text:
# Static spherisymmetric solutions, gravitational lensing and perihelion precession in Einstein–Kalb–Ramond theory

## I Introduction

Gravitational theories in a curved background spacetime with torsion has been an area of investigation for a long time. Torsion, which appears as an antisymmetric tensorial piece in the connection hehl , is arguably an inescapable consequence when the matter fields giving rise to spacetime curvature are possessed with spin sab . Therefore, the simplest level of torsion theory can provide a classical background for quantum matter fields. Starting from the original Einstein-Cartan (EC) theory, several papers have appeared which explore the various consequences of the torsion field, its impact on gravitational and cosmological solutions of the general relativistic field equations and on the nature of torsion couplings to arbitrary spin fieldstorsion . In recent years, a lot of inspiration in this regard is provided by superstring theory. In fact, it has been shown that spacetime torsion can be identified pmssg  with the strength of the massless antisymmetric second-rank tensor field, viz., the Kalb-Ramond (KR) field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ kr , appearing in the heterotic string spectrum gsw . Thus, torsion is, in some sense, an inherent feature in the low-energy effective string action.

Extensive studies have already been carried out regarding the coupling of torsion with other spin fields, especially the electromagnetic field, where the well-known problem of violation of $`U(1)`$ gauge-invariance ham  is explored. In the recent work of Majumdar and SenGupta pmssg , this problem is sorted out using the Chern-Simons (CS) extension which is augmented with the KR field strength $`_{[\mu }B_{\nu \lambda ]}`$ on account of anomaly-cancellation of the corresponding quantum theory. Such a formalism can have some important implications in explaining certain astrophysically/cosmologically observable phenomena such as cosmic optical activity skpmas ; skpmss , fermion helicity flip ssgas , etc. which may provide direct tests for the viability of string theory. However, a complete understanding of such phenomena do require appropriate knowledge of the various possible solutions of the gravitational field equations in spacetimes with torsion (or, equivalently the KR field). In particular, in this regard, we have explored earlier the possible existence of solutions for the static spherical symmetric gravitational field equations in vacuum ssgss1  as well as the cosmological solutions ssgss2  in presence of spacetime torsion. Identifying the KR field stength three-tensor as the Hodge-dual of the derivative of the pseudoscalar axion $`H`$ of string spectrum, it has been shown in ssgss1  that spherical symmetric solutions can actually exist for a suitable form of the torsion (i.e., KR) field and can have interesting features like that of the spacetime admitting a ‘wormhole’ or a ‘naked singularity’. However, apart from these exact solutions there may exist other solutions as well for spherical symmetric spacetimes with torsion.

In this paper, we try to carry out the most general study of the existence of possible static spherical symmetric solutions of the vacuum field equations, especially to check the uniqueness of those obtained in the earlier work ssgss1 . Our aim is to establish a physically meaningful general solution which match the limiting requirements and provide a proper understanding about how the standard Schwarzschild solution gets modified in the presence of different forms of the torsion field. Implications thereof. are obtained through the study of geodesic motion in such spacetimes. We also investigate the corrections inflicted by torsion on some of the standard tests of general relativity theory. As has been done in the earlier paper ssgss1 , here also we seek solutions satisfying the boundary requirement of asymptotic flatness.

Although the full low energy effective action of string theory includes the graviton, dilaton, axion as well as other fields which may arise out of different type of compactifications, here we attempt to focuss on the effects of the axion only. We investigate whether the presence of axion ( appearing as a dual field to the Kalb-Ramond induced torsion ) is perceptible at all through the various observational and solar system tests. This is in contrast with the volume of works on the dilaton-graviton systemcoplidsey  and our work here aims to fill a gap in the literature.

## II Static spherically symmetric solutions in a Kalb-Ramond background

Following the identification pmssg  of the totally skew-symmetric torsion tensor with the modified KR field strength $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$, the action for gauge-invariant EC-KR coupling is given by

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{R(g)}{\kappa }\frac{1}{12}H_{\mu \nu \lambda }H^{\mu \nu \lambda }\right]$$
(1)
which has exact correspondence with that in the low-energy effective string theory. $`R(g)`$ is the Ricci scalar curvature and $`\kappa (Planckmass)^2`$ is the gravitational coupling constant. The modified KR field strength three-form $`𝐇`$ is defined by the KR field strength plus the $`U(1)`$ electromagnetic CS three-form: $`𝐇=d𝐁+\sqrt{\kappa }𝐀𝐅`$. Due to the Planck mass suppression we neglect the CS term in the present analysis. The field equations that can be obtained from the above action are given as

$`R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R=\kappa 𝒯_{\mu \nu }`$ (2)
$`D_\mu H^{\mu \nu \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_\mu (\sqrt{g}H^{\mu \nu \lambda })=0`$ (3)
where $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Ricci tensor of Riemannian geometry; and $`𝒯_{\mu \nu }`$ is a symmetric 2-tensor, analogous to the energy-momentum tensor, and is given by

$$𝒯_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}\left(3g_{\nu \rho }H_{\alpha \beta \mu }H^{\alpha \beta \rho }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }H^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\right).$$
(4)
Taking the line element in its most general spherically symmetric form

$$ds^2=e^{\nu (r,t)}dt^2e^{\lambda (r,t)}dr^2r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(5)
and expressing the three-form $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ in terms of its Hodge-dual one-form — a pseudovector — with independent components $`H_{012},H_{013},H_{023}`$ and $`H_{123}`$; it has been shown in ssgss1  that static spherical symmetric solutions, consistent with the basic requirement of asymptotic flatness, are possible only when $`H_{023}0`$ and all other components vanish. This corresponds to the situation that the dual pseudoscalar ‘axion’ $`H`$ defined through the relation

$$H_{\mu \nu \lambda }=ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\sigma _\sigma H.$$
(6)
depends on the radial coordinate $`r`$ only. Denoting $`H_{023}H^{023}`$ by $`[h(r)]^2`$ the field equations can be expressed as

$`e^\lambda \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{}}{r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\kappa }h^2`$ (7)
$`e^\lambda \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}}{r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\kappa }h^2`$ (8)
$`e^\lambda \left(\nu ^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{r}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\kappa }h^2`$ (9)
$`_1\left(r^2e^{\frac{\nu \lambda }{2}}H^{}\right)=_1\left(r^2he^{\nu /2}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (10)
where a prime stands for derivative with respect to $`r`$; and the constant $`\overline{\kappa }=\frac{3}{4}\kappa `$. The last equation in the above set is obtained by using both Eq.(3) and the Bianchi identity for the KR field, viz., $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }_\sigma H_{\mu \nu \lambda }=0`$. The above equations can readily be solved to obtain

$$h(r)=H^{}(r)e^{\lambda /2}=\frac{b_0}{r^2}e^{\nu /2}$$
(11)
and

$`e^\lambda =1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau (r)}{r}}`$ (12)
$`e^\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{r(r+\tau (r)+c_1)}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle ^r}{\displaystyle \frac{2dr}{r+\tau (r)+c_1}}\right]`$ (13)
where $`b_0,c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are the constants of the integrations and

$$\tau (r)=\overline{\kappa }^rr^2h^2(r)𝑑r.$$
(14)
The above solutions are consistent only when they satisfy the asymptotic flatness requirement, viz., $`e^{\pm \nu },e^{\pm \lambda }1`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$, and a consistency condition derived from the field equations:

$$\tau ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{\tau ^{}}{r}=\frac{\tau ^{}(\tau ^{}1)}{r+c_1+\tau }.$$
(15)
The asymptotic flatness condition on the solutions demands that we must have $`c_2=1`$. This can readily be verified in the limit where torsion vanishes, i.e., $`\tau (r)=0`$. For non-zero torsion, if we further put $`c_1=0`$, then as is shown in ssgss1 , a typical exact solution satisfying the above requirement (15) can be obtained for a specific form of $`\tau (r)`$, viz., $`\tau (r)=b/r;b=\overline{\kappa }b_0^2=`$ constant (i.e., $`h(r)\frac{1}{r^2}`$), whence

$`e^\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r^2}}`$ (16)
$`e^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (17)
and we have a wormhole for a real KR field, i.e., a positive $`b`$. Note that this geometry has been discussed many times in the literature beginning with the work of Ellis ellis , though its appearance in the context of the Kalb–Ramond field coupled to gravity had not been noticed till recently.

Now, to investigate whether the above solution is unique, or whether there exist other physically meaningful solution(s) consistent with the boundary requirements, we take a general functional form of $`\tau (r)`$, which depends on the KR field strength $`h(r)`$, in the following section. Moreover, throughout our subsequent analysis we take the KR field to be real.

Observing that $`\tau (r)`$ does not involve any additive constant, we can generally express it in the form

$$\tau (r)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_mr^m+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{b_n}{r^n}.$$
(18)
But from Eqs.(11) and (14) we find

$$\tau ^{}(r)=\frac{b}{r^2}e^\nu ,b=\overline{\kappa }b_0^2.$$
(19)
Since $`e^\nu g^{00}1`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$, Eqs.(18) and (19) are consistent only when all the $`a_m`$’s in $`\tau (r)`$ vanish, i.e., $`\tau (r)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}b_n/r^n`$. Plugging this in Eq.(15) and matching the coefficients of equal powers of $`r`$ from both sides, we obtain

$`\tau (r)=b_1[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{2r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^2}{3r^3}}`$ $``$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{6c_1^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{c_1^3}{4r^4}}`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`(1{\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{2c_1^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{c_1^4}{5r^5}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{59b_1}{60c_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3b_1^2}{80c_1^4}}){\displaystyle \frac{c_1^5}{6r^6}}+\mathrm{}]`$
Computing $`\tau ^{}(r)`$ and comparing with Eq.(19) we find $`b_1=b`$ and the solutions can, in general, be expressed as

$`e^\nu g_{00}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{bc_1}{6r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{bc_1^2}{6r^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6bc_1^3+3b^2c_1}{40r^5}}+\mathrm{}`$ (21)
$`e^\lambda g^{11}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{bc_1}{2r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{bc_1^2}{3r^4}}+\left(bc_1^3+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2c_1}{6}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r^5}}+\mathrm{}`$ (22)
and the solution for the KR field is given by

$$h(r)=\sqrt{\frac{b}{\overline{\kappa }}}\frac{1}{r^2}\left[1\frac{c_1}{r}+\frac{c_1^2}{r^2}\left(c_1^3+\frac{bc_1}{6}\right)\frac{1}{r^3}+\left(c_1^4+\frac{bc_1^2}{2}\right)\frac{1}{r^4}+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(23)
The above solutions are, by construction, asymptotically flat and reproduce the exact solution found in ssgss1  for $`c_1=0`$. For $`c_10`$, we obtain the standard Schwarzschild solution, viz., $`e^\nu =e^\lambda =1r_s/r`$ in the zero-torsion limit, i.e, $`b=0`$, provided $`c_1=r_s=2GM`$ (the Schwarzschild radius). In fact, whenever $`c_1`$ is non-vanishing, being a constant we can always identify it with $`r_s`$, thereby obtaining the Schwarzschild solution in the limit $`b0`$.

