format: text

text:
# Quantum Treatment of the Anderson-Hasegawa Model – Effects of Superexchange and Polarons

## I Introduction

The emergence of manganites as a technologically important material due primarily to the occurrence of colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) in e.g. $`La_{1x}Ca_xMnO_3`$ jin  has rekindled the interest of the condensed matter physics community in the double-exchange mechanism. The physics of double-exchange has successfully correlated ferromagnetism and metallicity in the doping range of $`0.2<x<0.4`$. The basic ingredient of double-exchange, proposed by Zener fifty years ago zen , is encapsulated within a simple two site model of Anderson and Hasegawa and ; degen ; kubo . The latter has led to a plethora of theoretical and experimental investigations in recent years rev1 ; rev2 , which have gone on to add one or the other feature to the original model, often without abundant care, as we shall argue here.

The undoped manganite system is characterised by the presence of an incomplete d-shell of the Manganese ions, which consists of 3 electrons in the $`t_{2g}`$ state and one electron in the $`e_g`$ state. The $`t_{2g}`$ spins are deep inside the d-level and are assumed to be unimportant in the process of charge transfer. However, these spins do show a tendency to align antiferromagnetically both in the parent compound and in the completely doped system. The Coulomb energy cost for the $`e_g`$ electrons to hop onto the adjacent Manganese ion in the absence of a hole is very large. The undoped system is thus an insulator.

We will henceforth refer to the $`e_g`$ electron as the itinerant electron, the $`t_{2g}`$ electrons as the core electrons and the total spin in the $`t_{2g}`$ level as the core spin. Doping the system with a divalent atom like $`Ca`$ or $`Sr`$ leads to creation of holes in the $`e_g`$ level in a fraction of the Manganese ions. The itinerant electron from the occupied $`e_g`$ level of one Manganese site can then hop into its nearest neighbor Oxygen site, which facilitates hopping to the nearest neighbor unoccupied $`e_g`$ level of another Manganese ion, thus leading to a finite conductivity. This process, called the “double exchange mechanism”, plus the presence of strong Hund’s rule coupling between the core spin and the itinerant electron, results in an indirect coupling between neighboring core spins . This in turn relates the magnetic order of the underlying lattice with the kinetic energy of the itinerant electron.

The conclusions derived by Anderson and Hasegawa and  can be summarised as follows. In the limit when Hund’s coupling is infinitely strong, the itinerant electron would like to have its spin aligned with the local core spin. Additionally, if the core spin is treated classically, the appropriate axis of quantization is the direction of the core spin vector, as far as the itinerant electron is concerned. Now, as the latter hops, it has to readjust its spin to be realigned with the new core spin partner, amounting to a rotation of the quantization axis by an angle $`\theta `$, which is the polar angle between the core spins $`\stackrel{}{S_1}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{S_2}`$. From the property of the spin-1/2 rotation operator it follows that the hopping or the overlap matrix element $`t`$ will be renormalized to $`t\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)`$, assuming azimuthal symmetry. It then follows that if $`\theta `$ equals $`\pi `$, the core spins have antiferromagnetic (AFM) coupling and hopping of the itinerant electron is totally inhibited. On the other hand, if $`\theta `$ equals zero, the core spins have ferromagnetic (FM) coupling and hopping is accentuated, thus synergising transport with ferromagnetism. This is the first result of Anderson and Hasegawa. The latter then proceeded to a quantum treatment of the core spins, but still operating within the infinite Hund’s coupling limit. Interestingly, it turns out that the energy eigenvalues are identical to the earlier classical case, provided $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)`$ is identified as a parameter which equals $`(S_0+1/2)/(2S+1)`$, where $`S`$ = $`\stackrel{}{S_1}`$ = $`\stackrel{}{S_2}`$ and $`S_0`$ = $`\stackrel{}{S_1}+\stackrel{}{S_2}+\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ being the spin of the itinerant electron ($`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ = 1/2). Curiously, since $`\stackrel{}{S_1}`$, $`\stackrel{}{S_2}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ add up to $`(2S+1/2)`$ in the FM case for large Hund’s coupling, the parameter $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)`$ would indeed be equal to unity, as in the classical case. But in the AFM case, the parameter reduces to $`1/(2S+1)`$, which goes to the classical value of zero only when $`S\mathrm{}`$, thus necessitating an additional constraint on the core spin, if the “classical” interpretation is to be taken seriously. Needless to say, in between FM and AFM cases, the parameter $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)`$ would go through a set of discrete (and not continuous) values, thus pointing to the need of a more careful treatment of the core spins in the quantum case.

One of the directions in which the Anderson-Hasegawa treatment has been extended is to recognize the importance of an additional superexchange term between the core spins proportional to $`\stackrel{}{S_1}.\stackrel{}{S_2}`$. It has been assumed in the literature till now that the superexchange term can be simply taken as an extra term to be added to the Hamiltonian and that the large Hund’s rule coupling affects only the process of charge transfer in these systems. In this paper we show inter alia that superexchange is itself modified in a nontrivial manner if the core spins are dealt with quantum mechanically, which leads to a correlated diagonal disorder in these systems, even in the cleanest samples. Our starting point therefore is the Hamiltonian for a two site one electron model, including the superexchange interaction, given by

$$H=t\underset{\tau }{}(c_{1\tau }^{}c_{2\tau }+h.c.)J_H\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\stackrel{}{S_i}.\stackrel{}{\sigma _i}+J\stackrel{}{S_1}.\stackrel{}{S_2}.$$
(1)
Here $`t`$ is the hopping matrix element for the itinerant electron between the two sites, $`c_{i\tau }^{}`$ ($`c_{i\tau }`$) is the creation(annihilation) operator of the itinerant electron at site $`i`$ having spin projection $`\tau `$, $`J_H`$ is the Hund’s rule coupling strength, $`\stackrel{}{S_i}`$ is the core spin at site $`i`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\sigma _i}`$ is the spin of the itinerant electron at the site $`i`$. The parameter $`J`$ is the superexchange interaction strength between the core spins in the nearest neighbor sites. For our case we consider $`\stackrel{}{S}_i=S`$, i.e. the core spins on all the sites are taken to have the same value.

With the preceding background, the motivation behind our work and the plan of this paper are as follows. We reiterate that the two site, single electron, double-exchange model is the simplest basic framework for interpreting a large number of fascinating properties of manganites. While Anderson and Hasegawa did provide a quantum solution to the model, especially in the limit of large Hund’s rule coupling, subsequent authors seem to have gone ahead in a somewhat cavalier fashion, in our opinion, about the classical limit of infinitely large core spins. This has led to some confusion about the interpretation of parameters in the model which needs to be cleared. As the value of the core spins in most studied CMR systems is indeed finite — three-halves for manganese — it is important to delineate the quantum versus classical effects, especially while considering additional phenomena, e.g., polaron-induced hopping and thermodynamics. With this aim in mind, we organize the paper as follows. We present in Sec. II, the exact quantum mechanical solution to the Anderson-Hasegawa model with an additional superexchange term, take the large Hund’s rule coupling limit and discuss the outcome of a hitherto ignored ‘site-disorder’ term. In Sec. III we reexamine the issue of polaron-assisted hopping in the light of our fully quantum calculation. The results in this section are then employed in Sec. IV for the computation of heat capacity and phase diagram, wherein we also specify the difference between our results and those which treat the core spins classically. Finally, in Sec. V, we present some concluding remarks.

## II Exact solution for the Anderson-Hasegawa Model

In order to find the ground state of the system we follow the quantum mechanical calculation carried out by Anderson and Hasegawa and . We first note that the Hund’s rule coupling term, proportional to $`J_H`$ is diagonal in the states given by $`\psi _1^\pm `$ = $`S_1,\frac{1}{2},(S_1\pm \frac{1}{2}),S_2;S_0,M>`$ and $`\psi _2^\pm `$ = $`S_1,\frac{1}{2},S_2,(S_2\pm \frac{1}{2});S_0,M>`$, while the hopping part of the Hamiltonian connects these two sets of states, corresponding as it does to a recoupling of the itinerant electron’s spin (1/2) from the site spin $`S_1`$ to $`S_2`$ and is thus given by the Wigner 6j (or Racah) coefficient (W)racah . Here, $`M`$ = $`S_0^z`$. The superexchange term proportional to $`J`$, is off-diagonal in the basis states chosen above. However, it is diagonal in the states given by $`\varphi (S^{})`$ = $`\frac{1}{2},S_1,S_2,(S^{});S_0,M`$, where $`S^{}`$ = $`\stackrel{}{S_1}+\stackrel{}{S_2}`$. We can then relate the states $`\psi _{1,2}^\pm `$ to the states $`\varphi (S^{})`$ through appropriate Racah coefficients again and we find,

$`\psi _1^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{S^{}}{}}\sqrt{\left[2(S_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+1\right]}\sqrt{(2S^{}+1)}W({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_1S^{}S_2;(S_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})S^{})\varphi (S^{}),`$
$`\psi _2^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{S^{}}{}}\sqrt{\left[2(S_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+1\right]}\sqrt{(2S^{}+1)}W({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_1S^{}S_2;(S_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})S^{})\varphi (S^{}).`$ (2)
Clearly, since $`S^{}`$ (the total core spin) must couple to the itinerant electron spin to give the total angular momentum $`S_0`$, the only values of $`S^{}`$ to be summed over are $`S^{}`$ = $`S_0+\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`S_0\frac{1}{2}`$ . The particular Racah coefficients which occur (with $`S_1=S_2=S`$), have convenient closed expressions such as,

$`\psi _1^+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha /2)\varphi (S_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+\mathrm{sin}(\alpha /2)\varphi (S_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$
$`\psi _1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\alpha /2)\varphi (S_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+\mathrm{cos}(\alpha /2)\varphi (S_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$
where,

$$\mathrm{cos}(\alpha /2)=\left[\frac{\left(2S+S_0+\frac{3}{2}\right)}{2(2S+1)}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(4)
The relations between $`\psi _2^\pm `$ and $`\varphi (S_0\pm \frac{1}{2})`$ states are the same as those between $`\psi _1^\pm `$ and $`\varphi (S_0\pm \frac{1}{2})`$. Note that the expression for $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha /2)`$ can be written in terms of $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)`$, which actually gives the relation between $`\alpha `$ and $`\theta `$ as $`\alpha =\theta /2`$. Thus the Hamiltonian matrix in the space of $`\psi _1^\pm `$ and $`\psi _2^\pm `$ can be written as follows :

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}P_1& P_2& t\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)& t\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\\ & & & \\ P_2& P_3& t\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)& t\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\\ & & & \\ t\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)& t\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)& P_1& P_2\\ & & & \\ t\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)& t\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)& P_2& P_3\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
where,

$`P_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}\left(R_1\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha /2)+R_2\mathrm{cos}^2(\alpha /2)\right){\displaystyle \frac{J_H}{2}}S,`$
$`P_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}(R_1R_2)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha /2)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha /2),`$
$`P_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}\left(R_1\mathrm{cos}^2(\alpha /2)+R_2\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha /2)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{J_H}{2}}(S+1),`$ (6)
and,

$`R_1=\left(S_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(S_0+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)2S(S+1),`$
$`R_2=\left(S_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(S_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)2S(S+1).`$ (7)
The eigenvalues (E) of the Hamiltonian matrix are obtained from,

$$2E=\frac{J_H}{2}+K_1(J)\pm \sqrt{4t^2+K_T^2(J)+K_3^2(J)\pm 4t\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\sqrt{K_T^2(J)+K_3^2(J)}},$$
(8)
where,

$`K_1(J)`$ $`=`$ $`J\left[\left(S_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)^22S(S+1)\right]`$
$`K_T(J)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{J_H(2S+1)}{2}}+K_2(J)\right]`$ (9)
$`K_2(J)`$ $`=`$ $`J\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )(S_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ (10)
$`K_3(J)`$ $`=`$ $`J\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )(S_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}).`$ (11)
While the exact result of Eq.(8) may be of interest in its own right, we examine the limit of large Hund’s rule coupling, by expanding the square root term (upto $`O(1/J_H)`$). We find that the lowest energy eigenvalues are given by

$$E_m=\frac{J_HS}{2}t\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)+\frac{J}{2}\left[\overline{S}^{}(\overline{S}^{}+1)2S(S+1)\right]+J\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha /2)(S_0+\frac{1}{2}),$$
(12)
where $`\overline{S}^{}=S_01/2`$.

