text:
# Bosonization and effective vector-field theory of the fractional quantum Hall effect

## I Introduction

The fractional quantum Hall effect  (FQHE) results from formation of incompressible quantum fluids that support quasiparticles carrying fractional charges and statistics, as all embodied in Laughlin’s wave functions and his reasoning resting on the gauge principle.  The early approaches based on variational wave functions successfully clarified some fundamental aspects  of the FQHE, which evolved into the descriptions of the FQHE in terms of electron–flux composites, composite bosons or composite fermions.

The bosonic  and fermionic  Chern-Simons (CS) theories are the field-theoretical frameworks that realize the composite-boson and composite-fermion pictures of the FQHE and have been successful in describing the long-wavelength characteristics of the fractional quantum Hall (FQH) states. In the wave-function approaches it is crucial to use wave functions projected to the lowest Landau level, while no explicit account of such projection is taken in the CS approaches. One might naturally wonder if and how the latter are compatible with the Landau quantization such as Landau levels and quenching of the electronic kinetic energy.

The purpose of this paper is to present a field-theoretical approach to the FQH system, that takes account of the Landau quantization from the very beginning. The basic quantity we rely on is the electromagnetic response of an incompressible and uniform state, which we calculate by handling Landau-level mixing in a systematic way. We then use a bosonization technique and construct from this response an equivalent vector-field theory that describes the electromagnetic characteristics of the FQH states and the associated quasiparticles in the presence of the Coulomb interaction. This bosonic effective theory is derived without recourse to either the composite-boson or composite-fermion picture, but properly reproduces the random-phase-approximation results of the bosonic and fermionic CS theories, thus revealing the universality of the long-wavelength characteristics of the FQH states. We examine some consequences of it, especially for the composite fermions.

In Sec. II we study the electromagnetic response of Hall electrons by a method that enforces the Landau-level structure and gauge invariance of the Hall electron system. In Sec. III we construct a bosonic effective theory of the FQHE and discuss its consequences. In Sec. IV we study a vector-field version of the fermionic CS theory. Section V is devoted to a summary and discussion.

## II Electromagnetic response of Hall electrons

Consider electrons confined to a plane with a perpendicular magnetic field, described by the action:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑td^2𝐱\psi ^{}(𝐱,t)(i_tH)\psi (𝐱,t)}+S_{\mathrm{Coul}}[\rho ],`$ (1)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}\left(𝐩+e𝐀^B(𝐱)+e𝐀(𝐱,t)\right)^2+eA_0(𝐱,t).`$ (2)
The vector potential $`𝐀^B(𝐱)`$ is taken to supply a uniform magnetic field $`B_z=B>0`$ normal to the plane, and we make the Landau-gauge choice $`𝐀^B=\frac{1}{2}B(y,0)`$ below. Our task in this section is to study the response of Hall electrons to weak external potentials $`A_\mu (𝐱,t)=(A_0(𝐱,t),𝐀(𝐱,t))`$. \[We suppose that $`\mu `$ runs over $`(0,x,y)`$ or $`(0,1,2)`$, and denote $`𝐀=(A_x,A_y)=(A_1,A_2)`$, etc. Remember that our $`A_0`$ equals minus the conventional scalar potential.\] For notational simplicity, we shall write $`x=(t,𝐱),d^3x=dtd^2𝐱,A_\mu (x)=A_\mu (𝐱,t)`$, etc., when no confusion arises; the electric charge $`e>0`$ will also be suppressed by rescaling $`eA_\mu A_\mu `$ in what follows.

The Coulomb interaction is a functional of the density $`\rho (x)=\psi ^{}(x)\psi (x)`$,

$`S_{\mathrm{Coul}}[\rho ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3xd^2𝐱^{}\delta \rho (x)V(𝐱𝐱^{})\delta \rho (x^{})},`$ (3)
where $`\delta \rho (x)=\rho (x)\overline{\rho }`$ stands for the deviation from the average electron density $`\overline{\rho }`$. It is convenient to write it in an equivalent form linear in $`\rho (x)`$ using the Hubbard-Stratonovich field $`\chi (x)`$,

$$S_{\mathrm{Coul}}^{}[\rho ]=d^3x\left[\frac{1}{2}\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }[i]\chi \chi \delta \rho \right],$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[𝐩]=1/V[𝐩]`$ in terms of the Fourier transform of $`V(𝐱)`$. Note that as for the electron sector the effect of this linearization is to replace $`A_0(x)`$ by $`A_0(x)+\chi (x)`$ in the Hamiltonian $`H`$ of Eq. (2). Accordingly, in the rest of this section we shall denote $`A_0+\chi `$ as $`A_0`$ and focus on the one-body part of $`S`$. Explicit account of the Coulomb interaction will be taken in Secs. III and IV again.

The eigenstates of $`H`$ with $`A_\mu =0`$ are Landau levels $`|N=|n,y_0`$ of energy $`\omega (n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})`$, labeled by integers $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, and $`y_0=\mathrm{}^2p_x`$, where $`\omega eB/M`$ is the cyclotron energy and $`\mathrm{}1/\sqrt{eB}`$ is the magnetic length. The external potentials $`A_\mu (x)`$ modify this level structure, and the desired response of the electron is obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian $`H`$ with respect to the true Landau levels $`\{n\}`$ (or, projecting $`H`$ into the true levels).

For actual calculations it is convenient to pass to the $`|N`$ representation via a unitary transformation $`𝐱|N`$, with the expansion $`\psi (𝐱,t)=_N\psi _N(t)𝐱|N`$. The translation is simple:  The relative coordinates $`(yy_0)/\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}p_y`$ turn into the matrices $`Y`$ and $`P`$ of a harmonic oscillator with $`[Y,P]=i1`$, and the arguments $`𝐱=(x,y)`$ of $`A_\mu (𝐱,t)`$ are replaced by the operators $`\widehat{𝐱}=(\widehat{x},\widehat{y})`$,

$$\widehat{x}x_0+\mathrm{}P,\widehat{y}y_0+\mathrm{}Y,$$
(5)
with $`[\widehat{x},\widehat{y}]=0`$. Here $`y_0`$ and $`x_0i\mathrm{}^2/y_0`$ stand for the center coordinates of an orbiting electron with uncertainty $`[x_0,y_0]=i\mathrm{}^2`$. The action is thereby rewritten as

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑y_0\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\psi _m^{}(y_0,t)\left(i\delta _{mn}_t\widehat{H}_{mn}\right)\psi _n(y_0,t)},`$ (6)
$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega \left\{[\overline{Z}i\mathrm{}\overline{A}(\widehat{𝐱},t)][Z+i\mathrm{}A(\widehat{𝐱},t)]+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\right\}`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}h_z(\widehat{𝐱},t)+A_0(\widehat{𝐱},t),`$
with

$`A(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{A_y(x)+iA_x(x)\right\}/\sqrt{2},\overline{A}(x)=A(x)^{};`$ (9)
$`h_z(x)`$ $`=`$ $`_xA_y(x)_yA_x(x).`$ (10)
In the above we have set $`\psi _N(t)\psi _n(y_0,t)`$ and defined $`Z=(Y+iP)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\overline{Z}=Z^{}`$ so that $`Z_{mn}=\sqrt{n}\delta _{m,n1}`$ and $`[Z,\overline{Z}]=1`$. In this section we use the Landau gauge but all the manipulations are carried over to the symmetric gauge as well.

The Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ is an infinite-dimensional matrix in Landau-level indices and an operator in $`y_0`$ and $`x_0=i\mathrm{}^2_{y_0}`$. It has a gauge symmetry far larger than the electromagnetic gauge invariance: The change of bases in $`N`$ space, $`|n,y_0|n^{},y_0^{}`$, induces a unitary transformation $`G=\{G_{mn}(x_0,y_0,t)\}`$ of the field operator

$$\psi _m^G(y_0,t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}G_{mn}(x_0,y_0,t)\psi _n(y_0,t).$$
(11)
The potentials $`A_\mu `$ thereby undergo the transformation

$`A^G`$ $`=`$ $`GA(\widehat{𝐱},t)G^1(i/\mathrm{})[G,Z]G^1,`$ (12)
$`A_0^G`$ $`=`$ $`GA_0(\widehat{𝐱},t)G^1iG_tG^1,`$ (13)
which leaves the action $`S`$ invariant. Let us write

$$G=\mathrm{exp}[i\mathrm{}\eta ],$$
(14)
where $`\eta `$ takes on values in the $`U(\mathrm{})`$ or $`W_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebra

$$\eta =\underset{r,s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\eta _{rs}(x_0,y_0)\overline{Z}^rZ^s$$
(15)
with operator-valued coefficients $`\eta _{rs}(x_0,y_0)`$. This $`W_{\mathrm{}}`$ transformation $`G`$ in general mixes Landau levels. The original electromagnetic gauge invariance is realized when $`\eta `$ is written in terms of $`(\widehat{x},\widehat{y})`$, i.e., of the special form $`\eta [\widehat{x},\widehat{y},t]`$.

