text:
# Supersymmetric Calogero-Moser-Sutherland models and Jack superpolynomials

## 1 Introduction

Calogero-Moser-Sutherland (CMS) models  have been studied extensively in the decade following their discovery. Apart from the pioneer works, devoted mainly to the study of the energy spectrum, the ground-state wave functions and their correlators, roughly speaking, the initial interest of this first wave of activity was mainly centered around their integrability and the formulation of their various (Lie algebraic) extensions (see *e.g.*,). This subject was developed in parallel to the soliton theory. 111Curiously, soliton equations were first defined classically while mechanical models were initially formulated as quantum systems. Although the structure of both classes of models is quite different, they have some common properties, the existence of a Lax formalism being a good example. There are however deeper and curious connections: for instance, it has been observed that the time evolution of the movable poles of KdV rational solutions is governed by a dynamics of the CMS type (with a $`1/r^2`$ potential) .

The renewal in the interest for the CMS models that occurred in the nineties has many sources. One of it is rooted in the interest for systems having fractional statistics and the realization that the particles subject to CMS dynamics obey fractional statistics (see for instance  ). This motivation was triggered by two important problems in condensed matter. The first is the quantum Hall effect; it has been suggested in the mid-eighties that the quasiparticles obey fractional statistics (*cf.* for instance  – and see  for a relation between the quantum Hall effect and CMS models). The early nineties brought a second and somewhat stronger motivation in relation with high $`T_c`$ superconductivity and its possible realization as a gas of anyons (see *e.g.*,  and ). The formulation of Haldane’s generalized Pauli principle  has also motivated further theoretical considerations on the issue of fractional statistics, this time for one-dimensional systems.

Another discovery of the late eighties which also partly accounts for the revival of the CMS models is that of a new integrable spin-chain model with long-range interaction, the Haldane-Shastry model . This model proves to have quite remarkable properties, among which a Yangian symmetry . It turns out to be closely related to the trigonometric CMS (tCMS) model. Such a connection, already observed in the original papers, has been made precise by Polychronakos in the context of its seminal formulation of the exchange-operator formalism . He showed that the Haldane-Shastry spin model can be recovered from the tCMS model augmented with spin degrees of freedom by freezing the dynamical degrees of freedom, thereby fixing the sites of the chains at the minima of the tCMS potential. This observation has led to the discovery of new integrable spin-chain models with long-range order (for instance ). It has also stimulated the interest for the study of symmetries of the Yangian-type in these CMS spin models. On the other hand, the physical motivations underlying the formulation of the Haldane-Shastry model, related to Anderson’s resonating-valence-bond model – at the time an alternative to the Néel state in high $`T_c`$ superconductivity – and the 1D Hubbard models, have nourished the interest of CMS models in condensed matter physics.222In that vein, we could also mention that the Jack polynomials, the eigenfunctions of the tCMS model – see below – have proved to be a rather convenient basis for performing some computations in specific field theoretical problems of condensed matter; see for instance . Many more physical applications have been found in the last decade, ranging from quantum chaos and matrix models , mesoscopic systems , black holes  to supersymmetric integrable gauge theories .

The return of CMS models on the hot seat in physics, mainly through the discoveries of many applications, has stimulated a wave of activities on the models’ intrinsic properties. Two objects, discovered in quite different contexts by mathematicians, have played a key role in that regard: these are the Dunkl operators  and the Jack polynomials .

Dunkl operators play a crucial role in various branches of mathematics, *e.g.*, in the theory of affine Hecke algebras  and for Schubert calculus (see *e.g.*, ). In the context of CMS models, they were a crucial ingredient in the formulation of the exchange-operator formalism, as they allowed a very simple and direct construction of the commuting charges . They are also at the heart of the transfer matrix formulation of the CMS models .

The rebirth of CMS models coincides with a period of intense activity in mathematics regarding the theory of symmetric functions, centered mainly on the Jack and Macdonald polynomials, and in particular on their combinatorial applications. Jack polynomials are symmetric polynomials that were shown to be eigenfunctions of a simple differential operator (see *e.g.*, sect. 5 in ). Then, Forrester pointed out that this operator is precisely the gauge transformation, by the ground-state wave function, of the tCMS hamiltonian , bringing the subject of Jack polynomials on the physicists’ desktable.

At the time, there were still no explicit expressions for these polynomials. The search for an explicit description has led to two noteworthy discoveries by physicists. The first one is a Rodrigues’ type formula, namely, a recursive construction via the action of a differential operator built up from shifted products of Dunkl operators . Independently, integral formulas for the Jack polynomials have been found in ; they led to the discovery of a fascinating but still mysterious connection between these polynomials and special singular vectors of the Virasoro and W algebras (see also ).

On the mathematical side, explicit expressions for the Jack polynomials have been obtained using a non-symmetric version of these polynomials . And more recently, a rather simple determinant formula for the Jack polynomials has been presented .

Some of these results – in particular, the creation-operator formalism – have been extended to the construction of the hi-Jack polynomials , which are eigenfunctions of the CMS model with an inverse-square interaction augmented by an harmonic confining term, and of the Macdonald polynomials , which are eigenfunctions of the trigonometric Ruijsenaars-Schneider model , a relativistic version of the tCMS model. In the latter case, integral formulas have also been obtained (see *e.g.*,  and refs therein).

A quite natural extension of these studies is to consider their supersymmetric generalizations. The supersymmetric version of the rational CMS model has been considered by Freedman and Mende , with emphasis on the study of supersymmetry breaking, the very physical problem that has motivated the development of supersymmetric quantum mechanics . The revival in the interest for the CMS models has stimulated a number of studies of their supersymmetric counterparts . However, there remain many open problems. For instance, there are no concise Lax formulation. Moreover, the suitable generalization of the Dunkl operators is known only for the rational model with confinement . And more importantly, there are absolutely no known results concerning the proper superextension of the Jack polynomials. Indeed, it is only for the rational case with harmonic term that the solutions have been constructed in  out of fermionic and bosonic creation operators related to those of a supersymmetric harmonic oscillator by a similarity transformation.

The initial goal of this work was to launch the study of the Jack superpolynomials. As an offshoot, we have obtained a number of new results on the supersymmetric tCMS (stCMS) models *per se*.

The first step in the construction of the supersymmetric model is the introduction of the fermionic variables $`\theta _i`$ and their conjugates $`\theta _i^{}`$. Out of these variables, two generic expressions for fermionic charges – the possible supersymmetric charges – can be constructed. The point we want to stress at this level is that this construction, rooted in the presence of two fermionic charges, leads necessarily to two supersymmetries. These charges are then used to build an hamiltonian. Explicitly, the hamiltonian is written as the anticommutator of these two charges, which thereby make the latter automatically conserved with respect to the dynamics generated by this hamiltonian.333It is clear that this supersymmetrization process is quite different from the one used in classical field theory based on superspace techniques. There is no natural analogue of the superfield here, for instance. We then adjust the precise expression of the charges in order to recover, when the fermionic variables are dropped, the bosonic hamiltonian to be supersymmetrized. The complete hamiltonian is thus the supersymmetric hamiltonian we are looking for. In our case, this is the stCMS hamiltonian . This analysis is presented in sect. 3.1

An observation that proves to be central for our subsequent analysis is that the part of the hamiltonian that contains the fermionic variables can be described in terms of a fermionic exchange operator – *cf.* sect. 3.1 (and we found afterwards that the same observation had been made before in ). This allows us to use the projection formalism developed in  for the description of the CMS models with spin degrees of freedom. The key point of this projection technique is that by restricting the space of functions on which the operators act (namely, functions that are completely symmetric with respect to both the fermionic and the bosonic variables), we can trade the fermionic-exchange operator – hence, the fermionic degrees of freedom – for a standard position-exchange operator.

In particular, this method leads us to a novel but quite natural construction of the Dunkl operators in either their covariant or their commuting version – *cf.* sect. 3.3. This leads us to a direct proof of the integrability via the construction of commuting conserved bosonic charges. In sect. 3.2, another proof of the integrability is presented, this one based on the Lax formalism. Although we arrived at this Lax formulation independently, we realized that the same Lax operators, expressed in terms of exchange operators, had been presented in , albeit in a different context.

Before pursuing the presentation of the paper’s content, let us pause to discuss briefly the meaning of integrability for supersymmetric mechanical systems. In the non-supersymmetric case, this amounts to demonstrate the existence of $`N`$ – the number of particles – commuting independent bosonic charges. A working criterion for an integrable supersymmetric extension of an integrable mechanical system could be the existence of $`N`$ commuting independent bosonic charges that reduce to their non-supersymmetric version when the fermionic variables are dropped. For all the cases we can think of (including field theoretical models), this appears to be sufficiently restrictive. However, we could argue that having introduced $`N`$ new degrees of freedom (the fermionic variables being split into a set of generalized variables, the $`\theta _i`$’s, and their conjugates, the $`\theta _i^{}`$’s, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$), we should expect, in the spirit of the Liouville theorem, that $`N`$ additional conserved charges are required. Actually, the mere supersymmetry invariance appears to supply automatically further conserved charges. As already pointed out, the built in supersymmetry implies the existence of two conserved charges, denoted by $`Q`$ and $`Q^{}`$. Recall that the hamiltonian is given by their anticommutator. But this turns out to be true for all the higher-order hamiltonians of the system, *i.e.*, they can all be expressed as anticommutators of higher-order fermionic charges. Indeed, for the stCMS model, we can construct rather directly (using the Dunkl operators, for instance) $`2N`$ conserved fermionic charges. However, it should be stressed that these do not anticommute among themselves. Moreover, by inspection, we readily find $`N`$ additional bosonic conserved charges that commute with the bosonic ones previously constructed. Afterwards, this appears to be somewhat natural given that we have two supersymmetries, suggesting heuristically that the charges get organized in ‘multiplets’ of four, two bosonic and two fermionic.444This can be compared to the case of the classical $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Korteweg-de Vries equation , which is probably the best studied supersymmetric integrable system. In that case, we find that in addition to the bosonic supersymmetric extension of the usual KdV charges, there are (twice as many) nonlocal fermionic charges whose Poisson brackets yield a local bosonic charge - if dimensionally allowed - and vanish otherwise.

In section 4 we turn to the main subject of this work: the formulation of the Jack superpolynomials. They are defined as eigenfunctions of the stCMS model. Notice that by a superpolynomial we refer to a polynomial in bosonic and fermionic variables without imposing a supersymmetric invariance constraint (*i.e.*, these are not supersymmetric polynomials). We first unravel, in sect. 4.1, the mixed symmetry properties, with respect to the bosonic variables, that are induced by the presence of the fermionic variables on any symmetric superpolynomials. This leads us naturally to the central concept of superpartitions introduced in sect. 4.2 and which appears to be original. Superpartitions are used in turn to define the monomial superfunctions. Jack superpolynomials are then defined in sect. 4.3 as those stCMS eigenfunctions that are triangular with respect to a monomial superfunction decomposition. Many examples are presented.

Various straightforward extensions of the results presented in this paper, directions for future research and conclusions are collected in the final section. Some auxiliary sections complete the article. A brief review of the basic definitions pertaining to the usual Jack polynomials and some associated concepts is presented in sect. 2. The remaining complementary material is spread in three appendices. Excited states can be built from a vacuum state free of fermions, as it is done in the main body of the paper, or from a ‘vacuum’ filled by $`N`$ fermions. This second option is considered in app. A. In app. B, we introduced creation operators analogous to those introduced in  for the standard Jack polynomials. Finally, a simple combinatorial expression counting the number of superpartitions of a given degree and a given fermionic number is presented in app. C.

