text:
# Bell inequality for quNits with binary measurements

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been an increasing interest in generalizing results known for qubits to arbitrary dimensions. In this respect both quantum cryptography  and various types of Bell inequalities , - have been generalized. Here we combine the two, in the sense that we present a Bell inequality for two quNits ($`N`$ dimensional quantum systems), where the basic idea of the construction is inspired by quantum cryptography.

In the quantum cryptographic protocol, known as BB84 , the legitimate users Alice and Bob, both chose between measuring in one of the two mutually unbiased bases $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$. However, an eavesdropper performing intercept/resend eavesdropping may chose to perform her measurements in what is known as the intermediate basis or the Breidbart basis . In two dimensions it is possible to form two intermediate bases, but the eavesdropper needs only to make use of one of them. Turning to the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt-inequality (CHSH)  for two entangled qubits. The maximal violation is obtained when on the first qubit the measurement settings are $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$, and on the second qubit the two intermediate bases.

It is this observation which lies at the heart of the construction of the inequality we present here. The intermediate states may be generalized to any dimension. However, in higher dimension the intermediate states do in general not form bases. But the projectors corresponding to these intermediate states can be used as binary measurements.

This idea leads to an inequality for two entangled quNits, where on the first quNit the choice of measurement is between two mutually unbiased bases $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$, but on the second quNit the choice is between $`N^2`$ mutually incompatible binary measurements. These measurements correspond to the projectors of all the possible intermediate states. We find that the limit from a local variable point of view is $`2`$, whereas the quantum mechanical limit is $`2\sqrt{N}`$.

It should be emphasized that, the inequality we present here differs in various aspects from the ones which have recently been presented in the literature. First of all the choice of measurements: Usually it is assumed that Alice and Bob each have two measurement settings. Here Alice has again two, but Bob has $`N^2`$. Second, due to the special choice of measurements the construction of the inequality is easily generalized to any dimension. And finally, but very important, this inequality has contrary to other inequalities in higher dimensions, maximal violation for the maximally entangled state. This means that this inequality may be used as a measure of entanglement.

We show the full construction of the inequality for two qutrits and shortly discuss the generalization to arbitrary dimension. In section 2, we define the intermediate states for qutrits and in section 3 we obtain the corresponding inequality. In section 4 we show how to extend this result to any dimension. And then since the strength of a Bell inequality is often measured in terms of its reststance to noise, in section 5 we shortly discuss this issue for the inequality we have obtained. In section 6 we have the conclusions.

## 2 The intermediate states

In this and the next section we consider qutrits, i.e. $`N=3`$.

The Bell inequality we are about to present is derived from the measurement settings, therefore we first define all the measurements involved. The measurement setting on one side, let’s say the side of Alice, correspond to two mutually unbiased basis $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$ and on the side of Bob, the measurement settings correspond to all the intermediate states which may be constructed from these two bases. Here the $`A`$-basis is chosen as the computational basis,

$$|a_0,|a_1,|a_2$$
(1)
where the states satisfy $`a_k|a_l=\delta _{kl}`$. The $`A^{}`$-basis is chosen as the Fourier transform of the computational basis, i.e.

$$|a_k^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi ikn}{3}\right)|a_n,$$
(2)
again these states satisfy

$$a_k^{}|a_l^{}=\delta _{kl},\mathrm{and}\mathrm{moreover}a_k|a_l^{}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _{kl})}{\sqrt{(}3)},$$
(3)
which means that the two bases are mutually unbiased, and that the distance between any states from the two different bases is $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=1/\sqrt{(}3)`$.

The intermediate states are obtained by forming all possible pairs of states from the two bases. They are shown in the table below

|  | $`a_0^{}`$ | $`a_1^{}`$ | $`a_2^{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`a_0`$ | $`m_{00}`$ | $`m_{01}`$ | $`m_{02}`$ |
| $`a_1`$ | $`m_{10}`$ | $`m_{11}`$ | $`m_{12}`$ |
| $`a_2`$ | $`m_{20}`$ | $`m_{21}`$ | $`m_{22}`$ |

where $`m_{ij}`$ is understood as the intermediate state between the states $`|a_i`$, $`|a_j^{}`$, the first index always refers to the state from $`A`$ and the second to the state from $`A^{}`$.

In quantum cryptography an eavesdropper, performing the simple intercept/resend eavesdropping strategy, may use the intermediate states to make a guess of the identity of each state send by Alice. Since the eavesdropper learns the basis in which the particle was originally prepared, she uses the intermediate states in the following way: suppose the eavesdropper in a measurement finds the state $`|m_{ij}`$, if she subsequently learns that the basis was $`A`$, she concludes that most probably the original state was $`|a_i`$, whereas if she learns that the basis was $`A^{}`$, she will guess that most probably the state was $`|a_j^{}`$. This means that she wants to optimize the conditional probability

$$p(m_{ij}|a_i)=p(m_{ij}|a_j^{})=\mathrm{max}\mathrm{value}.$$
(4)
In other words she wants to optimize her probability for guessing the state correctly — independently of the basis. But at the same time she also wants the errors to be evenly distributed between the wrong states, i.e.

$$p(m_{ij}|a_k)=p(m_{ij}|a_l^{})ki\mathrm{and}lj.$$
(5)
The intermediate state, $`|m_{ij}`$, fulfill these requirements . In terms of the two basis states $`|a_i`$ and $`|a_j^{}`$, it can be written as

$$|m_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{C}}\left(\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _{ij})|a_i+|a_j^{}\right)$$
(6)
where $`C=2(1+1/\sqrt{3})`$ is the normalization constant, and the phase comes from the overlap between $`|a_i`$ and $`|a_j^{}`$. This leads to the conditional probability

$$p(m_{ij}|a_i)=p(m_{ij}|a_j^{})=\frac{1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}{2}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}$$
(7)
This can also be recognized as the cosine squared of half the angle, i.e. $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta /2)=\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}{2}`$. Which indeed shows that the intermediate state $`|m_{ij}`$, is as the name indicates, lying exactly between the states $`|a_j`$ and $`|a_j^{}`$. The probability for obtaining a wrong state is

$$p(m_{ij}|a_k)=p(m_{ij}|a_l^{})=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\right)$$
(8)
In this way the total probability for making an error is $`\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}`$.

Notice that there has been made no requirement for orthogonality and indeed it may be checked that none of the nine states $`|m_{ij}`$ are orthogonal111However, it turns out that the nine states constitute a generalized measurement namely a so called POVM. We have, $`_{k,l=0}^2\frac{1}{3}|m_{ij}m_{ij}|=\text{1}\text{1}.`$. However, each of the nine states can be associated with a projector $`|m_{ij}m_{ij}|`$, which may be identified as a binary measurements. These nine mutually incompatible binary measurements are the measurement settings on Bob side.

## 3 The Bell inequality

Assume that the two observers Alice and Bob share many maximally entangled state of two qutrits. In the two bases $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$ this state may be written as

$`|\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|a_0,a_0+|a_1,a_1+|a_2,a_2\right)`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|a_0^{},a_0^{}+|a_1^{},a_2^{}+|a_2^{},a_1^{}\right)`$
Notice that in the $`A^{}`$ basis in order for the results, obtained by Alice and Bob, to be perfectly correlated does not mean that they will find the same state! For example, if Alice finds the state $`|a_2^{}`$, the state $`|a_1^{}`$ is the one which makes Bob perfectly correlated with Alice.

In order to write down the Bell inequality in a simple way, it is convenient to assign values to the various states, this assignment is shown in the table below

| value | $`A`$ | $`A^{}`$ | $`M_0`$ | $`M_1`$ | $`M_2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | $`|a_0`$ | $`|a_0^{}`$ | $`|m_{00}`$ | $`|m_{01}`$ | $`|m_{02}`$ |
| 1 | $`|a_1`$ | $`|a_1^{}`$ | $`|m_{11}`$ | $`|m_{12}`$ | $`|m_{10}`$ |
| 2 | $`|a_2`$ | $`|a_2^{}`$ | $`|m_{22}`$ | $`|m_{20}`$ | $`|m_{21}`$ |

Notice that the $`|m_{kl}`$ -states have been organized in three sets, so that the value assigned to a given state is given by the first index. Moreover this organization into the sets $`M_0`$, $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, simplifies the notation in what follows. However, it is important to remember that the states in each set are not orthogonal, in other words they do not form three orthogonal bases.

