text:
# Phase transitions and critical points in the rare-earth region

## I Introduction

Recently, a renewed interest in the study of quantum phase transitions in atomic nuclei has emerged Rowe98 ; Iach98 ; Cast99 ; Joli99 . A new class of symmetries that applies to systems localized at the critical points has been proposed. In particular, the “critical symmetry” $`E(5)`$ Iach00  has been suggested to describe critical points in the phase transition from spherical to $`\gamma `$-unstable shapes while $`X(5)`$ Iach01  is designed to describe systems lying at the critical point in the transition from spherical to axially deformed systems. These are based originally on particular solutions of the Bohr-Mottelson differential equations, but are usually applied in the context of the Interacting Boson Model (IBM) Iach87 , since the latter provides a simple but detailed framework in which first and second order phase transitions can be studied. In the IBM language, the symmetry $`E(5)`$ corresponds to the critical point between the $`U(5)`$ and $`O(6)`$ symmetry limits, while the $`X(5)`$ symmetry should describe the phase transition region between the $`U(5)`$ and the $`SU(3)`$ dynamical symmetries, although the connection is not a rigorous one. Very recently the $`O(6)`$ limit itself has also been proposed to correspond to a critical point Joli01 .

Usually, the IBM analyses of phase transitions have been carried out using schematic Hamiltonians in which the transition from one phase to the other is governed by a single parameter. It is thus necessary to see how much these predictions vary when a more general Hamiltonian is used. The global approach was first used by Castaños et al for the study of series of isotopes Cast82 ; Fran89 ; Gome95 . An alternative procedure is provided by the use of the consistent Q formalism (CQF) Warn82 . In this case, although the Hamiltonian is simpler than the general one, the main ingredients are included. Within this scheme a whole isotope chain is described in terms of few parameters that change smoothly from one isotope to the next. Because of the possible non-uniqueness of such nucleus by nucleus fits and the restricted parameter space, it is important to study under what circumstances the prediction of the location of critical points in a phase transition is robust. In this paper we follow Refs. Cast82 ; Fran89 ; Gome95 ; Lope96 ; Lope98  and use a more general one– and two–body IBM Hamiltonian to obtain the model parameters from a fit to energy levels of chains of isotopes. In this way a set of fixed parameters, with the exception of one that varies from isotope to isotope, is obtained for each isotope chain and the transition phase can be studied in the general model space. The fit to a large data set in many nuclei diminishes the uncertainties in the parameter determination. A possible problem arising from working with such a general Hamiltonian, however, is the difficulty in determining the position of the critical points. Fortunately, the methods of catastrophe theory Gilm81  allow the definition of the essential parameters needed to classify the shape and stability of the energy surface Lope96 ; Lope98 .

In this paper we analyze diverse spectroscopic properties of several isotope chains in the rare-earth region, in which shape transition from spherical to deformed shapes is observed. We combine this study with a coherent-state analysis and with catastrophe theory in order to localize the critical points and test the $`X(5)`$ predictions. Since the introduction of the $`E(5)`$ and $`X(5)`$ symmetries, only a small number of candidates Zamf99 ; Cast00 ; Klug00 ; Cast01 ; Fran01 ; Zamf02 ; Bizz02 ; Kruc02  have been proposed as possible realizations of such critical point symmetries. In this paper we show that the critical points can be clearly identified by means of a general theoretical approach Lope96 ; Lope98 .

The paper is structured as follows. In section II we present the IBM Hamiltonian used. In section III the results of the fits made for the different isotope chains are presented. Comparisons of the theoretical results with the experimental data for excitation energies, E2 transition rates and two-neutron separation energies are shown. In section IV the intrinsic state formalism is used to generate the energy surfaces produced by the parameters obtained in the preceding section. In addition, the location of the critical point in the shape transition for each isotope chain is identified by using catastrophe theory. Also in this section, the alternative description provided by the CQF for the rare-earth region is briefly discussed. Finally, section V is devoted to summarize and to present our conclusions.

## II IBM description

In this work we use the interacting boson model (IBM) to study in a systematic way the properties of the low-lying nuclear collective states in several even–even isotope chains in the rare-earth region. The building blocks of the model are bosons with angular momentum $`L=0`$ ($`s`$ bosons) and $`L=2`$ ($`d`$ bosons). The dynamical algebra of the model is $`U(6)`$. Therefore, every dynamical operator, such as the Hamiltonian or the transition operators, can be written in terms of the generators of the latter algebra. Usually some restrictions are imposed on these operators, e.g. the Hamiltonian should be number conserving and rotational invariant, and in most cases it only includes up to two-body terms.

The most general (including up to two–body terms) IBM Hamiltonian, using the multipolar form, can be written as

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}\widehat{N}+\stackrel{~}{}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{N}(\widehat{N}1)}{2}}+\epsilon _d\widehat{n}_d+\kappa _0\widehat{P}^{}\widehat{P}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`\kappa _1\widehat{L}\widehat{L}+\kappa _2\widehat{Q}\widehat{Q}+\kappa _3\widehat{T}_3\widehat{T}_3+\kappa _4\widehat{T}_4\widehat{T}_4`$
where $`\widehat{N}`$, and $`\widehat{n}_d`$ are the total boson number operator, and the $`d`$ boson number operator, respectively and

$`\widehat{P}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d^{}d^{}s^{}s^{}),`$ (2)
$`\widehat{L}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{10}(d^{}\times \stackrel{~}{d})^{(1)},`$ (3)
$`\widehat{Q}`$ $`=`$ $`(s^{}\times \stackrel{~}{d}+d^{}\times \stackrel{~}{s})^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{7}}{2}}(d^{}\times \stackrel{~}{d})^{(2)},`$ (4)
$`\widehat{T}_3`$ $`=`$ $`(d^{}\times \stackrel{~}{d})^{(3)},`$ (5)
$`\widehat{T}_4`$ $`=`$ $`(d^{}\times \stackrel{~}{d})^{(4)}.`$ (6)
The symbol $``$ stands for the scalar product, defined as $`\widehat{T}_L\widehat{T}_L=_M(1)^M\widehat{T}_{LM}\widehat{T}_{LM}`$ where $`\widehat{T}_{LM}`$ corresponds to the $`M`$ component of the operator $`\widehat{T}_L`$. The operator $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_\mathrm{}m=(1)^m\gamma _\mathrm{}m`$ (where $`\gamma `$ refers to $`s`$ and $`d`$ bosons) is introduced to ensure the correct tensorial character under spatial rotations.

The first two terms in the Hamiltonian do not affect the spectra but only the binding energy. Therefore they can be removed from the Hamiltonian if only the excitation spectrum of the system is of interest. However, a complete description of both excitation and binding energies requires the use of the full Hamiltonian (1).

The electromagnetic transitions can also be analyzed in the framework of the IBM. In particular, in this work we will focus on $`E2`$ transitions. The most general $`E2`$ transition operator including up to one body terms can be written as

$$\widehat{T}_M^{E2}=e_{eff}\left[(s^{}\times \stackrel{~}{d}+d^{}\times \stackrel{~}{s})_M^{(2)}+\chi (d^{}\times \stackrel{~}{d})_M^{(2)}\right],$$
(7)
where $`e_{eff}`$ is the boson effective charge and $`\chi `$ is a structure parameter.

Two-neutron separation energies (S2n) are also studied in the present work. This observable is defined as the difference in binding energy between an even-even isotope and the preceding even-even one,

$$S_{2n}=BE(N)BE(N1),$$
(8)
where $`N`$ corresponds to the total number of valence bosons. Note that if only the first two terms in (1) are considered and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ are assumed to be constant along the isotope chain, S2n would be given by

$$S_{2n}=(\stackrel{~}{𝒜}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{})\stackrel{~}{}N=𝒜+N.$$
(9)
For a detailed study of this property we refer to Ref. Foss02a .

## III Fits

In this section we analyze several isotope chains belonging to the rare-earth region using the most general IBM Hamiltonian, Eq. (1), and $`E2`$ transition operator, Eq. (7). As an ansazt for each chain of isotopes we will assume a single Hamiltonian, and a single $`E2`$ transition operator. All parameters in these operators are kept fixed for a given isotope chain, except for the single particle energy which is allowed to vary slightly from isotope to isotope. The way of fixing the best set of parameters in the Hamiltonian is to carry out a least-square fit procedure of the excitation energies of selected states ($`2_1^+`$, $`4_1^+`$, $`6_1^+`$, $`8_1^+`$, $`0_2^+`$, $`2_3^+`$, $`4_3^+`$, $`2_2^+`$, $`3_1^+`$, and $`4_2^+`$) and the two neutron separation energies of all isotopes in each isotopic chain. Once the parameters in the Hamiltonian are obtained, the $`B(E2)`$ transition probabilities $`2_1^+0_1^+`$, $`4_1^+2_1^+`$, $`2_2^+0_1^+`$, $`2_3^+0_1^+`$, $`0_2^+2_1^+`$, and $`0_3^+2_1^+`$ of the set of isotopes are used to fix $`e_{eff}`$ and $`\chi `$ by carrying out a least-square fit. The experimental data for excitation and binding energies and B(E2)’s have been taken from Refs. Sonz01 ; Peke97 ; Bhat00 ; Derm95 ; Artn96 ; Reic98 ; Helm92 ; Helm96 ; Reich96 ; Helm99 ; Balr01 ; Shur92 ; Audi95 . Finally, it is worth noting that in Ref. Foss02a  the Hamiltonian parameters were fixed just using the data for excitation energies and then $`𝒜`$ and $``$ were adjusted to reproduce the experimental values of S2n. In this paper, since we are particularly interested in accurately describing the spectroscopic data associated to shape transitions, both, excitation and binding energies, are treated on an equal footing describing the shape transition, to determine the set of Hamiltonian parameters in Eq. (1).

