format: text

text:
# Analyses of 𝑑𝑁_{𝑐ℎ}/𝑑𝜂 and 𝑑𝑁_{𝑐ℎ}/𝑑𝑦 distributions of BRAHMS Collaboration by means of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process

## 1 Introduction

Recently interesting data on $`dN_{\mathrm{ch}}/d\eta `$ ($`\eta =\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{tan}(\theta /2)`$) and $`(0.5N_{\mathrm{part}})^1dN_{\mathrm{ch}}/d\eta |_{\eta =0}`$ in Au+Au collision at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$ GeV and 200 GeV have been reported by BRAHMS Collaboration . ($`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}`$ mean the numbers of participants (nuclei) and charged particles produced in collisions, respectively.) Very recently the BRAHMS Collaboration has reported preliminary data on rapidity (y) distribution at 200 GeV in Ref. . We are interested in theoretical analyses of these data.

On the other hand, in Refs.  we have investigated the property of $`\eta `$ scaling of $`(N_{\mathrm{ch}})^1dN_{\mathrm{ch}}/d\eta =dn/d\eta `$ by PHOBOS Collaboration and found that the $`\eta `$ scaling holds. As a possible theoretical approach, we have adopted the stochastic theory named the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (O-U) process with two sources at $`\pm y_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{s_{NN}}/m_N)`$. In this paper, we would like to analyses data  by the stochastic approach in terms of the pseudo-rapidity and/or rapidity variables.

The approach named the O-U process is described by the following Fokker-Planck equation,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P(y,t)}{t}}=\gamma \left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{y^2}}\right]P(y,t),`$ (1)
where $`t`$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\sigma ^2`$ are the evolution parameter, the frictional coefficient and the variance, respectively 111 The equivalent Langevin stochastic equation with the white noise $`f_\mathrm{w}(t)`$ is given as
$$\frac{dy}{dt}=\gamma y+f_\mathrm{w}(t).$$
. Assuming two sources at $`\pm y_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{s_{NN}}/m_N)`$ at $`t=0`$ and $`P(y,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})=0.5[\delta (y+y_{\mathrm{max}})+\delta (yy_{\mathrm{max}})]`$, we obtain the following distribution function for $`dn/d\eta `$ (assuming $`y\eta `$) using the probability density $`P(y,t)`$

$`P(y,y_{\mathrm{max}},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{8\pi V^2(t)}}}\{\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{(y+y_{\mathrm{max}}e^{\gamma t})^2}{2V^2(t)}}]`$ (2)
$`+\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{(yy_{\mathrm{max}}e^{\gamma t})^2}{2V^2(t)}}]\},`$
where $`V^2(t)=(\sigma ^2/2\gamma )p`$ with $`p=1e^{2\gamma t}`$. The physical picture of Eq. (2) with the assumption of $`y\eta `$ are shown in Fig. 1. In our approach, it is assumed that $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}/2`$ particles are created at $`\pm y_{\mathrm{max}}`$ at $`t=0`$. Then these $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}=(N_{\mathrm{ch}}/2+N_{\mathrm{ch}}/2)`$ particles are evolved according to Eq. (2). It is worthwhile to mention that a similar approach for the proton spectra has been given in Ref. .

The contents of the present paper are organized as follows. In Sec. II $`\eta `$ scaling of BRAHMS Collaboration is investigated. In Sec. III Analyses of $`\eta `$ distribution by means of Eq. (2) are performed. The physical meaning of evolution parameter $`\gamma t`$ with the frictional coefficient is also considered. In Sec. IV $`z_r=\eta /\eta _{\mathrm{rms}}`$ ($`\eta _{\mathrm{rms}}=\sqrt{\eta ^2}`$) scaling is considered. In Sec. V Analysis of $`y`$ distribution derived $`dn/d\eta `$ distribution is presented. In the final section concluding remarks are given.

## 2 Analysis of $`𝜼`$ scaling of $`𝒅𝒏\mathbf{/}𝒅𝜼`$ by BRAHMS Collaboration

First of all, we consider the problem on $`\eta `$ scaling in Fig. 2, plotting the data of $`dn/d\eta `$ at 130 GeV and 200 GeV. The $`\eta `$ scaling seems to be held. These distributions show

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{d\eta }}|_{\eta =0}c(\mathrm{constant}).`$ (3)
Moreover, we examine the intercept at $`\eta =0`$. Authors of Ref. , WA98 Collaboration, noticed that the intercepts divided by($`0.5N_{\mathrm{part}}`$) should be described by the power-like law, as

$`(0.5N_{\mathrm{part}})^1{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{\mathrm{ch}}}{d\eta }}|_{\eta =0}=AN_{\mathrm{part}}^\alpha ,`$ (4)
provided that the participants (nuclei) have lost memory and every participant contribute a similar amount of energy to particle production in collisions. Actually it can be said that the power-like law holds, as is seen in Fig 3. See Tables 1 and 2. This physical picture with Eq. (4) indirectly supports the availability of the stochastic approach. Combining Eqs. (3) and (4), we have the following relations

$`c^{\mathrm{Ex}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{ch}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{\mathrm{ch}}}{d\eta }}|_{\eta =0},`$ (5)
$`c^{\mathrm{Sp}}={\displaystyle \frac{0.5N_{\mathrm{part}}}{N_{\mathrm{ch}}}}AN_{\mathrm{part}}^\alpha ,`$ (6)
where the suffix ”Sp” means the semi-phenomenological formula. Comparisons between Eqs. (5) and (6) with A and $`\alpha `$ in Fig. 3 are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

As is seen in Tables 1 and 2, the intercept at $`\eta =0`$ is fairly well explained by the semi-phenomenological expression, Eq. (6). This implies that the stochastic approach may be available, because the participants lost their memory in collision.

## 3 Analyses of data by Eq. (2)

Using the O-U process with two sources, Eq. (2), we have analyzed the data. The results at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$ GeV and 200 GeV are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, and Tables 3 and 4. In our analyses we use Eq. (2) the pseudo-rapidity ($`\eta `$) instead of the rapidity ($`y`$). As is seen in Tables 3 and 4, $`R=N_{\mathrm{ch}}^{(\mathrm{Th})}/N_{\mathrm{ch}}`$ is always larger than 1. In the measurements of BRAHMS Collaboration, as the observable region is restricted with $`|\eta |4.7`$, we can conjecture the number of $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}^{(\mathrm{Th})}`$ is always $`3\%7\%`$ larger than $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}`$.

The different values of $`\chi ^2`$ in Tables 3 and 4 are attributed to the magnitude of the error bars at 130 GeV and 200 GeV.

The intercepts of $`dn/d\eta `$ at $`\eta =0`$ is explained by the following expression in the O-U process,

$`c^{(\mathrm{Th})}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi V^2(t)}}}\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\pm \eta _{\mathrm{max}}\sqrt{1p})^2}{2V^2(t)}}\right]\right\}.`$ (7)
Since our theory is based on the O-U process, the intercept $`c^{(\mathrm{Th})}`$ is relating to $`y_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the width of $`dn/d\eta `$ and the evolution parameter.

Next we consider physical meaning of the evolution parameter $`\gamma t`$. When we assign the meaning of second \[sec\] to $`t`$, $`\gamma `$ has the dimension of \[sec-1\]. For the magnitude of the interaction region of Au-Au collisions, we assume to be 10 fm. See discussions in Ref. . See also Tables 5 and 6. The averaged $`\gamma `$ \[fm-1\] are almost the same as estimated values from PHOBOS Collaboration  and ones estimated from the proton spectra at SPS energies in Ref. .

## 4 The $`𝒛_𝒓\mathbf{=}𝜼\mathbf{/}𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐫𝐦𝐬}}`$ scaling

To investigate the $`z_r=\eta /\eta _{\mathrm{rms}}`$ scaling which has been proposed in Ref. , we use $`\eta _{\mathrm{rms}}=\sqrt{\eta ^2}=\sqrt{\eta ^2dn/d\eta }`$ at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$ GeV and 200 GeV. We can consider the following formula with $`z_r`$:

$`\eta _{\mathrm{rms}}{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{d\eta }}={\displaystyle \frac{dn}{dz_r}}=f(z_r=\eta /\eta _{\mathrm{rms}}).`$ (8)
The right hand side with multiplying $`\eta _{\mathrm{rms}}`$ is obtained from Eq (2), as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{dz_r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{8\pi V_r^2(t)}}}\{\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{(z_r+z_{\mathrm{max}}e^{\gamma t})^2}{2V_r^2(t)}}]`$ (9)
$`+\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{(z_rz_{\mathrm{max}}e^{\gamma t})^2}{2V_r^2(t)}}]\},`$
where $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=\eta _{\mathrm{max}}/\eta _{\mathrm{rms}}`$ and $`V_r^2(t)=V^2(t)/\eta _{\mathrm{rms}}^2`$. $`\eta _{\mathrm{rms}}`$ is the averaged quantity in the set of data. In concrete analyses of data, $`V_r^2(t)`$ and $`p`$ are treated as the free parameters. The $`z_r`$ scaling at 130 GeV are compared with that of the hemisphere ($`0\eta 6`$) at 200 GeV in Fig. 6 (b). It is difficult to distinguish them without the labels of incident energies. The behavior of full space is given in Fig. 6 (c). This situation is also observed in analyses of data at 130 GeV and 200 GeV by PHOBOS Collaboration .

