text:
# Hilbert schemes, integrable hierarchies, and Gromov-Witten theory

## 1. Introduction

The relations between the cohomology rings of Hilbert schemes of points on algebraic surfaces and $`𝒲`$ algebras \[LQW\] through vertex operators have led to the following question (i.e. Question 5 in Sect. 6 of \[QW\]): what is the precise connection between Hilbert schemes and integrable hierarchies? The connection between the geometry of Hilbert schemes and vertex operators is made through the so-called Chern character operators \[LQW\] (also cf. \[Lehn\]). However the Chern character operators are usually nilpotent for (cohomology) degree reasons. This presents a serious difficulty for a sensible answer to the above question in the framework of ordinary cohomology theory.

The main goal here is to initiate a direct link between equivariant cohomology rings of Hilbert schemes of $`n`$ points $`X^{[n]}`$ on a quasi-projective surface $`X`$ and integrable hierarchies, and to establish a correspondence with (stationary) Gromov-Witten theory. In the present paper, we will treat the case when $`X`$ is the affine plane, where some main idea is made clear.

A distinguished $`T=^{}`$-action on $`X=^2`$ induces an action on the Hilbert schemes $`X^{[n]}`$ with finitely many fixed points (cf. \[ES\]). As explained by Vasserot \[Vas\], the Heisenberg algebra construction in \[Na1\] extends to the $`T`$-equivariant cohomology of Hilbert schemes $`X^{[n]}`$ (also cf. Nakajima \[Na2\]). In particular, all information of the equivariant cohomology ring $`H_T^{}(X^{[n]})`$ is encoded in a ring $`_n=H_T^{2n}(X^{[n]})`$. The direct sum $`_X=_{n0}_n`$ becomes the bosonic Fock space of a Heisenberg algebra. The ring $`_n`$ is further identified in \[Vas\] with the class algebra of the symmetric group $`S_n`$ (cf. \[LT, Wa\] for the very relevant study of these class algebras). Under such an identification, we observe that the $`k`$-th equivariant Chern characters of the tautological rank $`n`$ vector bundle over $`X^{[n]}`$ correspond precisely to the $`k`$-th power-sum of Jucys-Murphy elements, extending the earlier observation for ordinary Chern characters in \[QW\]. In particular, from the corresponding result on the class algebra of symmetric group \[Wa\], the Chern characters give rise to a set of ring generators for $`_n`$. Therefore, one way to present the equivariant intersection theory on $`X^{[n]}`$ is to study the intersection numbers of these Chern characters and their variants.

We further introduce the moduli spaces $`(m,n)`$, where $`m,n0`$. As varieties, $`(m,n)`$ is isomorphic to $`X^{[n]}`$. The equivariant cohomology ring of $`(m,n)`$ also naturally corresponds to a ring $`_n^{(m)}`$ which is isomorphic to $`_n`$. We identify $`=_{m,n}_n^{(m)}`$ with the fermionic Fock space via the celebrated boson-fermion correspondence. The pioneering work of Kyoto school (cf. \[MJD\] and the references therein) on connections among Fock spaces, vertex operators, and soliton equations provides much algebraic background for the geometric picture developed here.

The intersection numbers of the equivariant Chern characters in $`(m,n)`$ can be organized into three types of generating functions. The so-called $`N`$-point function which we can compute has a simple relation with the $`N`$-point disconnected series of stationary Gromov-Witten invariants of $`^1`$. Note that $`N`$-point disconnected series is somewhat more complicated than the $`N`$-point connected series which were computed in \[OP\]. We relate the second generating function (called the multi-point trace function) in a simple and precise form to the characters on the fermionic Fock space. The latter has been computed by Bloch and Okounkov \[BO\], and it also computes the stationary Gromov-Witten invariants of an elliptic curve according to Okounkov and Pandharipande \[OP\]. This trace function is also intimately related to the trace functions in the theory of vertex algebras first studied by Zhu \[Zhu\]. Yet another generating function which involves the equivariant intersection numbers of the moduli spaces $`(m,n)`$ is shown to be the $`\tau `$-functions for the $`2`$-Toda hierarchies \[UT\]. It is interesting to compare with \[OP\] where $`\tau `$ functions of $`2`$-Toda hierarchies were constructed from Gromov-Witten invariants and Hurwitz numbers.

The notion of the equivariant Chern character operator, which gives rise to a master operator $`(z)`$ acting on $``$, underlies the calculations of all the above generating functions. In the study of the class algebras of symmetric groups, a counterpart of this operator has also played a distinguished role \[LT, Wa\]. The operator $`(z)`$ turns out to be related to another operator $`\epsilon _0(z)`$, which has played a key role in the study of stationary Gromov-Witten theory \[OP\], by the following formula:

$`(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{z/2}e^{z/2}}}\left(\epsilon _0(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{z/2}e^{z/2}}}\text{I}\right).`$ (1.1)
The formula (1.1) defines the Gromov-Witten/Hilbert correspondence. Combining with the Gromov-Witten/Hurwitz correspondence in \[OP\], we also have a Hurwitz/Hilbert correspondence. In fact, the same combinatorics of the symmetric groups underlies these distinct geometric studies. In particular, the use of Jucys-Murphy elements could also be used to clarify the notion of completed cycles considered in \[OP\].

An important open question is to establish a direct geometric connection behind the correspondence between (equivariant) intersection theory of Hilbert schemes and (equivariant) Gromov-Witten theory. It is possible that mirror symmetry and connections with string theory may play a key role (cf. e.g. \[Dij\]). Extension of the results of this paper to other quasi-projective surfaces including the total space of the cotangent bundle $`T^{}^1`$ will be presented elsewhere.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Sect. 2, we set up the notations and review some known results. In Sect. 3, we formulate the Chern character operators and introduce the key operators on the fermionic Fock space. In Sect. 4, we study the $`N`$-point functions of intersection numbers on Hilbert schemes and the multi-point trace functions. In Sect. 5, we formulate the connections with $`\tau `$-functions in $`2`$-Toda hierarchies.

Acknowledgments. The project was initiated in \[QW\] in an effort to understand the connection between Hilbert schemes and integrable hierarchies via vertex operators. Qin and Wang thank Hong Kong UST for its warm hospitality and support.

## 2. The equivariant setup for Hilbert schemes

### 2.1. The torus action on the Hilbert schemes

Let $`T=^{}`$, and let $`\theta `$ be the $`1`$-dimensional standard module of $`T`$ on which $`sT`$ acts as multiplication by $`s`$, and let $`t`$ be the associated character. Then the representation ring $`(T)`$ is isomorphic to $`[t,t^1]`$.

Let $`X`$ be an algebraic variety acted by $`T`$. Let $`H_T^{}(X)`$ and $`H_{}^T(X)`$ be the equivariant cohomology and the equivariant homology with $``$-coefficient respectively. Note that $`H_T^{}(pt)=H^{}(BT)=[t]`$. Then there exist linear maps

$`:H_T^i(X)H_T^j(X)H_T^{i+j}(X),:H_T^i(X)H_j^T(X)H_{i+j}^T(X).`$
If $`X`$ is of pure dimension, then there exists a linear map $`D:H_T^i(X)H_i^T(X)`$. If $`X`$ is smooth of pure dimension, $`D`$ is an isomorphism. When $`f:YX`$ is a $`T`$-equivariant and proper morphism of varieties, we have a Gysin homomorphism $`f_!:H_{}^T(Y)H_{}^T(X)`$ of equivariant homology. Moreover, when both $`Y`$ and $`X`$ are smooth of pure dimension, we have the Gysin homomorphism $`D^1f_!D:H_T^{}(Y)H_T^{}(X)`$ of equivariant cohomology, which will still be denoted by $`f_!`$.

Given an algebraic surface $`X`$, the Hilbert schemes of $`n`$ points on $`X`$ is a nonsingular complex variety of dimension $`2n`$, cf. \[Na1\] for a general reference.

¿From now on, let $`X=^2`$. The torus $`T=^{}`$ acts on the affine coordinate functions $`w`$ and $`z`$ of $`X`$ by $`s(w,z)=(sw,s^1z)`$. It induces an action on the Hilbert scheme $`X^{[n]}`$ of $`n`$ points on $`X`$ with finitely many fixed points parametrized by partitions of $`n`$ \[ES\]. Let $`\lambda `$ be a partition of $`n`$ and $`\xi _\lambda `$ be the fixed point on $`X^{[n]}`$ corresponding to the partition $`\lambda `$. Let $`i_\lambda `$ be the inclusion map $`\xi _\lambda X^{[n]}`$. Let $`1_{\xi _\lambda }H_T^0(\xi _\lambda )`$ be the unit, and thus $`[\xi _\lambda ]=i_{\lambda !}(1_{\xi _\lambda })`$ lies in $`H_T^{4n}(X^{[n]})`$. Here and below, $`[]`$ denotes the equivariant fundamental cycle or its associated equivariant cohomology class.

Denote by $`[t]^{}`$ the localization of the ring $`[t]`$ at the ideal $`(t1)`$, and denote

$$\iota _n=\underset{\lambda }{}i_\lambda :(X^{[n]})^TX^{[n]}.$$

We define $`H_T^{}((X^{[n]})^T)^{}=H_T^{}((X^{[n]})^T)_{[t]}[t]^{}`$ and define $`H_T^{}(X^{[n]})^{}`$ similarly. We denote

$$\iota _{n!}:H_T^{}((X^{[n]})^T)^{}H_T^{}(X^{[n]})^{}$$

to be the induced Gysin map. By the localization theorem, $`\iota _{n!}`$ is an isomorphism. The inverse $`(\iota _{n!})^1`$ is given by

$`\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{(i_\lambda )^{}(\alpha )}{e_T(T_{\xi _\lambda })}}\right)_\lambda `$
where $`e_T(T_{\xi _\lambda })`$ denotes the $`T`$-equivariant Euler class of the tangent bundle of $`X^{[n]}`$ over $`\xi _\lambda `$.

We define a bilinear pairing as in Vasserot \[Vas\]

$$,_n:H_T^{}(X^{[n]})^{}_{[t]^{}}H_T^{}(X^{[n]})^{}[t]^{}$$

by

$`\alpha ,\beta _n=(1)^np_{n!}(\iota _{n!})^1(\alpha \beta )`$
where $`p_n`$ is the projection of the set $`(X^{[n]})^T`$ of $`T`$-fixed points to a point.

### 2.2. The ring $`_n`$

For $`kn`$, from the spectral sequence computation and $`H^{2k}(X^{[n]})=0`$, we see that $`H_T^{2k}(X^{[n]})=t^{kn}H_T^{2n}(X^{[n]})`$. Following Vasserot \[Vas\], we have an induced product $``$ on $`_n\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}H_T^{2n}(X^{[n]})`$ such that

$$t^n(xy)=xy.$$

There is also an induced non-degenerate bilinear form $`,_n:_n_n`$. We define

$$_X=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_n.$$

The bilinear forms $`,_n`$ on $`_n`$ for all $`n`$ induce a bilinear form on $`_X`$, which is denoted by $`,`$. Given a linear operator $`𝔣\mathrm{End}(_X)`$, we denote by $`𝔣^{}`$ the adjoint operator with respect to this bilinear form. The unit in $`H_T^0(X^{[0]})`$ will be denoted by $`|0`$.

For a fixed point $`\xi _\lambda `$ of $`X^{[n]}`$, define $`[\lambda ]_n`$ as in \[Vas\] by

$`t^n[\lambda ]=(1)^nh(\lambda )^1[\xi _\lambda ]`$ (2.1)
where $`h(\lambda )=_\mathrm{}\lambda h_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the product of the hook numbers associated to $`\lambda `$.

###### Remark 2.1.

Passing from $`H_T^{}(X^{[n]})^{}`$ to $`_n`$ does not lose information since we can recover the cup product and bilinear form on $`H_T^{}(X^{[n]})^{}`$ from those on $`_n`$. Thus, understanding the ring $`_n`$ is the same as understanding the equivariant intersection theory on $`X^{[n]}`$.