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the parameters obtained for the Hamiltonian and $`E2`$ transition operator for each isotope chain.

In figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 the systematics of experimental and calculated energies for the states included in the least-square procedure are presented in order to show the goodness of the fitting procedure. In figures 5, 6, 7, and 8 the systematics of the experimental and calculated $`B(E2)`$ values are compared. Finally, in figure 9 the experimental and calculated S2n values are shown. This is a fundamental magnitude for identifying a phase transition since it is directly related to the derivative of the energy surface. First order phase transitions are related with the appearance of a kink in the S2n values. As shown in Fig. 9, the calculation matches the experimentally observed behavior.

The analysis of the preceding figures for different observables and for several isotope chains shows that the present procedure is appropriate for systematic studies and confirms that it provides a simple framework to describe long chains of isotopes and detect possible phase transitions.

An alternative approach to describe long chains of rare-earth nuclei is to use the CQF. The CQF Hamiltonian is

$$\widehat{H}=ϵ\widehat{n}_d+\kappa \widehat{Q}^{}\widehat{Q}^{},$$
(10)
with

$$\widehat{Q}^{}=(s^{}\times \stackrel{~}{d}+d^{}\times \stackrel{~}{s})^{(2)}+\chi (d^{}\times \stackrel{~}{d})^{(2)}.$$
(11)
For each nucleus the parameters $`ϵ`$, $`\kappa `$ and $`\chi `$ are determined in order to fit the excitation energies and B(E2)’s. In particular in Ref. Chou97  the parameters of the Hamiltonian are calculated within the CQF framework with the ansazt that the strength of the quadrupole term of the Hamiltonian remains constant along a wide region of the mass table. As in the present paper they compare experimental data and theoretical values for excitation energies and $`B(E2)`$ transition rates. Both methods provide a consistent description of the rare-earth region with a similar number of parameters as can be observed in Fig. 10 and in table 3 where the case of 152Sm is analyzed. Note that in the present work the results come from a global analysis, therefore the $`B(E2)`$ transition rates are not normalized to the transition $`B(E2:2_1^+0_1^+)`$ in a particular isotope. If in table 3 the results are normalized so as to reproduce the observed value for $`B(E2:2_1^+0_1^+)`$ in 152Sm the results of this work and CQF are basically the same.

## IV Energy surfaces and phase transitions

The study of phase transitions in the IBM requires the use of the so called intrinsic-state formalism Gino80 ; Diep80 ; Diep80b , although other approaches can be used Cast99 ; Cejn00 . This formalism is very useful to discuss phase transitions in finite systems because it provides a description of the behavior of a macroscopic system up to $`1/N`$ effects. To define the intrinsic, or coherent, state it is assumed that the dynamical behavior of the system can be described in terms of independent bosons (“dressed bosons”) moving in an average field Duke84 . The ground state of the system is a condensate, $`|c`$, of bosons occupying the lowest–energy phonon state, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c^{}`$,

$$|c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_c^{})^N|0,$$
(12)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_c^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\beta ^2}}\left(s^{}+\beta \mathrm{cos}\gamma d_0^{}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\beta \mathrm{sin}\gamma (d_2^{}+d_2^{})\right)$$
(13)
and $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are variational parameters related with the shape variables in the geometrical collective model. The expectation value of the Hamiltonian in the intrinsic state (12) provides the energy surface of the system, $`E(N,\beta ,\gamma )=c|\widehat{H}|c`$. The energy surface in terms of the parameters of the Hamiltonian (1) and the shape variables can be readily obtained Isac81 ,

$`c|\widehat{H}|c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N\beta ^2}{(1+\beta ^2)}}\left(\epsilon _d+6\kappa _1{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\kappa _2+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{5}}\kappa _3+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}\kappa _4\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)}{(1+\beta ^2)^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _0}{4}}+\beta ^2({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _0}{2}}+4\kappa _2)+2\sqrt{2}\beta ^3\kappa _2\mathrm{cos}(3\gamma )`$
$`+\beta ^4({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _0}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{18}{35}}\kappa _4)],`$ (14)
where the terms which do not depend on $`\beta `$ and/or $`\gamma `$ (corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ in Eq. (1)) have not been included.

The equilibrium values of the variational parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are obtained by minimization of the ground state energy $`c|\widehat{H}|c`$. As mentioned above these parameters are related to the parameters of the Geometrical Collective Model and provide an image of the nuclear shape for a given IBM Hamiltonian. A spherical nucleus has a minimum in the energy surface at $`\beta =0`$, while for a deformed one the energy surface has a minimum at a finite value of $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma =0`$ (prolate nucleus) or $`\gamma =\pi /3`$ (oblate nucleus). Finally, a $`\gamma `$-unstable nucleus corresponds to the case in which the energy surface has a minimum at a particular value of $`\beta `$ and is independent of the value of $`\gamma `$. The equilibrium values of $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are the order parameters to study the phase transition of the system, although in the case under consideration (IBM-1) only $`\beta `$ has to be taken into account, since the minima in $`\gamma `$ are well defined.

In Fig. 11 the energy surfaces for the isotopes of the different isotope chains studied in this paper are plotted as a function of $`\beta `$. The figure on the right is a zoom of the region close to $`\beta =0`$.

The classification of phase transitions that we follow in this paper and that is followed traditionally in the IBM is the Ehrenfest classification Stan71 . In this context, the origin of a phase transition resides in the way the energy surface (their minima positions) is changing as a function of the control parameter that, in this work, is a combination of parameters of the Hamiltonian (see Eq. (21)). First order phase transitions appear when there exists a discontinuity in the first derivative of the energy with respect to the control parameter. This discontinuity appears when two degenerate minima exist in the energy surface for two values of the order parameter $`\beta `$. Second order phase transitions appear when the second derivative of the energy with respect to the control parameter displays a discontinuity. This happens when the energy surface presents a single minimum for $`\beta =0`$ and the surface satisfies the condition $`\left(\frac{d^2E}{d\beta ^2}\right)_{\beta =0}=0`$.

With the introduction of the $`E(5)`$ and $`X(5)`$ symmetries to describe phase transitional behavior, diverse attempts to identify nuclei that could be located at the critical points have been made. The theoretical approaches have been mainly performed with restricted IBM Hamiltonians. In particular, within the CQF, or other restricted Hamiltonians, the location of the critical point is obtained by imposing $`\frac{d^2E}{d\beta ^2}=0`$ at $`\beta =0`$, where $`E`$ is the energy surface Iach98 . This condition leads to a flat surface in a region of small values of $`\beta `$, with a single minimum in the limit $`\chi =0`$ and two almost degenerate minima (one of them in $`\beta =0`$) in the other cases. In the CQF approximation it can be said that $`\left(\frac{d^2E}{d\beta ^2}\right)_{\beta =0}=0`$ corresponds approximately to a “very flat energy surface” as happens for the $`E(5)`$ and $`X(5)`$ critical point models. Following this approach both 150Nd and 152Sm have been found to be close to critical. However, when studying a transitional region in which the lighter nuclei are spherical and the heavier are well deformed, the a priori restriction of the parameter space could play a crucial role in the identification of a particular isotope as critical. It is thus important to perform a general analysis in order to check whether the predictions obtained within the CQF for those nuclei close to a critical point are robust. We present below such an analysis in the region of the rare-earths. We follow closely the approach introduced in Ref. Lope96 ; Lope98  using catastrophe theory. In the next subsection the main ingredients of the theory are summarized and the relevant equations are particularized for the IBM Hamiltonian written in multipolar form, Eq. (1).

### IV.1 The separatrix plane

For the study of phase transitions in the IBM within the framework of catastrophe theory we already have the basic ingredients: the Hamiltonian of the system, Eq. (1), and the intrinsic state, Eq. (12). With them, we have generated the corresponding energy surface, Eq. (IV), in terms of the Hamiltonian parameters and the shape variables. It is our purpose to find the values of the parameters of the Hamiltonian that correspond to critical points. In principle this analysis involves the $`6`$ parameters of the Hamiltonian, but a first simplification occurs since the energy surface only depends on $`5`$ parameters :

$`c|\widehat{H}|c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }\beta ^2}{(1+\beta ^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)}{(1+\beta ^2)^2}}\left(a_1\beta ^4+a_2\beta ^3\mathrm{cos}(3\gamma )+a_3\beta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{u_0}{2}}\right),`$ (15)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _d+6\kappa _1{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\kappa _2+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{5}}\kappa _3+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}\kappa _4`$
$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\kappa _0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa _2+{\displaystyle \frac{18}{35}}\kappa _4`$
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{2}\kappa _2`$
$`a_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa _0+4\kappa _2`$
$`u_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _0}{2}}.`$ (16)
Fortunately, it is possible to reduce the number of relevant (or essential) parameters to just two and study all phase transitions by using catastrophe theory Gilm81 . We refer the reader to Refs. Lope96 ; Lope98  for details of the application of this theory to the IBM case. The idea is to analyze the energy surface and obtain all equilibrium configurations, i.e. to find all the critical points of Eq. (15). First, the critical point of maximum degeneracy has to be identified. In our case, it corresponds to $`\beta =0`$. Next, the bifurcation and Maxwell sets are constructed Gilm81 ; Lope96 . Finally, the separatrix of the IBM is obtained by the union of Maxwell and bifurcation sets. In general a bifurcation set, corresponding to minima, limits an area where two minima in the energy surface coexist. A second order phase transition develops when these minima become the same. The crossing of a Maxwell set corresponding to minima leads to a first order phase transition.

