text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

This paper is devoted to the rigorous study of a random matrix model that is liable to give a good approximation for the density of states (DOS) of the two dimensional Anderson model in the weak disorder regime and in the vicinity of the Fermi level. The main result is that the DOS of this random matrix model converges to the usual Wigner’s semi-circle law in the small coupling limit. The Anderson model of an electron in a random potential corresponds to the Hamiltonian

$$H=(\mathrm{\Delta }+\lambda V(x))$$

acting on the Hilbert space $`L^2(^2)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the usual Laplacian and $`V`$ is a real Gaussian process on $`^2`$ with short range correlations.

This model was initially proposed to describe the electron motion in doped semi-conductors at low temperature or in normal disordered metals. It is now the central model for the theory of eletronic transport and wave propagation in disordered systems . It was conjectured by Anderson as soon as 1958  that such a model exhibits a localized phase in which the electrons are trapped by the defects. In 1979 it was argued that this model has a phase transition in dimensions three or more between the localized phase and an extended one .

The localized phase is now well under control. In one dimension, localization was rigorously established for any disorder at the end of the seventies . Later localization was established in any dimension at strong disorder or for energies out of the conduction bands . A simplified and more efficient method to get this result was given in .

In contrast the weak disorder regime is still poorly understood. In two dimensions it has been argued  and numerically established  that localization persists at arbitrarily small disorder, with a localization length diverging like $`O(e^{c/\lambda ^2})`$. In dimension three, numerical simulations confirm the existence of the Anderson transition , leading to an extended phase. In addition, analytical results  and other numerical calculations show that the level spacing distribution follows the Wigner-Dyson distribution for random matrix theory (RMT) . This gave the motivation for a description of mesoscopic system in terms of RMT . This method has been very successful when compared to experiments and was the source of developments of supersymmetric methods  in solid state physics. But on the rigorous level it is still a mathematical challenge up to now to prove even regularity of the DOS (e.g. real analyticity in energy in a certain interval) at arbitrarily weak coupling in dimensions two and three.

Using a phase-space analysis inspired by the renormalization group method around Fermi surfaces in condensed matter , G. Poirot and coauthors  have established that the effective Hamiltonian near the Fermi level is given indeed by a random matrix model. In two dimensions this random matrix model is similar to the GUE, but contains an extra discrete symmetry. Unfortunately in three dimensions and beyond, this extra symmetry becomes continuous, and produces more complicated correlations between matrix elements . Recently a band matrix model in three dimensions has been proposed and its DOS studied through the supersymmetric method . In this note, motivated by these works, the two dimensional case for the Anderson model is reconsidered. A simplified model is constructed on the basis of the phase space analysis. It is a matrix model, although not one of the regular ensembles. We analyze this model rigorously through the supersymmetric method, and proves that its DOS converges to the Wigner semi-circle law as the matrix gets large.

## II The Flip Matrix Model

Average spectral properties can be studied through the averaged Green’s functions of the model. For some suitable choice of units, these averaged Green’s functions are defined as

$$G_\pm (yx)=\underset{ϵ0^\pm }{lim}𝑑\mu (V)x|(\mathrm{\Delta }E+ıϵ+\lambda V)^1|y$$

where $`d\mu (V)`$ is the disorder distribution, $`\lambda `$ is a coupling constant controlling the disorder strength, and $`E`$ is complex with small imaginary part $`ϵ`$. The DOS is defined by the imaginary part of the averaged retarded Green’s function :

$$\nu (E)=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}G_+(0)$$

For a given non-zero $`E`$ in the conduction band (e.g. for $`|E|`$ neither too large nor too small), the free Green’s function $`(p^2E)^1`$ (we simply write $`\mathrm{\Delta }=p^2`$) is singular on a surface, which in two dimensions is a curve. Two regimes have been clearly identified:

1. for $`|p^2E|0(1)\lambda ^2`$, the random potential $`\lambda V`$ is indeed a weak perturbation of the free Green function. It is statistically unlikely to develop an eigenvalue of the same size than $`p^2E`$, making the denominator of the Green’s function singular. So this regime can be controlled by the usual techniques of multiscale cluster and Mayer expansion, with some large/small field analysis. Typical $`V`$’s belong to the small field regions; exceptional $`V`$’s in large field regions are controlled through some type of Tchebycheff inequalities, and give rise to small probabilistic factors. These factors can then pay for the necessary complex contour deformations and rough bounds that desingularize the denominator of the Green’s function in these regions .
2. for $`|p^2E|0(1)\lambda ^2`$, the interesting region, a non trivial imaginary part generated by the potential should stop the renormalization group analysis. This is easily seen at second order perturbation theory in $`\lambda `$: an imaginary term proportional to $`i\lambda ^2`$ appears. Hence $`G_\pm `$ should decay exponentially with a length scale proportional to $`\lambda ^2`$, and the DOS should be regular. The problem is to justify non pertubatively this well-known theoretical argument.

For the moment the main result in this direction is :

###### Theorem 1

There exists some finite $`\eta >0`$ such that for $`ϵ=\lambda ^{2+\eta }`$ the averaged Green’s function $`<G_{+ϵ}(x,y)>_V`$ decays at large $`|xy|`$ with a rate $`\tau (\lambda )`$ which is independent of $`\eta `$, and inverse of $`\lambda ^2`$.

This result was obtained through some difficult non-perturbative Ward identity which uses the particular momentum conservation laws in two dimensions. It is non-trivial, since the decay rate in $`\lambda ^2`$, as expected from perturbation theory, does not depend on the $`\eta `$ cutoff. This result seems difficult to extend to fully perform the limit $`ϵ0`$ (this would in fact be implied by a similar theorem but with $`\eta =1`$).

To complete the proof of exponential decay of the averaged Green’s function and of the regularity of the averaged DOS (without $`\lambda ^{2+\eta }`$ cutoff), the supersymmetric method  may be more convenient. Indeed the $`|p^2E|0(1)\lambda ^2`$ regime of the 2D Anderson model is no longer perturbative in the naive sense, since the potential combines non-trivially with the deterministic part. Supersymmetry seems the right tool to control this phenomenon since in this formalism it corresponds simply to contour deformation to a non-trivial saddle point that generates Wigner’s law and stops the RG flow. The functional integral away from the saddle point can be controlled non-perturbatively by a small/large field analysis, which is compatible with standard weak-coupling cluster expansions .

The Flip Matrix Model studied in this paper incorporates four simplifications with respect to the true Anderson 2 dimensional model:

* The regime $`|p^2E|0(1)\lambda ^2`$ has been completely removed from the model. This is justified since this regime being fully perturbative can be added later in the style of . So we restrict our Hilbert space to functions supported in momentum space by a tiny shell around the circle $`p^2=E`$ (or $`2\mathrm{cos}p_1\mathrm{cos}p_2=E`$ for a square lattice version of the model).
* The space has been reduced to a single cube of side size $`\lambda ^2`$. This is in agreement with the idea of a contour translation generating a $`i\lambda ^2`$ part in the denominator of the Green’s function. Then the full model should correspond to weakly coupled such cubes. Once the single cube-model has been understood, the full model should follow from a cluster expansion.
* In this cube the momentum shell has been divided into $`0(\lambda ^2)`$ cells, called sectors, and the corresponding infinite dimensional Hilbert space has been replaced by a finite dimensional one, so that the random operator corresponding to $`V`$ is replaced by a random matrix. This discretization step is justified since the phase space analysis is now fine enough, so that each random operator being approximately constant, it is legitimate to replace it by a single random coefficient.
* The probability law for the random coefficients of the matrix has been computed from the 2D momentum conservation rule, with a last simplification. As well known the rhombus rule of 2D momentum conservation for four vectors of equal length slightly weakens for almost degenerate flat rhombuses and this degeneracy requires an anisotropic slicing of sectors and of the cube into parallelepipeds . We forget this complication to stick with simpler isotropic sectors, so we use a simplified momentum conservation rule. Normally introducing anisotropic analysis is only a (painful) complication of the model that gets rid of the difficulties associated to almost degenerate rhombuses.

Then the subsequent model would be almost the GUE if not for the rhombus flip. This flip creates a new symmetry in the random matrix, so that the supersymmetric analysis of this model requires essentially twice as many variables as for the GUE. The full proof of regularity of the DOS for the 2D Anderson model is therefore now reduced to the hard task of fitting together all pieces of the puzzle by removing our four approximations to go from the Flip Model to the true 2D Anderson Model.