## 2 Background

### 2.1 Calogero-Moser-Sutherland models

The CMS-models describe systems of $`N`$ particles interacting pairwise through long-range potentials. The classical and quantum versions of these models are integrable. In this article, we focus on the supersymmetric extension of the quantum tCMS model in which the identical particles of mass $`m`$ lie on a circle of circumference $`L`$. If we set $`m=\mathrm{}=1`$, the hamiltonian of the tCMS model is the following :

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i^2+\left(\frac{\pi }{L}\right)^2\beta (\beta 1)\underset{1i<jN}{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi x_{ij}/L)},$$
(1)
where $`\beta `$ is a dimensionless real coupling constant. In this equation, and for the remainder of the article, double indicing stands for the difference between two variables, *i.e.*,

$$x_{ij}x_ix_j.$$
(2)
Position and momentum variables obey the usual commutation relations:

$$[x_j,p_k]=i\delta _{jk}.$$
(3)
Two other models can be obtained from the tCMS model: the replacement $`LiL`$ yields the hyperbolic model, whereas the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ gives the rational model (on an infinite line).

The hamiltonian (1) is semi-positive *i.e.*,

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j}{}A_j^{}A_j+E_0,$$
(4)
with

$$A_j=p_ji\underset{kj}{}X_{jk}.$$
(5)
Hence, the minimal value in the spectrum of $`H`$ is given by

$$E_0=\left(\frac{\pi \beta }{L}\right)^2\frac{N(N^21)}{6}.$$
(6)
The ground state, which is annihilated by every operator $`A_j`$, corresponds to the following Jastrow-type function:

$$\psi _0(x)=e^{_{j<k}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑x_jX_{jk}}}=\underset{j<k}{}\mathrm{sin}^\beta \left(\frac{\pi x_{jk}}{L}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta (x).$$
(7)
The simplest way of showing the integrability of the quantum CMS models is by displaying a Lax pair, namely two $`N\times N`$ Hermitian matrices, denoted by $`L`$ and $`M`$, satisfying the relations:

$$\dot{L}_{jk}=i[L_{jk},H]=i[L,M]_{jk}\text{and}\underset{j}{}M_{jk}=\underset{k}{}M_{jk}=0.$$
(8)
The constraint on $`M`$ is essential for the following $`N`$ independent quantities to be conserved:

$$H_{(n)}=\frac{1}{n}\text{tr}_\mathrm{\Delta }L^n\frac{1}{n}\text{tr}(L^n𝚫),$$
(9)
where $`𝚫`$ is the matrix whose entries are all $`1`$’s. Therefore, $`\text{tr}_\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ denotes the ‘total trace’ of $`A`$, that is, the sum of all the entries of $`A`$. For the tCMS model, the Lax pair reads :

$$\begin{array}{c}L_{jk}=p_j\delta _{jk}+i(1\delta _{jk})X_{jk},\\ M_{jk}=\delta _{jk}_{lj}X_{jl}^{}(1\delta _{jk})X_{jk}^{},\end{array}$$
(10)
where $`X_{jk}^{}=dX(x_{jk})/dx_{jk}`$. From eq. (9), we see that the first and second conserved quantities correspond respectively to the momentum $`P=_ip_i`$ and the hamiltonian $`H`$ of the system.

In order to solve the Schrödinger equation associated to the CMS model, it is convenient to set:

$$z_j=e^{2\pi ix_j/L}.$$
(11)
The variable $`z_j`$ thus gives the position of the $`j^{th}`$ particle on a circle of circumference $`L`$ in the complex plane. In this notation, $`H`$ becomes:

$$H=2\left(\frac{\pi }{L}\right)^2\left[\underset{i}{}\left(z_i\frac{}{z_i}\right)^22\beta (\beta 1)\underset{i<j}{}\frac{z_iz_j}{z_{ij}^2}\right].$$
(12)
The eigenfunctions of the excited states of the hamiltonian (12) are written in the form $`\psi (x)=\varphi (x)\psi _0(x)`$ where $`\varphi (x)`$ is required to be symmetric in order for $`\psi `$ to behave like $`\psi _0`$ under the exchange of particles. It is thus natural to conjugate the hamiltonian with the ground-state wave function $`\psi _0(x)`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{H}& =& \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{L}{\pi }\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta (HE_0)\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta ,\hfill \\ & =& _i(z_i_i)^2+\beta _{i<j}\frac{z_i+z_j}{z_{ij}}(z_i_iz_j_j),\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
and look for the eigenfunctions $`\varphi (x)`$ of this conjugated hamiltonian. In the following, ‘bar’ operators will stand for operators that have been obtained by a similar conjugation of the ground state.

The symmetric eigenfunctions $`\varphi (x)`$ of (13) are known as the Jack polynomials.

### 2.2 Symmetric functions and Jack polynomials

We now summarize some basic results concerning symmetric functions . This will allow us to define properly the Jack polynomials , and thereby, to present the solutions of the tCMS model .

*1- Symmetric functions and exchange operators*. Symmetric functions are invariant under the action of the symmetric (or permutation) group $`S_N`$. If $`z=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ denotes the set of variables, then a function $`(z)`$ is symmetric if it remains invariant under the exchange of its variables:

$$K_{ij}(z)=(z)i,j,$$
(14)
where $`K_{ij}`$ is a transposition of $`S_N`$, *i.e.*, an exchange operator, whose action is defined as follows:

$$K_{ij}f(z_i,z_j)=f(z_j,z_i,)K_{ij},$$
(15)
with $`f(z_i,z_j)`$ standing for a function or an operator. The fundamental properties of the exchange operators are

$$K_{ij}=K_{ji}\text{,}K_{ij}^{}=K_{ij}\text{,}K_{ij}K_{jk}=K_{ik}K_{ij}=K_{jk}K_{ki}\text{,}K_{ij}^2=1.$$
(16)
Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$ denote the ring of symmetric polynomials in the variables $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_N`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{(n)}`$ be the subspace of symmetric polynomials of degree $`n`$. Before introducing various bases for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$, we need to introduce the notion of partitions.

*2- Partitions*. A partition is a weakly-decreasing sequence of non-negative integers. More precisely, a partition $`\lambda `$ of weight (or degree) $`n`$ is defined as follows:

$`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _l),`$
$`\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _l1,`$
$`n=\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\mathrm{}\lambda _l=|\lambda |,`$ (17)
where $`l=l(\lambda )`$ is the length of the partition, that is, the number of its non-zero parts. We use $`p(n)`$ for the number of partitions of $`n`$, *e.g.*, the number of partitions of 4 is $`p(4)=5`$. We can also represent a partition $`\lambda `$ as:

$$\lambda =(1^{m_1},2^{m_2},\mathrm{},i^{m_i},\mathrm{}),$$
(18)
where $`m_i`$ is the number of parts of $`\lambda `$ equal to $`i`$. This allows us to define the following constant

$$z_\lambda =1^{m_1}m_1!2^{m_2}m_2!\mathrm{},$$
(19)
which enters in the definition of the Jack polynomials. There exists a natural partial order on partitions called the dominance ordering. It is defined in the following way:

$$\lambda \mu \text{if}\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\mathrm{}+\lambda _i\mu _1+\mu _2+\mathrm{}+\mu _i,i.$$
(20)
The dominance ordering is a total order only for weights up to $`n=5`$. Note finally that to $`\lambda `$ we can associate a Young tableau having $`\lambda _i`$ boxes in the $`i`$-th row. The conjugate partition, denoted $`\lambda ^{}`$ corresponds to the partition resulting from the interchange of the rows and columns in the Young tableau associated to $`\lambda `$.

*3- Power sums*. The symmetric polynomials

$$p_n=\underset{i}{}z_i^n,$$
(21)
where the sum extends over the $`N`$ variables, are called power sums. The set of all products of power sums, *i.e.*,

$$p_\lambda =p_{\lambda _1}p_{\lambda _2}\mathrm{}p_{\lambda _l},$$
(22)
forms a basis of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$.

*4- Elementary symmetric functions*. The elementary symmetric functions are:

$$e_n=\underset{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_n}{}z_{i_1}\mathrm{}z_{i_n}.$$
(23)
Again, the set of all products of elementary functions

$$e_\lambda =e_{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}e_{\lambda _l},$$
(24)
is a basis of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$.

*5- Monomial symmetric functions*. The monomial symmetric functions are defined as follows:

$$m_\lambda =\underset{PS_N}{}^{}z^{P(\lambda )}=\underset{PS_N}{}^{}z_1^{\lambda _{P(1)}}z_2^{\lambda _{P(2)}}\mathrm{}z_N^{\lambda _{P(N)}},$$
(25)
where here and below, the prime on the sum is used to indicate that it is done only over distinct permutations, which means that no monomial is repeated. The $`p(n)`$ possible monomial functions of degree $`n`$ constitute another basis of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{(n)}`$. Also, the monomial symmetric functions generalize $`e_n`$ and $`p_n`$:

$$m_{(n)}=p_n\text{and}m_{(1^n)}=e_n.$$
(26)
The simplest monomial functions are given in Table 1.

*6- Jack polynomials*. The Jack polynomials, $`J_\lambda (z_1,\mathrm{},z_N;\alpha )`$, are symmetric polynomials depending on a parameter $`\alpha `$ that also form a basis of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$. They belong to the ring $`𝐐(\alpha )[z_1,\mathrm{},z_N]_{S_N}`$ of symmetric polynomials with rational coefficients in $`\alpha `$. They are uniquely characterized by the following two conditions (see *e.g.*,):

$`J_\lambda ,J_\mu _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0\text{and}\lambda \mu \text{ (orthogonality)},`$ (27)
$`J_\lambda (z;\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`m_\lambda +{\displaystyle \underset{\mu <\lambda }{}}v_{\lambda \mu }(\alpha )m_\mu \text{ (unitriangularity)},`$ (28)
where the scalar product is defined in the following way, with respect to the power sums:

$$p_\lambda ,p_\mu _\alpha =\delta _{\lambda ,\mu }z_\lambda \alpha ^{l(\lambda )},$$
(29)
where $`z_\lambda `$ has been introduced in eq. (19). The Jack polynomials generalize several types of symmetric polynomials:

$$J_\lambda (z;\alpha )\{\begin{array}{ccc}s_\lambda (z)\hfill & \text{(Schur functions)},\hfill & \alpha 1\hfill \\ m_\lambda (z)\hfill & \text{(monomial functions)},\hfill & \alpha \mathrm{}\hfill \\ e_\lambda ^{}(z)\hfill & \text{(elementary functions)},\hfill & \alpha 0\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
(recall that $`\lambda ^{}`$ refers to the conjugate partition).

A few examples of Jack polynomials expanded in terms of monomial symmetric functions are shown in Table 2. In this notation, the number of variables is irrelevant as long as it is not smaller than the degree of the polynomial.

*7- Jack polynomials and the tCSM model*. Jack polynomials are related to the tCMS model for:

$$\alpha 1/\beta $$
(31)
where $`\beta `$ is the model’s coupling constant. In this context, we have to replace the scalar product $`A,B_\alpha `$ by the physical one:

$`A(x),B(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dz_1}{2\pi i}\mathrm{}\frac{dz_N}{2\pi i}\underset{ij}{}\left(1\frac{z_i}{z_j}\right)^\beta A(1/z)B(z)},`$ (32)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑x_1\mathrm{}𝑑x_N|\psi _0|^2A(x)^{}B(x),`$
where $`\psi _0`$ is the ground state of the trigonometric model. The hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$ defined in (13) is self-adjoint with respect to the scalar product (32). This physical scalar product can equally be used to characterize the Jack polynomials as the unique polynomials satisfying (28) that are orthogonal with respect to (32).