In order to follow this scheme, one has to identify the catastrophe germ of the IBM, which is the first term in the expansion of the energy surface around the critical point of maximum degeneracy that cannot be canceled by an arbitrary selection of parameters. In our case, one finds that the first derivative in $`\beta =0`$ is always $`0`$ because of the critical character of the point for any value of the parameters. The second and third derivatives can also be canceled with an appropriate selection of parameters. However, if one imposes the cancellation of the fourth derivative, the energy becomes a constant for any value of $`\beta `$. This means that the catastrophe germ is $`\beta ^4`$ and the number of essential parameters is equal to two, which can be defined, following reference Lope96 ; Lope98 , as

$$r_1=\frac{a_3u_0+\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }/(N1)}{2a_1+\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }/(N1)a_3},$$
(17)
$$r_2=\frac{2a_2}{2a_1+\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }/(N1)a_3},$$
(18)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }`$, $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, and $`a_3`$ are defined in (16). The denominator in both expressions fixes the energy scale, which means that when it becomes negative, the energy surfaces are inverted. The essential parameters $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ can also be written in terms of the parameters appearing in (1) as ,

$$r_1=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }(N1)(\kappa _04\kappa _2)}{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }+(N1)(\kappa _03\kappa _2+\frac{36}{35}\kappa _4)},$$
(19)
$$r_2=\frac{4\sqrt{2}\kappa _2(N1)}{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }+(N1)(\kappa _03\kappa _2+\frac{36}{35}\kappa _4)}.$$
(20)
A property of the parametrization used in this work is that the different chains of isotopes are located on a straight line that crosses the point corresponding to the $`U(5)`$ limit. The equation of this line is given by

$$r_1=\frac{2\kappa _07\kappa _2+\frac{36}{35}\kappa _4}{4\sqrt{2}\kappa _2}r_2+1$$
(21)
It should be remarked that the derivation of the essential parameters has nothing to do with catastrophe theory. The application of this theory begins once those parameters are obtained. The basic point is to translate every set of Hamiltonian parameters to the plane formed by the essential parameters $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$. This plane is divided into several sectors by the bifurcation set, that form the geometrical place in the parameter space where $`\frac{d^2E}{d\beta ^2}=0`$ for a critical value of $`\beta `$, and the Maxwell sets, the geometrical place in the space of parameters where two or more critical points are degenerate Gilm81 . Both sets form the separatrix of the system, in this case of the IBM. In Ref. Lope96 ; Lope98  the IBM bifurcation ($`r_2`$ axis, $`r_2=0`$ and $`r_1<0`$ semi-axis, $`r_{11}`$, and $`r_{12}`$) and Maxwell (negative $`r_1`$ semi-axis, $`r_{13}^+`$, and $`r_{13}^{}`$) sets were obtained. They are all indicated in Fig. 12. In this representation it is required that the denominator in (17) and (18) is positive. The separatrix for $`r_1>0`$ is associated to minima while for $`r_1<0`$ is associated to maxima (except the negative $`r_1`$ semi-axis). In order to clarify the figure on the separatrix, the energy surfaces corresponding to each set are plotted as insets. The half plane with $`r_2>0`$ corresponds to prolate nuclei, while the one with $`r_2<0`$ corresponds to oblate nuclei. Note that expressions (19) and (20) are only valid for prolate nuclei, but can be readily obtained for the oblate case. On this figure the symmetry limits and the correspondence with Casten’s triangle Iach87  are also represented. For completeness one should consider the case where the denominator of (17) and (18) is negative. It implies that the energy scale becomes negative and the energy surface should be inverted. The separatrix for this case is plotted in figure 13 and corresponds to the inversion of figure 12. Again the schematic energy surfaces corresponding to each branch of the separatrix are shown as insets. Note that in this case the symmetry limits do not appear in the figure because they correspond to positive denominators for $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$. In our analysis only prolate nuclei are considered, because of that a new figure, Fig. 14, is included. In this figure, the right panel corresponds to positive denominators for $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ while the left panel shows the case of negative denominator for $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$. In the following we will follow the convention presented in this figure.

A set of parameters in the Hamiltonian corresponds to a point in the separatrix plane. The location of the point in that plane provides the required information on its transitional phase character. As mentioned above, it follows that points located on a separatrix line correspond to critical points. Note that the dynamical behavior of the system is controlled by the lowest minimum in the energy surface. In this sense we are adopting the Maxwell convention in the catastrophe theory language Gilm81  and the only relevant branches of the separatrix are $`r_{13}^+`$ and $`r_2=0`$ with $`r_10`$. All these branches correspond to first order phase transitions except for the single point $`(r_1=0,r_2=0)`$ that corresponds to a second order phase transition. The rest of Maxwell lines do not correspond to a phase transition because they are related to maxima. The interest of the bifurcation set, corresponding to minima, arises from the fact that it defines regions where two minima exits. In the following subsection the transitional isotope chains studied in this paper are analyzed in the separatrix plane.

### IV.2 Rare-earth region on the separatrix plane

The fits presented in Sect. III provide the parameter sets given in Tables 1 and 2 for the four isotope chains studied in this paper. In this section we plot the corresponding sequences of points representing the isotopes in each chain on the separatrix plane. As can be observed in the previous tables all the parameters for each chain are fixed except the value of $`\epsilon _d`$ that changes along the chain.

In figure 15 the positions of the different isotopes in the chains studied are plotted in the separatrix plane. The interpretation of these lines is given in Fig. 14. As mentioned above, all isotopes in a chain lie on a straight line. The lighter ones are close to the $`U(5)`$ point (spherical shapes) while as the number of neutrons is increased the corresponding points get increasingly away. For the heavier isotopes of Gd, and Dy the denominator of $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ becomes negative, which means that the left panel in Fig. 14 has to be used.

The main feature we find is that some nuclei are close to the Maxwell set $`r_{13}^+`$: the closest are 148Nd (boson number $`N=8`$) and 150Sm (boson number $`N=9`$) and not far away 152Gd (boson number $`N=10`$). This can be complemented with the image of the energy surfaces plotted in Fig. 11. The energy surface for 148Nd and 150Sm are rather flat around $`\beta =0`$. For 152Gd the situation is not so clear. For Dy there is no isotope close to the critical point. According to our calculations, the transition from spherical to deformed occurs between $`N=11`$ and $`N=12`$. The isotope 162Dy is close to the Maxwell set but in the left panel. In this situation there should be two degenerate maxima. This can be observed in the corresponding energy surface (boson number $`N=15`$) in Fig. 11. The isotopes 150Nd ($`N=9`$) and 152Sm ($`N=10`$) (also can be included in this situation 154Gd ($`N=11`$) and 158Dy ($`N=13`$)) are close to the bifurcation set $`r_2`$ axis. Again inspection of Fig. 11 shows that the energy surfaces for these isotopes has a minimum for $`\beta >0`$ and a maximum at $`\beta =0`$. In figure 16 we show an amplification of the critical area.

In conclusion, from this global analysis we find that 148Nd, 150Sm, and (less clearly) 152Gd, are close to criticality. These isotopes are quite close but do not exactly coincide with previously proposed critical nuclei 150Nd and 152Sm Cast01 ; Kruc02 , where the quite basic criterion was the closeness of their low-lying excitation spectra and transition intensities with the $`X(5)`$ values.

### IV.3 Prediction of critical points within CQF

The CQF uses a simplified Hamiltonian with only three parameters. For the description of transitional nuclei from the $`U(5)`$ to the $`SU(3)`$ limits the parameters are allowed to vary nucleus by nucleus. The representation of such calculations in the separatrix plane shows that all isotopes in a chain are basically on top of the straight line connecting the $`U(5)`$ point, $`(r_1,r_2)=(1,0)`$, and the $`SU(3)`$ point, $`(r_1,r_2)=(4/3,4\sqrt{2}/3)`$. Note that this point corresponds strictly to the $`SU(3)`$ Casimir operator. However, a more general CQF $`SU(3)`$ Hamiltonian still lies very close to the latter point. In general, the same happens in the $`U(5)`$ and $`O(6)`$ points. This means that within this framework the exploration of only a limited area in the separatrix plane is allowed. If all isotopes in an isotopic chain are forced to be located on the line connecting the $`U(5)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ points, it follows that one will more often find an isotope close to the (unique) critical point. In the calculations presented here we have seen that within the general formalism this is not always the case. For example, for Dy we did not find an isotope close to a critical point.

In previous systematic studies in the rare-earth region using the CQF formalism, Ref. Chou97  and Foss02a , the corresponding energy surfaces were not presented. We have constructed them from the parameters given in those references and the results obtained are consistent with those given in the present work. In particular, 148Nd and 150Sm seem to be closest to a critical point.

## V Conclusions

In this paper we have analyzed chains of isotopes in the rare-earth region. In these chains nuclei evolve from spherical to deformed shapes. We have performed an analysis of the corresponding shape transitions to look for possible nuclei at or close to a critical point. We have used the more general one- and two- body IBM Hamiltonian and generated energy surfaces using the coherent state formalism. We have then used catastrophe theory to classify phase transitions and to decide if a nucleus is close to criticality.

The approach used to fix the Hamiltonian parameters leads to a very good global agreement with the experimental data corresponding to excitation energies, B(E2)’s and S2n values. In particular, an excellent agreement with the measured S2n values is obtained, which is considered a key observable to locate phase transitional regions. The analysis presented here is consistent with previous CQF studies in the same region. As a result we find that 148Nd and 150Sm are the best candidates to be critical, but we should remark that 150Nd and 152Sm are not far away from it.

A possible new way of defining critical nuclei is based on the “critical symmetries” $`E(5)`$ or $`X(5)`$ Iach00 ; Iach01 . The properties associated with these solutions allow the identification of critical points by comparing the experimental data with characteristic energy and transition rate ratios. Thus, it may be possible to decide whether a nucleus is critical by analyzing its spectrum and decay properties. A trickier question is whether a flat energy surface can be truly associated to a given nucleus with energy ratios close to $`X(5)`$. A clear example is 152Sm: in section IV.2 we have shown that according to our study the IBM energy surface of this nucleus is not so flat as expected from previous analyses, i.e. in our work it does not correspond to a critical point as suggested earlier. However, if the spectrum and transition rates are analyzed (see figure 10 and table 3 ), this nucleus reproduces reasonably well the main $`X(5)`$ features. We note that in the general IBM framework there is no unique spectrum associated to a given potential energy surface, as implied by equations (17) an (18). Catastrophe theory constitutes a definite criterion regarding this issue, but does not provide a measurable signature in itself.

