the lowest singlet and triplet states of a two electron system are split by the exchange energy .
this is a direct consequence of the pauli exclusion principle and the coulomb interaction . as a result
, a spin structure may appear even without explicit spin dependent interactions.@xcite    in quantum dot spin qubits@xcite the exchange interaction implements a fundamental two qubit gate.@xcite compared to single qubit gates,@xcite the exchange - based gates are much faster@xcite and easier to control locally , motivating the solely exchange - based quantum computation.@xcite the control is based on the exponential sensitivity of the exchange energy on the inter - particle distance .
manipulation then can proceed , for example , by shifting the single particle states electrically @xcite or compressing them magnetically .
@xcite    the practical manipulation schemes require quantitative knowledge of the exchange energy .
the configuration interaction,@xcite a numerically exact treatment , serves as the benchmark for usually adopted approximations .
the simplest one is the heitler - london ansatz , in which one particle in the orbital ground state per dot is considered .
the exchange asymptotic in this model differs from the exact@xcite and the method fails completely in finite magnetic fields .
extensions of the single particle basis include the hund - mullikan , @xcite molecular orbital,@xcite or variational method.@xcite other approaches , such as the hartree - fock,@xcite random phase approximation@xcite and ( spin-)density functional theory@xcite were also examined . none of them , however , is reliable in all important regimes,@xcite which include weak / strong interdot couplings , zero / finite magnetic field and symmetric / biased dot .    the spin - orbit interaction , a non - magnetic spintronics workhorse,@xcite is a generic feature in semiconductor quantum dots.@xcite
although it is usually weak , it may turn out of major importance as , for example , for the spin relaxation , @xcite , or , more positively , a handle for the electrical spin manipulation.@xcite it is natural to expect that the presence of the spin - orbit interaction will influence the exchange hamiltonian.@xcite the resulting corrections to the rotationally symmetric exchange hamiltonian are referred to as the anisotropic exchange ( we do not consider other sources than the spin - orbit interaction@xcite ) .
stringent requirements of the quantum computation algorithms motivate studies of the consequences of the anisotropic exchange of a general form on quantum gates .
@xcite usually , the anisotropic exchange is viewed as a nuisance to be minimized.@xcite on the other hand , it was considered as a possible way of implementing the quantum gates .
@xcite in both views , it is of utter importance to know the strength and the form of the anisotropic exchange .
since the spin - orbit interaction is weak , it is enough to answer the following question : what is the anisotropic exchange in the leading order ?
surprisingly , arriving at the answer was not straightforward at all .
the dzyaloshinskii - moriya@xcite interaction is of the first order in spin - orbit coupling .
however , since it couples only states split by the isotropic exchange , it is necessary to consider also the second order anisotropic exchange terms to arrive at correct energies .
@xcite ref . suggested such a hamiltonian , which was unitarily equivalent to the isotropic exchange hamiltonian , with the exchange energy renormalized in the second order .
this was later revisited,@xcite with the following conclusion : in zero magnetic field , the two qubit hamiltonian is , up to the second order in the linear - in - momenta spin - orbit interaction , unitarily equivalent to the isotropic exchange hamiltonian in the weak coupling limit , with the unchanged exchange energy .
further corrections appear in the third order . in the unitary operator providing the change of the basis , the spin - orbit interaction appears in the linear order .
these results are a consequence of the special form of the spin - orbit interaction , which in the leading order leads to a spatially dependent spin rotation.@xcite    in the short version of this article,@xcite we derived the leading order anisotropic exchange terms which appear in a finite magnetic field .
we derived all anisotropic exchange parameters in a form valid for arbitrary interdot coupling .
we also compared the results obtained using the first order versus the second order treatment of the spin - orbit interactions .
the main goal of the present work is a detailed assessment of the quantitative reliability of the presented anisotropic exchange model comparing with exact numerical results .
specifically , we examine the model in the strong and weak coupling regimes [ corresponding to single ( sec .
[ singledot ] ) and double ( sec .
[ doubledot ] ) dots , respectively ] and in zero and finite perpendicular magnetic field .
we also study the role of the cubic dresselhaus term ( sec .
[ cubicdresselhaus ] ) , whose action does not correspond to a spatial texture ( in the leading order ) and could potentially become dominant over the linear terms , changing the picture considerably .
in addition to that , we supply the derivations , not presented in the short version ( sec .  [ derivation ] ) and a detailed account of our numerical method ( app .
[ appendix ] ) .    the analytical pitfalls in evaluating the isotropic exchange are well known .
@xcite on top of that , the anisotropic exchange is a ( very ) small correction to the exponentially sensitive isotropic exchange , and therefore it is involved to extract even numerically .
our main conclusion here is that the presented analytical model is valid in all studied regimes .
quantitatively , the effective parameters are usually within a factor of 2 from their counterparts derived from the numerically exact spectra .
the main source of the discrepancy is the cubic dresselhaus term .
surprisingly , in the most important regime for quantum dot spin qubits , namely the weak coupling , the heitler - london approximation works great for the anisotropic exchange , even though it fails badly for the isotropic one .
this finding justifies using simple analytical formulas for the anisotropic exchange parameters .
our system is a two - dimensional electron gas confined in a [ 001 ] plane of a zinc - blende semiconductor heterostructure .
an additional lateral potential with parabolic shape defines the double quantum dot .
we work in the single band effective mass approximation .
the two - electron hamiltonian is a sum of the orbital part and the spin dependent part , @xmath0 where the subscript @xmath1 labels the two electrons .
the orbital hamiltonian is @xmath2 here , @xmath3 is the kinetic energy with the effective mass @xmath4 and the kinetic momentum @xmath5 ; @xmath6 is the proton charge and @xmath7 is the vector potential of the magnetic field @xmath8 .
the potential @xmath9 describes the quantum dot geometry @xmath10 here @xmath11 is the confinement length , @xmath12 measures the distance between the two potential minima , the vector @xmath13 defines the main dot axis with respect to the crystallographic axes and @xmath14 is the confinement energy .
the coulomb interaction between the two electrons is @xmath15 where @xmath16 is the vacuum dielectric constant and @xmath17 is the dielectric constant of the material .
the lack of the spatial inversion symmetry is accompanied by the spin - orbit interaction of a general form @xmath18 where the vector @xmath19 is kinetic momentum dependent . in the semiconductor heterostructure
, there are two types of spin - orbit interactions .
the dresselhaus spin - orbit interaction , due to the bulk inversion asymmetry of the zinc - blende structure , consists of two terms , one linear and one cubic in momentum@xcite @xmath20 here h.c .
denotes the hermitian conjugate .
the interaction strength @xmath21 is a material parameter , the angular brackets in @xmath22 denote the quantum averaging in the @xmath23 direction . since both electrons are in the ground state of the perpendicular confinement , we have @xmath24 , the value depending on the confinement details . a confinement asymmetry along the growth direction ( here @xmath23 )
gives rise to the bychkov - rashba term@xcite @xmath25 the coupling @xmath26 of the interaction is structure dependent and can be , to some extent , experimentally modulated by the top gates potential .
equations  ( [ dresselhaus]-[rashba ] ) are valid for a coordinate system where the x and y axes are chosen along [ 100 ] and [ 010 ] directions , respectively . below we use the effective spin - orbit lengths defined as @xmath27 and @xmath28 .
the spin is coupled to the magnetic field through the zeeman interaction @xmath29 where @xmath30 is the effective gyromagnetic factor , @xmath31 is the bohr magneton ( alternatively , we use a renormalized magnetic moment @xmath32 ) and @xmath33 is the vector of the pauli matrices .    in lateral quantum dots
the coulomb energy @xmath34 is comparable to the confinement energy and the correlation between the electrons strongly influence the states.@xcite one can compare the energies considering @xmath35 where the coulomb length @xmath36 is a material parameter and @xmath37 is the mean distance between the electrons . in gaas
@xmath38 nm , while a typical lateral dot has @xmath39 nm , corresponding to @xmath40 mev .
the mean length @xmath37 is of the order of the confinement length , if the two electrons are on the same dot , and of the interdot distance , if the electrons are on different dots . in the first case , the coulomb energy is typically @xmath41 mev . in the second case ( one electron per dot )
the coulomb interaction is typically at least @xmath42 mev .
the strength of the coulomb interaction precludes the use of perturbative methods . therefore , to diagonalize the two electron hamiltonian eq .
( [ ham_tot ] ) , we use the exact numerical treatment , the configuration interaction method .
details are given in app .
[ appendix ] .
below we consistently use the notation of @xmath43 for spinor and @xmath44 for orbital wavefunctions .
they fulfill the equations @xmath45 and @xmath46 , respectively .
we use the gaas realistic parameters : @xmath47 ( @xmath48 is the free electron mass ) , @xmath49 , @xmath50 and @xmath51 .
the coupling of the linear dresselhaus term is @xmath52 and of the bychkov - rashba term is @xmath53 , corresponding to the effective spin - orbit lengths @xmath54 m and @xmath55 m , according to the recent experiments.@xcite we use the confinement energy @xmath56 , which corresponds to the confining length @xmath57 , in line with an experiment.@xcite      analytically , we will analyze the role of the spin - orbit interactions in the two - electron spectrum using the perturbation theory .
this approach is appropriate since the spin - orbit energy corrections are small compared to the typical confinement energy . for a gaas quantum dot the ratio between the confinement length and the spin - orbit length @xmath58 .
furthermore , for a magnetic field of @xmath42 tesla , the ratio between the zeeman energy and the confinement energy is @xmath59 .
therefore the spin - orbit interactions are small perturbations , comparable in strength to the zeeman term at @xmath60 tesla .    we consider the perturbative solution of the hamiltonian eq .
( [ ham_tot ] ) .
we transform the hamiltonian to gauge out the linear spin - orbit terms , @xcite ( we neglect the cubic dresselhaus term in the analytical models ) @xmath61 using the operator @xmath62 where @xmath63 keeping only terms up to the second order in the spin - orbit and zeeman couplings , we get the following effective spin - orbit interactions @xmath64 , where @xmath65 here , @xmath66 , and @xmath67 equation  ( [ eq : hzprime ] ) describes the mixing between the zeeman and spin - orbit interactions , which is linear in the spin - orbit couplings .
it disappears in zero magnetic field , where only the terms in eq .
