text:
# Droplet Motion for the Conservative 2D Ising Lattice Gas Dynamics below the Critical Temperature

## 1 Introduction

The problem of computing the relaxation time of stochastic Monte Carlo algorithms for models of lattice classical spin models has attracted in the last years considerable attention and many new rigorous techniques have been developed giving rise to nice progresses in probability theory and statistical mechanics. If for simplicity we confine ourselves to $`\pm 1`$ (or $`0,1`$ in the lattice gas picture) spins, the two most studied random dynamics have been non– conservative Glauber type algorithms, in which a spin at a time flips its value with a rate satisfying the detailed balance condition w.r.t. the grand canonical Gibbs measure, and conservative Kawasaki dynamics in which nearest neighbors spins exchange their values with a rate satisfying the detailed balance condition w.r.t. the canonical Gibbs measure.

A warning sign here is in order. Most of the rigorous results presented below have been obtained in the “continuous time” setting, namely when the stochastic dynamics is a continuous time Markov chain and the time units are such that, in a unitary time interval on average every spin tries to change its value once. In the physics literature, but also in the Markov chain Monte Carlo approach to computational problems and image reconstruction, the discrete time setting in which at each time step only one dynamical variable is updated is more familiar. In most cases the simple rule to translate results from one case to another is to multiply by the appropriate change of scale, but sometimes subtle problems may appear in the discrete setting (see e.g. ).

Let us go back to a quick review of the main results. For Glauber dynamics in the one phase region the general picture is relatively clear for a wide class of models and the conclusion is that equilibrium is reached exponentially fast provided certain mixing assumption are satisfied by the grand canonical Gibbs measure (see e.g.  and references therein). In the conservative case, instead, the basic results ,  and more recently , state that, at high temperature, the relaxation time in a box of side $`L`$ grows like $`L^2`$ (diffusive scaling).

A natural question arises as to what happens when the thermodynamic parameters (e.g inverse temperature and the external magnetic field in the Glauber case or inverse temperature and particle density in the conservative case) are such that we do have a phase transition in the thermodynamic limit.

Let us start with the Glauber case and, to be concrete, let us consider the usual Ising model in a two dimensional box $`V`$ of side $`L`$, without external field and inverse temperature $`\beta `$ larger than the critical value $`\beta _c`$. With free boundary conditions the picture of the relaxation behavior to the Gibbs equilibrium measure that comes out is the following. The system first relaxes rather rapidly to one of the two phases and then it creates, via a large fluctuation, a thin layer of the opposite phase along one of the sides of $`V`$. Such a process requires an average time of the order of $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta \tau _\beta L)`$ where $`\tau _\beta `$ denotes the surface tension in the direction of one of the coordinate axes. After that, the opposite phase invades the whole system by moving, in a much shorter time scale, the interface to the side opposite to the initial one and equilibrium is finally reached. The time required for this final process can be computed to be of the order of $`L^3`$ at least in the SOS approximation (see ).

Let us now turn to the much more involved conservative case in the same setting (low temperature and free boundary conditions). Here results are much less precise (see ).

Let us denote by $`N`$ the total number of particles in $`V`$ and let us assume that $`\rho (\rho _{}^{},\rho _+^{})`$, where $`\rho `$, $`\rho _\pm ^{}`$ denote the actual density and the density of the liquid/vapor phases respectively. With these assumptions it can be shown that the relaxation time is again exponentially large in $`L`$ but, contrary to the conservative case, almost nothing is known rigorously about the exact constant in the exponential and about the physical mechanisms behind equilibration.

That the relaxation time is very large can be easily understood (but painfully proved) by the following reasoning. Assume for simplicity that $`\rho `$ is slightly above $`\rho _{}^{}`$ in such a way that, typically, the gas at equilibrium shows phase segregation between a (macroscopically) small bubble of liquid immersed in vapor. Because of the free boundary conditions the bubble prefers to sit around one of the corners of $`V`$. Clearly, in order to reach equilibrium, the system started as above has to move the bubble to the other corners but, in doing that, it is forced to explore a region of the phase space of exponentially (in $`L`$) small canonical probability (and that is the hard part in a rigorous approach)). In other words it seems clear that the slowest mode in the dynamics comes from the corner to corner droplet transport. A precise understanding of the above motion appears therefore to be an interesting problem on its own and almost unavoidable if one wants to quantify precisely the relaxation time. A first numerical attempt in this direction represents the main goal of this note, which is in turn based on the work contained in .

We conclude by observing that, if boundary conditions are changed to e.g plus or periodic, then the whole scenario changes drastically and one may argue that the slowest mode of the system is associated to the random walk motion of the center of gravity of the unique Wulff bubble of the liquid phase. If that is true then simple heuristics shows that the relaxation time should now grow as $`L^3`$ (in continuous time units) or $`L^5`$ in discrete time steps.

## 2 Model and Notation

We define here our model and notation.

### 2.1 Equilibrium Probability Measures

We consider the two dimensional lattice $`𝐙^2`$ with sites $`x=(x_1,x_2)`$. By $`Q_L`$ we denote the square of all $`x=(x_1,x_2)𝐙^2`$ such that $`x_i\{0,\mathrm{},L1\}`$, $`i=1,2`$. The edges of $`𝐙^2`$ are those $`e=[x,y]`$ with $`x,y`$ nearest neighbors in $`𝐙^2`$. Given $`V𝐙^2`$, we denote by $`_V`$ the set of all edges such that both endpoints are in $`V`$.

The configuration space. Given $`V𝐙^2`$, our configuration space is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V=S^V`$, where $`S=\{1,1\}`$. Sometimes the lattice gas point of view will be more convenient, so we also consider the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V^{}=\{0,1\}^V`$ and its natural one–to–one correspondence with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We define the unnormalized magnetization $`M_V:\mathrm{\Omega }_V𝐙`$ and the number of particles $`N_V:\mathrm{\Omega }_V^{}𝐍`$ as

$$M_V(\sigma )=\underset{xV}{}\sigma (x),N_V(\eta )=\underset{xV}{}\eta (x)$$
(1)
while the normalized magnetization is given by $`m_V=M_V/|V|`$.

The interaction and the Gibbs measures. Given a finite set $`V𝐙^2`$ we define the Hamiltonian with free boundary condition $`H_V:\mathrm{\Omega }_V𝐑`$ by

$$H_V(\sigma )=\underset{[x,y]_V}{}\sigma (x)\sigma (y).$$
(2)
The corresponding (finite volume) Gibbs measure is given by

$$\mu _V^\beta (\sigma )=\left(Z_V^\beta \right)^1\mathrm{exp}[\beta H_V(\sigma )],$$
(3)
where $`Z_V^\beta `$ is the proper normalization factor called partition function. We denote by $`m^{}(\beta )`$ and $`\beta _c`$ the spontaneous magnetization and inverse critical temperature of the two dimensional Ising model respectively. It is well known that $`\beta _c=(1/2)\mathrm{log}(1+\sqrt{2})`$. The density of the liquid and the vapor phase, denoted respectively by $`\rho _+^{}(\beta )`$ and $`\rho _{}^{}(\beta )`$, can be expressed as $`\frac{1}{2}(1\pm m^{})`$.

We also introduce the canonical Gibbs measure defined as

$$\nu _{V,N}^\beta =\mu _V^\beta (|N_V=N)N\{0,1,\mathrm{},|V|\},$$
(4)
where $`N_V`$ is the number of particles in $`V`$.

## 3 The Kawasaki Dynamics

Here we define the relevant Markovian dynamics, reversible with respect to the canonical Gibbs measure, that will be used and analyzed in the rest of this paper.

Given $`V𝐙^2`$, $`b_V`$, and a particle configuration $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_V^{}`$ (equivalent to a spin configuration $`\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_V`$), let $`\eta ^b`$ be the configuration obtained from $`\eta `$ by interchanging the values of the $`\eta `$ variables at the end points of the bond $`b`$. The energy difference between the two configurations is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_bH_V(\eta )H_V(\eta ^b)H_V(\eta ).$$
(5)
If $`\eta ^b\eta `$ we call $`b`$ a broken bond and we say it belongs to $`_\eta `$. With the above notation the Kawasaki dynamics with Metropolis transition probability matrix is given by:

$$W(\eta ,\eta ^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{|_V|}e^{\beta \mathrm{max}(0,\mathrm{\Delta }_bH_V(\eta ))}\hfill & \text{if }\eta ^{}=\eta ^b\text{ and }b_\eta \text{ ,}\hfill \\ 1_{b_\eta }W(\eta ,\eta ^b)\hfill & \text{if }\eta ^{}=\eta \text{ ,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise .}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Clearly, for each $`N[1,|V|1]`$, $`W`$ describes an ergodic Markov chain on the configuration space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,N}^{}`$ which consists of all particle configurations with particle number equal to $`N`$. In particular, since $`W`$ satisfies the detailed balance condition with respect to the canonical measure $`\nu _{V,N}^\beta `$, the latter coincides with the unique invariant measure of the chain.

## 4 Corner to Corner Matter Transport

In this section we will first try to define our field of investigation by starting with a discussion of the typical configurations for the canonical measure of the Ising model below the critical temperature with free boundary conditions. We will then analyze some possible mechanisms for the corner to corner bubble transition, and the typical time scales that govern the process. Subsequently we will discuss the details of our numerical simulations and give some hints about the updating algorithm. Finally we will present the main results of this note.

### 4.1 Heuristics

Let $`V=Q_L`$, let $`\rho (\rho _{}^{},\rho _+^{})`$, where $`\rho _\pm ^{}`$ have been defined above, and let $`N=\rho L^2`$ be the total number of particles.

For the above situation, it is useful to recall first the shape of the typical configurations of the canonical Ising Gibbs measure with free b.c. when the temperature is below the critical value and $`L`$ is very large.

