text:
# Spin-Hall and spin-diagonal conductivity in the presence of Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling

## Abstract

We investigate the spin-current linear response conductivity tensor to an electric field in a paramagnetic two dimensonal electron gas with both Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling in the weak scattering regime. In the ususal case where both spin-orbit-split bands are occupied, we find that the spin-Hall conductivity depends only on the sign of the difference in magnitude of the Rashba and Dresselhaus coupling strengths except within a narrow window where both coupling strengths are equal. We also find a new effect in which a spin current is generated in the direction of the driving field whenever the Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling is nonzero. We discuss experimental implications of this finding taking into account the finite mobility and typical parameters of current samples and possible experimental set ups for its detection.

The manipulation of spin by electrical means in semiconducting enviroments has generated a lot of recent theoretical and experimental research aimed to develop useful spintonic devices and novel physical concepts wolf , many focusing on effects that generate spin-polarized current spincurrent . Given the success of ferromagnetic metal based spintronic devices gmr  which have revolutionized the information storage industry, the possibility of doping, gating, and heterojunction formation in seminconducting spintronic devices makes their possibilites that much wider. However, the practical implementation of semiconducting spintronics is awaiting the resolution of effective injection of spin-polarized carriers spininject  from ferromagnetic metals combined with long spin lifetimes awschalom , or room-temperature semiconductor ferromagnetism ohno . The recent discovery of the intrinsic spin-Hall effect by Murakami et al murakami  in p-doped semiconductors and by Sinova et al sinova  in Rashba spin-orbit coupled two dimensional electron gases (2EDGs) offers new avenues in spintronics research and transport phenomena which may meet the first challenge.

The intrinsic spin-Hall effect consist of a dissipationless spin-current generated perpendicular to the driving electric field in the weak-scattering limit where spin-orbit coupling is strong. This effect contrasts with the extrinsic spin-Hall effect recently revived by Hirsch hirsch  and Zhang zhang  and first studied by Dyakonov and Perel dyakonov , where spin-orbit dependent scattering from impurities can generate a Hall spin-current but will vanish in the weak scattering limit, where the intrinsic effect dominates. The intrinsic spin-Hall effect predicted by Murakami et al murakami ; murakami2  and Sinova et al sinova ; dimi  has generated interest within the theoretical community hu ; schliemann\_spin\_Hall , supporting the need for a strong experimental effort in detecting such an effect. In the Rashba spin-orbit coupled 2DEGs it was shown that the intrinsic spin-Hall conductivity has a universal value $`e/8\pi `$ in the case of both spin-split subbands being occupied note ; sinova . Motivated by recent experiments miller ; ganichev2  which have demonstrated the ability to tune the magnitude of the Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling strength directly and by the fact that when both coupling strengths are equal the quasiparticles are effectively spin-orbit decoupled schliemannprl  and the intrinsic spin-Hall effect should vanish, we extend our prior studies to include 2DEGs with both Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling. We find that the spin Hall conductivity remains universal in the weak scattering limit except for a small window where the spin-orbit coupling strengths are equal and changes sign when the difference of the spin-orbit coupling strenghts change sign. We also find a novel effect in which a spin-polarized current is generated in the direction of the driving electric field whenever the Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling is nonzero which should have important consequences if observed.

The Hamiltonian which we consider contains the spin-orbit coupling interaction form for a two-dimensional electron gas mishchenko

$$H_{so}=\lambda (\widehat{\sigma }_xp_y\widehat{\sigma }_yp_x)+\beta (\widehat{\sigma }_xp_x\widehat{\sigma }_yp_y),$$
(1)
where the first term is the Bychkov-Rashba term due to the lack of inversion symmetry of the trapping well rashba  and the second is the linear Dresselhaus term due to the lack of inversion symmetry in bulk semiconductors dresselhaus . Hence the full particle Hamiltonian can be written as

$$H=\left(\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m^{}}\mu \right)\sigma _0+\alpha _{ik}\sigma _ip_k,\alpha _{ik}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\beta & \lambda \\ \lambda & \beta \end{array}\right)$$
(2)
This Hamiltonian has a simple spectra given by

$$\xi _\pm (𝐤)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m^{}}\mu \pm k\sqrt{(\lambda ^2+\beta ^2)+2\lambda \beta sin(2\varphi )}$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\varphi =k_y/k_x`$, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, and the corresponding eigenfunctions are given by

$$\psi _\pm (𝐫)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{i\theta _k/2}\\ \pm e^{i\theta _k/2}\end{array}\right)e^{i𝐤𝐫}$$
(4)
where

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _k=\frac{\lambda k_x+\beta k_y}{\lambda k_y+\beta k_x}.$$
(5)
The Rashba coupling strength in a 2DEG can be modified by a gate field by up to 50% nitta ; miller  and therefore this system affords the study to the intricate interplay between both types of coupling directly whose ratio $`\lambda /\beta `$ can vary between 1.5 and 2.5 typically ganichev2 . Recent observations of a spin-galvaic effect ganichev ; ganichev2  and a spin-orbit coupling weak localization studies in these systems miller ; peter ; koga  illustrate the potential importance of these tunable interactions in semiconductor spintronics inoue . Indeed, this intricate interplay has generated several theoretical studies of their transport properties due to the anisotropies created in the Fermi surfaces for $`\alpha \beta `$ schliemannprb ; mishchenko  and a new proposed spin-FET schliemannprl  in the regime where $`\lambda =\beta `$ motivated by the original proposal by Datta and Das datta .

In the Rashba coupled 2DEG ($`\beta =0`$), Sinova et al sinova  found that the dc z-component spin-current Hall response to a driving internal electric field, $`j_s^z=\sigma _{xy}^{\mathrm{spin}}E_y`$, within the weak scattering limit has a universal value whenever the two Rashba split bands are occupied (the usual case), $`\sigma _{xy}^{\mathrm{spin}}=\frac{e}{8\pi }`$, and vanishes linearly with the electron density when only one Rashba split band is occupied. This result was obtained both within the Kubo linear response formalism in the dc-weak scattering limit sinova  and within an equivalent and more physically transparent multi-band wave-packet dynamics theory dimi  generalizing the theory introduced by Qian et al sundaram  to account more rigorously for the consequences of the time-dependent effective magnetic field that is experienced by the electron spins as they move through momentum space.

To address the interplay between the Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling and its consequence on the spin-current response to an applied electric field we use the linear response Kubo formalism in the weak scattering limit, where as usual it is assumed that the dc limit is taken with $`\omega /\eta >>1`$ while both $`\omega `$ and $`\eta `$, the inverse of the quasiparticle lifetime induced by weak scattering, go to zero AM . We will address the effects of finite quasiparticle lifetime, i.e. finite mobility samples, within the Born approximation below similarly to references sinovaprb  and schliemann\_spin\_Hall . In this Kubo formalism approach, the intrinsic spin-Hall conductivity arises as a reactive term in the spin-current response to an electric field which has the form

$`\sigma _{\alpha y}^{\mathrm{spin}}`$ $`=`$ $`e\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{nn^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{k}}{(2\pi )^2}(f_{n^{},k}f_{n,k})}`$ (6)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}[n^{}k|\widehat{j}_{\mathrm{spin}\alpha }^z|nknk|\widehat{v}_y|n^{}k]}{(\xi _{nk}\xi _{n^{}k})^2}}`$
where $`n,n^{}=\pm `$, $`\stackrel{}{j}_{\mathrm{spin}}^z=\frac{\mathrm{}}{4}\{\widehat{\sigma }_z,\stackrel{}{v}\}`$, $`\stackrel{}{v}=H(k)/\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{k}`$ , and $`\alpha =x,y`$ inoue . From the strong transport anisotropies induced by the change in Fermi surfaces whenever $`\lambda `$ and $`\beta `$ differ, it was expected that the universal spin-Hall conducitivity found in sinova  in the weak scattering regime would be significantly modified. Inserting eigenvalues, Eq. 3, and eigenvectors, Eq. 4, above we obtain (for the experimentally relevant regime of both subbands being occupied):

$`\sigma _{xy}^z`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{e}{8\pi }\mathrm{for}\lambda ^2>\beta ^2\hfill \\ 0\mathrm{for}\lambda =\beta \hfill \\ \frac{e}{8\pi }\mathrm{for}\lambda ^2<\beta ^2\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)
$`\sigma _{yy}^z`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{e}{8\pi }\frac{\beta }{\lambda }\mathrm{for}\lambda ^2>\beta ^2\hfill \\ 0\mathrm{for}\lambda =\beta \hfill \\ \frac{e}{8\pi }\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\mathrm{for}\lambda ^2<\beta ^2\hfill \end{array}`$ (14)
These equations predict that the spin-Hall conductivity only depends on the sign of $`\beta ^2\lambda ^2`$, and that there is a diagonal (in the sense that it points along the driving field direction) reactive part of the spin-current whenever $`\beta `$ is non-zero and $`\beta \lambda `$. The sharpness and singularities of these results are simply an artifact of the $`\eta 0`$ limit which can be easily rectified by introducing a finite lifetime to the spin-orbit coupled quasiparticles induced by the weak scattering in the usual Born approximation approach sinovaprb ; mahan  given by

$`\sigma _{\alpha y}^{spin}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{k}dϵ}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{nn^{}}{}\mathrm{Im}[n^{}\stackrel{}{k}|\widehat{j}_{\mathrm{spin}\alpha }^z|n\stackrel{}{k}n\stackrel{}{k}|\widehat{v}_y|n^{}\stackrel{}{k}]f(ϵ)\left[A_{n^{},\stackrel{}{k}}(ϵ)\mathrm{Re}[G_{n,k}^{\mathrm{ret}}(ϵ+\mathrm{}\omega )]+A_{n,\stackrel{}{k}}(ϵ)\mathrm{Re}[G_{n^{},k}^{\mathrm{adv}}(ϵ\mathrm{}\omega )]\right]},`$ (15)
where $`A_{n,\stackrel{}{k}}(ϵ)=\eta /((ϵ\xi _{n\stackrel{}{k}})^2+\eta ^2/4)`$ is the disorder broadened spectral function and $`G_{n,k}^{\mathrm{ret}/\mathrm{adv}}(\mathrm{}\omega )=1/(\mathrm{}\omega \xi \pm i\eta /2)`$ are the advanced and retarded quasiparticle Green’s functions with finite lifetime $`2\eta ^1/\mathrm{}`$ (here chosen to be momentum independent for simplicity). The above expression can be evaluated numerically, however, we can make progress understanding qualitative the effect of finite quasiparticle lifetime by taking the further approximation that the spectral function is sharp enough to allow one to substitute it for a delta function. This simplification translates into adding a small complex value to the frequency in the frequency dependent response function from which the weak scattering dc limit expression, Eq. 6 was obtained. The expression that is obtained is identical to Eq. 6 but with the denominator replaced by $`\eta ^2+(\xi _{n\stackrel{}{k}}+\xi _{n^{}\stackrel{}{k}})^2`$. Anticipating already the typical experimental situation where the Fermi energy is only slightly modified from its non-spin-orbit coupled form, we obtain after some straightforward algebraic manipulation the expressions

$`\sigma _{xy}^{\mathrm{spin}}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_F(ϵ_\lambda ϵ_\beta )}{\sqrt{ϵ_F^2(ϵ_\lambda ϵ_\beta )^2+\eta ^2ϵ_F(ϵ_\beta +ϵ_\lambda )/4+\eta ^4/64}}}`$ (16)
and