( [ eq : hsoprime ] ) survive  a sum of an overall constant shift of @xmath68 and the spin - angular momentum operators
. both of these are quadratic in the spin - orbit couplings .
the point of the transformation , which changes the form of the spin - orbit interactions , is that the transformed interactions are much weaker ( being the second , instead of the first order in the spin - orbit / zeeman couplings ) . of course
, both hamiltonians are equivalent , giving the same exact energies .
however , a perturbative expansion of the transformed hamiltonian converges much faster .
the symmetry of the two - electron wavefunctions @xmath44 has important consequences , for example , in the form of selection rules for the couplings between the states due to the spin - orbit interactions . the choice of the potential in eq .
( [ confinement ] ) is motivated by the fact that for small ( @xmath69 ) and large ( @xmath70 ) interdot distance the eigenstates of the single particle hamiltonian converge to the single dot solutions centered at @xmath71 and @xmath72 , respectively .
for zero magnetic field , since the double dot potential does not have the rotational symmetry around the @xmath73 axis , the inversions of the coordinate along axes of the confinement potential ( @xmath74 and @xmath75 ) are the symmetries involved . indeed , the orbital hamiltonian eq .
( [ ham_orb ] ) commutes with the inversion operator @xmath76 and @xmath77 , @xmath78=0 $ ] .
furthermore @xmath79=0 $ ] , where @xmath80 is the inversion of both axes simultaneously .
all these operations belong to the @xmath81 group .
accordingly , the wavefunctions transform as the functions 1 , x , xy , and y , which represent this group .
if a perpendicular magnetic field is applied , only the total inversion operation , @xmath80 , commutes with the hamiltonian and the wavefunction is symmetric or antisymmetric with respect to the total inversion  this is due to the lack of @xmath76 and @xmath77 symmetry of the kinetic energy operator .
the slater determinants ( the two - electron basis that we use in the diagonalization procedure  see app .
[ appendix ] ) have also definite symmetries , if they are built from single particle states of definite symmetry ( see app .  [ sdsymmetries ] ) .
we define the functions @xmath82 to be the lowest eigenstates of the orbital part of the hamiltonian , @xmath83 with the following symmetry , @xmath84 where @xmath85 is the particle exchange operator .
we observe that @xmath82 have , in addition to the particle exchange symmetry , also a definite spatial symmetry .
in further we assume they fulfill @xmath86 we point out that while eq .
( [ eq : part_ex ] ) is a definition , eq .
( [ eq : symmetry1 ] ) is an assumption based on an observation . in zero magnetic field @xmath87
follows from the mattis - lieb theorem.@xcite for the validity of eq .
( [ eq : symmetry1 ] ) we resort to numerics
we saw it to hold in all cases we studied .
figure  [ fig:2dot_spectrum ] shows the calculated double dot spectrum at zero magnetic field without the spin - orbit interactions .
the two lowest states @xmath82 are split by the exchange energy @xmath88 . in the single dot case ( @xmath71 ) , the ground state is non degenerate ,
while the first exited state is doubly degenerate . increasing the interdot distance ,
this degeneracy is removed , as the two states have different spatial symmetry ( x and y ) .
the energy of the states @xmath82 is separated from the higher states by an energy gap @xmath89 .
this gap allows us to consider only the two lowest orbital states when studying the spin - orbit influence on the lowest part of the two - electron spectrum .
indeed , in the double dot @xmath89 is of the order of @xmath42 mev , while the spin - orbit interactions are two orders of magnitude smaller . in the case of @xmath90
, the two orbital states approximation can be improved including more states ( although we show below this is not in fact necessary for a qubit pair in a circular dot ) .    without the spin - orbit interactions , the eigenstates of the hamiltonian eq .
( [ ham_tot ] ) are separable in the spin and orbital degrees of freedom .
we get the four lowest states by supplementing @xmath82 with spinors , forming the singlet and triplets : @xmath91 here @xmath92 is a singlet spinor built out of two spin-1/2 spinors , @xmath93 , @xmath94 , @xmath95 are the three possible triplets ; the quantization axis is chosen along the magnetic field .
the symmetry leads to selection rules for the matrix elements between two electron states . in zero perpendicular magnetic field , because the @xmath96 operator transforms as xy , the singlet and triplets are not coupled , up to the second order in the spin - orbit interactions , @xmath97 .
the only contribution is due to the constant @xmath98 . for non zero perpendicular magnetic field , the singlet and a triplet
are coupled only if their orbital parts have the opposite spatial symmetry , due to the term in eq .
( [ eq : hzprime ] ) .
the non - vanishing matrix elements are listed in table  [ table 1 ] .    .
conditions on the orbital symmetries for the matrix elements @xmath99 to be non - zero .
the orbital symmetries are defined by @xmath100 . [ cols="^,^,^",options="header " , ]      here we derive effective four level hamiltonians , which provide understanding for the numerical results .
we follow two different approaches : ( i ) restriction of the total hamiltonian , eq .  , to the basis in eq .
( [ eq : basis4 ] ) ; ( ii ) including higher excited states through a sum rule using the schrieffer - wolff transformation with the unitary operator , eq .  .
then we compare the two models , including their simplifications using the heitler - london approximation , to demonstrate the quality of their description of the two - qubit subspace .
we restrict the hilbert space of the double dot to the four lowest functions eq .
( [ eq : basis4 ] ) to describe the qubit pair .
we start with the case of zero spin - orbit interactions . in the external magnetic field ,
the two triplets @xmath101 and @xmath102 are split by twice the zeeman energy @xmath103 .
the restriction of the hamiltonian eq .
( [ ham_tot ] ) to the basis eq .
( [ eq : basis4 ] ) produces a diagonal matrix @xmath104 the standard notation is to refer only to the spinor part of the basis states .
the matrix eq .
( [ eq:4x4 ] ) can be rewritten in a more compact way using the basis of the sixteen sigma matrices , @xmath105 ( index 0 denotes a unit matrix ; for explicit expressions see app .
[ spinmatrices ] ) .
the result is the so - called isotropic exchange hamiltonian ( where the constant @xmath106 was subtracted ) @xmath107 where the singlet and triplets are separated by the isotropic exchange energy @xmath108 , the only parameter of the model .
the hamiltonian eq .
( [ eq : isotropic exchange ] ) describes the coupling of the spins in the heisenberg form . with this form
, the swap gate can be performed as the time evolution of the system , assuming the exchange coupling @xmath88 is controllable .
the isotropic exchange has already been studied analytically , in the heitler - london , hund - mulliken , hubbard , variational and other approximations , as well as numerically using the finite - difference method .
usually analytical methods provide a result valid within certain regime of the external parameters only and a numerical calculation is needed to assess the quality of various analytical models .
when the spin - orbit interactions are included , additional terms in the effective hamiltonian appear , as the matrix elements due to the spin - orbit interactions @xmath109 .
selection rules in tab .  [ table 1 ]
restrict the non - zero matrix elements to those between a singlet and a triplet , @xmath110 here @xmath111 and @xmath112 where vector @xmath19 is defined by the spin - orbit interactions eq .
( [ spinorbit ] ) . using the sigma matrix notation , eq .
( [ 4x4 ] ) can be written as ( see app .  [ spinmatrices ] ) @xmath113 where the @xmath114 and @xmath115 are the spin - orbit vectors defined as    [ eq : spin orbit vectors ] @xmath116    the standard exchange hamiltonian follows as @xmath117 and we refer to it in further as the first order ( effective model ) to point the order in which the spin - orbit interactions appear in the matrix elements .
note that we repeated the derivation of ref . additionally including the external magnetic field . as we will see below ,
comparison with numerics shows that treating the spin - orbit interactions to the linear order only is insufficient .
to remedy , we generalize the procedure of ref .   to finite magnetic fields .
this amounts to repeating the derivation that lead to eq .
[ eq:4x4 ] , this time starting with the unitarily transformed hamiltonian eq .
( [ eq : unit_transf ] ) . in this way
, the linear spin - orbit terms are gauged out and the resulting effective hamiltonian treats the spin - orbit interactions in the second order in small quantities ( the spin - orbit and the zeeman couplings ) .
the transformation asserts that the original schrdinger equation @xmath45 can be equivalently solved in terms of the transformed quantities @xmath118 , with the hamiltonian @xmath119 .
the transformed hamiltonian @xmath120 is the same as the original , eq .  , except for the linear spin - orbit interactions , appearing in an effective form @xmath121 .
we again restrict the basis to the lowest four states and for the spin - orbit contributions we get @xmath122 using the selection rules and the algebra of the pauli matrices , we get the exchange hamiltonian ( for obvious reasons , we refer to it as the second order model ) @xmath123 compared to the first order model eq .
, the functional form of the second order model hamiltonian is the same , except for the effective spin - orbit magnetic field @xmath124 which appears due to an inversion symmetric part of @xmath121 , eq .  ( [ eq : hsoprime ] ) .
the spin - orbit vectors , however , are qualitatively different    [ eq : spin orbit vectors 2 ] @xmath125    we remind that the second order effective model hamiltonian eq .
( [ eq : final result ] ) refers to the four functions in eq .
( [ eq : basis4 ] ) unitarily transformed @xmath126 .
the agreement between the second order effective model and the numerical data is very good , as we will see below .      in this section
we give @xmath127 explicitly for zero @xmath128 and diagonalize it .
this is the only case for which is possible to give an analytical solution . for zero magnetic field
, one can choose the functions @xmath82 to be real .
then the matrix elements of the spin - orbit operator @xmath129 in eq .
( [ spinorbit ] ) are purely imaginary and @xmath130 . with the spin quantization axis chosen along the vector @xmath131 , the 4x4 matrix , eq .
, takes the form of @xmath132 the upper left @xmath133 block of this matrix is a hamiltonian of a spin @xmath134 particle in a fictitious magnetic field @xmath135 .
the eigenstates of this hamiltonian are spins oriented along the magnetic field @xmath136 . since the matrix in eq .
( [ kavokin ] ) is block diagonal , it is easy to see it can be diagonalized with the help of the following matrix @xmath137 the hamiltonian eq
.   can be diagonalized by @xmath138 , @xmath139 where @xmath140 . in the notation of the pauli matrices ,
( see app .
