text:
# Transverse Isotropy in Identical Particle Scattering

## Abstract

It is pointed out that the cross section for the scattering of identical charged bosons is isotropic over a broad angular range around 90o when the Sommerfeld parameter has a critical value, which depends exclusively on the spin of the particle. A discussion of systems where this phenomenon can be observed is presented.

PACS: 03.65.Nk

The scattering of identical particles is a routine exercise in quantum mechanics and its discussion can be found in most text books on the subject . However, in recent years, the rapid oscillation seen in the angular distribution of the Mott elastic scattering of identical charged particles such as nuclei, was utilized to test models such as QCD  and to discuss small deviations from the Coulomb force law owing to QED-related corrections such as vacuum polarization .

In the present work we point out a hitherto unknown feature of the Mott scattering cross-section for bosons, namely an almost isotropic angular distribution over a very wide angular range when the Sommerfeld parameter attains a critical value determined entirely by the spin, $`s`$, of the particles viz, $`\eta _C=(3s+2)^{1/2}`$. For the purpose of completeness we first give a short account of the theory of scattering of identical particles. We then turn to the derivation of $`\eta _C`$ and apply to several boson-boson scattering systems. We also briefly discuss the fermion-fermion case.

If in a scattering process the projectile and target particles are identical, when one of them reaches a detector the experiment cannot tell if this particle is the projectile or the target. On the other hand, momentum conservation guarantees that whenever a particle emerges in one direction, the other emerges in the opposite orientation, in the CM frame of reference. Therefore, the amplitude for scattering at the orientations $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐫`$ will be mixed in some way. In Quantum mechanics, the total wave function for pairs of identical particles with integer spins, i.e. two bosons, must be symmetric with respect to the exchange of these particles, while in the case of particles with half-integer spin, i.e. two fermions, it must be anti-symmetric.

The situation is simple for spinless bosons or in collisions where the projectile and the target are polarized so that their spins are aligned. In such cases, the wave function in the spin space is always symmetric and projectile-target exchange reduces to reflection of the relative vector position $`𝐫`$. For spherically symmetric potentials, there is axial symmetry and space reflection corresponds to the transformation $`\theta \pi \theta `$. The elastic cross section is then given by

$$\sigma _\pm (\theta )=\left|f(\theta )\pm f(\pi \theta )\right|^2,$$
(1)
where $`f(\theta )`$ is the scattering amplitude for discernible particles of the same mass under the same potential $`V(r)`$. The $`+()`$ sign in eq.(1) applies when the particles involved are bosons (fermions).

Eq.(1) may be rewritten in the form

$$\sigma _\pm (\theta )=\sigma _{inc}(\theta )\pm \sigma _{int}(\theta ),$$
(2)
with

$$\sigma _{inc}(\theta )=\left|f(\theta )\right|^2+\left|f(\pi \theta )\right|^2$$
(3)
and

$$\sigma _{int}(\theta )=2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left\{f^{}(\theta )f(\pi \theta )\right\}.$$
(4)
The first term in eq.(2) is the incoherent sum of the contributions to the cross sections arising from projectile and target, if they were distinguishable. While this term is independent of the particle statistics, the sign of the second term is responsible for the difference in the expressions for the cross section of bosons and fermions. This interference term has no classical analogue.

The situation is more complicated in the case of unpolarized spins. In this case, the cross section mixes different parities as the spins couple to produce symmetric or anti-symmetric states in the spin space. However, taking the proper average over spin orientations one obtains the simple formula

$$\sigma _\pm (\theta )=\sigma _{inc}(\theta )\pm \frac{\sigma _{int}(\theta )}{2s+1},$$
(5)
where $`s`$ is the spin of the particle in units of $`\mathrm{}`$. Eq.(5) indicates that the relevance of the interference term decreases with the spin value, vanishing in the classical limit $`s\mathrm{}`$.

The cross sections of eq.(5) are symmetric with respect to $`\theta =90^o`$ and their particular shape depends on several factors such as the statistics of the colliding particles, their interaction and the bombarding energy. A particularly interesting situation is the Coulomb scattering of bosons, where $`\sigma _+`$ is known as the Mott cross section and denoted $`\sigma _{Mott}`$. In this case, we have the analytical expressions

$$\sigma _{inc}(\theta )=\frac{a^2}{4}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^4\left(\theta /2\right)}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^4\left(\theta /2\right)}\right]$$
(6)
and

$$\sigma _{int}(\theta )=\frac{a^2}{4}\left[\frac{2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\theta /2\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\theta /2\right)}\mathrm{cos}\left(2\eta \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{tan}^1(\theta /2))\right)\right],$$
(7)
where $`\eta `$ is the Sommerfeld parameter,

$$\eta =\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{}v}$$
(8)
and $`a`$ is half the distance of closest approach in a head-on collision,

$$a=\frac{q^2}{2E}.$$
(9)
Above, $`q`$ is the charge of each of the two collision partners, $`E`$ is the bombarding energy in the center of mass (CM) reference frame and $`v`$ is the corresponding velocity of the relative motion. In the present case, $`\sigma _{inc}`$ exhibits a minimum at $`\theta =90^o`$, with the value $`\sigma _{inc}\left(\theta =90^o\right)=2a^2`$, with an energy-independent shape. On the other hand, $`\sigma _{int}`$ has always a maximum at this angle, with the same value $`2a^2`$. However, its shape depends on the collision energy through the Sommerfeld parameter $`\eta `$. The behavior of $`\sigma _{Mott}`$ in the vicinity of $`\theta =90^o`$ results from a competition between these two opposing trends. For small $`\eta `$ values, $`\sigma _{int}`$ is a slowly varying function of $`\theta `$. The shape of $`\sigma _{Mott}`$ is then dominated by that of $`\sigma _{inc}`$ and it presents a minimum at $`\theta =90^o`$. For large $`\eta `$, the opposite situation takes place and $`\sigma _{Mott}`$ has a maximum at $`\theta =90^o`$. An interesting situation occurs at the critical value of the Sommerfeld parameter, $`\eta _C`$, where the cross section goes through this transition. The value of $`\eta _C`$ is obtained from the condition

$$\left[\frac{d^2\sigma _{Mott}(\theta )}{d\theta ^2}\right]_{\theta =90^o}=0.$$
(10)
Using eqs.(6) and (7), we obtain

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{Mott}(\theta )}{d\theta ^2}}\right]_{\theta =90^o}=16a^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{12\eta ^2}{2s+1}}+3\right]`$

and according to eq.(10) we get

$$\eta _C=\sqrt{3s+2}.$$
(11)
In figure 1, we show cross sections normalized to the value of the Rutherford cross section at $`90^o,`$ $`\sigma _{Ruth}(90^o)=a^2`$, for collisions of identical bosons with spins $`s=0`$ and $`s=1`$. In each case, the calculations were performed at $`\eta _C`$. I.e., $`\eta =\sqrt{2}`$ for $`s=0`$ and $`\eta =\sqrt{5}`$ for $`s=1`$. Also shown for comparison is the incoherent cross section of eq.(6), normalized in the same way. Clearly, $`\sigma _{inc}(90^o)/a^2=2`$ and $`\sigma _b(90^o)/a^2=4`$ as shown in the figure. The striking feature of the figure is the flatness of $`\sigma _{Mott}`$ over a very wide angular region around $`\theta =90^o`$. It is essentially constant for $`60^o<\theta <120^o`$, for $`s=0`$, and $`70^o<\theta <110^o`$, for $`s=1`$. This ‘transverse isotropy’ (TI) is universal as the only relevant parameter which enters the discussion is the Sommerfeld parameter. In principle, it could be observed in atomic or nuclear systems at the appropriate energy. However, as we shall show below, the most appropriate case to investigate the above ‘transverse isotropy’ is that of low-energy scattering of light identical nuclei, such us d-d or $`\alpha \alpha `$.

Investigating a physical system which shows TI could shed light on several small effects related to QED and possibly to QCD, as well as to atomic effects in nuclear scattering. Also the assumed pure bosonic nature of the multifermionic cluster could be nicely examined by a careful analysis of data taken at $`\eta _C`$.