## III Geodesics,lensing and perihelion precession in KR background

The equations of geodesics for the general static spherically symmetric metric is given by ch ; wein :

$`\dot{r}^2`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dr}{d\tau }}\right)^2=e^{\lambda (r)}\left[e^{\nu (r)}E^2{\displaystyle \frac{J^2}{r^2}}L\right]`$ (24)
$`\dot{\varphi }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{d\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{J}{r^2}}`$ (25)
$`\dot{t}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\tau }}=Ee^{\nu (r)}`$ (26)
where the motion is as usual considered to be taking place in the $`\theta =\pi /2`$ plane and the constants $`E`$ and $`J`$ having the respective interpretations of energy per unit mass and angular momentum about an axis perpendicular to the invariant plane ($`\theta =\pi /2`$). Here, $`\tau `$ is an affine parameter and $`L`$ is the Lagrangian having the values $`0`$ and $`1`$ respectively for null and time-like particles. We are not concerned about the space-like particles herein. Now, let us consider separately the following two cases:

### III.1 Case : $`c_1=0`$

In this case, the metric coefficients $`e^\nu `$ and $`e^\lambda `$ given by Eqs.(16) and (17) yield the equations for the radial geodesics ($`J=0`$) :

$$\left(\frac{dr}{dt}\right)^2=(1L/E^2)\left(1\frac{b}{r^2}\right);\frac{dt}{d\tau }=E.$$
(27)
with solution

$$t=\pm \frac{\sqrt{r^2b}}{\sqrt{1L/E^2}}+constant$$
(28)
and the affine parameter $`\tau t`$. The above equation represents a hyperbola and shows that to an external observer a radially infalling particle (time-like or null) approaches the radius $`r=\sqrt{b}`$ asymptotically but can never reach it. As $`\tau `$ is linear in $`t`$ we find that the $`\tau r`$ relationship also represents a hyperbola. Now, for time-like geodesics ($`L=1`$), $`\tau `$ is the proper time and hence an observer falling with a time-like particle also skirts the physical singularity at $`r=0`$ by asymptotically grazing the critical radius at $`r=\sqrt{b}`$. This feature is in sharp contrast with what happens in a Schwarzschild spacetime and is the characteristic of a wormhole spacetime.

For the general motion of geodesics in the present case, we obtain from Eqs.(24) and (25) the equation of orbit

$$\left(\frac{du}{d\varphi }\right)^2=\left(\frac{E^2L}{J^2}u^2\right)(1bu^2).$$
(29)
where $`u=1/r`$. Now, in order to have bound orbits ($`E^2<1`$) the equation $`du/d\varphi =0`$ must have at least two real, positive roots not coinciding with any physical or coordinate singularity. Such roots exclusively imply the two turning points of the closed orbit. In the present case, the real positive values of $`u`$ for which $`du/d\varphi `$ vanishes are $`1/\sqrt{b}`$ and $`E/J`$ for null geodesics ($`L=0`$). However, as the metric diverges at $`u1/r=1/\sqrt{b}`$ we infer that the null geodesics cannot follow closed orbits in a wormhole spacetime. For time-like geodesics ($`L=1`$) in such a spacetime, there is no positive real value of $`u`$ for which the metric is non-singular and $`du/d\varphi =0`$. Therefore, bound orbits are not permissible for time-like geodesics also, i.e., for all kinds of particles we can only have unbound orbis ($`E^2>1`$). A close inspection of Eq.(29) raised to the second order, viz.,

$$\frac{d^2u}{d\varphi ^2}+\left[1+\frac{b}{D^2}\right]u=2bu^3;D=\frac{J}{\sqrt{E^2L}}$$
(30)
shows that the KR field, represented by the parameter $`b`$, inflicts a two-fold change in the $`u\varphi `$ straight line $`u\mathrm{sin}(\varphi \varphi _{\mathrm{}})`$ that corresponds to the limiting Minkowski spacetime ($`b=0`$). The KR field not only alters the intercept on the $`\varphi `$-axis but also produces a departure from the straight line motion due to the term $`bu^3`$ on the right of the above equation. Although the impact parameter $`D`$ and hence the changes in the intercept are different for massive and massless particles, the amount of bending near the origin of force is same for both kinds of particles. At $`r=r_0`$, the distance of closest approach towards the origin of force $`du/d\varphi =0`$, whence Eq.(29) gives $`r_0=D`$. Replacing back $`u`$ by $`1/r`$ and solving Eq.(29) we obtain

$$\varphi (r)\varphi _{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{sin}^1(r_0/r)+\frac{b}{4r_0^2}\left[\mathrm{sin}^1(r_0/r)(r_0/r)\sqrt{1(r_0/r)^2}\right]+O\left(\frac{b}{r_0^2}\right)^2.$$
(31)
The angle of bending for all types of particles is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2\varphi (r_0)\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\pi =\frac{b}{r_0^2}\frac{\pi }{4}+O\left(\frac{b^2}{r_0^4}\right).$$
(32)
Now, instead of finding an expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ as an expansion in powers of $`\frac{b}{r_0^2}x`$(say), one can also perform an exact integration and obtain the following expression for the amount of bending :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2\left(K\left[\frac{b}{r_0^2}\right]\right)\pi $$
(33)
where $`K[x]`$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind. A plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ as a function of $`x`$ shows a linear region for small values of $`b<<r_0^2`$ with a slope reasonably close to $`\pi /4`$ – a fact which is demonstrated in the approximate calculation of the bending angle discussed above.

Let us now turn towards the radial equation for $`u(\varphi )`$ quoted above. In order to obtain information about the trajectories of photons in the geometrical optics limit we can, alternatively, solve for $`u(\varphi )`$, in terms of elliptic functions by directly integrating the equation given below.

$$\left[\frac{du}{d\varphi }\right]^2=b\left(\frac{1}{b}u^2\right)\left(\frac{1}{r_0^2}u^2\right)$$
(34)
For $`r_0^2=b`$ the integration is straightforward and yields :

$$r(\varphi )=\frac{1}{u(\varphi )}=\sqrt{b}coth(\varphi \varphi _0)$$
(35)
In terms of the proper radial distance $`l=\pm \sqrt{r^2b}`$ we have:

$$l=\pm \sqrt{b}cosech(\varphi \varphi _0)$$
(36)
The general solution for $`u(\varphi )`$ is given as :

$$(\varphi \varphi _0)=\frac{\sqrt{b}}{r_0}F[\mathrm{arcsin}r_0u,\frac{b}{r_0^2}]$$
(37)
where $`F`$ denotes the incomplete elliptic integral of the first kind. On inverting we obtain :

$$u(\varphi )=\frac{1}{r_0}sn[\frac{r_0}{\sqrt{b}}(\varphi \varphi _0),\frac{b}{r_0^2}]$$
(38)
where $`sn`$ denotes the Jacobian elliptic function. A plot of $`r_0u`$ versus $`\varphi `$ with $`\varphi _0=0`$ and $`\frac{r_0}{\sqrt{b}}=3`$ is shown below.

For $`r_0=\sqrt{b}`$ it can be seen that the $`sn`$ reduces to the hyperbolic tangent which yields the expression discussed above for this case. As $`r_0\sqrt{b}`$ the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ shoots up rapidly. The trajectory exhibits multiple winding in the vicinity of the throat. Why does this happen? Does the negative energy density present in the vicinity of the throat result in such peculiar behaviour? It is also clear that for other values of the ratio $`x=b/r_0^2`$ ($`x<1`$) we find that the negative energy source (here the Kalb–Ramond field) deflects the light ray by an amount which is crucially dependent on the KR parameter $`\sqrt{b}`$. The explicit behaviour of the null geodesics including the case of multiple windings for $`r_0=\sqrt{b}`$ is also exhibited in the functional forms for the trajectories derived above.

### III.2 Case : $`c_10`$

Here we have the complete series solution given by Eqs.(21) and (22) with $`c_1`$ identified as $`r_s`$, the Schwarzschild radius. Since both $`e^\nu `$ and $`e^\lambda `$ are convergent in the region $`r>>r_s`$, we study the motion of geodesics in such a region where for simplicity, we consider the torsion to be small, i.e., $`b/r^2<<1`$. This implies that we are assuming that the small torsion (or, equivalently the KR field) does not completely change the nature of the trajectory of particles as in the case $`c_1=0`$. It rather inflics a correction over the general relativistic phenomena like bending of light and the perihelic precession of planetary orbits. Dropping terms of order cubic or more in $`r_s/r`$ and $`b/r^2`$ we can approximately write the solutions (21) and (22) as

$`e^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{r_s}{r}}`$ (39)
$`e^\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{r_s}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r^2}}.`$ (40)
Indeed, an analysis similar to that in the case $`c_1=0`$ shows that for time-like particles closed orbits are really possible for the above truncated series form of the metric coefficients.

#### III.2.1 Bending of light rays (lensing)

For photons the trajectory equations (24) and (25) yield

$$\left(\frac{dr}{d\varphi }\right)^2=r^4e^{\lambda (r)}\left(\frac{e^{\nu (r)}}{D^2}\frac{1}{r^2}\right);D=\frac{J}{E}$$
(41)
with solution in the form of a quadrature:

$$\varphi (r)\varphi _{\mathrm{}}=_r^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^{\lambda (r)/2}dr/r}{\sqrt{e^{\nu (r)}\frac{r^2}{D^2}1}}$$
(42)
At the distance of closest approach ($`r_0`$) to the center of force, $`\frac{dr}{d\varphi }_{r=r_0}=0`$, whence Eq.(41) gives $`D^2=r_0^2e^{\nu (r_0)}`$. Plugging this in Eq.(42) and using the specific expressions for the metric components given in Eqs.(39) and (40), we obtain

$`\varphi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{sin}^1(r_0/r)+{\displaystyle \frac{r_s}{2r_0}}\left(2\sqrt{1(r_0/r)^2}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{rr_0}{r+r_0}}}\right)`$ (43)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3r_s^2}{8r_0^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r}}\right)2\mathrm{cos}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2r}}\sqrt{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r}}\right)^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{rr_0}{r+r_0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{rr_0}{r+r_0}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{4r_0^2}}\left[\mathrm{sin}^1(r_0/r)(r_0/r)\sqrt{1(r_0/r)^2}\right]+higherorderterms.`$
The angle of bending is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2\varphi (r_0)\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\pi ={\displaystyle \frac{2r_s}{r_0}}`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{16}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_s}{r_0}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`higherordercorrections.`$
Looking at the above expression we note that the first and third terms are relevant as long as we are interested in results valid upto first order in the mass $`M(r_sGM)`$ and the KR parameter $`b`$. The first term is ofcourse the usual Schwarzschild bending, whereas the third term comes from the KR field. Using these two terms we may rewrite the total bending as follows :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right)_{Schw}\left[1+\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right)_{KR}}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right)_{Schw}}\right]$$
(45)
Now the maximum KR energy density (note that this is negative) is obtained by using the minimum value of $`r`$ (which is $`r_0`$, the impact parameter). This energy density can be written as :

$$|\rho _{KR}^{max}|=\frac{c^4}{8\pi G}\frac{b}{r_0^4}=\frac{8}{3\pi }\frac{Mc^2}{V_0}\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right)_{KR}}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right)_{Schw}}$$
(46)
where $`V_0`$ is the volume $`\frac{4}{3}\pi r_0^3`$.

We have calculated this energy density using the error bars for the current deflection of light measurements for Sun will01 . The amount of energy per unit volume is enormous resulting in an unacceptable ambient KR temperature much larger than that for CMBR. This suggests that $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right)_{KR}`$ has to be far less than the value of these error bars in order to give a reasonable KR field energy density and therefore remains undetectable within the present day experimental precision.

