\section{Introduction}

The text corpus tasks parsing, information extraction and information
retrieval can benefit from dividing sentences in chunks of words.
\cite{ramshaw95} describe an
error-driven transformation-based learning (TBL) method for
finding NP chunks in texts.
NP chunks (or baseNPs) are non-overlapping, non-recursive noun phrases.
In their experiments they have modeled chunk recognition
as a tagging task:
words that are inside a baseNP were marked {\tt I},
words outside a baseNP received an {\tt O} tag and
a special tag {\tt B} was used for the first word inside a baseNP
immediately following another baseNP.
A text example:

\begin{quote}
original: \\
In $[_N$ early trading $_N]$ in $[_N$ Hong Kong $_N]$
$[_N$ Monday $_N]$ , $[_N$ gold $_N]$ was quoted at
$[_N$ \$ 366.50 $_N]$ $[_N$ an ounce $_N]$ . \\
tagged:\\
In/O early/I trading/I in/O Hong/I Kong/I
Monday/B ,/O gold/I was/O quoted/O at/O
\$/I 366.50/I an/B ounce/I ./O
\end{quote}

Other representations for NP chunking can be used as well.
An example is the representation used in \cite{ratnaparkhi98}
where all the chunk-initial words receive the same
start tag  (analogous to the {\tt B} tag) while the remainder of the
words in the chunk are paired with a different tag.
This removes tagging ambiguities.
In the Ratnaparkhi representation equal noun phrases receive the
same tag sequence regardless of the context in which they appear.

The data representation choice might influence the performance of
chunking systems.
In this paper we discuss how large this influence is.
Therefore we will compare seven different data representation formats
for the baseNP recognition task.
We are particularly interested in finding out whether with one of the
representation formats the best reported results for this task can
be improved.
The second section of this paper presents the general setup of the
experiments.
The results can be found in the third section.
In the fourth section we will describe some related work.

\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccccccccccccccccc|}\hline
IOB1 &  O&I&I&O&I&I&B&O&I&O&O&O&I&I&B&I&O \\
IOB2 &  O&B&I&O&B&I&B&O&B&O&O&O&B&I&B&I&O \\
IOE1 &  O&I&I&O&I&E&I&O&I&O&O&O&I&E&I&I&O \\
IOE2 &  O&I&E&O&I&E&E&O&E&O&O&O&I&E&I&E&O \\
IO   &  O&I&I&O&I&I&I&O&I&O&O&O&I&I&I&I&O \\
$[$  &  .&$[$&.&.&$[$&.&$[$&.&$[$&.&.&.&$[$&.&$[$&.&. \\
$]$  &  .&.&$]$&.&.&$]$&$]$&.&$]$&.&.&.&.&$]$&.&$]$&. \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The chunk tag sequences for the example sentence
{\it In early trading in Hong Kong Monday , gold was quoted at \$
366.50 an ounce . }
for seven different tagging formats.
The {\tt I} tag has been used for words inside a baseNP, {\tt O}
for words outside a baseNP, {\tt B} and {\tt [} for
baseNP-initial words and {\tt E} and {\tt ]} for baseNP-final words.
}
\label{tab-formats}
\end{table*}

\section{Methods and experiments}

In this section we present and explain the data representation formats
and the machine learning algorithm that we have used.
In the final part we describe the feature representation used in
our experiments.

\subsection{Data representation}

We have compared four complete and three partial data representation
formats for the baseNP recognition task presented in \cite{ramshaw95}.
The four complete formats all use an {\tt I} tag for words that are
inside a baseNP and an {\tt O} tag for words that are outside a baseNP.
They differ in their treatment of chunk-initial and chunk-final words:

\begin{tabular}{cp{5.2cm}}
IOB1 & The first word inside a baseNP immediately following another
       baseNP receives a B tag \cite{ramshaw95}.\\
IOB2 & All baseNP-initial words receive a B tag \cite{ratnaparkhi98}.\\
IOE1 & The final word inside a baseNP immediately preceding another
       baseNP receives an E tag.\\
IOE2 & All baseNP-final words receive an E tag.
\end{tabular}

We wanted to compare these data representation formats with a
standard bracket representation.
We have chosen to divide bracketing experiments in two parts: one for
recognizing opening brackets and one for recognizing closing brackets.
Additionally we have worked with another partial representation which
seemed promising: a tagging representation which disregards boundaries
between adjacent chunks.
These boundaries can be recovered by combining this format with one of
the bracketing formats.
Our three partial representations are:

\begin{tabular}{cp{5.5cm}}
[    & All baseNP-initial words receive an [ tag, other words receive a
       . tag.\\
]    & All baseNP-final words receive a ] tag, other words receive a
       . tag.\\
IO   & Words inside a baseNP receive an {\tt I} tag, others receive
       an {\tt O} tag.
\end{tabular}

These partial representations can be combined in three pairs which
encode the complete baseNP structure of the data:

\begin{tabular}{cp{5.1cm}}
[ + ] &    A word sequence is regarded as a baseNP if the first word
           has received an [ tag, the final word has received a ]
           tag and these are the only brackets that have been assigned to
           words in the sequence.\\
$[$ + IO & In the IO format, tags of words that have received an {\tt I}
           tag and an [ tag are changed into {\tt B} tags.
           The result is interpreted as the IOB2 format.\\
IO + $]$ & In the IO format, tags of words that have received an {\tt I}
           tag and a ] tag are changed into {\tt E} tags.
           The result is interpreted as the IOE2 format.
\end{tabular}

\vspace*{0.3cm}

Examples of the four complete formats and the three partial formats
can be found in table \ref{tab-formats}.

\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\cline{2-3}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{}
& word/POS context & F$_{\beta=1}$ \\\hline
IOB1      &  L=2/R=1             & 89.17\\
IOB2      &  L=2/R=1             & 88.76\\
IOE1      &  L=1/R=2             & 88.67\\
IOE2      &  L=2/R=2             & 89.01\\
$[$ + $]$ &  L=2/R=1  +  L=0/R=2 & 89.32\\
$[$ + IO  &  L=2/R=0  +  L=1/R=1 & 89.43\\
IO + $]$  &  L=1/R=1  +  L=0/R=2 & 89.42\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{
Results first experiment series:
the best F$_{\beta=1}$ scores for different left (L) and right
(R) word/POS tag pair context sizes for the seven representation
formats using 5-fold cross-validation on section 15 of the WSJ corpus.}
\label{tab-result1}
\end{table*}

\subsection{Memory-Based Learning}

We have build a baseNP recognizer by training a machine learning
algorithm with correct tagged data and testing it with unseen data.
The machine learning algorithm we used was a Memory-Based Learning
algorithm (MBL).
During training it stores a symbolic feature representation of a word
in the training data together with its classification (chunk tag).
In the testing phase the algorithm compares a feature
representation of a test word with every training data item and
chooses the classification of the training item which is closest
to the test item.

In the version of the algorithm that we have used, {\sc ib1-ig},
the distances between feature representations are computed as
the weighted sum of distances between individual features
\cite{timbl98}.
Equal features are defined to have distance 0, while the distance
between other pairs is some feature-dependent value.
This value is equal to the information gain of the feature,
an information theoretic measure which contains the normalized
entropy decrease of the classification set caused by the presence
of the feature.
Details of the algorithm can be found in
\cite{timbl98}\footnote{{\sc ib1-ig} is a part of the TiMBL software
package which is available from http://ilk.kub.nl
}.

\subsection{Representing words with features}

An important decision in an MBL experiment is the
choice of the features that will be used for representing the data.
{\sc ib1-ig} is thought to be less sensitive to redundant
features because of the data-dependent feature weighting that is
included in the algorithm.
We have found that the presence of redundant features has a
negative influence on the performance of the baseNP recognizer.

In \cite{ramshaw95} a set of transformational rules is used for
modifying the classification of words.
The rules use context information of the words, the part-of-speech
tags that have been assigned to them and the chunk tags that are
associated with them.
We will use the same information as in our feature representation for
words.