Let $`m_\rho =2\rho 1`$ be the usual magnetization associated to the given particle density. Then, as discussed in  and , there exists $`0<m_1(\beta )<m^{}(\beta )`$ such that

1. (i) if $`m_\rho (m_1,m_1)`$ then the typical configurations show phase segregation between a high density ($`\rho _+^{}`$) region and a low density ($`\rho _{}^{}`$) region that are roughly two horizontal (or vertical) rectangles of appropriate area separated by an horizontal (or vertical) interface of length $`L`$.
2. (ii) if $`m_\rho (m^{}(\beta ),m_1(\beta )][m_1(\beta ),m^{}(\beta ))`$ then the typical configurations show phase segregation between a high density ($`\rho _+^{}`$) region and a low density ($`\rho _{}^{}`$) region, the smaller of which is a quarter of a Wulff shape (see ) of appropriate area and it is centered in one of the four vertices of $`Q_L`$. For the reader convenience we recall that a Wulff shape is, at very low $`T`$, very similar to a perfect square.

What is important for us is that in both cases the typical configurations of the canonical measure show a discrete symmetry described by rotations of $`k\frac{\pi }{2},k=0,1\mathrm{}`$ around the center of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. As a consequence, if the dynamics starts from one typical configuration for which for example the particles form a cluster in a corner (this is one of the situations we have described before), then, in order to reach equilibrium, it must necessarily cross an unlikely region in the configuration space. One can show that the canonical probability of such region is exponentially small in $`L`$ . Therefore a bottleneck is present in the configuration space, and the relaxation time is exponentially large in $`L`$ .

In the sequel of this note we will always assume to be in the second between the two scenario’s described above, and in particular we will assume that $`m`$ and $`\rho `$ are respectively larger but quite close to the values $`m^{}(\beta )`$ and $`\rho _{}^{}(\beta )`$. In other words we are considering a situation in which typically the particles form a small (on a macroscopic scale) cluster of a specific shape around one of the four corners of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Clearly we do not mean that all the particles that are in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are in the bubble, and we do not mean that the bubble does not have empty holes in its interior. What we mean exactly is that, with high probability, there exists a macroscopic region with a precise shape around one of the corners where the particle density is very close to the density of the liquid phase, $`\rho _+^{}`$ (corresponding to the Onsager magnetization density).

Next we analyze some possible mechanisms for the corner to corner bubble transition, namely the process that moves the liquid bubble from one corner to a different one.

We can see two main mechanisms that could intervene.

The first one involves a deformation of the initial Wulff droplet, that for simplicity we will assume here and in the following to be a square of side $`B`$ (where $`\rho L^2=\rho _+^{}B^2+\rho _{}^{}(L^2B^2)`$) and with one vertex sitting on the left lower corner of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, into a rectangle. We call this case sliding. We can describe it as follows: we assume that the particles always (that is also during the transition to one of the other corners) form one compact cluster (apart from the usual small fluctuations) that, based on energetic considerations, we can assume to be a generic rectangle $``$ of sides $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$. Energetically, because of the free boundary conditions, at equilibrium it will find convenient to be a square of side $`B`$ attached to two sides of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Under the Kawasaki dynamics we can imagine that such square gets deformed, by some sort of matter transport along the boundary, until it reaches the shape of a rectangle $`^{}`$ of sides $`B_1>B_2`$ ($`B_1`$ being the horizontal side) with the left and bottom sides attached to the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. At this point the rectangle $`^{}`$ begins to slide along e.g. the bottom side of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ until it reaches the opposite corner where it deforms back to the original square (see figure (1)). The energy barrier $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ one has to cross in this process is clearly of the order of $`2(B_1+2B_2)2(2B)`$ at least at very low temperature. If we now optimize over $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ under the constraint that $`B_1\times B_2=B^2`$ we get $`B_1=\sqrt{2}B`$ and $`B_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}B`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=4(\sqrt{2}1)B`$ and therefore we expect that the average time to see a sliding transition to be of the order $`t_{sliding}\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mathrm{\Delta }H)`$.

The second mechanism that one can imagine is what we call evaporation. Particles individually separate from the liquid bubble (they evaporate) and start to perform a sort of random walk in the vapor phase (typically along the boundaries, by energetic reasons). Clearly the excess particles in the vapor phase prefer, as soon as they can, to gather together around one of nearby corners, and grow there a new liquid bubble. Typically these trial bubbles do not achieve a macroscopic volume, but die much before reaching this stage and their particles end up to go back to their mother bubble. Only rare fluctuations lead to more than half of the particles clustering together: in these cases typically the new bubble will form in the selected corner, and evaporation will continue until all the original liquid bubble has been reformed around the new corner (clearly particles of the bubble get interchanged at all moments with particles that are in equilibrium in the vapor phase). It is not difficult to check that, at least to leading order, the energy barrier is crossed when the two groups of particles in the two different corners have the same volume (and same Wulff shape). At very low temperature we get immediately that $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=4(\sqrt{2}1)B`$, exactly as in the former case.

We conclude this part by stressing that all the above reasonings were based only on energy barrier considerations and that we have never taken into account entropic contributions. The latter may play an important role in selecting one mechanism instead of another. Moreover prefactors in the typical time scales of each process may also be relevant and in that case a more detailed analysis would be required.

### 4.2 Numerical Simulations

Our experimental setting can be described as follows: we use a square two dimensional lattice with free boundary conditions. We have investigated lattice sizes going from $`L=20`$ to $`L=30`$. The inverse temperature $`\beta `$ has been assigned the two values $`\beta =0.7`$ and $`\beta =1.05`$ in different cases (this is of the order of twice the value of the inverse critical temperature $`\beta _c`$). Finally we have chosen the number of particles in the range $`25`$ to $`36`$ (corresponding to initial conditions with a bubble of $`55`$ or $`66`$ particles in a corner of the square lattice). Notice that in our range of temperatures the density of the vapor $`\rho _{}^{}`$ lies between $`\mathrm{5\; 10}^3`$ and $`\mathrm{2\; 10}^4`$ for the two different temperature values: in other words we are in extreme conditions.

The updating algorithm is of course based on the transition matrix (6), and goes as follows. We consider the particle configuration at time $`t`$, $`\eta (t)`$. We select a broken bond (that is a bond in the set $`_{\eta (t)}`$) at random, with uniform probability. We compute the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }_bH_V(\eta (t))`$ defined in (5): if it is negative we accept the update proposal, and set $`\eta (t+1)=\eta ^b(t)`$. Otherwise we accept the update proposal with probability $`exp(\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_bH_V(\eta (t)))`$ , and refuse it otherwise, setting in this case $`\eta (t+1)=\eta (t)`$.

This procedure, while appealing from the point of view of the computational efficiency, and satisfactory from the physical point of view, does not satisfy detailed balance, since the number of broken bonds is not a conserved quantity (see for instance the discussion in ). In our working conditions, however, this effect is very small and as far as many issues are concerned, irrelevant. In fact, as we have already explained, we will mostly focus on the mechanisms on which the bubble transition is based: since the small violation of detailed balance amounts to watching a movie that runs at slightly variable speed, spatial phenomena (like for example which is the transition path of the bubble or which is its typical spread during the transition) are described in an exact manner. Scaling arguments (for example the scaling of the transition time with $`\beta `$) could as matter of principle be sensitive to the violation of detailed balance: we believe however that only the prefactors will be affected, and all of the many tests of universality that we have done on our simulations do confirm this point of view.

We still have to discuss the criterium by which we define a bubble transition. We have indeed used two different criteria and checked that in the two cases we get consistent results. In the first scheme we define four boxes, with a vertex in one of the four corners, with an area equal to the one of the original bubble (that starts, let us say, from the top left corner). We then define a transition as the event where the center of mass of the particles that constitute the bubble enters a new box. In the second scheme we define a transition as the event where the $`\frac{3}{4}`$ of the particles have left the initial box: since we expect to have a transition when half of the particles have left, we are confident that $`75`$ percent is a safe signal for a transition. Numerical simulations will confirm the coincidence of the two criteria.

## 5 Results and Discussion

In figure (2) we show the number of particles (modulo a corner dependent offset needed for making the figure readable) at time $`t`$ near the 4 different corners of the lattice during the course of the dynamics. More precisely we have defined square boxes of size $`B^2`$ with a vertex in each of the four corners, where $`B^2`$ is the total number of particles ($`25`$ in the present case) and for each box we have computed the time history of the number of particles inside the box, under the condition that at time $`t=0`$ all the particles are in the leftmost bottom box. The value for the lowest curve (representing one given corner) is exactly the value of the number of particles in the corner, while the other 3 curves have an offset of, respectively, $`30`$, $`60`$ and $`90`$ for the 3 different corners. The transitions are always abrupt, and the particles spend the quasi totality of their time confined in one corner. As one expects on theoretical grounds the typical time scale on which a transition occurs is much shorter than the time one has to wait to see the transition. The system is waiting for a critical fluctuation making a lot of unsuccessful attempts (the small spikes towards the bottom of the figure).

In figure (3) instead we have computed the “variance” of the center of mass of the particles. We define

$$\sigma ^2(t)\frac{1}{B^2}\underset{i}{}\left(x_i(t)x^{(cm)}(t)\right)^2,$$
(7)
where $`x_i(t)`$ are, as usual, the positions of the particles on the two dimensional square lattice, and $`x^{(cm)}(t)`$ is the center of mass of the particles at time $`t`$. We compare it to the two extreme situations, where the particles form a compact blob (the lowest straight line), and where the particles are divided in two, equal sized, compact blobs in two adjacent corners (see the previous discussion in §3.1). The time scale of this figure (in arbitrary units again) is much smaller than the one of the previous figure, and basically gives the time of a single transition. In other words we have analyzed the time behavior of the above variance precisely during the short (in the time scale of figure (2)) time interval in which the transition takes place. The outcome is that the particles go from a compact blob (in a corner) to a compact blob (in a different corner) passing through a situation where they are basically divided in two groups of similar size.

The second part of our analysis considers scaling behaviors of the (average) transition times $`T(\beta ,L)`$. We look separately at the dependence of $`T`$ over $`\beta `$ and over the size $`L`$. In figure (4) we look at the $`\beta `$ dependence over the range $`[0.65,1.1]`$ for a fixed side $`L=20`$ (and $`25`$ particles). Our best fit to the form

$$T(\beta )=Ae^{\beta \delta H}$$
(8)
is very good and gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }H17.8`$ (and $`A0.001`$).

