text:
# Spin Polarization and Color Superconductivity in Quark Matter

## I Introduction

Recently much interest is given for high-density QCD, especially for quark Cooper-pair condensation phenomena at high-density quark matter (called as color superconductivity (CSC)), in connection with, e.g., physics of heavy ion collisions and neutron stars . Its mechanism is similar to the BCS theory for the electron-phonon system , in which the attractive interaction of electrons is provided by phonon exchange and causes the Cooper instability near the Fermi surface. As for quark matter, the quark-quark interaction is mediated by colored gluons, and is often approximated by some effective interactions, e.g., the one-gluon-exchange (OGE) or the instanton-induced interaction, both of which give rise to the attractive quark-quark interaction in the color anti-symmetric $`\mathrm{𝟑}^{}`$ channel. CSC leads to spontaneous symmetry breaking of color $`SU(3)`$ into $`SU(2)`$ as a result of condensation of quark Cooper pairs .

In this paper we would like to address another phenomenon expected in quark matter: spin polarization or ferromagnetism of quark matter. We examine the possibility of the spin-polarized phase with CSC in quark matter. As far as we know, interplay between the color superconducting phase and other phases characterized by the non-vanishing mean fields of the spinor bilinears $`\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi `$ has not been explored except for the case of chiral symmetry breaking . Our main concern here is to investigate the possibility of the quark Cooper instability under the axial-vector mean-field, $`\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\psi `$ which is responsible for spin polarization of quark matter. It would be worth mentioning in this context that ferromagnetism (or spin polarization) and superconductivity are fundamental concepts in condensed matter physics, and their coexistent phase has been discussed for a long time . As a recent progress, a superconducting phase have been discovered in ferromagnetic materials and many efforts have been made to understand the coexisting mechanism .

Besides being interesting in its own right, the coexistence problem may be related to some physical phenomena. Recently, a new type of neutron stars, called as “magnetars”, with a super strong magnetic field of $`O(10^{15}`$G) has been discovered . they may raise an interesting question for the origin of the magnetic field in compact stars, since its strength is too large to regard it as a successor from progenitor stars, unlike canonical neutron stars . Since hadronic matter spreads over inside neutron stars beyond the nuclear density ($`\rho _0`$$``$$`0.16`$$`\mathrm{fm}^3`$), it should be interesting to consider the microscopic origin of the magnetic field in magnetars. In this context, a possibility of ferromagnetism in quark matter due to the OGE interaction has been suggested by one of the authors (T.T.) within a variational framework ; a competition between the kinetic and the Fock exchange energies gives rise to spin polarization, similarly to Bloch’s idea for itinerant electrons. Salient features of spin polarization in the relativistic system are also discussed in Ref. . Thus, it might be also interesting to examine the possibility of the spin-polarized phase with CSC in quark matter, in connection with magnetars.

We investigate spin polarization in the color superconducting phase by a self-consistent framework, in which quark Cooper pairs are formed under the axial-vector mean-field. We shall see that this phenomenon is a manifestation of spontaneous breaking of both color $`SU(3)`$ and rotation symmetries.

We adopt here the OGE interaction as an effective quark-quark interaction. Since the Fermi momentum is very large at high density, asymptotic freedom of QCD implies that the interaction between quarks is very weak . So it may be reasonable to think that the OGE interaction has a dominant contribution for the quark-quark interaction. In the framework of relativistic mean-field theories, the axial-vector and tensor mean-fields, which stem from the Fock exchange terms, $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\psi `$, may have a central role to split the degenerate single-particle energies of the two spin states, and then leads to spin polarization, e.g., see  for discussion in nuclear matter. As for quark matter, several types of the color singlet mean-fields appear after the Fierz transformation in the Fock exchange terms, but we retain only the axial-vector mean-field as the origin of spin polarization, because the OGE interaction by no means holds the tensor mean-field due to chiral symmetry in QCD, unlike nuclear matter . Presence of the axial-vector mean-field deforms the quark Fermi seas according to their spin degrees of freedom, and thereby the gap function should be no more isotropic in the momentum space. We assume here an anisotropic gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on the Fermi surface by a physical consideration and solve the coupled Schwinger-Dyson equations self-consistently by way of the Nambu formalism to find the axial-vector mean-field $`U_A`$ and the superconducting gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus we discuss the interplay between spin polarization and superconductivity in quark matter.

In Section 2 we give a framework to deal with the present subject. The explicit structure of the anisotropic gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the color, flavor, and Dirac spaces is carefully discussed there and in the Appendix B and Appendix C. Numerical results about $`U_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are given in Section 3, where phase diagram of spin polarization and color superconductivity is given in the mass-baryon number density plane. Section 4 is devoted to summary and concluding remarks.

## II Formalism

In this section we present our formalism to treat CSC and spin polarization. We consider quark matter with flavor $`SU(2)`$ and color $`SU(3)`$ symmetries, and assume that the interaction action is described by the OGE interaction as

$`I_{int}=g^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4x\mathrm{d}^4y\left[\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma ^\mu \frac{\lambda _a}{2}\psi (x)\right]D_{\mu \nu }(x,y)\left[\overline{\psi }(y)\gamma ^\nu \frac{\lambda _a}{2}\psi (y)\right]},`$ (1)
where $`\psi `$ is the quark field, $`D_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$ is the gauge boson (gluon) propagator, and $`\lambda _a=1,2,\mathrm{},8`$ are the $`SU(3)`$ Gell-Mann matrices. Using the Nambu formalism  the effective action is given within the mean-field approximation as

$$I_{MF}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{\psi }(p)\hfill \\ \overline{\psi }_c(p)\hfill \end{array}\right)^TG^1(p)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi (p)\hfill \\ \psi _c(p)\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(2)
with the inverse quark Green function

$$G^1(p)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}/pm+/\mu +V(p)& \gamma _0\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(p)\gamma _0\\ \mathrm{\Delta }(p)& /pm/\mu +\overline{V}(p)\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where $`/\mu =\gamma _0\mu `$ with the chemical potential $`\mu `$. $`V`$ is a self-energy and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the gap function for the quark Cooper pair; both terms $`V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ should be provided by the Fock exchange terms of the OGE interaction. We define here $`\psi _c(k)`$ and $`\overline{V}`$ as

$`\psi _c(k)`$ $`=`$ $`C\overline{\psi }^T(k),`$ (4)
$`\overline{V}`$ $``$ $`CV^TC^1`$ (5)
with the charge conjugation matrix $`C`$ which is explicitly given by $`i\gamma _2\gamma _0`$ in Dirac representation.

The Green function $`G(p)`$ can be written straightforwardly from eq.(3) as

$$G(p)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_{11}(p)& G_{12}(p)\\ G_{21}(p)& G_{22}(p)\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
with

$`G_{11}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`[/pm+/\mu +V(p)\gamma _0\mathrm{\Delta }(p)^{}\gamma _0(/pm/\mu +\overline{V}(p))^1\mathrm{\Delta }(p)]^1`$ (7)
$`G_{21}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`(/pm/\mu +\overline{V}(p))^1\mathrm{\Delta }(p)G_{11}(p).`$ (8)
Following Nambu’s argument , we impose the self-consistency condition to obtain the Hartree-Fock ground state such that the self-energy by the residual interaction, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Res.}`$, vanishes:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Res.}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{M.F.}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Int.}=0,$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{M.F.}`$ is defined by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{M.F.}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`G_0^1(k)G^1(k)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}V(k)& \gamma _0\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(k)\gamma _0\\ \mathrm{\Delta }(k)& \overline{V}(k)\end{array}\right)`$ (12)
$`\text{with}G_0(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}(/pm+/\mu )^1& 0\\ 0& (/pm/\mu )^1\end{array}\right],`$ (15)
and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Int.}`$ is given by the use of the OGE interaction. Within the first-order approximation in $`g^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Int.}`$ renders

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Int.}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`g^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4p}{i(2\pi )^4}D^{ab}(kp)\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_aG(p)\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_b}`$ (16)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma ^\mu \frac{\lambda _\alpha }{2}& 0\\ 0& C\left(\gamma ^\mu \frac{\lambda _\alpha }{2}\right)^TC^1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma ^\mu \frac{\lambda _\alpha }{2}& 0\\ 0& \gamma ^\mu \frac{\lambda _\alpha ^T}{2}\end{array}\right),`$ (21)
which is nothing else but the Fock exchange energy by the OGE interaction. Using eqs. (9) - (16), we obtain the self-consistent equation for $`V(k)`$ by the use of the diagonal component of the full Green function (7):

$`V(k)=(ig)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4p}{i(2\pi )^4}[iD^{\mu \nu }(kp)]\gamma _\mu \frac{\lambda _\alpha }{2}[iG_{11}(p)]\gamma _\nu \frac{\lambda _\alpha }{2}}.`$ (22)
The gap equation is also obtained from the off-diagonal component as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=(ig)^2\frac{\mathrm{d}^4p}{i(2\pi )^4}[iD^{\mu \nu }(kp)]\gamma _\mu \frac{(\lambda _\alpha )^T}{2}[iG_{21}(p)]\gamma _\nu \frac{\lambda _\alpha }{2}.$$
(23)
In the following sections, we present explicit forms of $`V(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$ and then solve their coupled equations (22) and (23).