In TBL, rules with different context information
are used successively for solving different problems.
We will use the same context information for all data.
The optimal context size will be determined by comparing the results
of different context sizes on the training data.
Here we will perform four steps.
We will start with testing different context sizes of words with their
part-of-speech tag.
After this, we will use the classification results of the best context
size for determining the optimal context size for the classification
tags.
As a third step, we will evaluate combinations of classification
results and find the best combination.
Finally we will examine the influence of an MBL algorithm parameter:
the number of examined nearest neighbors.

\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}\cline{2-4}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{}
          & word/POS context    & chunk tag context & F$_{\beta=1}$\\\hline
IOB1      & L=2/R=1             & 1/2               & 90.12\\
IOB2      & L=2/R=1             & 1/0               & 89.30\\
IOE1      & L=1/R=2             & 1/2               & 89.55\\
IOE2      & L=1/R=2             & 0/1               & 89.73\\
$[$ + $]$ & L=2/R=1  +  L=0/R=2 & 0/0 + 0/0         & 89.32\\
$[$ + IO  & L=2/R=0  +  L=1/R=1 & 0/0 + 1/1         & 89.78\\
IO + $]$  & L=1/R=1  +  L=0/R=2 & 1/1 + 0/0         & 89.86\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{
Results second experiment series:
the best F$_{\beta=1}$ scores for different left (L) and right
(R) chunk tag context sizes for the seven representation
formats using 5-fold cross-validation on section 15 of the WSJ corpus.
}
\label{tab-result2}
\end{table*}

\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\cline{2-5}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{}
          & word/POS    & chunk tag & combinations    & F$_{\beta=1}$ \\\hline
IOB1      & 2/1         & 1/1       & 0/0 1/1 2/2 3/3     & 90.53\\
IOB2      & 2/1         & 1/0       & 2/1                 & 89.30\\
IOE1      & 1/2         & 1/2       & 0/0 1/1 2/2 3/3     & 90.03\\
IOE2      & 1/2         & 0/1       & 1/2                 & 89.73\\
$[$ + $]$ & 2/1 + 0/2   & 0/0 + 0/0 & - + -               & 89.32\\
$[$ + IO  & 2/0 + 1/1   & 0/0 + 1/1 & - + 0/1 1/2 2/3 3/4 & 89.91\\
IO + $]$  & 1/1 + 0/2   & 1/1 + 0/0 & 0/1 1/2 2/3 3/4 + - & 90.03\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{
Results third experiment series:
the best F$_{\beta=1}$ scores for different combinations of chunk tag
context sizes for the seven representation formats using 5-fold
cross-validation on section 15 of the WSJ corpus.
}
\label{tab-result3}
\end{table*}

\section{Results}

We have used the baseNP data presented in
\cite{ramshaw95}\footnote{The data described in \cite{ramshaw95} is
available from ftp://ftp.cis.upenn.edu/pub/chunker/}.
This data was divided in two parts.
The first part was training data and consisted of 211727 words taken
from sections 15, 16, 17 and 18 from the Wall Street Journal corpus
(WSJ).
The second part was test data and consisted of 47377 words taken from
section 20 of the same corpus.
The words were part-of-speech (POS) tagged with the Brill tagger and
each word was classified as being inside or outside a baseNP
with the IOB1 representation scheme.
The chunking classification was made by \cite{ramshaw95} based on the
parsing information in the WSJ corpus.

The performance of the baseNP recognizer can be measured in
different ways:
by computing
the percentage of correct classification tags (accuracy),
the percentage of recognized baseNPs that are correct (precision) and
the percentage of baseNPs in the corpus that are found (recall).
We will follow \cite{argamon98} and use a combination of
the precision and recall rates:
F$_{\beta=1}$ = (2*precision*recall)/(precision+recall).

In our first experiment series we have tried to discover the best
word/part-of-speech tag context for each representation format.
For computational reasons we have limited ourselves to working
with section 15 of the WSJ corpus.
This section contains 50442 words.
We have run 5-fold cross-validation experiments with all combinations
of left and right contexts of word/POS tag pairs in the size range
0 to 4.
A summary of the results can be found in table \ref{tab-result1}.

The baseNP recognizer performed best with relatively small word/POS
tag pair contexts.
Different representation formats required different context sizes for
optimal performance.
All formats with explicit open bracket information preferred larger
left context and most formats with explicit closing bracket
information preferred larger right context size.
The three combinations of partial representations systematically
outperformed the four complete representations.
This is probably caused by the fact that they are able to use two
different context sizes for solving two different parts of the
recognition problem.

In a second series of experiments we used a "cascaded" classifier.
This classifier has two stages (cascades).
The first cascade is similar to the classifier described in the
first experiment.
For the second cascade we added the classifications
of the first cascade as extra features.
The extra features consisted of the left and the right context of
the classification tags.
The focus chunk tag (the classification of the current word)
accounts for the correct classification in about 95\% of the cases.
The MBL algorithm assigns a
large weight to this input feature and this makes it harder for the
other features to contribute to a good result.
To avoid this we have refrained from using this tag.
Our goal was to find out the optimal number of extra classification
tags in the input.
We performed 5-fold cross-validation experiments with all combinations
of left and right classification tag contexts in the range 0 tags to
3 tags.
A summary of the results can be found in table
\ref{tab-result2}\footnote{In a number of cases a different base
configuration in one experiment series outperformed the best base
configuration found in the previous series.
In the second series L/R=1/2 outperformed 2/2 for IOE2 when chunk
tags were added and in the third series chunk tag context 1/1
outperformed 1/2 for IOB1 when different combinations were tested.}.
We achieved higher F$_{\beta=1}$ for all representations except
for the bracket pair representation.

The third experiment series was similar to the second but instead of
adding output of one experiment we added classification results of
three, four or five experiments of the first series.
By doing this we supplied the learning algorithm with
information about different context sizes.
This information is available to TBL in the rules
which use different contexts.
We have limited ourselves to examining all successive
combinations of three, four and five experiments of the lists
(L=0/R=0, 1/1, 2/2, 3/3, 4/4), (0/1, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4) and
(1/0, 2/1, 3/2, 4/3).
A summary of the results can be found in table \ref{tab-result3}.
The results for four representation formats improved.

\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\cline{2-5}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{}
     & word/POS  & chunk tag & combinations          & F$_{\beta=1}$ \\\hline
IOB1 & 3/3(k=3)  & 1/1 & 0/0(1) 1/1(1) 2/2(3) 3/3(3) & 90.89 $\pm$ 0.63\\
IOB2 & 3/3(k=3)  & 1/0 & 3/3(3)                      & 89.72 $\pm$ 0.79\\
IOE1 & 2/3(k=3)  & 1/2 & 0/0(1) 1/1(1) 2/2(3) 3/3(3) & 90.12 $\pm$ 0.27\\
IOE2 & 2/3(k=3)  & 0/1 & 2/3(3)                      & 90.02 $\pm$ 0.48\\
$[$ + $]$ & 4/3(3) + 4/4(3) & 0/0 + 0/0 & - + -      & 90.08 $\pm$ 0.57\\
$[$ + IO  & 4/3(3) + 3/3(3) & 0/0 + 1/1 & - + 0/1(1) 1/2(3) 2/3(3) 3/4(3) &
                                                       90.35 $\pm$ 0.75\\
IO + $]$  & 3/3(3) + 2/3(3) & 1/1 + 0/0 & 0/1(1) 1/2(3) 2/3(3) 3/4(3) + - &
                                                       90.23 $\pm$ 0.73\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{
Results fourth experiment series:
the best F$_{\beta=1}$ scores for different combinations of left
and right classification tag context sizes for the seven
representation formats using 5-fold cross-validation on section 15 of
the WSJ corpus obtained with {\sc ib1-ig} parameter {\tt k}=3.
IOB1 is the best representation format but the differences with the
results of the other formats are not significant.
}
\label{tab-result4}
\end{table*}

In the fourth experiment series we have experimented with a different
value for the number of nearest neighbors examined by the {\sc ib1-ig}
algorithm (parameter {\tt k}).
This algorithm standardly uses the single training item closest to the
test item.
However \cite{daelemans99} report that for baseNP recognition better
results can be obtained by making the algorithm consider the
classification values of the three closest training items.
We have tested this by repeating the first experiment series and part
of the third experiment series for {\tt k}=3.
In this revised version we have repeated the best experiment of the
third series with the results for {\tt k}=1 replaced by the {\tt k}=3
results whenever the latter outperformed the first in the revised
first experiment series.
The results can be found in table \ref{tab-result4}.
All formats benefited from this step.
In this final experiment series the best results were obtained with
IOB1 but the differences with the results of the other formats are
not significant.

