text:
# Bak–Sneppen model near zero dimension

## Abstract

We consider the Bak–Sneppen model near zero dimension where the avalanche exponent $`\tau `$ is close to $`1`$ and the exponents $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma `$ are close to $`0`$. We demonstrate that $`\tau 1=\mu \sigma =\mathrm{exp}\{\mu ^1\gamma +\mathrm{}\}`$ in this limit, where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler’s constant. The avalanche hierarchy equation is rewritten in a form that makes possible to find the relation between the critical exponents $`\sigma `$ and $`\mu `$ with high accuracy. We obtain new, more precise, values of the critical exponents for the 1D and 2D Bak–Sneppen model and for the 1D anisotropic Bak–Sneppen model.

PACS numbers: 05.40.+j, 64.60.Fr, 64.60.Lx, 87.10.+e

Perhaps the most simply formulated model showing avalanche behavior is the Bak–Sneppen model : ”What could be simpler than replacing some random numbers with some other random numbers?” . Nevertheless, the exact solution of the Bak–Sneppen model is unknown even in one dimension. The value of the most fundamental quantity, i.e. of the upper critical dimension is also still under discussion .

The formulation of the model is short indeed. A random number $`f_i`$ from some distribution $`𝒫(f)`$ is placed at an each site $`i`$ of a lattice. One replaces simultaneously the smallest number $`f_{min}`$ of them and the random numbers at its nearest neighbour sites by new random numbers from the distribution $`𝒫(f)`$, and afterwards the process is repeated.

Avalanches in the Bak–Sneppen model are defined in the following way. The $`f`$-avalanche is defined as the sequence of the steps at which $`f_{min}`$ remains smaller than the given parameter $`f`$. (One may find a more detailed definition in .)

A very significant step to the understanding of the nature of the avalanches in this model was made in  by S. Maslov who introduced the so called avalanche hierarchy equation for the distribution $`P(s,f)`$ of $`f`$-avalanche sizes $`s`$ (i.e. of temporal durations). From this exact equation, one may get the additional relation between the critical exponents of the model. Unfortunately, the exact solution of the equation is known only for the mean field situation. Two first terms of the expansion from the mean field solution, i.e. from the upper critical dimension, were calculated in . The precision of the results obtained by direct numerical integration of the avalanche hierarchy equation in its original form  is only comparable with the precision of the Monte Carlo simulations .

There is another way to get analytical results. It seems natural to start from the lower critical dimension which equals zero for the Bak–Sneppen model to make something similar to the well known $`2+ϵ`$ expansion. Here, we derive from the avalanche hierarchy equation some convenient relations which enable us find the singular relation between the critical exponents near zero dimension and get values of the exponents at integer dimensions. Traditionally, one relates the exponents $`\tau `$ and $`\mu `$  (see the definition of these exponents below). The total curve $`\tau (\mu )`$ with the particular points for the integer dimensions and the areas of applicability of the approaches of  and ours is depicted in Fig. 1.

For the distribution $`𝒫(f)=e^f,f>0`$ , the avalanche hierarchy equation is of the form

$$\frac{P(s,f)}{f}=\underset{t=1}{\overset{s1}{}}t^\mu P(t,f)P(st,f)s^\mu P(s,f).$$
(1)
Here, in the scaling region, $`s^\mu `$ gives the average number of the distinct sites updating during an avalanche of the size $`s`$, where $`\mu =d/D_f`$, $`d`$ is the dimension of the lattice, $`D_f`$ is an avalanche fractal dimension . The physical meaning of the equation describing the hierarchical nature of avalanches in the Bak–Sneppen model is the following. The distribution $`P(s,f)`$ changes while $`f`$ grows because of two reasons. First, two consecutive avalanches of size $`t`$ and $`st`$ contribute to the avalanche of size $`s`$ (the second avalanche starts from one of the sites changed during the first avalanche that gives the factor $`t^\mu `$ in the sum). Second, some avalanches of size $`s`$ merge into a larger avalanche.

For the problem under consideration, the exponent $`\mu `$, which equals $`0`$ at the lower critical dimension and equals $`1`$ at the upper critical dimension (simulation in  and , gave different values for it, $`d_{uc}=8`$ and $`4`$, correspondingly), is the given parameter. All other exponents are related with $`\mu `$ by Eq. (1). Below the threshold $`f_c`$ (i.e. in the symmetric phase) the solution of Eq. (1) has the following scaling form:

$$P(s,f)=s^\tau F\left(s^\sigma (f_cf)\right).$$
(2)
Eq. (1) resembles nonlinear differential equations with a peaking regime . For such equations, it is possible to find both exponents included in Eq. (2).

In , it was proposed to search for the Laplace transform of the distribution $`P(s,f)`$:

$$p(\alpha ,f)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P(s,f)e^{\alpha s}.$$
(3)
Then Eq. (1) gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1p(\alpha ,f)}}{\displaystyle \frac{p(\alpha ,f)}{f}}={\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}P(s,f)s^\mu e^{\alpha s}=`$ (4)
$`(1)^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{^\mu p(\alpha ,f)}{\alpha ^\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu )}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{p(\alpha +t,f)}{\alpha }},`$ (5)
where $`^\mu /\alpha ^\mu `$ denotes the fractional partial derivative ($`\mu `$ is certainly noninteger) and the last expression is its integral representation. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }()`$ is the gamma-function. The scaling relation for the solution of Eq. (4) is

$$p(\alpha ,f)=1\alpha ^{\tau 1}h\left(\frac{f_cf}{\alpha ^\sigma }\right).$$
(6)
Inserting Eq. (6) into Eq. (4) one obtains the usual relation between the critical exponents

$$\tau =1+\mu \sigma $$
(7)
and the following integral-differential equation for the scaling function $`h(x)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu )x\frac{h^{}(x)}{h(x)}=_0^x𝑑y\frac{yh^{}(y)\frac{\mu \sigma }{\sigma }h(y)}{[1(y/x)^{1/\sigma }]^\mu }.$$
(8)
Here $`h^{}(x)dh(x)/dx`$.

In , Eq. (8) was used to obtain the expansion from the mean field solution  but it seems to be inconvenient. Let us show that one may transfer it to a purely integral form. The following lines demonstrate how that integration may be done.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}h(x)}{dx}}`$ (9)
$`={\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{(1z^{1/\sigma })^\mu }}\left[xz{\displaystyle \frac{dh(xz)}{d(xz)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \sigma }{\sigma }}h(xz)\right]={\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{(1z^{1/\sigma })^\mu }}(xz)^{(\mu \sigma )/\sigma +1}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d(xz)}}\left[(xz)^{(\mu \sigma )/\sigma }h(xz)\right]`$ (10)
$`=x^{(\mu \sigma )/\sigma +1}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{(1z^{1/\sigma })^\mu }}z^{(\mu \sigma )/\sigma +1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\left[x^{(\mu \sigma )/\sigma }z^{(\mu \sigma )/\sigma }h(xz)\right]`$ (11)
$`=x^{(\mu \sigma )/\sigma +1}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}x^{(\mu \sigma )/\sigma }{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{h(xz)}{(1z^{1/\sigma })^\mu }}.`$ (12)
Applying $`_0^x𝑑x`$ to the first and the last lines of Eq. (9) and then integrating by parts (one may chose $`h(x=0)=1`$ ) we get

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu )\mathrm{ln}h(x)=_0^1\frac{dz}{(1z^{1/\sigma })^\mu }\left[xh(xz)\left(\frac{\mu \sigma }{\sigma }+1\right)_0^x𝑑uh(uz)\right]$$
(13)
and finally we obtain the equation for the scaling function $`h(x)`$ in the most convenient form:

$$h(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu )}_0^x\frac{dy}{[1(y/x)^{1/\sigma }]^\mu }\left[h(y)\frac{\mu }{\sigma }\frac{1}{y}_0^y𝑑zh(z)\right]\right\}$$
(14)
(if one does not demand $`h(0)=1`$, $`h(x)`$ in the left parts of Eqs. (13) and (14) is $`h(x)/h(0)`$).

Asymptotic form of $`h(x)`$ for large $`x`$ follows from the expansion of Eq. (3) in small $`\alpha `$. Below the threshold, $`h(x)`$ has to be

$$h(x)x^{(\mu \sigma )/\sigma 1/\sigma }(c_0+c_1x^{1/\sigma }+c_2x^{2/\sigma }+\mathrm{}).$$
(15)
This particular asymptotic behavior fixes the solution of Eq. (14) and the value of $`\sigma `$ for any given $`\mu `$. Substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (8), Eq. (13), or Eq. (14), one gets the sume rule

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xh(x)=\frac{1(\mu \sigma )}{\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu ).$$
(16)
Note that if $`h(x,\mu ,\sigma )`$ is a solution of Eq. (14) then $`ch(cx,\mu ,\sigma )`$ is also a solution for any constant $`c`$.

Eqs. (14) and (16) are the set of equations that lead to the scaling function $`h(x,\mu )`$ and $`\sigma (\mu )`$. Instead of Eq. (16), one may use equally the condition on the value of the exponent of the asymptote

$$[xh^{}(x)/h(x)](x\mathrm{})=\frac{(\mu \sigma )1}{\sigma }.$$
(17)
Hence, the problem is reduced to the eigen value problem for the nonlinear equation .

Let us study the solution of the system for small $`\mu `$. The expansion of the solution of Eq. (14) in $`x`$ looks as

$`\mathrm{ln}h(x)=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\sigma }}\right)B(\sigma ,1\mu )\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma x}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu )}}\right)+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\sigma }}\right)B(\sigma ,1\mu )\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\sigma }}\right)B(2\sigma ,1\mu )\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma x}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu )}}\right)^2+`$ (18)
$`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\sigma }}\right)B(\sigma ,1\mu )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\sigma }}\right)B(\sigma ,1\mu )+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\sigma }}\right)B(2\sigma ,1\mu )\right]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\sigma }}\right)B(3\sigma ,1\mu )\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma x}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu )}}\right)^3+\mathrm{}`$ (19)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu \sigma }{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}B(\sigma ,1\mu )\mathrm{}B(n\sigma ,1\mu )\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma x}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu )}}\right)^n+\mathrm{},`$ (20)
where $`B(,)`$ is the beta-function. We shall see that the quantity $`(\mu \sigma )/\sigma `$ is the smallest parameter of the problem near the lower critical dimension. If one tends formally $`\mu `$ to $`0`$, the last line of Eq. (18) tends to

$$\mathrm{ln}h(x)=\frac{\mu \sigma }{\sigma }\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+n\mu )}{nn!}\left(\frac{x}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu )}\right)^n$$
(21)
and afterwards to

$$\mathrm{ln}h(x)=\frac{\mu \sigma }{\sigma }\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{nn!}\left(\frac{x}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu )}\right)^n.$$
(22)
Thus, for small $`\mu `$, the solution $`h(x)`$ behaves as the following. For low enough $`x`$, the solution very slowly decreases from the value $`h(0)=1`$ and in some crossover region, $`x1/\mu `$, it comes to the asymptotic power tail, Eq. (15). We have to stress that three last limit equalities may be justified only for small $`x`$ and that the omitted terms in Eq. (18) do contribute to the power-law tail. Nevertheless, one may try to estimate $`\sigma (\mu )`$ for small $`\mu `$ inserting Eqs. (21) and (22) into the sum rule (16). The solution of the first of the equations obtained in such a way is $`\mu \sigma =\mathrm{exp}\{\mu ^12\gamma +O(\mu )\}`$, where $`\gamma =0.5772\mathrm{}`$ is the Euler’s constant, and the solution of the second one is of the form

$$\mu \sigma =\tau 1=\mathrm{exp}\{\mu ^1\gamma +O(\mu )\}.$$
(23)
Thus, the dependence is non analytical but even the second term of the expansion can not be defined by such estimation.

