# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

From the point of view of computer simulation, lattice approach to non perturbative aspects of quantum field theory is a mature technique; apart from few exceptions, well consolidated schemes of simulation do exist, something like a recipes book, that allow studies, for example, of the most interesting features of QCD. The progress in the results is quite slow, in view of the large computing power needed for realistic calculation, but the field appears well founded.

The mentioned ”few exceptions”, however, concern very interesting problems, as well. The most paradigmatic of these dark zones is the study of thermodynamic of QCD in presence of non-zero baryonic density, shortly Finite Density QCD. The standard way to include the effects of baryonic matter on QCD vacuum leads to complex action in Euclidean formulation and this prevents the use of standard simulation algorithms, based on the idea of importance sampling, defined through a positive definite density of probability, e.g. the exponential of minus the Euclidean action. This problem can be rephrased stating the impossibility of defining a Boltzmann weight for each field configuration: only calculating the partition function we can define correctly the observables and obtain sensible results for quantities of physical interest.

Calculations of partition functions are not infrequent in lattice simulations , but their nature of extensive quantities raises the problem of the feasibility of this type of calculation with limited statistics, as forced from finite computing power. In the following section we will argue that, although reliable evaluation of the partition function of fermions coupled lattice gauge theories at zero baryon density is possible and successful , the extension of such technique for Finite Density QCD appears out of reaching for any reasonable statistics, at least in a range of theory parameters: for some values of the chemical potential $`\mu `$ the phase of the fermionic determinant can be estimated only averaging over $`O(e^V)`$ configurations.

In two recent papers  we have presented our results for Finite Density QCD, mainly working with light quarks, in the infinitely strong coupling limit. Our approach consisted in trying to approximate the correct partition function using the modulus of the determinant, as suggested by the analysis of the SU(3) linear chain model , . The emerging picture is quite disappointing: we are essentially unable to reproduce the results of ref. , obtained with the MDP (Monomer-Dimer-Polymer) technique. Moreover we did show as the simulation scheme, known as Glasgow method , and possibly any other method based on the Grand Canonical Partition Function (GCPF) approach , produce essentially the same results of our calculations, when analyzed in a way to avoid perverse numerical effects due to rounding errors .

In spite of these disappointing aspects, there are regions in the parameters space of the theory, in particular at large bare quark masses, in which one can hope to obtain reliable results, of some interest from a methodological point of view. In fact, at large quark masses (and any $`\beta `$), the interval of chemical potential where the contribution of the phase can not be appreciated shrinks.

The rest of the work, consequently, is devoted to the investigation of large quark mass limit, in some sense a favorite laboratory in which numerical techniques can be tested. Monitoring the expectation value of the phase of the Dirac determinant we can distinguish the regions in the parameter space where our evaluation of the partition function of finite density QCD is (in principle) exact from the ones where we miss a possible contribution to $`𝒵`$. A coherent picture seems to emerge from our data: a saturation transition exists at all couplings and merges, in the scaling region, to the true deconfining critical line that, with respect to $`\mu =0`$, moves towards smaller $`\beta `$ with increasing $`\mu `$.

In the next section we will give arguments to explain why the contribution of the phase can not be measured and will present, in the strong coupling limit, a quantitative check of the Grand Canonical formulation results using data obtained with different techniques. The third section is devoted to the exposition of our approach to simulations of finite density QCD at finite coupling which exploits the main advantage of the MFA approach, i.e. the free mobility in the $`(\beta ,\mu )`$ plane. In the fourth section we present results for fermionic and gluonic observables, discussing the fate of the deconfining phase transition, expected, on phenomenological ground, when one increases the baryon density. The analisys is complemented with informations coming from the partially solved infinite bare mass limit . In the last section a final discussion of the most important results is done.

