text:
# Does localization occur in a hierarchical random–matrix model for many–body states?

## Abstract

We use random–matrix theory and supersymmetry techniques to work out the two–point correlation function between states in a hierarchical model which employs Feshbach’s chaining hypothesis: Classes of many–body states are introduced. Only states within the same or neighboring classes are coupled. We assume that the density of states per class grows monotonically with class index. The problem is mapped onto a one–dimensional non–linear sigma model. In the limit of a large number of states in each class we derive the critical exponent for the growth of the level density with class index for which delocalization sets in. From a realistic modelling of the class–dependence of the level density, we conclude that the model does not predict Fock–space localization in nuclei.

, , and

thanks: dedicated to Franz Wegner on the occasion of his 60th birthdaythanks: electronic mail: thomas.rupp@mpi-hd.mpg.dethanks: Unité Mixte de Recherche CNRS – Université (UMR 7085)

Statistical methods play an important role in the quantal many–body problem. We recall the importance of the Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble of random matrices (the GOE) for the description of fluctuation properties of the energies and wave functions of neutron resonances and other data on nuclear energy levels located a few MeV above the ground state. The use of the GOE is not restricted to nuclei, of course, and this ensemble is equally important in other many–body systems like atoms or quantum dots .

It is well known that the GOE does not furnish a completely adequate description of stochasticity in any of these systems. This is because the forces between the constituents (nucleons in the case of nuclei, electrons in the case of atoms and quantum dots) are predominantly of two–body type. Then it is more natural to assume that the matrix elements of the two–body interaction are random variables. Both in nuclear and in atomic physics, there is empirical evidence that this assumption is viable . The random–matrix ensemble which implements this assumption in large shell–model spaces (the two–body random ensemble) differs from the GOE: The number of independent two–body matrix elements is generically much smaller than the dimension of a typical shell–model matrix, while for the GOE, the number of independent matrix elements is proportional to the square of the dimension of the matrix. Numerical studies have indicated long ago that this characteristic difference is immaterial for spectral fluctuation properties . However, these studies were limited to small matrix dimensions. Therefore, the question persists whether the GOE and the random two–body ensemble are fully equivalent.

The question has resurfaced with the recent observation that in quantum dots, a statistical model for the two–body interaction allows, in principle, for localization in Fock space . Numerical studies seem to support this proposal, at least at sufficiently high energies , while near the Fermi energy no evidence for localization was found . It is then only natural to ask whether a random two–body interaction in nuclei might likewise lead to Fock–space localization in nuclei. Such localization would have exciting implications for level statistics and wave function properties. Moreover, Fock–space localization could lead to novel aspects of nuclear reaction dynamics.

Localization is a wave phenomenon discovered by Anderson . It occurs when non–interacting electrons move diffusively under the influence of impurity scattering through a conductor. The Anderson tight–binding model describes this process in terms of a lattice with random on–site energies distributed uniformly over an interval of length $`2W`$ and with fixed hopping matrix elements $`V`$ connecting neighboring sites. Localized eigenfunctions of the tight–binding Hamiltonian are not spread uniformly over the entire lattice but possess an envelope which decays exponentially at large distance. Anderson localization occurs not only in the passage of Schrödinger waves through a disordered medium but likewise in the passage of light through a medium with a disordered index of refraction .

The concept of localization can be extended to many–body systems. This was first suggested in quantum chemistry . Logan and Wolynes observed a close topological similarity between a statistical description of the many–body problem in polyatomic molecules and the tight–binding model. An analogous similarity exists in quantum dots . In the present paper, we point out that a corresponding similarity also exists in a Fock–space description of many–body systems like nuclei or atoms with random two–body interactions. We investigate the question whether in these systems, localization is expected to occur.

The occurrence of localization can either be established by very extensive numerical calculations or analytically. Here, we choose the second approach. First, we must seek a model which allows us to pose quantitative questions. Optimally, we would want to consider a Hamiltonian which is the sum of one–body and two–body operators. The one–body terms would describe a nearly degenerate set of single–particle or shell–model orbitals, and the two–body terms would contain the random two–body matrix elements. This kind of model does not allow for an analytical treatment, however, and it is difficult to see how numerical calculations on the required scale could be performed. Our work is, instead, based on a Fock–space model commonly used in the statistical theory of nuclear reactions. We recall that in nucleon–induced nuclear reactions, precompound reactions are important whenever the equilibration time of the compound system is comparable to or even larger than the decay time of the system. This situation occurs typically at bombarding energies of several 10 MeV. Then, the standard compound–nucleus model (which uses the GOE) fails to apply and is replaced by a hierarchical statistical model: The incident nucleon creates a sequence of $`m`$–particle $`(m1)`$–hole states where the integer $`m`$ increases by one unit in each two–body collision of the projectile with one of the target nucleons. The density of $`m`$–particle $`(m1)`$–hole states at fixed excitation energy grows very strongly with increasing $`m`$, see Eq. (27) and the text following it. Therefore, a dynamical description of the process is out of the question and statistical concepts are used instead. We define classes of states. The states in class $`m`$ are composed of the $`m`$–particle $`(m1)`$–hole states. Within each class, the two–body interaction mixes the $`m`$–particle $`(m1)`$–hole states. We assume that the resulting matrix problem in each class $`m`$ can be replaced by a GOE. The GOE’s pertaining to different classes (different $`m`$ values) are uncorrelated. For each $`m`$, the one parameter of the GOE is fixed by the density of states in that class. Classes differing in $`m`$ by one unit are connected by the elements of the two–body interaction which are taken to be independent Gaussian distributed random variables. This last assumption corresponds to Feshbach’s “chaining hypothesis”. It embodies the two–body character of the interaction and defines a hierarchical model. Within this model, we ask whether the eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian are localized. We now turn to the details of this model. We closely follow the work of Ref. .

We introduce a basis $`|m\mu `$ of states where $`m`$ is the class index introduced above, and where $`\mu `$ with $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},N_m`$ is a running index. The Hamiltonian reads

$$H=\underset{mn\mu \nu }{}|m\mu H_{m\mu ,n\nu }n\nu |$$
(1)
and

$$H_{m\mu ,n\nu }=\delta _{mn}\delta _{\mu \nu }h_m+\delta H_{m\mu ,n\nu }$$
(2)
is real and symmetric under exchange of ($`m\mu `$) and ($`n\nu `$). We assume that all matrix elements are Gaussian distributed random variables with the following first and second moments,

$`\overline{H_{m\mu ,n\nu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{mn}\delta _{\mu \nu }h_m,`$ (3)
$`\overline{\delta H_{m\mu ,n\nu }\delta H_{m^{}\mu ^{},n^{}\nu ^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{mn}(\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{nn^{}}\delta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\delta _{\nu \nu ^{}}+\delta _{mn^{}}\delta _{nm^{}}\delta _{\mu \nu ^{}}\delta _{\nu \mu ^{}}).`$ (4)
The bar indicates ensemble averaging. For fixed $`m`$, the matrix $`H_{m\mu ,m\nu }`$ belongs to the GOE. The matrices describing different classes $`m`$ are seen to be uncorrelated. In order to keep the GOE spectrum finite in the limit $`N_m\mathrm{}`$, the diagonal terms $`M_{mm}`$ must scale as $`N_m^1`$. We consider the weak coupling case  where the non–diagonal elements $`M_{mn}`$ ($`mn`$) are suppressed by an additional factor $`N_n^1`$,

$$M_{mn}=\frac{\lambda _m^2}{N_m}\delta _{mn}+\frac{\lambda _{mn}^2}{N_mN_n}(1\delta _{mn}).$$
(5)
Here $`\lambda _m`$ and $`\lambda _{mn}`$ are the strength of the matrix elements in class $`m`$ and the coupling strength of states in different classes, respectively. In keeping with the remarks made above, we assume that $`\lambda _{mn}`$ vanishes for $`|mn|2`$. The spectrum of the $`N_m`$ states in class $`m`$ has the shape of a semicircle with center $`h_m`$ and radius $`2\lambda _m`$. We proceed by assuming that all semicircles have identical centers, $`h_m=0`$ for all $`m`$, and identical radii, $`\lambda _m=\lambda `$ for all $`m`$. The remaining parameters $`N_m`$ allow us to account for the fact that the local level densities $`\rho _m(E)`$ at energy $`E`$ differ in the classes. We work at the centers of the semicircles and put $`E=0`$ without loss of generality. Later we need the inverse $`g`$ of $`M`$ given by

$$g_{mn}=\frac{N_m}{\lambda ^2}\delta _{mn}\frac{\lambda _{mn}^2}{\lambda ^4}(1\delta _{mn})+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_mN_n}}\right).$$
(6)
With $`D(E^\pm )=EH\pm i\eta `$ and the ensemble–averaged two–point correlation function $`𝒦`$ defined by ($`mn`$)

$$𝒦_{m\mu ,n\nu }=\overline{m\mu |D^1(E^+)|n\nu n\nu |D^1(E^{})|m\mu },$$
(7)
the quantity of central interest is the class average of $`𝒦`$,

$$𝒦_{mn}=\frac{1}{N_mN_n}\underset{\mu \nu }{}𝒦_{m\mu ,n\nu }.$$
(8)
If $`𝒦_{mn}`$ vanishes exponentially with increasing distance $`|mn|`$, the eigenstates of $`H`$ are (exponentially) localized.

