abstract: We study Ising ferrimagnets on square lattices with antiferromagnetic exchange couplings between spins of values S=1/2 and S=1 on neighbouring sites, couplings between S=1 spins at next–nearest neighbour sites of the lattice, and a single–site anisotropy term for the S=1 spins. Using mainly ground state considerations and extensive Monte Carlo simulations, we investigate various aspects of the phase diagram, including compensation points, critical properties, and temperature dependent anomalies. In contrast to previous belief, the next–nearest neighbour couplings, when being of antiferromagnetic type, may lead to compensation points.
address: $^1$ Institut für Theoretische Physik, RWTH Aachen, 52056 Aachen, Germany; $^2$ Department of Physics, Adnan Menderes University, 09010 Aydin, Turkey
author: W Selke$^1$ and C. Ekiz$^2$
date: 2024-10-01
title:  Mixed Ising ferrimagnets with next-nearest neighbour couplings on square lattices

# Introduction

Mixed spin ferrimagnetic Ising models have been studied for some time, with a renewed interest, especially, in connection with 'compensation points', see, for instance, \[1-11\]. These points occur at temperatures, below the critical temperature, at which the sublattice magnetizations cancel exactly, giving zero total moment. As the temperature is tuned through such a point the total magnetization changes sign, which may be used in technological applications, most notably in magnetic recording.

One of the simplest such models consists of classical Ising spins S=1/2 and S=1 on a square or simple cubic lattice with the spins of different type being located on neighbouring sites of the lattice. Its Hamiltonian may be written in the form

$${\cal H} = J_1 \sum_{\langle i,j\rangle} {\sigma_i S_j} + D \sum_{j\in B} {S_j}^2$$

where $J_1 > 0$ denotes the antiferromagnetic coupling between spins $\sigma_i = \pm 1/2$ on the sites of sublattice 'A', and neighbouring spins $S_j = 1,0,-1$ on sites forming the sublattice 'B'. Then, spins on each sublattice tend to order ferromagnetically, with opposite sign for the two types of spins. $D$ is the strength of a single–site anisotropy (or crystal–field) term acting only on the S=1 spins of sublattice B.

One may also choose $\sigma_i = \pm 1$ rather than $\pm 1/2$. The change has to be taken into account when calculating sublattice magnetizations and defining the compensation point. Otherwise, the modified convention simply amounts to a rescaling of the exchange coupling .

The mixed spin Ising model, eq. (1), is known, see, e.g., , to lead to compensation points for simple cubic lattices, in accordance with mean–field theory , but not for square lattices, in contrast to mean–field theory. As has been observed already some years ago by Buendia and Novotny , compensation points may occur on square lattices, when adding a (ferromagnetic) coupling between next–nearest neighbouring (nnn) spins on the A sublattice. On the other hand, the authors did not find any evidence for compensation points, when considering nnn couplings for B spins, instead of the ones for A spins.

In the following article we shall challenge the latter suggestion, which seems to have been taken for granted by others, see, e.g., . Indeed, based on extensive Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, we shall present clear evidence for compensation points due to nnn antiferromagnetic interactions between B, or S=1, spins on the square lattice. In fact, the effect is not easy to identify.

The outline of the article is as follows. In section 2, to set the scene for the following parts, we define the model with nnn couplings between S=1 spins, discuss its ground states, and describe details of the simulations. The following section deals with the compensation points. In section 4, MC results on critical properties and temperature dependent anomalies of the model will be presented. A brief summary is given in the final section.

# Model, ground states, and simulations

We shall study the following mixed spin Ising model on a square lattice

$${\cal H} = J_1 \sum_{\langle i,j\rangle} {\sigma_i S_j} + D \sum_{j\in B} {S_j}^2
- J_2 \sum_{\langle i,j\rangle\in B} {S_i S_j}$$

with antiferromagnetic nearest neighbour couplings, $J_1>0$ between A spins, $\sigma_i =\pm 1$, and B spins, $S_j= 0, \pm 1$, a crystal–field term of strength $D$ acting on the B spins, and nnn couplings, $J_2$, between B spins. Note that we set A spins equal to $\pm 1$, in accordance with previous work . To identify possible compensation points, care is then needed in defining the magnetization of the sublattice A, see above and below.

To determine the ground states of the model in the ($D/J_1$,$J_2/J_1$) plane, we first select, like before , the structures which are stable among the ones described by 2$\times$`<!-- -->`{=html}2 cells of spins on the square lattice. One readily observes the possibility of degenerate ground states, eventually with indefinitely large unit cells. Finally, we check the tentative ground state structures by monitoring spin configurations at very low temperatures obtained from careful cooling MC runs for lattices of various sizes. The resulting ground state phase diagram is depicted in figure 1.

The phase diagram at vanishing temperature, $T=0$, comprises four structures. The antiferromagnetic (AF) structure is stable for ferromagnetic or weakly antiferromagnetic nnn couplings, $J_2$, and negative or sufficiently small positive values of the crystal field, $D$. The spins on each of the two sublattices order ferromagnetically, $\pm 1$, with opposite sign on the sublattices A and B.

In two of the remaining other three ground states, S=1 spins may be in the state 0, due to the single–site anisotropy term, $D$. Actually, for sufficiently large values of $D$, all spins of the sublattice B are in state 0. We abbreviate the resulting structure as '0II'. The structure is highly degenerate, with each A spin being either $-1$ or 1, leading to a $2^{N_A}$–fold degeneracy for $N_A$ sites on the sublattice A. In contrast, in the '0I' structure, see figure 1, only half of the S=1 spins are in the state 0. They form, on the sublattice B, in the standard Wood's notation for overlayers , a periodic c($2\times 2$) superlattice. The other half of the spins on the B sites are ferromagnetically ordered, $\pm 1$. The spins on the sublattice A are ferromagnetically ordered as well, with opposite sign, compared to that of the B spins.

In the fourth ground state structure, all spins on the sublattice B are antiferromagnetically aligned, due to the dominant antiferromagnetic nnn coupling, J$_2$. The structure may be abbreviated as B–AF. Each spin on the sublattice A may be either $-1$ or 1, leading, as for 0II, to a large degeneracy.

Note that there may be additional degeneracies at borderlines between different ground state structures .

To determine thermal properties of the model, (2), we mainly perform MC simulations, using the Metropolis algorithm with single–spin flips, providing, indeed, the required accuracy, so that there is no need to apply other techniques like cluster–updates or the Wang–Landau approach . We consider lattices with $L$x$L$ sites, employing full periodic boundary conditions. $L$ ranges from 4 to 120, to study finite–size effects. Typically, we do runs of $5\times 10^6$ to $10^7$ Monte Carlo steps per spin, where averages and error bars may be obtained from evaluating a few of such runs, using different random numbers. These quite long runs lead to reliable data, as before . The estimated errors are usually smaller than the sizes of the symbols in the figures, and they are shown there only in a few cases.

We record the energy per site, $E$, the specific heat, $C$, both from the energy fluctuations and from differentiating $E$ with respect to the temperature, and the absolute values of the sublattice magnetizations of the two sublattices

$$|m_A| = <|\sum_{A} {\sigma_i}|>/(2 (L^2/2))$$

and

$$|m_B| = <|\sum_{B} {S_j}|>/(L^2/2)$$

as well as the absolute value of the staggered magnetization of sublattice B, describing the ordering for the B–AF structure,

$$|m^{st}_B| = <|\sum_{B^+}{S_i}- \sum_{B^-}{S_j}|>/(L^2/2)$$

with B$^{+,-}$ denoting an obvious bipartition of sublattice B. The brackets $< >$ denote the thermal average. Note the factor of 1/2 in the definition of $|m_A|$, taking into account the correct length of the S=1/2 spins, so that $|m_A(T=0)|= 1/2$ for the ferromagnetic ground state of sublattice A. In addition, the corresponding sublattice (staggered) susceptibilities, $\chi_A$, $\chi_B$, and $\chi_B^{st}$, have been computed from the fluctuations of the (staggered) sublattice magnetizations. We also analyse the fourth–order cumulant of various (sublattice) order parameters, the Binder cumulant , defined by

$$U = 1- <m^4>/(3 <m^2>^2)$$

with $<m^2>$ and $<m^4>$ being the second and fourth moment of (staggered) magnetizations of sublattice A or B. Finally, we monitor typical equilibrium Monte Carlo configurations, illustrating the microscopic behaviour of the system and providing, e.g., evidence for the ground states structures, as mentioned above.

To test the accuracy of the simulations, we compared our MC data to those of previous accurate numerical work and to exact results by enumerating all possible configurations for small lattices with $L= 4$ .

# Compensation points

Compensation points occur at temperatures $T_{comp}$, where both sublattice magnetizations cancel each other, with a vanishing total magnetization. In finite systems, as one is studying in MC simulations, a convenient and efficient way to locate such points is to use the crossing condition $|m_A|(T_{comp})= |m_B|(T_{comp})$. At low temperatures sufficiently far below the phase transition, finite–size effects are expected to be very weak, because there the compensation effect is not related to critical phenomena.

In the AF ground state, one has $|m_B|(T=0)$=1, while $|m_A|(T=0)$= 1/2. Now, at non–zero temperatures, $|m_B|(T)$ may fall off quite rapidly due to antiferromagnetic couplings $J_2$ and due to a relatively large single–site anisotropy term, $D$, which favours flips of S=1 spins to state 0. Furthermore, at zero temperature, $|m_B|(T=0)$ drops from 1 to 1/2, when passing through the borderline between the AF and 0I ground states. Accordingly, one might speculate that compensation points, at low temperatures in the AF phase, may show up close to the AF–0I borderline at $T$=0. In fact, our preliminary mean–field calculations seem to suggest that lines of compensation points may spring from this AF–0I borderline.

