text:
# Relaxation versus collision times in the cosmological radiative era

## I Introduction

The relaxation time $`\tau `$ for the decay of any dissipative flux in a hydrodynamic system is often misunderstood and uncritically assumed to vanish (an unphysical assumption) or be of the order of the relevant collision time $`t_{col}`$ of the particles making up the fluid -for a recent review see . The root of this confusion may be traced to the great success of the Fourier-Navier-Stokes theory of dissipative transport . This venerable theory is very useful for engineering applications, but it ignores altogether the relaxation times taken by the system to return to thermodynamic equilibrium state once the gradients of temperature, fluid velocity and so on are suddenly turned off, and therefore its range of validity is limited (at most) to steady-state situations . Therefore, this theory displays a serious drawback: the prediction of instantaneous propagation of the dissipative signals which, on physical grounds, should be limited by the speed of sound. This fact becomes important when dealing with relativistic self–gravitating fluid distributions such as a collapsing star, as well as for the early Universe (see ,  and references therein). Obviously $`\tau `$ and $`t_{col}`$ ought to be related to one another, however there is no generic rule on how to find such a relationship since it depends in each case on the particular system under consideration.

In a previous paper we studied the matter-radiation decoupling for an expanding inhomogeneous universe described by new exact solutions  characterized by the Lemaître–Tolman–Bondi (LTB) metric with flat space sections  and a viscous fluid source. The dissipative quantities involved (the shear stresses) in these models are well behaved and comply with relativistic causality and stability in the sense of Israel and Stewart . As stressed in , the study of inhomogeneous cosmologies is a well motivated and justified endeavor, especially in view of the results of Mustapha et al. who show that inhomogeneous but spherically symmetric models can be compatible with current CBR observations . This paper aims at showing that the solution found in  implies that the relaxation time of the dissipative shear stress of the cosmic matter–radiation mixture prior decoupling is several orders of magnitud larger than the collision time between photons and electrons. In section II we present our model, recall the exact solution derived in , and compare the aforesaid relaxation time with the collision time between photons and electrons before the matter-radiation decoupling is achieved. Section III summarizes our conclusions.

## II The LTB dissipative model

Cosmic matter sources in the period from the end of cosmic nucleosynthesis to the decoupling of matter and radiation (roughly the temperature range $`10^3\text{K}T10^6\text{K}`$) can be characterized as a mixture of ultra-relativistic and non-relativistic particles (“radiation” and “matter”), subjected to a tight interaction via various radiative processes (hence the name “radiative” era). The usual approach for studying this era is to consider a FLRW space-time background where matter sources are described by: (a) equilibrium kinetic theory, (b) gauge invariant perturbations, or (c) by hydrodynamical models, which, in general, fail to incorporate a physically plausible description of the matter-radiation interaction. Examination of these matter sources in an inhomogeneous hydrodynamic context requires an imperfect fluid whose state variables are compatible with the equation of state of a mixture of a non-relativistic gas (matter) and a extreme relativistic one (radiation). In  we derived a class of exact solutions along these lines, so that: (a) matter-radiation radiative interaction was modeled by a dissipative shear-stress tensor, (b) only the evolution along the radiative era was considered, (c) the background space-time was described by the LTB metric with flat spacelike slices:

$$ds^2=c^2dt^2+Y^2dr^2+Y^2\left[d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )d\varphi ^2\right],Y=Y(t,r).$$
(1)
For a comoving 4-velocity $`u^a=c\delta _t^a`$ in (1), the expansion scalar and shear tensor are

$$u_{;a}^a\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{\dot{Y}^{}}{Y^{}}+\frac{2\dot{Y}}{Y},\sigma _b^a=\text{diag}[0,2\sigma ,\sigma ,\sigma ],\sigma \frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{\dot{Y}}{Y}\frac{\dot{Y}^{}}{Y^{}}\right)$$
(2)
where a prime denotes derivative with respect to $`r`$ and $`\dot{Y}=u^aY_{,a}=Y_{,t}`$.

The stress-energy tensor of the matter–radiation mixture is

$$T^{ab}=\rho u^au^b+ph^{ab}+\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}(h^{ab}=c^2u^au^b+g^{ab},\mathrm{\Pi }_a^a=0),$$
(3)
where the most general form for the shear-stress for (1) is given by: $`\text{diag}[0,2P,P,P]`$, with $`P=P(t,r)`$ to be determined by the field equations. The relation between $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ follows by assuming that the matter component is “dust” (the low temperature limit of a classical ideal gas, hence its pressure can be neglected) and therefore the hydrostatic pressure is furnished by the radiation only, i.e.

$`\rho mc^2n^{(m)}+3n^{(r)}k__BT,pp^{(r)}=n^{(r)}k__BT`$

where the superscripts $`(m)`$ and $`(r)`$ denote the particle number densities of “matter” and “radiation”. The shear dissipative pressure tensor is governed by the transport equation of EIT

$$\tau \dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{cd}h_a^ch_b^d+\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}\left[1+\frac{1}{2}T\eta \left(\frac{\tau }{T\eta }u^c\right)_{;c}\right]+2\eta \sigma _{ab}=0,\text{with}\eta =\eta _{_{(rg)}}=\frac{4}{5}p^{(r)}\tau ,$$
(4)
where $`\tau `$ is the relaxation time for the shear–stress and $`\eta `$ is the coefficient of shear viscosity. The subscript rg in $`\eta `$ indicates that we use the form of this coefficient provided by kinetic theory for the electron-photon interaction (the “radiative gas” model). This transport equation is compatible with relativistic causality and stability, and is supported by kinetic theory, statistical fluctuation theory, and information theory . In its turn the expression for $`\eta `$ is well–known in the literature and it can be derived from different standpoints . The entropy per particle takes the form

$`s=s^{(e)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{nT}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab},(snu^a)_{;a}=\dot{s}nu^a0,`$

where $`\alpha =\tau /(2\eta _{_{(rg)}})=5/(8p^{(r)})`$, $`s^{(e)}`$ is the equilibrium photon entropy per baryon, and we have used the fact that the number of particles of each fluid entering the mixture is independently conserved: $`(n^{(m)}u^a)_{;a}=(n^{(r)}u^a)_{;a}=0`$, as well as $`n^{(m)}/n^{(r)}1`$. The positive–definite nature of $`\dot{s}`$ and $`\tau `$ above is crucial for the theory to comply with relativistic causality, notwithstanding the unjustified and widespread belief that $`\tau `$ vanishes altogether or is at most of the order of the collision time.

### A Exact Solution and Density Contrasts

Integration of Einstein’s field equations (see details in ) leads to the following exact solution

$$\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{\mu }(tt_i)=\sqrt{y+ϵ}\left(y2ϵ\right)\sqrt{1+ϵ}\left(12ϵ\right),$$
(5)
where the definitions

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa M}{Y_i^3}},ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{W}{M}},y{\displaystyle \frac{Y}{Y_i}},`$

were used along with

$`M={\displaystyle \rho _i^{(m)}Y_i^2Y_i^{}𝑑r},\rho _i^{(m)}mc^2n_i^{^{(m)}},W={\displaystyle \rho _i^{(r)}Y_i^2Y_i^{}𝑑r},\rho _i^{(r)}3n_i^{^{(r)}}k__BT_i,`$

so that $`\rho _i^{(m)},\rho _i^{(r)}`$ define the initial densities of the non-relativistic and relativistic components of the mixture, respectively. The subscript “i” refers to some initial hypersurface to be specified below, and $`\kappa `$ denotes Einstein’s gravitational constant.

For the inhomogeneous solutions derived above it is convenient to characterize initial conditions by introducing suitably averaged initial densities: $`\rho _i^{(m)},\rho _i^{(r)}`$ and density contrast parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(m)}},\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(r)}}`$ defined by

$`3\rho _i^{(m)}Y_i^3={\displaystyle \rho _i^{(m)}d(Y_i^3)},3\rho _i^{(r)}Y_i^3={\displaystyle \rho _i^{(r)}d(Y_i^3)},`$

$`\rho _i^{(m)}=\rho _i^{(m)}\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(m)}}\right],\rho _i^{(r)}=\rho _i^{(r)}\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(r)}}\right],`$

as well as the ancillary functions

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}/Y}{Y_i^{}/Y_i}}\mathrm{\Psi }1+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)}{3(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(r)}})}},\mathrm{\Phi }1+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(14\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)}{3(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(r)}})}},`$

that appear in the functional forms of the state variables: $`n^{(m)}=n_i^{(m)}/(y^3\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, $`n^{(r)}=n_i^{(r)}/(y^3\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, $`T=T_i\mathrm{\Psi }/y`$ and $`P=(1/2)n_i^{(r)}k__BT_i\mathrm{\Phi }/(y^4\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. These functions are linked to the density contrasts by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=1+3A\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(m)}}+3B\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(r)}},$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }=1\frac{A\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(m)}}+B\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(r)}}}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(r)}}},$$
(7)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{4A\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(m)}}+\left(14B\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(r)}}}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(r)}}},$$
(8)
where the quantities $`A`$ and $`B`$ are known functions of $`y`$

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3y^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{y+ϵ}}{\sqrt{1+ϵ}}}(14ϵ8ϵ^2)(y^24ϵy8ϵ^2)\right],B={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{y}}\left[(1+2ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{y+ϵ}}{\sqrt{1+ϵ}}}(y+2ϵ)\right].`$

It should be noted that the solutions must satisfy the restriction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>0`$ so that the particle number densities do not become negative and that no shell-crossing singularities occur.

At this point it is expedient to point out first that no expression exists that gives $`\tau `$ solely in terms of the macroscopic variables ($`\rho `$, $`p`$, $`T`$, n, etc.), i.e., there is not such thing as an “equation of state” for $`\tau `$. Secondly, using the kinetic theory of gases (in general) the collision time (not $`\tau `$) could in principle be written as a collision integral, but that expression would be mathematically untractable. This is why we resort to (4) to get $`\tau `$ in terms of the quantities introduced above

$$\tau =\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }}{\sigma }\frac{\frac{9}{4}\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(r)}}\right]^2}{\frac{4}{5}\left[3+4\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(r)}+\frac{13}{32}\mathrm{\Gamma }\right]^2+\frac{171}{256}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}.$$
(9)
This expression is justified as long as it behaves as a relaxation parameter for the interactive matter-radiation mixture in the theoretical framework of EIT.

Given a set of initial conditions specified by $`ϵ,\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(m)}},\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{^{(r)}}`$, on some initial hypersurface, the forms of the state and geometric variables as functions of $`y`$ and the chosen initial conditions are fully determined. However, for the solutions to be physically meaningful they must comply with the following set of physical restrictions,

$$\dot{s}=\frac{15k__B}{16\tau }\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)^2>0,$$
(10)
(consistent with the condition that the entropy production be positive),

$$\mathrm{\Psi }>0,\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }<0,$$
(11)
to ensure that $`\tau `$, $`p`$ and $`T`$ are all positive. Likewise the concavity and stability of $`s`$ demand that

$$\dot{\tau }>0,\frac{\ddot{s}}{\dot{s}}=\frac{2\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }}{3\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{\rho _i^{(r)}}{\rho _i^{(r)}}\left[1+\frac{\rho _i^{(r)}}{3\rho _i^{(r)}}\right]\frac{\dot{\tau }}{\tau }<0.$$
(12)
The collision time ($`t_\gamma `$) for the Thomson scattering of photons by electrons (the dominant process of shear transport in the radiative era) is given from the Saha equation by

$$t_\gamma =\frac{1}{2c\sigma __Tn^{(m)}}\left[1+\left(1+\frac{4h^3n^{(m)}\mathrm{exp}\left(B_0/k__BT\right)}{\left(2\pi m_ek_BT\right)^{3/2}}\right)^{1/2}\right],$$
(13)
where $`\sigma __T`$, $`B_0`$, $`m_e`$ and $`h`$ are, respectively, the Thomson scattering cross section, the hydrogen atom binding energy, the electron mass and Planck’s constant. For details of the derivation of (13) see . Before matter–radiation decoupling $`t_\gamma <t_H`$ (where $`t_H3/\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denotes the expansion time, i.e., the “Hubble time”). For $`t_\gamma >t_H`$ matter and radiation no longer interact between each other.

