format: text

text:
# Integrable quantum field theories with supergroup symmetries: the 𝑂𝑆𝑃(1/2) case.

## 1 Introduction

Two dimensional quantum field theories with supergroup symmetries have played an increasingly important role in our attempts to understand phase transitions in 2D disordered systems - some recent works in this direction are .

These theories however prove quite difficult to tackle. Attempts at non perturbative approaches using conformal invariance  or exact S matrices  have been popular recently, but so far, very few complete results are available. This paper is the second of a series (started with ) on models with orthosymplectic symmetry. Our goal is to relate and identify the different pieces of the theoretical puzzle available - sigma models, Wess Zumino Witten (WZW) models and Gross Neveu (GN) models, integrable lattice models, and exactly factorized S matrices - and to find out which physical systems they describe, and which peculiarities arise from the existence of supergroup symmetries. In our first paper , we studied among other things the $`OSP(1/2)`$ Gross Neveu model and the $`OSP(1/2)/OSP(0/2)`$ supersphere sigma model. A physical realization for the latter was identified in  in terms of a lattice loop model with self intersections, based on an earlier work of . Other such realizations for different models or supergroups have yet to be made. In the case of ordinary algebras, integrable lattice models do provide such realizations, and are closely related with WZW and GN models based on the corresponding groups . This relation is also important, for technical reasons, in the solution of the Principal Chiral Models (PCM) .

The main result of this paper is an analysis of integrable lattice models based on the $`osp(1/2)`$ superalgebra, and the associated field theories. While the general pattern is not unlike the case of ordinary groups, important differences are also encountered.

In section 2, we show that the continuum limit of the model based on the fundamental representation is not the GN (or WZW model) but the supersphere sigma model, generalizing the observation of .

In section 3 and 4 we show that that, for integer spin, the continuum limit is the $`UOSP(1/2)`$ WZW model at integer level - in particular, the spin $`1`$ quantum spin chain flows to the $`UOSP`$ level one model. This provides, to our knowledge, the first physical realization of a super WZW model. We also find that for odd spin $`s`$, the continuum limit, like for $`s=1`$, is not a WZW model. Attempts are made in section 6 to identify the corresponding field theories, based on the expectation that in these cases, the orthosymplectic symmetry is realized non linearly.

The $`UOSP(1/2)`$ PCM model is discussed in section 5, and the $`UOSP(1/2)/U(1)`$ models and associated parafermions in section 7.

## 2 Integrable lattice models with $`osp(1/2)`$ symmetry

Our conventions for the $`osp(1/2)`$ algebra  are summarized in the appendix . We start with the integrable model based on the fundamental representation $`\rho _{1/2}`$. The highest weight vector is denoted by $`|1/2,1/2>`$, and we shall treat it as fermionic, so the super dimension of this representation is equal to $`1`$ 111Changing the grading - that is treating the highest weight as bosonic - does not make the model into a ‘$`O(1)`$’ model, and does not change any of the physical results. The grading we chose is simply more convenient, as it is well adapted to the structure of the symmetry algebra.. The product of two spin $`1/2`$ representations decomposes into a spin 0, a spin 1/2 and a spin 1 representation. Their highest weights are respectively bosonic, fermionic, and bosonic. The graded permutation operator reads

$$P=P_1+P_{1/2}+P_0$$
(1)
and the Casimir

$$2C=3P_1+P_{1/2}32P_{1/2}3P_0$$
(2)
The hamiltonian of the integrable model is defined on the space $`\rho _{1/2}^N`$ as

$$H=c\underset{i}{}\frac{4}{3}(P_0)_{i,i+1}+2(P_{1/2})_{i,i+1}$$
(3)
(where $`(P_j)_{i,i+1}`$ denotes the projector onto spin $`j`$ in the tensor product of the representations at site $`i,i+1`$, $`c`$ is a normalization constant related with the sound velocity) is integrable, and corresponds to the anisotropic limit of the integrable $`osp(1/2)`$ vertex model one can deduce from the scattering matrix of . The Bethe ansatz equations for this model read schematically

$$\left(\frac{\lambda i/2}{\lambda +i/2}\right)^N=ϵ\frac{\lambda \lambda ^{}i}{\lambda \lambda ^{}+i}\frac{\lambda \lambda ^{}+i/2}{\lambda \lambda ^{}i/2}$$
(4)
(where the $`\lambda `$’s are the roots) and the energy

$$E=c\frac{1}{\lambda ^2+1/4}$$
(5)
The sign $`ϵ`$ depends on the boundary conditions for the hamiltonian, and has not, in our opinion, always been correctly interpreted in the literature . The point is that a hamiltonian with $`osp(1/2)`$ symmetry will be obtained by having the last term in the sum involve the projectors $`(P_j)_{N,N+1}`$, and identifying the states in the $`N+1^{th}`$ space with the ones in the first space. In the case of superalgebras, this is not exactly the same as having the projectors $`(P_j)_{N,1}`$: the difference involves ‘passing generators’ through the $`N`$ first states in the tensor product, and this can of course generate signs. The hamiltonian with $`osp(1/2)`$ symmetry corresponds to the Bethe equations with $`ϵ=1`$ in (4). This agrees with the original results in . Antiperiodic boundary conditions for the fermions would correspond to $`ϵ=1`$ instead.

According to Martins , when $`ϵ=1`$, the ground state of the $`S^z=0`$ coincides with the one of the $`S^z=1/2`$ sector , leading to a degeneracy of 4 for the state $`h=\overline{h}=0`$. The central charge read in that sector is $`c=2`$. The total partition function (that is, the trace of $`q^{(H+P)/2}\overline{q}^{(HP)/2}`$, $`P`$ the momentum, and for $`ϵ=1`$ again) reads from

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`4\left|q^{1/12}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1+q^n)^2\right|^2`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta \overline{\eta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{m2Z,eZ+1/2}{}}q^{(2e+m)^2/8}\overline{q}^{(2em)^2/8}`$
This is in agreement with the interpretation of the low energy limit of this lattice model with a symplectic fermion theory, as was proposed in . In the latter paper, this identification was made by using the fact that the hamiltonian is the anisotropic limit of a vertex model which can be reinterpreted as a loop model, and thus as a model of classical $`OSP(1/2)`$ spins in two dimensions, similar to the one used in the analysis of the usual $`O(n)`$ model. It was then argued that the integrable hamiltonian lies in the broken symmetry Goldstone phase, and that the low energy limit is the weak coupling limit of the supersphere sigma model, whose target space is $`S^{(0,2)}=OSP(1/2)/[OSP(0/2)SP(2)]`$ (the equivalent of $`O(N)/O(N1)`$ for $`N=1`$). Recall one can easily parametrize this target space using $`x=1\eta _1\eta _2`$ such that $`x^2+2\eta _1\eta _2=1`$. The sigma model action (Boltzmann weight $`e^S`$) is

$$S=\frac{1}{g}d^2x\left[(_\mu x)^2+2_\mu \eta _1_\mu \eta _2\right]$$
(7)
with the beta function $`\beta 3g^2`$. At small coupling, the action reduces to the symplectic fermions theory, and the partition function (6) coincides with the determinant of the Laplacian with periodic boundary conditions in the space direction and antiperiodic boundary conditions in the “time” direction (along which the trace is taken). For $`g`$ negative, the model flows to weak coupling in the UV, and is massive in the IR, where symmetry is restored. The action reads then, in terms of the fermion variables, and after trivial rescalings,

$$S=\frac{1}{|g|}d^2x\left[_\mu \eta _1_\mu \eta _2\eta _1\eta _2_\mu \eta _1_\mu \eta _2\right]$$
(8)
Notice that the relative normalization of the two terms can be changed at will by changing the normalization of the fermions. The relative sign can also be changed by switching the fermion labels $`12`$. However, the sign of the four fermion term cannot be changed, and determines whether the model is massive or massless in the IR. For $`g`$ positive, the model flows (perturbatively) to weak coupling in the IR. This is the case of the lattice model introduced in .

