text:
# 1 The eigenvalues 𝑥_𝑖 (𝑖={1,2,3}) versus |𝑞|². The solutions 𝑥_𝑖 of the equation (19) have real three values only in the range 0≤|𝑞|²≤1/27. The values 𝑥_𝑖 take (0,0,1) and (-1/3,2/3,2/3) at |𝑞|²=0 and |𝑞|²=1/27, respectively. The mass eigenvalues |𝑚_𝑖|² are given by |𝑚_𝑖|²=(1-𝑥_𝑖)𝑚₀².

University of Shizuoka

US-01-02, v3

June 2001

hep-ph/0104226

Can the Zee Model Explain
the Observed Neutrino Data?

Yoshio Koide*** E-mail: koide@u-shizuoka-ken.ac.jp

Department of Physics, University of Shizuoka

52-1 Yada, Shizuoka 422-8526, Japan

Abstract

> The eigenvalues and mixing angles in the Zee model are investigated parameter-independently. When we require $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|1`$ in order to understand the solar and atmospheric data simultaneously, the only solution is one which gives bi-maximal mixing. It is pointed out that the present best-fit value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}`$ in the MSW LMA solution cannot be explained within the framework of the Zee model, because we derive a severe constraint on the value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}1(1/16)(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{solar}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)^2`$.

PACS numbers: 14.60.Pq

Of the neutrino mass matrix models proposed currently, the Zee model is a very attractive one, because the model can naturally leads to a large neutrino mixing with few parameters . The neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ in the basis on which the charged lepton mass matrix $`M_e`$ is diagonal is given by the form

$$M_\nu m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& a& c\\ a& 0& b\\ c& b& 0\end{array}\right),$$
$`(1)`$
where

$$a=f_{e\mu }(m_\mu ^2m_e^2),$$

$$b=f_{\mu \tau }(m_\tau ^2m_\mu ^2),$$
$`(2)`$
$$c=f_{\tau e}(m_e^2m_\tau ^2),$$

and $`f_{e\mu }`$, $`f_{\mu \tau }`$ and $`f_{\tau e}`$ are lepton-number violating Yukawa coupling constants with the Zee scalar $`h^+`$. It is known that if we consider a Zee mass matrix with $`a=c|b|`$, the model can give a nearly bi-maximal mixing

$$U_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta & 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),$$
$`(3)`$
where

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta =\sqrt{m_{\nu 1}/m_{\nu 2}},$$
$`(4)`$
$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=m_{\nu 1}^2m_{\nu 2}^22\sqrt{2}ab,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=m_{\nu 2}^2m_{\nu 3}^22a^2,$$
$`(5)`$
which lead to

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2}\sqrt{2}\frac{b}{a}.$$
$`(6)`$
Furthermore, if we assume a badly broken horizontal symmetry SU(3)H and we put a simple ansatz on the transition matrix elements in the infinite momentum frame (not on the mass matrix), we can obtain the relations

$$f_{ij}=\epsilon _{ijk}\frac{m_k^e}{m_i^e+m_j^e}f,$$
$`(7)`$
where $`f`$ is a common factor and $`m_i^e=(m_e,m_\mu ,m_\tau )`$, so that we can predict

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2}\sqrt{2}\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }=6.7\times 10^3,$$
$`(8)`$
which is in excellent agreement with the observed value (best fit value)

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{solar}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}\right)_{exp}\frac{2.2\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2}{3.2\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2}=6.9\times 10^3.$$
$`(9)`$
Thus, the Zee model is very attractive from the phenomenological point of view. However, most authors who investigated the Zee neutrino mass matrix have failed to give the observed value $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}0.7`$ in the MSW LMA solution , although it is easy to give the bi-maximal mixing (3). It is a serious problem for the Zee model whether the model can fit the observed value $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}0.7`$ or not. In the present paper, from a parameter-independent study of the Zee neutrino mass matrix (1), we conclude that the value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}`$ must satisfy a severe constraint $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}1(1/16)(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{solar}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)^2`$ in the Zee model with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{solar}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^21`$. The similar subject has also been discussed by Frampton and Glashow . However, the constraint obtained in the present paper is more explicit and very severe. This constraint will force us to abandon the Zee model or to modify the original Zee model to an extended version with some additional terms.

The mass matrix (1) is diagonalized by a unitary matrix $`U_\nu `$ as

$$U_\nu ^TM_\nu U_\nu =D_\nu \mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3).$$
$`(10)`$
The Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (MNS)  matrix $`U_{MNS}`$ is given by $`U_{MNS}=U_\nu `$, because the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal in the Zee model. In order to obtain the relations among the mass matrix parameters and the mass eigenvalues, we define the Hermitian matrix $`H_\nu `$ as

$$H_\nu =M_\nu ^{}M_\nu ,$$
$`(11)`$
so that we obtain

$$U_\nu ^{}H_\nu U_\nu =D_\nu ^{}D_\nu =\mathrm{diag}(|m_1|^2,|m_2|^2,|m_3|^2).$$
$`(12)`$
The form of $`H_\nu `$ is explicitly given by

$$H_\nu =H_0H_1,$$
$`(13)`$
where

$$H_0=m_0^2(|a|^2+|b|^2+|c|^2)\mathrm{𝟏},$$
$`(14)`$
$$H_1=m_0^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}|b|^2& c^{}b& a^{}b\\ b^{}c& |c|^2& a^{}c\\ b^{}a& c^{}a& |a|^2\end{array}\right),$$
$`(15)`$
and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is a $`3\times 3`$ unit matrix. The matrix $`H_1`$ is diagonalized as

$$U_\nu ^{}H_1U_\nu =\mathrm{diag}(h_1,h_2,h_3),$$
$`(16)`$
and the eigenvalues $`h_i`$ satisfy the equation

$$h_i^3(|a|^2+|b|^2+|c|^2)m_0^2h_i^2+4|a|^2|b|^2|c|^2m_0^6=0.$$
$`(17)`$
By re-defining $`m_0`$, without losing generality, we can take $`|a|^2+|b|^2+|c|^2=1`$, so that the solutions $`h_i=m_0^2x_i`$ are described only by one parameter

$$|q|^2=|a|^2|b|^2|c|^2,$$
$`(18)`$
as

$$x_i^3x_i^2+4|q|^2=0.$$
$`(19)`$
The equation (19) has three real solutions $`x_i`$ only when $`|q|^2<1/27`$. The behaviors of the solutions $`x_i`$ are illustrated in Fig. 1. The mass squared $`|m_i|^2`$ is given by

$$|m_i|^2=(1x_i)m_0^2.$$
$`(20)`$
From Fig. 1, we find that the cases which can explain the observed fact $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|1`$ are only the cases with $`|q|^21/27`$ and $`|q|^20`$.

For the case with $`|q|^21/27`$, by putting

$$x_1=\frac{2}{3}+\epsilon _1,x_2=\frac{2}{3}\epsilon _2,x_3=\frac{1}{3}+\epsilon _3,|q|^2=\frac{1}{27}\epsilon _q^2,$$
$`(21)`$
and by putting (21) into the equation (19), we can obtain

$$\epsilon _1\epsilon _22\epsilon _q,\epsilon _34\epsilon _q^2.$$
$`(22)`$
so that we obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}4\epsilon _q.$$
$`(23)`$
On the other hand, from Eq. (16), we obtain

$$(H_1/m_0^2)_{ii}=|U_{\nu i1}|^2x_1+|U_{\nu i2}|^2x_2+|U_{\nu i3}|^2x_3.$$
$`(24)`$
For the case with $`|q|^21/27`$, Eq. (24) gives

$$(H_1/m_0^2)_{ii}\frac{2}{3}|U_{\nu i3}|^2+2\epsilon _q(|U_{\nu i1}|^2|U_{\nu i2}|^2),$$
$`(25)`$
i.e.,

$$|b|^2\frac{2}{3}|U_{\nu 13}|^2,|c|^2\frac{2}{3}|U_{\nu 23}|^2,|a|^2\frac{2}{3}|U_{\nu 33}|^2.$$
$`(26)`$
Since we know that the only solution under the conditions $`|a|^2+|b|^2+|c|^2=1`$ and $`|a|^2|b|^2|c|^21/27`$ is $`|a|^2|b|^2|c|^21/3`$, the relations (25) yield

$$|U_{\nu 13}|^2\frac{1}{3},|U_{\nu 23}|^2\frac{1}{3},|U_{\nu 33}|^2\frac{1}{3},$$
$`(27)`$
which give

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=4|U_{\nu 23}|^2|U_{\nu 33}|^2\frac{4}{9}.$$
$`(28)`$
The value (28) is too small to explain the observed value  $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}1.0`$, so that the case with $`|q|^21/27`$ is ruled out.

Next, we investigate the case with $`|q|^20`$. By putting

$$x_1=\epsilon _1,x_2=\epsilon _2,x_3=1\epsilon _3,$$
$`(29)`$
and by putting (29) into the equation (19), we can obtain

$$\epsilon _12|q|(1|q|),\epsilon _22|q|(1+|q|),\epsilon _34|q|^2.$$
$`(30)`$
so that we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^24|q|m_0^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2(12|q|^2)m_0^2,$$
$`(31)`$
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2}4|q|.$$
$`(32)`$
On the other hand, form the relation (24), we obtain

$$(H_1/m_0^2)_{ii}|U_{\nu i3}|^22|q|(|U_{\nu i1}|^2|U_{\nu i2}|^2)+2|q|^2(13|U_{\nu i3}|^2),$$
$`(33)`$
so that we obtain

$$(H_1/m_0^2)_{22}=|c|^2|U_{\nu 23}|^2,(H_1/m_0^2)_{33}=|a|^2|U_{\nu 33}|^2,$$
$`(34)`$
and

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}4|a|^2|c|^2.$$
$`(35)`$
Generally, the only solution of the equation $`xy1/4`$ for the positive numbers $`x`$ and $`y`$ under the condition $`x+y<1`$ is $`xy1/2`$. Therefore, the solution of the equation $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=4|U_{\nu 23}|^2|U_{\nu 33}|^21`$ under the condition $`|U_{\nu 23}|^2+|U_{\nu 33}|^2=1|U_{\nu 13}|^2<1`$ is

$$|U_{\nu 23}|^2|U_{\nu 33}|^2\frac{1}{2},|U_{\nu 13}|^20,$$
$`(36)`$
and also the solution of the equation $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=4|a|^2|c|^21`$ under the condition $`|a|^2+|c|^2=1|b|^2<1`$ is

$$|a|^2|c|^2\frac{1}{2},|b|^20.$$
$`(37)`$
The result (37) means

$$|q|^2\frac{1}{4}|b|^2.$$
$`(38)`$
The $`(1,1)`$ component of the equation (33) gives

$$|b|^2|U_{\nu 13}|^2|b|(|U_{\nu 11}|^2|U_{\nu 12}|^2)+\frac{1}{2}|b|^2(13|U_{\nu 13}|^2).$$
$`(39)`$
When we put

$$|U_{\nu 11}|=\sqrt{1|U_{\nu 13}|^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,|U_{\nu 12}|=\sqrt{1|U_{\nu 13}|^2}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
$`(40)`$
we obtain

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 1\frac{1}{4}|b|^2\left(12\frac{|U_{\nu 13}|^2}{|b|^2}\right)^2,$$
$`(41)`$
where

$$|b|\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{solar}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}.$$
$`(42)`$
A model which gives $`|U_{\nu 13}|^2=0`$ cannot obviously give a sizable deviation from $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}=1`$. However, if $`|U_{\nu 13}|^2|b|`$, then the value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}`$ is sensitive to the value of $`|U_{\nu 13}|^2`$. Therefore, we must estimate the value of $`|U_{\nu 13}|^2`$ carefully.