The explicit dependence of $`𝒦_{mn}`$ on $`|mn|`$ can be found with the help of the supersymmetric non–linear sigma model  the use of which is by now completely standard. Moreover, a derivation taylored to the present problem may be found in Ref. . Therefore, we restrict ourselves to the essential steps and emphasize those aspects which are specific to the present problem. We use the notation of Ref. . The correlation function is expressed in terms of the generating function $`Z`$,

$$𝒦_{mn}=\frac{^2\overline{Z}(J)}{J_m^{15}J_n^{15}}|_{J=0}$$
(9)
where $`J_m^{15}`$ denotes the (1,5) element (with respect to the supersymmetry indices) of the auxiliary $`J`$–field. Similar notation is used in Eq. (15). Here we have averaged the generating function over the Gaussian distribution of $`H_{m\mu ,n\nu }`$. After eliminating the quartic dependence on the original integration variables by means of a Hubbard–Stratonovitch transformation, we find for $`\overline{Z}`$ the expression

$`\overline{Z}(E,J)=`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle d[\sigma ]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{4}\underset{mn}{}\lambda ^2g_{mn}\mathrm{trg}(\sigma _m\sigma _n)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{trg}_{m,\mu ,\alpha }\mathrm{ln}𝒩(J)\right)}.`$
The fields $`\sigma _m`$ are $`8\times 8`$ graded matrices and $`d[\sigma ]=_md[\sigma _m]`$. Moreover,

$$𝒩(J)=E+i\eta +J\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{\lambda \delta _{mn}\delta _{\mu \nu }\sigma _m^{\alpha \beta }\}.$$
(11)
The integral in Eq. (10) is evaluated by means of a saddle–point approximation by varying the $`\sigma _m`$’s. In view of the smallness of the terms with $`mn`$ in Eq. (6), we obtain a separate saddle–point equation $`\sigma _m(E\lambda \sigma _m)=\lambda `$ for each class $`m`$. The solution yields the semicircle for the level density. Integrating over the massive modes in the limit where $`N_m\mathrm{}`$ leaves us only the Goldstone modes $`\sigma _m^\mathrm{G}`$. We focus attention on the correlation function $`𝒦(m)=𝒦_{1m}`$ which takes the form

$$𝒦(m)=\frac{1}{2\lambda ^2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}d[\sigma _k](\sigma _1^\mathrm{G})^{51}(\sigma _m^\mathrm{G})^{51}\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{M1}{}}\frac{\lambda _{ii+1}^2}{4\lambda ^2}\mathrm{trg}(\sigma _i^\mathrm{G}\sigma _{i+1}^\mathrm{G})\right).$$
(12)
Here $`M`$ is the total number of classes. In the case of weak coupling we have

$$4\frac{\lambda _{mn}^2}{\lambda ^2}=2\pi \rho _m\overline{V_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}2\pi \rho _n$$
(13)
where we wrote $`M_{mn}=\overline{V_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$ and where $`\rho _m=N_m/\pi \lambda `$ is the density of states in class $`m`$ at energy $`E=0`$. The form of the expression in the exponent of Eq. (12) displays the chaining hypothesis (only states belonging to next–neighboring classes are coupled by non–vanishing matrix elements).

To proceed, we omit from now on the index G on the sigma fields and follow Refs. . The aim consists in replacing the summation over classes by an integration (continuum limit). We put

$$\frac{\lambda _{ii+1}^2}{4\lambda ^2}=\frac{1}{4ϵ}\alpha _{i,i+1}$$
(14)
with $`ϵ=1/\zeta `$ and both $`\zeta `$ and $`\alpha _{i,i+1}1`$. This is justified because the left–hand side of Eq. (14) is much larger than unity, see Eqs. (26) and (27). We write the correlation function in the form

$$𝒦(m)=\frac{1}{2\lambda ^2}𝑑\sigma _1𝑑\sigma _m\sigma _1^{51}W(\sigma _1,\sigma _m;1,m)\sigma _m^{51}Y(\sigma _m;m)$$
(15)
where

$`W(\sigma _m,\sigma _n;m,n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=m+1}{\overset{n1}{}}d\sigma _k\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{4ϵ}\underset{i=m}{\overset{n1}{}}\alpha _{i,i+1}\mathrm{trg}(\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1})\right]},`$
$`Y(\sigma _m;m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=m+1}{\overset{M}{}}d\sigma _k\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{4ϵ}\underset{i=m}{\overset{M1}{}}\alpha _{i,i+1}\mathrm{trg}(\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1})\right]}.`$ (16)
Obviously, $`W`$ obeys the equation

$`W(\sigma _m,\sigma _{n+1};m,n+1)`$ (17)
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma _nW(\sigma _m,\sigma _n;m,n)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{4ϵ}\alpha _{n,n+1}\mathrm{trg}(\sigma _n\sigma _{n+1})\right]}.`$
We use the smallness of $`ϵ`$ to take the continuum limit and replace the summation over classes by an integration over the continuous variable $`t=m/\zeta `$. Then,

$`\alpha _{m,m+1}`$ $``$ $`\alpha (t)`$
$`W(\sigma _1,\sigma _m;1,m)`$ $``$ $`W(\sigma _1,\sigma (t);t)`$
$`Y(\sigma _m;m)`$ $``$ $`Y(\sigma (t);t)`$
and Eq. (17) becomes an integral equation. This integral equation is equivalent to a modified heat equation,

$$\alpha (t)_tW(\sigma ^{},\sigma ;t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma W(\sigma ^{},\sigma ;t)$$
(18)
with the initial condition

$$\underset{t0}{lim}W(\sigma ^{},\sigma ;t)=\delta (\sigma ^{}\sigma ).$$
(19)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma ^2/\sigma ^2`$ .

In previous work , the prefactor in the exponent of Eq. (12) was a constant (independent of the class index $`i`$), and the solution of the heat equation did display an exponential decay signalling localization. In the present case, $`\alpha (t)`$ does depend upon $`t`$ because the level densities $`\rho _m`$ depend strongly upon $`m`$. This fact raises the following questions: (i) Is localization affected or even destroyed by a monotonic increase of $`\rho _m`$ with $`m`$ and, thus, of $`\alpha (t)`$ with $`t`$? (ii) If so, can we determine the critical exponent $`\beta `$ in $`\alpha (t)t^\beta `$ which marks the transition from the localized to the delocalized regime? (iii) What are the implications of our findings for localization in nuclei, i.e., for a realistic modelling of the $`t`$–dependence of $`\alpha (t)`$?

To answer these questions, we observe that we retrieve the standard heat equation by a change of variable,

$$\alpha (t)_t=_s.$$
(20)
In terms of the rescaled function

$$\stackrel{~}{W}(\sigma _1,\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s);s)=\stackrel{~}{W}(\sigma _1,\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s(t));s(t))=W(\sigma _1,\sigma (t);t)$$
(21)
this leads to

$$_s\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{},\stackrel{~}{\sigma };s)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{},\stackrel{~}{\sigma };s).$$
(22)
We choose $`s(t)`$ such that $`s(0)=0`$ which ensures that $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ also obeys Eq. (19). The transformation (20) reduces our problem to the heat equation solved in Ref. . The rescaled propagator

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒦}(s)=\frac{1}{2\lambda ^2}𝑑\sigma _1𝑑\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s)\sigma _1^{51}\stackrel{~}{W}(\sigma _1,\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s);s)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{51}(s)\stackrel{~}{Y}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma (s)};s)$$
(23)
can be worked out by introducing the Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{K}(k)`$ of Eq. (23). This yields

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒦}(s)=\frac{\pi ^4\sqrt{\pi }}{16\zeta \lambda ^2}\left(\frac{4\zeta }{s}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{s}{4\zeta }\right)$$
(24)
which is valid for $`s\zeta `$. The function $`𝒦(t)`$ is obtained by solving for $`s(t)`$ the differential equation

$$\frac{ds(t)}{dt}=\frac{1}{\alpha (t)},$$
(25)
and replacing $`s`$ by $`s(t)`$ in Eq. (24). For a power–law dependence, $`\alpha (t)t^\beta `$, Eq. (8) yields $`st^{1\beta }`$. Combining this with Eq. (24), we see that $`\beta =1`$ is the critical exponent which marks the transition from localization to delocalization. The existence of such an exponent is intuitively clear: A monotonic increase of $`\alpha (t)`$ with $`t`$ signals an ever increasing phase space. The resulting drag on the system overcompensates, for $`\beta >1`$, the tendency of the system to form localized states.

In order to apply this result to the case of nuclei, we must determine the dependence of $`\alpha (t)`$ on $`t`$. We recall that

$$\alpha (t)\alpha _{m,m+1}=(\pi ^2\rho _m\overline{V_{m,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\rho _{m+1})/\zeta =(\pi ^2\rho _m\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mm+1}^{})/\zeta $$
(26)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mm+1}^{}`$ is the spreading width for transitions from class $`m`$ to class $`m+1`$. The width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mm+1}^{}`$ approximately scales with $`1/m`$ . The density of states in class $`m`$ at excitation energy $`E`$ is

$$\rho _m(E)=\frac{1}{m!(m+1)!(2m)!\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\frac{E}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^{2m}$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the mean level spacing of the single–particle states. For fixed $`E`$, $`\rho _m(E)`$ grows strongly with $`m`$ up to a maximal value of $`m`$ and then drops quickly. In the present context, we are not interested in this cut–off because it might mask the existence of localization. For this reason, we take the limit of high excitation energy $`E/\mathrm{\Delta }m`$. Then, we can neglect the factorial factors in Eq. (27) as well as the $`1/m`$ dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mm+1}`$ and obtain approximately $`\alpha _{m,m+1}(E/\mathrm{\Delta })^{2m}`$. This yields

$$s(t)s_m1(E/\mathrm{\Delta })^{2m}.$$
(28)
We observe that $`\alpha _{m,m+1}`$ grows with $`m`$ much more strongly than linearly. As a consequence, $`s_m`$ is bounded from above and approaches asymptotically a finite constant. Thus, the correlation function $`𝒦(t)`$ tends to a finite value as $`t\mathrm{}`$. We conclude that the interaction spreads the states in class 1 over the entire Hilbert space.

