the investigation of the effects of the interplay between discreteness and nonlinearity is a long - standing argument of research in the study of the dynamical properties of nonlinear lattice models @xcite .
a typical feature exhibited by nonlinear classical hamiltonian lattices is the existence of discrete breathers , i.e. time - periodic and space - localized solutions of the equations of motion .
the study of their dynamical stability , as well as their robustness in long transient processes and thermal equilibrium , has been the subject of an intense experimental and theoretical work @xcite .
the interplay between discreteness and nonlinearity is also crucial for the occurrence of modulational instabilities ( mi ) , well known in the theory of nonlinear media @xcite .
mi are dynamical instabilities characterized by an exponential growth of arbitrarily small fluctuations resulting from the combined effect of dispersion and nonlinearity .
the occurrence of modulational instabilities has been studied in a number of physical systems , ranging from fluid dynamics @xcite to nonlinear optics @xcite .
the role and the consequences of the mi in the dynamics of discrete systems have been extensively studied : the mi was discussed in the context of the discrete nonlinear schrdinger equation ( dnlse ) @xcite , which is a paradigmatic lattice model @xcite used to study nonlinear discrete dynamics @xcite .
the dnlse is commonly used to describe the effective dynamics in different physical systems of interest , including the dynamics of ultracold atoms in optical lattices @xcite and optical waveguide arrays @xcite . for ultracold bosons in optical lattices the onset of mi was analytically predicted @xcite and experimentally observed @xcite , and in nonlinear waveguide arrays the experimental observation of the mi was also reported @xcite .    in this paper
we study the occurrence of mi in the dnlse in the presence of non - local long - range hoppings and interactions .
a motivation for such a study comes from experiments with ultracold dipolar bosonic gases @xcite which have been bose condensed recently by several groups @xcite , from the attainment of quantum degeneration for ensembles of polar molecules @xcite , and from the recent experimental investigations of strongly interacting rydberg gases @xcite . since the interaction potential in ( di)polar gases decay as a power law @xmath11 ( for rydberg gases interacting through van der waals interactions as @xmath12 ) , recent experiments with dipolar gases in optical lattices @xcite , as well as the realization of long - lived dipolar molecules in a three - dimensional periodic potential @xcite and in perspective the dynamics of rydberg atoms in optical lattices @xcite , open the possibility to study dnlse with non - local interactions .
our other motivation is related to the wide interest in systems with long - range interactions @xcite . in these systems
the range of interaction of the constitutive units is not bounded . a typical form of interactions , relevant for a number of systems ranging from gravitational ones to dipolar magnets and gases , is provided by the power - law decay @xmath13 ( e.g. for gravitational systems @xmath14 ) where @xmath15 is the distance among the constituents . for statistical mechanics models ,
like the ising or more generally the @xmath16 models , the possibility to have power - law couplings makes possible the appearance of a rich phase diagram @xcite .    a first criterion to determine the long - rangedness of a system with power - law decaying interaction is the comparison with the dimension @xmath17 of the space ;
as @xmath18 is smaller than or equal to @xmath17 , if the system is homogeneous and the interaction favours homogeneity we obtain a diverging energy density , thus to obtain a well defined thermodynamic limit ( if relevant ) a rescaling of the energy is in order ( the so called kac rescaling ) @xcite . in the following
we will refer to this region as the non - extensive long - range region .
if @xmath18 is larger than @xmath17 the energy of the system is extensive and it is normal to individuate a value of @xmath18 , which we denote by @xmath19 , such that for @xmath20 the system behaves as a short - range system . since it is @xmath21 , there is a region of values of @xmath18 , given by @xmath22 , in which the behavior of the system significantly differs from the properties of the same system with short - range interactions , although the energy is extensive .
such a region is the extensive long - range region , also referred to as the weak - long - range region @xcite , where `` weak '' refers to the extensivity of the energy .
the actual value of @xmath19 depends on the specific model and the dimension : for @xmath16 models in @xmath23 it is @xmath24 @xcite .
both the thermodynamics and the dynamics of long - range interacting systems are extremely interesting @xcite .
in particular , in the long - range region the dynamical evolution evidences that the system may stay in a quasi - stationary metastable state ( different from the thermal equilibrium one ) for a time exponentially growing with the size of the system .
such a metastable state is reached after a short - time dynamics , referred to as violent relaxation @xcite .
while the main bodies of the studies on the dynamics of nonlinear lattices have dealt with short - ranged systems , the extensions of these results to long - ranged systems appeared in the literature addressing the properties of discrete systems with different kinds of non - local dispersion or non - local nonlinear interaction we mentioned @xcite and focused on the existence and stability of localized excitations ( for a recent review on nonlinear waves in lattices see @xcite ) .
the purpose of the present paper is to study how modulational instabilities emerge in nonlinear lattices with non - local interactions and hoppings , aiming both at unveiling if ( and in which conditions ) short time dynamical instabilities occur in nonlinear lattices and at clarifying the nature of the emerging modulational instability .
we choose the dnlse as a case study not only due to its paradigmatic usefulness , but also due to its relation with @xmath25 [ i.e. , @xmath26 models : when the fluctuation of the number of particles are frozen , the kinetic term in the dnlse energy is basically the @xmath25 model ( see the discussion in sec .
[ the_model ] ) .
this is the reason why we choose to consider not only power - law interactions ( as it is relevant for experiments with ultracold dipolar bosons in optical lattices ) , but also power - law hoppings [ which corresponds to power - law couplings in @xmath27 models ] . using the dnlse we study the modulationally stable and unstable regions in the presence of power - law non - local interactions and hoppings , discussing also the interplay between local and non - local interactions , e.g. local attraction and non - local repulsion .
the plan of the paper is as follows . in sec .
[ the_model ] , we introduce the dnlse with long - range hoppings and interactions and discuss its relation with other statistical mechanics models . in sec .
[ mi_analysis ] we derive the bogoliubov spectrum of elementary excitations , present the general framework for the determination of the stability regions in presence of power - law interactions and hoppings and specialize it to the analysis to the short - range limit reminding the known results of the mi analysis @xcite .
our findings for power - law interactions are presented in sec .
[ mi_lr_interaction ] where we also consider the case of attractive and competing local and non - local interactions .
[ mi_lr_hopping ] deals with a system with non - local hopping and local interaction which presents some peculiar features with respect to the long - range interaction which are further investigated in [ mi_interaction_hopping_comparison ] .
the physical applications of our results , in particular to ultracold dipolar gases in optical lattices , are discussed in sec .
[ phys_app ] , while our conclusions are in sec .
[ conclusions ] .
the dnlse with non - local interactions and hoppings reads @xmath28 in eq .
@xmath29 is the time and the indices @xmath30 denote the sites of a lattice . for simplicity
we assume that the lattice is one dimensional , but the subsequent analysis can be extended to higher dimensional lattices .
the indices @xmath31 then assume the values @xmath32 ( @xmath33 is the number of the sites , taken to be even ) .
periodic boundary conditions will be also assumed , so that the wavefunction satisfies the condition @xmath34 .
the hamiltonian corresponding to eq
.   reads @xmath35 we denote the diagonal interaction by @xmath36 and the next - neighbor interaction as @xmath37 the interaction coefficients @xmath38 in eq .
are assumed to be power - law decaying with exponent @xmath0 , i.e. @xmath39 . since @xmath40 , implementing the periodic boundary conditions amounts to require that @xmath41 , where @xmath42 and @xmath43 .
we have therefore @xmath44    the non - local hopping rates @xmath45 will be also assumed to be power - law decaying with exponent @xmath1 .
we consider vanishing diagonal hopping ( @xmath46 ) and a nearest - neighbor hopping @xmath47 therefore , with periodic boundary conditions we have @xmath48 since we want a finite expression for the energy per particle , we will consider @xmath49 to treat the cases @xmath50 or @xmath51 one should do a kac rescaling , as it is usually done in statistical mechanics models with nonextensive long - range interactions @xcite : e.g. , for @xmath51 one has to perform the substitution @xmath52    a non - extensive ground - state energy is found in our case by @xmath53 and/or @xmath54 : the region @xmath55 is the weak - long - range hopping region .
recall that such region is of high interest in the study of statistical mechanics models with long - range couplings .
let us consider an ising model of the form @xmath56 with power - law couplings @xmath57 . as usual , @xmath58 denote the sites of a lattice with dimension @xmath17 .
it is well known that for nearest - neighbor couplings ( formally corresponding to @xmath59 ) there is order at finite temperature only if @xmath60 @xcite . however ,
if the interactions are sufficiently long - ranged it is possible to have a phase transition at finite temperature between a ferromagnetic and a paramagnetic phase @xcite even for @xmath23 : if @xmath61 , then the critical temperature @xmath62 is vanishing ( as in any short - range ising chain @xcite ) , while for @xmath63 the energy is non - extensive .
after the kac rescaling one easily sees that for @xmath63 there is a phase transition having the critical exponents of the mean - field universality class ( see e.g. @xcite ) .
for @xmath18 between @xmath64 and @xmath65 ( weak - long - range region ) there is a phase transition at a finite critical temperature . for @xmath66
a kosterlitz - thouless transition takes place @xcite    before moving on to the derivation of the bogoliubov spectrum of elementary excitations , we pause here to discuss the relation between the dnlse and a model widely used in the treatment of long - range systems , i.e. the hamiltonian mean field ( hmf ) model @xcite .
we observe that the dnlse hamiltonian can be written as the sum of a kinetic term @xmath67 and an interaction term @xmath68 .
the kinetic part reads @xmath69 : by writing @xmath70 in terms of the local density @xmath71 and phase @xmath72 , i.e. , @xmath73 the kinetic part reads then @xmath74 .
one sees than when the number fluctuations are frozen , i.e. @xmath75 ( where @xmath76 is the average number of particles per site ) , the dnlse hamiltonian reduces to the potential energy ( and it has the same equilibrium properties ) of the hmf model @xcite @xmath77 ( where @xmath78 ) , which is nothing but a long - range @xmath25 model .
this result is of course expected in the sense that interacting bosons on a lattice are in the @xmath25 universality class , and interacting bosons with long - range hoppings have to be in the universality class of the long - range @xmath25 model .
we study in this section the bogoliubov spectrum of elementary excitations , describing the energy of small perturbations with ( quasi)momentum @xmath79 on top of a plane - wave state with ( quasi)momentum @xmath80 @xcite .
the final part of the section is devoted to briefly recall the results of the short - range limit ( @xmath81 and @xmath82 , i.e. , only nearest - neighbor hopping ) .
the stationary solutions of eq .
are plane - waves @xmath83}:\ ] ] @xmath84 is the chemical potential given ( for @xmath85 ) by @xmath86.\ ] ] in eq .