Contrary to how Bell inequalities usually are presented, we here first present the quantum limit and only afterwards the local variable limit. The Bell inequality is obtained as the sum of probabilities for when the results of the measurements on the two qutrits are correlated and from this sum subtract all the probabilities for when the results are not correlated, i.e.

$`B_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle p(\mathrm{results}\mathrm{correlated})}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle p(\mathrm{results}\mathrm{not}\mathrm{correlated})}`$
Now suppose that Alice measures in the $`A`$-basis and Bob measures a projector in the $`M_0`$ set. For this combination of measurements, there are the following contributions to the sum $`B_3`$:

$`P(M_0=A)`$ $`=`$ $`p(m_{00}{\displaystyle a_0})+p(m_{11}{\displaystyle a_1})+p(m_{22}{\displaystyle a_2})`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}`$
$`P(M_0A)`$ $`=`$ $`p(m_{11}{\displaystyle a_0})+p(m_{22}{\displaystyle a_0})+p(m_{00}{\displaystyle a_1})+p(m_{22}{\displaystyle a_1})`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`p(m_{00}{\displaystyle a_2})+p(m_{11}{\displaystyle a_2})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}`$
where $`P(M_0=A)`$ should be read as: Bob measures a projector in $`M_0`$ and Alice measures $`A`$ and Bob obtains the value which is correlated with Alice’s result - hence the correct value. On the other hand $`P(M_0A)`$ means that Bob is not correlated with Alice, and hence obtain an error. The probability $`p(m_{kl}a_n)=p(m_{kl}|a_n)p(a_n)`$ is the joint probability for obtaining both $`|a_n`$ and $`|m_{kl}`$.

The same is the case if Alice measures in $`A`$ and Bob the projectors in the sets $`M_1`$ or $`M_2`$, and again if Alice measures $`A^{}`$ and Bob the projectors in $`M_0`$. This gives the contribution, from the $`M_1A`$ combination of measurements: $`P(M_1=A)=p(m_{01}a_0)+p(m_{12}a_1)+p(m_{20}a_2)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}`$ and $`P(M_1A)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}`$. And from the $`M_2A`$ combination: $`P(M_2=A)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}`$ and $`P(M_2A)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}`$. And finally from the $`M_0A^{}`$ combination: $`P(M_0=A^{})=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}`$ and $`P(M_0A^{})=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}`$.

Consider now the case where Alice measures in $`A^{}`$ and Bob measures the states in the set $`M_1`$. In this case Bob consistently finds a value which is two higher (modulus 3) than the one which correlates him with Alice. To see this, assume for example that Bob has the state $`|a_0^{}`$ which is assigned the value $`0`$. But the state which gives the correct identification of this state is $`|m_{20}`$, which is assigned the value $`2`$. Similar for the other states, which leads to $`P(M_1=A^{}+2)=p(m_{20}a_0^{})+p(m_{01}a_1^{})+p(m_{12}a_2^{})=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}`$ and $`P(M_1A^{}+2)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}`$

Whereas if Alice measures in $`A^{}`$ and Bob the states in $`M_2`$, he consistently finds a value which is 1 higher than the value which correlates him with Alice, i.e. $`P(M_2=A^{}+1)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}`$ and $`P(M_2A^{}+1)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}`$.

The sum $`B_3`$ may now be written and evaluated:

$`B_3`$ $`=`$ $`P(M_0=A)P(M_0A)`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`P(M_1=A)P(M_1A)`$
$`+`$ $`P(M_2=A)P(M_2A)`$
$`+`$ $`P(M_0=A^{})P(M_0A^{})`$
$`+`$ $`P(M_1=A^{}+2)P(M_1A^{}+2)`$
$`+`$ $`P(M_2=A^{}+1)P(M_2A^{}+1)`$
$`=`$ $`2\sqrt{3}`$
The quantity $`B_3`$ is a sum of joint probabilities and if written in full it consists of 54 terms. A local variable model which tries to attribute definite values to the observables will reach a maximum value of 2. This may be checked numerically, but it can also be argued as is done in the following.

Since $`a_0`$, $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are measured simultaneously in a single measurement of the basis $`A`$, only one of them can come out true in local variable model. The same is the case for the $`a_0^{}`$, $`a_1^{}`$ and $`a_2^{}`$, which are measured as the basis $`A^{}`$. This means that, for example, if $`a_0`$ is true, meaning that a measurement of $`A`$ will result in the outcome $`a_0`$, then all probabilities involving $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ must be zero. It is different for the $`|m_{ij}`$ states since they are measured independently and hence they may all be true at the same time in a local variable model.

Now assume that according to a local variable model $`a_i`$ and $`a_j^{}`$ are true, at the same time in principle all the states $`m_{kl}`$ could be true too. The question is now what will be the contributions from the various $`m`$states. There are several possibilities. The state $`m_{kl}`$ where both indices are different will only give negative contribution to the sum $`B_3`$, since it fails to make the correct identification of any of the two basis states, and therefore only give rise to errors, i.e. contribute with $`2`$. Whereas a state $`m_{il}`$ or $`m_{kj}`$, where one index is correct, will lead to a correct identification of one of the basis states, but since it fails to correctly identify the other, the net result is that these $`m`$states give no contribution to the total sum.

The only state which will gives a positive contribution to the total sum is $`m_{ij}`$ which identifies correctly both $`a_i`$ and $`a_j^{}`$, hence give a contribution of $`+2`$. From this it is seen that the maximum value according to local variables is 2, i.e.

$$B_32$$
(13)
However, we have already seen that quantum mechanically it is possible to violate this limit. Quantum mechanically the limit is $`2\sqrt{3}`$.

It has been checked numerically that $`2\sqrt{3}`$ is indeed the maximal quantum mechanical limit for this sum of probabilities and that the quantum mechanical maximum is indeed reached for the maximally entangled state. Moreover it has also been shown, using ”polytope software” , that inequality (13) is optimal for the measurement settings which we have presented here.

## 4 Extension to arbitrary dimension $`N`$

In this section we show how to construct the inequality in any dimension $`N`$. We again assume that Alice and Bob share many maximally entangled states.

Consider again the two bases $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$, where the first is the computational basis and the second the Fourier transformed, each one now containing $`N`$ basis vectors. Since the two bases are mutually unbiased, the distance between any state from one basis to any state in the other basis, is $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=1/\sqrt{N}`$. The intermediate states may be constructed in exactly the same way as in three dimension, which means by forming all pairs of states from the two bases. Since the intermediate states (there are $`N^2`$) are defined as the ones lying exactly between a pair of states, which means that the distance from the intermediate state $`|m_{ij}`$ to the states $`|a_i`$ and $`|a_j^{}`$ is $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{N}}}`$. Which means that the probability of correct identification is

$$p(m_{ij}|a_i)=p(m_{ij}|a_j^{})=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{N}}$$
(14)
and the probability of an error is

$$p(m_{ij}|a_k)=p(m_{ij}|a_l^{})=\frac{1}{N1}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{N}}\right).$$
(15)
As in the case for two qutrits, it is convenient to assign values to the various states. In the table below is shown the values and the organization of the states into the sets $`M_0`$-$`M_{N1}`$:

| value | $`A`$ | $`A^{}`$ | $`M_0`$ | $`M_1`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`M_{N1}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | $`|a_0`$ | $`|a_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ | $`|m_{00}`$ | $`|m_{01}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`|m_{0,N1}`$ |
| 1 | $`|a_1`$ | $`|a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ | $`|m_{11}`$ | $`|m_{12}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`|m_{10}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ |
| $`N1`$ | $`|a_{N1}`$ | $`|a_{N1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ | $`|m_{N1,N1}`$ | $`|m_{N1,0}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`|m_{N1,N2}`$ |

Keeping the same notation as in the previous sections the Bell inequality for any dimension may be written

$`B_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}P(M_i=A){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}P(M_iA)`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}P(M_i=A^{}+Ni){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}P(M_iA^{}+Ni)`$
$``$ $`2`$
The local variable limit can again be argued as for the case of two qutrits, namely the only $`m`$state which will give a positive contribution is the one where both indices are the same as for the true basis states. Any other $`m`$state will either give a negative contribution to the total sum or no contribution at all.