The results of the model investigated in the present paper negate the possibility of localization in a many–body Fermi system like the nucleus. This finding must be contrasted with the results of Ref.  where the chain of $`m`$–particle $`(m1)`$–hole states was mapped onto a Bethe lattice, and localization was predicted. Such mapping completely neglects the interaction between states within each class $`m`$. In contradistinction, our use of a GOE for the states within each class may overemphasize the role of the interaction between states within each class $`m`$, although we believe the present model to be closer to reality in nuclei than the model using a Bethe lattice. As mentioned above, in the numerical work of Leyronas et al.  evidence for localization was presented. In that work, all those $`m`$–particle $`(m1)`$–hole states were taken into account the unperturbed energies of which lie in some small neighborhood of the energy $`E`$ considered. It is not clear to us whether this constraint might not affect the localization properties of the system.

In summary, we have shown that in the framework of our hierarchical model localization is destroyed whenever the density of states increases more strongly than linearly with increasing complexity $`m`$ of states. In the case of nuclei, the model does not predict localization.

T.R. thanks C. Mejía–Monasterio for beneficial discussions at the early stages of this work.


format: text

text:
# Diabolical Points in Magnetic Molecules: An Exactly Solvable Model

## Abstract

The magnetic molecule Fe8 has been observed to have a rich pattern of degeneracies in its magnetic spectrum as the static magnetic field applied to the molecule is varied. The points of degeneracy, or diabolical points in the magnetic field space, are found exactly in the simplest model Hamiltonian for this molecule. The points are shown to form a perfect centered rectangular lattice, and are shown to be multiply diabolical in general. The multiplicity is found. An earlier semiclassical solution to this problem is thereby shown to be exact in leading order in $`1/J`$ where $`J`$ is the spin.

A famous theorem of quantum mechanics states that the intersection of two energy levels of a physical system is infinitely unlikely as a single parameter is varied . Instead, level repulsion is the rule, and level crossing happens only when there is some symmetry. If one can vary more than one parameter, however (at least two if the Hamiltonian is real, three if it is complex), then degeneracies can be found at isolated points in the parameter space . Such degeneracies are usually called “accidental”, for as a rule the points obey no discernible pattern. Berry and Wilkinson’s coinage for such degeneracies, “diabolical,” emphasizes the same point, although the term originates less in any desire to attribute the phenomenon to a Mephistophelean hand, than in the fact that the energy surface near the degeneracy is a double cone, like an Italian toy called the diavolo. When exceptions occur, and the pattern of diabolical points or degeneracies is not random, as in the Kepler problem, or in the isotropic harmonic oscillator, one seeks (and sometimes finds) a higher dynamical symmetry of the Hamiltonian.

It is therefore of some interest that a whole array of diabolical points has been discovered by Wernsdorfer and Sessoli (WS)  in the magnetic spectrum of the molecular solid \[(tacn)6Fe8O2(OH)12\]8+ (shortened to Fe8 from now on). Strong intramolecular exchange interactions among the Fe3+ ions lead to a total spin of $`J=10`$ in the ground manifold for each molecule, which can therefore be conceived of as a single large spin of this magnitude. The dipolar interactions between molecules are weak, and may be ignored. Spin-orbit interactions lead to an easy-axis anisotropy, with further differentiation in the non-easy plane. The simplest anisotropy Hamiltonian that describes the magnetic properties of one molecule is

$$=k_2J_z^2+(k_1k_2)J_x^2g\mu _B𝐉𝐇,$$
(1)
with $`k_1>k_2>0`$ ( $`k_10.33`$ K, and $`k_20.22`$ K ), $`g=2`$, and $`𝐇`$ is an external magnetic field. With Eq. (1), the easy, medium, and hard axes are $`\widehat{𝐳}`$, $`\widehat{𝐲}`$, and $`\widehat{𝐱}`$, respectively.

To understand the evidence for diabolicity, let us suppose that the field $`𝐇`$ is along the hard axis, $`\widehat{𝐱}`$, and not too large. The easy directions, which are along $`\pm \widehat{𝐳}`$ when $`𝐇=0`$, cant symmetrically toward $`\widehat{𝐱}`$. At first sight, as $`H_x`$ is increased, it should be progressively easier for the spin to tunnel from a state localized in the potential well in the positive $`J_z`$ hemisphere to the symmetrically located state in the negative hemisphere. It was found some time ago, however, that in the model (1), the tunnel splitting between the ground states in the positive and negative $`J_z`$ wells actually oscillates as a function of $`H_x`$, going to zero at periodically spaced $`H_x`$ values . Precisely these oscillations have been seen by WS in Fe8. The oscillations were initially explained  in terms of an interference between instanton trajectories for the spin, and the observations on Fe8 are very hard to explain by other mechanisms. The clincher is that WS see additional oscillations that were not predicted. To understand these, suppose $`𝐇`$ also has a nonzero $`z`$ component so as to bring the first or second excited state in the positive $`J_z`$ well into degeneracy with the ground state in the other well. One can then conceive of tunneling between these states. WS observe that the amplitude for this tunneling also oscillates with $`H_x`$, and that the oscillations are shifted by half a period for each excited state in the deeper well.

That the tunnel splitting between two states vanishes, is merely another way of saying that the states are exactly degenerate. The degeneracies that lie on the $`H_x`$ or $`H_z`$ axes in the magnetic field space can be understood in terms of symmetry allowed level crossings as per the von Neumann-Wigner theorem , but the newly discovered ones by WS lie off the axes, and cannot be so understood. They are truly nontrivial instances of diabolical points. Since the experiments were reported, they have been successfully explained by one of us (AG) , and independently, Villain and Fort . The approach is based on a discrete version of the phase integral or Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin method, and is semiclassical in nature, with $`1/J`$ playing the role of $`\mathrm{}`$ in continuum problems with massive particles. It is found that the $`\mathrm{}^{}`$th level in the negative $`J_z`$ well (with $`\mathrm{}^{}=0`$ being the lowest level) and the $`\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }`$th level in the positive one are degenerate when $`H_y=0`$, and (see Fig. 1)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_z(\mathrm{}^{},\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime })}{H_c}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\lambda }(\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}^{})}{2J}}`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_x(\mathrm{}^{},\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime })}{H_c}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1\lambda }}{J}}\left[Jn\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{}^{}+\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }+1)\right],`$ (3)
with $`n=0,1,\mathrm{},2J(\mathrm{}^{}+\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }+1)`$. Here, $`\lambda =k_2/k_1`$, and $`H_c=2k_1J/g\mu _B`$. Note that these equations do give a half-period shift per excited state, as seen by WS.

The surprise is that although Eqs. (2) and (3) are dervied semiclassically, and should have higher order corrections in $`1/J`$, they appear to be exact as written! This has been noted by both Villain and Fort, and AG. The evidence is from (a) analytic diagonalization for $`J2`$, (b) perturbation theory in $`\lambda `$ , and (c) numerics. Note that if exact, Eqs. (2) and (3) would imply not only that the diabolical points lie on a perfect centered rectangular lattice in the $`H_x`$-$`H_z`$ plane, but also that many of the points are multiply diabolical, i.e., that more than one pair of levels is simultaneously degenerate. It is easily shown that the multiplicity is as indicated in Fig. 1: If we arrange the points into concentric rhombi, those on the outermost rhombus are singly diabolical (i.e., there is only one pair of degenerate states), those on the next rhombus are doubly diabolical (two pairs of degenerate states), and so on.

In this paper we shall prove that this perfect lattice hypothesis is in fact true. Not only is this an interesting problem in mathematical physics in its own right, but we believe that it will help understand real Fe8 also. Exact solutions generally open the way for perturbative treatment of small corrections, and in Fe8, we beleive our work will enable us to better treat such effects as the higher order anisotropies and the dipolar interactions mentioned above, and allow more detailed understanding of nonzero temperature effects .

Before giving our proof, we should note that we have not been able to find if the Hamiltonian (1) has a higher symmetry at the diabolical points. Such a suspicion is natural, given the experience with the exceptional cases mentioned in our first paragraph. Likewise, we have not succeeded in finding the wavefunctions. We also note that the semiclassical approximation is demonstrably inexact at non diabolical values of $`𝐇`$, in order to dispel any suspicion in the readers’ minds that the classical and quantum dynamics of the Hamiltonian (1) are identical as in the case of the harmonic oscillator.

We now present our proof. It proceeds in three steps. In step 1 we perform a spin rotation about $`\widehat{𝐲}`$ so that $``$ no longer has any terms in $`J_x^2`$. The Hamiltonian is then tridiagonal in the new $`J_z`$ basis. In step 2 we make use of a necessary condition for a tridiagonal Hermitean matrix to have degenerate eigenvalues, and thus determine the possible locations of any diabolical points. In step 3, we use continuity and topological arguments to find the multiplicity of each of these diabolical points. The results are precisely those given above.

Step 1: Let us rotate $`𝐉`$ about the $`\widehat{𝐲}`$ axis so that

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}J_z\\ J_x\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\lambda }& \sqrt{\overline{\lambda }}\\ \sqrt{\overline{\lambda }}& \sqrt{\lambda }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}J_z\\ J_x\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`\overline{\lambda }=1\lambda `$. It is also convenient to define scaled fields $`u_x`$, $`u_y`$, and $`u_z`$ via

$$𝐇=\frac{H_c}{2J}(\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{\overline{\lambda }}u_x,\hfill & u_y,& \hfill \sqrt{\lambda }u_z\end{array}),$$
(5)
to scale all energies by $`k_1`$, and to write $`\overline{}=/k_1`$. In the new axes, we have

$`\overline{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda \overline{\lambda })J_z^2\sqrt{\lambda \overline{\lambda }}(J_zJ_x+J_xJ_z)`$ (7)
$`\left[(\lambda u_z\overline{\lambda }u_x)J_z+\sqrt{\lambda \overline{\lambda }}(u_x+u_z)J_x+u_yJ_y\right].`$
Step 2: The Hamiltonian (7) is tridiagonal in the the new $`J_z`$ basis, $`J_z|m=m|m`$. Its only nonzero matrix elements are $`m|\overline{}|mw_m`$, and $`m|\overline{}|m^{}t_{m,m^{}}`$, with $`m^{}=m\pm 1`$. And, it is obviously Hermitean: $`w_m^{}=w_m`$, $`t_{m,m^{}}=t_{m^{},m}^{}`$. For such matrices, it is a theorem that all the eigenvalues are simple (i.e., nondegenerate) if none of the $`t_{m,m^{}}`$ vanish . This result is physically almost obvious if one thinks of $`\overline{}`$ as a tight-binding model for an electron in one dimension with on-site energies $`w_m`$ and nearest neighbor hopping elements $`t_{m,m\pm 1}`$. Two states which were degenerate could be spatially localized in different regions of the lattice. But then, since $`t_{m,m\pm 1}0`$ for any $`m`$, it would be possible for the electron to hop from one region to the other, which is self-contradictory. The rigorous proof by Stoer and Bulirsch consists of noting that the successive diagonal subdeterminants of $`\overline{}EI`$ (where $`I`$ is the unit matrix), form a Sturmian sequence of polynomials $`p_j(E)`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},2J+1`$, with the properties that $`p_j`$ is of degree $`j`$, has $`j`$ real roots, each one of which is simple, and is strictly bracketed by two roots of $`p_{j+1}`$.

