text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The physics on noncommutative space (and space-time), after a new motivation from string theory, has attracted a lot of interest . In addition to the string theory interests, noncommutative quantum mechanics and noncommutative field theories have their own attractions  as well. The noncommutative space can be defined by

$$[\widehat{x}^\mu ,\widehat{x}^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu },$$
(1.1)
where $`\widehat{x}^\mu `$ are the space-time coordinate operators and $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is a constant anti-symmetric tensor. In order to formulate noncommutative field theories, we need a realization of Eq. (1.1) in the space of the fields (functions). In fact such a realization is simple to find, recalling the Weyl-Moyal correspondence , according to which the noncommutative version of a given field theory is obtained by replacing the usual product of functions by the $``$-product:

$$f(x)g(x)=f(x)\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{_\mu }\stackrel{}{_\nu })g(x).$$
(1.2)
It has been discussed that the noncommutative space appears naturally in planar physics, namely, in $`(2+1)`$ dimensional theories. More specifically, the noncommutative plane accommodates the physics of charged particles in a (strong) magnetic field and, therefore, the quantum Hall physics . In particular, it has been shown that the noncommutative version of pure Chern-Simons theory captures the physics of Laughlin wave functions , in the sense that the level of the noncommutative $`U(1)`$ Chern-Simons theory plays the role of the filling fraction. Being motivated by quantum Hall physics, noncommutative Chern-Simons theories, both Abelian and non-Abelian, have been studied extensively .

The perturbative analysis and the one loop calculations of the noncommutative Chern-Simons theories have, thus far, been performed in covariant gauges . In the present work, following the lines of , we will study the noncommutative pure Chern-Simons in the axial gauge  and present explicit calculations at one loop. In the axial gauge, we have the advantage of ghost decoupling as well as various cancellations. In this way, we show, using the BRST as well as the vector supersymmetry of noncommutative Chern-Simons theories, that the one loop result can be extended to all orders.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we introduce the noncommutative Chern-Simons theory by giving its action and study the theory in the homogeneous axial gauge. Then, we show the BRST invariance and the vector supersymmetry of the gauge-fixed action. Using these symmetries we find the proper set of Ward identities, which allows us to conclude that this is a free theory. Explicit one loop calculations are presented in section 3 where we also show that ghosts decouple in the axial gauge in any noncommutative gauge theory. The last section is devoted to some concluding remarks.

## 2 Noncommutative Chern-Simons Theory

In this section, we discuss various aspects of the noncommutative pure Chern-Simons theory defined by

$$S_{\mathrm{NCCS}}=m_Mϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }\mathrm{Tr}\left(A_\mu _\nu A_\lambda +\frac{2ig}{3}A_\mu A_\nu A_\lambda \right).$$
(2.3)
Here, the star product is defined in Eq. (1.2), $`A_\mu `$ takes values in the Lie algebra $`u(N)`$ (Hermitian $`N\times N`$ matrices) and “Tr” stands for the trace over the $`u(N)`$ indices in the representation where the generators satisfy $`\mathrm{Tr}t^At^B=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{AB}`$. We assume that the base manifold $`M`$ can be separated into a two dimensional (noncommutative) subspace times $`R`$ or $`S^1`$ and further assume that the $``$-product (Eq. (1.2)) can be defined on the two dimensional part of this manifold. The $``$-product with constant $`\theta `$ can only be realized on flat manifolds, namely, noncommutative plane, noncommutative cylinder and the noncommutative torus. Here we present our calculations for the case of a noncommutative plane, although the same arguments and results hold true also for noncommutative cylinder and torus.

The action in Eq. (2.3) is invariant under the infinitesimal gauge transformations

$$A_\mu A_\mu +_\mu \lambda +ig\left(\lambda A_\mu A_\mu \lambda \right)=D_\mu \lambda ,\lambda u(N)$$
(2.4)
Under a finite gauge transformation, however, this action changes by a constant (the Lagrangian density changes by a total derivative) and the consistency of the theory then requires that the coefficient of the Chern-Simons action should be quantized. We note that this result does not depend on $`\theta `$ and is also true for NC$`U(1)`$ case. In fact, the $`\theta 0`$ limit is not a smooth one. This non-smoothness can be understood noting Eq. (1.1) and the fact that, in the noncommutative case (no matter how small $`\theta `$ is), we deal with functions with countable number of degrees of freedom (for a proper representation, see e.g. ), while in the commutative case this is uncountable.

The pure Chern-Simons theory is a topological theory (both in the commutative and the noncommutative cases) since the action does not depend on a metric. However, a gauge fixing and the corresponding ghost actions would depend on a metric and one might wonder whether the topological nature of such theories will be destroyed by quantum corrections. In the case of a commutative pure Chern-Simons theory, it is known that the full theory including gauge fixing and ghosts is completely free (when suitably regularized) . In fact, this is why the theory is topological. It is, therefore, interesting to ask if a similar conclusion holds for the noncommutative pure Chern-Simons theory. To analyze this question, let us recall that it is in the axial gauge that the free nature of the commutative pure Chern-Simons theory is best seen. In the noncommutative case, on the other hand, there is a possibility of UV/IR mixing  and it is well known that the axial gauge is not particularly suitable in the presence of IR divergences. Consequently, this question becomes even more interesting and non-trivial in the present case.

The theory is defined in the homogeneous axial gauge $`n^\mu A_\mu =0`$, where $`n^\mu `$ is a fixed direction in space, by adding a gauge fixing and ghost action of the forms (the definition of the covariant derivative is given in Eq. (2.4)and, for simplicity, we will assume $`n^2=1`$)

$$S_{\mathrm{gf}}+S_{\mathrm{ghost}}=_M\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{\xi }(nA)(nA)+\overline{c}(nDc)\right)$$
(2.5)
to our theory and looking at the theory in the limit $`\xi 0`$. Alternately, one can define the gauge fixing and the ghost actions with an auxiliary field (Lagrange multiplier field) of the form

$$S_{\mathrm{gf}}+S_{\mathrm{ghost}}=_M\mathrm{Tr}\left(F(nA)+\overline{c}(nDc)\right).$$
(2.6)
The Feynman rules can be read out from the theory

$$S=S_{\mathrm{NCCS}}+S_{\mathrm{gf}}+S_{\mathrm{ghost}}$$
(2.7)
We note that the gauge and the ghost propagators take the simple forms

$`D_{\mu \nu }^{AB}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{m}}\delta ^{AB}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{n^\lambda }{(np)}},`$
$`D^{AB}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\delta ^{AB}}{(np)}}.`$ (2.8)
Here $`A,B=0,1,\mathrm{},N^21`$ are the $`u(N)`$ indices, which is the same as the commutative case (for more details, see ). It is important to note that, in the homogeneous axial gauge, the gauge propagator is transverse to $`n^\mu `$, namely,

$$n^\mu D_{\mu \nu }^{AB}(p)=0.$$
(2.9)
The interaction vertices can also be read out quite easily and have the forms

$`\mathrm{Three}\mathrm{gluon}\mathrm{vertex}:`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{ABC}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=mgϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }Q_\theta ^{ABC}(p_1,p_2,p_3)\delta ^3(p_1+p_2+p_3),`$
$`\mathrm{Ghost}\mathrm{gluon}\mathrm{vertex}:`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{ABC}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=gn^\mu Q_\theta ^{ABC}(p_1,p_2,p_3)\delta ^3(p_1+p_2+p_3),`$ (2.10)
where

$$Q_\theta ^{ABC}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=(f^{ABC}\mathrm{cos}\frac{p_1\theta p_2}{2}d^{ABC}\mathrm{sin}\frac{p_1\theta p_2}{2}).$$
(2.11)
For $`f^{ABC}`$ and $`d^{ABC}`$ factors and their normalizations we use the conventions of , i.e. if we denote the generators on $`u(N)`$ by $`t^A`$, then,

$$t^At^B=\frac{i}{2}f^{ABC}t^C+\frac{1}{2}d^{ABC}t^C,$$
(2.12)
where $`f^{ABC}`$ is totally anti-symmetry and $`d^{ABC}`$ completely symmetric. Also, $`t^0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`f^{0AB}=0`$ and $`d^{0AB}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{N}}\delta ^{AB}`$.

