text:
# Massive chiral random matrix ensembles at 𝛽 = 1 & 4 : QCD Dirac operator spectra

## I introduction

Random matrix theory of disordered Hamiltonians  relies upon an ansatz that in the ergodic regime where the system size $`L`$ is much larger than the elastic mean free path but much smaller than the localization length, details of the Hamiltonian are lost except for its time-reversal and internal symmetries. This ansatz was materialized by Efetov  who derived Wigner-Dyson statistics out of Anderson tight-binding model by retaining only the zero-momentum mode of his spectral non-linear $`\sigma `$ model (NL$`\sigma `$M).

By taking the flavor symmetry among quarks into consideration as an additional internal symmetry, Verbaarschot and collaborators  have reinterpreted this wisdom in the context of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). In this context, the spectral NL$`\sigma `$M is a supersymmetric extension  of the conventional NL$`\sigma `$M over the coset manifold associated with the chiral symmetry breaking :

$`Z^{(2)}(\theta ;M)={\displaystyle _{SU(N_f)}}𝑑U\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{e}^{i\theta /N_f}MU^{}),`$ (2)
$`Z^{(1)}(\theta ;M)={\displaystyle _{SU(2N_f)/Sp(2N_f)}}𝑑U\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{e}^{i\theta /N_f}MU𝐉U^T/2),`$ (3)
$`Z^{(4)}(\theta ;M)={\displaystyle _{SU(N_f)/SO(N_f)}}𝑑U\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{e}^{i\theta /(N_cN_f)}MUU^T),`$ (4)
after retaining only the zero mode. Here the superscripts (2, 1, 4) of Dyson indices $`\beta `$ refer to the anti-unitary symmetry of Euclidean Dirac operators (which are considered as stochastic Hamiltonians) in three classes of QCD :

$`\beta =2`$ $`:`$ $`N_c3,N_f\text{fundamental Dirac fermions},`$ (5)
$`\beta =1`$ $`:`$ $`N_c=2,N_f\text{fundamental Dirac fermions},`$ (6)
$`\beta =4`$ $`:`$ $`N_c2,N_f\text{adjoint Majorana fermions}.`$ (7)
The rescaled quark mass matrices $`M`$ are defined as

$`M=\mathrm{diag}(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{N_f})(\beta =2,4),`$ (8)
$`M=\mathrm{diag}(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{N_f})J(\beta =1),`$ (9)
$`\mu _i\mathrm{\Sigma }L^4m_i,𝐉=𝟙__𝕗𝕁,𝕁=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟘}& \mathrm{𝟙}\\ \mathrm{𝟙}& \mathrm{𝟘}\end{array}\right),`$ (12)
with a limit

$$L\mathrm{},m_i0,\mu _i:\text{fixed}$$
(13)
being assumed, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ stands for the quark condensate in the chiral limit, and $`\theta `$ stands for the vacuum angle. By the same token as the spectral NL$`\sigma `$M of the tight-binding model was derived from a conventional random matrix ensembles , these NL$`\sigma `$Ms have an alternative derivation from chiral random matrix ensembles ($`\chi `$RMEs) :

$`Z_\nu ^{(\beta )}(\{m\})={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{2\pi }}\mathrm{e}^{i\nu \theta }Z^{(\beta )}(\theta ;\{m\})`$ (14)
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑W\mathrm{e}^{\beta \mathrm{tr}V(W^{}W)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}det\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_i& W\\ W^{}& m_i\end{array}\right)},`$ (17)
under a limit

$$N\mathrm{},m_i0,\mu _i=\pi \overline{\rho }(0)m_i:\text{fixed}.$$
(18)
Here the integrals are over complex, real, and quaternion real $`(N+\nu )\times N`$ matrices $`W`$ for $`\beta =2,1,4`$, respectively, and $`\overline{\rho }(0)`$ stands for the large-$`N`$ spectral density of the random matrix $`𝒟=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0W}{W^{}0}\right)`$:

$$\overline{\rho }(\lambda )=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{tr}\delta (\lambda i𝒟),$$
(19)
at the origin. It is understood for $`\beta =4`$ that twofold degenerated eigenvalues in the determinant are only counted once, and the topological charge $`\nu `$ is substituted by $`\nu N_c`$. These $`\chi `$RMEs are motivated by the microscopic theories (Euclidean QCD) on a lattice, with a crude simplification of replacing matrix elements of the anti-Hermitian Dirac operator $`/D=(_\mu +iA_\mu )\gamma _\mu `$ by random numbers $`𝒟`$ generated according to the weight $`\mathrm{e}^{\beta \mathrm{tr}V(W^{}W)}`$. Under this correspondence, the microscopic limit (18) is equivalent to Leutwyler-Smilga limit (13), since the size $`N`$ of the matrix $`W`$ is interpreted as the number of cites $`L^4`$ of the lattice on which QCD is discretized, and the Dirac spectral density at zero virtuality $`\overline{\rho }(0)`$ is related to the quark condensate by Banks-Casher relation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\pi \overline{\rho }(0)/L^4`$ . Using the $`\chi `$RME representation, various correlation functions of microscopically rescaled Dirac eigenvalues,

$$N\mathrm{},\lambda 0,\zeta =\pi \overline{\rho }(0)\lambda :\text{fixed},$$
(20)
have been computed for all three values of $`\beta `$ in the massless case $`\mu 0`$ . On the other hand, in a presence of finite $`\mu `$’s, Dirac eigenvalues comparable to $`\mu `$’s are expected to obey statistics that interpolate the chiral ($`\mu 0`$) and quenched limits ($`\mu \mathrm{}`$ or $`N_f=0`$). These novel spectral correlation functions have been analytically computed, until recently, solely for the chiral unitary ($`\beta =2`$) ensemble . Therefore we aim to treat the remaining cases, chiral orthogonal ($`\beta =1`$) and symplectic ($`\beta =4`$) ensembles with finite mass parameters, and compute Dirac eigenvalue correlation functions for these ensembles. We anticipate that advances in numerical simulations of lattice QCD with dynamical quarks  will confirm our analytical results, Eqs.(II) and (III) below, in a foreseeable future.

This Article is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we compute the correlation functions for the chiral orthogonal ensemble, by utilizing the quaternion determinant method developed in Ref.. In Sect. 3 we exhibit an explicit form of the correlation functions for the chiral symplectic ensemble, which was obtained by the Authors  as a corollary to the computation of the partition function. In Appendix A we collect definitions related to a quaternion determinant. In Appendices B and C we present alternative expressions of the quaternion kernels for the orthogonal ensemble, and the symplectic ensembles with quadruply degenerated masses, respectively. It enables us to identify our results with those in a paper by Akemann and Kanzieper , which appeared after the Letter by the present Authors  and computed a 1-level correlator with a single mass (for $`\beta =1`$) and $`p`$-level correlators with quadruply degenerate masses (for $`\beta =4`$).

## II orthogonal ensemble

We start by expressing the partition function (17) of the $`\chi `$RME in terms of eigenvalues $`x_i=\lambda _i^2`$ of the Wishart matrix $`W^{}W`$ (up to an overall constant):

$`Z_\nu ^{(\beta )}(\{m\})=({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}}m_i^\nu )\mathrm{\Xi }_0(\{m\}),`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_0(\{m\})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N!}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}dx_jP(\{x\};\{m\}),`$ (22)
$`P(\{x\};\{m\})={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(\mathrm{e}^{\beta V(x_j)}x_j^{\beta \frac{\nu +1}{2}1}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}}(x_j+m_i^2)\right)`$ (23)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{j>k}{\overset{N}{}}}|x_jx_k|^\beta .`$ (24)
The indices $`\beta `$ and $`\nu `$ are suppressed for simplicity. Since the partition function (17) is even under $`\nu \nu `$, we have set $`\nu `$ non-negative integer, without loss of generality. The $`p`$-level correlation function of the Wishart matrix $`W^{}W`$ is defined as