#### III.2.2 Precession of perihelion of planetary orbits

As has been mentioned earlier bound orbits are really possible for time-like particles when $`c_10`$. In the case of elliptic planetary orbits, we obtain from Eqs.(24) and (25)

$$\left(\frac{dr}{d\varphi }\right)^2=r^4e^{\lambda (r)}\left(\frac{e^{\nu (r)}E^21}{J^2}\frac{1}{r^2}\right).$$
(47)
At perihelia and aphelia, $`r=r_{}`$ and $`\frac{dr}{d\varphi }_{r=r_\pm }=0`$, whence the above equation yields

$$\frac{1}{r_\pm ^2}\frac{e^{\nu (r_\pm )}E^2}{J^2}=\frac{1}{J^2}$$
(48)
Solving for $`E`$ and $`J`$ we obtain the trajectory equation in the form of the quadrature wein :

$$\varphi (r)\varphi (r_{})=_r_{}^re^{\lambda (r)/2}Y^{1/2}(r)\frac{dr}{r^2}$$
(49)
where

$$Y(r)=\frac{e^{\nu (r_+)}r_{}^2[e^{\nu (r)}e^{\nu (r_{})}]e^{\nu (r_{})}r_+^2[e^{\nu (r)}e^{\nu (r_+)}]}{r_+^2r_{}^2e^{\nu (r)}[e^{\nu (r_+)}e^{\nu (r_{})}]}\frac{1}{r^2}.$$
(50)
Simplifying the above expressions and carrying out the integration, we obtain for the metric in Eqs.(39) and (40) the amount of rotation of the orbit per revolution :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2\varphi (r_+)\varphi _(r_{})2\pi `$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3r_s}{l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3r_s^2}{8l^2}}\left(18+e^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{l^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}\right)\right]\pi `$ (51)
$`+`$ $`higherordercorrections.`$
Here $`L`$ and $`e`$ are respectively the semilatus rectum and eccentricity of the elliptic orbit and are defined by $`2/l=(1/r_++1/r_{}),r_\pm =(1\pm e)a,a`$ being the semimajor axis.

An analysis similar to the preceding section shows that the maximum KR energy density that can be obtained by using the minimum value of $`r`$ (which in this case is the perihelion distance $`r_{}`$) is given by

$$|\rho _{KR}^{max}|=\frac{c^4}{8\pi G}\frac{b}{r_{}^4}\frac{Mc^2}{V}\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right)_{KR}}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right)_{Schw}}$$
(52)
where we have considered the eccentricity $`e`$ to be fairly small so that $`r_{}l`$, the semilatus rectum, and $`V`$ is the volume $`\frac{4}{3}\pi l^3`$ of the two-body system. Using the standard observational data for the perihelic precessions of Mercury, Earth and Icarus will01  we have calculated $`|\rho _{KR}^{max}|`$ with $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right)_{KR}`$ of the order of error bars. Once again the energy density is found to be extremely high, thus suggesting that $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right)_{KR}`$ should be much less than the present day experimental error bars.

## IV Conclusions

In this paper we have extended the previous work by to two of us (SSG and SS) on spherically symmetric static solutions of the Kalb–Ramond field coupled to gravity. We have arrived at an approximate asymptotically flat solution to the field equations. The ‘approximation’ is necessitated by the fact that, as far as we could see, the resulting equations are not exactly solvable. This approximate solution has the nice feature that it has a Schwarzschild piece and another term related to the KR field. In a sense, therefore our approximate solution represents the exterior gravitational field of a massive spherically symmetric body in the presence of a Kalb–Ramond field. In order to arrive at observable signatures, or measure the extent of the KR field we have subsequently studied gravitational lensing and perihelion precession. For the exact background (Ellis geometry) we have been able to find exact expressions for the amount of bending. For the approximate solutions the amount of bending and perihelion precession is approximate but the formulae look reasonable enough to justify our approximation. We also make a suggestion about how the bending/perihelion precession due to the KR field may be tested in observations. Our findings seem to imply that if the amount of bending/perihelion precession has to lie within the error bars of the observational results for the Sun, we would end up with an abnormally large KR energy density and, subsequently a huge ambient background temperature (a cosmic KR background). This being absurd we conclude that the bending/perihelion precession amount is far below the known error bars and, therefore, cannot be detected by the present level of precision in the solar system tests employed to test GR. Therefore, alternative tests (besides those that are related to cosmology) need to be thought out in order to prove the existence of the KR field. Such possibilities have already been explored in the context of optical activity of the elctromagnetic radiation from distant galactic sources skpmas , helicity flip of solar neutrino ssgas  and in other areas. Future work along these lines is in progress and will be communicated in due course.

## Acknowledgment

This work is supported by Project grant no. 98/37/16/BRNS cell/676 from the Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India.


format: text

text:
# Statistical Mechanics of Spatial Evolutionary Games

## 1. Introduction

Many socio-economic systems and biological populations can be modeled as systems of interacting individuals . Here we will consider game-theoretic models of many interacting players . In such models, individuals have at their disposal certain strategies and their payoffs in a game depend on strategies chosen both by them and by their opponents. In spatial games, players are located on vertices of certain graphs and they interact only with their neighbors . The central concept in game theory is that of a Nash equilibrium. It is an assignment of strategies to players such that no player, for fixed strategies of his opponents, has an incentive to deviate from his curent strategy; the change can only diminish his payoff.

The notion of a Nash equilibrium (called a Nash configuration in spatial games) is similar to the notion of a ground-state configuration in classical lattice-gas models of interacting particles. We will discuss similarities and differences between systems of interacting players maximizing their individual payoffs and particles minimizing their interaction energy.

One of the fundamental problems in game theory is the equilibrium selection in games with multiple Nash equilibria. One of the selection methods is to construct an appropriate dynamical system where in the long run only one equilibrium is played with a high frequency. Here we will discuss a stochastic adaptation dynamics of a population with a fixed number of players. In discrete moments of times, players adapt to their neighbors by choosing with a high probability the strategy which is the best response, i.e. the one which maximizes the sum of the payoffs obtained from individual games. With a small probability, representing the noise of the system, they make mistakes. To describe the long-run behavior of such stochastic dynamics, Foster and Young  introduced a concept of stochastic stability. A configuration of the system (an assignment of strategies to lattice sites in spatial games) is stochastically stable if it has a positive probability in the stationary state of the above dynamics in the zero-noise limit, that is zero probability of mistakes. It means that in the long run we observe it with a positive frequency. However, for any arbitrarily low but fixed noise, if the number of players is big enough, the probability of any individual configuration is practically zero. It means that for a large number of players, to observe a stochastically stable configuration we must assume that players make mistakes with extremely small probabilities. On the other hand, it may happen that in the long run, for a low but fixed noise and sufficiently big number of players, the stationary state is highly concentrated on an ensemble consisting of one Nash configuration and its small perturbations, i.e. configurations, where most players play the same strategy. We will call such configurations ensemble stable. We will show that these two stability concepts do not necessarily coincide.

In the so-called potential games, for any given configuration, payoffs of all players are the same . Such systems are therefore analogous to those of interacting particles, where instead of maximizing payoffs, particles minimize their interaction energy. Stationary states of the stochastic dynamics with the Boltzmann-type updating are then finite-volume Gibbs distributions describing an equilibrium behavior of corresponding systems of interacting particles in the grand-canonical ensemble. We use techniques and results of statistical mechanics to describe the long-run behavior of potential games. We investigate a thermodynamic limit, i.e. the limit of the infinite number of players.

We will present examples of spatial games with three strategies where concepts of stochastic stability and ensemble stability do not coincide. In particular, we may have the situation, where a stochastically stable strategy is played in the long run with an arbitrarily low frequency.

We will also discuss briefly nonpotential games. Stationary states of such games cannot be explicitly constructed as before. We must therefore resort to different methods. We will use a tree characterization of stationary states .

In Section 2, we introduce spatial games with local interactions. In Section 3, we present stochastic dynamics and the concept of stochastic stability of Nash configurations. In Section 4, we introduce our concept of ensemble stability and present examples of games where stochastically stable Nash configurations are played in the long run with arbitrarily small probabilities if the noise level is low and the number of players is big enough. We will also discuss an effect of adding a dominated strategy to a game with two strategies. In particular, the presence of such a strategy may cause a stochastically stable strategy to be observed in the long run with a frequency close to zero. In Section 5, we discuss the long-run behavior of a certain example of a nonpotential game. Discussion follows in Section 6.

## 2. Spatial Games with Local Interactions

In order to characterize a game-theoretic model, one has to specify the set of players, strategies they have at their disposal and payoffs they receive. Here we will discuss only two-player games with two or three pure strategies. In addition, players may use mixed strategies. A mixed strategy is a probability distribution on the set of pure strategies. We begin with games with two pure strategies and two symmetric Nash equilibria. A generic payoff matrix is given by

Example 1

A B

A a b

U =

B c d,

where the $`ij`$ entry, $`i,j=A,B`$, is the payoff of the first (row) player when he plays the strategy $`i`$ and the second (column) player plays the strategy $`j`$. We assume that both players are the same and hence payoffs of the column player are given by the matrix transposed to $`U`$; such games are called symmetric. Let $`(x,1x)`$ be a mixed strategy, where $`x`$ is the probability of playing $`A`$ and $`1x`$ of playing $`B`$. We then assume that the payoff received by a player using a mixed strategy $`(x,1x)`$ against a player using $`(y,1y)`$ is the average (expected) payoff given by $`x[ay+b(1y)]+(1x)[(cy+d(1y)]`$.

An assignment of strategies to both players is a Nash equilibrium, if for each player, for a fixed strategy of his opponent, changing the current strategy will not increase his payoff.

We will discuss games with multiple Nash equilibria. If $`a>c`$ and $`d>b`$, then both $`(A,A)`$ and $`(B,B)`$ are Nash equilibria. If $`a+b<c+d`$, then the strategy $`B`$ has a higher expected payoff against a player playing both strategies with the probability $`1/2`$. We say that $`B`$ risk dominates the strategy $`A`$ (the notion of the risk-dominance was introduced and thoroughly studied by Harsányi and Selten ). If at the same time $`a>d`$, then we have a selection problem of choosing between the payoff-dominant (Pareto-efficient) equilibrium $`(A,A)`$ and the risk-dominant $`(B,B)`$.

We will study populations with a finite number of individuals playing two-player games. In spatial games, players occupy sites of certain lattices and interact only with their neighbors.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a finite subset of the simple lattice $`𝐙^2`$ (for simplicity of presentation we assume periodic boundary conditions, i.e. we place players on a two-dimensional torus). Every site of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is occupied by one player who has at his disposal one of $`k`$ different pure strategies (player do not use mixed strategies). Let $`S`$ be the set of pure strategies, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=S^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the set of all configurations of players, that is all possible assignments of strategies to individual players. For every $`i\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`X_i`$ is the strategy of the $`i`$th player in the configuration $`X\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`X_i`$ denotes strategies of all remaining players; $`X`$ therefore can be represented as the pair $`(X_i,X_i)`$. Let $`U:S\times SR`$ be a matrix of payoffs of our game. Every player interacts only with his neighbors and his payoff is the sum of the payoffs resulting from individual games. We assume that he has to use the same strategy for all neighbors. Let $`N_i`$ denote the neighborhood of the $`i`$th player. For the nearest-neighbor interaction we have $`N_i=\{j;|ji|=1\}`$, where $`|ij|`$ is the distance between $`i`$ and $`j`$. For $`X\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we denote by $`\nu _i(X)`$ the payoff of the $`i`$th player in the configuration $`X`$:

$$\nu _i(X)=\underset{jN_i}{}U(X_i,X_j)$$
(2.1)
###### Definition 1.

$`X\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a Nash configuration if for every $`i\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`Y_iS,`$ $`\nu _i(X_i,X_i)\nu _i(Y_i,X_i)`$.

In Example 1, there are two homogeneous Nash configurations, $`X^A`$ and $`X^B`$, in which all players play the same strategy, $`A`$ or $`B`$ respectively.

