1. Introduction
Pairing is one of the most important concepts in nuclear structure physics and its fingerprints are seen clearly in binding energies of nuclei, ground state spins, odd-even effects, beta decay, double beta decay, orbit occupancies and so on [
1,
2]. Very early Bohr, Mottelson and Pines [
3] suggested the use of BCS theory for pairing in nuclei and all the subsequent developments in this direction are well reviewed in [
4,
5,
6]. Focusing on nuclear shell model [
7,
8], algebraic group theory approach to pairing has started receiving attention following Racah’s seniority quantum number [
9,
10]. For identical nucleons in a single-
j shell, pair state is coupled to angular momentum zero and the corresponding pair creation operators are unique. The pair-creation operator, pair-annihilation operator and the number operator generate the
pairing algebra. The eigenstates of the pairing Hamiltonian, that is a product of pair-creation and pair-annihilation operators, carry the
quasi-spin or seniority quantum number. There are several single-
j shell nuclei that are known to carry seniority quantum number (
v) as a good or useful quantum number; see [
7] and also [
11,
12,
13,
14] and references therein for full details of quasi-spin and seniority for identical particles and their applications. Even when single-
j shell seniority is a broken symmetry, seniority quantum number is useful as it provides a basis for constructing shell model Hamiltonian matrices [
15]. Pairing symmetry with nucleons occupying several
j-orbits is more complex and less well understood from the point of view of its goodness or usefulness in nuclei. Restricting to nuclei with identical valence nucleons (protons or neutrons), and say these nucleons occupy several-
j orbits, then it is possible to consider the pair-creation operator to be a sum of the single-
j shell pair-creation operators with arbitrary phases and for each choice there will be quasi-spin
algebra giving multi-orbit or generalized seniority quantum number
v. With
r number of orbits there will be
number of
pairing algebras. With
, the spectrum generating algebra (SGA) is
and the pairing
algebra is complementary to the
algebra in
with
v denoting the irreducible representations (irreps) of
that belong to a given number
m of identical nucleons [
m denotes the irrep of
]. The usefulness or goodness of these multiple pairing algebras is not well known except a special situation that was studied long ago by Arvieu and Moszkowski (AM) [
16] in the context of surface delta interaction. We will discuss this in detail in
Section 2. In addition, pair states with linear superposition of single-
j shell pair states with arbitrary coefficients are used in generating low-lying states of nuclei, such as Sn isotopes, with good generalized seniority [
7], and they are also employed in the so called broken pair model [
17]. On the other hand, these are also used in providing a microscopic basis for the interacting boson model [
18]. Going beyond all these, there are also attempts to solve and apply more general pairing Hamiltonian’s by Pan Feng et al. [
19] and also a pair shell model was developed by Arima and Zhao [
20].
In the interacting boson models [
21,
22,
23], the
algebras in the SGA
are well known. For example
in
IBM-1,
and
in
IBM-1 and so on. However, what is not often emphasized is that the
algebras correspond to pairing for bosons. In fact, for identical bosons in single
ℓ shell (for example
d orbit in
IBM,
g in
IBM) or in multi-
ℓ situation (for example
,
etc.), the pairing algebra is the non-compact
algebra and the better known
algebras are complementary algebras (see
Section 3 ahead) [
21,
24]. However, just as the situation with identical fermions, here also there will be multiple
pairing algebras (with
r number of
ℓ orbits, there will be
number of algebras) and for each of these there will be a complementary
algebra. These multiple multi-orbit pairing algebras and their applications are described in
Section 3.
Pairing in identical fermion systems is easy to deal with as the algebra is
. However, the situation changes if we consider nucleons with isospin (
T) degree of freedom. Here, the algebra changes to the more complex
algebra that generates seniority (
v) and in addition also reduced isospin (
t) [
25,
26]. Another important result is that the
contains only isovector pair-creation and -annihilation operators (an unsatisfactory aspect of the
pairing algebra of shell model is that it does not contain isoscalar pair operators). With isospin, in a single-
j orbit the SGA is
with
. The
algebra in
is complementary to
with
uniquely labeling the
irreps. For the first papers on single-
j shell pairing with isospin see [
25,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,
31]. Similarly, for the technical work on the more complicated
algebra [for example, deriving analytical formulas for the Wigner and Racah coefficients for
] see [
30,
32,
33,
34,
35,
36,
37,
38] and for recent applications see [
39,
40,
41,
42,
43,
44,
45,
46] and references therein. Although many of the single-
j shell results extend to the multi-
j shell situation with
replaced by
, a crucial aspect of the multi-
j shell
pairing algebra is that there will be multiple
algebras (also the corresponding multiple
algebras) as the pair-creation operator here is no longer unique.