$`\sigma (x_1,\mathrm{},x_p;\{m\})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Xi }_p(x_1,\mathrm{},x_p;\{m\})}{\mathrm{\Xi }_0(\{m\})}},`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_p(x_1,\mathrm{},x_p;\{m\})=`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(Np)!}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=p+1}{\overset{N}{}}}dx_jP(\{x\};\{m\}).`$ (27)
Then the $`p`$-level correlation function of the block off-diagonal Hermitian matrix $`i𝒟`$,

$$\rho (\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p;\{m\})=\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}\mathrm{tr}\delta (\lambda _ki𝒟),$$
(28)
is expressed in terms of $`\sigma `$ multiplied by the Jacobian of the transformation $`\lambda x=\lambda ^2`$ :

$$\rho (\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p;\{m\})=2^p\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}|\lambda _j|\sigma (\lambda _1^2,\mathrm{},\lambda _p^2;\{m\}).$$
(29)
As the universality of correlation functions of the unitary ensemble in the microscopic limit (20)  is known to inherit to those of orthogonal and symplectic ensembles , it suffices to concentrate on Laguerre ensembles, $`V(x)=x`$. This leads to Wigner’s semi-circle law

$$\overline{\rho }(\lambda )=\frac{2}{\pi }\sqrt{2N\lambda ^2}.$$
(30)
Now we concentrate on $`\beta =1`$, and define new variables $`z_j`$ as

$$z_j=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill m_j^2(0),& j=1,\mathrm{},\alpha ,\hfill \\ \hfill x_{j\alpha }(0),& j=\alpha +1,\mathrm{},\alpha +N.\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
Then the multiple integral (27) is expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_p(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{\alpha +p})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{j=1}^\alpha \sqrt{w(z_j)}_{j>k}^\alpha z_jz_k}}\times `$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(Np)!}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\alpha +p+1}{\overset{\alpha +N}{}}}dz_j{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\alpha +N}{}}}\sqrt{w(z_j)}{\displaystyle \underset{j>k}{\overset{\alpha +N}{}}}z_jz_k,`$ (33)
where

$$w(z)=|z|^{\nu 1}\mathrm{e}^{2z}.$$
(34)
Eq.(32) resembles an $`(\alpha +p)`$-level correlation function of the conventional (massless) Laguerre ensemble with $`\alpha +N`$ levels. However, conventionally the levels $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_{\alpha +p}`$ are all positive, while in the present case some of them ($`z_1,\mathrm{},z_\alpha `$) are negative. We carefully incorporate this fact into the following evaluation.

Let us denote the integrand in Eq.(32) as

$$p(z_1,\mathrm{},z_\gamma )=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\gamma }{}}\sqrt{w(z_j)}\underset{j>k}{\overset{\gamma }{}}z_jz_k,$$
(35)
with $`\gamma \alpha +N`$. It can be readily seen that

$`p(z_1,\mathrm{},z_\gamma )={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\gamma }{}}}\sqrt{w(z_j)}{\displaystyle \underset{j>k}{\overset{\gamma }{}}}(z_jz_k)\times `$ (36)
$`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Pf}[\mathrm{sgn}(z_kz_j)]_{j,k=1,\mathrm{},\gamma }\hfill & (\gamma :\text{even})\hfill \\ \mathrm{Pf}\left[\begin{array}{cc}[\mathrm{sgn}(z_kz_j)]_{j,k=1,\mathrm{},\gamma }\hfill & [g_j]_{j=1,\mathrm{},\gamma }\hfill \\ \left[g_k\right]_{k=1,\mathrm{},\gamma }\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right]\hfill & (\gamma :\text{odd}),\hfill \end{array}`$ (41)
with $`g_j=g_k=1`$. The Pfaffians in the above can be represented as quaternion determinants . In doing so, we need to introduce monic skew-orthogonal polynomials $`R_n(z)=z^n+\mathrm{}`$, which satisfy the skew-orthogonality relation:

$$R_{2n},R_{2m+1}_R=R_{2m+1},R_{2n}_R=r_n\delta _{nm},\text{others}=0,$$
(42)
where

$$f,g_R=_0^{\mathrm{}}dz\sqrt{w(z)}g(z)_0^zdz^{}\sqrt{w(z^{})}f(z^{})(fg),$$
(43)
and (integrated) ‘wave functions’,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_n(z)=\sqrt{w(z)}R_n(z),`$ (45)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(z)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z^{}\mathrm{sgn}(zz^{})\sqrt{w(z^{})}R_n(z^{}).`$ (46)
Note that for negative $`z`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(z)`$ is a constant:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n(z<0)=\mathrm{\Phi }_n(0)s_n.$$
(47)
Now we present the following theorems:

Theorem 1

For even $`\gamma `$, we can express $`p(z_1,\mathrm{},z_\gamma )`$ as

$$p(z_1,\mathrm{},z_\gamma )=\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{\gamma /21}{}}r_j\right)\mathrm{Tdet}[f(z_j,z_k)]_{j,k=1,\mathrm{},\gamma }.$$
(48)
The quaternion elements $`f(z,z^{})`$ are represented as

$$f(z,z^{})=\left[\begin{array}{cc}S(z,z^{})& I(z,z^{})\\ D(z,z^{})& S(z^{},z)\end{array}\right].$$
(49)
The functions $`S(z,z^{})`$, $`D(z,z^{})`$ and $`I(z,z^{})`$ are given by

$`S(z,z^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\gamma /21}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{2n}(z)\mathrm{\Psi }_{2n+1}(z^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_{2n+1}(z)\mathrm{\Psi }_{2n}(z^{})}{r_n}},`$ (51)
$`D(z,z^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\gamma /21}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{2n}(z)\mathrm{\Psi }_{2n+1}(z^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_{2n+1}(z)\mathrm{\Psi }_{2n}(z^{})}{r_n}},`$ (52)
$`I(z,z^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\gamma /21}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{2n}(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{2n+1}(z^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_{2n+1}(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{2n}(z^{})}{r_n}}.`$ (53)
Theorem 2

For odd $`\gamma `$, we can express $`p(z_1,\mathrm{},z_\gamma )`$ as

$`p(z_1,\mathrm{},z_\gamma )=`$ (54)
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{[\gamma /2]1}{}}}r_j\right)s_{\gamma 1}\mathrm{Tdet}[f^{\mathrm{odd}}(z_j,z_k)]_{j,k=1,\mathrm{},\gamma }.`$ (55)
The quaternion elements are represented as

$$f^{\mathrm{odd}}(z,z^{})=\left[\begin{array}{cc}S^{\mathrm{odd}}(z,z^{})& I^{\mathrm{odd}}(z,z^{})\\ D^{\mathrm{odd}}(z,z^{})& S^{\mathrm{odd}}(z^{},z)\end{array}\right]$$
(56)
and $`s_n`$ is defined in Eq.(47). The functions $`S^{\mathrm{odd}}`$, $`D^{\mathrm{odd}}`$, and $`I^{\mathrm{odd}}`$ are given in terms of $`S`$, $`D`$, and $`I`$ in Theorem 1 according to

$`S^{\mathrm{odd}}(z,z^{})`$ $`=`$ $`S(z,z^{})|_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma 1}(z^{})}{s_{\gamma 1}}},`$ (58)
$`D^{\mathrm{odd}}(z,z^{})`$ $`=`$ $`D(z,z^{})|_{},`$ (59)
$`I^{\mathrm{odd}}(z,z^{})`$ $`=`$ $`I(z,z^{})|_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\gamma 1}(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\gamma 1}(z^{})}{s_{\gamma 1}}}.`$ (60)
Here $``$ stands for a substitution

$$R_n(z)R_n(z)\frac{s_n}{s_{\gamma 1}}R_{\gamma 1}(z)$$
(61)
for $`n=0,\mathrm{},\gamma 2`$, associated with a change in the upper limit of the sum

$$\gamma /21[\gamma /2]1.$$
(62)
Theorem 3

Let the quaternion elements $`q_{jk}`$ of a selfdual $`n\times n`$ matrix $`Q_n`$ depend on $`n`$ real or complex variables $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$ as

$$q_{jk}=f(z_j,z_k).$$
(63)
We assume that $`f(z,z^{})`$ satisfies the following conditions.

$`{\displaystyle f(z,z)𝑑\mu (z)}=c,`$ (64)
$`{\displaystyle f(z,z^{\prime \prime })f(z^{\prime \prime },z^{})𝑑\mu (z^{\prime \prime })}=f(z,z^{})+\lambda f(z,z^{})f(z,z^{})\lambda .`$ (65)
Here $`d\mu (z)`$ is a suitable measure, $`c`$ is a constant scalar, and $`\lambda `$ is a constant quaternion. Then we have

$$\mathrm{Tdet}Q_n𝑑\mu (z_n)=(cn+1)\mathrm{Tdet}Q_{n1},$$
(66)
where $`Q_{n1}`$ is the $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ matrix obtained by removing the row and the column which contain $`z_n`$. It is straightforward to show that the quaternion element $`f(z,z^{})`$ and $`f^{\mathrm{odd}}(z,z^{})`$ in Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 both satisfy the conditions imposed on $`f(z,z^{})`$ in Theorem 3 with $`d\mu (z)=w(z)dz`$. This means that we can write