[ spinmatrices ] ) , @xmath141 where @xmath142 and @xmath143 .    the unitary transformation @xmath144 in eq
.   performs the rotation of the two spins in the opposite sense .
the hamiltonian can be interpreted as a rotation of the electron around a spin - orbit field when transferred from one dot to the other.@xcite the spectrum given by eq .
( [ diagonal ] ) qualitatively differs from the numerics , which shows there is no influence on the exchange in the second order of the spin - orbit couplings .
we start with the single dot case , corresponding in our model to @xmath71 .
the analytical solution of the single particle hamiltonian @xmath145 is known as the fock - darwin spectrum .
the corresponding wave functions @xmath146 and the energies @xmath147 are @xmath148 where @xmath149 and @xmath150^{-1/4}$ ] is the magnetic length ; @xmath151 and @xmath152 are the radial and the angular quantum numbers , @xmath153 is the normalization constant and @xmath154 are the associated laguerre polynomials .
let us consider now the orbital two electron states @xmath44 , eigenstates of @xmath155 , eq .  ( [ ham_orb ] ) .
the coulomb operator @xmath156 commutes with the rotation of both electrons around the @xmath73 axis , that is , the coulomb interaction couples only states with the same total angular momentum .
this allows us to label the states with the quantum number @xmath157 , the total angular momentum .
furthermore , the hamiltonian @xmath155 commutes with any spin rotation of any of the electrons , which expresses the fact that the coulomb interaction conserves spin
. therefore we can consider the full two electron wavefunctions obtained by supplementing the orbital part @xmath44 with a spinor , respecting the overall wavefunction symmetry , similarly as in eq .
( [ eq : basis4 ] ) .    the two - electron spectrum , without the zeeman and the spin - orbit interactions , is shown in fig .  [ fig:2elec_spectrum ] .
at zero magnetic field the ground state is a non - degenerate singlet state with total angular momentum zero @xmath158 .
the next two degenerate states are triplets with @xmath159 and their degeneracy is split by the magnetic field . focusing on the two lowest states , most relevant for the qubit pair , they cross at @xmath160 t , so one can turn the ground state from the singlet to the triplet by applying an external magnetic field . in the presence of spin - orbit interactions ,
the crossing is turned into anticrossing , as described below .
suppose some parameter , such as the magnetic field , is being changed .
it may happen at some point that the states of the opposite spin become degenerate .
such points are called spin hot spots . here ,
because of the degeneracy , weak spin - orbit interactions have strong effects .
for the spin relaxation , spin hot spots play often a dominant role.@xcite    we are interested in the changes to the spectrum due to the spin - orbit interactions .
let us neglect the cubic dresselhaus in this section . to understand the spin - orbit influence
, it is important to note the following commutation relations for the linear spin - orbit terms @xmath161 = 0 , \\ & [ { \bf w}_{d,1}\cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{1}+{\bf w}_{d,2}\cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{2},\hat{j}_- ]   = 0 , \end{split}\ ] ] where @xmath162 .
these commutation rules hold for any magnetic field @xmath128 . since the hamiltonian eq .
( [ ham_orb ] ) commutes with the operator @xmath163 , we can label the states using the quantum numbers @xmath164 and @xmath165 .
the spin - orbit interactions couple only the states with the same quantum numbers @xmath166 and @xmath167 , for bychkov - rashba and dresselhaus term , respectively .
let us focus on the part of the spectrum close to @xmath168 and on the states with @xmath169 , fig .
[ fig:2elec_spectrum ] .
the degeneracy of the states is removed by the spin - orbit interactions , as shown in fig .
[ fig : closeb0 ] .
let us now use the hamiltonian eq .
( [ eq : unit_transf ] ) , to understand the influence of the spin - orbit interactions .
the degeneracy of the states with angular momenta @xmath169 makes the description with the lowest two orbital states questionable .
therefore now we take @xmath41 orbital states and repeat the derivation of the second order effective hamiltonian , obtaining a @xmath170 matrix .
the basis functions are @xmath171 where @xmath172 is the electron wavefunction with angular momentum @xmath158 , and @xmath173 and @xmath174 have angular momentum @xmath175 , and @xmath176 , respectively . since the magnetic field is negligible with respect to the spin - orbit couplings , the hamiltonian eq .
( [ eq : hzprime ] ) is negligible . because of the selection rules , tab .
[ table 1 ] , the contributions from eq .
( [ eq : hsoprime ] ) in the basis eq .
( [ eq : basis7 ] ) , gives non zero matrix elements only for the following pairs , @xmath177 , and @xmath178 . for the gaas parameters , @xmath179 ev . in the region of small magnetic field ,
the states with @xmath180 are coupled by the spin - orbit interactions and the lifting is in the second order in the spin - orbit couplings .
the other states are not coupled since they have different values of @xmath181 .
therefore we conclude that the @xmath182-orbital state approximation can be used also for the single dot case ( or strongly coupled double dots ) , because the spin - orbit interactions do not mix the states @xmath44 and @xmath183 in the basis eq .
( [ eq : basis7 ] ) .
note that as the coupling is forbidden by the inversion symmetry , the claim holds for an arbitrary oriented magnetic field .
let us now discuss the second degeneracy region marked in fig .
[ fig:2elec_spectrum ] , magnified in fig .
[ fig : crossing ] .
the spin - orbit interactions induce two anticrossings .
the first is due to the bychkov - rashba term , since the crossing states have different @xmath167 , but the same @xmath184 and couples the singlet @xmath185 and triplet @xmath101 .
the second is due to the dresselhaus term which couples states with @xmath186 , the singlet @xmath185 and the triplet @xmath102 .
the central point is a crossing point , because the crossing state differ in both @xmath166 and @xmath167 .
the splitting energy can be evaluated using the unitarily transformed hamiltonian eq .
( [ eq : unit_transf ] ) . using the degenerate perturbation theory
, one can estimate analytically , using eq .
( [ eq : hsoprime ] ) and eq .
( [ eq : hzprime ] ) , the value of the two gaps to be @xmath187 and @xmath188 .
these values are consistent with the numerical values .
the double dot denotes the case when the interdot distance is of the order of the confinement length . in the next sections we discuss our effective models , eq .
( [ eq : final result ] ) and eq .
( [ eq : standard model ] ) in the double dot regime and compare them with numerics .
the analytical solution for the two electron wavefunctions in a double dot potential is not known .
we consider here the heitler - london ansatz since it is a good approximation at large interdot distances and we can work out the spin - orbit influence on the spectrum analytically . for this purpose , we compute the spin - orbit vectors , eq .
( [ eq : spin orbit vectors ] ) and eq .
( [ eq : spin orbit vectors 2 ] ) , for our models .    in the heitler - london ansatz ,
the two electron eigenfunctions are given by @xmath189 where @xmath190 is a single electron fock - darwin state centered in the left ( right ) dot occupied by the @xmath1-th electron .
below , in eqs .  - ,
we skip the particle subscript @xmath1 , as the expressions contain only single particle matrix elements ( all @xmath146 , @xmath191 , @xmath151 , @xmath96 would have the same subscript , say @xmath192 ) . with this ansatz , the spin - orbit vectors , eq .
, follow as    [ spin orbit vectors lr ] @xmath193    similarly we get the spin - orbit vectors , eq .
( [ eq : spin orbit vectors 2 ] ) , as    [ so vectors standard ] @xmath194 the explicit formulas for the vectors in eqs .
( [ spin orbit vectors lr])-([eq : aux ] ) are in app .
[ heitlerlondon ] . differently from the spin - orbit vectors in eq .  ,
the vectors in eq .
reveal explicitly the anisotropy with respect to the magnetic field and dot orientation@xcite ( note that @xmath74 and @xmath75 in the definition of @xmath195 , eq .
( [ direction ] ) are the crystallographic coordinates ) .      in the previous sections , we have derived two effective hamiltonians , @xmath127 , and @xmath196 , given by eqs .  - and eqs.- , respectively .
we now compare the energy spectrum given by these models with exact numerics .
we present the spin - orbit induced energy shift , the difference between a state energy if the spin - orbit interactions are considered and artificially set to zero . for each model
we examine also its heitler - london approximation , which yields analytical expressions for the spin - orbit vectors , as well as the isotropic exchange energy ( given in sec .
iv.a and appendix c ) .
thus , the effective models in the heitler - london approximation ( we denote them by superscript hl ) are fully analytic .
the non - simplified models ( we refer to them as `` numerical '' ) require the two lowest exact double dot two - electron wavefunctions , which we take as numerical eigenstates of @xmath155 .
apart from the energies , we compare also the spin - orbit vectors . since they are defined up to the relative phase of states @xmath197 and @xmath198 , the observable quantity is @xmath199 and analogously for @xmath200 .
we refer to these quantities as the anisotropic part of the exchange coupling .
figure  [ fig : socont_b0 ] shows the spin - orbit induced energy shift as a function of the interdot distance for each of the four states .
the exact numerics gives a constant and equal shift for all @xmath201 spin states , with value @xmath202ev .
let us consider the second order model , eq .
( [ eq : final result ] ) . for zero magnetic field ,
all spin - orbit vectors are zero , as is the effective magnetic field .
the only contribution comes from the constant term @xmath203ev that is the same for all states . our derived spin - model , eq .
( [ eq : final result ] ) , accurately predicts the spin - orbit contributions to the energy . on the other hand ,
the first order models @xmath204 and @xmath127 are completely off on the scale of the spin - orbit contributions .
the exchange hamiltonian @xmath127 does not predict the realistic spin - orbit influence on the spectrum , even in the simple case when the magnetic field is zero .    figure  [ fig : param_b0 ] shows the non zero parameters for all four models .
the exact isotropic exchange @xmath88 decays exponentially with the interdot distance .
the same behavior is predicted in the heitler - london approximation .
it decays exponentially , but deviates from the numerical results .
as for the anisotropic exchange , the first order model @xmath127 gives an exponentially falling spin - orbit parameter @xmath205 , an order of magnitude smaller than @xmath88 .
in contrast , the second order model @xmath196 predicts zero spin - orbit anisotropic exchange .
first main result , proved numerically and justified analytically by the hamiltonian @xmath196 , is that _ at zero magnetic field the spin - orbit vectors vanish _ , up to the second order in spin - orbit couplings at any interdot distance . in the transformed basis , there is no anisotropic exchange at the zero magnetic field due the spin - orbit interactions , an important result for the quantum computation .
indeed , since the exchange energy can be used to perform a swap operation , this means that the spin - orbit interactions do not induce any significant errors on the gate operation .
the only difference is the computational basis , which is unitarily transformed with respect to the usual singlet - triplet basis .      in the presence of a perpendicular magnetic field the structure of the spin - orbit contributions
are quite different with respect to the zero field case .
first of all , anticrossing points appear , where the energy shift is enhanced .
figure  [ fig : socont_b1 ] shows the spin - orbit contributions in a finite magnetic field .
we plot only the anticrossing states , the singlet @xmath185 and the triplet @xmath206 .
the prediction of the first order model is shown in the left panels of fig .