In fact we failed to obtain the value of the constant analytically. Nevertheless, Eqs. (14) and (16) are very convenient for numerics, since iterations of Eq. (14) converge. (One may start, for instance, from the functions (21) or (22).) We checked the validity of the relation (23) for small $`\mu `$. The value of the constant in Eq. (23) obtained in such a way is $`0.5771(5)`$, i. e. that is the Euler’s constant indeed.

Solving Eq. (14) with the constraint, Eq. (16) or Eq. (17), and the initial condition, one may easily get $`\sigma (\mu )`$ and $`\tau (\mu )`$ for any given $`\mu `$. The values of the exponent $`\mu `$ are known from simulation at integer dimensions with much higher precision than the values of $`\tau `$ because of the better available statistics . Therefore we can improve essentially the precision of the known value of $`\tau `$. For the 1D Bak–Sneppen model, we get $`\tau =1.0637(5)+0.4(\mu 0.4114)`$, where $`\mu =0.4114(2)`$ is the value obtained from the Monte-Carlo simulation . For the 2D Bak–Sneppen model, we obtain $`\tau =1.229(1)+0.77(\mu 0.685)`$, where $`\mu =0.685(5)`$ is the value obtained in . (The last relations may be used to obtain better values of $`\tau `$ when the more precise values of the exponent $`\mu `$ will be available.) Now the precision of $`\tau `$ coincides with that one of $`\mu `$. Note that these values are below the values of $`\tau `$ previously obtained from the simulation, $`\tau (1D)=1.073(3)`$ and $`\tau (2D)=1.245(10)`$  but are in accordance with the less precise values found in  by direct numerical solution of the avalance hierarchy equation, Eq. (1). The value of the exponent $`\tau `$ of the 3D Bak–Sneppen model may be obtained from the expansion from the upper critical dimension . In Fig. 1, we show the curve $`\tau (\mu )`$ together with the points for the integer dimensions and the low-$`\mu `$ asymptote, (23), and the expansion from the upper critical dimension .

Of course, the relation (23) is valid only for $`\mu 1`$. Nevertheless, let us compare the value of $`\tau `$ at $`\mu =0.4114`$ obtained from Eq. (23), $`\tau =1.0494`$, with the calculated above $`\tau (1D)`$. One may see that these values are in qualitative agreement.

In the case of the 1D anisotropic Bak–Sneppen model (i. e. for the update of the extremal site and only one its, for instance, right neighbour) the exponents $`\sigma `$ and $`\mu `$ are coupled by the following additional relation: $`\sigma +\mu =1`$ . Hence, one can find all the exponents of the problem. We obtained from Eq. (14) the following value, $`\mu =0.5779(5)`$. In , two different values for $`\mu `$ were obtained, $`\mu =0.58`$ from Eq. (1) and $`\mu =0.588`$ found in another way. The Monte-Carlo simulation made in  and  gave $`\mu =0.60(1)`$ and $`\mu =0.59(3)`$ correspondingly. Therefore, we had to check our result. For that we solved numerically Eq. (8) with the initial condition $`h(0)=1`$ and the constraint, Eq. (16) or Eq. (17). The result is $`\mu =0.5778(5)`$. Thus, the value $`\mu =0.578`$ seems to be more reliable but the question is still open.

In summary, we have demonstrated that the simple transformation of the avalanche hierarchy equation made it convenient for analysis and numerics. We have obtained the non trivial singular relation, $`\tau 1=\mu \sigma =\mathrm{exp}\{\mu ^1\gamma +\mathrm{}\}`$ with the Euler’s constant $`\gamma `$, between the scaling exponents of the Bak–Sneppen model near zero dimension. Using the known from simulation values of the exponent $`\mu `$, we have found, in fact, all other exponents of the Bak–Sneppen model in 1D and 2D with the same high precision. We have got also the exponents of the anisotropic 1D Bak–Sneppen model.

Nevertheless, one should note that the main problem of obtaining of the last independent critical exponent of the Bak–Sneppen model in a regular way remains open.

SND thanks PRAXIS XXI (Portugal) for a research grant PRAXIS XXI/BCC/16418/98. JFFM was partially supported by the project PRAXIS/2/2.1/FIS/299/94 and YGP was partially supported by the project PRAXIS/2/2.1/FIS/302/94. We also thank M.C. Marques for reading the manuscript and A.V. Goltsev and A.N. Samukhin for many useful discussions.
Electronic address: sdorogov@fc.up.pt
Electronic address: jfmendes@fc.up.pt
Electronic address: ypogorel@fc.up.pt


format: text

text:
# 1.Introduction

## 1.Introduction

It is well known that Virasoro algebra and affine Lie algebras play a central role in conformal field theories (CFT) in two dimensional spacetime, which in quantum theory corresponds to fields of massless particles, or massive quantum field theories (QFT) at the critical points, i.e. when the correlation length becomes infinity (scale invariant).

It is an interesting problem to describe the symmetry of the QFT off the critical points. Indeed, impressive progresses have been made in this direction, part of which is represented by the quantum affine algebra , which describes the symmetries of the certain lattice models and, in massive QFT, acts as the role of affine Lie algebra in CFT. For example, the spin $`1/2`$ XXZ chain in the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$ (off-critical) was exactly solved with the help of the bosonic representation of $`U_q(\widehat{sl_2})`$ at level $`1`$ ; in the same way, the higher spin $`XXZ`$ chain cannot be exactly solved without involving the higher level representation of the quantum affine algebra $`U_q(\widehat{sl_2})`$ . It is known that a quantum affine Lie algebra corresponds to certain trigonometric solution of the quantum Yang-Baxter equation (QYBE); while for a rational solution of QYBE, the corresponding algebraic structure is the the quantum double of Yangian with central extension . Contrary to the quantum affine case, the Yangian double with center is obtained relatively rather late  due to some technical difficulty. Before its explicit formulation was given in , the Yangian double with center was expected to be the symmetry algebra of quantum non-local currents of massive field theories .

Integrable massive QFTs, which are QFTs away from the critical phase, can be obtained either by perturbations of CFT  with relevant fields, or in terms of free field realizations, following Lykyanov . In fact the free field realization is a common approach used in both massive quantum field theories and the representation theory of their dynamical symmetry algebras. The free boson representations of $`U_q(\widehat{sl_2})`$ with an arbitrary level have been obtained in Refs.. For the Yangian double with center, the free field representation of $`DY_{\mathrm{}}(sl_2)`$ with level $`k(0,2)`$ was constructed in , the level-$`1`$ and level-$`k`$ representation of $`DY_{\mathrm{}}(sl_N)`$ are obtained in  and , respectively. The level-$`k`$ free field representation of $`DY_{\mathrm{}}(gl_N)`$ is also given in . However, all of these are deformations of the Wakimoto modules. Another kind of module has been known in the representation theories of the classical  and quantum  affine algebras. In the case of Yangian double with center a free field realization, which corresponds to the Feigin-Fuchs representation  of usual affine Lie algebras in the classical limit, is given in . However, different from the corresponding quantum affine case, the coset structure in that realization is absent. So, explicit expression of rational quantum currents in the coset space $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ is not known yet. In the classical case, the currents defined on the coset space $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ subject to a $`SU(2)`$ nonlocal currents algebra, which is also referred to as parafermion algebra . Naively speaking, we would expect that the rational quantum (or $`\mathrm{}`$)-deformed parafermion are relevant to the off-critical coset WZNW model, or equivalently, the massive WZNW model in homogeneous space $`SU(2)/U(1)`$. The $`\mathrm{}`$-deformed parafermion is also relevant to the $`SU(2)`$ Yangian double with center $`DY_{\mathrm{}}(sl_2)_k`$, which plays an important role in condensed state physics . In fact the relation with the $`DY_{\mathrm{}}(sl_2)_k`$ is our main criterion to define the rational coset quantum currents. One of the main properties of the massive current is nonlocality. It is interesting to study the rational quantum deformation of coset currents, which is nonlocal even in the classical case. On the other hand, to study the rational quantum deformation of the nonlocal algebra is helpful for the investigating of the quantum deformation of the chiral vertex operator in more general scheme.

The manuscript is arranged as follows. First, we briefly review the definition of the $`SU(2)`$ nonlocal currents in Section 2. Then we propose a nonlocal quantum currents $`\mathrm{\Psi }(u)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(u)`$, and the central extension of Yangian double for the Drinfeld new realization are given in terms of these rational quantum nonlocal currents and a $`U(1)`$ current. In section $`3`$, we give a bosonic representation for a nonlocal currents through two sets of bosonic fields, the operator product expansion (OPE) of this nonlocal currents satisfies the definition of the proposed quantum nonlocal currents after a Wick rotation.

## 2.Quantum nonlocal currents

In this section we propose a quantum nonlocal currents (QNC) $`\mathrm{\Psi }(u)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(u)`$, in the classical limit $`\mathrm{}0`$, this nonlocal quantum currents become the nonlocal currents $`\psi (z)`$ and $`\psi ^{}(z)`$ of the coset space $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ respectively. Then in terms of such quantum nonlocal currents and a quantum $`U(1)`$ bosonic current, we obtain a new kind of representation for the Yangian double with center in the Drinfeld new realization. Before we going to the details, we first review briefly the theory of parafermionic currents in CFT.

