text:
# Glassy Random Matrix Models

## 1 Introduction

Matrix models are known to be of importance in many diverse areas, for example, in quantum chaos, disordered condensed matter systems, two-dimensional quantum gravity, quantum chromodynamics and strings. In the context of the one-matrix models, the models that have been studied correspond to an eigenvalue distribution on a single-cut in the complex plane where the eigenvalue density is non-zero . An obvious generalization is to study a matrix model with a more complicated eigenvalue structure. Here I study a class of models with a single hermitian matrix but with two cuts for the eigenvalue density and point out some unusual features of these models different from the single-cut matrix models. One of the important differences observed in these models is that they have multiple solutions whose effect appears in certain correlation functions. This work suggests the possibility that these multiple solutions may be glassy and hence these models may be useful in describing certain real disordered glassy systems ref. .

I study here the matrix model with a double-well potential as well as the Gaussian Penner model where similar results are obtained ref. . In both cases the potential is symmetric about the origin. In addition to the usual symmetric solutions I discuss the symmetry breaking solutions. I study these solutions in the large $`N`$ limit and then at the non-perturbative level. I also calculate the two-point density-density correlators using orthogonal polynomial methods and methods of steepest descent which strengthens the above observations and classifies the models in a new universality class .

## 2 Notations and Conventions

Let $`M`$ be a $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrix. The partition function to be considered is $`Z=𝑑Me^{NTrV(M)}`$. The Haar measure is given by $`dM=_{i=1}^NdM_{ii}_{i<j}dM_{ij}^{(1)}dM_{ij}^{(2)}`$ where $`M_{ij}=M_{ij}^{(1)}+iM_{ij}^{(2)}`$; there are $`N^2`$ independent variables. $`V(M)`$ is a polynomial in $`M`$: $`V(M)=g_1M+(g_2/2)M^2+(g_3/3)M^3+(g_4/4)M^4+\mathrm{}`$ . $`TrV(M)`$ and the measure $`dM`$ are invariant under the change of variables $`MM^{}=UMU^{}`$ where $`U`$ is a unitary matrix. We can use this invariance to express $`Z`$ as an integral over the eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _N`$ of $`M`$. Writing $`M=UD^{}U^{}`$ where $`D^{}=diag(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{}..\lambda _N)`$, the partition function becomes $`Z=𝑑U_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{i=1}^Nd\lambda _i\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )^2e^{N_{i=1}^NV(\lambda _i)}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )=_{i<j}|\lambda _i\lambda _j|`$ is the Vandermonde determinant arising from the change of variables. The integration $`dU`$ is trivial because the integrand is independent of $`U`$ due to the invariance, and gives a constant factor. By exponentiating the determinant one arrives at the Dyson Gas or Coulomb Gas picture. Thus the partition function is $`Z=C_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{i=1}^Nd\lambda _ie^{S(\lambda )}`$ where $`S(\lambda )=N_{i=1}^NV(\lambda _i)2_{ij}ln|\lambda _i\lambda _j|`$, and $`C`$ is a constant.

This is a system of $`N`$ particles with coordinates $`\lambda _i`$ on the real line, confined by the potential $`V`$ and repelling each other with a logarithmic repulsion. The spectrum or the density of eigenvalues $`\rho (x)=\frac{1}{N}_{i=1}^N\delta (x\lambda _i)`$ is, in the large N limit, just the Wigner semi-circle for a quadratic potential. The physical picture is that the eigenvalues try to be at the bottom of the well. But it costs energy to sit on top of each other because of logarithmic repulsion, so they spread. $`\rho `$ has support on a finite line segment. This continues to be true whether the potential is quadratic or a more general polynomial and only depends on there being a single well though the shape of the Wigner semi-circle is correspondingly modified. For the quadratic potential $`V(x)=\frac{\mu }{2}x^2`$ the density is $`\rho (x)=\frac{1}{\pi }\sqrt{(x^2a^2)}`$ where $`x[a,a]`$, and $`\rho (x)=0`$ elsewhere. The region $`[a,a]`$ is said to be the ‘cut’ where $`\rho `$ has support. The end of the cut is given by $`a=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\mu }}`$. See Fig. 1.

On changing the potential more drastically by having two wells the density can get a support on two disconnected segments ref. . The simplest example is the potential $`V(M)=\frac{\mu }{2}M^2+\frac{g}{4}M^4`$ with $`\mu <0,g>0`$. When the wells are sufficiently deep, specifically, when $`|\mu |>2\sqrt{g}`$, the density of eigenvalues is given by

$`\rho (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\pi }}x\sqrt{(x^2a^2)(b^2x^2)},axborbxa`$ (2.1)
$`=`$ $`0otherwise`$
where $`a^2=\frac{1}{g}[|\mu |2\sqrt{g}]`$ and $`b^2=\frac{1}{g}[|\mu |+2\sqrt{g}]`$. The eigenvalues sit in symmetric bands centered around each well. Thus $`\rho `$ has support on two line segments. As $`|\mu |`$ approaches $`2\sqrt{g}`$ from below, $`a0`$ and the two bands merge at the origin. For $`\mu >2\sqrt{g}`$, the density is

$`\rho (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{gx^2}{\pi }}\sqrt{x^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{g}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2|\mu |}{g}}}<x<\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2|\mu |}{g}}}`$ (2.2)
$`=`$ $`0otherwise.`$
The phase diagram and density of eigenvalues for this case is shown in Fig. 2.

The simplest way to determine $`\rho (z)`$ explicitly is to use the generating function $`F(z)=\frac{1}{N}Tr\frac{1}{zM}`$. $`F(z)`$ satisfies a Schwinger-Dyson equation whose solution is $`F(z)=\frac{1}{2}[V^{}(z)+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}]`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z)=V^{}(z)^24b(z)`$ and $`b(z)=gz^2+\mu +g\frac{1}{N}TrM^2`$ (see ref. ). The density $`\rho (x)`$ is then determined by the formula $`\rho (z)=\frac{1}{2\pi }Im\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }(z)}`$. In what follows I will outline the recurrence coefficient method of the orthogonal polynomials to establish that there exist multiple solutions which give the same free energy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`F(z)`$ and $`\rho (z)`$ in the large $`N`$ limit but differ at higher orders. Then I give the results for the two-point correlators (also known as the ‘smoothed’ or ‘long range’ correlators); these tend to different limits as $`N`$ is taken to infinity along different sequences (odd or even). This property is similar to that suggested in another model of glasses ref. .

## 3 Orthogonal Polynomial Approach

The partition function $`Z`$ can be rewritten in terms of the orthogonal polynomials $`P_n`$. These are defined as $`P_n=\lambda ^n+C_{n1}^{(n)}\lambda ^{n1}+\mathrm{}+C_1^{(n)}\lambda +C_0^{(n)}`$, where $`C_i^{(n)}`$ are constants, and satisfy the orthogonality conditions $`(P_n,P_m)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda e^{NV(\lambda )}P_n(\lambda )P_m(\lambda )=h_n\delta _{nm}`$ . For example: $`P_0(\lambda )=1`$, $`P_1(\lambda )=\lambda +c_1^{(1)}`$, $`P_2(\lambda )=\lambda ^2+c_1^{(2)}\lambda +c_0^{(2)}\mathrm{}`$. Then the partition function in terms of the orthogonal polynomials is, ref. ,

$$Z=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}d\lambda _ie^{N{\scriptscriptstyle V(\lambda )}}\left|\begin{array}{ccc}P_0(\lambda _1)& \mathrm{}.& P_0(\lambda _N)\\ P_1(\lambda _1)& \mathrm{}.& P_1(\lambda _N)\\ .& & \\ .& & \\ .& & \\ P_{N1}(\lambda _1)& \mathrm{}\mathrm{}& P_{N1}(\lambda _N)\end{array}\right|.$$
(3.3)
$`Z`$ can be expressed in terms of the $`h_n`$’s; $`Z=N!h_0h_1h_2\mathrm{}..h_{N1}.`$ For example: in the $`N=2`$ case, $`Z=𝑑\lambda _1𝑑\lambda _2e^{NV(\lambda _1)NV(\lambda _2)}(P_0(\lambda _1)P_1(\lambda _2)P_0(\lambda _2)P_1(\lambda _1))^2=h_0h_1+h_0h_1=2!h_0h_1.`$

### 3.1 The Recurrence Coefficients

The $`P_n`$ satisfy recurrence relations, ref. ,

$$xP_n=P_{n+1}+S_nP_n+R_nP_{n1}$$
(3.4)
where $`R_n`$ and $`S_n`$ are the recurrence coefficients which depend on the potential. These recurrence coefficients are central to our analysis, since the free energy and all correlation functions can be expressed in terms of them. The reason why the $`P_n`$’s satisfy such a simple recursion equation is that $`xP_nP_{n2}e^{NV(x)}𝑑x=0`$ because $`xP_{n2}`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n1`$ and can be expressed as a superposition of $`P_{n1},P_{n2},\mathrm{}P_0`$. Thus $`P_{n2}`$ and lower order polynomials do not appear on the right hand side of the recurrence relation eq. (3.4). It can be shown that $`h_n=h_{n1}R_n`$. Thus the product $`h_0h_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}h_{N1}=h_0(h_0R_1)(h_0R_1R_2)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}(h_0R_1\mathrm{}R_N)=h_0^NR_1^{N1}R_2^{N2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}R_{N1}`$, hence the free energy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{ln}Z=\mathrm{ln}N!+N\mathrm{ln}h_0+_{n=1}^{N1}(Nn)\mathrm{ln}R_n.`$

To solve for the recurrence coefficients we have three methods based on (i). Integrals, (ii). Recurrence Relations, and (iii). an Effective Potential.

#### 3.1.1 Integrals

The recurrence coefficients can be determined by integrals or moments $`I_n=𝑑xx^ne^{NV(x)}`$ as described below. The $`P_n`$’s can be expressed in terms of $`R_n`$ and $`S_n`$ as $`P_{n+1}=xP_nS_nP_nR_nP_{n1}`$, with $`P_0=1`$, $`P_1=(xS_0)`$ and $`P_2=(xS_1)(xS_0)R_1`$ etc. Consider the equation $`0=(P_0,P_1)=𝑑x(xS_0)e^{NV(x)}`$, this results in an integral equation for the coefficient $`S_0`$ i.e. $`S_0=\frac{1}{h_0}𝑑xxe^{NV(x)}=\frac{I_1}{I_0}.`$ As another example the recurrence coefficient $`R_1`$ can be determined as follows. The integral expression for the recurrence coefficient $`R_1`$ is then found from $`R_1=\frac{h_1}{h_0}`$ where $`h_0=𝑑xe^{NV(x)}=I_0`$ and $`h_1=𝑑xe^{NV(x)}P_1^2(x)=𝑑xe^{NV(x)}(xS_0)^2=𝑑xe^{NV(x)}(x^22xS_0+S_0^2)=I_22I_1S_0+S_0^2`$. Hence $`R_1=\frac{I_2}{I_0}(\frac{I_1}{I_0})^2`$. Similar expressions for all the other recurrence coefficients in terms of integrals can be found.

#### 3.1.2 Recurrence Relations

The recurrence coefficients satisfy recurrence relations that follow from the identities

$$I.𝑑xe^{NV(x)}P_n(x)V^{}(x)P_n(x)=0$$
(3.5)
and

$$II.nh_{n1}=N𝑑xe^{NV(x)}P_n(x)V^{}(x)P_{n1}(x)$$
(3.6)
I follows from the identity $`0=P_n(x)P_n^{}(x)e^{NV(x)}`$ which holds because $`P_n^{}`$, being a linear combination of $`P_{n1}`$ and lower order polynomials, is orthogonal to $`P_n`$. II follows from the identity $`P_n^{}(x)P_{n1}(x)e^{NV(x)}=nh_{n1}`$.