However, in our MC simulations, investigating carefully several cases, we find no evidence for such compensation points in the AF phase. An example is depicted in figure 2. There, $D/J_1$ is fixed at 3.0, and $J_2/J_1$ is varied, from +0.25 to $-0.26$, so that the AF–0I border at $J_2/J_1$ = $-0.25$ is approached and crossed. One observes, that $|m_B|$ is always larger than $|m_A|$, albeit the difference between the two sublattice magnetizations may get quite small when decreasing $J_2$. MC data for lattices of fixed size, $L= 60$, are displayed. The observation on the absence of compensation points in the AF phase also holds for other lattice sizes as well as for other values of $J_2/J_1$ and $D/J_1$.

On the other hand, compensation points will be argued below to occur in the 0I phase, for $J_2/J_1 > -1.0$, arising at vanishing temperature from the line

$$J_2/J_1= -2 + D/(2J_1)$$

which is depicted as the dashed line in the ground state phase diagram, figure 1.

Let us first present numerical support for this claim, followed then by low temperature energy considerations backing it up. A numerical example is shown in figure 3, where, for lattices with $60^2$ sites, the temperature dependences of the sublattice magnetizations, $|m_A|$ and $|m_B|$, are shown at fixed nnn coupling, $J_2/J_1 =-0.2$, and varying the strength of the single-site anisotropy term, $D/J_1$, from 3.0 to 3.7. Note that for this ratio of couplings, at $T= 0$, the AF–0I border is at 3.2, and the origin, at vanishing temperature, of the line of compensation points would be, according to equation (7), at $D/J$= 3.6. As discussed in the context of figure 2, one observes that $|m_B|(T)$ is always larger than $|m_A|(T)$ when being in the AF phase. However, in the 0I phase, here, at $D/J_1$= 3.57, there seems to be a compensation point, with $k_BT_{comp}/J_1 \approx 0.26$, clearly below the phase transition: At lower temperatures, $|m_B|$ is still larger than $|m_A|$, with reverse ordering at $T > T_{comp}$. By further increase of $D$, $D/J_1$= 3.7, $|m_A|(T)$ is larger than $|m_B|(T)$, at all temperatures up to $T_c$.

To establish numerically the presence of compensation points, careful finite–size analyses are required, as illustrated in figure 4. Here, MC data for various lattices sizes, with $L$ ranging from 20 to 120, are displayed, at $J_2/J_1= -0.2$ and $D/J_1$= 3.59, i.e. very close to the point, from which, according to (7), the line of compensation points may arise. In fact, a compensation point may be located at $k_BT_{comp}/J_1 \approx 0.16$. Below that temperature, $|m_B|(T)$ supercedes $|m_A|(T)$, with finite–size dependences being extremely small. Then, at $T_{comp}$, a crossing of the two sublattice magnetizations occurs. The finite size effects are still very weak up to $k_BT/J_1 \approx 0.25$, providing clear evidence on the existence of the compensation point in the thermodynamic limit.

Indeed, similar finite-size analyses allow one to locate the rather steeply rising line of compensation points, at fixed nnn couplings $J_2/J_1= -0.2$. Results on the compensation points, $T_{comp}$, are summarized in figure 5, together with estimates for the transition line, $T_c$, to the paramagnetic phase.

The critical line, $T_c$, has been determined by monitoring the size dependent positions of maxima in the specific heat $C$, in the susceptibility of the sublattice A, and in the intersection points of the Binder cumulant, especially, of sublattice A. The intersections of the Binder cumulant $U(L,T)$ for successive lattice sizes turn out to have the smallest finite–size effects, thereby being most efficient in estimating the critical temperature.

The line of compensation points seems to start at zero temperature at $D/J_1$= 3.6 for $J_2/J_1= -0.2$, in agreement with equation (7). Furthermore, it extends only over quite a small region, with the compensation point coinciding with the critical point at about $D/J_1= 3.52 \pm 0.02$.

Let us now turn to the low temperature considerations leading to (7). Specifically, we consider, for the 0I structure, the one–spin flip excitations on sublattice B. For concreteness, we analyse ground states with spins being in state $-1$ or 0 on sublattice B, and in state 1 on sublattice A. Then there are four possible flips of S=1 spins, namely flipping a spin from its state 0 to the state (i) $-1$ or (ii) 1, or flipping a spin from its state $-1$ to state (iii) 0 or (iv) $+1$. Obviously, only flip (i) will increase the sublattice magnetization $|m_B|$ above its value at zero temperature, $|m_B|(T=0) =1/2$, while otherwise $|m_B|(T)$ will have a negative slope at low temperatures. Now, one may readily calculate the energies of all four elementary flips. One obtains that flip (i) costs the lowest energy either followed by flip (iii), when $D/J_1 < 2J_2/J_1 +4$, or followed by flip (ii), when $J_2/J_1 > -1.0$. Equation (7) is then obtained under the assumption, that an initial increase of $|m_B(T)|$ is needed to have a compensation point, with $|m_B| > |m_A|$ at sufficiently low temperatures. Otherwise, in the 0I phase, $|m_A| > |m_B|$ at all temperatures $0 < T < T_c$, excluding a compensation point.

We further checked numerically the hypothesis, (7), in determining lines of compensation points by fixing the nnn coupling $J_2/J_1$ not only at $-0.2$, but also at $-0.4$ and $-0.8$, varying the strength of the single–site anisotropy term, $D/J_1$. Indeed, we observe compensation points in the 0I structure, which seem to arise, at zero temperature, from $D/J_1$= 3.2 at $J_2/J_1= -0.4$ and from $D/J_1$= 2.4 at $J_2/J_1= -0.8$, in agreement with (7). The latter case is displayed in figure 6.

Note that the range of values of $D/J_1$, in which there is a line of compensation points, shrinks appreciably as one decreases $J_2/J_1$. This may be seen by comparing figures 5 and 6. Thence, it becomes increasingly difficult to locate compensation points for lower values of $J_2/J_1$.

# Phase transitions and anomalies

While mixed spin Ising models are of much interest because of the potential presence of compensations points, they may exhibit other intriguing thermal properties as well.

We shall focus on two aspects, the characterization of the phase transitions associated with the various ground states, and anomalies in the temperature dependence, especially, of the sublattice magnetization and the specifc heat $C$.

One expects that there is no phase transition associated with the highly degenerate 0II ground state for the following reasons: At zero temperature, all spins of sublattice B are in state 0, while each spin of sublattice A may be either $-1$ or 1. The single–site anisotropy term, favouring the spin state 0 on sublattice B, does not support long–range order, in close analogy to the situation in the Blume–Capel model . The spins on sublattice A act merely like a fluctuating random field, and may not lead to a phase transition neither. In fact, our MC data, for various quantities, like the specific heat $C$ or the probability to encounter a spin in state 0, give no indication for singular thermal behaviour.

In case of the other three ground states, AF, 0I, and B–AF, we determine the universality class by analysing specific heat and susceptibilities. In particular, we monitor the size, $L$, dependence of that maximum of the specific heat, $C_{max}(L)$, which goes over into a singularity in the thermodynamic limit, $L \rightarrow \infty$ (note that there may be other maxima as will be discussed below in the context of anomalies). Furthermore, we study the size dependence of the maxima in (sublattice) susceptibilities. For the AF and 0I structures, we focus on $\chi_{A,max}(L)$. For the B–AF structure, we record the staggered susceptibility of the antiferromagnetically ordered sublattice B, $\chi^{st}_{B,max}(L)$. In all three cases, the critical behaviour is found to be consistent with having phase transitions in the universality class of the standard two–dimensional Ising model.

Typical MC results on the size, $L$, dependence of maxima in the specific heat, $C_{max}$, are depicted in figure 7. For all three types of ground states, AF, 0I as well as B–AF, one approaches to a good degree, already for lattices of moderate sizes, the form $C_{max} \propto \ln L$, being characteristic for the two–dimensional Ising universality class. Note that the prefactor in front of the logarithmic term depends strongly on $J_2/J_1$ and $D/J_1$. Certainly, such Ising–like critical behaviour may be expected in the AF case. In case of the B-AF phase, the spins on sublattice B order antiferromagnetically, with the A spins providing effectively a randomly fluctuating field, which may be argued to be irrelevant for the universality class. Finally, in the 0I case, the Ising–like criticality may be understood by the ferromagnetic order of the spins on sublattice A.

The analysis of the susceptibilies confirms the findings on the specific heat. Typical examples, for the same model parameters as in figure 7, are shown in figure 8. The size dependent maxima in the susceptibilities are observed to follow the form $\chi_{max} \propto L^{7/4}$, with rather small corrections, for all three cases, AF, 0I, and B–AF. This behaviour may be quantified by calculating the slope between successive points in the doubly logarithmic plot of the MC data. The resulting effective local critical exponent of the susceptibility is near 7/4, even for moderate lattice sizes. Thence, in all three cases, criticality seems to belong to the two–dimensional Ising universality class.

Care is needed when attempting to determine the universality class from the value of the critical Binder cumulant $U^*$= $U(T_c,L \longrightarrow \infty)$, because that value is known to depend on boundary conditions, shape, and anisotropy of the correlations . Note that in the cases we studied, its value seems to be close to that of the standard two–dimensional Ising model with periodic boundary conditions for lattices of square shape, $U^* \approx 0.6107$ . However, the dependence, especially on anisotropy, may be very weak , and a reliable analysis may require an exact or, at least, extremely accurate determination of the critical point. We therefore refrained from such an analysis here.