[ fig : socont_b1 ] . as in the case of zero magnetic field , this model is off from the numerical results .
in particular , it still predicts a zero contribution , except close to the anticrossing point .
we note that the discrepancy is not connected to ( a failure of ) the heitler - london approximation , as using the exact numerical two electron wavefunctions does not improve the model predictions .    in the right panels of fig .
[ fig : socont_b1 ] , the comparison between the second order model and the numerics is provided .
we observe that the model is very close to the numerics , even though the heitler - london approximation predicts the crossing point in a different position .
the predictions of the numerical second order model @xmath196 is consistent with the exact numerics .
the only discrepancy is due to the influence of the cubic dresselhaus term , as we will see in the next section .    to get more insight , in fig .
[ fig : param_b1 ] we have plotted the parameters of the models .    fig .
[ fig : param_b1]a shows the anisotropic exchange strengths in the two models .
the first order model @xmath127 predicts the anisotropic exchange decreasing with the interdot distance , similar to the isotropic exchange energy . for large interdot distance
the anisotropic exchange @xmath205 disappears .
this means there is no influence on the energy due to the spin - orbit interactions . on the other hand
, for the second order model @xmath196 the conclusion is different . for large interdot distances @xmath207 and
@xmath208 are linear in @xmath209 .
furthermore , the anisotropic exchange computed in the heitler - london ansatz is very close to the numerical one .
we make a very important observation here : surprisingly , concerning the anisotropic exchange the heitler - london is quite a good approximation for all interdot distances even in a finite magnetic field .
therefore , despite its known deficiencies to evaluate the isotropic exchange @xmath88 , it grasps the anisotropic exchange even quantitatively , rendering the spin - orbit part of the second order effective hamiltonian @xmath196 fully analytically
. one can understand this looking at eqs .
( [ eq : spin orbit vectors 2 ] ) .
the anisotropic exchange vectors are given by the dipole moment of the matrix element between the left and right localized state ( see app .
c for explicit formula ) .
this dipole moment is predominantly given by the two local maxima of the charge distribution ( the two dots ) and is not sensitive to the interdot barrier details , nor on the approximation used to estimate the lowest two orbital two - electron states .
this is in strong contrast to the isotropic exchange , which , due to its exponential character , depends crucially on the interdot barrier and the used approximation .
figure  [ fig : param_b1]b shows the isotropic exchange @xmath88 , and the effective magnetic field induced by the spin - orbit interactions @xmath210 compared to the zeeman energy @xmath211 .
we see the failure of the heitler - london approximation for @xmath88 .
although the numerical calculation and the analytical prediction have the same sign ( this means that the ground state is the triplet ) they differ by an order of magnitude .
the zeeman energy is constant and always much larger than the effective spin - orbit induced magnetic field @xmath210 .
consequently , the effective field can be always neglected .
the point where the zeeman energy equals to the isotropic exchange ( close to @xmath212 nm ) is the anticrossing point , where the spin - orbit contributions are strongly enhanced , as one can see in fig .
[ fig : socont_b1 ] .
let us consider a double dot system at fixed interdot distance of @xmath213 nm , corresponding to zero field isotropic exchange of @xmath214ev . in fig .
[ fig : socont_d55 nm ] the spin - orbit contributions versus the magnetic field are plotted for the second order model @xmath196 and the exact numerics .
we can conclude that to describe the spin - orbit influence on the states in a double - dot system it is important to use the second order hamiltonian @xmath196 .    in fig .
[ fig : param_d55 nm ] the spin - orbit parameters versus the magnetic field are plotted .
the main influence on the spin is due to the zeeman interaction in the whole range of @xmath128 , since @xmath210 is several orders of magnitude smaller than the zeeman energy . at the ground state anticrossing point ,
the isotropic exchange crosses zero , while the anisotropic parameter @xmath208 is finite , leading to spin hot spots .
apart from these , since the anisotropic exchange is two orders of magnitude smaller than the zeeman energy , the spin - orbit induced energy shifts are minute .
finally we consider the role of the cubic dresselhaus term .
the schrieffer - wolff transformation does not remove it in the linear order .
figure  [ fig : cubic ] shows the energy shifts induced by the spin - orbit interactions also in the case where we do not take into account the cubic dresselhaus term .
one can see a very good agreement between the second order model @xmath196 and the exact numerics where the cubic dresselhaus term was omitted .
therefore we can conclude that the main part of the discrepancy we see in the spin - orbit induced energy shifts are due to the cubic dresselhaus term .
we analyzed the spin - orbit influence on two electrons confined in a lateral double quantum dot .
we focused on the lowest part of the hilbert space , which corresponds to a qubit pair . in ref .
a hamiltonian for such pair was proposed , with the spin - orbit interactions giving rise to an anisotropic exchange interaction . within a unitarily
transformed basis , this interaction is encoded into two real three dimensional spin - orbit vectors .
these , together with the isotropic exchange energy and the magnetic field vector , completely parametrize an effective two qubit hamiltonian . in this work
, we examined the quantitative validity of this effective hamiltonian .
in addition to a numerical study , we also provided the details of the effective hamiltonian derivation , which were skipped in ref .  .
we noted that it can be diagonalized analytically if the effective spin - orbit vectors are all aligned with the external magnetic field , the only exactly solvable case ( apart from the trivial case of no spin - orbit interactions present ) .
we also evaluated the spin - orbit vectors in the heitler - london approximation and compared the analytical results with their exact numerical counterparts .
there are three possible sources for a discrepancy between the model and the exact data : the higher excited orbital states of the quantum dot , the higher orders of the effective ( unitary transformed ) spin - orbit interactions and the cubic dresselhaus term .
elucidation of their importance is one of the main results of this work .
i ) we find the cubic dresselhaus term is the main source of the discrepancy . in a typical double dot regime and a moderate field of 1 tesla
, it brings an error of @xmath215ev for the energies , while the two other mentioned corrections have an order of magnitude smaller influence .
ii ) we find the effective hamiltonian describes both the weak and the strong coupling regimes ( the single dot represents the strongest possible coupling ) .
iii ) surprisingly , the spin - orbit vectors obtained within the heitler - london approximation are faithful even at a finite magnetic field .
overall , we find the anisotropic exchange hamiltonian to be generally reliable , providing a realistic and yet simple description for an interacting pair of spin qubits realized by two coupled quantum dots .
we would like to thank guido burkard for useful discussion , martin gmitra and andrea nobile for numerical advice .
this work was supported by dfg grk 638 , spp 1285 , sfb 689 , nsf grant dmr-0706319 , rpeu-0014 - 06 , erdf op r&d project `` qute '' , ce sas qute and daad .
here we describe the numerical method we use to diagonalize the two electron hamiltonian eq .
( [ ham_tot ] ) .
we proceed in three steps.@xcite we first diagonalize the single electron hamiltonian @xmath216 , using the numerical finite differences method with the dirichlet boundary condition ( vanishing of the wave function at boundaries ) .
we do not consider the spin dependent part ( spin - orbit , zeeman ) at this step .
this allows us to exploit the symmetries of the confinement potential .
the single electron hamiltonian is diagonalized by the lanczos method@xcite .
the typical number of points in the grid we use is @xmath217 , giving relative precision of the energy of order @xmath218 .    in the second step , using the obtained single electron eigenstates @xmath219 , we construct the two electron states .
we use them as a basis in which the two electron orbital hamiltonian eq .  ( [ ham_orb ] ) is diagonalized .
the two - electron states are constructed as symmetric @xmath220 with respect to the particle exchange .
we choose @xmath221 single electron orbitals , typically @xmath222 .
the total number of the two particle states is then @xmath223 .
the spatial symmetry allows us to reduce the dimension of the two electron hamiltonian matrix to diagonalize .
namely , the matrix is block diagonal , with the basis functions grouped according to the spatial symmetry ( @xmath42 , @xmath74,@xmath75 , @xmath224 ) and particle exchange symmetry ( @xmath225 ) .
this results in @xmath226 blocks and holds for zero perpendicular magnetic field . in a finite field , we get @xmath201 blocks , as there are only two spatial symmetries possible ( @xmath42 , and @xmath74 ) .
each block is diagonalized separately .
the matrix element of the two - electron hamiltonian , eq .
( [ ham_orb ] ) , in our basis is @xmath227 the last term in eq .
( [ coulomb_int ] ) is due to the coulomb interaction and it leads to off diagonal terms in the hamiltonian .
we diagonalize the matrix defined in eq .
( [ coulomb_int ] ) to get the eigenspectrum @xmath228 .    in the third step ,
we add the spin dependent parts to the hamiltonian .
we construct a new basis by expanding the wavefunctions obtained in the previous step by the spin .
the orbital wavefunction @xmath229 gets the spinor according to its particle exchange symmetry .
the symmetric function gets the singlet @xmath185 while the antisymmetric appears in three copies , each with one of the three triplets @xmath230 , @xmath206 and @xmath102 .
we denote the new states by @xmath231 corresponds to one of the 4 spin states .
the matrix elements of the total hamiltonian eq .
( [ ham_tot ] ) are @xmath232 where the last term is the matrix element of the spin - orbit interactions .
the resulting matrix is diagonalized to get the final eigenstates .
we choose a certain number @xmath233 of lowest @xmath234 states , depending on the required precision . in our simulations @xmath235 ,
resulting to the accuracy of the order of @xmath236 mev for the energy .
computationally most demanding are the coulomb integrals . indeed , the typical size of the hamiltonian matrix , in the second step , is @xmath237 , requiring at least @xmath238 coulomb integrals . writing functions involved in the eq .