## III The Flip Matrix Model: notations

Let $`N`$ be a large number parametrizing the number of sectors. To model the $`2D`$ Anderson model in a large spatial cell of side size $`O(\lambda ^2)`$ ,we have divided as indicated above the momentum shell of width $`O(\lambda ^2)`$ around $`p^2=1`$ into $`2N=O(\lambda ^2)`$ isotropic cells. Since the initial $`V(x)`$ was real, its Fourier transform $`V(p)`$ (the hat on Fourier transforms is removed for simplicity) is complex and obeys

$$V(p)=\overline{V}(p).$$
(III.1)
Since $`V(x)`$ is random independent identically distributed in direct space, $`V(p)`$ is Gaussian white noise, so that

$$V(p)\overline{V}(q)=\delta (pq).$$

In order to implement the momentum conservation constraint at the vertex the ”rhombus rule” will be simplified by forgetting the degeneracy of the rhombus near collapse. Discretization of $`V(p)`$ follows from it being considered as a random matrix between the cell indices. Collision with the initial potential $`V(p)`$ transforms a state with momentum $`r`$ into a state with momentum $`r+p`$. Therefore the discretized matrix corresponds to $`V`$ with matrix elements $`V(\gamma )`$ where $`\gamma `$ is some discretized version of $`p`$. Its coefficients are

$$V_{\alpha ,\beta }$$

where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ run over the set of sectors and $`V_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ transforms a state with momentum sector $`\alpha `$ into a state with momentum sector $`\beta `$ if and only if $`\gamma \beta \alpha `$. Solving this equation for a known $`\gamma `$ gives in a generic case $`0<|\gamma |<2`$ two possible pairs forming a rhombus, namely $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ and $`(\beta ,\alpha )`$, so that for $`\beta \pm \alpha `$ there is a single random variable for the two pairs:

$$V_{\alpha ,\beta }=V_{\beta ,\alpha }$$
(III.2)
In the degenerate case $`\gamma =0`$, it gives $`2N`$ equal pairs $`V_0=V_{\alpha ,\alpha }`$, and in the degenerate cases $`|\gamma |=2`$ it gives a single pair $`V_{\alpha ,\alpha }`$. If, as explained in the introduction, the almost degenerate rhombuses are neglected, which should be harmless since they are not generic, as well as the possible effect of nearest neighbor slight overlaps between the momentum definition of cells which may lead to slight complications, $`V`$ is well approximated by a random Gaussian $`2N\times 2N`$ complex matrix. This matrix is Hermitian because of (III.1):

$$V_{\alpha ,\beta }=\overline{V}_{\beta ,\alpha }$$
(III.3)
It is therefore convenient to label sectors as $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}\{N,\mathrm{},1\}`$, so that $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ labels projective sectors, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Numbering sectors

This leads to a set of $`2N(N1)/2=N(N1)`$ complex variables $`V_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ for $`\alpha \{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$, and $`\beta \{1,\mathrm{},N\}\{N,\mathrm{},1\},\alpha <|\beta |`$. They fill a quarter of the matrix, made of the upper half of the upper-left quarter and of the lower half of the upper-right quarter. All other coefficients are deduced from these. Thanks to (III.2)-(III.3), and to the particular numbering of Figure 1, there is symmetry around the antidiagonal, and conjugate symmetry around the ordinary diagonal (so that $`V`$ is hermitian).

The upper anti-diagonal is made of $`N`$ additional independent complex variables $`V_{\alpha ,\alpha }`$ for $`\alpha \{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$, corresponding to momentum transfers of length $`2`$ of $`V`$, while the lower antidiagonal is hermitian conjugate to the upper one. Finally the variables $`V_{\alpha \alpha }`$ are all equal to a single real variable $`V_0`$ and that fills the ordinary diagonal of the matrix $`V`$.

The total number of real independent variables among ther matrix elements, is therefore $`2N(N1)+2N+1=1+2N^2`$. They all have covariance equal to 1. The corresponding normalized Gaussian measure will be denoted $`d\mu (V)`$. This model is similar to the standard GUE (that would have $`4N^2`$ independent real variables for a $`2N\times 2N`$ matrix instead), except for the change on the diagonals and the additional symmetry with respect to the anti-diagonal, corresponding to rhombus flips.

The structure of $`V`$ can be summarized as follows (remember that the rows and columns indices are labelled as $`\{1,\mathrm{},N,N,\mathrm{},1\}`$ hence not as $`\{1,\mathrm{},N,1,\mathrm{},N\}`$):

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}V_0& & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& V_0& \mathrm{}& V_{\alpha ,\beta }& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \overline{V_{\alpha ,\beta }}& \mathrm{}& V_0& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & V_0\end{array}\right]& \left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& V_{\alpha ,\beta }& \mathrm{}& V_{\alpha ,\alpha }& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& V_{\beta ,\beta }& \mathrm{}& V_{\alpha ,\beta }& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \end{array}\right]\\ & \\ \left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \overline{V_{\alpha ,\beta }}& \mathrm{}& \overline{V_{\beta ,\beta }}& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \overline{V_{\alpha ,\alpha }}& \mathrm{}& \overline{V_{\alpha ,\beta }}& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \end{array}\right]& \left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}V_0& & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& V_0& \mathrm{}& V_{\alpha ,\beta }& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \overline{V_{\alpha ,\beta }}& \mathrm{}& V_0& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & V_0\end{array}\right]\end{array}\right)$$

Our main result in this note is:

###### Theorem 2

In the large $`N`$-limit, the DOS of this Flip Matrix Model converges to Wigner’s semi-circle distribution. The corrections to the limit are uniformly bounded as $`O(1/N)`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$.

The rest of the paper is devoted to the proof of this result. Heuristically, the diagonals should not matter much for the average spectral properties. The main difficulty is to check that the additional symmetry of the rhombus flip does not alter Wigner’s semi-circle law. This is made precise using the supersymmetric formalism .

## IV Mean field analysis

Let the superfields be

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha }=(S_{\sigma \alpha },\chi _{\sigma \alpha })$$

for $`\sigma =\pm 1`$ and greek variables such as $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ now running only within $`[1,\mathrm{},N]`$. The conventions are taken from . Hence bosonic fields are complex with $`\overline{S}=S^+`$ and pairs of anticommuting variables $`\chi ,\chi ^+`$ satisfy:

$$\chi _i\chi _j=\chi _j\chi _i,\chi _i^+\chi _j=\chi _j\chi _i^+,\chi _i^+\chi _j^+=\chi _j^+\chi _i^+$$

$$(\chi _i^+)^+=\chi _i,(\chi _i\chi _j)^+=\chi _i^+\chi _j^+,$$

$$𝑑\chi _i=𝑑\chi _i^+=0,\chi _i𝑑\chi _i=\chi _i^+𝑑\chi _i^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}$$

so that

$$\underset{i}{}d\chi _i^+d\chi _ie^{\chi ^+M\chi }=det(M/2\pi )$$

whereas ordinary complex bosonic variables give

$$\underset{i}{}dS_i^+dS_ie^{S^+MS}=det(M/2\pi )^1$$

(and $`M`$ has to have a positive real part). By the usual rules of anticommuting integrals each Gaussian term is written as an integral over superfields. Hence the density of states can be written as

$$\nu (E)=\underset{ImE0^+}{lim}\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{}S_\alpha ^+S_\alpha e^{ıL_0}\underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}d\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha }^+d\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha }d\mu (V)$$
(IV.4)
where the supersymmetric action decomposes as

$$L_0=(A_0+B_0+C_0)$$

with

$$A_0=\underset{\alpha <\beta ,\sigma }{}\{\lambda V_{\alpha ,\sigma \beta }(\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta }+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta }^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha )+h.c.\}$$

$$B_0=\underset{\alpha }{}\lambda V_{\alpha ,\alpha }(\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha +h.c.)$$

$$C_0=E+\lambda V_0\underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha }^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha }$$

correspond respectively to the main part, the anti-diagonal and the diagonal of the matrix. The Gaussian integration over the $`V`$ variables will be performed except for $`V_0`$ leading to the quartic terms

$$\nu (E)=\underset{ImE0^+}{lim}\frac{1}{\pi }ImS_\alpha ^+S_\alpha e^L\underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}d\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha }^+d\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha }d\mu _0(V_0)$$

$$L=\lambda ^2(A+B+C)$$

$$A=\underset{\alpha <\beta ,\sigma }{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta }+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta }^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha )(\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta }^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha +\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta })$$
(IV.5)
$$B=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha $$

$$C=(\lambda ^1E+V_0)\underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha }^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha }.$$

The sum in (IV.5) can be written as

$$A=\underset{\sigma }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta ;\sigma }^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta ;\sigma }with\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta ;\sigma }=(\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta }^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha +\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta }).$$

Exchanging $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ in $`A=_\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta ;\sigma }^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta ;\sigma }`$, both for $`\sigma =\pm 1`$ does not change the sum. This is because the bosonic part in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ commute and the rule for the fermionic part leads to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta ;+}^+=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta \alpha ;+}`$, whereas for $`\sigma =1`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta \alpha ;}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta ,}`$. Hence

$$A=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\sigma }{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta }+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta }^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha )(\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta }^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha +\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta })+D_{++}+D_++D_{},$$

where

$$D_{}=(1/2)\underset{\alpha }{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha +\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha )(\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha +\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha )=2B$$

$$D_{++}=(1/2)\underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha }^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha })^2D_+=\underset{\alpha }{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha )$$

$$D_+=\underset{\alpha }{}(S_\alpha ^+S_\alpha +\chi _\alpha ^+\chi _\alpha )(S_\alpha ^+S_\alpha +\chi _\alpha ^+\chi _\alpha ).$$