The first two terms in Eq. (12) are the terms obtained by Anderson and Hasegawa. We emphasise once again that the parameters $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha /2)`$ take  discrete values which depend on the quantum values of the core spins. The third term is the result of the superexchange interaction in the absence of the itinerant electron. The fourth term, a novel one, is purely due to the double-exchange mechanism in the presence of the itinerant electron. The explicit form of this term is given by,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_J=\frac{J}{2}\frac{2S\overline{S}^{}}{2S+1}(\overline{S}^{}+1).$$
(13)
It is to be noted that in the ferromagnetic limit (i.e. $`\overline{S}^{}=2S`$) $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_J`$ vanishes exactly.

There are primarily three important points to be made about $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_J`$ :

(a) This term is an on-site term : It does not involve physical transfer of the itinerant electron from one site to the other.

(b) This term vanishes in the absence of the itinerant electron. Thus, it exists only on the site at which the electron resides and hence, at any site $`i`$, it will be proportional to $`n_i`$, where $`n_i`$ is the number of itinerant electrons at the site $`i`$ and is taken to be either 1 or 0 in the absence of double occupancy.

(c) At any site $`i`$ this term depends on 3 spin values : the spin of the itinerant electron on the site $`i`$ ($`\sigma _i`$), the core spin at site $`i`$ ($`S_i`$) and the core spin on the neighboring site ($`S_j`$), $`j`$ being the neighbor of the site $`i`$.

Thus, the extra energy term $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_J`$ corresponds to a site energy term which is correlated with the core spins of the nearest neighbors. We may therefore propose an effective double-exchange Hamiltonian in the full lattice as

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\underset{i}{}ϵ_in_it\underset{<ij>}{}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{ij}/2)(c_i^{}c_j+H.C.)+\underset{<ij>}{}J_{ij}\stackrel{}{S_i}.\stackrel{}{S_j},$$
(14)
where

$$ϵ_i=\underset{j}{}\frac{J_{ij}}{2}\frac{2SS_{ij}^{}}{2S+1}(S_{ij}^{}+1),$$
(15)
and

$$S_{ij}^{}=\stackrel{}{S_i}+\stackrel{}{S_j}.$$
(16)
We have explicitly taken $`J_{ij}`$ in order to accomodate effects of anisotropic superexchange also.

The classical limit of the extra term is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_J^{Cl}=\frac{J}{2}(2S+1)\left[1\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\right]\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2),$$
(17)
which goes to zero in both the ferromagnetic as well as the antiferromagnetic limits. Again, we see a clear distinction between the classical and the quantum results in the antiferromagnetic limit. We emphasise that in taking the purely classical expression, one actually loses the effect of the quantum fluctuations which are present in these systems not only because of the fluctuating spins but also due to the on site disorder and the hopping, correlated with the spins on the lattice. A variety of interesting physical phenomena could be studied by taking into consideration the quantum Hamiltonian. One of these concerns the polaron effects, which are discussed below in Section III.

## III Anderson-Hasegawa-Holstein Model

Experiments in manganites - both thermodynamic and transport - seem to suggest the importance of polaron formation and the consequent localization of charge carriers millis95 . The minimal model which reflects such lattice carrier interaction on the double-exchange can be introduced by dovetailing the Holstein mechanism on the Anderson-Hasegawa Hamiltonian. Therefore, in view of the results presented in Sec. II, in the limit of large Hund’s rule coupling, we may write a two site Anderson-Hasegawa-Holstein Hamiltonian as,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}n_{i\sigma }{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}t{\displaystyle \frac{S_0+\frac{1}{2}}{2S+1}}(c_{1\sigma }^{}c_{2\sigma }+c_{2\sigma }^{}c_{1\sigma })+g_1\omega _0{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}n_{i\sigma }(b_i+b_i^{})`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`g_2\omega _0{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\left[n_{1\sigma }(b_2+b_2^{})+n_{2\sigma }(b_1+b_1^{})\right]+\omega _0{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}b_i^{}b_i+J\stackrel{}{S}_1.\stackrel{}{S}_2+\mathrm{\Delta }E_J,`$
where, $`g_1(g_2)`$ denotes the on-site (intersite) electron-phonon coupling strength and $`ϵ`$ is the bare site energy. This site energy is to be contrasted with the site energy which was derived in the previous section. Here, since we are interested in doing a two-site model, the extra term in the Hamilonian due to the superexchange interaction, has been introduced simply as $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_J`$. Note that we have considered a single phonon mode for interatomic vibrations of frequency $`\omega _0`$ for which $`b_i`$ and $`b_i^{}`$ are the annihilation and creation operators.

We separate out the in-phase mode and the out-of-phase mode by introducing new phonon operators $`a=(b_1+b_2)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`d=(b_1b_2)/\sqrt{2}`$ in the Hamiltonian. The in-phase mode does not couple to the electronic degrees of freedom whereas the out-of-phase mode does, leading to a Hamiltonian $`H_d`$, given by,

$$H_d=\omega _0d^{}d+ϵ\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}n_it\left(\frac{S_0+\frac{1}{2}}{2S+1}\right)(c_1^{}c_2+h.c.)+g_{}\omega _0(n_1n_2)(d+d^{})+J\stackrel{}{S}_1.\stackrel{}{S}_2+\mathrm{\Delta }E_J,$$
(19)
which represents an effective electron-phonon system. Following jayee  we use a Modified Lang-Firsov (MLF) transformation with variable phonon basis and obtain,

$`\stackrel{~}{H_d}`$ $`=`$ $`e^RH_de^R`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\omega _0d^{}d+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}ϵ_pn_it{\displaystyle \frac{S_0+\frac{1}{2}}{2S+1}}[c_1^{}c_2\mathrm{exp}(2\lambda (d^{}d))+c_2^{}c_1\mathrm{exp}(2\lambda (d^{}d))]`$
$`+`$ $`\omega _0(g_{}\lambda )(n_1n_2)(d+d^{})+J{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}\stackrel{}{S}_i.\stackrel{}{S}_j+\mathrm{\Delta }E_J,`$
where $`R=\lambda (n_1n_2)(d^{}d)`$, $`\lambda `$ is a variational parameter related to the displacement of the $`d`$ oscillator, $`g_{}=(g_1g_2)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`ϵ_p=ϵ\omega _0(2g_{}\lambda )\lambda `$. The basis set is given by $`|\pm ,N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c_1^{}\pm c_2^{})`$ $`|0_e|N`$, where $`|+`$ and $`|`$ are the bonding and the antibonding electronic states and $`|N`$ denotes the $`N`$th excited oscillator state within the MLF phonon basis. The diagonal part of the Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H_d}`$ in the chosen basis is treated as the unperturbed Hamiltonian ($`H_0`$) and the remaining part of the Hamiltonian $`H_1=\stackrel{~}{H_d}H_0`$, as the perturbation. The unperturbed energy of the state $`|\pm ,N`$ is given by

$`E_{\pm ,N}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`N,\pm |H_0|\pm ,N`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`N\omega _0+ϵ_pt_{eff}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\lambda )^{2i}}{i!}}(1)^iN_{C_i}\right]+J\stackrel{}{S}_1.\stackrel{}{S}_2+\mathrm{\Delta }E_J`$
where $`t_{eff}=t\frac{S_0+\frac{1}{2}}{2S+1}\mathrm{exp}(2\lambda ^2)`$, $`N_{C_i}=\frac{N!}{(Ni)!i!}`$. The general off-diagonal matrix elements of $`H_1`$ between the two states $`|\pm ,N`$ and $`|\pm ,M`$ may be calculated for $`(NM)>0`$ as in Ref. jayee .

The unperturbed ground state is the $`|+|0`$ state and the unperturbed energy, $`E_0^{(0)}=ϵ_pt_{eff}+J\stackrel{}{S}_1.\stackrel{}{S}_2+\mathrm{\Delta }E_J`$. However, in this exact quantum limit of core spins, for given values of $`g_{}`$ and $`J`$, $`E_0^{(0)}`$ can have four values corresponding to ferromagnetic (FM), canted 1 (CA1), canted 2 (CA2) and antiferromagnetic (AFM) orientation of the two spins for $`\stackrel{}{S}_{12}=\stackrel{}{S}_1+\stackrel{}{S}_2=3,2,1,0`$ respectively. Minimizing the unperturbed ground state energy $`\lambda `$ is calculated and is given by

$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0g_{}}{\omega _0+2t_{eff}}}.`$ (22)
We have evaluated the perturbation correction to the energy upto the sixth order and the wave function upto the fifth order. The convergence of the perturbation series is very good for $`t/\omega _01`$. To obtain the ground state spin order of the core spins we calculate the energy for each set of values of $`g_{}`$ and $`J`$ with four possible $`\stackrel{}{S}_{12}`$ and find out the combination for which the energy is the minimum. Further, to study the effect of an external magnetic field ($`\stackrel{}{h}`$) we include a term $`\stackrel{~}{g}\mu _B(\stackrel{}{S}_1+\stackrel{}{S}_2).\stackrel{}{h}`$ to the Hamiltonian in equation (18), $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ being the Lande g factor. We assume that the external magnetic field is along the direction of $`\stackrel{}{S}_{12}`$ and is expressed in units of $`\mu _{eff}(=\stackrel{~}{g}\mu _B)`$=1.

It is expected that the charge transfer from site ‘1’ to ‘2’ depends on the spin order of the core spins as well as the electron-phonon interaction. In the double-exchange model, the effective hopping reaches its maximum value in the ferromagnetic state and decreases as it approaches the antiferromagnetic limit. Moreover, in a lattice, the electron produces lattice deformations and which in turn localize the electron for strong electron-phonon coupling. To study the polaronic character one calculates the static correlation functions $`n_1u_1_0`$ and $`n_1u_2_0`$, where $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ are the lattice deformations at sites 1 and 2 respectively, produced by an electron at site 1 jayee ; euro . In the present report with a two-site one electron model, following euro , we calculate $`<n_1(u_1u_2)>_0/g_{}=\frac{\lambda ^{corr}}{g_{}}`$ and study the nature of the polaron crossover for different ranges of $`g_{}`$ and $`J`$. In the ‘large’ polaron limit this parameter takes a small value, while with increasing electron-phonon coupling it tends to unity, showing a distinct crossover from ‘large’ to ‘small’ polaron behavior. The measure of delocalization of the electron for various ranges of $`g_{}`$ as well as $`J`$ will be evident from the kinetic energy. So we have also calculated the kinetic energy, given by,

$$t_{eff}^{KE}=E_{Kin}=<\psi _G|t\frac{S_0+\frac{1}{2}}{2S+1}[c_1^{}c_2\mathrm{exp}(2\lambda (d^{}d))+c_2^{}c_1\mathrm{exp}(2\lambda (d^{}d))]|\psi _G>,$$
(23)
where $`\psi _G`$ is the ground state wave-function, is evaluated upto the fifth order in the perturbation. The numerical evaluation of $`E_{Kin}`$ will be presented below in Sec. IV.

