text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Nucleon-antinucleon annihilation into multi-pion states offers the possibility of studying Bose-Einstein (BE) correlations under controlled conditions. While the study of BE correlations in inclusive distributions in $`N\overline{N}`$ annihilation in the conventional Hanbury-Brown–Twiss (HBT) framework  has a long history , the use of exclusive distributions is relatively new. The first steps in this direction were made in  where the exclusive reactions $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ at rest were studied on the basis of minimum bias CPLEAR data. For these data, the complete kinematical reconstruction of each event allows the direct determination of the square of the reaction amplitude and the dynamics of the BE correlations is not obscured by integration over spectators and the usage of conventional reference samples.

The present paper extends the analysis of the exclusive distributions for the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}`$ annihilation at rest to the case of the $`4\pi ^0`$ final state on the basis of the Crystal Barrel (CB) data. An appealing property of the $`4\pi ^0`$ channel is that there are no $`\rho `$ mesons, which strongly affect the final states with charged pions. Therefore the comparison of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ correlations with the charged pion correlations can clarify the origin of the signals observed.

The HBT mechanism , which is based on pion emission with stochastic phases over an extended emission volume, predicts an enhancement of like sign pion pairs at low relative momentum $`Q^2`$. This kind of enhancement seen for $`\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ pairs in many reactions is usually called a BE signal. For the first time in an annihilation reaction, the inclusive $`2\pi ^0`$ pair distribution for $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}4\pi ^0`$ shows no such enhancement contrary to the case of $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$  where a weak enhancement was seen in the corresponding $`\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ distributions. In the double differential distribution, which is a more sensitive observable, a small enhancement is seen in the kinematical region where the $`4\pi ^0`$ system forms two pion pairs, both having small invariant masses. As we shall discuss, the strength and the shape of the signal for the differential correlations do not favor an interpretation in terms of the conventional HBT picture of BE correlations. This conclusion is based on simulations of resonance production in the $`4\pi ^0`$ final state which qualitatively explain the observed effects.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we describe the analysis of the data and the results for the single variable distributions. In section 3, the formalism of double differential distributions is recapitulated. Section 4 presents detailed model calculations for the dominant resonance mechanisms which are compared to the data. Partial projections similar to the analysis performed earlier in the $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ case are shown as well and confronted with our dynamical model. Section 5 gives a summary and conclusions.

## 2 Analysis of the $`4\pi ^0`$ data

The Crystal Barrel experiment  at the Low Energy Antiproton Ring (LEAR) at CERN was conceived for high statistics meson spectroscopy. The setup relevant for the present study used a cylindrical detector consisting of a hydrogen gas target, tracking chambers for charged particles (proportional and jet-drift-chambers), and an electromagnetic calorimeter with 1380 CsI crystals of 15 radiation lengths each for the detection of photons. The calorimeter is surrounded by a 1.5 T solenoid magnet.

### 2.1 Event selection

The $`4\pi ^0`$ data analyzed in this study was taken by Crystal Barrel in November 1994 using antiprotons stopped in the hydrogen gas target at 12 bar with the “all-neutral trigger”, i.e. only events with no signal in the proportional chambers were recorded. Offline, the data was subjected to the following selection criteria:

* exactly 8 photon energy deposits (PED) in the calorimeter;
* no PED adjacent to the beam pipe (risk of missing energy);
* no $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ pileup condition;
* no charged tracks in proportional chambers or jet-drift-chambers (eliminates backscatters, trigger inefficiency, and pair production);
* no PED below 20 MeV(suppresses split-offs);
* total momentum between 0 and 200 MeV/c, and total energy $`m_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}}\pm 173`$MeV.

For this set of events, a kinematic fit is performed and the most likely photon combinations are chosen. Combinatorial background is determined by simulation to be of the order of 18 percent. The photon energy resolution is $`\sigma _E/E=2.4\%/\sqrt[4]{E/\text{GeV}}`$.

The measured single pion inclusive momentum distribution is plotted in Fig.1. Contrary to the case of four charged pions $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ , the shape of the $`\pi ^0`$ momentum distribution differs significantly from phase space due to the strong production of resonances in the mass region between 1.2 GeV and 1.7 GeV as discussed in . The broad peak at 0.2 GeV/c is due to pions recoiling against a heavy resonance like $`a_2\left(1660\right)`$ or $`\pi _2\left(1670\right)`$, while the maximum around 0.65 GeV/c stems from the decay of lighter resonances like $`f_2\left(1270\right)`$ and maybe $`\pi \left(1300\right)`$. The narrow peak at $`0.85\text{GeV/c}`$ corresponds to the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\pi ^0+\eta _{3\pi ^0}`$ decay. We shall discuss the resonance production in detail in section 4.

### 2.2 Correlation functions for inclusive distributions

For the benefit of the reader, we summarize below the standard BE formalism according to . The single-particle inclusive density $`\rho _1\left(p_1\right)`$ and the two-particle inclusive density $`\rho _2(p_1,p_2)`$ are related to the differential cross-sections by

$`\rho _1\left(p_1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^1{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d^3\text{p}_1/\left(2E_1\right)}}`$ (1)
$`\rho _2(p_1,p_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^1{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d^3\text{p}_1/\left(2E_1\right)d^3\text{p}_2/\left(2E_2\right)}}.`$ (2)
One of the definitions of pion pair correlations is based on the formula

$`c(p_1,p_2)=\rho _2(p_1,p_2)\rho _1\left(p_1\right)\rho _1\left(p_2\right).`$ (3)
Alternatively the two-particle correlations can be described in terms of the ratio

$`C(p_1,p_2)={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _2(p_1,p_2)}{\rho _0(p_1,p_2)}},`$ (4)
where $`\rho _0(p_1,p_2)`$ is the two-particle distribution in the absence of correlations, with various prescriptions being used in the literature. A choice consistent with Eq.(3) is the product of the single-particle densities $`\rho _0(p_1,p_2)=\rho _1\left(p_1\right)\rho _1\left(p_2\right)`$.

Averaging over angles and momenta gives a correlation function depending on one variable, the two-pion invariant mass $`M`$:

$`C\left(M\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _2\left(M\right)}{\left(\rho _1\rho _1\right)\left(M\right)}}`$ (5)
$`\rho _2\left(M\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \delta \left(M\sqrt{\left(p_1+p_2\right)^2}\right)\rho _2(p_1,p_2)\frac{d^3\text{p}_1d^3\text{p}_2}{\left(2E_1\right)\left(2E_2\right)}}`$ (6)
$`\left(\rho _1\rho _1\right)\left(M\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \delta \left(M\sqrt{\left(p_1+p_2\right)^2}\right)\rho _1\left(p_1\right)\rho _1\left(p_2\right)\frac{d^3\text{p}_1d^3\text{p}_2}{\left(2E_1\right)\left(2E_2\right)}}`$ (7)
The invariant mass $`M`$ is uniquely related to the square of the momentum difference:

$$\left(p_1p_2\right)^2=4\mu ^2M^2=Q^2,$$
(8)
where $`\mu `$ is the pion mass and Q is the difference of the three-momenta of the two pions in their center-of-mass system (CMS), therefore the variables $`M^2`$ and $`Q^2`$ are equivalent.

Because of the total energy-momentum conservation, the ratio $`C\left(M\right)`$ is not a constant even if the distributions $`d\sigma /\left(d^3\text{p}_1/2E_1\right)`$ and $`d\sigma /\left(d^3\text{p}_1/2E_1\right)\left(d^3\text{p}_2/2E_2\right)`$ are determined by phase space alone (see ). This effect becomes negligible for reactions at much higher energy, but it is important for annihilation at rest.

### 2.3 Single-variable two-pion correlations

In this subsection we present the single-variable two-pion correlation $`C\left(M\right)`$ which has been frequently used in previous analyses. In order to isolate the correlation effects we compare the experimental density with a four-pion phase space distribution corrected for experimental cuts and efficiencies in the same way as the data.

The data sample of 459803 events was used to calculate the two-particle distributions $`\rho _2^{00}\left(M\right)`$ defined by Eq.(6) for $`\pi ^0`$ pairs111Here and below all distributions for $`4\pi ^0`$ events contain multiple entries per event corresponding to all possible two–particle combinations., see Fig. 2a. The corresponding two-particle density from the phase space simulation is called $`\rho _2^{PS}\left(M\right)`$. The simulation was produced with the GEANT software , and subjected to the same cuts and selections as the real data. It comprises 956511 events. Figure 2b shows the ratio $`\rho _2^{00}\left(M\right)/\rho _2^{PS}\left(M\right)`$, for which the kinematical correlations discussed in section 2.2 cancel. An interesting feature of this result is that there is no familiar BE peak at small invariant mass of the pion pair, contrary to the case of $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ , which is shown for comparison in Fig. 2b. The peak at $`M=1.6`$GeV is due to $`f_2\pi ^0\pi ^0`$.