Let us take the following examples:

(a) $`V(x)=\frac{\mu }{2}x^2`$.
For this potential the recurrence relation I is $`0=\mu (P_n,P_{n+1}+S_nP_n+R_nP_{n1})=S_nh_n`$, which implies $`S_n=0`$, while the recurrence relation II is $`nh_{n1}=\mu N(P_n,P_n+S_{n1}P_{n1}+R_{n1}P_{n2})=\mu Nh_n`$ which implies $`\frac{n}{N}=\mu R_n`$. This determines exactly the recurrence coefficients $`S_n=0`$ and $`R_n=\frac{n}{N\mu }`$ for this potential.

(b) $`V(x)=\frac{\mu }{2}x^2+\frac{g}{4}x^4`$.
The recurrence relation I is

$$0=\mu S_n+g[R_{n+1}(S_{n+1}+2S_n)+R_n(2S_n+S_{n1})+S_n^3]$$
(3.7)
while II is

$$\frac{n}{N}=\mu R_n+g(R_{n1}+R_n+R_{n+1})+S_n^2+S_{n1}^2+S_{n1}S_n.$$
(3.8)
Using the initial values for $`R_0=0`$, $`S_0`$ and $`R_1`$ we can determine $`S_1,R_2\mathrm{}`$ using the above recurrence relations for the recurrence coefficients.

For this potential we now consider the two cases corresponding to $`V`$ having one or two wells.

(1) The 1-well case: $`\mu >0`$, $`g>0`$.
It follows that $`S_n=0`$, because all $`I_n`$ are zero for odd $`n`$ whenever $`V(x)`$ is an even function of $`x`$. Then the recurrence relation I is trivially satisfied. The recurrence relation II is

$$\frac{n}{N}=R_n(\mu +g(R_{n+1}+R_n+R_{n1})).$$
(3.9)
Thus $`R_{n+1}=\frac{n}{gNR_n}\frac{\mu }{g}R_nR_{n1}`$. We determine $`R_1=\frac{I_2}{I_0}(\frac{I_1}{I_0})^2`$ by evaluating $`I_2,I_1`$ and $`I_0`$ numerically and evaluate $`R_n`$ for $`n>1`$ using this equation. The result, shown in Fig. 3, suggests that $`R_n`$’s lie on a smooth curve. This curve is analytically determined as follows: For the large $`N`$ limit we set $`\frac{n}{N}=x`$ and make the ansatz that $`R_n`$ is a smooth function of $`x`$ and expand as $`R_n=R(x)+\frac{1}{N}R_1(x)+\frac{1}{N^2}R_2(x)+\mathrm{}`$ . Then to leading order in $`N`$ eq. (3.9) implies that $`x=R(x)[\mu +3gR(x)]`$ which is a quadratic equation in $`R(x)`$ with the solution $`R(x)=\frac{1}{6g}[\mu \pm \sqrt{\mu ^2+12gx}]`$. This fits very well with the numerical evaluation of $`R_n`$ which can be approximated by a smooth curve at large N as shown in Fig. 3.

The generating function for the single well case is given by (see ref. )

$$F(z)=_0^1𝑑x\frac{1}{\sqrt{z^24R(x)}}.$$
(3.10)
On substituting $`R(x)`$ in the above equation for the generating function one gets the same answer as that found by the Schwinger-Dyson equation. Eq. (3.10) yields the expression eq. (2.2) for the density of eigenvalues, with a single cut.

(2). The 2-well case, $`\mu <0`$, $`g>0`$.
Fig. 4 exhibits a numerical result for $`R_n`$ in this region of phase space which shows that the assumption of a single smooth function describing $`R_n`$ is no longer correct. It suggests the following ansatz for $`R_n`$ at large $`N`$:

For $`n\overline{n}`$ ( for some $`\overline{n}`$ to be determined), we have a ‘period-2’ structure:

$`R_n=\{\begin{array}{cc}A_n=A(x)+\frac{1}{N}A_1(x)+\mathrm{}\hfill & forneven\hfill \\ B_n=B(x)+\frac{1}{N}B_1(x)+\mathrm{}\hfill & fornodd,\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.13)
and for $`n>\overline{n}`$, we have a ‘period-1’ structure (as for the one-well case):

$$R_n=R(x)+\frac{1}{N}R_1(x)+\mathrm{}$$
(3.14)
We denote $`\overline{x}=\frac{\overline{n}}{N}`$. Substituting eq. (3.13) into eq. (3.9) and equating equal powers of $`\frac{1}{N}`$ we get, for $`x\overline{x}=\frac{\mu ^2}{4g}`$,

$`A(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g}}[|\mu |\sqrt{\mu ^24gx}],`$
$`B(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g}}[|\mu |+\sqrt{\mu ^24gx}].`$ (3.15)
For $`x\overline{x}`$, substituting eq. (3.14) into eq. (3.9) we get

$`R(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6g}}[\mu +\sqrt{\mu ^2+12gx}].`$ (3.16)
The above analytical result and numerical figure agree very well. Note that $`\overline{x}=1`$ is the equation for the phase boundary between 1-cut and 2-cut phases (see section 2) in the double well region of parameter space. The generating function in terms of the recurrence coefficients for the two well case is ( see ref.  for a derivation )

$`F(z)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\sqrt{(z^2(A(x)+B(x)))^24AB}}},`$ $`\mathrm{if}\overline{x}>1,`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^{\overline{x}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\sqrt{(z^2(A+B))^24AB}}}+{\displaystyle _{\overline{x}}^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{x^24R(x)}}}`$ $`\mathrm{if}\overline{x}<1.`$
When $`\overline{x}>1`$, i.e. in the 2 cut phase, substituting $`A,B`$ from eq. (3.15), $`F(z)=\frac{1}{2}[\mu z+gz^3gz\sqrt{(z^2a^2)(z^2b^2)}]`$ which is the same as obtained by the Schwinger-Dyson equation. This yields the solution eq. (2.1)for the density of eigenvalues. When $`\overline{x}<1`$, eqs. (3.15) and (3.16) leads to the one cut solution eq. (2.2).

#### 3.1.3 Effective potential method for determining recurrence coefficients

Numerically we can evaluate the recurrence coefficient by minimizing an effective potential $`V_{eff}`$ that can be determined from the recurrence relations e.g. for $`V(x)=\sigma x+\frac{\mu }{2}x^2+\frac{g}{2}x^4`$, the recurrence relations are:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}}`$ $`=`$ $`R_n[\mu +g(R_{n+1}+R_n+R_{n1}+S_n^2+S_{n1}^2+S_{n1}S_n)],`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma +\mu S_n+g[R_{n+1}(S_{n+1}+2S_n)+R_n(2S_n+S_{n1})+S_n^3].`$ (3.18)
It is easy to see that if one defines

$`V_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}}lnR_n+\mu R_n`$ (3.19)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}(R_n^2+2R_nR_{n+1})+\sigma S_n+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}S_n^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}S_n^4+gR_n(S_n^2+S_{n1}^2+S_{n1}S_n)\},`$
then the recurrence relations follow by setting $`\frac{V_{eff}}{R_n}=0`$ and $`\frac{V_{eff}}{S_n}=0`$. For $`\sigma =0`$, setting $`S_n0`$ in eq. (3.19) and minimizing with respect to $`R_n`$ yields period 1 or period 2 solutions for $`R_n`$ as shown in figures 3 and 4. However, when $`\sigma 0`$, $`\mu <0,g>0`$, (i.e. $`V(x)`$ has two wells which are asymmetric), then numerical minimization of eq. (3.19) with respect to $`R_n`$ and $`S_n`$ yields a solution of the type displayed in Fig. 5. The figure suggests that the recursion coefficients possibly become chaotic. However, whether they are really chaotic or whether this is only apparently so, requires more detailed numerical work . It would be rather interesting to do this and characterize this chaos and also to understand why the recursion coefficients are so complicated. At any rate, this suggests that it might be interesting to explore solutions of the eq.’s (3.18) for non-zero but small $`\sigma `$, and see whether at $`\sigma =0`$, there are alternate solutions ( other than the one with $`S_n0`$ discussed earlier ). This indeed turns out to be the case. Fig. 6 shows a numerical solution to eq. (3.18) with $`\sigma =0`$, obtained by first obtaining solutions for progressively decreasing nonzero values of $`\sigma `$, and using the solution for a particular value of $`\sigma `$ as an initial condition to get a solution for the next smaller value of $`\sigma `$. As seen in Fig. 6, even at $`\sigma =0`$, we can get a solution with $`S_n0`$ by this procedure. As we show analytically in the next sections, there is a large family of multiple solutions that exist at $`\sigma =0`$. One possible explanation for the apparent chaos in Fig. 5 is that a nontrivial mixing between multiple solutions might be occurring.

## 4 Multiple Solutions In The Symmetric $`M^4`$ Matrix Model

The simplest way to understand the existence of multiple solutions which appear in these models is to consider the following integral

$$S_0=\frac{I_1}{I_0}=\frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xxe^{NV(x)}}{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{NV(x)}}$$
(4.20)
for $`V(x)=\sigma x+\frac{\mu }{2}x^2+\frac{g}{4}x^4`$ with $`\mu <0`$ and $`g>0`$, in the limit $`\sigma 0`$, $`V`$ has a maximum at $`x=0`$ and minimum at $`x=x^\pm =\pm \sqrt{\frac{|\mu |}{g}}`$. The integral $`I_1`$ in eq. (4.20) is zero if we take $`\sigma 0`$, and then take $`N\mathrm{}`$ for then the integrand is an odd function. Hence $`S_0=0`$ for $`\sigma =0`$. However, let us take $`\sigma 0`$ first, evaluate the integral, in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ and then take the limit $`\sigma 0`$. The integral can be evaluated using the saddle point method. Since for $`\sigma 0`$, one of the minimas gives dominant contribution, the result is $`S_0=x^+`$ as $`\sigma 0^{}`$. Thus $`S_0`$ depends upon the order of the limits $`N\mathrm{}`$ and $`\sigma 0`$.

A more precise way of establishing the presence of multiple solutions in these models is by using the recurrence coefficients; the previous sections have built up the tools that will be used here. Let us relax the condition $`S_n=0`$; we will find that this will be interesting. Consider a period two ansatz for both $`R_n`$ and $`S_n`$. Then

$`R_n`$ $``$ $`A_n,S_nC_n,\mathrm{for}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{even},\mathrm{and}`$
$`R_n`$ $``$ $`B_n,S_nD_n,\mathrm{for}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{odd}.`$ (4.21)
As before in the large $`N`$ limit setting $`A_n`$, $`B_n`$, $`C_n`$ and $`D_n`$ to be equal to smooth functions of $`x\frac{n}{N}`$, denoted $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, $`D`$ respectively, one finds that eq.’s (3.18) with $`\sigma =0`$ reduce to

$`nevenx`$ $`=`$ $`A[\mu +g(2B+A+C^2+D^2+CD)]`$
$`noddx`$ $`=`$ $`B[\mu +g(2A+B+C^2+D^2+CD)]`$
$`neven0`$ $`=`$ $`\mu C+g(B(D+2C)+A(D+2C)+C^3)`$
$`nodd0`$ $`=`$ $`\mu D+g(A(C+2D)+B(C+2D)+D^3).`$ (4.22)
There are four equations and four unknows here but after some work we find that there is only three independent equations. The three independent equations are

$`C+D`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`A+B+C^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{g}}`$
$`AB`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{g}}.`$ (4.23)
Thus there is a infinite class of solutions labelled by one function of $`x`$ in the large $`N`$ limit. For example, let us consider the two extreme solutions. (i). The ‘symmetric solution’, characterized by $`CD=0`$. Then eq. (4.23) implies $`C=D=0`$, and $`A(x)`$, $`B(x)`$ are given by eq. (3.13). This is the same solution as discussed in section 3. (ii). The ‘maximally asymmetric solution’ characterized by, $`AB=0`$. Then eq. (4.23) implies $`A=B=R=\sqrt{\frac{x}{g}}`$ and $`C=D=[\frac{|\mu |}{g}\sqrt{\frac{4x}{g}}]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ . The entire infinite class of solutions have the same eigenvalue density and free energy in the large $`N`$ limit. This can be seen by evaluating the generating function which turns out to be

$$F(z)=_0^1𝑑x\frac{2z(C+D)}{\sqrt{(z^2z(C+D)(A+BCD))^24AB}}.$$
(4.24)
Eq. (4.24) contains precisely the same three combinations that are fixed by the recurrence relation eq. (4.23). Therefore independent of which solution is chosen we get the same $`F(z)`$. Since $`F(z)`$ determines $`\rho `$ and the latter determines $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at large $`N`$, this proves that in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ we have an infinite set of solutions of the recurrence relations with the same eigenvalue density and free energy. This demonstrates the presence of multiple solutions from the recurrence coefficient point of view.

