text:
# On the finite size corrections to some random matching problems

## 1 Introduction

The possibility of investigating some optimization problems using techniques of the field of disordered systems in statistical physics has been recognized for a long time (see  for a recent review). Along with the traveling salesman problem and, more recently, K-Sat, one of the problems which got most of the attention is the matching problem, of which two variants have been studied:

* The simple matching problem: consider $`2N`$ points and a set of ’distances’ between them $`l_{ij}=l_{ji}`$. A matching of these points is a set of $`N`$ pairs so that each point belong to exactly one pair. The ’length’ of such a matching is

$$L_{matching}=\underset{pairmatching}{}l_{pair}.$$
(1)
One focuses on the properties of the matching of minimal length.
* The bipartite matching problem (or assignment problem), which is as above, except that we split the points into two sub-sets A and B of $`N`$ points each, and allow only matchings where each pair is made of a point from A and a point from B.

Here we are interested in the case where the $`l_{ij}`$ are independent identically distributed random variables, either uniformly distributed on the interval $`[0,1]`$ (so-called flat case) or distributed with the law $`\mathrm{exp}(l)`$ on $`[0,+\mathrm{}[`$ (so-called exponential case).

Both the simple and bipartite cases have been investigated in the thermodynamical limit $`N+\mathrm{}`$, where self-averaging of the optimal length occurs. The replica method, in the replica symmetric scheme, yielded predictions for the mean optimal length and the distribution of the lengths of occupied links in the optimal configuration . This was shown to be equivalent to a cavity approach . Numerical works checked the validity of the results obtained with these techniques , and got interested in another quantity, the probability for some given point to be connected to its $`k`$-th nearest neighbor in the optimal matching. This was also dealt with by an analytical cavity computation . Remarkably,  confirmed all the above results by rigorous proof.

The stability of the replica symmetric solution was checked in , yielding as a byproduct the $`O(1/N)`$ correction to the mean length of the minimal matching. For the assignment problem with flat distances, they found

$$\overline{L}_{min}^{flat}=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\frac{1}{N}\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{12}+2\zeta (3)\right)+o(\frac{1}{N}),$$
(2)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ means the average with respect to the distribution of the distances.

This seemed to agree with the numerical simulations at the time . But  came up with a conjecture for the assignment problem at any finite $`N`$: in the exponential case the mean length of the optimal matching would be

$$\overline{L}_{min}^{exp}|_N=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{k^2},$$
(3)
which implies

$$\overline{L}_{min}^{exp}=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\frac{1}{N}+o(\frac{1}{N}).$$
(4)
The problem is that in the framework of  it is not difficult to prove - as we shall - that

$$\overline{L}_{min}^{exp}\overline{L}_{min}^{flat}=\frac{2\zeta (3)}{N},$$
(5)
so that (4) is not compatible with (2). Beside, other results sustain (4): more recent numerical simulations , and an allegedly rigorous proof of (3) .

The main purpose of this article is to show that Mézard and Parisi  actually made some mistakes in the computation leading to (2). Correcting them, one does get

$$\overline{L}_{min}^{flat}=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\frac{1}{N}\left(1+2\zeta (3)\right)+o(\frac{1}{N}),$$
(6)
which, using (5), coincides with (4).

Apart from some trivial errors due to a confusion about the number of points, $`N`$ or $`2N`$, that has already been pointed out , and some typos, there are essentially two mistakes in :

* they forgot a contribution to the $`O(1/N)`$ term of $`\overline{L}_{min}`$, but this is without any consequence as this term turns out to vanish in the zero temperature limit (appendix A.1);
* they made a mistake in the computation of another contribution (appendix B.3), and this was responsible for the wrong result (2).

As the computations carried out in  are quite involved, we have chosen to make this article the most self-contained possible by restating all the necessary steps.

In section 2, we tackle the simple matching problem, which is formally simpler but very similar to the assignment problem. Error (i) is common to both problems, and we deal with it in that section. Moreover we refine the computation of the $`O(1/N)`$ correction which in  relies on a rough numerical procedure. We give an analytical expression of the correction as the sum of a series. Unfortunately we were not able to sum this series, but it might not be impossible.

In section 3, we turn to the assignment problem. There we correct error (ii), which is specific to this variant.

## 2 Non bipartite case

In this section, for the sake of simplicity, we exclusively consider the flat case.

To tackle the problem with the tools of statistical mechanics, one introduces an inverse temperature $`\beta `$ (to be sent to $`+\mathrm{}`$ in the end) and a partition function

$$Z=\underset{\text{all possible matchings}}{}\mathrm{exp}(N\beta L_{matching}).$$
(7)
The scaling factor $`N`$ ensures a good thermodynamic limit at fixed $`\beta `$ .

We will not get into the details of the computation of the averaged replicated partition function, because it is quite similar to the bipartite case, for which the derivation can be found in appendix B.1. Let us just state the result :

$`\overline{Z^n}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}\frac{dQ_\alpha }{\sqrt{2\pi g_{p(\alpha )}/N}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{N}{2}S[Q]\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{4}\underset{\alpha ,\gamma }{\overset{}{}}\frac{g_\alpha g_\gamma }{g_{\alpha \gamma }^2}Q_{\alpha \gamma }^2\right)},`$ (8)
where $`g_p=1/(\beta p)`$ and

$`S[Q]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_\alpha ^2}{g_\alpha }}4\mathrm{ln}z[Q],`$ (9)
$`z[Q]`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda ^a}{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda _a}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}Q_\alpha e^{i_{a\alpha }\lambda ^a}\right).`$
In the above expressions, $`\alpha `$ stands for any non empty subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{}n\}`$ so that the number of $`Q_\alpha `$ variables is $`2^n1`$. For such an $`\alpha `$, we call $`p(\alpha )`$ its cardinal number, and use the shorthand notation $`g_\alpha `$ for $`g_{p(\alpha )}`$. The notation $`_{\alpha ,\gamma }^{}`$ means that the summation runs over all the couples $`(\alpha ,\gamma )`$ such that $`\alpha \gamma =\mathrm{}`$.

$`\overline{L}_{min}`$ is nothing but the intensive free energy $`F/N=1/(\beta N)\mathrm{ln}Z`$ in the limit $`\beta +\mathrm{}`$. It is evaluated by a saddle-point method. The saddle-point equation reads

$$\frac{Q_\alpha }{g_\alpha }=2\frac{\mathrm{ln}z}{Q_\alpha }.$$
(10)
It has been solved under the assumption of replica symmetry : $`Q_\alpha ^{sp}=Q_{p(\alpha )}^{sp}`$. It turns out that the order parameters $`Q_p^{sp}`$ are not well defined quantities at low temperature, and one can bypass this difficulty by considering the well defined generating function

$$G(l)=\underset{p=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^{p1}}{p!}Q_p^{sp}e^{pl},$$
(11)
for which (10) translates into

$$G(l)=\frac{2}{\beta }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑yK(l+y)e^{G(y)},$$
(12)
where

$$K(u)=\underset{p=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^p}{(p!)^2}e^{pu}=1+\text{J}_0(2e^{u/2}).$$
(13)
In (13) J0 is the Bessel function of order zero. Note that (12) can be obtained by direct probabilistic arguments using the cavity method .

The free energy in the thermodynamical limit has been evaluated as

$$\frac{F}{N}=\underset{n0}{lim}_{\beta +\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{2\beta n}S[Q_{sp}]=\frac{\pi ^2}{12}.$$
(14)
The first finite size correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ is the sum of two terms: the first one, corresponding to the last factor in (8),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F^1=\frac{1}{4Nn\beta }\underset{\alpha ,\gamma }{\overset{}{}}g_\alpha g_\gamma \left(\frac{Q_{\alpha \gamma }^{sp}}{g_{\alpha \gamma }}\right)^2=\frac{\zeta (3)}{2N}$$
(15)
has been computed in the appendix of . The second one corresponds to the Gaussian fluctuations around the saddle-point:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }F^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta Nn}}\mathrm{ln}det\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{g_\alpha }\sqrt{g_\gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{^2S}{Q_\alpha Q_\gamma }}\right]`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta Nn}}\mathrm{ln}detT_{\alpha \gamma }^+,`$
where we define the matrices $`T_{\alpha \gamma }^\epsilon `$, $`\epsilon =\pm 1`$, as follows:

$`T_{\alpha \gamma }^\epsilon =\delta _{\alpha \gamma }+\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{Q_\alpha ^{sp}Q_\gamma ^{sp}}{2\sqrt{g_\alpha g_\gamma }}}\epsilon \delta _{\alpha \gamma =\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{\alpha \gamma }^{sp}}{g_{\alpha \gamma }}}\sqrt{g_\alpha g_\gamma }.`$ (17)
At this stage the introduction of $`\epsilon `$ is a useless complication, since for the non bipartite case we only have to consider the case $`\epsilon =+1`$. However the case $`\epsilon =1`$ will turn out to be useful in section 3, where we deal with the bipartite case.

The computation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^2`$ involves finding the eigenvalues of $`(T_{\alpha \gamma }^\epsilon )`$. A vector $`(Q_\alpha )`$ is eigenvector for the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ if

$$\alpha ,Q_\alpha +\epsilon \underset{\gamma }{}Q_\gamma \frac{Q_\alpha ^{sp}Q_\gamma ^{sp}}{2\sqrt{g_\alpha g_\gamma }}\epsilon \underset{\alpha \gamma =\mathrm{}}{}Q_\gamma \frac{Q_{\alpha \gamma }^{sp}}{g_{\alpha \gamma }}\sqrt{g_\alpha g_\gamma }=\lambda Q_\alpha $$
(18)
The diagonalization process adopted by  follows the de Almeida-Thouless strategy  of considering stable subspaces of increasing dimension. First we look for eigenvectors where no particular replica is distinguished:

$$Q_\alpha =c_{p(\alpha )}.$$
(19)
When we plug this into (18), we see that we have to diagonalize a $`n\times n`$ matrix $`N^{0,\epsilon }(n)`$

$$N^{0,\epsilon }(n)_{pq}=\delta _{pq}\epsilon C_{np}^q\frac{Q_{p+q}^{sp}}{g_{p+q}}\sqrt{g_pg_q}+\epsilon \frac{Q_p^{sp}Q_q^{sp}}{2\sqrt{g_pg_q}}C_n^qp,q=1,\mathrm{}n,$$
(20)
where we use the notation $`C_n^p=\frac{n!}{p!(np)!}`$. This matrix turns into an infinite dimensional matrix $`N^{0,\epsilon }`$ when $`n0`$:

$$N_{pq}^{0,\epsilon }=\delta _{pq}\epsilon (1)^q\frac{(p+q1)!}{(p1)!q!}\frac{Q_{p+q}^{sp}}{g_{p+q}}\sqrt{g_pg_q}p,q=1,\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}$$
(21)
(the last term in (20) does not contribute).