It seems clear that further work is required to find experimentally identifiable features which signal criticality in an unequivocal way.

## VI Acknowledgements

We acknowledge insightful discussions with R.F. Casten, F. Iachello, K. Heyde, J. Jolie, P. Van Isacker, and P. Von Brentano. This work was supported in part by the Spanish DGICYT under projects number FPA2000-1592-C03-02 and BFM2002-03315 and by CONACYT (México).


format: text

text:
# Randomness Effect on Multicritical Phenomena in Double-Exchange Systems

## Abstract

Double-exchange model interacting with adiabatic phonons is studied in the presence of randomness by using the Monte-Carlo method and the systematic size-scaling analysis. A bicritical behavior is found between the ferromagnetic metal and the charge-ordered insulator. We find the distinct response to the randomness between these two states, which agrees well with the experimental results in the colossal magnetoresistance manganites.

, ,

Phase competition and randomness play a key role in the colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) phenomena in manganese oxides . The former phase competition between the ferromagnetic metal (FM) and the charge-ordered insulator (CO) leads to large fluctuations near the multicritical point . The latter randomness suppresses the transition temperatures above which CMR is much enhanced . Theoretically, except for a phenomenological argument , this multicritical phenomenon has not been fully investigated thus far. Therefore, it is strongly desired to study a realistic model for this phenomenon including the metal-insulator transition.

In this work, we study the multicritical phenomena in the double-exchange (DE) model interacting with phonons whose Hamiltonian reads

$`H=`$ $``$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(1+S_iS_j)(c_i^{}c_j+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (1)
$``$ $`g{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_i^{}c_ix_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}x_ix_j`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\epsilon _ic_i^{}c_i+\gamma M^2X^2.`$
Here, the first line is the DE part which is derived in the limit of the large Hund coupling with the Ising symmetry ($`S_i=\pm 1`$) , and the second line represents the electron-phonon coupling and the elastic energy of phonons. We consider the classical phonon in the breathing mode. The $`\lambda `$ term is for the cooperative distortion of the MnO6 tetrahedra. The first term in the last line denotes the random on-site potential. We consider here the binary-type distribution $`\epsilon _i=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$. The last term is a Gintzburg-Landau-type term which describes the competition between FM of the DE origin and CO of the checker-board type, whose order parameters are denoted as $`M`$ and $`X`$, respectively. We consider that this term mimics the elements beyond this simple model such as the orbital degeneracy and the antiferromagnetic coupling between localized spins. We consider model (1) at the electron density $`n=0.5`$ on the square lattice. We set the halfbandwidth $`W=4t=1`$ as an energy unit, and take $`\lambda =0.1`$ and $`\gamma =1`$ in the following.

We study the thermodynamics in model (1) by MC method . We have typically 10000 samplings for measurement after 1000 steps for thermalization in the absence of the randomness. In the presence of the randomness, the measurement is typically performed 1000 times for a configuration of the random potential $`\{\epsilon _i\}`$, and the results are random-averaged for typically 16 different configurations. The transition temperatures for FM and CO are determined by the Binder parameter as well as the inflection point of the temperature dependence of each order parameter. Figure 1 shows a part of these analyses ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$). Both results consistently indicate the emergence of the long-range ordering.

Figure 2 displays the phase diagram of model (1). In the pure case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, the phase diagram shows the bicritical behavior where FM and CO phases touch with each other at $`g0.9`$. When we introduce the randomness, these two phases show a distinct response; FM is rather robust whereas CO is surprisingly fragile to the randomness. Consequently, the CO phase is destroyed rapidly, and instead the FM state extends to larger-$`g`$ regions. This is a consequence of the phase competition near the bicritical point; if one phase diminishes, the other takes over. These aspects well agrees with the experimental results in the CMR manganites . Therefore, we believe that model (1) captures the essential physics of this multicritical phenomenon in manganites. In experiments, the enhanced CMR is observed near the region where FM replaces CO . Transport property and electronic structure in the present model will provide a key to understand the mechanism of CMR.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

On the level of realistic observables such as measured cross sections, ratios and asymmetries, the set of electroweak precision data, all obtained within the last 15 years, consists of over thousand measurements with partially correlated statistical and systematic uncertainties. This large set of results is reduced to a more manageable set of twenty precision so-called pseudo observables in a largely model-independent procedure, allowing for tests of the Standard Model (SM) and other theories of nature at the fundamental level.

About 2/3 of all pseudo observables arise from measurements performed in electron-positron collisions at the Z pole, by the SLC experiment SLD and the four LEP experiments ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL. The Z-pole observables are: 5 observables describing the Z lineshape and leptonic forward-backward asymmetries, 2 observables describing polarised leptonic asymmetries measured by SLD with polarised beams and at LEP exploiting tau polarisation, 6 observables describing b-quark and c-quark pair production at the Z pole, and the inclusive hadronic charge asymmetry. The six remaining measurements are: the mass and total width of the W boson measured by the TEVATRON experiments CDF and DØ and the four LEP-2 experiments, the top quark mass measured at the TEVATRON, the neutrino-nucleon scattering cross section ratio as measured by NuTeV, atomic parity violation in Caesium, and the hadronic vacuum polarisation at the Z pole. Also, “constants” such as the Fermi constant $`G_\mathrm{F}`$ are used.

In the following these pseudo observables are discussed and used to perform various Standard Model analyses . For the hadronic vacuum polarisation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{had}^{(5)}`$, the reader is referred to the dedicated workshop presentation .

## 2 Atomic Parity Violation

The interaction between an electron and the atomic nucleus receives a parity-violating contribution due to $`\gamma `$/Z interference. The weak charge, $`Q_\mathrm{W}`$, of the nucleus is measured:

$`Q_\mathrm{W}(Z,N)`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[\left(2Z+N\right)C_{1u}+\left(Z+2N\right)C_{1d}\right],`$ (2.1)
with $`C_{1q}=2g_{\mathrm{Ae}}g_{\mathrm{V}q}`$ for $`q=\mathrm{u},\mathrm{d}`$ in the limit of zero momentum transfer. Thus $`Q_\mathrm{W}`$ is defined simply as the sum of the weak charges of up- and down-quark in a nucleus containing $`Z`$ protons and $`N`$ neutrons and thus $`(2Z+N)`$ up-quarks and $`(Z+2N)`$ down-quarks. Therefore, the raw measurement must be corrected for nuclear many-body effects and QED radiative corrections. The most precise measurement is performed for Caesium . Recent progress in QED self-energy and vertex radiative corrections to order $`Z\alpha ^2`$ and $`Z^2\alpha ^3`$ results in a significant shift in the experimental result for $`Q_\mathrm{W}`$; the new result :

$`Q_\mathrm{W}(55,78)`$ $`=`$ $`72.83\pm 0.29(exp.)\pm 0.39(theo.),`$ (2.2)
is now in perfect agreement with the SM expectation.

## 3 Neutrino Nucleon Scattering

The NuTeV collaboration studies $`t`$-channel neutrino-nucleon scattering at an average momentum transfer of $`20\mathrm{GeV}`$, analysing both charged current (CC) and neutral current (NC) reactions. Using both a neutrino and an anti-neutrino beam with high statistics, it is possible to exploit the Paschos-Wolfenstein relation :

$`R_{}={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{NC}(\nu )\sigma _{NC}(\overline{\nu })}{\sigma _{CC}(\nu )\sigma _{CC}(\overline{\nu })}}=4g_{L\nu }^2{\displaystyle \underset{u,d}{}}\left[g_{Lq}^2g_{Rq}^2\right]=\rho _\nu \rho _{ud}\left[1/2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{onshell}\right],`$ (3.1)
where the sum runs over the valence quarks, u and d. This relation holds for iso-scalar targets and up to small electroweak radiative corrections. In the ideal case this measurement is insensitive to the effects of sea quarks, which cancel. Charm production, uncertain due to charm mass effects, enters only through CC scattering off valence d quarks, a CKM suppressed process. Using $`\nu _\mu /\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ beams, CC reactions are discriminated from NC reactions by the presence of a primary $`\mu ^{}/\mu ^+`$ in the final state.

Assuming $`\rho =\rho _{SM}`$, NuTeV’s final results reads :

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{onshell}`$ $``$ $`1M_\mathrm{W}^2/M_\mathrm{Z}^2=0.2277\pm 0.0013\pm 0.0009`$
$`0.00022{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{t}^2(175\mathrm{GeV})^2}{(50\mathrm{GeV})^2}}+0.00032\mathrm{ln}(M_\mathrm{H}/150\mathrm{GeV}),`$
where the first error is statistical and the second is systematic. NuTeV’s final result is still statistics limited. The result is in excellent agreement with the previous world average  but differs by 2.9 standard deviations from the prediction of the global SM analysis presented in Section 7. Further details on NuTeV’s measurement are given in .