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_p(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{\alpha +p})={\displaystyle \frac{_{j=0}^{[(\alpha +N)/2]1}r_j}{_{j=1}^\alpha \sqrt{w(z_j)}_{j>k}^\alpha z_jz_k}}\times `$ (67)
$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}& \mathrm{Tdet}[f(z_j,z_k)]_{j,k=1,\mathrm{},\alpha +p}\hfill & (\alpha +N:\text{even})\hfill \\ s_{\alpha +N1}\hfill & \mathrm{Tdet}[f^{\mathrm{odd}}(z_j,z_k)]_{j,k=1,\mathrm{},\alpha +p}\hfill & (\alpha +N:\text{odd})\hfill \end{array}.`$ (70)
Since the final result in the asymptotic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ should be insensitive to the parity of $`N`$, we consider only even $`\alpha +N`$ henceforth. Then the $`p`$-level correlation function (25) is finally written as

$$\sigma (x_1,\mathrm{},x_p;m_1,\mathrm{},m_\alpha )=\frac{\mathrm{Tdet}[f(z_j,z_k)]_{j,k=1,\mathrm{},\alpha +p}}{\mathrm{Tdet}[f(z_j,z_k)]_{j,k=1,\mathrm{},\alpha }}.$$
(71)
Now we proceed to take the asymptotic limit of the correlation function, by making use of explicit forms for the skew-orthogonal polynomials and their norms associated with the weight (34) obtained by Nagao and Wadati :

$`R_{2n}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2n)!}{2^{2n+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}L_{2n+1}^{(\nu 1)}(2z),`$ (72)
$`R_{2n+1}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2n+1)!}{2^{2n+1}}}L_{2n+1}^{(\nu 1)}(2z)`$ (74)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(2n)!}{2^{2n+2}}}(2n+\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}L_{2n}^{(\nu 1)}(2z),`$
$`r_n`$ $`=`$ $`2^{4n\nu }(2n)!(2n+\nu )!,`$ (75)
expressed in terms of the Laguerre polynomials

$$L_n^{(a)}(z)=\frac{z^a\mathrm{e}^z}{n!}\frac{d^n}{dz^n}(\mathrm{e}^zz^{n+a}).$$
(76)
We need to evaluate the local asymptotics of the quaternion function $`f(z,z^{})`$, whose constituent Laguerre polynomials tend to

$$L_n^{(a)}(z)\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(n/z\right)^{a/2}J_a(2\sqrt{nz})\hfill & (z>0)\hfill \\ \left(n/|z|\right)^{a/2}I_a(2\sqrt{n|z|})\hfill & (z<0)\hfill \end{array},$$
(77)
as $`n\mathrm{}`$, $`z0`$, with $`nz:`$ fixed. Three cases should be considered separately:

$`(a)z,z^{}>0,(b)z<0,z^{}>0,(c)z,z^{}<0`$

(the case $`z>0`$, $`z^{}<0`$ is unnecessary because of the selfduality $`f(z,z^{})=\widehat{f}(z^{},z)`$).

$`(a)`$ $`z,z^{}>0`$

We define microscopic variables $`\zeta `$ and $`\zeta ^{}`$ as

$$z=\frac{\zeta ^2}{8N},z^{}=\frac{\zeta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8N},$$
(78)
according to Eq.(20) with $`\pi \overline{\rho }(0)=2\sqrt{2N}`$. If both arguments are positive, the asymptotic limit is known to be

$`S_{++}(\zeta ,\zeta ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8N}}S(z,z^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt^2{\displaystyle _0^\zeta }𝑑s\left(sJ_{\nu 1}(ts){\displaystyle \frac{J_\nu (t\zeta ^{})}{\zeta ^{}}}J_\nu (ts)J_{\nu 1}(t\zeta ^{})\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{J_\nu (\zeta ^{})}{4\zeta ^{}}},`$ (80)
$`D_{++}(\zeta ,\zeta ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(8N)^2}}D(z,z^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt^2\left(J_{\nu 1}(t\zeta ){\displaystyle \frac{J_\nu (t\zeta ^{})}{\zeta ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_\nu (t\zeta )}{\zeta }}J_{\nu 1}(t\zeta ^{})\right),`$ (81)
$`I_{++}(\zeta ,\zeta ^{})I(z,z^{}){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt^2{\displaystyle _0^\zeta }𝑑u{\displaystyle _0^\zeta ^{}}𝑑v\left(uJ_{\nu 1}(tu)J_\nu (tv)J_\nu (tu)vJ_{\nu 1}(tv)\right){\displaystyle _\zeta ^\zeta ^{}}J_\nu (u)𝑑u\mathrm{sgn}(\zeta \zeta ^{}).`$ (82)
(83)
$`(b)`$ $`z<0,z^{}>0`$

We define microscopic variables $`\mu `$ and $`\zeta `$ as

$$z=\frac{\mu ^2}{8N},z^{}=\frac{\zeta ^2}{8N},$$
(84)
according to Eqs.(18) and (20). When one of the arguments is negative, the identity (47) should be taken into consideration. We find

$`S_+(\mu ,\zeta )=S_+(\zeta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8N}}S(z,z^{}){\displaystyle \frac{J_\nu (\zeta )}{4\zeta }},`$ (86)
$`S_+(\zeta ,\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8N}}S(z^{},z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt^2{\displaystyle _0^\zeta }𝑑s\left(sJ_{\nu 1}(ts){\displaystyle \frac{I_\nu (t\mu )}{\mu }}J_\nu (ts)I_{\nu 1}(t\mu )\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{I_\nu (\mu )}{4\mu }},`$ (87)
$`D_+(\mu ,\zeta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(8N)^2}}D(z,z^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt^2\left(I_{\nu 1}(t\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{J_\nu (t\zeta )}{\zeta }}{\displaystyle \frac{I_\nu (t\mu )}{\mu }}J_{\nu 1}(t\zeta )\right),`$ (88)
$`I_+(\mu ,\zeta )=I_+(\zeta )I(z,z^{}){\displaystyle _0^\zeta }J_\nu (u)𝑑u+1.`$ (89)
$`(c)`$ $`z,z^{}<0`$

We define microscopic variables $`\mu `$ and $`\zeta `$ as

$$z=\frac{\mu ^2}{8N},z^{}=\frac{\mu _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8N}.$$
(90)
We can readily derive

$`S_{}(\mu ,\mu ^{})=S_{}(\mu ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8N}}S(z,z^{}){\displaystyle \frac{I_\nu (\mu ^{})}{4\mu ^{}}},`$ (92)
$`D_{}(\mu ,\mu ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(8N)^2}}D(z,z^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt^2\left(I_{\nu 1}(t\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{I_\nu (t\mu ^{})}{\mu ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{I_\nu (t\mu )}{\mu }}I_{\nu 1}(t\mu ^{})\right),`$ (93)
$`I_{}(\mu ,\mu ^{})I(z,z^{})\mathrm{sgn}(\mu \mu ^{}).`$ (94)
In Eqs.(86), (89), and (92), we have introduced symbols with one sign subscript (e.g. $`S_+`$) in order to indicate that they depend only on the second arguments of those with two sign subscripts (e.g. $`S_+`$).

The scaled correlation function $`\rho _s`$ is defined as

$$\rho _s(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _p;\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _\alpha )=\frac{1}{(8N)^p}\rho (\frac{\zeta _1}{\sqrt{8N}},\mathrm{},\frac{\zeta _p}{\sqrt{8N}};\frac{\mu _1}{\sqrt{8N}},\mathrm{},\frac{\mu _\alpha }{\sqrt{8N}}).$$
(95)
By making use of Eqs.(29), (71), and Dyson’s equality (A16), we finally obtain

$`\rho _s(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _p;\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _\alpha )`$ $`=(1)^{p(p1)/2}2^p{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}|\zeta _k|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Pf}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill I_{}& \hfill S_{}& \hfill I_+& \hfill S_+\\ \hfill S_{}^T& \hfill D_{}& \hfill S_+^T& \hfill D_+\\ \hfill I_+^T& \hfill S_+& \hfill I_{++}& \hfill S_{++}\\ \hfill S_+^T& \hfill D_+^T& \hfill S_{++}^T& \hfill D_{++}\end{array}\right]}{\mathrm{Pf}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_{}& \hfill S_{}\\ \hfill S_{}^T& \hfill D_{}\end{array}\right]}}`$ (114)
$`=(1)^{p(p1)/2}2^p{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}|\zeta _k|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Pf}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill D_{}& \hfill S_+^T& \hfill D_+\\ \hfill S_+& \hfill I_{++}& \hfill S_{++}\\ \hfill D_+^T& \hfill S_{++}^T& \hfill D_{++}\end{array}\right]}{\mathrm{Pf}\left[D_{}\right]}}(\alpha :\text{even})`$
$`=(1)^{p(p1)/2}2^p{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}|\zeta _k|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Pf}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& \hfill S_{}& \hfill I_+& \hfill S_+\\ \hfill S_{}^T& \hfill D_{}& \hfill S_+^T& \hfill D_+\\ \hfill I_+^T& \hfill S_+& \hfill I_{++}& \hfill S_{++}\\ \hfill S_+^T& \hfill D_+^T& \hfill S_{++}^T& \hfill D_{++}\end{array}\right]}{\mathrm{Pf}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill S_{}\\ \hfill S_{}^T& \hfill D_{}\end{array}\right]}}(\alpha :\text{odd}).`$
The elements of the matrices $`S_{ϵϵ^{}}`$, $`D_{ϵϵ^{}}`$, $`I_{ϵϵ^{}}`$ and the row vectors $`S_ϵ`$, $`I_ϵ`$ ($`ϵ,ϵ^{}=+,`$) in the above are defined as

$$(S_{++})_k\mathrm{}=S_{++}(\zeta _k,\zeta _{\mathrm{}}),(S_+)_i\mathrm{}=S_+(\mu _i,\zeta _{\mathrm{}}),(S_{})_{ij}=S_{}(\mu _i,\mu _j),(S_+)_{\mathrm{}}=S_+(\zeta _{\mathrm{}}),(S_{})_j=S_{}(\mu _j),\text{etc.},$$
(115)
where the subscripts take their values in $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},\alpha `$ and $`k,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},p`$. In the last two lines we have exploited a Pfaffian identity that holds for antisymmetric matrices $`A`$, $`B`$, and a row vector $`v`$:

$`\mathrm{Pf}\left[\begin{array}{cc}A& \begin{array}{c}v\\ \mathrm{}\\ v\end{array}\\ & \\ v^T\mathrm{}v^T& B\end{array}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Pf}[A]\mathrm{Pf}[B](\mathrm{rank}(A),\mathrm{rank}(B):\text{even})`$ (122)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Pf}\left[\begin{array}{cc}A& \begin{array}{c}1\\ \mathrm{}\\ 1\end{array}\\ & \\ 1\mathrm{}1& 0\end{array}\right]\mathrm{Pf}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& v\\ v^T& B\end{array}\right](\mathrm{rank}(A),\mathrm{rank}(B):\text{odd}).`$ (130)
In a special case $`p=\alpha =1`$, the expression (114) reduces to Akemann and Kanzieper’s recent result  (see Appendix B).

In the quenched limit $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _\alpha \mathrm{}`$ when the ratio of two Pfaffians is replaced by a minor $`\mathrm{Pf}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{I_{++}S_{++}}{S_{++}^TD_{++}}\right]`$, the correlation function tends to that of Laguerre orthogonal ensemble computed by Nagao and Forrester, Eqs.(2.21), (2.18), (2.19), and (3.20) in Ref., with $`\nu =2a+1`$. By the same token, it satisfies a sequence

$$\rho _s(\{\zeta \};\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _\alpha )\stackrel{\mu _\alpha \mathrm{}}{}\rho _s(\{\zeta \};\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{\alpha 1})\stackrel{\mu _{\alpha 1}\mathrm{}}{}\rho _s(\{\zeta \};\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{\alpha 2})\stackrel{\mu _{\alpha 2}\mathrm{}}{}\mathrm{},$$
(131)
as each of the masses are decoupled by sending to infinity. To illustrate this decoupling, we exhibit in Fig.1 a plot of the spectral density $`\rho _s(\zeta ;\mu )`$ ($`\nu =0,p=1,\alpha =1`$) that interpolates between known results for the chiral and quenched limits.

## III symplectic ensemble

Although correlation functions of the massive chiral symplectic ensemble have previously been computed by the Authors , we nevertheless present their explicit expressions for the sake of completeness. We concentrate on the case with an even $`N_f(2\alpha )`$ number of flavors and pairwise degenerated mass parameters, corresponding to adjoint Dirac fermions in the QCD context. The scaled $`p`$-level correlation functions, defined in Eq.(95), is expressed by construction as a ratio of partition functions with $`2\alpha `$ and $`2\alpha +4p`$ flavors ,

$$\rho _s(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _p;\{\mu \})=C_{\alpha ,\nu }^{(p)}\underset{k>\mathrm{}}{\overset{p}{}}(\zeta _k^2\zeta _{\mathrm{}}^2)^4\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}\left(|\zeta _k|^3\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(\zeta _k^2+\mu _i^2)^2\right)\frac{Z_\nu ^{(4)}(\mu _1,\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _\alpha ,\mu _\alpha ,\stackrel{4}{\stackrel{}{i\zeta _1,\mathrm{},i\zeta _1}},\mathrm{},\stackrel{4}{\stackrel{}{i\zeta _p,\mathrm{},i\zeta _p}})}{Z_\nu ^{(4)}(\mu _1,\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _\alpha ,\mu _\alpha )}.$$
(132)
Here $`C_{\alpha ,\nu }^{(p)}`$ stands for a constant to be fixed below. Using an explicit form of the partition function, Eq.(31) of Ref., and taking confluent limits in $`\zeta _k`$’s, we obtain

$`\rho _s(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _p;\{\mu \})`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{p(p+1)/2}2^p{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}|\zeta _k|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Pf}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill I_{}& \hfill I_+& \hfill S_+\\ \hfill I_+^T& \hfill I_{++}& \hfill S_{++}\\ \hfill S_+^T& \hfill S_{++}^T& \hfill D_{++}\end{array}\right]}{\mathrm{Pf}[I_{}]}}(\alpha :\text{even})`$ (137)
$`=`$ $`(1)^{p(p+1)/2}2^p{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}|\zeta _k|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Pf}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill I_{}& \hfill Q_{}& \hfill I_+& \hfill S_+\\ \hfill Q_{}^T& \hfill 0& \hfill Q_+^T& \hfill P_+^T\\ \hfill I_+^T& \hfill Q_+& \hfill I_{++}& \hfill S_{++}\\ \hfill S_+^T& \hfill P_+& \hfill S_{++}^T& \hfill D_{++}\end{array}\right]}{\mathrm{Pf}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_{}& \hfill Q_{}\\ \hfill Q_{}^T& \hfill 0\end{array}\right]}}(\alpha :\text{odd}).`$ (144)
The elements of the matrices $`S_{ϵϵ^{}}`$, $`D_{ϵϵ^{}}`$, $`I_{ϵϵ^{}}`$ and the column vectors $`Q_ϵ`$, $`P_ϵ`$ ($`ϵ,ϵ^{}=+,`$) in the above are defined as

$`(I_{})_{ij}=I_{}(\mu _i,\mu _j)\mu _i\mu _j{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\left(I_{2\nu }(2t\mu _i)I_{2\nu }(2tu\mu _j)I_{2\nu }(2tu\mu _i)I_{2\nu }(2t\mu _j)\right),`$ (145)
$`(I_+)_i\mathrm{}=I_+(\mu _i,\zeta _{\mathrm{}})\mu _i\zeta _{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\left(I_{2\nu }(2t\mu _i)J_{2\nu }(2tu\zeta _{\mathrm{}})I_{2\nu }(2tu\mu _i)J_{2\nu }(2t\zeta _{\mathrm{}})\right),`$ (146)
$`(S_+)_i\mathrm{}=S_+(\mu _i,\zeta _{\mathrm{}})\mu _i{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\left(I_{2\nu }(2t\mu _i)uJ_{2\nu +1}(2tu\zeta _{\mathrm{}})I_{2\nu }(2tu\mu _i)J_{2\nu +1}(2t\zeta _{\mathrm{}})\right),`$ (147)
$`(I_{++})_k\mathrm{}=I_{++}(\zeta _k,\zeta _{\mathrm{}})\zeta _k\zeta _{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\left(J_{2\nu }(2t\zeta _k)J_{2\nu }(2tu\zeta _{\mathrm{}})J_{2\nu }(2tu\zeta _k)J_{2\nu }(2t\zeta _{\mathrm{}})\right),`$ (148)
$`(S_{++})_k\mathrm{}=S_{++}(\zeta _k,\zeta _{\mathrm{}})\zeta _k{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\left(J_{2\nu }(2t\zeta _k)uJ_{2\nu +1}(2tu\zeta _{\mathrm{}})J_{2\nu }(2tu\zeta _k)J_{2\nu +1}(2t\zeta _{\mathrm{}})\right),`$ (149)
$`(D_{++})_k\mathrm{}=D_{++}(\zeta _k,\zeta _{\mathrm{}}){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt^3{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑uu\left(J_{2\nu +1}(2t\zeta _k)J_{2\nu +1}(2tu\zeta _{\mathrm{}})J_{2\nu +1}(2tu\zeta _k)J_{2\nu +1}(2t\zeta _{\mathrm{}})\right),`$ (150)
$`(Q_{})_j=\mu _j{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tI_{2\nu }(2t\mu _j),(Q_+)_{\mathrm{}}=\zeta _{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tJ_{2\nu }(2t\zeta _{\mathrm{}}),(P_+)_{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑ttJ_{2\nu +1}(2t\zeta _{\mathrm{}}),`$ (151)
where the subscripts take their values in $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},\alpha `$ and $`k,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},p`$. The overall constant is determined as the above by requiring that in the quenched limit $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _\alpha \mathrm{}`$ when the ratio of two Pfaffians is replaced by a minor $`\mathrm{Pf}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{I_{++}S_{++}}{S_{++}^TD_{++}}\right]`$, the correlation function tends to that of Laguerre symplectic ensemble computed by Nagao and Forrester, Eqs.(2.27), (2.25), and (4.7$``$9) in Ref. (whose notations are related to ours via an unfolding change of variables

$`I_{++}(\zeta ,\zeta ^{})=I_4({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{8N}},{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8N}}),`$ (152)
$`S_{++}(\zeta ,\zeta ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8N}}S_4({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{8N}},{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8N}}),`$ (153)
$`D_{++}(\zeta ,\zeta ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(8N)^2}}D_4({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{8N}},{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8N}}),`$ (154)
and $`\nu =2a1/2`$). It is easy to confirm that the correlation functions satisfies the decoupling sequence (131) as each of the masses are sent to infinity. To illustrate this decoupling, we exhibit in Fig.2 a plot of the spectral density $`\rho _s(\zeta ;\mu ,\mu )`$ ($`\nu =0,p=1,\alpha =1`$) that interpolates between known results for the chiral and quenched limits.