Let us now turn to discussing anomalies, exhibiting intriguing non–monotonic temperature dependences, which are not related to phase transitions. Especially, we monitor the magnetizations of sublattice B, $|m_B|$, the specific heat $C$, and the thermally averaged occupancy of B sites with spins in the state 0, $p_B(0)$.

An example for such anomalies is the overshooting of $|m_B|(T)$ at low temperatures in the vicinity of the 0I ground state, illustrated in figures 2 and 3. As discussed above, the overshooting is related to decreasing the number of spins in state 0, by flipping such spins to, say, $-1$, costing minimal energy. Indeed, the anomaly in $|m_B|$ is monitored to be accompanied by a pronounced decrease in $p_B(0)$.

Anomalies may also occur in the specific heat, being caused either by a rapid increase or decrease in the number of S=1 spins in state 0. For instance, such an anomaly in $C$ has been observed before in the AF phase at $J_2/J_1= 0$, close to the 0II structure. There, monitoring $C(T)$, a three–peak–structure of the specific heat has been found, with a non-critical maximum at low temperatures, due to easy flips of spins in the state 0, followed, at higher temperature, by a strongly size dependent critical peak, and, at even larger temperature, another non–critical maximum, due to flipping of single spins for sublattices with rather large clusters of '+' or '$-$' spins.

We observe a similar thermal behaviour of the specific heat in the 0I phase, when turning on the nnn coupling, $J_2 <0$. An example is depicted in figure 9, at $J_2/J_1= -0.2$ and $D/J_1$= 3.4. However, here the peak at lowest temperature, $T_l$, is due to a rather drastic decrease of B spins in state 0, which has been discussed above. Actually, by enhancing the strength of the single–site anisotropy term, $D/J_1= 3.6$, the position of that peak, at $T_l$, shifts first to somewhat higher temperatures. It still corresponds to a lowering, with temperature, of the average number of 0's for the sublattice B, $p_B(0)(T)$. When moving even closer to the 0II structure, $D/J_1$ = 3.8 and 3.9, $T_l$ tends to be shifted towards lower temperatures with increasing $D$. The peak position seems to follow the same dependence as for vanishing $J_2$ , namely $k_BT_l/J_1 \propto 4-D/J_1$. As may be seen from monitoring $p_B(0)$, the peak is then, as in the limit $J_2= 0$, due to an increase in the number of B spins in state 0 at low temperatures.

# Summary

We have studied a mixed spin Ising model with antiferromagnetic couplings, $J_1$, between spins S= 1/2 and S= 1 on neighbouring sites of a square lattice, augmented by couplings, $J_2$, between spins S= 1 on next–nearest neighbouring sites of the lattice. An additional quadratic single–site anisotropy term, $D$, acts upon the S=1 spins. Based mainly on ground state considerations and on extensive standard Monte Carlo simulations, we have determined the ground state phase diagram in the ($D/J_1,J_2/J_1$) plane and identified compensation points, types of phase transitions corresponding to different ground state structures as well as anomalies for various physical quantities.

In particular, compensation points are found to exist, in contrast to previous belief. They exist for antiferromagnetic nnn couplings, $J_2>-1.0$, in the 0I phase, springing, at zero temperature, from the line $J_2/J_1= -2 + D/(2J_1)$. Across that line, different types of one–spin flips on the S=1 sublattice cost lowest energy, accompanied by a change in the sign of the slope of the magnetization of that sublattice at low temperatures. At fixed value of $J_2/J_1$, the range, in $D/J_1$, of compensation points is quite narrow, becoming extremely small for decreasing nnn couplings, as we have shown by decreasing $J_2/J_1$ from $-0.2$ to $-0.8$.

The transition to the paramagnetic phase appears to be always in the universality class of the two–dimensional Ising model, with the critical maxima of the specific heat growing with lattice size, $L$, in a logarithmic fashion, and with the maxima of the appropriate (staggered) sublattice susceptibilities growing with lattice size proportionally to $L^{7/4}$. These results hold in case of AF, 0I, and B–AF ground states of the model. In case of the 0II ground state, there is no phase transition.

The model is observed to exhibit interesting anomalies by showing non–monotonic temperature dependences for various quantities, including sublattice magnetization and specific heat. The anomalies are typically caused by energetically favoured flips of S= 1 spins between the state 0 and a non–zero state.

In conclusion, our study provides clear evidence for non–expected compensation points in a rather simple mixed Ising model with antiferromagnetic next–nearest neighbour couplings between S=1 spins on a square lattice. Extensions to three dimensional lattices are well beyond the present study, and may be investigated in the future.

# Acknowledgements

C E thanks the Department of Physics at the RWTH Aachen for the kind hospitality during his stay there. We thank Prof. Mark Novotny for a very useful discusssion as well as Dr. Mukul Laad for interesting conversations.

# References


abstract: We study dynamic nonequilibrium electron charging phenomena in ballistic molecular devices at room temperature that compromise their response to bias, and whose nature is evidently distinguishable from static Schottky-type potential barriers. Using various metallic/semiconducting carbon nanotubes and alkane dithiol molecules as active parts of a molecular bridge, we perform self-consistent quantum transport calculations under the non-equilibrium Green's function formalism coupled to a three-dimensional Poisson solver for a mutual description of chemistry and electrostatics. Our results sketch a particular tracking relationship between the device's local density of states and the contact electrochemical potentials that can effectively condition the conduction process by altering the electronic structure of the molecular system. Such change is unassociated to electronic/phononic scattering effects while its extent is highly correlated to the conducting character of the system, giving rise to an increase of the intrinsic resistance of molecules with a semiconducting character and a symmetric mass-center disposition.
author: Ioannis Deretzis; Antonino La Magna
date: 2024-10-01
title: Bias-driven local density of states alterations and transport in ballistic molecular devices

# Introduction

It is a common perception nowadays that both industry and academic research have largely focused their attention on molecular structures as active part candidates of nanoscale electronic devices. Such trend is other than unfounded, as reduced dimensionality could significantly advance miniaturization and improve performance of plausible logic and storage devices. Aside the increasing electronic transport measurement paradigms of synthetic organic/inorganic molecular structures, it is undoubtable that carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have constituted the central point of molecular research during the last decade. Moreover, recent zeolite template growth techniques have clearly demonstrated that the era of thin ($d\approx{}0.4nm$ diameter) CNTs cannot be considered too distant. Nonetheless advances in nanoscale engineering have brought knowledge of molecular electronics up to a level of integrated circuit assembling, the comprehension of the quantum effects that rule the conduction mechanism has not been fully mastered, in particular when it comes to interface interaction issues between device and electrode atoms. Freshman electronics teaches that when two surfaces with different work functions come to contact, charge transfer takes place that tends to minimize this difference. Such effect has been repeatedly noted in the case of CNTs embedded to metallic electrodes, with Schottky-type potential barriers that vary on the basis of the metallic contact element and the CNT diameter. Although conceptually convenient, the categorization of the quality of metallic contacts considering only metal-CNT work function differences finds experimental inconsistency, e.g. in the case of group 10 transition metals palladium and platinum. Theoretically, the electronic configuration regime of a molecule changes with respect to its isolated equilibrium picture when a) the device is attached to metallic contacts (appearance of metal-induced states, broadening of energy levels, charge transfer due to work function differences) and b) when the device goes out of equilibrium (bias-induced charge transfer). It is therefore reasonable that a complete theoretical investigation of quantum transport effects in nanodevices accounts also for dynamic nonequilibrium processes apart from the static equilibrium ones. In such context we have preliminarily evidenced the presence of transmission probability alterations in ballistic semiconducting carbon nanotube molecular bridges, purely related to the application of a bias on the two electrodes of the system. Moreover such effect manifests in a strong coupling regime at room temperature, excluding Kondo or Coulomb blockade implications. By presenting equilibrium/nonequilibrium local density of states (LDOS) distributions and electronic density modifications, this article attempts to intensely examine the physical processes that lead to the aforementioned behavior for various metallic/semiconducting CNTs, and generalize findings by demonstrating similar conduction aspects also in alkane dithiol molecules.

Modeling of carbon-nanotube-based devices can often result puzzling, since too short CNTs manifest contact-induced states that can significantly change the density of states spectrum with respect to the respective bulk device, while long 'real-size' systems are computationally prohibited out of the single-orbital tight-binding model. This work implements a mathematical formalism that can capture geometrical, chemical and charging interactions without at the same time resulting computationally weighty. In this sense the non-equilibrium Green's function formalism has been based on an all-valence-electron extended Hückel Hamiltonian, iteratively coupled to a three-dimensional Poisson solver in the self-consistent field regime. Such approximation can combine a) the flexibility of semiempirical methods, b) the qualitative aspects of the Extended Hückel method in the calculation of CNT band structures, c) the inclusion of charging effects under bias and d) the uniform description of both device and contacts, allowing at the same time multiple hundreds-of-atoms simulations with a relatively low CPU load. Based on this model, this study is focused on the correlation between the electrochemical potentials of the metallic electrodes and the local density of states of a biased molecular system, the change in the electronic density that such interaction provokes and the consequences of these processes on the conduction mechanism.

This paper is organized as follows: Section II describes the details of the mathematical/computational formalism, section III shows transmission probability and LDOS spectra for CNT and alkane dithiol systems out of equilibrium, section IV demonstrates changes in electronic density and potential profiles for a metallic and a semiconducting CNT, and finally in section V we discuss the presented results.

