text:
# Hartree-Fock approach to nuclear matter and finite nuclei with M3Y-type nucleon-nucleon interactions

## I Introduction

Various models for nuclear structure have been developed in order to study low energy phenomena of the atomic nuclei. Whereas straightforward application of the bare $`NN`$ interaction is yet limited only to light nuclei ref:micro , the nuclear structure seems to be well described by relatively simple effective interactions at low energies. Although the effective interactions may depend on the models, there should be basic characters in the effective interactions for the low energy phenomena, irrespective to the models. On the other hand, since the invention of the secondary beam technology, experimental data on the unstable nuclei have disclosed new aspects of the nuclear structure. A remarkable example is the dependence of magic numbers on the neutron excess ref:magic . In regard to the new magic numbers discovered near the neutron drip line, a question has been raised on a character of the effective interactions relating to the spin-isospin flip mode ref:Vst .

Mean-field theories have successfully been applied to the nuclear structure problems, in particular for stable nuclei. They are also useful to investigate basic characters of the effective interactions. However, not many effective interactions have been explored for the nuclear mean-field calculations so far. The Skyrme interaction ref:VB72  has been popular in the Hartree-Fock (HF) calculations, since the zero-range form is easy to be handled. Among a limited number of finite-range interactions, the Gogny interaction ref:Gogny  is widely applied to the mean-field calculations, in which the Gaussian form is assumed for the central force. The parameter-sets both of the Skyrme and the Gogny interactions have been adjusted mainly to the data on the nuclei around the $`\beta `$-stability. It is not obvious whether the available parameter-sets of these interactions account for the new magic numbers properly.

In order to exploit effective interactions applicable also to unstable nuclei, guide from microscopic theories will be important. Brueckner’s $`G`$-matrix has been a significant clue to studies in this course. Although microscopic approaches using the $`G`$-matrix have not yet been successful in reproducing the saturation properties, notable progress has been made recently. In the shell model approaches, microscopic effective interactions have been shown to reproduce observed levels remarkably well ref:shell-G . It should be noted, however, that the shell model interactions are usually specific to mass regions, and their global characters have not been discussed in detail, despite several exceptions ref:ST . The so-called Michigan 3-range Yukawa (M3Y) interaction ref:M3Y  has been derived from the bare $`NN`$ interaction, by fitting the Yukawa functions to the $`G`$-matrix. Represented by the sum of the Yukawa functions, the M3Y-type interactions will be tractable in various models. It has been shown that the M3Y interaction gives matrix elements similar to reliable shell model interactions ref:USD . Moreover, with a certain modification, M3Y-type interactions have successfully been applied to nuclear reactions ref:reac . By using a recently developed algorithm ref:NS02 , a class of the M3Y-type interactions can be applied also to the mean-field calculations. Under such circumstances, it will be of interest to explore M3Y-type interactions and to investigate their characters in the mean-field framework. In this article, we shall develop M3Y-type interactions and investigate their characters via the HF calculations.

## II Modification of M3Y interaction

Nuclear effective Hamiltonian consists of the kinetic energy and the effective interaction,

$$H=K+V;K=\underset{i}{}\frac{𝐩_i^2}{2M},V=\underset{i<j}{}v_{ij}.$$
(1)
Here $`i`$ and $`j`$ are the indices of individual nucleons. It will be natural to assume the effective interaction $`v_{ij}`$ to be translationally invariant, except for the density dependence mentioned below. We consider the effective interaction having the following form,

$`v_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}+v_{12}^{(\mathrm{LS})}+v_{12}^{(\mathrm{TN})}+v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})};`$
$`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(t_n^{(\mathrm{SE})}P_{\mathrm{SE}}+t_n^{(\mathrm{TE})}P_{\mathrm{TE}}+t_n^{(\mathrm{SO})}P_{\mathrm{SO}}+t_n^{(\mathrm{TO})}P_{\mathrm{TO}})f_n^{(\mathrm{C})}(r_{12}),`$
$`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{LS})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(t_n^{(\mathrm{LSE})}P_{\mathrm{TE}}+t_n^{(\mathrm{LSO})}P_{\mathrm{TO}})f_n^{(\mathrm{LS})}(r_{12})𝐋_{12}(𝐬_1+𝐬_2),`$
$`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{TN})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(t_n^{(\mathrm{TNE})}P_{\mathrm{TE}}+t_n^{(\mathrm{TNO})}P_{\mathrm{TO}})f_n^{(\mathrm{TN})}(r_{12})r_{12}^2S_{12},`$
$`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$ $`=`$ $`t^{(\mathrm{DD})}(1+x^{(\mathrm{DD})}P_\sigma )[\rho (𝐫_1)]^\alpha \delta (𝐫_{12}).`$ (2)
The relative coordinate is denoted by $`𝐫_{12}=𝐫_1𝐫_2`$ and $`r_{12}=|𝐫_{12}|`$. Correspondingly, the relative momentum is defined by $`𝐩_{12}=(𝐩_1𝐩_2)/2`$. $`𝐋_{12}`$ is the relative orbital angular momentum,

$$𝐋_{12}=𝐫_{12}\times 𝐩_{12},$$
(3)
$`𝐬_1`$, $`𝐬_2`$ are the nucleon spin operators, and $`S_{12}`$ is the tensor operator,

$$S_{12}=4[3(𝐬_1\widehat{𝐫}_{12})(𝐬_2\widehat{𝐫}_{12})𝐬_1𝐬_2].$$
(4)
$`f_n(r_{12})`$ represents an appropriate function of $`r_{12}`$, the subscript $`n`$ corresponds to the parameter attached to the function (e.g. the range of the interaction), and $`t_n`$ is the coefficient. Examples of $`f_n(r_{12})`$ are the delta, the Gauss and the Yukawa functions. $`P_\sigma `$ ($`P_\tau `$) denotes the spin (isospin) exchange operator, while $`P_{\mathrm{SE}}`$, $`P_{\mathrm{TE}}`$, $`P_{\mathrm{SO}}`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{TO}}`$ are the projection operators on the singlet-even (SE), triplet-even (TE), singlet-odd (SO) and triplet-odd (TO) two-particle states, respectively, which are defined by

$`P_{\mathrm{SE}}={\displaystyle \frac{1P_\sigma }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+P_\tau }{2}},P_{\mathrm{TE}}={\displaystyle \frac{1+P_\sigma }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1P_\tau }{2}},`$
$`P_{\mathrm{SO}}={\displaystyle \frac{1P_\sigma }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1P_\tau }{2}}.P_{\mathrm{TO}}={\displaystyle \frac{1+P_\sigma }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+P_\tau }{2}}.`$ (5)
The nucleon density is denoted by $`\rho (𝐫)`$. The original M3Y interaction is represented in the form of Eq. (2), with $`f_n(r_{12})=e^{\mu _nr_{12}}/\mu _nr_{12}`$ and $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}=0`$. As discussed in Ref. ref:NS02 , the Skyrme and the Gogny interactions are obtained by setting $`f_n(r_{12})`$ appropriately, except for some parameter-sets of the Skyrme interaction in which certain terms are expressed only in the density-functional form.

The saturation of density and energy is a basic property of nuclei. In developing effective interactions adaptable for many nuclei, it is required to reproduce the saturation property. However, the non-relativistic $`G`$-matrix fails to reproduce the saturation at the right density and energy. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to use the $`G`$-matrix for HF calculations without any modification, although several HF approaches using interactions derived from the $`G`$-matrix were tried in earlier studies ref:Neg70 . The M3Y interaction was obtained so that the $`G`$-matrix at a certain density could be reproduced by a sum of the Yukawa functions. The M3Y interaction gives no saturation point within the HF theory, unless density-dependence is taken into account explicitly. Khoa et al. applied the M3Y interaction to nuclear reactions in the folding model, by making the coupling constants dependent on densities ref:reac . In their approach the exchange terms are treated approximately. However, the exchange terms may contribute quite significantly to the nuclear structure. We here keep the coupling constants in $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}`$ independent of density, while introduce a density-dependent contact interaction ($`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$ in Eq. (2)), as in the Skyrme and the Gogny interactions. We can then treat the exchange (i.e. the Fock) terms exactly with the currently available computers. It should be mentioned that there has been an interesting attempt to approximate the exchange terms of the interaction in the density-matrix expansion ref:HL98 , although the accuracy of the density-matrix expansion should be checked carefully.

We start from the Paris-potential version of the M3Y interaction ref:M3Y-P . This original parameter-set with no density-dependence is hereafter called ‘M3Y-P0’. We shall modify this interaction so as to reproduce the saturation properties. In the isotropic uniform nuclear matter, matrix elements of $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{LS})}`$ and $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{TN})}`$ between the HF states vanish. Therefore $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}+v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$ determines the bulk properties such as the saturation. The range parameters for the Yukawa functions $`f_n^{(\mathrm{C})}(r_{12})=e^{\mu _nr_{12}}/\mu _nr_{12}`$ in $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}`$ are $`\mu _1^1=0.25`$, $`\mu _2^1=0.4`$ and $`\mu _3^1=1.414\mathrm{fm}`$ in the M3Y interaction, which correspond to the Compton wave-lengths of mesons with masses of about 790, 490 and 140 MeV, respectively. We do not change these parameters. For the longest-range part ($`n=3`$), the coupling constants $`t_3^{(\mathrm{SE})}`$, $`t_3^{(\mathrm{TE})}`$, $`t_3^{(\mathrm{SO})}`$ and $`t_3^{(\mathrm{TO})}`$ are fixed to be those of the one-pion-exchange potential (OPEP), as in M3Y-P0. The interaction $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$ in Eq. (2) acts only on the SE and TE channels,

$$v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}=t^{(\mathrm{DD})}(1x^{(\mathrm{DD})})\delta (𝐫_{12})P_{\mathrm{SE}}+t^{(\mathrm{DD})}(1+x^{(\mathrm{DD})})\delta (𝐫_{12})P_{\mathrm{TE}}.$$
(6)
Microscopic investigations have shown that the density-dependence of the TE part is primarily responsible for the saturation ref:Bet71 , as a higher-order effect of the tensor force. While the interaction in the SE channel is attractive at low densities, it also has certain density-dependence originating in the strong short-range repulsion. Thus, a possible way of modifying the M3Y interaction may be to replace a fraction of the repulsion in the SE and TE channels by $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$.

In addition to the saturation properties which are relevant to the central force, the LS splitting is significant in describing the shell structure of nuclei. While true origin of the LS splitting is not yet obvious ref:LS , LS splittings obtained from HF calculations with the $`G`$-matrix interaction are too small, in comparison with the observed ones. From the HF calculations for finite nuclei, we find that $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{LS})}`$ should be about twice as strong as that of M3Y-P0 to reproduce the observed LS splittings. The tensor force influences the ordering of the single-particle (s.p.) orbits. To reproduce the observed ordering, $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{TN})}`$ should be smaller than that of M3Y-P0. We here introduce an overall enhancement factor to $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{LS})}`$ and an overall reduction factor to $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{TN})}`$, as will be shown in Section V.

In this paper we shall use two parameter-sets for modified M3Y interaction, ‘M3Y-P1’ and ‘M3Y-P2’, in order to show sensitivity to the parameters for some results. In M3Y-P1, we replace the shortest-range ($`n=1`$) repulsive part of $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}`$ by $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$ in a simple manner. We reduce both $`t_1^{(\mathrm{SE})}`$ and $`t_1^{(\mathrm{TE})}`$ by a single factor, keeping the SE/TE ratio in $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$ to be equal to $`t_1^{(\mathrm{SE})}/t_1^{(\mathrm{TE})}`$ in M3Y-P0, by imposing

$$x^{(\mathrm{DD})}=\frac{t_1^{(\mathrm{TE})}t_1^{(\mathrm{SE})}}{t_1^{(\mathrm{TE})}+t_1^{(\mathrm{SE})}}.$$
(7)
The reduction factor and $`t^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$ are determined so as for the saturation density and energy in the nuclear matter to be typical values, as presented in the subsequent section. Characters of M3Y-P1 will be investigated in the nuclear matter. Although this modification is too simple to reproduce properties of finite nuclei, the M3Y-P1 set will be useful to clarify what characters arise from the original M3Y interaction, relatively insensitive to the phenomenological modification. In the M3Y-P2 set, all $`t_n`$ parameters belonging to the $`n=1`$ and $`2`$ channels in $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}`$ are shifted from those of M3Y-P0. Although we have three ranges in $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}`$, the number of adjustable parameters is no greater than in the Gogny interaction, since we fix the OPEP part. We fit those parameters, together with the enhancement factor for $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{LS})}`$ and the reduction factor for $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{TN})}`$, to the binding energies of several doubly magic nuclei. The resultant values of the parameters will be shown later.

## III Properties of nuclear matter at and around saturation point

Basic characters of nuclear effective interactions can be discussed via properties of the infinite nuclear matter; in particular, properties at and around the saturation point. In this section we investigate characters of the M3Y-type interactions via the nuclear matter properties within the HF theory. In comparison, we also discuss those of the Skyrme and the Gogny interactions. We use the D1S parameter-set ref:D1S  for the Gogny interaction. In most of the Skyrme HF approaches, the LS currents arising from the momentum-dependence of the central force are ignored, and the parameters are adjusted without their contribution. Although this treatment occasionally improves some characters of the interactions, in this paper we would focus on characters of the two-body interactions, rather than those of density functionals. For this reason we adopt the SLy5 set ref:SLy , which is devised for calculations including the LS currents.