After the Authors announced the above formula in , Akemann and Kanzieper  presented another form of the asymptotic correlations in a special case of quadruply degenerate masses. In Appendix C, we shall reproduce their result as a confluent limit of our formula.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part (SMN) by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists, and by Grant-in-Aid No. 411044 from the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, Japan.

## A quaternion determinant

A quaternion is defined as a linear combination of four basic units $`\{1,e_1,e_2,e_3\}`$:

$$q=q_0+𝐪𝐞=q_0+q_1e_1+q_2e_2+q_3e_3.$$
(A1)
Here the coefficients $`q_0,q_1,q_2`$ and $`q_3`$ are real or complex numbers. The first part $`q_0`$ is called the scalar part of $`q`$. The quaternion basic units satisfy the multiplication laws

$`11=1,1e_j=e_j1=e_j,j=1,2,3,`$ (A2)
$`e_1^2=e_2^2=e_3^2=e_1e_2e_3=1.`$ (A3)
The multiplication is associative and in general not commutative. The dual $`\widehat{q}`$ of a quaternion $`q`$ is defined as

$$\widehat{q}=q_0𝐪𝐞.$$
(A4)
For a selfdual $`N\times N`$ matrix $`Q`$ with quaternion elements $`q_{jk}`$ has a dual matrix $`\widehat{Q}=[\widehat{q}_{kj}]`$. The quaternion units can be represented as $`2\times 2`$ matrices

$`1\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right],e_1\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right],`$ (A9)
$`e_2\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right],e_3\left[\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right].`$ (A14)
We define a quaternion determinant Tdet of a selfdual $`Q`$ (i.e., $`Q=\widehat{Q}`$) as

$$\mathrm{Tdet}Q=\underset{P}{}(1)^{Nl}\underset{1}{\overset{l}{}}(q_{ab}q_{bc}\mathrm{}q_{da})_0,$$
(A15)
where $`P`$ denotes any permutation of the indices $`(1,2,\mathrm{},N)`$ consisting of $`l`$ exclusive cycles of the form $`(abc\mathrm{}da)`$ and $`(1)^{Nl}`$ is the parity of $`P`$. The subscript $`0`$ means that the scalar part of the product is taken over each cycle. Note that a quaternion determinant of a selfdual quaternion matrix is always a scalar. The quaternion determinant can as well be represented by the $`2N\times 2N`$ representation $`C(Q)`$ :

$$\mathrm{Tdet}Q=\mathrm{Pf}[𝐉C(Q)],𝐉=𝟙_{}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟘}& \mathrm{𝟙}\\ \mathrm{𝟙}& \mathrm{𝟘}\end{array}\right].$$
(A16)
## B quaternion kernel for the orthogonal ensemble

Recently Akemann and Kanzieper  derived the asymptotic correlation function in a special case $`p=\alpha =1`$. Though their result is clearly in agreement with that special case of ours, there is a difference in the appearance because they adopted alternative asymptotic formulas. Their formulas are based on an asymptotic relation for $`z,z^{}>0`$ and $`\nu 1`$ (see below):

$`S(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`2N[2{\displaystyle _0^1}dttJ_{\nu 1}(t\zeta )J_{\nu 1}(t\zeta ^{})`$ (B2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{J_\nu (\zeta ^{})}{\zeta ^{}}}({\displaystyle _0^\zeta }dsJ_{\nu 2}(s)1)],`$
where we have adopted the microscopic variables (78). This asymptotic relation was derived by Forrester, Nagao, and Honner  in a study of parametric random matrix ensembles. Note that the first integral in the above is equal to the Bessel kernel,

$$\frac{\zeta J_\nu (\zeta )J_{\nu 1}(\zeta ^{})J_{\nu 1}(\zeta )\zeta ^{}J_\nu (\zeta ^{})}{\zeta ^2\zeta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}.$$
(B3)
From the derivation the equivalence of (80) and (B2) was well established. However, it is worth directly proving it here for an unambiguous identification.

Using the Bessel function identities, we can readily see that

$`t{\displaystyle _0^\zeta }𝑑ssJ_{\nu 1}(ts)=\zeta J_\nu (t\zeta )+(\nu 1){\displaystyle _0^\zeta }𝑑sJ_\nu (ts),`$ (B4)
$`t{\displaystyle _0^\zeta }𝑑sJ_\nu (ts)=J_{\nu 1}(t\zeta )+J_{\nu 1}(0)+(\nu 1){\displaystyle _0^\zeta }{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}J_{\nu 1}(ts).`$ (B5)
Substitution of Eq.(B5) into (80) yields

$`S(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`2N[{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\zeta ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dttJ_\nu (t\zeta )J_\nu (t\zeta ^{})+{\displaystyle _0^1}dtt(J_{\nu 1}(t\zeta )J_{\nu 1}(0))J_{\nu 1}(t\zeta ^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{J_\nu (\zeta ^{})}{\zeta ^{}}}`$ (B7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu 1}{\zeta ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dtt{\displaystyle _0^\zeta }dsJ_\nu (ts)J_\nu (t\zeta ^{})(\nu 1){\displaystyle _0^1}dtt{\displaystyle _0^\zeta }{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}J_{\nu 1}(ts)J_{\nu 1}(t\zeta ^{})].`$
By partial integrations, we find

$$\frac{\zeta }{\zeta ^{}}_0^1𝑑ttJ_\nu (t\zeta )J_\nu (t\zeta ^{})=_0^1𝑑ttJ_{\nu 1}(t\zeta )J_{\nu 1}(t\zeta ^{})J_{\nu 1}(\zeta )\frac{J_\nu (\zeta ^{})}{\zeta ^{}}$$
(B8)
and

$$\frac{1}{\zeta ^{}}_0^1𝑑tt_0^\zeta 𝑑sJ_\nu (ts)J_\nu (t\zeta ^{})=_0^1𝑑tt_0^\zeta \frac{ds}{s}J_{\nu 1}(ts)J_{\nu 1}(t\zeta ^{})_0^\zeta \frac{ds}{s}J_{\nu 1}(s)\frac{J_\nu (\zeta ^{})}{\zeta ^{}}.$$
(B9)
We substitute (B8) and (B9) into (B7) and obtain

$`S(z,z^{})`$ (B10)
$`2N\left[2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑ttJ_{\nu 1}(t\zeta )J_{\nu 1}(t\zeta ^{})J_{\nu 1}(0){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑ttJ_{\nu 1}(t\zeta ^{})\left(J_{\nu 1}(\zeta )+(\nu 1){\displaystyle _0^\zeta }{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}J_{\nu 1}(s)1\right){\displaystyle \frac{J_\nu (\zeta ^{})}{\zeta ^{}}}\right].`$ (B11)
Again by a partial integration, we find

$$J_{\nu 1}(\zeta )+(\nu 1)_0^\zeta \frac{ds}{s}J_{\nu 1}(s)=J_{\nu 1}(0)+_0^\zeta 𝑑sJ_{\nu 2}(s)$$
(B12)
and thus arrive at the desired result (B2) provided that $`\nu `$ is not equal to $`1`$. Since $`J_{\nu 1}(0)=\delta _{\nu ,1}`$, the case $`\nu =1`$ is exceptional.

Similarly, for $`z<0,z^{}>0`$ and $`\nu 1`$, an alternative expression

$$S(z^{},z)2N\left[2_0^1𝑑ttJ_{\nu 1}(t\zeta )I_{\nu 1}(t\mu )\frac{I_\nu (\mu )}{\mu }\left(_0^\zeta 𝑑sJ_{\nu 2}(s)1\right)\right]$$
(B13)
in terms of the microscopic variables (84) is available.