## 2 The partition function of Finite Density QCD

The Finite Density QCD partition function can be written as

$$𝒵=[dU]e^{\beta S_g(U)}det\mathrm{\Delta }(U,m_q,\mu )$$
(1)   
where, using the staggered formulation, the fermionic matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ takes the standard form 

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,j}=m_q\delta _{i,j}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1,2,3}{}}\eta _\nu (i)[U_\nu (i)\delta _{j,i+\widehat{\nu }}U_\nu ^{}(i\widehat{\nu })\delta _{j,i\widehat{\nu }}]`$   
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[U_4(i)\delta _{j,i+\widehat{4}}e^\mu U_4^{}(i\widehat{4})\delta _{j,i\widehat{4}}e^\mu ]`$   
The contribution of modulus $`|det\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ of Dirac determinant and its phase $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be separated as

$$𝒵=𝒵_{}e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}$$
(2)   
where

$$𝒵_{}=[dU]e^{\beta S_g(U)}|det\mathrm{\Delta }(U,m_q,\mu )|$$
(3)   
is the partition function of the model with the modulus of the determinant (modulus QCD in the following), and

$$e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}=\frac{[dU]e^{\beta S_G(U)}|det\mathrm{\Delta }|e^{i\varphi }}{[dU]e^{\beta S_G(U)}|det\mathrm{\Delta }|}$$
(4)   
It is clear from eq. (2) that, in the thermodynamical limit, the theory defined by means of $`𝒵_{}`$ is physically different from the original theory only when the expectation value of the cosine of the phase of fermion determinant is vanishing exponentially with the system volume. In the regions of parameter space where the aforementioned expectation value is not $`O(e^V)`$ modulus QCD is an equivalent formulation of Finite Density QCD i.e. indistinguishable in the thermodynamical limit. In the rest of parameter space, modulus QCD clearly overestimates the true QCD partition function.

Let us try to better illustrate this concept looking at figure 1. It refers to infinitely strong coupling limit $`\beta =0`$ and $`V=6^3\times 4`$. At fixed quark mass $`m_q`$ the partition function of the system is only dependent on chemical potential $`\mu `$. If we plot the free energy versus $`\mu `$ we can extract the phase structure from the appearance of a singularity in (some derivative of) the curve.

Two extreme limits are well known. At $`\mu =0`$ we get the logarithm of the usual fermion determinant averaged over gauge field configurations with a flat distribution: an average of a well defined (real and positive) quantity that can be computed. On the other hand in the large $`\mu `$ limit only the last term of Grand Canonical Partition Function (see later) survives: $`det\mathrm{\Delta }\left(1/2\right)^{3V}e^{3V\mu }`$ and the free energy is a straight line with slope $`3V`$. In this limit the (baryon) number density, defined as:

$$N(\mu )=\frac{1}{3V}\frac{}{\mu }\mathrm{log}𝒵$$
(5)   
is equal to $`1`$, and we can say that we are in a saturation regime, with Pauli exclusion principle preventing further increase of baryon density. In these two limits modulus QCD is coincident with the true theory and deviations are possible only in the intermediate region.

Starting from $`\mu =0`$, we can use the data of fig. 5 in ref. , regarding number density at $`m_q=0.1`$, in order to reconstruct the free energy of the true theory as seen from the MDP approach. This is shown in figure 1 as the dotted line. If we superimpose the results of modulus QCD (continuous line) we can easily identify three regions:

* $`\mu <\mu _1=0.3`$, which defines the onset in modulus QCD, where the number density is essentially zero;
* $`\mu >\mu _2=1.0`$ , the saturated region;
* $`\mu _1<\mu <\mu _2`$, the region where modulus QCD grossly overestimates the free energy of true theory.

(as stated in , using Glasgow prescription for dealing with the complex determinant, we obtain, for the free energy, exactly the same results as in modulus QCD).

In figure 2 we report, for the same lattice and quark mass, the difference between the free energy of modulus QCD and the estimation based on data of ref. . Superimposed to that we plot the expectation value of $`e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}`$ at the same value of the parameters. It is evident that the intermediate region is where the phase term is vanishing within statistical errors. If we concentrate on a value of $`\mu `$ inside this region, for example $`\mu =0.7`$, and we plot the distributions of the phase and the (logarithm of the) modulus of fermion determinant of single field configurations, we can see (figure 3) that modulus distribution is behaved as expected, while the phase distribution is almost flat.

