text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The computation of correlation functions is one of the central objectives in quantum field theories. In general, this can only be achieved by means of perturbation theory in the coupling constant. Nonetheless, in 1+1 space-time dimensions many exact results are known, in particular at zero temperature. At present, one of the most successful approaches in this direction is the form factor program. Originally this method was developed to compute correlation functions for massive models at zero temperature . More recently, it has also been demonstrated, that the approach can be employed successfully for the computation of massless correlation functions  for vanishing temperature. However, in a realistic set-up of a physical experiment one needs to know such functions in the finite temperature regime. Computing for instance physical quantities from linear response theory one requires the response function in form of the canonical two-point correlation function at finite temperature

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝒪(x,t)\mathrm{\Delta }𝒪^{}(x^{},t^{})_T,$$
(1.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒪(x,t)=𝒪(x,t)𝒪(x,t)_T`$. For the static case, e.g., for the computation of electric and magnetic susceptibilities this goes back to . Taking for instance the local operators $`𝒪(x,t)`$ and $`𝒪^{}(x,t)`$ to be the current $`J(x,t)`$, the dynamical response is needed to compute the conductivity by means of the celebrated Kubo formula .

In  a proposal was made to adapt the form factor approach to finite temperature computations. In there it was demonstrated for some operators of the Ising model that the modified approach indeed reproduces the expected results for the temperature dependent correlation functions, even when boundaries are included. In order to make the method meaningful several technical assumptions were required to eliminate various infinities. Since not all of them can be justified in an entirely rigorous fashion, further evidence is desirable to support the working of the proposed prescription, even for the Ising model. The proposal is very appealing, since apart from the introduction of a dressing function, the main structures of the (T=0)-form factor approach are perpetuated. It was argued in  for the Ising model, that the dressing functions admit an interpretation in terms of density distribution functions. This observation was taken up in  and it was conjectured that the interpretation should also hold for interacting theories. Some checks which support the validity of this conjecture for the one-point function were presented in . Shortly afterwards, doubts were raised in  on the working of these formulae for the two-point function, albeit only a counter example which required a chemical potential was provided. An additional controversy arose thereafter about the nature of the “dressing function” (see equation (2.15)) which has to be employed in the context of the one-point function. In , it was proposed to employ the on-shell free energies, rather than the pseudo-energies obtainable from the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz (TBA) as suggested in . For the one-point function evidence was provided in  that the proposal in  appears to be incorrect. No explicit claims concerning the two-point function were made in .

The main purpose of this manuscript is to contribute to this debate and provide further evidence for the (non)-validity of the various proposals. In regard to the importance of (1.1), we want to focus especially on the study of the expressions for the two-point functions. So far the only few explicit computations using the dressed form factor approach may be found in .

Our manuscript is organized as follows: In section 2 we outline the various proposals made so far to evaluate temperature dependent correlation functions in the massive as well as in the massless regime. We investigate these proposals for two models: the complex free Fermion/Federbush model (section 3) and the scaling Yang-Lee model (section 4). In section 5 we state our conclusions. In the appendix we assemble various properties of functions which occur throughout our computations.

## 2 Temperature dependent correlation functions

We start by providing a concise review of the main features of the prescription to compute temperature dependent n-point correlation functions by means of form factors. In general a temperature state is described by a density matrix $`\rho `$ and the expectation value for observables is the trace over the product of this matrix with the observables. Taking $`|\psi `$ to be eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ with eigenvalues $`E_\psi `$, and as usual $`\beta =1/kT`$ with $`k`$ being Boltzmann’s constant and $`T`$ the absolute temperature, the temperature dependent n-point function for the observables $`𝒪_1\mathrm{}𝒪_n`$ is defined as

$$𝒪_1(x_1,t_1)\mathrm{}𝒪_n(x_n,t_n)_T:=\frac{1}{Z}\underset{\psi }{}e^{\beta E_\psi }\psi \left|𝒪_1(x_1,t_1)\mathrm{}𝒪_n(x_n,t_n)\right|\psi .$$
(2.1)
As usual, this expression is normalized by dividing with the partition function

$$Z=\underset{\psi }{}e^{\beta E_\psi }\psi |\psi ,$$
(2.2)
which ensures that the trace over the density matrix $`\rho =e^{\beta H}/Z`$ is one. The central idea of the “dressed” form factor program is now, as in the finite temperature case , to reduce the computation of the expansion (2.1) to the computation of form factors

$$F_\psi ^𝒪=𝒪(0)|\psi .$$
(2.3)
This is achieved simply by the insertion of $`(n1)`$ complete states $`_\psi |\psi \psi |=1`$. Suppressing for compactness the space-time dependence of the operators, this reads

$$𝒪_1\mathrm{}𝒪_n_T=\frac{1}{Z}\underset{\psi _0\mathrm{}\psi _{n1}}{}e^{\beta E_{\psi _0}}\psi _0\left|𝒪_1\right|\psi _1\psi _1\left|𝒪_2\right|\psi _2\mathrm{}\psi _{n1}\left|𝒪_n\right|\psi _0.$$
(2.4)
Thereafter one needs a meaningful prescription to relate matrix elements of the form $`\psi ^{}\left|𝒪\right|\psi `$ to those where the vacuum is on the left, as in (2.3), and a shift operator $`\omega _{t,x}𝒪(x,t)=f(x,t)𝒪(0)`$ which moves the operator to the origin. In the following we will take $`x^\mu =(ir,0),`$ which implies the restriction $`r<\beta `$ in order to ensure that $`\mathrm{exp}((\beta +r)H)`$ is a trace class operator.

Let us now specify the states $`|\psi `$ to be multi-particle states of the form

$$|\psi =|Z_{\mu _1}^{}(\theta _1)Z_{\mu _2}^{}(\theta _2)\mathrm{}Z_{\mu _n}^{}(\theta _n),$$
(2.5)
where the operators $`Z_\mu ^{}(\theta )`$ are creation operators for a particle of type $`\mu `$ as a function of the rapidity $`\theta `$. These operators are assumed to satisfy the Faddeev-Zamolodchikov algebra  $`Z_i^{}(\theta _1)Z_j^{}(\theta _2)=S_{ij}^{kl}(\theta _{12})Z_k^{}(\theta _2)Z_l^{}(\theta _1)`$ with $`S`$ being the scattering matrix depending on the rapidity difference $`\theta _{12}=\theta _1\theta _2`$. The prescription $`\psi ^{}\left|𝒪\right|\psi 𝒪|\psi \psi ^{}`$ then reads

$`Z_{\mu _1}(\theta _1^{})\mathrm{}Z_{\mu _n}(\theta _n^{})|𝒪(x,t)|Z_{\mu _n}^{}(\theta _n)\mathrm{}Z_{\mu _1}^{}(\theta _1)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\text{all contractions}}{}}𝒪(x,t)|Z_{\mu _n}^{}(\theta _n)\mathrm{}Z_{\mu _1}^{}(\theta _1)Z_{\overline{\mu }_1}(\theta _1^{})\mathrm{}Z_{\overline{\mu }_n}(\theta _n^{})`$ (2.6)
with $`\theta ^{}=\theta i\pi +iϵ`$ and $`ϵ`$ is an infinitesimal quantity and $`\overline{\mu }`$ being the anti-particle of $`\mu `$. After shifting the operator to the origin, the r.h.s. of (2.6) involves the n-particle form factors, which we denote as

$$F_n^{𝒪|\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n)𝒪(0)|Z_{\mu _1}^{}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}Z_{\mu _n}^{}(\theta _n).$$
(2.7)
These form factors have to satisfy various properties , such as Watson’s equations

$`F_n^{𝒪|\mathrm{}\mu _i\mu _{i+1}\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{},\theta _i,\theta _{i+1},\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`F_n^{𝒪|\mathrm{}\mu _{i+1}\mu _i\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{},\theta _{i+1},\theta _i,\mathrm{})S_{\mu _i\mu _{i+1}}(\theta _{i,i+1}),`$ (2.8)
$`F_n^{𝒪|\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}(\theta _1+2\pi i,\mathrm{},\theta _n)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{\mu _1}^𝒪F_n^{𝒪|\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _n\mu _1}(\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _n,\theta _1),`$ (2.9)
Lorentz invariance

$$F_n^{𝒪|\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n)=e^{s\lambda }F_n^{𝒪|\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}(\theta _1+\lambda ,\mathrm{},\theta _n+\lambda ),$$
(2.10)
and the so-called kinematic residue equation

$$\underset{\overline{\theta }\theta _0}{\mathrm{R}es}F_{n+2}^{𝒪|\overline{\mu }\mu \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}(\overline{\theta }+i\pi ,\theta _0,\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _n)=i[1\gamma _\mu ^𝒪\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}S_{\mu \mu _l}(\theta _{0l})]F_n^{𝒪|\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n).$$
(2.11)
In (2.10) $`s`$ is the Lorentz spin of $`𝒪`$ and $`\lambda `$ an arbitrary shift. In equations (2.9) and (2.11) $`\gamma _\mu ^𝒪`$ is the factor of local commutativity defined through the equal time exchange relation of the local operator $`𝒪(x)`$ and the field $`𝒪_\mu (y)`$ associated to the particle creation operators $`Z_\mu ^{}(\theta )`$, i.e., $`𝒪_\mu (x)𝒪(y)=\gamma _\mu ^𝒪𝒪(y)𝒪_\mu (x)`$ for $`x^1>y^1`$. It is the singularity $`lim_{ϵ0}Z_\mu ^{}(\theta )Z_{\overline{\mu }}(\theta ^{})\mathrm{}`$, implicit in (2.11), which is the reason for the presence of the $`ϵ`$ in (2.6). The renormalization prescription which eliminates these divergencies is outlined in  (see also ). Other types of singularities arise from the contractions of terms like $`Z_\mu (\theta )Z_\mu ^{}(\theta )Z_\nu (\theta ^{})Z_\nu ^{}(\theta ^{})\delta ^2(0)`$. As demonstrated explicitly in  such terms are absorbed in the (re)-normalization factor $`Z`$. In this way the one-point function

$`𝒪(r)_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta _1\mathrm{}d\theta _n}{n!(2\pi )^n}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\beta \left[\epsilon _{\mu _1}(\theta _1)+\mathrm{}\epsilon _{\mu _n}(\theta _n)\right]\right\}}`$ (2.12)
$`\times Z_{\mu _1}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}Z_{\mu _n}(\theta _n)|𝒪(r)|Z_{\mu _n}^{}(\theta _n)\mathrm{}Z_{\mu _1}^{}(\theta _1)r<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}},`$
becomes a meaningful expression. In many cases this function is an important normalization factor, however, for the reasons mentioned in the introduction we will focus our attention on the two-point function. It results to

$`𝒪(r)𝒪^{}(0)_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta _1\mathrm{}d\theta _n}{n!(2\pi )^n}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[f_{\mu _i}(\theta _i,T)e^{rT\epsilon _{\mu _i}(\theta _i,T)}\right]}`$ (2.13)
$`\times F_n^{𝒪|\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n)\left[F_n^{𝒪^{}|\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n)\right]^{}r<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}.`$
This formula requires several explanations and comments: We dropped here as usual another infinity coming from $`n=0`$ in the infinite sum. The sum over the $`\mu `$ extends over particles and holes. This is understood in the way that to each particle type present at zero temperature one may associate a hole, such that each term at zero temperature which is summed over $`n`$-particles is mapped into $`2^n`$-terms at finite tempearture. According to , the form factors involving holes may be constructed from the ones of particles by an $`i\pi `$-shift

$$F_n^{𝒪|\mu _1\mathrm{}\text{particle}\mathrm{}\mu _n}(\theta _1\mathrm{},\theta _i,\mathrm{}\theta _n)=F_n^{𝒪|\mu _1\mathrm{}\text{hole}\mathrm{}\mu _n}(\theta _1\mathrm{},\theta _ii\pi ,\mathrm{}\theta _n).$$
(2.14)
The origin of the hole interpretation is thus the crossing of particles from bra to ket by means of (2.6) together with the renormalization prescription. As explained in detail in , in comparison with the one-point function there are additional singular terms emerging in the two-point functions. In the expansion they occur in terms in which the product of the two form factors associated to $`𝒪`$ and $`𝒪^{}`$ involve a different amount of particles. These terms are just dropped, which could be a possible source for the difficulties we encounter below in interacting theories.