### 2.3. The Heisenberg algebra

Let $`i>0`$. Denote by $`Y`$ the $`T`$-invariant subspace $`0\times X`$. We define

$$Y_{n,i}=\{(\xi ,\eta )X^{[n+i]}\times X^{[n]}\eta \xi ,\text{Supp}(I_\eta /I_\xi )=\{y\}Y\}.$$

Let $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ be the projections of $`X^{[n+i]}\times X^{[n]}`$ to the two factors. We define the linear operator $`𝔭_i\text{End}(_X)`$ by

$`𝔭_i(\alpha )=D^1p_{1!}(p_2^{}\alpha [Y_{n,i}])_{n+i}`$
for $`\alpha H_T^{2n}(X^{[n]})`$. Note that the restriction of $`p_1`$ to $`Y_{n,i}`$ is proper. We define $`𝔭_i\text{End}(_X)`$ to be the adjoint operator of $`𝔭_i`$. Alternatively, letting $`p_2^{}`$ be the projection of $`(X^{[n]})^T\times X^{[ni]}`$ to $`X^{[ni]}`$, we see that

$`𝔭_i(\alpha )=(1)^iD^1p_{2!}^{}(\iota _n\times \text{Id})_!^1(p_1^{}\alpha [Y_{ni,i}])_{ni}`$
for $`\alpha H_T^{2n}(X^{[n]})`$. Finally, we put $`𝔭_0=0`$. An argument parallel to the one in \[Na1\] leads to the following, cf. \[Vas\]111There are sign typos in \[Vas\] on the formula for the annihilation operators and Heisenberg commutation relations..

###### Proposition 2.2.

The operators $`𝔭_n`$, $`n`$, acting on $`_X=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}_n`$ satisfy the following Heisenberg commutation relation:

$$[𝔭_m,𝔭_n]=m\delta _{m,n}\text{I}.$$

Furthermore, the space $`_X`$ becomes the Fock space (i.e. irreducible module) over the Heisenberg algebra with highest weight vector $`|0`$.

Given a partition $`\lambda =(1^{m_1}2^{m_2}\mathrm{})`$ of $`n`$, we denote $`𝔷_\lambda =_{r1}r^{m_r}m_r!`$, which is the order of the centralizer of an element in $`S_n`$ of cycle type $`\lambda `$. We then define

$$𝔭_\lambda =\frac{1}{𝔷_\lambda }\underset{r1}{}𝔭_r^{m_r}|0.$$

The $`𝔭_\lambda `$’s, as $`\lambda `$ runs over all partitions of $`n`$, form a linear basis of $`_n`$. One has

$$𝔭_\lambda ,𝔭_\mu =\frac{1}{𝔷_\lambda }\delta _{\lambda ,\mu }.$$

## 3. The equivariant Chern character operator

### 3.1. The equivariant Chern characters

Let $`𝒵_n=\{(\xi ,x)X^{[n]}\times Xx\text{supp}(\xi )\}`$ be the codimension 2 universal subscheme. Denote by $`𝒪^{[n]}`$ the tautological rank $`n`$ vector bundle $`\pi _1(𝒪_{𝒵_n}\pi _2^{}𝒪)=\pi _1(𝒪_{𝒵_n})`$ on $`X^{[n]}`$ induced from the trivial line bundle $`𝒪`$ on $`X`$, where $`\pi _1,\pi _2`$ denote the projections of $`X^{[n]}\times X`$ to the factors. Clearly $`𝒪^{[n]}`$ is $`T`$-equivariant over $`X^{[n]}`$.

The computation of the torus action on $`X^{[n]}`$ (cf. e.g. \[Na2\]) implies that

$`𝒪^{[n]}|_{\xi _\lambda }={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\lambda }{}}\theta ^c_{\mathrm{}}`$ (3.1)
as a $`T`$-module, where $`c_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the content of the box $`\mathrm{}`$ in the Young diagram associated to $`\lambda `$. Denote by $`\text{ch}_{k,T}^{[n]}`$ the $`k`$-th $`T`$-equivariant Chern character of $`𝒪^{[n]}`$. In particular the zero-th Chern character $`\text{ch}_{0,T}^{[n]}`$ equals the rank of the vector bundle $`𝒪^{[n]}`$, which is $`n`$. Then

$$\text{ch}_{k,T}^{[n]}|_{\xi _\lambda }=\frac{1}{k!}\underset{\mathrm{}\lambda }{}(c_{\mathrm{}}t)^k.$$

By the projection formula, we have in $`H_T^{}(X^{[n]})^{}`$ that

$`\text{ch}_{k,T}^{[n]}[\xi _\lambda ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}i_{\lambda !}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\lambda }{}}c_{\mathrm{}}^kt^k\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\lambda }{}}c_{\mathrm{}}^kt^k[\xi _\lambda ].`$ (3.2)
Let $`k`$ be a nonnegative integer. Denote

$$\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_k^{[n]}=t^{nk}\text{ch}_{k,T}^{[n]}_n.$$

We define an operator $`𝔊`$, resp. $`𝔊_k`$, in $`\mathrm{End}(_X)`$ by sending $`a_n`$ to $`a_{k0}\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_k^{[n]}`$, resp. to $`a\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_k^{[n]}`$, in $`_n`$ for each $`n`$. Similarly, we define an operator $`𝔊_z`$ by sending $`a_n`$ to $`a_{k0}z^k\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_k^{[n]}`$ for each $`n`$, where $`z`$ is a variable. By definition, we have

$$𝔊_z=\underset{k0}{}𝔊_kz^k.$$

Formula (3.2) is equivalent to

$`𝔊_z([\lambda ])={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\lambda }{}}e^{zc_{\mathrm{}}}[\lambda ].`$ (3.3)
We introduce

$$\varsigma (z)=e^{z/2}e^{z/2}.$$

###### Lemma 3.1.

Given a partition $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{})`$, we have

$$𝔊_z([\lambda ])=\frac{1}{\varsigma (z)}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{z(\lambda _ii+1/2)}\frac{1}{\varsigma (z)}\right)[\lambda ].$$

###### Proof.

The contents $`c_{\mathrm{}}`$’s of $`\lambda `$ are:

$$i+1,i+2,\mathrm{},i+\lambda _i,i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}(\lambda ).$$

Noting that

$$e^{z(i+1)}+\mathrm{}+e^{z(i+\lambda _i)}=\frac{e^{z(\lambda _ii+1)}e^{z(i+1)}}{e^z1}.$$

the formula (3.3) can be written as

$`𝔊_z([\lambda ])={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varsigma (z)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(e^{z(\lambda _ii+1/2)}e^{z(i+1/2)})[\lambda ]`$
where we have used $`\lambda _i=0`$ for $`i>\mathrm{}(\lambda )`$. Now the lemma follows from the identity $`_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}e^{z(i+1/2)}=1/\varsigma (z)`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.2.

Comparing the above with the computation in Lascoux-Thibon \[LT\], Lemma 3.1, we observe that the Jucys-Murphy (JM) elements of the symmetric group $`S_n`$ corresponds exactly to the equivariant Chern roots of the rank $`n`$ bundle $`𝒪^{[n]}`$. A similar observation in the non-equivariant setup has played an important role in the study of the Chen-Ruan orbifold cohomology ring of the symmetric product \[QW\]. In particular, the first equivariant Chern character of $`𝒪^{[n]}`$ corresponds to the conjugacy classes of transpositions (compare \[FW\]).

It was showed in \[Vas\] that there is a ring isomorphism between $`_n`$ and the class algebra $`R(S_n)`$ of the symmetric group $`S_n`$, which sends $`[\lambda ]`$ to the Schur function $`s_\lambda `$ etc. Our results above and observation in Remark 3.2 make the dictionary between the two rings more explicit. For the convenience of the reader, we compile the following dictionary table.

| Hilbert Scheme Setup | Symmetric Group Setup |
| --- | --- |
| the ring $`_n`$ | the class algebra $`R(S_n)`$ |
| fixed-point class $`[\lambda ]`$ | Schur function $`s_\lambda `$ |
| Heisenberg monomial $`𝔭_\lambda `$ | conjugacy class (c.c.) $`K_\lambda `$ |
| Chern character $`\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_1^{[n]}`$ | c.c. $`K_{21^{n2}}`$ of transpositions |
| Chern character $`\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_k^{[n]}`$ | $`k`$-th power-sum of JM elements |

###### Remark 3.3.

By the dictionary, Theorem 5.10 in \[Wa\] on the ring generators of $`R(S_n)`$ implies that $`\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_k^{[n]}`$, $`0k<n`$, form a set of ring generators of $`_n`$.

### 3.2. The moduli space $`(m,n)`$

Denote by $`𝒪_m`$ the $`T`$-equivariant line bundle over $`X=^2`$ associated to the $`T`$-character $`t^m`$, where $`m`$. Let $`(m,n)`$ be the moduli space which parameterizes all rank-1 subsheaves of $`𝒪_m`$ such that the quotients are supported at finitely many points of $`X`$ and have length $`n`$. Given $`X^{[n]}`$, then $`𝒪_m`$ is an element in $`(m,n).`$

As before, the study of the equivariant cohomology ring $`H_T^{}((m,n))`$ leads to a ring $`_n^{(m)}\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}H_T^{2n}((m,n))`$ whose product is denoted by $``$. The natural identification $`(m,n)X^{[n]}`$ leads to the natural identification of the rings $`_n^{(m)}_n,`$ which induces a bilinear form $`,_n^{(m)}`$ on $`_n^{(m)}`$ from $`_n`$. We introduce

$`^{(m)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}_n^{(m)},m`$
$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}^{(m)}.`$
In particular we identify $`(0,n)=X^{[n]}`$ and $`_n^{(0)}=_n`$.

We denote by $`S`$ the isomorphism $`S:_n^{(m)}_n^{(m+1)}.`$ This induces isomorphisms (which will be denoted by $`S`$ again) $`S:`$ and $`S:^{(m)}^{(m+1)}`$ for all $`m`$. The bilinear form on $``$ induced from $`,_n^{(m)}`$ on $`_n^{(m)}`$ will be again denoted by $`,`$.

### 3.3. Operators on the fermionic Fock space

By the standard boson-fermion correspondence \[MJD\], $``$ can be identified with the fermionic Fock space (or equivalently, the infinite wedge space). The operator $`S`$ is exactly the shift operator on the fermionic Fock space. Given an operator $`𝔣\mathrm{End}()`$, the number $`𝔣:=|0,𝔣|0`$ is called the vacuum expectation of $`𝔣`$.

It has been well known (cf. e.g. \[MJD, Wa\]) that the completed infinite-rank general linear Lie algebra $`\widehat{gl}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (whose standard basis is denoted by $`E_{i,j}`$, $`i,j+1/2`$) acts on the fermionic Fock space. As will become clear below (cf. Lemma 3.6 and Lemma 5.1), the study of the equivariant intersection theory on Hilbert schemes naturally leads to the following operator in $`\mathrm{End}()`$:

$`(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varsigma (z)}}{\displaystyle \underset{k+\frac{1}{2}}{}}e^{kz}E_{k,k}.`$
The operator is further expanded as

$`(z)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}_kz^k.`$
###### Remark 3.4.

The operator $`(z)`$ in a somewhat different form has appeared in the study of the class algebras of the symmetric groups and wreath products \[LT, Wa\], and it affords a compact expression in terms of vertex operators.

On the other hand, the following operators

$`\epsilon _r(z)={\displaystyle \underset{k+\frac{1}{2}}{}}e^{z(kr/2)}E_{kr,k}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{r,0}}{\varsigma (z)}},r`$ (3.4)
have been introduced by Okounkov and Pandharipande, and they have played a fundamental role in the study of the stationary Gromov-Witten invariants \[OP\]. The operators $`\epsilon _r(z)`$, $`r`$, satisfy the following identities:

$`[𝔭_k,\epsilon _r(z)]`$ $`=`$ $`\varsigma (kz)\epsilon _{k+r}(z)`$ (3.5)
$`S^1\epsilon _0(z)S`$ $`=`$ $`e^z\epsilon _0(z)`$ (3.6)
$`\epsilon _0(z)([\lambda ])`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{z(\lambda _ii+1/2)}[\lambda ]`$ (3.7)
for all partitions $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{})`$ (here we recall $`[\lambda ]_X=^{(0)}`$).

###### Lemma 3.5.

We have the following identities for operators on $``$:

$`(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varsigma (z)}}\left(\epsilon _0(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varsigma (z)}}\text{I}\right)`$ (3.8)
$`S^m(z)S^m`$ $`=`$ $`e^{mz}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{mz}1}{\varsigma (z)^2}}\text{I},m`$ (3.9)
###### Proof.