## IV Phase diagrams and Specific Heat

Recently, there have been many experimental reports on manganites at low doping and low temperatures with and without an external magnetic field cv ; cv1 ; cv2 . Okuda et al have estimated the electronic specific heat for $`La_{1x}Sr_xMnO_3`$ in the ferromagnetic regime and concluded that the carrier mass-renormalization near the metal-insulator transition at $`x=0.16`$ is minimal. They have also observed a decrease in the low temperature specific heat in the presence of a magnetic field. Motivated by these observations, we have carried out a calculation of the specific heat, based on the partition function of the system which, from a cumulant expansion upto the 2nd order, is given by sd ,

$$Z(\beta )=Z_0(\beta )exp(_0^\beta 𝑑\beta ^{}_0^\beta ^{}𝑑\beta ^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{H}_1(\beta ^{})\stackrel{~}{H}_1(\beta ^{\prime \prime })),$$
(24)
where $`Z_0(\beta )=Tr(e^{\beta H_0})`$ ; $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1(\beta )=e^{\beta H_0}H_1e^{\beta H_0}`$, and $`\beta =\frac{1}{K_BT}`$. The expression $``$ denotes the usual canonical averaging. The specific heat is then calculated (in arbitrary units) from the well known relation:

$$C_V=\frac{d}{dT}(\frac{d}{d\beta }lnZ(\beta )),$$
(25)
and in the low temperature regime, to which only the zero-and one-phonon states contribute.

If the localized core spin at each site is $`\frac{3}{2}`$ then the possible values of $`\stackrel{}{S}_1+\stackrel{}{S}_2=S_{12}`$ are 3, 2, 1 and 0. The ferromagnetic (FM) and antiferromagnetic (AFM) orders are obviously related to $`S_{12}=`$ 3 and 0, whereas $`S_{12}=`$ 2 and 1 are referred as canted 1 (CA1) and canted 2 (CA2) states respectively. The Fig. 1 shows the phase diagram for the four possible spin orders for our system, in the $`g_{}`$ vs $`J`$ plane. For small values of $`g_{}`$ and $`J`$, the FM state is the most stable one, and with increasing $`J`$, the ground state first becomes CA1 and then CA2. For a very large value of the superexchange interaction $`J`$, the system is in an AFM order for any value of $`g_{}`$. However, with increasing electron-phonon interaction $`g_{}`$, the CA1 and CA2 phase become narrower. Indeed, for larger values of $`g_{}`$ the FM state appears for very low $`J`$ but with a small increase of $`J`$ the system transits to the AFM phase. The CA1 and CA2 phases in fact do not appear at all as the phase changes from the FM to AFM state with increasing superexchange interaction $`J`$, for large values of $`g_{}`$. It can be further shown that for a very large value of $`g_{}`$ the ground state is AFM for any value of $`J`$.

It is evident from the phase diagram that for a particular value of $`J`$ the ground state changes as the electron-phonon coupling ($`g_{}`$) increases (Fig. 1). But the change of phase from one to another is not continuous with $`g_{}`$, for the quantum consideration of the core spins. This is shown in Fig. 2. For small values of $`J=`$ 0.01, the FM state exists even for a large value of $`g_{}`$ and then it sharply changes to the AFM state. On the other hand, for larger values of $`J=`$ 0.04, 0.09, the system passes sharply to the canted phases (CA1 and CA2) and then the AFM state, with increasing $`g_{}`$. For $`J=`$0.04 the CA1 and CA2 regimes are very narrow and for $`J=`$0.09 the CA1 and CA2 orders persist for a wider range of $`g_{}`$. This is to be contrasted with the classical core spin model in which a similar study shows that the transitions to different core spin orientations are continuous for the same range of values for $`g_{}`$ and $`J`$ euro . In the classical case only three phases(FM, AFM and Canted) are present. The relative angle $`\theta `$ between classical core spins can take any value from $`0`$ to $`\pi `$, so any spin orientation other than FM ($`\theta =0`$) and AFM ($`\theta =\pi `$) yields a canted phase. Hence, in the classical limit of the core spins, for certain values of $`J`$, the FM-AFM transition is a smooth and continuous transition with $`g_{}`$, whereas for spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$, the FM-AFM transition with $`g_{}`$ is never continuous for any $`J`$.

The probability of hopping of the itinerant electron from site to site is a maximum in the FM state as would be expected from the double-exchange mechanism. But, for a very strong electron-phonon coupling $`g_{}`$, the electron may be localized forming a small polaron. For low values of $`J`$ we find both small and large polaron ground states in the FM phase (Fig. 3). The large to small polaron crossover is indicated by the relative deformation of the two lattice sites which is measured by the static correlation function $`\frac{\lambda _{corr}}{g_{}}`$. In Fig. 3 the kinetic energy $`t_{eff}^{KE}`$ is large for small values of $`g_{}`$, where the polaron is large, and for large $`g_{}`$, the kinetic energy reduces rapidly, while $`\frac{\lambda _{corr}}{g_{}}`$ rises, showing a smooth crossover to the small polaron regime. The classical and quantum formulations of the double-exchange model turn out to be the same in the FM limit of the core spins. So the nature of the kinetic energy and the polaron crossover in the FM state, as shown in Fig. 3, will be unaltered in the classical limit of core spins. However, in the AFM limit the two approaches (classical and quantum) are not equivalent, as has been argued earlier also. In the $`S\mathrm{}`$ limit the hopping probability is zero for the AFM case, while for $`S=\frac{3}{2}`$ the parameter modifying the hopping probability $`t`$, takes a finite value $`0.25`$ resulting in a finite charge transfer, even in the AFM limit.

In Fig. 4 we show the nature of variation of the kinetic energy as well as the polaron crossover in different magnetic ground states. For $`J=0.09`$ the ground state is FM for low $`g_{}`$, and with increasing $`g_{}`$, the ground state changes sharply to CA1, CA2 and lastly to the AFM state. Since at each transition (from FM $``$ CA1 $``$ CA2 $``$ AFM) the effective hopping reduces due to the double-exchange interaction, it is obvious that the kinetic energy will show a sharp drop at each transition point. It is expected that the polaron crossover will also show concomitant sharp jumps at each magnetic transition and the crossover to small polaron behavior will occur at lower value of $`g_{}`$ than in the FM limit. This is shown clearly in Fig. 4. It is further evident that in a double-exchange system, both the magnetic transitions and the electron-phonon coupling localize the electron, when the polaron crossover and magnetic transitions are overlapping. The locations of the large polaron region (A) and the small polaron region (B) are indicated in the $`g_{}`$ vs $`J`$ phase diagram (Fig. 1). In Fig. 1, for large values of $`g_{}`$, the CA1 and CA2 phases are very narrow and appear as a single phase boundary of FM-AFM region. So the line of separation of polaronic regimes (A and B) appears as a point for CA1 and CA2 in Fig. 1. Thus the results presented in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 have a bearing on the transport behavior of our model.

Having discussed transport we now redirect our attention to thermodynamic properties. With this in mind we show in Fig. 5 the variation of the specific heat in the low temperature region in the FM state with zero and one phonon states. With application of an external magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{h}`$, $`C_V`$ takes lower values than for $`\stackrel{}{h}=0`$ which is expected, as the average energy decreases with application of $`\stackrel{}{h}`$ in the FM state. For CA1($`\stackrel{}{S}_{12}=2`$), CA2($`\stackrel{}{S}_{12}=1`$) and AFM ($`\stackrel{}{S}_{12}=0`$) states the external magnetic field will tend to align the core spins to feromagnetic order($`\stackrel{}{S}_{12}=3`$). For CA1, CA2 and AFM states at low field and low temperatures it can be shown from the present calculation that $`C_V`$ does not change much from the $`\stackrel{}{h}=0`$ limit as long as $`\stackrel{}{h}`$ does not shift $`\stackrel{}{S}_{12}`$ to higher values. For larger $`\stackrel{}{h}`$, as the ground state changes from lower $`\stackrel{}{S}_{12}`$ to a higher one, $`C_V`$ decreases in the low temperature region. For CMR materials, there are some reports on measurements of $`C_V`$ but these are measured in the FM state cv ; cv1 ; cv2 . In such cases, it was found that for low doping regions, $`C_V`$ decreases with an increasing magnetic field. Our present calculation of $`C_V`$ seemingly agrees with these experimental findings. The difference in the quantum and classical cases for specific heat, as far as the core spins are concerned, is exemplified in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 for FM and AFM cases respectively. The quantum results evidently yields the correct low-temperature limit.

## V Conclusions

The Anderson-Hasegawa model, though almost fifty years old, is able to capture all the crucial features of the double-exchange mechanism, originally proposed by Zener. The model is restricted to just two sites but the limitation should not be too serious when the electron hopping, influenced by thermal fluctuations, lattice distortions, phonon effects and other interactions, is expected to be incoherent. Incoherent hopping, albeit quantum in nature, is quite distinct from coherent band-like propagation, and approximately follows a Markovian process as far as the quantum diffusion of the electron is concerned. For a Markovian process only the pre-hopping and post-hopping sites matter. Therefore, the two site abstraction of the underlying three dimensional lattice provides the simplest paradigm which can be exploited for analyzing a variety of phenomena which are of current interest in manganites. With this in mind, we have felt the need of carefully reexamining the exact quantum solution of the Anderson-Hasegawa model, for realistic values of the core spins. We have further used this model as the basic building block, in order to incorporate one or the other phenomena of relevance to manganites. These include superexchange and polarons, which have been the focus of our attention here. Indeed, we have found that Superexchange, when properly treated in conjunction with quantum spin dynamics of the core spins, leads to additional terms in the Anderson-Hasegawa Hamiltonian, which are absent in the classical approximation of the core spins. A similar effect can also be observed with the exact solution of the Anderson-Hasegawa model, with the addition of phonon coupling. This may lead to the enhancement of the site energy term, which will have important consequences in these systems, especially in the paramagnetic state of the manganite systems. Moreover, the discreteness associated with the effective hopping in this quantum case was shown to have further consequence for thermodynamic and transport properties. In conclusion, therefore, we find that the Anderson-Hasegawa model continues to remain relevant for the understanding of topically important issues in manganites.

## VI Acknowledgement

The authors are deeply grateful to Prof. B. Dutta Roy for very helpful discussions on the Racah algebra for the Anderson-Hasegawa model. Discussions with Prof. S. Satpathy on the polaronic mechanism have been quite valuable. SD wishes to thank Prof. S. D. Mahanti for generating initial interest in manganites.

Figure Captions :

FIG. 1. The $`g_{}`$ vs $`J`$ phase diagram ($`\stackrel{}{h}=0`$) for $`\stackrel{}{S}_1=\stackrel{}{S}_2=\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`t=1`$. (A) and (B) denote large polaron and small polaron region respectively.

FIG. 2. Variations of ground state spin configuration $`\stackrel{}{S}_1+\stackrel{}{S}_2`$ with $`g_{}`$ for $`t=1`$ and $`J=`$ 0.01, 0.04 and 0.09, $`h=0`$ (in units of $`\omega _0=1`$).