It is also known that the Jack polynomials are eigenfunctions of the transformed hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$ :

$$\overline{H}J_\lambda (z;1/\beta )=\epsilon _\lambda J_\lambda (z;1/\beta )$$
(33)
with eigenvalues:

$$\epsilon _\lambda =\underset{j}{}[\lambda _j^2+\beta (N+12j)\lambda _j].$$
(34)
The wave functions of the original trigonometric model are now simply $`\psi _\lambda (z)=J_\lambda (z;1/\beta )\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta `$, with eigenvalues $`E_\lambda =2(\pi /L)^2\epsilon _\lambda +E_0`$. Therefore, if we introduce the quasi-momenta

$$\kappa _i=\left(\frac{2\pi }{L}\right)[\lambda _i+\beta (N+12i)],$$
(35)
we observe that the spectrum of the model is that of a system of $`N`$ free quasi-particles, each of these with quasi-momentum $`\kappa _i`$ :

$$E_\lambda =\underset{i}{}\frac{\kappa _i^2}{2}.$$
(36)
The quasi-momenta of two neighboring quasi-particles satisfies:

$$\kappa _i\kappa _{i+1}\frac{4\pi \beta }{L}.$$
(37)
The excited states of the tCMS model thus obey a generalized exclusion principle . In particular, we recover free bosons if $`\beta =0`$ and free fermions if $`\beta =1`$.

## 3 Supersymmetric Calogero-Moser-Sutherland models

### 3.1 Supersymmetric quantum mechanics

Consider a quantum model that contains both bosonic and fermionic variables and whose hamiltonian is denoted $``$. Following the usual methods of supersymmetric quantum mechanics , we consider, in addition to the $`2N`$ bosonic variables $`(x,p)`$, the $`2N`$ fermionic variables $`(\theta ,\theta ^{})`$.555This amounts to considering $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetries – *i.e.*, there will be two conserved supersymmetric charges. Extensions to more supersymmetries are discussed in the conclusion. The bosonic and fermionic variables satisfy respectively a Heisenberg and a Clifford algebra:

$$[x_j,p_k]=i\delta _{jk},\{\theta _j,\theta _k^{}\}=\delta _{jk},$$
(38)
with all other commutators or anticommutators equal to zero. We will usually work with a differential realization of these algebras:

$$p_j=i\frac{}{x_j},\theta _j^{}=\frac{}{\theta _i}.$$
(39)
To construct a supersymmetric hamiltonian, we will first construct two supersymmetric charges, denoted $`Q`$ and $`Q^{}`$, and define the hamiltonian as their anticommutator:

$$=\frac{1}{2}\{Q,Q^{}\}.$$
(40)
By construction, the hamiltonian’s eigenvalues are non-negative. The hamiltonian is invariant under a supersymmetric transformation if:

$$Q^2=(Q^{})^2=0.$$
(41)
By writing the charges under the form

$$Q=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\theta _i^{}A_i(x,p),Q^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\theta _iA_i^{}(x,p),$$
(42)
we find that eq. (41) requires:

$$[A_i,A_j]=0=[A_i^{},A_j^{}],i,j.$$
(43)
The generic supersymmetric hamiltonian is thus:

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left(\underset{i}{}A_i^{}A_i+\underset{i,j}{}\theta _i^{}\theta _j[A_i,A_j^{}]\right).$$
(44)
For non-relativistic models, the hamiltonian is proportional to the square of the particles’ speed. We therefore write $`A_i`$ as a linear function of the momentum $`p_i`$:

$$Q=\underset{j}{}\theta _j^{}(p_ji\mathrm{\Phi }_j(x)),Q^{}=\underset{j}{}\theta _j(p_j+i\mathrm{\Phi }_j(x))$$
(45)
From eq. (41), the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j(x)`$ must be of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_j(x)=_{x_j}W(x),$$
(46)
where $`W(x)`$ (called the prepotential), is an arbitrary function of the variables $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_N`$. The supersymmetric hamiltonian now takes the form :

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}(p_i^2+(_{x_i}W)^2+_{x_i}^2W)\underset{i,j}{}\theta _i\theta _j^{}_{x_i}_{x_j}W.$$
(47)
This hamiltonian is an extension of the purely bosonic model whose potential is $`_i[(_{x_i}W)^2+_{x_i}^2W]`$.

Since the hamiltonian is semi-positive, any state annihilated by the charges $`Q`$ and $`Q^{}`$ is a ground state (vacuum). Obviously, only the vacuum is supersymmetric since an excited state cannot be simultaneously annihilated by both charges. The charges defined in (45) naturally lead to two ground states:

$$\psi _0=e^W|0\text{and}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0=e^W|\stackrel{~}{0},$$
(48)
where the ground states $`|0`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{0}`$ belong to the fermionic Fock space and are defined as follows:

$$\theta _i|\stackrel{~}{0}=0,\theta _i^{}|0=0,i.$$
(49)
If we interpret the $`\theta _i`$’s as fermionic creation operators, then $`|\stackrel{~}{0}`$ and $`|0`$ correspond to the $`N`$-fermion and the 0-fermion states respectively. In the realization (39), the ground states must then be of the form:

$$|01,|\stackrel{~}{0}\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _N.$$
(50)
To be physically meaningful, the functions $`\psi _0`$ and/or $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0`$ must be normalizable. If this is not the case, the supersymmetry is said to be broken. It should be noted that eq. (48) provides a natural way to supersymmetrize a model. Knowing the ground state $`\psi _0`$ of that model, it suffices to let $`W=\mathrm{ln}\psi _0`$ to get its supersymmetric extension .

We now specialize to a prepotential of the form:

$$W(x)=\underset{i<j}{}w(x_{ij}).$$
(51)
The comparison of eqs (7) and (48) immediately gives the right choice of $`W`$ for the CMS models:

$$w^{}(x_{ij})=X_{ij}.$$
(52)
Consequently, the stCMS hamiltonian reads:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}[X_{ij}^2+X_{ij}^{}(1\theta _{ij}\theta _{ij}^{})]N(N1)(N2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \beta }{L}}\right)^2,`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{L}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (\beta 1+\theta _{ij}\theta _{ij}^{})}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi x_{ij}/L)}}E_0,`$
where $`E_0`$ is as given in (6). The two ground states

$$\psi _0(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta (x)\text{and}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0(x,\theta )=\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta (x)\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _N$$
(54)
are invariant under supersymmetric transformations and are normalizable for any value of $`\beta `$.

The supersymmetric model can be solved much more easily if we notice that the term

$$\kappa _{ij}1\theta _{ij}\theta _{ij}^{}=1(\theta _i\theta _j)(_{\theta _i}_{\theta _j}).$$
(55)
is a fermionic-exchange operator , that is,

$$\kappa _{ij}f(\theta _i,\theta _j,\theta _i^{},\theta _j^{})=f(\theta _j,\theta _i,\theta _j^{},\theta _i^{})\kappa _{ij}$$
(56)
for any monomial function $`f`$. Moreover, the $`\kappa _{ij}`$’s satisfy the usual properties (16) of exchange operators.

As in the non-supersymmetric case, it is convenient to use $`z_j=e^{2\pi ix_j/L}`$, in terms of which the hamiltonian reads:

$$=2\left(\frac{\pi }{L}\right)^2\left[\underset{i}{}\left(z_i_i\right)^22\underset{i<j}{}\frac{z_iz_j}{z_{ij}^2}\beta (\beta \kappa _{ij})\right]E_0.$$
(57)
Removing the ground-state contribution leads to:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{}& & \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{L}{\pi }\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta \mathrm{\Delta }^\beta \hfill \\ & =& _i(z_i_i)^2+\beta _{i<j}\frac{z_i+z_j}{z_{ij}}(z_i_iz_j_j)2\beta _{i<j}\frac{z_iz_j}{z_{ij}^2}(1\kappa _{ij}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(58)
which is still supersymmetric because it is invariant under the action of the transformed fermionic charges:

$$\overline{Q}=\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta Q\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta \text{and}\overline{Q}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta Q^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta .$$
(59)
A complete set of eigenfunctions of the hamiltonian (58) is given in sect. 4. Excited states built from the second ground state are considered in appendix A.

### 3.2 Lax formalism in the supersymmetric CMS models

Quite remarkably, knowing the CMS models’ Lax pair is enough to guarantee the existence of their supersymmetric extensions. Moreover, the supersymmetric Lax pair is a simple extension of the non-supersymmetric one.

The first statement is proved as follows. Recall that the supersymmetric hamiltonian is the anticommutator of the two supersymmetric charges. Comparing eqs (10), (45), (46) and (52), we see that the supersymmetric charges, hence the supersymmetric hamiltonian, can easily be built from the Lax matrices :

$$\begin{array}{c}Q=_{i,j}\theta _j^{}L_{ij},\hfill \\ Q^{}=_{i,j}\theta _iL_{ij}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(60)
Therefore, the Lax matrices of the quantum CMS models guarantee the existence of their supersymmetric extensions!

In order to prove the integrability of the supersymmetric models, we introduce the four matrices that will provide the Lax formulation of the supersymmetric system:

$$\begin{array}{c}_{jk}=p_j\delta _{jk}+i(1\delta _{jk})X_{jk}\kappa _{jk},\hfill \\ _{jk}=\delta _{jk}_{lj}X_{jl}^{}\kappa _{jl}(1\delta _{jk})X_{jk}^{}\kappa _{jk}.\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Theta }_{jk}=\theta _j\delta _{jk},\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Theta }_{jk}^{}=\theta _j^{}\delta _{jk}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(61)
These matrices obey the relations:

$$\begin{array}{c}\dot{}_{jk}=i[_{jk},]=i[,]_{jk},\hfill \\ \dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{jk}=i[\mathrm{\Theta }_{jk},]=i[\mathrm{\Theta },]_{jk},\hfill \\ \dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{jk}^{}=i[\mathrm{\Theta }_{jk}^{},]=i[\mathrm{\Theta }^{},]_{jk}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(62)
To verify the equivalence between theses relations and the equations of motion, we use the properties

$$_{jk}\theta _k=\theta _j_{jk}\text{,}_{jk}\theta _k^{}=\theta _j^{}_{jk}$$
(63)
and

$$\underset{i}{}_{ij}=\underset{j}{}_{ij}=0𝚫=𝚫=0,$$
(64)
where $`𝚫_{ij}=1`$.

We see that $``$ and $``$ are obtained from $`L`$ and $`M`$ by simply multiplying each $`X_{jk}`$ or $`X_{jk}^{}`$ factor by the exchange operator $`\kappa _{jk}`$.

Using the matrices $``$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, one can construct the following independent quantities that can easily be shown to be conserved:

$$\begin{array}{cc}_{(n)}=\frac{1}{n}\text{tr}_\mathrm{\Delta }^n=\frac{1}{n}_{jk}_{jk}^n,\hfill & n=1,2,\mathrm{},N,\hfill \\ 𝒬_{(n)}=\frac{1}{n}\text{tr}_\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Theta }^n)=\frac{1}{n}_{jk}\theta _j_{jk}^n,\hfill & n=0,1,\mathrm{},N1,\hfill \\ 𝒬_{(n)}^{}=\frac{1}{n}\text{tr}_\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Theta }^{}^n)=\frac{1}{n}_{jk}\theta _j^{}_{jk}^n,\hfill & n=0,1,\mathrm{},N1,\hfill \\ _{(n)}=\frac{1}{n}\text{tr}_\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }^{}^n)=\frac{1}{n}_{jk}\theta _j\theta _j^{}_{jk}^n,\hfill & n=0,1,\mathrm{},N1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
More generally, any operator that can be written as the total trace of a polynomial function $`F`$ only depending on the matrices $`\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }^{}`$ and $``$ is conserved:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\text{tr}_\mathrm{\Delta }F(\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }^{},)=0.$$
(66)
The quantities $`𝒬_{(1)}`$ and $`𝒬_{(1)}^{}`$ are simply the generators of the supersymmetric transformations. However, the fermionic charges are not in involution: their anticommutators generate the hamiltonians $`_{(n)}`$ (see below).

We stress that the results of this subsection apply to all types of supersymmetric CMS models and not just the stCMS one.

### 3.3 Dunkl operator formalism and the supersymmetric Calogero-Moser-Sutherland models

In this section we construct the Dunkl operators of the stCMS model. With these operators in hands, the integrability of the model can be very easily (re)established.

