text:
# Decoherence, fluctuations and Wigner function in neutron optics

## 1 Introduction

Decoherence is an interesting phenomenon, related to the long-standing issue of irreversibility. Nowadays, it discloses challenging perspectives in the light of new technologies and related physical applications. There is a widespread consensus  about the meaning of decoherence, viewed as the loss of quantum mechanical coherence of a physical system in interaction with other systems (“environment”). However, a quantitative definition of decoherence is subtle and involves conceptual pitfalls . In addition, it always depends on the experimental configuration. An interesting quantity in this context is the square of the density matrix . Apart from lacking idempotency for mixed states, this quantity enjoys other interesting features , but also yields results which are at variance with naive expectations based on entropy .

In this article we will consider two different definitions of decoherence: the first is operational and stems from an analysis of the visibility in quantum (as well as classical, as we will see) interference experiments. We stress that these experiments are routinely performed in neutron optics . The second definition is based on the idempotency defect of the density matrix and is, in this sense, less operational.

In both cases, decoherence displays an “anomalous” behavior, both as a function of the features of the fluctuations and the incoming state. Some concrete examples will be considered and discussed. Our analysis will focus on neutron optics and hinge on an approach based on the analysis of statistical fluctuations . However, since our results are just a consequence of the wave nature of neutrons and their coherence properties, we expect that the same general conclusions be valid for other quantum (and classical) waves.

## 2 Fluctuations in neutron optics

Let us start our analysis by considering a neutron beam that crosses a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI), as schematically shown in Fig. 1. A phase shifter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is placed in the lower arm of the interferometer and $`|\psi _{\mathrm{in}}`$ is the initial wave packet.

We neglect wave-packet dispersion effects, so that the outgoing states in the ordinary and extraordinary channels read

$`|\psi _O`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1+e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}\right]|\psi _{\mathrm{in}},`$
$`|\psi _E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}\right]|\psi _{\mathrm{in}},`$ (1)
respectively. We focus on the ordinary channel, the analysis for the extraordinary one being identical. Define the operator

$$\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}\right],$$
(2)
that accounts for the state evolution in the ordinary channel, and consider the output density matrix

$$\rho _O|\psi _O\psi _O|=\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })|\psi _{\mathrm{in}}\psi _{\mathrm{in}}|\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}=\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho _{\mathrm{in}}\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{},$$
(3)
where $`\rho _{\mathrm{in}}`$ is the density matrix of the incoming state. The trace of $`\rho _O`$ yields the relative frequency of neutrons in the ordinary channel.

Suppose now that the phase shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ fluctuates according to a probability law $`w(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0),\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ being the average phase (operationally defined as the phase that is measured—or inferred —in an interferometric experiment). Therefore one has

$$𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta })=1,𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }=0.$$
(4)
The trace of the average density matrix is

$$\mathrm{Tr}\overline{\rho _O}=\mathrm{Tr}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0)\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho _{\mathrm{in}}\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\rho _{\mathrm{in}}\overline{\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })}\right),$$
(5)
where the bar denotes the average over the distribution $`w(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$. One obtains, after some algebra,

$$\overline{\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\overline{\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}\right).$$
(6)
Consider now the Fourier transform of the probability density of the fluctuations

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(p)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta })e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{cos}\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}+i{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{sin}\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}`$
$`=`$ $`C(p)+iS(p),`$
where $`C`$ and $`S`$ are respectively the real and the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$

$`C(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Omega }(p),`$ (8)
$`S(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Omega }(p).`$ (9)
In Eq. (6) we can write

$`\overline{\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}}={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0)\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}=\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}}C(\widehat{p})\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}}S(\widehat{p}).`$ (10)
In this paper, for simplicity, we will always consider symmetric distribution functions, that is $`w(\mathrm{\Delta })=w(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Therefore

$$S(\widehat{p})=0,C(\widehat{p})=\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})$$
(11)
and (6) becomes

$$\overline{\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}\widehat{O}(\mathrm{\Delta })}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right].$$
(12)
We notice, incidentally, that the same results are obtained with a different setup : consider a polarized neutron that interacts with a magnetic field perpendicular to its spin. Due to the longitudinal Stern-Gerlach effect , its wave packet is split into two components that travel with different speeds and are therefore separated in space. After a projection onto the initial spin state, the resulting final state is slightly different from that considered in the preceding equations: we need to replace $`|\psi _O`$ (and analogously $`|\psi _E`$) in (1) with

$$|\psi _O|\psi _O^{}=\widehat{O}^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })|\psi _{\mathrm{in}},$$
(13)
where

$$\widehat{O}^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{1}{2}\left[e^{\frac{i}{2\mathrm{}}\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}+e^{\frac{i}{2\mathrm{}}\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }}\right],$$
(14)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is in this case the spatial separation between the two wave packets corresponding to the two spin components. By averaging over $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ it is easy to show that one obtains again (12).

By plugging the average operator (12) into (5) one finally gets

$$\mathrm{Tr}\overline{\rho _O}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right],$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\rho _{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{}\right]`$ denotes the expectation value over the initial state $`\rho _{\mathrm{in}}`$. On the other hand, the momentum distribution is easily shown to be

$$P_O(p)=p|\overline{\rho _O}|p=\mathrm{Tr}\left(|pp|\overline{\rho _O}\right)=\frac{1}{2}P_{\mathrm{in}}(p)\left[1+\mathrm{\Omega }(p)\mathrm{cos}\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right],$$
(16)
where

$$P_{\mathrm{in}}(p)=p|\rho _{\mathrm{in}}|p.$$
(17)
We now introduce the visibility of the interference pattern (in the ordinary channel)

$$𝒱(p)\frac{P_O(p)_{\mathrm{MAX}}P_O(p)_{\mathrm{min}}}{P_O(p)_{\mathrm{MAX}}+P_O(p)_{\mathrm{min}}}=|\mathrm{\Omega }(p)|,$$
(18)
where $`P_O(p)_{\mathrm{MAX}}`$ \[$`P_O(p)_{\mathrm{min}}`$\] is the maximum \[minimum\] value assumed by $`P_O(p)`$ when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ varies. By the very definition (7), one can verify that $`0𝒱(p)1`$. Notice that, according to this definition, the visibility is a function of momentum $`p`$ and yields a measure of the fringe visibility of a postselected beam of momentum $`p`$ as a function of the phase shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ . Equivalently, it is a measure of the “local” spectral visibility, under the assumption of a slowly varying wave envelope, and so it corresponds to (the absolute value of) the amplitude of the cosine function in (16). By using (7) and (18), one infers that the visibility is the modulus of the Fourier transform of the distribution of the shifts $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and is therefore a quantity that is closely related to the physical features of the phase shifter. In this way we can easily relate the visibility of the interference pattern (and, as we will see below, the decoherence) to the “environmental” fluctuations. Note that a completely equivalent definition of the spectral visibility (18), which is nevertheless more symmetric and makes use also of the extraordinary channel, reads

$$𝒱(p)=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{\left|P_O(p)P_E(p)\right|}{P_O(p)+P_E(p)}=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(p)\mathrm{cos}\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right|=|\mathrm{\Omega }(p)|,$$
(19)
where the momentum distribution of the extraordinary channel is given by

$$P_E(p)=\frac{1}{2}P_{\mathrm{in}}(p)\left[1\mathrm{\Omega }(p)\mathrm{cos}\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right],$$
(20)
whence $`P_O(p)+P_E(p)=P_{\mathrm{in}}(p)`$. The spectral visibility in the form (19) leads to a straightforward generalization which is at the basis of an operational definition of decoherence.

## 3 An operational definition of decoherence

Let us endeavor to give a quantitative definition of decoherence based on the definition of visibility given in the previous section. We start from the relative frequency of particles detected in the ordinary and extraordinary channels

$`𝒩_O(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\overline{\rho _O}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1+\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}}\right],`$
$`𝒩_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\overline{\rho _E}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}}\right].`$ (21)
Their difference is

$$𝒩_O(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)𝒩_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)=\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}$$
(22)
and one can define a generalized visibility

$`𝒱`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}|𝒩_O(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)𝒩_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)|=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}}\right|`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|{\displaystyle 𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)\mathrm{\Omega }(p)\mathrm{cos}\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}}\right|.`$
It is apparent that (23) is the straightforward generalization of the spectral visibility (19), because obviously $`𝒩_O+𝒩_E=1`$. It represents a *global* feature of the outgoing state, in contrast with the local character of (19). Notice, however, that when $`P_{\mathrm{in}}(p^{})=\delta (p^{}p)`$ (incoming monochromatic beam of momentum $`p`$), the generalized visibility (23) reduces to the standard “local” visibility (18)

$`𝒱`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|{\displaystyle 𝑑p^{}\delta (p^{}p)\mathrm{\Omega }(p^{})\mathrm{cos}\frac{p^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}}\right|`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(p)\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}}\right|=𝒱(p).`$
This is a consistency check, because a spectral postselection is equivalent to injecting an incoming monochromatic beam.

In general one gets

$$𝒱\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)|\mathrm{\Omega }(p)|\left|\mathrm{cos}\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right|=𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)𝒱(p)=𝒱(\widehat{p}).$$
(25)
The generalized visibility yields the maximum “distance” between the intensities $`𝒩_O`$ and $`𝒩_E`$ and is bounded by the “local” visibility averaged over the momentum distribution of the incoming state.