Let us notice that the notion of a Nash configuration is similar to the notion of a ground-state configuration in classical lattice-gas models of interacting particles. We have to identify agents with particles, strategies with types of particles and instead of maximizing payoffs we should minimize interaction energies. There are however profound differences. First of all, ground-state configurations can be defined only for symmetric matrices; an interaction energy is assigned to a pair of particles, payoffs are assigned to individual players. It may happen that if a player switches a strategy to increase his payoff, the payoff of his opponent and of the entire population decreases. Moreover, ground-state configurations are stable with respect to all local changes, not just one-site changes like Nash configurations. It means that for the same symmetric matrix $`U`$, there may exist a configuration which is a Nash configuration but not a ground-state configuration for the interaction marix $`U`$. The simplest example is given by Example 1 with $`a=2,b=c=0`$, and $`d=1`$. $`X^A`$ and $`X^B`$ are Nash configurations but only $`X^A`$ is a ground-state configuration for $`U.`$

For any classical lattice-gas model there exists at least one ground-state configuration. It may happen that a game with a nonsymmetric payoff matrix may not posess a Nash configuration. The classical example is that of the Rock-Scissors-Paper game given by the following matrix.

Example 2

R S P

R 1 2 0

U = S 0 1 2

P 2 0 1

This two-player game does not have a Nash equilibrium in pure strategies. It has a unique mixed Nash equilibrium in which both players use a mixed strategy, playing all three pure strategies with the probability $`1/3`$. One may show that the game does not have any Nash configurations on $`𝐙`$ and $`𝐙^2`$ with nearest-neighbor interactions but it has multiple Nash configurations on the triangular lattice.

In short, ground-state configurations minimize the total energy of a particle system, Nash configurations do not necessarily maximize the total payoff of a population of agents.

## 3. Stochastic Stability

We describe now the deterministic dynamics of the best-response rule. Namely, at each discrete moment of time $`t=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, a randomly chosen player may update his strategy. He simply adopts the strategy, $`X_i^t`$, which gives him the maximal total payoff $`\nu _i(X_i^t,X_i^{t1})`$ for given $`X_i^{t1}`$, a configuration of strategies of remaining players at time $`t1`$.

Now we allow players to make mistakes with a small probability, that is to say they may not choose the best response. A probability of making a mistake may depend on the state of the system (a configuration of strategies of neighboring players). We will assume that this probability is a decreasing function of the payoff lost as a result of a mistake . In the Boltzmann-type updating (called a log-linear rule in the economics/game theory literature), the probability of chosing by the $`i`$th player the strategy $`X_i^t`$ at time $`t`$ is given by the following conditional probability:

$$p_i^T(X_i^t|X_i^{t1})=\frac{e^{(1/T)\nu _i(X_i^t,X_i^{t1})}}{_{X_iS}e^{(1/T)\nu _i(X_i,X_i^{t1})}},$$
(3.1)
where $`T>0`$ measures the noise level.

Let us observe that if $`T0`$, $`p_i^T`$ converges to the best-response rule. Our stochastic dynamics is an example of an ergodic Markov chain with $`|S^\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ states. Therefore, it has a unique stationary distribution (a stationary state) which we denote by $`\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }^T.`$

The following definition was first introduced by Foster and Young .

###### Definition 2.

$`X\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is stochastically stable if $`lim_{T0}\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }^T(X)>0.`$

If $`X`$ is stochastically stable, then the frequency of visiting $`X`$ converges to a positive number along any time trajectory almost surely. It means that in the long run we observe $`X`$ with a positive frequency. In examples below, we consider games with symmetric Nash equilibria and homogeneous Nash configurations. By a stochastic stability of a strategy or a Nash equilibrium we mean a stochastic stability of the corresponding Nash configuration.

The notion of a stochastically stable Nash configuration is analogous to the notion of a low-temperature stable ground-state configurations, i.e. the one which gives rise to a low-temperature equilibrium phase.

Stationary distributions of the Boltzmann dynamics can be explicitly constructed for the so-called potential games. A game is called a potential game if its payoff matrix can be changed to a symmetric one by adding payoffs to its columns. Such a payoff transformation does not change the strategic character of the game, in particular it does not change the set of its equilibria and their stochastic stability. More formally, it means that there exists a symmetric matrix $`V`$ called a potential of the game such that for any three strategies $`A,B,CS`$

$$U(A,C)U(B,C)=V(A,C)V(B,C).$$
(3.2)
It is easy to see that every game with two strategies has a potential $`V`$ with $`V(A,A)=ac`$, $`V(B,B)=db`$, and $`V(A,B)=V(B,A)=0.`$ If $`V`$ is a potential of the stage game, then $`V(X)=_{(i,j)\mathrm{\Lambda }}V(X_i,X_j)`$ is a potential of a configuration $`X`$ in the corresponding spatial game. The unique stationary state of a potential game with the Boltzmann dynamics is given by the following formula :

$$\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }^T(X)=\frac{e^{(1/T)_{(i,j)\mathrm{\Lambda }}V(X_i,X_j)}}{_{Z\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^{(1/T)_{(i,j)\mathrm{\Lambda }}V(Z_i,Z_j)}}.$$
(3.3)
$`\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }^T`$ is a so-called finite-volume Gibbs state - a probability distribution describing an equilibrium behavior of a system of particles with a two-body Hamiltonian $`V`$ and the temperature $`T`$. The limit $`lim_{T0}\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }^T`$ is a ground-state measure supported by ground-state configurations, that is Nash configurations with the biggest $`V`$. It follows from (3.3) that stochastically stable Nash configurations are those with the biggest potential. In particular, in spatial games with two strategies and two Nash equilibria, the risk-dominant configuration $`X^A`$ is stochastically stable.

In Section 4, using statistical mechanics methods, we will study the behavior of $`\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }^T`$ in the limit of the infinite number of players, i.e. in the thermodynamic limit, for various two-player games with three pure strategies.

## 4. Ensemble Stability

The concept of stochastic stability involves individual configurations of players. In the zero-noise limit, a stationary state is usually concentrated on one or at most few configurations. However, for a low but fixed noise and for a big number of players, the probability of any individual configuration of players is practically zero. The stationary state, however, may be highly concentrated on an ensemble consisting of one Nash configuration and its small perturbations, i.e. configurations, where most players use the same strategy. Such configurations have relatively high probability in the stationary state. We call such configurations ensemble stable.

###### Definition 3.

$`X\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is $`ϵ`$-ensemble stable if $`\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }^T(Y\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda };Y_iX_i)<ϵ`$ for any $`i\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)`$ for some $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)`$.

###### Definition 4.

$`X\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is low-noise ensemble stable if for every $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`T(ϵ)`$ such that if $`T<T(ϵ)`$, then $`X`$ is $`ϵ`$-ensemble stable.

If $`X`$ is $`ϵ`$-ensemble stable with $`ϵ`$ close to zero, then the ensemble consisting of $`X`$ and configurations which are different from $`X`$ at at most few sites has the probability close to one in the stationary state. It does not follow, however, that $`X`$ is necessarily low-noise ensemble or stochastically stable as it happens in examples presented below.

Example 3

Players are located on a finite subset $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`𝐙^2`$ (with periodic boundary conditions) and interact with their four nearest neighbors. They have at their disposal three pure strategies: $`A,B,`$ and $`C`$. The payoffs are given by the following symmetric matrix:

A B C

A 1.5 0 1

U = B 0 2 1

C 1 1 2

Our game has three Nash equilibria, $`(A,A),(B,B)`$, and $`(C,C)`$, and the corresponding spatial game has three homogeneous Nash configurations: $`X^A,X^B`$, and $`X^C`$. Let us notice that $`X^B`$ and $`X^C`$ have the maximal payoff in every finite volume and therefore they are ground-state configurations for $`U`$ and $`X^A`$ is not.

The unique stationary state of the Boltzmann dynamics (3.1) is a finite-volume Gibbs state and is given by (3.3) with $`V`$ replaced by $`U`$. $`_{(i,j)\mathrm{\Lambda }}U(X_i^k,X_j^k)_{(i,j)\mathrm{\Lambda }}U(Y_i,Y_j)>0`$, for every $`YX^BandX^C`$, $`k=B,C`$, and $`_{(i,j)\mathrm{\Lambda }}U(X_i^B,X_j^B)=_{(i,j)\mathrm{\Lambda }}U(X_i^C,X_j^C).`$ It follows that $`lim_{T0}\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }^T(X^k)=1/2`$, $`k=B,C`$ so $`X^B`$ and $`X^C`$ are stochastically stable. Let us investigate the long-run behavior of our system for large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, that is for a big number of players. Observe that $`lim_{\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2}\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }^T(X)=0`$ for every $`X\mathrm{\Omega }=S^{𝐙^2}`$. Hence for large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`T>0`$ we may only observe, with reasonable positive frequencies, ensembles of configurations and not particular configurations. We will be interested in ensembles which consist of a Nash configuration and its small perturbations, that is configurations, where most players use the same strategy. We perform first the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2`$ and obtain a so-called infinite-volume Gibbs state in the temperature $`T,`$

$$\mu ^T=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙^2}{lim}\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }^T.$$
(4.1)
It describes, in the thermodynamic limit, the equilibrium behavior of a system of interacting particles. Equilibrium behavior of such system results from the competition between its energy $`U`$ and entropy $`S`$, i.e. the minimization of their free energy $`F=UTS`$. We will show that it is the entropy which is responsible for the ensemble stability of some Nash configurations (ground-state configurations) in the limit of the infinite number of players (lattice sites). The phase transition of the first kind is manifested by the existence of multiple Gibbs states for a given Hamiltonian and temperature.

In order to investigate the stationary state of our example, we will apply a technique developed by Bricmont and Slawny . They studied low-temperature stability of the so-called dominant ground-state configurations. It follows from their results that

$$\mu ^T(X_i=C)>1ϵ(T)$$
(4.2)
for any $`i𝐙^2`$ and $`ϵ(T)0`$ as $`T0`$.

We will recall in Appendix A their proof adapted to our model. The following theorem is a simple consequence of (4.2).

###### Theorem 1.

$`X^C`$ is low-noise ensemble stable.

We see that for any low but fixed $`T`$, if the number of players is big enough, then in the long run, almost all players use $`C`$ strategy. On the other hand, if for any fixed number of players, $`T`$ is lowered substantially, then all three strategies appear with frequencies close to $`1/2`$.

Let us sketch briefly the reason of such a behavior. While it is true that both $`X^B`$ and $`X^C`$ have the same potential which is the half of the payoff of the whole system (it plays the role of the total energy of a system of interacting particles), the $`X^C`$ Nash configuration has more lowest-cost excitations. Namely, one player can change its strategy and switch to either $`A`$ or $`B`$ and the total payoff will decrease by $`8`$ units. Players in the $`X^B`$ Nash configuration have only one possibility, that is to switch to $`C`$; switching to $`A`$ decreases the total payoff by $`16`$. Now, the probability of the occurrence of any configuration in the Gibbs state (which is the stationary state of our stochastic dynamics) depends on the total payoff in an exponential way. One can prove that the probability of the ensemble consisting of the $`X^C`$ Nash configuration and configurations which are different from it at few sites only is much bigger than the probability of the analogous $`X^B`$-ensemble. It follows from the fact that the $`X^C`$-ensemble has many more configurations than the $`X^B`$-ensemble. On the other hand, configurations which are outside $`X^B`$ and $`X^C`$-ensembles appear with exponentially small probabilities. It means that for large enough systems (and small but not extremely small $`T`$) we observe in the stationary state the $`X^C`$ Nash configuration with perhaps few different strategies. The above argument was made into a rigorous proof for an infinite system of the closely related lattice-gas model (the Blume-Capel model) of interacting particles by Bricmont and Slawny in .

