text:
# Magneto-transport in periodic and quasiperiodic arrays of mesoscopic rings

## I Introduction

Quantum transport in mesoscopic systems has been an exciting field of research in the past several years AltAS81 ; WebWUL85 ; ShaS81 ; GijVB84 ; PanCRG84 ; GefIY84 ; But86 ; ButIA84 ; SivI86 ; EntHF86 ; LeeSF90 ; LevDDB90 ; KowSEI90 ; HuM91 ; Xia92 . One of the important aspects that has attracted much attention, both experimentally and theoretically, is the fluctuation of the magneto-conductance due to quantum coherence in such samples. For mesoscopic systems at very low temperatures the phonon scattering is insignificant, and the phase coherence length of the electrons becomes large compared to the system size. In the presence of a magnetic field one observes a specific, reproducible fluctuation pattern of the conductance, as the magnetic field or the Fermi level varies. The sample becomes equivalent to an electron waveguide where the transport properties are determined by the impurity configuration and the geometry of the conductor. In experimental and theoretical works, the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effects AltAS81 ; WebWUL85  in solid state devices in the forms of rings and cylinders that enclose a magnetic flux $`\varphi `$ have been investigated with much vigor AltAS81 ; WebWUL85 ; ShaS81 ; GijVB84 ; PanCRG84 ; GefIY84 ; But86 ; ButIA84 ; SivI86 ; EntHF86 ; LeeSF90 ; LevDDB90 ; KowSEI90 ; HuM91 ; Xia92 . The oscillations in the magneto-resistance were predicted to be dominated by a half-integer flux period $`\varphi _0/2`$ AltAS81 , where $`\varphi _0=hc/e`$ is the fundamental flux quantum. This was found experimentally for long cylinders AltAS81 ; ShaS81 ; GijVB84  and arrays of metal rings PanCRG84 . For single rings, it has been discussed that both periods can be present WebWUL85 . Among the theoretical studies on single ring systems, D’Amato et al. DamPW89 , have discussed a tight-binding model of a disordered ring coupled to two external leads, and have calculated the Landauer conductance Lan70  as a function of $`\varphi `$. For strongly disordered rings and for arbitrary disorder with weakly coupled branches, they have found a dominant period $`\varphi _0`$. Aldea et al. AldGC92  investigated the dc magneto-resistance in a two-probe ring geometry within a tight-binding formalism. They have presented analytical results for ordered single- and double-ring structures and discussed the localization effects due to disorder in such systems. AB effects for bound states such as neutral excitonic particles have also recently been studied WarSHB00 ; Cha95 ; RomR00 .

In comparison, the behavior of the magneto-conductance in systems having serially connected rings, has received little attention. In one of the early studies on serially connected rings Deo and Jayannavar SinJ94 ; JayS95  discussed quantum transport in these systems. The ‘band formation’ in such geometries has been analyzed and some magnetic properties of loop structures in the presence of an AB flux have been discussed. Takai and Ohta TakO93  have also addressed similar problems where both the magnetic flux and an electrostatic potential are present. These works have relied on the solution of the continuous version of the Schrödinger equation for the ring systems as well as other geometries SinJ94 ; JayS95 ; TakO93 . Transmission through a serial arrangement of rings can equivalently be handled within a tight-binding formalism, in the spirit of the single-ring studies of Ref. DamPW89  and Ref. AldGC92 . However, only recently an attempt has been made in this direction by Li et al. LiZL97 . They used a tight-binding model and a scattering-matrix technique to obtain closed expressions for transmission across a periodic array of identical rings.

The tight-binding formalism naturally facilitates the application of real-space renormalization-group methods to determine the bands and the transmittivity. It is also easy to incorporate disorder in this scheme. Additionally, it has also been successfully used to compute the dc conductivity of quasi-one-dimensional polyaniline chains HeyS97 , which resemble the ring-like mesoscopic objects quite closely. In this context, we believe that there is still scope to look deeper into the transport properties of serially connected rings. For example, a detailed analysis of the variation of the transmission properties as the number of atoms (scatterers) in each arm of the ring changes, keeping the electron energy $`E`$ and the flux $`\varphi `$ constant, has been somewhat less attended to so far. Also, the effect of having rings arranged in geometries other than periodic (quasiperiodic or random, for example) on the overall transmittivity is something that has not drawn any attention at all. This, to our mind, is worth investigating in detail. In this communication we address some of these problems. We focus our attention on the transmission coefficient across (i) perfectly ordered arrays of identical rings, and (ii) across a quasiperiodic arrangement of the rings of two different sizes.

Apart from the results that already exist and present an interesting scenario, an additional motivation in undertaking the present work comes from a recent experiment on the measurement of low-temperature magnetic response of serially connected GaAs/AlGaAs mesoscopic rings RabSMH01 . Persistent currents with a period equal to $`\varphi _0`$ have been detected, and it has been pointed out that the persistent currents are not significantly modified in connected systems. To our mind, this sort of an experiment generates some interest in studying also the transport if rings are arranged in a quasiperiodic sequence.

We confine ourselves to rings where all the sites have identical ‘on-site potential’, and are connected to the nearest neighbors by a hopping integral of the same magnitude. We provide a formula to reduce this ring geometry to an effective ‘dimer’. An array of rings then becomes equal to an array of such dimers, where the essence of quasi-one dimensionality is taken care of in an exact way. For a sequence of identical rings (identical dimers) our method allows us to analyze the variation of the transmittivity as a function of the magnetic flux at a fixed value of the electron energy, and vice versa. The situation, when both the energy and the flux vary, can be dealt with easily in this formalism. We show that the role of the number of scatterers contained in each arm of the ring is significant in determining the transmission across a series of rings, and sometimes may lead to rather unexpected behavior. For example, we show analytically that, when the two arms of a ring contain even and odd number of atoms respectively, and the flux threading the rings is zero, the transmission coefficient for $`N`$ such rings exhibits a power-law decay, viz. $`T1/N^2`$ for large $`N`$, if we choose the electron energy $`E=ϵ`$, $`ϵ`$ being the on-site potential corresponding to an atom in the ring. The power-law decay however, is sensitive to the choice of the parameters in the leads which are to be connected to the two ends of the system under study. This aspect will be discussed in more detail below.

We further investigate the electronic properties of quasiperiodically arranged sequences of rings. In particular, we study the spectral features of a Fibonacci arrangement of rings of two different sizes in the presence of the same magnetic flux per area through each ring. We find a non-trivial modification of the energy ‘bands’ for such a multiple-ring system. A quasiperiodic sequence of rings may even display a periodic variation of the transmittivity as a function of the system size in the absence of a magnetic field at specific values of the electron energy. We discuss one such case in detail.

In section II we present the basic method of our calculation for the transmission coefficient, and apply it to discuss some of the results for the isolated rings. The periodic arrangement of the rings is considered in section III. In section IV we focus on the quasiperiodic geometries. The transmittivity for a Fibonacci array of rings at an arbitrary generation of the series has been calculated by suitably modifying the trace-antitrace formulation WanGS00  to include the magnetic flux. In section V we summarize.

## II From a ring to a dimer

In this section we explain how we reduce a single ring geometry to a dimer. Let us concentrate on the simplest model of a ring which consists of identical ‘atoms’ each characterized by the same on-site potential energy $`ϵ`$. The atoms are assumed to be equally spaced on the ring. The ring is attached at two sites $`L`$ and $`R`$ to two semi-infinite ordered leads to facilitate the transmission measurement as shown in Fig. 1(a). The leads are characterized by a constant on-site potential $`ϵ_0`$ and a uniform hopping integral $`t_0`$ between the nearest neighbour sites.

The leads can be attached to any two atoms, which is equivalent to saying that we may have different number of atoms in the ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ arms of the rings. A magnetic field of flux density $`\varphi `$ penetrates the ring. We describe such a ring by the standard tight-binding Hamiltonian with the Peierls’ substitution Pei33 ,

$$H=ϵ\underset{i}{}|ii|+t\underset{ij}{}\left[e^{i\gamma }|ij|+e^{i\gamma }|ji|\right]$$
(1)
where $`t`$ is the amplitude of the hopping integral for nearest-neighbor couplings of identical strength, and $`|i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N_0`$ denotes the tight-binding orbitals. The flux $`\varphi `$ is measured in units of $`\varphi _0`$ and enters the Hamiltonian via $`\gamma =2\pi \varphi /N_0\varphi _0`$. $`N_0`$ is the number of bonds (and sites) in the ring. The amplitudes of the wave function at the $`j`$th site in any arm of the ring (excluding the sites $`L`$ and $`R`$ at the junctions with the leads) are related to the amplitudes at the nearest-neighbor sites by the difference equation,

$$(Eϵ)\psi _j=te^{i\gamma }\psi _{j+1}+te^{i\gamma }\psi _{j1}.$$
(2)
In order to calculate the transmission across this structure, first we ‘renormalize’ the ring into a dimer DamPW89  comprising just two ‘modified’ atoms (cp. Fig. 1(a)), with on-site potential $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ connected by an effective hopping integral with amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$. If the two arms of the ring contain an unequal number of atoms, the effective hopping integral is complex, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ contains a phase that reflects the broken time-reversal symmetry between the components of the dimer. To obtain this, we need to eliminate all the atoms that lie between the two points of contact $`L`$ and $`R`$ as shown in Fig. 1(a). This can been done analytically. It is straightforward to relate the amplitudes $`(\psi _j,\psi _{j1})`$ on any arm of the ring to the set $`(\psi _{j1},\psi _{j2})`$ on the same arm through a $`2\times 2`$ transfer matrix

$$𝑴=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{Eϵ}{t}e^{i\gamma }& e^{2i\gamma }\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
The matrix has a determinant equal to $`\mathrm{exp}(2i\gamma )`$. The product of $`n`$ such matrices is

$`𝑴^n`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i(n1)\gamma }[U_{n1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Eϵ}{2t}}\right)𝑴`$ (4)
$`e^{i\gamma }U_{n2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Eϵ}{2t}}\right)𝟙]`$
where $`𝟙`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ identity matrix and $`U_n`$ is the $`n`$th order Chebyshev polynomial of the second kind. Using this result together with the set of difference equations $`(2)`$ we obtain the expressions for the effective on-site potentials of the contact points $`L`$ and $`R`$. For the general case of $`n`$ and $`m`$ atoms between $`L`$ and $`R`$ in the upper and the lower arm (excluding the contact points $`L`$ and $`R`$), respectively, we get

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=ϵte^{i\gamma }\frac{M_{12}^n}{M_{11}^n}te^{i\gamma }\frac{\left(M_{12}^m\right)^{}}{\left(M_{11}^m\right)^{}}$$
(5)
where $`M_{ij}^n`$ is the $`(i,j)`$th element of $`𝑴^n`$. The effective hopping integral includes the effect of the broken time-reversal symmetry resulting from the application of the magnetic field, and is denoted as $`\stackrel{~}{t}_F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_B`$ corresponding to the ‘forward’ and the ‘backward’ hopping. The forward hopping integral is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{t}_F=\frac{te^{i\gamma }}{M_{11}^n}+\frac{te^{i\gamma }}{\left(M_{11}^m\right)^{}}$$
(6)
and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_B=\stackrel{~}{t}_F^{}`$. The ring embedded in the ordered lead now reduces to a dimer comprising of the (modified) sites $`L`$ and $`R`$. The transfer matrices for these two sites are

$$𝑴(L)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{E\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}{\stackrel{~}{t}_F}& \frac{t_0}{\stackrel{~}{t}_F}\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
and

$$𝑴(R)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{E\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}{t_0}& \frac{\stackrel{~}{t}_B}{t_0}\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(8)
with $`t_0`$ the hopping integral in the lead. The next step is to calculate the product $`𝑷`$ of the two matrices corresponding to the two sites $`R`$ and $`L`$, i.e., $`𝑷=𝑴(R)𝑴(L)`$. Using a well known formula StoJC81  the transmission coefficient of this effective dimer $`L`$-$`R`$ can then be obtained as

$$T=\frac{4\mathrm{sin}^2k}{|P_{12}P_{21}+(P_{11}P_{22})\mathrm{cos}k|^2+|P_{11}+P_{22}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2k}$$
(9)
with parametrization $`E=ϵ_0+2t_0\mathrm{cos}k`$. The lattice spacing has been chosen to be unity throughout. The above scheme has been tested to reproduce the results of the single-ring cases AldGC92  accurately.

