text:
# On two-parameter deformations of 𝑜𝑠𝑝(1|2)⁽¹⁾

ABSTRACT

An elliptic two-parameter deformation of the (universal enveloping superalgebra of) affine Lie superalgebra $`osp(1|2)^{(1)}`$ is proposed in terms of free boson realization. This deformed superalgebra is shown to fit in the framework of infinite Hopf family of superalgebras, a generalization of the infinite Hopf family of algebras proposed earlier by the authors. The trigonometric and rational degenerations are briefly discussed.

It has been becoming more and more evident that quantum affine  and quantum Virasoro algebras  play some essential roles in the theories of massive integrable quantum fields in (1+1)-dimensions and in 2d statistical mechanical systems off the criticality. For some systems, similar roles are played by some yet more complicated algebraic structures, e.g. some two-parameter deformations of affine Lie algebras. It has been realized that there are several kinds of two-parameter deformations of affine Lie algebras, including the standard elliptic quantum groups proposed by Felder et al.  and some different variants thereof . All these two-parameter algebras fall into one of the following two classes: one is the quasi-triangular quasi-Hopf algebra –certain twists  of the standard Hopf algebra structure –and the other is the so-called infinite Hopf family of algebras . To us the relation between the structures of quasi-triangular quasi-Hopf algebras and infinite Hopf family of algebras still remains a mystery because these two structures are defined respectively for algebras given in different realizations: the quasi-triangular quasi-Hopf algebra is introduced in the context of Yang-Baxter realization (or RS-realization ) and the co-structure is a deformation of the standard co-algebraic structure of quantum affine algebras, while the infinite Hopf family of algebras is introduced for algebras given in the Drinfeld new current realization  only, and the co-structure is a deformation of Drinfeld’s new co-structure for quantum affine algebras .

Among the above mentioned two-parameter deformations of affine algebras, we are particularly interested in the algebras $`_{q,p}(\widehat{g})`$ studied in  because, at level $`c=1`$, such algebras are intimately related to the elliptic quantum $`W`$-algebras proposed by B. Feigin and E.Frenkel : the former are basically the algebra of screening currents of the latter, with the introduction of some auxiliary semi-simple currents and perhaps some dynamical shift.

In this article, we are aiming at proposing a generalization of the algebra $`_{q,p}(\widehat{g})`$ to the case of Lie superalgebra, with $`g`$ identified as the simplest Lie superalgebra $`osp(1|2)`$. One of the reason to do such a work is due to the fact that, although the elliptic quantum $`W`$-algebras have been fairly well understood , their super-correspondences has not been properly studied, even the structure of the simplest super Virasoro algebra(if any) is still unknown. From the experiences of purely bosonic case, it may be reasonable to expect that, the elliptic quantum super Virasoro algebra, if exists, will possess an algebra of screening currents which is based on the underlying affine Lie superalgebra $`osp(1|2)^{(1)}`$ and has a similar structure as that of $`_{q,p}(\widehat{g}).`$ Therefore, the study of a two-parameter elliptic quantum superalgebra might hopefully give some hints about the unknown elliptic quantum super Virasoro algebra. On the other hand, the study of such an algebra is of its own interests also: it will provide examples of super analogues of two-parameter quantum deformed affine algebras which naturally fit in the framework of vertex operator algebras studied enthusiastically by pure mathematicians. The existence, structure and representation theories of such algebras are all worth studying.

The logic we shall be going along with is as follows. First we show that we can close a set of currents into an associative superalgebra starting from some free boson expressions. Then we show that this current superalgebra is a particular case (level $`c=1`$) of some more general, abstract superalgebra $`_{q,p}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ associated with $`osp(1|2)^{(1)}`$. Next, we prove that the superalgebra $`_{q,p}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ has a well-defined co-structure, which can be regarded as a super analogue of the structure of the so-called infinite Hopf family of algebras defined earlier by the authors for $`_{q,p}(\widehat{g})`$. Last, we show that the superalgebra $`_{q,p}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ has some interesting scaling limit, denoted as $`𝒜_{\mathrm{},\eta }(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$, which is the analogue of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{},\eta }(\widehat{g}),`$ the trigonometric degeneration of $`_{q,p}(\widehat{g})`$.

To begin with, we introduce the following Heisenberg algebra $``$ with generators {$`a_i,`$ $`iZ`$} and relations

$`[a_n,a_m]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(q^nq^n\right)\left(\left(qp\right)^n\left(qp\right)^n\right)\left(p^n+p^n1\right)\delta _{n+m,0},(n0)`$
$`[P,Q]`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$
Let

$$s_n^+=\frac{a_n}{q^nq^n},s_n^{}=\frac{a_n}{\left(qp\right)^n\left(qp\right)^n}.$$

Define

$`\phi (z)={\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}s_n^+z^n,\psi (z)={\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}s_n^{}z^n,`$ (1)
we have

$`\phi (z)\phi (w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\left(qp\right)^n\left(qp\right)^n\right)\left(p^n+p^n1\right)}{q^nq^n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{z}}\right)^n,`$
$`\psi (z)\psi (w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(q^nq^n\right)\left(p^n+p^n1\right)}{\left(qp\right)^n\left(qp\right)^n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{z}}\right)^n,`$
$`\phi (z)\psi (w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(p^n+p^n1\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{z}}\right)^n.`$
Therefore,

$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{\phi (z)\phi (w)\right\}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\left(qp\right)^n\left(qp\right)^n\right)\left(p^n+p^n1\right)}{q^nq^n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{z}}\right)^n\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2|q^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{w}{z}q^2p|q^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{w}{z}|q^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}}{\left(\frac{w}{z}(qp)^2|q^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1|q^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{w}{z}q^2|q^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}}};`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{\psi (z)\psi (w)\right\}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(q^nq^n\right)\left(p^n+p^n1\right)}{\left(qp\right)^n\left(qp\right)^n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{z}}\right)^n\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2|\left(qp\right)^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{w}{z}\left(qp\right)^2p^1|\left(qp\right)^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{w}{z}|\left(qp\right)^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}}{\left(\frac{w}{z}\left(qp\right)^2p^2|\left(qp\right)^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{w}{z}p|\left(qp\right)^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{w}{z}\left(qp\right)^2|\left(qp\right)^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}}};`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{\phi (z)\psi (w)\right\}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(p^n+p^n1\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{z}}\right)^n\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{\mathrm{log}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{w}{z}}p\right)+\mathrm{log}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{w}{z}}p^1\right)\mathrm{log}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{w}{z}}\right)\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\frac{w}{z}p\right)\left(1\frac{w}{z}p^1\right)}{\left(1\frac{w}{z}\right)}},`$
where $`(z|q)_{\mathrm{}}=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}(1zq^n)`$. Now define

$`S^+(z)=:\mathrm{exp}\left[\phi (z)\right]:,S^{}(z)=:\mathrm{exp}[\psi (z)]:,`$ (2)
where : : means the usual normal ordering of bosonic oscillators, we have

$`S^+(z)S^+(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{\phi (z)\phi (w)\right\}:S^+(z)S^+(w):,`$
$`S^{}(z)S^{}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{\psi (z)\psi (w)\right\}:S^{}(z)S^{}(w):,`$
$`S^+(z)S^{}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{\phi (z)\psi (w)\right\}:S^+(z)S^{}(w):.`$
Notice that the above bosonic expressions do not contain the contribution of the zero mode and therefore do not live in the complete Fock space corresponding to the Heisenberg algebra. Adding the zero mode contributions, we now introduce

$`E(z)=e^Qz^PS^+(z),F(z)=e^Qz^PS^{}(z).`$ (3)
Then, it is easy to calculate that

$`E(z)E(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(zw\right){\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2|q^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{w}{z}q^2p|q^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}}{\left(\frac{w}{z}(qp)^2|q^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1|q^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}}}:E(z)E(w):,`$
$`F(z)F(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(zw\right){\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2|\left(qp\right)^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{w}{z}\left(qp\right)^2p^1|\left(qp\right)^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}}{\left(\frac{w}{z}\left(qp\right)^2p^2|\left(qp\right)^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{w}{z}p|\left(qp\right)^2\right)_{\mathrm{}}}}:F(z)F(w):,`$
$`E(z)F(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(zw\right)}{z^2\left(1\frac{w}{z}p\right)\left(1\frac{w}{z}p^1\right)}}:E(z)F(w):.`$
For $`z=w`$, the OPEs $`E(z)E(w)`$ and $`F(z)F(w)`$ are both zero, showing that the currents $`E(z),F(w)`$ are essentially fermionic. Turning the above equations into commutator type, we have

$`E(z)E(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{z}{w}p^1\right)}{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{z}{w}p^2\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1\right)}}E(w)E(z)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`F(z)F(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{z}{w}p\right)}{\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{z}{w}p^2\right)\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p\right)}}F(w)F(z)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
or alternatively,

$`E(z)E(w)+p{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p\right)}{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1\right)}}E(w)E(z)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`F(z)F(w)+p^1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1\right)}{\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p\right)}}F(w)F(z)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
where $`\theta _q(z)=(z|q)_{\mathrm{}}(z^1q|q)_{\mathrm{}}(q|q)_{\mathrm{}}`$ is essentially the usual Jacobi $`\theta `$-function111 To be precise, we have $`\theta _1(u,\tau )=iq^{1/8}z^{1/2}\theta _q(z)`$, where $`z=e^{2i\pi u},q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$.. Meanwhile, we also have