Section 4 describes these multiple
isovector pairing and seniority
multi-
j algebras with isospin in nuclei and their applications.
Parallel to pairing in shell model with isospin is the pairing with
F-spin in interacting boson models. Making a distinction between proton bosons and neutron bosons and treating them as projections of a fictitious (
F) spin
object, we have
IBM or IBM-2 with
F-spin degree of freedom (
F-spin in IBM is mathematically similar to isospin in shell model). As we present in
Section 5, the pairing algebra changes from
to more complicated
algebra [
47]. More importantly, in the multi-
ℓ situation there will be multiple
algebras and for each of these there will be a complementary
algebra. In
Section 5 multiple multi-orbit
pairing algebras with
F-spin in IBMs are discussed.
Going further, interestingly multiple pairing algebras appear also in the
pairing
algebra in shell model and also in the isospin invariant IBM-3 model and spin-isospin invariant IBM-4 model; see [
48,
49,
50,
51,
52,
53,
54] for
algebra and [
21,
55,
56] for IBM-3 and IBM-4. In
Section 6 we will briefly describe multiple
pairing algebras in shell model and the pairing algebras in IBM-3.
Before proceeding further, let us stress that the most important aspect of pairing algebras is the complementarity between the pairing algebras with number non-conserving generators and the shell model/IBM algebras with only number-conserving generators [
57]. A general mathematical theory describing this complementarity is due to Neergard [
58,
59,
60,
61] and this is based on Howe’s general duality theorem [
62,
63]. It is important to mention that the first proof of complementarity is due to Helmers [
28] and later work is due to Rowe et al. [
64]. We will not discuss these more mathematically rigorous results in this paper.
Many of the results in
Section 2,
Section 3 and
Section 4 are presented in two conference proceedings [
65,
66]. Furthermore, the present article complements the results obtained for multiple
algebras in nuclei as reported in [
67,
68,
69].
2. Multiple Multi-Orbit Pairing Algebras in Shell Model: Identical Nucleons
With identical nucleons (protons or neutrons) in a single-
j shell, the pair-creation operator
and annihilation operator
and the number operator [
or more appropriately
with
, generate remarkably the quasi-spin
algebra. The quasi-spin quantum number
Q and its
z-component
can be used to label many (
m)-particle states. On the other hand, the SGA is
and the
subalgebra of
is ‘complementary’ to the quasi-spin
algebra. The seniority quantum number
v that labels the states according to
algebra [
v labels
irreps] corresponds to
Q and similarly, particle number
m that labels the irreps of
corresponds to
. Seniority quantum number gives number of particles that are not in zero coupled pairs. Thus, the classification of states given by
with number non-conserving operators, is the same as the one given by the shell model chain
which contains only number-conserving operators. More importantly, this solves the pairing Hamiltonian
and allows one to extract
m dependence of many particle matrix elements of a given operator. All these are well known [
7].
All the single-
j shell results extend to the multi-
j shell situation i.e., for identical particles occupying several-
j orbits, with
replaced by
. In this situation,
v is called generalized seniority. A new result that appears for the multi-
j situation is that there will be multiple quasi-spin (or
) algebras with the pair-creation operator here being a sum of single-
j pair-creation operators with different phases;
;
. Then, clearly with
r number of
j-orbits, there will be
number of quasi-spin
and the corresponding
algebras.
Section 2.1 and
Section 2.2 give details of these multiple multi-orbit pairing
and the complementary
algebras. The complementarity is established at the level of quadratic Casimir invariants of various group algebras that appear here. These multiple multi-
j quasi-spin algebras (one for each
choice) play an important role in deciding selection rules for electric and magnetic multi-pole operators. This is the topic of
Section 2.3. Correlations between realistic interactions and pairing interactions that correspond to various multiple pairing algebras are studied in
Section 2.4. Applications of multi-
j seniority describing data in certain nuclei is presented in
Section 2.5 with results drawn from [
7,
70,
71,
72,
73]. Finally, a summary is given in
Section 2.6.