If it is written out in full it consists of $`2N\times N^2`$ terms. Since again the inequality is the sum of all the correct guesses, subtracting all the wrong guesses, the quantum mechanical limit is found to be

$$\mathrm{QM}=2N\left(\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{N}}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{N}}\right)\right)=2\sqrt{N}$$
(17)
Hence we have obtained an inequality where the violation increases with the square-root of the dimension.

It is important to realize that in the case $`N=2`$ the inequality $`B_2`$, is the famous CHSH-Inequality. In this case the two bases can be taken as the $`z`$-basis and the $`x`$-basis of a spin-$`1/2`$. If considering these two bases as axes on a great circle of the sphere, the intermediate states are the ones which lies at $`\pm 45`$ degrees. Notice that in this case the two sets of intermediate states $`M_0`$ and $`M_1`$ actually do form two orthogonal bases.

## 5 Resistance to noise

In the resent papers on Bell inequalities, the strength of the inequality has been measured in terms of it’s resistance to noise. The question is how much noise can be added to the maximally entangled state, $`|\psi `$, and still obtain a Bell violation. The more noise which can be added the better, since this means that the inequality is robust.

Until recently the noise considered was the uncolored noise, which means that the quantum state becomes

$`\rho _{mix}=\lambda _{mix}|\psi \psi |+(1\lambda _{mix}){\displaystyle \frac{\text{1}\text{1}}{N}}`$ (18)
The Bell inequality we have presented here reaches the classical limit, $`B_N=2`$ for $`\lambda _{mix}^{B_N}=\frac{N1}{N+\sqrt{N}2}`$. For $`N=3`$ this is $`\lambda _{mix}^{B_3}=\frac{2}{1+\sqrt{3}}0.73`$. In comparison, the inequality presented by Collins, Gisin, Linden, Massar and Popescu (CGLMP)  is more robust to this kind of noise since they find a violation until $`\lambda _{mix}^{CGLMP}0.69`$.

However it has recently been argued that the use of uncolored noise in this measure lead to problems . At the same time a new idea was introduces, namely instead of mixing the maximally entangled state with the maximally mixed state, to mix it with the closest separable state, i.e.

$`\rho _{cs}=\lambda _{sep}|\psi \psi |+(1\lambda _{sep})\rho _{sep}`$ (19)
where $`\rho _{sep}=\frac{1}{N}_{i=0}^{N1}|a_i,a_ia_i,a_i|`$ . Making use of $`\rho _{sep}`$ leads to $`\lambda _{sep}^{B_N}=\frac{N\sqrt{N}}{N+\sqrt{N}2}`$, which for $`N=3`$ is $`\lambda _{sep}^{B_3}=\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{1+\sqrt{3}}0.46`$. Whereas the CGLMP inequality again has $`\lambda _{sep}^{CGLMP}0.69`$. Which means that the inequality we introduce here is much more resistant to this kind of noise.

It should however be stressed that the same measurement settings have been used in both evaluation of $`\lambda `$, and that the CGLMP inequality has been optimized to be resistant to the uncolored noise. It is nevertheless interesting to see how robustness of the $`B_N`$ inequality change depending on the different noise added to the system.

## 6 Conclusion

We have presented a Bell inequality for quNits. The classical limit for this particular sum of joint probabilities is $`2`$ \- independent of the dimension. Whereas quantum mechanically it is possible to obtain a violation which increases with the square-root of the dimension, namely $`2\sqrt{N}`$. One of the interesting features of this inequality are the measurements which lead to the maximal violation. On Alice’s side we have the usual two standard measurements of two mutually unbiased bases, but on Bob’s side there is the choice of $`N^2`$ binary measurements. These measurements, which are represented by non-orthogonal projectors, correspond to the intermediate states of the two bases used by Alice. Intermediate states are known from intercept/resend eavesdropping in quantum cryptography.

It was the observation that for qubits, the intermediate states are both used in quantum cryptography and as the maximal settings for the CHSH-inequality which lead us to this construction of Bell inequalities in higher dimension. For $`N=2`$, we therefore also recover the familiar CHSH-inequality.

This inequality further more has the advantage of being easily derived in any dimension. This is again due to the measurement settings. Since both the choice of measurements on Alice’s side and on Bob’s side are easily generalized to arbitrary dimension, so is the inequality.

Until recently the strenght of an inequality has been measured in terms of its resistance to uncolored noise. The inequality we present here is less resistant to this kind of noise than others. On the other hand it was recently argued  that the use of uncolored noise leads to problems. Instead it was suggested to mix the maximally entangled state with the closest separable state. Using this kind of noise we have shown that the inequality presented here is much more robust than the CGLMP inequality.

Finally, it should also be mentioned that, in contrast to several other inequalities which have been presented recently, we have maximal violation for the maximally entangled state. This means that the inequality which we present here may be used as a measure of entanglement.

## Acknowledgments

H.B.-P. is supported by the Danish National Science Research Council (grant no. 9601645) and the Swiss NCCR ”Quantum Photonics”.


format: text

text:
# Acknowledgements

## Acknowledgements

H.T. was partially supported by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists. This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Grant No. 11216204) by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan, by the Toray Science Foundation, and by the Yamada Science Foundation.


text:
# Thermal Lepton Production in Heavy-Ion Collisions

## 1 Introduction

Early on in the heavy-ion initiative, electromagnetic observables have been recognized as important probes of the hot and dense strongly interacting systems created in head-on collisions of nuclei at high energies . About 10-15 years later very exciting data on dilepton (and photon) spectra have emerged from the SPS heavy-ion program , stimulating vigorous theoretical activity (see ref.  for a recent review). All respective experiments have observed nontrivial excess production in heavy-ion collisions (increasing with centrality) over baseline expectations from $`p`$-$`p`$ collisions (and/or final-state hadron decays), from threshold to about 3 GeV (dilepton invariant mass or photon transverse momentum). Indeed, these results imply strong evidence for some of the long sought-for signatures, such as in-medium modified vector mesons (especially the $`\rho `$) at low-mass ($`M1`$ GeV) or continuum-like thermal radiation from early phases at intermediate masses (1 GeV $`M`$ 3 GeV). However, from the theoretical side, certain ambiguities in the detailed understanding and interpretation of the underlying dynamics remain at present.

The article is organized as follows: in Sect. 2 we briefly recall the theoretical framework suitable to evaluate equilibrium dilepton production rates and allude to specific model calculations. In Sect. 3 we turn to applications in heavy-ion collisions, starting with a discussion on chemical off-equilibrium effects in the hadronic phases in 3.1. In 3.2 we highlight results for SPS energies including predicted spectra for $`E_{lab}=40`$ AGeV as well as for a potential low-mass measurement by NA60. In 3.3 we present improved predictions for RHIC energies by incorporating information from measured hadron spectra. We also assess the role of thermal radiation in preliminary PHENIX single-electron spectra at $`\sqrt{s}`$=130 AGeV, and ensuing implications for upcoming pair spectra. In Sect. 4 we end with some concluding remarks.

## 2 Electromagnetic Correlation Function and Dilepton Radiation

### 2.1 E.M. Correlator in Vacuum

Dilepton emission from thermalized QCD matter can be characterized by the pair production rate per unit 4-volume and 4-momentum,

$$\frac{dR_{l^+l^{}}^{therm}}{d^4q}=\frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi ^3M^2}f^B(q_0;T)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{em}}(M,q;\mu _B;T)$$
(1)
($`f^B(q_0;T)=1/(\mathrm{exp}[q_0/T]1)`$: Bose distribution function, $`M^2=q_0^2q^2=(p_++p_{})^2`$: invariant mass squared of the lepton pair with individual 4-momenta $`p_\pm `$). The key quantity encoding the information on the strongly interacting medium is the imaginary part of the electromagnetic current-current correlation function (or simply photon selfenergy), $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{em}`$. In vacuum, it is directly related to the famous cross section ratio $`R=\sigma _{eehadrons}/\sigma _{ee\mu \mu }`$ and can be decomposed into two invariant-mass regions:

$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{em}}(M)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{V=\rho ,\omega ,\varphi }{}\left(\frac{m_V^2}{g_V}\right)^2\mathrm{Im}D_V(M)\hfill & ,MM_{dual}\hfill \\ \frac{M^2}{12\pi }(1+\frac{\alpha _s(M^2)}{\pi }+\mathrm{})N_c\underset{q=u,d,s}{}(e_q)^2\hfill & ,MM_{dual}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
At small distances, i.e., $`MM_{dual}1.5`$ GeV, perturbation theory applies and the correlator strength follows from the (charge-square weighted) sum over free $`q\overline{q}`$ states (with rather small corrections); subsequent hadronization does not affect the strength. The experimental fact that hadron production in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation essentially follows thermal systematics allows the time-reversal of this argument: $`e^+e^{}`$ production from a thermal hadron gas is determined by the perturbative ’dual’ strength given by Eq. (2). This has also been verified by explicit hadronic rate calculations .

