text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

Supersymmetry (SUSY) is one of the most attractive ideas for unified model building . When the SUSY is spontaneously broken, a massless particle appears which is called the Nambu-Goldstone fermion , . Its interaction is characterized by the broken SUSY and is typically summarized as low energy theorems . The purpose of this paper is to study the low energy theorems for gauge supermultiplets, especially in the case of massless gaugino or gauge boson. We find that a new term should be used as the effective Lagrangian for massless gaugino. We also examine the effective interaction terms of NG fermion in an explicit model which can interpolate massless and massive particles in the gauge supermultiplet. This result should be useful even for supergravity theories provided the SUSY breaking scale is small enough, since gravitino behaves almost as an NG fermion for such a case .

If the supersymmetry (SUSY) is spontaneously broken, the boson-fermion mass-splitting is induced. There exists a Nambu-Goldstone (NG) fermion $`\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}`$ which shows up  in the supercurrent $`J_\alpha ^\mu (x)`$

$$J_\alpha ^\mu =\sqrt{2}if\left(\gamma ^\mu \psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\right)_\alpha +J_{\mathrm{matter},\alpha }^\mu +\mathrm{},$$
(1)
where $`f`$ is the order parameter of the SUSY breaking and $`J_{\mathrm{matter},\alpha }^\mu (x)`$ is the supercurrent for matter fields suitably dressed by the NG fermion. The low energy theorems have been worked out for chiral scalar supermultiplets. The effective coupling of the NG fermion is typically related to the mass-splitting of boson and fermion in the supermultiplet. In the case of gauge supermultiplet consisting of gauge boson $`v_\mu `$ and gaugino $`\lambda `$ for $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry, the supercurrent $`J_{\mathrm{matter},\alpha }^\mu (x)`$ becomes

$$J_{\mathrm{matter},\alpha }^\mu =iv_{\nu \rho }\left(\sigma ^{\nu \rho }\sigma ^\mu \right)_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}+\mathrm{},$$
(2)
where $`v_{\mu \nu }`$ is the gauge field strength. It has been shown that the single NG fermion interactions with a gauge supermultiplet can be expressed by the following effective Lagrangian  for a massless gauge boson

$$_{\mathrm{int}}=h_{\mathrm{eff}}\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\lambda v_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(3)
Here the effective coupling constant $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is related to the gaugino mass $`m_\mathrm{F}`$ and the order parameter $`f`$ by

$$h_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{m_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}f}.$$
(4)
This is the SUSY analog of the Goldberger-Treiman relation.

In Ref. we have extended this relation not only for a massless gauge boson but also for a massive one. In the case of $`m_\mathrm{F}0`$ the effective coupling can be expressed in terms of mass-splitting of the gauge boson and the gaugino as

$`_{\mathrm{int}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\lambda v_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.+\mathrm{},`$ (5)
$`h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}f}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{B}^2m_\mathrm{F}^2}{m_\mathrm{F}}}\right).`$ (6)
Evidently this effective action is inadequate for massless gaugino $`m_\mathrm{F}=0`$. We will show that the above effective Lagrangian (5) does not contribute to the low energy theorem to the leading order of the Nambu-Goldstone fermion momentum. We will find that the following interaction term should be used instead as the effective Lagrangian for the case of massless gaugino $`m_\mathrm{F}=0`$ to describe the low energy theorem correctly

$$_{\mathrm{int}}^{(2)}=ih_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^\nu \overline{\lambda }v_\nu +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(7)
For massive gaugino and gauge boson, we will find that both terms are allowed and are equivalent. Therefore a linear combination of these terms is constrained by the low energy theorem

$$h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}+m_\mathrm{F}h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{\sqrt{2}f},\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=m_\mathrm{B}^2m_\mathrm{F}^2.$$
(8)
For massless gauge boson $`m_\mathrm{B}=0`$, the new term (7) is forbidden because of unbroken gauge invariance and one has to use the known effective Lagrangian (5).

In the next section, we work out the effective Lagrangian and low energy theorem. In sect. 3, we present a concrete model, which interpolate massive and massless gaugino and gauge boson, in order to examine the NG fermion interactions.

## 2  Low energy theorem for gauge supermultiplets

We will consider interaction of NG fermion with momentum $`q_{\mathrm{NG}}`$ with gaugino of momentum $`p_\mathrm{F}`$ and gauge boson of momentum $`p_\mathrm{B}`$ and polarization $`ϵ(p_\mathrm{B})`$ which satisfies $`p_\mathrm{B}ϵ(p_\mathrm{B})=0`$. In the case of $`m_\mathrm{B}0`$ and $`m_\mathrm{F}0`$, these two Lagrangians can be regarded as equivalent in the soft NG fermion limit, $`q_{\mathrm{NG}}0`$ as follows. Let us take matrix element of these Lagrangians between in-coming state of NG fermion and gaugino $`|q_{\mathrm{NG}},p_\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and out-going state of gauge boson $`|p_\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{out}}`$. Using gaugino equation of motion, we obtain

$`p_\mathrm{B}|_{\mathrm{int}}^{(1)}`$ $`+`$ $`_{\mathrm{int}}^{(2)}|q_{\mathrm{NG}};p_\mathrm{F}`$
$`=`$ $`ih_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}\chi _{\mathrm{NG}}(ϵ^{}\sigma )(\overline{\sigma }p_\mathrm{B})\chi _\mathrm{F}+ih_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}\chi _{\mathrm{NG}}(ϵ^{}\sigma )\overline{\chi }_\mathrm{F}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`i\left(h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}}{m_\mathrm{F}}}\right)\chi _{\mathrm{NG}}(ϵ^{}\sigma )(\overline{\sigma }p_\mathrm{B})\chi _\mathrm{F}q_{\mathrm{NG}\mu }i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}}{m_\mathrm{F}}}\chi _{\mathrm{NG}}(ϵ^{}\sigma )\overline{\sigma }^\mu \chi _\mathrm{F}\right]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
$`=`$ $`i\left(h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}+m_\mathrm{F}h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}\right)\chi _{\mathrm{NG}}(ϵ^{}\sigma )\overline{\chi }_\mathrm{F}^{}+q_{\mathrm{NG}\mu }i\left[h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}\chi _{\mathrm{NG}}(ϵ^{}\sigma )\overline{\sigma }^\mu \chi _\mathrm{F}\right]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$ (9)
We see that these Lagrangians in Eqs.(5) and (7) contribute to the same matrix element ignoring higher $`q_{\mathrm{NG}}^\mu `$ terms. In this sense, we can use both interaction terms $`_{\mathrm{int}}^{(1)}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{int}}^{(2)}`$ as the effective Lagrangians.

To derive the relation between effective coupling constants $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)},h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}`$ and the gauge boson mass $`m_\mathrm{B}`$ and the gaugino mass $`m_\mathrm{F}`$, we introduce form factors $`A_i(q^2),i=1,\mathrm{},12`$ of the supercurrent $`J_\alpha ^\mu (x)`$ between one-particle states of the gaugino $`|p_\mathrm{F}`$ and the gauge boson $`|p_\mathrm{B}`$ following our previous work

$$\begin{array}{c}p_\mathrm{B}|J_\alpha ^\mu (0)|p_\mathrm{F}\hfill \\ =ϵ_\nu ^{}(p_\mathrm{B})\left[A_1(q^2)q^\nu q^\mu +A_2(q^2)q^\nu k^\mu +A_3(q^2)q^\nu \sigma ^\mu \overline{\sigma }^\rho q_\rho +A_4(q^2)\eta ^{\mu \nu }+A_5(q^2)\sigma ^\nu \overline{\sigma }^\mu \right]_\alpha ^\beta \chi _{\mathrm{F}\beta }(p_\mathrm{F})\hfill \\ +ϵ_\nu ^{}(p_\mathrm{B})[A_6(q^2)q^\nu \sigma ^\mu +A_7(q^2)q^\nu q^\mu \sigma ^\rho q_\rho +A_8(q^2)q^\nu k^\mu \sigma ^\rho q_\rho +A_9(q^2)\eta ^{\mu \nu }\sigma ^\rho q_\rho \hfill \\ +A_{10}(q^2)q^\mu \sigma ^\nu +A_{11}(q^2)\sigma ^\nu \overline{\sigma }^\rho \sigma ^\mu k_\rho +A_{12}(q^2)\sigma ^\mu \overline{\sigma }^\rho \sigma ^\nu q_\rho ]_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}\overline{\chi }_\mathrm{F}^{\dot{\beta }}(p_\mathrm{F}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where $`q^\mu =p_\mathrm{B}^\mu p_\mathrm{F}^\mu `$, $`k^\mu =p_\mathrm{B}^\mu +p_\mathrm{F}^\mu `$. The supercurrent conservation $`_\mu J_\alpha ^\mu =0`$ gives a relation among the form factors in terms of mass-splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2m_\mathrm{B}^2m_\mathrm{F}^2`$ between the gauge boson and the gaugino

$$q^2\left[A_{10}(q^2)+A_{11}(q^2)A_{12}(q^2)\right]=2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2A_{11}(q^2).$$
(11)
As is usual in current algebra, the supercurrent matrix element can have a massless NG fermion pole. So some of form factors in Eq.(10) are singular in the limit of $`q^20`$. Eq.(1) implies a non-vanishing matrix element of the supercurrent between the vacuum and the single NG fermion state $`|q,\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}`$ with momentum $`q^\mu `$

$$\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|J_\alpha ^\mu (0)|q,\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}=\sqrt{2}if\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{NG}}^{\dot{\alpha }},$$
(12)
where $`f`$ is the order parameter of the SUSY breaking. Since the combination $`J_\alpha ^\mu \sqrt{2}if\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \overline{\psi }_{\mathrm{NG}}^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ has vanishing matrix element between the vacuum and the single NG fermion state, its matrix element between gauge boson and gaugino states becomes non-singular in the limit $`q^20`$. Now we define an NG fermion source $`j_\alpha ^{\mathrm{NG}}(x)`$ by using the NG fermion field $`\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}(x)`$

$$j_\alpha ^{\mathrm{NG}}(x)i\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu _\mu \overline{\psi }_{\mathrm{NG}}^{\dot{\alpha }}(x).$$
(13)
By introducing form factors $`B_i(q^2),i=1,\mathrm{},4`$ of the NG fermion source, we obtain