In the above example, $`X^B`$ and $`X^C`$ have the same total payoff but $`X^C`$ has more lowest-cost excitations and therefore it is low-noise ensemble stable. We will now discuss the situation, where $`X^C`$ has a smaller total payoff but nevertheless in the long run $`C`$ is played with a frequency close to $`1`$ if the noise level is low but not extremely low. We will consider a family of games with the following payoff matrix:

Example 4

A B C

A 1.5 0 1

U = B 0 $`2+\alpha `$ 1

C 1 1 2,

where $`\alpha >0`$ so $`B`$ is both payoff and pairwise risk-dominant.

We are interested in the long-run behavior of our system for small positive $`\alpha `$ and low $`T`$. One may modify the proof of Theorem 1 (see Appendix B) and obtain the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.

For every $`ϵ>0`$, there exist $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ and $`T(ϵ)`$ such that for every $`0<\alpha <\alpha (ϵ)`$, there exists $`T(\alpha )`$ such that for $`T(\alpha )<T<T(ϵ)`$, $`X^C`$ is $`ϵ`$-ensemble stable, and for $`0<T<T(\alpha )`$, $`X^B`$ is $`ϵ`$-ensemble stable.

Observe that for $`\alpha =0`$, both $`X^B`$ and $`X^C`$ are stochastically stable (they appear with the frequency $`1/2`$ in the limit of zero noise) but $`X^C`$ is low-noise ensemble stable. For small $`\alpha >0`$, $`X^B`$ is both stochastically (it appears with the frequency $`1`$ in the limit of zero noise) and low-noise ensemble stable. However, for intermediate noise $`T(\alpha )<T<T(ϵ)`$, if the number of players is big enough, then in the long run, almost all players use the strategy $`C`$ \- $`X^C`$ is ensemble stable). If we lower T below $`T(\alpha )`$, then almost all players start to use the strategy $`B`$. $`T=T(\alpha )`$ is the line of the first-order phase transition. In the thermodynamic limit, there exist two Gibbs state (equilibrium states) on this line. We may say that at $`T=T(\alpha )`$, the society of players undergoes a phase transition from $`C`$ to $`B`$-behavior.

Now we will consider games with a dominated strategy and two symmetric Nash equilibria. We say that a given strategy is is dominated if it gives a player the lowest payoff regardless of a strategy chosen by an opponent. It is easy to see that dominated strategies cannot be present in any Nash equilibrium. Therefore such strategies should not be used by players and consequently we might think that their presence should not have any impact on the long-run behavior of the system. We will show in the following example that this may not be necessarily true.

Example 5

A B C

A 0 0.1 1

U = B 0.1 $`2+\alpha `$ 1

C 1 1 2,

where $`\alpha >0`$.

We see that strategy $`A`$ is dominated by $`B`$ and $`C`$ hence $`X^A`$ is not a Nash equilibrium. $`X^B`$ and $`X^C`$ are both Nash equilibria but only $`X^B`$ is a ground-state configuration for $`U.`$ In the absence of $`A`$, $`B`$ is both payoff and risk-dominant and therefore is stochastically stable and low-noise ensemble stable. Adding the strategy $`A`$ does not change dominance relations; $`B`$ is still payoff and pairwise risk dominant. However, we may modify slightly the proof of Theorem 2 to show that $`X^C`$ is $`ϵ`$-ensemble stable at intermediate noise levels. The mere presence of the dominated strategy $`A`$ changes the long-run behavior of the system. Similar results were already discussed in adaptive games of Myatt and Wallace . In their games, at every discrete moment of time, one of the agents leaves the population and is replaced by another one who plays the best response. He calculates his best response with respect to his own payoff matrix which is the matrix of a common average payoff disturbed by a realization of some random variable with the zero mean. The noise does not appear in the game as a result of players’ mistakes but is the effect of their idiosyncratic preferences. The authors then show that the presence of a dominated strategy may change the stochastic stability of equilibria. However, the reason for such a behavior is different in their and in our models. In our model, it is relatively easy to get out of $`X^C`$ and this makes $`X^C`$-ensemble stable. Mayatt and Wallace introduce a dominated strategy in such a way that it is relatively easy to make a transition to it from a risk and payoff-dominant configuration and then with a high probability the system moves to a third Nash configuration which results in its stochastic stability.

Although in above models, the number of players was very large, their strategic interactions were decomposed into a sum of two-player games. Stochastic and ensemble stability of three-player games were investigated in .

## 5. Stochastic Stability in Non-potential Games

Let us now consider games with three strategies and three symmetric Nash equilibria: $`(A,A),(B,B)`$, and $`(C,C)`$. Generically, such games do not have a potential and therefore their stationary states cannot be explicitly constructed. To find them, we must resort to different methods. We will use a tree representation of the stationary distribution of Markov chains  (see also Appendix C).

To illustrate this technique we will discuss a following two-player game with three strategies.

Example 6

Players are located on a finite subset $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`𝐙`$ (with periodic boundary conditions) and interact with their two nearest neighbors. They have at their disposal three pure strategies: $`A,B,`$ and $`C`$. The payoffs are given by the following matrix:

A B C

A 3 0 2

U = B 2 2 0

C 0 0 3

Our game has three Nash equilibria, $`(A,A),(B,B)`$, and $`(C,C)`$. Let us note that in pairwise comparisons, $`B`$ risk dominates $`A`$, $`C`$ dominates $`B`$ and $`A`$ dominates $`B`$. The corresponding spatial game has three homogeneous Nash configurations: $`X^A,X^B`$, and $`X^C`$. They are the only absorbing states of the noise-free best-response dynamics. When we start with any state different from $`X^A`$, $`X^B`$, and $`X^C`$, then after a finite number of steps we arrive at either $`X^A`$, $`X^B`$ or $`X^C`$ and then stay there forever. It follows from the tree representation of stationary states (see Appendix C) that any state different from $`X^A`$, $`X^B`$, and $`X^C`$, has zero probability in the stationary distribution in the zero-noise limit. Moreover, in order to study the zero-noise limit of the stationary distribution, it is enough to consider probabilities of transitions between absorbing states.

###### Theorem 3.

$`X^B`$ is stochastically stable

Proof: The following are maximal A-tree, B-tree, and C-tree:

$$BCA,CAB,ABC.$$

Let us observe that

$$P_{BCA}=O(e^{6/T}),$$
(5.1)
$$P_{CAB}=O(e^{4/T}),$$
(5.2)
$$P_{ABC}=O(e^{6/T}),$$
(5.3)
where $`lim_{x0}O(x)/x=1.`$

The theorem follows from the tree characterization of stationary states as described in Appendix C.

$`X^B`$ is stochastically stable because it is much more probable (for low $`T`$) to escape from $`X^A`$ and $`X^C`$ than from $`X^B`$. The relative payoffs of Nash configurations are not relevant here (in fact $`X^B`$ has the smallest payoff). Let us recall Example 3 of a potential game, where an ensemble-stable configuration has more lowest-cost excitations. It is easier to escape from an ensemble-stable configuration than from other Nash configurations.

Stochatic stability concerns single configurations in the zero-noise limit; ensemble stability concerns families of configurations in the limit of the infinite number of players. It is very important to investigate and comparethese two concepts of stability in nonpotential games.

Nonpotential spatial games cannot be directly presented as systems of interacting particles. They constitute a large family of interacting objects not thoroughly studied so far by methods statistical physics. Some partial results concerning stochastic stability of Nash equilibria in nonpotential spatial games were obtained in .

One may wish to say that $`A`$ risk dominates the other two strategies if it risk dominates them in pairwise comparisons. In Example 6, that $`B`$ dominates $`A`$, $`C`$ dominates $`B`$, and finally $`A`$ dominates $`C`$. But even if we do not have such a cyclic relation of dominance, a strategy which is pairwise risk-dominant may not be stochastically stable . A more relevant notion seems to be that of a global risk dominance . We say that $`A`$ is globally risk dominant if it is a best response to a mixed strategy which assigns probability $`1/2`$ to $`A`$. It was shown in  that a global risk-dominant strategy is stochastically stable in some spatial games with local interactions.

A different criterion for stochastic stability was developed by Blume . He showed (using techniques of statistical mechanics) that in a game with $`k`$ strategies $`A_i`$ and $`k`$ symmetric Nash equilibria $`(A_i,A_i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$ and $`k`$ pure symmetric Nash equlibria, $`A_1`$ is stochastically stable if

$$\underset{n>1}{\mathrm{min}}(U(A_1,A_1)U(A_n,A_1))>\underset{n>1}{\mathrm{max}}(U(A_n,A_n)U(A_1,A_n)).$$
(5.4)
We may observe that if $`A_1`$ satisfies the above condition, then it is pairwise risk dominant.

## 6. Discussion

We discussed effects of the number of players and the noise level on the long-run behavior in the stochastic dynamics of spatial games. In the so-called potential games with the Boltzmann-type updating, stationary states are Gibbs distributions of corresponding lattice-gas models. We used ideas and techniques of statistical mechanics to analyze such games.

In particular, we were concerned with two limits of our models. In the first one, for a fixed number of players, one considers an arbitrarily low level of noise. Then the relevant concept is that of stochastic stability of single configurations. For a fixed level of noise, in the limit of the infinite number of players, long-run behavior is described by the stability of certain ensembles of configurations. We show in several examples that the long-run behavior may be different in these two limiting cases.

In non-potential games, stationary states cannot be explicitly constructed as before. In order to study their zero-noise limits, one may use their tree representation. We illustrated this technique on a simple example. Constructing stationary states in non-potential spatial games is an important open problem.

Acknowledgments: I thank Christian Maes and Joseph Slawny for useful conversations. Financial support by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research under the grant KBN 5 P03A 025 20 is kindly acknowledged.

## Appendix A

Here we provide a proof of (4.2). We follow  very closely. We begin by defining formally restricted ensembles. Let

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\{A,B,C\}^{Z^2}$$

be the configuration space of our model.

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_R^B=\{X\mathrm{\Omega },X_i=B,CforalliZ^2andifX_i=C,thenX_j=Bif|ij|=1\},$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_R^C=\{X\mathrm{\Omega },ifX_i=AorB,thenX_j=Cif|ij|=1\}$$

are the restricted ensembles of configurations of the lowest-cost excitations of $`X^B`$ and $`X^C`$ Nash configurations. Observe that $`X^C`$ has many more lowest-cost excitations than $`X^B`$.