We first introduce a new exchange operator that acts on the bosonic and fermionic variables:

$$𝒦_{ij}\kappa _{ij}K_{ij},\text{where}[\kappa _{ij},K_{ij}]=0.$$
(67)
A function of the variables $`z_i`$ and $`\theta _i`$ is said to be a symmetric superfunction if it is invariant under the action of the $`𝒦_{ij}`$’s. It is worth noticing that the action of $`\kappa _{ij}`$ on symmetric superfunctions is equivalent to the action of $`K_{ij}`$ on those functions. For instance, if $`_𝒦`$ is a symmetric superfunction, that is,

$$\kappa _{ij}_𝒦=K_{ij}_𝒦,$$
(68)
we can rewrite the hamiltonian $`_\kappa `$ as:

$`_\kappa _𝒦=_K_𝒦`$ (69)
$`_K=2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{L}}\right)^2\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(z_i_i\right)^22{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_iz_j}{z_{ij}^2}}\beta (\beta K_{ij})\right]E_0.`$
This remark holds for any supersymmetric model whose hamiltonian contains a fermionic-exchange term.

Let us denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(𝒪)`$ the projection of an operator $`𝒪`$ on a vector space invariant under the action of $``$ . For instance,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_K(K_{ij})=1\text{ , }\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦(K_{ij})=\kappa _{ij}\text{ , }\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦(\kappa _{ij}\kappa _{kl})=K_{kl}K_{ij}.$$
(70)
We can consider the hamiltonian with exchange term $`K_{ij}`$ as the most fundamental one. Indeed, by an appropriate choice of projection, various models can be generated from it. For instance, the tCMS model and its supersymmetric generalization are obtained respectively from:666We could also choose projections on antisymmetric spaces, *e.g.*, $`K_{ij}=\kappa _{ij}`$. This is considered in app. A. In a similar vein, spin degrees of freedom can be introduced in that way – *cf.* the conclusion.

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_K(_K)`$ $`=`$ $`H,`$ (71)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦(_K)`$ $`=`$ $`_\kappa .`$ (72)
We now present a simple way to derive the various types of Dunkl operators for the CMS models found in the literature out of the Lax operator (*cf*. ). The ‘covariant’ Dunkl operator is simply given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}D_j\hfill & =& _kL_{jk}(X_{jk}X_{jk}K_{jk})\hfill \\ & =& p_j+i_{kj}X_{jk}K_{jk}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(73)
This Dunkl operator satisfies the following properties:

$$\begin{array}{cc}K_{ij}D_i=D_jK_{ij}& \text{(covariance)},\hfill \\ [D_i,D_j]=(\beta \pi /L)^2_{ki,j}(K_{ik}K_{jk})K_{ij}& \text{(non-commutativity)},\hfill \\ [D_i,_K]=0& \text{(conservation)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(74)
where ‘covariance’ means that $`D_i`$ behaves like the variable $`z_i`$ under the action of the symmetric group $`S_N`$.777Another simple ‘covariant’ Dunkl operator is $`\widehat{D_j}=D_j\pm (\beta \pi /L)_{ji}K_{ij}`$. It has the following, somewhat more natural, commutation property: $`[\widehat{D}_i,\widehat{D}_j]=(2\beta \pi /L)(\widehat{D}_i\widehat{D}_j)K_{ij}`$. It should be noted that this Dunkl operator can be viewed as the ‘square’ of fermionic derivatives, *i.e.*,

$$D_i=C_i^2=(C_i^{})^2,$$
(75)
where

$$C_i=\frac{}{\theta _i}+\theta _iD_i\text{and}C_i^{}=\theta _i+D_i\frac{}{\theta _i}.$$
(76)
It is useful to introduce another Dunkl operator:

$$𝒟_i=D_i\pm \frac{\pi \beta }{L}(\underset{ji}{}K_{ij}).$$
(77)
that satisfies

$$\begin{array}{cc}K_{i,i+1}𝒟_{i+1}𝒟_iK_{i,i+1}=\frac{2\pi \beta }{L}& \text{(degenerated Hecke algebra)},\hfill \\ [𝒟_i,𝒟_j]=0& \text{(commutativity)},\hfill \\ [𝒟_i,_K]=0& \text{(conservation)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(78)
In addition to commuting among themselves, the $`𝒟_i`$ have the nice property that the hamiltonian with exchange term $`K`$ lies in their universal algebra:

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}(𝒟_i)^2=_K+E_0.$$
(79)
The supersymmetric hamiltonian is recovered by a simple projection.

Using these two versions of the Dunkl operators, it is now fairly easy to prove the integrability of the supersymmetric trigonometric model by constructing explicitly conserved charges from sums of powers of the Dunkl operators. First, the $`N`$ commuting conserved bosonic quantities which generalize those of the non-supersymmetric model are simply888We use the same notation for the charges constructed from the Lax operators and from the Dunkl operators. Although the lowest order charges calculated from both expressions agree, this may not be so for the higher-order ones. Nevertheless, they are equivalent sets of independent charges. :

$`_{(n)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝒟_i^n)\text{ , }n=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ (80)
$`[_{(n)},_{(m)}]=0n,m`$
The proof of the commutativity relies on a simple property of the projections :

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦([A,B])=[\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦(A),\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦(B)]\text{ if }[𝒦_{ij},A]=[𝒦_{ij},B]=0.$$
(81)
The operators $`_{(n)}`$ meet this requirement since $`[𝒦_{ij},(_i𝒟_i^n)]=0`$. The latter property implies also $`[D_i,(_j𝒟_j^n)]=0`$. In addition to these bosonic conserved quantities, charges with fermions can be constructed as:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝒬_{(n)}& =& \mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦(_i\theta _iD_i^n)\text{ , }n=0,1,\mathrm{},N1,\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒬_{(n)}^{}& =& \mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦(_i\theta _i^{}D_i^n)\text{ , }n=0,1,\mathrm{},N1,\hfill \\ \hfill _{(n)}& =& \mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦(_i\theta _i\theta _i^{}D_i^n)\text{ , }n=0,1,\mathrm{},N1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(82)
Note that here we use the covariant Dunkl operators rather than the commuting ones. This is imposed by the presence of the $`\theta `$ factors. Indeed, proving that those quantities are conserved still requires (81) and the covariant character of the Dunkl operators ensures the commutativity of the operators $`_i\theta _iD_i^n`$ with an arbitrary exchange operator $`𝒦_{ij}`$ (which would not be true if the commuting Dunkl operators were used instead).

The fermionic charges are not in involution: their anticommutators generate bosonic quantities, *e.g.*, $`_{(n)}`$. Take for instance the rational case (on the infinite line) where $`𝒟_iD_i`$; the conserved quantities constructed from the Dunkl operators (like those defined from the Lax matrices) satisfy the following algebra:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{𝒬_{(n)},𝒬_{(m)}^{}\}=_{(n+m)},\\ [𝒬_{(n)}^{},_{(m)}]=𝒬_{(n+m)}\text{,}[𝒬_{(n)},_{(m)}]=𝒬_{(n+m)}^{},\\ \{𝒬_{(n)},𝒬_{(m)}\}=\{𝒬_{(n)}^{},𝒬_{(m)}^{}\}=[_{(n)},_{(m)}]=0,\\ [𝒬_{(n)},_{(m)}]=[𝒬_{(n)}^{},_{(m)}]=[_{(n)},_{(m)}]=[_{(n)},_{(m)}]=0.\end{array}$$
(83)
Only the last line remains true for the trigonometric and the hyperbolic models. In fact, it seems that the algebra of $`\{,𝒬,𝒬^{},\}`$ does not close linearly for those models.

Moreover, we could also replace the $`N`$ independent hamiltonians $`_{(n)}`$ by the following conserved quantities:

$$𝒥_{(n)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦(\underset{i}{}D_i^n)\text{ , }n=0,1,\mathrm{},N1.$$
(84)
However, the supersymmetric hamiltonian $``$ would not belong to this set. There is thus some freedom in the way we choose a set of independent conserved charges. But quite generally, the projection $`\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦`$ of any quantity, made out of either the $`D_i`$’s or the $`𝒟_i`$’s as well as out of the fermionic quantities $`\theta _i`$ and $`\theta _i^{}`$, invariant under the action of the exchange operator $`𝒦_{ij}`$, is always conserved in the supersymmetric model.

We end this section by mentioning that the Dunkl operators of the transformed hamiltonian $`\overline{}`$ are obtained as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{D_i}\hfill & =& \frac{L}{2\pi }_j\overline{L}_{ij}(X_{ij}X_{ij}K_{ij}),\hfill \\ & =& z_i_i+\frac{\beta }{2}_{ji}\frac{z_i+z_j}{z_{ij}}(1K_{ij}),\hfill \\ \overline{𝒟_i}\hfill & =& \overline{D_i}\pm \frac{\beta }{2}(_{ji}K_{ij}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(85)
and we verify that:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦(\underset{i}{}\overline{𝒟_i}^2)=\overline{}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{L}{\pi }\right)^2E_0.$$
(86)
All the quantities constructed in this section can thus be directly transposed to the case where the ground-state wave function is factored out.

## 4 Jack superpolynomials

### 4.1 Symmetry of the tCMS model’s eigenfunctions

It is known that, when defining the Jack polynomials, we can replace condition (27) by the condition that the Jack polynomials be eigenfunctions of the hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$ of the tCMS model. Similarly, one of the conditions entering the definition of their superanalogues will be that they be eigenfunctions of the stCMS model. We thus begin by making general observations regarding the symmetry properties of the eigenfunctions of the stCMS model.

We are looking for functions of $`\theta `$ and $`z`$ that are invariant under the transpositions $`𝒦_{ij}`$ and that are eigenfunctions of the hamiltonian:

$$\overline{}=\underset{i}{}(z_i_i)^2+\beta \underset{i<j}{}\frac{z_i+z_j}{z_{ij}}(z_i_iz_j_j)2\beta \underset{i<j}{}\frac{z_iz_j}{z_{ij}^2}(1\kappa _{ij}).$$
(87)
Since the hamiltonian is of degree 0 in both $`\theta `$ and $`z`$, the eigenfunctions have to be homogeneous in both variables. Moreover, since the underlying mechanical problem describes the dynamics of a system of particles on a circle, the solutions must be invariant under the transformation $`x_ix_i+2\pi `$; therefore, only integral powers of the variables $`z`$ must be considered. Moreover, because the product of an eigenfunction of degree $`n`$ by a Galilean ‘boost’,

$$G^q=\underset{i}{}z_i^q,q𝐙,$$
(88)
gives another eigenfunction, now of degree $`n+Nq`$, we can restrict ourselves to non-negative powers of $`z`$.

We are thus seeking polynomial eigenfunctions that are invariant under the action of $`𝒦_{ij}`$. This operator commutes with the superhamiltonian, which is not the case with the operators $`K_{ij}`$ and $`\kappa _{ij}`$ taken separately. As already pointed out, the polynomials need to be homogeneous in $`\theta `$ and $`z`$, let’s say with degree $`m`$ and $`n`$ respectively. These degrees are good quantum numbers. Indeed, the total ‘momentum’

$$\overline{𝒫}=\underset{i}{}z_i_i$$
(89)
commutes with $`\overline{}`$ and its eigenvalue is the degree in $`z`$ of the monomial on which it acts:

$$\overline{𝒫}(z_i^{n_1}\mathrm{}z_N^{n_N})=(\underset{i}{}n_i)(z_i^{n_1}\mathrm{}z_N^{n_N}).$$
(90)
Likewise, the quantity

$$\eta =\underset{i}{}\theta _i\theta _i^{}=\underset{i}{}\theta _i\frac{}{\theta _i}$$
(91)
commutes with the supersymmetric hamiltonian and counts the number of fermions in a monomial:

$$\eta (\theta _{i_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{i_m})=m(\theta _{i_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{i_m}).$$
(92)
We say that the above monomial belongs to the $`m`$-fermion sector.