In the HF theory of the nuclear matter, the s.p. wave-functions can be taken to be the plane wave,

$$\phi _{𝐤\sigma \tau }(𝐫)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}}e^{i𝐤𝐫}\chi _\sigma \chi _\tau .$$
(8)
Here $`\chi _\sigma `$ ($`\chi _\tau `$) denotes the spin (isospin) wave-function, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ indicates the volume of the system, for which we will take the $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$ limit afterward. The s.p. energy for this state is defined as

$$ϵ(𝐤\sigma \tau )=\frac{𝐤^2}{2M}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{\sigma _2\tau _2}{}_{k_2k_{\mathrm{F}\tau _2\sigma _2}}d^3k_2𝐤\sigma \tau ,𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2|v_{12}|𝐤\sigma \tau ,𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2.$$
(9)
Energy of the nuclear matter is expressed by a function of densities depending on the spin and the isospin, $`\rho _{\tau \sigma }`$ ($`\tau =p,n`$; $`\sigma =,`$). The density variables can be converted to the total density $`\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}\rho _{\tau \sigma }`$, and the spin- and isospin-asymmetry parameters

$`\eta _s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}\sigma \rho _{\tau \sigma }}{\rho }}={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _p\rho _p+\rho _n\rho _n}{\rho }},`$
$`\eta _t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}\tau \rho _{\tau \sigma }}{\rho }}={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _p+\rho _p\rho _n\rho _n}{\rho }},`$
$`\eta _{st}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}\sigma \tau \rho _{\tau \sigma }}{\rho }}={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _p\rho _p\rho _n+\rho _n}{\rho }},`$ (10)
where $`\sigma `$ ($`\tau `$) in the summation takes $`\pm 1`$, corresponding to $`\sigma =,`$ ($`\tau =p,n`$). By assuming that the s.p. states are occupied up to the Fermi momentum, the density is related to the Fermi momentum for each spin and isospin,

$$\rho _{\tau \sigma }=\frac{1}{6\pi ^2}k_{\mathrm{F}\tau \sigma }^3.$$
(11)
The total energy of nuclear matter is given by

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _1\tau _1}{}}{\displaystyle _{k_1k_{\mathrm{F}\tau _1\sigma _1}}}d^3k_1{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_1^2}{2M}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _1\sigma _2\tau _1\tau _2}{}}{\displaystyle _{k_1k_{\mathrm{F}\tau _1\sigma _1}}}d^3k_1{\displaystyle _{k_2k_{\mathrm{F}\tau _2\sigma _2}}}d^3k_2𝐤_1\sigma _1\tau _1,𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2|v_{12}|𝐤_1\sigma _1\tau _1,𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2.`$
As already pointed out, only $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}+v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$ contributes to the energy of the isotropic nuclear matter. In Appendix A, several formulae on the HF energy of the nuclear matter are derived for interactions expressed in the form of Eq. (2), with general and typical $`f_n^{(\mathrm{C})}(r_{12})`$. As well as for the M3Y-type interactions, the nuclear matter energies are calculated for the Skyrme and the Gogny interactions by using these formulae.

In the spin-saturated symmetric nuclear matter, we have $`\eta _s=\eta _t=\eta _{st}=0`$, which indicates $`k_{\mathrm{F}p}=k_{\mathrm{F}p}=k_{\mathrm{F}n}=k_{\mathrm{F}n}`$ and $`\rho _p=\rho _p=\rho _n=\rho _n=\rho /4`$. In this case we denote the Fermi momentum simply by $`k_\mathrm{F}`$. The lowest energy for a given $`\rho `$ normally occurs along this line. The saturation point is obtained by minimizing the energy per nucleon $`=E/A`$,

$$\frac{}{\rho }|_{\mathrm{sat}.}=0,$$
(13)
which yields the saturation density $`\rho _0`$ (equivalently, $`k_{\mathrm{F0}}`$) and energy $`_0`$. Figure 1 illustrates $``$ as a function of $`\rho `$ for the symmetric nuclear matter with the M3Y-type as well as with the SLy5 and D1S effective interactions. We set $`M=(M_p+M_n)/2`$, where $`M_p`$ ($`M_n`$) is the measured mass of a proton (a neutron). The parameters for $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}`$ and $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$ of the M3Y-type interactions are listed in Table 1. As mentioned above, the M3Y-P0 interaction gives no saturation point. We do have saturation points in M3Y-P1 and M3Y-P2 owing to $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$. Differences among the saturating forces, i.e. SLy5, D1S, M3Y-P1 and M3Y-P2, are small at $`\rho \rho _0`$. At relatively high density ($`\rho 0.3\mathrm{fm}^3`$), the M3Y-P1 and the M3Y-P2 interactions have lower $``$ than SLy5 and higher than D1S. The values of $`k_{\mathrm{F0}}`$ and $`_0`$ are tabulated in Table 2. The M3Y-P1 set has been determined so as to give $`k_{\mathrm{F0}}1.36\mathrm{fm}`$ and $`_016\mathrm{MeV}`$.

In Figs. 2 and 3, contribution to $``$ from each of the SE, TE, SO and TO channels in $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}+v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$ is shown as a function of $`k_\mathrm{F}`$. Sum of all these channels and the kinetic energy $`K/A=(3/5)(k_\mathrm{F}^2/2M)`$ is equal to $``$ in Fig. 1. As is viewed in Fig. 2, the TE channel takes a minimum at $`k_\mathrm{F}=1.31.5\mathrm{fm}`$ except for M3Y-P0 and M3Y-P1, primarily responsible for the saturation at $`k_{\mathrm{F0}}1.3\mathrm{fm}`$. In the D1S interaction, the energy out of the SE channel monotonically goes down. This is not compatible with the presence of the strong short-range repulsion in the $`NN`$ force, and causes an unphysical property in the neutron matter, as will be shown in Section IV. Both the SO and TO channels do not contribute to $``$ significantly for $`\rho \rho _0`$ (i.e. $`k_\mathrm{F}k_{\mathrm{F0}}`$). While the SO channel becomes attractive and the TO channel stays small in the SLy5 and the D1S interactions, both channels are repulsive in the M3Y-type interactions at $`\rho >\rho _0`$, including M3Y-P0. A certain part of this character of the M3Y-type interactions comes from the OPEP part.

The curvature at the saturation point with respect to $`\rho `$ is proportional to the incompressibility,

$$𝒦=k_\mathrm{F}^2\frac{^2}{k_\mathrm{F}^2}|_{\mathrm{sat}.}=9\rho ^2\frac{^2}{\rho ^2}|_{\mathrm{sat}.}.$$
(14)
The effective mass ($`k`$-mass) at the saturation point $`M_0^{}`$ is defined by

$$\frac{ϵ(𝐤\sigma \tau )}{k}|_{\mathrm{sat}.}=\frac{k_{\mathrm{F0}}}{M_0^{}}.$$
(15)
The volume asymmetry energy corresponds to the curvature of $``$ with respect to $`\eta _t`$,

$$a_t=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{\eta _t^2}|_{\mathrm{sat}.}.$$
(16)
Analogously, the following coefficients are defined from the curvatures of $``$ with respect to $`\eta _s`$ and $`\eta _{st}`$,

$$a_s=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{\eta _s^2}|_{\mathrm{sat}.},a_{st}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{\eta _{st}^2}|_{\mathrm{sat}.}.$$
(17)
These coefficients $`a_s`$, $`a_t`$ and $`a_{st}`$ are relevant to the spin and isospin responses in finite nuclei. In Table 2 we also compare $`𝒦`$, $`M_0^{}`$, $`a_t`$, $`a_s`$ and $`a_{st}`$ among the effective interactions.

The incompressibility $`𝒦`$ is sensitive to $`\alpha `$ in $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$. The experimental value of $`𝒦`$ has been extracted from the excitation energies of the giant monopole resonances. Despite a certain model-dependence, most non-relativistic models are consistent with the experiments if $`𝒦210\mathrm{MeV}`$. For finite-range interactions, i.e. the Gogny and the M3Y-type interactions, $`\alpha 1/3`$ seems to give reasonable values of $`𝒦`$, while in the Skyrme interactions $`\alpha 1/6`$ looks favorable, because of the momentum-dependent terms in $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}`$. The $`k`$-mass is empirically known to be $`M_0^{}(0.60.7)M`$ ref:Mahaux . The M3Y-type interactions tend to yield slightly smaller $`M_0^{}`$ than the SLy5 and the D1S interactions. The volume asymmetry energy $`a_t`$ is important in reproducing global trend of the binding energies for the $`ZN`$ nuclei. From empirical viewpoints $`a_t30\mathrm{MeV}`$ seems appropriate, as is fulfilled in the M3Y-type interactions under consideration.

The $`a_s`$ and $`a_{st}`$ coefficients are relevant to the spin degrees of freedom. The kinetic energy has a certain contribution to $`a_s`$ and $`a_{st}`$, as well as to $`a_t`$, which amounts to about $`12\mathrm{MeV}`$ at $`\rho \rho _0`$ equally for $`a_t`$, $`a_s`$ and $`a_{st}`$. The interaction $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}+v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$ gives rise to the rest of these coefficients. Both the M3Y-type interactions have similar tendency with respect to these coefficients. It is remarkable that $`a_{st}`$ is substantially larger in the M3Y-type interactions than $`a_s`$. As is suggested by close $`a_s`$ and $`a_{st}`$ values between M3Y-P1 and M3Y-P2, the original M3Y interaction already carries this feature. In particular, the OPEP part included in the M3Y-type interactions plays a significant role, increasing $`a_{st}`$ by about $`11\mathrm{MeV}`$. On the other hand, $`a_s`$ and $`a_{st}`$ are comparable in the Gogny D1S interaction, and we have even $`a_s>a_{st}`$ in the Skyrme SLy5 interaction. In the SLy5 case, $`a_{st}`$ is close to the value due only to the kinetic energy.

Global characters of the spin and isospin responses are customarily discussed in terms of the Landau parameters. Formulae on the Landau parameters at the zero temperature are given in Appendix B. We compute the parameters of Eq. (73). The results are shown in Table 3. It is remarked that the M3Y-P1 and M3Y-P2 interactions give similar results. The $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the $`g_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ parameters are closely related to the $`a_s`$ and the $`a_{st}`$ coefficients, respectively. It has been known that $`g_0`$ is small, while $`g_0^{}`$ should be relatively large ref:g'0 . Although it is not easy to extract precise values of the Landau parameters from experimental data because they could depend on the interaction forms, qualitative trend will not depend on effective interactions. The M3Y-type interactions seem to have reasonable characters on the spin and isospin responses, while SLy5 and D1S do not, although the spin and isospin natures of the Skyrme interactions seem to be improved if the LS currents are ignored ref:Lan-Sky . It is likely that the difference in these coefficients may significantly influence predictions of the spin and isospin responses of finite nuclei.

## IV Properties of asymmetric nuclear matter and neutron matter

We turn to the asymmetric nuclear matter. In Fig. 4, energies per nucleon $``$ are depicted as a functions of $`\rho `$ for the spin-saturated (i.e. $`\eta _s=\eta _{st}=0`$) nuclear matter with $`\eta _t=0.2`$ and $`0.5`$. The results from the M3Y-type interactions are compared with those of the Skyrme and the Gogny interactions. Energies of the spin-saturated neutron matter (i.e. $`\eta _t=1`$) are presented in Fig. 5. Results from a microscopic calculation in Ref. ref:FP81  are also shown as a reference. Although the dependence on the interactions is not strong at low densities even for the neutron matter, it becomes stronger at $`\rho >0.2\mathrm{fm}`$ as $`|\eta _t|`$ increases. In the D1S result for the neutron matter, $``$ has a maximum at $`\rho 0.6\mathrm{fm}`$ and goes to $`\mathrm{}`$ as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. This unphysical behavior arises from $`x^{(\mathrm{DD})}=1`$ in the D1S set, which implies no density-dependence in the SE channel (see Eq. (6)). This could also give rise to a problem in practical calculations for finite nuclei. With the SLy5 interaction $``$ goes up rapidly at any $`\eta _t`$, because of the momentum-dependence of the interaction. In contrast to them, the M3Y-type interactions give moderate $``$ for the neutron matter. The microscopic energy of Ref. ref:FP81  lies between those of M3Y-P1 and M3Y-P2. It will be possible, if necessary, to adjust the parameters of the M3Y-type interactions to the microscopic results.