@xmath76 is the plane - wave density ( @xmath87 ) ; furthermore @xmath88 is the riemann zeta function @xmath89 and we introduce the function @xmath90 some useful properties of the function are recalled and discussed in the appendix [ appendix_a ] .
the stability analysis of plane - waves stationary solutions can be carried out by perturbing the carrier waves as @xmath91 e^{i ( k j - \nu t)}.\ ] ] retaining only the terms proportional to @xmath92 and @xmath93 , one gets @xmath94 the quantities @xmath95 , @xmath96 , and @xmath97 in eq .
are defined by @xmath98 + \rho \tilde{v}_q,\ ] ] @xmath99 + \rho \tilde{v}_q\ ] ] and @xmath100 in the previous expressions , @xmath101 is the fourier transform of the interaction : for finite @xmath33 it is @xmath102 for @xmath103 one obtains @xmath104    from eq .
it follows that the excitation spectrum ( i.e. , the bogoliubov dispersion relation ) for the dnlse with power - law hoppings and interactions is @xmath105 where @xmath106 is a function of @xmath80 and @xmath79 ( respectively momentum of the perturbed and perturbing plane - waves ) . furthermore @xmath107 where we introduced the function @xmath108 . in the following
we will use the convenient dimensionless parameters @xmath109 in terms of the parameters @xmath110 , @xmath111 , the quantity @xmath112 entering eq .
reads @xmath113    the carrier wave becomes modulationally unstable when the eigenfrequencies @xmath114 in eq . acquire a finite imaginary part : the condition for stability is then @xmath115 .
a momentum @xmath80 is then _ modulationally stable _ if for each @xmath79 the eigenfrequencies @xmath114 are real , otherwise if it exists a @xmath79 such that @xmath116 then @xmath80 will be modulationally _
unstable_. since the eigenvalues are unaffected by substituting @xmath80 with @xmath117 and @xmath79 with @xmath118 , we will consider @xmath80 and @xmath79 both belonging to the interval @xmath119 $ ] .
notice that for @xmath120 it is @xmath121 .
when a momentum @xmath80 is modulationally unstable , there will be some momentum @xmath79 for which @xmath122 and @xmath123 have an imaginary part @xmath124 . for those values of @xmath80 and @xmath79
we write @xmath125 to quantify how unstable is the perturbed plane - wave [ notice that the imaginary parts of @xmath122 and @xmath123 are by definition opposite in sign and equal in modulus ] . for @xmath80
unstable we will use the notation @xmath126 , where the @xmath127 is taken on all the @xmath79 such that @xmath128 .
the value of @xmath79 for which the maximum value of @xmath129 is obtained will be denoted by @xmath130 [ i.e. , @xmath131 .      in this section
we review the results and the region of stability for the short - range limit , having only local interaction ( @xmath132 ) and nearest - neighbor hopping : @xmath133 and @xmath134 for @xmath135 [ formally this is the limit @xmath82 in eq . ] .    it has been shown in @xcite that the onset of mi occurs at @xmath136 , i.e. , the momenta @xmath137 are modulationally stable , while for @xmath138 are unstable . the quantity @xmath139 , defined in eq .   and
giving the stability regions reads @xmath140 one readily sees that the momenta @xmath137 are stable . for @xmath138
all the momenta @xmath80 are unstable , irrespective of @xmath141 .
however , one sees that for @xmath138 and @xmath142 each @xmath79 is unstable , while for @xmath143 there are stability regions : these stable regions are found to be bounded by the regions in which @xmath79 is between @xmath144 and @xmath145 and @xmath80 is between @xmath146 and @xmath145 , where @xmath147 and @xmath148 the resulting plots of stable and unstable regions for @xmath142 and @xmath143 are in fig .
[ fig1 ] , where we plot as well as contour plot the value of @xmath129 in the unstable regions ( the larger @xmath149 , the more unstable is the dynamics ) . in fig .
[ fig2 ] we also plot as a solid line the values @xmath150 for which the maximum value of @xmath149 , at the fixed @xmath80 , is reached .
regions for the short - range dnlse ( @xmath132 and only nearest - neighbor hoppings ) for @xmath151 ( a ) and @xmath152 ( b ) in the @xmath80 ( carrier wave momentum ) @xmath79 ( perturbing wave momentum ) plane .
the absolute value of the imaginary part of the frequencies @xmath129 is depicted [ from light to dark as @xmath129 increases ] .
the continuous lines are equispaced isolines whose spacing is set to @xmath153 .
the thick ( red ) line indicates the position of @xmath130.,title="fig : " ]   regions for the short - range dnlse ( @xmath132 and only nearest - neighbor hoppings ) for @xmath151 ( a ) and @xmath152 ( b ) in the @xmath80 ( carrier wave momentum ) @xmath79 ( perturbing wave momentum ) plane .
the absolute value of the imaginary part of the frequencies @xmath129 is depicted [ from light to dark as @xmath129 increases ] .
the continuous lines are equispaced isolines whose spacing is set to @xmath153 .
the thick ( red ) line indicates the position of @xmath130.,title="fig : " ]
in this section we consider the case of power - law interactions in the presence of ( local ) nearest - neighbor hoppings ( @xmath133 and @xmath134 for @xmath135 ) .
one has then @xmath154 .
\label{pr}\ ] ] we consider only the cases where @xmath155 and the local interaction @xmath156 can be either or positive or negative .
the cases where @xmath157 is negative can be easily derived from the cases where @xmath155 by noticing that under the following transformation @xmath158 one obtains the same dependence on @xmath79 and @xmath0 of the stability conditions that one has when @xmath159 is positive .
for example , if for a fixed value @xmath160 and @xmath161 one has that the momentum @xmath162 is stable , then momentum @xmath163 will also be stable for @xmath164 and @xmath165 .
-@xmath79 plane ( see caption of fig .
[ fig1 ] ) for power - law interactions in presence of local nearest - neighbor hoppings with @xmath168 and @xmath151 .
we plot @xmath129 for the four values of @xmath169 , @xmath170 , @xmath65 , and @xmath171 in panels @xmath172 , @xmath173 , @xmath174 , and @xmath17 , respectively . , title="fig : " ] -@xmath79 plane ( see caption of fig .
[ fig1 ] ) for power - law interactions in presence of local nearest - neighbor hoppings with @xmath168 and @xmath151 .
we plot @xmath129 for the four values of @xmath169 , @xmath170 , @xmath65 , and @xmath171 in panels @xmath172 , @xmath173 , @xmath174 , and @xmath17 , respectively .
, title="fig : " ] -@xmath79 plane ( see caption of fig .  [ fig1 ] ) for power - law interactions in presence of local nearest - neighbor hoppings with @xmath168 and @xmath151 .
we plot @xmath129 for the four values of @xmath169 , @xmath170 , @xmath65 , and @xmath171 in panels @xmath172 , @xmath173 , @xmath174 , and @xmath17 , respectively .
, title="fig : " ] -@xmath79 plane ( see caption of fig .  [ fig1 ] ) for power - law interactions in presence of local nearest - neighbor hoppings with @xmath168 and @xmath151 .
we plot @xmath129 for the four values of @xmath169 , @xmath170 , @xmath65 , and @xmath171 in panels @xmath172 , @xmath173 , @xmath174 , and @xmath17 , respectively .
, title="fig : " ]    we consider here @xmath141 and @xmath159 to be positive .
since @xmath175 for @xmath3 and @xmath176 $ ] , one can show the following :    * for @xmath177 the momenta @xmath137 are stable . * for @xmath178
the momenta @xmath137 are unstable .
it follows that the critical value @xmath146 as a function of @xmath111 is given by @xmath179 i.e. , for @xmath180 one has @xmath181 .
for @xmath138 it is easy to see that all momenta are unstable against perturbations at @xmath120 .
notice that for @xmath182 ( i.e. , for the model having only on - site and nearest - neighbor interactions ) eq
. reads @xmath183 .
the instability regions are depicted in fig .
[ fig2 ] as @xmath159 is increased - for @xmath142 , one can identify four regions . for @xmath184 with @xmath185 ,
then the momenta @xmath80 larger than @xmath186 ( smaller than @xmath186 ) are unstable for all @xmath79 . increasing @xmath111 ,
one has that for @xmath187 a stable region forms around @xmath188 , while for @xmath189 an unstable region appears close to @xmath190 for momenta @xmath80 between @xmath146 given by eq . and @xmath186 .
when @xmath191 , then all the @xmath80 becomes unstable and the instability starts from @xmath190 .
therefore , the plane wave @xmath146 is rendered unstable by the wave vector @xmath190 , thus the system is the most sensitive to short wavelength perturbations .
the behavior of @xmath146 is plotted in fig .  [ fig3 ] .
the analytical prediction ( valid for @xmath3 ) is compared for @xmath192 against numerical findings obtained numerically solving the dnlse finding a very good agreement [ for comparison we also plot the analytical result for @xmath182 ] .
the numerical solution has been obtained on a finite - size system ( we choose @xmath194 ) whose coherence has been monitored by inspecting the absolute value of the following order parameter @xcite @xmath195 where @xmath196 is the fourier transform of the wave functions . the initial wavefunction @xmath197 is chosen as a plane wave with wave vector @xmath80 perturbed by the highest frequency wavevector @xmath198 , with @xmath190 ( notice that @xmath199 for non - competing interactions , as one can see from fig .  [ fig2 ] ) .
the ratio between the amplitudes of perturbing and perturbed wave functions is set to be @xmath200 with @xmath201 . as we can see in the left panel of fig .