To study the correlation function $`C\left(M\right)`$ in Eq.(5), the two-particle distribution for uncorrelated pion pairs has been calculated using the same event-mixing method as in . The experimental distribution $`\left(\rho _1\rho _1\right)\left(M\right)`$ and the simulated distribution $`\left(\rho _1\rho _1\right)^{PS}\left(M\right)`$ are plotted in figure 3, along with their ratio. Figure 4 shows the correlation functions $`C\left(M\right)`$ for the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ pairs in comparison with the phase space distribution. In order to remove the trivial $`M`$-dependence which arises from the energy-momentum conservation, equations (5-7), and the influence of the experimental cuts, the following double ratio has been calculated:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C\left(M\right)}{C^{PS}\left(M\right)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _2\left(M\right)}{\left(\rho _1\rho _1\right)\left(M\right)}}:{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _2^{PS}\left(M\right)}{\left(\rho _1\rho _1\right)^{PS}\left(M\right)}}.`$ (9)
The result is shown in Fig.4b. Clearly the inclusive $`\pi ^0`$ pair correlation function has a dip at small $`M`$. This is unexpected in the conventional HBT picture. It also contrasts to our findings for charged pion correlations, where the same correlation function shows a weak enhancement at small $`M`$ , see Fig.4b. As discussed in section 4, the structures seen in Fig.4 correspond to the resonances $`f_2\left(1270\right)`$, $`a_2\left(1660\right)`$, and $`\pi _2\left(1670\right)`$,

## 3 Differential two-pion correlations

So far we have presented the inclusive correlation function $`C\left(M\right)/C^{PS}\left(M\right)`$ where all kinematical variables except the invariant mass $`M`$ of one pion pair have been integrated out. To investigate possible correlation signals in more detail we turn to differential densities. Our approach follows the method used previously for the systems of charged pions .

The reaction $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}4\pi ^0`$ at rest in the CB experiment proceeds from the $`S`$-wave state $`J^{PC}=0^+`$ and the $`P`$-wave atomic states $`J^{PC}=0^{++},1^{++},2^{++}`$. The corresponding pion distribution for the final state configuration $`\left\{\text{p}_i\right\},i=1,2,3,4`$, has the form

$`d\sigma \left(\left\{\text{p}_i\right\}\right)`$ $``$ $`\left(w_S\left|T(\text{k},\left\{\text{p}_i\right\})\right|^2+w_P\left|_kT(\text{k},\left\{\text{p}_i\right\})\right|^2\right)_{\text{k}0}d\mathrm{\Phi }_4(p,p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\overline{\left|T(\text{k},\left\{\text{p}_i\right\})\right|_{\text{k}0}^2}d\mathrm{\Phi }_4(p,p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4).`$
Here $`T(\text{k},\left\{\text{p}_i\right\})`$ is the amplitude of the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}`$ annihilation from the initial $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}`$ state with relative momentum k, $`d\mathrm{\Phi }_4(p,p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ is the $`4`$-body relativistic phase space, and the limit $`\text{k}0`$ implies the incoherent sum222The notation $`\overline{|T(\text{k},\{\text{p}_i\})|_{\text{k}0}^2}`$ implies a sum over initial spin states $`J^{PC}=0^+,0^{++},1^{++},2^{++}`$, and all quantum numbers specifying the initial spin and the total angular momentum are suppressed. of the $`S`$ and $`P`$-wave states with the corresponding weights $`w_S`$ and $`w_P`$. The four-vectors of the pions are $`p_i=(E_i,\text{p}_i)`$, and $`p=(2m_p,0)`$ is the total four-momentum for $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}`$ annihilation at rest, $`m_p`$ being the proton mass.

We introduce the two-pion subsystems $`a`$ and $`b`$ with four-momenta $`p_a=\left(p_1+p_2\right)`$ and $`p_b=\left(p_3+p_4\right)`$ and invariant masses $`M_a`$ and $`M_b`$, see figure 5. Given the invariant masses $`M_a`$ and $`M_b`$, the double differential cross section is defined by integrating over the angles specifying the relative orientation of the momenta of the pions within the subsystems $`a`$ and $`b`$ and the relative orientation of the subsystems $`a`$ and $`b`$ (the corresponding solid angles are $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}`$, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{34}`$, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}`$). For the reaction $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}4\pi ^0`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dM_a^2dM_b^2}}`$ $``$ $`W(\sqrt{s},M_a,M_b){\displaystyle \overline{\left|T(\text{k},\left\{\text{p}_i\right\})\right|_{\text{k}0}^2}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{34}}.`$ (11)
Here the factor $`W(M,M_a,M_b)`$ is given by

$`W(M,M_a,M_b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_{ab}}{M}}\sqrt{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu ^2}{M_a^2}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu ^2}{M_b^2}}\right)},`$ (12)
$`P_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`P(M,M_a,M_b),`$ (13)
$`P(M,M_a,M_b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\left(M^2\left(M_a+M_b\right)^2\right)\left(M^2\left(M_aM_b\right)^2\right)}}{2M}}`$ (14)
where $`P(M,M_a,M_b)`$ is the relative momentum of two particles with masses $`M_a`$ and $`M_b`$ and the total invariant mass $`M`$, in our case $`M=2m_\mathrm{p}`$. Removing the phase space factor $`W(M,M_a,M_b)`$, we define the double–differential density:

$`\varrho (M_a,M_b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{W(M,M_a,M_b)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{\sigma dM_a^2dM_b^2}}`$ (15)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \overline{\left|T(\text{k},\left\{\text{p}_i\right\})\right|_{\text{k}0}^2}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{34}}`$
where $`\sigma `$ is the total cross section.

An advantage of using the double differential density $`\varrho (M_a,M_b)`$ is that it does not contain kinematical dependences on the invariant masses of the two-pion pairs $`a`$ and $`b`$. This means that for a constant $`T`$ matrix the density $`\varrho (M_a,M_b)`$ does not depend on its argument $`M_a`$ and $`M_b`$, contrary to $`\rho _2\left(M_a\right)=d\sigma /dM_a`$ of Eq.(6) which unavoidably involves the phase–space dependence.

The double-differential cross-section $`d\sigma /dM_a^2dM_b^2`$ corresponding to the raw data is shown in figure 6a, and the corresponding double differential density $`\varrho (M_a,M_b)`$ in figure 6b. These raw data must be corrected for the acceptance of the detector, which is shown in figure 7. The differential density $`\varrho ^{\mathrm{PS}}(M_a,M_b)`$ is calculated using the four–pion phase space with the detector acceptance taken into account. The double differential density corrected for the detector acceptance $`\varrho (M_a,M_b)/\varrho ^{\mathrm{PS}}(M_a,M_b)`$ is plotted in figure 8. Note that the double differential view shows a weak enhancement at low values of $`M^2`$ which is absent in the inclusive projection of figure 4.

For the further discussion in section 4 we construct the following partial projections of the two–particle density. The two–dimensional space $`(M_a,M_b)`$ is divided into slices $`M_i^2M_b<M_{i+1}^2`$ and the projections $`\varrho _i\left(M_a\right)`$ are defined by

$`\varrho _i\left(M_a\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{M_i^2}^{M_{i+1}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varrho (M_a,M_b)}{\varrho ^{\mathrm{PS}}(M_a,M_b)}}𝑑M_b^2`$ (16)
The partial projections $`\varrho _i\left(M_a\right)`$ are plotted in Fig. 9. Contrary to the inclusive distribution figure 4b where a dip was observed, we see a peak in the first two slices. The slices in the mass interval $`0.3GeV^2M_b^21.2\text{GeV}^2`$ are more or less flat. The dip seen in Fig. 4b results from integration over the higher mass region of $`M_b^21.2\text{GeV}^2`$. In comparison to the corresponding projections for the annihilation into $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$, the observed enhancement at small $`Q_a^2`$ in the $`\pi \pi ^0`$ case is weak even for the lowest interval $`0.0<Q_b^2<0.1\text{GeV}^2`$.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Resonance effects

Resonances are strongly produced in the reaction $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}4\pi ^0`$, see figures 6 where the signals of $`f_2`$ are clearly seen in the invariant mass projections. The total spin $`S`$ and the relative angular momentum $`L`$ of the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}`$ system annihilating into $`4\pi ^0`$ are constrained by the conservation of $`C`$–parity: $`C=\left(1\right)^{L+S}=1`$. Therefore, the annihilation into $`4\pi ^0`$ can occur in the case of the $`S`$–wave annihilation ($`L=S=0`$) from the state $`J^{PC}=0^+`$ only, and in the case of the $`P`$–wave annihilation ($`L=S=1`$) from the states $`J^{PC}=0^{++},1^{++},2^{++}`$.

Following the Crystal Barrel analysis  we focus our attention on the most prominent mechanisms seen in the $`4\pi ^0`$ channel. For the dense gaseous target at 12 bar, the fractions of the total $`S`$-wave and $`P`$-wave annihilations are approximately equal to each other . For the sake of simplicity, we focuse our attention on one $`P`$-wave channel $`J^{PC}=2^{++}`$, which has the largest statistical weight, and the $`S`$-wave channel $`J^{PC}=0^+`$. We do not attempt to make a global fit of the data in the $`4\pi ^0`$ channel, which would be far beyond the scope of this paper, but rather to explore how the most probable annihilation mechanisms manifest themselves in the observed BE correlations. The following mechanisms have been taken into consideration:

$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\left(J^{PC}=0^+\right)`$ $``$ $`a_2\left(1660\right)+\pi ^0`$
$`\text{}f_2\left(1270\right)+\pi ^0`$
$`\text{}2\pi ^0`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\left(J^{PC}=2^{++}\right)`$ $``$ $`f_2\left(1270\right)+2\pi ^0`$
$`\text{}2\pi ^0`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\left(J^{PC}=2^{++}\right)`$ $``$ $`a_2\left(1660\right)+\pi ^0`$
$`\text{}f_2\left(1270\right)+\pi ^0`$
$`\text{}2\pi ^0`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\left(J^{PC}=2^{++}\right)`$ $``$ $`\pi _2\left(1670\right)+\pi ^0`$
$`\text{}f_2\left(1270\right)+\pi ^0`$
$`\text{}2\pi ^0`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\left(J^{PC}=2^{++}\right)`$ $``$ $`\pi \left(1300\right)+\pi ^0`$
$`\text{}\sigma +\pi ^0`$
$`\text{}2\pi ^0`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\left(J^{PC}=2^{++}\right)`$ $``$ $`\sigma +f_0`$
$`4\pi ^0`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\left(J^{PC}=2^{++}\right)`$ $``$ $`\sigma +\sigma `$
$`4\pi ^0`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\left(J^{PC}=0^{++}\right)`$ $``$ $`\sigma +\sigma `$
$`4\pi ^0`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\left(J^{PC}=0^{++}\right)`$ $``$ $`\sigma +f_0`$
$`4\pi ^0`$
The details of the calculations are given in Appendix A.

