text:
# Non-Markovian Decay of a Three Level Cascade Atom in a Structured Reservoir

## I Introduction

The quantum optical behaviour of atomic systems coupled to a continuum of the quantized electromagnetic field modes has been studied since the early days of quantum physics. The quantum electromagnetic field is a large system, which can be treated as a bath or reservoir. In most cases the atom-field coupling constants and the electromagnetic field mode density are slowly varying functions of frequency, and the dynamics of the atomic system can be treated via Markovian master equations masters ; Barnett97 , or equivalent methods such as quantum Langevin equations (see e.g. Barnett97  for details of these standard methods). These techniques are based on quantum electromagnetic field states with no special distinction for any particular mode in terms of photon occupation number, such as thermal states or broad-band squeezed states. Naturally, if one mode of the electromagnetic field was in a special state, such as a large amplitude coherent state (as in the case where the atom is also coupled to a laser field), then this special mode and the atomic system would be treated as a small quantum system with the remaining modes constituting the reservoir, so that Markovian behaviour would still apply for the small system.

In certain cases however, such as for atoms in high Q cavities or in photonic band gap materials, either the coupling constants or the mode density (or both) are no longer slowly varying functions and standard Markovian master equation methods are no longer valid (see Lambropoulos00  for a recent review). A number of non-Markovian methods have been formulated, see, for example, references in Ref. Dalton01a . These include non-Markovian master equations Zwanzig64 ; Nakajima58 ; Barnett00 , the time-convolutionless projection operator master equation Shibata77 , Heisenberg equations of motion Vats98 ; Cresser00 , stochastic wave-function methods for non-Markovian processes Breuer99 ; Strunz99 ; Jack99 ; Molmer99 ; Quang97 ; Stenius96 , methods based on the essential states approximation or resolvent operators Lambropoulos00 ; Paspalakis99 ; Bay97 ; Law02 , the pseudo-mode approach Garraway97 ; Imamoglu94 , Fano diagonalization Fano61  (and Jeffers00 ; Dalton01a ), and various short-time approximations Braun01 ; Privman02 . The last four approaches are easiest to apply, providing clear physical insight into the processes involved.

One such method is that of pseudo-mode theory Garraway97 ; Imamoglu94 . This method was developed for the case of a two level atom coupled to a structured electromagnetic field reservoir in the vacuum states and was then restricted to single photon excitations of the reservoir. The treatment started from the time dependent state vector for the atom-field system, written as a linear combination of one photon states with the atom in the ground state and vacuum states with the atom in the excited state. The basis of the method was that the atomic dynamics only depended in this case on the behaviour of a single function, the reservoir structure function, defined as the product of the mode density and the square of the coupling constant. The complex frequencies and residues of the poles of this function in the lower half complex frequency plane enabled so called pseudo-modes to be introduced, one for each of the finite number of poles. The non-Markovian equation for the complex amplitude of the state with the atom excited (and the field in the vacuum state) could then be replaced by Markovian equations involving the finite number of pseudo-mode amplitudes together with the amplitude for the excited atomic state. The pseudo-modes are originally related mathematically to the reservoir structure function, but in some cases their physical origin can be explained. For the case of the atom in a high Q cavity, where the coupling constants vary rapidly near the cavity resonance frequencies whilst the mode density is slowly varying, the pseudo-modes can be interpreted Dalton01a  in terms of the cavity quasimodes Dalton99a . For the case of an atom in a photonic band gap system, no pseudo-mode theory is yet available, though a treatment in terms of quasimodes Dalton02a  can be used to account for the frequency dependence of the coupling constants and mode densities. A treatment of superradiance in a photonic band gap continuum Bay98b  is based on the idea of replacing the photonic band gap system by a pair of degenerate cavity modes coupled to the multi-atom system and with each other, one of the modes being also coupled to a Markovian bath. In terms of the treatment in Dalton01a , such a case would produce a Fano-profile reservoir structure function, with the Fano window representing the photonic band gap. The two cavity modes would correspond to two pseudo-modes. The problem for photonic band gap situations is that the mode density is actually a discontinuous function of the frequency, and thus the reservoir structure function would not have a finite number of simple poles, though approximate representations of the reservoir structure function in such a form might be found.

Leaving aside the difficulties associated with the pseudo-mode theory for photonic band gap systems, it would be desirable to see if pseudo-mode theory could be extended to cases where multiple photon excitation of the structured reservoir is involved, as the original treatment Garraway97  only covers single photon excitation. The limitation of current treatments to the single photon excitation case has been noted in Ref. Lambropoulos00 , but some work has been carried out on cases of multiphoton excitation of the reservoir. Such a multiphoton situation would apply if the two level atom was replaced by a three level cascade (or ladder) system, with an initial condition of the atom in the uppermost state and no photons present in the electromagnetic field. The two-step decay will generate electromagnetic field states with two photons present. Another case of multiphoton excitation occurs for an excited two level atom coupled to a defect mode containing one photon, the atom also being coupled to a photonic band gap continuum. Beginning with the essential states approximation, a numerical method based on replacing the density of modes by a discretised model has been used in this latter situation Nikolopoulos99 ; Nikolopoulos01  and in the case of the cascade system Nikolopoulos00 . Similar numerical methods have also been used to treat stimulated emission in a photonic crystal Konopka99 . The cascade system case with one transition coupled near-resonantly to the edge of a photonic gap (and the other coupled to a flat continuum) has also been treated via the resolvent operator method in Ref. Bay98c . Although the treatment is analytic, this feature results from being able to ignore processes in which the two emitted photons are produced in a different sequence—a reasonable approximation if the two transition frequencies are very different. However, a more general analytical method would be desirable, and therefore we aim to see if pseudo-mode theory can be extended to treat the multiphoton excitation case without having to make assumptions about the order in which the photons are produced. Whether an extension is possible involves first showing that the atomic dynamics only depends on the behavior of reservoir structure functions—in a cascade system we would expect there to be more than one reservoir structure function, since two coupling constants are present. A next step would be to then introduce suitable pseudo-mode amplitudes, based on the poles of the reservoir structure functions and to show that Markovian equations apply to these pseudo-mode amplitudes.

The present paper shows (following the approach of Ref. Law02 ), that in the case of a three-level atomic system the dynamics is completely controlled by the reservoir structure functions, and gives several methods for determining the atomic and field behaviour. These methods could be applied both to photonic band-gap and high Q cavity cases, since the general equations (14-23) defining the solution only depend on the reservoir structure functions and not on the specific type of structured reservoir involved. However, as a test, in this paper we only apply the methods to a situation involving a single Lorentzian reservoir structure function. This situation could apply when both cascade transitions have the same frequency and are equally coupled to a single high Q cavity mode. We also are able to interpret the results via an equivalent pseudo-mode model. Situations involving photonic band gaps could be modelled by appropriate reservoir structure functions (see, for example, Garraway97 ; Bay98b ).

Section II of this paper sets out the theory of non-Markovian dynamical behaviour for the three level cascade system where both transitions are coupled to a single structured reservoir. The state amplitudes are determined from solutions to certain integral equations. Approaches to solving the dynamical equations, including a numerical determination of the excited state probability for a simple case (and its pseudo-mode theory interpretation) is presented in section III. Section IV deals with the simpler case of non-Markovian dynamics for the cascade system with the two transitions coupled to two separate reservoirs, again with numerical results presented for comparison to the single reservoir case. An alternative approach to solving the dynamical equations based on non-orthogonal eigenfunction methods is set out in Appendices AD. The paper is summarised in section V.

## II Dynamical theory for a single reservoir

### II.1 The Hamiltonian

The model system we will consider has a three level atom, with states denoted $`|0`$, $`|1`$ and $`|2`$, coupled to a reservoir of electromagnetic radiation modes (or heatbath) which is to be at effectively zero temperature. The bath modes will be described by a density $`\rho _\lambda `$, frequency $`\omega _\lambda `$, and raising and lowering operators $`\widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_\lambda `$.

The Hamiltonian for the system is given (in the rotating wave approximation) by

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}[\omega _1|11|+(\omega _1+\omega _2)|22|+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}\omega _\lambda \widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}\widehat{a}_\lambda `$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}[g_{\lambda 1}(\widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}|01|+\widehat{a}_\lambda |10|)+g_{\lambda 2}(\widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}|12|+\widehat{a}_\lambda |21|)]],`$
where the atomic transition frequencies are $`\omega _1`$ for $`01`$ (i.e. between atomic states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$) and $`\omega _2`$ for $`12`$ (i.e. between atomic states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$); see Fig. 1. The coupling of electromagnetic radiation with frequency $`\omega _\lambda `$ to the transition $`01`$ involves the frequency dependent coupling constant $`g_{\lambda 1}`$. Likewise, $`g_{\lambda 2}`$ represents the coupling of the electromagnetic radiation field to the $`12`$ transition. Real coupling constants will be chosen. It is these frequency dependent coupling constants combined with the mode density which define the reservoir structure.

### II.2 Coupled amplitude equations

The Schrödinger picture state vector for the three level cascade atom coupled to the quantum electromagnetic field may be written as:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`c_2e^{i(\omega _1+\omega _2)t}|2|0_\lambda +{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}c_{1\lambda }e^{i(\omega _1+\omega _\lambda )t}|1|1_\lambda `$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}c_{0\lambda \lambda }e^{2i\omega _\lambda t}|0|2_\lambda +{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\mu ,(\lambda <\mu )}{}}c_{0\lambda \mu }e^{i(\omega _\lambda +\omega _\mu )t}|0|1_\lambda 1_\mu ,`$
where $`c_2,c_{1\lambda },c_{0\lambda \lambda }`$ and $`c_{0\lambda \mu }`$ are the amplitudes of the various states in the interaction picture. The radiation states included are: $`|0_\lambda `$ in which all the bath modes are in the vacuum state; $`|1_\lambda `$ in which the mode with frequency $`\omega _\lambda `$ has a single excitation, with other modes being in the vacuum state; $`|2_\lambda `$ in which the mode with frequency $`\omega _\lambda `$ has been raised to the second excitation, with other modes being in the vacuum state; and, $`|1_\lambda 1_\mu `$ in which the modes with frequencies $`\omega _\lambda `$ and $`\omega _\mu `$ have a single excitation, with other modes being in the vacuum state. A convention for an ordered listing of the modes $`\lambda `$ for the quantum electromagnetic field is assumed, so that double sum over $`\lambda ,\mu `$ does not lead to a specific state $`|1_\lambda 1_\mu `$ being included twice.