## 5 Rapidity ($`𝒚`$) distribution derived from $`𝜼`$ distribution

It is well known that one can usually calculate the $`\eta `$ distribution from the $`y`$ distribution. In this present study, on the contrary, we consider an inverse problem as follows. First we regard Eq. (2) as the correct description of the data, because of small $`\chi ^2`$ values. Using the following formula we can obtain the $`y`$ distribution 222
$$y=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{E+p_z}{Ep_z}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\sqrt{1+m^2/p_\mathrm{t}^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta }+\mathrm{sinh}\eta }{\sqrt{1+m^2/p_\mathrm{t}^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta }\mathrm{sinh}\eta }\right]=\mathrm{tanh}^1\left(\frac{p_z}{E}\right)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{tan}(\theta /2)\eta .$$

$$\eta =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{p+p_z}{pp_z}\mathrm{and}\frac{dn}{dy}=\frac{dn}{d\eta }\frac{d\eta }{dy},\mathrm{where}\eta (y)=\mathrm{arcsinh}(\sqrt{M}\mathrm{sinh}y).$$
For $`dn/d\eta =(p/E)dn/dy`$, we have $`p/E=\mathrm{cosh}\eta /\sqrt{1+m^2/p_\mathrm{t}^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta }`$. Moreover, we have confirmed that $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}(dn/dy)𝑑y=1`$ and $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}(dn/d\eta )𝑑\eta =1`$.  as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{dy}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{M(1+\mathrm{sinh}^2y)}}{\sqrt{1+M\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{d\eta }},`$ (10)
where $`M=1+m^2/p_\mathrm{t}^2`$. The right hand side, $`dn/d\eta `$, is given as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{d\eta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{8\pi V^2(t)}}}\{\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta (y)+y_{\mathrm{max}}e^{\gamma t})^2}{2V^2(t)}}]`$ (11)
$`+\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta (y)y_{\mathrm{max}}e^{\gamma t})^2}{2V^2(t)}}]\},`$
where $`\eta (y)=\mathrm{arcsinh}(\sqrt{M}\mathrm{sinh}y)`$. From Eq. (2) with the averaged parameters $`p`$ and $`V^2(t)`$, we obtain $`y`$ distributions at 200 GeV for $`\pi `$ meson and all hadrons ($`\pi ^\pm `$, $`K^\pm `$, $`p`$ and $`\overline{p}`$). They are compared with the data in Ref.  in Fig. 7. The small peak is due to the inverse Jacobian factor. Indeed the data at 200 GeV show these behaviors at $`y0`$, even large error bars. To confirm these phenomena, measurements in wider region as well as $`y0`$ are necessary.

A phenomenological approach proposed in Ref.  (which is named as EKRT) is also shown in Fig 7.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{dy}}(\mathrm{EKRT})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_\mathrm{N}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+e^{y_0/d})^2}{(1+e^{(yy_0)/d})(1+e^{(yy_0)/d})}},`$ (12)
where $`c_\mathrm{N}`$ is the normalization factor 333 We have estimated the normalization factor $`c_\mathrm{N}`$ as follows
$$c_\mathrm{N}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{(1+e^{y_0/d})^2}{(1+e^{(yy_0)/d})(1+e^{(yy_0)/d})}𝑑y=6.68.$$
. $`y_0=3.3`$ and $`d=0.65`$ are parameters 444 Notice that a similar expression with its symmetrization can be seen in Ref. . A different expression based on the fractional Fokker-Planck equation for $`dn/dy`$ is found in Ref. . Both are proposed for analyses of $`pp`$ (or $`\overline{p}p`$) collisions.  given in Ref. . Eq. (12) also reproduces the both data in Fig. 7. From Eq. (12) we can calculate $`dn/d\eta `$ (centrality cut 20-30%) at 130 GeV and 200 GeV which is presented in Fig. 8. The coincidences between data and theory are very well, when $`y_0`$ and $`d`$ are treated as free parameters.

## 6 Concluding Remarks

We have observed that the behaviors of $`\eta `$ scaling of $`dn/d\eta `$ by BRAHMS Collaboration hold fairly well among the various centrality cuts at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$ GeV and 200 GeV.

To explain those scaling behaviors, we have assumed that $`dn/d\eta `$ is governed by the O-U stochastic process with two sources at $`\pm y_{\mathrm{max}}(\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{s_{NN}}/m_N)`$. The intercept of $`dn/d\eta `$ at $`\eta =0`$ is expressed by Eq. (7). See Tables 3 and 4. The constant $`c`$’s are reflecting the scaling property relating to the O-U process.

From the evolution parameter $`\gamma t`$ and the assumed size of the interaction region of Au+Au collision (10 fm), we have obtained the following value, $`\gamma 0.1`$ fm-1, which is almost the same value as that estimated in Ref. .

From Fig. 6, it can be said that the $`z_r`$ scaling holds at 130 GeV and 200 GeV. It is difficult to distinguish them, as compared both data without the labels of incident energies.

Using Eq. (11) with $`\eta `$ distributions at 200 GeV, we have calculated the $`y`$ distributions which explain the data of Ref. . The comparison with different approach given in Ref.  is also shown. In a future both approaches can be distinguished by the existence of a projection (small peak) at $`y0`$.

Finally, it can be concluded that the O-U process is one of possible explanations for the scaling property of $`dn/d\eta `$ at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$ GeV and $`200`$ GeV by BRAHMS Collaboration  as well as distributions by PHOBOS Collaboration .

## Acknowledgements

One of authors (M. B.) would like to thank the Scandinavia-Japan Sasakawa Foundation for financial support, and H. Bøggild, J. P. Bondorf, H. Ito and K. Tuominen for their kind hospitality and useful conversations at the Niels Bohr Institute as well as PANIC02.


text:
# Jacobi Polynomials from Compatibility Conditions Research supported by NSF grant DMS 99-70865 and by EPSRC grant GR/S14108

## 1 Introduction and Preliminaries.

We begin with some notation. Let $`P_n(x)`$ be monic polynomials of degree $`n`$ in $`x`$ and orthogonal, with respect to a weight, $`w(x),x[a,b];`$

(1.1) $`{\displaystyle _a^b}P_m(x)P_n(x)w(x)𝑑x=h_n\delta _{m,n}.`$
We further assume that $`𝗏^{}(z):=w^{}(z)/w(z)`$ exists and that
$`y^n[𝗏^{}(x)𝗏^{}(y)]w(y)/(xy)`$ is integrable on $`[a,b]`$ for all $`n`$, $`n=0,1.\mathrm{}`$. From the orthogonality condition there follows the recurrence relation,

(1.2) $`zP_n(z)=P_{n+1}(z)+\alpha _nP_n(z)+\beta _nP_{n1}(z),n=0,1,\mathrm{},`$
where $`\beta _0P_1(z):=0`$, $`\alpha _n,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is real and $`\beta _n>0,n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$

In this paper we describe a formalism which derives properties of orthogonal polynomials, and their recurrence coefficients, from the knowledge of the weight function. We believe this is a new and interesting approach to orthogonal polynomials. In order to keep this work accessible we will only include the example of Jacobi polynomials. We defer in a future publication, the analysis in the case of the generalized Jacobi weights , . In the Jacobi case we find the recurrence relations in §2. In §3 we show how our approach leads to the evaluation of monic Jacobi polynomials at $`x=\pm 1`$. We also show that the evaluation of a Jacobi polynomial at $`x=1`$ or $`x=1`$ leads to explicit representations of the Jacobi polynomials. Closed form expressions for the normalization constants $`h_n`$ are also found.