These distributions have been computed using $`N2500`$ configurations of a $`6^34`$ lattice. With this statistics we can hope to measure accurately the phase term $`e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}`$ only down to $`O(1/\sqrt{N})`$ ($`0.02`$ for our runs), far from the $`O(e^V)`$ order needed in principle. Even with a statistics of some thousands of configurations, we can say nothing on free energy of true theory in the range $`\mu _1<\mu <\mu _2`$, that covers the region where the number density varies rapidly. This does not imply necessarily that the phase is relevant in this region: for example it could go to zero as $`e^{V_S}`$, with $`V_S`$ the spatial volume, being in this case at the same time irrelevant and non measurable!

The situation becomes somewhat better if we move to large quark mass: the range $`(\mu _1,\mu _2)`$, where finite statistics effects prevent to obtain a sensible evaluation of free energy, becomes narrower (see later), thus allowing the study of the model in a wider parameters range. The same scenario holds at finite coupling too, allowing us to investigate a great part of the parameter space.

## 3 Simulation Scheme

In this section we will present the simulation scheme that we have used in our work. Our simulations are based on the GCPF (Gran Canonical Partition Function) formalism with an MFA (Microcanonical Fermionic Average) inspired approach for intermediate coupling analysis.

The GCPF formalism allows one to write the fermionic determinant as a polynomial in the fugacity $`z=e^\mu `$:

$`det\mathrm{\Delta }(U;m,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`det(G+e^\mu T+e^\mu T^{})=z^{3V}det(P(U;m)z^1)`$   
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=3L_s^3}{\overset{3L_s^3}{}}}a_nz^{nL_t}`$   
where the propagator matrix $`P`$  is

$$P(U;m)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}GT& T\\ T& 0\end{array}\right)$$

in which $`G`$ contains the spatial links and the mass term, $`T`$ contains the forward temporal links and $`V=L_s^3L_t`$ is the lattice volume.

Once fixed the quark mass $`m_q`$, a complete diagonalization of $`P`$ allows one to reconstruct, trough a recursion algorithm, the coefficients $`a_n`$, hence $`det\mathrm{\Delta }`$, for any value of the chemical potential $`\mu `$. Due to the $`Z(L_t)`$ symmetry of the eigenvalues of $`P`$ it is possible to write $`P^{L_t}`$ in a block form and we only need to diagonalize a $`6L_s^3\times 6L_s^3`$ matrix.

This general method has been implemented in the framework of an MFA  inspired approach. The basic idea in MFA is the exploitation of the physical equivalence between the canonical and microcanonical formalism via the introduction of an explicit dependence on the pure gauge energy in the computation of the partition function. Indeed (1) can be written as:

$$𝒵(\beta ,\mu ,m)=𝑑En(E)e^{6V\beta E}<S_{eff}^F(\mu ,m_q)>_E$$
(6)   
where

$$n(E)=[dU]\delta (6VES_g[U])$$
(7)   
is the density of states at fixed pure gauge energy $`E`$, and

$$<S_{eff}^F(\mu ,m_q)>_E=\frac{[dU]\delta (6VES_g[U])S_{eff}^F([U],\mu ,m_q)}{n(E)}$$
(8)   
is the average over gauge field configurations at fixed energy $`E`$ of a suitable definition of effective fermionic action.

For the calculation of $`<S_{eff}^F>_E`$ we proceed as follows: first, we choose a set of energies selected to cover the range of $`\beta `$ we are interested in. Secondly, for all the energies in the set, we generate gauge field configurations using a pseudo-microcanonical code; the generation of gauge fields at fixed energy is not the costly part of the whole procedure, so we can well decorrelate the configurations used for measuring the Dirac operator. Then, a standard NAG routine is used in order to obtain the complete set of eigenvalues of the propagator matrix $`P`$. At this point we can reconstruct the fugacity expansion coefficients $`a_n`$ or, without any substantial additional computer cost, use the eigenvalues to explore the possibilities offered by alternative prescriptions for the fermionic effective action, i.e. evaluate the modulus of the determinant and hence $`𝒵_{}`$. At the end, we have the fermionic effective action evaluated at discrete energy values: a polynomial interpolation allows the reconstruction at arbitrary values of the energy $`E`$, in order to perform the numerical one-dimensional integration in (6) and obtain the partition function $`𝒵_{}(\beta ,\mu ,m)`$.