At low $`M`$, the e.m. correlator is governed by nonperturbative dynamics encoded in resonance formation. The experimental distribution is well described by the light neutral vector mesons $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ (vector dominance model). Thus, in principle, dilepton spectra from heavy-ion reactions directly reflect upon medium modifications of vector mesons.

But one can go further and establish connections to chiral symmetry restoration. This necessitates the inclusion of the chiral partners of the vector mesons in the (theoretical) analysis. Within the standard (non-/linear $`\sigma `$-model type) interpretation, and for $`N_f`$=2 flavors, the $`SU(2)`$ chiral partner of the $`\rho `$ is the $`a_1(1260)`$, whereas the $`\omega `$ is a singlet (for $`SU(3)`$ the octet-$`\omega _8`$ and singlet-$`\omega _0`$ mix into $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ rendering both non-invariant under chiral rotations). This is to be contrasted with the recently suggested ’Vector Manifestation’ of chiral symmetry, where the longitudinal component of the $`\rho `$ is identified as the chiral partner of the pion .

Spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in the vacuum is nicely illustrated by hadronic $`\tau `$ decay data in terms of the difference between vector and axialvector spectral functions at low $`M^2`$, cf. Fig. 1. It can be quantified via Weinberg sum rules, e.g.,

$$f_\pi ^2=\frac{ds}{\pi s}(\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_V\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_A).$$
(3)
Above $`M^2`$$``$3 GeV2, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_A`$ degenerate signifying the onset of the perturbative regime.

Finally note that the $`\rho `$-meson strength in the e.m. correlator dominates over the $`\omega `$ by about an order of magnitude (as reflected by the e.m. decay widths, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho ee}=6.8`$ keV vs. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega ee}=0.6`$ keV, or the naive quark-model prediction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho ee}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega ee}=9/1`$).

### 2.2 Medium Effects and Dilepton Emissivities

A compilation of the extensive investigations on in-medium modifications of the e.m. correlator (dilepton production rate) in both hadronic and quark-gluon phases is attempted in Table 1.

As argued above, beyond masses of 1.5 GeV the rates are reasonably well understood with moderate $`\alpha _s`$-corrections to $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation in the QGP, and prevalent $`4\pi `$-type annihilations (such as $`\pi a_1`$ or $`\pi \omega `$) in the hadron gas. The $`\pi a_1`$ channel, however, bears special relevance in the non-/perturbative ’transition region’ between 1 and 1.5 GeV: it can be interpreted as a lowest order in temperature ’chiral’ mixing (in parallel with $`\pi \rho a_1`$ leading (for $`M>1`$ GeV) to a 3-fold degeneration of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_V`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_A`$ and the pQCD continuum at temperatures not far from the expected $`T_c`$.

At low mass in the hadronic sector, substantial medium effects are predicted for $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ mesons (less pronounced for $`\varphi `$ mesons due to the OZI rule). Most approaches have reached consensus that baryon-induced effects dominate over meson-induced ones at comparable densities, even on a quantitative level . This seems to imply that medium effects at heavy-ion colliders (RHIC and LHC), where the net baryon densities at midrapidity are small, are less pronounced. However, as pointed out in ref. , vector mesons equally interact with baryons and antibaryons, i.e., the relevant quantity for medium effects is the sum of baryon and antibaryon density. Indeed, at midrapidities at RHIC , $`dN_B/dy`$ is about as large as at SPS. An example of vector-meson spectral functions at small net baryon density is displayed in Fig. 2. At the highest temperatures ($`T=180`$ MeV), $``$40% of the medium effects stem from anti-/baryons.

Pertinent 3-momentum integrated dilepton production rates are shown in Fig. 3 and compared to hadronic rates without medium effects (dotted curves), as well as to QGP emission to lowest order $`𝒪(\alpha _s^0)`$ and within HTL-resummed perturbation theory . One finds that even for small net baryon densities the in-medium hadronic and QGP results become remarkably similar when approaching the expected $`T_c`$, supporting the notion of quark-hadron duality towards low masses in the vicinity of the phase transition . The key features are resonance melting in the hadronic, as well as soft emission characteristic for interacting many-body systems in both the hadronic and QGP phases.

## 3 Dileptons in Heavy-Ion Collisions

### 3.1 Thermal Production and Chemical Off-Equilibrium

Thermal dilepton production in heavy-ion collisions is calculated by a convolution of the rate given in Eq. (1) over the space-time history of the system. The natural dynamic framework are hydrodynamic  (or simplified thermal fireball) simulations, being formulated in the same variables as the rates (temperature and baryon chemical potential). For invariant mass spectra, e.g., one has ($`Acc`$ indicates kinematic detector acceptance cuts)

$$\frac{dN_{l^+l^{}}^{thermal}}{dM}=\underset{\tau _0}{\overset{\tau _{fo}}{}}𝑑\tau V_{FB}(\tau )d^3q\frac{M}{q_0}\frac{dR_{l^+l^{}}^{thermal}}{d^4q}Acc,$$
(4)
Clearly, a realistic space-time description must be consistent with hadronic observables.

With elastic hadronic cross sections being much larger than inelastic ones, thermal equilibrium in the expanding hadron gas phase is maintained longer than the chemical one. Therefore, subsequent to chemical freezeout (which for SPS energies and beyond essentially coincides with the expected phase boundary to the QGP) the effective numbers of non-strongly decaying particles have to be conserved. This can be implemented into the equation of state via additional (effective) chemical potentials for, e.g., pions, kaons, etas and even antibaryons. These can have substantial impact on the composition and evolution of the hadronic system. In particular, the build-up of large pion-chemical potentials enhances thermal dilepton production through $`\pi \pi `$ annihilation , which is often neglected in hydrodynamic calculations.

At RHIC energies, antibaryon-number conservation has appreciable consequences for low-mass dilepton spectra. If no corresponding effective chemical $`\mu _{\overline{B}}^{eff}`$ is introduced, the anti/-baryon abundance at the later hadronic stages (assuming isentropic expansion) will be much reduced; at the same time, meson-chemical potentials seem to remain small . On the other hand, imposing the individual anti-/baryon numbers to be constant throughout the evolution, and starting from full chemical equilibrium at $`(\mu _N,T)=(25,180)`$ MeV, leads to anti-/baryon chemical potentials of up to $`\mu _N`$ 270 MeV and $`\mu _{\overline{N}}=\mu _N+\mu _{\overline{B}}^{eff}`$ 230 MeV at a temperature $`T130`$ MeV. Due to entropy conservation one then also finds appreciable pion- and kaon-chemical potentials, e.g., $`\mu _\pi (T=130\mathrm{MeV})`$ 70 MeV. To illustrate the impact on dilepton production, the vector-meson spectral functions along such a trajectory are displayed in Fig. 4. As compared to Fig. 2, one finds that chemical off-equilibrium reinforces medium effects at the later stages.

An accurate identification of the thermal dilepton component furthermore hinges on a reliable knowledge of ’background’ sources, such as e.m. hadron decays after freezeout (low mass), or Drell-Yan annihilation and correlated open charm decays (higher masses).

### 3.2 Post- and Predictions at SPS Energies

Numerous theoretical works have addressed the low-mass excess observed by the NA45 collaboration (CERES). The minimal conclusion at this point is that strong in-medium effects on the $`\rho `$-meson are needed to fill in the mass region around $`0.4`$ GeV without overpredicting the yield around the free $`\rho `$-$`\omega `$ mass (which is largely saturated by the hadronic decay ’cocktail’).

However, within the present experimental accuracy, it is not possible to discriminate the conjecture of a dropping $`\rho `$-mass from a $`\rho `$-melting (due to strong reinteractions in a hot and dense medium), as illustrated by thermal fireball calculations in Fig. 5.

