text:
# Surface Effects in Magnetic Microtraps

## Abstract

We have investigated Bose-Einstein condensates and ultra cold atoms in the vicinity of a surface of a magnetic microtrap. The atoms are prepared along copper conductors at distances to the surface between 300 $`\mu `$m and 20 $`\mu `$m. In this range, the lifetime decreases from 20 s to 0.7 s showing a linear dependence on the distance to the surface. The atoms manifest a weak thermal coupling to the surface, with measured heating rates remaining below 500 nK/s. In addition, we observe a periodic fragmentation of the condensate and thermal clouds when the surface is approached.

Micropotentials have proven to be a powerful tool to manipulate and structure the shape of a Bose-Einstein condensate Inguscio et al. (1999) on a length scale shorter than the coherence length of the condensate. Besides the manipulation with light Andrews et al. (1997); Anderson and Kasevich (1998); Cataliotti et al. (1998); Greiner et al. (2001, 2002), current carrying microstructures Weinstein and Libbrecht (1995) are particularly interesting since they can be tailored in an arbitrary way, providing a variety of potential geometries. In previous experiments with magnetic microtraps the work was mainly focused on the demonstration of different trapping geometries, loading schemes and guiding principles Vuletić et al. (1998); Fortágh et al. (1998); Reichel et al. (1999); Müller et al. (1999); Dekker et al. (2000); Key et al. (2000); Cassettari et al. . The recent realization of Bose-Einstein condensates in magnetic microtraps Ott et al. (2001); Hänsel et al. (2001) however provides new possibilities to control coherent matter on the micrometer scale. Coherent beam splitters, on-chip interferometers or quantum dots may become feasible. In current experimental setups, the dimensions of the conductors vary from 1 $`\mu `$m to 100 $`\mu `$m and the distance between the trap minimum and the surface is typically of the same size. At such small distances the atoms are affected by the nearby surface. For experiments with coherent matter waves or even single atoms in microfabricated traps an understanding of the mutual influences of the atoms and the surface is highly desirable.

In this letter, we describe three effects on ultra cold atoms which appear in the vicinity of the surface of a magnetic microtrap. We observe a decrease of the lifetime of the atomic cloud which scales roughly linearly with the distance to the surface. At 20 $`\mu `$m, the lifetime is reduced to less than 1 s, which has to be compared to the “far distance” value of 100 s. Simultaneously, an increased heating rate is observed which, however, does not exceed 500 nK/s. Furthermore, a periodic fragmentation of both, the thermal cloud and the condensate occurs when the surface is approached at distances of about 250 $`\mu `$m. This gives strong evidence for additional potentials arising from the nearby surface.

In our experiment, the microtrap is generated by a microstructure which consists of seven parallel copper conductors with widths of 3 $`\mu `$m, 11 $`\mu `$m and 30 $`\mu `$m, a height of 2.5 $`\mu `$m and a length of 25 mm Fortágh et al. . The conductors are electroplated on an Al2O3 ceramic substrate. An additional copper wire with a circular diameter of 90 $`\mu `$m is mounted parallel to the microstructure, allowing for reference measurements. The free surface of the wire is in the plane of the fabricated conductors. The radial potential is built from the field of one of the eight conductors with current $`I`$ and a homogeneous bias field $`B_{\mathrm{bias}}`$ perpendicular to the conductor. The axial confinement is accomplished by a superimposed Ioffe type trap Fortágh et al. (2000), that also provides a non-vanishing field $`B_0`$ in the centre of the trap. The axial oscillation frequency has an upper limit of $`2\pi \times 14`$ Hz and can be tuned without affecting the radial confinement by changing the strength of the Ioffe type trap. In all experiments, a pre-cooled cloud of 87Rb atoms in the $`|F=2,m_F=2>`$ hyperfine ground state is transferred into the microtrap. The loading procedure, the adiabatic transfer, and the experimental cycle are described in detail elsewhere Ott et al. (2001). The trap geometry is characterized by its axial and radial oscillation frequency $`\omega _a`$ and $`\omega _r`$, and by its distance $`d`$ to the surface. Assuming a linear conductor carrying current and a homogeneous bias field perpendicular to the conductor, $`\omega _r`$ and $`d`$ are given by

$$\omega _r=2\pi \times \frac{1}{\mu _0}\sqrt{\frac{\mu _Bg_Fm_F}{mB_0}}\times \frac{B_{\mathrm{bias}}^2}{I},$$

$$d=\frac{\mu _0}{2\pi }\times \frac{I}{B_{\mathrm{bias}}},$$

where m denotes the mass of the atom. For a given distance $`d`$ and a radial oscillation frequency $`\omega _r`$ the current $`I`$ in the conductor and the required bias field $`B_{\mathrm{bias}}`$ are fully determined. Thus, the radial steepness of the waveguide and its distance to the surface can be tuned independently.

To investigate lifetime and heating rate we prepare cold thermal ensembles at different distances to the trap surface. The temperature is adjusted to 2 $`\mu `$K, well above the critical temperature for Bose-Einstein condensation. The trap is kept constant for a variable storage time and the number of atoms as well as the temperature are determined from time of flight measurements of the released atomic cloud. Fig. 1a shows the measured trap lifetimes at the microstructure and at the 90 $`\mu `$m copper wire. The lifetime reveals a linear dependence on the distance to the conductor surface over a wide range. For small distances the data differ from a pure linear behaviour. Both types of conductor (massive copper wire and thin, electroplated conductor) show a similar influence such that close to the conductor the lifetime is reduced by two orders of magnitude. For a distance of 20 $`\mu `$m the measured lifetime is as short as 700 ms, whereas for a distance of 2 mm a reference value of 100 s has been determined. To bring the atoms close to the surface the current in the conductor are reduced. In this case, the dissipated heat in the conductor due to resistive heating scales as $`Pd^4`$. Thus, at smaller distances the temperature of the conductor is lower. In our experiment, the conductors are mounted on a cooled copper heat sink which provides an almost constant temperature. To avoid influences due to long-time heating of the equipment the data points for different distances to the surface were measured in random order. This allows us to exclude outgassing effects. Evaporation of cold atoms that hit the surface can also be excluded: at small distances the potential barrier at the conductors surface is approximately 6 G corresponding to a temperature of more than 400 $`\mu `$K. In Henkel et al. (1999) surface induced spin flip transitions are analyzed as lifetime reducing mechanism. Spin flips can be induced by the oscillating magnetic field of thermally excited currents in the metal or by technical noise at frequencies around 1 MHz. Because the radiation field of a dipolar antenna decreases inversely proportional with the distance the measured data are in qualitative agreement with the theory.

The experiments were performed on thermal atomic clouds at densities below $`1\times 10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and no indication of inelastic processes like three body recombination Burt et al. (1997) was observed. The generation of Bose-Einstein condensates results in higher densities and inelastic processes become important. In highly elongated traps with $`\omega _a=2\pi \times 14`$ Hz and $`\omega _r>2\pi \times 1000`$ Hz as used for the previous experiments, we reach condensation at densities above $`1\times 10^{15}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and the lifetime of the condensate is limited to a few 10 ms. Longer lifetimes can be achieved if the density is reduced by adiabatic relaxation of the trapping potential. For $`\omega _a=2\pi \times 8`$ Hz, $`\omega _r=2\pi \times 100`$ Hz and d=300 $`\mu `$m we measure a condensate lifetime of 2.3 s.

The heating rate has been determined by measuring the temperature of the cloud after different storage times. Fig. 1b shows the heating rate for different distances to the surface. In all studied scenarios, the heating rate was less than 500 nK/s. For comparison, at a distance of 2 mm a reference value of $`32\pm 8`$ nK/s has been determined, indicating an extremely low technical noise in our apparatus. Thus, the increased heating rate can be addressed to specific effects close to the conductors surface. Heating can be induced due to fluctuations of the magnetic field at the trap frequencies, at their half or harmonics, however we found no indication for such kind of noise in our experiment. Although the lifetime of atomic clouds close to the surface is significantly reduced, this puts only moderate restrictions on applications of magnetic microtraps. For a condensate the heating leads to additional losses. However, it does not necessarily reduce the coherence properties.

More important, we have observed an unexpected periodic fragmentation of the atomic cloud along the conductors at distances of less than approximately 250 $`\mu `$m.

To study this fragmentation we have prepared a cloud of ultra cold atoms at different distances to the surface. Subsequently, the axial confinement of the trap was turned off within 400 ms and a homogeneous bias field was applied along the axial direction in order to retain the parabolic character of the radial confinement. This configuration allows for a free propagation of the atoms in the waveguide. An undisturbed propagation is observed for distances larger than 300 $`\mu `$m. Below 250 $`\mu `$m, the guiding potential obviously exhibits a significant waviness. Fig. 2 shows the distribution of a thermal cloud after 100 ms of expansion in the waveguide. The modulation of the atomic density distribution indicates the presence of an additional periodic trapping potential generated by the microstructure. The spacing between the potential minima is 300 $`\mu `$m and the depth of the potential is on the order of $`k_B\times 1\mu \mathrm{K}`$ which can be estimated by the temperature of the atomic cloud. Changing the distance to the surface has no influence on the position and the period of the potential minima. Releasing a Bose-Einstein condensate in the waveguide allows for the detection of finer substructures. Fig. 3a shows two condensates with a separation of 110 $`\mu `$m. The image was taken 300 ms after the axial relaxation was completed and the waveguide potential was located 100 $`\mu `$m below the microstructure. The axial confinement of the microtrap was completely turned off and the condensates were still trapped in two potential minima at the surface. An even finer structure can be observed at a distance of 50 $`\mu `$m. Fig. 3b shows the formation of individual condensates with a separation of 50 $`\mu `$m. In this experiment, the image was taken directly after the last cooling stage in the trap without ramping down the axial confinement.

The appearance of the surface potentials can be observed at each of the seven conductors of the microstructure. Dependencies of the period and position of the potential structure have to be investigated in future experiments. The experiments were repeated at the 90 $`\mu `$m copper wire. Here, we observe a periodic modulation with a spacing of 220 $`\mu `$m including a substructure with 110 $`\mu `$m.