It is possible to generalize the integrable model by introducing heterogeneities in a way well understood for ordinary algebras . In doing so, the source term in the equations (4) is replaced by

$$\left(\frac{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }i/2}{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }+i/2}\right)^{N/2}\left(\frac{\lambda +\mathrm{\Lambda }i/2}{\lambda +\mathrm{\Lambda }+i/2}\right)^{N/2}$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a parameter measuring heterogeneities, and the energy becomes

$$E=\frac{c}{2}\frac{1}{(\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda })^2+1/4}+\frac{1}{(\lambda +\mathrm{\Lambda })^2+1/4}$$
(10)
We will not discuss complete calculations here, but simply derive some essential features of the associated thermodynamics Bethe ansatz (TBA). The ground state is made of real particles, and excitations are holes in the ground state. After introducing the Frourier transforms

$$\widehat{f}(x)=𝑑\lambda e^{i\lambda x}f(\lambda ),f(\lambda )=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑xe^{i\lambda x}\widehat{f}(x)$$
(11)
the physical equations read

$$\widehat{\rho }+\widehat{\rho }^h=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Lambda }x}{2\mathrm{cosh}(x/2)1}e^{|x|/4}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(x/2)}{\mathrm{cosh}(3x/4)}\widehat{\rho }^h$$
(12)
and the energy, up to a constant

$$E=\frac{c}{2\pi }\widehat{\rho }(x)\frac{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Lambda }x}{2\mathrm{cosh}(x/2)1}𝑑x$$
(13)
The interesting way to proceed then is to take the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`a0`$ ($`a`$ the lattice spacing), such that $`NaL`$ finite. We then take the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ with $`e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi /3}/a`$ finite. In that limit, excitations at finite rapidity acquire a relativistic dispersion relation, with rapidity $`\theta =\frac{2\pi }{3}\lambda `$. The scattering of these excitations with themselves corresponds to the $`S`$ matrix element:

$$S\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=\mathrm{exp}\left[i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{\omega }e^{3i\omega /\pi }e^{|\omega |/2}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\omega }{\mathrm{cosh}(3\omega /2)}\right]$$
(14)
and the latter coincides with $`\sigma _3^+\sigma _2^+`$, the scattering matrix element of particle 1 with itself in the sigma model (7), as discussed in  (this matrix element is called $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ there)222 Misprints have unfortunately cropped up in the equation whose denominator should read $`\mathrm{sinh}\omega \mathrm{cosh}(\omega (3\xi \pi )/2\pi )`$ instead..

In fact, one can check that the thermodynamics of the spin chain, in this limit, coincides with the thermodynamics of the field theory for the supersphere sigma model discussed in : the introduction of heterogeneities provides thus a regularization of this field theory.

As always - and this can be related  to the Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem  \- the massive degrees of freedom near vanishing bare rapidity in the model with heterogenities are completed by massless degrees of freedom at large bare rapidities (edges of the Brillouin zone). These are the same massless modes that would be present in the homogeneous chain obtained by letting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. The dynamics of these massless modes decouples entirely from the dynamics of the massive ones, and one can identify the associated CFT with the weak coupling limit of the supersphere sigma model, that is, the symplectic fermion theory.

It is tempting to carry out the same procedure for the case of higher spin. Unfortunately, not much is known about the higher spin integrable $`osp`$ spin chains in explicit form. It is fair to expect, based on analogies with other cases - in particular the $`so(n)`$ case - that such chains do exist, and are described by changing the source terms and energy terms as

$$\frac{\lambda i/2}{\lambda +i/2}\frac{\lambda si}{\lambda +si},\frac{1}{\lambda ^2+1/4}\frac{2s}{\lambda ^2+s^2}$$
(15)
where $`s`$ is the higher spin. The thermodynamics of the massive field theory limit is described by the equations

$$\frac{ϵ_j(\theta )}{T}=\varphi (\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_j(\theta ^{})/T}\right)\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\delta _{j,l+1}+\delta _{j,l1}\right)\varphi (\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_l(\theta ^{})/T}\right)$$
(16)
where $`\varphi (\theta )=\frac{3}{2\mathrm{cosh}3\theta /2}`$ and $`fg(\theta )=\frac{1}{2\pi }f(\theta \theta ^{})g(\theta ^{})𝑑\theta ^{}`$. The boundary condition $`ϵ_{2s}m\mathrm{cosh}\theta `$ must be imposed. The free energy reads then

$$F=T\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }m\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{2s}/T}\right)$$
(17)
The thermodynamics of the lattice model is described by similar equations, but different source terms. It allows one in particular to determine the entropy per site of the chain in the large $`T`$ limit. One finds that this entropy corresponds, for $`s`$ half integer, to a mix of representations $`\rho _{1/2},\rho _{3/2},\mathrm{},\rho _s`$, and for $`s`$ integer, a mix of representations $`\rho _0,\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _s`$. The integrable models must therefore involve these mix of representations on every site, and presumably must be considered as having $`osp`$ super-Yangian symmetry, in analogy with the $`so(n)`$ case . In particular, the extension of the adjoint by a scalar representation to form an irreducible representation of the Yangian is typical. Calculations with a twist angle giving antiperiodic boundary conditions to the kinks 333This is analogous to the study of excited states carried out in .  shows that the representations with half-integer spin have superdimension $`1`$, while those with integer spin have superdimension $`+1`$. Some of these results have been obtained independently and using a different approach in .

It is easy to check that the central charge of these models is

$$c_{eff}=\frac{8s}{2s+3}$$
(18)
As in the usual $`su(2)`$ case, one can deform the models by considering $`R`$ matrices with $`U_qosp(1/2)`$ symmetry, and one can truncate them in the case $`q`$ a root of unity. The resulting TBA’s have the form shown in Figure 1 (with a total number of nodes equal to $`N`$), and central charge

$$c_{eff}=\frac{8s}{2s+3}\frac{24s}{(N+4)(N+42s)}$$
(19)
Most of the following is devoted to understanding the field theories associated with (18) and (19).

## 3 Coset models

The basic field theory we have introduced so far is the $`OSP(1/2)/SP(2)`$ non linear sigma model (7). Another type of sigma model plays a major role in the analysis: the $`UOSP(1/2)_k`$ Wess Zumino Witten model. Details about $`OSP`$ and $`UOSP`$ are furnished in the appendix: the bosonic part of $`UOSP(1/2)`$ is $`SU(2)`$, and the group is compact. The level $`k`$ is quantized (for the normalization of $`k`$, we use the level of the sub $`SU(2)`$, like for instance in the works . The same model would be called the $`OSP(1/2)_{2k}`$ model following the conventions used in the literature on disordered systems (see eg , as well as in our previous paper). The model is not expected to be a unitary conformal field theory: this is clear at the level of the action, where for instance the purely fermionic part is closely related to the $`\eta \xi `$ system, a non unitary theory. This is also expected on general grounds, since, for instance, there is no way to define a metric without negative norm (square) states in some representations.

It turns out however that the $`UOSP(1/2)_k`$ WZW theories are relatively simple, at least at first sight. The best way to understand them is to use a remarkable embedding discovered by Fan and Yu .