The functions $`f_i(\theta ,T)`$ are the so-called filling fractions

$$f_i(\theta ,T)=\frac{1}{1S_{ii}(0)\mathrm{exp}\left[\epsilon _i(\theta ,T)\right]}$$
(2.15)
involving the functions $`\epsilon _i(\theta ,T)`$. For the non-interacting case, treated in , this function is taken to be the on-shell energy divided by the temperature $`\epsilon _i(\theta ,T)=m_i/T\mathrm{cosh}\theta `$. When extending the validity of these formulae to the interacting case, one may speculate on the nature of $`\epsilon _i(\theta ,T)`$. In  it was proposed to interpret $`\epsilon _i(\theta ,T)`$ as the pseudo-energies, which may be determined by means of the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz equation

$$\epsilon _i(\theta ,\widehat{r})=\widehat{r}m_i\mathrm{cosh}\theta +_j[\phi _{ij}\mathrm{ln}f_j](\theta ).$$
(2.16)
As common we denote here $`\widehat{r}=m/T`$, $`m_lm_l/m`$, with $`m`$ being the mass of the lightest particle in the model. By $`\left(fg\right)(\theta )`$$`:=1/(2\pi )𝑑\theta ^{}f(\theta \theta ^{})g(\theta ^{})`$ we denote the convolution of two functions and $`\phi _{ij}(\theta )=id\mathrm{ln}S_{ij}(\theta )/d\theta `$. In contrast, when specializing the statement in  to fermionic statistics, i.e., $`S_{ii}(0)=1`$ , it was suggested therein to take instead the free on-shell energies divided by the temperature also in the interacting case. More generally, this means that the eigenvalue $`E_\psi `$ of the Hamiltonian in (2.4) is either taken to be the free on-shell or the pseudo-energy. In each case, the pseudo-energies of the holes are simply the negative of the ones of the particles

$$\epsilon _{\text{hole}}(\theta ,T)=\epsilon _{\text{particle}}(\theta ,T).$$
(2.17)
A simple but key property satisfied by the two-point function is the Kubo-Martin-Schwinger (KMS)-condition . Assuming to have a time evolution operator $`\omega _t`$ at disposal, it is easily obtained from the trace properties of the temperature dependent correlation function

$$\omega _t𝒪𝒪^{}_T=𝒪^{}\omega _{t+i\beta }𝒪_T𝒪(x,t)𝒪^{}(x^{},t^{})_T=𝒪^{}(x^{},t^{})𝒪(x,t+i\beta )_T.$$
(2.18)
For more detailed discussion on this formula see e.g., . For the choice $`x^\mu =(ir,0)`$, as in (2.13), this condition reads

$$\omega _t𝒪𝒪^{}_T=𝒪^{}\omega _{t\beta }𝒪_T𝒪(r)𝒪^{}(0)_T=𝒪^{}(0)𝒪(r\beta )_T.$$
(2.19)
Noting that $`𝒪(r)𝒪^{}(0)_T=𝒪(0)𝒪^{}(r)_T`$, it is clear that (2.13) indeed satisfies the condition (2.19), provided that the form factors obey

$`F_n^{𝒪|n\times \text{holes }m\times \text{particles}}(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _{n+m})\left[F_n^{𝒪^{}|n\times \text{holes }m\times \text{particles}}(\theta _1\mathrm{},\theta _{n+m})\right]^{}=`$
$`F_n^{𝒪|n\times \text{particles }m\times \text{holes}}(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _{n+m})\left[F_n^{𝒪^{}|n\times \text{particles }m\times \text{holes}}(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _{n+m})\right]^{}.`$ (2.20)
However, from one of Watson’s equations (2.9) and Lorentz invariance (2.10) we easily derive that in general one picks up a factor $`\mathrm{exp}i\pi (s^{}s)`$ on the r.h.s. of (2.20), where $`s,s^{}`$ are the Lorentz spins of $`𝒪`$ and $`𝒪^{}`$, respectively. Consequently, there is no problem with KMS when $`(s^{}s)2`$ like for instance when the two operators coincide. The latter case was treated in . Despite the fact that the KMS condition puts some structural restrictions on the two-point functions, it is not constraining enough in what more precise functional details concern, e.g., it can not shed any light on the controversy  about the precise nature of the dressing function (2.15). However, it dictates the two functions $`\epsilon _\mu (\theta ,T)`$ appearing explicitly in (2.13) and (2.15) to be identical.

To clarify further the working of (2.13) it would be highly desirable to compute this functions for more explicit models. Unfortunately there are not many temperature dependent two-point functions known from alternative approaches which one could compare with in order to settle the issue. Nonetheless, various limits are known which one can take as benchmarks.

### 2.1 The massless limit, conformal correlation functions

In conformal field theory various methods have been developed to compute correlation functions. At vanishing temperature the most celebrated approach is the one which exploits the structure of the Virasoro algebra, such that the correlation functions obey certain differential equations . To include the temperature is also fairly simple in this case. It is achieved just by mapping the observables from the plane to the cylinder, $`z\mathrm{exp}(2\pi T\vartheta )`$, $`𝒪(z)(2\pi T)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪}e^{2\pi T\vartheta \mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪}𝒪(\vartheta )`$

$`𝒪(\vartheta _1,\overline{\vartheta }_1)𝒪^{}(\vartheta _2,\overline{\vartheta }_2)_T=𝒪(\vartheta _1)𝒪^{}(\vartheta _2)_T𝒪(\overline{\vartheta }_1)𝒪^{}(\overline{\vartheta }_2)_T`$
$`=(2\pi T)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪^{}+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_𝒪+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_𝒪^{}}𝒪(z_1)𝒪^{}(z_2)_{T=0}𝒪(\overline{z}_1)𝒪^{}(\overline{z}_2)_{T=0}.`$ (2.21)
By construction (2.21) satisfies the KMS condition, provided $`𝒪(z_1)𝒪^{}(z_2)_{T=0}=𝒪^{}(z_2)𝒪(z_1)_{T=0}`$. Alternatively one can get some further information on this function by exploiting the KMS condition on one of the holomorphic sectors by adopting a proposal made in . Ignoring normal ordering one obtains

$$𝒪(\vartheta _1)𝒪^{}(\vartheta _2)_T=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}[2\pi iT(\vartheta _1n+\vartheta _2k)][𝒪_n,𝒪_k^{}].$$
(2.22)
For this to hold we only need to assume that for $`𝒪(\vartheta _1)`$ and $`𝒪^{}(\vartheta _2)`$ exist Fourier-Laurent mode expansions of the form

$$𝒪(\vartheta )=_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi niT\vartheta )𝒪_n.$$
(2.23)
In addition one makes use of the fact that the time evolution is governed by $`\omega _t𝒪=e^{itL_0}𝒪e^{itL_0}`$, with $`L_0`$ being the zero mode generator of the Virasoro algebra. If then furthermore the commutator $`[L_0,𝒪_n]=n𝒪_n`$ holds (this is true for instance for $`𝒪_n=L_n`$ the modes of the energy-momentum tensor, $`𝒪_n=J_n^a`$ the modes of a Kac-Moody current, $`𝒪_n=\varphi _n`$ the modes of a primary field, $`𝒪_n=G_n`$ the modes of an $`N=1`$ supersymmetric field***In  it was shown, however, that supersymmetry and temperature seem to be incompatible concepts. Only the vacuum states admit the implementation of supersymmetry.), the relation (2.22) is derived immediately. To make contact with (2.21) one needs of course to incorporate a proper normal ordering prescription.

Figure 1: Two-point correlation functions in various limits.

Alternatively, we may compute the correlation functions by using the (dressed) form factors related to the massless theory. The prescription of taking the massless limit was originally introduced in  within the context of a scattering theory. It consists of replacing in every rapidity dependent expression $`\theta \theta \pm \sigma `$, where an additional auxiliary parameter $`\sigma `$ has been introduced. Thereafter one should take the limit $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$, $`m0`$ while keeping the quantity $`\widehat{m}=m/2\mathrm{exp}(\sigma )`$ finite. For instance, carrying out this prescription for the momentum yields $`p_\pm =\pm \widehat{m}\mathrm{exp}(\pm \theta )`$, such that one may view the model as splitted into its two chiral sectors and one can speak naturally of left (L) and right (R) movers. Hence, having a function depending on the rapidities of $`n`$ particles, it will be mapped into $`2^n`$ related functions

$$\underset{\sigma \mathrm{}}{lim}f(\theta _1+\varkappa _1\sigma ,\mathrm{},\theta _n+\varkappa _n\sigma )=f_{\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _n}(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n),\{\begin{array}{c}\nu _i=L\text{ for }\varkappa _i=\hfill \\ \nu _i=R\text{ for }\varkappa _i=+\hfill \end{array}.$$
(2.24)
For the scattering matrix this means every massive amplitude is duplicated $`S(\theta )=`$ $`S_{LL}(\theta )=S_{RR}(\theta )`$ and in addition one obtains the amplitudes connecting the two chiral sectors $`S_{RL/LR}(\theta )=lim_\sigma \mathrm{}S(\theta \pm 2\sigma )`$.

In  this prescription was also carried out for expressions of form factors. In that case each n-particle form factor is turned into $`2^n`$ n-particle form factors. Note that when considering (2.24) for form factors this does in general not lead to the same expressions as when taking the scattering matrices $`S_{LL}(\theta ),S_{RR}(\theta ),S_{RL}(\theta ),S_{LR}(\theta )`$ and determining the form factors thereafter in the usual fashion. This two ways of carrying out the limit only commute for form factors associated to operators whose Lorentz spin is vanishing.

In order to be able to formulate the analogue of the expression (2.13) for the massless case one also requires the massless version of the dressing function, i.e., the massless analogues of the pseudo-energies. For this one can use once more the above recipe, such that the TBA-equations (2.16) are replaced by the same equations with $`S(\theta )S_{LL}(\theta ),S_{RR}(\theta ),S_{RL}(\theta ),S_{LR}(\theta )`$ and $`\widehat{r}m_i\mathrm{cosh}\theta \widehat{r}\widehat{m}_i\mathrm{exp}\theta `$. The working of this was confirmed in the analysis of .