The eigenvalues of $`N^{0,\epsilon }`$ have multiplicity 1 in the spectrum of $`T_{\alpha \gamma }^\epsilon `$.

Then we look for eigenvectors of $`T_{\alpha \gamma }^\epsilon `$ where one replica is distinguished, say $`a`$:

$$Q_\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}d_{p(\alpha )}\hfill & \text{if }a\alpha \hfill \\ e_{p(\alpha )}\hfill & \text{if not}\hfill \end{array}.$$

The orthogonality constraint between this family and the previous one (19) reads $`pd_p+(np)e_p=0`$. So we can choose the only $`d_p`$ as variables (of which $`d_n=0`$), and we end up with the diagonalization of an $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ matrix $`N^{1,\epsilon }(n)`$

$`N^{1,\epsilon }(n)_{pq}=\delta _{pq}\epsilon C_{np}^q{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{p+q}^{sp}}{g_{p+q}}}\sqrt{g_pg_q}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{qn}}+\epsilon C_{n1}^q{\displaystyle \frac{Q_p^{sp}Q_q^{sp}}{2\sqrt{g_pg_q}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{qn}}+\epsilon C_{n1}^{q1}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_p^{sp}Q_q^{sp}}{2\sqrt{g_pg_q}}}`$ (22)
$`p,q=1,\mathrm{}n1.`$
We get $`n1`$ eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{}\lambda _{n1}`$ (independent on $`a`$) and the corresponding eigenvectors $`u_1^a,\mathrm{}u_{n1}^a`$. The important point is that the $`u_i^a,a=1,\mathrm{}n`$ are not linearly independent: $`_au_i^a`$ is a vector of the previous family and orthogonal to it, so it has to be 0. Eventually the eigenvalues of $`N^{1,\epsilon }(n)`$ have multiplicity $`n1`$ in the spectrum of $`T_{\alpha \gamma }^\epsilon `$. When $`n0`$, $`N^{1,\epsilon }(n)`$ becomes an infinite dimensional matrix which happens to be exactly $`N^{0,\epsilon }`$.

More generally, one finds the whole spectrum of $`T_{\alpha \gamma }^\epsilon `$ by looking for eigenvectors which have $`k`$ given distinguished replicas:

$$Q_\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }p<k\hfill \\ d_{p(\alpha )}^i\hfill & \text{if }\alpha \text{ contains }k+1i\text{ of the distinguished replicas,}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`i`$ goes from one to $`k+1`$. The orthogonalization with respect to a family where only $`k1`$ of these replicas are distinguished reads as a system of equations

$$j=0,1,\mathrm{}k1,\underset{r=0}{\overset{kj}{}}C_{kj}^rC_{nk}^{p(r+j)}d_p^{k+1(r+j)}=0,$$
(23)
whose solution in the $`n0`$ limit is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d_p^1}{p(p+1)\mathrm{}(p+k1)}}={\displaystyle \frac{d_p^2}{(pk+1)(p+1)\mathrm{}(p+k1)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d_p^3}{(pk+1)(pk+2)(p+2)\mathrm{}(p+k1)}}=\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{d_p^{k+1}}{(pk+1)\mathrm{}p}}.`$
(note that this is slightly different from equation (20) in  where there is a typo)

It follows that we can keep the only $`d_p^1`$ as independent variables, and have to diagonalize a matrix $`N^{k,\epsilon }(n)`$, which in the limit $`n0`$ is the infinite dimensional matrix

$$N_{pq}^{k,\epsilon }=\delta _{p,q}\epsilon (1)^q\frac{(p+q1)!(q1)!}{(p1)!(qk)!(q+k1)!}\frac{Q_{p+q}^{sp}}{g_{p+q}}\sqrt{g_pg_q}p,q=1,\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}.$$
(25)
The eigenvalues of $`N^{k,\epsilon }(n)`$ have multiplicity $`C_n^kC_n^{k1}`$ in the spectrum of $`T_{\alpha \gamma }^\epsilon `$.

The article  prefers using matrices derived from the $`N^{k,\epsilon }`$ by some transformations which do not affect the spectrum: after shifting the indices $`p`$ and $`q`$ by $`k`$, then transposing and multiplying each entry by $`(1)^{p+q}\sqrt{\frac{g_{q+k}}{g_{p+k}}}\frac{(q+1)\mathrm{}(q+k1)}{(p+1)\mathrm{}(p+k1)}`$, one gets the family of matrices

$$M_{p,q}^{k,\epsilon }=\delta _{p,q}\epsilon (1)^{q+k}\frac{(p+q+2k1)!}{(p+2k1)!q!}g_{q+k}\frac{Q_{p+q+2k}^{sp}}{g_{p+q+2k}},$$
(26)
where $`p,q=0,1,\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}`$.

We can now proceed to the computation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^2`$ (16):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F^2=\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,+}+\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^{2,+},$$
(27)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,\epsilon }`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{n0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta nN}}\left[\mathrm{ln}detN^{0,\epsilon }(n)+(n1)\mathrm{ln}detN^{1,\epsilon }(n)\right],`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^{2,\epsilon }`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{n0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta nN}}{\displaystyle \underset{k2}{}}(C_n^kC_n^{k1})\mathrm{ln}detN^{k,\epsilon }(n).`$
For $`k2`$ one has $`(C_n^kC_n^{k1})n(1)^{k1}\frac{2k1}{k(k1)}`$ so that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^{2,\epsilon }=\frac{1}{2\beta N}\underset{k=2}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{k1}\frac{2k1}{k(k1)}\mathrm{ln}detM^{k,\epsilon }.$$
(29)
There is a subtlety in the computation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,+}`$: as the limits of $`N^{0,+}(n)`$ and $`N^{1,+}(n)`$ when $`n0`$ are the same, one may be tempted to say that in this limit we have a unique family of eigenvalues of multiplicity $`n`$, and so $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,+}=1/(2\beta N)\mathrm{ln}detM^{1,+}`$. It is what  did, but it is wrong. Actually there is a factor $`1/n`$ to take into account, so that one also gets the contribution of the derivatives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,+}=\frac{1}{2\beta N}\left[\left\{\frac{d\mathrm{ln}detN^{0,+}(n)}{dn}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}detN^{1,+}(n)}{dn}\right\}_{n=0}+\mathrm{ln}detM^{1,+}\right].$$
(30)
It turns out that the extra term is zero when $`\beta +\mathrm{}`$, but it is not trivial (see appendix A.1). We also show en passant in this appendix that $`detM^{1,+}`$ has a non zero finite limit when $`\beta +\mathrm{}`$ so that we eventually agree with  on the fact that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,+}=0.$$
(31)
As far as the computation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^2`$ (29) is concerned, the strategy of  consists into translating the infinite dimensional matrices $`M^{k,\epsilon }`$ into more tractable integral operators. If $`(c_p)`$ is an eigenvector of $`M^{k,\epsilon }`$, then

$$f(x)=\underset{q=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^q}{q!}\sqrt{g_{q+k}}c_qe^{(k+q)xG(x)/2}$$
(32)
is an eigenfunction, with the same eigenvalue, of the operator

$$M^{k,\epsilon }(x,y)=\delta (xy)\epsilon (1)^kA^k(x,y),$$
(33)
where

$$A^k(x,y)=2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{G(x)+G(y)}{2}+k(x+y)\right)\underset{p=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^pe^{p(x+y)}}{p!(2k+p1)!}g_{p+k}$$
(34)
and reciprocally.

The article , on the basis of numerical discretization and diagonalization of these operators, argues that the values of $`detM^{k,\epsilon }(T)`$ plotted versus $`T\mathrm{ln}k`$ fall onto two universal curves, depending on the parity of $`k`$:

$$detM^{k,\epsilon }(T)=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_\epsilon (T\mathrm{ln}k)\hfill & \text{if }k\text{ is even}\hfill \\ f_\epsilon (T\mathrm{ln}k)\hfill & \text{if }k\text{ is odd}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(35)
A more accurate numerical analysis showed us that this happens only when $`k+\mathrm{}`$, $`T\mathrm{ln}k`$ being kept fixed: $`f_+`$ and $`f_{}`$ are limit functions (see fig. 1). Happily this does not change the conclusion that, in the limit $`\beta +\mathrm{}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^{2,\epsilon }=\frac{1}{2N}_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑t[\mathrm{ln}f_\epsilon (t)\mathrm{ln}f_\epsilon (t)].$$
(36)
In , this integral is performed by fitting the numerical curves of $`f_+`$ and $`f_{}`$ by smooth functions, which yields an estimate flawed by a rather rough uncertainty:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^{2,+}=\frac{1}{N}(0.47\pm 0.05).$$
(37)
As a consequence, $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ itself is known with a bad precision:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F=\frac{1}{N}(0.13\pm 0.05).$$
(38)
It is possible to improve on this. On can explicitly compute the limit of the operator $`A^k(x,y)`$ when $`k\mathrm{}`$ under the restriction that $`t=T\mathrm{ln}k`$ remains fixed. In this case one also has $`\beta +\mathrm{}`$. Let us recall that in this limit

$$G(l)=\widehat{G}(\beta l)\text{where}\widehat{G}(x)=\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{2x}).$$
(39)
So we can write

$$A^k(x,y)\frac{2}{\beta \sqrt{(1+\mathrm{exp}(2x/\beta ))(1+\mathrm{exp}(2y/\beta ))}}f(k,\mathrm{exp}(x+y)),$$
(40)
where

$$f(k,z)=z^k\underset{p=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^pz^p}{p!(2k+p1)!}\frac{1}{p+k}.$$
(41)
The eigenvalues of $`A^k(x,y)`$ are the same as the ones of the operator

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}k}{t}A^k(\frac{\mathrm{ln}k}{t}u,\frac{\mathrm{ln}k}{t}v)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{(1+\mathrm{exp}(2u))(1+\mathrm{exp}(2v))}}f(k,\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\mathrm{ln}k}{t}(u+v))).$$
(42)
Let us define

$$g(k,w)=f(k,\mathrm{exp}(w\mathrm{ln}k)).$$
(43)
In appendix A.2 we show that when $`k+\mathrm{}`$, $`g(k,w)\mathrm{\Theta }(w2)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Heaviside function. So the operator we have to diagonalize is

$$\frac{2}{\sqrt{(1+\mathrm{exp}(2u))(1+\mathrm{exp}(2v))}}\mathrm{\Theta }(\frac{u+v}{t}2).$$
(44)
It is the same as diagonalizing

$$H_t(u,v)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{(1+\mathrm{exp}(2(u+t)))(1+\mathrm{exp}(2(v+t)))}}\mathrm{\Theta }(u+v).$$
(45)
We have $`f_+(t)=\mathrm{ln}det(IH_t)`$ and $`f_{}(t)=\mathrm{ln}det(I+H_t)`$. The correction (36) reads

$`\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^{2,+}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑t\left[\mathrm{ln}(det(I+H_t))\mathrm{ln}(det(IH_t))\right]`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{I_{2p+1}}{2p+1}}`$
where

$`I_p={\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑t\text{Tr}H_t^p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑t{\displaystyle 𝑑u_1\mathrm{}𝑑u_pH_t(u_1,u_2)\mathrm{}H_t(u_{p1},u_p)H_t(u_p,u_1)}`$
$`=`$ $`2^p{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑t{\displaystyle 𝑑u_1\mathrm{}𝑑u_p\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(u_1+u_2)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }(u_{p1}+u_p)\mathrm{\Theta }(u_p+u_1)}{\left(1+\mathrm{exp}(2(t+u_1))\right)\mathrm{}\left(1+\mathrm{exp}(2(t+u_p))\right)}}.`$
(to derive (46) we used the identity $`\mathrm{ln}det=`$ Tr $`\mathrm{ln}`$ and expanded $`\mathrm{ln}(det(I\pm H_t))`$ in power series of $`H_t`$).