## C quaternion kernel for the symplectic ensemble

In previous  and this works, the Authors evaluated Dirac eigenvalue correlation functions for the symplectic ensemble with doubly degenerate masses. If masses are quadruply degenerate, the evaluation of the correlation functions is easier because the conventional integration method for the massless Laguerre ensemble works without any modification. In that case, the multiple integral we need to evaluate is

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_p(x_1,\mathrm{},x_p;\{m\})`$ (C1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(Np)!}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=p+1}{\overset{N}{}}}dz_j{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}x_j^{2\nu +1}\mathrm{e}^{4x_j}`$ (C3)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}}(x_j+m_i^2)^4{\displaystyle \underset{j>k}{\overset{N}{}}}x_jx_k^4,`$
where we set $`N_f=4\alpha `$ and

$`\{m\}=(\stackrel{4}{\stackrel{}{m_1,\mathrm{},m_1}},\mathrm{},\stackrel{4}{\stackrel{}{m_\alpha ,\mathrm{},m_\alpha }}).`$

The conventional ‘massless’ theory  tells us that the correlation functions are written in terms of quaternion determinants:

$`\sigma (x_1,\mathrm{},x_p;\{m\})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Xi }_p(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{\alpha +p})}{\mathrm{\Xi }_0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_\alpha )}}`$ (C4)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tdet}[f(z_j,z_k)]_{j,k=1,\mathrm{},\alpha +p}}{\mathrm{Tdet}[f(z_j,z_k)]_{j,k=1,\mathrm{},\alpha }}},`$ (C5)
where we have adopted the notation (31).

The quaternion function $`f(z,z^{})`$ is represented as

$$f(z,z^{})=\left[\begin{array}{cc}S(z,z^{})& I(z,z^{})\\ D(z,z^{})& S(z^{},z)\end{array}\right].$$
(C6)
We evaluate the asymptotic limit of the quaternion function $`f(z,z^{})`$ in each of the three cases

$`(a)z,z^{}>0,(b)z<0,z^{}>0,(c)z,z^{}<0,`$

as in Sect.2. in terms of the microscopic variables $`\zeta ,\zeta ^{},\mu ,\mu ^{}`$ defined by Eqs.(78), (84), (90), respectively.

$`(a)`$ $`z,z^{}>0`$

In the case $`z,z^{}>0`$, Nagao and Forrester  derived the asymptotic limit (153), that is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8N}}S(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`S_{++}(\zeta ,\zeta ^{}),`$ (C7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(8N)^2}}D(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`D_{++}(\zeta ,\zeta ^{}),`$ (C8)
$`I(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`I_{++}(\zeta ,\zeta ^{}),`$ (C9)
where $`S_{++}`$, $`D_{++}`$, and $`I_{++}`$ are defined in Eq.(148).

$`(b)`$ $`z<0,z^{}>0`$

Using the asymptotic formula for the Bessel function (77), we can similarly treat negative argument cases to obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8N}}S(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`S_+(\mu ,\zeta ),`$ (C10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8N}}S(z^{},z)`$ $``$ $`\zeta {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\left(J_{2\nu }(2tu\zeta )I_{2\nu +1}(2t\mu )J_{2\nu }(2t\zeta )uI_{2\nu +1}(2tu\mu )\right),`$ (C11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(8N)^2}}D(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt^3{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑uu\left(I_{2\nu +1}(2tu\mu )J_{2\nu +1}(2t\zeta )I_{2\nu +1}(2t\mu )J_{2\nu +1}(2tu\zeta )\right),`$ (C12)
$`I(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`I_+(\mu ,\zeta ),`$ (C13)
where $`S_+`$ and $`I_+`$ are defined in Eq.(148).

$`(c)`$ $`z,z^{}<0`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8N}}S(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`\mu {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\left(I_{2\nu }(2tu\mu )I_{2\nu +1}(2t\mu ^{})I_{2\nu }(2t\mu )uI_{2\nu +1}(2tu\mu ^{})\right),`$ (C14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(8N)^2}}D(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt^3{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑uu\left(I_{2\nu +1}(2tu\mu )I_{2\nu +1}(2t\mu ^{})I_{2\nu +1}(2t\mu )I_{2\nu +1}(2tu\mu ^{})\right),`$ (C15)
$`I(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`I_{}(\mu ,\mu ^{}),`$ (C16)
where $`I_{++}`$ is defined in Eq.(148).

We can use Dyson’s equality (A16) to see that the above quaternion determinant expression is identical to the limit of quadruple mass degeneracy of the general formula (137) employing Pfaffians. In this case, yet another equivalent asymptotic formula was recently presented by Akemann and Kanzieper . Now we shall directly demonstrate the equivalence. We should firstly note that, under the change of the quaternion elements

$`S(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{S}(z,z^{})S(z,z^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{W(z^{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dW(z^{})}{dz^{}}}I(z,z^{}),`$ (C17)
$`I(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{I}(z,z^{}){\displaystyle _z^z^{}}\stackrel{~}{S}(z,z^{\prime \prime })𝑑z^{\prime \prime },`$ (C18)
$`D(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{D}(z,z^{}){\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\stackrel{~}{S}(z,z^{}),`$ (C19)
where

$$W(z)=|z|^{\nu +1/2}\mathrm{e}^{2z}.$$
(C20)
the quaternion determinant is unchanged. This transformation was introduced in Ref. .

For $`z,z^{}>0`$, we find an identity

$$\zeta \zeta ^{}_0^1𝑑tt_0^1𝑑uJ_{2\nu }(2tu\zeta )J_{2\nu }(2t\zeta ^{})=\zeta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}_0^1𝑑tt_0^1\frac{du}{u}J_{2\nu +1}(2tu\zeta )J_{2\nu +1}(2t\zeta ^{})+\frac{\zeta ^{}}{2}J_{2\nu }(2\zeta ^{})_0^1\frac{du}{u}J_{2\nu +1}(2u\zeta ),$$
(C21)
by a partial integration. The asymptotic formulas (C8), together with the identity (C21), yield

$`\stackrel{~}{S}(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`2N[2{\displaystyle _0^1}dttJ_{2\nu +1}(2t\zeta ^{})(2t\zeta {\displaystyle _0^1}duJ_{2\nu }(2tu\zeta )(2\nu +1){\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u}}J_{2\nu +1}(2tu\zeta ))`$ (C24)
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\zeta ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑ttJ_{2\nu }(2t\zeta )\left(2t\zeta ^{}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑uuJ_{2\nu +1}(2tu\zeta ^{})+(2\nu +1){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑uJ_{2\nu }(2tu\zeta ^{})\right)`$
$`(2\nu +1){\displaystyle \frac{J_{2\nu }(2\zeta ^{})}{\zeta ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u}}J_{2\nu +1}(2u\zeta )].`$
Partial integrations give rise to the Bessel function equalities

$`(2\nu +1){\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u}}J_{2\nu +1}(2tu\zeta )=J_{2\nu +1}(2t\zeta )+2t\zeta {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑uJ_{2\nu }(2tu\zeta ),`$ (C25)
$`(2\nu +1){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑uJ_{2\nu }(2tu\zeta ^{})=J_{2\nu }(2t\zeta ^{})+2t\zeta ^{}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑uuJ_{2\nu +1}(2tu\zeta ^{}).`$ (C26)
Substituting (C26) into (C24) and using the formula (B8), we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{S}(z,z^{})2N\left[4_0^1𝑑ttJ_{2\nu +1}(2t\zeta )J_{2\nu +1}(2t\zeta ^{})+\frac{J_{2\nu }(2\zeta ^{})}{\zeta ^{}}J_{2\nu +1}(2\zeta )(2\nu +1)\frac{J_{2\nu }(2\zeta ^{})}{\zeta ^{}}_0^1\frac{du}{u}J_{2\nu +1}(2u\zeta )\right].$$
(C27)
By a partial integration, we can rewrite it as

$$\stackrel{~}{S}(z,z^{})2N\left[4_0^1𝑑ttJ_{2\nu +1}(2t\zeta )J_{2\nu +1}(2t\zeta ^{})\frac{J_{2\nu }(2\zeta ^{})}{\zeta ^{}}_0^{2\zeta }𝑑sJ_{2\nu +2}(s)\right].$$
(C28)
This is the asymptotic formula derived by Forrester, Nagao, and Honner  in a study of parametric random matrices and then applied by Akemann and Kanzieper  to the massive Dirac operator problem. Thus we established the equivalence in the case of quadruply degenerate masses. We can straightforwardly extend it to the formulas with $`z`$ and/or $`z^{}`$ negative.


format: text

text:
# The Evolution of the MLLA Parton Spectra.

## 1 Introduction

Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) currently does not allow direct calculations of the hadronic final state observables. To make predictions of the final state it is necessary to model the transition from partons to hadrons. One approach that has been successful in describing the general features of the inclusive energy spectra, in both $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ annihilation and deep inelastic scattering experiments , is the modified leading log approximation (MLLA) using local parton hadron duality (LPHD) as the method for relating the MLLA partonic predictions to the hadronic observables.