$`\{E(z),F(w)\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{zw}{(pp^1)zw}}\left\{\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{wp}}\right)\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{zp}}\right)\right\}:E(z)F(w):`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(pp^1)}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{wp}}\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{wp}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{zp}}\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{zp}}\right)\right\}:E(z)F(w):`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^{1/2}+p^{1/2}}}\left\{(wp^{1/2})^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{wp}}\right)+(zp^{1/2})^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{zp}}\right)\right\}:E(z)F(w):.`$
Therefore, defining

$$H^\pm (z)=z^1:E(zp^{\pm 1/2})F(zp^{1/2}):,$$

we get

$$\{E(z),F(w)\}=\frac{1}{p^{1/2}+p^{1/2}}\left\{\delta \left(\frac{z}{wp}\right)H^+(wp^{1/2})+\delta \left(\frac{w}{zp}\right)H^{}(zp^{1/2})\right\}$$

and

$`H^+(z)E(w)`$ $`=`$ $`p{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{1/2}\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}pp^{1/2}\right)}{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{1/2}\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1p^{1/2}\right)}}E(w)H^+(z),`$
$`H^{}(z)E(w)`$ $`=`$ $`p{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{1/2}\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}pp^{1/2}\right)}{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{1/2}\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1p^{1/2}\right)}}E(w)H^+(z),`$
$`H^+(z)F(w)`$ $`=`$ $`p^1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{1/2}\right)\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1p^{1/2}\right)}{\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{1/2}\right)\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}pp^{1/2}\right)}}F(w)H^+(z),`$
$`H^{}(z)F(w)`$ $`=`$ $`p^1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{1/2}\right)\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1p^{1/2}\right)}{\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{1/2}\right)\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}pp^{1/2}\right)}}F(w)H^{}(z),`$
$`H^\pm (z)H^\pm (w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p\right)}{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{z}{w}p\right)}{\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{z}{w}p^2\right)\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p\right)}}H^\pm (w)H^\pm (z),`$
$`H^+(z)H^{}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^1\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}pp^1\right)}{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^1\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1p^1\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p\right)\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{z}{w}pp\right)}{\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{z}{w}p^2p\right)\theta _{(qp)^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}pp\right)}}H^{}(w)H^+(z).`$
Notice that unlike $`E(z)`$ and $`F(z)`$, the currents $`H^\pm (z)`$ are bosonic. For later reference, we introduce the Grassmann parity operator $`\pi `$ such that

$`\pi [E(z)]`$ $`=`$ $`\pi [F(z)]=1,`$
$`\pi [H^\pm (z)]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Then we see that the currents $`H^\pm (z),`$ $`E(z)`$ and $`F(z)`$ close into a superalgebra with $`Z_2`$ gradation provided by the parity operator $`\pi `$.

Definition 1: *The superalgebra* $`_{q,p}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ *is a* $`Z_2`$*-graded associative algebra generated by the unit* $`1`$*, coefficients of the formal power series* $`H^\pm (z)`$ *(invertible),* $`E(z)`$ *and* $`F(z)`$ *in* $`z`$ *and the central element* $`c`$ *with relations*

$`H^+(z)E(w)`$ $`=`$ $`p{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{c/2}\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}pp^{c/2}\right)}{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{c/2}\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1p^{c/2}\right)}}E(w)H^+(z),`$
$`H^{}(z)E(w)`$ $`=`$ $`p{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{c/2}\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}pp^{c/2}\right)}{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{c/2}\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1p^{c/2}\right)}}E(w)H^+(z),`$
$`H^+(z)F(w)`$ $`=`$ $`p^1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{c/2}\right)\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1p^{c/2}\right)}{\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{c/2}\right)\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}pp^{c/2}\right)}}F(w)H^+(z),`$
$`H^{}(z)F(w)`$ $`=`$ $`p^1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{c/2}\right)\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1p^{c/2}\right)}{\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^{c/2}\right)\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}pp^{c/2}\right)}}F(w)H^{}(z),`$
$`H^\pm (z)H^\pm (w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p\right)}{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{z}{w}p\right)}{\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{z}{w}p^2\right)\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p\right)}}H^\pm (w)H^\pm (z),`$
$`H^+(z)H^{}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^c\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}pp^c\right)}{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^c\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1p^c\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2p^c\right)\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{z}{w}pp^c\right)}{\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{z}{w}p^2p^c\right)\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}pp^c\right)}}H^{}(w)H^+(z),`$
$`E(z)E(w)`$ $`=`$ $`p{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p\right)}{\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{q^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1\right)}}E(w)E(z),`$
$`F(z)F(w)`$ $`=`$ $`p^1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^1\right)}{\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p^2\right)\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}p\right)}}F(w)F(z),`$
$`\{E(z),F(w)\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^{1/2}+p^{1/2}}}\left\{\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{wp^c}}\right)H^+(wp^{c/2})+\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{zp^c}}\right)H^{}(zp^{c/2})\right\},`$
*where* $`\stackrel{~}{q}=qp^c`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Obviously, we have

Proposition 1: *Equations (1, 2, 3) give a free boson realization for the superalgebra* $`_{q,p}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ *at level* $`c=1`$*.* $`\mathrm{}`$

To understand the properties of the superalgebra $`_{q,p}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ at levels other than $`c=1`$, one natural way is to consider its co-structure. Since the superalgebra $`_{q,p}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ has some similar properties as those of the $`_{q,p}(\widehat{g})`$, e.g. the Cartan involution is broken due to the different periods of the structure functions for the $`EE`$ and $`FF`$ relations, we hope that the structure of infinite Hopf family of algebras for the latter also holds for $`_{q,p}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$. It is indeed so, however, the definition of infinite Hopf family of algebras has to be modified into an infinite Hopf family of superalgebras, as is expected naturally. This generalized co-structure for $`_{q,p}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ will be given in the following proposition.

Let us first prepare some notations. Let $`𝒥`$ be an additive semigroup which may be identified with the set of non-negative integer numbers. $`c_n𝒥`$ are elements of $`𝒥`$. Let $`q^{(0)}=q`$ and define $`q^{(n+1)}=q^{(n)}p^{c_n}`$ iteratively. We set $`𝒜_n=_{q^{(n)},p}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ whose generator are denoted $`H^\pm (z;q^{(n)}),`$ $`E(z;q^{(n)}),`$ $`F(z;q^{(n)})`$ and $`c_n`$ respectively. The generating relations for each $`𝒜_n`$ are nothing but those of $`_{q,p}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ with parameters $`q,\stackrel{~}{q}`$ replaced by $`q^{(n)},q^{(n+1)}`$ respectively.

Let $`\{v_i^{(n)},i=1,\mathrm{},dim(𝒜_n)\}`$ be a basis of $`𝒜_n`$. The maps

$`\tau _n^\pm :𝒜_n`$ $``$ $`𝒜_{n\pm 1}`$
$`v_i^{(n)}`$ $``$ $`v_i^{(n\pm 1)}`$
are morphisms from $`𝒜_n`$ to $`𝒜_{n\pm 1}`$. For any two integers $`n,m`$ with $`n<m`$, we can specify a pair of morphisms

$`Mor(𝒜_m,𝒜_n)\tau ^{(m,n)}\tau _{m1}^+\mathrm{}\tau _{n+1}^+\tau _n^+:𝒜_n𝒜_m,`$
$`Mor(𝒜_n,𝒜_m)\tau ^{(n,m)}\tau _{n+1}^{}\mathrm{}\tau _{m1}^{}\tau _m^{}:𝒜_m𝒜_n`$
with $`\tau ^{(m,n)}\tau ^{(n,m)}=id_m,\tau ^{(n,m)}\tau ^{(m,n)}=id_n`$. Clearly the morphisms $`\tau ^{(m,n)},n,mZ`$ satisfy the associativity condition $`\tau ^{(m,p)}\tau ^{(p,n)}=\tau ^{(m,n)}`$ and thus make the family of superalgebras $`\{𝒜_n,nZ\}`$ into a category.

The following definition is a straightforward generalization of the structure of infinite Hopf family of algebras originally presented in :

Definition 2: *The category of superalgebras* $`\{𝒜_n,\{\tau ^{(n,m)}\},n,mZ\}`$ *is called an infinite Hopf family of superalgebras if on each object* $`𝒜_n`$ *of the category one can define the morphisms* $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^+:𝒜_n𝒜_n𝒜_{n+1}`$*,* $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}:𝒜_n𝒜_{n1}𝒜_n`$*,* $`ϵ_n:𝒜_nC`$ *and antimorphisms* $`S_n^\pm :𝒜_n𝒜_{n\pm 1}`$ *such that the following axioms hold,*

* $`(ϵ_nid_{n+1})\mathrm{\Delta }_n^+=\tau _n^+,(id_{n1}ϵ_n)\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}=\tau _n^{}`$ *(a1)*
* $`m_{n+1}(S_n^+id_{n+1})\mathrm{\Delta }_n^+=ϵ_{n+1}\tau _n^+,m_{n1}(id_{n1}S_n^{})\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}=ϵ_{n1}\tau _n^{}`$ *(a2)*
* $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}id_{n+1})\mathrm{\Delta }_n^+=(id_{n1}\mathrm{\Delta }_n^+)\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}`$ *(a3)*

*in which* $`m_n`$ *is the (super)multiplication for* $`𝒜_n`$*.* $`\mathrm{}`$

Notice that throughout this article, the symbol $``$ denotes a graded direct product, or *direct super-product*, obeying, e.g. for elements $`A,B,C,D`$ with definite Grassmann parity,

$`(AB)(CD)=(1)^{\pi (B)\pi (C)}ACBD.`$
Proposition 2: *The family of superalgebras* $`\{𝒜_n,`$$`nZ\}`$ *form an Infinite Hopf family of algebras with comultiplications* $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^\pm ,`$ *counits* $`ϵ_n`$ *and antipodes* $`S_n^\pm `$ *given as follows,*

* *the comultiplications* $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^\pm `$*:*