As a first step, we inspect the double–differential densities corresponding to each individual mechanism in order to demonstrate the effects expected if one of these mechanisms would be dominant. In reality, a coherent superposition of several mechanisms is required to describe the data , therefore, as a second step, we investigate the double-differential distributions corresponding to such superpositions. Our goal is to find out which mechanisms are required to describe the global features of the differential mass distributions. Once these features are established we also get a prediction for the double differential distributions near the origin from these ordinary resonance mechanisms without introducing any HBT-like stochastic correlations.

The double–differential densities calculated for the mechanisms (4.1,4.1,4.1,4.1) are shown in Figs.10(a,b,c,d).

By varying the relative weights and phases of the individual mechanisms we have found that the superpositions of the three mechanisms (4.1,4.1, and 4.1) are sufficient to obtain a qualitative agreement with the data:

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`c_1T_{f_2\left(1270\right)+2\pi ^0}+c_2\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _2}T_{a_2\left(1660\right)+\pi ^0}+c_3\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _3}T_{\pi _2\left(1670\right)+\pi ^0}`$ (26)
In fact, the main features of the data can be reproduced even with the two mechanisms (4.1) and (4.1) (note that they include the contribution from the lighter meson $`f_2\left(1270\right)`$, see Figs.12(b,c)). Figure 11 shows an example corresponding to a superposition of the mechanisms (4.1) and (4.1) with $`c_1=0`$, $`c_2=0.45`$, $`c_3=0.91`$, $`\varphi _2=0`$, $`\varphi _3=3\pi /2`$ (all individual amplitudes are normalized to the same total yield of $`4\pi ^0`$). We are not aiming at an optimal fit to the data in the present context, but Fig. 11 illustrates that the observed resonance peaks are consistent with a moderate enhancement near the origin. Compare this figure with the experimental distribution of figure 8.

## 5 Conclusion

For the annihilation reaction $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}4\pi ^0`$ at rest, the BE correlations between two neutral pions have been studied for the first time with full event reconstruction. The inclusive $`2\pi ^0`$ correlation shows an unexpected dip at small relative momentum, in contrast to the inclusive pair correlation in the charged channel $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ which shows a weak enhancement .

For the more sensitive and less model-dependent double-differential distribution, a weak peaking is observed near the origin (small invariant masses of the two neutral pion pairs). This is similar to though less pronounced than in the $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ channel.

The data of the single- and double-differential $`2\pi ^0`$ correlations were compared to model calculations. The role of the $`\rho `$ meson dominating the $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ dynamics is replaced by the $`a_2`$, $`\pi _2`$, and $`f_2`$ resonances in the $`4\pi ^0`$ case. Resonance production explains the fairly different spectra of the two reactions. It is found that with an adequate choice of reaction amplitudes the dynamical model describes the main features of the single- and double-differential distributions, including a slight enhancement near the origin.

From this result, together with the absence of a correlation signal in the inclusive $`2\pi ^0`$ correlation, we conclude that our analysis does not favour the interpretation of pion correlation signals in terms of an HBT-type model with stochastic pion emission phases.

## 6 Aknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to the Crystal Barrel Collaboration for making available the data. In this connection we would like to thank in particular Ulrich Wiedner and Črtomir Zupančič. We had stimulating discussions on aspects of pion correlations with Eberhard Klempt and Ulrike Thoma. One of us (MPL) would like to thank the TRIUMF theory group for hospitality during completion of this paper.

## Appendix A Appendix

The amplitudes corresponding to the resonance mechanisms (4.1,4.1,4.1,4.1,4.1,4.1) are given by the diagrams in figures 12. The calculations are straightforward, so only some major elements are outlined here. The $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}`$ vertices are taken with a minimum number of derivatives. The vertex $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\left(J^{PC}=2^{++}\right)a_2\pi `$ has the form

$`V_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\left(J^{PC}=2^{++}\right)a_2\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`B_{\mu \nu }g^{\nu \gamma }T_{\gamma \delta }ϵ^{\alpha \beta \mu \delta }\left(p_\pi \right)_\alpha \left(p_{a_2}\right)_\beta `$ (27)
where $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ is the polarization tensor of the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\left(J^{PC}=2^{++}\right)`$ state and $`T_{\gamma \delta }`$ is the polarization tensor of the $`a_2`$, and $`p_\pi `$ and $`p_{a_2}`$ are the momenta of the corresponding particles. The $`a_2f_2\pi `$ vertex has a similar structure, and the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\left(J^{PC}=2^{++}\right)\pi _2\pi `$ is a trivial $`S`$-wave vertex. The $`f_2\pi \pi `$ vertex has the form

$`V_{f_2\pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`g_{f_2\pi \pi }T_{\mu \nu }q^\mu q^\nu F_{f_2\pi \pi }\left(m_{\pi \pi }^2\right)`$ (28)
where $`g_{f_2\pi \pi }`$ is the coupling constant, $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the polarization tensor of the $`f_2`$, $`q=p_1p_2`$, $`p_n`$ are the pion momenta, and $`F_{f_2\pi \pi }\left(m_{\pi \pi }^2\right)`$ is the form factor depending on the invariant mass of the $`\pi \pi `$ system.

The propagators corresponding to the tensor particles are given by the formula

$`G\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \mu ^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\nu \nu ^{}}+\mathrm{\Pi }^{\nu \mu ^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu ^{}}\right)\frac{1}{3}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}\right)}{p^2m_0^2\left(p^2\right)}}`$ (29)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }p^\mu p^\nu /p^2`$ (30)
where $`m_0`$ is the bare mass and $`\left(p^2\right)`$ is the mass operator. The mass operator for the $`f_2`$ meson corresponding to the $`\pi \pi `$ loop is defined by the dispersion integral:

$`\left(s\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(s^{}\right)}{ss^{}}}𝑑s^{}`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(s\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2\left|F_{f_2\pi \pi }\left(s\right)\right|^2k^5}{60\pi s}}`$ (32)
where $`k=k\left(s\right)=\sqrt{s/4m_\pi ^2}`$ is the relative momentum in the $`\pi \pi `$ system and the dipole form factor $`F_{f_2\pi \pi }\left(s\right)=\left(1+k\left(s\right)^2/\nu ^2\right)^2`$ is used with $`\nu =1`$GeV. The parameters $`m_0`$ and $`g_{f_2\pi \pi }`$ are defined by the mass and the width of the $`f_2`$ meson, with the other decay channels being approximated by a constant width. The propagators of $`a_2`$ and $`\pi _2`$ are constructed in a similar way. The $`\sigma `$ block in Fig.12a denotes the full Green function of the $`\pi \pi `$ system in the scalar-isoscalar channel; it was taken from the coupled channel model . The components above are combined to construct the amplitudes for the resonance channels concerned; since the procedure is straightforward, we skip the resulting formulas involving lengthy tensor structures.


format: text

text:
# 1 Summary of Results

## 1 Summary of Results

In  and in  D.Goderis, A.Verbeure, and P.Vets investigated a central limit theorem for mixing quantum spin systems. We refer to the limit theorem of D.Goderis, A.Verbeure, and P.Vets as CLT below. In case of a single observable, their theorem is a kind of classical limit theorem for a family of spectral measures of operators appearing in quantum statistical mechanics. However if we consider more than two observables, the limit theorem suggests the emergence of Boson fields as the algebra of fluctuation of physical observables. Then, it is natural to consider the time evolution states of such Bose fields appearing in the central limit. In fact, as the states appearing in CLT are quasifree states of Bose fields, at a heuristic level, the dynamics of the fluctuation operators is the quasifree dynamics (via Bogoliubov automorphisms) i.e. unitary time evolution in the test function space of the Boson field. D.Goderis, A.Verbeure,and P.Vets in  investigated the construction of the time evolution of the algebra of fluctuation. They tried to introduce the time evolution for the algebra of fluctuation induced by the microscopic dynamics . As they could not prove their limit theorem to any time invariant dense subalgebra, their introduction of the time evolution in an indirect way. They have shown that the quasifree state of the algebra of fluctuation is a KMS state if the state of the microscopic system is KMS. However they failed to prove validity of their assumption for any non-trivial KMS states.

After publication of ,  and , no concrete example of quantum spin systems has been analyzed. The difficulty lies in the mixing assumption in  where estimate of decay of correlation of two observables $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ located in two disjoint regions, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$. In many cases we may prove the following estimate:

$$\left|\phi (Q_1Q_2)\phi (Q_1)\phi (Q_2)\right|C(Q_1,Q_2)Q_1Q_2r^{dϵ}$$
(1.1)
where $`r`$ is the distance between the supports $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$. To show the central limit theorem, we need information of dependence of the constant $`C(Q_1,Q_2)`$ on the size of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$. D.Goderis, A.Verbeure, and P.Vets never proved their assumption for any (non-product ) Gibbs state and until recently it has been an open question whether the above results really hold for any Gibbs states.