# Methodology

The theoretical foundation of our computational model is based on the method developed by Zahid *et al.*, which couples the Green's function formalism based on an extended Hückel Hamiltonian with a complete neglect of differential overlap (CNDO) mean field theory for the inclusion of Coulomb interactions, with appropriate in-house mathematical enhancements that render computations more affordable. The basic points of such formalism are briefly described in the following: a non-equilibrium Green's function is used for the quantum calculation of transport for various finite size CNTs and alkane dithiol molecules embedded between two semi-infinite metallic planes (source and drain contacts). Such approach is based on the single particle retarded Green's function matrix $G = [ES - H - \Sigma_L - \Sigma_R]^{-1}$, where $E$ is the scalar energy, $H$ is the device Hamiltonian matrix in an appropriate basis set, $S$ is the overlap matrix in that basis set and $\Sigma_{L,R}$ is the self energy, which includes the effect of scattering due to the left $(L)$ and right $(R)$ contacts. Self energy $\Sigma_{L,R}$ terms can be expressed as $\Sigma = ({\tau}-ES)g_s({\tau}^\dagger-ES)$, where $g_s$ is the surface Green function specific to the contact type and $\tau$ is the Hamiltonian relative to the mutual interaction between the device and the contact. Device and contacts Hamiltonian matrices are obtained using an all-valence-orbital Hückel method, where orbitals are approximated by Slater-type functions and the parameterization of diagonal elements is based on theoretical and experimental data of ionization energies for the respective atoms. Non-diagonal Hamiltonian elements are calculated on the basis of the overlap matrices between different atomic orbitals. Considering that the computational framework takes place in the coherent limit, a Landauer-type expression can be used for the current calculation: $$\label{curr}
I=\frac{2e}{h}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dET(E)[f(E,\mu_L)-f(E,\mu_R)].$$ In this expression $T(E)=Tr[{\Gamma_L}G{\Gamma_R}G^\dagger]$ represents the transmission probability for the device current as a function of energy and $\Gamma_{L,R}=i[\Sigma_{L,R}-\Sigma_{L,R}^\dagger]$ are the anti-Hermitian parts of the self-energy terms. The statistical Fermi-Dirac distribution of electrons $f(E,\mu_{L,R})$ in the contact at chemical potential $\mu_{L,R}$ has a particular importance here since simulation temperatures have been set to 300 K. Charging effects can be introduced in the model with the inclusion of a self-consistent potential $U_{SC}(\Delta\rho)$ that is a functional of the device density matrix difference between equilibrium and non-equilibrium states ($\Delta\rho=\rho-\rho_{eq}$), and which is added to the bare device's Hamiltonian ($H = H_{0} + U_{SC}(\Delta\rho)$). The $U_{SC}(\Delta\rho)$ is calculated self-consistently by the addition of three separate constituent terms: $$\label{Usc}
U_{SC}(\Delta\rho)=U_{Laplace}+U_{Poisson}(\Delta\rho)+U_{Image}(\Delta\rho),$$ whereas $\rho$ is given by $$\rho=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dE[f(E,\mu_L)G\Gamma_{L}G^\dagger+f(E,\mu_R)G\Gamma_{R}G^\dagger].$$ $U_{Laplace}$ and $U_{Image}$ parts of the potential have been numerically calculated with a three-dimensional finite element method solving the $\nabla^{2}U=0$ equation with appropriate box boundary conditions[^1]. The calculation of the Poisson term can derive in the framework of the CNDO theory, using only the Hartree potential for the Coulomb interaction. CNDO parameters have been determined for device atoms using ionization potential and electron affinity data from ref.. All potential components have been evaluated on the atoms (a linear interpolation between grid and atomic sites has been implemented in the Laplace and Image term case).

For the integration of the density matrix at each step of the self-consistent process a contour integration technique has been applied up to energies where the Fermi-Dirac coefficient is still a unity ($f(E,\mu_{L,R})\approx{}1$), in order to avoid poles on the complex energy plane for energies close to the system's Fermi level. Both real and complex parts of the density integral have been accurately evaluated using Gaussian quadrature formulas. In the iterative procedure of potential calculation, apart from simple mixing techniques, Anderson mixing algorithms have been introduced for a fast albeit precise convergence. Finally parallelization techniques have been implemented in the programming code for a better exploitation of multiple computer CPUs.

# Local density of states and bias correlation in carbon nanotube and alkane dithiol molecules

One of the most appealing aspects of semiempirical methods is their flexibility in the determination of various system parameters without necessarily compromising on the description of the qualitative characteristics of the physical system. In this sense the implemented method allows for a separate study of the effects of electron charging on the conduction mechanism under equilibrium and non-equilibrium conditions. Although there are plenty of theoretical works that affront the problem of CNTs and static Schottky potential barriers in a multidisciplinary level, to the best of our knowledge there has been no systematic attempt to evidence charging manifestation under nonequilibrium conditions and its role on the propagation of current in CNT systems. In the current study, the nonequilibrium transport features have been separated from the electrostatic effects of equilibrium (Schottky barrier formations) by setting the Fermi level of the whole system (device and contacts) to the Fermi energy level of the respective bulk CNTs. Such condition imposes the alignment between the metallic contact's work function and the charge neutrality level of the CNT by shifting the energy bands of the device with respect to the ones of the contact, affecting only equilibrium charge transfer features while leaving all chemical and nonequilibrium interactions unchanged. In the laboratory, an analogous phenomenon can be realized by using a gate electrode strongly coupled to the device levels, to unidirectionally shift the CNT bands towards higher or lower energies, depending on the spectral position of the electrodes' work function.

Strong interface coupling conditions have been explicitly imposed at this study by bringing Au(111) metallic electrodes at an $L=0.1nm$ distance from the two open edges of the CNTs. Simulations have been undertaken for various metallic and semiconducting nanotubes in equilibrium and under bias, and figure shows transmission function outcomes for CNTs with basis vector indices (3,2), (3,3), (8,0) and (5,5). The diameters of these CNTs are $d_{(3,2)}\approx{}0.34nm$, $d_{(3,3)}\approx{}0.4nm$, $d_{(8,0)}\approx{}0.63nm$, $d_{(5,5)}\approx{}0.68nm$, their lengths $L_{(3,2)}\approx{}7.5nm$, $L_{(3,3)}\approx{}3.6nm$, $L_{(8,0)}\approx{}3.4nm$, $L_{(5,5)}\approx{}2.9nm$, while their conducting character is fully determined by their helicity and (in the case of narrow CNTs) $\sigma-\pi$ hybrid orbital mixing. The point of differentiation between semiconducting and metallic carbon nanotubes lies in the response of the intrinsic conducting capability of each system to bias. Semiconductor tubes, apart from shifting their transmission peaks corresponding to a shift of energy eigenvalues, demonstrate also a clear diminishment of their total transmission probability, which also affects the energy zone close to the Fermi level of the system. In terms of the Landauer formalism this can be translated in a decrease of the device's current-carrying capacity and could be seen as an increase of the nanotube resistance compared to the one estimated from the equilibrium transmission spectrum(see figure ), which has no relation with phononic or electronic scattering interactions, static Shottky-type potential barriers or low-temperature/weak coupling effects. Rather, such process implies an implicit alteration of the propagation modes of current under non-equilibrium. On the other hand, although the phenomenon is present also for the metallic CNTs, its strength is evidently limited and the transmission coefficient does not diverge significantly from the equilibrium case. Such non-uniform situation cannot be simply attributed to energy level shifts and needs to be better evaluated.

The flow of current in molecules strongly depends on their electronic structure and its correlation with the metallic electrodes, in terms of interface chemical bonding and electrochemical potential positioning. Both qualitative and quantitative aspects of the latter are impressed on the device's density of states distribution. Hence, an LDOS ring analysis has been performed for the (8,0) and (5,5) tubes in the cases of 0V and 2V applied bias, in order to evidence the processes that render the aforementioned metallic/semiconducting behaviors divergent. Figures and show the respective results. The observation of the distribution of states in the designated rings under equilibrium can evidence a high electronic density near the Fermi energy level for both CNTs close to the contacts that can be attributed to metal induced states, which arise from the tails of metallic electron wavefunctions that decay exponentially into the device body. Moving towards the inner part of the CNT, such concentration tends to diminish to a finite value for the (5,5) tube and almost vanishes for the (8,0) tube, revealing respectively the metallic and semiconducting character of the studied CNTs. The application of bias has a qualitatively similar influence on the electronic bands of the two systems; nonetheless their different conducting character, the LDOS's of the various rings of the two systems tend to follow the movement of the electrochemical potential of the contact to which they are better correlated, both topologically and chemically. Thus, rings closer to the positively biased electrode (bottom electrode in figures ,) tend to shift their LDOS's towards lower energies, rings that are near to the negatively biased electrode (upper one in figures ,) tend to move LDOS's towards higher energies, while middle rings of both systems have LDOS's with minor differences that are attributed to geometrically -and therefore chemically- unequal couplings between the two electrodes and the device. Note that such minor mid-device alterations would not have been evidenced with a tight-binding representation of the metallic contacts that neglects geometrical differentiations in the reconstruction of interface chemical bonds. The transmission probability of the semiconducting CNT is affected by the aforementioned LDOS redistribution in a bigger extent with respect to that of the metallic one, since this bidirectional LDOS motion at various parts of the CNT inserts and pulls out states from the conduction gap. These newly inserted gap states cannot always energetically correlate with states of neighboring rings. Such lack of correlation leads to a spatial localization of the electronic wavefunctions related to the aforementioned states (e.g. see the peaks appearing near the Fermi energy level in the non-equilibrium LDOS spectra of figure ) that cannot give any contribution to the globally evaluated transmission coefficient, and thus, the conductivity of the system. The implicit increase of the device resistance can therefore be seen as a bias-induced change of its electronic structure that provokes a decrease of availability of non-localized states within the conduction window. On the other hand, the magnitude of this effect is minor in the metallic CNT since shifted states can almost always correlate with neighboring ring states throughout the energy spectrum of interest for the conduction of current. In this case, the respective bias-induced change of the device's electronic structure does not lead to an extended localization of electronic wavefunctions.