Notice that $`P_{\mathrm{in}}(p)`$ is a nonnegative quantity, while $`\mathrm{\Omega }(p)`$, being a Fourier transform, is not. For this reason, in general, the $`\mathrm{max}_{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}`$ does not simply enter the integral in (23), so that (25) is a strict inequality. However, in the particular case $`\mathrm{\Omega }(p)0`$, $`𝒱`$ saturates its upper bound, the equality sign holds in (25), and Eq. (23) simplifies into

$`𝒱={\displaystyle }dpP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)\mathrm{\Omega }(p).(\mathrm{\Omega }(p)0)`$ (26)
As is often to be expected, the most interesting cases are those situations in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }(p)`$ is not always positive, giving rise to “anomalous” situations.

In order to understand the physical meaning of the generalized visibility, it is useful to look at the example of a fluctuation-free phase shifter, $`w(\mathrm{\Delta })=\delta (\mathrm{\Delta })`$, for which (7) yields $`\mathrm{\Omega }(p)=1`$, so that the generalized visibility (23) becomes

$$𝒱=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)\mathrm{cos}\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right|=𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)=1,$$
(27)
for any incoming distribution $`P_{\mathrm{in}}`$. This result follows also directly from (26). For instance, for an incoming Gaussian wave packet

$$P_{\mathrm{in}}(p)=\sqrt{\frac{2\delta ^2}{\mathrm{}^2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\delta ^2}{\mathrm{}^2}(pp_0)^2\right),$$
(28)
one gets the interference patterns $`𝒩_O`$ and $`𝒩_E`$ shown in Figure 2, where it is apparent that $`𝒱=1`$.

If, on the other hand, the phase shifter fluctuates, the amplitude of the envelope function decreases and $`𝒱<1`$. We therefore give an operational definition of decoherence, by defining a decoherence parameter:

$`\epsilon 1𝒱`$ $`=`$ $`1\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{p})\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}}\right|`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`1\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|{\displaystyle 𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)\mathrm{\Omega }(p)\mathrm{cos}\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}}\right|.`$
Notice that, by Eq. (27), $`\epsilon =0`$ for a fluctuation-free phase shifter (quantum coherence perfectly preserved), while $`\epsilon 1`$ when the magnitude of the fluctuations increases, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(p)0`$ and the envelope function in Figure 2 squeezes away all oscillations, eventually yielding $`𝒩_O(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)=𝒩_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$, independently of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Observe also that $`𝒱`$ and $`\epsilon `$ are independent of the coherence of the initial state (namely, they do not depend on the off-diagonal terms of the density matrix). On the other hand, they strongly depend on the momentum distribution of the initial state (17). In this sense they measure the loss of quantum coherence caused by a given physical setup, independently of the coherence of the incoming state.

It is important to stress that the above definition of decoherence is operational. One first measures the relative frequencies of neutrons detected in the ordinary and extraordinary channels as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, both being measurable quantities. Then one evaluates (23) and computes $`\epsilon `$.

## 4 Some examples

The decoherence parameter (29) depends on the product of the momentum distribution of the incoming beam times the spectrum of the phase-shifter fluctuations, $`P_{\mathrm{in}}(p)\times \mathrm{\Omega }(p)`$. These two ingredients affect $`\epsilon `$ at the same level. Therefore, their role can be interchanged: by maintaining their product unaltered, there exist “dual” situations that give exactly the same decoherence parameter with very different kinds of statistical fluctuations and incoming states.

By keeping the above remark in mind, it is interesting to look at some particular cases that can be treated analytically. Let the phases be distributed according to a Gaussian law with standard deviation $`\sigma `$

$$w(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0)^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right),$$
(30)
so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(p)=\mathrm{exp}\left(p^2\sigma ^2/2\mathrm{}^2\right)`$ and the decoherence parameter reads

$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`1\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|{\displaystyle 𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{p^2\sigma ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right)}\right|`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle 𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{p^2\sigma ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\right)}.`$
For the Gaussian wave packet (28) one gets

$$\epsilon =1\sqrt{\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta ^2+\sigma ^2/4}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta ^2+\sigma ^2/4}\frac{\sigma ^2k_0^2}{2}\right),$$
(32)
with $`k_0=p_0/\mathrm{}`$. This is exact and is shown in Figure 3.

At fixed $`\delta `$ the decoherence parameter (32) increases with $`\sigma `$, although the details of its behavior are strongly dependent on the spatial width of the packet $`\delta `$. This behavior is in agreement with expectation: decoherence $`\epsilon `$ increases with the magnitude $`\sigma `$ of the fluctuations.

For a monochromatic beam \[$`P_{\mathrm{in}}(p^{})=\delta (pp^{})`$\]

$$\epsilon _k=1e^{\frac{k^2\sigma ^2}{2}},$$
(33)
with $`k=p/\mathrm{}`$. This is shown in Figure 4(a) and can be obtained from (32) in the $`\delta \mathrm{}`$ limit. Notice that high momenta are more fragile against fluctuations . Moreover, when the distribution of the shifts is Gaussian, $`\epsilon _k`$ and equivalently $`𝒱(p)`$ are monotonic functions: they both depend “smoothly” on $`\sigma `$.

Let now the phase shifts be distributed according to the law

$$w(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0)=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\sigma ^2(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0)^2}},$$
(34)
for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0|\sqrt{2}\sigma `$ and $`0`$ otherwise, with standard deviation $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^2w(\mathrm{\Delta })𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^{1/2}=\sigma `$. From an experimental perspective this is more convenient and easier to reproduce than the Gaussian distribution (30): indeed, (34) follows from a phase $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\sqrt{2}\sigma \mathrm{sin}t`$, where $`t`$ (“time”) is a parameter, uniformly distributed between 0 and $`2\pi `$, namely $`w(\mathrm{\Delta })=_0^{2\pi }𝑑t\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{2}\sigma \mathrm{sin}t)/2\pi `$. (One can require $`\sqrt{2}\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, in order that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ be positive—and the term $`\sqrt{2}\sigma \mathrm{sin}t`$ be regarded as a “small” fluctuation around the average value. However, strictly speaking, this is not necessary from a mathematical point of view.) From (34) and (7) one gets

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\sqrt{2}\sigma }^{\sqrt{2}\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}}{\sqrt{2\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}p\sigma }{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{sin}t\right)=J_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}p\sigma }{\mathrm{}}}\right),`$
where $`J_0`$ is the Bessel function of order zero. The decoherence parameter (29) reads

$$\epsilon =1\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|𝑑pP_{\mathrm{in}}(p)J_0\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}p\sigma }{\mathrm{}}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right)\right|$$
(36)
and for a monochromatic beam one obtains ($`k=p/\mathrm{}`$)

$$\epsilon _k=1\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{max}}\left|J_0\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}p\sigma }{\mathrm{}}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\mathrm{}}\right)\right|=1|J_0(\sqrt{2}k\sigma )|.$$
(37)
This function is shown in Figure 4(b): observe that decoherence is not a monotonic function of the noise $`\sigma `$ in (34).

A comparison between Figures 4(a) and 4(b) is interesting. In both cases one observes fragility at high momenta $`p=\mathrm{}k`$. However, the behavior of decoherence in Figure 4(b) is somewhat anomalous and against naive expectation. For a given $`k`$, there are situations where decoherence $`\epsilon `$ decreases by increasing the strength of the fluctuations $`\sigma `$. Note also that we are considering incoming monochromatic beams, whence, according to (24) and (29), $`ϵ_k=1𝒱(\mathrm{}k)`$ and the decoherence parameter is strictly related to the standard visibility of the interference pattern. Therefore, in the anomalous regions, one observes an increase in visibility by increasing the fluctuations of the phase shifter, a phenomenon somewhat similar to stochastic resonance . This is true not only for monochromatic beams, but also for narrow distributions (packets) in momentum space.

These anomalous results are not entirely surprising, if one compares them to other known results in classical optics. We will therefore recall in the next section some notions related to the visibility of a classical interference experiment: the visibility can be expressed as the Fourier transform of the spectral distribution of a quasi-monochromatic light source and it displays some “anomalies” even in cases that are different from our “Gaussian” example (28).

## 5 A classical analogy

The phenomena analyzed in the previous sections have an interesting classical counterpart that is worth looking at in some detail. In this section we will examine the behavior of the visibility in a two-beam interference experiment, in relation to the spectral density distribution of the source. We follow Born and Wolf . Suppose to have two beams whose optical difference is $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮`$ and whose wave number is $`k=2\pi /\lambda `$. Their phase difference reads

$$\delta (k,\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)=k\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮,$$
(38)
and, assuming that they have the same intensity $`𝗂(k)dk`$ in the range $`[k,k+dk]`$, the intensity at the screen due to the elementary wave number range $`dk`$ reads

$$i(k,\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)dk=2𝗂(k)[1+\mathrm{cos}(k\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)]dk.$$
(39)
Observe that the different spectral components add incoherently, so

$$I(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)=2𝑑k𝗂(k)[1+\mathrm{cos}(k\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)]$$
(40)
is the intensity at the screen as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮`$, due to both interfering beams. The quantity $`k`$ is to be compared to the phase $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Sec. 2.