Note that the operators $`H_t`$ have positive and negative eigenvalues. The changes of variables $`x_i=\mathrm{exp}(2u_i)`$ and $`C=\mathrm{exp}(2t)`$ yield

$$I_p=_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑tTrH_t^p=_1^+\mathrm{}\frac{dC}{2C}\frac{dx_1}{x_1+C}\mathrm{}\frac{dx_p}{x_p+C},$$
(48)
where the integration with respect to $`x_1,\mathrm{}x_p`$ is to be performed over the domain defined by $`i,x_i0`$ and $`x_ix_{i+1}1`$, $`x_px_11`$.

Unfortunately we were not able to compute analytically $`I_p`$ for a generic $`p`$. We succeeded in computing exactly the four first terms, and we got an estimate of the fifth one by numerical integration:

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (2)}{4}}0.411234,`$ (49)
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (3)}{2}}0.601028,`$
$`I_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\zeta (4)}{16}}0.202936,`$
$`I_4`$ $`=`$ $`4\zeta (5){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\zeta (3)}{3}}0.193102,`$
$`I_5`$ $``$ $`0.137098.`$
A truncated summation of (46) up to the third term gives the following lower bound

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^{2,+}>0.506298/N,$$
(50)
which is compatible with the estimate of Mézard and Parisi (37). Adding $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_1`$ (15), we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F>0.0947301/N.$$
(51)
One can also try a Padé summation to compute $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^{2,+}`$. One gets

$$N\mathrm{\Delta }FI_1+\frac{I_3/3}{1\frac{I_5/5}{I_3/3}}\frac{\zeta (3)}{2}=0.076.$$
(52)
To check the validity of (51), we carried out numerical simulations similar to the ones in , but averaging over more samples and implementing a variance reduction trick . We used the values $`N=35`$, 50, 60, 75, 100, 125 and 200, with a decreasing number of samples, from 1200000 downto 300000. The results for $`\overline{L}_{min}`$ are plotted in fig. 2. A quadratic fit

$$\left(\overline{L}_{min}\frac{\pi ^2}{12}\right)N=a+\frac{b}{N}+\frac{c}{N^2}$$
(53)
gives $`a=0.0346\pm 0.0066`$, which is compatible with (51).

## 3 Bipartite case

Now we turn to the assignment problem. To make the comparison with the non bipartite case easier, we prefer using a slightly different convention for the partition function, which amounts to a rescaling of $`\beta `$: we set

$$Z=\underset{\text{all possible matchings}}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{N}{2}\beta L_{matching}\right)$$
(54)
instead of (7). However the reader must bear in mind that in this case $`\overline{L}_{min}`$ is TWICE the free energy density $`F/N=1/(\beta N)\mathrm{ln}Z`$ .

Moreover, as we want to compare our results with (4), we must take into account both possible distributions of the distances. In appendix B.1 we sketch the derivation of the averaged replicated partition function both in the case of the flat distribution ($`\mu =0`$) and in the case of the exponential distribution ($`\mu =1`$):

$`\overline{Z^n}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}dX_\alpha dY_\alpha \frac{N}{2\pi g_\alpha }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{N}{2}S[X_\alpha ,Y_\alpha ]\right)}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\alpha g_\beta }{g_{\alpha \beta }^2}}(X_{\alpha \beta }^2+Y_{\alpha \beta }^2)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}X_\alpha ^2+Y_\alpha ^2\right)`$
where

$$S[X_\alpha ,Y_\alpha ]=\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{X_\alpha ^2+Y_\alpha ^2}{g_\alpha }2\mathrm{ln}z[X_\alpha iY_\alpha ]2\mathrm{ln}z[X_\alpha +iY_\alpha ].$$
(56)
The thermodynamical limit of $`F/N`$ does not depend on $`\mu `$, but its correction in $`1/N`$ does. One can look for a saddle-point of the particular form:

$$X_\alpha ^{sp}=X_{p(\alpha )}^{sp}\text{and}Y_\alpha ^{sp}=0.$$
(57)
$`X^{sp}`$ satisfy the equation

$$X_\alpha =2g_\alpha \frac{\mathrm{ln}z}{X_\alpha },$$
(58)
which is exactly the same as the one for the non bipartite case (10). Hence

$$X_p^{sp}=Q_p^{sp}.$$
(59)
The free energy in the thermodynamical limit is the same as in the non bipartite case (14).

Like in the non bipartite case, the $`O(1/N)`$ correction to the free energy contains the terms $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^1`$ coming from the last line in (3), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^2`$ coming from the Gaussian fluctuations.

One has $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^1=\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^1+\mu \mathrm{\Delta }F_2^1`$, with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^1=\frac{1}{2nN\beta }\underset{\alpha ,\gamma }{\overset{}{}}\frac{g_\alpha g_\gamma }{g_{\alpha \gamma }^2}(Q_{\alpha \gamma }^{sp})^2$$
(60)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^1=\frac{1}{nN\beta }\underset{\alpha }{}(Q_\alpha ^{sp})^2.$$
(61)
We see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^1`$ is twice the one computed in the case of the simple matching problem (15). $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^1`$, computed in appendix B.2, happens to be the opposite of $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^1`$. So

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F^1=(\mu 1)\frac{\zeta (3)}{N},$$
(62)
which demonstrates our assertion (5), confirmed by numerical simulations .

As far as $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^2`$ is concerned, it is easy to generalize the computation of the non bipartite case. We have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F^2=\frac{1}{2\beta Nn}\mathrm{ln}\left[detT_{\alpha \gamma }^+detT_{\alpha \gamma }^{}\right],$$
(63)
where $`T_{\alpha \gamma }^\pm `$ are the matrices of equation (17).

Thus we can write $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^2=\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,+}+\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^{2,+}+\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,}+\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^{2,}`$, where the different contributions are defined in (28). We have $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^{2,+}+\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^{2,}=0`$ (see eq. (36)) and we know that $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,+}=0`$ (31).

There is subtlety however in the computation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,}`$, as pointed out in : we run into a problem because $`T_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ has some zero modes. This is actually no surprise: it arises from the fact that the action (56) is left invariant under the transformation

$$X_\alpha +iY_\alpha (X_\alpha +iY_\alpha )\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{a\alpha }{}\theta _a\right),$$
(64)
where $`\theta _1,\mathrm{}\theta _n`$ are real angles. The zero modes are the $`n`$ Goldstone modes of this invariance. As a consequence the saddle-point (57) is not unique: there is a $`n`$ dimensional hypersurface of degenerated saddle-points parameterized as follows

$$X_\alpha ^{sp}+iY_\alpha ^{sp}=X_{p(\alpha )}^{sp}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{a\alpha }{}\theta _a\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}\theta _i2\pi .$$
(65)
The kernel of $`T_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ is spanned by the $`n`$ vectors $`\xi _i`$ of components

$$\xi _i^\alpha =\frac{Y_\alpha ^{sp}}{\theta _i}=\{\begin{array}{cc}X_{p(\alpha )}^{sp}\hfill & \text{if }i\alpha \hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if not}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(66)
which have the replica $`i`$ distinguished. So $`N^{k,}(n)`$ for $`k2`$ has no zero mode. Only $`N^{0,}(n)`$ and $`N^{1,}(n)`$ have a zero eigenvalue each. Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,}`$ is to be computed leaving aside the zero modes, and one has to take into account a new contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^3`$ to the free energy corresponding to the volume of the orbit (65).

As far a the computation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,}`$ is concerned, we refer to appendix (A.1), where we showed that $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,+}=0`$. It is easy to see that the proof is exactly the same for $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,}`$: there are only some sign reversals (in particular one has $`1+\lambda _k`$ instead of $`1\lambda _k`$ in the denominator of (80)), and the exclusion of the zero modes (corresponding to $`k=1`$ in (85)) has no consequence because the key property (81) holds for each eigenvalue of $`I(x,y)`$. So $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^{2,}=0`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F^2=0.$$
(67)
Let us now turn to the computation of the volume of the hypersurface defined by (65). It is where Mézard and Parisi made a mistake: they computed this quantity without taking into account the fact that they carry out the diagonalization in another system of coordinates. To make things clearer let us rewrite (3) as

$`\overline{Z^n}={\displaystyle dU_\alpha dV_\alpha \frac{N}{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{N}{2}S[\sqrt{g_\alpha }U_\alpha ,\sqrt{g_\alpha }V_\alpha ]\right)}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\gamma }{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\alpha g_\gamma }{g_{\alpha \gamma }}}(U_{\alpha \gamma }^2+V_{\alpha \gamma }^2)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}g_\alpha (U_\alpha ^2+V_\alpha ^2)\right).`$
It is in the variables $`(U_\alpha ,V_\alpha )`$ that Mézard and Parisi have chosen to diagonalize: indeed the matrix $`T_{\alpha \gamma }^\pm `$ is half the Hessian matrix of $`S[\sqrt{g_\alpha }U_\alpha ,\sqrt{g_\alpha }V_\alpha ]`$. So the volume of the hypersurface is to be computed in these same variables, not in $`(X_\alpha ,Y_\alpha )`$ as they did. The saddle-points coordinates are related by

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}U_\alpha ^{sp}\hfill & =X_\alpha ^{sp}/\sqrt{g_p}\hfill \\ V_\alpha ^{sp}\hfill & =Y_\alpha ^{sp}/\sqrt{g_p}\hfill \end{array}.`$ (71)
The computation of the correct volume is done in appendix B.3. We find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F^3=\frac{1}{2N}.$$
(72)
Collecting the pieces (62),(67),(72), we get the expected result (4).

## 4 Conclusion

By fixing the mistakes made by  in the computation of the $`O(1/N)`$ correction to the mean minimum length in the random assignment problem, we removed any inconsistency among the corpus of results about this problem. This gives further evidence that the replica approach, in its simplest symmetric ansatz, exactly solves the problem, and remains a valuable tool to gain insight on such quantities as this finite size correction which, despite recent dramatic progresses in the rigorous approach , still resist a mathematical treatment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge very useful discussions with A. Cavagna, J. Houdayer and M. Mézard.

