text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction
.

Interacting particle systems with stochastic dynamics  and particularly the one-dimensional asymmetric exclusion process (ASEP) have been intensively studied -, due to connections to growth processes , traffic flows , the noisy Burgers equation  and the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) equation . Being one of the simplest examples of integrable non-equilibrium systems, the ASEP allows calculation of some dynamical properties ,, a large deviation function , and conditional probabilities .

In a standard formulation , particles move in such a way that there is always at most one particle per site on the one-dimensional lattice. Every particle hops to its right or left with biased probabilities provided the target site is empty. Otherwise, it does not move. Using a traffic terminology, this kind of interaction between particles can be called a “soft braking”.

Another kind of interaction is an “aggressive braking” ,, when a particle pushes the particle in front of it and then stops. The displaced particle shifts the next particle in front, if any, and so on. As a result, a chain of adjacent particles is shifted by one lattice space left or right at the same moment of time. Despite apparent non-locality of dynamics, the Bethe ansatz method is still applicable and the resulting Bethe equations are solvable parallel to the ASEP case. Further generalizations of the ASEP have been proposed ,. In every case, however, an elementary motion of a particle produces a deterministic reconstruction (local or non-local) of the preceding lattice state.

The beginning of intensive study of the ASEP nearly coincides with a burst of interest to the threshold dynamics and avalanche processes. Appeared originally in the sandpile model of self-organized criticality , the avalanche processes have been shown to be related to many different phenomena ranging from an interface depinning to earthquakes .

As an example of the threshold dynamics one can again consider ASEP-like stochastic model at the one dimensional lattice. In this case, however, we admit multiple occupation of a lattice site by particles. Like in the ASEP, each particle hops to its right or left. If the number of particles $`n`$ at given site exceeds some critical value $`n_c`$, the site is unstable and must relax immediately. The relaxation consists in spilling of $`mn`$ particles from the given site to neighboring sites by a fixed rule. If the neighboring sites become unstable, they relax as well. Thus, an avalanche of relaxations spreads over the lattice. The time interval between beginning and ending of every avalanche is negligible in comparison with characteristic hopping time of a single particle.

Comparing to the ASEP with the aggressive braking, a fundamental difference appears, when the spilling rule is stochastic . In this case, the structure of avalanche becomes complicated. Unstable states may appear randomly even if an underlying structure of the lattice state is regular before an avalanche starts. Then, the distance at which avalanches propagate and the total mass of particles involved in an avalanche are random values described by probabilistic distributions. The configurations of particles in the lattice states before and after an avalanche may differ considerably, and the latter results from the first by a series of stochastic spillings.

Another peculiarity of avalanche dynamics is a specific transition into a totally unstable state, when the density of particles exceeds some critical value and an avalanche never stops in the thermodynamic limit of infinitely large lattice . This transition corresponds to change of the time scale characterizing the system, which can be defined for example as a ratio of system size to average velocity of particles. While for low density, the slow diffusion processes prevail, the fast avalanches dominate above the transition point. The existing of two time scales was shown to be responsible for reaching of the self-organized critical state in systems with avalanche dynamics.

The aim of this paper is to give a mathematical description of one kind of avalanche processes, the one-dimensional asymmetric avalanche process (ASAP). The ASAP is a partially asymmetric diffusion process with the totally asymmetric avalanche propagation. The similar directed one-dimensional stochastic avalanches have been considered in , where the asymptotic of avalanche distributions in the self-organized critical state have been calculated exactly for the open lattice in the thermodynamic limit. Instead, we study the ASAP on a ring with a fixed number of particles. In this case, the critical value of the density exists, depending on spilling probabilities, which corresponds to the transition from the intermittent to continuous flow when the fast avalanche dynamics becomes dominating. In this paper, we concentrate on dynamical properties of the ASAP below this point.

One of the reasons for the intensive interest to the ASEP is that it being exactly solvable gives a discrete version of the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) equation . In the scaling limit, one can get analytically the universal quantities like critical exponents and scaling functions characterizing a vast class of nonequilibrium phenomena belonging to the KPZ universality class. On the other hand, the universal scaling properties of avalanche dynamics are much less investigated. There are very few successful attempts, -, to find analytical arguments allowing one to relate the avalanche-like processes with one of well-defined universality classes such as the KPZ , Edwards-Wilkinson or directed percolation .

In the present work, we show that the generating function of the total distance $`Y_t`$ travelled by particles in the ASAP is given in the scaling limit by the expression

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ln}e^{\gamma Y_t}}{t}\gamma K_1+K_2G(K_3\gamma ),$$
(1.1)
where $`G(x)`$ does not depend on parameters of the model and has the following parametric form

$`G(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(C)^ss^{5/2}`$ (1.2)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(C)^ss^{3/2},`$ (1.3)
and $`K_1,K_2,`$ and $`K_3`$ are model dependent parameters. This universal form of function $`G(x)`$ was claimed to be the feature of the KPZ universality class ,. It also determines the universal form of the large deviation function characterizing the deviations of the integrated particle current from its average value. These results give an evidence that the ASAP shares the KPZ universality class with the ASEP despite the significant difference in their dynamics.

The article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we consider the master equation for a general stochastic model which leads to the ASEP and ASAP in particular cases. In Section 3, we derive the Bethe ansatz equations for the generating function of the total displacement of all particles. A particular case of the ASAP is considered in Section 4 where the ASAP becomes identical to a drop-push version of the ASEP. The general case of the ASAP is considered in Section 5. Using the method developed in ,, we analyse the integral equation corresponding to the density of roots of the Bethe equations and derive the generating function for the total displacement of particles. From it we obtain the expression for the cumulants of total distance travelled by particles, like mean velocity and variance, its large deviation function, and demonstrate that the ASAP belongs to the KPZ universality class.333A brief summary of the results has been presented at ”StatPhys-Taiwan 2002”, during May 27 -June 1, see

## 2 The master equation.

In this section we are going to obtain the master equation describing ASAP, which is defined as follows. Consider the system of $`p`$ particles on a ring of $`N`$ sites as shown in Fig. 1. Particles jump left or right with probabilities $`Ldt`$ or $`Rdt,`$ respectively, for infinitesimal time $`dt`$ independently of each other. When a particle comes to already occupied site after the hopping either from left with the rate $`R`$ or from right with the rate $`L`$ , an avalanche starts. It develops step by step according to the following dynamical rules.

If, at some step of the avalanche, $`n`$ $`(n=2,3,\mathrm{})`$ particles are at site $`x`$, then

with probability $`\mu _n`$ , $`n`$ particles go to the site $`x+1`$ ;

with probability $`1\mu _n`$, $`n1`$ particles go to the site $`x+1`$ and one particle stays at the current site $`x`$.

We imply that an avalanche takes infinitesimal time to end, i.e. from the point of view of Poissonian processes it plays a role of interaction resulting in the transition between configurations with single particle occupation. The totally asymmetric case discussed in  corresponds to particular choice of the rates, $`L=0,R=1`$. In the case of the ASEP a particle step to already occupied site is forbidden. However, it will be shown below to be closely connected with the ASAP. To make the presentation more systematic we start from the system of free particles then going to ASEP and ASAP dynamics.

The state $`C`$ of the system at time $`t`$ is characterized by the probability $`P_t(C)`$ satisfying the master equation

$$_tP_t(C)=\underset{\{C^{}\}}{}M(C,C^{})P_t(C^{})$$
(2.4)
The off-diagonal elements $`M(C,C^{})`$ of the matrix $`M`$ are rates of transitions from configurations $`C^{}`$ to $`C`$ and therefore are always positive. The diagonal elements $`M(C,C)`$ that give the total rate of the transition from the state $`C`$ to all other configurations, enter the matrix $`M`$ with a minus sign. Conservation of probability requires the identity

$$M(C,C)=\underset{\{C^{}\}}{}M(C^{},C)$$
(2.5)
Let us return to particles at the lattice. Consider noninteracting particles jumping left or right with probabilities $`Ldt`$ or $`Rdt,`$ respectively, for infinitesimal time $`dt`$ . The probability $`P_t(x_1,\mathrm{},x_p)`$ for particles to occupy sites $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_p`$ obeys the master equation

$`_tP_t(x_1,\mathrm{},x_p)=pP_t(x_1,\mathrm{},x_p)+`$ (2.6)
$`L{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}P_t(x_1,\mathrm{},x_i+1,\mathrm{},x_p)+R{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}P_t(x_1,\mathrm{},x_i1,\mathrm{},x_p)`$
if $`x_{i+1}x_i>1`$.We impose the condition $`L+R=1`$ by an appropriate choice of time scale.

In the ASEP, the form of the master equation should be modified if configuration $`C`$ contains pairs of neighboring occupied sites. If there are only two neighboring sites, $`x,x+1,`$ occupied by particles, the master equation differs from Eq.(2.6) by the extra term $`LP_t(\mathrm{},x+1,x+1,\mathrm{})+RP_t(\mathrm{},x,x,\mathrm{})P_t(\mathrm{},x,x+1,\mathrm{})`$. If there are more than one pair, one must substract the other unwanted terms from the Eq.(2.6) for every pair to obtain equations taking into account the exclusion rules. Instead, one can reduce the consideration to the free master equation only, if one equates the appeared extra terms to zero putting the boundary conditions for the physical domain $`x_1<x_2<\mathrm{}<x_p`$ :

$$LP_t(\mathrm{},x+1,x+1,\mathrm{})+RP_t(\mathrm{},x,x,\mathrm{})P_t(\mathrm{},x,x+1,\mathrm{})=0.$$
(2.7)
The terms like $`P_t(\mathrm{},x,x,\mathrm{})`$ corresponding to multiple occupation of sites do not contribute to the dynamics due to the exclusion rule. Therefore, they can be considered as auxiliary non-physical terms and redefined by the boundary conditions so that all extra terms in free equation vanish giving the correct equation for the system with interaction.

Consider now more general condition of type Eq.(2.7) with the coefficients $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ which do not coincide necessarily with the rates $`L`$ and $`R`$ in Eq.(2.6) and will be defined later,

$$\alpha P_t(\mathrm{},x,x,\mathrm{})+\beta P_t(\mathrm{},x+1,x+1,\mathrm{})P_t(\mathrm{},x,x+1,\mathrm{})=0$$
(2.8)
To provide the probabilistic meaning of the Eq.(2.6) together with Eq.(2.8), some constraints should be imposed on $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ . In this case, we still use the exclusion rule that allows one to use the terms of type $`P_t(\mathrm{},x,x,\mathrm{})`$ as auxiliary ones which should be redefined in appropriate way. The condition Eq.(2.8) itself does not eliminate the contribution of extra terms yet. Nevertheless, we can try to use this condition to replace the unwanted terms by terms consisting of allowed configurations only. To this end, we can exploit the fact that two unphysical terms in Eq.(2.8) are of similar structure and consider this relation as a recursion:

$$P_t(\mathrm{},x,x,\mathrm{})=\frac{1}{\alpha }P_t(\mathrm{},x,x+1,\mathrm{})\frac{\beta }{\alpha }P_t(\mathrm{},x+1,x+1,\mathrm{}),$$
(2.9)
To proceed, it is convenient to consider the two-particle case separately.