We have used the optimal experiment configurations that we had
obtained from the fourth experiment series for processing the complete
\cite{ramshaw95} data set.
The results can be found in table \ref{tab-result-all}.
They are better than the results for section 15 because more training
data was used in these experiments.
Again the best result was obtained with IOB1 (F$_{\beta=1}$=92.37)
which is an improvement of the
best reported F$_{\beta=1}$ rate for this data set
(\cite{ramshaw95}: 92.03).

\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|cc|c|c|c|c|}\cline{3-6}
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{}
          & accuracy       & precision & recall    & F$_{\beta=1}$ \\\hline
&IOB1      & 97.58\%        & 92.50\%   & 92.25\%   & 92.37\\
&IOB2      & 96.50\%        & 91.24\%   & 92.32\%   & 91.78\\
&IOE1      & 97.58\%        & 92.41\%   & 92.04\%   & 92.23\\
&IOE2      & 96.77\%        & 91.93\%   & 92.46\%   & 92.20\\
&$[$ + $]$ & -              & 93.66\%   & 90.81\%   & 92.22\\
&$[$ + IO  & -              & 91.47\%   & 92.61\%   & 92.04\\
&IO + $]$  & -              & 91.25\%   & 92.54\%   & 91.89\\\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\cite{ramshaw95}} & 97.37\% & 91.80\% & 92.27\% & 92.03\\
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\cite{veenstra98}} & 97.2\% & 89.0\% & 94.3\% & 91.6 \\
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\cite{argamon98}} & -       & 91.6 \% & 91.6\% & 91.6 \\
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\cite{cardie98}}  & -       & 90.7\% & 91.1\% & 90.9 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{
The F$_{\beta=1}$ scores for the \cite{ramshaw95} test set after
training with their training data set.
The data was processed with the optimal input feature combinations
found in the fourth experiment series.
The accuracy rate contains the fraction of chunk tags that was correct.
The other three rates regard baseNP recognition.
The bottom part of the table shows some other reported results with
this data set.
With all but two formats {\sc ib1-ig} achieves better F$_{\beta=1}$ rates
than the best published result in \cite{ramshaw95}.
}
\label{tab-result-all}
\end{table*}

We would like to apply our learning approach to the large data
set mentioned in \cite{ramshaw95}: Wall Street Journal corpus sections
2-21 as training material and section 0 as test material.
With our present hardware applying our optimal experiment
configuration to this data would require several months of computer
time.
Therefore we have only used the best stage 1 approach with IOB1 tags:
a left and right context of three words and three POS tags combined
with k=3.
This time the chunker achieved a F$_{\beta=1}$ score of 93.81 which is half
a point better than the results obtained by \cite{ramshaw95}: 93.3
(other chunker rates for this data:
accuracy: 98.04\%; precision: 93.71\%; recall: 93.90\%).

\section{Related work}

The concept of chunking was introduced by Abney in
\cite{abney91}.
He suggested to develop a chunking parser which uses a two-part
syntactic analysis: creating word chunks (partial trees) and
attaching the chunks to create complete syntactic trees.
Abney obtained support for such a chunking stage from psycholinguistic
literature.

Ramshaw and Marcus used transformation-based learning (TBL) for
developing two chunkers \cite{ramshaw95}.
One was trained to recognize baseNPs and the other was trained to
recognize both NP chunks and VP chunks.
Ramshaw and Marcus approached the chunking task as a tagging problem.
Their baseNP  training and test data from the Wall Street Journal
corpus are still being used as benchmark data for current chunking
experiments.
\cite{ramshaw95} shows that baseNP recognition
(F$_{\beta=1}$=92.0) is easier than finding both NP and VP chunks
(F$_{\beta=1}$=88.1)
and that increasing the size of the training data increases the
performance on the test set.

The work by Ramshaw and Marcus has inspired three other groups to
build chunking algorithms.
\cite{argamon98} introduce Memory-Based Sequence Learning and use
it for different chunking experiments.
Their algorithm stores sequences of POS tags with chunk brackets
and uses this information for recognizing chunks in unseen data.
It performed slightly worse on baseNP recognition than the
\cite{ramshaw95} experiments (F$_{\beta=1}$=91.6).
\cite{cardie98} uses a related method but they only store
POS tag sequences forming complete baseNPs.
These sequences were applied to unseen tagged data after which
post-processing repair rules were used for fixing some frequent errors.
This approach performs worse than other reported approaches
(F$_{\beta=1}$=90.9).

\cite{veenstra98} uses cascaded decision tree learning (IGTree) for
baseNP recognition.
This algorithm stores context information of words, POS tags and
chunking tags in a decision tree and
classifies new items by comparing them to the training items.
The algorithm is very fast and
it reaches the same performance as \cite{argamon98}
(F$_{\beta=1}$=91.6).
\cite{daelemans99} uses cascaded MBL ({\sc ib1-ig})
in a similar way for several tasks among which baseNP recognition.
They do not report F$_{\beta=1}$ rates but their tag accuracy
rates are a lot better than accuracy rates reported by others.
However, they use the \cite{ramshaw95} data set in a different
training-test division (10-fold cross validation) which makes it
difficult to compare their results with others.

\section{Concluding remarks}

We have compared seven different data formats for the recognition
of baseNPs with memory-based learning ({\sc ib1-ig}).
The IOB1 format, introduced in \cite{ramshaw95}, consistently came
out as the best format.
However, the differences with other formats were not significant.
Some representation formats achieved better precision rates, others
better recall rates.
This information is useful for tasks that require chunking structures
because some tasks might be more interested in high precision rates
while others might be more interested in high recall rates.

The {\sc ib1-ig} algorithm has been able to improve the best reported
F$_{\beta=1}$ rates for a standard data set (92.37 versus
\cite{ramshaw95}'s 92.03).
This result was aided by using non-standard parameter values
(k=3) and the algorithm was sensitive for redundant input features.
This means that finding an optimal performance or this task
requires searching a large parameter/feature configuration space.
An interesting topic for future research would be to embed {\sc ib1-ig}
in a standard search algorithm, like hill-climbing, and explore this
parameter space.
Some more room for improved performance lies in computing the POS tags
in the data with a better tagger than presently used.

\bibliographystyle{acl}


\section{Introduction}

The response of matter to an external perturbation is the main source of knowledge about the matter itself. For instance, in plasma physics the polarization function $\Pi(q,\omega)$ is linked via the dielectric function $\epsilon(q,\omega)$ to the electrical conductivity $\sigma(q,\omega)$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon(q,\omega)=1-V(q) \Pi(q,\omega)=1+{i\over \omega} \sigma(q,\omega).
\label{eps}
\end{eqnarray}
In nuclear matter, e.g., the response function $\chi=\Pi/\epsilon$ allows one to study excitations and giant resonances which in turn yields information about the equation of state like the isothermal compressibility which is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\kappa={1\over n^2}\left ({\partial n\over \partial \mu}\right )_T={1\over n^2 T}\lim\limits_{q\to0}\int {d\omega\over \pi} {1\over {\rm e}^{\omega/T}-1} {\rm Im}{\chi(q,\omega)}
\nonumber\\&&
\label{kap}
\end{eqnarray}
or to calculate fluctuations and diffusion coefficients.