To exclude interatomic interaction as a possible reason for the separation, we have generated two neighboring condensates as shown in Fig. 4a. One of them was subsequently removed with a focused laser beam. In accordance with our assumption of periodic surface potentials the second condensate remains at the same position, whereas a fraction of the thermal cloud starts to oscillate in the trap.

Magnetic modulations caused by a transverse current variation decay on a length scale which is on the order of the transverse dimension of the conductor. Thus, modulations over larger distances can only be addressed to longitudinal variations. They cannot arise from the flow of the electric current, which has to be constant along the conductor. To exclude any material impurities like ferromagnetic domains, we have made a chemical analysis (energy dispersive X-ray analysis, EDX) of an identical microstructure, which revealed no measurable impurities Fortágh et al. . Trivial causes for modulated electrostatic or gravitational potentials can be excluded. One may speculate that the observed potential modulations could be attributed to longitudinal or transversal spin arrangements of moving electrons in copper Hirsch (1999). Meanwhile, the observations discussed above could be reproduced by two other groups Leanhardt et al. ; Jones et al.  working on microtraps. The common feature of the experiments is the use of copper conductors as current-carrying elements for generating the micro trap, with differences due to the various conductor profiles and currents.

The appearance of additional potentials at the surface has several consequences for the application of magnetic microtraps for Bose-Einstein condensates. A continuous shift of the condensate along the conductor or an undisturbed propagation in a waveguide is only possible at a sufficiently large distance to the surface. Fig. 4b shows a sequence of absorption images where the trapping potential was shifted in the axial direction. As a result the condensates are pinned on the periodic potential and populate subsequent potential minima. Another example for the pinning effect is illustrated in Fig. 4c. The atomic ensemble is shown after 100 ms of free axial expansion in the waveguide. The condensate remains pinned at its original position while the thermal cloud starts to propagate in the waveguide resulting in a separation of the two components.

In conclusion, we have investigated the lifetime and the heating rate of ultra cold gases in the vicinity of a surface for a set of parameters that corresponds to currently used microtrap setups. We find evidence for influences of the surface resulting in a reduction of the lifetime and an increased heating rate. The appearance of a periodic potential near the surface is a qualitatively new phenomenon which has to be investigated in future experiments.

The authors would like to thank G. Mihály for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.


format: text

text:
# Thermal QCD sum rules for mesons

## I Introduction

In their original work extending the vacuum QCD sum rules  to those at finite temperature, Bochkarev and Shaposhnikov  recognised the importance of multiparticle (branch cuts) contributions in addition to those of single particles (poles) in constructing the spectral representation of thermal two-point functions. Thus for the vector current correlation function, they included not only the $`\rho `$-pole with temperature dependent residue and position, but also the $`\pi \pi `$ continuum. In the same way the spectral representation for the nucleon current correlation function would consist of the nucleon pole with temperature dependent parameters and the $`\pi N`$ continuum. Although such a saturation scheme is quite suggestive and had been extensively used in the past , it lacks a theoretical basis, leaving one to suspect if some equally important contributions are left out.

A definitive saturation scheme emerged with the work of Leutwyler and Smilga , who calculated the nucleon current correlation function in chiral perturbation theory. Being interested in the shifts of the nucleon pole parameters at low temperature, they considered all the one-loop Feynman diagrams for the correlation function and evaluated them in the vicinity of the nucleon pole. Koike  examined the contributions of these diagrams in the context of QCD sum rules. He found a new contribution arising from the nucleon self-energy diagram to the sum rules, not required in the saturation scheme mentioned above.

The one-loop Feynman diagrams for the nucleon correlation function were further analysed in Ref. . In this set of diagrams for the correlation function, one has not only diagrams with the (single particle) pole alone and the (two particle) branch point alone, but also other (one particle reducible) diagrams, appearing as product of factors with the pole and the branch cut. As an example, take the case of a vertex correction diagram having this product structure. It may be expressed as the sum of the pole term with constant residue and a remainder, regular at the pole. Clearly to find the pole parameters one may confine oneself to the pole term alone. But if one wishes to evaluate the diagram for large space-like momenta – the region of relevance for the QCD sum rules – both the pole and the remainder become of comparable magnitude. It is these remainder terms which are not included in the earlier saturation scheme.

In this paper we write down the thermal QCD sum rules following from the vector current and the axial vector current correlation functions, constructing the spectral side from the set of all one-loop Feynman diagrams. At low temperature only the distribution function of the pions is significant in the heat bath. Thus, of the two particles in the loop, at least one must be a pion, the other being any one of the strongly interacting particles with appropriate quantum numbers in the low mass region. The vertices occurring in the diagrams are obtainable from the chiral perturbation theory  as well as from other formulations of the effective theory of QCD at low energy . But the former theory alone is based only on the chiral symmetry of QCD, the others assuming one or other unproven symmetries or relations. Thus the chiral perturbation theory is singled out to determine the vertices, if we claim the sum rules to follow from QCD.

As with the nucleon sum rules , we subtract out the vacuum sum rules from the corresponding full sum rules at finite temperature, equating, in effect, terms of $`O(T^2)`$ on both sides. All our calculations are done in the chiral symmetry limit, though we keep nonvanishing pion mass in intermediate steps.

In Sec. II we collect some results to be used later. In Sec. III we analyse the one-loop Feynman diagrams to construct the spectral representation for the correlation functions. In Sec. IV we use the known results of Operator Product Expansion and write the sum rules. Finally our concluding remarks are contained in Sec.V.

## II Preliminaries

Here we review briefly the kinematics of the two point correlation functions of the vector and the axial-vector currents. Then we write the interaction vertices from the chiral perturbation theory and the results of calculation of a prototype loop integral.

### A Kinematics

Consider the two thermal correlation functions,

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=id^4xe^{iqx}Tr\varrho TV_\mu ^a(x)V_\nu ^b(0),$$
(2.1)
and

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}ab}=id^4xe^{iqx}Tr\varrho TA_\mu ^a(x)A_\nu ^b(0),$$
(2.2)
of the vector and axial vector currents,

$`V_\mu ^a(x)=\overline{q}(x)\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^a}{^2}}q(x),A_\mu ^a(x)=\overline{q}(x)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^a}{^2}}q(x),`$

generated by the $`SU(2)`$ flavour symmetry group of the QCD Lagrangian. Here $`\tau ^a`$ are the Pauli matrices and $`\varrho =e^{\beta H}/Tre^{\beta H}`$ is the thermal density matrix of QCD at temperature $`T=1/\beta `$. Note that in the limit of chiral symmetry, in which we shall work, the axial vector current is also conserved and the kinematics, in particular, the invariant decomposition is the same for both the correlation functions.

The current conservation leads to the invariant decomposition

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(q)=\delta ^{ab}(P_{\mu \nu }T_t+Q_{\mu \nu }T_l),$$
(2.3)
where the gauge invariant tensors are chosen as

$`P_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{\overline{q}^2}}\stackrel{~}{u}_\mu \stackrel{~}{u}_\nu ,Q_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{q^4}{\overline{q}^2}}\stackrel{~}{u}_\mu \stackrel{~}{u}_\nu ,`$

with $`\stackrel{~}{u}_\mu =u_\mu \omega q_\mu /q^2`$, where $`u_\mu `$ is the four-velocity of the medium and $`\omega `$ and $`\overline{q}`$ are Lorentz invariant scalars, $`\omega =uq`$ and $`\overline{q}=\sqrt{\omega ^2q^2}`$, representing the time and space components of $`q_\mu `$ in the rest frame of the heat bath $`(u_0=1,\stackrel{}{u}=0)`$. The invariant amplitudes are functions of the scalar variables, say, $`q^2`$ and $`\omega `$. They can be conveniently extracted from the Feynman diagrams by forming the scalars,

$$T_1=g^{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu },T_2=u^\mu u^\nu T_{\mu \nu },$$
(2.4)
which are simply related to the invariant amplitudes.

Having cast the kinematics in a Lorentz invariant form, we choose to do calculations in the rest frame of the heat bath. The kinematic decomposition (2.3) leads to a constraint on the invariant amplitudes which, in this frame reads as

$$T_t(q_0,\stackrel{}{q}=0)=q_0^2T_l(q_0,\stackrel{}{q}=0).$$
(2.5)
Using this equation, the two sets of amplitudes, $`T_{l,t}`$ and $`T_{1,2}`$ can be related for $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$ as

$$T_l=\frac{1}{\overline{q}^2}T_2,T_t=\frac{1}{3}T_1.$$
(2.6)
Note also the symmetry of the imaginary parts of the amplitudes,

$$ImT_{l,t}(q_0,\stackrel{}{q}=0)=ImT_{l,t}(q_0,\stackrel{}{q}=0).$$
(2.7)
In the real time thermal field theory, we are going to use here, each of the above amplitudes stands for a $`2\times 2`$ matrix, whose components depend on a single analytic function . This function, in turn, is determined completely by the 11-component function itself: their real parts are equal and the imaginary part of the former equals $`\pi ^1tanh(\beta q_0/2)`$ times that of the latter. (The factor $`\pi ^1`$ is inserted for convenience.) To avoid further symbols, we henceforth redefine $`T`$ to denote this analytic function. Its spectral representation at fixed $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is given by,

$$T_{l,t}(q_0^2,\stackrel{}{q})=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dq_0^2ImT_{l,t}(q_0^{},\stackrel{}{q})}{q_0^2q_0^2iϵ}.$$
(2.8)
### B Dynamics

As we pointed out already, we must describe interaction among particles according to the chiral perturbation theory. The calculation of the two point functions in this theory is most conveniently carried out in the external field method , where the original QCD Lagrangian is extended by introducing external fields $`v_\mu ^a(x)`$ and $`a_\mu ^a(x)`$ coupled to the currents $`V_\mu ^a(x)`$ and $`A_\mu ^a(x)`$,

$`_{QCD}_{QCD}+v_\mu ^a(x)V_a^\mu (x)+a_\mu ^a(x)A_a^\mu (x).`$

The resulting interaction vertices are obtained in Ref. for the symmetry group $`SU(3)_R\times SU(3)_L`$.