This is in very good agreement with the heuristic calculation of the energy barrier assuming that the transition occur via the mechanism we have called evaporation, that suggests that $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ is of order $`20`$. We illustrate the mechanism in figure (5). We start with $`25`$ particles packed in the left down-most corner: here the surface includes $`10`$ broken links. Now in the intermediate situation of figure (5), that is a typical intermediate particle configuration, we have $`19`$ broken links. Clearly it would be less expensive for the lonely particle to travel along the side of the lattice, but the configuration we show has a higher entropy and we observe these kind of processes with high frequency. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ is equal to twice the difference in the number of broken links, in this case $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=18`$. This is only an estimate, but gives the correct order of magnitude. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=18`$ is quite far from the infinite volume saddle we have discussed before, that would give $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=4(\sqrt{2}1)B8`$: this is due to finite size effects (both $`B`$ and $`L`$ are finite). We have verified that when we change the number of particles (for example from $`25`$ to $`36`$) or the definition of a transition from corner to corner we continue to find the expected scaling behavior.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper we have investigated, mainly numerically, the Kawasaki dynamics ( a particular conservative particle–hole exchange) for the low temperature ($`\beta 2\beta _c`$) Ising lattice gas in a box with free boundary conditions and side $`L30`$. The number of particles $`N`$ has been chosen in a such a way that phase segregation occurs (typically $`N25`$). With the above choice of the thermodynamic parameters the typical equilibrium configurations consist of a (small compared to the total volume) square–like droplet of particles which sits in one of the four corners because of the chosen boundary conditions and a rarefied gas elsewhere. Under the Kawasaki dynamics the droplet of particles make rare and mostly unsuccessful attempts to migrate to one of the empty corners. Based on energetic considerations alone, thus neglecting entropic contributions, we have envisaged two main best possible mechanisms for the migration to take place, that we have named sliding (the bubble of particles gets deformed into a rectangle, slides along one side of the box until it reaches the opposite corner and finally reconstructs the optimal square–like shape) and evaporation (the particles in the bubble evaporate into the rarefied gas and recollect together to a form a new bubble in another corner) respectively. We have then performed intensive numerical investigation to check whether sliding or evaporation is the prefered mechanism and the scaling behavior with the inverse temperature $`\beta `$ of the (average) transition time. Under various different definitions of the bubble transition our results consistently indicate that evaporation is the dominant effect and that the scaling law for the average transition time $`T(\beta )`$ is of the form

$$T(\beta )=Ae^{\beta \delta H},$$
(9)
where the energy barrier $`\delta H`$ is in very good agreement with simple energetic considerations.


format: text

text:
# Fermi surface renormalization in Hubbard ladders

## Abstract

We derive the one-loop renormalization equations for the shift in the Fermi-wavevectors for one-dimensional interacting models with four Fermi-points (two left and two right movers) and two Fermi velocities $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$. We find the shift to be proportional to $`(v_1v_2)U^2`$, where $`U`$ is the Hubbard-$`U`$. Our results apply to the Hubbard ladder and to the $`t_1t_2`$ Hubbard model. The Fermi-sea with fewer particles tends to empty. The stability of a saddle point due to shifts of the Fermi-energy and the shift of the Fermi-wavevector at the Mott-Hubbard transition are discussed.

PACS numbers: 75.30.Gw, 75.10.Jm, 78.30.-j

Introduction \- Fermi-surface properties of one- and two- dimensional interacting electron systems are a fascinating topic of current interest, motivated in part by the opening of a pseudogap in underdoped cuprates. Several novel effects have been found in generalized renormalization-group (RG) approaches to weak coupling models, in particular the formation of quasiparticle gaps  and a Pomaranchuk  and charge  instability in $`N`$-patch 2D-Hubbard models .

Novel Fermi-surface effects are possible also in N-band 1D-dimensional interacting models, e.g. N-leg ladders . Interest in the field of ladders systems has grown rapidly in the last years due to the discovery of superconductiviy in a doped two-leg ladder material  and due to the fact that a rigorous weak-coupling analysis can be carried through.

There have been a number of previous RG investigations of 1D interacting two-band systems. Penc and Sólyom  extended an earlier calculation of Varma and Zawadowski  and studied the Fermi-velocity renormalization at two-loop. Fabrizio  considered the role of the transverse hopping $`t_p`$ on the stability of the Luttinger-liquid (LL) state both for the case of particles with and without spin. Balents and Fisher  considered the same model we do, a general 1D model with four Fermi points. There are several phases with $`x`$ gapless charge and $`y`$ gapless spin modes (notation: C$`x`$S$`y`$) in the phase diagram wich were identified by Balents and Fisher considering the bosonized form of the leading divergent running couplings. The new feature we wish to stress is that the general phase diagram is influenzed by the RG-flow of the Fermi vectors, which we evaluate explicitly. This Fermi-surface effect is especially strong near a saddle point.

It is well known  that the tadpole (or Harttree) diagram contributes to the renormalization of the quadratic part of the original Hamiltonian, thus leading to a renormalization of the chemical potential in the case of a one-band model. Alternatively, one might wish to work with a constant density of particles. This can be achieved by the introduction of appropriate counter terms to the chemical potential . Here we would like to point out, that the tadpole diagram leads, in general, to different quadratic terms, which we denote by $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$, for the two bands in a 1D two-band model, see Fig. 1. The renormalization of the chemical potential is given in the 2-band case by suitable avarage of $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$. The difference of the two quadratic terms results, on the other hand, in a renormalization of the interchain hopping $`t_p`$ and thus alters the band structure.

RG-equations \- We will consider for a start a general two-band model with a linearized one-particle spectrum around the Fermi-points $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ and denote with $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ the Fermi-velocities for the first band ($`L_1`$ and $`R_1`$) and second band ($`L_2`$ and $`R_2`$) respectively. Lateron we will specify our results to the case of the Hubbard ladder and $`t_1t_2`$ Hubbard model. Since we will be working at one-loop, we will keep the Fermi-velocities constant throughout the calculation, even when the Fermi-points $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are allowed to shift.

A list of possible coupling constants is given in Table I. The special couplings $`g_{2v}`$, $`g_w`$, $`g_{1v}`$ and $`g_s`$ exist only for the $`t_1t_2`$ Hubbard model. The couplings listed come in two flavors, namely for scattering between parallel and antiparallel spins ($`||`$ and $``$) for backward scattering, $`g_{\gamma 1j}`$, and forward scattering, $`g_{\gamma 2j}`$, with $`\gamma =1,2,x,t`$ and $`j=,`$. Back- and forward scattering amplitudes for parallel spins are not independent, we choose $`g_{\gamma 1}0`$.

Spin-rotational invariance implies that the RG-flow leaves the combinations

$$g_{\gamma \rho }:=\frac{g_{\gamma 2}+g_{\gamma 2}}{2},g_{\gamma \sigma }:=2g_{\gamma 1}$$
(1)
invariant ($`\gamma =1,2,x,t`$), Here the index $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ denote the charge and spin component respectively.

The RG-equations to one-loop and momentum cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are for general densities

$`\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \dot{g}_{1\rho }=& \beta \left(g_{t\rho }^2+\frac{3}{16}g_{t\sigma }^2\right)\hfill & \hfill \dot{g}_{1\sigma }=& \alpha g_{1\sigma }^2\frac{\beta g_{t\sigma }^2}{2}+2\beta g_{t\rho }g_{t\sigma }\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{g}_{2\rho }=& \alpha \left(g_{t\rho }^2+\frac{3}{16}g_{t\sigma }^2\right)\hfill & \hfill \dot{g}_{2\sigma }=& \beta g_{2\sigma }^2\frac{\alpha g_{t\sigma }^2}{2}+2\alpha g_{t\rho }g_{t\sigma }\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{g}_{x\rho }=& \left(g_{t\rho }^2+\frac{3}{16}g_{t\sigma }^2\right)\hfill & \hfill \dot{g}_{x\sigma }=& g_{x\sigma }^2\frac{1}{2}g_{t\sigma }^22g_{t\rho }g_{t\sigma }\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{g}_{t\rho }=& g_{0\rho }g_{t\rho }+\frac{3g_{0\sigma }g_{t\sigma }}{16}\hfill & \hfill \dot{g}_{t\sigma }=& g_{0\sigma }g_{t\rho }+\hfill \\ & & & \left(g_{0\rho }\frac{g_{0\sigma }}{2}2g_{x\sigma }\right)g_{t\sigma },\hfill \end{array}`$

where the coupling constants have been rescaled by $`1/(\pi (v_1+v_2))`$, $`t=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is the initial cut-off) and where we have introduced

$$\alpha =\frac{v_1+v_2}{2v_1},\beta =\frac{v_1+v_2}{2v_2}$$
(2)
($`1/\alpha +1/\beta =1`$). The initial values of the rescaled coupling constants are

$$g_{\gamma \rho }=\frac{U}{2\pi (v_1+v_2)},g_{\gamma \sigma }=\frac{2U}{\pi (v_1+v_2)}$$
(3)
for the Hubbard model. Inclusion of Umklapp scattering at special fillings leads to additional terms. They are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \dot{g}_{1\rho }& =& \mathrm{}\alpha g_{1u}^2\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{g}_{1u}& =& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\alpha g_{1u}g_{1\rho }\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
for $`g_{1u}`$, where the dots in the first equation denote the generic terms. We find

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \dot{g}_{t\rho }& =& \mathrm{}+\frac{\alpha }{2}g_s^2,\dot{g}_{t\sigma }=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\alpha g_s^2\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{g}_s& =& g_s\left(2\alpha g_{1\rho }3gx\sigma /4+g_{x\rho }\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
for $`g_s`$ and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \dot{g}_{\gamma ^{}\rho }& =& \mathrm{}\alpha g_{1v}^2,\dot{g}_{1\rho }=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}g_{1v}^2\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{g}_{1v}& =& g_{1v}\left(2g_{t\rho }2gx\rho 2\alpha g_{1\rho }\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
for $`g_{1v}`$ (with $`\gamma ^{}=x,t`$). The RG-equations can be solved numerically, we present in Fig. 2 a typical flow diagram for some selected coupling constants.

Phase diagram \- Above RG-equations can be easily implemented either for the Hubbard ladder or for the $`t_1t_2`$ Hubbard with respective dispersion relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill E_\pm ^{(lad)}(k)& =& \pm t_p2t\mathrm{cos}(k)\hfill \\ \hfill E^{(12)}(k)& =& 2t_1\mathrm{cos}(k)2t_2\mathrm{cos}(2k).\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
The reflection symmetry in the Hubbard ladder (exchange of the two legs) forbids any coupling with an odd number of operators per band, see Tables I and II.