[ fig4 ] , if prepared in a modulationally unstable initial state , the system loses coherence after a time which diverges as we approach the momentum @xmath146 : denoting with @xmath202 the time after which the instability is observed using the order parameter , and noticing that the quantity is vanishing ( at @xmath190 ) as @xmath203 , one can estimate @xmath146 from the numerical data using the dependence @xmath204 ( see fig .
[ fig4 ] , right panel ) .
this divergence has been used to extract the numerical values of @xmath146 shown in fig .
[ fig3 ] .     vs @xmath111 from eq .
( in the figure @xmath205 and @xmath192 ) .
the dots represent values obtained by direct simulation of the dnlse , see the text for details ( errors are smaller than the symbols ) .
notice that for @xmath205 and @xmath182 one has @xmath136 for @xmath206 and @xmath181 for @xmath207 .
the dotted line is the analytical value of @xmath146 vs @xmath111 from eq .   with @xmath182 and @xmath205 . ]    , defined in eq .
, for five different values ( from left to right @xmath208 , @xmath209 , @xmath210 , @xmath211 , @xmath212 , @xmath213 in units of @xmath214 with @xmath194 ) of carrier plane - wave wavevector for the dnlse with parameters @xmath205 , @xmath215 , and @xmath192 .
the lifetimes of the initial states are depicted in the right part of the figure .
these times have been fitted with a function @xmath216 ( dotted line ) to obtain the a numerical estimates of @xmath146 ( vertical line ) .
, title="fig : " ] , defined in eq .  , for five different values ( from left to right @xmath208 , @xmath209 , @xmath210 , @xmath211 , @xmath212 , @xmath213 in units of @xmath214 with @xmath194 ) of carrier plane - wave wavevector for the dnlse with parameters @xmath205 , @xmath215 , and @xmath192 .
the lifetimes of the initial states are depicted in the right part of the figure .
these times have been fitted with a function @xmath216 ( dotted line ) to obtain the a numerical estimates of @xmath146 ( vertical line ) .
, title="fig : " ]      for @xmath218 a necessary condition for stability is given by @xmath219 that is obtained by analyzing the stability at @xmath120 .
the critical momentum is given by @xmath220}\left[\arccos\left(\frac{\bar u   + 2\bar v \ell_\alpha(q)}{2\sin^2(\frac{q}{2 } ) } \right)\right].\ ] ] all momenta @xmath221 are stable .
an important feature of the case with competing interactions is that the most unstable perturbations can arise for a value of @xmath222 different from @xmath223 and @xmath145 ( i.e. , @xmath224 ) . in the following
we determine for what conditions at the critical value @xmath146 there is an instability at a @xmath225 .
we will refer to these values of @xmath222 as to _ finite _ values for the occurrence of modulational instability : this is because the instability develops on a length scale @xmath226 .
it is intended that if the instability arises at @xmath190 , this develops on a length scale of the order the lattice unit , while an instability at @xmath120 involves length of the order of the lattice size : the later of these will be the case for non - local hoppings with weak - long - range exponents @xmath227 .
an example of a finite @xmath222 is shown in fig .
[ fig5 ] . to see how this can arise we analyze for simplicity the situation at @xmath228 , which can be easily generalized to a finite value in the interval @xmath229 . to observe an instability region like the one in fig .
[ fig5 ] we have to impose that the equation @xmath230 with @xmath231 obtained from eq . by the substitution @xmath228 ,
has exactly one finite solution for fixed values of the parameters @xmath232 and no solutions for smaller values of @xmath156 .
after some algebra one can derive a set of conditions on the coefficients @xmath233 such that the curve @xmath234 possesses one minimum .
it turns out that , if @xmath235 , then there is a @xmath236 such that the instability region is tangent to the @xmath228 axis . for smaller values of @xmath156
the previous equation @xmath237 does not have any solution and one obtains a finite value of @xmath146 given by eq . .
we can thus assert that the presence of competing interactions may originate the wavelength @xmath238 smaller than @xmath145 ( and larger than @xmath145 ) , unlike the case of the noncompeting interaction examined in the previous section for which the system is most sensible to perturbations at @xmath190 .
this is a general feature of systems with competing interactions acting on different scales which , if properly tuned , give rise to the birth of a new intermediate lengthscale ( in this case of the order of @xmath239 ) . for similar phenomena ultimately leading to stripe formation and
more generally spatially modulated patterns in different contexts see , e.g. , @xcite .    ) for the case of competing interactions with @xmath240 , @xmath241 and @xmath242 .
the value of the most unstable @xmath79 which defines @xmath146 is denoted by @xmath238 . ]    for completeness we list the conditions on the parameters @xmath233 such that the function @xmath234 has a minimum for a finite value @xmath222 of the perturbing wavevector :    * for @xmath243 @xmath244 * for @xmath245 @xmath246 * for @xmath247 @xmath248    ( similar results are found for @xmath249 ) .
the value @xmath250 in eq .   is given by @xmath251 , the unique solution of the equation : @xmath252    the condition ensuring the stability for every @xmath253 $ ] is given by : @xmath254    ) for the case of long - range hopping and local interaction @xmath205 and @xmath255 .
panels ( a ) , ( b ) , ( c ) , and ( d ) refer to the values of @xmath256 , @xmath257 , @xmath65 , @xmath258.,title="fig : " ] ) for the case of long - range hopping and local interaction @xmath205 and @xmath255 .
panels ( a ) , ( b ) , ( c ) , and ( d ) refer to the values of @xmath256 , @xmath257 , @xmath65 , @xmath258.,title="fig : " ] ) for the case of long - range hopping and local interaction @xmath205 and @xmath255 .
panels ( a ) , ( b ) , ( c ) , and ( d ) refer to the values of @xmath256 , @xmath257 , @xmath65 , @xmath258.,title="fig : " ] ) for the case of long - range hopping and local interaction @xmath205 and @xmath255 .
panels ( a ) , ( b ) , ( c ) , and ( d ) refer to the values of @xmath256 , @xmath257 , @xmath65 , @xmath258.,title="fig : " ]
in this section we consider the case of power - law nearest - neighbor hoppings , with exponent @xmath259 .
one has @xmath260 while in the cases considered in sec .
[ mi_lr_interaction ] the instabilities arise in the higher frequency range of @xmath79 [ @xmath190 ] for non - competing interaction or at a finite value of @xmath79 [ @xmath262 for competing interactions , with non - local hoppings even the long - wavelength perturbations can affect significantly the stability properties of the system .
this can be verified by an inspection of the behavior of @xmath139 for small @xmath79 .
one finds for @xmath263 @xmath264 the investigation of the behavior of the second derivative of @xmath265 reveals that @xmath266 is positive for @xmath227 for each @xmath80 .
it follows that @xmath267 i.e. , the modulational stability regions shrink to zero in the weak - long - range regime , irrespective of @xmath110 and @xmath111 ( we assume for simplicity in this section @xmath268 and @xmath269 ) .
the same analysis shows that for @xmath132 the critical value @xmath146 does not depend on the specific value of @xmath110 for @xmath270 .
the above scenario is confirmed by fig .
[ fig6 ] where we plot @xmath129 as @xmath1 is increased .
the values of @xmath146 as a function of @xmath1 are plotted in fig .
notice that @xmath146 tends to @xmath186 when the hopping exponent approaches the short range limit @xmath271 .
as was done in sec .
[ mi_lr_interaction ] we compare the analytical results with numerical simulations of the dnlse obtaining a very good agreement .     vs the power - law exponent @xmath1 of power - law hoppings with @xmath132 .
crosses are numerical data . ]
it should be stressed that the lifetimes of the modulationally unstable states in this case is typically longer than the ones encountered in sec .
[ mi_lr_interaction ] .
this will be supported in the next section where we directly compare instabilities arising from the long - range interaction and hopping , respectively .
when we introduce the long - range interaction @xmath272 the instability at @xmath120 due to long - range hopping remains unchanged since it is due to the vanishing of @xmath273 [ see eq .  ] , while the instabilities already discussed in sec .
[ mi_lr_interaction ] are possibly generated .
more precisely , an instability region at a finite value @xmath274 ( @xmath275 for non - competing interactions ) arises in the presence of @xmath159 , however , for @xmath159 much smaller than @xmath141 ( and smaller than a critical value @xmath276 ) then @xmath146 is determined only by the @xmath120 instability driven by non - local hoppings and it is again given by the value at @xmath81 , as shown in fig .
when @xmath277 the contribution of both instabilities has to be taken into account to determine @xmath146 , with @xmath120 instabilities generated by long - range hopping and @xmath190 ( or @xmath278 if the competition is sufficiently strong ) instabilities due to the interaction .
we comment on these scenarios in the next section .
the hopping instability described in sec .
[ mi_lr_hopping ] exhibits an important difference with the one arising from the interaction described in sec .
[ mi_lr_interaction ] since @xmath146 becomes unstable for @xmath120 perturbations , i.e. , with a size of the order of the system s size .    to compare the time scales on which these two kind of instabilities act we have considered a case where we switch on and off alternatively the long - range interaction and hopping ( see fig .  [ fig8 ] ) .
we prepare the two systems with a planewave @xmath80 slightly inside the instability region perturbed by a @xmath79 equaling @xmath145 and @xmath279 ( the widest available perturbation with a nonvanishing imaginary bogoliubov frequency ) . by inspecting the contour plots [ figs .
[ fig8](a ) and ( b ) ] we foresee a longer lifetime for the instability induced by the non - local hoppings .
this result is confirmed by numerical simulations , shown in panel @xmath174 of fig .
[ fig8](c ) .
this is a general feature of the long - range hopping instability : we observe that at the the critical value @xmath146 , by definition , @xmath280 both for non - local interaction and hoppings .
however , entering the unstable region gives a vanishing value of @xmath129 for @xmath120 and @xmath281 and @xmath282 for @xmath79 small for long - range hoppings . at variance for long - range interactions as
@xmath80 is slightly larger than @xmath146 then @xmath283 generally acquires a finite value at the wavevector @xmath284 at which the instability arises [ with @xmath285 for the non - competing case and @xmath286 for the competing one ] .