We define partition functions of restricted ensembles with boundary conditions $`Y\mathrm{\Omega }_{R,\mathrm{\Lambda }^c}^k,`$ $`k=B,C`$ as

$$Z_R(\mathrm{\Lambda }|Y)=e^{\beta U_\mathrm{\Lambda }(X)},$$
(A.1)
where the sum is over $`X\mathrm{\Omega }_R^k`$ which are equal to $`Y`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^c`$,

$$U_\mathrm{\Lambda }(X)=\underset{\{i,j\}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{}U(X_i,X_j),$$
(A.2)
and $`\beta =1/T`$. It is a standard result in rigorous statistical mechanics that a following limit exists

$$\psi _R(\beta |k)=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }Z^2}{lim}log\frac{Z_R(\mathrm{\Lambda }|Y)}{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|\beta }$$
(A.3)
and has a convergent expansion. $`\psi _R(\beta |k)`$ is called a thermodynamic potential of a gas of noninteracting lowest-cost excitations. We may write

$$logZ_R(\mathrm{\Lambda }|Y)=|\mathrm{\Lambda }|\beta \psi _R(\beta |k)+o(e^{4\beta })|\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }|,k=B,C,$$
(A.4)
where

$$\beta \psi _R(\beta |B)=2+e^{4\beta }+O(e^{8\beta }),$$
(A.5)
$$\beta \psi _R(\beta |C)=2+2e^{4\beta }+O(e^{8\beta }).$$
(A.6)
and $`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

We define $`ret(X)`$ by $`ret(X)_i=B`$ if $`X_i=C`$ and $`X_j=B`$ for $`|ij|=1`$, $`ret(X)_i=C`$ if $`X_i=A,B`$ and $`X_j=C`$ for $`|ij|=1`$, and $`ret(X)_i=X_i`$ otherwise. Therefore, in $`ret(X)`$ we remove all lowest-cost excitations of $`X`$ but not excitations of a higher cost. If $`X\mathrm{\Omega }_R^B`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_R^C`$), then $`ret(X)=X^B`$ ($`X^C)`$. Let us define the boundary of $`X`$ as the set of pairs $`(i,j)`$ such that $`ret(X)_iret(X)_j`$ A small scale contour $`\gamma `$ of a configuration $`X`$ is a pair $`\gamma =([\gamma ],X_{[\gamma ]}),`$ where $`[\gamma ]`$ is the maximal connected subset of the union of the boundary of $`X`$ and pairs of sites $`(i,j)`$ such that $`X_i=X_j=A.`$ The cost of $`\gamma `$ is

$$U(\gamma )=\underset{(i,j)\gamma }{}(2U(X_i,X_j))$$

Now we define large-scale contours. Let $`L(\beta )=e^{5\beta /2}.`$ We cover $`Z^2`$ with squares

$$B(i)=B(o)+(1/2)Li,iZ^2,$$

where $`B(o)`$ is the square of side $`L(\beta )`$ centered at the origin and containing $`e^{5\beta }`$ lattice sites. We call $`B(i)`$ a regular box of $`X`$ if $`X_{B(i)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{R,B(i)}^C`$ and it is irregular otherwise. There are two types of irregular boxes of $`X`$:

type 1 if $`X_{B(i)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{R,B(i)}^B,`$

type 2 if a small-scale contour of $`X`$ intersects $`B(i).`$

A large-scale contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a connected family of irregular squares. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the number of squares in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$ the number of lattice sites in $`\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }]=_{B\mathrm{\Gamma }}B.`$ For any function $`f`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$

$$P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(f|Y)=f(X)\frac{e^{\beta _{\{i,j\}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}U(X_i,X_j)}}{Z(\mathrm{\Lambda }|Y)},$$
(A.7)
where the sum is over $`X\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which are equal to $`Y`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^c.`$ For $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }]\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, let $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }|Y)=P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\chi _\mathrm{\Lambda }|Y)`$, where $`\chi _\mathrm{\Lambda }(X)=1`$ if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a contour of $`X`$ and zero otherwise. Therefore

$$P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }|Y)=\frac{Z(\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathrm{\Gamma },Y)}{Z(\mathrm{\Lambda }|Y)},$$
(A.8)
where

$$Z(\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathrm{\Gamma },Y)=e^{\beta U_\mathrm{\Lambda }(X)},$$
(A.9)
where the sum is over $`X\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which are equal to $`Y`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^c`$ and contain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }(|Y)`$ is called a Gibbs measure in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with boundary conditions $`Y`$. Now we are ready to formulate our main proposition.

###### Proposition 1.

For big enough $`\beta `$ there exists $`c`$ such that for all finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }Z^2`$, all boundary conditions $`Y\mathrm{\Omega }_{R,\mathrm{\Lambda }^c}^C`$ and all contours $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contained in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

$`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }|Y)e^{c\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }}.`$

Proof: First we condition on strategies in $`\delta [\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$,

$$P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }|Y)=\underset{Z}{}P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }|Y,Z)P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(Z|Y).$$
(A.10)
Then we get

$$P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }|Y,Z)=P_{[\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(\mathrm{\Gamma }|Y,Z)=\frac{Z([\mathrm{\Gamma }]|\mathrm{\Gamma },Y,Z)}{Z([\mathrm{\Gamma }]|Y,Z)},$$
(A.11)
$$Z([\mathrm{\Gamma }]|\mathrm{\Gamma },Y,Z)=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{}\underset{\omega }{}Z([\mathrm{\Gamma }]|\mathrm{\Gamma }^2,\omega ,Y,Z),$$
(A.12)
where the first summation is over all possible families $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ of type-2 squares of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the second over families $`\omega `$ of small-scale contours in $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ such that for each square of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ there is a contour of $`\omega `$ intersecting the square. Let

$$[\mathrm{\Gamma }][\omega ]=_aM_a,[\omega ]=_{\gamma \omega }[\gamma ]$$

be the decomposition of $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }][\omega ]`$ into connected components. Now we have

$$Z([\mathrm{\Gamma }]|\mathrm{\Gamma }^2,\omega ,Y,Z)=e^{2\beta _{\gamma \omega }|\gamma |}e^{\beta U(\omega )}\mathrm{\Pi }_aZ_R(M_a|X_a),$$
(A.13)
where

$$U(\omega )=\underset{\gamma \omega }{}U(\gamma ),$$
(A.14)
$`|\gamma |`$ is the number of pairs in $`\gamma `$ and $`X_a`$ is the configuration on $`\delta M_a`$.

After inserting (A.13) into (A.12) and (A.12) into (A.11) we have to estimate the ratio

$$\frac{(\mathrm{\Pi }_aZ_R(M_a|X_a))}{Z([\mathrm{\Gamma }]|Y,Z)}\frac{(\mathrm{\Pi }_aZ_R(M_a|X_a))}{Z_R([\mathrm{\Gamma }]|Y,Z)},$$
(A.15)
where in the dominator we used the lower bound

$$Z([\mathrm{\Gamma }]|Y,Z)Z_R([\mathrm{\Gamma }]|Y,Z).$$
(A.16)
We write the volume terms of (A.15) as

$$e^{\beta (_a|M_a|\psi _R(\beta |k(a))|\mathrm{\Gamma }|\psi _R(\beta |C))}e^{(e^{4\beta }+O(e^{8\beta }))_{a:k(a)C}|M_a|}$$
(A.17)
$$e^{(1/2)|\mathrm{\Gamma }^1|e^{4\beta }}=e^{(1/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }^1e^\beta },$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^2.`$ We also have to estimate boundary terms. The family of boundaries of $`\delta M_a`$ consist of two subfamilies: one contained in $`[\omega ]`$ and another contained in $`\delta [\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$, on which we have the same boundary conditions, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$, in the numerator and the denominator of (A.15). Since these boundary conditions are the same, contributions to the boundary term cancel each other. Finally using $`U(\gamma )>|\gamma |`$ we obtain that (A.15) is bounded by

$$e^{(1/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }^1e^\beta +c^{}|\omega |e^{4\beta }}$$
(A.18)
Therefore

$$\frac{Z([\mathrm{\Gamma }]|\mathrm{\Gamma }^2,\omega ,Y,Z)}{Z_R([\mathrm{\Gamma }]|Y,Z)}e^{\beta ^{}U(\omega )(1/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }^1e^\beta },$$
(A.19)
where

$$\beta ^{}=\beta c^{}e^{4\beta }.$$
(A.20)
We obtain that

$$P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }|Y,Z)e^{(1/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }^1e^\beta }\underset{\omega }{}e^{\beta ^{}U(\omega )},$$
(A.21)
where the sum over the families $`\omega `$ of small scale-contours is restricted by the condition that for each $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ there exists at least one contour $`\gamma \omega `$ with $`[\gamma ]B\mathrm{}.`$ We get

$$\underset{\omega }{}e^{\beta ^{}U(\omega )}\mathrm{\Pi }_{B\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}(\underset{m1}{}(1/m!)\underset{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m}{\overset{B}{}}e^{\beta ^{}_jU(\gamma _j)}$$
(A.22)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{B\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}(\underset{m1}{}(1/m!)(\underset{\gamma }{\overset{B}{}}e^{\beta ^{}U(\gamma )})^m),$$

where the superscript $`B`$ indicates summation over contours $`\gamma `$ with $`[\gamma ]B\mathrm{}`$

Now because $`U(\gamma )|\gamma |`$ and $`U(\gamma )6`$, for big $`\beta `$ we get

$$\underset{\gamma }{\overset{B}{}}e^{\beta ^{}U(\gamma )}c^{\prime \prime }|B|e^{6\beta ^{}}=c^{\prime \prime }e^\beta .$$
(A.23)
From (A.22) and (A.23) we get

$$(e^{c^{\prime \prime }e^\beta }1)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(c^{\prime \prime \prime }e^\beta )^{||\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}.$$
(A.24)
We conclude the proof by using the above estimate in (A.21).

Now the following proposition is a consequence of Proposition 1

###### Proposition 2.

There exist two positive constants, $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$, such that $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }>c|\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }||Y)e^{c^{}\beta |\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }|}`$ for big enough $`\beta `$ and for all finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }Z^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and all boundary conditions $`Y\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^c`$.

Proof: We change boundary conditions from an arbitrary $`Y`$ to $`C`$. We have

$$P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(|Y)e^{4\beta |\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }|}P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(|C).$$
(A.25)
We connect disconnected parts of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ through $`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and from Proposition 1 we get

$$P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }>c|\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }||C)e^{c^{}\beta |\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }|}$$
(A.26)
which finishes our proof.

Proof of (4.2):

By Proposition 2 we may assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ covers a small part of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Indeed, with high probability we have

$$|\mathrm{\Gamma }|=e^{5\beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }O(e^{5\beta })|\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }|.$$
(A.27)
In the complement of $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ we have the gas of noninteracting lowest-cost excitations of $`X^C`$ which are very rare if $`\beta `$ is large enough so the noise level $`T=1/\beta `$ is low enough. This proves that there is the unique limit $`lim_{\mathrm{\Lambda }Z^2}P_\mathrm{\Lambda }(|Y)`$ which is equal to $`\mu ^T`$ in (4.1) and (4.2) is established.

## Appendix B

The payoff of $`X^B`$ in Example 5 is bigger than that of $`X^C.`$ However, for small $`\alpha `$, $`X^C`$ has again larger thermodynamic potential. Thermodynamic potentials of lowest-cost excitations have following expansions:

$$\beta \psi _R(\beta |B)=2+\alpha +e^{4(1+\alpha )\beta }+O(e^{8(1+\alpha )\beta }).$$
(B.1)
$$\beta \psi _R(\beta |C)=2+2e^{4\beta }+O(e^{8\beta }).$$
(B.2)
If $`\alpha <\frac{1}{2}e^{4\beta }`$, then

$$\beta (\psi _R(\beta |C)\psi _R(\beta |B))>\frac{1}{2}e^{4\beta }.$$
(B.3)
Now to prove Theorem 2 we may repeat the proof of Theorem 1.