The previous concepts can be better visualized in the analysis of few level molecular systems. In this sense alkane dithiols are theoretically ideal case study objects due to their small size and large conduction gap. As such, the same type of investigation has been carried out for C8, C10 and C12 alkane dithiol molecules whereas representative results shown in figure are for the C12 molecule. Here, in accordance with *ab initio* reconstructions that calculate equilibrium Au-S distance between Au and $SCH_3$ complexes at $L_{Au-S}=0.25nm$, the vertical distance between the device and contacts has been set to $L=0.19nm$. The local density of states has been calculated on the atomic sites and fig. demonstrates LDOS's for the two external sulfur atoms that spectrally give the most important density contribution with respect to C and H atoms. The LDOS trend that tracks electrochemical potentials is clearly confirmed also here, whereas states from the right sulfur atom that enter the conduction gap become localized and do not contribute to the transmission probability of the system. Attempting therefore a generalization of the presented results, it would be appropriate to state that the increase of the intrinsic resistance due to bias-induced factors should be expected in all molecules with a semiconducting/isolating character that exhibit a spatial symmetry with regard to their center of mass. The prerequisite of symmetry has a sense of isotropic contribution of the various parts of the molecule to the total electronic density. Asymmetry could have an impact similar to disorder on the electronic structure of a molecular system whereas the application of bias could affect singularly each distinct structure. In this sense, even if asymmetric molecule LDOS's are also expected to behave in an analogous to their symmetric counterparts way, their resistance may increase, decrease or remain unaffected.

The qualitative aspects of LDOS redistribution reported in this paragraph should be evidenced within the full range of semiemprirical/first-principles descriptions of a biased molecular system with a proper treatment of electron-electron interactions, even if the level of accuracy is expected to vary from case to case. On the other hand though, the intrinsic shortcomings of each method should influence on the correctness of the presented results. In this work for example, a tight-binding representation of the device and the contacts could result inappropriate for small diameter CNTsor alkane dithiol molecules, and lacking of realism at the contact-device interface schematization.

# Spatial distribution of nonequilibrium charges on molecular devices

The investigation of molecular conduction in terms of local density of states only implicitly copes with the actual process of transport, which is the movement of charges. Principal quantum transport theory teaches that when the two electrodes of a molecular junction are bias-driven out of equilibrium, the electrochemical potentials of the latter separate and tend to pump in/pull out electrons from those molecular levels that lie within them. In the ideal case where the energy levels of the device are perfectly correlated to the contacts we can expect no accumulation of charges on the device body. This picture changes when dealing with real molecular systems where, as seen previously, the spatially anisotropic bidirectional movement of the LDOS's towards the energies of the electrochemical potentials can increase the number of localized states on the device (which could also exist prior to the application of bias due to symmetry/coupling factors). In this case we can expect a charge accumulation on the device body corresponding to the occupation of localized states that can condition the transport mechanism by reducing the easiness with which new charges can flow in/out of the device. This phenomenon can be visualized at figures and , where the absolute value of the change of electronic density between equilibrium and non-equilibrium conditions along the device body ($\Delta\rho=\rho-\rho_{eq}$) is plotted for the (8,0) and (5,5) CNTs for a 2V bias, accompanied by the respective self-consistent potential profile. Both electronic densities and potential values (interrelated via equation ) are calculated on the atomic sites, whereas in the case of the potential profile mean values have been assigned for atoms with an identical projection on the device axis (atoms that belong to the same CNT ring). There are two distinct CNT areas where the change of electronic density has distinguishable characteristics, a) the area close to the metallic contacts and b) the inner part of the nanotube. In the first case, an initial screening can be observed for both types of CNTs (up to about 5Å distance from the CNT ends), which could be perceived as the adjustment of the infinite metallic propagation modes to the finite modes of the molecular device. Such screening is quantitatively higher for the (5,5) tube and has an steep impact on the shaping of the potential profile near the CNT edges, contrary to the (8,0) case, where the deviation from the linear Laplace component of a neutral system is smaller (see fig. ). On the other hand, regarding the inner CNT body, a finite difference density distribution can be mainly observed for the semiconducting (8,0) tube, while minimal differences are evidenced for the (5,5) metallic one. This effect is directly related to the increase of localized states for the semiconducting CNT, which provokes an encapsulation of charges on the device body.

# Discussion

In this article the influence of nonequilibrium charge transfer (NECT) on the conduction mechanism of molecular devices (CNTs, alkane dithiols) has been analyzed on the basis of local density of states alterations provoked by the application of bias. The main characteristic of this process can be individualized on the interaction between the molecular LDOS and the electrochemical potentials of the contacts, where a tracking relationship has been clearly manifested. Such process provokes a nonuniform reorganization of the density of states throughout the body of the molecular device, which, especially in geometrically symmetric devices with a conduction gap, can increase the number of localized states at energies close to the Fermi level. These states, when occupied by charges, can give rise to localized electronic wavefunctions that yield a non-zero difference between equilibrium and non-equilibrium electronic densities at the inner parts of the molecule. On the other hand it has been demonstrated that the extent of such effect is smaller in molecular systems with a metallic character.

It can be expected that the presence of the aforementioned processes is limited to the quantum description of electronic transport. Indeed, moving towards the semiclassical limit, the device can be thought of as the sum of numerous nanosize discretized units where quantum rules can be implemented. In this case, the potential profile that each of this units perceives is flat and therefore no bidirectional LDOS modifications are expected, rather than a unified movement of all states towards the respective potential level. Therefore no alteration of the local electronic structure should be observed with respect to the zero-bias case other than this shift.

The concepts discussed above can reflect both practically and theoretically on the perception of transport in molecular systems. From an engineering point of view, findings could be useful in the understanding of nanoscale device operation, since the dependence of the conduction gap formation from the applied source-drain bias magnitude is something that should not be overlooked. From a theoretical point of view, the presence of NECT phenomena can invoke a discussion both in a conceptual and in methodological level. Conceptually it becomes evident that molecular conduction issues cannot be solely treated in equilibrium terms. Methodologically it is confirmed that a self-consistent approach to the computer-aided design of molecular systems is fundamental for the capturing of charging phenomena, either in or out of equilibrium.

[^1]: For the Laplace term: $U_{Laplace}=-qV_{S}$ at the source and $U_{Laplace}=-qV_{D}$ at the drain. For the Image term: $U_{Image}=-U_{Poisson}(\vec r)$ at the position of the device contacts.


abstract: The anomalous lack of large angle temperature correlations has been a surprising feature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) since first observed by *COBE-DMR* and subsequently confirmed and strengthened by the *Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe*. This anomaly may point to the need for modifications of the standard model of cosmology or may indicate that our Universe is a rare statistical fluctuation within that model. Further observations of the temperature auto-correlation function will not elucidate the issue; sufficiently high precision statistical observations already exist. Instead, alternative probes are required. In this work we explore the expectations for forthcoming polarization observations. We define a prescription to test the hypothesis that the large-angle CMB temperature perturbations in our Universe represent a rare statistical fluctuation within the standard cosmological model. These tests are based on the temperature-$Q$ Stokes parameter correlation. Unfortunately these tests cannot be expected to be definitive. However, we do show that if this $TQ$-correlation is observed to be sufficiently large over an appropriately chosen angular range, then the hypothesis can be rejected at a high confidence level. We quantify these statements and optimize the statistics we have constructed to apply to the anticipated polarization data. We find that we can construct a statistic that has a $25$ per cent chance of excluding the hypothesis that we live in a rare realization of $\Lambda$CDM at the $99.9$ per cent confidence level.
author: Craig J. Copi$^{1}$[^1], Dragan Huterer$^{2}$[^2], Dominik J. Schwarz$^{3}$[^3] and Glenn D. Starkman$^{1,4}$[^4]
$^{1}$CERCA/Department of Physics/ISO, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7079, USA
$^{2}$Department of Physics, University of Michigan, 450 Church St, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1040, USA
$^{3}$Fakultät für Physik, Universität Bielefeld, Postfach 100131, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany
$^{4}$Physics Department, Theory Unit, CERN, CH-1211 Genève 23, Switzerland
bibliography: polarization_predictions.bib
date: Accepted xxxx. Received xxxx; in original form xxxx
title: Large-Angle CMB Suppression and Polarization Predictions

# Introduction

In the two decades since the *Cosmic Background Explorer* (*COBE*) first detected the primordial fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature , and perhaps even more so in the past decade over which the *Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe* (*WMAP*) has provided ever more accurate full-sky maps of those fluctuations , the CMB has become a keystone in the remarkable transition of cosmology from a qualitative to a precision science.

An important element of the role of the CMB in precision cosmology has been that the canonical theory of cosmology, inflationary Lambda Cold Dark Matter ($\Lambda$CDM), makes clear predictions for the statistical properties of the spherical harmonic coefficients of the temperature fluctuations, $$a_{\ell m}\equiv \int Y_{\ell m}^*(\theta,\phi) T(\theta,\phi)\,
   \rmn{d}(\cos\theta)\,\rmn{d}\phi,$$ which are predicted to be statistically isotropic realizations of independent Gaussian random variables of zero mean and with variance $C_\ell$ depending only on $\ell$, $$C_\ell= \frac1{2\ell+1}\sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell \vert a_{\ell m}\vert^2.$$ In modern discussions of the CMB the two-point angular power spectrum, embodied in these $C_\ell$, plays a central role and is the source of the remarkable precision of the cosmological parameters .