In some cases one deals with light sources that emit with characteristic spectral lines. If we consider only one of these spectral lines, $`𝗂(k)`$ is different from zero only in a very small range of $`k`$ about some mean value $`k_0`$. Putting

$`j(k)=2𝗂(k_0+k),`$ (41)
the intensity at the screen (40) becomes

$`I(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑kj(k)\{1+\mathrm{cos}[(k_0+k)\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮]\}}`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`N[1+C(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)\mathrm{cos}(k_0\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)S(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)\mathrm{sin}(k_0\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)],`$
where $`N`$ is a normalization factor, defined as the sum of both the (equal) intensities of the beams, and $`C`$ and $`S`$ are the average value on the spectral distribution $`j(k)`$ of $`\mathrm{cos}(k\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(k\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)`$ respectively

$`N={\displaystyle 𝑑kj(k)},`$ (43)
$`C(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle 𝑑kj(k)\mathrm{cos}(k\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)},`$ (44)
$`S(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle 𝑑kj(k)\mathrm{sin}(k\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)},`$ (45)
i.e. $`C`$ and $`S`$ are respectively the real and the imaginary part of the Fourier transform $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)`$ of $`j(k)/N`$

$`C(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)=\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮),S(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮),`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)={\displaystyle 𝑑k\frac{j(k)}{N}e^{ik\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮}}.`$ (47)
From (42), the intensity at the screen can be written as

$$I=N\left[1+|\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)|\mathrm{cos}(k_0\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮+\phi (\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮))\right],$$
(48)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\phi (\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)=S(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)/C(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)`$. A comparison with Eq. (16) shows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮`$ plays the same role of $`p`$.

Because $`j(k)`$ is very peaked about $`k=0`$, variations of $`C`$ and $`S`$ can be considered negligible compared with $`\mathrm{cos}(k_0\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(k_0\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)`$ in Eq. (42); analogously for $`\phi `$ in (48). Consequently, under the assumption of slowly varying envelope, one can define a “local” visibility , given by

$$𝒱(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)=\frac{I(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)_{\mathrm{MAX}}I(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)_{\mathrm{min}}}{I(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)_{\mathrm{MAX}}+I(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)_{\mathrm{min}}}=\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)\right|,$$
(49)
expressed as a function of the optical path difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮`$. The visibility is therefore the amplitude of the cosine function in Eq. (48). Observe that, whenever $`j(k)`$ is an even spectral distribution,

$$𝒱(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)=|C(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)|=|\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)|$$
(50)
and it is possible to determine (apart from the sign) the Fourier transform of $`j(k)/N`$ from the visibility.

Equations (18) and (49) are easily compared. The distribution of the phase shifts in the quantum case is replaced by the spectral distribution of the incoherent light source in the classical case. Indeed, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)`$, $`C(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)`$ and $`S(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮)`$ in (46)-(47) correspond to $`\mathrm{\Omega }(p)`$, $`C(p)`$ and $`S(p)`$ in (7)-(9), i.e. the Fourier transform of $`j(k)/N`$ corresponds to that of $`w(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (notice that $`w(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is normalized to unity).

The visibility curves (50) are shown in Fig. 5 for different shapes of the spectral distribution $`j(k)`$. As one can see, they show different behavior. In Fig. 5(a) a square-like spectral distribution gives rise to a visibility function $`|\mathrm{sin}y/y|`$, in Fig. 5(b) a Gaussian spectral distribution produces a Gaussian visibility function, in Fig. 5(c) and (d) two “double Gaussian” distributions (with the peaks that have or do not have the same level, respectively) yield more complicate visibility functions. Only in the case (b), i.e. with a Gaussian spectral distribution, the visibility is a monotonic function of the optical path difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮`$. In such a case, the naive expectation is confirmed that, by increasing the optical path difference, the visibility decreases. This is not true in cases (a), (c) and (d), where the visibility is not a decreasing function for every range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮`$, but there are regions on the screen where, by increasing the optical path difference, the two-beam interference visibility increases.

Similar results can be obtained if one considers two-beam interference with extended monochromatic light sources. In such a case, the source is treated as a collection of monochromatic point-like sources that add incoherently and, instead of $`j(k)dk`$, one deals with $`𝗂(\alpha )d\alpha `$, the elementary intensity due to such point-like sources of angular width $`d\alpha `$. As a result, the visibility is related to the normalized Fourier transform of the extended source angular intensity distribution. This problem was already studied at the end of the 19th century  and led Michelson to the construction of his stellar interferometer .

## 6 Wigner function in the ordinary channel

In the previous sections we have proposed a definition of decoherence based on the visibility of the quantum interference pattern. As we have seen, this definition has some unexpected features, somewhat at variance with expectation. We also found an analogy in classical optics. However, alternative definitions of decoherence are possible, based on the density matrix and on the Wigner function. Let us therefore briefly recall the definition and some properties of the Wigner function.

The Wigner quasidistribution function  can be defined in terms of the density matrix $`\rho `$ as

$$W(x,k)=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑\xi e^{ik\xi }x+\xi /2|\rho |x\xi /2,$$
(51)
where $`x`$ and $`p=\mathrm{}k`$ are the position and momentum of the particle. One easily checks that the Wigner function is normalized to unity and its marginals represent the position and momentum distributions

$`\mathrm{Tr}\rho ={\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑kW(x,k)}=1,`$ (52)
$`P(x)=x|\rho |x={\displaystyle 𝑑kW(x,k)},`$ (53)
$`P(k)=k|\rho |k={\displaystyle 𝑑xW(x,k)}.`$ (54)
The analyses of the properties of quantum states based on the Wigner function are useful because they enable one to make prompt comparisons with fields like quantum optics  and quantum tomography .

We focus on one-dimensional systems and assume that the wave function is well approximated by a Gaussian

$`\psi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`x|\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \delta ^2)^{1/4}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(xx_0)^2}{4\delta ^2}}+ik_0x\right],`$ (55)
$`\varphi (k)`$ $`=`$ $`k|\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \delta _k^2)^{1/4}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(kk_0)^2}{4\delta _k^2}}i(kk_0)x_0\right]`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\delta ^2}{\pi }}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[\delta ^2(kk_0)^2i(kk_0)x_0\right],`$
where $`\psi (x)`$ and $`\varphi (k)`$ are the wave functions in the position and momentum representation, respectively, $`\delta `$ is the spatial spread of the wave packet, $`\delta _k\delta =1/2`$, $`x_0`$ is the initial average position of the particle and $`p_0=\mathrm{}k_0`$ its average momentum. The two functions above are both normalized to one. The Wigner function for the state (55)-(56) is readily calculated

$$W(x,k)=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(xx_0)^2}{2\delta ^2}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[2\delta ^2(kk_0)^2\right].$$
(57)
Consider now a neutron wave packet that is split and then recombined in an interferometer, with a phase shifter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ placed in one of the two routes. The Wigner function in the ordinary channel (transmitted component) is readily computed:

$`W_\mathrm{O}(x,k,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{exp}[2\delta ^2(kk_0)^2][\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\left(xx_0+\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^2}{2\delta ^2}})`$ (58)
$`+\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(xx_0\right)^2}{2\delta ^2}}\right)`$
$`+2\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\left(xx_0+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\right)^2}{2\delta ^2}})\mathrm{cos}(k\mathrm{\Delta })].`$
Notice that, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, it is not normalized to unity (some neutrons end up in the extraordinary channel—reflected component) and that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ (no phase shifter) one recovers (57).

## 7 Alternative definition of decoherence

We look at a particular case and assume that the shifts $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ fluctuate around their average $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ according to the Gaussian law (30). The average Wigner function reads

$$\overline{W}(x,k)=𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta })W(x,k,\mathrm{\Delta })$$
(59)
and represents a partially mixed state. Essentially, this Wigner function represents the whole ensemble of neutrons in an experimental run. For the double Gaussian state (58), obtained when a neutron beam crosses an interferometer, the average Wigner function in the ordinary channel reads

$`\overline{W}_\mathrm{O}(x,k)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}[2\delta ^2(kk_0)^2]}{4\pi }}`$
$`\times \{\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2\delta ^2}}]+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta ^2+\sigma ^2}}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{(x+\mathrm{\Delta }_0)^2}{2(\delta ^2+\sigma ^2)}}]`$
$`+2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta ^2+\frac{\sigma ^2}{4}}}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(x+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{2}\right)^2+k^2\delta ^2\sigma ^2}{2\left(\delta ^2+\frac{\sigma ^2}{4}\right)}}]\mathrm{cos}\left(k{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0x\sigma ^2}{2\left(\delta ^2+\frac{\sigma ^2}{4}\right)}}\right)\},`$ (60)
where we set $`x_0=0`$ for simplicity. Its momentum marginal (54) (momentum distribution function) can be computed analytically and is of interest, because it displays fragility at high momenta :

$$P(k)=\sqrt{\frac{\delta ^2}{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left[2\delta ^2(kk_0)^2\right]\left[1+\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{k^2\sigma ^2}{2}\right)\mathrm{cos}(k\mathrm{\Delta }_0)\right].$$
(61)
The average Wigner function (60) is shown in Figure 6. One clearly observes a strong (exponential) suppression of interference at high values of $`k`$. Notice that the oscillating part of the Wigner function is bent towards the negative $`x`$-axis. This is due to the $`x`$-dependence of the cosine term in (60) that entails different frequencies for different values of $`x`$.