It is immediately clear from the Feynman rules of the theory that because the ghost interaction vertex involves a factor of $`n^\mu `$, and that the gauge propagator is transverse to this direction, there can be no quantum correction to the ghost two point and three point functions. In other words, the wave function and the vertex renormalization for the ghosts is trivial, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1=1=\stackrel{~}{Z}_3`$. This also happens in the commutative gauge theories in the axial gauge. In fact, in the commutative theories, one can show that the ghosts decouple completely from the theory in the axial gauge. Here, we see that the ghosts decouple, at least in diagrams involving open ghost lines. It is not a priori clear that the ghosts would decouple in diagrams involving closed loops. We will come to this issue shortly.

### 2.1 BRST symmetry

Even though gauge fixing and ghost Lagrangians break the $`u(N)`$ gauge invariance of Eq. (2.4), the full theory is invariant under the fermionic BRST symmetry

$`\delta A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\omega (D_\mu c)`$
$`\delta c^A`$ $`=`$ $`ig\omega cc`$
$`\delta \overline{c}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega F`$
$`\delta F`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (2.13)
Here, $`\omega `$ is a constant anti-commuting parameter of transformation and the invariance of the total action is easily seen in the formulation with the auxiliary field. It is in this formulation also that the BRST symmetry is nilpotent off-shell. One can now derive the Ward identities (Slavnov-Taylor identities) of the theory following from the BRST invariance in a standard manner. Without going into details, we simply note that the Ward identities take the form

$$_M\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta A_\mu }\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta K^\mu }\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta c}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta K}+F\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{c}}\right)=0,$$
(2.14)
where $`K^\mu `$ and $`K`$ are sources for the composite BRST variations $`D_\mu c`$ and $`icc`$ respectively. This form of the Slavnov-Taylor identity holds in any gauge. However, it leads to very interesting consequences in the axial gauge. For example, as we have already noted, in the axial gauge ghosts decouple, at least in diagrams involving open ghost lines because of the structure of the ghost interaction as well as Eq. (2.9). As a result, the terms in the effective action involving the sources $`K^\mu `$ and $`K`$ do not renormalize either, much like the ghost fields and the ghost interaction vertex. An immediate consequence of this is the fact that, in the axial gauge, the wave function and the vertex renormalization for the gauge fields are equal, namely, $`Z_1=Z_3`$. This does not, however, imply that they are trivial.

It is worth pointing out here that, in the axial gauge, the complete two point function can be parameterized, in general, as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}(p)=\delta ^{AB}\left(imϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }p^\lambda (1+\mathrm{\Pi }_2(p^2))+(p^\mu \frac{p^2n^\mu }{np})(p^\nu \frac{p^2n^\nu }{np})\mathrm{\Pi }_3(p^2)\right)$$
(2.15)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3`$ represent quantum corrections to the two tensor structures. This implies that we can determine the Chern-Simons coefficient (including the quantum corrections) from the complete two point function as

$$m(1+\mathrm{\Pi }_2(0))\delta ^{AB}=\frac{i}{6}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}(p)}{p^\lambda }|_{p=0}$$
(2.16)
### 2.2 Vector supersymmetry

In addition to the BRST invariance, the total action possesses another fermionic symmetry, namely, under

$`\delta A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }ϵ^\nu n^\lambda c`$
$`\delta c`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\delta \overline{c}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^\mu A_\mu `$
$`\delta F`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^\mu _\mu c`$ (2.17)
the total action can be easily checked to be invariant. Here, $`ϵ^\mu `$ is a constant anti-commuting vector parameter. It is interesting to note that, unlike the BRST symmetry, these symmetry transformations are linear in the field variables. Consequently, the corresponding Ward identities can be derived without the need for any extra sources (there are no composite variations) and take the form

$$_M\left(ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta A^\nu }cn^\lambda \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta F}^\mu c+A^\mu \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{c}}\right)=0$$
(2.18)
While the usual Slavnov-Taylor identities in Eq. (2.14) only imply $`Z_1=Z_3`$ (and nothing about the triviality of these quantities) in the axial gauge, the identities following from the vector supersymmetry lead to the fact that this is a free theory. For example, differentiating Eq. (2.18) with respect to $`\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta A^\mu \delta c}`$ and setting all fields equal to zero, we obtain (in momentum space),

$$ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta A^\mu (p)\delta A^\nu (p)}n_\lambda +ip^\mu \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta A^\mu (p)\delta F(p)}3\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{c}(p)\delta c(p)}=0$$
(2.19)
Since neither the ghost two point function nor the mixing of the auxiliary field with the gauge field are renormalized in the axial gauge, it immediately follows that the two point function for the gauge field is not renormalized for this theory either. Similarly, one can show from Eq. (2.18) (taking higher derivatives) that the gauge three point vertex, in this theory, is not renormalized as well, i.e. the theory is a free theory.

Thus, formally, we have shown that, in the axial gauge, the noncommutative pure Chern-Simons theory is a free theory and, consequently, the Chern-Simons coefficient is not renormalized at all. All of this, of course, depends heavily on the identities following from the vector supersymmetry invariance of the theory. Hence, such a conclusion will hold as long as we regularize the theory maintaining this symmetry. If, on the other hand, the regularization breaks this symmetry, such a conclusion will not hold and one may have anomalous contributions. It is worth pointing out here that, in literature, the pure Chern-Simons theory has been considered as the heavy mass limit of the Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons theory (namely, $`m\mathrm{}`$) . In this case, one can think of the Yang-Mills theory as providing a regularization. However, the Yang-Mills theory, itself, is not invariant under the vector supersymmetry transformations of Eq. (2.17) (the same holds true in the Landau gauge as well.). Consequently, regularizing the theory in this manner violates the vector supersymmetry invariance and we would not expect our conclusion on the free nature of the theory to hold in this case. In fact, as is well known, the calculations from the Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons theory in the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$ show a shift of the Chern-Simons coefficient at the one loop level. However, this shift is a quantized one in both noncommutative and commutative theories .

## 3 One-Loop Calculations

The arguments of the last section on the free nature of the noncommutative pure Chern-Simons theory were based on algebraic identities and were quite formal. It is, therefore, essential to check these through an explicit one loop calculation. This is also important from another point of view. Namely, in the axial gauge in commutative theories, one knows that a consistent prescription for handling unconventional poles is the principal value prescription. It is not clear whether such a prescription will continue to hold in the noncommutative case. Furthermore, an explicit calculation is likely to shade light on the question of ghost decoupling in closed loops in this theory.

The calculation of the self-energy, at one loop, is trivial. From the Feynman rules in Eqs. (2.8,2.10,2.11), one can write down the ghost and the gauge contribution to the gauge self-energy as (all momenta are defined as incoming and we are ignoring factors of $`(2\pi )^3`$ in the integrals)

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(1)AB(ghost)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`g^2n^\mu n^\nu {\displaystyle d^3k\frac{Q_\theta ^{ACD}(p,(k+p),k)Q_\theta ^{BDC}(p,k,k+p)}{(nk)(n(k+p))}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(1)AB(gauge)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`g^2n^\mu n^\nu {\displaystyle d^3k\frac{Q_\theta ^{ACD}(p,(k+p),k)Q_\theta ^{BDC}(p,k,k+p)}{(nk)(n(k+p))}}`$ (3.20)
The two contributions cancel each other and, consequently, the correction to the self-energy identically vanishes,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(1)AB}(p)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(1)AB(ghost)}(p)+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(1)(gauge)}(p)=0$$
(3.21)
This is completely consistent with our conclusions in the last section. Without giving details, we simply comment here that each of the two integrals in (3.20) can be evaluated (see discussion below for the triangle graph) and be shown to vanish individually. Thus, even if the ghost and the gauge loop corrections to self-energy did not cancel each other, their individual contributions would have been trivial. This is important because it shows that the ghosts do not contribute in the closed self-energy loop. On the other hand, the fact that the two contributions identically cancel each other has important consequence at finite temperature, as we will argue in the last section.