When quoting the result in terms of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{onshell}`$, as done historically, it must be assumed that $`\rho =\rho _{SM}`$. In a more flexible ansatz allowing model-independent interpretations, the NuTeV result is also presented in terms of effective left- and right-handed couplings, shown in Figure 1 (left) and defined as: $`g_X^{2(\mathrm{eff})}=4g_{L\nu }^2_qg_{Xq}^2`$ for $`X=L,R`$. Here the deviation is confined to the effective left-handed coupling product. Modifying all $`\rho `$ parameters by a scale factor $`\rho _0`$ shows that either $`\rho _0`$ or the mixing angle, but not both, could be in agreement with the SM, as visible in Figure 1 (right). Assuming the electroweak mixing angle to have it’s expected value, the change in the $`\rho `$ factors can be absorbed in $`\rho _\nu `$, i.e., interpreted as a change in the coupling strength of neutrinos, then lower than expected by about $`(1.2\pm 0.4)\%`$. A similar trend is observed with the neutrino coupling as measured by the invisible width of the Z boson at LEP-1, yielding a smaller and less significant deficit of $`(0.5\pm 0.3)\%`$ in $`\rho _\nu `$. Various explanations besides being a statistical fluctuation, have been put forward and reviewed at this workshop, ranging from old and new physics effects, but it seems none is able to explain the result naturally .

## 4 Mass of the Top Quark

In 1995, the TEVATRON experiments CDF and DØ discovered the top quark in proton-antiproton collisions at $`1.8\mathrm{TeV}`$ centre-of-mass energy, by observing the reaction $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}X,\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$. Depending on the decay modes of the two W bosons, the event signatures are two b-jets plus either di-leptons, lepton plus jets, or all jets. The distribution of the reconstructed top-quark mass as measured by CDF is shown in Figure 2 (left). The results published based on data collected in Run-I are combined taking correlated systematic uncertainties into account :

$`M_\mathrm{t}`$ $`=`$ $`174.3\pm 3.2(stat.)\pm 4.0(syst.)\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (4.1)
The DØ collaboration has recently presented a new preliminary Run-I based result in the lepton-plus-jets channel, which has a reduced uncertainty and a central value a few GeV higher than that of their previous analysis in this channel entering the above average .

The systematic uncertainties are dominated by the jet energy scale (2 to $`5\mathrm{GeV}`$ depending on channel), which will reduce with more data. Signal and background modelling, including hard matrix elements, parton distribution functions and MC generators account for a smaller part. Top-quark mass measurements with an uncertainty of less than $`23\mathrm{GeV}`$ are expected from the ongoing TEVATRON Run-II.

## 5 Mass and Width of the W boson

Until 1996, the W boson mass and width was measured at hadron colliders only, most recently by the experiments CDF and DØ. Leptonic W decays with electrons and muons are selected and reconstructed. The transverse mass, i.e., the invariant mass of the lepton and the missing momentum vector in the plane transverse to the beam axis is unaffected by the unknown longitudinal boost of the W boson and bounded from above by the invariant mass of the decaying W boson. The distribution of the transverse mass as measured by DØ is shown in Figure 2 (right). The sharp upper edge of the so called Jacobian peak yields the mass of the W boson, while the W-boson width is derived from the high-mass tail of this distribution. Final results on $`M_\mathrm{W}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{W}`$ from CDF and DØ are now available for the complete Run-I data set. They are combined taking correlations properly into account .

The uncertainties on both mass and width of the W boson are dominated by the limited data statistics. The largest systematic uncertainty arises from the energy measurement of the leptons, and this energy scale uncertainty will also reduce with more data. The signal model, parton distribution functions, gluon radiation and QED corrections in leptonic W decays are less important. Further details on the measurement of $`M_\mathrm{W}`$ at hadron colliders are given in . W-boson mass measurements with an uncertainty of less than $`25\mathrm{MeV}`$ are expected from the ongoing TEVATRON Run-II.

Since 1996 the W boson mass and width is also measured at LEP-2 using $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}f\overline{f}f\overline{f}`$ events. Four-fermion final states are selected and the two decaying W bosons are reconstructed. For hadronic and semileptonic W-pair events, the W-pair kinematic is completely reconstructed so that one directly measures the invariant masses of the decaying W bosons. These results are preliminary.

For hadronic W-pair events, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}q\overline{q}q\overline{q}hadrons`$, cross talk effects may occur between the two hadronic systems. The four-momentum exchange causes the mass of the decaying W bosons to be different from the measured mass of the hadronic decay products, thus leading to potentially large systematic effects. Because of these large additional uncertainties compared to the semileptonic channel, now bounded by studies based on data, the weight of the four jet channel in the LEP average is less than 10%. The difference in mass obtained for hadronic and semileptonic W-pair events, calculated without FSI uncertainties, is $`(22\pm 43)\mathrm{MeV}`$, i.e., showing no bias. Further details on the LEP measurements are given in .

The results of the TEVATRON and LEP experiments on the mass of the W boson are in very good agreement as shown in Figure 3 (left). The combined results and their correlation is shown in Figure 3 (right). It can be seen that the W mass is highly sensitive to SM parameters, in particular preferring a low value for the mass of the Higgs boson.

## 6 Z-Boson Physics

In the previous decade, electron-positron annihilations at high energies have allowed to measure precisely a wealth of electroweak observables related to Z-boson couplings to fermion-antifermion pairs. These measurements are performed by the SLC experiment SLD, and the LEP experiments ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL.

### 6.1 Z Lineshape and Leptonic F/B Asymmetries

The total cross section for hadron production as a function of the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ centre-of-mass energy in the vicinity of the Z pole is shown in Figure 4 (right), comparing the measured cross sections with those deconvoluted of QED effects which have to be known precisely. The $`\chi ^2`$ per degrees of freedom are: 169/176 (ALEPH), 177/168 (DELPHI), 158/166 (L3), 155/194 (OPAL), and 36.5/31 for the LEP combination, showing very good agreement when reducing the hundreds of measurements to the few pseudo observables. Assuming lepton universality, the final results are :

$`M_\mathrm{Z}=91187.5\pm 2.1\mathrm{MeV}`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Z}=2495.2\pm 2.3\mathrm{MeV}`$
$`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{Z}=20.767\pm 0.025`$ $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{fb}}^{0,\mathrm{}}=0.0171\pm 0.0010.`$ (6.1)
The comparison of the measurements of $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{Z}`$ and $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{fb}}^{0,\mathrm{}}`$ is shown in Figure 5 (left).

The number of neutrinos, $`N_\nu =2.9841\pm 0.0083`$, is about 1.9 standard deviations smaller than three. The uncertainty on $`N_\nu `$ is given by:

$`\delta N_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`10.5{\displaystyle \frac{\delta N_{\mathrm{had}}}{N_{\mathrm{had}}}}3.0{\displaystyle \frac{\delta N_{\mathrm{lep}}}{N_{\mathrm{lep}}}}7.5{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L}{L}},`$ (6.2)
where $`\delta N_{\mathrm{had}}(\delta N_{\mathrm{lep}})`$ is the uncertainty on the number of hadronic (leptonic) events, $`\delta L`$ is the uncertainty on any absolute cross section measurement such as that arising from the luminosity determination, and $``$ denotes addition in quadrature. Thus, the theoretical luminosity uncertainty of 0.06%  causes an uncertainty of $`\pm 0.0046`$ on $`N_\nu `$.

### 6.2 Leptonic Polarisation Asymmetries

In terms of the effective vector and axial-vector coupling constants, $`g_{\mathrm{V}f}`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{A}f}`$, the asymmetry parameter $`\mathrm{A}_f`$ is defined as:

$`\mathrm{A}_f`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{V}f}/g_{\mathrm{A}f}}{1+(g_{\mathrm{V}f}/g_{\mathrm{A}f})^2}}.`$ (6.3)
The leptonic asymmetry parameter is measured by SLD  and at LEP-1 in various processes. Assuming lepton universality, well supported by the experimental results, the following final results are obtained when combining the experiments:

$`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.1512\pm 0.0042\text{forward/backward asymmetries}`$ (6.4)
$`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.1465\pm 0.0033\tau \text{ polarisation}`$ (6.5)
$`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.1513\pm 0.0021\text{left/right asymmetries (SLD)},`$ (6.6)
showing good agreement, and with a combined value of:

$`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.1501\pm 0.0016.`$ (6.7)
The measurement of the $`\tau `$ polarisation as a function of polar scattering angle is shown in Figure 5 (right), where the LEP combination shows a $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom of 4.7/7. For backward scattering, zero polarisation is expected and observed.

### 6.3 Heavy Flavour Results at the Z Pole

While the results on b- and c-quark production rates ($`\mathrm{R}_q=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{qq}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{had}}`$) are final, several measurements of heavy-flavour asymmetries by SLD and at LEP are still preliminary, and thus is the joint combination of all heavy flavour results. Details on the various heavy-flavour measurements at the Z pole are given in . The combination has a rather low $`\chi ^2`$ of 47.6 for $`(10514)`$ degrees of freedom: all forward-backward asymmetries are very consistent, as shown in Figure 6, and their combination is still statistics limited. The combined values for $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{fb}}^{0,\mathrm{b}}`$ and $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{fb}}^{0,\mathrm{c}}`$ are compared to the SM expectation in Figure 7 (left), showing that $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{fb}}^{0,\mathrm{b}}`$ agrees well with the SM expectation for an intermediate Higgs-boson mass of a few hundred $`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The mutual consistency of the measurements of $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{b}`$, $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{fb}}^{0,\mathrm{b}}=(3/4)\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{}}`$ assuming lepton universality is shown in Figure 7 (right). Compared to the experimental uncertainties, the SM predictions are nearly constant in $`\mathrm{A}_q`$, in contrast to the situation for $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{}}`$. This is a consequence of the SM values of electric charge and iso-spin of quarks.

### 6.4 Effective Electroweak Mixing Angle

Assuming the SM structure of the effective coupling constants, the measurements of the various asymmetries are compared in terms of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}`$ in Figure 8 (left). The average of all six $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}`$ determinations is:

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.23148\pm 0.00017,`$ (6.8)
with a $`\chi ^2/dof`$ of 10.2/5, corresponding to a probability of 7.0%. The enlarged $`\chi ^2/dof`$ is solely driven by the two most precise determinations of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{lept}}`$, namely those derived from the measurements of $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{}}`$ by SLD, dominated by the left-right asymmetry result, and of $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{fb}}^{0,\mathrm{b}}`$ at LEP. These two measurements differ by 2.9 standard deviations. This is a consequence of the same effect as shown in Figure 7 (right).