### A Fermion propagator under the axial-vector self-energy

We, hereafter, take the static approximation for the gauge-boson propagator as

$`D_{\mu \nu }(q){\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{𝒒^2+M^2}}`$ (24)
where $`M`$ is an effective gauge boson mass originated from the Debye screening $`M^2N_fg^2\mu ^2/(2\pi ^2)`$ .

Since typical momentum transfer $`|𝐪|`$ at high density is of the order of the chemical potential, we may further introduce the zero-range approximation  for the propagator as

$`D_{\mu \nu }(q){\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{Q^2+M^2}},`$ (25)
with a typical momentum scale $`Q`$ of $`O(\mu )`$. This approximation corresponds to the Stoner model , which is popular in solid-state physics, and stands on the same concept of the NJL model  as well.

To proceed, we assume, without loss of generality, that total spin expectation value is oriented to the negative $`z`$-direction in the spin-polarized phase which is caused by the finite axial-vector mean-field along the $`z`$-axis ***We shall see that only the space component of the axial-vector mean-field is responsible for spin polarization. We,hereafter, take its direction along the $`z`$-axis without loss of generality. . As shown in Ref. , rotation symmetry is spontaneously broken down in this phase while axial symmetry around the $`z`$-axis is preserved. Then two Fermi seas of the different spin states are deformed accordingly.

Applying the Fierz transformation for the Fock exchange energy term (14) we can see that there appear the color-singlet scalar, pseudoscalar, vector and axial-vector self-energies (Appendix D). In general we must take into account these self-energies in $`V`$, $`V=U_s+i\gamma _5U_{ps}+\gamma _\mu U_v^\mu +\gamma _\mu \gamma _5U_{av}^\mu `$ with the mean-fields $`U_\alpha `$. Here we introduce an ansatz: the Femri distribution holds the reflection symmetry with respect to the $`p_xp_y`$ plane, and only the mean-field parts $`U_s`$, $`U_v^0`$ and $`U_{av}^3`$ are retained in $`V`$. Later we will see that the self-consistent solution is obtained with the zero-range approximation (25) under this ansatz.

In this paper, furthermore, we disregard the scalar mean-field $`U_s`$ and the time component of the vector mean-field $`U_v^0`$ for simplicity since they are irrelevant for the spin degree of freedom; $`U_v^0`$ has only a role to shift the total energy ot the chemical potential, and may not affect any other physical properties. On the other hand, $`U_s`$ may significantly influence the spin-polarization properties through changing the quark effective mass. Instead of introducing the scalar mean-field explicitly, however, we treat the quark mass as a variable parameter, and discuss its effect in the next section.

According to the above assumptions and considerations the self-energy $`V`$ in eq.(3) renders

$$V=\gamma _3\gamma _5U_A,U_AU_{av}^3,$$
(26)
with the axial-vector mean-field $`U_A`$. Then the diagonal component of the Green function $`G_{11}(p)`$ is written as

$$G_{11}(p)=\left[G_A^1\gamma _0\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\gamma _0\stackrel{~}{G}_A\mathrm{\Delta }\right]^1$$
(27)
with

$`G_A^1(p)`$ $`=`$ $`/pm+/\mu \gamma _5\gamma _3U_A,`$ (28)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_A^1(p)`$ $`=`$ $`/pm/\mu \overline{\gamma _5\gamma _3}U_A,`$ (29)
where $`\overline{\gamma _5\gamma _3}=\gamma _5\gamma _3`$ and $`G_A(p)`$ is the Green function with the axial-vector mean-field $`U_A`$ which is determined self-consistently by way of eq. (22).

Before constructing the gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we first find the single-particle spectra and their eigenspinors in the absence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is achieved by diagonalization of the operator $`G_A^1`$. In the usual case of no spin polarization this procedure gives nothing but the free energy spectra and plane waves. Then we choose a gap structure on the basis of a physical consideration as in the usual BCS theory.

From the condition that $`detG_A^1(p_0)|_{\mu =0}=0`$ one can obtain four single-particle energies $`ϵ_\pm `$ (positive energies) and $`ϵ_\pm `$ (negative energies), which are given as

$`ϵ_\pm (𝒑)=\sqrt{𝒑^2+U_A^2+m^2\pm 2U_A\sqrt{m^2+p_z^2}},`$ (30)
where the sign factor $`\pm 1`$ being in front of $`U_A`$ indicates the energy splitting between different spin states due to the presence of the axial-vector self-energy, which corresponds to the exchange splitting in the non-relativistic electron system . In the following, we call the “spin”-up (-down) states for the states $`\pm ϵ_+`$ ($`\pm ϵ_{}`$). Eq. (30) also shows that each Fermi sea for the “spin”-up (-down) state should undergo a deformation and lose rotation symmetry, once $`U_A`$ is finite. This is a genuine relativistic effect ; actually the exchange splitting never produces deformation of the Fermi sea in the non-relativistic ferromagnetism, e.g. in the Stoner model .

Here, it would be interesting to see the peculiarities of the quark Fermi seas in the presence of the axial-vector self-energy. In Fig. 1 we sketch the profile of the Fermi seas projected onto the $`p_zp_t`$ plane ($`p_t=\sqrt{p_x^2+p_y^2}`$) for the cases of (a) $`U_A<m`$, (b) $`U_A>m`$ and (c) $`m=0`$. As is already mentioned these seas still hold the axial symmetry around the $`z`$-axis and the reflection symmetry with respect to the $`p_xp_y`$ plane. The region surrounded by the outer line show the Fermi sea of “spin”-down quarks, and the shaded region is that of “spin”-up quarks.

We can see in Fig. 1a that the Fermi seas for the “spin”-down and “spin”-up states are deformed in the prolate and oblate shapes, respectively, where the minimum of the single-particle energy still resides at the origin $`𝒑=0`$. When $`U_A>m`$ as shown in Fig. 1b, there appear two minima at the points $`(p_t,p_z)=(0,\pm \sqrt{U_A^2m^2})`$ for the “spin”-down quark. Hence in the massless limit, $`m0`$, the Fermi sea is described by two identical spheres with radii $`\mu `$ in the momentum space, which are centered at the points $`(p_t,p_z)=(0,\pm U_A)`$ (see Fig. 1c).

In what follows we use subscript ‘$`n`$$`(=1,2,3,4)`$ for notational convenience as $`ϵ_n`$ which means $`\{ϵ_1,ϵ_2,ϵ_3,ϵ_4\}=\{ϵ_{},ϵ_+,ϵ_{},ϵ_+\}`$. We define the spinor $`\varphi _n(𝒑)`$ that satisfies the equation $`G_A^1(p_0=ϵ_n\mu )\varphi _n(𝒑)=0`$, which corresponds to the eigenspinor with the single-particle energy $`ϵ_n`$ in the absence of the quark Cooper pairing. The spinor $`\varphi _n(𝒑)`$ is explicitly given as

$$\varphi _n(𝒑)=𝒩_n\left(\begin{array}{c}(ϵ_n(1)^n\beta _pU_A)(p_x\mathrm{i}p_y)p_z\\ ((1)^n\beta _p+m)p_t^2\\ \left[((1)^n\beta _p+m)(ϵ_nmU_A)+p_z^2\right](p_x\mathrm{i}p_y)\\ p_t^2p_z\end{array}\right),$$
(31)
where $`𝒩_n`$$`=\sqrt{[\beta _p(1)^nm]\left[ϵ_n+U_A+(1)^n\beta _p\right]/(ϵ_n\beta _p)}/(2p_t^2p_z)`$ and $`\beta _p\sqrt{p_z^2+m^2}`$. It is to be noted that the spinors $`\varphi _n`$ do not return to the eigenspinors of spin operator $`\sigma _z`$ even when $`U_A0`$, but become mixtures of them, see Appendix A. Introducing the projection operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n=\varphi _n\varphi _n^{}`$ with properties $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m\mathrm{\Lambda }_n=\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\delta _{mn}`$ and $`_n\mathrm{\Lambda }_n=\mathrm{𝟏}`$, we can recast $`G_A(p)`$ in the spectral representation into

$`G_A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}{p_0ϵ_n+\mu }}\gamma _0`$ (32)
$`G_A^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(p_0ϵ_n+\mu )\gamma _0\mathrm{\Lambda }_n.`$ (33)
### B Gap structure

In this subsection, we give the explicit form of the gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the Dirac, color and flavor spaces, and then calculate the diagonal component of the full Green function $`G_{11}(p)`$ in eq. (7), provided that only the axial-vector self-energy is taken for $`V(p)`$ in eq. (22). In general various types of the gap structures are possible in the Dirac, color and flavor spaces; they depend on the form of interaction and the quark mass , especially on the strange quark mass . Here we suppose a simple gap structure from a physical consideration, disregarding the finite mass effect.