We use the relations

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}(H_1/m_0^2)_{ik}U_{\nu kj}=U_{\nu ij}x_j.$$
$`(43)`$
For $`j=3`$, we obtain

$$|b|^2U_{\nu 13}c^{}bU_{\nu 23}a^{}bU_{\nu 33}=U_{\nu 13}x_3,$$
$`(44)`$
$$b^{}cU_{\nu 13}+|c|^2bU_{\nu 23}a^{}cU_{\nu 33}=U_{\nu 23}x_3,$$
$`(45)`$
$$b^{}aU_{\nu 13}c^{}aU_{\nu 23}+|a|^2U_{\nu 33}=U_{\nu 33}x_3.$$
$`(46)`$
By eliminating $`U_{\nu 23}`$, we obtain the relation without any approximation

$$U_{\nu 13}=\frac{2(x_31+|b|^2)ba^{}U_{\nu 33}}{(|a|^2|c|^2)|b|^2+(x_3|b|^2)(x_31+|b|^2)}.$$
$`(47)`$
If we use the approximate expression $`x_314|q|^21|b|^2`$, the factor $`(x_31+|b|^2)`$ becomes vanishing. Therefore, in order to estimate the factor $`(x_31+|b|^2)`$ more precisely, we use the following expression of $`x_3`$ to the order of $`|q|^4`$,

$$x_314|q|^2(1+8|q|^2).$$
$`(48)`$
Then, we can show

$$x_31+|b|^2|b|^2\left[(|a|^2|c|^2)^2+7|b|^4\right].$$
$`(49)`$
Since we know that $`|b|^2`$ is very small value, i.e., $`|b|^2(1/4)(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{solar}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)^2`$, we investigate only the case $`(|a|^2|c|^2)^2|q|^4`$. Then, from Eq. (47), we can obtain

$$U_{\nu 13}2(|a|^2|c|^2)ba^{}U_{\nu 33},$$
$`(50)`$
i.e.,

$$|U_{\nu 13}|^2(|a|^2|c|^2)^2|b|^2.$$
$`(51)`$
On the other hand, we can show that the quantities $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2)^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=4|U_{\nu 23}|^2|U_{\nu 33}|^2`$ are insensitive to the parameter $`(|a|^2|c|^2)`$. Therefore, from Eqs.(47) and (51), we can obtain the following parameter-independent relation

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}1\frac{1}{4}\left[12(|a|^2|c|^2)^2\right]^2|b|^21\frac{1}{16}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{solar}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}\right)^2,$$
$`(52)`$
where we have used $`[12(|a|^2|c|^2)^2]^21`$.

The constraint (52) cannot be loosened even if we consider the renormalization group equation (RGE) effects. The mass matrix form (1) is given by the radiative diagrams at the low energy scale, where the charged lepton mass matrix is given by the diagonal form. Although the coupling constants $`f_{ij}`$ given in Eq. (2) are affected by the RGE, since our conclusion (52) is independent of the explicit values of the parameters $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ in Eq. (1), the conclusion (52) cannot be loosen even by taking RGE effects into consideration.

However, we must note that the mass matrix form (1) based on only the one-loop radiative mass diagrams. When we take two-loop diagrams into consideration, as pointed out by Chang and Zee , non-vanishing contributions appear in the diagonal elements of $`M_\nu `$. For the case which gives $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atom}1`$, the relations (37) are required, so that the relations $`|f_{e\mu }|m_\mu ^2|f_{e\tau }|m_\tau ^2|f_{\mu \tau }|m_\tau ^2`$ are required. Then, as discussed in Ref. , we can estimate

$$|M_{\nu 12}||M_{\nu 13}||M_{\nu 23}|>|M_{\nu 11}||M_{\nu 22}||M_{\nu 33}|,$$
$`(53)`$
where $`|M_{\nu ij}|f_{ij}(m_i^2m_j^2)`$ and $`|M_{\nu ii}||f_{12}||f_{23}||f_{31}|(m_j^2m_k^2)`$ ($`jik`$). We interest in a value of the ratio $`|M_{\nu 11}/M_{\nu 23}|`$. If the ratio is negligibly small, the result (52) will be still valid, but if the ratio is sizable, then the result (52) will be valid no more. According to Ref. , we estimate $`|M_{\nu 11}/M_{\nu 23}|`$ as

$$\left|\frac{M_{\nu 11}}{M_{\nu 23}}\right|\frac{|f_{e\mu }||f_{\mu \tau }||f_{\tau e}|}{16\pi ^2|f_{\mu \tau }|}\frac{|f_{e\mu }|^2}{16\pi ^2}\left(\frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }\right)^2<10^5.$$
$`(54)`$
Therefore, we conclude that the severe constraint (52) is still valid even if we take two-loop diagrams into consideration.

However, note that if the mass matrix (1) is not due to the Zee mechanism, but due to a seesaw mechanism, $`M_\nu m_LM_R^1m_L^T`$, the form of $`M_\nu `$ will be changed by the RGE effects.

Therefore, we can conclude that when we require $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{solar}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^21`$ for the Zee model, although we can give $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}1`$, but, at the same time, the value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}`$ must also be highly close to one. On the other hand, in contrast to the theoretical bound (52), the best fit value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}`$ is

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}0.66,$$
$`(55)`$
for the MSW LMA solution . The prediction $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}1.0`$ is in poor agreement with the observed data (in the outside of the region 99% C.L.). Of course, the value (55) is a best-fit value, and it does not mean that the Zee model is ruled out. However, if the data in future exclude the value $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}1.0`$ completely, we will be forced to abandon the Zee model, at least, for the MSW LMA solution. At present, if we still adhere to the Zee model, the only solution which we should take is the Just So2 solution  with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}1.0`$. However, the Just So2 solution does not always the best one of the possible candidates (the best fit solutions) at present (for example, the MSW LMA solution gives $`\chi _{min}^2=29.0`$, while the Just So2 solution $`\chi _{min}^2=36.1`$ ).

In conclusion, we have investigated the Zee neutrino mass matrix (1) parameter-independently. When we require that the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{solar}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$ should be very small, the possible solutions are only two cases with $`|q|^2|a|^2|b|^2|c|^21/27`$ and $`|q|^20`$ where $`|a|^2+|b|^2+|c|^2=1`$. The case with $`|q|^21/27`$ leads to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}4/9`$, so that the case is ruled out. The case with $`|q|^20`$ leads not only to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}1`$, but also to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}1(1/16)(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{solar}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)^2`$. The prediction $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{solar}1.0`$ is in poor agreement with the observed data. However, in spite of such a problem, the Zee model is still attractive to us, because the model can naturally lead to a nearly bi-maximal mixing. Therefore, we would like to expect that the problem will be overcome by some future modification of the original Zee model. For examples, the following attempts will be promising: introducing a new doubly charged scalar $`k^{++}`$ in order to obtain sizable two-loop contributions , and introducing right-handed neutrinos in order to additional mass terms, and embedding the original Zee model into an $`R`$-parity violating SUSY model  and into an $`R`$-parity conserving SUSY model , and so on.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank A. Ghosal and H. Fusaoka for their helpful discussions and comments, and Midori Kobayasi for informing a mathematical theorem in uniqueness of the solutions. He also thank S. T. Petcov for informative discussion and valuable comments. Furthermore, he is also grateful to M. Yasue for valuable discussion on the two-loop effects in the Zee model, to A. Zee for his quick response to an inquiry about the two-loop effects, and to M. Tanimoto and J. Sato for helpful discussions on SUSY versions of the Zee model.


format: text

text:
# Supermassive Black Holes in Active Galactic Nuclei. I. The Consistency of Black Hole Masses in Quiescent and Active Galaxies.

## 1. Introduction

Two techniques have been successfully applied over the last few years to derive masses of supermassive black holes (BHs) in samples of galaxies. Kinematics of stars or gas on scales of $`\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}110`$ pc yield estimates of $`M_{}`$ based on Newton’s laws under the assumption that the observed motions reflect the gravitational influence of the BH. This technique has been applied to galaxies near enough ($`d\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}100`$ Mpc) that the radius of influence of the BH, $`r_h=GM_{}/\sigma _{}^2`$, is likely to have been resolved on the angular scales accessible to ground- and space-based telescopes, $`1^{\prime \prime }\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\theta \begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0^{\prime \prime }.1`$. The second technique, “reverberation mapping” (RM), makes use of broad emission-line variability to estimate BH masses in active galactic nuclei (AGNs). The size of the broad emission-line region is estimated from time delays between variations in the continuum (assumed to originate near the BH) and the response of the broad emission lines (Blandford & McKee 1982; Peterson 1993; Netzer & Peterson 1997). By combining the time delays with the emission-line widths, the BH mass then follows from the virial theorem. Black hole masses based on RM have been published for about three dozen AGNs (Wandel, Peterson & Malkan 1999; Kaspi et al. 2000).

Both mass-estimation techniques have strengths and weaknesses. Masses derived from RM are based on gas that is much closer to the BH, often $`r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.01`$ pc, than the stars or gas used in kinematical studies. At these separations, the gravitational force to which the gas responds is due almost entirely to the BH and there is little danger of a “false detection.” However the precise relation between $`M_{}`$ and the measured quantities is uncertain at levels of $`50`$% due primarily to uncertainties in the geometry and kinematics of the BLR and other unknowns (e.g., Krolik 2001).

In the case of BH masses derived from spatially resolved kinematics, formal accuracies can be high provided $`r_h`$ has actually been resolved; otherwise, estimates of $`M_{}`$ depend sensitively on assumptions about the character of the motion near the BH. Here the danger is that the inferred BH mass is actually a measure of the combined mass of the BH and the stars in the resolved region, $`rr_h`$; modeling techniques applied to such data can substantially overestimate $`M_{}`$ by ascribing too much of the gravitational force in the nucleus to the BH and too little to the stars.

In fact, there have been claims of systematic differences between RM and kinematical BH masses, in the sense that RM masses at a given bulge luminosity, $`M_B`$, are a factor $`20`$ smaller than kinematical masses (Wandel 1999). The discrepancy has most often been ascribed to systematic errors in the RM masses (Richstone et al. 1998; Faber 1999; Ho 1999). Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to make a direct comparison between dynamical and reverberation-based BH masses. In AGNs, the variable nonstellar continuum and broad emission lines that enable RM tend to swamp the stellar features at $`r<r_h`$ which are needed to study the stellar dynamics. At the present time, there is no galaxy for which the BH mass has been measured using both techniques.