Two lines of theoretical improvements of the response function can be found in print recently. The first one starts from TDHF equations and considers the response of nuclear matter described by a time reversal broken Skyrme interaction \cite{BVA95,HNP96}. The other line tries to improve the response by the inclusion of collisional correlations \cite{Mer70,HPR93,KH94,RW98} and for multicomponent systems \cite{MWF97,Br99}. In this paper we want to combine both lines of improvements into one
expression and derive therefore the response function from a kinetic equation including mean field (Skyrme) and collisional correlations.

We consider here interacting matter which can be described by an
energy functional ( mean field) ${\cal E}$ originally introduced by
Skyrme \cite{S56,S59} and the residual interaction. The latter one we
condense in a collisional integral additional to the TDHF
equation. Then the response to an external perturbation will contain
the effect of Skyrme mean field and additionally the effect of residual
interaction. While this schema and the results are of general interest
for any interacting Fermi- or Bose system, we will only mention
application examples from nuclear matter and plasma physics. For the
latter one we might consider the energy functional as a
parameterization of the selfenergy in line with the philosophy of
density functional theory. By this way we have the freedom to share
the correlations between mean field like density functional
parameterizations and explicit collisional or dissipative like
correlations which are condensed
in a relaxation time. Of course, when deriving this parameterizations
microscopically special care is required to avoid double counting of correlations.

Specifically, we want to obtain the density, current and energy response $\chi, \chi_J, \chi_E$ of an interacting quantum system
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left (\matrix {\delta n\cr\delta {\bf \nabla J}\cr \delta E} \right )=\left (\matrix{\chi \cr \chi_J \cr \chi_E}\right ) \,\,V^{\rm ext}\equiv{\cal X} \left (\matrix{1\cr 0\cr 0}\right ) V^{\rm ext}\equiv{\cal X}\nu^{\rm ext}
\nonumber\\
&&
\label{def}
\end{eqnarray}
to the external perturbation $V^{\rm ext}$ provided the density, momentum and energy are conserved
\begin{eqnarray}
n({\bf R},t)&=&\sum \limits_j \langle \Phi_j^*({\bf R})\Phi_j({\bf R})\rangle
=s \sum\limits_p f({\bf p,R},t),\nonumber\\
{\bf J}({\bf R},t)&=&\sum \limits_j \langle {\nabla_{\bf R}-\nabla_{\bf R'}\over 2 i} \Phi_j^*({\bf R'})\Phi_j({\bf R})\rangle_{{\bf R}={\bf R'}}\nonumber\\
&=&
s\sum\limits_p {\bf p} f({\bf p,R},t),\nonumber\\
E({\bf R},t)&=&\sum \limits_j \langle
{\cal H}({\bf R},t)
\rangle
=s\sum\limits_p \varepsilon({\bf p,R},t) f({\bf p,R},t).
\end{eqnarray}
Here $s$ is the spin-isospin degeneracy and we express the observables in terms of the Wigner function $f({\bf p,R},t)$ which is related to the one-particle density operator $\hat \rho$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
f({\bf p,R},t)=\sum\limits_q {\rm e}^{i{\bf q R}} \langle p+{q\over 2}|\hat \rho|p-{q\over 2}\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
and introduce the quasiparticle (Skyrme) energy $\varepsilon$
\begin{eqnarray}
\varepsilon({\bf p,R},t)=\sum\limits_q {\rm e}^{i{\bf q R}} \langle p+{q\over 2}|\hat {\cal E}|p-{q\over 2}\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
in the spirit of Landau theory $\varepsilon={\delta E\over \delta
  f}$. We will neglect the contributions of energy gain which arise
from noninstantaneous collisions \cite{LSM99}. Here the energy
functional or mean field (Skyrme) energy $\varepsilon$ is assumed to be parameterized as \cite{EBGKV75}
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat {\cal E}&=&- \nabla ({1\over 2 m}+\epsilon_1 n)\nabla+\epsilon_2 n+\epsilon_1 [2 m E-{1\over i} (\nabla {\bf J}+{\bf J}\nabla)]\nonumber\\
&&+\epsilon_3\nabla^2 n +\epsilon_4 n^{\alpha+1}.
\label{pa}
\end{eqnarray}
Please note that the occurrence of current contributions $\sim {\bf
  J}$ breaks explicitly the time invariance. These terms appear with
the same coefficient $\epsilon_1$ as the effective mass and energy
contribution in order to ensure Galilean invariance. The density
dependence $\alpha\ne 1$ deviating from the one arising by Skyrme
three-body contact interaction has been introduced and compared with
experiments in \cite{Ko75}.

\section{Derivation of general response function}

We start the derivation of the response from the quantum kinetic equation for the density operator in relaxation time approximation \footnote{
The quasiclassical Landau equation follows from gradient expansion as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\partial \over \partial t} f+\partial_{\bf p} \epsilon \partial_{\bf r} f-\partial_{\bf r} \epsilon \partial_{\bf p} f=-{f-f^{\rm l.e.}\over \tau}
\end{eqnarray}
}
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot {\hat \rho}+i[\hat {\cal E}+\hat V^{\rm ext},\hat \rho] ={\hat \rho^{\rm l.e.}-\hat \rho \over \tau}
\label{1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the relaxation is considered with respect to the local density operator $\hat \rho^{\rm l.e.}$ or the corresponding local equilibrium distribution function
\begin{eqnarray}
f^{\rm l.e.}({\bf p,R},t)=f_0\left ({\varepsilon_0({\bf p}-{\bf Q}({\bf R},t))-\mu({\bf R},t)\over T({\bf R},t)}\right )
\label{2}
\end{eqnarray}
with the (Fermi/Bose) distribution $f_0$.
This local equilibrium is given by a local chemical potential $\mu$,
a local temperature $T$ and a local mass motion momentum $Q$. These
local quantities will be specified by the requirement that the expectation values for density, momentum and energy are the same as the expectation values performed with $f$.

\subsection{Conservation laws}
From (\ref{1}) we see that the conservation laws for density, momentum and energy are fulfilled if the corresponding expectation value of the collision side vanishes
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum\limits_p (f-f^{\rm l.e.})&=&0\nonumber\\
\sum\limits_p {\bf p} (f-f^{\rm l.e.})&=&0\nonumber\\
\sum\limits_p \varepsilon (f-f^{\rm l.e.})&=&0.
\end{eqnarray}
Taking this into account we can express the deviation of the observables $\phi=1,{\bf p}, \varepsilon$ from equilibrium
considering $\delta f =f-f_0=f-f^{\rm l.e.}+f^{\rm l.e.}-f_0$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \phi({\bf q}, \omega)&=&\sum\limits_p \phi \delta f({\bf p,q},\omega)\nonumber\\
&=&\sum\limits_p \phi (f^{\rm l.e.}-f_0)\nonumber\\
&=&\sum\limits_p \phi {f_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-f_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2}) \over \varepsilon_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-\varepsilon_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2})} \nonumber\\
&&\times\left [-\delta \mu -{\bf q} {\partial \varepsilon_0 \over \partial {\bf p}}\delta {Q}-{\varepsilon_0-\mu \over T} \delta T\right ]
\label{6}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have performed Fourier transform $t\rightarrow -i\omega$ and ${\bf r}\rightarrow i {\bf q}$. In the last line we restrict to {\it linear response} of (\ref{2}).
We assume for simplicity a homogeneous equilibrium $f_0(\varepsilon_0({\bf p}))$ such that only the deviations $\delta \phi({\bf r},t)$ and $\delta f({\bf p,r},t)$ are space dependent. This is no principle restriction but otherwise a lot of later algebraic expressions would take the form of integral equations. Further $\delta {\bf Q}({\bf q},t)={\bf q} \delta Q({\bf q},t)$ is employed.
With the abbreviation
\begin{eqnarray}
a_{\phi}&=&\sum\limits_p \phi {f_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-f_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2}) \over \varepsilon_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-\varepsilon_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2})}\nonumber\\
&=&g_\phi(0),\nonumber\\
{b}_{\phi}&=&\sum\limits_p \phi {\bf q} {\partial \epsilon \over \partial {\bf p}}
{f_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-f_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2}) \over \varepsilon_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-\varepsilon_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2})}\nonumber\\
&=&g_{\phi {\bf q} \partial_{\bf p} \varepsilon_0}(0),
\nonumber\\
c_{\phi}&=&\sum\limits_p \phi {\varepsilon_0-\mu \over T} {f_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-f_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2}) \over \varepsilon_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-\varepsilon_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2})}
\nonumber\\
&=&{1 \over T} g_{\phi \varepsilon_0}(0)-{\mu \over T}g_{\phi}(0)
\label{abb}
\end{eqnarray}
and the correlation function
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{\phi}(\omega)&=&\sum\limits_p \phi {f_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-f_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2}) \over \varepsilon_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-\varepsilon_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2})-\omega-i0}
\label{g}
\end{eqnarray}
we can write the deviation of the observables from equilibrium
according to (\ref{6}) explicitly
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta n&=&-\delta\mu a_1-\delta Q b_1 -\delta T c_1, \nonumber\\
\delta J_q&=&{\bf q} \delta {\bf J}=-\delta\mu a_{\bf q p}-\delta {Q} b_{\bf q p} -\delta T c_{\bf q p}, \nonumber\\
\delta E&=&-\delta\mu a_{\epsilon}-\delta Q b_{\epsilon} -\delta T c_{\epsilon}.
\label{f1}
\end{eqnarray}