Using the the spinor $`\varphi _n(𝒑)`$ we assume that the gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in eq. (23) has a following form in the color and flavor spaces:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒑)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_n(𝒑)B_n(𝒑)`$ (34)
with the operator $`B_n(𝒑)`$,

$$B_n(𝒑)=\gamma _0\varphi _n(𝒑)\varphi _n^{}(𝒑).$$
(35)
where the subscript ‘$`n`$’($`=1,2,3,4`$) indicates that the single-particle energy in the spinor is replaced by that of opposite sign, $`ϵ_nϵ_n`$, without change of “spin”.

One can easily see what kind of quark pairs the gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (34) represents. Utilizing the property, $`\varphi _n^{}^T(𝒑)C\gamma _0\varphi _n(𝒑)`$$``$$`\delta _{n^{}n}`$, one can find for the general spinor $`\psi (𝒑)=_na_n(𝒑)\varphi _n(𝒑)`$ with arbitrary coefficients $`a_n`$,

$`\overline{\psi }_cB_n\psi =\psi ^T(p)C\gamma _0\varphi _n\varphi _n^{}\psi (p)a_n(𝒑)a_n(𝒑).`$ (36)
This equation clearly shows that two quarks included in the Cooper pairing have opposite momenta to each other and belong to the same energy eigenstate as illustrated in Fig. 1b.

Now we should note that the antisymmetric nature of the fermion self-energy imposes a constraint on the gap function ,

$`C\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒑)C^1=\mathrm{\Delta }^T(𝒑).`$ (37)
Since $`B_n`$ satisfies the relation $`CB_n(𝒑)C^1=B_n^T(𝒑)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_n(𝒑)`$ must be a symmetric matrix in the spaces of internal degrees of freedom. Taking into account the property that the most attractive channel of the OGE interaction is the color antisymmetric $`\mathrm{𝟑}^{}`$ one, it must be the flavor singlet state. Thus we can choose the form of the gap function as

$$\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_n(𝒑)\right]_{\alpha \beta ,ij}=ϵ_{\alpha \beta 3}ϵ_{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_n(𝒑),$$
(38)
where $`(\alpha \beta )`$ and $`(ij)`$ are indices in three-color and two-flavor spaces, respectively. The form of gap function (38) in the color and flavor spaces is familiar for two-flavor CSC .

Using the properties of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(𝒑)`$ and $`B_n(𝒑)`$, we then obtain an explicit form of $`G_{11}(p)`$ as

$`[G_{11}(p)]_{\alpha \beta ,ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[(p_0+\mu ϵ_n){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_n}{p_0+ϵ_n\mu }}\right]\gamma _0\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\right\}_{\alpha \beta ,ij}^1`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_0\mu +ϵ_n}{p_0^2(ϵ_n\mu )^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_n](1\delta _{3\alpha })+i\eta }}\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\gamma _0\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{ij}`$ (40)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_n=\mathrm{diag}(|\mathrm{\Delta }_n|^2,|\mathrm{\Delta }_n|^2,0)\text{in the color space},$$
(41)
where $`\eta `$ is a positive infinitesimal.

The quasiparticle energies are obtained by looking for the poles of $`G_{11}(p)`$:

$`E_n(𝒑)`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{(ϵ_n(𝒑)\mu )^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_n(𝒑)|^2}\hfill & \text{for color 1, 2}\hfill \\ \sqrt{(ϵ_n(𝒑)\mu )^2}\hfill & \text{for color 3}\hfill \end{array}`$ (44)
The quark number density $`\rho _q`$ is also given as

$`\rho _q`$ $``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{Tr}\left[(G_{11}(p)G_{11}(p)|_{\mu =0})\gamma _0\right]}`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`N_f{\displaystyle \underset{n=1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left[\theta (\mu ϵ_n)+2v_n^2(𝒑)2\left(1v_n^2(𝒑)\right)\right]}`$ (46)
with

$$v_n^2(𝒑)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\frac{ϵ_n(𝒑)\mu }{E_n(𝒑)}\right),$$
(47)
where the first two terms in eq. (46) show the quark contributions, while the last term the anti-quark contribution; $`v_n^2(𝒑)`$ is the occupation probability of the quark pairs with momentum $`𝒑`$ and represents diffuseness of the momentum distribution.

Similarly we can know the self-consistent solutions satisfy our ansatz about the mean-fields in $`V`$. From the above solutions we can easily obtaine that $`\mathrm{Tr}[G_{11}(p)i\gamma _5]=0`$, $`\mathrm{Tr}[G_{11}(p)\gamma _i]p_i`$, $`\mathrm{Tr}[G_{11}(p)\gamma _5\gamma _0]p_z`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}[G_{11}(p)\gamma _5\gamma _{1,2}]p_x,p_y`$ . Hence the pseudoscalar mean-field $`U_{ps}`$, the space-component of vector mean-field $`U_v^i`$, the axial-vector mean-fields $`U_{av}^0`$ and $`U_{av}^{1,2}`$ are vanished after the integration over angles.

### C Equation for the superconducting gap function

Using eq. (40), the off-diagonal component of the full Green function $`G(p)`$, given in eq. (8), can be represented in the similar way as

$`G_{21}(p)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0B_n\gamma _0}{p_0^2(ϵ_n\mu )^2|\mathrm{\Delta }_n|^2+i\eta }}\mathrm{\Delta }_n\lambda _2\tau _2,`$ (48)
where $`\tau _2`$ is the Pauli matrix in the two-flavor space. Substituting eq. (48) into the gap equation (23) and using the identity $`_{a=1}^8(\lambda _a)^T\lambda _2\lambda _a=8/3\lambda _2`$, we obtain

$$\underset{n^{}}{}B_n^{}(𝒌)\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}(𝒌)=i\frac{2}{3}g^2\frac{\mathrm{d}^4p}{(2\pi )^4}D_{\mu \nu }(kp)\underset{n}{}\left[\frac{\gamma ^\mu \gamma _0B_n(𝒑)\gamma _0\gamma ^\nu }{p_0^2(ϵ_n\mu )^2|\mathrm{\Delta }_n|^2+i\eta }\right]\mathrm{\Delta }_n(𝒑),$$
(49)
where the factor $`2/3`$ is simply the Fierz coefficient for the color and flavor degrees of freedom (Appendix D). Furthermore multiplying both sides of eq. (49) by $`B_n^{}^{}(𝒌)`$ and taking trace with respect to the Dirac indices, the coupled equations for the gap functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ are obtained after $`p_0`$ integration,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}(𝒌)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}g^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3p}{(2\pi )^3}D_{\mu \nu }(kp)\underset{n}{}T_{n^{}n}^{\mu \nu }(𝒌,𝒑)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_n(𝒑)}{2E_n(𝒑)}}`$ (50)
where the function $`T_{n^{}n}^{\mu \nu }(𝒌,𝒑)`$ is defined as

$`T_{n^{}n}^{\mu \nu }(𝒌,𝒑)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[B_n^{}^{}(𝒌)\gamma ^\mu \gamma _0B_n(𝒑)\gamma _0\gamma ^\nu \right]=(\overline{\varphi }_n^{}(𝒌)\gamma ^\mu \varphi _n(𝒑))(\overline{\varphi }_n(𝒑)\gamma ^\nu \varphi _n^{}(𝒌)),`$ (51)
a decomposition of $`B_n(𝒑)`$ in terms of gamma matrices and its properties are given in Appendix B.