Having now outlined the prescription to compute the massless (temperature dependent) correlation functions, a non-trivial check is constituted by the comparison with (2.21). A more constricting check is to start with (2.13) and carry out the massless and zero temperature limit. That is checking the commutativity of the diagram in figure 1. In particular the massless limit can possibly shed more light on the issue of different dressing functions.

## 3 The complex free Fermion/Federbush model

We will now demonstrate the working of the previous approach with various examples. Let us start with the complex free Fermion case (the complex version of the Ising model) with Virasoro central charge $`c=2\times 1/2`$. One reason for not considering directly the simpler case of self-conjugate Fermions is that all formulae presented in this section also hold for the more general Federbush model . This means we can also regard the results of this section to hold for more exotic statistical interaction. In general, the free Fermion is particularly attractive to start with, since for many operators the higher n-particle form factors are vanishing such that the infinite series in (2.13) terminates. For the self-conjugate Fermion several two-point correlation functions at zero temperature have been computed, e.g., in . Despite the simplicity of the model, only for very few operators massive temperature dependent correlation functions have been evaluated by means of form factors . In order to put formula (2.13) on firmer ground it is therefore desirable to check its working first of all for a wider range of operators.

Taking the operator $`𝒪`$ and $`𝒪^{}`$ to be the current, we will present all four cases illustrated in figure 1 in some detail. The current-current correlation functions are particularly interesting, since they occur explicitly in the application within the Kubo formula. Adopting the notation of our recent exposition , we consider the correlation function involving one of the chiral currents $`J^\pm =J^0\pm J^1`$. The only non-vanishing massive form factors for these operators are

$$F_2^{J^\pm |\overline{ı}i}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })=F_2^{J^\pm |i\overline{ı}}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })=i\pi me^{\frac{\theta +\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{2}}.$$
(3.1)
In the following we shall focus on the mutual correlator of $`JJ^{}`$. Out of the four cases depicted in figure 1, the conformal case at zero temperature is the easiest to treat and hence a good starting point. According to the massless limit prescription (2.24), we obtain

$`F_{2,RR}^{J|\overline{ı}i}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`F_{2,RR}^{J|i\overline{ı}}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })=2\pi i\widehat{m}\mathrm{exp}(\theta +\stackrel{~}{\theta })/2,`$ (3.2)
$`F_{2,LL}^{J|\overline{ı}i}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`F_{2,LR}^{J|\overline{ı}i}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })=F_{2,RL}^{J|\overline{ı}i}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })=0,`$ (3.3)
$`F_{2,LL}^{J|i\overline{ı}}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`F_{2,LR}^{J|i\overline{ı}}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })=F_{2,RL}^{J|i\overline{ı}}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })=0,`$ (3.4)
such that (2.13) yields

$$J(r)J(0)_{m=0,T=0}=4\widehat{m}^2\pi ^2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\theta d\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{exp}[r\widehat{m}(e^\theta +e^{\stackrel{~}{\theta }})](e^{\theta +\stackrel{~}{\theta }})=\frac{1}{r^2}.$$
(3.5)
Recalling that the current has scaling dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_J=1`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_J=0`$, this agrees of course with the leading order term of the well-known conformal $`U(1)`$-current-current two-point correlation function $`k/r^2`$ for level $`k=1`$, see e.g., . Note, that as it should be, the auxiliary parameter $`\widehat{m}`$ has vanished in the final expressions. Raising now the temperature we can use the same expressions for the form factors, but the proposal (2.13) dictates that we have to dress them with the massless version of the filling fractions

$$\widehat{f}_\pm (\theta ,T)=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{m}/Te^\theta )}.$$
(3.6)
for particles ($`+`$) and holes ($``$). The values are in agreement with (2.17). With this we compute

$`J(r)J(0)_{m=0,T}`$ $`=`$ $`4\widehat{m}^2\pi ^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu =\pm }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta d\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{(2\pi )^2}}(e^{\theta +\stackrel{~}{\theta }})\widehat{f}_\mu (\theta ,T)\widehat{f}_\nu (\stackrel{~}{\theta },T)e^{r\widehat{m}(\mu e^\theta +\nu e^{\stackrel{~}{\theta }})}`$ (3.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2T^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi rT)}}.`$
The result (3.7) can of course also be obtained directly from the mapping (2.21) and the correlation function at zero temperature (3.5). Making now the model massive, we employ instead of (3.2) and (3.3) the form factors (3.1) and evaluate

$`J(r)J(0)_{m,T=0}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\pi ^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta d\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{(2\pi )^2}}\mathrm{exp}[rm(\mathrm{cosh}\theta +\mathrm{cosh}\stackrel{~}{\theta })](e^{\theta +\stackrel{~}{\theta }})`$ (3.8)
$`=`$ $`m^2\left[K_1(rm)\right]^2,`$
where $`K_1(x)`$ is a modified Bessel function (see appendix). Using the limiting behaviour (A.2), we recover as expected the conformal correlation function (3.5) in the limit $`m0`$. Considering now the massive finite temperature regime, we have to include in the previous computation the massive dressing function

$$f_\pm (\theta ,T)=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(m/T\mathrm{cosh}\theta )}.$$
(3.9)
Then we compute according to (2.13)

$`J(r)J(0)_{m,T}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\pi ^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu =\pm }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta d\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{(2\pi )^2}}(e^{\theta +\stackrel{~}{\theta }})f_\mu (\theta ,T)f_\nu (\stackrel{~}{\theta },T)e^{rm(\mu \mathrm{cosh}\theta +\nu \mathrm{cosh}\stackrel{~}{\theta })}`$ (3.10)
$`=`$ $`m^2\left[\widehat{K}_1^+(m,r,T)\right]^2.`$
The functions $`\widehat{K}_\alpha ^\pm (m,r,T)`$ are defined in the appendix. The restriction on the arguments of the Bessel functions (A.1) reflects the conditions $`r<1/T`$ in (2.13). With the help of (A.10) we recover the expression (3.8) for $`T0`$. Taking instead first the limit $`m0`$ in (3.10), we reproduce with (A.5) the previously computed conformal correlator (3.7). In conclusion this means the different methods to compute $`J(r)J(0)`$ for several mass and temperature regimes are consistent and indeed the diagram in figure 1 is commutative for the considered choice of operators.

We proceed now similarly and compute the two-point correlation functions involving various other operators. In what follows we will be less explicit as for $`J(r)J(0)`$ in the derivation of the finite temperature and mass correlation function and just quote the final results. Thereafter, we carry out the various limits by using the formulae quoted in the appendix.

Recalling that the only non-zero form factors of the trace of the energy-momentum tensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are

$$F_2^{\mathrm{\Theta }|\overline{ı}i}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })=F_2^{\mathrm{\Theta }|i\overline{ı}}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })=2\pi im^2\mathrm{sinh}(\theta \stackrel{~}{\theta })/2,$$
(3.11)
we obtain, according to (2.13), for its mutual correlation function

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(r)\mathrm{\Theta }(0)_{T,m}=2m^4\left[\widehat{K}_1^+(m,r,T)^2\widehat{K}_0^{}(m,r,T)^2\right].$$
(3.12)
We can verify the commutativity of the diagram in figure 1 similarly as for the current-current correlator

$`\underset{m0}{lim}\left[\underset{T0}{lim}\mathrm{\Theta }(r)\mathrm{\Theta }(0)_{T,m}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{m0}{lim}\left[2m^4\left(K_1^2(rm)K_0^2(rm)\right)\right]=0,`$ (3.13)
$`\underset{T0}{lim}\left[\underset{m0}{lim}\mathrm{\Theta }(r)\mathrm{\Theta }(0)_{T,m}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{T0}{lim}\left[0\right]=0.`$ (3.14)
The conformal limits in (3.13) and (3.14) reflect of course the vanishing of the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. Noting that the energy density operator $`ϵ`$ with conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_ϵ=1/2`$ is related to the trace as $`\mathrm{\Theta }=mϵ`$, we obtain more interesting limits

$`\underset{m0}{lim}\left[\underset{T0}{lim}ϵ(r)ϵ(0)_{T,m}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{m0}{lim}\left[2m^2\left(K_1^2(rm)K_0^2(rm)\right)\right]={\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}},`$ (3.15)
$`\underset{T0}{lim}\left[\underset{m0}{lim}ϵ(r)ϵ(0)_{T,m}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{T0}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2T^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi rT)}}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ+2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_ϵ}}},`$ (3.16)
which are again consistent. Recalling that for the (++)-component of the energy momentum tensor $`T^{++}\overline{T}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{T}}=2`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\overline{T}}=0`$ the only non-vanishing form factors are

$$F_2^{\overline{T}|\overline{ı}i}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })=F_2^{\overline{T}|i\overline{ı}}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })=\pi i/2m^2\mathrm{exp}(\theta +\stackrel{~}{\theta })\mathrm{sinh}(\theta \stackrel{~}{\theta })/2.$$
(3.17)
The mutual correlation function results to

$$\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T,m}=\frac{m^4}{8}\left[\widehat{K}_3^+(m,r,T)\widehat{K}_1^+(m,r,T)\widehat{K}_2^{}(m,r,T)^2\right].$$
(3.18)
Once again the commutativity of the diagram in figure 1 is confirmed

$`\underset{m0}{lim}\left[\underset{T0}{lim}\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T,m}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{m0}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{8}}\left(K_1(rm)K_3(rm)K_2^2(rm)\right)\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r^4}},`$ (3.19)
$`\underset{T0}{lim}\left[\underset{m0}{lim}\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T,m}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{T0}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4T^4}{\mathrm{sin}^4(\pi rT)}}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{c}{2r^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{T}}+2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\overline{T}}}}}.`$ (3.20)
We also compute

$$\overline{T}(r)\mathrm{\Theta }(0)_{T,m}=\frac{m^4}{2}\left[\widehat{K}_1^{}(m,r,T)^2\widehat{K}_0^+(m,r,T)\widehat{K}_2^+(m,r,T)\right],$$
(3.21)
together with the expected limiting behaviour

$`\underset{m0}{lim}\left[\underset{T0}{lim}\overline{T}(r)\mathrm{\Theta }(0)_{T,m}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{m0}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{2}}\left(K_1^2(rm)K_0(rm)K_2(rm)\right)\right]=0,`$ (3.22)
$`\underset{T0}{lim}\left[\underset{m0}{lim}\overline{T}(r)\mathrm{\Theta }(0)_{T,m}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{T0}{lim}\left[0\right]=0.`$ (3.23)
Once again, the conformal limits in (3.22) and (3.23) reflect the vanishing of the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. Replacing $`\mathrm{\Theta }mϵ`$ will only change in (3.22) $`m^4m^3`$ and the remaining limits are the expected ones.