The decomposition of $`D_+`$ into its boson and fermion parts and adding $`B`$ above, eventually leads to $`L=\lambda ^2(𝒜++𝒞)`$ with

$$𝒜=(1/2)\underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\sigma }{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta }+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta }^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha )(\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta }^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha +\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \beta })$$

$$=\underset{\alpha }{}_\alpha $$

$$_\alpha =2S_\alpha ^+S_\alpha S_\alpha ^+S_\alpha \frac{1}{2}\underset{\sigma }{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha }^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha })^2(\underset{\sigma }{}S_{\sigma \alpha }^+\chi _{\sigma \alpha }^+)(\underset{\sigma }{}S_{\sigma \alpha }\chi _{\sigma \alpha })$$

$$𝒞=C=(\lambda ^1E+V_0)\underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha }^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha }.$$
(IV.6)
The term $``$ being a sum of diagonal quartic terms, will be neglected for a while. For indeed it cannot be written as the square of a sum over $`\alpha `$. However, the bosonic part of this term has the wrong sign, which may create some difficulties when performing the integration in (IV.4). This problem will be addressed in section VI. The other terms, however, can be reorganized so as to get the square of a sum over the $`\alpha `$’s by pushing the terms with index $`\alpha `$ on the left and the ones with index $`\beta `$ on the right. This is possible thanks to the commutation rules for bosons and for fermions. The calculation is tedious but straightforward and gives:

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2)({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}}S_{\sigma \alpha }^+S_{\sigma \alpha })^2+(1/2)({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}}\chi _{\sigma \alpha }^+\chi _{\sigma \alpha })(h.c.)`$
$`2({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}S_\alpha ^+S_\alpha ^+)(h.c.)({\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \alpha }{}}S_{\sigma \alpha }\chi _{\sigma \alpha }^+)(h.c.)({\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \alpha }{}}S_{\sigma \alpha }^+\chi _{\sigma \alpha }^+)(h.c.).`$
The squares can be unfolded by mean of an integration over auxiliary gaussian fields. This amount to introduce two real fields $`a_0`$ and $`b_0`$, one complex field $`a,\overline{a}`$ and two pairs of fermionic fields $`\xi ,\overline{\xi }`$ and $`\eta ,\overline{\eta }`$ with Gaussian measure

$`d\mu (a_0,b_0,a,\overline{a},\overline{\xi },\xi ,\overline{\eta },\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`e^{V_0^2/2a_0^2/2b_0^2/2|a|^2/2\xi ^{}\xi \eta ^{}\eta }\times \mathrm{}`$ (IV.8)
$`\mathrm{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dV_0da_0db_0d^2a}{(2\pi )^{5/2}}}d\xi ^{}d\xi d\eta ^{}d\eta .`$
Therefore

$$e^{\lambda ^2(𝒜+𝒞)}=𝑑\mu e^{i\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^+R\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha }$$

with

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^+R\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`(a_0+V_0+\lambda ^1E){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}}S_{\sigma \alpha }^+S_{\sigma \alpha }`$
$`+`$ $`(ib_0+V_0+\lambda ^1E){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}}\chi _{\sigma \alpha }^+\chi _{\sigma \alpha }`$
$`+`$ $`(\overline{a}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}S_\alpha S_\alpha +h.c.)`$
$`+`$ $`(\xi ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \alpha }{}}S_{\sigma \alpha }^+\chi _{\sigma \alpha }+h.c.)+(\eta ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \alpha }{}}S_{\sigma \alpha }\chi _{\sigma \alpha }+h.c.)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^+=(S_\alpha ^+,S_\alpha ,\chi _\alpha ^+,ı\chi _\alpha )`$ and $`R`$ is a $`4\times 4`$ supermatrix. Setting $`A_0=(a_0+V_0+\lambda ^1E)`$ and $`ıB_0=(ıb_0+V_0+\lambda ^1E)`$ this matrix is given by

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}A_0& a& \xi ^{}& ı\eta \\ \overline{a}& A_0& \eta ^{}& ı\xi \\ \xi & \eta & ıB_0& 0\\ ı\eta ^{}& ı\xi ^{}& 0& ıB_0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& \rho ^{}\\ \rho & B\end{array}\right).$$
(IV.10)
In order that the integration over the primitive fields be given in term of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ it will be convenient to introduce the new fermionic fields

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_\alpha =ı\chi _\alpha ^+,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_\alpha ^+=ı\chi _\alpha ,d\stackrel{~}{\chi }_\alpha =ıd\chi _\alpha ^+,d\stackrel{~}{\chi }_\alpha ^+=ıd\chi _\alpha .$$

This leads to the formula

$$\underset{\alpha }{}d^2S_\alpha d^2S_\alpha 𝑑\chi _\alpha ^+𝑑\chi _\alpha 𝑑\stackrel{~}{\chi }_\alpha ^+𝑑\stackrel{~}{\chi }_\alpha e^{i\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^+R\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha }=\left[Sdet(ı\lambda R)\right]^N.$$

The super determinant can be computed from the Schur complement formula

$$Sdet\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& \rho ^{}\\ \rho & B\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{detB}det(A\rho ^{}B^1\rho ).$$

Defining $`\widehat{a}_0=a_0+V_0+\lambda ^1E`$, $`\widehat{b}_0=ib_0+V_0+\lambda ^1E`$ and using the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _2,\sigma _2,\sigma _3`$ the superdeterminant of $`R`$ is given by gives

$`SdetR`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\widehat{b}_0)^2}}det(\widehat{a}_0\mathrm{𝟏}+a_1\sigma _1+a_2\sigma _2`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\xi ^{}& ı\eta \\ \eta ^{}& ı\xi \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\xi & \eta \\ ı\eta ^{}& ı\xi ^{}\end{array}\right)\widehat{b}_0^1)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\widehat{b}_0)^2}}(\{(a_0+V_0+\lambda ^1E+(\eta ^{}\eta +\xi ^{}\xi )\widehat{b}_0^1\}^2`$
$``$ $`\{a+2\xi ^{}\eta \widehat{b}_0^1\}\{\overline{a}+2\eta ^{}\xi \widehat{b}_0^1\}).`$
Including back the scaling factors, taking into account the relation $`2\lambda ^2=N^1`$ and ignoring the $``$ term, the density of states is given by

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑a_0𝑑V_0}`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ $`\left(e^{(a_0^2+V_0^2+|a|^2+b_0^2)}{\displaystyle \frac{(E+V_0+ib_0)^2}{(E+V_0+a_0)^2|a|^2}}\right)^N`$ (IV.19)
$`\mathrm{}`$ $`\times (1+O(1/N)){\displaystyle \frac{E+V_0+a_0}{(E+V_0+a_0)^2|a|^2}}.`$
For indeed, taking into account the part of the $`2`$-point function involved in the integral (IV.4), the fermionic part gives a $`O(1/N)`$ correction in the form

$$(1+r\eta ^{}\eta \xi ^{}\xi )^{N1}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}r\frac{N+1}{4N^2},$$

thanks to the integral

$$\frac{\pi }{2N}𝑑\xi ^{}𝑑\xi e^{2N\xi ^{}\xi }\xi ^{}\xi =\frac{1}{4N}.$$

## V The saddle points at leading order

In this section the $`O(1/N)`$ and $``$ terms are still neglected. As $`N\mathrm{}`$, the integral (IV.19) can be treated by the saddle point method, since no fermion variable are involved anymore. The saddle point equations can be written $`S=0`$ where $`S`$ is the effective action given by

$$S=(a_0^2+V_0^2+|a|^2+b_0^2)+2\mathrm{ln}(E+V_0+ib_0)\mathrm{ln}((E+V_0+a_0)^2|a|^2)).$$

More precisely, differentiating with respect to the independant variables appearing in the integral (IV.19) gives

$$(1/2)\frac{S}{a_0}=a_0+\frac{a_0+V_0+E}{(E+V_0+a_0)^2|a|^2}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(V.20)
$$(1/2)\frac{S}{|a|}=|a|[1\frac{1}{(E+V_0+a_0)^2|a|^2}]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(V.21)
$$\frac{ı}{2}\frac{S}{b_0}=ib_0+\frac{1}{E+V_0+ib_0}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(V.22)
$$(1/2)\frac{S}{V_0}=V_0+\frac{1}{E+V_0+ib_0}\frac{a_0+V_0+E}{(E+V_0+a_0)^2|a|^2}=0.$$
(V.23)
Thanks to (V.20) & (V.22), (V.23) can be written as

$$V_0+ib_0a_0=0,$$
(V.24)
so that, thanks to (V.22),

$$ib_0=\frac{1}{E+a_0}.$$
(V.25)
Then two cases occur:

* $`|a|=0`$. Substituting in (V.20) leads to

$$(E+2a_0)(a_0^2+a_0E+1)=0,$$

giving two solutions

$$a_0=\frac{E\pm i\sqrt{4E^2}}{2},ıb_0=\frac{E\pm i\sqrt{4E^2}}{2},V_0=0,$$
(V.26)
$$a_0=\frac{E}{2},ıb_0=\frac{2}{E},V_0=\frac{4E^2}{2E}.$$
(V.27)
* $`|a|0`$. Then, (V.20), (V.21) & (V.24) give

$$a_0=\frac{V_0+E}{2},|a|^2=(\frac{V_0+E}{2})^21,ıb_0=\frac{3V_0+E}{2},$$

$$3V_0^22EV_0+4E^2=0.$$

It leads to the following solution

$`V_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E\pm 2i\sqrt{3E^2}}{3}},`$
$`a_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2E\pm i\sqrt{3E^2}}{3}},`$
$`ıb_0`$ $`=`$ $`Ei\sqrt{3E^2},`$
$`|a|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5E^212\pm i4E\sqrt{3E^2}}{9}}.`$ (V.28)

As $`N\mathrm{}`$ the leading contributions are given by the value of the action at the saddle, and we find, for the first saddle point

$$S=0.$$

For the second saddle point, if $`E^2<4`$,

$$S=\frac{4E^2}{2}+4\mathrm{ln}(|E|/2)<0,$$

and, for the third saddle point, if $`E^23`$,

$$S=E^2/3\mathrm{ln}3\pm 2i(\varphi +\mathrm{sin}2\varphi ),\mathrm{}S<0,$$

where $`E/\sqrt{3}=\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, $`\sqrt{3E^2}/\sqrt{3}=\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$. Consequently, in the large $`N`$ limit, only the first saddle point contributes to the density of states, and gives the usual semi-circle law. Therefore our model as expected is in the class of universality of the semi-circle law as $`N\mathrm{}`$. The saddle points are degenerate and one should bound the difference between saddle point contribution and the correction corresponding to out-of-the-saddle part of the integral. This should be done e.g. like in .