Instead of the vector equation for the current ${\bf J}$ we consider the
projection onto the direction of ${\bf q}$. This simplifies matters as long
as we have no active media and ${\bf J} || {\bf Q}$.

\subsection{Response from kinetic equation}
To derive the response function  we will obtain a second equation set from linearizing the kinetic equation (\ref{1}) and the corresponding balance equations. Fourier transform $t\rightarrow -i\omega$ and ${\bf r}\rightarrow i {\bf q}$ the equation (\ref{1}) can be linearized
\begin{eqnarray}
&&-i \omega \delta f+i \left [\varepsilon_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-\varepsilon_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2})\right ]\delta f\nonumber\\
&&-i \left [f_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-f_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2})\right ]
\nonumber\\&&\times
\left [V^{\rm ext}+(V_0 +V_4 p^2) \delta n + {\bf p q} V_1 \delta J_q+V_2 \delta E \right ]
\nonumber\\
&&=-{\delta f\over \tau }
\nonumber\\&&
+{1\over \tau}{f_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-f_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2}) \over \varepsilon_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-\varepsilon_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2})} \left [-\delta \mu -{\bf q} {\partial \varepsilon_0 \over \partial {\bf p}} \delta Q-{\varepsilon_0-\mu \over T} \delta T \right ].\nonumber\\&&
\label{l1}
\end{eqnarray}
In (\ref{l1}) the mean field contributions $V_i$ will lead just to selfconsistency.
The coefficients $V_i$ it-selves are linked to the parameterization (\ref{pa}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
V_0&=&{\delta \varepsilon_0 \over \delta n}=\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1 {q^2\over 2}-\epsilon_3 q^2 +(\alpha+1) n_0^{\alpha} \epsilon_4,\nonumber\\
V_1&=& {\delta \varepsilon_0 \over \delta {J_q}}=-{2 \epsilon_1\over q^2},\nonumber\\
V_2&=&{\delta \varepsilon_0 \over \delta E}=2 m \epsilon_1,\nonumber\\
V_4&=&\epsilon_1.
\label{mf}
\end{eqnarray}

We can solve (\ref{l1}) for $\delta f$ and perform momentum integrations to obtain the observables $\delta n$, $\delta J_q$, $\delta E$. This leads to the following closed equation system
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal I} \left (\matrix{\delta n\cr\delta J_q\cr \delta E}\right )={\cal B}\left (\matrix{\delta \mu \cr\delta Q\cr \delta T}\right )+
{\cal V} \left (\matrix{\delta n\cr\delta J_q\cr \delta E}\right )+\left (\matrix{g_1\cr g_{\bf p q}\cr  g_\epsilon}\right ) V^{\rm ext}
\label{g1}
\end{eqnarray}
together with the set (\ref{f1})
\begin{eqnarray}
 \left (\matrix{\delta n\cr\delta J_q\cr \delta E}\right )={\cal A}\left (\matrix{\delta \mu \cr\delta Q \cr \delta T}\right ).
\label{g2}
\end{eqnarray}
The matrices are
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal V}&=&\left (\matrix{g_1 V_0 +g_{p^2} V_4&g_{\bf pq} V_1 &g_1 V_2\cr
g_{\bf p q} V_0+g_{p^2 {\bf pq}} V_4&g_{({\bf p q})^2} V_1&g_{\bf p q} V_2\cr
g_\epsilon V_0 ++g_{p^2 \epsilon} V_4 &g_{\epsilon {\bf pq}} V_1 & g_\epsilon V_2}\right )_{\omega+{i \over \tau}}
\nonumber\\
{\cal B}&=&-\left (\matrix{d_1&e_1 & f_1\cr d_{\bf pq} & e_{\bf pq}& f_{\bf pq}\cr d_\epsilon & e_\epsilon & f_\epsilon} \right )
\nonumber\\
{\cal A}&=&-\left (\matrix{a_1&b_1 & c_1\cr a_{\bf pq} & b_{\bf pq}& c_{\bf pq}\cr a_\epsilon & b_\epsilon & c_\epsilon} \right )
\end{eqnarray}
and the abbreviations are introduced
\begin{eqnarray}
d_{\phi}&=&{-i\over \omega \tau+i} \left [ g_{\phi}(\omega+{i\over \tau})-g_\phi(0)\right ],\nonumber\\
e_{\phi}&=&{-i\over \omega \tau+i} \left [ g_{\phi {\bf q} \partial_{\bf p} \epsilon}(\omega+{i\over \tau})-g_{\phi {\bf q} \partial_{\bf p} \epsilon} (0)\right ],\nonumber\\
f_{\phi}&=&{-i\over \omega \tau+i} {1\over T} \left ( g_{\phi \epsilon}(\omega+{i\over \tau})-g_{\phi \epsilon}(0) \right .
\nonumber\\&&\left .- \mu \left [ g_{\phi}(\omega+{i\over \tau})-g_\phi(0)\right ]\right )\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
in terms of the correlation function (\ref{g}).
The required solution is obtained from (\ref{g1}) and (\ref{g2}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left (\matrix{\delta n\cr\delta J_q\cr \delta E} \right )=({\cal I}-{\cal V}-{\cal B}{\cal A}^{-1})^{-1}\left (\matrix{g_1\cr g_{\bf pq}\cr g_\epsilon}\right ) V^{\rm ext}
\label{sol}
\end{eqnarray}
from which one can read off the response functions (\ref{def}).
This is the main result of the paper which represents the density, momentum and energy response including nonlinear mean fields and collisions with the fulfillment of
density -, momentum -, and energy - conservation.

\subsection{Alternative expressions}

Before we continue to consider special cases we like to express the solution (\ref{sol}) in a slightly more familiar form.