At low temperature the pions dominate the heat bath. We thus consider the reduced symmetry $`SU(2)_R\times SU(2)_L`$ and write down the chiral couplings of pions with the external fields and the observed particles, to be encountered in the one-loop diagrams . We leave out the interaction among the pions themselves, as it would give rise to corrections of order higher than $`T^2`$. Their interaction with external fields are given by

$$_{int}(\pi )=_v(\pi )+_a(\pi )$$
(2.9)
where

$`_v(\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`𝒗_\mu 𝝅\times ^\mu 𝝅+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝝅𝝅𝒗_\mu 𝒗^\mu 𝒗_\mu 𝝅𝒗^\mu 𝝅\right)`$ (2.10)
$`_a(\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_\pi ^2𝒂_\mu 𝒂^\mu F_\pi 𝒂_\mu ^\mu 𝝅{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝝅𝝅𝒂_\mu 𝒂^\mu 𝒂_\mu 𝝅𝒂^\mu 𝝅\right)`$ (2.12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F_\pi }}\left(𝝅𝝅^\mu 𝝅𝒂_\mu 𝝅^\mu 𝝅𝝅𝒂_\mu \right),`$
the letters in bold face denoting isospin vectors. The third and the fourth terms in $`_a(\pi )`$ represent corrections respectively to the first and the second term, when two of the pion fields without derivatives are contracted in them. Such a contraction can be worked out from the thermal pion propagator

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^{(\pi )}(k)=\frac{i}{k^2m_\pi ^2}+2\pi \delta (k^2m_\pi ^2)n(k),$$
(2.13)
where $`n(k_0)=(e^{\beta |k_0|}1)^1`$ is the Bose distribution function. Then the thermal part of the contraction gives

$$Tr\varrho T\pi ^a(x)\pi ^b(x)|_{11}\delta ^{ab}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^3}n(k_0)\delta (k^2m_\pi ^2)=\delta ^{ab}\frac{T^2}{12},$$
(2.14)
in the chiral limit. We thus obtain the effective form of $`_a(\pi )`$ as

$$_a(\pi )=\frac{F_\pi ^2}{2}\left(1\frac{T^2}{6F_\pi ^2}\right)𝒂_\mu 𝒂^\mu F_\pi \left(1\frac{T^2}{12F_\pi ^2}\right)𝒂_\mu ^\mu 𝝅.$$
(2.15)
Next we write the couplings of the isotriplets $`[\rho (770),a_1(1230)]`$ and isosinglets $`[\omega (782),f_1(1282)]`$ of vector $`(1^{})`$ and axial vector $`(1^{++})`$ mesons respectively. Although we take their fields to transform according to $`SU(2)`$ in constructing their interactions, we take the physical (zero temperature) masses of the multiplets of each of the $`SU(3)`$ octets to be degenerate. Then the coupling linear in the vector meson fields are given by

$`(V)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_\rho }{m_V}}\left\{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{12F_\pi ^2}}\right)^\mu 𝒗^\nu (_\mu 𝝆_\nu _\nu 𝝆_\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F_\pi }}^\mu 𝒂^\nu (_\mu 𝝆_\nu _\nu 𝝆_\mu )\times 𝝅\right\}`$ (2.17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2G_\rho }{m_VF_\pi ^2}}_\mu 𝝆_\nu ^\mu 𝝅\times ^\nu 𝝅{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}H_\omega }{m_VF_\pi }}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\omega ^\mu ^\nu 𝝅^\lambda 𝒗^\sigma ,`$
while those linear in the axial vector meson fields are

$`(A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_{a_1}}{m_A}}\left\{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{12F_\pi ^2}}\right)^\mu 𝒂^\nu (_\mu 𝒂_{1\nu }_\nu 𝒂_{1\mu })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F_\pi }}^\mu 𝒗^\nu (_\mu 𝒂_{1\nu }_\nu 𝒂_{1\mu })\times 𝝅\right\}`$ (2.19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}H_{f_1}}{m_AF_\pi }}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }f_1^\mu ^\nu 𝝅^\lambda 𝒂^\sigma .`$
Finally the quadratic couplings of the triplets with the singlets and between themselves are given by

$$(V,A)=2ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\left(\frac{g_1}{F_\pi }^\mu \omega ^\nu 𝝆^\lambda ^\sigma 𝝅+\frac{g_2}{F_\pi }^\mu f_1^\nu 𝒂_1^\lambda ^\sigma 𝝅\right)+\frac{g_3}{F_\pi }^\mu 𝝆^\nu (𝒂_{1\mu }\times _\nu 𝝅𝒂_{1\nu }\times _\mu 𝝅).$$
(2.20)
The coupling constants in the above interaction terms can be determined from the decay rates of the particles . The propagator for the heavy meson can be taken to be the one in vacuum.

There also appear two other spin-one mesons $`h_1(1170)`$ and $`b_1(1235)`$ having quantum numbers $`1^+`$ . But $`P`$ and $`C`$ invariance forbids their appearance in our diagrams . The pseudoscalar $`SU(2)`$ singlets $`\eta (547)`$ and $`\eta ^{}(985)`$ also have no couplings relevant for us. The scalars $`\sigma (4001200)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ do have vertices for our diagrams, but they do not contribute to $`O(T^2)`$, as do many of the vertices written above. We shall omit the vertices with the scalars altogether from our discussions to follow.

With the above interaction vertices we can write the Feynman amplitudes for the correlation functions. A loop in the diagrams makes a contribution of the form

$$F_{\mu \nu }(q)=ic\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}f_{\mu \nu }(q,k)\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^{(\pi )}(k)\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^{(X)}(qk),$$
(2.21)
where the particle $`X`$ can be a heavy (spin one) meson or the pion itself. The tensor $`f_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by the interaction vertices and any tensor structure in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^{(X)}`$. Out of the interaction vertices we have isolated the coupling constants in $`c`$. Being gauge invariant, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ allows one to construct the invariant amplitudes $`F_{l,t}`$ in the same way as we did above for $`T_{\mu \nu }`$.

As we shall see below, the one-particle irreducible diagrams consist only of loop integrals like (2.17), while the reducible ones are given by such integrals multiplied with a heavy particle pole (of first or second order). In the former case we may evaluate directly the leading contribution of the integral and then Borel transform. In the latter case it is more systematic to use the exact spectral representation of the loop integral. We then Borel transform the resulting complete amplitude and extract its leading term.

Until now we have considered full amplitudes, including the corresponding vacuum amplitudes. Our thermal sum rules need only their temperature dependent parts. So we evaluate only these (convergent) parts of the loop integrals, but continue to denote them by the same symbols as for the full amplitudes.

Consider first the case where $`X`$ is a heavy particle of mass $`m_H`$. Let the full amplitude be given by just the loop integral (2.17). Going over to the invariant amplitudes, its thermal part is as

$$F_{l,t}(q)=c\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\delta (k^2m_\pi ^2)n(k)}{(qk)^2m_H^2}f_{l,t}(q,k),$$
(2.22)
whose leading behaviour for large space-like momenta with $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$ $`(q_0^2=E^2=Q^2<0)`$ is given by $`(\omega _k=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+m_\pi ^2})`$

$$F_{l,t}(Q^2,\stackrel{}{q}=0)\frac{2c}{Q^2+m_H^2}\frac{d^3kn(k)}{(2\pi )^32\omega _k}f_{l,t}(Q,|\stackrel{}{k}|).$$
(2.23)
It is clear that only if $`f_{l,t}(Q,|\stackrel{}{k}|)`$ is constant in $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, is the integral of order $`T^2`$; otherwise, it is of higher order.

To obtain the spectral representation of the loop integral for $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$, we note that the cuts in $`E^2`$ plane in this case are given by $`0<E^2<(m_Hm_\pi )^2`$ and $`E^2>(m_H+m_\pi )^2`$. The imaginary parts across both these cuts are given by

$$ImF_{l,t}(E)=\frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2m_\pi ^2}}{8\pi ^2E}n(\omega )f_{l,t}(E,\omega )$$
(2.24)
where $`\omega =(E^2m_H^2+m_\pi ^2)/2E`$. We now have the spectral representation for $`F_{l,t}`$ given by an equation like (2.8), the integration running over the two cuts stated above.

If the particle $`X`$ is also a pion, the leading term of the loop integral may again be found in the same way as we did above for the heavy particle. However, to find the spectral representation for $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$, one must begin with $`\stackrel{}{q}0`$ and then go to the limit. This evaluation is done in the Appendix.

## III Spectral representation

Here we analyse the different one-loop Feynman diagrams for the correlation functions and extract the leading thermal contributions (to order $`T^2`$) to the spectral side of the sum rules. These diagrams are the same as those considered in  to find the shifts in the pole parameters of the $`\rho `$ and $`a_1`$ mesons. The difference lies in the evaluation of the diagrams: While we evaluated them earlier in the neighbourhood of the respective poles, now we have to do so at large space-like momenta.

The diagrams for the correlation functions can be grouped into three types, namely those with intermediate states, vertex corrections and self-energies. To write the Feynman amplitudes we anticipate the following gauge invariant tensors,

$`A_{\mu \nu }(q)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }+q_\mu q_\nu /q^2=P_{\mu \nu }+Q_{\mu \nu }/q^2,`$ (3.1)
$`B_{\mu \nu }(q,k)`$ $`=`$ $`q^2k_\mu k_\nu qk(q_\mu k_\nu +k_\mu q_\nu )+(qk)^2g_{\mu \nu },`$ (3.2)
$`C_{\mu \nu }(q,k)`$ $`=`$ $`q^4k_\mu k_\nu q^2(qk)(q_\mu k_\nu +k_\mu q_\nu )+(qk)^2q_\mu q_\nu .`$ (3.3)
We now consider the diagrams separately for the correlation functions of the vector and the axial vector currents. Although we need only the $`T`$-dependent parts of the diagrams to order $`T^2`$, we shall write the pole amplitudes in full.

### A Vector current

Here the pole and the one-loop diagrams are shown in Figs. 1-4.