Before the *COBE* era, it was the two-point angular correlation function of the fluctuations, $$C(\theta) \equiv \overline{T({\bmath{\hat{n}}}_1)T({\bmath{\hat{n}}}_2)}\vert_{{\bmath{\hat{n}}}_1\cdot{\bmath{\hat{n}}}_2=\cos\theta},$$ rather than the angular power spectrum that was of primary interest to astronomers. Statistically, the two-point angular correlation function is an ensemble average but, in practice, this must be replaced by an average over pairs of points separated by an angle $\theta$, as denoted by the bar over the expression. In fact the *COBE* differential microwave radiometer (*COBE-DMR*) did report $C(\theta)$, though only in their final, four-year paper . When extracted from a full-sky map both $C(\theta)$ and the $C_\ell$ contain the same information, albeit in different forms. The same is true for a function and its Fourier transform; signals are typically most easily seen in one or the other forms but not both. In the case of the CMB, $C(\theta)$ and the $C_\ell$ are related by a Legendre series. The $C_\ell$ most easily show the small angular scale behaviour, microphysics at last scattering, whereas the $C(\theta)$ most easily shows the large angular scale behaviour.

As observed by the *COBE-DMR*, $C(\theta)$ had an unexpected property – it was consistent with zero for angular separations between approximately $60\degr$ and $160\degr$. This was duly noted at the time but mainly remembered today as a low quadrupole. The *WMAP* team confirmed the *COBE-DMR* observation of a lack of large-angle correlation with significantly smaller error bars. In their initial, one-year release phrased the anomaly in terms of a statistic $$S_{1/2}\equiv \int_{-1}^{1/2} \left[C(\theta)\right]^2
  \rmn{d}(\cos\theta).$$ In the best-fitting $\Lambda$CDM model the expected value of this statistic is approximately $50,000\;\rmn{(\rmn{\umu K})^4}$, whereas the observed value is approximately $8500\;\rmn{(\rmn{\umu K})^4}$ on the full-sky, e.g. from the *WMAP* independent linear combination (ILC) map,[^5] with a $p$-value of approximately $0.05$. Even more striking is that if one considers only the part of the sky outside a conservative Galaxy cut, then $S_{1/2}\simeq
1000-1150\;\rmn{(\rmn{\umu K})^4}$ and is only $\sim1300\;\rmn{(\rmn{\umu K})^4}$ in each of the $V$ and $W$ frequency bands, which are expected to be dominated by the CMB signal. The cut-sky $S_{1/2}$ has a $p$-value of about $2.5\times10^{-4}$, depending on the precise map .

We have argued that such absence of the two-point angular correlation is unlikely to result solely from a small quadrupole, or even a small quadrupole and octopole, and that it instead requires a 'conspiracy' among the first several multipoles . Such covariance among the $C_\ell$ is likely contrary to the fundamental prediction of the canonical cosmological model that the $a_{\ell m}$ underlying the $C_\ell$ are independent Gaussian random variables with variances depending only on $\ell$. This is one of a number of large-scale anomalies that suggest that modifications of the standard model are required on large angular scales .

One possible explanation of the absence of large-angle correlations among the CMB temperature fluctuations is that it is merely a statistical fluke. In this paper, we explore the consequences of this hypothesis. In particular, since the fluctuations in the CMB temperature and in its polarization arise largely from the same source – the gravitational potential – one might have hoped that a small temperature-temperature ($TT$) correlation function on large angular scales would predict a similarly small cross-correlation between CMB temperature and CMB Stokes parameter $Q$, or in the polarization-polarization ($QQ$) correlation.

Unfortunately, as we shall see, the connection between temperature and polarization fluctuations is too weak for a general definitive test of the origin of the vanishing correlation function. However, we do find that if the $S_{1/2}$ is small because of a statistical fluke within $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, then the cross-correlation between temperature and polarization is unlikely to be large on large angular scales. Therefore, were we to infer a large value of this cross-correlation from future data, that would be evidence against a statistical fluke as an explanation of the vanishing $TT$ correlation.

In this paper we provide a prescription to follow in order to test this hypothesis. In Section , we describe the construction of an ensemble of realizations of $\Lambda$CDM that are constrained to resemble our observed Universe in the properties of their $TT$ angular power spectrum and full-sky and cut-sky two-point angular correlation functions. In Section we construct statistics that, like $S_{1/2}$ for the $TT$ correlations, can be used to quantify the smallness of the correlations between temperature and polarization fluctuations. Section contains a discussion of the results of applying the temperature-polarization cross-correlation statistics to the ensemble of constrained realizations and looks forward to what might be learned by applying them to future polarization data. Given the constructed realizations the value of the statistics are fixed and the optimal application of them to polarization data can be determined as discussed in this section. This optimization's is *independent* of polarization observations. Finally, Section contains the conclusions.

# Constrained realizations

To study the signature of the lack of large-angle correlations in the *WMAP* temperature data on upcoming polarization measurements, such as from *Planck*, we require realizations of $\Lambda$CDM consistent with these large-angle results. For this purpose, we have generated $300\,000$ such realizations as follows.

1.  In the standard, $\Lambda$CDM model our Universe is a realization from an ensemble, the width of which (the cosmic variance) for low-$\ell$ information is quite large. However, once measured our realization can and has been precisely determined. In the work reported here this information is given in the *WMAP* reported $C_\ell^{TT}$. We are interested in producing realizations of *our* Universe as represented by the *WMAP* observations, *not* realizations of the full $\Lambda$CDM model. For this purpose we treat the observational errors in the *WMAP* reported $C_\ell^{TT}$ as Gaussian distributed and generate realizations accordingly. Thus we generate random $C_\ell^{TT}$ from Gaussian distributions centred on the *WMAP*-reported values. This produces a power spectrum consistent with that reported by *WMAP*. Again it is important to stress that this is a power spectrum consistent with the observation of our particular realization of the Universe as measured by *WMAP*, not a general realization of the best-fitting $\Lambda$CDM model. For this reason, cosmic variance is not relevant nor do we generate $C_\ell$ from a $\chi^2$ distribution. It is also true that on a partial sky the $C_\ell$ are slightly correlated. To correct for this we actually use the Fisher matrix from the *WMAP* likelihood code *without* the contribution from cosmic variance in drawing these $C_\ell^{TT}$. In practice this is a small correction but has been included for completeness.

2.  The $C_\ell^{TT}$ generated in the previous step contain the statistical information about the power in each mode consistent with the *WMAP* observations. For further analysis we need a map, not just the power spectrum. A map is a particular realization of this power spectrum. As in $\Lambda$CDM we assume that the modes in the map have random phases. In practice, this means we choose the $a_{\ell m}^T$ randomly on the $2\ell$-sphere such that $$\frac{1}{2\ell+1} \sum_{\ell=-m}^m \left|a_{\ell m}^T\right|^2 = C_\ell^{TT},$$ where the $C_\ell^{TT}$ in this expression are *exactly* the values generated from the previous step. By this construction the resulting sky realization is guaranteed to have a $S_{1/2}$ consistent with the small value in the full-sky *WMAP* ILC map. For each set of $C_\ell^{TT}$ from the previous step we generate a single complete sky realization, i.e. a single map.

3.  To further be consistent with *WMAP* observations the $S_{1/2}$ on the cut sky must also be small. For our realizations we require $S_{1/2}^{\rmn{cut}} \le 1292.6\;\rmn{(\rmn{\umu K})^4}$, the value from the *WMAP* seven-year, KQ75y7 masked ILC map. This $S_{1/2}$ value is calculated for a realization by first constructing a map at Nside=64 from the $a_{\ell m}^T$ generated above. The pseudo-$C_\ell$ are extracted from this map based on the region outside the KQ75y7 mask using SpICE . Finally $S_{1/2}$ is calculated using these $C_\ell$ up to $\ell_{\rmn{max}}=100$.

4.  For temperature realizations that satisfy the cut sky constraint we also generate realizations of the $a_{\ell m}^E$. See Appendix  for a review of the process.

The construction of a set of constrained realizations is the basis for the prescription we are describing. It will next provide predictions for the expectations from the observations of the CMB polarization.

# Statistics

For the temperature auto-correlation, the $S_{1/2}$ statistic was defined *a posteori* to be $$\label{eqn:Shalf_TT}
  S_{1/2}\equiv \int_{-1}^{1/2} \left[ C^{TT}(\theta) \right]^2
  \rmn{d}(\cos\theta).$$ Inspired by this we define a comparable statistic for $C^{TQ}(\theta)$, the two-point angular correlation function between fluctuations in the temperature and the Stokes parameter $Q$.

Observable properties of photons can be characterized by the Stokes parameters. For the CMB the relevant quantities are the intensity, conventionally represented by the temperature, $T$, and the linear polarization given by the $Q$ and $U$ parameters. For the CMB the circular polarization, represented by the $V$ Stokes parameter, is expected to be zero and not considered further. When working in real space the natural correlations to construct are among these observables, $T$, $Q$, and $U$. These correlations are constructed such that they only depend on the angular separation along the great circle connecting each pairs of point on the sky and are thus rotationally invariant despite the fact that the definition of $Q$ and $U$ depend on the choice of coordinate axes . When working in harmonic space, it is natural to decompose the polarization into 'gradient' and 'curl' modes alternatively called $E$ and $B$ modes , which are similarly rotationally invariant quantities. These latter names will be used throughout. Thus, in real space we will work with the $TQ$ two-point angular correlation function, $C^{TQ}(\theta)$, which may be written in terms of the two-point angular power spectrum coefficients, $C_\ell^{TE}$.