## 5 Non-perturbative Solution

The multiple solutions found above show differences at higher powers of $`\frac{1}{N}`$, for example, in the double-scaling limit ref.  which I describe in this section. Let us begin by taking the symmetric solution and proceed by expanding the even, odd recurrence coefficients $`A,B`$ as

$`A_n`$ $`=`$ $`a_0+ϵ(f_e(t)+f_0(t))+ϵ^2(r_e(t)+r_0(t))neven`$
$`B_n`$ $`=`$ $`a_0+ϵ(f_e(t)f_0(t))+ϵ^2(r_e(t)r_0(t))nodd`$ (5.25)
where $`x=\frac{n}{N}=1ϵ^2t`$, $`a_0=\frac{(\mu )}{2g}`$, and $`ϵ=N^{1/3}`$. Then upon equating equal powers of $`ϵ`$, we get $`f_e=r_0=0`$, $`f_0=f(t)`$, $`r_e=\frac{f^2t}{4}`$, where the susceptibility is given by $`\chi \frac{f^2+t}{4}`$. $`f`$ satisfies $`f^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{4}f^3+\frac{1}{2}ft=0`$ the Painleve II equation.

We then take the asymmetric solution with $`AB0`$, $`CD0`$. On making the following expansion

$`C_n`$ $`=`$ $`ϵg(t)+ϵ^2\mathrm{}`$
$`D_n`$ $`=`$ $`ϵg(t)+ϵ^2\mathrm{}`$ (5.26)
we get the following coupled equation ref.  $`f^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{4}f(g^2+f^2)+\frac{1}{2}ft=0`$ and $`g^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{4}g(g^2+f^2)+\frac{1}{2}gt=0.`$ If we make the substitution $`f=r\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, $`g=r\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ where $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ are functions of $`t`$, then $`r`$ satisfies a modified Painleve equation

$$\ddot{r}\frac{1}{4}r^3+\frac{1}{2}tr\frac{l^3}{r^3}=0,r^2\dot{\theta }=l=const.$$
(5.27)
The case $`l=0`$ is the Painleve II equation. The susceptibility $`\chi \frac{f^2+g^2+t}{4}=\frac{r^2+t}{4}`$ and $`\chi \frac{3t}{4}(\frac{1+l^2}{4})t^2+\mathrm{}`$ which is very different from the symmetric case. Thus the multiple solutions show differences at higher order in $`\frac{1}{N}`$.

## 6 Distinguishing multiple solutions: Correlators, Odd and Even N

Multiple solutions are distinguished by certain correlators. Consider the correlator $`TrMTrM_c=TrMTrMTrM^2`$ where $`O=\frac{1}{Z}𝑑Me^{NTrV(M)}O`$. It can be shown  that $`TrMTrM_c=R_N`$. Since $`R_N`$ depends on the choice of the solution, this demonstrates that the multiple solutions under discussion give rise to different correlation functions in general. In particular note that $`R_N=A_N`$ if $`N`$ is even and $`R_N=B_N`$ if $`N`$ is odd. For the ‘symmetric solution’ $`AB`$, hence this correlator changes by $`O(1)`$ as $`N`$ goes from odd to even. However for the maximally asymmetric solution $`A=B`$, hence this correlator remains essentially the same as $`N`$ is changed from odd to even.

Another example of a correlator which distinguishes between the two solutions is

$$TrMTrMTrM_c=R_N(S_{N1}S_N).$$
(6.28)
For the symmetric solution $`S_n=0`$ for all $`n`$, hence this correlator vanishes. For the asymmetric solution $`S_n`$ is period two and the correlator changes sign while going from odd to even $`N`$.

The orthogonal polynomial $`P_n`$ can be thought of as a ‘wavefunction’ of a ‘state’ $`|n`$ in the ‘coordinate basis’, i.e. $`\lambda |n=\frac{P_n(\lambda )}{\sqrt{h_n}}e^{\frac{N}{2}V(\lambda )}`$, where $`|\lambda `$ are eigenstates of the operator $`\widehat{M}`$. The operator $`\widehat{M}`$ is defined in the basis of states $`|n`$ as the matrix

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}S_0& \sqrt{R_1}& 0& \mathrm{}& \\ \sqrt{R_1}& S_1& \sqrt{R_2}& \mathrm{}& \\ 0& \sqrt{R_2}& S_2& \mathrm{}& \end{array}\right],$$
(6.29)
which follows from the recurrence relation satisfied by the orthogonal polynomials eq. (3.9); see ref.  for more details. It can be shown that the density of eigenvalues of this matrix in the large $`N`$ limit is precisely $`\rho (\lambda )`$. It is therefore of interest to calculate the eigenvalues of this matrix. Since the matrix elements are given by the recurrence coefficients we can determine the eigenvalues numerically (see section (3.1)) from a given solution of the recurrence coefficients. The figures show the location of the eigenvalues for the symmetric solution and the maximally asymmetric solution (see Fig. (7)).

For $`N`$ even, half the eigenvalues are in one well and the other half in the other well. While this is true for both solutions the detailed positions are not the same. When $`N`$ is odd, for the maximally asymmetric solution one extra eigenvalue is located in one of the wells (the well it is located in depends on the sign of $`S_0`$). For the symmetric solution this extra eigenvalue is in the center, thus preserving the symmetry between both wells. This seems to suggest that the bulk effect of the two solutions is the same but they differ by one eigenvalue effects.

Further evidence for the effects of multiple solutions comes from correlation functions of the density operator $`\widehat{\rho }(x)=\frac{1}{N}Tr\delta (xM)`$. The explicit expression for the smoothed two-point correlator for a general 2-cut solution, obtained by the method of steepest descent  is

$`4\pi ^2N^2<\widehat{\rho }(\lambda )\widehat{\rho }(\mu )>_c={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\lambda ϵ_\mu }{\beta \sqrt{|\sigma (\lambda )|}\sqrt{|\sigma (\mu )|}}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\lambda )+\sigma (\mu )}{(\lambda \mu )^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{}(\lambda )\sigma ^{}(\mu )}{(\lambda \mu )}}+\lambda ^2+\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}(\lambda +\mu )+2C\right).`$ (6.30)
Here $`\sigma (z)=_{i=1}^4(za_i)`$, $`s=a_1+a_2+a_3+a_4`$, (the support of the eigenvalues consists of the two segments $`[a_1,a_2]`$ and $`[a_3,a_4]`$), $`ϵ_\lambda =+1\mathrm{for}\lambda [a_3,a_4],ϵ_\lambda =1\mathrm{for}\lambda [a_1,a_2]`$ and $`\beta =1,2,4`$ depending on whether $`M`$ the matrix is real orthogonal, hermitian or self-dual quartonian. $`C`$ is an undetermined constant in this method. It turns out that the same correlator can be calculated using other methods, which yield different values of $`C`$. For example in  we obtained an asymptotic form of $`P_n(x)`$ for the symmetric double well potentials for $`n`$ close to $`N`$. Using this form of $`P_n`$ (which corresponds to the ‘symmetric solution’), we found the smoothed $`<\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }>_c`$ given by eq. (6.30), with $`C=(1)^N`$, (the origin of this nontrivial $`N`$ dependence, also observed in , is explained in ). On the other hand in ref. , this correlator was calculated by the loop equation method starting from an asymmetric $`V`$ and taking the limit of a symmetric potential where $`C`$ was found to be $`\frac{1}{2}\{(a^2+b^2)(a+b)^2[\frac{E(k)}{K(k)}]\}`$ where $`E(k)`$ and $`K(k)`$ are complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kind and $`k=\frac{2\sqrt{ab}}{(a+b)}`$. We conjecture that different values of $`C`$ corresond to different solutions of the recurrence coefficients.

In this section, we have shown the multiple solutions discussed in section 4 give rise to different correlation functions. An interesting feature of the solutions is that there is a nontrivial $`N`$ dependence which survives in the large $`N`$ limit. In particular, for the symmetric solution we have shown a difference between odd and even $`N`$ in the thermodynamic limit. This is reminiscent of the behaviour in a model for glasses .

## 7 The connection of random matrix models with a simple model of structural glasses

This section is concerned with building up a connection with the study of structural glasses in the high temperature phase, starting from the work of ref. . The hamiltonian $`H=\frac{1}{n}_{ab}(s^a.s^b)^p`$ corresponds to $`n`$ particles moving in an $`N`$-dimensional space, in the limit $`n,N\mathrm{}`$. The coordinates of the particles are $`s^a=(s_1^a\mathrm{}\mathrm{}s_N^a)`$ and $`a=1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}n`$. In the ‘spherical’ case the particles are constrained to move on the surface $`|s^a|^2=N`$, for all $`a`$. In the ‘Ising’ case they occupy only the vertices of a hypercube $`s_i^a=\pm 1`$.

The corresponding partition function is $`Z=e^{\beta N^2}Tr_{\{s\}}exp[\frac{\beta }{\alpha N}tr(S^{}SS^{}S)]`$ where $`S`$ is the $`N\times n`$ rectangular matrix of elements $`s_i^a`$, and $`Tr_{\{s\}}`$ runs over either the spherical or the Ising measure. Here $`n=\alpha N`$ with $`\alpha 1`$. Using the large $`N`$ equivalence with the global constraint one gets

$$Z_{sph}e^{\beta N^2}𝑑\mu \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}dx_iexp\left(N^2\frac{\beta \mu }{2}\beta E[x]\right)$$
(7.31)
The $`x_i\sqrt{N}`$ are the “diagonal” values of $`S`$ in its canonical form and $`E[x]N_{i=1}^NV(x_i)\frac{1}{2\beta }_{ij}ln|x_i^2x_j^2|`$ where $`x=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ and $`V(x)`$ is given by

$$V(x)=\left(\frac{1}{\alpha }x^4\frac{\mu }{2\alpha }x^2\frac{(\alpha 1)}{\beta }\mathrm{ln}|x|\right).$$
(7.32)
This potential has the form of the generalized Penner model. I show briefly (see ref. ) that a very closely related model that can be exactly solved, the Gaussian Penner model, has 2 cuts and multiple solutions. So the above model which is a variant of the Penner model with two cuts, is also conjectured to have multiple solutions.

The potential for a general Penner model is $`V(M)=V_0(M)t\mathrm{ln}M`$, where $`V_0`$ is a polynomial. If $`V_0(M)=\frac{1}{2}\mu M^2`$ the model is the Gaussian Penner model where we can re-write $`\mathrm{ln}M=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}M^2`$. This has $`Z_2`$ symmetry and the potential is a double well with eigenvalues distributed in disconnected segments. The partition function for the Gaussian Penner model in terms of its eigenvalues $`x_i`$ is

$$Z=dx_iexp[E(x)]$$
(7.33)
where $`E[x]=N_{i=1}^NV(x_i)2_{ij}\mathrm{ln}|x_ix_j|`$

$$V(x)=N\left(\frac{\mu }{2}x^2t\mathrm{ln}|x|\right).$$
(7.34)
This potential is similar to that of eq. (7.32), in that it has a double-well potential involving $`ln|x|`$. I will show explicitly that this has multiple solutions. We consider the situation for $`t>0`$.