### 2.1 The case of two particles.

If there are only two particles at the lattice, the recursion Eq.(2.9) can be immediately solved in terms of allowed configurations only:

$$P_t(x,x)=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{\alpha }{\beta }\right)^nP_t(xn1,xn)$$
(2.10)
where, due to periodic boundary conditions, all coordinates are integers modulo $`N`$ . Substituting Eq.(2.10) into the Eq.(2.6) rewritten for the two particle case under the condition $`x_2=x_1+1`$, we get

$`_tP_t(x,x+1)=LP_t(x,x+2)+RP_t(x1,x+1)P_t(x,x+1)`$ (2.11)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{\beta }}1\right)P_t(x,x+1)+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\beta }}(\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{R}{L}}){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mu ^{n1}P_t(xn,xn+1)`$
where $`\mu =\alpha /\beta `$. To give a probabilistic meaning to the transition rates, the terms corresponding to the processes when the system leaves the configuration $`(x,x+1)`$ should be non-positive and those for coming into $`(x,x+1)`$ from other configurations should be non-negative. To keep probabilities positive, we have to impose the condition that either $`\mu `$ is positive or $`\mu =R/L`$, when the term containing the infinite sum vanishes. In addition, conservation of probability, Eq.(2.5), requires

$$\alpha +\beta =1.$$
(2.12)
Then, the condition $`\mu =R/L`$ implies $`\alpha =R`$, $`\beta =L`$, i.e. the ordinary ASEP. In the case $`\mu >0`$ , we have

$$\alpha =\mu /(1\mu ),\beta =1/(1\mu )$$
(2.13)
and can rewrite Eq.(2.11) in the form

$`_tP_t(x,x+1)=LP_t(x,x+2)+RP_t(x1,x+1)P_t(x,x+1)`$ (2.14)
$`+(R+L\mu )(P_t(x,x+1)+(1\mu ){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mu ^{n1}P_t(xn,xn+1)`$
In terms of $`\mu `$ , the boundary condition, Eq.(2.9) reads

$$P_t(x,x)=\left(1\mu \right)P_t(x1,x)+\mu P_t(x1,x1)$$
(2.15)
The expression Eq.(2.14) shows that in addition to the Poissonian hopping given by the original kinetic equation, new terms appear in the equation which correspond to transitions to the configuration $`C=(x,x+1)`$ from the configurations $`\{C^{}\}=\{(xn,xn+1),`$ $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$. The rates of the transitions are $`(R+L\mu )(1\mu )\mu ^{n1}`$. In the case of two particles,these rates determine the avalanche dynamics defined above.

To show the relation between ASEP and ASAP before going into details of the solution, let us consider the moment when an avalanche starts. This happens if either the left particle of two neighboring ones moves right with the rate $`R`$ or the right particle moves to the left with the rate $`L`$ and then two particles together make at least one step together with probability $`\mu `$. Then an avalanche starts with the rate $`(R+L\mu )`$. This expression indeed enters those parts of kinetic equation, which correspond to the avalanche dynamics. Thus, the rate of beginning of an avalanche becomes zero when $`\mu =R/L`$, and only exclusion dynamics remains. Therefore, we may treat ASEP as an analytical continuation of ASAP with a parameter $`\mu `$ taking a special negative value.

### 2.2 Many particle processes.

One can expect that the $`n`$-particle interactions imposes $`n`$ new constrains on the master equation Eq.(2.6). However, in this section we will show that under certain constraint on toppling probabilities $`\mu _n`$ no new boundary conditions appear and Eq.(2.15) is sufficient to take into account the interaction of arbitrary number of particles.

To generalize the boundary condition, Eq.(2.15), for the description of many particle dynamics defined above one should express an unstable configuration via configurations appeared at the previous steps of an avalanche. The form of these conditions depends on the fact whether the site $`x1`$ is occupied or not:

$`P_t(\mathrm{},x1,\underset{n1}{\underset{}{x,\mathrm{},x}},\mathrm{})=(1\mu _n)P_t(\mathrm{},\underset{𝑛}{\underset{}{x1,\mathrm{},x1}},\mathrm{})+`$
$`(1\mu _{n1})P_t(\mathrm{},\underset{n1}{\underset{}{x1,\mathrm{},x1}},x,\mathrm{})`$ (2.16)
if the site $`x1`$ is occupied, and

$`P_t(\mathrm{},\underset{𝑛}{\underset{}{x,\mathrm{},x}},\mathrm{})=\mu _nP_t(\mathrm{},\underset{𝑛}{\underset{}{x1,\mathrm{},x1}},\mathrm{})+`$
$`\mu _{n1}P_t(\mathrm{},\underset{n1}{\underset{}{x1,\mathrm{},x1}},x,\mathrm{})`$ (2.17)
if $`x1`$ is empty.

Like the two-particle boundary condition, Eq.(2.15), the many-particle conditions, Eqs.(2.16) and (2.17), should be applied recursively. Applying this recursion step by step to infinity, we generate an infinite series that consist of the transition probabilities between stable configurations only.

On the other hand, one may treat the term $`P_t(\mathrm{},\underset{𝑛}{\underset{}{x,\mathrm{},x},}\mathrm{})`$ formally applying the two-particle boundary condition Eq.(2.15), reducing sequentially the number of particles in unstable sites. As a result, we obtain

$`P_t(\mathrm{},\underset{𝑛}{\underset{}{x,\mathrm{},x}},\mathrm{})=\mu _nP_t(\mathrm{},\underset{𝑛}{\underset{}{x1,\mathrm{},x1}},\mathrm{})+`$
$`(1\mu _n)P_t(\mathrm{},\underset{n1}{\underset{}{x1,\mathrm{},x1}},x,\mathrm{})`$ (2.18)
Due to recursion, parameters $`\mu _n`$ are expressed through the only parameter $`\mu `$:

$$\mu _2=\mu ,\mu _3=\left(1\mu \right)\mu ,\mu _n=\left(1\mu \right)\mu _{n1}+\mu \mu _{n2},n>3$$
(2.19)
or

$$\mu _n=\mu \frac{1(\mu )^{n1}}{1+\mu }.$$
(2.20)
Generally, Eq.(2.18) and Eqs.(2.16),(2.17) do not coincide. However, the final series entering the kinetic equation which result from the sequential use of either latter or two former of them will be the same, provided that the transition probabilities $`\mu _n`$ from Eqs.(2.16) and (2.17) governing the avalanche dynamics satisfy Eqs.(2.20) and (2.19).

Indeed, every term of resulting series represents a finite avalanche. It contains the product of terms $`\mu _n`$ and $`(1\mu _n)`$ coming from the successive use of the recurrent relations, Eqs.(2.16),(2.17) or Eq.(2.18). The first term of the r.h.s of Eq.(2.16) increases the number of particles at the unstable site by 1 in comparison with the l.h.s. The second term of the r.h.s of Eq.(2.17) decreases the number of particles by 1. Obviously, in every finite avalanche, the numbers of decreasing and increasing events are equal. Therefore, the coefficients $`(1\mu _n)`$ from Eq.(2.16) and $`\mu _{n1}`$ from Eq.(2.17) always enter the product corresponding to the avalanche in pairs and interchanging their places do not affect the structure of the final series. On the other hand, the interchanging $`\mu _{n1}`$ and $`(1\mu _n)`$ between Eqs.(2.16) and (2.17) leads to Eq.(2.18) obtained from Eq.(2.15).

Thus, we have shown that the two-particle boundary condition, Eq.(2.15), is sufficient for obtaining the kinetic equation for many particle avalanche process governed by the above dynamical rules. In the Bethe ansatz formalism, a similar procedure is known as the two- particle reducibility  and provides integrability of a system.

## 3 The Bethe Ansatz for generating function.

Consider the generating function of the total path $`Y`$ travelled by all particles between time $`0`$ and $`t`$ provided that the system is in configuration $`C`$ at time $`t`$

$$F_t(C)=\underset{Y=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_t(C,Y)e^{\gamma Y},$$
(3.21)
where $`P_t(C,Y)`$ is the joint probability that the system is in configuration $`C`$ and the total distance is $`Y`$ to the time $`t.`$ The equation for the generating function and a boundary condition can be obtained from the master equation Eq.(2.6) and the boundary condition for the probability Eq.(2.15) by multiplying by $`e^\gamma (e^\gamma )`$ every term corresponding to increasing (decreasing) distance $`Y`$ by $`1`$.

$`_tF_t(x_1,\mathrm{},x_p)=Le^\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}F_t(x_1,\mathrm{},x_i+1,\mathrm{},x_p)+`$ (3.22)
$`+Re^\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}F_t(x_1,\mathrm{},x_i1,\mathrm{},x_p)pF_t(x_1,\mathrm{},x_p)`$
$`F_t(\mathrm{},x,x,\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`(1\mu )e^\gamma F_t(\mathrm{},x1,x,\mathrm{})+`$
$`\mu e^{2\gamma }F_t(\mathrm{},x1,x1,\mathrm{}).`$
The sum of the function $`F_t(C)`$ over all configurations gives the generating function of moments of total distance $`Y_t`$, whose behavior is determined by the largest eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )`$ of Eq.(3.22) for large $`t`$ .

$$\underset{\{C\}}{}F_t(C)=e^{\gamma Y_t}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )t}.$$
(3.24)
The derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )`$ at $`\gamma =0`$ give the cumulants of the distance $`Y_t`$

$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_t_c}{t}}`$ $`=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_t}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )}{\gamma }}|_{\gamma =0}`$ (3.25)
$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_t^2_c}{t}}`$ $`=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_t^2Y_t^2}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )}{\gamma ^2}}|_{\gamma =0}`$ (3.26)
$`\text{}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_t^3_c}{t}}`$ $`=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_t^3+2Y_t^33Y_t^2Y_t}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{^3\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )}{\gamma ^3}}|_{\gamma =0}`$ (3.27)
The quantity of our main interest is the large deviation function

$$f(y)=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{t}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{Prob}\left(\frac{Y_t}{t}=y\right)$$
(3.28)
which characterizes deviations of the distance $`Y_t`$ from the average value and can be expressed also trough the largest eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )`$ :

$`f(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )}{d\gamma }}\right)\gamma y`$ (3.29)
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\gamma }}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma ).`$ (3.30)
Thus, we have to find the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )`$ on the parameter $`\gamma `$. The master equation Eq.(3.22) and the boundary conditions Eq.(3) allow one to use the Bethe ansatz in a usual form

$$F_t(x_1,\mathrm{},x_p)=e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }t}\underset{\sigma _{(1,\mathrm{},p)}}{}A(z_{\sigma _1},\mathrm{},z_{\sigma _p})z_{\sigma _1}^{x_1}\mathrm{}z_{\sigma _p}^{x_p},$$
(3.31)
where the summation is over all permutations of $`(\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _p).`$ The eigenvalue corresponding to eigenvalue Eq.(3.31) is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )=R\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}e^\gamma z_i+L\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{1}{e^\gamma z_i}p.$$
(3.32)
The parameters $`z_i`$ satisfy the Bethe equations

$$z_k^N=(1)^{p1}\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{1(1\mu )e^\gamma z_k\mu e^{2\gamma }z_jz_k}{1(1\mu )e^\gamma z_j\mu e^{2\gamma }z_jz_k}$$
(3.33)
which follow from the substitution of Eq.(3.31) into Eq.(3) and the periodic boundary conditions. The largest eigenvalue of the master equation corresponds to the stationary state of Markov process, so, one has to choose the solution of Eqs.(3.33) which provides the eigenvalue of the master equation for probability of Eq.(2.6) to be equal to zero

$$\underset{\gamma 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )=0.$$
(3.34)
The Perron - Frobenius theorem ensures that this eigenvalue has no crossing in the whole range of $`\gamma `$.