The reason for displaying the symmetry structure underlying the Hall system is that it provides a powerful tool to systematically project the Hamiltonian into the exact Landau levels for weak fields $`|A_\mu |\omega `$. One may simply adjust $`\eta `$ so that $`\widehat{H}^G=G(\widehat{H}i_t)G^1`$ is diagonal in level indices. Some calculations along this line were given earlier.  Here we demonstrate another advantage of the method that, with a suitable transformation, the projection is done in a manifestly gauge-covariant manner. The calculation itself, however, is rather independent of the main line of our discussion and is left for Appendix A. Here we quote only the result: The projected Hamiltonian, to $`O(A^2)`$ and $`O(^2)`$, reads

$`\widehat{H}^G`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{Z}Z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\left\{\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}(h_z+\mathrm{}^2h_z^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}^2𝐄\right\}`$ (17)
$`+A_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\omega }}𝐄^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}^2ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_\mu _\nu A_\lambda +\mathrm{},`$
where all the fields depend on $`(x_0,y_0,t)`$ and total derivatives have been suppressed; $`𝐄=_0𝐀+A_0`$, and $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }`$ is a totally-antisymmetric tensor with $`ϵ^{012}=1`$.

Since the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}^G`$ is diagonal in $`n`$, let us denote $`(\widehat{H}^G)_{nn}=(n+\frac{1}{2})\omega +V_n(x_0,y_0,t)`$ and focus on a single level $`n`$. The cyclotron energy is now quenched and $`V_n`$ describes the response of the Hall electron. Let us suppose that in the absence of external perturbations ($`A_\mu =0`$) a nondegenerate many-body state of uniform density is realized. Here we have in mind the integer and fractional quantum Hall states and understand that the Coulomb interaction is responsible for their formation. For such incompressible and uniform states it is not difficult to translate $`V_n(x_0,y_0,t)`$ into the effective action or the partition function in $`𝐱`$ space. To this end, replace first $`(x_0,y_0)(\widehat{x},\widehat{y})`$ in $`V_n`$ to form $`\widehat{V}_nV_n(\widehat{x},\widehat{y},t)`$, and note that $`\widehat{V}_n`$ differs from $`V_n`$ by total divergences, which will soon turn out irrelevant in the end. Then go back to the $`𝐱`$ space with $`\widehat{V}_n`$. This yields an interaction term of the form $`\psi ^{}V_n(x,y,t)\psi `$, which, for an electron state of uniform density $`\rho _n`$ in the $`n`$th level, gives rise to the effective Lagrangian $`L_n^{\mathrm{eff}}=\rho _nV_n(x,y,t)`$, or

$`L_n^{\mathrm{eff}}=\rho _n\{`$ $`eA_0+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}^2}{2\omega }}𝐄^2(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}^2}{M}}h_z^2`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^2\mathrm{}^2ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_\mu _\nu A_\lambda +\mathrm{}\}`$
with the electric charge $`e`$ restored. Here all the fields are functions of $`(x,y,t)`$ and total divergences have been dropped. The $`L_n^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ summarizes the $`O(V_n)`$ electromagnetic response of the incompressible and uniform state. It correctly reproduces earlier results  for integer filling $`\rho _n1/(2\pi \mathrm{}^2)`$. It is clear from our derivation that such a response is determined uniquely for an incompressible state of general $`\rho _n`$, independent of the detail of how it is formed; this is the key observation that enables one to use this response for the discussion of the FQHE.

## III bosonization and an effective theory

The action $`S=S[\psi ,\psi ^{},A_\mu ]`$ in Eq. (1) describes the electron field $`\psi (x)`$ minimally coupled to the external potentials $`A_\mu (x)=(A_0(x),A_k(x))`$, where $`k`$ runs over $`(1,2)=(x,y)`$. In this section we study this electron system from somewhat different angles and construct a bosonic effective theory of the FQHE. The electromagnetic response of the system is summarized in the partition function written as a functional integral

$$W[A]=[d\psi ][d\psi ^{}]e^{iS[\psi ,\psi ^{},A_\mu ]}.$$
(20)
\[From now on $`A`$ simply refers to $`A_\mu `$, and not to $`(A_y+iA_x)/\sqrt{2}`$ any more.\] The $`W[A]`$ encodes in its $`A_\mu `$ dependence the quantum effect of the electron field $`\psi `$. Once such $`W[A]`$ is known it is possible to reconstruct it through the quantum fluctuations of a boson field. Let us first briefly review this procedure, known as functional bosonization.

The gauge invariance of the action $`S[\psi ,\psi ^{},A_\mu ]=S[e^{i\xi }\psi ,\psi ^{}e^{i\xi },A_\mu +_\mu \xi ]`$ dictates that $`W[A]`$ is gauge-invariant, i.e., $`W[A_\mu ]=W[A_\mu +_\mu \xi ]`$, where $`_\mu =(_0,_1,_2)(_t,_x,_y)`$. Thus integrating $`W[A_\mu ]`$ over $`\xi `$ amounts to an inessential change in the overall normalization, yielding $`W[A_\mu ]=[d\xi ]W[A_\mu +_\mu \xi ]`$. Now let us rewrite the integral $`[d\xi ]`$ as an integral over a 3-vector field $`v_\mu (x)=(v_0,v_1,v_2)`$,

$$W[A]=[dv_\lambda ]\delta (ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu v_\rho )W[A+v],$$
(21)
where the delta functional enforces the pure-gauge nature $`v_\mu _\mu \xi `$. One can disentangle the pure-gauge constraint by making use of a functional Fourier transform with another 3-vector field $`b_\mu =(b_0,b_1,b_2)`$. A subsequent shift $`v_\mu v_\mu A_\mu `$ in the functional integral then yields the representation

$`W[A]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle [db_\lambda ]e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^3x(A_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu b_\rho )}+iZ[b]}},`$ (22)
$`e^{iZ[b]}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle [dv_\lambda ]e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^3x(b_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu v_\rho )}}W[v]}.`$ (23)
Here $`Z[b]`$ is obtained by Fourier transforming (given) $`W[v]`$. Note that the electron current $`j_\mu =\delta S/\delta A_\mu `$ is written as a rotation $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu b_\rho `$ in the $`b`$-boson theory.

An advantage of the bosonic theory is that the bosonization of the current holds exactly for the Coulomb interaction (3). To see this write the Coulomb interaction in linearized form $`S_{\mathrm{Coul}}^{}[\rho ]`$ and follow the bosonization procedure (with a shift $`v_\mu v_\mu A_\mu \delta _{0\mu }\chi `$). Eliminating (or integrating over) the $`\chi `$ field then entails the replacement $`\rho ϵ^{0ij}_ib_j=_1b_2_2b_1b_{12}`$ in $`S_{\mathrm{Coul}}[\rho ]`$, and the $`b`$-boson theory is described by the action

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}[b]=d^3x(Aϵb)+Z[b]+S_{\mathrm{Coul}}[b_{12}],$$
(24)
where $`Z[b]`$ is now calculated from the one-body part of the action $`S`$ in Eq. (1), i.e., from the $`v`$-field theory with the action

$$S_v=d^3xbϵvi\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}(i_tH[v]).$$
(25)
Here we have introduced compact notation $`AϵbA_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu b_\rho `$, etc., which will be used from now on.

Actually the second term of Eq. (25) has been calculated in the preceding section. Suppose that a nondegenerate many-body state of uniform density $`\overline{\rho }=\nu /(2\pi \mathrm{}^2)`$ is formed via the Coulomb interaction (for $`A_\mu =0`$); take, for generality, $`n<\nu <n+1`$, so that the lower $`n+1`$ Landau levels are filled up. Its response to weak electromagnetic potentials $`A_\mu (x)`$ is obtained by collecting Eq. (19) for the filled levels, yielding $`\mathrm{log}W[A]=id^3xL[A;\nu ]`$ with

$`L[A;\nu ]=\overline{\rho }`$ $`[A_0s_B\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}AϵA`$ (27)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\omega }}(A_{k0})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\nu )\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}(A_{12})^2]+O(^3),`$
where $`A_{\mu \nu }_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ (so that $`A_{k0}=E_k`$ and $`A_{12}=h_z`$). Here $`\sigma (\nu )=1+2nn(n+1)/\nu `$ at each integer interval $`n<\nu n+1`$; the modification needed for realistic spin-resolved levels is obvious. For later use we have generalized $`L[A;\nu ]`$ to accommodate the sign $`s_B\mathrm{sign}(B)=\pm 1`$ of $`B_z=B`$; remember that, when the magnetic field is reversed in direction, the CS term $`AϵA`$ (or the Hall conductance) changes in sign.