It follows that the diabolical points of $`\overline{}`$, if any, must lie on the loci in magnetic field space defined by $`t_{m,m+1}=0`$. Using the standard representation of the angular momentum matrices, we have

$$t_{m,m+1}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(u_x+u_z+(2m+1)\right)\sqrt{\lambda \overline{\lambda }}+iu_y\right][J(J+1)m(m+1)]^{1/2}.$$
(8)
The real and imaginary parts of this quantity must vanish separately for some $`m`$. We thus conclude that any diabolical points must lie in the $`H_x`$-$`H_z`$ plane:

$$u_y=0,$$
(9)
and in this plane on the lines

$$u_x+u_z=(2m_0+1),m_0=J,J+1,\mathrm{},J1.$$
(10)
Further, when these conditions are obeyed, $`\overline{}`$ divides into two blocks, of size $`n_n`$ and $`n_p`$, with $`n_n=J+m_0+1`$, and $`n_p=Jm_0`$. In the first block, $`mm_0`$, and in the second $`mm_0+1`$.

The conditions (9) and (10) are not enough to locate the diabolical points. However, we can repeat our argument, starting with a rotation (4) in which the signs of the $`\sqrt{\overline{\lambda }}`$ entries are reversed. In this way we find that at a diabolical point, we must also obey the condition

$$u_xu_z=(2n_0+1),n_0=J,J+1,\mathrm{},J1,$$
(11)
which along with Eq. (10) fixes the points completely. Solving these equations, we get

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill u_x& =& (m_0+n_0+1),\hfill \\ \hfill u_z& =& n_0m_0,\hfill \end{array}`$ (14)
which with Eq. (5) are identical to Eqs. (2) and (3).

Step 3: It remains to find just how many pairs of levels are degenerate at each of the points (14). To do this, we first show that under a continuous change in the parameter $`\lambda `$, the diabolical points of the Hamiltonian (1) must evolve smoothly in the $`u_x`$-$`u_z`$ plane. In particular, the number of diabolical points must stay fixed. We present two arguments for this, one more physical, and the other more mathematical.

The physical argument is much like the standard one  for the von Neumann-Wigner theorem. Suppose that for some $`\lambda =\lambda _0`$, $`\overline{}`$ has two degenerate states $`|\psi _a`$ and $`|\psi _b`$ at $`u_x=u_{x0}`$, $`u_z=u_{z0}`$. (We set $`u_y=0`$ throughout.) Now let $`\lambda `$ be changed by a small amount $`\delta \lambda `$. We seek new eigenstates in the first approximation as linear combinations of $`|\psi _a`$ and $`|\psi _b`$. The secular matrix in this subspace is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{}_{aa}& \overline{}_{ab}\\ \overline{}_{ba}& \overline{}_{bb}\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
with $`\overline{}_{ba}=\overline{}_{ab}`$ since with $`u_y=0`$, the Hamiltonian is real. Here, $`\overline{}_{aa}`$, $`\overline{}_{ab}`$, etc., are all smooth functions of $`\lambda `$, $`u_x`$, and $`u_z`$. The eigenvalues of this matrix will be equal if and only if $`\overline{}_{aa}=\overline{}_{bb}`$, and $`\overline{}_{ab}=0`$. Expanding these conditions in the deviations from $`\lambda _0`$, $`u_{x0}`$, and $`u_{z0}`$, we get

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta u_x\\ \delta u_z\end{array}\right)=\delta \lambda \left(\begin{array}{c}e\\ f\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
where the quantities $`a`$ through $`d`$ are partial derivatives of $`\overline{}_{aa}`$ etc. with respect to $`u_x`$ and $`u_z`$, and $`e`$ and $`f`$ are partial derivatives with respect to $`\lambda `$. Since the diabolical point for $`\lambda =\lambda _0`$ is isolated, it follows that the only solution to Eq. (16) when $`\delta \lambda =0`$ is $`\delta u_x=\delta u_z=0`$, i.e., that the matrix on the left hand side is nonsingular, and a nonzero solution can be found when $`\delta \lambda 0`$. It follows in turn that the diabolical point can only be moved, and not eliminated or created by changing $`\lambda `$.

The second argument is based on Berry’s phase . Let us consider a diabolical point as in the preceding paragraph, and let $`C`$ be a small closed contour in the $`u_x`$-$`u_z`$ plane encircling this point. Berry’s phase is given by

$$\gamma (C)=i_C\psi _a(\lambda ,𝐮)|_𝐮\psi _a(\lambda ,𝐮)𝑑𝐮,$$
(17)
where $`𝐮=(u_x,u_z)`$, and $`_𝐮`$ is a gradient with respect to these fields. As shown by Berry, $`\gamma (C)=\pm \pi `$ if $`C`$ encloses a true diabolical point, and $`\gamma (C)=0`$ if the two states merely approach each other very closely without ever being degenerate. \[Actually, since our Hamiltonian is real, and the parameter space $`(u_x,u_z)`$ is two-dimensional, we really only need the weaker result due to Herzberg and Longuet-Higgins  for the sign change of the wavefunction upon encircling the degeneracy: $`e^{i\gamma (C)}=1`$.\] Since the perturbation $`\delta \overline{}`$ engendered by changing $`\lambda `$ or $`𝐮`$ by a small amount is non-singular, $`|\psi _a(\lambda ,𝐮)`$ is a smooth function of $`\lambda `$ and $`𝐮`$. It follows that if $`\lambda `$ varies continuously, the integrand of Eq. (17) can not change discontinuously. Hence, for small enough $`\delta \lambda `$, the phase $`\gamma (C)`$ must continue to be what it was for $`\lambda =\lambda _0`$, $`+\pi `$, say, implying that $`C`$ continues to encircle a degeneracy.

The rest is plain sailing. Consider $`\overline{}`$ in the form (7), and let $`u_x`$ and $`u_z`$ be one of the points (14). As noted before, $`\overline{}`$ divides into two blocks at this point. Consider now how the eigenvalues of each block change as $`\lambda `$ is varied. Suppose the variation is as depicted in Fig. 2. This would imply that the total diabolicity of our system changes discontinuosly, in violation of the result just proved. Thus a behavior as in Fig. 2 is impossible, and the correct picture is as in Fig. 3. One can also see that the behavior can not be that as in Fig. 2 for some $`(m_0,n_0)`$ and that as in Fig. 3 for others, since there is then no way to keep the total diabolicity constant.

We thus conclude that the multiplicity $`f(m_0,n_0)`$ of the diabolical point at $`(m_0,n_0)`$ is independent of $`\lambda `$, and we may find it by evaluating it for any one value of $`\lambda `$. We do this for $`\lambda =0`$, as $`\overline{}`$ is then not just tridiagonal, but diagonal. Degeneracy occurs whenever

$$w_{m_1}=w_{m_2},(m_1m_0;m_2m_0+1).$$
(18)
Since $`w_m=m^2(m_0n_0)m`$ for $`\lambda =0`$, this condition becomes

$$m_1+m_2=m_0n_0.$$
(19)
The problem is now one of counting. We leave it as an exercise to show that with the conditions in Eq. (18) on $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, and in Eqs. (10) and (11) on $`m_0`$ and $`n_0`$, the number of solutions to Eq. (19) is given by

$$f(m_0,n_0)=\frac{1}{2}\left[2J+1|m_0n_0||m_0+n_0+1|\right].$$
(20)
This is precisely the multiplicity implied by Eqs. (2) and (3). One way to see this is to evaluate $`f`$ on the rhombi drawn in Fig. 1, in particular, the segment lying in the first quadrant in the $`H_x`$-$`H_z`$ plane. Regarding the outermost rhombus as the first, the next as the second, etc., we have $`m_0=(J+1)+k`$ on the $`k`$th one. Further, for the part in the first quadrant, $`n_0`$ ranges from $`m_0`$ to $`Jk`$. Thus $`(m_0n_0)`$ and $`(m_0+n_0+1)`$ are both negative, and

$`f(m_0,n_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[2J+1+(m_0n_0)+(m_0+n_0+1)\right]`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`J+m_0+1`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`k,`$ (23)
exactly as expected.