At this stage, it is important to investigate the optimal conditions for observation of TI. The effective forces between identical nuclei or ionized atoms are composed of the long range Coulomb part plus a shorter range nuclear or Van der Waals force. Since the above discussion was based on a pure Coulomb force, it is important to seek the physical conditions that allows the neglect of the short range forces. Calling $`E_C`$ the collision energy corresponding to $`\eta _C`$, the above condition corresponds to the requirement that $`E_C`$ be sufficiently below the Coulomb barrier $`V_B`$, the outermost maximum in the effective potential for $`l=0`$. In the collision of identical particles of charge $`q`$ and mass $`M`$, the critical collision energy $`E_C`$ is given by

$`E_C={\displaystyle \frac{Mq^4}{4\mathrm{}^2(3s+2)}}.`$

If one approximates $`V_B`$ by the coulomb potential at the barrier radius $`R_B`$, namely

$$V_B=\frac{q^2}{R_B},$$
(12)
the condition $`E_C<V_B`$ yields

$$\frac{Mq^2R_B}{\mathrm{}^2(3s+2)}<1.$$
(13)
Since the barrier radius in atomic collisions is very large, the above condition cannot be satisfied. We then consider nuclear collisions. In the nuclear physics one usually takes $`R_B=1.4`$ $`(M/m_0)^{1/3}`$fm, where $`m_0`$ is the nucleon mass. For light nuclei one can assume equal number of protons and neutrons and set $`M/m_0=2Z`$, where $`Z`$ is the atomic number. Eq.(13) then reduces to

$$Z^{10/3}<25.4\times (2s+1).$$
(14)
It can immediately be checked that the above condition is only satisfied for $`\alpha `$particles, in the case of $`s=0`$, and for $`dd`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{6}Li^6Li`$ collisions, in the case of $`s=1`$ (if one relaxes the condition of equal numbers of protons and neutrons, a couple of additional nuclei can be included in this set). The Mott cross section at $`\theta =90^o`$ at for collisions with the critical bombarding energy, $`E_C,`$ is then given by the simple expression

$$\sigma _{Mott}(\theta =90^o)=\frac{\sigma _0}{Z^6}\left(3s+2\right)^2,$$
(15)
with $`\sigma _0=33.7`$ barn.

In table I, we give the relevant quantities in the three above mentioned cases. It is clear from this table that the transverse isotropy is an observable phenomenon, although experimentally difficult in the case of $`dd`$. An important question to address now is the sensitivity of our result to the uncertainty of the energy of the beam. Since a slight change in $`\eta `$ form $`\eta _C`$ might wash out the TI, it is interesting to assess the range of $`\eta `$values around $`\eta _C`$ which can still tolerate a meaningfull study of the phenomenon. Figure 2 shows the way the shape of the Mott cross section changes as $`\eta `$ is varied from $`\eta _C`$ by $`5\%`$. This uncertainty in the $`\eta `$value corresponds to about 10$`\%`$ uncertainty in the collision energy, which is certainly attainable in existing accelerators. It is clear from figure 2 that the transverse isotropy should be visible within a few per cent energy resolutions.

Although we have restricted our discussion so far to $`E_C<V_B`$, we emphasize that the TI may come up at higher energies. However, in this case the details of the short-range interaction becomes important and the discussion becomes model- and system-dependent. We also point out that no transverse isotropy is expected for Coulomb collisions of identical fermions, since in this case both $`\sigma _{inc}`$ and $`\sigma _{int}`$ have minima at $`\theta =90^o`$. However, the situation may be different when the short range interaction dominates. We have briefly looked into this question by examining the extreme case of hard sphere scattering with no Coulomb interaction. The physical parameter that characterizes the collision process is $`kR`$ with $`R`$ being the sum of the radii of the two colliding particles. Our preliminary results indeed show a TI for identical fermions with the rather large spin values $`s9/2`$. The critical value of $`kR`$ is the order of 2.5, which is of the same order of magnitude as the value we found for bosons (1.5). More details of the present work with extensions to other potentials will be published elsewhere .

This work was supported in part by CNPq and the MCT/FINEP/CNPq(PRONEX) under contract no. 41.96.0886.00.

Tables

* Table I: The relevant quantities associated with the d-d, $`{}_{}{}^{6}Li^6Li`$ and $`\alpha \alpha `$ collisions, at the critical value of the Sommerfeld parameter.

| System | $`s`$ | $`E_C(`$keV) | $`V_B(`$keV) | $`\sigma _{Mott}(90^o)(`$barn) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| d + d | 1 | 5.0 | 400 | 135 |
| 6Li $`+`$6Li | 1 | 1200 | 2500 | 1.17 |
| $`\alpha +\alpha `$ | 0 | 400 | 1260 | 2.3 |

Figure Captions

* Figure 1: The Mott cross sections for collisions of identical bosons at the critical value of the Sommerfeld parameter. Results are shown in the case of bosons with spin 0 (solid line) and spin 1 (dashed line), to which corresponds respectively $`\eta _C=\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\eta _C=\sqrt{5}`$. For comparison, the incoherent part of the cross section is also shown (dot-dashed line).
* Figure 2: Sensitivity of the transverse isotropy as $`\eta `$ deviates from $`\eta _C`$ by 5 %. The results are shown in the case of $`s=0`$.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

By now it has been well-established that the smallest eigenvalues of the QCD Dirac operator are correlated according to a Random Matrix Theory with the global symmetries of the QCD partition function  (see  for recent reviews and a complete list of references). In particular, this has been confirmed by the analysis of the low-energy effective theory , universality studies , lattice QCD simulations  and the study two-sublattice theories with disorder . This means that the dynamical details of QCD are not important on energy scales of the order of the average level spacing. The natural question that can be asked is at what energy scale the dynamics of QCD becomes relevant and how does this manifest itself in the Dirac spectrum.

The answer to this question has been understood within the context of effective theories . The effective theory for the QCD Dirac spectrum is known as the partially quenched effective partition function and was originally introduced to study the quenched approximation in QCD . The central observation is that in the domain where the mass dependence of the effective partition function is given by the contribution of the constant fields (the zero momentum modes) the Dirac eigenvalues are correlated according to chiral Random Matrix Theory. The relevant mass scale can thus be identified as the scale for which the Compton wavelength of the lightest particle becomes equal to the size of the box i.e., $`M1/L_s`$. In QCD, in the phase of spontaneously broken chiral symmetry, the lightest particles are the Goldstone modes with a mass given by $`M^2Km`$ (with $`m`$ the quark mass and $`K=\mathrm{\Sigma }/F^2`$ in terms of the pion decay constant $`F`$ and the chiral condensate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$). The critical scale is thus given by

$`E_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{KL_s^2}}.`$ (1)
In the context of disordered condensed matter systems  this energy scale is known as the Thouless energy and also in this article we will adopt this name.

A more intuitive interpretation of the Thouless energy has been given in the theory of mesoscopic systems . The time scale $`\mathrm{}/E_c`$ is the time for which an initially localized wave packet diffuses all over space. For this reason the eigenvalues are correlated according to Random Matrix Theory for energy differences below $`E_c`$ (known as the ergodic regime). At shorter time scales, different wave functions do not necessarily overlap resulting in a weakening of correlations of the corresponding eigenvalues. For energy differences beyond the inverse elastic collision time $`\tau _e`$ the corresponding eigenvalues are completely uncorrelated (the Poisson ensemble). The domain inbetween $`E_c`$ and $`\mathrm{}/\tau _e`$ is known as the diffusive or Altshuler-Shklovskii domain. A third energy scale is the average level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$. The ratio $`E_c/\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ is identified in mesoscopic physics as the dimensionless conductance. It is equal to the number of subsequent levels correlated according to Random Matrix Theory. The existence of these domains has been confirmed by numerical simulations of the Anderson model .

In QCD the average level spacing is related to the order parameter of the chiral phase transition, the chiral condensate, by the Banks-Casher formula  according to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =\pi /\mathrm{\Sigma }V`$ (with $`V`$ the volume of Euclidean space-time). The prediction from (1) is that the number of eigenvalues correlated according to chRMT is of the order $`F^2\sqrt{V}`$.

For increasing disorder the number of subsequent eigenvalues described by Random Matrix Theory decreases. For strong disorder we expect that all states become localized with uncorrelated eigenvalues. We thus expect a critical value of the disorder for which the three scales, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$, $`E_c`$ and $`\mathrm{}/\tau _e`$ coincide. In particular, the dimensionless conductance becomes volume independent . It has been conjectured  that at this point the eigenvalue correlations are described by a new universality class known as critical statistics (see  for a review). In this class, only the short range correlations of the eigenvalues are described by the usual random matrix ensembles whereas the number variance, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\left(n\right)`$, shows a linear $`n`$-dependence beyond this domain. What is relevant for QCD is that such behavior has been observed in numerical simulations of the 4-dimensional Anderson model .

