text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The resolution of the one-dimensional Schrödinger equation has attracted much attention since the first statements of quantum mechanics. It is now well known that this equation can be analytically solved for a small number of interactions only. In that case, it is referred to as an exactly solvable (ES) equation. Because of their major interest (analytic solutions describe more finely the physical reality), several methods have been proposed in order to increase the number of these ES Schrödinger equations. One can cite the factorization method introduced by Schrödinger  and actualized by Witten in the form of supersymmetric quantum mechanics . It is based on the fact that a one-dimensional Schrödinger Hamiltonian

$$H_0\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V_0(x)$$
(1)
can be factorized as

$$H_0=L_0^{}L_0+\alpha ,$$
(2)
with

$$L_0=\frac{d}{dx}+W_0(x),$$
(3)
the constant $`\alpha `$ being called the factorization constant. One can then obtain in a straightforward way the eigenfunctions of

$$H_1L_0L_0^{}+\alpha =\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V_1(x),$$
(4)
$$V_1(x)=V_0(x)+2W_0^{}(x)$$
(5)
where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`x`$. They are precisely given by

$$\varphi _N(x)=L_0\psi _N(x),$$
(6)
where $`\psi _N(x)`$ stands for the eigenfunction (of eigenvalue $`E_N`$) related to $`H_0`$. The relation (4) means that the operator $`L_0^{}`$ realizes the transformation in the opposite direction. The function

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_N(x)=L_0^{}\varphi _N(x),$$
(7)
is an eigenfunction of $`H_0`$ differing from $`\psi _N`$ by a normalization constant only. Note that neither $`L_0`$ nor $`L_0^{}`$ are unitary and they do not preserve the norms of the functions. The relations (6) and (7) imply that $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ are isospectral up to the fact that either the ground state of $`H_0`$ could belong to the kernel of the operator $`L`$ or the ground state of $`H_1`$ could belong to the kernel of the operator $`L^{}`$. In this case the spectra of $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ differ by the ground state level only and they are strictly isospectral otherwise.

Another method for giving rise to ES Hamiltonians is the so-called Darboux transformation . This method is based on a general notion of transformation operators . The main element in definition of such an operator is the so-called intertwining relation

$$LH_0=H_1L.$$
(8)
The factorization method (a fortiori the supersymmetric quantum mechanics) appeared long after the publication of the Darboux paper which was unfamiliar to physicists. But since the paper by Andrianov et. al.  it was realized that the methods are equivalent. The relation (8) gives the same expression for the transformation operator as in the original paper by Darboux  which coincides with (3)-(6) and precises the function $`W_0(x)`$ to be the logarithmic derivative

$$W_0(x)=\frac{d(\mathrm{ln}\psi (x))}{dx}.$$
(9)
of a solution to the initial Schrödinger equation

$$(H_0\alpha )\psi (x)=0.$$
(10)
Note that $`\alpha `$ here is exactly the same factorization constant as in Eqs. (2) and (4). The function $`\psi (x)`$ is called the transformation function (sometimes the factorization function). The only condition imposed on $`\psi (x)`$ is its absence of zeros inside the interval where the equation (10) is solved. This condition may be satisfied only if $`\alpha E_0`$ (see e.g. ) where $`E_0`$ is the ground state energy of $`H_0`$ if it has a discrete spectrum or the lower bound of the continuous spectrum otherwise. For $`\alpha =E_0`$ the function $`\psi (x)`$ is evidently the ground state function of $`H_0`$ and for $`\alpha <E_0`$ it is an unphysical solution of (10).

It is evident that the Hamiltonian $`H_1`$ can be taken as the initial Hamiltonian for the next transformation step etc. In such a way one gets a chain of so called reducible transformations. The main feature of such a chain is that every element of the chain has a well-defined (this means essentially self-adjoint) Hamiltonian acting in the same Hilbert space and the resulting action of the whole chain may be obtained with the help of a higher order transformation operator only acting on solutions of the initial equation. A natural question then arises. Is it possible to get something new with respect to a chain of transformations by defining an $`n`$th order transformation operator as an $`n`$th order differential operator satisfying the intertwining relation (8)? The answer is positive: there are the irreducible chains of transformations. The main feature of such chains is that despite of the fact that they can also decompose into a superposition of first order operators, some of the corresponding intermediate Hamiltonians can not be defined properly: They are either singular or non Hermitian. More precisely, it was first established that some intermediate potentials may have poles inside the interval where the initial Schrödinger equation is solved but the final potential is regular  (the supersymmetric interpretation can be found in  and a generalization of Krein’s statement is in ). In this paper we refer to this case as irreducible transformations of the first type. Another possibility to get an irreducible chain consists in choosing complex factorization energies $`\alpha _1=\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _2=\overline{\alpha }`$ (the bar over a symbol means the complex conjugation). In this case some intermediate potentials are complex but the final potential is real . We refer to this case as irreducible transformations of the second type.

Irreducible Darboux transformations have already been exploited in order to give rise to a large amount of new ES Schrödinger equations , -. However a new kind of Schrödinger equations appeared in the literature some twenty years ago . These are the so-called quasi-exactly solvable (QES) Schrödinger equations, i.e., those for which a finite number of solutions can be analytically determined. These equations are rather exceptional. A previous attempt to list them in an exhaustive way has been performed by Turbiner  on the basis of the link between these equations and the $`sl(2,R)`$ vector fields preserving a finite-dimensional space. However it is now understood that some of these equations  do not have any connection with the Lie algebra $`sl(2,R)`$. Therefore it is interesting to find other approaches giving rise to new QES equations. Supersymmetric quantum mechanics is one of these approaches but it has been mainly used in the context of ES equations (for a recent review, see e.g. ). In what concerns QES equations there are only several papers on this subject (see e.g. ). The purpose of this paper is to fill in this gap. Thus, in Sections 2 and 3, we focus on the reducible and irreducible second-order Darboux transformations, respectively. In each of these Sections we produce new QES potentials starting from the same QES potential. For simplicity we choose it as the one corresponding to the radial sextic oscillator  even if our developments can evidently be applied to any of the already known QES interactions.

## 2 Reducible second-order Darboux transformations

Let us start with the one-dimensional Schrödinger Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ as given in Eq. (1) with

$$V_0(x)=a^2x^62a(2M+2s+1)x^2+\frac{4(s1/4)(s3/4)}{x^2},x_0^+$$
(11)
which describes the radial sextic oscillator, a prototype of QES systems. In Eq. (11), $`a`$ and $`s`$ are positive constants while the positive integer $`M`$ is related to the number (equal to $`M+1`$) of analytic eigenfunctions. These functions are expressed as

$$\psi _N(x)=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{a}{4}x^4)x^{2s\frac{1}{2}}P_M^{(N)}(x^2),N=0,1,\mathrm{},M$$
(12)
where

$$P_M^{(N)}(x^2)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{M}{}}c_n^{(N)}x^{2n}.$$
(13)
The coefficients $`c_n^{(N)}`$ have to be determined through the resolution of a system of algebraic equations. Precisely these coefficients are

$`c_n^{(N)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{Mn}}{(Mn)!}}Y_{Mn}^{(N)}(\alpha )`$
$``$ $`1\mathrm{if}n=M`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{Mn}}{(Mn)!}}{\displaystyle \underset{i_1\mathrm{}i_{Mn}}{}}\alpha _{i_1}^{(N)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{i_{Mn}}^{(N)}\mathrm{if}nM,`$
with the $`\alpha _j^{(N)}`$’s being known through

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{(4ax^48s)}{x^2\alpha _k^{(N)}}\underset{kl=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{4x^2}{(x^2\alpha _k^{(N)})(x^2\alpha _l^{(N)})}4aMx^2E_N=0.$$
(15)
Let us now turn to the Darboux transformation. In the reducible case we are concerned with, it is a product of two Darboux transformations as given in Eq. (3) with $`W_0(x)`$ being fixed according to Eq. (9). We first choose $`\psi (x)`$ to be the ground state of $`H_0`$ in order to prove that even in this simplified context we can generate new QES potentials. Indeed with such a choice we obtain

$$W_0(x)=ax^3\frac{(2s1/2)}{x}\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{2x}{(x^2\alpha _k^{(0)})}.$$
(16)
Therefore one can immediately obtain $`M`$ eigenfunctions $`\varphi _N(x)`$ (as expressed in Eq. (6)) of the Hamiltonian $`H_1`$ defined in Eqs. (4) and (5)

$$\varphi _N(x)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{a}{4}x^4)x^{2s\frac{1}{2}}}{P_M^{(0)}(x^2)}W(P_M^{(0)}(x^2),P_M^{(N)}(x^2)),N=1,2,\mathrm{},M.$$
(17)
The symbol $`W`$ stands for the usual Wronskian i.e.

$$W(f_1(x),f_2(x))f_1(x)\frac{df_2(x)}{dx}f_2(x)\frac{df_1(x)}{dx}.$$
(18)
Taking $`f_1(x)`$ and $`f_2(x)`$ being respectively the polynomials $`P_M^K(x^2)`$ and $`P_M^N(x^2)`$ this Wronskian will be denoted by $`W_{KN}(x)`$. It is also clear from (17) that $`\varphi _0(x)=0`$ in accordance with Eq. (6).

The potential $`V_1(x)`$ related to these $`M`$ nontrivial solutions $`\varphi _N(x)`$ is expressed through Eq. (5) as

$`V_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`a^2x^64a(M+s1)x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(4s^21/4)}{x^2}}+4{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2s+Ma(\alpha _k^{(0)})^2)}{x^2\alpha _k^{(0)}}}`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`8{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _k^{(0)}}{(x^2\alpha _k^{(0)})^2}}+2{\displaystyle \underset{kl=1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _k^{(0)}+\alpha _l^{(0)}}{(x^2\alpha _k^{(0)})(x^2\alpha _l^{(0)})}}.`$
It is thus a QES potential and being not subtended by $`sl(2,R)`$, it has not been listed in . Yet at this stage we have thus produced a new QES potential. This is a generalization of a previously obtained potential  which corresponds to the choice $`a=1/2`$ and $`s=1/4`$.