The suggestion of the ’Vector Manifestation’ of chiral symmetry  has, in fact, revoked interest in the ’dropping mass’ scenario . On the other hand, a recent finite-temperature analysis to one-loop order within a chirally symmetric hadronic model with realistic vacuum properties including $`a_1`$-mesons lends further support to broadening as the prevalent in-medium modification of $`\rho `$ and $`a_1`$-mesons . The essential difference between these approaches lies in whether medium effects in the bare parameters of the underlying interaction lagrangians are to be incorporated or not. The ensuing realizations of chiral symmetry restoration are obviously rather different. Nevertheless, within both scenarios stronger medium effects were predicted at lower SPS energies as being of baryonic origin, which is supported by available 40 AGeV CERES data (right panel in Fig. 5).

Within the same thermal evolution framework, the intermediate-mass enhancement observed by NA50 can also be explained, cf. left panel of Fig. 6. At these higher masses, where the production rates are fairly well-established, one becomes more sensitive to the early stages of the collision, pointing at initial temperatures of $``$220 MeV or so, well inside the QGP phase. For the future NA60 run it may also be interesting to provide a low mass prediction; this is shown in the right panel of Fig. 6 for the thermal contribution. One realizes that with a sufficiently small opening angle cut, a substantial low-mass enhancement could be observed. But even with a large opening-angle cut, the peak-reduction of the in-medium prediction by a factor of 2 as compared to the vacuum spectral function persists. The situation is very similar at 40 AGeV (not shown).

### 3.3 Improved Predictions for RHIC

Before RHIC started operation, the common belief was that an enhanced particle production entails significantly longer fireball lifetimes than at SPS. Hadronic observables at RHIC show that $`dN_{ch}/dy`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ AGeV is indeed by a factor of 2 larger than at SPS ($`\sqrt{s}=17`$ AGeV), but, surprisingly, the HBT source radii do not change much . Although hydrodynamic simulations are currently not able to explain this feature, it can be easily incorporated in a suitable fireball parameterization of the expansion. We have employed such a phenomenologically improved description to assess the effect on dilepton spectra. In addition we have also incorporated antibaryon number conservation until thermal freezeout as delineated in Sect. 3.1. The resulting low-mass spectra are compared to the earlier prediction of ref.  in Fig. 7. As to be expected, the reduced fireball lifetime decreases the hadron gas yield somewhat , but, more importantly, the improved hadro-chemistry reinforces baryonic effects in terms of resonance broadening and low-mass enhancement.

The most severe physics background for dilepton spectra at collider energies are open-charm decays ; while those are subleading at SPS energies they may become dominant at RHIC, at least at intermediate masses, cf. right panel of Fig. 7.

The charm production cross section at RHIC energies is rather uncertain; first indirect evidence that it complies well with $`pp`$-based extrapolations from lower energies is provided by single-electron spectra measured by PHENIX at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ AGeV: charm decays nicely account for the excess over observed sources at $`p_t^e1.5`$ GeV. At the same time, the thermal contribution to the single-$`e^\pm `$ spectra turns out to be negligible. This situation changes in the pair spectra: the open-charm contribution is relatively suppressed to thermal radiation (especially at lower masses) by an additional semileptonic branching ratio, their harder spectral shape and the typically large rapidity gaps between $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ (within the rather narrow PHENIX acceptance).

## 4 Conclusions

Dileptons continue to be an exciting probe in heavy-ion physics. From the theoretical side, more analysis is required to strengthen connections to chiral symmetry restoration, capitalizing further on recent progress. In particular, baryonic effects appear to play a key role. From a practical point of view it is thus encouraging to note that the (anti-) baryon driven impact on low-mass spectra remains appreciable at collider energies (reinforced by chemical off-equilibrium effects). In addition, the open-charm ’problem’ seems sufficiently controllable (at least at RHIC) to enable the identification of thermal radiation (possibly even at intermediate masses, where it is of QGP origin). This raises the hope that the new generation experiments at GSI, CERN and RHIC will substantially advance our understanding of nonperturbative dynamics in the transition regions across the QCD phase diagram.

## Acknowledgement

I thank the organizers for the invitation to this pleasant and stimulating workshop. This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant no. DE-FG0288ER40388.


text:
# 1 The mass normalisation.

Massless flows between minimal $`W`$ models

Clare Dunning111tcd1@york.ac.uk

Dept. of Mathematics, University of York, York YO1 5DD, UK

## Abstract

We study the renormalisation group flows between minimal $`W`$ models by means of a new set of nonlinear integral equations which provide access to the effective central charge of both unitary and nonunitary models. We show that the scaling function associated to the nonunitary models is a nonmonotonic function of the system size.

1. A recent study of the renormalisation group flows between nonunitary minimal models revealed an unexpected behaviour for the groundstate energy $`E_0(R)`$, in that it was a nonmonotonic function of the system size $`R`$ . The nonmonotonicity was illustrated using the finite-size scaling function $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$, which up to the bulk term is proportional to the groundstate energy

$$E_0(R)=E_{\mathrm{bulk}}(M,R)\frac{\pi c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)}{6R},r=MR,$$
(1)
where $`M`$ is the so-called crossover scale (the mass in massive theories). As the system size goes to zero $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ becomes the effective central charge

$$\underset{r0}{lim}c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)=c24\mathrm{\Delta }_0.$$
(2)
We denote the actual central charge by $`c`$ while $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the conformal dimension of the lowest primary field of the UV CFT.

The effective central charge and the central charge of the unitary minimal models coincide, and according to Zamolodchikov’s $`c`$-theorem  there exists a function $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ which is monotonic. However, apart from the UV and IR points at which $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ equals the central charge of the relevant CFT, it is not clear if there is any connection with $`E_0(r)`$. Nevertheless the groundstate energy of the unitary models is always monotonic. Analogously it had been thought that the groundstate energy of the nonunitary models would also be monotonic, but the results of  and  provide a number of counter examples. In this letter we study a further set of perturbed conformal field theories, demonstrating that $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ behaves nonmonotonically for the majority of nonunitary models.

We consider the minimal models $`W𝒢_N^{p,q}`$ based on one of the simply laced Lie algebras $`𝒢=A_{n1},D_n,E_6,E_7,E_8`$ . The models are specified by two coprime integers $`p`$ and $`q`$ with $`p>h`$, in terms of which the central charge and the effective central charge are

$$c=N(1\frac{h(h+1)(pq)^2}{pq}),c_{\mathrm{eff}}=N(1\frac{h(h+1)}{pq}).$$
(3)
Here $`N`$ denotes the rank of the algebra and $`h`$ the dual Coxeter number. The primary fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}`$ are labelled by a pair of weights $`\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ which satisfy

$$\theta \mathrm{\Omega }q,\theta \mathrm{\Omega }^{}p,$$
(4)
where $`\theta `$ is the highest root of $`𝒢`$ . All models have a primary field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}}`$ that has weights $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{id}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{adj}}`$ corresponding to the trivial and adjoint representations of $`𝒢`$ respectively. It has conformal dimensions

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=1\frac{(qp)h}{q},$$
(5)
and is relevant for all $`p,q`$ such that $`q>p.`$ Formally denoting the action of the unperturbed CFT $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CFT}}`$, that of the perturbed model may be written

$$𝒜=𝒜_{\mathrm{CFT}}+\lambda d^2x\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}},$$
(6)
reproducing for $`A_1`$ the well-known $`\varphi _{13}`$ perturbations of the Virasoro minimal models.

Depending on the sign of the coupling constant $`\lambda `$, the perturbation either leads to a massive quantum field theory, or it induces a ‘massless flow’ into a conformal field theory with smaller effective central charge. One of the standard methods of studying the groundstate energy of both types of model is the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz. The result is a set of coupled nonlinear integral equations (the TBA equations), whose solution provides direct access to $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ at all values of $`r`$.