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^+c_n`$ $`=`$ $`c_n+c_{n+1},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^+H^+(z;q^{(n)})`$ $`=`$ $`H^+(zp^{c_{n+1}/2};q^{(n)})H^+(zp^{c_n/2};q^{(n+1)}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^+H^{}(z;q^{(n)})`$ $`=`$ $`H^{}(zp^{c_{n+1}/2};q^{(n)})H^{}(zp^{c_n/2};q^{(n+1)}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^+E(z;q^{(n)})`$ $`=`$ $`E(z;q^{(n)})1H^{}(zp^{c_n/2};q^{(n)})E(zp^{c_n};q^{(n+1)}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^+F(z;q^{(n)})`$ $`=`$ $`1F(z;q^{(n+1)})+F(zp^{c_{n+1}};q^{(n)})H^+(zp^{c_{n+1}/2};q^{(n+1)}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}c_n`$ $`=`$ $`c_{n1}+c_n,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}H^+(z;q^{(n)})`$ $`=`$ $`H^+(zp^{c_n/2};q^{(n1)})H^+(zp^{c_{n1}/2};q^{(n)}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}H^{}(z;q^{(n)})`$ $`=`$ $`H^{}(zp^{c_n/2};q^{(n1)})H^{}(zp^{c_{n1}/2};q^{(n)}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}E(z;q^{(n)})`$ $`=`$ $`E(z;q^{(n1)})1H^{}(zp^{c_{n1}/2};q^{(n1)})E(zp^{c_{n1}};q^{(n)}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}F(z;q^{(n)})`$ $`=`$ $`1F(z;q^{(n)})+F(zp^{c_n};q^{(n1)})H^+(zp^{c_n/2};q^{(n)});`$
* *the counits* $`ϵ_n`$*:*

$`ϵ_n(c_n)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`ϵ_n(1_n)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`ϵ_n(H^\pm (z;q^{(n)}))`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`ϵ_n(E(z;q^{(n)}))`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`ϵ_n(F(z;q^{(n)}))`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$
* *the antipodes* $`S_n^\pm `$*:*

$`S_n^\pm c_n`$ $`=`$ $`c_{n\pm 1},`$
$`S_n^\pm H^+(z;q^{(n)})`$ $`=`$ $`[H^+(z;q^{(n\pm 1)})]^1,`$
$`S_n^\pm H^{}(z;q^{(n)})`$ $`=`$ $`[H^{}(z;q^{(n\pm 1)})]^1,`$
$`S_n^\pm E(z;q^{(n)})`$ $`=`$ $`H^{}(zp^{c_{n\pm 1}/2};q^{(n\pm 1)})^1E(zp^{c_{n\pm 1}};q^{(n\pm 1)}),`$
$`S_n^\pm F(z;q^{(n)})`$ $`=`$ $`F(zp^{c_{n\pm 1}};q^{(n\pm 1)})H^+(zp^{c_{n\pm 1}/2};q^{(n\pm 1)})^1.`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Let us stress that, among the defining relations of the superalgebra $`_{q,p}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$, the unusual signature in between the two $`\delta `$-function terms in the relation containing the anti-commutator of $`E(z)`$ and $`F(w)`$ is superficial: we can always replace $`H^{}(z)`$ by $`H^{}(z)`$ and e.g. $`F(z)`$ by $`F(z)(p^{1/2}+p^{1/2})/(pp^1)`$ and everything looks standard as in the usual q-affine algebra case.

It is remarkable that the comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^+`$ can be applied iteratively onto $`𝒜_n,`$ so that beginning from the $`c=1`$ realization one can obtain a realization of higher $`cZ_+.`$

If we re-parameterize the parameters $`q,`$ $`p`$ and $`z`$ as

$$q=e^{ϵ/\eta },p=e^ϵ\mathrm{},z=e^{iϵu}$$

and taking the scaling limit $`ϵ0,`$ the superalgebra $`_{q,p}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ degenerates into

$`H^\pm (u)E(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv+2\mathrm{}\pm \mathrm{}c/2)\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv\mathrm{}\pm \mathrm{}c/2)}{\mathrm{sin}\pi \eta (uv2\mathrm{}\pm \mathrm{}c/2)\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv+\mathrm{}\pm \mathrm{}c/2)}}E(v)H^+(u),`$
$`H^\pm (u)F(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv+2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}c/2)\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv\mathrm{}\mathrm{}c/2)}{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}c/2)\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}c/2)}}F(v)H^\pm (u),`$
$`H^\pm (u)H^\pm (v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv+2\mathrm{})\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv2\mathrm{})\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv+\mathrm{})}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv2\mathrm{})\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv+\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv+2\mathrm{})\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv\mathrm{})}}H^\pm (v)H^\pm (u),`$
$`H^+(u)H^{}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv+2\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}c)\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}c)}{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv2\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}c)\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}c)}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}c)\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}c)}{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv+2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}c)\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv\mathrm{}\mathrm{}c)}}H^{}(v)H^+(u),`$
$`E(z)E(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv+2\mathrm{})\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv2\mathrm{})\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta (uv+\mathrm{})}}E(w)E(z),`$
$`F(z)F(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv+2\mathrm{})\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv2\mathrm{})\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}(uv+\mathrm{})}}F(w)F(z),`$
$`\{E(u),F(v)\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}\left\{\delta \left(uv\mathrm{}c\right)H^+(v+\mathrm{}c/2)+\delta \left(uv+\mathrm{}c\right)H^{}(u+\mathrm{}c/2)\right\},`$
where

$$\frac{1}{\eta ^{}}\frac{1}{\eta }=\mathrm{}c.$$

This superalgebra is clearly an $`osp(1|2)^{(1)}`$ analogue of the earlier studied algebras $`𝒜_{\mathrm{},\eta }(\widehat{g})`$ and hence we call it $`𝒜_{\mathrm{},\eta }(osp(1|2)^{(1)}).`$ In the particular case of $`\eta 0`$ this superalgebra further degenerates into the super Yangian double $`DY_{\mathrm{}}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ – the relations of which (first introduced in ) is just those of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{},\eta }(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ but with all the $`\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\pi \eta ^{}`$ removed – however with a sign difference appeared in the last relation. The reason for this sign difference has already been mentioned earlier in the context. This last degeneration fully clarifies the connection of our superalgebras $`_{q,p}(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ and $`𝒜_{\mathrm{},\eta }(osp(1|2)^{(1)})`$ with the underlying affine superalgebra $`osp(1|2)^{(1)}`$.

In closing, let us point out some related unsolved problems. The existence of two parameter deformation of affine Lie (super)algebras with the structure of infinite Hopf family of (super)algebras seems to be a universal phenomenon, which means that there should be such a (super)algebra associated with each underlying affine Lie (super)algebra. However, what we have known about these (super)algebras is only a tiny top of an iceberg. We know only a little about the structure theory and the representation theory. The definition of these algebras themselves were only known for untwisted affine Lie algebras associated with simply-laced Lie algebras and the present article add to this picture the simplest affine Lie superalgebra $`osp(1|2)^{(1)}`$. It seems that there remains a lot of pure algebraic works to do toward these (super)algebras.

On the other hand, physicists and/or applied mathematicians may be particularly interested in the application aspect of these (super)algebras. ¿From this point of view, we would like to mention the following problems which we would like to see a solution:

* Realizations of these (super)algebras other than the current realization.

It is well known that for $`q`$-affine algebras and Yangian doubles , there are mainly three different realizations which are proved to be connected to each other: the current realization, Drinfeld realization in terms of Laurent components of the currents and the Yang-Baxter realization . The last one is very important when physics applications are considered because it relates the structure of quantum symmetry algebra and the physical two-body $`S`$-matrix. So far we only know that, among the two parameter deformed affine Lie (super)algebras with the structure of infinite Hipf family of (super)algebras, only $`𝒜_{\mathrm{},\eta }(sl(2)^{(1)})`$ have a Yang-Baxter realization which contains a“dynamical operator” (spectral-shifting operator or weight vector of the underlying Lie algebra) . Attempts in obtaining Yang-Baxter realizations for all other current algebras of this kind have not lead to any success.
* The potential applications of these (super)algebras in physics problems. Besides being related to the algebra of screening currents of the quantum Virasoro and $`W`$-algebras, it would be interesting to see whether there is any physical model which bears any of these algebras as the underlying quantum symmetry. However, besides the case of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{},\eta }(sl(2)^{(1)})`$, nobody has ever been able to say a word on this possibility.
* Reconstruction of deformed $`W`$-algebras from the two parameter deformed affine algebras. To us, this seems the most plausible route to seek for physics applications, because these algebras are closely related to the algebra of screening currents of the deformed $`W`$-algebras, and it is indeed possible to reconstruct the $`W`$-algebras out of the screening currents. This problem is particularly interesting when the superalgebra associated with $`osp(1|2)^{(1)}`$ is considered because we then will be able to gain some knowledge about the deformed super Virasoro algebra – an object expected both for mathematical completeness and for physics applications!

Acknowledgement: L.Zhao would like to thank Niall MacKay for hospitality at Dept. Appl. Math., Sheffield University and at Dept. Math., Univ. of York during the preparation of this manuscript. The content of this article has been presented at Sheffield University in an informal seminar. This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.


format: text

text:
# Field induced ordering in highly frustrated antiferromagnets

\[

## Abstract

We predict that an external field can induce a spin order in highly frustrated classical Heisenberg magnets. We find analytically stabilization of collinear states by thermal fluctuations at a one-third of the saturation field for kagome and garnet lattices and at a half of the saturation field for pyrochlore and frustrated square lattices. This effect is studied numerically for the frustrated square-lattice antiferromagnet by Monte Carlo simulations for classical spins and by exact diagonalization for $`S=1/2`$. The field induced collinear states have a spin gap and produce magnetization plateaus.

\]

Frustrated magnets, classical and quantum, exhibit spectacular and often unexpected behaviors . A few of them do not order at any $`T>0`$. Extensive residual entropy in the classical ground state in such cases prevents the realization of the usual order by disorder scenario . An external magnetic field changes the degeneracy and topology of the ground state manifold stabilizing, eventually, the (nondegenerate) saturated state at $`H>H_{\mathrm{sat}}`$. If the order by disorder effect occurs in a finite field and suppresses residual entropy, then, such an effect can be used for practical applications. During a demagnetization process a spin system has to regain its entropy and, therefore, the whole crystal will cool down. Examples of geometrically frustrated AFMs on kagome , pyrochlore , and garnet  lattices include magnetic compounds with rather small exchange constants opening the way for experimental tests of their finite field behavior.

In this Letter, we predict that fluctuations stabilize collinear spin configurations at rational values of the field $`H/H_{\mathrm{sat}}=1/2`$ or $`1/3`$. We present an analytical proof of the field induced ordering driven by thermal fluctuations and suggest a similar role for quantum fluctuations on the basis of spin-wave and numerical results. In fact, an ordered spin phase in a finite field has already been observed in gadolinium garnet Gd3Ga5O12, though dipolar anisotropy plays a crucial role in this material .