Let us now substitute this $`L[A;\nu ]`$ into Eq. (23) and construct an effective theory of the $`b_\mu `$ field that recovers it. The exponent $`bϵv+L[v;\nu ]`$ is essentially quadratic in $`v_\mu `$, and functional integration over $`v_\mu `$ is carried out exactly. Here it is necessary to fix a gauge. Fortunately there is a way to avoid such gauge-fixing complications, that works in the presence of CS couplings, as we explain below: First make a shift $`v_\mu =v_\mu ^{}+f_\mu [b]`$ and choose $`f_\mu [b]`$ so that no direct coupling between $`v_\mu ^{}`$ and $`b_\mu `$ remains in the exponent, which thereby is split into two terms $`L[v^{};\nu ]+L^{(0)}[b]`$. The integration over $`v_\mu ^{}`$ requires fixing a gauge but is done trivially, leaving no dependence on $`b_\mu `$. All the dependence on $`b_\mu `$ is now isolated in the background piece $`f_\mu =(1/\overline{\rho }\mathrm{}^2)s_Bb_\mu +O(b)`$ and the desired bosonic action is given by $`Z[b]=d^3xL^{(0)}[b]`$ with

$`L^{(0)}[b]=`$ $`s_B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}b_0+s_B{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\nu }}b_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu b_\lambda `$ (29)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\nu \omega }}(b_{k0})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\nu )\pi }{\nu M}}(b_{12})^2+O(^3),`$
where the filling factor $`\nu =2\pi \mathrm{}^2\overline{\rho }`$. See Appendix B for details. An effective action analogous to the above was discussed for integer filling earlier.  In connection with the $`v_\mu ^{}`$ integration we remark that any simple choice of gauge for $`v_\mu ^{}`$, e.g., $`_kv_k^{}=0`$, takes a rather unconventional form $`_kv_k=_kf_k[b]`$ in terms of $`v_\mu `$. Still this is a perfectly legitimate choice, and it has the advantage of achieving separation of the background ($`b_\mu `$ here) dependent piece at the classical level.

The bosonic theory allows one to handle the Coulomb interaction exactly, as already remarked. It further admits inclusion of new degrees of freedom, vortices, which describe quasiparticle excitations over the FQH states.

Vortices arise only around special filling fractions, at which nondegenerate many-body ground states are realized, as revealed by Laughlin’s reasoning  of arriving at an excited state by adiabatically piercing an exact many-body state with a thin solenoid of a unit flux quantum $`\varphi _D=2\pi \mathrm{}/e`$; recall that the key element there is the nondegeneracy of the ground state. The vortices reside in a topologically nontrivial component of the phase of the electron field.  Let us isolate the nontrivial portion by writing $`\psi (x)=e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }(x)}\psi ^{}(x)`$ with $`ϵ^{0ij}_i_j\mathrm{\Theta }(x)0`$, where $`\psi ^{}(x)`$ describes the electrons away from the vortices so that they locally belong to the ground state with uniform density $`\overline{\rho }`$. For vortices of vorticity $`\{q_i\}`$ and position $`\{𝐱^{(i)}(t)\}`$ the vortex 3-current $`\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu =(\stackrel{~}{\rho },\stackrel{~}{j}_k)=(1/2\pi )ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu _\rho \mathrm{\Theta }(\{𝐱^{(i)}(t)\})`$ is written as

$`\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu (x)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(1,_t𝐱^{(i)}(t))q_i\delta (𝐱𝐱^{(i)}(t)).`$ (30)
The partition function (20), rewritten in terms of $`\psi ^{}(x)`$, is given by $`W[A+\mathrm{\Theta }]`$, which upon bosonization brings about the change $`AϵbAϵb+2\pi \stackrel{~}{j}_\mu b_\mu `$ in $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[b]`$. Thus the bosonic theory that takes into account both the Coulomb interaction and vortices is described by the Lagrangian

$$L_{\mathrm{eff}}[b]=A_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu b_\rho 2\pi \stackrel{~}{j}_\mu b_\mu +L^{(0)}[b]\frac{1}{2}\delta b_{12}V\delta b_{12},$$
(31)
where $`\delta b_{12}V\delta b_{12}d^2𝐲\delta b_{12}(x)V(𝐱𝐲)\delta b_{12}(y)`$ for short and $`\delta b_{12}(x)=b_{12}(x)\overline{\rho }`$. Upon quantization the CS term $`bϵb`$ in $`L^{(0)}[b]`$ combines with the kinetic term $`(b_{k0})^2`$ to yield a “mass” gap $`\omega `$ while the $`(b_{12})^2`$ term yields only a tiny $`O(^2)`$ correction to it, as we shall see soon.

Note that the $`Aϵb`$ term combines with the $`(1/\mathrm{}^2)b_0`$ term in $`L^{(0)}[b]`$ to promote $`A_\mu `$ to the full vector potential $`A_\mu +A_\mu ^B`$. As a result, $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}[b]`$ almost precisely agrees with the dual-field Lagrangian of Lee and Zhang  (LZ), describing the low-energy features of the FQHE. The only difference to $`O(^2)`$ lies in the $`(b_{12})^2`$ term, which, however, is unimportant at long wavelengths and actually negligible compared with the $`(b_{k0})^2`$ term, as indicated by the ratio $`\omega /M10^7`$ typically. We have thus practically reproduced the dual Lagrangian of LZ.

The LZ approach relies on the Chern-Simons-Landau-Ginzburg (CSLG) theory realizing the composite-boson description of the FQHE; there the quantum fluctuations of the composite-boson field around the mean field $`\rho \overline{\rho }`$ are converted, via the dual transformation of Lee and Fisher , into those of a 3-vector field $`b_\mu ^{\mathrm{LZ}}`$. The $`b_\mu ^{\mathrm{LZ}}`$ and our $`b_\mu `$ bosonize the electron current in formally the same way. In the CSLG theory no account of the Landau-level structure is taken, and the proper electromagnetic responses of the FQH states are obtained through the random-phase approximation (RPA) beyond mean field.

In contrast, our approach takes explicit account of Landau levels and relies on the electromagnetic response of a uniform-density state, which, via bosonization, is transformed into the dynamics of the $`b`$ field to study the long-wavelength characteristics of the FQH states.

Thus, the fact that we have arrived at the LZ dual Lagrangian without invoking the composite-boson picture would reveal the following: (1) The long-wavelength electromagnetic responses of the FQH states, as governed by the LZ dual Lagrangian, are determined universally by the filling factor and some single-electron characteristics, independent of the details of the FQH states. (2) In the CSLG theory the RPA properly recovers the effect of the Landau-level structure, crucial for determining the electromagnetic response.

Having established the connection to the composite-boson approach, let us now derive the electromagnetic response starting from the bosonic Lagrangian $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}[b]`$. As before the $`b`$ integration is done by a suitable shift $`b_\mu =b_\mu ^{}+f_\mu `$, with the result (in obvious compact notation)

$`L_b[A;\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\rho }\mathrm{}^2[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}A_0s_B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}ϵA`$ (33)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega }}A_{k0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}A_{k0}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{4\pi }}A_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}\mathrm{\Sigma }A_{12}],`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=V+\frac{2\pi \sigma (\nu )}{\nu M},D=1+\frac{1}{\omega ^2}_0^2\frac{\nu }{2\pi \omega }\mathrm{\Sigma }^2;$$
(34)
see Appendix B for details. This $`L_b[A;\nu ]`$ improves the original response $`L[A;\nu ]`$ in Eq. (27) and agrees with the RPA result in the composite-boson theory.  One can read off, e.g., the density-density correlation function from the $`A_0A_0`$ portion of the $`A_{k0}D^1A_{k0}`$ term. One also learns from $`D`$ that the Coulomb interaction modifies the dispersion of the cyclotron mode so that

$`\omega (𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\rho }\mathrm{}^2𝐩^2\left(V[𝐩]+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \sigma (\nu )}{\nu M}}\right)`$ (35)
$``$ $`\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\rho }\mathrm{}^2𝐩^2V[𝐩]`$ (36)
in accordance with Kohn’s theorem.  Here we see explicitly that the $`(b_{12})^2`$ terms in $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}[b]`$ yields only a tiny nonleading correction.