A possible solution to this problem emerged with the discovery of the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relation, a tight empirical correlation between $`M_{}`$ and the stellar velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ (Ferrarese & Merritt 2000, hereafter FM00; Gebhardt et al. 2000a, hereafter G00a). The latter is defined on scales much larger than $`r_h`$ and hence is easily accessible to ground-based instruments. Since stellar velocity dispersions can also be measured in active galaxy hosts, it is possible to determine whether the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relation for AGNs is similar to that of quiescent galaxies. Preliminary attempts at such a comparison have been published (Gebhardt et al. 2000b \[hereafter G00b\]; Merritt & Ferrarese 2001a \[hereafter MF01a\]) based on published AGN bulge velocity dispersions (principally from Nelson & Whittle 1995, hereafter NW95). These studies reveal a general consistency between the AGN data and the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relation for normal galaxies, confirming that the apparent discrepancies between the kinematic and RM masses were due mostly to systematic overestimates in the BH masses derived from stellar kinematic measurements (MF01a, Merritt & Ferrarese 2001b). Unfortunately, the uncertainties in both the AGN BH masses and stellar velocity dispersions used by G00b and MF01a are too large to provide a truly critical test. The reason for the large uncertainties in $`M_{}`$ is quite simple: the largest source of random errors in AGN BH masses is the light-travel time delay for the emission lines, which determines the size of the line-emitting region. The fractional error in this quantity is largest for those sources that have the smallest line-emitting regions, since the uncertainties are determined in large part by the time resolution of the monitoring program. The smallest line-emitting regions are found in the least-luminous objects (i.e., $`RL^{0.50.7}`$; Kaspi et al. 2000). Generally speaking, lower-luminosity AGNs have not been monitored any more closely than higher-luminosity AGNs and thus the fractional errors in their BH masses are relatively large, in some cases as large as 100%. The low-luminosity AGNs are the very galaxies for which bulge velocity dispersions have been measured, and thus do not yet provide a conclusive argument for consistency between the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relations in AGNs and normal galaxies.

In order to better compare the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relations for AGNs and quiescent galaxies, we are undertaking a program to measure bulge velocity dispersions of the host galaxies of AGNs with formally well-determined reverberation-based BH masses. In this contribution, we describe the first results from this program.

## 2. Observations and Data Reduction

### 2.1. Sample Selection

Black hole masses based on reverberation studies have been published for 34 AGNs (Wandel, Peterson & Malkan 1999; Kaspi et al. 2000). There are both systematic and random uncertainties in these measurements: systematic errors arise primarily from the largely unknown geometry and kinematics of the line-emitting region, and the random errors are due mostly to uncertainties in the size of the line-emitting region, as noted earlier, and the uncertainty in the translation of the observed FWHM to the 3-D velocity dispersion. The typical level of random uncertainty in the reverberation-based BH masses is $`\stackrel{>}{}50`$%. We focus our attention on those AGNs with better-determined BH masses (i.e., smaller random errors). These provide the most meaningful comparison with normal galaxies: the scatter in the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relation for normal galaxies is $`30`$%, while the intrinsic scatter in the relation appears to be negligible (FM00).

### 2.2. Observations

We have obtained bulge velocity dispersions from the CaII triplet lines at rest wavelengths 8498, 8542, and 8662 Å. These lines are in the spectral region where the AGN contribution is minimized (e.g., NW95).

The objects observed in this study are listed in Table 1. Column (1) gives the common name of the object, and its redshift is given in column (2). Column (3) gives the reverberation-based virial mass of the central BH in each object, and the published source of the virial mass is given in column (4).

The observations reported here were obtained on UTC 2001 April 7–9 on the Mayall 4-m Telescope of the National Optical Astronomy Observatories on Kitt Peak. The observations were made with the Ritchey-Chretien Spectrograph with the BL380 grating (1200 lines per mm, blazed at 9000 Å, centered at approximately 8910 Å), and an RG610 blocking filter. The detector employed was the T2KB CCD, a back-illuminated $`2048\times 2048`$ device windowed to $`440\times 2048`$ pixels. The slit width was set to 2′′. The resulting spectra have a resolution $`R5000`$, and cover the range 8150–9660 Å. To allow accurate sky-subtraction, a long slit ($`5^{}`$) was used. Column (5) of Table 1 gives the spectrograph position angle at which the observations were made; when such information was available, we aligned the slit along the major axis of the galaxy. Column (6) gives the total integration time on each source.

Each observation of a galaxy was bracketed with quartz-lamp spectra for flat-field correction, and He-Ne-Ar spectra for wavelength calibration. A spectrum of the twilight sky was obtained to determine a nightly cross-dispersion illumination correction. We also obtained spectra of 14 late-type giant stars (G8 III — K6 III) that were used as templates and radial-velocity standards in the analysis described below.

### 2.3. Data Reduction

The raw long-slit spectra were reduced by flat-field, bias, and slit-illumination corrections following the procedures described by Pogge (1992). We used the XVista111See http://ganymede.nmsu.edu/holtz/xvista. package for all reductions. Curvature of the long-slit spectra in the dispersion and cross-dispersion directions was removed by tracing stars and bright, isolated night-sky emission lines in the spectra and rectifying the long-slit spectra. In this spectral region, the T2KB CCD is subject to fringing at the 10% level longward of $``$9000 Å, which we reduced by using the bracketing flat-field exposures. In general, residual fringing was less than 0.1% in the spectral regions of interest. We combined the longslit spectra in groups of three 20-min exposures to remove cosmic-ray events by sigma clipping with a simple CCD noise model (gain = 1.9 e-, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{read}\mathrm{out}}=5`$e-). The nuclear spectra were extracted from each group within a $`2^{\prime \prime }\times 4^{\prime \prime }`$ aperture centered on the nucleus. For the fainter objects, we used a 4$`^{\prime \prime }.`$8 extraction aperture to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Sky spectra were extracted from flanking regions along the slit and subtracted from the nuclear spectra. We then combined all of the nuclear spectra into a final spectrum. This group-wise extraction of spectra taken within at most an hour of each other reduced the effects of variability in the atmospheric OH airglow lines. The fully reduced spectra of all objects are shown in Fig. 1.

We point out that the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relation was defined by FM00 using central velocity dispersions corrected to an aperture of size $`r_e/8`$, with $`r_e`$ the effective radius of the galaxy. G00a, on the other hand, used spatially averaged, rms, line-of-sight velocity dispersion within $`r_e`$. MF01a demonstrated that there is no systematic difference between the two definitions of $`\sigma `$ in this sample. The bulge effective radius is not known for any of our target galaxies, but the bulge is enclosed within the aperture used for the spectral extraction. On this basis, in §3 we treat our measured dispersions on the same basis as the aperture-corrected dispersions tabulated by MF01a.

### 2.4. Data Analysis

Two independent estimates of the stellar velocity dispersion were obtained from the Ca ii triplet. The first employed the Fourier Correlation Quotient (FCQ) method described by Bender (1990) and Bender, Saglia, and Gerhard (1994). The second was based on the Maximum Penalized Likelihood (MPL) method developed by Merritt (1997). FCQ and MPL differ in

important ways (e.g., Joseph et al. 2001); using both allows us to assess the impact of systematics on the measured values. MPL was applied to the fully calibrated and continuum normalized spectra. FCQ incorporates a continuum fitting routine, thus was applied to the spectra before normalization. The velocity dispersion measurements resulting from FCQ and MPL are listed in columns (7) and (8) of Table 1, respectively. The errors associated with $`\sigma `$ are the formal random uncertainties returned by the FCQ and MPL codes, but there are likely unaccounted systematic uncertainties. Repeating the analysis using different stellar templates, or changing the parameters for the continuum fits in FCQ show that a more realistic error estimate is of order 15%.

## 3. Results and Discussion

No velocity dispersions have been previously published for Mrk79, Mrk110 and Mrk817. NW95 listed velocity dispersions from CaII and/or Mgb absorption lines for six galaxies with reverberation-based BH masses, including NGC4151 and NGC 5548. Unfortunately, NW95 warn that only for two of these galaxies, NGC 4051 and 3C120, are the measured dispersions deemed accurate. For NGC 4051, they quote $`\sigma =88\pm 13`$ km s-1, in good agreement with our result. For 3C120, which has a RM mass of $`3.0_{1.4}^{+1.9}\times 10^7M_{}`$ (Wandel, Peterson & Malkan 1999; Kaspi et al. 2000) NW95 list $`\sigma =162\pm 20`$ km s-1(from Smith, Heckman, & Illingworth 1990). For lack of an alternative, the NW95 velocity dispersions for all six galaxies were adopted by G00b and MF01a, in spite of their large associated uncertainties.

In Fig. 2, we show the relationship between BH mass and bulge velocity dispersion (FCQ values with 15% errors assumed) for the six galaxies listed in Table 1, along with the same relationship for quiescent or weakly active galaxies (full references for both $`M_{}`$ and $`\sigma `$ for the latter can be found in MF01a). For completeness, we also plot, as small open circles, the sample of galaxies for which values of $`M_{}`$ were tabulated by G00a based on dynamical modeling of Hubble Space Telescope data, although we refrain from using these data in the following discussion since the modeling and analysis of the data that led to those $`M_{}`$ measurements have yet to be published.

While secure conclusions are premature given the small sample size, several points are worth mentioning. As noted by G00b and MF01a based on lower-quality data than presented in this paper, the current evidence is that reverberation-based masses are not systematically underestimated as suggested by, e.g., Richstone et al. (1998), Faber (1999) and Ho (1999). We stress that the data presented in this paper are unique for having high-quality measurements of both $`M_{}`$ and $`\sigma `$. Our data support the conclusion that dynamical and reverberation-based masses are generally consistent, and that the two methods can potentially yield BH mass estimates of comparable precision. This is of particular relevance. Reverberation mapping is intrinsically unbiased with respect to BH mass, provided the galaxies can be monitored at closely spaced time intervals. While dynamical methods rely on the ability to spatially resolve the region dominated by the BH gravitational potential, RM samples a region which is per se unresolvable. It follows that an aggressive monitoring campaign of AGNs is the only viable method to probe the low-mass ($`M_{}`$ less than a few million solar masses) end of the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relation. It is also apparently as good a method as traditional dynamical studies to probe the higher-mass regime, although the obvious drawback is that it is perforce limited to galaxies with Type 1 AGN, which constitute only $`1`$% of the general galaxy population. Probing the low mass end of the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relation is of particular interest since the slope and scatter of the relation have important implications for both hierarchical models of galaxy formation (Haehnelt, Natarajan, & Rees 1998; Silk & Rees 1998; Haehnelt & Kauffmann 2000) and the effect of mergers on the subsequent evolution (Cattaneo et al. 1999), including the coalescence of the binary BHs which are expected to form as a result of galaxy mergers (Milosavljevic & Merritt 2001).