The unitary $`W𝒢_N^{p,p+1}`$ can alternatively be described as $`𝒢_N^k\times 𝒢_N^1/𝒢_N^{k+1}`$ coset models at $`k=ph,`$ in terms of which the perturbing operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}}`$ is usually known as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{id},\mathrm{id},\mathrm{adj}}.`$ TBA equations describing the evolution of the effective central charge between these coset models, and therefore the unitary $`W𝒢`$ models, are already known , and they verify the conjectured pattern of flows :

$$W𝒢_N^{p,p+1}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}}W𝒢_N^{p1,p}.$$
(7)
By dropping the restriction $`q=p+1`$, we may also consider flows originating from the much larger class of nonunitary $`W𝒢`$ minimal models, which also have a description as a coset but at fractional level $`𝒢_N^{p/(qp)h}\times 𝒢_N^1/𝒢_N^{p/(qp)h+1}.`$ Analogous to the known behaviour of the $`\varphi _{13}`$ perturbations of the Virasoro models , it is natural to suppose that the nonunitary generalisation of (7) will be

$$W𝒢_N^{p,q}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}}W𝒢_N^{2pq,p}.$$
(8)
TBA equations describing massless flows from these nonunitary models are not yet known. Instead, motivated by , we propose a different type of nonlinear integral equation (NLIE) whose solution provides access to the effective central charge of both unitary and nonunitary minimal models. The equations can be found in section 2, and are tested in section 3. In 4 and 5 we extract some exact results and make a comparison with ultraviolet and infrared perturbation theory. The connection between the massive models and the Gross-Neveu models and other comments can be found in section 6.

2. Our starting point is a set of nonlinear integral equations that encode the groundstate energy of the imaginary-coupled simply laced affine Toda field theories. Our interest in these theories lies in the fact that for values of the Toda coupling constant $`\beta ^2=p/(p+1)`$ the theory can be consistently restricted to the massive $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adg}}`$ perturbation of the unitary $`W𝒢_N^{p,p+1}`$ minimal models . Moreover, the massive $`\varphi _{13}`$ perturbation of the nonunitary $`WA_1^{p,q}`$ minimal models can be obtained from the sine-Gordon model by tuning the coupling to $`\beta ^2=p/q.`$ A similar result may be true for the nonunitary minimal models based on the other simply laced Lie algebras , and at the level of the NLIEs we do find the choice $`\beta ^2=p/q`$ yields both unitary and nonunitary perturbed models.

The NLIEs describing the groundstate energy of the massive imaginary-coupled Toda field theories were first obtained in , and have appeared in a different context in . The effective central charge is defined in terms of $`N`$ functions which satisfy a set of coupled equations

$$f^{(a)}(\theta )=\frac{i}{2}m_are^\theta +i\pi \underset{b=1}{}C_{ab}^1\alpha _b+2i\underset{b=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[_𝒞𝑑\theta ^{}\phi _{ab}(\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{}m\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f^{(b)}(\theta ^{})})\right].$$
(9)
The integration contour $`𝒞`$ runs just below the real axis while $`r`$ is built from the lightest mass $`M`$ of the theory and the cylinder size $`R`$ via $`r=MR`$. We have set $`m_a=M_a/M`$, where each mass $`M_a`$ is associated to a node of the Dynkin diagram via the labelling of , and is such that $`(M_1,M_2,\mathrm{},M_N)`$ forms an eigenvector of the Cartan matrix with eigenvalue $`4\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi /2h)`$. Our particular normalisation is given in table 1.

The kernel functions

$$\phi _{ab}(\theta )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{2\pi }e^{ik\theta }\left(\delta _{ab}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{h}(\xi +1)k))}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{h}\xi k)\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{h}k)}C_{ab}^1(k)\right)$$
(10)
are written in terms of the ‘deformed’ Cartan matrix $`C_{ab}(k)`$, which is equal to $`2`$ if $`a=b`$, and $`1/\mathrm{cosh}(\pi k/h)`$ if nodes $`a`$ and $`b`$ of the relevant Dynkin diagram are connected. Note that at $`k=0`$ it reduces to the standard Cartan matrix $`C_{ab}`$. The exact effective central charge may be determined using

$$c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)=\frac{6r}{\pi ^2}\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}m_a\left[_𝒞𝑑\theta \mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{}m\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f^{(a)}(\theta )})\right].$$
(11)
Due to the nonlinear nature of (9) and (11), $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ is usually obtained by solving the equations numerically. However, like the TBA equations, the NLIEs can be exactly evaluated at the ultraviolet point , the result for the above equations being

$$c_{\mathrm{eff}}(0)=N\frac{3\xi }{\xi +1}\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{N}{}}C_{ab}^1\alpha _a\alpha _b.$$
(12)
The effective central charge of the massive $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}}`$ perturbation of $`W𝒢_N^{p,q}`$ is obtained by setting the parameter $`\xi `$ and the twists $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _N)`$ to

$$\xi =p/(qp),\alpha =(2/p,2/p,\mathrm{},2/p).$$
(13)
The affine Toda coupling constant $`\beta ^2`$ is related to $`\xi `$ via $`\beta ^2=\xi /(\xi +1)`$, and the above ensures $`\beta ^2=p/q.`$ The choice of $`\alpha `$ is motivated by  for the $`A_1`$ related models, and the prescription given in  which yields the central charge of the $`W𝒢`$ minimal models rather than $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$. As a first check we insert (13) into (12), simplify using $`12_{a,b=1}^NC_{ab}^1=Nh(h+1)`$, and recover the expected UV effective central charge (3).

In accordance with (8) we modify the massive equations to interpolate from a model with $`\xi =p/(qp)`$ to one with $`\xi ^{}=(2pq)/(pq),`$ that is $`\xi ^{}=\xi 1`$. Motivated by , we associate two functions $`f_R^{(a)}`$ and $`f_L^{(a)}`$ to each node of the Dynkin diagram, introduce new kernels and twists such that the functions satisfy

$`f_R^{(m)}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{i}{2}m_are^\theta +i\pi {\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{N}{}}}C_{ab}^1\alpha _b^{}`$ (14)
$`+2i{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle _𝒞}𝑑\theta ^{}\varphi _{ab}(\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{}m\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f_R^{(b)}(\theta ^{})})+{\displaystyle _𝒞}𝑑\theta ^{}\chi _{ab}(\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{}m\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f_L^{(b)}(\theta ^{})})\right],`$
$`f_L^{(m)}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{i}{2}m_are^\theta i\pi {\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{N}{}}}C_{ab}^1\alpha _b^{}`$ (15)
$`2i{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle _𝒞}𝑑\theta ^{}\varphi _{ab}(\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{}m\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f_L^{(b)}(\theta ^{})})+{\displaystyle _𝒞}𝑑\theta ^{}\chi _{ab}(\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{}m\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f_R^{(b)}(\theta ^{})})\right].`$
and replace the formula for the effective central charge with

$`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{6r}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}m_a[{\displaystyle _𝒞}d\theta e^\theta \mathrm{}m\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f_R^{(a)}(\theta )}){\displaystyle _𝒞}d\theta e^\theta \mathrm{}m\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f_L^{(a)}(\theta )})].`$ (16)
As explained in , we fix the kernel functions by considering the equations in the limits in which $`r0`$ and $`r\mathrm{}`$. In the far infrared, the massless equations coincide with the ultraviolet limit of the massive equations, with kernel $`\phi _{ab}(\theta )`$ replaced by $`\varphi _{ab}(\theta ).`$ Since this should describe a model with parameter $`\xi 1`$ we set $`\varphi _{ab}(\theta )`$ to

$$\varphi _{ab}(\theta )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{2\pi }e^{ik\theta }\left(\delta _{mt}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi \xi }{h}k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{h}(\xi 1)k)\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{h}k)}C_{mt}^1(k)\right).$$
(17)
For very small $`r`$, the massless equations should instead coincide with the ultraviolet limit of the massive equations with parameter $`\xi `$. After some manipulations , the fourier transformed massive and massless equations can be directly compared. With the tilde denoting the fourier transformed functions, the equations will match provided $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{ab}(k)`$ and $`\alpha _a^{}`$ satisfy

$`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{ab}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{ab}(k)+{\displaystyle \underset{c,d=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{ac}(k)[11\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(k)]_{cd}^1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{db}(k),`$ (18)
$`\alpha _a`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _a^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{c,d=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{ac}(0)[11\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(0)]_{cd}^1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{db}(0).`$ (19)
Inserting the expressions for $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{ab}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{ab}`$ into (18) we find

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{h}k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{h}(\xi 1)k)\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{h}k)}\right)^2C_{ab}^1(k)=\underset{c,d=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{ac}(k)C_{cd}(k)\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{db}(k).$$
(20)
After multiplying both sides by $`C_{fa}(k)`$ and summing over the index $`a`$, we can write the right hand side as a square: $`(\stackrel{~}{\chi }(k)C(k))_{fb}^2.`$ Taking the square root and inverting the fourier transform yields

$$\chi _{ab}(\theta )=\pm \frac{dk}{2\pi }e^{ik\theta }\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{h}k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{h}(\xi 1)k)\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{h}k)}C_{ab}^1(k).$$
(21)
The above only fixes $`\chi _{ab}(\theta )`$ up to a sign, but we find that choosing the negative sign results in an effective central charge consistent with a $`W𝒢`$ minimal model, whereas the other choice does not yield a recognisable formula for $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(0)`$. With the negative sign we find the new twists should be

$$\alpha _a^{}=\frac{\xi }{\xi 1}\alpha _a.$$
(22)
To avoid the pole in (22) at $`\xi =1`$, and the poles in the kernels which cross the real axis as $`\xi `$ falls below one, we only consider models with $`2p>q`$ and therefore $`\xi >1`$. This is a sensible restriction since a flow of the form (8) with $`2p<q`$ would have an infrared CFT labelled by $`(2pq,p)`$, the first of which is negative.

