format: text

text:
# Conductivity activation energy for bilayer heterostructures at integer filling factors

## Hamiltonian of 2DEG bilayer

The electronic Hamiltonain of a 2DEG in a confining potential $`V(\stackrel{}{\rho })`$ and in an external magnetic field $`H`$ consists of a one-particle part as well as a Coulomb interaction part:

$$\begin{array}{c}H=\psi _\alpha ^+(\stackrel{}{\rho })\left(\frac{1}{2m}\left[i\stackrel{}{}+\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{\rho })\right]^2+V(\stackrel{}{\rho })|g|\mu _BH\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^z\right)\psi _\beta (\stackrel{}{\rho })d^3\stackrel{}{\rho }+\\ \frac{1}{2}\frac{e^2}{|\stackrel{}{\rho }\stackrel{}{\rho ^{}}|}\psi _\alpha ^+(\stackrel{}{\rho })\psi _\beta ^+(\stackrel{}{\rho ^{}})\psi _\beta (\stackrel{}{\rho ^{}})\psi _\alpha (\stackrel{}{\rho })d^3\stackrel{}{\rho }d^3\stackrel{}{\rho ^{}},\end{array}$$

where $`\alpha ,\beta =\pm `$ are spin indices and thereafter a sum over repeated indices is implied. We use such units that $`\mathrm{}=1`$, $`e=c`$ and $`H=B=1`$. The latter implies that all distances can be expressed in terms of the so-called magnetic length: $`l_H=\sqrt{c\mathrm{}/eH}=1`$. We split three coordinates $`\stackrel{}{\rho }`$ into a perpendicular to the layer coordinate $`\xi `$ and two in-plane coordinates $`\stackrel{}{r}=(x,y)=(z,\overline{z})`$. We assume that the confining potential is uniform over the plane: $`V(\stackrel{}{\rho })=V(\xi )`$, and represents a double well structure in the transverse direction as shown on the Fig.1, with the two wells being separated by the distance $`d`$. We use only two eigen functions: the lowest energy symmetric $`\chi _S(\xi )`$ and antisymmetric $`\chi _A(\xi )`$, from a set of one-electron eigen functions in the confining potential $`V(\xi )`$ and we expand an electron second-quantized operator in terms of these two eigen functions:

$$\psi _\alpha (\stackrel{}{\rho })=\underset{\tau ,n,p}{}\chi _\tau (\xi )\varphi _{n,p}(\stackrel{}{r})c_{n\alpha \tau p},$$
(1)
where $`c_{\alpha \tau p}^+`$ and $`c_{\alpha \tau p}`$ are electron creation and anhilation operators, $`\varphi _{n,p}(z\overline{z})`$ is an electron wave function number $`p`$ in the Landau gauge in the $`n`$’s Landau Level, the index $`\tau =1,2`$ being the layer index and the layer wave functions read:

$$\chi _{1,2}(\xi )=\frac{\chi _S(\xi )\pm \chi _A(\xi )}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(2)
We restrict our model to the case of a sufficiently strong magnetic field, such that the cyclotron energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ dominates over the Coulomb, Zeeman and the level splitting: $`E_AE_S`$, energies. Thus, we specialize to the lowest Landau Level and retain only the term $`n=0`$ in (1).

Plugging the wave function (1) into the Hamiltonian (Hamiltonian of 2DEG bilayer) we find a 2DEG Hamiltonian as:

$$\begin{array}{c}H=\frac{1}{2m}c_{\alpha \tau p}^+c_{\alpha \tau p}c_{\alpha \tau _1p}^+\left(t\tau _{\tau _1\tau _2}^x+\mu ^z\tau _{\tau _1\tau _2}^z\right)c_{\alpha \tau _2p}|g|\mu _BHc_{\alpha \tau p}^+\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^zc_{\beta \tau p}+\\ +\frac{1}{2}\underset{p_1..p_4}{}d^2\stackrel{}{r}d^2\stackrel{}{r^{}}V_{\tau _2\tau _3}^{\tau _1\tau _4}(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r^{}})\varphi _{p_1}^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\varphi _{p_2}^{}(\stackrel{}{r^{}})\varphi _{p_3}(\stackrel{}{r^{}})\varphi _{p_4}(\stackrel{}{r})\\ c_{\alpha \tau _1p_1}^+c_{\beta \tau _2p_2}^+c_{\beta \tau _3p_3}c_{\alpha \tau _4p_4},\end{array}$$
(3)
where we have defined a hopping constant:

$$t=\frac{1}{2}d^2\stackrel{}{r}𝑑\xi \varphi _p^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\chi _{\tau _1}(\xi )\tau _{\tau _1\tau _2}^xV(\xi )\chi _{\tau _2}(\xi )\varphi _p(\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(4)
as well as an external electrostatic potential created by an asymmetric gate charge:

$$\mu ^z=\frac{1}{2}d^2\stackrel{}{r}𝑑\xi \varphi _p^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\chi _{\tau _1}(\xi )\tau _{\tau _1\tau _2}^zV(\xi )\chi _{\tau _2}(\xi )\varphi _p(\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(5)
whereas the Coulomb interaction matrix reads:

$$V_{\tau _2\tau _3}^{\tau _1\tau _4}(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r^{}})=\frac{\chi _{\tau _1}(\xi )\chi _{\tau _2}(\xi ^{})\chi _{\tau _3}(\xi ^{})\chi _{\tau _4}(\xi )}{\sqrt{(\xi \xi ^{})^2+\left(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r^{}}\right)^2}}𝑑\xi 𝑑\xi ^{}.$$
(6)
We use notations: $`\tau ^x`$, $`\tau ^y`$ and $`\tau ^z`$, for the Pauli matrices in the layer space whereas we use notations: $`\sigma ^x`$, $`\sigma ^y`$ and $`\sigma ^z`$, for the Pauli matrices in the spin space. The hopping constant can be related to the splitting of the symmetric and the antisymmetric levels: $`t=E_AE_S`$. The electrostatic potential $`\mu ^z`$, which can be viewed as a difference between the chemical potentials in the two layers, breaks down the symmetry between the two wells of $`V(\xi )`$ potential. This term appears naturally when a single gate is fabricated to control the electron density in the bilayer. In the limit $`d0`$, $`\mu ^z`$ vanishes too, whereas in the limit of large layer separation: $`d\mathrm{}`$, $`\mu ^z\mathrm{}`$ and electrons reside only on the layer adjacent to the gate. We assume that the energy of a capacitor formed by the two layers is much lower than the characteristic Coulomb energy $`e^2/\kappa l_H^3`$, per area, where $`\kappa `$ is the dielectric constant. We note the invariance of the Coulomb energy: (6) under the following transformations: $`\tau _1\tau _4`$, $`\tau _2\tau _3`$ as well as $`(\tau _1\tau _4)(\tau _2\tau _3)`$. To fully exploit these symmetries we cast the Eq.6 into a more suitable representation:

$$V_{\tau _2\tau _3}^{\tau _1\tau _4}(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r^{}})=V^{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r^{}})\tau _{\tau _1\tau _4}^\mu \tau _{\tau _2\tau _3}^\nu ,$$
(7)
where $`\tau ^0`$ is the unit matrix, $`V^{\mu \nu }`$ is a $`3\times 3`$ symmetric interaction matrix with indices $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$ running over a set $`(0,z,x)`$. If there is a symmetry of the Coulomb interaction under an exchange of layers: $`(\xi \xi ^{})(\xi \xi ^{})`$ and $`12`$ then it restricts further values of the interaction matrix: $`V^{0z}=0`$ and $`V^{zx}=0`$. But in the presence of a gate asymmetry we shall keep the matrix element: $`V^{0z}`$. Therefore, the Coulomb interaction matrix for symmetric bilayer 2DEG depends on four parameters: $`V^{00}>0`$, $`V^{0x}`$, $`V^{xx}>0`$, $`V^{zz}>0`$. We note also, that $`V^{0x}\chi `$, $`V^{xx}\chi ^2`$, whereas $`V^{zz}d^2/|z|^3`$ as $`|z|\mathrm{}`$. In the following we shall neglect $`V^{xx}`$ matrix element.