$`\sigma _{yy}^{\mathrm{spin}}={\displaystyle \frac{e(ϵ_\beta ϵ_\lambda )}{16\pi \sqrt{ϵ_\beta ϵ_\lambda }}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2+8ϵ_F(ϵ_\lambda +ϵ_\beta )}{\sqrt{\eta ^4+64ϵ_F^2(ϵ_\beta ϵ_\lambda )^2+16\eta ^2ϵ_F(ϵ_\beta +ϵ_\lambda )}}}\right)`$ (17)
where $`ϵ_F`$ is the Fermi energy, and $`ϵ_\lambda =m\lambda ^2/\mathrm{}^2`$ and $`ϵ_\beta =m\beta ^2/\mathrm{}^2`$ are the spin-orbit coupling characteristic energy scales for the Rashba and Dresselhauss mechanisms defined in the same way as Ref. schliemann\_spin\_Hall , and $`ϵ_F>>ϵ_\lambda ,ϵ_\beta `$ is assumed. In the limit of $`\eta 0`$ one recovers Eqs. 16 and 17, although near the $`\alpha =\beta `$ point we see that one limit goes smoothly but fairly rapidly to the next in the scale of $`\eta `$ as illustrated in Fig. 1. This analysis illustrates our earlier statement sinova  indicating that, unlike the universal Hall conductivity value on a 2DEG quantum Hall plateau, the universality of the intrinsic spin Hall effect does not extend to the disorder domain. And, as expected sinova  the spin Hall conductivity $`\sigma _{xy}^{\mathrm{spin}}`$ and the spin diagonal conductivity $`\sigma _{yy}^{\mathrm{spin}}`$ is slightly suppressed for $`ϵ_F,|ϵ_\lambda ϵ_\beta |>\eta `$

$`\sigma _{xy}^{\mathrm{spin}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{8\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2(ϵ_\lambda +ϵ_\beta )}{8ϵ_F(ϵ_\lambda ϵ_\beta )^2}}\right)`$ (18)
$`\sigma _{yy}^{\mathrm{spin}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{8\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\beta }{ϵ_\lambda }}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2ϵ_\lambda }{4ϵ_F(ϵ_\lambda ϵ_\beta )^2}}\right)`$ (19)
for $`ϵ_\lambda >ϵ_\beta `$, and for $`ϵ_\lambda <ϵ_\beta `$ the equations have opposite sign and we must switch $`ϵ_\beta `$ and $`ϵ_\lambda `$ in Eq. 19. We note that Eq. 18 is in agreement with Ref. schliemann\_spin\_Hall  for $`\beta =0`$. The strong disorder limit of Eqs. 16 and 17 the spin conductivity tensor goes as $`ϵ_Fϵ_{\lambda /\beta }/\eta ^2`$ but in this case one must still assume $`ϵ_F/\eta >>1`$ (a basic justification of the above approximation) and therefore $`ϵ_{\lambda /\beta }/\eta <<1`$ is the condition for such effects to vanish. In such a limit we expect that the extrinsic contribution from skew scattering proposed by Hirsch may dominate since at this stage scattering from impurities may be more important than the intrinsic spin-orbit coupling subband splitting. We also note that the specific coefficients in the above expression proportional to $`\eta ^2`$ will change since the full expression 15 which takes into account the broadening present in the occupation number must be used in a quantitative analysis.

In current 2DEGs high quality samples nitta ; grundler ; miller ; ganichev2  the typical carrier concentrations range from $`5\times 10^{11}`$ to $`10^{12}`$ cm-2, the $`\lambda ,\beta `$ range is $`15\times 10^{11}`$ eVm, and the mobilities range is $`150`$ m2/Vs. In terms of the effective mass ratio $`m^{}/m_e`$ the energy scales defined above are given by

$`ϵ_F`$ $``$ $`0.24{\displaystyle \frac{n_{2D}[10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2]}{m^{}/m_e}},`$ (20)
$`ϵ_{\lambda /\beta }`$ $``$ $`1.31{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{m_e}}(\lambda /\beta [10^{11}eVm])^2`$ (21)
$`\eta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.116}{\mu [m/Vs](m^{}/m_e)}},`$ (22)
with $`\mu `$ being in this case the mobility of the sample. For the typical $`m^{}/m_e=0.05`$ in InAs based heterostructures gives a range of $`ϵ_F=2050`$ meV, $`ϵ_{\lambda /\beta }=0.071.6`$ meV, and $`\eta =0.052.3meV`$. This indicates that current samples (although not all) are already within the regime where these effects should be observable and the weak scattering regime applicable. Outside this weak scattering regime we note that will be a further contribution to $`\sigma _{sH}`$, like that envisaged by Hirsch hirsch , but in the limit emphasized here (weak scattering limit) it will not dominate in the high-mobility 2DEG’s note2 .

It is also important to note that the intrinsic character of our spin Hall effect, compared to the extrinsic character of the effect discussed by Hirsch hirsch , is analogous to the intrinsic contribution to the anomalous Hall effect recently emphasize in various studies sundaram ; jungwirth ; nagaosa1 ; sinovaprb ; culcer , proposed to be the main contribution to the anomalous Hall effect in some ferromagnets and strongly polarized paramagnets. In both cases scattering contributions to the Hall conductivities can become important if skew scattering bruno  is present, especially when the overall electron scattering rate is small and the steady state distribution function of the current-carrying state is strongly disturbed compared to the equilibrium one. In the case of (III,Mn)V ferromagnetic semiconductors for example, the intrinsic theory of the anomalous Hall effect accounts rather convincingly for experimental observations jungwirth .

Besides the several approaches already proposed to measure the spin-Hall effect murakami ; sinova ; culcer ; murakami2 , the tunability of both the Rashba and Dresselhaus coupling parameters ganichev2 ; miller  and the non-zero diagonal spin-current generated in the presence of a linear Dresselhaus term offers new possibilities. We propose a bottom gate sample coupled with non-contact probes such as spatially resolved Kerr effect measuremnts, ferromagnetic STM, or Scanning Hall probe microscope. Having four non-contact local probe observations (two for Hall and two for diagonal conductivity) on the edges of the sample as a function of gate voltage which varies the Rashba and Dresselhaus coupling ganichev2 ; miller  simultaneous acquisition of transverse and diagonal spin currents without the usual spurious geometrical effects present in typical transport measurements.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank T. Jungwirth, A. H. MacDonald, S. Murakami, N. Nagaosa, Q. Niu, and S.-C. Zhang for extensive and fruitfuil discussions, and J. Schliemann and D. Loss for useful correspondence. N. A. S. was supported by DOE under grant No. DE-FG03-96ER45598, NSF under grant DMR0072115 and Telecommunication and Information Task Force at TAMU.


format: text

text:
# On the quasiparticle description of c=1 CFTs

## I Introduction

Two-dimensional Conformal Field Theories (CFTs)cft  and Integrable Quantum Field Theories (IQFTs)Zam-Zam  are usually treated in a completely different fashion despite the fact that they are deeply related zam.pert-cft ; blz . A traditional starting point for the analysis of a CFT is the Hilbert space for the system in finite geometry, organized in terms of representations of chiral algebras for left and right moving excitations. On the other hand, IQFTs are conveniently described in terms of asymptotic particle states and the associated scattering data, pertaining to the system in infinite geometry. As a consequence of integrability the scattering is factorized, giving rise to a Factorized Scattering Theory (FST). The 2-particle S-matrix completely determines the on-shell dynamics as well as off-shell properties like correlation functions. In fact, once the exact particle spectrum and S-matrix are known, one can use their spectral representations together with the knowledge of the exact matrix elements, obtained using the Form Factor approachFF , to compute correlation functions of local fields. The factorized scattering approach is conceptually clear if the excitations in the field theory are massive, while, strictly speaking, scattering of massless relativistic particles is not well defined in two dimensions. Nevertheless, it has been found that, if the massless scattering is suitably defined, the FST approach can be very fruitful also for massless IQFTs zam.massless ; zam-zam.massless ; dms .

In the context of applications to condensed matter systems in one spatial dimension, formulations of CFT in terms of FST become natural, both from a conceptual and from a computational point of view. Such formulations involve the identification of a suitable set of (massless) CFT quasiparticles with factorized scattering, and the study of their 2-particle $`S`$-matrix. For a particular class of $`c=1`$ CFTs two interpretations in terms of FST have been considered. The first one is closely related to the usual approach to massive FSTs zam.massless ; zam-zam.massless ; the relevant S-matrix can be obtained as massless limit, $`M0`$, of the sine-Gordon (SG) S-matrix fsw . This particular description has been employed in the analysis of the edge-to-edge tunneling in fractional quantum Hall samples fls . The second approach is intrinsic to the CFT CFT.excl-stat ; esp  and leads to a description in terms of a gas of quasiparticles that satisfy fractional exclusion statistics haldane.excl-stat . These quasiparticles have been identified with the excitations of the Calogero-Sutherland (CS) model in the continuum limit iso , and their S-matrix was inferred on the basis of a set of Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz equations iow ; bw .

The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between these two FST descriptions of $`c=1`$ CFT. We will show that they emerge as different massless limits of the SG theory (see figure 1). In particular, the fractional statistics particles emerge as particle-hole excitations of the SG model in presence of a chemical potential, $`A\mathrm{}`$ abz . We provide a direct calculation of their S-matrix using Korepin’s method korepin . We also reconsider the calculation of the CS S-matrix essler  in terms of particles with fractional charge.

Our presentation is organized as follows. In the next section we review the standard construction of interacting CFT quasiparticles via a massless limit of the SG theory. In Sec. III we introduce the fractional statistics quasiparticles in the CFT. Section IV is devoted to fractional excitations in the CS model. In Section V we show how the fractional statistics CFT quasiparticles can be obtained from the SG model in the presence of a chemical potential $`A`$, in the limit $`A\mathrm{}`$. We close with a brief discussion in Section VI.

## II Massless limit of sine-Gordon: interacting quasiparticles

A quasiparticle description of $`c=1`$ CFT can be obtained by taking the massless limit of a SG modelfsw . In this section we recall a few basic facts about the SG theory and on the limit $`M0`$. The SG action is given by

$$𝒮_{SG}=d^2x\left\{\frac{1}{16\pi }(_\nu \phi )^22\mu \mathrm{cos}(\beta \phi )\right\},$$
(1)
where $`\phi (x)`$ is a scalar field in 2D Euclidean space-time $`x=(x^0,x^1)`$. This model possesses a $`U(1)`$ symmetry, generated by the charge

$$Q=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}j^0𝑑x=\frac{\beta }{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\phi }{x}𝑑x,$$
(2)
where $`j^\mu =\frac{\beta }{2\pi }ϵ^{\mu \nu }_\nu \phi `$ is the Noether current. From the perturbed CFT point of view, (1) can be considered as a Gaussian model

$$𝒮_{Gauss}=\frac{1}{16\pi }d^2x(_\nu \phi )^2$$
(3)
perturbed by the relevant operator $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\beta \phi )`$ of scale dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta =\beta ^2`$.