( see caption of fig .
[ fig1 ] ) for @xmath287 and @xmath288 , @xmath289 ( long - range interaction ) and @xmath290 , @xmath291 ( long - range hopping ) . in panel ( c )
we depict the time evolution of the order parameter defined in eq . for the initial conditions indicated in the contour plots with points .
as we can see the long - range hopping instability , upper ( green ) curve , takes a much longer time to set in than the long - range interaction instability , lower ( blue ) curve .
, title="fig : " ]   ( see caption of fig .  [ fig1 ] ) for @xmath287 and @xmath288 , @xmath289 ( long - range interaction ) and @xmath290 , @xmath291 ( long - range hopping ) . in panel ( c )
we depict the time evolution of the order parameter defined in eq . for the initial conditions indicated in the contour plots with points .
as we can see the long - range hopping instability , upper ( green ) curve , takes a much longer time to set in than the long - range interaction instability , lower ( blue ) curve .
, title="fig : " ]   ( see caption of fig .  [ fig1 ] ) for @xmath287 and @xmath288 , @xmath289 ( long - range interaction ) and @xmath290 , @xmath291 ( long - range hopping ) . in panel ( c )
we depict the time evolution of the order parameter defined in eq . for the initial conditions indicated in the contour plots with points .
as we can see the long - range hopping instability , upper ( green ) curve , takes a much longer time to set in than the long - range interaction instability , lower ( blue ) curve .
, title="fig : " ]    let us examine the peculiarities of the instabilities due to interaction and hopping and examine whether these may be reproduced with finite - range couplings or hoppings . as far as the long - range interaction is concerned , in the non competing case ( examined in sec .  [ mi_lr_noncompeting ] ) , we observe that the situation is not very different from the finite - range one with nearest - neighbor interaction ( @xmath292 )
. we can indeed find an effective nearest - neighbor @xmath293 interaction giving rise to the same @xmath146 [ see eq .  ] : @xmath294    similarly in the case where the competition in present ( described in sec .
[ mi_lr_competing ] ) the case with @xmath0 finite can be seen to be similar to the one obtained with @xmath295 .
in fact one can generate a new wavevector @xmath238 even when @xmath295 , and thus the long - ranged - ness of the interaction is not actually playing a major role .
as an example in fig .  [ fig9](a ) we have considered a case where a nearest - neighbor and next - to - nearest - neighbor interaction generates a stability diagram closely resembling the one shown in fig .
[ fig5 ] .    when we move to the hopping instabilities ( examined in sec .
[ mi_lr_hopping ] ) we observe that while a finite - range hopping can generate @xmath120 instabilities for @xmath296 , the value of @xmath146 is effectively limited by the range of the hopping and it is not @xmath223 .
this can be seen considering the hopping coefficients of range @xmath297 , i.e. , @xmath298 for @xmath299 .
an example is given by @xmath300 where we set @xmath301 , @xmath302 .
explicit expressions ( not reported here ) for the stability regions can be derived repeating the analysis presented in sec .
[ mi_analysis ] .
it is possible to show that for a hopping of range @xmath297 then the critical momentum @xmath146 can become as small as @xmath303 due to the @xmath120 instability .
thus for @xmath270 one can find a finite - range hopping with range @xmath297 to reproduce the critical value @xmath146 and the stability regions of non - local hoppings with exponent @xmath1 , while this is not the case for @xmath227 .
we conclude that the case @xmath227 where @xmath181 is singled out as a case where the instability is _ genuinely _ due to the long - range nature of the hoppings . in fig .
[ fig9](b ) we depict the stability diagram of a case with the nearest- and next - to - nearest - neighbor hoppings mimicking the effect of long - range hopping shown in fig .
[ fig6](a ) and  [ fig6](b ) , with a finite value of @xmath146 .
( see caption of fig .
[ fig1 ] ) for models including only on - site interactions ( @xmath141 ) and next- and next - to - nearest - neighbor interaction ( @xmath159 and @xmath304 ) and hoppings ( @xmath305 and @xmath306 ) , respectively .
panel ( a ) refers to values @xmath307 , @xmath308 , @xmath309 , and @xmath310 while panel ( b ) refers to values @xmath311 , @xmath312 , and @xmath313 .
, title="fig : " ]   ( see caption of fig .  [ fig1 ] ) for models including only on - site interactions ( @xmath141 ) and next- and next - to - nearest - neighbor interaction ( @xmath159 and @xmath304 ) and hoppings ( @xmath305 and @xmath306 ) , respectively .
panel ( a ) refers to values @xmath307 , @xmath308 , @xmath309 , and @xmath310 while panel ( b ) refers to values @xmath311 , @xmath312 , and @xmath313 .
, title="fig : " ]
the cases we have analyzed can be applied to the study of modulational instability in a variety of physical systems characterized by non - local interaction and hopping coefficients .
for example , the excitation transfer energy in molecular crystals and biopolymers exhibits a @xmath11 decay due to the dipole - dipole interaction @xcite .
the possibility of the inclusion of a non - local hopping is also present in dna modeling ( e.g. , in the the peyrard - bishop model @xcite ) , where the equation of motion for the transverse stretching of the hydrogen bonds connecting the bases facing each other contains a long - range hopping term due to the dipole - dipole interaction among hydrogen bonds resulting in a value @xmath314 @xcite .
another physical system characterized by non - local interactions is provided by ultracold atomic dipolar gases in optical lattices @xcite , for which experimental results recently appeared @xcite . for dipolar bosons as @xmath315 in the bose - einstein condensate phase the low - energy effective hamiltonian
is expected to be the dnlse in deep optical lattices with the power - law interaction coefficients having @xmath192 .
we also mention that for ultracold bosons in suitably tailored optical lattices it is possible to have non - local hoppings @xmath316 , @xmath317 @xcite . to be specific , in the following we study the instability threshold for the case of @xmath315 trapped bosons in a quasi - one - dimensional geometry .
we provide estimates of the dnlse parameters @xmath318 , @xmath141 , @xmath159 in terms of the physical parameters , showing that the critical value @xmath146 does not crucially depend on the exponent @xmath0 .
a similar computation is presented for a model having non - local hoppings @xmath316 , @xmath317 , as the one described in @xcite .
also in this case we find a relatively small quantitative effect on the value of the critical value @xmath146 . as discussed in secs .
[ mi_lr_interaction ] to [ mi_interaction_hopping_comparison ] , there is no qualitative difference between a finite value of @xmath0 or @xmath1 and the corresponding results for @xmath182 or @xmath82 , as soon as that @xmath3 or @xmath270 .
the results presented in this section further show that the quantitative difference ( say , comparing @xmath192 and @xmath182 results ) is rather small .
the gross - pitaevskii hamiltonian for a bose - einstein condensate of dipolar bosons in a quasi - one - dimensional trap in presence of an optical lattice is given by @xmath319 @xmath320 in eq .
@xmath321 is the condensate wavefunction and @xmath322 is the periodic potential due to the optical lattice along the @xmath323 direction , reading as @xmath324 where @xmath325 ( @xmath326 is the lattice spacing ) . the strength @xmath327 is usually measured in units of the recoil energy @xmath328 : we set @xmath329 .
the condensate wavefunction is normalized to the total number of particles @xmath330 and the filling @xmath76 is defined by @xmath331 , where @xmath332 is the number of wells .
moreover , in eq .
@xmath333 is the effective one - dimensional coupling constant , which is determined in terms of the 3d @xmath334-wave scattering length @xmath172 and the size of the transverse confinement @xmath335 @xcite , which in turn depends on the radial confinement frequency @xmath336 ( we will consider values of @xmath337 much smaller than one , far from the confinement - induced resonance ) .
the dipole - dipole interaction induces a non - local two - body potential decaying as @xmath11 .
the dipole - dipole scattering length is defined as @xmath338 , where @xmath17 is the dipole moment and @xmath339 is the vacuum permeability @xcite . for dipolar gases in quasi - one -
dimensional geometries it is possible to obtain an expression in the single - mode approximation for the effective non - local interaction @xmath340 by integrating the transverse ground - state @xcite : one obtains @xmath341 $ ] , where @xmath342 and @xmath343 is the complementary error function ; the dimensionless constant @xmath344 depends on the angle @xmath345 the dipoles form with the @xmath323 axis and it may vary between @xmath64 ( corresponding to @xmath346 ) and @xmath347 ( @xmath348 )
.    the dnlse is found for deep lattices by using a tight - binding ansatz @xcite of the form @xmath349 where @xmath350 is the wannier function centered in the @xmath351-th well ( and assumed in the following estimates to have a shape independent of @xmath351 ) .
the coefficients @xmath318 , @xmath141 and @xmath159 are expressed as suitable overlap integrals of wannier functions and can be estimated by using a gaussian form for the @xmath352 s , with the width being a parameter to be variationally determined ( see the discussions in @xcite ) .
we mention that the effect of the inter - site interaction term @xmath159 in the bose - hubbard phase diagram was recently investigated in @xcite .
the critical momentum @xmath353 is an important quantity which has been theoretically investigated in @xcite and experimentally detected in @xcite for a system with short - range interactions .
we recall that experimentally the modulational instability may be triggered by subjecting the system to a sudden shift of the optical lattice or of confining harmonic trap ( as done in @xcite ) . + our results for the critical value @xmath146 , after computing the parameters @xmath318 , @xmath141 , and @xmath159 ,
are drawn in fig .
[ fig10 ] for a set of typical experimental parameters : we fixed @xmath354 , @xmath355 , @xmath356 ( corresponding to repulsion ) and @xmath357 and we varied @xmath358 for @xmath315 atoms for two different values of the filling @xmath76 ( we choose @xmath201 and @xmath359 ) . in the inset of fig .
[ fig10 ] we plot the ratio @xmath360 versus @xmath358 to quantify how much the interaction is non - local for a typical value of the parameters .
one sees that deviations are observed from the critical value @xmath136 obtained without non - local interactions and these deviations are not crucially dependent on @xmath0 . in fig .