The first identity follows from the definitions. The second one follows from the first one and (3.6). ∎

###### Lemma 3.6.

As an operator on $`^{(0)}=_X`$, we have the identification

$$𝔊_z=(z).$$

###### Proof.

Follows from Lemma 3.1, formula (3.7) and Lemma 3.5. ∎

In light of the interpretation of $`(z)`$ in Lemma 3.6 and the role of $`\epsilon _0(z)`$ in \[OP\], the identity (3.8) defines the Gromov-Witten/Hilbert correspondence.

## 4. The $`n`$-point functions of equivariant intersection numbers

### 4.1. Equivariant intersection numbers on Hilbert schemes

Keeping in mind Remarks 2.1 and 3.3, one way to understand the equivariant intersection theory on $`X^{[n]}`$ is to study the products

$$\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_{k_1}^{[n]}\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_{k_2}^{[n]}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_{k_s}^{[n]}$$

for arbitrary nonnegative integers $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_s`$, $`s1`$.

For partitions $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ of $`n`$, we may consider the intersection numbers

$`\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_{k_1}^{[n]}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_{k_s}^{[n]},\mu _n\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}𝔭_\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_{k_1}^{[n]}\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_{k_2}^{[n]}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_{k_s}^{[n]}𝔭_\mu _n`$ (4.1)
The main idea below and in later sections is to form some suitable generating functions of these intersection numbers and then reformulate them in terms of the operator formalism.

### 4.2. The $`n`$-point function

Given partitions $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ of $`n`$, we organize the intersection numbers $`\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_{k_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_{k_N},\mu _n`$ defined in (4.1) into a generating function by introducing the $`N`$-point function

$$G_{\lambda ,\mu }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)=\underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_N}{}z_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}z_N^{k_N}\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_{k_1}^{[n]}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_{k_N}^{[n]},\mu _n.$$

This can be reformulated in an operator form:

$`G_{\lambda ,\mu }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ $`=`$ $`𝔭_\lambda ,𝔊_{z_1}\mathrm{}𝔊_{z_N}𝔭_\mu _n`$
$`=`$ $`𝔭_\lambda ,(z_1)\mathrm{}(z_N)𝔭_\mu _n.`$
We also define similarly

$`F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)=𝔭_\lambda ,\epsilon _0(z_1)\mathrm{}\epsilon _0(z_N)𝔭_\mu _n.`$
According to \[OP\], Section 3, $`F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ has the interpretation as the $`N`$-point disconnected series of stationary Gromov-Witten invariants of $`^1`$ relative to $`0,\mathrm{}^1`$.

Note that, in particular for $`N=0`$, we have defined $`G_{\lambda ,\mu }()`$ and $`F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}()`$. It is easy to see that

$$G_{\lambda ,\mu }()=F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}()=\frac{\delta _{\lambda ,\mu }}{𝔷_\lambda }.$$

It follows from (3.8) and Lemma 3.6 that the 1-point function is given by

$`G_{\lambda ,\mu }(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varsigma (z)}}\left(F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varsigma (z)}}F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}()\right).`$ (4.2)
Therefore, it remains to compute $`F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}(z).`$ Note that the somewhat simpler connected series $`F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}`$ rather than the disconnected series has been computed in \[OP\], Section 3.2.

We introduce some notations on partitions. Given two partitions $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$, we denote by $`\lambda +\mu `$ the partition obtained from combining the parts of $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ and rearranging them in a descending order. For two partitions $`\lambda =(1^{m_1}2^{m_2}\mathrm{})`$ and $`\mu =(1^{n_1}2^{n_2}\mathrm{})`$, we say $`\lambda \mu `$ if $`m_in_i`$ for all $`i`$, and denote $`\mu \lambda `$ the partition $`(1^{n_1m_1}2^{n_2m_2}\mathrm{})`$.

Given a partition $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r)`$, where $`r=\mathrm{}(\lambda )`$, we denote

$`\varsigma (\lambda ,z)=\varsigma (\lambda _1z)\mathrm{}\varsigma (\lambda _rz).`$
Given a subset $`U\underset{¯}{r}=\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$, we denote by $`\lambda _U`$ the subpartition of $`\lambda `$ which consists of the parts $`\lambda _i`$, $`iU`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r)`$ and $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _s)`$ be partitions of $`n`$, where $`r=\mathrm{}(\lambda )`$ and $`s=\mathrm{}(\mu )`$. We have

$`F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}(z)={\displaystyle \underset{U}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varsigma (\lambda _U,z)\varsigma (\lambda _U+\mu \lambda ,z)}{𝔷_\lambda 𝔷_{\lambda _U+\mu \lambda }\varsigma (z)}}`$
summed over subsets $`U\underset{¯}{r}`$ such that $`\lambda \lambda _U+\mu `$.

###### Proof.

We denote by $`[𝔭_{\lambda ,U},\epsilon _0(z)]`$ the multi-commutator $`[\mathrm{}[𝔭_{\lambda _b},[𝔭_{\lambda _a},\epsilon _0(z)]]\mathrm{}],`$ if we write $`U=\{a,b,\mathrm{}\}`$. Note that the multi-commutator is independent of the ordering of elements in $`U`$ since the $`𝔭_k`$’s ($`k>0`$) commute with each other.

By moving $`\epsilon _0(z)`$ to the left whenever possible, we have

$`𝔭_{\lambda _r}\mathrm{}𝔭_{\lambda _1}\epsilon _0(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{U\underset{¯}{r}}{}}[𝔭_{\lambda ,U},\epsilon _0(z)]{\displaystyle \underset{i\underset{¯}{r}\backslash U}{}}𝔭_{\lambda _i}`$ (4.3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{U\underset{¯}{r}}{}}\varsigma (\lambda _U,z)\epsilon _{|\lambda _U|}(z){\displaystyle \underset{i\underset{¯}{r}\backslash U}{}}𝔭_{\lambda _i}`$
where we have repeatedly used (3.5). It follows that

$`F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝔷_\lambda 𝔷_\mu }}𝔭_{\lambda _r}\mathrm{}𝔭_{\lambda _1}\epsilon _0(z)𝔭_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}𝔭_{\mu _s}`$ (4.4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝔷_\lambda 𝔷_\mu }}{\displaystyle \underset{U\underset{¯}{r}}{}}\varsigma (\lambda _U,z)\epsilon _{|\lambda _U|}(z){\displaystyle \underset{i\underset{¯}{r}\backslash U}{}}𝔭_{\lambda _i}𝔭_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}𝔭_{\mu _s}`$
Denote by $`\lambda _U^{}`$ to be the partition which consists of the parts $`\lambda _i`$, $`i\underset{¯}{r}\backslash U`$. Apparently, the vacuum expectation

$$\epsilon _{|\lambda _U|}(z)\underset{i\underset{¯}{r}\backslash U}{}𝔭_{\lambda _i}𝔭_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}𝔭_{\mu _s}=0\text{ unless }\lambda _U^{}\mu .$$

If $`\lambda _U^{}\mu `$, or equivalently if $`\lambda \lambda _U+\mu `$, then $`\mu \lambda _U^{}=(\lambda _U+\mu )\lambda `$, and we can show by induction that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i\underset{¯}{r}\backslash U}{}}𝔭_{\lambda _i}𝔭_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}𝔭_{\mu _s}|0={\displaystyle \frac{𝔷_\mu }{𝔷_{\lambda _U+\mu \lambda }}}𝔭_{\mu _{a_1}}\mathrm{}𝔭_{\mu _{a_t}}|0`$ (4.5)
where we have denoted $`\mu \lambda _U^{}=(\mu _{a_1},\mathrm{},\mu _{a_t}).`$

By (4.4) and (4.5), we have

$`F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝔷_\lambda 𝔷_\mu }}{\displaystyle \underset{U\underset{¯}{r}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝔷_\mu }{𝔷_{\lambda _U+\mu \lambda }}}\varsigma (\lambda _U,z)\epsilon _{|\lambda _U|}(z)𝔭_{\mu _{a_1}}\mathrm{}𝔭_{\mu _{a_t}}`$ (4.6)
Similar to (4.3), we now move $`\epsilon _{|\lambda _U|}(z)`$ to the right in $`\epsilon _{|\lambda _U|}(z)𝔭_{\mu _{a_1}}\mathrm{}𝔭_{\mu _{a_t}}`$ whenever possible. Note that if $`\epsilon _K(z)`$ ($`K>0)`$ results from such a move, then the corresponding vacuum expectation is zero. Therefore

$`\epsilon _{|\lambda _U|}(z)𝔭_{\mu _{a_1}}\mathrm{}𝔭_{\mu _{a_t}}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{}[\epsilon _{|\lambda _U|}(z),𝔭_{\mu _{a_1}}],\mathrm{}𝔭_{\mu _{a_t}}]`$ (4.7)
$`=`$ $`\varsigma (\lambda _U+\mu \lambda ,z)\epsilon _0(z)`$
$`=`$ $`\varsigma (\lambda _U+\mu \lambda ,z)/\varsigma (z).`$
Now the proposition follows from (4.6) and (4.7). ∎

###### Theorem 4.2.

The 1-point function $`G_{\lambda ,\mu }(z)`$ is given by

$$G_{\lambda ,\mu }(z)=\frac{1}{𝔷_\lambda \varsigma (z)^2}\left(\underset{U}{}\frac{\varsigma (\lambda _U,z)\varsigma (\lambda _U+\mu \lambda ,z)}{𝔷_{\lambda _U+\mu \lambda }}\delta _{\lambda ,\mu }\right)$$

where $`U`$ runs over the subsets of $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{}(\lambda )}`$ such that $`\lambda \lambda _U+\mu `$.

###### Proof.

Follows from (4.2) and Proposition 4.1. ∎

In general, by Lemma 3.6, we have the following.

###### Proposition 4.3.

$`G_{\lambda ,\mu }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{i=1}^N\varsigma (z_i)}}{\displaystyle \underset{U\underset{¯}{N}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{N|U|}}{_{i\underset{¯}{N}\backslash U}\varsigma (z_i)}}F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}(z_U).`$
where we have denoted $`F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}(z_U)=𝔭_\lambda ,_{iU}\epsilon _0(z_i)𝔭_\mu _n.`$

###### Remark 4.4.

Note that the $`N`$-point connected series $`F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}`$ of Gromov-Witten invariants rather than the disconnected series $`F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}`$ has been computed in \[OP\], Section 3.3. The strategy used in Proposition 4.1 could be generalized to compute the $`N`$-point disconnected series $`F_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$, although the notations would be a bit involved. Then the computation of $`G_{\lambda ,\mu }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ follows by Proposition 4.3.

### 4.3. The multi-point trace function

The $`q`$-trace of an operator $`𝔣\mathrm{End}(_X)`$ is defined to be

$$\mathrm{Tr}_q𝔣\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\underset{\lambda }{}𝔷_\lambda 𝔭_\lambda ,𝔣(𝔭_\lambda )q^{|\lambda |}.$$

In particular, for the identity operator I on $`_X`$, we have $`\mathrm{Tr}_q\text{I}=1/(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}`$, where we have used the notation $`(a;q)_{\mathrm{}}=(1a)(1aq)(1aq^2)\mathrm{}`$.

Our main object here is the multi-point trace function $`\mathrm{Tr}_q(𝔊_{z_1}\mathrm{}𝔊_{z_N})`$ of a product of the operators $`𝔊_{z_j}`$, which encodes information about the intersection numbers (4.1). Here $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_N`$ are independent variables.

We denote

$`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)=\mathrm{\Theta }(z;q)`$ $`\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}`$ $`\eta (q)^3{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(1)^mq^{\frac{(m+1/2)^2}{2}}e^{(m+1/2)z}`$
$`=`$ $`(e^{z/2}e^{z/2})(qz;q)_{\mathrm{}}(qz^1;q)_{\mathrm{}}/(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}^2`$
Here $`\eta (q)=q^{1/24}(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the Dedekind eta function, and the last identity above uses the Jacobi triple product identity. We further define

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{(k)}(z)=\frac{d^k}{dz^k}\mathrm{\Theta }(z),k0.$$

We agree that $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{(k)}(z)=0`$ for $`k<0`$.