$`p_\mathrm{B}|j_\alpha ^{\mathrm{NG}}(0)|p_\mathrm{F}=ϵ_\nu ^{}(p_\mathrm{B})\left[B_1(q^2)q^\nu +B_2(q^2)q_\rho \sigma ^\rho \overline{\sigma }^\nu \right]_\alpha ^\beta \chi _{\mathrm{F}\beta }(p_\mathrm{F})`$
$`+ϵ_\nu ^{}(p_\mathrm{B})\left[B_3(q^2)q^\nu \sigma ^\rho q_\rho +B_4(q^2)\sigma ^\nu \right]_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}\overline{\chi }_\mathrm{F}^{\dot{\beta }}(p_\mathrm{F}),`$ (14)
$`p_\mathrm{B}|\overline{\psi }_{\mathrm{NG}}^{\dot{\alpha }}(0)|p_\mathrm{F}=ϵ_\nu ^{}(p_\mathrm{B})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{B_1(q^2)}{q^2}}q^\nu \overline{\sigma }^\rho q_\rho +B_2(q^2)\overline{\sigma }^\nu \right]^{\dot{\alpha }\beta }\chi _{\mathrm{F}\beta }(p_\mathrm{F})`$
$`+ϵ_\nu ^{}(p_\mathrm{B})\left[B_3(q^2)q^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{B_4(q^2)}{q^2}}q_\rho \overline{\sigma }^\rho \sigma ^\nu \right]_{\dot{\beta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\chi }_\mathrm{F}^{\dot{\beta }}(p_\mathrm{F}).`$ (15)
Form factors in the combination $`J_\alpha ^\mu \sqrt{2}if\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \overline{\psi }_{\mathrm{NG}}^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ must be regular in the limit $`q^20`$

$$\begin{array}{c}p_\mathrm{B}|J_\alpha ^\mu (0)\sqrt{2}if\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \overline{\psi }_{\mathrm{NG}}^{\dot{\alpha }}|p_\mathrm{F}\hfill \\ =ϵ_\nu ^{}(p_\mathrm{B})[A_1(q^2)q^\nu q^\mu +A_2(q^2)q^\nu k^\mu +(A_3(q^2)+\sqrt{2}if\frac{B_1(q^2)}{q^2})q^\nu \sigma ^\mu \overline{\sigma }^\rho q_\rho .\hfill \\ .+(A_4(q^2)+2\sqrt{2}ifB_2(q^2))\eta ^{\mu \nu }+(A_5(q^2)+\sqrt{2}ifB_2(q^2))\sigma ^\nu \overline{\sigma }^\mu ]_\alpha ^\beta \chi _{\mathrm{F}\beta }(p_\mathrm{F})\hfill \\ +ϵ_\nu ^{}(p_\mathrm{B})[(A_6(q^2)\sqrt{2}ifB_3(q^2))q^\nu \sigma ^\mu +A_7(q^2)q^\nu q^\mu \sigma ^\rho q_\rho +A_8(q^2)q^\nu k^\mu \sigma ^\rho q_\rho \hfill \\ +A_9(q^2)\eta ^{\mu \nu }\sigma ^\rho q_\rho +A_{10}(q^2)q^\mu \sigma ^\nu +A_{11}(q^2)\sigma ^\nu \overline{\sigma }^\rho \sigma ^\mu k_\rho \hfill \\ +(A_{12}(q^2)+\sqrt{2}if\frac{B_4(q^2)}{q^2})\sigma ^\mu \overline{\sigma }^\rho \sigma ^\nu q_\rho ]_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}\overline{\chi }_\mathrm{F}^{\dot{\beta }}(p_\mathrm{F}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
Therefore we obtain the singularity of the form factors $`A_3(q^2)`$ and $`A_{12}(q^2)`$ at $`q^2=0`$ unless $`B_1(0)`$ and $`B_4(0)`$ vanish respectively

$`\underset{q^20}{lim}q^2A_3(q^2)=\sqrt{2}ifB_1(0),\underset{q^20}{lim}q^2A_{12}(q^2)=\sqrt{2}ifB_4(0).`$ (17)
Combining Eq.(17) with Eq.(11) in the limit $`q^20`$ gives

$$\sqrt{2}ifB_4(0)=2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2A_{11}(0).$$
(18)
To relate the form factor $`B_4(0)`$ to an effective coupling constant of the NG fermion with the gauge boson and the gaugino, we evaluate a transition amplitude between the in-state $`|q;p_\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and the out-state $`|p_\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{out}}`$. This S-matrix element can be expressed by using an effective interaction Lagrangian $`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ as

$`_{\mathrm{out}}p_\mathrm{B}|q;p_\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{in}}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mathrm{I}p_\mathrm{B}|e^{iS_{\mathrm{int}}(x)}|q;p_\mathrm{F}_\mathrm{I}`$ (19)
$``$ $`i{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4x_\mathrm{I}p_\mathrm{B}|e^{iPx}_{\mathrm{int}}(0)e^{iPx}|q;p_\mathrm{F}_\mathrm{I}}`$
$`=`$ $`i(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_\mathrm{B}p_\mathrm{F}q)_\mathrm{I}p_\mathrm{B}|_{\mathrm{int}}(0)|q;p_\mathrm{F}_\mathrm{I},`$
where $`|p_\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{I}`$ and $`|q;p_\mathrm{F}_\mathrm{I}`$ denote states in the interaction picture. On the other hand, using the LSZ reduction formula in four dimensions, it can also be written as

$`_{\mathrm{out}}p_\mathrm{B}|q;p_\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{in}}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4xe^{iqx}\overline{v}_{\mathrm{NG}}i\gamma ^\mu _\mu _\mathrm{I}p_\mathrm{B}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{NG}}(x)|p_\mathrm{F}_\mathrm{I}}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`i(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_\mathrm{B}p_\mathrm{F}q)\chi _{\mathrm{NG}}(q)q_\mu \sigma ^\mu _\mathrm{I}p_\mathrm{B}|\overline{\psi }_{\mathrm{NG}}(0)|p_\mathrm{F}_\mathrm{I}`$
$`i(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_\mathrm{B}p_\mathrm{F}q)\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{NG}}(q)q_\mu \overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mathrm{I}p_\mathrm{B}|\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}(0)|p_\mathrm{F}_\mathrm{I},`$
where Dirac spinors $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{NG}}`$ and $`\overline{v}_{\mathrm{NG}}`$ are decomposed into Weyl spinors as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{NG}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\hfill \\ \overline{\psi }_{\mathrm{NG}}\hfill \end{array}\right),\overline{v}_{\mathrm{NG}}(\chi _{\mathrm{NG}},\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{NG}}).$$
(21)
Since we do not need to distinguish the interaction picture and the Heisenberg picture for one-particle states, we drop the subscript I for one-particle states in the following. Therefore Eqs.(19) and (20) lead to a relation between matrix elements of the interaction Lagrangian and NG fermion source

$`p_\mathrm{B}|_{\mathrm{int}}(0)|q;p_\mathrm{F}_\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{\mathrm{NG}}(q)q\sigma p_\mathrm{B}|\overline{\psi }_{\mathrm{NG}}(0)|p_\mathrm{F}\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{NG}}(q)q\overline{\sigma }p_\mathrm{B}|\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}(0)|p_\mathrm{F}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\chi _{\mathrm{NG}}(q)p_\mathrm{B}|j^{\mathrm{NG}}(0)|p_\mathrm{F}\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{NG}}(q)p_\mathrm{B}|\overline{ȷ}^{\mathrm{NG}}(0)|p_\mathrm{F}.`$
Comparing Eqs.(9) and (22) with Eq.(14), we obtain

$`\chi _{\mathrm{NG}}(q)ϵ_\nu ^{}(p_\mathrm{B})\left[\left\{B_1(0)2B_2(0)\right\}q^\nu +\left\{B_2(0)+ih_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}\right\}\sigma ^\nu \overline{\sigma }q\right]^{\dot{\alpha }\beta }\chi _{\mathrm{F}\beta }(p_\mathrm{F})`$
$`+\chi _{\mathrm{NG}}(q)ϵ_\nu ^{}(p_\mathrm{B})\left[B_3(0)q^\nu q\sigma +\{B_4(0)+ih_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}\}\sigma ^\nu \right]_{\dot{\beta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\chi }_\mathrm{F}^{\dot{\beta }}(p_\mathrm{F})=0.`$ (23)
For the case of $`m_\mathrm{F}0`$, we can use the gaugino equation of motion

$$\overline{\chi }_\mathrm{F}^{}=\frac{1}{m_\mathrm{F}}\overline{\sigma }p_\mathrm{F}\chi _\mathrm{F}=\frac{1}{2m_\mathrm{F}}\overline{\sigma }(kq)\chi _\mathrm{F},$$
(24)
which gives relations among the form factors and the couplings $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)},h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}`$

$$B_4(0)=i\left(h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}+m_\mathrm{F}h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}\right),\frac{1}{2}B_1(0)=B_2(0)=\frac{B_4(0)+ih_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}}{m_\mathrm{F}},B_3(0)=0.$$
(25)
Thus Eq.(17) becomes

$$\sqrt{2}(h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}+m_\mathrm{F}h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)})f=2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2A_{11}(0).$$
(26)
Let us consider the case of $`m_\mathrm{F}=0`$. Eq.(9) shows that the Lagrangian $`_{\mathrm{int}}^{(1)}`$ does not contribute to the matrix element in leading orders of $`q_{\mathrm{NG}}^\mu `$ in this case. For $`m_\mathrm{F}=0`$, Eq.(23) leads to

$$B_4(0)=ih_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)},\frac{1}{2}B_1(0)=B_2(0)=ih_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)},B_3(0)=0.$$
(27)
Therefore the effective Lagrangian consists solely of $`_{\mathrm{int}}^{(2)}`$ and its coupling $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}`$ is given in terms of the mass-splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ for the case of massless gaugino $`m_\mathrm{F}=0`$

$$\sqrt{2}h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}f=2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2A_{11}(0).$$
(28)
Now we consider the case of massless gauge boson $`m_\mathrm{B}=0`$. In this case, we have an unbroken gauge symmetry, which requires the vanishing matrix element of Eq.(22), if we replace $`ϵ_\mu ^{}(p_\mathrm{B})`$ by $`p_{\mathrm{B}\mu }`$. Using Eq.(14), we obtain relations among the form factors $`B_i(0)`$

$$\frac{1}{2}B_1(0)=B_2(0)=\frac{B_4(0)}{m_\mathrm{F}},B_3(0)=0.$$
(29)
These relations combined with Eq.(27) imply $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}=0`$. Therefore gauge invariance forbids $`_{\mathrm{int}}^{(2)}`$ as a piece of effective Lagrangian for $`m_\mathrm{B}=0`$.