FIG. 3. Variations of $`t_{eff}^{KE}`$ and $`\lambda _{corr}/g_{}`$ with $`g_{}`$ for $`t=1.0`$, $`J=0.01`$ and $`h=0`$.

FIG. 4. Variations of effective kinetic energy $`t_{eff}^{KE}`$ (dashed line) and polaron crossover $`\lambda _{corr}/g_{}`$ (solid line) with $`g_{}`$, for $`t=1.0`$, $`J=0.09`$ and $`h=0`$. The sharp jumps in $`t_{eff}^{KE}`$ and $`\lambda _{corr}/g_{}`$ occur at values of $`g_{}`$ where the magnetic transitions take place (see Fig. 2).

FIG. 5. Variations of $`C_V`$ (in arbitrary units) for $`g_{}=0.6`$, $`J=0.01`$ and $`t=1`$, for different values of the magnetic field $`h=`$ 0, 0.01, 0.05.

FIG. 6. Variations of $`C_V`$ (in arbitrary units) for $`g_{}=0.2`$, $`J=0.02`$, $`h=0`$ and $`t=1`$, in classical (solid line) and quantum (dashed line) formulation of the core spins. The ground state is FM.

FIG. 7. Variations of $`C_V`$ (in arbitrary units) for $`g_{}=0.9`$, $`J=0.2`$, $`h=0`$ and $`t=1`$, in classical (solid line) and quantum (dashed line) formulation of the core spins. The ground state is AFM.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently an Effective Conformal Field Theory (ECFT) of the so-called paired and parafermionic Quantum Hall (QH) states , at fillings $`\nu =\frac{m}{pm+2}`$, describing a new class of universality of non standard QH plateaux has been proposed . Such a CFT is built out of $`m`$ scalar fields, one describing the charged modes and the remaining $`m1`$ ones, which satisfy twisted boundary conditions, describe the so called neutral modes. The interesting (and new) aspect of the construction employed (the so called $`m`$-reduction procedure) for both the Jain fillings $`\nu =\frac{m}{pm+1}`$ and the non standard ones, were analyzed in  and  where it was shown how naturally it induces the twist on the boundary, given by a $`Z_m`$ group generated by the phases $`ϵ^j=e^{\frac{2\pi ij}{m}}`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$. As a consequence the chiral primary fields appear as composite operators with a charged and a neutral component. It has been proved that their correlators reproduce the ground state wave function for the Jain as well as for the paired states, generalizing the Laughlin type wave function on the plane ,. The role of the neutral components described by the untwisted vertices is to cancel out the $`m`$-root singularity present in the correlators of the charged ones. On a physical ground the neutral component describes the interaction between the electrons of the $`m`$ Landau levels (or layers) involved in the formation of the ground and excited states. In this paper we present the detailed analysis of such a twisted CFT for the topology of the torus (genus $`g=1`$ Riemann surface).

First we construct the characters associated to the chiral vertices (already known for the theory on the plane ), their modular properties (under $`SL(2,Z)`$ transformations or one of its subgroups), and finally we exhibit the partition function. All that allows us to develop a classification scheme of these twisted (orbifold) CFTs. A very interesting case seems to be the possibility to select out a subclass of characters by imposing the invariance under the twist group, which defines a CFT with a smaller central charge but with a higher symmetry.

These theories are related to the models introduced some years ago in , which has been also obtained in   as a coset of $`c=2m`$ CFTs. The relevant aspect in our construction of such a rational CFT, which from now on we will refer to Twisted Model (TM), is the presence of composite operators in which the $`Z_m`$ (center of $`SU(m)`$ symmetry of the untwisted vertices) couples to the $`Z_m`$ subgroup of $`U(1)`$ relative to the charged vertices.

As it is well known, for the applications to the QH fluid physics the general properties of the one point functions on the torus and of the characters give the most significative information on the topological aspects of the QH physics (and also on the edge deformations), as the degeneracy of the ground state wave function on the torus, the braiding properties or generalized statistics , the conductance $`\sigma _H`$, which defines the so called “topological order” . One of the new phenomena induced by the topological properties is an effective strong coupling between the layers. For the particular $`m=2`$ case, that is for a two layers system, corresponding to an effective filling $`\nu =\frac{1}{p+1}`$, such a phenomenon, found experimentally in , was analyzed in  within our CFT description and in the context of two interacting 2D-branes. Basically that phenomenon has its origin in the topology of the $`m`$-covering ($`m=2`$) of the torus, as we will see in this paper. Then we have all the ingredients for confronting the properties of the TM partition function under the infinite discrete symmetry $`SL(2,Z),`$ or its subgroups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(2)`$, for the $`c=2`$ case, with the $`331`$ model and its generalization ( the ($`2+p`$,$`2+p`$,$`p`$) Halperin series (H) ) and only in part with the Haldane-Rezayi model (HR) . The sub-theory with $`c=\frac{3}{2}`$ proposed by Moore and Read (MR) in  for reproducing the Pfaffian and its qPfaffian generalization is also analyzed on the torus, confirming the presence of a new deeper symmetry i.e. the $`N=2`$ superconformal one for the special $`p=1`$ case.

The paper is organized as follows:

In sec. 2 we discuss the ground state wave functions on the plane of a two interacting layers system which have been first analyzed in ,  and .

In sec. 3 we briefly summarize the $`m`$-reduction construction on the plane (genus $`g=0`$), which has been used in  to construct CFT models for the Jain series at filling $`\nu =\frac{m}{pm+1}`$ and in  for the parafermionic serie at fillings $`\nu =\frac{m}{pm+2}`$. Then we give the primary fields and their correlation functions for the $`m=2`$ case, evidencing the simple relation of the H states with our proposed ground state for the plane geometry .

In sec. 4 we generalize the $`m`$-reduction construction of the TM for the torus topology; then we derive the conformal blocks both for the twisted and the untwisted sectors. Finally we briefly comment on the possible transition from Abelian to non Abelian statistics ,.

In sec. 5 we construct the complete diagonal partition function for this CFT with central charge $`c=2`$ following the scheme of secs. 2, 3 and 4. We prove that for the $`p`$ even case, for which boson like pseudoparticles (or excitations) are formed, it is $`SL(2,Z)`$ invariant while for the $`p`$ odd case, for which fermions-like excitations are formed, it is only invariant under the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(2)`$ subgroup of $`SL(2,Z)`$. For p even a comparison with the $`Z_2`$-orbifold construction is given.

In the conclusions (sec. 6) a comparison of the TM with the H and MR models is given. Further comments on the problem of the non-Abelian statistics are briefly addressed together with a plausible physical interpretation of the twisted boundary conditions.

In App. A the characters for the generic $`m`$ case are explicitly constructed using the $`m`$-reduction procedure on the torus; then their factorization in terms of the charged and neutral components is derived.

In App. B the explicit derivation of the modular transformation properties are given for the $`m=2`$ case.

## 2 Bilayer Quantum Hall System

We are interested in a system consisting of two parallel layers of 2D electrons gas in a strong perpendicular magnetic field B.

The states which will be considered are the Halperin states , the Haldane-Rezayi  and the Moore-Read states . The simplest abelian quantum Hall state in a disc topology is described by a generalization of the Laughlin wave function first introduced by Halperin :

$$f^H(\{z_i^{(a)}\})=\underset{i<j}{}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(1)}\right)^{2+p}\underset{i<j}{}\left(z_i^{(2)}z_j^{(2)}\right)^{2+p}\underset{i,j}{}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(2)}\right)^pe^{\frac{1}{4}_{i,a}|z_i^{(a)}|^2}$$
(1)
where $`z_i^{(a)}`$ is the complex coordinate of the electron $`i`$ in the layer $`(a)`$.

Here $`p`$ is a positive integer, odd (for the fermionic series) or even (for the bosonic one), characterizing the flux attached to the particles. These states are incompressible and their gapless excitations are confined to the droplet edges, which have length L and are parametrized by the coordinate $`x_i^{(a)}`$ ( $`z_i^{(a)}=e^{i\frac{x_i^{(a)}}{2\pi L}}`$). The filling factor $`\nu ^{(a)}=\frac{1}{2p+2}`$ is the same for the two layers (balanced system) while the total filling is $`\nu =\nu ^{(1)}+\nu ^{(2)}=\frac{1}{p+1}`$. Halperin series contains, in particular, the fermionic $`331`$ state which corresponds to $`p=1`$ and the bosonic $`220`$ state corresponding to $`p=0`$. The CFT description for these models can be given in terms of two compactified chiral bosons $`Q^{(a)}`$ with central charge $`c=2`$. An equivalent description is given in terms of fields which diagonalize the interlayer interaction $`X`$ , $`\varphi `$ given by: $`X=Q^{(1)}+Q^{(2)}`$, $`\varphi =Q^{(1)}Q^{(2)}`$, where $`Q^{(a)}`$, $`a=1,2`$ are defined on a single layer.

Then for the bilayer we are considering $`X`$ carries the total charge with velocity v$`_X,`$ while $`\varphi `$ carries the charge difference of the two edges with velocity $`v_\varphi `$ i.e. no charge, being the number of electrons the same for each layer . We refer to $`X`$ and $`\varphi `$ as to the charged and neutral field, respectively and restrict our discussion to the states in which both edge modes move in the same direction.

In such a basis the wave function is given by

$$f^H(\{z_i^{(a)}\})=f_C(\{z_i^{(a)}\})f_N^H(\{z_i^{(a)}\})e^{\frac{1}{4}_{i,a}|z_i^{(a)}|^2}$$
(2)
where

$$f_C(\{z_i^{(a)}\})=\underset{i<j}{}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(1)}\right)^{p+1}\underset{i<j}{}\left(z_i^{(2)}z_j^{(2)}\right)^{p+1}\underset{i,j}{}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(2)}\right)^{p+1}$$
(3)
and

$$f_N^H(\{z_i^{(a)}\})=Det\left(\frac{1}{z_iz_j}\right)=(1)^{N(N1)/2}\frac{_{i<j}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(1)}\right)_{i<j}\left(z_i^{(2)}z_j^{(2)}\right)}{_{i,j}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(2)}\right)}$$
(4)
are the holomorphic wave function of the charged and neutral modes.

Let us notice that for the H model there is no interlayer current, therefore the fields $`Q^{(a)}`$ are defined on a single layer only and there is no connection between them, i.e. the two edges are not “connected”. Instead for the case of the MR model or, in general, for the twisted sector of the TM that is not the case.

The other ground state wave functions proposed for the bilayer system differ one from another only in their neutral degrees of freedom contribution. They are given by:

$$f_N^{HR}(\{z_i^{(a)}\})=Det\left(\frac{1}{\left(z_iz_j\right)^2}\right)$$
(5)
for the HR state, where $`Det`$ is the determinant and

$$f_N^{MR}(\{z_i^{(a)}\})=Pf\left(\frac{1}{\left(z_iz_j\right)}\right)$$
(6)
for the MR case, where $`Pf\left(\frac{1}{z_iz_i^{}}\right)=𝒜\left(\frac{1}{z_1z_2}\frac{1}{z_3z_4}\mathrm{}\right)`$ is the antisymmetrized product over pairs of electrons or equivalently the square root of the determinant.