Here we take the zero-range approximation in eq. (25). In terms of the polar coordinates $`𝒑=\{p,\theta _p,\varphi _p\}`$, we can consider that the gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n(𝒑)`$ does not depend on the horizontal angle $`\varphi _p`$ due to axial-symmetry around the $`p_z`$-axis. Thus we can explicitly perform the integration with respect to the angle $`\varphi _p`$ in the gap equation (50):

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}(k,\theta _k)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{g}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}p\mathrm{d}\theta _p}{(2\pi )^2}p^2\mathrm{sin}\theta _p\underset{n}{}T_{n^{}n}(k,\theta _k,p,\theta _p)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_n(p,\theta _p)}{2E_n(p,\theta _p)}}`$ (52)
with the effective coupling constant $`\stackrel{~}{g}g/\sqrt{Q^2+M^2}`$. As seen from the above equation, each of the gap functions couples with others by the function $`T_{n^{}n}(k,\theta _k,p,\theta _p)`$ defined as

$$T_{n^{}n}(k,\theta _k,p,\theta _p)\frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi _p}{2\pi }g_{\mu \nu }T_{n^{}n}^{\mu \nu }(𝒌,𝒑)=\frac{k_tp_t}{2|ϵ_n^{}(𝒌)||ϵ_n(𝒑)|}\left[(1)^{n^{}+n}\frac{2m^2+k_zp_z}{\beta _p\beta _k}+1\right],$$
(53)
where $`p_t`$$``$$`p\mathrm{sin}\theta _p`$ and $`p_z`$$``$$`p\mathrm{cos}\theta _p`$ and the same for $`k_t`$ and $`k_z`$. The term proportional to $`p_z`$ in eq. (53) will disappear after the integration over $`\theta _p`$.

### D Equation for the axial-vector mean-field $`U_A`$

Using eqs. (44) and (47), $`G_{11}(p)`$ is recasted in the form,

$`[G_{11}(p)]_{\alpha \beta ,ij}=\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1v_n^2(𝒑)}{p_0E_n+i\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{v_n^2(𝒑)}{p_0+E_ni\eta }}\right)\mathrm{e}^{ip_0\eta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(𝒑)\gamma _0\right]\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{ij}.`$ (54)
Substituting the above equation into eq. (22), and integrating with respect to $`p_0`$, we obtain the self-consistent equation for $`U_A`$ in the zero-range approximation:

$`U_A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_f}{2}}\stackrel{~}{g}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{n}{}\left[\theta (\mu ϵ_n(𝒑))+2v_n^2(𝒑)\right]S_n(𝒑)},`$ (55)
where the factor $`2/9`$ stems from the Fierz coefficient of the color-singlet axial-vector channel of the OGE interaction (Appendix D), and $`S_n(𝒑)`$ is the expectation value of the spin operator, $`\sigma _z`$$``$$`\gamma _0\gamma _5\gamma _3`$, with respect to the spinor $`\varphi _n(𝒑)`$:

$`S_n(𝒑)\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma _5\gamma _3\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(𝒑)\gamma _0)=\varphi _n^{}(𝒑)(\sigma _z)\varphi _n(𝒑)={\displaystyle \frac{U_A+(1)^n\beta _p}{ϵ_n(𝒑)}}.`$ (56)
Thus $`U_A`$ is related to the expectation value of $`\sigma _z`$ summing over the state with momentum $`𝒑`$. An effect of the Cooper pairing enters into eq. (55) through the function $`v_n(𝒑)`$.

### E Weak coupling approximation

In this subsection we consider a high-density limit, which means the weak coupling limit due to asymptotic freedom of QCD, and then disregards the anti-quark pairing and contributions from the negative-energy sea (the Dirac sea) in eq. (52). Actually it costs more energy to form the anti-quark pairing than the quark pairing for a large chemical potential. Taking the approximation, we also disregard the contribution from anti-quarks to calculate the quark number density in eq. (46) and the axial-vector mean-field eq. (55) consistently. This is equivalent to the restriction of the sum over the index $`n(n=14)`$ to $`1,2`$, which correspond to the positive-energy states with different “spins” specified by the subscript $``$. In the following calculations we define gap functions of the quark pairing by subscript $`\pm `$ whcih corresponds to the “spin”-up (-down) of positive-energy states as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$. The other symbols with the subscript $`\pm `$ have the same meaning, e.g., $`\varphi _{}\varphi _{1,2}`$.

In addition, we assume that only quarks near the Fermi surface form the Cooper pairs, and thereby replace the gap function by an approximated form,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (𝒑)\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (𝒑)\theta (\delta |ϵ_\pm \mu |),$$
(57)
where $`\delta `$ is a cut-off parameter around the Fermi surface. The function $`\theta (\delta |ϵ_\pm (𝒑)\mu |)`$ is also regarded as a form factor to regularize the integration in the gap equation . The step-function form factor mimics the asymptotic freedom; inner particles in Fermi sea costs large kinetic energy to create the pairing and takes large momentum transfer which indicates that coupling of this inner-process is small. There, however, might be more realistic form factors for finite density QCD, which are smoother functions of momentum and $`\mu `$ than ours, we think that they makes little change on qualitative results of the CSC and spin polarization. There are models with other form factors or cut-off functions .

Looking at the structure of the gap equation (52) with (53), one can find that the gap function is exactly parametrized as (Appendix C)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (𝒑)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_t}{ϵ_\pm (𝒑)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\beta _p}}R+F\right)`$ (58)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_t}{ϵ_\pm (𝒑)}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\pm (𝒑),`$ (59)
where $`R`$ and $`F`$ are some constants and represent the antisymmetric and symmetric combinations of the gap functions; $`R=\beta _p/m(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+)=\beta _p/(p_tm)(ϵ_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}ϵ_+\mathrm{\Delta }_+)`$ and $`F=\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+=1/p_t(ϵ_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+ϵ_+\mathrm{\Delta }_+)`$. Their magnitudes are determined by the coupled equations;

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{g}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}p\mathrm{d}\theta _p}{(2\pi )^2}p^2\mathrm{sin}\theta _p\frac{1}{4}\left[Q_+(𝒑)(F\frac{m}{\beta _p}R)+Q_{}(𝒑)(F+\frac{m}{\beta _p}R)\right]}`$ (60)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{g}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}p\mathrm{d}\theta _p}{(2\pi )^2}p^2\mathrm{sin}\theta _p\frac{m}{2\beta _p}\left[Q_+(𝒑)(F\frac{m}{\beta _p}R)+Q_{}(𝒑)(F+\frac{m}{\beta _p}R)\right]},`$ (62)
$`\text{where}Q_\pm (𝒑)={\displaystyle \frac{p_t^2}{ϵ_\pm (𝒑)^2E_\pm (𝒑)}}\theta (\delta |ϵ_\pm (𝒑)\mu |).`$
We can obviously see that $`R0`$ as $`m0`$.

Here we examine the polar-angle dependence of the anisotropic gap function at the Fermi surface $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (p^F,\theta )`$. The Fermi momentum $`p^F(\theta )`$ of each “spin” eigenstate is given as

$`p_t`$ $`=`$ $`p_\pm ^F(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta ,p_z=p_\pm ^F(\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta \text{with}`$ (63)
$`p_\pm ^F(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mu ^2m^2+U_A^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )U_A\sqrt{4\mu ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +4m^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta U_A^2\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta )}\right]^{1/2},`$ (64)
where the subscript $`\pm `$ corresponds to the “spin”-up (-down) state again. Substituting the above formula into the gap function (59), we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (p_\pm ^F,\theta )=\frac{p_\pm ^F(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\mu }\left[\frac{m}{\sqrt{m^2+\left(p_\pm ^F(\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^2}}R+F\right].$$
(65)
Note that this form exhibits a $`P`$\- wave pairing nature: it is a genuine relativistic effect by the Dirac spinors (Appendix B). We show a schematic view of the above gap functions in Fig. 2.

As characteristic features, both the gap functions vanish at poles ($`\theta =0,\pi `$) and take maximal values near equator ($`\theta =\pi /2`$), keeping the relation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ This feature is very similar to $`{}_{}{}^{3}P`$\- pairing in liquid $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$  or nuclear matter .. Suppression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ and enhancement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ at $`\theta =\pi /2`$ for the case of $`m0`$ (Fig. 2b) are originated from a finite value of $`R`$, while they vanish if quark is taken to be massless (Fig. 2a). The anisotropic gap functions give rise to the different diffuseness in the momentum distribution of the two “spin” eigenstates, and thereby make some effects on spin polarization, unlike in the normal phase. The anisotropic diffuseness has two effects that it obscures the deformation in the momentum distribution due to their angle dependence and enlarges the difference of the state density between the two “spin” eigenstates through the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$.

## III Results and Discussions

In this section we solve the coupled equations (55), (60) and (62) and investigate the effects of the superconducting gap on spin polarization.

Before going to numerical calculations of $`U_A`$,$`R`$ and $`F`$, each of which is coupled with others by the self-consistent equations, it is instructive to see their parameter dependence by treating one of them as an input parameter. First we show $`R`$ and $`F`$ as functions of $`U_A`$ in Fig. 3 where $`\mu =400,450`$ MeV and $`\delta =0.1\mu `$.