In Fig. 3 we present the phase-diagram for the $`t_1t_2`$ Hubbard model, for which the control-parameter $`\beta `$ takes the form

$$\beta =\frac{v_1+v_2}{2v_2}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(k_1)+\mathrm{sin}(k_2)}{2\mathrm{sin}(k_2)},$$
(8)
At half filling $`k_2k_1=\pi /2`$. Depending on $`\beta `$, various coupling constants might scale to strong coupling, the divergence is in general of the form $`g^{}/(t^{}t)`$. In Table II a complete list of the diverging coupling constants is given. The differences between the Hubbard ladder and the $`t_1t_2`$ Hubbard model, which stem from the different geometries of the two Fermi-seas, are pointed out in Table II.

The Umklapp scattering $`g_{2u}`$ at $`k_2=\pi /2`$ is not active in the $`t_1t_2`$ Hubbard model, since $`k_2>\pi /2`$ for this model. $`g_{2v}`$ is allowed in the $`t_1t_2`$ Hubbard model and would leads to a C1S0 phase if (a) $`3k_2+k_1=2\pi `$ and (b) $`\beta >2.4`$. It turns out, that it is not possible to satisfy both conditions at the same time. Inspecting the fix-point Hamiltonian and bosonizing the diverging coupling constants , see Table II, one finds that the number of gapless charge and spin modes are C1S2 (1u,2u), C1S0 (1v,2v), C1S1 (s,w) and C0S0 (xu,tu).

RG of Fermi-wavevectors \- The renormalization equations for the local chemical potentials are given by the tadpole diagram:

$$\dot{\mu }_i=\mathrm{\Lambda }(v_1+v_2)\left(g_{i\rho }+g_{x\rho }\right),(i=1,2).$$
(9)
Note that the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ occurs on the right-hand side of Eq. (9) and that the $`\dot{\mu }_i`$ are linear in the coupling constants. Let’s consider now a renormalization step, we write

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _i=\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _i^0+\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{ct},$$
(10)
where the counter-term $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{ct}`$ is introduced in order to enforce particle number conservation.

The counter term is compensated by subtracting the corresponding term from the interaction part of the Hamiltonian. The size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{ct}`$ is determined for the Hubbard ladder by the condition ($`\mathrm{\Delta }k_iv_i=\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _i^0`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }k_1=\mathrm{\Delta }k_2,v_2\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _1^0=v_1\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _2^0$$
(11)
(for the $`t_1t_2`$ Hubbard model $`\mathrm{\Delta }k_1=\mathrm{\Delta }k_2`$ etc.), which leads to

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }\mu _i^0& =& (1)^i\frac{v_i}{v_1+v_2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _2\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _2\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{ct}& =& \frac{v_1}{v_1+v_2}\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _2+\frac{v_2}{v_1+v_2}\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
Eq. (12) and Eq. (9) lead then to

$$\dot{k}_i=(1)^i\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(g_{2\rho }g_{1\rho }\right),$$
(13)
which describes the flow of the Fermi-wavevector. Since the initial values for $`g_{1\rho }`$ and $`g_{2\rho }`$ are identical, see Eq. (3), a non-trivial renormalization of the Fermi-wavevector occurs only when $`v_1v_2`$, i.e. when $`\alpha \beta `$. For the Luttinger-liquid phase C2S2 the limit

$$\mathrm{\Delta }k_i=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_0^t𝑑t^{}\dot{k}_i(t^{})$$
(14)
is well defined. In the other phases there is normally a plateau in $`\mathrm{\Delta }k_i(t)=_0^t𝑑t^{}\dot{k}_i(t^{})`$, due to the decreasing cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the expression (13) for $`\dot{k}_i`$ which can be considered to define an approximate $`\mathrm{\Delta }k_i`$, see Fig. 2.

Let us consider the flow of the Fermi-wavevector in some more detail for the Hubbard ladder, where $`k_1<k_2`$ and $`v_1<v_2`$. The relation $`\alpha >\beta `$ then leads generally to $`g_{2\rho }>g_{1\rho }`$ and consequently to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }k_1<0,\mathrm{\Delta }k_2>0.$$
(15)
The smaller Fermi-sea tends to empty.

In the limit $`U0`$ the renormalization of the coupling constants tends to zero in the C2S2 phase, and one can obtain an asymptotic rigorous expression for the total shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=\mathrm{\Delta }k_1`$ using ($`i=1,2`$)

$`g_{i\rho }(t)g_{i\rho }(0)+\dot{g}_{i\rho }(0)t,\dot{g}_{i\rho }(0)={\displaystyle \frac{U^2/2}{v_1+v_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2v_{3i}}}`$

and Eq. (3) for $`g_{i\rho }(0)`$. With (13) and (14) we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0U^2/2}{\pi ^2(v_1+v_2)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_2}}\right)`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U^2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{(v_1+v_2)^2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0.`$ (17)
The Fermi-surface renormalization effects become especially strong near a saddle point, where $`v_1v_2`$, i.e. $`\alpha \beta `$. Eq. (17) has been derived for the case of the Hubbard ladder. For the $`t_1t_2`$ Hubbard model one has just to interchange $`\alpha \beta `$, both Fermi-points shift then in the same direction (to larger values), see the inset of Fig. 3.

Discussion \- In above discussion of the Fermi-surface renormalization we have kept the Fermi-velocities $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$. At two-loop, the Fermi-velocities are renormalized, an effect $`O(U^3)`$. The change of $`\delta k`$ is, on the other hand, quadratic in $`U`$ and leads therefore (for the ladder) to an additional reduction in $`v_1`$, which is $`O(U^2)`$. This reduction in $`v_1/v_2`$ would lead to a further enhancement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ in a self-consistent treatment. We do not, however, expand this point here further, since it would involve a somewhat uncontrolled mixture of high- and low-energy scales.

It is of interest, however, to study the stability of the saddlepoint itself. This question has been studied extensively for the case of $`N`$-patch models of the 2D Hubbard model. Honerkamp et al.  have found, that particles tend to leave the saddle-point region (also called ‘hot spots’), in accordance to our result Eq. (17). Gonzalez et al.  have found that the saddle point attracts the Fermi-level both from above and from below.

We have therefore considered the case when the Fermi-level is exactly at the bottom of the first band in the Hubbard ladder. In this case the usual RG-approach has to be modified. We have followed the approach proposed by Balents and Fisher  (an expansion in the curvature) and find with $`v_1=0`$

$$\dot{\mu }_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }v_2g_{x\rho }\dot{\mu }_2=\mathrm{\Lambda }v_2g_{2\rho }.$$
(18)
As the initial values of $`g_{x\rho }`$ and $`g_{2\rho }`$ are identical for the Hubbard model, see Eq. (3), one has to consider the flow of $`g_{x\rho }`$ and $`g_{2\rho }`$, which is, due to the lack of scale-invariance, explicitly cut-off dependent. One finds  $`g_{2\rho }>g_{x\rho }`$, i.e. the Fermi-level is pushed below the bottom of the first band. The saddle point is therefore pushed above the Fermi-level by the RG-flow.

Mott-Hubbard transition \- A Mott-Hubbard transition occurs in the half-filled one-dimensional $`t_1t_2`$ model as a function of interaction strength $`U`$. For $`t_2>t_1/2`$, that is for the case of four Fermi-points, this transition occurs at finite values of $`U`$. Aebischer et al. estimated  a critical $`U_c2.67t_1`$ for $`t_2=0.7t_1`$. The question we would like to ask now is: How large is the Fermi-surface shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ for $`U=U_c`$? We cannot answer this question within our weak-coupling approach, but we can estimate the order of magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ by assuming formula Eq. (17) to hold up to the Mott-Hubbard transition. We obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }k|_{U=2.67t_1}^{t_2=0.7t_1}0.4\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=0.4(\pi k_2),$$
(19)
where we have taken $`\pi k_2`$ as a physical relevant initial cut-off. This estimate indicates that the Fermi-wavevector is shifted by a substantial fraction towards the Brillouin zone edge near the Mott-Hubbard transition. We note that the real $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ might be even larger since we have neglected in this estimate the renormalization of the Fermi-velocity which, as we have discussed further above, would enhance the effect. In principle it would be possible that the Mott-Hubbard transition coincides with $`k_2\pi `$ for $`UU_c`$. Physically this would correspond to an activation of the one-band Umklapp scattering $`g_{1u}`$ at the transition point.

Conclusions \- We have derived and discussed the RG-equations for the Fermi-wavevectors in one-dimensional models with four Fermi-points. We find that the renormalization of the Fermi-wavevectors is quadratic in the interaction, suggesting substantial effects at strong coupling and near the Mott-Hubbard transition. We have pointed out, that the renormalization of the Fermi-wavevector is of especial importance near a saddle point, and that it leads to changes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_i`$, in the Fermi-velocities quadratic in the coupling constant $`U`$, whereas the usual two-loop contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_i`$ are cubic in $`U`$.

In addition we have discussed the phase diagram of the 1D $`t_1t_2`$ Hubbard model and found a new phase (C1S1,s/w).

Acknowledgments \- This work was partially supported by the DFG. One of us (C.G.) would like to thank W. Metzner for valuable discussions.


text:
# Doping dependence of the resonance peak and incommensuration in high-𝑇_𝑐 superconductors

## FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig.1 Fermi surface for the dispersion $`ϵ_k`$ (thick solid line) at hole doping $`x=0.12`$. The thin solid and dashed lines with arrow denote the threshold particle-hole excitations for different wavevectors(see text).

Fig.2 Peak positions of the imaginary part of the renormalized spin susceptibility in the $`q`$ space as a function of frequency for doping concentrations $`x=0.08,0.14`$ and 0.20. In the downward dispersion range, the incommensurate peaks are along the $`(\pi ,\pi +\delta \pi )`$ direction, so the horizontal axis is in unit of $`(1,q)\pi `$. Below $`\omega =0.135J,0.175J`$ and $`0.2J`$ at dopings $`x=0.08,0.14`$ and 0.20, respectively, and for frequencies above the resonance energy at $`x=0.14`$ and 0.20, they are along the diagonal direction. In the latter case, the horizontal axis is in unit of $`(q,q)\pi `$.