The SG model is integrable and has been studied in great detail over the last 25 years. The spectrum depends on the value of the coupling constant $`\beta ^2`$ or, alternatively, on $`\xi =\frac{\beta ^2}{1\beta ^2}`$. For $`\beta ^2<1`$ the cosine term is relevant in the renormalization group sense and dynamically generates a spectral gap $`M`$ in the excitation spectrum. In the repulsive regime $`1<\xi <\mathrm{}`$ the spectrum contains only charged particles of charge $`Q=\pm 1`$, which are called solitons and antisolitons. The operators that generate these particles aresol.creating.op ; lz

$$𝒪_{s,n}(x)=\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{n}{4\beta }\stackrel{~}{\phi }(x)+i\frac{s\beta }{n}\phi (x)},$$
(4)
where the dual boson field, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ is defined as

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }(x)=_{\mathrm{}}^x_y\phi (x,y)\mathrm{d}y.$$
(5)
These operators are in general non-local, and carry a spin $`s`$ and a topological charge $`n`$. For $`s=1/2`$, (4) corresponds to the bosonization formula for fermions of the Massive Thirring model sol.creating.op : $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=𝒪_{\pm 1/2,1},\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)=𝒪_{\pm 1/2,1}`$.

In the attractive regime $`0<\xi <1`$ neutral soliton-antisoliton bound states, $`B_n,n=1,2,\mathrm{}<1/\xi `$, called breathers, are formed and the spectrum becomes more complicated. One usually distinguishes soliton, antisolitons and breathers by some internal indices $`ϵ=s,\overline{s},B_n`$. The two-particle S-matrix, $`S_{ϵ_1,ϵ_2}^{ϵ_1^{},ϵ_2^{}}`$, have been known for some time smatrix:sg ; Zam-Zam . We report here the soliton-soliton S-matrix, $`S_{ss}=S_{ss}^{ss}`$, that we need in the following

$$S_{ss}(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}[i\delta _{ss}(\theta )],\delta _{ss}(\theta )=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\theta t/\pi )\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{1\xi }{2}t\right)}{t\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{t}{2}\right)\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\xi t}{2}\right)}𝑑t.$$
(6)
Here the rapidity $`\theta `$ parametrizes the relativistic energy and momentum ($`e(p)=\sqrt{p^2+M^2}`$)

$$p=M\mathrm{sinh}\theta ,e=M\mathrm{cosh}\theta .$$
(7)
For large $`|\theta |`$, $`\delta _{ss}(\theta )`$ behaves like

$$\delta _{ss}(\theta )\pm \pi (\stackrel{~}{p}1),\theta \pm \mathrm{}$$
(8)
with $`\stackrel{~}{p}=1/(2\beta ^2)`$.

An appropriate quasiparticle basis for the c=1 CFT can be obtained taking the massless limit of SG particles fsw ; fls  described above. Formally this limit is constructed shifting the rapidities $`\theta \theta \pm \theta _0/2`$ and taking the limits $`\theta _0+\mathrm{},M0`$ in such a way that $`m=M\mathrm{exp}(\theta _0/2)`$ remains finite. In this way one obtains the massless dispersion relations $`e=p=(m/2)\mathrm{e}^\theta `$, for right (R) movers and $`e=p=(m/2)\mathrm{e}^\theta `$ for left (L) movers (where R and L movers are defined as $`p>0`$ and $`p<0`$ branches of the massless dispersion relation $`e=\pm p`$). Taking the same limit on the S-matrix one finds that the quasiparticle spectrum remains the same, i.e. it will have R and L solitons, antisolitons and breathers. While in the RR and LL sectors the S-matrix turns out to be the same as in the massive case, the RL (LR) scattering is trivial. This is obviously related to the conformal symmetry. The presence of non-trivial RL scattering would signal a flow between critical points zam.massless ; zam-zam.massless . The massless limit thus gives a FST of the CFT, with interacting quasiparticles with internal degrees of freedom and characterized by a non-diagonal S-matrix. The same result can be obtained by starting from the S-matrix axioms for unitarity, crossing and Yang-Baxter factorization directly for the massless particles zam-zam.massless .

At criticality the boson field, $`\phi `$, can be decomposed into its holomorphic and antiholomorphic parts as

$$\phi =\varphi (z)+\overline{\varphi }(\overline{z}),\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\varphi (z)\overline{\varphi }(\overline{z})$$
(9)
with $`z=x+iy`$ ($`\overline{z}=xiy`$). The operators associated to massless solitons (antisolitons) take the form

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{s,n}=\mathrm{e}^{i\left(\frac{s\beta }{n}+\frac{n}{4\beta }\right)\varphi (z)+i\left(\frac{s\beta }{n}\frac{n}{4\beta }\right)\overline{\varphi }(\overline{z})}$$
(10)
and the chiral components

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{1/4\beta ^2,\pm 1}=\mathrm{e}^{\pm i\frac{1}{2\beta }\varphi (z)},\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{1/4\beta ^2,\pm 1}=\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{1}{2\beta }\overline{\varphi }(\overline{z})}$$
(11)
correspond to the $`U(1)`$ conformal primary fields, $`J`$ and $`\overline{J}`$, introduced in the next section. In this case the boson is compactified with a compactification radius $`R=1/(2\beta )`$.

## III CFT quasiparticles with fractional statistics

In this section we review the construction of a quasiparticle basis for (chiral) $`c=1`$ CFT, which is very different from the direct $`M0`$ limit of the SG particle basis. This basis is a special example of a ‘CFT quasiparticle basis’ CFT.excl-stat . The idea behind the construction of the CFT quasiparticles is to first classify the chiral primary fields, and then associate quasiparticles to specific chiral primaries (usually those with the smallest conformal dimensions). To construct an actual basis of the chiral Hilbert space one needs to impose specific rules on the modes (momenta) of the quasiparticles that participate in a multi-particle state; these rules then lead to a statement about a form of exclusion statistics satisfied by the quasiparticles.

The prototype of a CFT quasiparticle basis is the so-called spinon basis of the $`c=1`$ $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(N)`$ invariant CFTs spinonCFT ; the more general construction was first outlined in CFT.excl-stat . The particular example we deal with here are the $`c=1`$ CFTs at compactification radius $`R^2=p/2`$. In these theories, the chiral primary of smallest dimension carries a $`U(1)`$ charge $`\pm \frac{1}{p}`$, and one may contemplate quasiparticle bases built out of these fractionally charged quanta. This is particularly natural from the point of view of the fqH systems at filling fraction $`\nu =\frac{1}{p}`$, which have this particular CFT as effective edge theories esp .

The most natural way to build a CFT quasiparticle basis at $`c=1`$, $`R^2=p/2`$, involves quasiholes $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{qh}`$, of charge $`+\frac{1}{p}`$, and particles $`J`$, of charge $`1`$. They are described by the conformal primary fields

$$J(z)=\mathrm{e}^{i\sqrt{\frac{p}{2}}\varphi (z)}=\underset{t}{}J_tz^{tp/2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{qh}(z)=\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{1}{\sqrt{2p}}\varphi (z)}=\underset{s}{}\varphi _sz^{s1/2p}$$
(12)
(note that the conventions used here are different from those in esp ). The $`J`$ operators correspond to the massless limit of soliton creation operators (11) with the identification $`p=\stackrel{~}{p}=1/2\beta ^2`$.

The independent multi-particle states that generate the chiral Hilbert space were identified to be

$`|m_M,\mathrm{}m_1;n_N\mathrm{}n_1>^Q`$ (13)
$`J_{(2M1)p/2+Qm_M}\mathrm{}J_{p/2+Qm_1}\varphi _{(2N1)/2pQ/pn_N}\mathrm{}\varphi _{1/2pQ/pn1}|Q>,`$
with

$$m_M\mathrm{}m_10,n_N\mathrm{}n_10(n_1>0\mathrm{if}Q<0),$$
(14)
where $`|Q>`$ ($`Q=(p1),\mathrm{},1,0`$) is the lowest-energy state of charge $`Q/p`$.

Using this basis, one can analyze the partition sum, and thereby the thermodynamic properties, directly in terms of the quasiparticles $`J`$ and $`\varphi `$. One then finds that the thermodynamic equations take the form of the so-called IOW equations iow  that describe the thermodynamics of a gas of particles satisfying fractional exclusion statistics. For the general case with statistics matrix $`𝐠=(g_{ij})`$, the excitation energies, $`\epsilon _i`$, and distribution functions, $`\overline{n}_i`$, are determined by the following equations

$$\left(\frac{\lambda _i1}{\lambda _i}\right)\underset{j}{}\lambda _j^{g_{ij}}=e^{\beta (\mu _i\epsilon _0)}z_i,\overline{n}_i(\epsilon _i)=z_i\frac{}{z_i}\mathrm{log}\underset{j}{}\lambda _j,$$
(15)
with $`\lambda _i=(1+\mathrm{e}^{\epsilon _i})`$ being the one-particle grand canonical partition functions. For the case of $`c=1`$ one finds the following statistical parameters: $`g_{\varphi \varphi }=1/p`$, $`g_{JJ}=p`$ and $`g_{\varphi J}=g_{J\varphi }=0`$.

Summarizing, we see that the $`c=1`$, $`R^2=p/2`$ chiral CFT is described by quasiparticles with charge/statistics parameters $`(Q=\frac{1}{p},g=\frac{1}{p})`$ and $`(Q=1,g=p)`$ and with no mutual statistics between the two.

It is well-known iow ; bw  that the IOW equations for statistics matrix $`g_{ij}`$ agree with the TBA equations for a ‘purely statistical’ 2-particle $`S`$-matrix given by

$$S_{ij}(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}\left[\pi i(\delta _{ij}g_{ij})\mathrm{sign}(\theta )\right].$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{sign}(x)=|x|/x`$ is the sign function ($`\mathrm{sign}(0)=0`$). Combining this with the above, we tentatively identify the above CFT quasiparticle basis with a particle basis in the sense of FST. In the remainder of this paper, we substantiate this claim by establishing the relation between the CFT and this particular FST from two alternative points of view, which are the Calogero-Sutherland (CS) model and an alternative ($`A\mathrm{}`$) massless limit of the SG model.

## IV S-matrix for fractional excitations in the CS model

The CFT quasi-particles described in the previous section are particularly natural if the CFT is viewed as the continuum limit of a so-called Calogero-Sutherland (CS) model for particles with inverse-square interaction, as the CFT quasiparticles can be identified with the fundamental excitations of the CS model iso . In this section we evaluate the S-matrix of the CS quasi-particles using a method developed by Korepin. A related calculation was done in Ref.essler ; here we use a different scheme based on excitations with fractional charge.

The CS model sutherland1 ; sutherland2 ; calogero  describes fermionic particles on a line whose interaction, for $`N`$ particles, is given by the following Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{^2}{x_j^2}+\underset{j<k}{}\frac{2p(p1)}{(x_kx_j)^2}.$$
(17)
In the low energy sector it is described by $`c=1`$ CFT with compactification radius that, using the conventions of Sec. III, is $`R^2=p/2`$ iso . The model was solved with the Bethe Ansatz (BA) in Ref.sutherland2 . Imposing periodic boundary conditions on the wave function, one obtains the following quantization (BA) equationssutherland2

$$L\lambda _i=2\pi I_i+\underset{ji}{\overset{N}{}}\theta (\lambda _i\lambda _j),i=1,\mathrm{},N$$
(18)
where

$$\theta (\lambda )=(p1)\pi \mathrm{sign}(\lambda ).$$
(19)
The set of integers or half-odd integers $`I_i`$ is in one-to-one correspondence with a set of spectral parameters that specify an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. The total energy is parametrized as: $`E=_i\lambda _i^2`$. In the presence of chemical potential, $`\mu `$, the ground state is obtained by filling the Fermi sea with rapidities $`|\lambda |<\sqrt{\mu }\lambda _F`$, at distances $`\lambda _i\lambda _j>\frac{2\pi (p1)}{L}`$ (this is the first signal of a generalized exclusion statistics). The Fermi momentum $`\lambda _F`$ can be written in terms of the total number of $`\lambda `$s in the condensate, $`N_{GS}`$, as: $`\lambda _F=\pi p(N_{GS}1)/L`$. The integers (half-odd integers) $`I_i`$ vary in the interval

$$|I_j|<I_{max}^{GS}$$
(20)
with

$$I_{max}^{GS}=\frac{1}{4\pi }|\lambda _FL\underset{k}{\overset{N_{GS}}{}}\theta (+\mathrm{})|=\frac{1}{2}(N_{GS}1).$$
(21)
There are different types of possible excitations.