The volume dependence of the Thouless energy has been investigated by means of lattice QCD simulations  and instanton-liquid simulations . In essence, results from lattice QCD simulations are in complete agreement with theoretical results from partial quenched chiral perturbation theory. However, the results from instanton liquid simulations seem to deviate from the prediction (1) with a scale independent constant $`K`$; in that case the Thouless energy only shows a weak volume dependence. This raises the question whether the Dirac eigenvalues might be described by critical statistics. To address this issue we generalize a random matrix model for critical statistics  to include the chiral symmetry of the QCD partition function (section 2). In section 3 we map our model on a partition function of noninteracting fermions. This model is solved in the semi-classical limit in section 4, where we obtain analytical expressions for the microscopic spectral density and the two-point correlation function. Comparisons with instanton simulations are shown in section 5 and concluding remarks are made in section 6.

## 2 Definition of the Model

The random matrix model of Moshe and Neuberger and Shapiro  is defined by the partition function

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑He^{\mathrm{Tr}HH^{}}𝑑Ue^{b\mathrm{Tr}\left([U,H][U,H]^{}\right)}},`$ (2)
where $`H`$ is a Hermitian and $`U`$ a Unitary $`N\times N`$ matrix. The integration measures $`dH`$ and $`dU`$ are given by the Haar measure. This model can be interpreted as the zero-dimensional limit of the Kazakov-Migdal model . It interpolates between the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble $`(b=0`$) and the Poisson Ensemble $`\left(b\mathrm{}\right)`$. Using the invariance of the measure, the integral over $`U`$ can be replaced by an integral over the eigenvalues of $`U`$. For $`b\mathrm{}`$ this partition function is dominated by matrices $`H`$ that commute with arbitrary diagonal unitary matrices. This set of matrices is the ensemble of diagonal Hermitian matrices which is known as the Poisson ensemble. What is nice about this model is that it preserves the unitary invariance which enables us to take full advantage of the existing random matrix theory methods. In order to obtain a nontrivial $`b`$-dependence in the thermodynamic limit, the parameter $`b`$ has to be scaled as

$`b=h^2N^2.`$ (3)
It has been shown that in this limit the model (2) is equivalent  to both a banded random matrix model  with a power-like cutoff  and to random matrix models with a $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}^2H`$ probability potential . The correlation functions of the latter model have been derived by means of $`q`$-orthogonal polynomials  and Painlevé equations .

In this paper we are interested in chiral random matrix ensembles defined as ensembles of $`N\times N`$ random matrices with the structure

$`D=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& C\\ C^{}& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (6)
where $`C`$ is an arbitrary complex matrix $`n\times \left(n+\nu \right)`$ matrix ($`N=2n+\nu `$). Since the matrix $`D`$ has exactly $`\nu `$ zero eigenvalues $`\nu `$ is interpreted as the topological quantum number. The chiral Gaussian Unitary Ensemble (chGUE) with $`N_f`$ flavors is defined as the ensemble of matrices $`D`$ with matrix elements $`C`$ distributed according to the Gaussian probability distribution

$`P\left(C\right)\stackrel{N_f}{det}\left(D+m\right)e^{N\mathrm{Tr}CC^{}}.`$ (7)
Here, for simplicity we have taken all quark masses equal to $`m`$. The probability distribution $`P\left(C\right)`$ has the unitary invariance

$`CUCV^1,`$ (8)
where $`U`$ and $`V`$ are unitary matrices. Since an arbitrary complex matrix can always be brought to diagonal form by this transformation this invariance allows us to factorize the probability distribution in a product over the eigenvalues of $`C`$ and the unitary matrices that diagonalize $`C`$.

The generalization of the model of Moshe, Neuberger and Shapiro to the chiral ensembles is immediate. The interpolating model is defined by the partition function

$`Z_\nu ={\displaystyle 𝑑C\stackrel{N_f}{det}\left(D+m\right)e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{4h}\mathrm{Tr}D^{}D}𝑑𝒰e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2hN^2}{4}\mathrm{Tr}[D,𝒰][D,𝒰]^{}}},`$ (9)
where $`𝒰`$ has the chiral block structure

$`𝒰=\left(\begin{array}{cc}U& 0\\ 0& V\end{array}\right),`$ (12)
with $`U`$ an $`n\times n`$ unitary matrix and $`V`$ an $`\left(n+\nu \right)\times \left(n+\nu \right)`$ unitary matrix. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`h`$ are constants as in (9) we will refer to this model as the critical chiral unitary ensemble. As we will see below, in order to make contact with the Thouless energy in the partially quenched effective partition function we have to scale $`h`$ with an additional factor $`1/\sqrt{N}`$. The unitary invariance of this partition function follows from the invariance of the Haar measure. In comparison to , an additional factor $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2/h`$ has been included in the probability distribution of the matrix elements. As we will see below, this will guarantee that in the thermodynamic limit the spectral density is $`h`$-independent to leading order in $`h`$. We will also find that the partition function is normalized such that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ represents the chiral condensate by means of the Banks-Casher relation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\pi \rho \left(0\right)/N`$ (with $`\rho \left(0\right)`$ the spectral density around $`\lambda =0`$).

Decomposing into the blocks of $`D`$ and $`𝒰`$ the partition function can be written as

$`Z_\nu =m^\nu {\displaystyle 𝑑C\stackrel{N_f}{det}\left[C^{}C+m^2\right]e^{\left(1+2h^2N^2\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{2h}\mathrm{Tr}CC^{}}𝑑U𝑑Ve^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2hN^2\mathrm{ReTr}UCV^1C^{}}}.`$ (13)
The arbitrary complex matrix $`C`$ can be decomposed according to

$`C=U_1\mathrm{\Lambda }U_2,`$ (14)
and the integral over $`C`$ can be expressed as an integral over the eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$ and the unitary matrices $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$. Up to a irrelevant constant, the Jacobian of this transformation is given by

$`J\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\left\{\lambda _i^2\right\}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\lambda _k^{2\nu +1}.`$ (15)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\left\{\lambda _i^2\right\}\right)={\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{}}\left(\lambda _k^2\lambda _l^2\right)`$ (16)
is the Vandermonde determinant. Because of the unitary invariance, the $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$ dependence in the second exponent can be absorbed in a redefinition of $`U`$and $`V`$, and the integrations over $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$ just result in an overall constant. Remarkably, the integral over $`U`$ and $`V`$ in (13) is an Itzykson-Zuber type integral which is known analytically

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑U𝑑Ve^{z\mathrm{ReTr}U\mathrm{\Lambda }V^1\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=C{\displaystyle \frac{det_{k,l}\left|I_\nu \left(z\lambda _k\lambda _l\right)\right|}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\left\{\lambda _i^2\right\}\right)_{k=1}^n\lambda _k^{2\nu }}}.`$ (17)
The Vandermonde determinants cancel resulting in the partition function

$`Z_\nu =m^\nu {\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}d\lambda _k\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\lambda _k^2+m^2\right)^{N_f}\underset{k,l}{det}\left|\left(\lambda _k\lambda _l\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\left(\frac{1}{2}+h^2N^2\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{2h}\left(\lambda _k^2+\lambda _l^2\right)}I_\nu \left(h\mathrm{\Sigma }^2N^2\lambda _k\lambda _l\right)\right|}.`$
(18)
The instanton-liquid Dirac spectra that will be described by this model were obtained in the quenched approximation and for zero total topological charge. Therefore we will not attempt to solve this model for arbitrary $`N_f`$ but instead focus on the technically simpler case of $`N_f=0`$. Since the topological charge does not give rise to additional complications we will consider the case of arbitrary $`\nu `$. Below we will thus analyze the joint probability distribution

$`\rho _\nu (\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)\underset{k,l}{det}\left|\left(\lambda _k\lambda _l\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\left(\frac{1}{2}+h^2N^2\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{2h}\left(\lambda _k^2+\lambda _l^2\right)}I_\nu \left(h\mathrm{\Sigma }^2N^2\lambda _k\lambda _l\right)\right|.`$
(19)
## 3 Fermi-Gas Representation of the Interpolating chiral Random Matrix Model

In this section we rewrite the joint probability distribution (19) in terms of the fermionic $`n`$-particle matrix element

$`\rho _\nu (x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)Cx_1\mathrm{}x_n\left|e^{\beta H}\right|x_1\mathrm{}x_n,`$ (20)
where $`H`$ is the separable Hamiltonian

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left(_k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4\nu ^21}{4x_k^2}}+\omega ^2x_k^2\right),`$ (21)
and $`C`$ is an irrelevant constant. The eigenfunctions of the single particle Hamiltonian are known in terms of Laguerre polynomials. Specifically,