To solve the Bethe equations, it is convenient to transform the variables $`z_k`$. After the change of variables

$$z_k=\frac{1x_k}{1+\mu x_k}e^\gamma $$
(3.35)
the system (3.33) can be rewritten in the following way

$$e^{\gamma N}\left(\frac{1x_k}{1+\mu x_k}\right)^N=\left(1\right)^{p1}\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{x_k+\mu x_j}{x_j+\mu x_k}$$
(3.36)
Corresponding eigenvalue has the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )=\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}\left(R\frac{1x_k}{1+\mu x_k}+L\frac{1+\mu x_k}{1x_k}\right)p$$
(3.37)
## 4  The limit $`\mu =0`$.

In the limit $`\mu 0,`$ the ASAP becomes a particular case of the two-parameter family of exclusion processes discussed in  which, in turn, degenerates into the $`n=1`$ drop-push model  in the totally asymmetric case $`L=0`$. In this case, particles perform the partially asymmetric random walk with rates $`L`$ and $`R`$. Going right, a particle jumps to the closest unoccupied site at its right overtaking all adjacent particles next to it, whereas the motion to left obeys the exclusion rule.

The simple form of the Bethe equations in this case allows one to use the method proposed in  to obtain a full solution of the problem. If one introduces the parameter

$$B=\left(1\right)^{p1}e^{\gamma N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}x_j$$
(4.38)
the solution of Eqs.(3.36) will be given by the roots of the polynomial equation

$$B\left(1x\right)^Nx^p=0.$$
(4.39)
To get the largest eigenvalue, one has to choose $`p`$ roots approaching zero when $`\gamma 0`$. Following  one can use the Cauchy theorem to evaluate the sum over these roots integrating along the contour enclosing all the roots in a small vicinity of zero.

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}f(x_j)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑xf(x)\frac{\frac{N}{1x}+\frac{p}{x}}{1B\frac{\left(1x\right)^N}{x^p}}.$$
(4.40)
Inserting $`R\left(1x\right)+L/\left(1x\right)1`$ instead of $`f(x)`$, we get the expression for the eigenvalue in terms of series in powers of $`B`$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\gamma \right)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B^k\left(1\right)^{kp}C_{Nk1}^{pk1}\left(\frac{R}{k\left(1\rho \right)+1/N}\frac{L\left(1\rho \right)}{k1/N}\right)$$
(4.41)
where $`\rho =p/N`$ and $`C_a^b=a!/(b!(ab)!)`$ is the binomial coefficient. On the other hand, one can get the expression for $`\gamma `$ requiring $`_{j=1}^pz_j=1,`$ which is correct for the groundstate solution . Taking the logarithm of this product and using Eq.(4.40) one gets

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{p}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{B^k}{k}\left(1\right)^{kp}C_{Nk1}^{pk1}.$$
(4.42)
Resolving two series of Eqs.(4.41), (4.42) and using Eqs.(3.25), (3.26) and (3.27), we obtain the expressions for cumulants of the total distance traveled by particles:

$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_t_c}{t}}=N\rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{\left(1\rho \right)+1/N}}{\displaystyle \frac{L\left(1\rho \right)}{11/N}}\right)`$ (4.43)
$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_t^2_c}{t}}=N{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2C_{2N1}^{2p1}}{\left[C_{N1}^{p1}\right]^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{L\left(1\rho \right)}{\left(11/N\right)\left(21/N\right)}}+`$ (4.44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\left(\left(1\rho \right)+1/N\right)\left(2\left(1\rho \right)+1/N\right)}})`$
$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_t^3_c}{t}}=N^2\rho [3{\displaystyle \frac{\left[C_{2N1}^{2p1}\right]^2}{\left[C_{N1}^{p1}\right]^4}}({\displaystyle \frac{L\left(1\rho \right)}{\left(11/N\right)\left(21/N\right)}}+`$ (4.45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\left(\left(1\rho \right)+1/N\right)\left(2\left(1\rho \right)+1/N\right)}})+`$
$`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_{3N1}^{3p1}}{\left[C_{N1}^{p1}\right]^3}}({\displaystyle \frac{L\left(1\rho \right)}{\left(11/N\right)\left(31/N\right)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\left(\left(1\rho \right)+1/N\right)\left(3\left(1\rho \right)+1/N\right)}})]`$
The scaling limit, $`N\mathrm{}`$, of these expressions is of interest for us because it provides information about the large scale behavior independent of the details of microscopic dynamics. While the ASEP keeps the same universal behavior for any value of $`\rho `$, scaling properties of the ASAP may change depending on how close to critical point the system is. In the case $`\mu =0`$, the critical density corresponds to full occupation of the lattice, $`\rho _c=1`$. In the subcritical regime which corresponds to

$$\left(1\rho \right)1/N$$
(4.46)
the situation is similar to the ASEP. In the subcritical region, the generating function, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\gamma \right)`$, takes the universal scaling form, Eq.(1.1) which has been already obtained for the ASEP and claimed to be universal for all models of KPZ universality class , . Three model-dependent constants $`K_1,K_2,K_3`$ in Eq.(1.1) are

$`K_1`$ $`=`$ $`N\rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{(1\rho )}}L\left(1\rho \right)\right),`$ (4.47a)
$`K_2`$ $`=`$ $`N^{3/2}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2\pi \left(1\rho \right)}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{\left(1\rho \right)^2}}+L\left(1\rho \right)\right),`$ (4.47b)
$`K_3`$ $`=`$ $`N^{3/2}\sqrt{2\pi \left(1\rho \right)\rho }.`$ (4.47c)
The average velocity of particles,
$$V_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{p}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{Y_t_c}{t}\frac{R}{(1\rho )}L\left(1\rho \right),$$
(4.48)
and the other cumulants of the distance travelled by particles become divergent in the thermodynamic limit when $`\rho `$ approaches $`1`$. However, the physical quantities characterizing the finite system should obviously be finite. As an example, one can consider simultaneous limit $`\rho 1,N\mathrm{}`$. Substituting, for instance, $`N^\vartheta ,(0<\vartheta <1)`$ instead of $`(1\rho )`$ into Eqs.(4.47,4.48) one gets the expressions for cumulants of $`Y_t`$ which remain finite for finite $`N`$. The velocity of particles in this case, $`V_{\mathrm{}}N^\vartheta `$, becomes explicitly dependent on $`N`$. Being finite for finite $`N`$, it is divergent when $`N`$ tends to infinity. The upper limit for the exponent $`\vartheta `$, given by Eq.(4.46), is due to the term $`1/N`$ in Eq.(4.41). This term plays the role of ”infrared cutoff” at the scale $`N`$, which ensures $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ to remain of order $`N`$ if $`\left(1\rho \right)`$ becomes zero. When $`\left(1\rho \right)`$ becomes of order of $`1/N`$, the generating function, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\gamma \right)`$, looses its universal structure, Eq.(1.1). Practically, this means that the presence of characteristic length $`N`$ breaks the scale invariance specific for the KPZ dynamics:

$$N\lambda N,K_1>\lambda K_1,K_2>\lambda ^{3/2}K_2,K_3>\lambda ^{3/2}K_3,$$

which is held in the subcritical region, Eq.(4.46). The character of particle motion near the critical line becomes strongly collective. Eventually, in the limit $`N=p`$, the process is equivalent to totally asymmetric diffusion of a single particle, with the distance, $`Y_t`$, and time, $`t`$, rescaled as follows

$$Y_tY_tN,ttRN.$$

Although the solution for $`\mu =0`$ allows one to approach the vicinity of critical line, it seems to be very specific as it does not, in fact, involve the avalanche dynamics. However, as we will see below, it catches the basic universal scaling properties of the subcritical dynamics of the model for arbitrary $`\mu `$.

## 5
The case of arbitrary $`\mu <1`$.

In the case of arbitrary $`\mu ,`$ the Bethe equations Eq.(3.36) cannot be reduced to a polynomial equation. Nevertheless, they still can be solved in the limit $`N\mathrm{},p\mathrm{},\rho =p/N=const`$. Let us consider the equation obtained by taking the logarithm of both parts of Eq.(3.36)

$$p_0(x_k)\frac{1}{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(x_j/x_k\right)\gamma =2\pi iZ(x_k)$$
(5.49)
$$\mathrm{\Theta }\left(y/x\right)=\mathrm{ln}x\mathrm{ln}y+\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+\mu y/x}{1+\mu x/y}$$

$$p_0=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1x_k}{1+\mu x_k}\right)$$
(5.50)
We define $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(y/x\right)`$ at the complex plane of variable $`y`$ with branch cuts shown in Fig.(2). For small positive $`\gamma ,`$ the solution corresponding to the largest eigenvalue was shown in  to behave as

$$x_kre^{2\pi i\frac{k}{p}},r\gamma ^{1/p},\gamma 0$$
(5.51)
The radius $`r`$ behaves nonanalytically when $`\gamma `$ approaches zero, so in the limit $`p\mathrm{}`$ , radius $`r`$ becomes finite no matter how $`\gamma `$ is close to zero. It can be easily verified that this is also correct for non-zero $`\mu `$ at least in the limit $`\gamma =0`$. The analytical function $`Z(x)`$ is fixed by the choice of logarithm branches. The distribution of roots given by Eq.(5.51) corresponds to the following choice:

$$Z(x_j)=\frac{1}{N}\left(j\frac{p+1}{2}\right).$$
(5.52)
Then, assuming that the roots are at smooth contour at the complex plane, the derivative of $`Z(x)`$ with minus sign has a meaning of density of roots along the contour

$$R(x)=\frac{Z(x)}{x}.$$
(5.53)
Instead of Eq.(5.49), we are going to solve the equation

$$p_0(x)\frac{1}{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(x_j/x\right)\gamma =2\pi iZ(x)$$
(5.54)
together with Eqs.(5.52,5.53) under the assumption that the density of roots is an analytical function of $`x`$. To solve these equations one need to transform Eq.(5.54) to the integral form. This procedure is not straightforward and depends very much on properties of the function $`Z(x)`$, which should be first assumed and then can be checked a posteriori.

A simplest method is based on the replacement of the sum by the integral along some contour in complex plane in the thermodynamic limit . The analytic solution then can be found for some special cases, particularly for the case of the contour closed around zero . It turns out to be the particular solution of our problem corresponding to single value of $`\gamma `$, $`\gamma =0`$. A development of this idea is the expansion method proposed in  for the investigation of the conical point of ferroelectric six-vertex model, which allows calculation of the leading term of the first cumulant of $`Y_t`$ . To obtaine higher cumulants one needs to calculate the finite size corrections to the thermodynamic solution. This has been done for the ASEP  with the help of the method of perturbative expansion of the Bethe equations proposed by Kim . For the ASAP we use the modification of his approach, which allows us to calculate the finite size corrections, avoiding some assumptions made in the original method. At least in the leading orders the results do not depend on these assumptions and we reproduce the results by Lee and Kim in the particular case $`\mu =R/L`$. To simplify the presentation we leave the details of the solution for the Appendices (A-C), going directly to the results.