## VI The diagonal quartic terms

In this section, the corrections due to the $``$ term are shown to be small as $`N\mathrm{}`$. As noticed in Section IV, the bosonic part of the quartic term $``$ has the wrong sign. For this reason before integrating over superfields it will be convenient to write a Taylor expansion with integral remainder successively for each of the $`N`$ sectors appearing in the sum for $``$:

$$=\underset{\alpha }{}_\alpha .$$

To first order the expansion gives

$$e^_\alpha =1_0^1_\alpha e^_\alpha e^{+t_\alpha }𝑑t.$$

This Taylor expansion either suppresses $`_\alpha `$ from the exponential of the action or generates a remainder term $`R_\alpha =_0^1_\alpha e^_\alpha e^{+t_\alpha }𝑑t`$. Let $`p(N)`$ be the integer part of $`N/\sqrt{\mathrm{log}N}`$. The expansion is stopped to the order $`p(N)=p`$. This gives:

$$e^{}=1+\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{P[1,\mathrm{},N]}{0<|P|p(N)}}{}R_P,$$

where

$$R_P=\underset{\alpha P}{}R_\alpha \mathrm{if}|P|<p(N),$$

$$R_P=\underset{\alpha P}{}R_\alpha \underset{\alpha >\mathrm{max}P}{}e^_\alpha \mathrm{if}|P|=p(N).$$
(VI.29)
Let $`Q`$ be the complement of $`P`$ in $`[1,\mathrm{},N]`$. The term $`1`$ was treated in the previous sections. The remainders terms $`R_P`$ must be shown to be $`O(1/N)`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$. Let $`R_{p(N)}=_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{P[1,\mathrm{},N]}{|P|=p(N)}}R_P`$ be considered first. For this term it is not necessary to perform any saddle point analysis and it is sufficient to return to the original expression given in (IV.4), hence to a functional integral over $`V`$. However some $`e^_\alpha `$-factors are missing or appear with reduced weights. To correct for this, all the $`e^_\alpha `$-terms are recombined with the $`𝒜`$-term to reproduce the initial functional integral (IV.4). However, there are quartic correction terms $`e^{t_\alpha }`$ or $`e^_\alpha `$. The important remark is that the bosonic part of these terms has now the right sign ! Therefore they can be represented as a well defined integral over a new auxiliary field $`W_\alpha `$. For instance

$$e^{2tS_\alpha ^+S_\alpha S_\alpha ^+S_\alpha }=e^{2t|S_\alpha S_\alpha |^2}=𝑑W_\alpha 𝑑\overline{W}_\alpha e^{|W_\alpha |^2}e^{ı\sqrt{2t}W_\alpha S_\alpha \overline{S}_\alpha +cc}.$$

With slightly condensed notations, this leads to

$$R_{p(N)}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{P[1,\mathrm{},N]}{|P|=p(N)}}{}S^+S\left(\underset{\alpha P}{}_0^1_\alpha 𝑑t\right)e^{i\mathrm{\Psi }^+(EV+\sqrt{2t}W)\mathrm{\Psi }}𝑑\mathrm{\Psi }^+𝑑\mathrm{\Psi }𝑑\mu (V,W).$$

Then a complex translation $`V_0V_0\pm ı\lambda ^1`$ is performed, with the same sign as the imaginary part of $`E`$ in order to avoid crossing of singularities. In other words

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}e^{V_0^2}F(V_0)𝑑V_0=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}e^{V_0^2}e^{2i\lambda ^1V_0^2}e^{\lambda ^2}F(V_0+i\lambda ^1)𝑑V_0.$$

The functional integral can now be bounded by its absolute values everywhere, namely the following contributions are bounded

\- by $`2^N`$, for the sum over $`P`$, that is the total number of subsets of $`[1,N]`$;

\- by $`1`$, for the integrals such as $`_0^1𝑑t`$;

\- by 1, for the oscillating imaginary integrals;

\- by Gram’s inequality for fermions or the Schwarz inequality for bosons, for the remainders terms $`_\alpha `$;

\- by 1, for every propagator since the imaginary translation in $`V_0`$ has created an imaginary part proportional to the identity in the denominator of the Green’s function.

This means that each $`_\alpha `$ term give rise to a small factor $`\lambda ^2=1/N`$ for each sector in $`P`$, hence a factor $`1/N^{p(N)}`$. The two source terms are bounded by 1. The normalization determinants are then easily bounded by $`c^N`$, even without using the supersymmetry cancellations, since the operators considered are bounded in a finite $`2N`$ dimensional space thanks to the imaginary part of $`E`$ which is no longer infinitesimal. Combining all factors leads to

$$R_{p(N)}c^Ne^{cN\sqrt{\mathrm{log}N}},$$

showing that this correction term is small indeed.

It remains to prove that the sum of the terms $`R_P`$ with $`1|P|p(N)`$ is small. Let $`p=|P|`$. To bound these terms a mean-field analysis will be performed (see Section IV & V) in terms of the $`a`$ and $`b`$ fields, but only for the sectors of the theory in the complement $`Q`$ of $`P`$. The functional integral to be bounded for a single term is (VI.29). Now, the $`e^_\alpha `$-terms are recombined only for $`\alpha P`$ with the $`𝒜`$ term to reproduce the initial functional integrals over the $`V`$ fields and the terms $`e^{t_\alpha }`$, also for $`\alpha P`$, are again given by defined integrals over new auxiliary fields $`W_\alpha `$. Finally, the quartic terms, with sector sums reduced to $`Q`$, are treated exactly as in the previous section, hence a mean-fields $`a,a_0,b_0`$ are correspondingly introduced. This leads to a representation

$$R_P=𝑑V_{P,P}𝑑V_{P,Q}d^2a𝑑V_0𝑑a_0𝑑b_0\underset{\alpha P}{}R_\alpha e^_Q,$$

where $`Q`$ is the complement of $`P`$ in $`[1,\mathrm{},N]`$. In addition, $`V_{P,P}`$ is the part of the matrix $`V`$ corresponding to rows and columns in $`P`$, including the new fields of the $`W`$ type. $`V_{P,Q}`$ correspond to one entry in $`P`$ and the other in $`Q`$, and the mean field computation is now retricted to $`Q`$. The integral over superfields gives rise again to a superdeterminant and an additional corrections, of the type

$$\mathrm{exp}[Tr\mathrm{log}(1+CV)],$$

where $`C=R^1`$ is the matrix for the $`Np`$ analogous problem, as in the previous Section IV (see eq. (IV.10)), and $`V=V_{PP}+V_{P,Q}`$ is the perturbation. This correction term is bounded by

$$|\mathrm{exp}[Tr\mathrm{log}(1+K)]|\mathrm{exp}(TrK+K^{}+KK^{}).$$

Evaluating $`C=R^1`$ at the saddle point costs a factor $`\mathrm{exp}(Np/2N)=e^{2p}`$ at most. Each term $`_\alpha `$ naively gives a factor $`\lambda ^2=1/(2N)`$ when evaluated, but this simply compensates the sum over $`\alpha `$ when $`p`$ is nonzero but small, so we have to gain an additional $`1/N`$ factor. Adding a few expansion steps gives such a small additional factor $`1/N`$ (already for the first non zero value $`p=1`$). This can be seen by integrating by parts the superfields in the vertex $`_\alpha `$ which has been taken down the exponential. By supersymmetry, the vaccum graph corresponding to a contraction of the four fields at the vertex vanishes. This is absolutely necessary since this graph by simple scaling is proportional $`1/N`$ and cannot have any additional $`1/N`$ factor. Its vanishing can be checked by hand:

\- the self-contractions of the bosonic piece $`2S_\alpha ^+S_\alpha S_\alpha ^+S_\alpha `$ give a factor +2;

\- the self-contractions of the boson-fermion piece

$$(\underset{\sigma }{}S_{\sigma \alpha }^+\chi _{\sigma \alpha }^+)(\underset{\sigma ^{}}{}S_{\sigma \alpha }\chi _{\sigma \alpha })$$

give a factor -2 (since there is one fermionic loop giving the minus sign and one sum over $`\sigma `$ giving a factor 2 only after the contractions);

\- the selfcontractions of the term $`\frac{1}{2}_\sigma (\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha }^+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma \alpha })^2`$ are clearly supersymmetric and also add up to 0.

