text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The hyperfine structure in the spectra of the many-electron systems is a result of the interaction of the electronic and nuclear multipole (electric and magnetic) moments. This interaction leads to the superfine splitting of the electronic spectrum, the rotational spectrum of molecules and the electron paramagnetic resonance lines as well . The energy of the hyperfine electron-nucleus interaction is determined by the finite nuclear size, the nuclear spin orientation and the nuclear magnetic moments space distribution. This energy is much smaller than the energy of the interactions in an electronic system and must be considered separately and independently for each fine structure component.

The transitions between neighbouring levels of the fine and hyperfine structures can be measured by means of highly sensitive radioscopic methods, for example, microwave absorption, electron-spin resonance (ESR), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), atomic and molecular beams.

These experimental methods  can give us information about many properties and effects of nuclei connected with nuclear magnetism, for example: the mechanism and time of spin relaxation, the width of the nuclear spin resonance lines and the indirect interaction between nuclear spins. Using the methods of NMR we can experimentally determine the magnetic nuclear moments. There is no any experimental method for direct measurement of the electric nuclear moments and especially the quadrupole momentum. They can be determined with great accuracy from the hyperfine splitting in electronic and molecular spectra -. For some heavy elements there are some good muonic values of the quadrupole momentum.

In the analysis of the multipole electron-nuclear interactions the Hamiltonian is represented as a sum of products of the electronic and nuclear operators. These operators can be written down explicitly and can be obtained by using the perturbation approach by expressing the interaction Hamiltonian in series in powers of the ratio of nuclear and electronic coordinates , as well as by a direct introduction of all the multipole interactions .

The operators of the magnetic electron-nuclear multipole interactions can be determined also by expanding the Hamiltonian in series in powers of the constant of the fine structure which leads to some relativistic corrections in the main Hamiltonian -.

Usually the experimental hyperfine multipole interaction constants are represented as a product of the matrix elements of the corresponding electronic and nuclear operators . The diagonal matrix elements of the nuclear operators correspond to the multipole moments (magnetic dipole, electric quadrupole, magnetic octopole nuclear moments). In addition to the diagonal electronic matrix elements, the non-diagonal matrix elements must be considered as well, because of some important second order effects. The non-diagonal matrix elements are also important in the analysis of the magnetic transitions induced by the external magnetic fields -. Using the theoretical interpretation of the multipole electric and magnetic moments through the experimental values of the hyperfine interaction constants and the calculated multipole electronic operators matrix elements, one can obtain the values of the electric and magnetic nuclear moments. The calculation of the matrix elements of the multipole magnetic operators is essential in determining the relative contribution of the magnetic interactions and gives us the possibility to estimate the role of the quadrupole interaction in a hyperfine structure. Different transitions in the resonance spectra make it possible to extract the quadrupole interaction constant by means of the analysis of the magnetic hyperfine sub-term or by means of the analysis of the deviation from the interval rules produced by a magnetic dipole electron-nuclear interaction. The correct description of the hyperfine constants needs the inclusion of the relativistic corrections .

In this paper we present the electronic matrix elements for all electronic operators and express them in terms of the density functional of charge or spin distributions. Thus for including the relativistic effects one must take the corresponding density functional of relativistic corrections, for instance, the functional given in paper .

## 2 ELECTRON-NUCLEAR OPERATORS OF THE HYPERFINE INTERACTIONS

### 2.1 Multipole Interaction Operators

The operators of electron-nuclear multipole interactions can be written down

$$\widehat{𝐇}=\underset{k}{}\widehat{𝐇}_k=\underset{k}{}\widehat{𝐐}^k\widehat{𝐅}^k=\underset{k}{}\underset{q}{}(1)^qQ_q^kF_q^k,$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{𝐇}_k`$ is the Hamiltonians of the electric ($`k`$-even) and of the magnetic ($`k`$-odd) interactions of the nuclei with the electronic shell. Here $`\widehat{𝐐}^k`$ and $`\widehat{𝐅}^k`$ are irreducible tensor operators of $`k`$ rank with components $`Q_q^k`$ and $`F_q^k`$, $`q=(k,k+1,\mathrm{},k1,k)`$. These operators act in the spaces of the total nuclear moment $`𝐈`$ and of the total electronic moment $`𝐉`$ correspondingly.

The electronic operators $`\widehat{𝐅}^k`$ in the interaction Hamiltonian expressed in series in powers of space coordinates are represented in the form

$$\widehat{𝐅}^k=\{\begin{array}{cc}_ir_i^{(k+1)}C^k(\theta _i,\phi _i),\hfill & (k\text{even})\hfill \\ _i\mu _e_ir_i^{(k+1)}C^k(\theta _i,\phi _i)(\frac{2}{k}𝐋(i)2𝐒(i)),\hfill & (k\text{odd})\hfill \end{array},$$
(2)
where $`\mu _e`$ is the Bohr’s magneton, $`𝐋(i)`$ and $`𝐒(i)`$ are the orbital and spin angular momenta of the electron with number $`i`$, $`𝐫_i=(r_i,\theta _i,\phi _i)`$ is its radius-vector and $`C^k(\theta _i,\phi _i)`$ are the normalized spherical functions.

The diagonal matrix elements of the $`Q_0^k`$ component of the nuclear operator $`\widehat{𝐐}^k`$ in the state $`I`$, $`M_I=I`$, is the $`2^k`$ total nuclear electric (even $`k`$) or the nuclear magnetic (odd $`k`$) moments

$`II|Q_0^k|II`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2I+1}}}C_{I\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}I}^{IkI}<I\widehat{𝐐}^kI>=`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}M_k\hfill & (k\text{odd})\hfill \\ Q_k\hfill & (k\text{even})\hfill \end{array},`$
where $`C_{I\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}I}^{IkI}`$ are the Clebsch-Gordon coefficients and $`<I\widehat{𝐐}^kI>`$ is the reduced matrix element of the operator $`\widehat{𝐐}^k`$. The matrix elements with $`k=1,2,3`$ correspond to the nuclear moments

$$M_1=\mu ,Q_2=\frac{Q}{2},M_3=\mathrm{\Omega },$$

where $`\mu `$ is the magnetic dipole, $`Q`$ is the electric quadrupole, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the magnetic octopole nuclear moments.

Let us consider the case when the external field can be neglected. Then in the first approximation of the perturbation theory the energy of the hyperfine interactions is determined by the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{𝐇}`$ Eq.(1) which are diagonal with respect to $`𝐉`$, $`𝐈`$ and total moment $`𝐅=𝐈+𝐉`$

$$E_J^{(1)}(F)=<\beta I\alpha JFM_F|\widehat{𝐇}|\beta I\alpha JFM_F>.$$
(6)
Here $`M_F`$ is the value of the $`z`$\- projection of the total atomic moment, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the additional quantum numbers of the electronic and nuclear systems correspondingly.

Using Racah formalism  we can rewrite the expression $`E_F^{(1)}`$ in the form

$`E_J^{(1)}(F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(1)^{I+JF}W(IIJJ;kF)<\alpha J\widehat{𝐅}^k\alpha J><\beta I\widehat{𝐐}^k\beta I>`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}A_kM(IJ;F;k),`$
where

$$A_k=<\alpha JJ|F_0^k|\alpha JJ><\beta II|Q_0^k|\beta II>;$$

$$M(IJ;F;k)=(1)^{I+JF}\frac{1}{a_k}W(IIJJ;kF),$$

$$a_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(2J+1)(2I+1)}}C_{J\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}J}^{JkJ}C_{I\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}I}^{IkI},$$

and $`W(IIJJ;kF)`$ are the Racah coefficients.

The first three hyperfine interaction constants $`A_k`$ are connected with the experimental values of the dipole magnetic (A), the quadrupole electric (B) and the octopole magnetic (C) interaction constants as follow

$$A_1=IJA,A_2=1/4B,A_3=C$$

Calculating the electronic matrix elements in Eq.(7) and using the experimental values for $`E_J^{(1)}(F)`$ and $`A_k`$ we may obtain the nuclear moments $`\mu `$, $`Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The second order perturbation term

$$E_J^{(2)}(F)=\underset{J^{}}{}\frac{|<\beta I\alpha JFM_F|\widehat{𝐇}|\beta I\alpha J^{}FM_F>|^2}{E_JE_J^{}},$$
(8)
where $`E_J`$ is the energy of the fine structure level $`J`$, becomes important in the case when the distance between hyperfine structure levels is of the same order as the energy intervals of the fine structure.

In this case the constant corresponding to $`E_J^{(2)}(F)`$ in Eq.(7) must be added, as a correction to the hyperfine interaction constant $`A_k`$ .

### 2.2 Breit-Pauli Electron-Nucleus Operators

The Hamiltonian $`\widehat{𝐇}_{en}`$ of the electron-nuclear interactions obtained by means of the expansion of the electronic system Hamiltonian in series in powers of the fine structure constant includes three operators of the effective Breit-Pauli Hamiltonian -

$$\widehat{𝐇}_{en}=\widehat{𝐇}_{en}^{LI}+\widehat{𝐇}_{dip}^{SI}+\widehat{𝐇}_{cont}^{SI}.$$
(9)
The electron-nuclear dipole-dipole interaction has the following form

$$\widehat{𝐇}_{dip}^{SI}=g_0\alpha g\alpha _p\underset{i}{}\left\{3[𝐒(i)𝐫_i][𝐈𝐫_i]r_i^2𝐒(i)𝐈\right\}r_i^5.$$
(10)
Here $`g_0`$ is the $`g`$-factor of the free electron, $`\alpha =1/2c`$ is a half of the fine structure constant (in atomic units), $`g`$ is the $`g`$-factor of the nucleus and $`\alpha _p=1/2m_pc`$. The magnetic interaction between the electron angular momentum and the nuclear moment has the form

$$\widehat{𝐇}_{en}^{LI}=2\alpha g\alpha _p\underset{i}{}r_i^3𝐋(i)𝐈.$$
(11)
The operator of the electron-nuclear contact interaction is

$$\widehat{𝐇}_{cont}^{SI}=\frac{8\pi }{3}g_0\alpha g\alpha _p\underset{i}{}\delta (𝐫_i)𝐒(i)𝐈.$$
(12)
It is straitforward to point out that the direct inclusion of the hyperfine interactions of the nuclear momenta and the electronic system leads to the same results as the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{𝐇}_{en}`$ in Eq.(9) .

## 3 MATRIX ELEMENTS OF THE ELECTRON OPERATORS

In order to make the matrix elements of the electronic operators suitable for calculations we have to recouple them from the $`LM_LSM_SJM_J`$ coupling scheme to the $`LM_LSM_S`$ coupling scheme. Since we consider the hyperfine splitting separately for each level of the fine structure, applying Racah techniques  we express the matrix elements $`<\alpha LSJ|\widehat{𝐅}^k|\alpha LSJ^{}>`$ and $`<\alpha LSJ|\widehat{𝐇}_{en}|\alpha LSJ^{}>`$ directly through the diagonal matrix elements of $`\widehat{𝐅}^k`$ and $`\widehat{𝐇}_{en}`$ in the $`LM_LSM_S`$ coupling scheme. Thus, along with the diagonal in $`J`$ matrix elements determining the $`A_k`$ constants,we have to calculate the non-diagonal in $`J`$ matrix elements determining $`A_k^{(2)}`$ values. It must be pointed out that the non-diagonal in $`J`$ matrix elements are very important in the estimation of the transition probabilities between the hyperfine levels .

### 3.1 Electric Multipole Operators

The symmetrical tensor operators $`(\widehat{𝐅}^{el})^k`$ Eq.(2) with the components
$`(F^{el})_q^k=_ir_i^{(k+1)}C_q^k(\theta _i,\phi _i)`$ act only on the space variables,assuming the coupling scheme corresponding to $`𝐉=𝐋+𝐒`$. Then following the Racah technique , and using the diagonal matrix elements $`(\widehat{𝐅}^{el})^k`$ in the $`LM_LSM_S`$ coupling scheme we may express the electronic matrix elements of Eq.(8)as

$`<\alpha LSJ|F_q^k|\alpha LSJ^{}>=(1)^{SLJ+k+1}\sqrt{(2J+1)(2J^{}+1)}`$
$`\times W(LLJJ^{};kS)<\alpha LS|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}r_i^{(k+1)}C_q^k(\theta _i,\phi _i)|\alpha LS>.`$ (13)
Taking into account that the operators $`r_i^{(k+1)}C_q^k(\theta _i,\phi _i)`$ are operators of multiplication the diagonal matrix elements can be expressed by means of the local density functional of charge distribution $`\rho (KK|𝐫)=\rho (K|𝐫)`$ in state $`K|\alpha LM_LSM_S>`$ in the form

$$<\alpha LS|\underset{i}{}r_i^{(k+1)}C_q^k(\theta _i,\phi _i)|\alpha LS>=r^{(k+1)}C_q^k(\theta ,\phi )\rho (K|𝐫)𝑑𝐫.$$
(14)
Up to now there is no evidence of the existence of the electric electron-nucleus interactions with $`k>2`$. The quadrupole interactions $`(k=2)`$ can be observed only in the case of degenerate nuclear states and nuclear spin $`I1`$ . In our approach in the case of the quadrupole interaction the electronic system may posses an arbitrary total moment. As a matter of fact in the case under consideration the density charge distribution does not depend on the electronic system degeneration. Calculation of the matrix elements of the electronic operator of the quadrupole interaction is equivalent \[??\] to the calculation the matrix elements of the gradient of the electrostatic field created from the electrons placed in the centre of the nucleus ,-, .