The solution of the Bethe equations results in the generating function obtained in the scaling limit $`\gamma N^{3/2}=const`$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )=\gamma K_1+K_2G(\gamma K_3).$$
(5.55)
Here $`G(x)`$ in a parametric form is defined by the relations

$`G(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Li}_{5/2}(C),`$ (5.56)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Li}_{3/2}(C),`$ (5.57)
and the function $`\mathrm{Li}_k(x)`$ is the polylogarithm defined by series

$$\mathrm{Li}_k(x)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x^n}{n^k}$$
(5.58)
when $`|x|<1`$. For arbitrary negative $`x`$ , the integral definition can be used:

$$\mathrm{Li}_k(x)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{s^{k1}ds}{1x^1e^s}$$
(5.59)
The equations, Eqs.(5.55-5.57), are nothing but Eqs.(1.1-1.3) and $`K_1,K_2,K_3`$ are model dependent parameters

$`K_1`$ $`=`$ $`N(1+\mu ){\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(LR(\mu )^{s1}\right)}{1\left(\mu \right)^s}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\rho 1}}\right)^ss`$ (5.60)
$`K_2`$ $`=`$ $`N^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mu }{\sqrt{2\pi }}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(LR(\mu )^{s1}\right)}{1\left(\mu \right)^s}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\rho 1}}\right)^s{\displaystyle \frac{s^2(s1+2\rho )}{\left((1\rho )\rho \right)^{3/2}}}`$
$`K_3`$ $`=`$ $`N^{3/2}\sqrt{2\pi (1\rho )\rho }.`$ (5.62)
The function $`G\left(x\right)`$ has been already obtained for the ASEP  and claimed to be universal for all models of KPZ universality class . Simple form of the eigenvalue (5.55) allows one to define a general expression for the cumulants of the integrated particle current in scaling limit

$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_t_c}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`K_1K_2K_3=p(V_{AV}V_{ASEP})`$ (5.63)
$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_t^n_c}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`K_2K_3^nG^{(n)}(0)=C_{AV}^{(n)}+C_{ASEP}^{(n)},n2,`$ (5.64)
where $`G^{(n)}(0)`$ is $`n`$th derivative of the function $`G(x)`$ at $`x=0`$. Here we divided the expressions for cumulants into two parts, which bring different physical content. Particularly, $`V_{AV}`$ and $`V_{ASEP}`$,

$`V_{AV}{\displaystyle \frac{L\mu +R}{\left(\rho _c\rho \right)^2}}\left[F_0(\rho ,\rho _c){\displaystyle \frac{F_1(\rho ,\rho _c)}{N\left(\rho _c\rho \right)^2}}\right],`$ (5.65)
$`V_{ASEP}L(1+\mu )\left(1\rho \right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\right),`$ (5.66)
give the contributions to the average velocity coming from the avalanche part of the dynamics and its ASEP-like part respectively. The critical density, $`\rho _c`$, is defined as follows

$$\rho _c=\frac{1}{1+\mu },$$

which gives the phase diagram shown in Fig. 3, and the functions $`F_0(\rho ,\rho _c)`$ and $`F_1(\rho ,\rho _c)`$ are nonsingular below and at the critical point, $`\rho =\rho _c`$, so that the form of Eq.(5.65) explicitly shows critical singularities of the average velocity. While $`V_{ASEP}`$ gives the average velocity of the ASEP when $`\mu =R/L`$, $`V_{AV}`$ vanishes at the same time. This is also the case for higher cumulants, which reproduce the results by Lee and Kim in this limit

$`C_{AV}^{(n)}N^{\frac{3(n1)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{L\mu +R}{\left(\rho _c\rho \right)^4}}\left(2\pi \rho \left(1\rho \right)\right)^{\frac{n1}{2}}\rho G^{\left(n\right)}\left(0\right)F_1(\rho ,\rho _c),`$ (5.67)
$`C_{ASEP}^{(n)}L\left(1+\mu \right)N^{\frac{3(n1)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2\pi \rho \left(1\rho \right)\right)^{\frac{n+1}{2}}}{2\pi }}G^{\left(n\right)}\left(0\right).`$ (5.68)
Thus, when the density of particles, $`\rho `$, approaches its critical value, $`\rho _c`$, the divergency of average velocity of particles is characterized by the power law

$$VV_{AV}\left(\rho _c\rho \right)^\alpha $$
(5.69)
with the critical exponent $`\alpha =2`$ . In  this exponent has been shown to be nonuniversal with respect to the choice of different sets of dynamical rules $`\mu _n`$. The other cumulants diverge as 4-th power of $`\left(\rho \rho _c\right)`$. The corrections to these laws are given in terms of the scaling variable, $`N^1\left(\rho \rho _c\right)^2`$. The condition this variable is small defines the limits of applicability of the perturbative scheme and bounds the subcritical region.

$$\left|\rho \rho _c\right|1/\sqrt{N}.$$

Closer to the critical line, we expect that the scaling will change as it did in the case $`\mu =0`$. In addition, the case with arbitrary $`\mu `$ allows one to consider the region of phase diagram above the critical line, where the average velocity of particles will grow with $`N`$. This case requiring the modification of finite size expansion scheme is not considered here.

To obtain the cumulants, one needs knowing only the behavior of eigenvalue in the vicinity of the point $`\gamma =0`$. At the same time, for the large deviation function, the whole range of $`\gamma `$ is relevant. The solution considered above is valid for small negative $`\gamma `$. However, the definition of $`G\left(x\right)`$, Eqs.(5.56,5.57), maintains analyticity in the region $`\left|C\right|<1`$. This implies

$$\mathrm{Li}_{3/2}(1)<\gamma K_3<\mathrm{Li}_{3/2}(1).$$
(5.70)
Beyond this domain one has to consider the solutions with different choice of the function $`Z(x)`$. Instead, we can directly use the analytical continuation of $`G(x)`$ proposed in . To probe the whole range of negative $`\gamma ,`$ one can use the definition, Eqs.(5.56,5.57), where the functions $`\mathrm{Li}_{3/2}(C),\mathrm{Li}_{5/2}(C)`$ are defined in the integral representation Eq.(5.59). For positive $`\gamma `$ outside of the domain Eq.(5.70), we use the following expression

$`G(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\sqrt{\pi }\left[\mathrm{ln}(C)\right]^{3/2}\mathrm{Li}_{5/2}(C)`$ (5.71)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`4\sqrt{\pi }\left[\mathrm{ln}(C)\right]^{1/2}+\mathrm{Li}_{3/2}(C),`$ (5.72)
where $`0<C<1`$. Finally, using the definitions of $`G(x)`$ in different domains of $`\gamma `$, we get the large deviation function in the scaling limit

$$f(y)=K_3H\left(\frac{yK_1}{K_2K_3}\right)$$
(5.73)
where the universal function $`H(x)`$ is given by the following parametric expression

$`H(x)`$ $`=`$ $`G\left(\beta \right)\beta G^{}\left(\beta \right)`$ (5.74)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`G^{}(\beta ).`$ (5.75)
In  this function has been shown to be skew, i.e. to have different asymptotic behavior for its argument taking on a large negative or positive value. This is so for the ASEP, since the speeding up and slowing down are not equivalent due to the exclusion interaction. Specifically, it is much easier to slow down process by stopping or moving backward a single particle than to speed it up by moving forward all particles simultaneously. Similar qualitative interpretation of this asymmetry for the ASAP is also possible. One can see from the explicit form of Eqs.(5.63-5.66), that the leading terms of contributions to average velocity coming from the ASEP and avalanche parts of dynamics have different signs, the positive term corresponding to avalanches and the negative being for the ASEP drift. This is why the universal function $`G\left(x\right)`$ and subsequently $`H\left(x\right)`$ are different from it’s standard ASEP form in the minus sign before its arguments, Eqs.(1.2,1.3) (compare with Eqs. (20,21) from ). Thus, in our case the speeding up and slowing down are interchanged comparing to the ASEP. Indeed, to initiate an avalanche one particle should move faster or slower then the others to reach eventually an occupied site. To prevent an avalanche all particles should move simultaneously in the same direction. The latter has much less probability then the former. However, comparing to the ASEP the situation is even more peculiar. The solution of the ASEP is usually holds in the domain with definite direction of the drift, for example $`L<R`$. The opposite direction can be obtained by formal coordinate inversion $`xx`$ that is equivalent to $`LR`$. The solution of the ASAP holds for all values of $`L<1`$ limited only by the condition $`|\mu |<1`$. Thus, for small densities, $`\rho `$, and the rate of the left driving, $`L`$, close to $`1`$ the situation may take place when $`V_{ASEP}>V_{AV}`$, so that the resulting average velocity will be negative. This, however, does not affect the function $`H(x)`$ as its skewness is related only to the avalanche direction rather than to the Poissonian drift. At the same time full inversion transformation in the ASAP corresponds to simultaneous transformations $`LR`$ and $`\mu 1/\mu `$, which changes the direction of avalanches as well as that of Poissonian drift. At the same time, if one considers the fluctuations of the particle flow in the reference frame attached to the average flow of particles the macroscopic fluctuations are quite similar to the ASEP up to change of the distance scale

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(Y_tY_t\right)_{ASEP}}{\left(Y_tY_t\right)_{ASAP}}}L(1+\mu )\times `$
$`\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu +R/L}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\rho 1}}\right)^s{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu \right)^s}{1\left(\mu \right)^s}}{\displaystyle \frac{s^2(s1+2\rho )}{2\left((1\rho )\rho \right)^2}}\right].`$ (5.76)
## 6
Summary and discussion.

To conclude, we have considered the asymmetric avalanche process on the ring. To introduce the avalanche dynamics to the master equation for the Poissonian process, we used the technique of the recurrent boundary conditions. We have solved the master equation by the Bethe ansatz and studied the solution corresponding to the stationary state. As a result, we have calculated the cumulants of the integral particle current, exactly in the case $`\mu =0`$ and in the scaling limit for general $`\mu `$. The large deviation function has been obtained, which has the structure, typical for models belonging to KPZ universality class. To calculate the finite size corrections, we used the modification of the perturbative scheme proposed by Kim in . While in the leading orders the standard and modified approaches give the same results, it would be interesting to find out if this is so in arbitrary orders. Our investigation is valid for the densities below the critical point. However the model at the finite lattice can be considered for an arbitrary density of particles. One may expect that the scaling behavior of physical quantities should change above the critical point. The question of interest is how to modify the scheme to study the behavior of the model at the critical line and above.

## 7 Acknowledgments.

This work was supported by the National Science Council of the Republic of China (Taiwan) through grant No. NSC 91-2112-M-001-056, Russian Foundation for Basic Research through grant No. 99-01-00882, and Swiss National Science Foundation through grant No. 7-SUPJ-62295.

## Appendix A Solution of the Bethe equations.

First, we suppose that the roots of the Bethe equation are placed along the closed contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ encircling zero, and the solution still preserves the invariance with respect to complex conjugation like the solution corresponding to $`\gamma 0`$, Eq.(5.51). If we suppose also that the monovalued analytical function $`Z^1\left(\frac{p+1}{2N}\frac{j}{N}\right)`$ can be defined everywhere at this contour, we obtain the mapping $`j`$ $`x_j`$, which allow us to use the Euler - Maclaurin summation formula for transformation of the sum over the roots of Bethe equations into an integral along the segment $`0<j<p`$ in the plane $`j`$ with a correction term. The integral along the segment can be mapped into the integral along contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the plane $`x`$ (see Appendix B)

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}f\left(x_j\right)\underset{1}{\overset{p}{}}f\left(Z^1(j)\right)𝑑j+f.s.cf(x)R(x)𝑑x+f.s.c.$$
(A.77)
where $`f.s.c.`$ is the correction term.