Given a positive integer $`N`$, we denote $`\underset{¯}{N}=\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}`$. Given a finite set $`U`$, we denote by $`S_U`$ the symmetric group on $`U`$. In particular, $`S_{\underset{¯}{N}}=S_N`$. Given $`U=\{u_1,\mathrm{},u_k\}\underset{¯}{N}`$ with $`u_1<\mathrm{}<u_k`$ and a permutation $`\sigma S_U`$, we denote by $`M_{U,\sigma }`$ the $`k\times k`$ matrix whose $`(i,j)`$-th entry is $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{(ji+1)}(z_{\sigma u_1}\mathrm{}z_{\sigma u_{kj}})/(ji+1)!`$. We further denote by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{U,\sigma }`$ the product $`\mathrm{\Theta }(z_{\sigma u_1})\mathrm{\Theta }(z_{\sigma u_1}z_{\sigma u_2})\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }(z_{\sigma u_1}\mathrm{}z_{\sigma u_k})`$.

A main result of Bloch-Okounkov (\[BO\], Theorem 0.5) is the following formula for $`\mathrm{Tr}_q(\epsilon _0(z_1)\mathrm{}\epsilon _0(z_N))`$ in our notation:

$`\mathrm{Tr}_q(\epsilon _0(z_1)\mathrm{}\epsilon _0(z_N))={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma S_N}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{detM_{\underset{¯}{N},\sigma }}{\mathrm{\Theta }_{\underset{¯}{N},\sigma }}}.`$ (4.8)
The formula (4.8) also computes the stationary Gromov-Witten invariants of an elliptic curve, according to Okounkov and Pandharipande \[OP\].

###### Theorem 4.5.

We have

$$\mathrm{Tr}_q(𝔊_{z_1}\mathrm{}𝔊_{z_N})=\frac{1}{(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}_{i=1}^N\varsigma (z_i)}\underset{U\underset{¯}{N}}{}\frac{(1)^{N|U|}_{\sigma S_U}\frac{detM_{U,\sigma }}{\mathrm{\Theta }_{U,\sigma }}}{_{i\underset{¯}{N}\backslash U}\varsigma (z_i)}.$$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 3.5 and Lemma 3.6, we have

$$\mathrm{Tr}_q(𝔊_{z_1}\mathrm{}𝔊_{z_N})=\frac{1}{_{i=1}^N\varsigma (z_i)}\underset{U\underset{¯}{N}}{}\frac{(1)^{N|U|}\mathrm{Tr}_q(_{iU}\epsilon _0(z_i))}{_{i\underset{¯}{N}\backslash U}\varsigma (z_i)}.$$

Now the theorem follows by applying (4.8) by replacing the set $`\underset{¯}{N}`$ by $`U`$. ∎

## 5. Equivariant intersection and $`\tau `$-functions of $`2`$-Toda hierarchies

### 5.1. Hilbert schemes and $`\tau `$-functions

Let $`t=(t_1,t_2,\mathrm{})`$ and $`s=(s_1,s_2,\mathrm{})`$ be two sequences of indeterminates. Define the following half vertex operators:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm (t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{k>0}{}t_k𝔭_{\pm k}/k\right).$$

Given a partition $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{})`$ we write $`t_\mu =t_{\mu _1}t_{\mu _2}\mathrm{}`$. Let $`x=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})`$ be another sequence of indeterminates. We introduce the following generating function for the intersection numbers $`\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_{k_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_{k_N},\mu _n`$ defined in (4.1):

$`\tau (x,t,s)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{|\lambda |=|\mu |=n}{}}t_\lambda s_\mu \lambda ,\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}x_k\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_k^{[n]}\right),\mu _n`$
Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(s)=_{n0}_{|\lambda |=n}t_\lambda 𝔭_\lambda `$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(t)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(t)^{}`$. From the definition of $`_k`$ and Lemma 3.6, we see that the $`\tau `$-function affords an operator formulation:

$`\tau (x,t,s)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(t)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}x_k_k\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(s).`$
### 5.2. The Chern character operators from $`(m,n)`$

We have a universal exact sequence:

$$0𝒥_m\pi _2^{}𝒪_m𝒬_m0$$

where $`\pi _1,\pi _2`$ are the projections of $`(m,n)\times X`$ to the two factors. Denote by $`𝒪_m^{[n]}`$ the $`T`$-equivariant vector bundle (i.e. torsion-free sheaf) over $`(m,n)`$ of rank $`n`$ given by the push-forward $`\pi _1(𝒬_m)`$, whose fiber over a point $`\xi _\lambda (m,n)X^{[n]}`$ is given by

$`𝒪_m^{[n]}|_{\xi _\lambda }=𝒪_m{\displaystyle 𝒪^{[n]}}|_{\xi _\lambda }.`$ (5.1)
In the same way as defining the operators $`𝔊_z`$ and $`𝔊_k(k0)`$ acting on $`_X=^{(0)}`$, we can define the operators $`𝔊_z^{(m)}`$ and $`𝔊_k^{(m)}(k0)`$ acting on $`^{(m)}`$ using the cup products with $`_{k0}t^{nk}\text{ch}_k(𝒪_m^{[n]})z^k`$ and $`t^{nk}\text{ch}_k(𝒪_m^{[n]})`$ respectively on $`_n^{(m)}`$. For technical reasons below, we introduce the following modification

$$\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_k(𝒪_m^{[n]})=t^{nk}\text{ch}_k(𝒪_m^{[n]})+c_k^{(m)}$$

where the constant $`c_k^{(m)}`$ is defined by

$$\frac{e^{mz}1}{\varsigma (z)^2}=mz^1+\underset{k0}{}c_k^{(m)}z^k/k!.$$

Equivalently, if we define

$`\stackrel{~}{𝔊}_z^{(m)}=𝔊_z^{(m)}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{mz}1}{\varsigma (z)^2}}\text{I}.`$ (5.2)
and further write $`\stackrel{~}{𝔊}_z^{(m)}=mz^1\text{I}+_{k0}\stackrel{~}{𝔊}_k^{(m)}z^k`$, then

$$\stackrel{~}{𝔊}_k^{(m)}=𝔊_k^{(m)}+c_k^{(m)}\text{I},k0$$

and $`\stackrel{~}{𝔊}_k^{(m)}`$ acts on $`_n^{(m)}`$ by the product with $`\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_k(𝒪_m^{[n]})`$. When $`m=0`$, we have $`c_k^{(0)}=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝔊}_k^{(0)}=𝔊_k^{(0)}=𝔊_k`$ for all $`k.`$

Similarly we define the equivariant intersection numbers for $`(m,n)`$, denoted by $`_n^{(m)}`$. When $`m=0`$ it reduces to the ones defined earlier.

### 5.3. The $`\tau `$-functions and $`(m,n)`$

We form the following generating function of the equivariant intersection numbers on $`(m,n)`$:

$`\tau (x,t,s,m)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{|\lambda |=|\mu |=n}{}}t_\lambda s_\mu \lambda ,\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}x_k\stackrel{~}{\text{ch}}_k(𝒪_m^{[n]})\right),\mu _n^{(m)}`$
In particular we have $`\tau (x,t,s,0)=\tau (x,t,s)`$.

###### Lemma 5.1.

As an operator on $`^{(m)}`$, we have the identification

$$\stackrel{~}{𝔊}_z^{(m)}=(z).$$

###### Proof.

Under the identification $`S^m:_n=_n^{(0)}\stackrel{}{}_n^{(m)}`$, we denote by $`[\lambda ]^{(m)}`$ the image of $`[\lambda ]`$. By the identification of toric action (5.1), the same proof as in Lemma 3.1 implies that

$`\stackrel{~}{𝔊}_z^{(m)}([\lambda ]^{(m)})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{mz}}{\varsigma (z)}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{z(\lambda _ii+1/2)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varsigma (z)}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{mz}1}{\varsigma (z)^2}}\right)[\lambda ]^{(m)}.`$
By (3.9) and $`S^m([\lambda ])=[\lambda ]^{(m)}`$, we have

$`(z)([\lambda ]^{(m)})=(z)S^m([\lambda ])=e^{mz}S^m(z)([\lambda ])+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{mz}1}{\varsigma (z)^2}}S^m([\lambda ]).`$
This can be rewritten as

$`(z)([\lambda ]^{(m)})=\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{mz}}{\varsigma (z)}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{z(\lambda _ii+1/2)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varsigma (z)}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{mz}1}{\varsigma (z)^2}}\right)[\lambda ]^{(m)}`$
by lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.6. This finishes the proof. ∎

###### Theorem 5.2.

1. The function $`\tau (x,t,s,m)`$ can be reformulated as:

$`\tau (x,t,s,m)=S^m\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(t)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}x_k_k\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(s)S^m.`$
2. The functions $`\tau (x,t,s,m)`$, $`m`$, satisfies the $`2`$-Toda hierarchy of Ueno-Takasaki \[UT\]. The lowest equation among the hierarchy reads:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t_1s_1}}\mathrm{ln}\tau (t,s,x,m)={\displaystyle \frac{\tau (t,s,x,m+1)\tau (t,s,x,m1)}{\tau (t,s,x,m)^2}}.`$ (5.3)

###### Proof.

Part (1) follows from the definition of $`\tau (x,t,s,m)`$ and Lemma 5.1. The second part is standard since the operator $`_k`$ lies in $`\widehat{gl}_{\mathrm{}}`$. ∎

By setting $`t_2=t_3=\mathrm{}=s_2=s_3=\mathrm{}=0`$ and $`x_2=x_3=\mathrm{}=0`$ in $`\tau (x,t,s)`$, we obtain the following generating function of the intersection numbers on Hilbert schemes:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(t_1s_1e^{x_0})^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}𝔭_1^n,\mathrm{exp}\left(x_1𝔊_1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}𝔭_1^n_n`$
thanks to the fact that $`𝔊_0([\lambda ])=|\lambda |[\lambda ]`$. Setting $`u=x_0+\mathrm{ln}(t_1s_1)`$, we denote the above generating function by $`\tau (u,x_1)`$. A simple computation reduces the Toda equation (5.3) to the following:

$`e^u{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{u^2}}\mathrm{ln}\tau (u,x_1)={\displaystyle \frac{\tau (u+x_1,x_1)\tau (ux_1,x_1)}{\tau (u,x_1)^2}}.`$
It is interesting to observe that this $`\tau `$ function can also be interpreted \[Ok\] as generating functions of certain Hurwitz numbers.


format: text

text:
# Spin squeezing and pairwise entanglement for symmetric multiqubit states

## I Introduction

Spin squeezed states Kitagawa ; Wineland ; Agarwal ; Lukin ; Vernac ; Kuzmichqnd ; Sorensen1 ; Youli ; hald ; kasevich ; uffe ; Dominic ; Usha ; Usha1 ; Gasenzer ; Stockton ; Add1 ; Add2 ; WangSpin ; WangSuper  are quantum correlated states with reduced fluctuations in one of the collective spin components, with possible applications in atomic interferometers and high precision atomic clocks. It is found that spin squeezing is closely related to and implies quantum entanglement Sorensen01 ; Dominic2 ; Sanmore . As there are various kinds of entanglement, a question naturally arises: what kind of entanglement does spin squeezing imply? Recently, it has been found that, for a two-qubit symmetric state, spin squeezing is equivalent to its bipartite entanglement Kitagawa2 ; i.e., spin squeezing implies bipartite entanglement and vice versa. Here, we generalize the above result to the multiqubit case, and study relationships between spin squeezing and quantum entanglement.

Specifically, we first show that spin squeezing implies pairwise entanglement for arbitrary symmetric multiqubit states. If the squeezing parameter $`\xi ^21`$ (defined below), we give a quantitative relation between the squeezing parameter and the concurrence Conc  for even and odd states, where the concurrence is a measure of the degree of two-qubit entanglement, and even (odd) states refer to those where only even (odd) excitations contribute. We further consider the multiqubit states dynamically generated from the initial state with all qubits being spin down via (i) the one-axis twisting Hamiltonian Barry89 ; Kitagawa , (ii) the one-axis twisting Hamiltonian with an external transverse field Law , and (iii) the two-axis counter-twisting Hamiltonian Kitagawa . We prove that the states generated via the first Hamiltonian are spin squeezed if and only they are pairwise entangled. For the states generated via the second Hamiltonian and third Hamiltonian with even number of qubits, numerical results for the squeezing parameter and concurrence suggest that the spin squeezing implies pairwise entanglement and vice versa.