Choosing as initial time $`t=t_i`$ roughly corresponding to $`T=10^6`$ Kelvin, the evolution of the models crucially depends on initial conditions specified by the useful quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(r)}\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(m)}`$ (formally analogous to the definition of adiabatic perturbations). As shown in  (see also Figure 3 of this paper), the collision time $`t_\gamma `$ is quite insensitive to the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}`$ given by initial conditions, therefore for some some $`y=y_D`$ we find that $`t_\gamma `$ overcomes $`t_H`$, i.e. there is always a decoupling hypersurface. Taking the standard decoupling temperature $`T_D4\times 10^3`$, numerical evaluation of $`T_D=(10^6/y_D)\mathrm{\Psi }(y_D,\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)},\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(r)})`$ where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is given by (7) leads to $`y_D10^{2.4}`$. Also, observational constraints on the decoupling hypersurface $`[\delta T_{eq}/T_{eq}]_D10^5`$ further restrict the maximum values of both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(m)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(r)}`$ to about $`10^4`$. However, $`\tau `$ is very sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}`$, for example, only if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}=0`$ (i.e. for adiabatic initial conditions) $`\tau `$ has an adequate asymptotic evolution, in the sense that as $`y\mathrm{}`$ (and so, $`t\mathrm{}`$) it grows monotonically (as $`\tau y^{3/2}`$) and $`\dot{s}0`$ in this limit, though $`\tau `$ in this case remains smaller than $`t_H`$ for all the evolution as $`y\mathrm{}`$, a very different behavior from that of $`t_\gamma `$ which overtakes $`t_H`$ at the decoupling surface. The relaxation time for adiabatic initial conditions is then unphysical near the decoupling surface. For non-adiabatic intial conditions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}0`$, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(i)}^{(r)}\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}>0`$ and $`\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }<0`$ hold, we can have $`\sigma 0`$ for non–vanishing $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, therefore $`\tau `$ diverges and overtakes $`t_H`$, a behavior that is qualitatively analogous to that of $`t_\gamma `$. In order to have $`\tau `$ overtaking $`t_H`$ at $`y_D10^{2.4}`$, we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}`$ cannot be greater than approximately $`10^8`$ (quasi-adiabatic initial conditions). Therefore, under the assumptions of EIT and using the full transport equation (4) and $`\tau `$ given by (9), we find that initial conditions do exist so that $`\tau `$ has a physicaly reasonable form near the decoupling surface. Figures 2, 3 and 5 illustrate this conclussion.

### B Comparing the different times

On the initial hypersurfce $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=\mathrm{\Psi }_i=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(r)}`$ and $`\tau _i`$ is evaluated to be $`\tau _i10^9`$ seconds. Likewise $`[t_\gamma ]_i2227`$ seconds. As a consequence $`[\tau /t_H]_i5/16`$ while $`[t_\gamma /t_H]_i10^6`$. As the decoupling hypersurface is approached (i.e., $`yy_D`$) $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ slightly depart from unity as depicted in Figure 1. On that hypersurface one has $`t_\gamma (y_D)\tau (y_D)10^{13}`$ seconds. Figure 2 shows how sensitive is the latter quantity to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}`$. We see therefore that contrary to the usual belief, the model examined in  shows that $`\tau `$ is much larger than $`t_\gamma `$ for most of the radiative era and the timescales $`\tau ,t_\gamma `$ become comparable only as the decoupling hypersurface is approached. This behavior is shown in Figure 3 depicting the ratios $`\tau /t_H`$ and $`t_\gamma /t_H`$ as well their dependence on $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}|`$.

### C The truncated transport equation

In many cases, just for the sake of mathematical simplicity, the transport equation (4) governing the evolution of the dissipative stress tensor has been replaced in by the more manageable Maxwell–Cattaneo–like expression, namely the so called “truncated” transport equation

$$\tau \dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{cd}h_a^ch_b^d+\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}+2\eta \sigma _{ab}=0.$$
(14)
an equation still complying with relativistic causality and stability in the sense mentioned earlier, and justified when the four–dimensional gradient of the combination $`\tau u^c/(T\eta )`$ becomes negligibly small. The models presented here provide a theoretical context in which to test how suitable can this truncated transport equation be for studying the evolution of an interactive matter–radiation mixture. To do this consider the relaxation time that follows from (14)

$$\tau _{mc}=\frac{P}{\dot{P}+\frac{2}{5}p\sigma }=\frac{4+3\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(r)}4\mathrm{\Gamma }}{4\frac{\dot{y}}{y}[4+3\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(r)}4\mathrm{\Gamma }]\frac{1}{5}\sigma [31(4+3\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(r)})15\mathrm{\Gamma }]},$$
(15)
where $`\tau _{mc}`$ is the relaxation time associated with the Maxwell–Cattaneo equation. Comparing (15) with the relaxation time (9) that emerges from the full theory (i.e. from (4))

$$\tau =\frac{P}{\dot{P}+\frac{2}{5}p\sigma \frac{\dot{p}}{p}P}=\frac{1}{4\sigma }\frac{(4+3\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(r)}4\mathrm{\Gamma })(4+3\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(r)}\mathrm{\Gamma })}{\frac{4}{5}[4+3\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(r)}4\mathrm{\Gamma }]^2+\frac{171}{256}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}.$$
(16)
we can see that $`\tau =\tau _{mc}(1+\tau _{mc}(\dot{p}/p))^1`$, therefore since $`\dot{p}/p<0`$ (as long as $`\mathrm{\Psi }>0`$, which is always the case) we have $`\tau >\tau _{mc}`$. Now two possibilities arise:

1. Adiabatic condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}=0`$, in this case Figure 4 shows that $`\tau _{mc}<t_H`$ for the whole evolution.
2. Quasi–adiabatic condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}0`$, in this case as seen from Figure 5, $`\tau _{mc}`$ does not diverge nor overtakes $`t_H`$ at any time in the whole evolution, while $`\tau `$ diverges and overtakes $`t_H`$ for $`y>y_D10^{2.4}`$.

This together with the fact that close to the decoupling surface $`t_\gamma `$ becomes larger than $`\tau _{mc}`$ it follows that the Maxwell–Cattaneo equation (14) applied to the LTB models derived here and under the constraints imposed on the initial density contrasts ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(r)}10^4`$ and $`10^9<|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}|<10^7`$) by the observed CMB anisotropies, does not provide a relaxation time that behaves reasonably in conditions near the matter–radiation decoupling.

It is widely assumed nowadays that the bulk of the matter of the Universe (about ninety percent) is not baryonic but belongs to some hitherto unknown form of “dark matter” (see e.g. ) -though voices of dissent can be heard . We have considered a baryon–photon mixture and so have not taken this into account in our calculations. However, we can roughly verify to what extent our results would change had we incorporated some form of this missing matter. If we assume that it is mostly non–relativistic and that it amounts to $`20`$ times the baryon abundance, the inclusion of such missing matter corresponds to decreasing the value of the parameter $`ϵ`$ by a factor of $`20`$ (from $`10^3`$ down to $`50`$). As shown in Figure 6, carrying on this modification does not imply a dramatical change in our results. Further, it is worthwhile remarking that the introduction of a small cosmological constant or a quintessence fluid would not make sense for the models we are dealing with. Since these forms of “dark energy” contributions (as it is nowadays in vogue) are used to explain the alleged accelerated expansion of the present day Universe, they should be sub–dominants at the epcoch contemplated in this paper (see e.g. ).

## III Concluding remarks

It is worthwhile mentioning that the main results of this paper: (a) inadequacy of the truncated equation (14) to provide a relaxation time that behaves reasonably near matter-radiation decoupling, and (b) that $`\tau `$ is much larger than $`t_\gamma `$ for most of the radiative era, strictly apply for the specific model examined in , based on the LTB metric. These results also rely on the expression of $`\tau `$ obtained in terms of the transport equations (4) and (14). However, we argue that in spite of these limitations these results can complement and enrich the existing discussion in the literature concerning the adequacy of truncated transport equations of dissipative stresses in a cosmological context -see  and references therein. Our analysis suggests that, in any case, these equations should be used with due care. We believe it is important to stress that (as far as we are aware) these important features of the equations of irreversible thermodynamics have not been examined previously in the context of inhomogeneous metrics able to accommodate dissipative shear stresses.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the anonymous referees for constructive criticisms leading to an upgrading of the paper. This work has been partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology and the National University of Mexico (UNAM), under grants BFM 2000-0351-C03-01 and DGAPA-IN-122498, respectively.

## List of caption for figures

Figure 1
The plot depicts the functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, given by (6) and (7), in terms of $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(y)`$ and $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}|)`$, from the initial hypersurface $`y=1`$ corresponding to $`T_i=10^6`$ Kelvin. Notice how these functions are almost unity for all the evolution range.

Figure 2
Logarithmic plot of $`\tau `$ vs $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}|`$ for $`y=y^{2.5}`$ corresponding to $`T=T__D`$. Note that $`\tau `$ diverges for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}|10^8`$. Since $`t_\gamma `$ also diverges as $`TT__D`$, the behavior of $`\tau `$ for this value of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}|`$ is reasonable.

Figure 3
Logarithmic plot depicting the ratios $`\tau /t__H`$ (shaded surface) and $`t_\gamma /t__H`$ (non-shaded surface) vs the parameters $`log_{10}(y)`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}|`$. The former ratio is far larger than the latter for most of the evolution range. For $`|Delta_i^{(s)}|10^8`$ the two ratios become comparable in magnitude near the decoupling surface ($`t_\gamma /t__H=1`$).

Figure 4
Logarithmic plots of the ratios $`\tau /t_H`$ (top surface) and $`\tau _{mc}/t__H`$ (bottom surface) vs the parameters $`y`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(r)}|=(4/3)|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(m)}|`$ under adiabatic conditions ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}|=0`$). Neither one of these relaxation times diverges nor overtakes $`t_H`$, therefore they are not physically realistic near the decoupling surface $`t_\gamma /t_H=1`$.

Figure 5
The same plot as figure 4 but under quasi–adiabatic conditions. The ratio $`\tau /t_H`$ diverges for $`log_{10}y2.4`$ while the the ratio $`\tau _{mc}/t_H`$ remains finite for all $`y`$, therefore the full transport equation yields a reasonable relaxation time while the truncated equation does not.

Figure 6
This figure compares $`\tau /t__H`$ (A), $`\tau _{mc}/t__H`$ (B) and $`t_\gamma /t__H`$ (C) vs $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(y)`$. The thick curves were obtained assuming $`T=10^6`$ Kelvin and an initial photon to baryon ratio $`n_i^{(r)}/n_i^{(m)}=10^9`$, hence $`ϵ\rho _i^{(r)}/\rho _i^{(m)}=10^3`$. If we assume that CDM does not interact with the photon gas and that it constitutes most of non–relativistic matter, say 20 times the abundance of baryons, then we would need to use $`ϵ=50`$, lower by a factor of $`20`$. The thin curves were obtained using this value of $`ϵ`$ with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}|=10^8`$ (upper curves) and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}|=10^9`$ (lower curves). Notice that these two curves are indistinguishable in (C), thus indicating that $`t_\gamma `$ is rather insensitive to changes in $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}|`$. The changes in $`ϵ`$ due to the inclusion of the rest–mass of CDM are also minimal, shifting the best value of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(s)}|`$ to an order of magnitude less.


format: text

text:
# 1 The fraction of the parameter space for which the error |𝛿| in extracting sin{2𝛽} from 𝑎^{𝐶𝑃}_{𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟} is less than a given value, |𝛿|_{𝑚𝑎𝑥}.

## Acknowledgments

C.S.K. thanks D.L. for the hospitality of the Université de Montréal, where some of this work was done. The work of C.S.K. was supported in part by the BK21 Program, SRC Program and Grant No. 2000-1-11100-003-1 of the KOSEF, and in part by the KRF Grants, Project No. 2000-015-DP0077. The work of A.D. and D.L. was financially supported by NSERC of Canada.


text:
# On the Structure of Polynomial Mappings Modulo an Odd Prime Power

## 1. Introduction

Let $`f(x)[x]`$ be a polynomial with integer coefficients, let $`n`$ be a positive integer, and let $`p`$ be an odd prime. Then the mapping $`xf(x)`$ sends $`/p^n`$ into $`/p^n`$. We shall study the structure of this mapping. Since the mapping $`f(modp^n)`$ must project to a well-defined mapping $`f(modp^{n1})`$, only a certain class of mappings on $`/p^n`$ can arise from polynomials. But there are many more restrictions on which mappings can occur than just the above observation—in Section 3 we show that there is a certain linearity causing one such restriction. In later sections we take advantage of this linearity to derive numerous results about the cycles of $`f(modp^n)`$. Our results give an algorithm which, for almost any given polynomial $`f`$, finds the lengths of the cycles of $`f(modp^n)`$ for all $`n`$, usually very quickly. Our results also indicate how to construct a polynomial with any (possible) desired cycle structure mod $`p^n`$. Our methods also apply in much more general situations111For instance, we can allow our polynomials to have coefficients in the $`p`$-adic integers $`_p`$, and in fact every argument we make will be unchanged if we replace every symbol $``$ by the symbol $`_p`$.; we will briefly discuss this in Section 11.