I: Quasihole excitations. The lowest energy hole-type excitation corresponds to occupation numbers $`N=N_{GS}1`$. If we keep the Fermi momentum, $`\lambda _F`$, fixed to order one, the range of the integers $`I_i`$ changes according to (21)

$$I_{max}=I_{max}^{GS}+\frac{p1}{2}.$$
(22)
Then one has $`p1`$ additional vacancies and one less $`\lambda `$, i.e. the excitations are characterized by $`p`$ parameters. We can say that this excitation corresponds to creating $`p`$ quasiholes, $`\lambda _h^1,\mathrm{},\lambda _h^p`$, in the ground state, each having charge $`1/p`$. We use the term quasihole to distinguish these excitations from the charge-$`1`$ hole excitations that we will discuss in the following. The $`p`$-quasihole excitations are similar to the $`S=1`$ 2-spinon excitations in the $`S=1/2`$ Heisenberg heisenberg  or Haldane-Shastry models essler .

The BA equations relative to this type of excitation are the following

$$L\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i=2\pi \stackrel{~}{I}_i+\underset{ji}{\overset{N_{GS}+(p1)}{}}\theta (\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j)\underset{a=1}{\overset{p}{}}\theta (\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i\lambda _a^h)$$
(23)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ indicates that the spectral parameters have slightly changed with respect to the ground state distribution ($`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i\lambda _iO(1/L)`$). We follow the conventions of ek , take $`\stackrel{~}{I}_iI_i=(p1)/2`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N_{GS}`$, and place the additional vacancies, $`\lambda _1^{min},\mathrm{},\lambda _{p1}^{min}`$, close to the left Fermi point. In the thermodynamic limit $`\lambda _i^{min}\mathrm{}`$. As usual, we characterize these excitations via the shift function korepin

$$F_{hh}(\lambda _i)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i\lambda _i}{\lambda _{i+1}\lambda _i}.$$
(24)
The equation defining $`F_{hh}(\lambda )`$ can be obtained subtracting (23) from the ground state distribution and using the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i\lambda _iO(1/L)`$,

$$F_{hh}(\lambda _i)+\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{ji}{\overset{N_{GS}}{}}K(\lambda _i\lambda _j)F_{hh}(\lambda _j)=\frac{p1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}\theta (\lambda _i\lambda _k^{min})\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{a=1}{\overset{p}{}}\theta (\lambda _i\lambda _a^h),$$
(25)
where $`K(\lambda )=\theta ^{}(\lambda )=2\pi (p1)\delta (\lambda )`$. In the thermodynamic limit it becomes

$$F_{hh}(\lambda )+\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\lambda _F}^{\lambda _F}d\mu K(\lambda \mu )F_{hh}(\mu )=\frac{p1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\pi }(p1)\theta (+\mathrm{})\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{a=1}{\overset{p}{}}\theta (\lambda \lambda _a^h).$$
(26)
Using the explicit form of $`K(\lambda )`$ and $`\theta (\lambda )`$ we find

$$F_{hh}(\lambda _h^1)=\frac{p1}{2p},\lambda _h^1>\lambda _h^b(b=2,\mathrm{},p).$$
(27)
II: Particle excitations. Particle excitations correspond to $`N=N_{GS}+1`$, where the additional particle has rapidity $`|\lambda _p|>\lambda _F`$. The BA equations have the form

$`L\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i=2\pi \stackrel{~}{I}_i+{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{N_{GS}}{}}}\theta (\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j)+\theta (\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i\lambda _p),`$ (28)
$`L\lambda _p=2\pi \stackrel{~}{I}_{N_{GS}+1}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{\overset{N_{GS}}{}}}\theta (\lambda _p\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j).`$ (29)
In the thermodynamic limit the integral equations for $`F`$ have the form

$$F_{pp}(\lambda )+\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\lambda _F}^{\lambda _F}d\mu K(\lambda \mu )F_{pp}(\mu )=\theta (\lambda \lambda _p)$$
(30)
with the explicit solution

$$F_{pp}(\lambda _p)=\frac{(p1)}{2}.$$
(31)
From these two types of excitations it is possible to construct neutral excitations corresponding to $`1`$ particle and $`p`$ quasiholes. The shift function associated to these types of excitations is defined by the equation

$`F_{ph}(\lambda )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\lambda _F}^{\lambda _F}}d\mu K(\lambda \mu )F_{ph}(\mu )=`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\theta (\lambda \lambda _p)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}(p1)\theta (+\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\theta (\lambda \lambda _a^h)`$
from which

$$F_{ph}(\lambda _p)=0,\mathrm{mod2}\pi .$$
(33)
We choose these types of excitations to describe the Hilbert space and construct the FST. Below we explicitly calculate their S-matrix.

In Ref. essler  the physical excitations were constructed using a different scheme that corresponds to allowing the Fermi momentum in (21) to vary of order $`O(1/L)`$ when one creates a hole excitation. Within this scheme, changing the occupation numbers by one ($`N_{GS}N_{GS}1`$) produces a shift of $`I_{max}`$ by one. In this way all the excitations have integer charge. On the level of the BA the two descriptions seem to be complementary. For reasons that will become clear later we prefer to use as basic excitations I and II, i.e. particles with integer charge but quasiholes with a fractional charge. This approach is closer to the philosophy of Ref. ha ; lps .

S-matrix for CS model. We now apply Korepin’s method korepin  to compute the S-matrix relative to the excitations I and II described above. The S-matrix is just a phase

$$S_{ab}=\mathrm{exp}(i\delta _{ab}),$$
(34)
where the two-particle scattering phase is equal to the phase, $`\phi _{ab}`$, obtained by moving the particle $`a`$ through the system in presence of particle $`b`$ minus the phase shift, $`\phi _a`$, obtained through the same process but in absence of particle $`b`$

$$\delta _{ab}=\phi _{ab}\phi _a.$$
(35)
Both phases can be obtained using the BA equations for the ground state and excitations. In general, it turns out korepin  that $`\delta _{ab}`$ is related to the shift function via

$$\delta _{ab}(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)|_{\lambda _i>\lambda _j}=2\pi F_{ab}(\lambda _i).$$
(36)
Unfortunately, this approach cannot be applied directly to the quasihole excitations introduced in the previous section. In fact, within the scheme we consider here, it is not possible to create one and two-quasihole excitations and thus it is not possible to evaluate directly the one and two-particle phase shift. Nevertheless it is possible to evaluate the total phase shift associated to an excitation I (consisting of $`p`$ quasiholes) as a whole. This corresponds to the phase shift acquired by the fastest particle going across the other $`p1`$ quasiholes. Using factorization, together with the fact that the resulting S-matrix is momentum independent, one can see that the quasihole-quasihole phase shift, $`\phi _{hh}`$, is given by

$$\phi _{hh}(\lambda _h^1,\lambda _h^2)|_{\lambda _h^1>\lambda _h^2}=2\pi F_{hh}(\lambda _h^1)/(p1)=\pi /p(\lambda _h^1>\lambda _h^b,b=2,\mathrm{},p).$$
(37)
In order to compute $`\delta _{hh}`$ we should now subtract the one particle phase shift, $`\phi _h`$. Having no direct access to $`\phi _h`$, we subtract a reference phase, $`\delta _0(p)`$,

$$\delta _{hh}(\lambda _h^1,\lambda _h^2)|_{\lambda _h^1>\lambda _h^2}=2\pi F_{hh}(\lambda _h^1)/(p1)\delta _0(p)=\pi /p\delta _0(p)(\lambda _h^1>\lambda _h^b,b=2,\mathrm{},p).$$
(38)
Based on the observation that individual quasi-holes are local with respect to the CS ground state, we anticipate that this reference phase will be an integer multiple of $`\pi `$. Below we shall fix its value by an independent argument.

Followign a similar reasoning we find the particle-quasihole phase shift,

$$\delta _{ph}(\lambda _p,\lambda _h^1)=2\pi F_{ph}(\lambda _p)/p=0\mathrm{mod2}\pi .$$
(39)
The particle-particle S-matrix can be computed in a more standard wayessler  since one and two-particle excitations can be constructed explicitly. As a consequence, the two-particle S-matrix will be completely determined. One finds

$$\delta _{pp}(\lambda _p^1,\lambda _p^2)|_{\lambda _p^1>\lambda _p^2}=2\pi F_{pp}(\lambda _p^1)=(p1)\pi .$$
(40)
The identification of (38, 39, 40) as phase shifts clearly requires $`\lambda _1>\lambda _2`$. Analytic continuation of these results to the sector $`\lambda _1<\lambda _2`$ can be done using the unitarity condition of the S-matrix: $`S_{ab}(\lambda )S_{ab}(\lambda )=1`$. From which it follows

$$S_{ab}(\lambda )=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\delta _{ab}\mathrm{sign}(\lambda )\right],a,b=p,h$$
(41)
where we have chosen a “fermionic” normalization: $`S_{ab}(0)=1`$zamTBA . In order to fix the reference phase, $`\delta _0(p)`$, in (38) we use the known duality of the CS Hamiltonian that, under $`p1/p`$, maps particles into holes and vice-versaduality . This implies $`\delta _0(p)=\pi `$, in agreement with our expectation. Our full result for the 2-particle S-matrix is in agreement with what was found using different methods esp  as reported in Sec. III.

We note that the quasihole-quasihole scattering phase has a dependence typical of particles with fractional statistics, this is the reason for the choice of the scheme above. Our results are consistent, we have particles with fractional charge that satisfy fractional exclusion statistics.

## V Fractional CFT quasiparticles from sine-Gordon

Let us now consider the SG model in presence of a chemical potential coupled to the conserved charge. The Hamiltonian is shifted as

$$(A)=_{SG}AQ$$
(42)
The potential $`A`$ works as infrared cut-off at scales of the order $`A`$, and therefore for $`A\mu ^{(p+1)/2}`$ the theory is driven to the UV fixed point where it is described by the $`c=1`$ CFT (3). In presence of the chemical potential every soliton (antisoliton) acquires an additional energy $`A(A)`$, while the breathers spectrum in not affected. For $`A>M`$ the ground state is a soliton condensate and theory has massless excitations across the Fermi sea. The other excitations have a gap, so we do not need to consider them for what follows. Using Korepin’s method korepin , we shall construct the S-matrix for excitations over the soliton condensate in the limit $`A\mathrm{}`$, and show that they are free particles satisfying fractional statistics. These quasiparticles then provide a FST description of the $`c=1`$ fixed point. We will find that the S-matrix is the same as the one for the CS model constructed in the previous section.