We now proceed further by going to the second first-order Darboux operator $`L_1`$ such that

$$H_1=\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V_1(x)=L_1^{}L_1+E_1,$$
(20)
with

$$L_1=\frac{d}{dx}+W_1(x)\frac{d}{dx}\frac{d(\mathrm{ln}\varphi _1(x))}{dx}.$$
(21)
We will then obtain once again a new QES potential $`V_2(x)`$ defined according to Eq.(5)

$$V_2(x)=V_1(x)+2W_1^{}(x)$$
(22)
and the corresponding $`(M1)`$ eigenfunctions

$$\chi _N(x)L_1\varphi _N(x),N=2,\mathrm{},M.$$
(23)
The function $`W_1(x)`$ characterizing this second Darboux operator is determined according to Eqs. (21) and (17) and it is given by

$$W_1(x)=W_0(x)+(E_1E_0)\frac{P_M^{(0)}(x^2)P_M^{(1)}(x^2)}{W_{01}(x)}.$$
(24)
It is then straightforward to obtain $`V_2(x)`$ and $`\chi _N(x)`$ through Eqs. (22) and (23), respectively. They are

$$V_2(x)=V_0(x)+2(E_1E_0)\frac{d}{dx}(\frac{P_M^{(0)}(x^2)P_M^{(1)}(x^2)}{W_{01}(x)})$$
(25)
and

$`\chi _N(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{a}{4}}x^4){\displaystyle \frac{x^{2s1/2}}{W_{01}(x)}}`$
$`\times [E_0P_M^{(0)}(x^2)W_{1N}(x)+E_1P_M^{(1)}(x^2)W_{0N}(x)E_NP_M^{(N)}(x^2)W_{01}(x)],`$
$`N=2,\mathrm{},M.`$
Once again it is immediate to observe from Eq. (2) that $`\chi _0(x)=\chi _1(x)=0`$. We thus obtain in Eq. (2) the $`(M1)`$ eigenfunctions of the new QES potential $`V_2(x)`$ given in Eq. (25).

As stated in the Introduction, this succession of two first-order Darboux operators is equivalent to a unique second-order Darboux operator defined by

$$LL_1L_0.$$
(27)
Following the general theory of Darboux transformations , and this can be directly checked through Eqs. (3), (16), (21) and (24), this operator is such that

$$L\psi _N(x)=W^1(\psi _0(x),\psi _1(x))W(\psi _0(x),\psi _1(x),\psi _N(x))$$
(28)
giving again the eigenfunctions $`\chi _N(x)`$ defined in Eq. (2), while

$$V_2(x)=V_0(x)2\frac{d^2}{dx^2}[\mathrm{ln}W(\psi _0(x),\psi _1(x))].$$
(29)
This Darboux operator $`L`$ is thus the one connecting the two QES potentials $`V_0(x)`$ and $`V_2(x)`$ given in (25). The intermediate step $`V_1(x)`$ (see formula (19)) is also physically meaningful. It is precisely the statement of reducible Darboux transformations but adapted here to QES equations.

We observe here the usual situation inherent for the potentials with the centrifugal term of the type $`l(l+1)/x^2`$, ($`l=2s3/2`$). The Darboux transformation results in the change $`ll+1`$ for this term even if it is not present in the initial potential (i.e. $`l=0`$). This is due to zero boundary condition for the functions (12) and their specific asymptotic behaviour when $`x0`$, $`\psi _N(x)x^{l+1}`$.

We end this Section by a specific example. This will be in particular useful in order to compare the results we have obtained here with the ones of the irreducible context in the next Section. We thus take

$$a=\frac{1}{2},M=2$$
(30)
so that the starting potential $`V_0(x)`$ is

$$V_0(x)=\frac{1}{4}x^6(5+2s)x^2+\frac{4(s1/4)(s3/4)}{x^2}.$$
(31)
The corresponding eigenfunctions and eigenvalues are given by

$`\psi _0(x)=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}x^4)x^{2s1/2}(x^4+2\sqrt{4s+1}x^2+4s),`$ $`E_0=4\sqrt{4s+1},`$ (32)
$`\psi _1(x)=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}x^4)x^{2s1/2}(x^44s2),`$ $`E_1=0,`$ (33)
$`\psi _2(x)=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}x^4)x^{2s1/2}(x^42\sqrt{4s+1}x^2+4s),`$ $`E_2=4\sqrt{4s+1}`$ (34)
as seen from Eq. (12). The new QES potential $`V_2(x)`$ resulting from the second-order reducible operator $`L`$ given by (27) is (see Eq. (25))

$`V_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}x^6(2s1)x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8s}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8(x^2\sqrt{4s+1})}{(x^4+2\sqrt{4s+1}x^2+4s+2)}}`$ (35)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32x^2}{(x^4+2\sqrt{4s+1}x^2+4s+2)^2}},`$
while its unique analytic eigenfunction $`\chi _2(x)`$ as well as the corresponding energy $`E_2`$ are

$$\chi _2(x)=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{8}x^4)\frac{x^{2s+3/2}}{(x^4+2\sqrt{4s+1}x^2+4s+2)},E_2=4\sqrt{4s+1}.$$
(36)
Moreover there exists in this case a meaningful intermediate step characterized by the potential $`V_1(x)`$, i.e.,

$`V_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}x^62(s+1)x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(4s^21/4)}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4(1+\sqrt{4s+1})}{x^2+\sqrt{4s+1}1}}`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(1\sqrt{4s+1})}{x^2+\sqrt{4s+1}+1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8(1\sqrt{4s+1})}{(x^2+\sqrt{4s+1}1)^2}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8(1+\sqrt{4s+1})}{(x^2+\sqrt{4s+1}+1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{4s+1}}{x^4+2\sqrt{4s+1}x^2+4s}}.`$
Two eigenfunctions and eigenvalue related to this potential are also known. They are given by

$`\varphi _1(x)=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}x^4)x^{2s+1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{x^4+2\sqrt{4s+1}x^2+4s+2}{x^4+2\sqrt{4s+1}x^2+4s}},`$ $`E_1=0,`$ (38)
$`\varphi _2(x)=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}x^4)x^{2s+1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{x^44s}{x^4+2\sqrt{4s+1}x^2+4s}},`$ $`E_2=4\sqrt{4s+1}.`$ (39)
## 3 Irreducible second-order Darboux <br>transformations

### 3.1 Transformations of the first type

We now turn to the irreducible context. We still consider at the start the potential $`V_0(x)`$ given in Eq. (11) as well as the corresponding eigenfunctions $`\psi _N(x)`$, $`N=0,1,\mathrm{},M`$ specified in Eq. (12). The main purpose here is to find an operator similar to the one given in Eq. (28) but being such that the factorization (27) cannot give rise to a physically meaningful $`\mathrm{V}_1(x)`$. We thus propose to consider an operator $`\mathrm{L}`$ being built on $`\psi _1(x)`$ and $`\psi _2(x)`$ i.e.

$$\mathrm{L}\psi _N(x)W^1(\psi _1(x),\psi _2(x))W(\psi _1(x),\psi _2(x),\psi _N(x))$$
(40)
such that $`\mathrm{L}\psi _N(x)`$ will stand for the $`(M1)`$ ($`N=0,3,4,\mathrm{},M`$) eigenfunctions of the new QES potential replacing $`V_2(x)`$ given in (29).

One can see, comparing Eq. (40) with Eq. (28), that the irreducible case can be deduced from the reducible one by the simple changes of indices: $`01`$ and $`12`$, in Eqs. (28) and (29) respectively. Through example (35) we thus get

$`\mathrm{V}_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}x^6(2s1)x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8s}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8(x^2+\sqrt{4s+1})}{(x^42\sqrt{4s+1}x^2+4s+2)}}`$ (41)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32x^2}{(x^42\sqrt{4s+1}x^2+4s+2)^2}}`$
and

$$\chi _0(x)=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{8}x^4)\frac{x^{2s+3/2}}{(x^42\sqrt{4s+1}x^2+4s+2)},E_0=4\sqrt{4s+1}.$$
(42)
One immediately notice that in this irreducible case, the potential (41) as well as its eigenfunction (42) can be deduced from their reducible analogues (35) and (36) by a simple change of sign in front of the square roots. However it is a new QES potential with a unique eigenfunction $`\chi _0(x)`$ given in Eq. (42) and characterized this time by the lowest energy of the potential (11) when restricted to the choices (30).