However, there are also operators for which the prescription does nor work so smoothly. As an example, we now want to compute $`\overline{T}(r)\mu (0)_{T,m}`$, with $`\mu `$ being the disorder field of the complex free Fermion theory. For this purpose, it is necessary first to recall the expressions of the form factors related to this field, which were computed in , and shown to be different from the ones associated to the counterpart of this field in the Ising model. Similarly as for the latter model, it was found that only the form factors involving an even number of particles are non-zero. Since for $`\overline{T}`$ the only non-vanishing form factors are the two-particle ones, the only non-vanishing form factors of the field $`\mu `$ which will be relevant for these computations are

$$F_2^{\mu |\overline{ı}i}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })=F_2^{\mu |i\overline{ı}}(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta })=i/2\mu _{T=0}\mathrm{exp}[(\theta \stackrel{~}{\theta })/2]\mathrm{cosh}^1(\theta \stackrel{~}{\theta })/2.$$
(3.24)
With these data we compute, again according to (2.13),

$`\overline{T}(r)\mu (0)_{T,m}={\displaystyle \frac{T^3\mu _{T=0}}{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{\overset{1/T}{}}}dte^{2tm}[{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{T}}\mathrm{\Phi }(e^{\frac{m}{T}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},tT)\mathrm{\Phi }(e^{\frac{m}{T}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},tT)`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(e^{\frac{m}{T}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},tT)^2+3\mathrm{\Phi }(e^{\frac{m}{T}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},tT)\mathrm{\Phi }(e^{\frac{m}{T}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}},tT)t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}t].`$ (3.25)
We employed Lerch’s transcendental function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,s,\alpha )`$ (see appendix). In comparison with our previous computations we have one integration remaining. This results from the fact that unlike before we have now a term $`(\mathrm{cosh}\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\mathrm{cosh}\theta )`$ in the denominator, which we eliminate by a differentiation with respect to $`r`$ and a subsequent integration. Alternatively, we obtain the same result by a direct computation using a variable substitution similar as in  $`\mathrm{sinh}\theta /2=r\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, $`\mathrm{sinh}\stackrel{~}{\theta }/2=r\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ . By employing (A.14) the limits come out as

$$\underset{m0}{lim}\left[\underset{T0}{lim}\overline{T}(r)\mu (0)_{T,m}\right]=\underset{m0}{lim}\left[\mu _{T=0}\frac{e^{2rm}}{16r^2}\right]=\frac{\mu _{T=0}}{16r^2}.$$
(3.26)
However, starting with the limit $`m0`$ in (3.25) is problematic, because the expression $`lim_{x1}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,s,\alpha )`$ for $`\mathrm{R}es<1`$ is not well defined. We obtain similar phenomena for other correlation functions involving different operators, such as $`J(r)\mu (0)_{T,m}.`$

In principle one could extend this list of correlation functions involving various other operators and support more and more our overall conclusion, namely that the conjecture of a dressed form factor expansion (2.13) is meaningful for free theories even when the underlying statistics is anyonic. Next we want to see whether the picture still remains the same for dynamically interacting theories.

## 4 The scaling Yang-Lee Model

The scaling Yang-Lee model (or minimal $`A_2^{(2)}`$-affine Toda field theory), like its conformal counterpart with Virasoro central charge $`c=22/5`$, is one of the simplest interacting integrable quantum field theories in 1+1 space-time dimensions. It is an ideal starting point to test general ideas, since it is comprised of only one massive particle which couples to itself. This is reflected by the pole in the physical sheet of its scattering matrix

$$S_{YL}(\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\theta +i\mathrm{sin}\pi /3}{\mathrm{sinh}\theta i\mathrm{sin}\pi /3}$$
(4.1)
which was proposed in . Closed formulae for all n-particle form factors for various components of the energy-momentum tensor were computed in . For our purposes we will just require the ones up to two particles. We recall from  in a slightly different notation the form factors associated to $`T^{++}\overline{T}`$

$`F_0^{\overline{T}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi m^2}{\sqrt{3}}},F_1^{\overline{T}}(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{i\pi m^2}{\nu 2^{5/2}3^{1/4}}}e^{2\theta },`$ (4.2)
$`F_2^{\overline{T}}(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi m^2}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}1}{\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}+1/2}}e^{\theta _1+\theta _2}F_{\text{min}}(\theta _{12}),`$ (4.3)
where the so-called minimal form factor is

$$F_{\text{min}}(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}\left[8_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{t}{2}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{t}{3}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{t}{6}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2t}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{t(i\pi \theta )}{2\pi }\right)\right]$$
(4.4)
and $`\nu `$ is a constant given by

$$\nu =\mathrm{exp}\left(2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{t}{2}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{t}{3}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{t}{6}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2t}\right)=1.11154\mathrm{}$$
(4.5)
Our aim is to use these expressions and compute by means of the dressed form factor formula (2.13) the two-point correlation functions. Unfortunately, to our knowledge there exists no computation in the massive and temperature dependent situation to compare with. However, in the massless case we have two benchmarks, namely

$`\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T=m=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^4}},`$ (4.6)
$`\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T,m=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4T^4}{\mathrm{sin}^4(\pi rT)}}.`$ (4.7)
Here (4.6) is just the well known two-point function from conformal field theory $`\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T=m=0}=c/2r^4`$, with $`c=22/5`$, and (4.7) is this formula mapped to the cylinder according to (2.21) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{T}}=2`$. Let us therefore compute the massless scattering matrices and form factors from (4.1) and (4.2), (4.3), respectively. According to the prescription (2.24) outlined at the end of section 2, we compute

$$S_{RR}(\theta )=S_{LL}(\theta )=S_{YL}(\theta ),S_{RL}(\theta )=S_{LR}(\theta )=1$$
(4.8)
and

$`F_0^{\overline{T}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{1,L}^{\overline{T}}=F_{2,LL}^{\overline{T}}=F_{2,LR}^{\overline{T}}=F_{2,RL}^{\overline{T}}=0`$ (4.9)
$`F_{1,R}^{\overline{T}}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi \widehat{m}^2}{\nu 2^{1/2}3^{1/4}}}e^{2\theta },`$ (4.10)
$`F_{2,RR}^{\overline{T}}(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \widehat{m}^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}1}{\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}+1/2}}e^{\theta _1+\theta _2}F_{\text{min}}(\theta _{12}).`$ (4.11)
These expressions also exemplify our remark at the end of section 2, namely, that one can not take the scattering matrices (4.8) and compute the form factors thereafter from first principles. In that case we would obtain an $`L`$ and $`LL`$ contribution, which are evidently vanishing when we carry out the method directly on the formulae (4.2) and (4.3) for the massive regime. The reason is simply that the “massless prescription” is only a way to carry out the limit starting with the massive expressions, but not a first principle concept. Nonetheless, viewing it in this sense it works extremely well.

Let us commence with the zero temperature case. The one-particle contribution can be computed analytically

$$\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T=m=0}^{(1)}=\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\left|F_{1,R}^{\overline{T}}(\theta )\right|^2e^{\widehat{m}re^\theta }=\frac{\pi \sqrt{3}}{2\nu ^2}\frac{1}{r^4}=\frac{2.2020498\mathrm{}}{r^4}.$$
(4.12)
We observe, that the expected value is already almost saturated. To compute the two particle contribution is a fairly simple numerical exercise. We evaluate

$$\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T=m=0}^{(2)}=\frac{d\theta _1d\theta _2}{2(2\pi )^2}\left|F_{2,RR}^{\overline{T}}(\theta _1,\theta _2)\right|^2e^{\widehat{m}r(e^{\theta _1}+e^{\theta _2})},$$
(4.13)
and present our results in table 1

| $`r`$ | $`0.0001`$ | $`0.0003`$ | $`0.0005`$ | $`0.001`$ | $`0.01`$ | $`0.1`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`r^4\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T=m=0}^{(2)}10^3`$ | $`0.5631`$ | $`1.9435`$ | $`2.0457`$ | $`2.0487`$ | $`2.0487`$ | $`2.0487`$ |

Table 1: Two-particle contribution to $`\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T=m=0}`$ .

As mentioned in , when summing up according to (2.13) with $`f_\mu (\theta ,T)=1`$, this contribution enters with a positive sign in comparison with the one-particle contribution due to the non-unitarity of the model. As expected, similar to the ($`T=0`$, $`m0`$)-case, carried out in , we observe an extremely fast convergence of the series towards the expected value (4.6). The numbers in table 1 confirm the general observation, which was also made in , that for extremely small values of $`r`$ the higher particle contributions become more important. Considering a regime for $`r>0.001`$, it will not be necessary to include also the three-particle contribution in order to reach our main conclusion. Nonetheless, in principle this could be done easily with some Monte Carlo integration, just at the cost of longer computing time, since in  all n-particle form factors were already provided.

Notice further that the parameter $`\widehat{m}`$ plays no role anymore. As observed before, in the analytical computation (4.12) it cancels explicitly. This phenomenon is less apparent in the two-particle formula (4.13), but we convinced ourselves that $`\widehat{m}`$ may be re-scaled without altering the outcome of the numerical computation. Thus the expressions are mass independent as they should be. In what follows we will use this fact to simplify notations and scale $`\widehat{m}`$ to one.

Let us now embark upon the non-zero temperature case. By means of the conjecture (2.13), we have to compute for the one-particle contribution

$`\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T,m=0}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{2\pi }}\left(f_+(\theta ,T)\right|F_{1,R}^{\overline{T}}(\theta )|^2e^{rT\epsilon (\theta ,T)}`$ (4.14)
$`+f_{}(\theta ,T)\left|F_{1,R}^{\overline{T}\overline{T}}(\theta i\pi )|^2e^{rT\epsilon (\theta ,T)}\right)e^{4\theta }`$
According to the conjectures in  or if we extend the proposal in  to the two-point function, we can choose for the $`\epsilon (\theta ,T)`$ in (4.14) and the corresponding dressing functions (2.15) either $`\epsilon _{\text{TBA}}(\theta ,T)`$, determined by the massless version of the TBA-equation (2.16) or $`\epsilon _{\text{free}}(\theta ,T)=e^\theta /T`$, respectively. Solving first numerically the massless TBA-equation by means of a standard iteration procedure, we can compare the two dressing functions $`f_\pm (\epsilon _{\text{TBA}}(\theta ,T))`$ and $`f_\pm (\epsilon _{\text{free}}(\theta ,T))`$. Our results are depicted in figure 2.

Figure 2: Two possible dressing functions $`f_\pm \left(\epsilon _{\text{TBA}}(\theta ,T)\right)`$ and $`f_\pm \left(\epsilon _{\text{free}}(\theta ,T)\right)`$.