$`\left(_x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4\nu ^21}{4x^2}}+\omega ^2x^2\right)\varphi _n=\omega _n\varphi _n,`$ (22)
has the solutions

$`\omega _n`$ $`=`$ $`\left(4n+2\nu +2\right)\omega ,`$ (23)
$`\varphi _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\omega ^{1/4}}{\sqrt{h}_n}}e^{\omega x^2/2}\left(x\sqrt{\omega }\right)^{\nu +\frac{1}{2}}L_n^\nu \left(x^2\omega \right).`$ (24)
The normalization factor $`h_n=\left(n+\nu \right)!/n!`$ ensures that the $`\varphi _n`$ are normalized to unity

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\varphi _n\left(x\right)\varphi _n\left(x\right)𝑑x=1.`$ (25)
Using completeness, the many-particle matrix element can be written as

$`x_1\mathrm{}x_n\left|e^{\beta H}\right|x_1\mathrm{}x_n=\underset{ij}{det}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\varphi _n\left(x_i\right)e^{\beta \omega _n}\varphi _n\left(x_j\right)`$ (26)
The sum over $`n`$ can be performed analytically using the identity

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_n^\nu \left(x\right)L_n^\nu \left(y\right)z^n}{h_n}}={\displaystyle \frac{\left(xyz\right)^{\nu /2}}{1z}}\mathrm{exp}\left(z{\displaystyle \frac{x+y}{1z}}\right)I_\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{xyz}}{1z}}\right).`$ (27)
With $`z=\mathrm{exp}\left(4\beta \omega \right)`$ this results in

$`x_1\mathrm{}x_n\left|e^{\beta H}\right|x_1\mathrm{}x_n=\underset{ij}{det}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \sqrt{x_ix_j}}{\mathrm{sinh}2\beta \omega }}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega \mathrm{cosh}2\beta \omega }{2\mathrm{sinh}2\beta \omega }}\left(x_i^2+x_j^2\right)\right)I_\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mathrm{sinh}2\beta \omega }}x_ix_j\right)\right|.`$
Comparing this expression with (19) we find that

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{4h^2N^2+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{2h}},`$ (29)
$`\mathrm{cosh}2\beta \omega `$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h^2N^2}}.`$ (30)
The joint probability distribution of the eigenvalues is thus given by an $`n`$particle diagonal matrix element of the density operator. The average spectral density is equal to the average particle density. It is obtained by integrating over the positions of all particles except one. The integral can be performed by rewriting the matrix elements (26) in terms of a sum over permutations $`\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _1<\mathrm{}<\omega _n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \pi ^{}}{}}\sigma \left(\pi \right)\sigma \left(\pi ^{}\right)\varphi _{\omega _{\pi \left(1\right)}}\left(x_1\right)\mathrm{}\varphi _{\omega _{\pi \left(n\right)}}\left(x_n\right)e^{\beta _k\omega _k}\varphi _{\omega _{\pi ^{}\left(1\right)}}\left(x_1\right)\mathrm{}\varphi _{\omega _{\pi ^{}\left(n\right)}}\left(x_n\right),`$ (31)
where $`\sigma ()`$ is the sign of the permutation. Performing the integrations over $`x_2,\mathrm{},x_n`$, by orthogonality we find that the only nonzero contribution is for $`\pi =\pi ^{}`$. Then the remaining sum over $`\pi \left(\omega _1\right)`$ is just a sum over $`\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n`$. For the canonical ensemble we thus find the one-particle density,

$`\rho \left(x\right){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\delta \left(xx_k\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_n}}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _1<\mathrm{}<\omega _N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left|\varphi _{\omega _i}\left(x_1\right)\right|^2e^{\beta _k\omega _k}.`$ (32)
In an occupation number representation this can be rewritten as

$`\rho \left(x\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_n}}{\displaystyle \underset{_in_i=n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_i\left|\varphi _{\omega _i}\left(x\right)\right|^2e^{\beta _kn_i\omega _k},`$ (33)
where the sum is over all $`n_i\{0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\}`$ subject to the condition given below the summation sign and the canonical partition function is given by

$`Z_n={\displaystyle \underset{_in_i=n}{}}e^{\beta _in_i\omega _i}.`$ (34)
For completeness we give the following exact expressions for the canonical partition function

$`Z_n={\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\beta \omega n^22\beta \nu \omega n}}{\left(1e^{4\beta \omega }\right)\left(1e^{8\beta \omega }\right)\mathrm{}\left(1e^{4n\beta \omega }\right)}},`$ (35)
and the one-particle density

$`\rho \left(x\right)={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left|\varphi _k\left(x\right)\right|^2{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(1\right)^re^{4\beta \omega \left(krnr+\frac{1}{2}r\left(r+1\right)\right)}{\displaystyle \underset{p=Nr}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(1e^{4\beta \omega p}\right).`$ (36)
They have been obtained by writing the constraint $`_in_i=n`$ as

$`\delta \left(N{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_i\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta e^{i\theta \left(N_in_i\right)}},`$ (37)
and summing the geometric series after using the explicit expression (24) for the $`\omega _n`$.

Instead of working with the canonical ensemble we eliminate the constraint on the sum over the $`n_i`$ by working with the grand canonical ensemble. The grand canonical partition function is defined by

$`Z={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}z^nZ_n={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left(1+e^{\beta \omega _k+\beta \mu }\right),`$ (38)
where $`z=e^{\beta \mu }`$ is the fugacity. The one particle density in the grand canonical ensemble is given by

$`\rho \left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}z^nZ_n\rho \left(x\right)`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_i\{0,1\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_i\left|\varphi _i\left(x\right)\right|^2e^{\beta _kn_k\left(\omega _k\mu \right)},`$
which can be evaluated to be

$`\rho \left(x\right)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left|\varphi _i\left(x\right)\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\beta \left(\omega _i\mu \right)}}}.`$ (40)
The fugacity $`z=e^{\beta \mu }`$ is determined by the condition that the total number of particles is equal to $`n`$, i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\beta \left(\omega _i\mu \right)}}}=n.`$ (41)
The connected two-particle correlation function is defined by

$`R_2(x,y)={\displaystyle \underset{kl}{}}\delta \left(xx_k\right)\delta \left(yy_l\right)\rho \left(x\right)\rho \left(y\right)`$ (42)
It can be obtained from the $`n`$-particle matrix element (20) by integration over all coordinates (eigenvalues) except $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. The remaining sum over $`\omega _{\pi \left(1\right)}`$ and $`\omega _{\pi \left(2\right)}`$ can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _1<\mathrm{}<\omega _N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\varphi _{\omega _i}\left(x_1\right)\varphi _{\omega _j}\left(x_2\right)\left[\varphi _{\omega _i}\left(x_1\right)\varphi _{\omega _j}\left(x_2\right)\varphi _{\omega _j}\left(x_1\right)\varphi _{\omega _i}\left(x_2\right)\right]e^{\beta _k\omega _k}.`$ (43)
The diagonal term, $`i=j`$, is zero allowing us to include it in the summation. The first term can then be identified as the square of the average particle density. It is the disconnected contribution to the two-particle correlation function. The connected part of the two-particle distribution function can thus be written as

$`R_2(x_1,x_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_n}}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _1<\mathrm{}<\omega _n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\varphi _{\omega _i}\left(x_1\right)\varphi _{\omega _j}\left(x_2\right)\varphi _{\omega _j}\left(x_1\right)\varphi _{\omega _i}\left(x_2\right)e^{\beta _i\omega _i}.`$ (44)
This correlation function does not include the contributions from the self-correlations of the eigenvalues. After all, our starting point was the joint distribution of different eigenvalues. In an occupation number representation $`R_2(x_1,x_2)`$ simplifies to

$`R_2(x_1,x_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_n}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1+n_2+\mathrm{}=n}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_i\varphi _{\omega _i}\left(x_1\right)\varphi _{\omega _i}\left(x_2\right)\right]^2e^{\beta _kn_k\omega _l}.`$ (45)
Using this representation, the two-particle density in the grand canonical ensemble is found to be

$`R_2(x,y)=\left|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\varphi _i\left(x\right)\varphi _i\left(y\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\beta \left(\omega _i\mu \right)}}}\right|^2.`$ (46)
Using similar manipulations as for the canonical partition function and the corresponding one-particle density it is possible to simplify the exact analytical expression for the connected two-particle correlation function in the canonical ensemble,

$`R_2(x,y)={\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}\left|\varphi _k\left(x\right)\varphi _l\left(y\right)\right|^2{\displaystyle \underset{r,s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(1\right)^re^{4\beta \omega \left(kr+lsn\left(r+s\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left(r+s\right)\left(r+s+1\right)\right)}{\displaystyle \underset{p=Nrs}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(1q^p\right).`$
This result can be used to compare the two ensembles but we will not address this question in this article.