We can determine the form factor $`A_{11}(0)`$ by substituting the following expression of the supercurrent into Eq.(16) in the limit $`q^20`$

$$J_\alpha ^\mu \sqrt{2}if\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \overline{\psi }_{\mathrm{NG}}^{\dot{\alpha }}=iv_{\nu \rho }\left(\sigma ^{\nu \rho }\sigma ^\mu \right)_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}+\mathrm{},$$
(30)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes higher order terms with NG fermion and possible interaction terms. Neglecting possible “renormalization effects” due to interactions and higher order terms, we find

$$A_{11}(0)=\frac{1}{2},$$
(31)
which leads to the SUSY Goldberger-Treiman relation

$$h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}+m_\mathrm{F}h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{\sqrt{2}f}.$$
(32)
Now we consider the case where fermion mass-eigenstates $`\{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i\}`$ are mixtures of gauginos $`\{\lambda _i\}`$ which are superpartners of gauge bosons $`\{(v_i)_\mu \}`$ as

$$\lambda _i(x)=V_{i,j}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j(x),$$
(33)
where $`V_{i,j}`$ is the unitary mixing matrix. In this case, the effective Lagrangian should be written in terms of mass-eigenstates as follows

$$_{\mathrm{int}}=\underset{i,j}{}h_{\mathrm{eff}i,j}^{(1)}\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j(v_i)_{\mu \nu }+\underset{i,j}{}h_{\mathrm{eff}i,j}^{(2)}i\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^\nu \overline{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}_j(v_i)_\nu +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(34)
and thus Eq.(26) becomes

$$\sqrt{2}(h_{\mathrm{eff}i,j}^{(2)}+m_{\mathrm{F},j}h_{\mathrm{eff}i,j}^{(1)})f=2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i,j}^2A_{11}(0)_{i,j},$$
(35)
where $`m_{i,j}^2=m_{\mathrm{B},i}^2m_{\mathrm{F},j}^2`$. Taking account of the mixing Eq.(33), the supercurrent becomes

$$J_\alpha ^\mu =\sqrt{2}if\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \overline{\psi }_{\mathrm{NG}}^{\dot{\alpha }}i\underset{k,l}{}V_{k,l}(v_k)_{\nu \rho }\left(\sigma ^{\nu \rho }\sigma ^\mu \right)_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}_l^{\dot{\alpha }}+\mathrm{},$$
(36)
which determines the value of the form factor $`A_{11}(0)_{i,j}`$ as

$$A_{11}(0)_{i,j}=\frac{1}{2}V_{i,j},$$
(37)
and so Eq.(32) can be written as

$$h_{\mathrm{eff}i,j}^{(2)}+m_{\mathrm{F},j}h_{\mathrm{eff}i,j}^{(1)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i,j}^2}{\sqrt{2}f}V_{i,j}.$$
(38)
In summary, we should use the following effective Lagrangians

$`m_\mathrm{F}0,m_\mathrm{B}=0:`$ $`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\lambda v_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (39)
$`m_\mathrm{F}=0,m_\mathrm{B}0:`$ $`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=ih_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^\nu \overline{\lambda }v_\nu +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (40)
$`m_\mathrm{F}0,m_\mathrm{B}0:`$ $`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\lambda v_{\mu \nu }+ih_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^\nu \overline{\lambda }v_\nu +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$ (41)
The corresponding effective couplings are given by the SUSY Goldberger-Treiman relations

$`m_\mathrm{F}0,m_\mathrm{B}=0:`$ $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}f}},`$ (42)
$`m_\mathrm{F}=0,m_\mathrm{B}0:`$ $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{B}^2}{\sqrt{2}f}},`$ (43)
$`m_\mathrm{F}0,m_\mathrm{B}0:`$ $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}`$ $`+m_\mathrm{F}h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{\sqrt{2}f}},\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=m_\mathrm{B}^2m_\mathrm{F}^2.`$ (44)
If there is a mixing for gaugino, we only need to multiply them by the mixing matrix $`V_{i,j}`$ as in Eq.(38).

## 3  Low energy theorem in a concrete model

So far we derived the SUSY Goldberger-Treiman relation for gauge supermultiplet not only with massless gauge boson as in Ref. but also with massive one. We will examine and check the result in Eqs.(42) - (44) by a spontaneously broken SUSY model interpolating $`m_\mathrm{F}=0`$ and $`m_\mathrm{F}0`$.

The model considered here is the spontaneously broken $`U(1)`$ gauge theory in four dimensions which gives mass for the gauge boson and the gaugino. In order to have NG fermion without containing gaugino component, SUSY is broken by the O’Raifeartaigh mechanism. We introduce the following Lagrangian with chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(i)}=(A^{(i)},\psi ^{(i)},F^{(i)}),i=0,1,2`$ neutral under $`U(1)`$ group, and chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+,\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ with $`U(1)`$ charge $`\pm e`$, respectively

$``$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{2}{}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(i)}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(i)}+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^+e^{eV}\mathrm{\Phi }^++\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}e^{eV}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(0)}\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\right]_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}`$ (45)
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W^\alpha W_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M}}W^\alpha W_\alpha +P(\mathrm{\Phi }^{(i)},\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm )\right]_{\theta ^2}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$
The gauge kinetic function has a non-minimal piece with the parameter $`1/M`$ and is chosen to be proportional to the NG fermion superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(A,\psi ,F),`$ $`\psi =\psi _{\mathrm{NG}},`$ $`F=f`$, which is determined later. This non-minimal kinetic term is added to give mass term for gaugino bilinear. The K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler potential has a non-minimal piece with the parameter $`\alpha `$ of mass dimension $`1`$. This term is added to allow a possibility of massless fermion containing gaugino component as we show below. The superpotential $`P`$ is given in terms of parameters $`\mathrm{}`$ of mass dimension two, $`m,k`$ and $`h`$ of mass dimension one and dimensionless $`g`$

$`P(\mathrm{\Phi }^{(i)},\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm )=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}+m\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}+g\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{h}}\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^2.`$ (46)
Now we consider the minimum of the potential for scalar fields

$$𝒱=\frac{1}{2}D^2+\underset{i,\overline{ȷ}}{}g^{i\overline{ȷ}}\frac{P}{A^i}\frac{\overline{P}}{\overline{A^j}},$$
(47)
where $`g_{i\overline{ȷ}}`$ is K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler metric in field space. For the case of $`g\mathrm{}<0`$ and $`2|g\mathrm{}|m^2/(1\beta ^2)`$ where $`\beta \sqrt{2}\alpha k`$, we obtain an absolute minimum with a relation

$$A^{(2)}=\frac{m}{2gA^{(1)}}A^{(0)},A^+=A^{}$$
(48)
In order to simplify the determination of the explicit value of the fields, we choose to impose the following fine tuning of parameters of the model

$$h=\frac{\alpha mv}{2(1\beta ^2)k^2},vA^{(1)}.$$
(49)
We obtain the minimum of the scalar potential at the following value for fields

$`A^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2|g\mathrm{}|m^2/(1\beta ^2)}{2g^2}}},A^+=A^{}=k,`$ (50)
We obtain a flat direction along $`A^{(0)}`$ and choose $`A^{(0)}=0`$ in the following. In this vacuum, both SUSY and $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry are broken. So the gauge boson becomes massive $`m_\mathrm{B}=ek`$, and there is non-zero vacuum energy caused by $`F^{(0)},F^{(2)},F^\pm 0`$.

To find an NG fermion, we focus on fermion mass terms. Since $`\tau (\psi ^+\psi ^{})/i\sqrt{2}`$ and gaugino $`\lambda `$ mixes together and do not contain NG fermion component, we consider first possible massless fermions arising from a mixing of $`\xi (\psi ^++\psi ^{})/\sqrt{2}`$, and $`\psi ^{(0)},\psi ^{(1)},\psi ^{(2)}`$. Because of non-minimal K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler potential, the kinetic terms of the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)},\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ become non-canonical. We define the following fermions to normalize the kinetic terms

$$\begin{array}{c}\zeta \sqrt{\frac{1+\beta }{2}}\left(\psi ^{(0)}+\xi \right)\\ \eta \sqrt{\frac{1\beta }{2}}\left(\psi ^{(0)}\xi \right)\end{array}\begin{array}{c}\psi ^{(0)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1+\beta )}}\zeta +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1\beta )}}\eta \\ \xi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1+\beta )}}\zeta \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1\beta )}}\eta \end{array}\begin{array}{c}\\ .\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
The mass matrix of these canonically normalized fermions becomes

$$\frac{1}{2}(\psi ^{(1)},\psi ^{(2)},\zeta ,\eta )\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 2gv& \frac{m}{\sqrt{2(1+\beta )}}& \frac{m}{\sqrt{2(1\beta )}}\\ 2gv& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{m}{\sqrt{2(1+\beta )}}& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{m}{\sqrt{2(1\beta )}}& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi ^{(1)}\\ \psi ^{(2)}\\ \zeta \\ \eta \end{array}\right)\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ \\ .\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
We find two zero-eigenvalues for the mass matrix and the corresponding zero-eigenmodes as

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m^2+4g^2v^2(1\beta ^2)}}}\left(m\psi ^{(2)}+2gv(1\beta )\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{2}}}\zeta +2gv(1+\beta )\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta }{2}}}\eta \right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{02}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{2}}}\zeta \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta }{2}}}\eta .`$ (53)
To identify the NG fermion from a linear combination of these zero-modes, we consider their SUSY transformation

$`\delta _ϵ\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}fϵ,`$ (54)
$`\delta _ϵ\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{02}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (55)
where $`f`$ is the order parameter of SUSY breaking and is given by the square root of the vacuum energy

$$f^2=g^{0\overline{0}}\frac{P}{A^{(0)}}\frac{\overline{P}}{\overline{A}^{(0)}}+\frac{P}{A^{(2)}}\frac{\overline{P}}{\overline{A}^{(2)}}=\frac{m^2}{4g^2(1\beta ^2)^2}\{m^2+4g^2v^2(1\beta ^2)\}.$$
(56)
Since one of zero-modes $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{02}`$ has no contribution to SUSY breaking, we identify $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{01}`$ as the NG fermion $`\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}`$ which can be rewritten using (51) as

$$\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{m^2+4g^2v^2(1\beta ^2)}}\left(2gv(1\beta ^2)\psi ^{(0)}m\psi ^{(2)}\right).$$
(57)
Thus the NG fermion superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in our model (45) can be chosen as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{m^2+4g^2v^2(1\beta ^2)}}\left(2gv(1\beta ^2)\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}m\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}\right).$$
(58)
In this case, Lagrangian (45) has the following fermion mass terms between $`\tau (\psi _+\psi _{})/i\sqrt{2}`$ and gaugino $`\lambda `$

$$_{\mathrm{mass}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(2k^2h\right)\tau ^\alpha \tau _\alpha \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{2F}{M}\right)\lambda ^\alpha \lambda _\alpha (ek)\tau ^\alpha \lambda _\alpha +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(59)
where $`F=f`$ and the NG fermion interaction terms

$$_{\mathrm{int}}=i\frac{e}{2}\frac{2gv\beta }{\sqrt{m^2+4g^2v^2(1\beta ^2)}}\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^\mu \overline{\tau }v_\mu \frac{\sqrt{2}}{M}\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\lambda v_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(60)
The mass matrix between $`\lambda `$ and $`\tau `$ becomes

$$\frac{1}{2}\begin{array}{cc}(\tau ^\alpha & \lambda ^\alpha )\end{array}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& m_{\mathrm{B},2}\\ m_{\mathrm{B},2}& b\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\tau _\alpha \\ \lambda _\alpha \end{array}\right),m_{\mathrm{B},2}ek,a2k^2h,b\frac{2f}{M}.$$
(61)
This leads to the following eigenvalue equation

$$m_\mathrm{F}^2(a+b)m_\mathrm{F}+abm_{\mathrm{B},2}^2=0,$$
(62)
and so mass-eigenvalues are

$$m_{\mathrm{F},1}=\frac{a+b}{2}+\sqrt{\left(\frac{ab}{2}\right)^2+m_{\mathrm{B},2}^2},m_{\mathrm{F},2}=\frac{a+b}{2}\sqrt{\left(\frac{ab}{2}\right)^2+m_{\mathrm{B},2}^2}.$$
(63)
By denoting corresponding mass-eigenstates as $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2`$, their mixing matrix becomes