As stated before, the Darboux operator $`\mathrm{L}`$ cannot give rise to a physically relevant intermediate potential $`\mathrm{V}_1(x)`$. Indeed, the operator $`\mathrm{L}`$ defined in Eq. (40) can be written as $`\mathrm{L}=\mathrm{L}_1\mathrm{L}_0`$ with

$$\mathrm{L}_\mathrm{j}\frac{d}{dx}+\mathrm{w}_\mathrm{j}(x),j=0,1.$$
(43)
More precisely, the function $`\mathrm{w}_0(x)`$, the irreducible analogue of $`W_0(x)`$ given in Eq. (16), is determined as

$$\mathrm{w}_0(x)=\frac{1}{2}x^3\frac{(2s1/2)}{x}2x\left(\frac{1}{x^2\sqrt{4s+1}1}+\frac{1}{x^2\sqrt{4s+1}+1}\right),$$
(44)
which effectively coincides with the one of Eq. (16) up to the choices (30) and the replacement of $`\alpha _k^{(0)}`$ ($`k=1,\mathrm{},M`$) by $`\alpha _k^{(2)}`$. As clear from Eq. (44), this leads to singularities which were not present in the reducible case (16). These singularities are also recovered at the step of the potential $`\mathrm{V}_1(x)`$ obtained through Eq. (5). Indeed we have (compare with Eq. (37))

$`\mathrm{V}_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}x^62(s+1)x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(4s^21/4)}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4(1+\sqrt{4s+1})}{x^2\sqrt{4s+1}+1}}`$ (45)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(1\sqrt{4s+1})}{x^2\sqrt{4s+1}1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8(1+\sqrt{4s+1})}{(x^2\sqrt{4s+1}1)^2}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8(1\sqrt{4s+1})}{(x^2\sqrt{4s+1}+1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{4s+1}}{x^42\sqrt{4s+1}x^2+4s}}.`$
This potential is ill-defined in the space $`_0^+`$ we are working in and cannot be considered as a convenient intermediate step proving then the irreducible character of $`\mathrm{L}`$.

### 3.2 Transformations of the second type

Let us now conclude with the third specific feature of the Darboux transformation namely the fact that one can construct physically significant new potentials from complex solutions of the initial equation. Once again we concentrate on the radial sextic oscillator characterized by the potential $`V_0(x)`$ given in Eq. (11). In order to illustrate our approach, we only need to find non-physical eigenfunctions corresponding to complex eigenvalues.

We shall now show that the potential (11) with the integer and half-integer values of $`s`$ has analytic solutions for some complex values of the ”energy” (for simplicity we shall continue to use this terminology). For this purpose we note that this equation is covariant under the transformation $`s1s`$, $`MM+2s1`$. This means that for a given value of the positive integer $`M`$ and some values of the integer or half-integer $`s`$, the eigenfunction of $`H_0`$ with $`s`$ replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{s}=1s`$ and $`M`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{M}=M+2s1`$ is also the eigenfunction of $`H_0`$ with the given $`M`$ and $`s`$. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ is negative for $`s>1`$. The values of the energy calculated according to  with negative $`s`$ might be either complex or real. When they are real they lead to known solutions but for complex values of the energy we obtain new solutions of the Schrödinger equation. These new solutions when used to construct second order transformations lead to new real QES potentials. The second-order Darboux operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is defined in complete analogy with Eq. (28) by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi _0(x)=W^1(\psi (x),\overline{\psi }(x))W(\psi (x),\overline{\psi }(x),\psi _0(x)).$$
(46)
The state (46) will then be the eigenfunction (of the same eigenvalue as the one of $`\psi _0(x)`$ ) of the QES potential

$$\nu _2(x)=V_0(x)2\frac{d^2}{dx^2}(\mathrm{ln}W(\psi (x),\overline{\psi }(x))).$$
(47)
Let us illustrate now this possibility by a specific example. We take $`a=1/2`$, $`M=0`$ and $`s=2`$. In this case $`\stackrel{~}{M}=3`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}=1`$. The complex eigenfunction of the potential

$$V_0(x)=\frac{1}{4}x^65x^2+\frac{35}{4x^2}$$
(48)
is

$$\psi (x)=x^{5/2}\mathrm{exp}(x^4/8)[\frac{1}{2}x^2(\frac{1}{2}x^45)+i\sqrt{5}(\frac{1}{2}x^41)].$$

It corresponds to the energy $`E=i4\sqrt{5}`$. The single analytic eigenfunction (corresponding to $`E_0=0`$) of this potential (48) is

$$\psi _0(x)=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{8}x^4)x^{\frac{7}{2}}.$$
(49)
The new QES potential reads

$$\nu _2(x)=\frac{1}{4}x^6+x^2+\frac{3}{4x^2}+16\frac{6x^2+x^6}{20+4x^4+x^8}2048\frac{x^6}{(20+4x^4+x^8)^2}$$
(50)
and its solution is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi _0(x)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{8}x^4)x^{\frac{3}{2}}(x^4+6)}{x^8+4x^4+20},E_0=0.$$
(51)
Acknowledgments

The work of BFS is partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. BFS is also grateful to Belgium Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique for a financial support during his visit at Liege University in Autumn 2001. The work of ND and BVdB was supported by l’Institut Interuniversitaire des Sciences Nucléaires (Belgium).


format: text

text:
# 1 Invariant inclusive cross-sections of 𝜋⁰-meson production in nucleus-nucleus interactions at 4.5 GeV/c/nucleon. The points are experimental data of the FOTON setup, histograms are the FRITIOF model calculations.

Analysis of hadron production in nucleus-nucleus interactions up to and out of kinematical limit of free NN-collisions in the frame of FRITIOF model
A.S. Galoyan, G.L. Melkumov, V.V. Uzhinskii
JINR, Dubna, Russia

In the framework of the modified FRITIOF model, the inclusive spectra of the cumulative $`\pi ^0`$-, $`\pi ^{}`$-mesons and protons produced in the nucleus-nucleus interactions at 4.5 GeV/c/nucleon and 4.2 GeV/c/nucleon are calculated. It is shown that the model reproduces qualitatively, and in some cases quantitatively the main experimental regularities of $`\pi `$-mesons production, and ”soft” part of the proton spectra. According to the model the production of the cumulative particles is connected with the mechanism of the ”soft” nucleon-nucleon interaction.

The production of particles in hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus interactions in the kinematical region forbidden for free hN-collisions (so-called cumulative processes) is one of the main sources of information about the nuclear structure function and the multi-particle production mechanism. This kinematical region corresponds to the Feyman variable $`X_F>1`$ (with respect to a single $`NN`$-interaction). $`X_F=2p_l^{}/\sqrt{S}`$, where $`p_l^{}`$ is the longitudinal momentum, $`\sqrt{S}`$ is the total energy of NN-interaction in the nucleon-nucleon center of mass system.

The cumulative phenomena predicted by A.M. Baldin  were discovered by the group of Stavinski  in early seventies, and have been intensively investigated during last thirty years. The wide experimental and theoretical study caused numerous models for explanation of this interesting phenomenon. The main property of all models is the existence of massive (heavier than nucleon) compact object on which the creation of cumulative particle is occurred. In dependence on this object creation all models can be divided into the ”hot”  and ”cold” ,  models. The models for explanation of the cumulative processes have analytical form and can pretend on a description of restricted kinematical region.The reproduction of their results are quite complicated.

At the same time, there are created the phenomenogical Monte Carlo generators of events with easily reproduced results. But the cumulative production of particles isn’t assumed directly in the code-generators. It is needed to note that ”hot” models ideas have found an extraordinary application in high energy physics in some modified forms. They are used in the well-known models of multi-particle production such as FRITIOF , RQMD , and HIJING . The common assumption of the models is that the soft inelastic hadron-hadron collisions have a binary character $`a+ba^{}+b^{}`$, where $`a^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$ are excited hadrons. The excited hadrons with masses $`m_a^{}`$, $`m_b^{}>m_a`$, $`m_b`$ are considered as QCD-strings, and LUND-model  is used to describe their decays.

In the case of hadron-nucleus interactions, the models assume that an excited hadron $`a^{}`$ can collide with other nuclear nucleons and increase its mass. The same can take place in nucleus-nucleus interactions.

As one can easily notice, that the general representation of the hadron-nucleus interactions assumed by the models is almost similar to that considered in Ref. . The authors of Ref.  supposed that heavy hadron system (a fireball) which does not include a leading particle is created in the first collision of projectile hadron with a nuclear nucleon. The fireball moving in the nucleus collides with other nucleons, slows down, and increases its mass. As a results, a production of particles in the regions kinematically forbidden in free hadron-nucleon collisions becomes possible. Thus, one can expect that the cumulative particles have to appear in the models, in particular, in the FRITIOF model.

Figures 1, 2 show the experimental data  on fast $`\pi ^0`$\- mesons production in nucleus-nucleus interactions at $`P=`$ 4.5 A GeV/c with FRITIOF model calculations taking into account the last corrections . As seen, the FRITIOF model predicts the cumulative particle production.

$`\pi ^0`$\- mesons production in the $`pC`$-, $`pCu`$-, $`\alpha C`$-, $`\alpha Cu`$-, $`CC`$\- and $`CCu`$\- interactions at momentum 4.5 $`A_p`$ GeV/c have been studied experimentally in Refs. . $`\gamma `$\- quanta were registered at the experiments by 90-channel Cherenkov $`\gamma `$-spectrometer of LHE FOTON setup. $`\pi ^0`$\- mesons with the angles in laboratory system (in the rest frame of target ) $`\theta _\pi 16^0`$ and energies $`E_\pi 2`$ GeV were considered after estimation background conditions and $`\pi ^0`$ identification.

In fig. 1, the experimentally measured invariant cross-sections of $`\pi ^0`$\- mesons production per mass number of projectiles ($`A_p`$) as a function of cumulative number $`X`$ are presented by circles. The variable $`X`$ was determined as

$$X=\frac{m_NE_{\pi ^0}m_{\pi ^0}^2/2}{E_Nm_NE_NE_{\pi ^0}m_N^2+P_NP_{\pi ^0}cos\theta _{\pi ^0}},$$

where $`m_N`$ and $`m_{\pi ^0}`$ are nucleon and meson masses, respectively, $`P_N`$ is the momentum of projectile per nucleon ($`P_N=4.5`$ GeV/ ). $`P_{\pi ^0}`$ is $`\pi ^0`$ momentum, $`E_N=\sqrt{M_N^2+P_N^2}`$, $`E_{\pi ^0}=\sqrt{m_{\pi ^0}^2+P_{\pi ^0}^2}`$. The systematic errors of the cross-section is about $``$ 20 %. The statistical errors are in the circle limits.