Furthermore, RM can probe galaxies at high redshift and with a wide range of nuclear activity, opening an avenue to explore possible dependences of the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relation on redshift and activity level. Regarding the latter point, we note that NGC 4051, the galaxy with the smallest $`M_{}`$ in our sample, is a narrow-line Seyfert 1 (NLS1) galaxy. Mrk 110 also approximately meets the traditional narrow-line Seyfert 1 criterion that $`\mathrm{FWHM}(\mathrm{H}\beta )2000`$ km s-1. The BH masses of the NLS1s are consistent with those of the other AGNs, and all are consistent with the masses inferred from the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relation defined by the quiescent galaxies. This result is at odds with the recent findings of Mathur et al. (2001), who claim that NLS1s lie systematically below the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relation defined by Seyfert 1 galaxies. One paradigm for NLS1s is that, compared to AGNs with similar non-thermal luminosity, they are powered by lower mass BHs accreting at a relatively higher accretion rate. A competing explanation is that they differ from other AGNs only in inclination; the small widths of the broad lines and concomitantly low reverberation masses are due to viewing disk-like sources at low inclination (i.e., nearly face-on). The consistency of the BH mass and bulge velocity dispersion of NGC 4051, in particular, with the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relation for other galaxies strongly favors the low-mass/high accretion rate interpretation for the nature of NLS1s.

A linear fit to the sample of 18 galaxies — 12 galaxies from FM00 plus the six reverberation-mapped galaxies — using regression with bivariate errors and intrinsic scatter (Akritas & Bershady 1996; see also discussion in MF01a) gives a slope of

$`4.50\pm 0.34`$, consistent with the slope of $`4.81\pm 0.55`$ derived by MF01a using only the kinematical mass estimates. To conclude, we note that three of the galaxies in Fig. 2, NGC 4151, Mrk 79, and Mrk 110, seem to lie slightly above the “fiducial” $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relation defined by MF01a; i.e., these galaxies have black holes larger than expected from their bulge velocity dispersions. This is unlikely to be attributable to systematic errors in $`\sigma `$, since the quality of the fit returned by both FCQ and MPL for these galaxies, while not as good as for NGC 4051 and NGC 5548, is comparable to that of Mrk 817, which lies on the fiducial relation. There also seems to be no correlation between residuals and distance222Note that reverberation-mapping masses are independent of distance, therefore the scatter cannot be due to errors in the distance determination to these galaxies.. A more detailed discussion is premature at this point: the small discrepancy could be due to small systematic errors in the RM masses, or, perhaps more interesting, may indicate that the current level of activity has allowed for significant growth of the BH mass. These results underscore the importance of further testing the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma `$ relation by measuring $`\sigma `$ for a larger sample of reverberation-mapped galaxies over a large BH mass range.

We are grateful to NOAO for observing time on the 4-m telescope, and especially to H. Halbedel and B. Gillespie for capable assistance at the telescope. LF acknowledges NASA LTSA grant NAG5-8693. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.


text:
# Curvature perturbation at the local extremum of the inflaton’s potential

## Abstract

The spectrum of curvature perturbation generated during inflation is studied in the case the inflation-driving scalar field (inflaton) $`\varphi `$ crosses over its potential extremum. It is shown that the nondecaying mode of perturbation has a finite value and a proper formula is given. The result is also extended to more general cases where $`\ddot{\varphi }`$ is non-negligible.

Inflation in the early universe  provides a mechanism to generate primordial density fluctuations out of quantum fluctuations of the inflation-driving scalar field, inflaton $`\varphi `$ , in addition to explain the large-scale homogeneity and isotropy. In the standard inflation models such as new  and chaotic  inflation, inflation is driven by the potential energy of the inflaton, $`V[\varphi ]`$, as it slowly rolls the potential hill and they predict formation of adiabatic fluctuations with a nearly scale-invariant spectrum. More specifically, the amplitude of the curvature perturbation on comoving hypersurfaces, $`_c`$, on comoving scale $`r=2\pi /k`$ is given by the formula ,

$`_c(r)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{2\pi |\dot{\varphi }|}}|_{t_k}`$ (1)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3H^3}{2\pi |V^{}[\varphi ]|}}|_{t_k},`$ (2)
where a dot denotes time derivative and $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter. Here the right-hand-sides should be evaluated at $`t=t_k`$ when the relevant scale $`k`$ left the Hubble radius during inflation. In the second approximate equality (2) we have used the equation of motion with the slow-roll approximation,

$$3H\dot{\varphi }+V^{}[\varphi ]=0.$$
(3)
The reason why (1) gives an almost scale-invariant spectrum is that both $`H`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ change very slowly during slow-roll inflation.

Recently, however, new classes of inflation models have been proposed in which $`\varphi `$ is not necessarily slowly rolling during the entire period of inflation . Whenever $`\ddot{\varphi }`$ is non-negligible in the full equation of motion of the homogeneous part of $`\varphi `$,

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }+V^{}[\varphi ]=0,$$
(4)
the slow-roll approximation (3) fails. There are two typical cases where this happens. One is the case $`\dot{\varphi }`$ vanishes. The proper analysis of the amplitude of density fluctuation in this case was recently done in , where it was found that the correct amplitude is not given by the formula (1), which is divergent, but by (2). It has been further argued recently  that the formula (2) may continue to be a useful approximation even when evolution of $`\varphi `$ is not described by a slow-roll solution. The other is the case $`V^{}[\varphi ]`$ vanishes, namely, when the inflaton crosses over an extremum of the potential. In this case (2) is divergent and would not be applicable. The purpose of the present paper is first to analyze density fluctuation in this situation and then extend it to the generation of perturbations in more general non-slow-roll inflation models whose potential satisfies several conditions indicated below to allow our analytic treatment.

First, as a specific model we consider the case $`\varphi `$ overshoots the local maximum of the potential at $`\varphi =0`$ during the new inflation stage in the chaotic new inflation model . More specifically, we approximate the potential near the extremum as

$$V[\varphi ]=V_0\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2,m^2>0,$$
(5)
and consider the case $`\varphi `$ crosses over $`\varphi =0`$ from the positive side to the negative one with a small kinetic energy so that the cosmic expansion rate $`H`$ is practically constant in the relevant period. We assume $`H^2m^2`$ and $`V_0m^2\varphi ^2`$. Then the solution of (4) reads,

$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=\dot{\varphi }_{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _+\lambda _{}}}e^{\lambda _+(tt_{})}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _+\lambda _{}}}e^{\lambda _{}(tt_{})}\right],`$ (6)
$`\dot{\varphi }(t)`$ $`=\dot{\varphi }_{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _+}{\lambda _+\lambda _{}}}e^{\lambda _+(tt_{})}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{}}{\lambda _+\lambda _{}}}e^{\lambda _{}(tt_{})}\right],`$ (7)
$`\lambda _\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}H^2+m^2},`$ (8)
where we have set $`\varphi (t_{})=0`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }(t_{})=\dot{\varphi }_{}`$. Using $`\lambda _+m^2/(3H)`$ and $`\lambda _{}3H\left(1+\frac{m^2}{9H^2}\right)`$, we find

$`\varphi (t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }_{}}{3H}}\left[e^{\frac{m^2}{3H^2}H(tt_{})}e^{3H\left(1+\frac{m^2}{9H^2}\right)(tt_{})}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }_{}}{3H}}\left[e^{\frac{m^2}{3H^2}H(tt_{})}e^{\frac{m^2}{3H^2}H(tt_{})}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a(t_{})}{a(t)}}\right)^3\right],`$ (9)
$`\dot{\varphi }(t)`$ $``$ $`\dot{\varphi }_{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{9H^2}}e^{\frac{m^2}{3H^2}H(tt_{})}+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{9H^2}}\right)e^{3H\left(1+\frac{m^2}{9H^2}\right)(tt_{})}\right]`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\dot{\varphi }_{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{9H^2}}e^{\frac{m^2}{3H^2}H(tt_{})}+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{9H^2}}\right)e^{\frac{m^2}{3H^2}H(tt_{})}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a(t_{})}{a(t)}}\right)^3\right]\dot{\varphi }_s(t)+\dot{\varphi }_r(t),`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{with}\dot{\varphi }_s(t)`$ $``$ $`\dot{\varphi }_{}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{9H^2}}e^{\frac{m^2}{3H^2}H(tt_{})},\dot{\varphi }_r(t)\dot{\varphi }_{}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{9H^2}}\right)e^{\frac{m^2}{3H^2}H(tt_{})}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a(t_{})}{a(t)}}\right)^3,`$ (12)
near the local maximum of the potential. Here $`a(t)e^{Ht}`$ denotes the scale factor. As is seen here $`\dot{\varphi }`$ can be decomposed into a slowly varying mode $`\dot{\varphi }_s(t)`$ and a rapidly changing decaying mode $`\dot{\varphi }_r(t)`$ which is approximately proportional to $`a^3(t)e^{3Ht}`$.

We now incorporate linear metric perturbations to the spatially flat Robertson-Walker background in the longitudinal gauge,

$$ds^2=\left[1+2\mathrm{\Psi }(\text{x},t)\right]dt^2+a^2(t)\left[1+2\mathrm{\Phi }(\text{x},t)\right]d\text{x}^2,$$
(13)
where we use the notation of  for the gauge-invariant perturbation variables . Hereafter all perturbation variables represent Fourier modes like

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤=\frac{d^3x}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\text{x},t)e^{i\text{kx}},$$
(14)
and we omit the suffix $`𝐤`$. We use the following combination of gauge-invariant variables ,

$$Y=X\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{H}\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(15)
where

$$X=\delta \varphi \frac{a}{k}\dot{\varphi }\sigma _g,$$
(16)
is the gauge-invariant scalar field fluctuation with $`\sigma _g`$ being the shear of each constant time slice. The latter vanishes on Newtonian slice including the longitudinal gauge.

The above quantity $`Y`$ is related to the gauge-invariant variable $`_c`$ as

$$_c=\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{aH}{k}v=\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }+H^1\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{1+w}=\frac{H}{\dot{\varphi }}Y,$$
(17)
in the present situation where the universe is dominated by the scalar field. Here $`v`$ is a gauge-invariant velocity perturbation  and $`w`$ denotes the ratio of pressure to energy density.

From the perturbed Einstein equations, we obtain the following equations.

$`\dot{X}\dot{\varphi }\ddot{\varphi }X+\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{a^2}}\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (18)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+H\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}\dot{\varphi }X,`$ (19)
where $`\kappa ^2=8\pi G`$. From these equations and (15), the equation of motion of $`Y`$ reads

$$\ddot{Y}+3H\dot{Y}+\left[\left(\frac{k}{a}\right)^2+M_{Y\mathrm{eff}}^2\right]Y=0,$$
(20)
with

$$M_{Y\mathrm{eff}}^2V^{\prime \prime }(\varphi )+3\kappa ^2\dot{\varphi }^2\frac{\kappa ^4}{2H^2}\dot{\varphi }^4+2\kappa ^2\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{H}V^{}(\varphi ).$$
(21)
This equation has the following exact solution in the long-wavelength limit $`k0`$ .

$`Y(t)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1(k)Y_1(t)+c_2(k)k^3Y_2(t),`$ (22)
$`Y_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }}{H}},`$ (23)
$`Y_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }}{H}}{\displaystyle _{t_i}^t}{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{a^3\dot{\varphi }^2}}𝑑t,`$ (24)
where $`c_1(k)`$ and $`c_2(k)`$ are integration constants to be determined by quantum fluctuations generated during inflation, and $`t_i`$ is some initial time which may be chosen arbitrarily because its effect can be absorbed by redefining $`c_1(k)`$. We choose $`t_i`$ so that $`Y_2`$ consists only of the decaying mode. Despite its appearance, the decaying mode $`Y_2(t)`$ is regular even at the epochs $`\dot{\varphi }=0`$ . In the second term of the right-hand-side of (22), an extra factor $`k^3`$ has been introduced so that the scale factor $`a(t)`$ appears in the rescaling-invariant form of $`k/a(t)`$, and $`c_1(k)`$ and $`c_2(k)`$ have the same dimension .