## Appendix C

The following tree representation of stationary states of Markov chains was proposed by Freidlin and Wentzell (1970 and 1984). Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },P)`$ be an irreducible Markov chain with a state space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and transition probabilities given by $`P:\mathrm{\Omega }\times \mathrm{\Omega }[0,1]`$. It has a unique stationary probability distribution $`\mu `$ (called also a stationary state). For $`X\mathrm{\Omega }`$, an $`X`$-tree is a directed graph on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that from every $`YX`$ there is a unique path to $`X`$ and there are no outcoming edges out of $`X`$. Denote by $`T(X)`$ the set of all $`X`$-trees and let

$$q(X)=\underset{dT(X)}{}\underset{(Y,Y^{})d}{}P(Y,Y^{}),$$
(C.1)
where the product is with respect to all edges of $`d`$. Now one can show that

$$\mu (X)=\frac{q(X)}{_{Y\mathrm{\Omega }}q(Y)}$$
(C.2)
for all $`X\mathrm{\Omega }.`$

In our case, $`P`$ is given by (3.1). A state is an absorbing one if it attracts nearby states in the noise-free best-response dynamics. Let us assume that after a finite number of steps of the noise-free dynamics we arrive at one of the absorbing states (there are no other recurrence classes) and stay there forever. Then it follows from the above tree representation that any state different from absorbing states has zero probability in the stationary distribution in the zero-noise limit. Moreover, in order to study the zero-noise limit of the stationary state, it is enough to consider paths between absorbing states. More precisely, we construct $`X`$-trees with absorbing states as vertices; the family of such $`X`$-trees is denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{T}(X)`$. Let

$$q_m(X)=max_{d\stackrel{~}{T}(X)}\underset{(Y,Y^{})d}{}\stackrel{~}{P}(Y,Y^{}),$$
(C.3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{P}(Y,Y^{})=max_{(W,W^{})}P(W,W^{})`$, where the product is taken along any path joining $`Y`$ with $`Y^{}`$ and the maximum is taken with respect to all such paths. Now we may observe that if $`lim_{ϵ0}q_m(Y)/q_m(X)=0,`$ for any $`YX`$, then $`X`$ is stochastically stable. Therefore we have to compare trees with the biggest products in (C.3); such trees we call maximal.


text:
# A dressing of zero-range potentials and electron-molecule scattering problem at low energies

## 1 Introduction

The ideas of zero range potential (ZRP) approach were recently developed to widen limits of the traditional treatment by Demkov and Ostrovsky  and Albeverio et al. . The advantage of the theory is the possibility of obtaining an exact solution of scattering problem. The ZRP is conventionally represented as the boundary condition on the matrix wavefunction at some point. Alternatively, the ZRP can be represented as pseudopotential (Breit ).

On the other hand, Darboux transformation (DT) allows to construct in natural way exactly solvable potentials. General starting point of the theory goes up to Matveev theorem (see ). The transformation can be also defined on the base of covariance property of the Schrödinger equation with respect to a transformation of wavefunction and potential (Matveev and Salle ). Darboux formulas in multi-dimensional space could be applied in the sense of Andrianov, Borisov and Ioffe ideas . In the circumstances, DT technique can be used so as to correct ZRP model.

We attempt to dress the ZRP in order to improve the possibilities of the ZRP model. We use notations and some results from . DT modifies the generalized ZRP (GZRP) boundary condition (Section 2) and creates a potential with arbitrarily disposed discrete spectrum levels for any angular momentum $`l`$. In the section 3 we consider $`S`$-representation for a non-spherical potential so as to dress a multi-centered potential, which includes $`n`$ ZRPs. As an important example, we consider electron scattering by the $`\text{X}_n`$ and $`\text{YX}_n`$ structures within the framework of the ZRP model (Section 4). In section 4.3 we present the our calculations for the electron-$`\text{SiH}_4`$ scattering and discuss them.

## 2 Zero range potential dressing

Let us start from the simplest case of a central field. Then angular momentum operator commutates with Hamiltonian and therefore wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ can be expanded in the spherical waves

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=4\pi (kr)^1\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}e^{i(\eta _l+l\pi /2)}\psi _l(r,k)Y_{lm}(𝐧)Y_{lm}^{}(𝐧_0),$$
(2.1)
where $`𝐧=r^1𝐫`$, $`𝐧_0`$ is initial particle direction, $`\psi _l(r,k)`$ are partial waves, and $`\eta _l`$ are phase shifts. Consider the radial Schrödinger equation for partial wave with angular momentum $`l`$. The atomic units are used throughout the present paper, i.e. $`\mathrm{}=m=1`$ and Born radius $`a_0=\mathrm{}^2/me^2=1`$.

$$H_l\psi _l(r,k)=k^2\psi _l(r,k),$$
(2.2)
$$H_l=D^2+2u_l(r),$$
(2.3)
$`D=d/dr`$ denotes differential operator, and $`H_l`$ are Hamiltonian operators of the partial waves. This equations describe scattering of a particle with energy $`E=k^2/2`$. The wavefunctions $`\psi _l(r,k)`$ at infinity have the form

$$\psi _l(r,k)\stackrel{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{}}{}\mathrm{sin}\left(kr\frac{l\pi }{2}+\eta _l(k)\right).$$
(2.4)
Let us consider GZRP in coordinate origin. This potential is conventionally represented as boundary condition on the wavefunction (see )

$$D^{2l+1}\left(r^l\psi _l(r,k)\right)_{r=0}=\frac{\alpha _l(2l+1)!}{(2l+1)!!(2l1)!!}\left(r^l\psi _l(r,k)\right)_{r=0},$$
(2.5)
where $`\alpha _l`$ are inverse scattering lengths. The potential $`u_l=l(l+1)/2r^2`$ and therefore wavefunctions $`\psi _l(r,k)`$ can be expressed in terms of the spherical functions

$$\psi _l(r,k)=\mathrm{cos}(\eta _l)j_l(kr)+\mathrm{sin}(\eta _l)n_l(kr),$$
(2.6)
where spherical functions $`j_l(x),n_l(x)`$ are related to usual Bessel functions as $`j_l(x)=\sqrt{\frac{\pi x}{2}}J_{l+1/2}(x)`$, $`n_l(x)=(1)^l\sqrt{\frac{\pi x}{2}}J_{l1/2}(x)`$. In the vicinity of zero they have the asymptotic behavior $`j_l(x)x^{l+1}/(2l+1)!!`$, and $`n_l(x)x^l(2l1)!!`$. To substituting the equation $`(\text{2.6})`$ into the boundary condition we obtain the elements of $`S`$-matrix

$$\mathrm{exp}(2i\eta _l)=\frac{\alpha _lik^{2l+1}}{\alpha _l+ik^{2l+1}}.$$
(2.7)
The bound states correspond to the poles of the $`S`$-matrix (i.e the zeros of the denominator $`\alpha _l+ik^{2l+1}`$), which lie on the imaginary positive semi-axis of the complex $`k`$-plane. It is obvious that bound state, with orbital momentum $`l`$, exists only if $`(1)^l\alpha _l>0`$ (elsewise an antibound state exists) and has the energy $`E_l=\alpha _l^{2/(2l+1)}/2`$.

Thus, spectral problem for GZRP is solved for any value $`k`$. On the other hand, the equations (2.2) are covariant with respect to DT that yields the following transformations of the potentials (coefficients of the operator $`H_l`$)

$$u_l^{(1)}=u_lDs_l,$$
(2.8)
and the wavefunctions $`\psi _l(r,k)`$

$$\psi _l^{(1)}=\frac{s_lD}{\sqrt{k^2+b_l^2}}\psi _l(r,k),s_l=\frac{D\phi _l(r,ib_l)}{\phi _l(r,ib_l)}$$
(2.9)
where $`\phi _l(r,ib_l)`$ are some solutions of the equations $`(\text{2.2})`$ at $`k=ib_l`$, and $`b_l`$ are real parameters, which can be both positive or negative. The DT $`(\text{2.9})`$ combines the solutions $`\psi _l(r,k)`$ and a solution $`\phi _l(r,ib_l)`$ that corresponds to another eigen value $`k^2=b_l^2`$. Repeating the procedure we obtain a chain of the integrable potentials $`u_l^{(n)}`$. In general, dressed potential $`u_l^{(1)}`$ is real for real function $`\phi _l(r,ib_l)`$.

The next step in the dressing procedure of the zero-range potential ($`u_l=l(l+1)/2r^2`$) is a definition of the free parameters of the solutions $`\phi _l(r,ib_l)`$. Suppose the prop functions $`\phi _l(r,ib_l)`$ satisfy the boundary conditions $`(\text{2.5})`$ with $`\alpha _l=e_l`$. In the simplest case of $`l=0`$ we have

$$\phi _0(r,ib)=\mathrm{sinh}(br)(b/e)\mathrm{cosh}(br),$$
(2.10)
and

$$s_0\stackrel{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{}}{}e+(b^2e^2)r.$$

The DT $`(\text{2.9})`$ gives rise to the following requirement on dressed wavefunction

$$D\psi _0^{(1)}=\left(\frac{b^2+k^2}{\alpha e}+e\right)\psi _0^{(1)}.$$

The dressed potential $`u_0^{(1)}`$ is given by

$$u_0^{(1)}=\frac{b^2(b^2e^2)}{(b\mathrm{cosh}(br)e\mathrm{sinh}(br))^2},$$

It is regular on semiaxis only if $`(b/e)\overline{}[0,1)`$. In the limiting case at $`b0`$ we obtain long-range interaction $`(1er)^2`$, which can be regular on semiaxis only if $`e<0`$. Assuming $`e=\pm b`$ we get $`u_0^{(1)}=0`$ (trivial transformation), and boundary condition can be obtained by the substitution:

$$\alpha \frac{b^2+k^2}{\alpha b}\pm b.$$

To dress free wave $`(\alpha =\mathrm{})`$ we obtain ZRP at the coordinate origin. Thus, ZRP can be also introduced in terms of DT. To consider transformation with parameter $`e=\alpha `$ we obtain regular solution $`\psi _0^{(1)}`$ and tangent of phase shift is

$$\mathrm{tan}\eta _0^{(1)}=\frac{(eb)k}{be+k^2}.$$

In the other cases asymptotic of the functions $`s_l`$ at zero is given by

$$s_l\stackrel{\mathrm{r}0}{}\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{l}{r}\frac{b_l^2r}{(2l1)},\hfill & e_l\mathrm{},l>0\hfill \\ \frac{l+1}{r}+\frac{b_l^2^{}r}{(2l+3)},\hfill & e_l=\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

It is clear that the each DT introduces short-range core of centrifugal type (which depends on angular momentum $`l`$) in the potential. In this situation the boundary conditions on the dressed wavefunctions $`\psi _l[1]`$ require modification. Thus, in the case $`e_l\mathrm{},l>0`$ the boundary conditions become

$$D^{2l1}\left(r^{l1}\psi _l^{(1)}\right)_{r=0}=\frac{\alpha _l(2l1)!}{(k^2b_l^2)(2l+1)!!(2l3)!!}\left(r^{l1}\psi _l^{(1)}\right)_{r=0}$$

and in the case $`e_l=\mathrm{}`$ we obtain

$$D^{2l+3}\left(r^{l+1}\psi _l^{(1)}\right)_{r=0}=\frac{\alpha _l(2l+3)!}{(k^2b_l^2)(2l+3)!!(2l1)!!}\left(r^{l+1}\psi _l^{(1)}\right)_{r=0}.$$

In the generalized case, ZRP with angular momentum $`l`$ generates also $`2l`$ complex poles of the $`S`$-matrix, which correspond the quasi-stationary states (resonances). The DTs $`(\text{2.9})`$ with the parameters $`b_l`$ results in the $`S`$-matrix elements for dressed GZRP

$$\mathrm{exp}(2i\eta _l^{(1)})=\frac{\alpha _lik^{2l+1}}{\alpha _l+ik^{2l+1}}\left(\frac{b_lik}{b_l+ik}\right).$$

We can use Darboux transformation in order to add (or remove) poles of the $`S`$-matrix.