## II Spin squeezing and pairwise entanglement

A collection of $`N`$ qubits is represented by the collective operators

$$S_\alpha =\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\sigma _{i\alpha }}{2},\alpha \{x,y,z\},$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _{i\alpha }`$ are the Pauli operators for the $`i^{\text{th}}`$ qubit. The collective operators satisfy the usual angular momentum commutation relations. Following Kitagawa and Ueda’s criterion of spin squeezing, we introduce the spin squeezing parameter Kitagawa

$$\xi ^2=\frac{2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }S_\stackrel{}{n}_{}\right)^2}{J}=\frac{4\left(\mathrm{\Delta }S_\stackrel{}{n}_{}\right)^2}{N},$$
(2)
where the subscript $`\stackrel{}{n}_{}`$ refers to an axis perpendicular to the mean spin $`\stackrel{}{S}`$, where the minimal value of the variance $`(\mathrm{\Delta }S)^2`$ is obtained, $`J=N/2`$, and $`S_\stackrel{}{n}_{}=\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{n}_{}`$. The inequality $`\xi ^2<1`$ indicates that the system is spin squeezed.

To find the relation between spin squeezing and quantum entanglement, we first give the following lemma:
Lemma 1: For a symmetric separable state of $`N`$ qubits, the correlation function $`\sigma _{i\stackrel{}{n}_{}}\sigma _{j\stackrel{}{n}_{}}0`$, where $`i`$ and $`j`$ can take any values from 1 to $`N`$ as long as they are different, and $`\sigma _{i\stackrel{}{n}_{}}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{n}_{}`$.
Proof: We first note that the expectation values $`\sigma _{i\stackrel{}{n}_{}}`$ and the correlation function $`\sigma _{i\stackrel{}{n}_{}}\sigma _{j\stackrel{}{n}_{}}ij`$ are independent of indices due to the exchange symmetry. The symmetric separable state is given by

$$\rho _{\text{sep}}=\underset{k}{}p_k\rho ^{(k)}\rho ^{(k)}\mathrm{}\rho ^{(k)}$$
(3)
with $`_kp_k=1`$. The correlation function $`\sigma _{i\stackrel{}{n}_{}}\sigma _{j\stackrel{}{n}_{}}`$ over the separable state can be obtained from the two-qubit reduced density matrix

$$\rho _{ij}=\text{Tr}_{\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}\backslash \{i,j\}}(\rho _{\text{sep}})=\underset{k}{}p_k\rho ^{(k)}\rho ^{(k)},$$
(4)
yielding

$`\sigma _{i\stackrel{}{n}_{}}\sigma _{j\stackrel{}{n}_{}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}p_k\text{Tr}_{ij}[(\rho ^{(k)}\rho ^{(k)})(\sigma _{i\stackrel{}{n}_{}}\sigma _{j\stackrel{}{n}_{}})]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}p_k\sigma _{i\stackrel{}{n}_{}}^{(k)}\sigma _{j\stackrel{}{n}_{}}^{(k)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}p_k\sigma _{i\stackrel{}{n}_{}}^{(k)}^20.\mathrm{}`$ (5)
From Lemma 1, we immediately have
Proposition 1: For an arbitrary symmetric multiqubit state, spin squeezing implies pairwise entanglement.
Proof: Due to the exchange symmetry we may write the expectation value $`S_\stackrel{}{n}_{}^2`$ as

$$S_\stackrel{}{n}_{}^2=\frac{1}{4}[N+N(N1)\sigma _{i\stackrel{}{n}_{}}\sigma _{j\stackrel{}{n}_{}}].$$
(6)
Substituting the above equation into (2) leads to

$$\xi ^2=\frac{4S_\stackrel{}{n}_{}^2}{N}=1+(N1)\sigma _{i\stackrel{}{n}_{}}\sigma _{j\stackrel{}{n}_{}}.$$
(7)
The above equation shows that spin squeezing is equivalent to negative pairwise correlation ($`\sigma _{i\stackrel{}{n}_{}}\sigma _{j\stackrel{}{n}_{}}<0`$Kitagawa2 . This equivalence relation and the above lemma directly leads to the proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

Having shown the close relation between spin squeezing and pairwise entanglement, we now proceed to give a quantitative relation between the squeezing parameter and the concurrence Conc . We consider an even (odd) pure or mixed state $`\rho `$. The even (odd) state refers to the state for which only Dicke states Dicke  $`|n_J|J,J+n`$ with even (odd) $`n`$ contribute. For examples, the pure even and odd states are given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_\text{e}=\underset{\text{even n}}{}c_n|n_J,|\mathrm{\Psi }_\text{o}=\underset{\text{odd n}}{}c_n|n_J,$$
(8)
respectively. As we will see in the next section, these states can be dynamically generated via a large class of Hamiltonians, and can also be obtained as a superposition of spin coherent states WangSuper .

For the even and odd states, we immediately have the following property

$$S_\beta =S_zS_\beta =S_\beta S_z=0,\beta \{x,y\}.$$
(9)
Therefore, the mean spin is along the $`z`$ direction. We assume that the mean spin satisfies $`S_z0`$.

With the mean spin along the $`z`$ direction, we have $`\stackrel{}{n}_{}=(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{sin}\theta ,0)`$, and thus the operator $`S_\stackrel{}{n}_{}`$ can be written as

$$S_\theta =\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{n}_{}=\mathrm{cos}\theta S_x+\mathrm{sin}\theta S_y.$$
(10)
So, the squeezing parameter becomes

$`\xi ^2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{N}}\underset{\theta }{\mathrm{min}}S_\theta ^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}\underset{\theta }{\mathrm{min}}[S_x^2+S_y^2+\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )S_x^2S_y^2`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )[S_x,S_y]_+]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}[S_x^2+S_y^2\sqrt{S_x^2S_y^2^2+[S_x,S_y]_+^2}`$
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}[S_z^2+|S_+^2|],`$ (11)
where $`S_\pm =S_x\pm iS_y`$ are the ladder operators, and $`[A,B]_+=AB+BA`$ is the anticommutator for operators $`A`$ and $`B.`$

From Eq. (11), we see that the squeezing parameter is determined by a sum of two expectation values $`S_z^2`$ and $`S_+^2,`$ and hence the calculations are greatly simplified. The larger the sum the deeper the spin squeezing. We also see that the squeezing parameter is invariant under rotation along the $`z`$ direction, i.e., the squeezing parameter for $`\rho `$ is the same as that for $`e^{i\theta S_z}\rho e^{i\theta S_z}`$.

Since the inequality $`S_z^2N^2/4`$ always holds, we obtain a lower bound for the squeezing parameter

$$\xi ^21\frac{2}{N}|S_+^2|.$$
(12)
From the above equation, we read that if $`|S_+^2|=0,`$ then the squeezing parameter $`\xi ^21`$, which implies a necessary condition for spin squeezing of even and odd states is $`|S_+^2|0`$. A direct consequence of this necessary condition is that the Dicke state $`|n_J`$ exhibits no spin squeezing since $`|S_+^2|=0`$. The associated squeezing parameter is given by

$$\xi ^2=1+\frac{2n(Nn)}{N}1.$$
(13)
However, Dicke states can be pairwise entangled WangKlaus  even though they are not spin squeezed.

Spin squeezing is related to pairwise correlations , and negative pairwise correlation is equivalent to spin squeezing Kitagawa2 . Then, for our even and odd states, we have
Proposition 2: A necessary and sufficient condition for spin squeezing of even and odd states is given by

$$|u|y=|\sigma _{i+}\sigma _{j+}|+\frac{\sigma _{iz}\sigma _{jz}}{4}\frac{1}{4}>0.$$
(14)
where

$$u=\sigma _{i+}\sigma _{j+},y=\frac{1}{4}\left(1\sigma _{iz}\sigma _{jz}\right).$$
(15)
Proof: By considering the exchange symmetry, we have

$$S_+^2=N(N1)u,S_z^2=\frac{N^2}{4}N(N1)y.$$
(16)
Substituting the above equation into Eq. (11) we rewrite the squeezing parameter as

$`\xi ^2=`$ $`12(N1)(|u|y)`$
$`=`$ $`12(N1)\left[|\sigma _{i+}\sigma _{j+}|+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{iz}\sigma _{jz}}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right].`$ (17)
We see that spin squeezing is determined by the two correlation functions $`\sigma _{iz}\sigma _{jz}`$ and $`\sigma _{i+}\sigma _{j+}`$. From Eq. (17), we obtain the proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

The two correlation functions $`\sigma _{iz}\sigma _{jz}`$ and $`\sigma _{i+}\sigma _{j+}`$ can be obtained from the reduced density matrix $`\rho _{ij}=`$Tr$`{}_{\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}\backslash \{i,j\}}{}^{}(\rho )`$. The reduced density matrix with the exchange symmetry is given by WangKlaus

$$\rho _{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}v_+\hfill & x_+^{}\hfill & x_+^{}\hfill & u^{}\hfill \\ x_+\hfill & y\hfill & y\hfill & x_{}^{}\hfill \\ x_+\hfill & y\hfill & y\hfill & x_{}^{}\hfill \\ u\hfill & x_{}\hfill & x_{}\hfill & v_{}\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(18)
in the standard basis $`\{|00,|01,|10,|11\}`$. The following lemma on the reduced density matrix is useful for later discussions:
Lemma 2: The matrix elements of $`\rho _{ij}`$ can be determined by

$`v_\pm =`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^22N+4S_z^2\pm 4S_z(N1)}{4N(N1)}},`$
$`x_\pm =`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(N1)S_+\pm [S_+,S_z]_+}{2N(N1)}},`$
$`y=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^24S_z^2}{4N(N1)}},u={\displaystyle \frac{S_+^2}{N(N1)}}.`$ (19)
Proof: The matrix elements can be represented by expectation values of Pauli spin operators of the two qubits. $`v_\pm `$ and $`x_\pm `$ are given by

$`v_\pm =`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1\pm 2\sigma _{iz}+\sigma _{iz}\sigma _{jz}\right),`$
$`x_\pm =`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma _{i+}\pm \sigma _{i+}\sigma _{jz}),`$ (20)
and $`u`$ and $`y`$ are given by Eq. (15).

Due to the exchange symmetry, we have

$`\sigma _{i\alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{2S_\alpha }{N}},\sigma _{i+}={\displaystyle \frac{S_+}{N}},\sigma _{i\alpha }\sigma _{j\alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{4S_\alpha ^2N}{N(N1)}},`$
$`\sigma _{ix}\sigma _{jy}={\displaystyle \frac{2[S_x,S_y]_+}{N(N1)}},\sigma _{i+}\sigma _{jz}={\displaystyle \frac{[S_+,S_z]_+}{N(N1)}}.`$ (21)
From Eqs. (20) and (21), we may thus express the matrix elements of $`\rho _{12}`$ in terms of the expectation values of the collective operators. $`\mathrm{}`$

The concurrence quantifying the entanglement of a pair of qubits can be calculated from the reduced density matrix. It is defined as Conc

$$𝒞=\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4,$$
(22)
where the quantities $`\lambda _i`$ are the square roots of the eigenvalues in descending order of the matrix product

$$\varrho _{12}=\rho _{12}(\sigma _{1y}\sigma _{2y})\rho _{12}^{}(\sigma _{1y}\sigma _{2y}).$$
(23)
In (23), $`\rho _{12}^{}`$ denotes the complex conjugate of $`\rho _{12}`$. Note that we did not use the max function in the above definition of the concurrence Conc . Therefore, the negative concurrence implies no entanglement here.