Fig.3 Frequency dependence of the bare spin susceptibility $`\chi _0`$. Figures (a) and (b) are the real and imaginary parts of the bare spin susceptibility at doping $`x`$=0.14 for different $`𝐪`$. The dashed-dotted line, the dotted line and the dashed line denote spin susceptibilities at $`𝐪=(\pi ,0.72\pi ),(\pi ,0.8\pi )`$ and $`(\pi ,0.9\pi )`$, respectively. The thin line in figure (a) denotes $`1/2\eta J`$, so its cross with the real part corresponds to the pole of the renormalized spin susceptibility. Figures (c) and (d) are the real and imaginary parts of the bare spin susceptibility at $`𝐪=(\pi ,0.84\pi )`$ for different dopings. The solid line, dashed line and dotted line denote spin susceptibility at $`x=0.08,0.14`$ and $`0.2`$, respectively. The inset of figure (d) shows the frequency dependence of Im$`\chi _0`$ at $`𝐪=(\pi ,\pi )`$ for the doping $`x=0.08`$(solid line),0.14(dashed line),0.20(dotted line) and 0.24(dashed-dotted line).

Fig.4 (a) Doping dependences of the incommensurability $`\delta `$ in the $`(\pi ,\pi +\delta \pi )`$ direction for different frequencies. (b) Doping dependence of the resonance energy $`E_r`$. The inset of figure (b) shows the ratio between the incommensurability and the resonance energy. The solid line in the inset is a guide to the eye. Note that the incommensurability $`\delta `$ defined here is twice that used by experimentists which is indexed in units of the reciproal lattice vectors.


text:
# Affleck-Dine baryogensis in large extra dimensions

## I introduction

Baryogenesis is an interesting offshoot of cosmology and particle physics, which tries to explain why the ratio of baryon density and photon density is given by one part in $`10^{10}`$ during the nucleosynthesis era . The synthesis of light elements depends crucially on this ratio which tells us that in an absence of any observed anti-matter region, the baryon density should be equal to the cosmological baryon asymmetry. There are many proposals which can satisfy the three conditions; namely $`C`$ and $`CP`$ violation, $`B`$ or $`L`$ violation, and, out of equilibrium decay, which are the essential ingredients for baryogenesis . Out of the three mentioned conditions the last one has to come purely from the cosmological evolution of the Universe. It is quite probable that the early Universe might have had strong departure from thermal equilibrium due to a large expansion rate of the Universe and presence of heavy decaying particles, however, this possibility gradually becomes difficult to acquire at scales which are comparable to the electroweak scale. As a second alternative, one might expect to attain the departure from thermal equilibrium via some phase transitions which would break global or gauge symmetry, a perfect example is electroweak phase transition where there is an anomalous $`B+L`$ violation, for a review, see Ref. . In the former situation, the departure from thermal equilibrium is usually tied up with inflation. Inflation is an attractive paradigm which solves a range of troublesome problems of the Big Bang cosmology besides acting as the best candidate for producing an almost scale invariant density perturbations. After a period of inflation the Universe undergoes through an era of reheating, and this is precisely where one might expect to produce massive bosons and their out of equilibrium decay which might lead to the desired baryon to entropy ratio.

On the other hand recent trends in solving the hierarchy problem, in the context of theories with extra dimension, suggest that the strength of the fundamental scale, might be much lower than the four dimensional Planck scale. If that scale be the electroweak scale then the hierarchy between the Planck scale and the electroweak scale can be inverted by assuming that there exists large extra dimensions, which can be as large as mm . It is also assumed that the SM particles are trapped in a four dimensional hypersurface (a $`3`$-brane), thus, they are not allowed to propagate in the bulk. However, it is generically assumed that besides gravity, SM singlets may propagate in the bulk. Among them the inflaton can be a candidate, which is less favored to be a brane field (see for instance Refs. ). However, in these models the Universe during the radiation dominated epoch reaches its maximum temperature very close to MeV which we shall discuss in details in the coming sections. For such a low reheat temperature baryogenesis is a challenging task because of two reasons; first of all the late decay of particles including the inflaton which is responsible for reheating the Universe, and, secondly the operators which might lead to baryon number violation must be suppressed due to stringent constraints on proton life time. This restricts us to a few choices of baryogenesis models which may work well in presence of a small fundamental scale, such as $`𝒪(\mathrm{TeV})`$ .

Other possibility may appear from the fact that reheat temperature is not the maximum temperature in the Universe after the end of inflation. Usually, reheating takes a while and it is possible to reach a temperature during the process of reheating which can be quite large, however, this rise in temperature crucially depends on the scale when inflation comes to an end . If this be the case, then, it is quite possible that the rate of sphaleron transitions are active, even though the reheat temperature is much smaller than $`100`$ GeV . In this paper we describe a completely different possibility. This mechanism does not depend on the predictability of high rise in temperature during the reheating era. Our scheme is analogous to the Affleck-Dine (AD) mechanism of baryogenesis. We organize our paper with a brief discussion on reheat temperature and the bounds upon the reheat temperature, then we describe the possibility of leptogenesis which can be reprocessed into baryon number $`B`$ by anomalous $`B+L`$ violating sphaleron interactions, which otherwise preserve $`BL`$. However, we also point out that there are many obstacles with this mechanism. Finally, we discuss baryogenesis by assuming a singlet carrying a global charge and decaying mainly into SM quarks and leptons to provide an adequate baryon to entropy ratio just at the end of reheating. Towards the end we conclude our paper by summarizing the facts.

## II Reheat temperature of the Universe

In models with a large extra dimensions, the reheat temperature is constrained from the possible thermal overproduction of gravitons in processes, such as; $`\gamma +\gamma G`$, which requires Tr

<

60

<

subscript𝑇r60T_{\rm r}\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}60 MeV . The second important observation is that the inflaton field in these models has a natural coupling to the SM fields which is Planck mass suppressed . This is due to the fact that the inflaton field resides in the bulk. This helps to inflate the size of the extra dimensions from its natural size; $`(\mathrm{TeV})^1`$ to its present millimeter size in order to maintain the hierarchy, it also solves naturally the stabilization of the size of the extra dimensions , and, besides all, it can provide an adequate density perturbations required for the structure formation in the Universe. As a consequence, the inflaton has a decay rate into Higgses, for instance, given as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi \mathrm{HH}}\frac{g^2M^3}{32\pi M_P^2},$$
(1)
where $`g`$ the coupling constant, $`M`$ is the fundamental scale which is related to the size of the extra space; $`V_n`$, and, to the four dimensional Planck mass through

$`M^{2+n}V_n=M_\mathrm{p}^2.`$ (2)
For $`n=2`$ extra dimensions $`M`$ can be at a TeV range. Current experimental limits from collider physics and supernova 1987A imposes a bound; M

>

30

>

𝑀30M\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}30 TeV .

While deriving the decay rate in Eq. (1), we have implicitly assumed that the mass of the inflaton is roughly of the order of the fundamental scale $`M`$, in order to generate an adequate density fluctuations . The estimated reheat temperature of the Universe is given by $`T_\mathrm{r}0.1\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }M_\mathrm{p}}1(10)`$ MeV, just right above the temperature required for successful Big Bang nucleosynthesis. It is also worth mentioning that the decay rate of the inflaton field into the relativistic particles, such as light degrees of freedom has a similar suppression as Eq. (1). This is completely a different scenario than that of the standard case where Planck scale is the fundamental scale. For our case, the inflaton decay into the (non relativistic) Higgses is as favorable as decaying into very light particles. This makes a difference while discussing the maximum temperature reached during the reheating era, which is quite different from the reheat temperature of the Universe. As the inflaton field oscillates with a decaying amplitude, the Universe is gradually filled up by the light degrees of freedom which produces an effective temperature of the Universe which follows a different scaling relationship between the temperature and the scale factor. The temperature reaches its maximum when $`a/a_\mathrm{I}1.48`$, where $`a`$ denotes the scale factor of the Universe and the subscript $`\mathrm{I}`$ denotes the era when inflation comes to an end. In the large extra dimension models, the inflationary scale is determined by $`H_\mathrm{I}M`$ . After reaching the maximum temperature, it decreases as $`T1.3(g_{}(T_\mathrm{m})/g_{}(T))^{1/4}T_\mathrm{m}a^{3/8}`$, where $`T_\mathrm{m}`$ denotes the maximum temperature . For $`M10`$ TeV, the maximum temperature could reach $`T_\mathrm{m}10^5`$ GeV as mentioned in Ref. . The basic assumption that goes behind this derivation is that the inflaton field is predominantly decaying into the relativistic species. However, this may not be the case. By reversing the argument, and, naively assuming that the inflaton decay populates only the non-relativistic degrees of freedom, one can show that the maximum temperature follows: M

>

TmTr

>

𝑀subscript𝑇mmuch-greater-thansubscript𝑇rM\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}T_{\rm m}\gg T_{\rm r}, but, still much higher than the reheat temperature of the Universe. Note in this case the temperature-scale factor dependence, however, follows: $`Ta^1`$. Whatsoever be the case eventually the massive particles have to decay into a radiation bath, the decay rate of these intermediate particles are now governed by their gauge couplings. If this happens the Universe might again be populated by radiation domination while the inflaton field is oscillating. This could again raise the maximum temperature above $`100`$ GeV. Thus, the result apparently seems to be a robust one. This might be a cheerful news for the electroweak baryogenesis. However, it is still not clear whether the sphaleron transitions can be made useful for other sources of baryogenesis, such as leptogenesis. This is the topic we shall briefly meander upon before discussing the Affleck-Dine baryogenesis.