We can thus solve the supersymmetric Schrödinger equation in a fixed fermionic sector at a time. The independent eigenfunctions in a given fermionic sector will be denoted $`𝒜_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}(z,\theta ;1/\beta )`$; they are indexed by a set of integers $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, called a superpartition, whose ‘norm’ refers to the degree in $`z`$: $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|=n`$ (see the following subsection for their actual definition).

We now clarify the symmetry properties, with respect to the $`z`$ variables, of any symmetric superpolynomials and, in particular, of the eigenfunctions $`𝒜_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}`$. The key observation is that the solutions $`𝒜_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}`$ must necessarily be of the form:

$$𝒜_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}(z,\theta ;1/\beta )=\underset{1i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_mN}{}\theta ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}(z;1/\beta ),$$
(93)
where

$$\theta ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}=\theta _{i_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{i_m}.$$
(94)
Indeed, the various terms in the $`m`$-fermion sector can always be rearranged as sums of $`z`$ polynomials with a monomial prefactor in the $`\theta _i`$’s. $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}`$ is a homogeneous polynomial in $`z`$ indexed by a superpartition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The solutions $`𝒜_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}`$ being symmetric superpolynomials, must be invariant under the action of the exchange operators $`𝒦_{ij}`$. Given that the $`\theta `$ products are antisymmetric, *i.e.*,

$$\kappa _{i_ai_b}\theta ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}=\theta ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}\text{ if }i_a,i_b\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m\}.$$
(95)
the superpolynomials $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}`$ must be partially antisymmetric to ensure the complete symmetry of $`𝒜_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}`$. More precisely, the functions $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}`$ must satisfy the following relations:

$$\begin{array}{c}K_{ij}A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}(z;1/\beta )=A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}(z;1/\beta )i\text{ and }j\{i_1\mathrm{}i_m\},\hfill \\ K_{ij}A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}(z;1/\beta )=A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}(z;1/\beta )i\text{ and }j\{i_1\mathrm{}i_m\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(96)
Note that the case $`m=1`$ is special:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒜_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}=_i\theta _iA_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i(z;1/\beta ),\\ K_{ij}A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^k=A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^k\text{if and only if}i,jk.\end{array}$$
(97)
We have thus established that any symmetric eigenfunction of the stCMS model contains terms of mixed symmetry in $`z`$: each polynomial $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}`$ is completely antisymmetric in the variables $`\{z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_m}\}`$, and totally symmetric in the remaining variables $`z/\{z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_m}\}`$. Appendix B presents a simple way of generating such eigenfunctions by acting with appropriate operators on the Jack polynomials. However, this method does not lead to a unique characterization of the eigenfunctions. Later in this section will be presented an approach free from this drawback. But first, we need to define properly the superpartitions and some related concepts.

### 4.2 Symmetric superpolynomials

*1- The ring of symmetric superfunctions*. The symmetric superpolynomials are polynomials in $`z`$ and $`\theta `$ that commute with the generators $`𝒦_{ij}`$ of the symmetric group $`𝒮_N`$ of all possible permutations of the $`N`$ variables $`\zeta _i=(z_i,\theta _i)`$. As in the symmetric polynomial case, the set of all symmetric superpolynomials in the $`N`$ variables $`\zeta _i`$ forms a ring over the field of integers:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N=𝐙[\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _N]_{𝒮_N}=𝐙[z_1,\mathrm{},z_N;\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _N]_{𝒮_N}.$$
(98)
It is clear that the set of superpolynomials of degrees $`m`$ in $`\theta `$ and $`n`$ in $`z`$ is a $`𝐙`$-module, which we will denote in the following way:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N^{(m;n)}=𝐙[\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _N]_{𝒮_N}^{(m;n)}$$
(99)
The ring of symmetric superpolynomials is thus bigraded:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N=\underset{m,n}{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N^{(m;n)}$$
(100)
*2- Superpartitions*. In the case of symmetric polynomials, the basis elements of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$ are indexed by partitions. In the same manner, basis elements of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N`$ can be indexed by superpartitions. To motivate the following definition of superpartitions, recall that the symmetric superpolynomials in the $`m`$-fermion sector are antisymmetric in the $`m`$ variables $`\{z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_m}\}`$ and symmetric in the remaining ones. We thus define a superpartition of a $`m`$-fermion sector as a sequence of integers that generates two partitions separated by a semicolon:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_m;\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_L)=(\lambda ^a;\lambda ^s),$$
(101)
the first one being associated to an antisymmetric function

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda ^a=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_m),\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_i>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i+1}i=1,\mathrm{}m1,\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_i01im,\end{array}$$
(102)
and the second one, to a symmetric function:

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda ^s=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_L),\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i+1}i>m,\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_i0\text{ if }i=m+1\text{ ; }\mathrm{\Lambda }_i>0i>m+1.\end{array}$$
(103)
In the zero-fermion sector ($`m=0`$), the semicolon disappears and we recover the partition $`\lambda ^s`$.

The length $`LN`$ of a superpartition corresponds to the total number of its parts, of which at most two can be zero: one on the antisymmetric side and one on the symmetric side. The weight (or degree) of a superpartition is simply the sum of its parts:

$$|\mathrm{\Lambda }|=\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=|\lambda ^a|+|\lambda ^s|.$$
(104)
For instance, the only possible superpartitions of weight 2 in the one-fermion sector are:

$$(2;0),(0;2),(1;1),(0;1,1).$$
(105)
For 2 fermions, we have instead:

$$(2,0;0)\text{ and }(1,0;1).$$
(106)
In order to specify explicitly the fermionic sector, we will sometimes denote the degree of a superpartition as:

$$\text{degree }(m;n)(\text{fermionic sector }m;\text{weight }n=|\mathrm{\Lambda }|).$$
(107)
Summation formulas giving the number of superpartitions of degree $`(m;n)`$ are presented in appendix C.

We mention finally that to any superpartition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ there corresponds a single standard partition $`\lambda `$ obtained by rearranging the parts of the superpartition in decreasing order:

$$\lambda =\{\lambda _i|\lambda _i\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_L\},\lambda _i\lambda _{i+1}\}.$$
(108)
*3- Monomial symmetric superpolynomials*. We can now introduce a basis of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N^{(m;n)}`$ that generalizes the symmetric monomial basis of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{(n)}`$:

$$m_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}(z,\theta )=m_{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_m;\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_L)}(z,\theta )=\underset{PS_N}{}^{}\theta ^{P(1,\mathrm{},m)}z^{P(\mathrm{\Lambda })},$$
(109)
(recall that the prime indicates that the summation is restricted to distinct terms). It is understood that the action of the permutations on a superpartition is not affected by the semicolon:

$$P(\mathrm{\Lambda })=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{P(1)},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{P(m)};\mathrm{\Lambda }_{P(m+1)},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{P(L)}).$$
(110)
The functions $`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}`$ are called *monomial symmetric superfunctions* and $`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(0)}m_\lambda (z)`$. More explicitly, the monomial superfunctions can be written in the following way:

$`m_{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_m;\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_L)}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{(\lambda ^a;\lambda ^s)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_m}{}}\theta ^{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m}a_{\lambda ^a}(z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_m})m_{\lambda ^s}(z/\{z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_m}\}),`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{P^aS_m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{P^sS_{Nm}}{}}\text{sgn}(P^a)\theta _{i_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{i_m}z_{i_1}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{P^a(1)}}\mathrm{}z_{i_m}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{P^a(m)}}z_{i_m+1}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{P^s(m+1)}}\mathrm{}z_{i_L}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{P^s(L)}},`$
where we have introduced the antisymmetric monomial function

$$a_\lambda (z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)=\underset{PS_N}{}^{}\text{sgn}(P)z^{P(\lambda )}=\underset{PS_N}{}^{}\text{sgn}(P)z_1^{\lambda _{P(1)}}\mathrm{}z_N^{\lambda _{P(N)}}.$$
(112)
Many examples of monomial superfunctions are shown in Table 3.

### 4.3 Jack superpolynomials: monomial expansion

We now define the Jack superpolynomials in the $`m`$-fermion sector as the unique eigenfunctions of the supersymmetric hamiltonian $`\overline{}`$ that can be decomposed in terms of monomial superfunctions in the following way:

$$𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}(z,\theta ;1/\beta )=m_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}(z,\theta )+\underset{\omega <\lambda }{}c_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }}(\beta )m_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(m)}(z,\theta ),$$
(113)
where $`\omega `$ and $`\lambda `$ are the partitions associated to the rearrangements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\lambda `$ respectively 999The reader is referred to  for a proof that this definition does in fact characterize a family of polynomials that forms a basis of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N^{(m;n)}`$..

The relation between Jack superpolynomials and the usual Jack polynomials can now be stated precisely: $`𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(0)}=J_{\lambda ^s}`$.

The coefficients $`c_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }}(\beta )`$ in (113) are rational functions in $`\beta `$. We can easily verify, from the leading terms, that the spectrum of the supersymmetric hamiltonian $`\overline{}`$ is the same as that of $`\overline{H}`$, *i.e.*,

$$\overline{}𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}(z,\theta ;1/\beta )=\epsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}(z,\theta ;1/\beta )=\epsilon _\lambda 𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}(z,\theta ;1/\beta ),$$
(114)
where the eigenvalues are given by:

$$\epsilon _\lambda =\underset{j}{}[\lambda _j^2+\beta (N+12j)\lambda _j],$$
(115)
$`\lambda `$ being the rearrangement of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Observe that the eigenvalue $`\epsilon _\lambda `$ is independent of the fermionic sector, *i.e.*, independent of the value of $`m`$.101010 Therefore, the most general eigenfunction having energy $`\epsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a linear combination of all the eigenfunctions $`𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}`$ whose eigenvalue is $`\epsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\epsilon _\lambda `$ :
$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒥_\lambda (z,\theta ;1/\beta )\hfill & =& _{m=0}^N_\mathrm{\Lambda }\tau _\mathrm{\Lambda }^m𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}(z,\theta ;1/\beta )\hfill \\ & =& J_\lambda (z;1/\beta )+_\mathrm{\Lambda }[\tau _\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\theta ^iJ_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i(z;1/\beta )+\tau _\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\theta ^{i,j}J_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{i,j}(z;1/\beta )+\mathrm{}+\tau _\mathrm{\Lambda }^N\theta ^{1\mathrm{}N}J_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1\mathrm{}N}(z;1/\beta )]\hfill \end{array}$$
where an ordered summation on repeated indices is understood:
$$\theta ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}J_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}=\underset{1i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_mN}{}\theta _{i_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{i_m}J_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}.$$
Here $`\tau _\mathrm{\Lambda }^m`$ stands for a commuting (anticommuting) constant when $`m`$ is even (odd). These constants are auxiliary: they only guarantee the homogeneity of the statistics of the superpolynomials. Equation (10) thus corresponds in some way to the Taylor series of a generalized Jack superpolynomial around $`\theta =0`$. The first term in the expansion is simply a Jack polynomial.

Tables 4 and 5 present simple examples whose degrees $`(m;n)`$ are not larger than $`(3;4)`$. The coefficients $`c_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ are obtained by simply diagonalizing the hamiltonian. Polynomials with the same partition have the same eigenvalue. Given that the eigenvalues are independent of $`m`$, they can be read in Table 2.

We should stress that the decomposition is not simply a straightforward extension of the triangular decomposition of the Jack polynomials, where the ordering is on partitions. Here the ‘ordering’ that allows a triangular decomposition is on superpartitions, albeit rearranged. The existence of such an ‘ordering’ seems to us quite remarkable (even though it is not a genuine ordering, as it is shown in ).

A closer look at those results shows that expression (113) is not restrictive enough: certain monomials allowed by the dominance ordering of the rearranged superpartitions do not appear in the actual expansion of the Jack superpolynomials. For instance, no monomial superfunction associated to a superpartition with a $`0`$ on the antisymmetric side appears in the expansion of a Jack superpolynomial whose superpartition does not contain any $`0`$ to the left of the semicolon. This information is not however encoded in eq. (113). A partial ordering formulated directly among superpartitions would lead to a more precise formulation of the monomial expansion of the Jack superpolynomials. Such an ordering has indeed been found . But because its formulation is somewhat technical, it will be presented elsewhere.