Consequently, at least one field of the vertex $`_\alpha `$ has to contract to the exponential. Performing two contractions in turn, gives always at least a factor $`p/N^2`$ at the end instead of the naive $`1/N`$ factor. Indeed the worst case corresponds to the non trivial contraction term being of the type $`V_{PQ}`$. This generates a new factor $`1/N`$ but a new sum over $`\beta Q`$, which costs $`NpN`$ so nothing is gained yet. But contracting this $`\beta `$ field again either generates a diagonal term, hence a new $`1/N`$ factor, with no new sum, or returns to a $`V_{Q,P}`$ term. This last situation generates a new $`1/N`$ factor and a new sum over sectors $`\gamma `$ but this time this new sum is restricted to $`P`$, so it costs only a factor $`p`$ instead of $`N`$! Hence at worst, after these two contraction steps, a total factor $`p/N^2`$ instead of the naive factor $`1/N`$ is associated to each vertex, as announced. Now the sum over $`P`$ costs a total factor $`N!/p!(Np)!`$, hence is bounded by $`c^p[N/p]^p`$. Combining all factors, the sum of contributions of such terms with $`p0`$ is bounded by $`_{p=1}^+\mathrm{}[c/N]^pc^{}/N`$. It is therefore at least as small as $`1/N`$.

This technique could also apply to the term $`𝒞`$ in the formula (IV.6). Indeed its presence does not modify the large $`N`$ density of states. This remark might be used to simplify section 3. However it is quite natural to consider the diagonal part of $`V`$ on the same footing that the other mean field terms in the supermatrix $`R`$.

Acknowledgments We thank A. Abdesselam for discussions on this work. J. Bellissard also thanks H. Schulz-Baldes for discussions. He also thanks the Centre de Physique Théorique de l’École Polytechnique and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques for support during preparation of this work.


format: text

text:
# SHELL MODEL IN THE COMPLEX ENERGY PLANE AND TWO-PARTICLE RESONANCES

## I Introduction

The study of processes taken place in the continuum part of nuclear spectra is a difficult undertaking. This can be seen by the large number of methods that have been proposed to describe the continuum. Besides the Feshbach theory  and its many versions, there are many methods where the continuum is described by a finite set of positive energy states. These states are usually obtained by expanding the solutions of the nuclear Hamiltonian in a harmonic oscillator basis or by solving the eigenvalue problem with box boundary conditions. There have been also many variations of these procedures, e. g. by using a transformed harmonic oscillators basis  or harmonic oscillators with different frequencies . The common feature of these representations is that they are constrained to real energy solutions, as required by quantum mechanics. However, the widths corresponding to decay processes were evaluated by means of outgoing waves (and therefore complex energies) already by Gamow in his seminal paper on barrier penetration . The Gamow states provide a natural definition of resonant states .

Berggren , and shortly afterwards Romo , showed that the bound and Gamow states together with a set of complex scattering states form a representation which spanns the space of complex energies. In this representation the scalar product (the metric) is non-Hermitian and the norm of the Gamow states is defined by using a method introduced by Zel’dovich . Later on techniques based on the complex rotation of the radial distance have been also used to regularise the Gamow states and the matrix elements involving them .

Microscopical calculations based on a single-particle representation consisting of bound states, Gamow resonances and complex energy scattering states (Berggren representation) were proposed some years ago . This representation was recently expanded to study two-particle resonances . It may be surprising to see that it took such a long time for us (after the paper in Ref. ) to arrive to the two-particle representation. One of the reason of this delay is that only recently we have managed to find a method which allows one to isolate the physical two-particle resonant states from the continuous background, as it was schematically outlined in Ref. . The problem is that only a small fraction of the calculated states are physically relevant, since most of them (if not all) are either wide resonances or part of the non-resonant continuum. It is therefore important to be able to isolate the physically meaningful states from the rest of the spectrum. In this paper we will show how to achieve this. We will also show how two-particle resonances are built from the single-particle degrees of freedom determining the dynamics of the system. This is important since it is not clear how a two-particle resonance is formed. For instance, one may wonder to what extent such a state is built upon particles moving in resonant states as well as in non-resonant continuum states. Intuitevely one would say that for the physically relevant two-particle resonances one of the two particles is in a narrow Gamow state while the other moves in bound or quasi-bound states. Wide resonances and the non-resonant continuum would play only a minor role, as assumed in Refs. . We will show that this intuitive assumption is not always supported by proper calculations.

Actually the question of the importance of the non-resonant continuum in the calculations was usually skiped in relation to processes taken place in the continuum part of the spectrum, particularly regarding radioactive decay where measurable life times correspond to very narrow resonances. Therefore the calculation of the corresponding decay widths can be performed by using bound representations and the continuum itself can be totally ignored . This approximation, which was followed by nearly all available calculations of cluster decay (including alpha particles and recent calculations of proton decay ) has been very succesful in explaining experimental data . This may have contributed to the lack of interest in methods which considered the continuum explicitely. But with the development of experimental facilities one could measure partial decay widths of neutrons from giant resonances and the continuum had to be included explicitely in the formalism .

Even more important, the experimental discovery of halo nuclei triggered a very fruitful theoretical activity which showed that halos cannot be understood without taking into account wide resonances and other elements belonging to the continuum . All these elements are automatically included in the representation presented in this paper. The method, which is a generalization of the shell model to the complex energy plane, was briefly given in Ref.. We will present it in detail here clarifying what a two-particle resonance is. We will also provide an insigth on the influence of the continuum upon the formation of two-particle resonances.

The formalism is in Sect. 2. In Sect. 3 are the applications and a summary and conclusions are in Sect. 4.

## II Formalism

The Berggren (one-particle) representation to be used in this work has been described before in a number of situations, e. g. in Refs. . We will give here only a brief summary of the formalism.

The regular solutions of the Schrödinger equation with outgoing boundary conditions corresponding to a particle moving in a central potential provide the single-particle bound states and the so-called Gamow resonances. The study of this case led  to the introduction of expansions for the Green- and $`\delta `$-functions in terms of the poles of the Green-function plus an integral along a continuum path in the complex energy plane, i. e.

$$\delta (rr^{})=\underset{n}{}w_n(r)w_n(r^{})+_{L^+}𝑑Eu(r,E)u(r^{},E)$$
(1)
where we choose the integration path $`L^+`$ to lie in the fourth quadrant of the complex E-plane***This corresponds to the second, or so-called non-physical, Rieman sheet., as seen in Fig. 1. The summation runs over all bound states and poles of the Green function (Gamow resonances) enclosed by the real E-axis and the contour $`L^+`$. One can choose quite general forms for the contour, as can be seen in Ref. , but it has to go through the origin and finish at infinite on the real energy axis. However, as in any shell-model calculation, one cuts the energies at a certain maximum value, which in Fig. 1 corresponds to the point $`D(d,0)`$. The other points defining the contour in that figure are, besides the origin, $`A(a,0),B(b_1,b_2)`$ and $`C(c,0)`$.

In Eq. 1 the scattering functions on the contour are denoted by $`u(r,E)`$ while the wave functions of the bound single-particle states and the Gamow resonances are denoted by $`w_n(r)`$. These states have been indicated by open circles in Fig. 1.

An important feature in Eq. (1) is that the scalar product is defined as the integral of the wave function times itself, and not its complex conjugate. This is in agreement with the Hilbert metric on the real energy since for bound states or for scattering states on the real E-axis one can choose the phases such that the wave functions are real quantities. The prolongation of the integrand to the complex energy plane allows one to use the same form for the scalar product everywhere. This metric (Berggren metric) produces complex probabilities, as has been discussed in detail in e. g. Refs. . Here it is worthwhile to point out that for narrow resonances such probabilities become virtually real quantities.

The integral in Eq.(1) can be discretized such that

$$_{L^+}𝑑Eu(r,E)u(r^{},E)=\underset{p}{}h_pu(r,E_p)u(r^{},E_p)$$
(2)
where $`E_p`$ and $`h_p`$ are defined by the procedure one uses to perform the integration. In the Gaussian method $`E_p`$ are the Gaussian points and $`h_p`$ the corresponding weights. Therefore the orthonormal (in the Berggren metric) basis vectors $`|\phi _j`$ are given by the set of bound and Gamow states, i . e. $`r|\phi _n=\{w_n(r,E_n)\}`$ and the discretized scattering states, i. e. $`r|\phi _p=\{\sqrt{h_p}u(r,E_p)\}`$. This defines the Berggren representation.

By using the Berggren representation one readily gets the two-particle shell-model equations, i. e.,

$$(\omega _\alpha ϵ_iϵ_j)X(ij;\alpha )=\underset{kl}{}<\stackrel{~}{kl};\alpha |V|ij;\alpha >X(kl;\alpha )$$
(3)
where $`\alpha `$ labels two-particle states and $`i,j,k,l`$ label single-particle states. Tilde denotes mirror states  and the rest of the notation is standard.