For completenes, we conclude by observing that our results obey the symmetries of the Hamiltonian. First, for half-integral $`J`$, the point at $`𝐇=0`$ corresponds to $`m_0=n_0=1/2`$. The value of $`f`$ is then $`J+\frac{1}{2}`$, i.e., every state is doubly degenerate, as required by Kramers’ theorem. Second, the reflection symmetries $`H_xH_x`$, $`H_zH_z`$ are clearly obeyed by the set (2) and (3). In terms of the quantities $`m_0`$ and $`n_0`$, these symmetries correspond to $`m_0(m_0+1)`$ and $`n_0(n_0+1)`$, and it is easy to see from Eq. (20) that these leave $`f`$ unchanged. Lastly, the Hamiltonian (1) has the following duality property. Showing its dependence on $`\lambda `$, $`H_x`$ and $`H_z`$ explicitly by writing $`(\lambda ,H_x,H_z)`$, we note that a $`90^{}`$ rotation about $`(\widehat{𝐱}+\widehat{𝐳})/\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ yields the transformation

$$(\lambda ,H_x,H_z)(1\lambda ,H_z,H_x).$$
(24)
In particular, the spectra of the two Hamiltonians are so related, and ranking the levels is order of increasing energy, we see that if the levels with ordinal numbers $`i`$ and $`i+1`$ are degenerate when $`H_x=f_x(\lambda )`$ and $`H_y=f_y(\lambda )`$, where the functions $`f_x`$ and $`f_y`$ are unknown, then level numbers $`2J+2i`$ and $`2J+1i`$ are degenerate when $`H_x=f_y(1\lambda )`$ and $`H_y=f_x(1\lambda )`$. This property is also obeyed by Eqs. (2) and (3), and (20).

###### Acknowledgements.

AG’s research is supported by the NSF via grant number DMR-9616749, and he is much indebted to Jacques Villain and Wolfgang Wernsdorfer for useful discussions and correspondence.


text:
# Alternative Buffer-Layers for the Growth of SrBi2Ta2O9 on Silicon

## I Introduction

With the fast development of the semiconductor industry, there is nowadays a growing interest in the investigation of novel functional layers on silicon. In particular Perovskite materials have been intensively studied during the last years. That is mainly because of the large number of different physical properties observed in this class of materials. For example, we can find among perovskites, superconducting (YBa2Cu3O7), ferromagnetic (La0.67Ca0.33MnO3) and ferroelectric compounds (Pb(Zr1-xTix)O3).

Due to the high reactivity of silicon with oxygen, the deposition of high quality perovskites on similar substrates is no trivial task. However during the last years, the possibility of growing crystalline perovskites on Si by Pulsed Laser Deposition (PLD) was widely demonstrated . Although this technology is not yet comfortable for wide area deposition, complex heterostructures can be prepared.

More recently, because of a growing interest on the development of non-volatile memory cells, several groups concentrated their activities on the deposition of SrBi2Ta2O9 thin films (SBT) on silicon by Pulsed Laser Deposition . A large number of buffer layers like Y2O3 , SrTiO3, MgO , Si3N4  and Al2O3  have been investigated. However the formation of an amorphous SiO2 inter-diffusion layer can hardly be controlled by the use of these buffers.

In this work, we investigate the influence of (Y2O2)x(ZrO2)1-x (YSZ) and CeO2/YSZ buffer layers on the structure, surface morphology and ferroelectric properties of SrBi2Ta2O9 thin films. The YSZ layer has been used in order to avoid the formation of SiO2.

First a description of the employed deposition method is described and the structural properties of the different layers are discussed. The characteristic surface and ferroelectric domain morphologies are studied by using Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM). Finally we compare the Capacitance versus bias Voltage (CV) characteristics of Metal-Ferroelectric-Semiconductor capacitors for SrBi2Ta2O9 layers deposited with and without buffers.

## II  PLD deposition with different buffer layers

One of the challenging problems in depositing crystalline oxide layers on Si is to avoid the spontaneous formations of SiO2 at the interface. Thanks to the discovery of High Temperature Superconductors (HTS), a large effort was done in order to get an effective solution. This was mainly because the superconducting properties of HTS can only be obtained through a reasonable crystalline quality. Here the solution was to use a YSZ buffer layer (Y2O2)x(ZrO2)1-x in order to avoid the formation of SiO2. Later additional layers of BaZrO3 or CeO2 have been used in order to avoid inter-diffusion and increase the crystalline quality. From the different studies it became clear that during the deposition of the YSZ layer, Zr reacts at high temperatures with SiO2 giving ZrO2 and SiO . The latter can be easily removed by natural sublimation which occurs at low pressures (below 10-6 mbar) and temperatures above 800 C. The best YSZ layers are usually obtained at pressures below 10-5 mbar . The YSZ layer has to be deposited at low pressures while the other layers need usually pressures larger than 0.3 mbar. An in-situ deposition of the different layers, at large deposition rates, can be easily achieved by Pulsed Laser Deposition (PLD). However an ex-situ deposition of perovskites on top of pre-buffered substrates is also possible .

Our PLD chamber was specially designed for depositing complex heterostructures. The system consists of a carousel-type holder, which allows the in-situ deposition of up to six layers. The deposition chamber has a base pressure of about 10-7 mbar and maximum deposition temperature of about 1000C. A self designed computer controlled system, allows the scanning of the laser plum over an area of about 2$`\times `$2 cm2.

The silicon substrates were cleaned with different steps. In order to remove organic contamination, the substrates were cleaned with a solution of H2SO4 and H2O2. The native SiO2 layer was etched by a standard HF solution.

The best SBT films deposited on Si were obtained at substrate temperatures of 800C and O2 deposition pressures of 0.8 mbar. Only at lower pressures we observed the formation of the Pyrochlore SBT phase (p-SBT). Fig. 1 shows a $`\theta `$-$`2\theta `$ scan of a SBT film deposited on Si. It can be observed that a small amount of the p-SBT phase is still present. From low angle x-ray diffraction we detected a 4 nm thick layer which was attributed to a SiO2 inter-diffusion layer. Because of the amorphous SiO2, the SBT layer did not grow with a defined orientation. The intensities observed in Fig. 1 are consistent with the expected values for a non-oriented powder.

In order to get rid of the 4 nm SiO2, a 40 nm thick YSZ buffer layer was deposited at typically 850C and 10-5 mbar. Under these conditions the YSZ layer is c-axis oriented with rocking curves in the order of 1.2 degrees. The presence of the (111) reflection shows that a small amount of randomly oriented crystallites is still present. However, from x-ray low-angle diffraction experiments, we could not detect any SiO2 layer.

As we can see in Fig. 2, for the same deposition parameters for SBT as in Fig. 1, we could only grow an a-axis oriented p-SBT phase with a rocking curve of 1.4 degrees for the (400) reflex. No temperature/pressure-window could be found in order to get the desired SBT phase. This result is consistent with the work of Ishikawa et al. done on YSZ substrates . As it is shown in Fig. 3, by introducing a 20 nm thick CeO2 layer between SBT and YSZ we succeeded in obtaining a fully c-axis oriented SBT film with rocking curve of 1.2 for the (006) reflection. One can notice that only a small amount of p-SBT phase is still present. The in-plane orientation of the films was checked by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-scans. It can be seen that, indeed, the SBT films grow cube-to-cube with respect to the silicon substrate (Fig. 4). The biggest difficulty, in this case, was the small lattice mismatch between CeO2 and Si, which obliged us to measure the (024) family of reflections for CeO2.

## III  Characterization by Atomic Force Microscopy

We studied the topography of the different ferroelectric films with a commercial Atomic Force Microscope (AFM)  (Multimode, Digital Instruments, Santa Barbara, CA). The surface roughness was directly calculated from the topography images obtained in contact mode. For the SBT/Si layers we obtained an average roughness value of 5.6 nm rms (Fig. 5). An AFM image of the c-axis oriented SBT/CeO2/YSZ/Si is shown in Fig.6. In this case the average roughness is 4.4 nm rms. The terraces in Fig.6 correspond to the c-axis unit cell of SBT, while the smaller grains observed at the top-right side correspond to the p-SBT phase, which could be observed in the x-ray data too.

In order to characterise the ferroelectric domains, an alternating voltage was applied between the conductive AFM tip and the back-side of the sample substrate during imaging, as already described in details by Martin et al. and Auciello et al. . The piezoelectric response to the applied AC voltage is probed by sub-nanometer oscillations of the tip, superimposed to the static deflection kept by the AFM feedback loop. Phase shift and amplitude of the cantilever oscillation can be detected by a lock-in amplifier and recorded simultaneously with the sample topography.

Fig. 7 shows the topography, amplitude and phase shift of a 300 nm thick SBT film. This film was deposited at lower O2 pressure (0.3 mbar) so that it is possible to observe as well the response of the 50 nm wide p-SBT grains, which appear in Fig. 7, between two large SBT grains. From the phase signal, it is possible to identify ferroelectric domains with opposite dipole orientation inside the SBT grains. In the amplitude image, we distinguish the domain walls (darker regions) between the ferroelectric domains (bright regions). The p-SBT phase shows no evident piezoelectric response.

Similar experiments done in c-axis oriented SBT films did not show features that we could directly correlate to domain structures, although, as it will be shown below, the films still showed a ferroelectric behaviour.

## IV Metal-Ferroelectric-Insulator-Semiconductor structures

The CV curves were found to be weakely dependent on the AC-amplitude for a range between 50 and 100 mV. The gold electrodes had a typical area of 0.5$`\times `$0.5 mm2.

Fig. 8 shows the capacitance versus bias Voltage U of a Au/SBT/Si heterostructure with a 300 nm thick SBT layer. The behaviour is very similar to what is expected for a Metal-Ferroelectric- Semiconductor diode measured at high frequency. Additionaly the hysteresis induced by the coercive field of SBT ca be observed . The ferroelectricity of our isotropic SBT-film generates a typical memory window of 0.3 V.

Fig. 9 shows a CV-characteristic for a Au/SBT/CeO2/YSZ/Si heterostructure. The thicknesses were 50, 20, and 40 nm for SBT, CeO2, and YSZ respectively. In this case, the use of the buffer layers increased the memory window to 0.9 V. The remanent capacitance can be switched between 200 and 800 pF for voltages between $`\pm `$ 3 V. As it was observed by Han et al  and predicted by Miller and McWhorter , the memory window is mainly related to the coercitive field and is very little influenced by the amplitude of the remanent polarization (for P$`{}_{r}{}^{}>`$ 0.1 C/cm2).