The actions of the ladder operators on $`P_n(z)`$ and $`P_{n1}(z)`$ are,

(1.3) $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}+B_n(z)\right)P_n(z)=\beta _nA_n(z)P_{n1}(z)`$
(1.4) $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}B_n(z)𝗏^{}(z)\right)P_{n1}(z)=A_{n1}(z)P_n(z),`$
with

(1.5) $`A_n(z)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w(y)P_n^2(y)}{h_n(yz)}}|_{y=a}^{y=b}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h_n}}{\displaystyle _a^b}{\displaystyle \frac{𝗏^{}(z)𝗏^{}(y)}{zy}}P_n^2(y)w(y)𝑑y,`$
$`B_n(z)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w(y)P_n(y)P_{n1}(y)}{h_n(yz)}}|_{y=a}^{y=b}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h_{n1}}}{\displaystyle _a^b}{\displaystyle \frac{𝗏^{}(z)𝗏^{}(y)}{zy}}P_{n1}(y)P_n(y)w(y)𝑑y,`$
where we have used the supplementary condition,

$`(S_1)`$
$$B_{n+1}(z)+B_n(z)=(z\alpha _n)A_n(z)𝗏^{}(z),$$

to arrive at (1.4). The equations (1.3)–(1.6) and the supplementary condition $`(S_1),`$ was derived by Bonan and Clark , Bauldry , and Mhaskar  for polynomial $`𝗏,`$ and the Authors  for general $`𝗏.`$ Ismail and Wimp  identified the additional supplementary condition,

$`(S_2)`$
$$B_{n+1}(z)B_n(z)=\frac{\beta _{n+1}A_{n+1}(z)\beta _nA_{n1}(z)1}{z\alpha _n}.$$

Our thesis in this work is that the supplementary conditions, $`(S_1)`$ and $`(S_2),`$ being identities in $`n,(n>0)`$ and $`z𝐂\mathrm{}`$ have the information needed to determine the recurrence coefficients and other auxilliary quantities. We illustrate this by systematically using $`(S_1)`$ and $`(S_2)`$ to determine most of the properties of the Jacobi polynomials. See , , and , for information concerning the Jacobi polynomials. In describing our results we shall follow the standard notation for shifted factorial and hypergeometric functions in , .

Below, we reinterpret $`(S_2).`$ We set

(1.7) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(z)`$ $`:=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}P_n(z)\\ P_{n1}(z)\end{array}\right),`$
(1.8) $`𝖬_n(z)`$ $`:=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}B_n(z)& \beta _nA_n(z)\\ A_{n1}(z)& B_n(z)+𝗏^{}(z)\end{array}\right),`$
(1.9) $`𝖴_n(z)`$ $`:=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}z\alpha _n& \beta _n\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$
Now equations (1.3) and (1.4) become,

(1.10) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}(z)=𝖬_n(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_n(z),`$
and the recurrence relations become,

(1.11) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}(z)=𝖴_n(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_n(z).`$
We find, by requiring (1.10) and (1.11) be compatible;

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`𝖬_{n+1}(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}(z)`$
$`=`$ $`𝖬_{n+1}(z)𝖴_n(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_n(z).`$
On the other hand

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^{}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`𝖴_n^{}(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_n(z)+𝖴_n(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}(z)`$
$`=`$ $`𝖴_n^{}(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_n(z)+𝖴_n(z)𝖬_n(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_n(z).`$
We now write the above equations in matrix form as

(1.12) $`𝖲_n(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_n(z)=0,`$
where $`𝖲_n(z)`$ is the matrix whose entries are

$`𝖲_n(z)`$ $`:=`$ $`𝖴_n^{}(z)+𝖴_n(z)𝖬_n(z)𝖬_{n+1}(z)𝖴_n(z)`$
$`𝖲_n^{11}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`1+(z\alpha _n)(B_{n+1}(z)B_n(z))`$
$`+\beta _nA_{n1}(z)\beta _{n+1}A_{n+1}(z)`$
$`𝖲_n^{12}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _n\left(B_{n+1}(z)+B_n(z)+𝗏^{}(z)(z\alpha _n)A_n(z)\right)`$
$`𝖲_n^{21}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`S_n^{12}(z)/\beta _n`$
$`𝖲_n^{22}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Here $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`z𝐂\mathrm{}.`$ Observe that with $`(S_1),`$ $`S_n^{12}(z)=S_n^{21}(z)=0`$. This leaves $`S_n^{11}(z)P_n(z)=0`$. Since $`P_n(z)`$ does not vanish identically, we must have $`S_n^{11}(z)=0,`$ which is $`(S_2).`$ It is clear from (1.5) and (1.6) that, if $`𝗏^{}(z)`$ is a rational function then $`A_n(z)`$ and $`B_n(z)`$ are also rational functions. This is particularly useful for our purpose, which is to determine the recurrence coefficients, $`\alpha _n`$ and $`\beta _n.`$ In the next section, we illustrate the method by considering the Jacobi weight $`w^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)=(1x)^\alpha (1+x)^\beta `$ for $`x[1,1]`$.

Recall that the numerator polynomials ,  are

(1.14) $`Q_n(z):={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_n(z)P_n(y)}{zy}}w(y)𝑑y,`$
and $`\{P_n(z)\}`$ and $`\{Q_n(z)\}`$ form a basis of solutions of the recurrence relation. We shall also use the notation

(1.15) $`F(z)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{w(y)}{zy}}𝑑y,`$
for the Stieltjes transform of the weight function.

## 2 Jacobi Weight

The Jacobi weight is $`w^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)=(1x)^\alpha (1+x)^\beta ;x[1,1],`$ and for now we take $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ to be strictly positive. It will become clear, using a real analyticity argument, the results that follows are also valid for $`\alpha ,\beta >1.`$ Let $`\{𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)\}`$ and $`\{𝒬_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)\}`$ denote the monic Jacobi polynomials, and their numerators, respectively, see (1.14). Moreover in the present example, the Stieltjes transform of $`w^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ will be denoted by $`F^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(z)`$.

From (1.5)–(1.6) we find

$`h_nA_n(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{1z}}{\displaystyle _1^1}[𝒫_n^{(\alpha .\beta )}(y)]^2(1y)^{\alpha 1}(1+y)^\beta 𝑑y`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{1+z}}{\displaystyle _1^1}[𝒫_n^{(\alpha .\beta )}(y)]^2(1y)^\alpha (1+y)^{\beta 1}𝑑y.`$
Through integration by parts, it readily follows that,

(2.1) $`A_n(z)={\displaystyle \frac{R_n}{z1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_n}{z+1}},`$
for some constant $`R_n`$. Similarly we find

(2.2) $`B_n(z)={\displaystyle \frac{n+r_n}{z1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_n}{z+1}}.`$
Here $`R_n`$ and $`r_n`$ are given by

(2.3) $`R_n=R_n(\alpha ,\beta )`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{h_n}}{\displaystyle _1^1}{\displaystyle \frac{[𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(y)]^2}{1+y}}w^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(y)𝑑y,`$
(2.4) $`r_n=r_n(\alpha ,\beta )`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{h_{n1}}}{\displaystyle _1^1}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(y)𝒫_{n1}^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(y)}{1+y}}w^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(y)𝑑y.`$
It is easy to see that

$`R_n(\alpha ,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{h_n}}𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)\left[𝒬_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)F^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)P_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)\right],`$
$`r_n(\alpha ,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{h_{n1}}}𝒫_{n1}^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)\left[𝒬_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)F^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)\right].`$
The reader may ask, “What is the point of this formalism? Since in the attempt to find $`\alpha _n`$ and $`\beta _n,`$ two new unknown quantities, $`R_n`$ and $`r_n,`$ have been introduced.” However when $`𝗏^{}`$ is a rational function both sides of $`(S_1)`$ and $`(S_2),`$ are rational functions and by equating coefficients and residues of both sides of $`(S_1)`$ and $`(S_2),`$ we shall arrive at four equations which should be sufficient for the determination of $`R_n`$ and $`r_n`$ as well as $`\alpha _n`$ and $`\beta _n.`$ Equating residues at $`z=1`$ and $`z=+1,`$ of $`(S_1),`$ gives

(2.5) $`2n1r_nr_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha R_n(1\alpha _n)`$
(2.6) $`r_n+r_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta R_n(1+\alpha _n).`$
Similarly, from $`(S_2),`$ we obtain

(2.7) $`(r_nr_{n+1}1)(1\alpha _n)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _nR_{n1}\beta _{n+1}R_{n+1}`$
(2.8) $`(r_nr_{n+1})(1+\alpha _n)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _{n+1}R_{n+1}\beta _nR_{n1}.`$
Observe that $`R_n`$ can be obtained immediately by adding (2.5) and (2.6);

(2.9) $`R_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\alpha +\beta +2n+1).`$
The sum (2.7) of (2.8) gives,

(2.10) $`1\alpha _n=2(r_nr_{n+1}),`$
while (2.8) minus (2.7) and with (2.9) gives,

(2.11) $`\beta \alpha 2n1(\alpha +\beta +2n+1)\alpha _n=2(r_n+r_{n+1}).`$
Now, (2.10) plus (2.11) implies,

(2.12) $`4r_n=\beta \alpha 2n(\alpha +\beta +2n+2)\alpha _n`$
and (2.11) minus (2.10) implies,