The $`\rho `$ pole amplitude with its constant vertex corrections (Fig. 1) is given by

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(\rho )}(q)=\left(\frac{F_\rho }{m_V}\right)^2\left(1\frac{T^2}{6F_\pi ^2}\right)\frac{q^4}{q^2m_V^2}A_{\mu \nu }$$
(3.4)
The amplitudes for the intermediate state diagrams (Fig. 2) are generally of the form of Eq.(2.17). In the case of the $`\pi \pi `$ intermediate state, one has to include also the tadpole diagram of Fig. 2(b) giving

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(\pi \pi )}(q)=i\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\left\{(2kq)_\mu (2kq)_\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^{(\pi )}(k)\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^{(\pi )}(qk)2ig_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^{(\pi )}(k)\right\},$$
(3.5)
whose thermal part is

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(\pi \pi )}(q)=A_{\mu \nu }(2q^2)\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\delta (k^2m_\pi ^2)n(k)}{(qk)^2m_\pi ^2}\frac{T^2}{6}A_{\mu \nu }$$
(3.6)
at large space-like momenta. For the $`\pi a_1`$ intermediate state, the amplitude is given by Eq. (2.17) with

$`c=2(F_{a_1}/m_AF_\pi )^2,f_{\mu \nu }=q^2(q^22qk)A_{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu },`$

getting

$`f_{l,t}=E^2(1,E^2).`$

Then Eq. (2.19) gives

$$T_{l,t}^{(\pi a_1)}\left(\frac{F_{a_1}}{m_A}\right)^2\frac{(Q^2,Q^4)}{Q^2+m_A^2}\frac{T^2}{6F_\pi ^2}$$
(3.7)
The (Borel transforms of the) amplitudes given by Eq. (3.2,3.4,3.5) constitute all of the contributions to the spectral side of the sum rules. In the rest of this subsection we verify that none of the remaining diagrams with $`\pi \omega `$ intermediate state, vertex corrections and self-energies contribute to order $`T^2`$ to the sum rules. Clearly it suffices to show this behaviour for any one of the invariant amplitudes, say $`T_l`$ and we omit its subscript in the following.

For the $`\pi \omega `$ intermediate state, the amplitude is again given by Eq. (2.17) with

$$c=2(H_\omega /m_VF_\pi )^2,f_{\mu \nu }=q^2k^2A_{\mu \nu }+B_{\mu \nu },f=2|\stackrel{}{k}|^2/3,$$
(3.8)
where and below $`f`$ stands for $`f_l`$. Then Eq. (2.21) shows immediately that this amplitude is of order $`T^4`$.

Considering next the vertex corrections of Fig. 3, each of the amplitudes is of the form

$$\frac{F_\rho }{m_V}\frac{q^2}{q^2m_V^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu },$$
(3.9)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }`$ is again a one-loop integral of the form of Eq. (2.17). Consider now

$$\frac{E^2}{E^2m_V^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }(E^2),$$
(3.10)
where the invariant amplitude $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(E^2)`$ satisfies the spectral representation

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(E^2)={\displaystyle \frac{Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(E^{})dE^2}{E^2E^2}},`$

which may be used to write the expression (3.8) as

$$\frac{m_V^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_V^2)}{E^2m_V^2}+\frac{dE^2E^2Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(E^{})}{(E^2m_V^2)(E^2E^2)},$$
(3.11)
separating the pole term from the one regular in the vicinity of the pole. On the other hand, if we go to large space-like $`E^2=Q^2`$ and take the Borel transform, it becomes

$$\frac{e^{m_V^2/M^2}}{M^2}\frac{dE^2Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(E)}{(E^2m_V^2)}\left(m_V^2+E^2e^{(E^2m_V^2)/M^2}\right),$$
(3.12)
where $`M^2`$ is the Borel variable replacing $`Q^2`$.

Eqs. (3.9) and (3.10) allow us to compare how the same amplitude behaves near the pole and at large space-like momenta in the form of the Borel transform. Consider the vertex correction from the $`\pi \omega `$ loop for which $`c=(4\sqrt{2}H_\omega g_1/m_VF_\pi ^2)`$ and the expressions for $`f_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`f`$ are identical to those in Eqs. (3.6). Then we see that in Eq. (3.9) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_V^2)O(T^4)`$ and the second term is indeed finite at $`E^2=m_V^2`$ (and of order $`T^2`$). Next consider the behaviour of the Borel transform (3.10). Because the branch point of the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(E^2)`$ also starts at $`E^2=m_V^2`$, its leading term is given by

$$\left(1\frac{m_V^2}{M^2}\right)\frac{e^{m_V^2/M^2}}{M^2}𝑑E^2Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(E),$$
(3.13)
which is of order $`T^4`$. Thus to $`O(T^2)`$, the vertex correction diagram with the $`\pi \omega `$ loop contributes neither to the pole parameters nor to the Borel transform to $`O(T^2)`$. Notice, however, that while near the pole the second term in Eq. (3.9) can be ignored, for large space-like momenta both the terms assume equal importance.

Consider next the $`\pi a_1`$ loop with

$`c=(4F_{a_1}g_3/m_AF_\pi ^2),f_{\mu \nu }=q^2qkA_{\mu \nu }+B_{\mu \nu },f=E|\stackrel{}{k}|.`$

Again we see that at $`E^2=m_V^2`$, the residue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_V^2)O(T^4)`$. Here the branch point of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(E^2)`$is is at $`E^2=m_A^2`$. So the Borel transform is clearly of order $`T^4`$. As shown in the Appendix, the $`\pi \pi `$ loop contribution is also at least of order $`T^4`$ to the pole residue and Borel transform.

Finally the self-energy diagrams of Fig. 4 can be analysed in a similar way. Each of the diagrams contributes an amplitude of the form

$$\left(\frac{F_\rho }{m_V}\right)^2\frac{q^4}{(q^2m_V^2)^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(q).$$
(3.14)
The self energy $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ is again of the form of Eq. (2.17). Using the spectral representation for its invariant amplitudes, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E^4}{(E^2m_V^2)^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }(E)`$ (3.15)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{m_V^4}{(E^2m_V^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE^2Im\mathrm{\Pi }(E^{})}{E^2m_V^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_V^2}{E^2m_V^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE^2(2E^2m_V^2)Im\mathrm{\Pi }(E^{})}{(E^2m_V^2)^2}}`$ (3.16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{dE^2E^4Im\mathrm{\Pi }(E^{})}{(E^2m_V^2)^2(E^2E^2)}},`$ (3.17)
which is the appropriate expression to study the neighbourhood of the meson pole. If we now go to space-like momenta and take the Borel transform, we get

$$\frac{1}{M^2}𝑑E^2Im\mathrm{\Pi }(E)\left[\left\{1\left(\frac{E^2}{E^2m_V^2}\right)^2+\frac{m_V^2}{M^2}\frac{m_V^2}{E^2m_V^2}\right\}e^{m_V^2/M^2}+\left(\frac{E^2}{E^2m_V^2}\right)^2e^{E^2/M^2}\right]$$
(3.18)
Consider first the $`\pi \omega `$ self-energy loop, whose evaluation reveals the inadequacy of the old saturation scheme. For this loop we have $`c=4(g_1/F_\pi )^2`$ and the expressions for $`f_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`f`$ are again given by Eqs. (3.6). Near the meson pole, the three integrals in (3.13) are all finite and are of order $`T^4,T^2`$ and $`T^2`$ respectively. Thus the pole position does not shift, but the residue does to order $`T^2`$ . On the other hand the Borel transform (3.14), which simplifies to leading order as

$`e^{m_V^2/M^2}{\displaystyle 𝑑E^2\left(1\frac{E^2+m_V^2}{M^2}+\frac{E^4}{2M^4}\right)Im\mathrm{\Pi }(E)},`$

is clearly of order $`T^4`$. To summarise, the self-energy diagram with the $`\pi \omega `$ loop gives a correction to the pole residue to order $`T^2`$, but the Borel transform of the full amplitude has no contribution to this order. By contrast, the old saturation scheme would retain the correction to the residue also in the Borel transform. It amounts to the neglect of the third, regular term in Eq. (3.13), which is of course justified near the pole, but not for large space-like momenta, where the pole and the regular terms are not only of comparable magnitudes, but actually cancel each other in the leading order.

The $`\pi a_1`$ self-energy loop has

$`c=2(g_3/F_\pi )^2,f_{\mu \nu }=B_{\mu \nu }C_{\mu \nu }/m_A^2,f=|\stackrel{}{k}|^2(2+E^2/m_A^2)/3.`$

We see that this amplitude contributes neither to the pole position nor to the Borel transform to $`O(T^2)`$. The same is the case with the $`\pi \pi `$ loop as shown in the Appendix.

### B Axial-vector current

Here the Feynman diagrams are shown in Figs. 5-9. The new feature here is the existence of the pion pole in addition to the one for the axial vector meson $`a_1`$.

The $`\pi `$-pole with vertex corrections of Fig. 5 is given by

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(\pi )}=F_\pi ^2\left(1\frac{T^2}{6F_\pi ^2}\right)A_{\mu \nu }$$
(3.19)
in the chiral limit. The $`a_1`$-pole with vertex corrections of Fig. 6 is given by

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(a_1)}=\left(\frac{F_{a_1}}{m_A}\right)^2\left(1\frac{T^2}{6F_\pi ^2}\right)\frac{q^4}{q^2m_A^2}A_{\mu \nu }.$$
(3.20)
The contribution of the $`\pi \rho `$ intermediate state of Fig. 7 to the invariant amplitudes $`T_{l,t}`$ are given by

$$T_{l,t}^{(\pi \rho )}=\left(\frac{F_\rho }{m_V}\right)^2\frac{T^2}{6F_\pi ^2}\frac{(Q^2,Q^4)}{Q^2+m_V^2}.$$
(3.21)
As in the case of the vector current correlation function, one can show that none of the remaining diagrams contribute to order $`T^2`$ at large space-like momenta.

## IV Sum Rules

We now turn to the operator side of the sum rules. Up to dimension six, the Lorentz scalar operators appearing in the short distance expansion of the product of two currents are $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`m_q\overline{q}q`$, $`G_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }`$ and two four-quark operators. Of the latter two, one arises from the Taylor expansion of the quark bilocal operators arising in the Wick expansion of the currents. This piece turns out to be isospin scalar. The other four-quark operator arises from the Feynman diagram to second order in QCD perturbation expansion, where the large external momentum flows through the internal gluon line.