We emphasize that the choice of the lead parameters is of much importance. For a given set of values of $`ϵ_0`$ and $`t_0`$ in the lead we will be able to scan only those energy eigenvalues of our system which fall within the allowed ‘band’ of the lead, i.e., from $`ϵ_02t_0`$ to $`ϵ_0+2t_0`$. Thus it is in principle possible to choose ring parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`t`$ such that there will be energies allowed in the ring structures that will be masked by the leads. Nevertheless, in the experimental situation the leads (not to be mistaken with the contacts) are usually made of the same material as the ring system. Therefore, we restrict ourselves to uniform values $`t_0=t`$ and $`ϵ_0=ϵ`$ throughout the system and therefore to an accessible energy band $`ϵ2t`$ to $`ϵ+2t`$ in the following.

## III Periodic array of rings

In this section we consider the variation of the transmission coefficient as a function of the flux at some fixed value of the energy. For convenience we restrict ourselves to the energy $`E=ϵ`$, for which the Chebyshev polynomials assume particularly simple forms, and precise analytical expressions are obtained for the effective on-site potential $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ and the hopping term $`\stackrel{~}{t}_F`$ and its complex conjugate. The hopping integral connecting one ring to the next is assumed to be same as that between the atoms in the rings, i.e., equal to $`t`$.

### III.1 Even-even case:

We take $`n=m=2p`$ with $`p`$ an integer. The number of sites in the ring, including the contact points, is $`4p+2`$. Using the values of the appropriate Chebyshev polynomials at $`E=ϵ`$, it is not difficult to work out with the help of Eqs. (5) and (6) that $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_F=\stackrel{~}{t}_B=(1)^p2t\mathrm{cos}(\pi \varphi /\varphi _0)`$. The time-reversal symmetry is preserved in this case. Let us check if $`E=ϵ`$ belongs to the spectrum of an infinite array of such rings. At $`E=ϵ`$ the product transfer matrix corresponding to the dimer, which constitutes a ‘unit cell’ of the infinite array, becomes

$$𝑷_{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{even}}=(1)^{p+1}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\sigma }{t}& 0\\ 0& \frac{t}{\sigma }\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
where $`\sigma =2t\mathrm{cos}(\pi \varphi /\varphi _0)`$. In order to have $`E=ϵ`$ in the spectrum of an infinite ordered array of such rings, one must have $`|\mathrm{Tr}𝑷|2`$. However, from (10) it is evident that $`|\mathrm{Tr}𝑷|=2`$ only for $`\varphi /\varphi _0=1/3,2/3,4/3,5/3,\mathrm{}`$. At all other flux values the trace is greater than $`2`$ as shown in Fig. 2.

Therefore, at $`E=ϵ`$ and at arbitrary flux, not equal to a special value such as above, the transmission coefficient across an array of this type of rings will decay exponentially as the system increases in size. This can also be checked using the formula for the transmission coefficient. For the special values of the flux mentioned above the transmission coefficient is precisely unity. This implies that for $`E=ϵ`$, we can achieve totally ballistic transport by tuning the flux to a specific value. This is an example for an extended eigenstate under the influence of a magnetic field AldGC92 ; SinJ94 ; JayS95 . The phenomenon of full transmission at these specific flux values can be understood if we look at the values of $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_F=\stackrel{~}{t}_B`$. We have presented results here for $`ϵ=ϵ_0=0`$. Now, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ is zero, and equal to the on-site terms at the leads. As $`\stackrel{~}{t}_F`$ also becomes real and equal to unity, the electron essentially ‘sees’ an ordered array of identical sites connected by identical hopping integrals. The corresponding eigenstate is naturally extended and $`E=0`$ happens to be the band center. In Fig. 3(a) we display the variation of the transmission coefficient against flux for this case.

The transmission coefficient is periodic in flux with a period equal to $`\varphi _0`$. As the number of rings increases the increase in the sharpness of transmission at specific flux values is evident. In Fig. 4, we display the variation of the transmission coefficient as a function of the energy $`E`$.

The anti-resonance ($`T=0`$) sets in clearly for the eight-ring series when $`\varphi =0`$. The overall transmission for $`\varphi =\varphi _0/4`$ appears to be slightly enhanced compared to $`\varphi =0`$. If we select $`\varphi =\varphi _0/2`$, an array of arbitrary size becomes completely opaque to an incoming electron with $`E=0`$. This is also clear from (10) and consistent with the findings in the single ring case AldGC92 .

### III.2 Odd-odd case:

We now consider an equal but odd number of atoms in each arm, i.e., $`n=m=2p+1`$ such that the total number of atoms in the ring remains even. In this case $`𝑴_{11}^n=0`$ at $`E=ϵ`$. Both $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ diverge as $`Eϵ`$, leading to a divergence of the trace, except at some special values of the flux for which the trace becomes exactly equal to zero leading to perfect transmission. An analytical attempt can be made to see this in the following way. Using Eqs. (5) and (6) one can show that, in the limit $`Eϵ`$, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=ϵ+\frac{2t^2}{(p+1)(Eϵ)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_F=(1)^p\frac{t\sigma }{(p+1)(Eϵ)}`$, where the leading terms in the expressions for $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_F`$ have been retained as $`Eϵ`$. Here also $`\stackrel{~}{t}_B=\stackrel{~}{t}_F`$. The elements of the transfer matrix across the dimer turn out to be

$`P_{\mathrm{odd}\mathrm{odd}}^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^p\left\{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(p+1)(Eϵ)^22t^2}{\sigma t}}\right]^21\right\}`$ (11a)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{(p+1)(Eϵ)}}`$
$`P_{\mathrm{odd}\mathrm{odd}}^{12}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{p+1}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+1)(Eϵ)^22t^2}{t\sigma }}`$ (11b)
$`P_{\mathrm{odd}\mathrm{odd}}^{21}`$ $`=`$ $`P_{\mathrm{odd}\mathrm{odd}}^{12}`$ (11c)
$`P_{\mathrm{odd}\mathrm{odd}}^{22}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{p+1}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+1)(Eϵ)}{\sigma }}.`$ (11d)
It can be easily verified that $`|\mathrm{Tr}𝑷_{\mathrm{odd}\mathrm{odd}}|=0`$ for $`\varphi =m\varphi _0`$, with $`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. For all other values the trace diverges as $`Eϵ`$. Thus the transmission coefficient across an arbitrarily long array of the above rings is unity at the specified values of the flux and zero otherwise. This can easily be worked out using Eq. (9). There is no dependence of the transmission coefficient on the size of the system. For the zero flux case, the $`T`$-$`E`$ diagram exhibits resonance at $`E=0`$, in contrast to the previous case.

### III.3 Even-odd case:

We next take $`n=2p`$ and $`m=2p+1`$. Proceeding in the same spirit as in the odd-odd case, the effective on-site potential and the hopping matrix elements of the dimer read $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=ϵ+\frac{t^2}{(p+1)(Eϵ)}`$ and, $`\stackrel{~}{t}_F=(1)^p\frac{t\beta }{(p+1)(Eϵ)}`$, where the leading terms in the expressions for $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_F`$ have been retained as $`Eϵ`$. Here, $`\beta =(p+1)(Eϵ)\mathrm{exp}[i(2p+1)\chi ]+t\mathrm{exp}[i(2p+2)\chi ]`$, and $`\chi =\frac{2\pi \varphi /\varphi _0}{4p+3}`$. The elements of $`𝑷_{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{odd}}`$ are

$`P_{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{odd}}^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^p\left\{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(p+1)(Eϵ)^2t^2}{t\beta }}\right]^2\beta \beta ^{}\right\}`$ (12a)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p+1)(Eϵ)}}`$
$`P_{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{odd}}^{12}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{p+1}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+1)(Eϵ)^2t^2}{t\beta }}`$ (12b)
$`P_{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{odd}}^{21}`$ $`=`$ $`P_{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{odd}}^{12}`$ (12c)
$`P_{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{odd}}^{22}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{p+1}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+1)(Eϵ)}{\beta }}.`$ (12d)
It is not difficult to work out analytically that, as $`Eϵ`$, the maximum value of $`|\mathrm{Tr}𝑷_{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{odd}}|`$ is $`2`$. That is, the trace is always bounded by $`2`$ from above. This implies that $`E=ϵ`$ is in the spectrum of an infinite array of these rings for all values of the flux. In Fig. 2 we show the variation of $`|\mathrm{Tr}𝑷_{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{odd}}|`$ against $`\varphi /\varphi _0`$.

To study the transmission coefficient, let us first consider the case $`\varphi =0`$ such that

$$𝑷_{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{odd}}(\varphi =0)=(1)^p\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(13)
A product of such matrices will look like JordanForm

$$𝑷_{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{odd}}^N(\varphi =0)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}N+1& N\\ N& 1N\end{array}\right).$$
(14)
when $`N`$ is even. A similar expression can be worked out for odd values of $`N`$. In either case, it can be checked from Eq. (9) that with $`ϵ_0=ϵ=0`$ and $`t_0=t=1`$, the transmission coefficient exhibits a power-law decay for large values of $`N`$, i.e., $`T1/N^2`$. At $`E=0`$, the matrix $`𝑷`$<sub>even-odd</sub> is exactly the same as the transfer matrix for a periodic chain having $`N`$ sites with $`ϵ=0`$ with the electron at energy $`E=2t`$ (which defines the band edge of the infinite ordered chain). Hence the ($`E=0,\varphi =0`$)-combination for a periodic array of even-odd rings is equivalent to the $`E=2t`$ situation of a periodic chain of atoms. Just as we analyzed the even-even case, here it is straightforward to show that unit transmission can be achieved by tuning the magnetic field so that $`\varphi =(2m+1)\varphi _0/4`$, irrespective of the size of the system. We show the variation of the transmission coefficient against $`\varphi /\varphi _0`$ in Fig. 3(b). The transmission coefficient is periodic, with a period equal to $`\varphi _0/2`$.

## IV Quasiperiodic array of rings

### IV.1 Fibonacci array

We follow the usual method of building a Fibonacci sequence recursively KohKT83 . The first objective will be to study the effect of the sequence of rings shown in Fig. 1 (c) on the ‘band structure’ of the system as it grows in size. We model the system by placing two different rings in series following the growth rule $`AAB`$ and $`BA`$. Here, $`A`$ and $`B`$ stand for two rings of different sizes, but having identical on-site potentials and hopping integrals (Fig. 1(c)). This, to our mind, represents a model that can possibly be realized experimentally RabSMH01 . We assume that the system is immersed in a constant magnetic field so that the flux $`\varphi _A`$ and $`\varphi _B`$ through the rings is proportional to their respective areas $`S_A`$ and $`S_B`$. $`\gamma `$ as defined in section II now takes on two different values, $`\gamma _A`$ and $`\gamma _B`$ related via

$$\gamma _B=\frac{N_B}{N_A}\gamma _A$$
(15)
with $`N_A`$ and $`N_B`$ denoting the total number of scatterers in $`A`$-type and $`B`$-type rings, respectively.

Following the procedure described in section II, we reduce each ring to an effective dimer, so that we finally have a Fibonacci sequence of these dimer-like objects $`A`$ and $`B`$, characterized by $`𝑷_A`$ and $`𝑷_B`$, respectively, which can be easily computed from (7), (8). The product transfer matrix across the $`m`$th generation Fibonacci chain is, as usual KohKT83 ,

$$𝑴(m+1)=𝑴(m1)𝑴(m)$$
(16)
with $`𝑴(1)=𝑷_A`$ and, $`𝑴(2)=𝑷_B𝑷_A`$. Keeping in mind that these matrices have a phase factor similar to $`\mathrm{exp}(i\gamma )`$ as in (3), we have generalized the trace map KohKT83  relation to

$$x_{m+1}=x_mx_{m1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{m1}x_{m2}$$
(17)
where $`x_m=\mathrm{Tr}𝑴(m)`$, and not the ‘half-trace’ as usual KohKT83 , and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m=det𝑴(m)`$. At the start of the sequence, we have $`x_1=\mathrm{Tr}𝑷_A`$ and $`x_2=\mathrm{Tr}(𝑷_B𝑷_A)`$. The above formula enables us to deal with situations where the phase accumulated by the electron in traversing one arm of the ring is not canceled by the phase accumulated from a trip along the other arm.