To be specific we use as an example the frustrated square-lattice antiferromagnet (FSAFM)  in an external field:

$$\widehat{}=J\underset{\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{n}.}{}𝐒_i𝐒_j+J^{}\underset{\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{n}.}{}𝐒_i𝐒_jH\underset{i}{}S_i^z.$$
(1)
First, we present analytical arguments, making them as general as possible, in order to include the other highly frustrated AFMs. Second, we consider numerical results for classical and quantum FSAFMs in a magnetic field, which confirm our predictions.

Let us briefly discuss magnetically ordered phases of the FSAFM. For small diagonal exchange $`J^{}<0.5J`$, classical spins form the Néel state in zero field. At $`J^{}>0.5J`$ the classical ground state consists of two $`\sqrt{2}\times \sqrt{2}`$ interpenetrating antiferromagnets, which are locked by fluctuations in a striped AFM state described by a single wave-vector $`(\pi ,0)`$ or $`(0,\pi )`$ . An applied magnetic field cants the spins and creates an easy plane for the AFM sublattices. Thus, both the Néel and striped states have a transverse spin order in a finite field. Thermal and quantum fluctuations destroy the transverse order in the vicinity of the highly frustrated point $`J^{}=0.5J`$. As an illustration we present in Fig. 1 the phase diagram for the spin-1/2 model at $`T=0`$ obtained in the linear spin-wave theory. This phase diagram agrees with the previous zero-field studies , which suggest a quantum disordered ground state for $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ near $`J^{}=0.5J`$. Since the disordered singlet phase has a spin gap, it becomes unstable above a finite critical field.

We now focus on the classical critical point $`J^{}=0.5J`$, where the Hamiltonian (1) can be written up to a constant term as a sum over edge-sharing plaquettes:

$$\widehat{}=\frac{1}{2^n}\underset{\alpha }{}\left\{J\left|𝐋_\alpha \right|^2HL_\alpha ^z\right\},$$
(2)
where $`𝐋_\alpha =_{i\alpha }𝐒_i`$ is the total spin in plaquette $`\alpha `$ and $`n=2`$. The block form of the spin Hamiltonian (2) is common to all highly frustrated spin models. For AFMs on kagome and garnet lattices the blocks are triangles and for a pyrochlore AFM they are tetrahedra with the corner-sharing arrangements and $`n=1`$ in all three cases.

A spin configuration minimizes the energy (2) at $`H=0`$ provided $`𝐋_\alpha =0`$ for each plaquette. This constraint can be satisfied for many classical states. We estimate the number of continuous degrees of freedom in the ground state of the $`N`$-site FSAFM as $`N^{1/2}`$. For pyrochlore and kagome AFMs the degeneracy is larger and the dimensionality of the ground state manifold scales with $`N`$ . Thus, zero-field properties are not universal for disordered frustrated AFMs. We now show that a universal behavior does appear in a magnetic field.

In a finite field the classical energy (2) is minimized for spin configurations with the plaquette magnetization $`L_\alpha ^z=H/(2J)`$. There are many degenerate classical states which satisfy this constraint below the saturation field $`H_{\mathrm{sat}}=8JS`$ (pyrochlore and FSAFM) or $`6JS`$ (kagome and garnet). Generally, all these states are noncollinear as, e.g., canted Néel and striped phases for FSAFM. Collinear spin arrangements appear only at special rational values of the applied field: at $`H_c=\frac{1}{2}H_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ for 4-spin blocks (FSAFM, pyrochlore), the up-up-up-down (uuud) structure, see Fig. 2, and at $`H_c=\frac{1}{3}H_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ for 3-spin blocks (kagome, garnet), the up-up-down structure. The distribution of down-spins on the lattice in a collinear state is not unique: it only obeys the one down-spin per plaquette condition.

Zero-energy modes correspond to continuous distortions of a given classical ground state, which do not violate the magnetization constraint. To construct a zero mode for the collinear states described above one has to draw an (open) line through the lattice points with adjacent sites on a line occupied by antiparallel spins with no plaquettes crossed more than once. A zero mode consists of a simultaneous rotation of all spins along the line by an angle $`\theta `$ (Fig. 2). The complete set of zero modes is constructed when a set of such lines goes through all up-spins. Zero modes connect a uuud state to noncollinear ground state configurations. Hence, the collinear states are singular points on the ground state manifold. There are no other collinear states in the local neighborhood of a selected collinear state.

Moessner and Chalker  have recently discussed the order by disorder phenomenon in zero field for classical frustrated models in terms of a local topology of the ground state manifold. They reached definite conclusions only for an $`XY`$ magnet on the pyrochlore lattice and for a Heisenberg kagome lattice AFM. We show that a similar analysis predicts stabilization of collinear states near special rational values of the applied field. Let $`𝐱`$ denote the coordinates on the ground state manifold and $`𝐲`$ be the transverse directions, which span the rest of the configuration space. Low-energy excited states are described by the quadratic Hamiltonian $`_2=_lϵ_l(𝐱)y_l^2`$ resulting in a probability distribution

$$Z(𝐱)=𝑑y_le^{\beta _2}\underset{l}{}[T/ϵ_l(𝐱)]^{1/2}$$
(3)
over the ground state manifold at low temperatures. At a special point $`𝐱_0`$ some of the stiffnesses $`ϵ_l(𝐱_0)`$ may vanish making $`Z(𝐱_0)`$ divergent. The corresponding coordinates $`y_l`$ describe soft modes. The appearance of the order by disorder depends on a number of soft modes, which exist for a given classical ground state $`𝐱_0`$.

A special feature of the collinear states with finite magnetization is that each zero mode generates exactly one soft mode. They are constructed in the following way. First, all spins along a zero mode line are rotated by $`\theta `$ about the axis perpendicular to the field and, second, all down spins on the same line are rotated by an angle $`\phi `$ about the field direction, see Fig. 2. The total spin of each plaquette in a deformed state is $`𝐋_\alpha S(0,\theta \phi ,2)`$ for small $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$ and contributes to an energy increase $`\theta ^2\phi ^2`$. Thus, we identify $`x_l`$ with $`\theta `$ and $`y_l`$ with $`\phi `$.

To allow the order by disorder selection, not only has the probability density $`Z(𝐱_0)`$ to diverge, but the statistical weight $`Z(𝐱)𝑑𝐱`$ must be concentrated entirely near the collinear spin states. We check this by integrating $`Z(𝐱)`$ in the $`D`$-dimensional neighborhood of a collinear state parameterized by zero modes. Since each zero mode has one soft mode with $`ϵ_s(𝐱)x^2`$, the integral

$$Z(𝐱)𝑑𝐱x^Dd^Dx$$
(4)
diverges independently of the actual value of $`D`$. There is a vanishingly small probability of finding a spin system in one of the noncollinear states surrounding a given collinear configuration. Hence, the order by disorder selection occurs: thermal fluctuations stabilize a discrete set of collinear states. This result relies only on the special block structure (2) of the spin Hamiltonian and the symmetry properties of the collinear states. Therefore, the order by disorder in an external field is a universal effect and occurs for all frustrated Heisenberg AFMs: apart from the FSAFM the uuud states at $`H=\frac{1}{2}H_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ are stabilized for a pyrochlore AFM and the uud states appear for Heisenberg AFMs on kagome and garnet lattices at $`H=\frac{1}{3}H_{\mathrm{sat}}`$. A subsequent selection between collinear states with different patterns of down-spins is made to maximize $`D`$ in Eq. (4) and corresponds in the case of FSAFM to the most symmetric $`𝐪=0`$ uuud state. The above proof of the field induced ordering is based on the special property of the collinear states with finite magnetization. Namely, an equal number of zero and soft modes. For a Heisenberg magnet on the pyrochlore lattice in zero field the same equality holds only approximately: in the leading order in the number of spins $`N`$. Therefore, no analytical conclusion has been reached in a zero field case, while numerical simulations indicated no ordering .

For quantum models in the limit $`S1`$ we check the relative stability of different states by comparing their zero-point oscillation energies: $`\frac{1}{2}_𝐤\omega _𝐤`$. The magnon spectrum of the $`𝐪=0`$ uuud state has four modes:

$$\omega _{1,2}=JS\sqrt{\eta _𝐤},\omega _{3,4}=2JS\pm JS\sqrt{4\eta _𝐤}$$
(5)
with $`\eta _𝐤=(1\mathrm{cos}k_x)(1\mathrm{cos}k_y)`$. Zero-point contributions to the energies of the $`𝐪=0`$ uuud state, the Néel state, and the striped AFM at $`J^{}=0.5J`$ and $`H=\frac{1}{2}H_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ are $`0.57JS`$, $`0.69JS`$, and $`0.81JS`$, respectively. (They have the same classical energy.) Thus, this comparison suggests that quantum fluctuations also select the collinear states in a magnetic field due to their large number of soft modes. Collinear states preserve the $`O(2)`$-rotational symmetry. Hence, their renormalized magnon spectrum becomes gapped and plateaus arise on the magnetization curve. The spin-density wave of the $`𝐪=0`$ uuud state in FSAFM is a superposition of spin harmonics with wave-vectors $`(0,0)`$, $`(\pi ,\pi )`$, $`(\pi ,0)`$ and $`(0,\pi )`$.