The loss of quantum coherence is clearly visible in Figure 6 as the level of noise $`\sigma `$ increases. One can try to corroborate this qualitative conclusion by introducing a quantitative notion of decoherence based on the Wigner function; however, as we shall see in a while, one runs into the same kind of difficulties encountered in Sec. 4. We first recall that there is an interesting relation between the square of the Wigner function and the square of the density matrix:

$$𝑑x𝑑kW(x,k)^2=\frac{\mathrm{Tr}\rho ^2}{2\pi }.$$
(62)
It is therefore possible to define an alternative decoherence parameter , that takes into account the coherence properties of the neutron ensemble

$$\epsilon =1\frac{\text{Tr}\rho ^2}{(\text{Tr}\rho )^2}=1\frac{2\pi 𝑑x𝑑k\overline{W}(x,k)^2}{\left(𝑑x𝑑k\overline{W}(x,k)\right)^2}.$$
(63)
This quantity measures the degree of “purity” of a quantum state: it is maximum when the state is maximally mixed ($`\mathrm{Tr}\rho ^2<\mathrm{Tr}\rho `$) and vanishes when the state is pure ($`\mathrm{Tr}\rho ^2=\mathrm{Tr}\rho `$): in the former case the fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are large and the quantum mechanical coherence is completely lost, while in the latter case $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ does not fluctuate and the quantum mechanical coherence is perfectly preserved. The parameter (63) was introduced within the framework of the so-called “many Hilbert space” theory of quantum measurements  and yields a quantitative estimate of decoherence. The related quantity $`\mathrm{Tr}\rho \mathrm{Tr}\rho ^2`$ was first considered by Watanabe  in 1939 (!). A quantity related to $`\epsilon `$ was also introduced in order to get a quantitative estimate of information for a quantum system .

It is also worth noticing that the notion of decoherence just introduced is based on the square of the density matrix (or Wigner function) and therefore is not accessible to a direct measurement procedure. In this sense, it is less “operational” than that discussed in Sec. 3.

The decoherence parameter (63) is shown in Figure 7 as a function of the coherence length of the wave packet $`\delta `$ in (55)-(58) and the standard deviation of the fluctuations $`\sigma `$. It is not a monotonic function of $`\sigma `$ for all values of $`\delta `$. Once again, like in Sec. 4, there are situations in which a larger noise yields a more coherent wave packet (according to a given definition).

The behavior of $`\epsilon `$ has a nontrivial dependence both on the fluctuations ($`\sigma `$) and on the wave packet properties ($`k_0`$ and $`\delta `$).

## 8 Entropy

The conclusions of the previous sections can be corroborated and put on a somewhat sounder basis by computing the entropy of the distribution of the shifts according to the formula

$$S=𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{log}w(\mathrm{\Delta }).$$
(64)
This quantity yields an estimate of the collective “degree of disorder” of the distribution of the shifts $`w(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. One can draw general conclusions about the behavior of $`S`$ as a function of a parameter $`\sigma `$ characterizing the width of the distribution. Indeed, let $`w(\mathrm{\Delta };\sigma )`$ be the symmetric distribution with the properties (4), $`\sigma `$ being its standard deviation. By assuming that the distribution function $`w`$ depends only on the single dimensional parameter $`\sigma `$, then it must scale according to

$$w(\mathrm{\Delta };\sigma )=\frac{1}{\sigma }w(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sigma };1).$$
(65)
Therefore

$`S(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }w(\mathrm{\Delta };\sigma )\mathrm{log}w(\mathrm{\Delta };\sigma )}`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sigma }w(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sigma };1)\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{1}{\sigma }w(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sigma };1)\right]}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }^{}w(\mathrm{\Delta }^{};1)\mathrm{log}w(\mathrm{\Delta }^{};1)}+{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }^{}w(\mathrm{\Delta }^{};1)\mathrm{log}\sigma }`$
$`=`$ $`S(1)+\mathrm{log}\sigma ,`$
where $`S(1)`$ is independent of $`\sigma `$ and depends only on the form of the distribution function. $`S(\sigma )`$ is clearly an increasing function of $`\sigma `$.

For example, the Gaussian distribution (30) yields

$$S(\sigma )=\mathrm{log}\sigma +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}(2\pi e),$$
(67)
while the “sine” distribution (34) yields

$$S(\sigma )=\mathrm{log}\sigma \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}2.$$
(68)
Therefore, the behavior of the decoherence parameter $`\epsilon `$ as a function of the entropy $`S`$ of the shifts is qualitatively equivalent to its behavior as a function of the standard deviation $`\sigma `$. Indeed, Figs. 3, 4 and 7 would differ only for a logarithmic scale on the abscissae. As we have seen in this article, in general, the two quantities $`S`$ and $`\epsilon `$ do not necessarily agree: in other words, the loss of quantum mechanical coherence is not necessarily larger when the neutron beam interacts with fluctuating shifts of larger entropy.

## 9 Conclusions

We have introduced and discussed some interference experiments that display some “anomalies” both in the classical and in the quantum domains. The neutron beam partially looses its quantum coherence as a consequence of the fluctuations of the phase shifts $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. One should emphasize that we have considered the case of “slow” fluctuations, in the sense that each neutron crosses a phase shifter of length $`L`$, but the length of the shifter varies for different neutrons in the beam (different “events”). We have supposed that every neutron undergoes a shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that is statistically distributed according to a distribution law $`w(\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

We focussed our attention on two alternative decoherence parameters. The first is defined in terms of a generalized visibility of the interference pattern in a double-slit experiment (MZI) and is more operational. The second hinges upon less operational concepts, such as the square of the density matrix.

All our results corroborate the ideas expressed elsewhere  and make it apparent that the concept of loss of quantum mechanical coherence deserves clarification and additional investigation. It would also be interesting to discuss analogies and differences with conceptual experiments in which decoherence is complemented by Welcher-Weg information .

We wish to thank Prof. E. Wolf, who kindly granted us permission to reproduce Fig. 7.54 from Ref. .

## References


format: text

text:
# Precision measurement of the hadronic cross-section through the radiative return method

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The total cross-section for electron–positron annihilation into hadrons is one of the fundamental observables in particle physics. Its high energy behaviour provides one of the first and still most convincing arguments for the point-like nature of quarks. Its normalization was evidence for the existence of quarks of three different colours, and the recent precise measurements even allow for an excellent determination of the strong coupling at very high  and intermediate energies (e.g.  and refs. therein) through the influence of QCD corrections.

Weighted integrals over this cross-section with properly chosen kernels are, furthermore, a decisive input for electroweak precision tests. This applies, for example, to the electromagnetic coupling at higher energies or to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon.

Of remarkable importance for these two applications is the low energy region, say from threshold up to centre-of-mass system (cms) energies of approximately 3 GeV and 10 GeV, respectively. Recent measurements based on energy scans between 2 and 5 GeV have improved the accuracy in part of this range. However, similar, or even further improvements below 2 GeV would be highly welcome. The region between 1.4 GeV and 2 GeV, in particular, is poorly studied and no collider will cover this region in the near future. Improvements or even an independent cross-check of the precise measurements of the pion form factor in the low energy region by the CMD2 and DM2 collaborations would be extremely useful, in particular in view of the disagreement found with the analysis based on isospin-breaking-corrected $`\tau `$ decays . Since this dominates in the analysis of the muon anomalous magnetic moment, this kind of studies will help to clarify the situation with respect to the experimental measurement  of this quantity.

## 2 RADIATIVE RETURN AT MESON FACTORIES

Experiments at present electron–positron colliders operate mostly at fixed energies, albeit with enormous luminosity, with BABAR and BELLE at 10.6 GeV, CLEO-C in the region between 3 and 5 GeV, and KLOE at 1.02 GeV as most prominent examples.

This peculiar feature allows the use of the radiative return, i.e. the reaction

$$e^+(p_1)+e^{}(p_2)\gamma (k_1)+\gamma ^{}(Q)(\mathrm{hadrons}),$$
(1)
to explore a wide range of $`Q^2`$ in a single experiment .

Nominally an invariant mass of the hadronic system between $`2m_\pi `$ and the cms energy of the experiment is accessible. In practice, to clearly identify the reaction, it is useful to consider only events with a hard photon — tagged or untagged — which lowers the energy significantly.

The study of events with photons emitted under both large and small angles, and thus at a significantly enhanced rate, is particularly attractive for the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ final state with its clear signature, an investigation performed at present at DA$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$NE . Events with a tagged photon, emitted under a large angle with respect to the beam, have a clear signature and are thus particularly suited to the analysis of hadronic final states of higher multiplicity .

## 3 MONTE CARLO SIMULATION

To arrive at reliable predictions including kinematical cuts as employed by realistic experiments, a Monte Carlo generator is indispensable. The inclusion of radiative corrections in the generator and the analysis is essential for the precise extraction of the cross-section. For hadronic states with invariant masses below 2 or even 3 GeV, it is desirable to simulate the individual exclusive channels with two, three, and up to six mesons, i.e. pions, kaons, etas, etc., which requires a fairly detailed parametrization of the various form factors.

