text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of the leptonic decay $`B^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ 111charge-conjugate modes are implied throughout the paper. is of particular interest because it is sensitive to the product of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $`|V_{ub}|`$ and the $`B`$ meson decay constant $`f_B`$, which describes the overlap of the quark wave functions inside the $`B`$ meson and is only known from theory . The knowledge of $`f_B`$ is essential for the extraction of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $`|V_{td}|`$ from processes of $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing in which the oscillation frequency is proportional to $`f_B^2`$. In the Standard Model the amplitude of the $`B^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay is due to the annihilation of the $`b`$ and $`\overline{u}`$ quarks into a virtual $`W`$ boson. The resulting expression for the branching fraction is:

$$(B^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu })=\frac{G_F^2m_B}{8\pi }m_l^2\left(1\frac{m_l^2}{m_B^2}\right)^2f_B^2|V_{ub}|^2\tau _B,$$
(1)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $`m_l`$ and $`m_B`$ are the charged lepton and $`B`$ meson masses, $`\tau _B`$ is the $`B^{}`$ lifetime. The dependence of $`(B^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu })`$ on the lepton mass arises from helicity conservation, which strongly suppresses the muon and electron channels. Using data from Ref. , the Standard Model expectation in Eq. (1) for the $`\tau `$ channel becomes:

$$(B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu })=(7.5\times 10^5)\frac{\tau _B}{1.674\mathrm{ps}}\left(\frac{f_B}{198\mathrm{MeV}}\right)^2\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{0.0036}\right|^2.$$
(2)
While the theoretical dependence of the branching fraction from the relevant parameters, $`\tau _B`$, $`f_B`$ and $`V_{ub}`$, is straightforward, a search for the $`B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay is experimentally challenging due to the presence of additional undetectable neutrinos in the final state coming from the decay of the $`\tau `$.

No observation of a $`B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }`$ signal has been reported yet in the literature. The most stringent upper limit has been achieved by the L3 Collaboration : $`(B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu })<5.7\times 10^4`$ at 90% C.L.

## 2 The BABAR detector and dataset

The data sample used in this analysis was recorded at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance in 1999-2002 with the BABAR detector at the PEP-II asymmetric-energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collider at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. The integrated luminosity at the center of mass energies near $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ is 81.9 $`\text{ fb}^1`$, corresponding to 88.9 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs. We also used a Monte Carlo simulation of $`B^+B^{}`$ generic events with an equivalent luminosity of 136.9 $`\text{ fb}^1`$ and of $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ events with an equivalent luminosity of 127.1 $`\text{ fb}^1`$.

The BABAR detector is described elsewhere . Detection of charged particles and measurement of their momenta are performed using a combination of a five-layer silicon vertex tracker (SVT) and a 40-layer drift chamber (DCH) in a 1.5 T solenoidal magnetic field. A detector of internally-reflected Cherenkov radiation (DIRC) with a quartz bar radiator provides charged particle identification. A finely-segmented CsI(Tl) electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC) is used to detect photons and to identify electrons. The magnetic flux return system (IFR), which is instrumented with multiple layers of resistive plate chambers, provides muon and long-lived neutral hadron identification.

Charged kaons are identified from the observed pattern of Cherenkov light in the DIRC and from the d$`E`$/d$`x`$ measurements in the SVT and DCH. Electron candidates are selected according to the ratio of EMC energy to track momentum, the EMC cluster shape, the d$`E`$/d$`x`$ in the DCH and the DIRC Cherenkov angle, if available. Muon candidates are selected according to the difference between the expected and measured thickness of absorber traversed, the match of the hits in the IFR with the extrapolated track, the average and spread in the number of hits per IFR layer, and the energy deposited in the EMC.

## 3 Analysis method

We select a sample of events with one $`B`$ meson ($`B_{reco}`$) completely reconstructed in a variety of hadronic decay modes. All the tracks and photon candidates in the event not used to reconstruct the $`B_{reco}`$ are associated to the other $`B`$ meson (recoil $`B`$) and are studied to search for a $`B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }`$ signal.

The advantage of having a sample of fully reconstructed $`B_{reco}`$ mesons is to provide a clean environment of $`B^+B^{}`$ events with a strong suppression of the combinatorial and continuum backgrounds. The drawback is a reduction of the data sample due to the low reconstruction efficiency.

### 3.1 Fully reconstructed $`B`$ sample

The $`B_{reco}`$ is reconstructed in a set of hadronic modes that can be summarized as $`B^+D^{()0}X^+`$, where $`D^{()0}`$ is a charmed meson and $`X^+`$ is a system of charged and neutral hadrons composed by $`n_1\pi ^\pm +n_2K^\pm +n_3\pi ^0+n_4K_S^0`$ ($`n_1=1,\mathrm{}5`$, $`n_2=0,\mathrm{}2`$, $`n_3=0,\mathrm{}2`$ and $`n_4=0,1`$). The $`D^0`$ is reconstructed in the decay mode $`D^0\pi ^0`$ and the $`D^0`$ candidate is reconstructed in four decay modes: $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+,K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0,K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+,K_S^0\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$.

The selection of the fully reconstructed $`B`$ candidates is made according to the values of two variables:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_B^{}E_{beam},$$
(3)
where $`E_B^{}`$ is the energy of the $`B`$ meson and $`E_{beam}`$ is the beam energy, both in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ rest frame; $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$, the energy substituted mass, defined as:

$$m_{\mathrm{ES}}=\sqrt{[(s/2+𝐩𝐩_𝐁)^2/E^2]|𝐩_𝐁|^2},$$
(4)
where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the total energy of the $`e^+e^{}`$ system in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ rest frame, and $`(E,𝐩)`$ and $`(E_B,𝐩_𝐁)`$ are the four-momenta of the $`e^+e^{}`$ system and the reconstructed $`B`$ candidate respectively, both in the laboratory frame. We require $`0.1<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.08\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}>5.21\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

For each reconstructed $`B_{reco}`$ mode $`i`$ the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ distribution of the reconstructed $`B`$ candidates is fit with the sum of an Argus function  and a Crystal Ball function . The Argus function models the continuum and combinatorial background whereas the Crystal Ball models the signal component, which peaks at the $`B`$ mass. The purity of the mode $`i`$ is defined as $`S_i/(S_i+B_i)`$, where $`S_i`$ ($`B_i`$) is the number of signal (background) events with $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}>5.27\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, as determined by the fit. In events with more than one reconstructed charged $`B`$ candidate we select the candidate reconstructed in the mode with the highest purity. Figure 1 shows the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ distribution for all $`B_{reco}`$ candidates in data. The yield $`N_{B^+B^{}}`$ of the sample containing one $`B_{reco}`$ is determined as the area of the fitted Crystal Ball function. We obtain $`N_{B^+B^{}}=(1.67\pm 0.09)\times 10^5`$. The error on $`N_{B^+B^{}}`$ is dominated by systematics and is discussed in Section 4.2.

We define the signal region on the $`B_{reco}`$ side to be $`0.09<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.06\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}>5.27\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and we use the events contained in the sideband $`5.21<m_{\mathrm{ES}}<5.26\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ as a control sample for continuum and combinatorial background. The same $`B_{reco}`$ reconstruction technique has been used in other BABAR analyses like .

### 3.2 Selection of $`𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}`$ decays

In the events where a $`B_{reco}`$ is reconstructed we search for decays of the recoil $`B`$ in a $`\tau `$ plus a neutrino; the $`\tau `$ lepton is identified in the following decay channels: $`\tau ^{}e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$, $`\tau ^{}\mu ^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$, $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\nu `$, $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\nu `$, $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\nu `$. All the selection criteria have been optimized to achieve the best upper limit.

The possible modes in which a $`B_{reco}`$ meson can be reconstructed have been classified by decreasing purity. For each reconstructed $`\tau `$ decay channel we select only $`B_{reco}`$ mesons reconstructed in the first $`n`$ modes, where $`n`$ has been chosen for the best upper limit.

The event total charge $`q`$ is defined as the sum of the $`B_{reco}`$ charge plus the $`\tau `$ decay products charge. We consider only events with total charge $`q=0`$ (right sign sample). The complementary sample with $`|q|=2`$ (wrong sign sample) contains a negligible fraction of the signal and is used as a control sample to test the analysis strategy and the agreement between the selected events in data and the expectation from Monte Carlo simulations.

All the physical quantities mentioned in the following, except where explicitly stated, refer to the recoil $`B`$.

#### 3.2.1 Selection of $`𝝉^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$, $`𝝉^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ and $`𝝉^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝝂`$ decays

The $`\tau ^{}e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$, $`\tau ^{}\mu ^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\nu `$ channels are characterized by a single charged track in the final state coming from the primary vertex.

We require:

* one reconstructed charged track which has not been identified as a kaon, no reconstructed $`\pi ^0`$ and no reconstructed $`K_S^0`$;
* at most one photon candidate with total energy in the laboratory frame less than 110 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. Only photons of at least 50 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ are considered;
* at least 1.2 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ of missing momentum in the laboratory frame;
* the track must be identified as a lepton for the $`\tau ^{}e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`\tau ^{}\mu ^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ selections;
* for the $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\nu `$ selection we require the charged track to have a momentum in the recoil $`B`$ rest frame of at least 1.2 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ and not be identified as either an electron or a muon.

#### 3.2.2 Selection of $`𝝉^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂`$ decay

The $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\nu `$ decay proceeds via an intermediate $`\rho ^{}`$ state. We require:

* one reconstructed track which has not been identified as a kaon or a lepton, one reconstructed $`\pi ^0`$ and no reconstructed $`K_S^0`$;
* at least 1.4 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ of missing momentum in the laboratory frame;
* at most one photon candidate with total energy in the laboratory frame less than 100 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. Only photons of at least 50 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ and not used for the $`\pi ^0`$ reconstruction are considered;
* the invariant mass of the $`\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ pair has to be in the range $`0.55<m_{\pi ^{}\pi ^0}<1.0\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$;
* for a further rejection of the continuum background, we require the cosine of the angle between the direction of the momentum of the $`B_{reco}`$ and the thrust vector of the recoil $`B`$ to be less than 0.9; the thrust orientation is chosen in order to point in the hemisphere opposite to the direction of the recoil $`B`$ momentum.

#### 3.2.3 Selection of $`𝝉^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝝂`$ decay

The $`\tau ^{}`$ decays into three charged tracks via two intermediate resonances. The full decay chain is: $`\tau ^{}a_1^{}\nu `$, $`a_1^{}\pi ^{}\rho ^0`$, $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. We require:

* three reconstructed charged tracks which have not been identified as leptons or kaons, no reconstructed $`\pi ^0`$ and no reconstructed $`K_S^0`$;
* at least 1.2 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ of missing momentum in the laboratory frame;
* at most one photon candidate with total energy in the laboratory frame less than 100 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. Only photons of at least 50 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ and satisfying the quality requirements on the lateral moment  to be between $`0.05`$ and $`0.50`$ and on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_9/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{25}>0.9`$ are considered. The lateral moment is a shape quantity for a neutral cluster and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_9/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{25}`$ is the ratio of the energies deposited in the 9 and 25 crystals closest to the cluster centroid. These quality requirements are introduced to improve the description of the neutral energy distribution obtained from Monte Carlo simulations;
* at least one $`\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ pair with invariant mass in the range $`0.60<m_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}<0.95\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$;
* invariant mass of the three pions in the range $`1.1<m_{\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}<1.6\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$;
* total momentum of the three pions in the recoil $`B`$ rest frame greater than 1.6 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$.