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\tau \\ \lambda \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}V_{1,1}& V_{1,2}\\ V_{2,1}& V_{2,2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1\\ \stackrel{~}{\psi }_2\end{array}\right),V_{1,1}=\frac{m_{\mathrm{F},1}b}{m_{\mathrm{B},2}}V_{2,1},V_{1,2}=\frac{m_{\mathrm{F},2}b}{m_{\mathrm{B},2}}V_{2,2},$$
(64)
where we denote gauge boson and its mass as $`(v_{i=2})_\mu (v_2)_\mu `$ and $`m_{\mathrm{B},2}`$ instead of $`v_\mu `$ and $`m_\mathrm{B}`$. Therefore NG fermion interaction Lagrangian Eq.(60) becomes

$`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{2,1}}{\sqrt{2}f}}b\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1(v_2)_{\mu \nu }i{\displaystyle \frac{V_{2,1}}{\sqrt{2}f}}(am_{\mathrm{F},1}+ab)\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^\mu \overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_1(v_2)_\mu `$ (65)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{2,2}}{\sqrt{2}f}}b\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2(v_2)_{\mu \nu }i{\displaystyle \frac{V_{2,2}}{\sqrt{2}f}}(am_{\mathrm{F},2}+ab)\psi _{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma ^\mu \overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_2(v_2)_\mu +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
and so these coupling constants are

$`h_{\mathrm{eff2},1}^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{2,1}}{\sqrt{2}f}}b,`$ $`h_{\mathrm{eff2},1}^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{2,1}}{\sqrt{2}f}}(am_{\mathrm{F},1}+ab),`$ (66)
$`h_{\mathrm{eff2},2}^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{2,2}}{\sqrt{2}f}}b,`$ $`h_{\mathrm{eff2},2}^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{2,2}}{\sqrt{2}f}}(am_{\mathrm{F},2}+ab).`$ (67)
Now we consider the relation among these coupling and mass-splitting

$$m_{\mathrm{B},2}^2m_{\mathrm{F},i}^2=(a+b)m_{\mathrm{F},i}+ab.$$
(68)
First we consider $`m_\mathrm{B}=0`$ and $`m_\mathrm{F}0`$. In this case, $`m_{\mathrm{B},2}=ek=0`$, i.e., $`a=0,b=m_{\mathrm{F},2}`$ and there is no mixing $`V_{2,2}=V_{1,1}=1,V_{1,2}=V_{2,1}=0`$. This result agrees with Eq.(42)

$$h_{\mathrm{eff2},2}^{(1)}=\frac{m_{\mathrm{F},2}}{\sqrt{2}f}.$$
(69)
Next for $`m_\mathrm{B}0`$ and $`m_\mathrm{F}=0`$, this is realized by taking $`ab=m_{\mathrm{B},2}^2`$ for $`m_{\mathrm{F},2}`$ in Eq.(63) and thus

$$h_{\mathrm{eff2},2}^{(2)}=\frac{V_{2,2}}{\sqrt{2}f}m_{\mathrm{B},2}^2,$$
(70)
which is the result of Eq.(43) with mixing.
For general cases of $`m_\mathrm{B}0`$ and $`m_\mathrm{F}0`$, the mass-splitting Eq.(68) can be rewritten as

$$m_{\mathrm{B},2}^2m_\mathrm{F}^2=(a+b)m_\mathrm{F}+ab=\left[am_\mathrm{F}+ab\right]+\left[m_\mathrm{F}b\right],$$
(71)
and so the combination of two couplings $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}+m_\mathrm{F}h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}`$ leads

$`\left(h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}+m_\mathrm{F}h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}\right)_{2,1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{2,1}}{\sqrt{2}f}}\left(m_{\mathrm{B},2}^2m_{\mathrm{F},1}^2\right),`$ (72)
$`\left(h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(2)}+m_\mathrm{F}h_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}\right)_{2,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{2,2}}{\sqrt{2}f}}\left(m_{\mathrm{B},2}^2m_{\mathrm{F},2}^2\right),`$ (73)
which agree with the SUSY Goldberger-Treiman relation with mixing in Eq.(44).

Thus the couplings and mass-splittings obtained in a SUSY breaking model discussed in this section all satisfy our results in Eqs.(42)-(44).

### Acknowledgments

We thank Nobuhito Maru and Yutaka Sakamura for a collaboration where this work has started.


format: text

text:
# Wrapping Current versus Bulk Integer Quantum Hall Effect in Three Dimensions

## Abstract

Surface electron currents are studied for the integer quantum Hall effect in three dimensions(3D) proposed previously by Kohmoto et al. and by Koshino et al. We predict the current wraps the facets of the sample with its intensity and direction dictated by 3D Chern numbers which are just the quantized Hall conductivities in 3D ($`\sigma _{xy},\sigma _{zx}`$), so a natural connection exists between the surface and bulk currents just as in 2D. An experiment to detect the 3D integer quantum Hall effect through the wrapping current is proposed.

The chiral edge states of 2D electrons in magnetic fields have been extensively investigated for the quantum Hall effect(QHE). Namely, edge states exist for each Landau gap in a finite quantum Hall system, and the Hall current carried by them is shown to coincide exactly with one calculated with the Kubo formula for the bulk sample, which has been interpreted in terms of topological quantum numbers characterizing the quantum Hall currents.

While the QHE is usually conceived as specific to two-dimensional systems, it is known that integer QHE can occur even in three dimensions (3D) if the spectrum has an energy gap and if the Fermi energy lies in the gap. Although gaps do not usually appear in 3D, two of the present authors have shown that it is possible to have a class of energy spectra having a series of gaps (Hofstadter butterfly) in 3D lattice systems in an appropriate condition, where we have a 3D-specific IQHE, i.e., each of the Hall conductivities $`\sigma _{xy},\sigma _{zx}`$ quantized for each gap. That analysis for the 3D QHE is based on the bulk description, and a natural question we can now ask is: whether and how surface states appear in this 3D QHE. In superlattice systems, i.e., stack of 2D systems, the surface current has been intensively studied. There, one discusses a stack of the chiral edge states, called the chiral sheath current. Surface states are also discussed for the field-induced spin density waves (FISDW) in organic conductors. In those systems, however, the inter-layer hoppings are relatively so small that the surface states may be understood as weakly coupled 2D edge states. By contrast, here we are talking about the 3D-specific IQHE with $`\sigma _{xy},\sigma _{zx}`$ quantized as 3D Chern (topological) numbers.

So we have studied here the surface states for 3D in general and for the 3D butterfly in particular. We show that there exists a surface wrapping current that winds around the facets of the 3D sample. A hallmark of the 3D-specific nature appears as the current on each facet flowing obliquely to the crystallographic axes, where the current direction is given in terms of the 3D Chern numbers. An interesting observation is that the 3D Hall currents carried by surface states are exactly the same as what is given by the bulk conductivities.

Although we can expect a 3D sample in a magnetic field spontaneously carries a surface current in equilibrium as a 2D sample carries an edge current, the situation should be more complex, since the surface current will have to wind around various faces of the 3D sample. However, we can show, from thermodynamics, that the surface current may be expressed in a surprisingly simple way in terms of the bulk density of states. Let us take a cubic, homogeneous sample for simplicity and put it in a uniform magnetic field $`𝑩`$. We assume that the surface current is uniform over each face of the cube and that the effect of cube edges can be neglected. Then we can characterize the surface currrent flowing around the faces of the cube by regarding it as a bunch of loop-current segments as depicted in Fig.1(a). Since the current is assumed to be uniform on each face, the bunch is characterized by only two quantities: the vector $`𝒏`$, normal to each loop, and $`j`$, the loop current intensity flowing within a unit height measured along $`𝒏`$. If we define the loop current-density vector as $`𝒋^{\mathrm{loop}}j𝒏`$, the magnetization associated with the current is $`𝒎=V𝒋^{\mathrm{loop}}`$, where $`V`$ is the sample volume. Combining with a thermodynamic Maxwell’s relation, we obtain

$$\frac{d𝒋^{\mathrm{loop}}}{\mu }=\frac{\rho }{𝑩},$$
(1)
where $`\rho `$ is the density of occupied states per unit volume and $`\mu `$ the chemical potential.

Now if we move on to the QHE case in the 3D periodic system, by assuming that the Fermi energy $`E_F`$ lies in a gap of the bulk energy spectrum, we have a relation

$$\frac{\rho }{𝑩}=\frac{e}{2\pi h}𝑱,$$
(2)
where $`e`$ is the charge of an electron and $`𝑱`$ is a reciprocal vector of the periodic potential. $`𝑱`$ depends on the gap in which $`E_F`$ lies and gives the quantized 3D Hall conductance through

$$\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{bulk}}=\frac{e^2}{2\pi h}\underset{k}{}ϵ_{ijk}J_k,$$
(3)
where $`ϵ_{ijk}`$ is the unit antisymmetric tensor. From eqs.(1) and (2), the surface loop current carried by the surface states between $`E`$ and $`E+d\mu `$ is given as

$$d𝒋^{\mathrm{loop}}=\frac{e}{2\pi h}𝑱d\mu .$$
(4)
From this we will conclude that there is a quantized wrapping current. Even at this stage, we can see a unique behavior: that the direction (in real space) of the surface current should always be perpendicular to a fixed reciprocal vector, which in general deviates from the symmetry axes of the crystal and also from $`𝑩`$, but which is solely determined by the gap in which $`E_F`$ is located.

Having looked at the thermodynamics, let us move on to a microscopic model for the 3D QHE surface currents. We take a noninteracting tight-binding electron system in a uniform magnetic field $`𝑩`$. Schrödinger’s equation is $`_jt_{ij}e^{i\theta _{ij}}\psi _j=E\psi _i`$. Here $`\psi _i`$ is the wave function at site $`i`$, the summation is over nearest-neighbor sites, and $`\theta _{ij}=\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}_j^i𝑨d𝒍`$ is the Peierls phase factor arising from the magnetic flux where $`𝑨`$ is the vector potential with $`\times 𝑨=𝑩`$. We consider a 3D simple-cubic lattice with lattice constants $`a,b,c`$ and $`𝑩=(0,B\mathrm{sin}\theta ,B\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ lying in the $`yz`$ plane. In the gauge $`𝑨=(0,Bx\mathrm{cos}\theta ,Bx\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$, $`y,z`$ become cyclic, and we have $`\psi _{lmn}=e^{ik_ymb+ik_znc}F_l`$, where $`l,m,n`$ are the site indexes along $`x,y,z`$, respectively. Schrödinger’s equation then reads

$`t_x(F_{l1}+F_{l+1})[2t_y\mathrm{cos}(G_bla+k_yb)`$ (5)
$`+2t_z\mathrm{cos}(G_cla+k_zc)]F_l=EF_l.`$ (6)
Here $`t_x,t_y,t_z`$ are the transfer integrals between nearest neighbors along $`x,y,z`$, respectively, and $`(G_b,G_c)=\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}(B_zb,B_yc)`$.