(2.13) $`4r_{n+1}=\beta \alpha 2n2(\alpha +\beta +2n)\alpha _n.`$
When (2.12) and (2.13) are made compatible, we obtain a first order difference equation satisfied by $`\alpha _n:`$

(2.14) $`\alpha _{n+1}(\alpha +\beta +2n+4)\alpha _n(\alpha +\beta +2n)=0,`$
which has a very simple “integrating factor,” $`\alpha +\beta +2n+2`$. Using this, we find,

$`\alpha _n={\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{(2R_n1)(2R_n+1)}}.`$
where $`C_1`$ is a “integration” constant, determined by the initial condition,

$`\alpha _0={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _1}{\mu _0}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta \alpha }{\alpha +\beta +2}},C_1=\beta ^2\alpha ^2.`$
Here $`\mu _j:=_1^1t^jw(t)𝑑t,j=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ are the moments. Therefore we have established

(2.15) $`\alpha _n={\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2\alpha ^2}{(\alpha +\beta +2n)(\alpha +\beta +2n+2)}}.`$
Going back to (2.8) and using (2.10), we see that $`\beta _n`$ satisfies the linear difference equation:

(2.16) $`\beta _{n+1}R_{n+1}\beta _nR_{n1}={\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha _n^2}{2}},`$
which has the “integrating factor”$`R_n`$. Therefore,

(2.17) $`\beta _nR_nR_{n1}`$ $`=`$ $`C_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(1\alpha _j^2\right)R_j`$
$`=`$ $`C_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^2}{(4R_j^21)^2}}\right)R_j,`$
where $`C_2`$ is another integration constant to be determined by the initial condition

$$\beta _1=\frac{h_1}{h_0}=\frac{h_1}{\mu _0}=\frac{\mu _2}{\mu _0}\left(\frac{\mu _1}{\mu _0}\right)^2=\frac{4(\alpha +1)(\beta +1)}{(\alpha +\beta +2)^2(\alpha +\beta +3)}.$$

After some computations,

$$C_2=\beta _1R_0R_1\frac{1}{2}(1\alpha _0^2)R_0=0.$$

Now the sum (2.17), may look complicated, however, with a partial fraction expansion, the sum can be taken and leads to

$`\beta _n={\displaystyle \frac{n(n+\alpha )(n+\beta )(n+\alpha +\beta )}{(2n+\alpha +\beta )^2R_nR_{n1}}}.`$
Therefore, after some simplifications we establish

(2.18) $`\beta _n={\displaystyle \frac{4n(n+\alpha )(n+\beta )(n+\alpha +\beta )}{(2n+\alpha +\beta )^2(2n+\alpha +\beta +1)(2n+\alpha +\beta 1)}}.`$
## 3 Explicit Formulas

We first determine $`𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(\pm 1)`$. Write (1.3) as,

(3.3) $`\begin{array}{c}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{(n+r_n)𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(z)\beta _nR_n𝒫_{n1}^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(z)}{z1}}\\ +{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _nR_n𝒫_{n1}^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(z)r_n𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(z)}{z+1}},\end{array}`$
and since $`\frac{d}{dz}𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(z)`$ is regular at $`z=\pm 1,`$ we arrive at

$`(n+r_n)𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)\beta _n_nP_{n1}^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)=0,`$
$`\beta _nR_n𝒫_{n1}^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)r_n𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)=0.`$
Thus we find

(3.4) $`𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)=𝒫_0^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _jR_j}{r_j+j}},`$
and

$`𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)=𝒫_0^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _jR_j}{r_j}}.`$
Substituting for $`\beta _n`$ $`r_n`$ and $`R_n`$ from (2.9), (2.12), and (2.18), and applying (2.15) we prove that

$`𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{2^n}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(j+\beta )(j+\alpha +\beta )}{\left[j+(\alpha +\beta /2)\right]\left[j+(\alpha +\beta 1/2)\right]}}.`$
Using the facts $`(\lambda )_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda +n)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )`$, $`(2\lambda )_{2n}=4^2(\lambda )_n(\lambda +1/2)_n`$ we rewrite the above equation as

(3.5) $`𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^n(\beta +1)_n}{(\alpha +\beta +n+1)_n}}.`$
Similarly

(3.6) $`𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(1)={\displaystyle \frac{2^n(\alpha +1)_n}{(\alpha +\beta +n+1)_n}}.`$
We next evaluate $`h_n`$, the squares of the $`L^2`$ norms. In general (1.1) and (1.2) yield,

(3.7) $`h_n=h_0\beta _1\beta _2\mathrm{}\beta _n.`$
The beta integral evaluation gives

(3.8) $`h_0=2^{\alpha +\beta +1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta +1)}}.`$
Thus

(3.9) $`{\displaystyle _1^1}𝒫_m^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)(1x)^\alpha (1+x)^\beta 𝑑x=h_n\delta _{m,n},`$
with

(3.10) $`h_n={\displaystyle \frac{2^{\alpha +\beta +n+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +n+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta +1)n!}{(\alpha +\beta +n+1)_n\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta +n+2n+2)}}.`$
We now prove that

(3.11) $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(z)=n𝒫_n^{(\alpha +1,\beta +1)}(z)`$
For $`\alpha >1`$, $`\beta >1`$, and $`m<n1`$ integration by parts gives

(3.14) $`\begin{array}{c}{\displaystyle _1^1}x^m\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)\right)(1x)^{\alpha +1}(1+x)^{\beta +1}𝑑x\\ ={\displaystyle _1^1}𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)f(x)(1x)^\alpha (1+x)^\beta 𝑑x\end{array}`$
where $`f(x)=x^{m1}[m+x(\beta \alpha )x^2(\alpha +\beta +m+2)]`$. Since $`f`$ has degree at most $`n1`$, the above integral must vanish and we conclude that $`\frac{d}{dx}𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)`$ is orthogonal to all polynomials of degree less than $`n1`$ with respect to $`w^{(\alpha +1,\beta +1)}(x)`$. The uniqueness of the orthogonal polynomials and the fact that $`𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x),n0`$ are monic, establish (3.8). Clearly (3.8) and (3.2) give

(3.17) $`\begin{array}{c}{\displaystyle \frac{d^k}{dx^k}}𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)|_{x=1}={\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(nk)}}𝒫_{nk}^{(k+\alpha ,k+\beta )}(1)\\ ={\displaystyle \frac{(2)^{nk}(\beta +k)_{nk}}{(\alpha +\beta +n+k+1)_{nk}}}\end{array}`$
The Taylor series about $`x=1`$ now gives the representation

(3.20) $`\begin{array}{c}𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{(2)^n(\beta +1)_n}{(\alpha +\beta +1)_n}}\\ \times {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(n,n+\alpha +\beta +1;\beta +1;(1+x)/2),\end{array}`$
which we recognized to be the monic Jacobi polynomials. Similarly (3.3) and (3.8) give the alternate representation

(3.23) $`\begin{array}{c}𝒫_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{(2)^n(\alpha +1)_n}{(\alpha +\beta +1)_n}}\\ \times {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(n,n+\alpha +\beta +1;\alpha +1;(1x)/2),\end{array}`$


text:
# Spin-flip Effects in the Mesoscopic Spin-Interferometer.

## I I. Introduction

The spin interferometry in mesoscopic systems is expected to give new insights in the field of nano-physics. We approach this problem in a ring-dot geometry with the aim to identify new properties of the Aharonov-Bohm oscillations due to the presence of magnetic impurities within a multiple level dot; we show also the ensemble of parameters that determine the problem.

The Aharonov-Bohm interferometer with embedded quantum dot has been used to study the phase of the electron transmission as a voltage applied on the dot is varied Ji ; Weiden , however no attention was paid till now to the spin transmittance or even to magnetoconductance fluctuations in such tunable systems, where the finite size of the dot plays an effective role. The set-up is sketched in Fig.1; the dot contains magnetic impurities, which implies an exchange interaction between the spin of the free incident electron and the localized spins in the dot. In the real systems, the dot has a finite size so that the electron crosses the dot along different paths, with implications for the resulting interference pattern. This is why the usual model which assimilates the dot with a one-site impurity (with at most two-orbitals) IZ  cannot capture all the interference effects in actual ring-dot systems. The price to be paid for considering a realistic geometry for the dot is to make a single electron approach; we mention in this respect the recent paper by Nakanishi et al Naka  who uses a continuous model for the study of the Fano effects.

The spin-dependent transmittance amplitude can be written as a superposition of all possible paths:

$$t_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}=t^1\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}+\underset{k2}{}t_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}^ke^{i(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}^k)},$$
(1)
where $`t^1`$ is the amplitude of the transmittance through the lower arm which conserves the spin, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the magnetic flux that pierces the ring and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ is the supplementary contribution of the dot, where spin-flip processes may occur.