### 3.3 Efficiency and expected background

The selection efficiencies for the $`\tau `$ decay channels we consider in this analysis are determined from detailed Monte Carlo simulations and are summarized in Table 1. We compute the efficiency as the ratio of the number of events surviving each of our selections and the number of events where a $`B_{reco}`$ has been reconstructed. The efficiency for the $`\tau ^{}\mu ^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ channel is three times lower than the efficiency for the $`\tau ^{}e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ channel because a large fraction of the muon momentum spectrum is below $`1\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, where the muon selection efficiency is low. These muons are not recovered by the pion selection because we require the pion momentum to be at least $`1.2\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ in order to reject combinatorial and continuum backgrounds.

In the computation of the total efficiency for each selection we have taken into account the cross-feed from the other $`\tau `$ decay channels reported in Table 1, the requirement that the $`B_{reco}`$ is reconstructed in the signal region and that the total reconstructed event charge is zero.

The expected background is determined separately in the right sign and wrong sign samples. It is composed of events from continuum and combinatorial background, and events with a correctly reconstructed $`B`$ meson. Simulations of $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ events have shown that events where a neutral $`B`$ is incorrectly reconstructed as a charged $`B`$ provide a negligible peaking component.

The continuum and combinatorial background is determined from the number of events in the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ sideband, scaled by the ratio of the areas of the fitted Argus function in the signal and sideband regions. Since the number of background events after the full selection is too small to perform a precise fit, we define for each selection criterion a preselection based on the requirements on the number of reconstructed charged tracks and $`\pi ^0`$ mentioned in section 3.2. We fit the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ distribution after each preselection and we assume that the ratio of the fitted Argus in sideband and signal regions, which we use in our estimate of the continuum and combinatorial background, is unchanged after the full selection. The peaking background is determined from Monte Carlo simulations of $`B^+B^{}`$ events.

Another source of background originates from $`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ events. From Monte Carlo simulations we expect $`5.8\pm 1.9`$ events from $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ that survive the $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\nu `$ selection. No $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ event survives in the wrong sign sample. The expected background is summarized in Tables 2 and 3 for the wrong sign and right sign samples, respectively. The systematic corrections on the expected background are described in the next Section.

In Fig. 2 we show the neutral energy distribution for events in data and for the expected background. Each distribution refers to a different selection and is obtained applying all the requirements except the one on the neutral energy. The plots show no evidence of signal in data.

## 4 Systematic uncertainties

The main sources of uncertainty in the determination of the $`B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }`$ branching fraction are:

* uncertainty in the determination of the efficiency $`ϵ_i`$ for each selection channel;
* uncertainty in the determination of the number of $`B^+B^{}`$ events with one reconstructed $`B_{reco}`$$`N_{B^+B^{}}`$;
* uncertainty in the determination of the number of expected background events $`b_i`$ in each selection channel.

### 4.1 Uncertainty in the selection efficiencies

The main contributions to the systematic uncertainties in the determination of the efficiencies come from systematic uncertainty on tracking efficiency, neutral reconstruction efficiency and particle identification (PID). Uncertainty in the $`\pi ^0`$ reconstruction efficiency introduces an additional 5% contribution to the systematics in the $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\nu `$ selection . The different contributions to the systematic uncertainties on the selection efficiencies are reported in Table 4.

### 4.2 Uncertainty in the determination of $`𝑵_{𝑩^\mathbf{+}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}}`$

We determine $`N_{B^+B^{}}`$ as the area of the Crystal Ball function fitted to the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ distribution (see Fig. 1). Using a Gaussian function as an alternative description of the peak, we obtain a value of $`N_{B^+B^{}}`$ which is smaller by 4.5%. We assume this relative difference as the systematic uncertainty on $`N_{B^+B^{}}`$. Using the product of a third order polynomial times an Argus function as an alternative model for the background, the change in $`N_{B^+B^{}}`$ is 0.6%.

### 4.3 Uncertainty in the expected background and systematic corrections

To take into account possible dependencies of the fitted Argus shape on a given variable used in the selections, we compute a correction factor as the ratio of the expected background events passing the requirement on it using two different approaches. In the first approach we use a single sideband to signal scaling factor (see Section 3.3) determined from a $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ fit over the full variable range. In the second approach we divide the range of the variable into bins and determine different scaling factors for each bin. To each correction factor we assign 100% of the deviation from unity as a systematic uncertainty.

The expected number of background events after the correction is shown in Tables 5 and 6 for the wrong sign and right sign samples, respectively. It agrees with the number of selected events in data. The total systematic uncertainty amounts to 8.3% for the $`\tau ^{}\mu ^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`\tau ^{}e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ channels, 9.4% for the $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\nu `$ channel, 9.9% for the $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\nu `$ channel, and 6.1% for the $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\nu `$ channel.

## 5 Upper limit extraction

In order to extract the upper limit on the branching fraction for $`B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }`$ we combine the results of the different selections.

We use the likelihood ratio estimator:

$$Q=\frac{(s+b)}{(b)},$$
(5)
where $`(s+b)`$ and $`(b)`$ are the likelihood functions for signal plus background and background only hypotheses, respectively. The likelihood functions $`(s+b)`$ and $`(b)`$ are defined as:

$`(s+b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n_{ch}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(s_i+b_i)}(s_i+b_i)^{n_i}}{n_i!}},`$ (6)
$`(b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n_{ch}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{b_i}b_i^{n_i}}{n_i!}},`$ (7)
where $`n_{ch}`$ is the number of selection channels, $`s_i`$ and $`b_i`$ are the expected number of signal and background events respectively and $`n_i`$ is the number of selected events in each channel. In particular, $`s_i`$ can be written in terms of $`(B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu })`$ as:

$$s_i=sϵ_i=N_{B^+B^{}}(B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu })ϵ_i,$$
(8)
where $`s`$ is the total expected number of $`B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }`$ events, $`ϵ_i`$ is the selection efficiency for the $`i`$-th channel, $`N_{B^+B^{}}`$ is the number of $`B^+B^{}`$ events with one reconstructed $`B_{reco}`$.

We have no evidence of signal and we set a $`90\%`$ C.L. upper limit using a fast parametric Monte Carlo generating random experiments for different values of the branching fraction $`(B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu })`$. The confidence level for the signal hypothesis can be computed as:

$$\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}._s=\frac{\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}._{s+b}}{\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}._b}=\frac{N_{Q_{s+b}Q}}{N_{Q_bQ}},$$
(9)
where $`N_{Q_{s+b}Q}`$ and $`N_{Q_bQ}`$ are the number of the generated experiments which have a likelihood ratio less than or equal to the measured one, in the background plus signal and background only hypothesis respectively. The 90% C.L. upper limit to the branching fraction is the value for which $`\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}._s=10.9`$. We determine:

$$(B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu })<6.3\times 10^4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}90}\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.$$
(10)
In the extraction of the above limit we have included the uncertainty on the efficiency by reducing the efficiencies by one standard deviation (adding in quadrature the statistical and systematic uncertainty), and we have assumed conservatively the estimate of $`N_{B^+B^{}}`$ obtained with a Gaussian model instead of a Crystal Ball.

The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the expected background can be included in the likelihood definition by folding it with a Gaussian distribution having as standard deviation the combined statistical and systematic error on the estimate of $`b_i`$. The effect of the uncertainty on the expected background is shown in Fig. 3.

Including this uncertainty the upper limit becomes:

$$(B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu })<7.7\times 10^4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}90}\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.$$
(11)
The central value of the branching fraction corresponds to the minimum in the likelihood ratio distribution. Using $`N_{B^+B^{}}`$ obtained with a Crystal Ball model and the central values of the efficiencies, we determine $`(B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu })=(1.1_{1.1}^{+3.8}\times 10^4)`$.

If we let the number of selected events in each channel fluctuate according to Poisson distribution with the number of observed events as a mean we obtain the distribution of the possible upper limits shown in Fig. 4. The central value of this distribution ($`7.1\times 10^4`$) represents our sensitivity to the upper limit.

The BABAR Collaboration performed also another search for the $`B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay using a statistically independent sample . The sample is defined by one $`B^+`$ meson decaying in $`\overline{D}^0\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}X`$ final state where $`X`$ is either a photon, $`\pi ^0`$ or nothing. The two upper limits have been combined using the statistical technique described above to combine several channels. The combined upper limit is:

$$(B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu })<4.1\times 10^4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}90}\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.$$
(12)
## 6 Summary

A search for $`B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }`$ has been performed in the recoil of a fully reconstructed $`B_{reco}`$ sample. The analysis uses the following $`\tau `$ decay channels: $`\tau ^{}e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$, $`\tau ^{}\mu ^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$, $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\nu `$, $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\nu `$ and $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\nu `$. The results of the search in the different channels have been combined using a likelihood approach. No signal is observed and an upper limit has been set:

$$(B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu })<7.7\times 10^4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}90}\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.$$

The upper limits set by the two independent $`B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }`$ searches in the BABAR experiment have been combined using the statistical technique described in this paper to obtain the following result:

$$(B^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu })<4.1\times 10^4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}90}\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.$$

All results are preliminary.

## 7 Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the extraordinary contributions of our PEP-II colleagues in achieving the excellent luminosity and machine conditions that have made this work possible. The success of this project also relies critically on the expertise and dedication of the computing organizations that support BABAR. The collaborating institutions wish to thank SLAC for its support and the kind hospitality extended to them. This work is supported by the US Department of Energy and National Science Foundation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada), Institute of High Energy Physics (China), the Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Germany), the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy), the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (The Netherlands), the Research Council of Norway, the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation, and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom). Individuals have received support from the A. P. Sloan Foundation, the Research Corporation, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Bounded geodesics in moduli space

## 1. Introduction

Let $`S`$ be a compact orientable surface of genus $`g`$ with $`n`$ punctures, where $`3g+n3`$, and let $`𝒬`$ be the moduli space of unit-area holomorphic quadratic differentials over complex structures on $`S`$. This is a noncompact orbifold, on which $`G\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ acts continuously with discrete stabilizers, preserving a smooth finite measure.

For $`t`$, let $`g_t=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{t/2}& 0\\ 0& e^{t/2}\end{array}\right)G,`$ and denote the one-parameter subgroup $`\{g_t:t\}`$ by $`F`$. The restriction of the $`G`$-action to $`F`$ defines a flow on $`𝒬`$ called the geodesic flow (or sometimes the Teichmüller geodesic flow). Its dynamical properties have been extensively studied in connection with various problems in ergodic theory and geometry. See the surveys \[MT\], \[Mo\] for more details.