In Fig. 5 we show the distribution of the allowed energy values which correspond to $`|x_m|2`$ KohKT83  within an energy range $`[2t,2t]`$.

The use of the above trace-formula is essential in this case. We have also studied the change in the character of the ‘band’ as a magnetic field is switched on. Fig. 5(b) shows the allowed energy values for $`\varphi _A=\varphi _0/4`$ ($`\varphi _B\frac{N_B^2}{N_A^2}\varphi _A=\frac{11^2}{10^2}\varphi _A`$). The pattern shows a marked change with respect to the earlier case.

It is also interesting to note that for such a quasiperiodic Fibonacci array of rings the map (17) leads to an invariant in the conventional sense KohKT83 . The invariant in this case is a function of $`E`$, $`\varphi _A`$ and $`\varphi _B`$, and is given by

$$J=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{x_{m+1}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{m+1}}+\frac{x_m^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_m}+\frac{x_{m1}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{m1}}\frac{x_{m+1}x_mx_{m1}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_m\mathrm{\Delta }_{m1}}1\right).$$
(18)
For an ordered array of rings it is equal to zero. However, even for an ordered array of rings we have resonance ($`T=1`$) and anti-resonance ($`T=0`$) as a result of interference. Hence, the zeros of the invariant $`J`$ should not necessarily correspond to the $`T=1`$ cases in a Fibonacci array as well. In order to compute the transmission coefficient for rings in a Fibonacci sequence we generalize the trace-antitrace formulation discussed in the literature WanGS00 . The transmission coefficient for an $`m`$th generation sequence is given by WanGS00

$$T(m)=\frac{4\mathrm{sin}^2k}{|z_m\mathrm{cos}ky_m|^2+|x_m^2|\mathrm{sin}^2k}$$
(19)
where the antitraces $`y_m`$ and $`z_m`$ are given by $`y_m=M_{21}(m)M_{12}(m)`$ and $`z_m=M_{11}(m)M_{22}(m)`$. They are obtained recursively as

$`y_{m+1}`$ $`=`$ $`x_my_{m1}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_m}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{m2}}}y_{m2},`$
$`z_{m+1}`$ $`=`$ $`x_mz_{m1}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_m}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{m2}}}z_{m2}.`$ (20)
We emphasize that the use of Eq. (19) in obtaining $`T(m)`$ depends crucially on setting $`t_0=t`$ which, of course, has been our choice here. In Fig. 6 we show the variation of transmission coefficient and the invariant for a $`9`$th generation sequence with $`\varphi _A=\varphi _B=0`$ and $`\varphi _A=\varphi _0/4`$, $`\varphi _B=4\varphi _A`$.

The $`A`$\- and $`B`$-rings have $`4`$ and $`9`$ atoms in each arm, respectively. This implies that the circumference of the $`B`$-ring is double the size of the $`A`$-ring. The invariant is real in this case. The zero-flux case is characterized by the appearance of several subbands symmetrically distributed around $`E=0`$, while with $`\varphi _A=\varphi _0/4`$, the subbands get closer. We have scanned the energy range $`[2t,2t]`$ using various values of the energy interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. The results are presented for relatively large $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ for more clarity in the figures. On reducing the energy interval further we find that the plot becomes more dense within a subcluster. However, no new subband structure emerges for the cases we present. With increasing number of scatterers the invariant exhibits many more zeroes and the plot of the transmission coefficient becomes highly fragmented, see Fig. 6(c). A similar effect is also observed for the periodic arrays as well. It may be noted that the invariant becomes very close to zero at certain points which correspond to high transmittivity, and the ranges of the energy where the invariant diverges correspond to the gaps in the spectrum. However, as we have already mentioned, finite transmission may also be seen for energies for which the invariant exhibits a finite value. Last, the behavior of the transmission coefficient as shown above is by no means unique and depends on the choice of the number of scatterers in each ring. For example, if the $`A`$-ring has $`3`$ atoms in each arm, and the $`B`$-ring has $`7`$ atoms in each arm, the size of the $`B`$-ring is again double the size of the $`A`$-ring. However, in this case, for $`\varphi _A=\varphi _B=0`$ we have a transmission maximum at $`E=0`$, in contrast to the case shown in Fig. 6.

### IV.2 Variation of $`T`$ against flux

We now consider the transmission for a fixed electron energy $`E`$ as the flux through the rings is varied. As $`\varphi _B/\varphi _A=S_B/S_A=N_B^2/N_A^2`$ the periodicity of the transmission coefficient should be sensitive to $`S_B/S_A`$ independent of the order in which the rings are arranged, i.e., periodic or quasiperiodic. Let us work out a specific example. We consider $`E=0`$. Let the $`A`$-ring have $`2p`$ atoms in each arm and the $`B`$-ring have $`2q`$ atoms in each arm, $`p`$ and $`q`$ being integers. Here, $`S_B/S_A=(2q+1)^2/(2p+1)^2`$. The dimer matrices $`𝑷`$<sub>A</sub> and $`𝑷`$<sub>B</sub> commute and for rings arranged in an $`m`$-th generation Fibonacci array the transmission coefficient is given by

$$T(m)=4\frac{\tau _{pq}^m(\varphi _A)}{\left[\tau _{pq}^m(\varphi _A)+1\right]^2}$$
(21)
with

$`\tau _{pq}^m(\varphi _A)`$ $`=`$ $`2^{2F_m}\mathrm{cos}^{2F_{m1}}\left(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _A}{\varphi _0}}\right)`$ (22)
$`\times \mathrm{cos}^{2F_{m2}}\left[\pi {\displaystyle \frac{(2q+1)^2\varphi _A}{(2p+1)^2\varphi _0}}\right].`$
Here, $`F_m=F_{m1}+F_{m2}`$ is the Fibonacci number in the $`m`$th generation, with $`F_0=F_1=1`$. The above formula reproduces the result of the corresponding even-even ordered case. Resonance ($`T=1`$) is achieved when $`\tau _{pq}^m(\varphi _A)=1`$. Only if $`S_B=lS_A`$, with integer $`l`$, the period of the transmission coefficient remains $`\varphi _0`$. This implies $`(2q+1)=\sqrt{l}(2p+1)`$, which indicates that $`\varphi _0`$-periodicity in $`T`$ cannot be achieved for arbitrary combination of $`p`$ and $`q`$. If $`S_BlS_A`$, the transmission coefficient has a period equal to $`(2p+1)^2\varphi _0`$. In Fig. 7(a) we plot $`T`$ against $`\varphi _A/\varphi _0`$ for a sixth-generation Fibonacci chain. The $`A`$-ring has $`4`$ atoms and the $`B`$-ring has $`5`$ atoms in each arm, respectively. The diagram shows a periodicity equal to $`25\varphi _0`$. In Fig. 7(b) a $`\varphi _0`$-periodic behavior is shown with the $`A`$-ring having $`4`$ atoms in each arm and the $`B`$-ring having $`9`$ atoms in each arm. So, both $`\varphi _0`$ and $`(2p+1)^2\varphi _0`$ periodicity can be present.

### IV.3 A special case

We now present an interesting feature that reveals the sensitivity of the transmission coefficient on the specific choices of the number of scatterers. We select $`\varphi _A=0`$. The $`A`$-ring has just one atom in each arm, while in the $`B`$-ring we have two atoms in each arm. Then at $`E=\sqrt{3}`$, we get $`J=0`$, $`𝑷`$$`{}_{B}{}^{}=𝟙`$, and

$$𝑷_A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{3}/2& 1/2\\ 1/2& \sqrt{3}/2\end{array}\right),$$
(23)
so that $`𝑷`$$`{}_{A}{}^{6}=𝟙`$. As a result, every $`12`$th generation of the Fibonacci sequence consists of identical strings of $`𝑷`$<sub>A</sub>’s starting with the second generation. The transmission coefficients will consequently repeat every $`12`$th generation. We thus have a case where even a quasiperiodic array of rings has periodically repeating values of the transmittivity as the system grows in size. We believe that this feature is also likely to be present for non-zero flux values as well. This aspect in under further investigation.

## V Summary

We have studied the transmission spectra of mesoscopic rings in the presence of a magnetic flux within a tight-binding formalism. We address both periodic and quasiperiodic arrays of rings. In the spirit of a renormalization-group decimation method DamPW89 ; LeaRS99 , we convert each ring into an effective dimer, and attach a series of such dimers to semi-infinite perfect leads to study their transmittance. In view of a possible experimental realization we set the values of the on-site potential and the nearest neighbor hopping integral in the leads to be same as those in the bulk. We find that for both geometries the transmission coefficient at fixed values of energy may exhibit both types of periods, viz, $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\varphi _0/2`$. For the periodic array of rings we find an interesting result: If a ring contains an even number of atoms in one of its arms and an odd number in the other arm, then in the absence of any magnetic flux an array of such rings shows a power-law decay in the transmission coefficient as the system grows in size. This has been shown analytically for a special energy $`E=0`$. Apart from this, the field-induced resonance in periodic arrays of rings has also been discussed. For the quasiperiodic Fibonacci array of rings of two different sizes we find a drastic change in the distribution of allowed energy values compared to the purely one-dimensional Fibonacci chain KohKT83 . The magnetic field alters it further. The trace maps and the Fibonacci invariant have been derived including the magnetic field. The variation of the transmission coefficient as functions of the external flux, as well as the energy of the incident electron has been studied. The transmission coefficient exhibits different periodicities depending on the relative areas of the rings. The formulation has also been tested for other aperiodic sequences such as the Thue-Morse sequence. The basic nature of the periodic variation of the transmittivity as a function of the magnetic flux remains the same.

###### Acknowledgements.

Stimulating discussions with I. Peschel are gratefully acknowledged. AC thanks the DAAD for financial support during his stay at Chemnitz University of Technology, and in particular the theory group in Chemnitz for their hospitality. RAR and MS gratefully acknowledge support by the DFG via SFB393.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

As is known, group-theoretical and Lie-algebraic methods yield powerful tools for both qualitative (adequate formulations of model kinematics and dynamics) and quantitative (dimension reduction of calculations) analysis of many physical problems 1-3. In quantum many-body physics, where Hilbert spaces $`L`$ of states and all physical observables $`O`$ are given in terms of boson ($`a_i,a_i^+`$) and fermion ($`b_j,b_j^+`$) operators with standard commutation relations (CR), Lie-algebraic structures arise in a natural way via using different boson-fermion mappings: $`(a_i,a_i^+,b_j,b_j^+)\stackrel{bfm}{}F_\alpha =F_\alpha (a_i,a_i^+,b_j,b_j^+)`$ which introduce generators $`F_\alpha `$ of finite-dimensional Lie (super)algebras $`g=\mathrm{Span}\{F_\alpha \}`$ as (super)symmetry operators and simultaneously as basic dynamic variables (i.e. $`O=O(\{F_\alpha \})`$) yielding a most adequate formulation of problems under study 3. Such algebras $`g`$ generate Lie groups $`G=\mathrm{exp}g=\{\mathrm{exp}F:Fg\}`$ with the key for applications group property of their elements: $`\mathrm{exp}F_1\mathrm{exp}F_2=\mathrm{exp}F_3,F_ig^{1,2}`$.