[ fig11 ] we finally plot the critical value @xmath146 for a model having @xmath316 and @xmath317 ( i.e. , @xmath300 ) with @xmath81 : the critical value @xmath146 does not depend on @xmath141 and smoothly passes from @xmath186 ( for @xmath310 ) to @xmath361 ( for @xmath362 ) .
vs @xmath358 for a dipolar gas of @xmath315 atoms .
solid lines refer to @xmath192 ( top solid line : @xmath201 , bottom solid line : @xmath359 ) , while dotted lines refer to @xmath182 ( top dashed line : @xmath201 , bottom dashed line : @xmath359 ) .
parameters are @xmath354 , @xmath355 , @xmath356 and @xmath363 .
inset : corresponding value of @xmath364 vs @xmath358 for @xmath201 , solid line , and @xmath359 , dotted line ( the two lines practically coinciding with one another ) . ]
vs @xmath365 for a model having nearest - neighbor and next - nearest - neighbor hoppings @xmath316 and @xmath317 ( @xmath81 ) . ]
in this paper we studied the occurrence of modulational instabilities in nonlinear lattices with long - range hoppings and interactions .
we were motivated by experiments of ( di)polar gases in optical lattices and by the interest in the study of dynamical regimes in systems with long - range interactions .
using the discrete nonlinear schrdinger equation in one dimension , we considered power - law decaying interactions ( with exponent @xmath0 ) and hoppings ( with exponent @xmath1 ) .
we showed that the effect of long - range interactions is that of shifting the onset of the modulational instability region for @xmath3 ( corresponding to an extensive energy ) . at a critical value of the interaction strength , the modulational stable region shrinks to zero .
similar results are found for short - range non - local hoppings ( @xmath270 ) . at variance , for longer - ranged hoppings ( @xmath227 )
there is no longer any modulational stability .
explicit estimates for the critical values of the momentum at which the system becomes unstable are presented for a quasi - one - dimensional ultracold dipolar gas in a deep optical lattice .
instabilities due to the interaction generally differ from the ones due to hopping since the first ones are sensitive to finite wavelength perturbations while the second ones are most sensitive to perturbation of the order of the system size .
such hopping generated instability turns out to have generally longer timescales than the interaction generated ones .
if we allow interactions acting on different scales to compete we may generate instabilities with longer , but finite , wavelengths , in analogy with what is met in other systems with competing interactions @xcite .
the instabilities met in the long - range interacting and long - range hopping for @xmath270 are not specific to the long - ranged nature of the interaction or hopping .
in fact , their effects are , in principle , not different from finite range cases . as far as very long - ranged ( @xmath227 ) hopping is concerned , we found that it gives rise to _ genuinely _ long - range instabilities , since they can not be reproduced with suitably chosen finite - range hoppings .
_ acknowledgements _ we thank m. iazzi , a. smerzi , g. de ninno and f. staniscia for very useful discussions .
the analysis of the stability regions presented in the main text is based on the study of the quantity @xmath139 defined in , which in turn contains the function @xmath367 defined in eq .
: @xmath368 ( with @xmath3 ) .
we are interested in the domain @xmath176 $ ] . from the definition it follows that @xmath369 ; it is also @xmath370 the plot of @xmath371 and @xmath372 as a function of @xmath0 is drawn in fig .
[ app_1 ] . notice that the behavior of @xmath371 for @xmath53 and @xmath182 is given respectively by @xmath373 and @xmath374 . for @xmath372 one
has @xmath375 and @xmath376 .
the second derivative of @xmath382 can be computed explicitly and it gives : @xmath383 for @xmath384 then @xmath385 is a positive function and we have @xmath386 , constant over @xmath387 $ ] .
the second derivative takes the following values at the extrema of the interval @xmath388 $ ] for @xmath3 : @xmath389 finally at @xmath190 we have @xmath390 for every @xmath3 .


the nucleon s second spin
dependent structure function @xmath0 is of considerable phenomenological interest .
the most important theoretical tool for its analysis is the operator product expansion ( ope )  @xcite . in leading order of @xmath1
, @xmath0 receives contributions from both twist  two and twist  three operators .
it thus offers the unique possibility of directly assessing higher  twist effects . the twist
three operator probes the transverse momentum distribution of the quarks in the nucleon , and has no simple parton model interpretation .    in leading order of @xmath1 , and for massless quarks ,
the moments of @xmath0 are given by @xmath3 \end{split } \label{mom}\ ] ] for even @xmath4 in the flavor
nonsinglet sector . here
@xmath5 runs over the light quark flavors .
the reduced matrix elements @xmath6 and @xmath7 , taken in a nucleon state with momentum @xmath8 and spin vector @xmath9 , are defined by @xcite @xmath10 \ , , \label{twist2 } \\
\langle p , s|    { { \mathcal { o}}}^{5 ( f ) } _ { [   \sigma \ { \mu_1 ] \cdots \mu_n \ } }                         | p , s \rangle      & = & \frac{1}{n+1}d_n^{(f ) } \ , [ ( s_\sigma p_{\mu_1 } - s_{\mu_1 } p_\sigma )   p_{\mu_2}\cdots p_{\mu_n } + \cdots -\mbox{traces } ] \ , ,   \label{twist3 } \\   { { \mathcal { o}}}^{5 ( f)}_{\sigma\mu_1\cdots\mu_n }     & = & \left(\frac{\mathrm i}{2}\right)^n\bar{\psi}\gamma_{\sigma } \gamma_5    { \overset{\leftrightarrow}{d}_{\mu_1 } } \cdots { \overset{\leftrightarrow}{d}_{\mu_n } }   \psi -\mbox{traces } \,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath11 denotes the renormalization scale .
the wilson coefficients @xmath12 , @xmath13 depend on the ratio of scales @xmath14 and on the running coupling constant @xmath15 .
the tree level values of the wilson coefficients for electroproduction are given by the quark charges @xmath16 : @xmath17 the symbol @xmath18 ( @xmath19 $ ] ) indicates symmetrization ( antisymmetrization ) with @xmath20 the operator ( [ twist2 ] ) has twist two , whereas the operator ( [ twist3 ] ) has twist three .
the twist  two contribution in ( [ mom ] ) is also known as the wandzura
wilczek contribution @xcite .
note for comparison that in leading order of @xmath1 the moments of @xmath21 are given by the twist  two matrix elements @xmath22 : @xmath23    both the wilson coefficients and the operators are renormalized at the scale @xmath11 .
it is assumed that the wilson coefficients can be computed perturbatively .
the reduced matrix elements @xmath22 and @xmath24 , on the other hand , are non  perturbative quantities and hence a problem for the lattice .
( note that some authors use a different definition of @xmath25 and @xmath26 , e.g.  the values given in refs .
@xcite have to be multiplied by 2 to agree with our conventions . ) in the following we shall drop the flavor indices , unless they are necessary .
a few years ago we computed the lowest non
trivial moment of @xmath0 on the lattice  @xcite .
this calculation splits into two separate tasks .
the first task is to compute the nucleon matrix elements of the appropriate lattice operators .
this was described in detail in  @xcite .
the second task is to renormalize the operators .
renormalization effects are a major source of systematic error .
an essential feature of our previous calculation was that the renormalization was done in perturbation theory and hence mixing with lower  dimensional operators could not be taken into account . in that approach the twist
three contribution turned out to be the dominant contribution to both the proton and the neutron structure functions .
this result has been recently confirmed by dolgov et al.@xcite .    in the meantime , it has become possible to study renormalization non
perturbatively on the lattice , see e.g.  @xcite .
this approach allows us to consider mixing with lower  dimensional operators . if present
, it will be the dominant mixing effect in the continuum limit . since the twist
three operators ( [ twist3 ] ) can suffer from such mixing , we shall extend our previous work by employing non  perturbative renormalization . in a recent paper  @xcite we have started a non  perturbative calculation of the renormalization constants associated with the structure functions @xmath27 ,
@xmath28 and @xmath21 in the flavor  nonsinglet sector . here
we consider the case of the structure function @xmath0 restricting ourselves to @xmath29 , the lowest moment of @xmath0 for which the ope makes a statement .
a preliminary version of this work based on lower statistics at a single value of the bare coupling has already been presented in ref .
the renormalization of the operators which contribute to the moments of @xmath0 has been studied by several authors in continuum perturbation theory @xcite . since the more recent paper by kodaira et al .
@xcite ( see also @xcite ) is closest to the methods applied on the lattice , let us briefly recapitulate the main findings of these authors .
they consider the case @xmath30 in the flavor  nonsinglet sector and start from the operators @xmath31   - \mbox{traces } \ , , \\    r_1^{\sigma \mu \nu } & = & \frac{1}{12 } g \left [   \epsilon^{\sigma \mu \alpha \beta }   \bar{\psi } f_{\alpha \beta } \gamma^{\nu } \psi + \epsilon^{\sigma \nu \alpha \beta }   \bar{\psi } f_{\alpha \beta } \gamma^{\mu } \psi \right ] - \mbox{traces } \ , , \\
r_m^{\sigma \mu \nu } & = & \mbox{i }   m   \bar{\psi } \gamma_5 \gamma^\sigma d^{\ { \mu } \gamma^{\nu \ } } \psi   - \mbox{traces } \ , , \\
r_{\mathrm { eq}}^{\sigma \mu \nu } & = & \frac{\mbox{i}}{3 }   \left [    \bar{\psi } \gamma_5 \gamma^\sigma d^{\ { \mu } \gamma^{\nu \ } }     ( \mbox{i } { \not\!\!{d}}- m ) \psi   +   \bar{\psi } ( \mbox{i } { \not\!\!{d}}- m )       \gamma_5 \gamma^\sigma d^{\ { \mu } \gamma^{\nu \ } } \psi \right ]   - \mbox{traces } \,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath32 denotes the gluon field strength tensor , which could alternatively be expressed as a commutator of two covariant derivatives . due to the relation @xmath33 it is possible to eliminate one of the above operators . a one  loop calculation of the quark
quark  gluon three  point functions with a single insertion of each of these operators reveals the necessity of taking one more operator into account in the process of renormalization , namely the gauge  variant operator @xmath34   - \mbox{traces } \,.\ ] ] of course , in physical matrix elements neither @xmath35 nor @xmath36 will contribute .