### 3.2 Magnetic Multipole Operators

For each value of $`k`$ the operators Eq.(2) of the magnetic multipole interactions are the sum of two operators. The first term acts only on the space variables of the electronic system

$$(\widehat{𝐅}_1^{mg})^k=\frac{2\mu _e}{k}\underset{i}{}[_i(r_i^{(k+1)}C^k(\theta _i,\phi _i))]𝐋(i).$$
(15)
In terms of contravariant and covariant cyclic components this operator may be written as

$$(\widehat{𝐅}_1^{mg})^k=\frac{2\mu _e}{k}\underset{i}{}\underset{m=1}{\overset{1}{}}[_i(r_i^{(k+1)}C^k(\theta _i,\phi _i))]^mL_m^1(i).$$
(16)
The contravariant component of the vector in the middle brackets, corresponding to the component $`C_q^k(\theta _i,\phi _i)`$ of the normalized spherical function $`C^k(\theta _i,\phi _i)`$, can be written as

$`[_i(r_i^{(k+1)}C_q^k(\theta _i,\phi _i))]^m`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{2k+1}}}[_i(r_i^{(k+1)}Y_{kq}(\theta _i,\phi _i))]^m`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{4\pi (k+1)}[r_i^{(k+2)}𝐘_{kq}^{(k+1)}(\theta _i,\phi _i)]^m`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{(k+1)(2k+3)}r_i^{(k+2)}C_{qmmq}^{k+\mathrm{1\; \hspace{0.33em}1}k}C_{qm}^{k+1}(\theta _i,\phi _i),`$
where $`𝐘_{kq}^{k+1}(\theta ,\phi )`$ are spherical vectors , and $`C_{qmmq}^{k+\mathrm{1\; \hspace{0.33em}1}k}`$ are Clebsch-Gordon coefficients. The scalar product in the right side of the expression Eq.(16), corresponding to the component $`C_q^k(\theta _i,\phi _i)`$ takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}[_i(r_i^{(k+1)}C_q^k(\theta _i,\phi _i))]^mL_m^1(i)=`$ (18)
$`\sqrt{(k+1)(2k+3)}r_i^{(k+2)}[C^{k+1}(i)\times 𝐋(i)]_q^k,`$
where

$$[C^{k+1}(i)\times 𝐋(i)]_q^k=\underset{m}{}C_{qmmq}^{k+\mathrm{1\; \hspace{0.33em}1}k}C_{qm}^{k+1}(\theta _i,\phi _i)L_m^1(i).$$

Hence, the operator $`(\widehat{𝐅}_1^{mg})^k`$ is an irreducible tensor operator of $`kth`$ rank. Since the operators $`(\widehat{𝐅}_1^{mg})^k`$ act only on the space part of the electronic system, for the matrix elements of the $`q`$ component $`(F_1^{mg})_q^k`$, we obtain

$`<\alpha LSJ|(F_1^{mq})_q^k|\alpha LSJ^{}>=(1)^{SLJ+k+1}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _e}{k}}\sqrt{(2J+1)(2J^{}+1)(k+1)(2k+3)}W(LLJJ^{};kS){\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}C_{qmmq}^{k+\mathrm{1\; \hspace{0.33em}1}k}`$
$`\times <\alpha LS|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}r_i^{(k+2)}[C^{k+1}(i)\times 𝐋(i)]_q^k|\alpha LS>.`$ (19)
We can represent the sum in Eq.(3.2) as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}C_{qmmq}^{k+\mathrm{1\; \hspace{0.33em}1}k}<\alpha LS|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}r_i^{(k+2)}C_{qm}^{k+1}(\theta _i,\phi _i)L_m^1(i)|\alpha LS>`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}C_{qmmq}^{k+\mathrm{1\; \hspace{0.33em}1}k}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐫_1^{}=𝐫_1}{}}r_1^{(k+2)}C_{qm}^{k+1}(\theta _1,\phi _1)L_m^1(1)\rho (K|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})𝑑𝐫_1,`$ (20)
where $`\rho (K|𝐫;𝐫^{})`$ is the non-local charge distribution density functional in
$`K|\alpha LM_LSM_S>`$ state. In Eq.(18) the density functional does not depend on the summing indices $`m`$ and $`q`$.

The second operator of the magnetic multipole interactions acts on the space coordinates, as well as on the spin components of the electronic system

$$(\widehat{𝐅}_2^{mg})^k=2\mu _e\underset{i}{}_i[r_i^{(k+1)}C^k(\theta _i,\phi _i)]𝐒(i).$$
(21)
Now we obtain

$$(\widehat{𝐅}_2^{mg})^k=2\mu _e\sqrt{(k+1)(2k+3)}\underset{i}{}r_i^{(k+2)}[C^{k+1}(i)\times 𝐒^1(i)]^k,$$
(22)
The $`q`$ component of the tensor product in Eq.(22) has the form

$$[C^{k+1}(i)\times 𝐒(i)]_q^k=\underset{m}{}C_{qmmq}^{k+\mathrm{1\; \hspace{0.33em}1}k}C_{qm}^{k+1}(\theta _i,\phi _i)S_m^1(i),$$
(23)
where the spin moment acts on the spin subsystem. Since both operators $`C^{k+1}(i)`$ and $`𝐒(i)`$ act on two different subsystems they commute , and the matrix elements of the components $`(F_2^{mg})_q^k`$ can be expressed as

$`<\alpha LSJ|(F_2^{mg})_q^k|\alpha LSJ^{}>=2\mu _e\sqrt{(k+1)(2k+1)(2k+3)(2J+1)(2J^{}+1)}`$
$`\times \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L& L& k+1\\ S& S& 1\\ J& J^{}& k\end{array}\right\}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}C_{qmmq}^{k+\mathrm{1\; \hspace{0.33em}1}k}`$ (27)
$`\times <\alpha LS|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}r_i^{(k+2)}C_{qm}^{k+1}(\theta _i,\phi _i)S_m^1(i)|\alpha LS>.`$ (28)
Applying the equations Eqs.(77)-(80) of the Appendix to the right hand matrix elements in Eq.(3.2) we have

$`<\alpha LM_LSM_S|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}r_i^{(k+2)}C_{qm}^{k+1}(\theta _i,\phi _i)S_m^1(i)|\alpha LM_LSM_S^{}>=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐫_1^{}=𝐫_1}{}}r_1^{(k+2)}C_{qm}^{k+1}(\vartheta _1,\phi _1)q(KK^{}|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})_m^1𝑑𝐫_1=`$
$`<SM_S|S_m^1|SM_S^{}>{\displaystyle r_1^{(k+2)}C_{qm}^{k+1}(\vartheta _1,\phi _1)D_S(𝐫_1)𝑑𝐫_1},`$ (29)
where $`D_S(𝐫_1)=q(\overline{K}\overline{K}|𝐫_1;𝐫_1)_0^1/S`$ is the normalized spin distribution density functional, $`K^{}\alpha LM_LSM_S^{}>`$, and $`\overline{K}\alpha LM_LSS>`$.

The application of the Wigner-Eckart theorem for the matrix elements $`<SM_S|S_m^1|SM_S^{}>`$ yields

$$<SM_S|S_m^1|SM_S^{}>=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2S+1}}C_{M_SmM_S^{}}^{S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}S}.$$
(30)
Finally the contribution of the component $`(F_2^{mg})_q^k`$ of the magnetic operator $`\widehat{𝐅}_2^{mg}`$ for the hyperfine splitting of any spin multiplet term under consideration $`(SM_S)`$ has the form

$`<\alpha LSJ|(F_2^{mg})_q^k|\alpha LSJ^{}>=\sqrt{6}\mu _e{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2S+1}}}`$
$`\times \sqrt{(k+1)(2k+1)(2k+3)(2J+1)(2J^{}+1)}`$
$`\times \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L& L& k+1\\ S& S& 1\\ J& J^{}& k\end{array}\right\}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}C_{qmmq}^{k+\mathrm{1\; \hspace{0.33em}1}k}C_{M_SmM_S^{}}^{S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}S}`$ (34)
$`\times {\displaystyle r_1^{(k+2)}C_{qm}^{k+1}(\vartheta _1,\phi _1)D_S(𝐫_1)𝑑𝐫_1}.`$ (35)
### 3.3 Electron-Nucleus Dipole Operator

The magnetic dipole coupling between electron and nuclear spins Eq.(10) can be written down in a form in which the electronic and nuclear variables are separated

$$\widehat{𝐇}_{dip}^{SI}=g_0\alpha g\alpha _p\underset{i}{}𝐒(i)[3\frac{𝐫_i𝐫_i}{r_i^5}\frac{𝐧^2(i)}{r_i^3}]𝐈.$$
(36)
Here $`𝐧^2(i)`$ is the unit tensor formed from the unit vector $`𝐧(i)=𝐫_i/r_i`$.

The sum of the one-electronic operators in Eq.(36) can be written as

$$\widehat{𝐇}_{dip}^{SI}=g_0\alpha g\alpha _p\underset{i}{}r_i^3𝐊(i)𝐈,$$
(37)
where

$$𝐊(i)=3[𝐒(i)𝐧(i)]𝐧(i)𝐒(i).$$
(38)
The components $`K_q^1(i)`$ of the axial vector $`𝐊(i)`$ can be written in the form

$$K_q^1(i)=\underset{l}{}D_{ql}^2S_l^1(i),$$
(39)
where the second-rank, symmetric, traceless tensor

$$D_{ql}^2=3n_q(i)n_l(i)\delta _{ql}n_q(i)n_l(i)$$
(40)
is proportional to the normalized spherical function $`C^2(\vartheta _i,\phi _i)`$.

Then the components of the symmetrized vector $`𝐊^1(i)`$ are

$$K_q^1(i)=C[D^2\widehat{𝐒}^1]_q^1=C\underset{m,m^{}}{}C_{mm^{}q}^{2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}1}C_m^2(\vartheta _i,\phi _i)S_m^{}^1(i),$$
(41)
where the $`[D^2𝐒^1]_q^1`$ are the components of an irreducible first-rank tensor product of $`D^2`$ and $`𝐒^1`$. The constant $`C`$ can be derived from atomic spectroscopy theory  and is equal to $`10^{1/2}`$.

Using the relations given above and expressing the scalar product of $`𝐊(i)`$ and $`𝐈`$ in Eq.(37) as a tensor product of their symmetrized forms $`𝐊^1(i)`$ and $`𝐈^1`$, one obtains

$$\widehat{𝐇}_{dip}^{SI}=(\widehat{𝐅}_{dip})^1\widehat{𝐐}^1=\underset{q}{}(1)^q(F_{dip})_q^1Q_q^1.$$
(42)
The $`q`$ component of the electronic operator has the form

$`(F_{dip})_q^1=g_0\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}r_i^3K_q^1(i)=`$ (43)
$`\sqrt{10}g_0\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{m,m^{}}{}}C_{mm^{}q}^{2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}1}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}r_i^3C_m^2(\vartheta _{i,}\phi _i)S_m^{}^1(i),`$
and the $`q`$ component of the nuclear operator is

$$Q_q^1=g\alpha _pI_q^1.$$

The $`Q_q^1`$ components can be obtained by means of the Wigner-Eckart theorem. We have

$`II|Q_q^1|II`$ $`=`$ $`g\alpha _p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2I+1}}}C_{IqI}^{I1I}<I\widehat{𝐐}^kI>`$
$`=`$ $`g\alpha _p\{C_{IqI}^{I1I}/C_{I\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}I}^{IkI}\}M_1,`$
where $`M_1=\mu `$ is the magnetic dipole nuclear moment.