Depending on the behaviour of model Hamiltonians $`H`$ with respect to symmetry transformations one discerns two (used, as a rule, separately) symmetry types$`^1`$ : a) invariance groups $`G_i`$ of Hamiltonians $`H:[G_i,H]_{}G_iHHG_i=0`$; b) dynamic symmetry algebras $`g^D:[g^D,H]_{}g^D0(Hg^D)`$. In the first case Hamiltonians are considered to be functions in only $`G_i`$ -invariant (Casimir) operators $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j(G_i)`$ whose eigenvalues $`\lambda _j`$ label energy levels $`E_{\lambda =[\lambda _j]}`$, and dimensions $`d{}_{}{}^{G_i}(\lambda )`$ of $`G_i`$\- irreducible representations (IR) $`D^\lambda (G_i)`$ are equal to the $`E_\lambda `$\- degeneracy multiplicities $`\mu (\lambda )`$. At the same time algebras $`g^D`$ already generate total spectra $`\{E_\nu \}`$ of ”elementary” quantum system within fixed IRs $`D^\lambda (g^D)`$ and yield spectral decompositions

$$L(H)|_{g^D}=\underset{\lambda }{}\mu (\lambda )L(\lambda ),L(\lambda )=\mathrm{Span}\{|\lambda ;\nu =D_\nu ^\lambda (g^D)|\lambda \}$$
(1)
of Hilbert spaces $`L(H)`$ of many-body systems in ($`\mu `$\- multiple) $`g^D`$-invariant subspaces $`L(\lambda )`$ generated by actions of the $`g^D`$ \- operators $`D_\nu ^\lambda (g^D)`$ on eigenvectors $`|\lambda L(H)`$ of $`g^D`$-invariant operators $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$. Subspaces $`L(\lambda )`$ describe formation of ”macroscopic coherent structures” ($`g^D`$-domains) in $`L(H)`$ which are stable under the temporal evolution: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)L(\lambda )|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=U_H(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)L(\lambda ),U_H(t)=\mathrm{exp}(itH),Hg^D`$, but a physical sense of $`c`$-numbers $`\mu ,\lambda _j`$ in Eq. (1) still remains unclear. At the same time within many-body models with $`G_i`$ -invariant Hamiltonians one can reveal deep interrelations between $`G_i`$ and $`g^D`$ symmetries which enable not only to elucidate this sense but also to formulate an unified invariant-algebraic approach for an efficient analysis of physical problems in such models 3. A natural formal description of the latter is given in terms of novel mathematical concepts of dual algebraic pairs (DAP) 4 incorporating actions of both groups $`G_i`$ and algebras $`g^D`$ and polynomial Lie algebras (PLA)5 arising as $`g^D`$ in models with essentially nonlinear Hamiltonians 3.

The DAP techniques enabled us to elucidate a few non-trivial questions of quantum physics; however, a number of problems concerning applications of PLA is still unsolved 3,6. In this work we briefly discuss these problems and ways of their solution focusing the main attention on geometric aspects. At first we recapitulate fundamentals of the DAP and PLA formalism in the context of quantum many-body physics, restricting ourselves for the sake of simplicity by the boson case and referring to 3 for a general discussion. Then we discuss some aspects of our applications of the DAP techniques in quantum optics 3,6 and outline prospects of further studies.

## 2 Dual algebraic pairs and polynomial Lie algebras in multiboson physics: a general analysis

The notion of DAP extracted from the vector invariant theory of classical groups 7 by Howe 4 is defined in the context of many-boson systems by
Definition 1. Let $`a_i=(a_{i\alpha })_{\alpha =1}^m,a_i^+=(a_i)^{},i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ be $`n`$ pairs of boson vector operators transforming according to two mutually contragredient fundamental IRs $`D^1(G)`$ and $`\overline{D}^1(G)`$ of a certain group $`G`$:

$$a)a_{i\alpha }^+\stackrel{D^1(G)}{}\stackrel{~}{a}_{i\alpha }^+=\underset{\beta =1}{\overset{m}{}}u_{\alpha \beta }a_{i\beta }^+,b)a_{i\alpha }\stackrel{\overline{D}^1(G)}{}\stackrel{~}{a}_{i\alpha }=_{\beta =1}^m\overline{u}_{\alpha \beta }a_{i\beta }.$$
(2)
Consider the associative algebra $`𝒜_G^I`$ of vector invariants of the group $`G`$ generated by finite (according to the vector invariant theory 7) basis $`_{GI}=\{I_j:[I_j,G]=0\}_{j=1}^{d_{GI}}`$ of homogeneous polynomials $`I_j=I_j(a_i,a_i^+)`$. Endowing it by the commuting operation $`[I_j,I_j][I_i,I_j]_{}`$ one gets a Lie algebra $`g(𝒜_G^I)`$ with the basis $`_{GI}`$ and defining CR

$$[I_i,I_j]=f_{ij}(\{I_l\})([I_a,f_{bc}]+[I_b,f_{ca}]+[I_c,f_{ab}]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})$$
(3)
where $`f_{ij}(\{I_l\})`$ are (consistent with the Jacobi identities) polynomials in $`I_l`$ stemming from CR for $`a_i,a_i^+`$ and the invariant theory. By the construction two algebraic structures $`𝒢_1=G`$ and $`𝒢_2=g(𝒜_G^I)`$ commute: $`[𝒢_1,𝒢_2]=0`$ and have a common center $`𝒞(𝒢_1=G,𝒢_2=g(𝒜_G^I))=𝒞:[𝒞,𝒢_{i=1,2}]=0`$. Then they are said to form  DAP $`(𝒢_1,𝒢_2)`$ induced by the $`G`$-actions (2) on $`vv_i=Span\{a_i^+\},\overline{v}=Span\{a_i\}.\mathrm{}`$

The Definition 1 entails a very important for physical applications
Corollary 1 (sometimes inserted in the DAP definition). Let

$$L(v^n)=Span\{|\{n_{i\beta }\}\underset{i,\beta }{}(a_{i\beta }^+)^{n_{i\beta }}|0:a_{i\beta }|0=0\}L_F(nm)$$
(4)
be the Fock space generated by actions of creation operators $`a_{i\beta }^+`$ on the vacuum vector $`|0`$ and carrying (due to Eqs. (2) and the $`𝒢_2`$ definition) reducible representations of both structures $`𝒢_1,𝒢_2`$. Then there holds the decomposition

$$L(v^n)_{𝒢_1𝒢_2}=\underset{[c_i]}{}L([c_i]),L([c_i])=Span\{D^{[c_i]}(𝒢_1)D^{[c_i]}(𝒢_2)|[c_i]\}$$
(5)
where $`L([c_i])`$ are $`𝒢_1𝒢_2`$-invariant subspaces labeled by eigenvalues $`c_i`$ of elements $`C_i=C_i(a_i,a_i^+)=\stackrel{~}{C}_i(I_j)`$ of the center $`𝒞=\{C_i\}`$) and generated by joint actions $`D^{[c_i]}(𝒢_1)D^{[c_i]}(𝒢_2)`$ of both DAP components on some reference vectors $`|[c_i]L_F(nm)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Defining relations (3) yield finite-dimensional Lie algebras $`g^0(𝒜_G^I)=\mathrm{Span}\{I_l^0\}=h`$ only if all basic invariants $`I_j^0_{GI}`$ are quadratic polynomials $`I_j^0=F_j(a_{i\alpha }^+,a_{i\alpha })`$ that holds, e.g., for groups $`G=O(n),U(n),Sp(2n)`$. But in the general case bases $`_{GI}`$ contain polynomials $`\stackrel{~}{I}_j=\stackrel{~}{I}_j(a_{i\alpha }^+,a_{i\alpha })=T_j`$ of higher orders which form tensor operators $`t=\mathrm{Span}\{T_j\}`$ with respect to $`h:[h,t]=t`$. Then CR in (3) do not close to linear combinations of invariants $`I_j_{GI}`$, and repeated commutators lead to infinite-dimensional Lie algebras $`g(𝒜_G^I)`$, generally, not belonging to well-examined classes of the Kac-Moody algebras 3. Therefore, for physical appications it is useful to consider (retaining Eq. (5)) DAP with $`𝒢_2=(_{GI})`$ where $`(_{GI})`$ are defined as enveloping algebras generated by the bases $`_{GI}=ht`$ and appropriate specifications of CR (3). Such objects, also appeared in other contexts 5, are called as polynomial deformations of Lie algebras or simply PLA (in view of the absence in the general case one-to-one correspondences between root systems of PLA and usual Lie algebras 3,6).

PLA $`(_{GI})`$ being, by the definition above, specific ($`t`$-tensor) extensions of usual Lie algebras $`h`$ are also $`G`$-invariant subalgebras of the universal enveloping algebra $`𝒰(w(nm))`$ of the Weyl-Heisenberg algebra $`w(nm)=\mathrm{Span}\{a_{i\alpha },a_{i\alpha }^+\}`$. It enables one to specify completely CR (3) for them and to develop their representation theory (unlike the case of arbitrary PLA 5). These constructions are especially simple when $`h`$-tensors $`t`$ consist of two Hermitian conjugated irreducible tensors $`t^\lambda =\{T_i^\lambda :[T_i^\lambda ,T_j^\lambda ]=0\},t^{\overline{\lambda }}=(t^\lambda )^{}:t=t^\lambda +t^{\overline{\lambda }}`$. Then CR (3) are specified as follows

$$a)[h,h]=h,b)[h,t^\lambda ]=t^\lambda ,[h,t^{\overline{\lambda }}]=t^{\overline{\lambda }},c)[T_i^{\overline{\lambda }},T_j^\lambda ]=𝒫_{ij}(h;r),r𝒞$$
(6)
where $`𝒫_{ij}(h;r)`$ are polynomials of a fixed degree $`s2`$ in $`F_jh,R_ir`$ which are found with the help of the Jacobi identities and (6$`b`$) from the only polynomial $`𝒫_{\overline{\lambda }\lambda }(\mathrm{})𝒫^\lambda (\mathrm{})`$ (corresponding to ”extremal” components $`T_{\overline{\lambda }}^{\overline{\lambda }},T_\lambda ^\lambda `$ of tensors $`t^{\overline{\lambda }},t^\lambda `$); the latters, in turn, are determined by explicit expressions $`T_{\overline{\lambda }}^{\overline{\lambda }},T_\lambda ^\lambda 𝒰(w(nm))`$.

So, bases $`_{GI}=h(t=t^\lambda +t^{\overline{\lambda }})`$, centers $`r`$ and CR (6) define a special (very vast) class of PLA $`(_{GI})=_r^𝒫(h;t^\lambda )`$ as the second component of the DAP $`(𝒢_1=G,𝒢_2`$) connected with $`G`$ via the appearance of $`𝒫,r𝒞`$ in CR (6). In fact, PLA $`_r^𝒫(h;t^\lambda )`$ can be also examined as abstract PLA beyond the DAP context that is of interest for finding their representations not containing in (5) (as it is the case for usual Lie algebras 1). As an illustration we consider two examples taken from physics 3,6.

A simplest Example 1 is given by PLA $`_{R_1}^𝒫(h=u(1)=\{V_0\};t^\lambda =v_+^{(1)}=\{V_+\})`$ defined by the bases $`=\{V_0,V_+,V_{}=V_+^{}\},r=\{R_1:[R_1,V_a]=0\}`$ and CR

$$[V_0,V_\pm ]=\pm V_\pm ,[V_{},V_+]=𝒫(V_0;R_1)=Q(V_0+1;R_1)Q(V_0;R_1)$$
(7)
where (extracted from concrete physical models) polynomials $`Q(V_0;R_1)`$ (of the degree $`s+1`$) determine the Casimir operators $`C^{}`$ of this PLA:

$$C^{}=V_+V_{}Q(V_0;R_1),[C^{},V_a]=0,C^{}|_{L_F(nm)}0(\text{Eq.}(\text{5})).$$
(8)
The PLA $`_{R_1}^𝒫(u(1);v_+^{(1)})`$ can be also viewed as polynomial deformations $`sl_{pd}^𝒫(2)`$ of the Lie algebra $`sl(2)=\mathrm{Span}\{Y_0,Y_\pm :[Y_0,Y_\pm ]=\pm Y_\pm ,[Y_{},Y_+]=\pm 2Y_0\}`$ due to their connection via the generalized Holstein-Primakoff transformation 3,6

$$Y_0=V_0R_0J,Y_+=V_+[\varphi (V_0)]^{1/2},Y_{}=(Y_+)^{},[Y_\alpha ,R_0]=0=[Y_\alpha ,J]$$
(9)
where $`R_0,J`$ are invariant ”lowest weight” operators and functions $`\varphi (V_0)`$ are determined via polynomials $`Q(V_0;R_1)`$. Furthermore, PLA $`_{R_1}^𝒫(u(1);v_+^{(1)})`$ admit two conjugate realizations by (pseudo)differential operators of one complex variable $`z𝐂`$

$$V_+=z,V_0=zd/dz+R_0,V_{}=z^1[C^{}+Q(zd/dz+R_0;R_1)],$$

$$V_{}=d/dz,V_0=zd/dz+R_0,V_+=[C^{}+Q(zd/dz+R_0;R_1)](d/dz)^1$$
(10)
with $`Q(zd/dz+R_0;R_1)=_{k=1}^{s+1}\gamma _kz^k(d/dz)^k`$ being determined from (7) - (8)$`^{3,6}`$.