The aspect of the output depends on the magnetic field that pierces both the ring and the dot and on the gate potential applied on the dot; at the same time, it is strongly controlled by the strength of the ring-dot coupling ($`\tau `$) and the energy of the incident electron($`E_F`$).

As explained throughout the paper, the range of parameters is large and different regimes can be studied. For instance, in the case of small $`\tau `$, one may consider that the ring-dot coupling only produces broadening and slight shifts in the spectrum of the individual dot. In the opposite case, this picture is no longer valid and the ring-dot system has to be regarded as a unique coherent system, meaning that $`\tau `$ must be considered in all powers of the perturbation series. The hybridization depends on the electric potential $`V_g`$ since the applied potential shifts the dot levels. However, for a two-dimensional quantum dot, the same can be achieved by the variation of the magnetic flux, as put into evidence by a recent experiment carried out in the same ring-dot geometry Aikawa . We shall focus our study on the spin dependent magnetoconductance as function of flux at fixed gate potential.

Since several energy scales come into the problem, one has to establish from the very beginning the assumptions of the approach. We consider that the main processes which are to be taken into account are the orbital motion in magnetic field along the ring and inside the dot, and the exchange interaction $`J`$. We assume that the Zeeman effect is less effective than the exchange, i.e. $`g\mu _BB/J<1`$ comm  ; the spin-orbit interaction is neglected, too. We use a tight-binding (TB) description that proved to be efficient in describing interference effects for differently shaped systems and in the presence of disorder and interactions AGC ; YB . The magnetic field (in the Landau gauge) appears as a Peierls phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}`$ in the hopping integral, and only the next-neighbor hopping is considered. The dot is an island of $`3\times 5`$ sites attached on the external side of the ring, with the magnetic impurity placed in the middle. The dot area represents $`15\%`$ from the area of the whole device. The Hamiltonian of the ring-dot system in perpendicular magnetic field reads:

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,\sigma }{}}w_{ij,\sigma }e^{i2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}}c_{i,\sigma }^{}c_{j,\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,iQD}{}}V_gc_{i,\sigma }^{}c_{i,\sigma }`$
$`J(c_n^{}c_nc_n^{}c_n)S_n^zJ(c_n^{}c_nS_n^++H.c.),`$
$`nQD.`$ (2)
where $`c_i^{}(c_i)`$ are creation (annihilation) operators in localized states indexed by $`i`$ ; the index $`n`$ is devoted to the site of the dot where the magnetic impurity -called also the ’flipper’- is placed. The first term describes both the 1D ring and the dot ($`i,j=1..N`$), the second term allows for the gate potential on the dot and the last terms represent the local spin-spin interaction. The hopping integral will be taken as energy unit, i.e. $`w_{ij,\sigma }=1`$ for any pair (i,j) excepting at the contacts between the dot and the ring, where $`w=\tau [0,1]`$.

The outline of this paper is as follows. In section II we adapt the formalism used previously for the spinless problem MAMN  to the spin transport through meso systems. This yields a fast way to obtain numerical results in the presence of spin scattering based on the calculation of the resolvent in a reduced Hilbert space and Landauer-Büttiker formalism. The existence of different regimes is shown. Section III introduces the singlet and triplet operators and expresses the flip and non-flip processes in terms of two-time Green (singlet &triplet) functions with their corresponding equations of motion. We also show how the single electron scattering problem is recovered from the general many-body scheme. An application is done for an analytically soluble model in sec IV, with the aim to produce hints for the ring+2Ddot interferometer. This complex system is studied numerically in sec V, where spectral and transport properties are shown, indicating the role of different parameters like the Fermi energy and the coupling constant $`\tau `$. The main conclusions are presented in the last section.

## II II. Spin tunneling in the resolvent representation and discussion of different regimes

In what follows we shall reduce the many-body problem to the physical situation when a ”test” electron carrying the spin $`\sigma `$ passes through the interferometer and interacts via the exchange $`J`$ with the localized spin $`S`$. So we have to project the Hamiltonain on the product Hilbert space describing a single free spin and a single localized spin: $`_{2N}^\sigma _{2S+1}^S`$. This space is spanned by the basis $`\{|i,\sigma >\}\{\chi _S\}`$. For this reason, in the present section we shall use the bra/ket representation instead of the creation/annihilation operators.

For the calculation of the transmittance (in the Landauer-Büttiker formalism) additional terms are needed in order to describe the external leads and their contacts to the ring-dot system. It is however sufficient to use an effective Hamiltonian depending only on the degrees of freedom of the ring-dot, but containing the whole information about the leads and lead-ring coupling in a non-Hermitian term MAMN :

$$H^{eff}=H+\tau _0^2\underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}e^{iq}|\alpha \sigma ><\alpha \sigma |,$$
(3)
where $`q`$ is defined by $`E_F=2cos(q)`$ and {$`\alpha `$} denotes the sites where the leads are connected to the system. $`\tau _0`$ is the parameter describing the lead-ring coupling and it will be taken $`\tau _0=1`$. Taking into account that the lead-ring coupling conserves the spin, only the diagonal elements are modified by the coupling $`\tau _0`$, and one can define the non-flip effective Hamiltonian :

$`H_{}^{eff}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}w_{ij,}e^{i2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}}|i><j|+{\displaystyle \underset{iQD}{}}V_g|i><i|`$
$`JS_n^z|n><n|+\tau _0^2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}e^{iq}|\alpha ><\alpha |,`$ (4)
while the spin-flip Hamiltonian is simply:

$$H_{}^{eff}=H_{}=JS_n^{}|n><n|.$$
(5)
In order to calculate the spin transmittance through the complex system one needs to know the retarded resolvent Green function:

$$G^+(E)=(EH^{eff}+i0)^1.$$

Then, in order to express the different flip and non-flip tunneling processes we define the 2x2 matrix Green function

$$G_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(z)=:<\sigma |G(z)|\sigma ^{}>$$

for which Dyson equations can be written immediately and the expressions for the nonflip $`G_{}(z)`$ and flip $`G_{}(z)`$ read :

$`G_{}(z)=\left(zH_{}^{eff}H_{}(zH_{}^{eff})^1H_{}\right)^1`$
$`G_{}(z)=G_{}(z)H_{}^{eff}(zH_{}^{eff})^1.`$ (6)
Using (5) these equations can be further expressed as:

$`G_{}(z)=(zH_{}^{eff}J{}_{}{}^{2}S_{n}^{}|n>`$
$`<n|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zH_{}^{eff}}}|n><n|S_n^+)^1,`$
$`G_{}(z)=JG_{}(z)S_n^{}|n><n|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zH_{}^{eff}}}.`$ (7)
In order to proceed we shall consider $`S_n=1/2`$. Since the exchange interaction conserves the total spin and its projection on the z-axis, there are three different tunneling processes between the following $`in`$ and $`out`$ states:

$`a)|\alpha >|\alpha ^{}>(nonflipprocess)`$
$`b)|\alpha >|\alpha ^{}>(nonflipprocess)`$ (8)
$`c)|\alpha >|\alpha ^{}>(flipprocess)`$
The first two processes contribute to the non-flip transmittance while the third process to the flip transmittance. We remind that the pair of sites $`(\alpha ,\alpha ^{})`$ represent the points where the ring is connected to the terminals and that the incoming spin is supposed to be polarized in the $`up()`$-state. The notation $`|>,|>`$ stands for the eigenvectors of the impurity spin operator $`S_n^z`$.

Finally, the spin transmittance is obtained by calculating the matrix elements of $`G_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}`$ in (7) between these in and out states, and using them in the general expression of the Landauer-Büttiker formula:

$$T_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}S,S^{}}(E,\mathrm{\Phi })=4\tau _0^4sin^2q|<\alpha ,S|G_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^+(E)|\alpha ^{},S^{}>|^2$$
(9)
As an explicit example of how the matrix elements look like, we give :

$`<\alpha |G_{\sigma \sigma }(z)|\alpha ^{}>=`$
$`<\alpha |(z{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}w_{ij,}e^{i2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}}|i><j|`$
$`\tau _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}e^{ik}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1}{}}|\alpha _1><\alpha _1|+{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}|n><n)^1|\alpha ^{}>.`$
The value of this Green function element can be calculated by the direct numerical inversion of the matrix which is now completely known.

The Aharonov-Bohm interference is impossible when the dot does not transmit, since the circulation of the vector potential is to be considered along a closed contour. The transmittance of the dot can be controlled by changing the gate potential applied on the dot. Therefore, the transmittance spectrum in the plane of the variables $`V_g`$ (gate potential) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (magnetic flux through the ring) has to be analyzed first.