By analogy with Eq.(7), the matrix elements $`<\beta I\alpha JFM_F|\widehat{𝐇}_{dip}^{SI}|\beta I\alpha J^{}FM_F>`$ can be written as

$`<\beta I\alpha JFM_F|\widehat{𝐇}_{dip}^{SI}|\beta I\alpha J^{}FM_F>=`$
$`(1)^{I+J^{}F}W(IIJJ^{};F)<\alpha J(\widehat{𝐅}_{dip})^1\alpha J^{}><\beta I\widehat{𝐐}^1\beta I>.`$ (45)
In order to calculate the contribution of this interaction to the hyperfine splitting and to the constant of this splitting $`A_{k=1}`$, we recouple the matrix elements $`<\alpha LSJ|(\widehat{𝐅}_{dip})^1|\alpha LSJ^{}>`$ from the $`LM_LSM_SJM_J`$ to the $`LM_LSM_S`$ coupling scheme. Since tensor $`[C^2(\vartheta ,\phi )𝐒^1]^1`$ acts over space and spin subsystems the 9j-symbol technique leads to

$`<\alpha LSJ|(F_{dip})_q^1|\alpha LSJ^{}>=10\sqrt{3}g_0\alpha \sqrt{(2J+1)(2J^{}+1)}`$
$`\times \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L& L& 2\\ S& S& 1\\ J& J^{}& 1\end{array}\right\}{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}C_{mm^{}q}^{\mathrm{2\; \hspace{0.33em}1\; \hspace{0.33em}1}}`$ (49)
$`\times <\alpha LS|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}r_i^3C_m^2(\theta _i,\phi _i)S_m^{}^1(i)|\alpha LS>.`$ (50)
Using Eqs.(77)-(80) of the Appendix we express the matrix elements of the electronic factor in the form

$`\alpha LSM_S|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}r_i^3C_m^2(\vartheta i,\phi _i)S_m^{}^1(i)|\alpha LSM_S^{}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐫_1^{}=𝐫_1}{}}r_1^3C_m^2(\vartheta _1,\phi _1)q(KK^{}|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})_m^{}^1𝑑𝐫_1=`$
$`<SM_S|S_m^{}^1|SM_S^{}>{\displaystyle r_1^3C_m^2(\vartheta _1,\phi _1)D_S(𝐫_1)𝑑𝐫_1},`$ (51)
Finally for the matrix elements of the electronic dipole operator $`\widehat{𝐅}_{dip}^1`$ we obtain

$`<\alpha LSJ|(F_{dip})_q^1|\alpha LSJ^{}>=15\sqrt{2}g_0\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2S+1}}}\sqrt{(2J+1)(2J^{}+1)}`$
$`\times \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L& L& 2\\ S& S& 1\\ J& J^{}& 1\end{array}\right\}{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}C_{mm^{}q}^{\mathrm{2\; \hspace{0.33em}1\; \hspace{0.33em}1}}C_{M_SmM_S^{}}^{S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}S}`$ (55)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{𝐫_1}{}}r_1^3C_m^2(\vartheta _1,\phi _1)D_S(𝐫_1)𝑑𝐫_1.`$ (56)
One can easily see that the functional $`<\alpha LSJ|(F_{dip})_q^1|\alpha LSJ^{}>`$ coincides, up to the constant, with the functional of the electronic multipole operator
$`<\alpha LSJ|(F_2^{mg})_q^k|\alpha LSJ^{}>`$ (Eq.(3.2)) for $`k=1`$.

### 3.4 Electron-Nucleus Orbital-Spin Operator

The operator of the interaction between the electronic orbital momentum and the magnetic moment of nucleus Eq.(11) can be written down as a product of electronic and nuclear operators and has the form

$$\widehat{𝐇}_{en}^{LI}=(\widehat{𝐅}_L)^1\widehat{𝐐}^1=\underset{q}{}(1)^q(F_L)_q^1Q_q^1.$$
(57)
The $`q`$ component of the electronic operator is

$$(F_L)_q^1=2\alpha \underset{i}{}r_i^3L_q^1(i)$$
(58)
while the $`q`$ component of the nuclear operator is

$$Q_q^1=g\alpha _pI_q^1.$$

Using the Racah technique we obtain

$`<\beta I\alpha JFM_F|\widehat{𝐇}_{en}^{LI}|\beta I\alpha J^{}FM_F>=`$
$`(1)^{I+J^{}F}W(IIJJ^{};F)<\alpha J(\widehat{𝐅}_L)^1\alpha J^{}><\beta I\widehat{𝐐}^1\beta I>.`$ (59)
The matrix elements $`II|Q_q^1|II`$ of the nuclear operator components $`Q_q^1`$ are again taken from Eq.(3.3).

The matrix elements of the components of electronic operator $`\widehat{𝐅}_L^1`$ in the $`LM_LSM_S`$ coupling scheme are

$`<\alpha LSJ|(F_L)_q^1|\alpha LSJ^{}>=2\alpha (1)^{SLJ+k+1}\sqrt{(2J+1)(2J^{}+1)}`$
$`\times W(LLJJ^{};kS)<\alpha LS|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}r_i^3L_q^1(i)|\alpha LS>.`$ (60)
And now we may represent the right side matrix elements in Eq.(3.4)in terms of the charge distribution density functional. Thus we obtain

$$\alpha LS\underset{i}{}r_i^3L_q^1(i)\alpha LS=\underset{𝐫_1^{}=𝐫_1}{}r_1^3L_q^1(1)\rho (KK𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})𝑑𝐫_1.$$
(61)
Here $`\rho (KK|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})=\rho (K|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})`$ is the non-local density functional charge distribution.

### 3.5 Electron-Nucleus Contact Operator

The operator of the electron-nucleus contact interactions Eq.(12) can be also given as

$$\widehat{𝐇}_{cont}^{SI}=(\widehat{𝐅}_{cont})^1\widehat{𝐐}^1=\underset{q}{}(1)^q(F_{cont})_q^1Q_q^1.$$
(62)
Here the $`q`$ component of the electronic operator is

$$(F_{cont})_q^1=\frac{8\pi }{3}g_0\alpha \underset{i}{}\delta (𝐫_i)S_q^1(i)$$
(63)
and the $`q`$ component of the nuclear operator is

$$Q_q^1=g\alpha _pI_q^1.$$

By analogy with Eq.(3.4) we obtain

$`<\beta I\alpha JFM_F|\widehat{𝐇}_{cont}^{SI}|\beta I\alpha J^{}FM_F>=`$
$`(1)^{I+J^{}F}W(IIJJ^{};F)<\alpha J(\widehat{𝐅}_{cont})^1\alpha J^{}><\beta I\widehat{𝐐}^1\beta I>.`$ (64)
The matrix elements of the components of electronic operator $`(\widehat{𝐅}_{cont})^1`$ in the $`LM_LSM_S`$ coupling scheme are

$`<\alpha LSJ|(F_{cont})_q^1|\alpha LSJ^{}>={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3}}g_0\alpha (1)^{SLJ+k+1}\sqrt{(2J+1)(2J^{}+1)}`$
$`\times W(LLJJ^{};kS)<\alpha LS|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta (𝐫_i)S_q^1(i)|\alpha LS>.`$ (65)
Using the procedure described in subsections 3.2 and 3.3 and the Appendix equations, the electronic matrix elements can be represented in terms of the spin distribution density functional

$`\alpha LSM_S|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta (𝐫_i)S_q^1(i)|\alpha LSM_S^{}=\left\{C_{M_SqM_S^{}}^{S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}S}/C_{S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}S}^{S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}S}\right\}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{𝐫_1^{}=𝐫_1}{}}\delta (𝐫_1)q(KK^{}|𝐫_1;𝐫_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})_0^1d𝐫_1=SM_S|S_q^1|SM_S^{}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{𝐫_1}{}}\delta (𝐫_1)D_S(𝐫_1)d𝐫_1=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2S+1}}}C_{M_SqM_S^{}}^{S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}S}D_S(𝐫)|_{𝐫=0},`$ (66)
where $`D_S(𝐫)|_{𝐫=0}`$ is the spin distribution density functional at the location of the nucleus.

## 4 CONCLUSION

In this paper we suggest an approach for the calculation of the nuclear multipole moments. In this approach the electronic matrix elements entering the experimentally observed hyperfine interaction constants are expressed in terms of the electron density functionals of the charge or spin distributions. The matrix elements are presented in a form , suitable for numerical implementation. These matrix elements are determined for all the electronic operators entering the Hamiltonians of the different descriptions of hyperfine electron-nuclear interactions. Using the irreducible tensor-operators and the Racah and Fano techniques as well as the density functional and density matrix formalism, we can express these matrix elements as the products of $`3j`$, $`6j`$, or $`9j`$ factors with the space part-charge or spin distribution density functional. In principle, the charge or spin distribution density functionals can be constructed using every relativistic or non-relativistic quantum-mechanical or DFT method.

The matrix elements of the $`(\widehat{𝐅}^{el})^k`$ and $`(\widehat{𝐅}_1^{mg})^k`$ operators of the Hamiltonians $`\widehat{𝐇}_k`$ Eq.(1) and the operator $`(\widehat{𝐅}_L)^1`$ of Hamiltonian $`\widehat{𝐇}_{en}`$ Eq.(9) are the charge distribution density functionals while the matrix elements of operator $`(\widehat{𝐅}_2^{mg})^k`$ of the Hamiltonians $`\widehat{𝐇}_k`$ and two operators $`(\widehat{𝐅}_{dip})^1`$ and $`(\widehat{𝐅}_{cont})^1`$ of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{𝐇}_{en}`$ are spin distribution density functionals. It is important to point out that the charge distribution density functional does not depend on the level of the fine structure, this dependence is governed by the $`j`$\- symbols. One may notice a similar behaviour in the case of spin distribution density functional. But in this case the normalized functional remains the same within one given spin multiplet. And here, too the fine structure level for which we consider its hyperfine splitting within the spin multiplet is determined by $`3j`$, $`6j`$ or $`9j`$ factors Eq.(3.2), Eq.(3.3), Eq.(3.5). Of course, the hyperfine splitting energy depends on $`j`$-symbols as well as on the corresponding density functional.

It is straitforward to point out that such a representation is valid for the arbitrary degenerate or non-degenerate states of the electronic system and also for arbitrary transitions induced by an external magnetic field. Hence,in the case of the free atoms this approach may be successfully applied to all kinds of experiments determining the nuclear multipole moments.

The charge and spin distribution density functional may be constructed by means of proper relativistic ab-initio results (for instance, the results of paper ) or DFT calculations,however of the type which contains more precise relativistic corrections . One also may use the density functional of relativistic corrections given in papers .Of course our approach gives the possibility to make the non-relativistic calculations. The application of this approach in non-relativistic calculations has an advantage because of the density functional methods can be used. We have shown in subsections $`\mathbf{3.2}`$ and $`\mathbf{3.3}`$ that the the matrix elements Eq.(3.2) and Eq.(3.3) of the $`\widehat{𝐅}_{mg}^2`$ and $`\widehat{𝐅}_{dip}`$ operators written in terms of the spin distribution density functionals have the same analytical form in all cases. Similar results hold for the operators sum $`\widehat{𝐅}_{dip}+\widehat{𝐅}_L`$ and the operators sum $`\widehat{𝐅}_{mg}=\widehat{𝐅}_{mg}^1+\widehat{𝐅}_{mg}^2`$ whose matrix elements, however are calculated only numerically, or appear in the special case of one electron above the closed shell .

## 5 APPENDIX <br>DENSITY FUNCTIONALS OF CHARGE AND SPIN DISTRIBUTIONS

### 5.1 Charge Distribution Density Functionals

The first order density matrix of a $`N`$-electronic system in state $`K`$ described by a wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_K(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _N)`$, eigenfunction of the operators $`𝐒^2`$ and $`S_z`$, has the form

$$\rho (KK|\tau _1;\tau _1^{})=N\mathrm{\Psi }_K(\tau _1,\tau _2,\mathrm{},\tau _N)\mathrm{\Psi }_K^{}(\tau _1^{},\tau _2,\mathrm{},\tau _N)𝑑\tau _2\mathrm{}𝑑\tau _N,$$
(67)
where $`\tau _i=(𝐫_i,\sigma _i)`$, $`𝐫_i`$, $`(1iN)`$ being the position vector and $`\sigma _i`$ the spin variable of the $`i`$-th electron, and $`d\tau _i=d𝐫_id\sigma _i`$.

The corresponding first order density function is defined by the expression

$$\rho (KK|\tau _1)=\rho (KK|\tau _1;\tau _1^{})|_{\tau _1^{}=\tau _i}=\rho (KK|\tau _1;\tau _1).$$
(68)
The first order transition density matrix between states $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ has the form

$$\rho (KK^{}|\tau _1;\tau _1^{})=N\mathrm{\Psi }_K(\tau _1,\tau _2,\mathrm{},\tau _N)\mathrm{\Psi }_K^{}^{}(\tau _1^{},\tau _2,\mathrm{},\tau _N),d\tau _2\mathrm{},d\tau _N.$$
(69)
For the one-density transition function we have a similar expression, which follows by analogy with Eq.(68).

After separation of the space and spin variables, the one-density matrix takes the form

$$\rho (\tau _1;\tau _1^{})=\underset{\gamma ,\gamma ^{}=\alpha ,\beta }{}\rho ^{\gamma ,\gamma ^{}}(𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})\gamma (\sigma _1)\gamma ^{}(\sigma _1^{}),$$
(70)
where the $`\rho ^{\gamma ,\gamma ^{}}(𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})`$ are the space components of one-density matrix and the $`\gamma (\sigma )(\gamma =\alpha ,\beta )`$ are the electron spin wave-functions.

The space density matrix of charge distribution has the form

$$\rho (𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})=\underset{\tau _1^{}=\tau _i}{}\rho (\tau _1;\tau _1^{})𝑑\tau _1=\rho ^{\alpha ,\alpha }(𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})+\rho ^{\beta ,\beta }(𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})$$
(71)
and the space density function of charge distribution

$$\rho (𝐫_1)=\rho (𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})_{𝐫_1^{}=𝐫_1}=\rho ^\alpha (𝐫_1)+\rho ^\beta (𝐫_1).$$
(72)
Here $`\rho (𝐫_1)`$ is local and $`\rho (𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})`$ non-local electron density functional.