To test these predictions we have performed Monte Carlo (MC) simulations for the model Eq. (1) with unit vector spins. Fig. 3, top panel shows the magnetization curve at $`T=0.1J`$ obtained with $`2\times 10^5`$ MC steps per spin for each point. The field derivative of the magnetization has a dip around $`H=4J=\frac{1}{2}H_{\mathrm{sat}}`$, which indicates the presence of a new plateau phase. A jump in the magnetization and a hysteresis of about $`\mathrm{\Delta }H0.3J`$ suggests a first-order transition to a high-field phase. To determine the nature of the spin state at the plateau we calculated different components of the static structure factor $`S^{\alpha \beta }(q)=\frac{1}{N^2}_{r,x}\mathrm{e}^{i𝐪𝐱}S_r^\alpha S_{r+x}^\beta `$. The Néel and the collinear states have nonzero transverse components $`S^{xx}=S^{yy}`$ at $`𝐪=(\pi ,\pi )`$ and $`𝐪=(\pi ,0)`$ or $`(0,\pi )`$, respectively. The uuud state has nonzero longitudinal components $`S^{zz}(q)`$ at all the above vectors simultaneously. The static structure factor presented in Fig. 3, bottom panel was obtained by averaging 50 ‘instant shots’ separated by $`10^3`$ MC steps. In the region of weak (strong) diagonal exchange $`J^{}`$ the data clearly support the Néel (striped) type of spin correlations. Nonzero harmonics in the longitudinal structure factor both at $`𝐪=(\pi ,0)`$ and $`𝐪=(\pi ,\pi )`$ exist only for $`0.494<J^{}/J<0.508`$. We have also checked that neither a lower field of $`H=2J`$, nor a higher field of $`H=6J`$ induces a nonzero value of $`S^{zz}(q)`$ at these points in the Brillouin zone. Thus, these results unambiguously identify the spin configuration on the plateau as the $`𝐪=0`$ uuud state.

The uuud phase breaks the translational symmetry in such a way that the wave-vectors belonging to different irreducible representations of the space group are mixed: $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ vs. $`(\pi ,0)`$ and $`(0,\pi )`$. Hence, the spin structure of the uuud phase is a mixture of different order parameters. In such a case the phase transition to a disordered spin liquid state at the high-field end of the plateau, Fig. 3, must go either via a first order transition or in several steps with an intermediate supersolid state.

We have also studied the quantum spin-1/2 model (1) at $`T=0`$ by Lanczos diagonalizations of finite clusters. Fig. 4 presents the magnetization $`m=M/S`$ vs. field at $`J^{}/J=0.6`$. There are no magnetization plateaus in the thermodynamic limit for $`m>1/2`$. To determine whether the plateau at $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$ remains after finite size scaling we show its width in the inset for three cluster sizes as a function of $`J^{}/J`$. If a plateau disappears in the thermodynamic limit, its width should decrease as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=1/N`$. Therefore, the ratio of the plateau-widths of the $`4\times 4`$ and $`6\times 6`$ clusters should be $`16/36`$ or less if the magnetization curve has a nonzero slope for $`N\mathrm{}`$. The ratio $`16/36`$ is exceeded for $`m=1/2`$ only in the interval $`0.49J^{}/J0.66`$, where we would expect to have a plateau on an infinite lattice.

Quantum fluctuations have a strong effect on the stability of the $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$ plateau. Both, the width of the plateau for the spin-1/2 system and the range where it appears are larger than for the classical model. In addition, the parameter range for the plateau is shifted asymmetrically around the classical critical point $`J^{}=0.5J`$. The plateau is most pronounced for $`J^{}0.6J`$. This is the value we used for the presented magnetization curve. The bold line in Fig. 4 was obtained by connecting the mid-points of the steps for the largest available systems size, except for the plateau at $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$, for which the corners of the $`6\times 6`$ cluster data were used. The value of the spin gap (i.e. the boundary of the $`m=0`$ plateau) was taken from Kotov et al. Fig. 4 also shows the peaks of the static structure factor vs. $`J^{}/J`$ for the $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$ plateau. The peaks in $`S^{zz}(q)`$, which indicate the presence of the uuud state, exist for $`0.51J^{}/J0.67`$.

The discussed mechanism for the magnetization plateaus in highly frustrated AFMs has to be contrasted with that of weakly coupled 1D spin systems (see, e.g., ). There, magnetization plateaus correspond to disordered states with a gap, that are stable under a weak higher-dimensional coupling, while intermediate gapless regions are immediately ordered at sufficiently low temperatures once a higher-dimensional coupling is switched on. Here, we found that an external field induces a long-range collinear ordering with an excitation gap on the plateau, whereas intermediate gapless regions remain disordered. Further exploration of such possibilities should also be important for the general problem of classifying magnetization plateaus in two dimensions .

We thank J.T. Chalker, T.M. Rice, and O.P. Sushkov for helpful discussions. A.H. is grateful to the Institut für Theoretische Physik of the ETH Zürich for hospitality during the course of this project, to the Alexander von Humboldt-foundation for financial support and to the Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik, Bonn for allocation of CPU time. The work of M.E.Z. was supported by the Swiss National Fund.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Investigation of the multiplicity distributions was popular since seventies . The modern hadron theory based on the local QCD Lagrangians  and the experimental consequences was given in the review papers . The very high multiplicity (VHM) processes, as the attempt to get beyond this standard multiperipheral hadron physics, was offered in . It considered as a possible physical program for LHC experiments.

It was shown in seventieth that the multiperipheral kinematics dominates inclusive cross sections. Moreover, the created particles spectra do not depend on $`s`$ at high energies in the multiperipheral region:

$$f(s,p_c)=2E_c\frac{d\sigma }{d^3p_c}=\frac{dt_1dt_2s_1s_2\varphi _1(t_1)\varphi _2(t_2)}{(2\pi )^2s(t_1m^2)^2(t_2m^2)^2},s_1s_2=sE_c^2,E_c^2=m_c^2+\stackrel{}{p}_c^2.$$

Here $`s_1=(p_a+p_c)^2,s_2=(p_b+p_c)^2`$, and $`\varphi _i(t_i)`$ are the impact factors of hadrons. So the particle $`c`$ forgot the details of its creation. It was found experimentally that the ratio

$$\frac{f(\pi ^+p\pi _{}+\mathrm{})}{\sigma (\pi ^+p)}=\frac{f(K^+p\pi _{}+\mathrm{})}{\sigma (K_+p)}=\frac{f(pp\pi _{}+\mathrm{})}{\sigma (pp)}$$
(1.1)
is universal . This take place due to the two Pomeron multiperipheral exchange providing the nonvanishing contribution in the $`s`$ asymptotics to the cross section. It was implied that the Pomeron intercept is exactly equal to one. Just this kinematics leads to $`c_m=\gamma _m(c_1)^m`$ (the correlators $`c_m`$ are introduced in (1.8)), i.e. to the KNO-scaling .

We begin with general analysis to formulate an aim of this paper. Let $`\sigma _n(s)`$ be the cross section of $`n`$ particles (hadrons) creation at the total CM energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. We introduce the generating function:

$$T(s,z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{n_{max}}{}}z^n\sigma _n(s),s=(p_1+p_2)^2>>m^2,n_{max}=\sqrt{s}/m.$$
(1.2)
So, the total cross section and the averaged multiplicity will be:

$$\sigma _{tot}=T(s,1)=\sigma _n,\sigma _{tot}\overline{n}=n\sigma _n=\frac{d}{dz}T(s,z)|_{z=1}.$$
(1.3)
At the same time

$$\sigma _n=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{dz}{z^{n+1}}T(s,z)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{dz}{z}e^{(n\mathrm{ln}z+\mathrm{ln}T(s,z))}.$$
(1.4)
The essential values of $`z`$ in this integral are defined by the equation (of state):

$$n=z\frac{}{z}\mathrm{ln}T(z,s).$$
(1.5)
Considering the tail, i.e. $`n>>\overline{n}`$, let us assume that one can find such values of $`n<<n_s`$ at high energies $`\sqrt{s}>>m`$ that we can neglect in (1.2) dependence on the upper boundary $`n_{max}`$. This formal trick allows to consider $`T(z,s)`$ as the nontrivial function of $`z`$. Then the asymptotics over n ($`n<<n_s`$ is assumed) is governed by the mostleft situated singularity $`z_s`$ of $`T(z,s)`$:

$$\sigma _n(s)e^{n\mathrm{ln}z_c(n,s)},$$
(1.6)
where $`z_c(n,s)`$ is the smallest solution of eq.(1.5). It is important that

$$z_s(n,s)z_c\mathrm{at}n\mathrm{}.$$
(1.7)
One can put this method of asymptotic estimation in the basis of VHM processes phenomenology.

We may distinguish following possibilities at $`n\mathrm{}`$:
1)$`z_s=1`$: $`\sigma _n>O(e^n)`$;
2)$`z_s=\mathrm{}`$: $`\sigma _n<O(e^n)`$;
3)$`i<z_s<\mathrm{}`$: $`\sigma _n=O(e^n)`$.

The asymptotics 1) assumes the condensation phenomena . The asymptotics 2) belong to the multiperipheral processes kinematics: created particles form jets moving in the CM frame with different velocities along the incoming particles directions, i.e. with restricted transverse momentum. The third type asymptotics is predicted by stationary Markovian processes with the QCD jets kinematics of the high transverse momentum particles creation. It is evident that the $`n`$ asymptotics should be governed by largest among 1) - 3). Just under this idea we hope that we get beyond the multiperipheral kinematics in the VHM region.

Additional information is coded in the expansion over binomial moments $`c_m(s)`$:

$$\mathrm{ln}T(s,z)=\frac{(z1)^m}{m!}c_m(s).$$
(1.8)
So, for instance, if all $`c_m=0,m>1`$, then we have the Poisson distribution:

$$\sigma _n=\sigma _{tot}\frac{(\overline{n})^n}{n!}e^{(\overline{n})}.$$

But if $`c_m=\gamma _m(c_1)^m`$, where $`\gamma _m`$ is the some constant, then the so called KNO scaling take place:

$$\overline{n}\sigma _n=\sigma _{tot}\mathrm{\Psi }(n/\overline{n}).$$

The multiple production processes are typical inelastic reactions of the initial kinetic energy dissipation into the particles mass. Consequently, the mean multiplicity $`\overline{n}(s)`$ is the measure of entropy $`𝒮`$ production at given energy. Experimentally $`\overline{n}(s)\mathrm{ln}^2s<<n_{max}`$. This testify to the incomplete energy dissipation in the mostly probable channels of hadrons production.

This phenomena is explained naturally by presence of the space-time local non-Abelian symmetry constraints. So, it is known  that there is not thermalization phenomena in the completely integrable systems. But, at all evidence, the quantum Yang-Mills theory is not completely integrable, i.e. it admits the dissipation, but nevertheless the symmetry constraints play essential role.