## $\bmath{S^{TQ}}$ Statistic

In the case of polarization *a priori* the optimal range over which to integrate the correlation function is unknown and will be explored below so we define the general statistic $$S^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2) \equiv \int_{\cos\theta_2}^{\cos\theta_1}
  \left[ C^{TQ}(\theta) \right]^2 \rmn{d}(\cos\theta).
  \label{eq:STQ}$$ As with $S_{1/2}$ we may calculate this easily in terms of the power spectrum coefficients, $C_\ell^{TE}$. Using $$C^{TQ}(\theta) = \sum_{\ell=2}^\infty \frac{2\ell+1}{4\upi}
  \sqrt{\frac{(\ell-2)!}{(\ell+2)!}} C_\ell^{TE} P_\ell^2(\cos\theta)$$ we may show that $$S^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2) = \sum_{\ell,\ell'} C^{TE}_{\ell}
  I^{TQ}_{\ell,\ell'}(\theta_1,\theta_2) C^{TE}_{\ell'},$$ where $I^{TQ}_{\ell,\ell'} (\theta_1,\theta_2)$ are components of a known matrix calculated in Appendix . A histogram of the $S^{TQ}$ statistic for a particular choice of $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ is shown in Fig.  comparing the constrained realizations to $\Lambda$CDM.

## $\bmath{s^{TQ}}$ Statistic

Motivated solely by its simplicity and ease of computation we also define a new statistic which is linear, rather than quadratic, in the $TQ$ correlation function $$s^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2) \equiv \int_{\cos\theta_2}^{\cos\theta_1}
  C^{TQ}(\theta) \, \rmn{d}(\cos\theta).
  \label{eq:sTQ}$$ As with $S^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ we may calculate this easily in terms of the $C^{TE}_\ell$, $$s^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2) = \sum_{\ell=2}^\infty   C^{TE}_{\ell}
  i^{TQ}_{\ell}(\theta_1,\theta_2),$$ where $i^{TQ}_\ell (\theta_1,\theta_2)$ are the components of a known vector calculated in Appendix . A histogram of the $s^{TQ}$ statistic for a particular choice of $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ is shown in Fig.  comparing the constrained realizations to $\Lambda$CDM.

# Results

The $S^{TQ}$ and $s^{TQ}$ statistics defined above have been calculated for the constrained realizations discussed in Section  and for a comparable number of realizations of $\Lambda$CDM. In both cases these have been calculated from maps produced at Nside=64. Data from the temperature map outside the KQ75y7 mask and from the seven-year polarization analysis mask, both provided by *WMAP*, have been used. As shown in Figs.  and , the constrained and $\Lambda$CDM realizations have most likely values for the $S^{TQ}$ and $s^{TQ}$ statistics at nearly the same value. However, as we also see $\Lambda$CDM predicts much broader distributions for the two statistics. In particular, there is a significant probability of producing values larger than the constrained realizations. This provides a means of testing the hypothesis that our Universe is just a rare realization of $\Lambda$CDM. This results in a simple but not definitive test.

Consider the case of the $S^{TQ}$ statistic as represented in Fig. . For the constrained realizations $99$ per cent of them have $S^{TQ}(48\degr,120\degr)\le 1.403\;\rmn{(\rmn{\umu K})^4}$ and $99.9$ per cent have $S^{TQ}(48\degr,120\degr)\le 2.195\;\rmn{(\rmn{\umu K})^4}$. Unconstrained $\Lambda$CDM (with the best-fitting values of cosmological parameters) randomly generates realizations with values larger than these $38.6$ per cent and $25.6$ per cent of the time, respectively. If observations of the polarization show our Universe to have a $S^{TQ}(48\degr,120\degr)$ value larger than these values, then we can reject the random $\Lambda$CDM realization hypothesis at the appropriate confidence level. Alternatively, if the $S^{TQ}(48\degr,120\degr)$ value is smaller, then no definitive statement can be made; the polarization fluctuations would be consistent with the hypothesis that we live in a rare $\Lambda$CDM realization but do nothing to advance that hypothesis. This is the main point of the paper.

Similar statements may be made about the $s^{TQ}$ statistic shown in Fig. . It provides similar information as $S^{TQ}$.

We still have freedom to choose the optimal range of angles over which to evaluate the statistics. We define optimal to mean the maximum discriminatory power between the distribution of the statistic in the constrained versus $\Lambda$CDM realizations. For a given per cent cutoff from the constrained realizations we wish to find the angle range $[\theta_1,\theta_2]$ that has the maximum fraction of $\Lambda$CDM realizations above this value.

The results of such a study are shown in Figs.  and for the $S^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ statistic and in Figs.  and for the $s^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ statistic. The statistics are non-zero only up to the diagonal $\theta_1=\theta_2$, shown as the dashed, black line in the figures, but not along it. For this reason, the contours are truncated at the diagonal. They have been made symmetric in $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ (by taking $\vert S^{TQ}\vert$ and $\vert s^{TQ}\vert$) so the results are shown as identical when reflected through the diagonal. The optimal ranges and fractions of $\Lambda$CDM realizations are listed in Table . We note that the optimal surfaces represented by the contours seen in the figures are relatively broad, at least in one direction. Due to this the values of $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ in a neighbourhood of those listed in Table  can be employed with nearly the same efficacy.

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:---|
| **Statistic** | **C.L.** | $\bmath{\theta_1}$ | $\bmath{\theta_2}$ | **Fraction** |  |
|  | **(per cent)** | **(deg)** | **(deg)** | **(per cent)** |  |
| $S^{TQ}$ | $99\hphantom{.0}$ | $46$ | $122$ | $38.8$ |  |
|  | $99.9$ | $48$ | $120$ | $25.6$ |  |
| $s^{TQ}$ | $99\hphantom{.0}$ | $20$ | $177$ | $38.5$ |  |
|  | $99.9$ | $23$ | $174$ | $26.4$ |  |

Optimal angle ranges for the $S^{TQ}$ statistic () and $s^{TQ}$ statistic (). The optimal ranges are determined by finding the maximum fraction of $\Lambda$CDM realizations with the appropriate statistic above the $99$ per cent or $99.9$ per cent level of the constrained realizations. The histograms for the optimal $99.9$ per cent ranges are shown in Figs.  and . The full contours are shown in Figs. –.

# Conclusions

The absence of two-point angular correlations on large angular scales in the CMB temperature data is, by now, well established. It was first measured by *COBE-DMR*, but became more significant in the *WMAP* temperature maps. This absence of correlation is difficult to accommodate within the standard cosmological model, especially since it seems to imply covariance among low-$\ell$ multipoles of the CMB. A simple explanation that has been proffered is that we just live in a rare realization of $\Lambda$CDM that happens to have a lack of large-angle $TT$ correlations. If so, one might hope that constraining $\Lambda$CDM realizations to have low $TT$ correlations at large angles, would have observable consequences for other correlation functions, such as $TQ$. These would be the basis for an observational test of this statistical fluke hypothesis.

In this paper, we have discussed a prescription to follow in order to test this hypothesis of our Universe being a statistical fluke. The prescription may be simply stated as follows.

1.  Construct realizations of our Universe consistent with the observed temperature fluctuations. This means construct sets of $a_{\ell m}^T$ and $a_{\ell m}^E$ consistent with the observed $C_\ell^{TT}$ and full and cut sky $S_{1/2}$ as discussed in Section .

2.  Apply the $S^{TQ}$ and $s^{TQ}$ statistics as defined in Section  to these constrained realizations.

3.  Also apply the $S^{TQ}$ and $s^{TQ}$ statistics to a comparable number of best-fitting $\Lambda$CDM realizations and use these to find the optimal ranges $[\theta_1,\theta_2]$ for each statistic. Optimal here means that the maximum fraction of $\Lambda$CDM realizations fall above the value at some confidence level in the constrained realization, e.g. the $99$ per cent or $99.9$ per cent level.

4.  Given the optimal ranges from the previous step now apply these particular cases to the observed polarization signal. If the observations produce values for these statistics larger than that expected from the constrained realizations, then the statistical fluke hypothesis can be rejected at the appropriate confidence level. Alternatively, if the values are smaller, then the hypothesis remains consistent but unproven.

We further note that the optimization's in this prescription is independent of the polarization observations, or, in fact, whether the polarization has been observed or not.

Our work is, in spirit, related to . While they consider observables in the polarization signal for 'models' of three dimensional primordial power modulation that might explain the breaking of statistical isotropy in the temperature field, we predict the polarization statistics starting directly from realizations of $\Lambda$CDM models that are constrained to show the suppressed $TT$ correlation at large angular scales.

In the work reported here we have generated realizations and performed the optimization's based on the *WMAP* seven-year data release. The prescription could be applied to the *WMAP* nine-year data release and the results are not expected to differ significantly. We have also said nothing about applying the statistics to the *WMAP* reported polarization observations. Unfortunately, the signal-to-noise ratio in the polarization observations is not yet sufficient to make meaningful statements. To see this, using the *WMAP* nine-year reported $C_\ell^{TE}$ , we find for the optimal ranges $$S^{TQ}_{\textit{WMAP}} (48\degr,120\degr) = (1.0\pm0.8)\;\rmn{(\rmn{\umu K})^4}$$ and $$s^{TQ}_{\textit{WMAP}} (23\degr,174\degr) = (0.8\pm0.8)\;\rmn{(\rmn{\umu K})^2}.$$ Here the error bars are crude estimates assuming that the reported $C_\ell^{TE}$ are statistically independent and the noise is Gaussian. These assumptions are not justified and a more careful assessment could be performed using the Fisher matrix. However, given the large estimated errors such an assessment is not warranted.