The matrix elements of a sum of identical one-particle operators, can be written down as

$`K|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\widehat{𝐅}(i)|K^{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_K^{}(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _N)|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\widehat{𝐅}(i)|\mathrm{\Psi }_K(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _N)`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\tau _1^{}=\tau _i}{}}\widehat{𝐅}(1)\rho (KK^{}|\tau _1;\tau _1^{})𝑑\tau _1.`$
The one particle operators $`\widehat{𝐅}(i)`$ do not depend of spin variable we have

$$K|\underset{i}{}\widehat{𝐅}(i)|K^{}\underset{𝐫_1^{}=𝐫_1}{}\widehat{𝐅}(1)\rho (KK^{}|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})𝑑𝐫_1,$$

and if in addition the $`\widehat{𝐅}(i)`$ is the operator of multiplication then

$$K|\underset{i}{}\widehat{𝐅}(i)|K^{}\widehat{𝐅}(1)\rho (KK^{}|𝐫_1)𝑑𝐫_1.$$

### 5.2 Spin Distribution Density Functionals

In a spin eigenstate (with eigenvalues $`S(S+1)`$ and $`M`$ ) the spin distribution non-local density functional, can be written in the following form:

$$q(𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})=1/2[\rho ^{\alpha ,\alpha }(𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})\rho ^{\beta ,\beta }(𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})].$$
(74)
The spin distribution matrices $`q^{(M)}(𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})`$ for different spin eigenstates (with $`M=S,S1,\mathrm{},S)`$ can be expressed in terms of the normalized spin distribution matrices $`D_S(𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})`$, which are independent of $`M`$

$$q^{(M)}(𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})q(KK|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})=\frac{M}{S}q(\overline{K}\overline{K}|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})MD_S(𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{}),$$
(75)
with:

$$D_S(𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})=\frac{1}{S}q(\overline{K}\overline{K}|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{}).$$
(76)
Here $`K`$ is the index of the spin state corresponding to $`S_z=M`$, $`\overline{K}`$ is the index of the state corresponding to the maximal value of $`M=S`$.

Using the general definition for the transition spin distribution density functional we can write -

$$q(KK^{}|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})_m^1=\underset{\sigma _1^{}=\sigma _1}{}S_m^1(1)\rho (KK^{}|\tau _1;\tau _1^{})𝑑\sigma _1.$$
(77)
Here the $`S_m^1(i)`$ ($`m=0,\pm 1`$) are symmetrized components of the $`i`$-electron spin operator $`𝐒(i)`$. Similar formulae can be written for the transition local spin-distribution density functional setting $`𝐫_1=𝐫_1^{}`$.

The spin-distribution functionals for transitions between states $`K(SM_S)`$ and $`K^{}(S^{}M_S^{})`$ satisfy the relations

$$q(KK^{}|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})_m^1=\left\{C_{M_SmM_S^{}}^{S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}S^{}}/C_{S\overline{m}S^{}}^{S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}S^{}}\right\}q(\overline{K}\overline{K}^{}|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})_{\overline{m}}^1,$$
(78)
where $`C_{M_SmM_S^{}}^{S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}S^{}}`$ are Clebsch-Gordon coefficients. By analogy with Eq.(77) one obtains

$$q(\overline{K}\overline{K}^{}|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})_m^1=\underset{\sigma _1^{}=\sigma _1}{}S_m^1(1)\rho (\overline{K}\overline{K}^{}|\tau _1;\tau _1^{})𝑑\sigma _1.$$
(79)
Using the Wigner-Eckart theorem we have

$`q(KK^{}|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})_m^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{C_{M_SmM_S^{}}^{S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}S}/C_{S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}S}^{S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}S}\right\}q(\overline{K}\overline{K}^{}|𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{})`$ (80)
$`=`$ $`<SM_S|S_m^1|SM_S^{}>D_S(𝐫_1;𝐫_1^{}),`$
where the $`S_m^1`$ ($`m=0,\pm 1`$) are symmetrized components of the total spin $`𝐒`$. Equation(80) is a generalization of the equation(75) for a transitions between different spin states.


format: text

text:
# INITIAL STATE PARTON BROADENING AND ENERGY LOSS PROBED IN 𝑑+𝐴𝑢 AT RHIC

## I Introduction

The discovery of jet quenching Adcox:2001jp ; Levai:2001dc  at RHIC and its derivative signatures - the high-$`p_T`$ azimuthal asymmetry Adler:2002ct  and the disappearance of back-to-back correlations Adler:2002tq  \- are among the most direct evidence for the creation of dense QCD matter in nucleus-nucleus collisions. Recent theoretical work Vitev:2002pf ; Gyulassy:2000gk  has provided successful qualitative and quantitative explanation of the experimental data via the techniques of perturbative QCD with strong partonic final state interactions leading to non-Abelian energy loss and related modifications to the fragmentation functions Zakharov:1996fv ; Gyulassy:2000fs ; Gyulassy:2001nm ; Wang:2001if . The important question of the global $`p_T`$ and $`\sqrt{s}`$ systematics of the nuclear modification factors $`R_{BA}(p_T)`$ in $`p+A`$ and $`A+A`$ reactions has also been addressed Vitev:2002pf .

Alternative mechanisms related to hadronic rescattering/absorption, initial state wavefunction effects, and coherent nucleon scattering have been suggested Gallmeister:2002us  as possible explanations of the observed high-$`p_T`$ hadron deficit. This letter extends the discussion of Vitev:2002pf  in light of the upcoming $`d+Au`$ data and demonstrates how the centrality dependence of the nuclear modification factor can distinguish between contrasting physical pictures. We emphasize the need for comparison between data and theory at moderate and high $`p_T`$ since vastly different models give comparable results Lin:2003ah  at the level the inclusive $`dN^{ch}/dy`$.

The importance of the $`d+Au`$ measurements at RHIC, however, reaches far beyond testing the validity of the perturbative baseline for jet quenching calculations. In the transverse momentum $`2p_T10`$ GeV and rapidity $`3y+3`$ intervals considered here the measured hadrons retain a memory of the nuclear modifications Arneodo:1992wf  to the parton distribution functions (PDFs) in the $`10^3x\stackrel{<}{}1`$ range. We find that in the small-$`x`$ region of the nucleus the multiple elastic scatterings of the incoming partons completely dominate over nuclear shadowing. For large nuclear $`x`$-values the EMC effect and the initial state energy loss may lead to moderate (20-30%) suppression relative to the binary collision scaled $`p+p`$ result over a wide $`p_T`$ range. The detailed transverse momentum dependence of the nuclear modification ratio may provide valuable complementary information about the gluon antishadowing/EMC region, which is not well constrained by data. In fact, the $`x`$-dependence in the gluon shadowing function $`S_{g/A}(x,Q^2)`$ may be significantly weaker than currently anticipated.

## II  Scaling of hadron spectra in $`d+Au`$ reactions

The Cronin effect Cronin:zm  is defined as the deviation of the total invariant hadron cross section in $`p+A`$ reactions from the binary collision scaled $`p+p`$ result. For the more general case of $`B+A`$ reactions the scaling factor is given by $`BA`$. The original parametrization of dynamical nuclear effects via the Cronin power $`\alpha (p_T)`$ relates to the nuclear modification ratio $`R_{BA}(p_T)`$ as follows: $`R_{pA}(p_T)=A^{\alpha (p_T)1}`$. The same relation (without additional factors of 2 since the partons from the nucleus do not scatter significantly on the deuteron) can also be used to extract a total inclusive $`\alpha _{dAu}(p_T)`$ and a centrality dependent $`\alpha _{dAu}(p_T,b)`$ from

$$R_{dAu}(p_T)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{d\sigma ^{dAu}}{dyd^2𝐩_T}/\frac{A_dA_{Au}d\sigma ^{pp}}{dyd^2𝐩_T},\hfill & \mathrm{total}\mathrm{invariant}\mathrm{cross}\mathrm{section},d+Au\hfill \\ \frac{dN^{dAu}(b)}{dyd^2𝐩_T}/\frac{T_{dAu}(b)d\sigma ^{pp}}{dyd^2𝐩_T},\hfill & \mathrm{about}\mathrm{impact}\mathrm{parameter}b,d+Au\hfill \end{array}.$$
(1)
In Eq.(1) $`T_{dAu}(b)=d^2𝐫T_d(𝐫)T_{Au}(𝐛𝐫)`$ in terms of the nuclear thickness functions $`T_A(b)=𝑑z\rho _A(b,z)`$ and the scaling factors are computed according to the Glauber model Glauber:1970jm . It is important to note that both enhancement ($`p_T\stackrel{>}{}1.52`$ GeV) and suppression ($`p_T\stackrel{<}{}11.5`$ GeV) are an integral part of the Cronin effect. Experimentally Cronin:zm , at $`p_T=0.77`$ GeV $`\alpha (p_T)`$ is below one, leading to a factor $`2`$ suppression. However, the deviation of $`\alpha (p_T)`$ from unity is reduced with increasing $`\sqrt{s}`$ and decreasing $`x_T=2p_T/\sqrt{s}`$ \- a trend exactly opposite to the expectation from strong shadowing and/or gluon saturation. The $`p_T`$ positions of the Cronin peak $`R_{pA\mathrm{max}}`$ and intercept $`R_{pA}=1`$ are also stable, i.e. they are strongly $`x_T`$-dependent.

The lowest order pQCD differential cross section for inclusive $`A+Bh+X`$ production that enters Eq.(1) is given by Vitev:2002pf ; Accardi:2002ik

$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill {\displaystyle \frac{1}{A_dA_{Au}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{dAu}}{dyd^2𝐩_T}}\\ \hfill {\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_{dAu}(b)}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN^{dAu}(b)}{dyd^2𝐩_T}}\end{array}\}`$ $`=`$ $`K{\displaystyle \underset{abcd}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x_a𝑑x_bd^2𝐤_ad^2𝐤_bg(𝐤_a)g(𝐤_b)S_d(x_a,Q_a^2)S_{Au}(x_b,Q_b^2)}`$ (4)
$`f_{a/d}(x_a,Q_a^2)f_{b/Au}(x_b,Q_b^2){\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\widehat{t}}}^{abcd}{\displaystyle \frac{D_{h/c}(z_c,Q_c^2)}{\pi z_c}},`$ (5)
where we have used the same sets of lowest order (LO) PDFs, fragmentation functions (FFs), and shadowing functions Eskola:1998df  as in Vitev:2002pf . In Eq.(5) the renormalization, factorization, and fragmentation scales are chosen to be $`\mu =Q_{a,b}=Q_c=p_T`$.

The the $`k_T`$-broadening function in (5) approximates generalized parton distributions:

$$f_{a/p}(𝐤_T;x_a,Q_a^2)g(𝐤_T)f_{a/p}(x_a,Q_a^2),g(𝐤_T)=\frac{1}{\pi 𝐤_T^2_{pp}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{𝐤_T^2}{𝐤_T^2_{pp}}\right).$$
(6)
For illustration we include a discussion of parton broadening relative to the axis of propagation in the framework of the leading double log approximation (LDLA). The $`𝐤_T`$ probability distribution resulting from vacuum radiation is given by Sudakov:1954sw

$$\frac{1}{\sigma _0}\frac{d\sigma }{d𝐤_T^2}|_{LDLA}=2\frac{C_R\alpha _s}{2\pi }\frac{1}{𝐤_T^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{𝐤_T^2}{Q^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{C_R\alpha _s}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}^2\frac{𝐤_T^2}{Q^2}\right)$$
(7)
with mean broadening $`𝐤_T^2_{pp}=C_R\alpha _s/\pi (1+𝒪(\alpha _s))Q^2`$. $`C_R=\{C_F,C_A\}`$ is the SU(3) Casimir in the corresponding fundamental or adjoint representation. Despite the strong momentum ordering approximation Sudakov:1954sw , which gives an unrealistic null probability for retaining the original jet direction, Eq.(7) qualitatively describes many the jet physics features. For example, with $`\frac{1}{2}\theta _m=\sqrt{𝐤_T^2_{pp}/Q^2}\sqrt{C_R\alpha _s/\pi }`$ being the estimate for the half-width of the jet cone a slow logarithmic narrowing with $`E_T`$ is predicted. Similarly, to lowest order the cone of a gluon initiated jet is found to be 50% wider ($`\sqrt{C_A/C_F}`$) than the cone of a quark jet.