The functions of interest, e.g. the function $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(y/x\right)`$ can be represented on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as power series with additional logarithmic terms. In this case, the only correction term appears which corresponds to a contribution originating from the logarithm branch cut. As a result, the equation Eq.(5.54) simplifies to the following form

$$p_0(x)\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(y/x\right)R(y)𝑑y\gamma =i\pi \rho 2\pi i\underset{x_0}{\overset{x}{}}R(x)𝑑x.$$
(A.78)
The reference point $`x_0`$ is the cross point of the contour with the positive part of the real axis, which can be defined as $`x_pe^{2\pi i}`$. The equation Eq.(A.78) coincides with that obtained in  in the limit of infinite lattice after replacing the sum by the integral and neglecting the finite size corrections. It turns out that the solution of Eq.(A.78) gives the exact solution of Bethe equations, provided that the inverse function $`Z^1\left(\frac{p+1}{2N}\frac{j}{N}\right)`$ is an analytical function in the segment $`1<j<p`$, what should be checked afterwards from the solution obtained.

The only analytical solution of Eq.(A.78) corresponds to the case $`\gamma =0`$. Taking into account the normalization

$$R(x)𝑑x=\rho .$$
(A.79)
we get the solution

$$R_0(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\left(\frac{\rho }{x}+\frac{1}{1x}\right).$$
(A.80)
According to Eq.(5.53) the function $`Z(x)`$ corresponding to this solution, can be obtained by the integrating of the density $`R(x)`$:

$$Z_0(x)=\frac{(p+1)}{2N}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\left(\rho \mathrm{ln}\frac{x}{x_0}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1x}{1x_0}\right)$$

Using the definition of $`Z(x)`$, Eq.(5.52), we obtain the equation for the roots $`x_j`$ of the Bethe equations.

$$j=\frac{N}{2\pi i}\left(\rho \mathrm{ln}\frac{x_j}{x_0}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1x_j}{1x_0}\right)$$
(A.81)
Considering $`j`$ as a continuous parameter varying from $`0`$ to $`p,`$ Eq. (A.81) can be treated as an implicit definition of the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It is easy to check that Eq.(A.81) has a solution corresponding to a closed contour around zero when $`x_0`$ varies in the interval $`0x_0x_\rho `$. The upper point $`x_\rho `$, defined by the equation $`x_\rho ^\rho \left(1x_\rho \right)\rho ^\rho (1\rho )^{1\rho }=0`$, is a monotonous function of $`\rho `$ changing in the range $`0`$ $`x_\rho `$ $`1/2`$ when $`\rho `$ changes from $`0`$ to $`1`$. Every value of $`x_0`$ less then $`x_\rho `$ corresponds to the particular position of the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ passing through $`x_0`$. As it was shown above, in the case of finite $`p`$ and $`\gamma =0`$ , all the roots are collapsed into one point $`x=0`$. This situation is realized when $`x_0=0`$. The nonzero values of $`x_0`$ correspond to two limits $`\gamma 0,p\mathrm{}`$ taken simultaneously. One can see from the Eq.(5.51) that if we put $`\gamma \varphi ^p,(1<\varphi <0)`$, the value of $`x_0`$ takes different limits when $`p\mathrm{}`$ depending on $`\varphi `$. At last, the case $`x_0=x_\rho `$ is realized when the decay of $`\gamma `$ with growth of $`p`$ is slower than exponential and particularly, when the limit $`p\mathrm{}`$ is taken for a fixed $`\gamma `$ and then $`\gamma `$ is put to zero. This case is of special interest for us because it gives the zero order of the solution we are looking for. When $`x_0>x_\rho `$, the equation (A.81) has no solutions corresponding to a closed contour encircling the zero point.

Whereas the dependence of $`x_\rho `$ on $`\rho `$ is defined by the irrational equation Eq.(A.81), for $`x_0=x_\rho `$, the connection between $`\rho `$ and the cross point of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the negative part of real axes, $`x_c`$ is much simpler

$$x_c=\frac{\rho }{\rho 1}.$$
(A.82)
Importance of this point lies in vanishing of the root density $`R_0(x)`$ at $`x_c`$ :

$$R_0(x_c)=0$$
(A.83)
This fact is crucial for the Kim’s perturbative scheme ,. Practically, it determines the range of applicability of Eq.(A.78). It has been noted above that Eq.(A.78) to be correct, the analytical function $`Z^1\left(\frac{p+1}{2N}\frac{j}{N}\right)`$ should be defined to map the segment $`0j<p`$ to contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . It is possible only if the first derivative $`Z^{}(x)=`$ $`R(x)`$ differs from zero everywhere in a given region . According to Eq.(A.83), this is not the case at least at one point if $`\gamma 0`$. Thus, we cannot apply the above arguments to whole contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. To overcome this difficulty, we can separate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ into two parts and apply the summation formula to intervals where the requirements of analyticity are satisfied. It seems natural that all troubles with analyticity are concentrated around the point of crossing the contour with the negative part of the real axis.

Consider the solution for odd $`p`$, and small positive $`\gamma `$. Then, the two roots closest to the negative part of the real axis, are conjugated to each other and can be denoted by

$$x_{\left(p1\right)/2}=x_ce^{iϵ},x_{\left(p+1\right)/2}=x_ce^{iϵ},$$
(A.84)
where $`x_c`$ and $`ϵ`$ are unknown real parameters. We exclude a small part of the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ between $`x_{\left(p1\right)/2}`$ and $`x_{\left(p+1\right)/2}`$ and assume the analyticity of $`Z^1\left(\frac{p+1}{2N}\frac{j}{N}\right)`$ at the segments $`1<j<\left(p1\right)/2`$ and $`\left(p+1\right)/2<j<p`$. This allows us to apply the Euler - Maclaurin formula for these segments separately. However, points $`j=\left(p+1\right)/2`$ and $`j=\left(p1\right)/2`$ are located in the vicinity of a point on the real axis where $`Z^1\left(\frac{p+1}{2N}\frac{j}{N}\right)`$ looses its analyticity. Therefore, the higher the order of derivatives of $`Z^1\left(\frac{p+1}{2N}\frac{j}{N}\right)`$ at these points, the more singular their behavior. Practically, this means that all terms of the Euler-Maclaurin series have the same order in $`N`$. This is why an alternative variant of the summation formula in the Abel-Plana form has been applied in . The Abel-Plana formula requires, however, the analyticity of $`Z^1\left(\frac{p+1}{2N}\frac{j}{N}\right)`$ in the strips $`1<\mathrm{Re}j<\left(p1\right)/2`$ and $`\left(p+1\right)/2<\mathrm{Re}j<p`$, which is assumed below.

Using the Abel-Plana formula, we can transform the sum over the roots of Bethe equations into two integrals along the segments $`1<j<\left(p1\right)/2`$ and $`\left(p+1\right)/2<j<p`$ with a finite size correction term $`f.s.c.`$ Then, these two integrals can be rewritten as the integral in the plane $`x`$ along the closed contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ minus the integral along the small segment connecting the points $`x_{\left(p1\right)/2}`$ and $`x_{\left(p+1\right)/2}`$.

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}}f\left(x_j\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{\left(p1\right)/2}{}}}f\left(Z^1(j)\right)𝑑j+{\displaystyle \underset{\left(p+1\right)/2}{\overset{p}{}}}f\left(Z^1(j)\right)𝑑j+f.s.c`$
$``$
$`{\displaystyle f(x)R(x)𝑑x}{\displaystyle \underset{x_{\left(p1\right)/2}}{\overset{x_{\left(p+1\right)/2}}{}}}f(y)R(y)𝑑y+f.s.c.`$
To get the expression for the finite size correction term, we have to know the behavior of the function $`Z^1\left(\xi \right)`$ in the vicinity of points $`\xi =0,1/N`$. Once we know $`Z(x)`$, the inverse function can be constructed by inversion of its series at every point. However, the inverse function $`Z^1\left(\xi \right)`$ become singular at the points $`\xi =0,1/N`$ in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. This should be taken into account in constructing its series.

Consider the Taylor series of $`Z(x)`$ in points $`x=x_ce^{iϵ}`$:

$$Z(x_ce^{iϵ}+t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z_n^{}}{n!}t^n$$

We can introduce new shifted variables $`y=t\sigma _{}`$ and consider the series expansion in $`y`$.

$$Z(x_ce^{iϵ}\sigma _{}+y)=z_0^{}+\delta ^{}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{b_n^{}}{n!}y^n,$$
(A.85)
where

$`z_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`Z(x_ce^{iϵ})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}};z_0^+=Z(x_ce^{iϵ})=0;`$
$`\delta _{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_n^{}}{n!}}\sigma _{}^n;b_n^{}={\displaystyle \underset{k=n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_k^{}\sigma _{}^{kn}}{(kn)!}}.`$
Two signs $``$ , marking all parameters here are to remind that we consider two expansions around points $`x_{\left(p1\right)/2}=x_ce^{iϵ}`$ and $`x_{\left(p+1\right)/2}=x_ce^{iϵ}`$, and generally the parameters $`z_k^{},\delta ^{},b_n^{},\sigma _{}`$ are different from $`z_k^+,\delta ^+,b_n^+,\sigma _+`$.

The shift of parameters $`\sigma _{}`$ is defined by the condition

$$b_1^{}=0$$
(A.86)
that determines the shift of the expansion to the point where the density $`R(x)`$ is zero. Using the expansion (A.85), we can construct the inverse series

$`Z^1\left(z_0^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{N}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{iN}}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}\left(\pm i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta N}{i}}}\right)^n`$ (A.87)
$`a_0`$ $`=`$ $`x_ce^{iϵ}+\sigma ,a_1=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{b_2}}},a_2={\displaystyle \frac{b_3}{3b_2^2}},`$
$`a_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_2}}\right)^{\frac{7}{2}}\left(5b_3^23b_2b_4\right),\mathrm{}`$
Here, we omitted the indices $``$ at variables $`a,b,\sigma ,\delta `$ still implying two different expansions. To ensure the proper choice of a branch of the square root in both expansions, one can check if Eq.(A.87) for $`\xi =0`$ is satisfied. Finally, after some algebra (see Appendix C) we rewrite the Bethe equations in the following form:

$`R_s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (s1)}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu \right)^{|s|}}{1\left(\mu \right)^{|s|}}}\times `$
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N}}(\tau _+x_+^s\tau _{}x_{}^s)+R_s\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x_+}{x_{}}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}{\displaystyle \underset{ns}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_n}{sn}}\left(x_+^{sn}x_{}^{sn}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N}}\left(\tau _+x_+^s\tau _{}x_{}^s\right)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2iN}}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n}{2}+1)}{\pi ^{\frac{n}{2}+1}}}\times `$
$`[c_{n,s}^{}(\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{n}{2}+1}(e^{\pi \tau _{}})i^n\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{n}{2}+1}(e^{\pi \tau _{}}))`$
$`c_{n,s}^+(\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{n}{2}+1}(e^{\pi \tau _+})(i)^n\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{n}{2}+1}(e^{\pi \tau _+}))]\}`$
if $`s0`$ and

$$ϵR_0=\underset{s0,s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}R_sx_c^s\frac{\mathrm{sin}ϵs}{s}+\frac{1}{2iN}$$
(A.89)
otherwise. For $`\gamma `$ and $`\rho `$, we have respectively

$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2Ni}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2iN}}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n}{2}+1)}{\pi ^{\frac{n}{2}+1}}}\times `$
$`[\overline{c}_n^{}(\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{n}{2}+1}(e^{\pi \tau _{}})i^n\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{n}{2}+1}(e^{\pi \tau _{}}))`$
$`\overline{c}_n^+(\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{n}{2}+1}(e^{\pi \tau _+})(i)^n\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{n}{2}+1}(e^{\pi \tau _+}))]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2N}}\left(\tau _{}\mathrm{ln}x_{}\tau _+\mathrm{ln}x_+\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{R_0}{2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}^2x_{}\mathrm{ln}^2x_+\right)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}R_s\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_+^nx_{}^n}{n^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_+^n\mathrm{ln}x_+x_{}^n\mathrm{ln}x_{}}{n}}\right)`$
and

$$\rho =2\pi iR_0.$$
(A.91)
Here we introduced notations $`\tau _{},x_{},c_{n,s}^{}`$ which are defined as follows