The production of hadrons in hard scattering processes is controlled by the underlying partonic behaviour. At small values of momentum fraction (of the outgoing parton from the original hard scatter) this parton behaviour, often referred to as a parton shower, is dominated by gluon bremsstrahlung. The branching processes $`qqg`$ and $`ggg`$ (double logarithmic processes) in addition to $`gq\overline{q}`$ (single logarithmic process) give rise to this parton shower. MLLA accounts for both these double and single logarithmic effects in the evolution equations . The perturbative properties of partonic distributions have been calculated in the framework of the MLLA. They are governed by two free parameters: a running strong coupling, defined by a QCD scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ and an energy cut-off, $`Q_0,`$ below which the parton evolution is truncated.

Using LPHD, the non-perturbative effects of particle distributions are reduced to a simple factor of normalisation that relates the hadronic distributions to the partonic ones. At large enough energies, away from the influence of $`Q_0,`$ this ‘hadronisation’ factor should be independent of the energy scale  at which the spectra are being calculated.

Various approaches, detailed below, have been taken to calculate the single particle spectra and their moments within the MLLA framework. In this paper these theoretical approaches are compared as a function of energy scale, $`Q.`$ Substantial difference are found in the predictions of the higher moments. The theoretical results, in particular the higher order moments, are also compared with $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ data over a range of centre of mass energies, $`Q=E_{CM}/2.`$ It is found that the general characteristics are well described but that the theory is not in accord with all features of the data if it is assummed that $`\mathrm{\Lambda },Q_0`$ and the LPHD normalisation are energy independent. The studies reported here avoid the need to extrapolate into regions not experimentally measured.

## 2 Single Particle Spectra

Given a high energy parton which fragments via secondary partons into a jet of hadrons, the MLLA evolution equation allows the secondary parton spectra for the logarithmic scaled energy, $`\xi ,`$ to be calculated . The variable $`\xi `$ is defined as $`\mathrm{ln}(Q/E)\mathrm{ln}(1/x),`$ where $`Q`$ is the energy of the original parton and $`E`$ is the energy of the secondary parton. The cut-off, $`Q_0,`$ limits the parton energy to $`Ek_TQ_0,`$ where $`k_T`$ is the transverse energy of the decay products in the jet evolution. In order to reconstruct the $`\xi `$ distributions an inverse Mellin transformation is performed

$$\frac{1}{N}\frac{dn_h}{d\xi }\overline{D}(\xi ,Y,\lambda )=_{ϵı\mathrm{}}^{ϵ+ı\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi ı}x^\omega D(\omega ,Y,\lambda )$$
(1)
where the integral runs parallel to the imaginary axis on the right of all singularities in the complex $`\omega `$plane, $`Y=\mathrm{ln}(Q/Q_0)`$ and $`\lambda =\mathrm{ln}(Q_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }).`$

The Mellin-transformed distributions, $`D(\omega ,Y,\lambda ),`$ can be expressed  in terms of confluent hypergeometric functions, $`\mathrm{\Phi },`$ as

$$\begin{array}{cc}D(\omega ,Y,\lambda )\hfill & =\frac{t_1A}{B(B+1)}\mathrm{\Phi }(A+B+1,B+2;t_1)\mathrm{\Phi }(AB,1B;t_2)\\ & +\left(\frac{t_2}{t_1}\right)^B\mathrm{\Phi }(A,B;t_1)\mathrm{\Phi }(A,B+1;t_2),\end{array}$$
(2)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}t_1=\omega (Y+\lambda ),\hfill & \hfill t_2=\omega \lambda \end{array}$$
(3)
and $`A`$ and $`B`$ are defined as

$$\begin{array}{cc}A=4N_c/b\omega ,\hfill & \hfill B=a/b,\end{array}$$
(4)
where $`N_c`$ is the number of colours, $`a=11N_c/3+2n_f/3N_c^2`$ , $`n_f`$ is the number of flavours and $`b=11N_c/3+2n_f/3.`$ Throughout this paper the number of flavours is assumed to be 3. Equation (1) is then calculated using a numerical integration in the complex $`\omega `$plane.

It is convenient to investigate the MLLA spectra in terms of moments. The cumulant moments of the $`\xi `$ distribution can be written as:

$$K_m=\left(\frac{}{\omega }\right)^mD(\omega ,Y,\lambda )|_{\omega =0}.$$
(5)
The analytic form of these cumulant moments have been calculated in  for the first four moments. This allows the normalised moment, $`\xi ^m,`$ to be calculated and hence the dispersion ($`\sigma `$), skewness ($`s`$) and the kurtosis ($`k`$) to be constructed, see for example

$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`K_1`$ (6)
$`\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`K_2=\xi ^2\xi ^2`$ (7)
$`s`$ $`=`$ $`K_3/\sigma ^3={\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^33\xi ^2\xi +2\xi ^3}{\sigma ^3}}`$ (8)
$`k`$ $`=`$ $`K_4/\sigma ^4={\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^44\xi ^3\xi 3\xi ^2^2+12\xi ^2\xi ^26\xi ^4}{\sigma ^4}}.`$ (9)
The so-called limiting spectrum is the case when $`Q_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ i.e. $`\lambda =0`$. For this case, Fong and Webber  have also calculated the behaviour of the moments of the $`\xi `$ spectra with energy scale, $`Q.`$ They point out that the spectra can be represented close to the maximum of the distribution by a distorted Gaussian of the form:

$$\overline{D}(\xi ,Y)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{8}k\frac{1}{2}s\delta \frac{1}{4}(2+k)\delta ^2+\frac{1}{6}s\delta ^3+\frac{1}{24}k\delta ^4\right]$$
(10)
where $`\delta =(\xi l)/\sigma `$ and $`l`$ is the mean. This expression, when fitted to the spectrum, allows the moments to be determined when the full spectrum is either unmeasured or uncalculable.

The changes to the parton spectra for quark, $`q,`$ and gluon, $`g,`$ jets are Next-to-MLLA effects which result in additional terms in the integral shown in Eq. (1). These corrected spectra (at $`Q_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) for the quark and gluon jet can be related to the limiting spectra  as follows

$$\overline{D}_{q,g}=\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_{q,g}\left(\frac{}{l}+\frac{}{Y}\right)\right]\overline{D}^{lim}(l,Y)\overline{D}^{lim}(l+\mathrm{\Delta }_{q,g},Y+\mathrm{\Delta }_{q,g}),$$
(11)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_g=\frac{1}{3}n_f\frac{N_c^21}{2N_c^3},\mathrm{\Delta }_q=\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\mathrm{\Delta }_g,\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\frac{a3N_c}{4N_c}.$$

The effect on the moments is that the $`\sigma ,`$ skewness and kurtosis for the quark/gluon distribution would be approximately the same as the limiting distribution at an effective energy $`Y+\mathrm{\Delta }_{q,g}.`$ The mean is the same as that of the limiting spectra at this effective energy but shifted in value by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{q,g}.`$ These shifts are small with the limiting spectra being between the distribution for the quark and gluon jets. It should be noted that the predictions of Fong and Webber  for the relative shifts between quark and gluon jets are slightly different from those discussed above.

In the MLLA approach, the partons are assumed massless so the scaled energy and momentum spectra are identical. Experimentally the scaled momentum distribution is usually measured and as the observed hadrons are massive the equivalence of the two spectra no longer holds. In  the assumption is made that the cut-off $`Q_0`$ can be related to the masses of hadrons. This allows the logarithmic scaled momentum distribution, $`\xi _p,`$ to be written as

$$\frac{1}{N}\frac{dn_h}{d\xi _p}\frac{p_h}{E_h}\overline{D}(\xi ,Y),$$
(12)
where

$$\xi =\mathrm{log}\frac{Q}{\sqrt{Q^2e^{2\xi _p}+Q_0^2}},$$

the energy of a hadron with a momentum $`p_h`$ is $`E_h=\sqrt{p_h^2+Q_0^2}.`$ Limiting momentum spectra based on massless partons and massive partons will be referred to as MLLA-0 and MLLA-M spectra, respectively.

## 3 Behaviour of Theoretical Spectra

In this section the general characteristics of the spectra are discussed in order to illustrate their behaviour as a function of the three variables $`Q`$, $`\lambda `$, and $`Q_0`$.

Figure 1(a) shows the limiting energy spectra for three energies $`Q=183./2`$ (LEP II), $`91.2/2`$ (LEP) and $`14.8/2\mathrm{GeV}`$ (TASSO) with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ value of $`250\mathrm{MeV}.`$ As the energy scale increases, the parton multiplicity (the area under the curve) grows and the peak position shifts to the right i.e. the parton scaled energy spectra is softer. The cut-off on the right hand side of the plot corresponds to the truncation in the parton energy spectra at $`Q_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$

Figure 1(b) shows the scaled energy spectra at fixed energy scale $`Q=91.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=250\mathrm{MeV}`$ but at two different values for the cut-off of the parton evolution, $`Q_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{and}2\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (The curves are cropped at $`\xi =1.0`$ as below this value the numerical integration of the truncated spectra is unstable.) Truncating the cascade at higher values of $`Q_0`$ leads to a lower parton multiplicity with a harder energy spectra.