Parafermionic currents are primary fields of the 2d CFT. The general parafermion defined for root lattices are proposed in . For the case of $`SU(2)`$, the affine Kac-Moody currents and parafermionic currents are related by the relations,

$`\chi _+(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{k}:\psi (z)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi (z)/\sqrt{k}):,`$
$`\chi _{}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{k}:\psi ^{}(z)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi (z)/\sqrt{k}):,`$
$`h(z)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{k}_z\varphi (z),`$ (2.1)
where $`\chi _\pm (z)`$ and $`h(z)`$ are currents of $`SU(2)`$ affine algebra, and the radial ordering of the parafermions are given by

$$R\left(\psi _\alpha (z)\psi _\beta (w)\right)(zw)^{2\alpha \beta /k}=R\left(\psi _\beta (w)\psi _\alpha (z)\right)(wz)^{2\alpha \beta /k},$$
(2.2)
in which $`\alpha ,\beta =\pm `$. We will drop the $`R`$ symbol in the following without of any confusion. The OPE of the parafermionic fields defined by

$`\psi _\pm (z)\psi _\pm (w)(zw)^{2/k}`$ $`=`$ $`reg.`$
$`\psi _+(z)\psi _{}(w)(zw)^{2/k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)^2}}+reg,`$ (2.3)
For rational quantum deformation the $`SU(2)`$ currents algebra becomes the central extension of Yangian double for the Drinfeld new realization. From this point view we propose rational quantum deformation of the above nonlocal currents. The results are:

###### Proposition 1

The rational quantum deformation of nonlocal currents for $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ can be defined as:

$`((uv)+\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k}1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k}1)}}\mathrm{\Psi }(u)\mathrm{\Psi }(v)`$ $`=`$ $`((uv)\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k}1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k}1)}}\mathrm{\Psi }(v)\mathrm{\Psi }(u),`$
$`((uv)\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k})}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(u)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`((uv)+\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k})}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(v)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(u),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k}\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k}\frac{1}{2})}}\mathrm{\Psi }(u)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k}\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k}\frac{1}{2})}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(v)\mathrm{\Psi }(u),`$ (2.4)
At first glance the above relations may seem very strange. Their actual meaning in the theory of quantum deformed algebras will soon be clear if we resort to the construction of Yangian double analogous to that of SU(2) current algebra in terms of ordinary parafermionic currents, and indeed, such a construction exists, and its classical limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ gives precisely the parafermionic construction of SU(2) currents.

To make the above statements more concrete, we need to introduce another bosonic currents.

$$[\widehat{c}(t),\widehat{c}(t^{})]=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{}t\mathrm{sinh}\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{}t}{\mathrm{}^2t}\delta (t+t^{}).$$
(2.5)
Defining the bosonic currents

$`C^+(u)=\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑te^{\frac{k}{4}\mathrm{}t}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iut}}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{}t}}\widehat{c}(t)\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{\frac{k}{4}\mathrm{}t}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iut}}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{}t}}\widehat{c}(t)\},`$
$`C^{}(u)=\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑te^{\frac{k}{4}\mathrm{}t}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iut}}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{}t}}\widehat{c}(t)+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{+\frac{k}{4}\mathrm{}t}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iut}}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{}t}}\widehat{c}(t)\},`$ (2.6)
we have the following exchange relations,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k}1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k}1)}}C^+(u)C^+(v)`$ $`=`$ $`C^+(v)C^+(u){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k}1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k}1)}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k})}}C^{}(u)C^{}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`C^{}(v)C^{}(u){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k})}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k}+\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k}+\frac{1}{2})}}C^+(u)C^{}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`C^{}(v)C^+(u){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k}+\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k}+\frac{1}{2})}}.`$ (2.7)
If we perform the Wick rotation for currents $`C^\pm `$, namely replacing $`\mathrm{}`$ by $`i\mathrm{}`$, and defining the quantum currents as

$`E(u)=:\mathrm{\Psi }(u)C^+(u):,`$
$`F(u)=:\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(u)C^{}(u):,`$ (2.8)
we obtain the Drinfeld currents of Yangian double with center, with relations

$`[H^\pm (u),H^\pm (v)]=0,[c,\text{everything}]=0,c=k,`$
$`(uv+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\mathrm{})(uv\pm {\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{})H^\pm (u)H^{}(v)`$
$`=(uv\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{})(uv\pm {\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\mathrm{}+\mathrm{})H^{}(v)H^\pm (u),`$
$`(uv+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{4}}\mathrm{})H^\pm (u)E(v)=(uv\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{4}}\mathrm{})E(v)H^\pm (u),`$
$`(uv\mathrm{}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{k}{4}}\mathrm{})H^\pm (u)F(v)=(uv+\mathrm{}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{k}{4}}\mathrm{})F(v)H^\pm (u),`$
$`(uv+\mathrm{})E(u)E(v)=(uv\mathrm{})E(v)E(u),`$
$`(uv\mathrm{})F(u)F(v)=(uv+\mathrm{})F(v)F(u),`$
$`[E(u),F(v)]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}\left(\delta (uv+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\mathrm{})H^+(u+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\mathrm{})\delta (uv{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\mathrm{})H^{}(v+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\mathrm{})\right),`$ (2.9)
wherein

$`H^+(u)=\text{exp}\{2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{iut}\widehat{c}(t)\},`$
$`H^{}(u)=\text{exp}\{2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑te^{iut}\widehat{c}(t)\}.`$ (2.10)
Since the fields $`C^\pm (u)`$ and $`H^\pm (u)`$ are only involved in the quantum $`U(1)`$ current, the coset structure of classical currents are preserved, and the coset structure could not be preserved by another kind of free field representation .

## 3.Bosonization of the quantum nonlocal currents

In order to see that the strange rational deformed quantum currents are well-defined, i.e. their definition is not empty, in this section we give a free field realization of the quantum nonlocal currents. First we introduce two kinds of Heisenberg algebras,

$`[\widehat{b}(t),\widehat{b}(t^{})]={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{}t\mathrm{sinh}\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{}t}{\mathrm{}^2t}}\delta (t+t^{}),`$
$`[\widehat{\lambda }(t),\widehat{\lambda }(t^{})]={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{}t\mathrm{sinh}\frac{k+2}{2}\mathrm{}t}{\mathrm{}^2t}}\delta (t+t^{}).`$ (3.1)
Then defining the following intermediate fields

$`B^+(u)=\text{exp}\{\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑te^{\frac{k}{4}\mathrm{}t}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iut}}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{}t}}\widehat{b}(t)\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{\frac{k}{4}\mathrm{}t}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iut}}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{}t}}\widehat{b}(t)\},`$
$`B^{}(u)=\text{exp}\{\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑te^{\frac{k}{4}\mathrm{}t}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iut}}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{}t}}\widehat{b}(t)+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{+\frac{k}{4}\mathrm{}t}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iut}}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{}t}}\widehat{b}(t)\},`$ (3.2)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(u)=\text{exp}\{2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}t}{\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{}t}}e^{iut}\widehat{\lambda }(t)\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(u)=\text{exp}\{2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}t}{\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{}t}}e^{iut}\widehat{\lambda }(t)\},`$
$`\beta _+(u)=\text{exp}\{2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}t}{\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{}t}}e^{iut}\widehat{b}(t)\},`$
$`\beta _{}(u)=exp\{2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}t}{\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{}t}}e^{iut}\widehat{b}(t)\},`$ (3.3)
we have the following formal commutation relations, i.e. relations to be understood in the sense of analytic continuation,

$`\beta _+(u)B^\pm (v)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i(uv)\pm \frac{k}{4}\mathrm{}\pm \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}}{i(uv)\pm \frac{k}{4}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}}}B^\pm (v)\beta _+(u),`$
$`B^\pm (u)\beta _{}(v)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i(uv)\pm \frac{k}{4}\mathrm{}\pm \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}}{i(uv)\pm \frac{k}{4}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}}}\beta _{}(v)B^\pm (u),`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(u)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(v)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{2\mathrm{}}+\frac{k+2}{4})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{2\mathrm{}}+\frac{k+6}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{k+2}{4})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{k2}{4})}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\frac{i(uv)}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{k}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\frac{i(uv)}{2\mathrm{}}+\frac{k+4}{4})}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(v)\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(u),`$
$`\beta _+(u)\beta _{}(v)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{k}{4})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{k4}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{2\mathrm{}}+\frac{k}{4})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{2\mathrm{}}+\frac{k+4}{4})}}`$ (3.4)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\frac{i(uv)}{2\mathrm{}}+\frac{k+2}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\frac{i(uv)}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{k2}{4})}}\beta _{}(v)\beta _+(u),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k}1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k}1)}}B^+(u)B^+(v)`$ $`=`$ $`B^+(v)B^+(u){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k}1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k}1)}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k})}}B^{}(u)B^{}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`B^{}(v)B^{}(u){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k})}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k}+\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(uv)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k}+\frac{1}{2})}}B^+(u)B^{}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`B^{}(v)B^+(u){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k}+\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i(vu)}{k\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{k}+\frac{1}{2})}}.`$ (3.5)
Using these results, we can get a realization of the quantum nonlocal currents as follows,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}:\{\beta _+(u+i{\displaystyle \frac{k+2}{4}}\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(u+i{\displaystyle \frac{k}{4}}\mathrm{})\beta _{}(ui{\displaystyle \frac{k+2}{4}}\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(ui{\displaystyle \frac{k}{4}}\mathrm{})\}B^+(u):,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}:\{\beta _+(ui{\displaystyle \frac{k+2}{4}}\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^1(ui{\displaystyle \frac{k}{4}}\mathrm{})\beta _{}(u+i{\displaystyle \frac{k+2}{4}}\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1(u+i{\displaystyle \frac{k}{4}}\mathrm{})\}B^{}(u):.`$ (3.6)
By direct calculation, we can show that the OPE of the above nonlocal currents coincide with the defining relations (2.4).

In this paper a set of rational deformed quantum nonlocal $`SU(2)`$ currents are proposed, bosonization and their relation with central extension of Yangian double in the Drinfeld new realization are also discussed. A related interesting object, i.e. the screening currents for these quantum nonlocal currents, which is important for the calculation of the correlation functions, will be considered in a separate paper.

Acknowledgments: One of the authors (Ding) would like to thanks Profs. S. K. Wang, K. Wu and Z. Y. Zhu for fruitful discussion. Ding and Zhao are supported in part by the ”Natural Science Foundation of China”.


text:
# Invariant Manifolds and Collective Coordinates

## I Introduction

Dynamical systems with invariant manifolds in phase space have been the subject of ongoing research in recent years. Many authors have considered the case of two or more coupled identical systems that are chaotic. On invariant manifolds the subsystems display identical or synchronized motion, and the manifold’s transverse stability is investigated .

An alternative approach is based on the observation that any rotationally invariant system of identical interacting particles possesses low dimensional invariant manifolds in classical phase space . On such manifolds, the classical motion displays largely collective behavior and decouples from more complex single-particle behavior. The importance of a given invariant manifold depends crucially on its stability properties. If the manifold under consideration is sufficiently stable in transverse directions, the quantum system may exhibit wave function scarring  or display a strong revival for wave-packets localized to the vicinity of the manifold . These findings may be directly associated with the slow decay of collective motion due to the coupling between collective and single-particle motion.

In this paper we propose suitably adapted coordinate systems that separate collective and single-particle motion on the invariant manifolds mentioned above. Such coordinates clarify the separation of collective and single particle motion and may be useful in several applications. We have in mind (i) the problem of damping and dissipation of collective excitations and the interplay of collective and chaotic motion in atomic nuclei , which is often addressed in the framework of single-particle motion in a time dependent mean field; (ii) multi particle fragmentation of atoms at threshold which evolves over highly symmetric configurations corresponding to invariant manifolds ; (iii) the structural stability of invariant manifolds .