they show up , however , in off
shell vertex functions and influence the renormalization factors .
kodaira et al .
choose @xmath37 and @xmath38 as the physical operators .
in the chiral limit @xmath39 @xmath38 is neglected , and they obtain for the scale dependence of the twist
three piece @xmath40 where for @xmath41 colors and @xmath42 flavors @xmath43 in agreement with earlier calculations .    using @xmath44 and @xmath37 as the physical operators
, one finds that in the large@xmath41 limit the operator @xmath44 dominates the renormalization group evolution of the nucleon matrix elements .
this has been shown by ali , braun , and hiller  @xcite , and was rederived in the present framework by sasaki  @xcite .
in a lattice calculation , the first step is the analytic continuation to imaginary times , leading from the physical minkowski space to euclidean space . from now on , all expressions are written for the euclidean case ( for the details of our conventions see appendix a of ref .
hence we have to study operators of the form @xmath45 we shall neglect quark masses , i.e.  we consider only the chiral limit . in our earlier work  @xcite we have computed the renormalization constants in perturbation theory to one  loop order .
however , it is believed that perturbation theory can not give reliable values for the mixing with lower  dimensional operators because non  perturbative effects are expected to be important .    for a multiplicatively renormalizable operator , i.e.  in the absence of mixing , we can write @xmath46 where @xmath47 is the lattice spacing . the renormalization constant @xmath48 is fixed by a suitable condition . as in the continuum , we impose the ( mom  like ) renormalization condition @xmath49 on the corresponding quark
quark vertex function in the landau gauge . here
@xmath50 denotes the born or tree
level contribution to the vertex function .
the renormalized vertex function @xmath51 and its bare precursor @xmath52 are related by multiplicative renormalization : @xmath53 where @xmath54 is the quark wave function renormalization constant defined as in ref .
@xcite .    as before  @xcite ,
we give the nucleon a momentum in the 1direction and choose the polarization in the 2direction . with these choices we use the operator @xmath55 for the twist
 two matrix element @xmath56 .
it belongs to the representation @xmath57 of the hypercubic group @xmath58  @xcite and this property protects it from mixing with operators of equal or lower dimension .
hence it is multiplicatively renormalizable , and the operator renormalized at the scale @xmath11 is written as @xmath59    as the operator for the twist
three matrix element @xmath2 we take @xmath60 4\ } } & = &   { \mbox{\small $ \frac{1}{3}$}}\left ( 2 { { \mathcal { o}}}^5_{2\{14\ } }   - { { \mathcal { o}}}^5_{1\{24\ } } - { { \mathcal { o}}}^5_{4\{12\ } } \right ) \nonumber \\     & = & \mbox{\small $ \frac{1}{12}$ }     \bar{\psi}\big(\gamma_2 { \overset{\leftrightarrow}{d}_{1 } } { \overset{\leftrightarrow}{d}_{4 } } + \gamma_2 { \overset{\leftrightarrow}{d}_{4 } } { \overset{\leftrightarrow}{d}_{1 } }      - { \mbox{\small $ \frac{1}{2}$}}\gamma_1 { \overset{\leftrightarrow}{d}_{2 } } { \overset{\leftrightarrow}{d}_{4 } } - { \mbox{\small $ \frac{1}{2}$}}\gamma_1 { \overset{\leftrightarrow}{d}_{4 } } { \overset{\leftrightarrow}{d}_{2 } } \nonumber \\ & & \quad
\quad \quad - { \mbox{\small $ \frac{1}{2}$}}\gamma_4 { \overset{\leftrightarrow}{d}_{1 } } { \overset{\leftrightarrow}{d}_{2 } } - { \mbox{\small $ \frac{1}{2}$}}\gamma_4 { \overset{\leftrightarrow}{d}_{2 } } { \overset{\leftrightarrow}{d}_{1}}\big ) \gamma_5
\psi \nonumber \\ & = : & { { \mathcal { o}}}^{[5 ] } \ , , \label{o5}\end{aligned}\ ] ] which belongs to the representation @xmath61 of @xmath58 .
the operator ( [ o5 ] ) has dimension five and @xmath62parity @xmath63 and is the euclidean counterpart of the minkowski operator @xmath44 .
it turns out that there exist two more operators of dimension four and five , respectively , transforming identically under @xmath58 and having the same @xmath62parity , with which ( [ o5 ] ) can mix : @xmath64 @xmath65 we use the definition @xmath66 $ ] .
the operator @xmath67 is the euclidean analog of @xmath37 with the field strength replaced by a commutator of two covariant derivatives , and @xmath68 corresponds to @xmath38 . in continuum perturbation theory @xmath38
can be neglected in the chiral limit . on the lattice , the explicit breaking of chiral symmetry induced by wilson  type fermions , which we shall use , persists even when the quarks are massless . for dimensional reasons
, we expect that @xmath68 contributes with a coefficient @xmath69 and hence has to be kept .
the operator @xmath67 , on the other hand , being of the same dimension as @xmath70}$ ] , mixes with a coefficient of order @xmath71 , which should be small .
therefore we discard @xmath67 as well as possible lattice counterparts of @xmath35 and @xmath36 , which are also of dimension five and hence are also multiplied by a factor of order @xmath71 .
the above mentioned observation @xcite that @xmath44 dominates over @xmath37 in the renormalization group evolution as @xmath72 may be taken as another indication that neglecting @xmath67 is not unreasonable .
however , this dominance holds only in physical matrix elements and does not apply to the mixing with the operators @xmath35 and @xmath36 .
so we make the following ansatz for @xmath70}$ ] renormalized at the scale @xmath11 : @xmath73}_{\mathrm r}(\mu ) = z^{[5]}(a\mu ) { { \mathcal { o}}}^{[5]}(a ) +     \frac{1}{a } z^\sigma(a\mu ) { { \mathcal { o}}}^\sigma(a ) \ , .
\label{renorm}\ ] ] the renormalization constant @xmath74}$ ] and the mixing coefficient @xmath75 are determined from the conditions @xmath76}_{\mathrm r } ( p )     \gamma^{[5]}_{\mathrm { born } } ( p ) ^\dagger \right )                                    & \underset{p^2 = \mu^2}{= } &    { \rm tr } \left ( \gamma^{[5]}_{\mathrm { born } } ( p )     \gamma^{[5]}_{\mathrm { born } } ( p ) ^\dagger \right )   \ , , \\    { \rm tr }
\left ( \gamma^{[5]}_{\mathrm r } ( p )     \gamma^\sigma_{\mathrm { born } } ( p ) ^\dagger \right )                                    & \underset{p^2 = \mu^2}{= } &    { \rm tr } \left ( \gamma^{[5]}_{\mathrm { born } } ( p )     \gamma^\sigma_{\mathrm { born } } ( p ) ^\dagger \right ) = 0 \,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] which are straightforward generalizations of eq .
( [ mom1 ] ) .
note that the operator ( [ o0 ] ) vanishes in the born approximation between quark states , which is another reason why we do not take it into account .
rewriting eq .
( [ renorm ] ) as @xmath73}_{\mathrm r } ( \mu ) = z^{[5]}(a\mu ) \left ( { { \mathcal { o}}}^{[5]}(a ) +   \frac{1}{a } \frac{z^\sigma(a\mu)}{z^{[5]}(a\mu ) } { { \mathcal { o}}}^\sigma(a ) \right)\ ] ] we see that @xmath70}(\mu)$ ] will have a multiplicative dependence on @xmath11 ( cf .
( [ op1 ] ) ) only if the ratio @xmath77}(a\mu)$ ] does not depend on @xmath11 .
the scale dependence will then completely reside in @xmath74}$ ] .
we have obtained numerical results for matrix elements and @xmath78 factors in quenched simulations at @xmath79 , 6.2 , and 6.4 ( @xmath80 bare coupling constant on the lattice ) .
whereas our original calculation  @xcite at @xmath81 used wilson fermions , we have meanwhile switched to non
perturbatively improved fermions ( clover fermions ) in order to reduce @xmath82 effects .
the value of the clover coefficient @xmath83 is taken from ref .  @xcite .
since we have not improved the operators , there will still be residual @xmath82 effects in the matrix elements and the renormalization factors .
a few details of our computations are collected in table  [ param ] .
the matrix elements are calculated from several hundred configurations for each @xmath84 . to compute the renormalization factors we use a momentum source  @xcite .
therefore the statistical error is @xmath85 for @xmath86 configurations on a lattice of volume @xmath87 , and we already get small statistical uncertainties even from a small number of configurations , four in our case .
( there is of course a price to be paid , the calculation for each momentum is independent , so the number of inversions of the fermion matrix is proportional to the number of momentum values . )
the main source of statistical uncertainty in our final results is from the matrix elements , not the @xmath78 values .
the momenta in the vertex functions used for the evaluation of the renormalization factors have been chosen close to the diagonal in the brillouin zone in order to keep cut
off effects as small as possible .
one should bear in mind that this diagonal extends up to @xmath88 , but we use only momenta with @xmath89 .    in each case , the calculations are done at three ( or more ) values of the hopping parameter @xmath90 determining the bare quark mass so that we can extrapolate our results ( both the bare matrix elements and renormalization factors ) to the chiral limit .
the extrapolation is performed linearly in @xmath91 , the square of the pion mass .
the bare reduced matrix elements are calculated from three  point functions in the standard fashion ( see , e.g. , ref .
@xcite ) . in eq.(25 ) of ref .
@xcite the ratios of three to two  point functions for the @xmath56 operator @xmath92 and the @xmath2 operator @xmath70}$ ] are given .
for the operators @xmath67 and @xmath68 the ratios and ratio factors are the same as for the @xmath2 operator .
the matrix elements are collated in tables  [ rmeclo60 ] , [ rmeclo62 ] , [ rmeclo64 ] separately for @xmath93 and @xmath94 quarks in the proton . here
@xmath95}$ ] and @xmath96 correspond to the operators ( [ o5 ] ) and ( [ osigma ] ) , respectively .
in addition we give the pion masses ( in lattice units ) which we use in the chiral extrapolations .
they are mostly taken from ref .
note that all our errors are purely statistical .
they were determined by the jackknife procedure .
let us begin the more detailed presentation of our numerical results with the renormalization factor @xmath97 of the multiplicatively renormalizable @xmath56 operator ( [ oa2 ] ) .
we convert our mom numbers to the @xmath98 scheme using 1loop continuum perturbation theory as described in @xcite . in fig .