## 7 Global Standard Model Analysis

Within the framework of the SM, each pseudo observable presented above is calculated as a function of five main relevant parameters, which are the running electromagnetic and strong coupling constant evaluated at the Z pole, $`\alpha _{em}`$ and $`\alpha _S`$, and the masses of Z boson, top quark and Higgs boson, $`M_\mathrm{Z}`$, $`M_\mathrm{t}`$, $`M_\mathrm{H}`$. Using the Fermi constant $`G_\mathrm{F}`$ allows to calculate the mass of the W boson. The electromagnetic coupling is represented by the hadronic vacuum polarisation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{had}^{(5)}`$, as it is this contribution which has the largest uncertainty.

The precision of the Z-pole measurements require matching precision of the theoretical calculations, first and second order electroweak and QCD corrections etc. The dependence on $`M_\mathrm{t}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ enters through radiative corrections. The predictions as a function of the five SM parameters are calculated with the computer programs TOPAZ0  and ZFITTER , which incorporate state-of-the-art calculations, constraining the hadronic vacuum polarisation to: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{had}^{(5)}=0.02761\pm 0.00036`$ .

Using the Z-pole measurements of SLD and LEP-1 in order to evaluate electroweak radiative corrections, the masses of two heavy particles measured at the TEVATRON and at LEP-2, namely the top quark and the W boson, can be predicted. The resulting 68% C.L. contour curve in the $`(M_\mathrm{t},M_\mathrm{W})`$ plane is shown in Figure 8 (right). Also shown is the contour curve corresponding to the direct measurements of both quantities at the TEVATRON and at LEP-2. The two contour curves overlap, successfully testing the SM at the level of electroweak radiative corrections. The diagonal band in Figure 8 (right) shows the constraint between the two masses within the SM, which depends on the mass of the Higgs boson, and to a small extent also on the hadronic vacuum polarisation (small arrow labelled $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$). Both the direct and the indirect contour curves prefer a low value for the mass of the SM Higgs boson.

The best constraint on $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ is obtained by analysing all data. This joint fit has a $`\chi ^2`$ of 25.5 for 15 degrees of freedom, corresponding to a probability of 4.4%. The pulls of the 20 measurements entering the fit are shown in Figure 9 (left). The single largest contribution to the $`\chi ^2`$, about 9 units, arises from the NuTeV measurement of the on-shell electroweak mixing angle. Excluding the NuTeV measurement, the $`\chi ^2/dof`$ becomes 16.7/14, corresponding to 27.3%, while the fitted parameters in terms of central value and error are almost unchanged, showing that the fit is robust against the NuTeV result. The second largest pull arises from the $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{fb}}^{0,\mathrm{b}}`$ measurement as discussed above.

The global fit yields $`M_\mathrm{H}=91_{37}^{+58}\mathrm{GeV}`$, which corresponds to a one-sided upper limit at 95% C.L. on $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ of $`211\mathrm{GeV}`$ including the theory uncertainty as shown in Figure 9 (left). The fitted $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ is strongly correlated with the hadronic vacuum polarisation (correlation of $`0.5`$) and the fitted top-quark mass ($`+0.7`$). The strong correlation with $`M_\mathrm{t}`$ implies a shift of 35% in the predicted $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ if the measurement of $`M_\mathrm{t}`$ changes by one standard deviation ($`5\mathrm{GeV}`$). Thus a precise experimental measurement of $`M_\mathrm{t}`$ is very important.

Also shown are the $`\chi ^2`$ curves obtained with the theory-driven, thus more precise evaluation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation , yielding also a reduced correlation of $`0.2`$ with $`M_\mathrm{H}`$, or excluding the NuTeV result. Both analyses yield nearly the same upper limits on $`M_\mathrm{H}`$. In case the measurement with the second largest pull, $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{fb}}^{0,\mathrm{b}}`$, is removed, the 95% C.L. upper limit on $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ reduces to $`149\mathrm{GeV}`$ including the theory uncertainty. The theoretical uncertainty on the SM calculations of the observables is visualised as the thickness of the blue band. It is dominated by the theoretical uncertainty in the calculation of the effective electroweak mixing angle, where a two-loop calculation is needed.

The shaded part in Figure 9 (left) shows the $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ range up to $`114.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ excluded by the direct search for the Higgs boson at 95% confidence level. Even though the minimum of the $`\chi ^2`$ curve lies in the excluded region, the uncertainties on the Higgs mass value are such as that the results are well compatible. Further discussions are presented in .

## 8 Caveats: Low Higgs-Boson masses

The measurement of a pseudo observable may also be interpreted as a constraint on the mass of the Higgs boson. In order to evaluate this constraint, a full five-parameter Standard-Model fit is performed, constraining the four SM input parameter besides $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ as follows: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{had}^{(5)}=0.02761\pm 0.00036`$, $`\alpha _S=0.118\pm 0.002`$, $`M_\mathrm{Z}=91187.5\pm 2.1\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{t}=174.3\pm 5.1\mathrm{GeV}`$. The resulting $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ constraints are shown in Figure 10 (left).

However, care must be taken when interpreting results quantitatively in the region of low values of the Higgs mass. Neither the experimental analyses extracting the pseudo observables from the raw data, nor the SM calculation of the predictions take into account the real Higgs-strahlungs process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}^{}\mathrm{H}f\overline{f}\mathrm{H}`$. This effect can be quite sizeable: the fraction of real Higgs-strahlung, $`R_\mathrm{H}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{Z}^{}\mathrm{H})/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Z}`$, is shown in Figure 10 (right), ranging up to 1% for very low Higgs masses .

If all $`\mathrm{Z}^{}\mathrm{H}`$ decay modes were selected as hadronic events, then the measured total and hadronic width would increase by the amount $`R_\mathrm{H}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Z}`$. This increase would lead to an increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _S4R_\mathrm{H}`$ in the fitted value in analyses neglecting to consider $`\mathrm{Z}^{}\mathrm{H}`$. The requirement that the shift in $`\alpha _S`$ should be less than a 10% of the fitted error on $`\alpha _S`$ forces $`M_\mathrm{H}>22\mathrm{GeV}`$. Since also the other fit parameters are unaffected, this does not pose a problem. The specific heavy-flavour analyses may also be affected. The maximal effect is observed if all $`\mathrm{Z}^{}\mathrm{H}`$ decay modes are tagged a b-quark events. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ is increased by the same amount as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{had}}`$, and $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{fb}}^{0,\mathrm{b}}`$ is changed. This is most visible in a shift of $`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{b}^\mathrm{Z}`$: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{b}^\mathrm{Z}1.1R_\mathrm{H}`$. The requirement that this shift is less than 10% of the experimental error on $`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{b}`$ forces $`M_\mathrm{H}>47\mathrm{GeV}`$. The reconstruction of $`M_\mathrm{W}`$ at LEP-2 is probably not affected. However, in addition the effect of $`\mathrm{Z}^{}\mathrm{H}`$ is centre-of-mass energy dependent. While the global SM fit is valid for the central value of $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ and upper errors, quantitative statements in the low-Higgs mass regime remain dubious. A fully correct treatment would require experimental efficiencies and corrections for $`\mathrm{Z}^{}\mathrm{H}`$ as a function of $`M_\mathrm{H}`$ which are not available. In any case, the limit from the direct search for the Higgs boson of $`M_\mathrm{H}>114.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ at 95% confidence level  is sufficiently high.

## 9 Conclusions

During the last 15 years many experiments at both hadron and lepton collider have performed a wealth of measurements with unprecedented precision in high-energy particle physics. These measurements test all aspects of the SM of particle physics, and many of them show large sensitivity to electroweak radiative corrections at loop level.

Most measurements agree with the expectations as calculated within the framework of the SM, successfully testing the SM at Born and at loop level. Still there are two “2.9 standard deviations effects”, namely the spread in the various determinations of the effective electroweak mixing angle, within the SM analysis apparently disfavouring the measurement of $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{fb}}^{0,\mathrm{b}}`$, and NuTeV’s $`R_{}`$ result, most pronounced when interpreted in terms of the on-shell electroweak mixing angle.

The validity of any pseudo-observable analysis rests on the assumption that the effects of real Higgs production (or that of any non-SM final state) must be negligible.

For the future, precise theoretical calculations including theoretical uncertainties  are needed, in particular a two-loop calculation for the effective electroweak mixing angle. Experimentally, the next few years will bring improvements in the measurements of W and top masses, and the long-awaited discovery of the Higgs boson.

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank my colleagues of the TEVATRON and LEP electroweak working groups, members of the NuTeV, SLD, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, CDF and DØ experiments, as well as D. Bardin, G. Passarino and G. Weiglein for valuable discussions.


text:
# Mass and 3-metrics of Non-negative Scalar Curvature

## 1. Positive Mass Theorem

The Positive Mass Theorem provides a good example of *“the unreasonable effectiveness of physics in mathematics111with apologies to Eugene Wigner .*. The need to define mass in general relativity is motivated directly by the physics imperative to establish a correspondence between general relativity and classical Newtonian gravity. Already difficulties arise: although the vacuum Einstein equations $`Ric_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\alpha \beta }=0`$ for the Lorentz metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ suggest (by analogy with the wave equation, for example) that a mass (energy) which includes contributions from the gravitational field, should be built from the first derivatives of the field $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$, it is clear that this is incompatible with coordinate invariance.