There is a traditional way to introduce collective and single-particle coordinates in interacting many-body systems. Aiming at the description of nuclear vibrations and rotations, Zickendraht  introduced a system of collective coordinates in a self-bound many-body system. Three of these coordinates describe the center of mass motion, and six collective degrees of freedom govern the dynamics of the inertia ellipsoid. The remaining coordinates are of single-particle nature. We shall establish the relation of coordinates of invariant manifolds to those defined by Zickendraht. Furthermore we shall show that more complicated collective motion, e.g. shearing modes can be described

This article is divided as follows. In the next section we introduce suitable coordinate systems for interacting many-body systems with invariant manifolds. We give a construction recipe and present a detailed example calculation. As an application we give a potential expansion around an invariant manifold and discuss stability properties. In section IV we make a connection with the Zickendraht coordinates. We present examples where the motion of the inertia ellipsoid corresponds to the motion on an invariant manifold. For such initial conditions the traditional collective motion decouples completely from the single-particle degrees of freedom. We also find that collective coordinates as defined here are capable of other types of motion. Therefore we finally discuss how motion on or near such invariant manifolds could be interpreted as collective motion of a system.

## II Coordinates for invariant manifolds

In this section we present a transformation from Cartesian single particle coordinates in position and momentum space to Cartesian coordinates that are adapted to invariant manifolds. The new coordinates consist of “collective coordinates” that govern the motion on the invariant manifold and of coordinates transversal to this manifold that represent the single-particle aspects.

Consider rotationally invariant systems of $`N`$ identical particles in $`d`$ spatial dimensions ($`d=2`$ or $`d=3`$). The Hamiltonian is invariant under both, the action of the rotation group O($`d`$) and the group of permutations SN. One may now take a finite subgroup $`𝒢`$ O($`d`$) with elements $`g`$ and properly chosen permutations $`P(g)`$ such that

$$gP^1(g)(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q})=(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q}),g𝒢\stackrel{}{p}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{Nd}),\stackrel{}{q}(q_1,\mathrm{},q_{Nd})$$
(1)
for points $`(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q})`$ on some invariant submanifold of phase space. On such a manifold, the action of certain rotations $`g`$ can be canceled by permutations. These permutations clearly form a subgroup isomorphic to $`𝒢`$.

Fig. 1 shows a configuration of four particles in two spatial dimensions that corresponds to a point on an invariant manifold. The operations of elements from the discrete symmetry group $`𝒢=C_{2v}`$ can be undone by suitable permutations of particles. This leads to a collective motion with two degrees of freedom which we shall identify with vibrations.

Fig. 2 shows two spatial configurations of eight (2a) and six (2b) particles, respectively which display a $`D_{4h}`$ symmetry. If initial momenta display the same symmetry the motion on the invariant manifold will have two degrees of freedom. For eight particles the radii of the two circles will oscillate synchronously, and the two circles will vibrate against each other. For the six particles we will have a vibration of the radius of the circle and of the two particles along the vertical axis. We may choose initial momenta to reduce the symmetry group to $`C_{4h}`$ which will allow rotations around the vertical axis and thus add an additional degree of freedom. For eight particles we could alternatively choose initial conditions that are limited to a $`D_4`$ symmetry. Besides the vibrations discussed above this would allow for a shearing motion of the two circles thus yielding again three degrees of freedom. We could also reduce the fourfold rotation axis to a twofold one and obtain $`D_{2h}`$, $`D_2`$ or $`C_{2v}`$ as remaining symmetry groups yielding more collective degrees of freedom. Adding two particles symmetrically onto the principal axis of rotation would also increase the number of degrees of freedom by one. Other reductions of symmetry will yield different invariant manifolds with varying degrees of freedom. We will see this exemplified by explicit construction of coordinates.

We may use the definition (1) directly for the construction of coordinate systems where invariant manifolds correspond to coordinate axis or planes, i.e. non collective coordinates vanish for motion on the invariant manifold. To this purpose we consider the many-body system in Cartesian coordinates in momentum and position space. In what follows we will introduce orthogonal transformations in configuration space only; momenta will be subject to the same transformation.

In a Cartesian coordinate system each element $`g𝒢`$ and each permutation $`P(g)`$ can be represented by an orthogonal matrix $`𝐌_g`$ and $`𝐏_g`$ of dimension $`Nd`$. It is clear that the products $`𝐌_g𝐏_g^\mathrm{T}`$ form a matrix group $``$ that acts onto position and momentum space, respectively. The construction of the coordinate system is now straightforward. Every vector $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ may be expanded in basis vectors of the irreducible representations (IRs) of $``$ by means of projectors .

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu =\underset{g𝒢}{}\chi _g^{(\nu )}𝐌_g𝐏_g^\mathrm{T}.$$
(2)
Here $`\chi _g^{(\nu )}`$ denotes the character of $`g`$ in the $`\nu `$’th IR. Similar formulae hold for momentum space. The projection onto the identical IR defines the invariant manifold. Note that the identical representation is one-dimensional while the invariant manifolds of interest typically have higher dimensionality. We can find independent vectors on the manifold by projecting from different vectors, but in practice the construction of the independent vectors seems to be unproblematic as we shall see in the example.

A comment on the rotation symmetry is in order. Like any Cartesian coordinates, the coordinates introduced in this article do not explicitly reflect the invariance under rotations. Acting on an invariant manifold, rotations generate a continuous family of equivalent manifolds. Our coordinates, however, single out one particular manifold. For quantum systems, the rotation operator may easily be constructed and used for projection onto subspaces of definite angular momentum.

## III A simple example

We now illustrate the proposed construction explicitly for four particles in two dimensions and a quartic potential, considering the invariant manifold shown in Fig. 1. We shall also expand the potential near the invariant manifold to second order in the transversal coordinates.

The invariant manifold is defined by those points which are invariant under $`=\{E,\sigma _xP_{(12)(34)},\sigma _yP_{(14)(23)},C_2P_{(13)(24)}\}`$, where $`E`$ denotes the identity, $`P`$ a permutation of particles as indicated, $`\sigma `$ a reflection at the axis indicated, and $`C_2`$ a rotation about $`\pi `$. Thus, $`=C_{2v}`$ with four IRs labeled by $`\nu =A_1,B_1,A_2,B_2`$ . Let $`\stackrel{}{q}=(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4)`$ denote a coordinate vector in position space ($`x_i,y_i`$ denote the coordinates of the $`i`$’th particle). We have

$`E\stackrel{}{q}`$ $`=`$ $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4),`$ (3)
$`\sigma _xP_{(12)(34)}\stackrel{}{q}`$ $`=`$ $`(x_2,x_1,x_4,x_3,y_2,y_1,y_4,y_3)`$ (4)
$`C_2P_{(13)(24)}\stackrel{}{q}`$ $`=`$ $`(x_3,x_4,x_1,x_2,y_3,y_4,y_1,y_2)`$ (5)
$`\sigma _yP_{(14)(23)}\stackrel{}{q}`$ $`=`$ $`(x_4,x_3,x_2,x_1,y_4,y_3,y_2,y_1).`$ (6)
Using the character table of $`C_{2v}`$  and the projectors (2) one constructs the following basis vectors corresponding to the IR labeled by

$`A_1`$ $`:`$ $`e_1^{}=(1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0)/2,e_2^{}=(0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1)/2,`$ (7)
$`B_1`$ $`:`$ $`e_3^{}=(1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0)/2,e_4^{}=(0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1)/2,`$ (8)
$`A_2`$ $`:`$ $`e_5^{}=(1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0)/2,e_6^{}=(0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1)/2,`$ (9)
$`B_2`$ $`:`$ $`e_7^{}=(1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0)/2,e_8^{}=(0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1)/2.`$ (10)
The vectors associated with the identical IR $`A_1`$ span the two-dimensional invariant manifold and the vectors associated with the IRs $`B_1,A_2,B_2`$ span the transverse directions.

We now present the orthogonal transformation that transforms the single particle coordinates $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ into the coordinates adapted to the invariant manifold. In our example $`x`$ and $`y`$-components do not mix and we have

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}x_1^{}\\ x_2^{}\\ x_3^{}\\ x_4^{}\end{array}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}x_1\\ x_2\\ x_3\\ x_4\end{array}\right],\left[\begin{array}{c}y_1^{}\\ y_2^{}\\ y_3^{}\\ y_4^{}\end{array}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}y_1\\ y_2\\ y_3\\ y_4\end{array}\right].`$ (35)
To illustrate the example and to further demonstrate the usefulness of the newly introduced coordinate system we want to consider the the interacting four-body system with Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\left((p_{x_i}^2+p_{y_i}^2)/2+16(x_i^2+y_i^2)^2\right)\underset{i<j}{}\left[(x_ix_j)^2+(y_iy_j)^2\right].$$
(36)
This Hamiltonian has been studied previously . In particular, the stability of the invariant manifold displayed in Fig. 1 has been studied by computing the full phase space monodromy matrix of several periodic orbits that are inside the invariant manifold. It was found that several orbits are linearly stable in transverse directions or possess rather small stability exponents. Qualitatively, this may also be understood by studying the Hamiltonian (36) close to the invariant manifold. We therefore use the transformation (35) and expand the potential of Hamiltonian (36) to second order in the transverse directions labeled by ($`ϵ_1,\mathrm{}ϵ_6`$) while keeping the full dependence of the coordinates ($`x,y`$) inside the invariant manifold. One obtains the quadratic form $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}^\mathrm{T}𝐕\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ where

$`𝐕=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}12x^2+4y^2& 0& 0& 16xy& 0& 0\\ 0& 12x^2& 0& 0& 8xy& 0\\ 0& 0& 24x^2+8y^2& 0& 0& 16xy\\ 16xy& 0& 0& 8x^2+24y^2& 0& 0\\ 0& 8xy& 0& 0& 12y^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 16xy& 0& 0& 4x^2+12y^2\end{array}\right].`$ (43)
A diagonalization of $`𝐕`$ yields the eigenvalues

$`\lambda _{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`10x^2+14y^2\pm 2\sqrt{x^4+25y^4+54x^2y^2},`$ (44)
$`\lambda _{3,4}`$ $`=`$ $`14x^2+10y^2\pm 2\sqrt{y^4+25x^4+54x^2y^2},`$ (45)
$`\lambda _{5,6}`$ $`=`$ $`6(x^2+y^2)\pm 2\sqrt{9x^42x^2y^2+9y^4}.`$ (46)
All eigenvalues are non-negative and vanish at the origin $`(x=y=0)`$. Thus, instability may occur only in its vicinity. Though the expansion of a potential around an invariant manifold is no substitute for the computations of Lyapunov exponents or monodromy matrices, it is a first step when estimating stability properties of such manifolds.

## IV Zickendraht’s coordinates and invariant manifolds

Almost thirty years ago Zickendraht  introduced a set of collective coordinates to describe nuclear vibrations and rotations, as well as their coupling with single particle motion. We shall discuss to what extent these coordinates correspond to the ones we introduced in the previous sections. On one hand this will allow to identify certain vibrational modes of a many-body system with invariant manifolds. On the other hand we shall also see that our procedure proposes collective movements that are not of the type described easily in Zickendraht’s coordinates.