A first program, called EVA, was constructed some time ago  to simulate the production of a pair of pions together with a hard photon. It includes initial-state radiation (ISR), final-state radiation (FSR), their interference, and the dominant radiative corrections from additional collinear radiation through structure function (SF) techniques . This project was continued with the construction of a generator for the radiative production of four pions .

As a further development of this project a new Monte Carlo generator called PHOKHARA  has been constructed, which includes, in contrast to the former generators, the complete next-to-leading order (NLO) radiative corrections. The first version of PHOKHARA incorporates ISR only and is limited to $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma (\gamma )`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma (\gamma )`$ as final states. PHOKHARA exhibits a modular structure that simplifies the implementation of additional hadronic modes or the replacement of the currents(s) of the existing modes.

In this paper we show how PHOKHARA is constructed and present some results obtained with its current version, as well as a comparison with the other aforementioned generators. Finally, the new features that will be part of the next version of PHOKHARA are outlined and some preliminary results are presented. Further details will be given, however, in a forthcoming publication . These programs and the future versions of PHOKHARA can be downloaded from http://cern.ch/german.rodrigo/phokhara/.

## 4 NLO CORRECTIONS TO ISR

At NLO, the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation process (1), where the virtual photon converts into a hadronic final state, $`\gamma ^{}(Q)`$ hadrons, and the real one is emitted from the initial state, receives contributions from one-loop corrections (see Fig. 1) and from the emission of a second real photon (see Fig. 2).

After renormalization the one-loop matrix elements still contain infrared divergences. These are cancelled by adding the contribution where a second photon has been emitted from the initial state. This rate is integrated analytically in phase space up to an energy cutoff $`E_\gamma <w\sqrt{s}`$ far below $`\sqrt{s}`$. The sum is finite; however, it depends on this soft photon cutoff. The contribution from the emission of a second photon with energy $`E_\gamma >w\sqrt{s}`$ completes the calculation and cancels this dependence.

In order to facilitate the extension of the Monte Carlo simulation to different hadronic exclusive channels, the differential rate for the virtual and soft QED corrections is cast into the product of a leptonic and a hadronic tensor and the corresponding factorized phase space:

$`d\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}L_{\mu \nu }d\mathrm{\Phi }_2(p_1,p_2;Q,k_1)`$ (2)
$`\times `$ $`H^{\mu \nu }d\mathrm{\Phi }_n(Q;q_1,,q_n){\displaystyle \frac{dQ^2}{2\pi }},`$
where $`d\mathrm{\Phi }_n(Q;q_1,,q_n)`$ denotes the hadronic $`n`$-body phase space including all statistical factors and $`Q^2`$ is the invariant mass of the hadronic system.

The physics of the hadronic system, whose description is model-dependent, enters only through the hadronic tensor

$$H^{\mu \nu }=J^\mu J^{\nu +},$$
(3)
where the hadronic current has to be parametrized through form factors .

The leptonic tensor, which describes the NLO virtual and soft QED corrections to initial-state radiation in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, has the following general form:

$`L^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi \alpha )^2}{Q^4}}[a_{00}g^{\mu \nu }+a_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^\mu p_1^\nu }{s}}`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`a_{22}{\displaystyle \frac{p_2^\mu p_2^\nu }{s}}+a_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^\mu p_2^\nu +p_2^\mu p_1^\nu }{s}}`$
$`+`$ $`i\pi a_1{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^\mu p_2^\nu p_2^\mu p_1^\nu }{s}}].`$
Terms proportional to $`Q^\mu `$ are absent as a consequence of current conservation. The scalar coefficients $`a_{ij}`$ and $`a_1`$ allow the following expansion

$$a_{ij}=a_{ij}^{(0)}+\frac{\alpha }{\pi }a_{ij}^{(1)},a_1=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }a_1^{(1)},$$
(5)
where $`a_{ij}^{(0)}`$ provide the leading order (LO) contribution and the imaginary antisymmetric piece proportional to $`a_1`$ appears for the first time at NLO.

As an alternative one can replace the Cartesian basis (4) by a basis derived from the three circular polarization vectors of the virtual photon $`\epsilon _L`$ and $`\epsilon _\pm `$:

$$L^{\mu \nu }=\frac{(4\pi \alpha )^2}{Q^4}a_{ij}\epsilon _i^\mu \epsilon _j^\nu ,i,j=L,\pm ,$$
(6)
where only four of the scalar coefficients are independent

$`a_L=a_{L+},`$ $`a_L=a_{+L}=a_{L+}^{},`$
$`a_{}=a_{++},`$ $`a_+=a_+.`$
An expansion similar to (5) holds for these scalar coefficients. The relationship between the components in both bases as well as expressions for these coefficients can be found in . The trace of the leptonic tensor, which is related to the cross-section after angular averaging of the hadronic tensor, is particularly simple in the second case:

$$L^{\mu \nu }(Q_\mu Q_\nu g_{\mu \nu }Q^2)=\frac{(4\pi \alpha )^2}{Q^2}(a_{LL}+2a_{++}).$$
(7)
Note that the imaginary part of $`L_{\mu \nu }`$, which is present in the coefficients $`a_{L+}`$ or $`a_1`$ only, is of interest for those cases where the hadronic current receives contributions from different amplitudes with non-trivial relative phases. This is possible, e.g. for final states with three or more mesons or for $`p\overline{p}`$ production.

The matrix elements for the emission from the initial state of two real hard photons, i.e. $`E_\gamma >w\sqrt{s}`$,

$$e^+(p_1)+e^{}(p_2)\gamma ^{}(Q)+\gamma (k_1)+\gamma (k_2),$$
(8)
are calculated numerically following the helicity-amplitude method with the conventions introduced in . As a test, the square of this matrix element averaged over initial particle polarization has also been calculated using the standard trace technique and tested numerically against the helicity method result.

The virtual plus soft contribution and the hard one depend separately on the soft photon cutoff $`w`$ used to regulate the infrared divergences of the virtual diagrams. The former shows a logarithmic $`w`$ dependence. The second, after numerical integration in phase space, exhibits the same behaviour, whereas their sum must be independent of $`w`$. To explicitly demonstrate this $`w`$-independence is therefore a basic test of the program. Then the value of $`w`$ that optimizes the event generation, avoiding at the same time the appearance of unphysical negative weights, is determined.

Table 1 presents the total cross-section for radiative production of a pair of pions calculated for several values of the soft photon cutoff at three different cms energies for the kinematical cuts from Table 2. The excellent agreement, within the error of the numerical integration, confirms the $`w`$-independence of the result. A value around $`w=10^4`$ seems to be the best choice .

## 5 LL VERSUS NLO

The original and default version of EVA , simulating the process $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ at LO, allowed for additional initial-state radiation of soft and collinear photons by the structure-function method . By convoluting the Born cross-section with a given SF distribution, soft photons are resummed to all orders in perturbation theory and large logarithms of collinear origin, $`L=\mathrm{log}(s/m_e^2)`$, are taken into account up to two-loop approximation. The NLO result, being a complete one-loop result, contains these logarithms in order $`\alpha `$ and additional subleading terms, which of course are not taken into account within the SF method. Although small, these subleading contributions become important for measurements aiming at an accuracy better than 1$`\%`$. Furthermore, a NLO generator is more suitable for comparison with an experimental setup. While in the SF approach the extra collinear photon emission is integrated out and some information is lost, in a fixed-order calculation the full angular dependence is kept and energy-momentum is conserved, i.e. the sum of the momenta of the generated outgoing particles agrees with the incoming $`e^+e^{}`$ momentum.

Table 3 presents the total cross-section for $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma (\gamma )`$ calculated at LO and NLO for three different cms energies with the kinematical cuts listed in Table 2. Two NLO predictions are shown. The first one, NLO(1), which can be compared with the SF result derived from EVA, includes a cut on the invariant mass of the hadrons plus the tagged photon. The last was introduced in  in order to reduce the kinematic distortion of the events due to the extra collinear emission. The second prediction, NLO(2), is obtained without this cut. The $`Q^2`$ dependence of the difference between the NLO(1) prediction and the SF result is showed in Fig. 3. The size and sign of the NLO corrections do depend on the particular choice of the experimental cuts. Hence only using a Monte Carlo event generator can one realistically compare theoretical predictions with experiment and extract $`R(s)`$ from the data.

The results of EVA and those denoted NLO(1) for the total cross-section are in reasonably good agreement. Both of them are clearly sensitive to the cut on $`M_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma }^2`$. This cut dependence is displayed in Table 5. Remarkably, the typical difference between the results of the two programs is clearly less than $`0.5\%`$ for most of the entries.

The systematic uncertainty of the program, due to inadequate treatment of ISR, namely missing leading logarithmic higher order corrections and lepton pair production, is conservatively estimated to be of around $`0.5\%`$ in the total cross-section .