The recurrence relations for a general Penner model reduce to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{R_n}n1|V_0^{}(\widehat{M})|nt\sqrt{R_n}n1|\widehat{M}^1n`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`n|V_0^{}(\widehat{M})ntn|\widehat{M}^1|n`$ (7.35)
Denoting $`W_n=\sqrt{R_n}n1|V_0^{}(\widehat{M})n`$ and $`Y_n=n|V_0^{}(\widehat{M})n`$, for the Gaussian Penner model $`W_n=\mu R_n`$ and $`Y_n=\mu S_n`$. We can consider as in section 4, a period-2 ansatz for $`R_n`$ and $`S_n`$ which leads to four equations but again only three independent equations:

$`C+D`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`A+BCD`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2x+t}{\mu }}`$
$`AB`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x(x+t)}{\mu ^2}}.`$ (7.36)
Thus there is an infinite class of solutions labelled by one function of $`x`$ in the large $`N`$ limit. For the ‘symmetric solution’: $`C=D=0`$ and $`A=\frac{x}{\mu },B=\frac{x+t}{\mu }`$ while the maximally asymmetric solution: $`A=B=\frac{1}{\mu }\sqrt{x(x+t)}`$ and $`C^2=\frac{1}{\mu }[(2x+t)2\sqrt{x(x+t)}].`$ Once again eq. (7.36) fixes the same combinations which appear in the generating function of the Gaussian Penner model. Thus in the large $`N`$ limit the eigenvalue density and free energy are identical for the full infinite class of solutions satisfying eq. (7.36).

For the symmetric solution $`n|\widehat{M}^1|n=0`$ by $`Z_2`$ symmetry and $`S_n=0`$, thus eq. (7.35) yields $`R_n=\frac{n}{\mu N}`$ for $`n`$ even and $`R_n=\frac{n}{\mu N}+\frac{t}{\mu }`$ for $`n`$ odd. This is an exact solution, hence the exact free energy may be found to be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_{k=1}^{N/21}k\mathrm{log}[(2k+\mu +1)(2k+\mu 1)],`$ where $`t=1+\frac{\mu }{N}`$. Expanding in powers of $`\mu `$ we get

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{4}\mu ^2\mathrm{log}\mu +\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{log}\mu \mathrm{}.$$
(7.37)
Note that the coefficient of the second term $`\mathrm{log}\mu `$ is $`\chi _1=\frac{1}{12}`$ which corresponds to the first subleading correction in the $`\frac{1}{N}`$ expansion. For the maximally asymmetric solution in the double scaled limit $`R_n\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2(Nn+\mu +3/2))}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2(Nn+\mu +1/2))}`$, and the free energy is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_{k=1}^{N/21}k\mathrm{log}[(2k+\mu +1/2)(2k+\mu 1/2)]+\mathrm{}`$ . On expanding in powers of $`\mu `$ the free energy is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{4}\mu ^2\mathrm{log}\mu \frac{5}{48}\mathrm{log}\mu \mathrm{}$$
(7.38)
The coefficient of the second term is $`\frac{5}{48}`$. Here in the Gaussian Penner model we see that though the symmetric and maximally asymmetric solutions give the same answer in the large $`N`$ limit, the free energies are very different at higher order. This establishes that in the Gaussian Penner model multiple solutions are present which give the same free energy in the large $`N`$ limit but differ at higher orders. As in section 7, certain correlation functions will be different for these solutions since they depend upon the recursion coefficents.

The potential $`V(x)`$ for the glass model discussed in the high temperature region is qualitatively similar to the $`V(x)`$ for the Gaussian Penner model in that both have double wells. This feature is the same for the $`M^4`$ model discussed in earlier sections. Since these later models which have two cuts in their eigenvalue density have been shown to have multiple solutions, it is conjectured here that the glass model described above in the high temperature phase should also have multiple solutions. It would be useful to show this explicitly in the future.

More recent work  suggests that the number of multiple solutions grows exponentially with $`N`$. This gives further support for glassy behavior in these gapped random matrix models.

## 8 Conclusions

To conclude, ample evidence has been provided for the existence of multiple solutions in random matrix models with gaps. First a simple motivation for the presence of multiple solutions is given and then made more precise using the recurrence coefficients of the orthogonal polynomials of the system. Further, numerical evidence is given for the existence of multiple solutions in this context. In the large $`N`$ limit the free energy, generating function and density are the same. Differences between the multiple solutions are seen in the free energy at higher orders in $`\frac{1}{N}`$ as well as in correlation functions.

Connections with the high temperature phase of structural glasses have been made to matrix models . These are a variant of the Penner model with two-cuts. A simpler model, the Gaussian Penner model, with disconnected segments is shown to have these unusual multiple solutions as well. Hence the matrix models with gaps with connections to glass models are likely to have this unusual property. The ruggedness of the landscape needs to be studied. It would be nice to be able to cast these models in the replica framework but this remains a difficult task at this point, as the Hubbard-Stratanovich transformations which are technically needed for the Gaussian random matrix models ref.  are not available here for the simple $`M^4`$ and the Gaussian Penner model or any other gapped random matrix models. This is a future goal in this problem.

## 9 Acknowledgments

I thank E. Brézin, R. C. Brower, C. Dasgupta, S. Jain and C-I Tan for encouragement and collaborations. Thanks to S. Jain for critical reading of the manuscript. I would like to thank the Raman Research Institute, Santa Fe Institute and the Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics for hospitality and facilities where part of this work was done.


format: text

text:
# Spin-injection through an Fe/InAs Interface

## Abstract

The spin-dependence of the interface resistance between ferromagnetic Fe and InAs is calculated from first-principles for specular and disordered (001) interfaces. Because of the symmetry mismatch in the minority-spin channel, the specular interface acts as an efficient spin filter with a transmitted current polarisation between 98 an 89%. The resistance of a specular interface in the diffusive regime is comparable to the resistance of a few microns of bulk InAs. Symmetry-breaking arising from interface disorder reduces the spin asymmetry substantially and we conclude that efficient spin injection from Fe into InAs can only be realized using high quality epitaxial interfaces.

Compared to magnetic multilayers, semiconductor heterostructures can be made with low defect concentrations, resulting in large transport mean-free paths at low temperatures. The large Fermi wavelength of charge carriers in doped semiconductors then leads to finite-size effects and a host of phenomena related to the electron waves maintaining their phase coherence over long distances SSP91 . Current interest in spin-injection into semiconductors is motivated by a desire to combine the control over transport phenomena possible in semiconductors using external gates with the additional spin degree of freedom in ferromagnetic metals which has given rise to such new phenomena as oscillatory exchange coupling, giant magnetoresistance (GMR), and junction (or tunnel) magneto-resistance (JMR or TMR) GMR\_reviews .

While spin-injection from a magnetic semiconductor using optical detection techniques was successfully demonstrated some years ago Fiederling99 ; Ohno99 , spin-injection from a metallic ferromagnet into a semiconductor was only realized very recently Zhu01 . Schmidt et al. Schmidt00  pointed out that a basic obstacle to spin-injection in this case is the large difference in their conductivities; the spin-independent resistivity of a semiconductor such as InAs is much larger than either the majority- or minority-spin resistivity of a ferromagnetic metal (FM) such as Fe. The resistances added in series are dominated by the spin-independent semiconductor term. Schmidt *et al.* did not take into account the possibility of a spin-dependent interface resistance which, if sufficiently large, could generate a spin-dependent potential drop at the interface Rashba00 ; Fert01 .

Qualitative arguments have been given for the existence of such a spin-dependence Kirczenow01  and a number of studies based on free-electron models have appeared Grundler01 ; Hu01 . Transition metal atoms are characterized by five-fold orbitally degenerate $`d`$ states with a large Hund’s rule exchange splitting leading to large spin magnetic moments. In a solid these 10 $`d`$ states form complex band structures and Fermi surfaces. The origin of the spin-dependence of the interface resistance in magnetic multilayers lies in the difference between how the majority- and minority-spin states match to the spin-degenerate electron states in a non-magnetic metal (NM) Schep9598 ; Zahn95 . By expressing the (mis)matching at the FM/NM interface in terms of the reflection and transmission matrices of scattering theory Datta95 , the corresponding resistances can be calculated within the framework of the Landauer-Büttiker transport formalism Schep97 ; Stiles00 ; Xia01 . Because free-electron models do not describe realistically the electronic structure and magnetism of transition metal elements and their interfaces with other materials, we have calculated the spin-dependent transmission for the Fe/InAs(001) system including the full electronic band structures and derive the corresponding interface resistances. We argue that spin-injection should be observable for specular interfaces. However, we also show that introducing disorder into the interface layer greatly reduces the spin asymmetry. We focus on the special case of Fe/InAs because it forms an Ohmic contact. Since there is no Schottky barrier between these two materials, it should be possible to realize much larger currents than for systems such as Fe/GaAs where electrons must tunnel through a Schottky barrier Zhu01 .

To calculate transmission and reflection matrices without introducing arbitrary fitting parameters, we use the local-density approximation (LDA) of density functional theory. The present implementation is based on the surface Green’s function method Turek  formulated for tight-binding linear muffin tin orbitals (TB-LMTO) Andersen85 . Because a minimal basis set is used, we are able to model the disorder with lateral supercells. The calculations were carried out in two stages. First the electronic structure, spin-densities and potentials of Fe/InAs were determined self-consistently using the layered TB-LMTO surface Green’s function method Turek . To take account of the 5% lattice mismatch between the bulk crystal structures ($`a_{\mathrm{Fe}}=2.866`$Å, $`a_{\mathrm{InAs}}=6.058`$Å), we assume Fe to be tetragonal with its in-plane lattice constant matched to that of the cubic InAs substrate. The vertical lattice constant is contracted so that the Fe unit cell volume is the same as for the bulk material. To achieve reasonable space filling for InAs in the atomic spheres approximation Andersen85 , empty spheres were introduced in the interstitial positions in both In and As layers. The correct band gap for InAs (which is found to be metallic in a straightforward LDA calculation) was obtained using a “scissors-operator” correction term. To form an Ohmic contact, the Fermi level was positioned at the bottom of the InAs conduction band by using the CPA approximation to substitute some of the trivalent In with quadrivalent Sn which acts as an electron donor. The atomic potentials were calculated self-consistently for the 4 monolayers of Fe and 6 layers of InAs closest to the interface InAs\_pot . The CPA was also used to determine self-consistent potentials for disordered interfaces Turek . Using these potentials as input, the transmission coefficients $`t_{\mu \nu }^\sigma (𝐤_{||})`$, ($`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ denote the incoming and transmitted Bloch waves, respectively) were calculated in a second step with a recently developed scheme based on the TB-LMTO method Xia01 . To calculate the conductance, a summation must be carried out over the two-dimensional (2D) Brillouin zone (BZ). This was done with a $`𝐤_{}`$ mesh density equivalent to $`6.4\times 10^5`$ mesh points in the 2D BZ of a $`1\times 1`$ interface unit cell.

In Figure 1 the spin-dependent conductances for In- and As-terminated specular ($`𝐤_{||}`$ conserving) interfaces, $`G_\sigma =_{\mu ,\nu ,k_{||}}|t_{\mu \nu }(𝐤_{||})|^2`$, are shown as a function of the position of the Fermi energy ($`E_F`$) above the bottom of the conduction band ($`E_C`$) which is controlled by the doping in an experiment InAs\_pot . For both terminations a large spin-asymmetry is predicted. For $`E_FE_C=0.02\mathrm{eV}`$ (corresponding to a doping concentration of about $`10^{17}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, thus just in the metallic regime) the ratio $`G_{}/G_{}`$ is about 110 for In- and 18 for As-termination and decreases slowly with increasing $`E_FE_C`$. These ratios correspond to current polarisation values (defined as $`G_{}G_{}/G_{}+G_{}`$) of 98 an 89%, respectively.