Now we consider that the system is quasi-1D, i.e., $`t_xt_y,t_z`$, which is required for the 3D butterfly. By applying the effective-mass approach for the $`x`$ direction, we have

$`[E_x(_x)`$ $``$ $`2t_y\mathrm{cos}(G_bx+k_yb).`$ (7)
. $``$ $`2t_z\mathrm{cos}(G_cx+k_zc)]F(x)=EF(x),`$ (8)
where $`E_x(_x)=(at_x_x)^2`$. The perturbation ($`t_y,t_z`$) mixes eigenfunctions $`\{F(x)=e^{ik_xx}\}`$, and energy gaps of magnitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }=|t_y|^M|t_z|^N`$ (in a unit of energy $`t_x=1`$) open at $`k_x=\pm \frac{1}{2}(MG_b+NG_c),`$ where $`M,N`$ are integers. In the quasi-1D limit $`t_y,t_z0`$, Schrödinger’s equation around the gap $`(M,N)`$ simplifies into

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\mathrm{}v_x& \mathrm{\Delta }e^{i\phi }\\ \mathrm{\Delta }e^{i\phi }& i\mathrm{}v_x\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}F_+(x)\\ F_{}(x)\end{array}\right)=E\left(\begin{array}{c}F_+(x)\\ F_{}(x)\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
where we have decomposed the wave function into the left- and right-moving components, $`F=F_++F_{}`$, around $`k_x=\pm k_\mathrm{F}=\pm \frac{1}{2}(MG_b+NG_c)`$, $`\phi =Mk_ybNk_zc`$, and $`v=\mathrm{}k_\mathrm{F}/m^{}`$.

Now we consider the surface states at the gap $`(M,N)`$ by extending the discussion for the FISDW, which is one way of realizing the energy gaps in 3D systems and also mathematically similar to the 3D QHE considered in ref.. We first consider the surfaces normal to the conductive axis ($`\widehat{𝒙}`$) in a sample with $`0xL_x`$. By applying the boundary condition $`F(0)=0`$ to the differential eq.(9), we find a surface state that decays into the bulk,

$$F(x)=e^{\kappa x}\mathrm{sin}k_\mathrm{F}x,$$
(10)
where $`\kappa =(\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}v)\mathrm{sin}(Mk_ybNk_zc)`$. The corresponding eigenenergy measured from the gap center is

$$E_{MN}=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}(Mk_ybNk_zc).$$
(11)
The solution with $`\kappa >0`$ corresponds to the left surface ($`x0`$) while $`\kappa <0`$ to the right ($`xL_x`$). The energy dispersion of the surface state must be plotted against $`(k_y,k_z)`$ as in Fig.2. They oscillate $`M(N)`$ times along $`k_x(k_y)`$, where we can see the stripe-like areas alternating for the right and left surface states. Since the Brillouin zone is topologically a torus, we can define two winding numbers for the stripe along toroidal and poloidal directions. They are just $`M`$ and $`N`$, and these two numbers are in fact the Chern numbers in 3D, which correspond to $`\sigma _{xy},\sigma _{zx}`$ as shown below. For 2D Hatsugai has shown that the edge states whose energy dispersions correspond to wiggly lines against $`k_y`$ between the Landau subbands have topological numbers. Hence the present result is a natural extension to 3D. Although small $`t_y,t_z`$ are assumed above, the 3D Chern numbers, being topological, should be constant for larger $`t_y,t_z`$.

From this microscopic model, we can actually calculate the current density on the surface. The expected value of the velocity for the electron for given $`(k_y,k_z)`$ is

$$𝒗=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\frac{E_{MN}}{𝒌}=\pm \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2E_{MN}^2}(0,Mb,Nc),$$
(12)
where $`+`$ and $``$ corresponds to the left and right surface states, respectively. We can see that every state in the gap $`(M,N)`$ has a velocity parallel to a single vector $`(Mb,Nc)`$. The current density on each surface carried by the states between $`E`$ and $`E+d\mu `$ is then expressed as

$$d𝒋^{\widehat{𝒙}}=\frac{e}{h}(0,\frac{M}{c},\frac{N}{b})d\mu (\mathrm{at}x=0,L_x).$$
(13)
The derivation of the surface currents on the planes $`\widehat{𝒚}`$ or $`\widehat{𝒛}`$ that contain the conductive axis is slightly different. We consider a finite sample with $`0yL_y,0zL_z`$. To see which states are mixed, we can write the perturbational term (the off-diagonal term in eq.(9)) for the gap $`(M,N)`$ in a second quantized form in $`k`$ space as

$`^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k_x,k_y,k_z}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }e^{i(Mk_ybNk_zc)}`$ (15)
$`\times c_{k_x+MG_b+NG_c,k_y,k_z}^{}c_{k_x,k_y,k_z}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
where $`c^{}(c)`$ are creation (annihilation) opperators. In the Wannier representation for $`y,z`$, this becomes

$`^{}={\displaystyle \underset{k_x,m,n}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }c_{k_x+MG_b+NG_c,mM,n+N}^{}c_{k_x,m,n}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (16)
where $`|k_x,m,n`$ is a mixed Wannier-Bloch basis localized at $`(y,z)=(mb,nc)`$ and delocalized along $`x`$ (so we call it a ‘chain’). Once $`^{}`$ is switched on, the states at $`(m,n)`$ with $`k_x>0`$ and $`(mM,n+N)`$ with $`k_x<0`$ are mixed, and an energy gap appears at $`k_x=\pm \frac{1}{2}(MG_b+NG_c)`$. We can immediately see that chains lying within $`M(N)`$ lattice constants of the faces $`\widehat{𝒚}(\widehat{𝒛})`$ do not couple to other chains, so these states remain gapless, which is exactly the origin of the surface states. The expectation value of the velocity along $`x`$ is equal to $`\pm \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m^{}}(MG_b+NG_c)`$ with opposite directions between the two sides. The current density for each surface for energies between $`E`$ and $`E+d\mu `$ is

$`d𝒋^{\widehat{𝒚}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{e}{h}}({\displaystyle \frac{M}{c}},0,0)d\mu (\mathrm{at}y=0,L_y),`$ (17)
$`d𝒋^{\widehat{𝒛}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{h}}({\displaystyle \frac{N}{b}},0,0)d\mu (\mathrm{at}z=0,L_z).`$ (18)
From eqs.(13),(18), we can see that the currents satisfy Kirchhoff’s law on each edge of the sample, so that we end up with a current sheet that wraps the whole surface (Fig.1(b)), and the corresponding loop current segment defined above is $`d𝒋^{\mathrm{loop}}=\frac{e}{h}(0,\frac{N}{b},\frac{M}{c})d\mu `$. We can see that this result is consistent with the formula(4), since the reciprocal vector $`𝑱`$ (eq.(2)), calculated originally by Montambaux and Kohmoto, is $`(0,2\pi N/b,2\pi M/c)`$ for the present case.

In the 3D QHE system, how to measure the conductivity tensor experimentally is even less trivial than in 2D. We propose here an experiment to detect 3D QHE surface currents in analogy with the 2D Hall bar experiment. As shown in Fig.3 we attach two pairs of electrodes, $`(1,2)\widehat{𝒚}`$ and $`(3,4)\widehat{𝒛}`$. The incoming or outgoing currents, denoted as $`I_1,\mathrm{},I_4`$ as depicted in the figure, are a function of the chemical potentials of the electrodes, $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _4`$. We can calculate the currents by first assuming that all the currents are carried by the surface states. For the present electrodes, we are left with the surface currents on the two $`\widehat{𝒙}`$ faces (which we call right and left surfaces), whose current density is given in eq.(13).

As for the chemical potential, let us consider the situation where all $`\mu `$’s are in the gap $`(M,N)`$ with $`M,N>0`$. Then we can see from eq.(13) that the electrons on the left surface flow from the electrode 1 or 3 (source) into 2 or 4 (drain) with a reverse current for the right surface. So when we set $`\mu _1=\mu _3\mu _2=\mu _4`$, each $`\widehat{𝒙}`$ face should be in equilibrium with the source electrode ($`\mu _1`$ for the left surface, $`\mu _2`$ for the right) if we neglect dissipations in the sample (which we will touch upon later). The net currents must be conserved, which implies, for rectangular surfaces, $`I_1=I_2(I_y)`$ and $`I_3=I_4(I_z)`$, and they are readily calculated, via eq.(13), as

$$(I_y,I_z)=\frac{e}{h}(\frac{L_zM}{c},\frac{L_yN}{b})(\mu _1\mu _2).$$
(19)
The Hall conductivity tensor due to the surface conduction becomes

$$(\sigma _{xy}^{\mathrm{surface}},\sigma _{zx}^{\mathrm{surface}})=\frac{e^2}{h}(\frac{M}{c},\frac{N}{b}),$$
(20)
where we have put $`\mu _1\mu _2=eV_x`$ with $`V_x`$ being the Hall voltage. If we compare this with the expression for the bulk conductivity, we can establish a relationship for the Hall conductivities, $`\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{surface}}=\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ in 3D, i.e., the result does not change whether the currents flow in the bulk or on the surface. In the usual 2D QHE, Hatsugai shows that $`\sigma _{xy}^{\mathrm{surface}}=\sigma _{xy}^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ by identifing the connection between the topological integers for the bulk and the edge states. So the discussion here in terms of the 3D topological numbers shows that this property remarkably extends to 3D.

We can give an intuitive way to understand why surface or bulk does not really matter. Let us start with 2D QHE to consider two possible situations (Fig.4): Case A has an electrostatic-potential gradient over the bulk with the potential drop, $`eV`$, assumed to be the same as the chemical potential difference across the two edges. Case B has no potential drop in the bulk while the chemical potentials at two edges, $`\mu _1,\mu _2`$, differ. Physically, the situation is determined by, e.g., how the local equilibrium is achieved by inelastic processes as studied by Ando in a numerical calucation of the potential profile. We can now question how the $`\sigma `$ ’s in two pictures are connected. If we put $`\mu _1\mu _2=eV`$, we can envisage that the two cases cross over to each other continuously as in Fig.4. The only assumption is that we can neglect the scattering across the edge states on the two sides. The current in case A can be divided into the bulk current $`I^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ and edge currents. The edge currents on the left and right edges have opposite directions but the same intensity because the chemical potential at either edge is assumed to have the same energy difference (denoted by $`\mu _0`$ in the figure) from the Landau level center. In case B, the conduction is entirely due to the edge currents $`I_1^{\mathrm{edge}},I_2^{\mathrm{edge}}`$, which are different because $`\mu _1\mu _2`$. Since the total current must be preserved as we go from case A to B, we have $`I_1^{\mathrm{edge}}I_2^{\mathrm{edge}}=I^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$, which is in fact the equality in question. If we regard the 3D system as a stack of current segments (or 2D Hall ”bars”) as in Fig.3(b), this argument can be extended, since currents across the adjacent ”bars” are absent. Then we reproduces the property $`\sigma ^{\mathrm{surface}}=\sigma ^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$.