Next, we split the total bilayer Hamiltonian (3) into two parts: the first one contains a dominant Coulomb energy term:

$$\begin{array}{c}H^{sym}=\frac{1}{2m}c_{\alpha \tau p}^+c_{\alpha \tau p}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^2}V^{00}(\stackrel{}{q})N(\stackrel{}{q})N(\stackrel{}{q}),\end{array}$$
(8)
where $`V^{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is the Fourier transform of $`V^{\mu \nu }`$ $`(\stackrel{}{r})`$ multiplied by a factor $`\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{}{q}^2/4)`$ and the electron density operator reads:

$$N(\stackrel{}{q})=\underset{p}{}c_{\alpha \tau p}^+c_{\alpha \tau pq_y}\mathrm{exp}iq_x(p\frac{q_y}{2})$$
(9)
This part of the Hamiltonian is invariant under uniform rotations from the $`SU(4)`$ Lee group in the combined spin and layer space. Every of its eigen energy is hugely degenerate. Given any eigen state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ a set of related eigen states can be generated by applying rotations: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=U|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, where $`USU(4)`$. For Landau level filling factor $`\nu =1`$, $`\nu =2`$ and $`\nu =3`$ we assume that the the bilayer ground state is uniform over $`p`$-orbitals:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\nu }{}}\underset{p}{}c_{\alpha _i\tau _ip}^+|empty,$$
(10)
and we prove in the next section that this state is stable with respect to long-range spatial perturbations. One can easily check by inspection that any such wave-function (10) represents an eigen function of the $`H^{sym}`$ (8). The remaining few terms in the Hamiltonian (3) are treated like perturbations:

$$\begin{array}{c}H^{anis}=c_{\alpha \tau _1p}^+\left(t\tau _{\tau _1\tau _2}^x+\mu ^z\tau _{\tau _1\tau _2}^z\right)c_{\alpha \tau _2p}|g|\mu _BHc_{\alpha \tau p}^+\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^zc_{\beta \tau p}+\\ +\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^2}V^{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{q})T^\mu (\stackrel{}{q})T^\nu (\stackrel{}{q}),\end{array}$$

where (see e.g. )

$$T^\mu (\stackrel{}{q})=\underset{p}{}c_{\alpha \tau _1p}^+\tau _{\tau _1\tau _2}^\mu c_{\alpha \tau _2pq_y}\mathrm{exp}iq_x(p\frac{q_y}{2})$$
(11)
with $`(\mu \nu )(00)`$. The Hamiltonian (Hamiltonian of 2DEG bilayer) breaks down the $`SU(4)`$ symmetry but it is still invariant under separate rotations in the spin and layer space: $`SU(2)SU(2)`$. We shall call this part of the Hamiltonian the anisotropy Hamiltonian. It lifts the degeneracy of eigen states of the $`SU(4)`$-symmetric Hamiltonian (8). An important point to note here is that a splitting of energy levels is determined by matrix elements of weak anisotropy Hamiltonian (Hamiltonian of 2DEG bilayer) truncated to a linear space of the symmetric Hamiltonian (8) level degeneracy. There are no Fermi-liquid type renormalizations of the constants of the anisotropy Hamiltonian (Hamiltonian of 2DEG bilayer) due to the $`SU(4)`$-symmetric Hamiltonian (8). In other word the mean-field Hartree-Fock approach is perfect for the $`\nu =1`$, $`\nu =2`$ and $`\nu =3`$ cases.

Our guiding analogy in treating the total bilayer Hamiltonian (8, Hamiltonian of 2DEG bilayer) lies in the theory of magnetism. We will see below that there exists a local order parameter: $`Q`$, very much like magnetization. And we aim to express the total bilayer Hamiltonian (8,Hamiltonian of 2DEG bilayer) in terms of this order parameter $`Q`$. The exchange-like Hamiltonian (8) has to be expanded in powers of spatial variations of order parameter $`Q(\stackrel{}{r})`$ with the second power of gradients being the important contribution, whereas only locally homogeneous $`Q`$ has to be retain in the anisotropy Hamiltonian (Hamiltonian of 2DEG bilayer). In the next section we carry out the first step whereas in the next-to-next section we transform the anisotropy energy.

## SU(4) Symmetric Case

In this section we specialize to the $`SU(4)`$-symmetric part of the bilayer 2DEG Hamiltonian (8) which is invariant under the global rotations of a four component electron spinor by the $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`U`$ from the $`SU(4)`$ Lee group. We find it useful the ground state of operators $`c`$ to be the reference state. Any non-homogeneous state is then generated by rotation: $`U(t,\stackrel{}{r})`$. And the action of bilayer is some functional of it:

$$S[U(t,\stackrel{}{r})]=i\text{tr}\mathrm{log}𝒟c^+(t)𝒟c(t)\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝑑t\right)$$
(12)
where the symmetric Lagrangian of bilayer 2DEG reads:

$$\begin{array}{c}=c_{\alpha \tau _1}^+\left[i\frac{}{t}\frac{1}{2m}\left(i\stackrel{}{}+\stackrel{}{A}_0+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\alpha \beta \tau _1\tau _2}\right)^2\right]c_{\beta \tau _2}d^2\stackrel{}{r}+\\ +c_{\alpha \tau _1}^+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta \tau _1\tau _2}^tc_{\beta \tau _2}d^2\stackrel{}{r}\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^2}V^{00}(\stackrel{}{q})N(\stackrel{}{q})N(\stackrel{}{q}),\end{array}$$
(13)
where $`\stackrel{}{A}_0=(0,A^y)`$ is the vector potential of the external magnetic field and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^t=iU^+\frac{}{t}U,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=iU^+\stackrel{}{}U.$$
(14)
In the limit of slow spatial variations of rotation $`U(t,\stackrel{}{r})`$ this functional has an expansion in powers of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In this context the functional (12) is called an effective low-energy Goldstone Action, and we are going to find it in this section. All calculations follows step in step those done in Ref. for the case of a single layer, and here we emphasized only the points of difference.

Calculations of the Goldstone Action can be carried through for three filling factors of the bilayer 2DEG: $`\nu =1`$, $`\nu =2`$ and $`\nu =3`$, at once. We start with choosing the reference state: i) $`n=1`$, one electron with spin up fills every orbital $`p`$ of the lowest Landau Level of the first layer: $`|+_1`$; ii) $`n=2`$, two electrons - one with spin up on the first layer and the other with spin down on the second layer - fill every orbital $`p`$ the lowest Landau Level: $`|+_1|_2`$; iii) three electrons \- one with spin down on the first layer and the two other with spin up and down on the second layer - fill every orbital $`p`$ the lowest Landau Level: $`|_1|+_2|_2`$. The case iii) reduces to the case i) if one makes the electron-hole transformation.

The one-electron Green functions defined for the reference state of the Hamiltonian (13) in the homogeneous limit: $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=0`$, reads:

$$\begin{array}{c}G_{\alpha \tau _1,\beta \tau _2}^0(ϵ)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}^0+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}^z\right)\frac{1}{ϵ+E_0\mu i0}+\\ +\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}^z\right)\frac{1}{ϵ\mu +i0},\end{array}$$
(15)
where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}^0=\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^0\tau _{\tau _1\tau _2}^0=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
and in the case $`n=1,3`$:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}^z=\pm \left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
whereas in the case $`n=2`$:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}^z=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(18)
The effective action can be written as:

$$S=S_0+S_2,$$
(19)
where

$$S_0=i\text{tr}\mathrm{log}\frac{G}{G_0}$$
(20)
and $`S_2`$ is conveniently represented in terms of diagrams in the Fig.2. As it is explained in the Ref. the first order perturbation correction to the Green function: $`\delta G=GG_0`$, contains an electron propagation on the first excited Landau Level. Thus, we also need the bare Green function of an excited electron on this level:

$$\begin{array}{c}G_{\alpha \tau _1,\beta \tau _2}^1(ϵ)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}^0+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}^z\right)\frac{1}{ϵ1/m+E_1\mu +i0}+\\ +\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}^z\right)\frac{1}{ϵ1/m\mu +i0},\end{array}$$
(21)
where

$$E_0=2E_1=\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\frac{e^2}{\kappa l_H}.$$
(22)
As it is explained in the Ref. the gradient vector field enters the following terms in the Hamiltonian

$$H_1=\frac{1}{2m}c_{\alpha \tau _1}^+\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}^+\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+\right)c_{\beta \tau _2}d^2\stackrel{}{r},$$
(23)
$$H_2=\frac{1}{2m}c_{\alpha \tau _1}^+\left[\left(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2\right)_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}i\left(_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu \right)_{\alpha \beta ,\tau _1\tau _2}\right]c_{\beta \tau _2}d^2\stackrel{}{r},$$
(24)
where the operators $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\pm `$ shift an electron between the adjacent Landau Levels:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}\varphi _{np}(\stackrel{}{r})=\sqrt{2n}\varphi _{n1p}(\stackrel{}{r}),\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+\varphi _{n1p}(\stackrel{}{r})=\sqrt{2n}\varphi _{np}(\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(25)
though only the $`n=0`$ and $`n=1`$ Landau Level states are relevant for our problem. The two new gradient vector fields in the Hamiltonian (23) are defined as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm =iU^+\left(_yi_x\right)U,$$
(26)
These two components are real: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{}`$. An expansion of the 2DEG action up to the second power of the Hamiltonian (23) reads:

$$\delta S_0=i\text{tr}\left(H_1G_0\right)+\frac{i}{2}\text{tr}\left(H_1G_0H_1G_0\right)+i\text{tr}\left(H_2G_0\right).$$
(27)
Combining this expansion with diagrams of the Fig.2 we find the low-energy Goldstone Hamiltonian as follows:

$$H_G=\frac{E_1}{8}\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{r}}{2\pi }\text{tr}\left((\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^z)\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(\stackrel{}{r})(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0+\mathrm{\Sigma }^z)\mathrm{\Omega }_+(\stackrel{}{r})\right)$$
(28)
The insertion matrices in (28) are non-negative diagonal ones and they represent the occupation number for the electron states:

$$N=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0+\mathrm{\Sigma }^z\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ & \\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(29)
and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^0N=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^z\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ & \\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(30)
where blocks are $`1\times 1`$ and $`3\times 3`$ in the case $`\nu =1,3`$ and $`2\times 2`$ in the case $`\nu =2`$. It follows immediately that $`H_G0`$.