( [ coulomb_int ] ) as slater determinants , we can express the integral as a sum of terms such as the following @xmath239 where @xmath240 .
the symmetry of the coulomb integral @xmath241 reduces the number of needed matrix elements to a half . for the single dot ,
@xmath242 are the fock - darwin functions and it is possible to derive an analytical formula for @xmath243 . in our case , since the single particle functions are given numerically , we have performed a numerical integration . using the fourier transform
, we can reduce the @xmath201-dimensional integration to two dimensional @xmath244 where @xmath245 for the evaluation of the fourier transforms , we use the discrete fourier transform algorithm with the attenuation factors , as described in ref ..    we compute ( [ fourier_integral ] ) according to the perturbative formula @xmath246 where @xmath247 is calculated in the point @xmath248 , @xmath249 is the perturbative order ( the order of the taylor expansion ) , @xmath250 and @xmath251 are the number of grid points in the @xmath74 and in the @xmath75 direction , respectively .
the coefficients @xmath252 depend only on the geometry of the grid and are defined as @xmath253 here @xmath254 is the integration region and @xmath255 is the grid spacing along @xmath74 . similarly for the @xmath75 direction . in our simulations
we use the previous formula up to the 4-nd order in the taylor expansion .
the achieved relative precision is @xmath236 , with the computational time for one coulomb element @xmath256 ms .
suppose the single particle hamiltonian commutes with certain set of operators @xmath257 , and therefore the single particle states @xmath242 can be chosen such that they have definite symmetries forming a representation of the group @xmath258 of the symmetry operators @xmath259 for example , since the double dot potential has inversion symmetry along @xmath74 axis , @xmath76 is in the group @xmath258 , while @xmath260  the states are symmetric or antisymmetric with respect to @xmath74 inversion .
now consider the two electron states @xmath261 , eq .
( [ symm_fun]-[antisymm_fun ] ) . these states also have definite symmetry if a certain operator from @xmath258 acts simultaneously on both particles @xmath262 for our case of the symmetry group @xmath81 , since @xmath263 , the set of all possible products of two characters is the same as the set of characters for a single particle , @xmath264 .
this means the two particle states will form the same symmetry classes as single particle states with the same characters .
in the heitler - london approximation , the exchange energy is calculated as @xmath265 with the functions @xmath82 given in eq .
( [ states pm ] ) .
the single particle ground state wavefunction of the fock - darwin spectrum is @xmath266,\ ] ] where @xmath267 is the effective confinement length defined by @xmath268 .
the wavefunctions @xmath269 are obtained shifting the fock - darwin ground state to @xmath270 . in the presence of the magnetic field
we have to add a phase factor because of the gauge transformation @xmath271 ; we have @xmath272}\psi_{00}(x\pm l_0d , y),\\ \zeta=\left(\frac{l_0}{l_b}\right)^2,\;\;\ ; \vartheta=\frac{bel_b^2}{2\hbar } , \;\;\;l_b = l_0(1-\vartheta^2)^{1/4}. \end{split}\ ] ] the overlap between the left and right functions is @xmath273},\ ] ] and the exchange energy is @xmath274 } \big\{c_s\sqrt{\zeta}\big(\exp{[-\zeta d^2]}i_0(\zeta d^2)+\\ & -\exp{[\zeta d^2\vartheta^2 ] } i_0(\zeta d^2\vartheta^2)\big)+ \frac{2d}{\sqrt{\pi \zeta}}\left ( 1-\exp{[-\zeta d^2]}\right)+ \\ & + 2d^2 \left ( 1-\mbox{erf}(d\sqrt{\zeta } ) \right ) \big\ } , \end{split}\ ] ] where @xmath275 is the zeroth - order modified bessel function of the first kind .
the factor @xmath276 is the ratio between the coulomb strength and the confinement energy , @xmath277 .
similar formula can be found in ref . for a quartic confinement potential .
the formula  ( [ eq : iso - exchange ] ) has been derived in ref .
( in the original paper there is a trivial typo that we correct ) .
the two electron energies for the states @xmath198 and @xmath197 are @xmath278 where @xmath279}i_0(\zeta d^2),\\ e_{w_{ri } } & = & \hbar\omega_0 \left[2d^2(1-\mbox{erf}(d\sqrt{\zeta } ) ) -\frac{2d}{\sqrt{\zeta \pi}}\exp{[-\zeta d^2]}\right],\\ e_{ce } & = &   \hbar\omega_0 c_s \sqrt{\zeta } \exp{\left[-\zeta d^2(2+\vartheta^2)\right]}i_0(\zeta d^2\vartheta^2),\\ e_{w_{ce } } & = & -\hbar\omega_0\frac{2d}{\sqrt{\pi \zeta } } \exp{[-2\zeta d^2(1+\vartheta^2)]}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the components of the vectors @xmath280 and @xmath281 are @xmath282 where @xmath283 and @xmath284 are the spin - orbit lengths for the rashba and dresselhaus respectively .
the matrix elements of the vector @xmath195 are @xmath285 and @xmath286.\ ] ]
in the singlet and triplet basis , one can evaluate the sixteen matrices which can be formed as the direct product of two pauli matrices and the identity . here
we list only the matrices needed for our purposes , and we regroup them to combinations in which they appear in the text .


the theory of finite type invariants allows us to interpret many important knot and link invariants in purely combinatorial terms , as functionals on spaces of chord diagrams . for knots
, there is an obvious intersection graph associated with these diagrams , first studied ( in this context ) by chmutov , duzhin and lando @xcite . in many cases ,
these graphs contain all the relevant information for the functionals coming from knot invariants @xcite . some of the most important knot invariants , such as the conway , jones , homfly and kauffman polynomials , can be interpreted in terms of these intersection graphs @xcite .    however , it is not obvious how to extend the idea of the intersection graph to finite type invariants of other objects , such as braids , links and string links .
the goal of this paper is to introduce a reasonable definition of the intersection graph for chord diagrams associated with string links . as evidence that this is the `` right '' definition
, we use these intersection graphs to construct weight systems for string links , and show that these weight systems are related to ( though weaker than ) the weight systems arising from the conway and homfly polynomials . in future work we will show that in some cases the intersection graph contains all the relevant information in the string link chord diagram @xcite , and that it can be used to give a new interpretation of milnor s homotopy invariants @xcite .    in section  [ s :
prelim ] we will review the necessary background , including finite type invariants , chord diagrams , intersection graphs and lando s graph bialgebra @xcite . in section  [ s : igstring ] we will define intersection graphs for string links , and provide the space of graphs with a bialgebra structure similar to lando s . in section  [ s:2term ]
we look at chord diagrams modulo the 2-term relations introduced by bar - natan and garoufalides @xcite , and use the adjacency matrices of their intersection graphs to construct weight systems related to those arising from the conway and homfly polynomials . finally , in section  [ s : questions ] we pose some questions for further research .
+   + _ acknowledgement : _ the author thanks loyola marymount university for supporting this work via a summer research grant in 2003 .
an _ ( oriented ) knot _ is an embedding of the ( oriented ) circle @xmath0 into the 3-sphere @xmath1 .
knot invariant _ is a map from these embeddings to some set which is invariant under isotopy of the embedding .
we will also consider invariants of _ regular _ isotopy , where the isotopy preserves the _ framing _ of the knot ( i.e. a chosen section of the normal bundle of the knot in @xmath1 ) .
a _ link _ with @xmath2 components is simply an embedding of the disjoint union of @xmath2 copies of @xmath0 into @xmath1 ; each component is a knot .
a _ string link _ can be defined as follows :    ( habegger and lin @xcite ) let d be the unit disk in the plane and let i = [ 0,1 ] be the unit interval . choose k points @xmath3 in the interior of d , aligned in order along the the x - axis .
a * string link * @xmath4 of k components is a smooth proper imbedding of k disjoint copies of i into @xmath5 : @xmath6 such that @xmath7 and @xmath8 .
the image of @xmath9 is called the ith string of the string link @xmath4 .    link and
string link invariants are defined in the same way as for knots .
note that any string link can be closed up to a link in a unique way by joining the top and bottom of each component by an arc which lies outside of @xmath5 ( and which is unlinked with the other such arcs ) .
so any link invariant gives rise to a string link invariant by evaluating it on the closure of the string link .
our treatment of finite type invariants will follow the combinatorial approach of birman and lin  @xcite
. we will give a brief overview of this combinatorial theory , and its natural extensions to links and string links .
for more details , see bar - natan  @xcite .
we first note that we can extend any link invariant to an invariant of _ singular _ links , where a singular link is an immersion of a disjoint union of copies of @xmath0 in 3-space which is an embedding except for a finite number of isolated double points . given a link invariant @xmath10 ,
we extend it via the relation :    @xmath11    an invariant @xmath10 of singular links is then said to be of _ finite type _ , specifically of _ type
n _ , if @xmath10 is zero on any link with more than @xmath12 double points ( where @xmath12 is a finite nonnegative integer ) .
we denote by @xmath13 the vector space over @xmath14 generated by ( framing - independent ) finite type invariants of type @xmath12 .
we can completely understand the space of finite type invariants by understanding all of the vector spaces @xmath15 .
an element of this vector space is completely determined by its behavior on links with exactly @xmath12 singular points .
in addition , since such an element is zero on links with more than @xmath12 singular points , any other ( non - singular ) crossing of the knot can be changed without affecting the value of the invariant .
this means that elements of @xmath15 can be viewed as functionals on the space of _ chord diagrams _ :
a * chord diagram of degree n with k components * is a disjoint union of k oriented circles , together with @xmath12 chords ( line segments with endpoints on the circles ) , such that all of the @xmath16 endpoints of the chords are distinct .
the circles represent a link of k components and the endpoints of a chord represent 2 points identified by the immersion of this link into 3-space .
the diagram is determined by the orders of the endpoints on each component . for string links , chord diagrams involve oriented line segments rather than circles
.    functionals on the space of chord diagrams which are derived from finite type link invariants will satisfy certain relations :    a * weight system of degree n * is a linear functional @xmath17 on the space of chord diagrams of degree @xmath12 ( with values in an associative commutative ring @xmath18 with unity ) which satisfies the 1-term and 4-term relations , shown in figure  [ f:4-term ] . for knots ,
the three arcs all belong to the same circle ; for links ( resp .
string links ) , they may belong to the same or different circles ( resp . line segments ) .