Observe here that, in spite of the quenched electronic kinetic energy, the $`b_\mu `$ field correctly acquires a dispersion of the Landau gap $`\omega `$ (through level mixing caused by electromagnetic couplings). The cyclotron mode is readily identified by first isolating a mean-field piece from the quantum component $`b_\mu ^{}`$ so that $`b_\mu ^{}=\delta b_\mu ^{}+b^{}_\mu `$ with $`b^{}_{12}=\overline{\rho }`$. In the Coulomb gauge $`_k\delta b_k^{}=0`$ one can write $`\delta b_i^{}=ϵ^{0ij}(_j/\sqrt{^2})\zeta `$ and show that $`\zeta `$ is the canonical scalar field with the dispersion $`\omega (𝐩)`$.

In Eq. (33) we have set $`\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu =0`$ for simplicity, but the vortices are easily recovered by the substitution $`A_\mu A_\mu +_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`A_{\mu \nu }A_{\mu \nu }+2\pi ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }\stackrel{~}{j}_\lambda `$. The dynamics of vortices is immediately read from $`L_b[A_\mu +_\mu \mathrm{\Theta };\nu ]`$. In particular, the $`AϵA`$ term contains a vortex coupling like $`\nu \stackrel{~}{j}_\mu A_\mu `$, which shows that a vortex of vorticity $`q`$ has charge $`\nu qe`$. (We have set $`s_B=1`$ here.)

It is possible to read off the vortex charge directly from $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}[b]`$ in Eq. (31). There the vortex enters only through the $`2\pi \stackrel{~}{j}_\mu b_\mu `$ coupling and no direct coupling to $`A_\mu `$ exists. As remarked in deriving Eq. (29), however, the $`b_\mu `$ field acquires, in the presence of the electromagnetic coupling $`A_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu b_\rho `$, a background component, i.e., $`b_\mu =b_\mu ^{}+f_\mu `$ with $`f_\mu =s_B(\nu /2\pi )A_\mu +O(A)`$, where the coefficient $`\nu /2\pi `$ derives from the $`bϵb`$ term. Thus the vortex is coupled to $`A_\mu `$ through the background piece

$$2\pi \stackrel{~}{j}_\mu b_\mu =\nu \stackrel{~}{j}_\mu A_\mu +\mathrm{},$$
(37)
which reveals the vortex charge of $`\nu qe`$.

## IV Composite fermions

The composite fermions are electrons carrying an even number of flux quanta. In the CS approach the electron field $`\psi (x)`$ is converted to the composite-fermion field $`\varphi (x)`$ by a singular gauge transformation that attaches an even number $`\alpha =2p`$ of flux quanta $`\varphi _D=2\pi \mathrm{}/e`$ of the CS field $`C_\mu (x)`$, with the Lagrangian  (with $`e`$ restored)

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{}\left[i_t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}𝚷[𝐀^B+𝐀+𝐂]^2eA_0eC_0\right]\varphi `$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \rho V\delta \rho {\displaystyle \frac{e}{2\alpha \varphi _D}}C_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu C_\lambda ;`$
$`𝚷[𝐀]𝐩+e𝐀`$. Here $`\delta \rho (x)=\rho (x)\overline{\rho }`$ is written in terms of $`\rho (x)=\varphi ^{}(x)\varphi (x)`$, but one can effectively replace it by

$$\delta \rho (x)=(1/\alpha \varphi _D)ϵ^{0ij}_iC_j(x)\overline{\rho }.$$
(40)
To see this, express the Coulomb interaction in linearized form (4) again, and rewrite $`L`$ in favor of $`C_0^{}=C_0+(1/e)\chi `$. The $`CϵC`$ term thereby acquires a $`\chi `$-dependent piece, which, upon eliminating $`\chi `$, recovers the Coulomb interaction with $`\delta \rho (x)`$ of Eq. (40). With this in mind we now start with Eqs. (39) and (40).

The mean-field treatment corresponds to an expansion in $`C_\mu (x)`$ of $`L`$ around the mean field $`\delta \rho 0`$, or $`C_j(x)`$ with $`ϵ^{ij}_iC_j(x)=\alpha \varphi _D\overline{\rho }`$ and $`C_0(x)=0`$. Let us set $`C_\mu (x)=C_\mu (x)+c_\mu (x)`$ and rewrite the Lagrangian as

$`L=\varphi ^{}\left[i_t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}𝚷[𝐀^{\mathrm{eff}}+𝐚]^2ea_0\right]\varphi +L_{\mathrm{CS}}[c],`$ (41)
$`L_{\mathrm{CS}}[c]={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2\alpha \varphi _D}}c_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu c_\lambda +e\overline{\rho }c_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \rho V\delta \rho ,`$ (42)
where $`a_\mu =A_\mu +c_\mu `$ and $`\delta \rho (x)=(1/\alpha \varphi _D)c_{12}(x)`$.

The composite fermions, coupled to $`𝐀^{\mathrm{eff}}(x)=𝐀^B(𝐱)+𝐂(x)`$, experience a reduced mean magnetic field $`B_{\mathrm{eff}}B\alpha \varphi _D\overline{\rho }=(1\alpha \nu )B`$, and form Landau levels of smaller gap $`\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}=e|B_{\mathrm{eff}}|/M`$ and state density $`1/(2\pi \mathrm{}_{\mathrm{eff}}^2)`$, where $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{eff}}1/\sqrt{e|B_{\mathrm{eff}}|}`$. The fractional quantum Hall states of interacting electrons in a magnetic field $`B`$ at the principal filling fractions

$$\nu 2\pi \mathrm{}^2\overline{\rho }=\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}/(2p\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}\pm 1),$$
(43)
where $`\pm `$ refers to the sign of $`B_{\mathrm{eff}}/B`$, are thereby mapped into an integer quantum Hall state of composite fermions in the reduced field $`B_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ at integer filling $`\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}2\pi \mathrm{}_{\mathrm{eff}}^2\overline{\rho }=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. This Jain’s picture  of (supposedly weakly-interacting) composite fermions has a number of consequences that have been supported experimentally.

Consider now a many-body ground state of composite fermions at integer filling $`\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Its response to $`A_\mu +c_\mu `$ is described by $`L[A_\mu +c_\mu ;\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}]`$, i.e., Eq. (27) with $`A_\mu A_\mu +c_\mu `$ and $`BB_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Note further that, since the ground state at integer filling is incompressible and nondegenerate, it supports vortices as elementary excitations over it, which as before are introduced via the replacement $`A_\mu A_\mu +(1/e)_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }`$. The composite-fermion (CF) theory (41), generalized to accommodate vortices, is thus described by the effective Lagrangian

$$L_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{CF}}=L[A_\mu +(1/e)_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }+c_\mu ;\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}]+L_{\mathrm{CS}}[c].$$
(44)
This is immediately transcribed into an equivalent bosonic version of the CF theory, with the Lagrangian

$`L^{\mathrm{CF}}[b,c]=`$ $`e(A_\mu +c_\mu )ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu b_\rho 2\pi \stackrel{~}{j}_\mu b_\mu `$ (46)
$`+L^{(0)}[b;B_{\mathrm{eff}}]+L_{\mathrm{CS}}[c],`$
where $`b_\mu `$ bosonizes the 3-current of the CF field $`\varphi `$; and $`L^{(0)}[b;B_{\mathrm{eff}}]`$ stands for $`L^{(0)}[b]`$ of Eq. (29) with $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{eff}},\omega \omega _{\mathrm{eff}},\nu \nu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`s_Bs_B^{}`$, where $`s_B^{}=\pm 1`$ refers to the sign of $`B_{\mathrm{eff}}/B`$.