It is known \[M1\] that the geodesic flow is ergodic and hence a typical trajectory for the geodesic flow is dense. It is natural (and of importance for applications) to inquire as to the existence and abundance of atypical trajectories. Let us denote the Hausdorff dimension of a subset $`Y`$ of a metric space $`X`$ by $`dim(Y)`$, and say that $`Y`$ is thick in $`X`$ if for any nonempty open subset $`W`$ of $`X`$, $`\text{dim}(WY)=\text{dim}(W)`$ (i.e. $`Y`$ has full Hausdorff dimension at any point of $`X`$).

In this note we discuss bounded trajectories, and prove the following:

###### Theorem 1.

The set $`\{q𝒬:\text{the orbit }Fq\text{ is bounded}\}`$ is thick in $`𝒬`$.

Theorem 1 follows from a more precise result. Recall (see §2 for more details) that $`𝒬`$ is partitioned into finitely many $`G`$-invariant suborbifolds called strata. Say that $`X𝒬`$ is bounded in a stratum if its closure is a compact subset of a single stratum.

Let

$$F^+\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{g_t:t0\}F.$$

For $`s,\theta `$ let

$$h_s\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& s\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),r_\theta \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$

and

$$B\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ b& a^1\end{array}\right):b,a\{0\}\}.$$

With this notation, we have:

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`q𝒬`$. Then

* $`\{s:F^+h_sq\text{ is bounded in a stratum}\}`$ is thick in $``$.
* For any $`f:B,`$
$`\{s:F^+f(s)h_sq\text{ is bounded in a stratum}\}`$ is thick in $``$.
* $`\{\theta :F^+r_\theta q\text{ is bounded in a stratum}\}`$ is thick in $``$.
* $`\{xG:Fxq\text{ is bounded in a stratum}\}`$ is thick in $`G`$.

It follows from a result of Masur \[M2\] that the set in (iii) has measure zero, and it follows easily that the same holds for the sets in (i), (ii), (iv).

Note that Theorem 1 follows immediately from Theorem 2(iv) by considering the foliation of $`𝒬`$ into $`G`$-orbits. Theorem 2(iii) has an interpretation in terms of rational billiards, which we now describe. Let $`𝒫`$ be a rational billiard table. Fix any $`\theta `$, and for any $`p𝒫`$ consider a particle moving at a constant velocity along a ray at angle $`\theta `$ starting at $`p`$. The law of reflection (angle of incidence equals angle of return) gives rise to a dynamical system, whose phase space $`𝒫_\theta `$ is the complement of a countable set of lines in finitely many copies of $`𝒫`$. See \[MT\] for more details. Let $`d`$ denote the restriction of the Euclidean metric to $`𝒫_\theta `$, and let $`b_t^\theta :𝒫_\theta 𝒫_\theta `$ denote the time $`t`$ map of this flow.

It can be shown (see e.g. \[Bo1, §2\]) that every billiard trajectory is recurrent, that is, $`lim\; inf_t\mathrm{}d(p,b_t^\theta p)=0`$ for any $`p𝒫_\theta `$. Furthermore, one can use \[Bo2, Theorem 1.5\] and the existence of one-dimensional Poincaré sections for the flow $`(𝒫_\theta ,b_t^\theta )`$ (see a discussion in \[MT, §1.7\]) to derive a quantitative version for generic trajectories: namely, given $`𝒫`$ and $`\theta `$, there is a constant $`C`$, such that for almost every $`p𝒫_\theta `$ one has

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}td(p,b_t^\theta p)C.$$

On the other hand it turns out that for a thick set of angles $`\theta `$ it is not possible to replace $`C`$ in the right hand side of the above inequality by an arbitrary small number:

###### Corollary 3.

The set

$$\{\theta :c>0\text{ such that }\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}td(p,b_t^\theta p)cp𝒫_\theta \}$$

is thick in $``$.

Note that if $`𝒫`$ is rectangular (or more generally integrable, see \[MT\]), then $`b_t^\theta :𝒫_\theta 𝒫_\theta `$ is isomorphic to the flow along a ray in the torus $`^2/^2`$, and Corollary 3 is equivalent to the well-known fact (see \[Sc\] and the references therein) that the set of badly approximable $`\theta `$ (that is, those for which there exists $`c>0`$ with $`|\theta {\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}|{\displaystyle \frac{c}{q^2}}`$ for all integers $`p,q`$) is thick.

Our work is part of a fruitful interaction between the study of dynamics on quadratic differential spaces and dynamics on homogeneous spaces of Lie groups, see the survey \[We\] and the references therein. Bounded trajectories on homogeneous spaces were extensively studied due to their relation to linear forms which are badly approximable by rationals, and results analogous to ours were obtained by W. Schmidt \[Sc\], S.G. Dani \[Da\], and, in most general form, in joint work of the first-named author and G.A. Margulis \[KM1\]. See \[KSS, §4.1b\] for references to other related results.

Our construction of bounded trajectories is similar in some respects to the one used in \[KM1\], but whereas in that paper a crucial estimate was obtained by using the mixing property of the flow, in this paper the estimate follows from quantitative nondivergence results for horocycles obtained in \[MW\]. This approach, powered by nondivergence estimates for unipotent trajectories of homogeneous flows \[KM2\], can also be used to reprove the abundance of bounded orbits for partially hyperbolic diagonalizable flows on $`\mathrm{SL}(n,)/\mathrm{SL}(n,)`$, and to obtain new applications to number theory. It was originally introduced in the talk given by the first-named author in July 2000 at a Euroconference on Ergodic Theory, Number Theory and Geometric Rigidity (Issac Newton Institute, Cambridge, UK).

Acknowledgements: We thank Lee Mosher for getting us interested in this problem, and for encouraging remarks. We also thank Howard Masur and Yair Minsky for teaching us about quadratic differentials. This research was supported by BSF grant 2000247.

## 2. Terminology

Let $`\mathrm{Mod}(S)`$ be the mapping class group, let $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}`$ be the space of unit-area holomorphic quadratic differentials over complex structures on $`S`$, so that $`𝒬=\stackrel{~}{𝒬}/\mathrm{Mod}(S)`$. Let $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{𝒬}𝒬`$ be the natural quotient map. The space $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}`$ is a manifold on which $`G`$ acts continuously, and $`\pi `$ is $`G`$-equivariant. Each $`𝐪\stackrel{~}{𝒬}`$ can be defined as an equivalence class of atlases of charts of the following type. Outside a finite singularity set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐪)S`$ we have charts $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for which the transition functions $``$ are of the form $`z\pm z+c`$. The charts are required to have $`k`$-pronged singularities around points of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with $`k3.`$ At the punctures they are required to extend to the ‘filled-in’ surface, and the punctures may have $`k`$-prongs with $`k1`$. The equivalence relation is given by the natural action of $`\mathrm{Homeo}_0(S)`$ by pre-composition on each chart. An atlas is said to be orientable if the transition functions can be taken to be of the form $`zz+c`$. See \[MT, §4\] or \[MW, §4\] for details.

The data consisting of the number of singularities of each type, and the orientability of the atlas, assumes one of finitely many possibilities. A level set for this data is called a stratum in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}`$ is a stratum we also call its projection $`\pi ()𝒬`$ a stratum in $`𝒬`$. Any stratum in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}`$ is a submanifold and any stratum in $`𝒬`$ is a sub-orbifold. The strata are invariant under the $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$-action.

A saddle connection for $`𝐪`$ is a path $`\delta :(0,1)S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ whose image in any chart is a Euclidean straight line and which extends continuously to a map from $`[0,1]`$ to the completion of $`S`$, mapping $`\{0,1\}`$ to singularities or punctures. In all cases except $`g=1,n=0`$, there are saddle connections on the surface. Since our results are immediate for this case, we assume from now on that $`(g,n)(1,0)`$.

Integrating the local projections of $`d\delta `$ one obtains a vector, denoted by $`(x(\delta ,𝐪),y(\delta ,𝐪))`$, well-defined up to a multiple of $`\pm 1`$. Let $`_𝐪`$ denote the set of all saddle connections for $`𝐪`$. Since linear maps do not change the property of being a straight line, we may identify $`_𝐪`$ with $`_{A𝐪}`$ for any $`AG`$. The action of $`G`$ transforms the components of saddle connections linearly:

$$\text{for }AG,\left(\begin{array}{c}x(\delta ,A𝐪)\\ y(\delta ,A𝐪)\end{array}\right)=\pm A\left(\begin{array}{c}x(\delta ,𝐪)\\ y(\delta ,𝐪)\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
For a saddle connection $`\delta _𝐪`$, define its ‘length’ $`l(\delta ,𝐪)`$ by

$$l(\delta ,𝐪)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\mathrm{max}(|x(\delta ,𝐪)|,|y(\delta ,𝐪)|).$$

For $`\epsilon >0`$, let

$$K_\epsilon \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\pi \left(\{𝐪\stackrel{~}{𝒬}:\delta _𝐪,l(\delta ,𝐪)\epsilon \}\right).$$

It is known that each $`K_\epsilon `$ is compact. Moreover, for each stratum $``$ in $`𝒬`$, each compact $`K`$ is contained in $`K_\epsilon `$ for some $`\epsilon `$, and

$$\overline{\pi ()K_\epsilon }\pi ().$$

Thus $`X`$ is bounded in a stratum if and only if $`XK_\epsilon `$ for some $`\epsilon >0`$.

## 3. From nondivergent horocycles to bounded geodesics

Recall that the restriction of the $`G`$-action to the subgroup $`\{h_s:s\}`$ defines the so-called horocycle flow. It was proved in \[Ve\], using arguments of \[KMS\], that this flow does not admit divergent trajectories. The main ingredient for the proof of Theorem 2 is a quantitative strengthening of this result, along the lines of \[KM2\]. Here $`||`$ stands for Lebesgue measure on $``$.

###### Theorem 4.

\[MW, Thm. 6.3\] There are positive constants $`C,\alpha ,\rho _0`$, depending only on $`S`$, such that if $`𝐪\stackrel{~}{𝒬}`$, an interval $`I`$, and $`0<\rho \rho _0`$ satisfy:

$$\mathrm{for}\mathrm{any}\delta _𝐪,\underset{sI}{sup}l(h_s𝐪,\delta )\rho ,$$
(2)
then for any $`0<\epsilon <\rho `$ we have:

$$|\{sI:h_s\pi (𝐪)K_\epsilon \}|C\left(\frac{\epsilon }{\rho }\right)^\alpha |I|.$$
(3)
Proof of Theorem 2. We start with part (i). Let $`J`$ be an interval and let $`q_0=\pi (𝐪_0)𝒬`$. We need to prove that the Hausdorff dimension of the set

$$\{sJ:F_+h_sq_0\mathrm{is}\mathrm{bounded}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{stratum}\}$$
(4)
is equal to $`1`$. Denote the length of $`J`$ by $`r`$, and assume, as we may without loss of generality, that $`J=[0,r]`$ and $`r1`$.

Let $`\eta >0`$ be arbitrary, and let $`C,\alpha ,\rho _0`$ be as in Theorem 4. Choose $`\epsilon >0`$ so that $`q_0K_\epsilon `$, and also

$$C\left(\frac{\epsilon }{\rho _0}\right)^\alpha <\eta ,$$

and let

$$K^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}K_\epsilon ,K^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\underset{0sr}{}h_sK^{}.$$

Then there is $`\epsilon _0`$, depending only on $`\epsilon `$, such that $`K^{\prime \prime }K_{\epsilon _0}`$. Hence for each $`qK^{\prime \prime }`$, each $`𝐪\pi ^1(q),`$ and each $`\delta _𝐪`$, we have

$$l(\delta ,𝐪)=\mathrm{max}(|x(\delta ,𝐪)|,|y(\delta ,𝐪)|)\epsilon _0.$$
(5)
###### Claim 1.