APPENDIX

## Appendix A Non bipartite case

### A.1 Contribution of the derivatives in $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_1^2`$ (30)

Our purpose here is to show that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{\beta +\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2\beta N}\left[\frac{d\mathrm{ln}detN^{0,+}(n)}{dn}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}detN^{1,+}(n)}{dn}\right]_{n=0}$$
(73)
equals 0.

We start from the equations (20) and (22). Writing $`\frac{q}{qn}=1+\frac{n}{q}+o(n)`$ it is easy to see that $`N^{1,+}(n)N^{0,+}(n)=n\mathrm{\Delta }^1+n\mathrm{\Delta }^2+o(n)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ are the following infinite dimensional matrices

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pq}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{q+1}}{q}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+q1)!}{(p1)!q!}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{p+q}}{g_{p+q}}}\sqrt{g_pg_q}`$ (74)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pq}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^q}{q}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_p^{sp}Q_q^{sp}}{2\sqrt{g_pg_q}}}p,q=1,\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}.`$ (75)
It is more convenient to use an integral operator formalism. We set

$$I(x,y)=\frac{2}{\beta }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{G(x)+G(y)}{2}\right)K(x+y),$$
(76)
where $`K`$ is the function defined in (13).

If $`(c_p)`$ is an eigenvector of $`N_{pq}^{0,+}`$ (21) for the eigenvalue $`1\lambda `$ then $`f`$ is an eigenfunction of $`I(x,y)`$ for the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$, where

$$f(x)=\underset{q=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^q}{q!}\sqrt{g_q}c_qe^{qxG(x)/2}.$$
(77)
One can easily check that the operators corresponding to the matrices $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ are respectively

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^1(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}e^{G(x)/2}e^{G(y)/2}{\displaystyle _y^+\mathrm{}}K(t+x)e^{G(t)}𝑑t,`$ (78)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`G(x)e^{G(y)/2}e^{G(x)/2}.`$ (79)
Thus (73) can be evaluated by the standard result of first order perturbation theory

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{2N}\underset{k}{}\frac{k|\mathrm{\Delta }^1|k+k|\mathrm{\Delta }^2|k}{\beta (1\lambda _k)},$$
(80)
where the $`|k`$ are the normalized eigenvectors of $`I(x,y)`$ (76), and the $`\lambda _k`$ are the corresponding eigenvalues.

Below we show that

$$\frac{k|\mathrm{\Delta }^1|k+k|\mathrm{\Delta }^2|k}{\beta }=0$$
(81)
for each $`k`$ when $`\beta +\mathrm{}`$, and that the $`\lambda _k`$ have finite limits, different from 1, so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$.

Let us consider an eigenfunction $`f`$ of $`I(x,y)`$:

$$𝑑yI(x,y)f(y)=\lambda f(x).$$
(82)
We make the substitution

$$f(x)e^{G(x)/2}=P(\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(2x/\beta )}).$$
(83)
In the $`\beta +\mathrm{}`$ limit we can use (39) and after some changes of variables we see that (82) can be restated as

$`v[0,1],{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{P(u)}{1u}}K\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1u)(1v)}{uv}}\right)\right]=\lambda P(v)`$
$`\text{i.e.}{\displaystyle _{1v}^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{P(u)}{1u}}=\lambda P(v),`$ (84)
because $`K(\beta z)=1`$ if $`z0`$, 0 otherwise. Note that $`P(0)=0`$.

The eigenproblem (84) is $`\beta `$ independent. We found that its eigenvalues are $`\lambda _k=(1)^k/k`$, $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}`$. The corresponding eigenfunctions are polynomial of degree $`k`$:

$$P_k(u)=\underset{p=0}{\overset{k}{}}a_{p,k}u^p\text{with}a_{p,k}=(1)^p\frac{k^2(k^21)\mathrm{}(k^2(p1)^2)}{(p!)^2}.$$
(85)
For the computation of $`k|\mathrm{\Delta }^1|k`$, it is simpler not to use this explicit form. By derivation of (84), we get

$$P(1v)=\lambda vP^{}(v).$$
(86)
Combining (76), (78) and (82), we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^1(x,y)f(x)𝑑x=\lambda e^{G(y)/2}_y^+\mathrm{}f(t)e^{G(t)/2},$$
(87)
so that

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Delta }^1(x,y)f(x)f(y)𝑑x𝑑y}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{P(u)}{u(1u)}}{\displaystyle _u^1}𝑑v{\displaystyle \frac{P(v)}{1v}}`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{P(u)}{u(1u)}}P(1u)\text{by (}\text{86}\text{)}.`$
This can be further simplified:

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{P(u)P(1u)}{u(1u)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑uP(u)P(1u)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1u}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{P(u)P(1u)}{u}}`$
$`=`$ $`2\lambda {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑uP(u)P^{}(u)`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda P(1)^2,`$
so that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^1(x,y)f(x)f(y)𝑑x𝑑y=\lambda ^3\frac{\beta ^2}{4}P(1)^2.$$
(90)
The function $`f`$ is a priori not normalized so that the above quantity is to be divided by

$$f(x)^2𝑑x=\frac{\beta }{2}_0^1𝑑u\frac{P(u)^2}{1u}.$$
(91)
We eventually get

$$k|\mathrm{\Delta }^1|k=\lambda ^3\frac{\beta }{2}P(1)^2\left[_0^1𝑑u\frac{P(u)^2}{1u}\right]^1.$$
(92)
Now we compute $`k|\mathrm{\Delta }^2|k`$: thanks to (12),

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}{\displaystyle 𝑑tK(t+x)e^{G(t)}e^{G(x)/2}e^{G(y)/2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑tI(x,t)e^{G(y)/2}e^{G(t)/2}},`$
hence

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x,y)f(x)𝑑x=\lambda 𝑑tf(t)e^{G(y)/2}e^{G(t)/2},$$
(94)
$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Delta }^2(x,y)f(x)f(y)𝑑x𝑑y}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \left[{\displaystyle 𝑑tf(t)e^{G(t)/2}}\right]^2`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{P(u)}{1u}}\right]^2`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda ^3{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4}}P(1)^2`$
and $`k|\mathrm{\Delta }^2|k=+\lambda ^3\frac{\beta }{2}P(1)^2\left[_0^1𝑑u\frac{P(u)^2}{1u}\right]^1`$, which ends up the proof.

### A.2 Limit of $`g(k,w)`$ when $`k+\mathrm{}`$

We start from an integral representation of $`g(k,w)`$ defined in (43):

$`g(k,w)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{kw\mathrm{ln}k}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^pe^{pw\mathrm{ln}k}}{p!(p+2k1)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p+k}}`$ (96)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}e^{kw\mathrm{ln}k}{\displaystyle _C}𝑑z{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{S(k,z,x)},`$
where

$$S(k,z,x)=zk(x+2\mathrm{ln}(z))+\frac{k^w}{z}e^x,$$
(97)
because $`(p+k)^1=_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑xe^{(p+k)x}`$ and $`(p+2k1)!^1=i/(2\pi )_C𝑑ze^z(z)^{(p+2k)}`$. $`C`$ is a contour in the complex plane such as illustrated in fig. 3.

The stationarity equations read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`12{\displaystyle \frac{k}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^w}{z^2}}e^x=0,`$ (98)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`k{\displaystyle \frac{k^w}{z}}e^x=0`$
so that there is a movable saddle-point at

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}x_{sp}\hfill & =(w2)\mathrm{ln}k\hfill \\ z_{sp}\hfill & =k\hfill \end{array}.`$ (101)
#### A.2.1 The case $`w>2`$

In this case the saddle-point (101) is inside the range of integration. We compute the Hessian at this point:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2S}{t^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{k}{z^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{k^w}{z^3}}e^x=0,`$ (102)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2S}{x^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^w}{z}}e^x=k,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2S}{xz}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^w}{z^2}}e^x=1.`$
So, when $`k+\mathrm{}`$,

$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{S[k,z,x]}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x\mathrm{exp}\left[S_{sp}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}[x(w2)\mathrm{ln}k]^2+[x(w2)\mathrm{ln}k](z+k)\right]`$
$``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{k}}}e^{S_{sp}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}(z+k)^2\right].`$
Then we perform the integration with respect to $`z`$ with $`z+k=iϵ`$:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑ze^{\frac{1}{2k}(z+k)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵe^{\frac{ϵ^2}{2k}}`$
$`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2\pi k}.`$
Given that $`S_{sp}=kw\mathrm{ln}k`$, we eventually get

$$𝑑x𝑑ze^{S(k,z,x)}2\pi ie^{kw\mathrm{ln}k}.$$
(105)
It follows that

$$g(k,w)_{k+\mathrm{}}1.$$
(106)
#### A.2.2 The case $`w<2`$

In this case the saddle-point (101) is outside the range of integration. The integral is dominated by $`0x1`$, where

$$S(k,z,x)=z2k\mathrm{ln}(z)+\frac{k^w}{z}(k+\frac{k^w}{z})x+O(x^2),$$
(107)
so that

$$_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑xe^{S(k,z,x)}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[z2k\mathrm{ln}(z)+\frac{k^w}{z}\right]}{k+\frac{k^w}{z}}.$$
(108)
We just have to look for the saddle-point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,z)=z2k\mathrm{ln}(z)+k^w/z`$. The stationarity of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with respect to $`z`$ reads

$$1\frac{2k}{z}\frac{k^w}{z^2}=0.$$
(109)
There are two candidates as a saddle-point:

$$z_{sp}^\pm =k\pm \sqrt{k^2k^w}.$$
(110)
It is easy to see that, when $`k+\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(z_{sp}^+)<0`$ whereas $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(z_{sp}^{})>0`$. So on a contour of the shape of 3 the right saddle-point is $`z_{sp}^{}`$. We have $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,z_{sp}^{})=2k\mathrm{ln}k+O(k)`$, so that

$$_C𝑑z_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑xe^{S(k,z,x)}=O\left[e^{2k\mathrm{ln}k+O(k)}\right].$$
(111)
Remembering (96), it follows that

$$g(k,w)=O\left[e^{k(w2)\mathrm{ln}k+O(k)}\right].$$
(112)
So $`g(k,w)`$ goes to 0 when $`k+\mathrm{}`$.