The initial state vector is assumed to be of the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=|2|0_\lambda ,$$
(3)
which allows us to explore the non-trivial case of two photons appearing in the reservoir as a result of the interaction with the excited atom.

Substitution of Eq. (2) into the time dependent Schrödinger equation gives a closed set of coupled equations for the amplitudes in the situation where the initial state is given by Eq. (3). If we then take Laplace transforms of the the coupled amplitude equations we obtain the algebraic equations

$`s\overline{c}_2(s)1`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}g_{\lambda 2}\overline{c}_{1\lambda }(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _2))`$
$`s\overline{c}_{1\lambda }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,(\mu >\lambda )}{}}g_{\mu 1}\overline{c}_{0\lambda \mu }(s+i(\omega _\mu \omega _1))i{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,(\mu <\lambda )}{}}g_{\mu 1}\overline{c}_{0\mu \lambda }(s+i(\omega _\mu \omega _1))`$
$`ig_{\lambda 1}\sqrt{2}\overline{c}_{0\lambda \lambda }(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _1))ig_{\lambda 2}\overline{c}_2(s+i(\omega _2\omega _\lambda ))`$
$`s\overline{c}_{0\lambda \lambda }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{\lambda 1}\sqrt{2}\overline{c}_{1\lambda }(s+i(\omega _1\omega _\lambda ))`$
$`s\overline{c}_{0\lambda \mu }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{\mu 1}\overline{c}_{1\lambda }(s+i(\omega _1\omega _\mu ))ig_{\lambda 1}\overline{c}_{1\mu }(s+i(\omega _1\omega _\lambda ))(\lambda <\mu ),`$ (4)
where the Laplace transforms of the amplitudes are $`\overline{c}_2,\overline{c}_{1\lambda },\overline{c}_{0\lambda \lambda }`$ and $`\overline{c}_{0\lambda \mu }`$ and the transform variable is $`s`$. These equations for a cascade system coupled to a single structured reservoir, are equivalent to those in Ref. Nikolopoulos00 . It should be noted that similar equations are given in Ref. Bay98c , for the case where the two transitions are coupled to two separate reservoirs. This case is treated below in section IV. The two separate reservoirs case leads to simpler equations—firstly, because it is assumed that the $`\lambda ,\mu `$ photons are produced in just one sequence (for example $`|2|0_\lambda |1|1_\lambda |0|1_\lambda 1_\mu `$), and secondly, because states of the form $`|0|2_\lambda `$ are not present. Whilst these may be a good approximation for the single reservoir case when the transition frequencies are very different, the other process ($`|2|0_\lambda |1|1_\mu |0|1_\lambda 1_\mu `$) would need to also be included when the transition frequencies are similar, such as in a quantum harmonic oscillator or a Rydberg atom.

Following the approach of Ref. Law02  we change variables to the reduced amplitudes $`\overline{b}_2,\overline{b}_{1\lambda },\overline{b}_{0\lambda \mu },\overline{b}_{0\lambda \lambda }`$ such that

$`\overline{c}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{b}_2`$
$`\overline{c}_{1\lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\lambda 2}\overline{b}_{1\lambda }`$
$`\overline{c}_{0\lambda \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\lambda 2}g_{\mu 1}\overline{b}_{0\lambda \mu }(\lambda <\mu )`$
$`\overline{c}_{0\lambda \lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\lambda 2}g_{\lambda 1}\overline{b}_{0\lambda \lambda }.`$ (5)
Thus we have

$`s\overline{b}_2(s)1`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}g_{\lambda 2}^2\overline{b}_{1\lambda }(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _2))`$ (6)
$`s\overline{b}_{1\lambda }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,(\mu >\lambda )}{}}g_{\mu 1}^2\overline{b}_{0\lambda \mu }(s+i(\omega _\mu \omega _1))i{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,(\mu <\lambda )}{}}g_{\mu 1}^2\alpha _{\lambda \mu }\overline{b}_{0\mu \lambda }(s+i(\omega _\mu \omega _1))`$
$`ig_{\lambda 1}^2\sqrt{2}\overline{b}_{0\lambda \lambda }(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _1))i\overline{b}_2(s+i(\omega _2\omega _\lambda ))`$
$`s\overline{b}_{0\lambda \lambda }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2}\overline{b}_{1\lambda }(s+i(\omega _1\omega _\lambda ))`$ (8)
$`s\overline{b}_{0\lambda \mu }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{b}_{1\lambda }(s+i(\omega _1\omega _\mu ))i\alpha _{\lambda \mu }\overline{b}_{1\mu }(s+i(\omega _1\omega _\lambda ))(\lambda <\mu ),`$ (9)
where

$$\alpha _{\lambda \mu }=\frac{g_{\lambda 1}g_{\mu 2}}{g_{\lambda 2}g_{\mu 1}}.$$
(10)
Analogous equations to (6-9) are given below in Eqs. (40-42) for the case of a cascade system coupled to two separate reservoirs.

### II.3 Reservoir structure functions and integral equation to determine amplitudes

Next we eliminate $`\overline{b}_{0\lambda \mu },\overline{b}_{0\lambda \lambda }`$ by substitution of (8) and (9) in (II.2). This gives

$`i\overline{b}_2(s)+{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}[(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _2)+{\displaystyle \underset{\eta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\eta 1}^2}{s+i(\omega _\lambda +\omega _\eta \omega _1\omega _2)}})\delta _{\lambda \mu }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu 1}^2\alpha _{\lambda \mu }}{s+i(\omega _\lambda +\omega _\mu \omega _1\omega _2)}}]\overline{b}_{1\mu }(s+i(\omega _\mu \omega _2))`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (11)
Together with Eq. (6) we now have a set of coupled equations for the $`\overline{b}_2(s)`$ and $`\overline{b}_{1\lambda }(s)`$. If we eliminate $`\overline{b}_2(s)`$ we obtain an equation for the $`\overline{b}_{1\lambda }`$ alone:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}[s(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _2)+{\displaystyle \underset{\eta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\eta 1}^2}{s+i(\omega _\lambda +\omega _\eta \omega _1\omega _2)}})\delta _{\lambda \mu }`$
$`+s{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu 1}^2\alpha _{\lambda \mu }}{s+i(\omega _\lambda +\omega _\mu \omega _1\omega _2)}}+g_{\mu 2}^2]\overline{b}_{1\mu }(s+i(\omega _\mu \omega _2))`$ $`=`$ $`i.`$ (12)
It is useful to rewrite this by by dividing by $`s`$, using the properties of the Kronecker delta function, and substituting from Eqs. (10) and (12) to obtain

$`\left(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _2)+{\displaystyle \underset{\eta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\eta 1}^2}{s+i(\omega _\lambda +\omega _\eta \omega _1\omega _2)}}\right)\overline{b}_{1\lambda }(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _2))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\left(g_{\mu 1}^2\alpha _{\lambda \mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s+i(\omega _\lambda +\omega _\mu \omega _1\omega _2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu 2}^2}{s}}\right)\overline{b}_{1\mu }(s+i(\omega _\mu \omega _2))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{s}}.`$ (13)
We note that the terms involving the quantity $`\alpha _{\lambda \mu }`$ are absent in similar equations in Ref. Bay98c , resulting in their equations for $`\overline{b}_{1\lambda }`$ being easily solvable. As mentioned earlier, the additional terms we have result from allowing for photons to be emitted into the single reservoir in two different sequences, an effect not present in the two separate reservoir case treated in Ref. Bay98c . In our case, we next convert the sums to integrals, i.e. $`_\mu 𝑑\omega _\mu \rho (\omega _\mu )`$, where $`\rho (\omega _\mu )`$ is the mode density, so that Eq. (13) can be written in the form of an integral equation

$$A(\omega _\lambda )\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )+𝑑\omega _\mu B(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )\overline{f}(\omega _\mu )=C,$$
(14)
with

$`\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{b}_{1\lambda }(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _2))`$ (15)
$`A(\omega _\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _2)+{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _\eta \rho (\omega _\eta )\frac{g_{\eta 1}^2}{s+i(\omega _\lambda +\omega _\eta \omega _1\omega _2)}}`$ (16)
$`B(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (\omega _\mu )\left(g_{\mu 1}^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\lambda 1}g_{\mu 2}}{g_{\lambda 2}g_{\mu 1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s+i(\omega _\lambda +\omega _\mu \omega _1\omega _2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu 2}^2}{s}}\right)`$ (17)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{s}}.`$ (18)
The quantities $`\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda ),A(\omega _\lambda ),B(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )`$ and $`C`$ are of course all functions of the Laplace variable $`s`$, but for simplicity of notation $`s`$ is left implicit. The integral equation (14) is a Fredholm integral equation of the second kind (see e.g., Kanwal71 ). Methods of solution for such equations include replacing the frequency spaces by grids of points, thereby converting the integral equation into matrix equations that could be solved numerically for each value of $`s`$. We will discuss one such approach in section III.1. In Appendix D we also discuss a more formal method of solving the integral equation, based on the eigenfunctions of the kernel $`B(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )/A(\omega _\lambda )`$ and of its adjoint.

We also find it convenient to write the integral equation in the form

$$\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )+𝑑\omega _\mu K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )\overline{f}(\omega _\mu )=d(\omega _\lambda ),$$
(19)
where

$`d(\omega _\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`C/A(\omega _\lambda )`$ (20)
$`K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`B(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )/A(\omega _\lambda ).`$ (21)
We note that the coupling constants and mode density appear in the integral equation only in the form “$`\rho g^2`$”. These forms are called reservoir structure functions, as they contain all the essential features of the reservoir and its coupling to the atomic system. Specifically, the reservoir structure functions that appear in Eqs. (16) and (17) are

$`R_1(\omega _\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (\omega _\lambda )g_{\lambda 1}^2,`$
$`R_2(\omega _\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (\omega _\lambda )g_{\lambda 2}^2.`$ (22)
As the coupling constants are proportional to dipole matrix elements multiplied by the square root of the angular frequency, it is clear that the factors $`g_{\mu 2}/g_{\mu 1}`$ and $`g_{\lambda 1}/g_{\lambda 2}`$ in Eq. (17) are independent of the frequencies $`\omega _\lambda `$ and $`\omega _\mu `$. Hence a third reservoir structure function involving the factor $`\alpha _{\lambda \mu }`$ is not needed. As the dipole matrix elements would essentially cancel out, the factor $`\alpha _{\lambda \mu }`$ is of order unity.