The neutral sector of the edge excitations for MR, HR and H states are given by Majorana-Weyl, symplectic and Dirac fermion respectively (while in the model here analyzed we have (Ising)2). They can be seen as the QH analogues of a BCS superconductor with a would be order parameter (associated to the pairing phenomenon) which is $`S_z=1,0`$ $`p`$-wave for MR and H respectively and $`d`$-wave for the HR. From a CFT point of view MR has central charge $`c=3/2`$ while the H model has $`c=2`$ and HR is the (unitary) projection of a $`c=1`$ (its peculiar properties will be not discussed here). Beside the relevant physical differences between the three states just seen, for all cases the charged and neutral sectors are coupled by a $`Z_2`$ (parity rule) symmetry ,  (as a consequence of the monodromy property for the CFT); we notice that in the methods used in  such a selection rule is built in by construction and was called the $`m`$-ality constraint.

The edge excitations are generated by acting with the extended chiral algebra on the Highest Weight States (HWS). These fields also correspond to quasi-particles in the bulk. The complete description of the edge excitations are conveniently summarized in the extended chiral algebra characters $`\chi (w|\tau )`$. By taking $`\tau =iT_0/k_BT`$ , where $`k_B`$ is the Boltzman constant and $`T_0=\mathrm{}v_F/L`$ is the level spacing of the system, combinations of characters represent contributions from each sector to the grand partition function.

On the other hand in the TM (or abelian $`Z_2`$ orbifold) the boundary conditions connect the two scalar chiral fields $`Q^{(a)}`$ which can be thought as components of a unique “boson” defined on a double covering of the disc ($`z_i^{(1)}=z_i^{(2)}=z_i`$) see Fig. 1.

That is in strong contrast with the Halperin model. Correspondingly also the radius gets renormalized and the contributions for the charged and neutral components are given by:

$`f_C(\{z_i\})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left(z_i^2z_j^2\right)^{p+1}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(2z_i\right)^{\frac{p+1}{2}}`$ (7)
$`f_N^{TM}(\{z_i\})`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{N(N1)/2}{\displaystyle \frac{_{i<j}\left(z_iz_j\right)^2}{_{i<j}\left(z_i^2z_j^2\right)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(2z_i\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (8)
It is easy to check that, by using the map $`z_i^2z_i`$ we obtain the wave function given in  (without the symmetrization). The two layers system becomes equivalent to a one-layer QHF with filling $`\nu =1/(p+1)`$ with interacting spin degrees of freedom. Nevertheless, the neutral sector which describes this interaction, becomes an (Ising)2 model due to the decoupling of the spin structures .

## 3 The m-reduction on the plane

In this section we briefly review the $`m`$-reduction procedure on the plane as a starting point for its generalization to the torus which is the main content of this paper. Our approach is meant to describe all the plateaux with even denominator starting from the bosonic Laughlin filling $`\nu =1/(pm+2)`$, which is described by a CFT with $`c=1`$, in terms of a scalar chiral field compactified on a circle with radius $`R^2=1/\nu =pm+2`$ (or its dual $`R^2=4/(pm+2)`$). Then the $`U(1)`$ current is given by $`J(z)=i_zQ(z)`$, where $`Q(z)`$ is the compactified Fubini field with the standard mode expansion:

$$Q(z)=qiplnz+\underset{n0}{}\frac{a_n}{n}z^n$$
(9)
with $`a_n`$, $`q`$ and $`p`$ satisfying the commutation relations $`[a_n,a_n^{}]=n\delta _{n,n^{}}`$ and $`[q,p]=i`$.

The primary fields are expressed in terms of the vertex operators $`U^\alpha (z)=:e^{i\alpha Q(z)}:`$ with $`\alpha ^2=1,\mathrm{},2+pm`$ and conformal dimension $`h=\frac{\alpha ^2}{2}`$.

We start with this set of fields in the above CFT (mother theory). Using the $`m`$-reduction procedure, which consists in considering the subalgebra generated only by the modes in eq.(9), which are a multiple of an integer $`m`$, we get the image of the twisted sector of a $`c=m`$ orbifold CFT (daughter theory, i.e. the TM) which describes the LLL dynamics.

Then the fields in the mother CFT can be factorized into irreducible orbits of the discrete $`Z_m`$ group which is a symmetry of the TM and can be organized into components which have well defined transformation properties under this group. To compare the orbifold so built with the $`c=m`$ CFT, we use the mapping $`zz^{1/m}`$and the isomorphism defined in ref.  between fields on the $`z`$ plane and fields on the $`z^m`$ covering plane given by the following identifications: $`a_{nm+l}\sqrt{m}a_{n+l/m}`$, $`q\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}q`$.

It is useful to define the invariant scalar field

$$X(z)=\frac{1}{m}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}Q(\epsilon ^jz)$$
(10)
where $`\epsilon ^j=e^{i\frac{2\pi j}{m}}`$, corresponding to a compactified boson on a circle with radius now equal to $`R_X^2=R^2/m=p+2/m`$. This field describes the $`U(1)`$ electrically charged sector of the new filling.

On the other hand, the non-invariant fields defined by

$$\varphi ^j(z)=Q(\epsilon ^jz)X(z),\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\varphi ^j(z)=0$$
(11)
naturally satisfy twisted boundary conditions and the $`J(z)`$ current of the mother theory decomposes into a charged current given by $`J(z)=i_zX(z)`$ and $`m1`$ neutral ones $`_z\varphi ^j(z)`$ .

In the same way every vertex operator in the mother theory can be factorized in a vertex that depends only on the invariant field:

$$𝒰^\alpha (z)=z^{\frac{\alpha ^2}{2}\frac{(m1)}{m}}:e^{i\alpha X(z)}:\alpha ^2=1,\mathrm{},2+pm$$
(12)
and in vertex operators depending on the $`\varphi ^j(z)`$ fields.

We also introduce the neutral component:

$$\psi _1(z)=\frac{z^{\frac{(1m)}{m}}}{m}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\epsilon ^j:e^{i\alpha \varphi ^j(z)}:$$
(13)
which is twist invariant and generates the parafermionic OPE (see  for details) and

$$\overline{\psi }_g(z)=\frac{z^{\frac{(1m)}{m}}}{m}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\epsilon ^{gj}:e^{i\alpha \varphi ^j(z)}:$$
(14)
with $`g=2,\mathrm{},m`$, which are Zm twisted.

From now on we fix $`m=2`$ which is appropriate for the bilayer system.

From eq.(10) and (11) the untwisted field $`X`$ is given by $`X(z)=\frac{1}{2}\left(Q(z)+Q(z)\right)`$ and the twisted one by $`\varphi (z)=\frac{1}{2}\left(Q(z)Q(z)\right)`$ which satisfies the boundary conditions $`\varphi (e^{\pi i}z)=\varphi (z)`$ and describes the neutral sector. Correspondingly, the Virasoro generator splits in two terms  both contributing with $`c=1`$ to the central charge. They are:

$$T_X(z)=\frac{1}{2}\left(_zX(z)\right)^2$$
(15)
and

$$T_\varphi (z)=\frac{1}{4}_z\varphi (z)^2+\frac{1}{16z^2}$$
(16)
The primary fields are the composite operators $`V(z)=𝒰_X(z)\psi (z)`$ where

$$𝒰_X(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{z}}:e^{i\alpha X(z)}:$$
(17)
are the vertices of the charged sector with $`\alpha ^2=2(p+1)`$. The neutral component

$$\psi (z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{z}}:e^{i\alpha \varphi (z)}:$$
(18)
is built out of the twisted scalar field . More explicitly, the HWS of the neutral sector can be classified by two kinds of chiral operators:

the one which does not change the boundary conditions

$$\psi (z)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{z}}\left(e^{i\alpha \varphi (z)}+e^{i\alpha \varphi (z)}\right)$$
(19)
and the other which does

$$\overline{\psi }(z)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{z}}\left(e^{i\alpha \varphi (z)}e^{i\alpha \varphi (z)}\right).$$
(20)
In the fermionized version one can see that they correspond to $`c=1/2`$ Majorana fermions with periodic (Ramond) or anti-periodic (Neveu-Schwarz) boundary conditions . We remind that the Ising model contains three independent characters which can be chosen as {$`I,\psi ,\sigma `$} or {$`I,\psi ,\mu `$}, where $`\sigma `$ and $`\mu `$ are both twist fields of dimension $`h=1/16`$. They are also called order ($`\sigma `$) and disorder ($`\mu `$) fields and are non local with respect to each other (see for example ).

The TM decomposes into a tensor product of two CFTs, a twisted invariant one with $`c=3/2`$ while the second one has $`c=1/2`$ and is realized in terms of a Majorana fermion in the twisted sector. Such a factorization will be even more evident in the construction of the partition function.

When the spacing between the layers is kept fixed at a the value such that the tunneling amplitude is large enough so as the two species of electrons become indistinguishable the H states is predicted to flow to the MR states. In  it was shown that in the presence of tunneling the two Majorana fermions behave as free fields, but acquire different velocities which are determined by the bare velocity of the neutral boson $`v_\varphi `$ and by the tunneling amplitude. When the velocity of one Majorana fermion becomes zero the theory reduces to the $`c=3/2`$ CFT. The operator responsible of this tunneling effect was identified as a cosine operator for $`R^2=4`$  (the total energy in the (Ising)2 model ).

What is striking is that for the $`Z_2`$ even under twist theory a cosine term automatically appears in the energy-momentum tensor of the part of the neutral sector described by the Ramond fields. They are the degrees of freedom which survive after the tunnelling effect has taken place and the $`Z_2`$ symmetry which exchanges the two Ising fermions is broken. Indeed one gets for the bosonized energy-momentum tensor

$$T_\psi (z)=\frac{1}{4}(\varphi )^2\frac{1}{16z^2}\mathrm{cos}(2\sqrt{2}\varphi )$$
(21)
Thus the new stable vacuum is the ground state of a $`c=3/2`$ CFT. Such a result, in our opinion, is a strong confirmation of our CFT approach to the bilayer system.

We are now ready to give the holomorphic part of the ground state wave function for the filling $`\nu =1/(p+1)`$. To such an extent we consider the $`2N_e`$ electrons correlator which factorizes into a Laughlin-Jastrow type term coming from the charged sector:

$$<2N_e\alpha |\underset{i=1}{\overset{2N_e}{}}𝒰_X(z_i)|0>=\underset{i<i^{}=1}{\overset{2N_e}{}}(z_iz_i^{})^{p+1}$$
(22)
and a contribution coming from the neutral excitations:

$$<0|\underset{i=1}{\overset{2N_e}{}}\psi (z_i)|0>=\frac{(\sqrt{z_i}\sqrt{z_j})^2}{_{i<j}(z_iz_j)}$$
(23)
(Notice that here the vacuum state for the neutral modes is a twisted one).

For $`p`$ an odd integer (i.e. for $`\nu =1/q`$, $`q=p+1`$) we get for the correlator of $`2N_e`$ electrons:

$$<2N_e\alpha |\underset{i=1}{\overset{2N_e}{}}V^{\sqrt{2q}}(z_i)|0>=\underset{i<i^{}=1}{\overset{2N_e}{}}(z_iz_i^{})^qPf\left(\frac{1}{z_iz_i^{}}\right)$$
(24)
which reproduces the wave function $`f^{MR}`$ .

In a similar way we also are able to evaluate correlators of $`2N_e`$ electrons in the presence of quasi-hole excitations .