$`\delta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2N}}\left(i+\tau _{}\right);\text{ }x_{}=x_ce^{iϵ}+\sigma ^{}`$ (A.92)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n^{}x^n\right]^s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_{n,s}^{}x^n;\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n^{}x^n\right)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\overline{c}_n^{}x^n,`$ (A.93)
and $`R_s`$ are the expansion coefficients of Laurent series

$$R(x)=\underset{s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{R_s}{x^{s+1}}.$$
(A.94)
Using Eqs.(3.37),(B.106) together with Eqs.(C)-(C.122) we obtain the expression of eigenvalue in terms of $`R_s`$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )=2\pi iN\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\mu \right)^n\mathrm{\Lambda }_nR_n,$$
(A.95)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_n=\left(LR(\mu )^{n1}\right)(1+\mu )$$

While the equations Eqs.(A-A.91) look rather cumbersome, a significant simplification takes place if the following conditions are satisfied:

$`\tau _+`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _{}=\tau ;`$ (A.96a)
$`x_+`$ $`=`$ $`x_{}=\stackrel{~}{x};`$ (A.96b)
$`a_s^{}`$ $`=`$ $`a_s^+=a_s.`$ (A.96c)
Then, instead of Eqs.(A,A), we get
$`R_s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (s1)}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu \right)^{|s|}}{1\left(\mu \right)^{|s|}}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2N}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\frac{3}{2})}{\pi ^{n+\frac{3}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{2n+1,s}}{\sqrt{2i}}}\mathrm{Li}_{n+\frac{3}{2}}(e^{\pi \tau })`$
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2N}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\frac{3}{2})}{\pi ^{n+\frac{3}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{c}_{2n+1}}{\sqrt{2i}}}\mathrm{Li}_{n+\frac{3}{2}}(e^{\pi \tau }),`$ (A.97)
which together with Eq.(A.95) reproduces the results of paper . The conditions of Eqs.(A.96a) and (A.96b) are those accepted in  as assumptions. Equation (A.96a) is equivalent to equality $`\delta _+=\delta _{}`$ (see Eq.(32) in ). Equation (A.96b) is equivalent to the assumption that there is only one point $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ where $`Z^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})=0`$ which is used as the expansion center in . In our consideration, two complex conjugated points , $`x_+`$ and $`x_{},`$ are possible that merge into one point $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ in the limit $`p\mathrm{}`$. The third equality Eq.(A.96c) is a direct consequence of first two. Generally, there are no obvious reasons for Eqs.(A.96a) and (A.96b) to be satisfied .They can be checked a posteriori when the solution of Eqs.(A) and (A) is obtained. We checked them in first orders of the perturbative solution and found that they are correct in the first three orders which are necessary to reproduce the results of .

To obtain the solution of the Eqs.(A) - (A.91) which is consistent with the exact solution in the case $`\mu =0,`$ one has to assume $`ϵ`$ to behave as $`ϵN^{1/2}`$ when $`N\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, we assume the following expansion

$$ϵ=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{ϵ_i}{N^{\frac{k}{2}}}.$$
(A.98)
The other values in the Eqs.(A-A.91) can be represented as similar expansions

$$R_s=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{R_s^{(k)}}{N^{\frac{k}{2}}},\rho =\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\rho _i}{N^{\frac{k}{2}}},\gamma =\underset{k=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\gamma _i}{N^{\frac{k}{2}}}.$$
(A.99)
Equation (A.80) is used as a zero order solution. Then Eqs.(A-A.91) should be solved order by order in powers of $`N^{1/2}`$. The scaling dependence of $`\gamma `$ corresponds to $`\gamma N^{3/2}=const`$. The limit $`\gamma 0`$ corresponds to the limit $`ϵ_10`$. The other parameters $`ϵ_2,ϵ_3,\mathrm{}`$ depend on the way, how $`\gamma `$ approaches zero when $`N\mathrm{}`$. However, the physical results do not depend on these parameters due to analyticity of eigenvalue. Solving the Eqs.(A-A.91) in first four orders, we get the expression for eigenvalue given in Eqs.(5.55-5.57)

## Appendix B Evaluation of sums over roots of the Bethe equations.

To evaluate the sum over roots of the Bethe equation, one can use the asymptotic formula approximating the sum by the integrals

$$\underset{i=n}{\overset{m}{}}f(j)=\underset{n}{\overset{m}{}}f(j)𝑑j+corr(f,n,m)$$
(B.100)
with the correction term given by the asymptotic Euler-Maclaurin series

$$corr(f,n,m)=\frac{1}{2}(f(m)+f(n))+\underset{i=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{B_i}{i!}(f^{(i1)}(m)f^{(i1)}(n))$$
(B.101)
or by the Abel-Plana integral form

$`corr(f,n,m)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(f(m)+f(n))+`$ (B.102)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f(m+it)f(mit)f(n+it)+f(nit)}{e^{2\pi t}1}}𝑑t.`$ (B.103)
The former requires the analyticity of the function $`f(j)`$ at the segment of real axes $`j[n,m]`$ and the latter at the strip of complex plane, $`\mathrm{Re}x[n,m].`$ Let us suppose, that the analytical structure of the function $`Z(x)`$ allows one to define the analytical inverse function $`Z^1\left(\frac{p+1}{2N}\frac{j}{N}\right)`$ that maps the segment $`j[0,p]`$ into the closed contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ encircling zero in the plane of the variable $`x`$. Then the derivatives with respect to $`j`$ can be expressed in terms of $`x_j`$ as follows

$$\frac{}{j}f\left(j\right)\frac{1}{NR(x_j)}f^{}\left(Z\left(x_j\right)N+\frac{p+1}{2}\right).$$
(B.104)
We are interested in calculation of sums of the form

$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}F(x_j),$$
(B.105)
where $`F(x)`$ can be represented at the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as Laurent series with additional logarithmic term

$$F(x)=\overline{F}\mathrm{ln}x+\underset{s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_sx^s.$$
(B.106)
The root $`x_p`$ lies at the real part of positive axes. We can introduce its ”twin” at the other side of logarithm branch cut, $`x_0=e^{2\pi i}x_p`$, which corresponds to $`j=0`$. Then, application of Euler-Maclaurin formula Eq.(B.101) gives

$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}F(x_j)=\frac{1}{N}\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{p}{}}F(x_j)F(x_0)\right)=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}F(y)R(y)𝑑y+\frac{\pi i}{N}\overline{F}$$
(B.107)
Indeed, all derivatives in the Euler-Maclaurin series Eq.(B.101) taken at the points $`x_0`$ and $`x_p`$, being equal,.are cancelled by each other. The only contribution to correction term comes from difference between imaginary parts of the logarithm at the banks of its branch cut. As it is shown in the section (5), this case is limited by $`\gamma =0`$.

Let us consider the case when the roots $`x_{\left(p1\right)/2}`$ and $`x_{\left(p+1\right)/1}`$ are located in the vicinity of the point $`x_c`$ satisfying Eq.(A.83), and, therefore, we can not guarantee existence of an analytical function $`Z^1\left(\frac{p+1}{2N}\frac{j}{N}\right)`$ that maps the segment $`j[0,p]`$ to closed contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We, however, still assume, that the mapping like this exists at two its segments, which connect points $`x_0,x_{\left(p1\right)/2}`$ and $`x_{\left(p+1\right)/1},x_p`$. One can see from Eq.(B.104), that every derivative with respect to $`j`$ brings the competitive coefficients $`1/N`$ and $`1/R(x_j)`$, i.e. when $`N`$ tends to infinity $`R\left(x_{\left(p\pm 1\right)/1}\right)`$ goes to zero. This is why we use Abel-Plana summation formula Eq.(B.102) instead of Eq.(B.101) to take into account all contributions of the same order in $`N`$. Applying it to each of two segments separately and using formula Eq.(A.84) for the roots $`x_{\left(p1\right)/2}`$ and $`x_{\left(p+1\right)/1}`$ we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}}F(x_j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}R_s(I_s^0+I_s^ϵ)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{N}}\overline{F}+`$
$`\overline{F}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}x_c}{N}}+\overline{\varkappa }\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}F_s\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_c^s\mathrm{cos}ϵs}{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\varkappa _s}{N}}\right)`$
where

$`I_s^0`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi i\{\begin{array}{cc}F_s\frac{\overline{F}}{sx_0^s}& s0\\ F_0+\overline{F}\left(\mathrm{ln}x_0+i\pi \right)& s=0\end{array},`$ (B.111)
$`I_s^ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`2iϵ\{\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}F_s+\underset{ns,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_n\frac{x_c^{ns}\mathrm{sin}\left(ns\right)ϵ}{ϵ\left(ns\right)}+\\ \frac{\overline{F}}{sx_c^s}\left(\left(\mathrm{ln}x_c+\frac{1}{s}\right)\frac{\mathrm{sin}ϵs}{ϵ}\mathrm{cos}ϵs\right)\end{array}& s0\\ F_0+\underset{n0,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_n\frac{x_c^n\mathrm{sin}nϵ}{ϵn}+\overline{F}\mathrm{ln}x_c& s=0\end{array},`$ (B.116)
$`\varkappa _s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\{\left[Z^1({\displaystyle \frac{1+it}{N}})\right]^s\left[Z^1({\displaystyle \frac{1it}{N}})\right]^s`$
$`\left[Z^1({\displaystyle \frac{it}{N}})\right]^s+\left[Z^1({\displaystyle \frac{it}{N}})\right]^s\}/(e^{2\pi t}1)dt,`$
$`\overline{\varkappa }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\{\mathrm{ln}Z^1({\displaystyle \frac{1+it}{N}})\mathrm{ln}Z^1({\displaystyle \frac{1it}{N}})`$
$`\mathrm{ln}Z^1({\displaystyle \frac{it}{N}})+\mathrm{ln}Z^1({\displaystyle \frac{it}{N}})\}/(e^{2\pi t}1)dt`$
and $`R_s`$ are the coefficients of the Laurent expansion of the density defined in Eq.(A.94).