3. The massless NLIEs have ultraviolet and infrared values of $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ which exactly match those of the conjectured flow (8) provided we continue to use the massive prescription for $`\xi `$ and $`\alpha `$ (13). We find

$$c_{\mathrm{eff}}(0)=N(1\frac{h(h+1)}{pq}),c_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{})=N(1\frac{h(h+1)}{(2pq)p}).$$
(23)
The massless flows naturally fall into families indexed by an integer $`J=qp:`$

$$W𝒢_N^{p,p+J}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}}W𝒢_N^{pJ,p}.$$
(24)
At $`J=1`$ there is a unique family corresponding to the flows between the unitary minimal models. For these models we tested the massless NLIEs against the the TBA equations , typically finding very good agreement. As expected the effective central charge was consistently monotonic. For $`J>1`$ there are $`\phi (J)`$ different families, each of which interpolates between nonunitary models (here $`\phi `$ denotes the Euler-$`\phi `$ function). Solving the NLIEs for the nonunitary models, we found that $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ increases away from its UV value, undergoes a number of oscillations and then settles down to the predicted IR value. The nonmonotonic behaviour of two families of flows is illustrated in Figures S0.Ex3 and S0.Ex3.

4. To strengthen the validity of the conjectured equations we extract a number of further predictions, which are then compared with results from ultraviolet and infrared conformal perturbation theory.

The UV groundstate energy of a CFT perturbed by a primary field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$ is predicted to behave as

$$E_0(R)=RB(\lambda )\frac{\pi c_{\mathrm{pert}}(r)}{6R},c_{\mathrm{pert}}(r)=c_{\mathrm{eff}}(0)+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_j(\lambda R^y)^j,$$
(25)
where $`y=2(1\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{UV}})`$ and the coefficients $`C_j`$ are proportional to the connected correlation functions of the perturbing field on the plane. The action (6) implies $`\lambda `$ and $`M`$ must satisfy

$$\lambda =\kappa M^y$$
(26)
for a dimensionless constant $`\kappa `$, further implying that $`c_{\mathrm{pert}}`$ expands in powers of $`r^y`$. On the other hand, the $`2(\xi +1)i\pi /h`$ periodicity ***While the periodicity is easily extracted from the associated Bethe ansatz equations , it is less trivial to see directly from the NLIEs. of the nonlinear integral equations suggests that $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ expands as a series in $`r^{2h/(1+\xi )}`$, which will agree with $`c_{\mathrm{pert}}(r)`$ provided $`2(1\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{UV}})=2h/(1+\xi )`$. Substituting $`p/(qp)`$ for $`\xi `$, we find the NLIEs predict a value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$ which exactly matches the conformal dimension of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}}`$ (5).

The expansion

$$c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)=c_{\mathrm{eff}}(0)+B(r)+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_j(r^y)^j,$$
(27)
differs from $`c_{\mathrm{pert}}(r)`$ by the bulk term $`B(r)`$, but it may easily be extracted from the NLIEs. For this we need the leading asymptotics of the kernels as $`\theta \mathrm{}`$. The denominator of the inverse deformed Cartan matrix has either a term of the form $`\mathrm{sinh}(\pi k)`$ ($`A_n`$) or $`\mathrm{cosh}(\pi k/2)`$ ($`D_n,E_6,E_7,E_8`$), both possibilities leading to a simple pole in the kernels $`\varphi _{ab}(\theta )`$ and $`\chi _{ab}(\theta )`$ at $`k=i`$. Moreover, the kernels (17, 21) have a pole at $`k=ih/(\xi 1)`$, which contributes a term proportional to $`e^{h\theta /(\xi 1)}`$. Therefore we have

$`\varphi _{ab}(\theta )\varphi _{ab}^{(1)}e^\theta +p_{ab}^{(1)}e^{h\theta /(\xi 1)}+\mathrm{},\theta \mathrm{},`$ (28)
$`\chi _{ab}(\theta )\chi _{ab}^{(1)}e^\theta +c_{ab}^{(1)}e^{h\theta /(\xi 1)}+\mathrm{},\theta \mathrm{}.`$ (29)
The expansion coefficients can be calculated by taking the appropriate residues, but we will only need $`\varphi _{1a}^{(1)}`$ and $`\chi _{1a}^{(1)}`$, both of which can be written as

$$\varphi _{1a}^{(1)}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{h}\xi )\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{h})}{\pi \mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{h}(\xi 1))\nu (𝒢)}m_a,\chi _{1a}^{(1)}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{\pi }{h})}{\pi \mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{h}(\xi 1))\nu (𝒢)}m_a,$$
(30)
where

$$\nu (A_{n1})=1,\nu (D_n)=1/2,\nu (E_6)=\sqrt{2/3}\mathrm{sin}(\pi /12)$$

$$\nu (E_7)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{sin}(\pi /18)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi /9),\nu (E_8)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi /30)}{2\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}(\pi /5)}.$$
(31)
A small generalisation of the argument described in  yields the massive and massless bulk terms:

$$B_{\mathrm{massive}}(r)=\frac{3\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{h}\xi )\nu (𝒢)}{2\pi \mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{h}(1+\xi ))\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{h})}r^2,B_{\mathrm{massless}}(r)=\frac{3\nu (𝒢)}{2\pi \mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{h}(1+\xi )))}r^2.$$
(32)
The bulk term corresponding to the massive perturbation of the unitary minimal models has been calculated by Fateev  in the context of the associated coset. By analytically continuing the coset parameter $`k`$ to rational values (set $`k=\xi h`$), we find Fateev’s massive bulk term exactly coincides with ours for both unitary and nonunitary models.

The massless bulk terms are new, but we can make at least one concrete check before turning to numerics: the models with $`p=h+1`$ and $`q=h+2`$ correspond to the coset $`𝒢_N^1\times 𝒢_N^1/𝒢_N^2`$, for which the massive and massless perturbations are known to coincide , as fortunately do our bulk terms at $`\xi =h+1`$.

The bulk terms have a simple pole whenever $`\xi +1=mh`$ for some integer $`m`$, which should cancel against one of the terms in the infinite sum so that the expansion (27) continues to be regular . In all cases the result, found by evaluating

$$\underset{\xi =mh1}{lim}\frac{B(r)}{r^2}[r^2r^{2m\frac{h}{(\xi +1)}}],$$
(33)
is a logarithmic term:

$$B_{\mathrm{massive}}(r)|_{\xi =mh1}=\frac{3\nu (𝒢)}{\pi ^2m}r^2\mathrm{ln}r,B_{\mathrm{massless}}(r)|_{\xi =mh1}=\frac{3(1)^m\nu (𝒢)}{\pi ^2m}r^2\mathrm{ln}r.$$
(34)
Now we are in position to compare (25) with (27), apart from one remaining difficulty. The perturbative coefficients $`C_j`$ are usually hard to calculate, and instead it is easier to estimate, from the massless and massive NLIEs respectively, the expansion coefficients $`c_j`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}_j.`$ The perturbative coefficients $`C_j`$ do not depend on $`\lambda `$, and if we assume the mass and crossover scales $`M`$ are equal we should find

$$c_j=(1)^j\stackrel{~}{c}_j.$$
(35)
We include a small sample of our numerics in table 2. Such good agreement provides an excellent check on both the massive and massless NLIEs, the associated bulk terms and the above assumption on $`M`$.