## Appendix B Bipartite case

### B.1 Computation of the averaged replicated partition function

We have two sets of $`N`$ points each. We introduce the occupation numbers $`n_{ij}=0`$ or 1, which are constrained by

$$i1,\mathrm{}N,\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}n_{ij}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}n_{ji}=1.$$
(113)
The length of the matching associated to a choice of the $`n_{ij}`$ is $`L(\{n_{ij}\})=_{i,j}n_{ij}l_{ij}`$. The partition function (54) reads

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_{ij}=0,1}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _N}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu _1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu _N}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\lambda _i\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}n_{ij}\right)\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mu _i(1{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}n_{ji})\right)\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}\beta {\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}n_{ij}l_{ij}),`$
where we enforced (113) using an integral representation of the Kronecker symbol $`\delta (p)=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\lambda /(2\pi )e^{ip\lambda }`$. It follows that

$`Z^n={\displaystyle d[\lambda ]d[\mu ]\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{a}{}\underset{i}{}\lambda _i^a+\mu _i^a\right)\underset{i,j}{}\left(1+\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{N}{2}p(\alpha )\beta l_{ij}i\underset{a\alpha }{}(\lambda _i^a+\mu _j^a)\right)\right)}`$ (115)
where $`d[\lambda ]`$ is a shorthand notation for $`_{a=1}^n_{i=1}^Nd\lambda _i^a/(2\pi )`$ (see the beginning of section 2 for any precision on the other notations).

As we are interested in the subleading contribution to the free energy, it is important, when averaging over the disorder, to specify the distribution of the lengths we are considering:

$$\overline{e^{Np\beta l_{ij}/2}}=\frac{2}{N}g_p4\frac{\mu }{N^2}g_p^2+o(\frac{1}{N^2})$$
(116)
where $`\mu =1`$ in the case of the exponential distribution, 0 in the case of the flat distribution. Thus

$$\overline{Z^n}=d[\lambda ]d[\mu ]\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{a}{}\underset{i}{}\lambda _i^a+\mu _i^a\right)\underset{i,j}{}\left(1+2\frac{T_{ij}}{N}4\mu \frac{R_{ij}}{N^2}+o(\frac{1}{N^2})\right),$$
(117)
where

$`T_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}g_\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \underset{a\alpha }{}}\lambda _i^a+\mu _j^a\right),`$ (118)
$`R_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}g_\alpha ^2\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \underset{a\alpha }{}}\lambda _i^a+\mu _j^a\right).`$
Now we write

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}T_{ij}4{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{N^2}}R_{ij})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}T_{ij}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}T_{ij}^2\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(4{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}R_{ij}\right)\mathrm{}`$
Plugged into (117), this gives

$`\overline{Z^n}={\displaystyle d[\lambda ]d[\mu ]\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{a}{}\underset{i}{}\lambda _i^a+\mu _i^a\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{N}\underset{\alpha }{}g_\alpha (x_\alpha ^2+y_\alpha ^2)\right)}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\gamma }{\overset{}{}}}g_\alpha g_\gamma (x_{\alpha \gamma }^2+y_{\alpha \gamma }^2)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}g_\alpha ^2(x_\alpha ^2+y_\alpha ^2)\right),`$
where we set

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \underset{a\alpha }{}}\lambda _i^a\right)=(x_\alpha +iy_\alpha )/2,`$ (121)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \underset{a\alpha }{}}\mu _i^a\right)=(x_\alpha iy_\alpha )/2.`$
In (B.1), $`_{i,j}T_{ij}^2`$ gives the only contribution $`_{\alpha ,\gamma }^{}`$ because the other terms vanish when integrated (remember that for $`p`$ integer, $`𝑑\lambda e^{ip\lambda }=0`$ unless $`p=0`$).

Using well known properties of Gaussian integrals, we finally get

$`\overline{Z^n}={\displaystyle d[\lambda ]d[\mu ]\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{a}{}\underset{i}{}\lambda _i^a+\mu _i^a\right)\underset{\alpha }{}dX_\alpha dY_\alpha \frac{N}{2\pi g_\alpha }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{N}{2}\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{X_\alpha ^2+Y_\alpha ^2}{g_\alpha }\right)}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}X_\alpha x_\alpha +Y_\alpha y_\alpha \right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\gamma }{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\alpha g_\gamma }{g_{\alpha \gamma }^2}}(X_{\alpha \gamma }^2+Y_{\alpha \gamma }^2)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}X_\alpha ^2+Y_\alpha ^2\right).`$
Eventually, expressing $`x_\alpha `$ and $`y_\alpha `$ as functions of the $`\lambda _i^a`$ and $`\mu _i^a`$ one gets

$`\overline{Z^n}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}dX_\alpha dY_\alpha \frac{N}{2\pi g_\alpha }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{N}{2}\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{X_\alpha ^2+Y_\alpha ^2}{g_\alpha }\right)z[X_\alpha iY_\alpha ]^Nz[X_\alpha +iY_\alpha ]^N}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\gamma }{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\alpha g_\gamma }{g_{\alpha \gamma }^2}}(X_{\alpha \gamma }^2+Y_{\alpha \gamma }^2)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}X_\alpha ^2+Y_\alpha ^2\right).`$
### B.2 Computation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_2^1`$ (61)

Let us recall a result of

$$Q_p^{sp}=\frac{2}{\beta p}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑l\frac{e^{lp}}{(p1)!}e^{G(l)}.$$
(124)
Using (59) we see that, when $`n0`$ and $`\beta +\mathrm{}`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{nN\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}(Q_\alpha ^{sp})^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{p1}}{p}}(Q_p^{sp})^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑l{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}Q_p^{sp}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{p1}}{pp!}}e^{pl}e^{G(l)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑lG(l){\displaystyle _l^+\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{G(t)}\text{by (}\text{11}\text{)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u\mathrm{ln}(1+u)\mathrm{ln}(1+1/u)\text{by (}\text{39}\text{)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\zeta (3).`$
### B.3 Computation of the volume of the hypersurface of saddle-points (71)

The volume is $`_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta _1\mathrm{}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta _n\sqrt{detg}`$ where

$$g_{ab}=\underset{\alpha }{}\left[\frac{U_\alpha ^{sp}}{\theta _a}\frac{U_\alpha ^{sp}}{\theta _b}+\frac{V_\alpha ^{sp}}{\theta _a}\frac{V_\alpha ^{sp}}{\theta _b}\right].$$
(126)
$`g`$ has a very simple structure: all diagonal elements are equal to $`g_0`$, all non diagonal elements to $`g_1`$, with

$`g_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(U_p^{sp})^2C_{n1}^{p1}_{n0}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^{p1}{\displaystyle \frac{(Q_p^{sp})^2}{g_p}},`$ (127)
$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p=2}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(U_p^{sp})^2C_{n2}^{p2}_{n0}\beta {\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^pp^2(Q_p^{sp})^2+g_0.`$ (128)
Using (59) and (124), one gets

$`g_0`$ $`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^{p1}pQ_p^{sp}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta p}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑l{\displaystyle \frac{e^{lp}}{(p1)!}}e^{G(l)}`$
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑lG^{}(l)e^{G(l)}=2`$
and

$`g_1g_0`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^ppQ_p^{sp}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑l{\displaystyle \frac{e^{lp}}{(p1)!}}e^{G(l)}`$
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑lG^{\prime \prime }(l)e^{G(l)}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}.`$
The computation of $`detg`$ gives

$$det=[g_0(n)g_1(n)]^{n1}[g_0(n)+(n1)g_1(n)],$$
(131)
so that

$$\sqrt{detg}=1+\frac{n}{2}\left[\frac{g_1}{g_0g_1}+\mathrm{ln}(g_0g_1)\right]+o(n)$$
(132)
(here again one must be careful when deriving this result that there might a priori be some contribution of $`dg_0/dn`$ or $`dg_1/dn`$).

Thus the contribution to the free energy is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }F^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N\beta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{g_1}{g_0g_1}}+\mathrm{ln}(g_0g_1)\right]`$
$`=_{\beta +\mathrm{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}.`$
Mézard and Parisi  had expressions (127) and (128) with $`(X_p^{sp},Y_p^{sp})`$ instead of $`(U_p^{sp},V_p^{sp})`$, which made them find a wrong $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^3=\pi ^2/(24N)`$.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In 1976 a conformally-invariant quantum mechanical model was proposed and solved in ref. . New interest in the model has been recently generated by the discovery  that the dynamics of a particle near the horizon of an extreme Reissner-Nordstrøm black-hole is governed in its radial motion by the Lagrangian of ref. . A supersymmetric extension of conformal mechanics was proposed later by two independent groups  and also the supersymmetric version seems to hold some interest for black-hole physics.

In this paper we shall put forward a new supersymmetric extension of conformal mechanics. It is based on a path-integral approach to classical mechanics developed in ref. . The difference between our extension and the one of ref. , which was tailored on the supersymmetric quantum mechanics of Witten , is that the authors of ref.  took the original conformal Hamiltonian and added a Grassmannian part in order to make the whole Hamiltonian supersymmetric. Our procedure and extension is different and more geometrical as will be explained later on in the paper.

The paper is organized in the following manner: In section 2 we give a very brief outline of conformal mechanics  and of the supersymmetric extension present in the literature ; in section 3 we put forward our supersymmetric extension and explain its geometrical structure. In the same section we build a whole set of charges connected with our extension and study their algebra in detail. In section 4 we show that, differently from the superconformal algebra of  where the even part had a spinorial representation on the odd part, ours is a non-simple superalgebra whose even part has a reducible and integer representation on the odd part. In section 5 we give a superspace version for our model and, like for the old conformal mechanics, we provide an exact solution of the model. This is given by solving a constraint in superfield space. Details of the calculations can be found in a longer version of this paper .

## 2 The Old Conformal and Supersymmetric Extended Mechanics.

The Lagrangian for conformal mechanics proposed in  is

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\left[\dot{q}^2\frac{g}{q^2}\right].$$
(1)
This Lagrangian is invariant under the following transformations:

$$t^{}=\frac{\alpha t+\beta }{\gamma t+\delta };q^{}(t^{})=\frac{q(t)}{(\gamma t+\delta )};\text{with}\alpha \delta \beta \gamma =1,$$
(2)
which are nothing else than the conformal transformations in 0+1 dimensions. They are made of the combinations of the following three transformations:

$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^2t\text{dilations},`$ (3)
$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`t+\beta \text{time-translations},`$ (4)
$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{\gamma t+1}}\text{special-conformal transformations.}`$ (5)
The associated Noether charges  are:

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\left(p^2+\frac{g}{q^2}\right);D=tH\frac{1}{4}(qp+pq);K=t^2H\frac{1}{2}t(qp+pq)+\frac{1}{2}q^2.$$
(6)
The quantum algebra of the three Noether charges above is:

$$[H,D]=iH;[K,D]=iK;[H,K]=2iD.$$
(7)
The $`H,D,K`$ above are explicitly dependent on $`t`$, but they are conserved, i.e.:

$$\frac{D}{t}0;\frac{K}{t}0;\frac{dD}{dt}=\frac{dK}{dt}=0.$$
(8)
As the $`H,D,K`$ are conserved, their expressions at $`t=0`$ which are

$$H_0=\frac{1}{2}\left[p^2+\frac{g}{q^2}\right];D_0=\frac{1}{4}\left[qp+pq\right];K_0=\frac{1}{2}q^2$$
(9)
satisfy the same algebra as those at time $`t`$.