## Appendix C  Derivation of equations for $`R_s`$.

Rewriting the sum in the Eq.(5.54) with the help of Eq.(B) and collecting coefficient of the same powers of $`x`$ we get

$`s`$ $``$ $`0:`$
$`R_s={\displaystyle \frac{\theta (s1)}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mu \right)^{|s|}}{1\left(\mu \right)^{|s|}}}\times `$
$`\left(ϵR_s+{\displaystyle \underset{ns,n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_c^{sn}}{sn}}\mathrm{sin}ϵ\left(sn\right)R_n{\displaystyle \frac{x_c^s}{2iN}}\mathrm{cos}ϵs{\displaystyle \frac{\varkappa _s}{2iN}}\right)`$
$`s`$ $`=`$ $`0:`$ (C.122)
$`ϵR_0={\displaystyle \underset{s0,s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}R_sx_c^s{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}ϵs}{s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2iN}}`$
$`\gamma =2i{\displaystyle \underset{s0,s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_c^s}{s}}\left(ϵ\mathrm{cos}ϵs{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}ϵs}{s}}\right)R_s+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\varkappa }}{N}}`$
$`\rho =2\pi iR_0`$
where we use the function $`\mathrm{\Theta }(y/x)`$, treated as a function of the variable $`y,`$ as the expansion valid at the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with coefficients defined like in Eq.(B.106)

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_n=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\left(\mu \right)^{|s|}}{sx^s}& s0\\ \mathrm{ln}x& s=0\end{array};\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}=1.$$

To go further one needs to obtain the explicit expressions for $`\varkappa _s,\overline{\varkappa }`$ in terms of $`R_s`$. Using the expansion of $`Z^1\left(z_0^{}+\frac{\xi }{N}\right)`$, Eq.(A.87), we get

$`\varkappa _s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2iN}}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}\left[c_{n,s}^{}Y_n^{}c_{n,s}^+Y_n^+\right]`$ (C.123)
$`\overline{\varkappa }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2iN}}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}\left[Y_n^{}\overline{c}_n^{}Y_n^+\overline{c}_n^+\right],`$ (C.124)
where the coefficients $`\overline{c}_n^{}`$ and $`c_{n,s}^{}`$ are defined in Eq.(A.93) an the functions $`Y_n^{}`$ are given by

$$Y_n^{}=\frac{1}{i}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left[\left(\pm i\sqrt{t+\tau _{}i}\right)^n\left(\pm i\sqrt{t+\tau _{}i}\right)^n\right]}{e^{\pi t}1}𝑑t$$
(C.125)
The method of evaluation of these integrals is described in detail in . Finally, for $`Y_n^{}`$ we get

$`Y_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\{(i{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{}i}{\frac{n}{2}+1}})(\pm i\sqrt{\tau _{}i})^n+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n}{2}+1)}{\pi ^{\frac{n}{2}+1}}}(\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{n}{2}+1}(e^{\pi \tau _{}})(\pm i)^n\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{n}{2}+1}(e^{\pi \tau _{}}))\}.`$
Using the equalities

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_{n,s}^{}\left(\pm i\sqrt{\tau _{}i}\right)^n\left(\frac{1}{2iN}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}=\left[Z^1(z_0^{})\right]^sc_{0,s}^{},$$
(C.127)
$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\overline{c}_n^{}\left(\pm i\sqrt{\tau _{}i}\right)^n\left(\frac{1}{2iN}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}=\mathrm{ln}\left[Z^1(z_0^{})\right]\overline{c}_0^{},$$
(C.128)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_{n,s}^{}\left(\pm i\sqrt{\tau _{}i}\right)^n\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2iN}}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{}i}{\frac{n}{2}+1}}=\delta ^{}Nc_{0,s}^{}+`$ (C.129)
$`N{\displaystyle \underset{c_{0,s}^{}}{\overset{Z^1\left(z_0^{}\right)}{}}}x^sR(x)𝑑x,`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\overline{c}_n^{}\left(\pm i\sqrt{\tau _{}i}\right)^n\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2iN}}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{}i}{\frac{n}{2}+1}}=N\delta ^{}\overline{c}_0^{}+`$ (C.130)
$`N{\displaystyle \underset{c_{0,s}^{}}{\overset{Z^1\left(z_0^{}\right)}{}}}\mathrm{ln}xR(x)𝑑x,`$
$$Z^1(z_0^{})=x_ce^{iϵ};c_{0,s}^{}=x_{}^s;$$
(C.131)
and Eqs.(A.92) we come to the system of equations for $`R_s`$, Eqs.(A)-(A).


format: text

text:
# Complex Extension of Quantum Mechanics

\[

## Abstract

It is shown that the standard formulation of quantum mechanics in terms of Hermitian Hamiltonians is overly restrictive. A consistent physical theory of quantum mechanics can be built on a complex Hamiltonian that is not Hermitian but satisfies the less restrictive and more physical condition of space-time reflection symmetry ($`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry). Thus, there are infinitely many new Hamiltonians that one can construct to explain experimental data. One might expect that a quantum theory based on a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian would violate unitarity. However, if $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry is not spontaneously broken, it is possible to construct a previously unnoticed physical symmetry $`𝒞`$ of the Hamiltonian. Using $`𝒞`$, an inner product is constructed whose associated norm is positive definite. This construction is completely general and works for any $`𝒫𝒯`$-symmetric Hamiltonian. Observables exhibit $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry, and the dynamics is governed by unitary time evolution. This work is not in conflict with conventional quantum mechanics but is rather a complex generalization of it.

\]

Four years ago it was noted that with properly defined boundary conditions the spectrum of the Hamiltonian

$$H=p^2+x^2(ix)^\nu (\nu 0)$$
(1)
is real and positive . The reality of the spectrum of $`H`$ is a consequence of its unbroken $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry. We say that $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry is not spontaneously broken if eigenfunctions of $`H`$ are simultaneously eigenfunctions of $`𝒫𝒯`$. The linear parity operator $`𝒫`$ performs spatial reflection and has the effect $`pp`$ and $`xx`$, whereas the antilinear time-reversal operator $`𝒯`$ has the effect $`pp`$, $`xx`$, and $`ii`$. While $`H`$ in (1) is not symmetric under $`𝒫`$ or $`𝒯`$ separately, it is invariant under their combined operation. We say that such Hamiltonians possess space-time reflection symmetry. Other examples  of complex Hamiltonians having unbroken $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry and thus real, positive spectra are $`H=p^2+x^4(ix)^\nu `$ ($`\nu >0`$), $`H=p^2+x^6(ix)^\nu `$ ($`\nu >0`$), and so on.

Recently, Dorey et al. proved rigorously that the spectrum of $`H`$ in (1) is indeed real and positive . Many other $`𝒫𝒯`$-symmetric Hamiltonians for which space-time reflection symmetry is not spontaneously broken have been investigated, and the spectra of these Hamiltonians have also been shown to be real and positive .

Nevertheless, if we attempt to develop a consistent quantum theory for these Hamiltonians, we encounter the severe difficulty of dealing with Hilbert spaces endowed with indefinite metrics . The purpose of the present Letter is to identify a new symmetry, denoted $`𝒞`$, inherent in all $`𝒫𝒯`$-symmetric Hamiltonians that possess an unbroken $`𝒫𝒯`$-symmetry. This allows us to introduce an inner product structure associated with $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ conjugation for which the norms of quantum states are positive definite. In particular, $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry is shown to generalize the conventional Hermiticity requirement by replacing it with a dynamically determined inner product (one that is defined by the Hamiltonian itself). As a result, we can extend the Hamiltonian and its eigenstates into the complex domain so that the associated eigenvalues are real and the underlying dynamics is unitary.

Let us begin by summarizing the mathematical properties of the solution to the Sturm-Liouville differential equation eigenvalue problem

$$\varphi _n^{\prime \prime }(x)+x^2(ix)^\nu \varphi _n(x)=E_n\varphi _n(x)$$
(2)
associated with the Hamiltonian $`H`$ in (1). First, we emphasize that the differential equation (2) must be imposed on an infinite contour $`\mathrm{C}`$ in the complex-$`x`$ plane. For large $`|x|`$ the contour $`\mathrm{C}`$ lies in wedges that are placed symmetrically with respect to the imaginary-$`x`$ axis. These wedges are described in Ref. . The boundary conditions on the eigenfunctions are that $`\varphi (x)0`$ exponentially rapidly as $`|x|\mathrm{}`$ on $`\mathrm{C}`$. For $`0\nu <2`$, the contour $`\mathrm{C}`$ may be taken to be the real axis.

Second, the eigenfunctions $`\varphi _n(x)`$ are simultaneously eigenstates of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ operator: $`𝒫𝒯\varphi _n(x)=\lambda _n\varphi _n(x)`$. Because $`(𝒫𝒯)^2=1`$ and $`𝒫𝒯`$ involves complex conjugation, it follows that $`|\lambda _n|=1`$. Thus, $`\lambda _n=e^{i\omega _n}`$ is a pure phase. Without loss of generality for each $`n`$ this phase can be absorbed into $`\varphi _n`$ by the multiplicative rescaling $`\varphi _ne^{i\omega _n/2}\varphi _n`$, so that the new eigenvalue is unity:

$$𝒫𝒯\varphi _n(x)=\varphi _n^{}(x)=\varphi _n(x).$$
(3)
Third, the eigenfunctions are complete. The statement of completeness (for real $`x`$ and $`y`$) is

$$\underset{n}{}(1)^n\varphi _n(x)\varphi _n(y)=\delta (xy).$$
(4)
This is a nontrivial result that has been verified numerically to extremely high accuracy .

Fourth, there appears to be a natural choice for an inner product of two functions $`f(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$ given by

$$(f,g)_\mathrm{C}𝑑x[𝒫𝒯f(x)]g(x),$$
(5)
where $`𝒫𝒯f(x)=[f(x)]^{}`$. The advantage of this inner product is that the associated norm $`(f,f)`$ is independent of the overall phase of $`f(x)`$ and is conserved in time. Phase independence is required because we wish to construct a space of rays to represent quantum mechanical states. With respect to this inner product the eigenfunctions of $`H`$ in (1) for all $`\nu 0`$ satisfy

$$(\varphi _m,\varphi _n)=(1)^n\delta _{mn}.$$
(6)
With this inner product it is easy to verify the position-space representation of the unity operator in (4). For example, one can verify that $`𝑑y\delta (xy)\delta (yz)=\delta (xz)`$ using (4) and (6). However, because the norms of the eigenfunctions alternate in sign, the Hilbert space metric associated with the $`𝒫𝒯`$ inner product $`(,)`$ is indefinite.

Having reviewed these general properties, the crucial question that must be addressed is whether a $`𝒫𝒯`$-symmetric Hamiltonian defines a physically viable quantum mechanics or whether it merely provides an intriguing Sturm-Liouville problem. The apparent difficulty with formulating a quantum theory is that the Hilbert space is spanned by energy eigenstates, of which half have norm $`+1`$ and half have norm $`1`$. Because the norm of the states carries a probabilistic interpretation in standard quantum theory, the existence of an indefinite metric immediately raises an obstacle.

With the above inner product $`(,)`$, the state space for a finite-dimensional $`2n\times 2n`$ matrix Hamiltonian that is symmetric under space-time reflection embodies the symmetry of $`SU(n,n)`$ rather than the conventional $`SU(2n)`$. The space-time reflection operator in finite dimensions is the product of a parity operator satisfying $`𝒫^2=1`$ and $`\mathrm{tr}𝒫=0`$, and an antilinear Hermitian conjugation operator satisfying $`𝒯^2=1`$. Unlike the unitary group, $`SU(n,n)`$ is not simply connected, and consequently the state space is partitioned into two disjoint halves, one associated with norm $`+1`$ and the other with norm $`1`$.

One can try to formulate a quantum theory associated with $`𝒫𝒯`$-symmetric Hamiltonians by insisting that physical states must have positive norm . This leads to a quantum mechanics defined on a nonlinear state space. Such investigations are of interest, but the existence of negative-norm eigenstates still leaves open serious interpretational issues. In particular, one finds that expectation values of bounded observables are unbounded in such quantum theories. The situation here in which half of the energy eigenstates have positive norm and half have negative norm is analogous to the problem that Dirac encountered in formulating the wave equation in relativistic quantum theory .