As a final comment, in the 2D Hall bar geometry it has long been recognized that there are two hot spots where the chemical potential has to drastically drop from $`\mu _1`$ to $`\mu _2`$ dissipatively. In our 3D geometry, the hot spots should become two “hot lines” as shown in Fig.3(b). Given that the required magnetic field ($`<40`$ T) is well within experimental feasibility as estimated in , experimental detection of the wrapping currents and hot lines should be interesting.

H.A. wishes to thank Sinya Uji for helpful discussions. M.K. would like to thank the JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists for financial support. B.I.H. acknowledges support by NSF grant DMR 99-81283.


text:
# Surface correlations for two-dimensional Coulomb fluids in a disc

## 1 Introduction

This paper is dedicated to Jean-Pierre Hansen on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Although Jean-Pierre and I have coauthored only one paper , some 30 years ago, we share a longstanding interest for Coulomb fluids. Here is a contribution to this thriving domain of research. It consists of a far from exhaustive minireview of previous work on exactly solvable two-dimensional models of Coulomb fluids, followed by an original part about a finite Coulomb fluid in a disc.

### 1.1 A brief review

The classical (i.e. non-quantum) statistical mechanics of some two-dimensional models of Coulomb fluids is exactly solvable. These models have an intrisic interest: this is the only case of solvable models for a continuous (i.e. not on a lattice) fluid, in more than one dimension. Furthermore, these models can be used as a testbench for a variety of generic properties of Coulomb fluids. For mimicking three-dimensional Coulomb fluids in two dimensions, one must use the two-dimensional Coulomb interaction which is logarithmic: the interaction energy between two unit charges at a distance $`r`$ of each other is chosen as $`\mathrm{ln}(L/r)`$, where $`L`$ is an arbitrary length which only fixes the zero of energy. Indeed, this interaction is the two-dimensional solution of the Poisson equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\frac{L}{r}=2\pi \delta (𝐫).$$
(1.1)
Of course, these logarithmic models do not describe “real” charged particles, such as electrons, confined in a plane, which nevertheless interact through the three-dimensional Coulomb potential $`1/r`$.

Two models are of special interest: The one-component plasma (OCP), or jellium, is made of one species of particles of charge $`q`$, embedded in a uniformly charged background of the opposite sign. The two-component plasma (TCP), or Coulomb gas, is made of two species of particles, with opposite charges $`\pm q`$. At the inverse temperature $`\beta `$, the dimensionless coupling constant can be chosen as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\beta q^2`$. It has the remarkable property of being independent of the density, and this results into a simple equation of state  for both models

$$\beta p=(1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{4})n$$
(1.2)
where $`p`$ is the pressure and $`n`$ is the density.

In the case of the TCP, the model (with pure Coulomb interactions) becomes unstable againt the collapse of positive-negative pairs for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }2`$, and the equation of state (1.2) is valid only for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }2`$. If some short-range repulsion (for instance hard cores of diameter $`a`$) is introduced, the collapse at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ is suppressed and the temperature can be further lowered. For small values of the dimensionless density $`na^2`$, the famous Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition  of infinite order occurs, between a conducting high-temperature phase and a dielectric low-temperature phase, at a density-dependent temperature with a corresponding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ close to 4.

Finite-size two-dimensional Coulomb fluids exhibit universal properties  related to conformal invariance. This will not be reviewed here.

For the special value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$, the OCP  and TCP  are fully exactly solvable: The thermodynamic functions and the correlation functions are obtainable.

For the OCP, it is convenient to define the Ursell function $`U`$ as

$$U(𝐫,𝐫^{})=n^{(2)}(𝐫,𝐫^{})n^2$$
(1.3)
where $`n`$ is the one-body density and $`n^{(2)}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is the two-body density. At $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$, in the canonical ensemble, the OCP maps on a system of free fermions in a magnetic field and one finds

$$U(𝐫,𝐫^{})=n^2\mathrm{exp}(\pi n|𝐫𝐫^{}|^2).$$
(1.4)
This correlation function has a fast Gaussian decay on a lengthscale of the order of $`(\pi n)^{1/2}`$. Several generic sum rules can be checked. The zeroth and second moments of $`U`$ obey the two Stillinger-Lovett sum rules  which express perfect screening of a charged particle of the fluid and perfect screening of an added infinitesimal test charge, respectively. The fourth moment obeys the general expression derived, in terms of the compressibility, by Vieillefosse and Hansen ,

$$n\left(\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }}{4}\right)^2U(𝐫,𝐫^{})|𝐫𝐫^{}|^4d𝐫=\beta \left(\frac{p}{n}\right)_T$$
(1.5)
and the sixth moment obeys a recently derived expression

$$n^2\left(\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\right)^3U(𝐫,𝐫^{})|𝐫𝐫^{}|^6d𝐫=\frac{3}{4}(\mathrm{\Gamma }6)(83\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(1.6)
For the TCP, the Ursell functions $`U`$ depend on the species of the two particles which are involved. They must be defined as

$$U_{ss^{}}(𝐫,𝐫^{})=n_{ss^{}}^{(2)}(𝐫,𝐫^{})n_sn_s^{}$$
(1.7)
where $`s,s^{}=\pm 1`$ denote the signs of the particles, $`n_+=n_{}=n/2`$ are the one-body densities of each species, $`n`$ the total one-body density, and $`n_{ss^{}}^{(2)}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is the two-body density for particles of species $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$, respectively. At $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$, in the grand canonical ensemble, the TCP maps on a system of free fermions. A control parameter is a properly rescaled fugacity $`m`$, which has the dimension of an inverse length. Although the density diverges at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$, the Ursell functions remain finite. They are

$$U_{ss}(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\left(\frac{m^2}{2\pi }\right)^2[K_0(m|𝐫𝐫^{}|)]^2$$
(1.8a)
$$U_{ss}(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\left(\frac{m^2}{2\pi }\right)^2[K_1(m|𝐫𝐫^{}|)]^2$$
(1.8b)
where $`K_0`$ and $`K_1`$ are modified Bessel functions, which have an exponential decay; the correlation length is $`1/(2m)`$. The short- distance behaviours of these Ursell functions confirm general predictions of Hansen and Viot . The pair distribution function for particles of opposite signs, dominated at short distances by the Bolzmann factor of the Coulomb potential, should behave like $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$; the $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|^2`$ behaviour of $`U_{ss}`$ fits with this form. However, although the pair distribution function for particles of the same sign should behave like $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<1`$, this repulsive behaviour has been predicted to be weakened into $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ for $`1<\mathrm{\Gamma }<2`$. because of screening by a third particle; the logarithmic behaviour of the Bessel function $`K_0`$ in $`U_{ss}`$ can be considered as a limiting case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$.

The Ursell functions for the TCP can be combined into a charge correlation function

$$U_\rho =2q^2(U_{++}U_+)$$
(1.9)
and a density correlation function

$$U_n=2(U_{++}+U_+).$$
(1.10)
Several generic sum rules can be checked on these correlation functions. The zeroth and second moment of the charge correlation function (1.9) obey the Stillinger-Lovett sum rules. The zeroth moment of the density correlation function (1.10) obeys the usual compressibility sum rule, while its second moment obeys a recently dicovered sum rule  which seems to be specific to the two-dimensional point-particle TCP:

$$U_n(𝐫,𝐫^{})|𝐫𝐫^{}|^2d𝐫=\frac{1}{12\pi [1(\mathrm{\Gamma }/4)^2]}.$$
(1.11)
Up to two years ago,there were exact results only at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$. Then a major breakthrough occurred: Šamaj et al.  succeeded in deriving the thermodynamic properties of the TCP in the whole range of stability of the model, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<2`$. This was achieved by using a mapping on the sine-Gordon field theory and results known for the latter. The surface tension along a wall could also be obtained in the cases of an ideal conductor wall  and of an ideal dielectric wall . However, although results have been obtained for the asymptotic behaviour of the correlation functions , there are no simple expressions for these correlation functions. In the following, we shall consider only the simple case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$, and the weak-coupling (high-temperature) limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$.

At $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$, many exact results are available for the OCP and the TCP in a variety of geometries with walls or on a curved surface. These results will not be described in detail, the interested reader might look on cond-mat for Forrester, Jancovici, Téllez …. Here, we only review the case of a Coulomb fluid living in a half-plane bounded by a rectilinear hard wall. This hard wall can be taken as the $`y`$ axis, and the fluid is supposed to occupy the half-plane $`x0`$. The position $`𝐫`$ of a particle is defined by its Cartesian coordinates $`x`$ and $`y`$. Now, in the definitions of the Ursell functions, it must be understood that the one-body densities are functions of the distance to the wall, i.e. in (1.3) $`n^2`$ must be replaced by $`n(x)n(x^{})`$, and in (1.7) $`n_sn_s^{}`$ must be replaced by $`n_s(x)n_s^{}(x^{})`$. The Ursell functions depend on $`x`$, $`x^{}`$, and $`|yy^{}|`$.

For this half-plane geometry, a generic behaviour of the charge correlations near the wall  results from the assumption that the fluid is a conductor obeying the laws of macroscopic electrostatics. The charge correlation function along the wall now is long-ranged, with only an algebraic asymptotic decay

$$U_\rho (x,x^{},|yy^{}|)\frac{f(x,x^{})}{(yy^{})^2}$$
(1.12)
when $`|yy^{}|`$ is large compared to the microscopic scale (the bulk correlation length). $`f(x,x^{})`$ is a function which is localized near the wall (it has a fast decay as $`x`$ or $`x^{}`$ increase beyond the microscopic scale), and $`f`$ obeys the sum rule

$$\beta _0^{\mathrm{}}dx_0^{\mathrm{}}dx^{}f(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}.$$
(1.13)
(1.12) and (1.13) can be reexpressed by writing that there is a surface charge density $`\sigma (y)`$ with a correlation function obeying

$$\beta <\sigma (y)\sigma (y^{})>=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2(yy^{})^2}$$
(1.14)
At $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ and in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$, along a hard wall, the charge correlation functions $`q^2U`$ of the OCP  and $`U_\rho `$ of the TCP  do have an asymptotic behaviour in agreement with (1.14).

For this half-plane geometry, it has been observed  that the density correlation function of the TCP near the wall is also long-ranged and that $`U_n(x=0,x^{}=0,|yy^{}|)`$ has the same asymptotic behaviour at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ and as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$:

$$U_n(x=0,x^{}=0,|yy^{}|)\frac{1}{2\pi ^2(yy^{})^4}.$$
(1.15)
It is tempting to conjecture that (1.15) is valid at any temperature.