### 3.1 The $`UOSP(1/2)/SU(2)`$ coset models

These authors made the crucial observation that

$$UOSP(1,2)_kSU(2)_k\times \frac{UOSP(1,2)_k}{SU(2)_k}$$
(20)
where the branching functions of the latter part define a Virasoro minimal model, with

$`c_{uosp}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2k}{2k+3}}`$
$`c_{su2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3k}{k+2}}`$
$`c_{virasoro}`$ $`=`$ $`16{\displaystyle \frac{(k+1)^2}{(k+2)(2k+3)}}`$ (21)
Only for $`k`$ an integer does the action of the Wess Zumino model make sense, and we will restrict ourselves to this case in the following. The Virasoro models which appear there have $`p=2k+3,q=k+2`$; they are non unitary, and their effective central charge is $`c_{eff}=1\frac{12}{(2k+3)(2k+4)}`$. These models can thus be considered as $`UOSP/SU`$ coset models!

The perturbation of these models by the operator $`\varphi _{21}`$ (here, the labels refer to the description as a Virasoro minimal model) with dimension $`h=1\frac{3}{4(k+2)}`$ is well known to be integrable (the $`1`$ comes from the $`OSP`$, the $`3/4(k+2)`$ from the $`SU(2)`$). The TBA has the form shown in Figure 2 . As observed in , it can be obtained after a q-deformation and a truncation of the basic supersphere sigma model TBA. The corresponding S matrices can thus easily be deduced, and follow RSOS restrictions of the q-deformed $`a_2^{(2)}`$ S matrices, or, equivalently, q-deformed $`osp(1/2)^{(1)}`$ S matrices. The simplest and most interesting case corresponds to the model of Virasoro minimal series $`p=5,q=3`$. Its central charge is $`c=3/5`$ while $`c_{eff}=3/5`$. The TBA for a perturbation by the operator $`\varphi _{21}`$ of weight $`h=3/4`$ is described by the diagram in the figure in the particular case where the number of nodes is two. The S matrix has been worked out in details in .

An amusing consequence of this observation is that the supersphere sigma model appears as the limit $`k\mathrm{}`$ of a series of coset models. This is quite similar to the way the ordinary sphere sigma model appears as the limit of a series of parafermion theories , this time of type $`SU(2)_k/U(1)`$.

An important difference between the two cases is that, since the three point function of $`\varphi _{21}`$ vanishes, the perturbation of the coset models is independant of the sign of the coupling, and thus always massive. The situation was different in the case of parafermionic theories $`SU(2)/U(1)`$, where one sign was massive (and corresponded, in the limit $`k\mathrm{}`$, to the case $`\theta =0`$), but the other was massless  (and corresponded in the limit $`k\mathrm{}`$, to the case $`\theta =\pi `$). For the supersphere, there is no theta term, so it is natural that we get only one flow. 444Recall that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2(S^{m1/2n})=\mathrm{\Pi }_2(S^{m1})=0`$ for $`m3`$, $`=Z`$ for $`m=3`$.

An interesting consequence of the embedding is that we can deduce the effective central charge of the $`UOSP(1/2)`$ WZW model at level $`k`$. Using that for the Virasoro model, $`c_{eff}=1\frac{12}{(2k+2)(2k+3)}`$, one finds

$$c_{eff}=\frac{8k}{2k+3},UOSP(1/2)_k$$
(22)
This result will be compatible with all the subsequent analysis, but it is in slight disagreement with . In the latter papers, conjectures are made that the spectrum closes on primary fields of spin $`j=0,\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{},\frac{k}{2}`$ with dimension $`h=\frac{j(2j+1)}{2k+3}`$. If this turned out to be true, the models we identify would not exactly be the WZW models, but maybe some “extensions” of these - at the present time, this issue is not settled, but it seems simpler to assume the value (22) is indeed the effective central charge of the WZW model.

### 3.2 The $`UOSP(1/2)\times SU(2)/SU(2)`$ coset models

We consider now TBA’s with a total number of nodes $`N=2k+2l`$. If the massive node is the $`2k^{th}`$ one, the UV central charge is

$`c_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8k}{2k+3}}{\displaystyle \frac{24k}{(2k+2l+4)(2l+4)}}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8k}{2k+3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3l}{l+2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3(l+k)}{l+k+2}}`$
suggesting that the model can be understood as a coset model $`UOSP(1/2)_kSU(2)_l/SU(2)_{k+l}`$. Assuming the TBA corresponds to a theory perturbed by an operator whose odd point functions vanish, we find the dimension of the perturbing operator to be $`h=1\frac{3}{4(k+l+2)}`$. This is compatible with taking the spin $`1/2`$ field in the denominator of the coset.

If the massive node is the $`2k+1^{th}`$ one meanwhile, the central charge is

$`c_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8k+4}{2k+4}}{\displaystyle \frac{12(2k+1)}{(2k+2l+4)(2l+3)}}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3k}{k+2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8l}{2l+3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3(k+l)}{k+l+2}}`$
suggesting similarly that the model can be understood as a coset $`SU(2)_kUOSP(1/2)_l/SU(2)_{k+l}`$ perturbed by the operator of dimension $`h=1\frac{3}{4(k+l+2)}`$. Of course the two cases are actually equivalent by taking mirror images, but it is convenient to keep them separate to study the large $`l`$ limit later.

### 3.3 The $`UOSP(1/2)UOSP(1/2)/UOSP(1/2)`$ models.

We now consider instead TBA’s with a total number of nodes $`N=2k+2l1`$. If the massive node is the $`2k^{th}`$ one, the UV central charge is found to be

$`c_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8k}{2k+3}}{\displaystyle \frac{24k}{(2l+3)(2k+2l+3)}}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8k}{2k+3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8l}{2l+3}}{\displaystyle \frac{8(k+l)}{2k+2l+3}}`$
suggesting that the models can be interpreted as coset $`UOSP(1/2)_kUOSP(1/2)_l/UOSP(1/2)_{k+l}`$. Assuming the TBA corresponds to a theory perturbed by an operator whose odd point functions do not vanish, we find the dimension of the perturbing operator to be $`h=1\frac{3}{2k+2l+3)}`$. This is compatible with taking the spin $`1/2`$ field in the denominator of the coset.

Note that, since we have assumed the three point function of the perturbing operator does not vanish, switching the sign of the perturbation should lead to a different result. It is natural to expect that one has then a massless flow, whose TBA and S matrices are readily built by analogy with the $`SU(2)`$ case : we leave this to the reader as an exercise.

Finally, we notice that the $`UOSP(1/2)`$ coset model with $`k=l=1`$ was first identified in the paper .

### 3.4 The other models

The last possible case we can obtain out of this construction corresponds to a TBA’s with an odd number of nodes (say, $`2k+1`$), and the mass on an odd node, too.

The effective central charge is $`c_{eff}=1\frac{12}{(2k+5)(2k+4)}`$. The models can be considered as Virasoro models with $`p=2k+5,q=k+2`$, and the TBA corresponds to perturbation by the $`\varphi _{15}`$ field now, of dimension $`h_{15}=1\frac{3}{2k+5}`$. We have not found any convincing way to interpret this in terms of $`OSP(1/2)`$ cosets; maybe it is not possible. Notice that the $`3/(2k+5)`$ is a weight for $`OSP_{k+1}`$, which, since it appears with a minus sign in $`h`$, should be in the denominator of the sought after coset. Notice also that, by using the remark at the end of the previous paragraph, we expect flows between the models we have interpreted in terms of $`OSP(1/2)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ cosets and these unidentified models. This could be a useful hint.

## 4 Sigma models

### 4.1 The $`UOSP`$ WZW models

Taking $`l\mathrm{}`$ for the class of models where the massive node is an even one, we obtain theories with central charge $`c_{eff}=\frac{8k}{2k+3}`$. This value coincides with the result obtained in the first section for $`s=k`$. We therefore suggest that the continuum limit of the lattice models with integer spin $`s`$ are the $`UOSP(1/2)_{k=s}`$ models. Introducing heterogeneities then gives rise to the current-current perturbation of these models.