In a previous work  we have found evidence for numerical instabilities in the standard evaluation of coefficients $`a_n`$, whose origin lies on the ordering of the eigenvalues of $`P`$ as calculated by a standard diagonalization routine. A random eigenvalue arrangement, before the calculation of the coefficients $`a_n`$, is necessary in order to control rounding effects. In the present work we have always used this procedure to calculate the GCPF expansion coefficient.

To conclude this section let us, briefly, summarize the usefulness of MFA. This algorithm does not require a separate fermionic simulation for each value of $`\beta `$, as the standard HMC (Hybrid Monte Carlo) algorithms, thus allowing us to extend the analysis to the whole relevant $`\beta `$ range without an additional computer cost.

Moreover, the basic idea of MFA is to consider the fermionic determinant (or its absolute value) as an observable. So $`det\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not in the integration measure and one avoids, in principle, the problem of dealing with a complex quantity in the generation of configurations. We have seen, however, that an unaffordable (eventually exponential) statistics is necessary to calculate $`𝒵`$ in some $`\mu `$ range so that this advantage on direct simulation schemes can not, in general, be exploited.

## 4 Large quark mass results

In this section we will present results in the large bare quark mass limit both in the strong and intermediate coupling QCD at finite density. We have performed simulations in a $`4^3\times 4`$ lattice ($`10`$ masses $`m_q=1.05.0`$) in the range of the chemical potential $`\mu [0.0,4.0]`$ and, for intermediate coupling, of $`\beta [4.0,6.0]`$. Some (low statistic) data for a $`6^3\times 4`$ lattice will also be shown.

Firstly we have located the range $`(\mu _1,\mu _2)`$ (as a function of $`\beta `$ and $`m_q`$), in which the average (4) is, with available statistics, indistinguishable from zero (see fig. 2). In figure 4 we report the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =\mu _2\mu _1`$ versus the quark mass computed fixing the gauge coupling value $`\beta =5.5`$, a value near to the temperature induced transition. From figure 4 it is evident the tendency of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ to decrease as the quark mass $`m_q`$ is increased.

We have calculated the partition function of QCD in the $`\beta \mu `$ plane. This calculation is in principle exact for $`\mu [\mu _1(\beta ),\mu _2(\beta )]`$ and is complemented with data of modulus QCD in the region where we are not able to measure the phase. All the data are presented in such a way to make evident when a possible contribution from the phase has been discarded.

In figure 5-a we report $`N(\mu )/\mu `$ evaluated at $`m_q=1.5`$ and different values of the gauge coupling $`\beta `$. We have chosen two values of $`\beta `$: $`\beta =5.3`$ for which the system is inside the confining phase, and $`\beta =5.7`$ in the deconfined one.

The figure shows a sharp peak for the derivative, moreover the position of the peak does not move with $`\beta `$. The same quantity for the larger lattice is reported in figure 5-b. We do not attempt to do a finite size scaling analisys but only note that the height of the peaks grows considerably suggesting a (saturation) transition at $`\mu =\mu _c^S`$ and independent from $`\beta `$. The same scenario holds at smaller $`m_q`$ with the only difference that the peaks becomes broader for masses smaller than $`1.0`$ signalling the well known phenomena of early onset in the number density , .

These findings are to be compared with the one obtained analytically at infinite $`m_q`$ for which the infinite bare mass QCD partition function factorizes 

$$𝒵(\beta ,\mu )=(\beta ,\mu )𝒵_{PG}(\beta )𝒵(\beta =0,\mu )$$
(9)   
with $``$ a irrelevant factor in the zero temperature thermodynamical limit ($`1`$ for $`V=L^4\mathrm{}`$) and $`𝒵(\beta =0,\mu )`$ developing a first order saturation transition at $`T=0`$.

Due to the independence of $`\mu _c^S`$ from $`\beta `$, we will investigate its dependence on the bare quark mass from the behavior of $`N(\mu )`$ at $`\beta =0`$, where we are able to compare with other results (analytical as well as numerical). In figure 6 we report $`\mu _c^S(m_q)`$: at $`m_q2`$ we approach a linear dependence for $`\mu _c^S`$ in good agreement with the numerical results by MDP  while, at larger masses, $`\mu _c^S`$ coincide asymptotically with the large mass limit $`\mathrm{log}(2m_q)`$  (as well as with the $`1/3`$ of the nucleon mass ).