## 4 The theory on the torus

It is possible to apply the $`m`$-reduction technique to the topology of the torus and obtain the conformal blocks of the TM out of the $`U(1)`$ conformal blocks of the mother theory. This is extensively worked out for general $`m`$ in App. A. For the special $`m=2`$ case, we are interested in, the characters of the TM are explicitly given by (see eq.(86)):

$$\chi _{((s,i),\stackrel{~}{f})}(w|\tau )=\underset{l=0}{\overset{1}{}}N_{(l,(q,\stackrel{~}{f}))}(\tau )K_{2(p+1)l+q}(w|\tau )$$
(25)
where $`q=2s+i`$, $`s=0,\mathrm{},p`$ and $`(i,\stackrel{~}{f})=0,1`$. The $`c=1`$ conformal blocks given above are explicitly written in terms of the standard Jacobi $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and the Dedekind $`\eta `$ functions as:

$$K_{2(p+1)l+q}(w|\tau )=\frac{1}{\eta (\tau )}\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}\frac{2(p+1)l+q}{4\left(p+1\right)}\\ 0\end{array}\right]\left(2\left(p+1\right)w|4\left(p+1\right)\tau \right)$$
(26)
They describe the degrees of freedom of the charged component with radius $`R_X^2=\frac{2p+2}{2}`$ and are in number of $`4(p+1)`$ as it is well known.

On the other hand the characters of the neutral sector are given by

$$N_{(l,(q,\stackrel{~}{f}))}(\tau )=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=0}{\overset{1}{}}e^{\frac{2\pi i}{2}j(\stackrel{~}{f}+\frac{q^2}{4}\frac{1}{24}\frac{\left[2(p+1)l+q\right]^2}{4})}\frac{\eta (\tau )}{\eta (\frac{\tau +j}{m})}$$
(27)
They can be factorized in terms of an (Ising)2 i.e. $`\chi _0`$ (the identity), $`\chi _{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (the energy) and $`\chi _{\frac{1}{16}}`$ (the twist) operators. Their explicit expressions are given in App. A. We distinguish the two Ising sectors as follows: the twist invariant Ising characters are unbarred while the non invariant ones are barred.

The characters which are even under the $`Z_2`$ twist of the boson $`\varphi `$ determine a $`c=3/2`$ CFT and are explicitly given by:

$`\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0(\tau )K_{2s}\left(w|\tau \right)+\chi _{\frac{1}{2}}(\tau )K_{2(p+s)+2}\left(w|\tau \right)`$ (28)
$`\chi _{(1,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{\frac{1}{16}}(\tau )\left(K_{2s+1}\left(w|\tau \right)+K_{2(p+s)+3}\left(w|\tau \right)\right)`$ (29)
$`\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{\frac{1}{2}}(\tau )K_{2s}\left(w|\tau \right)+\chi _0(\tau )K_{2(p+s)+2}\left(w|\tau \right)`$ (30)
They are equal to the characters of the MR states  and add up to $`3(p+1)`$. The characters of the $`c=2`$ CFT which describe the H states can be also written in terms of these building blocks as follows:

$`\chi _{(1,s)}^H(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_0\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )+\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (31)
$`\chi _{(2,s)}^H(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_0\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )+\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (32)
$`\chi _{(3,s)}^H(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{(4,s)}^H(w|\tau )=\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}\chi _{(1,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (33)
We see from the previous relations that the distinct characters for the H model $`\chi _{(3,s)}^H`$ and $`\chi _{(4,s)}^H`$ are equal, on the other hand, as we will see in the following, they correspond to an unique character in the orbifold model. Notice also that for the H states the two real fermions must have the same boundary conditions on the torus to describe a Dirac field. Such a phenomenon could not be observed on the plane, where the two fermions appeared totally decoupled.

### 4.1 The characters of the twisted sector

The characters of the twisted sector are denoted as $`\chi _{((i,s),\stackrel{~}{f})}`$, with the indices $`i,`$ $`s,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ defined as before and their explicit expression, which follows from eqs.$`\left(\text{98}\right)`$, $`\left(\text{90}\right)`$ and $`\left(\text{93}\right)`$ of App. A, depends on the parity of $`p`$:

for $`p`$ even

$`\chi _{((0,s),0)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (34)
$`\chi _{((0,s),1)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (35)
$`\chi _{((1,s),0)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_0\chi _{(1,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (36)
$`\chi _{((1,s),1)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(1,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (37)
and add up to $`4(p+1),`$

for $`p`$ odd

$`\chi _{((0,s),0)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}\chi _0\left(K_{2s}\left(w|\tau \right)+K_{2(p+s)+2}\left(w|\tau \right)\right)`$ (38)
$`\chi _{((0,s),1)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}\chi _{\frac{1}{2}}\left(K_{2s}\left(w|\tau \right)+K_{2(p+s)+2}\left(w|\tau \right)\right)`$ (39)
$`\chi _{((1,s),0)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{\frac{1}{16}}\left(\overline{\chi }_0K_{2s+1}\left(w|\tau \right)+\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}K_{2(p+s)+3}\left(w|\tau \right)\right)`$ (40)
$`\chi _{((1,s),1)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{\frac{1}{16}}\left(\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}K_{2s+1}\left(w|\tau \right)+\overline{\chi }_0K_{2(p+s)+3}\left(w|\tau \right)\right)`$ (41)
and add up to $`4(p+1)`$. If we define the symmetrized ($`+`$) and the antisymmetrized ($``$) linear combinations, we see that the combinations $`\chi _{(i,s)}^+`$ do not depend on the parity of $`p`$ and are given by:

$`\chi _{(0,s)}^+(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}\left(\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )+\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )\right)`$ (42)
$`\chi _{(1,s)}^+(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{\chi }_0+\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\chi _{(1,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (43)
Instead the $`\chi _{(i,s)}^{}`$ depend on the parity of $`p`$:

for $`p`$ even

$`\chi _{(0,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}\left(\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )\right)`$ (44)
$`\chi _{(1,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{\chi }_0\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\chi _{(1,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (45)
for $`p`$ odd

$`\chi _{(0,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}\left(\chi _0\chi _{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(K_{2s}\left(w|\tau \right)+K_{2(p+s)+2}\left(w|\tau \right)\right)`$ (46)
$`\chi _{(1,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{\frac{1}{16}}\left(\overline{\chi }_0\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(K_{2s+1}\left(w|\tau \right)K_{2(p+s)+3}\left(w|\tau \right)\right)`$ (47)
For $`p`$ odd we need to take into account an extra symmetry due to the fermionic nature of the particles while the starting theory is a bosonic one. From a mathematical point of view we project the characters of the $`R^2`$ even theory which are closed under the full modular group onto the final theory which is closed only under the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(2)`$ subgroup.

The characters of the theory are reduced to $`\chi _{(i,s)}^+`$, with the result that only these linear combinations can be factorized in terms of the $`c=\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`c=\frac{1}{2}`$ theory. This is due to the parity selection rule.

### 4.2 The characters of the untwisted sector

The characters of the untwisted sector are given in terms of the CFT components $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{((i,s),\stackrel{~}{f})}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)},`$ which are defined below as

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{((0,s),0)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_0\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (48)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{((0,s),1)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (49)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{((1,s),0)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_0\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (50)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{((1,s),1)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (51)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}\chi _{(1,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$
As for the twisted sector we can define the symmetrized and antisymmetrized linear combinations which can be rewritten as

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(0,s)}^+(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_0\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )+\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (52)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(1,s)}^+(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_0\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )+\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (53)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(0,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_0\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (54)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(1,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_0\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (55)
Now we can compare the characters of the TM with the Halperin ones $`\chi _{(f,s)}^H(w|\tau )`$ and obtain the following identifications

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(0,s)}^+(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{(1,s)}^H(w|\tau )`$ (56)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(1,s)}^+(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{(2,s)}^H(w|\tau )`$ (57)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{(3,s)}^H(w|\tau )=\chi _{(4,s)}^H(w|\tau )`$ (58)
We can see that the characters of the ($`p+2`$,$`p+2`$,$`p`$) Halperin model are linear combinations of the TM characters in the untwisted sector. But we should notice a very peculiar phenomenon embodied in eq.(58) where one character of the TM is identified with $`2`$ characters of the H model. Because of that the degeneracy of the ground state on the torus for this subset of characters is reduced from $`4(p+1)`$ to $`3(p+1)`$. That may be an indication of the transition from the Abelian statistics of the H model to the non-Abelian one of the TM. Naturally such an interesting issue needs to be further studied to be completely clarified.

The fields content and the fusion rules for the conformal family can be deduced from the properties of the characters under modular transformations (see App. B). Using the results given in App. B we verify that the characters are closed under $`SL(2,Z)`$ for $`p`$ even or under $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(2)`$ for $`p`$ odd. It is important to notice that there is a further symmetry, generated by the magnetic translations . The two generators of this group are the shifts $`ww+1`$ which implies that the electrons have an integer charge and $`ww+\tau `$ which is a self-consistency condition for the completeness of the excitations under the change of the electric potential and corresponds to a transport of a magnetic flux unit along a cycle of the torus. It is easy to see that the characters of the TM are a complete basis for this group.

Their explicit derivation and the complete set of fusion rules together with the issue of non-Abelian statistics will be discussed in details elsewhere .

## 5 The partition function

In this section we derive the partition function for the TM and confront it with the well known function for the Halperin and Moore-Read models.

Starting from the diagonal partition function of the mother theory and using the modular properties of the characters of the twisted and untwisted sectors given in App. B, we obtain the following partition function:

$$Z(\tau )=\underset{s=0}{\overset{p}{}}\left(\underset{k}{}\right|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k(0|\tau )|^2+\underset{t}{}\left|\chi _t(0|\tau )|^2\right)$$
(59)
where the index $`k`$ ($`t`$) runs on the untwisted (twisted) characters.

This function can also be written in a diagonal form in terms of the symmetrized and antisymmetrized characters defined in secs.(4.1), (4.2) as:

$$Z(\tau )=\frac{1}{2}\left(Z^H(\tau )+Z_{untwist}^{}(\tau )+Z_{twist}^+(\tau )+Z_{twist}^{}(\tau )\right)$$
(60)
Above $`Z^H`$ is the partition function of the Halperin model111notice that the reduction of the number of characters of the H model entering the TM (see eq.(58) and comments afterwards) does not affect $`Z^H`$.

$$Z^H(\tau )=\underset{s=0}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}|\chi _{(i,s)}^H(0|\tau )|^2$$
(61)
which can be expressed in terms of our characters as:

$$Z^H(\tau )=\underset{s=0}{\overset{p}{}}2|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}(0|\tau )|^2+Z_{untwist}^+(0|\tau )$$
(62)
where

$$Z_{untwist}^+(\tau )=\underset{s=0}{\overset{p}{}}\left(\right|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(0,s)}^+(0|\tau )|^2+\left|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(1,s)}^+(0|\tau )|^2\right)$$
(63)
The other terms in eq.(60) are explicitly given by:

$`Z_{untwist}^{}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{p}{}}}\left(\right|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(0,s)}^{}(0|\tau )|^2+\left|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(1,s)}^{}(0|\tau )|^2\right)`$ (64)
$`Z_{twist}^+(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{p}{}}}\left(\right|\chi _{(0,s)}^+(0|\tau )|^2+\left|\chi _{(1,s)}^+(0|\tau )|^2\right)`$ (65)
$`Z_{twist}^{}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{p}{}}}\left(\right|\chi _{(0,s)}^{}(0|\tau )|^2+\left|\chi _{(1,s)}^{}(0|\tau )|^2\right)`$ (66)
Using the modular transformations properties of the characters given in App. B it is easy to verify that the modular properties of $`Z_{untwist}^{}`$, $`Z_{twist}^+`$ and $`Z_{twist}^{}`$ do not depend on the parity of the flux $`p`$ while for $`Z^H`$ this is not the case.