## 2. Notation

Henceforth, $`p`$ will denote a fixed odd prime, $`f(x)[x]`$ a fixed polynomial, and $`n`$ a positive integer. We denote by $`f_n`$ the mapping $`/p^n/p^n`$ which sends $`xf(x)(modp^n)`$. We let $`\sigma =(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ be a cycle of $`f_n`$ of length $`k`$; that is, $`f_n(x_1)=x_2`$, $`f_n(x_i)=x_{i+1}`$, and $`f_n(x_k)=x_1`$. (We view the $`x_i`$ as integers lying in the appropriate classes (mod $`p^n`$).) Finally, $`g=f^k`$ is the $`k^{\text{th}}`$ iterate of $`f`$.

## 3. Cycle lifting

In this section we examine the structure of $`f_{n+1}`$ on the set of points of $`/p^{n+1}`$ which are congruent mod $`p^n`$ to elements of $`\sigma `$. Let $`X_i`$ be the preimage of $`x_i`$ under the projection $`/p^{n+1}/p^n`$; thus, $`|X_i|=p`$, and by the definition of $`\sigma `$, $`f_{n+1}(X_i)X_{i+1}`$. For $`g=f^k`$, the $`k^{\text{th}}`$ iterate of $`f`$, we have $`g_{n+1}(X_1)X_1`$.

Now, let $`X=X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_k`$; then $`f_{n+1}(X)X`$, and any cycle of $`f_{n+1}`$ in $`X`$ must have length divisible by $`k`$. We call these cycles the lifts of $`\sigma `$. When we divide the lengths of these lifts by $`k`$, we get the cycle lengths of $`g_{n+1}`$ in $`X_1`$.

We can define a bijection between $`X_1`$ and $`/p`$ by the rule

$$x_1+p^ntt.$$

By Taylor’s theorem for polynomials,222This says that $`g(x+y)=_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}y^i\frac{g^{(i)}(x)}{i!}`$; note that the sum is finite, since all terms with $`i>\text{degree}(g)`$ vanish, and also note that $`\frac{g^{(i)}(x)}{i!}`$ is an integer.

$`g(x_1+p^nt)`$ $`g(x_1)+p^ntg^{}(x_1)(modp^{2n})`$
$`x_1+p^n\left({\displaystyle \frac{g(x_1)x_1}{p^n}}\right)+p^ng^{}(x_1)t(modp^{2n})`$
$`x_1+p^nb_n+p^na_nt(modp^{2n})`$
where we define $`a_n=g^{}(x_1)`$ and $`b_n=(g(x_1)x_1)/p^n`$. (Note that $`a_n`$ and $`b_n`$ are defined over $``$.) Thus, if we define the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:/p/p`$ to be induced by restricting $`g_{n+1}`$ to $`X_1`$ and applying the above bijection, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=b_n+a_nt`$. The linearity of this map is the key to what follows.

Note that:

1. If $`a_n1(modp)`$ and $`b_n0(modp)`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ consists of a single cycle of length $`p`$, so that $`f_{n+1}`$ restricted to $`X`$ consists of a single cycle of length $`pk`$. In this case we say that $`\sigma `$ grows.
2. If $`a_n1(modp)`$ and $`b_n0(modp)`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the identity, so $`f_{n+1}`$ restricted to $`X`$ consists of $`p`$ cycles, each of length $`k`$. In this case we say that $`\sigma `$ splits.
3. If $`a_n0(modp)`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is constant, so $`f_{n+1}`$ on $`X`$ contains one $`k`$-cycle, and the remaining points of $`X`$ are mapped into this cycle by $`f^k`$. In this case we say that $`\sigma `$ grows tails.
4. If $`a_n0,1(modp)`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a permutation, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{}}`$, the $`\mathrm{}^{\text{th}}`$ iterate of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, sends

$`t`$ $`(b_n+a_nb_n+a_n^2b_n+\mathrm{}+a_n^\mathrm{}1b_n)+a_n^{\mathrm{}}t`$
$`=b_n(a_n^{\mathrm{}}1)/(a_n1)+a_n^{\mathrm{}}t,`$
so $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{}}(t)t=(t+b_n/(a_n1))(a_n^{\mathrm{}}1)`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has a single fixed point, namely $`t=b_n/(a_n1)`$, and the remaining points of $`X_1`$ lie on cycles of length $`d`$, where $`d`$ is the order of $`a_n`$ in $`(/p)^{}`$. Thus, $`f_{n+1}`$ restricted to $`X`$ contains one $`k`$-cycle and $`(p1)/d`$ cycles of length $`kd`$. In this case we say that $`\sigma `$ partially splits.

The above results already rule out many potential ways for $`\sigma `$ to lift. For instance, the lifts of $`\sigma `$ can only have two distinct lengths. If two lengths do occur, then one equals the length of $`\sigma `$ and occurs only once; if only one length occurs, it is either the length of $`\sigma `$ or $`p`$ times this length.

Before proceeding any further, we comment on the definitions of $`a_n`$ and $`b_n`$. Our definition of $`a_n`$ and $`b_n`$ depends on three things: the cycle $`\sigma `$, the choice of $`x_1`$ from the elements of $`\sigma `$, and the integer $`x_1`$ chosen to represent the congruence class $`x_1(modp^n)`$. However, to some extent $`a_n`$ and $`b_n`$ are independent of these last two choices. First,

$$a_n=(f^k)^{}(x_1)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}f^{}(f^i(x_1))\underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}f^{}(x_i)(modp^n),$$

so the class of $`a_n(modp^n)`$ does not depend on the choices. Secondly,

$$g(x_1+p^nz)(x_1+p^nz)p^nb_n+p^nz(a_n1)(modp^{2n}),$$

so replacing $`x_1`$ by $`x_1+p^nz`$ has the effect of replacing $`b_n`$ with $`b_n+z(a_n1)(modp^n)`$. Thus, for $`A=\mathrm{min}\{\text{ord}_p(a_n1),n\}`$, the choice of the integer $`x_1`$ from the congruence class $`x_1(modp^n)`$ does not affect $`b_n(modp^A)`$. Finally,

$$g(f(x_1))f(x_1)=f(x_1+p^nb_n)f(x_1)p^nb_nf^{}(x_1)(modp^{2n}),$$

and since $`pf^{}(x_1)`$, $`\mathrm{min}\{\text{ord}_p(b_n),n\}`$ is independent of the choice of which a particular element of $`\sigma `$ is called $`x_1`$.

## 4. Relationships between $`a`$’s and $`b`$’s

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=(\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{x}_{rk})`$ be a lift of $`\sigma `$ to an $`rk`$-cycle of $`f_{n+1}`$. We will show that the manner in which $`\sigma `$ lifted restricts how $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ can lift. We may assume that $`\stackrel{~}{x}_1x_1(modp^n)`$, and (as before, viewing $`\stackrel{~}{x}_1`$ as an integer) we write $`\stackrel{~}{x}_1=x_1+p^nt`$. Then

$`a_{n+1}=(g^r)^{}(x_1+p^nt)`$ $`(g^r)^{}(x_1)={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r1}{}}}g^{}(g^i(x_1))`$
$`g^{}(x_1)^r=a_n^r(modp^n).`$
Now we apply this calculation:

1. If $`\sigma `$ splits or grows, then $`a_{n+1}1^r1(modp)`$, so $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ either splits or grows.
2. If $`\sigma `$ partially splits, then its $`k`$-cycle lift also partially splits (with the same $`d`$, since $`a_{n+1}a_n(modp)`$ and so the order of $`a_{n+1}`$ in $`(/p)^{}`$ is the same as the order of $`a_n`$ in $`(/p)^{}`$), and its $`kd`$-cycle lifts either split or grow (since $`a_{n+1}a_n^d1(modp)`$).
3. If $`\sigma `$ grows tails, then the single $`k`$-cycle lift $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ also has $`a_{n+1}a_n0(modp)`$, so it grows tails as well.

We will need another basic calculation. As before,

$$g^r(x_1+p^nt)x_1+p^n(ta_n^r+b_n(1+a_n+\mathrm{}+a_n^{r1}))(modp^{2n}),$$

so

$`p^{n+1}b_{n+1}`$ $`=g^r(x_1+p^nt)(x_1+p^nt)`$
$`p^n\left(t(a_n^r1)+b_n(1+a_n+\mathrm{}+a_n^{r1})\right)(modp^{2n})`$
and therefore

$$pb_{n+1}t(a_n^r1)+b_n(1+a_n+\mathrm{}+a_n^{r1})(modp^n).$$

## 5. Outline of goals

Now that we have established the basic setup, we briefly pause to discuss the general questions we are studying. We have seen that the cycle structure of $`f_n`$ greatly depends on that of $`f_{n1}`$. Thus, it will be possible to obtain results which apply to the structure of $`f_n`$ for all $`n`$. More precisely, we study an infinite tree which contains a node for each cycle of $`f_n`$, for every $`n0`$, and where each node is labeled with the length of the corresponding cycle. The tree is defined as follows: at the top level, level $`0`$, is a single node labeled with 1, the length of the single cycle of $`f_0`$. At each lower level, level $`n`$, there is a node for each cycle of $`f_n`$, labeled with its length, and a node at level $`n+1`$ is a child of a node at level $`n`$ if it is a lift of the corresponding cycle.

Here is an example of such a tree, for a polynomial with $`p=3`$:

We would like to do the following:

1. Describe all trees that can occur.
2. Give a method for constructing a polynomial having a prescribed tree.
3. Give a method for determining the tree of a given polynomial.

We will derive a number of results of the form: if a certain (finite) part of the tree has a certain form, then this constrains the behavior of another (possibly infinite) part of the tree. For example, we will show that whenever a cycle for some $`f_n`$ (with $`n2`$) grows, then its lift grows, and the lift of that lift grows, and so on.

Results of this form severely restrict the class of trees which can occur. They are also useful for determining the tree of a given polynomial; in fact, except for a certain pathological class of functions, we will see that the first $`n`$ levels of the tree, for some $`n`$, will determine the entire tree. We have looked at thousands of random polynomials of small degree, and in every case the first nine levels were sufficient; usually five were enough, and it seemed that fewer levels were needed for larger $`p`$. The pathological cases appear to be quite rare, since none arose randomly. However, we do not believe that, in the non-pathological cases, there is a bound on the number of levels of the tree needed to determine the entire tree; large numbers of levels should sometimes be necessary, but only very rarely.

Finally, these results help us construct polynomials having prescribed trees. As long as the tree is determined by its first $`n`$ levels, we need only find a polynomial whose tree has those first $`n`$ levels; i.e., a polynomial having a certain structure mod $`p^n`$.

We will generally not study cycles which grow tails, except in Section 6.4. This case is easy to identify and distinguish, because cycles which grow tails will only occur in subtrees rooted at cycles mod $`p`$ which grow tails.

## 6. Cycle structures

### 6.1. If $`\sigma `$ grows

Suppose $`\sigma `$ grows. We showed above that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ either splits or grows. From $`a_n1(modp)`$, it follows that $`a_n^p1(modp^2)`$, because

$$\frac{a_n^p1}{a_n1}=a_n^{p1}+\mathrm{}+a_n+11+\mathrm{}+1+10(modp).$$

So, for $`n2`$,

$$pb_{n+1}b_n(1+a_n+\mathrm{}+a_n^{p1})(modp^2).$$

If $`a_n=1`$, then $`1+a_n+\mathrm{}+a_n^{p1}=p`$. Otherwise, let $`a_n=1+p^\gamma \delta `$, where $`p\delta `$ and $`\gamma 1`$. Then

$`1+a_n+\mathrm{}+a_n^{p1}={\displaystyle \frac{a_n^p1}{a_n1}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p}{1}\right)p^\gamma \delta +\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p}{2}\right)p^{2\gamma }\delta ^2+\mathrm{}}{p^\gamma \delta }}`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p}{1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p}{2}}\right)p^\gamma \delta +\mathrm{}`$
$`p(modp^2).`$
Thus, in either case $`pb_{n+1}pb_n(modp^2)`$. So, $`b_{n+1}0(modp)`$, so $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ grows.

Here we have shown that, for $`n2`$, whenever $`\sigma `$ grows, its lift $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ also grows; it follows that the lift of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ also grows, and so on. In Appendix B we will show that, for $`p>3`$, this result holds for $`n=1`$ as well.

In this case, the subtree rooted at $`\sigma `$ has the following structure:

### 6.2. If $`\sigma `$ partially splits

Suppose that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ is a $`kd`$-cycle lift of $`\sigma `$, where $`1<d<p`$; thus, $`d`$ is the order of $`a_n`$ in $`(/p)^{}`$. Let $`y`$ be any element of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$, and let $`h=f^{kd}`$. In Corollary 3 of Section 9 we show that

$$\mathrm{min}\{\text{ord}_p(h(y)y)n,nd\}=\mathrm{min}\{\text{ord}_p(a_{n+1}1),nd\}.$$

In this section we note some implications of this result:

1. If $`e=\text{ord}_p(a_{n+1}1)<nd`$, then $`h(y)y(modp)^{n+m}`$ for $`me`$, but $`h(y)y(modp)^{n+e+1}`$, so $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ splits $`(e1)`$ times, and then the descendants of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ at level $`n+e`$ grow.
2. If $`e=\text{ord}_p(a_{n+1}1)nd`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ splits $`(nd1)`$ times, but we do not know what happens to its descendants at level $`n+nd`$.