[ fig.za2 ] we show the @xmath11 dependence of @xmath99 extrapolated to the chiral limit .
results for wilson fermions can be found in ref .
note that at scales @xmath100 exceeding a few times the lattice cut  off @xmath101 strong lattice artifacts may be present so that the corresponding results should not be taken too seriously .    turning to the more subtle renormalization of the @xmath2 operator ( [ o5 ] )
we must note that the conversion factor from our mom scheme to the @xmath98 scheme has not yet been calculated because of the complications caused by the mixing effects .
therefore we stick to the mom numbers .
let us first consider the ratio @xmath77}(a\mu)$ ] .
as discussed above , @xmath77}(a\mu)$ ] should be independent of the renormalization scale @xmath11 if the renormalized operator is to depend on @xmath11 multiplicatively . in fig .
[ fig.zrat ] we show this ratio for our three @xmath84 values .
it becomes approximately flat for scales @xmath11 larger than about 3.5 gev . while a scale of 3.5 gev might seem to be somewhat too close to the cut  off for @xmath81 and perhaps also for @xmath102 , it enters the region where lattice artifacts die out in the case of @xmath103 .
therefore we feel encouraged to apply the @xmath78 factors around @xmath104 in order to evaluate structure function moments in the next section .    in fig .
[ fig.z5 ] we plot @xmath74}(a\mu)$ ] in order to show the size of the multiplicative renormalization in our approach .
let us now discuss our nucleon matrix elements . in figs .
[ fig.chiex.a2u ] , [ fig.chiex.d25u ] we show the chiral extrapolations of the bare values of @xmath105 and @xmath106\,(u ) } $ ] , respectively .
unfortunately , like in all other current qcd simulations our quark masses are rather large so that the extrapolation has to bridge quite some gap .
a striking feature of the data is that the bare @xmath105 values at @xmath102 are rather different from the values at the other two @xmath84 s .
we can interpret this only as an unpleasantly large statistical fluctuation .
the bare matrix elements in the chiral limit will be combined with the renormalization factors of the preceding section to yield estimates of the renormalized matrix elements .
we start with the twist  two matrix element @xmath56 . in the @xmath98 scheme with anticommuting @xmath107
the corresponding wilson coefficient is given by ( see , e.g. , ref .
@xcite ) @xmath108   \end{array}\ ] ] with @xmath109 , @xmath110 , @xmath111 , @xmath112 .
( these are the numbers for @xmath113 flavors , appropriate for the quenched approximation . )
the renormalized reduced matrix element is obtained from the bare value ( extrapolated to the chiral limit ) after multiplication with the non  perturbative renormalization factor converted to the @xmath98 scheme . from eq .
( [ g1moments ] ) we can then calculate @xmath114 . to avoid large logarithms in the wilson coefficient we put @xmath115 . in fig .
[ fig.g1 ] we show the results for the proton and compare with the experimental value @xcite . while our lattice results at @xmath81 agree surprisingly well with the experimental number , the above mentioned fluctuation makes them considerably larger at @xmath102 .
fortunately , they drop again at @xmath103 . for the neutron
there is a similar effect , but due to the larger errors it is less significant .
let us now turn to our results for the twist3 matrix elements . in this case
it is unclear how to convert our mom results to the @xmath98 scheme due to the mixing effects .
therefore we do not make use of the @xmath98 wilson coefficient , which has recently been calculated @xcite ( with the t hooft
veltman @xmath107 ) .
it would change the final results for @xmath2 by @xmath116 .
instead we use only the lowest
order approximation for the coefficient functions , i.e.  the tree  level coefficients ( [ wilcoeff ] ) , which are the same in all schemes , and define ( by a slight abuse of notation ) @xmath117 for the proton and the neutron , respectively .
the renormalized values of @xmath118 for @xmath119 in the proton are calculated from @xmath120 } d_2^{[5]\,(f ) } +    \frac{1}{a } z^\sigma d_2^{\sigma \,(f ) } \,.\ ] ] remember that , besides the twist
three matrix element @xmath2 , @xmath121 also contains a twist  two piece , the wandzura  wilczek contribution , see eq .
( [ mom ] ) . to be consistent
we restrict ourselves to the tree
level wilson coefficients and the mom matrix elements also in this contribution when computing @xmath121 from ( cf .
( [ mom ] ) and ( [ g1moments ] ) ) @xmath122    the moment @xmath121 is plotted in fig .
[ fig.g2 ] for the proton , where we have again identified @xmath115 .
the experimental value is obtained by combining @xmath114 from ref .
@xcite with @xmath2 from ref .
again we see the effect of the `` fluctuation '' at @xmath102 .    comparing the proton results shown in fig .
[ fig.g2 ] with the numbers presented in fig .
[ fig.g1 ] one sees that @xmath121 is dominated by the twist  two operator .
there is little room left for the twist
three operator , and one obtains rather small values for @xmath2 as shown in fig .
[ fig.d2 ] for the proton . in the neutron
, @xmath2 is even smaller in magnitude and hardly different from zero within the statistical errors .    in tables
[ res5 ] and [ res10 ] we present results at the scales 5 gev@xmath123 and 10 gev@xmath123 , respectively .
note that here @xmath114 includes the one  loop wilson coefficient as well as the conversion factor to the @xmath98 scheme , both of which were neglected in the calculation of @xmath121 for the reason explained above .
the difference between the two sides of eq .
( [ x2g2 ] ) when evaluated with the numbers taken from the tables gives therefore an impression of the uncertainties originating from our incomplete knowledge of the perturbative corrections .    in figs .
[ fig.contlim.g1 ] , [ fig.contlim.g2 ] , [ fig.contlim.d2 ] we fix the scale at 5 gev@xmath123 and plot our results for the proton as well as for the neutron versus the lattice spacing @xmath47 .
although an extrapolation to the continuum limit appears to be problematic , it is reassuring to see that we are getting close to the experimental numbers shown at @xmath124 .
of course , we should not forget that our computation suffers from various uncertainties .
apart from the fact that our treatment of the operator mixing is still incomplete , these concern , e.g. , the influence of the quenched approximation , the extrapolation to the chiral limit , and the size of the lattice artifacts . sea
quark effects are expected to be concentrated at small @xmath125 , hence they should be suppressed by the factor @xmath126 in the moment which we have considered . therefore we may hope that the quenched approximation is reasonable in the case at hand . if indeed the valence quarks dominate , then it should also be justified to neglect flavor singlet contributions ( like disconnected insertions and pure gluon operators ) , and it makes sense to consider proton and neutron matrix elements separately ( as we have done ) and not only flavor non  singlet combinations like @xmath127 .
the quark mass dependence of our results is rather mild for the range of ( relatively large ) masses that we studied .
therefore the extrapolation to the chiral limit looks quite safe , although , of course , unexpectedly large effects at truly small masses can not be excluded .
lattice artifacts are obvious in our renormalization factors ( see , e.g. , fig .  [ fig.zrat ] ) .
we have to expect them also in the nucleon matrix elements .
since we are working with non  perturbatively improved fermions we could in principle reduce their size by using improved operators .
unfortunately , the non  perturbative improvement of operators of the kind needed here is not straightforward and has yet to be worked out . in particular , improvement of the renormalization factors requires off  shell improvement . although there are some ideas on how to solve this non  trivial problem ( see , e.g. , ref .
@xcite ) , an implementation for the operators considered here is beyond our present possibilities .
in this paper we have tried to obtain a more reliable lattice estimate of the twist  three nucleon matrix element @xmath2 improving on our first calculation  @xcite in several respects .
we have made a serious attempt to take into acccount the most important part of the operator mixing which occurs in this case , namely the mixing with lower  dimensional operators .
this could only be done non  perturbatively and led to a significant change in the results for @xmath2 moving them close to the experimental numbers .
thus the mixing with lower  dimensional operators seems to account for a large part of the difference between our previous computation and the experimental data .
the calculations have been performed in the quenched approximation at three different values of @xmath84 corresponding to three different values of the lattice spacing .
while our results are still not good enough to allow for a meaningful extrapolation to the continuum limit , the mutual consistency of the values obtained for @xmath2 at the various @xmath84 s indicates that discretization effects are smaller than our statistical errors and corroborates our conclusion that the twist
three nucleon matrix element is rather small , in agreement with the experimental findings .
we consider the computations at @xmath103 , i.e.  at our smallest lattice spacing , to be most reliable . at @xmath128
they yield the structure function moments ( cf .
table [ res5 ] ) @xmath129 for @xmath21 and @xmath130 for @xmath0 .
these numbers are to be compared with the experimental results @xcite @xmath131 and @xmath132 respectively .
the numerical calculations have been done on the ape / quadrics computers at desy ( zeuthen ) and the cray t3e at nic ( jlich ) and zib ( berlin ) .
we thank the operating staff for support .
this work was supported in part by the deutsche forschungsgemeinschaft and by bmbf .
jaffe , comments nucl .
* 19 * , 239 ( 1990 ) ; r.l .
jaffe and x. ji , phys .
d * 43 * , 724 ( 1991 ) .
s. wandzura and f. wilczek , phys .
b * 72 * , 195 ( 1977 ) .
k. abe et al .
( e143 collaboration ) , phys .
d * 58 * , 112003 ( 1998 ) .
anthony et al .
( e155 collaboration ) , phys .
b * 458 * , 529 ( 1999 ) .
m. gckeler , r. horsley , e .-
ilgenfritz , h. perlt , p. rakow , g. schierholz , and a. schiller , phys .  rev .
d * 53 * , 2317 ( 1996 ) .
d. dolgov , r. brower , s. capitani , j.w .
negele , a. pochinsky , d. renner , n. eicker , t. lippert , k. schilling , r.g .
edwards , and u.m .
heller , hep - lat/0011010 .
g. martinelli , c. pittori , c.t .
sachrajda , m. testa , and a. vladikas , nucl .