## 4 Semiclassical Calculation

In this section we calculate the microscopic spectral density and the two-point correlation function using semi-classical methods starting from the expressions for the grand canonical ensemble derived in previous section. We are thus interested in the region around $`x=0`$. Because of the hard edge at $`x=0`$ we cannot simply do a WKB approximation by replacing the wave functions by plane waves but instead have to use Bessel functions. This follows immediately from the wave equation for $`x0`$,

$`\left[_x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4\nu ^21}{4x^2}}\right]\sqrt{x}J_\nu \left(kx\right)=k^2\sqrt{x}J_\nu \left(kx\right).`$ (48)
Alternatively, one can exploit the asymptotic relation between Laguerre polynomials and Bessel functions.

### 4.1 The Microscopic Spectral Density

Taking into account the normalization of the Bessel functions, $`_0^{\mathrm{}}k𝑑k\sqrt{xx^{}}J_\nu \left(kx\right)J_\nu \left(kx^{}\right)=\delta \left(xx^{}\right)`$, to fix the constants in the integration measure, we arrive at the following expression for the single particle density

$`\rho \left(x\right)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}kx𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{J_\nu ^2\left(kx\right)}{1+e^{\beta k^2\beta \mu +\beta \omega ^2x^2}}}.`$ (49)
The chemical potential is determined by the condition $`𝑑x\rho \left(x\right)=n`$. Since this integral is over all $`x`$, the use of the semi-classical expressions for the wave functions is not justified but instead we have to rely on the exact wave functions. In the limit, $`\beta \mu \omega `$, the sum over $`i`$ in (41) can be replaced be an integral which can be performed analytically resulting in

$`e^{\left(2\nu +2\right)\beta \omega \beta \mu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{4n\beta \omega }1}}.`$ (50)
In the limit $`n\beta \omega 1`$ the semi-classical expression for the spectral density is thus given by

$`\rho \left(x\right)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}kx𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{J_\nu ^2\left(kx\right)}{1+e^{\beta k^2+\beta \omega ^2x^2\left(4n2\nu 2\right)\beta \omega }}}.`$ (51)
In this limit the semiclassical expression (49) leads to the correct value of the chemical potential. Below we will show for $`n\beta \omega 1`$ and finite $`x`$ (in units of the average level spacing) the term $`\beta \omega ^2x^2`$ can be neglected relative to $`4n\beta \omega `$.

An estimate for the average spectral density near zero but many level spacings away from $`x=0`$ is obtained by using the leading order asymptotic expansion of the Bessel functions and calculating the integral in (51) in the limit of a degenerate Fermi-gas. This results in

$`\overline{\rho }={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{k}}{\pi }},`$ (52)
where $`\overline{k}\sqrt{4n\omega }`$ is the “radius”of the Fermi-sphere. At fixed $`h`$ in the limit $`n1`$ we have

$`\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }^2n\mathrm{and}\beta \omega {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2hn}}.`$ (53)
Using these results and invoking the Banks-Casher formula the parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be identified as the chiral condensate,

$`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \overline{\rho }}{2n}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ (54)
We will now show that our approximations are self-consistent. The condition that we are close to the degenerate Fermi gas can be written as $`\delta k/\overline{k}1`$. We thus have to impose the requirement that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta k}{\overline{k}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta \overline{k}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{h}{4}}1.`$ (55)
The conditions $`kx1`$ and $`\beta \omega ^2x^24n\beta \omega `$ can be combined into

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4n}}\omega x^24n,`$ (56)
or, in units of the average level spacing, $`x=u/\overline{\rho }`$, the range of validity of the above asymptotic results is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4n}}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2\pi ^2}{4n}}4n.`$ (57)
Because of the second inequality it is justified to neglect the term $`\beta \omega ^2x^2`$ which we will do in the remainder of this section.

By partial integration the expression (51) for the spectral density can be rewritten as

$`\rho \left(x\right)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{\beta xk^3\left[J_\nu ^2\left(kx\right)J_{\nu +1}\left(kx\right)J_{\nu 1}\left(kx\right)\right]}{4\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\beta }{2}\left(k^24n\omega \right)}}.`$ (58)
Using the Banks-Casher formula one finds that the chiral condensate depends on $`h`$. The leading order correction is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(h\right)}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}=1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{96}}h^2+\mathrm{}.`$ (59)
The corresponding spectral density will be denoted by $`\overline{\rho }\left(h\right)2n\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(h\right)/\pi `$. The microscopic spectral density is then given by

$`\rho _s\left(u\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(h\right)}}\rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2n\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(h\right)}}\right),`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(h\right)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\rho _s^0\left(ku\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(h\right)\right)}{h\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\left(k^21\right)}{h}}}.`$
where $`\rho _s^0`$ is the microscopic spectral density for the chGUE

$`\rho _s^0\left(u\right)={\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}\left[J_\nu ^2\left(u\right)J_{\nu +1}\left(u\right)J_{\nu 1}\left(u\right)\right].`$ (61)
The interpretation is clear. The oscillations in the microscopic spectral density due to the Bessel functions are smeared out over a distance $`hu`$ by the integration over $`k`$. The oscillations are thus visible up to a distance of $`u1/h`$.

In the limit of small $`h`$ the main contribution to the integral comes from the region around the Fermi-surface. In this limit we can derive an approximate formula correct to order $`h^2`$ at fixed $`uh`$. To this end we change integration variables in (60) according to $`k=1+ht`$ neglecting terms that are sub-leading in $`h`$. This results in

$`\rho _s\left(u\right)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _s^0\left(u+hut\right)}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(2t\right)}}.`$ (62)
Next we Taylor expand the microscopic spectral density as follows

$`\rho _s^0\left(u+hut\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _s^0\left(u\right)`$ (63)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}hut[J_\nu ^2+J_{\nu +1}J_{\nu 1})]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(hut\right)^2}{2!}}\left[4J_\nu J_{\nu 1}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{u}}\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(hut\right)^3}{3!}}[4(J_{\nu 1}^2J_{\nu +1}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{g_1}{u}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{u^2}})]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(hut\right)^4}{4!}}[4^2J_\nu J_{\nu 1}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_1}{u^1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_2}{u^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_3}{u^3}})],`$
where the terms that will be neglected are denoted by $`f_i`$, $`g_i`$, $`h_i`$, etc.. At small values of $`u`$ these terms are of order $`h^2u`$ whereas for large $`u`$ they are suppressed by order $`1/u^2`$ (notice the factor $`u`$ in (61)). By inspection one easily finds that the neglected terms are at most of order $`h^2`$ independent of the value of $`u`$. The leading order terms can be easily resummed to

$`\rho _s^0\left(u+hut\right)=\rho _s^0\left(u\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_\nu \left(u\right)J_{\nu 1}\left(u\right)\left[\mathrm{cos}\left(2hut\right)1\right]+O\left(h^2\right)+\mathrm{terms}\mathrm{odd}\mathrm{in}t.`$ (64)
The integral over $`t`$ in (62) can be performed analytically resulting in

$`\rho _s\left(u\right)=\rho _s^0\left(u\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_\nu \left(u\right)J_{\nu 1}\left(u\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi hu}{2\mathrm{sinh}\left(\pi hu/2\right)}}1\right]+O\left(h^2\right).`$ (65)
In Fig. 1 we compare the exact expression for the microscopic spectral density (60) to this approximate formula. We observe that even for a value of $`h`$ as large as $`h=0.3`$ the two results are very close.