We plotted the corresponding functions for the left and right movers in order to exhibit the symmetry of the TBA solutions. The solutions for the left movers are not important for what follows. We observe that $`f_{}(\epsilon _{\text{TBA}}(\theta ,T))`$ acquires plateaux at $`f_{}(\epsilon _{\text{TBA}}(\theta ,T))=2/(1+\sqrt{5})`$ which are characteristic for all minimal affine Toda field theories. Furthermore, we see the well-known fact that in the large rapidity regime the TBA solutions merge with the free one. Nonetheless, the two functions $`f_\pm ^{\text{TBA}}(\theta ,T)`$ and $`f_\pm ^{\text{free}}(\theta ,T)`$ differ quite substantially within a large rapidity regime. However, in the computation in which they are actually needed, namely in (4.14), this regime is negligible. This is essentially due to the factor $`e^{4\theta }`$. This means the issue of controversy on the difference between the two functions $`f_\pm ^{\text{TBA}}(\theta ,T)`$ and $`f_\pm ^{\text{free}}(\theta ,T)`$ is irrelevant if we would extend it to the context of the two-point functions. Let us therefore take $`f_\pm ^{\text{free}}(\theta ,T)`$, for which we can compute (4.14) analytically

$$\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T,m=0}^{(1)}=\frac{\pi \sqrt{3}}{2\nu ^2}T^4\left[\mathrm{\Phi }(1,4,rT)+\mathrm{\Phi }(1,4,1rT)\right].$$
(4.15)
Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,s,\alpha )`$ is again Lerch’s transcendental function, which was already encountered in section 3 (see also appendix). Extrapolating the behaviour from the cases ($`m0,T=0`$) and ($`T=0,m=0`$), we expect that the main contribution to the sum comes from the one-particle form factors. It is therefore instructive to compare the ratio of the expected value (4.7) and $`\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T0,m=0}^{(1)}`$. We depict this comparison in figure 3.

Figure 3: Exact correlation function versus dressed one particle form factor contribution G(rT):=$`\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T0,m=0}/\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T0,m=0}^{(1)}.`$

We observe a deviation of up to 300%, which when recalling the excellent agreement at this level of the cases ($`m0,T=0`$) and ($`T=0,m=0`$), sheds a rather pessimistic light on the working of the conjecture (2.13) in the interacting case. In fact, we only observe a reasonable match when $`0<rT<0.01`$ or $`0.99<rT<1.0`$, but this is unfortunately just a regime in which we can approximate in (4.7) $`\mathrm{sin}^4(\pi rT)(\pi rT)^4`$ such that the temperature effect becomes irrelevant. For the sceptical reader we include in figure 3 also some points obtained numerically be using $`f_\pm ^{\text{TBA}}(\theta ,T)`$ instead of $`f_\pm ^{\text{free}}(\theta ,T)`$ in (4.14). The two different cases may hardly be distinguished.

Let us see whether the next order contributions can improve the situation. For this we have to compute

$`\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T,m=0}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta _1d\theta _2}{2(2\pi )^2}}\left[f_+(\theta _1,T)f_+(\theta _2,T)\right|F_{2,RR}^{\overline{T}}(\theta _1,\theta _2)|^2e^{rT(\epsilon (\theta _1,T)+\epsilon (\theta _2,T))}`$ (4.16)
$`+f_{}(\theta _1,T)f_{}(\theta _2,T)\left|F_{2,RR}^{\overline{T}}(\theta _1,\theta _2)\right|^2e^{rT(\epsilon (\theta _1,T)+\epsilon (\theta _2,T))}`$
$`+2f_+(\theta _1,T)f_{}(\theta _2,T)\left|F_{2,RR}^{\overline{T}}(\theta _1,\theta _2i\pi )|^2e^{rT(\epsilon (\theta _1,T)\epsilon (\theta _2,T))}\right].`$
We have already all the ingredients to compute this apart from the particle-hole form factor $`F_{2,RR}^{\overline{T}}(\theta _1,\theta _2+i\pi )`$. We compute

$$F_{2,RR}^{\overline{T}}(\theta _1,\theta _2i\pi )=\frac{\pi }{2\nu ^8}\left(\frac{2\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}+1}{2\mathrm{cosh}\theta _{12}1}\right)\frac{\mathrm{tanh}^2(\theta _{12}/2)}{F_{\text{min}}(\theta _{12})}e^{\theta _1+\theta _2}.$$
(4.17)
Assembling all we find similar values in the entire range of $`0<rT<1`$

$$\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T,m=0}^{(2)}/\overline{T}(r)\overline{T}(0)_{T,m=0}0.001\pm 4\times 10^4,$$
(4.18)
independently of the different choices for the dressing functions. Thus, assuming that the convergence of the series in (2.13) does not change radically when the temperature is switched on, the higher order n-particle contributions will not rescue the proposal for this case.

## 5 Conclusions

We provided more evidence which supports the proposal of LeClair, Lesage, Sachdev and Saleur  to use dressed form factors for the computation of two-point correlation functions. The method seems to work well for the free Fermion case and in addition for theories with anyonic statistics. Concerning dynamically interacting theories we reach a similar conclusion as drawn in  on the base of an example involving a chemical potential: Namely that it fails to work. As a simple counter example we have studied the scaling Yang-Lee model. This conclusion is reached independently of the choices for the dressing functions $`f(\epsilon _{\text{TBA}}(\theta ,T))`$ or $`f(\epsilon _{\text{free}}(\theta ,T))`$.

Despite this slightly pessimistic result concerning the proposal in its present form, it was shown in  that it also works for the computation of correlation functions in the presence of boundaries, albeit only for the Ising model. Based on this result one may conjecture that it can also be successfully applied to defect systems . In fact in this context the only interesting integrable theories are those for which the approach seems to work for the bulk theories, namely free theories, possibly with anyonic statistical interaction. It was shown recently , that these theories are the only bulk theories which allow a simultaneous occurrence of reflection and transmission.

At present the challenge remains to show whether the form factor approach to compute correlation functions can be extended successfully to the finite temperature regime in complete generality, namely also for dynamically interacting theories. In order to complete this task it would also be interesting to compare with existing alternative approaches, e.g., .

Acknowledgments:  We are grateful to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Sfb288) and INTAS project 99-01459 for financial support and to M. Karowski, A. LeClair, I.T. Todorov for useful comments.

## Appendix

In this appendix we assemble some properties of various functions which are important for our computations. Some of them are standard whereas others are specific to the present context. One of the most ubiquitous functions in this context are the modified Bessel functions, whose integral representations are given by

$$K_\alpha (z)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\mathrm{exp}(z\mathrm{cosh}t)\mathrm{cosh}\alpha t\text{for }\left|\mathrm{arg}z\right|<\frac{\pi }{2}.$$
(A.1)
We recall the well-known limiting behaviour

$$\underset{x0}{lim}K_\alpha (x)2^{\alpha 1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )x^\alpha \mathrm{R}e\alpha >0,\underset{x0}{lim}K_0(x)\mathrm{ln}x.$$
(A.2)
It is convenient to introduce the function

$$\widehat{K}_\alpha ^\pm (m,r,T)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n\left[K_\alpha \left(\frac{nm}{T}+rm\right)\pm K_\alpha \left(\frac{(n+1)m}{T}rm\right)\right],$$
(A.3)
which will appear as a building block in the computation of many finite temperature correlation functions. Since we intend to investigate the commutativity of the diagram in figure 1, various limits of this function will be required frequently. For $`\mathrm{R}e\alpha >0`$ we compute with (A.2) the massless limit

$$\underset{m0}{lim}\widehat{K}_\alpha ^\pm (m,r,T)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )}{2^{1\alpha }}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n[\left(\frac{nm}{T}+rm\right)^\alpha \pm \left(\frac{(n+1)m}{T}rm\right)^\alpha ].$$
(A.4)
The sum can be evaluated explicitly. We just report on the cases which are important for our analysis

$`\underset{m0}{lim}\widehat{K}_1^+(m,r,T)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi T}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi rT)}},`$ (A.5)
$`\underset{m0}{lim}\widehat{K}_2^{}(m,r,T)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi T}{m}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cot}(\pi rT)}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi rT)}},`$ (A.6)
$`\underset{m0}{lim}\widehat{K}_3^+(m,r,T)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi T}{m}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{6+2\mathrm{cos}(2\pi rT)}{\mathrm{sin}^3(\pi rT)}},`$ (A.7)
$`\underset{m0}{lim}m^4\widehat{K}_0^{}(m,r,T)`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (A.8)
$`\underset{m0}{lim}m^4\widehat{K}_0^+(m,r,T)\widehat{K}_2^+(m,r,T)`$ $``$ $`0.`$ (A.9)
The zero temperature limit is more easily computed, just by noting that in the sum of (A.3) only the $`n=0`$ term survives

$$\underset{T0}{lim}\widehat{K}_\alpha ^\pm (m,r,T)K_\alpha \left(rm\right).$$
(A.10)
A further function which frequently occurs is Lerch’s transcendental function, whose sum representation is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,s,\alpha )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x^n}{(n+\alpha )^s}\text{for }|x|<1,\alpha _0^{}.$$
(A.11)
In many cases, however, we require precisely the value $`x1`$ in (A.11). The convergence problem can be circumvented by exploiting the fact that in the limit $`x1`$ we can express $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,s,\alpha )`$ in terms of Riemann zeta functions

$$\zeta (s,\alpha )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(n+\alpha )^s}\text{for }\mathrm{R}es>1,$$
(A.12)
instead

$$\underset{x1}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,s,\alpha )=\frac{1}{2^s}\left[\zeta (s,\alpha /2)\zeta (s,(1+\alpha )/2)\right].$$
(A.13)
This leaves the problem $`lim_{x1}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,s,\alpha )`$ for $`\mathrm{R}es<1`$. Also the limit

$$\underset{\alpha 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }(e^{1/\alpha },s,\alpha )\alpha ^s,$$
(A.14)
is needed in section 3.


format: text

text:
# Spontaneous Spin Polarized Currents in Superconductor-Ferromagnetic Metal Heterostructures

## Abstract

We study a simple microscopic model for thin, ferromagnetic, metallic layers on semi-infinite bulk superconductor. We find that for certain values of the exchange spliting, on the ferromagnetic side, the ground states of such structures feature spontaneously induced spin polarized currents. Using a mean-field theory, which is selfconsistent with respect to the pairing amplitude $`\chi `$, spin polarization $`\stackrel{}{m}`$ and the spontaneous current $`\stackrel{}{j}_s`$, we show that not only there are Andreev bound states in the ferromagnet but when their energies $`E_n`$ are near zero they support spontaneous currents parallel to the ferromagnetic-superconducting interface. Moreover, we demonstrate that the spin-polarization of these currents depends sensitively on the band filling.

Recently it has become possible to fabricate high quality interfaces between superconductors ($`SC`$) and a metallic Ferromagnets ($`FM`$)Tedrow . Evidently the proximity effect in such $`SC`$/$`FM`$ hybrid structures is of scientific interest since it facilitates the study of coexistance between magnetism and superconductivity Berk . Furthermore, it may also become technologically important in connection with magnetoelectronics Bauer  and quantum computing Blatter . In this letter we report on our study of this intriguing phenomenon in a ferromagnetic layers on a bulk superconductor with a particular focus on one of its novel physical features, a spontaneously induced current in the ground state, which is relavent form both points of view.

Clearly, in the present context the ‘proximity effect’ means both the leakage of superconductivity into the non-superconducting, ferromagnetic metal and the spin polarization of the superconductor near the interface. In the analogous case where the normal metal is non-magnetic ($`NM`$) this effect has been studied for a long time and is, by now, well understood LambertRaimondi . By contrast, the experimental and theoretical interset in the $`SC`$/$`FM`$ heterostructures and interfaces is more recent and the subject is correspondingly less well developed. Nevertheless, a number of the new phenomena, associated with Cooper pairs in an exchange field, have been indetified. For instance, it has been found that, as opposed to the $`SC`$/$`NM`$ case, the pairing amplitude $`\chi `$ does not decay exponentially to zero on the ferromagnetic side of a $`SC`$/$`FM`$ interface but oscilates, with a slowly decreasing amplitude, as a function of the distance $`d`$ from the interface Buzdin82 -Demler . These oscillations turn out to be manifestations of the effect first studied by Fulde and Ferrel FuldeFerrell  and Larkin and Ovchinikov LarkinOvchinnikov , often refered to as $`FFLO`$, and some of their more striking consequences, such as the oscillation of the superconducting transition temperature Tc as a function of the thickness of the $`FM`$ layer has been observed experimentally Wong .