## 5 Conclusion

In this work, we have presented a number of results concerning the stCMS model: its reformulation in terms of the exchange-operator formalism, the Lax formalism, the Dunkl operators and an explicit construction for the conserved charges. In fact, $`4N`$ conserved charges have been constructed, $`2N`$ bosonic and $`2N`$ fermionic ones.

However, our most important results pertain to the construction of the stCMS eigenfunctions, with particular emphasis on the subclass which we call the Jack superpolynomials and which is a natural generalization of the Jack polynomials. In view of defining them properly, we have introduced the pivotal concept of superpartitions providing the natural labelling of the Jack superpolynomials. The Jack superpolynomials are then naturally defined by further imposing that they decompose in a specific manner in terms of monomial superfunctions, a procedure that extends the standard way of defining the Jack polynomials.

In a forthcoming publication, we will present a dominance ordering on the superpartitions that suggests an exact expression for the coefficients $`c_{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ in (113) and a related determinantal formula. These results can in turn be used to demonstrate the actual existence of the Jack superpolynomials.

Numerous extensions of this work can be contemplated. The most immediate one concerns the generalization from $`2`$ to an arbitrary even number $`2`$ of supersymmetries. This is rather straightforward in the exchange-operator formalism: it suffices to set

$`𝒦_{ij}`$ $``$ $`\kappa _{ij}K_{ij},`$ (116)
$`\kappa _{ij}`$ $``$ $`\kappa _{ij}^1\mathrm{}\kappa _{ij}^{},`$ (117)
where $`\kappa _{ij}^a`$ is the operator that exchanges the Grassmannian variables $`\theta ^a`$ and $`\theta ^a`$, where $`a=1,\mathrm{},`$. The $`2`$ generators of the supersymmetric transformations are then:

$`𝒬^a=\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\theta _i^aD_i),`$ (118)
$`𝒬^a=\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\theta _i^aD_i).`$ (119)
The construction of the conserved quantities is analogous to the one we have presented in the case with $`2=2`$ supersymmetries. The construction of the eigenfunctions is also rather direct: the Jack superpolynomials are then indexed by $``$ fermionic sectors and a superpartition involving $``$ antisymmetric partitions:

$`𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}`$ $``$ $`𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m_1,\mathrm{},m_{})},`$
$``$ $`𝒥_{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m_1};\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m_1+1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m_1+m_2};\mathrm{};\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m_1+\mathrm{}+m_{}+1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_L)}.`$
Another simple way of extending the model is by adding spin degrees of freedom. Again, this is very simple in the framework of the exchange-operator formalism, where we only need to add an extra piece in the total exchange operator, *i.e.*, set:

$$𝒦_{ij}=\kappa _{ij}K_{ij}\sigma _{ij}.$$
(121)
$`\sigma _{ij}`$ interchanges the spins of particles $`i`$ and $`j`$. This leads to a supersymmetric model with spin degrees of freedom. The Lax formalism and the construction of the Dunkl operators can be extended directly to this more general case. Note that the spectrum of a supersymmetric model, with or without spin, is always the same as its non-supersymmetric relative. The effect of supersymmetry on the spectrum is to increase the degeneracy of each eigenvalue, in addition to generate fermionic states. But this does not change the fractional statistics, *i.e.*, the existence of a generalized Pauli principle.

Another natural generalization concerns the application of the method developed here, to the construction of the eigenfunctions of the supersymmetric rational CMS model with harmonic term, thereby generating the Hi-Jack (or generalized Hermite) superpolynomials. Similarly, one could work out the super extension of the Macdonald polynomials as the eigenfunctions of the supersymmetric Ruijsenaars-Schneider model.

Coming back to the Jack superpolynomials *per se*, we can also point out various axes of research stemming from this work. At first, it would be interesting to reformulate their definition in a more abstract way. Mimicking the mathematical definition of the Jack polynomials, this would amount to define the superpolynomials in terms of two requirements: triangularity and orthogonality. A natural way of defining a scalar product is not difficult to figure out. However, one would need to lift the degeneracy of the Jack superpolynomials. A natural idea for this would be to look for combinations of the Jack superpolynomials that are eigenfunctions of the charges $`_n`$.

Another interesting issue would be to try to formulate a sort of superfield formalism, by summing the Jack polynomials associated to a given superpartition over the different fermionic sectors. This would construct what we could call a super-Jack polynomial. At this point, this summation over the different sectors appears to be loosely defined, however. How could we constraint the value of the relative coefficients associated to the different fermionic sectors?

We also expect that there exists creation operators that provide the super analogues of the operators constructed in . A first trial in that direction has been presented in app. B. This indeed maps simple stCMS eigenfunctions – in fact, Jack polynomials, hence Jack superpolynomials specialized to the zero-fermion sector – to other stCMS eigenfunctions. However, as we have already pointed out, the action of these creation operators does not close within the set of Jack superpolynomials labelled by superpartitions.

Two other issues, both rooted in our initial motivations for studying sCMS models, are worth mentioning. Given the rather intriguing relation that exists between the Virasoro singular vectors and the Jack polynomials, one can naturally ask whether there is a similar relation at the supersymmetric level. But this would presumably require the definition of a proper super-Jack polynomial (*i.e.*, an appropriate sum over the different fermionic sectors of the Jack superpolynomials). Note that the potentially related singular vectors would be those of the $`𝒩=2`$ superconformal algebra.

On the other hand, we have recalled in the introduction the remarkable connection relating the dynamics of the rational CMS models and the time evolution of the rational solutions of the Korteweg-de Vries equation. A quite natural quest would be to try to find a supersymmetric counterpart to this phenomenon.

We expect to report elsewhere on some of these other issues.

## Appendix A Antisymmetric eigenfunctions

In this appendix, we construct excited states related to the second ground state $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0=\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta |\stackrel{~}{0}`$. The differential representation $`|\stackrel{~}{0}\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _N`$ makes clear the complete antisymmetry of the fermionic ground state $`|\stackrel{~}{0}`$. Thus, the exited states that behave like $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0`$ under the exchange of bosonic and fermionic variables take the following form:

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z,\theta )=\varphi (z,\theta ^{})\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0=\varphi (z,/\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta \theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _N\text{where}𝒦_{ij}\varphi =\varphi 𝒦_{ij}.$$
(122)
Equivalently, we can define $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as:

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z,\theta )=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(z,\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta \text{where}𝒦_{ij}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }𝒦_{ij}.$$
(123)
The antisymmetric states $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ are eigenfunctions of the supersymmetric hamiltonian:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{}& =& \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{L}{\pi }\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta \mathrm{\Delta }^\beta ,\hfill \\ & =& _i(z_i_i)^2\beta _{i<j}\frac{z_i+z_j}{z_{ij}}(z_i_iz_j_j)+2\beta _{i<j}\frac{z_iz_j}{z_{ij}^2}(1+\kappa _{ij}),\hfill \\ & =& \overline{}(\beta \beta ,\kappa _{ij}\kappa _{ij}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(124)
Since $`\kappa _{ij}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=K_{ij}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, the superfunctions are also eigenfunctions of the (modified) hamiltonian with an exchange term:

$$\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\overline{}_K^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi },$$
(125)
where the prime symbol indicates that the sign of the coupling constant $`\beta `$ is reversed: $`f^{}(\beta )=f(\beta )`$.

Like the symmetric superfunctions, the antisymmetric superfunctions $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ of degree $`(m;n)`$ can be indexed by a superpartition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and denoted $`\stackrel{~}{𝒥}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}`$. These solutions will be called the antisymmetric Jack superpolynomials. They can be defined in terms of a triangular decomposition in antisymmetric monomial superfunctions:

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒥}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}(z,\theta ;1/\beta )=a_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}(z,\theta )+\underset{\omega <\lambda }{}c_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }}(\beta )a_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(m)}(z,\theta ),$$
(126)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(m)}& =& a_{(\lambda ^s;\lambda ^a)},\hfill \\ & =& _{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_m}\theta ^{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m}m_{\lambda ^s}(z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_m})a_{\lambda ^a}(z/\{z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_m}\})\hfill \end{array}$$
(127)
where $`a_\lambda `$ is the antisymmetric monomial function defined in (112). The eigenvalues are given by:

$$\epsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\epsilon _\lambda ^{}=\epsilon _\lambda =\underset{j}{}[\lambda _j^2\beta (N+12j)\lambda _j].$$
(128)
## Appendix B Eigenfunction generators

It is possible to generate eigenfunctions of $`\overline{}`$ by applying some differential operators directly on Jack polynomials. Let us consider the operator $`_\gamma ^{(m)}`$, indexed by a positive integer $`m`$ and a partition $`\gamma `$, given by:

$$\begin{array}{c}_\gamma ^{(m)}=_{PS_N}\theta ^{P(1,\mathrm{},m)}\overline{D}_{P(1,\mathrm{},N)}^\gamma ,\\ \overline{D}_{(j_1,\mathrm{},j_N)}^\gamma =(\overline{D}_{j_1})^{\gamma _1}\mathrm{}(\overline{D}_{j_N})^{\gamma _N}.\end{array}$$
(129)
In this formula, $`\overline{D}_i`$ is the Dunkl operator defined in (85). The partition $`\gamma `$ is used to identify the independent polynomials in $`\overline{D}_i`$. The $`_\gamma ^{(m)}`$’s commute with the hamiltonian with an exchange term and are invariant under the action of the exchange operators $`𝒦_{ij}`$:

$$[_\gamma ^{(m)},_K]=0=[_\gamma ^{(m)},𝒦_{ij}].$$
(130)
These properties ensure that the application of $`_\gamma ^{(m)}`$ on the Jack polynomial $`J_\lambda (z;1/\beta )`$ gives a solution to the supersymmetric model, the solution being indexed by two partitions $`\gamma `$ and $`\lambda `$:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒜_{\gamma ,\lambda }^{(m)}(z,\theta ;1/\beta )_\gamma ^{(m)}J_\lambda (z;1/\beta ),\\ _\kappa 𝒜_{\gamma ,\lambda }^{(m)}(z,\theta ;1/\beta )=_K_\gamma ^{(m)}J_\lambda =_\gamma ^{(m)}_KJ_\lambda =\epsilon _\lambda 𝒜_{\gamma ,\lambda }^{(m)}(z,\theta ;1/\beta ).\end{array}$$
(131)
In the previous equation, we have used the equivalence between the supersymmetric hamiltonian $`_\kappa `$ and the hamiltonian with an exchange term $`_K`$ when they act on a function which is invariant under the operators $`𝒦_{ij}`$. The solutions $`𝒜_{\gamma ,\lambda }^{(m)}`$ are of degree $`(m,|\lambda |)`$ in $`z`$. We can easily check that these symmetric superfunctions are non-zero only if the partitions $`\gamma `$ are strictly decreasing with respect to their $`m`$ first parts.

The operators $`_\gamma ^{(m)}`$ can thus generate any $`_\kappa `$ eigenfunctions. They play the double role of fermionic creation operators and of symmetrizer in $`\theta `$ and in $`z`$. Moreover, they generalize the supersymmetric charges introduced in section 3.3. For example:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒦(_{(n)}^{(1)})=\overline{𝒬}_{(n)}.$$
(132)
Given the infinite number of partitions $`\gamma `$, there exists an infinite number of such operators, even in a specific fermionic sector. Obviously, since the number of Jack superpolynomials is finite for a given degree $`m`$, most of the solutions $`𝒜_{\gamma ,\lambda }^{(m)}`$ are linearly dependent. There is however no precise relation between a given eigenfunction $`𝒜_{\gamma ,\lambda }^{(m)}`$ and the Jack superpolynomials defined in (113) and indexed by a superpartition.