In this letter we go beyond the $`\sqrt{s}`$-independent description of the radiative and elastic broadening and take into account the initial parton subprocesses for produced hadrons. An increased contribution of hard gluon scattering results in an enhanced

$$𝐤_T^2_{pp}=\left(C_FF_q^h(\sqrt{s},\overline{Q})+C_AF_g^h(\sqrt{s},\overline{Q})\right)C^2.$$
(8)
In Eq.(8) $`F_q^h(\sqrt{s},\overline{Q}),F_g^h(\sqrt{s},\overline{Q})=1F_q^h(\sqrt{s},\overline{Q})`$ are the fractions of hadrons coming from the hard scattering of valance quarks and gluons/sea quarks. With sea quarks we associate the Casimir of their gluon parent ($`g\overline{q}q`$). For hadrons with $`p_T=\overline{Q}23`$ GeV where the $`k_T`$-smearing is reflected, the fraction coming from valence quarks is computed from collinear factorized pQCD and given in Table 1. The corresponding $`𝐤_T^2_{pp}`$ is found form Eq.(8) where $`C^2=0.646`$ GeV2 has been fixed through comparison to the $`\sqrt{s}=27.4`$ GeV data Cronin:zm  on $`\frac{1}{2}(\pi ^++\pi ^{})`$ production in $`p+p`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\sqrt{s})=𝐤_T^2(\sqrt{s})_{pp}/𝐤_T^2(27.4\mathrm{GeV})_{pp}`$ in Table 1 directly reflects the variation with $`\sqrt{s}`$ of the effective mean color charge of $``$few GeV projectile partons relative to the $`\sqrt{s}=27.4`$ GeV case.

We have checked that the energy and transverse momentum dependence of inclusive hadron production cross sections is well described with the computed values of $`𝐤_T^2_{pp}`$ which exhibit a small $`<10\%`$ variation about $`𝐤_T^2_{pp}=1.8`$ GeV2 used in Vitev:2002pf .

## III Implementation of initial state energy loss

While there are indications that the effect of initial state gluon bremsstrahlung may be small Arleo:2002ph  the elastic energy loss of propagating hard probes in cold nuclear matter has not been considered before. Discussion of QCD scattering in nuclear targets can be found in Gyulassy:2002yv . In both frameworks of the Qiu-Sterman approach and the Gyulassy-Levai-Vitev reaction operator approach the longitudinal correction that corresponds to the transverse momentum broadening can be expressed through the momentum shift operators $`e^{q_i_k_{}}`$. The initial parton flux $`d^3N^i(k_{},𝐤_{})`$ flux is propagated to the hard collision vertex according to VQ :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3N^f(k_{},𝐤_{})}{dk_{}d^2𝐤_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d^2𝐪_i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _{el}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{el}}{d^2𝐪_i}}(e^{𝐪_i\underset{𝐤}{\overset{}{}}}e^{q_i_k_{}}1)\right]\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{d^3N^i(k_{},𝐤_{})}{dk_{}d^2𝐤_{}}}.`$ (9)
From the twist expansion point of view the series Eq.(9) includes the dominant part of all-twist $`T=2+2n`$ contributions $`q(2nFF)q,F(2nFF)F`$. Explicit resummation technique for (9) was first given in Gyulassy:2002yv . The interpretation of our result is simple: it folds the Poisson distribution of multiple elastic scatterings with mean opacity $`\chi =L/\lambda =\overline{n}`$, which depends on the quark/gluon composition of the target and the projectile, with the probability for transverse deflection per hit given by the normalized elastic scattering cross section $`(1/\sigma _{el})d\sigma _{el}/d^2𝐪_i`$. For proton-nucleus collisions using a sharp sphere approximation ($`T_A(b)=3A\sqrt{R_A^2b^2}/(2\pi R_A^3)`$) and assuming equal scattering probability along the incident parton trajectory

$$L=\frac{d^2𝐛\sqrt{R_A^2b^2}T_A(b)}{d^2𝐛T_A(b)}=\frac{3}{4}R_A,$$
(10)
where we take $`R_A=1.2A^{1/3}`$ fm for the nuclear radius. One of the important consequences VQ  of Eq.(9) is the longitudinal momentum backward shift

$$\mathrm{\Delta }k_{}=\mu ^2\chi \xi \frac{1}{2k_{}}$$
(11)
that couples to the mean $`k_{}`$-broadening $`\mathrm{\Delta }k_{}^2_{pA}=\mu ^2\chi \xi `$. For the Gaussian approximation to multiple elastic scatterings, $`\xi =const.=𝒪(1)`$. Beyond this analytically convenient ansatz the power law tails of the distribution of the scattered partons, resulting from harder fluctuations along the projectile path, lead to a logarithmic enhancement of the mean $`k_{}`$-broadening. This result is the analogue of the corrections to the Moliere multiple collision series in QED. We use $`\xi =\mathrm{ln}(1+\stackrel{~}{c}p_{}^2)`$ as in Ref. Vitev:2002pf  with $`\stackrel{~}{c}0.14`$ GeV-2.

To implement initial state elastic and radiative energy loss we focus on the large $`Q^2p_T^2`$ partonic subprocess $`abcd`$, $`k_a,k_b`$ being the initial momenta involved in the hard part $`d\sigma ^{abcd}/dt`$ of Eq.(5). If $`a,b`$ have lost fractions $`ϵ_\alpha ,\alpha =a,b`$ of their longitudinal momenta according to a probability distributions $`P_\alpha (ϵ)`$, at asymptotic $`t=\mathrm{}`$

$$\stackrel{~}{k}_\alpha =\frac{1}{1ϵ_\alpha }k_\alpha ,f_{\alpha /p}(x_\alpha ,Q^2)𝑑ϵ_\alpha P_\alpha (ϵ_\alpha )f_{\alpha /p}\left(\stackrel{~}{x}_\alpha =\frac{x}{1ϵ_\alpha },Q^2\right)\theta (\stackrel{~}{x}_\alpha 1).$$
(12)
Eq.(12) provides a simple modification to the factorized pQCD hadron production formalism. For bremsstrahlung processes $`P_\alpha (ϵ)`$ are sensitive to multiple gluon emission Gyulassy:2001nm . For the simpler case of mean energy loss $`P(ϵ)=\delta (ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }k_0/k_0)`$. More specifically, for the small elastic longitudinal shift that we consider here

$$P_\alpha (ϵ)=\delta \left(ϵ\frac{\mu ^2\chi _\alpha \xi }{2k_\alpha ^2}\right),f_{\alpha /p}(x_\alpha ,Q^2)f_{\alpha /p}(x_\alpha +\frac{\mu ^2\chi _\alpha \xi }{x_\alpha }\frac{2}{s},Q^2)\theta (\stackrel{~}{x}_\alpha 1).$$
(13)
The observable effect of Eqs.(12,13) can be very different for valence quarks, sea quarks, and gluons due to the different $`x`$-dependence of the PDFs.

Two fits to the $`\sqrt{s}=27.4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}38.8}`$ GeV $`p+W/p+Be`$ data are given in Fig. 1. In the first case we use the EKS’98 shadowing function $`S_{\alpha /A}(x_\alpha ,Q^2)`$ to model the antishadowing/EMC modification of the nuclear target. The changing quark/gluon projectile composition, reflected in its $`\sqrt{s}`$-dependent average color charge, enters the opacity through the elastic scattering cross section:

$$\chi (\sqrt{s})=\sigma _{el}\rho L\left(C_FF_q^h(\sqrt{s},\overline{Q})+C_AF_g^h(\sqrt{s},\overline{Q})\right)\overline{C_T},$$
(14)
i.e. in a way analogous to Eq.(8). In Eq.(14) $`\overline{C_T}`$ is the mean color charge of the target. The variation of the opacity with the center of mass energy can thus be inferred from Table 1 and is given by $`\chi (\sqrt{s})=\mathrm{\Delta }(\sqrt{s})\chi (27.4\mathrm{GeV})`$ for fixed $`\overline{C_T}`$. While quark antishadowing/EMC effect are constrained by data, the modifications to the gluon PDFs are quite uncertain. In the second calculation we do not include nuclear shadowing. Instead, in Eq.(14) we also take a changing average color charge for the target: $`C_T(\sqrt{s})=\left(C_FF_q^h(\sqrt{s},\overline{Q})+C_AF_g^h(\sqrt{s},\overline{Q})\right)`$. In this case the variation of the effective opacity with $`\sqrt{s}`$ is given by $`\chi (\sqrt{s})=\mathrm{\Delta }^2(\sqrt{s})\chi (27.4\mathrm{GeV})`$. Both calculations include initial state mean elastic energy loss. With the definition of $`L`$ given in Eq.(10) the transport coefficients of cold nuclear matter are fixed to $`\mu ^2/\lambda _q0.06\mathrm{GeV}^2/\mathrm{fm},\mu ^2/\lambda _g=(C_A/C_F)\mu ^2/\lambda _q0.14\mathrm{GeV}^2/\mathrm{fm}`$. The modest $`20\%`$ increase relative to previous estimates ($`\mu ^2/\lambda _q0.05\mathrm{GeV}^2/\mathrm{fm}`$ Vitev:2002pf ) compensates for the longitudinal backward momentum shift, Eq.(11), and provides comparable reproduction of existing low energy $`p+A`$ results. This can be seen by comparing the top panel of Fig. 1 to Fig. 1 from Ref. Vitev:2002pf . The bottom panel of Fig. 1 seems to show better agreement between data and theory in terms of improved reproduction of the Cronin peak and separation of the nuclear modification ratios versus $`\sqrt{s}`$ at high $`p_T`$. We continue to explore both possibilities but the calculations without strong antishadowing/EMC effect are also expected to give better results at RHIC energies.

The systematic reduction of the Cronin enhancement/suppression with increasing $`\sqrt{s}`$ has its natural explanation in the picture of multiple elastic scattering on a nuclear target Gyulassy:2002yv  (see Fig. 1). With the opacity $`\chi `$ changing only slightly with $`\sqrt{s}`$ the dominant effect becomes the significant hardening of the hadronic spectra as predicted by perturbative QCD. This reduces the observable consequences of otherwise identical transverse momentum kicks.

We have also checked that the flavor dependence of the Cronin effect \- the larger enhancement/suppression for kaons (and also protons) \- cannot be reproduced within the accuracy of the calculation. Studies have so far been focused on the baryon enhancement puzzle Vitev:2001zn  but the results are inconclusive. We note that improved perturbative techniques are necessary to address the Cronin effect for massive hadrons and extend the calculations to the $`p_T\stackrel{<}{}2`$ GeV region.

## IV Impact parameter and rapidity dependence of the Cronin effect

The $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV results for the Cronin effect in $`d+Au`$ reactions at midrapidity are shown in Fig. 2. At $`y=0`$ for the corresponding $`2\times 10^2x_T10^1`$ values the shadowing region of $`S_{a/A}(x,Q^2)`$ is never reached. However, the relative contribution of antishadowing is seen to be large for $`p_T3`$ GeV. We find that without significant $`x`$-dependent modification of the nuclear target (i.e. the case that gives better agreement with existing data from Fig. 1) the Cronin enhancement reaches 1.2 with peak position ($`R_{dAu\mathrm{max}}`$) in the $`p_T34`$ GeV range, a 30% drop relative to the strong gluon antishadowing scenario. In going from central ($`b=0`$ fm) to peripheral ($`b=6`$ fm) reactions the magnitude of the Cronin effect is reduced by a factor $`2.5`$. The main uncertainty in computing $`R_{dA}(p_T)`$ for peripheral reactions comes from the large deuteron radius, leading to a distribution in impact parameter of its partonic constituents. The corresponding spread in opacity $`\chi =\sqrt{R_A^2b^2}/\lambda `$ grows with increasing $`b`$ and using the average value $`\chi (b)`$ in Eqs.(9,11) may not be a good approximation.

Midrapidity measurements accessible to all experiments, especially for central reactions, are the prime candidate that can distinguish between different hadron production scenarios. Glauber model calculations Glauber:1970jm  that account for the large deuteron radius show a factor $`2`$ difference between $`N_{bin}`$ and $`N_{part}/2`$ (not $`N_{part}`$!), the two possible scalings relative to $`p+p`$, over a wide range of impact parameters. Participant scaling at moderate and high $`p_T`$ (up to $`p_T=810`$ GeV as discussed in Gallmeister:2002us ) will correspond to $`R_{dAu}(p_T)0.5`$ as shown in Fig. 3. The gluon saturation model suggests $`R_{dAu}(p_T)=\sqrt{R_{AuAu}(p_T)}`$, i.e. it will in fact lead to the same conclusion since the suppression in $`Au+Au`$ reactions is 3-5 fold. This is demonstrated in Fig. 3 through the estimated $`\sqrt{R_{AuAu}(p_T)}`$ for inclusive charged hadrons and neutral pions from preliminary STAR and PHENIX data Adcox:2001jp . We emphasize that the $`p_T`$ dependence of the nuclear modification ratio in $`d+Au`$ is different as well. Final state hadron absorption mechanisms Gallmeister:2002us  are also expected to result in suppression in $`d+Au`$, albeit smaller and difficult to quantify analytically. In contrast, the calculations in Figs. 2 and 3 show small enhancement in the specified $`p_T`$ range even with initial state elastic energy loss. Predictions that have quantitatively addressed the $`y=0`$, $`p_T2`$ GeV Cronin effect at RHIC from the standpoint of perturbative QCD and multiple elastic scatterings give similar results Vitev:2002pf ; Accardi:2002ik . Experimental measurements in $`d+Au`$ will enable a critical test to differentiate between competing interpretations of $`Au+Au`$ data.