Our work is particularly relavent to the predicted Prokic ; Vecino  and observed Kontos  Andereev bound states in clean thin ferromagnetic films sandwiched between two superconductors. Interestingly, these states were found to form part of the ground or equilibrium states and to give rise to so called $`\pi `$-states of the $`SC`$/$`FM`$/$`SC`$ junction. One of the aim of this letter is to argue that a hitherto overlooked salient feature of such $`FFLO`$ $`\pi `$-jucntion is a spontaneous current parallel to the $`FM`$/$`SC`$ interface. We shall also show that the spin polarization of such current depends sensitively on whether the state has, or has not, particle-hole symmetry.

To investigate the occurence spontaneous currents and their polarization in a $`SC`$/$`FM`$ heterostructure we need a model simple enough to be solved, at least in a mean-field approximation, for the magnetization $`\stackrel{}{m}`$, pairing amplitude $`\chi `$ and spontenous current $`\stackrel{}{j}_s`$ self-consistently. Hence, for the purpose at hand, we have adopted a single orbital, nearest neighbour hopping, negative $`U`$ Hubbard model for describing the semi-infinite superconductor and continued the same Hamiltonian into the ferromagnetic layer with the $`U`$ set equal to zero and the site energies $`\epsilon _{i\sigma }`$ exchange split. Moreover, we consider the simplest geometry, depicted in Fig.1, where a magnetic field in one direction, the vector potential and a current in another and a spatial modulation in a third orthogonal direction can be realised.

Hopefully, while simplifying the calculation this effectively $`2D`$ system will have much in common with its $`3D`$ counterpart such as a layer of ferromagnetic metal deposited on a superconducting substrate Tedrow ; Wong  and corresponding sandwich structures Ryazanov .

In short, our model Hamiltonian is given by

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}[t_{ij}+(\epsilon _{i\sigma }\mu )\delta _{ij}]c_{i\sigma }^+c_{j\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{U_i}{2}}\widehat{n}_{i\sigma }\widehat{n}_{i\sigma }`$ (1)
where, in the presence of a vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r})`$, $`t_{ij}=te^{ie_{\stackrel{}{r}_i}^{\stackrel{}{r}_j}\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r})𝑑\stackrel{}{r}}`$ for nearst neighbour lattice sites at spatial positions $`\stackrel{}{R}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{}{R}_j`$, the site energies $`\epsilon _{i\sigma }`$ are $`0`$ on the superconducting side and equal to $`\frac{1}{2}E_{ex}\sigma `$ on the ferromagnetic side, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, $`U_i`$ is $`U_S<0`$ in the superconductor and zero elswhere, $`c_{i\sigma }^+`$, ($`c_{i\sigma }`$) are the usual electron creation (annihilation) operators and $`\widehat{n}_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^+c_{i\sigma }`$. Note that the above description of the electrons with charges $`e`$ includes a coupling to a magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{r})=\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r})`$. Evidently such provision will be necessary for calculating the effects of currents on the electronic states.

In what follows we shall study the above model in the Spin-Polarized-Hartree-Fock-Gorkov ($`SPHFG`$) approximation. We shall work in the Landau gauge where $`\stackrel{}{B}=(0,0,B_z(x))`$ and hence $`\stackrel{}{A}=(0,A_y(x),0)`$. Furthermore, we assume that the effective $`SPHFG`$ Hamiltonian is periodic in the direction parallel to the inteface and therefore we work in $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ space in the $`y`$ direction but in real space in the $`x`$-direction (see Fig.1). Labeling the planes in Fig.1 by integers $`n`$ and $`m`$ at each $`k_y`$ point of the Brillouin zone we shall solve the following $`SPHFG`$ Nambu, spin ($`\alpha `$) and layer index ($`n`$) matrix equation:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m^{},\gamma ,k_y}{}}H_{nm^{}}^{\alpha \gamma }(\omega ,k_y)G_{m^{}m}^{\gamma \beta }(\omega ,k_y)=\delta _{nm}\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ (2)
where the only non-zero elements are: $`H_{nm}^{11}`$ and $`H_{nm}^{22}=(\omega \frac{1}{2}\sigma E_{ex}\pm \mu \pm tcos(k_yeA(n)))\delta _{nm}\pm t\delta _{n,n+1}`$ for the upper and lower sign respectively, $`H_{nm}^{33}=H_{nm}^{11}`$ and $`H_{nm}^{44}=H_{nm}^{22}`$ with $`\sigma `$ replaced by $`\sigma `$ in both cases, $`H_{nm}^{12}=H_{nm}^{21}=H_{nm}^{34}=H_{nm}^{43}=\mathrm{\Delta }_n\delta _{nm}`$ and $`G_{nm}^{\alpha \beta }`$ is corresponding retarded Green’s function ($`GF`$).

As usual, selfconsistency is assured by the relation:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=U_n{\displaystyle \underset{k_y}{}}c_n(k_y)c_n(k_y)=`$
$`U_n{\displaystyle \underset{ky}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}G_{nn}^{12}(\omega ,k_y)f(\omega )}`$ (3)
where $`f(\omega )`$ is the Fermi distribution function. Moreover, the $`FM`$ order parameter is given by

$`m_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n_nn_n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{ky}{}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \mathrm{Im}(G_{nn}^{11}(\omega ,k_y)G_{nn}^{33}(\omega ,k_y))f(\omega )}`$ (4)
Since our model includes a vector potential the solution of Eq.2 will imply a current. For spin up electrons, in the $`y`$-direction this can be calculated from the relation:

$`J_{y()}(n)=2et{\displaystyle \underset{k_y}{}}sin(k_yeA_y(n))\times `$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}G_{nn}^{11(33)}(\omega ,k_y)f(\omega )}`$ (5)
which follows from the continuity equation for the charge.

Finally, the above current will give rise to a vector potential $`A_{new}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ which will have to be used to update $`A(\stackrel{}{r})`$ in Eq.2 at the end of each selfconsistency cycle. We calulated this new vector potential by solving numerically Ampere’s law, $`\frac{d^2A_y(x)}{dx^2}=4\pi J_y(x)`$, which for the lattice problem at hand, is

$`A_y(n+1)2A_y(n)+A_y(n1)=4\pi J_y(n)`$ (6)
We have solved Eqs.3-6 using an appropriately simplified ‘principal layers method’ Turek  which we shall describe elswhere KGA . The rest of this letter is a brief summary of our resuls.

Firstly, since we determined the order parameters, $`\chi _n`$ and $`m_n`$, on both sides of the inerface fully self-consistently, we were able to study both a superconducting and a magnetic proximity effects. Although $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=0`$ on the ferromagnetic side, due to the fact that $`U=0`$, the pairing amplitude $`\chi _n=c_nc_n`$ does not have to be, and indeed it turns out not to be, zero. Given the well understood effect of the exchange field in a bulk superconductor LarkinOvchinnikov ; FuldeFerrell  it is not all together surprising that we find that on entering into the ferromagnet $`\chi _n`$ oscillates as a function of the distance from the interface. In fact our numerical results fit the analytic formula $`\chi (x)sin(x/\xi _F)/(x/\xi _F)`$, where $`\xi _F=t/E_{ex}`$ is the ferromagnetic coherence length, and hence are fully consisitent with those of Ref.Demler ; Vecino ; Halterman ; Bagrets . As it is well known at a $`NM`$/$`SC`$ inerface $`\chi _n`$ decays exponentially in the normal region with the decay length $`\xi _S`$. Thus, although the supercoducting coherence length $`\xi _S>>\xi _F`$ due to the functional form, polynomial as opposed to exponential, of the decay $`\chi _n`$ enters more deeply into the ferromagnet then into the normal metal. An other novelty of the $`FM`$/$`SC`$ interface, when compared with its well studied $`NM`$/$`SC`$ counterpart, is the entry of magnetism into the superconductor. We find that the spin polarization does not oscillate but decays monotonically on a length scale of order of the $`\xi _F`$.

As shown in Fig.2, somewhat suprisingly, $`m_n`$ oscillates on the ferromagnetic side but dacays exponentially on the superconducting side of our hybrid structure. This behavior is in full agreement with the results of Demler et al. Demler .

Of course, the most remarkable feature of the above solution is that the iterations of the $`SPHFG`$ equations frequently converge to a finite value of the current $`j_y(n)`$ even though the external vector potential is zero. We have checked that the exsistence of such spontaneous current lowers the energy of the system. As shown in Fig.3, it flows in the positive $`y`$ direction on the ferromagnetic side, and in negative in the superconductor and sums, reassuringly, to zero over all layers. We have also found numerically, that there is a magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, being the flux quantum, associated with this current distribution.

To shed light on the origin of the above spontaneous current, in Fig.3, we also show the layer resolved density of states, namely the spectral function $`\rho _n(\epsilon _F)=\frac{1}{\pi }_{k_y}\mathrm{Im}(G_{nn}^{11}(\epsilon _F,k_y)+G_{nn}^{33}(\epsilon _F,k_y))`$, at the Fermi energy $`\epsilon _F`$. Clearly, the oscillations of the layer resolved current tracks those of the density of states. Further insight follows if we compare this with the corresponing quantity, denoted by $`\rho _n^0(\epsilon _F)`$ and represented by the dot line, in the case where the exchange spliting, $`E_{ex}`$, is set equal to zero. Since the rise and fall of $`\rho _n^0(\epsilon _F)`$ across the ferromagnetic layer can be readily inetrpreted as the order parameter amplitude of an Andreev bound state, corresponding to the semiclassical path depicted in the inset of the Fig.2, we can regard $`\chi _n`$ in Fig.2 and $`\rho _n(\epsilon _F)`$ in Fig.3 as an indication that a similar bound state is formed in the much more complicated case of finite exchange field. In fact we can indentify such $`FFLO`$-Andreev bound states as peaks in the full quasiparticle density of states for the ferromagnetic layers. As might be expected these are exchange split and move around as a function of the exchange field $`E_{ex}`$. Investigating the correlation between such bound states and the current carrying capacity of a solution we find that in the ground state a current flows only when the energy of one of the $`FFLO`$-Andreev bound state is near the Fermi energy. Furthermore, in the presence of the current, this state splits, thus lowering the total energy of the system. An example of such zero energy bound state is depicted in the inset of the Fig.3.