Using (12) we find

$`Y_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }_s(t)}{H}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }_r(t)}{H}}={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }_{}}{H}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{9H^2}}e^{\frac{m^2}{3H^2}H(tt_{})}+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{9H^2}}\right)e^{\frac{m^2}{3H^2}H(tt_{})}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a(t_{})}{a(t)}}\right)^3\right],`$ (25)
$`Y_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\dot{\varphi }_s(t)a^3(t)}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{9H^2}}\right)^1={\displaystyle \frac{3H^2}{m^2\dot{\varphi }_{}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{9H^2}}\right)^1e^{\frac{m^2}{3H^2}H(tt_{})}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^3(t)}},`$ (26)
so that the solution in the long wavelength limit is given by

$`Y(t)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1(k)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }_s(t)}{H}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }_r(t)}{H}}\right)c_2(k){\displaystyle \frac{H^3}{3\dot{\varphi }_s(t)}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{9H^2}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a(t)H}}\right)^3`$ (27)
We can also incorporate the finite wavenumber correction using the iterative expression  as

$$Y=c_1(k)Y_1+c_2(k)k^3Y_2+k^2Y_1aY_2Y𝑑tk^2Y_2aY_1Y𝑑t.$$
(28)
In the present case we find the leading finite-wavenumber correction is proportional to $`\left(k/a(t)\right)^2`$. As a result we obtain

$`Y(t)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1(k){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }_s(t)}{H}}+c_1(k){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }_s(t)}{2H}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{3H^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a(t)H}}\right)^2`$ (29)
$`+c_1(k){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }_r(t)}{H}}c_2(k){\displaystyle \frac{H^3}{3m^2\dot{\varphi }_s(t)}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{9H^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a(t)H}}\right)^3+\mathrm{},`$ (30)
to the lowest-order in $`m^2/H^2`$.

Next we consider evolution of $`Y`$ in its short-wavelength regime in order to set the initial condition out of quantum fluctuations. Since we are primarily interested in $`k`$-mode that leaves the horizon when the inflaton crosses over its potential extremum at $`t=t_{}`$, we only need to consider the evolution of $`Y`$ when $`m^2|tt_{}|/3H1`$ holds during inflation. Thus in this regime (20) becomes

$$\ddot{Y}+3H\dot{Y}+\left(\frac{k}{a}\right)^2Y=0.$$
(31)
Under the condition $`|\dot{H}/H^2|1`$ the solution of this equation satisfying the normalization condition,

$$Y\dot{Y}^{}\dot{Y}Y^{}=\frac{i}{a^3},$$
(32)
is approximately given by

$$Y=\frac{iH}{\sqrt{2k^3}}\left[\alpha _𝐤(1+ik\eta )e^{ik\eta }\beta _𝐤(1ik\eta )e^{ik\eta }\right],$$
(33)
where $`\eta =1/(Ha)`$ is a conformal time, and $`\alpha _𝐤`$ and $`\beta _𝐤`$ are constants which satisfy $`|\alpha _𝐤|^2|\beta _𝐤|^2=1.`$ We shall choose $`(\alpha _𝐤,\beta _𝐤)=(1,0)`$ so that the vacuum reduces to the one in Minkowski spacetime at the short-wavelength limit ($`k\eta \mathrm{}`$). We therefore obtain

$$Y=\frac{iH}{\sqrt{2k^3}}(1+ik\eta )e^{ik\eta }=\frac{iH}{\sqrt{2k^3}}\left[1+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{k}{a(t)H}\right)^2+\frac{i}{3}\left(\frac{k}{a(t)H}\right)^3+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(34)
where the latter expansion is useful after $`k`$-mode has gone out of the horizon in the period $`t<t_{}+3H^2/m^2`$.

From (34) and (30), we find that under the condition $`m^2H^2`$ we can match the first and the second terms of (30) with those of (34) and the third and the fourth terms of (30) with the third term of (34). The former constitutes the growing (or more properly, nondecreasing) mode and the latter corresponds to the decaying mode. As a result we find

$`c_1(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iH^2}{\sqrt{2k^3}\dot{\varphi }_s(t_k)}}={\displaystyle \frac{9iH^4}{\sqrt{2k^3}m^2\dot{\varphi }_{}}}e^{\frac{m^2}{3H^2}H(t_kt_{})},`$ (35)
$`c_2(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }_s(t_k)}{\sqrt{2k^3}H^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{9H^2}}\right)\left[1+i{\displaystyle \frac{27H^2}{m^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{9H^2}}\right)e^{\frac{2m^2}{3H^2}H(t_kt_{})}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a(t_{})H}{k}}\right)^3\right].`$ (36)
This means that the nondecaying mode of the curvature perturbation on the comoving horizon scale at $`t=t_{}`$, $`r_{}`$, is given by,

$$_c(r_{})=\left[\left|c_1(k)\right|^2\frac{4\pi k^3}{(2\pi )^3}\right]^{1/2}=\frac{9H^4}{2\pi m^2|\dot{\varphi }_{}|}.$$
(37)
Apparently it is enhanced by a factor $`9H^2/m^2`$ compared with (1). This does not mean, however, that we find a severe deviation from a scale-invariant spectrum. On a more general comoving scale $`r=r(t_k)=2\pi /k`$ leaving the Hubble radius during new inflation, we find from the first equatlity of (35),

$$_c(r)=\frac{H^2}{2\pi |\dot{\varphi }_s(t_k)|},$$
(38)
which is practically scale-invariant for $`m^2H^2`$. The deviation from the scale-invariant spectrum is manifest only in the decaying mode $`c_2(k)`$, as is seen in the second term of (36).

Thus we can obtain the correct expression for the nondecreasing mode of the curvature perturbation if we replace $`\dot{\varphi }`$ in (1) with its nondecaying mode only. This was also the case when $`\dot{\varphi }`$ vanishes during inflation which was studied in . Figure 1 depicts the actual spectrum of curvature perturbation together with the conventional slow-roll formula (1) for $`H^2/m^2=30`$. Using (1) would seriously underestimate the actual amplitude in the regime $`\varphi `$ is not slowly rolling.

Next we consider the applicability of this approach to a more general potential $`V[\varphi ]`$. As is clear from the above analysis our method is applicable if the solution of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is separable to a sum of a slowly varying mode and a decaying mode approximately proportional to $`a^3(t)`$ at least for a few expansion time scales after the $`k`$-mode under consideration leaves the Hubble radius at $`t=t_k`$. Let us expand $`V[\varphi ]`$ around $`\varphi =\varphi (t_k)\varphi _k`$ up to second order:

$$V[\varphi ]=V[\varphi _k]+V^{}[\varphi _k](\varphi \varphi _k)+\frac{1}{2}V^{\prime \prime }[\varphi _k](\varphi \varphi _k)^2+\mathrm{}V_k+V_k^{}(\varphi \varphi _k)+\frac{1}{2}V_k^{\prime \prime }(\varphi \varphi _k)^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(39)
Then a solution of the equation of motion, $`\ddot{\varphi }+3H_k\dot{\varphi }+V_k^{}+V_k^{\prime \prime }(\varphi \varphi _k)=0`$, is given by a linear combination of $`e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(tt_k)}`$ and $`e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(tt_k)}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm `$ are solutions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+3H_k\mathrm{\Lambda }+V_k^{\prime \prime }=0`$. Here a subscript $`k`$ denotes the value of each quantity at the time $`t_k`$.

In order that the solution of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is separable to a slowly changing mode and a decaying mode, we require $`|V_k^{\prime \prime }|H_k^2`$. Then we find, to the lowest order in $`|V_k^{\prime \prime }|/H_k^2`$,

$$\dot{\varphi }(t)=\left[\frac{V_k^{\prime \prime }}{9H_k^2}\dot{\varphi }_k+\left(1\frac{V_k^{\prime \prime }}{9H_k^2}\right)\frac{V_k^{}}{3H_k}\right]e^{\frac{V_k^{\prime \prime }}{3H_k^2}H_k(tt_k)}+\left(1\frac{V_k^{\prime \prime }}{9H_k^2}\right)\left(\dot{\varphi }_k\frac{V_k^{}}{3H_k}\right)e^{3\left(1+\frac{V_k^{\prime \prime }}{9H_k^2}\right)H_k(tt_k)}.$$
(40)
The first and the second terms of the above solution correspond to $`\dot{\varphi }_s(t)`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }_r(t)`$ in (11) of the previous analysis, respectively. If we apply the same matching method as before, we obtain

$$_c(r)=\frac{H_k^2}{2\pi }\left|\frac{V_k^{\prime \prime }}{9H_k^2}\dot{\varphi }_k+\left(1\frac{V_k^{\prime \prime }}{9H_k^2}\right)\frac{V_k^{}}{3H_k}\right|^1,$$
(41)
instead of (38) for the nondecaying mode of the curvature perturbation on the comoving horizon scale at $`t=t_k`$. In order that (41) gives the correct expression for the curvature perturbation, the expansion (39) should remain valid at least for a few expansion time scales after $`k`$-mode has crossed the horizon at $`t=t_k`$. That is, we require

$$|V_k^{}||\dot{\varphi }_k|H_k^1<V_k,|V_k^{\prime \prime }|(\dot{\varphi }_kH_k^1)^2<V_k.$$
(42)
Since the $`k`$-mode leaves the horizon during inflation, we have $`\dot{\varphi }_k^2<V_k`$. Then together with the assumption $`|V_k^{\prime \prime }|H_k^2`$, the second inequality is trivially satisfied. Furthermore, since $`V_k^{}/H_k`$ is of the same order of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ in the slow-roll case, we find $`|V_k^{}||\dot{\varphi }_k|H_k^1\dot{\varphi }_k^2<V_k`$ is also automatically satisfied. Thus the only nontrivial condition for our analysis to be valid is $`|V_k^{\prime \prime }|H_k^2`$ apart from the condition for accelerated expansion $`\dot{\varphi }_k^2<V_k`$.

In summary, we have analytically studied generation of curvature perturbation in the case the slow-roll equation of motion does not hold during inflation, by matching the quantum fluctuation (34) with the long-wave exact solution (27). For this matching to be possible it is essential that the solution of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ can be described by a sum of a slowly changing mode and a decaying mode approximately proportional to $`a^3(t)`$, which requires $`|V_k^{\prime \prime }|H_k^2`$. Models with more complicated potentials that violate this condition must be studied numerically .