\subsubsection{Response in terms of mean-field response}

First we assume that we have solved the response without collisions ${\cal B}=0$ which would obey the equation
\begin{eqnarray}
({\cal I}-{\cal V}) \xi_0 ={\cal G} \nu^{ext}
\label{mfv}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\xi={\{}\delta n,\delta J_q,\delta E {\}}$,
$\nu^{ext}={\{} V^{\rm ext},0,0 {\}}$ and

\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal G}(\omega)=\left (
\matrix {
g_1         &g_{\bf pq}            & g_\epsilon         \cr
g_{\bf p q} &g_{({\bf p q})^2}     & g_{{\bf p q}\epsilon} \cr
g_\epsilon  &g_{\epsilon {\bf pq}} & g_{\epsilon \epsilon}
}
\right ).
\end{eqnarray}
Than the response matrix (\ref{def}) without collisions but selfconsistent mean field reads
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal X}_{\rm MF}(\omega)=(1-{\cal V})^{-1} {\cal G}(\omega).
\end{eqnarray}
The missing part of the full solution of (\ref{g1},\ref{g2}) including the collisions are given by $\xi=\xi_0+\zeta$ where we have for $\zeta$
\begin{eqnarray}
(1-{\cal V}-{\cal B A}^{-1}) \zeta={\cal B A}^{-1} \xi_0.
\end{eqnarray}
Some algebra leads to the final response
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal X}(\omega)=
\nonumber\\
&&{\cal X}_{\rm MF}(\omega+{i\over \tau}) \left (1-{\cal G}^{-1}(\omega+{i\over \tau}){\cal B A}^{-1} {\cal X}_{\rm MF}(\omega+{i\over \tau})\right )^{-1}.
\nonumber\\
&&
\label{sol1}
\end{eqnarray}

\subsubsection{Response in terms of polarization function}
The opposite case is the usual way where we first solve the equation without selfconsistency by the mean field. This leads to the polarization function ${\cal P}=\{\Pi,\Pi_J,\Pi_E\}$ which we use to represent the response function which includes selfconsistency. Without mean field we have from (\ref{sol})
\begin{eqnarray}
({\cal I}-{\cal B A}^{-1}) \xi_0={\cal G} \nu^{ext}
\label{merm}
\end{eqnarray}
leading to the polarization function
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal P}(\omega)=(1-{\cal B A}^{-1})^{-1} {\cal G}(\omega+{i\over \tau}).
\end{eqnarray}
The response function can be represented analogously to (\ref{sol1})
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal X}(\omega)=
{\cal P}(\omega)\left \{{\cal I}-{\cal G}^{-1}(\omega+{i\over \tau}) \, {\cal V} \, {\cal P}(\omega) \right \}^{-1}.
\nonumber\\
&&
\label{pmf}
\end{eqnarray}
The generalization of the usual form $\chi=\Pi/(1-V\Pi)$ for simple mean fields can be recognized.

\section{Calculation of response functions}

In the following we consider some frequently occurring situations. Therefore
we assume only quadratic dispersions $\varepsilon=p^2/2m$
in the correlation function. To consider the full quasiparticle (Skyrme) energy would correspond to the selfconsistent quasiparticle RPA which we do not want to consider here. The schema how to include this is clear after the following considerations. We understand in the following the mass as effective mass given by $\epsilon_1$ in (\ref{pa}).

The different occurring correlation functions (\ref{g}) can be written in terms of moments of the usual Lindhard polarization function $\Pi_0$
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_n=\int {d {\bf p}\over (2 \pi)^3} p^n{f_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-f_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2}) \over {{\bf p q}\over m}-\omega -i0}
\label{pn}
\end{eqnarray}
as following:
\begin{eqnarray}
g_1&=&\Pi_0
\nonumber\\
g_{\bf pq}&=&m \omega \Pi_0
\nonumber\\
g_\epsilon&=&{\Pi_2\over 2 m}
\nonumber\\
g_{\epsilon p^2}&=&{\Pi_4 \over 2m}
\nonumber\\
g_{p^2 {\bf pq}}&=&m \omega \Pi_2
\nonumber\\
g_{({\bf pq})^2}&=&-2 m q^2 {n\over s} + m^2 \omega^2 \Pi_0.
\label{gg}
\end{eqnarray}

For practical and numerical calculations we can rewrite the $\Pi_n$ by
polynomial division into
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_2&=&-m {n\over s} +{m^2 \omega^2 \over q^2} \Pi_0 +\tilde \Pi_2
\nonumber\\
\Pi_4&=&-{14\over 3} m^2 {E_0\over s} -{n m q^2 \over 4 s} (1+{4 m^2 \omega^2 \over q^4})-{m^4 \omega^4 \over q^4} \tilde \Pi_0
\nonumber\\
&&-{2 m^2 \omega^2 \over q^2} \tilde \Pi_2-\tilde\Pi_4
\end{eqnarray}
where the $\tilde \Pi_i$ are the projected moments perpendicular to ${\bf q}$
and read
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \Pi_2&=&\int {d {\bf p}\over (2 \pi)^3} ({\bf p}-{{\bf pq}\over q^2}{\bf q} )^2 {f_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-f_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2}) \over {{\bf p q}\over m}-\omega-i0 }\nonumber\\
&=&2 m \int \limits_{-\infty}^\mu d\mu' \Pi_0
\nonumber\\
&\approx&2 m T \Pi_0
\nonumber\\
\tilde \Pi_4&=&\int {d {\bf p}\over (2 \pi)^3} ({\bf p}-{{\bf pq}\over q^2}{\bf q} )^4 {f_0({\bf p}+{{\bf q}\over 2})-f_0({\bf p}-{{\bf q}\over 2}) \over {{\bf p q}\over m}-\omega-i0 }\nonumber\\
&=&2 (2 m)^2 \int \limits_{-\infty}^\mu d\mu'\int \limits_{-\infty}^{\mu'} d\mu'' \Pi_0
\nonumber\\
&\approx&8 m^2 T^2 \Pi_0.
\label{ein}
\end{eqnarray}
The corresponding last identities are valid only for nondegenerate, Maxwellian, distributions with temperature $T$. The general form of polarization functions is presented as an integral over the chemical potential $\mu$ of the Lindhard polarization $\Pi_0$. This is applicable also to the degenerate case.
In the following we will discuss successively further involved results; first for nondegenerate plasmas and then for degenerate nuclear matter.

\subsection{Polarization with collisions: inclusion of density and energy conservation}

Now we concentrate on the response function without mean field and consider only
the collisions within density and energy conservation. Then the matrices
${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$ reduces to 2x2 matrices. The calculation of (\ref{merm}) leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi^{\rm n,E}(\omega)&=&(1-i \omega \tau)\left ({g_1(\omega+{i\over \tau}) g_1(0)\over h_1}
\right .\nonumber\\
&&\left . -\omega\tau i {(h_\epsilon g_1(0)-h_1 g_\epsilon(0))^2\over h_1(h_\epsilon^2-h_{\epsilon \epsilon} h_1)}\right )
\label{m-ne}
\end{eqnarray}
where we use the abbreviation
\begin{eqnarray}
h_\phi=g_\phi(\omega+{i\over \tau})-\omega \, \tau \, i \, g_\phi(0).
\label{h}
\end{eqnarray}
With the help of (\ref{gg}-\ref{ein}) this can be further worked out in terms of $\Pi_n$ but leads not to a more transparent form.
Let us note that the first term in (\ref{m-ne}) represents just the result if we would have considered only density conservation known as the Mermin polarization function \cite{Mer70}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi^{\rm n}(\omega)&=&(1-i \omega \tau){g_1(\omega+{i\over \tau}) g_1(0)\over h_1}.
\label{m-n}
\end{eqnarray}

Of course the limit of vanishing collisions $\tau\rightarrow \infty$ ensures that the Lindhard result $\Pi_0(\omega)$ appears since
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim\limits_{\tau \to \infty} {h_\phi\over 1-i \omega \tau}=g_\phi(0).
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{file=plasm5.eps,width=8cm,angle=-90}}
\caption{The dielectric function $\varepsilon=1-V \Pi$ for a one component plasma system in different approximations. The inverse Debye length is $\kappa^2={4 \pi n e^2\over T}$ and the energy $\omega$ is scaled in plasma frequencies $\omega_p^2=\kappa^2 T/m$. The relaxation time is chosen arbitrarily as $\tau=5/\omega_p$ and the wave vector $q=0.384 \kappa$. The upper most panel shows the excitation function.}

                      \label{ff1}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Polarization with collisions: inclusion of density and momentum conservation}

Next we consider the special case that
the density and momentum are conserved. Then the matrices
${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$ reduces again to 2x2 matrices and the calculation of (\ref{merm}) leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi^{\rm n,J}(\omega)&=&(1-i\omega \tau){g_1(\omega +{i\over \tau })-{\left (g_{\bf pq}(\omega +{i\over \tau })\right )^2\over h_{({\bf pq})^2}}\over h_1-{\left (g_{\bf pq}(\omega +{i\over \tau })\right )^2\over h_{({\bf pq})^2}}} g_1(0).
\label{m-np}
\end{eqnarray}
We have used the fact that according to (\ref{gg}) $g_{\bf pq}(0)=g_{\epsilon{\bf pq}}(0)=0$ and $h_\phi$ is defined as in (\ref{h}). With the help of (\ref{eps}) we obtain by this way a slightly modified Mermin dielectric function (\ref{m-n}).