The matrices $`N`$ and $`1N`$ can be viewed as projector operators that allow only those rotations into the Hamiltonian (28) that do change the ground state. It is useful to understand what particular sub-set of $`SU(4)`$ Lee group these physical rotations form. The vector field $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ can be expanded in the basis of fifteen generators of $`SU(4)`$ Lee group: $`\{\mathrm{\Sigma }^l\}`$, with $`l=\mathrm{1..15}`$. And we subdivide them into two complementary sets: the first one includes those generators that do commute with occupation number matrices (29, 30), and we shall called it an $`(even)`$ set, whereas the second one includes the remaining generators, and we shall call it the $`(odd)`$ set. Generators of the $`(even)`$ set constitute an algebra itself. This algebra has a normal Abelian subalgebra formed by a single generator: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^z\text{tr}\mathrm{\Sigma }^z/4`$. A Lee group built around the $`(even)`$ set of generators is called a stabilizer sub-group $`S`$ of $`SU(4)`$ Lee group. The $`(odd)`$ set always contains an even number of generators. Specifically, eight in the case of $`\nu =2`$ and six in the case $`\nu =1,3`$.

The Hamiltonian (28) must be invariant under the time reversal symmetry. The time reversal operator can be chosen as a complex conjugate operator: $`UU^{}`$. It follows that $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^T`$. Now it is evident that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+`$ get interchanged under the time reversal in (28), and this changes the Hamiltonian. But we remember that the time reversal is always accompanied by inverting the magnetic field $`B^z`$ and, thus, we can restore the time reversal symmetry by multiplying the antisymmetric part of the Hamiltonian $`H_G`$ by the sign of the magnetic field:

$$H_G=\frac{E_1}{2}\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{r}}{2\pi }\left[\text{tr}\left((\mathrm{\Sigma }^0N)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu N\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu \right)+i\text{sgn}(B^z)ϵ_{\mu \nu }\text{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_\nu N\right)\right]$$
(31)
Now if we define a useful gradient vector field:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^z(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{i}{2}\text{tr}\left(U^+(\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{\Sigma }^z_\mu U(\stackrel{}{r})\right),$$
(32)
then it is straightforward to rewrite the Eq.(31):

$$H_G=\frac{E_1}{2}\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{r}}{2\pi }\left[\text{tr}\left((\mathrm{\Sigma }^0N)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu N\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu \right)+\text{sgn}(B^z)\text{curl}\mathrm{\Omega }^z\right],$$
(33)
The first term in $`H_G`$ (33) is the gradient energy whereas the second term is proportional to the topological index of an excited state:

$$𝒬=\text{curl}\mathrm{\Omega }^z\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{r}}{2\pi }=Z,$$
(34)
where $`Z`$ is the set of integer numbers. The case $`𝒬=\pm 1`$ corresponds to the simplest spin skyrmion in the first layer being rotated by a $`SU(4)`$ matrix to become a general bilayer skyrmion. The energy constant in $`H_G`$ (33) coincide identically with that of the one-layer case , which means that the bilayer skyrmion energy is the same as found for one layer. But there is an important difference between a bilayer skyrmion and a spin skyrmion in a single ferromagnetic layer. Namely, as was shown in the Ref. any skyrmion carries a charge density in the core:

$$n(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{\text{curl}\mathrm{\Omega }^z(\stackrel{}{r})}{2\pi }=\frac{R^2}{\pi \left(R^2+\stackrel{}{r}^2\right)^2},$$
(35)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the skyrmion’s core, contrary to that in the bilayer a charge of the skyrmion’s core can be delocalized over the two layers with a much longer tails:

$$n_{1,2}(\stackrel{}{r})\pm \frac{1}{\left(R^2+\stackrel{}{r}^2\right)}.$$
(36)
The total charge of two layers does converge according to (35) at large distances from the skyrmion’s core.

The Goldstone Hamiltonian (33) can be cast in a special order parameter representation. To do this we define a non-homogeneous order parameter matrix $`Q`$ as follows:

$$Q(\stackrel{}{r})=U(\stackrel{}{r})NU^+(\stackrel{}{r}).$$
(37)
This electronic order parameter has an important property:

$$A=\text{tr}(AQ),$$
(38)
where $`A`$ is any operator. Inspecting the particular difinition of $`N`$ (29) it becomes evident that rotations from the denominator sub-group $`S`$ leaves the order parameter intact. Thus, rotations in (37) can be restricted to a coset or, in other word, a physical space of the bilayer 2DEG:

$$\frac{U(4)}{U(\nu )U(4\nu )}.$$
(39)
Now it a straightforward calculation to rewrite $`H_G`$ (33) in terms of the order parameter matrix:

$$H=\frac{E_1}{4}\text{tr}\left(\stackrel{}{}Q\stackrel{}{}Q\right)\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{r}}{2\pi }+\text{sgn}(B^z)\frac{E_1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu }\text{tr}\left(Q_\mu Q_\nu Q\right)\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{r}}{2\pi }.$$
(40)
In this representation the topological index appears as an index of a map of the order parameter coset space into a 2D plane. The index selection rule (34) is a consequence of a well known homotopy group identity:

$$𝒬=\pi _2\left(\frac{U(4)}{U(\nu )U(4\nu )}\right)=Z.$$
(41)
In the end we have to include the Coulomb energy of charge distribution inside the skyrmion core:

$$\delta H_G=\frac{1}{2}d^2\stackrel{}{r}d^2\stackrel{}{r^{}}\frac{\text{curl}\mathrm{\Omega }^z(\stackrel{}{r})}{2\pi }\frac{e^2}{|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r^{}}|}\frac{\text{curl}\mathrm{\Omega }^z(\stackrel{}{r}^{})}{2\pi }.$$
(42)
## Anisotropic Part of Coulomb Energy. Phase Diagram.

In this section we cast the anisotropic part of the bilayer Hamiltonian (Hamiltonian of 2DEG bilayer) in terms of the order parameter matrix $`Q`$. It can be conveniently done by the following Harteree-Fock average of $`c`$-operator product in (Hamiltonian of 2DEG bilayer):

$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _{\tau _1\tau _4}^\mu \tau _{\tau _2\tau _3}^\nu <c_{\alpha \tau _1p_1}^+c_{\beta \tau _2p_2}^+c_{\beta \tau _3p_3}c_{\alpha \tau _4p_4}>=\\ =\delta _{p_1p_4}\delta _{p_2p_3}\text{tr}(Q\tau ^\mu )\text{tr}(Q\tau ^\nu )\delta _{p_1p_3}\delta _{p_2p_4}\text{tr}(Q\tau ^\mu Q\tau ^\nu ),\end{array}$$

where $`\tau ^\mu `$ acts on four-spinor as $`\tau ^\mu \sigma ^0`$. Next, we define the following Coulomb anisotropy constants:

$$E^{ab}=\frac{dzd\overline{z}}{2\pi l_H^2}V^{ab}(|z|)\mathrm{exp}\frac{|z|^2}{2l_H^2}\frac{dzd\overline{z}}{2\pi l_H^2}V^{ab}(|z|),$$
(43)
where the last approximation holds for $`(ab)(00)`$ in the limit $`dl_H`$. And, finally, we rewrite the anisotropy Hamiltonian (Hamiltonian of 2DEG bilayer) in terms of order parameter matrix $`Q`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}H^{anis}/𝒩=\left(t+(\nu 1)E^{0x}\right)\text{tr}\left(Q\tau ^x\right)\left(\mu ^z+(\nu 1)E^{0z}\right)\text{tr}\left(Q\tau ^z\right)\\ |g|\mu _BH\text{tr}\left(Q\sigma ^z\right)+\frac{1}{2}E^{zz}\left[\text{tr}\left(Q\tau ^z\right)\text{tr}\left(Q\tau ^z\right)\text{tr}\left(Q\tau ^zQ\tau ^z\right)\right],\end{array}$$
(44)
where $`𝒩`$ is the number of degeneracy of the Landau Level. The Eqs.(40, 44) defines the effective long-range Hamiltonian of a bilayer at integer filling factors. At non-zero temperatures thermal fluctuations of the order parameter soften the anisotropy constants in the Hamiltonian (44). The relevant calculation can be found in eg.  and the result reads:

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(t+(\nu 1)E^{0x}\right)_R=\left(t+(\nu 1)E^{0x}\right)\left(\frac{l_h}{R^{}}\right)^{8T/E_1}\\ \left(t+(\nu 1)E^{0z}\right)_R=\left(t+(\nu 1)E^{0z}\right)\left(\frac{l_h}{R^{}}\right)^{8T/E_1}\\ (|g|\mu _BH)_R=|g|\mu _BH\left(\frac{l_h}{R^{}}\right)^{8T/E_1}\\ E_R^{zz}=E^{zz}\left(\frac{l_h}{R^{}}\right)^{24T/E_1},\end{array}$$
(45)
where the spatial scale $`R_{}^2=l_H^2E_1/\text{max}(t,\mu ^z,|g|\mu _BH,E^{zz})`$ indicates the excitation wavelength where its anisotropy energy starts to compete with its exchange energy. Note that the three first constants renormalize as an external field whereas $`E^{zz}`$ constant renormalizes as an easy-axis anisotropy. Although the Coulomb energy $`E_1100KT1K`$ in most experiments, the specific number: $`24=3\times 8`$, which is related to the order of anisotropy and to the eight degree of freedom for thermal fluctuations in the case of $`SU(4)`$ symmetry, makes the renormalization of the constant $`E^{zz}`$ noticeable.