Fig. 4 shows the predicted Cronin effect at forward ($`y=+3`$) and backward ($`y=3`$) rapidities near the edge of BRAHMS acceptance. In the following calculations the direction of the deuteron beam is chosen to be positive. At forward rapidity, which probes the small-$`x`$ region of the nucleus, the effect of shadowing is very small. Similarly, turning off elastic energy loss does not significantly change the shape and magnitude of $`R_{dAu}(p_T)`$. Relative to $`y=0`$, both the peak and intercept ($`R_{dAu}=1`$) positions are shifted to slightly higher transverse momenta. The most distinct prediction at $`y=+3`$ is the significantly flatter Cronin enhancement region that extends to high $`p_T`$. At forward/backward rapidities hadron spectra are much steeper than at $`y=0`$. This explains the markedly broader range where the effect of transverse momentum kicks is observed.

At backward $`y=3`$ rapidity, shown at the bottom panel of Fig. 4, there is no Cronin enhancement since the partons from the nucleus do not scatter multiply on the deuteron. However, in the $`p_T`$ range shown data probes the large $`x\stackrel{>}{}0.4`$ nuclear modification $`S_{a/A}(x,Q^2)`$ and may provide complementary information about the EMC effect. The backward rapidity region is also more sensitive to initial state energy loss. Switching it off changes $`R_{dAu}(p_T)`$ from moderate $`25\%`$ suppression to an almost perfect binary collision scaling ($`R_{dAu}(p_T)1`$) for $`p_T3`$ GeV.

## V Conclusions

In this letter we have derived a technique of incorporating initial state parton energy loss in perturbative calculations. Midrapidity moderate- and high-$`p_T`$ hadron spectra show little or no sensitivity to this effect since the longitudinal momentum backward shifts can be compensated by a small increase in the estimated cold nuclear transport coefficients to obtain an equally good description of existing $`p+A`$ data. Detecting initial state energy loss may be easier in the small-$`x`$ region of the deuteron where the steepening of the parton distribution functions would tend to amplify the effect.

In this letter we have given predictions for the centrality and rapidity dependence, see Figs. 2 and 4, of the moderate and high transverse momentum ($`p_T2`$ GeV) Cronin effect in $`d+Au`$ reactions at RHIC. They follow the systematic approach to the computation of the nuclear modification factors outlined in Ref. Vitev:2002pf . At midrapidity we find a small $`2030\%`$ Cronin enhancement that decreases in going from central to peripheral reactions and at high $`p_T`$. Forward and backward ($`y=\pm 3`$) rapidity regions are predicted to have markedly different $`R_{dA}(p_T)`$. Upcoming central $`d+Au`$ data will provide a decisive test to distinguish between suppression and enhancement dynamical models Vitev:2002pf ; Gallmeister:2002us ; Accardi:2002ik , see Fig. 3, of initial state effects in nuclear collisions.

###### Acknowledgements.

Many illuminating discussions with M. Gyulassy, J.W. Qiu, and J.P. Vary are gratefully acknowledged. I would like to thank J. Klay and D. d’Enterria for clarifying comments on the preliminary STAR and PHENIX data. This work is supported by the United States Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-87ER40371.


text:
# Inflation in a Flat Universe

## I Introduction

The standard model of hot big-bang cosmology exhibits difficulties stemming from the puzzling initial conditions. These difficulties are the well known singularity, flatness, horizon, causality, homogeneity and isotropy problems. During the past two decades, several models have been proposed to overcome these difficulties. One common feature in all of these works is that a new era called “inflationary era” was added into the history of the universe before the radiation era with which the standard cosmological model of the universe begins. During this new era, the universe expands enormously from a finite size. This huge expansion is called “inflation” and arises due to the unusual characteristic of the equation of state $`(P=\left(\gamma 1\right)\rho )`$ used to describe the universe in this era. Inflation mechanism was first suggested as a rescue from the horizon and flatness problems  and then extended in such a way to construct models which are free from an initial singularity. The equation of state used in the inflationary era determines how much initially the universe is close to the vacuum state and this is done by adjusting the values of $`\gamma `$.

Therefore, the models constructed in such a way, are parametric universe models and evolution of these universes are also sensitive to the value of $`\gamma `$ in the inflationary era \[2-5\]. In other words, the present properties of the universe such as the Hubble constant $`\left(H\right)`$ and the age $`\left(t_{now}\right)`$ are affected by the vacuum dominance of the early universe. Besides the form of the equation of state, initial expansion rate of the scale factor $`\left(\dot{a}\right)`$ also influences the present properties of the universe and is considered as a parameter of the universe model .

In the standard model, flatness problem arises from the extreme fine tuning of the initial values of the energy density $`\rho `$ and Hubble constant $`H`$, so that $`\rho `$ is very close to $`\rho _c\left(3H^2/8\pi \right)`$ . This is necessary to produce a universe surviving $`10^{10}`$ years which is an age prediction compatible with the observational results. In the models of inflationary cosmology, without a fine tuning requirement, realistic universe models have been obtained. That is, flatness problem is solved in these models. The solution to this problem could be attributed to the enormous expansion of the universe during the inflationary era which lasts a period at the order of the Planck scale $`10^{44}\mathrm{sec}.`$ This carries the geometry of the universe to the flat one while the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\rho /\rho _c)`$ is driven toward one.

In this work, we construct a universe model having a flat space-time geometry with the same motivations as in the other inflationary universe models. Since the space-time geometry of this universe is already flat, there is no flatness problem in this universe. On the other hand, the universe is vacuum dominated due to the form of the equation of state used to describe the universe in the inflationary era. This would determine how long the universe would stay at the inflationary era before it enters the radiation era predicted by the standard model. In the other inflationary universe models, the present properties of the universe have been affected by the initial vacuum dominance of the early universe. In this work, we will study the effect of the initial vacuum dominance on the evolution of the universe having flat space-time geometry. This would give us an idea about the role of inflation mechanism when there is no flatness problem. This would be interesting because inflation mechanism was first suggested as a solution to the flatness problem  and the answer to the question: “What would be the response of a universe having a flat space-time geometry when it is inflated through such a mechanism?” is not exactly known. Our aim in this paper would be to answer this question in a different context.

This paper is organized as follows: In the next section, we give the dynamical equations of our model and solve them analytically. In Sec. III, we give numerical results of the predictions of our model for the present properties of the universe. We present our discussions and conclusions in the final section.

## II Dynamics of the Model

### A Field Equations

The space-time geometry of the model describing a spatially homogenous and isotropic universe is determined by a RW line element:

$$ds^2=dt^2a^2(t)\left[dr^2+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right]$$
(1)
where $`(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ are comoving coordinates, $`a(t)`$ is the scale factor which represents the size of the universe.

For this line element, Einstein’s gravitational field equations:

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=8\pi T_{\mu \nu },$$
(2)
give

$$2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=8\pi P,$$
(3)
$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi }{3}\rho ,$$
(4)
where $`P`$ and $`\rho `$ are the energy density and pressure respectively in the universe filled with a cosmological fluid well approximated by a perfect fluid and a dot denotes differentiation with respect to the cosmic time $`t`$.

Eqs. (3) and (4) could be written as a single equation as

$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+4\pi \left(\gamma \frac{2}{3}\right)\rho =0,$$
(5)
where we have made use of the general form of the equation of state given as $`P=\left(\gamma 1\right)\rho ,`$ and $`\gamma `$ is assumed to be a constant parameter during each era in the history of the universe.

From Eqs. (4) and (5), we could obtain an equation involving only the scale factor $`a(t)`$ as

$$\left(\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}\right)+\left(\frac{3}{2}\gamma 1\right)\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=0.$$
(6)
This equation could be solved for any $`\gamma `$ if we define conformal time $`\eta `$ as

$$dt=a\left(\eta \right)d\eta .$$
(7)
In conformal time $`\eta ,`$ Eqs. (4), (5) and (6) become

$$\left(\frac{a^{}}{a^2}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi }{3}\rho ,$$
(8)
$$\frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a^3}\left(\frac{a^{}}{a^2}\right)^2+4\pi \left(\gamma \frac{2}{3}\right)\rho =0,$$
(9)
$$\frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}+\left(\frac{3}{2}\gamma 2\right)\left(\frac{a^{}}{a}\right)^2=0,$$
(10)
where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to the conformal time. If we make the following change of variable

$$u\frac{a^{}}{a}=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}a}{d\eta },$$
(11)
Eq. (10) could be brought into a much simpler form given as

$$u^{}+cu^2=0,$$
(12)
where

$$c=\frac{3}{2}\gamma 1.$$
(13)
Eq. (12) is a kind of Riccati equation and since we will consider vacuum like state for the inflationary era $`(c0),`$ it could be solved by setting

$$u=\frac{1}{c}\frac{w^{}}{w}=\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(w^{1/c}\right)\right]^{}.$$
(14)
This new change of variable leads us to write

$$\frac{w^{\prime \prime }}{w}=0,$$
(15)
which gives the solution in the following form

$$a\left(\eta \right)=a_0\left(\eta +b\right)^{1/c},$$
(16)
where $`a_0`$ and $`b`$ are integration constants.

Due to the unusual characteristic of the equation of state used in the inflationary era, the temperature of the universe rises in this era although the expansion of the universe is assumed to be adiabatic. This could be seen if one considers the following relation derived from the first law of thermodynamics:

$$\frac{T^{}}{T}+3\frac{a^{}}{a}\left(\gamma 1\right)=0$$
(17)
(corresponding to Eq. (33) in ). Our modelling of the universe lies on a thermodynamic assumption that the expansion of the universe continues until the Planck temperature $`T_{pl}`$ which is assumed to be the maximum allowed temperature. Then the equation of state takes the form of that of the isotropic radiation. In other words, the universe starts behaving as predicted in the standard model of the universe. Therefore, we give an outline of our toy model as

a) The inflationary (prematter) era $`\left(0\eta \eta _r\right):`$ The equation of state is given as $`P=\left(\gamma 1\right)\rho `$ where $`\gamma =\gamma _p10^3.`$ The constitution and behavior of the material substance filling the universe in this era is not exactly known.

b) The radiation era $`\eta _r\eta \eta _m):`$ The universe is assumed to be composed of isotropic radiation for which the equation of state is known to be $`P=\rho /3.`$ This corresponds to $`\gamma =\gamma _r=4/3`$ in the general form of the equation of state.

c) The matter era $`\left(\eta _m\eta \right):`$ The era that we live in. Due to the large intergalactic distance and small relative motions of the intergalactic objects, it would be assumed that the universe is assumed to be filled with zero pressure dust such that $`P=0,`$ $`\gamma =\gamma _m=1.`$

These eras are connected by first order phase transitions occurring at some specific temperatures $`T_{pl}`$ and $`T_m.`$ $`T_m`$ is the temperature at which radiation and matter are decoupled. There is not a generally accepted value for this temperature other than ones which are speculated . Due to the lack of information, we will not assign a numerical value to $`T_m`$ until we find expressions about the present properties of the universe.

### B Boundary conditions and solutions for the scale factor

To eliminate the initial singularity in our model, we start the evolution of the universe from a limiting density called the Planck density $`\left(\rho _{pl}\right)`$ corresponding to finite size for the scale factor of the universe. To solve for the dynamics of the universe, we then specify the initial expansion rate of the universe as

$$a^{}\left(0\right)=v,$$
(18)
where $`v`$ is a positive constant.

Writing Eq. (8) at $`\eta =0,`$ we get

$$a(0)=\sqrt{\frac{v}{\sqrt{d}}},$$
(19)
which reflects the singularity-free character of our cosmological model. The solutions for the scale factor in different eras are

$$a(\eta )=\{\begin{array}{cc}a_0^{(p)}(\eta +b_p)^{1/c_p}\hfill & 0\eta \eta _r,\hfill \\ a_0^{(r)}(\eta +b_r)]\hfill & \eta _r\eta \eta _m,\hfill \\ a_0^{(m)}(\eta +b_m)^2\hfill & \eta _m\eta .\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
We next impose that the scale factor and its derivative are continuous at points $`(\eta _r,\eta _m)`$ where the phase transitions take place. This leads us to determine the integration constants:

$$a_0^{(p)}=\frac{\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v}{H(0)}}}}{b_p^{\frac{1}{c_p}}},$$
(21)
$$b_p=\frac{1}{c_p\sqrt{vH(0)}},$$
(22)
$$a_0^{(r)}=\frac{a_0^{(p)}}{c_p}(\eta _r+b_p)^{\frac{1}{c_p}1},$$
(23)
$$b_r=c_pb_p+(c_p1)\eta _r,$$
(24)
$$a_0^{\left(m\right)}=\frac{a_0^{(r)}}{4(\eta _m+b_r)},$$
(25)
$$b_m=\eta _m+2b_{r,}$$
(26)
where $`H(0)`$ is the initial value of the Hubble constant which is given as

$$H(0)=\frac{a^{}(0)}{a^2(0)}=\sqrt{d},$$
(27)
### C Physical properties of the model

During the radiation era, the universe is assumed to consist of pure radiation which is in thermal equilibrium. Therefore, its energy density could be expressed in the blackbody form which is given as

$$\rho _{blackbody}=\frac{8\pi ^5(kT_{pl})^4}{15},$$
(28)
where $`k=1.3810^{16}K^1`$ is the Boltzmann constant.