In analyzing the correction to the gauge interaction vertex, we note that, in the axial gauge, the usual Slavnov-Taylor identity, $`Z_1=Z_3`$, would imply that there should be no correction to the triangle graph as well. However, if we naively write down the ghost and the gauge contributions to the triangle graph, they take the forms (One has to add the contribution from the crossed graph as well, which we are neglecting for the moment.)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(1)ABC(ghost)}(p_1,p_2,(p_1+p_2))=`$ (3.22)
$`=`$ $`ig^3n_\mu n_\nu n_\lambda {\displaystyle d^3kQ_\theta ^{AA^{}C^{}}(p_1,(k+p_1),k)Q_\theta ^{BB^{}A^{}}(p_2,(k+p_1+p_2),k+p_1)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{Q_\theta ^{CC^{}B^{}}((p_1+p_2),k,k+p_1+p_2)}{(nk)(n(k+p_1))(n(k+p_1+p_2))}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(1)ABC(gauge)}(p_1,p_2,(p_1+p_2))`$
$`=`$ $`2ig^3n_\mu n_\nu n_\lambda {\displaystyle d^3kQ_\theta ^{AA^{}C^{}}(p_1,(k+p_1),k)Q_\theta ^{BB^{}A^{}}(p_2,(k+p_1+p_2),k+p_1)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{Q_\theta ^{CC^{}B^{}}((p_1+p_2),k,k+p_1+p_2)}{(nk)(n(k+p_1))(n(k+p_1+p_2))}}`$
Therefore, the ghost and the gauge contributions do not seem to cancel each other in the triangle graph. Let us note that these graphs are logarithmic divergent by naive power counting and, therefore, if they do not vanish, then this would require adding counter terms that explicitly depend on $`n^\mu `$. Such counter terms are known to exist in a general axial gauge , but do not arise in the homogeneous axial gauge (in commutative theories). Moreover, the triangle diagram, if it does not vanish would violate the Slavnov-Taylor identities of the theory. Therefore, we analyze the structure of these graphs carefully in some detail.

Let us recall that in the commutative gauge theories (in axial gauge) integrals of the kind

$$d^nk\frac{1}{(nk)\mathrm{}(n(k+p_1+\mathrm{}+p_{m1}))}$$

can all be regularized to zero using dimensional regularization . (This is, in fact, one of the ways to see that ghosts decouple in the axial gauge.) It is not, however, clear whether this holds in noncommutative gauge theories, where the interaction vertices involve nontrivial phase factors. Let us, therefore, analyze the basic integral of the kind

$$I=d^3k\frac{e^{ikp}}{(nk)(n(k+p_1))(n(k+p_1+p_2))}$$
(3.23)
where $`p^\mu `$ is an arbitrary, external variable. First, we note that combining fractions, we can write the denominator of the integrand also as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(np_1)(n(p_1+p_2))(nk)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(np_1)(np_2(n(k+p_1))}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(np_2)(n(p_1+p_2))(n(k+p_1+p_2))}}`$ (3.24)
Using Eq. (3.24) in (3.23) and shifting variables of integration, we obtain

$$I=\left[\frac{1}{(np_1)(n(p_1+p_2))}\frac{e^{ip_1p}}{(np_1)(np_2)}+\frac{e^{(p_1+p_2)p}}{(np_2)(n(p_1+p_2))}\right]\overline{I}$$
(3.25)
where

$$\overline{I}=d^3k\frac{e^{ikp}}{(nk)}$$
(3.26)
which can be evaluated using the principal value prescription (standard in axial gauges)  to give

$$\overline{I}^{PV}=\delta ^2(p^T)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \frac{e^{i\omega (np)}}{\omega }=i\pi sgn(np)\delta ^2(p^T)$$
(3.27)
Here, we have decomposed $`p^\mu `$ into longitudinal and transverse directions with respect to $`n^\mu `$ and $`p^{\mu T}`$ represents the transverse component. We could also have used the Feynman prescription to evaluate the integral, which would have given

$$\overline{I}^F=2i\pi \theta (np)\delta ^2(p^T)$$
(3.28)
where $`\theta `$ represents the conventional step function (and not the parameter of noncommutativity). There are several things to note here. First of all, unlike in the commutative theories (when there is no phase), such an integral is not automatically zero. Second, we note that, even in the presence of a phase factor, such an integral has a finite value whether we use the principal value prescription or the Feynman prescription for the pole, implying that there is no IR/UV mixing. In the following discussion, we will use the principal value prescription, but our conclusion, as will become clear, holds for the other case as well.

Using Eq. (3.27) in (3.25), we can write

$`{\displaystyle d^3k\frac{\mathrm{cos}kp}{(nk)(n(k+p_1))(n(k+p_1+p_2))}}`$
$`=`$ $`\pi sgn(np)\delta ^2(p^T)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}p_1p}{(np_1)(np_2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(p_1+p_2)p}{(np_2)(n(p_1+p_2))}}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle d^3k\frac{\mathrm{sin}kp}{(nk)(n(k+p_1))(n(k+p_1+p_2))}}`$
$`=`$ $`\pi sgn(np)\delta ^2(p^T)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(np_1)(n(p_1+p_2))}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}p_1p}{(np_1)(np_2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(p_1+p_2)p}{(np_2)(n(p_1+p_2))}}\right]`$
These are the two basic integrals we will need to analyze the triangle graph. With these, let us go back to the triangle graph. Each of the integrands involves four possible group theoretic structures and using Eq. (3) as well as simple trigonometric identities. It is easy to check that terms with an odd number of factors of $`d^{ABC}`$ (namely, three $`d^{ABC}`$ or two $`f^{ABC}`$ and one $`d^{ABC}`$) identically vanish. On the other hand, terms with an even number of factors of $`d^{ABC}`$ (no $`d^{ABC}`$ or one $`f^{ABC}`$ and two $`d^{ABC}`$) do not. It is worth noting that, as we expect, there are “planar” and “non-planar” parts, in the sense that after some trigonometric gymnastics, we find two generic types of integrals. One type has the $`\theta `$ dependent phase factor not involving the loop-momentum, these are the planar parts. Essentially the form of the planar loop integrals are the same as the commutative case and hence they vanish after regularization. The second type has the noncommutative phase factor dependent on loop-momentum $`k`$, and this is the non-planar part. These are the integrals we are concerned with here. The terms with three factors of $`f^{ABC}`$ can be evaluated using Eq. (3) and have the form (neglecting an overall factor)

$`I_1^{ABC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi N}{4}}f^{ABC}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1\theta p_2}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{sgn(n\theta p_1)\delta ^2((\theta p_1)^T)}{(np_2)(n(p_1+p_2))}}+{\displaystyle \frac{sgn(n\theta p_2)}{(np_1)(n(p_1+p_2))}}`$ (3.30)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{sgn(n\theta (p_1+p_2)\delta ^2((\theta (p_1+p_2))^T)}{(np_1)(np_2)}}]`$
The terms involving one factor of $`f`$ and two $`d`$’s can similarly be evaluated to give