## 3 Multi-center problem

The principal observation allows to built a zero-range potential eigen function in the multi-center problem. Let us consider $`n`$ ZRPs at the points $`𝐫_i`$ and interaction $`v^{(1)}`$. The wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ can be expressed in terms of the (outgoing-wave) Green function, defined by the equation

$$\left(^2+2v^{(1)}k^2\right)g^+(𝐫,𝐫^{})=4\pi \delta (𝐫𝐫^{})$$

The second (ingoing-wave) Green function is defined by $`g^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{})=g^+(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$. The partial waves $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (𝐫,k)`$, defined by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (𝐫,k)\stackrel{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{}}{}\frac{1}{2ikr}\left(A_\lambda (𝐧)e^{ikr+i\eta _\lambda }+A_\lambda (𝐧)e^{ikri\eta _\lambda }\right),$$
(3.11)
for multi-centered target which includes $`n`$ ZRPs and interaction $`v^{(1)}`$ can be expressed as a superposition of the Green functions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (𝐫,k)=(2ik)^1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_{\lambda i}\left(e^{i\eta _\lambda }g^+(𝐫,𝐫_i)+e^{i\eta _\lambda }g^{}(𝐫,𝐫_i)\right)$$
(3.12)
in which $`\eta _\lambda `$ are phase shifts, $`A_\lambda (𝐧)`$ denote $`S`$-matrix orthonormal eigenfunctions, $`c_{\lambda i}`$ are real numbers. They naturally generalize the spherical partial waves $`(kr)^1\psi _l(r,k)Y_{lm}(𝐧)`$ for a non-spherical potential . Expanding the partial waves $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (𝐫,k)`$ at the infinity we obtain the expressions for $`A_\lambda (𝐧)`$

$$A_\lambda (𝐧)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_{\lambda i}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}(𝐫_i,k𝐧).$$
(3.13)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}(𝐫,k𝐧)\stackrel{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{}}{}e^{ik𝐧𝐫}+F^{(1)}e^{ikr}/r`$ is wavefunction for potential $`v^{(1)}`$, and $`F^{(1)}`$ is scattering amplitude. Scattering amplitude for potential $`v^{(1)}`$ and $`n`$ ZRP is given by

$$F(𝐧,𝐧_0)=F^{(1)}(𝐧,𝐧_0)+\frac{4\pi }{2ik}\underset{\lambda }{}\left(e^{i\eta _\lambda }1\right)A_\lambda (𝐧)A_\lambda ^{}(𝐧_0).$$
(3.14)
By the imposition of the boundary conditions $`(\text{2.5})`$ the calculation of the partial waves is reduced to the solution of the following system

$$\underset{ji}{}c_{\lambda j}\left(s(𝐫_i,𝐫_j)+c(𝐫_i,𝐫_j)\mathrm{tan}\eta _\lambda \right)=c_{\lambda i}\left(k+\delta k_i+(\alpha _i+\delta \alpha _i)\mathrm{tan}\eta _\lambda \right),$$
(3.15)
in which we use

$$g^+(𝐫,𝐫_i)\stackrel{𝐫𝐫_i}{}\frac{1}{|𝐫𝐫_i|}+\delta \alpha _i+i(k+\delta k_i),$$
(3.16)
where $`s(𝐫_i,𝐫_j)=\text{Im}g^+(𝐫_i,𝐫_j)`$, $`c(𝐫_i,𝐫_j)=\text{Re}g^+(𝐫_i,𝐫_j)`$. The tangents $`\mathrm{tan}\eta _\lambda `$ can be found from compatibility condition of this system. In simplest case $`v=\delta \alpha _i=\delta k_i=0`$

$$c(𝐫_i,𝐫_j)=\frac{\mathrm{cos}(kr_{ij})}{r_{ij}},s(𝐫_i,𝐫_j)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(kr_{ij})}{r_{ij}},r_{ij}=|𝐫_i𝐫_j|,$$

the system $`(\text{3.15})`$ is reduced to the usual equations of ZRP theory . In order to construct functions $`s(𝐫_i,𝐫_j)`$ and $`c(𝐫_i,𝐫_j)`$ for dressed potential, i.e. for $`v^{(1)}`$, we need to write down Green function as single-center expansion over spherical harmonics. In the simplest case, when the prop function is $`\phi _0(r,ib)=\mathrm{sinh}(br)`$, the Green function is given by

$$g^+(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\frac{e^{ik|𝐫𝐫^{}|}}{\left|𝐫𝐫^{}\right|}+\frac{\psi _0^{(1)}(r,k)f_0^{(1)}(r^{},k)}{krr^{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(kr)e^{ikr^{}}}{krr^{}},r<r^{},$$
(3.17)
where

$$f_0^{(1)}(r,k)=\frac{b\mathrm{coth}(br)ik}{\sqrt{k^2+b^2}}e^{ikr},\psi _0^{(1)}(r,k)=\frac{b\mathrm{coth}(br)\mathrm{sin}(kr)k\mathrm{cos}(kr)}{\sqrt{k^2+b^2}}.$$

The function $`\psi _0^{(1)}(r,k)`$ has the following asymptotic at infinity

$$\psi _0^{(1)}(r,k)\stackrel{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{}}{}\mathrm{sin}(kr+\delta ),\delta =\mathrm{arctan}(k/|b|).$$

The integral cross section can be readily derived using the optical theorem: $`\sigma =4\pi k^1\text{Im}F(𝐧_0,𝐧_0).`$ Thus, averaged integral cross section is given by

$$\overline{\sigma }=\frac{4\pi }{k^2}\mathrm{sin}(\delta )^2+\frac{4\pi }{k^2}\underset{\lambda }{}\mathrm{sin}(\eta _\lambda )^2.$$
(3.18)
## 4 $`\text{X}_n`$ and $`\text{XY}_n`$ structures

For purpose of illustration we consider scattering problem for a dressed multi-center potential. The multi-center scattering within the framework of the ZRP model was investigated by Demkov and Rudakov  (8 centers, cube), Drukarev and Yurova  (3 centers in line), Szmytkowski  (4 centers, regular tetrahedron).

### 4.1 Electron$`\text{X}_n`$ scattering problem

Let structure $`\text{X}_n`$ contains $`n`$ identical scatterers, which involve only $`s`$ waves. Denote position vector of the scatterer $`j`$ by the $`𝐫_j`$. Suppose, for the sake of simplicity, the distance between any two scatterers $`i`$ and $`j`$ is $`r_{ij}R`$. There are three such structures in three-dimensional space - dome $`\text{X}_2`$, regular trihedron $`\text{X}_3`$, regular tetrahedron $`\text{X}_4`$. The partial waves $`(\text{3.12})`$ and phases $`\eta _\lambda `$ can be classified with respect to symmetry group representation, degeneracy being defined by the dimension of the representation . The structures $`\text{X}_2`$, $`\text{X}_3`$, $`\text{X}_4`$ belong to the $`D_\mathrm{}h,C_{3v},T_d`$ point groups respectively. The equation $`(\text{3.15})`$ leads to algebraical problem

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_{\lambda j}(\mathrm{sin}(kR)+\mathrm{tan}\eta _\lambda \mathrm{cos}(kR))=c_{\lambda i}(kR+\mathrm{tan}(\eta _\lambda )\alpha R),$$
(4.19)
The phases can be readily found from compatibility condition of this system. To factorize the determinant we derive the expressions for the phases

$$\mathrm{tan}\eta _1=\frac{kR+(n1)\mathrm{sin}(kR)}{\alpha R+(n1)\mathrm{cos}(kR)},$$
(4.20)
$$\mathrm{tan}\eta _\lambda =\frac{kR\mathrm{sin}(kR)}{\alpha R\mathrm{cos}(kR)},\lambda =\overline{2,n}.$$
(4.21)
Thus, assuming $`n=4`$ we obtain the phases of a regular tetrahedron . The partial and integral cross sections can be expressed as

$$\sigma _\lambda =\frac{4\pi }{k^2}\frac{\mathrm{tan}(\eta _\lambda )^2}{1+\mathrm{tan}(\eta _\lambda )^2},\sigma =\sigma _1+(n1)\sigma _n.$$
(4.22)
### 4.2 Electron$`\text{YX}_n`$ scattering problem

The structures $`\text{YX}_n`$ can be used, for instance, to study a slow electron scattering by the polyatomic molecules like $`\text{H}_2\text{O}`$, $`\text{NH}_3`$, $`\text{CH}_4`$, etc. Let $`𝐫_1,..,𝐫_n`$ denote the position vectors of the scatterers X and $`𝐫_{n+1}`$ denotes the position vector of the scatterer Y. The scatterers X are situated in vertices of a regular structure $`\text{X}_n`$, i.e. $`r_{ij}R`$. Suppose, for the sake of simplicity, the distance between the scatterer Y and any scatterer X is $`r_{i(n+1)}D`$. Therefore the position of the scatterer Y perfectly fixed only if $`n=4`$ (geometric center of the tetrahedron, $`R=2\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}D`$). The partial waves are given by the equation $`(\text{3.12})`$, where the summation should be performed over the $`i=\overline{1,n+1}`$. The constants $`c_{\lambda i}`$ and phases can be derived analytically. Thus, we obtain the phases

$$\mathrm{tan}\eta _\lambda =\frac{kR\mathrm{sin}(kR)}{\alpha R\mathrm{cos}(kR)},\lambda =\overline{3,n+1},$$
(4.23)
where $`\alpha `$ is inverse scattering length of the scatterers X. The $`x_{1,2}=\mathrm{tan}\eta _{1,2}`$ obey the quadratic equation

$$(k+\beta x)\left(x+\frac{kR+(n1)\mathrm{sin}(kR)}{\alpha R+(n1)\mathrm{cos}(kR)}\right)=n\frac{R(\mathrm{sin}(kD)+x\mathrm{cos}(kD))^2}{D^2(\alpha R+(n1)\mathrm{cos}(kR))},$$
(4.24)
where $`\beta `$ indicates inverse scattering length of the scatterer Y. In the limiting case when the distance between X and Y scatterers is very large, i.e. $`D\mathrm{}`$, the expression for $`\mathrm{tan}\eta _1`$ becomes $`(\text{4.20})`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\eta _2k/\beta `$. This situation corresponds to independent scattering on the structure $`\text{X}_n`$ and scatterer Y. The tangent of $`\eta _1`$ also reduces to $`\mathrm{tan}\eta _1`$ for structure $`\text{X}_n`$ in the limit $`\alpha _0\mathrm{}`$.

### 4.3 Dressing of the structures $`\text{X}_n`$ and discussion

The integral cross sections for $`\text{SiH}_4`$ (closed-shell ground-state $`{}_{}{}^{1}A_{1}^{}`$) are plotted in fig. 1 for a number of values of $`\alpha ,\beta ,R,D`$, which are regarded as constant in the range of interest. The present calculations were carried out with $`\alpha =0.33a_0^1,\beta =0.41a_0^1,R=4.51a_0,D=2.76a_0`$. Our calculations were made within the framework of the ZRP model and hence they are not expected to be correct for low impact energies (i.e for energies $`1`$ eV) where polarization effects ($`\text{SiH}_4`$ spherical polarizability $`30.4a_0^3`$) are known to be important. Because induced polarization potentials are always attractive, including polarization algebraically increases the computed phases ($`\eta _{1,3}<0`$ at $`E0`$) and therefore decreases the integral cross section. Thus, fig. 1 clearly shows that polarization effects reproduce the deep minimum (Ramsauer-Townsend minimum near $`0.35`$ eV) seen in the experimental data  and numerical calculations , which are incomparably smaller in the our calculations. The ICS can be corrected by the ZRPs dressing. Fig. 2 show ICS for dressed $`\text{YX}_4`$ structure. In our calculation, the parameters $`\alpha =0.35`$, $`\beta =0.38`$ were used. In the higher collision energies our cross section (fig. 1) differs from the experimental results in size but coincides in shape. It is known that role of the higher partial waves is important at the higher collision energies. Thus, taking into consideration the $`p`$ waves for the scatterers X and Y we can add in partial waves and improve the agreement both in size at the higher energies and in the position of shape resonance.

## 5 Conclusion

We demonstrate the posibilities of DT in multi-center scattering problem. Thus, these transformations allow to correct the ZRP model at low energies. In the limiting case $`b0`$ DT induces the long-range forces $`r^3`$ depending on angular momentum and leads to singularity in the cross section at zero energy.