Coming to the phase structure in the $`\beta \mu `$ plane it is evident that the critical line at constant $`\mu =\mu _c^S`$ can not be the only one. In order to separate the confined phase from the deconfined one we need a transition line that, starting at the zero density finite temperature critical point, eventually merges with the saturation transition at smaller values of $`\beta `$. This critical line is the relevant one from a physical point of view in the sense that here we can obtain finite quantities for physical observables when the lattice spacing goes to zero. In the infinite mass limit this line is vertical (at the critical coupling of the finite temperature pure gauge theory, see formula (9)) so we can expect that, for our large masses, it moves only slightly to smaller $`\beta `$. If this is the case it is crucial the possibility to rely on data at fixed $`\mu `$ and any $`\beta `$ to extract relevant informations.

The saturation of number density is a pure lattice artifact (a saturated lattice corresponds, in the continuum limit, to a divergent number density). Therefore, in order to search for evidence of the transition expected on phenomenological grounds, it is necessary to restrict our analisys to values of $`\mu `$ where the discretization effects are smaller i.e. to a number density smaller than the lattice half filling value $`1/2`$. In this region of the parameter space the phase gives no contribution (see fig. 2) and we can rely on our results.

We have studied the plaquette energy $`E(\beta ,\mu )`$, the Polyakov loop $`P(\beta ,\mu )`$ and the number density as a function of $`\beta `$.

In figure 7-a,7-b we report $`E(\beta ,\mu )`$ and $`E(\beta ,\mu )/\beta `$, evaluated at bare quark mass $`m_q=1.8`$ and at different values of the chemical potential $`\mu <\mu _c^S`$. In fig. 7-a we can clearly see a rapid variation of the observable for all the values of $`\mu `$; for the $`\mu =0`$ curve this happens in correspondence with the pseudo-temperature transition of zero density full QCD. The critical gauge coupling moves to smaller $`\beta `$ as we increase $`\mu `$. This phenomenon is also evident as a sharp peak in the figure of the derivative (fig 7-b). It is tempting to interpret this as an evidence of a temperature induced phase transition extending at non zero values of $`\mu `$. Also the behavior of the Polyakov loop points in this direction: as can be seen in figure 8, $`P_\mu (\beta )`$ changes rapidly at values of $`\beta `$ consistent with the ones obtained from the energy. The number density gives a less clear signal since it is forced to be a constant function of $`\beta `$ at $`\mu =0`$. Nevertheless we can see in figure 9 that the plot of this observable is still consistent with previous findings for the gluonic quantities. It is useful to remark that plotting the same quantities at fixed $`\beta `$ as a function of $`\mu `$ we would be practically unable to see any signal.

Signals for a developing discontinuity in all these observables rely on data in the region where the contribution of the phase is negligible but similar behavior is found at larger values of $`\mu `$ too (where we can only compute the observables of modulus QCD). All these findings are consistent with phenomenological expectations for the temperature-density QCD phase diagram where, increasing the baryonic density, the critical temperature of the deconfinement phase transition decreases. On the lattice this translates in a critical line that, starting at the zero density-finite temperature critical point, continues at smaller values of $`\beta `$ for finite $`\mu `$.

To conclude our analysis we report in figure 10 the $`(\beta ,\mu )`$ phase diagram of the theory at $`m_q=1.8`$ and $`V=4^4`$. We can see two (critical) lines; the horizontal one is due to saturation, while the other should be the physical one. If the same scenario holds in the zero mass limit we can expect that, as the lattice spacing goes to zero, the latter critical line extends in all the scaling window eventually coinciding with the former in the zero temperature limit.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have studied Finite Density Lattice QCD by means of numerical simulations. As well known this approach, probably the only one able to tackle the non perturbative effects leading to quark-gluon plasma transition, suffers severe problems due to the lack of hermiticity of Dirac operator for a single realization of gauge fields.