In fig. 1, histograms demonstrate calculations of the cross-sections of $`\pi ^0`$\- mesons production at $`E_{\pi ^0}2`$ GeV and $`\theta _{\pi ^0}16^0`$ performed within the framework of FRITIOF model. The calculation results are normalized on the nucleus-nucleus interactions cross-sections obtained in Glauber approach . As seen, the slopes of experimental and the calculated curves are close, but the calculated cross-sections overestimate the experimental values 2-3 times.

Fig. 2 illustrates a better agreement between the calculations and the experimental data. Fig. 2 gives the invariant cross-sections of $`\pi ^0`$-mesons production with respect to the $`\pi ^0`$ -meson transverse momentum. The model reproduces both the spectrum forms and the absolute values of the cross-sections. The reason of such different descriptions of the experimental data of fig. 1 and fig. 2 is not clear for us.

The model FRITIOF allows one to decipher the cumulative particle production mechanism in detail. The different characteristics of $`CC`$-interaction events accompanied by the fast $`\pi ^0`$ -meson production are presented in fig. 3. Fig. 3a shows the yields into the invariant inclusive cross-section of projectile and target nucleons ( dashed and dotted curves, respectively). The relative yields are given in fig. 3c. As seen, the contribution of the target nucleons is about $``$ 25 %.

Fig. 3d shows the average longitudinal momenta of projectile nucleons before and after the interaction (solid and dashed curves, respectively). According to the figure, more and more energetic projectile nucleons are selected with increase the cumulative number. Accounting the Fermi-motion is not critical for the description of the inclusive cross-sections because without the Fermi-motion the cross-section in the region of $`X`$ 0.9 – 1.3 does not decrease in needed quantity, the slope of the cross-section is only changed (see fig. 4). It is natural that the longitudinal momenta of projectile nucleons decrease during the interaction, but this takes place below $`X1.5`$ (see fig. 3d). The nucleons acquired the momenta larger than average momenta of incident nucleons, give the contribution into the fast $`\pi ^0`$ -meson production in the region of large $`X`$. It is clearly seen in the calculations performed without taking the Fermi-motion into account (see insert in fig. 4, where the solid line shows the longitudinal momenta of projectile nucleons before the interaction, dashed line shows the same after the interaction with the fast $`\pi ^0`$ -meson production). The considered effect of the nucleon acceleration is a specific feature of the assumed nucleus-nucleus interaction mechanism.

Fig. 3e gives the analogous characteristics of the target nucleons. The longitudinal momenta of target nucleons are small before the interaction (see dashed curve). In the course of the interaction, the nucleons have to acquire significant longitudinal momenta for the cumulative particle production in the forward direction (see solid curve).

Fig. 3f shows the masses of the projectile and target nucleons (see solid and dashed curves), which give the cumulative meson, after the interaction. As seen, the target nucleons acquire larger excitations than the projectile nucleons. That coincide with the main imaginations of the ”hot” models with the exception of the possibility of the nucleon acceleration.

The presented results allow one to expect a description of spectra of charged particles produced in nucleus-nucleus interactions up to and out of kinematical limit of free NN-collisions.

To test the possibility of applying model FRITIOF for reproduction of the characteristics of cumulative charged particles, we consider the experimental data on $`\pi ^{}`$ -meson production in backward hemisphere . In the fig. 5 we present the invariant inclusive cross-sections of the $`\pi ^{}`$ -meson production in the $`pC`$-, $`dC`$-, $`\alpha C`$-, and $`CC`$-interactions at momentum of projectile 4.2 GeV/c/nucleon as a function of kinetic energy. There are shown three groups of $`\pi ^{}`$ -mesons: with emission angles from 90 to 110, from 110 to 130, from 130 to 180.

In the fig. 6, we present the same for $`dTa`$-, $`\alpha Ta`$-, and $`CTa`$-collisions. As seen from the figs. 5 and 6, the calculations in the frame of modified by V.Uzhinskii FRITIOF model  reproduce qualitatively (in the some case quantitatively) the dependence of the invariant cross-section of the $`\pi ^{}`$\- meson production on kinetic energy, on the mass of projectile nucleus, on the mass of target nucleus, and on the emission angle.

For more detail consideration, let us turn to spectra of the $`\pi ^{}`$ -meson production in the $`NN`$-, $`pC`$-, and $`CC`$-interactions in the backward hemisphere  (fig. 7). According to the calculations, spectra of $`\pi ^{}`$ -mesons in the $`NN`$ and nucleus-nucleus interactions are similar. The description of pion spectra in the $`AA`$-interactions was achieved without free, fitting parameters. In given approach, the similarity of pion spectra is explained easily. In the nucleon-nucleon collisions at sufficiently high energies, spectra in the region of target fragmentation are not dependent on the interaction energy. In the hadron-nucleus interactions, participating nucleons fragment independently on projectile particle, as in $`NN`$-collisions. Therefore, every participant-nucleon gives independent contribution to the cross-section. Mean multiplicity of such nucleons is proportional $`<\nu >A^{1/3}`$. Then, the process cross-section is proportional $`\sigma <\nu >\sigma _{hA}^{in}A^{1/3}A^{2/3}=A^1.`$

In the nucleus-nucleus interactions, the similarity of spectra can take place, if target nucleons collide no more than one time. The calculations show that in the considered interactions of light nucleus with light nucleus and heavy nucleus, it is really so.

The spectra of mesons can be considered as similar only in the first rough approximation. More detailed consideration shows that it isn’t possible to describe meson spectra in NN-collisions by simple exponent. At the same time, spectra of AA-interactions can be described by exponent quite well. The difference is caused by the interaction mechanism. It is obviously, the main distinction is so that spectra of $`NN`$-collisions are restricted by allowed kinematical region, and spectra of $`AA`$-interactions extend over this region. For presented experimental data, only last points are out of kinematical limit of free $`NN`$-interactions. According to the fig. 7 spectra of $`\pi ^{}`$-mesons change unessentially with taking into account fermi-motion of nucleus in kinematical region allowed in NN-interactions. Production of mesons without fermi-motion of nucleos out of this region is described by mechanism of the nucleon mass increase.

Let us consider dependence of the cumulative particle production cross-section on target mass number. For this let us turn to the data of $`dA`$-reaction  at momentum of projectile deuteron equals to 8,9 GeV/c with production of $`\pi ^{}`$-mesons at zero degree. The fig. 8 shows the cross-section as a function of variable $`X`$. Variable $`X`$ is determined as

$$x=\frac{M_NE_\pi ^{}\frac{1}{2}M_\pi ^{}^2}{E_NM_NE_NE_\pi ^{}M_N^2+P_NP_\pi ^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi ^{}},$$

where $`M_N`$, $`M_\pi ^{}`$, $`P_N`$, $`P_\pi ^{}`$, $`E_N`$, $`E_\pi ^{}`$ are masses, momenta and energies of nucleon and $`\pi ^{}`$-meson respectively; $`\theta _\pi ^{}`$ – emission angle of $`\pi ^{}`$-mesons in lab. system. In the fig. 8, the solid lines is the standard model calculation. The shape of the calculated curve is near to the experimental data, but the calculations overestimate the experimental data. The simplest way to reach an agreement between the experiment and the theory is a decrease of NN-interaction cross-section in nucleus. At the 50$`\%`$ decrease the calculations underestimate the experimental data (see the dashed lines), and at the 30$`\%`$ decrease (see the histograms in the fig. 8) we have a good agreement. The other possibility to reach the agreement is a variation of model parameters, that leads to the change of the cross-section shape. For example, the solid lines in the fig. 8b give the calculations without de-excitation of the nucleons. At the 30$`\%`$ decrease of $`NN`$-interaction cross-section in the nucleus, we have also a good description of the cross-section dependence on target mass number.

The fig. 9 gives a ratio of deuteron-nucleus and deuteron-proton cross section. The points are experimental data at $`X`$ equal of 1.23 , the histograms are calculations.

The weak A-dependence is explained by the following effect. Our calculations show that the $`dA`$-collisions with two NN-interactions give the main contributions to the cumulative particle spectra. In the collisions with the large number of the NN-interactions there is not practically cumulative particles due to energy losses of projectile deuterons. In the collisions with two NN-interactions, the processes dominate where two projectile nucleons collide with one target nucleon. These processes have peripheral character.

The more complete situation takes place with a description of cumulative proton spectra.

In fig. 10 the invariant inclusive cross-sections of protons emitted in backward hemisphere are presented as a function of kinetic energy. Points are propan collaboration experimental data , histograms are our calculations. The shape of the curves is determined by Fermi-motion, and the absolute values of the cross-sections is determined by nuclear destructure model. The reggeon theory inspired model of nuclear destructure is used in modified FRITIOF model . It is assumed, that each intra-nuclear collision initiate reggeon exchanges in the spectator part of the nucleus. The probability to evolve spectator nucleon to the cascade is given as

$$W\left(\stackrel{}{b}\right)=C_{nd}exp\left(\stackrel{}{b}^2/r_{nd}^2\right),$$

where $`b_{ij}`$ is a difference between impact coordinates of the spectator nucleon and inelastic interacted nucleon. $`C_{nd}`$ and $`r_{nd}`$ are parameters. Fitting these parameters, we have a good description only for the ”soft” part of the proton spectra. For $`AC`$-interactions, we choose $`C_{nd}=1`$, and $`r_{nd}^2=1.1(fm^2)`$. But for $`ATa`$-interactions , we have $`C_{nd}=0.2`$ and $`r_{nd}^2=1.1(fm^2)`$ (see fig. 11).