Both the squeezing parameter and the concurrence are determined by some correlation functions. So, they may be related to each other. The quantitative relation is given by
Proposition 3: If $`\xi ^21`$ ($`|u|y`$) for even and odd states, then

$$\xi ^2=1(N1)𝒞\text{.}$$
(24)
Proof: For our state $`\rho `$, from Eq. (9) and Lemma 2, it is found that $`x_\pm =0.`$ Therefore, the reduced density matrix becomes

$$\rho _{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}v_+\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & u^{}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & y\hfill & y\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & y\hfill & y\hfill & 0\hfill \\ u\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & v_{}\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(25)
For this reduced density matrix (25), the associated concurrence is given by WangKlaus

$$𝒞=\{\begin{array}{c}2(|u|y),\text{ if }2y\sqrt{v_+v_{}}+|u|;\hfill \\ 2(y\sqrt{v_+v_{}}),\text{ if }2y>\sqrt{v_+v_{}}+|u|.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
If $`|u|y`$, we have

$$2y2|u||u|+\sqrt{v_+v_{}},$$
(27)
where we have used the fact

$$v_+v_{}|u|^2,v_\pm 0.$$
(28)
Then, the concurrence (26) simplifies to

$$𝒞=2(|u|y).$$
(29)
By comparing Eqs. (17) and (29), we obtain the proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

According to Proposition 3, we have

$$𝒞=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if}\xi ^2=1\hfill \\ \frac{1\xi ^2}{N1}>0\hfill & \text{if}\xi ^2<1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
from which we read that (i) if the squeezing parameter $`\xi ^2=1`$ (no squeezing) for even and odd states, then the concurrence is zero (no entanglement); and (ii) if $`\xi ^2<1`$, there is squeezing, then we have a one-to-one relation between the spin squeezing and pairwise entanglement. However, for the case of $`\xi ^2>1`$, the concurrence can be positive, and we cannot have $`𝒞<0`$ as exemplified earlier by the Dicke states (Dicke states are simplest cases of even and odd states). Although the squeezing parameter $`\xi ^2>1`$ implies $`𝒞<0`$ is not valid in general, in the next section we will observe that for some even and odd states the squeezing parameter $`\xi ^2>1`$ does imply $`𝒞<0`$, thereby establishing an equivalence between pairwise entanglement and spin squeezing.

## III Hamiltonian evolution

Now we consider a class of states dynamically generated from $`|0_J`$ via the following Hamiltonian

$$H=\mu S_x^2+\chi S_y^2+\gamma (S_xS_y+S_yS_x)+f(S_z)$$
(31)
with $`f`$ being a function of $`S_z`$. When

$$\chi =\gamma =f(S_z)=0$$
(32)
and

$$\mu =\chi =f(S_z)=0,$$
(33)
the Hamiltonian reduces to the one-axis twisting Hamiltonian Barry89 ; Kitagawa  and the two-axis countertwisting Hamiltonian Kitagawa , respectively. When

$$\chi =\gamma =0,f(S_z)=\mathrm{\Omega }S_z,$$
(34)
Hamiltonian $`H`$ reduces to the one considered in Refs. Milburn ; Law ; AndersKlaus ; Leggett ; Hines ; Pu1 , namely, the one-axis twisting Hamiltonian with a transverse field. The one-axis twisting Hamiltonian Kitagawa  may be realized in various quantum systems including quantum optical systems Barry89 , ion traps ions , quantum dots Dot , cavity quantum electromagnetic dynamics Qed , liquid-state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) system Nmr , and Bose-Einstein condensates Sorensen01 ; uffe . Experimentally, it has been implemented to produce four-qubit maximally entangled states in an ion trap sackett .

The Hamiltonian exhibits a parity symmetry,

$$[e^{i\pi S_z},H]=[(1)^𝒩,H]=0,$$
(35)
where $`𝒩=S_z+J`$ is the ‘number operator’ of the system, and $`(1)^𝒩`$ is the parity operator. In other words, the Hamiltonian is invariant under $`\pi `$ rotation about the $`z`$ axis. The symmetry can be easily seen from the transformation

$$e^{i\pi S_z}(S_x,S_y,S_z)e^{i\pi S_z}=(S_x,S_y,S_z).$$
(36)
We assume that the initial density operator is chosen to be

$$\rho (0)=|0_J0|,$$
(37)
where $`|0_J=|1|1\mathrm{}|1`$, and state $`|1`$ denotes the ground state of a qubit. The density operator at time $`t`$ is then formally written as

$$\rho (t)=e^{iHt}\rho (0)e^{iHt}.$$
(38)
The parity symmetry of $`H`$ in (35) leads to the useful property given by Eq. (9). For example,

$`S_x=`$ $`\text{Tr}[S_xe^{iHt}\rho (0)e^{iHt}]`$
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr}[S_xe^{iHt}e^{i\pi S_z}\rho (0)e^{i\pi S_z}e^{iHt}]`$
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr}[e^{i\pi S_z}S_xe^{i\pi S_z}\rho (t)]`$
$`=`$ $`S_x.`$ (39)
From another point view, the state $`\rho (t)`$ is an even state since the Hamiltonian is quadratic in generators $`S_x`$ and $`S_y`$ and the initial state is an even state. Then, Eq. (9) follows directly. Since state $`\rho (t)`$ is an even state, we may apply the results in the last section. Next, we consider three representative model Hamiltonians for generating spin squeezing, which are special cases of Hamiltonian $`H`$.

### III.1 One-axis twisting Hamiltonian

We first examine the well-established one-axis twisting model Barry89 ; Kitagawa ,

$$H_1=\mu S_x^2,$$
(40)
for which we have
Lemma 3: For the state dynamically generated from $`|0_J`$ via the one-axis twisting Hamiltonian, we always have $`\xi ^21`$.
Proof: From the results of Refs Kitagawa ; WangKlaus , we have the following expectation values ($`\overline{\mu }=2\mu t`$)

$`S_x^2=`$ $`N/4,`$
$`S_y^2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(N^2+NN(N1)\mathrm{cos}^{N2}\overline{\mu }\right),`$
$`S_z^2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(N^2+N+N(N1)\mathrm{cos}^{N2}\overline{\mu }\right).`$ (41)
Then, we obtain a useful relation for density operator $`\rho (t)`$ at any time $`t`$,

$$S_x^2S_y^2=S_z^2N^2/4=N(N1)y,$$
(42)
where we have used Eq. (19). From the above equation, we obtain

$`|u|^2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2(N1)^2}}(S_x^2S_y^2^2+[S_x,S_y]_+^2)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S_x^2S_y^2^2}{N^2(N1)^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`y^2,`$ (43)
which implies $`|u|y`$ at any time (note that $`y0`$). Therefore, the squeezing parameter always satisfies $`\xi ^21`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Then, from Proposition 3 and Lemma 3, we obtain
Proposition 4: For the state dynamically generated from $`|0_J`$ via the one-axis twisting Hamiltonian, it is spin squeezed if and only if it is pairwise entangled. Hence spin squeezing and pairwise entanglement are equivalent for such state.

At times for which $`𝒞=0,`$ the state vector is either a product state or an $`N`$-partite ($`N3`$) maximally entangled state ions ; sackett  which has no pairwise entanglement, and thus no spin squeezing.

### III.2 One-axis twisting Hamiltonian with a transverse field

We consider the one-axis twisting model with an external transverse field described by the Hamiltonian

$$H_2=\mu S_x^2+\mathrm{\Omega }S_z,$$
(44)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }>0`$ is the strength of the transverse field. In general, this model cannot be solved analytically. Numerical results show that the squeezing parameter $`\xi ^21`$ for the dynamically generated state $`\mathrm{exp}(iH_2t)|0_J`$ Law . We perform numerical calculations for $`N`$ from 2 to $`100`$ qubits, different values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`\mu =1`$, which indeed display the inequality $`\xi ^21`$. Therefore, according to Proposition 3, these numerical results suggest that spin squeezing implies pairwise entanglement and vice versa for such states generated from $`|0_J`$ via Hamitonian $`H_2`$. In the limit of $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, the result of this subsection, of course, reduces to that of the previous one.

### III.3 Two-axis counter-twisting Hamiltonian

Finally, we examine the two-axis counter-twisting model described by Hamiltonian

$$H_3=\frac{\gamma }{2i}(S_+^2S_{}^2).$$
(45)
For the state generated from $`|0_J`$ via Hamiltonian $`H_3`$, the squeezing parameter can be larger than 1. Numerical results for $`N`$ from 2 to 100 and $`\gamma =1`$ suggest that the relation (24) holds for even $`N`$,

$$𝒞=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if}\xi ^2=1,\hfill \\ \frac{1\xi ^2}{N1}>0\hfill & \text{if}\xi ^2<1,\hfill \\ \frac{1\xi ^2}{N1}<0\hfill & \text{if}\xi ^2>1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
The above equation displays an equivalence relation between spin squeezing and pairwise entanglement for states generated from $`|0_J`$ via Hamiltonian $`H_3`$ with even $`N`$. The case of $`N=6`$ is demonstrated in Fig. 1, which are plots of the spin squeezing parameter and the concurrence against time $`t`$. We make a conjecture that the spin squeezing and pairwise entanglement are equivalent for the states generated via the one-axis twisting Hamiltonian with an external transverse field for any number $`N2`$ or via the two-axis counter-twisting Hamiltonian for any even number of qubits.

## IV Conclusions

In conclusion, we have shown that spin squeezing implies pairwise entanglement for arbitrary symmetric multiqubit states. We have identified a large class of multiqubit states, i.e., the even and odd states, for which the quantitative relation of the spin squeezing parameter and the concurrence is given. We have proved that spin squeezing implies pairwise entanglement and vice versa for the states generated from $`|0_J`$ via the one-axis twisting Hamiltonian. For the states dynamically generated from $`|0_J`$ via the one-axis twisting Hamiltonian with a transverse field for any $`N2`$ and the two-axis counter-twisting Hamiltonian with any even $`N`$, numerical results suggest that spin squeezing implies pairwise entanglement and vice versa. As these three model Hamiltonians have been realized in many physical systems, the close relations between the spin squeezing and pairwise entanglement are meaningful and help to understand quantum correlations in these systems.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge the helpful discussions with A. R. Usha Devi, Dominic W. Berry, Günter Mahler, and Leigh T. Stephenson. This project has been supported by an Australian Research Council Large Grant.


text:
# I Invariant amplitudes in the direct channel contributing to 𝐵̄→ (charmed baryon) + (antibaryon) decays via the subprocess 𝑏→𝑐𝑢̄𝑑 or 𝑏→𝑐𝑢̄𝑠.

EFI-03-03-Rev

hep-ph/0302110

April 2003

FINAL-STATE PHASES IN $`B`$ BARYON-ANTIBARYON DECAYS 111Submitted to Phys. Rev. D.

Zumin Luo and Jonathan L. Rosner

Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics

University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637

ABSTRACT

> The recent observation of the decay $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ suggests that related decays may soon be visible at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. It is shown how these decays can shed light on strong final-state phases and amplitudes involving the spectator quark, both of which are normally expected to be small in $`B`$ decays.

PACS codes: 13.25.Hw, 11.30.Hv, 14.40.Nd, 13.75.Lb

I. INTRODUCTION

Phases in $`B`$ decays arising from final-state interactions are an important gateway to the observation of direct CP violation. The pattern of decays to $`D\pi `$, $`D^{}\pi `$, $`D\rho `$, and related states has been elaborated recently by the CLEO , BaBar , and Belle  Collaborations. Some amplitudes for decays involving the weak subprocess $`bc\overline{u}d`$ obey isospin triangle relations. In certain cases these triangles have non-zero area, indicating non-zero final-state phases between different contributing amplitudes . Some decays governed by the Cabibbo-suppressed subprocess $`bc\overline{u}s`$ also involve amplitude triangles with apparently non-zero area, though not yet at a statistically significant level . One would expect this behavior if flavor SU(3) is a good symmetry for $`B`$ decays.

The decays of $`B`$ mesons to charmed baryon – charmless antibaryon pairs also obey simple isospin relations and flavor-SU(3) regularities . Models for these decays  have been published which allow estimates of their rates. The recent observation of the decay $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ by the Belle Collaboration  with a branching ratio $`(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p})=(2.19_{0.49}^{+0.56}\pm 0.32\pm 0.57)\times 10^5`$ indicates that such processes are within experimental reach at existing $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. (Many early models  overestimated branching ratios to baryon-antibaryon final states but contain useful theoretical techniques.) The present paper indicates how these data may be useful in elaborating final-state phases among different amplitudes contributing to the decays. It also indicates how one can test for suppression of decay amplitudes involving the spectator quark.

We shall discuss the decomposition of $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ and related decays into invariant amplitudes of flavor SU(3) in Sec. II. The triangles formed by these amplitudes, and their significance for final-state interactions, are discussed in Sec. III. We conclude with some experimental prospects in Sec. IV. Conventions for the quark composition of baryons are given in the Appendix.