### 1.2 The disc geometry

We now come to the original part of the present paper. In the above, it was always found that the laws of macroscopic electrostatics about charge correlations were satisfied by the exactly solvable two-dimensional models, when the lengths under consideration are large compared to the microscopic scale. Recently, however, a counterexample was found . A short-circuited circular capacitor was considered: A two-dimensional Coulomb fluid fills a disk of radius $`R_1`$ and the infinite region outside a concentric circle of larger radius $`R_2`$, while the annulus between $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ is empty, and the two filled regions are allowed to freely exchange charged particles. This geometry is exactly solvable at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ for both the OCP and the TCP. The charge $`Q`$ on the inner disk fluctuates. Even for macroscopic values of $`R_1`$, $`R_2`$, with $`R_2/R_1>1`$, it was found that the variance $`<Q^2><Q>^2`$ *differs* from the value predicted by using linear response theory and macroscopic electrostatics

$$\beta (<Q^2><Q>^2)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{R_2}{R_1}}.$$
(1.16)
This, at first sight surprising, disagreement can be explained, on second thought, when it is noted that the fluctuations (1.16) involve only a small number of particles, because, at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$, $`(<Q^2><Q>^2)/q^2`$ is of order unity. Although, for one disc alone, i.e. in the limit $`R_2\mathrm{}`$, no charge fluctuations are found for the solvable models (except in one very special case), in agreement with the limit $`R_2\mathrm{}`$ in (1.16), the failure of (1.16) for $`R_2/R_1`$ finite casts a reasonable doubt on the predictions of macroscopic electrostatics in the disc geometry. The subject of the present paper is to investigate the surface charge correlations of the OCP and TCP in a disc, at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$. It will be shown that macroscopic electrostatics does hold for the present problem.

Thus, we consider a Coulomb fluid in a disc of radius $`R`$, bounded by a hard wall. It is convenient to put the origin at the centre of the disc, and to use polar coordinates $`(r,\phi )`$. The disc may be either insulated, with for simplicity a vanishing total charge, or grounded. In both cases, from linear response theory and macroscopic electrostatics  one finds that the correlation function of the surface charge density $`\sigma (\phi )`$ is given by

$$\beta <\sigma (\phi )\sigma (\phi ^{})>=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2[2R\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)]^2}$$
(1.17)
where $`\theta =\phi \phi ^{}`$ is the angular distance between the two points. Actually, the correlation function in (1.17) is defined from the microscopic charge Ursell function $`U_\rho (r,r^{},|\theta |)`$, which, for $`R`$ and $`R|\theta |`$ large compared to the microscopic scale, is localized near the boundary circle (it has a fast decay as $`x=Rr`$ or $`x^{}=Rr^{}`$ increase beyond the microscopic scale). The relation is

$$<\sigma (\phi )\sigma (\phi ^{})>=_0^{\mathrm{}}dx_0^{\mathrm{}}dx^{}U_\rho (r,r^{},|\theta |).$$
(1.18)
Also, possible oscillations as a function of $`\theta `$ on a microscopic scale are washed out in the definition of the surface charge density. (1.17) is a generalization of the rectilinear wall case (1.14), which is retrieved from (1.17) in the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$, $`\theta 0`$, at a fixed value of $`R\theta `$ which becomes $`yy^{}`$.

In section 2, it will be shown that (1.17) is obeyed in the case of the OCP at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$. In section 3, it will be shown that (1.17) is obeyed in the case of the TCP at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$. A generalization to the disc geometry of the density correlation function on the wall for the TCP (1.15) will also be presented. The high-temperature limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ will be briefly reviewed in section 4.

## 2 One-component plasma at $`𝚪=2`$ in a disc

The canonical ensemble is used. There are $`N`$ particles of charge $`q`$ in a disc of radius $`R`$. Thus, the average density is $`n=N/(\pi R^2)`$. A uniformly charged background insures that the total charge vanishes. It is convenient to choose the unit of length as $`R/\sqrt{N}`$. In these units, $`\pi n=1`$. The general formalism  for the OCP in a disk at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ expresses the density Ursell function $`U(r,r^{},|\theta |)=n^{(2)}(r,r^{},|\theta |)n(r)n(r^{})`$ in terms of an auxiliary function

$$K(w)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{w^l}{\gamma (l+1,N)}$$
(2.1)
where $`w=rr^{}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\theta )`$ and $`\gamma (l+1,N)`$ is an incomplete gamma function , as

$$U(r,r^{},|\theta |)=n^2\mathrm{exp}(r^2r^2)|K(w)|^2.$$
(2.2)
We are interested in the behaviour of (2.2) when $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ are close to $`R`$ and $`R\theta `$ is much larger than the microscopic scale $`n^{1/2}`$, i.e. for $`N`$ large and a non-zero value of $`\theta `$.

A related problem has been previously solved by Choquard et al. . They considered the simpler case when the confining circular background extends well beyond the circular blob formed by the particles. Then, in (2.1), the incomplete gamma function is replaced by the complete one $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1)=l!`$ and the sum itself can be expressed in terms of another incomplete gamma function, from which the surface behaviour of $`U`$ could be obtained (the surface behaviour of $`U`$ has also been obtained  in the case of an elliptical blob of particles). In our present case, since for $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ close to $`R`$ the sum in (2.1) can be seen to be dominated by values of $`l`$ close to $`N`$, we use the asymptotic expression  $`\gamma (l+1,l)(1/2)l!`$. Thus our $`K`$ is just twice the one of Choquard et al. Although we have not been able to make a rigorous mathematical proof, the validity of this procedure has been checked on Mathematica, in the cases $`r=r^{}=R`$, $`\theta =\pi /2`$ or $`\theta =\pi `$, by numerical evaluations of a sum equivalent to (2.1).

Following Choquard et al., we can now express our $`K`$ as

$$K(w)=2\underset{l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{w^l}{l!}=\frac{2}{(N1)!}\mathrm{exp}(w)\mathrm{\Gamma }(N,w)$$
(2.3)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(N,w)`$ is the incomplete gamma function

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(N,w)=_w^{\mathrm{}}dt\mathrm{e}^tt^{N1}.$$
(2.4)
The asymptotic form of (2.4), in the present case of $`|wN|\sqrt{N}`$ and $`N\mathrm{}`$, can be obtained by rewriting (2.4) as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(N,w)=_w^{\mathrm{}}dt\frac{t}{N1t}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}(t^{N1}\mathrm{e}^t)$$
(2.5)
and integrating by parts, with the result

$$\frac{\mathrm{exp}(w)}{(N1)!}\mathrm{\Gamma }(N,w)=\frac{w^N}{(N1)!(wN+1)}[1+O(\frac{1}{N})]$$
(2.6)
in agreement with an asymptotic expansion by Tricomi (see ). In the case of two particles on the circle of radius $`R`$, since in our units $`R^2=N`$, $`w=N\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\theta )`$, and from (2.3) and (2.6) one finds

$$\mathrm{e}^NK(N\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta })\frac{2\mathrm{e}^NN^N}{N!}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}N\theta }}{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta }1}.$$
(2.7)
Using Stirling’s formula for $`N!`$ in (2.7) gives

$$\mathrm{e}^NK(N\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta })\left(\frac{2}{\pi N}\right)^{1/2}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}N\theta }}{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta }1}.$$
(2.8)
Using (2.8) in (2.2) and reestablishing an arbitrary unit of length such that $`\pi n`$ is no longer 1, gives the correlation function on the circle

$$U(R,R,\theta )n\frac{2}{\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\left(2R\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)^2}.$$
(2.9)
In the case when the two particles are at small distances $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ from the boundary, minor modifications after (2.6) give, in the large-$`N`$ limit

$$U(r,r^{},\theta )n\frac{2}{\pi ^2}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi nx^22\pi nx^2)}{\left(2R\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)^2}.$$
(2.10)
Integrating $`U_\rho =q^2U`$ with respect to $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ does give a correlation function of the surface charge density of the form (1.17) (here $`\beta q^2=2`$), in agreement with macroscopic electrostatics.

The case of a rectilinear hard wall  is retrieved from (2.10) by taking the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$, $`\theta 0`$, at a fixed value of $`R\theta `$ which becomes $`yy^{}`$. Then, in agreement with (1.12),

$$U_\rho (x,x^{},|yy^{}|)q^2n\frac{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi nx^22\pi nx^2)}{(yy^{})^2}$$
(2.11)
and (1.14) is satisfied.

In the derivation of the present results, we have replaced $`\gamma (l+1,N)`$ by $`(1/2)l!`$ without a rigorous mathematical justification. However, the validity of (2.9) and (2.10) is supported by several checks. First, the correct result (2.11) was retrieved in the limiting case of a rectilinear wall. Second, using the exact expression (2.1), Choquard et al.  have shown without approximations that, in the large-$`N`$ limit,

$$\frac{1}{2\pi R^2}d𝐫d𝐫^{}|𝐫𝐫^{}|^2U(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\frac{1}{\pi }$$
(2.12)
and that the surface contribution to (2.12) is $`1/(2\pi )`$; this is in agreement with what is obtained by using for $`U`$ near the surface the expression (2.10).

## 3 Two-component plasma at $`𝚪=2`$ in a disc

The particles are confined by a hard wall in a disc of radius $`R`$. A grand canonical ensemble restricted to neutral configurations is used. Both species of particles, of respective charges $`q`$ and $`q`$, have the same rescaled fugacity $`m`$. The general formalism  expresses the Ursell functions $`U_{ss^{}}(r,r^{},|\theta |)`$ in terms of Green functions $`G_{ss^{}}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ as

$$U_{ss^{}}(r,r^{},|\theta |)=ss^{}m^2|G_{ss^{}}(𝐫,𝐫^{})|^2.$$
(3.1)
Because of the symmetry between positive and negative particles, we only need $`G_{++}`$ and $`G_+`$ which, for $`r,r^{}<R`$, are determined by

$$(m^2\mathrm{\Delta })G_{++}(𝐫,𝐫^{})=m\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})$$
(3.2)
and

$$G_+(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\phi )}{m}\left(\frac{}{r}+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{r}\frac{}{\phi }\right)G_{++}(𝐫,𝐫^{}).$$
(3.3)
In infinite space the solution of (3.2) is $`[m/(2\pi )]K_0(m|𝐫𝐫^{}|)`$. In a disc, it is appropriate to use polar coordinates and to write the solution as an expansion of the form

$$G_{++}(r,\phi ;r^{},\phi ^{})=\frac{m}{2\pi }\underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}[I_l(mr^{})K_l(mr)+a_lI_l(mr^{})I_l(mr)]\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{i}l(\phi \phi ^{})](r^{}<r<R)$$
(3.4)
where the first term in the sum is the expansion of $`[m/(2\pi )]K_0(m|𝐫𝐫^{}|)`$ and the second term is a “reflected” contribution due to the wall; $`I_l`$ and $`K_l`$ are modified Bessel functions and $`a_l`$ is a coefficient to be determined by the boundary conditions. (3.3) gives

$`G_+(r,\phi ;r^{},\phi ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[I_l(mr^{})K_{l+1}(mr)`$
$`a_lI_l(mr^{})I_{l+1}(mr)]\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{i}(l+1)\phi \mathrm{i}l\phi ^{}](r^{}<r<R)`$ (3.5)
For $`r^{}<R`$, $`r>R`$, $`m`$ must be replaced by 0 in (3.2), and, as functions of $`𝐫`$, $`G_{++}`$ depends only on $`z=r\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\phi )`$, $`G_+`$ depends only on $`\overline{z}=r\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\phi )`$, and they must vanish at infinity. At $`r=R`$, $`G_{++}`$ and $`G_+`$ must be continuous. These conditions impose that the $`l0`$ terms in $`G_{++}(R,\phi ;r^{},\phi ^{})`$ and the terms $`l<0`$ in $`G_+(R,\phi ;r^{},\phi ^{})`$ vanish. Therefore, the coefficient $`a_l`$ in (3.4) and (3) is

$$a_l=\frac{K_l(mR)}{I_l(mR)}\mathrm{i}fl0,a_l=\frac{K_{l+1}(mR)}{I_{l+1}(mR)}\mathrm{i}fł<0.$$
(3.6)
We are interested in the behaviours of (3.4) and (3) when the disc is much larger that the bulk correlation length ($`mR1`$), $`\theta =\phi \phi ^{}`$ has a fixed (non-zero) value, and $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ are close to $`R`$.