The S matrix is the tensor product of the RSOS S matrix for the Virasoro model $`M_{2k+3,k+2}`$ perturbed by $`\varphi _{21}`$ (which we saw can be reinterpreted as an $`UOSP`$ RSOS matrix) and the supersphere sigma model S matrix.

These results apply to the NS sector of the model, where the fermionic currents have integer modes, and are periodic. The Ramond sector can be obtained by spectral flow; one has in particular

$$L_0^R=L_0^{NS}J_3^{0,NS}+\frac{k}{4}$$
(26)
While the true central charge seems inaccessible from the TBA, one can follow the spectral flow by giving a fugacity to the solitons, as was discussed in our first paper, ie calculating $`Z=\text{Tr}\left[e^{\beta H}e^{i\alpha q/(t1)}\right]`$, where $`q`$ is the topological charge of the solitons, normalized as $`q=0,\pm 1`$. Antiperiodic boundary conditions correspond to $`\alpha =(t1)\pi `$, and are found to give, using the system of equations (38,39) of our previous paper

$$c_{eff}=\frac{8k}{2k+3}6k$$
(27)
in agreement with (26).

Finally, it is easy to check from the TBA that the dimension of the perturbing operator has to be $`(1,1)`$. This gives strong support to our conjecture.

We stress that, as far as we know, none of the perturbed $`UOSP(1/2)_k`$ WZW models can be interpreted as a Gross-Neveu model. The $`OSP`$ GN models correspond to models with, formally, level $`k=\frac{1}{2}`$, and have a different physics, and different scattering matrices, as discussed in . We will get back to this issue in the conclusion.

### 4.2 The “$`SU(2)_kUOSP(1/2)/SU(2)`$” models.

If we take the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$ for models which have the mass on an odd node, the central charge as well as the interpretation of the coset models are consistent with a theory of the form $`SU(2)_kUOSP(1/2)/SU(2)`$, of which the supersphere sigma model was just the simplest ($`k=0`$) version.

It would be most interesting to find out the action describing these models, but we have not done so for now - we will comment about the problem below.

## 5 The $`UOSP(1/2)`$ PCM model

In the $`SU(2)`$ case for instance, the limit $`k\mathrm{}`$ of the WZW model with a current current perturbation coincides with the scattering theory for the PCM (principal chiral model) model . It is natural to expect that the same thing will hold for the $`UOSP(1/2)`$ case. The TBA looks as in Figure 8, and the scattering matrix has obviously the form $`S_{PCM}SS`$, where $`S`$ is the S matrix for the supersphere sigma model, up to CDD factors we will discuss below

Let us study this PCM model more explicitely. It is convenient to write an element of $`UOSP(1/2)`$ as

$$g=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\frac{1}{4}\eta \eta ^{}& \frac{1}{2}\eta & \frac{1}{2}\eta ^{}\\ \frac{1}{2}(a\eta ^{}b^{}\eta )& a(1\frac{1}{8}\eta \eta ^{})& b^{}(1\frac{1}{8}\eta \eta ^{})\\ \frac{1}{2}(b\eta ^{}+a^{}\eta )& b(1\frac{1}{8}\eta \eta ^{})& a^{}(1\frac{1}{8}\eta \eta ^{})\end{array}\right)$$
(28)
with the constraint $`aa^{}+bb^{}=1`$. In a similar way, the conjugate of the matrix, $`g^{}`$, reads

$$g^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\frac{1}{4}\eta \eta ^{}& \frac{1}{2}(b\eta ^{}+a^{}\eta )& \frac{1}{2}(a\eta ^{}b^{}\eta \\ \frac{1}{2}\eta ^{}& a^{}(1\frac{1}{8}\eta \eta ^{})& b^{}(1\frac{1}{8}\eta \eta ^{})\\ \frac{1}{2}\eta & b(1\frac{1}{8}\eta \eta ^{})& a(1\frac{1}{8}\eta \eta ^{})\end{array}\right)$$
(29)
The action of the PCM model reads, after a rescaling of the fermions $`\eta 2\eta `$

$`Str\left(_\mu g_\mu g^{}\right)_\mu \eta _\mu \eta ^{}+\left(_\mu a_\mu a^{}+_\mu b_\mu b^{}\right)\left(1\eta \eta ^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta \eta ^{}_\mu \eta _\mu \eta ^{}`$ (30)
We note that the $`UOSP(1/2)`$ group manifold can be identified with the supersphere $`S^{3,2}`$, that is, the space $`OSP(4/2)/OSP(3/2)`$. The PCM model, however, cannot be expected to coincide with the sigma model on $`S^{3,2}`$: the symmetry groups are different, and so are the invariant actions. For instance, in the PCM model, the group $`UOSP(1/2)`$ acts by conjugation, leaving the identity invariant. In the vicinity of the identity, under the $`SP(2)=SU(2)`$, the fermionic coordinates transform as a doublet, and the bosonic coordinates transform as a triplet. In the sigma model, the coordinates near the origin transform as the fundamental of $`OSP(3/2)`$. Under the $`SO(3)=SP(2)=SU(2)`$ of the $`OSP(3/2)`$, the bosonic coordinates transform as a triplet but the fermionic coordinates now transform as a singlet (they form a doublet under a different $`SP(2)`$, which leaves the sphere $`S^3`$ invariant). The groups acting differently, the invariant actions can be expected to be different. This is confirmed by explicit calculation. The supersphere $`S^{3,2}`$ can be parametrized in terms of coordinates $`x_i`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},3`$ and $`\eta _1,\eta _2`$. The constraint $`_0^3x_i^2+2\eta _1\eta _2=1`$ gives rise to

$$x_i=y_i\left(1\eta _1\eta _2\right),\underset{0}{\overset{3}{}}y_i^2=1$$
(31)
The sigma model action

$$S=2_\mu \eta _1_\mu \eta _2+\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}(_\mu x_i)^2$$
(32)
becomes then

$$S=2_\mu \eta _1_\mu \eta _2+\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}\left(_\mu y_i\right)^2\right)(12\eta _1\eta _2)2\eta _1\eta _2_\mu \eta _1_\mu \eta _2$$
(33)
The two equations (30,32) are similar, but exhibit a major difference in the sign of the four fermion term.

The physics of the two models is considerably different. For the supersphere sigma model, the $`\beta `$ function is exactly zero to all orders, and the theory is exactly conformal invariant for any value of the coupling constant (like in the $`O(2)/O(1)`$ case). For the PCM, the $`\beta `$ function follows from Wegner’s calculations in the case $`O(1)`$

$$\beta =3\lambda ^2\frac{9}{2}\lambda ^3+\frac{81}{8}\lambda ^4\mathrm{}$$
(34)
to be compared eg with the $`SU(2)`$ case

$$\beta =2\lambda ^22\lambda ^33\lambda ^4+\mathrm{}$$
(35)
The conventions here are that the Boltzmann weight is $`\mathrm{exp}\left(S\right)`$, and

$$S=\frac{1}{2\lambda }Tr(Str)\left[_\mu g_\mu g^{}\right]=\frac{1}{2\lambda }Tr\left[g^1_\mu g\right]^2$$

In the $`SU(2)`$ case, the massive theory corresponds to $`\lambda <0`$. By contrast, for the $`OSP(1/2)`$ case, the massive direction corresponds to $`\lambda >0`$. However, since one takes then a supertrace instead of a trace, the $`SU(2)`$ part of the PCM action has the same sign as in the $`SU(2)`$ pure case, with Boltzmann weight $`\mathrm{exp}[|cst|(_\mu a_\mu a^{}+_\mu b_\mu b^{})]`$, and the functional integral is well defined. Note that the symplectic fermion part of the Boltzmann weight is of the form $`\mathrm{exp}[|cst|(_\mu \eta _\mu \eta ^{}+\eta \eta ^{}_\mu \eta _\mu \eta ^{})]`$, and also exhibits the same sign as the action of the supersphere sigma model in the massive phase (where the symmetry is restored).