Under $`T`$ they transform as:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\begin{array}{c}evenp:Z^H(\tau +1)=Z^H(\tau )\\ oddp:Z^H(\tau +2)=Z^H(\tau )\end{array};Z_{untwist}^{}(\tau +1)=Z_{untwist}^{}(\tau )\\ Z_{twist}^+(\tau +1)=Z_{twist}^{}(\tau );Z_{twist}^{}(\tau +1)=Z_{twist}^+(\tau )\end{array}$$
(67)
Under $`S`$ transformation we have:

$`Z^H({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }})`$ $`=`$ $`Z^H(\tau );Z_{untwist}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }})=Z_{twist}^+(\tau )`$ (68)
$`Z_{twist}^+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }})`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{untwist}^{}(\tau );Z_{twist}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }})=Z_{twist}^{}(\tau )`$ (69)
From the transformations given above it is clear that $`Z^H`$ is modular invariant for $`p`$ even while it is only weak modular invariant, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(2)`$ invariant, for $`p`$ odd.

### 5.1 Z2-orbifold construction of the Halperin model

For a CFT on the torus with an internal $`Z_2`$ symmetry it is possible to construct a modular invariant partition function which takes into account different boundary conditions along the space and the time coordinates. The orbifold construction gives rise to a partition function which has the following structure:

$$Z(\tau )\frac{1}{2}\left\{Z_{(P,P)}(\tau )+Z_{(P,A)}(\tau )+Z_{(A,P)}(\tau )+Z_{(A,A)}(\tau )\right\}$$

where $`P`$ ($`A`$) stays for periodic (antiperiodic) boundary conditions.

The terms appearing above have the following modular transformations property:

$`T\left(Z_{(P,P)}\left(\tau \right)\right)`$ $``$ $`Z_{(P,P)}\left(\tau \right);T(Z_{(P,A)}\left(\tau \right))Z_{(P,A)}\left(\tau \right)`$ (70)
$`T(Z_{(A,P)}\left(\tau \right))`$ $``$ $`Z_{(A,A)}\left(\tau \right);T(Z_{(A,A)}\left(\tau \right))Z_{(A,P)}\left(\tau \right)`$ (71)
and

$`S\left(Z_{(P,P)}\left(\tau \right)\right)`$ $``$ $`Z_{(P,P)}\left(\tau \right);S(Z_{(P,A)}\left(\tau \right))Z_{(A,P)}\left(\tau \right)`$ (72)
$`S(Z_{(A,P)}\left(\tau \right))`$ $``$ $`Z_{(P,A)}\left(\tau \right);S(Z_{(A,A)}\left(\tau \right))Z_{(A,A)}\left(\tau \right)`$ (73)
If we compare the modular transformations $`T`$ and $`S`$ of $`Z^H`$, $`Z_{untwist}^{}`$, $`Z_{twist}^+`$, $`Z_{twist}^{}`$, indicated in eqs.(67-69), with the above ones, we can make for $`p`$ even the following identification:

$`Z^H(\tau )`$ $``$ $`Z_{(P,P)}(\tau )`$ (74)
$`Z_{untwist}^{}(\tau )`$ $``$ $`Z_{(P,A)}(\tau ).`$ (75)
$`Z_{twist}^+(\tau )`$ $``$ $`Z_{(A,P)}(\tau ).`$ (76)
$`Z_{twist}^{}(\tau )`$ $``$ $`Z_{(A,A)}(\tau )`$ (77)
Notice that the two Majorana fermions, introduced in eqs:(19-20) are not completely equivalent because the monodromy conditions of the wave function select out the twist invariant $`\psi `$ fermion as the one associated to the charged sector. That can be also seen in the factorization of the partition function given in eq.(60) as:

$$Z(\tau )=Z^{MR}(\tau )Z_{\overline{I}}(\tau )$$
(78)
where $`Z^{MR}`$ is the modular invariant partition function of the Moore-Read model, which has central charge $`c=3/2`$ and $`Z_{\overline{I}}`$ is the partition function of the Ising model, which has $`c=1/2`$. They have the following expression:

$$Z_{MR}(\tau )=\underset{s=0}{\overset{p}{}}\left(\right|\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(0|\tau )|^2+|\chi _{(1,s)}^{MR}(0|\tau )|^2+|\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(0|\tau )|^2)$$
(79)
and

$$Z_{\overline{I}}(\tau )=\left|\overline{\chi }_0(\tau )\right|^2+\left|\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}(\tau )\right|^2+\left|\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}(\tau )\right|^2$$
(80)
For $`p`$ odd it can be easily seen that $`Z`$ can be written as:

$$Z(\tau )=\frac{1}{2}\left(Z^H(\tau )+Z_{untwist}^{}(\tau )+Z_{twist}^+(\tau )\right)$$
(81)
which is the only expression consistent with the parity rule; furthermore the above partition function is invariant only under $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(2)`$. For such a case it is natural to expect a connection between the parity rule and the modular properties of the characters.

In  it was shown that the H and the HR partition function are related by a half-flux transport along a cycle of the torus. In a forthcoming paper  we extend this argument by using the symmetry generated by magnetic translations generalized to the case of transport of the flux from a layer to the other.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper, by using the $`m`$-reduction procedure, we construct the characters of the $`c=2`$ twisted CFT, and studied their modular properties. The new aspect in our construction is the presence, induced in the daughter CFT, of discrete symmetries which couple to each other due essentially to the compositeness of the vertex operators describing the primary fields of the theory. From a physical point of view a first $`Z_2`$ can be seen as due to the presence of a current between the layers which flows at a fixed but arbitrary point of the edge. This current can be due to the presence of a contact point . The presence of an interlayer current also for very weak tunneling has been recently observed in the ($`1,1,1`$) state. Then it is natural to interpret the twisted boundary conditions for the scalar fields as the theoretical description in our context of such a current. The TM takes into account such an effect for weak tunneling; on the other hand when there is a uniform strong tunneling the model should flow to the MR model as discussed before.

There is also a second $`Z_2`$ symmetry which acts on the vertex operators for the neutral modes as it can be seen in eqs.(19,20). Then the possibility to select a symmetric or an antisymmetric vertex is related to the phenomenon of reduction of the number of degrees of freedom. As an interesting result there is an enhancement of the symmetry, i.e. the $`N=2`$ superconformal symmetry (for $`p=1`$ or equivalently $`\nu =1/2`$) present in the $`c=3/2`$ CFT, which has been evidenced in .

Furthermore the uniform strong tunneling phenomenon in bilayer systems has been also studied with different field theory techniques as the abelian bosonization ( ,). Even though in the first work the R.G.-flow is not present, their results are in agreement with the analysis given in the previous sections.

It is now the correct time to ask ourselves why we can construct two different CFTs (with $`c=2`$) which seem to be relevant for the bilayer system before the uniform tunneling takes place. We are referring to the original H model and to the TM presented in this paper (secs. 4 and 5).

The two models differ for the boundary conditions imposed on the $`m=2`$ scalar fields, of which one ($`m1`$) do satisfy twisted boundary conditions (see eq.(11)) for the TM case. Then it is natural to view that as a description of a particle interaction in the presence of localized impurities. Further such an interaction could account for a current flow between the layers also in the absence of uniform tunneling. All that is in agreement with recent experimental observations ; other theoretical analysis in such a context have been already presented in . Then a coherent superposition of interlayer interactions could drive the system to a more symmetric phase in which the two layers are indistinguishable, i.e. the MR state. That is consistent with the analysis given in  for the brane physics where the tunneling phenomenon, interpreted as a tachyon condensation process, allows for bound states of two D2 branes system. Naturally such an interpretation needs to be verified by further analysis.

We should point out that while in the H model the statistics is certainly Abelian, in the TM the statistics appears to be non-Abelian, as for the MR model (see eq.(58) and comments afterwards). Such a transition from an Abelian to a non-Abelian statistics seems to be due to the decoupling of the spin structures, i.e. the presence of two independent inequivalent Majorana fermions and the breaking of the symmetry which exchanges them.

The observed reduction of the independent characters in the untwisted sector of the TM, constructed in sec. 5, requires an accurate analysis of the zero modes of the fermionic fields. We just observe that by introducing the well known operator $`(1)^F`$, which makes possible the projection on the even or odd fermionic number, one would be able to distinguish between the order operator $`\sigma `$ from the disorder operator $`\mu `$ in the Ising model. For the H model the states of both parity are on the same footing, then the two (independent) orthogonal characters $`\chi _{\frac{1}{16}}`$ are available. That justifies the presence of the two characters $`\chi _{(3,s)}^H`$ and $`\chi _{(4,s)}^H`$ as independent ones. Instead for the orbifold model the modular invariance requires a GSO-like projection for both the Ising models , reducing then the characters entering the $`Z_{(P,P)}`$ partition function to $`3(p+1)`$ (see eq.(33)). An interesting investigation on related issues has been recently presented in .

Then the difference between the Halperin model and the TM is that while in the first one the fundamental particles are Dirac fermions with a well defined layer index in the second one they are expressed in terms of symmetric $`\psi `$ and antisymmetric $`\overline{\psi }`$ fields, which are a superposition of states belonging to different layers. This basis is relevant for the TM because the twisted boundary conditions of the boson distinguish the two types of fermions also when the tunneling is absent.

Acknowledgments \- We thank M. Huerta for useful comments and discussions. We also thank A. Bergere and V. Pasquier for their interest to this work and for the hospitality extended to one of us \[GM\] at the Service de Physique Theorique, Saclay-F.

Appendix A

The twisted sector of the c=m TM

The twisted sector of the TM is obtained by $`m`$-reduction from the $`U(1)_a`$ theory, with central charge $`c=1`$, and radius of compactification for the free boson $`R^2=pm+22a`$ with $`pm`$ even and $`m`$ prime. The theory so obtained has central charge $`c=m`$.

Furthermore the $`m`$-reduction procedure allows us to construct the conformal blocks of the TM and to recognize the conformal dimension of the primary fields they represent. It is interesting to notice that their transformation properties under the modular group not only give us information about the irreducibility of the representations but at the same time gives us the fusion rules. In analogy with the construction made on the plane, we can express the characters of the daughter theory in terms of the characters of the mother one.

In the daughter theory the conformal dimensions of the primary fields in the twisted sector and the corresponding characters are respectively given by:

$$h_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^q=\frac{q^2}{2(pm+2)m}+\frac{m^21}{24m}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{m}$$
(82)
$$\chi _{(q,\stackrel{~}{f})}(w|\tau )=\frac{1}{m}\underset{j=0}{\overset{m1}{}}e^{\frac{2\pi i}{m}j(\stackrel{~}{f}+\frac{q^2}{2(pm+2)}\frac{1}{24})}K_q^{\left(a\right)}(w|\frac{\tau +j}{m})$$
(83)
where $`q=ms+2b(1\delta _{s,p})+i`$ with $`[s,2b,i]=[(0,.,p),(0,.,m1),(0,1)]`$ ; $`\stackrel{~}{f}=0,\mathrm{},m1.`$ Above the characters of the $`U(1)_a`$ mother theory are explicitly given by:

$$K_q(w|\tau )=\frac{1}{\eta (\tau )}\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}\frac{q}{(pm+2)}\\ 0\end{array}\right]\left(aw|2a\tau \right)$$
(84)
corresponding to the primary fields with conformal dimensions $`h_q=\frac{q^2}{2(pm+2)}.`$ In the daughter theory the charged sector is described by a $`U(1)_{ma}`$ with $`c=1`$ and radius of compactification of the free boson given by $`R_X^2=\left(pm+2\right)/m.`$ Its conformal blocks can be expressed as

$$K_{2al+q}(w|\tau )=\frac{1}{\eta (\tau )}\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}\frac{2al+q}{m(pm+2)}\\ 0\end{array}\right]\left(amw|2am\tau \right)$$
(85)
where $`l=0,\mathrm{},m1`$.