Let us here try to eliminate $`c_\mu `$ from $`L^{\mathrm{CF}}[b,c]`$ and obtain an equivalent theory of the $`b_\mu `$ field alone. With the shift $`c_\mu =c_\mu ^{}\alpha \varphi _Db_\mu `$, the $`cϵb`$ term and $`L_{\mathrm{CS}}[c]`$ combine to yield

$$\mathrm{}L=2\pi \alpha (\frac{1}{2}bϵb\overline{\rho }b_0)\frac{1}{2}\delta b_{12}V\delta b_{12},$$
(47)
which is combined with the rest of terms in $`L^{\mathrm{CF}}[b,c]`$ to give the desired $`b`$-field Lagrangian $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(\mathrm{CF})}[b]`$. Actually this $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(\mathrm{CF})}[b]`$ almost coincides with $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}[b]`$ in Eq. (31) and their apparent difference lies in

$`\mathrm{}L+L^{(0)}[b;B_{\mathrm{eff}}]L^{(0)}[b].`$ (48)
As a matter of fact, both sides agree precisely for the first three leading terms of $`L^{(0)}[b]`$; i.e., $`\alpha \nu /\mathrm{}^2+s_B^{}/\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=1/\mathrm{}^2`$ for the $`b_0`$ term, $`\alpha +s_B^{}/\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}=1/\nu `$ for the $`bϵb`$ term, and $`\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}=\nu \omega `$ for the $`(b_{k0})^2`$ term, with the sign $`s_B^{}=\pm 1`$ properly taken into account. Note, however, that $`\sigma (\nu )/\nu \sigma (\nu _{\mathrm{eff}})/\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in general. Thus there is a discrepancy in the $`(b_{12})^2`$ term, which fortunately is unimportant at long wavelengths, as noted for $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}[b]`$.

This leads to two important observations: First, the fact that both sides of Eq. (48) are practically the same shows the mutual consistency between the fermionic CS theory and our approach, and makes it clear again that the effective Lagrangian $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}[b]`$ of Eq. (31) rests on general grounds. The RPA response of the fermionic CS theory is obtained here from the bosonic $`L^{\mathrm{CF}}[b,c]`$ theory by integrations over $`b_\mu `$ and $`c_\mu `$, with the result given by $`L_b[A;\nu ]`$ of Eq. (33).

Secondly, a tiny discrepancy in the $`(b_{12})^2`$ term indicates that both sides of Eq. (48) actually differ beyond the long-wavelength regime. This discrepancy is ascribed to a mismatch between the Landau levels of the original electron and those of the composite fermion, which is inevitable because the procedures of CS-flux attachment and Landau-level projection do not commute. The shorter-wavelength regime, of course, is beyond the scope of both the fermionic CS theory and our approach, and it is already nontrivial that both descriptions are perfectly consistent in the long-wavelength regime.

In the CF description of the FQHE the composite fermion itself constitutes an elementary excitation in the FQH ground states. In particular, Goldhaber and Jain  identified a composite fermion as a dressed electron with bare charge $`e`$ and argued by exploiting the incompressible nature of Laughlin’s wave functions that the bare charge is screened in the CF medium to yield local charge equal to $`\nu e`$, consistent with Laughlin’s quasiparticles.

It is possible to substantiate such characteristics of composite fermions within the CS approach. As revealed by Laughlin’s reasoning, adiabatically piercing the CF ground state of integer filling $`\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ with a thin flux of vorticity $`q=s_B^{}=1`$ (depending on the sign of $`B_{\mathrm{eff}}/B`$) introduces a hole per filled level and thus $`\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ holes in total. It is quite obvious at this level of composite fermions that the quasiholes in Laughlin’s picture are nothing but the vacancies of the associated composite fermions, and that the quasielectrons are the composite fermions themselves. The charges of these excitations are readily read from the bosonic CF Lagrangian $`L^{\mathrm{CF}}[b,c]`$ in Eq. (46): As discussed in the previous section, the vortex is coupled to $`A_\mu `$ through a background piece of $`b_\mu `$,

$$2\pi \stackrel{~}{j}_\mu b_\mu =\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}es_B^{}\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu (A_\mu +c_\mu )+\mathrm{},$$
(49)
which indicates that each composite fermion has “bare” charge $`e`$ in response to $`A_\mu +c_\mu `$.

Note next that, upon integration over $`b`$, $`L^{\mathrm{CF}}[b,c]`$ gives rise to a CS term of the form $`\frac{1}{2}\beta _\varphi (A+c)ϵ(A+c)`$ with $`\beta _\varphi =s_B^{}\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}e^2/(2\pi )`$, as seen also from $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{CF}}`$ in Eq. (44). This term combines with another CS term in $`L_{\mathrm{CS}}[c]`$, $`\frac{1}{2}\beta _ccϵc`$ with $`\beta _c=e^2/(2\pi \alpha )`$, to fix the background piece of $`c_\mu `$ as $`c_\mu ^{\mathrm{bg}}=\{\beta _\varphi /(\beta _\varphi +\beta _c)\}A_\mu +O(A)`$. As a result, the dressing (or renormalization) of the vortex coupling (49) by the CS field is substantial:

$$A_\mu +c_\mu =s_B^{}\frac{\nu }{\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}}A_\mu +\mathrm{},$$
(50)
which shows that a composite fermion has fractional charge

$$Q_{\mathrm{CF}}=\frac{\nu }{\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}}e=\frac{1}{2p\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}\pm 1}e$$
(51)
in response to $`A_\mu `$, where $`\pm `$ refers to $`s_B^{}`$. Hence the bare charge $`e`$ coupled to $`A_\mu +c_\mu `$ is the same as the renormalized charge $`Q_{\mathrm{CF}}`$ probed with $`A_\mu `$. This special renormalization feature of the linear $`A_\mu +c_\mu `$ coupling is a consequence of the dynamics in the fermionic CS theory. With this in mind one can directly learn from the original Lagrangian (39) that the CF field $`\varphi `$, when probed with $`A_\mu `$, has fractional charge $`Q_{\mathrm{CF}}`$.

It will be worth remarking here that the coefficient $`\beta _\varphi =s_B^{}\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}e^2/(2\pi \mathrm{})`$ of the CS term mentioned above stands for the “bare” Hall conductance in response to $`A_\mu +c_\mu `$ for $`\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ filled CF Landau levels, and that it is thus transcribed into the (physical) Hall conductance $`\sigma _{xy}=\nu e^2/(2\pi \mathrm{})`$ for the associated FQH state in response to $`A_\mu `$. In other words, the composite fermion with bare charge $`e`$ feels an effective electric field $`E_y^{A+c}E_y+c_{20}=s_B^{}(\nu /\nu _{\mathrm{eff}})E_y+\mathrm{}`$ in the effective magnetic field $`B_{\mathrm{eff}}=s_B^{}(\nu /\nu _{\mathrm{eff}})B`$ so that it drifts with the same velocity as the electron, as it should,

$$v_x^{\mathrm{drift}}=E_y^{A+c}/B_{\mathrm{eff}}=E_y/B.$$
(52)
## V Summary and discussion

In this paper we have studied the electromagnetic characteristics of the FQH states by formulating an effective vector-field theory that properly takes into account the Landau-level structure and quenching of the cyclotron energy. The effective theory has been constructed, via bosonization, from the electromagnetic response of Hall electrons, in which, as we have seen, the long-wavelength characteristics of the FQH states and the associated quasiparticles are correctly encoded. We have thereby reproduced the dual-field Lagrangian of Lee and Zhang without invoking the composite-boson picture.

Our approach does not refer to either the composite-boson or composite-fermion picture, and simply supposes a FQH ground state of uniform density (in the absence of an external probe). Our approach by itself does not tell at which filling fraction $`\nu `$ such a state is realized. Instead, it tells us that once such an incompressible state is formed its long-wavelength characteristics are fixed universally, independent of the composite-boson and composite-fermion pictures. In this sense, our approach is complementary to the CS approaches, both bosonic and fermionic, where the characteristic filling fractions are determined from the picture-specific condition for the emergence of composite-boson condensates or filled composite-fermion Landau levels.

All these three approaches are consistent at long wavelengths, as we have verified. This gives further evidence for the universality of the long-distance physics of the FQHE, as advocated in Ref. 25. Remember, however, that they start to deviate at shorter wavelengths; thus care is needed in studying the detailed features of the FQH states.

It could happen that a bosonic effective theory better reveals some basic features of the original fermionic theory. Indeed, we have derived a vector-field version of the fermionic CS theory and found a special renormalization pattern of the electron charge, which substantiates the identification by Goldhaber and Jain of the composite fermion as a dressed electron. Looking into the FQHE from various angles would promote our understanding of it.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education of Japan, Science and Culture (No. 10640265).