## Appendix C Combinatorics of superpartitions

We now determine the number $`p(m;n)`$ of independent states of degree $`(m;n)`$. This amounts to counting the number of superpartitions of degree $`(m;n)`$. As we will show, this number is simply given by the following sum:

$$p(m;n)=\underset{n_a+n_s=n}{}p_\text{D}^{(m)}(n_a)p(n_s),$$
(133)
where $`n_a=|\lambda ^a|`$ and $`n_s=|\lambda ^s|`$. As usual $`p(n)`$ is the number of partitions of $`n`$ so that $`p(n_s)`$ counts the number of partitions of $`\lambda ^s`$. The quantity $`p_\text{D}^{(m)}(n_a)`$ is a restricted partition whose ‘restriction symbols’ agree with the usual definitions of combinatorial analysis:

$$\begin{array}{c}p^{(m)}(n)=\text{number of partitions of }n\text{ of length less or equal to }m,\hfill \\ p_\text{D}(n)=\text{number of partitions of }n\text{ whose parts are all distinct }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(134)
For instance, $`p^{(2)}(4)=3`$ since there are 3 partitions of 4 with at most 2 parts : $`(4)`$, $`(3,1)`$ and $`(2,2)`$. Hence, $`p_\text{D}^{(m)}(n)`$ gives the number of partitions (without zero) of $`n`$ whose parts are strictly decreasing and whose length is smaller or equal to $`m`$. This quantity counts the number of antisymmetric partitions $`\lambda ^a`$. The summation takes into account the various ways of splitting $`n`$ into the two integers $`n_a`$ and $`n_s`$. Note that, since the superpartitions of the form $`(;\lambda ^s)=(\lambda ^s)`$ are acceptable, we have to adopt the following conventions:

$$p^{(0)}(0)=1\text{ and }p^{(0)}(n1)=0.$$
(135)
For example, we find 5 superpartitions of weight 5 in the 2-fermion sector:

$$(3,0;0),(2,1;0),(2,0;1),(1,0;2),(1,0;1,1)$$
(136)
This agrees with eq. (133):

$`p(2;3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_a+n_s=3}{}}p_\text{D}^{(2)}(n_a)p(n_s),`$
$`=`$ $`p_\text{D}^{(2)}(3)p(0)+p_\text{D}^{(2)}(2)p(1)+p_\text{D}^{(2)}(1)p(2)+p_\text{D}^{(2)}(0)p(3),`$
$`=`$ $`21+11+12+03=5.`$
If we compare the number of superpartitions of degree $`(m;n)`$ for $`n`$ fixed but for different values of $`m`$, we see that this number is maximum in the one-fermion sector and minimum in the $`N`$-fermion sector (since $`N`$ corresponds to the maximal length of the superpartition). Since the antisymmetric partitions are strictly decreasing, we have:

$$p(N;n)=0\text{if}n\frac{(N1)(N2)}{2}.$$
(138)
For the superpolynomials of degree 3 in $`z`$ and in $`\theta `$, for instance, only one state exists because there is only one possible superpartition, $`(2,1,0)`$. This is less than the $`p(3)=3`$ possible partitions of 3. On the other hand, if the fermionic sector is $`m=1`$, we have $`p(1;3)`$ independent states, each associated to one of the 7 possible superpartitions:

$$(3;0),(0;3),(2;1),(1;2),(0;2,1),(1;1,1),(0;1,1,1).$$
(139)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Luc Vinet for his collaboration at the initial stage of this work and for his continuous support and David Sénéchal for some clarifications. P.D. would like to thank the Fondation J.A Vincent for a student fellowship. Finally, we acknowledge the financial support of FCAR and CRSNG.


format: text

text:
# Andreev scattering in the asymmetric ladder with preformed bosonic pairs

\[

## Abstract

We discuss the phase coherence which emanates from the ladder-like proximity effect between a “weak superconductor” with preformed bosonic pairs (here, a single-chain Luther-Emery liquid with superconducting correlations that decay approximately as $`x^1`$) and a Fermi gas with unpaired fermions. Carefully studying tunneling mechanism(s), we show that the boson-mediated Cooper pairing between remaining unpaired electrons results in a quasi long-range superconductivity: Superconducting correlations decay very slowly as $`x^\eta `$ with $`\eta 1/2`$. This process is reminiscent of the coupling of fermions to preformed bosonic pairs introduced in the context of high-$`T_c`$ cuprates.

\]

Surprisingly, the excitation spectrum in underdoped high-$`T_c`$ cuprates exhibits a pseudogap at a temperature $`T^{}`$ far above the superconducting temperature $`T_c`$. Experimental results suggest that the gap formation is due to the pairing of electrons in the corners of the Fermi surface into preformed bosonic pairs (with a small spectral weight), whereas electrons in the “diagonals” would still remain unpaired (See Fig. 1). Theoretically, the truncation of the Fermi surface has been predicted by Rice et al. from Renormalization Group arguments in two dimensions and from the behavior of lightly doped ladders. This has been also emphasized by Lee and Wen based on gauge theory calculation . The superconductivity which emanates from the Bose condensation of these preformed pairs coexisting with unpaired fermions has been examined phenomenologically by Geshkenbein, Ioffe and Larkin. Below, we introduce a simple asymmetric two-leg ladder system which allows to rigorously exemplify the (almost) Bose condensation of preformed bosonic pairs in the vicinity of unpaired fermions.

We discuss the quasi long-range superconductivity emerging at $`T_c`$ from the ladder-like proximity effect between a one-dimensional (1D) weak superconductor — which already displays a spin gap and preformed Cooper pairs below $`T^{}`$ — and a 1D Fermi gas.

To keep the discussion as clear as possible, here we assume that the weak superconductivity emerges from the single-chain Hubbard model with small attractive interactions, producing the usual Luther-Emery liquid. Above $`T_c`$ (but below $`T^{}`$), the superconducting correlations are weak in the sense that they still decay approximately as the charge density wave correlations, i.e., roughly as $`x^1`$. Such a prototype system has some similarities to the one introduced by Emery, Kivelson and Zachar in another context \[a metallic stripe coupled to an active spin-gapped doped Mott insulator\]. Following the methodology developed in Ref., we build the relevant tunneling process(es) between the two chains. Here, this corresponds to an Andreev scattering mechanism. Then, we show how the boson-induced Cooper pairing between unpaired fermions results below $`T_c1/\{T^{}\}^2`$ both in a spinon-pairing (spin gap) in the Fermi gas and in a quasi long-range phase coherence. In contrast with Ref. (page 6131), we report that the superconducting correlations now decay as $`x^\eta `$ with $`\eta 1/2`$, whereas the charge density wave correlations at the wave vector $`q=2k_F`$ arise only at short distances. The system behaves as a conventional two-leg ladder. For temperatures $`TT^{}`$, the kinetic energy for fermions takes the standard form $`_{kin}=_o+_{}`$ where

$`_o`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{j,\alpha }{}}\psi _{j\alpha }^{}(x+1)\psi _{j\alpha }(x)+\mathrm{H}.c.,`$ (1)
$`_{}`$ $`=`$ $`t_{}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\psi _{2\alpha }^{}(x)\psi _{1\alpha }(x)+\mathrm{H}.c.`$ (2)
Here $`j=(1,2)`$ denote the chains and $`\alpha =(,)`$ the spin projections of an electron. The bare short-distance cutoff is equal to $`a=1`$. The longitudinal and transverse hopping amplitudes are respectively $`t`$ and $`t_{}`$.

We consider the case of a weak-proximity effect between the two chains, i.e., we start with $`t_{}/T^{}1`$. For weak interactions in chain 1, our temperature $`T^{}`$ will be already very small compared to the Fermi energy $`E_Ft`$. Focusing on electronic states near the Fermi points, we expand $`\psi _{j\alpha }(x)=\psi _{+j\alpha }(x)e^{ik_Fx}+\psi _{j\alpha }(x)e^{ik_Fx}`$; Below $`p=\pm `$ denote respectively right and left excitations. Unlike in Ref., the two chains are here equally doped.

Weak superconductor at $`𝐓^{}.`$ Let us first consider that $`t_{}=0`$. As emphasized in the introduction, we start with an asymmetric situation where in chain 2 electrons are completely “free” whereas electrons of chain 1 are subjected to a weak attractive Hubbard interaction of the form: $`_1=g_cJ_{+11}J_{11}g_s𝐉_{+11}𝐉_{11}`$. We have rewritten the Hubbard interaction in chain 1 as a function of the usual charge and spin currents \[For the definitions: See Ref., Eq. (5)\]. Note that $`g_c`$ and $`g_s`$ describe charge- and spin backscatterings respectively.

The bare interactions are of the order of the negative Hubbard coupling, $`U<0`$.

Bosonizing the 1D Fermi fields, we can write

$$\psi _{pj\alpha }\mathrm{exp}\text{(}i\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\left[p(\mathrm{\Phi }_{jc}+\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_{js})(\theta _{jc}+\alpha \theta _{js})\right]\text{)},$$
(3)
$`\alpha =\pm `$ for spin up and spin down respectively. The electron spectrum exhibits spin-charge separation. The charge part of the Hamiltonian results in the Luttinger Gaussian model:

$$H_{oj}^c=\frac{v_F}{2\pi }𝑑x\frac{1}{K_{jc}}(\rho _{jc}\rho _o)^2+K_{jc}(\theta _{jc})^2.$$
(4)
Here $`v_F=2t\mathrm{sin}k_F`$ denotes the Fermi velocity, $`_x\mathrm{\Phi }_{jc}=(\rho _{jc}\rho _o)`$ measures fluctuations of charge density in each chain, and $`\theta _{jc}`$ is the conjugate momentum to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{jc}`$. The free spin Hamiltonians have the same forms as the charge Hamiltonian of Eq.(3) replacing $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{jc}`$ by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{js}`$. The Luttinger exponents are,

$`K_{1c}`$ $`=`$ $`1g_c/\pi v_F>1K_{2c}=1`$ (5)
$`K_{1s}`$ $`=`$ $`1+g_s/\pi v_F<1K_{2s}=1.`$ (6)
For attractive interactions in chain 1 $`[K_{1s}<1]`$, the spin backscattering term $`g_s`$ provides another (relevant) contribution to the low-energy physics. Indeed, this produces the Sine-Gordon model

$$H_1^s=H_{o1}^sg_s𝑑x\mathrm{cos}[\sqrt{8\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{1s}](x).$$
(7)
The coupling $`g_s`$ is known to be strongly renormalized at the temperature scale $`T^{}=E_F\mathrm{exp}(\pi v_F/g_s)`$. The spin field gets pinned at the classical value $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1s}0`$. The resulting spin gap is of the order of $`T^{}`$ (See Ref. page 76). This produces the growth of the superconducting (SC) and charge density wave (CDW) correlations in chain 1. These are given by the operators

$`𝒪_{SC}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{+1}\psi _1+\psi _1\psi _{+1}`$ (8)
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\sqrt{2\pi }\theta _{1c})\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{1s})`$ (9)
and

$`𝒪_{CDW}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{+1}^{}\psi _1+\psi _{+1}^{}\psi _1`$ (10)
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{1c})\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{1s}).`$ (11)
The operator $`𝒪_{SC}^1`$ describes the preformed bosonic pairs with charge $`Q=2e`$ and spin $`S=0`$. Using the fact that there is no fluctuation of the spin field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1s}0`$ for temperatures smaller than $`T^{}`$, one finds for the charge-density correlation function

$$<𝒪_{CDW}^1(x)𝒪_{CDW}^1(0)>x^{K_{1c}}$$
(12)
and for the SC pairing correlation function

$$<𝒪_{SC}^1(x)𝒪_{SC}^1(0)>x^{1/K_{1c}}.$$
(13)
As expected, since $`K_{1c}>1`$ the superconducting correlations in chain 1 are (slightly) more important than the CDW correlations for $`T<T^{}`$ (See Fig. 2). Here, pairing of spinons is somewhat equivalent to pairing of electrons inducing prevalent bosonic pairs in chain 1.