As usual, the two-particle wavefunction is,

$$|\alpha >=\underset{ij}{}X(ij;\alpha )(c_i^+c_j^+)_\alpha |0>$$
(4)
where

$$X(ij;\alpha )=<\alpha |(c_i^+c_j^+)_\alpha |0>/(1+\delta _{ij})^{1/2}$$
(5)
The discretization of the contour in Fig. 1 produces a series of points in the one-particle energy plane, as shown in Fig. 2. Each point in this figure represents a state of our one-particle Berggren representation. Therefore the energy of the two-particle basis vector $`(c_i^+c_j^+)_\alpha |0>`$, i. e. $`ϵ_i+ϵ_j`$, is the sum of the point $`i`$ in Fig. 2 with the point $`j`$. Allowing the indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ to run over all the one-particle basis states, ordered such that $`ij`$, one obtains the energies of the two-particle basis states (zeroth order energy) in the corresponding (two-particle) complex energy plane as shown in Fig. 3. One sees in this figure that the whole complex energy plane of interest is covered by zeroth order solutions and, therefore, it would be difficult in this plane to find the physical two-particle states. This problem becomes more acute as the number of elements in the basis increases, that is as the number of points in Fig. 2 becomes larger, because the two-particle physical states would then be embeded in a dense number of states belonging to the continuum.

A way to avoid this problem is to choose a one-particle contour which leaves a physically relevant two-particle complex energy region free of zeroth order states. There are many possible contours that satisfies this condition. In Fig. 4 we show one of such contours and the corresponding Gamow resonances enclosed by it. Since the bound states have to be considered in any case, irrespective of the contour, we do not include them in the discussion here.

The contour has a rectangular form defined by the points $`P_0(0,0),P_1(a,0),P_2(a,c),P_3(b,c),P_4(b,0)`$ and $`P_5(d,0)`$. As mentioned above, the number $`d`$ should be infinite. However, if one chooses $`d`$ large enough its value does not influence significantly the calculated quantities of interest. In the cases to be studied in the next Section we will choose $`d`$ fulfilling such a condition. It is also worthwhile to mention that, due to the Gaussian integration method, the point $`(0,0)`$ will not belong to the Berggren representation. The lowest energy on the contour corresponds to the first Gaussian point, i. e. $`(E_1,0)`$.

By summing orderly the points of this figure with themselves one obtains the two-particle states shown in Fig. 5. One can see that if $`2a<b`$ then there is a region in the two-particle complex energy plane which is practically free from any uncorrelated solution. Choosing the real energies $`a`$ and $`b`$ in Fig. 4 conveniently one can study two-particle resonances lying in any reasonable energy region. We will call this the ”allowed” energy region. In Fig. 5 all possible two-particle energy points have been drawn. The allowed region occupies a rather small portion of the figure and therefore it appears somehow diffuse among all the points. For clarity of presentation we show in Fig. 6 the allowed region and its neighborhood only.

The allowed region can be determined by fulfilling some physically meaningful requirements. That is, the correlated states of interest are those which live a time long enough before decaying. One would thus be able to observe them directly or through effects that they induce, for instance through the formation of halos. As we will show below, such states are built mainly by Gamow resonances. Therefore the contour in Fig. 4 should be chosen in such way as to enclose those resonances. Moreover, the values of $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ should produce an allowed region where the calculated two-particle states may lie. Since the two-body interaction is attractive one expects that the correlated low energy resonances would lie below their zeroth order positions in Fig. 6. Therefore the value of $`2a`$ should be as small as possible while $`b`$ should be large, which are just the conditions needed to obtain the allowed region.

Once the Berggren single-particle representation has been chosen, the two-particle representation is built as in the standard shell model, i. e. as the tensorial product of the one-particle representation with itself. This defines the two-particle space. In this space there are in zeroth order two-particle configurations containing Gamow resonances only, which in Fig. 6 are indicated by open circles. Besides these, one sees that inside the allowed region there are also configurations, indicated by dots, corresponding to one particle moving in a Gamow resonance and the other in continuum states. These configurations can be seen more clearly in Fig. 5, where the dots form two recognizable rectangles. Each rectangle corresponds to the geometrical sum of a Gamow resonance, represented by an open circle in Fig. 4, and the scattering functions on the contour, represented by the crosses in that Figure. In addition to the two-particle states involving Gamow resonances there are also configurations, denoted by croses in Figure 5, in which both particles are in single-particle scattering states.

One expects that physically relevant resonances are mostly determined by two-particle configurations in which both particles are in either bound or Gamow states. Since these states are the ones expected from the standard shell model, we will call them ”resonant shell model” states.

In the applications shown in this article the central field determining the single-particle basis will be of a Woods-Saxon type with a spin-orbit term as in Ref. . The corresponding bound and Gamow functions as well as the scattering states will be evaluated by using the computer codes described in Refs. .

As a two-body interaction we will use a separable two-body force given by the derivative of the Wood-Saxon potential. This effective interaction has shown to be satisfactory to describe processes in the continuum, e. g. neutron decay from giant resonances . However, our purpose here is not to explain in detail physical processes in the continuum, but rather to understand the role played by the various ingredients entering into the calculations. The great feature of the separable force is that it does not require the diagonalization of matrices. This is important in our case since the dimension of the two-particle basis may be very large and we want to evaluate all states in order to examine the distribution of the energies of the resonant shell model and scattering states discussed above.

Our effective interaction matrix element then is ,

$$<\stackrel{~}{kl};\alpha |V|ij;\alpha >=G_\alpha f_\alpha (kl)f_\alpha (ij)$$
(7)
where

$`f_\alpha (pq)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1)^{l_p+l_q\lambda _\alpha }}{2\sqrt{4\pi }}}(1)^{j_q+1/2}\widehat{\lambda }_\alpha \widehat{j}_p\widehat{j}_q<j_p1/2\lambda _\alpha 0|j_q1/2>`$ (9)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dr\phi _p(r)(rU(r)/r)\phi _q(r)`$
and $`U(r)`$ is the volume part of the Woods-Saxon potential defining the central field. The rest of the notation is standard.

From Eqs. (3) and (7) one obtains the dispersion relation,

$$\frac{1}{G_\alpha }=\underset{ij}{}\frac{f_\alpha ^2(ij)}{\omega _\alpha ϵ_iϵ_j}$$
(10)
which allows one to evaluate the correlated energies $`\omega _\alpha `$.

Note that in Eq. (9) the angular part of the matrix element was evaluated according to the Hilbert metric, while in the radial part the Berggren metric is used. Note also that in Eq. (10) the square of the matrix element appears, and not the square of its absolute value.

In the case of a separable force the amplitude of the wave function can be written as

$$X(ij;\alpha )=N_\alpha \frac{f_\alpha (ij)}{\omega _\alpha ϵ_iϵ_j}$$
(11)
where $`N_\alpha `$ can be determined by the normalization condition, i. e.

$$N_\alpha ^2=\underset{ij}{}(\frac{f_\alpha (ij)}{\omega _\alpha ϵ_iϵ_j})^2$$
(12)
We will determine the strength of the separable force, i. e. $`G_\alpha `$, by using the usual procedure of fitting the energy of a two-particle state $`\alpha `$. However, in the drip lines nuclei which we will analyse there is not any experimental data yet and, therefore, we will assume that such state lies at a certain reasonable energy. We will also vary the value of $`G_\alpha `$ thus obtained within a reasonable range in order to study the influence of the two-body interaction upon the calculated states.

## III Applications

We will apply the formalism discussed above for two cases, one corresponding to a nucleus close to the neutron drip line and the other close to the proton drip line. In both nuclei we will analyse two-particle states with angular momentum $`\lambda =0`$. All partial waves with $`l10`$ will be included to evaluate the scattering states in the Berggren representation.

### A Two-neutron resonances

In this section we will present calculations for two-neutron states in the double closed shell nucleus 78Ni. The Woods-Saxon parameters are indicated in Table I and the corresponding single-particle energies are in Table II. These single-particle states are quite similar to the ones given by a Skyrme-HF calculations .

As seen in Table II, the shell $`N=50`$ is well defined, since there is a gap of about 3.6 MeV between the lowest particle state, which here is $`1d_{5/2}`$, and the highest hole state, i. e. $`0g_{9/2}`$.

We will also evaluate a case where no bound single-particle states are present. For this, we reduced the value of the depth of the Wodds-Saxon potential to $`V_0=37MeV`$. The corresponding single particle energies are also given in Table II. Note that even in this case the shell $`N=50`$ is rather well defined.

#### 1 The Fermi level is bound

We will first analyse the case where there are bound single-particle states, i. e. the case $`WS1`$ in Table II.

Already from the start one faces the problem of determining which single-particle states are to be included. In a standard shell-model calculation one would include the states corresponding to a major shell only plus possibly an intruder state. In our case that would be the shell $`N`$=4 and the intruder state $`0h_{11/2}`$. However we have now the imaginary part of the energy to be taken into account. This may produce states with relatively small real parts of the energies but very large (in absolute value) imaginary parts. Such states would induce very wide two-particle resonances and their inclusion would imply the use of contours embracing large portions of the complex energy plane which one would not expect to influence the narrow two-particle resonances of interest. We therefore decided to include all single-particle states up to a real energy of 6 MeV and imaginary parts down to -4 MeV. This correspond to all states shown in Table II.

As mentioned above, to determine the strength of the separable force we will follow the standard procedure of adjusting $`G_\alpha `$ by fitting the energy of a two-particle state, which usually is experimentally known. In our case we will assume that such state, which would be the ground state of 80Ni, exists below twice the energy of the lowest single particle state, i. e. below 2$`ϵ_{1d_{5/2}}`$. This energy gap, i. e. the correlation energy, is more than 1 MeV in well established normal nuclei, like 208Pb (where it is 1.244 MeV) and 56Ni (1.936 MeV). However in our case the bound states are so few and so slightly bound that such high energy gaps do not seem to be reasonable. Since there is not any experimental data which could guide us, and since our intention is just to see how the strength of the force affects the results, we will vary $`G_\alpha `$ from zero to a maximum value corresponding to a gap of 2.527 MeV, i. e. for a 80Ni(gs) energy of -4.183 MeV. The value of the strength corresponding to the Berggren basis described below is $`G_\alpha `$= 0.0028 MeV.