( 1-term relation ) @xmath19 ( 4-term relation ) @xmath20    the natural map from elements of @xmath15 to functionals on chord diagrams is a homomorphism into the space of weight systems @xcite .
kontsevich proved the much more difficult fact that these spaces are isomorphic @xcite ( the inverse map is the famous _ kontsevich integral _ ) . for convenience , we take the dual approach , and simply study the space of chord diagrams of degree @xmath12 modulo the 1-term and 4-term relations .
the 1-term relation is occasionally referred to as the `` framing - independence '' relation , because it arises from the framing - independence of the invariants in @xmath13 ( essentially , from the first reidemeister move ) . since most of the interesting structure of the vector spaces arises from the 4-term relation , it is common to look at the more general setting of invariants of regular isotopy , and consider the vector space @xmath21 of chord diagrams of degree @xmath12 on links with @xmath2 components modulo the 4-term relation alone .
linear functionals on @xmath21 are called _ regular weight systems _ of degree @xmath12 .
similarly , we define the vector space @xmath22 for chord diagrams of degree @xmath12 on _ string links _ of @xmath2 components .
it is useful to combine all of these spaces into graded modules @xmath23 and @xmath24 via direct sum . for @xmath25
, we can define a product on @xmath26 via connect sum @xcite ; however , this does not extend to @xmath27 .
but we _ can _ give the module @xmath28 a bialgebra ( or hopf algebra ) structure for any @xmath2 by defining an appropriate product and co - product :    * we define the ( noncommutative ) product @xmath29 of two chord diagrams @xmath30 and @xmath31 as the result of placing @xmath31 on top of @xmath30 ( joining the components so the orientations agree ) , as shown below : @xmath32 * we define the co - product @xmath33 of a chord diagram @xmath34 as follows : @xmath35 where @xmath36 is a subset of the set of chords of @xmath34 , @xmath37 is @xmath34 with all the chords in @xmath36 removed , and @xmath38 is @xmath34 with all the chords _ not _ in @xmath36 removed .
@xmath39    it is easy to check the compatibility condition @xmath40 .
for knots , there is a very natural notion of intersection among the chords of a chord diagram - two chords intersect if their endpoints alternate around the bounding circle .
the intersection graph then has a vertex for each chord , and connects two vertices by an edge if the corresponding chords intersect . the difficulty with extending this idea to links and string links is how to deal with chords which have their endpoints on different components of the diagram - specifically , if they each have one endpoint on a given component , and their other endpoints are on different components . in what sense , if any , do these chords intersect ?
the essential value of the intersection graph for knots is that it can detect when the order of two endpoints for different chords along the bounding circle is switched ( as happens in the 4-term relation ) , since this changes the pair of chords from intersecting to non - intersecting or vice - versa . to usefully extend the notion of intersection graphs to links or string links
, we need to retain this ability . for string links
, the existence of a `` bottom '' and `` top '' for each component allows us to give a linear ( rather than cyclic ) ordering to the endpoints of the chords on each component , and so the notion of one endpoint being `` below '' another is well - defined .
let @xmath34 be a string link chord diagram with @xmath2 components ( oriented line segments , colored from 1 to @xmath2 ) and @xmath12 chords .
the _ intersection graph _
@xmath41 is the labeled , directed multigraph such that :    * @xmath41 has a vertex for each chord of @xmath34 .
each vertex is labeled by an unordered pair @xmath42 , where @xmath43 and @xmath44 are the labels of the components on which the endpoints of the chord lie .
* there is a directed edge from a vertex @xmath45 to a vertex @xmath46 for each pair @xmath47 where @xmath48 is an endpoint of the chord associated to @xmath45 , @xmath49 is an endpoint of the chord associated to @xmath46 , @xmath48 and @xmath49 lie on the same component of @xmath34 , and the orientation of the component runs from @xmath48 to @xmath49 ( so if the components are all oriented upwards , @xmath48 is below @xmath49 ) .
we count these edges `` mod 2 '' , meaning that if two vertices are connected by two directed edges with the same direction , they cancel each other . if two vertices are connected by a directed edge in each direction , we will simply connect them by an undirected edge .
examples of chord diagrams and their associated intersection graphs are given in figure  [ f : igstring ] .
@xmath50    note that when the two chords have both endpoints on the same component @xmath43 , our definition of intersection graph corresponds to the usual intersection graph for knots .
our definition also matches our intuition in the case of chord diagrams of two components , as shown in figure  [ f : igstring ] .
note also that the total number of directed edges between a vertex @xmath10 labeled @xmath42 and a vertex @xmath51 labeled @xmath52 is given by the sum of the number of occurrences of @xmath43 in @xmath52 and the number of occurrences of @xmath44 in @xmath52 .
in particular , if a vertex @xmath10 has a label @xmath53 , this number will be even ( 0 , 2 or 4 ) .
since we count directed edges modulo 2 , this implies there is an ( uncancelled ) directed edge from @xmath10 to another vertex @xmath51 if and only if there is also an ( uncancelled ) directed edge from @xmath51 to @xmath10 .
we will say that labeled directed multigraphs which have this property are _
[ d : semisym ] a directed multigraph g , with each vertex labeled by a pair \{i , j } , is * semisymmetric * if for every vertex v labeled \{i , i } , and any other vertex w , there is a directed edge from v to w if and only if there is a directed edge from w to v.      following lando s work for knots @xcite , we can define a bialgebra structure on the space of intersection graphs for string links so that @xmath54 becomes a bialgebra homomorphism from the space of chord diagrams for string links to the space of intersection graphs .
the key is to define the analogue of the 4-term relation for intersection graphs .
consider the graded vector space ( over @xmath55 ) of formal linear combinations of labeled semisymmetric directed multigraphs , with vertices labeled by unordered pairs \{i , j } , @xmath56 , graded by the number of vertices in the graphs .
for any graph g and vertices a and b in v(g ) , with labels \{i , j } and \{i , l } respectively ( j and l may be equal , or equal to i ) , we impose on the vector space the relation : @xmath57 here @xmath58 is the result of complementing the edge ab in g ( i.e. adding a directed edge between the vertices in each direction , and then cancelling `` mod 2 '' ) .
@xmath59 is the result of changing the label on a to \{j , l } , complementing the edge ab if @xmath60 ( and leaving it unchanged if i = l ) , and adding a directed edge from a to c ( respectivley c to a ) for every vertex c in v(g ) for which g has a directed edge from b to c ( respectively c to b ) , and then cancelling mod 2 .
finally , @xmath61 is the result of complementing the edge ab in @xmath59 . here is an example of such a relation : @xmath62 the bialgebra @xmath63 is defined as this graded vector space , together with a product and a coproduct .
the product is a map @xmath64 , defined as follows . given graphs @xmath65 and @xmath66
, @xmath67 is the disjoint union of the graphs , together with a directed edge from @xmath68 to @xmath69 for each color in the label \{i , j } for @xmath45 which is also in the label for @xmath46 .
an example is shown below : @xmath70 the coproduct is a map @xmath71 , defined as follows .
for any graph g , and subset @xmath72 of its vertices , let @xmath73 denote the subgraph induced by @xmath36 . then : @xmath74 an example is shown below : @xmath75    [ t : bialgebra ] the product and coproduct defined above induce the structure of a co - commutative ( but not commutative ) bialgebra on the space f of labeled , directed multigraphs modulo the 4-term relation .
proof : it is easy to check that @xmath63 is a bialgebra ( i.e. that @xmath76 ) , and that it is co - commutative , but not commutative .
we also need to check that the product and coproduct respect the 4-term relation , i.e. that the product of a graph and a 4-term relation yields a 4-term relation , and that the coproduct of a 4-term relation yields a sum of 4-term relations . to begin with ,
consider a product @xmath77 .
it is clear that @xmath78 , since complementing the edge @xmath79 is independent of any edges between @xmath80 and @xmath81 .
moreover , @xmath82 , since in each case there is an directed edge from a vertex @xmath83 to @xmath84 for each occurrence of @xmath44 or @xmath85 in the label of @xmath10 ( with cancellation mod 2 ) .
it is then clear that @xmath86 , and so the product of the 4-term relation and another graph is another 4-term relation .    for the coproduct ,
consider @xmath87 .
the sum in the coproduct splits into two groups - terms where both @xmath84 and @xmath88 belong to either @xmath36 or its complement , and terms where one of the two vertices is in @xmath36 and the other is in its complement .
the first group gives a sum of 4-term relations , while the terms of the second group already sum to zero in @xmath89 and @xmath90 .
this finishes the proof of the theorem . @xmath91
it is now easy to check that @xmath54 is a bialgebra homomorphism from the bialgebra @xmath28 of chord diagrams for string links with @xmath2 components modulo the 4-term relation to the bialgebra @xmath92 of directed , labeled graphs with labels 1 , ... ,
@xmath2 , since the 4-term relation for graphs was defined to mimic the 4-term relation for the chord diagrams . as a result ,
any functional on @xmath92 will induce , by composition with @xmath54 , a regular weight system .
we call such a functional a _ regular graph weight system_.
any particular weight system will satisfy relations in addition to the 1-term and 4-term relations , and it can be useful to look at weight systems which lie in the subspaces determined by these additional relations .
in particular , bar - natan and garoufalides @xcite noted that the weight system associated with the conway polynomial for knots satisfies a set of _
2-term _ relations which induce the 4-term relations .
we can extend this notion to define a set of 2-term relations for string links , shown in figure  [ f:2-term ] .
[ h ] @xmath93    clearly , these relations imply that the weight system satisfies the 4-term relation as well . as a result ,
the product and coproduct of section [ ss : finitetype ] are still well - defined .
so we can give the vector space of chord diagrams for string links with @xmath2 components modulo the 2-term relations the structure of a bialgebra .
we will denote this bialgebra ( and the underlying vector space ) by @xmath94 .
there is a natural projection from @xmath28 to @xmath94 .    similarly , we can look at the quotient space of @xmath63 by the 2-term relations @xmath95 since @xmath96 , the 2-term relations imply the 4-term relations , and the quotient space is a bialgebra @xmath97 with the product and coproduct induced from @xmath63 .