The exact S matrix can be deduced from the TBA by noticing that, for the matrix $`SS`$, the presence of the self coupling for the first node in the sigma model TBA would lead to a double self coupling. This has to be removed, and the usual calculation gives

$$S_{PCM}=YS_\sigma S_\sigma $$
(36)
where the CDD factor $`\widehat{Y}=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\omega +\mathrm{sinh}2\omega }{\mathrm{sinh}3\omega }`$, $`Y=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\theta +i\mathrm{sin}(\pi /3)}{\mathrm{sinh}\theta i\mathrm{sin}(\pi /3}`$ cancels the double poles and double zeroes in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^2`$ (14). Let us recall for completeness the sigma model S matrix.

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{S}_{i_1j_1}^{j_2i_2}=\sigma _1E+\sigma _2P+\sigma _3I$$
(37)
where we have set

$$E_{i_1j_1}^{j_2i_2}=\delta _{i_1,\overline{j}_1}\delta ^{i_2,\overline{j}_2}(1)^{x(i_1)}(1)^{x(i_2)}$$
(38)
while $`P`$ is the graded permutation operator

$$P_{i_1j_1}^{j_2i_2}=(1)^{p(i_1)p(j_1)}\delta _{i_1}^{i_2}\delta _{j_1}^{j_2}$$
(39)
The indices $`i`$ take values in the fundamental representation of the $`osp(1/2)`$ algebra, $`i=1,2,3`$. We set $`\overline{1}=1,\overline{2}=3,\overline{3}=2`$, $`x(1)=x(3)=0,x(2)=1`$. The factors $`\sigma `$ in (37) read

$`\sigma _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i\pi }{(N2)(i\pi \theta )}}\sigma _2`$
$`\sigma _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i\pi }{(N2)\theta }}\sigma _2`$ (40)
for the value $`N=12=1`$ characteristic of the $`OSP(1/2)`$ case.

## 6 Realizations of the $`UOSP(1/2)`$ symmetry.

In section 4, we have found two families of models whose $`S`$ matrix has $`UOSP(1/2)`$ symmetry . The models based on the lattice TBA for $`s`$ integer correspond to $`UOSP(1/2)_{k=s}`$ WZW models peturbed by a current current interaction. The UV theory is a current algebra, in which the symmetry is locally realized by two sets of currents, $`J^{\pm ,0},j^\pm `$ and $`\overline{J}^{\pm ,0},\overline{j}^\pm `$.

What happens in the other family of models is less clear. An exception to this is the case $`s=1/2`$, ie the $`UOSP(1/2)/SU(2)OSP(1/2)/SP(2)`$ sigma model. In this case, the symemtry is realized non linearly, and it is worthwhile seeing more explicitely how this works.

### 6.1 Symplectic fermions and non linearly realized symmetries

Consider thus the supersphere sigma model. This model for positive coupling describes the Goldstone phase for $`OSP(1/2)`$ symmetry broken down spontaneously to $`SP(2)`$ (possible since the group is not unitary compact). For negative coupling, it is massive, and the $`OSP(1/2)`$ symmetry is restored at large distance. In either case, the action is proportional to (we have slightly changed the normalizations compared with the previous paper)

$$S2_\mu \eta _1_\mu \eta _2+(_\mu x)^2$$
(41)
with $`2\eta _1\eta _2+x^2=1`$. We can find the Noether currents with the usual procedure. An infinitesimal $`OSP(1/2)`$ transformation reads

$`\delta x`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \xi _1\eta _1+\delta \xi _2\eta _2`$
$`\delta \eta _1`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \xi _2x+\delta a\eta _1+\delta c\eta _2`$
$`\delta \eta _2`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \xi _1x+\delta b\eta _1\delta a\eta _2`$ (42)
where $`\delta \xi _1,\delta \xi _2`$ are ‘small’ fermionic deformation parameters, $`\delta a,\delta c`$ small bosonic parameters. By definition, this change leaves $`2\eta _1\eta _2+x^2`$ invariant. In terms of the fermion variables, the symmetry is realized non linearly:

$`\delta \eta _1=\delta \xi _2(1\eta _1\eta _2)+\delta a\eta _1+\delta c\eta _2`$
$`\delta \eta _2=\delta \xi _1(1\eta _1\eta _2)+\delta a\eta _1\delta a\eta _2`$ (43)
Performing the change in the action, and identifying the coefficients of linear derivatives $`_\mu \eta _i,_\mu x`$ with the currents gives five conserved currents. Three of them generate the sub $`su(2)`$:

$`J^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _1\eta _1`$
$`J^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _2\eta _2`$
$`J^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\eta _1\eta _2\eta _1\eta _2\right)`$ (44)
The two fermionic currents meanwhile are

$`j^+=_\mu x\eta _1x_\mu \eta _1=_\mu \eta _1(12\eta _1\eta _2)`$
$`j^{}=_\mu x\eta _2x_\mu \eta _2=_\mu \eta _2(12\eta _1\eta _2)`$ (45)
These five currents should be present in the UV limit of the sigma model, which coincides with symplectic fermions. The latter theory has been studied a great deal. Of particular interest is the operator content, which is conveniently encoded in the generating function (6). Recall that the “ground state” (that is, fields of weight $`(0,0)`$) is degenerate four times, while there are eight fields of weight $`(1,0)`$ (and eight fields of weight $`(0,1)`$). It has sixteen fields of weight $`(1,1)`$. We can understand these multiplicities easily by using the sigma model interpretation. From the $`OSP(1/2)`$ symmetry, we expect to have, by taking the weak coupling limit of the foregoing currents, five fields $`(1,0)`$ and five fields $`(0,1)`$ (these fields are not chiral currents, because of some logarithmic festures: more about this below). Meanwhile, the broken $`OSP(1/2)`$ symmetry implies the existence of three non trivial fields with weight $`(0,0)`$, whose derivatives are also necessarily ‘currents’. We therefore expect eight fields ($`8=`$ fundamental $`+`$ adjoint) $`(1,0)`$ and $`(0,1)`$, in agreement with the known result.

Note that fields with weights $`(1,0)`$ and $`(0,1)`$ can have some common components due to the presence of fields with vanishing weights. It follows that many of their products do actually vanish, leading to a multiplicity of sixteen for fields $`(1,1)`$, and not $`8^2`$, as one could have naively assumed.

An interesting question is now what remains of the $`OSP(1/2)`$ symmetry right at the weak coupling fixed point, that is, in the symplectic fermions theory itself. There, it turns out that only the sub $`SP(2)`$ can be observed, as the bosonic currents $`J^\pm ,J^3`$ are still conserved in the symplectic fermion theory. This conservation boils down to the equations of motion $`_\mu ^\mu \eta _i=0`$. If one naively tries to check the conservation of the fermionic currents, it seems one needs $`_\mu ^\mu (\eta _1\eta _2)=0`$, which is manifestly wrong! So these currents, which are conserved in the sigma model at any non zero coupling, are not strictly speaking conserved right at the weak coupling fixed point.