$`I_2^{ABC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi N}{4}}f^{ABC}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1\theta p_2}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{sgn(n\theta p_1)\delta ^2((\theta p_1)^T)}{(np_2)(n(p_1+p_2))}}+{\displaystyle \frac{sgn(n\theta p_2)}{(np_1)(n(p_1+p_2))}}`$ (3.31)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{sgn(n\theta (p_1+p_2)\delta ^2((\theta (p_1+p_2))^T)}{(np_1)(np_2)}}]`$
Here, we have used various group theoretic identities (given in ) to simplify the final structure. It is clear now, that even though the individual contributions to the triangle graph of the structures $`fff`$ and $`fdd`$ are finite and nonzero, the sum identically vanishes.

$$I_1^{ABC}+I_2^{ABC}=0$$
(3.32)
In other words, each of the two integrands in Eqs. (3.22) individually vanishes and, consequently, there is no correction to the gauge interaction vertex. This is, of course, exactly what we had concluded from the identities following from vector supersymmetry. More importantly, though, it shows that the ghosts in closed loops decouple in this theory, both in the self-energy and the triangle graphs. With these results, one can show from Eq. (2.14), with a little bit of analysis, that in this theory, for $`n4`$,

$$p_{n,\mu _n}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A_1,\mathrm{},A_n}^{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _n}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)=0$$
(3.33)
which is true for every external momentum. The $`n`$-point function, of course, gets contributions from a ghost loop as well as a gauge loop. Both of them have the same structure (as we have already seen in the case of the triangle graph), but different coefficients (the different coefficient for the gauge loop arises primarily because of the contractions of the $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ tensors). Therefore, they cannot cancel each other. Rather, the ghost loop as well as the gauge loop have to be individually transverse to the external momenta. However, each of these graphs is proportional to $`n^{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _n}`$ and, therefore, can be transverse to the external momenta provided it is proportional to $`\delta (np_1)\mathrm{}\delta (np_n)`$. On the other hand, by the method of combining fractions, we can show that each of these graphs is proportional to $`\overline{I}`$ (multiplied by factors of trigonometric functions of external momenta) which we have already evaluated and which does not have this property. Consequently, it follows that, for Eq. (3.33) to hold, each of the graphs must vanish independently. This, therefore, shows that the theory is truly free. More than that it shows that ghosts in closed loops do not contribute. With our earlier result that ghosts in open lines do not contribute in the axial gauge, it is clear that, in this theory, ghosts completely decouple. Furthermore, since the structure of the ghost propagator and the ghost interaction vertex in the axial gauge is independent of the nature of the gauge theory we are considering (we may have a more complicated theory such as a noncommutative Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons theory or a noncommutative Yang-Mills theory, for example), the ghost loop will vanish independent of the theory we are considering. Therefore, we have proved the more general result that the ghosts completely decouple in the axial gauge in a noncommutative gauge theory.

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper, we have studied systematically the structure of noncommutative pure Chern-Simons theory in the homogeneous axial gauge. There are many interesting results that one finds in this theory. First, of all, we have shown that there is no problem in using the homogeneous axial gauge in such theories and the principal value prescription makes individual integrals well behaved. At one loop, we have shown that there is no quantum correction, which is consistent with the conclusion that this is a free theory. Such a conclusion follows from the identities coming from the vector supersymmetry of the theory together with the usual Slavnov-Taylor identities. Our one loop calculation shows that there is no IR/UV mixing and that the Slavnov-Taylor identities hold in such theories in the axial gauge. In fact, the quantum behavior of this noncommutative theory is very much like its commutative counterpart . Without going into details, let us simply note here that, since Slavnov-Taylor identities hold in the axial gauge in this theory, by a generalization of the arguments in , it can also be shown, in the noncommutative Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons theory, that there is no correction to the Chern-Simons coefficient beyond one loop in the axial gauge. Another way of saying this is that the ratio $`\frac{4\pi m}{g^2}`$ receives no correction beyond one loop in any gauge. This is quite important from the point of view of the consistency of the theory under large gauge transformations. Finally, let us note that it has been proposed to use the noncommutative pure Chern-Simons theory to describe quantum Hall effect. In this connection, the behavior of the Chern-Simons coefficient at finite temperature is quite crucial, if it were to describe a phase transition. We note that, at finite temperature, gauge fields and ghosts obey the same statistics  so that the finite temperature propagators, in the axial gauge (in real time formalism), have the forms

$`D_{\mu \nu }^{AB(\beta )}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\delta ^{AB}}{m}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }n^\lambda \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{np}}2i\pi n_B(|p^0|)\delta (np)\right)`$
$`D^{AB(\beta )}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta ^{AB}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{np}}2i\pi n_B(|p^0|)\delta (np)\right)`$ (4.34)
Since there is no modification of the interaction vertices at finite temperature, from the forms of Eqs. (3.20) and (4.34), it is clear that the correction to the self-energy will vanish even at finite temperature in the noncommutative pure Chern-Simons theory. As a result, the Chern-Simons coefficient cannot have a temperature dependence and, consequently, it would appear that such a model may not have a satisfactory behavior to describe quantum Hall phase transitions. More precisely, the quantum Hall fluid-Wigner crystal phase transition cannot be driven by temperature effects. So, it seems that the noncommutative Chern-Simons approximation is not enough for describing this phase transition.

We would like to thank the organizers of the $`37^{th}`$ Karpacz Winter School, where this work was started, for hospitality and a warm atmosphere. One of us (A.D.) would like to thank Profs. J. Frenkel and J. C. Taylor for many helpful discussions, particularly, in connection with the evaluation of the axial gauge integrals. This work was supported in part by US DOE Grant No. DE-FG-02-91ER40685.


format: text

text:
# Ferromagnetic Fixed Point of the Kondo Model in a Luttinger Liquid

## I Introduction

The Kondo problem in one-dimensional quantum system has attracted substantial interest in connection with the recent rapid development of the nanofabrication technology. In one-dimension, interacting electron system is described by the Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid theory, whose low- energy excitations are not quasiparticles but collective charge and spin density fluctuations. The magnetic impurity effect in this non-Fermi liquid was first studied by Lee and Toner using a scaling analysis on the kink gas action . They obtained the scaling equation to the first order of coupling constant in the weak coupling regime. Furusaki and Nagaosa(FN) extended the study and obtained a set of scaling equation up to the second order using the poor man’s scaling theory. In their study, FN proposed an interesting conjecture that even ferromagnetic Kondo impurity as well as antiferromagnetic one would be completely screened. In the antiferromagnetic coupling case, the coupling constant flows to a strong coupling regime and, thus, the magnetic impurity and a conduction electron form a singlet. But, in the ferromagnetic case, situation is not clear whether it flows into a strong coupling regime or not. In order to clarify the situation, FN considered coupling of impurity spins not only with the same site electrons but also with the nearest neighbor conduction electrons. In this picture, the impurity and three conduction electrons form a singlet composite. However, a recent Bethe ansatz(BA) result by the Wang and Voit showed that spins form a triplet for the ferromagnetic coupling case. These conflicting results call for a more detailed renormalization group(RG) analysis to clarify the physical situation.

In this paper, we carry out an RG analysis which goes beyond the poor man’s scaling scheme in the presence of the Kondo interaction. We bosonize the Kondo interaction term using the Abelian bosonization. Carrying out a full RG calculation for the second order cumulant, we obtain a set of general scaling equations valid for an arbitrary strength of the Luttinger interaction. We show that the present RG calculation confirms the calculation drawn from the BA calculation using an open boundary condition.

Another recent BA study of the same problem by Wang and Eckern showed that there is a competition between the Kondo coupling and the impurity potential. When the impurity potential is dominant, the system is shown to flow to a weak coupling fixed point. However, when the magnetic interaction is dominant, a spin complex is shown to be formed. In order to investigate this problem, we bosonize the potential scattering term and perform a scaling calculation. The result shows that the magnetic interaction and the potential scattering do not interplay in the scaling procedure and flow independently.