$`R`$ starts from zero and almost linearly increases with $`U_A`$ (Fig. 3a), which is understood by seeing that $`R`$ is proportional to the difference, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+`$, due to finite $`U_A`$, see eq. (59) or Appendix C. Thus $`R`$ is induced by $`U_A`$ and closely coupled with it.

As for the behavior of $`F`$, it is barely affected by $`U_A`$ (slight decreasing with $`U_A`$ in the numerical value) (Fig. 3b). As seen from the dependence on $`\mu `$ the magnitude of $`F`$ is almost determined by the volume of the phase space in the gap equation, that is, by $`\mu `$ and $`\delta `$. This reflects the fact that $`F`$ is related to the sum, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_++\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}`$ (Appendix C). Thus we expect that $`F`$ increases with density when other parameters are fixed.

From the above results we have found that $`F`$ is not so much influenced by $`U_A`$. Next we examine the behavior of $`U_A`$ and $`R`$ when $`F`$ is treated to be an input parameter. In Fig. 4 we show the parameter dependence of $`U_A`$ and $`R`$ on $`F`$, where $`\mu =450`$ MeV and we use three values of the cut-off parameter $`\delta =0.05\mu `$, $`0.1\mu `$ and $`0.15\mu `$, and add the result of $`U_A`$ in the normal phase ($`\delta =0`$).

Comparing the dependence of $`U_A`$ on $`F`$ (Fig. 4a) with that in the normal phase, we see a characteristic behavior for different values of $`\delta `$: there are regions where $`U_A`$ is larger than that in the normal phase for relatively small $`F`$, and this region seems to extend with $`\delta `$. On the other hand results from the self-consistent calculations show that $`F`$ becomes larger with $`\delta `$ so that its value corresponds to a region where $`U_A`$ is comparable with or slightly less than that in the normal phase, for any value of the chemical potential. This situation seems to be qualitatively unchanged, once the ratio of the effective coupling constants in the axial-vector channel $`G_{axial}`$ and the diquark channel $`G_{diq}`$ is kept, $`G_{axial}:G_{diq}=2/9:2/3`$, which comes from the Fierz transformation for color and flavor (Appendix D). However, if the coupling constant in each channel is taken independently, our results might be changed qualitatively.

Seeing the results for $`R`$ in Fig. 4b, we find that $`R`$ increases with $`\delta `$ due to the growth of the phase space and is hardly affected by $`F`$ except the region of small $`F`$ where $`U_A`$ varies rapidly as shown in Fig. 4a: it also shows that $`R`$ is closely related to $`U_A`$.

These parameter dependences also suggest that the regularization scheme for the gap equation, i.e.,the sharp momentum cut-off function, the form factor, etc., will give rise to a qualitative change to $`U_A`$. In the present cut-off function, $`\theta (\delta |ϵ_\pm \mu |)`$, $`U_A`$ (spin polarization) coexists with CSC, except a slight competition, as will be shown later.

### A  Self-consistent solutions

We demonstrate some self-consistent solutions here. Since we have little information to determine the values of the parameters $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`\delta `$ (there may be other more reasonable form factors than the present cut-off function), and our purpose is to figure out qualitative properties of spin polarization in the color superconducting phase, we mainly set in the following calculations them as $`\stackrel{~}{g}=0.13`$ MeV-1 and $`\delta =0.1\mu `$, for example, which is not so far from the couplings in NJL-like models .

We first examine spin polarization in the absence of CSC. In Fig. 5 we show the the axial-vector mean-field $`U_A`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ being set to be zero, as a function of baryon number density $`\rho _B(\rho _q/3)`$ relative to the normal nuclear density $`\rho _0=0.16`$ fm-3 for $`m=1425`$ MeV (dashed lines).

It is seen that the axial-vector mean-field (spin polarization) appears above a critical density and becomes larger as baryon number density gets higher. Moreover, the results for different values of the quark mass show that spin polarization grows more for the larger quark mass. This is because a large quark mass gives rise to much difference in the Fermi seas of two opposite “spin” states, which leads to growth of the exchange energy in the axial-vector channel.

Next we solve the coupled equations (55), (60) and (62). Results for $`U_A`$, $`R`$ and $`F`$ are shown in Fig. 5 (solid lines) and Fig. 6, for values of the quark mass $`m=1425`$ MeV. It is found again, by comparing these cases of the quark mass, that $`U_A`$ is very sensitive to the quark mass and increases with it as in the absence of CSC (Fig. 5). For the behavior of the gap functions, $`R`$ is induced by $`U_A`$ and both of $`F`$ and $`R`$ increase with $`\rho _B`$ due to the growth of the Fermi surface (Fig. 6). It is also seen that $`F`$ is not sensitive to the quark mass. To see the bulk behavior of pairing gap as a function of baryon number density, we also show, in Fig. 7, their mean values with respect to the polar angle on the Fermi surface;

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm \left(_0^\pi d\theta \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ^2\right)^{1/2}.$$
(66)
The mean values $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ begin to split with each other at a density where $`U_A`$ becomes finite. This reflects that $`R`$ is induced by $`U_A`$ and then has a negative (positive) contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$).

Here we would like to comment on the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$. These should be compared with the usual uniform gap function, and may look very large values of $`O`$(GeV) in our case. However these values would be largely reduced by taking a smooth form factor which models asymptotic freedom of QCD; it further reduces the integral value in the gap equation, compared with our sharp cut-off function.

In Fig. 8 we show the expectation value of the spin operator per quark, $`\sigma _z/N_q`$, as a function of $`\rho _B/\rho _0`$ with and without the superconducting gap. The critical density becomes lower as the quark mass increases, and the peak positions of $`\sigma _z/N_q`$ are located at relatively lower densities in each quark mass. The magnitude of $`\sigma _z/N_q`$ is to be compared with $`1`$ for a free quark, because $`|\psi _s^{}\sigma _z\psi _s/\psi _s^{}\psi _s|=1`$ at the rest frame for the free spinor $`\psi _s`$. We arrange the results of three quark masses $`m=1416`$ MeV by $`1`$ MeV in Fig. 8a to show a high sensitivity of spin polarization to the quark mass, which implies that the exchange energy from the attractive axial-vector interaction is strongly enhanced by the quark mass to produce the large axial-vector mean-field.

The exchange energy is also enhanced by larger chemical potential and the resulting axial-vector mean-field increases with it (see Fig.5). But the spin expectation value per quark, which is relative to the axial-vector mean-field per quark ($`U_A/N_q`$), has an upper limit since the increase of $`N_q`$ is far superior to that of $`U_A`$ for larger chemical potential, which gives rise to the peak positions in Fig. 8.

The quark mass is very important in relation to the breaking of chiral symmetry in QCD. Models incorporating chiral dynamics have indicated that the dynamical mass becomes smaller as chiral symmetry is restored at a high density, while the current quark mass is small and explicitly breaks it . In our model, on the other hand, we treat the quark mass $`m`$ as a variable parameter so that we may simulate a change of the dynamical mass. In order to further examine the effect of the quark mass on spin polarization, we show the mass dependence at densities $`\rho _B=`$ 5$`\rho _0`$, $`\rho _B=`$ 10$`\rho _0`$ and $`\rho _B=`$ 15$`\rho _0`$ for the cases with and without the superconducting gap in Fig. 9.

Spin polarization increases with the quark mass in all the three densities. In the figure we exhibit only the results for a narrow region of the mass parameter ($`m=1320`$ MeV), while as for larger masses of $`O(100\text{MeV})`$ (order of the strange quark mass) spin polarization monotonically increases without singular oscillations. Critical values of the quark mass at which spin polarization disappears become smaller as density increases in both cases.