In the medium there are additional operators, which are Lorentz non-scalars in the rest frame of the heat bath. They can, of course, be written as Lorentz scalars in a general frame by using the four-velocity vector $`u_\mu `$. They first appear as dimension four, which are $`\overline{q}u/q`$, $`u^\mu u^\nu \mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^f`$ and $`u^\mu u^\nu \mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^g`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^{f,g}`$ are the energy momentum tensors of the quark and gluon respectively. More such operators arise at dimension five and six, but generally contain derivatives.

In the process of subtracting out the vacuum sum rule to extract terms of order $`T^2`$, the unit operator drops out. Also drops out $`m_q\overline{q}q`$ in the chiral limit. The isospin scalar four-quark operator cannot have a temperature dependence in the chiral limit. The operator $`\overline{q}u/q`$ does not contribute, as we do not have non-zero chemical potential for the fermions. The thermal expectation value of $`G_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^g`$ are all of order $`T^4`$. Also the expectation values of other operators with derivative(s) are of higher order than $`T^2`$, as each derivative gives rise to an additional power in pion momentum.

Thus we are left with only the isospin non-scalar four quark operator as the relevant one for our sum rules. Their Wilson coefficients are known ,

$`i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}TV_\mu ^a(x)V_\nu ^b(0)}`$ $``$ $`\delta ^{ab}\left(g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3Q^4}}O_A`$ (4.1)
$`i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}TA_\mu ^a(x)A_\nu ^b(0)}`$ $``$ $`\delta ^{ab}\left(g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3Q^4}}O_V`$ (4.2)
where

$`O_V=\alpha _s\overline{q}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^c}{^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^i}{^2}}q\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^c}{^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^i}{^2}}q`$
$`O_A=\alpha _s\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^c}{^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^i}{^2}}q\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^c}{^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^i}{^2}}q`$
and $`\alpha _s=g_s^2/4\pi `$ is the strong interaction fine structure constant.

The thermal average of any operator may be expanded as

$$O=0|O|0+\underset{a}{}\frac{d^3kn(k)}{(2\pi )^32\omega _k}\pi ^a(k)|O|\pi ^a(k)+\mathrm{},$$
(4.3)
where the sum is over the isospin indices of the pion. The pion matrix elements of $`O_{V,A}`$ are easily worked out using PCAC and Current Algebra to get,

$`O_{V,A}=0|O_{V,A}|0{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{6F_\pi ^2}}0|O_VO_A|0`$

It is now simple to write the sum rules for a correlation function by equating the Borel transform of the spectral representation to the operator product expansion. It turns out that both the vector and the axial vector correlation functions give rise to the same sum rules ,

$`F_\rho ^2e^{m_V^2/M^2}+F_{a_1}^2e^{m_A^2/M^2}+F_\pi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3M^4}}0|O_VO_A|0`$ (4.4)
$`m_V^2F_\rho ^2e^{m_V^2/M^2}+m_A^2F_{a_1}^2e^{m_A^2/M^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3M^2}}0|O_VO_A|0`$ (4.5)
It is interesting to observe that these sum rules are nothing but the vacuum sum rules derived from the difference of the correlation functions of the vector and the axial-vector currents, whose spectral side consists of the pole terms from $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$ and $`a_1`$ exchanges. Also as $`M^2`$ tends to infinity, we recover the well known sum rules

$`F_\rho ^2F_{a_1}^2F_\pi ^2=0`$ (4.6)
$`m_V^2F_\rho ^2m_A^2F_{a_1}^2=0`$ (4.7)
originally derived by Weinberg  as superconvergence sum rules for the difference of the spectral functions.

## V Concluding remarks

In this work we have obtained the sum rules following from the two point functions of the vector current and the axial vector current at finite temperature. For a reliable estimate, we calculate their spectral sides using the chiral perturbation theory. The resulting Feynman diagrams (to one loop) can be readily evaluated for their leading thermal contributions.

Though there is a multitude of diagrams to begin with, only a few of these actually contribute to order $`T^2`$. This is due to the presence of derivatives on the pion fields in the interaction vertices derived from the chiral perturbation theory. Among the contributing ones, there is a one-particle reducible, self-energy diagram, whose contribution at space-like momenta is zero to order $`T^2`$. But the old saturation scheme would derive from this diagram a shift to this order in the residue of the meson pole.

The older strategy of determining the temperature dependence of the pole parameters from such sum rules is not relevant anymore, as we have already included the diagrams responsible for this dependence in our calculation of the spectral functions. Our evaluation reproduces the sum rules which follow from the vacuum correlation functions themselves.

The present saturation scheme has been used also for the nucleon correlation function at finite temperature, again reproducing the results obtainable from the corresponding vacuum correlation function . Thus we now have enough confirmation of the correctness of the QCD sum rules in a medium.

Can we get new results from the sum rules in a medium? It would seem that we are merely reproducing the old results in a more complicated way: What one could have from single particle exchange diagrams in vacuum, are now derived from one loop diagrams at finite temperature. But we do not believe the situation to be so. Indeed, having been assured of the correct procedure to saturate the spectral side, we may apply the sum rule technique to other media, like the nuclear medium by introducing the nucleon chemical potential. There are no reliable estimates of higher dimension operators like the four-quark operators in such media. It is these quantities which should be readily available from such sum rules.

## Appendix

Some care is necessary in constructing the spectral representation for the $`\pi \pi `$ loop for $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$. The loop integral gives rise to cuts in the $`q_0^2`$ plane for arbitrary $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ extending over $`0<q_0^2<|\stackrel{}{q}|^2`$ (short cut) and $`q_0^2>4(m_\pi ^2+|\stackrel{}{q}|^2)`$ (unitary cut). As $`\stackrel{}{q}0`$ the short cut shrinks to a point. But the spectral function can be singular in this limit, so that the part of the spectral representation due to this cut may be non-vanishing.

Consider first the $`\pi \pi `$ loop in the vertex diagram. It gives an amplitude of the form of Eq. (3.7), where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }(q)=ic\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}f_{\mu \nu }(q,k)\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^{(\pi )}(k)\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^{(\pi )}(qk),$$
(A.1)
with

$`c=(4G_\rho F_\rho /m_V^2F_\pi ^2),f_{\mu \nu }=(q_\mu 2k_\mu )(q^2k_\nu qkq_\nu ).`$

As in Sec. II the imaginary part of the amplitude may again be obtained directly by integrating over $`k_0`$. But, unlike the case of loops with one pion and one heavy particle, the angular integration in the resulting integral over $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ gives rise to a $`\theta `$-function constraining the limits of $`|\stackrel{}{k}|`$. The imaginary part of the invariant amplitudes may then be worked out to give

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}Im\mathrm{\Lambda }_l\\ Im\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{8(2\pi )^2}_1^{+1}𝑑x\left(\begin{array}{c}q^2x^2/2\\ q^4/6\end{array}\right)\left(1+\frac{2}{e^{\beta (|\stackrel{}{q}|x+q_0)/2}1}\right),q^2>0,$$
(A.2)
and

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}Im\mathrm{\Lambda }_l\\ Im\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{8(2\pi )^2}_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\left(\begin{array}{c}q^2x^2/2\\ q^4/6\end{array}\right)\left(\frac{1}{e^{\beta (|\stackrel{}{q}|xq_0)/2}1}\frac{1}{e^{\beta (|\stackrel{}{q}|x+q_0)/2}1}\right),q^2<0.$$
(A.3)
On the unitary cut the $`x`$-integrals are thus finite as $`\stackrel{}{q}0`$ and because of $`q^2(q^4)`$ in the integrands, their Borel transforms will have no contributions to $`O(T^2)`$. But on the short cut the $`x`$-integrals diverge as $`\stackrel{}{q}0`$. Let us then consider the full Borel transformed amplitude with $`\stackrel{}{q}0`$,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_t\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{M^2}_0^{|\stackrel{}{q}|^2}𝑑q_0^2e^{q_0^2/M^2}\left(\begin{array}{c}Im\mathrm{\Lambda }_l\\ Im\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\end{array}\right).$$
(A.4)
Defining new variables $`\lambda `$ and $`u`$ by $`q_0=\lambda |\stackrel{}{q}|`$ and $`|\stackrel{}{q}|x=u`$, it becomes

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_t\end{array}\right)=\frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|^2}{8(2\pi )^2M^2}_0^1𝑑\lambda ^2e^{\lambda ^2|\stackrel{}{q}|^2/M^2}\lambda _{|\stackrel{}{q}|}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u\left(\begin{array}{c}(1\lambda ^2)u^2/2\\ (1\lambda ^2)^2|\stackrel{}{q}|^4/6\end{array}\right)D$$
(A.5)
where

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda |\stackrel{}{q}|}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (u\lambda |\stackrel{}{q}|)/2}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (u+\lambda |\stackrel{}{q}|)/2}1}}\right)`$ (A.6)
$``$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{du}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta u/2}1}}\right),`$ (A.7)
as $`|\stackrel{}{q}|0`$. Thus the short cut also cannot contribute for $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$.

The $`\pi \pi `$ loop in the self-energy correction is given by Eq.(3.12) where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ is of the form of Eq.(A.1) with $`c=(2G_\rho /m_VF_\pi ^2)^2`$ and $`f_{\mu \nu }=C_{\mu \nu }`$. From the previous treatment it is clear that this amplitude again does not lead to any corrections of $`O(T^2)`$.

## Acknowledgement

One of us (S.M.) acknowledges support of CSIR, Government of India.


text:
# Competition and coexistence of bond and charge orders in (TMTTF)2AsF6

## Abstract

(TMTTF)2AsF6 undergoes two phase transitions upon cooling from 300 K. At $`T_{CO}`$=103 K a charge-ordering (CO) occurs, and at $`T_{SP}`$($`B`$=9 T)=11 K the material undergoes a spin-Peierls (SP) transition. Within the intermediate, CO phase, the charge disproportionation ratio is found to be at least 3:1 from 13C NMR $`T_1^1`$ measurements on spin-labeled samples. Above $`T_{SP}`$ up to about 3$`T_{SP}`$$`T_1^1`$ is independent of temperature, indicative of low-dimensional magnetic correlations. With the application of about 0.15 GPa pressure, $`T_{SP}`$ increases substantially, while $`T_{CO}`$ is rapidly suppressed, demonstrating that the two orders are competing. The experiments are compared to results obtained from calculations on the 1D extended Peierls-Hubbard model.