We can repeat the analysis of the excitations and S-matrix done for the CS model in Sec.IV for the SG model in presence of the chemical potential $`A>M`$ (42). Putting $`N`$ solitons on thespace line of length $`L`$ and imposing periodic boundary conditions one obtains the following quantization equationszamTBA

$$Lp(\theta _i)=2\pi I_i+\underset{ji}{\overset{N}{}}\delta _{ss}(\theta _i\theta _j),i=1,\mathrm{},N$$
(43)
where $`\delta _{ss}(\theta )`$ and $`p(\theta )`$ are defined in (6) and (7) respectively. The presence of the chemical potential induces also in this case a particle condensate and the ground state is obtained filling the rapidities symmetrically around zero. In the thermodynamic limit the ground state energy in presence of the chemical potential is given by

$$(A)(0)=\frac{M}{2\pi }_B^Bd\theta \mathrm{cosh}\theta ϵ(\theta ),$$
(44)
where $`ϵ(\theta )`$ is a non-positive function defined by the following equation

$$ϵ(\theta )+_B^Bd\theta ^{}K_{ss}(\theta \theta ^{})ϵ(\theta ^{})=M\mathrm{cosh}\theta A,ϵ(\pm B)=0$$
(45)
with

$$K_{ss}(\theta )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}\delta _{ss}(\theta )}{\mathrm{d}\theta }.$$
(46)
In momentum space the kernel $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{ss}(\theta )=\delta (\theta )+K_{ss}(\theta )`$ has a quite simple form

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_{ss}(\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}d\theta \mathrm{e}^{i\omega \theta }\stackrel{~}{K}_{ss}(\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi (1+\xi )\omega }{2}}{2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi \omega }{2}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi \xi \omega }{2}}$$
(47)
and can be factorized as

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_{ss}(\omega )=\frac{1}{K_+(\omega )K_{}(\omega )}$$
(48)
with

$$K_+(\omega )=K_{}(\omega )=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi (\xi +1)}{\xi }}\mathrm{e}^{i\omega \mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(i\frac{\xi +1}{2}\omega \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(i\frac{i\xi \omega }{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{i\omega }{2}\right)}$$
(49)
analytic in the upper ($`K_+`$) and lower ($`K_{}`$) half plane. In (49) $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\xi }{2}\mathrm{log}\xi \frac{\xi +1}{2}\mathrm{log}(\xi +1)`$ so that $`K_+(\omega )=1+O(1/\omega )`$. The limit $`A\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to $`B\mathrm{}`$ and Eqs.(44,45) become abz

$`(A)(0)={\displaystyle \frac{M}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _B^B}d\theta \mathrm{e}^\theta ϵ(\theta )`$ (50)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^B}d\theta ^{}\stackrel{~}{K}_{ss}(\theta \theta ^{})ϵ(\theta ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{M}{2}}\mathrm{e}^\theta A,`$ (51)
clearly describing a massless system.

The excitations can be studied using (43). They turn out to be the similar to those discussed in Sec. IV for the CS model. Also in this case we find quasihole excitations with fractional charge, the reason being that $`\delta _{ss}(+\mathrm{})1`$, and removing a $`\theta `$ produces a shift of $`I_{max}`$ according to (21). From Eq. (8) we see that this shift produces $`\stackrel{~}{p}1`$ additional vacancies. Then again an excitation will be characterized by $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ parameters and can be interpreted as consisting of $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ quasiholes of charge $`1/\stackrel{~}{p}`$ in the ground state. Below we show that, in the limit $`A\mathrm{}`$, the S-matrix relative to these excitations is again given by (38), (39) and (40), where $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ replaces the CS parameter $`p`$. With this identification the CS model and the UV limit of the SG model give rise to the same quasiparticle S-matrix. For any finite $`A`$ there are corrections to the CS S-matrix that depend on the rapidities.

Let us first consider quasihole excitations. They will be characterized by the following BA equations

$$Lp(\stackrel{~}{\theta }_i)=2\pi \stackrel{~}{I}_i+\underset{ji}{\overset{N_{GS}+(\stackrel{~}{p}1)}{}}\delta _{ss}(\stackrel{~}{\theta }_i\stackrel{~}{\theta }_j)\underset{a=1}{\overset{p}{}}\delta _{ss}(\stackrel{~}{\theta }_i\theta _h^a)$$
(52)
and can be studied again introducing the shift-function, $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{hh}(\theta _i)=(\stackrel{~}{\theta }_i\theta _i)/(\theta _{i+1}\theta _i)`$, satisfying the following equation (in the thermodynamic limit)

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{hh}(\theta )+\frac{1}{2\pi }_B^Bd\theta ^{}K_{ss}(\theta \theta ^{})\stackrel{~}{F}_{hh}(\theta ^{})=\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\pi }(\stackrel{~}{p}1)\delta _{ss}(+\mathrm{})\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{a=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{p}}{}}\delta _{ss}(\theta \theta _h^a).$$
(53)
In the limit $`B\mathrm{}`$, Eq. (53) can be solved with the Wiener-Hopf method (see for instance Appendix B of Ref.abz ). The procedure is quite standard and we report here only the essential steps. Shifting $`\theta _h^1\theta _h^1+B`$ and introducing $`f_{hh}(\theta _h^1)=F_{hh}(\theta _h^1+B)`$ one can rewrite (53) as

$$f_{hh}(\theta _h^1)+\frac{1}{2\pi }_{2B}^0d\theta ^{}K_{ss}(\theta _h^1\theta ^{})f_{hh}(\theta ^{})=\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\pi }(\stackrel{~}{p}1)\delta _{ss}(+\mathrm{})\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{a=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{p}1}{}}\delta _{ss}(\theta _h^1\theta _a^h+B).$$
(54)
As a consequence of the shift, quasihole excitations now correspond to $`\theta _1^h<0`$. For $`B\mathrm{}`$ Eq. (54) takes the form

$$f_{hh}(\theta _h^1)+\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^0d\theta ^{}K_{ss}(\theta _h^1\theta ^{})f_{hh}(\theta ^{})=g_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{p}),$$
(55)
where on the RHS we have approximated $`\delta _{ss}(\theta )`$ with its asymptotics

$$g_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{p})=\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\pi }(\stackrel{~}{p}1)\delta _{ss}(+\mathrm{})\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{a=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{p}1}{}}\delta _{ss}^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}1}{2}.$$
(56)
This is the same driving term as for the CS model (26). We can solve this equation for any $`\theta `$ although we only need it for $`\theta <0`$. We rewrite $`f(\theta )`$ as $`f(\theta )=f^+(\theta )+f^{}(\theta )`$, where $`f^+(\theta )=f(\theta )`$ for $`\theta >0`$ and zero otherwise, and $`f^{}(\theta )=f(\theta )`$ for $`\theta <0`$. Fourier transforming, Eq. (55) becomes

$$f^+(\omega )+\stackrel{~}{K}_{ss}(\omega )f^{}(\omega )=g_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{p})\delta (\omega )$$
(57)
and can be solved with the WH method, to give

$$f^+(\omega )=g_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{p})\frac{K_+(0)}{K_+(\omega )}\frac{1}{\omega +i0},f^{}(\omega )=g_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{p})K_+(0)\frac{K_{}(\omega )}{\omega i0}.$$
(58)
We can now obtain $`F_{hh}(\theta _h^1)`$ by Fourier transforming Eq. (58)

$$F_{hh}(\theta _h^1)=d\omega \mathrm{e}^{i\omega (\theta _h^1+B)}f^{}(\omega )g_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{p})K_+(0)K_{}(0)=\frac{g_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{p})}{\stackrel{~}{K}_{ss}(0)}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}1}{2\stackrel{~}{p}},$$
(59)
where we have omitted terms of order $`O(\mathrm{exp}(B))`$. This is the same as for the CS model with the identification $`\stackrel{~}{p}=p`$, as previously anticipated. Following the same steps as in Sec.IV, we obtain also $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{ph}=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{pp}=(\stackrel{~}{p}1)\pi `$. Although it is not possible to show it on the basis of the BA, it is quite natural to argue that these excitations are generated by the operators (12).

## VI Discussion

In this paper we showed how fractional statistics quasiparticles in specific $`c=1`$ CFTs can be obtained from an associated sine-Gordon model. Introducing a chemical potential, $`A`$, and driving the system to the UV fixed point by taking $`A\mathrm{}`$, we constructed massless excitations with fractional charge and computed their S-matrix. These excitations correspond to the excitations of the Calogero-Sutherland model associated to the same CFT. Their S-matrix is momentum independent, giving rise to the notion of a free gas of particles with generalized statistics. This formulation of the $`c=1`$ CFT can be contrasted with the formulation obtained via a massless limit, $`M0`$, of the same sine-Gordon theory. Our result thus sheds some light on the relation between different Factorized Scattering Theories (FST) associated to a $`c=1`$ CFT. It will be worthwhile to explore similar relations for FST formulations of more general (rational) CFTs.

## VII Acknowledgments

We would like to thank F. Essler for important discussions and clarifications on his work on the Calogero-Sutherland model. We also thank J-S. Caux and S. Peysson for useful discussions. D.C. is supported by the European Community under Marie Curie Fellowship grant HPMF-CT-2002-01591. K.S. is supported in part by the foundations FOM and NWO of the Netherlands.


text:
# 1. Separable Quasicrystal Models

## 1. Separable Quasicrystal Models

Much research has been conducted on the properties of excitations in quasicrystals, ever since the early interest in this question1 and up to this day.2 Many exact results have been found for 1-dimensional ($`1d`$) quasicrystals, yet the properties of excitations in $`2d`$ and $`3d`$ quasicrystals are known to a much lesser degree. Furthermore, the different models that have been mostly studied—such as $`1d`$ chains, the standard decagonal, octagonal, and icosahedral tilings, or actual structural models of real quasicrystals—do not allow one to easily focus on the dimensional dependence of the physical properties of quasicrystals, though some interesting heuristic arguments have been given by Sire.3

One of us 4 has recently studied the geometric properties and calculated the diffraction pattern of the square and cubic Fibonacci tilings, suggesting that they be used as models for $`2d`$ and $`3d`$ quasicrystals (with obvious generalization to any higher dimension). The advantage of these prototypical models of $`d`$-dimensional quasicrystals is that they are separable—certain problems, such as the eigenvalue problems studied here, can be decomposed into $`d`$ separate one-dimensional problems, yielding straightforward solutions, while allowing directly to focus on the effect of dimensionality on the problem being studied. The most apparent disadvantage of these models is that they do not occur in “real” quasicrystals, yet they should not be dismissed as irrelevant because they can be artificially constructed using, for example, conducting nanowires, coupled nanomechanical resonators, or photonic quasicrystals.

The square Fibonacci tiling is constructed by taking two identical grids—each consisting of an infinite set of lines whose inter-line spacings follow the well-known Fibonacci sequence of short ($`S`$) and long ($`L`$) distances—and superimposing them at a $`90^{}`$ angle, as shown in Fig. 1. This construction can be generalized, of course, to any quasiperiodic sequence as well as to higher dimensions. If the original $`1d`$ sequence has inversion symmetry the generated $`2d`$ and $`3d`$ quasicrystals will have square and cubic point group symmetry, respectively.