## 6 MUON PAIR PRODUCTION

Results for the total cross-section of muon pair production are listed in Table 4. The radiative muon cross-section can be used for a calibration of the pion yield. A number of radiative corrections are expected to cancel in the ratio. For this reason we consider the ratio between the pion and the muon yields, after dividing the former by $`|F_\pi (Q^2)|^2(14m_\pi ^2/Q^2)^{3/2}`$, the latter by $`4(1+2m_\mu ^2/Q^2)\sqrt{14m_\mu ^2/Q^2}`$. In Fig. 4a we consider the full angular range for pions and muons, with $`\theta _\gamma `$ between $`5^{}`$ and $`21^{}`$. Clearly all radiative corrections and kinematic effects disappear, up to statistical fluctuations, in the leading order program as well as after inclusion of the NLO corrections.

In Fig. 4b an additional cut on pion and muon angles has been imposed. As demonstrated in Fig. 4b, the ratio differs from unity once (identical) angular cuts are imposed on pions and muons, a consequence of their different angular distribution. To derive the pion form factor from the ratio between pion and muon yields, this effect has to be incorporated. However, the correction function shown in Fig. 4b is independent from the form factor, and hence universal and model-independent (ignoring FSR for the moment).

## 7 UNTAGGED PHOTONS

Both EVA and PHOKHARA were initially designed to simulate reactions with tagged photons, i.e. at least one photon was required to be emitted under large angles. The extension of these results to untagged photon events, i.e. for photons emitted at arbitrary small angles, was recently investigated .

An important ingredient in the extension of the NLO Monte Carlo program PHOKHARA to small photon angles is the evaluation of the virtual corrections to reaction (1) in the limit $`m_e^2/s1`$, which are equally valid for large and small angles. Compact results for the one-loop two-, three- and four-point functions that enter this calculation can be found in the literature  for arbitrary values of $`m_e^2/s`$. However, the combination of these analytical expressions with the relevant coefficients is numerically unstable in the limit of small mass and angles. A compact, numerically stable result, valid for an arbitrarily small photon angle, is therefore required. As a consequence of the highly singular kinematic coefficients, terms proportional to $`m_e^2`$ and even $`m_e^4`$ must be kept in the expansion, which will contribute, after angular integration, to the total cross-section even in the limit $`m_e^2/s0`$.

Inclusive NLO calculations can be used to test the performance of the simulation at small angles. Figure 5 shows the comparison of the differential cross-section for the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mode with the analytical results from . The agreement is excellent.

## 8 ISR DOMINANCE AND FSR

Final-state radiation should be regarded as the background of the measurement and would be required for the complete simulation of the reaction. The complete leading order matrix element squared is given by

$$||^2=|_{\mathrm{ISR}}|^2+|_{\mathrm{FSR}}|^2+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}[_{\mathrm{ISR}}_{\mathrm{FSR}}^{}].$$
(9)
FSR and its interference with ISR were already included in EVA  for the two-pion case. The pions were assumed to be point-like, and scalar QED was applied to simulate photon emission off the charged pions. There it was demonstrated that suitably chosen configurations, namely those with hard photons at small angles relative to the beam and well separated from the pions, are dominated by ISR. FSR can therefore be reduced to a reasonable limit or be controlled by the simulation.

At B-factories, where one has to deal with very hard tagged photons, the situation is even better because the kinematic separation between the photon and the hadrons becomes very clear. For events where hadrons and photon are produced mainly back to back the suppression of FSR is naturally accomplished.

The third term in the right-hand side of Eq. (9), the ISR–FSR interference, is odd under charge conjugation and its contribution vanishes under angular integration. It gives rise, however, to a relatively large charge asymmetry and, correspondingly, to a forward–backward asymmetry

$$A(\theta )=\frac{N^{\pi ^+}(\theta )N^{\pi ^+}(\pi \theta )}{N^{\pi ^+}(\theta )+N^{\pi ^+}(\pi \theta )}.$$
(10)
The asymmetry can be used for calibration of the FSR amplitude, and fits to the angular distribution $`A(\theta )`$ can test details of its model dependence.

This is illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7, where the angular distributions of $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\mu ^+`$ respectively are shown for different kinematical cuts. The angles are defined with respect to the incoming positron. If no angular cut is applied the angular distribution in both cases is highly asymmetric as a consequence of the ISR–FSR interference contribution. If cuts suitable to suppress FSR, and therefore the ISR–FSR interference, are applied the distributions become symmetric. These plots have been obtained with the new version of PHOKHARA, which now incorporates at LO FSR, and its interference with ISR, for two pions (point-like) and muons.

## 9 NEW HADRONIC CHANNELS

Because of the modular structure of PHOKHARA additional hadronic modes can be easily implemented. The four-pion channels ($`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ and $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$), which give the dominant contribution to the hadronic cross-section in the region from 1 to 2 GeV, are a new feature of our event generator.

Isospin invariance relates the amplitudes of the $`e^+e^{}2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ processes and those for $`\tau `$ decays into $`\pi ^{}3\pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^+2\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$. The description of the four-pion hadronic current follows . The basic building blocks of this current are schematically depicted in Fig. 8 and described in detail in .

Results obtained with PHOKHARA for this channel have been compared with the Monte Carlo, which simulates the same process at LO  and includes additional collinear radiation through SF techniques. Typically, differences of order 1$`\%`$ are found (see Fig. 9), which are of the expected size and of the same order as for the two-pion final state . Details of the comparison and of the performed tests will be presented in a forthcoming publication .

The implementation of the three-pion mode is under way. Other hadronic channels will be likewise considered in the future.

## 10 CONCLUSIONS

The PHOKHARA Monte Carlo event generator has been upgraded. It now includes, besides the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ channels, also $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ and $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ as final states. FSR, and its interference with ISR, have also been included for the first two channels. Furthermore, the simulation of events where the photon(s) is emitted under small angles with respect to the beam axis has been tested numerically. Further upgrades are in progress.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is a pleasure to thank the organizers of this meeting for the stimulating atmosphere created during the workshop. Special thanks to S. Vascotto for carefully reading the manuscript. Work supported in part by BMBF under grant number 05HT9VKB0, E.U. EURIDICE network RTN project HPRN-CT-2002-00311, TARI under contract HPRI-CT-1999-00088, and MCyT, Plan Nacional I+D+I (Spain) under grant BFM2002-00568.


text:
# 𝑔-elements of matroid complexes

## 1. Introduction

The combinatorics of the independence complex of a matroid can be approached from several different directions. The $`f`$-vector directly encodes the number of independent sets of every cardinality, while the $`h`$-vector contains the same information encoded in a way which is more appropriate for reliability problems . In either case the fundamental question is the same. What vectors are possible?

Let $`(h_0,h_1,\mathrm{}h_r)`$ be the $`h`$-vector of the independence complex of a rank $`r`$ matroid without coloops. Using a PS-ear decomposition of the complex Chari  proved that for all $`ir/2,h_ih_{ri}`$ and $`h_{i1}h_i`$ . By showing that the $`h`$-vector was the Hilbert function of $`k(\mathrm{\Delta })/<\mathrm{\Theta }>`$, where $`k(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the face ring of the complex and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a linear system of parameters for $`k(\mathrm{\Delta }),`$ Stanley  proved that $`h_{i+1}h_i^{<i>}`$ (see section 3 for a definition of the $`<i>`$-operator). By combining these two methods we show in Theorem 4.3 that if we define $`g_i=h_ih_{i1},`$ then $`g_{i+1}g_i^{<i>}`$ for all $`i<r/2.`$ All of these inequalities are immediate consequences of the existence of pairs $`(\mathrm{\Theta },\omega )`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a linear set of parameters for $`k(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`\omega `$ is a $`g`$-element for $`k(\mathrm{\Delta })/<\mathrm{\Theta }>.`$ Using a different approach, toric hyperkähler varieties, Hausel and Sturmfels proved the existience of $`g`$-elements for $`k(\mathrm{\Delta })/<\mathrm{\Theta }>`$ when the matroid is representable over the rationals . A $`g`$-element is a one-form which acts like a Lefschetz class of a compact complex projective manifold except that it induces injections instead of bijections (Definition 4.1).

The broken circuit complex of a matroid is subcomplex of the independence complex and directly encodes the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial of the matroid . Every broken circuit complex is a cone, and if we remove the cone point we obtain a reduced broken circuit complex. Any independence complex is also a reduced broken circuit complex. Since the $`h`$-vector is unchanged by the removal of a cone point, the set of $`h`$-vectors of independence complexes is a (strict) subset of the set of $`h`$-vectors of broken circuit complexes. A natural question is whether or not Theorem 4.2 holds for broken circuit complexes. In Section 5 we show that even if broken circuit complexes satisfy the corresponding combinatorial inequalities, there may be no set of linear parameters for the face ring such that there exist $`g`$-elements for the quotient ring.