## V Properties of doubly magic nuclei

We next discuss properties of doubly magic nuclei in the HF approximation. In the calculations for finite nuclei, we use the algorithm presented in Ref. ref:NS02 , where the following s.p. bases are employed,

$`\phi _{\alpha \mathrm{}jm}(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{\alpha \mathrm{}j}(r)[Y^{(\mathrm{})}(\widehat{𝐫})\chi _\sigma ]_m^{(j)};`$
$`R_{\alpha \mathrm{}j}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩_{\alpha \mathrm{}j}r^{\mathrm{}+2p_\alpha }\mathrm{exp}[(r/\nu _\alpha )^2].`$ (18)
Here $`Y^{(\mathrm{})}(\widehat{𝐫})`$ expresses the spherical harmonics. We drop the isospin index without confusion. The index $`\alpha `$ indicates $`p_\alpha `$ (a non-negative integer) and $`\nu _\alpha `$, simultaneously. By choosing $`p_\alpha `$ and $`\nu _\alpha `$ appropriately, these bases span the space equivalent to that of the harmonic-oscillator (HO) bases, as well as they can form the Kamimura-Gauss (KG) basis-set ref:KKF . Without parameters specific to mass number or nuclide such as $`\mathrm{}\omega `$, a single set of the KG bases is applicable to wide range of nuclides. In the following calculations we apply the hybrid basis-set ref:NS02  for the nuclei with $`A<50`$, in which an HO basis is added to the KG basis-set, while the HO basis-set with $`N_{\mathrm{osc}}15`$ and $`\mathrm{}\omega =41.2A^{1/3}\mathrm{MeV}`$ for heavier nuclei.

In finite nuclei the non-central forces are important as well. In the M3Y interaction, the LS force $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{LS})}`$ and the tensor force $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{TN})}`$ are taken by setting $`f_n^{(\mathrm{LS})}(r_{12})=e^{\mu _nr_{12}}/\mu _nr_{12}`$ and $`f_n^{(\mathrm{TN})}(r_{12})=e^{\mu _nr_{12}}/\mu _nr_{12}`$ in Eq. (2). We here fix the range parameters as in $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}`$; $`\mu _1^1=0.25\text{fm}`$, $`\mu _2^1=0.4\text{fm}`$ for $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{LS})}`$, and $`\mu _1^1=0.4\text{fm}`$, $`\mu _2^1=0.7\text{fm}`$ for $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{TN})}`$. The coupling constants in the M3Y-P2 set are tabulated in Table 4, together with those in the original M3Y-P0 set. In M3Y-P2, the enhancement factor for $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{LS})}`$ is taken to be 1.8 and the reduction factor for $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{TN})}`$ to be 0.12. The binding energies and the rms matter radii obtained from the HF calculations with M3Y-P2 are shown in Table 5, in comparison with those of the SLy5 and the D1S interactions, as well as with the experimental data. The one-body terms of the center-of-mass (c.m.) energy are removed before iteration. The contribution of the two-body terms is subtracted from the convergent HF wave-functions, in the D1S and the M3Y-P2 results. There are also spurious c.m. effects in the matter radii,

$`r^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(𝐫_i𝐑)^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}r_i^2R^2`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}r_i^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}𝐫_i𝐫_j\right].`$
The first term in the right-hand side is expressed by one-body operators with a correction factor $`(11/A)`$. We need two-body operators for the second term. For the D1S and the M3Y-P2 interactions we fully remove the c.m. contribution according to Eq. (19). For the SLy5 interaction we use only the one-body terms with the correction factor, ignoring the two-body terms in Eq. (19), as in calculating the energies.

Wave-functions of the doubly magic nuclei are considered to be well approximated in the spherical HF approaches. It should still be noted that correlations due to the residual interaction could influence their properties. Therefore we do not pursue fine tuning of the parameters. As shown in Table 5, the M3Y-P2 set is fixed so as to reproduce the measured binding energies of the doubly magic nuclei, including <sup>90</sup>Zr, within about 5 MeV accuracy. The binding energies of these nuclei obtained from the SLy5 and the D1S interactions are in agreement with the experimental data within 3 MeV, slightly better than M3Y-P2. We do not have to take this difference seriously, before evaluating influence of the residual interactions. As well as the binding energies, the rms matter radii of these nuclei are reproduced by the M3Y-P2 set similarly well to the other available interactions. In Table 6 we present the neutron s.p. energies $`ϵ_n(0p_{3/2})`$ and $`ϵ_n(0p_{1/2})`$ around <sup>16</sup>O. The enhancement factor for $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{LS})}`$ in the M3Y-P2 set has been adjusted approximately to the experimental value of this s.p. energy difference. The reduction factor for $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{TN})}`$ has been determined so as to reproduce the s.p. energy ordering for <sup>208</sup>Pb. Without this reduction factor, the orbits with higher $`\mathrm{}`$ have too high energies. The resultant s.p. levels in <sup>208</sup>Pb with M3Y-P2 are depicted in Fig. 6. The levels obtained from D1S and the experimental s.p. levels are also shown. The overall level spacings are related to $`M_0^{}`$ shown in Table 2. In the usual HF calculations the level spacings tend to be larger than the observed ones, and it is not (and should not be) remedied until the correlations due to the residual interaction (or the $`\omega `$-mass) are taken into account ref:Mahaux . This is also true in the present case. We find that M3Y-P2 yields as plausible s.p. levels as D1S does. We thus confirm that the M3Y-P2 interaction well describes global nature of stable nuclei.

## VI Single particle levels in $`N=16`$ isotones

In the preceding section we have shown that the M3Y-P2 interaction reproduces the properties of the doubly magic nuclei to a similar accuracy to the SLy5 and the D1S interactions. At a glance, the spin-isospin characters in the nuclear matter, which have been discussed in Section III via $`a_{st}`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$, do not seem to influence the nuclear properties around the ground states. However, the spin and isospin characters influence s.p. energies of finite nuclei. Thereby they may affect even the ground state properties. In this section we illustrate this point by the neutron orbits in the $`N=16`$ isotones, following the arguments in Ref. ref:Vst , although precise studies in this line are beyond scope of this paper.

As was suggested in Ref. ref:Vst , the proton-number ($`Z`$) dependence of the neutron s.p. energy $`ϵ_n(0d_{3/2})`$ relative to $`ϵ_n(1s_{1/2})`$ can sizably be affected by effective interactions. Figure 7 depicts $`\Delta ϵ_n=ϵ_n(0d_{3/2})ϵ_n(1s_{1/2})`$ obtained from the spherical HF calculations in the $`N=16`$ isotones. Though it is not obvious whether the ground states of all of these isotones are well approximated by the spherical HF wave-functions, it is meaningful to see the s.p. energies, which often give an indication to magic or submagic numbers. For D1S we reduce the number of bases in Eq. (18) to avoid instability occurring for some $`N=16`$ nuclei, which probably relates to the unphysical behavior in the neutron matter. It is found that, if viewed as a function of $`Z`$, $`\Delta ϵ_n`$ strikingly depends on the interactions. With the M3Y-P2 interaction, $`\Delta ϵ_n`$ increases as $`Z`$ goes from $`Z=14`$ to $`Z=8`$. We have confirmed ref:Nak02  that even M3Y-P1 (with appropriate $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{LS})}`$ and $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{TN})}`$) shows similar behavior and that a significant part of this feature originates in the OPEP part in $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}`$. It is thus suggested that this behavior of $`\Delta ϵ_n`$ is correlated to the spin-isospin property in the nuclear matter.

For comparison, we also show the s.p. energies obtained from the reliable shell model interaction for the $`sd`$-shell nuclei, the so-called USD interaction ref:USD . For this purpose we define effective values of the s.p. energies for each nucleus $`A`$ from the shell model space and interaction, which correspond to those of the spherical HF calculations, as

$$ϵ_n^{\mathrm{USD}}(j;A)=ϵ_n^{\mathrm{USD}}(j;^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}17}}\mathrm{O})+\underset{j^{}}{}N_j^{}_A\frac{2J+1}{(2j+1)(2j^{}+1)}jj^{};J|v^{\mathrm{USD}}|jj^{};J,$$
(20)
where the sum with respect to $`j^{}`$ runs over the valence orbits. For $`N_j_A`$, we assume that the nucleons occupy the s.p. orbits from the bottom, according to $`ϵ(j)`$. From these s.p. energies we obtain $`\Delta ϵ_n^{\mathrm{USD}}=ϵ_n^{\mathrm{USD}}(0d_{3/2};A)ϵ_n^{\mathrm{USD}}(1s_{1/2};A)`$ for individual nucleus. This definition is equivalent to the effective s.p. energies in Ref. ref:Vst  for the $`ZN(=16)`$ nuclei. The $`\Delta ϵ_n^{\mathrm{USD}}`$ values are also shown in Fig. 7. It is noted that in the shell model approaches the nucleus-dependence of the s.p. wave-functions is not fully taken into account. Effects of rearrangement in the wave-functions of the deeply bound orbits are renormalized into the interactions among the valence nucleons. In contrast, in the HF approaches the s.p. wave-functions are determined self-consistently, from nucleus to nucleus. Therefore the shell model s.p. energies do not agree with their HF counterparts. However, there should be qualitative correspondence, which arises from basic characters of the effective interactions. It is remarked that the M3Y-P2 interaction has the same trend of $`\Delta ϵ_n`$, in terms of the $`Z`$-dependence, as the USD interaction. It has been suggested ref:Vst  that the interaction in the $`(𝝈𝝈)(𝝉𝝉)`$ channel, which will be linked to $`a_{st}`$ or to $`g_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$, is significant to the magic numbers in highly neutron-rich nuclei, and that the $`Z`$-dependence of the s.p. energies in this region could be relevant to the new magic number $`N=16`$ ref:N16 . The present results are fully consistent with the arguments in Ref. ref:Vst , although we cannot draw conclusions on the magic number problem without assessing influence of the residual interactions.

## VII Summary and outlook

We have developed effective interactions to describe low energy phenomena of nuclei. Starting from the M3Y interaction, we introduce a density-dependent contact term and modify several parameters in a phenomenological manner, whereas maintaining the OPEP part in the central force. In order to view basic characters of the interactions, the Hartree-Fock calculations are implemented for the infinite nuclear matter (for which useful formulae are newly derived) and for several doubly magic nuclei. We have shown that a parameter-set called M3Y-P2 describes their properties plausibly. The properties which are well treated by the Skyrme SLy5 and/or the Gogny D1S interactions are also reproduced by the M3Y-P2 interaction. However, a remarkable difference is found in the properties relevant to the spin degrees of freedom in the nuclear matter. The M3Y-type interactions seem to give reasonable spin and isospin properties, in which the OPEP part contained in $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}`$ plays a significant role. We have also shown that the difference in the spin-isospin property affects the s.p. energies in finite nuclei to a considerable extent. It will be interesting to apply extensively the M3Y-type interactions, particularly to the magic number problems far from the $`\beta `$-stability.

Although the M3Y-P2 interaction seems to have various desired characters, there still remains a certain room for further tuning of the parameters. It should be noted that this parameter-set will not be a unique choice to reproduce the properties of the nuclear matter and the doubly magic nuclei. Effective interaction might not be constrained sufficiently only from the HF calculations. The pairing effects in nuclei give valuable information on the effective interaction, primarily on the SE channel. Comparison of the matrix elements with reliable shell model interactions will also be helpful, if the core polarization effects are treated appropriately. These points will be discussed in future publications.

## Appendix A Analytic formulae for nuclear matter energy

In this Appendix we derive formulae concerning the interaction part of Eq. (LABEL:eq:NME). The form of Eq. (2) is assumed for $`v_{12}`$.

Each term of $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}`$ is expressed as $`f_n^{(\mathrm{C})}(r_{12})𝒪_\sigma 𝒪_\tau `$. Its non-antisymmetrized matrix element in the plane wave states of Eq. (8) is evaluated as

$`𝐤_1^{}\sigma _1^{}\tau _1^{},𝐤_2^{}\sigma _2^{}\tau _2^{}|f_n^{(\mathrm{C})}(r_{12})𝒪_\sigma 𝒪_\tau |𝐤_1\sigma _1\tau _1,𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2_{\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{a}.}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}{\displaystyle d^3r_1d^3r_2e^{i(𝐤_1𝐤_1^{})𝐫_1+i(𝐤_2𝐤_2^{})𝐫_2}f_n^{(\mathrm{C})}(r_{12})\sigma _1^{}\sigma _2^{}|𝒪_\sigma |\sigma _1\sigma _2\tau _1^{}\tau _2^{}|𝒪_\tau |\tau _1\tau _2}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}{\displaystyle d^3Rd^3r_{12}e^{i(𝐊𝐊^{})𝐑+i(𝐤_{12}𝐤_{12}^{})𝐫_{12}}f_n^{(\mathrm{C})}(r_{12})\sigma _1^{}\sigma _2^{}|𝒪_\sigma |\sigma _1\sigma _2\tau _1^{}\tau _2^{}|𝒪_\tau |\tau _1\tau _2}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\delta _{𝐊,𝐊^{}}\stackrel{~}{f}_n^{(\mathrm{C})}(|𝐤_{12}𝐤_{12}^{}|)\sigma _1^{}\sigma _2^{}|𝒪_\sigma |\sigma _1\sigma _2\tau _1^{}\tau _2^{}|𝒪_\tau |\tau _1\tau _2,`$ (21)
where $`𝐑=(𝐫_1+𝐫_2)/2`$, $`𝐫_{12}=𝐫_1𝐫_2`$, $`𝐊=𝐤_1+𝐤_2`$, $`𝐊^{}=𝐤_1^{}+𝐤_2^{}`$, $`𝐤_{12}=(𝐤_1𝐤_2)/2`$, $`𝐤_{12}^{}=(𝐤_1^{}𝐤_2^{})/2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}(q)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`f(r)`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(q)=d^3rf(r)e^{i𝐪𝐫}.$$
(22)
The density-dependent interaction $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$ is also handled in a similar manner, since the density behaves like a constant in the nuclear matter. For the Hartree term we have $`(𝐤_1\sigma _1\tau _1)=(𝐤_1^{}\sigma _1^{}\tau _1^{})`$ and $`(𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2)=(𝐤_2^{}\sigma _2^{}\tau _2^{})`$, while $`(𝐤_1\sigma _1\tau _1)=(𝐤_2^{}\sigma _2^{}\tau _2^{})`$ and $`(𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2)=(𝐤_1^{}\sigma _1^{}\tau _1^{})`$ for the Fock term. Therefore both terms satisfy $`𝐊=𝐊^{}`$. For the relative momentum the Hartree term (the Fock term) yields $`𝐤_{12}𝐤_{12}^{}=0`$ ($`𝐤_{12}𝐤_{12}^{}=2𝐤_{12}`$). Contribution of the two-body interaction to the nuclear matter energy is obtained by integrating $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ in Eq. (21) up to the Fermi momenta.