Note that, if $`e<n`$, then every $`kd`$-cycle lift of $`\sigma `$ has the same $`e`$ (since $`a_{n+1}a_n^d(modp^n)`$), so they all behave the same way.

In case 1, the subtree rooted at $`\sigma `$ has the following structure:

### 6.3. If $`\sigma `$ splits

Suppose that $`\sigma `$ splits. Let $`x`$ be an element of $`\sigma `$, and let $`y=x+p^nz`$ be an element of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$. Recall that $`a_n=g^{}(x)1(modp)`$ and $`b_n=(g(x)x)/p^n0(modp)`$. Then

$`p^{n+1}b_{n+1}=g(y)y`$ $`=g(x+p^nz)(x+p^nz)`$
$`g(x)x+p^nz(g^{}(x)1)+p^{2n}z^2g^{\prime \prime }(x)/2(modp^{3n})`$
$`p^nb_n+p^nz(a_n1)+p^{2n}z^2g^{\prime \prime }(x)/2(modp^{3n})`$
so

$$pb_{n+1}b_n+z(a_n1)+p^nz^2g^{\prime \prime }(x)/2(modp^{2n}).$$

Similarly,

$$a_{n+1}=g^{}(y)=g^{}(x+p^nz)a_n+p^nzg^{\prime \prime }(x)(modp^{2n}).$$

Combining these two expressions gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}(a_{n+1}+a_n2)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}(2a_n+p^nzg^{\prime \prime }(x)2)(modp^{2n})`$
$`pb_{n+1}b_n(modp^{2n}).`$
Now we apply this result. Let $`A=\text{ord}_p(a_n1)`$ and $`B=\text{ord}_p(b_n)`$. We know that $`A,B1`$. Since $`a_{n+1}a_n(modp^n)`$, we have $`\text{ord}_p(a_{n+1}1)=A`$ if $`A<n`$, and $`\text{ord}_p(a_{n+1}1)n`$ if $`An`$. Now,

1. If $`B<A`$ and $`B<n`$, then $`\text{ord}_p(b_{n+1})=B1`$.
2. If $`AB`$ and $`A<n`$, then $`b_n+z(a_n1)pb_{n+1}(modp^n)`$. There is a unique $`z(modp)`$ for which $`b_n+z(a_n1)0(modp^{A+1})`$, so that $`\text{ord}_p(b_{n+1})A`$. For all other $`z(modp)`$, $`b_n+z(a_n1)`$ is divisible by $`p^A`$ but not by $`p^{A+1}`$, so that $`\text{ord}_p(b_{n+1})=A1`$.
3. If $`A,Bn`$ then $`p^n`$ divides $`(a_{n+1}1)`$ and $`p^{n1}`$ divides $`b_{n+1}`$.

Interpreting these results in terms of the tree structure, we see that:

* If $`B<A`$ and $`B<n`$, then every lift of $`\sigma `$ splits $`(B1)`$ times, and then grows.
* If $`AB`$ and $`A<n`$, then every lift of $`\sigma `$, except for one, splits $`(A1)`$ times, and then grows. The single exceptional lift behaves precisely the same way as does $`\sigma `$.
* If $`A,Bn`$ then every lift of $`\sigma `$ splits $`n1`$ times, but we do not know what happens to their descendants at level $`2n`$.

Note that, in addition to using the above results by computing $`A`$ and $`B`$ to predict the structure of the tree, we can use the results by observing the tree to determine which case we are in.

In cases 1 and 2, the subtrees rooted at $`\sigma `$ have the following structures:

### 6.4. Tails

A tail of $`f_n`$ is a sequence of elements of $`/p^n`$ of the form $`y_1,y_2,\mathrm{},y_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`y_{j+1}=f_n(y_j)`$, and none of the $`y_j`$ is in the image of $`f_n^m`$, for $`m`$ sufficiently large. All of the points of $`/p^n`$ either lie on tails of $`f_n`$ or in cycles of $`f_n`$.

Suppose $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ is a cycle of $`f_1`$. If $`f^{}(x_i)0(modp)`$, then $`f_n`$ maps $`\{xxx_i(modp)\}`$ to $`\{xxx_{i+1}(modp)\}`$ bijectively. This follows by induction on $`n`$. Let $`x/p^{n1}`$ be congruent to $`x_i(modp)`$. Then the $`p`$ elements of $`/p^n`$ that are congruent to $`x(modp^{n1})`$ map bijectively to the $`p`$ elements of $`/p^n`$ that are congruent to $`f(x)(modp^{n1})`$, since

$$f(x+p^{n1}y)f(x)+p^{n1}yf^{}(x)f(x)+p^{n1}yf^{}(x_i)(modp^n).$$

Thus, if $`f^{}(x_i)0(modp)`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, then all of the elements of $`/p^n`$ which are congruent to $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k(modp)`$ lie on cycles of $`f_n`$.

However, if $`f^{}(x_i)0(modp)`$, then $`f_n`$ maps the $`p`$ elements of $`/p^n`$ that are congruent to $`x(modp^{n1})`$ all to the same element of $`/p^n`$, by the above computation. Thus, the elements of $`/p^n`$ which are congruent to $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k(modp)`$ contain only a single cycle of length $`k`$, and the remaining points lie on tails of $`f_n`$. If $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_{\mathrm{}}`$ is such a tail, with $`y_jx_i(modp)`$, then $`y_{j+1}(modp^2)`$ must be on the cycle of $`f_2`$. Similarly $`y_{j+k+1}(modp^3)`$ must be on the cycle of $`f_3`$, and so on. By induction, $`y_{j+(n2)k+1}`$ must be on the cycle of $`f_n`$. Thus, for such a cycle of $`f_n`$, the maximum length of a tail leading to that cycle is $`p+(n2)k`$.

Of course, the tails of $`f_n`$ form trees, with every tail eventually leading to a cycle, but possibly first joining another tail. The above result gives a bound on how long it takes for all the tails to coalesce into the cycle.

If $`f^{}(x_i)0(modp)`$, but $`f^{\prime \prime }(x_i)0(modp)`$, then we can describe precisely how $`f_n`$ maps $`\{xxx_i(modp)\}`$ into $`\{xxx_{i+1}(modp)\}`$. The preimages of the points in the image of $`f_n`$ have sizes $`p^j`$ or $`2p^j`$; precisely, for $`1j<n/2`$ there are $`p^{n2j1}(p1)/2`$ preimages of size $`2p^j`$, and there is a single preimage of size $`p^{n/2}`$. The proof is similar to many we have already presented.

## 7. Periodic orbits of $`f`$

In this section we describe the possible lengths of periodic orbits in the $`p`$-adic integers $`_p`$ for a polynomial $`f(x)[x]`$.333Or, more generally, a polynomial in $`_p[x]`$. Such an orbit corresponds to a sequence of cycles of $`f_n`$, for $`n=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$, where each cycle is a lift of its predecessor. The lengths of the cycles are bounded, and length of the orbit is the lim sup of the lengths of the cycles. All the relevant properties of $`_p`$ are presented in Appendix A. We use the term ‘periodic orbit’ for $`_p`$, while we reserve the term ‘cycle’ for $`/p^n`$.

Let $`x_p`$ lie in a periodic orbit of $`f`$ of length $`c`$. For each $`n`$, let $`c_n`$ be the length of the cycle $`\sigma _n`$ of $`f_n`$ containing $`x(modp^n)`$. Thus, $`c_1c_2\mathrm{}=c`$. Clearly $`c_1p`$. If $`\sigma _1`$ grows tails, then each $`c_n=c_1`$, so $`c=c_1`$. Otherwise, whenever some $`\sigma _n`$ either splits or grows, all further $`\sigma _{n+i}`$ either split or grow, so $`c_{n+i+1}/c_{n+i}`$ is always either 1 or $`p`$, thus $`c/c_n`$ is a power of $`p`$. If $`\sigma _1`$ partially splits, then its lifts of length $`dc_1`$ either split or grow, and its lift of length $`c_1`$ partially splits just as does $`\sigma _1`$.

Thus, there are three possibilities:

1. $`c=c_1`$, if either $`\sigma _1`$ grows tails or every $`\sigma _{i+1}`$ is the single $`c_i`$-cycle lift of $`\sigma _i`$, which partially splits.
2. $`c/c_1`$ is a power of $`p`$, if $`\sigma _1`$ splits or grows.
3. $`c/dc_1`$ is a power of $`p`$, if $`\sigma _1`$ partially splits but some $`\sigma _{i+1}`$ is a $`dc_i`$-cycle lift of $`\sigma _i`$ (which partially splits).

We showed in Section 6.1 that, for $`n2`$, whenever $`\sigma `$ grows, its lift also grows; then that cycle’s lift grows, and so on. So, under the hypothesis that $`c=lim\; sup_i\mathrm{}c_i`$ is finite, we can never have $`c_{n+1}=pc_n`$ for $`n2`$. Thus, $`c=c_1`$ or $`c=dc_1`$ or $`c=c_2=pc_1`$.

For $`p>3`$, we show in Appendix B that the case $`c=c_2=pc_1`$ never occurs.

In summary, any periodic orbit of $`f`$ in $`_p`$ has length at most $`p^2`$, and this length is the product of a positive integer not exceeding $`p`$ and a divisor of $`p1`$ (except if $`p=3`$, in which case length 9 can occur). Note that this upper bound on the lengths of periodic orbits implies, if $`f`$ is not linear, an upper bound on the number of periodic points. For, any element of an orbit of length $`c`$ must be a root of the polynomial $`f^c(z)z`$, which has only finitely many roots.

## 8. Lifts of a periodic orbit

In this section we describe the behavior of cycles which separate from a periodic orbit of $`f`$ at some stage. Precisely, let $`\alpha _p`$ be an element of a periodic orbit of $`f`$ of length $`k`$, so that $`g(\alpha )=\alpha `$ for $`g=f^k`$, and assume that $`g^{}(\alpha )0(modp)`$. Let $`c_n=k`$ (i.e., $`\alpha (modp^n)`$ is in a $`k`$-cycle of $`f_n`$, not a shorter cycle), and let $`y_p`$ have $`n=\text{ord}_p(y\alpha )`$. Then $`\alpha (modp^{n+1})`$ and $`y(modp^{n+1})`$ lie in different cycles of $`f_{n+1}`$. We will say that the cycle containing $`y`$ separates from $`\alpha `$ at level $`n+1`$.

Let $`d`$ be the order of $`g^{}(\alpha )(modp)`$. Then we know that $`y(modp^{n+1})`$ is in a $`kd`$-cycle of $`f_{n+1}`$. Let $`h=g^d=f^{kd}`$. Then $`h(\alpha )=\alpha `$ and $`h^{}(\alpha )1(modp)`$.

Suppose that $`h^{}(\alpha )=g^{}(\alpha )^d1`$. Let $`m=\text{ord}_p(h^{}(\alpha )1)`$. Then

$`h(y)y`$ $`=h(\alpha +(y\alpha ))\alpha (y\alpha )`$
$`h(\alpha )+(y\alpha )h^{}(\alpha )\alpha (y\alpha )(modp^{2n})`$
$`(y\alpha )(h^{}(\alpha )1)(modp^{2n}).`$
Thus, if $`n>m`$, $`\text{ord}_p(h(y)y)=n+m`$.444In the next section, we will show that the same conclusion holds if $`n>m/d`$. In this case, $`y(modp^{n+m})`$ is a fixed point of $`h_{n+m}`$, but $`y(modp^{n+m+1})`$ is not a fixed point of $`h_{n+m+1}`$. So $`y(modp^{n+m})`$ lies in a $`kd`$-cycle of $`f_{n+m}`$, but $`y(modp^{n+m+1})`$ lies in a longer cycle of $`f_{n+m+1}`$. It follows that the $`kd`$-cycle of $`f_{n+m}`$ which contains $`y(modp^{n+m})`$, and all of its descendants, must grow.

Note that in the above case there will always be some $`n`$ such that the behavior of the infinite subtree consisting of cycles which separate from $`\alpha `$ at levels greater than $`n`$ is determined by the finite tree up to level $`n`$. For there will be some cycle which separates from $`\alpha `$ at level $`n+1`$, and then splits $`m`$ times where $`m<n`$. By the above argument, all cycles which separate from $`\alpha `$ at higher levels will behave the same way.