In relation of $`U_A`$ to $`m`$ we can derive an exact result in the massless limit, $`m0`$. In the normal phase where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, eq. (55) becomes

$$U_A=\frac{2}{9}\stackrel{~}{g}^2\underset{n=1,2}{}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\theta (\mu ϵ_n(𝒑))\frac{U_A+(1)^n|p_z|}{ϵ_n(𝒑)}$$
(67)
with

$$ϵ_\pm (𝒑)=\sqrt{\left(|p_z|\pm U_A\right)^2+p_t^2}.$$
(68)
The right-hand side of the above equation can be analytically integrated to give

$`U_A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\stackrel{~}{g}^2{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{(2\pi )^3}}3{\displaystyle _0^{\mu U_A}}𝑑p_z{\displaystyle _0^{\sqrt{\mu ^2(p_z+U_A)^2}}}𝑑p_tp_t{\displaystyle \frac{U_A+p_z}{\sqrt{(p_z+U_A)^2+p_t^2}}}`$ (70)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\stackrel{~}{g}^2{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{(2\pi )^3}}3{\displaystyle _0^{\mu +U_A}}𝑑p_z{\displaystyle _0^{\sqrt{\mu ^2(p_zU_A)^2}}}𝑑p_tp_t{\displaystyle \frac{U_Ap_z}{\sqrt{(p_zU_A)^2+p_t^2}}}`$
$`=`$ $`0`$ (71)
Here we have assumed that $`\mu >U_A`$. In the massless limit, the Fermi sea is described by two complete spheres in the momentum space with radii $`\mu `$, whose centers are located at $`(p_t,p_z)=(0,\pm U_A)`$ (see Fig. 1c). The momentum distribution for quarks in the “spin”-down state occupies these two spheres, while the “spin”-up state does their overlap region (shaded). In the above integration for the “spin”-down quarks, the expectation value of the spin operator given by quarks with $`0p_zU_A`$ is canceled with that of quarks with $`U_Ap_z2U_A`$. The remaining contribution from the region, $`2U_Ap_z\mu +U_A`$, cancels with that by the “spin”-up quarks. Thus we can see that spin polarization disappears as $`m0`$ in the absence of CSC.

This analytical result that $`U_A0`$ as $`m0`$ can be also understood as follows. The eigenstates of non-interacting massless fermions are classified by the definite helicity states: the positive energy state is right-handed (left-handed) with positive (negative) helicity, while the negative energy state those with negative (positive) helicity. This property is not spoiled by introducing the axial-vector mean-field, when we extend the meaning of helicity; the Dirac equations for the ”left-” and ”right-handed” positive-energy fermion fields $`\psi _{L,R}`$ are now given as

$`(p_0+𝒑𝝈+U_A\sigma _3)\psi _L=0`$ (72)
$`(p_0𝒑𝝈+U_A\sigma _3)\psi _R=0,`$ (73)
which give the eigenvalues, $`p_0=\sqrt{p_t^2+(p_z+U_A)^2}(ϵ_L(𝒑))`$ for $`\psi _L`$ and $`p_0=\sqrt{p_t^2+(p_zU_A)^2}(ϵ_R(𝒑))`$ for $`\psi _R`$. $`\psi _L`$ ($`\psi _R`$) is the eigenstate of generalized helicity $`h=1`$ projected onto the shifted momentum $`𝒑^{}=\{p_x,p_y,p_z\pm U_A\}`$. If $`\mu 0`$ they form the spherical Fermi seas, see Fig. 1c. Here it would be interesting to compare these eigenvalues with the limit form of $`ϵ_\pm (𝒑)`$ in eq. (30),

$$ϵ_\pm (𝒑)\sqrt{p_t^2+(|p_z|\pm U_A)^2}\mathrm{as}m0.$$
(74)
Then we can see the relations: $`ϵ_\pm (𝒑)=ϵ_L(𝒑)\theta (\pm p_z)+ϵ_R(𝒑)\theta (p_z)`$, which clearly show that the two Fermi seas of the eigenspinors (31) give the same Fermi seas of $`\psi _{L,R}`$ for a given chemical potential $`\mu `$. Thus we can take an alternative view of the Fermi seas in terms of the definite helicity states by rearranging the eigenspinor (31) properly in the massless limit. In each Fermi sea for $`\psi _{L,R}`$ the particle number with the definite $`h`$ becomes the same, and thereby the total spin-expectation value becomes vanished.

In the color superconducting phase, on the other hand, the situation is different because the momentum distribution becomes diffused due to the creation of the Cooper pairs near the Fermi surface. For $`m0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm 0`$, eq. (55) becomes

$$U_A=\frac{2}{9}\stackrel{~}{g}^2\underset{n=1,2}{}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3p}{(2\pi )^3}2v_n^2(𝒑)\frac{U_A+(1)^n|p_z|}{ϵ_n(𝒑)},$$
(75)
where $`v_n^2(𝒑)`$ indicates the diffused part of the momentum distribution, defined in eq. (47). Here we should note that the gap functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ are still non zero even at $`m=0`$. The diffused part, however, give no contribution to the spin polarization from the viewpoint of the helicity eigenstates. The gap function in the massless limit becomes

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (p,\theta )=\frac{p_t}{\sqrt{(|p_z|\pm U_A)^2+p_t^2}}F,$$
(76)
see Fig. 2a. The diffuseness from the above gap function has an equal contribution to the two complete Fermi spheres of chirality. Thus the total spin, which is obtained by summing up these momentum distributions, should be zero in the massless limit even if the CSC is taken into account.

To summarize we show a phase diagram for the quark mass and baryon number density in Fig. 10 where we add the result of $`\stackrel{~}{g}=0.26`$MeV-1 to see the dependence on the coupling constant.

The lines indicate the critical mass at a fixed density (at regions above the lines spin polarization arises). We can confirm that the critical mass becomes smaller with the increase of the density, and spin polarization occurs at moderate densities ($`\rho _B=34\rho _0`$) if the coupling is strong enough even though quark mass is taken to be smaller as a simulation for change of dynamical mass (restoration of chiral symmetry).

Here we would like to understand how the gap function affects spin polarization and brings about a slight reduction of it. In the spin-polarized phase, the momentum distribution is deformed from the simple spherical shape. As mentioned in Ref. , the deformation is induced by finite $`U_A`$ and feeds back to $`U_A`$ in a self-consistent manner. In the color superconducting phase, diffuseness caused by the Cooper pairing in the momentum distribution depends on the polar angle and then has an influence on the deformation. As can be expected from the polar-angle dependence of the gap function, diffuseness tends to obscure the deformation.

From the consideration of the spin expectation values by spinors (31) near the Fermi surfaces;

$$\varphi _\pm ^{}(\sigma _z)\varphi _\pm =\frac{U_A\pm \sqrt{p_z^2+m^2}}{ϵ_\pm }\frac{U_A\pm \sqrt{p_z^2+m^2}}{\mu },$$
(77)
where $`\varphi _{}\varphi _{1,2}`$ for two “spins”. The difference of the spin expectation value between two “spin” states $`\varphi _\pm `$ is largely affected by high-$`p_z`$ regions or regions near both poles ($`\theta =0,\pi `$). Thus the large deformation along the $`z`$-axis seems to enhance spin polarization.

In order to specify to what extent the Fermi sea is deformed, we calculate the quadrupole deformation of the momentum distribution defined by

$$Q_23p_z^2/𝒑^21.$$
(78)
In Fig. 11, we show $`Q_2`$ as a function of $`U_A`$ at $`\mu =450`$ MeV in the normal phase and in the color superconducting phase in which the gap functions are given by their equations for fixed $`U_A`$.

From this result of $`Q_2`$ deformation, we can see that the diffused part near the Fermi surface obscures the deformation then gives an opposite effect against $`Q_2`$, and thus reduces spin polarization.

Nevertheless the gap function has another effect on spin polarization. It is to be noted that the qualitative relation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$, is always retained as seen from Fig. 2 and then has a effect to enlarge the difference of the state density between the two “spin” states. This effect is expected to enhance spin polarization since the difference of the spin expectation value by each spinor (77) near the equator ($`\theta =\pi /2`$), so that $`p_z0`$, seems to depend only on the difference of the state density. To see it in both the normal and color superconducting phases, we define that $`N_{up}`$ ($`N_{down}`$) is the state density of the “spin”-up (-down) state and show their difference by $`dNN_{down}N_{up}`$, only in the first two colors, as a function of $`U_A`$ in Fig. 12 at $`\mu =450`$ MeV. The result indicates that the gap functions slightly enhance $`dN`$ than normal phase.

From the above discussions spin polarization is significantly influenced by both the deformation and the state density in each “spin” state. As a result of the self-consistent calculation in the color superconducting phase, the reduction effect on the deformation is slightly superior to the enhancement effect from the difference of the state densities, and the pairing effect finally reduces spin polarization than in the normal phase. It, however, should be noted that this qualitative conclusion about whether CSC enhances spin polarization than normal phase or not is very delicate and may be changed depending on the regularization scheme, as already mentioned. Moreover other types of pairing which are not considered here, e.g. pairing of the “spin” -up and -down states, may gives rise to qualitatively different results, while it is very difficult to see which type of pairing is energetically favored.