It is natural to assume that $`𝒮`$ exceed its maximum if $`n>>\overline{n}(s)`$. So, our essentially inelastic process is happened so rapidly that the non-Abelian symmetry constraints becomes frozen. On other hand, maximum of entropy $`𝒮`$ means that the final state of the dissipation process is equilibrium.

Last one means relaxation of energy correlations, i.e. absence of the macroscopical energy flows in the system, and the Gauss energy spectrum of created particles. We would like to say that in such a state one get to the VHM.

The aim of this article is to build the suitable mechanism of maximal initial energy dissipation, where the correlations are relaxed and the energy spectra are Gaussian.. The classification 1)-3) is mostly general and we will put it in the basis of consideration. So, our main purpose is to show as the multiperipheral kinematics transform in the VHM domain.

## 2 Pomeron,DIS and Double-Logarithmic kinematics

Let us consider process of type $`22+n`$ in different kinematics

$$A(P_1)+B(P_2)A^{}(p_1^{})+B^{}(p_2^{})+h_1(k_1)+h_2(k_2)+\mathrm{}+h_n(k_n),s=(p_1+p_2)^2>>m^2.$$

We will distinguish the peripheral,deep inelastic and large-angles kinematical regions with different physical content. First we build two light-like 4-momenta from the momenta of initial particles $`p_{1,2}=P_{1,2}P_{2,1}m_{2,1}^2/s`$ and present the 4-momenta of final particles in form:

$$p_1^{}=\alpha _1^{}p_2+\beta _1^{}p_1+p_1^{};a_{}p_{1,2}=0;p_2^{}=\alpha _2^{}p_2+\beta _2^{}p_1+p_2^{};k_i=\alpha _ip_2+\beta _ip_1+k_i^{}.$$
(2.1)
Sudakov’s parameters $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are not independent.The mass shell conditions and the conservation low give the relations:

$`s\alpha _1^{}\beta _1^{}=m_1^2+\stackrel{}{p}_1^{}_{}{}^{}2=E_1^2,`$ (2.2)
$`s\alpha _2^{}\beta _2^{}=E_2^2,s\alpha _i\beta _i=E_i^2,`$
$`\stackrel{}{a}^2=a_{}^2>0;\alpha _1^{}+\alpha _2^{}+{\displaystyle \alpha _i}=1;`$
$`\beta _1^{}+\beta _2^{}+{\displaystyle \beta _i}=1.`$
Consider first the peripheral kinematics. For it is characteristic the weak dependence of differential cross sections on the center of mass (CM) total energy $`2E=\sqrt{s}`$,the strict ordering of parameters $`\alpha ,\beta `$

$$1\beta _1^{}>>\beta _1>>\mathrm{}>>\beta _n>>\beta _2^{}\frac{m^2}{s};\frac{m^2}{s}<<\alpha _1^{}<<\alpha _1<<\mathrm{}<<\alpha _n<<\alpha _2^{}1$$

and the restrictiveness on the transvers momenta $`|\stackrel{}{k}_i|m`$. It corresponds to small emission angles moving along 3-momentum $`\stackrel{}{P}_1`$

$$\theta _i=\frac{|\stackrel{}{k}_i|}{E\beta _i}<<1,|\beta _i|>>|\alpha _i|,$$

and the similar expression for particles moving in opposite direction $`|\beta _i|<<|\alpha _i|`$. The central region $`|\alpha _i||\beta _i|E_i/E<<1`$ corresponds to particles of low energies moving at large angles(in cm frame). The differential cross section have the form:

$`d\sigma _{22+n}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\alpha _s)^{2+n}}{16\pi ^{2n}}}C_V^n{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q_1}{q_1^2+m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q_2}{(q_1q_2)^2+\lambda ^2}}\mathrm{}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q_{n+1}}{(q_nq_{n+1})^2+\lambda ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_{n+1}^2+\lambda ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha _1}{\alpha _1}}\theta (\alpha _2\alpha _1)\mathrm{}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha _n}{\alpha _n}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{s_i}{m^2}})^{2\alpha (q_i^2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_{n+1}^2+\lambda ^2}}dZ_n,`$
where $`C_V=3`$ and we imply $`q_i`$ the two-dimensional euclidean vectors,the 4-momentum of the $`i`$-th emitted particle (gluon)is

$$k_i=(\alpha _i\alpha _{i+1})p_2+(\beta _i\beta _{i+1})p_1+(q_iq_{i+1})_{}=\alpha _{i+1}p_2+\beta _ip_1+(q_iq_{i+1})_{};$$
(2.4)
$`s_i`$ are the partial squares of invariant mass of nearest emitted particles:

$$s_1=(p_1^{}+k_1)^2=s|\alpha _2|,s_{n+1}=(k_n+p_2^{})^2=\frac{E_n^2}{\alpha _n},s_i=E_{,i1}^2\frac{\alpha _{i+1}}{\alpha _{i1}},s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_n=sE_1^2\mathrm{}E_n^2,$$
(2.5)
and the trajectory of reggeized gluon is

$$\alpha (q^2)=\frac{q^2\alpha _s}{2\pi ^2}\frac{d^2k}{(k^2+\lambda ^2)((qk)^2+\lambda ^2}.$$

Here $`\lambda `$ is gluon mass.It was shown that the infrared singularities absent in the limit $`\lambda 0`$.In this point we will suggest the gluon to be massive: $`\lambda M`$ and will decay to the jet of hadrons (pions) with the probability to create $`n`$ particles $`dW_n(M)=\frac{c}{\overline{n}}exp(n/\overline{n})dn,\overline{n}=\mathrm{ln}(M^2/m_\pi ^2)`$.

The Monte Carlo simulation shows a tendency to minimization of the number of rungs at large $`n`$.

For the pure deep inelastic case, when one of the initial hadrons is scattered at the angle $`\theta `$ have the energy $`E^{}`$ in the cms of beams whereas the another is scattered at small angle and the large transfer momentum $`Q=4EE^{}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)>>m^2,`$ is distributed to the some number of the emitted particles due to evolution mechanism we have ($`\theta `$ is small):

$`d\sigma _n^{DIS}={\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha ^2E^{}_{}{}^{}2}{Q^4M}}dD_ndE^{}d\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$
$`dD_n=({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }})^n{\displaystyle _{m^2}^{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_n^2}{k_n^2}}{\displaystyle _{m^2}^{k_n^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{n1}^2}{k_{n1}^2}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{m^2}^{k_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_1^2}{k_1^2}}{\displaystyle _x^1}𝑑\beta _n\mathrm{\Theta }_n^{(1)}{\displaystyle _{\beta _n}^1}𝑑\beta _{n1}\mathrm{\Theta }_{n1}^{(1)}\mathrm{}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\beta _2}^1}d\beta _1\mathrm{\Theta }_1^{(1)}P({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _n}{\beta _{n1}}})\mathrm{}P(\beta _1),P(z)=2{\displaystyle \frac{1+z^2}{1z}},`$ (2.6)
where the limits of integrals show the intervals of variation and the integrand is the differential cross section. Again the rapidities $`\beta _i`$ are arranged and the transverse momenta square are rigorously arranged. Here $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{(i)}=\theta (\theta _{i+1}\theta _i)`$ the condition which forbids the destructive interference of jets and jets emission angles are $`\theta _i=|\stackrel{}{k}_i|/(E\mathrm{max}|\alpha _i|,|\beta _i|)`$ regarding the beam axe direction.

Compared with peripheral production regime DIS one gives the contribution which fall down with increasing $`Q^2`$. Using the analogy to statistical nonequilibrium processes we may consider DIS regime as an nonequilibrium process of diminishing of large virtualities to small ones by means of evolution. The peripheral regime may be associated with equilibrium process when the random fluctuations on the transvers momenta values become essential.

Let consider now the regime of hard particles production at large angles. It is known as a double-logarithm regime. Any exclusive process is suppressed in this regime by Sudakov form factor. For inclusive set-up of experiments when arbitrary number of photons (gluons) may be emitted the Sudakov’s form factor suppression disappears and we obtain the cross section of the form :

$$d\sigma (s)=\frac{1}{s}F(\alpha \mathrm{ln}^2\frac{s}{m^2}).$$
(2.7)
For instance the cross section of annihilation of electron-positron to muon pair accompanied by emission of arbitrary number of photons is

$$\sigma (s)_{e\overline{e}\mu \overline{\mu }+\mathrm{}}=\frac{4\pi \alpha ^2}{3s}chx,x^2=\frac{2\alpha }{\pi }\mathrm{ln}^2(\frac{s}{m_\mu m_e}).$$

The characteristic squares of transvers momenta of created particles in this regime are big and of order of $`s`$.

The typical process -annihilation of electron -positron pair to $`n`$ hard photons accompanied by emission of any number of soft and virtual photons have a form :

$`d\sigma _n={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha ^2}{s}}dF_n^{DL},`$ (2.8)
$`dF_n^{DL}=({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }})^n{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{i=n}{}}}dx_idy_i\theta (y_iy_{i1})\theta (x_iy_i)\theta (x_i)\theta (y_i)\theta (\rho x_n)\theta (\rho x_n),`$
$`x_i=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}_i^2}{m^2}},y_i=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _i}},\rho =\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{m^2}}.`$
## 3 Various scenario

Keeping in mind the kinematical restriction $`\mathrm{\Pi }s_js`$ we may build the combinations of regimes considered above. Le construct the relevant cross sections. It is convenient to separate them to the classes
a) Pomeron regime (P);
b) Evolution regime (DIS);
c) Double logarithmic regime (DL);
d) DIS+P regime;
e) P+DL+P regime.
The description of every regime may be performed in terms of effective ladder-type Feynman diagrams (The set of relevant FD depends on the gauge chosen and include much more number of them).

The Pomeron is treated as a (infinite) set of particles emitted close to the CM beams direction (within the small angles of order $`\theta _i2m_h/\sqrt{s}<<1`$). We expect that these type of particles will not be detected by the detectors since they are move into the beams pipe. The collider experiment detectors locate at finite angles $`\theta _D1`$ and will measure the products only of particle $`c`$ decay.