There exists $`t_1>0,`$ depending only on $`\epsilon _0`$ and $`r`$, such that for every $`qK^{\prime \prime },𝐪\pi ^1(q)`$ and $`\delta _𝐪`$,

$$\underset{0sr}{sup}|x(\delta ,g_{t_1}h_s𝐪)|\rho _0.$$
(6)
To prove the claim, let us first show that

$$\mathrm{max}(|x(\delta ,𝐪)|,|x(\delta ,h_r𝐪)|)\epsilon _0r/2.$$
(7)
Let $`x=x(\delta ,𝐪)`$, $`y=y(\delta ,𝐪)`$. If $`|x|\epsilon _0r/2`$, there is nothing to prove. So by (5) we may assume that $`|y|\epsilon _0`$. But then

$$|x(\delta ,h_r𝐪)|\stackrel{(\text{1})}{=}|x+ry|\epsilon _0r\epsilon _0r/2=\epsilon _0r/2.$$

Setting $`t_1\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{log}\frac{2\rho _0}{\epsilon _0r}`$, one obtains (6) from (7) via (1). This proves the claim.

Enlarging $`t_1`$ if necessary, assume that

$$N\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}e^{t_1}.$$

###### Claim 2.

Suppose $`q^{}𝒬`$ and $`t_00`$ are such that $`g_{t_0}h_sq^{}K^{\prime \prime }`$ for any $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}sre^{t_0}`$. Subdivide $`[0,re^{t_0}]`$ into $`N`$ subintervals $`J_1,\mathrm{},J_N`$ of length $`re^{t_0}/N=re^{(t_0+t_1)}`$, and let

$$\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{i\{1,\mathrm{},N\}:g_{t_1+t_0}h_sq^{}K^{\prime \prime }sJ_i\}.$$

Then $`\mathrm{\#}(1\eta )N.`$

In order to prove this claim, we apply Theorem 4 with $`I=[0,re^{t_1}]`$ and $`q=g_{t_1+t_0}q^{}`$, that is, to the horocycle

$$\{h_sg_{t_1+t_0}q^{}:0sre^{t_1}\}=\{g_{t_1}h_sg_{t_0}q^{}:0sr\}.$$

Assumption (2), with $`\rho =\rho _0`$, is valid by (6).

We obtain:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\{0sre^{t_0}:g_{t_1+t_0}h_sq^{}K^{}\}|& =e^{(t_1+t_0)}|\{0sre^{t_1}:h_sg_{t_1+t_0}q^{}K^{}\}|\hfill \\ & e^{(t_1+t_0)}C\left(\frac{\epsilon }{\rho _0}\right)^\alpha re^{t_1}<\eta re^{t_0}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
Now let

$$_0\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{i\{1,\mathrm{},N\}:g_{t_1+t_0}h_sq^{}K^{}\text{ for some }sJ_i\}.$$

Then (8) implies that $`\mathrm{\#}_0(1\eta )N.`$ A simple calculation using the definition of $`K^{\prime \prime }`$ shows that $`_0`$, and the claim follows.

We now construct a subset $`DJ`$, of large Hausdorff dimension, by iterating Claim 2. At stage $`m`$ of the construction we have a subdivision of $`J`$ into $`N^m`$ subintervals of length $`N^m`$, and a collection of $`[(1\eta )N]^m`$ of these subintervals with the property that if $`I`$ is one of these intervals then

$$g_{kt_1}h_sq_0K^{\prime \prime }\text{ for any }sI\text{ and }k=0,\mathrm{},m.$$

For each subinterval $`I`$ belonging to this collection, we apply Claim 2 to $`I`$ shifted by its left endpoint, with $`t_0=mt_1`$ and an appropriate $`q^{}\pi ()`$, and obtain that there are at least $`(1\eta )N`$ subintervals of $`I`$ which satisfy the conclusion of the claim. The union of these subintervals over all subintervals $`I`$ comprises the collection for the $`(m+1)`$-st step.

Let $`D`$ be the set of intersection points of all sequences of nested subintervals in the above construction.

A well-known result (see \[Mc, Proposition 2.2\]) implies that the Hausdorff dimension of $`D`$ is at least

$$1\frac{\mathrm{log}(1\eta )}{\mathrm{log}(N)}1+\mathrm{log}(1\eta ).$$

If $`sD`$, then $`g_{kt_1}h_sqK^{\prime \prime }`$ for any $`k_+`$. This implies that

$$F_+h_sq_0K\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\underset{0tt_1}{}g_tK^{\prime \prime },$$

where $`K`$ is compact.

Since $`\eta `$ was chosen arbitrarily and since $`1+\mathrm{log}(1\eta )`$ tends to $`1`$ as $`\eta 0`$, we obtain that the set (4) has Hausdorff dimension $`1`$, as required.

For part (ii), note that for every $`bB`$, the set

$$\{g_tbg_t:t0\}G$$

is precompact, hence

$$F^+f(s)h_sq=\{\left(g_tf(s)g_t\right)g_th_sq:t0\}$$

is bounded if and only if so is $`F^+h_sq`$; thus (ii) follows from (i). The claim (iii) is a special case of (ii): it is easy to represent $`r_\theta `$ in the form $`r_\theta =f(\theta )h_\theta `$ where $`f(\theta )B`$.

Finally, to prove (iv), we follow the argument of \[KM1, §1.5\]. Take $`UG`$ of the form $`V^{}VV^0`$, where $`V^{}`$, $`V`$ and $`V^0`$ are neighborhoods of identity in

$$H^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ s& 1\end{array}\right):s\},H\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{h_s:s\}\mathrm{and}F\mathrm{respectively},$$

such that the multiplication map $`V^{}\times V\times V^0U`$ is bi-Lipschitz. It is enough to show that for any $`q`$,

$$dim\left(\{hU:Fhq\text{ is bounded}\}\right)=3.$$
(9)
Let $`C`$ be the set $`\{hU:F^+hq\text{ is bounded}\}`$. From part (i) it follows that for any $`h^0V^0`$, $`dim(CVh^0)=1`$. In view of the slicing properties of the Hausdorff dimension (see \[Fa\] or \[KM1, Lemma 1.4\]), one deduces that

$$dim(CVV^0)=2.$$
(10)
Now for any $`hC`$ choose a neighborhood $`V^{}(h)`$ of identity in $`H^{}`$ such that $`V^{}(h)hU`$. Then, by the argument used in the proof of (ii), one necessarily has $`V^{}(h)hC`$. Applying part (i) of the theorem with

$$F^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{g_t:t0\}$$

in place of $`F^+`$ and $`H^{}`$ in place of $`H`$ (this can be justified e.g. by considering an automorphism $`q\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)q`$ of $`𝒬`$, which leaves $`G`$-orbits and lengths of saddle connections invariant, and sends the action of $`H`$ and $`F^+`$ to that of $`H^{}`$ and $`F^{}`$ respectively), one concludes that

$$hCVV^0dim\left(\{h^{}V^{}:Fh^{}hx\text{ is bounded}\}\right)=1,$$

which, together with (10), yields (9). ∎

## 4. Application to rational billiards

Recall that any $`𝐪\stackrel{~}{𝒬}`$ defines a pair of transverse measured foliations on $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐪)`$, called the horizontal and vertical foliations respectively, and that $`g_t`$ acts by contracting (resp. expanding) the measure transverse to horizontal (resp. vertical) leaves by a factor of $`e^{t/2}`$. The Euclidean metric on a billiard table $`𝒫`$ determines a flat Riemannian metric on $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐪)`$. The length of $`\delta _𝐪`$ with respect to this metric is at least as large as $`l(\delta ,𝐪)`$. Recall also that any line segment is a length-minimizing path in its homotopy class with endpoints fixed, and any free homotopy class has a length-minimizing representative which is a concatenation of saddle connections.

Given $`𝒫`$, there is a standard construction (see \[KMS\] or \[MT\]) of a closed surface $`S`$ of genus $`g1`$, with a quadratic differential $`𝐪`$, such that, for each $`\theta `$, the flow $`b_t^\theta :𝒫_\theta 𝒫_\theta `$ is isomorphic to the unit-speed flow in $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐪)`$ along vertical leaves for $`r_\theta 𝐪`$. The case $`g=1`$ occurs if and only if $`𝒫`$ is integrable, and in this case Corollary 3 follows from the fact that badly approximable numbers form a thick subset of the reals. So assume $`g2`$.

Proof of Corollary 3. Suppose $`\theta `$ belongs to the thick subset of $``$ for which $`F^+r_\theta \pi (𝐪)`$ is bounded in a stratum. Then there exists $`0<\epsilon <1`$ with

$$F^+r_\theta \pi (𝐪)K_\epsilon .$$
(11)
Let $`c\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\epsilon ^2/2<1`$; we claim that $`d(b_t^\theta p,p)c/t`$ for any $`p𝒫_\theta `$ and $`t1`$. Indeed, assuming that there are $`p𝒫_\theta `$ and $`t1`$ with $`d(b_t^\theta p,p)<c/t`$, let

$$t_0\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{log}t\mathrm{log}c0.$$

With respect to $`r_\theta 𝐪`$, let $`𝒞_1`$ be the vertical segment from $`p`$ to $`b_t^\theta p`$, let $`𝒞_2`$ be a length-minimizing path from $`b_t^\theta p`$ to $`p`$, and let $`𝒞`$ be the concatenation of $`𝒞_1`$ and $`𝒞_2`$. The length of $`𝒞_1`$ with respect to $`r_\theta 𝐪`$ is $`t1`$ and the length of $`𝒞_2`$ is less than $`c/t<1`$. Since $`𝒞_1`$ is length-minimizing in its homotopy class with fixed endpoints, $`𝒞`$ is homotopically nontrivial.

With respect to $`g_{t_0}r_\theta 𝐪`$, the length of $`𝒞_1`$ is $`te^{t_0/2}=\sqrt{c}`$, and the length of $`𝒞_2`$ is less than $`e^{t_0/2}c/t=\sqrt{c}`$. Thus the length of $`𝒞`$ with respect to $`g_{t_0}r_\theta 𝐪`$ is less than $`\epsilon `$. Since $`𝒞`$ is not homotopically trivial, the shortest representative in its free homotopy class is a nontrivial concatenation of saddle connections. In particular there is $`\delta _𝐪`$ with $`l(\delta ,g_{t_0}r_\theta 𝐪)<\epsilon `$, which contradicts (11). ∎


text:
# A Comment on “Brans-Dicke Cosmology with a scalar field potential”

## 1 Introduction

In a recent letter, Mak and Harko  presented a set of solutions to Brans-Dicke theory with a quartic potential and a perfect fluid matter distribution. However, the equations which were the starting point of the analysis contain an error, which invalidates all subsequent results.