In fact, by observing only a finite part of the tree, we can determine that we are in that case. If we have a cycle which partially splits, then we know that it has a lift which partially splits, and so on, so each point on that cycle corresponds to a periodic element $`\alpha `$. Then, if one of the other cycles which is a lift of that cycle behaves as above (splits $`m<n`$ times, then grows), then we know that we are in the above case and all cycles which separate from $`\alpha `$ at higher levels will behave the same way.

If we have a periodic element $`\alpha `$ which is on a cycle which splits completely, and it has a lift which splits $`m<n`$ times and then grows, then simply by observing that feature of the tree, by the results of Section 6.3 we must be in case 2 of that section, and so we know that there is a periodic point $`\alpha `$ on the cycle, and the above results apply.

However, when $`h^{}(\alpha )=1`$, it does not seem to be true that by observing a finite part of the tree we can predict all subsequent behavior, nor can we determine that $`h^{}(\alpha )=1`$ by observing only a finite portion of the tree.

Suppose that $`h^{}(\alpha )=1`$. If $`f`$ is not linear, then $`h^{}`$ is not constant, so there is an integer $`\mathrm{}2`$ for which $`h^{(\mathrm{})}(\alpha )0`$ while $`0=h^{(2)}(\alpha )=\mathrm{}=h^{(\mathrm{}1)}(\alpha ).`$555In the next section, we will show that $`\mathrm{}>d`$. Let $`m=\text{ord}_p(h^{(\mathrm{})}(\alpha )/\mathrm{}!)`$. Then

$`h(y)y`$ $`=h(\alpha +(y\alpha ))\alpha (y\alpha )`$
$`=h(\alpha )+(y\alpha )h^{}(\alpha )+\mathrm{}\alpha (y\alpha )`$
$`=(y\alpha )^{\mathrm{}}h^{(\mathrm{})}(\alpha )/\mathrm{}!+(y\alpha )^{\mathrm{}+1}h^{(\mathrm{}+1)}(\alpha )/(\mathrm{}+1)!+\mathrm{}`$
$`(y\alpha )^{\mathrm{}}h^{(\mathrm{})}(\alpha )/\mathrm{}!(modp^{n(\mathrm{}+1)}).`$
Thus, if $`n>m`$, $`\text{ord}_p(h(y)y)=n\mathrm{}+m`$. In this case, the image of $`y(modp^{n\mathrm{}+m})`$ is in a $`kd`$-cycle of $`f_{n\mathrm{}+m}`$ which grows and all of whose descendants grow. Thus, the lifts of $`\alpha `$ which separate from it at any stage $`n+1`$, where $`n>m`$, will split $`n(\mathrm{}1)+(m1)`$ times and then grow. (And, since this is greater than or equal to $`n`$, the above results for the case $`h^{}(\alpha )1`$ never apply.) The lifts of $`\alpha `$ which separate from it at stage $`n+1`$, where $`nm`$, will split at least $`n\mathrm{}1`$ times, but we do not know whether they then grow.

We consider the case $`h^{}(\alpha )=1`$ to be pathological; it did not arise in any of thousands of random examples we studied. We can construct an example, though: let $`p=3`$ and $`f(x)=x+3x^2`$. Then $`f(0)=0`$, so take $`\alpha =0`$. Since $`f(3^n\beta )3^n\beta (mod3^{2n+1})`$ for any $`n,\beta `$, the cycles which separate from 0 at level $`n+1`$ split $`n`$ times and then grow.

## 9. Improving the bounds

In the previous section we described the dynamics of $`f`$ sufficiently close to a periodic orbit; in this section we will show that the same results hold in a somewhat larger neighborhood of the periodic orbit. We will prove the following result:

###### Proposition 1.

If $`f(x)_p[x]`$ has a periodic orbit of length $`k`$ containing $`\alpha _p`$, $`d>1`$ is the order of $`(f^k)^{}(\alpha )(modp)`$, and $`h=f^{kd}`$, then each of $`h^{(2)}(\alpha ),\mathrm{},h^{(d)}(\alpha )`$ is divisible by $`(h^{}(\alpha )1)`$, in $`_p`$.

Our interest is in the following two corollaries:

###### Corollary 1.

Under the hypotheses of Proposition 1, if $`h^{}(\alpha )=1`$ then $`h^{(2)}(\alpha )=\mathrm{}=h^{(d)}(\alpha )=0`$.

###### Corollary 2.

Under the hypotheses of Proposition 1, if $`m=\mathrm{ord}_p(h^{}(\alpha )1)`$ and $`y_p`$ has $`n=\mathrm{ord}_p(y\alpha )`$, then

$$h(y)y(y\alpha )(h^{}(\alpha )1)(modp^{\mathrm{min}\{n(d+1),2n+m\}}).$$

###### Proof.

Observe that

$$h(y)y=h(\alpha )\alpha +(y\alpha )(h^{}(\alpha )1)+(y\alpha )^2h^{\prime \prime }(\alpha )/2!+\mathrm{},$$

where $`h(\alpha )=\alpha `$ and $`p^{ni+m}`$ divides $`(y\alpha )^ih^{(i)}(\alpha )/i!`$ for $`2id`$. ∎

The following corollary was used in Section 6.2:

###### Corollary 3.

Under the hypotheses of Corollary 2, if we define $`a_{n+1}=h^{}(y)`$, then

$$\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{ord}_p(h(y)y)n,nd\}=\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{ord}_p(a_{n+1}1),nd\}.$$

###### Proof.

We have

$$a_{n+1}=h^{}(y)=h^{}(\alpha )+(y\alpha )h^{\prime \prime }(\alpha )+\mathrm{}.$$

But $`(y\alpha )^{i1}h^{(i)}(\alpha )`$ is divisible by $`p^{m+n(i1)}`$ for $`2id`$, so

$$a_{n+1}h^{}(\alpha )(modp^{\mathrm{min}\{n+m,nd\}}).$$

Thus, $`\mathrm{min}\{\text{ord}_p(a_{n+1}1),n+m,nd\}=\mathrm{min}\{m,n+m,nd\}`$. From Corollary 2,

$`\mathrm{min}\{\text{ord}_p(h(y)y)n,n+m,nd\}`$ $`=\mathrm{min}\{m,n+m,nd\}`$
$`=\mathrm{min}\{\text{ord}_p(a_{n+1}1),n+m,nd\}.`$
But $`n+m>\text{ord}_p(a_{n+1}1)`$, so the minimum of the right-hand side is less than $`n+m`$, so the minimum of the left-hand side is also less than $`n+m`$. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 1.

First, we will translate the periodic orbit so that it passes through 0; this simplifies the algebra in our proof. Let $`T:xx+\alpha `$. Then the function $`\widehat{f}=T^1fT`$ also has a periodic orbit of length $`k`$, namely $`(0,f(\alpha )\alpha ,f^2(\alpha )\alpha ,\mathrm{},f^{k1}(\alpha )\alpha )`$. But $`\widehat{f}(x)=f(x+\alpha )\alpha `$, so $`\widehat{f}^{}(x)=f^{}(x+\alpha )`$, and similarly for higher derivatives; likewise, any iterate $`\widehat{f}^{\mathrm{}}=T^1f^{\mathrm{}}T`$, so $`(\widehat{f}^{\mathrm{}})^{(t)}(x)=(f^{\mathrm{}})^{(t)}(x+\alpha )`$. So computations assuming that $`\alpha =0`$ will also hold for arbitrary $`\alpha `$.

Now, for $`g=f^k`$ we have $`g(x)=g^{}(0)x+\mathrm{O}(x^2)_p[x]`$ and $`h(x)=g^d(x)=g^{}(0)^dx+h_2x^2+h_3x^3+\mathrm{}+h_dx^d+\mathrm{O}(x^{d+1})`$, where $`\mathrm{O}(x^j)`$ denotes a polynomial in $`x`$ in which every term has degree at least $`j`$. Since $`d`$ is the order of $`g^{}(0)(modp)`$, each of $`g^{}(0)1,\mathrm{},g^{}(0)^{d1}1`$ is coprime to $`p`$. Thus, for any $`\mathrm{}m=\text{ord}_p(g^{}(0)^d1)`$, we can project to $`R=_p/p^{\mathrm{}}_p`$ and apply the following lemma, which implies that each of $`h_2,\mathrm{},h_d`$ is divisible by $`p^{\mathrm{}}`$, completing the proof of the Proposition. ∎

###### Lemma 1.

For any commutative ring $`R`$ and any primitive $`d^{\mathrm{th}}`$ root of unity $`\zeta R`$ such that none of $`\zeta 1,\zeta ^21,\mathrm{},\zeta ^{d1}1`$ is a zero-divisor, let $`g(x)=\zeta x+\mathrm{O}(x^2)R[x]`$ and $`h(x)=g^d(x)=x+ax^i+\mathrm{O}(x^{i+1})`$, where $`a0`$ is the first nonzero coefficient of $`h(x)`$ of degree greater than 1. Then $`i1(modd)`$, and in particular $`id+1`$.

###### Proof.

Write $`g(x)=g_1x+g_2x^2+\mathrm{}`$. Then the compositions

$$h\text{}g=g_1x+\mathrm{}+g_{i1}x^{i1}+(g_i+a\zeta ^i)x^i+\mathrm{O}(x^{i+1})$$

and

$$g\text{}h=g_1x+\mathrm{}+g_{i1}x^{i1}+(g_i+\zeta a)x^i+\mathrm{O}(x^{i+1}).$$

Since $`g\text{}h=h\text{}g`$, the coefficients of $`x^i`$ are equal, so $`a\zeta ^i=a\zeta `$, so $`a\zeta (\zeta ^{i1}1)=0`$. Since $`\zeta `$ is a root of unity, it is not a zero-divisor. Therefore if $`i1(modd)`$, then $`\zeta ^{i1}1`$ would be a zero-divisor, contradicting the hypothesis. ∎

## 10. Odds and ends

### 10.1. Analyzing polynomials

For a given polynomial, our results generally allow us to find the cycle structure of $`f_n`$ rather quickly. We can compute the first few levels of the tree directly, and then our results will usually imply the structure of the entire tree. We have done this for thousands of randomly selected polynomials, for small primes $`p`$; in theory one should be able to construct polynomials which will take us arbitrarily long to analyze, but these polynomials seem to be extremely rare. Also, the numbers $`a_n`$ and $`b_n`$ are sometimes useful for determining the structure of the remainder of the tree.

The tree shown in Section 5 is a typical example. For this tree, levels 0–3 suffice to determine the structure of the entire tree. Once we observe a cycle $`(\text{mod }p^2)`$ which splits, for which one lift grows and another splits, we know that the lift which splits will behave in the same way. Also, for the 1-cycle $`(\text{mod }p)`$ which partially splits, since its 2-cycle lift splits 0 times before growing, and $`0<kr1=1`$, this behavior must persist.

Conversely, our results also allow us to construct polynomials with desired cycle structures $`(\text{mod }p^n)`$. For instance, we can construct polynomials having periodic orbits (in $`_p`$) of length $`kr`$, for any $`1kp`$ and any $`r`$ dividing $`p1`$.

### 10.2. Polynomial with 3-adic 9-cycle

We mention the polynomial $`f(x)=2+x+3x^2+x^3+3x^4+2x^5`$, which has a 3-adic 9-cycle, since it has a 9-cycle (mod 81) for which $`\text{ord}_p(a_41)=3`$ and $`\text{ord}_p(b_4)=4`$, namely the cycle containing 0 (mod 81).

A $`p`$-adic cycle of length $`p^2`$ is impossible for $`p>3`$, by the results of Appendix B.

### 10.3. Permutation polynomials and single-cycle polynomials

We give a straightforward method for determining whether a given polynomial $`f(x)[x]`$ induces a permutation $`f_n:/p^n/p^n`$. We claim that, for $`n2`$, $`f_n`$ is a permutation if and only if $`f_1`$ is a permutation and $`f^{}(x)`$ has no roots in $`/p`$; it follows that, for any $`n2`$, $`f_n`$ is a permutation if and only if $`f_2`$ is a permutation.

We prove the claimed result by induction. Certainly, if $`f_n`$ is a permutation, then $`f_{n1}`$ is a permutation, which implies that $`f_1`$ is a permutation. Now, given that $`f_{n1}`$ is a permutation, $`f_n`$ will be a permutation if and only if, for each integer $`x`$, the numbers $`f(x),f(x+p^{n1}),\mathrm{},f(x+p^{n1}(p1))`$ are all distinct $`(\text{mod }p^n)`$; but $`f(x+p^{n1}t)f(x)+p^{n1}tf^{}(x)(modp^n)`$, so $`f_n`$ is a permutation if and only if $`f^{}`$ has no roots in $`/p`$. This completes the proof.