What will happened when instead of one particle (see (1.1)) a set of particles with invariant mass square $`s_t`$ is created at large angles? Then the cross section will have a form:

$`d\sigma _n={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2}{s_t}}NdF_n^{DL}(\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}^2({\displaystyle \frac{s_t}{s_0}})),N=({\displaystyle \frac{s}{s_t}})^\mathrm{\Delta },`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }=\alpha _P1={\displaystyle \frac{12\mathrm{ln}2}{\pi }}\alpha _s0.55,\alpha _s=0.2`$ (3.1)
Radiative corrections to the intercept was calculated  in recent time. The resulting value is $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.2`$.

The way to obtain detected large multiplicity is to organize DIS-like experiments, expecting the large-angle scattered hadrons in the detectors. Large transfers momenta will be decreasing by ordinary evolution mechanism to the value of order $`m_\pi `$ and then the Pomeron mechanism of peripheral scattering of the created hadrons from the pionization region will start.

This phenomena is quite close to flea-dog model of Euhrenfest (see ): in the nonequilibrium process (DIS regime) the fluctuations are suppressed and they take place (Pomeron regime) when the equilibrium take place.

What the characteristic multiplicities expected from Pomeron mechanism with the intercept exceeding unity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.2`$? It is the quantity of order $`(s/m_\pi ^2)^\mathrm{\Delta }200`$ for $`\sqrt{s}=14TeV`$. This rather rough estimation is in agreement with the phenomenological analysis of A.Kaidalov , based on multi-pomeron exchange in the scattering channel.

Construct now the cross sections of combined processes. When the one of the initial particles $`h_1`$ is scattered on small but sufficient enough angle to fit the detectors and other is scattered almost forward the combination of DIS and Pomeron regimes take place:

$$d\sigma _{n,m}=d\sigma _n^{DIS}dZ_m,|q_n|^2m^2$$
(3.2)
provided that the virtuality of the last step of evolution regime of order of hadron mass. For the kinematical case of almost forward scattering of both initial hadrons the situation may be realized with large angles hadron production from the central region (see (3.1)):

$$d\sigma _{n,m,k}=dZ_nd\sigma _m^{DL}dZ_k.$$
(3.3)
## 4 Discussion

Every regime $`a)e)`$ considered above provide creation of $`(n+2)`$ gluons and theirs subsequent decay in the universal way on jets.

Let us discuss more carefully the large-angle moving jets creation mechanism due to annihilation of initial partons into the hadrons system. The intermediate state of single heavy photons decay into jet was analyzed by A.Polyakov . It was shown that the scaling regime works, providing the behavior of the $`n`$ jets creation cross section and the mean multiplicity as:

$$\sigma _n(s)\frac{1}{s}(\frac{m^2}{s})^\delta F(n(\frac{m^2}{s})^\delta ),\overline{n}(\frac{s}{m^2})^\delta ,0<\delta <\frac{1}{2}.$$
(4.4)
Another mechanism of multiple production  takes into account the channels of incident partons annihilation onto the arbitrary large number of real and virtual gluons (photons). On this way some intermediate regime between the single logarithm (the renormalization group approach) and the double logarithmical, $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}^\rho (s/m^2)1,1<\rho <2`$, is realized.

All the considered regimes of many particles state production describes the hard stage of process. The hadronization stage will impose its features which can not be expressed in terms of pQCD as well as it concern the confinement region. Here the identity of produced particles must be taken into account . The effective Lagrangian approach also may be applied here . We hope to consider last questions in another work.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to V.G.Kadyshevski for interest to discussed in the paper questions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The coupling of scalar matter fields with bidimensional dilaton gravity, originally proposed by Callan, Giddings, Harvey and Strominger (CGHS)  has attracted attention due to connections with black hole physics , specially within the context of formation and evaporation of black holes. In cosmology the dilaton field appears to be important, and so several mechanisms for cosmological dilaton production has been discussed in the literature . The CGHS model has its origin in the dimensional reduction of the more realistic, four dimensional, Einstein-Hilbert gravitation with a spherically symmetric metric. The dilaton field in the resulting model is a relic of the angular variables hidden in this procedure. Also, it belongs to the class of models first discussed by Jackiw and Teitelboim , which lend themselves to a gauge theoretical formulation  of the problem.

The formation of black holes in bidimensional dilaton gravity coupled to scalar field was considered recently in different contexts. For instance, the scalar matter field was already considered in the form of sine-Gordon  and quartic potentials , and these investigations have motived us to introduce new systems for the scalar matter.

In this paper we investigate the formation of black hole in two different systems. The first system considers a sixth-order potential for the matter field that couples to the bidimensional dilaton gravity. This is a new possibility, and although we yet have polynomial potential, the nature of the solutions are different from the one that appear with the quartic potential already investigated, since in the sixth-order potential the kink connects the symmetric vacuum to an asymmetric one. The second system we shall deal with is a system of two coupled fields recently introduced . This system presents very interesting properties , and here we show that the second field adds further effects.

This work is organized as follows. In the next Sec. 2 we present the CGHS model with a single field system, given by a sixth-order potential, in Sec. 2.1. The two field system as the source of matter is worked out in Sec. 2.2 and again we have black hole solutions, now controlled by an enlarged number of parameters. Discussions and final remarks are introduced in Sec 3.

## 2 Models of Matter Fields

In this section we deal with two different examples of coulping dilaton gravity to matter fields. The first example represents a single field system that contains up to sixth power self-interaction terms. The second example is different since it contains two coupled scalar fields, and is defined by a potential that contains up to the quartic power in the fields, and presents an enlarged set of parameters.

### 2.1 System with a single field

Here we consider the model described by the action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle }d^2x\sqrt{\overline{g}}\{e^{2\varphi }[\overline{R}+4(\overline{}\varphi )^2+4\lambda ^2]`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{}f)^2+2\mu ^2f^2(f^2a^2)^2e^{2\varphi }\},`$
where $`\overline{g}`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`f`$ are the metric, dilaton and matter fields respectively. $`\overline{R}`$ is the scalar curvature and $`\lambda ^2`$ is a cosmological constant. This action is the usual action, except that the last term contains a specific sixth-order potential for the self-interacting matter field.

We can be write Eq. $`(1)`$ in a different form, using a rescaled metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ in such a way that

$$\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=e^{2\varphi }g_{\mu \nu }.$$
(2)
In this case, the action given by Eq. $`(1)`$ turns into

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle }d^2x\sqrt{g}[e^{2\varphi }R+4\lambda ^2`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(f)^2+2\mu ^2f^2(f^2a^2)^2].`$
Note that this conformal reparametrization of the field eliminates the kinetic term for the dilaton that appears in the original action.

The equations of motion that follow from Eq. $`(3)`$ are

$$^2(e^{2\varphi })4\lambda ^22\mu ^2f^2(f^2a^2)^2=0,$$
(4)
and

$$R=0.$$
(5)
Equation $`(5)`$ implies that $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ and using the fact that in two dimensions we can always put the metric in the conformal gauge

$$\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=e^{2\rho }\eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(6)
we conclude that $`\rho =\varphi `$.

In order to investigate the solutions of this model it is useful to introduce light-cone coordinates $`x^\pm =t\pm x`$. In these coordinates the line element constructed with the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$$ds^2=dx^+dx^{}.$$
(7)
In terms of these coordinates, the action given by Eq. $`(3)`$ can be cast to the form

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle }d^2x[(2e^{2\varphi }_+_{}\rho +\lambda ^2)`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_+f_{}f{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2f^2(f^2a^2)^2].`$
The field equations of motion are given by

$`_+^2\left(e^{2\varphi }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_+f\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (9)
$`_{}^2\left(e^{2\varphi }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_{}f\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (10)
$`_+_{}\left(e^{2\varphi }\right)+\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2f^2(f^2a^2)^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (11)
$`_+_{}f+\mu ^2f(f^2a^2)(3f^2a^2)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (12)
and these are the equations we have to deal with.These results follow very naturally in the above procedure, and this should be contrasted to the procedure used in Refs.  where one has to appropriately choose the gauge to get to such r esult. Here we see that the equation of motion for the matter field presents solutions that can be cast to the form, working with standard coordinates $`(x,t)`$

$$f^2(x,t)=\frac{1}{2}a^2\{1+\mathrm{tanh}[\alpha ((x\overline{x})+v(t\overline{t}))]\},$$
(13)
where $`\alpha `$ is a constant and $`(\overline{x},\overline{t})`$ represents the center of the kink. In the light-cone coordinates we can write the above solutions as

$$f^2(x^+,x^{})=\frac{1}{2}a^2\{1+\mathrm{tanh}[\alpha _+(x^+\overline{x}^+)\alpha _{}(x^{}\overline{x}^{})]\},$$
(14)
where $`\alpha _\pm =\frac{\alpha }{2}\left(v\pm 1\right)`$.

In order to study black hole formation we use this $`f`$ into the other equations of motion for $`\varphi `$. Here we can write, for instance,

$$_+_{}\left(e^{2\varphi }\right)=\frac{\mu ^2a^6}{16}\left[1+\mathrm{tanh}^3\mathrm{}\mathrm{tanh}^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{tanh}\mathrm{}\right]\lambda ^2,$$
(15)
where we have set $`\mathrm{}=\delta \overline{\delta }`$, with $`\delta =\alpha _+x^+\alpha _{}x^{}`$ and $`\overline{\delta }=\alpha _+\overline{x}^+\alpha _{}\overline{x}^{}`$. This equation can be integrated to give

$$e^{2\varphi }=C_1+b(x^+)+d(x^{})\lambda ^2x^+x^{}+\frac{\mu ^2a^6}{16\alpha _+\alpha _{}}\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tanh}\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{}\right].$$
(16)
The functions $`b(x^+)`$ and $`d(x^{})`$ are determined by the constraint equations, the two first equations of motion $`(8)`$ and $`(9)`$. Here we get

$`b(x^+)`$ $`=`$ $`bx^++C_2,`$ (17)
$`d(x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`dx^{}+C_3.`$ (18)
Therefore, the dilaton field can be determined up to constants in the form

$$e^{2\varphi }=C+bx^++dx^{}\lambda ^2x^+x^{}+\frac{\mu ^2a^6}{16\alpha _+\alpha _{}}\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tanh}\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{}\right],$$
(19)
where $`b`$, $`d`$, and $`C`$ are constants, and in the following we choose $`b=d=0`$, for simplicity.