### A Leptogenesis

Following our previous discussion one might suspect that the lepton number being produced in the decay process of a heavy fermionic singlet which carries the lepton number, being processed into baryon number by anomalous $`B+L`$ violating sphaleron interactions which are in equilibrium for a temperature more than $`100`$ GeV in the present circumstances. However, there is a simple catch in this proposal. A singlet right handed neutrino can naturally couple to the SM lepton doublet, and, the Higgs field in a following way: $`h\overline{L}HN`$ . This leads to a potentially large Dirac mass term unless the Yukawa coupling $`h10^{12}`$, or, so. Moreover, now the see-saw mechanism fails to work, since, the largest Majorana mass we may expect can never be larger than the fundamental scale. Therefore, given a neutrino mass $`h^2H^2/Mh^2𝒪(1)`$ GeV, we still have to fine tune h2

<

1010

<

superscript2superscript1010h^{2}\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-10}, in order to obtain the right order of magnitude for the neutrino mass. Thus, the right handed neutrinos, if they at all exist, are more likely to be bulk fields rather than brane fields. Since, in such a case the volume suppression of the bulk-brane coupling naturally provides a small coupling . In any case the decay rate of the right handed neutrino to the SM fields is suppressed by the smallness of $`h`$ that gives rise to a decay rate which is similar to Eq. (1). This makes extremely difficult to realize baryogenesis, because, eventually when the right handed neutrino decays into the SM fields, the background temperature is of the order of the reheat temperature, and, by this temperature the sphaleron transition is not at all in equilibrium. The sphaleron transition rate is exponentially suppressed. So, a seemingly suitable lepton number might not even get converted to the baryons to produce the desired baryon asymmetry in the Universe.

On the other hand, it might be possible that sphalerons can reprocess a pre-existing charge asymmetry into baryon asymmetry  reflected in an excess of $`e_L`$ over anti-$`e_R`$ created during inflaton oscillations. This mechanism requires that $`(B+L)`$-violating processes are out of equilibrium before $`e_R`$ comes into chemical equilibrium, such that the created baryon asymmetry could be preserved. Again, this has to happen during, or, above $`100`$ GeV. Nevertheless, it is important to notice that still decaying inflaton field certainly injects more entropy to the thermal bath, provided the inflaton dominantly decays into the relativistic degrees of freedom. So, an initially large baryon asymmetry has to be created in order to obtain the right amount of asymmetry just before nucleosynthesis. One can easily estimate the amount of dilution that the last stages of reheating era will produce. The entropy dilution factor is given by :

$$\gamma ^1=\left(\frac{s(T_\mathrm{r})}{s(T_\mathrm{c})}\right)=\left(\frac{g_{}(T_\mathrm{r})}{g_{}(T_\mathrm{c})}\right)\left(\frac{T_\mathrm{r}}{T_\mathrm{c}}\right)^3\left(\frac{a(T_\mathrm{r})}{a(T_\mathrm{c})}\right)^3,$$
(3)
where $`s`$ is the entropy and $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ denotes the electroweak temperature $`100`$ GeV. For a low reheat temperature as $`T_\mathrm{r}1`$ MeV, the above expression gives rise to γ1

>

1025

>

superscript𝛾1superscript1025\gamma^{-1}\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{25}. While calculating the ratio between the scale factors, we have used $`Ta^{3/8}`$. Notice, that the lower bound appears, because, $`g_{}(T_\mathrm{c})>g_{}(T_\mathrm{r})`$. This is due to the contribution coming from the heavier Kaluza-Klein (KK) graviton modes, albeit, their masses are much smaller than $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ that may be produced in the thermal processes, such as photon-photon fusion. Usually, these heavy modes will decouple from the thermal bath right before nucleosynthesis. However, their contribution must be taken into account in the total relativistic degrees of freedom: $`g_{}(T_\mathrm{c})=g_{}(T_\mathrm{r})+g_{KK}`$, which can be as large as the number of modes with masses between $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{r}`$; thus giving, gKK

<

RΔT1014

<

subscript𝑔absent𝐾𝐾𝑅Δ𝑇similar-tosuperscript1014g_{*KK}\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}R\Delta T\sim 10^{14}, for $`R\mathrm{mm}`$. Strictly speaking the bound obtained on $`\gamma ^1`$ in our case is true only if $`g_{KK}=0`$. Therefore, including the entropy dilution factor, one concludes that the initial $`n_b/s`$ has to be extremely large

>

1015

>

absentsuperscript1015\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{15}, in order to produce the required baryon asymmetry during nucleosynthesis, which is $`n_b/s10^{10}`$. Such a large baryon asymmetry is an extraordinary requirement on any natural model of baryogenesis, which is almost impossible to achieve in our case.

There are couple of important lessons to be learned from the above analysis. First of all the large production of entropy during the last stages of reheating can in principle wash away any baryon asymmetry produced before electroweak scale. The second point is that it is extremely unlikely that leptogenesis will also work because one needs to inject enough lepton asymmetry in the Universe before the sphaleron transitions are in equilibrium. The only simple choice left is to produce directly baryon asymmetry, however, just before the end of reheating. The sole mechanism which seems to be doing well under these circumstances is the Affleck-Dine baryogenesis, which we shall discuss in the following section.

## III Affleck-Dine Baryogenesis

Affleck and Dine have proposed a beautiful scenario of baryogenesis in the context of supersymmetry . A scalar condensate which carries non-zero baryonic, or/and leptonic charge survives during inflation and decays into SM fermions to provide a net baryon asymmetry. In our case the AD field; $`\chi `$, is a singlet carrying some global charge which is required to be broken dynamically in order to provide a small asymmetry in the current density. This asymmetry can be then transformed into a baryonic asymmetry by a baryon violating interactions which we discuss later on. In order to break this $`U(1)_\chi `$ charge we require a source term which naturally violates $`CP`$ for a charged $`\chi `$ field, and during the non-trivial helical evolution of the $`\chi `$ field generates a net asymmetry in $`\chi `$ over $`\overline{\chi }`$. This necessarily has to happen after the end of inflation. Notice, that in our case the initial $`CP`$ phase is completely arbitrary and determined during the end of inflationary era.

We remind the readers that the inflaton energy density must govern the evolution of the Universe, and, the decay products of the inflaton is also responsible for reheating the Universe. This happens once the inflaton decays before $`\chi `$ decays into SM quarks and leptos. This decay of $`\chi `$ via baryon violating interaction generates a baryon asymmetry in the Universe which is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_b}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_b}{n_\chi }}{\displaystyle \frac{T_\mathrm{r}}{m_\chi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\chi }{\rho _\mathrm{I}}}.`$ (4)
The final entropy released by the inflaton decay is given by $`s\rho _\mathrm{I}/T_\mathrm{r}`$. The ratio $`n_b/n_\chi `$ depends on the total phase accumulated by the AD field during its helical motion in the background of an oscillating inflaton field, which can at most be $`𝒪(1)`$. If we assume that the AD field is a brane-field, then, the energy density stored in it can at most be: $`\rho _\chi m_\chi ^2M^2`$, on the other hand the energy density stored in the (bulk) inflaton field is quite large $`\rho _\mathrm{I}M^2M_\mathrm{p}^2`$ . Thus, the ratio: $`n_b/s(T_\mathrm{r}/M_\mathrm{p})(m_\chi /M_\mathrm{p})10^{34}(m_\chi /M)10^{10}`$, for $`T_\mathrm{r}𝒪(110)`$ MeV. The conclusion of the above analysis is again disappointing, as it suggests that the AD baryogenesis also leads to a small $`n_b/s`$. One way to boost this ratio is to assume that the AD field resides in the bulk. In that case one naturally enhances the ratio $`\rho _\chi /\rho _\mathrm{I}`$, however, keeping in mind that it is still less than one, in order not to spoil the successes of inflation.

Once, the AD field is promoted to the bulk, the energy density stored in the AD field rises to $`\rho _\chi m_\chi ^2M_\mathrm{p}^2`$ , this leads to the maximum baryon to entropy ratio

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_b}{s}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_\mathrm{r}}{M}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\chi }{M}}\right)10^{10}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\chi }{1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}}\right),`$ (5)
where we have evaluated the right hand side for $`T_\mathrm{r}10`$ MeV and $`M10`$ TeV. Although, the mass of the AD field requires some fine tuning, up to the $`CP`$ phase, the above ratio can reach the observed baryon to entropy ratio quite comfortably. Notice, however, that the actual predicted value also depends on the initial conditions on $`\chi `$ that may render $`m_\chi `$ more freedom. Say for instance, if $`\chi _0M_{GUT}`$, we get the right $`n_b/s`$ provided $`m_\chi M`$.

We have noticed earlier that due to the violation of $`U(1)_\chi `$ charge, the dynamics of the AD field generates an excess of $`\chi `$ over $`\overline{\chi }`$ fields. This asymmetry is transfered into baryon asymmetry by a baryon violating interaction, such as $`\kappa \chi QQQL`$, however, keeping $`BL`$ conserved. We also assume that $`\chi `$ interactions to SM fields conserve $`U(1)_\chi `$ symmetry, thus, the quarks and leptons must carry a non zero global $`\chi `$ charge while the Higgs field does not. This avoids $`\chi `$ decaying into Higgses, which otherwise will reduce the baryonic abundance and make the above interaction the main channel for its decay. While discussing the decay rate of $`\chi `$ field one has to take into account all possible decay channels which can be of the order of thousands due to family and color freedom. On the other hand, we assume that the inflaton is decaying mainly into Higgses. Final result is then given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi \left(\frac{\kappa }{g}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_\chi }{M}\right)^7\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi .$$
(6)
By taking $`\kappa /g𝒪(1)`$ we can insure that $`\chi `$ will decay along with the inflaton, provided that its mass is very close to the fundamental scale. This will certainly demand some level of fine tuning in the parameters. We would like to mention that this is perhaps the simplest scenario one can think of for generating baryon asymmetry right before nucleosynthesis takes place. It is worth mentioning that in our model the AD field will not mediate proton decay by dimension six operators as $`QQQL`$, as long as $`\chi `$ does not develop any vacuum expectation value. Notice, other processes mediating proton decay, such as instanton effects might still occur. While there is no known solution for such a potential problem yet, our mechanism is at least not adding any new source to proton decay. In the same spirit one may check those operators which induce $`n\overline{n}`$ oscillations. Again, effective $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ operators of dimensions 9; $`UDDUDD`$, and 11; $`(QQQH)^2`$, can not be induced by integrating out $`\chi `$.