## 2. Electrons and (Scalar) Phonons

Here we take advantage of the separability of the square (and cubic) Fibonacci tilings to study two problems: (1) The tight binding hamiltonian with zero on-site energy and hopping amplitudes $`t`$ for vertices connected by long ($`L`$) edges, $`1`$ for vertices connected by short ($`S`$) edges, and zero for vertices that are not connected by edges; and (2) The normal modes of out-of-plane vibrations of a network of unit masses connected by springs according to the square Fibonacci tiling, with spring constants $`k`$ for long edges, and $`1`$ for short edges.

The 2-dimensional Schrödinger equation for the connected-neighbor tight-binding hamiltonian is given by

$`t_{n+1}\mathrm{\Psi }(n+1,m)+t_n\mathrm{\Psi }(n1,m)`$
$`+t_{m+1}\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m+1)+t_m\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m1)=E\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m),`$ (1)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)`$ is the value of a $`2d`$ eigenfunction on a vertex labeled by the two integers $`n`$ and $`m`$, and $`E`$ is the corresponding eigenvalue. The hopping amplitudes $`t_j`$ are equal to 1 or $`t`$ according to the Fibonacci tiling as described above. The equations of motion for the network of springs is obtained from the Schrödinger equation (2.) by replacing $`t_j`$ by the spring constant $`k_j`$, replacing $`E`$ by $`(k_{n+1}+k_n+k_{m+1}+k_m)\omega ^2`$, where $`\omega `$ is the normal frequency, and viewing $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)`$ as the out-of-plane displacement of the $`(n,m)`$ vertex. The generalization of Eq. (2.) to three or any higher dimension is obvious.

With no additional assumptions other than the absence of diagonal hopping or diagonal springs this 2-dimensional eigenvalue problem, as well as its higher dimensional versions, are all separable. Two-dimensional eigenfunctions can be expressed as products

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}(n,m)=\psi _i(n)\psi _j(m),$$
(2)
with eigenvalues

$$E_{ij}=E_i+E_j,\text{or}\omega _{ij}^2=\omega _i^2+\omega _j^2,$$
(3)
where $`\psi _i(n)`$ and $`\psi _j(n)`$ are two of the eigenfunctions of the corresponding $`1d`$ eigenvalue equation on the Fibonacci chain, with eigenvalues $`E_i`$ and $`E_j`$ or $`\omega _i^2`$ and $`\omega _j^2`$, respectively.

Separable quasiperiodic hamiltonians have been studied on such models in the past, 5 mainly focusing on square or cubic periodic lattices with constant hopping amplitudes (or springs) and on-site energies (or masses) that follow the same quasiperiodic sequence in all directions. These so-called “diagonal” models are separable if one requires the on-site energies (or masses) to be of the form $`V(n,m,\mathrm{})=V_x(n)+V_y(m)+\mathrm{}`$, in which case they have solutions as above.

## 3. Adding Energies

When solving the $`1d`$ tight-binding problem using the standard methods of transfer matrices and trace maps, 1 one finds for any $`t`$ that the $`n^{th}`$ approximant, with $`F_n`$ atoms per unit cell, has a spectrum containing $`F_n`$ continuous bands, where $`F_n`$ is the $`n^{th}`$ Fibonacci number. As $`n`$ increases and the quasicrystal is approached, the bands become narrower, and in the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$ the spectrum becomes singular-continuous, containing a Cantor-like set of points whose total bandwidth (Lebesgue measure) is zero. Figs. 2(a)–(c) show these bands for the first few approximants for three values of the parameter $`t`$. One sees that as $`t`$ increases away from the periodic ($`t=1`$) structure the gaps that are formed become increasingly wider.

When adding two such spectra as in Eq. (3) we first note that due to the degeneracy of $`E_{ij}=E_{ji}`$ the maximum number of bands for the $`n^{th}`$ approximant, if there is no overlap at all, is $`F_n(F_n+1)/2`$. The degree of overlap depends on $`t`$. We find three distinct behaviors which can be described qualitatively as follows: (1) For large enough $`t`$ the gaps in the $`1d`$ spectrum are sufficiently wide such that the $`2d`$ spectrum contains well separated bands \[Fig. 2(f)\]. As $`n`$ increases the total number of bands increases and in the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$ the $`2d`$ spectrum becomes singular-continuous with zero total bandwidth. (2) For $`t`$ close to 1, gaps in the $`1d`$ spectrum are sufficiently small such that the $`2d`$ bands greatly overlap, forming a single or a few bands even in the $`n\mathrm{}`$ limit \[Fig. 2(d)\]. The spectrum of the $`2d`$ quasicrystal is therefore absolutely continuous. (3) For intermediate $`t`$ a peculiar situation exists (observed also in the diagonal models 5) where even though the total number of bands increases with $`n`$ the total integrated bandwidth tends to a finite value \[Fig. 2(e)\]. It is not clear to us at this point whether the spectrum of the $`2d`$ quasicrystal in this case contains an absolutely continuous part or whether it remains singular-continuous as in $`1d`$.

Clearly, the transitions between the different behaviors are pushed to higher values of $`t`$ as the dimension increases and additional $`1d`$ spectra are added. We shall provide elsewhere a detailed analysis of the phase diagram of this system as a function of $`t`$ and dimension. We shall also describe the differences between electrons and phonons.

## 4. Multiplying Wave Functions

An intriguing paradox arises in light of the discussion above. Since for any $`t`$ the $`1d`$ spectrum is singular-continuous, all $`1d`$ eigenfunctions $`\psi _i(n)`$ are critical, decaying as a power laws from different points $`n_0`$. Any product of two such functions, as in Eq. (2), must be critical on the $`2d`$ quasicrystal as well, yet we have observed that for $`t`$ close to 1 the spectrum is continuous, implying that the wave functions must be extended.

We would like to conjecture that the resolution of this paradox stems from the high degeneracy of each eigenvalue when bands overlap and merge into one as in Fig. 2(d). In general, many different pairs of $`1d`$ eigenvalues $`E_i`$ and $`E_j`$ may add up to the same $`2d`$ eigenvalue $`E`$. Each eigenfunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}(n,m)`$ with eigenvalue $`E`$ is critical, all peaked at different points $`(n_0,m_0)`$ on the $`2d`$ quasicrystal, with substantial overlap due to their slow spatial decay. It is plausible that one could construct linear combinations of these critical eigenfunctions that are extended over the whole infinite quasicrystal. We intend to investigate this conjecture in the near future.

To support our conjecture, we conclude by showing that for any value of $`t`$ the eigenfunctions with energy $`E=0`$ are extended over the $`2d`$ quasicrystal. First recall that for any $`1d`$ eigenfunction $`\psi _i(n)`$ with energy $`E_i`$, the function $`(1)^m\psi _i(m)`$ is a $`1d`$ eigenfunction with energy $`E_i`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i(n,m)=(1)^m\psi _i(n)\psi _i(m)`$ is a $`2d`$ eigenfunction with energy $`E=0`$. Thus, for the $`n^{th}`$ approximant, the energy $`E=0`$ is $`F_n`$-fold degenerate (a similar situation arises for the labyrinth tiling 6). Since the $`1d`$ eigenfunctions form a complete set that spans all functions on the Fibonacci chain, one can perform a change of basis to an alternative complete set $`\varphi _j(n)=_ic_{ji}\psi _i(n)`$ whose members are all extended. The $`2d`$ eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j(n,m)=(1)^m\varphi _j(n)\varphi _j(m)`$, all with energy $`E=0`$ are extended over the whole $`2d`$ quasicrystal.

We should conclude with a cautionary remark that all our conclusions rely on the fact that the behavior for finite $`2d`$ approximants survives in the infinite limit. This is not obvious until proven rigorously as in $`1d`$.

Acknowledgment. We thank Michael Baake for valuable comments. This research is supported by the Israel Science Foundation through Grant No. 278/00.


text:
# NGC6822: short period variable stars, stellar population and distance scale.

## 1. Introduction

The aim of the present project is the study of the dwarf irregular (dI) galaxy NGC6822 using its pulsating variable star content. Pulsating variables are tracers of different stellar population in galaxies and useful for testing theoretical models. Moreover, some of them, such as the RR Lyrae stars and the Classical Cepheids, are primary distance indicators in the Local Group.

## 2. Observation and analysis

Time-series imaging of NGC6822 was obtained at the VLT (36 V and 11 B images) in 2001 August. Photometric reductions were performed using DAOPHOT and ALLFRAME (Stetson 1994) and the candidate variables were identified using ISIS2.1 (Alard 2000). About 450 bona fide candidate variables were detected, and all are being analysed with GRATIS (GRaphycal Analyzer of TIme Series, see Clementini et al. 2000) in order to check their actual variation, to classify them and to determine their pulsational characteristics.

## 3. Results

The color magnitude diagram of NGC6822 shows a significant population of candidate variable stars of different types that populate all the regions where the theoretical models predict their presence (Baldacci et al. 2002). Only the variables with $`V23`$ (namely variables in the Horizontal Branch region of the classical instability strip) have been fully analysed so far. Among them we found 17 RR Lyrae stars (15 ab-type and 2 c-type) and 20 brighter short-period variables that we collectively indicate as low luminosity (LL) Cepheids (Clementini et al. 2003). All these objects have good photometric data and light curve coverage that allow an unambiguous determination of the period. Since the Horizontal Branch of NGC6822 in completely hidden by the young and intermediate-age star populations, our detection of RR Lyrae stars is the first indisputable evidence of the presence of an old stellar population ($`\mathrm{t}10`$ Gyr) in the galaxy.

Figures 1 and 2 show the period-amplitude (P/A) and the period-luminosity (P/L) distributions of our sample, respectively. The P/A relation of the RR Lyrae stars is similar to the distribution followed by the Galactic globular clusters of Oosterhoff type I (Oosterhoff 1939), although an intermediate distribution (as found in many other dwarf galaxies) is not definitely ruled out by our data. The LL Cepheids are characterizated by smaller amplitudes (at a given period) than the RR Lyrae stars, and have similar periods but lower luminosities than the short periods Cepheids originally found in the Small Magellanic Cloud by Smith et al. (1992). The P/L distribution shows that there is no clear gap between RR Lyrae stars and LL Cepheids: the latter seem to fill up the region between the RR Lyrae stars and the Classical Cepheids in the classical instability strip. A similar continuity in the classical instability strip has been found in the dI galaxy Phoenix by Gallart et al. (2003). The nature of LL Cepheids is still unclear. Because of their distribution in the P/L diagram, they could be related both to the short periods Cepheids found in other dI galaxies (IC1613: Dolphin et al. 2001; Leo A: Dolphin et al. 2002; Sextans A: Dolphin et al. 2003; SMC: Sharpee et al. 2002) and to the Anomalous Cepheids found in the dwarf spheroidal galaxies (e.g., Pritzl et al. 2002 and references therein).

The mean apparent magnitude of our RR Lyrae stars is $`V=24.56\pm 0.18`$ (the error is the standard deviation of the average) while the mean apparent magnitude of the subsample of variables located inside the classical instability strip (6 stars) is $`V=24.63\pm 0.14`$, yielding a distance modulus of $`(mM)_0=23.36\pm 0.17`$ (see Clementini et al. 2003 for details). The LL Cepheids in our faint sample are on average $`V0.7`$ mag brighter than the RR Lyrae. Their period distribution peaks at $`P0.6`$ d. The lack of LL Cepheids with longer periods could be due to selection effects, since our observations were optimized to provide good coverage of the light curves for variable stars with periods between 0.2 and 0.7 d. We expect to find variables with longer periods in the brighter sample we are currently investigating.