Finally we would like to comment on the coupling of the spin polarized quark matter with the external magnetic field; quark fields couple with the magnetic field through its anomalous magnetic moment. The magnetic interaction is described by the Gordon identity for the gauge coupling term: $`g_Le^{}/2m(\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\psi )F^{\mu \nu }`$ where $`g_L`$ is a form factor and $`e^{}`$ an effective charge. §§§Here we needn’t consider the orbital angular momentum for uniform matter. But if a superconductor is of the ‘second’ type in which London’s penetration length is larger than the coherence length, a vortex lattice may be formed in response to the external field and then total magnetization is to undergo a qualitative change due to circulation of supercurrent . In quark matter a magnetic moment is given as the expectation value $`\sigma _{ij}`$ with respect to the ground state. In our model only $`\sigma _{12}`$ is nonzero, and the magnetic moment per quark is given as

$$M_z\sigma _{12}/N_q=\frac{1}{\rho _q}\underset{n=1,2}{}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}[2v_n^2(𝒑)+\theta (\mu ϵ_n)]\overline{\varphi }_n(𝒑)\sigma _{12}\varphi _n(𝒑).$$
(79)
Note that the expectation value of $`\sigma _{12}`$ by the spinor does not depend on $`U_A`$; $`\overline{\varphi }_\pm (𝒑)\sigma _{12}\varphi _\pm (𝒑)=m/\beta _p`$, so that $`M_z`$ reflects only the asymmetry in the momentum distribution due to the axial-vector mean-field.

In Fig. 13, $`M_z`$ is given as a function of baryon number density. This indicates that resulting ground state also holds ferromagnetism (spontaneous magnetization).

## IV Summary and Concluding remarks

In this paper we have examined spin polarization in quark matter in the color superconducting phase. We have introduced the axial-vector self-energy and the quark pair field (the gap function), whose forms are derived from the one-gluon-exchange interaction by way of the Fierz transformation under the zero-range approximation. Within the relativistic Hartree-Fock framework we have evaluated their magnitudes in a self-consistent manner by way of the coupled Schwinger-Dyson equations.

As a result of numerical calculations spontaneous spin polarization occurs at a high density for a finite quark mass in the absence of CSC, while it never appears for massless quarks as an analytical result. In the spin-polarized phase the single-particle energies corresponding to spin degrees of freedom, which are degenerate in the non-interacting system, are split by the exchange energy in the axial-vector channel. Each Fermi sea of the single-particle energy deforms in a different way, which causes an asymmetry in the two Fermi seas and then induces the axial-vector mean-field in a self-consistent manner. In the superconducting phase, however, spin polarization is slightly reduced by the pairing effect; it is caused by competition between reduction of the deformation and enhancement of the difference in the phase spaces of opposite “spin” states due to the anisotropic diffuseness in the momentum distribution.

In connection of the deformation with superconductivity it has recently been reported  that in the superconducting asymmetric nuclear matter the Fermi sea may undergo a deformation even in the spin-saturated system due to the difference of the Fermi surface between neutrons and protons; the momentum distributions of neutrons and protons may deform respectively to enlarge the overlapped region in the phase space, which effectively contributes to the $`np`$\- pairing. They have shown the possibility of the deformation in a variational way; the Fermi sea of the majority of nucleons deforms in a prolate shape, while the minority in an oblate shape. Thus the deformation property of the Fermi seas looks very similar to our case. Nevertheless, note that our deformation is produced by the relativistic effect. Anyway it would be interesting to look further into the common feature.

It is to be noted that if the effective coupling constant is strong enough to lower the critical quark mass, spin polarization (magnetization) has potential to appear at rather moderate densities such as in the core of neutron stars, even though CSC weakly works against it.

From the above observations it is suggested that spin polarization does not compete with CSC but can coexist with it, unlike in ordinary superconductors of the electron system with the $`s`$-wave and spin-singlet pairing. This reflects the fact that internal degrees of freedom of the quark field, e.g.the color, flavor and Dirac indices, have rich structures to satisfy the antisymmetric constraint on the quark-pair field.

The possibility of the coexistent phase might also give a clue as for the origin of the superstrong magnetic field observed in magnetars. We roughly estimate the expected magnetic field when magnetars are assumed to be quark stars. The maximum dipole magnetic field at the star surface reads

$$B_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{8\pi }{3}\mu _qn_q(M_z/N_q),$$
(80)
with $`\mu _q`$ and $`n_q`$ being the quark magnetic moment and the quark number density, respectively;e.g., for $`M_z/N_q(10^3)`$ and $`n_qO(1\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}^3)`$, we find $`B_{\mathrm{max}}O(10^{15}\mathrm{G})`$, which is comparable to that observed in magnetars .

In the present paper we have not taken into account chiral symmetry, which is one of the basic concepts in QCD. If chiral symmetry is restored at finite baryon number density, the quark mass becomes drastically smaller as density increases. In order to simulate it we have examined the quark mass dependence on spin polarization. In the future work we would like to consider an effect of the dynamical mass on the axial-vector self-energy.

Acknowledgements.

The present research of T.T. and T.M. is partially supported by the REIMEI Research Resources of Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, and by the Japanese Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research Fund of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (11640272, 13640282).

## A Structure of spinor under the axial-vector mean-field $`U_A`$

In this Appendix we rewrite the spinor (31) in terms of the free quark one and the remainder characterized by $`U_A`$. We employ the free spinor $`u_s(𝒑)`$ in which the two-component Pauli spinors are given as eigenvectors of the spin matrix $`\sigma _z`$:

$`u_\pm (𝒑)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{ϵ_0+m}\xi _\pm \\ \frac{\sqrt{ϵ_0m}}{|p|}𝒑𝝈\xi _\pm \end{array}\right)\text{with}\xi _+=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)\text{and}\xi _{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right),`$ (A7)
where $`ϵ_0=\sqrt{𝒑^2+m^2}`$ and $`\{𝝈\}`$ are the Pauli spin matrices.

The spinor $`\varphi _+(𝒑)\varphi _2(𝒑)`$ for the “spin”-up state is decomposed as follows :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _p(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ2U_A)+m(\delta ϵ+2\beta _p)}{p_t^2p_z𝒩_+}}\varphi _+(𝒑)=`$ (A8)
$`2\beta _p\sqrt{ϵ_0+m}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_+\beta _pU_A}{p_x+ip_y}}u_+(𝒑){\displaystyle \frac{\beta _p+m}{p_z}}u_{}(𝒑)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Rem}\text{1}(U_A)}{p_z(p_x+ip_y)}},`$ (A9)
where $`\delta ϵϵ_{}ϵ_+`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵϵ_{}+ϵ_+`$ and

$$\text{Rem}\text{1}(U_A)=\left(\begin{array}{c}p_z(ϵ_+\beta _pU_A)\left[\beta _p(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ2U_A2ϵ_0)+m\delta ϵ\right]\\ (p_x+ip_y)(\beta _p+m)\left[\beta _p(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ2U_A2ϵ_0)+m\delta ϵ\right]\\ \delta ϵ[(ϵ_+\beta _pU_A)p_z^2+2\beta _p^2(\beta _p+m)]2\beta _p(\beta _p+m)\left[(ϵ_{}U_A)(ϵ_+U_A)ϵ_0^2\right]\\ p_z(p_x+ip_y)(\beta _p+m)\delta ϵ\end{array}\right).$$
(A10)
Note that the term $`\text{Rem}\text{1}(U_A)`$ vanishes in the limit, $`U_A0`$. Thus one can fined that $`\varphi _+(𝒑)`$ is a mixture of the free spinors even when $`U_A=0`$.

A decomposition of the spinor $`\varphi _{}(𝒑)\varphi _1(𝒑)`$ for the “spin”-down state can also be done in the similar way:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _p(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ2U_A)+m(\delta ϵ+2\beta _p)}{p_t^2p_z𝒩_{}}}\varphi _{}(𝒑)=`$ (A11)
$`2\beta _p\sqrt{ϵ_0+m}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{}+\beta _pU_A}{p_x+ip_y}}u_+(𝒑)+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _pm}{p_z}}u_{}(𝒑)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Rem}\text{2}(U_A)}{p_z(p_x+ip_y)}},`$ (A12)
where

$$\text{Rem}\text{2}(U_A)=\left(\begin{array}{c}p_z(ϵ_{}+\beta _pU_A)\left[\beta _p(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ2U_A2ϵ_0)+m\delta ϵ\right]\\ (p_x+ip_y)(\beta _pm)\left[\beta _p(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ2U_A2ϵ_0)+m\delta ϵ\right]\\ \delta ϵ[(ϵ_{}+\beta _pU_A)p_z^22\beta _p^2(\beta _pm)]+2\beta _p(\beta _pm)\left[(ϵ_{}U_A)(ϵ_+U_A)ϵ_0^2\right]\\ p_z(p_x+ip_y)(\beta _pm)\delta ϵ\end{array}\right).$$
(A13)
## B Decomposition of $`B_n(𝐩)`$ in terms of the Dirac gamma matrices

The operator $`B_n(𝒑)`$ in eq. (35) consists of some gamma matrices; it is a linear combination of $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝜸`$, $`\gamma _5𝜸`$, $`\sigma _{01}`$ and $`\sigma _{02}`$, in the diquark field $`\overline{\psi _c}B_n\psi =\psi ^TCB_n\psi `$. The last two matrices give the tensor diquark fields, while these terms have no influence on the gap equation (49) due to axial symmetry of the Fermi seas around the $`p_z`$ axis: the integration of $`B_n(𝒑)`$ with respect to the azimuthal angle $`\varphi _p`$ in eq. (49) gives

$$\stackrel{~}{B}_n(𝒑)_0^{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi _p}{2\pi }B_n(𝒑)=\frac{p_t}{4|ϵ_n(𝒑)|\beta _p}\left[(1)^np_z\gamma _3+(1)^nm\mathrm{𝟏}+\beta _p\gamma _5\gamma _3\right].$$
(B1)
Thus tensor terms disappear because they are proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _p)`$ in $`B_n(𝒑)`$.