Zero energy Andeev bound states in $`SC`$/$`NM`$/$`SC`$ juctions usually lead to a so called $`\pi `$-states of the two superconductor in which the phases of their order parameters differ by $`\pi `$. Recently, Chtchelkatchev et al. Chtchelkatchev  suggested that the same is true for a $`SC`$/$`FM`$/$`SC`$ junction in the presence of fully developed $`FFLO`$ phenomena. Interestingly, although the structure we have been studying has only one superconducting region it turns out to display properties analougous to those of such $`\pi `$-junctions. To see these we studied the order parameter $`\chi _9`$ at the surface of the ferromagnetic layer opposite to the superconductor. Since $`\chi _n`$ is negative in superconductor when $`\chi _9`$ is positive we may describe the system as being in a $`\pi `$-state. In Fig.4 we display our results for $`\chi _9`$ as a function of the dimensionless exchange field $`\mathrm{\Theta }=3dE_{ex}/\pi t`$ ($`d`$ is the number of $`FM`$ layers).

Evidently, there are regions of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ for which the sytem can be said to be in $`\pi `$-state, in close agreement with the analougous results of Chtchelkatchev et al. Chtchelkatchev .

Remarkably, the states with spontaneous currents correspond to regions of the exchange field $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ where the order parameter $`\chi _9`$ is near zero. As can be easily read off from these plots, in these regions the presence or absence of the currents have a dramatic effect on the order parameter. Evidently, the spontaneous current pins the order parameter on the non-superconducting side of the ferromagnetic layer ($`\chi _9`$) to zero. This appears to stablise the zero energy $`FFLO`$-Andreev bound state. Given their physical origin one might expect the above sponteneous currents to be spin polarised. This is indeed the case. In fact, we find that the degree of spin polarization is largely detemined by the difference in the spin up and spin down densities of state at the Fermi energy: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _n=\rho _n(\epsilon _F)\rho _n(\epsilon _F)`$. In the above calculations we have assumed a half filled band, that is to say particle hole symetry, and hence we have found no difference between the spin up and spin down currents. However, further calculations, away from particle hole symetry, revealed much larger spin polarizations. An example of this is reported in Fig.5.

In summary, we have demonstrated that zero energy Andreev bound states in ferromagnetic layers deposited on a superconducting substrate will carry currents in the ground state of such a hybrid structure. Moreover, we found that such states will form only in certain regions of the exchange field $`E_{ex}`$ and layer thicknes $`d`$ phase diagram. In particular, we investigated the cases $`0<E_{ex}/t<3`$, $`0<d<20`$. Finally we found that the spin polarization of the current is closely related to the difference in the spin up and spin down density of states at the Fermi level.

This work has been supported by Computational Magnetoelectronics Research Training Network under Contract No. HPRN-CT-2000-00143.


text:
# Fluctuation Effects in Underdoped Cuprate Superconductors under Magnetic Field

## Abstract

Fluctuation effects in underdoped cuprates under high fields are examined by trying to fit theoretical results to resistivity and Nernst data in vortex states. The superconducting (SC) fluctuation in underdoped cuprates includes not only the ordinary thermal contribution but also a large amount of quantum dynamical contributions. Together with this, the presence of a SC pseudogap region $`T_0T_{c0}`$ increasing with underdoping is found to be the origin of the Nernst coefficient becoming anomalously smaller and the in-plane coherence length apparently increasing with underdoping.

It has been well understood that the field-induced fan-shaped broadenings of curves of resistivity and thermodynamic quantities, typically seen in optimally (hole-)doped high $`T_{c0}`$ cuprate superconductors (HTS), are thermal superconducting (SC) fluctuation phenomena mainly in the vortex liquid region of the normal phase below the zero field ($`H=0`$) transition point $`T_{c0}`$ RI1 . In applied magnetic fields of tesla range perpendicular to the SC planes, the in-plane resistivity and other physical quantities in these materials show familiar behaviors Welp ; Huebener  correlated with one another. For instance, the onset temperature of fluctuation effects suggested from resistive data is almost the same as the corresponding one of thermodynamic and thermomagnetic data. This familiar correlation is typically seen in much lower fields than $`H_{c2}(0)`$, where the fluctuation is purely thermal Welp , and the quantum fluctuation contribution is negligible.

In contrast, the resistivity in other HTSs with lower $`T_{c0}`$ often behaves in an uncorrelated manner with thermodynamic quantities. Typically, as the applied field is higher, resistivity data in electron-doped HTSs and some of over (hole-)doped materials show not the fan-shaped RI1  but a flat curve Mac1 ; Naito  following the in-plane normal resistivity $`\rho _n(T)=(\sigma _n(T))^1`$ curve until a vortex-glass (VG) transition field, lying much below Naito ; Mac2  an effective $`H_{c2}(T)`$ determined thermodynamically, is approached from above. In over (hole)-doped materials with high $`\sigma _n`$-value ($`10^2(R_qs)^1`$ Mac1 ), such an absence of correlation is not surprising because the fluctuation conductivity $`\sigma _f`$ is negligible compared with $`\sigma _n`$ in the total conductivity $`\sigma =\sigma _n+\sigma _f`$ over a wide temperature range, where $`R_q=6.45(\mathrm{k}\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is resistance quantum, and $`s10(\mathrm{A})`$ is a typical size of the spacing between SC layers. However, the corresponding uncorrelated behavior seen in the electron-doped materials Naito  with $`\sigma _n`$ of the same order as in the optimally doped YBCO Huebener  is intrinsic, and its origin needs to be attributed to a fluctuation property. Similar behaviors have been also found in overdoped La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO$`x`$) Wang  and $`\kappa `$-(ET)2 organic superconductors Ito ; Sasaki . As argued elsewhere RILT23  by fitting to data Sasaki , the main origin is expected to consist in the quantum dynamical nature, enhanced with increasing the field, of the SC fluctuation. In general, $`\sigma _f`$ defined in a Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory decreases RI2  as the SC fluctuation is dominated not by the thermal but rather by a quantum dynamical fluctuation. Such an absence of correlation in the quantum regime near $`T=0`$ between the resistivity and the magnetization had been predicted in Ref.11.

Recent data of resistivity and Nernst coefficient in underdoped cuprates Capan ; Wang  have also shown similar high field behaviors suggesting a large quantum fluctuation effect. The 2D field-tuned superconductor-insulator transition (FSIT) behavior, seen in resistance data in strongly underdoped cases Capan ; Seidler ; Karpinska , cannot occur without the quantum nature of SC fluctuation RI2 ; RI3 , and, as the SC fluctuation is enhanced, the quantum contribution to the fluctuation dominates over the thermal one. Hence, it is natural to expect the SC fluctuation effect to be stronger with underdoping. However, a sharp drop of resistivity in high fields, which often appears even in underdoped materials, was regarded as a mean field -like behavior in the literature Karpinska ; Gant . Further, the resistance data in the pseudogap regime suggest an in-plane coherence length increasing Ando  with underdoping.

In this paper, we try to improve understanding on SC fluctuation properties in underdoped cuprates within the GL theory and argue that, together with a quantum fluctuation, a large width $`T_0T_{c0}`$ of a SC pseudogap region is a key factor for consistently explaining the conflicting observations in underdoped cuprates, where $`T_0`$ is the mean field SC transition temperature in $`H=0`$. We start with the 2D GL action expressed in terms of a single component pair-field $`\psi (𝐫,\tau )`$

$`S={\displaystyle _𝐫}[\beta {\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}(\psi _\omega (𝐫))^{}\gamma (𝐐^2)|\omega |\psi _\omega (𝐫)`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle _0^\beta }d\tau ((\psi (𝐫,\tau ))^{}\mu (𝐐^2)\psi (𝐫,\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}|\psi (𝐫,\tau )|^4)]`$
($`\mathrm{}`$, $`k_B=1`$), where $`\psi (\tau )=_\omega \psi _\omega e^{i\omega \tau }`$, $`\beta `$ the inverse temperature, $`\tau `$ the imaginary time, and $`b>0`$. The 3D nature due to the coupling between SC planes will be included later in considering a VG fluctuation divergent at $`T=T_g`$. When the GL approach is applied to the low $`T`$ and high $`H`$ region, $`H`$-dependences of the coefficients $`\gamma `$, $`\mu `$, and $`b`$ need to be taken into account since the familiar low $`T`$ divergences of these coefficients in $`H=0`$ clean limit are cut off by the orbital depairing effect of the magnetic field (For simplicity, the Pauli paramagnetic depairing effect becoming important in stronger fields will be neglected together with a particle-hole assymmetric dynamical term leading to a fluctuation Hall effect). In fact, the coefficients $`\gamma `$ and $`\mu `$ are functionals of the gauge-invariant gradient $`𝐐=\mathrm{i}+2\pi 𝐀/\varphi _0`$ and, once $`\psi `$ is decomposed into the Landau levels (LLs), are replaced by the coefficients $`\gamma _n`$ and $`\mu _n`$ dependent on the LL-index $`n`$. Hereafter, the familiar clean limit Lee  will be invoked to describe these coefficients in a form reasonable even in low $`T`$ and high $`H`$. Then, $`\gamma _n`$ and $`\mu _n`$ are given by

$`\gamma _n={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\mathrm{sinh}(s)}}\mathrm{L}_n(u_c^2s^2)e^{(u_cs)^2/2},`$ (2)
$`\mu _n=\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_0}}\right)+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{L}_n(u_c^2s^2)e^{(u_cs)^2/2}}{\mathrm{sinh}(s)}},`$
respectively, where $`u_c=T_0\sqrt{H/(2H_0e^\gamma )}/T`$, $`H_0`$ the $`T=0`$ value of the mean field upper critical field $`H_0(T)`$ measuring the in-plane coherence length, $`\mathrm{L}_n(x)`$ is the $`n`$-th order Laguerre polynomial, and $`\gamma =0.5771`$ is the Euler constant. Although, in the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-pairing, cross terms between the lowest LL and the $`n=4m`$ ($`m1`$) higher LLs arise in the quadratic terms of eq.(1), they can be safely neglected in situations of our interest where the lowest LL mode is dominant. The time scales $`\gamma _{2m+1}`$ vanish at low $`T`$ limit and are highly sensitive to $`T`$ and $`H`$ in contrast to $`\gamma _0`$ which takes values close to 0.3 in the field and temperature ranges we have examined. Other material and doping dependences will be assumed to be included in the coefficient $`b`$ from which, in low $`H`$ limit, the $`T=0`$ magnetic penetration depth $`\lambda (0)`$ is defined. For instance, (if any) effects of other competing order parameter fluctuations Fradkin  may be seen as having been integrated out and absorbed into $`b`$. Further, a numerical computation of $`b`$ consistent with eqs.(2) suggests that its $`H`$ and $`T`$ dependences are similar to those of $`\gamma _0`$. For these reasons, $`b`$ will be treated as one of fitting parameters independent of $`H`$ and $`T`$.