Example 2 extends the first one and is given by the PLA $`_{R_1}^𝒫(u(2);v_+^{(2)})`$ where $`u(2)=\{E_{ij}:[E_{ij},E_{kl}]=\delta _{jk}E_{il}\delta _{il}E_{kj}\}`$ is the two-dimensional unitary Lie algebra, and $`v_+^{(2)}=\{V_{ij}^+\}`$ is its $`2`$-nd rank symmetric tensor. All components $`V_{ij}^+`$ and $`V_{ij}=(V_{ij}^+)^{}v_{}^{(2)}=v_+^{(2)}`$ are determined (via the specifications: $`[E_{ij},V_{kl}^+]ad_{E_{ij}}V_{kl}^+=\delta _{jk}V_{il}^++\delta _{jl}V_{ki}^+,[E_{ij},V_{kl}]=[E_{ij},V_{kl}^+]^{}`$ of CR (6$`b`$)) by $`u(2)`$ adjoint actions

$`2V_{12}^+=ad_{E_{21}}V_{11}^+,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}V_{22}^+=ad_{E_{21}}^2V_{11}^+,2V_{12}=ad_{E_{12}}V_{11},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}V_{22}=ad_{E_{12}}^2V_{11}`$ (11)
on the ”extremal” components $`T_2^{(2)}=V_{11}^+(ad_{E_{12}}V_{11}^+=0=ad_{E_{21}}^3V_{11}^+`$) and $`T_{\overline{2}}^{(2)}=V_{11}(ad_{E_{21}}V_{11}=0=ad_{E_{12}}^3V_{11}`$) which together with $`V_0=\frac{1}{2}E_{11}`$ generate PLA $`sl_{pd}^𝒫(2)\widehat{E}_{R_1}^𝒫(u(1);v_+^{(1)})_{R_1}^𝒫(u(2);v_+^{(2)})`$ with CR (7). Then, using Eqs. (11) and the Jacobi identities we can calculate all polynomials $`𝒫_{ij;kl}(\{E_{ij};R_1\})=[V_{ij},V_{kl}^+]`$ in specfications of CR (6c) by the $`u(2)`$ adjoint actions on $`𝒫=𝒫_{11;11}(\mathrm{})`$, e.g., $`𝒫_{11;12}(\mathrm{})=\frac{1}{2}ad_{E_{21}}𝒫(\mathrm{})`$ etc. Evidently, this procedure of ”lifting” PLA $`sl_{pd}^𝒫(2)`$ to PLA $`_r^𝒫(h;t^\lambda )`$ is easily extended on the case of any $`h=u(N)+u(M)`$ and their irreducible tensors $`t^\lambda `$; however, generalizations of Eqs. (9), (10) are still open problems$`^3`$.

And now we outline general features of DAP applications in examining multiboson models with the Hilbert spaces $`L(H)=L_F(nm)`$ and $`G_i`$-invariant Hamiltonians

$`H_{GI}^{n;m}=\mathrm{}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{m}{}}}\left[\omega _{ij}^{\alpha \beta }a_{i\alpha }^+a_{j\beta }+g_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }a_{i\alpha }^+a_{j\beta }^++g_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }a_{i\alpha }a_{j\beta }\right]+H_{GI}^{hd}(\{a_{i\alpha }^+,a_{j\beta }^+\})\right\}`$ (12)
where $`H_{GI}^{hd}(\mathrm{})=H_{GI}^{hd}(\mathrm{})`$ are polynomials of higher ($`3`$) degrees describing essentially nonlinear interactions 3. Then $`H_{GI}(_{GI}=ht)`$ where quadratic terms in (12) belong to $`h,H_{GI}^{hd}t`$, and the DAP $`(𝒢_1=G_i,𝒢_2=(_{GI})=g^D)`$ naturally arise in such models. Their use reveals a ”synergetic” role of $`G_i`$-invariance and leads via the introduction of three types of collective variables related to $`r𝒞`$ ( integrals of motions ), $`g^D`$ ( ”cluster” dynamic variables ) and $`G_i`$ (”hidden” intrinsic parameters ) to a geometrization of model kinematics and dynamics that opens possibilities to apply geometrical methods 8-11 for their analysis.

Indeed, the Hamiltonians (12) can be reformulated in the $`G_i`$\- invariant form:

$`H_{GI}^{n;m}=H_{GI}^{n;m}(\{I_j\})=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_jF_j+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\upsilon _kT_k+\delta (C_i)\right],F_jh,T_kt,C_ir`$ (13)
(with some of coefficients $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j,\upsilon _k`$ being equal to zero), and the decompositions (5) for $`L(H)=L_F(nm)`$ can be viewed as specifications of Eq. (1) because subspaces $`L([c_i])`$ have a fibre bundle structure with fibres $`L^{(_{GI})}([c_i;\nu ])(L(\lambda )`$ in (1)) generated by actions $`D^{[c_i]}((_{GI}))`$ on (labelling the fibre bundle bases) vectors $`|[c_i;\nu ]=D^{[c_i]}(G_i^\nu G_i)|[c_i]`$. Herewith dimensions $`d^{G_i}([c_i])`$ of the $`D^{[c_i]}(G_i)`$ IRs are equal to multiplicities $`\mu (\lambda )`$ in Eq. (1) and describe degeneracies of all energy levels within a given subspace $`L([c_i])`$. At the (quasi)classical level of analysis, implemented via generalized coherent states (CS) 2,11, the decomposition (5) induces the fibre bundle representation

$`(H)={\displaystyle \underset{[c_i]}{}}^{[c_i]}(\{\xi _a^I;\zeta _b^D\}),^{[c_i]}(\{\xi _a^I;\zeta _b^D\})=_{G_i}^{[c_i]}(\{\xi _a^I\})\times _{g^D}^{[c_i]}(\{\zeta _b^D\})`$ (14)
of the model phase spaces $`(H)𝐂^{nm}`$ where fibres $`^{[c_i]}(\{\xi _a^I;\zeta _b^D\})`$ are $`G_ig^D`$-invariant algebraic manifolds (or cell complexes) determined via dequantizing subspaces $`L([c_i])`$ and introducing curvilinear coordinates $`\xi _a^I`$ and $`\zeta _b^D`$ related to $`G_i`$\- and $`g^D`$-generators respectively; herewith the numbers $`c_i`$ play the role of topological charges (cf. 10). In general cases coordinates $`\xi _a^I,\zeta _b^D`$ are introduced via using so-called ”mean-field approximations” as standard ( ”averaging” ) procedures of dequantizing quantum problems$`^3`$. If $`G_i=\mathrm{exp}(g_i)`$ and $`G^D=\mathrm{exp}(g^D=h)`$ are Lie groups coordinates $`\xi _a^I,\zeta _b^D`$ are associated in a natural way with parameters of special displacement operators $`S_{g_i}(\{\xi _a^I\})=\mathrm{exp}[\varphi _b(\{\xi _a^I\})g_i^b)],g_i^bg_i,S_h(\{\zeta _b^D\})=\mathrm{exp}[\phi _b(\{\zeta _a^D\})F_b)]`$ of groups $`G_i,G^D`$ which define $`G_iG^D`$-orbit-type generalized CS 2

$`|\{\xi _a^I;\zeta _b^D\};\psi _0S_{g_i}(\{\xi _a^I\})S_h(\{\zeta _b^D\})|\psi _0,|\psi _0L([c_i])=\mathrm{Span}\{|[c_i];\nu ;\kappa \}`$ (15)
on $`L([c_i])`$ and implement a re-parametrization $`|\{\alpha _{i\beta }\}=|\{\alpha _{i\beta }(\{\xi _a^I;\zeta _b^D\})\}`$ of the Glauber CS $`|\{\alpha _{i\beta }\}=D_{nm}(\{\alpha _{i\beta }\})|0=\mathrm{exp}([\alpha _{i\beta }a_{i\beta }^+\alpha _{i\beta }^{}a_{i\beta }])|0`$ via the factorization $`D_{nm}(\{\alpha _{i\beta }\})=S_{g_i}(\{\xi _a^I\})S_h(\{\zeta _b^D\})D_{11}(\alpha )S_h^{}(\{\zeta _b^D\})S_{g_i}^{}(\{\xi _a^I\})`$ of $`D_{nm}(\{\alpha _{i\beta }\})^{12}`$. However, direct generalizations of Eqs. (15) are less efficient for $`g^D=(_{GI})`$ because explicit expressions for matrix elements $`[c_i];\nu ;\kappa |\mathrm{exp}[\gamma _bI_b]|[c_i];\nu ;\kappa `$ are absent.

On the other hand, the introduction of three classes of collective variables ($`C_ir,I_j(_{GI}),G_i^\nu G_i`$) leads to a dimension reduction of dynamical problems governed by Hamiltonians (13) in both Schroedinger and Heisenberg (for dynamic variables $`I_j=F_j,T_j`$) pictures. Indeed, the Schroedinger and cluster Heisenberg (for $`I_j`$) equations can be written in terms of only variables $`C_i,I_j`$:

$`a)i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{dU_H(t)}{dt}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=HU_H(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }_0,b)i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{dI_j(t)}{dt}}=[I_j(t),H]=(\{I_j(t)\})`$ (16)
where $`U_H(t)`$ is the time-evolution operator induced by $`H=H_{GI}`$ from Eq. (13) and Eqs. (16$`b`$), in a sense, determine a generalized dynamics on noncommutative algebraic manifolds $`^C^{}(\{I_i\})=\{I_j:\stackrel{~}{C}_a(\{I_i\})=C_a^{}\}`$ (see (8)). If Hamiltonians (13) do not contain operators $`T_kt`$ both Eqs. (16) are solved by group-theoretical methods even for time-dependent $`H_{GI}{}_{}{}^{2,3}:U_H(t)=\mathrm{exp}(_a\nu _a(t)F_a)=_a\mathrm{exp}(\eta _a(t)F_a),I_j(t)=U_H(t)I_jU_H^{}(t)=_aB_a(t)I_j,I_j_{GI}`$ where the second (factorized) form of $`U_H(t)`$ is more adequate for physical calculations in comparison with the first one. However, such simple expressions are not valid for general (even time-independent) Hamiltonians (13) due to the absence of the group property for elements of $`\mathrm{exp}[(_{GI})]`$ and nonlinearity of $`(\{I_j(t)\})`$ in Eq. (16 $`b)^3`$. In this case for $`U_H(t),I_j(t)`$ one can get only ”$`I_j`$-power series” representations

$$U_H(t)=\underset{[k_j]}{}A_{[k_j]}^H(t)\underset{a}{}I_a^{k_a}𝒰_H(\{I_j\};t),I_j(t)=\underset{[k_j]}{}B_{[k_j]}^j(t)\underset{a}{}I_a^{k_a}_j(\{I_j\};t)$$
(17)
where the coefficients $`A_{[k_j]}^H(t),B_{[k_j]}^j(t)`$ are determined from differential-difference equations obtained via the substitution of Eqs.(17) in (16) and the use of CR (6) 3. These equations define (non-classical) special functions related also with solutions of differential equations stemming from realizations of the type (10) for PLA $`(_{GI})`$.