As we have seen in the previous section the order parameter can be parameterized by six or eight angles in the case $`\nu =1,3`$ or $`\nu =2`$. Actually, not every of those rotations corresponds to a physically distinct eigen state. We restrict the calculation of the total bilayer energy up to a first order in powers of the anisotropy Hamiltonian, which means that we shall need only its diagonal matrix elements. But, these are real matrix elements of course, despite the fact that in an external magnetic field there is no time reversal symmetry. Hence, if the Hamiltonian is real one so real has to be its ground state. One generates all real eigen states from a reference state by rotations from the $`SO(4)`$ sub-group of the $`SU(4)`$ group. This group has 6 parameters with two of them falling into the denominator sub-group. Thus, the ground state differs from the reference state by just four rotations. One can view locally the 8D manifold of order parameter as a composition of four unit vectors: magnetization of the first and the second layers and the two hopping-tau vectors which represent the distribution of spin-up and spin-down electron density over the two layers. Now the first two term in the Hamiltonian (Hamiltonian of 2DEG bilayer) are external fields acting on these four vectors. On the other hand the Coulomb energy couples pairs of tau vectors via an exchange interaction. This instructive picture allows us to identify only three special global rotations that do change the total bilayer energy. We start with the case $`\nu =2`$ and we use a set of trial many electron wave functions parameterized by the three angles of relevant in our case rotations: $`\theta _\pm `$ and $`\vartheta `$,:

$$\underset{p}{}U(\vartheta ,\vartheta )R(\theta _+,\theta _{})c_{+1p}^+c_{2p}^+|empty,$$
(46)
where spins in the layer 1,2 are first rotated by $`\pm \vartheta `$:

$$U_{\beta \tau _2}^{\alpha \tau _1}(\vartheta ,\vartheta )=\left(\frac{\tau ^0+\tau ^z}{2}\right)_{\tau _1\tau _2}\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\vartheta }{2}\sigma ^y)_{\alpha \beta }+\left(\frac{\tau ^0\tau ^z}{2}\right)_{\tau _1\tau _2}\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\vartheta }{2}\sigma ^y)_{\alpha \beta },$$
(47)
and then wave functions of electrons with spin $`\pm `$ spill over the two layers, the process described by two distinct angles: $`\theta _\pm `$,:

$$R_{\beta \tau _2}^{\alpha \tau _1}(\theta _+,\theta _{})=\left(\frac{\sigma ^0+\sigma ^z}{2}\right)_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\theta _+}{2}\tau ^y)_{\tau _1\tau _2}+\left(\frac{\sigma ^0\sigma ^z}{2}\right)_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\theta _{}}{2}\tau ^y)_{\tau _1\tau _2}.$$
(48)
This set includes the singlet-liquid state at $`\theta _\pm =\pi /2`$ and $`\vartheta =0`$ and the canted antiferromagnetic state at $`\theta _\pm =0`$. The order parameter reads:

$$Q=URNR^+U^+,$$
(49)
with $`N`$ being the electron density calculated with the reference state of the previous section (see (29)). Now we substitute (49) into the anisotropic Hamiltonian (44) to find the the total anisotropy bilayer energy as:

$$\begin{array}{c}E^{anis}=E^{zz}\mathrm{cos}\theta _+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{}(t+E^{0x})\mathrm{cos}\vartheta (\mathrm{sin}\theta _++\mathrm{sin}\theta _{})\\ (\mu ^z+E^{0z})(\mathrm{cos}\theta _+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{})|g|\mu _BH\mathrm{sin}\vartheta (\mathrm{cos}\theta _++\mathrm{cos}\theta _{}),\end{array}$$
(50)
The minimum of this energy corresponds to three phases: a) ferromagnetic $`\vartheta =\pi /2`$, $`\theta _+=\theta _{}=0`$; b) spin singlet $`\vartheta =0`$, $`\theta _+=\pi \theta _{}=\theta `$; and c) canted antiferromagnetic state otherwise, as it is shown on the Fig.3. It is identical to that found in the Ref.. A line of continuous phase transitions between the ferromagnetic phase and the canted antiferromagnetic phase is given by the following equation:

$$\left[\left(E^{zz}+|g|\mu _BH\right)^2\left(\mu ^z+E^{0z}\right)^2\right]|g|\mu _BH=\left(t+E^{0x}\right)^2\left(E^{zz}+|g|\mu _BH\right)$$
(51)
In the spin singlet phase the interlayer mixing phase: $`\theta `$, is determined by the equation:

$$\left(E^{zz}\mathrm{sin}\theta +t+E^{0x}\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta =\left(\mu ^z+E^{0z}\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$
(52)
A phase transition line that separate the spin singlet phase from the canted antiferromagnetic phase is given parametrically by the equation:

$$\left((t+E^{0x})\mathrm{sin}\theta E^{zz}+\left(\mu ^z+E^{0z}\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)\left(t+E^{0x}\right)=\left(|g|\mu _BH\right)^2\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(53)
where $`\theta `$ is determined from (52). This phase transition is a continuous one also.

In the case $`\nu =1`$ there is no Coulomb interaction energy and the total bilayer energy reads:

$$E^{anis}=t\mathrm{sin}\theta \mu ^z\mathrm{cos}\theta |g|\mu _BH\mathrm{cos}\vartheta ,$$
(54)
The minimum of this energy is given by electron spin being directed along the magnetic field: $`\vartheta =0`$, whereas $`\theta =\mathrm{tan}^1t/\mu ^z`$. There is no phase transition in the case $`\nu =1`$ and the only phase can be characterized as ferromagnetic in both the spin and the layer spaces.

The case $`\nu =3`$ formally reduces to the case $`\nu =1`$ although here the Coulomb interaction energy does not vanish identically. We find renormalizations to the one-particle electron Hamiltonian whereas the total energy being similar to the case $`\nu =1`$:

$$E^{anis}=(t+2E^{0x})\mathrm{sin}\theta (\mu ^z+2E^{0z})\mathrm{cos}\theta |g|\mu _BH\mathrm{cos}\vartheta ,$$
(55)
There is no phase transition in this case either.

## Anisotropic energy gap of one Skyrmion

In this section we find an anisotropic part of the total skyrmion gap energy. The non-homogeneous order parameter that represents one skyrmion is given by the Belavin-Polyakov (BP) skyrmion solution for $`|𝒬|=1`$ :

$$Q_{BP}(z\overline{z})=\frac{R^2}{R^2+|z|^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}|z|^2& zR\\ & \\ \overline{z}R& R^2\end{array}\right)$$
(56)
where only the shown above four matrix elements differs from those in the electron density matrix $`N`$ (29). The skyrmion order parameter has to be rotated by a homogeneous matrix $`RU`$ calculated in the previous section in such a way that the order parameter far away from the skyrmion center minimizes the anisotropy energy. In addition to this rotation we have to allow all homogeneous rotations from the denominator sub-group $`S`$ that actually transform the BP skyrmion order parameter (56): $`W`$. Thus, a general skyrmion order parameter reads:

$$Q(\stackrel{}{r})=RUWQ_{BP}(z\overline{z})W^+U^+R^+.$$
(57)
First, we consider the case $`\nu =2`$. Here the matrix $`W`$ is parameterized by seven angles:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}\beta _fe^{i(\gamma _f+\alpha _f)}& \mathrm{sin}\beta _fe^{i(\gamma _f\alpha _f)}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\beta _fe^{i(\gamma _f+\alpha _f)}& \mathrm{cos}\beta _fe^{i(\gamma _f\alpha _f)}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}\beta _ee^{i(\gamma _e+\alpha _e)}& \mathrm{sin}\beta _ee^{i(\gamma _e\alpha _e)}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{sin}\beta _ee^{i(\gamma _e+\alpha _e)}& \mathrm{cos}\beta _ee^{i(\gamma _e\alpha _e)}\end{array}\right)$$
(58)
The additional seventh parameter angle of the denominator group just rotates the coordinates: $`ze^{i\gamma _7}z`$. We find by explicit calculation that the skyrmion anisotropic energy does not depend on parameters $`\gamma _e`$, $`\gamma _f`$ and $`\gamma _7`$ whereas $`\alpha _e=0`$ and $`\alpha _f=\pi `$ correspond to the skyrmion energy minimum. Thus we shall express the anisotropic skyrmion energy in terms of the two relevant parameters $`\beta _e`$ and $`\beta _f`$ that rotates the core of skyrmion in the empty-electron space and filled-electron space correspondingly. Besides these angles the skyrmion energy depends on free parameters entering the BP solution. The calculation here has been performed only for skyrmion topological index: $`|𝒬|=1`$ (56) and in this case there is only one such parameter, namely, the radius $`R`$ of the core of skyrmion. There are few different spatial integrals that we encounter in calculation. And only one of them is logarithmically divergent. We calculate the skyrmion anisotropy energy with the logarithmic accuracy. It means that parts of the anisotropy energy coming from different anisotropy sources are all multiplied by the same spatial integral, which we denote by a constant $`A`$:

$$A=\left(\frac{R}{l_H}\right)^2\mathrm{log}\frac{R^{}}{R}.$$
(59)
where $`R^{}`$ is the inverse mass of Goldstone excitations in the model (33,50). Also, the Zeeman energy of skyrmion reads:

$$\begin{array}{c}E_Z^{skyr}=A_Z=A|g|\mu _BH(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\vartheta (\mathrm{cos}\beta _f\mathrm{cos}\beta _e)(\mathrm{cos}\theta _+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{})+\\ +\mathrm{sin}\vartheta (\mathrm{cos}\theta _++\mathrm{cos}\theta _{})\mathrm{cos}\vartheta (\mathrm{sin}\beta _f+\mathrm{sin}\beta _e)\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta _++\theta _{}}{2})\end{array}$$
(60)
The hopping energy of skyrmion reads:

$$\begin{array}{c}E_H^{skyr}=A_H=A(t+E^{0x})(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta (\mathrm{cos}\beta _f\mathrm{cos}\beta _e)(\mathrm{sin}\theta _+\mathrm{sin}\theta _{})+\\ +\mathrm{cos}\vartheta (\mathrm{sin}\theta _++\mathrm{sin}\theta _{})\mathrm{sin}\vartheta (\mathrm{sin}\beta _f+\mathrm{sin}\beta _e)\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta _++\theta _{}}{2})\end{array}$$
(61)
The gate asymmetry energy of skyrmion reads:

$$\begin{array}{c}E_G^{skyr}=A_G=A(\mu _z+E^{0z})((\mathrm{cos}\theta _+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{})\\ \frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\beta _f\mathrm{cos}\beta _e)(\mathrm{cos}\theta _++\mathrm{cos}\theta _{}))\end{array}$$
(62)
And finally the anisotropic Coulomb energy of skyrmion reads:

$$\begin{array}{c}E_{zz}^{skyr}=A_{zz}=AE^{zz}(\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\beta _f\mathrm{cos}\beta _e)(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{})+\\ +2\mathrm{cos}\theta _+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\beta _f\mathrm{sin}\beta _e\mathrm{sin}\theta _+\mathrm{sin}\theta _{}).\end{array}$$
(63)
There is also a contribution to the skyrmion energy coming from an non-homogeneous BP electric charge distribution inside the skyrmion core (42):

$$E_C^{skyr}=\frac{1}{2}d^2\stackrel{}{r}d^2\stackrel{}{r^{}}\frac{R^2}{\pi (r^2+R^2)^2}\frac{e^2}{\kappa |\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r^{}}|}\frac{R^2}{\pi (r^2+R^2)^2}=\frac{3\pi ^2}{64}\frac{e^2}{\kappa R}.$$
(64)
The minimum of the total anisotropic skyrmion energy (60,61,62, 63): $`^{sky}=_Z+_H+_G+_{zz}`$, over the two parameters $`\beta _e`$ and $`\beta _f`$ was found numerically and is denoted as: $`_{min}^{skyr}`$. Next, we find a minimum the total skyrmion energy including (64): $`E^{skyr}=A_{min}^{skyr}+E_C^{skyr}`$, with respect to the skyrmion radius $`R`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{𝒬+|𝒬|}{2}E_1+3\left(_{min}^{skyr}\left(\frac{3\pi ^2e^2}{128\kappa l_H}\right)^2\mathrm{log}\frac{e^2}{\kappa l_H_{min}^{skyr}}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(65)
This formula holds in the limit $`^{skyr}E_1`$ and, thus, the second term is much smaller then the first term in the Eq.(65) as they are calculated. But, it is important in the case of antiskyrmion $`𝒬=|𝒬|`$, the gap is only a relatively small anisotropic energy. The resulting anisotropic part of a skyrmion gap is shown on the Fig.4 in the case $`\mu ^z+E^{0z}=0`$. Note the two prominent cusp-like lines in the skyrmion gap sheet coincide with the two phase transition lines from the Fig.3. A view of another cross-section of the skyrmion gap: $`|g|\mu _BH=0`$, is shown on the Fig.5. A minima here also coincide with the canted-antiferromagnetic phase. A skyrmion in the ferromagnetic state is a spin-skyrmion with the spin rotations being localized inside one of the two layer, whereas a skyrmion in the spin-singlet state is a layer-skyrmion with the electron density being distributed over the two layers.

In the experimental setup  $`^{skyr}E_1`$ and our formulas can be compared with the experimental results only qualitatively. But they found a profound disappearence of the thermal activation gap maximum at some interval on the $`\nu =2`$ line. In our theory this would correspond to a minimum in the skyrmion gap and we suggest that this indicate the canted antiferromagnetic phase.

In the case $`\nu =1`$ we parameterize general rotations from the denominator sub-group by four angles in such a way that the electron density matrix becomes:

$$WQ_{BP}(z\overline{z})W^+=\frac{1}{R^2+|z|^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}|z|^2& Rz|f\\ & \\ R\overline{z}f|& R^2|ff|\end{array}\right)$$
(66)
where

$$|f=(\mathrm{cos}\frac{\beta }{2},\mathrm{sin}\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\alpha e^{i\lambda _1},\mathrm{sin}\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha e^{i\lambda _2})$$
(67)
Once again we find that the skyrmion energy does not depend on the parameters $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$. A straightforward calculation shows then that the Zeeman skyrmion energy is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=2A|g|\mu _BH\left(1\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \right),$$
(68)
the Hopping skyrmion energy is

$$E_H^{skyr}=At\left(\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha +\mathrm{sin}\theta \left[1+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\beta }{2}\right]\right)$$
(69)
whereas the gate asymmetry skyrmion energy is:

$$E_G^{skyr}=A\mu _z\left(\mathrm{cos}\beta \left[1\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \right]\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}+\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)$$
(70)
Note that there is no Coulomb energy in the case $`\nu =1`$. Searching for minima of Eq.(68,69,70) varying parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\alpha `$ and fixing $`\theta =\mathrm{tan}^1t/\mu ^z`$ we find the minimal anisotropy energy of skyrmion to be:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{𝒬+|𝒬|}{2}E_1+\text{min}(2\sqrt{t^2+\mu _z^2},2|g|\mu _BH).$$
(71)
The skyrmion gap is given by the same formula as in the case $`\nu =2`$: (65). Generally, there is no prominent minima in the skyrmion gap here. Nevetherless in the limit $`t|g|\mu _BH`$ such a minimum occurs.

The case $`\nu =3`$ reduces to the case $`\nu =1`$ if one simply to renormalize the constant in (71) as it was explained in the previous section.

## Conductivity Activation Energy

The conductivity activation energy was measured in experiments for bilayer system  and in one layer system . It was known for quite some time that this energy is considerably less than a typical exchange constant $`e^2/\kappa l_H`$. This fact was the main motivation for the experimental search of topological excitations. If one considers an act of creation of skyrmion and anti-skyrmion pair at large separation then one easily gets the pair energy: $`E_1=1/2E_0`$. This is definitely less than the creation of electron-hole pair at large separation: $`E_0`$, but still of the order of $`e^2/\kappa l_H`$, for one layer. In a bilayer system the prominent minimum in the minimal activation energy for skyrmion antiskyrmion pair is still of the order of $`E_1`$, in spite of the fact that experimental conductivity activation energy goes to zero very sharply .

This controversy can be overcome by considering the creation of neutral antyskyrmion and electron pair at large separation. First, we consider a one layer case. The energy of the additional electron with reversed spin does not contain exchange Coulomb energy and consist from anisotropy energy only. The energy of anti-skyrmion also has only anisotropic energy (65). The anisotropic energy of electron can be neglected in the limit of large ratio: $`E_1/|g|\mu _BH`$, which holds in most experiments. The total anti-skyrmion energy is:

$$|g|\mu _BB(1\mathrm{cos}\beta (r))\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{r}}{2\pi l_H^2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{e^2}{\kappa |\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}|}\text{curl}\mathrm{\Omega }^z(\stackrel{}{r})\text{curl}\mathrm{\Omega }^z(\stackrel{}{r}^{})d^2\stackrel{}{r}d^2\stackrel{}{r}^{}.$$
(72)
. Plugging the BP solution we calculate this energy to be:

$$2|g|\mu _BBR^2\mathrm{log}\frac{R^{}}{R}+\frac{3\pi ^2}{64}\frac{e^2}{\kappa R}.$$
(73)
Minimizing it further with respect to radius of the anti-skyrmion core $`R`$ we find the core radius:

$$R=\frac{1}{2}l_H\left(\frac{3\pi ^2e^2}{32\kappa l_H|g|\mu _B\mathrm{log}(R^{}/l_H)}\right)^{1/3}$$
(74)
and the activation energy:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{3}{2}\left(|g|\mu _BH\mathrm{log}(R^{}/l_H)\left(\frac{3\pi ^2e^2}{128\kappa l_H}\right)^2\right)^{1/3}.$$
(75)
The upper limit under the logarithm $`R^{}`$ is defined by the validity of BP solution. Essentially, it is a distance where gradient energy becomes of the order of Zeeman energy:

$$R^{}=l_H\sqrt{\frac{E_1}{|g|\mu _BH}}.$$
(76)
Therefore the logarithmic factor is of the order of unity. If it were rather large one would need to compare the energy of $`𝒬=1`$ and $`𝒬=2`$ antiskyrmions, with the latter being logarithmic free. In any case an important point is that the activation energy is magnetic field dependent:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=KH^{2/3},$$
(77)
which in agreement with the various experimental results . The absolute value of the constant $`K`$ (75)in this relation also conforms experiment . Note that the Zeeman energy of electron is much less that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (77). In the case of double layer system the situation is more complicated due to large number of parameters defining the $`H^{anis}`$. Nevertheless, assuming anisotropy energy is small and neglecting for the same reason the anisotropy energy of an electron we get the deep minimum in the canted antiferromagnetic phase in accordance with the experimental result . It should be noted that in the process of creation of anti-skyrmion electron pair the total topological charge of the system is not conserved as opposed to the skyrmion antiskyrmion pair. Therefore, this process goes tentatively on the sample boundary. Also the existence of magnetic field makes it possible to violate electron-hole symmetry usually assumed in theories used the basis of projected on the lowest Landau Level wave functions. The violation of the electron-hole symmetry is related to the topological charge and gives rise to the skyrmion vs antiskyrmion energy difference due to the topological term in the action (33).