Following Zickendraht  we write the coordinates $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ of the $`i^{th}`$ particle in the center of mass system as

$$\stackrel{}{r}_i=s_{i1}\stackrel{}{y_1}+s_{i2}\stackrel{}{y_2}+s_{i3}\stackrel{}{y_3},i=1,\mathrm{},N$$
(47)
where the $`\stackrel{}{y}_i`$ span the inertia ellipsoid and $`s_{ik}`$ are non-collective coordinates which for simplicity we shall call single-particle coordinates. The newly introduced coordinates $`\stackrel{}{y}_i`$ and $`s_{ij}`$ are not independent. The constraints are

$`\stackrel{}{y}_i\stackrel{}{y}_j`$ $`=`$ $`y_iy_j\delta _{ij},i,j=1,2,3`$ (48)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}}s_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`0,j=1,2,3`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}}s_{ij}s_{ik}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{jk},j,k=1,2,3.`$ (50)
The first six equations ensure the orthogonality and normalization of the principal axis of the inertia ellipsoid whereas the next three equations fix the origin at the center of mass system. The last six equations are orthogonality relations of the single-particle coordinates. In the center of mass system, one may therefore characterize the $`N`$-body system by its inertia ellipsoid (e.g. three Euler angles of the principle axis and three moments of inertia) and $`3N9`$ single particle coordinates. The moments of inertia $`I_i`$ are related to the coordinates $`y_i`$ by

$$I_1=m(y_2^2+y_3^2),I_2=m(y_1^2+y_3^2),I_3=m(y_1^2+y_2^2),$$
(51)
where $`m`$ denotes the mass of the particles.

It is interesting to determine those configurations, where the motion of the many-body system may be described in terms of the collective coordinates $`y_i`$ only. While such motion would be restricted to some invariant manifold in phase space it would not obviously be one of those defined by eq. (1). We may however determine invariant manifolds (1) such that the motion on the manifold changes only the inertia ellipsoid of the system and hence may be described entirely by Zickendraht’s collective coordinates $`y_i`$. Two necessary conditions for this a situation are easily stated. First, the number of coordinates on such invariant manifold may not exceed six in the general case and three in the case of pure vibrations. Second, every motion on such an invariant manifold has to change the inertia ellipsoid of the many-body system.

For simplicity let us start with the a system of four particles in two spatial dimensions and the invariant manifold displayed in Fig. 1, i.e.

$`\stackrel{}{r}_1=\left[\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{r}_2=\left[\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{r}_3=\left[\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{r}_4=\left[\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\end{array}\right],`$ (60)
and the momenta are chosen by replacing $`xp_x,yp_y`$. Computation of the moments of inertia yield the collective Zickendraht coordinates $`y_1=2x`$, $`y_2=2y`$. On the invariant manifold the remaining coordinates are given by $`s_{11}=s_{12}=s_{21}=s_{22}=s_{31}=s_{32}=s_{41}=s_{42}=1/2`$. This shows that every motion on the invariant manifold only changes the moments of inertia and therefore decouples from the single-particle motion.

We next consider the example of an eight-body system in three dimensions. Let

$`\stackrel{}{r}_1=\left[\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\\ z\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{r}_2=\left[\begin{array}{c}y\\ x\\ z\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{r}_3=\left[\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\\ z\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{r}_4=\left[\begin{array}{c}y\\ x\\ z\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{r}_{4+i}=\stackrel{}{r}_i(zz)`$ (73)
denote a configuration restricted to the invariant manifold displayed in Fig. 2 (a) with $`C_{4h}`$ symmetry. (The momenta are chosen by replacing $`xp_x,yp_y,zp_z`$ in eq.(73).) The moments of inertia are $`I_1=I_2=4m(x^2+y^2)+8mz^2,I_3=8m(x^2+y^2)`$ and yield collective coordinates (51) $`y_1^2=y_2^2=4(x^2+y^2),y_3^2=8z^2`$. Since the inertia ellipsoid is symmetric we have a freedom in choosing two of its principle axis. Using

$`\stackrel{}{y}_1=2\left[\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\\ 0\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{y}_2=2\left[\begin{array}{c}y\\ x\\ 0\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{y}_3=\sqrt{8}\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ z\end{array}\right].`$ (83)
one obtains constant single-particles coordinates $`s_{11}=s_{31}=s_{51}=s_{71}=s_{22}=s_{42}=s_{62}=s_{82}=1/2,s_{13}=s_{23}=s_{33}=s_{43}=s_{53}=s_{63}=s_{73}=s_{83}=1/\sqrt{8}`$ for the motion on the invariant manifold. Thus, the single-particle motion decouples from the collective motion on the invariant manifold. Similar results hold for the six particle configuration displayed in Fig. 2.

It is also instructive to consider one counterexample. The configuration

$`\stackrel{}{r}_1=\left[\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\\ z\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{r}_2=\left[\begin{array}{c}y\\ x\\ z\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{r}_3=\left[\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\\ z\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{r}_4=\left[\begin{array}{c}y\\ x\\ z\end{array}\right],`$ (96)
$`\stackrel{}{r}_5=\left[\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\\ z\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{r}_6=\left[\begin{array}{c}y\\ x\\ z\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{r}_7=\left[\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\\ z\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{r}_8=\left[\begin{array}{c}y\\ x\\ z\end{array}\right],`$ (109)
displays $`D_4`$ symmetry and differs from configuration (73) by a shearing motion. Like in the previous example, the moments of inertia are given by $`I_1=I_2=4m(x^2+y^2)+8mz^2,I_3=8m(x^2+y^2)`$ and the ellipsoid of inertia is symmetric. However, no choice of the principal axis allows to fulfill eqs. (47) with constant single-particle coordinates $`s_{ij}`$. Therefore, single-particle degrees of freedom depend on collective degrees of freedom and a decoupling does not exist using Zickendraht’s coordinate system. A decoupling is obtained by using the coordinates introduced in this work. However, the collective motion on the appropriate invariant manifold does not correspond to pure vibrations or rotations of the inertia ellipsoid. These findings are interesting e.g. in relation with with the magnetic dipole mode in nuclei  since this type of collective behavior is associated with a shearing motion.

## V Discussion

We constructed an orthogonal transformation that maps the Cartesian single particle coordinates of a many-body system to a new Cartesian coordinate system that distinguishes collective and single-particle motion. The collective degrees of freedom govern the motion that is restricted to a low-dimensional invariant manifold and are decoupled from single-particle degrees of freedom on this manifold. We have demonstrated that there are several configurations of few-body systems, where the motion on the invariant manifold corresponds to a vibration or rotation and may be described in terms of Zickendraht’s collective coordinates, but differs when the collective motion goes beyond that. These results are independent of the details of the Hamiltonian of the $`N`$-body system, and are entirely determined by rotational and permutational symmetry.

Using the results of this article as well as those of refs.  we can draw the following picture: First it is possible that an invariant manifold is spanned exactly by the vibrational and rotational modes of a few-body system; second such manifolds may be stable or have small instability exponents in transversal directions; third the revival probabilities of wave packets launched on such manifolds are large; last, as a conclusion of these points we may have a collective motion near the manifold whose damping is characterized by the decay rate in transversal direction. We also found that there may be other collective motions; this was displayed in an example of shearing motion, but there can be others such as breathing modes etc. The coincidence of Zickendraht coordinates with our collective coordinates depends on particle numbers; typically they do not span an invariant manifold. This confirms the well-known fact that in general the collective motion in these coordinates does not separate rigorously, but only in some adiabatic approximation.

As we found more general invariant configurations which in turn induce collective coordinates we may hope that these are useful for approximate considerations for larger particle numbers that do include the corresponding invariant manifold in a non-trivial fashion. The construction of appropriate coordinates is an open problem.

## Acknowledgments

T.P. acknowledges the warm hospitality at the Centro Internacional de Ciencias, Cuernavaca, Mexico, where part of this work has been done. This work was partially supported by Dept. of Energy (USA), by DGAPA (UNAM) and by CONACyT (Mexico).


text:
# 𝒪(𝛼²Γ,𝛼³Γ) Binding Effects in Orthopositronium Decay

## I The Effective Hamiltonian

We now proceed to the effective Hamiltonian. We work in the center-of-momentum frame of the electron and positron, and consider only states of orbital angular momentum $`0`$ ($`S`$-states), and spin $`1`$ (triplet- or ortho- states). In order to make use of the threshold results in , we give the photon a small mass, $`\lambda `$, which is taken to $`0`$ after the determination of the local operator coefficients; the three final-state photons are not given a mass.

We begin with Hamiltonian

$$H\frac{p^2}{m}\frac{p^4}{4m^3}+V+iW$$
(1)
where $`V`$ and $`W`$ are hermitian. Potential $`W`$ accounts for the effects of three-photon decay, while $`V`$ accounts for all other interactions. To determine corrections through $`𝒪(\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, or $`𝒪(\alpha ^3\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, we need retain only non-annihilation terms that contribute to the positronium $`S`$ -state binding energy through $`𝒪(\alpha ^4m)`$, or $`𝒪(\alpha ^5m)`$, respectively. We write $`V`$ as the sum of three terms,

$`V(E)`$ $`=`$ $`V_0+V_{\mathrm{rel}}+V_{\mathrm{rad}}(E),`$ (2)
where the Coulomb potential, $`V_0`$, and the leading relativistic corrections, $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}`$, are given by:

$`l|V_0|k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{|lk|^2+\lambda ^2}}e^{\frac{|lk|^2+\lambda ^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}`$ (3)
$`l|V_{\mathrm{rel}}|k`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{|lk|^2+\lambda ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3m^2}}|lk|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}(l^2+k^2)\right){\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{4m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(l^2k^2)^2}{(|lk|^2+\lambda ^2)^2}}\right]e^{\frac{|lk|^2+\lambda ^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{2m^2}}e^{\frac{|lk|^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}.`$
We have introduced Gaussian factors to suppress the potentials at high momentum. Typically we take the ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }m`$, although our final decay rate is (and must be) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent. With potentials $`V_0`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ in place, our Hamiltonian correctly reproduces the QED amplitude for one-photon exchange and one-photon virtual annihilation to lowest and first order in $`(v/c)^2`$ (of the electron). $`V_{\mathrm{rad}}(E)`$ accounts for one-loop radiative corrections:

$`l|V_{\mathrm{rad}}(E)|k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\alpha }{3\pi m^2}}l|e^{\frac{p^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}p^i(p^2/m+V_0E)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m/4}{p^2/m+V_0E}}\right)p^ie^{\frac{p^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}|k`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{14\alpha ^2}{3m^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{|lk|}{m/2}}e^{\frac{|lk|^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{m^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{74}{15}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}2+D\right\}e^{\frac{|lk|^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}.`$
$`V_{\mathrm{rad}}(E)`$ gives in positronium the analogue of the non-recoil Lamb shift and the recoil Salpeter correction in hydrogen. The final term is a local operator accounting for effects at high momentum; parameter $`D`$ is a counterterm which will be determined shortly.