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to M. Sasaki and O. Seto for useful communications. The work of JY was supported in part by the Monbukagakusho Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research “Priority Area: Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary Particles (No. 707).”


text:
# Discrete Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz

## I Introduction

It has been known for a long time that the spectrum of the Calogero model , defined here as particles on an infinite line interacting via $`\alpha (\alpha 1)/(x_ix_j)^2`$ 2-body interactions, can be found  by the Bethe Ansatz (BA) which assumes periodic boundary conditions, and that its thermodynamics can be obtained, in the thermodynamic limit, by the Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz (TBA) . It is however not necessary to rely on the BA (or the TBA) to get the Calogero spectrum (or its thermodynamics). Indeed, the Calogero model is exactly solvable

\- either by confining the particles in a harmonic well of frequency $`\omega `$: the Calogero-Moser model  with discretized harmonic well quantum numbers and energies, and Hamiltonian

$$H_N=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{d^2}{dx_i^2}+\alpha (\alpha 1)\underset{i<j}{}\frac{1}{(x_ix_j)^2}+\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2x_i^2$$
(1)
\- or by confining the particles in a periodic box of length $`L`$: the Calogero-Sutherland model  with discretized momenta and energies, and Hamiltonian

$$H_N=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{d^2}{dx_i^2}+\alpha (\alpha 1)(\frac{\pi }{L})^2\underset{i<j}{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{\pi }{L}(x_ix_j)]}$$
(2)
(the $`1/\mathrm{sin}^2[\pi (x_ix_j)/L]`$ interactions are nothing but the periodic version of the infinite line interactions). It is not a surprise that Bethe ansatz equations yield the Calogero-Sutherland spectrum, since they also assume, as stressed above, periodic boundary conditions.

Both parameters $`\omega `$ and $`L`$ can be considered as long distance regulators, the thermodynamic limit, i.e. the infinite line limit, being obtained either by $`\omega 0`$ or $`L\mathrm{}`$, resulting in continuous momenta and energies.

The Calogero model describes particules with intermediate statistics, which is natural due to the topological (statistical) nature of the $`1/(x_ix_j)^2`$ interaction in 1d. In the thermodynamic limit indeed , the Calogero thermodynamics realizes microscopically Haldane (Hilbert space counting) statistics . Moreover, the Calogero model has been shown to be obtained as the vanishing magnetic field limit  of the lowest Landau level anyon model  (LLL-anyon model) in the regime where the flux tubes carried by the anyons screen the flux of the external magnetic field (screening regime). Not surprisingly, the LLL-anyon model also realizes microscopically Haldane statistics, the Hilbert space counting argument being manifest here via a mean field argument (adding anyons screen the external magnetic field, and thus diminish the Landau degeneracy of the total -mean+external- magnetic field): thus a clear relation between Haldane  and anyon statistics .

Starting from the BA spectrum, and following Yang and Yang footsteps , one can compute à la TBA the thermodynamics of the Calogero model in the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. The thermodynamical potential $`\mathrm{ln}Z`$ -where $`Z=_{N=0}^{\mathrm{}}z^NZ_N`$ is the grand partition function- ends up to be those of a Fermi gas***There is an equivalent formulation in terms of a free Bose gas, namely
$$\mathrm{log}Z=\frac{L}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{1ze^{\beta \stackrel{~}{ϵ}(k)}},$$
but with a 1-body energy $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(k)`$ defined as
$$\beta \stackrel{~}{ϵ}(k_1)=\beta ϵ_o(k_1)\frac{L}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(k_1k_2)\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{1ze^{\beta \stackrel{~}{ϵ}(k_2)}}$$
One has obviously
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(k_1k_2)\mathrm{\Phi }(k_1k_2)=\frac{2\pi }{L}\delta (k_1k_2)$$

$$\mathrm{log}Z=\frac{L}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\mathrm{log}[1+ze^{\beta ϵ(k)}],$$
(3)
but with a 1-body energy $`ϵ(k)`$ defined in terms of the free continuous 1-body quadratic spectrum $`ϵ_o(k)=k^2/2`$ as

$$\beta ϵ(k_1)=\beta ϵ_o(k_1)\frac{L}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_2\mathrm{\Phi }(k_1k_2)\mathrm{log}[1+ze^{\beta ϵ(k_2)}]$$
(4)
In the Calogero case ,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(k_1k_2)=\frac{2\pi }{L}(1\alpha )\delta (k_1k_2)$$
(5)
is intimately related to the 2-body scattering angle, and encodes, if one thinks in terms of statistics, the statistical exclusion between two quantum states, here with the same momentum.

Note that if one denotes $`y(k)=1+ze^{\beta ϵ(k)}`$, which can be regarded, in view of (3), as the grand partition function at momentum $`k`$, then (4) can be rewitten as

$$y(k)ze^{\beta ϵ_o(k)}y(k)^{1\alpha }=1$$
(6)
a particular case of Ramanujan equations .

As already said, equations of the type (3,6) were first obtained directly by i) considering the exact $`N`$-body Calogero spectrum in a harmonic well , or by considering the exact $`N`$-body LLL-anyon spectrum in a harmonic well , ii) and then taking the thermodynamic limit.

Now we might ask the following question: are the TBA equations (3,4) specific to the thermodynamic limit with continuous momenta and continuous dressed energies, or can they also describe the thermodynamic of the Calogero model in a harmonic well or in a periodic box with discretized energies? In other words, can we find a discretized version of the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(k_1k_2)`$ in (5) such that the harmonic well or periodic box Calogero thermodynamics narrow down to a set of defining equations analogous to (3,4)?

We will show that the thermodynamic of the Calogero model in a harmonic well can indeed be rewritten “à la TBA” in terms of a discretized function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which will encode the statistical Calogero exclusion between different discrete harmonic energy levels and which will, as it should, reproduce, in the thermodynamic limit $`\omega 0`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(k_1k_2)`$ in (5). Not surprisingly, the same conclusion will be reached for the LLL-anyon model in an harmonic well, whose thermodynamics will obey the same TBA equations as the Calogero-Moser thermodynamics.

We will also argue that the same logic applies in the Calogero-Sutherland case, provided that a global shift of the bare quantum numbers is made in order to maintain a symmetric repartition of the dressed quantum numbers around zero.

Finally, we will look at possible applications of discrete TBA thermodynamics beyond the Calogero-Moser and harmonic LLL-anyon cases, by considering the Lieb-Liniger model in a harmonic well ,. This model is interesting because of its relevance to the description of one dimensional trapped Bose condensates . We will show that the $`N`$-body groundstate energy is correctly reproduced at first order in perturbation theory by the discrete TBA equations, but corrections do appear at second order.

## II The Calogero case

For a system with a discrete 1-body harmonic spectrum, the TBA equations (3,4) should rewrite quite generally as

$$\mathrm{log}Z=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{log}[1+ze^{\beta ϵ(n)}],$$
(7)
where the 1-body dressed energy $`ϵ(n)`$ should now be defined in terms of the 1-body 1d harmonic spectrum (bare spectrum) $`ϵ_o(n)=(n+1/2)\omega ,0n`$ as

$$\beta ϵ(n_1)=\beta ϵ_o(n_1)\underset{n_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}\mathrm{log}[1+ze^{\beta ϵ(n_2)}]$$
(8)
(7,8) are just the discretized versions of (3,4). In (8), $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}`$ has to be understood as acting on the free harmonic spectrum, i.e as acting on the power series in $`z`$ obtained from (8) by expanding $`y(n)=1+ze^{\beta ϵ(n)}`$ as

$$y(n)=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y_N(n)z^N$$
(9)
The lowest order terms of (9) are

$`y_0(n_1)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (10)
$`y_1(n_1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\beta ϵ_o(n_1)},`$ (11)
$`y_2(n_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{\beta ϵ_o(n_1)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}e^{\beta ϵ_o(n_2)},`$ (12)
$`y_3(n_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_2,n_3=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{\beta ϵ_o(n_1)}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}e^{\beta ϵ_o(n_2)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_2,n_3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}e^{\beta ϵ_o(n_2)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_3}\right)e^{\beta ϵ_o(n_3)}`$ (13)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{\beta ϵ_o(n_1)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}e^{2\beta ϵ_o(n_2)},`$ (14)
where $`0n_1,n_2,\mathrm{}`$ and the summation should be taken for all possible independant integers $`n_2,n_3,\mathrm{}`$.

If the TBA cluster coefficients obtained from expanding $`\mathrm{log}Z=b_nz^n`$

$`b_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}y_1(n),`$ (15)
$`b_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[y_2(n){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y_1^2(n)\right],`$ (16)
$`b_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[y_3(n)y_1(n)y_2(n)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}y_1^3(n)\right],`$ (17)
have to match against the Calogero-Moser cluster coefficients $`b_1=\frac{e^{\frac{\beta \omega }{2}}}{1e^{\beta \omega }}`$, $`b_2=e^{\beta \omega }\left[\frac{e^{\beta \omega \alpha }e^{\beta \omega }}{(1e^{2\beta \omega })(1e^{\beta \omega })}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{1e^{2\beta \omega }}\right]`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}`$ should be defined as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}=P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha )P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha =1)$$
(18)
where $`P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha )`$ projects the two independant quantum numbers $`0n_1,n_2`$ on dressed quantum numbers which, not surprisingly, obey exclusion statistics. More precisely, evaluating in (7,8,10) expressions of the type

$$\underset{n_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha )e^{\beta ϵ(n_2)},$$
(19)
$`P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha )`$ amounts, $`n_1`$ being given, to the shift

$$n_2n_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_2+\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{n}_20$$
(20)
and the summation over $`n_2`$ is replaced by the summation over $`\stackrel{~}{n}_20`$. In other words, in terms of the independant quantum numbers $`0n_1,n_2`$, denoting $`𝐧_1=n_1,𝐧_\mathrm{𝟐}=n_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_2`$, $`P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha )`$ means $`n_1𝐧_1`$, and $`n_2𝐧_2+\alpha `$, where $`0𝐧_1𝐧_2`$ are now bosonic quantum numbers. Therefore $`P_{n_1,n_2}(0)`$ projects $`0n_1,n_2`$ onto bosonic quantum numbers $`0𝐧_1𝐧_2`$, whereas $`P_{n_1,n_2}(1)`$ projects $`0n_1,n_2`$ onto fermionic quantum numbers. Note that in (18) substracting $`P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha =1)`$ is simply a matter of convention, i.e. as stressed above, a fermionic thermodynamical potential (3) with a spectrum which has to coincide with the bare spectrum when $`\alpha =1`$ -the Bose convention would yield $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n_1,n_2}=P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha )P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha =0)`$.

More generally notice that (18) allows to rewrite (8) as

$$y(n_1)ze^{\beta ϵ_o(n_1)}\frac{\underset{\stackrel{~}{n}_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y(n_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_2+\alpha )}{_{\stackrel{~}{n}_2=0}^{\mathrm{}}y(n_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_2+1)}=1$$
(21)
which can be viewed as the discretized version of (6).