## Acknowledgement

Valuable discussions with V.T.Dolgopolov and A.Maltsev are gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported by grant INTAS N97-31980.


text:
# Spin content of the Λ hyperon

## I Introduction

The spin and flavor content of the nucleon has been an extensively studied issue for well over a decade, since the EMC  announced that the strange quark is strongly polarized opposite to the valence quarks, indicating that the quarks carry only a small fraction of the nucleon spin. In contrast to the Ellis-Jaffe sum rule , the polarization of the strange quark turned out to be nonnegligible. A series of following experiments confirmed the EMC result . Hence, it is also natural to investigate the structure of other baryons. In particular, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon is interesting, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are related to the fragmentation functions which can be measured experimentally . According to the naive quark model the spin of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ comes solely from the strange quark, while the up and down quarks form the spin singlet, so that they make no contribution. However, an analysis based on the data of hyperon semileptonic decays and lepton-nucleon deep-inelastic scattering  predicts $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.6`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Delta }d_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.2`$. This analysis assumes, however, the flavor SU(3) symmetry, i.e. it uses the relations: $`\mathrm{\Delta }u=\mathrm{\Delta }d=\frac{1}{3}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }D)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s=\frac{1}{3}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }+2D)`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ identical for all octet baryons. It implies that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ spin is not completely carried by the strange quark. While the above analysis shows a discrepancy with the naive quark model, one should note that the effect of SU(3) symmetry breaking was not taken into account.

Recently, we have investigated hyperon semileptonic decays and the spin content of the nucleon with SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking taken into account . The SU(3) symmetry breaking was implemented via the Chiral Quark-Soliton Model ($`\chi `$QSM) in such a way that all dynamical variables in the model were fixed by the experimental data for the semileptonic decay constants. The results for the proton were: $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\text{p}=0.72\pm 0.07`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }d_\text{p}=0.54\pm 0.07`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\text{p}=0.33\pm 0.51`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}=0.51\pm 0.41`$. The large errors in $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\text{p}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}`$ are due to the large experimental uncertainties of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ decay constants. The conclusion in that work was as follows: First, statements concerning $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\text{p}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}`$ based on SU(3) flavor symmetry are premature. Second, accurate results can be obtained only by reducing the experimental uncertainty for $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ decays. It is of great interest to study the spin content of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, using the same framework as in Ref. . The aim of this paper is thus to find out what we can reliably conclude on the spin structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, based on hyperon semileptonic decays.

Let us first briefly recall how the standard analysis is carried out. Three diagonal axial-vector coupling constants define integrated polarized quark densities for a given baryon B:

$`g_\mathrm{A}^{(3)}(\text{B})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\text{B}\mathrm{\Delta }d_\text{B},`$ (1)
$`\sqrt{3}g_\mathrm{A}^{(8)}(\text{B})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\text{B}+\mathrm{\Delta }d_\text{B}2\mathrm{\Delta }s_\text{B},`$ (2)
$`g_\mathrm{A}^{(0)}(\text{B})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\text{B}+\mathrm{\Delta }d_\text{B}+\mathrm{\Delta }s_\text{B}.`$ (3)
Note that in our normalization $`g_\mathrm{A}^{(0)}(`$B$`)=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{B}`$.

Assuming SU(3) symmetry, one can calculate $`g_\text{A}^{(3,8)}(`$B$`)`$ in terms of the reduced matrix elements $`F`$ and $`D`$. For the proton and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ one gets:

$`g_\mathrm{A}^{(3)}(\text{p})=F+D,`$ $`\sqrt{3}g_\mathrm{A}^{(8)}(\text{p})=3FD,`$ (4)
$`g_\mathrm{A}^{(3)}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=0,`$ $`\sqrt{3}g_\mathrm{A}^{(8)}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=2D.`$ (5)
The constants $`F`$ and $`D`$ can be in principle extracted from the hyperon semileptonic decays. For example:

$$A_1=\left(g_1/f_1\right)^{(\mathrm{n}\mathrm{p})}=F+D,A_4=\left(g_1/f_1\right)^{(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{n})}=FD.$$
(6)
For convenience, we denote the ratios of axial-vector to vector decay constants by $`A_i`$ (see Table I). Taking for these decays experimental values (see Table I), one gets $`F=0.46`$ and $`D=0.80`$.

Since $`g_\mathrm{A}^{(0)}(`$B$`)`$ does not correspond to the SU(3) current, it cannot be expressed in terms of $`F`$ and $`D`$ without further assumptions. Thus, in order to extract all $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\text{p}`$ separately, one needs some additional information. Either another experimental input is needed, or a model which predicts $`g_\mathrm{A}^{(0)}(`$B$`)`$ in terms of the $`F`$ and $`D`$.

The first possibility can be realized by taking the experimental result for the first moment of the spin structure function $`g_1^\text{p}(x)`$ of the proton:

$$I_\text{p}=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑xg_1^\text{p}(x)=\frac{1}{18}\left(4\mathrm{\Delta }u_\text{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }d_\text{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }s_\text{p}\right)\left(1\frac{\alpha _\text{s}}{\pi }+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(7)
Recent analysis  implies $`I_\text{p}=0.124\pm 0.011`$ which translates into:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{p}4\mathrm{\Delta }u_\text{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }d_\text{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }s_\text{p}=2.56\pm 0.23.$$
(8)
if $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(Q^2=3(\mathrm{GeV}/c)^2)=0.4`$ is assumed. Taking for $`F=0.46`$ and for $`D=0.80`$ together with Eq.(8), one gets for the nucleon: $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\text{p}=0.79`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }d_\text{p}=0.47`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\text{p}=0.13`$, which implies $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}=0.19`$, a fairly small number as compared with the naive expectation from the quark model: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}=1`$.

It is important to realize that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}`$ is not directly measured; it is extracted from the data through some theoretical model. In the above example we have assumed the SU(3) symmetry and used two arbitrarily chosen hyperon decays (6). One could, however, use any two $`A_i`$’s out of 6 known hyperon decays to extract $`F`$ and $`D.`$ The number of combinations which one can form to extract $`F`$ and $`D`$ is 14 (actually 15, but two conditions are linearly dependent). Taking these 14 combinations into account, one gets:

$$F=0.40÷0.55,D=0.70÷0.89.$$
(9)
These are the uncertainties of the central values due to the theoretical error caused by using the exact SU(3) symmetry to describe the hyperon semileptonic decays. These uncertainties are further increased by the experimental errors of all individual decays.

Looking at Eq.(9), one might get an impression that a typical error associated with using SU(3) symmetry in analyzing the hyperon decays is of the order of 15 % or so. While this is true for the hyperon decays, the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\mathrm{B}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{B}`$ of the various baryons might be much more affected by the symmetry breaking. Indeed for $`F`$ and $`D`$ corresponding to (9) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{p}`$ as given by Eq.(8) $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}=0.02÷0.30`$.

As will be shown in the following, the $`\chi `$QSM predicts in the chiral limit :

$$g_\mathrm{A}^{(0)}(\text{B})=9F5D$$
(10)
for any baryon B. Here $`g_\mathrm{A}^{(0)}`$ is very sensitive to small variations of $`F`$ and $`D`$, since it is a difference of the two, with relatively large multiplicators. Indeed, for the 14 fits mentioned above the central value for $`g_\mathrm{A}^{(0)}`$ of the nucleon varies between $`0.25`$ to approximately 1 and a similar feature is expected for any baryon, particularly for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus, despite the fact that hyperon semileptonic decays are relatively well described by the model in the chiral limit, the singlet axial-vector constant is basically undetermined. This is a clear signal of the importance of the symmetry breaking for this quantity.

One could argue that this kind of behavior is just an artifact of the $`\chi `$ QSM. However, the scenario of a rotating soliton (which is by the way used also in the Skyrme-type models) is very plausible and cannot be a priori  discarded on the basis of first principles. The $`\chi `$QSM is a particular realization of this scenario and we use it as a tool to investigate the sensitivity of the singlet axial-vector current to the symmetry breaking effects in hyperon semileptonic decays. In fact, conclusions similar to ours have been obtained in chiral perturbation theory in Ref..

In Ref.  we have at length discussed the properties of the model formula for $`g_\mathrm{A}^{(0)}`$ in two limiting cases , i.e. large (Skyrme model limit) and small (quark model limit) soliton sizes. In the Skyrme model the ratio $`F/D=5/9`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}`$ vanishes. In the quark model $`F/D=2/3`$ and $`F+D=5/3`$, and therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}=1`$. We also gave numerical arguments in support of our approach: namely releasing the model assumptions concerning $`g_\mathrm{A}^{(0)}`$ and using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{p}`$ as an additional input one arrives at almost identical numerical results as using (10).

It is virtually impossible to analyze the symmetry breaking in weak decays without resorting to some specific model . In this paper, following Ref. , we will implement the symmetry breaking for the hyperon decays using the $`\chi `$ QSM (see Ref. for review) which satisfactorily describes the axial-vector properties of hyperons .

The model provides a link between the matrix elements of the octet of the axial-vector currents, responsible for hyperon decays, and the matrix elements of the singlet axial-vector current. In the present work we will study the relation between hyperon semileptonic decays and integrated polarized quark distributions for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon. We will use the $`\chi `$QSM only to identify the algebraic structure of the symmetry breaking ($`m_\text{s}`$ corrections). The dynamical quantities, so called inertia parameters which are in principle calculable within the model , will be treated as free parameters. By adjusting them to the experimentally known semileptonic decays we allow not only for maximal phenomenological input but also for minimal model dependence. In Ref. we have already studied the magnetic moments of the octet and decuplet in this way.