In the first part of the paper we have shown as, for small quark masses and strong coupling, any numerical algorithm based on the GCPF approach gives results different from what expected in the region where the contribution of the phase can not be evaluated. To our understanding only a statistic exponentially large with the system volume (and a consequently high accuracy in numerical calculations) can solve this problem.

Moving to large quark mass region we meet a much better situation and a large part of the parameter space becomes accessible to numerical simulations. We get, independently from the gauge coupling $`\beta `$, a saturation transition at a chemical potential $`\mu _c^S`$ well compatible with the one predicted, in the strong coupling regime, by previous numerical and analytical analysis. The new result is the evidence of another transition line that connects the previous one to the second order critical point of the four flavor $`\mu =0`$ theory. This has to be regarded as the lattice counterpart of the transition line in the temperature-chemical potential plane that should separate the standard hadronic phase from the quark-gluon plasma phase.

For the first time we have got some evidences that the behavior of finite density lattice QCD can be consistent with standard phenomenological expectations. Larger lattices could clarify the nature of the transitions but the volumes attainable with reasonable computer resources make this program not effective. To extend these results to the small quark mass region is impossible since the contribution of the phase to the partition function becomes not measurable practically in the whole parameter space. At the end we have to conclude that, until now, finite density lattice QCD, far from providing non perturbative quantitative insights in the behavior of quarks and gluons, can at most give us some qualitative indication.

This work has been partly supported through a CICYT (Spain) - INFN (Italy) collaboration. A.G. was supported by a Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare fellowship at the University of Zaragoza.

Figure Captions

* Fig. 1: Free energy at $`\beta =0`$ and $`m_q=0.1`$ of true QCD in the MDP approach (dotted line) and of Modulus QCD (continuous line).
* Fig. 2: Normalized difference between the free energy of Modulus QCD and the free energy of true QCD in the MDP approach (continuous line) superimposed to the expectation value of the determinant phase at $`\beta =0`$ and $`m_q=0.1`$.
* Fig. 3: Distributions of the logarithm of the modulus (a) and of the phase (b) of the fermionic determinant in a $`6^3\times 4`$ lattice at $`\beta =0`$, $`m_q=0.1`$ and $`\mu =0.7`$ with $`N=2500`$ configurations.
* Fig. 4: Width of the $`\mu `$ region $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mu )`$ in which the QCD partition function fails to be positive versus the quark bare mass $`m_q`$ in a $`4^3\times 4`$ lattice at $`\beta =5.5`$.
* Fig. 5: Derivative of the number density respect to the chemical potential in a $`4^3\times 4`$ (a) and $`6^3\times 4`$ (b) lattice at $`m_q=1.5`$ for $`\beta =5.3`$ (dashed line), and $`\beta =5.7`$ (continuous line).
* Fig. 6: Saturation critical chemical potential $`\mu _c^S`$ versus the quark bare mass $`m_q`$ in a $`4^3\times 4`$ lattice at $`\beta =0`$. Dotted line is the large mass limit, the dashed one is the result of .
* Fig. 7: Plaquette energy $`E(\beta ,\mu )`$ (a) and its derivative $`E(\beta ,\mu )/\beta `$ (b) evaluated in a $`4^3\times 4`$ lattice at $`m_q=1.8`$ for $`\mu =0.01.5`$ (from the right to the left) in steps of $`0.1`$. Dashed line are for $`\mu >\mu _1`$.
* Fig. 8: Polyakov loop $`P(\beta ,\mu )`$ evaluated in a $`4^3\times 4`$ lattice at $`m_q=1.8`$ for $`\mu =0.01.5`$ (from the right to the left) in steps of $`0.1`$. Dashed line are for $`\mu >\mu _1`$.
* Fig. 9: Number density evaluated in a $`4^3\times 4`$ lattice at $`m_q=1.8`$ for $`\mu =0.01.5`$ (from the right to the left) in steps of $`0.1`$. Dashed line are for $`\mu >\mu _1`$.
* Fig. 10: Phase diagram for the $`4^3\times 4`$ lattice at $`m_q=1.8`$ in the $`(\beta ,\mu )`$ plane, the dotted line is for $`\mu >\mu _1`$.