The first term in the right hand side has also no contribution after symmetric integration with respect to $`p_z`$. The remainders, $`\{\mathrm{𝟏},\gamma _5\gamma _3\}`$, imply the pseudo-scalar ($`J^P=0^{}`$) and vector ($`J^P=1^{}`$) diquark pairings in terms of the notation in ref. . Please note that the CSC gap (B1) results in a linear combination of different angular momentum pairs $`0^{}`$ and $`1^{}`$ because of the lack of rotation symmetry.

Since the diquark fields $`\psi ^TC(\mathrm{𝟏},\gamma _5\gamma _3)\psi `$ contain the off-diagonal matrices which connect the lower component with the upper one of the Dirac spinors, these pairings vanish in the non-relativistic limit or in the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$. Hence $`B_n(𝐩)`$ resembles $`P`$\- wave pairing as is seen in eq. (50), although it has no correspondence in the non-relativistic limit: the gap function for (B1) has the nodes (vanishing at $`\theta =0,\pi `$) due to the factor $`p_t`$, which is similar to $`{}_{}{}^{3}P`$-pairing in the liquid 3He - A phase, but these nodes are entirely attributed to the genuine relativistic effect. This property survives even in the limit, $`U_A0`$.

From eq. (B1) we can also obtain the relation appearing in eq. (51);

$$\gamma _\mu \gamma _0\stackrel{~}{B}_n(𝒑)\gamma _0\gamma ^\mu =2\stackrel{~}{B}_n(𝒑)+2m\left\{m+(1)^n\beta _p\right\}.$$
(B2)
## C Parameterization of the gap function

In this Appendix we derive the parameterization (52). The gap equation (59) is expanded as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{g}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{k_t}{2ϵ_\pm (k)}\left[\frac{p_t}{ϵ_+(p)}\left(\pm \frac{2m^2}{\beta _k\beta _p}+1\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_+(p)}{2E_+(p)}+\frac{p_t}{ϵ_{}(p)}\left(\frac{2m^2}{\beta _k\beta _p}+1\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(p)}{2E_{}(p)}\right]}.`$ (C1)
Introducing $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\pm (k)`$ through the equation,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (k)=\frac{k_t}{ϵ_\pm (k)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\pm (k),$$
(C2)
we obtain the “gap” equation for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\pm (k)`$,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\pm (k)=\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{~}{g}^2\frac{\mathrm{d}^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{p_t^2}{4}\left[\frac{2m^2}{\beta _k\beta _p}\left(\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}(p)}{ϵ_{}(p)^2E_{}(p)}\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+(p)}{ϵ_+(p)^2E_+(p)}\right)+\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}(p)}{ϵ_{}(p)^2E_{}(p)}+\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+(p)}{ϵ_+(p)^2E_+(p)}\right].$$
(C3)
Then we find the following properties,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}(k)+\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+(k)=F\text{and}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}(k)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+(k)=R\times \frac{m}{\beta _k},$$
(C4)
where $`F`$ ($`R`$) is a constant which characterize the symmetric (asymmetric) combinations of the gap functions $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\pm `$. Thus we can further parameterize $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_s(k)`$ as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\pm (k)=\frac{m}{\beta _k}R+F.$$
(C5)
Substituting the above formula into eq. (C3), one can obtain the coupled equations for $`F`$ and $`R`$, eqs. (60) and (62).

## D Fierz transformation

We present the Fock exchange energy term by the OGE interaction by the use of the Fierz transformation. The Green function with vertices in the right-hand side of eq. (22) can be expanded as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_aiG_{11}(p)\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\right)_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)_{ii^{}}\psi (p)_i^{}\overline{\psi }(p)_j^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)_{j^{}j}={\displaystyle \underset{ab}{}}C_{ab}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_b)_{ij}\mathrm{Tr}(G_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_b)`$ (D1)
$`\text{with}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ $``$ $`\gamma _\mu \mathrm{𝟏}_{flavor}\lambda _{color}\text{and}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)_{ii^{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)_{j^{}j}={\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}C_{ab}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_b)_{ij}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_b)_{j^{}i^{}},`$ (D2)
where $`\{C_{ab}\}`$ are coefficients of a Fierz transformation (D2) for the Dirac matrices, the identity matrix in the flavor space and the Gell-Mann matrices in the color space;

$`(\gamma _\mu )_{ii^{}}(\gamma ^\mu )_{j^{}j}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}\delta _{j^{}i^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\gamma _\mu )_{ij}(\gamma ^\mu )_{j^{}i^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\gamma _5\gamma _\mu )_{ij}(\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu )_{j^{}i^{}}+(i\gamma _5)_{ij}(i\gamma _5)_{j^{}i^{}}`$ (D3)
$`\delta _{ii^{}}\delta _{j^{}j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N_f}}\delta _{ij}\delta _{j^{}i^{}}+(\tau _a)_{ij}(\tau _a)_{j^{}i^{}}\right]`$ (D4)
$`(\lambda _c)_{ii^{}}(\lambda _c)_{j^{}j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N_c^2}}(N_c^21)\delta _{ij}\delta _{j^{}i^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}(\lambda _c)_{ij}(\lambda _c)_{j^{}i^{}}.`$ (D5)
It is to be noted that there appears no tensor term in eq. (D3) due to chiral symmetry in QCD. Thus, e.g., the coefficient for the color-singlet axial-vector self-energy reads $`4/9`$ for $`N_f=2`$ and $`N_c=3`$.

We also present a Fierz transformation for diquark fields. The right hand side of eq. (23) can be expanded, in the similar way for $`G_{11}`$;

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_aG_{21}(p)\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^TC^1)_{ii^{}}\psi _c(p)_i^{}\overline{\psi }(p)_j^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)_{j^{}j}={\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}(C)_{ik}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)_{i^{}k}\overline{\psi }(p)_i^{}\overline{\psi }(p)_j^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)_{j^{}j}`$ (D6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ab}{}}f_{ab}\mathrm{Tr}\left(G_{21}(p)C^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^TC^1\right)(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^TC^T)_{ij}`$ (D7)
with $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)_{i^{}k}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)_{j^{}j}={\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}f_{ab}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_bC^{})_{i^{}j^{}}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_b)_{jk},`$ (D8)
where $`\{f_{ab}\}`$ are coefficients of a Fierz transformation (D8) and are explicitly given as

$`(\gamma _\mu )_{i^{}k}(\gamma ^\mu )_{j^{}j}`$ $`=`$ $`(C^{})_{i^{}j^{}}(C)_{jk}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\gamma _\mu C^{})_{i^{}j^{}}(C\gamma ^\mu )_{jk}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\gamma _\mu \gamma _5C^{})_{i^{}j^{}}(C\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5)_{jk}+(iC^{}\gamma _5)_{i^{}j^{}}(iC\gamma _5)_{jk}`$ (D9)
$`\delta _{i^{}k}\delta _{j^{}j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N_f}}\delta _{i^{}j^{}}\delta _{jk}+(\tau _a)_{i^{}j^{}}(\tau _a)_{jk}\right]`$ (D10)
$`(\lambda _c)_{i^{}k}(\lambda _c)_{j^{}j}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N_c}}(\delta )_{i^{}j^{}}(\delta )_{jk}+(\lambda _c^S)_{i^{}j^{}}(\lambda _c^S)_{jk}\right]\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}\right)(\lambda _c^A)_{i^{}j^{}}(\lambda _c^A)_{jk},`$ (D11)
where $`\{\lambda _c^{S(A)}\}`$ are symmetric (antisymmetric) matrices of $`\{\lambda _c\}`$. The present gap function, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)=_nB_n(𝐩)\mathrm{\Delta }_n(𝐩)`$ which is a linear combination of the gamma matrices, can be obtained by taking projection on $`B_n(𝐩)`$.

———————-