We can also give a simple criterion for when $`f_n`$ is a single cycle of length $`p^n`$. For $`p>3`$, for any $`n2`$, $`f_n`$ is a $`p^n`$-cycle if and only if $`f_2`$ is a $`p^2`$-cycle. For $`p=3`$, for any $`n3`$, $`f_n`$ is a $`3^n`$-cycle if and only if $`f_3`$ is a $`3^3`$-cycle.

## 11. Further generality

There are more general situations in which our arguments, perhaps with slight modifications, will apply. They include various combinations of the following:

* First of all, we can replace $``$ by $`_p`$ in all of our arguments.
* Most of the results which we have derived for polynomials also hold for rational functions whose denominators have no roots in $`/p`$; we will show this in Appendix C.
* More generally, we can consider rational functions over $`_p`$ having “good reduction” (mod $`p`$) at all points of a cycle in $`^1(_p)`$.
* All of the above proofs work just as well for power series over $`_p`$, with one caveat: if the power series only converges on $`p_p`$, then we must only consider elements of $`p_p`$, and in particular $`f(0)`$ must be divisible by $`p`$.
* The above arguments apply, in modified form, if we replace $`_p`$ by the valuation ring of any finite extension of $`_p`$.
* For polynomials with coefficients in a number field, we can pick a good prime of the number field (almost any would do) and apply the results for the valuation ring of the completion of the field at that prime, to give bounds on the cycle lengths.
* Our basic approach yields interesting results for polynomial mappings from $`^n`$ to $`^n`$ (thanks to Greg Kuperberg for pointing this out).

We have studied all of the above, and we have numerous partial results; we hope eventually to write a comprehensive paper covering at least the above situations.

## Appendix A A quick introduction to $`p`$-adics.

For the reader’s convenience, we set forth the basic properties of $`p`$-adic integers which we use in Sections 7, 8, & 9. The $`p`$-adic integers are the projective limit of the rings $`/p^n`$. Explicitly, an element of $`_p`$ is a sequence $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})`$, where $`x_n/p^n`$, such that $`x_mx_n(modp^n)`$ for all $`m>n`$. Addition and multiplication are defined component-by-component, which makes $`_p`$ into a ring. Note that $`_p`$ contains $``$, since any nonnegative integer $`n`$ is represented by $`(n,n,n,\mathrm{})`$. Also note that $`_p`$ is a domain, namely, $`ab=0`$ only happens when $`a`$ or $`b`$ is zero. It makes sense to reduce elements of $`_p`$ modulo $`p^n`$, in the usual ring-theoretic way or just by extracting the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ component; the ring $`_p/p^n_p`$ is canonically isomorphic to $`/p^n`$. Finally, the invertible elements of $`_p`$ are precisely the elements not divisible by $`p`$ (i.e., the elements for which $`x_10(modp)`$), for one can write down the inverse of such an element component-by-component, in much the same way as one multiplies in $`_p`$.

The $`p`$-adic integers can be visualized as an infinite tree much like the ones we have described above. Construct the infinite $`p`$-ary tree, analogous to the infinite binary tree for $`p=2`$, viewing the nodes on the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ level as classes $`(\text{mod }p^n)`$, labeled in such a way that a node $`(\text{mod }p^n)`$ is connected by an edge to the $`p`$ nodes $`(\text{mod }p^{n+1})`$ which are congruent to the first class $`(\text{mod }p^n)`$. The first few levels of the tree for $`p=3`$ are pictured below:

Then the $`p`$-adic integer $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})`$ corresponds to the infinite path down the tree which passes through each node $`x_n(modp^n)`$. $`_p`$ is the set of all such infinite paths in the tree. This interpretation makes it easy to see when two $`p`$-adic integers are congruent $`(\text{mod }p^n)`$: if and only if their paths coincide for the first $`n`$ levels. If $`\text{ord}_p(xy)=n`$, then the paths $`x`$ and $`y`$ coincide at the first $`n`$ levels, and separate at level $`n+1`$.

## Appendix B Cycle growth

We prove that, for $`p>3`$, if a cycle of $`f_1`$ grows, then its lift also grows. From previous results we then know that the next lift grows, and so on. We also describe when this fails for $`p=3`$.

Say our polynomial $`f`$ has a $`k`$-cycle mod $`p`$ which contains $`x`$. Let $`g=f^k`$, which has $`x`$ as a fixed point mod $`p`$, but for which $`x`$ is in a $`p`$-cycle mod $`p^2`$. We must show that $`x`$ is in a $`p^2k`$-cycle of $`f_3`$, or equivalently that $`x`$ is in a $`p^2`$-cycle of $`g_3`$. Let $`a=a_1=g^{}(x)`$, $`b=b_1=(g(x)x)/p`$, and $`c=g^{\prime \prime }(x)/2`$. Then $`a1(modp)`$ and $`b0(modp)`$.

First, we show that, for each $`i1`$,

$$g^i(x)x+pb\underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}a^j+p^2cb^2\underset{j=0}{\overset{i2}{}}a^{i2j}(1+a+\mathrm{}+a^j)^2(modp^3).$$

For, this is true for $`i=1`$, and inductively

$`g^{i+1}(x)`$ $`g\left(x+p\left(b{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}}a^j+pcb^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i2}{}}}a^{i2j}(1+a+\mathrm{}+a^j)^2\right)\right)(modp^3)`$
$`g(x)+pb{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{i}{}}}a^j+p^2cb^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i2}{}}}a^{(i+1)2j}(1+a+\mathrm{}+a^j)^2`$
$`+p^2cb^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}}a^j\right)^2(modp^3)`$
$`=x+pb{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}}a^j+p^2cb^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}}a^{(i+1)2j}(1+a+\mathrm{}+a^j)^2,`$
which completes the induction.

Now,

$`g^p(x)`$ $`x+pb{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{p1}{}}}a^j+p^2cb^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{p2}{}}}a^{p2j}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{j}{}}}a^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2(modp^3)`$
$`x+pb{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{p1}{}}}a^j+p^2cb^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{p2}{}}}(j+1)^2(modp^3)\text{ (since }a1\text{ (mod }p\text{))}`$
$`=x+pb{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{p1}{}}}a^j+p^2cb^2{\displaystyle \frac{(p1)(p)(2p1)}{6}}`$
and, for $`p>3`$, the last term is $`0(modp^3)`$, so

$$g^p(x)x+pb\underset{j=0}{\overset{p1}{}}a^j(modp^3).$$

But, as shown in Section 6.1, $`_{j=0}^{p1}a^j`$ is not divisible by $`p^2`$. Thus, $`g^p(x)x(modp^3)`$, so the $`p`$-cycle of $`g_2`$ which includes $`x`$ does not split, hence it grows.

Using the above methods, we can describe when a cycle $`(\text{mod }3)`$ will grow and then split. For $`p=3`$ we have

$`g^p(x)`$ $`x+pb{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{p1}{}}}a^j+p^2cb^2{\displaystyle \frac{(p1)(p)(2p1)}{6}}(modp^3)`$
$`x+pb{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{p1}{}}}a^jp^2c(modp^3)`$
$`x+p^2bp^2c(modp^3),`$
so a cycle (mod 3) which grows will then split if and only if $`bc(mod3)`$.

## Appendix C Rational functions

Let $`h=f/g`$ be a ratio of polynomials $`f,g[x]`$ such that $`g`$ takes values coprime to $`p`$ on any cycle being considered; in particular, this condition certainly holds if $`g`$ has no roots in the field $`/p`$. We will show that the results we have derived for polynomials over $``$ also hold for $`h`$. We do this by constructing a sequence of polynomials $`h_n[x]`$ such that $`h`$ and $`h_n`$ agree $`(\text{mod }p^n)`$ on the cycles being considered, and the $`a_i`$’s and $`b_i`$’s for the various $`h_n`$ are compatible.

Precisely, put

$$h_n(x)=f(x)g(x)^{\varphi (p^{2n})1},$$

where $`\varphi `$ is the Euler quotient function; then $`h_n(x)[x]`$. For any $`x`$ such that $`pg(x)`$, $`h_n(x)h(x)(modp^{2n})`$. Let $`a_{i,n}`$ and $`b_{i,n}`$ be the values of $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ for the polynomial $`h_n`$, for $`in`$, and say that $`x`$ is in a cycle of $`h_n(modp^i)`$ of length $`\alpha _{i,n}`$. Then

$$b_{i,n}=\frac{h_n^{\alpha _{i,n}}(x)x}{p^i}\frac{h^{\alpha _{i,n}}(x)x}{p^i}(modp^n).$$

Next,

$`h_n^{}(x)`$ $`=f^{}(x)g(x)^{\varphi (p^{2n})1}+f(x)\left(\varphi (p^{2n})1\right)g(x)^{\varphi (p^{2n})2}g^{}(x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(x)}{g(x)}}+f(x)(p^{2n}p^{2n1}1){\displaystyle \frac{g^{}(x)}{g(x)^2}}(modp^{2n})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g(x)f^{}(x)f(x)g^{}(x)}{g(x)^2}}(modp^{2n1})`$
$`=h^{}(x),`$
so

$`a_{i,n}`$ $`=(h_n^{\alpha _{i,n}})^{}(x)={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\alpha _{i,n}1}{}}}h_n^{}(h_n^{\mathrm{}}(x)){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\alpha _{i,n}1}{}}}h^{}(h^{\mathrm{}}(x))(modp^{2n1})`$
$`=(h^{\alpha _{i,n}})^{}(x).`$
Now, for any $`n>i`$, $`h`$ agrees with $`h_n(modp^i)`$; thus, each $`\alpha _{i,n}`$ equals the length of the cycle of $`h`$ mod $`p^n`$ containing $`x`$. Hence, the classes $`a_{i,n}(modp^i)`$ and $`b_{i,n}(modp^i)`$ are independent of $`n`$. This shows the compatibility of the $`h_n`$; thus, because our earlier results apply to each $`h_n`$, they apply as well to the function $`h`$.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Finite temperature correlation functions are important quantities for many applications of both theoretical and experimental interest (see, for instance ). A special class of quantum field theories is provided by the two–dimensional integrable models, which can be exactly solved by means of bootstrap methods . For these models, two different formulations of finite temperature effects have been recently discussed in the literature: the first is due to LeClair and Mussardo , the second has been proposed by Delfino . Although the two formalisms coincide if applied to the trivial cases of free quantum field theories, however they drastically differ once used to deal with interacting theories. To determine which of the two is the correct one we decide to compare their predictions versus a quantity which can be independently determined. This is the case of the finite temperature one–point function of the trace of the stress–energy tensor which can be computed by the Thermodynamical Bethe Ansatz (TBA) . As we will show below, the proposal by LeClair and Mussardo exactly matches the low–temperature expansion of this quantity whereas the proposal by Delfino fails at order $`𝒪(e^{3mr})`$. Before presenting the explicit calculations, let us briefly discuss the main features of the two different finite temperature formalisms.