In the calculations to be presented here we used a rectangular contour with the vertices as in Fig. 4 with a=0.5 MeV, b=9 MeV, c=-4 MeV and d=20 MeV. We thus include in the Berggren basis all the Gamow states shown in Table II plus the bound states $`1d_{5/2}`$ and $`2s_{1/2}`$. With this contour the allowed region comprises the two-particle energy plane with complex energies $`(E_r,E_i)`$ such that $`1MeV<E_r<9MeV`$ and $`4MeV<E_i<0MeV`$.

As already mentioned above, we will use a Gaussian method of integration over the contour. We found that in order to obtain convergence within six digits in the evaluated quantities, one has to include 10 Gaussian points for each MeV on the lines of the contour in Fig. 4, except for the last segment (the one going from (b,0) to (d,0)) where 5 points for each MeV is enough. We arrive to this conclusion by always choosing the contour such that the resonances lie at least 300 keV from the borders of the contour. The number of scattering states thus included in the basis is $`n_g`$=225. The convergence of the results as a function of $`n_g`$ as well as the influence of the continuum upon the calculated states will be given below.

One can check the reliability of the results by performing a calculation over the real energy axis only. The real (bound) energies thus obtained, which are the standard shell-model results and therefore can be called ”exact”, should coincide with those evaluated by using any contour. Moreover, when evaluating the strength of the force by given a real energy $`\omega _\alpha `$ in Eq. (10) the value of $`G_\alpha `$ thus obtained should, independently of the contour that one uses, be a real quantity. All these requirements are fulfilled in our calculations. This is important since it is a strong test of the reliability of our computing codes as well as a confirmation of the validity of the formalism.

In Fig. 7 we show the energies evaluated by using different values of the strength $`G_\alpha `$. The energies follow the pattern discussed in the previous Section. One can thus identify the distinctive straight lines corresponding to scattering configurations. For all G-values these lines appear practically in the same position. One can also see that the two-particle resonances can readily be distinguished from the scattering states by just looking at the figure. This is possible due to the presence of an allowed region which only contains the physical states.

In the figure the physical states are labelled by their zeroth order configurations. One sees that as the interaction increases the real part of the energies behave in a standard shell-model fashion. Thus, the states with largest degeneracy feels the interaction the most. Moreover, the ground state departs from the rest of the spectrum more and more as the interaction increases, also in agreement with expectations. Guided by these well established facts one may assume that narrow configurations, which due to the centrifugal barrier are usually the ones with highest degeneracy, would follow a similar pattern. That is, they would be dominant in buiding up the physical (narrow) two-particle resonances, as it was assumed in Refs. . But Fig. 7 shows just the opposite. As the interaction increases all resonances become narrower, except the one corresponding to the configuration $`(0h_{11/2})^2`$, which becomes wider. This unexpected feature is a consequence of the Berggren metric, i. e. of the non-Hermitian character of the Hamiltonian matrix in the complex energy sector. Similar properties, like violations of the non-crossing of levels rule, were found in the one-particle case .

The behaviour of the physical resonances in Fig. 7 is rather involved. Thus the states labelled $`(1d_{3/2})^2`$ become first narrower as the interaction increases but at a certain point, for $`G_\alpha `$ = 0.002 MeV in the figure, this tendency is reversed. At the same time the increase of -$`Im(E)`$ desaccelerates around the same value of $`G_\alpha `$ for the states $`(0h_{11/2})^2`$.

To understand the behaviour of the states $`(0h_{11/2})^2`$ we give in Table III the main components of the corresponding wave functions. A feature to be noticed is that in no case are bound configurations relevant. As the interaction increases wide configurations become more and more important. This explains why the state becomes wider. However, the bound configuration $`(1d_{5/2})^2`$ start to become relevant at a large enough value of $`G_\alpha `$. Thus at $`G_\alpha `$ = 0.002 MeV that configuration contributes with a value of 0.14 to the wave function. This becomes more important as $`G_\alpha `$ becomes larger, thus desaccelerating the increase of the widths.

On the other hand, the wave functions of the states $`(1d_{3/2})^2`$ presented in Table IV show that narrow configurations (more exactly, configurations narrower than the zeroth order one, which here is $`(1d_{3/2})^2`$) contribute substantially to the structure of the state as the interaction increases, particularly the narrow states $`(0h_{11/2})^2`$ and $`(0g_{7/2})^2`$ and the bound configuration $`(1d_{5/2})^2`$. This explains why the states $`(1d_{3/2})^2`$ becomes narrower as a function of $`G_\alpha `$. But as $`G_\alpha `$ increases scattering configurations become important and, as a result, the states become wider. An interesting feature in this contex is the sudden appearence of a large contribution (of a value (0.42,0.18)) from a scattering configuration at $`G_\alpha `$ = 0.0024 MeV. This corresponds to the configuration $`|C>=|0d_{3/2}c_{3/2}>`$, where $`c_{3/2}`$ is the scattering function at (0.385,0) MeV. This is a Gaussian point on the first border of the contour. The energy of the configuration $`|C>`$ is (in MeV) (1.325,-0.479) \+ (0.385,0) = (1.710,-0.479), which is very close to the energy of the resonance, i. e. (1.665,-0.447). This can even be inferred from Fig. 7 where the down open triangle for the case $`(1d_{3/2})^2`$ being discussed here practically overlaps with our continuum configuration $`|C>`$. Therefore, according to Eq. (11), the corresponding wave function component is large.

The unexpected behaviour of the resonances discussed above is representative for all the others in Fig. 7, while the bound states behave in a standard shell-model fashion. It is perhaps surprising that the first excited bound states (labelled $`(2s_{1/2})^2`$ in the figure) do not show any remarkable sensitivity to scattering states, although they lie close to the continuum threshold. Indeed, the wave functions corresponding to these states consist mainly of the configurations $`(1d_{5/2})^2`$ and $`(2s_{1/2})^2`$ for all values of $`G_\alpha `$.

One important feature of the calculation is that the energies corresponding to physical states converge to their exact values relatively fast as a function of the dimension of the basis. This we show for the states $`(1d_{3/2})^2`$ and $`(0h_{11/2})^2`$ in Tables V and VI respectively. To assess whether the strength of the interaction affects the convergence we have chosen different values of $`G_\alpha `$. We thus see that indeed the energy corresponding to $`G_\alpha `$ = 0.0004 MeV, which is the smallest G-value shown in those Tables, coincides within a few keV with the exact result already for $`n_g`$ = 0. But as $`G_\alpha `$ is increased that agreement deteriorates. Particularly inadequate are the energies evaluated by using $`n_g`$ = 0 for the states $`(0h_{11/2})^2`$ and $`G_\alpha `$ 0.0020 MeV. Not only are the real parts of those energies wrong by an ammount ranging from 1.2 Mev (for $`G_\alpha `$= 0.0020 MeV) to almost 2 MeV, but also the imaginary parts are large and positive, which does not make sense since it would correspond, e. g., to negative widths. This last feature does not appear for the states $`(1d_{3/2})^2`$.

One can understand the deterioration of the resonant shell model results (i .e. of neglecting the continuum by using $`n_g`$ =0) as the strength increases by noticing that it is trough the interaction that continuum configurations become relevant in the calculation. This also explains why the results corresponding to $`n_g`$ = 0 for the states $`(1d_{3/2})^2`$ are generally better than those corresponding to $`(0h_{11/2})^2`$ since here the interaction is stronger (due to the degeneracy) for a given value of $`G_\alpha `$. But already with $`n_g`$ = 10 the agreement between the exact results and the approximated ones is reasonable in all these cases of physical states. Moreover, for $`n_g`$ = 100 the exact results are reproduced within 6 digits. This convergence is better than the one required to achieve a similar agreement in general, for which one needs the value $`n_g`$ = 225 used in our calculations, as mentioned above.

Finally it is worthwhile to point out that the presence of scattering states lying nearby physical states do not affect the convergence, as seen in e. g. Table V for the state $`(1d_{3/2})^2`$ with $`G_\alpha `$ = 0.0024 MeV (cf. Figure 7).

#### 2 The Fermi level is unbound

In this subsection we will analyse the case where there is not any bound single-particle states, i. e. the case $`WS2`$ in Table II.

Actually there is not any essential difference between this case and the previous one since within this formalism all states (including the continuum states) are treated on the same footing, indepedently of the location of the Fermi level.

The single-particle resonances are wider than before and therefore we used here a different one-particle contour, namely a=0.1 MeV, b=13 MeV, c=-6 MeV and d= 26 MeV.

We present in Fig. 8 the evaluated states as a function of the strength $`G_\alpha `$, which we allowed to vary within the same range as in the previous case. The straight lines discussed above appear also in this case with the same characteristics as before.

Even the physical resonances present the same features as in the previous subsection. In particular, the states labelled $`(0h_{11/2})^2`$ interacts strongly with all the others thereby becoming wider while all the other states become narrower.