### 4.2 Two-Point Function

In this subsection we derive a semi-classical expression for the two-point correlation function. To this end the wave functions in the expression (46) for the connected two-point correlation function are replaced by Bessel functions,

$`R_2(x,y)=\left|{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}k𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{xy}J_\nu \left(kx\right)J_\nu \left(ky\right)}{1+e^{\beta k^24n\beta \omega }}}\right|^2.`$ (66)
By partial integration with respect to $`k`$ the correlation function can be expressed as

$`R_2(x,y)=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\rho }}{h}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}k^2𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{K(x\pi \overline{\rho }k,y\pi \overline{\rho }k)}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\left(k^21\right)/h\right)}}\right|^2,`$ (67)
where $`K(x,y)`$ is the two-point kernel for the chGUE given by

$`K(x,y)=\sqrt{xy}{\displaystyle \frac{xJ_{\nu +1}\left(x\right)J_\nu \left(y\right)yJ_\nu \left(x\right)J_{\nu +1}\left(y\right)}{x^2y^2}}.`$ (68)
To order $`h^2`$ the correlation function can be simplified to

$`R_2(x,y)=\left|\overline{\rho }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{K(x\pi \overline{\rho }(1+ht),y\pi \overline{\rho }(1+ht)}{\mathrm{cosh}^22t}}\right|^2+O\left(h^2\right),`$ (69)
In the same way as for the one-point function we now will derive an approximate formula for the two-point function correct to order $`h^2`$ at fixed value of $`uh`$. This can be done conveniently by using the following summation formula

$`J_{\nu +1}\left(x+xh\right)J_\nu \left(y+yh\right)`$ $`\pm `$ $`J_\nu \left(x+xh\right)J_{\nu +1}\left(y+yh\right)`$ (70)
$``$ $`\left[J_{\nu +1}\left(x\right)J_\nu \left(y\right)\pm J_\nu \left(x\right)J_{\nu +1}\left(y\right)\right]\mathrm{cos}\left[\left(x+y\right)h\right]`$
$`+`$ $`\left[J_\nu \left(x\right)J_\nu \left(y\right)J_{\nu +1}\left(x\right)J_{\nu +1}\left(y\right)\right]\mathrm{sin}\left[\left(x+y\right)h\right].`$
This formula has been derived by means of a Taylor expansion and a subsequent resummation employing the following approximate derivative formulas

$`_k^{2n}[J_{\nu +1}\left(kx\right)J_\nu \left(ky\right)`$ $`\pm `$ $`J_\nu \left(kx\right)J_{\nu +1}\left(ky\right)]`$ (71)
$``$ $`\left(1\right)^n\left(x\pm y\right)^{2n}\left[J_{\nu +1}\left(kx\right)J_\nu \left(ky\right)\pm J_\nu \left(kx\right)J_{\nu +1}\left(ky\right)\right],`$
and

$`_k^{2n1}[J_{\nu +1}\left(kx\right)J_\nu \left(ky\right)`$ $`\pm `$ $`J_{\nu +1}\left(kx\right)J_\nu \left(ky\right)]`$ (72)
$``$ $`\left(1\right)^{n+1}\left(x\pm y\right)^{2n1}\left[J_\nu \left(x\right)J_\nu \left(y\right)J_{\nu +1}\left(x\right)J_{\nu +1}\left(y\right)\right].`$
They have been obtained by means of recursion relations for Bessel functions neglecting terms that are suppressed by order $`1/x`$ or $`1/y`$. One can easily show that the combined powers of $`x`$ and $`y`$ in the prefactor is always larger than the combined powers of $`x`$ and $`y`$ that have been neglected. Since only even terms in $`t`$ contribute to the integral in (69) our final result for the two-point function, correct to order $`h^2`$, is given by

$`R_2(x,y)=`$ $`\overline{\rho }^2|{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2h\overline{\rho }\sqrt{xy}}{8}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{J_{\nu +1}\left(x\pi \overline{\rho }\right)J_\nu \left(y\pi \overline{\rho }\right)+J_\nu \left(x\pi \overline{\rho }\right)J_{\nu +1}\left(y\pi \overline{\rho }\right)}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\left(x+y\right)\pi ^2h\overline{\rho }/4\right)}}\right]`$ (73)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2h\overline{\rho }\sqrt{xy}}{8}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{J_{\nu +1}\left(x\pi \overline{\rho }\right)J_\nu \left(y\pi \overline{\rho }\right)J_\nu \left(x\pi \overline{\rho }\right)J_{\nu +1}\left(y\pi \overline{\rho }\right)}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\left(xy\right)\pi ^2h\overline{\rho }/4\right)}}\right]|^2`$
In the limit $`x,y\left|xy\right|`$ the analytical result for the two-point function of the model of Moshe, Neuberger and Shapiro  is recovered from the leading order asymptotic expansion of the Bessel functions. For unitary invariant ensembles, it can be shown that the result of  for critical statistics and Wigner-Dyson statistics are the only two possibilities . At this moment it is not clear whether this argument can be extended to the chiral unitary ensembles as well.

The number variance of the eigenvalues near $`x=0`$ is obtained by integrating the two-point correlation function including the self-correlations

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\left(L\right)={\displaystyle _0^{L/\overline{\rho }\left(h\right)}}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{L/\overline{\rho }\left(h\right)}}𝑑y\left[\delta \left(xy\right)\rho \left(x\right)+R_2(x,y)\right].`$ (74)
We study its asymptotic behavior in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. Starting from the expressions (58) and (66), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\left(L\right)`$ can be simplified by means of an orthogonality relation for Bessel functions. To leading order in $`h`$ we find

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\left(L\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{L/\overline{\rho }\left(h\right)}}x𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}k𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{J_\nu ^2\left(kx\right)}{4\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\beta }{2}\left(k^24n\omega \right)}}`$ (75)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\overline{\rho }2\pi \beta \overline{k}}}={\displaystyle \frac{h}{4}}L.`$
The same asymptotic result can be derived from the analytical result (73) (In this case the average spectral density does not depend on $`h`$ (see 62).). Such linear term, first proposed in , is believed to be characteristic for universal critical statistics  valid at the mobility edge and has been related to the multifractality of the wave functions .

In Fig. 2 we compare the number variance derived from the approximate analytical result (73) and from the exact result (66). Clearly, even for a value of $`h`$ as large as 0.3 the two curve are barely distinguishable.

The asymptotic linear behavior of the number variance seems to be contradicted by the sum rule

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\left[\delta \left(xy\right)\rho \left(x\right)+R_2(x,y)\right]=0.`$ (76)
The resolution of this paradox  is probably best illustrated by considering the Poisson ensemble for $`n`$ uncorrelated eigenvalues with average spacing $`\overline{\rho }`$. To satisfy the sum-rule we have that $`R_2(x,y)=\overline{\rho }/n`$ instead of zero for uncorrelated eigenvalues resulting in the number variance $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\left(L\right)=LL^2/n`$. We conclude that an asymptotic linear behavior is possible if the thermodynamic limit is taken before the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$.

To make contact with the partially quenched effective partition function, for which the number of subsequent eigenvalues around zero that are correlated according to the chGUE scales as $`\sqrt{n}`$ , we have to scale $`h`$ as $`hh/\sqrt{n}`$. In this limit microscopic universality  is recovered for the interpolating chiral unitary ensemble.

## 5 Comparison with Instanton Simulations

Spectral correlations have been studied in great detail for both lattice QCD simulations  and instanton-liquid simulations  (see  for a recent review). In lattice QCD they were studied by means of the disconnected scalar susceptibility , and complete agreement with partially quenched chiral perturbation theory was found. In particular, it was shown that the number of subsequent eigenvalues around zero described by chRMT scales as $`F^2\sqrt{V}`$. In instanton simulations a weaker volume dependence of the number of such eigenvalues was observed suggesting an approach to a critical point similar to a localization transition. Indeed the multifractality index of the fermionic wave functions was found to be nonzero. We thus compare the instanton data with the model in previous section at fixed value of the parameter $`h`$. Results for the number variance, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\left(L\right)`$ versus $`L`$ are shown in Fig. 3. The closed and open circles represent results  for the eigenvalues of the Dirac operator with field configurations given by an ensemble of instantons and an equal number of anti-instantons with a total density of 1 $`fm^4`$. The total number of (anti-)instantons is given in the label of the figure. In the same figure we show the result for the chGUE (dotted curve) and results for the model (66) for $`h=0.18`$ (full curve) and $`h=0.23`$ (dashed curve). We observe that both the slope and the range of agreement with the chGUE curve only shows a week volume dependence. Outside this domain the data show a linear $`L`$-dependence. Both features are nicely reproduced by the critical Random Matrix Model. The slightly positive curvature of the instanton data might be a remnant of the $`L^2`$ dependence predicted for the Altshuler-Shklovsky domain .

## 6 Conclusions

We have analyzed a chiral random matrix model that interpolates between the chGUE and the chiral Poisson ensemble. This model is a generalization of a model originally proposed by Moshe, Neuberger and Shapiro . It has been mapped onto a gas of non-interacting fermions and was solved by means of statistical mechanics methods. To leading order in the deviation from the chGUE we have obtained compact analytical expressions for the microscopic spectral density and the two-point level correlation function. We have shown that this critical chiral random matrix model provides a good description of the level correlations of Dirac eigenvalues for gauge field configurations given by a liquid of instantons.