2.1. Multiple Multi-Orbit Pairing Algebras
Let us say there are
m number of identical fermions (protons or neutrons) in
j orbits
,
,
…,
. Now, it is possible to define a generalized pair-creation operator
as
Here,
are free parameters and assumed to be real. The
m used for number of particles should not be confused with the
m in
. Given the
operator, the corresponding pair-annihilation operator
is
Note that
. The operators
,
and
,
form the generalized quasi-spin
SU(2) algebra [hereafter called
] only if
Note that
, is the number operator. With Equation (
4) we have,
Thus, in the multi-orbit situation for each
with
there is a
algebra defined by the operators in Equations (
1)–(
3). For example, say we have three
j orbits
,
and
. Then, without loss of generality we can choose
and then
can take values
,
,
,
giving four pairing
algebras. Similarly, with four
j orbits, there will be eight
algebras and in general for
r number of
j orbits there will
number of
algebras. The consequences of having these multiple pairing
algebras will be investigated in the following. Before going further let us mention that the
here should not be confused with the quantum group
of Biedenharn and Macfarlane [
74,
75] (see also [
76]).
Though well known, for later use and for completeness, some of the results of the
algebra are that the
operator and the
operator in Equation (
3) define the quasi-spin
s and its
z-component
with
and
. Furthermore, from Equation (
3) we have
; the
m here is number of particles. Moreover, it is possible to introduce the so called seniority quantum number
v such that
giving,
Note that the total number of single particle states is
and therefore for
one has fermion holes rather than particles. With the pairing Hamiltonian
given by
where
G being the pairing strength, the following results will provide a meaning to the seniority quantum number “
v”,
with these, it is clear that for a given
v and
m there are
zero coupled pairs in eigenstates of
. Thus,
v gives the number of particles that are not coupled to angular momentum zero. In Equation (
9),
is an extra label that is required to specify a
state completely.
Before going further, an important result (to be used later) that follows from Equations (
1) and (
2) is,
2.2. Multiple Multi-Orbit Complementary Algebras
In the
space, often it is more convenient to start with the
algebra generated by the one-body operators
,
The total number of generators is obviously
and
. All
m fermion states will be antisymmetric and therefore belong uniquely to the irrep
of
. The quadratic Casimir invariant of
is easily given by
with eigenvalues
Equation (
13) can be proved by writing the one and two-body parts of
and then showing that the one-body part is
and the two-body part will have two-particle matrix elements diagonal with all of them having value
.
More importantly,
and the
algebra is generated by the
number of generators
with
k=odd only and
,
where
The quadratic Casimir invariant of
is given by,
The
algebra will be complementary to the quasi-spin
algebra defined for a given set of
provided
Using Equations (
12) and (
14)–(
16) along with Equation (
10) it is easy to derive the following important relation,
Now, Equations (
8), (
13) and (
17) will give
and this proves that the seniority quantum number
v corresponds to the
irrep
.
In summary, given the
algebra generated by
operators for a given set of
with
or
, there is a complementary (↔)
subalgebra of
generated by
As the
generators are one-body operators and that
, there will be special selection rules for electro-magnetic transition operators connecting
m fermion states with good seniority. These are well known for a special choice of
’s [
7] and their relation to the multiple
algebras or equivalently to the
set is the topic of the next Section.
2.3. Selection Rules and Matrix Elements for Electro-Magnetic Transitions
Electro-magnetic (EM) operators are essentially one-body operators (two and higher-body terms are usually not considered). In order to derive selection rules and matrix elements for allowed transitions, let us consider the commutator of
with
. Firstly we have easily,
Note that the commutator being zero implies that the operator is a scalar
with respect to
and otherwise it will be a quasi-spin vector
. In either situation the
component of
T is zero as a one-body operator can not change particle number. Thus, for
we have
Here
and
are some constants. Similarly, for
we have
The results in Equation (
22) are easy to understand as
in Equation (
22) is to within a factor same as
of Equation (
19) and therefore a generator of
. Hence it cannot change the
v quantum number of a
m-particle state. Moreover, as
, clearly
will be a
scalar. Similarly turning to Equation (
23), as
with
k odd are generators of
and hence they are also
scalars.