## 2 Inconsistency in equations of motion

A quick check of the literature (for just a few examples, see ) dealing with cosmology in Brans-Dicke theories suffices to conclude that equation $`(4)`$ of  has the wrong sign in front of the term involving the potential and its derivative. However, in the interest of completeness, we will show explicitly that using the Friedmann equations and conservation of energy $`(\dot{\rho }=3H(\rho +p))`$ leads to an equation different from $`(4)`$ of . Furthermore, this is not the result of a typographical error, since as we will show, the starting point for the analysis, equation $`(5)`$ of , depends on the wrong sign in $`(4)`$ of .

We begin by combining equations $`(2)`$ and $`(3)`$ of  to write

$`3H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _m}{\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}\psi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{2\varphi }}3H\psi `$ (1)
and

$`2\dot{H}+3H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_m}{\varphi }}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}\right)\psi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{2\varphi }}\dot{\psi }2H\psi `$ (2)
$`\dot{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _m+p_m}{\varphi }}\left(1+\omega \right)\psi ^2\dot{\psi }+H\psi \right]`$ (3)
where $`\psi \dot{\varphi }/\varphi `$. Taking the time derivative of the first of these leads to

$`6H\dot{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\rho }_m}{\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _m}{\varphi }}\psi +\omega \psi \dot{\psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{V^{}(\varphi )}{2}}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{2\varphi }}\psi 3\dot{H}\psi 3H\dot{\psi }`$ (4)
$`3(2H+\psi )\dot{H}`$ $`=`$ $`3{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\varphi }}(\rho _m+p_m)\psi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _m}{\varphi }}\omega \dot{\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{V^{}(\varphi )}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{2\varphi }}\right)3H\dot{\psi }`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(2H+\psi )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _m+p_m}{\varphi }}\left(1+\omega \right)\psi ^2\dot{\psi }+H\psi \right]`$ $`=`$ $`3{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\varphi }}(\rho _m+p_m)3H\dot{\psi }`$ (6)
$`\psi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _m}{\varphi }}\omega \dot{\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{V^{}(\varphi )}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{2\varphi }}\right)`$
where dots denote time derivatives, and primes denote derivative w.r.t. the scalar $`\varphi `$. Collecting terms, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\rho _m+3p_m)}{\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`(3+2\omega )\dot{\psi }+V^{}(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{\varphi }}+3H\psi (1+2\omega )+3\psi ^2(1+\omega )6H^2`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\rho _m+3p_m)}{\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`(3+2\omega )\dot{\psi }+V^{}(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{\varphi }}+3H\psi (1+2\omega )+3\psi ^2(1+\omega )`$ (8)
$`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _m}{\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}\psi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{2\varphi }}3H\psi \right)`$
which finally leads to the following equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\rho _m3p_m)}{\varphi }}+\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{\varphi }}V^{}(\varphi )\right)=(3+2\omega )\left(\dot{\psi }+3H\psi +\psi ^2\right).`$ (9)
We now see that the sign in front of the term containing the potential and its derivative is the opposite of that given in $`(4)`$ of . Let us now show that equation $`(5)`$ of , which constitutes the starting point for their analysis, does not follow from the correct equation we have written here, but from their erroneous equation $`(4)`$ of .

We start with the equation we have just written down, and use the Friedmann equations to replace $`\rho _m`$ and $`p_m`$

$`(2\omega +3)(\dot{\psi }+\psi ^2+3H\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(3H^2{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\varphi }{\varphi }}\right)+\left(6\dot{H}+9H^2+3p_\varphi \right)+2{\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{\varphi }}V^{}(\varphi )`$ (10)
$`(2\omega +3)(\dot{\psi }+\psi ^2+3H\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`12H^2+6\dot{H}+2{\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{\varphi }}V^{}(\varphi )\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}\psi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{2\varphi }}3H\psi \right)`$ (11)
$`+3\left(\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}\right)\psi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{2\varphi }}+\dot{\psi }+2H\psi \right),`$
which, once we collect all terms, leads to

$`\dot{\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\omega }}\dot{H}={\displaystyle \frac{6}{\omega }}H^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi ^23H\psi {\displaystyle \frac{V^{}(\varphi )}{2\omega }}.`$ (12)
Thus the claim made in  that choosing $`V(\varphi )=V_0\varphi ^4`$ allows the contributions of the potential and its derivative to cancel in the above equation is clearly wrong since only the derivative appears in the correct equation. Since all subsequent results depend on this faulty affirmation, they are not valid.


text:
# Multiparametric oscillator Hamiltonians with exact bound states in infinite-dimensional space

### Abstract

Bound states in quantum mechanics must almost always be constructed numerically. One of the best known exceptions concerns the central $`D`$dimensional (often called “anharmonic”) Hamiltonian $`H=p^2+a|\stackrel{}{r}|^2+b|\stackrel{}{r}|^4+\mathrm{}+z|\stackrel{}{r}|^{4q+2}`$ (where $`z=1`$) with a complete and elementary solvability at $`q=0`$ (central harmonic oscillator, no free parameters) and with an incomplete, $`N`$level elementary analytic solvability at $`q=1`$ (so called “quasi-exact” sextic oscillator containing one free parameter). In the limit $`D\mathrm{}`$, numerical experiments revealed recently a highly unexpected existence of a new broad class of the $`q`$parametric quasi-exact solutions at the next integers $`q=2,3,4`$ and $`q=5`$. Here we show how a systematic construction of the latter, “privileged” $`D1`$ exact bound states may be extended to much higher $`q`$s (meaning an enhanced flexibility of the shape of the force) at a cost of narrowing the set of wavefunctions (with $`N`$ restricted to the first few non-negative integers). At $`q=4K+3`$ we conjecture a closed formula for the $`N=3`$ solution at all $`K`$.

MSC 2000: 81Q05 13P05 14M12

## 1 Introduction

In quantum mechanics, bound states of a particle confined in a central potential well $`V(|\stackrel{}{r}|)`$ in $`D`$ dimensions are constructed as normalizable solutions of the ordinary differential Schrödinger equation

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{r^2}+V(r)\right]\psi (r)=E\psi (r).$$
(1)
Usually, this equation (or, more precisely, their infinite set numbered by integer argument $`L=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ of the “angular momentum” $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}(L)=L+(D3)/2`$) must be solved by purely numerical means.

A notable exception concerns all the models where the spatial dimension $`D`$ proves “sufficiently” large, $`D1`$. In a way outlined, say, in reviews , a semi-analytic, perturbative construction of the solutions may be then based on the so called large$`D`$ expansion technique. In essence, this approach combines our knowledge of the asymptotic growth of $`V(r)r^\alpha `$ at $`r1`$ with the presence of the strong repulsive core $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)/r^2`$ near the origin. This implies the existence of a (presumably, pronounced) absolute minimum of the combined forces at a point $`r=R(\alpha )`$ where we have

$$_y\left[\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{(R+y)^2}+(R+y)^\alpha \right]|_{y=0}=0,R=R(\alpha )=\left[\frac{2\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1))}{\alpha }\right]^{1/(\alpha +2)}1$$

whenever we neglect all the less relevant corrections. The main merit of this approach lies in its simplicity and universality but, unfortunately, its expected rate of convergence (measured by the smallness of $`1/R`$) will, obviously, increase quite slowly with the growth of $`D`$ and decrease quite quickly with an increase of the dominant power of the potential $`\alpha `$. As long as we are going to pay attention to the class of potentials

$$V_{(q,k)}(r)=\frac{1}{r^2}\left[g_2+g_1r^{2/(k+1)}+g_0r^{4/(k+1)}+\mathrm{}+g_{2q}r^{(4q+4)/(k+1)}\right]$$
(2)
with a fixed $`k`$ (say, for the sake of simplicity, $`k=0`$) and growing integers $`q`$, an efficient use of the above large$`D`$ approach does not seem too promising.

In an alternative semi-analytic approach to the problem (1) + (2) one could try to employ a power-series method where

$$\psi _{(q,k)}^{(PS)}(r)r^{\mathrm{}+1}\times U(r)\times \mathrm{exp}W(r),$$
(3)
and where approximations $`U(r)=polynomial[r^{2/(k+1)}]`$ (of a sufficiently large degree $`m_U`$) and $`W(r)=polynomial[r^{2/(k+1)}]`$ (of any degree $`m_W`$) may be re-constructed in a more or less algebraic manner after an insertion of this ansatz in the original differential equation. Unfortunately, virtually all practical implementations of this method prove even less efficient in computations .

The third eligible non-numerical approach to the construction represents a modification of the power-series method where also the second polynomial degree $`m_U<\mathrm{}`$ is fixed. This method has been proposed by E. Magyari  and is based on the evaluation of the solutions (3) via an ad hoc tuning of the potential (2) itself. Basically, the recipe requires the absence of any errors in eq. (3). This idea just extends the well known polynomial solvability of eq. (1) + (2) at $`q=k=0`$ (harmonic oscillator) and $`q=k1=0`$ (Coulomb field). The details of the Magyari’s recipe have been reviewed in ref.  where we emphasized that its practical merits are virtually non-existent because the underlying and obvious selfconsistency requirements (we called them there the Magyari-Schrödinger equations) may be characterized as a coupled set of determinantal equations which are extremely complicated to solve in general.

The main reason why we decided to pay attention to the Magyari’s approach is that we discovered, many year ago , that this method encounters enormous simplifications during a limiting transition to the large dimensions $`D1`$. In this setting one has to follow very consequently all the analogies with the harmonic oscillators. Firstly, one assumes that the polynomial $`W(r)`$ in the exponential represents an exact $`r1`$ asymptotic solution at any $`q`$ and $`k`$. Both the degree $`m_W`$ and all the coefficients in $`W(r)`$ are uniquely determined, in this way, by our choice of the potential (for example, we have $`W(r)=r^2/2`$ for harmonic oscillator). On this background, the Magyari’s second  key idea parallels the essence of the quasi-exact solvability (i.e., an incomplete solvability, see ) and extends, to all the $`q1`$ cases, the requirement that our choice of the polynomial $`U(r)`$ of any integer degree $`N=m_U`$ leads to some exact solution (3) for a suitably modified, adapted polynomial potential (2).

Our present text is inspired by the series of demonstrations that the latter combined method proves unexpectedly efficient in practice. As we mentioned, our study was initiated by the observation that for one of the most popular, viz., quartic polynomial interaction, the complicated Magyari-Schrödinger equations exhibit a remarkable and fairly surprizing simplification. In the next stage of our work on this project  we choose the “first nontrivial” $`q=2`$ oscillators and complemented the above observations by the formulation of the method of an explicit perturbative construction of $`1/D`$ corrections. We must emphasize that the improved convergence of our innovated solutions (which were defined by the series in the powers of $`1/D^2`$) was in a sharp contrast to the steady worsening of the performance of the above-mentioned large$`D`$ expansions at the larger $`q`$. Moreover, in the “minimal” sextic example at $`q=1`$, we succeeded in showing that and why our innovated series in the powers of $`1/R1/D^{1/4}`$ was absolutely convergent .