Such a ”model-independent” approach – used for example by Adkins and Nappi  in the context of the Skyrme model – is of interest for at least two reasons. First, it can be considered as a QCD-motivated tool to analyze and classify (in terms of powers of $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`1/N_\mathrm{c}`$) the symmetry-breaking terms for a given observable. For nontrivial operators such as axial-vector form factors a general analysis, without referring to some specific model, is virtually impossible. Second, this ”model-independent” analysis provides an information for the model builders as well. It tells us what are the best predictions the model can ever produce. Indeed, model calculations in the framework of the $`\chi `$QSM are not as unique as one might think: They depend on adopted regularizations, cutoff parameter, or the constituent quark mass. Moreover, in the SU(3) version of the $`\chi `$QSM a quantization ambiguity appears . Therefore, if the “model-independent” analysis would have failed to describe the data, that would mean that the model did not correctly include all necessary physics relevant for a given observable. On the other hand, the success of such an analysis gives a strong hint for the model builders that the model is correct and worth exploring.

As far as the symmetry breaking is concerned, our results are identical to the ones obtained in Refs. within QCD in the large $`N_\mathrm{c}`$ limit. Indeed, the $`\chi `$QSM is a specific realization of the large $`N_\mathrm{c}`$ limit. The truly new ingredient of our analysis is the model formula for the singlet axial-vector constant $`g_\mathrm{A}^{(0)}`$, i.e. Eq.(10), which we use to calculate quantities relevant for polarized high energy experiments.

## II Hyperon decays in the Chrial Quark Soliton Model

The discussion in this section follows closely Ref. . The transition matrix elements of the hadronic axial-vector current $`B_2|A_\mu ^X|B_1`$ can be expressed in terms of three independent form factors:

$$B_2|A_\mu ^X|B_1=\overline{u}_{B_2}(p_2)\left[\left\{g_1^{B_1B_2}(q^2)\gamma _\mu \frac{ig_2^{B_1B_2}(q^2)}{M_1}\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu +\frac{g_3^{B_1B_2}(q^2)}{M_1}q_\mu \right\}\gamma _5\right]u_{B_1}(p_1),$$
(11)
where the axial-vector current is defined as

$$A_\mu ^X=\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\lambda _X\psi (x)$$
(12)
with $`X=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm i2)`$ for strangeness conserving $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ currents and $`X=\frac{1}{2}(4\pm i5)`$ for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$. Similar expressions hold for the hadronic vector current, where the $`g_i`$ are replaced by $`f_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$ ) and $`\gamma _5`$ by $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

Hadronic matrix elements such as $`B_2|A_\mu ^X|B_1`$ can be easily evaluated within the $`\chi `$QSM . Taking into account the $`1/N_c`$ rotational and $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ corrections, we can write the resulting axial-vector constants $`g_1^{B_1B_2}(0)`$ in the following form***In the following we will assume that the baryons involved have $`S_3=+\frac{1}{2}`$.:

$`g_1^{(B_1B_2)}`$ $`=`$ $`a_1B_2|D_{X3}^{(8)}|B_1+a_2d_{pq3}B_2|D_{Xp}^{(8)}\widehat{S}_q|B_1+{\displaystyle \frac{a_3}{\sqrt{3}}}B_2|D_{X8}^{(8)}\widehat{S}_3|B_1`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`m_s[{\displaystyle \frac{a_4}{\sqrt{3}}}d_{pq3}B_2|D_{Xp}^{(8)}D_{8q}^{(8)}|B_1+a_5B_2|(D_{X3}^{(8)}D_{88}^{(8)}+D_{X8}^{(8)}D_{83}^{(8)})|B_1`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`a_6B_2|(D_{X3}^{(8)}D_{88}^{(8)}D_{X8}^{(8)}D_{83}^{(8)})|B_1].`$ (15)
$`\widehat{S}_q`$ ($`\widehat{S}_3`$) stand for the $`q`$-th (third) component of the spin operator of the baryons. The $`D_{ab}^{()}`$ denote the SU(3) Wigner matrices in representation $``$. The $`a_i`$ denote parameters depending on the specific dynamics of the chiral soliton model (see for example Refs.  and references therein). Their explicit form in terms of a Goldstone mean field can be found in Ref. . As mentioned already, in the present approach we will not calculate this mean field but treat $`a_i`$ as free parameters to be adjusted to experimentally known semileptonic hyperon decays.

Because of the SU(3) symmetry breaking due to the strange quark mass $`m_\mathrm{s}`$, the collective baryon Hamiltonian is no more SU(3)-symmetric. The octet states are mixed with the higher representations such as antidecuplet $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$ and eikosiheptaplet $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ . In the linear order in $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ the wave function of a state $`B=(Y,I,I_3)`$ of spin $`S_3`$ is given as:

$$\psi _{B,S_3}=()^{\frac{1}{2}S_3}\left(\sqrt{8}D_{BS}^{(8)}+c_B^{(\overline{10})}\sqrt{10}D_{BS}^{(\overline{10})}+c_B^{(27)}\sqrt{27}D_{BS}^{(27)}\right),$$
(16)
where $`S=(1,\frac{1}{2},S_3)`$. Mixing parameters $`c_B^{()}`$ can be found for example in Ref. . They are given as products of a numerical constant $`N_B^{()}`$ depending on the quantum numbers of the baryonic state $`B`$ and a dynamical parameter $`c_{}`$ depending linearly on $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ (which we assume to be 180 MeV) and the model parameter $`I_2`$, which is responsible for the splitting between the octet and higher exotic multiplets .

Analogously to Eq.(15), one obtains in the $`\chi `$QSM diagonal axial-vector coupling constants. In that case $`X`$ can take two values: $`X=3`$ and $`X=8`$. For $`X=0`$ (singlet axial-vector current) we have the following expression :

$$\frac{1}{2}g_A^{(0)}(\text{B})=\frac{1}{2}a_3+\sqrt{3}m_\text{s}(a_5a_6)B|D_{83}^{(8)}|B.$$
(17)
This equation is remarkable, since it provides a link between an octet and singlet axial-vector current. It is the most important model input in our analysis. Pure QCD-arguments based the large $`N_c`$ expansion  do not provide such a link. Moreover, due to the structure of the matrix element $`B|D_{83}^{(8)}|B`$, the $`g_A^{(0)}(`$B$`)`$ are identical inside the isospin multiplets. We predict much stronger symmetry breaking for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ than for the proton, since

$$\sqrt{3}p|D_{83}^{(8)}|p=\frac{1}{10},\sqrt{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }|D_{83}^{(8)}|\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{3}{10},$$
(18)
for spin $`S_3=+1/2`$.

Instead of calculating 7 dynamical parameters $`a_i(i=1,\mathrm{},6)`$ and $`I_2`$ (which enters into $`c_{\overline{10}}`$ and $`c_{27}`$) within the $`\chi `$QSM, we shall fit them from the hyperon semileptonic decays data. It is convenient to introduce the following set of 7 new parameters:

$`r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}\left(a_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_2\right),s={\displaystyle \frac{1}{60}}a_3,x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{540}}m_\mathrm{s}a_4,y={\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}}m_\mathrm{s}a_5,z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}m_\mathrm{s}a_6,`$

$$p=\frac{1}{6}m_\mathrm{s}c_{\overline{10}}\left(a_1+a_2+\frac{1}{2}a_3\right),q=\frac{1}{90}m_\mathrm{s}c_{27}\left(a_1+2a_2\frac{3}{2}a_3\right).$$
(19)
Employing this new set of parameters, we can express all possible semileptonic decays of the octet baryons:

$`A_1=\left(g_1/f_1\right)^{(\mathrm{n}\mathrm{p})}`$ $`=`$ $`14r+2s44x20y4z4p+8q,`$ (20)
$`A_2=\left(g_1/f_1\right)^{(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$ $`=`$ $`9r3s42x6y3p+15q,`$ (21)
$`A_3=\left(g_1/f_1\right)^{(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{p})}`$ $`=`$ $`8r+4s+24x2z+2p6q,`$ (22)
$`A_4=\left(g_1/f_1\right)^{(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{n})}`$ $`=`$ $`4r+8s4x4y+2z+4q,`$ (23)
$`A_5=\left(g_1/f_1\right)^{(\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$ $`=`$ $`2r+6s6x+6y2z+6q,`$ (24)
$`A_6=\left(g_1/f_1\right)^{(\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)}`$ $`=`$ $`14r+2s+22x+10y+2z+2p4q.`$ (25)
The U(1) and SU(3) axial-vector constants $`g_A^{(0,3,8)}`$ can be also expressed in terms of the new set of parameters (19). In the case of the proton and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we have the singlet axial-vector constants:

$$g_A^{(0)}(\mathrm{p})=60s18y+6z,g_A^{(0)}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=60s+54y18z,$$
(26)
for the triplet ones, we writeTriplet $`g_A^{(3)}`$’s are proportional to $`I_3`$, formulae in Eq.(27) correspond to the highest isospin state.:

$$g_A^{(3)}(\mathrm{p})=14r+2s44x20y4z4p+8q,g_A^{(3)}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=0,$$
(27)
and for the octet one, we obtain:

$$g_A^{(8)}(\mathrm{p})=\sqrt{3}(2r+6s+12x+4p+24q),g_A^{(3)}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\sqrt{3}(6r+2s36x+36q).$$
(28)
Let us finally note that there is certain redundancy in Eq.(25-28), namely by redefinition of $`q`$ and $`x`$ we can get rid of the variable $`p`$:

$$x^{}=x\frac{1}{9}p,q^{}=q\frac{1}{9}p.$$
(29)
## III Spin content of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon

As shown in the last section there are 6 free parameters which have to be fitted from the data. There are 2 chiral parameters: $`r`$ and $`s`$, related closely to $`F`$ and $`D`$:

$$F=5(sr),D=3(s+3r).$$
(30)
and 4 proportional to $`m_\mathrm{s}`$: $`x^{}`$, $`y`$, $`z`$, and $`q^{}`$. Since there are six known hyperon semileptonic decays, we can express all model parameters as linear combinations of these decay constants, and subsequently all quantities of interest can be expressed in terms of the input amplitudes. In the following we will use the experimental values of Refs. , which are presented in Table I.