In , we obtained a different proof of CLT of a single observable in quantum spin systems under a slightly different mixing condition . The advantages of our results in  are as follows.
(i) We can prove our assumptions for several mixing states of one-dimensional systems. The assumption of  is valid for Gibbs states for finite range interactions , ground states of the (massive) XY model, quasifree states of CAR algebras.
(ii) Our limit theorem is valid for (not strictly local) certain quasi-local observables, which we named exponentially localized observables.
In fact, instead of assuming (1.1), we can show CLT under the following condition:

$$\left|\phi (Q_1Q_2)\phi (Q_1)\phi (Q_2)\right|C(Q_1)Q_2r^{d1ϵ}$$

Our proof is based on an idea of E.Bolthauzen in . As far as strictly local observables concerned, we do not require any estimate of the constant $`C(Q_1)`$ and we did not assume the assumption on the 4th moment (CLT4) of  neither. To show CLT for quasi-local observables we assume stronger mixing , which is still valid in many one-dimensional examples.

In this article, we continue our study of CLT. The new result of this article is CLT for mutually non-commuting operators in the following sense:

$$\underset{N}{lim}\phi (e^{iTQ_{<N>}^1}e^{iTQ_{N>}^2}\mathrm{}.e^{iTQ_{<N>}^m})=e^{\frac{t^2}{2}t(_kQ^k,_kQ^k)}e^{i\frac{T^2}{2}_{k<l}s(Q^k,Q^l)}$$

This CLT is a stronger statement confirming appearance of Boson fields as the algebra of normal fluctuation. We prove this limit theorem under the same condition of  . As we are handling a convergence of functionals rather that of measures, we had to add more argument and estimates which are absent both in our previous paper  and in commutative cases. Let us mention that Goderis, Verbeure and Vets have already considered the same limit theorem only for strictly local observables and again they could not prove their assumption for any non-trivial Gibbs states. We will see that our CLT is valid for a dense algebra invariant under the time evolution generated by any finite range translationally invariant Hamiltonian. As a corollary , we can introduce the time evolution for the algebra of normal fluctuation directly. The CLT of this paper implies that quasifree states obtained in CLT is a KMS state of the algebra of fluctuation provided that the microscopic state satisfies the KMS condition as well.

We concentrate here one-dimensional system. We may derive the same CLT for higher dimensional systems under a similar mixing assumption of states, though the condition looks rather difficult to verify , so we do not present its proof here. In our proof of CLT for Gibbs states, one dimensionality enters in use of the Ruelle transfer operator technique and the entire analyticity of the time evolution (in Heisenberg Picture of Quantum Mechanics).

Next we present our results more precisely. We start with explaining our notation. Here the language of Operator Algebra is used and the reader unfamiliar with this may consult  and .

By $`𝒜`$ we denote the UHF $`C^{}`$algebra $`d^{\mathrm{}}`$ (the infinite tensor product of d by d matrix algebras ) :

$$𝒜=\overline{\underset{𝐙}{}M_d(𝐂)}^C^{}.$$

Each component of the tensor product above is specified with a lattice site $`j𝐙`$. By $`Q^{(j)}`$ we denote the element of $`𝒜_𝐙`$ with $`Q`$ in the jth component of the tensor product and the unit in any other component. For a subset $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`𝐙`$ , $`𝒜_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is defined as the $`C^{}`$subalgebra of $`𝒜_𝐙`$ generated by elements localized in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. When $`\phi `$ is a state of $`𝒜_𝐙`$ the restriction to $`𝒜_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will be denoted by $`\phi _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ :

$$\phi _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\phi |_{𝒜_\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(1.2)
For simplicity we set

$$𝒜_{loc}=_{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|<\mathrm{}}𝒜_\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(1.3)
where $`\left|\mathrm{\Lambda }\right|`$ is the cardinality of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Let $`\tau _j`$ be the lattice translation ( j shift to the right) determined by

$$\tau _j(Q^{(k)})=Q^{(j+k)}$$
(1.4)
for any j and k in $`𝐙`$.

@Time Evolution of Local Observables
In this paper, the time evolution of (microscopic) local observables is determined by a translationally invariant finite range interaction. Our local Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on a finite volume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has the following standard form:

$$H_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\underset{X\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\psi (X)$$
(1.5)
where $`X`$ is an interval $`[a,b]`$ of $`𝐙`$ and

$$\psi (X)=\psi (X)^{}𝒜_X,\tau _j(\psi (X))=\psi (X+j)$$

$$\psi (X)=0\text{if the diameter }d(X)\text{ of the set }X\text{ is greater than }r\text{.}$$
(1.6)
The time evolution $`\alpha _t^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the finite system in a finite set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`𝐙`$ is determined by

$$\alpha _t^\mathrm{\Lambda }(Q)=e^{itH_\mathrm{\Lambda }}Qe^{itH_\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$

From the local time evolution $`\alpha _t^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the global time evolution $`\alpha _t`$ is obtained via the thermodynamic limit which converges in the norm topology of $`𝒜`$ .

$$\alpha _t(Q)=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙}{lim}\alpha _t^\mathrm{\Lambda }(Q).$$

Next,we introduce the notion of exponentially localized observables .

###### Definition 1.1

Let $`\theta `$ be a positive constant $`0<\theta <1`$ . Define $`Q^{(n)}`$ by the following equation:

$$Q^{(n)}=inf\left\{QQ_n|Q𝒜_{[n,n]}\right\}$$
(1.7)
for n positive, $`n>0`$ and we set

$$Q^{(0)}=Q.$$

In terms of $`Q^{(n)}`$ we introduce $`|Q|_\theta `$ :

$$|Q|_\theta =\underset{n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}}{}Q^{(n)}\theta ^n$$
(1.8)
An element $`Q`$ of $`𝒜`$ is exponentially localized with rate $`\theta `$ if $`|Q|_\theta `$ is finite.

The set of all exponentially localized elements with rate $`\theta `$ is denoted by $`F_\theta `$.

We fix an element $`Q_n`$ of $`𝒜_{[n,n]}`$ satisfying

$$Q_n=QQ_n.$$

Note that due to compactness of a closed bounded subset of $`𝒜_{[n,n]}`$ the infimum in (1.7) is attained by an element . In  we used slightly different definition of $`F_\theta `$. But they are essentially equivalent.

The following invariance of $`F_\theta `$ under the time evolution is a corollary of results due to H.Araki in  or due to the Propagation of Estimates due to E.Lieb and D.Robinson (c.f. Theorem 6.2.9. and 6.2.11 of ) .

###### Proposition 1.2

Suppose that the interaction is of finite range.
(i) For any $`\theta `$ and $`\theta ^{}`$ with $`\theta <\theta ^{}`$, there exists a constant $`C=C(\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ such that

$$|\alpha _t(Q)|_\theta ^{}C|Q|_\theta $$

(ii) For any $`Q`$ in $`F_\theta `$, $`\alpha _t(Q)`$ is entire analytic (analytic in the whole complex plane) as a function of $`t`$.

Due to the above proposition the sets $`_\theta F_\theta `$ and $`_\theta F_\theta `$ are invariant under $`\alpha _t`$.

Gibbs states
As usual, the local Gibbs state at the inverse temperature $`\beta `$ is defined by

$$\phi _\beta ^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(Q)=\frac{tr(e^{\beta H_\mathrm{\Lambda }}Q)}{tr(e^{\beta H_\mathrm{\Lambda }})}.$$
(1.9)
For the finite range interaction, the following thermodynamics limit exists:

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi _\beta ^{([N,N])}(Q)=\phi _\beta (Q).$$

$`\phi _\beta `$ is a unique Gibbs state of the time evolution $`\alpha _t`$ and $`\phi _\beta `$ satisfies the KMS boundary condition:

$$\phi _\beta (Q_1\alpha _{i\beta }(Q_2))=\phi _\beta (Q_2Q_1)$$

for $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ in $`F_\theta `$. By applying the Ruelle transfer operator technique for UHF algebras (c.f. ,  , and ) we obtain the following estimates for the infinite volume Gibbs state $`\phi _\beta `$.

###### Theorem 1.3

Suppose that the interaction is of finite range.
(i) There exist constants $`C,m>0`$ such that

$$\left|\phi _\beta ^{[k+a,b+k]}(Q)\phi _\beta (Q)\right|Ce^{mk}Q$$
(1.10)
for any $`Q`$ in $`A_{[a,b]}`$.
(ii) We have exponential decay of correlation for observables localized in the half infinite intervals $`(\mathrm{},1]`$ and, $`[0,\mathrm{})`$.

$$\left|\phi (Q_1\tau _j(Q_2))\phi (Q_1)\phi (Q_2)\right|Ke^{Mj}Q_1Q_2$$
(1.11)
for $`Q_1`$ in $`𝒜_{(\mathrm{},1]}`$, $`Q_2`$ in $`𝒜_{[0,\mathrm{})}`$ and $`j>0`$.

Central Limit Theorem
Suppose that $`\phi `$ is a translationally invariant factor state. Consider the local fluctuation $`Q_{<N>}`$ of an observable $`Q`$ :

$$Q_{<N>}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N+1}}\left(\underset{\left|j\right|N}{}(\tau _j(Q)\phi (Q))\right).$$

If the observable is diagonal, the limit $`lim_NQ_{<N>}`$ makes sense as convergence of spectral measures and this is nothing but a classical central limit theorem of mixing systems. The central limit does not converge in neither strong nor weak topology of operators in a Hilbert space. Nevertheless, the following weak limit exists in the GNS space of $`\phi `$.

$$w\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}[Q_{<N>},R_{<N>}]=s(Q,R)1$$
(1.12)
where

$$s(Q,R)=\underset{k𝐙}{}\phi ([\tau _k(Q),R]).$$
(1.13)
Set

$$t(Q,R)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi (Q_{<N>}R_{<N>}).$$
(1.14)
###### Definition 1.4

Let $`\phi `$ be a translationally invariant state of $`𝒜`$. Suppose that $`Q`$ in $`𝒜`$ is selfadjoint. We say that the central limit theorem holds for $`Q`$ and $`\phi `$ if

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi (e^{iTQ_{<N>}})=e^{\frac{T^2}{2}t(Q,Q)}$$
(1.15)
###### Theorem 1.5

(i) Let $`\phi `$ be a translationally invariant state . Suppose there exist positive constants $`M(j)`$ such that

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}jM(j)<\mathrm{}$$

and

$$\left|\phi (Q_1\tau _j(Q_2))\phi (Q_1)\phi (Q_2)\right|KQ_1Q_2M(j)$$

for $`Q_1`$ in $`𝒜_{(\mathrm{},1]}`$, $`Q_2`$ in $`𝒜_{[0,\mathrm{})}`$ and $`j>0`$.