@xmath54 is then a bialgebra homomorphism from @xmath94 to @xmath98 .
bar - natan and garoufalides @xcite analyzed the space of chord diagrams for knots ( equivalently , string links of one component ) modulo the 2-term relations .
they found that @xmath99 is generated ( as a vector space ) by _
( @xmath100)-caravans _ of @xmath101 `` one - humped camels '' ( isolated chords which intersect no other chords ) and @xmath102 `` two - humped camels '' ( pairs of chords which intersect each other , but no other chords ) .
an example of such a caravan is shown in figure  [ f : caravan ] .
[ h ] @xmath103    our goal in this section is to find a similar `` normal form '' for string link chord diagrams with more than one component ; this will be useful in the remainder of the paper .
we will prove the following theorem :    [ t : normalform ] any connected string link chord diagram is equivalent , modulo the 2-term relations , to a chord diagram with components numbered 1 , ... , n ( possibly after renumbering ) such that :    * every chord either has both endpoints on component 1 , or endpoints on components i and i+1 for some i. * the chords with both endpoints on component 1 are arranged in a caravan .
moreover , all of their endpoints lie below the endpoints of any chords between components .
* there are at most 2 chords between components i and i+1 , and if there are 2 they do not cross ( so the endpoints of one chord lie above the endpoints of the other on both components ) . * on component
i , the endpoints of chords connecting component i to component i+1 lie below the endpoints of chords connecting component i to component i-1 .
an example is shown in figure  [ f : normal ] .
[ h ] @xmath104    if a diagram is not connected , we simply put each connected component into normal form .
the proof proceeds in several steps .
we will describe an algorithm to put any connected chord diagram into the normal form described above via 2-term relations .
+ step 1 : we first deal with chords which have both endpoints on the same component . to begin with
, any pair of intersecting chords which have all four endpoints on the same component can be slid to the bottom of the component , away from any other chords , to form a two - humped camel as in @xcite .
an isolated chord with both endpoints on the same component can also be slid down to the bottom , forming a one - humped camel .
see figure  [ f : factor ] for examples of these moves .
[ h ] @xmath105    we are left with chords with both endpoints on the same component which only intersect chords which lie between two different components . by sliding this chord over one of the chords it intersects ,
its endpoints are now on two different components , as shown in figure  [ f : step1 ] .
[ h ] @xmath106    step 2 : our next step is to put every chord connecting two different components on a different horizontal `` level '' ; in particular , we will remove intersections between chords between the same two components .
say that we have @xmath12 chords between components . select a chord arbitrarily , which we will denote chord @xmath107 . without loss of generality ,
assume @xmath107 connects components 1 and 2 .
we will move @xmath107 to the top level .
as we move it up , if we come to a chord with an endpoint on components 1 or 2 which is above @xmath107 we move that endpoint below @xmath107 via a 2-term relation , as shown in figure  [ f : step2 ] .
[ h ] @xmath108    ultimately , the endpoints of @xmath107 will lie above the endpoints of any other chord . during this process , some chords may have had both their endpoints moved to the same component - remove or modify these chords as in step 1 ( notice that this only reduces the number of chords between components from @xmath12 ) .
we are left with _ at most _
@xmath109 chords connecting components , all below @xmath107 .
so we can continue the process inductively , ending with all chords between components horizontal , at different levels ( and with a caravan at the bottom of each component ) .
+ step 3 : now we consider one component of the diagram , say component 1 , and move all the chords with an endpoint on component 1 to a higher level than all the other chords in the diagram ( leaving chords with both endpoints on the same component at the bottom ) .
we will denote by an _
( i , j)-chord _ a chord with endpoints on components @xmath43 and @xmath44 .
if a ( 1,@xmath43)-chord lies directly below an ( @xmath110)-chord along component @xmath43 , we can use a 2-term relation to move the ( 1,@xmath43)-chord above the other chord , in the process transforming it into a ( 1,@xmath44)-chord , as in figure  [ f : step3 ] .
[ h ] @xmath111    since there are only a finite number of chords , we can successively move all chords with one endpoint on component 1 above all other chords ( while the other endpoint may move , one will always remain on component 1 ) .
+ step 4 : let @xmath107 be the top chord at this point ; without loss of generality , @xmath107 is a ( 1,2)-chord .
let @xmath112 be the number of ( 1,@xmath43)-chords , and @xmath113 .
now move @xmath107 down component 1 , stripping other chords off of component 1 by 2-term relations , transforming them from ( 1,@xmath43)-chords to ( 2,@xmath43)-chords , reversing the move from step 2 shown in figure  [ f : step2 ] .
continue this until @xmath107 encounters another ( 1,2)-chord , @xmath114 .
now move @xmath107 back up as in step 3 ( see figure [ f : step3 ] ) ; when it is again at the top , it will be a ( 1,@xmath43)-chord for some @xmath43 .
repeat the process for @xmath114 , moving it up to just below @xmath107 , and with all the other ( 1,2)-chords .
this reduces @xmath115 to @xmath116 , though the chords may no longer be ( 1,2)-chords .
we can relabel the components so that @xmath107 is once again a ( 1,2)-chord and repeat the process .
each repetition reduces @xmath115 , until we reach a point where @xmath117 ( i.e. all chords with an endpoint on component 1 are ( 1,2)-chords ) , and the ( 1,2)-chords lie above all other chords in the diagram .
finally , we can reduce @xmath116 to 1 or 2 by noticing that whenever @xmath118 , we can factor out a 2-humped camel and reduce @xmath116 by 2 , as in figure  [ f : reduce ] .
+    [ h ] @xmath119    step 5 : we can now repeat steps 3 and 4 for component 2 , and then for each component in turn . we are left with a diagram which is almost in normal form - the final step is to move all of the caravans to component 1 .
we can move a caravan from the @xmath43th component to the @xmath120th component by sliding it over a chord between the two components , as in figure  [ f : step5 ] .
[ h ] @xmath121    any other chords between the two components can be slid over the caravan in turn by 2-term relations , leaving the caravan below the chords connecting components @xmath122 and @xmath123 .
continuing in this way , the caravans can be moved to component 1 , and finally pushed to to bottom of component 1 as in step 1 .
this completes the proof of theorem [ t : normalform ] .
@xmath91      in this section we will define the adjacency matrix for an intersection graph , and show that its rank and determinant ( over @xmath124 ) are regular graph weight systems .    [ d : adj ] given a directed graph g with n vertices , @xmath125 , such that each vertex @xmath126 has a label @xmath127 , the * adjacency matrix of g * , or adj(g ) , is the @xmath128 matrix defined by : @xmath129 @xmath130    these matrices can be viewed as bilinear forms over @xmath124 , but unlike the case for knots @xcite , they are not generally symmetric , so their classification is much more difficult ( and still , to my knowledge , an open question ) .
we are interested in the notion of _ congruence _ of such matrices .
we are particularly interested in the adjacency matrices of _ semisymmetric _ graphs ; which have the property ( which we will also denote by semisymmetry ) that if the @xmath43th diagonal element is 0 , then the @xmath43th row and column are the same .
we say that two @xmath131 matrices a and b are * congruent * ( denoted @xmath132 ) if there is an invertible matrix p such that @xmath133 .
one of our main results is that the congruence class of the adjacency matrix ( over @xmath124 ) satisfies the 2-term relation , and so induces a regular graph weight system .    for any graph g in e , @xmath134 .
proof : reordering the vertices of @xmath80 changes @xmath135 by a congruence ; in this case , @xmath136 is the result of doing a corresponding reordering of the rows of the identity matrix .
so we can assume that the first two rows and columns of @xmath135 and @xmath137 correspond to the vertices @xmath84 and @xmath88 .
the matrices are identical except for the first row and column .
say that @xmath84 has label @xmath138 and @xmath88 has label @xmath139 , so in @xmath59 @xmath84 has label @xmath140 .
an entry @xmath141 ( where @xmath142 ) is equal to @xmath143 ( mod 2 ) , and similarly for the first column .
@xmath144 if and only if @xmath145 , i.e. if @xmath146 , so @xmath147
. finally , @xmath148 if @xmath149 , and 1 otherwise .
we have five cases .
+   + case 1 : @xmath150 . in this case
@xmath151 and @xmath152 ( due to the semisymmetry of the graph ) .
so , mod 2 , @xmath153 .
+   + case 2 : @xmath154 . in this case
@xmath155 and @xmath152 .
so , mod 2 , @xmath156 .
+   + case 3 : @xmath157 . in this case ,
@xmath158 and @xmath159 , and @xmath160 .
so , mod 2 , @xmath161 .
+   + case 4 : @xmath162 . in this case ,
@xmath163 and @xmath164 , and @xmath160 .
so , mod 2 , @xmath161 .
+   + case 5 : @xmath165 all different . in this case
@xmath155 and @xmath166 .
so , mod 2 , @xmath161 .
+ we conclude that @xmath167 .
therefore @xmath135 and @xmath137 are congruent by a matrix @xmath136 , where @xmath136 is the elementary matrix constructed from the identity matrix by adding the second row to the first row . in other words , @xmath136 is the same as the identity , except for the 2 by 2 matrix in the upper left corner , which is @xmath168 $ ] .
@xmath91    the congruence class of the adjacency matrix of the intersection graph is invariant under the 4-term relations .
the determinant ( mod 2 ) and rank ( over @xmath124 ) of the adjacency matrix of the intersection graph are regular graph weight systems .
proof : if @xmath136 is invertible over @xmath124 , the rank of @xmath169 is the same as the rank of @xmath84 .
in addition , @xmath170 ( mod 2 ) , so the determinant is also a congruence invariant mod 2 .