Matroid terminology and notation closely follows . The main exception to this is that we use $`MA`$ for the deletion of a subset instead of $`MA.`$ The ground set of the matroid $`M`$ is always $`E.`$

## 2. Complexes

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite abstract simplicial complex with vertices $`V=\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}.`$ The f-vector of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the sequence $`(f_0(\mathrm{\Delta }),\mathrm{},f_s(\mathrm{\Delta })),`$ where $`f_i(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the number of simplices of cardinality $`i`$ and $`s1`$ is the dimension of $`\mathrm{\Delta }.`$ The h-vector of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the sequence $`(h_0(\mathrm{\Delta }),\mathrm{},h_s(\mathrm{\Delta }))`$ defined by,

$$h_i(\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{k=0}{\overset{i}{}}(1)^{i+k}f_k(\mathrm{\Delta })\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{sk}{ik}\right).$$

Equivalently, if we let $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=f_0t^s+f_1t^{s1}+\mathrm{}f_{s1}t+f_s,`$ then $`h_\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=h_0t^s+h_1t^{s1}+\mathrm{}h_{s1}t+h_s`$ satisfies $`h_\mathrm{\Delta }(1+t)=f_\mathrm{\Delta }(t).`$

The independence complex of $`M`$ is the simplicial complex whose vertices are the non-loop elements of $`E`$ and whose simplices are the independent subsets of $`E.`$ We let $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M)`$ represent the independence complex of $`M.`$

In order to define the broken circuit complex for $`M`$, we first choose a linear order $`𝐧`$ on the elements of the matroid. Given such an order, a broken circuit is a circuit with its least element removed. The broken circuit complex is the simplicial complex whose simplices are the subsets of $`E`$ which do not contain a broken circuit. We denote the broken circuit complex of $`M`$ and $`𝐧`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M),`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M,𝐧).`$ Different orderings may lead to different complexes, see \[1, Example 7.4.4\]. Conversely, distinct matroids can have the same broken circuit complex. For instance, let $`E=\{e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4,e_5,e_6\},`$ and let $`𝐧`$ be the obvious order. Let $`M_1`$ be the matroid on $`E`$ whose bases are all triples except $`\{e_1,e_2,e_3\}`$ and $`\{e_4,e_5,e_6\}`$ and let $`M_2`$ be the matroid on $`E`$ whose bases are all triples except $`\{e_1,e_2,e_3\}`$ and $`\{e_1,e_5,e_6\}.`$ Then $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are non-isomorphic matroids but their broken circuit complexes are identical. Both $`h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(M)}(t)`$ and $`h_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M)}(t)`$ satisfy similar contraction-deletion formulas.

###### Proposition 2.1.

,

1. If $`e`$ is a loop of $`M,`$ then $`h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(M)}(t)=h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(Me)}(t),`$ and $`h_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M)}(t)=1.`$
2. If $`e`$ is a coloop of $`M,`$ then $`h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(M)}(t)=h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(Me)}(t),`$ and $`h_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M)}(t)=h_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(Me)}(t).`$
3. If $`e`$ is neither a loop nor a coloop of $`M,`$ then $`h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(M)}(t)=h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(Me)}(t)+h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(M/e)}(t)`$ and $`h_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M)}(t)=h_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(Me)}(t)+h_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M/e)}(t).`$
4. If $`M=M_1M_2,`$ then $`h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(M)}(t)=h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(M_1)}(t)h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(M_2)}(t).`$
5. If $`S`$ is a series class of $`M`$ which is not a circuit, then $`h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(M)}(t)=h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(M/S)}(t)+h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(MS)}(t)(1+t+\mathrm{}+t^{|S|1}).`$

## 3. Face rings

Let $`k`$ be a field and let $`R=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n].`$

###### Definition 3.1.

The face ring of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the graded $`k`$-algebra

$$k[\mathrm{\Delta }]=R/I_\mathrm{\Delta },$$

where $`I_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the ideal generated by all monomials $`x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_l}`$ such that $`\{v_{i_1},\mathrm{},v_{i_l}\}`$ is not a face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }.`$

Let $`s1`$ be the dimension of $`\mathrm{\Delta }.`$ Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\{\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _s\}`$ be a set of one-forms in $`R.`$ Write each $`\theta _i=k_{i1}x_1+\mathrm{}k_{is}x_s`$ and let $`K=(k_{ij}).`$ To each simplex in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ there is a corresponding set of column vectors in $`K.`$ If for every simplex of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the corresponding set of column vectors is independent, then $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a linear set of parameters (l.s.o.p.) for $`k(\mathrm{\Delta }).`$ If $`k`$ is infinite, then it is always possible to choose $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ such that every set of $`s`$ columns of $`K`$ is independent.

Given a l.s.o.p. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ for $`k(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ let $`R(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Theta })=k(\mathrm{\Delta })/<\mathrm{\Theta }>.`$ If $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is unambiguous, then we just use $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }).`$ Since $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is homogeneous $`R(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is a graded $`k`$-algebra.

###### Theorem 3.2.

 Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be a l.s.o.p. for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M)`$ and let $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }(M))_i`$ be the $`i^{th}`$ graded component of $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }(M)).`$ Then $`h_i(\mathrm{\Delta }(M))=dim_kR(\mathrm{\Delta }(M))_i.`$ Similarly, if $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a l.s.o.p. for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M),`$ then $`h_i(\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M))=dim_kR(\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M))_i.`$

Given any two integers $`i,j>0`$ there is a unique way to write

$$j=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a_i}{i}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a_{i1}}{i1}\right)+\mathrm{}+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a_l}{l}\right),a_i>a_{i1}>\mathrm{}>a_ll1.$$

Given this expansion define,

$$j^{<i>}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a_i+1}{i+1}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a_{i1}+1}{i}\right)+\mathrm{}+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a_l+1}{l+1}\right),a_i>a_{i1}>\mathrm{}>a_ll1.$$

###### Theorem 3.3.

\[11, Theorem 2.2\] Let $`Q=R/I,`$ where $`I`$ is a homogeneous ideal. Let $`Q_i`$ be the forms of degree $`i`$ in $`Q`$ and let $`h_i=dim_kQ_i.`$ Then $`h_{i+1}h_i^{<i>}.`$

###### Corollary 3.4.

 For any independence or broken circuit complex $`h_{i+1}h_i^{<i>}.`$

## 4. The ring $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }(M))`$

In order to study the properties of $`h_i(\mathrm{\Delta }(M))`$ we will look for elements with properties slightly weaker than those provided by Lefschetz elements of the cohomology ring of a compact complex projective manifold.

###### Definition 4.1.

Let $`N`$ be a (non-negatively) graded $`R`$-module whose dimension over $`k`$ is finite. Let $`r`$ be the last non-zero grade of $`N`$ and let $`\omega `$ be a one-form in $`R.`$ Then $`\omega `$ is a $`g`$-element for $`N`$ if for all $`i,0ir/2,`$ multiplication by $`\omega ^{r2i}`$ is an injection from $`N_i`$ to $`N_{ri}.`$

If we replace injection with bijection in the above definition, then we obtain the strong Stanley property in .

Let $`M`$ be a rank $`r`$ matroid without coloops and $`k`$ a field of characteristic zero. Let $`n=|E|.`$ Write the elements of $`k^{n\times (r+1)}`$ in the form $`(\mathrm{\Theta },\omega ),`$ where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ consists of $`r`$ elements in $`k^n`$ and $`\omega `$ is also in $`k^n.`$ Identify elements of $`k^n`$ with the one-forms in $`R`$ in the canonical way. Let $`U`$ be the set of all pairs $`(\mathrm{\Theta },\omega )k^{n\times (r+1)}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a l.s.o.p. for $`k(\mathrm{\Delta }(M))`$ and $`\omega `$ is a $`g`$-element for $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }(M),\mathrm{\Theta }).`$

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`M,U`$ and $`k`$ be as above. Then, $`U`$ is a non-empty Zariski open subset of $`k^{n\times (r+1)}.`$

###### Proof.

We first note that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a l.s.o.p. for $`k(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ if and only if the determinants of the appropriate $`r\times r`$ minors of $`K`$ are non-zero. Secondly, the multiplication maps $`\omega ^{r2i}`$ can be encoded as matrices which are polynomial in the coefficients of $`K`$ and $`\omega .`$ Thus, $`U`$ is the intersection of two Zariski open subsets of $`k^{n\times (r+1)}.`$

To show that $`U`$ is not empty we proceed by induction on $`n.`$ However, we use a slightly different (but equivalent) induction hypothesis. Let $`C(j)`$ be the circuit with $`j`$ elements. Let $`P`$ be a direct sum of circuits, so we can write $`P=C(j_1)\mathrm{}C(j_m).`$ The rank of $`MP`$ is $`r^{}=r+j_1+\mathrm{}+j_mm`$ and its cardinality is $`n^{}=n+j_1+\mathrm{}+j_m.`$ The induction hypothesis is that given any such $`P,`$ then $`U=\{(\mathrm{\Theta },\omega )k^{n^{}\times (r^{}+1)}:\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a l.s.o.p. for $`k(\mathrm{\Delta }(MP))`$ and $`\omega `$ is a $`g`$-element for $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }(MP),\mathrm{\Theta })\}`$ is not empty. If $`M`$ consists of a single loop, then $`k(\mathrm{\Delta }(MP))k(\mathrm{\Delta }(P)).`$ As a simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }(P)`$ is $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{j_11})\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{j_m1}),`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^j`$ is the $`j`$-simplex. Since this is the boundary of a convex rational polytope we can apply the Hard Lefschetz theorem as in  to see that $`U`$ is not empty when $`k=,`$ and hence is not empty for any field of characteristic zero.