The general form of electric and magnetic multi-pole operators
and
respectively with
is, with
or
M,
Therefore,
along with Equations (
22) and (
23) will determine the selection rules. Then,
Thus, the
tensorial nature of
depends on the
choice. For
we have
and for
we have
transitions. It is well known [
7,
16] that for
and
operators,
In Equation (
26)
is the orbital angular momentum of the
orbit. Therefore, combining results in Equations (
22)–(
26) together with parity selection rule will give seniority selection rules, in the multi-orbit situation, for electro-magnetic transition operators when the observed states carry seniority quantum number as a good quantum number. The selection rules with the choice
for all
i are as follows.
with L even will be w.r.t. .
with L odd will be w.r.t. . However, if all j orbits have same parity, then with L odd will not exist. Therefore here, for the transitions to occur, we need minimum two orbits of different parity.
with L odd will be w.r.t. .
with L even will be w.r.t. . However, if all j orbits have same parity, then with L even will not exist. Therefore here, for the transitions to occur, we need minimum two orbits of different parity.
For only transitions are allowed while for both and transition are allowed. For both m is not changed.
The above rules were given already by Arvieu and Moszkowski [
16] and described by Talmi [
7]. As stated by Arvieu and Moszkowski, they have introduced the choice
“for convenience” and then found that it will make surface delta interaction a
scalar. It is important to note that for
generated by
, the above rules (1)–(4) will be violated and then Equation (
25) has to be applied. This is a new result and it was reported first in [
65] (see also [
77]). A similar result applies to interacting boson models as presented in
Section 3.
Applying the Wigner–Eckart theorem for the many particle matrix elements in good seniority states, the number dependence of the matrix elements of
and
operators is easily determined. For fermions we simply need
Wigner coefficients [
78]. Results for fermion systems are given for example in [
7]. For completeness we will give these here,
Before turning to applications, within the shell model context it is necessary to conform that a realistic pairing operator do respect the condition
. In order to test this, we will use correlation coefficient between operators as defined in French’s spectral distribution method [
79].
2.4. Correlation between Operators and Phase Choice in the Pairing Operator
Given an operator
acting in
m particle spaces and assumed to be real, its
m particle trace is
where
are
m-particle states. Similarly, the
m-particle average is
where
is
m-particle space dimension. In
m particle spaces it is possible to define, using the spectral distribution method of French [
79,
80], a geometry [
80,
81] with norm (or size or length) of an operator
given by
;
is the traceless part of
. With this, given two operators
and
, the correlation coefficient
gives the cosine of the angle between the two operators. Thus,
and
are same within a normalization constant if
and they are orthogonal to each other if
[
79,
81]. The most recent application of norms and correlation coefficients, defined above, to understand the structure of effective interactions is due to Draayer et al. [
82,
83,
84].
Clearly, in a given shell model space, given a realistic effective interaction Hamiltonian
H, the
in Equation (
28) can be used as a measure for its closeness to the pairing Hamiltonian
with
defined by Equation (
1) for a given set of
’s. Evaluating
for all possible
sets, it is possible to identify the
set that gives maximum correlation of
with
H. Following this,
is evaluated for effective interactions in (
,
,
,
), (
,
,
,
) and (
,
,
,
,
) spaces using GXPF1 [
85], JUN45 [
86] and jj55-SVD [
87] interactions respectively. As we are considering only identical particle systems and also as we are interested in studying the correlation of
H’s with
’s, only the
part of the interactions is considered (dropped are the
two-body matrix elements and also the single particle energies). With this
are calculated in the three spaces for different values of the particle number
m and for all possible choices of
’s defining
and hence
. Results are given in
Table 1. It is clearly seen that the choice
gives the largest value for
and hence it should be the most preferred choice. This is a significant result justifying the choice made by AM [
16], although the magnitude of
is not more than
. Thus, realistic
H are far, on a global
m-particle space scale, from the simple pairing Hamiltonian. However, it is likely that the generalized pairing quasi-spin or sympletic symmetry may be an effective symmetry for low-lying state and some special high-spin states [
12]. Evidence for this will be discussed in
Section 2.5.