The large spin-dependence of the Fe/InAs interface scattering can be simply understood by considering the bulk band structures of both materials, shown in Fig. 2 for $`𝐤_{}=0`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ point). We first note that the only states available for transport in InAs are concentrated around the centre of the 2D BZ. The $`𝐤_{}`$-resolved transmission coefficients are therefore non-zero only close to the zone centre. At $`𝐤_{}=0`$, the single occupied InAs conduction band state has $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ symmetry. Comparing the Fe majority- and minority-spin band structure, we immediately notice that only the majority bands have a state with this symmetry at (or close to) the Fermi level. Because the point group of the Fe/InAs(001) interface does not contain a 4-fold rotation axis, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ Fe states can also couple to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ states in InAs. However, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ states consist of localized in-plane $`d_{xy}`$ orbitals so this coupling is expected to be much smaller than between $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ states. Though this symmetry argument is only strictly applicable at $`𝐤_{}=0`$, the majority channel is expected to dominate the conductance. The qualitative predictions are confirmed by the full calculation. For $`E_FE_C=0.1\mathrm{eV}`$, the transmission probability is plotted in Fig. 3 as a function of $`𝐤_{||}`$ for an In-terminated interface. For majority spins, it has a maximum value $`0.64`$ at the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ point. For the minority spins it is a local minimum with a value almost two orders of magnitude smaller.

The above results are only applicable in the ballistic regime where the resistance is dominated by interface scattering. To address the more realistic diffusive regime, we need to determine the interface resistance encountered when a specular interface is embedded in diffusive Fe and InAs. To do this, we use the expression derived by Schep et al. Schep97 :

$$R_{\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{InAs}}=\frac{h}{e^2}\left[\frac{1}{|t_{\mu \nu }|^2}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{𝙵𝚎}}}+\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{InAs}}}\right)\right]$$

where the first term is the inverse of the Landauer-Büttiker conductance and $`N_{\mathrm{Fe}(\mathrm{InAs})}`$ is the Sharvin conductance (in units of $`e^2/h`$) of Fe (InAs). Obviously, the Sharvin resistance correction is dominated by the contribution from the semiconductor.

For $`E_FE_C=0.02\mathrm{eV}`$ we obtain values of $`R^{\mathrm{m}aj}=5.5\times 10^4`$ and $`R^{\mathrm{m}in}=7.1\times 10^6\mathrm{f}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{m}^2`$ for In-termination and $`2.1\times 10^4`$, respectively, $`5.2\times 10^5\mathrm{f}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{m}^2`$ for As-termination. All these resistances are much larger than the resistances seen by electrons originating in the ferromagnetic layer within a spin-flip diffusion length of the interface Schmidt00  which underlines the importance of interface properties (and not the bulk polarisation) for injecting spins. Spin-injection can occur in diffusive systems when the interface resistance is spin-dependent and comparable to the resistance of the semiconductor layer Rashba00 ; Fert01 . Within the free-electron model (with $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.04`$) and assuming Thomas-Fermi screening of the impurity potential Abram  we estimate the low-temperature resistivity of InAs with doping of $`10^{17}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ to be $`\rho _{\mathrm{I}nAs}=0.3\times 10^4\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{m}`$. A thickness $`L`$ of InAs has a resistance comparable to the interface resistance $`R_{\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{InAs}}`$ when $`LR_{\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{InAs}}/\rho _{\mathrm{I}nAs}`$ which yields values ranging from $`0.7\mu m`$ (majority spin, As termination) to $`240\mu m`$ (minority spin, In termination).

The large spin-dependence of specular interface scattering discussed so far results directly from the symmetry of the Bloch states on either side of the interface. It is important to know whether the corresponding spin asymmetry will survive the interface disorder which is invariably present at real interfaces. To address this question we performed calculations with $`2\times 2`$ lateral supercells containing 8 In (As) atoms and 16 Fe atoms and introduced symmetry-breaking by randomly replacing some of the interfacial In(As) atoms with iron. Figure 4 shows the majority- and minority-spin interface resistances as a function of the fraction of In (As) atoms which were replaced. The spread of values obtained for different configurations is indicated, where applicable, by vertical error bars. For both terminations we see relatively weak variation in the majority channel. However, the large values of minority-spin interface resistances are suppressed by interface disorder and soon assume values comparable to the majority-spin values. This result suggests that the realization of the strong spin-filtering effect predicted in our calculations for In-terminated specular interfaces (and independently by Wunnicke et al. for Fe/GaAs and Fe/ZnSe Wunnicke02 ) requires very considerable care in preparing the interfaces. Since our findings are based on symmetry arguments, they should be equally applicable to epitaxial Fe/GaAs Zhu01  or Fe/AlGaAs Hanbicki02  if the Schottky barrier is sufficiently thin that carrier injection does not occur by thermionic emission over the barrier. When tunnel barriers composed of amorphous oxides are used for spin injection Motsnyi , the symmetry arguments are most likely no longer valid. Such systems need to be studied in more detail.

The finding that disorder strongly reduces the high resistance of the minority-spin electrons by opening new transport channels which are symmetry forbidden for specular interfaces is quite similar to what was found for the Fe/Cr system by Xia et al. Xia01 .

In conclusion, we have studied the transport properties of Fe/InAs(001) interfaces, taking into account the full electronic structure of both materials and found strong spin selectivity of the transport through these interfaces provided that they are grown epitaxially with a very high degree of perfection.

This work is part of the research program for the “Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie” (FOM) and was supported by the RT Network “Computational Magnetoelectronics” (contract No. RTN1-1999-00145), the NEDO International Joint Research Grant Program “Nano-magnetoelectronics”, as well as by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (202/00/0122).

Permanent address: Institute of Molecular Physics, P.A.N., Smoluchowskiego 17, 60-179 Poznan, Poland.
<sup>+</sup> Present address: Department of Physics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of inelastic reactions from fundamental nucleon-nucleon interaction has been a major topic for nearly 30 years now following the pioneering G-matrix work of Bertsch and collaborators . In particular their M3Y interaction  and its density-dependent versions have shown that one can predict quite unambiguously inelastic scattering from fundamental nucleon nucleon interaction. Because of their semi-microscopic approach, there has been a lot of interest in these interactions by many researchers .

Recently  we have produced a similarly motivated potential for $`A=16`$ nuclei which was based on the lowest order constrained variational (LOCV) approach. We have found that our interaction was very similar in the singlet-even, triplet-even, tensor-even and spin-orbit odd channels with those of the M3Y interaction but differed significantly in the singlet-odd, triplet-odd and spin-orbit even channels. It thus appears that the issue of finding precise strengths of interactions in these channels has not yet been settled and still requires some further attention. The validity of using the M3Y interaction for inelastic scattering has been tested in many applications  and we believe that it is possible to improve our understanding of inelastic scattering from realistic forces if all the correct ingredients such as finding the precise strengths of the interaction in all angular momentum channels and its mass dependence are considered in a systematic way.
Finding these ingredients may not be very easy and may require going beyond the usual non-relativistic two-body approach of nucleon-nucleon forces to include for example, the three-body forces and isobar degrees of freedom. Besides these considerations we must check carefully our models since these quantities may also be model-dependent. For example, in the G-matrix approach, it was found that the triplet-even (TE) matrix elements used in constructing the inelastic potentials depended sensitively on the starting energies . This is a problem of model-dependence whereas in our model, these same quantities depend sensitively on the strength of the tensor correlations. Without tensor correlations we shall show in this paper that we have no agreement in these channels with the G-matrix approach.

Another important consideration is the mass dependence. It is useful to consider the mass dependence of such an interaction in a systematic way while using it on all regions of nuclei. For example, while the M3Y interaction has been very successful in explaining inelastic scattering from fundamental forces, it was constructed for the $`A=16`$ nuclei. One is not sure how it varies with the mass number, $`A`$. This last point on mass dependence has been emphasized in the classic work of Wildenthal  who found that it was impossible to find a mass - independent two-body effective interaction that could explain all sd -shell nuclei.

The purposes of the present work are two-fold: (i) to extend the work of ref.  which was designed for the $`A=16`$ system by including the mass dependence of our potential model for inelastic scattering and (ii) to study the effects of tensor correlations which affects particularly the TE and TNE channels. Other ingredients such as the inclusion of density dependence, addition of three-body forces and isobar degrees of freedom etc could also be considered but we shall leave them out from this paper and consider our approach a first approximation.

The paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we give a brief summary of the method used. In section 3, we define the $`NN`$ interaction to be constructed. In section 4 we discuss our findings in the present work. The final section is devoted to the conclusion of the paper.

## 2 Formalism

In this section we briefly review the LOCV prescription discussed by Irvine and collaborators  for obtaining an effective two-body interaction which is adopted for the present work. In this approach the approximation to a non-relativistic nucleon fluid interacting through a two-body potential is first approximated by the Hamiltonian

$$H_0=\underset{i}{}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_i^2+\underset{i>j}{}V_{ij},$$
(1)
where $`V_{ij}`$ is the two-body potential. In the LOCV approach the translationally invariant component of the trial wavefunction is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_T=UF\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(2)
where $`U`$ is a unitary operator which transforms the system to the centre of mass rest-frame, leaving us with only intrinsic quantities such that we do not have to worry any further about the spurious centre of mass motion. In eq. (2), $`F`$ is a symmetric product of two-body correlation functions defined as :

$$F=\underset{i>j}{}f_2(ij),$$
(3)
designed to accommodate the effect of the strong repulsion of the nucleon-nucleon interaction, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a multi-dimensional product of two-body wave functions. The explicit form of $`f_2(ij)`$ is given in eqs. (10) -(13) below.

Our task is to evaluate the expectation value of the Hamiltonian given by

$$E=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_TH_0\mathrm{\Psi }_T}{\mathrm{\Psi }_T\mathrm{\Psi }_T}$$
(4)
with the desired accuracy. Due to its multi-dimensional nature, eq. (4) is difficult to calculate and we must make approximations. The cluster expansion technique is the approximating technique we adopt. Here we divide the system into clusters. We evaluate the energy of each cluster starting with the two-body clusters and then sum over all the clusters to obtain the total energy:

$$E=E_2+E_3+E_4+\mathrm{}.$$
(5)
To lowest order we minimize the two-body energy term $`E_2`$ with respect to the functional variations of the two-body correlation functions such that only two-body cluster terms are important, whereas contributions of $`E_3`$ and higher order clusters are made small. This is achieved if the convergence parameter $`k`$, defined by the equation below is small ;

$$k=\frac{3}{r_0^3}(1f_2(ij))^2r_{ij}^2𝑑r_{ij}1,$$
(6)
where $`r_0`$ is the mean nearest neighbour distance, defined from the nuclear radius $`R`$ such that:

$$R=r_0A^{1/3},$$
(7)
while $`<\mathrm{}>`$ signifies channel average, including the tensor operator. This approximation implies that we have accepted to work only with two-body clusters. Thus our $`E_2`$ takes the form :

$$E_2=\mathrm{\Phi }\underset{i>j}{}(f_2(ij)(P_{ij}^2/M+V_{ij})f_2(ij))\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{}{P}_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\stackrel{}{p}_i\stackrel{}{p}_j)`$ is the relative momentum of the two-particle system; $`Mm_NA`$ is the total mass of the nucleus and $`V_{ij}`$ is taken to be the Reid  soft - core potential.