@xmath91      for knots , the conway and homfly weight systems can be interpreted via intersection graphs @xcite .
to what extent can we do the same for string links ?
in general , this is still an open problem , but we can offer a few initial results .
let us recall the definitions of the conway polynomial and weight system .
the conway polynomial @xmath171 of a link is a power series @xmath172 .
it can be computed via the skein relation ( where @xmath173 are as in figure  [ f : skein ] ) :    [ b ] @xmath174
@xmath175 @xmath176 we define the conway polynomials of a string link as the conway polynomial of the link formed by closing the string link in the natural way .
the coefficient @xmath177 is a finite type invariant of type @xmath12 @xcite , and therefore defines a weight system @xmath178 of degree @xmath12 .
the collection of all these weight systems is called the conway weight system , denoted @xmath179 .
consider a chord diagram @xmath34 , together with a chord @xmath10 .
let @xmath180 be the result of _ surgery on v _
, i.e. replacing @xmath10 by an band which preserves the orientation of the components , and then removing the interior of the band and the intervals where it is attached to @xmath34 , as shown in figure  [ f : surgery ]    [ h ] @xmath181    ( so @xmath180 may have multiple boundary circles ) .
the skein relations for the conway polynomial give rise to the following relations for @xmath179 : @xmath182 @xmath183    it is easy to show @xcite that this weight system satisfies the 2-term relations of section [ s:2term ] .
simply surger the two chords ; the 2-term relation then says just that one band can be `` slid '' over the other , which does nt change the topology of the diagram .
bar - natan and garoufalides also showed that the weight system for the conway polynomial for knots is just the determinant of the adjacency matrix for the intersection graph , mod 2 .
the next theorem extends this result to string links with two components .
[ t : conway2 ] for any chord diagram d on a string link with two components , @xmath184 ( mod 2 ) .
proof : since both of these weight systems satisfy the 2-term relations , it suffices to show that they agree on diagrams in normal form ( see section [ ss : chord2term ] ) . for string links with two components , normal form
consists of a caravan on the first component , and 0 , 1 , or 2 parallel chords between the two components .
say that the caravan has @xmath101 1-humped camels and @xmath102 2-humped camels , and there are @xmath85 chords between the components ( @xmath185 ) .
then @xmath186^l \oplus [ 0]^{m_1 } \oplus \left[{\matrix{0 & 1 \cr 1 & 0}}\right]^{m_2}$ ] .
so @xmath187 ( mod 2 ) and @xmath188 ( mod 2 ) . the product of the rank and determinant is 1 ( mod 2 ) when @xmath189 and @xmath190 , and 0 otherwise .
on the other hand , if we surger all the chords of the diagram , and close the string link , we obtain an unlink with @xmath191 components when @xmath192 , and @xmath193 when @xmath194 , which means that @xmath195 only when @xmath196 and @xmath194 .
so the two weight systems agree . @xmath91    with more than two components ,
the situation is more complicated ; in fact , the conway weight system is not always determined by the adjacency matrix of the intersection graph .
figure  [ f : counterexample ] shows two chord diagrams @xmath30 and @xmath31 on 4 components which illustrate this .
[ h ] @xmath197    it is easy to see that these intersection graphs for these diagrams differ only in the labeling of the vertices , so :    @xmath198\ ] ]    however , surgering the chords in @xmath30 yields a string link whose closure has one component , and surgering the chords in @xmath31 yields a string link whose closure has 3 components .
therefore , @xmath199 , but @xmath200 .
however , we can at least give a sufficient condition for @xmath201 to be trivial which depends only on the adjacency matrix .
[ p : suff ] let d be a string link chord diagram of degree k on n components . if either of the following conditions holds , then c(d ) = 0 .
* @xmath202 .
* @xmath203 is even .
proof : the first condition means that , in the normal form , there will be an isolated chord in the caravan , so @xmath201 will be trivial .
the second condition comes from observing that every surgery of a chord in @xmath34 the number of components in the closure of @xmath34 by 1 ( either adding or removing a component ) . since we begin with @xmath12 components , the number of components after all the chords are surgered is congruent to @xmath203 modulo 2 .
so @xmath201 can be non - trivial only if @xmath204 mod 2 .
hence , if @xmath203 is even , then @xmath205 .
@xmath91    now we will consider the ( framed ) homfly weight system for string links .
the homfly invariant is the laurent polynomial @xmath206 $ ] defined by the following skein relations @xcite ( @xmath207 is the result of adding a positive kink to the link @xmath208 ) : @xmath209 @xmath210 @xmath211 @xmath212 if we make the substitutions @xmath213 and @xmath214 , and expand the resulting power series , we transform the homfly polynomial into a power series in @xmath215 , whose coefficients are finite type invariants ( of regular isotopy ) .
these invariants give rise to regular weight systems which we can collect together as the homfly regular weight system @xmath81 .
the skein relations above give rise to the following relations for @xmath81 , by looking at the first terms of the power series ( as before , @xmath180 is the result of surgering the chord @xmath10 in @xmath34 ) : @xmath216 @xmath217 @xmath218 so if @xmath34 is an unlink of @xmath2 components , @xmath219 .
since the first of these relations is almost the same as for the conway weight system @xmath179 , the same argument shows that @xmath81 satisfies the 2-term relations .
we can now consider string link diagrams with two components ( as with the conway weight system , the homfly weight system is not necessarily determined by the adjacency matrix of the intersection graph for chord diagrams on more than two components ) .
[ t : homfly2 ] for any chord diagram d of degree k on a string link with 2 components , let @xmath220 . if r is odd , then @xmath221 ; if r is even , then @xmath222 .
proof : as with theorem [ t : conway2 ] , it suffices to show that the weight systems agree on diagrams in normal form . let @xmath34 be the diagram with @xmath101 one - humped camels and @xmath102 two - humped camels on component 1 , and @xmath85 chords between the two components ( @xmath185 ) ( so the degree of @xmath34 is @xmath223 ) . as before , @xmath186^l \oplus [ 0]^{m_1 } \oplus \left[{\matrix{0 & 1 \cr 1 & 0}}\right]^{m_2}$ ] ,
so the rank is @xmath224 .
@xmath225 is even when @xmath192 and odd when @xmath194 .    on the other hand , if we surger all the chords ( each time multiplying @xmath81 by @xmath226 ) , the resulting link has @xmath191 components when @xmath192 ( and @xmath225 is even ) , and @xmath193 components when @xmath194 ( and @xmath225 is odd ) .
so when @xmath225 is even , @xmath227 , and when @xmath225 is odd , @xmath228 .
@xmath91 +   + remark : if we let @xmath229 and @xmath230 , then @xmath231 .
according to theorem [ t : homfly2 ] , if @xmath34 is a string link chord diagram with two components , we will have @xmath232 in this case _ unless _
@xmath233 is odd ( in which case @xmath234 ) .
but this is exactly the case when @xmath235 ( since the matrix has full rank ) and @xmath236 mod 2 , so @xmath195 .
so the formulas for the conway and homfly weight systems agree in this case .
there are several obvious questions and directions for further research .
figure [ f : counterexample ] gives an example of chord diagrams on 4 components where the adjacency matrix of the intersection graph is insufficient to determine the conway and homfly weight systems .
however , this example seems to depend strongly on there being 4 components - it is not clear how to find connected examples with , say , 5 components where the adjacency matrix is insufficient . and
certainly the adjacency matrix ( as shown by the example in figure [ f : counterexample ] does not contain all the information of the intersection graph - in particular , the information contained in the vertex labels .
this leads to our next question :            this question is still open for knots , as well , though some progress has been made @xcite .
some work has been done by the author @xcite for the case when the intersection graph is a tree , but this is only a bare beginning .        10 bar - natan , d. : on the vassiliev knot invariants , _ topology _ 34 , no .
2 , pp . 423 - 472 , 1995 bar - natan , d. and garoufalidis , s. : on the melvin - morton - rozansky conjecture , _ invent .
_ 125 , pp .
103 - 133 , 1996 birman , j. and lin , x.s . : knot polynomials and vassiliev s invariants , _ invent .
_ 111 , pp .
225 - 270 , 1993 bouchet , a. : circle graph obstructions , _ journal of combinatorial theory , series b _ , 60 , pp .
107 - 144 , 1994 chmutov , s.v . and duzhin , s.v .
: the kontsevich integral , _ acta applicandae math .
155 - 190 , 2001 chmutov , s.v . ,
duzhin , s.v . and
lando , s.k .
: vassiliev knot invariants i , ii , iii , _ advances in soviet mathematics _ 21 , pp .
117 - 145 , 1994 habegger , n. and lin , x.s . :
the classification of links up to link - homotopy , _
j. of the amer .
3 , no . 2 , 1990 ,
389 - 419 kontsevich , m. : vassiliev s knot invariants , _ advances in soviet mathematics _ , vol .
16 , part 2 , pp .
137 - 150 , 1993 lando , s. : on a hopf algebra in graph theory , _ journal of combinatorial theory , series b _ ,
v.80 , p. 104 - 121 , 2000
le , thang : unpublished , 1996 lickorish , w.b . : _ an introduction to knot theory _ , gtm vol .
175 , springer , new york , 1997 mellor , b. : the intersection graph conjecture for loop diagrams , _ journal of knot theory and its ramifications _ , vol . 9 , no . 2 , 2000 .
also see arxiv : math.gt/9807033 mellor , b. : a few weight systems arising from intersection graphs , _
michigan math .
j. _ , vol .
509 - 536 , 2003 . also see arxiv : math.gt/0004080 mellor , b. : tree diagrams for string links , preprint , may 2004 , arxiv : math.gt/0405537 mellor , b. : tree diagrams for string links ii : determining chord diagrams , preprint , august 2004 , arxiv : math.gt/0408286 mellor , b. : weight systems for milnor invariants , in preparation meng , g. : bracket models for weight systems and the universal vassiliev invariants , _ topology and its applications _ 76 ,
47 - 60 , 1997 morton , h.r . and cromwell , p.r .
: distinguishing mutants by knot polynomials , _ journal of knot theory and its ramifications _ 5 , no .
225 - 236 , 1996 milnor , j. and husemoller , d. : _ symmetric bilinear forms _ , springer - verlag , new york , 1973 stanford , t. : finite - type invariants of knots , links , and graphs ,
_ topology _ 35 , no .
4 , pp . 1027 - 1050 , 1996 vassiliev , v.a .
: cohomology of knot spaces , in _ theory of singularities and its applications _
arnold ) , _ advances in soviet mathematics _ , vol .
1 , pp . 23 - 69 , 1990