We here consider general cases where the Fermi momentum may depend on spin and isospin. In order to take into account the spin-isospin dependence, we integrate $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ in the range $`k_1k_{\mathrm{F1}}`$ and $`k_2k_{\mathrm{F2}}`$. The integration is immediately carried out for the Hartree term, as far as $`f(r_{12})`$ is momentum-independent, since the integrand depends neither on $`𝐤_1`$ nor on $`𝐤_2`$,

$$𝒲^\mathrm{H}(k_{\mathrm{F1}},k_{\mathrm{F2}})=_{k_1k_{\mathrm{F1}}}d^3k_1_{k_2k_{\mathrm{F2}}}d^3k_2\stackrel{~}{f}(0)=\frac{16\pi ^2}{9}k_{\mathrm{F1}}^3k_{\mathrm{F2}}^3\stackrel{~}{f}(0).$$
(23)
For the Fock term contribution, the integral with respect to $`𝐤_1`$ and $`𝐤_2`$ is converted to the one with respect to $`𝐊`$ and $`𝐤_{12}`$. We here assume $`k_{\mathrm{F1}}k_{\mathrm{F2}}`$ without loss of generality, owing to the symmetry $`𝒲(k_{\mathrm{F1}},k_{\mathrm{F2}})=𝒲(k_{\mathrm{F2}},k_{\mathrm{F1}})`$. Handling the range of integral carefully, we obtain the following expression,

$`𝒲^\mathrm{F}(k_{\mathrm{F1}},k_{\mathrm{F2}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{k_1k_{\mathrm{F1}}}}d^3k_1{\displaystyle _{k_2k_{\mathrm{F2}}}}d^3k_2\stackrel{~}{f}(2k_{12})`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`8\pi ^2[{\displaystyle _0^{(k_{\mathrm{F2}}k_{\mathrm{F1}})/2}}dk_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}k_{\mathrm{F1}}^3k_{12}^2\stackrel{~}{f}(2k_{12})`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{(k_{\mathrm{F2}}k_{\mathrm{F1}})/2}^{(k_{\mathrm{F1}}+k_{\mathrm{F2}})/2}}dk_{12}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k_{\mathrm{F2}}^2k_{\mathrm{F1}}^2)^2k_{12}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}(k_{\mathrm{F1}}^3+k_{\mathrm{F2}}^3)k_{12}^2`$
$`4(k_{\mathrm{F1}}^2+k_{\mathrm{F2}}^2)k_{12}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}k_{12}^5\}\stackrel{~}{f}(2k_{12})]`$
These formulae are general to multi-component uniform Fermi liquids with equal masses.

In handling the spin-isospin degrees of freedom, we rewrite the central force in Eq. (2) as

$$v_{12}^{(\mathrm{C})}=\underset{n}{}(t_n^{(\mathrm{W})}+t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}P_\sigma t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}P_\tau t_n^{(\mathrm{M})}P_\sigma P_\tau )f_n^{(\mathrm{C})}(r_{12}).$$
(25)
The relations between the coupling constants are

$`t_n^{(\mathrm{SE})}=t_n^{(\mathrm{W})}t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}+t_n^{(\mathrm{M})},`$ $`t_n^{(\mathrm{TE})}=t_n^{(\mathrm{W})}+t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}+t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}+t_n^{(\mathrm{M})},`$
$`t_n^{(\mathrm{SO})}=t_n^{(\mathrm{W})}t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}+t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}t_n^{(\mathrm{M})},`$ $`t_n^{(\mathrm{TO})}=t_n^{(\mathrm{W})}+t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}t_n^{(\mathrm{M})}.`$ (26)
After summing over the spin-isospin degrees of freedom, the interaction energy is given by

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _1\sigma _2\tau _1\tau _2}{}}[(t_n^{(\mathrm{W})}+t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _2}t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}\delta _{\tau _1\tau _2}t_n^{(\mathrm{M})}\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _2}\delta _{\tau _1\tau _2})𝒲_n^\mathrm{H}(k_{\mathrm{F}\tau _1\sigma _1},k_{\mathrm{F}\tau _2\sigma _2})`$ (27)
$`+(t_n^{(\mathrm{M})}+t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _2}t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}\delta _{\tau _1\tau _2}t_n^{(\mathrm{W})}\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _2}\delta _{\tau _1\tau _2})𝒲_n^\mathrm{F}(k_{\mathrm{F}\tau _1\sigma _1},k_{\mathrm{F}\tau _2\sigma _2})].`$
In Eq. (27) we regard the sum over $`n`$ to include $`v_{12}^{(\mathrm{DD})}`$. It is noted that $`A=\mathrm{\Omega }\rho `$, which is used to obtain the energy per nucleon $``$.

We next calculate the $`𝒲`$ functions for typical interaction forms.

1. $`\delta `$ interaction
If $`f(r_{12})=\delta (𝐫_{12})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}(q)=1`$ and therefore we have

$$𝒲^\mathrm{H}(k_1,k_2)=𝒲^\mathrm{F}(k_1,k_2)=\frac{16\pi ^2}{9}k_1^3k_2^3.$$
(28)
2. $`\rho `$-dependent $`\delta `$ interaction
Since the density is a constant in the uniform nuclear matter, the $`𝒲`$ functions for $`f(r_{12})=\rho ^\alpha \delta (𝐫_{12})`$ are similar to the above case,

$$𝒲^\mathrm{H}(k_1,k_2)=𝒲^\mathrm{F}(k_1,k_2)=\frac{16\pi ^2}{9}\rho ^\alpha k_1^3k_2^3.$$
(29)
Note that $`\rho `$ is a function of the Fermi momenta, when we take derivatives of the $`𝒲`$ functions.
3. Gauss interaction
For $`f(r_{12})=e^{(\mu r_{12})^2}`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{f}(q)=(\sqrt{\pi }/\mu )^3e^{(q/2\mu )^2}`$, deriving

$$𝒲^\mathrm{H}(k_1,k_2)=\frac{16\pi ^2}{9}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{\mu }\right)^3k_1^3k_2^3,$$
(30)
and

$`𝒲^\mathrm{F}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32\sqrt{\pi }^7}{3}}[\mu \{(k_1^2k_1k_2+k_2^22\mu ^2)e^{\left(\frac{k_1+k_2}{2\mu }\right)^2}`$
$`(k_1^2+k_1k_2+k_2^22\mu ^2)e^{\left(\frac{k_2k_1}{2\mu }\right)^2}\}`$
$`(k_1^3+k_2^3)\mathrm{Erfc}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_1+k_2}{2\mu }}\right)+(k_2^3k_1^3)\mathrm{Erfc}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_2k_1}{2\mu }}\right)+\sqrt{\pi }k_1^3],`$
where

$$\mathrm{Erfc}(x)=_x^{\mathrm{}}e^{z^2}𝑑z.$$
(32)
In Eq. (LABEL:eq:W-G) we have postulated $`k_1k_2`$ again.
4. Yukawa interaction
For the Yukawa interaction we set $`f(r_{12})=e^{\mu r_{12}}/\mu r_{12}`$, leading to $`\stackrel{~}{f}(q)=4\pi /\mu (\mu ^2+q^2)`$. This yields

$$𝒲^\mathrm{H}(k_1,k_2)=\frac{64\pi ^3}{9\mu ^3}k_1^3k_2^3,$$
(33)
and

$`𝒲^\mathrm{F}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^3}{3\mu }}[4k_1k_2\{3(k_1^2+k_2^2)\mu ^2\}`$ (34)
$`16\mu \left\{(k_1^3+k_2^3)\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_1+k_2}{\mu }}\right)(k_2^3k_1^3)\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_2k_1}{\mu }}\right)\right\}`$
$`\{3(k_2^2k_1^2)^26\mu ^2(k_1^2+k_2^2)\mu ^4\}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2+(k_1+k_2)^2}{\mu ^2+(k_2k_1)^2}}].`$
5. Momentum-dependent $`\delta `$ interaction
In the Skyrme interaction we have momentum-dependent terms with the form $`\frac{1}{2}\{𝐩_{12}^2\delta (𝐫_{12})+\delta (𝐫_{12})𝐩_{12}^2\}`$ and $`𝐩_{12}\delta (𝐫_{12})𝐩_{12}`$. The former operates only on the even channels and yields

$$𝒲^\mathrm{H}(k_1,k_2)=𝒲^\mathrm{F}(k_1,k_2)=\frac{4\pi ^2}{15}k_1^3k_2^3(k_1^2+k_2^2).$$
(35)
The latter acts on the odd channels, giving

$$𝒲^\mathrm{H}(k_1,k_2)=𝒲^\mathrm{F}(k_1,k_2)=\frac{4\pi ^2}{15}k_1^3k_2^3(k_1^2+k_2^2).$$
(36)

The incompressibility $`𝒦`$ and the spin-isospin curvatures $`a_t`$, $`a_s`$, $`a_{st}`$ are expressed by the derivatives of the $`𝒲`$ functions.

The single-particle energy $`ϵ(𝐤\sigma \tau )`$ defined in Eq. (9) is also expressed by the derivative of the $`𝒲`$ functions. We first rewrite the integral in Eq. (LABEL:eq:NME) as

$`{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}k_1}}d^3k_1^{}{\displaystyle _{k_2k_{\mathrm{F}\tau _2\sigma _2}}}d^3k_2𝐤_1^{}\sigma _1\tau _1,𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2|v_{12}|𝐤_1^{}\sigma _1\tau _1,𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2`$
$`=4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{k_1}}k_1^2𝑑k_1^{}{\displaystyle _{k_2k_{\mathrm{F}\tau _2\sigma _2}}}d^3k_2𝐤_1^{}\sigma _1\tau _1,𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2|v_{12}|𝐤_1^{}\sigma _1\tau _1,𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2.`$ (37)
This immediately gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{k_1}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}k_1}}d^3k_1^{}{\displaystyle _{k_2k_{\mathrm{F}\tau _2\sigma _2}}}d^3k_2𝐤_1^{}\sigma _1\tau _1,𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2|v_{12}|𝐤_1^{}\sigma _1\tau _1,𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2`$
$`=4\pi k_1^2{\displaystyle _{k_2k_{\mathrm{F}\tau _2\sigma _2}}}d^3k_2𝐤_1^{}\sigma _1\tau _1,𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2|v_{12}|𝐤_1^{}\sigma _1\tau _1,𝐤_2\sigma _2\tau _2.`$ (38)
Therefore,

$`ϵ(𝐤_1\sigma _1\tau _1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_1^2}{2M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi k_1^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _2\tau _2}{}}`$
$`[(t_n^{(\mathrm{W})}+t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _2}t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}\delta _{\tau _1\tau _2}t_n^{(\mathrm{M})}\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _2}\delta _{\tau _1\tau _2})_1𝒲_n^\mathrm{H}(k_1,k_{\mathrm{F}\tau _2\sigma _2})`$
$`+(t_n^{(\mathrm{M})}+t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _2}t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}\delta _{\tau _1\tau _2}t_n^{(\mathrm{W})}\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _2}\delta _{\tau _1\tau _2})_1𝒲_n^\mathrm{F}(k_1,k_{\mathrm{F}\tau _2\sigma _2})],`$
where we use the short-hand notation

$$_1𝒲_n^{\mathrm{H}/\mathrm{F}}(k_1,k_2)=\frac{}{k_1}𝒲_n^{\mathrm{H}/\mathrm{F}}(k_1,k_2).$$
(40)
It is now obvious that the effective mass of Eq. (15) is expressed by using the second derivative of the $`𝒲`$ functions.