The experimental data , show a change of a slope of proton spectra at $`T0.20.25`$ GeV. There are not such changes in the model calculations. At the same time, we reproduce the dependence of the cross-sections on the emission angle of protons, and projectile and target mass numbers. For explanation of hard part of the cumulative proton spectra, it is needed to use the other production mechanism (for example multi-quark bags, fluctons, and so ones).

The author express her sincere gratitude to V.V. Uzhinskii, G.L. Melkumov, E.N. Kladnickaya and A.G. Litvinenko for their fruitful discussions and valuable remarks.


text:
# A simple approach for charge renormalization of highly charged macro-ions

## Abstract

We revisit the popular notion of effective or renormalized charge, which is a concept of central importance in the field of highly charged colloidal or polyelectrolyte solutions. Working at the level of a linear Debye-Hückel like theory only, we propose a simple, efficient and versatile method to predict the saturated amount of charge renormalization, which is however a non-linear effect arising at strong electrostatic coupling. The results are successfully tested against the numerical solutions of Poisson-Boltzmann theory for polyions of various shapes (planar, cylindrical and spherical), both in the infinite dilution limit or in confined geometry, with or without added electrolyte. Our approach, accurate for monovalent micro-ions in solvents like water, is finally confronted against experimental results, namely the crystallization of charged colloidal suspensions and the osmotic coefficient of B-DNA solutions.

Our present understanding of charged macro-ions suspensions is essentially based on the DLVO theory, named after Derjaguin, Landau, Verwey and Overbeek . This approach relies on a Poisson-Boltzmann (PB) mean-field description of the micro-ions clouds. An important prediction of the theory is the effective interaction pair potential between two macro-ions (e.g. colloids) in the solvent which, within a linearization approximation, takes the well-known Yukawa or Debye-Hückel (DH) form: $`v(r)Z^2\mathrm{exp}(\kappa r)/r`$, where $`Z`$ is the charge of the object and $`\kappa `$ denotes the inverse Debye screening length. However, this approach becomes inadequate to describe highly charged objects for which the electrostatic energy of a micro-ion near the macro-ion surface largely exceeds $`k_BT`$, the thermal energy, and the linearization of PB equations is a priori not justified. In this case however, the electrostatic potential in exact  or mean-field  theories still takes a Debye-Hückel form far from the charged bodies, provided that the source of the potential is renormalized ($`ZZ_{\text{eff}}`$). The essential idea is that the micro-ions which suffer a high electrostatic coupling with the macro-ion accumulate in its immediate vicinity so that the decorated object (macro-ion plus captive counter-ions) may be considered as a single entity which carries an effective charge $`Z_{\text{eff}}`$, much lower (in absolute value) than the structural one. Within PB theory, $`Z`$ and $`Z_{\text{eff}}`$ coincide for low values of the structural charge, but $`Z_{\text{eff}}`$ eventually reaches a saturation value $`Z_{\text{sat}}`$ independent of $`Z`$ when the bare charge increases .

Of course, the difficulty remains to predict $`Z_{\text{sat}}`$ for a given suspension of macro-ions . In the absence of any general analytical framework for the computation of the effective charge, this quantity is often considered as an adjustable parameter to fit experimental data . In this Letter we show that a simple physical argument, at the level of the DH linearized description only, yields explicit (and in some favorable cases analytical) expressions for the effective charges at saturation, which compare well with both numerical solutions of non-linear PB theory and available experimental data.

For simplicity, we start by considering a unique highly (positively) charged sphere immersed in a symmetric 1:1 electrolyte of bulk ionic strength $`I_0=\kappa ^2/(8\pi \mathrm{}_B)`$, where $`\mathrm{}_B=e^2/(4\pi ϵk_BT)`$ is the Bjerrum length ($`ϵ`$ being the dielectric constant of the solvent): $`\mathrm{}_B=7`$Å for water at room temperature. Within PB theory, the dimensionless electrostatic potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }=eV/k_BT`$ obeys the relation

$$^2\mathrm{\Phi }=\kappa ^2\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(1)
Far from macro-ion (where it is understood that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ vanishes), the solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{\text{PB}}}`$ of Eq. (1) also obeys the linearized Poisson-Boltzmann (LPB) equation $`^2\mathrm{\Phi }=\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and therefore takes the Yukawa form $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{\text{LPB}}}=Z_{\text{eff}}\mathrm{}_B\mathrm{exp}[\kappa (ar)]/[r(1+\kappa a)]`$, with $`a`$ the radius of the sphere. $`Z_{\text{eff}}`$ (in $`e`$ units) is consequently defined here without ambiguity from the far field behaviour of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{\text{PB}}}`$ (see  for alternative definitions of effective charges). Accordingly, a “non linear” region may be defined ($`r[a,r^{}]`$), corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{\text{PB}}}`$ larger than unity, where by definition of the cutoff $`r^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{\text{LPB}}}(r^{})`$ is of order 1. In the limit of large $`\kappa a`$, this “non-linear” region is however confined to the immediate vicinity of the macro-ion: $`r^{}a`$. We consequently have the effective boundary condition $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{\text{LPB}}}(a)\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{\text{PB}}}(r^{})=𝒞`$, where $`𝒞`$ is a constant of order 1, which yields immediately $`Z_{\text{eff}}=𝒞a(1+\kappa a)/\mathrm{}_B`$. This argument assumes that the bare charge $`Z`$ is high enough to have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{\text{PB}}}`$ larger than unity close to the macro-ion, and therefore provides the saturation value of $`Z_{\text{eff}}`$, denoted hereafter as $`Z_{\text{sat}}`$ . We therefore easily obtain the non trivial dependence of this quantity upon physico-chemical parameters.

This picture of a decorated macro-ion –where the “bound” counterions renormalizing the charge appear to have an electrostatic energy $`eV_0`$ balancing the thermal energy $`k_BT`$– may be rationalized as follows. In the limit of large $`\kappa a`$, we perform an asymptotic matching of the non-linear PB planar solution (see ) to the linear solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{\text{LPB}}}`$ in curved geometry. We obtain for high bare charges the same value of the contact potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{\text{LPB}}}(a)=4`$ (of order 1 as expected) so that $`Z_{\text{sat}}=4a(1+\kappa a)/\mathrm{}_B`$ . Such a procedure provides by construction the correct large $`\kappa a`$ (low curvature) behaviour of $`Z_{\text{sat}}`$, but we will show below that it remains fairly accurate down to $`\kappa a`$ of order 1.

Generalizing this approach, we consequently obtain the leading curvature saturated effective charge from the following analysis. For an isolated macro-ion of arbitrary shape in an electrolyte: a) find the electrostatic potential, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{\text{LPB}}}`$, solution of the linearized PB equations, supplemented by a fixed potential boundary condition: $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{\text{LPB}}}(\text{surface})=𝒞`$, where $`𝒞=4`$ at leading order in curvature; b) deduce $`Z_{\text{sat}}`$ from Gauss theorem at the surface of the object. In the case of an infinite cylinder (radius $`a`$, bare lineic charge $`\lambda `$), we obtain $`\lambda _{\text{sat}}=2(\kappa a/\mathrm{}_B)K_1(\kappa a)/K_0(\kappa a)`$, where $`K_0`$ and $`K_1`$ are the modified Bessel functions of orders 0 and 1.

In order to test the validity of our results, we have numerically solved the non-linear PB equation (1) for high $`Z`$ values corresponding to the saturation regime, and computed the effective charge from the electrostatic potential at large distances (i.e. the value required to match $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{\text{LPB}}}`$ to the far field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{\text{PB}}}`$ obtained numerically). Figure 1 compares the resulting PB effective charge to our expressions, for spherical and cylindrical macro-ions. The agreement becomes excellent at large $`\kappa a`$ as it should, and in the case of cylinders, even holds down to very small $`\kappa a`$ (0.01), a point which is not a priori expected. Finally, in the planar geometry our approach provides by construction the correct effective charge (compared to PB).

For spherical colloids, expressions reminiscent of that reported above can be found in the literature . It seems however that the generality of the underlying method has been overlooked. In particular, our procedure may be extended to the finite concentration case, using the concept of Wigner Seitz (WS) cell : the influence of the other macro-ions is accounted for by confining the macro-ion into a cell, with global electroneutrality. The size of the cell, $`R_{WS}`$, is computed from the density of macro-ions, while its geometry is chosen as to mimic the spatial structure of the macro-ions in the solution. Suppose that the system is in equilibrium with a reservoir of salt defined in terms of its Debye length $`\kappa ^1`$. We first linearize Eq. (1) around the value of potential at the cell boundary, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_R=\mathrm{\Phi }(R_{WS})`$, unknown at this point, which yields

$$^2\delta \mathrm{\Phi }=\kappa _{}^2\left(\gamma _0+\delta \mathrm{\Phi }\right)$$
(2)
where $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$, $`\kappa _{}^2=\kappa ^2\mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Phi }_R)`$ and $`\gamma _0=\sqrt{1(\kappa /\kappa _{})^4}`$. Note that the relevant screening length $`\kappa _{}^1`$ (always smaller than $`\kappa ^1`$, a general feature for finite concentration) is not a parameter, and should be determined at the end of the calculation. Equation (2) is supplemented by two boundary conditions: the consistency constraint \[$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }(R_{WS})=0`$\] and the global electroneutrality (which imposes a vanishing normal electric field at the WS boundary). To generalize the approach discussed in the limit of infinite dilution, we propose the following prescription (providing a third boundary condition): the difference of potential between the macro-ion and the WS surface is $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }(a)=4`$. Here again, the effective charge is obtained from Gauss theorem at the macro-ion’s surface.