## V Conclusion

We have shown that by using CeO2/YSZ buffers it is possible to obtain c-axis oriented SBT films with rocking curves of 1.2 for the (006) reflection. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-Scans show that the films grow cube-to-cube with respect to the silicon substrate. In spite the fact that the easy direction for the polarization of SBT is known to lay along the (a,b)-plane, we observed, for c-axis SBT films, a memory window of MFIS structures of 0.9 V instead of the 0.3 V measured in Au/SBT/Si. The capacitance of the device could be switched by a factor 4 (from 200 to 800 pF) by applying 3 V.

These improvements are mainly due to the better crystalline quality of the c-axis-oriented films and the absence of amorphous SiO2 at the YSZ/Si interface.

From AFM measurements we have been able to identify terraces which correspond to the c-axis unit cell, and we could observe ferroelectric domains in non-oriented films. For the moment we could not identify a clear domain structure in c-axis oriented SBT films.

## VI Acknowledgement

J.S would like to acknowledge support from the Undergraduate Materials Research Initiative from the Materials Research Society. J.C.M and R.R were financed by the European Union under contracts (ERBMBICT972217 and FMBICT972487). This work was partially supported by the Material Wissenschaftliches Forschung Zentrum of the University of Mainz.


text:
# A GENERALIZED INFLATION MODEL WITH COSMIC GRAVITATIONAL WAVES

## 1 Introduction

The observational reconstruction of the cosmological density perturbation (CDP) spectrum is a key problem of the modern cosmology. It provids a dramatic challenge after detecting the primordial CMB anisotropy as the signal found by DMR COBE at $`10^0`$ has appeared to be few times higher than the expected value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$ in the most simple and best developed cosmological standard CDM model.

During recent years there were many proposals to improve sCDM (in the simplest term, to remove the discrepancy between the CDP amplitudes at $`8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ as determined by galaxy clusters, and at large scales, $`1000h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, according to $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$) by adding hot dark matter, a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term, or considering non-flat primordial CDP spectra. Below, we present another, presumably more natural way to solve the sCDM problem based on taking into account a possible contribution of cosmic gravitational waves (CGWs) into the large-scale CMB anisotropy; we will also try to preserve the original near-scale-invariant CDP spectrum. Thus, the problem is reduced to the construction of a simple inflation producing near Harrison-Zel’dovich (HZ) spectrum of CDPs ($`n_S1`$) and a considerable contribution of CGWs into the large-scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$.

A simple model of such kind is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-inflation, an inflationary model with an effective metastable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term$`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`^\mathrm{?}`$. This model produces both S (CDPs) and T (CGWs) modes which have a non-power-law spectra, with a shallow minimum in the CDP spectrum, located at a scale $`k_{cr}`$ (there the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term and the scalar field have equal energies while slowly-rolling at inflation) where the S-slope is exact HZ locally. The S-spectrum is ’red’ for $`k<k_{cr}`$, and ’blue’ for $`k>k_{cr}`$; around the $`k_{cr}`$ scale T/S is close to its maximum, it is of the order unity depending on the model parameters.

## 2 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-inflation with self-interaction

Let us consider a general potential of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-inflation driven by a single scalar field $`\phi `$:

$$V(\phi )=V_0+\underset{\kappa =2}{\overset{\kappa _{max}}{}}\frac{\lambda _\kappa }{\kappa }\phi ^\kappa ,$$
(1)
where $`V_0>0`$ and $`\lambda _\kappa `$ are constants, $`\kappa =2,3,4,..`$. In the case of massive inflaton ($`\kappa =\kappa _{max}=2`$) T/S can be larger than unity only when the CDP spectrum slope in the ‘blue’ asymptote is very steep, $`n_S^{blue}>1.8`$. To avoid such a strong spectral bend on short scales ($`k>k_{cr}`$) we choose here another simple version of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-inflation – the case with self-interaction: $`\kappa =\kappa _{max}=4`$, $`\lambda _4\lambda >0`$; this model is called $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda `$-inflation.

The scalar field $`\phi `$ drives an inflationary evolution if $`\gamma \dot{H}/H^2<1`$, where $`H\sqrt{V/3}`$ (we assume $`8\pi G=c=\mathrm{}=1`$ and $`H_0=100h\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$). This condition holds true for all values of $`\phi `$ if

$$c\frac{1}{4}\phi _{cr}^2=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{V_0}{\lambda }}>1,$$
(2)
which we imply hereafter. The fundamental gravitation perturbation spectra $`q_k`$ and $`h_k`$ generated in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda `$-inflation in S and T modes, respectively, are as follows $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`^\mathrm{?}`$:

$$q_k=\frac{H}{2\pi \sqrt{2\gamma }}=\frac{\sqrt{2\lambda /3}}{\pi }\left(c^2+x^2\right)^{3/4},h_k=\frac{H}{\pi \sqrt{2}}=\frac{2c\sqrt{\lambda /3}}{\pi }\left(1+\frac{x}{\sqrt{c^2+x^2}}\right)^{1/2},$$
(3)
where

$$x=\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{k}{k_{cr}}\left(1+\left(\frac{x}{c}\right)^2\right)^{1/4}\left(1+\frac{x}{\sqrt{c^2+x^2}}\right)^{2/3}\right]\mathrm{ln}(k/k_{cr}).$$
(4)
The dimentionless spectrum of density perturbations depends on a transfer function $`T(k)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_k=3.6\times 10^6\left(\frac{k}{h}\right)^2q_kT(k).$$
(5)
## 3 CDM cosmology from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda `$-inflation

Let us consider the CDP spectrum with CDM transfer function, normalized both by $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T|_{10^0}`$ (including the contribution from CGWs) and the galaxy cluster abundance at $`z=0`$, to find the family of the most realistic $`q`$-spectra produced in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda `$-inflation.

In total, we have three parameters entering the function $`q_k`$ : $`\lambda `$, $`c`$ and $`k_{cr}`$. Constraining them by two observational tests we are actually left with only one free parameter (say, $`k_{cr}`$) which may be restricted elsewhere by other observations.

To demonstrate explicitly how the three parameters are mutually related, we first employ a simple analytical estimates for the $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$ tests to derive the key equation relating $`c`$ and $`k_{cr}`$, and then solve it explicitly to obtain the range of interesting physical parameters.

Instead of taking the $`\sigma `$-integral numerically we may estimate the spectrum amplitude on cluster scale ($`k=k_10.3h/\mathrm{Mpc}`$):

$$q_{k_1}4.5\times 10^7\frac{h^2\sigma _8}{k_1^2T(k_1)}.$$
(6)
On the other hand, the spectrum amplitude on large scale ($`k_2=k_{COBE}10^3h/\mathrm{Mpc}`$) can be taken from $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$ due to the Sachs-Wolfe effect $`^\mathrm{?}`$:

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}\right)^2_{10^0}=\mathrm{S}+\mathrm{T}1.1\times 10^{10},\mathrm{S}=0.04q^2_{10^0}0.06q_{k_2}^2.$$
(7)
The relation between the variance of the $`q`$ potential averaged in $`10^0`$-angular-scale and the power spectrum at COBE scale, involves a factor of the effective interval of spectral wavelengths proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{k_2}{k_{hor}}\right)1.6`$. To estimate T/S, we use the following approximation formula at $`x_2=x_{COBE}`$:

$$\frac{\mathrm{T}}{\mathrm{S}}6n_T=\frac{6}{\sqrt{c^2+x_2^2}}\left(1\frac{x_2}{\sqrt{c^2+x_2^2}}\right).$$
(8)
Evidently, both normalizations, (6) and (7), determine essentially the corresponding $`q_k`$ amplitudes at the locations of cluster ($`k_1`$) and COBE ($`k_2`$) scales. Taking their ratio we get the key equation relating $`c`$ and $`k_{cr}`$ (see eqs.(3),(4),(8)):

$$\left(\frac{q_{k_1}}{q_{k_2}}\right)^2D\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{T}}{\mathrm{S}}\right),$$
(9)
Eq.(9) has a clear physical meaning: the ratio of the S-spectral powers at cluster and COBE scales is proportional to $`\sigma _8^2`$ and inversly proportional to the fraction of the scalar mode contributing to the large-scale temperature anisotropy variance, S/(S+T). It provides quite a general constraint on the fundamental inflation spectra in a wide set of dark matter models using only two basic measurement (the cluster abundance and large scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$). The DM information is contained in the D-coefficient which can be calculated using the same equation (9) for a simple inflationary spectrum (preserving the given DM model). For CDM with $`h=0.5`$ we have:

$$D\frac{0.6\sigma _8^2}{13.1\mathrm{\Omega }_b},\mathrm{\Omega }_b<0.2.$$
(10)
The solution of eq.(9) has been obtained in the plane $`x_2c`$ numerically. For the whole range $`0.1<D<0.5`$, it can be analytically approximated with a precision better that 10% as follows:

$$\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{k_0}{k_{cr}}\right)E\left(c_0c\right)\left(c+c_1\right),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}<cc_0.$$
(11)
Notice there exists no solution of eq.(9) for $`c>c_0`$. We have found the following best fit coefficients $`E,k_0[h/\mathrm{Mpc}]`$ and $`c_{0,1}`$:

$$E1,\mathrm{ln}k_049D^2+1.3,c_061D^2+6.2,c_144D^2+4.0.$$

The tensor-mode-contribution is approximated similarly ($`k_{cr}`$ is measured in $`[h/\mathrm{Mpc}]`$):

$$\frac{\mathrm{T}}{\mathrm{S}}\frac{2.534.3D}{(\mathrm{ln}k_{cr}+4.65)^{2/3}}+\frac{1}{3}.$$
(12)
## 4 Discussion

We have presented a new inflationary model predicting a near scale-invariant spectrum of density perturbations and large amount of CGWs. Our model is consistent with COBE $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$ and cluster abundance data. The perturbation spectra depend on one free scale-parameter, $`k_{cr}`$, which can be found in further analysis by fitting other observational data. At the location of $`k_{cr}`$, the CDP spectrum transfers smoothly from the red ($`k<k_{cr}`$) to the blue ($`k>k_{cr}`$) parts.