Before doing this, let us, however, observe that there exist two linear combinations $`A_i`$’s which within the model are free of the $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ corrections:

$`42r+6s`$ $`=`$ $`A_1+2A_6,`$ (31)
$`90r+90s`$ $`=`$ $`3A_18A_26A_3+6A_4+6A_5.`$ (32)
Solving Eq.(32) for $`r`$ and $`s`$, we obtain the chiral-limit expressions for hyperon semileptonic decays and integrated quark densities (i.e. with $`x^{}=y=z=q^{}=0`$). The corresponding $`F`$ and $`D`$ take the following form:

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(4A_14A_23A_3+3A_4+3A_5+5A_6),`$ (33)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(4A_2+3A_33A_43A_5+3A_6).`$ (34)
Numerically:

$$F=0.50\pm 0.07,D=0.77\pm 0.04.$$
(35)
With these values for $`F`$ and $`D`$ together with Eq.(8) one gets: $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\text{p}=0.81`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }d_\text{p}=0.47`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\text{p}=0.20`$, which implies $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}=0.15`$. The advantage of using Eq.(34) consists in the fact that $`F`$ and $`D`$ do not need to be refitted when $`m_\text{s}`$ corrections are added.

Another important point is, that Eq.(34) is more general than the model considered here. In fact they follow from the large $`N_\text{c}`$ QCD, as discussed in Ref. . The errors come from the experimental errors of the decay amplitudes and are dominated by the errors of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ decays. It is of utmost importance to reduce the errors of these decays in order to get better accuracy for $`F`$ and $`D`$.

In the case of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Eq.(5) implies that $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Delta }d_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and one has in the chiral limit:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`3F2D=A_1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}A_2{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}A_3+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}A_4+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}A_5+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}A_{6,}`$ (36)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`3FD=A_1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}A_2A_3+A_4+A_5+A_{6.}`$ (37)
Numerical values $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Delta }d_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(0)}=0.03\pm 0.14`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(0)}=0.74\pm 0.17`$ (see Table II) are closer to the naive quark model expectations: $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Delta }d_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, than to the numbers quoted in Ref.: $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Delta }d_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.23\pm 0.06`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.58\pm 0.07`$. This is reflected in the fact that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(0)}=9F5D=3A_1\frac{14}{3}A_2\frac{7}{2}A_3+\frac{7}{2}A_4+\frac{7}{2}A_5+\frac{5}{2}A_6.$$
(38)
(which is identical to all hadrons) reads: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(0)}=0.68\pm 0.44`$ and is much larger than the value required by using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{p}`$ as an additional input. Indeed, as explained in Ref. , in the chiral limit one is not able to reproduce the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{p}`$ (see Table II).

The two least known amplitudes $`A_5`$ and $`A_6`$ are almost entirely responsible for the errors of $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. However, since the coefficients which enter into Eqs.(37,38) are not too large, the absolute errors are relatively small.

The full expressions are obtained by solving the remaining 4 equations for $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ dependent parameters $`x^{}`$, $`y`$, $`z`$ and $`q^{}`$. Also in this case we are able to link integrated quark densities $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ to the hyperon decays:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }d_\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_3}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_4}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{13A_5}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_6}{4}},`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{15A_1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{13A_2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{87A_3}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{21A_4}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{45A_5}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{51A_6}{16}}`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{15A_1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{46A_2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{95A_3}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{13A_4}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{149A_5}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{46A_6}{16}}.`$ (41)
To guide the eye it is convenient to restore the linear $`m_\text{s}`$ dependence for the quark densities in the following way:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }q=\mathrm{\Delta }q^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\text{s}}{180\text{MeV}}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }q\mathrm{\Delta }q^{(0)}\right),`$and similarly for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This dependence is explicitly shown in Fig.1, where we plot the central values and “experimental” error bars (shaded areas) of $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s.

Fig.1. $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as functions of $`m_\mathrm{s}`$.

Fig.2. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as functions of $`m_\mathrm{s}`$.

In Fig.2 we plot $`m_\text{s}`$ dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ both for the proton and for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In order to make the plot readable we have denoted theoretical errors as error bars around the black dots which correspond to the chiral limit and full theoretical prediction. The splitting between the proton and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is caused by the term proportional to $`a_5a_6`$ in Eq.(17). Numerical values can be found in Table II. We see that for $`m_\text{s}=180`$ MeV apart from fitting all hyperon semileptonic decays (which is our input) we reproduce $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{p}`$ with relatively small error. The errors of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ are much bigger. The central values, however, differ from the “standard” ones. Interestingly $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\text{p}`$ in proton is rather large and positive, however, the error bars are so large that the quark model value $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\text{p}=0`$ is not excluded. In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is larger than 1, but again the errors are large. The errors for $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ both in the proton and in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are much smaller. For the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we get that the non-strange quarks almost do not carry spin in surprising accordance with the expectations of the naive quark model.

As already discussed, the errors on for $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$’s and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ come almost entirely from the large errors of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ decays ($`A_5`$ and $`A_6`$). Instead of using these two hyperon semileptonic decays $`A_5`$ and $`A_6`$ as input, we can use the experimental value for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{p}`$ as given by Eq.(8) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{N}`$, which we vary in the range from 0 to 1. In Fig.3 we plot our predictions for $`A_5`$ and $`A_6`$ (solid lines), together with the experimental error bands for these two decays. It is clearly seen from Fig.3 that the allowed region for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{N}`$, in which the theoretical prediction falls within the experimental error bars amounts to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{N}=0.20÷0.45`$.

Fig.3. $`A_5`$ (lower line) and $`A_6`$ (upper line) as functions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{p}`$.

Fig.4. $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as functions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{p}`$.

In Fig.4 we plot the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ upon $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}`$ (with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{p}`$ fixed by Eq.(8)). We see rather strong correlation of these quantities with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}`$. Within the allowed region $`0.20<\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}<0.45`$ the strange quark density $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ varies from 0.84 to 1.10. Interestingly, in the central region around $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}0.35`$ the strange quark density in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is close to 1 in accordance with an intuitive assumptions of the naive quark model. Nonstrange quarks contribute to the spin of the Lambda at the level of $`0.04`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.92`$.

## IV Summary

In this paper we studied the influence of the SU(3) symmetry breaking in hyperon semileptonic decays on the determination of the integrated polarized quark densities $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Using the Chiral Quark-Soliton Model we have obtained a satisfactory parametrization of all available experimental data on semileptonic decays. In this respect our analysis is identical to QCD analysis in the large $`N_\mathrm{c}`$ of Ref..

The new ingredient of our analysis consists in using the model formula for the singlet axial-vector current in order to make contact with the high energy polarization experiments.

The model contains 6 free parameters which can be fixed by 6 known hyperon decays. Unfortunately $`g_1/f_1`$ for the two known decays of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ have large experimental errors, which influence our predictions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Our strategy was very simple: using model parametrization we expressed $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in terms of the six known hyperon decays. Errors were added in quadrature.

There are two points which have to be stressed here. Our fit respects chiral symmetry in a sense that the leading order parameters $`r`$ and $`s`$ (or equivalently $`F`$ and $`D`$) are fitted to the linear combinations of the hyperon decays which are free from $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ corrections. As discussed in Ref.  it is impossible to use the SU(3) symmetric parametrization as given by Eq.(32) and reproduce $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{p}`$ (as far as the central values are concerned) . With $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ corrections turned on one hits the experimental value for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{p}`$ (see Table II), however, the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}`$ is practically undetermined, due the the experimental error of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ decays.

The nature of the $`m_\text{s}`$ is such that the central value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}`$ is relatively large, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\text{p}`$ is positive, however, still compatible with 0 within large errors. So one can accommodate all existing data with $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\text{p}`$ much closer to the expectations of the naive quark model than in the standard, SU(3) symmetric approach. This trend is even stronger in the case of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Delta }d_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$. SU(3) symmetry breaking effects cause $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }>\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\text{p}`$, so that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is in a sense more nonrelativistic than the nucleon.

Our analysis shows clearly that if one wants to link hyperon semileptonic decays with high-energy polarized experiments, one cannot neglect SU(3) symmetry breaking for the former. In this respect our conclusion agrees with Refs.. Similarly to Ref. we see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\text{p}=0`$ is not ruled out by present experiments. Therefore, the results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ based on the exact SU(3) symmetry are in our opinion premature.

## Acknowledgments

This work has partly been supported by the BMBF, the DFG and the COSY–Project (Jülich). We are grateful to M.V. Polyakov for fruitful discussions. H.-Ch.K. and M.P. thank P.V. Pobylitsa for critical comments. H.-Ch.K. has been supported by the Korean Physical Society (1999). M.P. has been supported by Polish grant PB 2 P03B 019 17.