In principle, we can solve the integral equation and thus determine the $`\overline{b}_{1\lambda }(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _2))`$. Furthermore, the solutions obtain their particular form from just the reservoir structure functions, rather than the density of states or coupling constants alone.

Next we see that in the new notation Eq. (6) becomes

$`\overline{b}_2(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{s}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}g_{\lambda 2}^2\overline{b}_{1\lambda }(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _2))`$ (23)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{s}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _\lambda \rho (\omega _\lambda )g_{\lambda 2}^2\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )},`$
and again the step to obtaining $`\overline{b}_2(s)`$ just involves using the reservoir structure function $`R_2(\omega _\lambda )`$. Note again that $`\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )`$ is a function of the Laplace variable $`s`$, so the decay of the initial atomic state $`|2`$ described by $`\overline{b}_2(s)`$ is non-exponential in general.

Finally, we note Eqs. (8) and (9) imply that $`\overline{b}_{0\lambda \mu }`$ and $`\overline{b}_{0\lambda \lambda }`$ are fully determined once $`\overline{b}_2,\overline{b}_{1\lambda }`$ are known, and $`\alpha _{\lambda \mu }`$ (Eq. (10)) introduces no new frequency dependence as it is independent of frequency. Thus all the reduced amplitudes $`\overline{b}_2,\overline{b}_{1\lambda },\overline{b}_{0\lambda \mu }`$, and $`\overline{b}_{0\lambda \lambda }`$ can be determined in principle from reservoir structure functions. As we will see next, this is sufficient to determine the reduced density operator describing the atomic system.

Note that the non-Markovian methods could be applied both to photonic band-gap and high Q cavity cases, since the general equations (14-23) defining the solution only depend on the reservoir structure functions and not on the specific type of structured reservoir involved. Markovian results can be obtained under conditions where the reservoir structure functions $`\rho (\omega _\lambda )g_{\lambda 1,\lambda 2}^2`$ are slowly varying functions of $`\omega _\lambda `$. Certain integrals give a constant term whose imaginary parts are the (formally divergent) frequency shifts and whose real parts are the decay rates for the states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$.

### II.4 Atomic density operator

The atomic density operator is defined by

$$\widehat{\rho }_A=\text{Tr}_F|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|,$$
(24)
and it is not difficult to show that

$`\widehat{\rho }_A`$ $`=`$ $`\left|b_2(t)\right|^2|22|+\left({\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _\lambda \rho (\omega _\lambda )g_{\lambda 2}^2\left|b_{1\lambda }(t)\right|^2}\right)|11|`$ (25)
$`+\left({\displaystyle _{\lambda \mu }𝑑\omega _\lambda 𝑑\omega _\mu \rho (\omega _\lambda )\rho (\omega _\mu )g_{\lambda 2}^2g_{\mu 1}^2\left|b_{0\lambda \mu }(t)\right|^2}\right)|00|.`$
Thus we see that the atomic operator only depends on the reduced amplitudes $`b_2(t),b_{1\lambda }(t),b_{0\lambda \mu }(t)(\lambda \mu )`$, and the reservoir structure functions. As the former can be determined, in principle, from the reservoir structure functions, we see that the behaviour of the cascade atom in the structured reservoir is completely determined by the reservoir structure functions (for the initial state given in Eq. (3)).

On the basis of this key result, it would follow that any existing system could be replaced by an equivalent system, provided that the reservoir structure functions were the same in both models. This is the basis of the treatment of superradiance in a photonic band gap continuum Bay98b , where the photonic band gap system is replaced by a pair of degenerate cavity modes coupled to the multi-atom system and with each other, one of the modes being also coupled to a Markovian bath. In terms of the treatment in Dalton01a , such a case would produce the required Fano-profile reservoir structure function, with the Fano window representing the photonic band gap. The two cavity modes would correspond to two pseudo-modes.

The absence of any coherence terms in the atomic density operator is a consequence of the choice of initial state, Eq. (3). The choice of a more general initial state (even with no photons present) of the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=(c_2|2+c_1|1+c_0|0)|0_\lambda $$
(26)
would require the introduction of a more general time dependent state vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ than that given in Eq. (2), to include additional states of the form $`|0|0_\lambda ,|1|0_\lambda `$ and $`|0|1_\lambda `$. The amplitudes for these additional states are not coupled to those for the other states included in Eq. (2). Again, the solutions for these amplitudes just involve reservoir structure functions and are analogous to those already discussed in Ref. Garraway97  for the simpler case of a two level atom coupled to a structured reservoir. However, as indicated above, the atomic density operator would then include coherence terms.

## III Solutions for the state amplitudes

The integral equation (14) can be solved in different ways. These include: (a) numerical methods based on converting the integral equation to a matrix equation, (b) expansions using biorthogonal eigenfunctions and (c) expansions such as the Fredholm expansion Kanwal71 . Only the first of these methods will be used here, but as the second approach using biorthogonal eigenfunctions may be used in later work and has not been used previously in Quantum Optics problems, it is included here in Appendices A \- D for completeness.

### III.1 Numerical solution of the integral equation: case of Lorentzian reservoir structure function

As an illustration we consider a greatly simplified example of a three-level system coupled to a reservoir with structure. The simplest possible case is that for the same Lorentzian reservoir structure function associated with both transitions, with all the couplings and transition frequencies equal to each other. That is, we choose a single coupling constant $`g_\lambda `$ such that

$$g_{\lambda 1}=g_{\lambda 2}=g_\lambda ,$$
(27)
which amounts to both the dipole moment matrix elements for the transitions being equal. The atom will also have two equally spaced transitions which are resonant with the reservoir structure,

$$\omega _1=\omega _2=\omega _0.$$
(28)
We refer only to $`\omega _0`$ in the following. Thus for the single reservoir structure function, we have

$$R_1=R_2=\rho _\lambda g_\lambda ^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2\pi }\frac{1}{(\omega _\lambda \omega _0)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2}$$
(29)
as in Ref. Garraway97 . The parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ represents the strength of the coupling and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ represents the width of the reservoir structure function. This situation would apply for identical cascade transitions coupled to a single high Q cavity mode. Cascade transitions in a photonic band gap reservoir would be treated via a different choice of the reservoir structure functions.

Using this expression for the reservoir structure function we can determine the functions $`A(\omega _\lambda ),B(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )`$ and $`C`$ in Eqs. (16-18) and then the kernel, Eq. (21), becomes

$$K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2\pi }\frac{(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _0)+\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)(2s+i(\omega _\lambda +\omega _\mu 2\omega _0))}{s((\omega _\mu \omega _0)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2)(s+i(\omega _\lambda +\omega _\mu 2\omega _0))Q(\omega _\lambda \omega _0)},$$
(30)
where $`Q(\omega )`$ is a quadratic polynomial such that

$$Q(\omega )=(s+i\omega )(s+i\omega +\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)+\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(31)
For this model we thus have an analytic form for the kernel, but to go further it appears that we need to use a numerical method. We could utilize an eigenfunction method, such as that of Appendix D, but choose a very simple approach to solve Eq. (19). The process is simply to represent Eq. (19) as a matrix equation

$$(𝐊+𝐈)\overline{𝐟}=𝐝,$$
(32)
where $`𝐊`$ and $`𝐈`$ are matrices and $`\overline{𝐟}`$ and $`𝐝`$ are vectors. We then invert $`(𝐊+𝐈)`$ to solve for $`\overline{𝐟}`$. Thus $`K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )`$ is represented at discrete frequency points, in effect a discrete basis of spatial delta-functions, e.g., $`𝐊_{\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu }=K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )`$. Similarly, $`\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )`$ and $`d(\omega _\lambda )`$ are represented at discrete frequency points. From the definition in Eq. (15), we see that if we introduce the function $`f(\omega _\lambda ,t)`$ (which we denote as $`f(t)`$ for short) via

$$f(\omega _\lambda ,t)=\mathrm{exp}[i(\omega _\lambda \omega _2)t]b_{1\lambda }(t),$$
(33)
then $`f(t)`$ is the function whose Laplace transform is $`\overline{f}(s)\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda ,s)`$. However, in order to obtain the real and imaginary parts of $`f(t)`$, we will need the separate inverse Laplace transforms $`\overline{f_r}(s),\overline{f_i}(s)`$ which are the Laplace transforms of the real and imaginary parts of $`f(t)=f_r(t)+if_i(t)`$. For complex $`s`$ the latter Laplace transforms cannot be obtained by just writing $`\overline{f}(s)`$ as the sum of its real and imaginary parts. However, the Laplace transform $`\overline{f_r}(s)`$ of the real part $`f_r(t)`$ is real (and similarly the Laplace transform $`\overline{f_i}(s)`$ of the imaginary part $`f_i(t)`$ is real), if the Laplace transform parameter $`s`$ is real. Hence, the real and imaginary parts of $`\overline{f}(s)`$ are equal to the Laplace transforms of the real and imaginary parts of $`f(t)`$ for $`s`$ on the real axis, so $`\text{Re}\overline{f}(s)=\overline{f_r}(s),\text{Im}\overline{f}(s)=\overline{f_i}(s)`$ for $`s`$ real. As $`\overline{f}(s)`$ is an analytic function of $`s`$, the analytic continuation of $`\overline{f_r}(s)+i\overline{f_i}(s)`$ from the real axis will determine $`\overline{f}(s)`$ everywhere.

In this example, if we discretise $`K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )`$ on an $`N\times N`$ grid we define the $`N\times N`$ complex matrices $`𝐊_r`$ and $`𝐊_i`$ from the real and imaginary parts of Eq. (30) on the real $`s`$-axis, and then Eq. (32) becomes

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝐊_r+𝐈& 𝐊_i\\ & \\ 𝐊_i& 𝐊_r+𝐈\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{𝐟_r}\\ \\ \overline{𝐟_i}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐝_r\\ \\ 𝐝_i\end{array}\right),$$
(34)
for $`s`$ on the real axis. The formal solution for $`\overline{𝐟_r}=\overline{𝐟_r}(s)`$ and $`\overline{𝐟_i}=\overline{𝐟_i}(s)`$ for real $`s`$ then generates the solution for $`\overline{𝐟}(s)`$ everywhere. Because of this (and having first identified $`𝐊_r,𝐊_i,`$ $`𝐝_r`$ and $`𝐝_i`$ for real $`s`$ using Eq. (21) and Eq. (20)), we can now regard Eq. (34) as applying for all $`s`$. This approach could not be used if the the real and imaginary parts of $`K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )`$ and $`d(\omega _\lambda )`$ on the real $`s`$-axis are not analytic. The matrix inversion step thus involves a matrix with $`4N^2`$ elements compared to, say, $`𝒪(N^4)`$ elements represented by Eqs. (6 \- 9) in an equivalent discretised form.