The supersymmetric extension of this model, proposed in ref. , has the following Hamiltonian:

$$H_{SUSY}=\frac{1}{2}\left(p^2+\frac{g}{q^2}+\frac{\sqrt{g}}{q^2}[\psi ^{},\psi ]_{}\right),$$
(10)
where $`\psi ,\psi ^{}`$ are Grassmannian variables whose anticommutator is $`[\psi ,\psi ^{}]_+=1`$. In $`H_{SUSY}`$ there is a first bosonic piece which is the conformal Hamiltonian of eq.(1), plus a Grassmannian part. Note that the equations of motion for “$`q`$” have an extra piece with respect to the equations of motion of the old conformal mechanics .

$`H_{SUSY}`$ can be written as a particular form of supersymmetric quantum mechanics :

$$H_{SUSY}=\frac{1}{2}[Q,Q^{}]_+=\frac{1}{2}\left(p^2+\left(\frac{dW}{dq}\right)^2[\psi ^{},\psi ]_{}\frac{d^2W}{dq^2}\right)$$
(11)
where the supersymmetry charges are given by:

$$Q=\psi ^{}\left(ip+\frac{dW}{dq}\right);Q^{}=\psi \left(ip+\frac{dW}{dq}\right);$$
(12)
and where $`W`$ is the superpotential which, in this case of conformal mechanics, turns out to be:

$$W(q)=\sqrt{g}\mathrm{log}q.$$
(13)
If we perform a supersymmetric transformation combined with a conformal one generated by the $`(H,K,D)`$, we get what is called a superconformal transformation. In order to understand this better let us list the following eight operators:

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[p^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g+2\sqrt{g}B}{q^2}}\right];D={\displaystyle \frac{[q,p]_+}{4}};K={\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}};`$ (14)
$`B={\displaystyle \frac{[\psi ^{},\psi ]_{}}{2}};Q=\psi ^{}\left[ip+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{q}}\right];Q^{}=\psi \left[ip+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{q}}\right];`$ (15)
$`S=\psi ^{}q;S^{}=\psi q.`$ (16)
The algebra of these operators is closed and given in the table below:

TABLE 1

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & & \\ [H,D]=iH;\hfill & [K,D]=iK;\hfill & [H,K]=2iD;\hfill \\ [Q,H]=0;\hfill & [Q^{},H]=0;\hfill & [Q,D]=\frac{i}{2}Q;\hfill \\ [Q^{},K]=S^{};\hfill & [Q,K]=S;\hfill & [Q^{},D]=\frac{i}{2}Q^{};\hfill \\ [S,K]=0;\hfill & [S^{},K]=0;\hfill & [S,D]=\frac{i}{2}S;\hfill \\ [S^{},D]=\frac{i}{2}S^{};\hfill & [S,H]=Q;\hfill & [S^{},H]=Q^{};\hfill \\ [Q,Q^{}]=2H;\hfill & [S,S^{}]=2K;\hfill & \\ [B,S]=S;\hfill & [B,S^{}]=S^{};\hfill & \\ [Q,S^{}]=\sqrt{g}B+2iD;\hfill & [B,Q]=Q;\hfill & [B,Q^{}]=Q^{}.\hfill \\ & & \end{array}$$

The square-brackets $`[(.),(.)]`$ in the algebra above are graded-commutators. We notice that the commutators of the supersymmetry generators $`(Q,Q^{})`$ with the three conformal generators $`(H,K,D)`$ generate a new operator which is $`S`$. Including this new one we generate an algebra which is closed provided that we introduce the operator $`B`$ of eq.(15) which is the last operator we need.

## 3 A New Supersymmetric Extension.

In this section we are going to present a new supersymmetric extension of conformal mechanics. This extension is based on a path-integral approach to classical mechanics (CM) developed in ref. . Let us start with a system living on a $`2n`$-dimensional phase space $``$ —whose coordinates we indicate as $`\varphi ^a`$ with $`a=1,\mathrm{},2n`$, i.e.: $`\varphi ^a=(q^1,\mathrm{},q^n;p^1,\mathrm{},p^n)`$—and having an Hamiltonian $`H(\varphi )`$. The equations of motion are then: $`\dot{\varphi }^a=\omega ^{ab}\frac{H}{\varphi ^b}`$ where $`\omega ^{ab}`$ is the usual symplectic matrix. By path integral for CM we mean a functional integral that forces all paths in $``$ to sit on the classical ones. The classical analog of the quantum generating functional is then:

$$Z_{CM}[J]=N𝒟\varphi \stackrel{~}{\delta }[\varphi (t)\varphi _{cl}(t)]\mathrm{exp}\left[J\varphi 𝑑t\right],$$

where $`\varphi `$ are the $`\varphi ^a`$, $`\varphi _{cl}`$ are the solutions of the equations of motion. $`J`$ is an external current and $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }[.]`$ is a functional Dirac delta which forces every path $`\varphi (t)`$ to sit on a classical ones $`\varphi _{cl}(t)`$. Let us first rewrite the functional Dirac delta in the $`Z_{CM}`$ above as:

$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }[\varphi \varphi _{cl}]=\stackrel{~}{\delta }[\dot{\varphi }^a\omega ^{ab}_bH]det[\delta _b^a_t\omega ^{ac}_c_bH].$$

The next step is to write the $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }[.]`$ as a Fourier transform over some new variables $`\lambda _a`$ and to exponentiate the determinant via Grassmannian variables $`\overline{c}_a,c^a`$. The final result is

$$Z_{CM}[0]=𝒟\varphi ^a𝒟\lambda _a𝒟c^a𝒟\overline{c}_a\mathrm{exp}\left[i𝑑t\stackrel{~}{}\right]\text{with }\stackrel{~}{}=\lambda _a[\dot{\varphi }^a\omega ^{ab}_bH]+i\overline{c}_a[\delta _b^a_t\omega ^{ac}_c_bH]c^b.$$

One can derive the equations of motion from this Lagrangian which, for $`\varphi ^a`$, are the standard Newton equations while for $`c^a`$ are the equations of the first variations. This last thing allow us to identify the $`c^a`$ with the basis of the forms $`d\varphi ^a`$ .

The equations of motions can be derived  also from the Hamiltonian associated to the Lagrangian above which is

$$\stackrel{~}{}=\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH+i\overline{c}_a\omega ^{ac}(_c_bH)c^b.$$
(17)
As the $`Z_{CM}`$ is a path integral we can also define the concept of commutator as Feynman did in the quantum case. The result  is: $`[\varphi ^a,\lambda _b]=i\delta _b^a;[\overline{c}_b,c^a]=\delta _b^a`$.

Using this operatorial formulation and the fact that the $`c^a`$ can be identified with forms, it is easy to prove that $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is nothing else than the Lie-derivative of the Hamiltonian flow  generated by $`H`$. The reader may remember that the concept of Lie-derivative was mentioned also in the second of refs. . There anyhow the connection between Lie-derivative and Hamiltonian was not as direct as here. Moreover the Lie-derivative was not linked to the flow generated by the conformal potential (1) but with the flow generated by the superpotential (13).

The Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ has various universal symmetries  all of which have been studied geometrically  . The associated charges are:

$`Q_{BRS}=ic^a\lambda _a;\overline{Q}_{BRS}=i\overline{c}_a\omega ^{ab}\lambda _b;`$ (18)
$`Q_g=c^a\overline{c}_a;C={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{ab}c^ac^b}{2}};\overline{C}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{ab}\overline{c}_a\overline{c}_b}{2}}`$
$`N_H=c^a_aH;\overline{N}_H=\overline{c}_a\omega ^{ab}_bH.`$
Using the correspondence between Grassmannian variables and forms, the $`Q_{BRS}`$ turns out to be nothing else  than the exterior derivative on phase-space. . The $`Q_g`$, or ghost charge, is the form-number which is always conserved by the Lie-derivative. Similar geometrical meanings can be found  for the other charges that are listed above. Of course linear combinations of them are also conserved and there are two combinations which deserve our attention. They are the following charges:

$$Q_HQ_{BRS}\beta N_H;\overline{Q}_H\overline{Q}_{BRS}+\beta \overline{N}_H;$$
(19)
(where $`\beta `$ is an arbitrary dimensionful parameter) which are true supersymmetry charges because, besides commuting with $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, they give: $`[Q_H,\overline{Q}_H]=2i\beta \stackrel{~}{}`$. This proves that our $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is supersymmetric. To be precise it is an $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. One realizes immediately that $`H`$ acts as a sort of superpotential for the supersymmetric Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. All this basically means that we can obtain a supersymmetric Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ out of any system with Hamiltonian $`H`$ and, moreover , our $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ has a nice geometrical meaning being the Lie-derivative of the Hamiltonian flow generated by $`H`$.

We will now build the $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ of the conformal invariant system given by the Hamiltonian of eq.(6), that means we insert the $`H`$ of eq.(6) into the $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ of eq.(17). The result is:

$$\stackrel{~}{}=\lambda _qp+\lambda _p\frac{g}{q^3}+i\overline{c}_qc^p3i\overline{c}_pc^q\frac{g}{q^4},$$
(20)
where the indices $`(.)^q`$ and $`(.)^p`$ on the variables $`(\lambda ,c,\overline{c})`$ replace the indices $`(.)^a`$ which appeared in the general formalism because here we have only one degree of freedom. The two supersymmetric charges of eq.(19) are in this case

$$Q_H=Q_{BRS}+\beta \left(\frac{g}{q^3}c^qpc^p\right);\overline{Q}_H=\overline{Q}_{BRS}+\beta \left(\frac{g}{q^3}\overline{c}_p+p\overline{c}_q\right).$$
(21)
It was one of the central points of the original paper  on conformal mechanics that the Hamiltonians of the system could be, beside $`H_0`$ of eq.(9), also $`D_0`$ or $`K_0`$ or any linear combination of them. In the same manner as we built the Lie-derivative $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ associated to $`H_0`$, we can also build the Lie-derivatives associated to the flow generated by $`D_0`$ and $`K_0`$. We just have to insert $`D_0`$ or $`K_0`$ in place of $`H`$ as superpotential in the $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ of eq.(17). Calling the associated Lie-derivatives as $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0`$, what we get is:

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0=\frac{1}{2}[\lambda _pp\lambda _qq+i(\overline{c}_pc^p\overline{c}_qc^q)];\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0=\lambda _pqi\overline{c}_pc^q.$$
(22)
Both $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0`$ are “supersymmetric” in the sense that there are the “square” of some charges: $`[Q_D,\overline{Q}_D]=4i\gamma \stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0;[Q_K,\overline{Q}_K]=2i\alpha \stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0`$, given by