However, at present, simple analytical expressions for these functions are absent even in the case of simplest PLA $`sl_{pd}^𝒫(2)^6`$ that necessitates to separate ”principal parts” (or asymptotics) $`𝒰_H^0(\{I_j\};t),_j^0(\{I_j\};t)`$ in $`𝒰_H(\{I_j\};t)=𝒰_H^0(\{I_j\};t)\{1+ϵ([C_a])^{}(t)+\mathrm{}\},_j(\{I_j\};t)_j^0(\{I_j\};t)`$ which possess special (simplifying physical calculations) properties and determine quasiclassical factors in model dynamics$`^6`$. So, e.g., one can take solutions of classical dynamic equations, obtained via averaging Eqs. (16$`b`$), as suitable approximations for $`_j^0(\{I_j\};t)`$. At the same time asymptotics $`𝒰_H^0(\{I_j\};t)`$ can be obtained from (determined by $`g^D`$ CS $`|[c_i];\nu ;\xi =𝒮_{(_{GI})}(\xi )|[c_i];\nu ;L^{(_{GI})}([c_i;\nu ])`$) quasiclassical representations of $`U_H(t)`$:

$`U_H(t)={\displaystyle \underset{[c_i]}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu ^{[c_i]}(\xi _0)𝑑\mu ^{[c_i]}(\xi _t)K_{[c_i]}(\xi _t|\xi _0)\underset{\nu }{}|[c_i];\nu ;\xi _t[c_i];\nu ;\xi _0|}`$ (18)
where $`d\mu ^{[c_i]}(\xi _0)`$ is a $`(_{GI})`$\- invariant measure on $`^{[c_i];\nu }(\xi )(H)`$ and the $`\nu `$-independent (in view of Eq. (13)) kernel $`K_{[c_i]}(\xi _t|\xi _0)[c_i];\nu ;\xi _0|U_H(t)|[c_i];\nu ;\xi _t=\mathrm{exp}[i\mathrm{}^1S^{[c_i]}(z(t))]d\mu ^{[c_i]}(z(t))`$ has the $`(_{GI})`$-path integral form 10,11. Its calculation in the stationary phase approximation$`^{10}`$ determines $`𝒰_H^0(\{I_j\};t)`$. However, the problem of finding adequate $`𝒮_{(_{GI})}(\xi )`$ is not still solved completely.

So, within the DAP framework $`G_i`$-invariance of $`H_{GI}`$ classifies states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }L(H)`$ yielding potential kinematic forms for, generally, degenerate (with $`d^{G_i}([c_i])1`$) $`g^D`$-domains $`L([c_i])`$. Non-degenerate $`g^D`$-domains with the identical IR $`D^{[c_i=0]}(G_i)\{I\}`$ ($`I`$ is the operator identity) describe completely $`G_i`$-invariant ($`G_i`$\- scalar) subsystems having unusual (extremal) physical features while degenerate $`g^D`$-domains have ”rest” $`G_i`$ characteristics stipulating an appearance of critical phenomena in $`L([c_i])^3`$. At the same time CS techniques and associated path integral schemes provide efficient tools to solve dynamical problems enabling to reveal new cooperative phenomena in $`G_i`$-invariant models$`^6`$. Furthermore, $`G_i`$-invariance of $`L([c_i])`$ allows to examine on $`L([c_i])`$ $`G_i`$-dynamics determined by $`g^D`$-invariant ”intrinsic” Hamiltonians $`H(g_i^ag_i=lnG_i)`$ with considerng $`g^D`$-variables as ”dummy” ones$`^{3,12}`$.

## 3 Dual algebraic pairs in action: applications in polarization and nonlinear quantum optics

In this Section we demonstrate an efficiency of the DAP concept and techniques on recent examples of their applications in quantum optics.

The first example$`^{3,12}`$, manifesting the kinematic significance of DAP, is due to the gauge $`SU(2)`$ invariance of free light fields described by Hamiltonians $`H_{fl}`$ of the form (12) with $`m=2,\omega _{ij}^{\alpha \beta }=\omega _i\delta _{ij}\delta _{\alpha \beta },g_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }0,H_{GI}^{hd}0`$ and the Hilbert space $`L_F(2n)=\mathrm{Span}\{|\{n_{i\pm }\}\}`$ where $`i=1,\mathrm{},n,\beta =\pm `$ label, respectively, spatiotemporal (frequency) and polarization (in the helicity basis) modes of light. Then, taking $`G_i=SU(2)\{\mathrm{exp}[_{\gamma =0,\pm }u_\gamma P_\gamma ]:P_0=\frac{1}{2}_i(a_{i+}^+a_{i+}a_i^+a_i),P_\pm =_ia_{i\pm }^+a_i\}`$, we get DAP $`(𝒢_1=SU(2)=G_i,𝒢_2=so^{}(2m)Span\{E_{ij},X_{ij},X_{ij}^+=(X_{ij})^{}:E_{ij}=_{\beta =\pm }a_{i\beta }^+a_{j\beta },X_{ij}=a_{i+}a_ja_ia_{j+}\}=g^D=h)`$ acting on $`L_F(2n)`$. The decomposition (5) for $`L_F(2n)`$ is specified by determining the ”polarization domains”

$$L(c_1=p)=Span\{|p;\nu ;\kappa (P_+)^{p+\nu }𝒟_\kappa ^{}^p(\{E_{ij}\})(X_{12}^+)^{\kappa _1}|p,|p=(a_1^+)^{2p}|0\}$$
(19)
in $`L_F(2n)=L(c_1)`$ as eigenspaces of the $`SU(2)`$ Casimir operator $`𝐏^2=P_0^2+\frac{1}{2}(P_+P_{}+P_{}P_+)=C_1𝒞(𝒢_1=SU(2),𝒢_2=so^{}(2m)):𝐏^2|p;\nu ;\kappa =c_1(p)|p;\nu ;\kappa `$ whose eigenvalues $`c_1(p)=p(p+1),p=0,\frac{1}{2},1,\mathrm{}`$ determine values $`p`$ of the polarization ($`P`$)-quasispin replacing the non-gauge-invariant usual spin for light fields.

This decomposition of $`L_F(2n)`$ provides a new (symmetry) treatment of polarization structure of light 3,12 that enabled us to reveal an unusual (coherent) sort of unpolarized light ($`P`$\- scalar light) qiven by states $`|0_pL(p=0)=Span\{|p=0;\nu =0;\kappa 0(X_{ij}^+)^{\kappa _{ij}}|0\}`$ (existing for $`L_F(2n),n2`$) with characteristic property

$$P_{\alpha =0,\pm }|0_p=00_p|P_1^{a_1}P_2^{a_2}P_0^{a_0}|0_p=0a_1+a_2+a_01$$
(20)
of the ”polarization vacuum”. For $`n=2`$ (when $`P_\alpha =P_{1\alpha }+P_{2\alpha }`$) in view of Eq. (20) states of $`P`$-scalar light generalize so-called Bell states widely used in quantum physics for examining both fundamental (EPR-paradox, teleportation etc.) and applied (design of quantum computers, optical communication) problems 13. Furthermore, they give positive solutions of the problem of existence of non-stochastic waves of unpolarized light 3 (A. Fresnel, 1821) having the negative solution in classical optics.

According to general remarks of Section 2 polarization domains $`L(p)`$ are dynamically stable under Hamiltonians $`H_{G_ig^D}=H_{fl}+H_{so^{}(2m)}+H_{SU(2)}`$ with

$$H_{fl}=\underset{i}{}\omega _iE_{ii},H_{so^{}(2m)}=\underset{ij}{}[\omega _{ij}E_{ij}+g_{ij}X_{ij}+g_{ij}^{}X_{ij}^+],H_{SU(2)}=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha P_\alpha $$
(21)
where $`H_{so^{}(2m)}`$ and $`H_{SU(2)}`$ determine, respectively, dynamics of biphoton clusters $`X_{ij}^+`$ (including their production) and a purely polarization dynamics. These dynamics are adequately described in terms of the $`SU(2)_pso^{}(2m)`$-orbit-type CS of the form (15) with $`S_{su(2)}(\xi )=\mathrm{exp}(\xi P_+\xi ^{}P_{}),S_{so^{}(2m)}(\{\zeta _b^u;\zeta _b^x\})=\mathrm{exp}([\zeta _i^uE_{ii+1}\zeta _i^uE_{i+1i}+\zeta _i^xX_{ii+1}^+\zeta _i^xX_{i+1i}^+])`$ which, in particular, yield elegant solutions of many quantum problems (such, e.g., as calculations of geometric phases 3, developments of quantum tomography schemes and analysis of quantum interference patterns 12).

The second example$`^{3,6}`$, leading to applications of PLA formalism, is given by models with Hamiltonians $`H^{mps}(n;s)=\omega _0a_0^+a_0+H_{GI}^{n;1}`$ from (12), where $`g_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }0`$ and

$$H_{GI}^{hd}=H_I(n;s)=\underset{1i_1,\mathrm{},i_sn}{}[g_{i_1\mathrm{}i_s}a_{i_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_s}^+a_0+g_{i_1\mathrm{}i_s}^{}a_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_s}a_0^+],s2,$$
(22)
acting on the Hilbert space $`L_F(n+1)=\mathrm{Span}\{|\{n_i\}\}_{i=0,1}^n`$ (the ”dummy” label $`\beta =1`$ is omitted) and describing processes of multiphoton scattering. In the case of arbitrary $`g_{i_1\mathrm{}i_s}`$ Hamiltonians $`H^{mps}(n;s)`$ have the invariance groups $`G_i=C_sU_{R_1}(1)`$ with both discrete ($`C_s=\{e^{i2\pi kN/s}\}_{k=0,1}^{s1},N=_{i=1}^nE_{ii},E_{ii}=a_i^+a_i`$ ) and continuous ($`U_{R_1}(1)=\{exp(i\varphi R_1)\},R_1=[N+sE_{00}]/[s+1]`$ ) factors. Then $`r=\{R_1\},_{GI}=\{E_{ij}=a_i^+a_j,V_{i_1\mathrm{}i_s}^+=a_{i_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_s}^+a_0v_+^{(s)},V_{i_1\mathrm{}i_s}=a_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_s}a_0^+v_{}^{(s)}\}`$, where $`v_+^{(s)}`$ is the $`s`$\- rank symmetric $`u(n)`$\- tensor, and the DAP $`(𝒢_1=G_i=C_sU_{R_1}(1),𝒢_2=g^D=_{R_1}^𝒫(u(n);v_+^{(s)})`$) acts on $`L_F(n+1)`$. In view of the $`G_i`$ Abelian nature the decomposition (5) for $`L_F(n+1)`$ contains only non-degenerate $`2j+1`$-dimensional $`g^D`$-domains

$$L([c_1,c_2])=Span\{|[c_i];\kappa 𝒟_\kappa ^{}^p(\{E_{ij}\})(V_{1\mathrm{}1}^+)^{\kappa _1}|[c_i],|[c_i]=(a_1^+)^k(a_0^+)^{2j}|0\}$$
(23)
where $`c_1=k=0,1,\mathrm{},s1,c_2=2j=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ are determined by eigenvalues of $`G_i`$-invariant operators. At the same time, in view of CR (6), $`G_i`$-invariant form (13) of the Hamiltonians $`H^{mps}(n;s)`$ can be given by the expressions

$$H^{mps}(n;s)=\mathrm{}S_E(\xi )[\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}E_{ij}+\stackrel{~}{g}V_{1\mathrm{}1}^++\stackrel{~}{g}^{}V_{1\mathrm{}1}++\frac{\omega _0}{s}(R_1N)]S_E^{}(\xi )$$
(24)
($`S_E(\xi )=\mathrm{exp}\{_{ij}[\xi _{ij}E_{ij}\xi _{ij}^{}E_{ji}]\}`$) which are most suitable for analyzing Eqs. (16).