## A Calculation

In this appendix we outline the construction of the projected Hamiltonian (17). Let us begin with sorting the $`U(\mathrm{})`$ basis in Eq. (15)

$`\gamma _r^k{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Z}^rZ^{r+k}}{r!(r+k)!}},\overline{\gamma }_r^k(\gamma _r^k)^{},`$ (A1)
into diagonal components $`\gamma _r^0`$ and off-diagonal components $`\gamma _r^k`$ with $`k1`$. One can expand, e.g., $`A(\widehat{𝐱},t)`$ in this basis as $`A(\widehat{x},\widehat{y},t)=e^{\overline{Z}\overline{}}e^ZA_{00}(x_0,y_0,t)`$, or

$`A(\widehat{𝐱},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\gamma _r^0A_{00}^{(r)}+{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(\gamma _r^k^kA_{00}^{(r)}+\overline{\gamma }_r^k\overline{}^kA_{00}^{(r)}\right).`$ (A2)
Here $`=(_{y_0}i_{x_0})/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\overline{}=(_{y_0}+i_{x_0})/\sqrt{2}`$ act on $`A_{00}(x_0,y_0,t)`$ and $`A_{00}^{(r)}(\overline{})^rA_{00}(x_0,y_0,t)`$; we have set $`\mathrm{}=1`$. The expression for $`A_{00}(x_0,y_0,t)`$ depends on how $`x_0`$ and $`y_0`$ are ordered in it. The convention we adopt below is to define $`A(\widehat{𝐱},t)`$ through the Fourier transform of $`A(𝐱,t)`$ with the substitution $`e^{i𝐩𝐱}e^{i𝐩\widehat{𝐱}}`$, which yields the expression

$$A_{00}(x_0,y_0,t)=e^{\frac{1}{2}\overline{}}A(x_0,y_0,t).$$
(A4)
Actually such reference to a particular ordering convention chosen disappears when one goes back to the $`𝐱`$ space.

The gauge transformation law (13) or its first-order form $`(A^G)^{[1]}A+[\eta ,Z]`$ tells us that, with a suitable choice of $`G`$, $`A^G`$ is brought to have only $`\gamma _r^k`$ components. This is the key to systematizing the calculation. Indeed, to $`O(A)`$, $`A^G`$ is written in terms of the field strength $`h_z`$,

$`i(A^G)^{[1]}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\gamma _r^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(h_z)_{00}^{(r)}+{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\gamma _r^k^{k1}(h_z)_{00}^{(r)},`$ (A5)
upon choosing $`\eta `$ as

$`\eta ^{[1]}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _0^0+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\gamma _r^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_{00}^{(r1)}+\overline{}\overline{A}_{00}^{(r1)})`$ (A7)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(\gamma _r^k^{k1}\overline{A}_{00}^{(r)}+\overline{\gamma }_r^k\overline{}^{k1}A_{00}^{(r)}\right),`$
with $`(h_z)_{00}^{(r)}(\overline{})^r(h_z)_{00}(x_0,y_0,t)`$, etc. At the same time the scalar potential $`(A_0^G)^{[1]}A_0_t\eta `$ reads

$`(A_0^G)^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`(A_0^{})_{00}+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\gamma _r^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(E_{00}^{(r1)}+\overline{}\overline{E}_{00}^{(r1)})`$ (A9)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\gamma _r^k^{k1}\overline{E}_{00}^{(r)}+\overline{\gamma }_r^k\overline{}^{k1}E_{00}^{(r)}),`$
with $`E_{00}=(E_y+iE_x)_{00}/\sqrt{2}=\overline{}(A_0)_{00}_tA_{00}`$, etc. The $`(A_0^{})_{00}(A_0)_{00}_t\eta _0^0`$ takes a gauge-invariant form $`(A_0^{})_{00}=A_0+g(\frac{1}{2}\overline{})\frac{1}{4}𝐄`$, upon choosing $`\eta _0^0=g(\frac{1}{2}\overline{})\frac{1}{4}(A+\overline{}\overline{A})`$, where $`g(x)=(e^x1)/x`$.

One can go to higher orders in $`A_\mu `$ by fixing $`\eta `$ so that $`A^G`$ has only $`\gamma _r^k`$ components. Here we construct $`H^G`$ to $`O(A^2)`$ and up to two derivatives. A direct calculation yields

$`i(A^G)^{[2]}`$ $`=`$ $`Z\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}h_{00}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{}(\overline{A}A)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Re}(^2A^2)\right\}+O_3,`$ (A10)
$`(A_0^G)^{[2]}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_\mu _\nu A_\lambda ϵ^{0jk}_j(A_kA_0)]`$ (A12)
$`+ZO_2+\overline{Z}O_2+O_3,`$
where $`O_n`$ stands for terms with $`n`$ derivatives. Finally substitute these $`A^G,A_0^G`$ and $`Gh_zG^1=h_z+(h_z)_{00}^2+\mathrm{total}\mathrm{deriv}.+\mathrm{}`$ into the transformed Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}^G`$, and make a further transformation to remove off-diagonal pieces $`Z,\overline{Z}`$ from it. This leads to $`\widehat{H}^G`$ in Eq. (17).

## B Integration over Chern-Simons fields

In the text we frequently calculate a functional integral over a 3-vector field $`b_\mu `$, with a Lagrangian of the form

$`L[b]`$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu b_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta b_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu b_\rho `$ (B2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b_{k0}\mathrm{\Gamma }b_{k0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b_{12}\mathrm{\Sigma }b_{12}\kappa b_0,`$
where $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$ are real constants; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ may contain derivatives. Our task is to derive the response to an external potential $`A_\mu `$. The relevant integration is best carried out in the following way: First shift the field $`b_\mu =b_\mu ^{}+f_\mu `$ and choose $`f_\mu `$ so that no direct coupling between $`A_\mu `$ and $`b_\nu ^{}`$ remains, i.e.,

$`f_0+(1/\beta )\mathrm{\Sigma }f_{12}=(1/\beta )A_0,`$ (B3)
$`f_j(1/\beta )ϵ^{jk}\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{k0}=(1/\beta )A_j.`$ (B4)
This is readily solved for $`f_{\mu \nu }`$,

$`f_{k0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta D}}\{A_{k0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}ϵ^{kj}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0A_{j0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\mathrm{\Sigma }_kA_{12}\},`$ (B5)
$`f_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta D}}\{A_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_kA_{k0}\},`$ (B6)
$`D=1+(1/\beta ^2)(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2_0^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^2),`$ (B7)
and for $`f_\mu `$ as well.

Integration over $`b_\mu ^{}`$ (which requires fixing a gauge) thereby becomes trivial, yielding no dependence on $`A_\mu `$. All the dependence on $`A_\mu `$ is now isolated in $`f_\mu `$, in terms of which the stationary action or the effective Lagrangian is given by $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}[A]=\frac{1}{2}Aϵf\kappa f_0`$, or explicitly

$`L_{\mathrm{eff}}[A]=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta }}A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}ϵA+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta ^2}}F_{k0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{k0}`$ (B9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta ^2}}F_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}\mathrm{\Sigma }F_{12}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\beta }}A_0,`$
apart from total derivatives. Remember that the leading part of the background piece $`f_\mu =(1/\beta )A_\mu +O(A)`$ is fixed from the first two terms in Eq. (B2); extensive use of this fact is made in the text. Note finally that Eq. (B9) loses sense for $`\beta 0`$. This shows that the presence of the CS term $`bϵb`$ is crucial for the present method to work. For $`\beta =0`$ one has to first fix a gauge for $`b_\mu `$ and calculate the response to $`A_\mu `$.


format: text

text:
# Critical dynamics and universality of the random-bond Potts ferromagnet with tri-distributed quenched disorders

## I Introduction

The study of the critical properties of physical systems with bond randomness on phase transitions is a quite active field of current interest in equilibrium statistical physics Cardy96 ; Cardy99 . One of the central importance here is to answer the question whether the critical exponents (of a homogeneous pure magnet) change on the addition of quenched impurities and, if so, how do they change? Replying to this question, it was first stated already two decades ago that if the specific heat critical exponent $`\alpha `$ of a pure system is positive, then a quenched disorder is a relevant perturbation at the second-order critical point and it causes changes in critical exponents. This statement is known as the Harris criterion Harris . Furthermore, following the earlier work of Imry and Wortis Imry79 , who argued that quenched disorder could smooth first-order phase transitions and thus produce the second-order phase transitions, the introduction of randomness to pure systems undergoing a first-order transition has been comprehensively considered Hui89 ; Aizen89 . The theory was initially numerical checked with the Monte Carlo (MC) method by Chen, Ferrenberg and Landau (CFL) Chen92 , who studied the 8-state random-bond Potts model with a bimodal self-dual distribution. On the other hand the experimental evidence has been found that, for the order-disorder phase transitions of absorbed atomic layers on two-dimensions, the critical exponents are changed from the original universality class of the 4-state Potts model on the addition of disorders Schwen94 ; Voges98 . However, no modification is found when the pure system belongs to the Ising universality class Mohan98 . Recently such disordered systems are extensively studied by examining how a phase transition is modified by quenched disorder coupling to the local energy density Folk00 , where use of intensive MC simulations is often helpful Wise95 ; Kardar95 ; Yasar98 ; Chate98a ; Olson99 .