In the first order scaling, the Kondo temperature in the Luttinger can be calculated analytically to show a power-law behavior in contrast to the exponential one of the conventional Kondo model . However, it is not possible to show the crossover from the Fermi to the Luttinger liquid in the first order. In this paper, we study the crossover behavior of the Kondo temperature from the exponential to the power-law type as a function of the Luttinger interaction, by solving the RG equations.

## II Bosonization of the Kondo Hamiltonian and the Partition Function

Introducing the two phase fields,

$`\varphi _\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\alpha |p|/2ipx}}{p}}\left(\nu _+(p)+\nu _{}(p)\right)\left(N_{+\nu }+N_\nu \right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi x}{L}},`$ (1)
$`\theta _\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\alpha |p|/2ipx}}{p}}\left(\nu _+(p)\nu _{}(p)\right)+\left(N_{+\nu }N_\nu \right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi x}{L}},`$ (2)
the one-dimensional model Hamiltonian with the forward electron-electron scattering is written by

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left(v_\nu \eta _\nu \pi ^2\pi _\nu ^2(x)+\frac{v_\nu }{\eta _\nu }\left(\frac{\varphi _\nu (x)}{x}\right)^2\right)},`$ (3)
where $`\nu =\rho `$ or $`\sigma `$, $`+()`$ means right(left) going mode, and the parameter $`v_\nu `$ and $`\eta _\nu `$ are given by

$`v_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\left(v_F+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{4\nu }}{\pi }}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_{2\nu }}{\pi }}\right)^2},\eta _\nu =\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v_F+\frac{g_{4\nu }g_{2\nu }}{\pi }}{v_F+\frac{g_{4\nu }+g_{2\nu }}{\pi }}}}.`$ (4)
Here, $`g_2`$ and $`g_4`$ are the dimensionless coupling parameters. The fields $`\varphi _\nu `$ and $`\pi _\nu `$ satisfy the canonical boson commutation relation;

$`[\varphi _\nu (x),\pi _\nu ^{}(x^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\delta (xx^{}),`$ (5)
$`[\varphi _\nu (x),\theta _\nu ^{}(x^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\delta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\text{sign}(x^{}x),\theta _\nu (x)=\pi {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^x}\pi _\nu (y)𝑑y.`$ (6)
Alternatively, this Hamiltonian can also be obtained directly from the fermion representation of the one dimensional interacting electron system using

$`\psi _{rs}(x)=\underset{\alpha 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ir\left(k_F\frac{\pi }{L}\right)x}}{\sqrt{2\pi \alpha }}}\eta _{rs}e^{\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left(r\varphi _\rho (x)\theta _\rho (x)+s\left(r\varphi _\sigma (x)\theta _\sigma (x)\right)\right)},`$ (7)
where $`\eta _{rs}`$ is the Majorana fermion operator which satisfies the following relations;

$`[\eta _{rs},\eta _{r^{}s^{}}]`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta _{rr^{}}\delta _{ss^{}}`$ (8)
$`\eta _+\eta _+=\eta _{}\eta _{},\eta _+\eta _{}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{}\eta _+,\eta _+\eta _{}=\eta _+\eta _{}\mathrm{}`$ (9)
If a single magnetic impurity is introduced in one-dimensional interacting electron system, the Kondo interaction term is given by

$`H_K`$ $`=`$ $`J\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{s}(0)`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`J_zS_zs_z(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{}(S_+s_{}(0)+S_{}s_+(0)),`$ (11)
where $`\stackrel{}{s}=\frac{1}{2}_{rr^{}\sigma \sigma ^{}}\psi _{r\sigma }^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\psi _{r^{}\sigma ^{}}`$ and $`s_\pm =s_x\pm is_y`$. Using the relations of the Majorana fermions, Eq.(6), and the bosonization formula of the fermion operators, we obtain the bosonized Kondo Hamiltonian,

$`H_K`$ $`=`$ $`J\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{s}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S_z}{2\pi \alpha }}(J_{zF}\alpha _x\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (0)+2iJ_{zB}\eta _+\eta _{}\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\rho (0))\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (0)))`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S_+}{2\pi \alpha }}e^{\sqrt{2}i\theta _\sigma (0)}(J_F\eta _+\eta _+\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (0))+iJ_B\eta _+\eta _{}\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\rho (0)))`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S_{}}{2\pi \alpha }}e^{\sqrt{2}i\theta _\sigma (0)}(J_F\eta _+\eta _+\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (0))iJ_B\eta _{}\eta _+\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\rho (0))).`$ (15)
The partition function of the system at temperature $`T=1/\beta `$ is

$`Z={\displaystyle }`$ $`D\varphi _\rho D\varphi _\sigma D\theta _\rho D\theta _\sigma e^S,`$ (16)
$`S`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑\tau (L_0+L_K)},`$ (17)
$`L_0`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\nu =\rho ,\sigma }{}}\left(i_\tau \varphi _\nu (x,\tau )\pi _\nu (x,\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left(v_\nu \eta _\nu \pi ^2\pi _\nu ^2(x,\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{v_\nu }{\eta _\nu }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\nu (x,\tau )}{x}}\right)^2\right)\right),`$ (18)
$`L_K`$ $`=H_K(\varphi _\nu (0,\tau ),\theta _\nu (0,\tau )),`$ (19)
where the integration is over the bosonic fields $`\varphi _\nu (x,\tau )`$ and $`\theta _\nu (x,\tau )`$ with imaginary time $`\tau `$ running from 0 to $`\beta `$.

## III Renormalization Analysis

First, we divide the phase fields $`\varphi _\nu `$ into slow and fast mode:

$`\varphi _\nu (\tau )=\varphi _{\nu s}(\tau )`$ $`+`$ $`\varphi _{\nu f}(\tau )`$ (20)
$`\varphi _{\nu s}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{|\omega _n|<\mu }{}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _\nu }(\omega )e^{i\omega \tau }`$ (21)
$`\varphi _{\nu f}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu <|\omega _n|<\lambda }{}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _\nu }(\omega )e^{i\omega \tau }.`$ (22)
The average over the fast mode of the partition function is carried out, using the cumulant expansion,

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`Z_0<e^{S_K}>_0`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`Z_0{\displaystyle D\varphi _{\nu s}D\theta _{\nu s}e^{S_0(\varphi _{\nu s},\theta _{\nu s})}e^{<S_K>_0^f+\frac{1}{2}(<S_{K}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}>_0^f<S_K>_{0}^{f}{}_{}{}^{2})+\mathrm{}}},`$ (24)
where $`Z_0=D\varphi _\nu D\theta _\nu e^{S_0}`$, f indicates an average over the fast mode which will be omitted hereafter, and $`<\mathrm{}>_0`$ represents an average over $`Z_0`$.

First, we consider the first order forward longitudinal scattering term,

$`<{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau J_{zF}\alpha _x\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau )}>={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau J_{zF}\alpha (_x\sqrt{2}\varphi _{\sigma s}(\tau )+<_x\sqrt{2}\varphi _{\sigma f}(\tau )>)}.`$ (25)
The second term in the right side vanishes because it is an average of an odd function. We, thus, conclude that $`\delta J_{zF}=0`$ in the first order. The backward longitudinal scattering part is scaled as follows,

$`{\displaystyle }d\tau J_{zB}\eta _+\eta _{}<\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\rho (\tau )><\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ))>`$ (26)
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\lambda }}\right)^{\frac{\eta _\rho }{2}+\frac{\eta _\sigma }{2}}{\displaystyle }d\tau J_{zB}\eta _+\eta _{}\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _{\rho s}(\tau )\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _{\sigma s}(\tau )).`$ (27)
In the above, we utilized the fact that the charge and spin degrees are separated. The rescaling procedure,

$`J_{zB}(\mu )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\lambda }}\right)^{\frac{\eta _\rho +\eta _\sigma }{2}1}J_{zB}(\lambda )`$ (28)
gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta J_{zB}}{J_{zB}}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\rho +\eta _\sigma }{2}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \lambda }{\lambda }},`$ (29)
where $`\mu =\lambda +\delta \lambda `$ and $`\delta l=\frac{\delta \lambda }{\lambda }=\delta \mathrm{ln}\lambda .`$ Thus, we have in the first order

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_{zF}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_{zB}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\rho +\eta _\sigma }{2}}\right)J_{zB}.`$ (31)
The scaling equations for the other scattering terms can be similarly obtained;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_F}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta _\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\sigma }{2}}\right)\right]J_F,`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_B}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta _\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\rho }{2}}\right)\right]J_B.`$ (33)
These equations are in agreement with those of Lee and Toner .