Inhomogenous charge and spin structures are a consequence of competing interactions and therefore of general interest in correlated electron systems. Examples include the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates Tranquada et al. (1995) and manganites Mori et al. (1998) as well as the quasi-2D organic conductors Miyagawa et al. (2000). The quasi-1D salts made from TMTTF or TMTSF molecules are also susceptible to charge-ordered states. Independent of that, they are well-known for the sequence of ground states accessible by applying pressure or selecting different counterions. For example, the material (TMTTF)2PF6 undergoes transitions from spin-Peierls, antiferromagnetic (AF), spin-density wave (SDW), and finally to superconducting (SC) ground states as the pressure is increased to 4-5 GPa Acachi et al. (2000); Wilhelm et al. (2001). For a long time, it was known that another phase transition occurs in a number of TMTTF salts with both centrosymmetric (e.g., AsF6, SbF6) and non-centrosymmetric (e.g., ReO4) counterions. Only recently Nad et al. (2000); Chow et al. (2000) was the broken symmetry associated with this transition identified as a charge disproportionation.

In TMTTF salts the characteristic temperature of the onset of the charge-ordered (CO) phase is high, on the order of 100 K. It indicates that the interactions driving the CO are relatively strong, and therefore potentially impact the electronic and magnetic properties of the disordered phase. Issues associated with CO correlations in these systems take particular relevance when considering that the nature of the metallic phase of TMTSF salts remains controversial Jerome et al. (1995); Vescoli et al. (1998); Mihaly et al. (2000). Below we report the results of a number of NMR measurements on 13C spin-labeled samples of (TMTTF)2AsF6 in the CO phase. Our principle result is a mapping of the temperature/pressure phase diagram of the SP and CO phases that includes a tetracritical point with a region of coexistence of the two forms of order. There is good agreement between the experiments and the results of calculations on the 1D extended Hubbard Seo and Fukuyama (1997) and Peierls-Hubbard models Mazumdar et al. (2000); Clay et al. (2001).

A review of the characteristics of the CO phase and the phase transition is in order. With counterions PF6, AsF6, and SbF6, the ordering temperature is 62 K, 103 K, and 154 K, respectively. Upon cooling, the salts made with the first two are already well into a region of thermally activated resistivities when the CO transition occurs. The last one undergoes a continuous metal/semiconductor transition at $`T_{CO}`$. The mystery of the order parameter arose from the fact that no evidence for a superlattice was ever found with X-ray scattering. Charge order was identified as the proper description of the order parameter from NMR studies Chow et al. (2000). At high temperatures, the unit cell consists of two equivalent TMTTF molecules related by inversion about the counterion Pouget and Ravy (1996). A low-frequency divergence of the real part of the dielectric susceptibility $`\chi _e`$ is consistent with mean-field-like ferroelectric behavior Nad et al. (2000); Monceau et al. (2001). The observations were taken as evidence for a breaking of the inversion symmetry within the unit cell, and the spontaneous dipole moment is associated with the charge imbalance on the two molecules.

All of the experiments were performed in $`B_0=9`$ T magnetic field (13C NMR frequency $`\nu `$=96.4 MHz). Pressure was applied using a self-clamping BeCu cell, with Flourinert 75 serving as the pressure medium. The reproducible low-temperature pressure was calibrated in separate runs by measuring inductively the change of the superconducting transition temperature of lead. The NMR coil was constructed so that the molecular stacking axis (a) was oriented normal to the static magnetic field. Any significant reorientation about a between experimental runs is excluded by noting that the 13C internuclear dipolar coupling remained unchanged.

In Fig. 1 we show the temperature dependence of the relative hyperfine shifts for all of the unique 13C sites. Once the molecules are inside the solid, the two sites forming the bridge are inequivalent and have different hyperfine shifts. At high temperatures the two molecules within the unit cell are equivalent. Below the phase transition at $`T_{CO}`$=103 K, each of the two lines split into two peaks with equal absorption strengths. We showed this to be a result of a charge disproportionation developing between two inequivalent molecules, and the order parameter amplitude is proportional to the difference of the NMR frequencies within each of the split lines. The character of the transition is 2nd order.

The amplitude of the charge disproportionation can be estimated from the spin lattice relaxation rates. These are shown in Fig. 2. The relaxation rates are about one order of magnitude faster on one of the two types of molecules. Ideally, we expect that $`T_1^1`$, dominated by hyperfine coupling, is proportional to the electronic density on a particular molecule. For isotropic hyperfine interaction and no spectral overlap whatsoever between the respective absorption lines, $`T_1^1`$$`\rho ^2`$, with $`\rho `$ the molecular charge count. Neither one of these conditions is strictly true here, so the ratio of the relaxation rates of sites on the high- and low-density molecules determines a lower bound for the disproportionation, namely 3:1.

Modest applied pressures strongly depress $`T_{CO}`$. The order parameter of the CO phase, taken from the temperature dependence of the splitting of the NMR lines, is shown in Fig. 3 at different pressures. Three effects are visible as the pressure is increased: 1) The maximum splitting is decreased. 2) $`T_{CO}`$ is decreased. 3) The order parameter develops much less steeply.

$`T_{SP}`$ is identified from the temperature dependence of either 13C or 75As $`T_1^1`$. 13C is a spin $`I`$=1/2 nucleus for which $`T_1^1`$ falls precipitously below $`T_{SP}`$. 75As, on the other hand, has spin $`I`$=3/2, so it couples to electric field gradient (EFG) fluctuations produced, for example, by lattice vibrations. The peak in 75$`T_1^1`$ at $`T_{SP}`$ is naturally associated with the critical slowing down of the soft 2$`k_F`$ phonons Brown . The completed phase diagram for (TMTTF)2AsF6 appears in Fig. 4. The CO phase diminishes quite rapidly: $`P=P_c`$0.15 GPa is enough to suppress it.

The phase diagram has a remarkable feature: while $`T_{CO}`$ is decreasing, $`T_{SP}`$ increases significantly up to about 150% of its ambient pressure value. After the CO is suppressed at $`P_c`$, $`T_{SP}`$ decreases weakly with additional pressure. The maximum of $`T_{SP}`$ at $`P_c`$ indicates that the CO site order and the SP bond order are competing. If the competition is sufficiently weak, the order parameters will coexist. Otherwise, a first-order transition line divides the two phases. In principle, the CO and SP order parameters could be simultaneously characterized by X-ray scattering experiments. To date, we are not aware of a published X-ray report of the CO phase, even at ambient pressure. We call attention to this not only because NMR is a local probe, but also because the methods desbribed above for determining the CO order parameter do not work in the SP phase. This is because the paramagnetic shifts are nearly absent for the singlet ground state and all 13C sites are equivalent. There is an exception: magnetic fields $`B`$ larger than a critical value $`B_c`$ produce an incommensurate (I) phase, through the generation of triplet excitations. In a 1D picture, the triplets consist of soliton/anti-soliton pairs. Typically $`B_cT_{SP}`$. Although it is not measured for (TMTTF)2AsF6, we know that $`B_c`$=19 T for the PF6 salt Brown et al. (1998). Applied fields greater than 19 T resulted in broadened NMR lines associated with the staggered spin density of the excitations Brown et al. (1999). Lineshapes demonstrating the effect near to Bc are shown in Fig. 5. At low fields, we see a single line showing that all 13C sites are equivalent in the SP phase. If the CO is still present, we expect the absorption at high fields to consist of exactly 4 contributions all of which are identical. Two contributions are expected without the CO. Four well-separated ”ledges” are evident on each side of the maximum at the higher field, which we interpret as coming from the nuclei near the center of the soliton-like excitations where the staggered spin density is maximum Hijmans et al. (1985); Fagot-Revurat et al. (1996). The substantial differences in hyperfine fields on the four sites indicates that the disproportionation remains large even in the ground state, i.e., the two orders coexist as shown in Fig. 4. A smaller charge disproportionation is also expected in the SP phase Clay et al. (2001) at high pressures, but our experimental setup did not allow to investigate it.

We should emphasize that the 1D extended Peierls-Hubbard model contains most of the essential physics that produces the observed phase diagram. Justification for a quasi-1D point of view follows from the fact that the molecular spacing along the stack alternates Pouget and Ravy (1996). It can be modeled by introducing intrachain hopping integrals $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ along the stack. Therefore, the system is half-filled and electron-electron Umklapp scattering in 1D opens a charge gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho `$ Emery et al. (1982). Provided that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho t_{}`$, where $`t_{}`$ is the transverse hopping, 1D confinement leads to an insulating state even at high temperatures and at $`T>T_{CO}`$.

Without phonon coupling, the 1D extended Hubbard model will produce a CO state if the Coulomb interaction is sufficiently large and long-ranged Emery et al. (1982), i.e., the nearest-neighbor interaction $`V>V_c`$ Seo and Fukuyama (1997). In the TMTTF salts, it is expected that $`V`$ is very close to the predicted threshold obtained in strong-coupling perturbation theory Mila (1996); Clay et al. (2001). Further, the large lower bound that we infer for the charge disproportionation is quantitatively reasonable when compared to model parameters Seo and Fukuyama (1997); Clay et al. (2001). The principle effect of pressure is to increase the hopping integrals, which leads to a rapid destabilization of the CO phase, just as we observe. $`P>P_c`$ results in a SP ground state, once the phonon coupling is included.

Regarding the high-temperature CO phase, there are two qualitative differences between recent numerical works and our experimental observations. One of them is the expectation that the CO occurs together with the metal-insulator transition Clay et al. (2001). The other is the character of the transition. The measurements are consistent with the CO phase transition being a continuous one along the entire line, whereas mean-field calculations describe the transition as first order. Including the dimerization of the 1D stack is known to eliminate the first-order character in the mean-field calculations of the 1D extended Hubbard model Seo and Fukuyama (1997). Therefore, it is very likely that the dimerization is crucial in three respects. First, it confines coherent charge motion to the stacks and because of this it is appropriate to compare to 1D models. Second, the confinement assures that a metal-insulator crossover occurs at a high temperature, perhaps far above $`T_{CO}`$. Third, it changes the character of the CO transition from first-order to second-order.