Since the Reid  potential has the form:

$$V_{ij}=\underset{\lambda }{}V_{ij}^\lambda ,$$
(9)
where in different reaction channels $`\lambda `$, we have the central, spin-orbit and tensor components. For each channel we introduce two-body correlation functions,

$$f_2(ij)=\underset{\lambda }{}f_{ij}^\lambda $$
(10)
where

$$f_{ij}^\lambda =f_c^\lambda (r_{ij})+f_{LS}^\lambda (r_{ij})\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S}+f_T^\lambda (r_{ij})S_{ij},$$
(11)
with the tensor operator

$$S_{ij}=3\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\widehat{r}_{ij}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j\widehat{r}_{ij}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j.$$
(12)
In studies regarding nuclear matter and finite nuclei , the two-body correlation functions were found to have three features which included the ’wound’ induced in the two-body wave function by the repulsive core of the N-N interaction, the tensor correlations especially in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^3D_1`$ channel and the meson exchange correction. It was found that the most important feature of these was the tensor correlations. Therefore the two-body correlation functions of eq. (10) have been parametrized in the form :

$`r_{ij}<r_c`$ $`:`$ $`f_{ij}^\lambda =0,`$
$`r_{ij}r_c`$ $`:`$ $`f_{ij}^\lambda =(1e^{\beta (r_{ij}r_c)^2})(1+\alpha ^\lambda (A)S_{ij}),`$ (13)
where $`r_c=0.25fm`$ and $`\beta =25fm^2`$. The parameter, $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)`$ represents the strength of the tensor correlations and is non-zero only in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ \- $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ \- $`{}_{}{}^{3}F_{2}^{}`$ channels.

It should be noted that this form of correlation functions is clearly an over simplification. In reality correlation functions are highly density-dependent and are different in different tensor channels. Moreover, they are usually obtained from nuclear matter calculations. We have retained this form because of its previous success  and because we wish to study the effects of tensor correlations on our model calculations where we have devised a method of switching on and off the tensor correlations.

In order to evaluate matrix elements we work in the harmonic oscillator basis. For our purpose we have picked out only the effective potential energy terms from eq. (8) i.e.,

$$E_2^{^{}}=\mathrm{\Phi }\underset{i>j}{}f_2(ij)V_{ij}f_2(ij)\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(14)
Here the only parameters appearing in our calculations are; the oscillator size parameter and the strength of the tensor correlations, $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)`$. We shall later present our results with various combinations of these parameters with and without tensor correlations. Furthermore following the procedure of Berstch and collaborators  we have separated the relative potential two-body matrix elements into those of various channels. These are the singlet-even (SE) and singlet-odd (SO) channels denoted by $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ respectively. The triplet-even (TE) and the tensor-even (TNE)components were picked from the coupled $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ \- $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ channels. We next define the triplet-odd (TO), tensor-odd (TNO) and the two components of the spin-orbit force ignoring the quadratic term as :

$`V(TO)=V(^3P_0)+2V(LSO)+4V(TNO)`$
$`V(TNO)={\displaystyle \frac{5}{72}}[2V(^3P_0)3V(^3P_1)+V(^3P_2)]`$
$`V(LSO)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}[2V(^3P_0)+3V(^3P_1)5V(^3P_2)]`$
$`V(LSE)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}[V(TE)2V(TNE)V(^3D_1)].`$ (15)
## 3 The $`NN`$ Effective Interaction

In this section we define an effective interaction which is suited to calculations of inelastic scattering. We follow the procedure described by Bertsch and collaborators  in which the two-body matrix elements are fitted to those of the sum of Yukawa functions with different ranges. The potential is divided into the central (c), spin-orbit (ls) and tensor (t) components as follows:

$`V_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}d_k{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(r_{ij}/R_k)}}{(r_{ij}/R_k)}},`$
$`V_{ls}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}d_k{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(r_{ij}/R_k)}}{(r_{ij}/R_k)}}\stackrel{}{L}.\stackrel{}{S},`$
$`V_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}d_k{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(r_{ij}/R_k)}}{(r_{ij}/R_k)}}r_{ij}^2S_{ij},`$ (16)
where the $`d_k`$ are the strengths of the interaction which are determined by fitting the oscillator matrix elements of eq. (16) to our two-body matrix elements of eq. (14). The ranges $`k4`$ are chosen to be 0.25, 0.4, 0.7 and 1.414 fm, which are motivated by the one-boson exchanges. Apparently the longest range 1.414 fm corresponds to the one-pion exchange, while the shorter ranges correspond to heavier mesons such as $`\sigma `$, $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ mesons.

## 4  Results

The objective of our present paper is to extend the work of ref.  in which we defined an effective interaction for inelastic scattering for the $`A=16`$ system. In the present paper we incorporate the mass dependence as well as investigate the effects of tensor correlations on our earlier calculations .

In Table 1 we present the relative two - body matrix elements of the effective interaction for the $`A=24`$ system for the SE, SO, TE, TO, TNE, TNO, LSO and LSE channels. The matrix elements were calculated in a harmonic oscillator basis with $`\mathrm{}\omega =45A^{1/3}25A^{2/3}`$MeV so that $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ takes on the value of 12.7 MeV in this case. Based on our observations in  for the $`sd`$ shell and earlier calculations for the $`p`$ shell , it was found that $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)`$ is a monotonic decreasing function of the mass number, A and ranges from 0.09 at the beginning of the $`p`$ shell to about 0.07 for the upper end of the $`sd`$ shell. When extrapolated to the $`A=90`$ region, it takes the value of about 0.06. Using this information, the calculation is first performed with tensor correlations switched on, i.e. by setting $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)=0.075`$ appropriate for the A = 24 system. However, when $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)=0.0`$, we have only central correlations. We should observe that the tensor correlations are effective only in the coupled channels such as $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ \- $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ \- $`{}_{}{}^{3}F_{2}^{}`$, while the SE and SO channels are not subject to the tensor correlations.

In Table 2 we repeat the same procedure as in Table 1 for the $`A=40`$ system but this time we have used $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)=0.070`$ which we found most appropriate for this system with $`\mathrm{}\omega =11.0MeV`$ while for the $`A=90`$ system presented in Table 3 we have used $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)=0.060`$ and $`\mathrm{}\omega =8.8MeV`$ based on our observations above.

### 4.1 Central Even Channels

From Table 1, we notice an interesting result for the TE channel when the strength of the tensor correlations $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)`$ is switched off. With $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)`$ turned off the TE matrix elements are large and positive in our calculation. However, with $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)`$ turned on they become large and negative. For an $`S`$-wave ($`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$) channel, this attraction is caused by the second order (two pion exchange) contribution with the $`D`$-wave ($`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$) mixing. The role of the pion in this channel has long been appreciated. Recently, it is emphasized even more in exact calculations of few body systems  and in the relativistic mean field theory . The TO, TNO and LSO channels are also affected by the tensor correlations through the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ state. The LSE channel is affected by the tensor correlations through the $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ state, however, these effects are not as dramatic as those observed in the TE channel case. The SE and SO channels are not affected by the tensor correlations as indicated in the table. For the $`A=24`$ system the G-matrix data was unavailable with which to compare our results.

In Table 2 we notice the similar results for the TE channel when the strength of the tensor correlations $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)`$ is switched on or off. Here also our calculated TE matrix elements are large and positive whereas with $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)`$ turned on they are large and negative. These should be compared with the G-matrix results of Hosaka et al.  for the $`A=40`$ system. Clearly, with $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)`$ switched on to take the value of 0.075, we obtained a near perfect agreement for our calculated TE matrix elements with the G-matrix result of Hosaka et al. where the difference between the two calculational procedures for each ($`n^{}`$,n) values is less than 12 percent. Also as shown in Table 2 except for the ($`n^{}`$,n)=(2,2) quantum numbers, our calculated SE matrix elements are found to agree with the G-matrix results of Hosaka et al. to within 25 percent.

In Table 3 for the $`A=90`$ system we notice a similar trend as in Tables 1 and 2. The same observation for the TE channel is inferred in Table 3. Here we have used small node quantum numbers to compare our results with the G-matrix results. We notice again that the TE comparison with the G-matrix results is impressive when $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)`$ is switched on. This analysis supports the importance of tensor correlations in effective interaction theories that use correlated basis functions. Therefore in subsequent analysis we shall only be concerned with matrix elements when $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)`$ is non-zero.

### 4.2 Central Odd Channels

As can be seen from Table 2 for the $`A=40`$ system, our calculated SO matrix elements are similar to the G-matrix for the lower node quantum numbers but they become substantially different for higher node quantum numbers where for example, for the ($`n^{},n`$)=(2,2), they differ by over 80 percent. This difference between our calculated matrix elements and the G-matrix results in the odd angular momentum channels persists and can be clearly seen in the TO channel where our calculated matrix elements are positive while the G-matrix results are small and negative. We observe a similar trend to Table 2 in Table 3 for the $`A=90`$ system.

### 4.3 Tensor Channels

From Table 2 we see that the TNE channels are best represented. In these channel, our calculated matrix elements do not differ from the G-matrix calculations by more than 10 percent except for the ($`n^{},n`$)=(0,0) and (2,2) channels. The TNO matrix elements are also very similar to the G-matrix results with our calculated values slightly smaller than the G-matrix values. In Table 3 we notice a good agreement of our calculated TNE matrix elements with their G-matrix counterparts for the small node quantum numbers. Our calculated TNO matrix elements are also seen to be in good agreement with the G-matrix results.

### 4.4 Spin-Orbit Channels

In these channels, we notice as indicated in Tables 2 and 3 that our calculated LSO matrix elements are in close agreement with the G-matrix values. However, the LSE matrix elements are different from their G-matrix counterparts, although absolute values of the matrix elements are small. Here, the G-matrix results are negative while our calculated matrix elements are all positive.
It could be seen that in all channels, the matrix elements are decreasing in absolute values with increasing mass number, $`A`$.

### 4.5 Strength of Interactions

We have performed a least squares fit of our calculated two - body matrix elements in the various channels to those of a sum of Yukawa potentials for the central, tensor and spin-orbit forms as given in eq. (16). These forms are consistent with potentials for inelastic scattering. The selected ranges of 0.25, 0.4, 0.7 and 1.414 fm were theoretically motivated and were chosen so as to ensure the OPEP tails in the relevant channels as well as the short-range part which account for the exchange processes. Our interaction strengths are presented in Tables 4, 5 and 6 for $`A=24`$, 40 and 90 systems respectively. It should be noted that the oscillator matrix elements of the radial components of eq. (16) decrease with increasing $`A`$, i.e., with decreasing $`\mathrm{}\omega `$. This is because wave functions extend more as $`A`$ is increased, while the range of the interaction is finite and fixed. Our observation here is that the major part of the mass dependence of matrix elements is due to the change in the wave function. In order to further study mass dependence of the interaction strength, we need more detailed information of the effective interaction.

## 5 Conclusions

The two calculational procedures presented here raise several interesting observations: The first observation is that although there is some model dependence in the calculation of the matrix elements in the TE channels (such as sensitively on the starting energies used in the calculation ), reasonable theoretical methods predict attractive matrix elements through a significant contribution from the tensor correlations. This indicates the importance of the tensor force in the nucleon-nucleon interaction dominated by the one pion exchange.

Secondly, we notice that while the matrix elements calculated in our present method are in excellent agreement with the G-matrix results of, for instance, Hosaka et al. , in most angular momentum channels, there is a problem in fixing the interaction strengths especially in the odd angular momentum channels. This problem was also found in ref. for the $`A=16`$ system. This can be seen in the SO, TO and the LSE channels. In fact, Bertsch and collaborators  had to use the set of Elliott  matrix elements in the odd angular momentum channels to get a good fit for their M3Y interaction. Hosaka et al. have traced this problem to the fact that because the harmonic oscillator wave function vanishes near the origin for the odd forces, their exist an ambiguity in fitting the G-matrix elements in the odd angular momentum channels.

The calculated matrix elements show an overall decrease in magnitude as we go from $`A=24`$ to $`A=90`$ nuclei through the $`A`$-dependence of $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ and with the moderate mass dependence of the strength of the tensor correlations $`\alpha ^\lambda (A)`$. We have calculated the strengths of our interaction for $`A=24`$, 40 and $`A=90`$ nuclei as reported here. Since these depend on the mass number $`A`$, It will be interesting to see if this mass dependence may affect calculations based on this interaction.