Also the neutral sector is described by a CFT with central charge $`c=m1`$. Of course the two sectors are not independent as it clearly appears from the following decomposition of the characters of the TM:

$$\chi _{(q,\stackrel{~}{f})}(w|\tau )=\underset{l=0}{\overset{m1}{}}N_{(l,(q,\stackrel{~}{f}))}^{(p)}(\tau )K_{2al+q}(w|\tau )$$
(86)
with the neutral characters $`N_{(l,(q,\stackrel{~}{f}))}^{(p)}`$ given by:

$$N_{(l,(q,\stackrel{~}{f}))}^{(p)}(\tau )=\frac{1}{m}\underset{j=0}{\overset{m1}{}}e^{\frac{2\pi i}{m}j(\stackrel{~}{f}+\frac{q^2}{4a}\frac{1}{24}\frac{\left(2al+q\right)^2}{4a})}\frac{\eta (\tau )}{\eta (\frac{\tau +j}{m})}$$
(87)
The above decomposition in eq.(86) even do lengthy can be easily obtained by using in eq.(83) the following identity, relating $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with different arguments:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}\frac{q}{2a}\\ 0\end{array}\right]\left(aw|2a\frac{\tau +j}{m}\right)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{m1}{}}e^{2\pi ij\frac{\left(2al+q\right)^2}{4ma}}\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}\frac{2al+q}{2ma}\\ 0\end{array}\right]\left(maw|2ma\tau \right)$$
(88)
where $`q=0,\mathrm{},mp+1`$.

We must observe that the neutral part does not depend on $`p`$, that is on the flux attached to the charged component, the only dependence on $`p`$ being the way the characters of the neutral part couple to the charged ones in the TM. Such an independence is an immediate consequence of the following relation between neutral characters:

$$N_{(l,(q,\stackrel{~}{f}))}^{\left(p\right)}(\tau )=N_{(l^{},(q^{},\stackrel{~}{f}^{}))}^{\left(0\right)}(\tau )$$
(89)
where $`l^{}=l+b(1\delta _{s,p})`$, $`q^{}=i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}^{}=\stackrel{~}{f}\frac{^{pml^2}}{2}b(1\delta _{s,p})(b+i)`$, $`l=0,\mathrm{},m1`$ and $`q=ms+2b(1\delta _{s,p})+i`$.

Furthermore by using eq.$`\left(\text{89}\right)`$ we get for the characters of the TM the following expression:

$$\chi _{(q,\stackrel{~}{f})}(w|\tau )=\underset{l=0}{\overset{m1}{}}N_{(l^{},(q^{},\stackrel{~}{f}^{}))}(\tau )K_{2al+q}(w|\tau )$$
(90)
where we have defined $`N_{(l^{},(q^{},\stackrel{~}{f}^{}))}=N_{(l^{},(q^{},\stackrel{~}{f}^{}))}^{\left(0\right)},`$ showing the way the neutral and charged components couple together. From the above equation it appears that such a coupling depends on the parity of $`p`$.

Decomposition of the neutral component N

In section 3 for the theory on the plane we noticed that the neutral components $`\psi _1(z)`$ appearing in eq.(13) satisfy the parafermionic algebra for $`SU(2)`$ at level $`m`$ .

Of course the neutral degrees of freedom content of the TM corresponding to a central charge $`c=m1`$, is richer than that of the parafermionic theory which has $`c=2\left(m1\right)/\left(m+2\right)`$. In fact the neutral contribution to the conformal dimensions in eq.(82) splits into two terms:

$`h_{\lambda ,l}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (m\lambda )}{2(m+2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{\lambda }{2}l\frac{i}{2})(l+\frac{i}{2}+\frac{\lambda }{2})}{m}}`$ (91)
$`\overline{h}_{\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{f}}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^21}{24m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (m\lambda )}{2(m+2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{i}{2}\frac{\lambda }{2})(\frac{i}{2}+\frac{\lambda }{2})}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{m}}`$ (92)
where $`h_{\lambda ,l}^i`$ is the dimension of the primary fields in the parafermionic theory while $`\overline{h}_{\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{f}}^i`$ is the corresponding one for the coset CFT which has central charge $`\overline{c}=m\left(m1\right)/\left(m+2\right)`$. On the torus that shows up immediately in the following decomposition of the characters of the neutral part $`N_{(l,(i,\stackrel{~}{f}))}`$ in terms of those of the parafermionic theory $`C_{(\lambda ,q)}^{\left(m\right)}`$:

$$N_{(l,(i,\stackrel{~}{f}))}(\tau )=\underset{i+\lambda =0\mathrm{m}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}2,\lambda =0}{\overset{m}{}}C_{(\lambda ,2l+i)}^{\left(m\right)}(\tau )b_{(\lambda ,(i,\stackrel{~}{f}))}^{\left(m\right)}(\tau )$$
(93)
with $`q=0,\mathrm{},2m1`$ and $`\lambda =0,\mathrm{},m`$.

The characters $`C_{(\lambda ,q)}^{\left(m\right)}`$ are written in terms of the string functions $`c_{(\lambda ,q)}`$ as

$$C_{(\lambda ,q)}^{\left(m\right)}(\tau )=\eta (\tau )c_{(\lambda ,q)}(\tau )$$
(94)
and $`b_{(\lambda ,(i,\stackrel{~}{f}))}^{\left(m\right)}`$ are the branching functions of the neutral theory coset.

For the special $`m=2`$ case the neutral sector has central charge $`c=1`$ and the parafermionic theory coincides with the theory of a free Majorana fermion with central charge $`c=1/2`$. Its characters are explicitly given by:

$`\chi _0(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_3\left(0|\tau \right)}{\eta (\tau )}}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_4\left(0|\tau \right)}{\eta (\tau )}}}\right)`$ (95)
$`\chi _{\frac{1}{2}}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_3\left(0|\tau \right)}{\eta (\tau )}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_4\left(0|\tau \right)}{\eta (\tau )}}}\right)`$ (96)
$`\chi _{\frac{1}{16}}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_2\left(0|\tau \right)}{2\eta (\tau )}}}`$ (97)
For this special case the coset theory is still a free fermion theory with central charge $`c=1/2`$ and the characters are explicitly given by:

$`b_{(0,(0,0))}^{\left(2\right)}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}(\tau );b_{(2,(0,0))}^{\left(2\right)}(\tau )=0;b_{(0,(0,1))}^{\left(2\right)}(\tau )=0`$
$`b_{(2,(0,1))}^{\left(2\right)}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}(\tau );b_{(1,(1,0))}^{\left(2\right)}(\tau )=\overline{\chi }_1(\tau );b_{(1,(1,1))}^{\left(2\right)}(\tau )=\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}(\tau )`$ (98)
Appendix B

Modular transformations for the TM with $`c=2`$

The modular transformations of the characters of the $`c=2`$ TM are given below.

Under $`T`$ ($`\tau \tau +1`$) the characters of the twisted sector defined in sec. 4.1 transform for any $`p`$ as

$`\chi _{(0,s)}^+(w|\tau +1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\pi is^2}{p+1}\frac{\pi i}{24}}\chi _{(0,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ (99)
$`\chi _{(1,s)}^+(w|\tau +1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\pi i\left(s+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}{p+1}\frac{\pi i}{24}}\chi _{(1,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ (100)
$`\chi _{(0,s)}^{}(w|\tau +1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\pi is^2}{p+1}\frac{\pi i}{24}}\chi _{(0,s)}^+(w|\tau )`$ (101)
$`\chi _{(1,s)}^{}(w|\tau +1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\pi i\left(s+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}{p+1}\frac{\pi i}{24}}\chi _{(1,s)}^+(w|\tau )`$ (102)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(i,s)}^{}(w|\tau +1)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\right)^{\left(p+1\right)i}e^{\frac{\pi is^2}{p+1}\frac{\pi i}{6}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(i,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ (103)
Instead the characters of the untwisted sector $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(i,s)}^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)},`$ defined in sec. 4.2, are closed under $`T`$ only if $`p`$ is even:

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(i,s)}^+(w|\tau +1)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\right)^ie^{\frac{\pi is^2}{p+1}\frac{\pi i}{6}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(i,s)}^+(w|\tau )`$ (104)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}(w|\tau +1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\pi i\left(s+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}{p+1}+\frac{\pi i}{12}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}(w|\tau )`$ (105)
while they are closed under $`T^2`$ for $`p`$ odd:

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(i,s)}^+(w|\tau +2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{2\pi is^2}{p+1}\frac{\pi i}{3}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(i,s)}^+(w|\tau )`$ (106)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}(w|\tau +2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{2\pi i\left(s+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}{p+1}+\frac{\pi i}{6}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}(w|\tau )`$ (107)
Under $`S`$ ($`\tau 1/\tau `$) we have the following modular properties for any $`p`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(i,s)}^+({\displaystyle \frac{w}{\tau }}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i^{}=0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi iss^{}}{p+1}}}{2\sqrt{(p+1)}}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(i^{},s^{})}^+(w|\tau )+{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\right)^ie^{\frac{2\pi is\left(s^{}+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{p+1}}}{\sqrt{(p+1)}}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s^{})}(w|\tau )`$ (108)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}({\displaystyle \frac{w}{\tau }}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i^{}=0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\right)^i^{}e^{\frac{2\pi is^{}\left(s+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{p+1}}}{2\sqrt{(p+1)}}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(i^{},s^{})}^+(w|\tau )`$ (109)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(i,s)}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{w}{\tau }}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i^{}=0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\right)^{i^{}i}e^{\frac{2\pi iss^{}}{p+1}}}{\sqrt{2(p+1)}}}\chi _{(i^{},s^{})}^+(w|\tau )`$ (110)
$`\chi _{(i,s)}^+({\displaystyle \frac{w}{\tau }}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i^{^{}}=0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\right)^{i^{}i}e^{\frac{2\pi iss^{}}{p+1}}}{\sqrt{2(p+1)}}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(i^{},s^{})}^{}(w|\tau )`$ (111)
On the other hand the modular transformations for the characters $`\chi _{(i,s)}^{}`$ depend on the parity of $`p`$:

for $`p`$ even

$$\chi _{(i,s)}^{}(\frac{w}{\tau }|\frac{1}{\tau })=\underset{i^{}=0}{\overset{1}{}}\underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{\left(1\delta _{i,i^{}}\right)e^{\frac{2\pi i\left(s+\frac{i}{2}\right)\left(s^{}+\frac{i^{}}{2}\right)}{p+1}}}{\sqrt{\left(p+1\right)}}\chi _{(i^{},s^{})}^{}(w|\tau )$$
(112)
for $`p`$ odd

$$\chi _{(i,s)}^{}(\frac{w}{\tau }|\frac{1}{\tau })=\underset{i^{}=0}{\overset{1}{}}\underset{s^{}=0}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{\delta _{i,i^{}}e^{\frac{2\pi i\left(s+\frac{i}{2}\right)\left(s^{}+\frac{i^{}}{2}\right)}{p+1}}}{\sqrt{\left(p+1\right)}}\chi _{(i^{},s^{})}^{}(w|\tau )$$
(113)