## References

Alard, C. 2000, A&AS, 144, 363

Baldacci, L., Clementini, G., Held, E.V., & Rizzi, L. 2002 in the Workshop Variability with wide field imagers, astro-ph/0303094

Clement, C.M., Rowe, J. 2000, AJ, 120, 2579

Clementini, G., Di Tomaso, S., Di Fabrizio, L., Bragaglia, A., Merighi, R., Tosi, M., Carretta, E., Gratton, R.G., Ivans, I.I., Kinard, A., Marconi, M., Smith, H.A., Wilhelm, R., Woodruff, T., Sneden, C. 2000, AJ, 120, 2054

Clementini, G., Held, E.V., Baldacci, L., Rizzi, L. 2003, AJ, 588, L85

Dolphin, A.E., Saha, A., Skillman, E.D., Tolstoy, E., Cole, A.A., Dohm-Palmer, R.C., Gallagher, J.S., Mateo, M., Hoessel, J.G. 2001, ApJ, 550, 554

Dolphin, A.E., Saha, A., Claver, J., Skillman, E.D., Cole, A.A., Gallagher, J.S., Tolstoy, E., Dohm-Palmer, R.C., Mateo, M. 2002, AJ, 123, 3154

Dolphin, A.E., Saha, A., Skillman, E.D., Dohm-Palmer, R.C., Tolstoy, E., Cole, A.A., Gallagher, J.S., Hoessel, J.G., Mateo, M. 2003, AJ, 125, 1261

Gallart, C., Aparicio, A., Freedman, W.L., Madore, B.F., Martínez-Delgado, D., Stetson, P.B. 2003, this conference

Oosterhoff, P.T. 1939, Obs, 64, 140

Pritzl, B.J., Armandroff, T.E., Jacoby, G.H., Da Costa, G.S. 2002, AJ, 124, 1464

Sharpee, B., Stark, M., Pritzl, B.J., Smith, H.A., Silbermann, N.A., Wilhelm, R., Walker, A. 2002, AJ, 123, 3216

Smith, H.A., Silbermann, N.A., Baird, S.R., Graham, J.A. 1992,AJ, 104, 1430

Stetson, P.B. 1994, PASP, 106, 250


text:
# Temperature and Disorder Chaos in Low Dimensional Directed Paths

## Abstract

The responses of a $`1+\epsilon `$ dimensional directed path to temperature and to potential variations are calculated exactly, and are governed by the same scaling form. The short scale decorrelation (strong correlation regime) leads to the overlap length predicted by heuristic approaches; its temperature dependence and large absolute value agree with scaling and numerical observations. Beyond the overlap length (weak correlation regime), the correlation decays algebraically. A clear physical mechanism explains the behavior in each case: the initial decorrelation is due to ‘fragile droplets,’ which contribute to the entropy fluctuations as $`\sqrt{T}`$, while the residual correlation results from accidental intersections of otherwise uncorrelated configurations.

Many disordered systems are said to be ‘complex’ because they operate in the vicinity of a large number of microscopically distinct, metastable states. This generic property has several non-trivial manifestations, eminently, slow dynamics and aging, irreversibility, and the relevance of preparation history. A related aspect is the fragility, or extreme sensitivity, of disordered systems: the ‘dominant’ metastable states shift from given microscopic configurations to completely different ones upon even a slight variation of (external) parameters, a behavior that has been termed ‘chaotic’ as small perturbations map into major reconfigurations McKay ; Fisher-Huse1986 ; Bray-Moore ; Fisher-Huse1991 .

In experiments, temperature plays the role of a prototypical control parameter as it is far easier to vary than, say, the microscopic details of the disorder. Temperature chaos (TC) stipulates that, rather remarkably, the configurations probed by a disordered system (in its glassy phase) at temperature $`T`$ are largely uncorrelated to the ones probed at a slightly different temperature $`T+\delta T`$, provided the system is large enough, larger in fact than a characteristic overlap length $`L^{}`$ (which for consistency must diverge as $`\delta T0`$) Fisher-Huse1986 ; Bray-Moore ; Fisher-Huse1991 . This scenario may provide a natural explanation for several of the peculiar dynamical properties of spin glasses, such as the absence of cooling rate effects and the ‘rejuvenation’ phenomenon Jonsson ; Miyashita . Indeed, if a sufficiently large temperature step modifies drastically the equilibrium configurations, it is equivalent in its effect to a quench from high temperatures, regardless of the dwelling time at the high temperatures. Numerical observations of dynamical rejuvenation in the absence of any direct evidence of static TC Billoire ; Berthier-Bouchaud , however, seem to point to alternative pictures which do not rely on an overlap length but rather on the gradual freezing at successive scales Bouchaud2001 ; Berthier-Holdsworth ; Berthier-Bouchaud . While these are compatible with the large value (in absolute terms) of $`L^{}`$ inferred from numerics Fisher-Huse1991 , as well as from mean-field Rizzo  and Migdal-Kadanoff Aspelmeier  approximations, which would render the overlap length irrelevant in the face of the small dynamical length scales in spin glasses (a few tens of lattice spacings even on experimental time scales), recent arguments suggest that TC may manifest itself in ways relevant to experiments even at scales much smaller than $`L^{}`$ Jonsson ; Sasaki-Martin2003 . From a theoretical point of view, systematic investigations of TC are scarce. In the context of spin glasses, calculations have been confined to mean-field Rizzo  and Migdal-Kadanoff Banavar ; Aspelmeier  approximations, begging for studies of simpler models that still contain the physics of TC. Unfortunately, the exactly soluble Random Energy Model does not display TC (except in the vicinity of the critical temperature Sales-Bouchaud ), unless it is extended to include explicit random entropy variables Krzakala-Martin . The next best candidate for a theoretical treatment are directed paths (polymers) in a random potential. The sensitivity of an array of pinned flux lines to potential and temperature variations was studied by renormalization group methods Hwa-Fisher , which yielded scaling forms (identical in both cases) in the strong correlation regime. However, neither the dependence of the overlap length on temperature nor the weak correlation regime were elucidated. In the case of a single directed path, the (somewhat non-intuitive) result that changing temperature is ‘equivalent’ to changing disorder is confirmed by extensive numerics (in Ref. Sales-Yoshino , which also advances arguments based on the mapping to bosons Kardar ). The present work characterizes TC and disorder chaos (DC) for a directed path exactly, by working close to $`d=1`$ dimension, where a systematic $`\epsilon =d1`$ expansion can be performed Derrida-Griffiths ; Cook-Derrida . To our knowledge, this represents the first systematic, complete derivation of these effects; our exact results broadly confirm and complement the predictions of scaling arguments at strong correlation, elucidate the behavior at weak correlation, and match a clear picture of the physical mechanisms involved in each regime. Let us first summarize, in the context of directed paths, the scaling arguments for TC and DC. The crucial assumption is that the free energy of a directed path in a random potential consists, in the low temperature phase, of the sum of a non-random term growing linearly with the length $`L`$ of the path, with a prefactor regular in $`T`$, and, almost surely, a random contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ of order $`L^\theta `$ with $`\theta <1/2`$. (For example, $`\theta =1/3`$ holds exactly for two dimensional paths.) Now, suppose that the random potential is slightly modified by a small unbiased random addition of order $`\delta V`$ per bond, and assume $`T=0`$ for the sake of simplicity. The resulting extra contribution to the energy of the unperturbed ground state is obviously a random variable of order $`\delta VL^{1/2}`$, which, for large $`L`$, exceeds the postulated $`L^\theta `$ fluctuations. To avoid a contradiction, a new ground state configuration, roughly uncorrelated to the unperturbed one, must appear when $`\delta VL^{1/2}>L^\theta `$, i.e., when $`L>L^{}(\delta V)^{2/(12\theta )}`$, the overlap length corresponding to potential variations. The case of temperature variations is more subtle. At $`T>0`$, configurations that do not optimize the energy contribute normal energy fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, of order $`L^{1/2}`$, and similarly for entropy fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$, such that the two $`L^{1/2}`$ contributions precisely cancel and give way to the expected $`L^\theta `$ free energy fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$. Now, if one could use the thermodynamical identity $`\mathrm{\Delta }F/T=\mathrm{\Delta }S`$, one would conclude that the fluctuations of the free energy vary, upon a change of temperature, by an amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }S\delta TL^{1/2}\delta T`$, which again exceeds the ‘allowed’ $`L^\theta `$ fluctuations whenever $`L>L^{}(\delta T)^{2/(12\theta )}`$. The only way out is that the ‘dominant’ configurations shift to radically different ones, inducing non-analyticities in $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ that can be seen as a sequence of micro-phase transitions at all temperatures. That, in the glassy phase, disordered systems are in a sense critical at all temperatures, and therefore extremely sensitive to parameter changes, was suggested in the context of mean-field spin glasses Mezard-Parisi-Virasoro . This generic fragility was predicted by Fisher and Huse Fisher-Huse1986 ; Fisher-Huse1991 , as part of a rich scaling picture from which the above arguments are extracted (see also Refs. Bray-Moore ; Mezard ; Hwa-Fisher ). We now turn to our analytical results and their physical interpretation. (A full account of the technical details will be published separately.) We study the statistical mechanics of directed paths on a standard Berker lattice constructed recursively by replacing a bond by a diamond with $`b`$ two-bond branches. Each bond carries a Gaussian random energy with vanishing mean and standard deviation $`\sigma _1`$ (though our results presumably hold more generally, at least for sufficiently short tailed densities). To uncover the effect of a small change in either temperature or random potential, we focus on two paths at temperatures $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$, and subjected to two random potentials with a correlation coefficient $`\rho _1`$, and we ask how they decorrelate as a function of their length $`L`$. Our calculation generalizes the beautiful work of Derrida and Griffiths Derrida-Griffiths  to non-vanishing temperatures Cook-Derrida  and to include more than one directed path. We establish an exact recursion relation for the joint probability distribution $`𝒫(F(T),F^{}(T^{}))`$ of the free energies of the two directed paths. This recursion relation can be solved in the low dimensional limit $`b=1+\epsilon `$, in which $`𝒫`$ is close to a bivariate Gaussian distribution. The averages and higher (joint) moments of the free energies may be extracted from this distribution; in line with our central question, we focus on the normalized correlation

$$\rho =\frac{\overline{\delta F(T)\delta F^{}(T^{})}}{\sqrt{\overline{\delta F(T)^2}\overline{\delta F^{}(T^{})^2}}},$$
(1)
with $`\delta F^{()}(T^{()})=F^{()}(T^{()})\overline{F^{()}(T^{()})}`$. The quantity $`\rho `$ codifies the sensitivity of a directed path to temperature or random potential variations The free energies of a pair of shortest possible paths are the bond energies themselves, and thus $`\rho (L=1)\rho _1`$; $`\rho _1=1`$ if the two random potentials felt by the directed paths are identical, while $`0<\rho _1<1`$ if they are different (but correlated). For longer and longer paths, $`\rho `$ falls to zero due to thermal fluctuations (if $`TT^{}`$) or to quenched fluctuations (if the random potentials are different). Our calculation recovers the scaling form of the initial decorrelation in the strong correlation regime, and yields the overlap length $`L^{}`$ (appearing here as the scale at which $`\rho `$ has fallen by a fraction, say $`1/2`$, of its initial value) in terms of the perturbation. In the weak correlation regime, beyond $`L^{}`$, we find that the residual correlation $`\rho `$ decays much more slowly than it was previously anticipated. At short scales or strong correlation, the initial decorrelation evolves, as a function $`L`$, according to

$$\rho =1\mathrm{\Delta }L^{12\theta }+𝒪\left(L^{\frac{1}{2}2\theta }\right),$$
(2)
where, in the limit $`1\rho _11`$ and $`|\delta T|\sigma _1`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\left(1\rho _1\right)+𝒜s(T)\left(\frac{\delta T}{\sigma _1}\right)^2.$$
(3)
In these expressions,

$$\theta =\frac{1}{2}\frac{K_2}{\mathrm{ln}(2)}\epsilon $$
(4)
is the exponent ruling free energy fluctuations Derrida-Griffiths ; Cook-Derrida ,

$$s(T)=\frac{\pi ^2}{6\left(2\sqrt{2}1\right)}K_1\frac{T}{\sigma _1}$$
(5)
is the low temperature entropy per unit length, and the numerical constants $`𝒜`$, $`K_1`$, and $`K_2`$ take the values

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u\mathrm{ln}^2\left(u\right)}{\left(u+1\right)^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(u+1)}{u}}\right\}0.23,`$
$`K_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑uu^{n1}E(u)\mathrm{ln}(E(u)).`$ (6)
($`E(u)=_{\mathrm{}}^u\frac{dx}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{x^2/2}`$ denotes the usual error function.) While our formulation is valid at any temperature, the above explicit expressions correspond to the dominant low temperature behavior. More generally, we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a regular function of $`(\delta T)^2`$, at odds with ‘weak chaos’ arguments Sales-Yoshino ; Jonsson  which naively suggest an additional, singular $`\left|\delta T\right|^3`$ contribution.