\subsection{Polarization with collisions: inclusion of density, momentum and energy conservation}

Considering all three conservation laws the result from (\ref{pmf}) is
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Pi^{\rm n,J,E}(\omega)=(i \omega \tau-1) \left (i\omega \tau {N\over D}-g_1[0]\right ),
\label{m-npe}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
N=&&-\left \{g_{\epsilon {\bf pq}}[\omega+{i\over \tau}] g_1[0]
-g_{\epsilon}[0] g_{\bf pq}[\omega+{i\over \tau}]\right \}^2
\nonumber\\&&
+
h_{({\bf pq})^2} \left \{  g_1[0] \left (h_{\epsilon^2} g_1[0] -h_{\epsilon}g_{\epsilon}[0]\right )\right .\nonumber\\
&&\left . \quad \qquad +
g_{\epsilon}[0]\left (h_1 g_{\epsilon}[0]-h_{\epsilon} g_1[0]\right )\right \}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
D&=&
g_{\epsilon {\bf pq}}[\omega+{i\over \tau}]\left \{h_1 g_{\epsilon {\bf pq}}[\omega+{i\over \tau}]-
h_{\epsilon} g_{\bf pq}[\omega+{i\over \tau}] \right \}
\nonumber\\&+&
g_{\bf pq}[\omega+{i\over \tau}] \left \{h_{\epsilon \epsilon}g_{\bf pq}[\omega+{i\over \tau}]- h_{\epsilon}g_{\epsilon {\bf pq}}[\omega+{i\over \tau}]\right \}
\nonumber\\&+&
h_{({\bf pq})^2}\left \{h_{\epsilon}^2-h_{\epsilon \epsilon} h_1\right \}.
\end{eqnarray}
This result together with the former special cases
(\ref{m-n},\ref{m-ne},\ref{m-np}) are compared in figure
\ref{ff1}. One sees that the first approximation of Mermin (\ref{m-n})
is almost identical with the result (\ref{m-ne}) where density and
energy is conserved. The inclusion of density and momentum
conservation (\ref{m-np}) brings the curves towards the Lindhard
result without collisions compared with the inclusion of density
conservation only. Finally, the complete result with the inclusion of density, momentum and energy conservation (\ref{m-npe}) changes the results again in the direction of the result for density and energy conservation but less pronounced. This qualitative behavior of the different approximations are observed for other relaxation times too.

The effect of relaxation times within the complete result (\ref{m-npe}) is seen in figure \ref{ff2}. One recognizes that with decreasing relaxation time or increasing collision frequency the plasmon peak is shifted towards smaller energies. For collision frequencies around the inverse plasma frequency there occurs a resonance seen in the real part of the dielectric function (middle part of \ref{ff2}). This translates into an enhanced single particle damping (lower panel) and the system becomes optical thick. At the same time the collective mode, the plasma frequency, becomes enhanced. One can consider this as an effect of transferring collisional energy into collective motion. We have here a coherent superposition between collision frequency and collective frequency resulting into an enhancement of collective motion. Compared with the general effect of collisions to increase the damping of collective motion, see figure \ref{ff1}, this is the inverse effect which narrows the collective peak again.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{file=plasma.eps,width=8cm,angle=-90}}
\caption{The dielectric function $\varepsilon=1-V \Pi$ for a one component plasma system with the inclusion of density, momentum and energy conservation (\protect\ref{m-npe}) for different relaxation times. The parameter are the same as in figure \protect\ref{ff1}.}
                      \label{ff2}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Response with collisions: simple mean field}

For the case of simple but density - dependent mean fields $V_0\ne0$ and $V_1=V_2=V_4=0$ we obtain for the density response from (\ref{pmf})
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi={\Pi\over 1-V_0 \Pi}.
\label{sm}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\Pi$ is the polarization function without mean field but with collisions. Dependent on the choice one may use (\ref{m-ne}), (\ref{m-np}) or (\ref{m-npe}) for the latter one.

Since the imaginary part of the response function (\ref{sm}) is related to the
photoabsorbtion yield on nuclei we like to apply the different approximations
(\ref{m-ne}), (\ref{m-np}) or (\ref{m-npe}) for nuclear isovector oscillations.
We use first a simplified Skyrme parameterization \cite{BV94}
for $V_0$ according to (\ref{skyrmeV0V1}) and a relaxation time $\tau$ within
a Fermi liquid model \cite{FMW98,MFU99}.
From Fig. \ref{struk024T1T4V0} we see the same qualitative behavior of the
different approximations as found in Fig. \ref{ff1}. The difference
between the density (density-momentum)  and density-energy (density-energy-
momentum) result is very small (inlays of Fig. \ref{struk024T1T4V0}).
An increase of temperature leads to larger damping of all approximations
(bottom of Fig. \ref{struk024T1T4V0}).  While the density or density-energy result leads to a pronounced damping of the giant resonance the inclusion of momentum conservation diminishes this effect again towards the free result.

Let us note that the energy-weighted sum rule (EWSR)
\begin{eqnarray}
-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^{\infty}d\omega\, \omega\,{\rm Im}\chi=\frac{q^2}{2 m} n_0
\label{fsum}
\end{eqnarray}
is fulfilled numerically for all approximations,
however, the convergence is very bad for response including density or
density and energy conservation. The inclusion of momentum conservation in turn
improves the convergence of the sum rule appreciable.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{file=struk024T1T4V0.eps,width=8cm,angle=-90}}
\caption{The imaginary part of the response function ${\rm Im}\chi$ for
nuclear giant dipole resonances in different approximations
(comp. Fig. \protect\ref{ff1}). The wave vector
$q= 0.23\,{\rm fm}^{-1}$ ($\approx 0.17\,{\rm k}_F$) corresponds
to the inverse diameter of the nucleus $^{208}$Pb
according to \protect\cite{SJE50}. The inlays
show an enlarged view of the difference between the density (n),density-
energy (n-E) and density-momentum (n-p), density-momentum-energy (n-p-E)
approximation, respectively. }
\label{struk024T1T4V0}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Response without collisions: Skyrme mean field}
First we consider the case that we have only Skyrme - mean fields. Then the
matrix equation (\ref{mfv}) is solved with the result for the density response function
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\chi_{\rm MF}(\omega,V_i)=\nonumber\\
&&{\Pi_0\over 1-\Pi_0 {\bar V_0} + {V_2 V_4 \over 2 m} \left [
\Pi_2^2 -\Pi_0 \Pi_4  \right ]-\Pi_2 \left [{V_2 \over 2 m}+V_4\right ]}\nonumber\\
\label{mfr}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bar V_0}=V_0+{m \omega ( m \omega V_1+V_3)\over 2 {n\over s} m q^2 V_1 +1}.
\end{eqnarray}
For isovectorial oscillations one has
\begin{eqnarray}
V_0&=&{\delta \varepsilon_0 \over \delta n}=V_0^s-V_1^s{q^2\over 2}\nonumber\\
V_1&=& {\delta \varepsilon_0 \over \delta {J_q}}=-{2\over q^2} V_1^s\nonumber\\
V_2&=&{\delta \varepsilon_0 \over \delta E}=2 m V_1^s\nonumber\\
V_4&=&V_1^s
\label{mf1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $V_i^s$ are representing the Skyrme parameterization in nuclear matter \cite{BVA95}
\begin{eqnarray}
V_0^s&=&-t_0 (x_0+\frac 1 2)-{t_3 \over 6} (x_3+\frac 1 2)n^\alpha_0
\nonumber\\&&-{q^2\over 16}[3 t_1 (1+2 x_1)+t_2 (1+ 2 x_2)]\nonumber\\
V_1^s&=&{1\over 8}[t_2(1+2 x_2)-t_1 (1+ 2 x_1)]. \label{skyrmeV0V1}
\end{eqnarray}
If we use the definitions of \cite{BVA95} which are related to ours as
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \Pi_0&=&\Pi_0\nonumber\\
\tilde \Pi_2&=&\Pi_2-{q^2\over 4} \Pi_0\nonumber\\
\tilde \Pi_4&=&\Pi_4-{q^2\over 2} \Pi_2+{q^4\over 16} \Pi_0
\end{eqnarray}
we obtain the result of \cite{BVA95} which was slightly misprinted
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_{\rm MF}=
{\Pi_0\over 1-\tilde \Pi_0 \tilde V_0^s -2 V_1^s \tilde \Pi_2 +{(V_1^s)^2}\left [
\tilde \Pi_2^2-\tilde \Pi_0 \tilde \Pi_4\right ]}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde V_0^s=V_0^s-{m^2 \omega^2\over q^2 }{2 V_1^s \over 1-n_0 m V_1^s}
\end{eqnarray}
for nuclear matter density $n_0$ and $s=4$.