$`Q_D=Q_{BRS}+\gamma (qc^p+pc^q);\overline{Q}_D=\overline{Q}_{BRS}+\gamma (p\overline{c}_pq\overline{c}_q);`$ (23)
$`Q_K=Q_{BRS}\alpha qc^q;\overline{Q}_K=\overline{Q}_{BRS}\alpha q\overline{c}_p.`$ (24)
The $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ are arbitrary constant variables like $`\beta `$ was. Let us list all the operators we have found so far:

TABLE 2

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & & \\ \stackrel{~}{}=\lambda _qp+\lambda _p\frac{g}{q^3}+i\overline{c}_qc^p3i\overline{c}_pc^q\frac{g}{q^4};\hfill & & H=\frac{1}{2}\left(p^2+\frac{g}{q^2}\right);\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0=\lambda _pqi\overline{c}_pc^q;\hfill & & K_0=\frac{1}{2}q^2;\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0=\frac{1}{2}[\lambda _pp\lambda _qq+i(\overline{c}_pc^p\overline{c}_qc^q)];\hfill & & D_0=\frac{1}{2}qp;\hfill \\ Q_{BRS}=i(\lambda _qc^q+\lambda _pc^p);\hfill & & \overline{Q}_{BRS}=i(\lambda _p\overline{c}_q\lambda _q\overline{c}_p);\hfill \\ Q_H=Q_{BRS}+\beta \left(\frac{g}{q^3}c^qpc^p\right);\hfill & & \overline{Q}_H=\overline{Q}_{BRS}+\beta \left(\frac{g}{q^3}\overline{c}_p+p\overline{c}_q\right);\hfill \\ Q_K=Q_{BRS}\alpha qc^q;\hfill & & \overline{Q}_K=\overline{Q}_{BRS}\alpha q\overline{c}_p;\hfill \\ Q_D=Q_{BRS}+\gamma (qc^p+pc^q);\hfill & & \overline{Q}_D=\overline{Q}_{BRS}+\gamma (p\overline{c}_pq\overline{c}_q).\hfill \\ & & \end{array}$$

We find that they are the minimum number in order to make a closed algebra which is written in the TABLE below:

TABLE 3

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & & \\ [\stackrel{~}{},\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0]=i\stackrel{~}{};\hfill & [\stackrel{~}{𝒦},\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0]=i\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0;\hfill & [\stackrel{~}{},\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0]=2i\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0;\hfill \\ [Q_H,\stackrel{~}{}]=0;\hfill & [\overline{Q}_H,\stackrel{~}{}]=0;\hfill & [Q_H,\overline{Q}_H]=2i\beta \stackrel{~}{};\hfill \\ [Q_H,\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0]=i(Q_HQ_{BRS});\hfill & [\overline{Q}_H,\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0]=i(\overline{Q}_H\overline{Q}_{BRS});\hfill & \\ [Q_H,\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0]=i\beta \gamma ^1(Q_DQ_{BRS});\hfill & [\overline{Q}_H,\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0]=i\beta \gamma ^1(\overline{Q}_D\overline{Q}_{BRS});\hfill & \\ [Q_{BRS},\stackrel{~}{}]=[\overline{Q}_{BRS},\stackrel{~}{}]=0;\hfill & [Q_{BRS},\stackrel{~}{𝒦}]=[\overline{Q}_{BRS},\stackrel{~}{𝒦}]=0;\hfill & [Q_{BRS},\stackrel{~}{𝒟}]=[\overline{Q}_{BRS},\stackrel{~}{𝒟}]=0;\hfill \\ [Q_D,\stackrel{~}{}]=2i\gamma \beta ^1(Q_HQ_{BRS});\hfill & [\overline{Q}_D,\stackrel{~}{}]=2i\gamma \beta ^1(\overline{Q}_H\overline{Q}_{BRS});\hfill & \\ [Q_D,\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0]=2i\gamma \alpha ^1(Q_KQ_{BRS});\hfill & [\overline{Q}_D,\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0]=2i\gamma \alpha ^1(\overline{Q}_K\overline{Q}_{BRS});\hfill & \\ [Q_D,\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0]=0;\hfill & [\overline{Q}_D,\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0]=0;\hfill & [Q_D,\overline{Q}_D]=4i\gamma \stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0;\hfill \\ [Q_K,\stackrel{~}{}]=i\alpha \gamma ^1(Q_DQ_{BRS});\hfill & [\overline{Q}_K,\stackrel{~}{}]=i\alpha \gamma ^1(\overline{Q}_D\overline{Q}_{BRS});\hfill & \\ [Q_K,\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0]=i(Q_KQ_{BRS});\hfill & [\overline{Q}_K,\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0]=i(\overline{Q}_K\overline{Q}_{BRS});\hfill & \\ [Q_K,\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0]=0;\hfill & [\overline{Q}_K,\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0]=0;\hfill & [Q_K,\overline{Q}_K]=2i\alpha \stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0;\hfill \\ [Q_H,\overline{Q}_D]=i\beta \stackrel{~}{}+2i\gamma \stackrel{~}{𝒟}_02\beta \gamma H;\hfill & [\overline{Q}_H,Q_D]=i\beta \stackrel{~}{}+2i\gamma \stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0+2\beta \gamma H;\hfill & \\ [Q_K,\overline{Q}_D]=i\alpha \stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0+2i\gamma \stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0+2\alpha \gamma K;\hfill & [\overline{Q}_K,Q_D]=i\alpha \stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0+2i\gamma \stackrel{~}{𝒟}_02\alpha \gamma K;\hfill & \\ [Q_H,\overline{Q}_K]=i\beta \stackrel{~}{}+i\alpha \stackrel{~}{𝒦}_02\alpha \beta D;\hfill & [\overline{Q}_H,Q_K]=i\beta \stackrel{~}{}+i\alpha \stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0+2\alpha \beta D;\hfill & \\ [Q_H,\overline{Q}_{BRS}]=[\overline{Q}_H,Q_{BRS}]=i\beta \stackrel{~}{};\hfill & [Q_K,\overline{Q}_{BRS}]=[\overline{Q}_K,Q_{BRS}]=i\alpha \stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0;\hfill & \\ [Q_D,\overline{Q}_{BRS}]=[\overline{Q}_D,Q_{BRS}]=2i\gamma \stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0;\hfill & & \\ [Q_{\left(\mathrm{}\right)},H]=\beta ^1(Q_{BRS}Q_H);\hfill & [\overline{Q}_{\left(\mathrm{}\right)},H]=\beta ^1(\overline{Q}_{BRS}\overline{Q}_H);\hfill & \\ [Q_{\left(\mathrm{}\right)},D_0]=(2\gamma )^1(Q_{BRS}Q_D);\hfill & [\overline{Q}_{\left(\mathrm{}\right)},D_0]=(2\gamma )^1(\overline{Q}_{BRS}\overline{Q}_D);\hfill & \\ [Q_{\left(\mathrm{}\right)},K_0]=\alpha ^1(Q_{BRS}Q_K);\hfill & [\overline{Q}_{\left(\mathrm{}\right)},K_0]=\alpha ^1(\overline{Q}_{BRS}\overline{Q}_K);\hfill & \\ [\stackrel{~}{},H]=0;\hfill & [\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0,K_0]=0;\hfill & [\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0,D_0]=0;\hfill \\ [\stackrel{~}{},K_0]=[H,\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0]=2iD;\hfill & [\stackrel{~}{},D_0]=[H,\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0]=iH;\hfill & [\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0,K_0]=[D_0,\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0]=iK.\hfill \\ & & \end{array}$$

All other commutators111The $`Q_{(\mathrm{})}`$ appearing in the table can be any of the following operators: $`Q_{BRS}`$,$`Q_H`$,$`Q_D`$,$`Q_K`$ and the same holds for $`\overline{Q}_{(\mathrm{})}`$. Obviously all commutators are between quantities calculated at the same time. are zero.

We notice that for our supersymmetric extension we need 14 charges (see TABLE 2) in order for the algebra to close, while in the extension of ref.  one needs only 8 charges (see TABLE 1).

## 4 Superconformal Algebras Associated to the Two Extensions.

A Lie superalgebra  is an algebra made of even $`E_n`$ and odd $`O_\alpha `$ generators whose graded commutators look like:

$$[E_m,E_n]=F_{mn}^pE_p;[E_m,O_\alpha ]=G_{m\alpha }^\beta O_\beta ;[O_\alpha ,O_\beta ]=C_{\alpha \beta }^mE_m;$$
(25)
and where the structure constants $`F_{mn}^p,G_{m,\alpha }^\beta ,C_{\alpha ,\beta }^m`$ satisfy generalized Jacobi identities.

The second relation of eq.(25) is usually interpreted by saying that the even part of the algebra has a representation on the odd part. This is clear if we consider the odd part as a vector space and that the even part acts on this vector space via the graded commutators.

For superconformal algebras the usual folklore says that the even part of the algebra has his conformal subalgebra represented spinorially on the odd part. This is true only in a relativistic setting and it is not always the case in a non-relativistic one. We will now analyze both the case of ref.  and ours.

Let us start from the superalgebra of ref.  which is given in eqs.(14)–(16). The even part of this superalgebra $`𝒢_0`$ can be organized in an $`SO(2,1)`$ form as follows:

$$𝒢_0:\{\begin{array}{c}B_1=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{K}{a}aH\right]\hfill \\ B_2=D\hfill \\ J_3=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{K}{a}+aH\right]\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`a`$ is the same parameter introduced in  with dimension of time.

On the other side the odd part $`𝒢_1`$ is:

$$𝒢_1:\{\begin{array}{c}Q\hfill \\ Q^{}\hfill \\ S\hfill \\ S^{}\hfill \end{array}$$

It is easy to work out, using the results of TABLE 1, the action of the $`𝒢_0`$ on $`𝒢_1`$. The result is summarized in table 6 of ref. .

Considering the odd part as a vector space, let us build the following 4 “vectors”:

$`|qQ+Q^{};|pSS^{};`$ (26)
$`|rQQ^{};|sS+S^{}.`$ (27)
Next let us take the Casimir operator of the algebra $`𝒢_0`$ which is $`𝒞=B_1^2+B_2^2J_3^2`$ and apply it to the state $`|q`$:

$$𝒞|q=[B_1,[B_1,Q+Q^{}]]+[B_2,[B_2,Q+Q^{}]][J_3,[J_3,Q+Q^{}]]=\frac{3}{4}|q.$$
(28)
The same happens for the state $`|p`$. The factor $`\frac{3}{4}=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{2}+1)`$ above indicates that the $`(|q,|p)`$ space carries a spinorial representation. It is possible to prove the same for the other two vectors.