5. Close to the infrared fixed point the model is described by the action of the infrared CFT plus an infinite number of contributions from irrelevant operators, resulting in a theory which is unrenormalisable. However by considering the contribution of a finite number of fields it is still possible to make a comparison with results from either NLIEs such as ours or from TBA equations . We consider

$$𝒜=𝒜_{\mathrm{IR}}+g\psi d^2x+tT\overline{T}d^2x+\mathrm{},$$
(36)
where the (possibly missing) irrelevant field $`\psi `$ of dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{IR}}`$ and $`T\overline{T}`$ of dimension $`2`$ belong to the infrared CFT. The couplings are related to the crossover scale $`M`$ as

$$g=\kappa _gM^{22\mathrm{\Delta }_{IR}},t=\kappa _tM^2.$$
(37)
The action implies $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ has IR expansion

$$c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)c_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{})+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_j(\kappa _gr)^{(22\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{IR}})j}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t_j(\kappa _tr)^{2j}+\mathrm{}.$$
(38)
From the NLIE point of view  corrections to $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ come from the $`\theta \mathrm{}`$ asymptotic of $`\chi _{ab}(\theta )`$ given by (29), the $`e^{h\theta /(\xi 1)}`$ term generating a a series of the form $`r^{2h/(\xi 1)}.`$ Comparing with the CPT expansion (38) leads to the prediction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{IR}}=1+h/(\xi 1)`$, which can be identified with the conformal dimension of the primary field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}^{}}`$ with weights $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{id}},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{adj}}.`$

We can also extract a prediction for $`\kappa _t`$ from the NLIEs. We start with the first two coefficients of the series generated by $`T\overline{T}`$ :

$$t_1=\frac{\pi ^3c_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{})^2}{6},t_2=\frac{\pi ^6c_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{})^3}{18},$$
(39)
and compare them with the coefficients of $`r^2`$ and $`r^4`$ found from the NLIEs. Adapting the TBA argument , we use the $`e^\theta `$ term in the expansion of $`\chi _{ab}(\theta )`$ to find

$$c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)c_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{})\frac{2\pi ^2}{3}c_{\mathrm{eff}}^2(\mathrm{})\chi _{11}^{(1)}r^2+2c_{\mathrm{eff}}^3(\mathrm{})\left(\frac{2\pi ^2}{3}\chi _{11}^{(1)}\right)^2r^4+\mathrm{}.$$
(40)
The explicit form

$$\chi _{11}^{(1)}r^2=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{\pi }{h})}{\pi \mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{h}(\xi 1))\nu (𝒢)}r^2$$
(41)
indicates a pole whenever $`\xi 1=m^{}h`$ for some integer $`m^{}.`$ Evaluating as for the UV case we find (41) becomes

$$\chi _{11}^{(1)}r^2|_{\xi =m^{}h+1}=\frac{2(1)^m^{}\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{\pi }{h})}{\pi ^2m^{}\nu (𝒢)}r^2\mathrm{ln}r.$$
(42)
The infrared expansion coefficients have been obtained numerically for the models $`WA_1^{p,p+1}+\varphi _{13}`$, $`p=5,\mathrm{},10`$ in , and they show good agreement with our predictions, while for $`WA_1^{p,p+1}`$ and $`WD_{n+1}^{2n+2,2n+3}`$ we find agreement with the theoretical results of . Finally, the effective central charge of the $`\varphi _{12},\varphi _{21}`$ and $`\varphi _{15}`$ perturbations of the Virasoro minimal models is exactly half that of certain $`WA_2`$ models:

$`WA_1^{p,q}+\varphi _{12}`$ $``$ $`WA_2^{p,2q}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}}`$
$`WA_1^{p,q}+\varphi _{21}`$ $``$ $`WA_2^{q,2p}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}}`$ (43)
$`WA_1^{p,q}+\varphi _{15}`$ $``$ $`WA_2^{2p,q}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}}.`$
Only the $`\varphi _{21}`$ and $`\varphi _{15}`$ perturbed models have a massless flow, and the IR expansion coefficients found in  match with those predicted above for the associated $`WA_2`$ model. The correspondence actually works for any value of $`\xi `$ since the $`\varphi _{12}/\varphi _{21}/\varphi _{15}`$ NLIE is based on the tadpole diagram $`T_1`$, which is related by folding to $`A_2`$.

Finally, comparing (4041) to (3839) yields the promised prediction for $`\kappa _t`$:

$$\kappa _t=\frac{4\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{\pi }{h})}{\pi ^2\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{h}(\xi 1))\nu (𝒢)}.$$
(44)
6. We have shown that the function $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ for nonunitary models interpolates from a CFT in the ultraviolet to an infrared CFT that has smaller effective central charge, but in a nonmonotonic way. It is likely that there is a function, as yet unknown, which monotically interpolates between the nonunitary CFTs and satisfies a ‘nonunitary $`c`$-theorem’.

We’d like to make two further comments concerning the massive nonlinear integral equations. First, level-rank (or KNS) duality  relates two nonunitary minimal models

$$WA_{n1}^{n,p}=WA_{pn1}^{pn,p},n,p\mathrm{coprime},$$
(45)
which both have a field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}}`$ with conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(pnpn^2)/p,`$ resulting in entirely equivalent perturbed theories. It is not at all obvious that the NLIEs based on $`A_{n1}`$ and those based on $`A_{pn1}`$ at the appropriate values of $`\xi `$ will produce the same value of $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r),`$ but provided the normalisation of the lightest mass is such that the coupling $`\lambda `$ is the same for both models, our numerical studies confirm this. By equating the massive bulk terms we find

$$\mathrm{sin}(\pi /(pn))M_{[n1]}=\mathrm{sin}(\pi /n)M_{[pn1]};$$
(46)
the same result can also be deduced from the relation $`\lambda =\kappa M^y`$ given for the unitary minimal models in . We can rule out a massless flow from $`WA_{n1}^{n,p}`$ via $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}}`$ by considering the conjectured IR model $`WA_{n1}^{2np,n}`$, a sensible CFT if $`2np>h`$. Since $`h=n`$ this would require $`p<n`$, contradicting the assumption $`n<p`$.

As mentioned above, the massive $`\varphi _{15}`$ and $`\varphi _{12}`$ perturbations of the the Virasoro models $`WA_1^{2,p}`$ (for odd $`p`$ greater than 4) are integrable, and the groundstate energy can be found using a single NLIE based on $`A_2^{(2)}`$ , with appropriate tuning of the free parameters. Thus by level-rank duality the models $`WA_{p3}^{p2,p}`$ have up to two extra massive perturbations in addition to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}}`$ whose groundstate energy can be described in terms of a nonlinear integral equation.

Second, the massive NLIEs encode the finite-size effects of a further set of models obtained by sending $`\xi =kh`$ to infinity. In this limit the perturbed coset $`𝒢_N^k\times 𝒢_N^1/𝒢_N^{k+1}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{adj}}`$ becomes the $`𝒢`$ Gross Neveu model , with groundstate energy described in terms of an infinite number ($`k.N`$) of coupled TBA equations. The NLIEs offer a clear advantage over the TBA as the $`N`$ equations can still be solved numerically at any value of $`r`$. The kernels

$$\phi _{ab}(\theta )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{2\pi }e^{ik\theta }\left(\delta _{ab}\frac{e^{\pi |k|/h}}{\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{h}k)}C_{ab}^1(k)\right)$$
(47)
form part of the prefactors of the associated S-matrices . The perturbation is (almost) marginal and the ultraviolet expansion of the effective central charge no longer has a simple power series form (27). By studying the NLIEs (numerically and analytically) we hope to uncover the expected logarithmic corrections to $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$. If this approach is successful there are a number of two-dimensional sigma models which have an interpretation as a perturbed conformal field theory . Since in all cases the groundstate energy is described by an infinite number of TBA equations, it would also be interesting to extend the current set of NLIEs to include such models.

Finally we remark that even though the groundstate energy of the perturbed nonunitary models is apparently real, recent results based on the $`A_2^{(2)}`$ models indicate the massive finite size spectrum may in general be complex . It remains an open question to study the excited states of the massless models, perhaps via the massless NLIEs, to see if a similar result holds.

Acknowledgments – I’m grateful to Pascal Baseilhac, Patrick Dorey, André LeClair, Pierre Mathieu and Roberto Tateo for useful conversations. I also thank the EPSRC for a Research Fellowship and IPAM, UCLA for their hospitality.