\subsection{Response with collisions: inclusion of density
  conservation and Skyrme mean field}

Now we derive the combined result from the mean field response (\ref{mfr}) and collisions.
We restrict first only on density balance conservation [first term of
(\ref{m-ne})] to get from (\ref{6})
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \mu=-{\delta n\over a_1}=-{\delta J_q\over a_{\bf pq}}=-{\delta E\over a_\epsilon}
\end{eqnarray}
and in (\ref{sol})
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal B A}^{-1}=\left (\matrix{{d_1\over a_1}&0&0\cr0&{d_{\bf pq}\over a_{\bf pq}}&0\cr0&0&{d_\epsilon\over a_\epsilon}}\right ).
\label{49}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore we can solve (\ref{pmf}) and obtain similar to (\ref{mfr})
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\chi^{\rm n}(\omega)=\nonumber\\
&&(1-i\omega\tau){g_1(0)\over h_1} \chi_{\rm MF}(\omega+{i\over \tau},\tilde V_i)
\label{mfr1}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde V_0&=&(1-i\omega\tau){ g_1(0)\over h_1} V_0
\nonumber\\
\tilde V_1&=&(1-i\omega\tau){ g_{\bf pq}(0)\over h_{\bf pq}} V_1=\left \{
\matrix{V_1+o(\omega \tau)^{-1}\cr0 +o(\omega \tau)}\right .
\nonumber\\
\tilde V_2&=&(1-i\omega\tau){g_\epsilon(0)\over h_\epsilon} V_2
\nonumber\\
\tilde V_4&=&(1-i\omega\tau){ g_1(0)\over h_1} V_4.
\label{V}
\end{eqnarray}
We should note that the mean field potential $V_1$ arising from current and effective mass is of a different level of approximation than the collisional contribution which we restricted in (\ref{49}) to the density conservation. This inconsistency is visible in the final result for $\tilde V_1$ in (\ref{V}) where the limit of vanishing collisions $\tau \to \infty$ does not agree with the limit of finite collisions since $g_{\bf pq}(0)\equiv0$, see (\ref{gg}).
Therefore $\tilde V_1=V$ is proposed to ensure the limit of vanishing collisions.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{file=struk024T1T4MF.eps,width=7.5cm,angle=-90}}
\caption{The imaginary part of the response function ${\rm Im}\chi$ for
nuclear giant dipole resonances (see Fig. \protect\ref{struk024T1T4MF})
in different approximations. Considering the Skyrme
interactions SGII \protect\cite{BVA95,GSA81} we compare the full mean field
response  with collisional correlations in density (dotted line) and density, momentum and
energy  approximation (dashed line), respectively, with the collision-free
mean field response (solid line) for two different temperatures. }
\label{struk024T1T4MF}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Response with collisions: inclusion of density, momentum and
energy conservation and Skyrme mean field}

The Skyrme response can be given also for the other cases
including energy and momentum conservation. However this leads not to a more
transparent form than the general matrix structure (\ref{pmf}).
Considering the standard effective Skyrme interaction SGII \cite{GSA81}
in figure \ref{struk024T1T4MF} we compare the complete result (\ref{sol}) including
energy, momentum and density conservation (dashed line) with the result including only
density conservation (\ref{mfr1}) (dotted line).
In the latter one we have proposed for $\tilde V_1$ the collision-free
value $V_1$ in order to ensure the correct limiting case.

We find again the same behavior for the different approximations
as in the case of the simplified mean field (Fig. \ref{struk024T1T4V0}).
The inclusion of collisions leads to an enhanced damping and a shift of the collective peak towards smaller energies.
This effect of collisions is less pronounced
by the full mean field result  including density, momentum and
energy conservation (solid line).  The increase of temperature leads to a broadening
of the resonance structure (lower part of Fig. \ref{struk024T1T4V0}) in any case.

Again we have checked our results to satisfy the EWSR
\begin{eqnarray}
-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^{\infty}d\omega\, \omega\,{\rm Im}\chi=\frac{q^2}{2 m}
n_0 (1+\kappa), \label{fsumM}
\end{eqnarray}
with the enhancement factor $\kappa$
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa=\frac{m}{4}\left[t_1 (2+x_1)+t_2 (2+x_2)\right]n_0.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\kappa$ occurs as a consequence
of the momentum-dependent terms in the Skyrme interaction
and is defined as the deviation from the
Thomas-Reiche-Kuhn sum rule in the case of
isovector giant dipole resonance \cite{MQJ82,GBM90}.

The result (\ref{mfr}) which contains the full Skyrme mean field
but no collisions
is in excellent agreement with (\ref{fsumM}). The approximation (\ref{mfr1})
including collisions but only density conservation conserves the sum rule
only $\approx 75\%$ which is a consequence of the inconsistency of (\ref{V}).
The inclusion of density, momentum and energy conservation (\ref{sol})
conserves the sum rule (\ref{fsumM}) again completely.

\section{Summary}

In this paper we have derived the unifying response function including
nonlinear mean fields (Skyrme) and collisional correlations. Within
this approach one can share correlations between an energy
functional of mean field  (Skyrme) parameterization and explicit
dissipative correlations condensed in the relaxation time. This allows
to treat also dissipative effects in density functional approaches.
We see that the known limiting cases are reproduced neglecting either collisions or mean fields. Special transparent cases of the unifying response are discussed.

For a nondegenerate plasma numerical results are presented. The first
order correction given by the Mermin response, incorporating only the
density balance, is similar to the approximation where density and
energy are conserved. The plasmon peak is shifted towards smaller
frequencies. This is accompanied by an enhanced damping. The
incorporation of momentum balance diminishes this effect of
collisions.

We observe that an enhancement of the collective mode occurs for collision frequencies near the collective (plasma) frequency. This is the inverse effect of damping due to collisions in that the collisions become resonant and the collective mode is enhanced. We consider this as collisional narrowing. Since the momentum conservation is responsible for that effect we suggest that the physical origin is the same as sometimes discussed with motional narrowing. We like to stress that this narrowing is observed relative to the broadened mode due to collisions and did not reach the collision - free value. Consequently we have collisional damping every time but near the resonant situation this collisional damping is diminished.

Similar behavior is found for the case of nuclear matter, where the collective mode is the giant resonance. For isovectorial giant resonances we checked the extended energy weighted sum rules and find excellent completion. The response due to nonlocal mean fields is derived including the effect of collisional correlations.

\acknowledgements
The authors like to thank H.S. K{\"o}hler for discussions and helpful comments.