As mentioned before, the universe heats up while expanding during the inflationary era. We end the inflationary era with a thermodynamical constraint which is the attainment of the Planck temperature $`T_{pl}.`$ Knowing that the scale factor of the universe evolves with the energy density according to the Einstein’s equations, we consider Eq. (8) together with Eqs. (20), (21), (27) and (28), and end up with

$$\eta _r=b_p\left[\left(1.5201\right)^{\frac{c_p}{2\left(c_p+1\right)}}1\right],$$
(29)
which is the conformal time corresponding to the phase transition between the inflationary and radiation eras.

With the help of the Eq. (17), we could match the evolution of the scale factor to that of the temperature. To this end, we have to specify $`\gamma `$ for each era. It is already mentioned that $`\gamma `$ equals $`4/3`$ for the radiation era. Then we write

$$\frac{a(\eta _r)}{a(\eta _{m)}}=\frac{T_m}{T_{pl}},$$
(30)
which, when combined with Eq. (24) gives

$$\eta _m=c_pb_p\left(1.5201\right)^{\frac{c_p}{2\left(c_p+1\right)}}\frac{T_{pl}}{T_m}b_r$$
(31)
which is the conformal time associated to the phase transition between radiation and matter eras.

Before the emergence of matter as the dominant constituent of the energy density in the universe, radiation decouples from matter and basic constituents of matter (electrons, protons, neutrons etc.) start to form. Then they combine for the first time in a process called “recombination” to form the more complex form of matter in the universe. At this point, it is to be noted that after the decoupling between radiation and matter eras, radiation still behaves as a perfect fluid responsible for the temperature of the universe. As Kolb and Turner , we will consider decoupling as the beginning of the matter era. With these in mind, we get from Eq. (17)

$$\frac{a\left(\eta _m\right)}{a\left(\eta _{now}\right)}=\frac{T_{now}}{T_m},$$
(32)
where we have chosen integration limits to be the conformal times corresponding to the second phase transition and the present time. This equation could be solved for $`\eta _{now}`$ as

$$\eta _{now}=\sqrt{\frac{T_m}{T_{now}}}\eta _m+\left(\sqrt{\frac{T_m}{T_{now}}}1\right)b_m$$
(33)
In order to find comoving times corresponding to conformal times, we first consider the definition given by Eq.(7) and assume that $`t=0`$ at $`\eta =0`$. Then we get from Eq. (16)

$$t\left(\eta \right)=a_0_0^\eta \left(\eta ^{}+b\right)^{1/c}𝑑\eta ^{}.$$
(34)
Since $`c`$ takes different values for each era in the history of the universe, this integral has to be computed separately for each era. For the inflationary $`\left(c=c_p\right),`$ radiation $`\left(c_r=1\right)`$ and matter $`\left(c_m=1/2\right)`$ eras, Eq. (34) can be integrated to yield analytical expressions as

$$t_r=\frac{\sqrt{1.5201}1}{\left(c_p+1\right)\sqrt{d}},$$
(35)
$$t_m=t_r+\frac{\sqrt{1.5201}}{2\sqrt{d}}\left[\left(\frac{T_{pl}}{T_m}\right)^21\right],$$
(36)
$$t_{now}=t_m+\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{\frac{1.5201}{d}}\left(\frac{T_{pl}}{T_m}\right)^2\left[\left(\frac{T_m}{T_{now}}\right)^{3/2}1\right].$$
(37)
We make use of the definition given as

$$H\left(\eta \right)\frac{a^{}\left(\eta \right)}{a^2\left(\eta \right)},$$
(38)
to find the Hubble constant at $`\eta _r,\eta _m`$ and $`\eta _{now}.`$ They are

$$H\left(\eta _r\right)=\frac{a^{}\left(\eta _r\right)}{a^2\left(\eta _r\right)}=1.343610^{63}Kms^1Mpc^1,$$
(39)
$$H\left(\eta _m\right)=\frac{a^{}\left(\eta _m\right)}{a^2\left(\eta _m\right)}=6.692510^2T_m^2\text{ }Kms^1Mpc^1,$$
(40)
$$H\left(\eta _{now}\right)=\frac{a^{}\left(\eta _{now}\right)}{a^2\left(\eta _{now}\right)}=0.2969\sqrt{T_m}\text{ }Kms^1Mpc^1.$$
(41)
The energy density evolves with the scale factor of the universe as described by Eq. (4) which when combined with Eq. (5) gives

$$\dot{\rho }+3\gamma \frac{\dot{a}}{a}\rho =0.$$
(42)
In terms of conformal time $`\eta ,`$ this equation becomes

$$\rho ^{}+3\gamma \frac{a^{}}{a}\rho =0,$$
(43)
which could be solved as

$$\frac{\rho \left(\eta _f\right)}{\rho \left(\eta _i\right)}=\left(\frac{a\left(\eta _i\right)}{a\left(\eta _f\right)}\right)^{3\gamma },$$
(44)
where $`\eta _i`$ and $`\eta _f`$ mark the initial and final instants respectively of any conformal time interval in a given era. When $`\eta _i`$ and $`\eta _f`$ are chosen as$`\left(\eta _{i,}\eta _f\right)=(0,\eta _r),(\eta _r,\eta _m),(\eta _m,\eta _{now})`$ we obtain,respectively

$$\rho \left(\eta _r\right)=3.392310^{93}grcm^3,$$
(45)
$$\rho \left(\eta _m\right)=8.416610^{36}T_m^4\text{ }grcm^3,$$
(46)
$$\rho \left(\eta _{now}\right)=1.656610^{34}T_m\text{ }grcm^3.$$
(47)
### D Numerical Results

The results that we have found for the physical properties of the universe during its evolution clearly indicates that our model is sensitive to the temperature at the last phase transition $`\left(T_m\right).`$ On the other hand, except the lifetime of the inflationary era, the time periods are insensitive to the choice of parameter $`\gamma _p.`$ Since we do not have enough information about what the value of $`T_m`$ should be, we will try to assign some numerical results in the light of the recent observational results for the present properties of the universe such as Hubble constant, age and density. While doing this, as mentioned previously, we keep in mind that $`\gamma _p`$ is no longer a parameter which affects the evolution of the universe. Therefore, $`T_m`$ could be regarded as the only parameter of our model.

Recent observations suggest a value approximately between $`9`$ and $`15`$ $`Gyr`$ for the present age of the universe $`\left(t_{now}\right)`$  and a value in the range of $``$ $`5080`$ $`Kms^1Mpc^1`$ for the present value of the Hubble constant $`(H_0)`$ \[10-16\]. In our model, $`T_m`$ should take a value falling roughly into the range of $`310^4510^4`$ $`K`$ so that the predictions of the model for $`H_0`$ and $`t_{now}`$ agree with observations. Since $`\gamma _p`$ has no effect on the evolution of the universe, we fix it to $`1.900010^3`$ and we present the results about the present properties of the universe and those at the end of each era for $`T_m=310^4`$ $`K,`$ $`3.510^4`$ $`K,`$ $`410^4`$ $`K,`$ $`4.510^4`$ $`K,`$ $`5.010^4`$ $`K`$ in tables 1-5.

### E Discussion

In this work, we try to explore the connection between flatness problem and inflation mechanism. We do this by constructing a flat universe model by adding a new era called inflationary era into the history of the universe. In our model, the universe starts its journey with a vacuum like state and undergoes a first order phase transition into the radiation era which is predicted by the standard model as the era with which the universe first starts to expand.

It is an already known fact that inflation mechanism carries different types of space-time geometries (closed, open) to flat one by causing a huge expansion in a time period at the order of Planck-Scale. Unlike other models in which initial vacuum like structure of the universe affected the present properties of the universe, in this model the radiation and matter eras are not affected by the vacuum dominance of the early universe. The vacuum dominance of the early universe is important when the universe is in the inflationary era. If the universe starts with a pure vacuum state $`(\gamma =0)`$, it cannot exit from inflation. This could be seen from the singular behavior of $`t_r`$ for $`\gamma =0.`$ As the initial state of the universe approaches the vacuum state, the time spent by the universe in the inflationary era increases. After the universe exits from inflation, it behaves as predicted in the standard model in which there is no initial vacuum dominance.

The present properties of the universe such as Hubble constant, age and density are not affected by the initial vacuum dominance. Instead, they are highly sensitive to the temperature at the last phase transition $`\left(T_m\right).`$ In that case, this temperature can be considered as a parameter. Therefore, the model we construct is a one-parameter universe model. Considering the fact that the thermal history of the universe is independent of the geometry of the universe, we may argue that the range considered for $`T_m`$ could be seen as a transition range for the decoupling temperature.

References

 A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D, 23, 347 (1981).

 M. Israelit, N.Rosen, Astrophys. J. 342, 627 (1989) (IR).

 S.P. Starkovich, F. I. Cooperstock, Astrophys. J. 398, 1 (1992)

(SC).

 S. S. Bayin, F. I. Cooperstock, V. Faraoni, Astrophys. J. 428, 439 (1994)

(BCF).

 K. Karaca, S. Ş. Bayin (astro-ph/0007019).

 S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (Wiley, New York, 1972).

 E. Kolb, M. Turner, The Early Universe (Addison-Wesley, New York,

1990).

 B. Chaboyer et al., Astrophys. J. 494, 96 (1998).

 I. N. Reid, astro-ph/9704078.

 J. R. Mould et al., Astrophys. J. 529, 768 (2000).

 D. D. Kelson et al., Astrophys. J. 529, 768 (2000).

 L. Ferrarese et al., Astrophys. J. 529, 745 (2000).

 B. K. Gibson et al., Astrophys. J. 529, 723 (2000).

 S. Sakai et al., Astrophys. J. 529, 698 (2000).

 A. Saha et al., Astrophys. J. 522, 802 (1999).

 R. Giovanelli et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 477, L1 (1997).

$`TABLE\text{ }1`$

$`RESULTS\text{ }FOR\text{ }T_m=310^4K`$

$`H(\frac{km}{smpc})`$ $`t(yr)`$ $`\rho (\frac{gr}{cm^3})`$  1.3436$`10^{63}`$ 4.8238$`10^{50}`$ 3.3923$`10^{93}`$  6.0233$`10^7`$ 8.1164$`10^3`$ 6.8174$`10^{18}`$  51.4246 1.2675$`10^{10}`$ 4.9698$`10^{30}`$

$`TABLE\text{ }2`$

$`RESULTS\text{ }FOR\text{ }T_m=3.510^4K`$

$`H(\frac{km}{smpc})`$ $`t(yr)`$ $`\rho (\frac{gr}{cm^3})`$  1.3436$`10^{63}`$ 4.8238$`10^{50}`$ 3.3923$`10^{93}`$  8.1983$`10^7`$ 5.9631$`10^3`$ 1.2630$`10^{17}`$  55.5449 1.1735$`10^{10}`$ 5.7981$`10^{30}`$

$`TABLE\text{ }3`$

$`RESULTS\text{ }FOR\text{ }T_m=410^4K`$

$`H(\frac{km}{smpc})`$ $`t(yr)`$ $`\rho (\frac{gr}{cm^3})`$  1.3436$`10^{63}`$ 4.8238$`10^{50}`$ 3.3923$`10^{93}`$  1.0708$`10^8`$ 4.5655$`10^3`$ 2.1546$`10^{17}`$  59.3800 1.0977$`10^{10}`$ 6.6264$`10^{30}`$

$`TABLE\text{ }4`$

$`RESULTS\text{ }FOR\text{ }T_m=4.510^4K`$

$`H(\frac{km}{smpc})`$ $`t(yr)`$ $`\rho (\frac{gr}{cm^3})`$  1.3436$`10^{63}`$ 4.8238$`10^{50}`$ 3.3923$`10^{93}`$  1.3552$`10^8`$ 3.6073$`10^3`$ 3.4513$`10^{17}`$  62.9820 1.0349$`10^{10}`$ 7.4547$`10^{30}`$

$`TABLE\text{ }5`$

$`RESULTS\text{ }FOR\text{ }T_m=510^4K`$

$`H(\frac{km}{smpc})`$ $`t(yr)`$ $`\rho (\frac{gr}{cm^3})`$  1.3436$`10^{63}`$ 4.8238$`10^{50}`$ 3.3923$`10^{93}`$  1.6731$`10^8`$ 2.9219$`10^3`$ 5.2604$`10^{17}`$  66.3889 9.8178$`10^9`$ 8.2830$`10^{30}`$


text:
# Effective dimensions and percolation in hierarchically structured scale-free networks

## I Introduction.

The most basic characteristic of any geometric structure is perhaps its dimensionality. The notion of dimension is intuitively associated with the amount of data necessary to locate a point on the structure, but the difficulties to formalize this association are known since more than a century ago Jackson . A distinction should be made between definitions of dimensions based on topology and those based on measures and distances or metrics. While both types are important in different fields of science, the latter is very relevant in the description of fractal structures Mandelbrot  and in dynamical systems theory Ott .