The central limit theorem holds for any selfadjoint strictly local observable $`Q`$ in $`𝒜_{loc}`$. We have convergence of the following correlation functions for local $`Q(k)`$ ($`k=1,2,\mathrm{}r`$).

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi (\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}e^{iQ(k)_{<N>}})=e^{\frac{1}{2}t(_kQ(k),_kQ(k))}e^{\frac{i}{2}_{k<l}s(Q(k),Q(l))}$$
(1.16)
(ii) If the translationally invariant state satisfies the exponential mixing condition (1.11) , (1.16) is valid for for any exponentially localized selfadjoint $`Q(k)`$ in $`F_\theta `$.

The convergence of (1.16) was not proved in  . Our proof is similar to the case of a single observable. We will give our proof in Section 3.

Time Evolution of the Algebra of Fluctuation
As the Gibbs state $`\phi _\beta `$ for any finite range interaction satisfies the assumption of Theorem 1.5, we obtain a direct construction of dynamics for the algebra of fluctuation. The set of all selfadjoint exponentially localized elements with rate $`\theta `$ is denoted by $`F_\theta ^{real}`$. Set

$$=_{0<\theta <1}\mathrm{@}F_\theta ^{real}.$$

Due to our assumption on decay of correlation,

$$t(Q,Q)=\underset{k𝐙}{}\left\{\phi _\beta (Q\tau _k(Q))\phi _\beta (Q)^2\right\}$$
(1.17)
is finite and non-negative. Then, $`t(Q,Q)`$ of (1.14) is a (degenerate) positive semidefinite bilinear form. We denote the kernel of $`t`$ by $`𝒩`$.

$$𝒩=\left\{Q\right|t(Q,Q)=0\}$$

Next we introduce the equivalence relation on $``$ . $`A`$ and $`B`$ are equivalent if $`AB`$ is in $`𝒩`$. By $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ we denote the equivalence class for $`A`$ in $``$. Then $`s(A,B)`$ of (1.12) gives rise to a non degenerate symplectic form $`\stackrel{~}{s}(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B})`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ where

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=/𝒩$$
(1.18)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{s}(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B})=s(A,B).$$
(1.19)
As was already discussed in  and , the central limit gives rise to the Weyl algebra $`W(\stackrel{~}{F},\stackrel{~}{s})`$ on the symplectic space $`\{\stackrel{~}{F},\stackrel{~}{s}\}`$.

More precisely, we define $`𝒲(\stackrel{~}{F},\stackrel{~}{s})`$ by the $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by unitaries $`W(\stackrel{~}{Q})`$ satisfying

$$W(\stackrel{~}{Q_1})W(\stackrel{~}{Q_2})=W(\stackrel{~}{Q_1}+\stackrel{~}{Q_2})e^{i1/2s(\stackrel{~}{Q_1},\stackrel{~}{Q_2})}.$$
(1.20)
$`𝒲(\stackrel{~}{F},\stackrel{~}{s})`$ is called the algebra of normal (macroscopic) fluctuations.

When the interaction is of finite range, the global dynamics of $`𝒜`$ leaves $``$ invariant and we can introduce the dynamics $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t`$ on the Weyl algebra $`𝒲(\stackrel{~}{F},\stackrel{~}{s})`$ via the following equation:

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t(W(\stackrel{~}{Q})=W(\stackrel{~}{\alpha _t(Q)}).$$
(1.21)
The time evolution $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t`$ has weak continuity in the sense that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha _t(Q)}`$ is continuous with respect to the topology induce by the bilinear form $`t(Q,Q)`$. In fact, if we have exponential clustering (1.11) , it is not difficult to show

$$\underset{u0}{lim}t(\alpha _u(Q)Q,\alpha _u(Q)Q)=0.$$
(1.22)
Note that the left-hand side of (1.22) is equal to

$$\underset{t0}{lim}\underset{k𝐙}{}\phi _\beta (\{\alpha _t(Q)Q,\tau _k(Q)\})=0.$$

As was argued in , the central limit $`lim_N\phi (e^{iQ_{<N>}})`$ defines a quasifree state $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ of the algebra of normal fluctuations $`𝒲(\stackrel{~}{F},\stackrel{~}{s})`$.

We now consider the GNS representation of the algebra of normal fluctuations $`𝒲(\stackrel{~}{F},\stackrel{~}{s})`$ associated with $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_\beta `$ . Let $`\{\pi (𝒲(\stackrel{~}{F},\stackrel{~}{s})),\mathrm{\Omega },\}`$ be the GNS triple for $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_\beta `$ . Let $``$ be the von Neumann algebra generated by $`\pi (𝒲(\stackrel{~}{F},\stackrel{~}{s}))`$. As $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_\beta `$ is invariant under the time evolution $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t`$ of the algebra of normal fluctuations $`𝒲(\stackrel{~}{F},\stackrel{~}{s})`$ , we have a one parameter group of unitary $`U_t`$ on $``$ which implements $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t`$.

$$U_t\pi (Q)U_t^{}=\pi (\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t(Q)),U_t\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

As a consequence of the continuity (1.22), we see that the adjoint action of $`U_t`$ gives rise to a weakly continuos one parameter group of automorphisms of $``$. We denote this dynamics of $``$ by the same symbol $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t(M)=U_tMU_t^{}$$

for $`M`$ in $``$. We state our main result of this paper.

###### Theorem 1.6

Let $`\phi _\beta `$ be the unique $`\beta `$-KMS state for a finite range translationally invariant interaction of a one-dimensional quantum spin chain. The quasifree state $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_\beta `$ is a $`\beta `$-KMS state for the dynamics $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t`$ of the von Neumann algebra $``$ at the same inverse temperature $`\beta `$.

It is easy to derive the KMS boundary condition of $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_\beta `$ from the central limit theorem (1.16 for mutually non-commuting observables. Note that the argument of  is based on a weaker version CLT i.e. CLT only for strict local observables, which makes arguments more complicated.

We explain the contents of the rest of this paper now. Section 2 is a mathematical preliminary. In Section 3, we present our proof of Theorem 1.5 (1.16) and that of Theorem 1.6.

In Section 4 we make a few comment on unsolved problems. Here, we present our proof of the uniform exponential mixing condition for finitely correlated states. Even though the result is as expected, we are not aware of any proof published elsewhere. Our proof is an simple application of dual transfer operator .

## 2 Localization

We present some features of exponentially localized elements.

###### Lemma 2.1

$`F_\theta `$ is complete in the norm topology induced by $`|Q|_\theta `$ . Any bounded set of $`F_\theta `$ is a compact subset of $`𝒜`$ in norm topology.

###### Lemma 2.2

Let $`Q`$ be exponentially localized with rate $`\theta `$. There exists an element $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_n`$ of $`𝒜_{[n,n]}`$ satisfying

$$Q\stackrel{~}{Q}_n2|Q|_\theta \theta ^n,\stackrel{~}{Q}_nQ$$
(2.1)
If $`Q`$ is positive we can find a positive $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_n`$ such that

$$0infQinf\stackrel{~}{Q}_n\stackrel{~}{Q}_nQ$$
(2.2)
where $`infQ`$ is the infimum of the spectrum of $`Q`$.

One choice of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_n`$ is $`tr_{(\mathrm{},n][n,\mathrm{})}(Q)`$ where $`tr_{(\mathrm{},n][n,\mathrm{})}`$ is the partial trace (conditional expectation to $`𝒜_{[n,n]}`$).

###### Lemma 2.3

Let $`Q^1`$ and $`Q^2`$ be exponentially localized, $`Q^1,Q^2F_\theta `$. Then the following sum is finite.

$$\underset{k𝐙}{}[\tau _k(Q^1),Q^2]<\mathrm{}$$
(2.3)
Proof
Fix $`Q_n^i`$ in $`𝒜_{[n,n]}`$ satisfying

$$Q^iQ_n^i=Q^{(n)}.$$

for $`i=1,2`$ and set

$$R_n^i=Q_n^iQ_{n1}^i(n1),R_0^i=Q_0^i.$$

Then

$$R_n^iQ_n^i+Q_{n1}^i(1+\theta ^1)\theta ^n|Q^i|_\theta .$$

Now we have

$$Q^i=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}R_n^i.$$

As a consequence,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k𝐙}{}}[\tau _k(Q_1),Q_2]`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k𝐙}{}}[\tau _k(R_n^1),R_m^2]`$ (2.4)
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(2(m+n)+1)R_n^1R_m^2`$
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1+\theta ^1)^2\theta ^n\theta ^m|Q^1|_\theta |Q^2|_\theta <\mathrm{}`$
End of Proof

The following result is due to H.Araki in .

###### Proposition 2.4

Suppose that the interaction is of finite range. For any $`Q`$ in $`F_\theta `$, $`\alpha _t(Q)`$ is entire analytic (analytic in the whole complex plane) as a function of $`t`$.