Suppose that $`M`$ consists of a single coloop. Given $`P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ as in the above paragraph, $`\mathrm{\Theta }\{x_n^{}\}`$ is a l.s.o.p. for $`k(\mathrm{\Delta }(PM))`$ and $`\omega ,`$ which can be viewed as an element of $`k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n^{}],`$ is a $`g`$-element for $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }(PM),\mathrm{\Theta }\{x_n^{}\}).`$

For the induction step, let $`S`$ be a series class of $`M.`$ Reordering $`M`$ if necessary, we assume that $`S=\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_s\}`$ consists of the first $`s`$ elements of $`M.`$ If $`S`$ is a circuit, then $`M=(MS)C(s).`$ Hence, $`MP=(MS)(C(s)P)`$ and the induction hypothesis applies to $`MS.`$ So assume that $`S`$ is independent . Let $`x^S=x_1\mathrm{}x_s.`$ For $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ a l.s.o.p. for $`k(\mathrm{\Delta }(MP))`$ consider the following short exact sequence.

(1)
$$0\frac{<x^S>R}{<x^S>(\mathrm{\Theta }+I_{\mathrm{\Delta }(MP)})}R(\mathrm{\Delta }(MP,\mathrm{\Theta }))\frac{R(\mathrm{\Delta }(MP),\mathrm{\Theta })}{<x^S>}0.$$

Since $`S`$ is a series class, a subset of $`MS`$ is independent if and only if its union with any proper subset of $`S`$ is independent. Hence, the right-hand side is just $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }((MS)(C(s)P),\mathrm{\Theta }).`$ Therefore, we can apply the induction hypothesis to $`MS`$ to obtain a non-empty Zariski open subset $`U^{}`$ of $`k^{n\times (r+1)}`$ consisting of pairs $`(\mathrm{\Theta }^{},\omega ^{})`$ such that $`\omega ^{}`$ is a $`g`$-element for $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }((MS)C(s)P),\mathrm{\Theta }^{}).`$

In order to analyze the left-hand side of (1) choose generators $`\{\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _s,\mathrm{},\theta _r^{}\}`$ for $`<\mathrm{\Theta }>`$ so that in the corresponding matrix $`K,k_{ij}=\delta _{ij}`$ for $`1is.`$ Now define an $`R`$-module structure on $`R^{}=k[x_{s+1},\mathrm{},x_n^{}]`$ by defining $`(x_i)f=(x_i\theta _i)f`$ for $`1is`$ and $`fR^{}.`$ Let $`\varphi :R^{}(<x^S>R)/(\mathrm{\Theta }+I_{\mathrm{\Delta }(MP)})`$ be multiplication by $`x^S.`$ Since $`S`$ is independent, every polynomial in $`(<x^S>R)/(\mathrm{\Theta }+I_{\mathrm{\Delta }(MP)})`$ is equivalent to a polynomial in $`<x^S>R^{}.`$ So, $`\varphi `$ is surjective. The kernel of $`\varphi `$ contains $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}=\{\theta \mathrm{\Theta }:\theta =k_{s+1}x_{s+1}+\mathrm{}+k_n^{}x_n^{}.\}`$ In addition, $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi `$ contains all monomials in $`I_{\mathrm{\Delta }((M/S)P)}.`$ Since $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}`$ is a l.s.o.p. for $`k(\mathrm{\Delta }(M/S)),`$ we see that $`\varphi `$ is a degree $`s`$ graded surjective $`R`$-module homomorphism from $`R^{}/(I_{\mathrm{\Delta }((M/S)P)}+\mathrm{\Theta }^{})`$ to the left-hand side of (1) . Proposition 2.1 and $`h_{\mathrm{\Delta }(C(s))}(t)=1+t+\mathrm{}+t^{s1}`$ show that the $`k`$-dimension of $`R^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }(M/S),\mathrm{\Theta }^{})`$ and the l.h.s. of (1) are the same. Hence $`\varphi `$ is an isomorphism. Therefore, by the induction hypothesis applied to $`M/S,`$ there is a non-empty Zariski open subset $`U^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`k^{n\times (r+1)}`$ consisting of pairs $`(\mathrm{\Theta }^{\prime \prime },\omega ^{\prime \prime })`$ such that the multiplication map

$$\omega ^{\prime \prime (r^{}2is)}:(\frac{<x^S>R}{<x^S>(\mathrm{\Theta }^{\prime \prime }+I_{\mathrm{\Delta }(MP)})})_{i+s}(\frac{<x^S>R}{<x^S>(\mathrm{\Theta }^{\prime \prime }+I_{\mathrm{\Delta }(MP)})})_{r^{}i}$$

is an injection for $`1i(r^{}s)/2.`$ Now, $`U^{}U^{\prime \prime }U.`$ Since the intersection of two non-empty Zariski open subsets of $`k^{n\times (r+1)}`$ is not empty, $`U`$ is also not empty.

###### Theorem 4.3.

Let $`M`$ be a rank $`r`$ matroid without coloops. Let $`h_i=h_i(\mathrm{\Delta }(M)).`$ Then,

1. $`h_0\mathrm{}h_{r/2}.`$
2. $`h_ih_{ri}`$ for all $`ir/2.`$
3. Let $`g_i=h_ih_{i1}.`$ Then, for all $`i<r/2,g_{i+1}g_i^{<i>}.`$

###### Proof.

The first two inequalities follow from the injectivity properties of any $`g`$-element $`\omega `$ for $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }(M),\mathrm{\Theta }).`$ Since $`g_i=(R(\mathrm{\Delta }(M),\mathrm{\Theta })/<\omega >)_i`$ when $`i<r/2,`$ the last inequality follows from Theorem 3.3. ∎

The first two inequalities were obtained by Chari using a PS-ear decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M).`$ See  for details on PS-ear decompositions. Hausel and Sturmfels used toric hyperkähler varities to prove the last inequality for matroids representable over the rationals . The proof of Theorem 4.2 is essentially an algebraic version of a PS-ear decomposition \[6, Theorem 2\]. Indeed, the proof works without change for any simplicial complex with a PS-ear decomposition.

## 5. The ring $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M))`$

As shown in  the cone on any independence complex is a broken circuit complex (for some other matroid). Since the $`h`$-vector of the cone of a simplicial complex is the same as the $`h`$-vector of the original complex, the $`h`$-vectors of independence complexes form a (strict) subset of the the $`h`$-vectors of broken-circuit complexes. It is natural to ask whether or not Theorem 4.2 holds for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M).`$ The last non-zero element of the $`h`$-vector of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M)`$ is $`rm,`$ where $`m`$ is the number of components of $`M.`$ It is not difficult to modify the proof of Theorem 4.2 to produce injections from $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M))_0`$ to $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M))_{rm}`$ and from $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M))_1`$ to $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M))_{rm1}.`$ Since the first possible problem is in degree 2, the smallest possible rank of $`M`$ for which Theorem 4.2 does not hold for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M)`$ is six.

Let $`G(s)`$ be the graph obtained by subdividing each edge of the graph consisting of $`s`$ parallel edges into two edges. Let $`M(s)`$ be the cycle matroid of $`G(s).`$ The rank of $`M(s)`$ is $`s+1`$ and $`M(s)`$ has $`2s`$ elements.

###### Proposition 5.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be a l.s.o.p. for $`M(s),𝐧`$ a linear order of the elements of $`M(s)`$ and $`\omega `$ a linear form in $`k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{2s}].`$ Then, multiplication by $`\omega `$ has a non-trivial kernel in $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M))_2.`$

###### Proof.

Let $`E_l`$ consist of the greatest $`l`$ elements of $`M(s)`$ with respect to $`𝐧.`$ Let $`\{e_i,e_j\}`$ be the first pair of edges to appear in $`E_l`$ as $`l`$ goes from $`1`$ to $`s+1`$ such that they come from the subdivision of one of the parallel edges used to construct $`G(s).`$ Consider the ideal $`<x_ix_j>R(\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M,𝐧)).`$ Using the same reasoning as in the proof of Theorem 4.2, the choice of $`\{e_i,e_j\}`$ implies that $`<x_ix_j>`$ is isomorphic as an $`R`$-module to $`R^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(\mathrm{\Delta }(M(s)/\{e_i,e_j\},𝐧^{}),\mathrm{\Theta }^{}),`$ where $`R^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}`$ are defined as in the proof of Theorem 4.2, and $`𝐧^{}`$ is the order on $`M(s)/\{e_i,e_j\}`$ induced from $`𝐧.`$ Now, $`M(s)/\{e_i,e_j\}`$ is the cycle matroid of the $`G(s)`$ with the two edges $`\{e_i,e_j\}`$ contracted. For any such pair and any linear order $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M(s)/\{e_i,e_j\}`$ is an $`s2`$ dimensional simplex. Hence $`<x_ix_j>k`$ and will vanish under any multiplication map. ∎

Repeated application of Proposition 2.1 shows that $`h_i(\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M(s)))=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{i}\right)`$ when $`i1`$ and $`h_1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{BC}(M(s)))=s1.`$ When $`s5,`$ the $`h`$-vector of the broken circuit complex of $`M(s)`$ satisfies the combinatorial conditions of Theorem 4.3 but there is no l.s.o.p. for the face ring such that the quotient ring has $`g`$-elements. As far as we know, whether or not broken circuit complexes satisfy the combinatorial inequalities of Theorem 4.3 remains an open question.
Acknowledgement: Louis Billera suggested the problem of determining whether or not independence complexes satisfied $`g_{i+1}g_i^{<i>}.`$