## Appendix B Landau parameters for symmetric nuclear matter

Let us denote the occupation probability of the s.p. states of Eq. (8) by $`n_{\tau \sigma }(𝐤)`$. The nuclear matter energy of Eq. (27) can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{H}+V_\mathrm{F}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{H}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _1\sigma _2\tau _1\tau _2}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤_1𝐤_2}{}}n_{\tau _1\sigma _1}(𝐤_1)n_{\tau _2\sigma _2}(𝐤_2)\stackrel{~}{f}_n(0)`$
$`\left(t_n^{(\mathrm{W})}+t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _2}t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}\delta _{\tau _1\tau _2}t_n^{(\mathrm{M})}\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _2}\delta _{\tau _1\tau _2}\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{F}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _1\sigma _2\tau _1\tau _2}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤_1𝐤_2}{}}n_{\tau _1\sigma _1}(𝐤_1)n_{\tau _2\sigma _2}(𝐤_2)\stackrel{~}{f}_n(2k_{12})`$
$`\left(t_n^{(\mathrm{M})}+t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _2}t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}\delta _{\tau _1\tau _2}t_n^{(\mathrm{W})}\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _2}\delta _{\tau _1\tau _2}\right).`$
The Landau coefficient is defined by

$$F_{\tau _1\sigma _1,\tau _2\sigma _2}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)=\frac{2\mathrm{}+1}{2}_1^1d(\widehat{𝐤}_1\widehat{𝐤}_2)P_{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{𝐤}_1\widehat{𝐤}_2)\frac{\delta ^2(V/\mathrm{\Omega })}{\delta n_{\tau _1\sigma _1}(𝐤_1)\delta n_{\tau _2\sigma _2}(𝐤_2)}.$$
(44)
For the interaction independent of momentum and of density, it is straightforward to write down the coefficients of Eq. (44) in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$, within the HF theory at the zero temperature. Noticing that $`\rho `$ also depends on $`n_{\tau \sigma }(𝐤)`$, we evaluate contribution of the density-dependent $`\delta `$ interaction $`(1+x^{(\mathrm{DD})}P_\sigma )\rho ^\alpha \delta (𝐫_{12})`$ to $`F_{\tau _1\sigma _1,\tau _2\sigma _2}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\mathrm{}0}{(2\pi )^6}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\alpha 1)}{2}}\rho ^{\alpha 2}\{\rho ^2{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}\rho _{\tau \sigma }^2+x^{(\mathrm{DD})}({\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\rho _\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \underset{\tau }{}}\rho _\tau ^2)\}`$
$`+\alpha \rho ^{\alpha 1}\left\{2\rho \rho _{\tau _1\sigma _1}\rho _{\tau _2\sigma _2}+x^{(\mathrm{DD})}(\rho _{\sigma _1}+\rho _{\sigma _2}\rho _{\tau _1}\rho _{\tau _2})\right\}`$
$`+\rho ^\alpha \{1\delta _{\tau _1\tau _2}\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _2}+x^{(\mathrm{DD})}(\delta _{\sigma _1\sigma _2}\delta _{\tau _1\tau _2})\}],`$ (45)
where $`\rho _\sigma =_\tau \rho _{\tau \sigma }`$ and $`\rho _\tau =_\sigma \rho _{\tau \sigma }`$. Apart from the spin and isospin degrees of freedom, the momentum-dependent $`\delta `$ interactions $`\frac{1}{2}\{𝐩_{12}^2\delta (𝐫_{12})+\delta (𝐫_{12})𝐩_{12}^2\}`$ and $`𝐩_{12}\delta (𝐫_{12})𝐩_{12}`$ contribute to $`F_{\tau _1\sigma _1,\tau _2\sigma _2}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ by

$$\frac{1}{(2\pi )^6}\left(\delta _\mathrm{}0\frac{k_1^2+k_2^2}{4}\delta _\mathrm{}1\frac{k_1k_2}{2}\right).$$
(46)
In characterizing effective interactions, we view the Landau coefficients for the symmetric nuclear matter, where $`\rho _{\tau \sigma }=\rho /4`$ for any $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$. While formulae for the Landau parameters were derived for the Skyrme interaction in Ref. ref:Lan-Sky  and for the Gogny interaction in Ref. ref:Lan-Gog , we here derive expressions for interactions with the form of Eq. (2) in more general manner. It is customary to transform the $`(\tau ,\sigma )`$ variables into the following ones,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}1& \mathrm{}& p+p+n+n,\hfill \\ t& \mathrm{}& p+pnn,\hfill \\ s& \mathrm{}& pp+nn,\hfill \\ st& \mathrm{}& ppn+n.\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
Since $`_\sigma \sigma =_\tau \tau =_\sigma (\sigma \tau )=_\tau (\sigma \tau )=0`$, all the off-diagonal coefficients with respect to $`(1,t,s,st)`$ vanish. The diagonal coefficients are redefined as

$`F_1^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _1\sigma _2\tau _1\tau _2}{}}F_{\tau _1\sigma _1,\tau _2\sigma _2}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2),`$
$`F_t^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _1\sigma _2\tau _1\tau _2}{}}\tau _1\tau _2F_{\tau _1\sigma _1,\tau _2\sigma _2}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2),`$
$`F_s^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _1\sigma _2\tau _1\tau _2}{}}\sigma _1\sigma _2F_{\tau _1\sigma _1,\tau _2\sigma _2}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2),`$
$`F_{st}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _1\sigma _2\tau _1\tau _2}{}}\sigma _1\tau _1\sigma _2\tau _2F_{\tau _1\sigma _1,\tau _2\sigma _2}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2).`$ (48)
The Hartree terms of the momentum- and density-independent interactions yield

$`F_{1,\mathrm{H}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\mathrm{}0}{4(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(4t_n^{(\mathrm{W})}+2t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}2t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}t_n^{(\mathrm{M})})\stackrel{~}{f}_n(0),`$
$`F_{t,\mathrm{H}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\mathrm{}0}{4(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(2t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}t_n^{(\mathrm{M})})\stackrel{~}{f}_n(0),`$
$`F_{s,\mathrm{H}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\mathrm{}0}{4(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(2t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}t_n^{(\mathrm{M})})\stackrel{~}{f}_n(0),`$
$`F_{st,\mathrm{H}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\mathrm{}0}{4(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(t_n^{(\mathrm{M})})\stackrel{~}{f}_n(0),`$ (49)
while the Fock terms

$`F_{1,\mathrm{F}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(4t_n^{(\mathrm{M})}+2t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}2t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}t_n^{(\mathrm{W})})G_n^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2),`$
$`F_{t,\mathrm{F}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(2t_n^{(\mathrm{B})}t_n^{(\mathrm{W})})G_n^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2),`$
$`F_{s,\mathrm{F}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(2t_n^{(\mathrm{H})}t_n^{(\mathrm{W})})G_n^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2),`$
$`F_{st,\mathrm{F}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(t_n^{(\mathrm{W})})G_n^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2),`$ (50)
where

$$G_n^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)=\frac{2\mathrm{}+1}{2}_1^1d(\widehat{𝐤}_1\widehat{𝐤}_2)P_{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{𝐤}_1\widehat{𝐤}_2)\stackrel{~}{f}_n(2k_{12}).$$
(51)
Contribution of the density-dependent interaction $`t^{(\mathrm{DD})}(1+x^{(\mathrm{DD})}P_\sigma )\rho ^\alpha \delta (𝐫_{12})`$ is given by

$`F_{1,\mathrm{DD}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\mathrm{}0}{4(2\pi )^6}}t^{(\mathrm{DD})}{\displaystyle \frac{3(\alpha +1)(\alpha +2)}{2}}\rho ^\alpha ,`$
$`F_{t,\mathrm{DD}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\mathrm{}0}{4(2\pi )^6}}t^{(\mathrm{DD})}(2x^{(\mathrm{DD})}1)\rho ^\alpha ,`$
$`F_{s,\mathrm{DD}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\mathrm{}0}{4(2\pi )^6}}t^{(\mathrm{DD})}(2x^{(\mathrm{DD})}1)\rho ^\alpha ,`$
$`F_{st,\mathrm{DD}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\mathrm{}0}{4(2\pi )^6}}t^{(\mathrm{DD})}\rho ^\alpha .`$ (52)
For momentum-independent interactions such as the Gogny interaction and the M3Y-type interactions, the Landau coefficients are obtained by $`F_1^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)=F_{1,\mathrm{H}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)+F_{1,\mathrm{F}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)+F_{1,\mathrm{DD}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$, and so forth. The momentum-dependent $`\delta `$ interactions yield

$`F_{1,\mathrm{MD}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8(2\pi )^6}}\left(\delta _\mathrm{}0{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2+k_2^2}{2}}\delta _\mathrm{}1k_1k_2\right)\times \{\begin{array}{c}3t_1^{(\mathrm{MD})}\hfill \\ 5t_2^{(\mathrm{MD})}\hfill \end{array},`$ (55)
$`F_{t,\mathrm{MD}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8(2\pi )^6}}\left(\delta _\mathrm{}0{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2+k_2^2}{2}}\delta _\mathrm{}1k_1k_2\right)\times \{\begin{array}{c}t_1^{(\mathrm{MD})}(2x_1^{(\mathrm{MD})}1)\hfill \\ t_2^{(\mathrm{MD})}(2x_2^{(\mathrm{MD})}+1)\hfill \end{array},`$ (58)
$`F_{s,\mathrm{MD}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8(2\pi )^6}}\left(\delta _\mathrm{}0{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2+k_2^2}{2}}\delta _\mathrm{}1k_1k_2\right)\times \{\begin{array}{c}t_1^{(\mathrm{MD})}(2x_1^{(\mathrm{MD})}1)\hfill \\ t_2^{(\mathrm{MD})}(2x_2^{(\mathrm{MD})}+1)\hfill \end{array},`$ (61)
$`F_{st,\mathrm{MD}}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8(2\pi )^6}}\left(\delta _\mathrm{}0{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2+k_2^2}{2}}\delta _\mathrm{}1k_1k_2\right)\times \{\begin{array}{c}(t_1^{(\mathrm{MD})})\hfill \\ t_2^{(\mathrm{MD})}\hfill \end{array},`$ (64)
where the upper row corresponds to the even channel interaction $`\frac{1}{2}t_1^{(\mathrm{MD})}(1+x_1^{(\mathrm{MD})}P_\sigma )\{𝐩_{12}^2\delta (𝐫_{12})+\delta (𝐫_{12})𝐩_{12}^2\}`$, while the lower to the odd channel interaction $`t_2^{(\mathrm{MD})}(1+x_2^{(\mathrm{MD})}P_\sigma )𝐩_{12}\delta (𝐫_{12})𝐩_{12}`$, respectively. Equation (64) is available for the Skyrme interactions in which the LS currents are not ignored.

We next show explicit form of the $`G^{(\mathrm{})}`$ factor in Eq. (50) for typical interaction forms.

1. $`\delta `$ interaction
Substituting $`\stackrel{~}{f}(2k_{12})`$ by $`1`$, we obtain

$$G^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)=\delta _\mathrm{}0.$$
(65)
2. Gauss interaction
Because $`\stackrel{~}{f}(q)=(\sqrt{\pi }/\mu )^3e^{(q/2\mu )^2}`$, Eq. (51) leads to

$`G^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)\sqrt{\pi }^3}{\mu k_1k_2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}+m)!}{m!(\mathrm{}m)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{k_1k_2}}\right)^m`$ (66)
$`\left\{()^me^{\left(\frac{k_1k_2}{2\mu }\right)^2}()^{\mathrm{}}e^{\left(\frac{k_1+k_2}{2\mu }\right)^2}\right\}.`$
For $`\mathrm{}=0`$ and $`1`$, we have

$`G^{(0)}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }^3}{\mu k_1k_2}}\left\{e^{\left(\frac{k_1k_2}{2\mu }\right)^2}e^{\left(\frac{k_1+k_2}{2\mu }\right)^2}\right\},`$ (67)
$`G^{(1)}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{\pi }^3}{\mu k_1k_2}}\left\{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu ^2}{k_1k_2}}\right)e^{\left(\frac{k_1k_2}{2\mu }\right)^2}+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu ^2}{k_1k_2}}\right)e^{\left(\frac{k_1+k_2}{2\mu }\right)^2}\right\}.`$ (68)
3. Yukawa interaction
For the Yukawa interaction we use $`\stackrel{~}{f}(q)=4\pi /\mu (\mu ^2+q^2)`$. Inserting it into Eq. (51), we obtain for even $`\mathrm{}`$

$`G^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi (2\mathrm{}+1)}{\mu ^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}/2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{2k_1k_2}}\right)^{2m+1}()^{\mathrm{}/2m}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}+2m1)!!}{(2m)!(\mathrm{}2m)!}}`$
$`[(1+{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2+k_2^2}{\mu ^2}})^{2m}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2+(k_1+k_2)^2}{\mu ^2+(k_2k_1)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{2m1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{()^p}{2mp}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2m)!}{p!(2mp)!}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2+k_2^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)^p`$
$`\{(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1k_2)^2}{\mu ^2}})^{2mp}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1+k_2)^2}{\mu ^2}})^{2mp}\}].`$
and for odd $`\mathrm{}`$