The explanation of this apparent paradox lies in the role of the coupling constant and how exactly one can obtain the conformal limit. The best is to take the Boltzmann weight as $`e^S`$ with $`S`$ as above, $`S=2_\mu \eta _1_\mu \eta _2+(_\mu x)^2`$ and put the coupling constant in the radius of the supersphere $`x^2+2\eta _1\eta _2=g^2`$, which now leads to $`x=g\frac{1}{g}\eta _1\eta _2`$. The equations of motion are

$`_\mu ^\mu x`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda x`$
$`_\mu ^\mu \eta _1`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \eta _1`$
$`_\mu ^\mu \eta _2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \eta _2`$ (46)
where

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{g^2}\left[x_\mu ^\mu x+\eta _1_\mu ^\mu \eta _2+_\mu ^\mu \eta _1\eta _2\right]$$
(47)
leading, as usual, to the conservation of $`j^\pm `$. The conformal symplectic fermion theory is then obtained in the (singular) limit $`g\mathrm{}`$, where the field $`x`$ formally becomes a constant, and $`_\mu ^\mu x=0`$ a triviality. Within this limit, the $`OSP(1/2)`$ symmetry is lost, but one gets as its remnant the two fermionic “currents”, $`_\mu \eta _1`$ and $`_\mu \eta _2`$.

It is interesting finally to discuss the algebra satisfied by the $`SP(2)`$ currents right at the conformal point (a related calculation has been presented in , but we do not think its interpretation - based on rescaling the currents- is appropriate). The OPE’s are rather complicated:

$`J^+(z)J^{}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+2\mathrm{ln}|zw|+\eta _2\eta _1}{(zw)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta _1\eta _2)+\frac{\overline{z}\overline{w}}{zw}\overline{}(\eta _1\eta _2)}{zw}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}|zw|\eta _1\eta _2`$ (48)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{3}{2}J^3+\frac{1}{2}\frac{zw}{\overline{z}\overline{z}}\overline{J}^3}{zw}}`$
$`J^3(z)J^\pm (w)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\frac{3}{4}J^\pm +\frac{1}{4}\frac{\overline{z}\overline{w}}{zw}\overline{J}^\pm }{zw}}`$
$`J^3(z)J^3(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+2\mathrm{ln}|zw|+\eta _2\eta _1}{(zw)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta _1\eta _2)+\frac{\overline{z}\overline{w}}{zw}\overline{}(\eta _1\eta _2)}{zw}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}|zw|\eta _1\eta _2`$
and we see that the notation $`J(z)`$ is abusive: the field has weights $`(1,0)`$ but the OPEs involve $`\mathrm{ln}\overline{z}`$ terms. The commutators of charges are only affected by the $`\frac{1}{zw}`$ term, and the $`su(2)`$ relations are recovered not through a rescaling but because of the presence of other non trivial OPEs between the ‘left’ and ‘right’ components. For instance, writing only the relevant term, one has

$`J^+(z)\overline{J}^{}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(zw)}}\overline{J}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(\overline{z}\overline{w})}}J^3`$
$`\overline{J}^+(z)\overline{J}^{}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(zw)}}\overline{J}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(\overline{z}\overline{w})}}J`$
$`\overline{J}^+(z)\overline{J}^{}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{3}{2}\overline{J}^3}{\overline{z}\overline{w}}}`$ (49)
ensuring $`[Q^+,Q^{}]=2Q^3`$, where $`Q=\frac{1}{2i\pi }(Jdz\overline{J}d\overline{z})`$.

Amusingly, the $`1/(zw)^2`$ part of the OPEs corresponds to the normalization $`k=\frac{1}{2}`$, so the UV limit of the sigma model does contain a “logarithmic $`k=1/2`$$`su(2)`$ current algebra.

### 6.2 Speculations on the $`SU(2)_kUOSP(1/2)/SU(2)`$.

It is tempting to speculate then that the models for $`s`$ half integer correspond to “higher level” generalizations of the symplectic fermions, with a non linear realization of the $`UOSP(1/2)`$ symmetry, and a “logarithmic $`su(2)`$ current algebra”. We do not know what the action of these models might be, except that in the UV they should reduce to the tensor product of a $`SU(2)_k`$ WZW model and symplectic fermions. Notice of course that the PCM model - the limit $`k\mathrm{}`$, does obey this scenario. Indeed, the PCM model also provides a realization of the $`UOSP(1/2)`$ symmetry which is non linear once the constraints have been explicitely solved. Solving the constraints in terms of the fermions gives

$`J^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[ba^{}a^{}b{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{4}}\eta ^{}\eta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(a^{})^2}{4}}\eta \eta {\displaystyle \frac{ba^{}}{4}}\left(\eta \eta ^{}+\eta ^{}\eta \right)\right]`$
$`J^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[ab^{}b^{}a+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{4}}\eta ^{}\eta ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{(b^{})^2}{4}}\eta \eta {\displaystyle \frac{ab^{}}{4}}\left(\eta \eta ^{}+\eta ^{}\eta \right)\right]`$
$`J^3`$ $`=`$ $`2[aa^{}+b^{}b+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(ab\eta ^{}\eta ^{}a^{}b^{}\eta \eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{aa^{}}{8}}(\eta \eta ^{}\eta \eta ^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{bb^{}}{8}}(\eta \eta ^{}\eta \eta ^{})]`$ (50)
The fermionic currents meanwhile read 555It is useful to recall that factoring out the $`SU(2)`$, ie taking as action $`j^+j^{}`$, leads (after some rescalings and relabellings) to the action of the supersphere sigma model $`UOSP(1/2)/SU(2)`$ written earlier in terms of $`\eta _1,\eta _2`$.

$`j^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(b\eta ^{}+a^{}\eta \right){\displaystyle \frac{b}{16}}\eta \eta ^{}\eta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{16}}\eta \eta ^{}\eta `$
$`j^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(b^{}\eta a\eta ^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}a\eta \eta ^{}\eta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{16}}\eta \eta ^{}\eta `$ (51)
One can as well solve for the bosonic constraint $`aa^{}+bb^{}=1`$. If one does so, and rescales the fields with the coupling constant as in the supersphere case, the UV expression of the currents becomes simply the sum of the currents for a system of 3 bosons (the small coupling limit of the $`SU(2)`$ PCM model) and the currents for the symplectic fermion theory.

The evidence from the TBA is that the PCM model can give rise to two kinds of models (more on this in the conclusion): either the $`UOSP(1/2)_k`$ WZW models like in the usual case, but also the $`SU(2)_kUOSP(1/2)/SU(2)`$ model, which presumably involves some sort of term changing the $`SU(2)`$ part of the action into the WZW one with a current current perturbation, but leaving the symplectic fermionic part essentially unaffected. We do not know how to concretely realize this though.

Another interesting aspect stems from the fact that the central charge obtained by giving antiperiodic boundary conditions to the kinks reads, after elementary algebra,

$$c=16\frac{(k+1)^2}{(k+2)}$$
(52)
This is precisely the central charge of the models $`M_{k+2,1}`$, of which the first two have $`c=1`$ and $`c=7`$. We are thus led to speculate that the $`M_{k+2,1}`$ models - or rather, their proper ‘non minimal’ versions (studied in , although we do not necessarily agree with the conclusions there), as the minimal models are entirely empty in this case, are models with spontaneously broken $`UOSP(1/2)`$ symmetry. It would be very interesting to look further for signs of an $`UOSP`$ structure in these models, and to study their ‘logarithmic’ $`SU(2)`$ algebra.

Note that these models are obtained by hamiltonian reduction of the $`SU(2)_k`$ model. In this reduction , an auxiliary $`\eta \xi `$ system is introduced to play the role of Fadeev-Popov ghosts, so these models are indeed naturally related to the product of $`SU(2)_k`$ and $`U(1)`$ as we observed earlier.

## 7 The $`UOSP(1/2)/U(1)`$ sigma model(s)

Instead of factoring out the $`SU(2)`$, one can of course also factor out the $`U(1)`$ and get an $`UOSP(1/2)/U(1)`$ sigma model. This is especially interesting since the standard argument to derive the continuum limit of the $`osp(1/2)`$ spin chains would lead to a sigma model on the manifold parametrizing the coherent states, and this is precisely $`UOSP(1/2)/U(1)`$ .