A real climax of our effort came with the papers  and  where we performed an explicit construction of the zero-order solutions and discovered that at the next few less trivial exponents $`q=3`$, $`q=4`$ and $`q=5`$ we were still able to construct the $`D\mathrm{}`$ solutions in closed form. Unfortunately, we were just able to work by the brute-force methods, based on the direct solution of the $`D\mathrm{}`$ limit of the Magyari-Schrödinger coupled algebraic nonlinear equations by the elimination method using the Groebner bases . For this reason, we were never able to find any solution at $`q6`$. This was also the main motivation for the study which we are going to describe in what follows.

## 2 A concise formulation of the problem

### 2.1 Asymptotic Magyari-Schrödinger equations

In a way discussed thoroughly in , the use of our ansatzs in the limit $`D\mathrm{}`$ implies an immediate reduction of the differential radial Schrödinger equation to its algebraic equivalent

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}s_1& 1& & & & \\ s_2& s_1& 2& & & \\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \\ s_q& \mathrm{}& & s_1& N2& \\ N1& s_q& & & s_1& N1\\ & N2& s_q& & \mathrm{}& s_1\\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ & & & 2& s_q& s_{q1}\\ & & & & 1& s_q\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p_0\\ p_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ p_{N2}\\ p_{N1}\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(4)
Here we are going to study its solvability, referring to  (we shall call it paper PI in what follows) for all the explanations of its origin and interpretations. Calling this deeply nonlinear non-square-matrix algebraic problem the Magyari-Schrödinger equation, we may just summarize that the $`N`$ quantities $`p_j`$ are in a one-to-one correspondence with the Taylor coefficients in the parts $`U(r)`$ of wavefunctions (3). Moreover, all $`q`$ generalized eigenvalues $`s_a`$ \[cf. their definitions $`s_a=s_a(g_{a2})`$ by eq. (30) in PI\] are just certain re-scaled forms of the energies and/or of coupling constants in our potential (2).

### 2.2 Upside-down symmetry

As we already explained in paper PI, the practical use of the explicit quasi-exact (QE) solutions requires a purely numerical determination of their QE-compatible eigenvalues $`g_{a2}`$ with $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},q`$. This means that the simplified Magyari-Schrödinger eq. (4) should be interpreted as an implicit definition of a QE solution on a pre-determined level of a finite precision. All the sufficiently small $`𝒪(1/D)`$ variations of the parameters should be ignored, within this convention, as negligible and irrelevant. Alternatively, they may all be treated, if necessary, by perturbation methods in a way exemplified in  at $`q=1`$ and in  at $`q=2`$.

In such a setting, one of the main messages delivered by paper PI was that all the perturbation constructions of any type may remain exact and non-numerical, at the first few smallest $`q`$ at least. This follows from the observation that all the exact QE parameters in PI proved expressible through integers in the zero-order limit $`D\mathrm{}`$. The necessary condition of this simplification lies in the elementary form of our algebraized QE Magyari-Schrödinger equation (4). Still, one has to overcome a few further obstacles. In particular, the brute-force origin of the results in PI made it impossible to move beyond $`q5`$. In the other words, the key weakness of paper PI lies in the too rapid growth of the difficulties with the increasing $`q`$. One needs all the capacity of the available computers to reveal the structure of solutions at the first few $`q`$. This means that whenever one needs an improvement of the insight in the structure of the solutions, one has to make a better use of their symmetries.

In our present continuation and completion of paper PI we are going to exploit the most obvious symmetry of eq. (4) with respect to its upside-down transposition. For this purpose we may modify our notation slightly, replacing eq. (4) by its reincarnation

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\alpha _1& 1& & & & \\ \alpha _2& \alpha _1& 2& & & \\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \\ \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1& \mathrm{}& & \alpha _1& N2& \\ N1& \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1& & & \alpha _1& N1\\ & N2& \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1& & \mathrm{}& \alpha _1\\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ & & & 2& \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1& \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2\\ & & & & 1& \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p_0\\ p_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ \stackrel{~}{p}_1\\ \stackrel{~}{p}_0\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(5)
However trivial, such a change of notation implies that all the separate lines have a tilded partner in this set. For example, the definition $`p_0=p_1/\alpha `$ (where $`\alpha =\alpha _1`$ is tacitly assumed non-zero) is always accompanied by its tilded counterpart $`\stackrel{~}{p}_0=\stackrel{~}{p}_1/\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ whenever $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_10`$, etc.

## 3 Solutions of the symmetrized recurrences

### 3.1 Trivial case at $`N=2`$

In our tilded notation, the first nontrivial version of our problem (5) with $`N=2`$ is particularly transparent and instructive,

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _1& 1\\ \alpha _2& \alpha _1\\ \alpha _3& \alpha _2\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1& \stackrel{~}{\alpha _2}\\ 1& \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p\\ \stackrel{~}{p}\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(6)
Its upside-down or “tilding” symmetry separates its first and last line as giving a constraint upon the doublet of unknowns $`\alpha _1=s_1=\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1=s_q=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ in a tilding-symmetric manner,

$$det\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & 1\\ 1& \stackrel{~}{\alpha }\end{array}\right)=0,\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }=1.$$
(7)
The fully tilding-symmetric way of dealing with the rest of eq. (6) consists now in the equivalence of its recurrent downward or upward treatment.

After we normalize $`p_1=\stackrel{~}{p}=1`$, the first line defines $`p_0=p=1/\alpha `$ and may be omitted. Step-by-step, the $`k`$th line of eq. (6) may be multiplied by the factor $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }/\alpha ^{k1}`$. This converts the old components into the known constants and we get the following sequence of definitions

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\alpha =1,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\alpha _2/\alpha =1,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\alpha _3/\alpha ^2=1,\mathrm{},$$
(8)
with elementary consequence: $`\alpha _k=\alpha ^k`$. We may imagine that the last definition prescribes that $`\alpha _{q+1}=\alpha ^{q+1}=1`$. This equation may be read as a boundary condition for our recurrences, fixing the physical value of our single free parameter $`\alpha `$. It has many unphysical complex roots and just a single real one, viz., the physical root $`\alpha =1`$ at any even $`q`$. Similarly, two different real roots $`\alpha =\pm 1`$ become available at all the odd $`q`$’s. This makes the final reconstruction of all the original QE-compatiblity “eigenvalues” $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_q`$ trivial.

We may add a comment. Knowing that the last line of recurrences (6) defines the function of $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha _{q+1}=\alpha ^{q+1}`$) with a prescribed value ($`\alpha ^{q+1}=1`$), the latter constraint may be interpreted as an algebraic equation which fixes the eligible values of $`\alpha `$. Such a type of the boundary condition is not unique. The same role may be played by any other line of eq. (6), once we re-direct these recurrences and demand that

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{1+j}=\alpha _{qj}$$
(9)
at any shift $`jq1`$. At $`N=2`$ all this is trivial since after being multiplied by $`\alpha ^{j+1}`$, all relations (9) degenerate to the same rule $`\alpha ^{q+1}=1`$.

### 3.2 A transition to the single variable at $`N=3`$

A separate treatment of the first nontrivial $`N=3`$ version of eq. (4) is necessary in the degenerate case with $`p_1=0`$. We may infer that $`s_1=s_3=s_5=\mathrm{}=s_q=0`$. This means that $`q=2Q+1`$ must be odd and that we in effect return to the $`N=2`$ structure. We only have to replace the old unknowns $`s_k`$ by the new ones, re-scaled to $`s_{2k}/2`$. Otherwise, the construction of the solutions remains strictly the same, giving the nontrivial roots $`s_{2k}=2\varrho ^k`$ where $`\varrho ^{Q+1}=1`$.

In what follows, similar detailed qualification will be omitted and, with the degenerate solutions ignored, we shall normalize $`p_1=1`$ at $`N=3`$, etc.

From the two outer lines of the $`N=3`$ version of eq. (4) we deduce that $`p_0=1/\alpha `$ while $`p_2=1/\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$. The rest of equation (4) acquires the tilding-symmetric matrix form

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\beta & \alpha & 2\\ \gamma & \beta & \alpha \\ \delta & \gamma & \beta \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \stackrel{~}{\alpha }& \stackrel{~}{\beta }& \stackrel{~}{\gamma }\\ 2& \stackrel{~}{\alpha }& \stackrel{~}{\beta }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}1/\alpha \\ 1\\ 1/\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(10)
It gets facilitated when pre-multiplied by an auxiliary row vector. This observation results from the step-by-step analysis of this system of equations re-written in the form

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\beta /\alpha =\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\alpha 2,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\gamma /\alpha =\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\beta \alpha ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\delta /\alpha =\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\gamma \beta ,\mathrm{}.$$
(11)
In the first item the right-hand-side part $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\alpha 2=\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }2\xi 2=\stackrel{~}{\xi }2`$ is tilding symmetric. This means that the same tilding-invariance must hold for the left-hand-side expression as well. The second item is not tilding-invariant but the invariance is restored after we divide all this equation by $`\alpha `$. This gives a consistent picture because one can deduce that also in all the subsequent rows the full tilding-invariance is achieved when we replace $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{}`$ by their renormalized and tilding-invariant forms $`\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }/\alpha ^0`$, $`\beta \stackrel{~}{\alpha }/\alpha `$, $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\alpha }/\alpha ^2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, respectively. In the other words, the system (11) must be pre-multiplied by the row of the factors $`1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }/\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }/\alpha ^2,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2/\alpha ^2,\mathrm{}`$ obtained, in recurrent manner, by the multiplication by the quotient which depends on the parity, i.e., equals to $`1/\alpha `$ and to $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ in subsequent steps. This means that the even and odd items in eq. (11) have a different structure.

This difference may be reflected by the change of the notation. Once we put $`\alpha =s_1=a`$, $`\beta =s_2=A`$, $`\gamma =s_3=b`$, $`\delta =s_4=B`$, $`ϵ=s_5=c`$ (while denoting also $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=s_q=\stackrel{~}{a}`$ etc) etc, equation (4) acquires another formally tilding-symmetric matrix form

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& 1& 0\\ A& a& 2\\ b& A& a\\ B& b& A\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{a}/a\\ \stackrel{~}{a}\\ 1\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(12)
The pair of the old variables $`a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ must be replaced by their tilding-invariant product $`\xi =a\stackrel{~}{a}=\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ and its tilding-covariant complement $`\rho =a/\stackrel{~}{a}=1/\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$. In an opposite direction, whenever needed, we may re-construct $`a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ from the two quadratic relations $`a^2=\rho \xi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}^2=\xi /\rho `$, i.e., up to an inessential indeterminacy in sign. After we abbreviate

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\frac{A}{\rho },\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=\frac{B}{\rho ^2},\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=\frac{C}{\rho ^3},\mathrm{},\sigma _1=\frac{1}{a}\frac{a}{\rho ^0},\sigma _2=\frac{1}{a}\frac{b}{\rho },\sigma _3=\frac{1}{a}\frac{c}{\rho ^2},\mathrm{}$$

and postulate that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=2`$ and $`\sigma _1=1`$, this procedure results in the conclusion that our recurrences may be re-written as the following sequence of the coupled pairs of the recurrent relations,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_k=\xi \sigma _k\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k1},\sigma _{k+1}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\sigma _k,k=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(13)
One re-interprets eqs. (13) as the mere recurrent definition of the auxiliary sequence of functions of our auxiliary real variable $`\xi `$,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\xi 2,\sigma _2=\xi 3,\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=\xi ^24\xi +2,\mathrm{}.$$

We see that the functions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k(\xi )`$ and $`\sigma _{k+1}(\xi )`$ are, by their construction, both polynomials of the same degree $`k`$.