Thus, apart from the necessary inclusion of the density dependence and other effects in effective two-body interactions, one should not ignore perhaps the mass dependence and the model dependence in such calculations in a systematic way.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

One of us (J.O.F) wishes to thank Professor J. M. Irvine who introduced him to the theory of effective two-body interactions.


text:
# The phase diagram for the (𝜆ϕ⁴+𝜎ϕ²)₂ model

## I Introduction

In this paper, we use the Euclidean strategy1 combined with the Gaussian approximation2 to prove some exact results for the $`\left(\lambda \varphi ^4+\sigma \varphi ^2\right)_2`$ model. The Euclidean strategy can be summarized as it follows. First step is to consider a (Euclidean) space cut-off interaction:

$$U(\mathrm{\Lambda })=_\mathrm{\Lambda }d^2x:V(\varphi (x)):_{m_0},$$
(1)
where the normal ordering is with respect to the vacuum of the free field of fixed mass $`m_0`$. The next step is the investigation of the cut-off interacting measure:

$$d\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=Z^1e^{U\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)+m_0^2/2_{R^2}d^2x:(\varphi \left(x\right)\xi )^2:_{m_0}}d\mu _{m_0,\xi }\text{,}$$
(2)
where:

$$Z=e^{U\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)+m_0^2/2_{R^2}d^2x:(\varphi \left(x\right)\xi )^2:_{m_0}}𝑑\mu _{m_0,\xi }.$$
(3)
Along this paper, all the constants that normalize the measures to one will be denoted by the same $`Z`$. In (2), $`\mu _{m_0,\xi }`$ is the Gaussian measure corresponding to the covariance $`C_{m_0}=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+m_0^2\right)^1`$ and mean $`\xi `$. Note that the additional term to $`U\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ cancels the mass and the mean of the measure $`\mu _{m_0,\xi }`$ (see Ref. 3 for justification). The third step is the investigation of the (thermodynamic) limit $`lim_{\mathrm{\Lambda }R^2}\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the case when this limit is well defined (and only in this case), one can construct the Minkowsky field by using one of the well known reconstruction methods,1 which represents the last step of the Euclidean strategy. The cut-off theories can be defined in more general settings, depending on what covariance one chooses to start with or, more general, what boundary conditions are imposed. For example, Ref. 1 analyses in detail the free and Dirichlet (also a half Dirichlet boundary condition is considered) cut-off theories. Other boundary conditions are discussed in Ref. 4, such as Neumann, periodic etc. These boundary conditions are imposed directly on the covariance. In general, it is not necessarily that the boundary conditions to be imposed on the covariance. For example, adding a term like $`_{R^2\backslash \mathrm{\Lambda }}d^2x:\delta V\left(\varphi \left(x\right)\right):_{m_0}`$ to the original interaction will also impose a boundary condition. Such terms disappear in the thermodynamic limit and their influence on the thermodynamic limit is trivial, unless we are situated in the region of the dynamical instability. More exactly, suppose that the potential $`V\left(\varphi \right)`$ depends on some parameters. The region of dynamical instability consists of those points in the parameters space for which different boundary conditions leads to different thermodynamic limits. In other words, a point is not in the dynamical instability region if the states associated with various boundary conditions are identical and if this state has a unique vacuum.1 We call the separation between the stable and unstable regions the manifold of dynamical instability. In general, a quantum system consists of more than one pure phase (for definition see Ref. 5). If properly chosen, a boundary condition may help in isolating a pure phase. For example, in Ref. 3, the vacuum sectors were found by expansions around the mean field approximation which impose certain boundary conditions. A thorough analysis of the $`(\lambda \varphi ^4+\sigma \varphi ^2)_2`$ ($`\lambda `$$`<`$$`<`$$`1)`$ model$``$s vacuum and charged (soliton) sectors and how to construct them by using different boundary conditions is given in Ref. 5. We will show in the next sections that another way of generating useful boundary conditions is the expansion around the Gaussian approximation.2 The Gaussian approximation is defined by a certain choice of the covariance plus the consideration of certain boundary conditions. As we will justify in the following, by this procedure, one can always reduce by one the numbers of parameters in a model. For $`\left(\lambda \varphi ^4+\sigma \varphi ^2\right)`$, this means that this model can be reduced to an equivalent one parameter model. It is obvious that, for a one parameter model, the instability manifold is given by discrete points. Strong evidence (also see the conjecture propose in Ref. 1) shows that the instability manifold of the $`\lambda \varphi ^4+\sigma \varphi ^2`$ model is connected. This means that, in the equivalent one parameter model, the instability manifold consists of one and only one point. Using the relation between the equivalent models, one can find the equation for the dynamical instability manifold in the $`(\lambda `$, $`\sigma )`$ plane. Moreover, one can also find nontrivial estimates of the stability region for this model.

## II Gaussian approximation for $`(\lambda \varphi ^4+\sigma \varphi ^2)_2`$

Let us fix the bare mass $`m_0`$ to an arbitrary value. Different possibilities of choosing $`m_0`$ will be discussed later. The cut-off $`(\lambda \varphi ^4+\sigma \varphi ^2)_2`$ model is defined by the interacting measure:

$$d\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=Z^1e^{_\mathrm{\Lambda }d^2x:\lambda \varphi (x)^4+\sigma \varphi (x)^2:_{m_0}+m_0^2/2_{R^2}dx^2:(\varphi \left(x\right)\xi )^2:_{m_0}}d\mu _{m_0,\xi },$$
(4)
where the normal ordering is with respect to covariance $`C_{m_0}=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+m_0^2\right)^1`$. At this point, one can use the Gaussian identity4 to start with a different covariance. If we denote by $`\mu _{m,\xi }`$ the Gaussian measure corresponding to the covariance $`C_m=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+m^2\right)^1`$ and the same mean $`\xi `$, then:

$$d\mu _{m_0,\xi }=Z^1e^{(m^2m_0^2)/2_{R^2}dx^2:(\varphi \left(x\right)\xi )^2:_{m_0}}d\mu _{m,\xi }.$$
(5)
This provides the completely equivalent expression:

$$d\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=Z^1e^{_\mathrm{\Lambda }d^2x:\lambda \varphi (x)^4+\sigma \varphi (x)^2\frac{m^2}{2}(\varphi (x)\xi )^2:_{m_0}+\delta V}d\mu _{m,\xi },$$
(6)
where:

$$\delta V=m^2/2_{R^2\backslash \mathrm{\Lambda }}dx^2:(\varphi \left(x\right)\xi )^2:_{m_0}.$$
(7)
We have isolated a term that can naturally define our boundary condition. This boundary condition is given by the cancelation of $`\delta V`$ at the exponent by adding the extra-term $`\delta V`$ to the original potential. One can also change the normal ordering from the old to the new Gaussian measure:

$$:\varphi \left(x\right)^n:_{m_0}=\underset{a0}{lim}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}C_n^k_a^{nk}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{a^2}{8\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_0^2}{m^2}+a\xi ]:\varphi \left(x\right)^k:_{\mu _{m,\xi }},$$
(8)
which finally leads to:

$$d\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=Z^1e^{_\mathrm{\Lambda }d^2x:\lambda \varphi (x)^4+4\lambda \xi \varphi (x)^3+\sigma ^{}\varphi (x)^2+\chi \varphi (x):_{\mu _{m,\xi }}}d\mu _{m,\xi },$$
(9)
with:

$`\sigma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda }{2\pi }}(\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_0^2}{m^2}+4\pi \xi ^2)m^2/2,`$ (10)
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\xi /\pi (3\lambda \mathrm{ln}\frac{m_0^2}{m^2}+4\pi \lambda \xi ^2+2\pi \sigma ).`$ (11)
The Gaussian approximation is defined by those values of $`m`$ and $`\xi `$ for which $`\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\chi `$ cancel. The expression (9) of the interacting measure is equivalent to the original one up to a boundary condition. The boundary condition is defined by the equation (7). One can see now how the expansion around a Gaussian point introduces the boundary condition: the particular values of $`m`$ and $`\xi `$ determine $`\delta V`$.

## III Reduction to one parameter

Let us make a few remarks about the meaning of the solutions of the self-consistency equations (10). Suppose these equations have a solution, not necessarily unique. As we argued in the last section, these solutions define different boundary conditions which leads to different expression of the interacting measures. Even though these expressions look very different, they differ by terms defined only on $`R^2\backslash \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Two questions must be answered. Do these interacting measures have a thermodynamic limit? If the answer is yes, then we found the vacuum states. The energy per unit length of these states is the same because the contributions from the boundary conditions cancels in the thermodynamic limit. And here comes the second question. If the thermodynamic limits exist, are they really different? If the answer is yes, than the ground state is degenerate and, possibly, a symmetry breaking takes place.

We start now analyzing the solutions of the self-consistency equations (10). We will show that, in some limiting cases, one can prove the thermodynamic limit of the interacting measures corresponding to some of the solutions of the self-consistency equations. Moreover, in these limiting cases, one can even answer the second question. There will be always the trivial solution:

$$\begin{array}{c}\xi =0\hfill \\ m^2=\frac{3\lambda }{\pi }W_0(\frac{\pi m_0^2}{3\lambda }\mathrm{exp}\frac{2\pi \sigma }{3\lambda }),\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
where $`W_0`$ is the Lambert function of rank zero. The interacting measure corresponding to this solution is written in Eq. (15). This equivalence has been actually found long time ago.8 Based on this observation, Guerra, Rosen and Simon concluded in Ref. 9 that $`\left(\lambda \varphi ^4+\sigma \varphi ^2\right)_{m_0}`$ has as many echilibrium states as $`\left(\lambda \varphi ^4\right)_m`$ has. The other solutions must satisfy:

$$\begin{array}{c}8\lambda \xi ^2=m_0^2\mathrm{exp}\frac{2\pi }{3\lambda }\left(2\lambda \xi ^2+\sigma \right)\hfill \\ m^2=8\lambda \xi ^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
In this case, there are two independent solutions:

$$\begin{array}{c}\xi ^2=\frac{3}{4\pi }W_{0,1}(\frac{\pi m_0^2}{6\lambda }\mathrm{exp}\frac{2\pi \sigma }{3\lambda })\hfill \\ m^2=8\lambda \xi ^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
where $`W_{0,1}`$ are the Lambert functions of rank $`0`$ and $`1`$. These solutions become very useful in certain limits of the coupling constants, when the Gaussian approximation is very precise. Let us discuss first $`\sigma >0`$ case, when the potential $`\lambda \varphi ^4+\sigma \varphi ^2`$ has only one minimum at $`\varphi =0`$. In this case, one may expect the symmetry $`\varphi \varphi `$ to be unbroken. However, this is happening only for $`\lambda `$ small. Using solution (12), the expression (9) of the interacting measure become:

$$d\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=Z^1e^{\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }dx^2:\varphi (x)^4:_{\mu _{m\xi =0}}}d\mu _{m,\xi =0}\text{.}$$
(15)
One can use the scalling identity3 to normalize the mass to unity:

$$d\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=Z^1e^{\frac{\lambda }{m^2}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}dx^2:\varphi (x)^4:_{\mu _{1\xi =0}}}d\mu _{1,\xi =0}\text{,}$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }/m^2`$. The limit $`\lambda 0`$ does not automatically bring us in the small coupling regime, because, as one can see from (16), the small coupling regime is defined by $`\lambda /m^20`$. However, $`m2\sigma `$ as $`\lambda `$ goes to zero so, indeed, $`\lambda 0`$ defines the small coupling regime. Then the thermodynamic limit of (15) can be achieved by an ordinary cluster expansion,6 and it is already known that $`\varphi =0`$ in the thermodynamic limit. Moreover, the system has only one pure phase in $`\lambda 0`$ limit. For large $`\lambda `$, the cluster expansion will no longer work for expression (15), so we need to find a better approximation to start with. Guided by the conjecture proposed in Ref. 1, we guess that the symmetry $`\varphi \varphi `$ is broken in the $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ limit and we try a solution with $`\xi 0`$. The right one is:

$$\begin{array}{c}\xi ^2=\frac{3}{4\pi }W_1(\frac{\pi m_0^2}{6\lambda }\mathrm{exp}\frac{2\pi \sigma }{3\lambda })\hfill \\ m^2=8\lambda \xi ^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
because $`m^2`$ and $`\xi ^2`$ go to infinity as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$. As we will argue later, this is enough for the convergence of the cluster expansion around this solution and, thus, the thermodynamic limit exists. One can ask what is happening with the solution $`\xi =0`$ in this limit. For $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, the thermodynamic limit of (15) cannot be proven with the existing techniques. Supposing the thermodynamic limit exists and can be found by some other methods, then more likely the thermodynamic limit of (15) is not ergodic but it can be decomposed in the two broken phases, corresponding to the solutions (17). The last thing we want to mention for $`\sigma >0`$ case is the semi-classical mass. This is defined by:

$$m_c^2=V^{\prime \prime }(\varphi )|_{\varphi =0}=2\sigma \text{.}$$
(18)
As we already mentioned, in the $`\lambda 0`$ limit, $`m`$ goes to this semiclassical value, independent of the value of $`m_0`$. Moreover, if one starts with $`m_0=m_c`$, then the solution given by Eq. (12) reduces to $`\xi =0`$ and $`m=m_c`$. In other words, this particular solution of the self-consistency equations coincides with the semiclassical approximation.