However, nowadays we can get only (quasi)classical solutions of these equations, and besides, solely in the case $`n=1`$ when PLA $`_{R_1}^𝒫(u(n);v_+^{(s)})`$ is reduced to $`su_{pd}^𝒫(2)`$ defined by Eqs. (7)3,6. For example, in this case Eqs. (16$`b`$) are nonlinear analogs

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{dV_0}{dt}=\stackrel{~}{g}V_+g^{}V_{},i\mathrm{}\frac{dV_+}{dt}=aV_+\stackrel{~}{g}^{}𝒫(V_0),i\mathrm{}\frac{dV_{}}{dt}=aV_{}+\stackrel{~}{g}𝒫(V_0)$$
(25)
($`V_0=\frac{1}{s+1}[NsE_{00}],V_+=V_{1\mathrm{}1}^+,V_{}=V_{1\mathrm{}1}`$) of the well-known linear Bloch equations for $`su(2)`$. In turn, solutions of Eqs. (25) are equivalent to those of the only equation

$`d^2V_0(t)/dt^2=a(HC)a^2V_0(t)+2\stackrel{~}{g}^2𝒫(V_0(t))`$ (26)
which have in the cluster mean-field approximation ($`f(\{V_\alpha \})=f(\{V_\alpha \})`$) quasiclassical solutions in terms of (hyper)elliptic functions 6 naturally arising in soliton theories 9,10. On other hand, using Eqs. (9) in this case one can transform linear Hamiltonians (24) to an essentially nonlinear form

$`H^{mps}(1;s)=\mathrm{}[\mathrm{\Delta }Y_0+Y_+g(Y_0)+g^{}(Y_0)Y_{}+\delta (R_1)],g(Y_0)=\stackrel{~}{g}[\varphi (V_0)]^{1/2}`$ (27)
depending on variables $`Y_\alpha su(2)`$ that enabled us to obtain (via path integral representations (18) with using $`SU(2)`$ CS of the form (15)) quasi-classical $`SU(2)`$ -asymptotics

$$𝒰_H^0(\{Y_\alpha \};t)=\mathrm{exp}[\underset{i}{}a_i(t)Y_i],H=H^{mps}(1;s)$$
(28)
of the evolution operators $`U_H(t)`$ where time-dependent coefficients $`a_i(t)`$ are determined through solutions of classical versions of Eqs. (26)3,6.

## 4 Conclusion

So, we demonstrated natural appearances and an efficiency of DAP and PLA formalism in examining multiboson models with $`G_i`$-invariant Hamiltonians. In conclusion we outline some directions of further studies concerning physical applications.

They include: 1) specifications of quasiclassical representations (18) for $`U_H(t)`$ based on determining adequate form CS related to exponentials $`Exp(\widehat{g}^𝒫(_{GI}))`$ and on generalizations of the transformations (9); 2) extractions of their ”group -like” asymptotics (extending (28)) and examinations (in view of Eqs. (10)) of connections of latters with the Maslov quasiclassical asymptotics for partial equations in quantum mechanics14; 3) applications of geometric methods 8,9 in analysis (cf. 9,10) of nonlinear operator evolution equations of the type (26) stemming from the ”cluster” Heisenberg equations (16$`b`$), (25) and their quasiclassical approximations (taking into account that Eqs. (27) together with transformations $`_{g^D}^{[c_i]}(\{\zeta _b^D\})S_{[j]}^2(\{\xi _b]\})`$ of fibers in (14) into the Bloch spheres describe a geometrization of model dynamics).

## Acknowledgments

The author is thankful to Professor Z. Rakic for his attention to this work. References


text:
# Tamagawa Number Conjecture for zeta Values

## 1. Grothendieck formula and zeta elements

Let $`X`$ be a scheme of finite type over a finite field $`𝔽_q`$. We assume $`p`$ is different from $`\text{char}(𝔽_q)`$.

In this $`\mathrm{\S }1`$, we first review the formula (1.1.2) of Grothendieck representing zeta functions of $`p`$-adic sheaves on $`X`$ by etale cohomology. We then show that those zeta functions are recovered from $`p`$-adic zeta elements (1.3.5).

1.1. Zeta functions and etale cohomology groups in positive characteristic case. The Hasse zeta function $`\zeta (X,s)=_{x|X|}(1\mathrm{}\kappa (x)^s)^1`$, where $`|X|`$ denotes the set of all closed points of $`x`$ and $`\kappa (x)`$ denotes the residue field of $`x`$, has the form $`\zeta (X,s)=\zeta (X/𝔽_q,q^s)`$ where

$$\zeta (X/𝔽_q,u)=\underset{x|X|}{}(1u^{\text{deg}(x)})^1,\text{deg}(x)=[\kappa (x):𝔽_q].$$
$`\mathrm{1.1.1}`$
A part of Weil conjectures was that $`\zeta (X/𝔽_q,u)`$ is a rational function in $`u`$, and it was proved by Dwork and then slighly later by Grothendieck. The proof of Grothendieck gives a presentation of $`\zeta (X/𝔽_q,u)`$ by using etale cohomologyy. More generally, for a finite extension $`L`$ of $`_p`$ and for a constructible $`L`$-sheaf $``$ on $`X`$, Grothendieck proved that the L-function $`L(X/𝔽_q,,u)`$ has the presentation

$$L(X/𝔽_q,,u)=\underset{m}{}\text{det}_L(1\phi _qu;H_{et,c}^m(X_{𝔽_q}\overline{𝔽}_q,))^{(1)^{m1}}$$
$`\mathrm{1.1.2}`$
where $`H_{et,c}^m`$ is the etale cohomology with compact supports and $`\phi _q`$ is the action of the $`q`$-th power morphism on $`X`$.

In the case $`L=_p=`$, $`\zeta (X/𝔽_q,u)=L(X/𝔽_q,,u)`$. 1.2. p-adic zeta elements in positive characteristic case. Determinants appear in the theory of zeta functions as above, rather often. The regulator of a number field, which appears in the class number formula, is a determinant. Such relation with determinant is well expressed by the notion of “determinant module”.

If $`R`$ is a field, for an $`R`$-module $`V`$ of dimension $`r`$, $`\text{det}_R(V)`$ means the 1 dimensional $`R`$-module $`_R^r(V)`$. For a bounded complex $`C`$ of $`R`$-modules whose cohomologies $`H^m(C)`$ are finite dimensional, $`\text{det}_R(C)`$ means $`_m\{\text{det}_R(H^m(C))\}^{(1)^m}`$.

This definition is generalized to the definition of an invertible $`R`$-module $`\text{det}_R(C)`$ associated to a perfect complex $`C`$ of $`R`$-modules for a commutative ring $`R`$ (see \[KM\]). $`\text{det}_R^1(C)`$ means the inverse of the invertible module $`\text{det}_R(C)`$.

By a pro-$`p`$ ring, we mean a topological ring which is an inverse limit of finite rings whose orders are powers of $`p`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a commutative pro-$`p`$ ring. By a ctf $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-complex on $`X`$, we mean a complex of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-sheaves on $`X`$ for the etale topology with constructible cohomology sheaves and with perfect stalks. For a ctf $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-complex $``$ on $`X`$, $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X,)`$ (c means with compact supports) is a perfect complex over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

For a commutative pro-$`p`$ ring $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and for a ctf $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-complex $``$ on $`X`$, we define the $`p`$-adic zeta element $`\zeta (X,,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ which is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-basis of $`\text{det}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X,)`$. Consider the distinguished triangle

$$R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X,)R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X_{𝔽_q}\overline{𝔽}_q,)\mathrm{@}>1\phi >>R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X_{𝔽_q}\overline{𝔽}_q,).$$
$`\mathrm{1.2.1}`$
Since det is multiplicative for distinguished triangles, (1.2.1) induces an isomorphism

$$\text{det}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X,)\text{det}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X_{𝔽_q}\overline{𝔽}_q,)_\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{det}_\mathrm{\Lambda }R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X_{𝔽_q}\overline{𝔽}_q,)\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
$`\mathrm{1.2.2}`$
We define $`\zeta (X,,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ to be the image of $`1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`\text{det}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X,)`$ under (1.2.2). It is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-basis of the invertible $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-module $`\text{det}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X,)`$.

1.3. Zeta functions and p-adic zeta elements in positive characteristic case. Let $`L`$ be a finite extension of $`_p`$, let $`O_L`$ be the valuation ring of $`L`$, and let $``$ be a constructible $`O_L`$-sheaf on $`X`$. We show that the zeta function $`L(X/𝔽_q,_L,u)`$ of the $`L`$-sheaf $`_L=_{O_L}L`$ is recovered from a certain $`p`$-adic zeta element as in (1.3.5) below. Let

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=O_L[[\text{Gal}(\overline{𝔽}_q/𝔽_q)]]=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_nO_L[\text{Gal}(𝔽_{q^n}/𝔽_q)].$$
$`\mathrm{1.3.1}`$
Let $`s(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ be the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-module $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which is regarded as a sheaf on the etale site of $`X`$ via the natural action of $`\text{Gal}(\overline{𝔽}_q/𝔽_q)`$. Then

$$H_{et,c}^m(X,_{O_L}s(\mathrm{\Lambda }))\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_nH_{et,c}^m(X_{𝔽_q}𝔽_{q^n},)$$
$`\mathrm{1.3.2}`$
where the transition maps of the inverse system are the trace maps. From this, we can deduce that $`H_{et,c}^m(X,_{O_L}s(\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$ is a finitely generated $`O_L`$-module for any $`m`$. Hence we have $`Q(\mathrm{\Lambda })_\mathrm{\Lambda }R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X,_{O_L}s(\mathrm{\Lambda }))=0`$ and this gives an identificatition canonical isomorphism

$$Q(\mathrm{\Lambda })_\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{det}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X,_{O_L}t(\mathrm{\Lambda }))=Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
$`\mathrm{1.3.3}`$
Note

$$Q(\mathrm{\Lambda })=Q(\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_nO_L[u]/(u^n1))Q(O_L[u])=L(u).$$
$`\mathrm{1.3.4}`$
By a formal argument, we can prove the following (1.3.5) (1.3.6) which show zeta function = zeta element, zeta value = zeta element, respectively.

$$L(X/𝔽_q,_L,u)=\zeta (X,_{O_L}s(\mathrm{\Lambda }),\mathrm{\Lambda })\text{in}Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
$`\mathrm{1.3.5}`$
If $`H_{et,c}^m(X,_L)=0`$ for any $`m`$, $`L(X/𝔽_q,_L,u)`$ has no zero or pole at $`u=1`$, and

$$L(X/𝔽_q,_L,1)=\zeta (X,,O_L)\text{in}L.$$
$`\mathrm{1.3.6}`$
## 2. Tamagawa number conjecture

In 2.1, we describe the generalized version of Tamagawa number conjecture. In 2.2 (resp. 2.3), we consider $`p`$-adic zeta elements associated to 1 (resp. 2) dimensional $`p`$-adic representations of $`\text{Gal}(\overline{}/)`$, and their relations to (0.2) (resp. (0.3)).

2.1. The conjecture. Let $`X`$ be a scheme of finite type over $`[\frac{1}{p}]`$. For a complex of sheaves $``$ on $`X`$ for the etale topology, we define the compact support version $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X,)`$ of $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et}(X,)`$ as the mapping fiber of

$$R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et}([\frac{1}{p}],Rf_!)R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et}(,Rf_!)R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et}(_p,Rf_!).$$

where $`f:X\text{Spec}([\frac{1}{p}])`$.

It can be shown that for a commutative pro-$`p`$ ring $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and for a ctf $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-complex $``$ on $`X`$, $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X,)`$ is perfect.

The following is a generalized version of the Tamagawa number conjecture \[BK\] (see \[FP\], \[Pe1\], \[Ka1\], \[Ka2\]). In \[BK\], the idea of Tamagawa number of motives was important, but it does not appear explicitly in this version.

###### Conjecture

To any triple $`(X,\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$ consisting of a scheme $`X`$ of finite type over $`[\frac{1}{p}]`$, a commutative pro-$`p`$ ring $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and a ctf $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-complex on $`X`$, we can associate a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-basis $`\zeta (X,,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(X,,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\text{det}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}(X,),$$

which we call the $`p`$-adic zeta element associated to $``$, satisfying the following conditions (2.1.1)-(2.1.5).