Our final change in the notation will prescribe $`\xi `$ replaced by $`\xi =4x^2`$, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ represented as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k=2T_{2k}(x)`$ and with $`\sigma _k`$ re-scaled into $`\sigma _k=T_{2k1}(x)/x`$. We notice that our recurrences become simpler in the new notation but what is more important is that after such a transformation, our new polynomials $`T_n(x)`$ coincide precisely with the classical orthogonal Chebyshev polynomials of the first kind ,

$$T_0(x)=1,T_1(x)=x,T_2(x)=2x^21,\mathrm{}.$$
(14)
In this sense, our $`N=3`$ recurrences are solved exactly in closed form.

### 3.3 The two tilding-covariant variables at $`N=4`$

Using the abbreviations $`\alpha =s_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=s_q`$ etc., let us interpret the $`N=4`$ QE recurrences (4) as a tilding-symmetric problem

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\alpha & 1& & & & \\ \beta & \alpha & 2& & & \\ \gamma & \beta & \alpha & 3& & \\ \delta & \gamma & \beta & \alpha & & \\ ϵ& \delta & \gamma & \beta & & \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \\ & & & & & \\ 3& \stackrel{~}{\alpha }& \stackrel{~}{\beta }& \stackrel{~}{\gamma }& & \\ & 2& \stackrel{~}{\alpha }& \stackrel{~}{\beta }& & \\ & & 1& \stackrel{~}{\alpha }& & \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p\\ t\\ \stackrel{~}{t}\\ \stackrel{~}{p}\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(15)
The first and the last line may be dropped as defining merely $`p=t/\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}=\stackrel{~}{t}/\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$. From the next two outer lines we may express $`t`$ in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ or vice versa. Once we normalize $`\stackrel{~}{t}=1`$ and re-parametrize $`s_2=\beta =\beta (b)=\alpha ^2+2b\alpha `$ and, in parallel, $`s_{q1}=\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\stackrel{~}{\beta }(\stackrel{~}{b})=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2+2\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, the vanishing of the related secular two-by-two determinant may be re-read as the constraint $`b\stackrel{~}{b}=1`$. The rest of eq. (15) reads

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\gamma & \beta (b)& \alpha & 3& & \\ \delta & \gamma & \beta (b)& \alpha & & \\ ϵ& \delta & \gamma & \beta (b)& & \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \\ & & & & & \\ 3& \stackrel{~}{\alpha }& \stackrel{~}{\beta }(\stackrel{~}{b})& \stackrel{~}{\gamma }& & \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }/\alpha \\ \stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\\ \stackrel{~}{\alpha }\\ 1\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(16)
Its first row expresses $`\gamma `$ as a function of $`\alpha `$ and $`b`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$,

$$\gamma \stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }/\alpha =Q=\beta (b)\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }3.$$
(17)
Fortunately, the quantity $`Q`$ may be read as a polynomial in the mere two new, auxiliary variables $`Z=\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ and $`Y=\alpha \stackrel{~}{b}=Z/\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. In the light of the preceding subsection, this function $`Q=Q(Z,Y)=ZY+3Z3`$ of two variables will obviously play the role of a generalized Hermite polynomial. We may only regret that it is not a tilding-invariant function anymore.

The second row of eq. (16) must be multiplied by $`Y\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ to give the next-order polynomial in the same two variables,

$$R=\delta \stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2Y/\alpha =ZYQ(Z,Y)+Z^2Y+2Z^2ZY=R(Z,Y).$$
(18)
This defines the new quantity (= a rescaled $`\delta `$) and we may proceed to the third row multiplied by $`Y\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2`$,

$$S=ϵ\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^3Y/\alpha =ZR(Z,Y)+Z^2Q(Z,Y)Z^2Y2Z^2=S(Z,Y).$$
(19)
After the multiplication by $`Y^2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^3`$ the fourth row reads

$$T=\zeta \stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^4Y^2/\alpha =ZYS(Z,Y)+Z^2R(Z,Y)YZ^2Q(Z,Y)$$
(20)
with the next factor $`Y^2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^4`$ giving the next, fifth row

$$U=\eta \stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^5Y^2/\alpha =ZT(Z,Y)+Z^2S(Z,Y)Z^2R(Z,Y)$$
(21)
etc. Step by step we construct, in this manner, the two sequences of functions denoted as $`P_n(Y,Z)`$ and $`Q_n(Y,Z)`$ and defined by the pair of the coupled recurrences,

$$\begin{array}{c}P_{n+1}=YZQ_n+Z^2P_nYZ^2Q_{n1},\\ Q_{n+1}=ZP_{n+1}+Z^2Q_nZ^2P_n,\\ n=0,1,\mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(22)
from the initial values $`Q_1=1/Z`$, $`P_0=Y+2`$ and $`Q_0=Q=YZ+3Z3`$ generating $`R=P_1`$ etc.

In a way paralleling the previous $`N=3`$ case, we might slightly modify the functions and define $`P_{n+1}=\sqrt{Y}W_{2n+1}`$ while $`Q_{n+1}=W_{2n+2}`$. It is easy to verify that we can now use just the single common recurrence

$$\begin{array}{c}W_{n+1}=\sqrt{Y}ZW_n+Z^2W_{n1}\sqrt{Y}Z^2W_{n2},\\ n=0,1,\mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(23)
with the merely slightly modified initialization by $`W_2=Q_1=1/Z`$, $`W_1=P_0/\sqrt{Y}=\sqrt{Y}+2/\sqrt{Y}`$ and $`W_0=Q_0=Q=YZ+3Z3`$. We may see the clear parallels with the previous $`N=3`$ case, noticing that the polynomials $`W_{3n}`$ and $`W_{3n1}`$ are both divisible by $`Z^{2n}`$ while $`W_{3n2}`$ is only divisible by $`Z^{2n1}`$. We shall skip the further technical analyses of this sort here.

## 4 Matching and secular polynomials at $`N=3`$

For the sake of simplicity, let us only pay attention to the choice of $`N=3`$. Then, the knowledge of the closed form of the polynomials $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k(\xi )`$ and $`\sigma _{k+1}(\xi )`$ enables us to define the explicit values of all our coupling constants as functions of the mere two parameters $`a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ entering $`\xi =a\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and $`\rho =a/\stackrel{~}{a}`$,

$$a_1=a=a\rho ^0\sigma _1(\xi ),A_1=A=\rho \mathrm{\Sigma }_1(\xi ),a_2=b=a\rho \sigma _2(\xi ),$$

$$A_2=B=\rho ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(\xi ),a_3=c=a\rho ^2\sigma _3(\xi ),\mathrm{}.$$
(24)
One could also have constructed this general solution of our recurrences (10) in an opposite, upward direction. For this purpose, it suffices when all the above formulae are modified by a consequent application of the tilding operation.

We have seen that the $`N=3`$ case operates with two unknowns. At the same time, the set of recurrences (10) contains precisely two redundant items. In one extreme example we may read whole this set as a sequence of definitions of $`\beta =s_2=s_2(s_1,s_q)`$, $`\gamma =s_3=s_3(s_1,s_q)`$, …, $`s_{q+1}=s_{q+1}(s_1,s_q)`$ where the last two lines are redundant since we already knew the outcome, viz., $`s_{q+1}=2`$ and $`s_q(s_1,s_q)=s_q`$. This may be understood as a source of our final pair of boundary conditions determining the QE-compatible values of the pair of the unknown parameters.

In a way paralleling the previous $`N=2`$ example, any other two lines of eq. (10) might be selected as boundary conditions. In contrast to the $`N=2`$ example, almost all of the non-extreme choices of matching conditions would be preferable in practice, lowering the degree of the resulting secular polynomials.

This observation deserves to be explained in more detail. Indeed, it makes sense to distinguish between the four possible selections of the optimal matching conditions.

### 4.1 $`q=4K`$

Whenever $`q=4K`$ where $`K=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, the above-mentioned recurrent construction may be started, simultaneously, at both the upper and lower end of eq. (10). Without any difficulties and using eq. (24), the recipe defines all the unknown quantities, i.e., the doublets of pairs of the values

$$(a_j,A_j),(\stackrel{~}{a}_j,\stackrel{~}{A}_j),j=1,2,\mathrm{},K.$$
(25)
The two middle lines of eq. (10) define the other two redundant functions (or “non-existent couplings”) $`a_{K+1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{K+1}`$. This induces no real difficulty since the two parameters $`a_1=a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_1=\stackrel{~}{a}`$ are not yet specified. The latter two definitions are not redundant, therefore, as they have to fix these initial values.

The inspection of eq. (10) reveals that our symbol $`a_{K+1}`$ is an alternative name for another and well defined coupling $`\stackrel{~}{A}_K`$. Similarly, the quantity $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{K+1}`$ is an “alias” for $`A_K`$. We determine the missing QE roots $`a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ via the two redundant equations $`a_{K+1}=\stackrel{~}{A}_K`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{K+1}=A_K`$ or, in the notation of eq. (24),

$$a\sigma _{K+1}\rho ^K=\mathrm{\Sigma }_K\stackrel{~}{\rho }^K,\stackrel{~}{a}\sigma _{K+1}\stackrel{~}{\rho }^K=\mathrm{\Sigma }_K\rho ^K.$$

Their ratio reads $`\rho ^{4K+1}=1`$ and gives the unique real root $`\rho =1`$. Our first conclusion is that we must have $`a=\stackrel{~}{a}`$. The above two equations coincide and any of them represents our ultimate matching condition or constraint imposed upon $`\xi =a^2`$,

$$a\sigma _{K+1}(a^2)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_K(a^2),q=4K.$$
(26)
A sample of its roots may be found in Table 1 at $`q=4`$ and $`q=8`$. The inspection of the subsequent Table 2 reveals that with the further growth of $`K`$, the determination of these roots becomes purely numerical very quickly.

### 4.2 $`q=4K+2`$

After a move to $`q=4K+2`$ with $`K=(0,)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2,\mathrm{}`$, the previous recipe does not change too much. This time we define all the unknowns in a reversed order,

$$(A_j,a_{j+1}),(\stackrel{~}{A}_j,\stackrel{~}{a}_{j+1}),j=1,2,\mathrm{},K.$$
(27)
Mutatis mutandis we find that the central part of eq. (10) defines the other “non-existent” couplings $`A_{K+1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{K+1}`$ so that the doublet of equations $`A_{K+1}=\stackrel{~}{a}_{K+1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{K+1}=a_{K+1}`$ leads to another set of the selfconsistency conditions,

$$a\sigma _{K+1}\rho ^K=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{K+1}\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{K+1},\stackrel{~}{a}\sigma _{K+1}\stackrel{~}{\rho }^K=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{K+1}\rho ^{K+1}.$$

Their ratio degenerates to the modified constraint $`\rho ^{4K+3}=1`$ with the same unique real root as above, $`a/\stackrel{~}{a}=\rho =1`$. Both our innovated identities coincide,

$$a\sigma _{K+1}(a^2)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{K+1}(a^2),q=4K+2$$
(28)
and guarantee the desired matching. Their numerical aspects are sampled again in Table 1 (easily solvable cases at $`K=0,1`$ and $`2`$). The adjacent Table 2 complements this list and facilitates the determination of the explicit form of the secular equation (28) at all the integers $`K`$.