We have shown that the prescription described in this work is not a definitive test of the statistical fluke hypothesis for our Universe. Nevertheless, by carefully optimizing the statistical measure of large-angle $TQ$ correlations, we were able to demonstrate that once good $TQ$ correlation data are available there is a reasonable probability (over $25$ per cent) to reject the statistical fluke hypothesis at the $99.9$ per cent confidence level. *WMAP* data are not up to this task; however, *Planck* data should be.

# Acknowledgements

GDS and CJC are supported by a grant from the US Department of Energy to the Particle Astrophysics Theory Group at CWRU. DH has been supported by the DOE, NASA, and NSF. DJS is supported by the DFG grant RTG 1620 'Models of gravity'. GDS thanks the Theory Unit at CERN for their hospitality. This work made extensive use of the HEALPix package . The numerical simulations were performed on the facilities provided by the Case ITS High Performance Computing Cluster.

# Polarization Gaussian Random Realizations

The generation of correlated Gaussian random variables is a well known topic. For use in the CMB this is implemented in HEALPix , for example. Here we review the details relevant for the generation of our constrained realizations.

In $\Lambda$CDM the temperature and $E$-type polarization are correlated as encoded in the power spectrum coefficients $C_\ell^{TT}$, $C_\ell^{TE}$, and $C_\ell^{EE}$ from the best-fitting $\Lambda$CDM model. Working in the real spherical harmonic basis we may generate the spherical harmonic coefficients as $$\begin{aligned}
  a_j^T & = & \sqrt{C_\ell^{TT}} \zeta_1,
  \label{eq:ajT} \\
  a_j^E & = & \frac{C_\ell^{TE}}{\sqrt{C_\ell^{TT}}} \zeta_1 +
  \sqrt{C_\ell^{EE}-\frac{(C_\ell^{TE})^2}{C_\ell^{TT}}} \zeta_2,
  \label{eq:ajE}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ are Gaussian random variables drawn from a distribution with zero mean and unit variance and the index $j$ refers to the pair of indices $(\ell,m)$. To be precise, $j$ takes the values $0$ to $2\ell$ and the complex coefficients are constructed as $$a_{\ell m}^T = \left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
    a_0^T, & m = 0 \\
    \frac1{\sqrt{2}} \left( a_{2m-1}^T + \rmn{i}\, a_{2m}^T \right), & m>0
  \end{array} \right. .$$

For our purposes we need to generate constrained realizations of $\Lambda$CDM so the above procedure must be modified. The steps discussed in Section  lead to the generation of constrained $a_{\ell m}^T$. In other words, we have determined $a_j^T$ which by Eq. () means we have also determined $\zeta_1$. That is, instead of choosing $\zeta_1$ as a Gaussian random variable we have used observational constraints to determine its value and find it by inverting that equation. Since the temperature and $E$-type polarization are correlated this constrained temperature realization affects $a_j^E$. The real and imaginary components of $a_{\ell m}^E$ may now be generated from () as $$a_j^E = \frac{C_\ell^{TE}}{C_\ell^{TT}} a_j^T +
  \sqrt{C_\ell^{EE}-\frac{(C_\ell^{TE})^2}{C_\ell^{TT}}} \zeta_2,$$ where $\zeta_2$ is still to be chosen as a Gaussian random variable.

# Derivation of Statistics Formulas

## $\bmath{S^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2)}$

We wish to evaluate $S^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ as discussed in the text (). Consider the simpler case $$\begin{aligned}
  S^{TQ}(x) &\equiv& \int_{-1}^x \left[ C^{TQ}(\theta) \right]^2
  \rmn{d}(\cos\theta)  \\
  & = &\sum_{\ell,\ell'} \frac{(2\ell+1)(2\ell'+1)}{(4\upi)^2} \sqrt{
    \frac{(\ell-2)!(\ell'-2)!}{(\ell+2)!(\ell'+2)!}} C^{TE}_\ell
  C^{TE}_{\ell'} \nonumber \\
  & & {} \times \int_{-1}^x P_\ell^2(\cos\theta) P_{\ell'}^2(\cos\theta)
  \, \rmn{d}(\cos\theta). \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ To evaluate this expression we need to perform the integral of two associated Legendre functions, $P_{\ell}^{m}$, of order $m=2$, $$\tilde I^{TQ}_{\ell,\ell'}(x) \equiv \int_{-1}^x P_\ell^2(x) P_{\ell'}^2(x) \,\rmn{d}x.$$ Note that this integral is only defined for $\ell,\ell'\ge 2$.

For $\ell\ne \ell'$ we may proceed by directly integrating the associated Legendre differential equation to find $$\begin{aligned}
  \tilde I^{TQ}_{\ell,\ell'}(x) & = & \frac{1-x^2}{\ell(\ell+1)-\ell'(\ell'+1)} \\
  && {} \times \left[ P_\ell^2(x)
    \frac{\rmn{d}P_{\ell'}^2(x)}{\rmn{d}x} - P_{\ell'}^2(x)
    \frac{\rmn{d}P_\ell^2(x)}{\rmn{d}x} \right].
  \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$

For $\ell=\ell'$ more care is required. Starting from the Rodriguez formula $$P_\ell^2(x) = (1-x^2)\frac{\rmn{d}^2 P_\ell(x)}{\rmn{d}x^2}
  \label{eq:Pn2-rodriguez}$$ and the recursion relation $$x\frac{\rmn{d}P_\ell(x)}{\rmn{d}x}  = \frac{\rmn{d}P_{\ell-1}(x)}{\rmn{d}
    x} + \ell P_\ell(x)$$ we can show that $$\tilde I^{TQ}_{\ell,\ell}(x) = 4 J_{\ell-1}^{(2)}(x) - 4\ell (\ell-1) J_\ell^{(1)}(x) +
    \ell^2(\ell-1)^2 \tilde I_{\ell,\ell}(x).$$ Here $\tilde I_{\ell,\ell}(x)$ is the equivalent integral over Legendre polynomials encountered in the definition of $S_{1/2}$; see appendix A of for details. The remaining quantities, $J_\ell^{(1)}(x)$ and $J_\ell^{(2)}(x)$, are calculated through integration by parts and use of the recursion relation to find $$\begin{aligned}
  J_\ell^{(1)}(x) & = & P_{\ell-1}(x) P_\ell(x) \\
  & & {} + \frac12 \left\{ 1 - x \left[ P_{\ell-1}(x)
    \right]^2 - (2\ell-1) \tilde I_{\ell-1,\ell-1}(x) \right\}, \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ and $$J_\ell^{(2)}(x) = J_{\ell-1}^{(2)} (x) + \ell \left[ P_{\ell-1}(x) P_\ell(x) + 1 \right].$$ Note that $J_\ell^{(2)}(x)$ is defined recursively. We can directly show that $J_0^{(2)}(x)=0$.

With these expressions for the integrals we may write $$S^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2) = \sum_{\ell,\ell'} C^{TE}_\ell
  I^{TQ}_{\ell,\ell'}(\theta_1,\theta_2) C^{TE}_{\ell'},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
  I^{TQ}_{\ell,\ell'}(\theta_1,\theta_2) & = &
  \frac{(2\ell+1)(2\ell'+1)}{(4\upi)^2}
  \sqrt{\frac{(\ell-2)!(\ell'-2)!}{(\ell+2)!(\ell'+2)!}} \\
  & & {} \times
  \left[ \tilde I^{TQ}_{\ell,\ell'}(\cos\theta_1)
    - \tilde I^{TQ}_{\ell,\ell'}(\cos\theta_2) \right].
  \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ This matrix may be precomputed for rapid evaluation of $S^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2)$.

## $\bmath{s^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2)}$

We wish to evaluate $s^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ as discussed in the text (). We proceed as above and consider the simpler case $$\begin{aligned}
  s^{TQ}(x) &\equiv& \int_{-1}^x C^{TQ}(\theta) \, \rmn{d}(\cos\theta)  \\
  & = &\sum_{\ell=2}^\infty \frac{(2\ell+1)}{4\upi} \sqrt{
    \frac{(\ell-2)!}{(\ell+2)!}} C^{TE}_\ell \nonumber \\
  && {} \times
  \int_{-1}^x P_\ell^2(\cos\theta) \, \rmn{d}(\cos\theta). \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ To evaluate this expression we need to perform the integral $$\tilde\imath^{TQ}_\ell(x) \equiv \int_{-1}^x P_\ell^2(x)\, \rmn{d}x.$$ This integral is straight-forward to evaluate starting from the Rodriguez formula () and integrating by parts to find $$\begin{aligned}
  \tilde\imath^{TQ}_\ell(x) & = &
  \ell P_{\ell-1}(x) - (\ell-2) x P_\ell(x) + 2 (-1)^\ell \\
  && {} - \frac{2}{2\ell+1} \left[ P_{\ell+1}(x) - P_{\ell-1}(x) \right]. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ With this we may write $$s^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2) = \sum_{\ell=2}^\infty   C^{TE}_\ell
  i^{TQ}_\ell(\theta_1,\theta_2)$$ where $$i^{TQ}_\ell(\theta_1,\theta_2) = \frac{2\ell+1}{4\upi}
  \sqrt{\frac{(\ell-2)!}{(\ell+2)!}} \left[ \tilde\imath^{TQ}_\ell(\cos\theta_1)
    - \tilde\imath^{TQ}_\ell(\cos\theta_2) \right] .$$ This vector may be precomputed for rapid evaluation of $s^{TQ}(\theta_1,\theta_2)$.

[^1]: E-mail: email@example.com

[^2]: E-mail: email@example.com

[^3]: E-mail: email@example.com

[^4]: E-mail: email@example.com

[^5]: The ILC map and all data from the *WMAP* mission used in this work are freely available from http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/.