciplinary Research Center in Superconductivity of the University of Cambridge, where part of the work was done, and the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and from the special funds for Major State Basic Research Projects of China.