## IV Conclusion

We have noticed that the observed baryon asymmetry in the Universe is difficult to obtain in presence of a large extra dimensions. We have pointed out that there is a seemingly simple way, if we assume that there exists a SM singlet field carrying some global $`U(1)_\chi `$ charge which lives in the bulk. The non trivial dynamics of this field generates an asymmetry in $`\chi `$-$`\overline{\chi }`$ after the end of inflation, which will be transfered into a baryon asymmetry by a baryon violating interaction. It is possible to insure that the AD field decays along with the inflaton such that the synthesis of the light elements can take place.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are grateful to R. Allahverdi, P. Binetruy, S. Davidson and K. Enqvist for helpful suggestions. A. M. acknowledges the support of The Early Universe network HPRN-CT-2000-00152.


text:
# Free boson representation of 𝐷𝑌_ℏ((𝑠𝑙)̂(𝑀+1|{𝑁+1})) at level one

## 1 Introduction

The algebraic analysis method based on infinite-dimensional highest weight representations of $`nonabelian`$ symmetries such as deformed infinite-dimensional (super) algebras has proved eminently successful in solving lattice integrable models and completely integrable field theories. A powerful approach for studying the highest weight representations is the bosonization technique which allows one to explicitly construct these objects in terms of the deformed free bosonic fields.

Free bosonic realization of level-one representations has been constructed for most quantum affine algebras. This bosonization technique has also been extended to type I quantum affine super algebras $`U_q[\widehat{sl}(M+1|N+1)]`$, $`MN`$, $`U_q[\widehat{gl}(N|N)]`$ and $`U_q[osp(2|2)^{(2)}]`$. On the other hand, free bosonic realizations of Yangian-deformed algebras have been constructed for $`DY_{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{sl}_2)`$ at level $`k`$, $`DY_{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{gl}_N)`$ at level one and level $`k`$, and $`A_{\mathrm{},\eta }(\widehat{sl}_2)`$ at level one. It should be remarked that the free bosonic field with continuous parameter initiated by Jimbo et al is powerful in constructing the representations of Yangian-deformed algebras. The purpose of this paper is to construct the central extension super-Yangian double (super-affine-Yangian algebra) $`DY_{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{sl}\left(M+1|N+1\right)\right)`$ algebra at level one in terms of free bosonic fields with continuous parameter.

This paper is arranged as follows. In section 2 we give the defining relations of Drinfield currents of super-affine-Yangian algebra $`DY_{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{sl}\left(M+1|N+1\right)\right)`$. The free bosonic realization of $`DY_{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{sl}\left(M+1|N+1\right)\right)`$ are constructed in section 3. Appendix contains some detailed calculations.

## 2 Drinfeld currents of $`DY_{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{sl}\left(M+1|N+1\right)\right)`$

We will study the super-affine-Yangian algebra $`DY_{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{sl}\left(M+1|N+1\right)\right)`$ for $`M,N=0,1,\mathrm{}`$. The super-affine Yangian algebra $`DY_{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{sl}\left(M+1|N+1\right)\right)`$ is an associative algebra generated by the Drinfeld currents: $`X_i^\pm \left(\mu \right)`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^\pm \left(\mu \right)`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}M+N+1,j=1,2,\mathrm{},M+N`$ and a central element $`c`$. The generators $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^\pm \left(\mu \right)`$ are invertible. The $`𝐙_2`$-grading of the generators is : $`\left[X_{M+1}^\pm \left(\mu \right)\right]=1`$ and zero otherwise . The defining relations are

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^{}(\nu )^1\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mu \nu 2\mathrm{})(\mu \nu +2\mathrm{})}{(\mu \nu )(\mu \nu )}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+(\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^{}(\nu )^1,M+N+1iM+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^{}(\nu )^1\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mu \nu )(\mu \nu )}{(\mu \nu 2\mathrm{})(\mu \nu +2\mathrm{})}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+(\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^{}(\nu )^1,i<M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^+(\nu )^1\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mu \nu 2\mathrm{})(\mu \nu +2\mathrm{})}{(\mu \nu )(\mu \nu )}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}(\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^+(\nu )^1,i<M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^+(\nu )^1\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mu \nu )(\mu \nu )}{(\mu \nu 2\mathrm{})(\mu \nu +2\mathrm{})}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}(\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^+(\nu )^1,M+N+1iM+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+(\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }_i^\mathrm{\_}(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mu \nu 3\mathrm{})(\mu \nu +3\mathrm{})}{(\mu \nu +\mathrm{})(\mu \nu \mathrm{})}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}(\nu )\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+(\mu ),i<M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+\left(\mu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^\mathrm{\_}\left(\nu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu \nu \mathrm{}\right)\left(\mu \nu +\mathrm{}\right)}{\left(\mu \nu +3\mathrm{}\right)\left(\mu \nu 3\mathrm{}\right)}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+\left(\mu \right),M+N+1i>M+1`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{M+1}^+\left(\mu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{M+1}^\mathrm{\_}\left(\nu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{M+1}^{}\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{M+1}^+\left(\mu \right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^+\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _+\nu 3\mathrm{}\right)}{\left(\mu _+\nu +\mathrm{}\right)}}X_i^+\left(\nu \right),M+N+1i>M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^+\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _+\nu +\mathrm{}\right)}{\left(\mu _+\nu 3\mathrm{}\right)}}X_i^+\left(\nu \right),i<M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^+\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _{}\nu +3\mathrm{}\right)}{\left(\mu _{}\nu \mathrm{}\right)}}X_i^+\left(\nu \right),i<M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^+\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _{}\nu \mathrm{}\right)}{\left(\mu _{}\nu +3\mathrm{}\right)}}X_i^+\left(\nu \right),M+N+1i>M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^+\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^+\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^+\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _+\nu 2\mathrm{}\right)}{\left(\mu _+\nu \right)}}X_i^+\left(\nu \right),i<M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^+\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^+\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^+\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _+\nu \right)}{\left(\mu _+\nu 2\mathrm{}\right)}}X_i^+\left(\nu \right),M+N+1iM+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^{}\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^+\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^{}\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _{}\nu \right)}{\left(\mu _{}\nu +2\mathrm{}\right)}}X_i^+(\nu ),i<M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^{}\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^+\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^{}\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _{}\nu +2\mathrm{}\right)}{\left(\mu _{}\nu \right)}}X_i^+\left(\nu \right),M+N+1iM+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^{}\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _{}\nu \mathrm{}\right)}{\left(\mu _{}\nu +3\mathrm{}\right)}}X_i^{}\left(\nu \right),i<M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^{}\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _{}\nu +3\mathrm{}\right)}{\left(\mu _{}\nu \mathrm{}\right)}}X_i^{}\left(\nu \right),M+N+1i>M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^{}\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _+\nu 3\mathrm{}\right)}{\left(\mu _+\nu +\mathrm{}\right)}}X_i^{}\left(\nu \right),i<M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^{}\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _+\nu +\mathrm{}\right)}{\left(\mu _+\nu 3\mathrm{}\right)}}X_i^{}\left(\nu \right),M+N+1i>M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^+\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^{}\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^+\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _{}\nu +2\mathrm{}\right)}{\left(\mu _{}\nu \right)}}X_i^{}\left(\nu \right)i<M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^+\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^{}\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^+\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _{}\nu \right)}{\left(\mu _{}\nu +2\mathrm{}\right)}}X_i^{}\left(\nu \right),M+N+1iM+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^{}\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^{}\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^{}\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _+\nu \right)}{\left(\mu _+\nu 2\mathrm{}\right)}}X_i^{}\left(\nu \right),i<M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^{}\left(\mu \right)^1X_i^{}\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{i+1}^{}\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu _+\nu 2\mathrm{}\right)}{\left(\mu _+\nu \right)}}X_i^{}\left(\nu \right),M+N+1iM+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{M+1}^\pm \left(\mu \right)^1X_{M+1}^\pm \left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{M+1}^\pm \left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`X_{M+1}^\pm \left(\nu \right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{M+1}^\pm \left(\mu \right)^1X_{M+1}^{}\left(\nu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{M+1}^\pm \left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`X_{M+1}^{}\left(\nu \right)`$
$`\left(\mu \nu 2\mathrm{}\right)X_i^{}\left(\mu \right)X_i^{}\left(\nu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mu \nu \pm 2\mathrm{}\right)X_i^{}\left(\nu \right)X_i^{}\left(\mu \right),i<M+1,`$
$`\left(\mu \nu \pm 2\mathrm{}\right)X_i^{}\left(\mu \right)X_i^{}\left(\nu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mu \nu 2\mathrm{}\right)X_i^{}\left(\nu \right)X_i^{}\left(\mu \right),M+N+1i>M+1,`$
$`\left(\mu \nu \pm \mathrm{}\right)X_i^{}\left(\mu \right)X_{i+1}^{}\left(\nu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mu \nu \mathrm{}\right)X_{i+1}^{}\left(\nu \right)X_i^{}\left(\mu \right),i<M+1,`$
$`\left(\mu \nu \mathrm{}\right)X_i^{}\left(\mu \right)X_{i+1}^{}\left(\nu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mu \nu \pm \mathrm{}\right)X_{i+1}^{}\left(\nu \right)X_i^{}\left(\mu \right),M+N+1iM+1,`$
$`[X_i^+\left(\mu \right),X_j^{}\left(\nu \right)]`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{}\delta _{ij}\left(\delta \left(\mu _{}\nu _+\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(\nu _+\right)\delta \left(\mu _+\nu _{}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+\left(\mu _+\right)\right),i,jM+1,`$
$`\{X_{M+1}^+\left(\mu \right),X_{M+1}^{}\left(\nu \right)\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{}\left(\delta \left(\mu _{}\nu _+\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\left(\nu _+\right)\delta \left(\mu _+\nu _{}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+\left(\mu _+\right)\right),`$
where \[X,Y\]$`XYYX`$ stands for a commutator and {X, Y}$`XY+YX`$ for an anti-commutator. As for the serre relations for the Drinfeld currents, we will refer the reader to the ref..

We should remark that our definition of $`DY_{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{sl}\left(M+1|N+1\right)\right)`$ is equivalent to that of Zhang’s with defining

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^\pm (\mu )=k_{j+1}^{}(\mu )k_j^{}(\mu )^1,`$
and spectra-shifting

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^\pm (\mu )`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^\pm (\mu +(i1)\mathrm{})i<M+1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^\pm (\mu )`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^\pm (\mu +(Mi)\mathrm{})M+N+1iM+1.`$
$`X_j^\pm (\mu )`$ $``$ $`X_j^\pm (\mu +(i1)\mathrm{})i<M+1,`$
$`X_j^\pm (\mu )`$ $``$ $`X_j^\pm (\mu +(Mi)\mathrm{})M+N+1iM+1.`$
## 3 Free Bosonic realization

Now, we study the free bosonic realization of $`DY_{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{sl}\left(M+1|N+1\right)\right)`$ which give us a level one representation. Free bosonic realizations of the level-one representations of quantum affine super algberas have been obtained for $`U_q[\widehat{sl}(M+1|N+1)]`$, $`MN`$ and $`U_q[\widehat{gl}(N|N)]`$. Our representation can be regarded as extending the above works to the super-affine-Yangian case.