## 2 LeClair–Mussardo Formalism

This formalism, discussed in , combines together physical principles coming from two different areas: the Thermodynamical Bethe Ansatz and the Form Factor Approach. It originates from an interpretation of the expression of the free energy – as determined by the TBA –, in terms of quasi–particle excitations with respect to a thermal ground state. In order to clarify this statement, it is useful to summarise the TBA approach. We assume for simplicity that the spectrum of the integrable theory consists of a single particle $`A`$ with mass $`m`$ and an exact $`S`$–matrix $`S(\theta )`$. In the following we consider the case $`S(0)=1`$, which gives rise to the fermionic TBA equations. We define

$$\sigma (\theta )=i\mathrm{log}S(\theta ),\varphi (\theta )=i\frac{d}{d\theta }\mathrm{log}S(\theta ).$$
(2.1)
The partition function at a finite temperature $`T`$ and on a volume $`L`$ (for $`L\mathrm{}`$) is determined by means of the Thermodynamical Bethe Ansatz equations as follows . In a box of large volume $`L`$, $`0<x<L`$, with periodic boundary conditions, the quantization condition of the momenta is given by $`e^{ik(\theta _i)L}_{ji}S(\theta _i\theta _j)=1`$, i.e.

$$mL\mathrm{sh}\theta _i+\underset{ji}{}\sigma (\theta _i\theta _j)=2\pi n_i,$$
(2.2)
where $`n_i`$ are integers. Introducing a density of occupied states per unit volume $`\rho _1(\theta )`$ as well as a density of levels $`\rho (\theta )`$, in the thermodynamic limit eq. (2.2) becomes

$$2\pi \rho =e+2\pi \varphi \rho _1,$$
(2.3)
where $`e=m\mathrm{cosh}\theta `$ and $`(fg)(\theta )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\theta ^{}f(\theta \theta ^{})g(\theta ^{})/2\pi `$. Defining the pseudo-energy $`\epsilon (\theta )`$ as

$$\frac{\rho _1}{\rho }=\frac{1}{1+e^\epsilon },$$
(2.4)
the minimization of the free-energy with respect to the densities of states leads to the integral equation

$$\epsilon =eR\varphi \mathrm{log}(1+e^\epsilon ),$$
(2.5)
and the partition function is then given by

$$Z(L,R)=\mathrm{exp}\left[mL\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\mathrm{ch}\theta \mathrm{log}\left(1+e^{\epsilon (\theta )}\right)\right].$$
(2.6)
As shown in , the interesting point is now that the above partition function can be interpreted as the one of a gas of fermionic particles but with energy given by $`\epsilon (\theta )/R`$. Namely, there is a one–to–one correspondance between the above expression (2.6) and the partition function computed according to the following thermal sum

$$Z(L,R)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\frac{d\theta _1}{2\pi }\mathrm{}\frac{d\theta _n}{2\pi }\theta _n\mathrm{}\theta _1|\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _n\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}e^{\epsilon (\theta _i)},$$
(2.7)
where the scalar products of the states are computed by applying the standard free fermionic rules. The above equality implies that all physical properties of the system can be extracted by employing the quasi-particle excitations above the TBA thermal ground state. Since this differs from the usual (zero–temperature) ground state, it is not surprising that its excitations do not satisfy the standard dispersion relations $`e=m\mathrm{cosh}\beta `$, $`p=m\mathrm{sinh}\beta `$, rather they have dressed energy $`\stackrel{~}{e}=\epsilon (\theta )/R`$ and dressed momentum $`\stackrel{~}{k}(\theta )`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{e}(\theta )=\epsilon (\theta )/R,\stackrel{~}{k}(\theta )=k(\theta )+2\pi (\sigma \rho _1)(\theta ).$$
(2.8)
In this contest, the rapidity $`\theta `$ plays the role of a variable which simply parameterises the dispersion relation of the quasi–particle excitations and their $`S`$–matrix, which is assumed to coincide with the original $`S(\theta _i\theta _j)`$.

The TBA allows us to compute the finite temperature one–point function of the trace of the stress–energy tensor $`T_\mu ^\mu `$ . In fact, we have

$$T_\mu ^\mu _R(T_\mu ^\mu )_0=\frac{2\pi }{R}\frac{d}{dR}[RE(R)],$$
(2.9)
where $`E(R)=\mathrm{log}Z/L`$. This can be also expressed as

$$T_\mu ^\mu _R(T_\mu ^\mu )_0=m𝑑\theta \frac{e^\epsilon }{1+e^\epsilon }\left(_R\epsilon \mathrm{ch}\theta \frac{1}{R}_\theta \epsilon \mathrm{sh}\theta \right),$$
(2.10)
where the functions $`_R\epsilon `$ and $`_\theta \epsilon `$ satisfy linear integral equations which can be easily solved. The final result reads

$$T_\mu ^\mu _R(T_\mu ^\mu )_0=2\pi m^2\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{d\theta _i}{2\pi }f(\theta _i)e^{\epsilon (\theta _i)}\right]\varphi (\theta _{12})\mathrm{}\varphi (\theta _{n1,n})\mathrm{ch}(\theta _{1n})\right),$$
(2.11)
where

$$f(\theta )=\frac{1}{1+e^{\epsilon (\theta )}}.$$
(2.12)
Let us consider now the calculation of the finite temperature one–point functions (the only ones which we consider in this paper). According to LeClair and Mussardo, this correlator is given by

$$𝒪(x,t)_R=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^n}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d\theta _if(\theta _i)e^{\epsilon (\theta _i)}\right]\theta _n\mathrm{}\theta _1|𝒪(0)|\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _n_{\mathrm{conn}},$$
(2.13)
where the connected Form Factor of the operator $`𝒪`$ is defined as

$$\theta _n\mathrm{}\theta _1|𝒪|\theta _1^{}\mathrm{}\theta _m^{}_{\mathrm{conn}}FP\left(\underset{\eta _i0}{lim}0|𝒪|\theta _n+i\pi +i\eta _n,\mathrm{},\theta _1+i\pi +i\eta _1,\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n\right)$$
(2.14)
$`FP`$ in front of the above expression means taking its finite part, i.e. terms proportional to $`(1/\eta _i)^p`$, where $`p`$ is some positive power, and also terms proportional to $`\eta _i/\eta _j`$, $`ij`$ are discarded in taking the limit. With this prescription the resulting expression is an universal quantity, i.e. independent of the way in which the above limits are taken.

It is easy to see that within this formalism, the finite temperature one–point function of the trace of the stress–energy tensor exactly coincides with its expression provided by the TBA, eq. (2.11). In fact, the connected matrix elements of this operators are given by

$`\theta |T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _{\mathrm{conn}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi m^2;`$ (2.15)
$`\theta _2,\theta _1|T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _1,\theta _2_{\mathrm{conn}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi m^2\varphi (\theta _1\theta _2)\mathrm{ch}(\theta _1\theta _2),`$
and by an inductive application of the form factor residue equations

$`\theta _n\mathrm{}\theta _1|T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _n_{\mathrm{conn}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi m^2\varphi (\theta _{12})\varphi (\theta _{23}),\mathrm{}\varphi (\theta _{n1,n})\mathrm{ch}(\theta _{1n})`$
$`+\mathrm{permutations}`$
where $`\theta _{ij}=\theta _i\theta _j`$. Once inserted into eq. (2.13), the above series coincides with the one of eq. (2.11).

In conclusion, the formalism by LeClair and Mussardo predicts, at least for the particular thermal one–point function of $`T_\mu ^\mu `$, an exact matching with the expression determined by the TBA.

## 3 Delfino’s Formalism

This formalism, discussed in , only employs the Form Factor Approach. The finite temperature effects are taken into account by defining the theory on a cylinder infinitely extended in the space direction and a width $`R=1/T`$ in the other direction. The particles entering the thermal sum are the asymptotic states satisfying the standard dispersion relations $`e=m\mathrm{cosh}\beta `$, $`p=m\mathrm{sinh}\beta `$ and the contribution of the $`n`$–particle asymptotic state to $`Tr[𝒪e^{HR}]`$ is given by

$$d_n^𝒪(R)=\frac{1}{n!}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^n}𝑑\theta _1\mathrm{}𝑑\theta _nF_{n,n}^𝒪(\theta _n,\mathrm{},\theta _1|\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n)e^{E_nR}$$
(3.1)
with $`E_n=m_{i=1}^n\mathrm{cosh}\theta _i`$ and

$$F_{m,n}^𝒪(\theta _m^{},\mathrm{},\theta _1^{}|\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n)=\theta _m^{},\mathrm{},\theta _1^{}|𝒪|\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n.$$

Define

$$d^𝒪(R)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d_n^𝒪(R),$$
(3.2)
and normalise the thermal sum with respect the identity operator $`I`$

$$𝒪_R=\frac{d^𝒪(R)}{d^I(R)}.$$
(3.3)
In his paper , Delfino considered for the finite part of the Form Factors entering eq. (3.1) the symmetric limit

$$_{2n}^𝒪(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n)=\underset{\eta 0}{lim}F_{0,2n}^𝒪(\theta _1+i\pi +i\eta ,\mathrm{},\theta _1+i\pi +i\eta ,\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n),$$
(3.4)
and he also showed that the singular disconned parts of the Form Factors of the local operator $`𝒪`$ only enter through the constant factor $`S(0)`$. All other singular terms cancel in the ratio (3.3). Finally, he proposed for the finite temperature one–point function the expression

$$𝒪_R=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^n}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d\theta _ig(\theta _i,R)e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta _i}\right]_{2n}^𝒪(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n),$$
(3.5)
where

$$g(\theta ,R)=\frac{1}{1S(0)e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }}.$$
(3.6)
The above formula has to be contrasted with the one given by eq. (2.13).

## 4 Main Differences and Open Problems

There are two main differences between the two formalisms:

* LeClair–Mussardo formalism employs the quasi–particle excitations with respect to the thermal vacuum and therefore the pseudo–energy $`\epsilon (\theta )`$, solution of the integral equation (2.3), whereas Delfino’s formalism employs the standard asymptotic particles at zero–temperature with energy $`e=m\mathrm{cosh}\theta `$ and momentum $`p=m\mathrm{sinh}\theta `$. These different choices of excitations seem somehow related to the boundary conditions adopted by the two formalisms along the space direction, i.e. in the LeClair–Mussardo approach one considers a box of large volume $`L`$, with periodic b.c., in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, whereas in the Delfino approach one directly considers the infinitely extended line. Notice, however, that there is no dependence on $`L`$ in the final expressions (2.13) and (3.5) and therefore it is not a–priori clear the role played by the boundary conditions in thermal effects and which of the two is the appropriate one.
* the Form Factors entering equation (2.13) are computed according to the prescription given by eq. (2.14) whereas those entering equation (3.5) are computed according to the symmetric limit (3.4). The two different prescriptions for the finite part of the Form Factors produce, of course, two different results. In the case of the trace of the stress–energy tensor, for instance, there is already a difference for the two–particle Form Factor entering the thermal sum: by using the symmetric limit, in fact we have

$$\theta _2,\theta _1|T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _1,\theta _2=8\pi m^2\varphi (\theta _1\theta _2)\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\theta _1\theta _2}{2},$$
(4.1)
to be contrasted with eq. (2.15), obtained by using the other prescription.

It is therefore evident that the two formulas, eq. (2.13) and eq. (3.5), proposed for the one–point function at finite temperature, deeply differ in their physical justifications and in their technical details. To judge which of the two is the correct one it seems necessary to reach a better understanding of the physical principles ruling the thermal effects in quantum field theories. Given the present ignorance about these principles, it is therefore difficult to decide a–priori in favour of one or the other of the two formulations and the best thing one can do is to to perform some checks. Those already done and discussed in the literature are unfortunately inconclusive. Lukyanov , for instance, computed the thermal one–point functions of the vertex operators in the Sinh–Gordon model by performing the path integral of the model and he showed that these quantities coincide with the ones computed in the formalism by LeClair–Mussardo. Unfortunately, the perturbative order at which he performed the computation does not permit to decide about their general validity. On the other hand, Delfino  showed that his formalism is able to reproduce the one–point function of $`T_\mu ^\mu `$ up to the two–particle contributions but unfortunately he did not prove the complete equivalence of his formula with the TBA expression.

Given the present unsatisfactory status about the validity of the two formalisms it is highly desiderable to perform additional checks, in particular by comparing their predictions against a quantity which can be determined by an independent method. These considerations naturally select the one–point function of the trace of the stress–energy tensor as a check quantity for the two formulas, since its expression (2.11) is independently determined by the TBA. Hence, we have to see whether or not Delfino’s formula reproduces the TBA result, not only up to the two–particle contribution, but also to higher orders (as shown above, the formula by LeClair–Mussardo coincides with the formula of the TBA). We have then two possibilities: (i) the formula proposed by Delfino is unable to reproduce the TBA result at higher orders; (ii) the formula proposed by Delfino reproduces the TBA result, alias it is just a different organization of the terms entering both the thermal sum and the integral equations of the TBA. In the first case, the failure of this check is already enough to decide about the general validity of the thermal expressions proposed by Delfino. In the second case, there would be still open the problem which of the two formalisms is the correct one, since their coincidence for the particular case of the stress–energy tensor is not expected to occur for other operators. Luckly enough, it is the first possibility that happens. To show the discrepancy of Delfino’s formula with the TBA, we compare the thermal expression of the stress–energy tensor of a particular model which can be analytically solved.

## 5 A Simplified Model

The main technical difficulty for comparing Delfino’s expression of $`T_\mu ^\mu _R`$ with the analogous expression coming from the TBA consists in solving the integral equation (2.3). We can simplify this step by taking a local kernel, i.e. we consider an integrable model for which

$$\varphi (\theta _1\theta _2)=2\pi \delta (\theta _1\theta _2).$$
(5.1)
For the associate $`S`$–matrix we have

$$S(\theta )=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }\theta 0;\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }\theta =0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.2)
The integrable model defined in this way may be regarded as the limit $`g0`$ of the Sinh–Gordon model. In fact, with the notation of ref. , the $`S`$–matrix of the Sinh–Gordon model is given by

$$S_{Sh}(\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\theta i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi B(g)}{2}}{\mathrm{sinh}\theta +i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi B(g)}{2}},$$
(5.3)
with $`B(g)=\frac{2g^2}{8\pi +g^2}`$. It is convenient to define $`B(g)2\alpha `$. For the corresponding kernel we have

$$\varphi _{Sh}(\theta )=\frac{2\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha \mathrm{cosh}\theta }{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta +\mathrm{sin}^2\pi \alpha },$$
(5.4)
and in the limit $`\alpha 0`$ we have

$$\underset{\alpha 0}{lim}\varphi _{Sh}(\theta )=2\pi \delta (\theta ).$$
(5.5)
By using the kernel (5.1), the integral equation (2.3) becomes

$$\epsilon (\theta )=mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{ln}(1+e^{\epsilon (\theta )}),$$
(5.6)
whose solution is given by

$$\epsilon (\theta )=\mathrm{ln}\left(e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }1\right).$$
(5.7)
Hence

$$f(\theta )e^{\epsilon (\theta )}=\frac{e^\epsilon }{1+e^\epsilon }=e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta },$$
(5.8)
and inserting into the TBA formula (2.11), we have

$$T_\mu ^\mu _R(T_\mu ^\mu )_0=2\pi m^2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\left[e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }+e^{2mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }+e^{3mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(5.9)
For the purpose of comparing with Delfino’s prediction, it is convenient to leave explicitly the $`n`$–particle contributions to the thermal average, although it is evident that the above series can summed to

$$T_\mu ^\mu _R(T_\mu ^\mu )_0=2\pi m^2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\frac{1}{e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }1},$$
(5.10)
which is nothing else but the thermal one-point function of $`T_\mu ^\mu `$ for a free bosonic theory.