If $`\sigma <0`$, the potential $`\lambda \varphi ^4+\sigma \varphi ^2`$ has two minima located at:

$$\varphi =\xi _c=\pm \sqrt{\sigma /(2\lambda )}\text{.}$$
(19)
In this case, one may expect that the symmetry $`\varphi \varphi `$ to be broken. This is true at least for $`\lambda 0`$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ limits and, as we shall see, it is not true for intermediate values. For $`\lambda 0`$, the useful solution is:

$$\begin{array}{c}\xi ^2=\frac{3}{4\pi }W_0(\frac{\pi m_0^2}{6\lambda }\mathrm{exp}\frac{2\pi \sigma }{3\lambda })\hfill \\ m^2=8\lambda \xi ^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
because $`\xi ^2\mathrm{}`$ and $`m`$ goes to the finite value $`4\sigma `$ as $`\lambda 0`$. For $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, the useful solution is:

$$\begin{array}{c}\xi ^2=\frac{3}{4\pi }W_1(\frac{\pi m_0^2}{6\lambda }\mathrm{exp}\frac{2\pi \sigma }{3\lambda })\hfill \\ m^2=8\lambda \xi ^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
because $`\xi ^2\mathrm{}`$ and the mass increases even faster as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$. We remember that, if $`\xi `$ and $`m`$ are solutions of the self-consistency equation, then expression (9) of the interacting measure reduces to:

$$d\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=Z^1e^{_\mathrm{\Lambda }dx^2:\lambda \varphi (x)^4+4\lambda \xi \varphi (x)^3:_{\mu _{m,\xi }}}d\mu _{m,\xi }\text{.}$$
(22)
For all $`\xi 0`$ solutions, $`m=8\lambda \xi ^2`$. By using the scale transformation,3 we can normalize the mass to one in the above expression:

$$d\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=Z^1e^{_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}dx^2:\frac{1}{8\xi ^2}\varphi (x)^4+\frac{1}{2\xi }\varphi (x)^3:_{\mu _{1,\xi }}}d\mu _{1,\xi }\text{,}$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }/m^2`$. One can see now that the small coupling regime is achieved when $`\xi \mathrm{}`$ and all the cases when this is happening have been discussed above. However, even for large values of $`\xi `$, the thermodynamic limit of (23) cannot be achieved by an ordinary cluster expansion. This is due to the fact that the potential $`\frac{1}{8\xi ^2}\varphi ^4+\frac{1}{2\xi }\varphi ^3`$ is not uniformly bounded from below as $`\xi \mathrm{}`$. When the field is localized near $`\xi `$, the potential behaves as $`\xi ^2`$. Nevertheless, an expansion is phase boundaries3 or a cluster expansion with small/large field conditions7 converges in the thermodynamic limit. The result is:2

$$\varphi (x)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }R^2}=\xi +o(\xi ^1),$$
(24)
which shows that the symmetry $`\varphi \varphi `$ is broken in the limit $`\xi \mathrm{}`$. For $`\sigma <0`$ case, one can also define a semiclassical mass:

$`m_c^2=V^{\prime \prime }(\varphi )|_{\varphi =\xi _c}=4\sigma \text{.}`$

We already mentioned that $`mm_c`$ as $`\lambda 0`$. Moreover, if one starts with $`m_0=m_c`$, then $`\xi =\xi _c`$ and $`m=m_c`$ is a solution of the self-consistency equations. In other words, this particular solution coincides with the semiclassical approximation.

Yet we discussed only how the Gaussian approximation can be combined with the standard results of the cluster expansion technique to analyze the $`(\lambda \varphi ^4+\sigma \varphi ^2)_2`$ model in certain limits of the coupling constants. However, the most important result of this section are the equivalent expressions (16) and (23) of the interacting measure. This expressions characterize the system for all allowed values of the coupling constants, because the solutions of the self-consistancy equations that leaded to these exressions exist for all allowed values of the coupling constants. These equivalent forms of the interacting measure depend only on one parameter because the dependency of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ on $`m`$ is irrelevant in the thermodynamic limit.

## IV The instability manifold

We remind that the expressions (16) and (23) are equivalent to the original interacting measure up to a boundary condition. The difference between them is the extra-term given by equation (7). This means that we should be able to reconstruct the phase diagram of the original model by imposing different boundary conditions on these expressions. Let us consider the first one:

$$d\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=Z^1e^{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}dx^2:\varphi (x)^4:_{\mu _{1\xi =0}}}d\mu _{1,\xi =0}\text{,}$$
(25)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\lambda /m^2`$. As we argued in the previous section, the symmetry is unbroken for $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ small and it is broken for $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ large. This means that the instability manifold has at least one point. Assuming that the instability manifold for $`\left(\lambda \varphi ^4+\sigma \varphi ^2\right)`$ is connected, then the instability manifold of (25) must contain one and only one point, denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{cr}`$ in the following. This is an absolute constant (a number). Using the exression of $`m`$ given by the solution (12), we can find the equation of the instability manifold in the $`(\lambda ,\sigma )`$ plane:

$$\frac{\lambda }{\frac{3\lambda }{\pi }W_0(\frac{\pi m_0^2}{3\lambda }\mathrm{exp}\frac{2\pi \sigma }{3\lambda })}=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{cr}\text{,}$$
(26)
or equivalently:

$$\sigma =\frac{3\lambda }{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}[c_{cr}\lambda /m_0^2]\text{,}$$
(27)
where $`c_{cr}`$ is an absolute constant. This is the exact analytic equation of the instability manifold. The second exression is even more useful because it allows an evaluation of $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{cr}`$. Because

$$d\mu _+=Z^1e^{_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}:{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{8\xi ^2}}\varphi \left(x\right)^4+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}\varphi \left(x\right)^3:_{1,\xi }}d\mu _{C_1,\xi }$$
(28)
and:

$$d\mu _{}=Z^1e^{_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}:{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{8\xi ^2}}\varphi \left(x\right)^4{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}\varphi \left(x\right)^3:_{1,\xi }}d\mu _{C_1,\xi }$$
(29)
differ by just a boundary condition, it is sufficient to consider only $`\xi (0,\mathrm{})`$. For the one parameter model, the instability manifold is given by discrete points. As we already discussed, in the limit $`\xi \mathrm{}`$, the system is composed from more than one pure phase, the two measures (28) and (29) leads to different states in the thermodynamic limit. This means that, for $`\xi `$ large we are in the region of dynamical instability. Also, we know that for $`\lambda 0`$ and $`\sigma >0`$ ($`\xi 0`$) the system is composed from a single pure phase. In this limit, the quantum fluctuations are so large that the symmetry $`\varphi \varphi `$ is restored and the two measures, (28) and (29), lead to the same state in the thermodynamic limit. This means that, for $`\xi 0`$, we are in the region of dynamical stability. In conclusion, the manifold of dynamical instability for the one parameter model has at least one point. If we assume that the dynamical instability manifold for $`(\lambda \varphi ^4+\sigma \varphi ^2)_2`$ model is connected, then the instability manifold for the one parameter model must contain one and only one point (different points will lead to un-connected lines in the ($`\lambda ,\sigma `$) plane). We denote by $`\xi _{cr}`$ this critical point, which is an absolute constant (a number). We remind that all different solutions with $`\xi 0`$ that we found above came from the same system of equations (13). In consequence, the manifold of dynamical instability in $`(\lambda ,\sigma )`$ plane is given by the following equation:

$$8\lambda \xi _{cr}^2=m_0^2\mathrm{exp}[\frac{4\pi }{3}\xi _{cr}^2+\frac{2\pi }{3\lambda }\sigma ],$$
(30)
or equivalently:

$$8\xi _{cr}^2\mathrm{exp}[\frac{4\pi }{3}\xi _{cr}^2]\lambda =m_0^2\mathrm{exp}[\frac{2\pi }{3}\sigma /\lambda ].$$
(31)
Denoting

$$c_{cr}8\xi _{cr}^2\mathrm{exp}[\frac{4\pi }{3}\xi _{cr}^2]\text{,}$$
(32)
which is again an absolute constant, we obtain the same equation (27) for the instability manifold. For practical purposes, it is important to give an estimate of $`c_{cr}`$. One possible way to evaluate this constant is to explore the region of dynamical stability by cluster expansion. Unfortunately, as it follows from Ref. 6, this technique does not allow yet very sharp estimates. However, we can give an upper estimate of $`c_{cr}`$ from its analytic expression (32):

$$c_{cr}\underset{xR_+}{sup}8x\mathrm{exp}[\frac{4\pi }{3}x]=6/(e\pi )0.70\text{.}$$
(33)
Let us consider the family of curves in the $`(\lambda ,\sigma )`$ plane given by:

$$\sigma =\frac{3\lambda }{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}[c\lambda /m_0^2]\text{ , }c(0,\mathrm{})\text{.}$$
(34)
For $`c>c_{cr}`$, these curves lie on the stability region while for $`c<c_{cr}`$ they lie on the instability region. Then, because $`c_{cr}6/(e\pi )`$, the region spanned by the curves with $`c>6/(e\pi )`$ belongs to the stability region. We can also give a simple method for checking if a point in the $`(\lambda ,\sigma )`$ plane belongs to the stability region. For a given $`\lambda `$ and $`\sigma `$, if:

$$(\lambda /m_0^2)^1e^{\frac{2\pi \sigma }{3\lambda }}>6/(e\pi )\text{,}$$
(35)
then the point is situated in the region of dynamical stability. For example, if $`\sigma =0`$, the symmetry is not broken at least for $`\lambda /m_0^2<e\pi /61.42`$. Another important conclusion of the above analysis is that the $`(\lambda \varphi ^4+\sigma \varphi ^2)_2`$ model is completely determined by $`\xi `$. In the limit $`\xi \mathrm{}`$, this parameter is approximately given by: $`\xi \varphi `$ which is a physically measurable quantity.

References
1B. Simon, The $`P\left(\varphi \right)_2`$ Euclidean (Quantum) Field Theory (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1974).
2E. Prodan, quant-ph/9905088 (1999).
3J. Glimm, A. Jaffe and T. Spencer, Ann. Phys. 101, 610 (1976).
4J. Glimm, A. Jaffe, Quantum Physics (Springer, Berlin, 1981).
5J. Fröhlich, in Invariant Wave Equation, Proc. of Eltore Majorana (1978).
6E. Prodan, J. Math. Phys. 41,787 (2000).
7V. Rivasseau, CMR Proceedings and Lecture Notes 7, 99 (1994).
8R. Baumel, Princeton University Thesis (1973).
9F. Guerra, L. Rosen and B. Simon, Ann. Math. 101, 111 (1975).