$`G^{(\mathrm{})}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi (2\mathrm{}+1)}{\mu ^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{(\mathrm{}1)/2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{2k_1k_2}}\right)^{2m+2}()^{(\mathrm{}1)/2m}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}+2m)!!}{(2m+1)!(\mathrm{}2m1)!}}`$
$`[(1+{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2+k_2^2}{\mu ^2}})^{2m+1}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2+(k_1+k_2)^2}{\mu ^2+(k_2k_1)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{2m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{()^{p+1}}{2m+1p}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2m+1)!}{p!(2m+1p)!}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2+k_2^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)^p`$
$`\{(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1k_2)^2}{\mu ^2}})^{2m+1p}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1+k_2)^2}{\mu ^2}})^{2m+1p}\}].`$
For $`\mathrm{}=0`$ and $`1`$, we have

$`G^{(0)}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mu k_1k_2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2+(k_1+k_2)^2}{\mu ^2+(k_2k_1)^2}},`$ (71)
$`G^{(1)}(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2\mu (k_1k_2)^2}}\left[(\mu ^2+k_1^2+k_2^2)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2+(k_1+k_2)^2}{\mu ^2+(k_2k_1)^2}}4k_1k_2\right].`$ (72)

Setting $`k_1=k_2=k_{\mathrm{F0}}`$ and using the estimated level density at the Fermi momentum $`N_0=(2\pi )^62k_{\mathrm{F0}}M_0^{}/\pi ^2`$, we define the usual Landau parameters

$`f_{\mathrm{}}=N_0F_1^{(\mathrm{})}(k_{\mathrm{F0}},k_{\mathrm{F0}}),f_{\mathrm{}}^{}=N_0F_t^{(\mathrm{})}(k_{\mathrm{F0}},k_{\mathrm{F0}}),`$
$`g_{\mathrm{}}=N_0F_s^{(\mathrm{})}(k_{\mathrm{F0}},k_{\mathrm{F0}}),g_{\mathrm{}}^{}=N_0F_{st}^{(\mathrm{})}(k_{\mathrm{F0}},k_{\mathrm{F0}}).`$ (73)
The second derivatives of $``$ at the saturation point are connected to the Landau parameters. The following relations are verified,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_0^{}}{M}}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}f_1,𝒦={\displaystyle \frac{3k_{\mathrm{F0}}^2}{M_0^{}}}(1+f_0),a_t={\displaystyle \frac{k_{\mathrm{F0}}^2}{6M_0^{}}}(1+f_0^{}),`$
$`a_s={\displaystyle \frac{k_{\mathrm{F0}}^2}{6M_0^{}}}(1+g_0),a_{st}={\displaystyle \frac{k_{\mathrm{F0}}^2}{6M_0^{}}}(1+g_0^{}).`$ (74)
###### Acknowledgements.

This work is financially supported as Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), No. 13640263, by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. Numerical calculations are performed on HITAC SR8000 at Institute of Media and Information Technology, Chiba University, at Information Technology Center, University of Tokyo, and at Computing Center, Hokkaido University.


format: text

text:
# Automorphic 𝐿-Functions and Functoriality

## 1. Preliminaries

Let $`F`$ be a number field. For each place $`v`$ of $`F`$, let $`F_v`$ be its completion at $`v`$. Assume $`v`$ is a finite place and let $`O_v`$ denote the ring of integers of $`F_v`$. Denote by $`P_v`$ its maximal ideal and fix a uniformizing parameter $`\varpi _v`$ generating $`P_v`$. Let $`[O_v:P_v]=q_v`$ and fix and absolute value $`||_v`$ for which $`|\varpi _v|_v=q_v^1`$.

Let $`𝐆`$ be a quasisplit connected reductive algebraic group over $`F`$. Fix an $`F`$-Borel subgroup $`𝐁=\mathrm{𝐓𝐔}`$, where $`𝐓`$ is a maximal torus of $`𝐁`$ and $`𝐔`$ is its unipotent radical. Let $`𝐀_\mathrm{𝟎}𝐓`$ be the maximal split subtorus of $`𝐓`$. Throughout this article, $`𝐏`$ is a maximal parabolic subgroup of $`𝐆`$, defined over $`F`$, with a Levi decomposition $`𝐏=\mathrm{𝐌𝐍}`$, where $`𝐌`$ is a Levi subgroup of $`𝐏`$ and $`𝐍`$ is its unipotent radical. We will assume $`𝐏`$ is standard in the sense that $`𝐍𝐔`$. We fix $`𝐌`$ by assuming $`𝐓𝐌`$. We finally use $`W`$ to denote the Weyl group of $`𝐀_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ in $`𝐆`$.

Let $`𝔸_F`$ denote the ring of adeles of $`F`$ and for every algebraic group $`𝐇`$ over $`F`$, let $`H=𝐇(𝔸_F)`$. Considering $`𝐇`$ as a group over each $`F_v`$, we then set $`H_v=𝐇(F_v)`$.

Let $`𝐀`$ denote the split component of $`𝐌`$, i.e., the maximal split subtorus of the connected component of the center of $`𝐌`$. For every group $`𝐇`$ defined over $`F`$, let $`X(𝐇)_F`$ be the group of $`F`$-rational characters of $`𝐇`$. We set $`𝔞=\mathrm{Hom}(X(𝐌)_F,)`$. Then $`𝔞^{}=X(𝐌)_F=X(𝐀)_F`$ and $`𝔞_{}^{}=𝔞^{}_{}`$ is the complex dual of $`𝔞`$.

When $`𝐆`$ is unramified over a place $`v`$, we let $`K_v=𝐆(𝐎_v)`$. Otherwise, we shall fix a special maximal compact subgroup $`K_vG_u`$ for which $`G_v=P_vK_v=B_vK_v`$. Let $`K=_vK_v`$ Then $`G=PK=BK`$. Let $`K_M=KM`$.

For each $`v`$, the embedding $`X(𝐌)_FX(𝐌)_{F_v}`$ induces a map

$$a_v=\mathrm{Hom}(X(𝐌)_{F_v},)𝔞.$$

There exists a homomorphism $`H_M:M𝔞`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{exp}\chi ,H_M(m)=\underset{v}{}|\chi (m_v)|_v$$

for every $`\chi X(𝐌)_F`$ and $`m=(m_v)`$. We extend $`H_M`$ to $`H_P`$ on $`G`$ by making it trivial on $`N`$ and $`K`$.

Let $`\alpha `$ denote the unique simple root of $`𝐀`$ in $`𝐍`$. It can be identified by a unique simple root of $`𝐀_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ in $`𝐔`$. If $`\rho _𝐏`$ is half the sum of $`F`$-roots in $`𝐍`$, we set $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\rho _𝐏,\alpha ^1\rho _𝐏a^{}`$, where for each pair of non-restricted roots $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ of $`𝐓`$, $`\alpha ,\beta =2(\alpha ,\beta )/(\beta ,\beta )`$ is the Killing form.

Given a connected reductive algebraic group $`𝐇`$ over $`F`$, let $`{}_{}{}^{L}H`$ be its $`L`$-group. Considering $`𝐇`$ as a group over $`F_v`$, we then denote by $`{}_{}{}^{L}H_{v}^{}`$ its $`L`$-group over $`F_v`$. Let $`{}_{}{}^{L}H_{}^{0}={}_{}{}^{L}H_{v}^{0}`$ be the corresponding connected component of 1. We then have a natural homomorphism from $`{}_{}{}^{L}H_{v}^{}`$ into $`{}_{}{}^{L}H`$. We let $`\eta _v:{}_{}{}^{L}M_{v}^{}{}_{}{}^{L}M`$ be this map for $`M`$ (cf. ).

Let $`{}_{}{}^{L}N`$ be the $`L`$-group of $`𝐍`$ defined naturally in . Let $`{}_{}{}^{L}𝔫`$ be its ( complex ) Lie algebra, and let $`r`$ denote the adjoint action of $`{}_{}{}^{L}M`$ on $`{}_{}{}^{L}𝔫`$. Decompose $`r=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}r_i`$ to its irreducible subrepresentations, indexed according to the values $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\beta =i`$ as $`\beta `$ ranges among the positive roots of $`𝐓`$. More precisely, $`X_\beta {}_{}{}^{L}𝔫`$ lies in the space of $`r_i`$ if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\beta =i`$. Here $`X_\beta `$ is a root vector attached to the coroot $`\beta ^{}`$, considered as a root of the $`L`$-group. The integer $`m`$ is equal to the nilpotence class of $`{}_{}{}^{L}𝔫`$. We let $`r_{i,v}=r_i\eta _v`$ for each $`i`$ (cf. ).

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denotes the set of simple roots of $`𝐀_0`$ in $`𝐔`$, we use $`\theta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ to denote the subset generating M. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\theta \{\alpha \}`$. There exists a unique element $`\stackrel{~}{w}_0W`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{w}_0(\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }`$, while $`\stackrel{~}{w}_0(\alpha )<0`$. We will always choose a representative $`w_0`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{w}_0`$ in $`𝐆(F)`$ and use $`w_0`$ to denote each of its components.

## 2. Eisenstein series and $`𝑳`$-functions

Let $`\pi =_v\pi _v`$ be a cusp form on $`M`$. Given a $`K_M`$-finite function $`\phi `$ in the space of $`\pi `$, we extend $`\phi `$ to a function $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ on $`G`$ as in Section 2 of  as well as in , and for $`s`$, set

$$\varphi _s(g)=\stackrel{~}{\phi }(g)\mathrm{exp}s\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+\rho _𝐏,H_P(g).$$
(2.1)
The corresponding Eisenstein series is then defined by

$$E(s,\varphi _s,g,P)=\underset{\gamma 𝐏(F)\backslash 𝐆(F)}{}\varphi _s(\gamma g)$$
(2.2)
(cf. ).

Let $`I(s,\pi )=_vI(s,\pi _v)`$ be the representation parabolically induced from $`\pi \mathrm{exp}s\stackrel{~}{\alpha },H_p()`$.

Let $`𝐌^{}`$ be the Levi subgroup of $`𝐆`$ generated by $`\stackrel{~}{w}(\theta )`$. There exists a parabolic subgroup $`𝐏^{}𝐁`$ which has $`𝐌^{}`$ as a Levi factor. Let $`𝐍^{}`$ be its unipotent radical. Given $`f`$ in the space of $`I(s,\pi )`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}(s)>>0`$, define the global intertwining operator $`M(s,\pi )`$ by

$$M(s,\pi )f(g)=_N^{}f(w_0^1n^{}g)𝑑n^{}(gG).$$
(2.3)
Observe that if $`f=_vf_v`$, then for almost all $`v`$, $`f_v`$ is the unique $`K_v`$-fixed functions normalized by $`f_v(e_v)=1`$. Finally, if at each $`v`$ we define a local intertwining operator by

$$A(s,\pi _v,w_0)f_v(g)=_{N_v^{}}f_v(w_0^1n^{}g)𝑑n^{},$$
(2.4)
then

$$M(s,\pi )=_vA(s,\pi _v,w_0).$$
(2.5)
It follows form the general theory of Eisenstein series that the poles of$`E(s,\stackrel{~}{\phi },g,P)`$, as $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ and $`g`$ vary, are the same as those of $`M(s,\pi )`$, and for $`\mathrm{Re}(s)0`$, they are all simple and finite in number, with none on the line $`\mathrm{Re}(s)=0`$ (cf. ).

By construction each $`\varphi _s`$ belongs to the space of $`I(s,\pi )`$. Consequently, one can consider $`M(s,\pi )\varphi _s`$ which is a member of $`I(s,w_0(\pi ))`$. The Eisenstein series $`E(s,\stackrel{~}{\phi },g,P)`$ then satisfies the functional equation

$$E(s,\varphi _s,g,P)=E(s,M(s,\pi )\varphi _s,g,P^{}).$$
(2.6)
Suppose that $`𝐆`$ splits over $`L`$, where $`L`$ is a finite Galois extension of $`F`$. For every unramified $`v`$, there exists a unique Frobenius conjugacy class in Gal($`L_w/F_v`$), $`w|v`$ which we denote by $`\tau _v`$. Moreover, if $`v`$ is such that $`\pi _v`$ and $`𝐆`$ are both unramified, then there exists and $`{}_{}{}^{L}M`$ semisimple conjugacy class in $`{}_{}{}^{L}M_{}^{0}\tau _v`$ which determines $`\pi _v`$ uniquely (). We may identify, as we in fact do, this conjugacy class with an element $`A_v{}_{}{}^{L}T_{}^{0}`$ which may be assumed to be fixed by $`\tau _v`$ (cf. §6.3 and 6.5 of ). The local Langlands $`L`$-function defined by $`\pi _v`$ and $`r_v,r_v=r\eta _v`$, where $`r`$ is a complex analytic representation of $`{}_{}{}^{L}M`$, is then defined to be (cf. ),

$$L(s,\pi _v,r_v)=det(Ir_v(A_v\tau _v)q_v^1)^1.$$
(2.7)
Let $`S`$ be a finite set of places of $`F`$, including all the archimedean ones, such that for every $`vS`$, $`\pi _v`$ and $`𝐆`$ are both unramified. Set

$$L_S(s,\pi ,r)=\underset{vS}{}L(s,\pi _v,r_v).$$
(2.8)
The main result of \[34, also see 40\] is that

$`M(s,\pi )f`$ $`=`$ $`_{vS}A(s,\pi _v,w_0)f_v_{vS}\stackrel{~}{f}_v`$ (2.9)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}L_S(is,\pi ,\stackrel{~}{r}_i)/L_S(1+is,\pi ,\stackrel{~}{r}_i),`$
where $`f=_vf_v`$ is such that for each $`vS`$, $`f_v`$ is the unique $`K_v`$-fixed function in $`I(s,\pi _v)`$ normalized by $`f_v(e_v)=1`$ and for each $`i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{r}_i`$ denotes the contragredient of $`r_i,i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, the irreducible components of the adjoint action of $`{}_{}{}^{L}M`$ or $`{}_{}{}^{L}N`$. Here $`\stackrel{~}{f}_v`$ is the $`K_v`$-fixed function in the space of $`I(s,w_0(\pi _v))`$, normalized the same way. Moreover $`f_v`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_v`$ are identified as elements in spherical principal series.