However there is a new important feature in this case, namely the development of a bound state which is induced by the two-particle interaction, as shown by the states $`(1d_{5/2})^2`$. To analyse the reason of this behaviour we present in Table VII the main components of the corresponding wavefunctions. As expected, one sees that when the interaction is weak the state is built practically by the configuration $`(1d_{5/2})^2`$ only. As $`G_\alpha `$ increases the two-particle resonance approaches the continuum threshold and scattering states contribute substantially to the wave function. Thus, the state under the column labelled $`scat`$ corresponding to $`G_\alpha `$ = 0.0012 MeV is $`1d_{5/2}c_{5/2}`$, where $`c_{5/2}`$ is a scattering d-wave at energy (0.089,0) MeV. At $`G_\alpha `$ = 0.0020 MeV the resonance approaches threshold even more and here the continuum itself becomes important. Indeed, the large contribution under the column $`scat`$ corresponds now to the configuration $`c_{1/2}c_{1/2}`$, where $`c_{1/2}`$ is a scattering s-wave with an energy (0.011,0) MeV, itself very close to threshold. As the interaction increases even more the state becomes bound and at $`G_\alpha `$ = 0.0028 MeV the scattering states cease to be important. But the interaction is here strong enough to mix up all the shell model configurations, showing the importance of Gamow resonances in inducing bound states in nuclei that lie far from the line of $`\beta `$ stability.

### B Two-proton resonances.

Proton resonances are usually narrower than the corresponding neutron ones due to the Coulomb barrier. It is therefore often in this case that one study many-body systems including only the narrow Gamow resonances. In this section we analyse this approximation for the case of two protons outside the 100Sn core. The single-particle proton states correspond to the major shell N=4, which is the same as in the previous subsections. The core mean field is described by a Wood-Saxon potential with the parameters given in Table I. These parameters were adjusted to obtain the single-particle states shown in Table VIII, which agree with systematics in this region. Notice that none of these single-particle states is bound.

As in the neutron case analysed above we include in our single-particle representation even states which belong to higher shells, namely the states $`1f_{7/2}`$ and $`0i_{13/2}`$, because they are relatively narrow. We include these high lying shells in order to assess whether they can be neglected, as one does within the standard shell model.

We chose even here the rectangular contour of Fig. 4 with vertices defined by the values $`a`$ = 0.1 MeV, $`b`$ = 19 MeV, $`c`$ = -1 MeV and $`d`$ = 26 MeV. This contour encloses all the Gamow resonances of Table VIII. Choosing the Gaussian points as indicated above in order to obtain a precision of six digits, the number of scattering states for each partial wave turns out to be $`n_g`$ = 298.

With the single-particle (Berggren) representation thus established we calculated the complex two-particle energies by solving the dispersion relation (10). The corresponding wave functions were evaluated by using Eq. (11).

We used in our calculations of the two-proton states, which would be resonances in 102Te, values of the strength $`G_\alpha `$ in a range similar to that in the neutron cases analysed in the previous subsections. The results of the calculation are shown in Fig. 9. The general trends in this figure are similar to the ones already found for the two-neutron cases.

One notices that even in this case where all resonances are very narrow, the narrowest resonance in zeroth order becomes wider as the interaction increases while all the other become narrower. This is specially remarkable for the state that at zeroth order is $`(2s_{1/2})^2`$, since one does not expect that a state with such low degeneracy would be important to build up low lying resonances. To analyse these states we present in Table IX the corresponding wave function amplitudes for values of the strength $`G_\alpha `$ used in Fig. 9. As expected according to what we found for the neutron cases above, the reason why these states become narrower is that narrow configurations play an important role as the interaction increases. However this trend is not as specific as before, when just the narrowest neutron configuration (which was $`(0h_{11/2})^2`$) contributed most to the narrowing wave function. The equivalent shell is now $`(0g_{7/2})^2`$, which first (at low values of $`G_\alpha `$) is important but then decreases as the strength increases. Perhaps even more amazing is the behaviour of the shell $`(1d_{3/2})^2`$ which first increase in importance but suddenly, starting at $`G_\alpha `$ = 0.0010 MeV, decrease again. These features indicate again that the behaviour of the wave functions in the Berggren space can follow patterns which are unusual from a standard shell model viewpoint. The only configuration in Table IX which increases continuously in absolute value as $`G_\alpha `$ increases is $`(1d_{5/2})^2`$, which is also very narrow and may explain why these two-proton resonances become narrower.

The other notable states in Fig. 9 are those labelled $`(1d_{5/2})^2`$, which are very narrow for all values of $`G_\alpha `$ and which rapidly decrease in energy as $`G_\alpha `$ increases, as expected for a pairing (ground) excitation. Eventually the state becomes bound for a value of the strength large enough, which in the figure is between 0.0014 MeV and 0.0016 MeV. To study the changing structure of these pairing states we show in Table X the corresponding amplitudes as a function of $`G_\alpha `$. As expected from truly pairing vibrations , the number of equally important configurations increases with the strength of the pairing force. Moreover the real parts of the wave function components (which actually are virtually real numbers) carry the phase $`(1)^l`$, where $`l`$ is the orbital angular momentum of the corresponding single-particle states. In this subject of pairing vibrations the results of the method presented here and those of the standard shell-model coincide.

In this case of very narrow Gamow resonances one notices that in the two-particle wave functions the scattering states do not seem to play an important role (cf. Table IV). To analyse this point we present in Table XI the dependence of the calculated energies, also for the states labelled $`(1d_{5/2})^2`$ in Fig. 9, upon the number of scattering states $`n_g`$ included in the Berggren basis. The general features of the results in this Table do not differ much from those found in Tables V and VI. That is, for small values of the strength $`G_\alpha `$ the evaluated energies reach fast its exact value as $`n_g`$ increases. But this convergence wanes as $`G_\alpha `$ increases. Thus the energy evaluated by neglecting the scattering states agrees with the exact results within a few keV for $`G_\alpha `$ = 0.0002 MeV but disagrees strongly for $`G_\alpha `$ = 0.0016 MeV.

It is interesting to see whether the corresponding wave functions converge as badly as the energies do for large values of the strength. This we show in Table XII, where we use the extreme case $`G_\alpha `$ = 0.0016 MeV. Perhaps surprisingly, one sees that the main components of the wave functions evaluated for $`n_g`$ = 0 agrees within a few percent with the exact ones. This shows that the use of only narrow Gamow resonances, neglecting the continuum, as was done in Ref. , may be appropriate to evaluate wave functions although the energies thus obtained are inadequate.

## IV Summary and conclusions

In this paper we have presented a formalism to evaluate microscopically two-particle resonances within the Berggren representation. This consists of bound states, Gamow resonances and an infinite (continuous) set of complex scattering states lying on a contour in the complex one-particle energy plane. The Gamow states included in the representation are those enclosed by the contour. The scattering states appear as an integral over the contour. We discretized this integral by using a Gaussian integration procedure. Therefore the infinte set of scattering states becomes reduced to the finite value $`n_g`$ of Gaussian points. Using this finite Berggren basis we constructed the two-particle basis set of states as the tensorial product of the one-particle basis with itself, as in standard shell model calculations. We have shown that using an arbitrary contour one may get a two-particle basis with energies covering the whole two-particle complex energy plane of interest. This would hinder the evaluation of two-particle states since they would be embedded in a continuos set of basis states. To avoid this drawback we have shown that there exists a contour that leaves a region in the two-particle complex energy plane free of basis states. It is just in this region where the physically relevant resonances lie. Using that contour we have evaluated all two-particle resonances with a precision of six digits by choosing $`n_g`$ with values between 150 and 300, depending upon the case under study. But we have found that with $`n_g10`$ one obtains a precision of a few keV for the energies of the relevant resonances, while the corresponding wave functions are provided within a precision of a few percent by neglecting the scattering states altogether, i. e. with $`n_g`$ = 0.

We have applied the formalism to study neutron excitations in 78Ni and proton ones in 100Sn. The single-particle states were provided by a Woods-Saxon potential and we chose a separable force as the two-particle effective interaction.

For the neutron case we analysed a case where the Fermi level was bound and another one where it lied in the continuum. In both cases wide resonances were included in the basis. For the proton case the Fermi level also lied in the continuum but here all Gamow resonances were narrow. We have shown that the position of the Fermi level is irrelevant, since all basis states are treated on the same footing.

We have shown that the states which in zeroth order consist of configurations containing scattering states feel the interaction very weakly. Instead, the physical states consist mainly of configurations containing only bound states and Gamow resonances. These configurations are the ones expected from the shell model. Even in cases where no bound configurations are present, the two-body interaction may induce narrow resonances and bound two-particle states. We found that the narrowest of those configurations in zeroth order become wider as the interaction increases. At the same time, all the other states become narrower. This unexpected result, which is induced by the Berggren metric, shows that physically relevant resonances, i. e. narrow ones, may be strongly influenced by states lying deep in the continuum. Although the wave functions of the physical two-particle resonances are mainly built upon shell model configurations, the corresponding energies are strongly influenced by scattering states.

Finally, it is important to point out that the application of the method presented here shows that it is a natural generalization of the shell model to the complex energy plane.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported by FOMEC (Argentina), by the Hungarian OTKA fund Nos. T26244, T37991 and T29003, by the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT) and by the Swedish Institute.