Going one step further one gets

$$\underset{\stackrel{~}{n}_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y(n_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_2)=\underset{\stackrel{~}{n}_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y(n_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_2+1)+ze^{\beta ϵ_o(n_1)}\underset{\stackrel{~}{n}_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y(n_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_2+\alpha )$$
(22)
which in turn, taken at $`n_1=0`$, rewrites as

$$Z=ze^{\beta ϵ_o(0)}\underset{\stackrel{~}{n}_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y(\stackrel{~}{n}_2+\alpha )+\underset{\stackrel{~}{n}_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y(\stackrel{~}{n}_2+1)$$
(23)
Equation (23) can be interpreted by saying that either the first particle is in the groundstate at energy $`\frac{1}{2}\omega `$ and then the next particle is in the energy level at least higher than $`(\frac{1}{2}+\alpha )\omega `$, or the groundstate is vacant and the first particle is in the energy level at least higher than $`(\frac{1}{2}+1)\omega `$. One verifies recursively that $`Z`$ in (23) is identical to the grand partition of the Calogero-Moser model with $`N`$-body spectrum

$$E_N=\omega \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left([𝐧_i+\alpha (i1)]+\frac{1}{2}\right)$$
(24)
where $`0𝐧_1𝐧_2\mathrm{}`$. In terms of the bare independent quantum numbers $`0n_1,n_2,\mathrm{}`$, one has $`n_i𝐧_i+\alpha (i1)=n_{i1}+\stackrel{~}{n}_i+\alpha (i1)`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{n}_i0`$. This is indeed a BA “like” spectrum, i.e. in terms of the dressed quantum numbers $`𝐧_i^{}=𝐧_i+\alpha (i1)`$, one has $`𝐧_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}=𝐧_𝐢+\alpha _{ji}\theta (𝐧_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}𝐧_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{})`$. In the 2-body case, it indeed amounts to $`n_1n_1,n_2n_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_2+\alpha `$, i.e. to the the action of the projector $`P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha )`$ on the independent quantum numbers $`0n_1,n_2`$.

Note that (18) implies that the $`N`$-body partition function $`Z_N`$ obtained from (7) as

$$Z_N=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y_{N_n}(n),0N_n,\underset{n}{}N_n=N$$
(25)
has, using (10) to all orders, the simple factorized form

$$Z_N=\underset{n_1,\mathrm{},n_N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha )P_{n_2,n_3}(\alpha )\mathrm{}P_{n_{N1},n_N}(\alpha )e^{\beta (ϵ_o(n_1)+ϵ_o(n_2)+\mathrm{}+ϵ_o(n_N))}$$
(26)
In particular in the $`2`$-body case

$$Z_2Z_2|_{Fermi}=\underset{n_1,n_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha )P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha =1)\right)e^{\beta (ϵ_o(n_1)+ϵ_o(n_2))}$$
(27)
and thus in the thermodynamic limitBy factorizing the center of mass, (27) rewrites as
$$Z_2Z_2|_{Fermi}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\beta \omega }{2}}\underset{\stackrel{~}{n}_2=2l0}{}\left(e^{\beta \omega (\stackrel{~}{n}_2+\frac{1}{2}+\alpha )}e^{\beta \omega (\stackrel{~}{n}_2+\frac{1}{2}+1)}\right)$$
(28) and (32) as
$$Z_2Z_2|_{Fermi}=(\frac{L}{2\pi })^2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑Ke^{\beta \frac{K^2}{4}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\mathrm{\Phi }(2k)e^{\beta k^2}$$
(29) Since, in the thermodynamic limit  for the $`N`$-th cluster coefficient, $`\frac{1}{\beta \omega }\frac{L}{\sqrt{2\pi \beta }}\sqrt{N}`$, one infers that in the 2-body case
$$\frac{1}{2\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\beta \omega }{2}}\frac{L}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑Ke^{\beta \frac{K^2}{4}}$$
(30) and therefore one should have
$$\underset{\stackrel{~}{n}_2=2l0}{}\left(e^{\beta \omega (\stackrel{~}{n}_2+\frac{1}{2}+\alpha )}e^{\beta \omega (\stackrel{~}{n}_2+\frac{1}{2}+1)}\right)\frac{L}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\mathrm{\Phi }(2k)e^{\beta k^2}$$
(31) a result that can be trivially checked by direct computation. $`\omega 0`$

$$Z_2Z_2|_{Fermi}=(\frac{L}{2\pi })^2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_1𝑑k_2\mathrm{\Phi }(k_1k_2)e^{\beta (\frac{k_1^2}{2}+\frac{k_2^2}{2})}$$
(32)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given in (5).

As far as the LLL-anyon model in a harmonic well  is concerned, one finds that (7,8,18) are unchanged, to the exception of the 1-body energy which now reads $`ϵ_o(n)=(\omega _t\omega _c)n+\omega _c`$, where $`\omega _c=eB/2`$, $`\omega _t=\sqrt{\omega _c^2+\omega ^2}`$, and the statistical anyonic parameter has to be understood as being $`\alpha `$, i.e. the screening regime where the flux $`\varphi =\alpha \varphi _o`$ ($`\varphi _o`$ is the quantum of flux) carried by each anyon is antiparallel to the external magnetic field.

One can easily convince oneself that in the thermodynamic limit $`\omega 0`$, both the Calogero and LLL-anyon TBA thermodynamics narrow down to

$$\mathrm{log}Z=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵ_o\rho _o(ϵ_o)\mathrm{ln}(1+ze^{\beta ϵ(ϵ_o)})$$
(33)
where the dressed energy $`ϵ(ϵ_o)`$ is implicitely defined à la TBA in terms of the bare energy $`ϵ_o`$ as

$$\beta ϵ=\beta ϵ_o_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,ϵ^{})\mathrm{ln}(1+ze^{\beta ϵ^{}})$$
(34)
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,ϵ^{})=(1\alpha )\delta (ϵϵ^{})$$
(35)
Here, $`\rho _o(ϵ_o)`$ is the 1-body density of states of the bare spectrum of the system considered, i.e. in the Calogero case the 1d free density of states $`\rho _o(ϵ_o)=L/(\pi \sqrt{2ϵ_o})`$, and, in the LLL-anyon case, the 2d LLL density of states, $`\rho _o(ϵ_o)=(BV/\varphi _o)\delta (ϵ_o\omega _c)`$, where $`V`$ is now the infinite surface of the 2d plane.

In the case of the Calogero model in a periodic box -the Calogero-Sutherland model-, one can still propose (7) and (8), but now the 1-body dressed energy $`ϵ(n)`$ should be defined in terms of the 1-body spectrum in a 1d periodic box of length $`L`$, $`ϵ_o(n)=k^2/2`$, with discretized momentum $`k=2\pi n/L`$ and $`n`$ positive, null or negative integer.

However, and contrary to the harmonic case, the very fact that the bare quantum numbers in a periodic box can be of both signs lead to some adjustments. If one looks at the $`N`$-body Calogero-Sutherland spectrumwith a BA spectrum $`𝐧_i^{}=𝐧_𝐢+\frac{\alpha }{2}_{ji}sign(𝐧_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}𝐧_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{})`$

$$E_N=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{2\pi }{L})^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left([𝐧_i+\alpha (i1)]\alpha \frac{(N1)}{2}\right)^2$$
(36)
where $`𝐧_1𝐧_2\mathrm{}`$, one finds that in terms of the bare quantum numbers $`n_i𝐧_i+\alpha (i1)\alpha (N1)/2=n_{i1}+\stackrel{~}{n}_i+\alpha (i1)\alpha (N1)/2`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{n}_i0`$. This is quite similar to the Calogero-moser spectrum, up to a global shift, $`n_in_i\alpha (N1)/2`$, a $`N`$-dependant periodic boundary condition adjustment insuring that the dressed spectrum remain symmetric around $`0`$ in order to minimize the $`N`$-body energy. In the 2-body case $`n_1n_1\alpha /2,n_2n_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_2+\alpha /2`$, it amounts to the the action of the Calogero-Moser projector $`P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha )`$ as given in (18) on the a priori two independent quantum numbers $`n_1,n_2`$, again up to the $`2`$-body shift $`n_{1,2}n_{1,2}\alpha /2`$. This being considered, altogether with the fact that the Calogero-Moser and Calogero-Sutherland models originate from the same model, up to a long distance regularisation, it is natural to take for both models the same TBA function (18) to obtain, in view of (26), the correct Calogero-Sutherland $`N`$-body partition function, but in addition the shift $`n_in_i\alpha (N1)/2`$ has to be made a posteriori.

At this point, one can remark that in all cases studied so far, the Calogero-Moser model, as well as the Calogero -Sutherland model up to periodic boundary conditions adjustments, and their thermodynamic limit, the Calogero model, the TBA functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(k_1k_2)`$ are intimately related to the relative $`2`$-boson density of states for the problem at hand. Indeed, in a harmonic well, the spectrum for a relative particle with bosonic statistics and interacting with a Calogero potential at the origin is

$$ϵ=\omega (n+\frac{1}{2}+\alpha )0n$$
(37)
with $`n`$ even, i.e. with symmetric eigenstates under $`xx`$.

Let us first consider, in the thermodynamic limit, the Calogero model: when $`\omega 0`$, the relative 2-boson density of states reads

$$\rho _\alpha (ϵ)\rho _{\alpha =1}(ϵ)=\frac{1\alpha }{2}\delta (ϵ)$$
(38)
It rewrites in terms of the relative momentum $`k`$ such that $`ϵ=k^2`$

$$\rho _\alpha (k)\rho _{\alpha =1}(k)=\frac{1\alpha }{2}\delta (k)$$
(39)
Now one has to map the relative 2-body momentum $`k`$ on the “momentum” $`k_2k_1`$ the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(k_2k_1)`$ is concerned with. Since $`k_2k_1=2k`$, one gets for the density of states in terms of $`k_2k_1`$

$$\rho _\alpha (\frac{k_2k_1}{2})\rho _{\alpha =1}(\frac{k_2k_1}{2})=(1\alpha )\delta (k_2k_1)$$
(40)
i.e. precisely (5) up to a factor $`2\pi /L`$.

When $`\omega `$ is kept finite, the same logic applies: the relative spectrum (37) yields

$$nn+\alpha $$
(41)
One has yet to map the relative 2-body bosonic even quantum number $`n`$ on the “quantum number” $`n_2n_1`$ that the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}`$ is concerned with. For a given 2-body energy, i.e. for $`𝐧_1+𝐧_2`$ given, one has $`𝐧_2𝐧_1=n`$ -then the center of mass quantum number is $`2𝐧_1`$, or $`𝐧_2𝐧_1=n+1`$ -then the center of mass quantum number is $`2𝐧_1+1`$, depending if $`𝐧_2𝐧_1`$ is even or odd. One finds that $`nn+\alpha `$ rewrites, in terms of the independent $`n_1,n_2`$ as $`n_1n_1`$, $`n_2n_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_2+\alpha `$, where now $`\stackrel{~}{n}_2=n`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{n}_2=n+1`$, i.e. any positive integer. Then (41) is indeed identical to the action of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}`$ in (18).

This is not a surprise, scattering 2-body phase shifts are known to be linked to the $`2`$-body density of states via S-matrix arguments .