The annihilation of the electron and positron occurs over distances of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }x1/m`$, which are much smaller than wavelengths typical of the electron and positron in the atom, $`\lambda 1/\alpha m`$. Thus the annihilation potential $`W`$ consists entirely of short-distance interactions, which, to the order of interest, can be parameterized for $`S`$-states as follows:

$$l|\mathrm{W}|k=A^{(0)}\left[(1+\alpha A^{(1)}+\alpha ^2A^{(2)}+\alpha ^3A^{(3)})+(B^{(0)}+\alpha B^{(1)})\frac{E}{m}\right]e^{\frac{|lk|^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}.$$
(8)
We will adjust parameters $`A^{(0)}`$, $`A^{(1)}`$, $`A^{(2)}`$ and $`B^{(0)}`$ so that our Hamiltonian reproduces QED results for electron-positron annihilation into three photons. Since determination of $`A^{(3)}`$ and of $`B^{(1)}`$ requires the as-yet unknown $`𝒪(m\alpha ^6)`$ threshold annihilation rate, and the leading term in the momentum expansion for the $`𝒪(m\alpha ^4)`$ rate, respectively, we simply set $`A^{(3)}=B^{(1)}=0`$. Doing so introduces an error in the decay rate of $`𝒪(\alpha ^3\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

The $`p^4`$ operator in Eq. (1) is ill-defined at high momenta. To regulate this operator, we replace it by an energy dependent potential :

$$p^4m^2(E(V+iW))^2.$$
(9)
Keeping only the relevant parts of this expression, our final effective Hamiltonian is therefore:

$$H(E)=H_0(E)+i\overline{W}(E)$$
(10)
where

$`H_0(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m}}+V(E){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m}}(EV_0)^2,`$ (11)
$`\overline{W}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`W+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}(EV_0)(W_0+W_1).`$ (12)
Potentials $`V`$ (Eqs.(2),(3),(5),(7)), $`V_0`$ (Eq.(3)) and $`W`$ (Eq.(8)) are given above, and

$`l|W_0|k`$ $``$ $`l|W_1|k/A^{(1)}A^{(0)}e^{\frac{|lk|^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}.`$ (13)
Parameter $`D`$ in Eq.(7) is tuned to correctly reproduce the one-loop contribution to $`e\overline{e}e\overline{e}`$ threshold scattering, and is found to be

$$D=\sqrt{\pi }\left[\frac{121}{36}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}9\frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{5}{3}\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^3\right].$$
(14)
The hermitian Hamiltonian $`H_0(E)`$ is accurate through $`𝒪(\alpha ^5m)`$.

The parameters in $`W`$ are determined by considering the imaginary part of the $`S`$-wave scattering amplitude for $`e\overline{e}3\gamma e\overline{e}`$, with electron momentum $`k`$ in the center-of-momentum frame; the optical theorem relates this amplitude to the free-particle annihilation rate. For small $`k`$, the imaginary part of this amplitude can be parameterized as:

$`𝒯(k)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯_0\{[1+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{m^2}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^4}{m^4}}\right)]+\alpha [2{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\lambda }}+a_0+a_1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{m^2}}\right)]`$ (16)
$`+\alpha ^2[(1+2\mathrm{ln}2){\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\lambda ^2}}+2a_0{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\lambda }}+b_0+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}\right)]+𝒪(\alpha ^3)\}.`$
We define $`𝒯(k)`$ using nonrelativistic normalization for the external particles . Parameters $`𝒯_0,\beta ,a_0,a_1,b_0`$ are determined using QED perturbation theory .

We now calculate $`𝒯`$ in our Hamiltonian theory, and adjust the unknown parameters to reproduce the QED result order by order in $`\alpha `$ and $`k^2`$. Matching at lowest order in $`\alpha `$ implies that

$$A^{(0)}=𝒯_0,B^{(0)}=\beta +\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}.$$
(17)
$`A^{(1)}`$ and $`A^{(2)}`$ are determined by matching the $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ and $`𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$ contributions in $`𝒯(0)`$, respectively; we obtain

$`A^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`a_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}\right)+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}\right)^1\right]+\left(a_1{\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}\right)^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{m^2}}\right),`$ (18)
$`A^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`b_02a_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}}[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}\right)+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}\right)^1]a_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \sqrt{\pi }}}\{[{\displaystyle \frac{44\sqrt{6}}{81}}(\gamma \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{3m^2}}2)]\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}\right)^3`$ (21)
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{56\sqrt{6}}{27}}(\gamma \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{3m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{7}}){\displaystyle \frac{37}{15}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}\gamma ]\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}\right)\}+({\displaystyle \frac{83}{24\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{11\sqrt{3}}{12\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{48}}\left)\right({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}})^2`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{25}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{3}}{3\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{18}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\kappa \right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{49}{6\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}}\right)^2+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}\right).`$
Here $`\gamma =\psi (1)=0.577216`$ is the Euler constant and $`\kappa 𝑑x\mathrm{ln}x^1\mathrm{exp}(x^2)\mathrm{erf}(x)^2=0.051428`$. Having determined all the necessary parameters, we can now safely set $`\lambda =0`$.

## II The Decay Rate

Now that our Hamiltonian is completely specified we finally solve for the decay rate, given by the imaginary part of the ground state energy eigenvalue. Note that due to the presence of the cutoff, no divergences occur when calculating matrix elements, and no intricate limiting procedures are necessary to solve the eigenvalue problem — renormalization is automatic. To avoid dealing with nonhermitian matrices we choose to work only to first order in the annihilation potential $`\overline{W}`$; higher-order terms are suppressed by several powers of $`\alpha `$ beyond the precision of interest.

We first solve the eigenvalue problem for $`H_0`$,

$$H_0(E_0)|\psi _0=E_0|\psi _0,$$
(22)
to obtain the ground-state energy and wavefunction. The energy dependence of $`H_0`$ is easily handled by iterating the eigenvalue equation, starting with an approximate energy in $`H_0`$; the answer converges to adequate precision after only a few iterations. The eigenfunctions for our energy dependent Hamiltonian must be normalized so that

$$\psi _0|1\frac{H_0}{E}|\psi _0|_{E=E_0}=1.$$
(23)
Then the decay rate, to first order in $`\overline{W}`$, is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`2\psi _0|\overline{W}(E_0)|\psi _0`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\left\{\left[1+\alpha A^{(1)}+\alpha ^2A^{(2)}+\alpha ^3A^{(3)}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\alpha A^{(1)}\right)+B^{(0)}+\alpha B^{(1)}\right){\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{m}}\right]\alpha ^2M_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\alpha A^{(1)})\alpha ^2M_2\right\}`$ (25)
where $`𝒪\psi _0|𝒪|\psi _0`$, $`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r)(m^3\alpha ^5/8\pi )M_1`$, $`\alpha v_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r)(m^4\alpha ^5/8\pi )M_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is the lowest order $`1S`$ decay rate. The cutoff operators $`v_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$ and $`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(r)=^2v_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)/4\pi `$ are defined by Fourier transform:

$$\frac{4\pi }{q^2}e^{\frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}v_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)\frac{1}{r}\mathrm{erf}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r}{\sqrt{2}}\right).$$
(26)
The matrix elements $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, in Eq. (25) can be evaluated for any $`S`$-state of $`H_0`$ and the corresponding decay rate computed using this equation. We used bases consisting of 30 to 60 gaussians, with varying widths, to diagonalize $`H_0`$. The numerical eigenvalues accurately reproduce the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ spectrum through $`𝒪(\alpha ^5m)`$ . Our ground-state results, for several values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, are shown in Table I; there we introduce the dimensionless parameter $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, defined for any $`S`$-state by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(nS)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{n^3}\left[1+\alpha a_0+\alpha ^2\left(\frac{1}{3}(1+\alpha a_0)\mathrm{ln}\alpha +b_02a_1\frac{\beta }{4n^2}\frac{3}{2\pi }\alpha \mathrm{ln}^2\alpha +X_\mathrm{\Gamma }(nS)\right)\right].$$
(27)
This definition anticipates the leading $`\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$  and $`\alpha ^3\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha `$  contributions, which are correctly reproduced by our numerical analysis. The final results for $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are almost independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, while the changes in the matrix elements from one $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to the next are two orders of magnitude larger than $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ itself. Renormalization theory guarantees that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependence due to the matrix elements cancels, in the final answer, against $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependence due to coefficients $`A^{(1)}`$, $`A^{(2)}`$ and $`B^{(0)}`$ in the annihilation potential $`W`$. The residual $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependence in $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is due to our approximations in potentials $`V`$ and $`W`$, the dominant effect being at $`𝒪(\alpha ^3\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ where we have left out the contributions from $`A^{(3)}`$ and $`B^{(1)}`$.

Our calculation is nonperturbative in potential $`V`$ and so automatically includes order $`\alpha ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (and higher-order) corrections to the decay rate. To facilitate comparison with other calculations, we suppressed these higher-order effects by extrapolating our analysis to $`\alpha =0`$. Our results for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=m`$ and a range of $`\alpha `$’s are shown in Table II. Upon extrapolation to $`\alpha =0`$, we obtain:

$$X_\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)|_{\alpha 0}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.913,& n=1S\hfill \\ 2.588,& n=2S\hfill \\ 2.936,& n=3S\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
where all results are accurate to within $`1`$ in the last digit. The 1$`S`$ result agrees well with the analytic result in .

Since the analysis would be complete through $`𝒪(\alpha ^3\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ with the inclusion of the operators parameterized by $`A^{(3)}`$ and $`B^{(1)}`$, and since neither of these operators generates factors of $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$, the complete contribution in the decay rate of $`𝒪(\alpha ^3\mathrm{ln}\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is already present, along with that of $`𝒪(\alpha ^3\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma })`$. By examining the $`\alpha `$ dependence of $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we find:

$$X_\mathrm{\Gamma }(1S)=0.9130.665\alpha \mathrm{ln}\alpha +𝒪(\alpha ).$$
(29)
The coefficient of $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ is independent of the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The non-logarithmic term of $`𝒪(\alpha ^3\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is cutoff-dependent, since we have neglected contributions from the cutoff-dependent $`A^{(3)}`$ and $`B^{(1)}`$. Using the values for $`a_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ in Ref. , the $`𝒪(\alpha ^3\mathrm{ln}\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma })`$ contribution amounts to $`2.4\times 10^5\mu s^1`$. Together with a small contribution from five-photon decay of $`0.73\times 10^5\mu s^1`$ , this brings the current theoretical prediction for the decay rate to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=7.039967(10)\mu s^1`$.