The space of parameters is covered by $`\tau `$ (ring-dot coupling), $`J`$ (exchange) and $`E_F`$ (the Fermi level imposed by the external leads). The multitude of parameters may give rise to different regimes and as an illustration we show in Fig.2 a map of the nonflip-conductance for two different values of $`E_F`$. One notices the change from a resonant behavior (panel a) to an anti-resonant one (panel b). At the same time, we have found that the flip-conductance keeps the resonant character for both values of the Fermi energy.

The understanding of the 3D picture in Fig.2 is relatively simple; one has to analyse separately the role played by the ring and by the dot in the transmittance process. Let us call $`T_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{(I)}`$ the transmittance of the device in the case $`\tau =0`$ (when the dot is completely detached from the ring) and express formally the transmittance as the sum of two contributions :

$$T_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(E,\mathrm{\Phi })=T_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{(I)}+\tau ^2T_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{(II)},$$
(11)
where the second term is added when $`\tau 0`$. Obviously, $`T_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{(I)}`$ does not depend on the flux but may depend on the Fermi energy. Let us consider two situations :

a) the energy of the incident electron is such that $`T_{}^{(I)}0`$; then the second term describes the resonances of the ring-dot system, with a gate potential applied on the dot only.

b) the energy is such that $`T_{}^{(I)}1`$; since the total transmittance cannot be larger than $`1`$, the only possible effect which can be produced by $`T_{}^{(II)}`$ is an antiresonance.

We succeeded to catch these two extreme cases in Fig.2a and b, respectively, by choosing two different values of the Fermi energy. More complicated 3D patterns appear in intermediate situations. In what concerns the flip transmittance, obviously $`T_{}^{(I)}=0`$ so that only the situation in panel (a) may occur and the flip transmittance will show always a resonant character.

## III III. Singlet-triplet representation for the flip and non-flip propagators.

In what follows we shall explain the Singlet-Triplet structure of the energy spectrum, the implication of the spectrum for the transport properties and the physical conditions ($`T=0`$ and ’empty band’ ground state Nolting ) under which one can get rigorous results.

For S=1/2 the natural formulation of the problem is in terms of singlet-triplet operators (see for instance Ho ). One can define the fermion operators $`\{d_{}^{},d_{}^{},d_{},d_{}\}`$ for the localized spin, provided one projects out all the states with occupancy different from $`1`$, i.e. one has

$`n_d=d_{}^{}d_{}+d_{}^{}d_{}=1.`$ (12)
Then, $`S_n^z,S_n^+andS_n^{}`$ in eq (2) can be written as:

$`S_n^z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_{}^{}d_{}d_{}^{}d_{})`$
$`S_n^+=d_{}^{}d_{},S_n^{}=d_{}^{}d_{}.`$ (13)
Simultaneously we introduce the singlet operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ and the triplet operators $`T_i^p`$ (p=1,2,3)

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(d_{}c_id_{}c_i)`$
$`T_i^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(d_{}c_i+d_{}c_i)`$
$`T_i^2=d_{}c_i`$
$`T_i^3=d_{}c_i.`$ (14)
The above operators may be used in order to write the Hamiltonian (2) in the following way (where we have used also $`n_d=d_{}^{}d_{}+d_{}^{}d_{}=1`$):

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}(w_{ij}^\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_j+w_{ij}^T{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}T_i^pT_j^p)`$
$`w_{ij}^\mathrm{\Sigma }=w_{ij}e^{i2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}}+\delta _{ij}Vg+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}J\delta _{ij}\delta _{in}`$
$`w_{ij}^T=w_{ij}e^{i2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}}+\delta _{ij}Vg{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J\delta _{ij}\delta _{in}.`$ (15)
In the representation of $`\{c,d\}`$-fermions, the propagation of the free electron corresponding to non-flip processes a) and b) and to the spin-flip process c) is described by the following zero temperature two-time Green functions:

$`G_{ij}^a(E)=d_{}c_i;c_j^{}d_{}^{}_E`$
$`G_{ij}^b(E)=d_{}c_i;c_j^{}d_{}^{}_E`$ (16)
$`G_{ij}^c(E)=d_{}c_i;c_j^{}d_{}^{}_E,`$
where the ground state on which the Green functions are defined should be explained. From now on the state $`|>_0`$, on which the Green functions are defined, will be chosen as the vacuum with respect to both c- and d- fermions. This is the so-called ’empty band’ approach for the electronic problem. With this choice the propagators (16) describe the propagation of a ”test” electron through the interferometer containing the localized spin. The same single electron approach is considered by Menezes et al Menezes  and Joshi et al Joshi  when using the wave guide approach for the ring+flipper problem in the continuum representation (they do not emphasise the natural singlet-triplet formulation of the problem). Using the same approach Nolting obtained rigorous results for the the electron excitation spectrum of ferromagnetic semiconductors Nolting .

The generic equation of motion satisfied by these functions is (see the discussion in Appendix):

$$EA;B_E=<[A,B]_+>_0+[A,H^{eff}]_{};B_E.$$
(17)
As an example, the equation of motion for $`G^c`$ reads:

$`(EV_g)G_{ij}^c={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}w_{ik}(\mathrm{\Phi })G_{kj}^c+\tau _0^2e^{iq}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\delta _{i\alpha }G_{ij}^c`$
$`+\delta _{in}{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}G_{ij}^c\delta _{in}JG_{ij}^b\delta _{in}{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}d_{}^{}d_{}d_{}c_i;c_j^{}d_{}^{}`$
$`+Jc_n^{}c_nc_id_{};c_j^{}d_{}^{}+Jd_{}^{}d_{}d_{}c_i;c_j^{}d_{}^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}d_{}(c_n^{}c_nc_n^{}c_n)c_i;c_j^{}d_{}^{}`$ (18)
With our choice for the ground stare, exact results are obtained as the equation of motion get closed without any approximation. Indeed, now all ”higher” Green functions

$`d_{}(c_n^{}c_nc_n^{}c_n)c_i;c_j^{}d_{}^{},`$
$`c_n^{}c_nc_id_{};c_j^{}d_{}^{},`$ (19)
etc, vanish.

We remind that if the Fermi sea is considered as the ground state, the ”higher” Green functions do not vanish any more and the solution can be found only approximately, using specific decoupling procedures ( see, for instance Nagaoka ; Ho ).

Eq.(18) becomes :

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left[\left(EV_g\tau _0^2e^{iq}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\delta _{i\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}\delta _{in}\right)\delta _{ik}w_{ik}\right]G_{kj}^c(E)`$
$`=\delta _{in}JG_{ij}^b(E).`$ (20)
One can verify that $`<\mathrm{\Sigma }_iHT_j^p>_0=0`$, meaning that the Hilbert space $`_{2N}^\sigma _2^S`$ splits as follows:

$$_{2N}^\sigma _2^S=_N^\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3N}^T.$$

The singlet and triplet-type eigenenergies can be obtained by the diagonalization of the matrices $`w_{ij}^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`w_{ij}^T`$, respectively.

It is useful to define the singlet and triplet propagators

$$G_{ij}^\mathrm{\Sigma }(E)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_i;\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{}_E,G_{ij}^{T^{(p)}}(E)=T_i^{(p)};T_j^{(p)}_E$$

as these functions satisfy decoupled equations of motion:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}[(E\delta _{ik}w_{ik}^\mathrm{\Sigma }\tau _0^2e^{iq}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\delta _{i\alpha }\delta _{ik}]G_{kj}^\mathrm{\Sigma }(E)=\delta _{ij},`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[E\delta _{ik}w_{ik}^T\tau _0^2e^{iq}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\delta _{i\alpha }\delta _{ik}\right]G_{kj}^{T^{(p)}}(E)=\delta _{ij},`$ (22)
where $`w^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`w^T`$ are defined in eq(17). The Green functions for the three triplet states are identical, so we shall skip the upper index of $`T`$. When obtaining equations (21) and (22) the symmetry relations

$`d_{}c_i;c_j^{}d_{}^{}=d_{}c_i;c_j^{}d_{}^{}`$
$`d_{}c_i;c_j^{}d_{}^{}=d_{}c_i;c_j^{}d_{}^{}`$
have been used.

It turns out from their definitions that the three propagators describing the processes a), b) and c) can be expressed in terms of singlet and triplet propagators as follows

$`G^a=G^T`$
$`G^b=(G^T+G^\mathrm{\Sigma })/2`$ (23)
$`G^c=(G^TG^\mathrm{\Sigma })/2`$
The above relations show that the non-flip process a) is purely triplet-type since only the matrix $`w^T`$ enters the dynamics of the propagator $`G^a`$, while the non-flip process b) and the flip process c) involve both the triplet and singlet states. We note that from (22) we recover the expression of $`G^T`$ given by (10) in the previous section.