Thus we solve for $`\overline{𝐟_r}`$ and $`\overline{𝐟_i}`$ in Eq. (34), and hence determine the $`\overline{b}_{1\lambda }(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _2))`$ of Eq. (15). We then find the $`\overline{b}_2(s)`$ from the scalar product form Eq. (23) obtained from Eq. (6) so that

$`\overline{b}_{2r}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`(1+𝐫\overline{𝐟_i})/s`$
$`\overline{b}_{2r}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐫\overline{𝐟_r}/s,`$ (35)
where $`𝐫\{\rho _\lambda g_{\lambda 2}^2\}`$. Finally, $`b_2(t)`$ is determined by a numerical inverse Laplace transform.

Figure 2 shows some results for this numerical matrix approach with the kernel given in Eq. (30), which was derived from the reservoir structure function in Eq. (29). The three curves show the upper state population for three different sizes of matrix which were used to discretize the integral equation. Each case used the same parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$=1 and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=1, where there is a distinct non-Markovian evolution that could not be treated perturbatively because of the strong coupling to the reservoir structure. The solid curve in Fig. 2 shows a good result that was obtained with a matrix of size 150$`\times 150`$ for this problem. Reducing the matrix size to 100$`\times 100`$ (dashed) results in only a slight degradation of the result. However, further reduction of the matrix size affects the numerical result quite badly.

The effect of changing the coupling strength $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is shown in Fig. 3. The probability of finding the atomic system in the highest atomic state is shown. For strong coupling (Fig. 3(a)) we see damped oscillations that are a typical manifestation of non-Markovian processes. As the coupling is reduced, (Fig. 3(b)), the oscillations weaken and then further reductions in the coupling strength $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, (Fig. 3(c)) result in no oscillations and decay that is closer to exponential and on a longer time-scale than the strong coupling cases. Fig. 3(c) still shows some visible initial quadratic behaviour because of the relatively high value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

### III.2 Equivalent pseudo-mode model

The reservoir structure function given in Eq. (29) is extremely simple and as result we can reproduce the results of Fig. 3, i.e. the population $`|b_2(t)|^2`$, from the Markovian master equation

$$\frac{\widehat{\rho }}{t}=i[\widehat{V},\widehat{\rho }]\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }+\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }2\widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}^{}\right),$$
(36)
which is given in the interaction picture with the atom-‘field’ coupling term

$$\widehat{V}=\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\widehat{a}^{}|01|+\widehat{a}|10|+\widehat{a}^{}|12|+\widehat{a}|21|\right).$$
(37)
In this master equation we have introduced a single oscillator, or pseudo-mode Garraway97 , which is represented by the harmonic oscillator operators $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{a}^{}`$. In this approach (see Garraway97 ) pseudo-modes are introduced as assumed bosonic entities, rather than via constructing pseudo-mode amplitudes. A cascade atom resonantly coupled to a damped high-Q cavity mode, which is also coupled to a Markovian bath of vacuum modes, is an example of a physical system which has the same master equation as (36). Such a model was considered in our earlier work Dalton01a , where we showed that multiple excitations of a structured reservoir could be treated for reservoir structure functions such as Eq. (29). To utilize the present pseudo-mode model we solve the master equation (36) with the initial condition of an empty pseudo-mode and the atom in the state $`|2`$. On tracing out the pseudo-mode, to obtain atomic properties alone, we can reproduce the results of the matrix method used with the kernel of Eq. (30). It should be emphasised that it does not appear to be easy to find such a simple master equation for more complex reservoir structures such as photonic band gap models with branch cuts in the reservoir structure function. In such a case the approach outlined in this paper (which only depends on the reservoir structure functions) may be useful instead. For the present Lorentzian model, the agreement between the matrix method given earlier in this section and the master equation (36) is excellent.

## IV Dynamical theory for two separate reservoirs

In this paper we have commented in several places that there are differences in our single reservoir treatment from the simpler case of separate reservoirs coupled to the two transitions in our model system. In our model, the two photons may be emitted in either order, whereas with the distinguishable photons in the two reservoir model, only one order of emission is involved. So, with the formalism now complete, it is instructive to look at the explicit differences between our model and the simpler two separate reservoirs model of the kind considered in Ref. Bay98c . In this case the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) is replaced by

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}[\omega _1|11|+(\omega _1+\omega _2)|22|+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}\omega _\lambda \widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}\widehat{a}_\lambda +{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\omega _\mu \widehat{b}_\mu ^{}\widehat{b}_\mu `$ (38)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}g_{\mu 1}(\widehat{b}_\mu ^{}|01|+\widehat{b}_\mu |10|)+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}g_{\lambda 2}(\widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}|12|+\widehat{a}_\lambda |21|)],`$
where the bath operators $`\widehat{a}_\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_\lambda `$ for the first bath now couple only to the $`12`$ transition, and the new bath operators $`\widehat{b}_\mu ^{}`$ and $`\widehat{b}_\mu `$ for the second bath couple only to the $`01`$ transition. For the initial state vector, Eq. (3), the state vector analogous to Eq. (2) no longer contains a term involving $`c_{0\lambda \lambda }`$, and there is no restriction over the double sum $`\lambda ,\mu `$, since the two types of bath modes are now distinct. We can write

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`c_2e^{i(\omega _1+\omega _2)t}|2|0_\lambda |0_\mu +{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}c_{1\lambda }e^{i(\omega _1+\omega _\lambda )t}|1|1_\lambda |0_\mu `$ (39)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\mu }{}}c_{0\lambda \mu }e^{i(\omega _\lambda +\omega _\mu )t}|0|1_\lambda |1_\mu ,`$
involving product states of: the atom, and one or zero excitation states of the two baths. The equations for the Laplace transforms of the reduced amplitudes, Eqs. (6-9) are then replaced by

$`s\overline{b}_2(s)1`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}g_{\lambda 2}^2\overline{b}_{1\lambda }(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _2))`$ (40)
$`s\overline{b}_{1\lambda }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}g_{\mu 1}^2\overline{b}_{0\lambda \mu }(s+i(\omega _\mu \omega _1))i\overline{b}_2(s+i(\omega _2\omega _\lambda ))`$ (41)
$`s\overline{b}_{0\lambda \mu }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{b}_{1\lambda }(s+i(\omega _1\omega _\mu )),`$ (42)
We note that at this point the differences are that, as well as the absence of the $`\overline{b}_{0\lambda \lambda }`$ terms, there are no terms involving $`\alpha _{\lambda \mu }`$ (as in Eqs. (II.2) and (9)) and there are no restrictions over the sum over $`\mu `$ (as in Eq. (II.2)) These equations are equivalent to those in Ref. Bay98c .

As in the case of both transitions coupled to one single reservoir, the dynamical behaviour only depends on reservoir structure functions, and following the same approach as in section II.4 it is easy to see that the atomic density operator is also determined from these functions.

If we now follow the elimination procedure of section II.3 we find the same equations (14-18) for $`\overline{f}`$, $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ except that the consequence of no $`\alpha _{\lambda \mu }`$ term being present in Eq. (42) is that the quantity $`B`$ becomes

$$B(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )B(\omega _\mu )=\rho (\omega _\mu )\frac{g_{\mu 2}^2}{s}$$
(43)
Crucially $`B`$ no longer depends on $`\omega _\lambda `$ as previously. Expressions for $`\overline{f}`$, $`A`$ and $`C`$ are otherwise unchanged.

The integral equation then simplifies to the easily solvable form

$$A(\omega _\lambda )\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )+𝑑\omega _\mu B(\omega _\mu )\overline{f}(\omega _\mu )=C,$$
(44)
for which the solution is

$$\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )=\frac{C}{1+𝑑\omega _\mu K(\omega _\mu ,\omega _\mu )}\frac{1}{A(\omega _\lambda )}.$$
(45)
In this case the equivalent kernel is separable: $`K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )=B(\omega _\mu )/A(\omega _\lambda )`$.

We can apply our results to the situation analogous to that treated in section III.1, where both reservoirs, though now separate, have identical coupling constants and reservoir structure functions, and the two atomic transitions are equally spaced and resonant with the reservoir structures. We utilize Eqs. (27-29) and, for this simple model, the kernel can be easily obtained as:

$$K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2\pi }\frac{(s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _0)+\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)}{s((\omega _\mu \omega _0)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2)Q(\omega _\lambda \omega _0)}.$$
(46)
This result may be compared to the previous expression in Eq. (30) for the case of a single reservoir.

The integral $`𝑑\omega _\mu K(\omega _\mu ,\omega _\mu )`$ can be performed by using a contour in the lower-half plane, and we obtain

$$𝑑\omega _\mu K(\omega _\mu ,\omega _\mu )=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{s}\frac{s+\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(s+\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)(s+\mathrm{\Gamma })+\mathrm{\Omega }^2}.$$
(47)
We may now find from Eq. (16) that

$$A(\omega _\lambda )=s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _0)+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{s+\mathrm{\Gamma }/2+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _0)}$$
(48)
so the solution for $`\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )`$ can be obtained from Eq. (45). We find that:

$$\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )=i\frac{\left[(s+\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)(s+\mathrm{\Gamma })+\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right]\left[s+i(\omega _\lambda \omega _0)+\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\right]}{(s+\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)\left[s(s+\mathrm{\Gamma })+2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right]Q(\omega _\lambda \omega _0)}.$$
(49)
A numerical inversion of $`\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )`$ can be performed to obtain $`b_2(t)`$ using the same approach as in section III.1. However, The reservoir structure, Eq. (29), is sufficiently simple that a solution for $`b_2(t)`$ can be found from Eq. (49). We first need to perform the integral in Eq. (23) which is facilitated by the fact that Eq. (49) has no poles in the lower-half complex plane (for Re$`(s)>0`$), while the factor $`\rho (\omega _\lambda )g_{\lambda 2}^2`$ in Eq. (23) has only a single pole in the lower-half complex plane if we use the example given in Eq. (29). Then if we perform the integral of Eq. (23) around the single lower-half plane pole we find that

$$b_2(s)=\frac{1}{s}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\frac{s+\mathrm{\Gamma }}{s(s+\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)\left[s(s+\mathrm{\Gamma })+2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right]}.$$
(50)
If we now perform the inverse Laplace transform, we find

$$b_2(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\beta ^2}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/2}+\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\beta ^2}\right)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/2}\mathrm{cos}(\beta t)+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\beta }e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/2}\mathrm{sin}(\beta t),$$
(51)
where $`\beta ^2=2\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2`$.