After completing our calculation, we learned of an independent analysis of $`𝒪(\alpha ^3\mathrm{ln}\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma })`$ contributions to positronium decay by Kniehl and Penin . Our result, $`0.665`$ for the coefficient independent of $`a_0`$, disagrees with their result, $`(4/5+8\mathrm{ln}2/3)/\pi =0.8430`$. To verify our analysis, we compared it with published results on $`𝒪(\alpha ^3\mathrm{ln}\alpha )`$ contributions to muonium hyperfine splitting (HFS). The HFS results involve the same operators, with different coefficients, as those contributing at the same relative order in the decay rate. Terms in the orthopositronium decay rate not involving $`a_0`$ arise from second order perturbations of $`V_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ with the leading decay operator:

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}=2\frac{V_{\mathrm{rad}}\stackrel{~}{G}\delta ^3(r)}{\delta ^3(r)}+\frac{V_{\mathrm{rad}}}{E},$$
(30)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is the Coulomb Green’s function with the ground state pole removed, and expectation values are taken between unperturbed Coulomb eigenfunctions. $`V_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ can be expressed as

$$V_{\mathrm{rad}}=\frac{2}{3}\alpha ^2𝒪_1+\frac{7}{6}\alpha ^2𝒪_2+\left(\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{ln}2\frac{37}{30}\right)\alpha ^2𝒪_3,$$
(31)
where

$$𝒪_1=\frac{1}{\pi \alpha m_r^2}p^i\left(\frac{p^2}{2m_r}\frac{\alpha }{r}E\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_r/2}{\frac{p^2}{2m_r}\frac{\alpha }{r}E}p^i,l|𝒪_2|k=\frac{1}{m_r^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{|lk|}{m_r},l|𝒪_3|k=\frac{1}{m_r^2}.$$
(32)
The reduced mass $`m_r`$ equals $`m/2`$ in positronium. The logarithmic parts of the matrix elements for the second-order perturbations can be inferred, for the most part, directly from the HFS papers :

$$\left(2\frac{𝒪_i\stackrel{~}{G}\delta ^3(r)}{\delta ^3(r)}+\frac{𝒪_i}{E}\right)\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\times \{\begin{array}{cc}4\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha 8(\mathrm{ln}2+3/4)\mathrm{ln}\alpha & ,i=1\hfill \\ \mathrm{ln}^2\alpha +(2\mathrm{ln}21)\mathrm{ln}\alpha & ,i=2\hfill \\ 2\mathrm{ln}\alpha & ,i=3\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
The only exception is the coefficient $`(2\mathrm{ln}21)`$ of $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ for $`𝒪_2`$. A partial analysis in Ref.  gives $`(2\mathrm{ln}2+2)`$ in place of $`(2\mathrm{ln}21)`$. We have calculated the full contribution analytically, and find the result shown in Eq. (33. We have also verified the results in Eq.(33) by direct numerical evaluation, using our Gaussian basis set. Non-logarithmic terms of $`𝒪(\alpha ^0,\alpha ^1)`$ are cutoff dependent, but the logarithmic terms were cutoff independent, as expected. Combining our analytic results with those in Ref., our Eq. (29) becomes:

$`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }(1S)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}2+\left(8\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{229}{30}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ (34)
$`=`$ $`0.91290.6647\alpha \mathrm{ln}\alpha ,`$ (35)
in complete agreement with our numerical analysis.

We thank the authors of  for sharing their results with us before they were published. We also thank Patrick Labelle for several discussions. This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation.


text:
# Quantum Phase Diagram of the 𝑡-𝐽_𝑧 Chain Model

0pt0.4pt 0pt0.4pt 0pt0.4pt

## Abstract

We present the quantum phase diagram of the one-dimensional $`t`$-$`J_z`$ model for arbitrary spin (integer or half-integer) and sign of the spin-spin interaction $`J_z`$, using an exact mapping to a spinless fermion model that can be solved exactly using the Bethe ansatz. We discuss its superconducting phase as a function of hole doping $`\nu `$. Motivated by the new paradigm of high temperature superconductivity, the stripe phase, we also consider the effect the antiferromagnetic background has on the $`t`$-$`J_z`$ chain intended to mimic the stripe segments.

Introduction. Phase diagrams of generic models of strongly interacting quantum particles are considered fundamental to understanding the complex physical behavior of cuprate superconductors, heavy fermion, and related compounds. It is rare to encounter situations where unambiguously these diagrams can be completely determined and only a few exceptional cases are exactly solvable. It is a purpose of this paper to show that the $`t`$-$`J_z`$ chain belongs to this latter class of models.

A new paradigm in superconductivity springs up as a consequence of the growing body of experimental evidence suggesting that the quantum state of high temperature superconductors is a striped phase. Unlike conventional conductors where the charge carriers distribute in an spatially homogeneous way, the stripe paradigm assumes that carriers cluster into quasi one-dimensional (1$`d`$) channels. These channels act as domain walls separating different antiferromagnetic (AF) domains. It is remarkable that experiments are consistent with a spin ordering that is $`\pi `$-shifted across the wall , indicating the topological character of these extended defects .

Motivated by this new paradigm Ref.  argued that planar models, with appropriate inhomogeneous magnetic terms, breaking translational and local spin $`SU(2)`$ symmetries are appropriate to understand neutron scattering and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy experiments in cuprates . It is interesting to understand why spin anisotropies are relevant to obtain substantial pair hole binding and whether the stripes themselves have important superconducting fluctuations. The simplest representation of a stripe segment is realized by a $`t`$-$`J_z`$ chain model.

In this Letter we study the quantum phase diagram of the $`t`$-$`J_z`$ chain for arbitrary spin and sign of $`J_z`$ by using an exact mapping to an attractive spinless fermion model, and solve this problem by using the Bethe ansatz integral equations. We then consider the effect of the AF boundaries on the stripe as an effective confining potential and determine the resulting phase diagram. While a superconducting phase exists in both cases, the superconducting region is more prominent in the latter.

Model Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian representing the 1$`d`$ $`t`$-$`J_z`$ model with $`L`$ sites (equal to the length of the chain, i.e., lattice constant $`a`$=1) and $`M`$ holes with open boundary conditions (BC)  (the thermodynamic limit, $`L,M\mathrm{}`$ with $`\nu =M/L`$ finite, is performed at the end of the calculation), for arbitrary half-integer spin $`S`$, is $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{T}+\widehat{H}_{J_z}`$ with

$`\widehat{T}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t{\displaystyle }}{\alpha =1}}`$ (1)
$`\sigma [S,S]^{L1}\widehat{T}_{\alpha ,\sigma },\widehat{T}_{\alpha ,\sigma }=c_{\alpha \sigma }^{}c_{\alpha +1\sigma }^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (2)
$`\widehat{H}_{J_z}`$ $`=`$ $`J_z{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L1}{}}}S_\alpha ^zS_{\alpha +1}^z,S_\alpha ^z={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma [S,S]}{}}\sigma c_{\alpha \sigma }^{}c_{\alpha \sigma }^{}.`$ (3)
Here, $`c_{\alpha \sigma }^{}`$($`c_{\alpha \sigma }^{}`$) creates(annihilates) a fermion of $`z`$ spin-component $`\sigma `$ in a Wannier orbital centered at $`\alpha `$. The Hilbert space of states corresponds to a constrained space with no doubly occupied sites .

Consider the set of parent states, labeled by the string configuration $`\stackrel{}{𝝈}`$, with $`M`$ holes and $`LM`$ quantum particles, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\stackrel{}{𝝈})`$, defined as

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\stackrel{}{𝝈})=|\underset{LM}{\underset{}{\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3\mathrm{}\sigma _{LM}}}\underset{𝑀}{\underset{}{_{}\mathrm{}}},$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _\alpha `$ indicates the $`z`$-component of the spin of the particle at site $`\alpha `$. These states are eigenstates of $`\widehat{H}_{J_z}`$ with energy $`E_M(\stackrel{}{𝝈})=J_z_{\alpha =1}^{LM1}\sigma _\alpha \sigma _{\alpha +1}`$, and $`z`$-component of the total spin $`S_z=_{\alpha =1}^{LM}\sigma _\alpha `$.

¿From a given parent state one can generate a subspace of the Hilbert space $`(\stackrel{}{𝝈})`$ by applying the hopping operators $`\widehat{T}_{\alpha ,\sigma }`$ to the parent state and its descendants, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_i(\stackrel{}{𝝈})`$,

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\stackrel{}{𝝈})=\widehat{T}_{LM,\sigma }|\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\stackrel{}{𝝈})$$
(5)
or, in general,

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_i(\stackrel{}{𝝈})=\widehat{T}_{\alpha ,\sigma }|\mathrm{\Phi }_j(\stackrel{}{𝝈}).$$
(6)
The dimension $`𝒟`$ of the subspace $`(\stackrel{}{𝝈})`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L}{M}\right)`$. Moreover, these different subspaces are orthogonal and are not mixed by the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$, although they can be degenerate. In the following we will only consider the AF case $`J_z>0`$. At the end we will discuss two important generalizations: the ferromagnetic (FM) $`J_z<0`$ and the arbitrary integer spin hard-core boson cases.

Among all possible initial configurations the one corresponding to the Néel string $`\stackrel{}{𝝈}_0`$ (i.e., $`\sigma _\alpha =(1)^\alpha S`$), which is two-fold degenerate, turns out to be special. We want to show now that for a given number of holes $`M`$ the subspace generated by the Néel parent state, $`(\stackrel{}{𝝈}_0)_0`$, contains the ground state. To this end, one has to realize that the kinetic energy matrix elements $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(\stackrel{}{𝝈})|\widehat{T}|\mathrm{\Phi }_j(\stackrel{}{𝝈})`$ are the same for the different subspaces $``$. Nonetheless, the magnetic matrix elements $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(\stackrel{}{𝝈})|\widehat{H}_{J_z}|\mathrm{\Phi }_j(\stackrel{}{𝝈})=\delta _{ij}A_i(\stackrel{}{𝝈})`$ are different for the different subspaces, with $`A_i(\stackrel{}{𝝈}_0)A_i(\stackrel{}{𝝈})`$ . Notice that if one assigns $`\sigma _\alpha =0`$ to the presence of a hole at site $`\alpha `$, then $`A_i(\stackrel{}{𝝈})=J_z_{\alpha =1}^{L1}\sigma _\alpha \sigma _{\alpha +1}`$. Therefore, the Hamiltonian matrices H$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{i,j}{}^{}`$ (of dimension $`𝒟\times 𝒟`$) in each subspace $``$, consists of identical off-diagonal matrix elements (H$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{i,j}{}^{}`$ = H$`{}_{i,j}{}^{^{}},ij`$) and different diagonal ones. These hermitian matrices can be ordered according to the increasing value of the energy $`E_M`$ of their parent states (for fixed $`L`$ and $`M`$). For any $`E_M(\stackrel{}{𝝈})<E_M(\stackrel{}{𝝈}^{})`$, $`\mathrm{H}^{^{}}=\mathrm{H}^{}+B`$, where $`B`$ is a positive semidefinite matrix. Then, the monotonicity theorem  tells us that

$$E_k(\stackrel{}{𝝈})E_k(\stackrel{}{𝝈}^{})k=1,\mathrm{},𝒟,$$
(7)
where $`E_k(\stackrel{}{𝝈})`$’s are the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{H}^{}`$ arranged in increasing order ($`E_k(\stackrel{}{𝝈})E_{k+1}(\stackrel{}{𝝈})`$). Therefore, we conclude that the lowest eigenvalue of $`\widehat{H}`$ must be in $`_0`$, is $`E_1(\stackrel{}{𝝈}_0)`$, and is two-fold degenerate.

Spinless Fermion Mapping. The next step consists in showing, within the ground state subspace $`_0`$, that the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ maps into an attractive spinless fermion model. If one makes the following identification

$$|\underset{LM}{\underset{}{\mathrm{}}}\underset{𝑀}{\underset{}{_{}\mathrm{}}}|\underset{LM}{\underset{}{_{}\mathrm{}}}\underset{𝑀}{\underset{}{_{}\mathrm{}}},$$
(8)
i.e., any spin ($`c_{\alpha S}^{}`$ or $`c_{\alpha S}^{}`$) maps into a single spinless fermion ($`b_\alpha ^{}`$) in $`_0`$, it is straightforward to show that all matrix elements of H$`^_0`$ are identical to the matrix elements of the interacting quantum lattice gas

$$H=t\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L1}{}}(b_\alpha ^{}b_{\alpha +1}^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)J_zS^2\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L1}{}}n_\alpha n_{\alpha +1}$$
(9)
in the corresponding new basis. In Eq. 9, $`n_\alpha =b_\alpha ^{}b_\alpha ^{}`$.