Let us consider now the Form Factors of $`T_\mu ^\mu `$ associated to the simplified model with kernel (5.1). In virtue of the observed equivalence of this theory with a particular limit of the Sinh–Gordon model, the Form Factors can obtained by a careful $`g0`$ limit of the corresponding quantities of the Sinh-Gordon model. They were computed in  and can be expressed as

$$0|T_\mu ^\mu (0)|\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n=\frac{2\pi m^2}{F_{min}(i\pi )}\left(\frac{4\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha }{F_{min}(i\pi )}\right)^{n1}𝒬_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)\underset{i<j}{}\frac{F_{min}(\theta _{ij})}{x_i+x_j}.$$
(5.11)
Few words on the above expression. The explicit form of $`F_{min}(\theta )`$ can be found in . For our purposes we only need the functional equation satisfied by $`F_{min}(\theta )`$

$$F_{min}(\theta )F_{min}(\theta +i\pi )=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\theta }{\mathrm{sinh}\theta +i\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha }.$$
(5.12)
$`𝒬_n`$ is a symmetric polynomial in the variables $`x_ie^{\theta _i}`$ given by

$$𝒬_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=\text{det}M_{ij},$$

with the $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ matrix $`M_{ij}`$ given by

$$M_{ij}=\sigma _{2ij}[ij+1].$$

In the above equation the symbol $`[n]`$ is defined by

$$[n]\frac{\mathrm{sin}(n\alpha )}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha },$$

and $`\sigma _k`$ is the elementary symmetric polynomial given by the generating function

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(x+x_i)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}x^{nk}\sigma _k(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n).$$

In the limit $`\alpha 0`$, the first polynomials $`𝒬_n`$ are given by

$`𝒬_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _1;`$
$`𝒬_4`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3;`$ (5.13)
$`𝒬_6`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _1\sigma _5\left[\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _4+3\sigma _3\sigma _64(\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _6+\sigma _4\sigma _5)\right].`$
### 5.1 Two–particle contribution

By using eq. (5.11), let us compute

$$\theta _2,\theta _1|T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _1,\theta _2=\underset{\eta _10}{lim}\underset{\eta _20}{lim}0|T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _1+i\pi +\eta _1,\theta _2+i\pi +\eta _2,\theta _1,\theta _2.$$
(5.14)
We will consider the contributions coming from the different terms in (5.11) separately.

By using the functional equation (5.12), for the product of $`F_{min}(\theta _{ij})`$ we have, in the above limit

$$\underset{i<j}{}F_{min}(\theta _{ij})[F_{min}(i\pi )]^2\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{12}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{12}+\mathrm{sin}^2\pi \alpha }.$$
(5.15)
For the polynomial of the denominator we have

$$\underset{i<j}{}(x_i+x_j)A_1A_2x_1x_2(x_1+x_2)^2(x_1x_2)^2,$$
(5.16)
where $`A_k=(1e^{i\eta _k})i\eta _k`$. Finally, for the polynomial $`𝒬_4`$ in the numerator we obtain

$$𝒬_4x_1x_2(x_1^2+x_2^2)\left[(A_1^2+A_2^2)x_1x_2+A_1A_2(x_1^2+x_2^2)\right].$$
(5.17)
We have now two possibilities. The first consists of keeping in the above expression only the term multiplying the combination $`A_1A_2`$ (and disregarding those multiplying $`(A_1^2+A_2)`$). This leads to the computation of the connected Form Factor. In this case, combining all terms and taking the limit (5.14), we have

$$\theta _2,\theta _1|T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _1,\theta _2_{\mathrm{conn}}=4\pi m^2\left(\frac{2\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha \mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{12}+\mathrm{sin}^2\pi \alpha }\right)\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}.$$
(5.18)
By taking now the limit $`\alpha 0`$ and using eq. (5.5), we have

$$\theta _2,\theta _1|T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _1,\theta _2_{\mathrm{conn}}=4\pi m^2\varphi (\theta _1\theta _2)\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12},$$
(5.19)
in agreement with eq. (2.15).

The second possibility consists of taking the symmetric limit considered by Delfino. This is obtained by taking $`A_1=A_2`$. In this case, the symmetric limit of eq. (5.14) produces

$$\theta _2,\theta _1|T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _1,\theta _2_{\mathrm{sym}}=8\pi m^2\left(\frac{2\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha \mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{12}+\mathrm{sin}^2\pi \alpha }\right)\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\theta _{12}}{2}.$$
(5.20)
By taking now the limit $`\alpha 0`$ and using eq. (5.5), we have

$$\theta _2,\theta _1|T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _1,\theta _2_{\mathrm{sym}}=8\pi m^2\varphi (\theta _1\theta _2)\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\theta _{12}}{2}.$$
(5.21)
Let us consider the expression (3.5) up to the the two–particle contribution. For the function $`g(\theta ,R)`$ we have

$$g(\theta ,R)=\frac{1}{1S(0)e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }}=\frac{1}{1+e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }},$$
(5.22)
and then

$$T_\mu ^\mu _R(T_\mu ^\mu )_0=2\pi m^2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\left[\frac{e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }}{1+e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }}+2\frac{e^{2mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }}{(1+e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta })^2}+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(5.23)
Expanding this expression in power of $`e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }`$ up to $`e^{2mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }`$ we have

$$T_\mu ^\mu _R(T_\mu ^\mu )_0=2\pi m^2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\left[e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }+e^{2mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }+𝒪(e^{3mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta })\right].$$
(5.24)
Comparing now this expression with eq. (5.8), we explicitly confirm the agreement found at this order by Delfino in his paper.

### 5.2 Three–particle contribution

By using eq. (5.11), let us compute

$$\theta _3,\theta _2,\theta _1|T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _2=\underset{\eta _10}{lim}\underset{\eta _20}{lim}\underset{\eta _30}{lim}0|T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _1+i\pi +\eta _1,\theta _2+i\pi +\eta _2,\theta _3+i\pi +\eta _3,\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3.$$
(5.25)
As before, let us consider the contributions coming from the different terms separately. By using the functional equation (5.12), for the product of $`F_{min}(\theta _{ij})`$ we have, in the above limit

$$\underset{i<j}{}F_{min}(\theta _{ij})[F_{min}(i\pi )]^3\left(\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{12}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{12}+\mathrm{sin}^2\pi \alpha }\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{13}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{13}+\mathrm{sin}^2\pi \alpha }\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{23}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{23}+\mathrm{sin}^2\pi \alpha }\right).$$
(5.26)
For the polynomial of the denominator we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(x_i+x_j)`$ $``$ $`A_1A_2A_3x_1x_2x_3\left[(x_1^2x_2^2)(x_1^2x_3^2)(x_2^2x_3^2)\right]^2=`$ (5.27)
$`=64A_1A_2A_3(x_1x_2x_3)^5(\mathrm{sinh}\theta _{12}\mathrm{sinh}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sinh}\theta _{23})^2.`$
For the polynomial $`𝒬_6`$, we have two possibilities. The first consists of keeping only the term multiplying the combination $`A_1A_2A_3`$ (and disregarding all other expressions which multiply the other monomials like $`A_1^3`$, $`A_1^2A_2`$ etc.). This leads to the computation of the connected Form Factor. In this case we have

$`𝒬_6^{\mathrm{conn}}`$ $``$ $`A_1A_2A_3x_1x_2x_3(x_1^2+x_2^2)(x_1^2+x_3^2)(x_2^2+x_3^2)\times `$
$`\left[(x_1x_2)^2(x_1^2+x_2^22x_3^2)+(x_1x_3)^2(x_1^2+x_3^22x_2^2)+(x_2x_3)^2(x_2^2+x_3^22x_1^2)\right]`$
and for the connected Form Factor, combining all terms, we obtain

$`\theta _3,\theta _2,\theta _1|T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _2_{\mathrm{conn}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi m^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha \mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{12}+\mathrm{sin}^2\pi \alpha }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha \mathrm{cosh}\theta _{23}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{23}+\mathrm{sin}^2\pi \alpha }}\right)\times `$ (5.29)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{13}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{13}+\mathrm{sin}^2\pi \alpha }}\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{13}+\mathrm{permutations}.`$
By taking the limit $`\alpha 0`$, we obtain the result reported in formula (2).

The second possibilities consists of considering the symmetric limit, which is obtained by taking $`AA_1=A_2=A_3`$. Other terms enter the polynomial in this case and we have

$`𝒬_6^{\mathrm{sym}}`$ $``$ $`A^3x_1x_2x_3(x_1+x_2+x_3)(x_1+x_2)(x_1+x_3)(x_2+x_3)(x_1x_2+x_1x_3+x_2x_3)\times `$ (5.30)
$`[(x_1x_2)^2(x_1^2+x_2^22x_3^2)+(x_1x_3)^2(x_1^2+x_3^22x_2^2)+(x_2x_3)^2(x_2^2+x_3^22x_1^2)+`$
$`2x_1x_2x_3[x_2(x_1x_3)^2+x_1(x_2x_3)^2+x_3(x_1x_2)^2]]`$
Therefore, combining all the different contributions, in the symmetric limit we have

$`\theta _3,\theta _2,\theta _1|T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3_{\mathrm{symm}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi m^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha \mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{12}+\mathrm{sin}^2\pi \alpha }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha \mathrm{cosh}\theta _{13}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{13}+\mathrm{sin}^2\pi \alpha }}\right)\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{23}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _{23}+\mathrm{sin}^2\pi \alpha }}[2(\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}+\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{13}+\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{23})+3]\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\theta _{12}}{2}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\theta _{13}}{2}}{\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{13}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\theta _{23}}{2}1)}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\theta _{23}}{2}}}+\mathrm{permutations}.`$
By taking now the limit $`\alpha 0`$ and using eq. (5.5), we obtain

$`\theta _3,\theta _2,\theta _1|T_\mu ^\mu |\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _2_{\mathrm{sym}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi m^2\varphi (\theta _1\theta _2)\varphi (\theta _1\theta _3){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\theta _{12}}{2}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\theta _{13}}{2}}{\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{13}}}\times `$ (5.31)
$`[2(\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}+\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{13}+\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{23})+3]{\displaystyle \frac{(2\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\theta _{23}}{2}1)}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\theta _{23}}{2}}}`$
$`+\mathrm{permutations}.`$
Once inserted into eq. (3.5), we have

$$T_\mu ^\mu _R(T_\mu ^\mu )_0=2\pi m^2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\left[\frac{e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }}{1+e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }}+2\frac{e^{2mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }}{(1+e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta })^2}+\frac{9}{2}\frac{e^{3mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }}{(1+e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta })^3}+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(5.32)
and by making an expansion up to $`e^{3mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }`$ we have

$$T_\mu ^\mu _R(T_\mu ^\mu )_0=2\pi m^2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\left[e^{mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }+e^{2mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }+\frac{3}{2}e^{3mR\mathrm{cosh}\theta }+𝒪(e^{4mR})\right],$$
(5.33)
i.e. the third order coefficient disagrees with the corresponding coefficient of eq. (5.9).

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper we have critically analysed the status of the thermal formalism for two–dimensional integrable field theory by comparing the approach proposed by LeClair and Mussardo with the approach proposed by Delfino. Whereas the first approach is able to reproduce the one–point function of $`T_\mu ^\mu `$ as given by the TBA, the second one is in agreement with the TBA formula only up to the two–particle contribution and differs otherwise. This has been explicitly shown by considering a simple integrable model, where all calculations can be performed analytically without relying on the solution of integral equation. It would be useful to further explore the subject and see whether or not the approach by LeClair and Mussardo passes other tests.