Today we seriously discuss a nearly flat shape of the dimensionless CDP spectrum within the scale range encompassing clusters and superclusters,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2k^{(0.9_{}^+0.2)},k(0.04,0.2)h\mathrm{Mpc}^1,$$
(13)
(with a break towards the HZ slope on higher scales) which stays in obvious disagreement with the sCDM prediction. The arguments supporting eq.(13) came from the analysis of large-scale galaxy distribution $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and the discovery of large quasar groups $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`^\mathrm{?}`$, a higher statistical support was brought by recent measurements of the galaxy cluster power spectrum $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

A possible explanation of eq.(13) could be a fundamental red power spectrum established on large scales, then the transition to the spectrum (13) at $`100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}/\mathrm{h}`$ would be much easier understood with help of a traditional modification of the transfer function $`T(k)`$ (e.g. for mixed hot+cold dark matter). The rediness may be not too high, remaining in the range (0.9, 1). A way to enhance the power spectrum at Mpc scale could be the identification of $`k_{cr}`$ within a cluster scale ($`k_{cr}k_1`$).

Notice that one of the problems for the matter-dominated models is a low number of $`\sigma _8`$: if $`\sigma _8<0.6`$, then the first acoustic peak in $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$ cannot be as high as $`{}_{}{}^{>}70\mu `$K.

### Acknowledgments

The work was partly supported by German Scientific Foundation (DFG-436 RUS 113/357/0) and INTAS grant (97-1192). V.N.L. and E.V.M. are grateful to the Organizing Committee for the hospitality.


text:
# Surjective factorization of holomorphic mappings

## 1. Introduction and preliminary results

In recent years many authors  have studied conditions on a holomorphic mapping $`f`$ between complex Banach spaces so that it may be written in the form either $`f=gT`$ or $`f=Tg`$, where $`g`$ is another holomorphic mapping and $`T`$ a (linear bounded) operator belonging to certain classes of operators.

A rather thorough study of the factorization of the form $`f=gT`$, where $`T`$ is in a closed injective operator ideal, was carried out by the authors in . In the present paper we analyze the case $`f=Tg`$.

If $`f=Tg`$, with $`T`$ in the ideal of compact operators, and $`g`$ is holomorphic on a Banach space $`E`$ then, since $`g`$ is locally bounded, $`f`$ will be “locally compact” in the sense that every $`xE`$ has a neighbourhood $`V_x`$ such that $`f(V_x)`$ is relatively compact. It is proved in  that the converse also holds: every locally compact holomorphic mapping $`f`$ can be written in the form $`f=Tg`$, with $`T`$ a compact operator. Similar results were given in  for the ideal of weakly compact operators, in  for the Rosenthal operators, and in  for the Asplund operators. We extend this type of factorization to every closed surjective operator ideal.

Throughout, $`E`$, $`F`$ and $`G`$ will denote complex Banach spaces, and $``$ will be the set of natural numbers. We use $`B_E`$ for the closed unit ball of $`E`$, and $`B(x,r)`$ for the open ball of radius $`r`$ centered at $`x`$. If $`AE`$, then $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(A)`$ denotes the absolutely convex, closed hull of $`A`$, and if $`f`$ is a mapping on $`E`$, then

$$f_A:=sup\{|f(x)|:xA\}.$$

We denote by $`(E,F)`$ the space of all operators from $`E`$ into $`F`$, endowed with the usual operator norm. A mapping $`P:EF`$ is a $`k`$-homogeneous (continuous) polynomial if there is a $`k`$-linear continuous mapping $`A:E\times \stackrel{(k)}{\mathrm{}}\times EF`$ such that $`P(x)=A(x,\mathrm{},x)`$ for all $`xE`$. The space of all such polynomials is denoted by $`𝒫(^kE,F)`$. A mapping $`f:EF`$ is holomorphic if, for each $`xE`$, there are $`r>0`$ and a sequence $`(P_k)`$ with $`P_k𝒫(^kE,F)`$ such that

$$f(y)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_k(yx)$$

uniformly for $`yx<r`$. We use the notation

$$P_k=\frac{1}{k!}d^kf(x),$$

while $`(E,F)`$ stands for the space of all holomorphic mappings from $`E`$ into $`F`$.

We say that a subset $`AE`$ is circled if for every $`xA`$ and complex $`\lambda `$ with $`|\lambda |=1`$, we have $`\lambda xA`$.

For a general introduction to polynomials and holomorphic mappings, the reader is referred to . The definition and general properties of operator ideals may be seen in .

An operator ideal $`𝒰`$ is said to be injective \[18, 4.6.9\] if, given an operator $`T(E,F)`$ and an injective isomorphism $`i:FG`$, we have that $`T𝒰`$ whenever $`iT𝒰`$. The ideal $`𝒰`$ is surjective \[18, 4.7.9\] if, given $`T(E,F)`$ and a surjective operator $`q:GE`$, we have that $`T𝒰`$ whenever $`Tq𝒰`$. We say that $`𝒰`$ is closed \[18, 4.2.4\] if for all $`E`$ and $`F`$, the space $`𝒰(E,F):=\{T(E,F):T𝒰\}`$ is closed in $`(E,F)`$.

Given an operator $`T(E,F)`$, a procedure is described in  to construct a Banach space $`Y`$ and operators $`k(E,Y)`$ and $`j(Y,F)`$ so that $`T=jk`$. We shall refer to this construction as the DFJP factorization. It is shown in \[12, Propositions 1.6 and 1.7\] (see also \[8, Proposition 2.2\] for simple statement and proof) that given an operator $`T(E,F)`$ and a closed operator ideal $`𝒰`$,

(a) if $`𝒰`$ is injective and $`T𝒰`$, then $`k𝒰`$;

(b) if $`𝒰`$ is surjective and $`T𝒰`$, then $`j𝒰`$.
We say that $`𝒰`$ is factorizable if, for every $`T𝒰(E,F)`$, there are a Banach space $`Y`$ and operators $`k(E,Y)`$ and $`j(Y,F)`$ so that $`T=jk`$ and the identity $`I_Y`$ of the space $`Y`$ belongs to $`𝒰`$.

We now give a list of closed operator ideals which are injective, surjective or factorizable. We recall the definition of the most commonly used, and give a reference for the others.

An operator $`T(E,F)`$ is (weakly) compact if $`T(B_E)`$ is a relatively (weakly) compact subset of $`F`$; $`T`$ is (weakly) completely continuous if it takes weak Cauchy sequences in $`E`$ into (weakly) convergent sequences in $`F`$; $`T`$ is Rosenthal if every sequence in $`T(B_E)`$ has a weak Cauchy subsequence; $`T`$ is unconditionally converging if it takes weakly unconditionally Cauchy series in $`E`$ into unconditionally convergent series in $`F`$.

| Closed operator ideals | Injective | Surjective | Factorizable |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| compact operators | Yes | Yes | No |
| weakly compact | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Rosenthal | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| completely continuous | Yes | No | No |
| weakly completely continuous | Yes | No | No |
| unconditionally converging | Yes | No | No |
| Banach-Saks \[13, §3\] | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| weakly Banach-Saks \[13, §3\] | Yes | No | No |
| strictly singular \[18, 1.9\] | Yes | No | No |
| separable range | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| strictly cosingular \[18, 1.10\] | No | Yes | No |
| limited  | No | Yes | No |
| Grothendieck  | No | Yes | No |
| decomposing (Asplund) \[18, 24.4\] | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Radon-Nikodým \[18, 24.2\] | Yes | No | No |
| absolutely continuous \[14, §3\] | Yes | No | No |

The results on this list may be found in  and the other references given, for the injective and surjective case. The factorizable case may be seen in .

If $`𝒰`$ is an operator ideal, the dual ideal $`𝒰^d`$ is the ideal of all operators $`T`$ such that the adjoint $`T^{}`$ belongs to $`𝒰`$. Easily, we have:

$`𝒰\text{ is closed injective}`$ $``$ $`𝒰^d\text{ is closed surjective}`$
$`𝒰\text{ is closed surjective}`$ $``$ $`𝒰^d\text{ is closed injective}`$
The list above might therefore be completed with some more dual ideals.

Moreover, to each $`T(E,F)`$ we can associate an operator $`T^q:E^{}/EF^{}/F`$ given by $`T^q(x^{}+E)=T^{}(x^{})+F`$. Let $`𝒰^q:=\{T(E,F):T^q𝒰\}`$. Then, if $`𝒰`$ is injective (resp. surjective, closed), so is $`𝒰^q`$ \[8, Theorem 1.6\].

###### Remark 1.

There is another notion of factorizable operator ideal which may be used. We say that $`𝒰`$ is DFJP factorizable \[8, Definition 2.3\] if, for every $`T𝒰`$, the identity of the intermediate space in the DFJP factorization of $`T`$ belongs to $`𝒰`$. Clearly, every DFJP factorizable operator ideal is factorizable. The following example shows that the converse is not true. Let $`𝒜`$ be the ideal of all the operators that factor through a subspace of $`c_0`$. Clearly, $`𝒜`$ is factorizable. Consider the operator $`T:\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_2`$ given by $`T((x_n)):=(x_n/n)`$. We have $`T𝒜`$. The intermediate space in the DFJP factorization is an infinite dimensional reflexive space. Clearly, the identity map on it does not belong to $`𝒜`$.

All the factorizable ideals on the table above are DFJP factorizable . Note also that, if $`𝒰`$ is DFJP factorizable, then so are $`𝒰^d`$ and $`𝒰^q`$ .