For any $`\beta >0`$ and any $`\theta `$, there exists a constant $`M=M(\beta ,\theta ,r)`$ independent of the interaction $`\psi `$ such that the following estimate is valid:

$$\alpha _z(Q)_\theta MF_0(2\left|\beta \right|h(\psi ))|Q|_{\theta e^{4\left|\beta \right|h(\psi )}}$$
(2.5)
where any complex number $`z`$ satisfying $`\left|z\right|\beta `$ and

$$h(\psi )=\underset{X:0X}{}\frac{\psi (X)}{d(X)},$$

$$F_0(x)=exp[(r+1)x+2\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}k^1(e^{kr}1)].$$

Thus this proposition tells us that $`_{0<\theta <1}F_\theta `$ is a dense $`\alpha _z`$ invariant subalgebra of $`𝒜`$.

Next we show that $`_{0<\theta <1}F_\theta `$ is a dense $`\alpha _t`$ invariant subalgebra of $`𝒜`$.

Proof of Proposition 1.2 (i). The proof of Proposition 6.2.9 of . tells us the following estimate:

$$\alpha _t(A)e^{itH_\mathrm{\Lambda }}Ae^{itH_\mathrm{\Lambda }}A\left|\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\right|(e^{2\left|t\right|\psi _\lambda }1)\underset{j\mathrm{\Lambda }^c}{}e^{\lambda d(j,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)}$$
(2.6)
where $`A`$ is localized in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ , $`\lambda `$ is any positive constant, $`d(j,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$ is the distance of $`j`$ from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and $`\psi _\lambda `$ is a positive constant depending on the interaction $`\psi `$ and $`\lambda `$ .

Now take $`Q`$ from $`F_\theta `$ and in (2.6),we set $`e^\lambda =\theta _0`$ where $`\theta <\theta _0<\theta ^{}`$. $`A=R_m=Q_mQ_{m1}`$ in $`𝒜_{[m,m]}`$ , $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=[n,n]`$. For $`n`$ larger than $`m`$, we obtain

$`\alpha _t(R_m)^{(n)}`$ $``$ $`2(e^{2\left|t\right|\psi _\lambda }1)(2m+1)R_m{\displaystyle \underset{k=n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\theta _0^{km}`$
$``$ $`2(e^{2\left|t\right|\psi _\lambda }1)(2m+1)\theta ^{nm}{\displaystyle \frac{R_m}{1\theta _0}}`$
On the other hand , in general,

$$Q^{(n)}2Q$$

due to Lemma 2.2. As a consequence, for $`n`$ smaller than $`m`$, $`n<m`$, we have

$$\alpha _t(R_m)^{(n)}2R_m4\theta ^n|Q|_\theta .$$

Then,

$`|\alpha _t(Q)|_\theta ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|\alpha _t(R_m)|_\theta ^{}`$ (2.7)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\theta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}\alpha _t(R_m)^{(k)}+2(e^{2\left|t\right|\psi _\lambda }1){\displaystyle \frac{(2m+1)}{1\theta _0}}R_m{\displaystyle \underset{k=m+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\theta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}\theta _0^{km}\right\}`$
$``$ $`C_1{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}4(m+1)({\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{}}{\theta _0}})^m\theta _0^mR_m`$
$``$ $`C_2{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\theta _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}R_m=C_3|Q|_\theta .`$
Note that $`sup_m((2m+1)\theta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}\theta _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{m})`$ is finite. End of Proof

## 3 Proof of Theorem 1.5 and 1.6.

We present here our proof for the convergence of two point correlation for (1.16) . We concentrate the case of exponentially localized observables as this is what we need to define the time evolution and KMS states for the algebra of normal fluctuation.

The idea of proof is as follows. Set

$$F_{(Q,R)}^N(T)=\phi (e^{iTQ_{<N>}}e^{iTR_{<N>}}).$$
(3.1)
Instead of showing

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}F_N(Q,R)=e^{1/2T^2t(Q+R,Q+R)}e^{i/2T^2s(Q,R)}),$$

we prove that the following limit vanishes.

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\frac{d}{dT}F_N(Q,R)(T)+T(t(Q+R,Q+R)+is(Q,R))F_N(Q,R)(T)\right)=0.$$
(3.2)
Note that the above claim is same as showing the following :

$`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}`$ $`\{\phi ((T(it(Q+R,Q+R)s(Q,R))Q_{<N>})e^{iTQ_{<N>}}e^{iTR_{<N>}})`$
$`\phi (e^{iTQ_{<N>}}R_{<N>}e^{iTR_{<N>}})\}=0.`$
If the second derivative of $`F_{(Q,R)}^N(T)`$ is bounded in a small neighborhood of the origin uniformly in N , $`F_{(Q,R)}^N(T)`$ and its derivative are equi-continuous. It turns out that there is at least one accumulation point $`F_{(Q,R)}^{\mathrm{}}(T)`$ in the sequence of the functions $`F_N(Q,R)(T)`$ ($`N=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$). Due to equicontinuity of the first and the second derivative of $`F_{(Q,R)}^N(T)`$ , $`F_{(Q,R)}^{\mathrm{}}(T)`$ is differentiable. Then (3.2) implies $`F_{(Q,R)}^{\mathrm{}}(T)`$ satisfies

$$\frac{d}{dT}F_{(Q,R)}^{\mathrm{}}(T)=T(t(Q+R,Q+R)is(Q,R))F_{(Q,R)}^{\mathrm{}}(T).$$
(3.3)
The unique solution to (3.3) is $`e^{1/2T^2t(Q+R,Q+R)}e^{i/2T^2s(Q,R)}`$ .

Now we begin the proof of the above claim. Without loss of generality we assume that

$$\phi (Q)=\phi (R)=0$$

Suppose that $`A=A^{}`$ $`B=B^{}`$ are selfadjoint bounded operators on a Hilbert space. Then

$`e^{i(A+B)}e^{iB}e^{iA}[A,e^{iB}]`$
$`[A,e^{iB}][A,B]`$ (3.4)
(c.f. or .)

###### Lemma 3.1

The first and the second derivative of $`F_{(Q,R)}^N(T)`$ are bounded uniformly in $`N`$.

Proof : The second derivative $`F_{(Q,R)}^N(T)`$ has the following expression:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dT^2}}F_{(Q,R)}^N(T)`$
$`=`$ $`\phi (Q_{<N>}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}e^{iTQ_{<N>}}e^{iTR_{<N>}})+\phi (e^{iTQ_{<N>}}e^{iTR_{<N>}}R_{<N>}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ (3.5)
$`+2\phi (Q_{<N>}e^{iTQ_{<N>}}e^{iTR_{<N>}}R_{<N>}).`$
Each term in (3.5) is uniformly bounded in $`N`$. We focus on $`\phi (Q_{<N>}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}e^{iTQ_{<N>}}e^{iTR_{<N>}})`$.

Due to exponential decay of correlation, we have

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi (Q_{<N>}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})=\underset{k𝐙}{}\phi (Q\tau _k(Q))<\mathrm{}$$

where we used $`\phi (Q)=0`$. Thus we have a constant $`K_1`$ such that for any $`N`$

$$0\phi (Q_{<N>}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})K_1.$$

By use of (3.4) we can show uniform boundedness of the commutator of $`Q_{<N>}`$ and $`e^{iTR_{<N>}}`$ :

$`[Q_{<N>},e^{iTR_{<N>}}]`$ $`T^2[Q_{<N>},R_{<N>}]T^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{0\left|a\right|,\left|b\right|N}{}}[Q,\tau _{ba}(R)]`$ (3.6)
$`T^2{\displaystyle \underset{k𝐙}{}}[Q,\tau _k(R)]K_2<\mathrm{}.`$
Then,

$`\left|\phi (Q_{<N>}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}e^{iTQ_{<N>}}e^{iTR_{<N>}})\right|`$
$``$ $`\left|\phi (Q_{<N>}e^{iTQ_{<N>}}e^{iTR_{<N>}}Q_{<N>})\right|+\left|\phi (Q_{<N>}e^{iTQ_{<N>}}[e^{iTR_{<N>}},Q_{<N>}])\right|`$
$``$ $`\phi (Q_{<N>}^2)^{1/2}\left(\phi ((e^{iTR_{<N>}}Q_{<N>})^{}(e^{iTR_{<N>}}Q_{<N>}))^{1/2}+[Q_{<N>},e^{iTR_{<N>}}]\right)`$
$``$ $`K_1+(K_1)^{1/2}K_2<\mathrm{}`$
By the same estimate,we see that other terms of (3.5) and the first derivative of $`F_{(Q,R)}^N(T)`$ are uniformly bounded in $`N`$. End of Proof

###### Lemma 3.2

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi ((iTs(Q,R)+(e^{iTQ_{<N>}}R_{<N>}e^{iTQ_{<N>}}R_{<N>}))e^{iTQ_{<N>}}e^{iTR_{<N>}})=0$$
(3.7)
Proof: First note that

$`e^{iTQ_{<N>}}R_{<N>}e^{iTQ_{<N>}}R_{<N>}iT[Q_{<N>},R_{<N>}]`$ (3.8)
$``$ $`CT^2[Q_{<N>},[Q_{<N>},R_{<N>}]].`$
The right-hand side of (3.8) is bounded from above by

$`CT^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2N+1)^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\left|i\right|,\left|j\right|,\left|k\right|N}{}}[\tau _{jk}(Q),[\tau _{ik}(Q),R]]`$
$``$ $`CT^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2N+1)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\left|i\right|,\left|j\right|2N}{}}[\tau _j(Q),[\tau _i(Q),R]]`$ (3.9)
If $`Q`$ and $`R`$ are local, the non vanishing terms in the right-hand side of (3.9) are finite:

$$[\tau _j(Q),[\tau _i(Q),R]]=0$$

for $`\left|i\right|,\left|j\right|r`$. When $`Q`$ and $`R`$ are exponentially localized, the commutator $`[\tau _i(Q),R]`$ is also exponentially localized and

$$[\tau _j(Q),[\tau _i(Q),R]]C\theta ^{\left|j\right|+\left|i\right|}.$$

Thus

$$\underset{i,j𝐙}{}[\tau _j(Q),[\tau _i(Q),R]]<\mathrm{}.$$

and we obtain the following convergence:

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{iTQ_{<N>}}R_{<N>}e^{iTQ_{<N>}}R_{<N>}iT[Q_{<N>},R_{<N>}]=0.$$
(3.10)
Finally we show the following convergence which implies the claim of Lemma 3.2.