Returning to the issue of metal vs. insulator in the TMTTF salts, there is one choice of centrosymmetric counterion, SbF6, which undergoes a real transition to an insulating state at $`T_{CO}`$ Laversanne et al. (1984). The reason is thought to be that the larger size of SbF6 relative to, say PF6, leads to a smaller difference between the alternating hopping integrals, $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$, and the 1D Umklapp scattering is not strong enough relative to $`t_{}`$ to open the charge gap. It still undergoes a CO transition at $`T_{CO}`$=154 K, though the system should be thought of as inherently quasi-2D. Consequently, we do not expect the ground state to have spin-Peierls character, and indeed, it is antiferromagnetic Coulon et al. (1986).

In conclusion, we studied the pressure dependence of the relative stability of the CO and SP phases observed in (TMTTF)2AsF6 using 13C NMR spectroscopy and spin-lattice relaxation measurements. The coexistence of the two orders was established along with the existence of a tetracritical point in the temperature/pressure phase diagram. The CO phase is suppressed easily with modest pressure; the natural interpretion is that it results from the effect of the increasing bandwidth relative to the strength of the near neighbor Coulomb repulsion $`V`$ within the stacks. The lower-bound for the charge disproportionation is set at 3:1. The phase diagram and disproportionation amplitude are consistently compared to results of calculations on the 1D extended Hubbard and Peierls-Hubbard models.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The work was supported by the NSF under grant no. DMR-9971530. We would like to acknowledge helpful discussions with S. Brazovskii, R. T. Clay, S. Kivelson, and S. Mazumdar.


text:
# Exact Solution of a Drop-push Model for Percolation

## Abstract

Motivated by a computer science algorithm known as ‘linear probing with hashing’ we study a new type of percolation model whose basic features include a sequential ‘dropping’ of particles on a substrate followed by their transport via a ‘pushing’ mechanism. Our exact solution in one dimension shows that, unlike the ordinary random percolation model, the drop-push model has nontrivial spatial correlations generated by the dynamics itself. The critical exponents in the drop-push model are also different from that of the ordinary percolation. The relevance of our results to computer science is pointed out.

PACS numbers: 64.60.A, 02.50.-r, 05.40.-a, 89.20.-a

The ordinary site or bond percolation and its various generalizations are amongst the most well studied problems in statistical physics. Motivated by a well known computer science algorithm known as ‘linear probing with hashing’ (LPH), we introduce and study in this Letter a new type of percolation model. Borrowing a name from the models of activated flow through traps we call this a ‘drop-push’ model since it has two basic features: a sequential ‘dropping’ of particles on a substrate followed by the transport of the dropped particles via a ‘pushing’ mechanism caused by the local hardcore repulsion between particles on the substrate. Unlike in the ordinary percolation, we show that the dynamics of the drop-push model generates nontrivial spatial correlations between sites. Our exact solution in one dimension shows that the critical exponents associated with the percolation transition in the drop-push model are different from those of the ordinary percolation. As an additional bonus, our approach also rederives, in a straightforward way, a key result on the cost function in the LPH algorithm obtained recently by computer scientists using more involved combinatorial techniques. Our model is also easily generalizable to higher dimensions.

The LPH algorithm was originally introduced by Knuth and has remained popular in computer science due to its simplicity, efficiency and general applicability. It can be described as follows: Consider $`M`$ items $`x_1`$, $`x_2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`x_M`$ to be placed sequentially into a table with $`L`$ cells labelled $`1`$, $`2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`L`$. For each item $`x_i`$, a cell with label $`h_i\{1,2,\mathrm{},L\}`$ is selected. The label $`h_i`$ is called the hash address and is usually chosen randomly from the set $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},L\}`$. The item $`x_i`$ is inserted at the $`h_i`$-th cell provided it is empty. Otherwise one tries cells $`h_i+1`$, $`h_i+2`$, etc. until an empty cell is found (the locations of the cells are interpreted modulo $`L`$) where the item $`x_i`$ is finally inserted. From the computer science point of view, the object of interest is the cost function $`S(M,L)`$ defined as the total number of unsuccessful probes encountered in inserting the $`M`$ items into a table of size $`L`$. This cost function measures the construction cost of the table as well as the time to search for an item later. The statistics of this cost function were found to be very different in the sparse table (when the density $`M/L<<1`$) compared to the full table (when $`M/L1`$). We show below that, when interpreted as an interacting particle system, this crossover from the sparse to full table corresponds precisely to a percolation transition which belongs to a different universality class than that of the ordinary site or bond percolation.

In our equivalent drop-push model (Fig. 1), we interpret the table as a lattice of size $`L`$ with periodic boundary conditions. The cells are the lattice sites and each site can contain at most one particle. One starts with an empty lattice. At each step a particle is dropped into a randomly selected site. If the target site is empty, the incoming particle occupies it. If however the site was already occupied, the particle keeps hopping to the right until it finds an empty site where it then stays (see Fig. 1). One then repeats the same procedure with the next particle and so on. The dropping process in this model is similar to that of random sequential adsorption (RSA) and the car parking processes, however the adsorption mechanism in the drop-push model is quite different from the usual RSA models. In the car parking language, in this drop-push model, a new car arrives at a random spot on a one way lane and moves forward till it finds an empty parking spot. Unlike usual car parking models, here a car always manages to find a spot and thus the system never gets stuck in a jammed state. Note that although we have defined the hopping of the particle to be unidirectional, one can also consider an unbiased version where a particle, if dropped onto an occupied cluster, performs an unbiased random walk on the occupied cluster till it finds an empty site where it is then attached. We show below that in one dimension, the results are independent of this bias.

Each addition of a new particle corresponds to incrementing the density $`t=M/L`$ by the amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1/L`$. Thus in the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, the density $`t`$ becomes a continuous ‘time’ like variable that increases monotonically from $`t=0`$ (empty lattice) to $`t=1`$ (full lattice). For convenience, we will henceforth refer to the density $`t`$ as ‘time’ with $`0t1`$. The central objects of our analysis are $`P_n(t)`$ and $`Q_n(t)`$ denoting respectively the number (per unit length) of particle and hole clusters of size $`n`$ at time $`t`$ (see Fig. 1). The total number of particle (hole) clusters is denoted by $`N(t)=_nP_n(t)=_nQ_n(t)`$. Note that as $`t`$ increases continuously from $`0`$ to $`1`$, one expects that $`N(t)`$ starting from $`N(0)=0`$ should increase initially but will eventually decrease to $`0`$ again as $`t1`$ when the lattice is nearly full. Thus $`N(t)`$ has an interesting nonmonotonic behavior in $`0t1`$ with a maximum (when the system has the largest number of clusters) at an intermediate time $`t^{}`$ (see the inset of Fig. 2). We also note the sum rules corresponding to the particle and the hole densities: $`_nnP_n(t)=t`$ and $`_nnQ_n(t)=(1t)`$.

The key observation that allows the exact solution in one dimension is the fact that the ‘cluster’ or ‘domain’ densities $`P_n`$’s and $`Q_n`$’s are statistically independent at all times $`0t1`$. This follows from the fact that the adsorption of a new particle at the edge of a particle (hole) cluster does not introduce correlations between the adjacent particle and hole clusters. A rigorous justification of this fact, details of which will be published elsewhere, follows from the observation that the domain walls in the drop-push model can be viewed as the zero crossings of a Markov process in space (at a fixed time $`t`$). Thus if one labels a configuration $`𝒞`$ by the set $`\{n_i\}`$ where $`n_i`$’s denote the lengths of the alternate particle and hole clusters, then the probability of $`𝒞`$ is given by the product measure, $`\mathrm{Prob}[𝒞,t]P_{n_1}(t)Q_{n_2}(t)P_{n_3}(t)Q_{n_4}(t)\mathrm{}`$. In other words, the independent interval approximation (IIA) is exact in this model. The next step is to write down the exact rate equation of evolution of $`P_n`$’s and $`Q_n`$’s by accounting for all the gain and loss terms due to the addition of a new particle and exploiting the factorization property of the probabilities. Similar types of IIA equations have been used in one dimensional coarsening problems. The rate equation for the $`Q_n`$’s turn out to be simple

$$\frac{dQ_n}{dt}=\left(n+\frac{t}{N}\right)Q_n+2\underset{m=n+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q_m+\frac{t}{N}Q_{n+1},$$
(1)
valid for all $`n1`$. The first term denotes the loss of a hole cluster of size $`n`$ due to an adsorption of a particle by direct hit at any of the available $`n`$ sites and also due to a hit at any occupied site of the neighboring particle cluster to the left which then transports the particle to the leftmost site of the hole cluster. The latter happens with rate $`_kkP_k/N=t/N`$. The second term denotes a gain in $`Q_n`$ due to a direct hit inside a hole cluster of size bigger than $`n`$. The factor $`2`$ denotes that there are only two places available for the incoming particle in order to generate a hole cluster of size $`n`$ from a bigger hole cluster. The third term indicates a gain of a hole cluster of size $`n`$ from that of size $`n+1`$ due to a particle adsorption at its left edge. One can similarly write down the equations for the $`P_n`$’s though they turn out to be trickier. Omitting the details, we present only the final results

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP_n}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(n+2+{\displaystyle \frac{tQ_1}{N^2}}\right)P_n+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1}{N}}\right)(n+1)P_{n1}`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}(j+1)P_jP_{n1j},n2`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP_1}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(3+{\displaystyle \frac{tQ_1}{N^2}}\right)P_1+{\displaystyle \underset{m=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(m2)Q_m.`$ (4)
Although the above equations are written down for the unidirectional version of the model, a careful analysis shows that they remain unchanged for the general case in which the dropped particle moves to the right with probability $`p`$ or to the left with probability $`(1p)`$.