## 2. Surjective factorization

In this Section, we study the factorizations in the form $`Tg`$, with $`T𝒰`$, where $`𝒰`$ is a closed surjective operator ideal.

###### Lemma 2.

\[13, Proposition 2.9\] Given a closed surjective operator ideal $`𝒰`$, let $`S(E,F)`$ and suppose that for every $`ϵ>0`$ there are a Banach space $`D_ϵ`$ and an operator $`T_ϵ𝒰(D_ϵ,F)`$ such that

$$S(B_E)T_ϵ(B_{D_ϵ})+ϵB_F.$$

Then, $`S𝒰`$.

We denote by $`𝒞_𝒰(E)`$ the collection of all $`AE`$ so that $`AT(B_Z)`$ for some Banach space $`Z`$ and some operator $`T𝒰(Z,E)`$ (see ).

The following probably well-known properties of $`𝒞_𝒰`$ will be needed:

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`𝒰`$ be a closed surjective operator ideal. Then:

(a) If $`A𝒞_𝒰(E)`$ and $`BA`$, then $`B𝒞_𝒰(E)`$;

(b) if $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_n𝒞_𝒰(E)`$, then $`_{i=1}^nA_i𝒞_𝒰(E)`$ and $`_{i=1}^nA_i𝒞_𝒰(E)`$;

(c) if $`AE`$ is bounded and, for every $`ϵ>0`$, there is a set $`A_ϵ𝒞_𝒰(E)`$ such that $`AA_ϵ+ϵB_E`$, then $`A𝒞_𝒰(E)`$.

(d) if $`A𝒞_𝒰(E)`$, then $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(A)𝒞_𝒰(E)`$;

Proof. (a) is trivial and (b) is easy. Both are true without any assumption on the operator ideal $`𝒰`$.

(c) For $`AE`$ bounded, consider the operator

$$T:\mathrm{}_1(A)E\text{ given by }T\left((\lambda _x)_{xA}\right)=\underset{xA}{}\lambda _xx.$$

Given $`ϵ>0`$, there is $`A_ϵ𝒞_𝒰(E)`$ such that $`AA_ϵ+ϵB_E`$. Therefore,

$$AT\left(B_{\mathrm{}_1(A)}\right)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(A)\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)+ϵB_E\mathrm{\Gamma }(A_ϵ)+2ϵB_E.$$

Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(A_ϵ)𝒞_𝒰(E)`$. Hence, $`T𝒰`$ (by Lemma 2), and $`A𝒞_𝒰(E)`$.

(d) If $`A𝒞_𝒰(E)`$, there is a space $`Z`$ and $`T𝒰(Z,E)`$ such that $`AT(B_Z)`$. Therefore, for all $`ϵ>0`$,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(A)\overline{T(B_Z)}T(B_Z)+ϵB_E.$$

Now, it is enough to apply part (c). $`\mathrm{}`$

We shall denote by $`_𝒰(E,F)`$ the space of all $`f(E,F)`$ such that each $`xE`$ has a neighbourhood $`V_x`$ with $`f(V_x)𝒞_𝒰(F)`$. Easily, a polynomial $`P𝒫(^kE,F)`$ belongs to $`_𝒰(E,F)`$ if and only if $`P(B_E)𝒞_𝒰(F)`$. The set of all such polynomials will be denoted by $`𝒫_𝒰(^kE,F)`$.

The following result is an easy consequence of the Hahn-Banach theorem and the Cauchy inequality

###### Lemma 4.

\[20, Lemma 3.1\] Given $`f(E,F)`$, a circled subset $`UE`$, and $`xE`$, we have

$$\frac{1}{k!}d^kf(x)(U)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(f(x+U))$$

for every $`k`$.

###### Proposition 5.

Let $`𝒰`$ be a closed surjective operator ideal, and $`f(E,F)`$. The following assertions are equivalent:

(a) $`f_𝒰(E,F)`$;

(b) there is a zero neighbourhood $`VE`$ such that $`f(V)𝒞_𝒰(F)`$;

(c) for every $`k`$ and every $`xE`$, we have that $`d^kf(x)𝒫_𝒰(^kE,F)`$;

(d) for every $`k`$, we have that $`d^kf(0)𝒫_𝒰(^kE,F)`$.

Proof. (a) $``$ (c) and (b) $``$ (d) follow from Lemma 4.

(d) $``$ (a) Let $`xE`$. There is $`ϵ>0`$ such that

$$f(y)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{k!}d^kf(0)(y)$$

uniformly for $`yB(x,ϵ)`$ \[17, §7, Proposition 1\]. By Proposition 3(b), for each $`m`$, we have

$$\{\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{1}{k!}d^kf(0)(y):yB(x,ϵ)\}𝒞_𝒰(F).$$

Using the uniform convergence on $`B(x,ϵ)`$, and Proposition 3(c), we conclude that $`f(B(x,ϵ))𝒞_𝒰(F)`$.

(a) $``$ (b) and (c) $``$ (d) are trivial. $`\mathrm{}`$

If $`A`$ is a closed convex balanced, bounded subset of $`F`$, $`F_A`$ will denote the Banach space obtained by taking the linear span of $`A`$ with the norm given by its Minkowski functional.

###### Theorem 6.

Let $`𝒰`$ be a closed surjective operator ideal, and $`f(E,F)`$. The following assertions are equivalent:

(a) $`f_𝒰(E,F)`$;

(b) there is a closed convex, balanced subset $`K𝒞_𝒰(F)`$ such that $`f`$ is a holomorphic mapping from $`E`$ into $`F_K`$;

(c) there is a Banach space $`G`$, a mapping $`g(E,G)`$ and an operator $`T𝒰(G,F)`$ such that $`f=Tg`$.

Proof. (a) $``$ (b) follows the ideas in the proof of \[2, Proposition 3.5\] and \[20, Theorem 3.7\].

For each $`m`$ and $`xE`$, define

$$A_m(x):=\{\lambda y:yB(x,\frac{1}{m})\text{ and }|\lambda |1\}$$

and

$$U_m:=\{B(x,\frac{1}{m}):xm\text{ and }f_{A_m(x)}m\}.$$

For each $`xE`$ there is a neighbourhood of the compact set $`\{\lambda x:|\lambda |1\}`$ on which $`f`$ is bounded. Hence, there is $`m`$ so that $`f_{A_m(x)}m`$, which shows that $`E=_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}U_m`$.

Let $`W_m`$ be the balanced hull of $`U_m`$. Since the sets $`A_m(x)`$ are balanced, we have $`|f(x)|m`$ for all $`xW_m`$. Let $`V_m:=2^1W_m`$. We have $`E=_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}V_m`$ and hence

(1) $`f(E)={\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f(V_m).`$
For each $`k,m`$, define

$$K_{mk}:=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left(\frac{1}{k!}d^kf(0)(W_m)\right)𝒞_𝒰(F).$$

By Proposition 3, we obtain that the set

$$K_m:=\{\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2^kz_k:z_kK_{mk}\}$$

belongs to $`𝒞_𝒰(F)`$. Easily, $`f(V_m)K_m`$. Hence $`f(V_m)𝒞_𝒰(F)`$ for all $`m`$. By Proposition 3, we can select numbers $`\beta _m>0`$ with $`\beta _m<\mathrm{}`$ so that

$$K:=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left(\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta _mf(V_m)\right)𝒞_𝒰(F).$$

It follows from (1) that $`f`$ maps $`E`$ into $`F_K`$.

It remains to show that $`f(E,F_K)`$. Let $`xE`$. Easily, there are $`ϵ>0`$ and $`r`$ such that $`f(B(x,2ϵ))rK`$. By Lemma 4,

(2) $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}d^kf(x)\left(B(0,2ϵ)\right)rK`$
for all $`k`$. Now, for each $`n`$ and $`aB(0,ϵ)`$, we have

$$f(x+a)\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{k!}d^kf(x)(a)=2^n\underset{k=n+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2^{nk}\frac{1}{k!}d^kf(x)(2a).$$

Since $`K`$ is convex and closed, we get from (2) that

$$\underset{k=n+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2^{nk}\frac{1}{k!}d^kf(x)(2a)rK.$$

Hence,

$$f(x+a)\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{k!}d^kf(x)(a)2^nrK,$$

and so, the $`F_K`$-norm of the left hand side is less than or equal to $`2^nr`$, for all $`aB(0,ϵ)`$. Thus, $`f`$ is holomorphic.

(b) $``$ (c). It is enough to note that, by Lemma 2, the natural inclusion $`F_KF`$ belongs to $`𝒰`$.

(c) $``$ (a). Each $`xE`$ has a neighbourhood $`V_x`$ such that $`g(V_x)`$ is bounded in $`G`$. Hence, $`f(V_x)=T(g(V_x))𝒞_𝒰(F)`$.

###### Theorem 7.

Let $`𝒰`$ be a closed surjective, factorizable operator ideal and take a mapping $`f(E,F)`$. Then $`f_𝒰(E,F)`$ if and only if there are a Banach space $`G`$, a mapping $`g(E,G)`$ and $`T𝒰(G,F)`$ such that $`I_G𝒰`$ and $`f=Tg`$.

###### Remark 8.

Theorem 7 implies that, if $`𝒰`$ is the ideal of weakly compact (resp. Rosenthal, Banach-Saks or Asplund) operators and $`f_𝒰(E,F)`$, then $`f`$ factors through a Banach space $`G`$ which is reflexive (resp. contains a copy of $`\mathrm{}_1`$, has the Banach-Saks property or is Asplund).

Moreover, if $`𝒰=\{T:T^q\text{ has separable range}\}`$, then $`G`$ is isomorphic to $`G_1\times G_2`$, with $`G_1^{}`$ separable and $`G_2`$ reflexive . If $`𝒰=\{T:T^{}\text{ is Rosenthal}\}`$, then $`G`$ contains no copy of $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and no quotient isomorphic to $`c_0`$ .