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi ((s(Q,R)[Q_{<N>},R_{<N>}])e^{iTQ_{<N>}}e^{iTR_{<N>}})=0$$
(3.11)
Then,

$$[Q_{<N>},R_{<N>}]=\frac{1}{2N+1}\underset{\left|i\right|N}{}\underset{\left|j\right|N}{}\tau _i([\tau _{ji}(Q),R])$$

and

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{\left|j\right|N}{}[\tau _{ji}(Q),R]=\underset{j𝐙}{}[\tau _j(Q),R].$$
(3.12)
Note that the right-hand side of (3.12) converges in the norm topology due to exponential localization. We define $`A`$ via the following equation:

$$A=\underset{j𝐙}{}[\tau _j(Q),R].$$

Note that

$$s(Q,R)=\phi (A).$$

Instead of showing (3.11) , we have only to prove

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi (\left(s(Q,R)\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2N+1}\{\underset{\left|j\right|N}{}\tau _j(A)\}\right)e^{iTQ_{<N>}}e^{iTR_{<N>}})=0$$
(3.13)
It is not difficult to see that the following identity implies (3.13).

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi ((\frac{1}{2N+1}\underset{\left|j\right|N}{}\tau _j(A)\phi (A))^2)=0.$$
(3.14)
The left-hand side of (3.14) is equal to

$`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2N+1)^2}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\left|i\right|,\left|j\right|N}{}}\phi (\tau _{ij}(A)A)\phi (A)^2`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2N+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\left|i\right|N}{}}\phi (\tau _i(A)A)\phi (A)^2=0.`$ (3.15)
The last identity is due to ergodicity of the state $`\phi `$. (3.15) implies the claim of Lemma. End of Proof

We can find an increasing sequence $`m(N)`$ of positive integers such that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{m(N)}\sqrt{2N+1}=0,\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}m(N)^1(2N+1)^{1/4}=\mathrm{}.$$
(3.16)
We set

$`Q_{j,N}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\left|k\right|N,\left|kj\right|m(N)}{}}\tau _k(Q),\beta _N={\displaystyle \underset{\left|k\right|N}{}}1/2\phi (\{\tau _k(Q),Q_{k,N}\})`$
$`\overline{Q}_{<N>}`$ $`=\beta _N^{1/2}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\left|k\right|N}{}}\tau _k(Q)\right\},\overline{Q}_{j,N}=\beta _N^{1/2}Q_{j,N}.`$
Then $`\beta _N=(2N+1)(1+o(1))`$ due to summability of two point correlation functions. Thus we have only to consider

$$\phi (e^{iT\overline{Q}_{<N>}}e^{iT\overline{R}_{<N>}})$$

and its derivative.

Furthermore, in what follows, we assume that $`t(Q+R,Q+R)=1`$ for simplicity of exposition. ( The case $`t(Q+R,Q+R)=0`$ can be handled in the same manner.) We set

$$P=Q+R.$$

###### Lemma 3.3

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi ((iT\overline{P}_{<N>})e^{iT\overline{Q}_{<N>}}e^{iT\overline{R}_{<N>}})=0$$
(3.17)
Proof: We start with the following identity:

$`(iT\overline{P}_{<N>})e^{iT\overline{Q}_{<N>}}e^{iT\overline{R}_{<N>}}`$
$`=`$ $`iT(1\beta _N^1{\displaystyle \underset{\left|k\right|N}{}}\tau _k(P)P_{k,N})e^{iT\overline{Q}_{<N>}}e^{iT\overline{R}_{<N>}}`$
$``$ $`\beta _N^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{\left|k\right|N}{}}\tau _k(P)(1e^{iT\overline{P}_{k,N}}iT\overline{P}_{k,N})e^{iT\overline{Q}_{<N>}}e^{iT\overline{R}_{<N>}}`$
$``$ $`\beta _N^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{\left|k\right|N}{}}\tau _k(P)\left(e^{iT\overline{P}_{k,N}}e^{iT\overline{Q}_{k,N}}e^{iT\overline{R}_{k,N}}\right)e^{iT\overline{Q}_{<N>}}e^{iT\overline{R}_{<N>}}`$
$``$ $`\beta _N^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{\left|k\right|N}{}}\tau _k(P)e^{iT\overline{Q}_{k,N}}e^{iT\overline{R}_{k,N}}e^{iT\overline{Q}_{<N>}}e^{iT\overline{R}_{<N>}}`$
$`=`$ $`(A_1+A_2+A_3)e^{iT\overline{Q}_{<N>}}e^{iT\overline{R}_{<N>}}+A_4.`$ (3.18)
Using the estimates of proof of Lemma 2.2 in  (c.f. (2.8) and (2.10) of ) we obtain

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi (A_ae^{iT\overline{Q}_{<N>}}e^{iT\overline{R}_{<N>}})=0$$

for $`a=1,2`$. On the other hand,

$`A_3`$ $``$ $`\beta _N^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{\left|k\right|N}{}}\tau _k(P)T^2[\overline{Q}_{k,N},\overline{R}_{k,N}]`$
$``$ $`T^2\beta _N^{3/2}(2N+1)Pm(N){\displaystyle \underset{j𝐙}{}}[\tau _j(Q),R]`$
When we take $`N`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ we have $`\beta _N^{3/2}(2N+1)m(N)0`$. As a result

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi (A_3e^{iT\overline{Q}_{<N>}}e^{iT\overline{R}_{<N>}})=0.$$

We now look at $`A_4`$. We claim that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\beta _N^{1/2}e^{iT\overline{Q}_{k,N}}e^{iT\overline{R}_{k,N}}e^{iT\overline{Q}_{<N>}}e^{iT\overline{R}_{<N>}}e^{iT(\overline{Q}_{<N>}\overline{Q}_{k,N})}e^{iT(\overline{R}_{<N>}\overline{R}_{k,N})}=0.$$
(3.19)
To see this, we point out the following inequalities.

$`\beta _N^{1/2}[e^{iT\overline{R}_{k,N}},e^{iT\overline{Q}_{<N>}}]2T^2\beta _N^{1/2}m(N){\displaystyle \underset{j𝐙}{}}[\tau _j(Q),R]`$
$`\beta _N^{1/2}e^{iT\overline{A}_{k,N}}e^{iT\overline{A}_{<N>}}e^{iT(\overline{A}_{<N>}\overline{A}_{k,N})}T^2\beta _N^{1/2}m(N){\displaystyle \underset{j𝐙}{}}[\tau _j(A),A].`$ (3.20)
for $`A=P`$ or $`Q`$. Again for exponentially localized $`A`$, $`_{j𝐙}[\tau _j(A),A]`$ is finite. Thus due to choice of $`m(N)`$ satisfying (3.16) , the right-hand side of (3.20) vanishes in the limit of taking $`N`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$.

The convergence (3.19) tell us that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi (A_4)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\beta _N^{1/2}\underset{\left|k\right|N}{}\phi (\tau _k(P)e^{iT(\overline{Q}_{<N>}\overline{Q}_{k,N})}e^{iT(\overline{R}_{<N>}\overline{R}_{k,N})}).$$

Now we concentrate on the following limit:

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi (\tau _k(P)e^{iT(\overline{Q}_{<N>}\overline{Q}_{k,N})}e^{iT(\overline{R}_{<N>}\overline{R}_{k,N})}).$$
(3.21)
We can estimate decay of (3.21) as in . The observable $`\tau _k(P)`$ is localized around the site $`k`$ with exponential tail while $`e^{iT(\overline{Q}_{<N>}\overline{Q}_{k,N})}e^{iT(\overline{R}_{<N>}\overline{R}_{k,N})}`$ is localized in $`(\mathrm{},km(N)][k+m(N),\mathrm{})`$ We have to approximate $`Q`$ and $`R`$ by strictly local elements as in our proof of CLT for non local observables of . (We omit the proof as the estimates is same as that of .) We arrive at the following estimate.

$$\left|\phi (\tau _k(P)e^{iT(\overline{Q}_{<N>}\overline{Q}_{k,N})}e^{iT(\overline{R}_{<N>}\overline{R}_{k,N})})\right|C\alpha (m(N))$$

This inequality shows that the limit (3.21) vanishes and the claim of Lemma. End of Proof

Theorem 1.5 follows from Lemma 4.3 and Lemma 4.4.

Next we consider the KMS condition. Theorem 1.7. follows easily from Theorem 1.5. in the same manner as . We repeat the argument briefly. As the state $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_\beta `$ is quasifree, it suffices to show KMS condition for $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_\beta (W(\stackrel{~}{Q}))`$. However as CLT is valid only for the selfadjoint part of $`F_\theta `$ we cannot consider the complex time evolution $`\alpha _z`$ in the central limit. In fact , we can use another equivalent condition to the KMS condition. (c.f. Proposition 5.3.6. of .)