## IV IV. The simplest spin interferometer

By the use of eq.(21-22) and (23) it is now very easy to analyse analytically the simple example of a triangular spin interferometer placed in magnetic field. In this way we get hints for understanding the complex system.

We present first the energy spectrum (with Singlet-Triplet structure) versus the enclosed flux (Fig.3). The distance between a Singlet-Triplet pair of levels is, of course, controlled by the exchange parameter , but there are also degeneracy points which are independent of $`J`$ as we shall explain below.

In order to study the transport, we connect ideal leads to the sites we shall refer to as ”1” and ”3” using the hopping constant $`\tau _0`$. The flipper is located on the site ”2”. The sites of the triangle are interconnected by the hopping parameter $`e^{\pm i2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/3}`$ (the total encircled flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is measured in quantum flux units). We find the solution of eq.(21-22) as :

$$G_{13}^{\mathrm{\Sigma },T}(E)=e^{i2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/3}\frac{e^{i2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }}+(E\alpha ^{\mathrm{\Sigma },T})}{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(24)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }=(E\tau _0^2e^{iq})^2(E\alpha ^{\mathrm{\Sigma },T})2(E\tau _0^2e^{iq})`$
$`(E\alpha ^{\mathrm{\Sigma },T})2cos(2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }),`$ (25)
with $`\alpha ^\mathrm{\Sigma }=J\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`\alpha ^T=J\frac{1}{2}`$ . One can notice that, while the module of $`G^{\mathrm{\Sigma },T}(E)`$ is symmetrical under flux reversal and has the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=1`$ flux periodicity, its phase is not symmetrical under flux reversal and has a $`3\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ periodicity due to the factor $`e^{i2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/3}`$. On the other hand, the phase difference between $`G^T`$ and $`G^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _{T\mathrm{\Sigma }}=atan(ImG^T/ReG^T)atan(ImG^\mathrm{\Sigma }/ReG^\mathrm{\Sigma })`$), which is important for the processes b) and c) (as expressed by eq.23), is periodic with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ but remains asymmetric under flux reversal. This explains why the transmittances assigned to the processes b) and c) are asymmetric under flux reversal, as also found by Joshi et alJoshi .

For $`\tau _0=0`$ the zeros of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Eq.27 give the energy spectrum. For integer (semi-integer) values of the flux the energy $`E=1(E=1)`$ is an eigenvalue independent of $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\Sigma },T}`$ meaning that the triplet and the singlet are degenerated as it can be seen in Fig.3.

Looking at the spectrum, we can realize that $`G^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`G^T`$ (that is also the propagator for the a) process ) will show, each of them, one or two peaks per period, depending on the $`E_f`$ (see the horizontal lines in the spectrum figure). As a result, $`G^c`$ and $`G^b`$ may show up to four peaks per period in the case of the week coupling with the leads. However, for strong coupling, neighbouring singlet and triplet peaks will overlap with either constructive or destructive effect, depending on the phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _{T\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ (see Fig.4c).

As the magnetic flux is changed, the T and S levels cross the Fermi energy giving rise to the addition or loss of one electron at each cross. Taking into account that the addition of an electron corresponds to a phase increase of $`\pi `$ (and vice versa) the evolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _{T\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ in Fig.4a is easily understood, when the peaks are well separated in the case of weak coupling. As we increase the coupling, the peaks are broadening and we can see in Fig.4c that the first pair of peaks evolves into a single big peak while the second pair vanishes corresponding to a phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _{T\mathrm{\Sigma }}0`$.

## V V. The spectrum and spin transmittance of the ring+2D dot interferometer

In the following we shall continue the numerical analysis of the real system consisting of the ring+2D quantum dot (with magnetic impurity). In order to show the complexity of the problem, we present first a detail of the energy spectrum of our system (Fig.5). In Fig.5a the dot is decoupled from the ring; the levels of the 2D finite dot (shown in solid line) depend on the magnetic field and can be indexed as Triplet and Singlet levels, while the levels of the truncated ring (dotted line) are invariant with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

Obviously, when we increase the ring-dot coupling $`\tau `$ the levels undergo hybridization. As long as the ring-dot hybridization is weak (as in Fig.5b) and we are sufficiently far away from the self-avoiding points, the eigenvalues can still be identified as ring-like or dot-like. The ring-like levels begin to oscillate with the (approximate) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ period and each one splits also into a Singlet and a Triplet; obviously the splitting depends on the value of the exchange $`J`$, and on the hybridization determined by the ring-dot coupling $`\tau `$ and on the relative distance between levels.

For strong hybridization (see Fig.5c) the dot-like levels begin also to exhibit $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ oscillations superimposed over their usual slow dependence on the flux observed in Fig.5a. One can notice that the dot-like levels are intercalated between singlet-triplet pairs of ring-like levels; this occurs because the exchange splitting of the dot-like levels is much bigger than the splitting of the ring-like levels. In fact, for strong ring-dot coupling, the spectrum becomes complicated and it is difficult to identify any more the origin of different eigenvalues.

Now we continue the numerical analysis of the spin transmittance in the limit of perfect ring-leads coupling ($`\tau _0=1`$), which meets the usual experimental conditions for studying the AB oscillations.

Since the spin-up and the spin-down waves cannot interfere, being orthogonal and corresponding to two different channels, the flip-interference process can only take place between the flipped electron wave transmitted through the dot and the flipped wave reflected by the dot; this introduces a difference in phase compared to the nonflip process and explains why the flip-interference may be destructive at values of the magnetic field where the direct (nonflip)process is constructive. Another effect is the accumulation of phase in the dot which will affect the Fourier spectra of the spin-dependent magnetoconductance fluctuations.

The interference pattern as function of the magnetic flux through the ring depends specifically on the characteristics of the quantum dot, namely, by its coupling to the ring and the properties of the energy spectrum described above . Implicitly, the position of the Fermi level becomes important.

For weak ring-dot coupling, the AB oscillations come from the participation in transport of the ring-like levels that have a (approximate) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ periodicity and show a Singlet-Triplet splitting (the case shown in Fig.5b). This splitting is however very small since the localized magnetic impurity is placed in the dot and acts like a small perturbation for the ”ring” levels. Then, one can assume that $`|G^T||G^\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$ and the phase difference $`\lambda _{T,\mathrm{\Sigma }}0`$, except for those intervals of flux where the dot levels get involved in transport. As a result the flip oscillations, being proportional to $`|G^TG^\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$, are much smaller than the nonflip oscillations given by $`G^a`$ or $`G^b`$.

The position of the Fermi energy is very important for the general aspect of the oscillation pattern. When the Fermi energy crosses (or is close to) the oscillating ring-like levels, both the nonflip and flip transmittances show regular oscillations (much reduced for the flip case), with anomalies in those domains of the flux where dot-like levels are also involved in transport .

Even if the Fermi energy is far from the ring levels the nonflip transmittance behaves similarly. On the contrary, the flip transmittance does not show oscillations but has only peaks at values of the flux where the dot levels cross $`E_F`$. In this way the energy levels of the dot can be identified by the flip transmittance. We illustrate this situation in Fig.6.

For the strong ring-dot coupling $`\tau =1`$, the spectrum shown in Fig.5c plays the game and the result consists in strong oscillations for any Fermi level. Four peaks per period cannot be observed since the splitting is small compared to the broadening induced by the strong coupling of the system to the leads $`\tau _0=1`$. The general picture is that one of single or double peak per period both for the flip and non-flip transmittance, depending however on the $`E_F`$. The double peak is usually asymmetric as in Fig.4b of the triangle model.

A peculiar situation, when the spin effect is strong, occurs at $`E_F=0`$ and is shown in Fig.7 . The difference noticed between the panels (I) and (II) is due to the fact that the scattering processes (b=nonflip) and (c=flip) combine in different ways the singlet and triplet propagators. The situation is presented at a better resolution in Fig.8a, and it can be noticed that $`T_{}`$ is nearly zero in the same place where $`T_{}1`$. With necessity, the quasi-zero of the flip transmittance occurs when $`|G^T||G^\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$ and $`\lambda _{T,\mathrm{\Sigma }}0`$. Under the same circumstances, the nonflip process (b) described by $`|G^T+G^\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$ has a maximum value. This explains the destructive interference of he flip process at the same value of the flux where non-flip interference process is constructive. It can also be noticed that the transmittance varies strongly in some domains (as for instance between $`1520\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ ). A separate calculation indicates that the transmission of the dot is much suppressed in these domains, while the amplitude of $`T_{}`$ through the lower arm is close to 1; these two facts yield the picture shown in Fig.7a. On the other hand, when the transmission through the dot is low, the probability of the flip process is reduced explaining the complementary window of the $`T_{}`$ in Fig.7b.