The result for the time evolution of the probability for finding the atom in the highest atomic state is seen in Fig. 4. There is clearly a difference from the single reservoir result shown in Fig. 3 (the dashed line in Fig. 4). The present situation, where both atomic transition frequencies are equal and resonant with the structured reservoir, should highlight the difference between the cases of two separate or one single reservoir. In this situation both photons emitted should have similar frequencies, and the single reservoir case where the first emitted photon cannot be distinguished from the other should give different results to the two distinct reservoir case where they can.

We note that for strongly coupled systems, $`2\mathrm{\Omega }^2>(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2`$, the time evolution in Eq. (51) can be re-expressed in the form

$$b_2(t)=\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2}\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta t/2+\varphi )e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/2},$$
(52)
where

$$\mathrm{cos}\varphi =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(53)
What is interesting here are the oscillations which are given by the square of a sine function, i.e. the probability oscillates as the fourth power of a sine function which is damped at the rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the angle $`\varphi `$ approaches $`\pi /2`$ and Eq. (52) reduces to $`b_2(t)\mathrm{cos}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }t/\sqrt{2})e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/2}`$.

Conversely, for weakly coupled systems, $`2\mathrm{\Omega }^2<(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2`$, the time evolution in Eq. (51) can be re-expressed in the form

$$b_2(t)=\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^22\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\mathrm{sinh}^2(\gamma t/2+\xi )e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/2},$$
(54)
where $`\gamma ^2=(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^22\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ and

$$\mathrm{cosh}\xi =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(55)
In the extreme limit of $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, Eq. (54) reduces to the Fermi Golden-rule result: $`b_2(t)\mathrm{exp}(2\mathrm{\Omega }^2t/\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

## V Conclusion

The dynamical behaviour of a three level atom in a cascade configuration in which both transitions are coupled to a single structured reservoir of electromagnetic field modes, and initially in the upper state, has been analysed via Laplace transform methods. This situation involves a two photon excitation of the reservoir, and our equations take into account the two possible sequences in which these two photons are emitted. We have shown that the atomic density operator is determined from the solutions of integral equations, in which the properties of the structured reservoir only appear via so-called reservoir structure functions, all essentially given by the product of the mode density times the square of coupling constants. In the cascade system two distinct reservoir structure functions are involved since there are two transitions. The dependence of the dynamics solely on reservoir structure functions is the necessary condition for treating structured reservoir problems via pseudo-mode theory, so our results suggest that it may be possible to extend pseudo-mode theory to problems involving more than a single photon excitation of the reservoir.

This result also shows that any existing system could be replaced by an equivalent system, provided that the reservoir structure functions were the same in both models. This is the basis of the treatment of superradiance in a photonic band gap continuum Bay98b  and the general treatment of multiphoton excitation in terms of quasimodes given in our earlier work Dalton01a .

In addition, a similar treatment of the dynamical behaviour of a three level atom in a cascade configuration coupled to two separate structured reservoirs of electromagnetic field modes, and initially in the upper state, has been carried out. One reservoir is coupled to the upper transition, the other to the lower transition. This situation again involves a two photon excitation of the reservoir, but now only one possible photon emission sequence is involved. In this situation, the equations are simpler, and the integral equation for the amplitudes can be solved analytically. Again, the dynamical features only depend on reservoir structure functions.

A numerical method of solving the integral equations based on discretising the frequency space has also been obtained, and which can be applied to various structured reservoir situations - such as for high Q cavities and photonic band gap systems. Here we have applied this method in a numerical test for a high Q cavity situation, where the same Lorentzian reservoir structure function applies for both transitions, showing the non-Markovian decay of the excited state. Results for both the single structured reservoir case and the two separate reservoirs case have been obtained, showing the different behaviour in the two cases. This difference is to be expected, as the two photons emitted should have similar frequencies, and only in the two separate reservoirs cases should it be possible to distinguish which order the photons were emitted. In this latter case we were able to solve the model problem analytically. Finally, a formal solution of the integral equations based on the biorthogonal left and right eigenfunctions of the non-Hermitean kernel has been presented for completeness in the Appendices.

Our treatment of the cascade system coupled to a structured reservoir may be compared to those of Ref. Bay98c  in the two separate reservoirs case and to Ref. Nikolopoulos00  in the single reservoir case. Both these papers also demonstrate non-Markovian decay of the excited state. Our fundamental amplitude equations in sections II.2 and IV agree with those of these authors. The work in Ref. Nikolopoulos00  differs from our treatment, being based on replacing the structured reservoir with discrete modes and then using numerical methods. The work in Ref. Bay98c  is analytic. However, a direct comparison of the numerical results is not yet possible with either Ref. Nikolopoulos00  or Ref. Bay98c , since both applied their theory to a photonic band gap system whereas our present application is for the equally important situation of a high Q cavity. Further applications of our theory involving good analytic approximations to the reservoir structure functions for photonic band gap systems will, however, enable more detailed comparisons to be made.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge funding from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and helpful discussions with J.D. Cresser.

## Appendix A Integral equation kernel and its eigenfunctions

The kernel $`K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )`$ involved in the integral equation (19) and given by Eq. (21) may now be used to define an integral operator $`\widehat{K}.`$ The effect of $`\widehat{K}`$ on any function $`\varphi `$ is defined by

$$(\widehat{K}\varphi )_{\omega _\lambda }=𝑑\omega _\mu K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )\varphi (\omega _\mu ).$$
(56)
The eigenfunctions $`\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda )`$ and eigenvalues $`\xi _n`$ for the integral operator $`\widehat{K}`$ then satisfy

$$\widehat{K}\varphi _n=\xi _n\varphi _n,$$
(57)
or (in full)

$$𝑑\omega _\mu K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )\varphi _n(\omega _\mu )=\xi _n\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda ).$$
(58)
Note that we are following Ref. Siegman89  in our definition of the eigenvalue of the integral equation, rather than the definition used in many mathematical textbooks (e.g. Ref. Kanwal71 ) where $`1/\xi _n`$ would be the equivalent eigenvalue.

Similarly to Eq. (56) we can define the adjoint operator $`\widehat{K}^{}`$ via

$$(\widehat{K}^{}\varphi )_{\omega _\lambda }=𝑑\omega _\mu K^{}(\omega _\mu ,\omega _\lambda )\varphi (\omega _\mu ),$$
(59)
with eigenfunctions $`\theta _n(\omega _\lambda )`$ so that

$$\widehat{K}^{}\theta _n=\xi _n^{}\theta _n.$$
(60)
It is straightforward to show that $`\widehat{K}^{}`$ has eigenvalues which are complex conjugates of those for $`\widehat{K}`$ (see Appendix B for details). As $`\widehat{K}`$ will in general be non-Hermitian, the eigenfunctions $`\varphi _n`$ do not satisfy standard orthogonality conditions. Instead the $`\varphi _n`$ and the $`\theta _n`$ satisfy so-called biorthogonality conditions

$$𝑑\omega _\mu \theta _n^{}(\omega _\lambda )\varphi _m(\omega _\lambda )=\delta _{nm}.$$
(61)
The normalization result of unity for $`n=m`$ can be arranged by scaling either the $`\theta _n`$ or $`\varphi _m`$ by appropriate factors. Although these results are familiar in regard to the mode functions for unstable optical systems (Siegman89 ; Brown02 ), they are not widely used in quantum optics. So, for completeness, a derivation of Eq. (61) is presented in Appendix C. A formal method of determining the eigenfunctions $`\varphi _n`$ and $`\theta _n`$ is set out in Appendix B.

## Appendix B Representation of the kernel

We expand $`\varphi _n`$ in an orthonormal basis $`u_n`$ so that

$$\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda )=\underset{m}{}\alpha _m^nu_m(\omega _\lambda )$$
(62)
with

$$𝑑\omega _\lambda u_l^{}(\omega _\lambda )u_m(\omega _\lambda )=\delta _{lm}.$$
(63)
Then we can write Eq. (58) as

$$\underset{m}{}𝑑\omega _\mu \alpha _m^nK(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )u_m(\omega _\mu )=\xi _n\underset{m}{}\alpha _m^nu_m(\omega _\lambda ).$$
(64)
Then if we multiply by $`u_l^{}(\omega _\lambda )`$ and integrate we find

$$\underset{m}{}\left(𝑑\omega _\lambda 𝑑\omega _\mu u_l^{}(\omega _\lambda )K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )u_m(\omega _\mu )\delta _{lm}\xi _n\right)\alpha _m^n=0,$$
(65)
which must be true for all values of $`l`$. Equation (65) is a matrix eigenvalue equation with the matrix

$$K_{lm}=𝑑\omega _\lambda 𝑑\omega _\mu u_l^{}(\omega _\lambda )K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )u_m(\omega _\mu )$$
(66)
and eigenvalues which satisfy

$$\left|K_{lm}\xi \delta _{lm}\right|=0.$$
(67)
For the operator $`\widehat{K}^{}`$ (see Eq. (59)) the matrix is replaced by its adjoint and clearly its eigenvalues are complex conjugates of those for $`\widehat{K}`$.

The explicit form for $`K_{lm}`$ is found by substitution of the expressions (21) and (17) into Eq. (66) which yields

$`K_{lm}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }d\omega _\lambda d\omega _\mu u_l^{}(\omega _\lambda )[`$ (68)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{A(\omega _\lambda )}}(\rho (\omega _\mu )g_{\mu 1}^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\lambda 1}g_{\mu 2}}{g_{\lambda 2}g_{\mu 1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s+i(\omega _\lambda +\omega _\mu \omega _1\omega _2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (\omega _\mu )g_{\mu 2}^2}{s}})]u_m(\omega _\mu ).`$
The integral over $`\omega _\mu `$ will involve the reservoir structure functions as defined in Eq. (22). The function $`A(\omega _\lambda )`$ is also obtainable from the reservoir structure functions (see Eq. (16)). Note that $`g_{\lambda 1}g_{\mu 2}/g_{\lambda 2}g_{\mu 1}`$ is independent of frequency in Eq. (68).