This generalized procedure is now explicited for a solution of spherical macro-ions with concentration $`\rho `$. The radius of the WS spherical cell is given as $`R_{WS}=(4\pi \rho /3)^{1/3}`$. In this geometry, the (LPB) solution of Eq. (2) reads

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }(r)=\gamma _0\left[1+f_+\frac{e^{\kappa _{}r}}{r}+f_{}\frac{e^{\kappa _{}r}}{r}\right]$$
(3)
where $`f_\pm =(\kappa _{}a\pm 1)/(2\kappa _{})\mathrm{exp}(\kappa _{}R_{WS})`$. Our prescription allows to compute $`\kappa _{}`$, such that $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }(a)=4`$. This equation is solved numerically for $`\kappa _{}`$ using a simple numerical Newton procedure. The effective charge follows from the gradient of $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ in Eq. (3) taken at $`r=a`$. The corresponding $`Z_{\text{sat}}`$ as a function of volume fraction $`\eta =4\pi \rho a^3/3`$ is displayed in Fig. 2, with a comparison to its counterpart deduced from the numerical solution of PB theory supplemented with the popular procedure proposed by Alexander et al . On this figure, we have also plotted the results obtained without added salt \[where the term $`\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on the r.h.s. of Eq. (1) is replaced by $`\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, due to the absence of co-ions\]. Our results are fully compatible with those obtained from Alexander’s method, with a similar agreement for cylindrical macro-ions (not shown). It is eventually instructive to note that for a charged plane confined without added salt in a WS slab of width $`2h`$, Alexander’s saturation surface charge may be computed analytically with the result  $`\sigma _{\text{sat}}=2^{3/2}\mathrm{sinh}(\pi /\sqrt{2})/(\mathrm{}_Bh)`$ whereas we obtain $`\sigma _{\text{sat}}=\sqrt{6}\text{Argcosh}(5)/(\pi \mathrm{}_Bh)`$ following our prescription. Both expressions agree within 10% and remarkably exhibit the same functional dependence on $`\mathrm{}_B`$ and density (through $`h`$).

That our prescription compares favorably with Alexander’s procedure for the planar, cylindrical and spherical geometries, calls for the more stringent test of confronting our predictions against experimental data. We shall consider two specific situations corresponding to two different geometries: crystallization of charged colloidal suspensions and osmotic pressure in B-DNA solutions.

Crystallization of charged spheres. Investigation into the phase diagram of charged polystyrene colloids has been conducted experimentally by Monovoukas and Gast  and compared to the phase diagram of a system where particles interact through a Yukawa potential (deduced from extensive molecular dynamics simulations ). However this comparison requires an ad-hoc choice for $`Z_{\text{eff}}`$. We use here the results we found for the effective charge as a function of ionic strength, which we insert into the numerical generic phase diagram of Yukawa systems . We emphasize that there is no adjustable parameter in our equations since the radius of the polystyrene beads, the only parameter entering our description, was independently measured to be $`a=667`$Å. We only make the (reasonable) assumption that the bare charge $`Z`$ of the colloids is large enough to have $`Z_{\text{eff}}Z_{\text{sat}}`$. The results for the melting line using our prescription for the effective charge are confronted to the experimental data in Fig. 3. We also plot the result for the melting line for an ad-hoc constant effective charge, $`Z_{\text{eff}}=880`$, as was proposed in  (while in our case the latter varies between 500 and 2000 on the melting curve). The observed agreement of our results illustrates both the pertinence of our prescription for $`Z_{\text{sat}}`$ and the relevance of the PB saturation picture for macro-ions of large bare charge, for monovalent micro-ions in water.

Osmotic coefficient of B-DNA. A similar test of our method may be performed for the cylindrical geometry using the experimental results for rigid cylindrical polyelectrolytes such as B-DNA . We specifically consider the measurements of the osmotic coefficient $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Pi }_{\text{osm}}/\mathrm{\Pi }_c`$, defined as the ratio between the osmotic pressure $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\text{osm}}`$ to the pressure $`\mathrm{\Pi }_c`$ of releasable counter-ions having bare density $`c_c`$ ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_c=k_BTc_c`$). Within the WS model, B-DNA macro-ions are confined into cylindrical cells, whose radius $`R_{WS}`$ is related to the bare concentration of DNA counter-ions as $`c_c=(\mathrm{}_{DNA}\pi R_{WS}^2)^1`$, with $`\mathrm{}_{DNA}=1.7`$Å the distance between charges along DNA. The osmotic pressure is related to the densities of micro-ions at the cell boundary: $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\text{osm}}=k_BT(\rho _++\rho _{}2I_0)`$ , which can be recast in the form $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\text{osm}}=k_BT(\kappa _{}^2\kappa ^2)/(4\pi \mathrm{}_B)`$ introducing the screening factor $`\kappa _{}`$ defined previously. This latter quantity is computed from our prescription, following the same lines as for the spherical case \[see Eq. (3)\].

In Fig. 4, the corresponding results for the osmotic coefficient are confronted against the experimental data of Refs. , showing again a good quantitative agreement. As in Ref. , we report the prediction of classical Oosawa-Manning condensation theory, for which the osmotic coefficient is constant \[$`\varphi =\mathrm{}_{DNA}/(2\mathrm{}_B)`$\] at complete variance with the experiments. Again we emphasize that the only quantity introduced in our description is the diameter ($`a=10`$Å) of DNA, known from independent measurements.

In conclusion, we have put forward a simple method of asymptotic matching to compute the effective charge at saturation for isolated macro-ions. In the situation of finite density, this method has been translated into a prescription, the validity of which has been assessed. This approach (mostly suited to describe the colloidal limit $`\kappa a1`$) amounts to consider the highly charged macro-ions as objects with constant electrostatic potential $`4kT/e`$, independently of shape and physico-chemical parameters (size, added 1:1 electrolyte…). As a general result we find that the effective charge is an increasing function of $`\kappa `$, which stems from the reduction of the attraction between the counter-ions and the macro-ion. Addition of salt consequently brings two antagonist effects on the effective Coulombic interaction between macro-ions: the range of the interaction decreases due to screening, while the amplitude increases due to the effective charge. The competition between these two effects might be a key point in the understanding of these systems.

An important question concerning our approach, is that of the validity of PB theory for highly charged macro-ions. Within PB, micro-ions correlations are neglected, but the approach may still allow to describe high macro/micro-ions couplings: in particular, for monovalent micro-ions in water at room temperature, micro-ions correlations are negligible for all known macro-ions. This may no longer be the case in presence of multi-valent micro-ions. More generally, PB is a reasonable approximation when the macro-ion size $`a`$ is much larger than $`\mathrm{}_B`$ , and the saturation plateau of $`Z_{\text{eff}}`$ as a function of the bare charge $`Z`$ is an important physical phenomenon that our approach allows to capture. When $`a`$ becomes of the same order as $`\mathrm{}_B`$ the amount of counter-ion “condensation” found in molecular dynamics or Monte Carlo simulations is larger than predicted by PB ; our method for $`Z_{\text{sat}}`$ therefore provides an upper bound for the effective charge. It is moreover noteworthy that for B-DNA where $`a/\mathrm{}_B1.4`$, our approach still gives a valuable first approximation, and that omission of charge renormalization leads to spurious results (such as negative osmotic coefficients corresponding to an unphysical phase transition at physiological salt concentrations).


text:
# Two-dimensional Dirac fermions with random axial-vector potential

## Abstract

A Dirac fermion model with random axial-vector potential is proposed. At a special strength of randomness, the symmetry of the action is enhanced, which is due to the gauge symmetry à la Nishimori. Some exact scaling exponents of single-particle Green functions are computed. The relationship with the XY gauge glass model is discussed.

preprint:

Random Dirac fermions have attracted much current interest in condensed matter physics. They have actually intimate relationship with integer quantum Hall (IQH) transitions, dirty $`d`$-wave superconductors, etc. Critical theory of IQH transitions is believed to be a strong coupling fixed point of the Dirac fermion with random mass, vector and scalar potentials, though the fixed point is still missing. Near the zero energy quasiparticles of disordered $`d`$-wave superconductors can be described by the Dirac fermion, giving four kinds of novel universality classes. Including the conventional orthogonal, unitary and symplectic classes and corresponding chiral classes, ten universality classes have been established for disordered systems.

On the other hand, it has been reported recently that several other symmetry classes should exist. One example is realized on the Nishimori-line  of the random-bond Ising model. The random-bond Ising model has O$`(2n)`$ symmetry, belonging to the universality class $`D`$  (the class of superconductors with broken spin rotation and time reversal symmetry) in Zirnbauer’s classification . Although the enhancement of the symmetry on the Nishimori-line has already been discussed in , Gruzberg et. al. have explicitly shown that the symmetry is enhanced to O$`(2n+1)`$ due to the gauge symmetry . This class is not included in Zirnbauer’s classification.

Among these developments, the Dirac fermion with random vector potential only is one of simplest but nontrivial models, still providing hot topics. It gives multifractal scaling exponents of local composite operators , exact zero-energy wave function for any realization of disorder, replica symmetry breaking, etc.

In this paper, we study a Dirac fermion in two dimensions including random axial-vector potential. We show that the symmetry of the model is enhanced at a strong disorder strength, which is analogous to the Nishimori-line of statistical models. Similarly to the conventional model with random vector potential, this model can be solved exactly, giving us some exact scaling dimensions. It turns out that this model corresponds to the spin wave model for the XY gauge glass model.

The system we will study is

$`_A=\overline{\psi }h_A\psi ,h_A=\gamma _\mu \left(i_\mu \sqrt{g}\gamma _5A_\mu \right),`$ (1)
where $`\gamma _1`$, $`\gamma _2`$, and $`\gamma _5`$ denote the three Pauli matrices, and $`A_\mu `$ is a random axial-vector potential. Being defined in 2D Euclidean space, this Hamiltonian is non-hermitian due to $`\gamma _5`$ coupled with the vector potential. Therefore, the model (1) may have a relationship with Hatano-Nelson model . However, ensemble-average yields the square of the antihermitian term, and the Lagrangian becomes hermitian. It should also be mentioned that without mass, the Hamiltonian has chiral symmetry $`\gamma _5h_A+h_A\gamma _5=0`$, telling that the model belongs to the class $`A`$III in Zirnbauer’s classification.