Let us now turn the same crank for our supersymmetric extension of conformal mechanics. Looking at the TABLE 2 of our operators, we can organize the even part $`𝒢_0`$, as follows:

TABLE 4 ($`𝒢_0`$)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & & \\ B_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒦}}{a}a\stackrel{~}{}\right);\hfill & & P_1=2D;\hfill \\ B_2=\stackrel{~}{𝒟};\hfill & & P_2=aH\frac{K}{a};\hfill \\ J_3=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒦}}{a}+a\stackrel{~}{}\right);\hfill & & P_0=aH+\frac{K}{a}.\hfill \\ & & \end{array}$$

The LHS is the usual $`SO(2,1)`$ while the RHS is formed by three translations because they commute among themselves. So the overall algebra is the Euclidean group $`E(2,1)`$.

The odd part of our superalgebra is made of 8 operators (see TABLE 2). As we did before for the model of , we will now evaluate for our model the action of $`𝒢_0`$ on the odd part. The result is summarized in table 9 of ref. . It is easy  to realize from that table that the following three vectors (where for simplicity we have made the choice $`a=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha }}}`$ and $`\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\sqrt{\alpha \beta }}}`$):

$$\{\begin{array}{c}|q_H=(Q_HQ_{BRS})(\overline{Q}_H\overline{Q}_{BRS})\hfill \\ |q_K=(Q_KQ_{BRS})(\overline{Q}_K\overline{Q}_{BRS})\hfill \\ |q_D=\eta ^1[(Q_DQ_{BRS})(\overline{Q}_D\overline{Q}_{BRS})]\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
make an irreducible representation of the conformal subalgebra. In fact one easily  obtains:

$`B_1|q_H={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}|q_D;B_2|q_H=i|q_H;J_3|q_H={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}|q_D`$
$`B_1|q_K={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}|q_D;B_2|q_K=i|q_K;J_3|q_K={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}|q_D`$ (30)
$`B_1|q_D=i(|q_H+|q_K);B_2|q_D=0;J_3|q_D=i(|q_H|q_K).`$
The Casimir operator is given, as before, by: $`𝒞=B_1^2+B_2^2J_3^2`$ but we must remember to use, for $`B_1`$, $`B_2`$ and $`J_3`$, the operators contained in TABLE 4. It is then easy to check that: $`𝒞|q_H=2|q_H`$. The same we get for the other two vectors $`|q_K,|q_D`$, so the eigenvalue in the equation above is$`𝒞=2=1(1+1)`$ and this indicates that those vectors make a spin-1 representation. It is also easy to prove that there is another spin-1 representation and two spin-0. The details can be found in ref. .

We wanted to present this analysis in order to underline a further difference between our supersymmetric extension and the one of  whose odd part $`𝒢_1`$, as we showed before, carries two spin one-half representations.

## 5 Exact Solution of the Model and Its Superspace Formulation.

We will now present a superspace formulation of our model like the authors of ref. did for theirs. We have to enlarge the “base space” $`(t)`$ to a superspace $`(t,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ where $`(\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ are Grassmannian partners of $`(t)`$. It is then easy to put all the variables ($`\varphi ^a,c^a,\lambda _a,\overline{c}_a`$) in a single superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ defined as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^a(t,\theta ,\overline{\theta })=\varphi ^a(t)+\theta c^a(t)+\overline{\theta }\omega ^{ab}\overline{c}_b(t)+i\overline{\theta }\theta \omega ^{ab}\lambda _b(t).$$
(31)
This superfield had already been introduced in ref.. It is a scalar field under the supersymmetry transformations of the system. It is a simple exercise to find the expansion of any function $`F(\mathrm{\Phi }^a)`$ of the superfields in terms of $`\theta ,\overline{\theta }`$. For example, choosing as function the Hamiltonian $`H`$ of a system, we get:

$$H(\mathrm{\Phi }^a)=H(\varphi )+\theta N_H\overline{\theta }\overline{N}_H+i\theta \overline{\theta }\stackrel{~}{}.$$
(32)
From eq.(32) it is easy to prove that:

$$iH(\mathrm{\Phi })𝑑\theta 𝑑\overline{\theta }=\stackrel{~}{}.$$
(33)
Here we immediately notice a crucial difference with the supersymmetric QM model of ref.. In the language of superfields (see the second of ref. ) those authors obtained the supersymmetric potential of their Hamiltonian by inserting the superfield into the superpotential (which is given by eq.(13)) and integrating in something like $`\theta ,\overline{\theta }`$, while we get the potential part of our supersymmetric Hamiltonian by inserting the superfield into the normal potential of the conformal mechanical model given in (9).

The space ($`\varphi ^a,c^a,\lambda _a,\overline{c}_a`$) somehow can be considered as a target space whose base space is the superspace $`(t,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$. The action of the various charges listed in our TABLE 2 is on the target-space variables but we can consider it as induced by some transformations on the base-space. If we collectively indicate the charges acting on ($`\varphi ^a,c^a,\lambda _a,\overline{c}_a`$) as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we shall indicate the generators of the corresponding transformations on the base space as $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. The relation between the two is the following:

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^a=\epsilon \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Phi }^a\text{where}\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^a=[\epsilon \mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Phi }^a],$$
(34)
with $`\epsilon `$ the commuting or anticommuting infinitesimal parameter of our transformations and $`[(.),(.)]`$ the graded commutators of our formalism.

Using the relations above it is easy to work out the superspace representation of the operators of eq.(18). They are:

$`\widehat{Q}_{BRS}=_\theta ;\widehat{\overline{Q}}_{BRS}=_{\overline{\theta }};\widehat{Q}_g=\overline{\theta }_{\overline{\theta }}\theta _\theta `$ (35)
$`\widehat{C}=\overline{\theta }_\theta ;\widehat{\overline{C}}=\theta _{\overline{\theta }};\widehat{N}_H=\overline{\theta }_t;\widehat{\overline{N}}_H=\theta _t`$
Via the charges above it is easy to write down also the supersymmetric charges of eq.(19):$`\widehat{Q}_H=_\theta \beta \overline{\theta }_t;\widehat{\overline{Q}}_H=_{\overline{\theta }}+\beta \theta _t`$.

Proceeding in the same way, via the relation (34), it is a long but easy procedure to give a superspace representation to the charges $`Q_D,\overline{Q}_D,Q_K,\overline{Q}_K`$ of eqs. (28)–(31).The result  is:

$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{}}=i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}};\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒟}}=it{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sigma _3;\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒦}}=it^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}it\sigma _3i\sigma _{};`$
$`\widehat{Q}_D^t={\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}2\gamma \overline{\theta }t{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+\gamma \overline{\theta }\sigma _3;\widehat{\overline{Q}}_D^t={\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }}}+2\gamma \theta t{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\gamma \theta \sigma _3;`$ (36)
$`\widehat{Q}_K^t={\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}\alpha \overline{\theta }t^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+\alpha t\overline{\theta }\sigma _3+\alpha \overline{\theta }\sigma _{};\widehat{\overline{Q}}_K^t={\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }}}+\alpha \theta t^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\alpha t\theta \sigma _3\alpha \theta \sigma _{};`$
$`\widehat{H}=\overline{\theta }\theta {\displaystyle \frac{}{t}};\widehat{D}=\overline{\theta }\theta (t{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _3);\widehat{K}=\overline{\theta }\theta (t^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}t\sigma _3\sigma _{}).`$
In the previous expressions the $`\sigma _3`$ and $`\sigma _{}`$ are the Pauli matrices while the index $`()^t`$ indicates an explicit dependence on $`t`$ which appears for the following reasons. Let us go back to relation (6):

$`H=H_0;`$
$`D=tH+D_0;`$
$`K=t^2H+2tD_0+K_0;`$
from which we get:

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}=t\stackrel{~}{}+\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0;`$
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}=t^2\stackrel{~}{}+2t\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0+\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0.`$ (37)
The “square roots” of these operators will depend explicitly on the time $`t`$ and they are those listed in eqs.(36). For more details about their derivation we invite the reader to consult reference .

Let us now turn to the solution of our model. The original conformal mechanical model was solved exactly in eq.(2.35) of reference . The solution was given by the relation:

$$q^2(t)=2t^2H4tD_0+2K_0.$$
(38)
As $`(H,D_0,K_0)`$ are constants of motion, once their values are assigned we stick them in eq. (38), and we get a relation between “$`q`$” (on the LHS of (38) ) and “$`t`$” on the RHS. This is the solution of the equation of motion with “initial conditions” given by the values we assign to the constants of motion $`(H,D_0,K_0)`$. The reader may object that we should give only two constant values (corresponding to the initial conditions $`(q(0),\dot{q}(0))`$) and not three. Actually the three values assigned to $`(H,D_0,K_0)`$ are not arbitrary because, as it was proven in eq.(2-36) of ref. , these three quantities are linked by a constraint: $`\left(HK_0D_0^2\right)=\frac{g}{4}`$ where “$`g`$” is the coupling which entered the original Hamiltonian (see eq.(1) of the present paper). Having one constraint among the three constants of motion brings them down to two.

What we want to do here is to see if a relation analogous to (38) exists also for our supersymmetric extension or in general if the supersymmetric system can be solved exactly. The answer is yes and it is based on a very simple trick. Let us first remember how $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`H`$ are related: $`iH(\mathrm{\Phi })𝑑\theta 𝑑\overline{\theta }=\stackrel{~}{}`$. The same relation holds for $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0`$ with respect to $`D_0`$ and $`K_0`$:

$$iD_0(\mathrm{\Phi })𝑑\theta 𝑑\overline{\theta }=\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_0;iK_0(\mathrm{\Phi })𝑑\theta 𝑑\overline{\theta }=\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_0.$$
(39)
Of course the same kind of relations holds also for the explicitly time-dependent quantities:$`iD(\mathrm{\Phi })𝑑\theta 𝑑\overline{\theta }=\stackrel{~}{𝒟};iK(\mathrm{\Phi })𝑑\theta 𝑑\overline{\theta }=\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$.

Let us now build the following quantity:

$$2t^2H(\mathrm{\Phi })4tD(\mathrm{\Phi })+2K(\mathrm{\Phi });$$
(40)
this is functionally the RHS of eq.(38) with the superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ replacing the normal phase-space variable $`\varphi ^a`$. It is then clear that the following relation holds:

$$\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^q\right)^2=2t^2H(\mathrm{\Phi })4tD(\mathrm{\Phi })+2K(\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(41)
The reason it holds is because, in the proof  of the analogous one in $`q`$-space, the only thing the authors used  was the functional form of the $`(H,D,K)`$. So that relation holds irrespective of the arguments, $`\varphi `$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which enter our functions provided that the functional form of them remains the same. From the form of the superfields it is then easy to expand in $`\theta `$ $`\overline{\theta }`$ the RHS and LHS of the relation (40) and get four relations, one for each of the variables $`(q,c^q,\overline{c}_p,\lambda _p)`$, entering our formalism. These relations solves the model completly. For more details we refer the reader to ref. .