As an important consistency check, one can verify that both the Eqs. (1) and (4) satisfy the respective sum rules $`_nnQ_n=(1t)`$ and $`_nnP_n=t`$. One can also write down the evolution equation for the total domain density via direct inspection of the process,

$$\frac{dN}{dt}=2N\frac{t}{N}Q_1+1t.$$
(5)
It is easy to check that both Eqs. (1) and (4) when summed over $`n`$ satisfy Eq. (5) thus providing yet another useful consistency check.

We note that Eq. (1) for the $`Q_n`$’s does not involve the $`P_n`$’s, but is however implicitly nonlinear due to the occurrence of $`N=_nQ_n`$ on the right hand side. However Eq. (1) admits a very simple pure exponential solution as found in many RSA models. The ansatz $`Q_n(t)=A(t)\mathrm{exp}[nB(t)]`$ satisfies Eq. (1) for all $`n1`$ with the choice $`A(t)=2(1t)[\mathrm{cosh}(t)1]`$ and $`B(t)=t`$. One then gets the exact solution for the domain density $`N(t)=_nQ_n(t)=(1t)(1e^t)`$ which is nonmonotonic in $`0t1`$ and is asymmetric about its unique maximum at $`t^{}=0.4428\mathrm{}`$ (see Fig. 2). Note that in the ordinary site percolation in $`1`$-d with occupation probability $`t`$, the domain density is simply given by $`N(t)=t(1t)`$ which is symmetric about the maximum at $`t^{}=1/2`$.

We next substitute the exact solution for the $`Q_n`$’s into Eq. (4) and first solve for $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$. The exact solutions $`P_1(t)=t(1t)e^{2t}`$ and $`P_2(t)=3t^2(1t)e^{3t}/2`$ suggest the ansatz: $`P_n(t)=a_n(1t)t^ne^{(n+1)t}`$. Indeed this ansatz solves Eq. (4) provided the $`a_n`$’s satisfy the nonlinear recursion relation,

$$na_n=(n+1)a_{n1}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}(i+1)a_ia_{n1i},$$
(6)
starting with $`a_1=1`$. The first few values are $`a_2=3/2`$, $`a_3=8/3`$, $`a_4=125/24`$ etc. From Eq. (6) it follows that the generating function $`\stackrel{~}{a}(z)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_nz^n`$ is given by $`\stackrel{~}{a}(z)=1+T(z)/z`$ where $`T(z)`$ is the well known tree function given by the solution of the equation $`T(z)\mathrm{exp}[T(z)]=z`$. It is easy to see that the function $`T(z)`$ has a singularity at $`z=1/e`$ where $`T(z)1\sqrt{2(1ez)}+\mathrm{}`$. This tree function appears in problems related to the counting of rooted labelled trees with various applications in computer science as well as many physics problems such as aggregation models and the classical hard sphere fluid in large dimensions. Using the known properties of $`T(z)`$, we then get $`a_n=(n+1)^{n1}/n!`$ for all $`n1`$. We have also checked that the exact solutions

$`Q_n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(1t)\left(e^t1\right)^2e^{(n+1)t}`$ (7)
$`P_n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(1t)t^ne^{(n+1)t}{\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)^{n1}}{n!}}`$ (8)
match perfectly with the numerical results obtained via the Monte Carlo simulation of the drop-push model (see Fig. 2).

Clearly at $`t=1`$, there is only one infinite particle cluster and the system percolates. We now analyze the scaling behavior of the cluster distributions near the critical point $`t=1`$. From Eq. (8), we find that for large $`n`$, $`P_n(t)\frac{(1t)}{\sqrt{2\pi }}n^\theta \mathrm{exp}[n/n^{}(t)]`$ where $`n^{}(t)=1/(t1\mathrm{log}t)`$ and the Parisi-Sourlas exponent is given exactly by $`\theta =3/2`$. Note that for the ordinary percolation in one dimension, $`P_n(t)=(1t)^2t^n`$ indicating $`\theta =0`$. In the limit $`t1`$, the typical cluster size diverges as $`n^{}(t)2(1t)^2`$ and one obtains the Stauffer scaling form for the cluster size, $`P_n(t)n^\tau f[n(1t)^\sigma ]`$ with the Fisher exponent $`\tau =2`$ (as in the ordinary percolation) and $`\sigma =2`$ (in contrast to the ordinary percolation where $`\sigma =1`$). The exact scaling function here $`f(z)=\sqrt{\frac{z}{2\pi }}e^{z/2}`$ also differs from that of the ordinary percolation where $`f(z)=z^2e^z`$. Consequently the susceptibility exponent given by the scaling relation $`\gamma =(3\tau )/\sigma `$ also differs in the two models. For the drop-push model $`\gamma =1/2`$, where as $`\gamma =1`$ for the ordinary percolation.

We now turn to the correlation function $`G_n(t)`$ denoting the probability that two occupied sites separated by a distance $`n`$ belong to the same cluster at time $`t`$. For convenience we introduce the binary variable $`\sigma _i`$ such that $`\sigma _i=1`$ if the site $`i`$ is occupied and $`\sigma _i=0`$ otherwise. Then by definition $`G_n=\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{i+n}`$. We also note that by definition the particle cluster density $`P_n=\overline{\sigma }_i\sigma _{i+1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{i+n}\overline{\sigma }_{i+n+1}`$ where $`\overline{\sigma }_i=1\sigma _i`$. As a consequence one obtains the exact relation, $`G_{n+1}+G_{n1}2G_n=P_n`$. Using the exact scaling form of $`P_n`$ and integrating twice with respect to $`n`$ we find that in the scaling limit $`t1`$, $`n\mathrm{}`$, $`G_n(t)g[n(1t)^\nu ]`$ where the correlation length exponent $`\nu =2`$ and the exact scaling function $`g(z)=(1+z)\mathrm{erfc}(\sqrt{\frac{z}{2}})\sqrt{\frac{2z}{\pi }}e^{z/2}`$. These results should be compared to those for the ordinary percolation with occupation density $`t`$ where $`G_n(t)=t^n`$ indicating that $`\nu =1`$ and $`g(z)=e^z`$ trivially.

To elucidate the nontrivial spatial correlations in the drop-push model we have also computed the conventional two point correlation function, $`C_n(t)=\sigma _i\sigma _{i+n}\sigma _i\sigma _{i+n}`$, the connected part of the joint probability that two sites at distance $`n`$ are both occupied. Note that for the ordinary percolation, $`C_n(t)=0`$ for all $`n1`$ and $`0t1`$. In contrast, we show that $`C_n(t)`$ is nontrivial in the drop-push model. In order to compute it, we add up the possibilities that there may be no holes between the two sites, or maybe only one hole cluster, or two hole clusters etc. This method of expressing the correlation function in terms of the interval size distributions was used before in other contexts. Omitting details we present only the final expression for the generating function $`\stackrel{~}{C}(z)=_nC_n(t)z^n`$

$$\stackrel{~}{C}(z)=\frac{1t}{1z}\left[zt1+\frac{t(1z)}{tT(zte^t)}\right],$$
(9)
where $`T(z)`$ is the tree function defined earlier. Using the properties of the tree function it is straightforward, though somewhat tedious, to derive the asymptotic scaling properties of $`C_n(t)`$. We find after some algebra that in the scaling limit $`t1`$, $`n\mathrm{}`$ but keeping $`z=n(1t)^2`$ fixed, $`C_n(t)(1t)^2F[n(1t)^2]`$ where the exact scaling function $`F(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi z}}e^{z/2}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{erfc}(\sqrt{\frac{z}{2}})`$. The function $`F(z)1/\sqrt{2\pi z}`$ as $`z0`$ and $`F(z)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }z^{3/2}}e^{z/2}`$ as $`z\mathrm{}`$.

We now turn to the total cost function $`S(t)`$ in the LPH algorithm, i.e. in the drop-push model with unidirectional transport. The cost $`\mathrm{\Delta }S(t)`$ to insert a new particle at time $`t`$ is precisely the expected number of unsuccessful probes, i.e., the expected number of hops that the new particle undergoes before getting adsorbed into the right edge of a particle cluster. Consider a particle cluster of size $`k`$ at time $`t`$. The incoming particle can drop anywhere on this cluster and the number of hops is simply the distance of the target site from the right edge of the cluster. Noting that the cluster size can vary from $`1`$ to infinity, one then gets $`\mathrm{\Delta }S(t)=_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\left(_{j=1}^kj\right)P_k(t)=\frac{1}{2}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}k(k+1)P_k(t)`$. Using the exact result for $`P_k(t)`$ from Eq. (8) we get $`\mathrm{\Delta }S(t)=t(2t)/[2(1t)^2]`$. The total cost function is then given by $`S(t)=_0^t\mathrm{\Delta }S(t^{})𝑑t^{}=t^2/[2(1t)]`$, in agreement with the result derived by the computer scientists using rather involved combinatorial techniques. More details on the statistics of this cost function for finite size tables have also been derived recently.

Finally this drop-push model can be easily generalized to higher dimensions. Let us consider, for simplicity, the the unbiased version. One starts with an empty lattice of linear size $`L`$ in $`d`$-dimensions with periodic boundary conditions. At each step one drops a particle at a randomly chosen site. The incoming particle occupies the target site provided it was empty. Otherwise the dropped particle performs a random walk starting at the target site until it finds an empty site and sticks there. One then adds another particle and the process continues. It follows from the simple electrostatic analogy that when a particle drops onto an occupied cluster, it has equal probability to subsequently stick to any of the surface sites of this cluster. In this sense this model to similar to the celebrated Eden model. However, unlike the Eden model, here one can have many different seed sites from which a new cluster can grow. Also the probability that a given cluster will grow by absorbing a new particle is proportional to the volume of the cluster in the drop-push model. Note that this model is also different from the previously studied cooperative adsorption models, the cluster-cluster aggregation models and the random dynamical percolation model. It is clear that there will be a critical density $`t=t_c<1`$ at which the particle clusters start to percolate. An outstanding question is whether this percolation transition in higher dimensions, as in the $`1`$-d case, belongs to a different universality class than that of the ordinary site percolation. Our preliminary numerical simulations in $`2`$-d indicate that indeed this may be the case. We defer these results and other details for a future communication.

We thank M. Barma and D. Dhar for useful discussions.