The number variance of the critical chiral random matrix model shows a linear $`L`$-dependence for a large $`L`$ (in units of the average level spacing) whereas it coincides with the chGUE result for small values of $`L`$. The characteristic feature is that the transition point between these two domains is stable in the thermodynamic limit. This situation is very different for a non-linear $`\sigma `$-model description of disordered systems where this transition point or the Thouless energy is determined by the competition between the mass term and the kinetic term. In that case one finds the scaling behavior $`E_cD/L_s^2`$ with $`D`$ the diffusion constant and $`L_s`$ the linear size of the sample. The theoretical reason for a scale independent dimensionless conductance (i.e. the Thouless energy in units of the average level spacing) is that the localization length diverges at a critical value of the disorder. In the approach to this limit the diffusion constant has to become scale dependent. If $`E_c`$, in units of the average level spacing, becomes scale independent the diffusion constant has to be scale dependent leading to a multi-fractal scaling of the wave functions.

The weak volume dependence and the linear number variance observed in correlations of eigenvalues of the QCD Dirac operator with instanton liquid gauge field configurations suggests that we are dealing with a critical system close to a localization transition. Indeed the same numerical simulations suggest a small nonzero multifractality index of the wave-functions. On the other hand, the dimensionless conductance found in lattice QCD simulations scales according to our expectations from chiral perturbation theory. At this moment we do not have a good explanation for this discrepancy. It could simply be that the expected scaling behavior is only recovered for much large volumes in instanton simulations. Indeed, a very slow approach to the thermodynamic limit has been found for other quantities such a quenched chiral logarithms. Clearly, more work has to be done to resolve this issue.

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the US DOE grant DE-FG-88ER40388. One of us (A.M.G.) was supported by “laCaixa Fellowship Program”. J.J.M.V. thanks the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington for its hospitality and partial support during the completion of this work. Dominique Toublan is thanked for a critical reading of the manuscript.


text:
# PAL: Pertinence Action Language

## General Information

The PAL system (standing for Pertinence Action Language) is an interpreter of a causal language for describing action domains and it has been proved in PCs under Linux and Sun workstations under SunOS. It is written in C (using GNU’s compiler gcc 2.7.2.1) and sized in 150K of source code, distributed in around 6500 lines. The executable is sized in 65/80K (depending on the platform). The programming effort can be estimated in about 1 man/years.

## Description of the System

The purpose of PAL is to show the effects of using the concept of Pertinence (formally introduced in (?)) in problems of Reasoning about Actions and Change, and to help in establishing semantic features about the logical formalization of this concept. The features of Pertinence have been extracted from a practical tool for Temporal Expert Systems (mainly for the medical domain(???)) called Medtool (?) which uses a formalism very close to the current one used in PAL.

The tool is initially intended for solving temporal projection problems, being planning problems reduced to small sized ones, but we expect to use it as a starting point for future efficiency improvements.

## Applying the System

The system can be tested in two different ways, both available in the web page

```
http://www.dc.fi.udc.es/ai/~cabalar/pal

```

The two options are:

1. For an easy to use way, a simple web-based interface (PalWeb) has been implemented. It is enough with writing a domain description in the input box (or just selecting one of the preinstalled examples) and pressing the Process button to see the results.
2. The other option is downloading the source code (file pal1.2.tar.gz) and compiling it in a local machine. To this aim, follow the next steps:

```
gunzip pal1.2.tar.gz
tar -xvf pal1.2.tar
cd pal1.2
make

```

Finally, for testing the system, try any of the files in the examples directory:

```
pal < examples/yale.pal

```

We may also use the executable in the following way:

```
pal examples/yale.pal

```

so that standard input remains open to accept new queries or new action executions, providing a rudimentary interpreter.

### Methodology

No general methodology has been developed by now, although due to the closeness to Medtool, many methodological aspects can be directly inherited from practical experience in Medtool expert systems design.

### Specifics

The use of logic is the main feature of PAL with respect to previous work done on Medtool expert systems design. The purpose of PAL is to help in the logical formalization for these practical systems so that new formalism features can be incorporated or new tasks like explanation or planning can be done in a coherent way.

As an action formalism, the main features of PAL are:

1. It is narrative-based. Each model of a PAL theory has the shape of a finite sequence of situations.
2. It is a causal formalism. Rules describing the domain behavior are causal rules. Pertinence acts in a similar way to Lin’s $`Caused`$ predicate or to occlusion, although there are fundamental differences (see (?)), especially on how rule conditions are interpreted.
3. It allows concurrent actions.
4. Actions and fluents are functional, though limited to finite domains and codomains. Arithmetic expressions relating actions and fluents are allowed.
5. It allows both “real” execution and hypothetical reasoning. There exists a real narrative which can be updated in an execution trace and whose (current and past) results can be consulted at any time. Hypothetical reasoning allows to test the results of an hypothetical execution, or to find plans that satisfy a given expression for a future situation.

Each high level domain description is translated into a set of ground rules using a propositional representation with two kinds of atoms: $`holds(Q,value,situation)`$ and $`pertinent(Q,situation)`$ (being $`Q`$ a fluent or an action). The system is intended for testing different semantics for these ground rules. To this aim, the rules behavior has been implemented in a separated module so that it can be easily changed. The first approach we have done is a version based on Well Founded Semantics, since it is the closest one to the way in which the practical tool currently works. This well founded version interprets the set of rules as an objective logic program, leaving default negation just for minimizing $`pertinent`$ atoms. The iterative algorithm for computing the well founded model has been specialized so that pertinence minimization and inertia axioms are, in fact, executed implicitly.

A second option that will be soon available is using as “semantics” the inference mechanism of Medtool (which was already implemented in a C library known as Medtool-Connection). Of course, this would be an operational or procedural solution, but it is useful for comparing the practical tool results with the different logic-based versions. We also expect to incorporate a future Stable Models version (calling to smodels) and a Completion based version (using some SAT prover, following a similar technique to CCALC).

The work could influence both areas of Reasoning about Actions and Temporal Expert Systems. The interest for the former could be theoretical (the introduction of pertinence in action domains) but also practical, since PAL formalization could eventually allow studying Medtool expert systems as action theories. The interest for Temporal Expert Systems is that PAL provides an underlying logical formalization. Other less related areas could also be influenced. For instance, a strong relationship between Medtool practical formalism and Systems Theory formalizations like DEVS (Discrete Events Systems Specification) has been established ((??)). Finally, we are also studying the relation between the use of the real narrative done in PAL and approaches based on Temporal Deductive Databases.

### Users and Useability

In order to use the high level language, the user does not need to be an expert in logic, although some notions about pertinence and logic-based systems is recommendable. The basic syntax is quite direct, following the style of Medtool formalism, on which PAL is inspired. In fact, Medtool formalism is currently being used by the experts (mainly physicians), so that they directly develop the expert systems, under some minimal assistance. However, in order to use PAL as a comparison tool for different semantic implementations, a deep knowledge about Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming semantics will be required.

As an example of flexibility, although it is not one of the initial purposes, PAL can also be indirectly used as a Logic Programming tool under Well Founded semantics. An example which includes the transformation steps to this aim can be found in PAL distribution (file wf.pal).

The PAL system is currently under continuous development and has only been used by our research group until now. However, Medtool formalism, on which PAL is inspired, has been used for constructing several real Expert Systems(???), but also in the Financial domain.

## Evaluating the System

### Benchmarks

Due to the premature stage of PAL, little comparative evaluation work has been done yet. The kind of properties usually evaluated in actions formalizations are more theoretical, especially related to flexibility and elaboration tolerance, than practical, like memory usage or response time, although several approaches are already obtaining successful results for these last parameters. As explained in the description section, many usual action topics like, for instance, qualifications, defeasible rules or delayed effects, are not covered yet by PAL, although their introduction is a subject of current research. However, we think that the current version provides enough expressivity for a practical use, properly dealing, for instance, with the frame and ramification problems (as shown by standard examples included in files yale.pal and suitcase.pal).

Unfortunately, there are not too many benchmarks for testing action approaches yet. As an exception, we could mention the recent initiative of the Logic Modelling Workshop111http://www.ida.liu.se/ext/etai/lmw/, whose examples will be studied under PAL formalization.