The Schwarzschild vacuum spacetime metric, for $`r>\mathrm{max}(0,2\text{m})`$,

$$ds^2=\left(12\text{m}/r\right)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{12\text{m}/r}+r^2(d\vartheta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta d\phi ^2),$$
(1.1)
provides an important clue, since the parameter $`\text{m}`$ governs the behaviour of timelike geodesics and may be regarded as the total mass. Note that $`\text{m}>0`$ ensures the boundary $`r=2\text{m}`$ is smooth and totally geodesic in the hypersurfaces $`t=const`$.

A Riemannian 3-manifold $`(M,g)`$ is said to be *asymptotically flat* if $`M\backslash K^3\backslash B_1(0)`$ for some compact $`K`$, and $`M`$ admits a metric $`\stackrel{̊}{g}`$ which is flat outside $`K`$, and the metric components $`g_{ij}`$ in the induced rectangular coordinates satisfy

$$|g_{ij}\stackrel{̊}{g}_{ij}|=O(r^1),|_kg_{ij}|=O(r^2),|_k_lg_{ij}|=O(r^3).$$
(1.2)
The total mass of $`(M,g)`$ is defined informally by

$$m_{ADM}=\frac{1}{16\pi }_{S^2(\mathrm{})}(_ig_{ij}_jg_{ii})𝑑S_j.$$
(1.3)
If the scalar curvature $`R(g)L^1(M)`$ then $`m_{ADM}`$ is well-defined, independent of the choices of rectangular coordinates and of exhaustion of $`M`$ used to define $`_{S^2(\mathrm{})}`$ — see  for weaker decay and smoothness assumptions.

For simplicity, the discussion here is restricted to $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ Riemannian 3-dimensional geometry. This corresponds to the case of time-symmetric initial data: $`(M,g)`$ is a totally geodesic spacelike hypersurface in a Lorentzian manifold, and we can identify the local matter (equivalently, energy) density with the scalar curvature $`R(g)0`$. This simplification entails a small loss of generality: most, but not all, of the results we describe have been extended to general asymptotically flat space-time initial data $`(M,g,K)`$, where $`K_{ij}`$ is the second fundamental form of a spacelike hypersurface $`M`$. Some results also generalize to the closely related Bondi mass, which measures mass and gravitational radiation flux near null infinity, and to mass on asymptotically hyperbolic and anti-deSitter spaces cf. , but these involve additional complications which we will not discuss here.

The Positive Mass Theorem (PMT) in its simplest form is

###### Theorem 1

Suppose $`(M,g)`$ is a complete asymptotically flat 3-manifold with non-negative scalar curvature $`R(g)0`$. Then $`m_{ADM}0`$, and $`m_{ADM}=0`$ iff $`(M,g)=(^3,\delta )`$.

The rigidity conclusion in the case $`m_{ADM}=0`$ shows that $`m_{ADM}>0`$ for $`(M,g)`$ scalar flat (“matter-free”) but non-flat, so $`m_{ADM}`$ does provide a measure of the gravitational field.

Three distinct approaches have been successfully used to prove the PMT: with stable minimal surfaces ; with spinors  and the Schrödinger-Lichnerowicz identity ; and using the Geroch foliation condition . A number of other appproaches have produced partial results: using spacetime geodesics ; a nonlinear elliptic system for a distinguished orthonormal frame ; and alternative foliation conditions . The connection between these approachs remains mysterious; the only discernable common thread is mean curvature, and this is quite tenuous.

The application of the positive mass theorem to resolve the Yamabe conjecture  is well known. Less well known is the proof of the uniqueness of the Schwarzschild spacetime amongst static metrics with smooth black hole boundary , which we briefly outline.

A *static spacetime* is a Lorentzian 4-manifold with a hypersurface-orthogonal timelike Killing vector. With $`V`$ denoting the length of the Killing vector, the metric $`g`$ on the spacelike hypersurface satisfies the static equations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill Ric_g& =& V^1^2V,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }_gV& =& 0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.4)
Smoothness implies the boundary set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{V=0\}`$ is totally geodesic; analyticity of $`g,V`$ can be used to show the asymptotic expansions

$`g_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+2m/r)\delta _{ij}+O(r^2),`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`1m/r+O(r^2),`$
as $`r\mathrm{}`$ for some constant $`m`$. The metrics $`g^\pm =\varphi _\pm ^4g`$ where $`\varphi _\pm =(1\pm V)/2`$ both have $`R(g^\pm )=0`$, and $`g^+`$ is asymptotically flat with vanishing ADM mass, and $`g^{}`$ is a (smooth) metric on a compact manifold. Gluing two copies of $`(M,g)`$ along the totally geodesic boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and conformally changing to $`\stackrel{~}{g}=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^4g`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\varphi _\pm `$ on the two copies of $`M`$, gives a complete AF manifold with $`R(\stackrel{~}{g})=0`$ and vanishing mass. The PMT shows $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{g})`$ is flat and it follows without difficulty that $`(M,g)`$ is Schwarzschild. This extends previous results  which required the boundary to be connected.

## 2. Penrose conjecture

A boundary component $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with mean curvature $`H=0`$ is called a *black hole* or *horizon*, since if $`(M,g)`$ is a totally geodesic hypersurface then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a trapped surface and hence, by the Penrose singularity theorem , lies within an event horizon and is destined to encounter geodesic incompleteness in the predictable future.

The spatial Schwarzschild metric $`g=\frac{dr^2}{12\text{m}/r}+r^2(d\vartheta ^2+\mathrm{sin}\vartheta d\phi ^2)`$ with $`\text{m}<0`$ shows that the completeness condition in the PMT is important, but it can be weakened to allow horizon boundary components of $`M`$. This follows immediately from the minimal surface argument ; or by an extension to the Witten argument , imposing one of the boundary conditions

$$\psi =\pm ϵ\psi \text{ on }\mathrm{\Sigma }=M,$$
(2.1)
on the spinor field $`\psi `$, where $`ϵ=\gamma ^n\gamma ^0`$ satisfies $`ϵ^2=1`$. An interesting extension is obtained by imposing the spectral boundary condition

$$P_+\psi =0\text{ on }\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(2.2)
where $`P_+`$ is the projection onto the subspace of positive eigenspinors of the induced Dirac operator $`𝒟_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Using the remarkable Hijazi-Bär estimate

$$|\lambda |\sqrt{4\pi /|\mathrm{\Sigma }|},$$
(2.3)
for the eigenvalues of $`𝒟_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }S^2`$, Herzlich showed

###### Theorem 2

If $`(M,g)`$ is asymptotically flat with $`R(g)0`$ and boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }S^2`$ with mean curvature satisfying

$$H_\mathrm{\Sigma }2/r$$
(2.4)
where $`r=\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Sigma }|/4\pi }`$, then $`m_{ADM}0`$, with equality iff $`(M,g)=(^3\backslash B(r),\delta )`$.

The proof starts with the Riemannian form of the Schrödinger-Lichnerowicz-Witten identity

$$_M(|\psi |^2+\frac{1}{4}R(g)|\psi |^2|𝒟\psi |^2)𝑑v_M=4\pi |\psi _{\mathrm{}}|^2m_{ADM}+_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mu (\psi ),$$
(2.5)
where $`\mu (\psi )`$ is the Nester-Witten form

$`\mu (\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ,(𝒟_\mathrm{\Sigma }+\frac{1}{2}H_\mathrm{\Sigma })\psi dv_\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ (2.6)
The boundary condition $`P^+\psi |_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$ is elliptic and it can be shown  there is a spinor on $`M`$ satisfying $`𝒟\psi =0`$ with boundary conditions $`\psi \psi _{\mathrm{}}0`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ and (2.2) on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It follows from (2.3) and (2.2) that $`\psi ,(𝒟_\mathrm{\Sigma }+\frac{1}{2}H_\mathrm{\Sigma })\psi (\frac{1}{2}H_\mathrm{\Sigma }|\lambda _1^{}|)|\psi |^20`$ and the result follows.

Observe that in each case, equality leads to flat $`^3`$. An elegant physical argument lead Penrose to conjecture an analogous inequality, but which distinguishes the Schwarzschild metric instead , see also .

###### Conjecture 3 (Penrose)

If $`(M,g)`$ satisfies the conditions of the PMT, except that $`M=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is compact with vanishing mean curvature and such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the “outermost” closed minimal surface in $`M`$, then

$$m_{ADM}\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Sigma }|/16\pi },$$
(2.7)
with equality only for the Schwarzschild metric.

A closed minimal surface is said to be an *outermost horizon* or *outer-minimizing horizon* if $`M`$ contains no least area surfaces homologous to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the asymptotic region exterior to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The outermost condition is essential, since examples of non-negative scalar curvature manifolds can be constructed by forming the connected sum of $`M`$ and large spheres by arbitrarily small and large necks.

The Penrose conjecture has been established by Huisken and Ilmanen  using a variational level set formulation of the inverse mean curvature flow , and by Bray  by a very interesting conformal deformation argument. Bray’s proof is more general since it takes into account contributions from all the connected components of the boundary.

## 3. Quasi-local mass

Thus it is natural to consider $`\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Sigma }|/16\pi }`$ as the mass of a black hole (minimal surface) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. More generally, the correspondence with Newtonian gravity suggests that any bounded region $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ should have a *quasi-local* mass, which measures both the matter density (represented in this case by the scalar curvature $`R(g)0`$), and some contribution from the gravitational field. The rather satisfactory positivity properties of the total mass, as established by the PMT, motivate the properties we might expect such a geometric mass to possess .

1. (non-negativity) $`m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })0`$;
2. (rigidity/strict positivity) $`m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })=0`$ if and only if $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ is flat;
3. (monotonicity) $`m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ whenever $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, where it is understood that the inclusion is a metric isometry;
4. (spherical mass) $`m_{QL}`$ should agree with the spherical mass, for spherically symmetric regions;
5. (ADM limit) $`m_{QL}`$ should be asymptotic to the ADM mass;
6. (black hole limit) $`m_{QL}`$ should agree with the black hole mass (2.7).