* b445 * , 81 ( 1995 ) . k. jansen , c. liu , m. lscher , h. simma , s. sint , r. sommer , p. weisz , and u. wolff , phys .  lett .
b * 372 * , 275 ( 1996 ) .
m. gckeler , r. horsley , h. oelrich , h. perlt , d. petters , p. rakow , a. schfer , and g. schierholz , nucl .
b544 * , 699 ( 1999 ) . m. gckeler , r. horsley , w. krzinger , h. oelrich , p. rakow , and g. schierholz , hep - ph/9909253 .
e.v . shuryak and a.i .
vainshtein , nucl .
* b201 * , 141 ( 1982 ) ; a.p .
bukhvostov , e.a .
kuraev , and l.n .
lipatov , jetp lett .  * 37 * , 482 ( 1983 ) ; sov .
jetp * 60 * , 22 ( 1984 ) ; p.g .
ratcliffe , nucl .
* b264 * , 493 ( 1986 ) ; i.i . balitsky and v.m .
braun , nucl .
* b311 * , 541 ( 1988/89 ) ; x. ji and c. chou , phys .
d * 42 * , 3637 ( 1990 ) .
j. kodaira , y. yasui , and t. uematsu , phys .
b * 344 * , 348 ( 1995 ) .
j. kodaira , y. yasui , k. tanaka , and t. uematsu , phys .
b * 387 * , 855 ( 1996 ) .
a. ali , v.m .
braun , and g. hiller , phys .
b * 266 * , 117 ( 1991 ) .
k. sasaki , phys .
d * 58 * , 094007 ( 1998 ) . c. best , m. gckeler , r. horsley , e.m .
ilgenfritz , h. perlt , p. rakow , a. schfer , g. schierholz , a. schiller , and s. schramm , phys .
d * 56 * , 2743 ( 1997 ) . m. gckeler , r. horsley , e .-
ilgenfritz , h. perlt , p. rakow , g. schierholz , and a. schiller , nucl .
* b472 * , 309 ( 1996 ) . m. baake , b. gemnden , and r. oedingen , j. math
.  phys .
* 23 * , 944 ( 1982 ) ; j. mandula , g. zweig , and j. govaerts , nucl .
b228 * , 109 ( 1983 ) . m. gckeler , r. horsley , e .-
ilgenfritz , h. perlt , p. rakow , g. schierholz , and a. schiller , phys .
d * 54 * , 5705 ( 1996 ) .
m. lscher , s. sint , r. sommer , p. weisz , and u. wolff , nucl .
* b491 * , 323 ( 1997 ) . m. gckeler , r. horsley , h. oelrich , d. petters , d. pleiter , p.e.l .
rakow , g. schierholz , and p. stephenson , phys .
d * 62 * , 054504 ( 2000 ) .
m. stratmann , a. weber , and w. vogelsang , phys .
d * 53 * , 138 ( 1996 ) .
x. ji , w. lu , j. osborne , and x. song , hep - ph/0006121 .
s. capitani , m. gckeler , r. horsley , h. perlt , p.e.l .
rakow , g. schierholz , and a. schiller , hep - lat/0007004 .
m. guagnelli , r. sommer , and h. wittig , nucl .
* b535 * , 389 ( 1998 ) .
dccdd @xmath84 & lattice & & @xmath133[gev ] & @xmath83 + 6.0 & @xmath134 & me & 2.12 & 1.769 + 6.0 & @xmath135 & z & 2.12 & 1.769 + 6.2 & @xmath135 & me & 2.90 & 1.614 + 6.2 & @xmath136 & z & 2.90 & 1.614 + 6.4 & @xmath137 & me & 3.85 & 1.526 + 6.4 & @xmath138 & z & 3.85 & 1.526    cdddddd & + & 0.132 & 0.1324 & 0.1333 & 0.1338 & 0.1342 & @xmath139 + @xmath140 & 0.5412(9 ) & 0.5042(7 ) & 0.4122(9 ) & 0.3549(12 ) & 0.3012(10 ) & 0.0 + & & & & & & + @xmath141 & 0.114(8 ) & 0.114(8 ) & 0.107(11 ) & 0.09(2 ) & 0.08(2 ) & 0.08(2 ) + @xmath142 & @xmath1430.029(3 ) & @xmath1430.032(4 ) & @xmath1430.037(7 ) & @xmath1430.032(12 ) & @xmath1430.047(16 ) & @xmath1430.046(11 ) + & & & & & & + @xmath106\,(u ) } $ ] & 0.0063(12 ) & 0.0028(13 ) & @xmath1430.010(2 ) & @xmath1430.023(5 ) & @xmath1430.028(6 ) & @xmath1430.037(4 ) + @xmath106\,(d ) } $ ] & @xmath1430.0041(6 ) & @xmath1430.0027(7 ) & @xmath1430.0008(14 ) & @xmath1430.005(2 ) & @xmath1430.001(4 ) & 0.001(2 ) + & & & & & & + @xmath144 & @xmath1430.216(12 ) & @xmath1430.228(12 ) & @xmath1430.246(18 ) & @xmath1430.29(4 ) & @xmath1430.27(3 ) & @xmath1430.30(3 ) + @xmath145 & 0.050(4 ) & 0.050(3 ) & 0.052(6 ) & 0.064(12 ) & 0.044(17 ) & 0.057(12 )    cddddd & + & 0.1333 & 0.1339 & 0.1344 & 0.1349 & @xmath139 + @xmath140 & 0.4136(6 ) & 0.3570(10 ) & 0.3034(6 ) & 0.2431(7 ) & 0.0 + & & & & & + @xmath141 & 0.142(10 ) & 0.137(15 ) & 0.157(17 ) & 0.16(3 ) & 0.17(3 ) + @xmath142 & @xmath1430.033(4 ) & @xmath1430.030(5 ) & @xmath1430.034(9 ) & @xmath1430.031(15 ) & @xmath1430.030(13 ) + & & & & & + @xmath106\,(u ) } $ ] & @xmath1430.0017(14 ) & @xmath1430.017(2 ) & @xmath1430.031(5 ) & @xmath1430.051(11 ) & @xmath1430.065(7 ) + @xmath106\,(d ) } $ ] & @xmath1430.0027(6 ) & 0.0006(11 ) & @xmath1430.0003(17 ) & @xmath1430.000(4 ) & 0.004(3 ) + & & & & & + @xmath144 & @xmath1430.34(2 ) & @xmath1430.37(3 ) & @xmath1430.44(4 ) & @xmath1430.50(7 ) & @xmath1430.54(7 ) + @xmath145 & 0.067(6 ) & 0.065(8 ) & 0.072(13 ) & 0.07(3 ) & 0.07(2 )    cdddddd & + & 0.1338 & 0.1342 & 0.1346 & 0.135 & 0.1353 & @xmath139 + @xmath140 & 0.3213(8 ) & 0.2836(9 ) & 0.2402(8 ) & 0.1933(7 ) & 0.1507(8 ) & 0.0 + & & & & & & + @xmath141 & 0.123(8 ) & 0.092(13 ) & 0.114(13 ) & 0.102(17 ) & 0.14(4 ) & 0.096(19 ) + @xmath142 & @xmath1430.030(4 ) & @xmath1430.018(5 ) & @xmath1430.032(7 ) & @xmath1430.033(10 ) & @xmath1430.01(2 ) & @xmath1430.023(10 ) + & & & & & & + @xmath106\,(u ) } $ ] & @xmath1430.0149(14 ) & @xmath1430.024(3 ) & @xmath1430.038(4 ) & @xmath1430.055(6 ) & @xmath1430.055(15 ) & @xmath1430.068(6 ) + @xmath106\,(d ) } $ ] & @xmath146.0014(7 ) & @xmath146.0021(13 ) & @xmath146.0062(17 ) & @xmath146.012(3 ) & @xmath146.015(8 ) & 0.013(3 ) + & & & & & & + @xmath144 & @xmath1430.40(2 ) & @xmath1430.41(4 ) & @xmath1430.47(4 ) & @xmath1430.51(5 ) & @xmath1430.55(13 ) & @xmath1430.56(5 ) + @xmath145 & 0.088(6 ) & 0.075(12 ) & 0.105(13 ) & 0.12(2 ) & 0.15(5 ) & 0.12(2 )    cddd & + & 6.0 & 6.2 & 6.4 + @xmath147 & 0.046(13 ) & 0.11(2 ) & 0.066(14 ) + @xmath148 & 0.008(4 ) & 0.017(9 ) & 0.017(7 ) + @xmath149 & 0.012(3 ) & 0.029(5 ) & 0.017(4 ) + @xmath150 & @xmath1430.007(3 ) & @xmath1430.019(4 ) & @xmath1430.010(3 ) + & & & + @xmath151 & @xmath1430.017(8 ) & 0.009(11 ) & 0.000(8 ) + @xmath152 & @xmath1430.003(2 ) & @xmath1430.001(4 ) & @xmath1430.001(3 ) + @xmath153 & @xmath1430.004(2 ) & 0.002(3 ) & 0.000(2 ) + @xmath154 & 0.0026(16 ) & @xmath1430.002(2 ) & @xmath1430.0002(17 )    cddd & + & 6.0 & 6.2 & 6.4 + @xmath147 & 0.040(12 ) & 0.098(18 ) & 0.057(12 ) + @xmath148 & 0.002(4 ) & 0.006(7 ) & 0.008(6 ) + @xmath149 & 0.010(3 ) & 0.025(5 ) & 0.015(3 ) + @xmath150 & @xmath1430.007(2 ) & @xmath1430.017(4 ) & @xmath1430.009(3 ) + & & & + @xmath151 & @xmath1430.015(7 ) & 0.007(9 ) & 0.000(7 ) + @xmath152 & @xmath1430.003(2 ) & @xmath1430.002(3 ) & @xmath1430.001(3 ) + @xmath153 & @xmath1430.0037(18 ) & 0.002(2 ) & 0.0001(19 ) + @xmath154 & 0.0021(14 ) & @xmath1430.0016(18 ) & @xmath1430.0002(14 )