## III The Lieb-Liniger case

In the Lieb-Liniger model in the thermodynamic limit, the same conclusion happens to be true. The model, defined as

$$H_N=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{d^2}{dx_i^2}+c\underset{i<j}{}\delta (x_ix_j)$$
(42)
is solvable by Bethe ansatz  and has a TBA thermodynamics  obtained from

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(k_1k_2)=\frac{1}{L}\frac{2c}{(k_2k_1)^2+c^2}$$
(43)
It interpolates between the Bose ($`c=0`$) and Fermi ($`c=\mathrm{}`$) thermodynamics and describes particles with intermediate statistics . For a relative particle with bosonic statistics interacting with a $`\delta `$ potential at the origin the density of states is

$$\rho _c(ϵ)\rho _{c=\mathrm{}}(ϵ)=\frac{1}{4\pi \sqrt{ϵ}}\frac{c}{ϵ+\frac{c^2}{4}}$$
(44)
which in terms of $`ϵ=k^2`$, $`k>0`$ rewrites as

$$\rho _c(k)\rho _{c=\mathrm{}}(k)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{c}{k^2+\frac{c^2}{4}}$$
(45)
Now, one has again to map $`k`$ on the “momentum” $`k_2k_1`$ the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(k_1,k_2)`$ is concerned with, i.e. $`k_2k_1=2k`$, and since $`k_2k_1`$ can be either positive or negative, one gets for the density of states in terms of $`k_2k_1`$

$$\rho _c(\frac{k_2k_1}{2})\rho _{c=\mathrm{}}(\frac{k_2k_1}{2})=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{2c}{(k_2k_1)^2+c^2}$$
(46)
i.e. nothing but (43), again up to a factor $`2\pi /L`$.

If one follows the same line of reasoning which was operative in the Calogero-Moser case to obtain the discrete TBA function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}`$ (18) from the relative 2-body spectrum (37), one might try, for the Lieb-Liniger model in a harmonic well, discrete TBA thermodynamics (7,8) equations with a TBA function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}`$ deduced from the $`2`$-body relative bosonic spectrum in a harmonic well . It rewrites as

$$ϵ=\omega \left(n+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{c}{2\sqrt{2\omega }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{ϵ}{2\omega }+\frac{1}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{ϵ}{2\omega }+\frac{3}{4})}\right)\right)0n$$
(47)
with $`n`$ even, i.e. as $`ϵ=\omega (n+\frac{1}{2}+f_c(n))`$ with§§§Equivalently, starting from the Fermi spectrum by rewriting $`f_c(n)=1g_c(n)`$
$$0g_c(n)=\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{2\sqrt{2\omega }}{c}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+3}{2}\frac{g_c(n)}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+2}{2}\frac{g_c(n)}{2})}\right)1$$
(48)

$$0f_c(n)=\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{c}{2\sqrt{2\omega }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+1}{2}+\frac{f_c(n)}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+2}{2}+\frac{f_c(n)}{2})}\right)1$$
(49)
and interpolates between the relative $`2`$-body bosonic ($`c=0`$, $`f_0(n)=0`$, $`g_0(n)=1`$) and fermionic ($`c=\mathrm{}`$, $`f_{\mathrm{}}(n)=1`$, $`g_{\mathrm{}}(n)=0`$) spectra.

Therefore let us try for the Lieb and Liniger in a harmonic well the discrete TBA function

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}=P_{n_1,n_2}(c)P_{n_1,n_2}(c=\mathrm{})$$
(50)
should be defined in terms of $`P_{n_1,n_2}(c)`$ such that, $`n_1`$ being left unchanged,

$$n_2n_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_2+f_c(\stackrel{~}{n}_2)$$
(51)
if $`\stackrel{~}{n}_20`$ is even, and

$$n_2n_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_2+f_c(\stackrel{~}{n}_21)$$
(52)
if $`\stackrel{~}{n}_2`$ is odd. Note again that substracting $`P_{n_1,n_2}(c=\mathrm{})`$ in (50) originates, as in the Calogero case, from the fermionic convention (obviously $`P_{n_1,n_2}(c=\mathrm{})=P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha =1)`$.)

It is easy to check that the $`2`$-body partition function is reproduced by the discrete TBA equations

$$Z_2Z_2|_{Fermi}=\underset{n_1=n_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(P_{n_1,n_2}(c)P_{n_1,n_2}(c=\mathrm{}))e^{\beta (ϵ_o(n_1)+ϵ_o(n_2))}$$
(53)
and thus, in the thermodynamic limit $`\omega 0`$,

$$\underset{\stackrel{~}{n}_2=2l0}{}\left(e^{\beta (\stackrel{~}{n}_2+\frac{1}{2}+f_c(\stackrel{~}{n}_2))}(c=\mathrm{})\right)\frac{L}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\mathrm{\Phi }(2k)e^{\beta k^2}$$
(54)
where the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given in (43), a result that can be checked by direct computation, order by order in $`1/c`$. There are two independant dimensionless parameters, $`\beta \omega `$ (thermodynamic limit) and $`\sqrt{\beta }c`$ (“coupling constant”). Clearly, for a given coupling constant $`\sqrt{\beta }c`$, looking at $`f_c(n)=1g_c(n)`$ in (49,48), one has to consider, in the thermodynamic limit $`\beta \omega 0`$, the spectrum close to the Fermi point $`(c=\mathrm{})`$,

$$g_c(2l)=4\sqrt{2}\frac{\sqrt{\beta \omega }}{\pi \sqrt{\beta }c}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+\frac{3}{2})}{l!}+\mathrm{}$$
(55)
from which (54) can be recovered, here at first order $`1/(\sqrt{\beta }c)`$.

Note also that in the thermodynamic limit for the relative spectrum, with $`(n+1/2)\omega k^2`$, i.e. $`n\omega `$ fixed, (49) becomes

$$f_c(k)=\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\frac{c}{2k}$$
(56)
which is indeed reminiscent of the Lieb and Liniger BA spectrum .

What about the $`N`$-body problem? A possible way to check the discrete TBA is to see if the perturbative TBA thermodynamics coincide with the exact (standard) Hamiltonian perturbative thermodynamics , which can be computed with the Lieb and Liniger Hamiltonian from the Bose point $`c=0`$ (from the Fermi point $`c=\mathrm{}`$ standard perturbation theory is meaningless). Perturbation theory yields

$$\mathrm{log}Z=\mathrm{log}Z|_{Bose}+\sqrt{\beta }c\underset{s,t=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^{s+t}}{4\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\sqrt{\beta \omega }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{s\beta \omega }{2}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{t\beta \omega }{2}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{(s+t)\beta \omega }{2}}}+\mathrm{}$$
(57)
Let us now consider the $`\sqrt{\beta }c`$ expansion from the TBA point of view, again from the Bose point. One has to consider (49) at first order in $`\sqrt{\beta }c`$

$$f_c(2l)=\frac{1}{\pi \sqrt{2}}\frac{\sqrt{\beta }c}{\sqrt{\beta \omega }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+\frac{1}{2})}{l!}+\mathrm{}$$
(58)
and compute from the discrete TBA equations

$$\mathrm{log}Z=\mathrm{log}Z|_{Bose}+\underset{n_1=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{ze^{\beta \omega (n_1+\frac{1}{2})}}{1ze^{\beta \omega (n_1+\frac{1}{2})}}\underset{n_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{1ze^{\beta \omega (n_2+\frac{1}{2})}}|_1+\mathrm{}$$
(59)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{1ze^{\beta \omega (n_2+\frac{1}{2})}}|_1`$ means evaluating this expression at first order in $`\sqrt{\beta }c`$ using (58). One finds

$$\mathrm{log}Z=\mathrm{log}Z|_{Bose}+\sqrt{\beta }c\underset{s,t=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^{s+t}}{4\sqrt{2\pi }}\frac{\sqrt{\beta \omega }}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{(s+t)\beta \omega }{2}}\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{coth}\frac{s\beta \omega }{2}}+\sqrt{\mathrm{coth}\frac{t\beta \omega }{2}}\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(60)
which coincides with (57) only in the limit $`\beta \omega \mathrm{}`$, i.e. for a given $`\omega `$, in the zero temperature limitThe limit $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ for a given temperature is not considered here. In this limit all particles are confined at $`x_i=0`$. But $`\delta `$ interactions actually forbid this unless the effective coupling constant vanishes, which is precisely happening in the 2-body case (49). In other words the $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ limit is the trivial bosonic limit., i.e the groundstate.

In fact, discrete TBA gives in the vanishing temperature limit direct information on the $`N`$-body groundstate energy : in the Calogero-Moser case, it is obtained, in the bosonic based formulation, by restricting the discrete TBA equations

$$\mathrm{log}Z=\underset{n_1=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{1ze^{\beta \stackrel{~}{ϵ}(n_1)}},$$
(61)
$$\beta \stackrel{~}{ϵ}(n_1)=\beta ϵ_o(n_1)\underset{n_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n_1,n_2}\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{1ze^{\beta \stackrel{~}{ϵ}(n_2)}}$$
(62)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n_1,n_2}=P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha )P_{n_1,n_2}(\alpha =0)`$ to the groundstate quantum numbers $`n_1=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{n}_2=0`$. One obtains

$$E_N^{G.S.}=\omega \left(\frac{N}{2}+\frac{N(N1)}{2}\alpha \right)$$
(63)
In the Lieb and Liniger case a similar approach gives

$$E_N^{G.S.}=\omega \left(\frac{N}{2}+\frac{N(N1)}{2}f_c(0)\right)$$
(64)
a result which is consistent with the groundstate energy at first order in $`c`$

$$E_N^{G.S.}=\omega \left(\frac{N}{2}+\frac{N(N1)}{2}f_c^{(1)}(0)c+\mathrm{}\right)$$
(65)
where $`f_c^{(1)}(0)=1/\sqrt{2\pi \omega }`$ stands for the first order term in the expansion of $`f_c(0)`$ in power of $`c`$. However, second order standard perturbation theory gives corrections to the Calogero-Moser like energy $`\omega N(N1)f_c(0)/2`$. For example in the $`N=3`$ case

$$E_3^{G.S.}=\omega \left(\frac{3}{2}+3f_c^{(1)}(0)c+3\left(f_c^{(2)}(0)\frac{1}{\pi \omega }\mathrm{log}\frac{4}{2+\sqrt{3}}\right)c^2+\mathrm{}\right)$$
(66)
where $`f_c^{(2)}(0)=\frac{\mathrm{log}2}{2\pi \omega }`$ stands for the second order term in the expansion of $`f_c(0)`$.

## IV Conclusion

We have shown how the Caloger-Moser thermodynamics can be rewritten in terms of discrete TBA equations. In the Calogero-Sutherland model, the same TBA equations were shown to be operative, up to a global shift of the bosonic quantum numbers. Since the Lieb-Liniger model shares common features with the Calogero model -BA solvability, TBA thermodynamics in the thermodynamic limit, intermediate statistics- it might also have, when considered in a harmonic well, a discrete TBA thermodynamics. We tried to illustrate this point of view by proposing discrete TBA equations for the harmonic Lieb and Liniger model in analogy with the Calogero-Moser TBA thermodynamics. However the groundstate energy shows deviations from this TBA framework at second order in perturbation theory.

We leave to a further study to find analytical or numerical ways to improve and give a stronger basis to the discrete TBA thermodynamics for the Lieb-Liniger model, and in particular extract a useful information on the groundstate for a given density of particles. It would however certainly be interesting to understand more in detail the zero temperature limit of a system which is supposed to describe the physics of 1d Bose Einstein condensates in harmonic traps.

Acknowledgements: One of us (S.O.) would like to thank S. Matvenkoo for useful discussions.