### 4.3 $`q=4K+1`$

The subset of odd $`q=4K+1`$ with $`K=(0,)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2,\mathrm{}`$ requires a more careful analysis. Although we have the same complete list (27) of the definitions of the QE-fixed couplings as above, its last two items are defined twice, in two different ways. Their necessary compatibility represented by the relation $`a_{K+1}=\stackrel{~}{a}_{K+1}`$ or rather

$$a\sigma _{K+1}\rho ^K=\stackrel{~}{a}\sigma _{K+1}\stackrel{~}{\rho }^K$$

implies that $`\rho ^{2K+1}=1`$ so that we must put $`a/\stackrel{~}{a}=\rho =1`$. In the light of this conclusion, the other two consequences $`A_{K+1}=\stackrel{~}{A}_K`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{K+1}=A_K`$ of the two other next-to-central rows of eq. (10) coincide and give the same ultimate matching rule

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{K+1}(\xi )=\mathrm{\Sigma }_K(\xi ),q=4K+1.$$
(29)
Its numerical performance appears illustrated by the corresponding subset of roots in Table 3.

Marginally, let us note that for the specific exponents $`q=4K+1`$, the secular polynomial may be re-written in the compact form

$$R^{(K,)}(\xi )=(\xi 4)[\left(\begin{array}{c}2K\\ 0\end{array}\right)\xi ^K\left(\begin{array}{c}2K1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\xi ^{K1}+\left(\begin{array}{c}2K2\\ 2\end{array}\right)\xi ^{K2}+\mathrm{}$$

$$\mathrm{}(1)^{K+2}\left(\begin{array}{c}K+2\\ K2\end{array}\right)\xi ^2+(1)^{K+1}\left(\begin{array}{c}K+1\\ K1\end{array}\right)\xi +(1)^K\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ K\end{array}\right)].$$
(30)
The secular polynomials $`_{m=0}^K\xi ^md_m^{[K]}`$ contain the $`(K+1)`$plets of coefficients $`𝒦^{(K)}=(d_K^{[K]},d_{K1}^{[K]},\mathrm{},d_0^{[K]})`$ such that $`𝒦^{(0)}=(1)`$, $`𝒦^{(1)}=(1,1)`$, $`𝒦^{(2)}=(1,3,1)`$, $`𝒦^{(3)}=(1,5,6,1)`$, etc. This rule parallels the even$`q`$ recipe of Table 2.

### 4.4 $`q=4K+3`$

The last possible choice of the odd exponents $`q=4K+3`$ (with $`K=(0,)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2,\mathrm{}`$) in the potentials $`V_{(q,n)}(r)`$ of eq. 2) leads to a routine completion of all the above analysis. A marginal modification of the list (25) is needed to specify all the necessary QE couplings, recurrently determined as functions of $`a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ only,

$$(a_j,A_j),(\stackrel{~}{a}_j,\stackrel{~}{A}_j),j=1,2,\mathrm{},K+1.$$
(31)
Nevertheless, the results of the matching become slightly different this time. Although the first, central-line rule $`A_{K+1}=\stackrel{~}{A}_{K+1}`$ prescribes merely

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{K+1}\rho ^{K+1}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{K+1}\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{K+1}$$

its consequence $`\rho ^{2K+2}=1`$ admits the two alternative signs in the resulting $`a/\stackrel{~}{a}=\rho =\pm 1`$. Under this condition, the other two equations (in detail, $`a_{K+2}=\stackrel{~}{a}_{K+1}`$ and its tilding-conjugate $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{K+2}=a_{K+1}`$) coincide as well, giving the same final condition

$$\sigma _{K+2}(\xi )=\sigma _{K+1}(\xi ),q=4K+3.$$
(32)
Curiously enough, this equation is the most easily solvable implicit definition of the QE roots $`\xi =a^2=\stackrel{~}{a}^2`$ (cf. Table 4).

Even the shortest glimpse at the results of the factorization of the effective secular polynomial $`R^{(K,+)}(\xi )=\sigma _{K+2}(\xi )\sigma _{K+1}(\xi )`$ reveals that the sequence of the exponents $`q=4K+3`$ might be viewed as the most privileged one. The search for its QE roots becomes by far the easiest. After we omit the roots $`\xi =0`$ and $`\xi =4`$ as trivial, we encounter another unexpected and purely empirically observed symmetry. Indeed, the secular roots $`a_1=\sqrt{\xi _{\pm n}}=\sqrt{2\pm \mathrm{\Xi }_n^{[K]}}`$ listed in Table 4 at the indices $`q=4K+3`$ appear to be of the very similar form. It is realy instructive to list a few sample distances $`\mathrm{\Xi }_n^{[K]}`$ of $`a_1^2`$ from their median = 2. We have $`\mathrm{\Xi }_n^{[1]}=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_n^{[2]}=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_n^{[3]}=0`$ or $`\sqrt{2}`$, two values of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_n^{[4]}=(\sqrt{5}\pm 1)/2`$, the three values of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_n^{[5]}=0,1`$ and $`\sqrt{3}`$. One may see that the full set of the secular roots $`a_1=\sqrt{\xi }`$ exhibits a weird regularity manifested by a reflection symmetry with respect to the center at $`\xi _c=2`$. All roots become tractable as certain quasi-conjugate pairs $`\xi =\xi _{\pm n}=2\pm \mathrm{\Xi }_n^{[K]}`$. In this sense, the results listed in Table 4 may be tentatively extrapolated to all the values of $`q`$. Indeed, once we omit the permanent pair of the minimal and maximal QE-compatiblity roots $`s=s_1=\pm 2`$ as a trivial, we may use the auxiliary variable $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{[K]}`$ as defined by the relation $`s_1=\sqrt{2\pm \mathrm{\Xi }^{[K]}}`$ at all the integers $`K`$. The inspection of Table 4 then reveals that all the complete sets of all the QE-compatiblity roots at all the listed integers $`q=4K+3`$ (i.e., at the set of $`K=1,2,3,4`$ and $`5`$) coincide with the complete sets of roots of the Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind,

$$U_K\left(\frac{2s_1^2}{2}\right)=0,K=1,2,\mathrm{},K_0$$
(33)
with the confirmed $`K_0=5`$ at present. This means that in a way complementing the $`N>N_0`$ extrapolations performed in our paper PI we may now tentatively extrapolate also the result (33) and conjecture that this equation determines all the closed and exact solutions of our $`N=3`$ QE Magyari-Schrödinger eq. (4) also at all the larger integers $`q=4K+3>4K_0+3=23`$.

### Acknowledgement

Work supported by the grant Nr. A 1048302 of GA AS CR.

### The list of the table headings

* Table 1. Real QE roots $`s=s_1`$ at the first few even $`q`$ for $`N=3`$.
* Table 2. Double Pascal triangle for coefficients in the reduced secular equations $`_{k=0}^{q/2}s_1^kc_k^{(q)}=0`$. This extrapolates Table 1 to all the even $`q`$’s.
* Table 3. Real QE roots $`s=s_1`$ at the first few odd $`q`$ for $`N=3`$.
* Table 4. Real QE roots $`s=s_1`$ at the first few $`q3(mod4)`$ for $`N=3`$.

## Tables

Table 1. Real QE roots $`s=s_1`$ at the first few even $`q`$ for $`N=3`$.

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}& & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ q& \multicolumn{5}{c}{\mathrm{roots}s=s_1}\\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ 2& 2& 1& & & \\ 4& 2& (\sqrt{5}1)/2& (\sqrt{5}+1)/2& & \\ 6& 2& \multicolumn{4}{c}{(\mathrm{plus}\mathrm{all}\mathrm{three}\mathrm{roots}\mathrm{of}a^3+a^22a1)}\\ 8& 2& 1& \multicolumn{3}{c}{(\mathrm{plus}\mathrm{all}\mathrm{three}\mathrm{roots}\mathrm{of}a^33a+1)}\\ 10& 2& \multicolumn{4}{c}{(\mathrm{plus}\mathrm{all}\mathrm{five}\mathrm{roots}\mathrm{of}a^5+a^44a^33a^2+3a+1)}\\ & & & & & \end{array}$$

Table 2. Double Pascal triangle for coefficients in the reduced secular equations $`_{k=0}^{q/2}s_1^kc_k^{(q)}=0`$. This extrapolates Table 1 to all the even $`q`$’s.

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}& & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & \\ & \multicolumn{7}{c}{\mathrm{coefficients}c_k^{(q)}}\\ & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & \\ k=& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 2& \hfill 3& \hfill 4& \hfill 5& \hfill \mathrm{}\\ q& & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & \\ 2& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& & & & & \\ 4& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& & & & \\ 6& \hfill 1& \hfill 2& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& & & \\ 8& \hfill 1& \hfill 2& \hfill 3& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& & \\ 10& \hfill 1& \hfill 3& \hfill 3& \hfill 4& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \\ 12& \hfill 1& \hfill 3& \hfill 6& \hfill 4& \hfill 5& \hfill 1& \hfill \mathrm{}\\ 14& \hfill 1& \hfill 4& \hfill 6& \hfill 10& \hfill 5& \hfill 6& \hfill \mathrm{}\\ 16& \hfill 1& \hfill 4& \hfill 10& \hfill 10& \hfill 15& \hfill 6& \hfill \mathrm{}\\ & & & & & & & \end{array}$$

Table 3. Real QE roots $`s=s_1`$ at the first few odd $`q`$ for $`N=3`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ q& \multicolumn{6}{c}{\mathrm{roots}s=s_1}\\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ 1& 2& 2& & & & \\ 3& 2& 2& & & & \\ 5& 2& 1& 1& 2& & \\ 7& 2& \sqrt{2}& \sqrt{2}& 2& & \\ 9& 2& \sqrt{\frac{3+\sqrt{5}}{2}}& \sqrt{\frac{3\sqrt{5}}{2}}& \sqrt{\frac{3\sqrt{5}}{2}}& \sqrt{\frac{3+\sqrt{5}}{2}}& 2\\ 11& 2& \sqrt{3}& 1& 1& \sqrt{3}& 2\\ & & & & & & \end{array}$$

Table 4. Real QE roots $`s=s_1`$ at the first few $`q3(mod4)`$ for $`N=3`$.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ & & & \\ q& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\mathrm{roots}s=s_1}\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ 3& \pm 2& & \\ 7& \pm 2& \pm \sqrt{2}& \\ 11& \pm 2& \pm \sqrt{2\pm 1}& \\ 15& \pm 2& \pm \sqrt{2}& \pm \sqrt{2\pm \sqrt{2}}\\ 19& \pm 2& \pm \sqrt{2\pm \left(\sqrt{5}1\right)/2}& \\ 23& \pm 2& \pm \sqrt{2}& \pm \sqrt{2\pm \sqrt{21}}\\ & & & \end{array}$$