Let introduce bosonic oscillators $`\{\widehat{a_i}(t),\widehat{b}_j(t),\widehat{c}_j(t),|i=1,\mathrm{},M+1,j=1,\mathrm{},N+1\}`$ with a continuous parameters $`t(tR\left\{0\right\}`$, which satisfy the following commutation relations

$`\left[\widehat{a_i}\left(t\right)\widehat{a_j}\left(t^{}\right)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(i\mathrm{}\right)^2t}}sh^2\left(i\mathrm{}t\right)\delta _{ij}\delta \left(t+t^{}\right),`$ (3.1)
$`\left[\widehat{b_i}\left(t\right)\widehat{b_j}\left(t^{}\right)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(i\mathrm{}\right)^2t}}sh^2\left(i\mathrm{}t\right)\delta _{ij}\delta \left(t+t^{}\right),`$ (3.2)
$`\left[\widehat{c_i}\left(t\right)\widehat{c_j}\left(t^{}\right)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(i\mathrm{}\right)^2t}}sh^2\left(i\mathrm{}t\right)\delta _{ij}\delta \left(t+t^{}\right),`$ (3.3)
and the other commutators vanish. Define bosonic oscillators $`\widehat{\lambda _i}(t)(1iM+N+1)`$

$`\widehat{\lambda }_i(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{a_i}(t)e^{i\mathrm{}\frac{|t|}{2}}\widehat{a}_{i+1}(t)e^{i\mathrm{}\frac{|t|}{2}},i=1,\mathrm{},M,`$
$`\widehat{\lambda }_{M+1}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{a}_{M+1}(t)e^{i\mathrm{}\frac{|t|}{2}}+\widehat{b}_1(t)e^{i\mathrm{}\frac{|t|}{2}},`$
$`\widehat{\lambda }_{M+1+j}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{b_j}(t)e^{i\mathrm{}\frac{|t|}{2}}+\widehat{b}_{j+1}(t)e^{i\mathrm{}\frac{|t|}{2}},j=1,\mathrm{},N.`$
It is easy to verify that the bosonic oscillators satisfy

$`\left[\widehat{\lambda _i}\left(t\right)\widehat{\lambda _j}\left(t^{}\right)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(i\mathrm{}\right)^2t}}sh\left(ia_{ij}\mathrm{}t\right)sh\left(i\mathrm{}t\right)\delta \left(t+t^{}\right),`$ (3.4)
where $`a_{ij}`$ is the Cartan matrix of the super algebra $`sl(M+1|N+1)`$

$`(a_{ij})=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}2& 1& & & & & & & \\ 1& 2& \mathrm{}& & & & & & \\ & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1& & & & & \\ & & 1& 2& 1& & & & \\ & & & 1& 0& 1& & & \\ & & & & 1& 2& \mathrm{}& & \\ & & & & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1& \\ & & & & & & 1& 2& 1\\ & & & & & & & 1& 2\end{array}\right)(1i,jM+N+1).`$ (3.14)
Moreover, we introduce the zero mode operators $`\{a_i(0),b_j(0),c_j(0),Q_{a_i},Q_{b_j},Q_{c_j}|i=1,\mathrm{},M+1,j=1,\mathrm{},N+1\}`$ satisfying the following commutation relations

$`[a_i(0),Q_{a_i}]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij},`$ (3.15)
$`[b_i(0),Q_{b_i}]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij},`$ (3.16)
$`[c_i(0),Q_{c_i}]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}.`$ (3.17)
Define $`Q_{\widehat{\lambda }_i}=Q_{a_i}Q_{a_{i+1}}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},M`$, $`Q_{\widehat{\lambda }_{M+1}}=Q_{a_{M+1}}+Q_{b_1}`$ and $`Q_{\widehat{\lambda }_{M+1+j}}=Q_{b_j}+Q_{b_{i+1}}`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Let us introduce the notations

$`\chi _i(\mu ;\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{sh\left(i\mathrm{}t\right)}}\widehat{\chi _i}\left(t\right)e^{i\mathrm{}\beta t}e^{i\mu t}\right\}`$ (3.18)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{sh\left(i\mathrm{}t\right)}}\widehat{\chi _i}\left(t\right)e^{i\mathrm{}\beta t}e^{i\mu t}\right\}e^{Q_{\widehat{\chi _i}}},`$
$`\chi _i^+\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{\chi _i}\left(t\right)e^{i\mu t}𝑑t\right\},`$ (3.19)
$`\chi _i^{}\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}\widehat{\chi _i}\left(t\right)e^{i\mu t}𝑑t\right\}.`$ (3.20)
In the following, we will adopt these notations for the other bosonic fields $`\{\lambda _i(\mu ;\beta ),c_j(\mu ;\beta )`$ $`|i=1,\mathrm{},M+N+1,j=1,\mathrm{},N+1\}`$, for example, the bosonic field $`c_j(\mu ;\beta )`$ should be defined in the same way. We introduce the $`\mathrm{}`$-difference operator defined by

$`D_{\mathrm{}}\left(f(\beta )\right)=f(\beta i\mathrm{})f(\beta +i\mathrm{}).`$ (3.21)
When calculating the normal order of the bosonic fields, one often encounter an integral

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}F(t)𝑑t,$$

which is divergent at t=0 . Here we adopt the following regularization. The integral should be understood as the contour integral

$$_CF(t)\frac{\mathrm{ln}(t)}{2\pi i}𝑑t,$$

where $`C`$ indicate the circle from +$`\mathrm{}`$ to 0 in the upper half plain and 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$ in the lower half plain

From the above regularization and after a straightforward calculation, we can obtain the normal order relations of the basic bosonic fields which will be given in the appendix A. Using the normal order relations, we can construct the level-one representation of $`DY_{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{sl}\left(M+1|N+1\right)\right)`$ in terms of free bosonic fields. Namely, the Drinfeld currents of $`DY_{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{sl}\left(M+1|N+1\right)\right)`$ at level-one are realized by the free boson fields as follow

$`X_i^+\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`:\lambda _i(\mu ;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})D_{\mathrm{}}\left[c_{iM1}^1(\mu ;0)\right]c_{iM}(\mu ;0):,M+N+1i>M+1,`$
$`X_i^+\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\gamma \right)}}:\lambda _i(\mu ;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})c_{iM}(\mu ;0):{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\pi a_j\left(0\right)\right),i=M+1,`$
$`X_i^+(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\gamma \right)}}:\lambda _i(\mu ;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}):\mathrm{exp}\left(i\pi a_i\left(0\right)\right),i<M+1,`$ (3.24)
$`X_i^{}\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`:\lambda _i^1(\mu ;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})c_{iM1}^1(\mu ;0)D_{\mathrm{}}[c_{iM}^1(\mu ;0)]:M+N+1i>M+1,`$
$`X_i^{}\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\gamma \right)}}:\lambda _i^1(\mu ;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})D_{\mathrm{}}[c_{iM}^1(\mu ;0)]:{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\pi a_j\left(0\right)\right)i=M+1,`$
$`X_i^{}\left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\gamma \right)}}:\lambda _i^1(\mu ;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}):\mathrm{exp}\left(i\pi a_i\left(0\right)\right)i<M+1,`$ (3.27)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^\pm \left(\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _i^\pm \left(\mu \right).`$ (3.28)
This bosonic realization may help us to construct the bosonization of the supersymmetric $`tJ`$ model.

## Acknownledgements

W.-L. Yang would like to thank Prof. von Gehlen and the theoretical group of the Physikalishes Institut der Universität Bonn for their kind hospitality. This work has been partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. W.-L. Yang is supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

## Appendix A

In this appendix, we give the normal order relations of the fundamental bosonic fields. In order to calculate the normal order relations, the following formula is helpful

$$_C\frac{d\lambda \mathrm{ln}(\lambda )}{2\pi i\lambda }\frac{e^{x\lambda }}{1e^{\lambda /\eta }}=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta x)+(\eta x\frac{1}{2})(\gamma \mathrm{ln}\eta )\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}2\pi $$

where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler’s constant. Using the integral representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ -functions and the definition of Drinfeld currents of $`DY_{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{sl}\left(M+1|N+1\right)\right)`$ at level-one, we can derive

$`\lambda _i(\mu ;\beta _1)\lambda _i(\nu ;\beta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\left(\mu \nu \right)\frac{(\beta _1+\beta _2)}{2}+\frac{(1+a_{ii})}{2}\right]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\left(\mu \nu \right)\frac{(\beta _1+\beta _2)}{2}+\frac{(1a_{ii})}{2}\right]}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{a_{ii}\gamma }}{\eta ^{a_{ii}}}}:\lambda _i(\mu ;\beta _1)\lambda _i(\nu ;\beta _2):,`$
$`\lambda _i(\mu ;\beta _1)\lambda _{i+1}(\nu ;\beta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\left(\mu \nu \right)\frac{(\beta _1+\beta _2)}{2}+\frac{(1+a_{i,i+1})}{2}\right]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\left(\mu \nu \right)\frac{(\beta _1+\beta _2)}{2}+\frac{(1a_{i,i+1})}{2}\right]}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{a_{i,i+1}\gamma }}{\eta ^{a_{i,i+1}}}}:\lambda _i(\mu ;\beta _1)\lambda _{i+1}(\nu ;\beta _2):,`$
$`\lambda _i(\mu ;\beta _1)\lambda _j(\nu ;\beta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`:\lambda _i(\mu ;\beta _1)\lambda _j(\nu ;\beta _2):,|ij|>1,`$
$`c_i(\mu ;0)c_j(\nu ;0)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\left(\mu \nu \right)+1\right]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\left(\mu \nu \right)\right]}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^\gamma }{\eta }}:c_i(\mu ;0)c_j(\nu ;0):,`$
where $`\eta =\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}`$ and $`a_{ij}`$ is the Cartan matrix (3.14)