The two-dimensional (2D) $`q`$-state random-bond Potts ferromagnet (RBPF) is an interesting framework in the MC research to study the influence of impurity on pure systems. For $`q>2`$ such randomness acts as a relevant perturbation, and for $`q>4`$ it even changes the nature of the transition from first to second order. In Table 1 we list the magnetic scaling index $`\beta /\nu `$ of the 2D 8-state RBPF obtained by different groups. Here a disorder amplitude $`r`$, defined by the ratio of the strong to weak coupling (distributed according to the bimodal distribution) in the range $`r=`$2-20 appears to be adapted to a numerical analysis and gives a good estimate of the disordered fixed point exponents Cardy99 ; Picco98 . A recent work of Olson and Young Olson99  used a specially continuous self-dual probability distribution of the disoreded bonds

$`P_X(x)={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{q}}{\pi (1x)^2+qx^2}}`$ (1)
for the Boltzmann factor $`xe^K`$, and performed a MC study of multiscaling properties of the correlation functions for several values of $`q`$. Their results are very interesting to examine the universality class of the RBPF. Cardy and Jacobsen Cardy97  studied the RBPF based on the connectivity transfer matrix (TM) formalism Jaco98 , and their estimates of the critical exponents lead to a continuous variation of $`\beta /\nu `$ with $`q`$, which is in sharp disagreement with the MC results by CFL(see Table 1).

In this paper, we present a MC study by short-time dynamics (STD) to verify the dynamic scaling features of the RBPF and estimate the critical exponents for a trinary random-bond Potts model on a 2D triangular lattice. It is well known that this model on the 2D triangular lattice belongs to the same universality as the one on the 2D square lattice in equilibrium. However, a difference exists that the transition temperature is changed because the systems on triangular lattices lost the original (square-square) self-duality relation. Instead, a honeycomb-triangular duality (or star-triangular duality) is satisfied Baxter . Therefore the multi-disorder amplitudes $`r_i`$ can be introduced to study the dynamic universality of the RBPF on such lattices by the STD approach Janss89 ; Zheng98 . In particular we will investigate the dynamic behavior of critical scaling affected by introducing quenched randomness, and study the dependence of critical exponents on the randomness strength in order to clarify the crossover behavior (pure $``$ random fixed point $``$ percolation-like limit) Picco98 .

## II The model

The Hamiltonian of the $`q`$-state Potts model on a 2D triangular lattice with quenched random interactions can be written as

$`\beta H={\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}K_{ij}\delta _{\sigma _i\sigma _j}={\displaystyle \underset{\{L_0\}}{}}K_0\delta _{\sigma _i\sigma _j}+{\displaystyle \underset{\{L_1\}}{}}K_1\delta _{\sigma _i\sigma _j}+{\displaystyle \underset{\{L_2\}}{}}K_2\delta _{\sigma _i\sigma _j},`$ (2)
where the spin $`\sigma _i`$, defined on lattice site $`i`$, takes the values 1, $`\mathrm{}q`$, $`\beta =1/k_BT`$ is the inverse temperature, $`\delta `$ the Kronecker delta function and the sum is over all the nearest-neighbor (NN) interactions (bonds) $`<i,j>`$ on the lattice with a size $`N=L^2`$. There are $`3N`$ NN bonds (six for each and shared by two spins) and they can be grouped into three classes $`\{L_0,L_1,L_2\}`$ corresponding to the interactions on them. The dimensionless couplings $`K_{ij}`$ can be selected from three positive (ferromagnetic) values $`K_0`$, $`K_1=r_1K_0`$ and $`K_2=r_2K_0`$ according to a probability distribution,

$$P(K)=(1p_1p_2)\delta (KK_0)+p_1\delta (KK_1)+p_2\delta (KK_2).$$
(3)
When $`p_1=p_2=1/3`$ it is a trinary random-bond system. By denoting $`F_0=(e^{K_c}1)`$, $`F_1=(e^{K_c^{}}1)`$ and $`F_3=(e^{K_c^{\prime \prime }}1)`$, where $`K_c`$, $`K_c^{}=r_1K_c`$ and $`K_c^{\prime \prime }=r_2K_c`$ are the critical values of $`K_0`$, $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ respectively, the critical point can be determined by a self-dual relation Baxter ; Kim74 ,

$`F_0F_1F_2+F_0F_1+F_0F_2+F_1F_2=q`$ (4)
for the trinary system with the given state parameter $`q`$.

The strong to weak coupling ratio $`r_i=K_i/K_0`$ is called disorder amplitude. The values $`r_1=0`$ or $`r_2=0`$ correspond to the diluted case Mar99 , and $`r_1=r_2=1`$ to the pure case where the phase transitions are first-order for $`q>4`$. With the presence of quenched random-bonds, however, the second-order phase transitions are induced for any $`q`$-state of the Potts model and the critical points can be calculated according to Eq.(4). In our simulations we chose $`q=8`$ which is known to have a strong first-order phase transition in the pure cases, in hope that we would find second-order phase transitions induced by the quenched random disorders to demonstrate the influence of quenched impurities on the first-order phase transitions. The strength of disorder is realized by the disorder amplitudes $`\{r_1,r_2\}`$ as chosen in Table 2. There are three types of such disordered systems for the trinary distribution: (I) one-third bonds chosen randomly are strongly coupled with {$`r_1`$=1, $`r_2>1`$}, (II) two-third bonds strongly coupled with different amplitudes $`r_2>r_1>1`$ and (III) two-third bonds with the same amplitude $`r_1`$=$`r_2>1`$. Actually the systems III, 2/3 bonds being strongly coupled with {$`r_1`$=$`r_2>1`$}, are related to those I, 1/3 bonds being strongly coupled, because the former can be transferred to the latter by taking 1/3 bonds to be weakly coupled with {$`r_1`$=1, $`r_2^{}=1/r_2<1`$}. The study will be concentrated on the important question whether there exists an Ising-like universality class for systems with multi-quenched randomness Kardar95 ; Chate99 .

## III Short-time dynamics

For a long time, it was believed that universality and scaling relations can be found only in equilibrium or in the long-time regime. In Ref.Janss89 , however it was discovered that for an $`O(N)`$ vector magnetic system in the states with a very high temperature $`TT_c`$, when it is suddenly quenched to the critical temperature $`T_c`$ and evolves according to a dynamics of model A, a universal dynamic scaling behavior emerges already within the short-time regime,

$$M^{(k)}(t,\tau ,L,m_0)=b^{k\beta /\nu }M^{(k)}(b^zt,b^{1/\nu }\tau ,b^1L,b^{x_0}m_0),$$
(5)
where $`M^{(k)}`$ is the $`k`$th moment of magnetization, $`t,\tau =(TT_c)/T_c,L`$ and $`b`$ are time, reduced temperature, linear size of the lattice and scaling factor respectively. $`\beta `$ and $`\nu `$ are the well known static critical exponents. The quantity $`x_0`$, a new independent exponent, is the scaling dimension of the initial magnetization $`m_0`$. This dynamic scaling form is generalized from finite size scaling in equilibrium.

Up to present, the short-time dynamic MC simulations have been successfully performed to estimate the critical temperatures $`T_c`$ and the critical exponents $`\theta `$, $`\beta `$, $`\nu `$ and the dynamic exponent $`z`$ for the various models with second order phase transitions Zheng98 . This approach has also been extensively applied for systems with disorders, as the FFXY and spin glass, to estimate both dynamic and static critical exponents Luo98 ; Luo99 , and for systems on the 2D triangular lattices to study the dynamic scaling universality Ying01 . The method is also efficient to study the deterministic dynamics Zheng99 .