The above result for the initial decorrelation of a directed path in a random potential may be viewed as follows. From the calculation, it appears clearly that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ embodies the ‘ignition’ of the decorrelation, which occurs dominantly at short scales. A path of length $`L`$ contains a number $`L`$ of fragile ‘ignition droplets’ responsible for the decorrelation at short scales; their contribution to the overall decorrelation is therefore proportional to $`L`$ divided by the square of the free energy fluctuations, i.e., to $`L^{12\theta }`$, as in Eq. (2) and in agreement with recent numerical data Sales-Yoshino  on directed paths in $`d=1+1`$ dimensions. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be thought of as the density of ignition droplets. (Equivalently, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ corresponds to the probability that an arbitrary small droplet takes part in the ‘ignition.’ Pushing this line of reasoning further, one can infer from the calculation that a droplet of size $`\mathrm{}`$ takes part in the ignition with probability $`1/\mathrm{}^\theta `$, consistent with the dominance of small droplets and the predictions of scaling theory Fisher-Huse1991 .) This interpretation becomes transparent in the case of TC if we consider, for the sake of simplicity, $`T^{}=0`$ and $`T=\delta T`$ small. Then the correlation reads

$$\rho 1\frac{1}{2}\left\{\frac{T^2\overline{\left(S\overline{S}\right)^2}}{\overline{\left(E_0\overline{E_0}\right)^2}}\left[\frac{\overline{\left(E_0\overline{E_0}\right)T\left(S\overline{S}\right)}}{\overline{\left(E_0\overline{E_0}\right)^2}}\right]^2\right\},$$
(7)
where $`E_0`$ is the ground state energy of the path and $`S=s(T)L`$ its entropy. Now, the entropy of the path at temperature $`T`$ comes from a number of droplets, distinguishing nearly degenerate paths, such that the energy difference between the arms of the droplet differ by less than $`T`$. These droplets have a certain density per unit length, proportional to $`s(T)`$ (roughly, $`s(T)/\mathrm{ln}(2)`$). If we compare two samples, corresponding to two different realizations of the random potential, some of the droplets existing (at given positions on the path) in the first sample will not be present in the second and vice versa, so that the variance of the entropy too grows linearly with the length of the path. This picture of Poissonian droplets implies furthermore that the variance of the entropy is given by the entropy itself, i.e., we expect $`\overline{\left(S\overline{S}\right)^2}s(T)L\text{.}`$ With $`\overline{\left(E_0\overline{E_0}\right)\left(S\overline{S}\right)}\overline{\left(S\overline{S}\right)^2}`$ for large $`L`$ and the scaling of ground state energy fluctuations $`\overline{\left(E_0\overline{E_0}\right)^2}\sigma _1^2L^{2\theta }`$, Eq. (7) then reduces to

$$\rho 1\frac{1}{2}s(T)\left(\frac{\delta T}{\sigma _1}\right)^2L^{12\theta },$$
(8)
in agreement with Eqs. (2,3). A similar argument may be constructed in the case of DC.

A notable outcome of this discussion, substantiated by the analytic result, is the fact that sample to sample variations of the entropy are of order $`\sqrt{T}`$ – a behavior that extends to spin glasses on Berker lattices Aspelmeier . As mentioned, this is due to the intermittent nature of the droplets contributing to entropy: a droplet is active with probability $`T`$, and inactive otherwise. Therefore all moments of the entropy, including the mean and the variance, are proportional to $`T`$.

To conclude the discussion of the strong correlation regime, we note that, according to Eq. (2), once $`L^{12\theta }`$ becomes of order $`1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the correlation has dropped by a significant fraction of its initial ($`L=1`$) value. For TC, this observation defines an overlap length

$$L^{}\left(\sqrt{𝒜s(T)}\frac{\delta T}{\sigma _1}\right)^{\frac{1}{1/2\theta }}\left(\sqrt{T}\delta T\right)^{\frac{1}{1/2\theta }},$$
(9)
in agreement with the outcome of Fisher and Huse’s scaling theory Fisher-Huse1991 . Inserting numerical values, we find a rather large overlap length, $`L^{}10^4`$, even for $`T=\sigma _1`$, $`\delta T=\sigma _1/2`$, and $`\theta =1/3`$ (the exact value in $`d=1+1`$ dimensions), in qualitative agreement with numerical observations for both directed paths Fisher-Huse1991 ; Sales-Yoshino  and spin-glasses Aspelmeier . Finally, since the (small) fragile droplets dominate the ignition mechanism for TC, consistency requires that $`L^{}`$ be much larger than the typical distance $`\mathrm{}_T1/T`$ between droplets. From Eq. (9), this is indeed the case as long as $`0<\theta <1/2`$.

In the weak correlation regime with $`LL^{}`$, we find, at odds with common expectations, a slow algebraic decay

$$\rho L^{\frac{12K_2}{\mathrm{ln}(2)}\epsilon }$$
(10)
for both temperature and disorder decorrelation. Again, a simple physical picture explains this behavior. As confirmed by our calculation, at large $`L`$ the ground state dominates the statistics or, equivalently, the temperature effectively scales to zero. Thus, whether at slightly different temperatures or in slightly different random potentials, our two directed paths behave at large scales as if pinned by two uncorrelated random energy configurations, and their residual correlation arises from the (rare) bonds at which they intersect. Whence we expect

$$\rho =\frac{\overline{\left(E_0\overline{E_0}\right)\left(E_0^{}\overline{E_0}\right)}}{\overline{\left(E_0\overline{E_0}\right)^2}}\frac{(L)\overline{\left(e_{}\overline{e_{}}\right)^2}}{\overline{\left(E_0\overline{E_0}\right)^2}},$$
(11)
where $`(L)`$ is the average number of intersection bonds and $`e_{}`$ the energy of an intersection bond. Now, for completely uncorrelated paths on a Berker lattice with branching $`b`$, $`(L)=L^{1\frac{\mathrm{ln}(b)}{\mathrm{ln}(2)}}`$ trivially. Extrapolating this result to $`b=1+\epsilon `$, we note that the quantity

$$\frac{(L)}{\overline{\left(E_0\overline{E_0}\right)^2}}\frac{L^{1\frac{\mathrm{ln}(b)}{\mathrm{ln}(2)}}}{L^{2\theta }}L^{\frac{12K_2}{\mathrm{ln}(2)}\epsilon }$$
(12)
precisely coincides with the analytic result of Eq. (10). From this argument, we conclude that the intersections occur indeed ‘accidentaly’: free energy minimization manifests itself, at best, subdominantly. The physical mechanism for residual correlation just described does not bear on any specificity of the model and affords us with natural conjectures for the large $`L`$ decorrelation of directed paths in higher dimensions. For two paths in $`d=1+D`$ dimensions, emerging from the same end point but otherwise uncorrelated (on scales $`LL^{}`$), the probability of encounter at a distance $`\mathrm{}`$ away from the end point is $`1/\mathrm{}^{\zeta D}`$, where $`\zeta =\left(1+\theta \right)/2`$ is the wandering exponent. Therefore, the mean number of accidental intersections, at large $`L`$, grows like $`L^{1\zeta D}`$ if $`\zeta D<1`$ and converges to a constant if $`\zeta D>1`$, so that we expect the correlation to scale as $`\rho L^{1\zeta D2\theta }`$ if $`\zeta D<1`$ and $`L^{2\theta }`$ if $`\zeta D>1`$. For example, in $`d=1+1`$ dimensions, $`\zeta =2/3`$ and $`\theta =1/3`$, whence $`\rho L^{1/3}`$ for $`LL^{}`$ (instead of the previously conjectured $`L^{4/3}`$ decay Fisher-Huse1991 ). It is unfortunately impossible to check this prediction against recent numerical results Sales-Yoshino , as these do not extend to the asymptotic decorrelation regime.

In sum, while the decorrelation mechanisms – entropic fluctuations of fragile droplets for TC and energetic competition for DC – are different, the scaling form of the free energy correlation, when expressed in terms of $`L/L^{}`$, is exactly the same in the two cases. We calculated exactly this scaling form and the dependence of the overlap length $`L^{}`$ on either temperature or potential variations. Perhaps surprisingly, the free energy correlation decays as a weak power law, rather than exponentially, at large $`L`$. A study of the statistics of the overlap between unperturbed and perturbed paths, possibly using similar methods, would be an interesting extension of the present work to better understand the crossover from short to long scales and the nature of the overlap length. In another worthwhile extension, one could apply the systematic approach on low dimensional Berker lattices to study TC in spin glasses. However, beyond its added calculational complication, the case of spin glasses might be more subtle due to the presence of several exponents ruling the glassy phase BKM , instead of a single one, $`\theta `$, for directed paths. Physically, the presence of several exponents reflects the fact that the scaling of energy fluctuations depends on the topological nature of excitations (that may be compact, sponge-like, or fractal), and it might well be that on Euclidean lattices a backbone of ‘strong links’ prevents a complete decorrelation for small temperature changes. An interesting variation on the directed path problem, that may mimic this mechanism, incorporates a fat tailed random potential $`V`$ (distributed according to a power law $`P(V)`$), as in that case the directed path configurations are controlled by the particularly favorable sites. In $`d=1+1`$ dimensions, a simple argument suggests that TC exists only if $`P(V)`$ decays slower than $`V^{9/2}`$. From a theoretical point of view, a finer understanding of such a behaviour is, doubtless, worthwhile.

We thank E. Bertin, G. Biroli, B. Derrida, T. Emig, D.S. Fisher, O. Martin, and H. Yoshino for useful discussions. R.A.S. is grateful to D. Danielou for his hospitality at the CDF in Paris, where this work was pursued in part, and to A.N. Berker for his lattices. This work was supported by a Chateaubriand fellowship, the Harvard Society of Fellows, and a Young Researcher Fellowship from the Fonds national suisse (R.A.S.).