We resolve the problem of an indefinite norm by finding a physical interpretation for the negative norm states. We observe that in any theory having an unbroken $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry there exists a previously unnoticed symmetry of the Hamiltonian connected with the fact that there are equal numbers of positive-norm and negative-norm states. To describe this symmetry we construct a linear operator that we denote by $`𝒞`$. We use the notation $`𝒞`$ because the properties of this operator are nearly identical to those of the charge conjugation operator in quantum field theory. The operator $`𝒞`$ is the observable that represents the measurement of the signature of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ norm of a state. We will see that $`𝒞`$ commutes with both the Hamiltonian $`H`$ and the operator $`𝒫𝒯`$. Therefore, eigenstates of $`H`$ have definite values of $`𝒞`$. We will also see that $`𝒞^2=1`$, so the eigenvalues of $`𝒞`$ are $`\pm 1`$.

We can construct the operator $`𝒞`$ explicitly in terms of the energy eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. The position-space representation of $`𝒞`$ is

$$𝒞(x,y)=\underset{n}{}\varphi _n(x)\varphi _n(y).$$
(7)
Note that $`𝒞`$ is a linear operator. From equations (4) and (6) we can verify that the square of $`𝒞`$ is unity:

$$𝑑y𝒞(x,y)𝒞(y,z)=\delta (xz).$$
(8)
We can also construct the parity operator $`𝒫`$ in terms of the energy eigenstates. In position space

$$𝒫(x,y)=\delta (x+y)=\underset{n}{}(1)^n\varphi _n(x)\varphi _n(y).$$
(9)
Like the operator $`𝒞`$, the square of the parity operator is also unity.

The two operators $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒞`$ are distinct square roots of the unity operator $`\delta (xy)`$. That is, while $`𝒫^2=1`$ and $`𝒞^2=1`$, $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒞`$ are not identical. Indeed, the parity operator $`𝒫`$ is real, while $`𝒞`$ is complex. Furthermore, these two operators do not commute; specifically, in the position representation

$$(𝒞𝒫)(x,y)=\underset{n}{}\varphi _n(x)\varphi _n(y),$$
(10)
whereas

$$(𝒫𝒞)(x,y)=\underset{n}{}\varphi _n(x)\varphi _n(y),$$
(11)
which shows by (3) that $`𝒞𝒫=(𝒫𝒞)^{}`$. Evidently, $`𝒞`$ does commute with $`𝒫𝒯`$.

The operator $`𝒞`$ does not exist as a distinct entity in conventional Hermitian quantum mechanics. Indeed, if we allow the parameter $`\nu `$ in (1) to tend to zero, the operator $`𝒞`$ in this limit becomes identical to $`𝒫`$. Thus, in this limit the $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ operator becomes $`𝒯`$. In short, in standard quantum mechanics the requirements of $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry and conventional Hermiticity coincide. Therefore, $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ invariance can be viewed as the natural complex extension of the Hermiticity condition, which ensures the reality of observables and the unitarity of the dynamics when the Hamiltonian becomes complex.

Finally, having obtained the operator $`𝒞`$ we can define a new inner product structure having positive definite signature by

$$f|g_\mathrm{C}𝑑x[𝒞𝒫𝒯f(x)]g(x).$$
(12)
Like the $`𝒫𝒯`$ inner product (5), this inner product is also phase independent and conserved in time. The inner product (12) is positive definite because $`𝒞`$ contributes $`1`$ when it acts on states with negative $`𝒫𝒯`$ norm. In terms of the $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ conjugate, the completeness condition (4) now reads

$$\underset{n}{}\varphi _n(x)[𝒞𝒫𝒯\varphi _n(y)]=\delta (xy).$$
(13)
Unlike the case of conventional quantum mechanics, the $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ inner product is dynamically determined; it implicitly depends on the choice of Hamiltonian. When $`H`$ is Hermitian, (13) reduces to the conventional completeness condition of quantum mechanics because $`𝒯`$ performs Hermitian conjugation.

We remark that the $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ inner-product (12) defined above is independent of the choice of integration contour $`\mathrm{C}`$ so long as $`\mathrm{C}`$ lies inside the asymptotic wedges associated with the boundary conditions for the Sturm-Liouville problem (2). Path independence is a consequence of Cauchy’s theorem and the analyticity of the integrand. In the case of standard quantum mechanics, where the positive-definite inner product has the form $`𝑑xf^{}(x)g(x)`$, the integral must be taken along the real axis and the path of the integration cannot be deformed into the complex plane because the integrand is not analytic. The $`𝒫𝒯`$ inner product (5) shares with (12) the advantage of analyticity and path independence, but suffers from the lack of positivity. We find it surprising that a positive-definite metric structure can be constructed using $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ conjugation without disturbing the path independence of the inner-product integral.

Let us illustrate these results for a $`2\times 2`$ Hamiltonian (see, also, Ref ). In this case we may choose the parity operator to be

$$𝒫=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(14)
without loss of generality, because in finite dimensions the parity operator $`𝒫`$ is defined uniquely up to unitary transformations . Consequently, the most general form of a $`𝒫𝒯`$-invariant Hamiltonian satisfying $`𝒫H^{}𝒫=H`$, where $`H^{}`$ is the Hermitian conjugate of $`H`$, can be expressed as a four-parameter family of matrices

$$H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}re^{i\theta }& s\\ t& re^{i\theta }\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
where $`r`$, $`s`$, $`t`$, and $`\theta `$ are real. Note that this Hamiltonian is not Hermitian in the conventional sense. Nevertheless, the eigenvalues $`\epsilon _\pm =r\mathrm{cos}\theta \pm \sqrt{str^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }`$ are real provided that

$$st>r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .$$
(16)
The simultaneous eigenstates of the operators $`H`$ and $`𝒫𝒯`$ are given by

$$|\epsilon _+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{cos}\alpha }}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{i\alpha /2}\\ e^{i\alpha /2}\end{array}\right)$$
(17)
and

$$|\epsilon _{}=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{cos}\alpha }}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{i\alpha /2}\\ e^{i\alpha /2}\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
where we set $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha =(r/\sqrt{st})\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. It is easy to verify that $`(\epsilon _\pm ,\epsilon _\pm )=\pm 1`$ and that $`(\epsilon _\pm ,\epsilon _{})=0`$, recalling that $`(u,v)=(𝒫𝒯u)v`$. Therefore, with respect to the $`𝒫𝒯`$ inner product, the resulting Hilbert space has a metric structure of signature $`(+,)`$. The condition (16) ensures that $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry is not spontaneously broken. If this condition is violated, the states (17) and (18) are no longer eigenstates of $`𝒫𝒯`$ because $`\alpha `$ becomes imaginary.

Next, we construct the operator $`𝒞`$. For the parity operator $`𝒫`$ in (14), the corresponding operator $`𝒞`$ is

$$𝒞=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\alpha }\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\mathrm{sin}\alpha & 1\\ 1& i\mathrm{sin}\alpha \end{array}\right).$$
(19)
The operator $`𝒞`$ is distinct from $`H`$ and $`𝒫`$ and has the key property that

$$𝒞|\epsilon _\pm =\pm |\epsilon _\pm .$$
(20)
The operator $`𝒞`$ commutes with the Hamiltonian and satisfies $`𝒞^2=1`$. The eigenvalues of $`𝒞`$ are precisely the signs of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ norms of the corresponding eigenstates.

With the aid of the operator $`𝒞`$ we construct the new inner product structure having positive signature by

$$u|v=(𝒞𝒫𝒯u)v.$$
(21)
This inner product is positive definite. In particular, we have $`\epsilon _\pm |\epsilon _\pm =1`$. It follows that the two-dimensional Hilbert space spanned by $`|\epsilon _\pm `$, with inner product $`|`$, has a Hermitian structure with signature $`(+,+)`$. Recalling that $`u|`$ denotes the $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$-conjugate of $`|u`$, the completeness condition is

$$|\epsilon _+\epsilon _+|+|\epsilon _{}\epsilon _{}|=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(22)
Furthermore, using the $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ conjugate $`\epsilon _\pm |`$, we can express $`𝒞`$ in the form $`𝒞=|\epsilon _+\epsilon _+||\epsilon _{}\epsilon _{}|,`$ as opposed to the representation in (7), which uses the $`𝒫𝒯`$ conjugate.

In general, an observable in this theory is represented by a $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ invariant operator; that is, one that commutes with $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$. Thus, if $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry is not spontaneously broken, the eigenvalues of the observable are real. The operator $`𝒞`$ satisfies this requirement, and hence is an observable. For the two-state system, if we set $`\theta =0`$, then the Hamiltonian in (15) becomes Hermitian in the conventional sense. However, the operator $`𝒞`$ then reduces to the parity operator $`𝒫`$. As a consequence, the requirement of $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ invariance reduces to the standard condition of Hermiticity. It is for this reason that the hidden symmetry $`𝒞`$ was not noticed previously. The operator $`𝒞`$ only surfaces when we extend the Hamiltonian of conventional quantum mechanics into the complex domain.

In summary, we have generalized the condition of Hermiticity in quantum mechanics to the statement of $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ invariance. In quantum field theory, the conditions of Hermiticity, Lorentz invariance, and positive spectrum are crucial for establishing $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ invariance . In this Letter we establish the converse of the $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ theorem in the following limited sense: We assume that the Hamiltonian possesses space-time reflection symmetry, and that this symmetry is not spontaneously broken. From these assumptions, we know that the spectrum is real and positive and we construct an operator $`𝒞`$ that is like the charge conjugation operator, and show that quantum states in this theory have positive norms with respect to $`𝒞𝒫𝒯`$ conjugation. In effect, we replace the mathematical condition of Hermiticity, whose physical content is somewhat remote and obscure, by the physical condition of space-time and charge-conjugation symmetry. These symmetries ensure the reality of the spectrum of the Hamiltonian in complex quantum theories.

In the real formulation of conventional quantum theory the dimensionality of the Hilbert space must be even. This is necessary in order to introduce a complex structure in the underlying real Hilbert space . In the present theory we must introduce the parity operator $`𝒫`$, which can only be defined on an even-dimensional complex Hilbert space. Hence, the dimensionality of the underlying real space is a multiple of four. This is related to the fact that for each quantum state there is a corresponding partner state, and these two states are always formed pairwise in the sense that when $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry is spontaneously broken, the corresponding pairs of eigenvalues become complex conjugates of one another. This is because the secular equation for a $`𝒫𝒯`$-symmetric Hamiltonian is real .

In a conventional Hermitian quantum field theory the operators $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒫`$ satisfy the commutation relation $`𝒞𝒫=(1)^N𝒫𝒞`$, where $`N`$ is the Fermion number of the state these operators act on. In a $`𝒫𝒯`$-symmetric quantum field theory the commutation relations are as follows. If we write $`𝒞=𝒞_\mathrm{R}+i𝒞_\mathrm{I}`$ where $`𝒞_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`𝒞_\mathrm{I}`$ are real, then it follows from (10) and (11) that $`𝒞_\mathrm{R}𝒫=𝒫𝒞_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`𝒞_\mathrm{I}𝒫=𝒫𝒞_\mathrm{I}`$. As a consequence, it may not necessarily be true that particles and their partners (for example, antiparticles) have the same energy eigenvalues. We recall that space-time reflection symmetry is weaker than the condition of Hermiticity, and therefore it is possible to consider new kinds of quantum field theories, whose self-interaction potentials are, for example, $`ig\phi ^3`$ or $`g\phi ^4`$, that have previously been thought to be unacceptable. A plausible signal of one of these new theories would be the observation of a particle and its corresponding partner having different masses.

CMB thanks the U.S. Department of Energy and DCB thanks the Royal Society for financial support. The authors are grateful for helpful remarks from L. P. Hughston and T. W. B. Kibble.