II. INVARIANT AMPLITUDES OF FLAVOR SU(3)

The weak Hamiltonian giving rise to the subprocess $`bc\overline{u}d`$ transforms as the $`I=1,I_3=1`$ member of an octet of flavor SU(3). The $`\overline{B}`$ mesons $`b\overline{q}`$ ($`\overline{q}=\overline{u},\overline{d},\overline{s}`$) form a $`3^{}`$. (Recall that $`(\overline{u},\overline{d})`$ is an isodoublet.) Thus the SU(3) representations of the initial state are those in the product

$$3^{}\times 8=3^{}+6+15^{}.$$
(1)
The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+=c[ud]`$ belongs to a flavor-SU(3) antitriplet ($`3^{}`$) along with the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+=c[su]`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0=c[sd]`$. The brackets indicate antisymmetry with respect to flavor. For decays to a final state of a $`3^{}`$ charmed baryon and an octet antibaryon, all three representations in Eq. (1) occur. Hence there must be three independent invariant amplitudes of flavor SU(3) characterizing such decays. Similarly, in the Cabibbo-suppressed decays governed by $`bc\overline{u}s`$, the weak Hamiltonian transforms as the strange charged isodoublet member of a flavor octet, so the invariant amplitudes are the same.

Charmed baryons belonging to a flavor-SU(3) sextet ($`6`$) also have been seen, consisting of an isotriplet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}=cuu,\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+=c(ud),\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0=cdd`$, an isodoublet $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{+}=c(us),\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{0}=c(ds)`$, and an isosinglet $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0=css`$. The parentheses indicate symmetry with respect to flavor. Similarly, one can consider not only octet but also (anti)decuplet antibaryons. In Table I we summarize the SU(3) representations that contribute to each class of decays.

An economical tensor notation was utilized by Savage and Wise to describe these processes . We illustrate with the $`3^{}+8`$ final state. We use subscripts to denote the components of a $`3^{}`$ representation of $`SU(3)_f`$ and use superscripts to denote the components of a $`3`$ representation. The $`\overline{B}`$ mesons, in a $`3^{}`$ representation as mentioned, can then be written as $`(B^{},\overline{B}^0,\overline{B}_s^0)B_i`$. The charmed baryons in a $`3^{}`$ representation can be expressed as $`(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0,\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)(\mathrm{\Xi }_c)_i`$. The octet of charmless baryons, on the other hand, can be represented by a two-index tensor:

$$N_j^i\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0/\sqrt{2}+\mathrm{\Lambda }/\sqrt{6}& \mathrm{\Sigma }^+& p\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}& \mathrm{\Sigma }^0/\sqrt{2}+\mathrm{\Lambda }/\sqrt{6}& n\\ \mathrm{\Xi }^{}& \mathrm{\Xi }^0& 2\mathrm{\Lambda }/\sqrt{6}\end{array}\right).$$
(2)
The weak Hamiltonian responsible for the Cabibbo-favored quark subprocess $`bcd\overline{u}`$ and the Cabibbo-suppressed $`bcs\overline{u}`$, belonging to an $`SU(3)_f`$ octet as mentioned above, can similarly be written as

$$H_j^i(d\overline{u})V_{ud}+(s\overline{u})V_{us}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ V_{ud}& 0& 0\\ V_{us}& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where $`V_{ud}`$ and $`V_{us}`$ are the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements:
$`V_{us}/V_{ud}\lambda 0.2256`$. The effective Hamiltonian for the decays $`B\mathrm{\Xi }_c\overline{N}`$ can be written in terms of invariant amplitudes $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ :

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\alpha \mathrm{\Xi }_c^iN_i^jH_j^kB_k+\beta \mathrm{\Xi }_c^iH_i^jN_j^kB_k+\gamma \mathrm{\Xi }_c^iB_iH_k^jN_j^k,$$
(4)
where we sum over repeated indices. Expanding the sum would give us the amplitudes for the relevant processes. (Remember to multiply each amplitude by $`(1)^{n_{\overline{u}}}`$, where $`n_{\overline{u}}`$ is the number of $`\overline{u}`$ quarks in the antibaryon.)

Two equivalent notations are helpful to visualize possible relations among invariant amplitudes. The second is particularly relevant when certain dynamical assumptions are made.

(1) The process $`3^{}\times 83^{}\times 8`$ in the crossed channel reads

$$3^{}\times 31+8_D+8_F8\times 8,$$
(5)
where $`D`$ and $`F`$ denote the two ways of coupling an octet to a pair of octets. The singlet $`S`$ and octet amplitudes $`D`$ and $`F`$ (suitably normalized) are related to $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\gamma `$ by

$$\alpha =D+F,\beta =DF,\gamma =S\frac{2}{3}D.$$
(6)
The $`S,D,F`$ notation is that (aside from normalization) used by Li and Wu . In Table II we summarize the SU(3) representations that contribute to each class of decays, including also sextet charmed baryons and antidecuplet antibaryons. We see, of course, that the number of invariant amplitudes is the same as in the direct channel.

(2) A topological expansion of amplitudes  yields three invariant amplitudes of which two are associated with the subprocess $`bcd\overline{u}`$ or $`bcs\overline{u}`$, with an additional light quark-antiquark pair produced from the vacuum \[Fig. 1(a)\], and one is associated with the exchange process $`b\overline{d}c\overline{u}`$ or $`b\overline{s}c\overline{u}`$, in which two such pairs are produced from the vacuum \[Fig. 1(b)\]. We call the first two amplitudes $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ and the third amplitude $`a_E`$ (to denote exchange). Explicit definitions of these amplitudes are given below. Consider the amplitudes for $`\overline{B}`$ to decay to 6 quarks ($`cq_w^{}q_v`$ and $`\overline{q}_s`$ $`\overline{q}_w`$ $`\overline{q}_v`$) via color-suppressed processes as shown in Fig. 1(a). With the $`c`$ quark staying at the top, there are 2 permutations for {$`q_w^{}q_v`$} and 6 permutations for {$`\overline{q}_s`$ $`\overline{q}_w`$ $`\overline{q}_v`$}. Thus there are 12 possible color-suppressed diagrams contributing to a specific amplitude. The amplitudes of the 12 diagrams are denoted by $`A_{ijk}^{lm}`$, where $`lm`$ is a permutation of {$`w^{}v`$} and $`ijk`$ is a permutation of {$`swv`$}. The color-suppressed amplitude for $`\overline{B}`$ to decay to a charmed baryon and an antibaryon is then a weighted sum of the 12 amplitudes, with the weights being the products of the coefficient of $`cq_lq_m`$ in the quark composition of the charmed baryon and that of $`\overline{q}_i\overline{q}_i\overline{q}_k`$ in the quark composition of the antibaryon. It turns out that each color-suppressed amplitude is a linear combination of $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$, with

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_{[sw]v}^{[w^{}v]}+A_{[sv]w}^{[w^{}v]})`$ (7)
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_{[ws]v}^{[w^{}v]}+A_{[wv]s}^{[w^{}v]}).`$ (8)
Here $`A_{[ij]k}^{[lm]}(A_{ijk}^{lm}A_{jik}^{lm})(A_{ijk}^{ml}A_{jik}^{ml})`$ and $`1/2`$ is merely a normalization factor. Similarly, $`E_{ijk}^{lm}`$ is used to denote the amplitude for $`\overline{B}`$ to decay to 6 quarks via an exchange process as shown in Fig. 1(b). Here $`lm`$ is a permutation of {$`v_1v_2`$} and $`ijk`$ is a permutation of {$`wv_1v_2`$}. Since the two quark-antiquark pairs ($`q_{v_1}\overline{q}_{v_1}`$ and $`q_{v_2}\overline{q}_{v_2}`$) are both produced from the vacuum, $`a_E`$ should not depend on the ordering of $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$. One finds that all exchange amplitudes for $`\overline{B}`$ to decay to a charmed baryon and an antibaryon are multiples of

$$a_E=\frac{1}{2}(E_{[v_1v_2]w}^{[v_1v_2]}+E_{[wv_2]v_1}^{[v_1v_2]}E_{[wv_1]v_2}^{[v_1v_2]}).$$
(9)
The topological decompositions of the amplitudes are presented in Table III. They are in agreement with those obtained from Eq. (4) if we set

$$a_1=\gamma ,a_2=\beta ,a_E=\alpha +\gamma .$$
(10)
In particular, if processes involving the spectator quark are suppressed, as has been argued for heavy-quark decays (see, e.g., the discussion in ), one expects $`|a_E||a_1|,|a_2|`$, and hence an approximate symmetry

$$\alpha =\gamma .$$
(11)
We shall explore the consequences of this relation in the next Section.

More generally, the topological amplitudes contributing to each type of process are summarized in Table IV. For decays to $`6+8`$, both $`q_w^{}q_v`$ and $`q_{v_1}q_{v_2}`$ are symmetrized and therefore

$`b_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_{[sw]v}^{(w^{}v)}+A_{[sv]w}^{(w^{}v)})`$ (12)
$`b_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_{[ws]v}^{(w^{}v)}+A_{[wv]s}^{(w^{}v)})`$ (13)
$`b_E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(E_{[wv_1]v_2}^{(v_1v_2)}+E_{[wv_2]v_1}^{(v_1v_2)}),`$ (14)
where $`A_{[ij]k}^{(lm)}(A_{ijk}^{lm}A_{jik}^{lm})+(A_{ijk}^{ml}A_{jik}^{ml})`$ and $`E_{[ij]k}^{(lm)}`$ is defined in a similar way. Note that if $`q_{v_1}`$ and $`q_{v_2}`$ are identical, only one term in Eq. (14) contributes. For decays to $`3^{}+10^{}`$, there is no exchange diagram since $`q_{v_1}`$ and $`q_{v_2}`$ are antisymmetrized in a $`3^{}`$ charmed baryon but $`\overline{q}_{v_1}`$ and $`\overline{q}_{v_2}`$ are symmetrized in a $`10^{}`$ antibaryon; and

$$c=A_{(swv)}^{[w^{}v]}/\sqrt{2}\underset{\sigma }{}(A_{\sigma \{swv\}}^{w^{}v}A_{\sigma \{swv\}}^{vw^{}})/\sqrt{2},$$
(15)
where the sum runs over all permutations $`\sigma `$ of {$`swv`$}. For decays to $`6+10^{}`$,

$$d=A_{(swv)}^{(w^{}v)}\underset{\sigma }{}(A_{\sigma \{swv\}}^{w^{}v}+A_{\sigma \{swv\}}^{vw^{}}),$$
(16)
and $`d_E=E_{(wv_1v_2)}^{(v_1v_2)}`$ is defined in a similar fashion. In Tables VVII we summarize the corresponding amplitudes for decays to $`6+8`$, $`3^{}+10^{}`$, and $`6+10^{}`$, respectively. These are equivalent to the decompositions presented in Ref. , but we find the present notation convenient for seeing what happens when we assume that the exchange amplitudes are small. We do not show the amplitudes for Cabibbo-suppressed decays (which can be looked up in ), since these decays generally involve $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ or $`\overline{B}_s^0`$, none of which is easy to observe or produce in experiments. Furthermore, the branching ratios for these decays are expected to be only a few percent of those for the Cabibbo-favored ones.

III. TRIANGLE RELATIONS

In all the processes we consider, the charmed baryon has spin 1/2. Since the decaying particle has spin 0, and parity is not conserved in the decay, there are two independent amplitudes, labeled by the helicity of the charmed baryon. The following triangle relations are valid for each. The parity-conserving (PC) and parity-violating (PV) amplitudes are linear combinations of the two helicity amplitudes. In some models (see, e.g., ), one of the amplitudes (e.g., PV) may be absent or suppressed with respect to the other. In the absence of final-state phases, one can show that the triangle formed by the square roots of three decay rates has zero area if and only if the PC and PV amplitudes for the three decay processes form similar triangles. Indeed, zero final-state phases and similar PC and PV triangles are two necessary and sufficient conditions for the triangle formed by the square roots of three decay rates to have zero area. The proof is given below.