As long as the chain 2 remains weakly “coupled” to chain 1 (i.e., for $`T>T_c`$, see discussion below), all its density-density correlation functions decay as $`1/x^2`$ as for any noninteracting 1D electron gas.

Fate of transverse electron motion. Now, we examine the influence of the finite (bare) transverse hopping amplitude. Again, we assume that the spin backscattering term $`g_s`$ is flowing first to strong couplings (at the temperature $`T^{}`$; $`g_s(T^{})t`$) which corresponds to very small bare values of $`t_{}`$ $`(t_{}T^{})`$. The bosonic form of the term $`t_{}`$ (at $`q=0`$) is given, e.g., in Ref..

We find that $`t_{}`$ evolves according to

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}t_{}}{dl}=\frac{7}{4}\frac{1}{4}(K_c^{}+\frac{1}{K_c^{}})\frac{1}{8}(K_{1s}+\frac{1}{K_{1s}})$$
(14)
The $`l`$ describes the renormalization of the short-distance cutoff $`a(l)=\mathrm{exp}l`$. The renormalization procedure is stopped at lengths $`a(l)`$ comparable to the thermal length $`v_F/T`$, which means $`l=\mathrm{ln}(E_F/T)`$. We have combined the charge boson fields in the two chains into a symmetric “+” and antisymmetric “-” part: $`\mathrm{\Phi }_c^\pm =[\mathrm{\Phi }_{1c}\pm \mathrm{\Phi }_{2c}]/\sqrt{2}`$ and similarly for the conjugate momenta. The resulting Luttinger exponents obey

$$K_c^\pm =\sqrt{K_{1c}K_{2c}}1\frac{g_c}{2\pi v_F}>1.$$
(15)
Furthermore, we obtain

$$\frac{dK_{1s}}{d\mathrm{ln}(\frac{E_F}{T})}=\frac{1}{2}(g_sK_{1s})^2.$$
(16)
As long as $`T>T^{}`$, integrating Eq.(14) produces a linear growth of $`t_{}(T)`$ \[i.e., $`g_s(T)t`$ and $`K_{1s}1`$\]

$$t_{}(T)t_{}E_F/Tt.$$
(17)
Second, from Eq.(16) we deduce that the explicit divergence of the spin backstattering $`g_s`$ at the opening of the spin gap (i.e., for $`T=T^{}`$) results formally in $`K_{1s}\{T<T^{}\}=0`$. Using Eq.(14), this also implies

$$t_{}\{T<T^{}\}=0.$$
(18)
This produces a jump in the electron hopping amplitude. This can be interpreted as a consequence of the disappearance of the electron states on chain 1. At $`T=T^{}`$, in contrast chain 1 exhibits preformed bosonic pairs due to the occurrence of the spin gap. In consequence, one expects the vanishing of the single-particle transverse susceptibility $`\chi _{,s}`$ (See Ref. page 224). This reflects the suppression of the electron motion in the transverse direction. Such a phenomenon can also emerge due to the presence of strong Umklapp scattering (leading to a charge gap).

On the other hand, the Hamiltonian must be supplemented by extra terms (i.e., tunneling processes) which are generated in the course of renormalization by expanding the partition function as a function of $`t_{}`$. For a two-chain model, those are precisely known and have been classified by Khveshchenko and Rice using the bosonic language. Following the scheme introduced in Ref., we now examine which tunneling processes are relevant below $`T^{}`$. We will show that because $`K_c^{}>1`$, these correspond to an incoming electron from chain 2 being reflected back as a hole, thereby injecting an additional Cooper pair in chain 1. This is an Andreev scattering mechanism. Andreev scattering amplitude. Terms containing the spin operator $`\mathrm{exp}[i\beta \theta _{1s}]`$ with $`\beta =\sqrt{2\pi }`$ may be already dropped. Indeed, below $`T^{}`$ these terms naturally acquire a scaling dimension greater than 2 and thus become irrelevant in the sense of the renormalization procedure. Using the classification scheme of Ref. away from half-filling, one must then keep the following interchain “pair-hopping” terms

$`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _c^{}\text{{}g_2\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_s^{}+g_3\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_s^+\text{}}`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`g_5\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_c^{}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_s^{}.`$ (20)
To fix the values of the coupling constants for $`TT^{}`$, one must proceed as follows. Above $`T^{}`$, the couplings $`g_i`$ with i=(2,3) evolve in a similar manner as $`(z(l)=t_{}(l)/E_F)`$

$$\frac{dg_i}{dl}=\lambda g_i\lambda z^2,$$
(21)
with

$$\lambda =2[K_s^\pm +\frac{1}{K_c^{}}](g_c+g_s)/2\pi v_F>0$$
(22)
being slightly renormalized. As long as the spin backscattering is small, one can use the exponents $`(K_s^\pm <1)`$:

$$K_s^\pm =\sqrt{K_{1s}K_{2s}}1+\frac{g_s}{2\pi v_F}=\frac{1}{2}(K_{1s}+K_{2s}).$$
(23)
The bare values are given precisely by $`z(0)=t_{}/E_F`$ and $`g_i(0)=0`$. Under renormalization, these pair-hopping terms then acquire a small but non-zero value

$`g_{2,3}(l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2\lambda }}z(0)^2\text{[}\mathrm{exp}(2l)\mathrm{exp}(\lambda l)\text{]}`$ (24)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2\lambda }}z(l)^2,`$ (25)
with $`z(l)=z(0)\mathrm{exp}l`$. Using Eqs.(17) and (24) for $`TT^{}`$, one finally finds $`(|g_{2,3}(T^{})|1)`$

$$g_{2,3}(T^{})\frac{\{t_{}(T^{})\}^2}{E_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}=\frac{t_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\{T^{}\}^2}$$
(26)
The exact prefactor is not of interest here.

The evolution of the coupling $`g_5`$ can be discussed in an identical way. Starting with free (or almost free) electrons on chain 2, we obtain the same equation as for $`g_{2,3}`$ with $`\lambda `$ replaced by

$$\gamma =2[K_s^{}+K_c^{}](g_cg_s)/2\pi v_F=0.$$
(27)
Therefore, one reaches the important conclusion that in our case $`g_5(T)=0`$ whatever the temperature. Note that in principle, this does not remain true if (quite strong) repulsive interactions are added between unpaired remaining electrons. This provides both $`K_c^{}<1`$ and $`K_s^{}<1`$. In that case, the coupling $`g_5`$ becomes strongly relevant leading to another spin-gapped (but à priori not superconducting) fixed point.

When T approaches $`T^{}`$, the spin field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1s}`$ gets locked, resulting in $`<\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{1s}>\{T^{}a\}^{1/2}`$ (we put $`a=1`$) and then in the unique pair-tunneling mechanism

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H=V\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _c^{}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{2s}.$$
(28)
This term is the driving force for the quasi long-range Bose condensation of the preformed pairs. We stress that in 1D, the (bare) interchain hopping is sufficient to generate such (particle-particle) pair-hopping term, i.e., $`V=t_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/\{T^{}\}^{3/2}`$. It is appropriate to write

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H=V\text{(}𝒪_{SC}^1\text{(}\psi _{+2}\psi _2+\psi _2\psi _{+2}\text{)}+\mathrm{H}.c.\text{)}.$$
(29)
We immediately recognize the boson-mediated Cooper pairing between remaining unpaired electrons, introduced in the context of high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. This also corresponds to an Andreev reflection.

It is worth to note that the coupling $`V`$ does not affect the quantum coherence along the chains. The charge current of each chain $`J_jv_F𝑑x\theta _{jc}(x)`$ commutes with the process $`V`$, i.e., $`[J_j,\mathrm{\Delta }H]=0`$. For clean and infinitely long chains, the conductivity $`\sigma _{}`$ remains infinite. To prompt for the question of the (in)coherence in the transverse direction below $`T^{}`$ one can examine the transverse susceptibility $`\chi _{,p}`$ induced by the Andreev process (transfer of pairs). As long as $`V`$ is small, we can expand the partition function up to terms of fourth order in $`V`$. Using Ref. (page 223), we find $`\chi _{,p}T^{2(d_{,p}1)}`$ and $`d_{,p}=(K_{2s}/2+1/K_c^{})`$. Near $`T^{}`$, we immediately get $`d_{,p}>1`$. Thus, $`\chi _{,p}`$ is first reduced by decreasing the temperature, still reflecting a certain incoherence between the bosonic pairs and the unpaired electrons. At lower temperatures the system converges to a superconducting and completely coherent fixed point. Below $`T^{}`$, the coupling $`V`$ evolves according to $`dV/d\mathrm{ln}\text{(}\frac{T^{}}{T}\text{)}=(2d_{,p})V`$. This will be strongly renormalized at the temperature, $`T_cT^{}V^2=at_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}/\{T^{}\}^2T^{}`$. Close to $`T_c`$, the exponents $`1/K_c^{}`$ and $`K_{2s}`$ drastically decrease \[similarly as in Eq.(16)\] resulting in $`d_{,p}\{T_c\}1`$. A strong interchain coherence thus arises below $`T_c`$; $`\chi _{,p}`$ diverges at $`T=0`$. The proximity effect results in a fluid of coherent bosons with (almost) long-range pairing.

As in Ref., the pre-existing spin gap is conveyed to the Fermi gas. Superconductivity at $`𝐓=0.`$ The spin field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2s}`$ gets massive \[See Eq.(22)\], so the spin fluctuations now contribute a multiplicative constant to all the correlation functions. The SC phase below $`T_c`$ thus becomes only a property of the charge degrees of freedom. Here, the Andreev reflection imposes that the field $`\theta _c^{}`$ gets locked (for all $`x`$), i.e., $`\theta _{1c}(x)=\theta _{2c}(x)`$. Only the superfluid phase $`\theta _c^+`$ remains massless, thereby producing strong superconductivity. In each chain, one must write $`(j=1,2)`$

$$\sqrt{2}\theta _{jc}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\text{{}\theta _{1c}+\theta _{2c}\text{}}\theta _c^+.$$
(30)
Using Eq.(8), this gives

$$𝒪_{SC}^j\mathrm{exp}(i\sqrt{\pi }\theta _c^+).$$
(31)
The two chains become obviously phase-coherent and the SC correlation functions decay very slowly with $`x`$,

$$<𝒪_{SC}^j(x)𝒪_{SC}^j(0)>x^{1/(2K_c^+)}.$$
(32)
(The exponent is in contrast with the one of Ref. at Page 6131; Our $`T_c`$ corresponds to their $`T_2^{}`$). This exemplifies the almost Bose condensation of preformed pairs due to the exchange of fermions even though a phase order is not strictly possible in 1D, i.e., $`<𝒪_{SC}^j(x)>=0`$.

This behavior is reminiscent of a conventional two-leg ladder material (our chains behave as bands of the symmetric two-leg ladder with repulsive interactions). We deduce that the pairing susceptibility diverges approximately as $`\chi _{SC}T^{3/2}`$ (See Fig. 2). Each chain is now characterized by the same superflow. Since $`\theta _c^{}0`$, this indeed produces $`J_1J_2`$. The density of Cooper pairs in each chain $`n_j`$ fluctuates strongly, i.e., $`(n_1n_2)_x\mathrm{\Phi }_c^{}`$. Finally, the CDW fluctuations can develop only at very short distances. To conclude, we have introduced an asymmetric two-leg ladder system which allows to rigorously investigate the (almost) Bose condensation of preformed bosonic pairs in the vicinity of unpaired fermions discussed in the context of high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. The Andreev scattering mechanism has been derived properly from the fermionic model (above $`T^{}`$).

We already like to push forward the fact that this asymmetric model can be generalized to preformed bosonic pairs having an approximate d-wave pairing and a very small spectral weight (and coexisting with chain(s) of unpaired fermions), e.g., by investigating asymmetric three-leg ladder systems.

Acknowledgment. We thank Lev Ioffe for inspiring us this work, and T.Maurice Rice for discussions on superconductivity with preformed pairs.