Many candidates have been proposed for quasi-local mass (see for example  for a comparison of some definitions), the most significant being that of Hawking ,

$$m_H(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\sqrt{\frac{|\mathrm{\Sigma }|}{16\pi }}\left(1\frac{1}{16\pi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }H^2\right)$$
(3.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This equals m for standard spheres in Schwarschild. Although $`m_H0`$ for surfaces in $`^3`$, it was shown in  that $`m_H(\mathrm{\Sigma })0`$ for a stable constant mean curvature 2-sphere $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in a 3-manifold of non-negative scalar curvature. Thus for such “round” spheres, $`m_H`$ is nonegative, and the black hole limit condition is trivially satisfied. However the remaining properties, in particular rigidity and monotonicity, are rather problematic. Although the twistorially-defined Penrose quasi-local mass  is well-behaved in special cases , it is defined unambiguously only for surfaces arising from embedding into a conformally flat spacetime, and even then numerical experiments  strongly suggest that monotonicity is violated.

In fact, of the various proposals for $`m_{QL}`$, only the definitions of  are known to satisfy positivity. Dougan and Mason  show that the integral $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mu (\psi )`$ of the Nester-Witten 2-form (2.6) is positive for spinor fields $`\psi `$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which satisfy a certain elliptic system on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. However, Bergqvist  shows that positivity holds under much weaker conditions on $`\psi `$, and there are many variant definitions with similar properties. It would be useful to understand these DM-style definitions better, and in particular whether any satisfy monotonicity.

Monotonicity and ADM-compatibility imply $`m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })m_{ADM}(M,g)`$ for any region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ embedded isometrically in an $`(M,g)`$ satisfying (as always) the PMT conditions. This motivates the following definition

###### Definition 4

Let $`𝒫`$ denote the set of all asymptotically flat 3-manifolds $`(M,g)`$ of non-negative scalar curvature, with boundary which if non-empty, consists of compact outermost horizons, and such that $`(M,g)`$ has no other horizons. For any bounded open connected region $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$, let $`𝒫(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be the set of $`(M,g)𝒫`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ embeds isometrically into $`M`$, and define

$$m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })=inf\{m_{ADM}(M,g):(M,g)𝒫(\mathrm{\Omega })\}.$$
(3.2)
We say that $`M`$ satisfying these conditions is an *admissible extension* of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The horizon condition serves to exclude examples which hide $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ inside an arbitrarily small neck, which would force the infimum to zero. This is a refinement  of the original definition , which prohibited horizons altogether.

Clearly $`m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is well-defined and finite, once the region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ admits just one admissible extension. The PMT with horizon boundary implies non-negativity, and monotonicity follows directly. Strict positivity of $`m_{QL}`$ was established in , with the slightly weaker rigidity conclusion that if $`m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })=0`$ then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is locally flat. Agreement with the spherical mass, and the ADM limit condition, follows also from . Bray’s results imply that $`m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ agrees with the black hole mass in the limit as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ shrinks down to a black hole. In addition, $`m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })m_{ADM}(M)`$ for any admissible extension $`M`$, so $`m_{QL}`$ is the optimal quasi-local mass definition with respect to this condition.

The optimal form of the horizon condition remains conjectural. Bray has suggested an alternative condition, that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a “strictly minimizing hull”  in $`M`$, so $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has the least area amongst all enclosing surfaces in the exterior. In this case we say $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is *outer minimizing*, and denote by $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ the quasilocal mass function defined by restricting admissible extensions to those $`M`$ in which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is outer minimizing. For this modified definition the Penrose inequality  applies to show that if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ embeds into the Schwarzschild 3-manifold with the same induced metric and mean curvature (cf. (4.1), (4.2)) and encloses the horizon, then $`m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })=\text{m}`$. It is not clear how to establish this natural result for the unmodified definition $`m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

## 4. Static metrics

Although in many respects the definition of $`m_{QL}`$ is quite satisfactory, it is not constructive, and thus it is important to determine computational methods. The key is the following

###### Conjecture 5

The infimum in $`m_{QL}`$ is realised by a 3-metric agreeing with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the interior, *static* (1.4) in the exterior region, and such that the metric is Lipschitz-continuous across the matching surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and the mean curvatures of the two sides agree along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

A similar conjecture for the space-time generalisation of the quasi-local mass, asserts that the exterior metric is *stationary*, ie. admits a timelike Killing field .

As motivation for this conjecture, note first that if $`R(g)>0`$ in some region, then a conformal factor $`\varphi `$ can be found such that $`\varphi ^4g`$ has less mass and $`R(\varphi ^4g)0`$. Thus a mass-minimizing metric for (4), if such a metric exists, must have vanishing scalar curvature. Now if the linearization $`DR(g)h=\delta _g\delta _gh\mathrm{\Delta }tr_ghRich`$ is surjective then $`g`$ admits a variation which produces positive scalar curvature. The formal obstruction to surjectivity is non-trivial $`\mathrm{ker}DR(g)^{}`$, which leads to the static metric equations (1.4). Corvino  shows that if $`\mathrm{ker}DR(g)^{}`$ is trivial in $`UM`$ then there are compactly supported metric variations in $`U`$ which increase the scalar curvature. This gives

###### Theorem 6

If $`(M,g)`$ realizes the infimum in Definition 4, then there is a $`VC^{\mathrm{}}(M\backslash \mathrm{\Omega })`$ such that $`g,V`$ satisfy the static metric equations (1.4) in $`M\backslash \mathrm{\Omega }`$.

This suggests a computational algorithm for determining $`m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$: find an asymptotically flat static metric with boundary geometry matching that of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. To determine the appropriate boundary conditions, recall the second variation formula for the area of the leaves of a foliation labelled by $`r`$:

$$R(g)=2D_nH|II|^2H^2+2K2\lambda ^1\mathrm{\Delta }_r\lambda $$
(4.1)
where $`II,H,K`$ are respectively the second fundamental form, mean curvature and Gauss curvature of the leaves, $`\lambda `$ is the lapse function, $`n=\lambda ^1_r`$ is the normal vector and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$ is the Laplacian on the leaves. Our conventions give $`H=D_n(\mathrm{log}\sqrt{detg_r})`$ where $`g_r`$ is the volume element of the leaves. This shows that $`R(g)`$ will be defined distributionally across a matching surface as a bounded function if

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g|_{T\mathrm{\Omega }}& =& g|_{T\mathrm{\Sigma }},\hfill \\ \hfill H_\mathrm{\Omega }& =& H_\mathrm{\Sigma }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.2)
###### Conjecture 7

$`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ determines a unique static asymptotically flat manifold $`(S,g)`$ with boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfying (4.2).

If true, this would give a prime candidate for the minimal mass extension. It is known (Pengzi Miao, private communication) that the boundary conditions (4.2) are elliptic for (1.4).

It is tempting to conjecture that mass-minimizing sequences for $`m_{QL}`$ should converge to a static metric. For example, \[3, Theorem 5.2\] shows that a sequence of metrics $`g_k`$, close in the weighted Sobolev space $`W_\tau ^{2,q}`$, $`q>3,\tau >1/2`$, to the flat metric $`\delta `$ on $`^3`$ and such that $`m_{ADM}(g_k)0`$, converges strongly to $`\delta `$ in $`W^{1,2}`$. Similar results, under rather different size conditions, are given in , and a discussion of the general “weak compactness” conjecture may be found in .

## 5. Estimating quasi-local mass

To estimate $`m_{QL}`$ from above, it suffices to construct admissible extensions — metrics with non-negative scalar curvature and satisfying (4.2). These boundary conditions exclude the usual conformal method. Instead, metrics in *quasi-spherical* form

$$g=u^2dr^2+(rd\vartheta +\beta ^1dr)^2+(r\mathrm{sin}\vartheta d\phi +\beta ^2dr)^2$$
(5.1)
satisfy a parabolic equation for $`u`$ on $`S^2`$ evolving in the radial direction, when $`R(g)=0`$, with $`\beta ^1,\beta ^2`$ freely specifiable. Since the metric 2-spheres $`S_r^2`$ have mean curvature $`H_r=(2\mathrm{div}_{S^2}\beta )/ur>0`$, (5.1) provides admissible extensions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=S_r^2`$ with mean curvature $`H>0`$. The underlying parabolic equation derives from (4.1), and has been generalized to non-spherical foliations in . As an application, choosing $`\beta =0`$ we can show

###### Theorem 8

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Omega }=S_r^2`$ metrically, with $`H0`$. Then

$$m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })\frac{1}{2}r(1\frac{1}{4}r^2\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{min}}H^2).$$
(5.2)
This bound is sharp when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a flat ball or a Schwarzschild horizon.

Finding lower bounds for $`m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is more difficult. Bray’s definition of *inner mass* \[12, p243\] gives a lower bound, but for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. The difficulty here as above lies in showing that a horizon inside $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ remains outermost when the inner region is glued to a general exterior region $`M_{\mathrm{ext}}M𝒫(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. This follows easily when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is outer-minimizing in $`M_{\mathrm{ext}}`$, as guaranteed by the definition for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

On physical grounds one expects that if “too much” matter is compressed into region which is “too small”, then a black hole must be present. The geometric challenge lies in making this heuristic statement precise, and the only result in this direction has been , which gives quantitative measures which guarantee the existence of a black hole. An observation by Walter Simon (private communication) is thus very interesting: if $`m_{QL}(\mathrm{\Omega })=1`$ (say) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ embeds isometrically into a complete asymptotically flat manifold $`M`$ without boundary and with non-negative scalar curvature, and such that $`m_{ADM}(M)<1`$, then $`M`$ must have a horizon. This reinforces the importance of finding good lower bounds for $`m_{QL}`$, since the existence of a horizon in a similar situation with $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{QL}`$ does not follow.