Before turning to applications of multiple pairing algebras, it is useful to add that in principle the spectral distribution method can be used to study the mixing of seniority quantum number in the eigenstates generated by a given Hamiltonian by using the so called partial variances [
11,
79]. The
partial variances, with
, are defined by
In Equation (
29),
is the dimension of the
space. It is important to note that the partial variances can be evaluated without constructing the
H matrices but by using the propagation equations. These are available both for fermion and boson systems; see [
88,
89,
90]. However, propagation equations for the more realistic
partial variances are not yet available.
2.5. Applications
In order to understand the variation of
[similarly
)] for fermion systems, for states with good seniority, some numerical examples are shown in
Figure 1 and
Figure 2. Firstly, consider an electric multi-pole (of multi-polarity
L) transition between two states with same
v value. Then, the
as seen from the second equation in Equation (
27). Note that, with
, the
operators are
w.r.t.
. Assuming
, variation of
with particle number
m is shown for three different values of
and
m varying from 2 to
in
Figure 1. It is clearly seen that
decrease up to mid-shell and then again increases, i.e.,
vs
m is an inverted parabola. The parabolas shift depending on the value of
. In addition, shown in
Figure 1 is also the variation with
m for states with
and 4. Assuming the ground
and first excited
states of a nucleus belong to
and
respectively,
variation with particle number is calculated using the third equation in Equation (
27) giving
. The variation of
is that it will increase up to mid-shell and then decrease; i.e., the
vs
m is a parabola. This is shown in
Figure 2 for three different values of
and again one sees a shift in the parabolas with
changing. Similar is the result for more general
transitions, assuming that the transitions are from states with a
v value to those with
; see the lower panel in
Figure 2.
First examples for the goodness of generalized seniority in nuclei are Sn isotopes. Note that for Sn isotopes the valence nucleons are neutrons with Z = 50, a magic number. From Equation (
8) it is easy to see that the spacing between the first
state (it will have
) and the ground state
(it will have
) will be independent of
m, i.e., the spacing should be same for all Sn isotopes and this is well verified by experimental data [
7]. Going beyond this, recently
data for
Sn to
Sn are analyzed using the results in Equation (
27), i.e., the results in
Figure 2. Data show a dip at
Sn and they are close to adding two displaced parabolas; see Figure 1 in [
71]. This is understood by employing
,
,
and
orbits for neutrons in
Sn to
Sn with
and
Sn core. Similarly,
,
,
and
orbits with
and
Sn core for
Sn to
Sn. Then, the
vs
m structure follows from
Figure 2 by shifting appropriately the centers of the two parabolas in the figure and defining properly the beginning and end points. It is also shown in [
71] that shell model calculations with an appropriate effective interaction in the above orbital spaces reproduce the results from the simple formulas given by seniority description and the experimental data.
In addition to
data, there is now good data available for
’s and
’s for some high-spin isomer states in even Sn isotopes. These are:
data for
Sn to
Sn and
for
Sn to
Sn and
in
Sn to
Sn. The states
and
are interpreted to be
states while
,
and
are
states. Therefore, all these transitions are
transitions and their variation with
m will be as shown in
Figure 1. This is well verified by data [
70] by assuming that the active sp orbits are
,
and
with
(see also
Figure 1 with
). The results with
and
, obtained by dropping
and
orbits respectively, are not in good accord with the data. In all this and in the analysis in [
72,
73], it is assumed that the
and
in Equation (
27) are independent of
m, i.e., they remain same for a given isotopic chain.
In summary, both the
data and the
and
data for high-spin isomer states are explained by assuming goodness of generalized seniority with the choice
but with effective
values. Although the sp orbits (and hence
values) used are different for the low-lying levels and the high-spin isomer states, the good agreements between data and effective generalized seniority description on one hand and the correlation coefficients presented in
Section 2.4 on the other show that for Sn isotopes generalized seniority is possibly an ‘emergent symmetry’or a “partial dynamical symmetry (PDS)” (see [
14] for PDS). Let us add that although detailed nuclear structure calculations are possible for Sn isotopes [
91], generalized seniority gives simple explanation for trends seen in some of the observables.