Note however that the manifold $`UOSP(1/2)/U(1)`$ is not a symmetric (super) space (this can easily be seen since the (anti) commutator of two fermionic generators does not always belong to the Lie algebra of $`U(1)`$). As a consequence, sigma models on this manifold will have more than one coupling constant.

To proceed, a possible strategy is to follow  and consider for a while models $`UOSP(1/2)_k/U(1)`$, that is graded parafermionic theories.

Graded parafermions  theories are constructed in a way similar to the original construction of Fateev and Zamolodchikov, with the additional ingredient of a $`Z_2`$ grading. They obey the OPE rules

$$\psi _l(z)\psi _l^{}(w)=(1)^{p(l)p(l^{})}\mathrm{exp}\left(2i\pi \frac{ll^{}}{k}\right)\psi _l^{}(w)\psi _l(z)$$
(53)
Their dimensions are $`h_l=\frac{l(kl)}{k}+\frac{ϵ(l)}{2}`$, where $`ϵ=1`$, $`l`$ half an odd integer, $`ϵ=0`$ otherwise. Of particular interest is the OPE

$`\psi _{1/2}(z)\psi _{1/2}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`(zw)^{\frac{1}{2k}2}\left[1+(zw)^2O^{(1/2)}+\mathrm{}\right]`$
$`\psi _1(z)\psi _1(w)`$ $`=`$ $`(zw)^{\frac{2}{k}2}\left[1+(zw)^2O^{(1)}+\mathrm{}\right]`$
Here, the operators $`O`$ have dimension 2, and must obey $`O^{(1)}O^{(2)}=\frac{2k+3}{2k}T`$, $`T`$ the stress energy tensor. The simplest parafermionic theory for $`k=1`$ has $`c=\frac{3}{5}`$, and seems to coincide with the model $`M_{5,3}`$ 666Since $`SU(2)_1`$ can be represented in terms of a free boson, the cosets $`OSP(1/2)/SU(2)`$ and $`OSP(1/2)/U(1)`$ are equivalent there.. For $`k`$ an integer, $`l`$ runs over the set $`l=k+\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{},0,\mathrm{},k\frac{1}{2}`$, $`2lZ`$. Parafermions with integer $`l`$ are bosonic, the others are fermionic. For $`k=1`$, $`\psi _1I`$, and there is only a pair of parafermionic fields, of weight $`h=\frac{3}{4}`$. It can be shown that the parafermionic theories just defined coincide with $`UOSP(1/2)_k/U(1)`$ coset theories.

Like in the $`SU(2)_k`$ case, the $`UOSP(1/2)_k`$ model with a current-current pertubation can be written in terms of the graded parafermions and a free boson $`\varphi `$. It is then easy to find an integrable anisotropic deformation

$$\psi _1\overline{\psi }_1e^{i\beta \sqrt{\frac{2}{k}}\varphi }+\psi _{1/2}\overline{\psi }_{1/2}e^{\frac{i}{\sqrt{2k}}\beta \varphi }$$
(55)
(In the case $`k=1`$, the perturbation reads $`e^{i\sqrt{2}\beta \varphi }+\psi _{1/2}\overline{\psi }_{1/2}e^{\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\beta \varphi }`$. ) The non local conserved currents  are $`\psi _1e^{i\sqrt{\frac{2}{k}}\frac{\phi }{\beta }}`$ and $`\psi _{1/2}e^{\frac{i}{\sqrt{2k}}\frac{\phi }{\beta }}`$ (where $`\phi `$ denotes the right component of $`\varphi =\phi +\overline{\phi }`$). The TBA and S matrices are rather obvious: we take the same left part of the diagram as for the $`OSP(1/2)_k`$ case, but replace the infinite right tail by the ubiquitous, finite and anisotropic part discussed in our first paper. In the isotropic limit  $`\beta ^21`$, the RG generates the other terms necessary to make (55) into a whole current current perturbation.

Taking the limit $`\beta 0`$ would then lead to the TBA for the parafermionic theory. This would require an understanding of the scattering in the attractive regime where bound states exist, but we have not performed the related analysis. It is possible however to make a simple conjecture based on numerology, and analogies with the $`SU(2)`$ case. Consider indeed the TBA in Figure 9

where the box represents the set of couplings discussed in our first paper . In the UV, the diagram is identical to the one arising in the study of the $`a_2^{(2)}`$ Toda theory. The central charge is $`c_1=2k1`$ as discussed in . In the IR, the diagram is identical to the ones arising in the $`UOSP/SU`$ coset models, and $`c_2=2k4+\frac{12}{2k+3}`$. The final central charge is thus $`c_{eff}=3\frac{12}{2k+3}`$, and concides with the effective central charge for $`UOSP(1/2)/U(1)`$ parafermions of level $`k`$. We conjecture this TBA describes the perturbation of these parafermionic theories by the combination of graded parafermions

$$\psi _1\overline{\psi }_1+\psi _{1/2}\overline{\psi }_{1/2}$$
(56)
The effective dimension of the perturbation deduced from the TBA is $`1\frac{1}{2k}`$, and this coincides with the combination $`h=\frac{2h_1+h_2}{3}`$. Note that we have not studied what kind of scattering theory would give rise to the TBA in Figure 9, and whether it is actually meaningful. Still, taking the limit $`k\mathrm{}`$, we should obtain the TBA for something that looks like an $`UOSP(1/2)/U(1)`$ sigma model. Notice that the bosonic part of this model is identical with the $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ sigma model, and thus there is the possibility of a topological term. It is not clear what the low energy limit of the model with topological angle $`\theta =\pi `$ would be.

## 8 Conclusions

The results presented here presumably have rather simple generalization to the $`OSP(1/2n)`$ case, even though details might not be absolutely straightforward to work out - for instance, we do not know of embeddings generalizing the one discussed in the first sections.

The supersphere sigma model for $`g`$ positive in the conventions of section 2, flows in the IR to weak coupling, at least perturbatively. It is expected that the phase diagram will exhibit a critical point at some value $`g^{}`$ and that for larger coupling, the theory will be massive. The critical point presumably coincides with the dilute $`O(N=1)`$ theory first solved by Nienhuis . This theory is described by a free boson with a charge at infinity, and is closely related with the minimal model $`M_{5,3}`$. In fact the partition function of the dilute $`O(N=1)`$ model provided one restricts to even numbers of non contractible loops can be written in the Coulomb gas language of Di Francesco et al.  as

$$Z_{5,3}=\frac{1}{2}\left[Z_c(3/5,5)Z_c(3/5,1)\right]$$
(57)
and coincides with the partition function of the minimal model. Earlier in this paper, we have identified this model with the $`UOSP(1/2)_1/U(1)`$ parafermionic theory. The full $`O(N=1)`$ theory, however defined, has a considerably more complex operator content .

Note that antiperiodic boundary conditions for the fermions, which give an effective central charge equal to $`c_{eff}=1`$ in the supersphere sigma model give, in the critical theory, a highly irrational value $`c_{eff}=1\frac{18}{\pi ^2}\left(\text{arccosh}(3/2)\right)^2`$. There are no indications that an integrable flow from the critical theory to the low temperature generic theory exists. An integrable flow is known to exist in the special case where the symmetry is enhanced to $`SU(1/2)`$. In that case, the IR theory is the so called dense $`O(N=1)`$ model, which has $`c=7`$, and is closely related with the minimal model $`M_{3,1}`$. Note that this model is the second model of the unidentified series in section 4, and bears some formal resemblance to the model $`UOSP(1/2)_{3/2}`$. What this means remains one of the many open questions in this still baffling area.