As for PAL time performance, we could mention that the system works acceptably well for temporal projection problems. For instance, the execution of 5 transitions for the domain example counter.pal, which contains a causal chain of 1000 fluents, is performed in 0.85 seconds222All times obtained in a 133MHz Pentium with 32M of RAM and under Linux Slackware 2.0.29.. Also, some small planning problems can be performed in an reasonable way. For instance, it takes 0.42 seconds for finding all the 781 ways for opening Lin’s suitcase in 5 situations (allowing concurrent actions and no execution of any action). Planning may become excessively hard, since it is attached in a naive way, generating all the possible combinations of actions and allowing concurrent execution. A nonconcurrent actions option has been added for better planning performance in most usual domains. Thus, for instance, a solution of 11 situations long for the missionaries and cannibals problem is found in 0.13 seconds, and the 4 solutions for that length are obtained in 0.7 seconds.

With respect to user-friendliness, the main advantage is the comfortability of domain descriptions involving numerical variables (limited to finite and discrete domains). For instance, the missionaries and cannibals problem can be described using 9 high level rules. With respect to applying the system, the current version is mainly batch-oriented, although it can be used as a rudimentary interpreter by entering sentences from standard input. We plan to extend this capability to a real interpreter interface.

### Comparison

As many action approaches, the PAL system can compete with planning systems, particularly in the expressivity of their representational formalism. However, no serious comparison to usual planning benchmarks has been established yet.

### Problem Size

Temporal projection domains can be reasonably handled for thousands of fluents. Planning problems, however, are quite limited yet, specially when dealing with a small/medium number of situations and concurrent execution of actions.

The system must be considered as a prototype, but several efficiency improvements (goal-directed planning, taking benefit of particular structures in the rules, heuristics, etc) are currently under study and could allow handling larger planning problems.

## An example: the blocks world

In this last section, we include, as a piece of syntax example, a possible representation of the blocks world domain. We will not provide an exhaustive description of PAL syntax, but will emphasize instead those most relevant features of the formalism. A PAL domain description consists of two parts: declarations and sentences. In the declarations part, we define the sets of fluents, actions and rules, using perhaps some auxiliary definitions of constants and sets to this aim. For instance, we will declare the following sets:

```
sets
  block = [1,4];
  location = block + {table};

```

Intuitively, these lines define the set of blocks as the integers from 1 to 4, and the set of locations as any block or the table. A set is usually defined as a group of elements embraced by {…} , like for instance the singleton set {table}. Elements in a set can be both symbol names (an identifier with a lower-case initial, like table) or integer numbers. An alternative way of defining a set is using the interval notation, so that  is equivalent to {1,2,3,4}. Set expressions can be constructed using binary operators +,-,\* standing for union, difference and intersection respectively.

Actions and fluents are considered to be functions. Thus, an action or fluent definition consists of the descriptions of its domain and codomain using the standard mathematical notation:

```
f: set1 x set2 x set3 -> set4

```

Note that, although x is used here as an operator, it can also be used as an identifier, depending on the grammar context. As an example of functional action, we define:

```
actions
  carry: block -> location;

```

so that we carry a block to a unique location. Notice that, in this way, we implicitly specify that a block cannot be placed on two different locations, since the value of a function (i.e. each carry(B)) is unique. In the example, we will use the following fluents:

```
fluents
  loc: block -> location;
  free: block -> {true,false};

```

When a fluent is boolean, we can simply ignore the codomain definition in the following way:

```
  free: block;

```

In the same way, we could define actions or fluents without domain. Imagine an action for just marking a unique block:

```
actions
  mark: -> block;

```

or a fluent that points if we have made some mark:

```
fluents
  markdone: -> {true,false};

```

This last case can be further abbreviated as:

```
fluents
  markdone;

```

In the declarations section we can also define variables. In PAL, variables are identified by an upper-case initial, and vary on a given sort. They are used for defining rule schemata and for making complex queries. We will use the following two block variables:

```
vars
  B,C : block;

```

Finally, the declarations section would contain the set of rules describing the system behavior:

```
rules
  loc(B):=carry(B);
  not free(C) if carry(B)=C;
  free(B) if pert(carry(C)) and prev(loc(C))=B;
  false if pert(carry(B)) and not prev(free(B));
  false if carry(B)=C and not prev(free(C));

```

Rules have a head of shape:

```
<fluent>:=expr

```

and an optional condition preceeded by the conditional operator if. In a rule head we allow the abbreviations:

```
<fluent>
not <fluent>

```

standing for:

```
<fluent>:=true
<fluent>:=false

```

respectively, and we allow constraint rules with a false head.

Coming back to our example, the first rule says that whatever the block B we carry, its current location loc(B) will be the value given by the carry(B) action. The second rule asserts that a block C becomes not free when we carry some B on top of it. The third rule says that if carry(C) is pertinent, that is, we carry C without regarding to which location, and the previous location of C was B then B becomes free. The fourth rule asserts that we cannot perform a carry(B) when B was not free, whereas the fifth one, avoids carrying B to a nonfree block C.

The sentences part may contain declarations about the actual narrative or queries. The actual narrative is first specified by providing the initial situation:

```
initially
  loc(B):=table,free(B);

```

This means that all the blocks are on the table and are free. Performing actions in the actual narrative can be done in the following way:

```
do {carry(1):=2;}

```

This would carry block 1 on top of block 2. The output would be the following one:

```
1)
carry(1):=2
loc(1):=2
free(2):=false

```

The output shows only the pertinent facts, just pointing out the performed action and its derived effects (all the rest has persisted). We can perform several actions in a sequence:

```
do {carry(1):=table;carry(2):=3; carry(1):=2;}

```

which would have as output:

```
2)
carry(1):=table
loc(1):=table
free(2):=true
3)
carry(2):=3
loc(2):=3
free(3):=false
4)
carry(1):=2
loc(1):=2
free(2):=false

```

Notice how performing actions is an incremental task: the execution of the sequence generates situations from 2 to 4, since it was performed taking 1 as the initial situation (that is, the one we had obtained previously). We can reinitialize (“resume”) the actual narrative by providing a new initially clause. Besides, actions can also be performed concurrently, or we can even perform no action:

```
initially
  loc(B):=table,free(B);
do {carry(1):=2,carry(3):=4; carry(1):=3; ; }

```

that is, we first simultaneously move 1 on top of 2 and 3 on top of 4, in the next situation, we move 1 to 3, and finally we perform no action. The output would be:

```
Resume
1)
carry(1):=2
carry(3):=4
loc(1):=2
loc(3):=4
free(2):=false
free(4):=false
2)
carry(1):=3
loc(1):=3
free(2):=true
free(3):=false
3)

```

Finally, we will briefly comment the other kind of sentences: queries. The simplest kind of query allows asking about the current state. For instance, we can check that block 2 is free and it is on table:

```
query
  free(2) and loc(2)=table?

yes

```

Variables can be used in a similar way to Prolog queries. For instance, we can find all the blocks that are not free:

```
query
  not free(B)?

B=3
B=4

2 solutions

```

The general shape of queries allows asking properties about an hypothetical future. Answers will have the shape of plans, that is, sequences of actions to be performed for satisfying the query. For making some tests, we will add the assumption of non-concurrency of actions (otherwise, we should add a rule for specifying that there is not space for two blocks on top of a third block). The non-concurrency assumption is specified in the declarations part, for instance, as:

```
options
  not concurrent;

```

Non-concurrency also assumes that an (unique) action is mandatorily performed. Now, using the initial state:

```
initially
  loc(B):=table,free(B);

```

we can try to make block 3 not free in the next situation:

```
query
  true;not free(3) ?

\noindent obtaining 4 possible answers:

\begin{verbatim}
Resume

Solution 1:
1)
carry(1):=3
loc(1):=3
free(3):=false

Solution 2:
1)
carry(2):=3
loc(2):=3
free(3):=false

Solution 3:
1)
carry(3):=3
loc(3):=3
free(3):=false

Solution 4:
1)
carry(4):=3
loc(4):=3
free(3):=false

4 solutions

```

Notice that in the current (present) situation we do not require anything and we use the true expression. When this happens, we can abbreviate it as an empty expression like in:

```
query ; ; ; not free(3)?

```

that would look for the ways of getting block 3 not free after 3 steps (this generates 1072 solutions!). We can fix the number of solutions we wish by another option:

```
options
  solutions=1;

```

It is also possible to repeat the same expression a number of times along several situations. For instance, we can ask the queries:

```
query
  ...{3} not free(3) ?

  free(1) ...{3} not free(3)?

```

so that the first one replaces our immediately previous example, and the second one tries to find ways of occupying block 3 in 3 steps but maintaining block 1 free.

#### Acknowledgments.

This research is partially supported by the Government of Spain, grant PB97-0228.