We have checked that such windows are a combined effect of the presence of the dot and of the magnetic impurity; it turns out, however that for $`E_F=0`$ the windows in the interference pattern comes from the exchange.

One can observe in the top panel of the Fig.8 that the large peak representing the nonflip-interference embraces the double peak representing the flip-process. The splitting increases with the exchange $`J`$ and hence the width of the large peak depends also on this parameter.

An important instrument for the analysis of the transmittance oscillations is the Fourier transform WW . The Fourier spectra of $`T_{}`$ and $`T_{}`$ are shown in Fig.8b and Fig.8c in the case of the perfect coupling between the dot and the ring ($`\tau =1`$). The fact that already the first interference process occurs with the participation of a reflected wave results in the reduction of the first maximum in the Fourier spectrum for the flip-channel.

The coupling $`\tau `$ is important for the aspect of the Fourier spectrum because any constriction at the dot gives rise to a reflection of the spin-up electron, and changes the aspect of the Fourier spectrum of $`T_{}`$, that might become similar to the spectrum of $`T_{}`$.

When the dot is attached to the ring the positions of the interference peaks are shifted due to an accumulation of phase in the dot; this effect is clearly visible in the Fourier spectrum of the AB oscillations, namely the positions of the maxima do not coincide any more with the integer multiples of the $`2\pi /\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, which are characteristic to the individual ring. The shift can be noticed both in Fig.8b and Fig.8c for the non-flip and flip transmittance, respectively.

In the mesoscopic physics, the Fano effect is the consequence of the hybridization between the continuum spectrum of the leads and the discrete spectrum of the meso-system Xu . The asymmetric shape of the transmittance peaks, the occurrence of zeros, and the behavior of the transmittance phase on the resonances and between them are the aspects of interest.

In the system under consideration, the dependence on the gate potential (at fixed magnetic field) of the transmittance phases corresponding to different flip and non-flip processes show the usual behavior and we shall not insist on these aspects: the phase increases with $`\pi `$ on each resonance and there are also discontinuous jumps with $`\pm \pi `$ between the resonances with the same parity, where the transmittance vanishes YB . Since in our case the magnetic field is non-zero, these jumps do not represent true Fano zeros because the real and imaginary part of the transmittance amplitude cannot change simultaneously the sign. Nevertheless, when the change in sign of $`ReT`$ and $`ImT`$ occurs at close values of the gate bias, the variation of the phase is still abrupt. Then, the jump of the phase can be upwards (with a gain of $`\pi `$) or downwards (with a loss of $`\pi `$); obviously, the difference is given by the sign of $`ImT`$ at $`ReT=0`$ (which is positive in the first case and negative in the second one).

On the other hand, the phase have a very complex behavior as function of magnetic field. Some analysis can be made for the simple triangle model, where we can study separately the phase of the denominator and of the numerator in Eq.(24). The two contributions are easy to be identified for $`\tau _0<<1`$ when the resonances are narrow. Then the phase of the denominator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (eq(25)) has a sudden evolution with $`\pi `$ and $`\pi `$ on consecutive resonances, but remains constant in between. On the other hand, the phase of the numerator, which in fact does not depend on $`\tau _0`$, has a very small evolution on the narrow resonances and is responsible for the monotonic increase (or decrease, depending on $`E_F`$) of the phase of $`G_{13}^{\mathrm{\Sigma },T}`$ between resonances. We note that the numerator of these propagators vanishes only incidentally for $`E\alpha ^{\mathrm{\Sigma },T}=1`$ and integer (semi-integer) values of the flux, In the limit $`\tau _01`$ the width of the resonances increases causing the overlap of neighbouring resonances and a ’bump’ instead of a $`\pi `$ evolution of the phase at the variation of the flux.

The non-monotonic variation of the phase on the peak indicates that the phasor of the transmittance in the complex plane ($`ReT,ImT`$) has a turning point (as shown in Fig.9b and Fig.9d).

When extending this analysis to the complex system we realize that the numerator becomes a very complicated trigonometric function and exact zeros, and even quasi-zeros, may exist only incidentally. So, the general aspect of the phase consists in a smooth dependence on flux between two consecutive peaks and a bump on each peak.

The special situation when the phase indicates quasi Fano zeros has been found numerically at $`E_F=0`$ for the case of impurity free dot ($`J=0`$); however, the usual behavior is recovered in the presence of the exchange ($`J0`$). The two situations are shown in Fig.9. In the same figure we give also the phase of the process (c), which is obtained by combining the phases and modules of the $`G^T`$ and $`G^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for the complex ring-dot system.

## VI VI. Conclusions

In conclusion, in this paper we report the first calculation of the spin-dependent transmittance through an interferometer consisting of a ring with embedded two-dimensional dot doped with magnetic impurities. For the time being, there are no experiments to be compared with, but they are expected in the near future, and our goal is to make predictions. The study is based on the spectral analysis and a suitable transport formalism which has been developed for the single-particle case.

The aspect of the Aharonov-Bohm oscillations depends strongly on the Fermi energy and the ring-dot and ring-leads coupling parameters. Generally, the oscillations exhibit single or double asymmetric peaks per period as it is suggested by the analytically solvable triangular model. The flip oscillations are much reduced in amplitude compared to the nonflip ones. The finite size of the dot, combined with the effect of the impurity, gives rise to windows in the interference pattern where the flip and nonflip components of the transmittance behave in a complementary way. In the case of weak ring-dot coupling the AB oscillations of the flip channel may cease to exist, the flip magnetoconductance showing instead peaks corresponding to the levels of the dot. The general aspect of the transmittance phase of the AB oscillations consists in bumps on the oscillation peaks and a monotonic behavior between them.

In order to explain these properties we have expressed the different physical tunneling processes in terms of singlet and triplet propagators, which is the natural formulation of the problem.

Acknowledgments The support of DFG /SFB 608 and the Romanian CERES Programme is acknowledged. We thank M.Nita and V.Dinu for very useful discussions.

## VII Appendix

We introduce the Hamiltonian of the semi-infinite non-interacting leads $`H^L`$ and the lead-ring coupling $`H^{LR}`$ . The different leads are indexed by $`\alpha `$, which stands also for the site where the lead is attached. Then,

$`H^L={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_{n\sigma }^\alpha c_{n+1\sigma }^\alpha +H.c.`$ (26)
$`H^{LR}=\tau _0{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \sigma }{}}c_{0\sigma }^\alpha c_{\alpha \sigma }+H.c.,`$ (27)
where $`\tau _0`$ is the hopping integral between the first site on the lead, $`n=0`$, and the site $`\alpha `$ on the ring.

The Hamiltonian of the whole system is

$`H^{total}=H+H^L+H^{LR},`$ (28)
where $`H`$ was defined already in (2). Let us introduce also

$`H^{eff}=H+\tau _0^2e^{iq}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \sigma }{}}c_{\alpha \sigma }^{}c_{\alpha \sigma },`$ (29)
where $`E=2cos(q)`$ is the energy of the incident ’test’ electron. We have to prove that

$`[d_{}c_i,H^{Total}];c_j^{}d_{}^{}=[d_{}c_i,H^{eff}];c_j^{}d_{}^{},`$
meaning that the effective Hamiltonian $`H^{eff}`$ can be used instead of $`H^{total}`$. This will be valid if the Green functions are defined on the vacuum at zero temperature. The proof is given for $`G^c`$ but the same is true for all the functions in (16) .

Performing the commutators, one gets (we write only the non-vanishing terms):

$`[d_{}c_i,H^L+H^{LR}];c_j^{}d_{}^{}=\delta _{i\alpha }\tau _0d_{}c_0^\alpha ;c_j^{}d_{}^{}`$
and,

$`[d_{}c_i,\tau _0^2e^{iq}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \sigma }{}}c_{\alpha \sigma }^{}c_{\alpha \sigma }];c_j^{}d_{}^{}=`$
$`\delta _{i\alpha }\tau _0^2e^{iq}d_{}c_\alpha ;c_j^{}d_{}^{}.`$
In order to show that these two expressions are equal, we define

$$g_n=:d_{}c_n^\alpha ;c_j^{}d_{}^{},$$

which satisfy the following equations of motion:

$`Eg_0=g_1+\tau _0d_{}c_\alpha ;c_j^{}d_{}^{},`$
$`Eg_n=g_{n1}+g_{n+1},n=1,2,...`$ (30)
The solution of eqs (30) is

$$g_n=\tau _0e^{iq(n+1)}d_{}c_\alpha ;c_j^{}d_{}^{}.$$

so that, finally,

$$d_{}c_0^\alpha ;c_j^{}d_{}^{}=\tau _0e^{iq}d_{}c_\alpha ;c_j^{}d_{}^{},$$

which concludes the demonstration that in this case the use of $`H^{eff}`$ is equivalent to the use of $`H^{total}`$.