## 3. Generic representations and the non-constant term

Suppose $`F`$ is a field, either local or global, and $`𝐆`$ is as before, with a Borel subgroup $`𝐁=\mathrm{𝐓𝐔}`$ over $`F`$. Fix an $`F`$-splitting {$`X_\alpha ^{}`$}, i.e., a collection of root vectors as $`\alpha ^{}`$ ranges over simple roots of $`𝐓`$ in $`𝐔`$ which is invariant under the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_F=\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F)`$. This then determines a map $`\varphi `$ form $`𝐔`$ to $`\mathrm{\Pi }𝔾_a,\phi (u)=(x_\alpha ^{})_\alpha ^{}`$, where $`x_\alpha ^{}`$ is the $`\alpha ^{}`$-coordinate of $`u`$ with respect to $`\{X_\alpha ^{}\}`$. Let $`\{\kappa _\alpha ^{}\}`$ be a collection of elements in $`\overline{F}^{}`$ such that $`\sigma (\kappa _\alpha ^{})=\kappa _{\sigma \alpha ^{}}`$ for every $`\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_F`$. Set $`f(u)=\underset{\alpha ^{}}{}\kappa _\alpha ^{}x_\alpha ^{}`$. Observe that $`f`$ is $`F`$-rational. If $`F`$ is global, we extend $`f`$ to a map on $`𝐔(𝔸_F)`$. Let $`\psi _F`$ be a non-trivial character of $`F`$ ($`F𝔸_F`$ if $`F`$ is global). A character $`\chi `$ of $`𝐔(F)(𝐔(F)𝐔(𝔸_F)\text{if}F\text{is global})`$ is called $`nondegenerate`$ or $`generic`$ if $`\chi (u)=\phi (f(u)),u𝐔(F)(u𝐔(F)𝐔(𝔸_F)`$ if $`F`$ is global).

We now continue to assume $`F`$ is a number field. Let $`\chi =_v\chi _v`$ be a generic character of $`𝐔(F)U`$.

Let $`𝐔^0=𝐔𝐌`$ and let $`\chi `$ also denote the restriction of $`\chi `$ to $`U^0`$. Choose a function $`\phi `$ in the space of $`\pi =_v\pi _v`$, a cuspidal representation of $`M`$, and $`𝐔^0(F)U^0`$ being compact, set

$$W_\phi (m)=_{𝐔^0(F)U^0}\phi (um)\overline{\chi (u)}𝑑u.$$
(3.1)
We shall say $`\pi `$ is (globally) $`\chi `$-generic if $`W_\phi 0`$ for some $`\phi `$. The representation $`\pi `$ is (globally) generic if it is $`\chi `$-generic with respect to some generic $`\chi `$. Then each $`\pi _v`$ will be $`\chi _v`$-generic in the sense that there exists a non-zero Whittaker functional $`\lambda _v`$ i.e., a continuous (in the semi-norm topology if $`v=\mathrm{}`$) functional satisfying $`\pi _v(u)x,\lambda _v=\chi _v(u)x,\lambda _v,x(\pi _v),uU_v^0`$. Choosing $`\phi `$ appropriately, i.e., if $`\phi =_v\phi _v,\phi _v(\pi _v)`$, then $`W_\phi (m)=_v\pi _v(m_v)\phi _v,\lambda _v`$, for $`m=(m_v)`$.

Given $`f_vV(s,\pi _v)`$, the space of $`I(s,\pi _v)`$, define

$$\lambda _{\lambda _v}(s,\pi _v)(f_v)=_{N_v^{}}f_v(w_0^1n^{}),\lambda _v\overline{\chi (n^{})}𝑑n^{},$$
(3.2)
a canonical Whittaker functional for $`I(s,\pi _v)`$. Changing the splitting we now assume $`\kappa _\alpha ^{}=1`$. It now follows from Rodier’s theorem that there exists a complex function (of $`s`$), $`C_{\chi _v}(s,\pi _v)`$, depending on $`\pi _v,\chi _v`$ and $`w_0`$ such that (cf. )

$$\lambda _{\chi _v}(s,\pi _v)=C_{\chi _v}(s,\pi _v)\lambda _{\chi _v}(s,w_0(\pi _v))A(s,\pi _v,w_0).$$
(3.3)
This is what we call the Local Coefficient attached to $`s,\pi _v,\chi _v`$ and $`w_0`$. The choice of $`w_0`$ is now specified by our fixed splitting as in .

Finally, if

$$E_\chi (s,\varphi _s,g,P)=_{𝐔(F)U}E(s,\varphi _s,ug,P)\overline{\chi (u)}𝑑u$$
(3.4)
is the $`\chi `$-nonconstant term of the Eisenstein series, then ()

$$E_\chi (s,\varphi _s,e,P)=\underset{vS}{}W_v(e)\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}L_S(1+is,\pi ,\stackrel{~}{r}_i)^1,$$
(3.5)
where now $`S`$ is assumed to have the property that if $`vS`$, then $`\chi _v`$ is also unramified.

Applying Definition (3.4) to both sides of (2.6), using (3.5) now implies the crude functional equation ()

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}L_S(is,\pi ,r_i)=\underset{vS}{}C_{\overline{\chi }_v}(s,\stackrel{~}{\pi }_v)\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}L_S(1is,\pi ,\stackrel{~}{r}_i).$$
(3.6)
## 4. The main induction, functional equations and multiplicativity

To prove the functional equation for each $`r_i`$ with precise root numbers and $`L`$-function, we use (cf. ):

Proposition 4.1. Given $`1<im`$, there exists a quasisplit guoup $`𝐆_i`$ over F, a maximal F-parabolic subgroup $`𝐏_i=𝐌_i𝐍_i`$, both unramified for every $`vS`$, and a cuspidal automorphic form $`\pi ^{}`$ of $`M_i=𝐌_i(𝔸_F)`$, unramified for every $`vS`$, such that if the adjoint action $`r^{}`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{L}M_{i}^{}`$ on $`{}_{}{}^{L}𝔫_{i}^{}`$ decomposes as $`r^{}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m^{}}{}}r_j^{}`$, then

$$L_S(s,\pi ,r_i)=L_S(s,\pi ^{},r_1^{}).$$

Moreover $`m^{}<m`$.

Remark 4.2. As was observed by Arthur , each $`𝐌_i`$ can be taken equal to $`𝐌`$ and $`\pi ^{}=\pi `$. In fact each $`𝐆_i`$ can be taken to be an endoscopic group for $`𝐆`$, sharing $`𝐌`$ as a Levi subgroup. We shall record this as

Proposition 4.3. Given $`i`$, $`1<im`$, there exist a quasisplit connected reductive $`F`$-group with $`𝐌`$ as a Levi subgroup and $`m^{}<m`$ for which $`r_1^{}=r_i`$.

Using this induction and local-global arguments (cf. Proposition 5.1 of ), it was proved in  that

Theorem 4.4. $`(`$Theorems 3.5 and 7.7 of $`)`$ $`a)`$ For each $`i`$, $`1im`$, and each $`v`$, there exist a local $`L`$-function $`L(s,\pi _v,r_{i,v})`$, which is the inverse of a polynomial in $`q_v^s`$ whose constant term is 1, if $`v<\mathrm{}`$, and is the Artin $`L`$-function attached to $`r_i\phi _v^{}`$, where $`\phi _v^{}:W_{F_v}^{}{}_{}{}^{L}M_{v}^{}`$ is the homomorphism of the Deligne-Weil group into $`{}_{}{}^{L}M_{v}^{}`$ parametrizing $`\pi _v`$, if either $`v=\mathrm{}`$ or $`\pi _v`$ has an Iwahori-fixed vector; and a root number $`\epsilon (s,\pi _v,r_{i,v},\phi _v)`$ satisfying the same provisions, such that if

$$L(s,\pi ,r_i)=L(s,\pi _v,r_{i,v})$$
(4.1)
and

$$\epsilon (s,\pi ,r_i)=\underset{v}{}\epsilon (s,\pi _v,r_{i,v},\psi _v),$$
(4.2)
then

$$L(s,\pi ,r_i)=\epsilon (s,\pi ,r_i)L(1s,\pi ,\stackrel{~}{r}_i).$$
(4.3)
$`b)`$ Let

$$\gamma (s,\pi _v,r_{i,v},\psi _v)=\epsilon (s,\pi _v,r_{i,v},\psi _v)L(1s,\pi _v,\stackrel{~}{r}_{i,v})/L(s,\pi _v,r_{i,v}).$$
(4.4)
Then each $`\gamma (s,\pi _v,r_{iv},\psi _v)`$ is multiplicative in the sense of equation (3.13) in Theorem 3.5 of . (See below.) If $`\pi _v`$ is tempered, then $`\gamma (s,\pi _v,r_{i,v},\psi _v)`$ determines the corresponding root number and L-function uniquely and in fact that is how they are defined. Suppose $`\pi _v`$ is non-tempered, then each $`L(s,\pi _v,r_{i,v})`$ is determined by means of the analytic continuation of its quasi-tempered Langlands parameter and multiplicativity of corresponding $`\gamma `$-functions. More precisely, if $`\sigma _v`$ is the quasitempered Langlands parameter that gives $`\pi _v`$ as a subrepresentation, then

$$L(s,\pi _v,r_{i,v})=\underset{jS_i}{}L(s,\overline{w}_j(\sigma _v),r_{i(j),v}^{}),$$
(4.5)
where the notation is as in part 3) of Theorem 3.5 of , provided that every L-function on the right hand side is holomorphic for $`\mathrm{Re}(s)>0`$, whenever $`\sigma _v`$ is (unitary) tempered (Conjecture 7.1 of , proved in many cases \[3.6.42\]). The set $`S_i,\overline{w}_j`$ and $`r_{i(j)}^{}`$ are defined as follows in which we drop the index v. Assume $`\pi Ind_{M_\theta (N_\theta M)M}\sigma 1`$, where $`𝐌_\theta (𝐍_\theta 𝐌)`$ is a parabolic subgroup of $`𝐌`$ defined by a subset $`\theta \mathrm{\Delta }`$, the set of simple roots of $`𝐀_0`$. Let $`\theta ^{}=\stackrel{~}{w}_0(\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and fix a reduced decomposition $`\stackrel{~}{w}_0=\stackrel{~}{w}_{n1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{w}_1`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{w}_0`$ (Lemma 2.1.1 of ). For each j, there exists a unique root $`\alpha _j\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{w}_j(\alpha _j)<0`$. For each j, $`2jn1`$, let $`\overline{w}_j=\stackrel{~}{w}_{j1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{w}_1`$. Set $`\overline{w}_1=1.`$ Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j=\theta _j\{\alpha _j\}`$, where $`\theta _1=\theta ,\theta _n=\theta ^{}`$, and $`\theta _{j+1}=\stackrel{~}{w}_j(\theta _j),1jn1`$. Then $`𝐌_{\mathrm{\Omega }_j}`$ contains $`𝐌_{\theta _j}(𝐍_{\theta _j}𝐌_{\mathrm{\Omega }_j})`$ as a maximal parabolic subgroup and $`\overline{w}_j(\sigma )`$ is a representation of $`M_{\theta _j}`$. The L-group $`{}_{}{}^{L}M_{\theta }^{}`$ acts on the space of $`r_i`$, but no longer necessarily irreducibly. Given an irreducible constituent of this action, there exists a unique j, $`1jn1`$, which under $`\overline{w}_j`$ is equivalent to an irreducible constituent of the action of $`{}_{}{}^{L}M_{\theta _j}^{}`$ on the Lie algebra of the L-group of $`𝐍_{\theta _j}𝐌_{𝛀_𝐣}`$. Let $`i(j)`$ be the index of this subspace and denote by $`r_{i(j)}^{}`$ the action of $`{}_{}{}^{L}M_{\theta _j}^{}`$ on it. Finally, let $`S_i`$ denote the set of all such j’s for a given i. (See Theorem 3.5 and Section 7 of . Also see the discussion just before Proposition 5.2 of \[2.8\].$`)`$

Remark 4.5. If $`𝐆=GL_{t+n},𝐌=GL_t\times GL_n`$ and $`\pi =_v\pi _v`$ and $`\pi ^{}=_v\pi _v^{}`$ are cuspidal representations of $`GL_t(𝔸_F`$ and $`GL_n(𝔸_F)`$, then $`m=1`$ and $`L(s,\pi \stackrel{~}{\pi }^{},r_1)`$ is precisely the Rankin-Selberg product $`L`$-function $`L(s,\pi \times \pi ^{})`$ attached to ($`\pi ,\pi ^{}`$) (cf. ). In this case each of the local $`L`$-functions and root numbers are precisely those of Artin through parametrization which is now available for $`GL_N(F_v)`$ for any $`N`$ due to the work Harris-Taylor  and Henniart . As we explain later, this will also be the case for many of our local factors as a result of our new cases of functoriality which we shall soon explain. This is quite remarkable, since our factors are defined using harmonic analysis, as opposed to the very arithmetic nature of the definition given for Artin factors. This is a perfect example of how deep Langlands’ conjectures are.