###### Proposition 3.4

(i) If the state $`\phi `$ is KMS, the time dependent correlation function $`F(t)=\phi (Q_1\alpha _t(Q_2))`$ has a analytic extension to the strip $`I_\beta =\left\{z\right|0<Imz<\beta \}`$ $`F(t)`$ is bounded continuous on $`\overline{I}_\beta =\left\{z\right|0Imz\beta \}`$. and

$$F(t+i\beta )=\phi (\alpha _t(Q_2)Q_1).$$
(3.22)
(ii) Conversely if $`F(t)`$ admits a analytic extension to $`I_\beta `$ and is bounded continuous on $`\overline{I}_\beta `$ satisfying (3.22)for any $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ $`\phi `$ is a KMS state.

Furthermore we have the following bound for $`F(z)`$ on $`\overline{I}_\beta `$:

$$\left|F(z)\right|Q_1Q_2.$$
(3.23)
Let $`\phi _\beta `$ be the unique Gibbs state of a finite range interaction. Set

$$F_N(t)=\phi _\beta (e^{(i(Q_1)_{<N>}}e^{(i\alpha _t(Q_2))_{<N>}})$$

Due to (3.23), for any $`N`$ we have

$$\left|F_N(t)\right|1.$$

Then we can choose a subsequence of $`F_N(t)`$ which converges to a bound continuos function $`F_{\mathrm{}}(t)`$ on $`\overline{I}_\beta `$ and analytic on $`I_\beta `$. $`F_{\mathrm{}}(t)`$ satisfies the KMS condition on $`W(\stackrel{~}{F})`$ which implies the same condition on the von Neumann algebra generated by $`\pi (W(\stackrel{~}{F}))`$.

## 4 Remarks

We include here one example of CLT which was not discussed in . We consider finitely correlated states of M.Fannes,B.Nachtergaele and R.Werner . (c.f.  )

The finitely correlated state is a non-commutative analogue of the (function of) Markov measure.

Let $`\phi `$ be a state of $`𝒜`$. Consider the linear functional $`\phi _Q`$ on $`𝒜_{(\mathrm{},k]}`$ defined by

$$\phi _Q(R)=\phi (QR)\text{ for }Q\text{ in }𝒜_{[k+1,\mathrm{})}\text{ .}$$
(4.1)
Set

$$𝒮_k(\phi )=\left\{\phi _Q\right|Q𝒜_{[k+1,\mathrm{})}\}.$$
(4.2)
###### Definition 4.1

$`\phi `$ is a finitely correlated state if $`𝒮_k`$ defined in (4.2) is a finite dimensional subspace of the set of all linear functionals on $`𝒜_{(\mathrm{},k]}`$ for any k.

###### Proposition 4.2

Let $`\phi `$ be a translationally invariant finitely correlated state. Suppose that $`\phi `$ is mixing in the following sense:

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi (Q_1\tau _k(Q_2))=\phi (Q_1)\phi (Q_2).$$

Then, the uniform exponential mixing (1.10) holds and the central limit theorem is valid.

Note that the exponential decay of two point correlation

$$\left|\phi (Q_1\tau _k(Q_2))\phi (Q_1)\phi (Q_2)\right|C(Q_1,Q_2)e^{Mk}$$

is known. What matters here is the constant $`C(A,B)`$ on $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$.

Proof: To prove the above proposition, we consider a translationally invariant state $`\phi `$ of $`𝒜`$ and the GNS triple $`\{\pi _\phi (𝒜),_\phi ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\phi \}`$ associated with $`\phi `$. Let $`U`$ be the unitary on $`_\phi `$ implementing the shift $`\tau _1`$.

$$U\pi _\phi (Q)U^{}=\pi _\phi (\tau _1(Q))U\mathrm{\Omega }_\phi =\mathrm{\Omega }_\phi $$

Let $`P`$ be the projection with the following range :

$$_{(\mathrm{},1]}=\overline{\pi _\phi (𝒜_{(\mathrm{},1]})\mathrm{\Omega }_\phi }.$$

As the unitary $`U^{}`$ leaves $`_{(\mathrm{},1]}`$ invariant, we have

$$PU^{}P=U^{}P.$$

Set

$$𝒩=P\pi _\phi (𝒜_{[0,\mathrm{})})P.$$

As $`\tau _1`$ is implemented by a unitary $`U`$ on $`_\phi `$, $`\tau _1`$ is extended to $`𝒩`$ via the formula

$$\tau _1(PQP)=PUQU^{}P.$$

We define the completely positive unital map $`L_{dual}`$ from $`𝒩`$ to $`𝒩`$ via the following equation:

$$L_{dual}(R)=PURU^{}P.$$

where $`R`$ is an element of $`𝒩`$.

We call $`L_{dual}`$ the dual transfer operator. Consider the vector state $`\psi _{dual}`$ of $`𝒩`$ associated with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\phi `$. $`\psi _{dual}`$ is faithful as $`𝒩`$ commutes with $`𝒜_{(\mathrm{},1]}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\phi `$ is a cyclic vector for $`𝒜_{(\mathrm{},1]}`$ in $`_{(\mathrm{},1]}`$.

###### Lemma 4.3

The dimension of $`𝒩`$ is finite if and only if the state $`\phi `$ is finitely correlated.

Proof: Set

$$𝒦=P\pi _\phi (𝒜_{[0,\mathrm{})})\mathrm{\Omega }_\phi .$$

Note that

$$\phi _Q(R)=(P\pi _\phi (Q^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_\phi ,\pi _\phi (R)\mathrm{\Omega }_\phi ).$$

By the Schwartz inequality $`\phi _Q`$ is a bounded linear functional on the Hilbert space $`_{(\mathrm{},1]}`$ and due to Riesz Lemma the set $`𝒮_0`$ is isomorphic to the subspace $`𝒦`$ of $`_{(\mathrm{},1]}`$ To see the above Lemma, it suffices to notice that the dimension of $`𝒦`$ is finite if and only if $`\phi `$ is finitely correlated. End of Proof

Due to Lemma 4.3, for a finitely correlated $`\phi `$, the dual transfer operator $`L_{dual}`$ is a linear operator on the finite dimensional space $`𝒩`$. In fact we can extend the dual transfer operator $`L_{dual}`$ to a unital completely positive map on the set of bounded linear operators on $`𝒦`$. The norm of $`L_{dual}`$ is one, $`L_{dual}=1`$. Furthermore, due to the mixing property of $`\phi `$

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}L_{dual}^n(A)=\psi _{dual}(A)1$$

The eigenvalue $`1`$ of the dual transfer operator $`L_{dual}`$ is non-degenerate and there exists no other peripheral spectrum due to mixing of the state $`\phi `$. Other eigenvalues of $`L_{dual}`$ is strictly less than one. (c.f.  ) Thus there exist constants $`C`$ and $`M`$ such that

$$L_{dual}^n(A)\psi _{dual}(A)1Ce^{Mn}A.$$

Then for Q in $`𝒜_{(\mathrm{},1]}`$ , R in $`𝒜_{[0,\mathrm{})}`$ and $`n`$ positive,

$`\left|\phi (A\tau _n(B))\phi (A)\phi (B)\right|`$ $``$ $`L_{dual}^n(P\pi _\phi (B)P)\psi _{dual}(P\pi _\phi (B)P)1A`$ (4.3)
$``$ $`Ce^{Mn}AB`$
End of Proof of Proposition 4.2.

In Section 1 we considered Gibbs states of finite range interactions for one-dimensional chains. The formalism can be extended to long range interactions. However, we are unable to prove necessary mixing condition for CLT. To clarify the difficulty in our approach we present the results we can prove by our methods.

First we replace $`F_\theta `$ with suitable non-commutative Hölder continuos functions. In stead of the weight $`\theta ^n`$ we take $`n^\eta `$ with the condition $`\eta >3`$ and set

$$^{(\eta )}=\left\{Q𝒜\right|\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q^{(n)}n^\eta <\mathrm{}\}$$

###### Assumption 4.4

The interaction $`\psi `$ is translationally invariant and we assume two conditions
(i) The time evolution is well-defined on $`𝒜`$.

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{itH_{[N,N]}}Qe^{itH_{[N,N]}}=\alpha _t(Q)$$

(ii) The following limit exists and it gives rise to an element of $`^{(\eta )}`$.

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{\beta /2H_{[0,N]}}e^{\beta /2H_{[1,N]}}=a_\beta ^{(\eta )}$$
(4.4)
###### Proposition 4.5

If Assumption 4.4 is valid, the Gibbs state for the inverse temperature $`\beta `$ is unique, satisfying the following mixing:

$$\left|\phi (Q_1\tau _n(Q_2))\phi (Q_1)\phi (Q_2)\right|Kn^{(\eta 1)}Q_1Q_2$$
(4.5)
for $`Q_1`$ in $`𝒜_{(\mathrm{},1]}`$, $`Q_2`$ in $`𝒜_{[0,\mathrm{})}`$ and $`n>0`$.

Thus as a corollary, CLT holds if $`\eta >3`$.

Decay of correlation (4.5) can be derived by analysis of Ruelle transfer operators (c.f.  ), however we have no idea to prove the convergence of (4.4)

So far, we have discussed quantum spin models on one-dimensional lattice only. In higher dimensional lattice we can prove CLT if we have the following mixing for a state $`\phi `$

$$\left|\phi (Q_1Q_2)\phi (Q_1)\phi (Q_2)\right|C_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}e^{Mk}Q_1Q_2$$

where the support of $`Q_1`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and the distance of the support of $`Q_1`$ and that of $`Q_2`$ is $`k`$ and the constant $`C_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ is independent of the size of the support of $`Q_2`$. We are not certain that this estimate ( or the (in)dependence of the constant $`C_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ on the size of the support of $`Q_2`$ ) is valid for high temperature Gibbs states at the moment. It is a non trivial question whether the above estimate can be shown by the high temperature expansion. Note that we do not require the assumption (CLT4) of .