Going beyond Sn isotopes, with some further assumptions, near constancy of the energies of
and
levels and also
and
using Equation (
27) for
’s in Cd and Te isotopes are explained well [
72]. In this study, neutrons in
,
,
,
and
orbits in various combinations, depending on their occupancy, giving
are employed. Further, more recently Equation (
27) is applied successfully to explain empirical data on
g-factors, quadrupole moments and
values for the
,
and
isomers in Hg, Pb and Po isotopes. See
Figure 1 for variation of quadrupole moments
with particle number
m [this is obtained using the second formula in Equation (
27)] and the decrease as we move towards mid-shell region is seen in data [
73]. In addition,
values in these isotopes are also explained [
73]. In this study used are Equation (
27) and neutrons in the single particle orbits
,
,
,
and
giving
, 17 and 18 depending on the occupancy of these orbits [
73].
2.6. Summary
In this section presented are results on multiple multi-orbit pairing
and the complementary
algebras in
coupling shell model for identical nucleons. The relationship between quasi-spin tensorial nature of one-body transition operators and the phase choices in the multi-orbit pair-creation operator is presented. As pointed out in
Section 2.1 and
Section 2.2, some of the results here are known before for some special situations. Selection rules for EM transition strengths as determined by multiple multi-orbit pairing algebras are presented in
Section 2.3. In
Section 2.4, results for the correlation coefficient between the pairing operator with different choices for phases in the generalized pair-creation operator and realistic effective interactions are presented. It is found that the choice advocated by AM [
16] gives maximum correlation though its absolute value, no more than 0.3, is small. Applications using particle number variation in electromagnetic transition strengths, of multiple pairing algebras are briefly discussed in
Section 2.5 drawing from the recent analysis by Maheswari and Jain [
70,
71,
72,
73]. Generalized seniority with phase choice advocated by AM appear to describe
and
data in Sn isotopes both for low-lying states and high-spin isomeric states. This agreement also appears to extend to Cd, Te, Hg, Pb and Po isotopes. Though deviations from the results obtained using AM choice is a signature for multiple multi-orbit pairing algebras, direct experimental evidence for the multiple pairing algebras is not yet available. This requires examination of data where EM selection rules are violated.
7. Conclusions and Future Outlook
Pairing plays a central role in nuclear structure and it is essential for many exotic processes such as for example double beta decay. From the point of view of symmetries, pairing algebras are a topic of investigation for many decades. In shell model for identical nucleons, the pairing algebra is
and similarly for nucleons with isospin it is
. Furthermore,
coupling gives
pairing algebra. In the same way, pairing algebra for identical bosons in the interacting boson models is the non-compact
algebra and
F-spin gives
algebra. However, in the multi-orbit situation the pairing algebras are not unique and recently it is recognized that we have the new
paradigm of multiple multi-orbit pairing algebras
,
and
within shell model and
,
and
within interacting boson models. In the present paper, a review of the results for multiple multi-orbit pairing algebras in shell model and interacting boson models is presented. In
Section 2 results are presented for
pairing algebra for identical nucleon systems in shell model and in
Section 3 for
pairing algebra for identical bosons in interacting boson models. Similarly, in
Section 4 and
Section 5 results are presented for
pairing algebra for nucleons with isospin in shell model and
pairing algebra for bosons with
F-spin in the interacting boson models. As seen from the results presented in
Section 2,
Section 3,
Section 4 and
Section 5, clearly a given set of multiple pairing algebras generate the same spectrum but different results for properties such as EM transition strengths, two-nucleon transfer strengths and so on that depend on the wavefunctions. In the final
Section 6, the more complex multiple
pairing algebras in shell model with
-coupling and the two classes of pairing algebras in interacting boson models with isospin
degree of freedom are briefly described. Here the algebras need much more further development. Summarizing,
Table 12 gives the list of main cases of complementary algebras described in the present review. Let us add that, although we have discussed only IBM-1, IBM-2, and IBM-3 models, it is also possible to consider multiple pairing algebras in IBM-4, interacting boson model with spin–isospin degrees of freedom [
21,
55,
56]. The algebras here will be much more complex and they will be discussed elsewhere. In addition, multiple multi-orbit pairing algebras each generating a pairing Hamiltonian and combining this with the quadrupole–quadrupole (
) Hamiltonians generated by multiple
algebras (both in shell model and interacting bosons models [
67,
68,
69]) will give multiple pairing plus
Hamiltonians. Nuclear structure studies using these new class of pairing plus
interactions will be interesting. Finally, it is our hope that the results presented in this review will lead to much further work on multiple pairing and also multiple
algebras in future.