The second order cumulant is given by $`\frac{1}{2}(<S_K^2><S_K>^2)`$, where $`<S_K>^2`$ term is to eliminate unconnected diagrams. We consider one of the $`J_{zB}J_F`$ terms which is given by

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S_zS_+}{(2\pi \alpha )^2}}J_{zB}2i\eta _+\eta _{}J_F\eta _+\eta _+`$ (36)
$`(<\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\rho (\tau ))\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ))e^{\sqrt{2}i\theta _\sigma (\tau ^{})}cos(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ^{}))>`$
$`<\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\rho (\tau ))\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ))><e^{\sqrt{2}i\theta _\sigma (\tau ^{})}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ^{}))>).`$
In order to evaluate this expression, we need the two point correlation function

$`G(x,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`<\varphi (x,\tau )\varphi (0,0)>`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{2\pi }\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }e^{iqx}e^{i\omega \tau }\frac{\pi }{\frac{1}{v\eta }\omega ^2+\frac{v}{\eta }q^2}}`$ (38)
$`G(\tau )`$ $`G(0,\tau )`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\eta }{2}K_0(\mu \tau )\hfill & \text{for }\lambda \tau >>1\hfill \\ \frac{\eta }{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda }{\mu }\hfill & \text{for }\lambda \tau <<1,\hfill \end{array}`$ (42)
where $`K_0`$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind. $`G(\tau )`$ decays exponentially with the renormalized lattice spacing $`\frac{1}{\mu }`$, and decreases logarithmically for small $`\lambda \tau `$. Thus, we regard $`G(\tau )`$ short ranged and, thus, expand the cosine terms around zero. It is known that the higher harmonics $`\mathrm{cos}(2\sqrt{2}\varphi (0))`$ is irrelevant and $`((\varphi (\tau )/\tau )|_{\tau =0})^2`$ terms which is the most relevant term in the expansion can also be shown irrelevant by the power counting . Short time cut off, $`\tau _0\alpha /v_F`$, merely introduces an overall constant which does not affect the flow of the parameter. Therefore Eq.(18) is reduced to

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \frac{\alpha }{v_F}\frac{1}{(2\pi \alpha )^2}\frac{1}{2}S_+J_{zB}J_F(i\eta _+\eta _{})\left(\frac{\mu }{\lambda }\right)^{\frac{\eta _\rho }{2}+\frac{1}{2\eta _\sigma }+\eta _\sigma }\left(\left(\frac{\mu }{\lambda }\right)^{\eta _\sigma }1\right)e^{\sqrt{2}i\theta _\sigma (\tau )}\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\rho (\tau ))}.`$ (43)
Collecting other terms of the second order cumulant and rescaling as before, we have for the transverse backward part,

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \frac{S_+}{2\pi \alpha }i\eta _+\eta _{}\eta _\sigma J_{zB}J_F\frac{d\lambda }{\lambda }e^{\sqrt{2}i\theta _{\sigma s}(\tau )}\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _{\rho s}(\tau ))},`$ (44)
which renormalize the coupling constant $`J_B`$ of the Kondo term. Similarly, we have for the transverse forward scattering part which renormalizes the coupling constant $`J_F,`$

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \frac{S_+}{2\pi \alpha }\eta _+\eta _+\eta _\rho J_{zB}J_B\frac{d\lambda }{\lambda }e^{\sqrt{2}i\theta _\sigma (\tau )}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ))}.`$ (45)
The same scaling process on the $`S_{}`$ terms gives the same renormalization for both the $`J_B`$ and $`J_F`$.

However, the scaling process involving the descendant field terms, $`J_{zF}\alpha _x\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau )`$, is somewhat different. One example of such a term is the second order cumulant for the transverse forward scattering, which is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_zS_+}{(2\pi \alpha )^2}}J_{zF}J_F\eta _+\eta _+(<\alpha _x\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau )e^{i\sqrt{2}\theta _\sigma (\tau ^{})}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ^{})>`$ (46)
$`<\alpha _x\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau )><e^{i\sqrt{2}\theta _\sigma (\tau ^{})}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ^{}))>)`$ (47)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{S_zS_+}{(2\pi \alpha )^2}}J_{zF}J_F\eta _+\eta _+<\alpha _x\sqrt{2}\varphi _{\sigma f}(\tau )e^{i\sqrt{2}\theta _\sigma (\tau ^{})}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ^{}))>.`$ (48)
Here, we note that

$`<\alpha _x\sqrt{2}\varphi _{\sigma f}(\tau )e^{i\sqrt{2}\theta _\sigma (\tau ^{})}e^{i\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ^{})}>`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}<\alpha e^{iϵ\sqrt{2}\varphi _{\sigma f}(x,\tau )}e^{i\sqrt{2}\theta _\sigma (0,\tau ^{})}e^{i\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (0,\tau ^{})}>|_{x=0}.`$ (50)
Using $`e^{A+B}=e^Ae^Be^{\frac{1}{2}[A,B]},`$ the above expression takes a form,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{i}}(2_xG_{\varphi _{\sigma f}}(x,\tau )2_x<\varphi _{\sigma f}(x,\tau )\theta _{\sigma f}(0,0)>)|_{x=0}e^{G_{\theta _{\sigma f}}(0,0)G_{\theta _{\varphi f}}(0,0)}.`$ (51)
In order to calculate $`_x<\varphi _{\sigma f}(x,\tau )\theta _{\sigma f}(0,0)>`$, we use the relations between density field, $`\varphi _\sigma `$, and current field, $`\theta _\sigma `$ ;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\eta _\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\sigma }{(v_\sigma \tau )}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _\sigma }{x}},`$ (52)
$`i\eta _\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\theta _\sigma }{(v_\sigma \tau )}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\sigma }{x}}.`$ (53)
Then, we have

$`\alpha _x<\varphi _{\sigma f}(x,\tau )\theta _{\sigma f}(0,0)>`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \eta _\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{}{(v_\sigma \tau )}}<\theta _{\sigma f}(x,\tau )\theta _{\sigma f}(0,0)>`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{\lambda }},`$ (55)
using Eq.(19) with $`\frac{1}{\eta }\eta `$ and the short-ranged nature of the correlation function $`G(\tau )`$. Substituting this result into Eq.(23), we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha }}S_+\eta _+\eta _+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi v_F}}J_{zF}J_F{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{\lambda }}\right)e^{i\sqrt{2}\theta _\sigma (\tau )}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ))`$ (56)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha }}S_+\eta _+\eta _{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi v_F}}J_{zF}J_B{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{\lambda }}\right)e^{i\sqrt{2}\theta _\sigma (\tau )}\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\rho (\tau )),`$ (57)
for the renormalization of $`J_F`$ and $`J_B`$.