Suppose that $`s_i^2=|c_i|^2+|v_i|^2`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) are the decay rates for three processes, with $`c_i`$ and $`v_i`$ being the PC and PV amplitudes, respectively. Assuming that these amplitudes satisfy triangle relations $`c_1+c_2=c_3`$ and $`v_1+v_2=v_3`$, we have

$`s_3^2`$ $`=`$ $`s_1^2+s_2^2+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(c_1c_2^{}+v_1v_2^{})`$
$``$ $`s_1^2+s_2^2+2(|c_1||c_2|+|v_1||v_2|)`$
$``$ $`s_1^2+s_2^2+2\sqrt{|c_1|^2+|v_1|^2}\sqrt{|c_2|^2+|v_2|^2}`$
$`=`$ $`(s_1+s_2)^2,`$
where the second inequality is due to the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Obviously, the equality $`s_3=s_1+s_2`$ holds if and only if there are no relative phases both between $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ and between $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$, and the relation $`|c_1|/|c_2|=|v_1|/|v_2|`$ is satisfied. One then has $`|c_1|/|v_1|=|c_2|/|v_2|=|c_3|/|v_3|`$.

In what follows we shall assume that, by studying decay distributions, one has been able to separate out the individual rates for parity-conserving and parity-violating transitions, or the individual rates for charmed baryon helicities $`\pm 1/2`$. In the case of amplitude equalities (rather than triangle relations), total rates as well as individual ones will of course be equal.

A. $`3^{}+8`$ final states.

The Cabibbo-favored amplitudes of Table III are denoted by arrows in Fig. 2. For each helicity or partial wave, three independent complex amplitudes will be specified completely, up to an irrelevant overall phase, by five lengths of these vectors, leaving two predictions for rates. There will be a discrete ambiguity corresponding to the folding of two adjacent triangles about their common side. (We do not show the corresponding figure for Cabibbo-suppressed decays.) We now discuss some individual triangle relations associated with this construction. These triangles, if shown to have non-zero area, will indicate non-zero relative final-state phases between their contributing amplitudes.

As a consequence of the isospin of the weak Hamiltonian for $`bc\overline{u}d`$, two invariant isospin amplitudes, with $`I=1/2`$ and $`I=3/2`$, govern $`\overline{B}\mathrm{\Xi }_c\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. The three decay processes then obey a triangle relation:

$$𝒜(B^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{})=\sqrt{2}𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0)+𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}).$$
(17)
This relation is somewhat challenging in view of the need to reconstruct the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ through its $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\gamma `$ decay. However, it involves only non-strange $`B`$ mesons, which are the focus of current studies at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders.

Three triangle relations involve the observed $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ decay:

$$\sqrt{2}𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p})+𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0)=\sqrt{3}𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}),$$
(18)
$$𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p})+𝒜(\overline{B}_s^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^0)=\sqrt{6}𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}),$$
(19)
$$𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p})+𝒜(\overline{B}_s^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{})=𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}).$$
(20)
The first one is particularly useful since it involves only $`\overline{B}^0`$ decays. The last two relations involve the detection of a $`\overline{B}_s^0`$ decay, requiring either a dedicated run at KEKB or PEP-II (currently running below $`B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0`$ threshold) or an experiment at a hadron collider.

In the Cabibbo-suppressed sector two isospin relations stem from the $`I=1/2`$, $`I_3=1/2`$ nature of the weak Hamiltonian:

$$𝒜(B^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0\overline{p})=𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0\overline{n})+𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+\overline{p}),$$
(21)
$$𝒜(\overline{B}_s^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{})=\sqrt{2}𝒜(\overline{B}_s^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0).$$
(22)
The first of these involves only non-strange $`B`$’s and no $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$’s. Two additional triangle relations may be written, both involving $`\overline{B}_s^0`$ decays. Since these involve Cabibbo-suppressed decays of the less easily produced $`\overline{B}_s^0`$, the corresponding triangles may not be so easy to construct.

B. $`6+8`$ final states.

The isospin triangles in these processes are

$$𝒜(B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p})=\sqrt{2}𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+\overline{p})+𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{n}),$$
(23)
which involves an antineutron, and

$$𝒜(B^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{0}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{})=\sqrt{2}𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{0}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0)+𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{+}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}),$$
(24)
which involves the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{}`$ states. These were not observed until quite recently  since they decay to $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c\gamma `$. A simple isospin relation

$$𝒜(\overline{B}_s^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{})=𝒜(\overline{B}_s^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0)$$
(25)
involves $`\overline{B}_s^0`$ decays. Several amplitude triangles not involving isospin can be formed from the relations for $`6+8`$ decays, but they involve particles which are not especially easy to produce ($`\overline{B}_s^0`$) or detect ($`\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{}`$).

There are several ways to check whether the exchange amplitude $`b_E`$ is much smaller than $`b_1`$ or $`b_2`$. For example, the decay $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{+}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ occurs only via the exchange amplitude, so it would be suppressed in comparison with the other decays to $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. Similarly, the decay $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^0`$ would be suppressed. If, indeed, $`b_E`$ is found to be suppressed, a useful amplitude triangle based on the two independent amplitudes $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ could be formed:

$$2\sqrt{3}𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{0}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})+𝒜(B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p})=2\sqrt{2}𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+\overline{p}).$$
(26)
Other such triangles can also be formed, but they generally involve $`\overline{B}_s^0`$ decays.

C. $`3^{}+10^{}`$ final states.

Here a single amplitude describes all decays. The relation

$$𝒜(B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{})=\sqrt{3}𝒜(B^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{})$$
(27)
is a consequence of the pure isospin $`(I=3/2)`$ of the final state. The decays $`\overline{B}\mathrm{\Xi }_c\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ involve both $`I=1/2`$ and $`I=3/2`$, but these amplitudes are related to one another since $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ is forbidden. This process could only have proceeded via an exchange amplitude, but the final charmed baryon is antisymmetric in its light quarks, which cannot couple to the symmetrized quarks in the final antidecuplet antibaryon. Thus the isospin relation

$$𝒜(B^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{})=\sqrt{2}𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0)+𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{})$$
(28)
is implemented as

$$𝒜(B^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{})=\sqrt{2}𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0).$$
(29)
There are no triangle relations, and no tests for a vanishing exchange amplitude since it never contributes in the first place.

D. $`6+10^{}`$ final states.

There are a number of isospin triangles involving the charge states of $`\overline{B}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. One example for which detection of final states may be particularly favorable is

$$𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{})+\sqrt{3}𝒜(B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{})=\sqrt{3}𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^0).$$
(30)
Another useful relation involves the two charge states of $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$:

$$\sqrt{2}𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{})+\sqrt{3}𝒜(B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{})=0.$$
(31)
In order that the isospin triangles have non-zero area, both $`d`$ and $`d_E`$ must be nonvanishing and have a nontrivial relative phase. A good test for $`d_E=0`$ is to check whether the decay $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ is suppressed in comparison with other $`\overline{B}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ decays. When $`d_E=0`$, all the rates for processes in Table VII are either zero or related to one another by simple factors.

Another isospin triangle involving the charge states of $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_c\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ is

$$𝒜(B^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{0}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{})=\sqrt{2}𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{0}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0)+𝒜(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{+}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}).$$
(32)
However, experimentally it is not easy to construct.

IV. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

The recent observation of a two-body baryon-antibaryon $`B`$ decay  is likely to be the first in a series of such decays. We have shown that these processes are capable of providing information on two main questions which have been of interest in $`B`$ meson decays for some years: (1) Are there significant final-state interaction phases between different decay amplitudes characterized by the same weak phases? (2) Are processes involving the spectator quark (such as the exchange amplitudes described here by the suffix $`E`$) suppressed in comparison with other amplitudes in which the spectator does not enter into the weak Hamiltonian? We have described a number of tests of both these questions which may be feasible in the near future. In particular, if amplitude triangles formed of total rates for three processes appear to have zero area, we have shown that relative final-state phases must vanish and that parity-conserving and parity-violating transition amplitudes must be in the same proportion in all three processes. Tests for the smallness of exchange amplitudes can be performed by several comparisons of rates in Tables III, V, and VII. Other tests may require separation of helicity amplitudes before being fully implemented.

Given the value of the observed branching ratio for $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ , which was based on an integrated luminosity of 78.2 fb-1, several times the present data sample may be needed to see some of the related decay modes, but the triangle construction in Fig. 2 suggests that at least some other decay modes to a charmed baryon and an octet antibaryon may be observable with comparable branching ratios. Combined with the predictions of Ref.  and the assumption of suppression of the exchange amplitudes, Table V indicates that a few other processes (such as $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+\overline{p}`$, $`B^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{0}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$, $`\overline{B}_s^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ and $`\overline{B}_s^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$) may have branching ratios of about the same order as the already observed decay $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$. Another decay in Table VI, $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$, should also be observable if its branching ratio is of order $`10^5`$ as predicted by the pole model of Ref. .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy, High Energy Physics Division, under Contract No. DE-FG02-90ER-40560.

APPENDIX: QUARK COMPOSITION OF BARYONS

In our convention ($`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$), ($`\overline{p}`$, $`\overline{n}`$), ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+`$), ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^0`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$), ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^0`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+`$), ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+`$) and ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^0`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$) are in iso-multiplets. We recall that $`I_{}u=d`$, $`I_{}\overline{d}=\overline{u}`$. Our convention for the $`\overline{B}`$ mesons is: $`B^{}=b\overline{u}`$, $`\overline{B}^0=b\overline{d}`$, $`\overline{B}_s^0=b\overline{s}`$.

I) Antitriplet charmed baryons:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ $`=`$ $`(cudcdu)/\sqrt{2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ $`=`$ $`(csucus)/\sqrt{2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0`$ $`=`$ $`(csdcds)/\sqrt{2}`$
II) Sextet charmed baryons:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}`$ $`=`$ $`cuu`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+`$ $`=`$ $`(cud+cdu)/\sqrt{2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$ $`=`$ $`cdd`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{+}`$ $`=`$ $`(cus+csu)/\sqrt{2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{0}`$ $`=`$ $`(cds+csd)/\sqrt{2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0`$ $`=`$ $`css`$
III) Octet antibaryons:

$`\overline{p}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{u}\overline{d}\overline{u}\overline{d}\overline{u}\overline{u})/\sqrt{2}`$
$`\overline{n}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{d}\overline{u}\overline{d}\overline{u}\overline{d}\overline{d})/\sqrt{2}`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}\overline{u}\overline{u}\overline{u}\overline{s}\overline{u})/\sqrt{2}`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{u}\overline{s}\overline{d}\overline{s}\overline{u}\overline{d}+\overline{d}\overline{s}\overline{u}\overline{s}\overline{d}\overline{u})/2`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}\overline{d}\overline{d}\overline{d}\overline{s}\overline{d})/\sqrt{2}`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^0`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{u}\overline{s}\overline{s}\overline{s}\overline{u}\overline{s})/\sqrt{2}`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}\overline{d}\overline{s}\overline{d}\overline{s}\overline{s})/\sqrt{2}`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\overline{u}\overline{d}\overline{s}2\overline{d}\overline{u}\overline{s}\overline{d}\overline{s}\overline{u}+\overline{s}\overline{d}\overline{u}\overline{s}\overline{u}\overline{d}+\overline{u}\overline{s}\overline{d})/\sqrt{12}`$
IV) Antidecuplet antibaryons:

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}\overline{u}\overline{u}`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{u}\overline{u}\overline{d}+\overline{u}\overline{d}\overline{u}+\overline{d}\overline{u}\overline{u})/\sqrt{3}`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^0`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{u}\overline{d}\overline{d}+\overline{d}\overline{u}\overline{d}+\overline{d}\overline{d}\overline{u})/\sqrt{3}`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{d}\overline{d}\overline{d}`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{u}\overline{u}\overline{s}+\overline{u}\overline{s}\overline{u}+\overline{s}\overline{u}\overline{u})/\sqrt{3}`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{u}\overline{d}\overline{s}+\overline{u}\overline{s}\overline{d}+\overline{d}\overline{u}\overline{s}+\overline{d}\overline{s}\overline{u}+\overline{s}\overline{u}\overline{d}+\overline{s}\overline{d}\overline{u})/\sqrt{6}`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{d}\overline{d}\overline{s}+\overline{d}\overline{s}\overline{d}+\overline{s}\overline{d}\overline{d})/\sqrt{3}`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^0`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{u}\overline{s}\overline{s}+\overline{s}\overline{u}\overline{s}+\overline{s}\overline{s}\overline{u})/\sqrt{3}`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{d}\overline{s}\overline{s}+\overline{s}\overline{d}\overline{s}+\overline{s}\overline{s}\overline{d})/\sqrt{3}`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{s}\overline{s}\overline{s}`$