We carry out simulations in an analogous strategy described in Ref.Ying00  where the magnetic observables to be measured for the RBPF have been well defined. In this work, however, an additional step is introduced to verify that the second-order phase transitions really are induced when quenched randomness is added. Then we will be particularly concerned to demonstrate the evidence for the dynamic universality of the trinary RBPF. Therefore our MC simulations are mainly performed for the time evolution of the magnetization $`M(t)`$ from the disordered initial states with small magnetizations $`m_00`$, and the completely ordered state with $`m_0=1`$. In the former, the magnetization $`M(t)`$ undergoes an initial increase at the critical point $`K_c`$ for $`t>t_{mic}`$,

$`M(t)m_0t^\theta ,\theta =(x_0\beta /\nu )/z.`$ (6)
For the latter, with $`m_0=1`$, $`M(t)`$ shows a power-law decay behavior Ito93

$`M(t)t^{c_1},c_1=\beta /\nu z,`$ (7)
at the critical point. Furthermore the Binder cumulant $`U(t,L)=M^{(2)}(t,L)/M^2(t,L)`$ shows, for $`m_0=1`$ at criticality, a similar power-law behavior on a large enough lattice,

$`U(t,L)t^{c_u},c_u=d/z.`$ (8)
Here the magnetization $`M(t)`$ is defined by

$`M(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left[({\displaystyle \frac{qM_o(t)N}{q1}})\right],`$ (9)
$`M_o=\text{max}(M_1,M_2,\mathrm{},M_q)`$ with $`M_i`$ being the number of spins in the $`i`$th state. $`N=L^2`$ is the total number of spins on the lattice. $`<\mathrm{}>`$ denotes thermal averages over the initial states and/or random number sequences, and $`[\mathrm{}]`$ the disorder averages over quenched randomness distributions. The time unit $`t`$ is defined as a MC sweep over all spins on the lattice.

The time-dependent susceptibility (the second moment of the magnetization) is defined as usual

$`M^{(2)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left[\left(<M^2(t)><M(t)>^2\right)\right].`$ (10)
It has played an important role in equilibrium to determine the critical exponents $`\gamma /\nu `$ and $`\beta /\nu `$ Chen92 .

## IV Results

In our simulations, up to 60,000 MC processes are taken for MC averages (300 samples chosen as disorder averages in a given distribution and 100-200 initial configurations as thermal averages for each disorder configuration realization). Statistical errors are simply estimated by performing three groups of averages with different random number sequences as well as independent initial configurations. To minimize the number of bond configurations needed for the disorder averaging, we confine our study to the bond distributions in which there are the same number of disordered (stronger) NN bonds for each of the three groups $`\{L_0,L_1,L_2\}`$. This procedure is reliable and should reduce the variation between different disorder configurations with no loss of generality. Periodic boundary conditions are applied to the $`N=L^2`$ lattice. We use $`L`$ up to 128 and adopt the heat-bath algorithm.

The data for the evolution of $`M(t)`$ from $`m_00`$ and $`m_0=1`$ exhibit that the power-law behavior is satisfied at the same point $`K_c`$ for both the disordered and ordered initial states. This fact gives an evidence that a second-order phase transition is induced at $`K_c`$ instead of a first-order one: In Ref.Schu00  it was argued that there are two quasi-critical points if a first-order transition happens, $`K_c^{random}`$ for evolutions from random initial states and $`K_c^{order}`$ from ordered initial states, and $`K_c^{random}<K_c<K_c^{order}`$ is satisfied. We plot in Fig.1 and Fig.2 the curves $`M(t)`$ for disorder amplitudes {$`r_1`$=1, $`r_2=8`$} on a $`64^2`$ lattice. They exhibit obviously a power-law relaxation at the same critical point for both the $`m_00`$ and $`m_o=1`$ states. On the other hand the curves deviate from the power-law behavior for a small but nonzero $`\tau `$ described by $`M(t,\tau )=m_0t^\theta M(t^{1/\nu z}\tau )`$ or $`M(t,\tau )=t^{c_1}F(t^{1/\nu z}\tau )`$ with respect to the disordered or ordered initial states respectively. This modification has been initially used to determine the critical temperatures Schu95 ; Jas99 . The same features, as plotted in Figs. 1 and 2, exist for all other realizations of the randomness listed in Table 2.

Then we perform simulations systematically at the exact critical points $`K_c(r_i)`$ as a function of {$`r_1,r_2`$} for magnetization evolutions starting with $`m_00`$ and $`m_0=1`$. The disordered initial states are prepared from random states with small magnetizations $`m_0`$ = 0.04 – 0.01. The curves $`M(t)`$ for the disordered configurations with $`r_1=5`$, $`r_2=8`$ on a $`128^2`$ lattice are displayed in Fig.3 with a double-logarithmic scale. They exhibit the power-law behavior of Eq.(6) for $`t>t_{mic}`$, which depends on $`m_0`$. Thus the exponent $`\theta `$ can be estimated with the standard least square fitting algorithm, from the slopes of the curves for $`t>t_{mic}`$, and by an extrapolation to the $`m_00`$ limit. The values are included in Table 3. Next we start from $`m_0=1`$ to observe the power-law decay of Eq.(7) at the critical points $`K_c(r_i)`$. Some curves $`M(t)`$ are plotted in Fig.4, which appear to have also a nice power-law behavior, and the slopes are then used to estimate the index $`c_1=\beta /\nu z`$ (for results see Table 3).

Now we turn to the dynamic scaling behavior of the time-dependent Binder cumulant from $`m_0=1`$ to estimate the scaling index $`c_u=d/z`$. Unlike the relaxation from the disordered state, the fluctuations involved in the ordered initial states (e.g., $`\sigma _i`$ = 1, $`i=1,N`$) are much smaller. Therefore, the measurements of the critical exponents based on Eq.(7) and Eq.(8) are better in quality than those from disordered states on Eq.(6). So we take about 100 MC sweeps for random number sequences to be the thermal averages for the completely ordered initial state. In Figs.5 the curves $`U(t)`$ on a $`128^2`$ lattice are presented and they exhibit a power-law behavior at the critical points as a function of disorder amplitudes {$`r_1`$, $`r_2`$}. Finally, based on the results of $`c_u=d/z`$ and $`c_1=\beta /\nu z`$, the critical exponents $`z`$ and $`\beta /\nu `$ can be calculated consistently and their results are summarized in Table 3.

## V Summary and Conclusion

We have, for the first time, introduced the trinary distribution for the 2D RBPF with multi-disorder amplitudes to study its critical behavior by the STD method. In the MC simulation the dynamic scaling behavior is verified and the power-law behavior is used to estimate both the dynamic and static exponents as a function of the disorder amplitudes $`\{r_1,r_2\}`$. It is found that the values of exponents $`\theta `$ and $`\beta /\nu `$ vary continuously with the disorder amplitudes, and they violate the Ising-like universality. Furthermore the values of dynamic exponent $`z`$ are larger than those for systems without disorders and they increase with the strength of disorder amplitudes {$`r_1,r_2`$} for the systems I: $`r_1=1`$, $`r_2>1`$ and III: $`r_1`$=$`r_2>1`$ in Table 3.

On the other hand, for the systems II where 2/3 bonds are strongly coupled with different amplitudes $`1<r_1<r_2`$, they seem to have been located at a “random” regime where their values of the critical exponents $`\beta /\nu `$ and $`z`$ are nearly independent of disorder amplitudes within the error bars, $`z2.23`$ and $`\beta /\nu 1.85`$. By comparing these results to $`z`$=2.23(4) and $`\beta /\nu `$=0.182(5) for the $`r_1`$=$`r_2`$=10 in III, we could argue that, after $`r_1=r_210`$ (equivalent to $`r_1`$=1, $`r_20.1`$ in I) it will pass the “crossover” region to the random regime from other type, I or III, of the disordered systems, so that $`z`$ and $`\beta /\nu `$ will be nearly constants. In Fig.6 the $`U(t)`$ curves for the disorder amplitudes {$`r_1=5,r_2=8`$}, {$`r_1=8,r_2=10`$} and {$`r_1=10,r_2=10`$} are almost parallel each other, which shows that the values of exponent $`\beta /\nu `$ are nearly same for these disordered systems.

In conclusion, our simulation verifies that second order phase transitions are induced. Then the results show evidence that the dynamic universality class of the trinary RBPF should not belong to that of the Ising model, as inferred by Jacobsen and Cardy Jaco98 . From the work we find it rather encouraging to apply the short-time dynamic MC to simulate the scaling and critical dynamics of disordered spin systems. We will pursue this field to explore the logarithmical slow dynamics Cardy99 ; Ying01a .

Acknowledgement: We are grateful to the helpful discussions with Q. Wang. H.P.Y would like to thank the Heinrich-Hertz-Stiftung for fellowship and acknowledge the hospitality of Universität Siegen. The work supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG Schu 95/9-3 and by the NNSF of China, 19975041 and 10074055.