The longitudinal scattering parameter is scaled by consecutive transverse scattering processes. The forward scattering part which contains $`J_F^2`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_+S_{}}{(2\pi \alpha )^2}}J_F^2\eta _+\eta _+\eta _+\eta _+[<e^{\sqrt{2}i\theta _\sigma (\tau )}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ))e^{\sqrt{2}i\theta _\sigma (\tau ^{})}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ^{}))>`$ (58)
$`<e^{\sqrt{2}i\theta _\sigma (\tau )}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ))><e^{\sqrt{2}i\theta _\sigma (\tau ^{})}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ^{}))>].`$ (59)
The typical relevant term is given by

$`e^{\sqrt{2}i\theta _\sigma (\tau )}e^{\sqrt{2}i\theta _\sigma (\tau ^{})}e^{\sqrt{2}i\varphi _\sigma (\tau )}e^{\sqrt{2}i\varphi _\sigma (\tau ^{})}.`$ (60)
Other terms containing higher harmonics, $`e^{2\sqrt{2}i\theta _\sigma (\tau )}`$ or $`e^{2\sqrt{2}i\varphi _\sigma (\tau )}`$ are irrelevant . Separating the fields into the fast and slow mode, we average on the fast mode to obtain a short range correlation and expand the slow mode to obtain

$`1+i\sqrt{2}_\tau \theta _{\sigma s}(\tau )|_{\tau =0}\tau +i\sqrt{2}_\tau \varphi _{\sigma s}(\tau )|_{\tau =0}\tau +\mathrm{}.`$ (61)
We note that $`_\tau \theta _{\sigma s}(\tau )`$ gives the longitudinal scattering contribution, $`_x\varphi _{\sigma s}`$, through Eq.(26), while $`_\tau \varphi _{\sigma s}`$ term is canceled by other terms. Including the contributions from the $`S_{}S_+`$ term, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle }d\tau [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{S_z}{2\pi v_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta _\sigma }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta _\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\sigma }{2}})J_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{\lambda }}\alpha _x\sqrt{2}\varphi _{\sigma s}(\tau )`$ (62)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{S_z}{2\pi v_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta _\sigma }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta _\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\rho }{2}})J_B^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{\lambda }}\alpha \sqrt{2}\varphi _{\sigma s}(\tau )],`$ (63)
for the $`J_B^2`$ contribution to the $`J_{zF}`$ renormalization. Consecutive transverse scattering also renormalizes the longitudinal backward term, $`J_{zB},`$ similarly;

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \frac{S_z}{2\pi \alpha }2i\eta _+\eta _{}\frac{2}{2\pi v_F}\eta _\sigma J_FJ_B\frac{d\lambda }{\lambda }\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\rho (\tau ))\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ))}.`$ (64)
The last term to be considered in the second order cumulant expansion is the $`S_z^2J_{zF}^2`$ term. Scaling of this term, however, does not contribute to the magnetic interaction and, also, does not produce any relevant term for non-magnetic interaction. Collecting the results together, we now have the scaling equations to the second order;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_{zF}}{dl}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi v_F}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta _\sigma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta _\sigma }}+\eta _\sigma \right)J_F^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta _\sigma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta _\sigma }}+\eta _\rho \right)J_B^2\right),`$ (65)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_{zB}}{dl}}=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\sigma \eta _\rho }{2}}\right)J_{zB}`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi v_F}}2\eta _\sigma J_FJ_B,`$ (66)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_F}{dl}}=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\sigma +\frac{1}{\eta _\sigma }}{2}}\right)J_F`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi v_F}}(J_{zF}J_F+\eta _\rho J_{zB}J_B),`$ (67)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_B}{dl}}=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\sigma \eta _\rho }{2}}\right)J_B`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi v_F}}(J_{zF}J_B+\eta _\sigma J_{zB}J_F).`$ (68)
These equations can be simplified assuming the SU(2) symmetry for the conduction electrons ($`\eta _\sigma =1`$);

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(\rho _0J_{zF})}{dl}}=`$ $`(\rho _0J_F)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\eta _\rho }{2}}\right)(\rho _0J_B)^2`$ (69)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(\rho _0J_{zB})}{dl}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\eta _\rho }{2}}\right)(\rho _0J_{zB})+`$ $`2(\rho _0J_F)(\rho _0J_B)`$ (70)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(\rho _0J_F)}{dl}}=`$ $`(\rho _0J_{zF})(\rho _0J_F)+\eta _\rho (\rho _0J_{zB})(\rho _0J_B)`$ (71)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(\rho _0J_B)}{dl}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\eta _\rho }{2}}\right)(\rho _0J_B)+`$ $`(\rho _0J_{zF})(\rho _0J_B)+(\rho _0J_{zB})(\rho _0J_F),`$ (72)
where $`\rho _0(=1/2\pi v_F)`$ is proportional to the density of state. As we see later, for ferromagnetic J, the triplet ground state can be formed due to the interacton parameter $`\eta _\rho `$ in the second order term. In 1D correlated electron system, the electron-electron interaction induces a short range magnetic ordering which, in turn, introduces a molecular field on the magnetic impurity. Therefore, the impurity and a electron form a triplet aligned to the molecular field, thus, resulting the broken local SU(2) symmetry. These equations are naturally reduced to the scaling equations of the conventional Kondo model when there is no Luttinger interaction i.e. $`\eta _\sigma =1`$ and $`\eta _\rho =1.`$

So far, no assumption has been made on the strength of $`\eta _\rho (=[(1g/\pi v_F)/(1+g/\pi v_F)]^{\frac{1}{2}})`$. Here, g is the strength of scattering between the right-going and the left-going mode and the scattering within the same mode is neglected. In the small g regime, the above scaling equations are reduced as follows,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(\rho _0J_{zF})}{dl}}=`$ $`(\rho _0J_F)^2+(\rho _0J_B)^2{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\pi v_F}}(\rho _0J_B)^2`$ (73)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(\rho _0J_{zB})}{dl}}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\pi v_F}}(\rho _0J_{zB})+`$ $`2(\rho _0J_F)(\rho _0J_B)`$ (74)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(\rho _0J_F)}{dl}}=`$ $`(\rho _0J_{zF})(\rho _0J_F)+(\rho _0J_{zB})(\rho _0J_B){\displaystyle \frac{2g}{2\pi v_F}}(\rho _0J_{zB})(\rho _0J_B)`$ (75)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(\rho _0J_B)}{dl}}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\pi v_F}}(\rho _0J_B)+`$ $`(\rho _0J_{zF})(\rho _0J_B)+(\rho _0J_{zB})(\rho _0J_F).`$ (76)
We note that the above result is in agreement with the FN’s poor man’s scaling result except for the symmetry breaking terms involving the g parameter. In fact, the extra terms in our RG equations correspond to the next higher order terms which were neglected in the FN approach.

## IV The Ground State

The scaling equations yield two strong coupling fixed points; $`(J_F,J_B)=(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ and $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$. The first fixed point governs the antiferromagnetic regime, which gives the singlet as the ground state. The second one corresponds to the ferromagnetic coupling. However it is not clear whether this fixed point corresponds to a singlet or to a triplet state. We have calculated flows of the coupling constant for several values of the Luttinger interaction parameter, $`\eta `$, for the ferromagnetic fixed point. For finite $`\eta `$ other than unity, $`J_B/J_F<1`$ and $`J_B+J_F`$ flows to $`\mathrm{}`$, whereas $`J_B+J_F`$ is equal to zero when $`\eta =1`$(Fig. 1). When the coupling constant $`J`$ grows and becomes large, the Kondo coupling term becomes dominant in Eq.(35). Therefore, the Luttinger interaction becomes irrelevant and we can treat the impurity spin as a classical spin with the magnitude $`S=1/2`$.