Let us start with the case when the two points are on the disc. In this limiting case, when the Wronskian relation  $`I_l(mR)K_{l+1}(mR)+I_{l+1}(mR)K_l(mR)=1/(mR)`$ is taken into account, and after $`l`$ has been changed into $`l`$, (3.4) and (3.6) give

$$G_{++}(R,\phi ;R,\phi ^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi R}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{I_l(mR)}{I_{l1}(mR)}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{i}l(\phi \phi ^{})]$$
(3.7)
while, when that same Wronskian relation is used, (3) and (3.6) give

$$G_+(R,\phi ;R,\phi ^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi R}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{i}(1+l)\phi \mathrm{i}l\phi ^{})].$$
(3.8)
In the large-$`mR`$ limit, using in (3.7) the large-argument asymptotic expansions of the Bessel functions  give, up to order $`1/R^2`$,

$$\frac{I_l(mR)}{I_{l1}(mR)}=1+\frac{12l}{2mR}+\frac{38l+4l^2}{8(mR)^2}+\mathrm{}.$$
(3.9)
Although the sums on $`l`$ which appear in (3.8), and in (3.7) when (3.9) is used, are not convergent, they can be given a meaning in the sense of distributions; the obvious recipe is to insert a convergence factor $`p^l`$, with $`|p|<1`$, in each term, and to take the limit $`p1`$ after the summation. One finds, up to order $`1/R^3`$,

$`G_{++}(R,\phi ;R,\phi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi R}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta }}{1\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta }}}[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2mR}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta }}{1\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta }}}`$ (3.10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8(mR)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+6\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta }+3\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}\theta }}{(1\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta })^2}}+\mathrm{}]`$
where $`\theta =\phi \phi ^{}`$, and

$$G_+(R,\phi ;R,\phi ^{})=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi }}{2\pi R}\frac{1}{1\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta }}.$$
(3.11)
It might be noted that the expression (3.11) is exact, without any large-$`mR`$ expansion. Finally, using (3.10) or (3.11) in (3.1) gives

$$U_{++}(R,R,|\theta |)=\frac{m^2}{4\pi ^2\left(2R\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)^2}+\frac{1}{4\pi ^2\left(2R\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)^4}+\mathrm{}$$
(3.12)
up to order $`1/R^4`$, and

$$U_+(R,R,|\theta |)=\frac{m^2}{4\pi ^2\left(2R\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)^2}.$$
(3.13)
More generally, if the two points are at small distances $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ from the boundary, using the large-argument asymptotic expansions of the Bessel functions in (3.4) and (3) (where the first term in the sum, which comes from the expansion of $`K_0`$, gives a short-ranged contribution which can be omitted) gives, when only the leading term is kept,

$$G_{++}(Rx,\phi ;Rx^{},\phi ^{})\frac{\mathrm{e}^{m(x+x^{})}}{2\pi R}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta }}{1\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta }}$$
(3.14)
and

$$G_+(Rx,\phi ;Rx^{},\phi ^{})\frac{\mathrm{e}^{m(x+x^{})+\mathrm{i}\phi }}{2\pi R}\frac{1}{1\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta }}.$$
(3.15)
The Ursell functions become

$$U_{++}(Rx,Rx^{},|\theta |)\frac{m^2\mathrm{e}^{2m(x+x^{})}}{4\pi ^2\left(2R\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)^2}$$
(3.16)
and

$$U_+(Rx,Rx^{},|\theta |)\frac{m^2\mathrm{e}^{2m(x+x^{})}}{4\pi ^2\left(2R\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)^2}.$$
(3.17)
The charge correlation function is

$$U_\rho (Rx,Rx^{},|\theta |)=2q^2[U_{++}(Rx,Rx^{},|\theta |)U_+(Rx,Rx^{},|\theta |)].$$
(3.18)
Using (3.16) and (3.17) in (3.18) and integrating it on $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ does give a correlation function of the surface charge density of the form (1.17) (here $`\beta q^2=2`$), in agreement with macroscopic electrostatics.

The density correlation function on the wall is

$$U_n(R,R,|\theta |)=2[U_{++}(R,R,|\theta |)+U_+(R,R,|\theta |)].$$
(3.19)
In (3.19), the leading contribution to $`U_{++}`$ is cancelled by $`U_+`$ and it is necessary to use the full expansion (3.12), together with (3.13) for obtaining the leading term of $`U_n`$ as

$$U_n(R,R,|\theta |)\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\left(2R\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)^4}.$$
(3.20)
(3.20) is the generalization to the case of a circular wall of the rectilinear wall result (1.15).

A mathematical justification of some of the heuristic steps used in the above derivations is given in the Appendix.

## 4 High-temperature limit $`𝚪0`$ in a disc

For both the OCP and the TCP, the high-temperature limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ is described by the Debye-Hückel theory. The case of a disc has already been investigated by Choquard et al. . They have shown that, when $`x=Rr`$ and $`x^{}=Rr^{}`$ are small, the charge correlation function is<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Actually, Choquard et al. have given, instead of (4.1), a more general expression involving the arbitrary length $`L`$ in the logarithmic potential $`\mathrm{ln}(L/r)`$. We have argued  that, in two dimensions, there should be no fluctuations of the total charge on the disc, even in a grand canonical ensemble, and that this condition imposes that the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ should be taken. Then, the expression of Choquard et al. reduces to (4.1).

$$U_\rho (r,r^{},|\theta |)\frac{q^2n\mathrm{e}^{\kappa (x+x^{})}}{\pi \left(2R\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)^2}$$
(4.1)
where $`\kappa =(2\pi \beta q^2n)^{1/2}`$ is the the inverse Debye length. Integrating (4.1) on $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ does give a correlation function of the surface charge density of the form (1.17), in agreement with macroscopic electrostatics.

In the case of the TCP, the density correlation function $`U_n`$ is also of interest. Since the Debye-Hückel theory gives a vanishing result (the contributions from the Debye-Hückel $`U_{ss}`$ and $`U_{ss}`$ cancel each other), it is necessary to go beyond the Debye-Hückel theory and to take into account the next term in the renormalized Mayer expansion , which is proportional to the square of the Debye-Hückel $`U_\rho `$. One finds

$$U_n(Rx,Rx^{},|\theta |)\frac{\mathrm{e}^{2\kappa (x+x^{})}}{2\pi ^2\left(2R\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)^4}.$$
(4.2)
On the wall itself, (4.2) is the same as in the case (3.20) of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$.

## 5 Conclusion

Since, in two dimensions, we could have some doubts about the validity of macroscopic electrostatics, which is used for deriving the correlation function (1.17) of the surface charge density for a Coulomb fluid in a disc, we have checked this correlation function on exactly solvable models, the OCP and TCP at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$. That correlation function had also been obtained in the Debye-Hückel theory , i.e. in the weak-coupling $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ limit. Thus, these calculations indicate that macroscopic electrostatics is valid for describing the correlation function of the surface charge density. Incidentally, this correlation function (times $`\beta `$) can be formally written as a Fourier series

$$\beta <\sigma (\phi )\sigma (\phi ^{})>=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2[2R\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)]^2}=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2R^2}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}l\mathrm{cos}(l\theta ).$$
(5.1)
This Fourier series has no $`l=0`$ term, another indication that the total charge has no fluctuations.

In the case of a TCP, the density correlation function on the wall has the same form (3.20) at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ and in the high-temperature limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$. It is tempting to conjecture that this form is valid at any temperature, at least in the range $`\mathrm{\Gamma }2`$. A similar universality of (1.15) had been conjectured  in the case of a rectilinear wall. Proving (or disproving) these conjectures is an open problem.

## Appendix

In section 3, large-*argument* expansions of Bessel functions have been used, although these expansions have been inserted into infinite series involving also large values of the index $`l`$. Furthermore, these series in $`l`$ have been made to converge only through the introduction of an ad hoc convergence factor. In the present Appendix, some justification is given. For simplicity, only one case is considered, the calculation of $`G_+(R,\phi ;r^{}=Rx^{},\phi ^{})`$.

From (3), (3.6), and the Wronskian relation,

$$G_+(R,\phi ;r^{},\phi ^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi R}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{I_l(mr^{})}{I_l(mR)}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{i}(1+l)\phi \mathrm{i}l\phi ^{})].$$
(A.1)
Using the *uniform* asymptotic expansions of the Bessel functions , appropriate here since the arguments $`mr^{}`$ and $`mR`$ are large but the index $`l`$ may also be large, gives after some algebra

$$G_+(R,\phi ;r^{},\phi ^{})\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi }}{2\pi R}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}[mx^{}(1+\frac{l^2}{m^2R^2})^{1/2}]\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}l\theta )$$
(A.2)
where $`\theta =\phi \phi ^{}`$. We are interested in the $`mR\mathrm{}`$ limit of (A.2), for a fixed value of $`mx^{}`$ and $`\theta 0`$. For obtaining this limit, the Borel summation method is used. The sum in (A.2) can be written as

$$S=_0^{\mathrm{}}dt\mathrm{exp}(t)f(t)$$
(A.3)
where

$$f(t)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}[mx^{}(1+\frac{l^2}{m^2R^2})^{1/2}]\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}l\theta )\frac{t^l}{l!}.$$
(A.4)
Since the sum (A.4) is absolutely convergent, the limit and the sum can be interchanged, giving

$$.\underset{mR\mathrm{}}{lim}f(t)=\mathrm{exp}(mx^{})\mathrm{exp}(t\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta })$$
(A.5)
Using the limit (A.5) in (A.3) gives the large-$`mR`$ behaviour

$$G_+(R,\phi ;Rx^{},\phi ^{})\frac{\mathrm{e}^{mx^{}+\mathrm{i}\phi }}{2\pi R}\frac{1}{1\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta }}$$
(A.6)
in agreement with (3.15).

## Acknowledgements

I have benefited of stimulating discussions with F. van Wijland. The use of the Borel summation method in the Appendix was suggested by K. Chadan. I am indebted to L. Šamaj for a critical reading of the manuscript.