In the previous work , the same model but with usual vector potential, $`h_V=\gamma _\mu \left(i_\mu \sqrt{g}A_\mu \right)`$ was studied. In the present case, the coupling with $`\gamma _5`$ may imply that the right- and left-moving fermions have opposite charges. In what follows, the present model (1) is sometimes referred to as A-model, whereas the conventional one as V-model. The probability distribution of the axial-vector potential is assumed to be of Gaussian type

$`P[A]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_A}}e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle d^2xA_\mu ^2}},`$ (2)
where the normalization factor is given by $`N_A=𝒟Ae^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle d^2xA_\mu ^2}}`$. At a given Matsubara frequency $`\omega `$, the partition function of the model with quenched disorder is given by

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^2x\overline{\psi }\left(h_A+i\omega \right)\psi }}}.`$ (3)
The Lagrangian is invariant under the following chiral gauge transformation,

$`\psi e^{i\sqrt{g}\theta (x)\gamma _5}\psi ,\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }e^{i\sqrt{g}\theta (x)\gamma _5},`$ (4)
$`A_\mu A_\mu +_\mu \theta (x).`$ (5)
It is well-known that this transformation gives rise to a nontrivial Jacobian, but as we shall see later, it is irrelevant to our problem. The $`\omega `$-term serves as a symmetry-breaking term.

Although it is possible to take quenched average of the partition function without resort to the replica trick, we will first apply it in order to explain the enhancement of the symmetry at a special coupling constant. Integration over disorder for replicated partition function $`Z^n`$ yields an effective Lagrangian, $`_A=\overline{\psi }^a\left(\gamma _\mu i_\mu +i\omega \right)\psi ^a\frac{g}{2}\left(\overline{\psi }^a\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \psi ^a\right)^2`$, where $`a=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Due to the identity $`\gamma _\mu \gamma _5=iϵ_{\mu \nu }\gamma _\nu `$, we have $`\frac{g}{2}\left(\overline{\psi }^a\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \psi ^a\right)^2=+\frac{g}{2}\left(\overline{\psi }^a\gamma _\mu \psi ^a\right)^2`$. Compared with the effective Lagrangian of the V-model, $`_V=\overline{\psi }^a\left(\gamma _\mu i_\mu +i\omega \right)\psi ^a\frac{g}{2}\left(\overline{\psi }^a\gamma _\mu \psi ^a\right)^2`$, the present A-model turns out to be equivalent to the V-model but with negative coupling constant $`g`$. Namely, the partition function $`\overline{Z_A^n}(g)`$ of the A-model with the coupling constant $`g>0`$ is equivalent to that of the V-model $`\overline{Z_V^n}(g)`$. Therefore, some properties, e.g., the scaling dimensions of some local operators for the A-model can be obtained directly from the V-model by the use of the formal replacement $`gg`$, as we shall see momentarily.

However, the A-model has some peculiar properties. One of them is the enhancement of the symmetry at a special coupling constant $`g=\pi `$. The Lagrangian in Eq. (3) has global U($`n`$)$`\times `$ U($`n`$) symmetry for any $`g`$ when $`\omega =0`$. Explicitly, it is readily seen that for any realization of the axial-vector potential it is invariant under the transformation $`\psi (U_1𝒫_++U_2𝒫_{})\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }(U_1^{}𝒫_{}+U_2^{}𝒫_+)`$, where $`𝒫_\pm =(1\pm \gamma _5)/2`$ and $`U_i`$ is a $`n\times n`$ unitary matrix which acts on the replica space. Since the Lagrangian is invariant under local chiral gauge transformation, we have

$`\overline{Z^n}`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟Ae^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle d^2xA_\mu ^2}}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^2x}}}`$ (7)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle 𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟A𝒟\theta e^{in\mathrm{\Gamma }[\theta ]}e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle d^2x(A_\mu _\mu \theta )^2}}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^2x}}},`$
where $`=\overline{\psi }^a\gamma _\mu \left(i_\mu +\sqrt{g}\gamma _5A_\mu \right)\psi ^a`$, $`V`$ is the “volume” of the gauge space $`V=𝒟\theta `$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta )`$ is a Jacobian due to chiral gauge transformation . This equation is based on the same argument as Nishimori applied to the random-bond Ising model . Since the Jacobian is multiplied by a factor $`n`$, it should vanish in the replica limit $`n0`$. This is also justified below in the direct computation of the exact scaling dimensions of the single-particle Green functions. Now using the fermionization of the gauge variable via fermion-boson correspondence in 2D,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \theta )^2\overline{\psi }^0\gamma _\mu i_\mu \psi ^0,{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{\pi }}}ϵ_{\mu \nu }_\nu \theta \overline{\psi }^0\gamma _\mu \psi ^0,`$ (9)
we have

$`\overline{Z^n}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle 𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟Ae^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle d^2xA_\mu ^2}}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^2x}}},`$ (10)
where the Lagrangian now includes an additional 0th fermion $`=\overline{\psi }^\alpha \gamma _\mu i_\mu \psi ^\alpha \sqrt{g}(\overline{\psi }^a\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\psi ^a+\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{g}}\overline{\psi }^0\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\psi ^0)A_\mu `$. The Greek superscript $`\alpha `$ runs from 0 to $`n`$, whereas $`a`$ from 1 to $`n`$. When $`g=\pi `$ (and $`\omega =0`$), the ensemble-averaged Lagrangian can be written in a symmetric way together with the 0th fermion as $`=\overline{\psi }^\alpha \gamma _\mu i_\mu \psi ^\alpha +\frac{\pi }{2}\left(\overline{\psi }^\alpha \gamma _\mu \psi ^\alpha \right)^2`$, telling that the symmetry is enhanced to U($`n+1`$)$`\times `$ U($`n+1`$). This enhancement of the symmetry for the Dirac fermion with random axial-vector potential is quite analogous to that for the Majorana or Dirac fermion with random mass (the random-bond Ising model). Interestingly, such an enhancement does not occur in the case with conventional vector potential.

What happens at this special coupling constant? For the conventional model $`h_V`$, the exact scaling properties have been obtained by various methods. Since the present Hamiltonian $`h_A`$ is nonhermitian, we exactly solve the model by taking the quenched average directly, without using the replica trick or the SUSY technique. One of most interesting properties in disordered systems is the multifractality of the scaling exponents. The Dirac fermion with random vector potential is a typical example having such exponents. By the use of the single-particle Green function,

$`G_{ij}(x,y,i\omega )=\psi _i(x)\overline{\psi }_j(y),`$ (11)
where

$`O={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}{\displaystyle 𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }Oe^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^2x}}},`$ (12)
ensemble-averaged density of state (DOS) and a field-theoretical analogue of the inverse participation ratios (IPR) $`P^{(k)}(E)=\overline{_n|\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x)|^{2k}\delta (EE_n)}/\overline{_n|\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x)|^2\delta (EE_n)}`$ can be computed as

$`\rho (E)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{tr}\overline{G(x,x,i\omega E)},`$ (13)
$`P^{(k)}(E)\rho (E)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_k}}\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\omega ^{k1}\overline{[\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{tr}G(x,x,Ei\omega )]^k},`$ (14)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x)`$ is a two component spinor wave function of $`n`$th eigenstate, $`\mathrm{tr}`$ is a trace for spinor indices, and $`C_k=\pi (2k3)!!/(2n2)!!`$. It is useful to introduce the chiral basis, $`\psi _\pm =𝒫_\pm \psi `$ and $`\psi _\pm ^{}=\overline{\psi }𝒫_{}`$, which was actually used by Mudry et. al.. In what follows, we will take similar notations to this reference. Since $`\overline{\psi }\psi =\psi _+^{}\psi _{}+\psi _{}^{}\psi _+`$, the $`k`$th power of the Green function can be written as

$`\overline{\left[G(x,x,Ei\omega )\right]^k}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\left[\psi _+^a\psi _{}^a(x)+\psi _{}^a\psi _+^a(x)\right].`$ (15)
Here we have introduced species $`a`$ to calculate the $`k`$th power of the Green function, although we will not use the replica trick. Expanding the product, we have various operators with various scaling dimensions. Most dominant operators depends on whether $`k`$ is even or odd. Define

$`O^{(k)}(x)={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{[k/2]}{}}}\psi _+^{2a1}\psi _{}^{2a1}\psi _{}^{2a}\psi _+^{2a}(x),`$ (16)
then an example of most dominant operator is $`O_e^{(k)}=O^{(k)}`$ for even $`k`$ and $`O_o^{(k)}=O^{(k)}\psi _+^k\psi _{}^k`$ for odd $`k`$.