In summary, the matrix $`K_{lm}`$ and hence the eigenfunctions $`\varphi _n,\theta _n`$ and eigenvalues are all obtained from the reservoir structure functions and given functions, such as the basis set $`u_n`$.

## Appendix C Bi-orthogonality of eigenfunctions

To show that the eigenfunctions satisfy a biorthogonality condition we first write from Eqs. (57) and (58, 59, 60)

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _\mu K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )\varphi _n(\omega _\mu )}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _n\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda )`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _\mu K(\omega _\mu ,\omega _\lambda )\theta _m^{}(\omega _\mu )}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _m\theta _m^{}(\omega _\lambda ).`$ (69)
After multiplying the first equation by $`\theta _m^{}(\omega _\lambda )`$, the second by $`\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda )`$ and then integrating over $`\omega _\lambda `$ we find that

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _\lambda 𝑑\omega _\mu \theta _m^{}(\omega _\lambda )K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )\varphi _n(\omega _\mu )}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _n{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _\lambda \theta _m^{}(\omega _\lambda )\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda )}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _\lambda 𝑑\omega _\mu \varphi _n(\omega _\lambda )K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )\theta _m^{}(\omega _\mu )}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _m{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _\lambda \theta _m^{}(\omega _\lambda )\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda )}.`$ (70)
After a change of variable in the second equation, the left-hand sides are equal and we then conclude that

$$(\xi _n\xi _m)𝑑\omega _\lambda \theta _m^{}(\omega _\lambda )\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda )=0,$$
(71)
so that the biorthogonality condition

$$𝑑\omega _\lambda \theta _m^{}(\omega _\lambda )\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda )=0$$
(72)
applies unless $`\xi _m=\xi _n`$.

## Appendix D Integral equation solution in terms of eigenfunctions of $`K`$

We will assume that the set of eigenfunctions $`\varphi _n`$ form a basis for expanding the solution $`\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )`$ (to Eq. (19)). Likewise we will assume that $`d(\omega _\lambda )`$ can be expanded in terms of the $`\varphi _n`$ so that

$`\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\overline{f}_n\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda )`$
$`d(\omega _\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}d_n\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda ).`$ (73)
Using the biorthogonality of the eigenfunctions (Eq. (61)) the expansion coefficients can be found as:

$`\overline{f}_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _\lambda \theta _n^{}(\omega _\lambda )\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )}`$
$`d_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _\lambda \theta _n^{}(\omega _\lambda )d(\omega _\lambda )}.`$ (74)
Substituting from Eq. (73) into Eq. (19) and using the eigenvalue equation (58) we find that:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\overline{f}_n\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda )+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\overline{f}_n{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _\mu K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )\varphi _n(\omega _\mu )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}d_n\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda )`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(\overline{f}_n+\xi _n\overline{f}_nd_n)\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (75)
Using the biorthogonality result for the eigenvalue $`\xi _n`$ we see that

$$\overline{f}_n(1+\xi _n)d_n=0,$$
(76)
so that provided $`\xi _n1`$

$$\overline{f}_n=\frac{d_n}{1+\xi _n},$$
(77)
which gives the solutions for the expansion coefficients for $`\overline{f}(\omega _\lambda )`$ in terms of known quantities. The quantities $`\overline{f}_n,\varphi _n(\omega _\lambda ),K(\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\mu )`$ and $`\xi _n`$ are of course all functions of the Laplace variable $`s`$, but for simplicity of notation $`s`$ is left implicit.

## Figures


format: text

text:
# Automorphism Groups of Saturated Structures; A Review

## 1. Introduction

Saturated models play an important role in model theory. In fact, when studying the model theory of a complete theory $`T`$, one may work in a large saturated model of $`T`$ with its definable sets, and forget everything else about $`T`$. This large saturated structure is sometimes called the “universal domain”, sometimes the “monster model”.

A significant work has been done the last twenty years on the automorphism groups of saturated models. It is this work that I want to review here. There is a central question that I will use as a “main theme” to organize the paper: what information about $`M`$ and its theory are contained in its group of automorphisms? In the best case, $`M`$ itself is “encoded” in some way in this group; recovering $`M`$ from it is known as “the reconstruction problem”. A possible answer to this problem is a theorem of the form: If $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are structures in a given class with isomorphic automorphism groups, then $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are isomorphic.

Throughout this paper, $`T`$ is supposed to be a countable complete theory. The countability of $`T`$ is by no means an essential hypothesis. Its purpose is only to make the exposition smoother, and most of the results generalize without difficulty to uncountable theories. We will denote by $`Aut(M)`$ the group of automorphisms of the structure $`M`$, and if $`A`$ is a subset of $`M`$, $`Aut_A(M)`$ will be the pointwise stabilizer of $`A`$:

$$Aut_A(M)=\left\{fAut(M);aAf(a)=a\right\}.$$

When we say “definable”, we mean “definable without parameters”.

## 2. The countable case

As a preliminary remark, let us say that the automorphism group of a saturated model is always very rich: if $`M`$ has cardinality $`\lambda `$, then its automorphism group has cardinality $`2^\lambda `$.

I do not know who was the first to introduce the small index property. As we will see, it is crucial in the subject.

###### Definition 1

Let $`M`$ be a countable structure. We say that $`M`$ (or $`Aut(M)`$) has the small index property if for any subgroup $`H`$ of $`Aut(M)`$ of index less than $`2^\mathrm{}_0`$, there exists a finite set $`AM`$ such that $`Aut_A(M)H`$.

Remark that the converse is true: any subgroup containing a subgroup of the form $`Aut_A(M)`$ where $`A`$ is finite, has a countable index in $`Aut(M)`$. Moreover, the subgroups containing a subgroup of the form $`Aut_A(M)`$ are precisely the open neighborhoods of the identity for the pointwise convergence topology. In other words, the small index property allows us to recover the topological structure of $`Aut(M)`$ from its pure group structure.

The small index property has been proved for a number of countable saturated structures:

1. The infinite set without additional structure , .
2. The linear densely ordered sets .
3. The vector spaces over a finite field .
4. The random graph .
5. Various other classes of graphs .
6. Generic relational structures .
7. $`\omega `$-categorical $`\omega `$-stable structures .

The small index property has also been proved for some countable structures which are not saturated: for the free group with $`\omega `$-generators (), for arithmetically saturated models of arithmetic ().

There are examples of countable saturated structures which fail to have the small index property. The simplest may be an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0 of infinite countable transcendence degree: Let $`\overline{}`$ be the algebraic closure of the field of rational numbers. There is an obvious homomorphism $`\phi `$ from $`Aut(M)`$ onto $`Aut(\overline{})`$ (the restriction map). Now, it is well known that there is a subgroup $`H`$ of $`Aut(\overline{})`$ of countable index (in fact of finite index) which is not closed for the Krull topology, which is nothing else that the pointwise convergence topology. Then $`\phi ^1(H)`$ is not open, but of finite index in $`Aut(M)`$.

As we will see later, the small index property is particularly relevant for $`\omega `$-categorical structures. Evans and Hewitt have produced an example of such a structure without the small index property ().

With the pointwise convergence topology, $`Aut(M)`$ is a topological polish group. So, we may use the powerful tools of descriptive set theory. In many cases (for example for structures 1-6 above), it can be shown that there is a (necessarily unique) conjugacy class which is generic, that is, is the countable intersection of dense open subsets. The elements of this class are called generic automorphisms, and they play an important role in the proof of the small index property.

Another possible nice property of these automorphism groups which is sometimes obtained as a bonus of the proof of the small index property, is the fact that its cofinality is not countable, that is, $`Aut(M)`$ is not the union of a countable chain of proper subgroups. This is proved in particular for the full permutation group of a countable set (), for the random graph and for $`\omega `$-categorical $`\omega `$-stable structures ().

I would like to mention here the work of Rubin (). He has shown how to reconstruct a certain number of structures from their automorphism group using a somewhat different method. His methods apply essentially to “combinatorial structures” such as the random graph, the universal homogeneous poset, the generic tournament (a structure for which the small index property is not known), etc.

## 3. Subgroups and imaginary elements

Recall that an imaginary element of $`M`$ is a class of a tuple of $`M^n`$ modulo a definable equivalence relation on $`M^n`$. For instance, if $`G`$ is a group and $`H`$ a definable subgroup of $`G^n`$, then any coset of $`H`$ in $`G^n`$ is an imaginary element. When we add all these imaginary elements to a saturated structure $`M`$, we obtain the structure $`M^{eq}`$, and we can consider $`M^{eq}`$ as a saturated structure (in a larger language).

It is clear that $`M`$ and $`M^{eq}`$ have canonically the same automorphism group: every automorphism of $`M`$ extends uniquely to an automorphism of $`M^{eq}`$. This shows a limitation to the reconstruction problem: If $`M`$ and $`N`$ are two structures which are such that “$`M^{eq}`$ and $`N^{eq}`$ are isomorphic”, then $`Aut(M)`$ and $`Aut(N)`$ are isomorphic via a bicontinuous isomorphism. The condition “$`M^{eq}`$ and $`N^{eq}`$ are isomorphic” may seem weird, but in fact, it is natural. Roughly speaking, it means that $`M`$ can be interpreted in $`N`$, and conversely (a little more in fact, see  for more details). In this case, we say that $`M`$ and $`N`$ are bi-interpretable.

Consider now the case of an $`\omega `$-categorical structure $`M`$. It is not difficult to see that any open subgroup of $`Aut(M)`$ is the stabilizer $`Aut_\alpha (M)`$ of an imaginary element $`\alpha `$. Moreover, $`Aut(M)`$ acts by conjugation on the set of its open subgroups, and this action is (almost) isomorphic to the action of $`Aut(M)`$ on $`M^{eq}`$ (almost because two different imaginary elements $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ may have the same stabilizer). So, from the topological group $`Aut(M)`$ we can (almost) reconstruct its action on $`M^{eq}`$. We can do better:

###### Theorem 2

** Assume that $`M`$ and $`N`$ are countable $`\omega `$-categorical structures. Then the following two conditions are equivalent:

1. there is a bicontinuous isomorphism from $`Aut(M)`$ onto $`Aut(N);`$
2. $`M`$ and $`N`$ are bi-interpretable.