Figure 1(c), again, shows the limiting energy spectra but at a fixed energy scale, $`Q=91.2/2\mathrm{GeV},`$ with values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=50,250\mathrm{and}400\mathrm{MeV}.`$ As $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decreases, more partons are produced and their energy spectra is softer. In the case of the limiting spectra, this behaviour is dominated by the fact that an increase in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is accompanied by an increase in the cut-off $`Q_0.`$

Figure 1(d) shows the limiting scaled momentum spectra for the MLLA-0 $`(E_h=p_h)`$ and MLLA-M case $`(E_hp_h)`$ at an $`E_{CM}=91.2\mathrm{GeV}.`$ The MLLA-0 spectra displays the usual truncation at large $`\xi `$ associated with the cut-off $`Q_0,`$ but the MLLA-M case does not. This is due to the fact the calculation is now regulated by the cut-off entering as a mass term in the expression of $`\xi _p`$ (see Eq. 12.) As the momentum $`Q,`$ i.e. $`\xi _p0.0,`$ the introduction of a mass term has no effect on the MLLA calculation. As $`\xi _p`$ increases (the momentum becomes smaller) the mass term begins to play an increasingly important rôle. From these arguments it can be seen that as $`Q`$ decreases mass term has a more significant influence over a larger (fractional) range of the $`\xi _p`$ spectra.

Figure 2 shows the evolution of the mean, $`\sigma ,`$ skewness and kurtosis of the limiting energy spectra with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=250\mathrm{MeV}`$ as a function of $`Q.`$ Three different approaches to calculating the moments have been investigated: (i) the analytic expression of Fong and Webber for gluon jets (dashed line) and quark jets(dash-dotted line); (ii) the analytic calculation of Dokshitzer et al.  (dotted line); (iii) fitting a distorted Gaussian (Eq. 10) over $`\pm 1\sigma `$ around the mean value (full line). The range of the fit is motivated by the phenomenological  scope of validity. All approaches exhibit the same trends, in that all the cumulants increase as $`Q`$ increase. The values of skewness and kurtosis are negative, tending towards zero as $`Q`$ increases, i.e. the spectra are becoming more like a pure Gaussian. The mean and the $`\sigma `$ exhibit a very similar dependence on $`Q`$ for all three approaches, though with different offsets. The skewness and kurtosis exhibit a different dependence on $`Q,`$ but as $`Q`$ approaches the asymptotic limit the predictions are converging.

The differences between quark and gluon jets for the predictions of Fong and Webber, in Fig. 2, are small. A feature of the data is the marked difference between the analytic calculations of Dokshitzer et al.  and the fit to the limiting spectra. Calculating the moments over the full range of the spectra gives the same result as the analytic calculations, not too surprisingly since both calculations use the same assumptions. Investigating a limited range of the spectra, as is done during the fit, produces marked differences, highlighting the sensitivities of these higher-order moments to the behaviour of the tails as well as the incorrect form of the distorted Gaussian away from the peak position. The difference between the analytic calculation of Fong and Webber and that of Dokshitzer et al. could well be due to the differences in the predictions at large $`x_p,`$ where the theoretical assumption made in both calculations are no longer valid.

Figures 1 and 2 imply that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ influences the position of the maximum and the width of the distribution of $`\xi `$. The effect of the relation between $`Q_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is more complex; setting $`Q_0=2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ lowers the position of the maximum for a given $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The maximum can be returned to the original position by reducing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ but with a consequential increase of the width of the distribution relative to that found for the limiting spectrum. The effect of introducing mass terms into the momentum spectra is to increase the tail of the spectra at high $`\xi ,`$ thus increasing skewness. As $`Q`$ increases, the influence of the mass term becomes less important.

## 4 Comparison with data

The differential $`\xi _p`$ distributions for $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ data and the models are shown in Figure 3. The limiting spectra were calculated with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=250\mathrm{MeV}`$; this value was chosen to give the correct peak position of the spectra for an $`E_{CM}(=2Q)`$ at the mass of the $`\mathrm{Z}^0,\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{Z}.`$ For each energy, the theoretical spectra are normalised to the same maximum height as the data.

The theoretical spectra follow the general trend of the data for both for both MLLA-0 and MLLA-M spectra; in detail there are discrepancies. At low energies, for the MLLA-M case, the skewness is larger (i.e. more positive ) than that observed for the data; at high energies, the limiting spectra have a smaller width than the data. Also shown are the MLLA energy spectra for $`Q_0=2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=50\mathrm{MeV}`$ is required to get the correct position of the maximum for $`E_{CM}=\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{Z}.`$ The position of the maximum has approximately the correct energy dependence; however, the width of the theoretical spectrum is consistently greater than that of the data.

To study the energy evolution of the MLLA theoretical spectra and the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ data, fits around the peak position, using the distorted Gaussian (Eq. 10) have been made to determine the moments of the $`\xi _p`$ distributions. In view of the statistical limitations, the range of the fit for the data was about three units around the peak (see Figure 3). The distorted Gaussian describes the data well over the fitted region with a $`\chi ^2/dof`$ of 1.0 or better. To permit direct comparison with the data, a similar fit range was used for the theoretical spectra. The distorted Gaussian gives a good description of the MLLA-M spectra. The description is less good for the MLLA-0 spectra but for all energies the Gaussian represents the model to better than $`1\%`$.

The moments from the fits are shown in Figure 4 as solid lines for fits to MLLA-0 spectra and as dashed lines for fits to the MLLA-M spectra. The data points are from our fit to $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ data .

It may be concluded from Figure 4 that the MLLA-0 model gives a good description of the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ data for the mean and skewness. There are however discrepancies in $`\sigma `$ and kurtosis as is also evident in Figure 3; $`\sigma `$ is smaller, and the model is more platykurtic than the data. The MLLA-M model gives a poorer description of all variables at low $`E_{CM}`$ but approaches both the MLLA-0 predictions and the data at high $`E_{CM}`$.

This is contrary to the conclusions reported by Lupia and Ochs . In that paper the moments of the experimental distributions corrected for the mass effects were compared to the predictions for the limiting spectra and found to be in good agreement. It should be noted that in  an extrapolation was made into regions where no experimental measurement exists to allow the moments to be calculated. In addition, the agreement of the MLLA limiting spectra with the mass corrected experimental $`\xi `$ distribution is poor. The spectra at low $`\xi `$ are well described but the region around the peak and at higher $`\xi `$ is generally not well reproduced. The studies reported here avoid the need to extrapolate into regions not experimentally measured.

LPHD postulates that a constant factor relates the MLLA predicted spectrum to the experimental spectrum, independent of the $`E_{CM}.`$ In the spectra discussed above, the maxima of the MLLA predictions have been scaled to the data. This scale factor, for the MLLA-0 model, is shown in Figure 5 as a function of $`E_{CM}.`$ It falls from $`1.4`$ at the lowest $`E_{CM}`$ to $`1.2`$ at the highest. A similar result is obtained for an area normalisation over approximately three units of $`\xi _p`$ for the MLLA-M case. Thus our observations disagree with the LPHD postulate of a constant scale factor. This suggests that at the currently accessible experimental energies the theoretical spectra are still influenced by the $`Q_0`$ cut-off.

Similar comparisons of $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ data with MLLA predictions have been made by the DEPHI  and OPAL  collaborations. CDF has examined jets produced in $`p\overline{p}`$ interactions . In contrast to the analysis presented here, no explicit analysis of the higher moments of the $`\xi `$ distribution has been made. However, where the analyses can be compared, the results are in agreement with those presented here. In particular, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is close to 250MeV, the shape of the MLLA predicted spectrum is close to that of the data but disagrees in detail, and the value of the LPHD constant changes with energy.

## 5 Conclusions

The MLLA predictions of the logarithmic scaled energy spectra, and in particular their moments, have been investigated as function of energy scale. Various theoretical approaches have been compared and differences discussed. We note that care should be taken in the comparisons to ensure that a consistent approach is maintained; in particular attention should be paid to the range of application in $`\xi .`$ There is a large discrepancy in the skewness and kurtosis at low $`Q`$ but the various predictions converge as the asymptotic limit is approached.

The theoretical results are compared to measurements taken in $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ annihilation experiments. The calculations are generally in good agreement with the data. It is observed that the limiting spectra is preferred over the predictions of the truncated cascade ($`Q_0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.) The introduction of the mass term has a large effect at all but the highest $`E_{CM}.`$ The data is consistently broader than the limiting spectra over the energy range studied here.

The normalisation factor of LPHD between the data and the MLLA theoretical predictions is not constant. Contrary to expectation it displays a dependence on $`E_{CM},`$ decreasing as $`E_{CM}`$ increases, thus suggesting a residual influence of the $`Q_0`$ cut-off.

## Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Yuri Dokshitzer for useful discussion and clarification of issues.