Complex networks are a category of geometrical structures that has been thoroughly investigated in the last few yearsAlbert02 . However, the possible characterization of complex networks in terms of suitably defined dimensions remains practically unexplored, with the exception of a few cases of networks constructed from or embedded in regular Euclidean lattices Newman99 ; Rozenfeld02 . This characterization should not only improve understanding of the different geometrical properties of various networks, but also clarify its impact on the dynamics of processes that might take place on them—percolation, disease propagation, information transmission, etc. Fractal dimensions, for example, might be useful to elucidate the connections between network topology correlations and dynamics which, apart from some isolated results Boguna02 , remain essentially not understood. Issues such as why two networks with the same degree distribution but different wiring details show different dynamical properties Eguiluz02  are good candidates to be tackled with the tools of fractal geometry.

The aim of this Paper is to introduce a set of quantities, namely, the network dimensions with the purpose of providing a finer classification of networks with similar topological structure. As an application, we analyze a particular type of structured scale-free network Klemm02a ; Klemm02b . We show that some of its properties can be understood from the fact that it behaves close to one-dimensional with appropriately defined dimensions.

## II Definitions.

A network is a set of lines, the links, connecting points named nodes or sites. Topologically, any network is a one-dimensional object that by virtue of Whitney’s theorem Jackson  can always be embedded in the three-dimensional Euclidian space. However, this topological dimension does not carry information related to the many interesting properties of networks. In a regular square lattice, for example, the number of sites within a given distance from a particular node asymptotically grows as the square of this distance. This example suggests that a metric definition of dimension could highlight better the two-dimensional character of the lattice than the topological dimension does.

A hierarchy of definitions for the dimension of a set that are associated to the properties of measures defined on that set were long ago introduced by Renyi Renyi70 , and have since been used with success in several fields. These dimensions were particularly helpful for the description of several natural fractal objects as well as for the characterization of chaotic trajectories in dynamical systems theory. In the standard definition the set to be characterized is first covered with a number $`N(ϵ)`$ of boxes of size $`ϵ`$. Let $`\mu _i`$ be the measure associated to the box $`i`$. Then, the spectrum of dimensions $`\stackrel{~}{D}_q`$ is defined by the scaling of the quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(q,ϵ)_{i=1}^{N(ϵ)}\mu _i^q`$ for small $`ϵ`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_q=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{1}{q1}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }(q,ϵ)}{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}.$$
(1)
$`\stackrel{~}{D}_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{D}_1`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{D}_2`$ are the so-called capacity, information, and correlation dimensions respectively. It can be shown that $`\stackrel{~}{D}_q\stackrel{~}{D}_q^{}`$ if $`q<q^{}`$. $`\stackrel{~}{D}_1`$ in Eq. (1) can in principle depend on the particular set of boxes covering the set which implies that an extremum requirement similar to the one in the original definition by Haussdorf Ott  may be technically needed. Here we will postpone the consideration of these refinements to simplify implementation of practical numerical algorithms.

One natural way to define a measure on a network is to assign the unit of mass to each node. In this case, the measure of a portion of the network is the number of nodes that it contains. It is less easy to define a ‘covering’ of the network with boxes because it requires an a priori knowledge of the Euclidean space in which the network can be embedded. Since many networks are defined without referencing any embedding in a Euclidean space, alternative definitions based on intrinsic distances are necessary. In our context, a convenient distance $`\mathrm{dist}(X,Y)`$ between two nodes $`X`$ and $`Y`$ is the minimum number of links contained by a path connecting nodes $`X`$ and $`Y`$. This is a well-defined metric sometimes called chemical distance Havlin84 . Distinctively from Euclidian and other distances commonly used to define dimensions, this one is integer valued. As a consequence, the scaling properties should be referred to the large distances limit instead of the opposite one usually considered.

A definition of the dimensions spectrum $`D_q`$, equivalent to Renyi’s one (1) in those systems where both are applicable, is based on the scaling of the $`q`$-correlation function $`C(q,L)`$ HenProc83 . In a network of $`M`$ points, $`C(q,L)`$ is the number of $`q`$-tuplets of points in the network with mutual distances smaller than $`L`$, and divided by $`M^q`$. We then have:

$$D_q=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{q1}\frac{\mathrm{ln}C(q,L)}{\mathrm{ln}L}$$
(2)
The advantage of using (2) instead of (1) with the Euclidean distance replaced by the chemical one is that (2) does not require any box covering and therefore no a priori knowledge of the Euclidean embedding is necessary.

Finally, another equivalent definition Benzi84  with easy practical implementation is the one based on the scaling of the number of neighbors within a given distance $`L`$ of a given site $`X_i`$: $`\mu _L(X_i)(M1)^1_{ji}\mathrm{\Theta }(L\mathrm{dist}(X_iX_j))`$. $`D_q`$ is determined from moments of $`\mu _L(X_i)`$:

$$D_q=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{q1}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mu _L(X)^{q1}_X}{\mathrm{ln}L},$$
(3)
where the averages $`._X`$ are taken over all the nodes $`X`$ in the network. Application of l’Hôpital’s rule gives

$$D_1=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mu _L(X)}{\mathrm{ln}L}_X.$$
(4)
Other equivalent definitions, based on the scaling of nearest-neighbor distances, or fixed mass methods vandeWater8895 , could be also implemented on networks, but we find definition (3) to be appropriate for our purposes. In cases in which an Euclidean distance can be defined, it can also be used in (2) or (3) to define quantities that would be denoted by low-case letters, $`d_q`$, to distinguish them from the case in which the chemical distance is used. The $`d_q`$ are essentially the classical fractal dimensions, but associated to the large-distance scaling.

It is instructive to calculate the dimension values for several simple networks. For example, for regular triangular, square, etc. lattices, it is easy to check that $`D_q=2`$ $`q`$. $`D_q=3`$ for the classical three-dimensional lattices (e.g. cubic, …), etc. For a network with a star topology (i.e., a large number $`N`$ of nodes connected to a central hub), $`D_q=\mathrm{}`$, since all the nodes are at a finite distance (1 or 2) of each other even in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. The same happens for randomly wired networks. The usual implementation of the small world property, i.e. the introduction of links connecting arbitrarily remote nodes, leads also to $`D_q\mathrm{}`$. This has been explicitly demonstrated for a small-world model in Newman99 , where effective dimensions essentially equivalent to $`D_2`$ are introduced and calculated as a function of spatial scales. At large scales ($`L\mathrm{}`$ in our notation) a divergent quantity is obtained. Thus, it is useful to think of some of the characteristics of small worlds or random graphs as being associated to an infinite dimensionality. From the expressions in pseudofractal  or Jung2002  one can also show that $`D_q=\mathrm{}`$ for the structures presented there.

After considering these examples, one may wonder if there is any non-regular complex network structure characterized by finite dimensions. We will show below that the answer is positive and that this finite dimensionality has dynamical consequences that distinguish processes occurring on these networks from the infinite-dimensional ones. Before that, we can mention that networks of arbitrary dimensionality can be constructed by following the rules used to construct recursively fractals of given dimension. For example, a classical fractal is the Sierpińsky gasket Mandelbrot , constructed, generation after generation, by inscribing triangles inside the triangles originated in the previous generation. Since we are here characterizing large-scale features, it is better to consider the construction as the recursive joining of triangles to construct a larger and larger object (see Fig. 1a). Since the resulting fractal structure is embedded in the plane, one can use the Euclidean distance and find as usual that $`d_q=d_0=\mathrm{ln}3/\mathrm{ln}2,q`$. If we use instead the chemical distance, with the lines in Fig. 1a identified as links of unit chemical length, we have also $`D_q=d_q=\mathrm{ln}3/\mathrm{ln}2,q`$. The situation is rather different for non-branching fractal constructions. For example, the classical Koch curve (Fig. 1b) has $`d_q=\mathrm{ln}4/\mathrm{ln}3`$. But in terms of the chemical metrics, $`\mathrm{dist}(X,Y)`$, the distance between two points is always the number of nodes in between along the curve, so that we have $`D_q=1`$ $`q`$, as for any other non-branching structure. In general, for networks constructed from the node and link structure of a classical fractal object, one expects $`D_qd_q`$ since the Euclidian distance is in general shorter than the chemical one. This generally leads to finite chemical dimensions. In other constructions, the inequality may be reversed Rozenfeld02 . This last reference also provides an additional example of a network with finite dimensionality (in this case embedded in a Euclidean lattice).

More interesting is the fact that one can construct networks with finite dimensionality without any reference to fractal objects nor to Euclidean embedding spaces. We show here that the networks introduced by Klemm and Eguíluz Klemm02a ; Klemm02b  are of such kind. This helps to understand the distinct behavior of these structures as compared to other considered in the literature.

## III Dimension analysis of the Klemm-Eguíluz (KE) network.

We have performed extensive numerical studies on the KE structured scale-free networks Klemm02a . The procedure to generate them is as follows. Start with $`m`$ active, fully-connected nodes. At each time step add a new node and attach $`m`$ new links between the new node and the old active nodes. Activate the new node and deactivate one of the active nodes according to the probability $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)k^1`$, where $`k`$ is the degree of the node. This algorithm generates networks with a power law degree distribution $`P(k)k^\gamma `$, where $`\gamma 31/m`$ KlemmThesis . In Fig. 2 we plot the average normalized number of nodes at distance $`L`$, $`\mu _L(X_i)`$ for different system sizes, with $`m=3`$. By using (3) we find that the best fit gives the correlation dimension $`D_2=0.92`$. In Fig. 3 we plot the average slope $`\mathrm{ln}\mu _L(X_i)/\mathrm{ln}L`$ for different system sizes. From (4) the plateau regime indicates an average value of the information dimension $`D_1=0.97`$. Finally from Fig. 4, the best fit gives, via (3), the capacity dimension $`D_0=1.0`$.

The differences in the values of $`D_q`$ for different $`q`$ are a consequence of the inhomogeneity of the network. We will not concentrate here on this interesting point, but focus on the fact that the dimension estimates are finite and close to 1. This confirms the conclusions in Klemm02b ; Vazquez02 , obtained from the scaling of the network’s diameter, and opens the way for future characterization of the whole spectrum of dimensions in this and other network models. We can say that the network behaves, in the sense of the definitions introduced above, very close to one-dimensional. It should be stressed that a priori there has not been an obvious Euclidian space containing the structure from which to calculate the dimensions $`d_q`$. In the following we consider dynamical processes occurring in KE networks and interpret them to the light of the dimension study.

## IV Site percolation.

An important process occurring on real networks is the propagation of information, or of diseases. If the nodes of the network are either susceptible to the disease with probability $`p`$ or immune to it with probability $`1p`$, and the disease propagates through the links, the maximum number of individuals that can be affected by an epidemic outbreak is given by the size of the largest connected cluster in site percolation, where occupation of a site means susceptibility to the disease. We have performed numerical simulations of such a process in KE networks. In Fig. 5 we show the average relative size $`s`$ of the connected cluster around an occupied site for different system sizes and $`m=3`$. The results indicate that for any system size $`N`$ there is a (broad) transition to the percolating state at some value of the occupation probability $`p_c`$. However it is seen that $`p_c1`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$. Thus, the percolating transition occurs at $`p_c=1`$ in the infinite-size limit. This is precisely the expected behavior in a one-dimensional structure. The inset shows that the relative size of the largest cluster scales as $`F((1p)N^\alpha )`$, where the exponent $`\alpha `$ depends on the average connectivity of the network. This finite size scaling behavior is also what one finds for percolation in one-dimensional regular lattices. In addition we have found that $`\alpha =0.35`$ for $`m=3`$, while $`\alpha 0.21`$ for $`m=5`$, suggesting that $`\alpha `$ is a decreasing function of the average degree $`k=2m`$. These numbers are in good agreement with site percolation in one-dimensional lattices with radius of interaction $`z`$ (i.e. two occupied sites are considered connected if they are $`z`$ or less sites apart, so that the degree of each site is $`2z`$). There one can show that $`\alpha =z^1`$.

It is worth noting that this result is in contrast with the zero percolation threshold found Pastor01  in random scale-free networks of the Barabási-Albert type Barabasi99 . For such networks, we have checked (for $`q=0,1,2`$) that the moments $`\mu ^q`$ do not scale as a power law of $`L`$, but instead $`D_q\mathrm{}`$ in this case. Thus, the different behavior may be associated to the different dimensionality.

## V Conclusions.

We have introduced definitions of dimensions useful for the study of complex networks. In particular, we have calculated the capacity, information and correlation dimension of a type of hierarchically structured scale-free network. We have shown that some dynamical properties of this class of networks can be understood in the light of the dimension analysis. It would be worth to search for other complex networks displaying finite dimension spectra. We think that possible candidates would be those with some underlying “regular” topology Rozenfeld02 ; Warren02 .

We acknowledge financial support from MCyT (Spain) and FEDER (EU) through Projects CONOCE BFM2000-1108 and BFM2002-04474-C02-01.