In fact, these conditions are also equivalent to: there exists a continuous isomorphism from $`Aut(M)`$ onto $`Aut(N)`$ (see ). Thus, if one of the structure $`M`$ or $`N`$ has the small index property and $`Aut(M)`$ is isomorphic to $`Aut(N)`$ (as pure groups), then $`M`$ and $`N`$ are bi-interpretable.

Now, if $`M`$ is not necessarily $`\omega `$-categorical (but still saturated), the situation is a bit more complicated. We need to introduce new elements.

###### Definition 3

1. An ultra-imaginary element of $`M`$ is a class modulo $`E`$, where $`E`$ is an equivalence relation on $`M^n`$ ($`n\omega )`$ which is invariant under the action of $`Aut(M)`$. An ultra-imaginary element is finitary if $`n<\omega `$.

2. A hyperimaginary element of $`M`$ is a class modulo $`E`$, where $`E`$ is an equivalence relation on $`M^n`$ ($`n\omega )`$ which is defined by a (possibly infinite) conjunction of first order formulas.

An imaginary element is hyperimaginary, and a hyperimaginary element is ultra-imaginary. A hyperimaginary element is a class modulo an equivalence relation $`E`$ defined by a formula of the form

$$\underset{iI}{}\phi _i$$

where the $`\phi _i`$ are first-order formulas (without parameters) and whose free variables are among the $`x_k`$ for $`k<n`$. An ultra-imaginary element is a class modulo an equivalence relation $`E`$ defined by a formula of the form

$$\underset{jJ}{}\underset{iI}{}\phi _{i,j}$$

where the $`\phi _{i,j}`$ are first order-formulas (without parameters) and whose free variables are among the $`x_k`$ for $`k<n`$.

If $`M`$ is a countable saturated structure, the stabilizer of a finitary ultra-imaginary element is clearly an open subgroup, and it is not difficult to see that if $`H`$ an open subgroup of $`Aut(M)`$, then there exists a finitary ultra-imaginary element $`\alpha `$ such that $`H`$ is the stabilizer of $`\alpha `$. In the $`\omega `$-categorical case, any finitary ultra-imaginary is in fact imaginary, and this explain why this case is so simple.

In some cases, for example for $`\omega `$-stable theories (see ), it is possible to characterize, among all open subgroups, those which are of the form $`Aut_\alpha (M)`$ with $`\alpha `$ imaginary. Something similar has been done for countable arithmetically saturated models of arithmetic in , and in , it is proved that if two such models have isomorphic automorphism groups, then they are isomorphic.

## 4. Strong automorphisms

It is now time to introduce the group of strong automorphisms.

###### Definition 4

** The group of strong automorphisms of $`M`$ is the group generated by the set

$$\left\{Aut_N(M);NM\right\}$$

and is denoted $`Autf(M)`$.

It is easy to see that $`Autf(M)`$ is a normal subgroup of $`Aut(M)`$. Its index is at most $`2^\mathrm{}_0`$. Moreover, the quotient group $`Aut(M)/Autf(M)`$ depend only on $`T`$ : if $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are two saturated models, $`MM^{}`$, then there is a natural isomorphism from $`Aut(M)/Autf(M)`$ onto $`Aut(M^{})/Autf(M^{})`$. $`Aut(M)/Autf(M)`$ will be denoted $`Gal(T)`$ (of course, $`Gal`$ stands for Galois). For example, if $`T`$ is the theory of algebraically closed fields of characteristic 0, $`Autf(M)=Aut_\overline{}(M)`$ and $`Gal(T)`$ is (isomorphic to) the group of automorphisms of $`\overline{}`$.

In fact this interpretation is general. Assume first that $`M`$ is of cardinality bigger than $`2^\mathrm{}_0`$. Let $`\alpha `$ be an ultra-imaginary element of $`M`$. It can be shown that the following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`card\{f(\alpha );fAut(M)\}<card(M)`$;
2. $`card\{f(\alpha );fAut(M)\}2^\mathrm{}_0`$;
An equivalence relation is bounded if it has at most $`2^\mathrm{}_0`$ classes (equivalently less than $`card(M)`$ classes). The above conditions are also equivalent to:
3. $`\alpha `$ (as a set) is the class modulo an invariant bounded equivalence relation.

If these conditions are satisfied, we say that $`\alpha `$ is bounded. It should be remarked that an imaginary element is bounded if and only if it is algebraic, if and only if its orbit is finite.

We will denote by $`Bdd(M)`$ the set of bounded ultra-imaginary elements of $`M`$. This set does not really depend on $`M`$ (as soon as its cardinality is big enough) but only on its theory: any invariant bounded equivalence relation has a representative in any uncountable saturated model. We will allow ourself to write $`Bdd(T)`$ when convenient. Moreover $`Autf(M)`$ is exactly the pointwise stabilizer of $`Bdd(M)`$ so that $`Gal(T)`$ can be identified with the group of elementary permutations of $`Bdd(T)`$.

With some care, we can generalize this interpretation to models of small cardinality: for example, assume $`M`$ countable, and let $`M^{}`$ be a large saturated extension of $`M`$. Then any automorphism $`f`$ of $`M`$ extends to an automorphism of $`M^{}`$, and if $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ are two such extensions, then their action on $`Bdd(M^{})`$ are equal; $`Autf(M)`$ is exactly the set of automorphisms whose extensions to $`M^{}`$ act trivially on $`Bdd(M^{})`$.

In any case, $`Aut(M)`$ leaves fixed the set of bounded imaginary elements and the set of bounded hyperimaginary elements. In some cases (for example for algebraically closed fields), $`Gal(T)`$ acts faithfully on the set of bounded imaginary elements. It is the case if $`T`$ is stable (). It is not known if it is always true for simple theories, but it is true for the so-called low simple theories () and in particular for supersimple theories. For simple theories, $`Gal(T)`$ acts faithfully on the set of bounded hyperimaginary elements (). In  there is an example of a theory where the action of $`Gal(T)`$ on the set of hyperimaginary elements is not faithful.

There is a natural topology on $`Gal(T)`$ (see  for details). It can be defined in two different ways.

My favorite one is via the ultraproduct construction. Let $`(\gamma _i;iI)`$ be a family of elements of $`Gal(T)`$ and $`𝒰`$ an ultrafilter on $`I`$. Choose a saturated model $`M`$ and, for each $`iI`$ an automorphism $`f_iAut(M)`$ lifting $`\gamma _i`$. Consider the ultrapower $`M^{}=`$ $`_{i𝒰}M`$. We can define the automorphism $`_{i𝒰}f_i`$ on $`M^{}`$. This automorphism acts on $`Bdd(M^{})=Bdd(T)`$, so defines an element of $`Gal(T)`$, say $`\beta `$. This element $`\beta `$ should be considered as a limit of the family $`(\gamma _i;iI)`$ along $`𝒰`$. A subset $`X`$ of $`Gal(T)`$ is closed for the topology we are defining if it is closed for this limit operation. You should be aware that the element $`\beta `$ may depend on the choices of the $`f_i`$’s, because the topology we are defining is not Hausdorff in general.

The other way to define a topological structure on $`Gal(T)`$ is to define a topology on $`Bdd(T)`$. If, as it is the case when $`T`$ is stable, $`Gal(T)`$ can be identified with a group of permutation on the set of imaginary elements, then we just endow $`Gal(T)`$ with the pointwise convergence topology (that is we consider the set of imaginary elements with the discrete topology). Otherwise, it is more complicated, and here is what should be done in general:

For each $`n\omega `$ and $`E`$ invariant bounded equivalence relation on $`M^n`$, consider the canonical mapping $`\phi _E`$ from $`M^n`$ onto $`M^n/E`$. By definition, a subset $`X`$ of $`M^n/E`$ is closed if and only if $`\phi _E^1(X)`$ is the intersection of a family of subsets definable with parameters. $`Gal(T)`$ acts on $`M^n/E`$ and the topology on $`Gal(T)`$ is defined as the coarsest topology which makes all these actions (with various $`n`$ and $`E`$) continuous.

Now, we can prove:

###### Theorem 5

1. $`Gal(T)`$ is a topological compact group.

1. It is Hausdorff if and only if it acts faithfully on the set of bounded hyperimaginary elements, if and only if it acts faithfully on the set of finitary bounded hyperimaginary elements.
2. It is profinite if and only if it acts faithfully on the set of bounded imaginary elements.

There is a Galois correspondence between the subgroups of $`Gal(T)`$ and the bounded ultra-imaginary elements: every subgroup of $`Gal(T)`$ is the stabilizer of an ultra-imaginary element. The hyperimaginary elements correspond to the closed subgroups and the imaginary elements correspond to the clopen subgroups of $`Gal(T)`$.

Let $`H_0`$ be the topological closure of the identity. Then $`H_0`$ is a normal subgroup of $`Gal(T)`$. If we consider $`Gal(T)`$ as a permutation group on $`Bdd(T)`$, $`H_0`$ is exactly the pointwise stabilizer of the set of bounded hyperimaginary elements. So, if we set $`Gal_0(T)=Gal(T)/H_0`$, $`Gal_0(T)`$ acts faithfully on the set of bounded hyperimaginary elements. As a quotient group, $`Gal_0(T)`$ is canonically endowed with a topology. This way, we get a compact Hausdorff group.

Recently, L. Newelski () has proved that $`H_0`$ is either trivial or of cardinality $`2^\mathrm{}_0`$.

I would like to conclude this section by a conjecture. In all the known examples of countable saturated structures where the small index property is false, there is a non open subgroup of $`Gal(T)`$ of countable index (and, its preimage by the canonical homomorphism from $`Aut(M)`$ onto $`Gal(T)`$ is a non open subgroup of $`Aut(M)`$ of countable index). If $`A`$ has a cardinality strictly less than $`card(M)`$, define $`Autf_A(M)`$ as the subgroup of $`Aut_A(M)`$ generated by

$$\left\{Aut_N(M);ANM\right\}.$$

The following conjecture is open, even in the $`\omega `$-categorical case:

###### Conjecture 6

Assume that $`M`$ is a countable saturated structure and let $`H`$ be a subgroup of $`Autf(M)`$ of index strictly less than $`2^\mathrm{}_0`$. Then, there exists a finite subset $`AM`$ such that $`Autf_A(M)H`$.

In , this conjecture is proved for almost strongly minimal sets (so, in particular for algebraically closed fields).