Let us now investigate the geometric nature of this solution generated by original system. Toward this goal, let us divide spacetime into the three regions: $`\mathrm{}=\delta \overline{\delta }<<1`$, $`\mathrm{}0`$, and $`\mathrm{}>>1`$. In the first region the dilaton field becomes

$$e^{2\varphi }C\lambda ^2\left(x^++\frac{\mu ^2a^6}{16\lambda ^2\alpha _+}\right)\left(x^{}\frac{\mu ^2a^6}{16\lambda ^2\alpha _{}}\right),$$
(20)
where the constant $`C`$ is taken as

$$C=\frac{\mu ^2a^6}{16\alpha _+\alpha _{}}\left(\overline{\delta }+\frac{\mu ^2a^6}{16\lambda ^2}\mathrm{ln}2\frac{1}{2}\right).$$
(21)
In the region where $`\mathrm{}=\delta \overline{\delta }0`$ we get

$$e^{2\varphi }\frac{\mu ^2a^6}{16\alpha _+\alpha _{}}\left(\overline{\delta }+\frac{\mu ^2a^6}{16\lambda ^2}\mathrm{ln}2\frac{1}{2}\right)\lambda ^2x^+x^{}.$$
(22)
With regard to the initial metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$, these solutions represent, where this metric is defined , the linear dilaton vacuum.

In the third region we have $`\mathrm{}=\delta \overline{\delta }>>1`$, and now we obtain

$$e^{2\varphi }\frac{\mu ^2a^6}{16\alpha _+\alpha _{}}(2\overline{\delta })\lambda ^2\left(x^+\frac{\mu ^2a^6}{16\lambda ^2\alpha _+}\right)\left(x^{}+\frac{\mu ^2a^6}{16\lambda ^2\alpha _{}}\right),$$
(23)
which represents, with respect to the original background,the geometry of a black hole with mass

$$\frac{\lambda \mu ^2a^6}{8\alpha _+\alpha _{}}\overline{\delta },$$
(24)
after shifting $`x^+`$ by $`\mu ^2a^6/16\lambda ^2\alpha _+`$ and $`x^{}`$ by $`\mu ^2a^6/16\lambda ^2\alpha _{}`$.

### 2.2 System with two fields

Let us now consider another system, defined by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle }d^2x\sqrt{g}\{[e^{2\varphi }R++4\lambda ^2]`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(f)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g)^2+U(f,g),\}.`$
This action can be written in terms of $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ by doing the inverse transformation that correspondes to Eq. $`(2)`$.

Using light-cone coordinates the above action can be cast to the form

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle }d^2x[(2e^{2\varphi }_+_{}\rho +\lambda ^2)`$ (26)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_+f_{}f+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_+g_{}g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}U(f,g)].`$
This new system is defined via the potential

$$U(f,g)=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2(f^2a^2)^2+\mu \nu (f^2a^2)g^2+\frac{1}{2}\nu ^2g^4+2\nu ^2f^2g^2.$$
(27)
This potential identifies a system of two real scalar fields that was recently investigated in , where it was shown to present interesting static field configurations. As we can see from the above potential, we are now dealing with a richer system and we want to explore how this enlarged system change the simpler picture of black hole formation in systems of a single field.

We follow as in the former system.In this case we get

$`_+^2(e^{2\varphi })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_+f)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_+g)^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (28)
$`_{}^2(e^{2\varphi })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_{}f)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_{}g)^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (29)
$`_+_{}(e^{2\varphi })+\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}U(f,g)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (30)
$`_+_{}f+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2(f^2a^2)f+\nu (\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu fg^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (31)
$`_+_{}g+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu \nu (f^2a^2)g+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu ^2g^3+\nu ^2f^2g`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (32)
The above Eqs. $`(31)`$ and $`(32)`$ correspond to the matter field equations of motion. They can be solved to give two different pair of solutions :

$$f=a\mathrm{tanh}\{\mu a[\alpha _+(x^+\overline{x}^{})\alpha _{}(x^{}\overline{x}^{})]\},$$
(33)
and $`g=0`$, and also

$$f=a\mathrm{tanh}\{2\nu a[\alpha _+(x^+\overline{x}^+)\alpha _{}(x^{}\overline{x}^{})]\},$$
(34)
and

$$g=\pm a\left(\frac{\mu }{\nu }2\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{sech}\{2\nu a[\alpha _+(x^+\overline{x}^+)\alpha _{}(x^{}\overline{x}^{})]\},$$
(35)
valid for $`\mu /\nu >2`$. Here we note that the limit $`\nu \mu /2`$ transforms the second pair of solutions into the first one, that presents $`g=0`$. This is interesting since the investigation of the second pair of solutions allows getting results valid for the first pair, with presents $`g=0`$ and so leads to the case of just one field. See below for further details.

For the second pair of solutions we can cast the dilaton field in the form

$$e^{2\varphi }=C\lambda ^2x^+x^{}A\mathrm{tanh}^2[2\nu a(\delta \overline{\delta })]B\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{cosh}[2\nu a(\delta \overline{\delta })].$$

Like in the former case, in the above expression we have also chosen $`b=d=0`$ in $`b(x^+)=bx^++C_2`$ and $`d(x^+)=dx^++C_3`$, which follow from $`(28)`$ and $`(29)`$. The expressions for $`A`$ and $`B`$ are given by

$$A=\frac{a^2}{12\nu ^2\alpha _+\alpha _{}}\left[\frac{\mu ^2}{4}+\frac{1}{4}(\mu 2\nu )(7\mu +10\nu )\right],$$
(36)
and

$$B=\frac{a^2}{12\nu ^2\alpha _+\alpha _{}}\left[\mu ^2+(\mu 2\nu )(\mu 4\nu )\right].$$
(37)
Let us now investigate the geometric nature of the black hole generated in this system. Here we can write the dilaton field ,for $`\mathrm{\Delta }>>1`$, as

$$e^{2\varphi }4aB\nu \overline{\delta }\lambda ^2\left(x^+2\frac{\nu }{\lambda ^2}Aa\alpha _{}\right)\left(x^{}+2\frac{\nu }{\lambda ^2}Aa\alpha _+\right),$$
(38)
which represents the geometry of a black hole with regard to the original background spacetime.The mass of the black hole is given by

$$4aB\lambda \nu \left(\overline{\delta }+\frac{\nu }{\lambda ^2}Aa\alpha _+\alpha _{}\right).$$
(39)
after shifting $`x^+`$ by $`2(\nu /\lambda ^2)aB\alpha _{})`$ and $`x^{}`$ by $`2(\nu /\lambda ^2)aB\alpha _+`$.

For $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\overline{\delta }\delta <<1`$,

$$e^{2\varphi }\lambda ^2\left(x^++2\frac{\nu }{\lambda ^2}Aa\alpha _{}\right)\left(x^{}2\frac{\nu }{\lambda ^2}Aa\alpha _+\right),$$
(40)
where the constant $`C`$ was taken as

$$C=A+2aB\nu \overline{\delta }B\mathrm{ln}2\frac{4\nu ^2a^2B^2\alpha _+\alpha _{}}{\lambda ^2}.$$
(41)
In the region of $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ we have

$$e^{2\varphi }AB\mathrm{ln}2+2aB\nu \overline{\delta }\frac{4a^2B^2\nu ^2\alpha _+\alpha _{}}{\lambda ^2}\lambda ^2x^+x^{},$$
(42)
As in the first system, these last two solutions give us the linear dilaton vacuum in the region where the original background is defined.

We recall that the limit $`\nu \mu /2`$ changes the second pair of solutions that we have been considering to the first one, simpler, that presents $`g=0`$, as introduced above. For this reason, we can investigate this first pair of solutions by just setting $`\nu \mu /2`$ in the above results.

This procedure is interesting since it leads to the case with just one field, more precisely to the case where the matter system is described by the $`\varphi ^4`$ model, but this was already investigated in Ref. . Despite slightly different notations, it is not hard to see that the limit $`\nu \mu /2`$ correctly change the above results into the results given in  for the case of a single field, in the $`\varphi ^4`$ model for the matter contents.

## 3 Comments and Conclusions

In this work we have investigated bidimensional dilaton gravity coupled to two different matter field systems. The first system is a single field system that contains self-interactions up to the sixth power. It is of the same kind of the sine-Gordon  and $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$  models already investigated. The results of these papers, together with the present work show that the black hole that appears is qualitatively the same, but with different masses that depend on the parameters associated with the various solutions. The second system is a system of two fields, and contains up to the fourth power in the fields. This system is richer since it is defined in a enlarged space of parameters, which contains the space of parameters of the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ system as a particular case. The soliton solutions that appear in this case also contributes to the generation of black holes, but these black holes are quantitatively different from black holes that appear in systems of a single field, the difference being controlled by the enlarged set of parameters that defines the two field matter system.

Evidently, one can have more examples, for instance investigating the case where the scalar matter is described by the two field system that contains up to the sixth power in the fields, as also investigated in . We think that it is interesting to investigate this kind of mechanism for different matter field potentials, in order to understand mechanisms of formation of black holes within the context of dilaton gravity. Furthermore, there is also the newer context of the Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton-axion system  with general dilaton coupling. And this naturally leads to another interesting issue, that concerns investigating the coupling of a dilaton-axion gravitational field with two coupled scalar fields, in the form introduced in . The two cases worked out above lead us to different scenario concerning formation of black holes, and so it turns out to be interesting to analyze quantum or at least semiclassical versions  since these black holes may present new termodinamics properties, namely the Hawking-Bekenstein radiation. Work on this and in other related issues is now in progress.

D.B. would like to thank Roman Jackiw for comments and for reading the manuscript.