The asymtotic Hamiltonian which represents this situation can be written as

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{rk\sigma }{}}ϵ_kc_{rk\sigma }^{}c_{rk\sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{rk,r^{}k^{},\sigma }{}}J_{rr^{}\sigma }c_{rk\sigma }^{}c_{r^{}k^{}\sigma ^{}},`$ (77)
where $`J_{11\sigma }=J_{22\sigma }=\sigma J_F`$ and $`J_{12\sigma }=J_{21\sigma }=\sigma J_B`$. The Luttinger interaction effect is included in the coupling constant through the renormalization process. The corresponding Green’s functions are given as follows ;

$`G_{11}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`G_{22}(ϵ)=G_0(ϵ)+G_0(ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{4}\sigma J_F}{1\frac{1}{4}\sigma (J_F+J_B)G_0(ϵ)}}G_0(ϵ),`$ (78)
$`G_{12}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`G_{21}(ϵ)=G_0(ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{4}\sigma J_B}{1\frac{1}{4}\sigma (J_F+J_B)G_0(ϵ)}}G_0(ϵ).`$ (79)
For $`\eta =1(J_F+J_B=0)`$, there exist no bound state since the Green’s functions do not have poles. This case has the same properties as the three-dimensional ferromagnetic Kondo coupling case. However, if the Luttinger interaction is turned on$`(\eta <1)`$, $`J_F+J_B`$ flows to $`\mathrm{}`$. The Green’s functions have a pole for $`\sigma =+1`$ suggesting that a conduction electron becomes bounded  to form a triplet state in the ground state for the ferromagnetic Kondo exchange.

## V The Scalar Potential Scattering Effect

In a more realistic model, a magnetic impurity generates scattering due to an elastic potential, $`\omega `$. Recently, Wang and his coworkers have carried out Bethe ansatz calculations on the one-dimensional Kondo problem. They showed that for an attractive potential scattering, the bound state always appears, whereas for a repulsive potential scattering, there exists a bound state for $`|J|>4\omega `$, but no bound state for $`|J|<4\omega `$.

The scaling theory for the scalar potential in the first order is similar to the magnetic interaction. The bosonized term is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha }}(2\omega _F\alpha _x\sqrt{2}\varphi _\rho (0)+4i\omega _B\eta _+\eta _{}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\rho (0))\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (0))),`$ (80)
and we have the scaling equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _F}{dl}}=0,{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _B}{dl}}={\displaystyle \frac{1\eta _\rho }{2}}\omega _B,`$ (81)
showing that the backscattering contribution is relevant. In the second order, the candidates for renormalizing the forward potential scattering are contributions from the terms like $`\omega _F^2`$ or $`\omega _B^2`$. But, we find that $`\omega _F^2`$ yields only a constant by a simple calculation,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \alpha )^2}}4\omega _F^2\alpha ^2{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}<_x\sqrt{2}\varphi _{\rho _f}(\tau )_x\sqrt{2}\varphi _{\rho _f}(\tau ^{})>},`$ (82)
which clearly has no slow mode. Similarly, the $`\omega _B^2`$ term generates terms such as $`\mathrm{cos}(2\sqrt{2}\varphi _\sigma (\tau ))`$, and $`\mathrm{cos}(2\sqrt{2}\varphi _\rho (\tau ))`$, which are irrelevant as discussed above. Also, we can show that $`J_{zF}^2`$, $`J_{zB}^2`$, $`J_{zF}J_{zB}`$, $`w_Fw_B`$ and $`J_{z,FB}\omega _{FB}`$ are also irrelevant through the same procedure as in $`\omega _F^2`$ and $`\omega _B^2`$. Thus, the potential scattering is not scaled at the second order cumulant and there is no interplay between the magnetic and the non-magnetic interaction. Actually, this situation is not unexpected, since we know that the nearest neighbor coulomb interaction in the Hubbard model does not affect the magnetic properties.

In the case of an impurity spin, S=1/2, the energy of a single electron coupled with the impurity is such that the ferromagnetic coupling energy is $`\frac{1}{4}J`$ and the scalar potential is $`\omega `$. It means that if $`4\omega >|J|`$ initially, the potential energy grows infinitely along the scaling process so that no bound state can be formed. If $`4\omega <|J|`$ initially, a spin triplet state is formed. Under the open boundary condition, this corresponds to a bound state of a spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ complex in agreement with the Bethe ansatz results. Here, we note that, in the present treatment, it is not necessary to invoke the nearest neighbor spin interaction as done by FN. We believe that the short-ranged nature of the spin interaction makes the FN scenario unlikely, although it cannot be ruled out completely.

## VI The Kondo Temperature

In the conventional three-dimensional Kondo model, the Kondo temperature is given by $`T_K=De^{\frac{1}{2J}}`$, which originates from the scaling equation $`dJ/dlnD=2J^2`$, where D is the bandwidth. In their previous study, Lee and Toner showed that the scaling relation, $`dJ_B/dlnD=\frac{1\eta }{2}J_B`$, gives a power law Kondo temperature, $`T_K=DJ_B^{\frac{2}{1\eta }}`$. However, the crossover behavior from the Fermi liquid to the Luttinger one has not been studied. In order to address this question, we consider the scaling to second order for the forward and the backward scattering simultaneously.

From the RG flow, we get the coupling constants as functions of $`D`$, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{J_F}(\stackrel{~}{D})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J_B}(\stackrel{~}{D})`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{J_F}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J_B}`$ are the scaled couplings and $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is the scaled bandwidth cutoff. The Kondo temperature is an invariant energy scale in the scaling procedure and, thus, can be expressed as $`T_K=\stackrel{~}{D}f(\stackrel{~}{J})`$, where $`f(\stackrel{~}{J})`$ becomes exponential or power law type depending on the limiting case. For some initial value of $`J`$, $`T_K`$ remains constant through the scaling procedure. In such a case, $`f(\stackrel{~}{J})`$ becomes proportional to $`\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{D}(\stackrel{~}{J})}`$, thus yielding the Kondo temperature.

$`T_K`$ for the backward scattering part is given in Fig. 2. It can be clearly seen that $`T_K`$ is exponential for a weak Luttinger interaction and becomes power law type as the Luttinger interaction increases. From inset, we observe that the linear slope of linear plot$`(\eta =1)`$ is -1/2 in agreement with $`T_K=De^{\frac{1}{2J}}`$.

## VII Summary

In summary, we have studied the Kondo effect in a Luttinger Liquid in presence of a scalar potential. We have obtained the scaling equations up to the second order for an arbitrary Luttinger interaction strength by renormalizing the boson fields.

The ferromagnetic fixed point is studied using an asymptotic Hamiltonian. It is shown that a triplet bound state can be formed in agreement with the recent Bethe ansatz calculation without invoking the nearest neighbor spin interaction. The Luttinger interaction induce the triplet state to break the local SU(2) symmetry about the impurity spin contrary to the result obtained by Furusaki and Nagaosa. The magnetic interaction and the potential scattering do not interplay and the triplet state is sustained for a weak scalar potential, $`|J|>4\omega `$. The Kondo temperature for arbitrary strength of the Luttinger interaction is calculated. The result shows a clear crossover behavior from an exponential to a power law type.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭}`$

This work is partially supported by the Korea Research Foundation(99-005-D00011).

$`\mathrm{𝐅𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬}`$

Fig. 1 The coupling constant $`J_{F,B}`$ for several Luttinger interaction strength $`\eta `$. The magnitude of slope and the value of $`|J_F+J_B|`$ become larger as the interaction strength grows larger. The slope of the dotted line is -1.

Fig. 2 The Kondo temperature as a function of the backward scattering coupling constant, $`J_B`$, for several Luttinger interaction strength $`\eta `$, where $`T_K^o`$ is the Kondo temperature for each $`\eta `$ at $`J_B/D=0.1`$. The linear to nonlinear crossover is clearly shown. Note the log-log scale of the graph. The inset shows the Kondo temperature as a function of $`J_B^1`$. The linear curve for $`\eta =1`$ clearly shows the $`T_K=De^{\frac{1}{2J}}`$ behavior.