Remark 4.6. The multiplicativity of local factors, in the sense of Theorem 3.4, are absolutely crucial in establishing our new cases of functoriality throughout our proofs . In fact, not only do we need them to prove our strong transfers, they are also absolutely necessary in establishing our weak ones.

## 5. Twists by highly ramified characters, holomorphy and boundedness

While the functional equations developed from our method are in perfect shape and completely general, nothing that general can be said about the holomorphy and possible poles of these $`L`$-functions. On the other hand, there has recently been some remarkable new progress on the question of holomorphy of these $`L`$-function, mainly due to Kim . They rely on reducing the existence of the poles to that of existence of certain $`unitary`$ automorphic forms, which in turn points to the existence of certain local unitary representations. One then disposes of these representations, and therefore the pole, by checking the corresponding unitary dual of the local group. In view of the functional equation, this needs to be checked only for $`\mathrm{Re}(s)1/2`$. In fact, to carry this out, one needs to verify that:

Certain local normalized $`(`$as in $`)`$ intertwining operators
$`\text{are holomorphic and non-zero for }\mathrm{Re}(s)1/2,`$ (5.1)
in each case . The main issue is that one cannot always get such a contradiction and rule out the pole. In fact, there are many unitary duals whose complementary series extend all the way to Re($`s`$)=1.

On the other hand, if one considers a highly ramified twist $`\pi _\eta `$ (see Theorem 5.1 below) of $`\pi `$, then it can be shown quite generally that every $`L(s,\pi _\eta ,r_i)`$ is entire (cf.  for its local analogue). In fact, if $`\eta `$ is highly ramified, then $`w_0(\pi _\eta )\pi _\eta `$, whose negation is a necessary condition for $`M(s,\pi _\eta )`$ to have a pole, a basic fact from Langlands spectral theory of Eisenstein series (Lemma 7.5 of ). This was used by Kim , and in view of the present powerful converse theorems , that is all one needs to prove our cases of functoriality . To formalize this, we borrow the following proposition (Proposition 2.1) from , in order to state the result. It is a consequence of our general induction (Propositions 4.1 and 4.3) and .

Theorem 5.1. Assume $`(5.1)`$ is valid. Then there exists a rational character $`\xi X(𝐌_F)`$ with the following property: Let S be a non-empty finite set of finite places of F. For every globally generic cuspidal representation $`\pi `$ of $`M=𝐌(𝔸_F)`$, there exist non-negative integers $`f_v,vS`$, depending only on the local central characters of $`\pi _v`$ for all $`vS`$, such that for every grössencharacter $`\eta =_v\eta _v`$ of F for which conductor of $`\eta _v,vS`$, is larger than or equal to $`f_v`$, every L-function $`L(s,\pi _\eta ,r_i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, is entire, where $`\pi _\eta =\pi (\eta \xi )`$. The rational character $`\xi `$ can be simply taken to be $`\xi (m)=\mathrm{det}(Ad(m)|𝔫),m𝐌`$, where $`𝔫`$ is the Lie algebra of $`𝐍`$.

The last ingredient in applying converse theorems is that of boundedness of each $`L(s,\pi ,r_i)`$ in every vertical strip of finite width, away from its poles, which are finite in number, again using the functional equation and under Assumption (5.1). This was proved in full generality by Gelbart-Shahidi , using the theory of Eisenstein series via  and . The main theorem of  (Theorem 4.1) is in full generality, allowing poles for $`L`$-functions. Here we will state the version which applies to our $`\pi _\eta `$.

Theorem 5.2. Under Assumption $`(5.1)`$, let $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ be as in Theorem 5.1. Assume $`\eta `$ is ramified enough so that each $`L(s,\pi _\eta ,r_i)`$ is entire. Then, given a finite real interval I, each $`L(s,\pi _\eta ,r_i)`$ remains bounded for all s with $`\mathrm{Re}(s)I`$.

The main difficulty in proving Theorem 5.2 is having to deal with reciprocals of each $`L(s,\pi ,r_i),2im`$, near and on the line Re($`s`$)=1, the edge of the critical strip, whenever $`m2`$, which is unfortunately the case for each of our cases of functoriality. We handle this by appealing to equations (3.5) and estimating the non-constant term (3.4) by means of .

## 6. New cases of functoriality

Langlands functoriality predicts that every homomorphism between $`L`$-groups of two reductive groups over a number field, leads to a canonical correspondence between automorphic representations of the two groups. The following instances of functoriality are quite striking and are consequences of applying recent ingenious converse theorems of Cogdell and Piatetski-Shapiro  to certain classes of $`L`$-functions whose necessary properties are obtained mainly from our method. (See  for an insightful survey.) We refer to  for more discussion of these results and the transfer from $`GL_2(𝔸_F)\times GL_2(𝔸_F)`$ to $`GL_4(𝔸_F)`$, using Rankin-Selberg method by Ramakrishnan . (See  for a proof using our method.)

6.a. Let $`\pi _1=_v\pi _{1v}`$ and $`\pi _2=_v\pi _{2v}`$ be cuspidal representations of $`GL_2(𝔸_F)`$ and $`GL_3(𝔸_F)`$, respectively. For each $`v`$, let $`\rho _{iv}`$ be the homomorphism of Deligne-Weil group into $`GL_{i+1}()`$, parametrizing $`\pi _{iv},i=1,2`$. Let $`\pi _{1v}\pi _{2v}`$ be the irreducible admissible representation of $`GL_6(F_v)`$ attached to $`\rho _{1v}\rho _{2v}`$ via . Set $`\pi _1\pi _2=_v(\pi _{1v}\pi _{2v})`$, an irreducible admissible representation of $`GL_6(𝔸_F)`$. Next, let $`\pi =\pi _1,\pi _v=\pi _{1v}`$ and $`\rho _v=\rho _{1v}`$. Let $`\mathrm{Sym}^3(\pi _v)`$ be the irreducible admissible representation of $`GL_4(F_v)`$ attached to $`\mathrm{Sym}^3(\rho _v)`$ and set $`\mathrm{Sym}^3(\pi )=_v\mathrm{Sym}^3(\pi _v)`$, an irreducible admissible representation of $`GL_4(𝔸_F)`$. We have:

Theorem 6.1 . $`a)`$ The representations $`\pi _1\pi _2`$ and $`Sym^3(\pi )`$ are automorphic.

$`b)`$ $`Sym^3(\pi )`$ is cuspidal, unless $`\pi `$ is either of dihedral or of tetrahedral type.

In view of , one needs to show that $`L(s,(\pi _1\pi _2)\times (\sigma \eta ))`$ is nice in the sense that it satisfies the contentions of Theorems 4.4.a, 5.1 and 5.2 for a highly ramified grössencharacter $`\eta `$, where $`\sigma `$ is a cuspidal representation of $`GL_n(𝔸_F),n=1,2,3,4`$, which is unramified in every place $`v`$ where either $`\pi _{1v}`$ or $`\pi _{2v}`$ is ramified. In particular for each $`v`$, one of $`\pi _{1v},\pi _{2v}`$ or $`\sigma _v`$ is in the principal series. It then follows from multiplicativity (cf. Theorem 4.4) and the main results of , that these $`L`$-functions are equal to certain $`L`$-functions defined from our method. More precisely, we can take $`(𝐆,𝐌)`$ to be: a) $`𝐆=SL_5,𝐌_D=SL_2\times SL_3`$; b) $`𝐆=\mathrm{Spin}(10),𝐌_D=SL_3\times SL_2\times SL_2`$; c) $`𝐆=E_6^{sc},𝐌_D=SL_3\times SL_2\times SL_3`$; d) $`𝐆=E_7^{sc},𝐌_D=SL_3\times SL_2\times SL_4`$, according as $`n=1,2,3,4`$, respectively. This leads to a proof that $`\pi _1\pi _2`$ is weakly automorphic. The strong transfer requires a lot more work, involving base change, both normal  and non-normal , and finally a local result . Automorphy of $`\mathrm{Sym}^3(\pi )`$ is a consequence of applying the first part to ($`\pi `$,Ad($`\pi `$)), where Ad($`\pi `$) is the adjoint of $`\pi `$, established by Gelbart-Jacquet . It does not require the use of .

Observe that we have in fact proved that the homomorphisms $`GL_2()GL_3()GL_6()`$ and $`\mathrm{Sym}^3`$: $`GL_2()GL_4()`$ are functorial. Neither are endoscopic.

6.b. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }=_v\mathrm{\Pi }_v`$ be a cuspidal representation of $`GL_4(𝔸_F)`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2:GL_4()GL_6()`$ be the exterior square map. Also with $`\pi `$ as in 6.a, let $`\mathrm{Sym}^4(\pi )=_v\mathrm{Sym}^4(\pi _v)`$, where $`\mathrm{Sym}^4(\pi _v)`$ is attached to $`\mathrm{Sym}^4(\rho _v)`$. Then

Theorem 6.2 (cf. ). $`a)`$ The map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ is weakly functorial, in the sense that there exists an automorphic form on $`GL_6(𝔸_F)`$ whose local components are equal to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Pi }_v)`$ for all v, except if $`v|2`$ or $`v|3`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Pi }_v)`$ is defined by the local Langlands conjecture .

$`b)`$ $`Sym^4(\pi )`$ is an automorphic representation of $`GL_5(𝔸_F)`$.

We point out that b) is obtained by applying a) to $`\mathrm{Sym}^3(\pi )`$. a) is proved by applying our method to Spin groups (Case $`D_n1`$ of , $`n=k+4,k=0,1,2,3`$).

Proposition 6.3 (cf. ). $`Sym^4(\pi )`$ is cuspidal unless $`\pi `$ is either of dihedral, tetrahedral or octahedral type.

Let $`\pi =_v\pi _v`$ be a cusp form on $`GL_2(𝔸_F)`$. For each unramified $`v`$, let $`\alpha _v`$ and $`\beta _v`$ be the Hecke eigenvalues of $`\pi _v`$. Then as corollary to Proposition 6.3 we have the following striking improvements towards Ramanujan and Selberg conjectures.

Corollary 6.4. $`a)`$ $`(`$cf. $`)`$ Assume F is an arbitrary number field. Then $`q_v^{1/9}<|\alpha _v|`$ and $`|\beta _v|<q_v^{1/9}`$. b) (cf. ). Assume $`F=`$. Then $`p^{7/64}|\alpha _p|`$ and $`|\beta _p|p^{7/64}`$. Similar estimates are valid for the Selberg conjecture. More precisely, the smallest positive eigenvalue $`\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of the Laplace operator on $`L^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }𝔫)`$ for every congruence subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ satisfies $`\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Gamma }){\displaystyle \frac{975}{4096}}0.2380\mathrm{}`$

6.c. Let $`i:Sp_{2n}()GL_{2n}()`$ be the natural embedding. Let $`\pi =_v\pi _v`$ be a generic cuspidal representation of $`SO_{2n+1}(𝔸_F)`$. For each unramified $`v`$, let $`\{A_v\}Sp_{2n}()`$ be the Hecke-Frobenius conjugacy class parametrizing $`\pi _v`$. Let $`i(\pi _v)`$ be the unramified representation of $`GL_{2n}(F_v)`$ attached to $`\{i(A_v)\}`$. Then the main theorem of  proves:

Theorem 6.5 . The embedding i is weakly functorial, i.e., there exist an automorphic representation of $`GL_{2n}(𝔸_F)`$ whose components are equal to $`i(\pi _v)`$ for almost all $`v`$.

This is proved by applying our method to maximal parabolics of appropriate odd special orthogonal groups (Case $`B_n`$ of ). The strong transfer is now also established by Ginzburg-Rallis-Soudry  as well as Kim  by building upon Theorem 6.5.

Final Comments. Many other cases are in progress. Among them are a proof of the existence of Asai transfer  using our method, which was originally proved by Ramakrishnan , using the Rankin-Selberg method. This is the first case where one needs to use quasisplit groups. Since the issue of stability of root numbers  (cf. ) seems to be close to being settled by means of our method , many others transfers should now be available. A similar approach for nongeneric representations was initiated in .