(2.1.1) If $`X`$ is a scheme over a finite field $`𝔽_q`$, $`\zeta (X,,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ coincides with the element defined in $`\mathrm{\S }3.2`$.

(2.1.2) (rough form) If $``$ is the $`p`$-adic realization of a motive $`M`$, $`\zeta (X,,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ recovers the complex value $`lim_{s0}s^eL(M,s)`$ where $`L(M,s)`$ is the zeta function of $`M`$ and $`e`$ is the order of $`L(M,s)`$ at $`s=0`$.

(2.1.3) If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ is a pro-$`p`$ ring and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ is a continuous homomorphism, $`\zeta (X,_\mathrm{\Lambda }^L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})`$ coincides with the image of $`\zeta (X,,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ under $`\mathrm{\Delta }(X,_\mathrm{\Lambda }^L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(X,)_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}.`$

(2.1.4) For a distinguished triangle $`^{}\mathrm{"}`$ with common $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we have

$$\zeta (X,,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\zeta (X,^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })\zeta (X,\mathrm{"},\mathrm{\Lambda })\text{in}\mathrm{\Delta }(X,,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{\Delta }(X,^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Delta }(X,\mathrm{"},\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

(2.1.5) If $`Y`$ is a scheme of finite type over $`[\frac{1}{p}]`$ and $`f:XY`$ is a separated morphism,

$$\zeta (Y,Rf_!,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\zeta (X,,\mathrm{\Lambda })\text{in}\mathrm{\Delta }(Y,Rf_!,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{\Delta }(X,,\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

By this (2.1.5), the constructions of $`p`$-adic zeta elements are reduced to the case $`X=\text{Spec}([\frac{1}{p}])`$. How to formulate the part (4.1.2) of this conjecture is reduced to the case of motives over $``$ by (2.1.5) and $`L(M,s)=L(Rf_!(M),s)`$ (by philosophy of motives), where $`f:X\text{Spec}([\frac{1}{p}])`$.

The conditions (2.1.3)-(2.1.5) are formal properties which are analogous to formal properties of zeta functions. The conditions (2.1.1) and (2.1.3)-(2.1.5) can be interpreted as

(2.1.6) The system $`(X,\mathrm{\Lambda },)\zeta (X,,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is an “Euler system”.

In fact, let $`L`$ be a finite extension of $`_p`$, $`S`$ a finite set of prime numbers containing $`p`$, and let $`T`$ be a free $`O_L`$-module of finite rank endowed with a continuous $`O_L`$-linear action of $`\text{Gal}(\overline{}/)`$ which is unramified outside $`S`$. For $`m1`$, let $`R_m=O_L[\text{Gal}((\zeta _m)/)]`$ and let $`z_m=\zeta _{R_m}([\frac{1}{p}],j_{m,!}(T_{O_L}s(R_m)),R_m)\text{det}_{R_m}^1R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}([\zeta _m,\frac{1}{mS}],T).`$

($`j_m:\text{Spec}([\frac{1}{mS}])\text{Spec}([\frac{1}{p}]))`$.

Then the conditions (4.1.1) and (4.1.3)-(4.1.5) tell that when $`m`$ varies, the $`p`$-adic zeta elements $`z_m`$ form a system satisfying the conditions of Euler systems formulated by Kolyvagin \[Ko\].

We illustrate the relation (2.1.2) with zeta functions.

Let $`M`$ be a motive over $``$, that is, a direct summand of the motive $`H^m(X)(r)`$ for a proper smooth scheme $`X`$ over $``$ and for $`r`$, and assume that $`M`$ is endowed with an action of a number field $`K`$. Then the zeta function $`L(M,s)`$ lives in $``$, and the $`p`$-adic zeta element lives in the world of $`p`$-adic etale cohomology. Since these two worlds are too much different in nature, $`L(M,s)`$ and the $`p`$-adic zeta element are not simply related.

However in the middle of $``$ and the $`p`$-adic world,

(a) there is a 1 dimensional $`K`$-vector space $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(M)`$ constructed by the Betti realization and the de Rham realization of $`M`$, and $`K`$-groups (or motivic cohomology groups) associated to $`M`$.

Let $`\mathrm{}`$ be an Archimedean place of $`K`$. Then

(b) there is an isomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_K(M)_KK_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{@}>>>K_{\mathrm{}}$$

constructed by Hodge theory and $`K`$-theory.

Let $`w`$ be a place of $`K`$ lying over $`p`$, let $`M_w`$ be the representation of $`\text{Gal}(\overline{}/)`$ over $`K_w`$ associated to $`M`$, and let $`T`$ be a $`\text{Gal}(\overline{}/)`$-stable $`O_{K_w}`$-lattice in $`M_w`$. Then

(c) there is an isomorphism

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(M)_KK_w\mathrm{@}>>>\text{det}_{K_w}^1R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}([{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}}],j_{}M_w)`$
$`=`$ $`\text{det}_{OK_w}^1R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}([{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}}],j_{}T)_{O_{K_w}}K_w`$
where $`j:\text{Spec}()\text{Spec}([\frac{1}{p}])`$, constructed by $`p`$-adic Hodge theory and $`K`$-theory.

See \[FP\] how to construct (a)-(c) (constructions require some conjectures). The part (2.1.2) of the conjecture is:

(d) there exists a $`K`$-basis $`\zeta (M)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(M)`$ (called the rational zeta element associated to $`M`$), which is sent to $`lim_{s0}s^eL(M,s)`$ under the isomorphism (b) where $`e`$ is the order of $`L(M,s)`$ at $`s=0`$, and to $`\zeta ([\frac{1}{p}],j_{}T,O_{K_w})`$ in $`\text{det}_{K_w}^1R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{et,c}([\frac{1}{p}],j_{}M_w)`$ under the isomorphism (c).

The existence of $`\zeta (M)`$ having the relation with $`lim_{s0}s^eL(M,s)`$ was conjectured by Beilinson \[Be\].

How zeta functions and $`p`$-adic zeta elements are related is illustrated in the following diagram.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\text{zeta functions side}& & (\text{Betti})& \stackrel{\text{Hodge theory}}{}& (\text{de Rham})& & \\ & & \text{regulator}& & p\text{-adic Hodge theory}& & & & \\ & & (K\text{-theory})& \underset{\text{Chern class}}{}& (\text{etale})& & p\text{-adic zeta elements side.}\end{array}$$

We have the following picture.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\text{automorphic rep}& \stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{}& \text{motives}& & p\text{-adic Gal rep}\\ & & \mathrm{?}& & \mathrm{?}& & \\ \text{zeta functions}& & \text{rational zeta elements}& & p\text{-adic zeta elememts}\end{array}$$

The left upper arrow with a question mark shows the conjecture that the map {motives} $``$ {zeta functions} factor through automorphic representations, which is a subject of non-abelian class field theory (Langlands correspondences). As the other question marks indicate, we do not know how to construct zeta elements in general, at present.

2.2. p-adic zeta elements for 1 dimensional galois representations.  Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a commutative pro-$`p`$ ring, and assume we are given a continuous homomorphism

$$\rho :\text{Gal}(\overline{}/)GL_n(\mathrm{\Lambda })$$

which is unramified outside a finite set $`S`$ of prime numbers $`S`$ containing $`p`$. Let $`=\mathrm{\Lambda }^n`$ on which $`\text{Gal}(\overline{}/)`$ acts via $`\rho `$, regarded as a sheaf on $`\text{Spec}([\frac{1}{S}])`$ for the etale topology. We consider how to construct the $`p`$-adic zeta element $`\zeta ([\frac{1}{S}],,\mathrm{\Lambda }).`$

In the case $`n=1`$, we can use the “universal objects” as follows. Such $`\rho `$ comes from the canonical homomorphism

$$\rho _{\text{univ}}:\text{Gal}(\overline{}/)GL_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{univ}})\text{where}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{univ}}=_p[[\text{Gal}((\zeta _{Np^{\mathrm{}}})/)]]$$

for some $`N1`$ whose set of prime divisors coincide with $`S`$ and for some continuous ring homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{univ}}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We have $`_{\text{univ}}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{univ}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Hence $`\zeta ([\frac{1}{S}],,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ should be defined to be the image of $`\zeta ([\frac{1}{S}],_{\text{univ}},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{univ}})`$. As is explained in \[Ka2\] Ch. I, 3.3, $`\zeta ([\frac{1}{S}],_{\text{univ}},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{univ}})`$ is the pair of the $`p`$-adic Riemann zeta function and a system of cyclotomic units. Iwasawa main conjecture is regarded as the statemnet that this pair is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{univ}}`$-basis of $`\mathrm{\Delta }([\frac{1}{S}],_{\text{univ}},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{univ}})`$.

2.3. p-adic zeta elements for 2 dimensional Galois representations. Now consider the case $`n=2`$. The works of Hida, Wiles, and other people suggest that the universal objects $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{univ}}`$ and $`_{\text{univ}}`$ for 2 dimensional Galois representations in which the determinant of the action of the complex conjugation is -1, are given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{univ}}=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_np\text{-adic Hecke algebras of weight 2 and of level}Np^n,$$

$$_{univ}=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_nH^1\text{of modular curves of level}Np^n.$$

Beilinson \[Be\] discovered ratinal zeta elements in $`K_2`$ of modular curves, and the images of these elements in the etale cohomology under the Chern class maps become $`p`$-adic zeta elements, and the inverse limit of these $`p`$-adic zeta elements should be $`\zeta ([\frac{1}{S}],_{\text{univ}},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{univ}})`$ at least conjecturally. By using this plan, the author obtained $`p`$-adic zeta elements for motives associated to eigen cusp forms of weight $`2`$, from Beilinson elements. Here it is not yet proved that these $`p`$-adic zeta elements are actually basis of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, but it can be proved that they have the desired relations with values $`L(E,\chi ,1)`$ and $`L(f,\chi ,r)`$ ($`1rk1`$) for elliptic curves over $``$ (which are modular by \[Wi\], \[BCDT\]) and for eigen cusp forms of weight $`k2`$, and for Dirichlet charcaters $`\chi `$. Beilinson elements are related in the Archimedean world to $`lim_{s0}s^1L(E,\chi ,s)`$ for elliptic curves $`E`$ over $``$, but not related to $`L(E,\chi ,1)`$. However since they become universal (at least conjecturally) in the inverse limit in the $`p`$-adic world, we can obtain from them $`p`$-adic zeta elements related to $`L(E,\chi ,1)`$. Using these elements and applying the method of Euler systems \[Ko\], \[Pe2\], \[Ru2\], \[Ka3\], we can obtain the following results (\[Ka4\]).

###### Theorem

Let $`E`$ be an elliptic curve over $``$, let $`N1`$, and let $`\chi :\text{Gal}((\zeta _N)/)`$ $`(/N)^\times `$ be a homomorphism. If $`L(E,\chi ,1)0`$, the $`\chi `$-part of $`E((\zeta _N))`$ and the $`\chi `$ part of the Tate-shafarevich group of $`E`$ over $`(\zeta _N)`$ are finite.

The $`p`$-adic L-function $`L_p(E)`$ of $`E`$ is constructed from the values $`L(E,\chi ,1)`$.

###### Theorem

Let $`E`$ be an elliptic curve over $``$ which is of good reduction at $`p`$.

(1) rank$`(E()`$ ord$`{}_{s=1}{}^{}L_{p}^{}(E)`$.

(2) Assume $`E`$ is ordinary at $`p`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=_p[[\text{Gal}((\zeta _p^{\mathrm{}}/)]]`$. Then the $`p`$-primary Selmer group of $`E`$ over $`(\zeta _p^{\mathrm{}})`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-cotorsion and its characteristic polynomial divides $`p^nL_p(E)`$ for some $`n`$.

This result was proved by Rubin in the case of elliptic curves with complex multiplication (\[Ru1\]).

As described above, we can obtain $`p`$-adic zeta elements of motives associated to eigen cusp forms of weight $`2`$. For such modular forms, we can prove the analogous statement as the above (2).

Mazur and Greenberg conjectured that the charcteristic polynomial of the above $`p`$-primary Selmer group and the $`p`$-adic L-function divide each other.

## References