## 5. The uncountable case

We are now given a saturated structure $`M`$ of cardinality $`\lambda >\mathrm{}_0`$. The small index property has a natural generalization. If we assume that $`\lambda ^{<\lambda }=\lambda `$ (i.e. there is exactly $`\lambda `$ subsets of $`M`$ of cardinality less than $`\lambda `$) then any subgroup of $`Aut(M)`$ containing a subgroup of the form $`Aut_A(M)`$ with $`card(A)<\lambda `$ has index at most $`\lambda `$. The converse is true:

###### Theorem 7

** Assume that $`M`$ is a saturated structure of uncountable cardinality $`\lambda =\lambda ^{<\lambda }`$, and let $`H`$ be a subgroup of $`Aut(M)`$ of cardinality at most $`\lambda `$. Then, there exists a subset $`A`$ of $`M`$ of cardinality less than $`\lambda `$ such that $`Aut_A(M)H`$.

Here again, we may introduce a topological structure on $`Aut(M)`$: if $`\mu `$ is an infinite cardinal, let $`𝒯_\mu `$ be the group topology on $`Aut(M)`$ for which a basis of open neighborhoods of the identity is

$$\left\{Aut_A(M);AM\text{ and }card(A)<\mu \right\}.$$

To complete this definition, let $`𝒯_a(M)`$ be the group topology on $`Aut(M)`$ for which a basis of open neighborhoods of the unit is

$$\left\{Autf_A(M);AM\text{ and }A\text{ finite}\right\}.$$

The above theorem just says that the subgroups of $`Aut(M)`$ of index at most $`\lambda `$ are exactly the open subgroups for $`𝒯_\lambda (M)`$, and consequently, the topology $`𝒯_\lambda (M)`$ can be reconstructed from the pure group structure. It is also clear that the open subsets for $`𝒯_\lambda `$ are just the intersections of less than $`\lambda `$ $`𝒯_a`$-open subsets. So, if one knows $`𝒯_a(M)`$, one knows $`𝒯_\lambda (M)`$.

With a few cardinality hypotheses, we can reconstruct one topological group from another: (see  for details):

1. Let $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ be two saturated models of the same theory. Then we can reconstruct $`(Aut(M^{}),𝒯_a)`$ from $`(Aut(M),𝒯_a)`$.
2. Let $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ be two models of the same theory, and assume $`card(M)=\lambda <\mu =card(M^{})`$. Then we can reconstruct $`Aut(M^{})`$ from $`(Aut(M),𝒯_\lambda )`$ (and from $`Aut(M)`$ alone if $`\lambda =\lambda ^{<\lambda })`$. In fact we can reconstruct $`(Aut(M^{}),𝒯_\upsilon (M^{}))`$ for every cardinal $`\upsilon `$, $`\lambda \upsilon \mu `$.
3. Let $`M`$ be a saturated structure of uncountable cardinality $`\lambda =\mu ^+=2^\mu `$ and assume that $`T`$ has a saturated model of cardinality $`\mu `$. Then $`(Aut(M),𝒯_a)`$ can be reconstructed from $`Aut(M)`$.

Let us give an example of a theorem which can be proved using the above facts: Assume GCH and let $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ be two theories with saturated models $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ of cardinality $`\mu ^{++}`$. Assume that $`Aut(M_1)`$ and $`Aut(M_2)`$ are isomorphic. Then, for all cardinal $`\lambda `$, if $`T_1`$ has a saturated model of cardinality $`\lambda `$, then $`T_2`$ has also a saturated model in cardinality $`\lambda `$, and the automorphism groups of these two models are isomorphic.


text:
# The Gravity dual of the Non-Perturbative 𝑁=2 SUSY Yang-Mills Theory

## Abstract

The anomalous Ward identity is derived for $`N=2`$ SUSY Yang-Mills theories , which is resulted out of Wrapping of $`D_5`$ branes on Supersymmetric two cycles. From the Ward identity One obtains the Witten-Dijkgraaf-Verlinde-Verlinde equation and hence can solve for the pre-potential. This way one avoids the problem of enhancon which maligns the non-perturbative behaviour of the Yang-Mills theory resulted out of Wrapped branes.

1. Introduction

Recently the gauge theory/gravity duality , which is commonly known as Ads/CFT duality is extended to non-conformal pure $`𝒩=1`$ or $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric Yang -Mills (SYM) theories . So far the perturbative behaviour of the $`𝒩=2`$ SYM is produced by this duality. The conventional folklore is that the instantons which are responsible for the non-perturbative part of the pre-potential are suppressed in the large N limit (since the gauge gravity duality is valid only in the large N limit). Also the non-perturbative strong coupling behaviour of SYM concerns the dilaton which is plagued with the singularity of ”enhancon” . Here we establish the anomalous super conformal Ward identity for $`𝒩=2`$ SYM in the gravity dual picture. Further the super conformal Ward identity is written as Witten-Dijkgraaf-Verlinde-Verlinde (WDVV) equation from which one can obtain the exact pre-potential.

2. The Strategy

We start with type IIB little string theory e la’ a collection of a large number of $`NS_5`$ brane in the vanishing string coupling limit which gives rise to $`D=6`$ SYM . Then we dimensionally reduce two of its spatial world volume in such a way that we retain $`𝒩=2`$ SYM in the low energy limit. The $`NS_5`$ brane has $`SO(4)`$ R-symmetry as the normal bundle. When one identifies the $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the $`SO(4)`$ R-symmetry with the $`U(1)`$ spin connection of the two cycle which is compactified, one gets a covariant constant spinor and SUSY is retained, which is commonly known as twisting . This is called wrapping of $`NS_5`$ brane on a supersymmetric two cycles. If the compact space is a two-sphere, then there will be no extra hyper- multiplet and in the low energy limit i.e. in the scale much lower than the radius of the sphere we will get pure $`𝒩=2`$ SYM. Thus it amounts to consider a gauged $`D=7`$ supergravity solution and then lift it to get the solutions in ten dimensions. We use here the results of  classical solutions of $`D=7`$ gauged supergravity which is amenable to ten dimensional string theory.

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }[dx_{1,3}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\lambda ^2}}(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}\mathrm{e}^{2x}dz^2`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}(d\theta _1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^x}{f(x)}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1(d\theta _2+\mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^x}{f(x)}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\theta _3^2)],`$
where the dilaton is

$$\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{e}^{2z}\left[1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\frac{1+c\mathrm{e}^{2z}}{2z}\right]$$
(2)
and

$$f(x)=\mathrm{e}^x\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1+\mathrm{e}^x\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1,$$
(3)
also

$$\mathrm{e}^{2x}=1\frac{1+c\mathrm{e}^{2z}}{2z}$$
(4)
where $`\lambda `$ is the gauge coupling constant of seven dimensional gauged supergravity and $`c`$ is a parameter as the integration constant of the classical solution. For $`c1`$ the range of the radial variable is $`z_0z\mathrm{}`$ where $`z_0`$ is the solution for $`\mathrm{e}^{2x(z_0)}=0`$. Here $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$ are the angles of compact two-sphere with radius of compactification as $`\frac{z}{\lambda ^2}`$ and $`\theta _1`$, $`\theta _2`$ and $`\theta _3`$ are angles of transverse three-sphere. The conservation of the RR-charge on the transverse sphere $`S_3`$ fixes $`\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}=Ng_s\alpha ^{}`$ for $`N`$ number of $`D_5`$ branes with string coupling $`g_s`$. The $`D_5`$ brane action is given by

$$S=\tau _5d^6\xi \mathrm{e}^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{det\left(G+2\pi \alpha ^{}F\right)}+\tau _5\left(\underset{n}{}C^{(n)}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \alpha ^{}F}\right)$$
(5)
where F is the world volume gauge field and $`\tau _5`$ is the brane tension. . The BPS condition is fixed from the condition of the vanishing of the potential between two branes which gives $`\theta _1`$ to be $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$. This condition makes the transverse boundary of the D brane to be a two dimensional space consisting $`z`$ and $`\theta _3`$ which will eventually the moduli space of $`𝒩=2`$ SYM.

We want to establish here the anomalous super conformal Ward identity. In the presence of gravity the trace anomaly

$$\theta _\mu ^\mu =\frac{1}{2}\frac{\beta (g)}{g^3}\left(F_{\mu \nu }^a\right)^2+\frac{c(g^2)}{16\pi ^2}\left(W_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\right)^2\frac{a(g^2)}{16\pi ^2}\left(\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\right)^2$$
(6)
where $`\beta (g)`$ is the beta function of SYM, $`a(g)`$ and $`c(g)`$ are central functions near the criticality, $`W_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ is the Weyl tensor and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ is the dual of the curvature tensor. However this relation can be extracted from the two point functions of the energy momentum tensors. In Ref., it is shown how to extract these functions from the absorption cross-section of soft dilatons or gravitons by the $`D`$ branes. The probability of absorption is taken as ratio of the flux near $`z_0`$ to the in coming flux at very large z . This gives

$$\sigma =\frac{N^4}{128\pi ^3}\left(zz_0\right)^2\omega ^3.$$
(7)
where $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the soft gluon. Here we see the presence of $`\left(zz_0\right)^2`$ which if we write as in Ref. $`\mathrm{e}^z=\rho `$ we get a term $`\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho }{\rho _0}\right)^2`$ in the cross-section signaling the asymptotic freedom or logarithmic coupling. Also we see the presence of enhancon when $`z_0`$ is zero. This gives $`\beta (g)=\frac{N}{8\pi ^2}g^3`$. Similarly one can also calculate from $`U(1)`$ R-current the chiral anomaly. Combining trace anomaly, chiral anomaly and supertrace anomaly one can write the Ward identity as

$$2(𝒜)^{}𝒜=\frac{N}{8\pi ^2}tr\psi ^2,$$
(8)
where $``$ is the effective potential or the pre-potential, $`𝒜`$ is the chiral multiplet coupled to vector multiplet in the $`𝒩=2`$ SYM and $`tr\psi ^2`$ is the anomaly multiplet for example $`trF^2`$ will correspond to $`\theta _\mu ^\mu `$. Here the bosonic component of $`𝒜`$ corresponds to $`zi\theta _3`$ or in radial coordinate $`v\mathrm{e}^{i\gamma }`$. In the broken phase the branes will be distributed on a circle or $`𝒜_i`$ the eigen values of $`𝒜`$ which are $`U(N)`$ matrices will be distributed on a circle. The second part of eq.(8) will read as $`_i\frac{}{𝒜_i}𝒜_i`$. This equation one can in principle solve in the large N limit and obtain the exact pre-potential in this limit .