In the chiral basis the Lagrangian is converted into

$`=\psi _+^a(2i_{\overline{z}}\sqrt{g}A_+)\psi _+^a+\psi _{}^a(2i_z+\sqrt{g}A_{})\psi _{}^a,`$ (17)
where $`z=x+iy`$, $`\overline{z}=xiy`$, $`A_\pm =A_x\pm iA_y`$, and $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$. The different sign for $`A_\pm `$ tells that the right- and left-movers have opposite charges, as mentioned previously. In 2D the gauge fields can be decomposed into two independent components $`A_\mu =ϵ_{\mu \nu }_\mu \eta +_\mu \xi `$, or in the chiral basis, $`A_+=2i_{\overline{z}}(\eta +i\xi )`$, and $`A_{}=2i_z(\eta i\xi )`$. The probability distribution (2) is written now in terms of these fields as

$`P[\xi ,\eta ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_\xi N_\eta }}e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle d^2x\left[(_\mu \xi )^2+(_\mu \eta )^2\right]}},`$ (18)
where $`N_{\xi ,\eta }`$ is a normalization factor $`N_\xi =𝒟\xi e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle d^2x(_\mu \xi )^2}}`$ and similar for $`N_\eta `$. Via the gauge transformation $`\psi _\pm ^ae^{\sqrt{g}(\eta \pm i\xi )}\psi _\pm ^a`$ and $`\psi _\pm ^a\psi _\pm ^ae^{\sqrt{g}(\eta \pm i\xi )}`$, the axial-vector potential completely disappears in the Lagrangian,

$`\psi _+^a2i_{\overline{z}}\psi _+^a+\psi _{}^a2i_z\psi _{}^a.`$ (19)
The chiral gauge transformation yields a nontrivial Jacobian $`𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }e^{ik\mathrm{\Gamma }(\xi )}`$ . However, this factor appears in the denominator $`Z`$ as well as in the numerator in Eq. (12), and hence cancels out. Finally, $`O_e^{(k)}`$ is gauge-invariant while $`O_o^{(k)}`$ is not. Actually, they obey the transformation laws

$`O_e^{(k)}O_e^{(k)},O_o^{(k)}e^{2i\sqrt{g}\xi }O_o^{(k)}.`$ (20)
By the use of the free action (19) after the gauge transformation, the correlation function of $`O_{e,o}^{(k)}`$ can be evaluated as follows. The two point correlators of the free fermi fields are $`\psi _+^a(z)\psi _+^a^{}(0)\delta ^{aa^{}}z^1`$ and $`\psi _{}^a(z)\psi _{}^a^{}(0)\delta ^{aa^{}}\overline{z}^1`$. Therefore, we have

$`O_e(x)O_e^{}(0)=|x|^{2k},`$ (21)
$`O_o(x)O_o^{}(0)=e^{2i\sqrt{g}\xi (x)}e^{2i\sqrt{g}\xi (0)}|x|^{2k}.`$ (22)
Note that these do not depend on $`\eta `$ and therefore the change of the scaling dimension due to disorder is involved with $`\xi `$ only. The average-over $`\xi `$ is easily taken and the scaling dimension of $`O_{e,o}^{(k)}`$ finally reads $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k=k`$ for even $`k`$ whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k=k+\frac{g}{\pi }`$ for odd $`k`$, and this is itself nothing but the dominant scaling dimension of the $`k`$th power of the single-particle Green function $`\overline{(\mathrm{tr}G)^k}`$. Some comments may be in order. In the conventional V-model the random field $`\eta `$ plays a role in the change of the dimensions due to disorder. In the present case, the role of $`\eta `$ and $`\xi `$ is exchanged by $`\gamma _5`$ in Eq. (1), and $`\xi `$ causes the change of the scaling dimensions. Furthermore, the field $`\eta `$ gives in general negative scaling dimensions for the V-model, whereas $`\xi `$ gives positive dimensions for the present model.

Using the dominant scaling dimensions of the Green functions obtained so far, we can calculate the scaling properties of the DOS and IPR. Since $`\omega `$ couples with $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ in the Lagrangian, the dimension of $`\omega `$ reads $`z=1\frac{g}{\pi }`$ . Therefore, we expect $`\rho (\omega )\omega ^{(2z)/z}`$. This is just the same formula for the V-model but with negative $`g`$. It is also readily seen that the random axial-vector potential is a marginal perturbation and the theory moves along a critical line. However, starting from the free fermion point, the A-model moves, as $`g`$ increses, to the opposite direction to which the V-model moves. Therefore, the line on which the A-model lies is not reached by the conventional random vector potential model. In this sense, the present model is complementary to the full critical line of U(1)$`\times `$U(1) symmetry. The dimension of $`\rho `$ is an increasing function of $`g`$, so that the DOS is suppressed around the zero energy if the random axial-vector potential is switched on. At the special point $`g=\pi `$ where the symmetry is enhanced, the exponent becomes infinity. Therefore, it is likely that the theory is well-defined only for $`g<\pi `$, and the enhancement of the symmetry is a signal that the theory reached at a singularity.

The scaling behavior of the IPR is obtained in a similar way: $`P^{(k)}\omega ^{\tau _k^{}/z}`$, where $`\tau _k^{}=2`$ for even $`k`$ and $`\tau _k^{}=0`$ for odd $`k`$. As stressed by Mudry et. al., the IPR defined by Eq. (14) is not necessarily coincides with that of the original definition $`P^{(k)}=\overline{|\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x)/𝒩|^{2k}}`$, where the normalization $`𝒩`$ is defined by $`𝒩^2=d^2x|\mathrm{\Psi }_0(x)|^2`$. Actually, the zero energy wave function can be obtained exactly as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(x)=e^{\eta (x)i\xi (x)\gamma _5}\phi _0,`$ (23)
for the present A-model, where $`\phi _0`$ is a constant spinor, while $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(x)=e^{\eta (x)\gamma _5i\xi (x)}\phi _0`$ for the conventional V-model. The IPR of the latter wave function has been studied by various methods, e.g., replica method, SUSY method, the method using the equivalence to the random energy model, etc. They have all given the same scaling exponent for small $`g`$. Eq. (23) for the present model also gives $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0(x)|^2e^{2\eta (x)}`$. Since the present A-model has the same probability distribution (18) as the conventional V-model has, we expect that the the A-model should have the same scaling dimension $`\tau _k=(2\frac{g}{\pi }k)(k1)`$ as the V-model has, which is quite different from the conjectured $`\tau _k^{}`$ based on (14).

So far we have studied some peculiar properties of the Dirac fermion with random axial-vector potential. As already mentioned, the Hamiltonian is nonhermitian, because it is defined in the Euclidean space. Then, is this model unrealistic? To address the question, we next examine the bosonized form of the A-model, as has been done for the V-model by Bernard. By the use of the correspondence (9), the Hamiltonian (1) is converted into

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \varphi )^2+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\pi }}}_\mu \varphi A_\mu .`$ (24)
This is a low-temperature effective Hamiltonian of the XY gauge glass model  whose Hamiltonian is defined on a 2D square lattice,

$`\beta H=K{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _i\varphi _j+\chi _{ij}),`$ (25)
where $`\chi _{ij}`$ is a random gauge variable with a probability distribution

$`P[\chi ]e^{K_p_{i,j}\mathrm{cos}\chi _{ij}}.`$ (26)
Provided that $`K`$ and $`K_p`$ are large, we actually reach the Hamiltonian (24) with $`g=\frac{\pi K}{K_p}`$ and the probability distribution (2) as well by expanding the cosine terms up to second order, defining $`\varphi _i\varphi _ja_0_\mu \varphi (x)`$ and $`\chi _{ij}a_0A_\mu (x)`$ with the lattice constant $`a_0`$, and rescaling the fields $`\varphi \varphi /\sqrt{K}`$ and $`A_\mu A_\mu /\sqrt{K_p}`$. This is the so-called spin-wave approximation. The spin-wave Hamiltonian (24) is expected to be unstable against vortex excitations if $`K`$ or $`K_p`$ becomes small.

On the other hand, it has been shown that the model (25) with (26) has a Nishimori-line $`K_p=K`$, on which some exact results can be obtained in a similar way as the random-bond Ising model. The equivalence of the condition $`K_p=K`$ to $`g=\pi `$ implies that the symmetry enhancement of the Dirac fermion with random axial-vector potential reflects the gauge symmetry on the Nishimori-line of the gauge glass model. As to the symmetry of the model, it is difficult to read its enhancement from the spin-wave Hamiltonian (24). Even if we apply the replica method, the symmetry always remains U(1). This reminds us of the case of the random-bond Ising model: We only come accross the continuous O($`n`$) symmetry when the model has been described by the Majorana fermion via the Jordan-Wigner transformation. In the present case, the enhanced symmetry also becomes manifest only in the fermion description. However, the Lagrangian discussed so far is just for the spin-wave part of the gauge glass model and it is quite necessary to include vortices to fully describe the lattice model (25). Then, such theories should be well-defined field theories with manifest enhanced symmetry on the Nishimori-line. It is an interesting issue to derive and study such field theories.

Finally, let us discuss the symmetry for the dual theory of the gauge glass model (25). The periodicity of the Hamiltonian can be described by $`e^{K\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _i\varphi _j+\chi _{ij})}_{m=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^Ke^{\frac{K}{2}(\varphi _i\varphi _j+\chi _{ij}2\pi m)}`$. By the use of the Poisson summation formula, we reach the following Hamiltonian, $`_d=\frac{1}{2K}(_\mu \theta )^2+iϵ_{\mu \nu }A_\mu _\nu \theta 2y\mathrm{cos}2\pi \theta ,`$ where $`\theta `$ is a dual field and $`y`$ is a fugacity. This is the sine-Gordon model coupled with random vector potential $`A_\mu `$. Therefore, it turns out that there is a duality between the random axial-vector potential and conventional vector potential. The former model yields a symmetry enhancement whereas the latter does not. Recently, the replica symmetry-breaking of the V-model has been suggested, which might be understood via this duality relation.

In summary, we have studied a Dirac fermion with random axial-vector potential. This model has an enhanced symmetry at a special strength of randomness, which reminds us of the Nishimori-line of the statistical models. Indeed, the model is equivalent to the spin wave Hamiltonian of the XY gauge glass model. It turns out that this model moves along a critical line for increasing $`g`$ up to $`\pi `$, and some exact scaling exponents have been obtained.

One of the authors (TF) would like to thank H. Suzuki for valuable discussions. This work is supported in part by the Yamada Science Foundation.