To renormalize the $`\psi `$-fluctuation, the lowest LL approximation will be used. Following previous works RI1 ; RI2 , the renormalized mass parameter $`𝒢_0(0)`$ defined through the propagator $`𝒢_0(\omega )=<|\phi _0(\omega )|^2>=(\gamma _0|\omega |+(𝒢_0(0))^1)^1`$ for the lowest LL fluctuation field $`\phi _0`$ is written as

$$𝒢_0(0)=1/(\mu _0+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{h}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_0+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{l}).$$
(3)
The main roles of $`\mu _0`$-renormalization are played by the Hartree term $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$, which is expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2\lambda ^2(0)}{\varphi _0^2s\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{H_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}𝒢_0(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi \lambda ^2(0)}{\varphi _0^2s\gamma _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{H_0}}`$ (4)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{ϵ_c}}dϵ\mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ϵ}{2\gamma _0}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{ϵ^2+(𝒢_0(0))^2}},`$
where the cutoff $`ϵ_c`$ is a constant of order unity, and the coefficient $`b`$ was replaced with the familiar GL expression RI1  $`16\pi ^2\lambda (0)^2/(\varphi _0H_0)`$. Although other renormalization (correction) term $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_l`$ within the lowest LL (see, for instance, eq.(2.11) of Ref.11) should be included, it is not essential to our semiquantitative comparison with the data and may be dropped hereafter. The term $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_h`$ expressing a sum of higher LL contributions is insensitive to $`H`$ at least in $`HH_0`$ and can be regarded as contributing to a shift of $`H=0`$ transition temperature in $`\mu _0`$. Then, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_h`$ may be written as $`\mathrm{ln}(T_0/T_{c0})`$ RI4 , and the effective upper critical field $`H_{c2}^{}(T)`$, defined consistently with $`T_{c0}`$, is determined in the clean limit by $`\mu _0+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_h=0`$ and takes the form

$$H_{c2}^{}(T)=H_0\left(\frac{T_{c0}}{T_0}\right)^2\mathrm{\Phi }(t),$$
(5)
while $`H_0(T)=H_0\mathrm{\Phi }(T/T_0)`$, where $`t=T/T_{c0}`$, and the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1)=0`$. If $`1T_{c0}/T_01`$, as in optimally doped YBCO RI1 , the presence of the parameter $`(T_{c0}/T_0)^2`$ is unimportant in eq.(5), and physical properties below $`T_{c0}`$ may be described without distinguishing $`T_{c0}`$ from $`T_0`$. However, in cases with a large $`T_0/T_{c0}`$, this parameter significantly affects fluctuation phenomena in nonzero fields.

Now, let us consider transport quantities. Although, in addition to the lowest LL mode, the $`n=1`$ LL mode and the in-plane electric current (EC) vertices need to be examined to obtain $`\sigma _f`$ and the transport entropy $`s_\varphi `$, microscopic consideration on $`\sigma _f`$ can be avoided as follows. As shown previously RI3 , the mean field vortex flow property requires that, irrespective of microscopic details, the $`n=1`$ renormalized mass parameter $`𝒢_1(0)`$ below $`H_{c2}^{}(T)`$ should be given by a factor accompanying the EC vertex. On the other hand, since $`𝒢_1(0)`$ below $`H_{c2}^{}(T)`$ is well approximated by $`(\mu _1\mu _0)^1`$ RI4  insensitive to $`T`$ at low $`T`$, the EC vertex is found without microscopic calculations. Then, $`\sigma _f`$ calculated in terms of the Kubo formula consistently with eq.(3) is RI2

$`sR_q\sigma _f={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{2(𝒢_1(0))^2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}[𝒢_0(\omega )𝒢_1(\omega )(𝒢_0(\omega )`$ (6)
$`+g𝒢_1(\omega )){\displaystyle \frac{(𝒢_0(\omega ))^2+g^2(𝒢_1(\omega ))^2}{(𝒢_1(0))^1+g(𝒢_0(0))^1}}],`$
where $`g=\gamma _1/\gamma _0`$, and $`𝒢_1(\omega )=(\gamma _1|\omega |+(𝒢_1(0))^1)^1`$. It is easily seen that, in the quantum ($`T0`$) limit, eq.(6) vanishes RI2  and that, in the opposite thermal limit with no $`\omega 0`$ terms, eq.(6) is independent of $`𝒢_1(0)`$ due to the relation $`g𝒢_1(0)𝒢_0(0)`$. Further, we numerically verified that, even if the $`\omega 0`$ terms are included, this cancellation on $`𝒢_1(0)`$ works extremely well particularly in higher $`H`$.

On the other hand, $`s_\varphi `$ is, by definition Dorsey , proportional to the heat current vertex, which may have a strong $`T/T_0`$ dependence of electronic origins. For brevity, we use hereafter the GL expression Dorsey  of the heat current and will not consider the very low $`T/T_0`$ region in which $`s_\varphi `$ decreases Maki  upon cooling independently of $`\sigma `$ (see the figures). Consistently with eq.(6), $`s_\varphi `$ is obtained in terms of a Kubo formula and, using $`g𝒢_1(0)𝒢_0(0)`$, is simplified as

$$s_\varphi \frac{H}{H_0s𝒢_1(0)}\underset{\omega }{}𝒢_1(\omega )𝒢_0(\omega )\frac{\varphi _0^2}{16\pi ^2\lambda ^2(0)T}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,$$
(7)
where the factor $`(𝒢_1(0))^1`$ is carried by an ET vertex. Namely, in the lowest LL approximation, $`s_\varphi `$ in the GL region is proportional to the fluctuation entropy even in the quantum case, and the mean field result $`\varphi _0^2\beta (1T/T_{c0})/(16\pi ^2\lambda ^2(0))`$ is recovered when both $`H`$ and $`T`$ are lowered enough .

We have tried to fit theoretical curves following from eqs.(6) and (7) to the resistivity $`\rho `$ and Nernst signal data in LSCOx samples with $`x=0.06`$ Capan2  and $`0.08`$ Capan , and the results are given in Figs.1 and 2, respectively, where the Nernst coefficient $`N=\rho s_\varphi /\varphi _0`$. The used values of material parameters are shown in the figure captions. Since, by definition, our $`T_{c0}`$ in 2D corresponds to a (amplitude-) fluctuation-corrected BCS critical temperature denoted in Ref.HN  as $`T_c^0`$, $`T_{c0}`$ was identified in the figures with the onset of a remarkable resistivity drop in $`H=0`$. The normal conductivity $`\sigma _n`$ is assumed to take the empirical form $`\mathrm{const}./\mathrm{ln}(T_p/T)`$ Boeb  with $`T_pT_{c0}`$. Regarding the VG fluctuation term $`\sigma _{vg}`$, added to $`\sigma `$ for describing the low $`T`$ tails of $`\rho `$-curves, a 3D form $`\sigma _{vg}=0.01(R_qs)^1\gamma _0T_{c0}/(tt_g)^4`$ was assumed in Fig.2 with $`t_gT_g/T_{c0}=0.125`$ ($`0.016`$) for 12 (26) (T), while a 2D form RI3  used in analyzing the FSIT behaviors in the $`s`$-wave pairing case was applied in Fig.1 by assuming a vortex pinning strength as a fitting parameter independent of $`\lambda (0)`$. Details of such an analysis of FSIT behaviors will be explained elsewhere RILT23 . We simply note here that the detailed forms of $`\sigma _{vg}`$ are inessential to our main conclusion given below. For instance, the flat $`\rho `$-curves near 4(T) in Fig.1 are created mainly by a quantum behavior RI2  eq.(6) shows, and $`\sigma _{vg}`$ contribution was quantitatively negligible there.

Although there is a slight disagreement in $`T`$-dependences of $`N`$ between the data and theoretical curves, we feel that the fitting to the data is satisfactory when taking account of the use of our simplified model with a reduced number of fitting parameters. The figures show an enhancement of quantum SC fluctuation accompanying the underdoping. In Fig.2, $`H_{c2}^{}(0)`$ is close to 26 (T), while $`H_{c2}^{}(4(\mathrm{K}))8`$ (T) and $`H_{c2}^{}(7(\mathrm{K}))6`$ (T) in Fig.1 so that the resistance may show an insulating behavior even below $`H_{c2}^{}(T)`$. Further, the fitting results imply the following doping dependences of material parameters. First, $`\lambda (0)`$ significantly increases with underdoping and, in $`x=0.06`$ case, is longer than 1($`\mu `$m). Judging from the LSCO data Pana , the $`\lambda (0)`$-values used in the figures are not unreasonable. Secondly, through the doping dependence of $`H_0`$, the in-plane coherence length decreases with underdoping in contrast to the experimental estimation Ando . Further, the SC pseudogap region measured by $`T_0T_{c0}`$ was assumed to become wider with underdoping. It is unclear whether the obtained $`T_0`$-value should be quantitatively compared with, for instance, the onset temperature $`T_\nu `$ Wang2  of Nernst effect. Actually, the $`T_0=96`$(K) in Fig.2 was estimated from the data for larger $`H/H_0`$ values than in Fig.1, and its actual value may be slightly higher. Thus, a doping dependence of $`T_0`$ suggested through the figures does not necessarily contradict $`T_\nu `$ in LSCO Wang2  decreasing with underdoping in $`x0.1`$.

It is important to notice that the $`\sigma _f`$-expression of eq.(6) is invariant under the replacement of parameters, $`\lambda (0)\lambda (0)T_{c0}/T_0`$, $`H_0H_{c2}^{}(0)`$, and $`T_0/T_{c0}1`$. Namely, the presence of a large SC pseudogap is not uncovered by examining only magnetoresistance data, and a neglect of SC pseudogap region would lead to a much shorter penetration depth and an in-plane coherence length growing Ando  with underdoping. More importantly, as a result of the much shorter penetration depths, the assumption $`T_0=T_{c0}`$ leads to $`N`$-values in $`x=0.08`$ case which are one order of magnitude larger than the data in Fig.2 and to $`N`$-values in $`x=0.06`$ case which are two order of magnitude larger than in Fig.1 ! It is quite difficult to resolve such a serious discrepancy, for instance, simply by improving the prefactor of the heat current. This result, requiring a $`T_0T_{c0}`$ increasing with underdoping, agrees with the opinion that $`T_\nu `$, much higher than $`T_{c0}`$, is essentially identical with the mean field SC transition point $`T_0`$ or $`H_0(T)`$.

Recently, Wang et al. Wang  have argued that a field $`H^{}`$ at which Nernst coefficient reaches its maximum arises, in their overdoped LSCO, from a simultaneous sharp drop of $`\rho `$ related to an effectively longer vortex core size. From Fig.1, such a mean field argument on the sharp drop of $`\rho `$ is generally invalid, since a picture based on an anomalous feature near the vortex cores would become more applicable with underdoping, while a comparison between the $`\rho `$ and $`N`$-data in high fields in Fig.1 clearly shows that the decrease of $`N`$ at lower temperatures is due not to $`\rho `$ but to $`s_\varphi `$. As mentioned in Introduction, a sharp drop of $`\rho `$ much below $`H_{c2}^{}(T)`$ ($`H_0(T)`$) occurs even in organic materials Sasaki ; RILT23  and is due not to a mechanism peculiar to the cuprates but to a 3D VG transition in systems with a large quantum SC fluctuation.

In conclusion, the resistance and Nernst data in underdoped LSCO were consistently explained to clarify the doping dependences of fluctuation effect and of SC parameters. The in-plane coherence length was argued to decrease with underdoping. To explain those transport data consistently, microscopic details near the vortex cores are not necessary, and taking account of the quantum SC fluctuation and a SC pseudogap region $`T_0T_{c0}`$, both of which are enhanced with underdoping, is indispensable.

The author thanks C. Capan and W. Lang for sending him their unpublished data and for useful discussions.