Quantum Phase Diagram. The attractive spinless fermion model of Eq. 9 certainly has a superconducting phase (i.e., correlation exponent $`K_\rho >1`$) . For arbitrary values of $`J_zS^2`$, $`t`$, and hole density $`\nu `$, the spinless model is equivalent (via a Jordan-Wigner transformation) to a Heisenberg-Ising spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ chain (also known as XXZ model) with Hamiltonian

$$H_{\mathrm{xxz}}=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L}{}}J_{}(s_\alpha ^xs_{\alpha +1}^x+s_\alpha ^ys_{\alpha +1}^y)+J_{}(s_\alpha ^zs_{\alpha +1}^z+s_\alpha ^z)$$
(10)
and $`J_{}=2t`$, $`J_{}=J_zS^2`$. In this new representation the spin up(down) density is $`\nu `$($`1\nu `$). $`J_{}=0`$ represents the classical Ising limit while $`J_{}=0`$ is the extreme quantum limit (XY model). In general, the exchange anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }=J_{}/J_{}<0`$ determines the physical nature of the correlations while $`J_{}`$ defines the energy scale.

There is a vast literature on this model that was exactly solved by the Bethe ansatz . For $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|<1`$, solutions of this model belong to the universality class called “Luttinger liquids” , with correlation functions characterized by power laws with non-universal exponents continuously depending on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The correlation exponent $`K_\rho `$ is determined from

$$K_\rho =\frac{\pi }{2}\nu ^2\kappa v_\rho =\pi \sqrt{\frac{\nu ^2\kappa D_c}{2}},$$
(11)
where the Drude weight (or charge stiffness) $`D_c`$ is related to the velocity of charge excitations $`v_\rho `$ by $`D_c=v_\rho K_\rho /\pi `$ with $`D_c=\frac{1}{2}^2e(\mathrm{\Phi })/(\mathrm{\Phi }/L)^2`$ as usual , and $`\kappa `$ is the isothermal compressibility. On the other hand, $`\kappa `$ can be calculated from the variation of the ground state energy per site $`e(\nu )`$ as $`(\nu ^2\kappa )^1=^2e/\nu ^2`$.

At $`\nu =1/2`$, several quantities and properties are known in closed analytic form. There is a Mott transition at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ (Umklapp scattering becomes relevant at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$, while it is irrelevant for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|<1`$). Moreover, the exact expressions for $`K_\rho `$ and $`v_\rho `$ can be determined from the Bethe ansatz

$$K_\rho =\frac{\pi }{4(\pi \mu )},v_\rho =\frac{\pi t\mathrm{sin}\mu }{\mu },$$
(12)
which implies $`D_c=\pi t\mathrm{sin}\mu /[4\mu (\pi \mu )]`$ with $`\mathrm{cos}\mu =\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The energy per site ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }|<1`$) is given by

$$e(1/2)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{2}2t\mathrm{sin}\mu _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \mu )x}{\mathrm{cosh}\mu x\mathrm{sinh}\pi x}.$$
(13)
Thus, one obtains $`\frac{1}{2}K_\rho 1`$ in the region $`0\mathrm{\Delta }1/\sqrt{2}`$, and $`K_\rho >1`$ (superconducting correlations dominate at large distances) for $`1<\mathrm{\Delta }<1/\sqrt{2}`$. At $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$, there is a transition to a phase segregated state ($`\kappa =2\mu /[\pi t\mathrm{sin}\mu (\pi \mu )]`$ diverges).

For $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, the system reduces to a free spinless fermion system with energy per site $`e=\frac{2t}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )`$, stiffness $`D_c=e/2`$, and $`\kappa ^1=\pi ^2\nu ^2e`$. This trivially corresponds to $`K_\rho =\frac{1}{2}`$. Also the cases $`\nu 0`$ and $`\nu 1`$ map to free fermions independently of the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, therefore, $`K_\rho =\frac{1}{2}`$. The value $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ is also special: After the unitary transformation $`s_\alpha ^{x,y}(1)^\alpha s_\alpha ^{x,y}`$, the Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{xxz}}`$ maps into the FM Heisenberg model in a magnetic field $`J_{}`$ (full $`SU(2)`$ symmetry is recovered). Here $`e=\frac{t}{2}+\left(\frac{1}{2}\nu \right)`$, implying the opening of a gap with a diverging $`\kappa `$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ determines the line of phase segregation for all densities $`\nu `$.

Away from $`\nu =1/2`$ and the special limiting cases discussed above, the quantities $`K_\rho `$ and $`v_\rho `$ are obtained from the numerical solution of the Bethe ansatz integral equations . To calculate $`v_\rho `$ one needs to determine hole excitations with a well-defined momentum $`q`$ and energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }e`$ with respect to the ground state $`e`$. We find the velocity of this elementary excitation from $`v_\rho =lim_{q0}d\mathrm{\Delta }e/dq`$, and together with the numerical second order derivative of $`e(\nu )`$, we determine the correlation exponent $`K_\rho `$. For $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|<1`$ the excitations are gapless. The resulting quantum phase diagram is shown in Fig. 1(a). Notice that the largest superconducting region corresponds to $`\nu =1/2`$.

It is interesting to determine the influence of the antiphase domain wall (ADW), associated with each charge, on the spin-spin correlations of the metallic and the superconducting phases. It is well-known  that the charge structure factor of the spinless model has a peak at $`k=2k_F=2\pi \nu `$. Since each charge of the effective model carries an ADW, the spin structure factor, $`𝐒(k)`$, will peak at $`k=\pi \pm 2\pi \nu `$ in the metallic phase. In the superconducting phase a broad peak at $`k=\pi `$ is obtained for $`𝐒(k)`$ since the pairs do not carry an ADW.

Effect of AF Boundaries on the Chain. It is also interesting to study the effect of the AF background in which our stripe segments are embedded. This background provides a strong BC that results in an additional attractive (confining) potential for the holes on the stripe. In this way, an enhanced superconducting region is expected. In fact, the influence of the AF background on the stripe is equivalent to the effect a staggered magnetic field (STM) $`B_s`$ (see Fig. 2). Since each hole carries an ADW, the staggered field gives rise to a confining linear potential between the $`\alpha `$ and the $`\alpha +1`$ holes for even $`\alpha `$. Therefore, the effect of a STM is to bind pairs of holes tightly by a string potential. These pairs interact as hard core bosons. In the very dilute limit one expects these bosons to condense at $`T=0`$ for any value of $`B_s/t`$ and $`J_z/t`$ lower than some critical value which gives rise to phase segregation.

In the limit $`B_s/t1`$ the model can be solved analytically for any concentration of hole pairs. In this limit the problem reduces to nearest-neighbors (NN) pairs of holes moving into an AF background (see Fig. 2). Each pair can hop to its NN with an effective hopping $`t_{\mathrm{eff}}=2t^2/(B_sS+J_zS^2)`$. In addition, there is an attractive $`J_zS^2`$ interaction between NN pairs which comes from the second term of Eq. 9. If we map each pair into a spinless particle and each spin into an empty site

$$|\underset{(L,M)}{\underset{}{\mathrm{}}}|\underset{(\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{M})}{\underset{}{_{}\mathrm{}}},$$
(14)
the problem reduces to the spinless Hamiltonian Eq. 9. But as each pair is replaced by an effective particle, the number of particles and the length of the chain for the effective spinless problem are

$$\stackrel{~}{L}=L\frac{M}{2}\stackrel{~}{M}=\frac{M}{2},$$
(15)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }=\stackrel{~}{M}/\stackrel{~}{L}=\nu /(2\nu )`$. Here, as in the FM case, we can use closed or open BC. The sign that arises after a cyclic permutation of fermions is absorbed in the BC. For an odd(even) number of fermions these BC are periodic(anti-periodic). This corresponds to $`M=4n+2`$ ($`M=4n`$) of the original problem. The relations between energies and charge velocities are

$$e(\nu )=\stackrel{~}{e}(\stackrel{~}{\nu })\left(1\frac{\nu }{2}\right),v_\rho (\nu )=\stackrel{~}{v}_\rho (\stackrel{~}{\nu })\frac{2}{2\nu },$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{~}{e}(\stackrel{~}{\nu })`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_\rho (\stackrel{~}{\nu })`$ are the energy per site and charge velocity of the corresponding spinless model of concentration $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$. Therefore, simple algebraic manipulations lead to

$$K_\rho (\nu )=\stackrel{~}{K}_\rho (\stackrel{~}{\nu })(2\nu )^2,$$
(17)
and the phase diagram is depicted in Fig. 1(b).

For completeness, we would like to mention that the mapping of the low energy spectra of the $`t`$-$`J_z`$ model into the spinless Hamiltonian, Eq. 9, is also valid for the FM case, i.e., $`J_z<0`$. In this case, the magnetic background, which is replaced by empty sites in the spinless model, is FM. Notice, however, that the effective spinless model is also attractive ($`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$). This implies that the dynamics of the charge degrees of freedom in an AF background is the same as in the FM one. But in the latter case, the charges do not carry an ADW. Moreover, the mapping does not depend upon the statistics of the quantum particles. In other words, we could also apply these concepts to constrained quantum particles with integer spin $`S`$, i.e., hard-core bosons. In the large spin $`S`$ limit, the quantum phase diagram of the $`t`$-$`J_z`$ model approaches the one of isotropic $`t`$-$`J`$ Hamiltonian. Notice, however, the qualitative similarity between the phase diagram in Fig. 1(a) and the one for the isotropic spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ $`t`$-$`J`$ model obtained numerically . Finally, the solution can be trivially extended to the $`t`$-$`J_z`$-$`V`$ model, where $`V`$ represents a NN density-density interaction. The effect of $`V`$ is simply to renormalize the spinless fermion interaction in Eq. 9. Furthermore, it is simple to prove that there is a family of bilinear-biquadratic spin-1 chain Hamiltonians that can be mapped onto a $`t`$-$`J_z`$-$`V`$ model and, therefore, its low energy physics is exactly solvable .

In summary, we presented the exact quantum phase diagram of the $`t`$-$`J_z`$ chain model for arbitrary spin $`S`$, particle statistics, and sign of the magnetic interaction $`J_z`$. We also exactly determined the phase diagram of a modified $`t`$-$`J_z`$ chain that includes the effects of a strong antiferromagnetic background. A metallic, superconducting and segregated phases characterize these two phase diagrams.

We thank A.A. Aligia, S. Sondhi, and J.E. Gubernatis for useful discussions, and A.A. Aligia for helping us with the Bethe ansatz equations. Work at Los Alamos is sponsored by the US DOE under contract W-7405-ENG-36.