Acknowledgments: We thank G. Landi, N. Read and M. Zirnbauer for useful remarks and suggestions. We especially thank P. Dorey for pointing out the discussion of $`OSP`$ coset models in . The work of HS was supported in part by the DOE.

## Appendix A Some results on $`osp(1/2)`$.

We collect in this appendix some formulas about $`osp(1/2)`$, the associated current algebra and groups.

The supergroup $`OSP(1/2)`$ is the group of ‘real’ matrices $`g`$ obeying (basic references are )

$$g^{st}Jg=J$$
(58)
where 777For $`g`$ a bosonic matrix, $`g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)`$, recall that $`g^{st}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a^t& c^t\\ b^t& d^t\end{array}\right)`$.

$$J=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(59)
Elements of the group preserve the quadratic form, if $`X=(b,\theta _1,\theta _2)`$, $`X.X^{}=bb^{}+\theta _1\theta _2^{}\theta _2\theta _1^{}`$. They can be parametrized by $`g=e^A`$ with

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \eta _1& \eta _2\\ \eta _2& a& c\\ \eta _1& b& a\end{array}\right)$$
(60)
Here no complex conjugation is ever needed: $`a,b,c`$ are real numbers, and $`\eta _1,\eta _2`$ are ‘real’ Grassman numbers.

The group $`UOSP(1/2)`$ in contrast is made of complex supertransformations satisfying

$$g^{st}Jg=J,gg^{}=1$$
(61)
To define the adjoint $`M^{}`$, we first need to introduce a complex conjugation denoted by $``$. It is, technically, a graded involution, which coincides with complex conjugation for pure complex numbers, $`c^{}=\overline{c}`$, $`cC`$, and obeys in general 888Recall that it is not possible to define a unitary version of $`OSP`$ with the usual conjugation.

$`(xy)^{}=x^{}y^{}`$
$`(x^{})^{}=()^{p(x)}x`$
$`(cx)^{}=\overline{c}x^{}`$ (62)
One then sets $`g^{}=\left(g^{st}\right)^{}`$ 999Recall that the $``$ operation obeys the usual properties, $`(hh^{})^{}=(h^{})^{}h^{}`$. It can be considered as the combination of the $``$ operation in the Lie algebra (see the appendix), and the $``$ operation on ‘scalars’. , so $`g`$ in $`UOSP(1/2)`$ preserves in addition the form $`X^{}X^{}=\overline{b}b^{}+\theta _1^{}\theta _1^{}\theta _2^{}\theta _2^{}`$.

One has now $`g=e^A`$ with

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \eta & \eta ^{}\\ \eta ^{}& ia& ib\\ \eta & ib^{}& ia\end{array}\right)$$
(63)
with $`a`$ real, $`a^{}=a`$. The fermionic content of the supergroup is essentially unchanged, with $`\eta \eta _1`$, $`\eta ^{}\eta _2`$. But the bosonic content is different: the non compact bosonic subgroup $`SP(2)`$ has been replaced by the compact one $`SU(2)`$.

The algebra $`osp(1/2)`$ is generated by operators which we denote $`J^3,J^\pm `$ (bosonic) and $`j^\pm `$ (fermionic). Their commutation relations can be obtained from the current algebra given below by restricting to the zero modes. The casimir reads

$$C=(J^3)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(J^+J^{}+J^{}J^+\right)+\frac{1}{4}\left(j^{}j^+j^+j^{}\right)$$
(64)
The representations of the super Lie algebra are labelled by an integer or half integer $`j`$, and are of dimension $`4j+1`$. The fundamental representation is three dimensional, and has spin $`j=1/2`$. It does contain a sub $`sl(2)`$ fundamental representation, following the pattern of $`J^3=\text{diag}(0,1/2,1/2)`$. The generators $`J^\pm ,J^3`$ are bosonic. The fermionic generators are given by

$$j^+=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)j^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(65)
The only metric compatible with $`osp(1/2)`$ requires the definition of a generalized adjoint satisfying (here $`p=0,1`$ denotes the parity)

$$A^{}\alpha |\beta =(1)^{p(A)p(\alpha )}\alpha |A\beta $$
(66)
and thus

$$(AB)^{}=(1)^{p(A)p(B)}B^{}A^{}$$
(67)
It follows that $`(J^\pm )^{}=J^{}`$, $`(J^3)^{}=J^3`$, while there remains some freedom for the fermionic generators, $`(j^+)^{}=\pm j^{}`$, $`((j^+)^{})^{}=j^+`$. It is in the nature of the algebra that negative norm square states will appear whatever the choice. Indeed, let us choose for instance

$$\left(j^+\right)^{}=j^{},\left(j^{}\right)^{}=j^+$$
(68)
It then follows that the norm square of the state $`|j,m>`$ is

$$<j,m|j,m>=()^{2p(j)(jm)}$$
(69)
Here, $`p(j)=0`$ if the highest weight state $`|j,j>`$ is bosonic, $`p(j)=1`$ if it is fermionic. Even if we start with the fundamental representation $`j=1/2`$ with $`|1/2,1/2>`$ bosonic, in the tensor product of this representation with itself, representations where the highest weight is fermionic will necessary appear. These do contain negative norm square states. In this paper, we will always choose the gradation for which $`|1/2,1/2>`$ is fermionic, and thus the fundamental representation has superdimension equal to $`1`$.

The current algebra is defined by

$`[J_n^3,J_m^\pm ]=\pm J_{n+m}^\pm `$ $`[J_n^3,J_m^0]={\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}n\delta _{n+m}`$
$`[J_n^+,J_m^{}]`$ $`=kn\delta _{n+m}+2J_{n+m}^3`$
$`[J_n^3,j_m^\pm ]=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}j_{m+n}^\pm `$ $`[J_n^\pm ,j_m^\pm ]=0`$
$`[J_n^\pm ,j_m^{}]=j_{n+m}^\pm `$ $`\{j_n^\pm ,j_m^\pm \}=\pm 2J_{n+m}^\pm `$
$`\{j_n^+,j_m^{}\}`$ $`=2kn\delta _{n+m}+2J_{n+m}^3`$ (70)
Normalizations are such that the algebra contains a sub $`sl(2)`$ current algebra at level $`k`$.

The Wess Zumino Witten model on the supergroup $`UOSP(1/2)`$ corresponds to $`k`$ positive integer, and the sub $`sl(2)`$ current algebra to the WZW model $`SU(2)_k`$.

As commented in the text, the supersphere $`S^{3,2}`$ is the supermanifold of the supergroup $`UOSP(1/2)`$. It is also the total space of a principal fibration with structure group $`U(1)`$ and the quotient of this action is just the supersphere $`S^{2,2}UOSP(1/2)/U(1)`$. The explicit realization is as follows . Setting

$`x_0`$ $`=`$ $`(aa^{}bb^{})\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\eta \eta ^{}\right)`$
$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`(ab^{}+ba^{}))(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\eta \eta ^{})`$
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`i(ab^{}ba^{}))(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\eta \eta ^{})`$
$`\eta _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a\eta ^{}+\eta b^{})`$
$`\eta _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\eta a^{}b\eta ^{})`$ (71)
(these obey $`x_i^{}=x_i`$, and $`\eta _1^{}=\eta _2`$) we obtain points in $`S^{2,2}`$, since $`(x_i)^2+2\eta _1\eta _2=1`$. Conversely, for a given point $`x_0,x_1,x_2,\eta _1,\eta _2`$ of $`S^{2,2}`$ one gets

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta \eta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _1\eta _2`$
$`aa^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1+x_0(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _1\eta _2)\right]`$
$`bb^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1x_0(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _1\eta _2)\right]`$
$`ab^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(x_1ix_2)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _1\eta _2)`$
$`\eta a^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(x_1+ix_2)\eta _1+(1+x_0)\eta _2`$
$`\eta b^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(x_1ix_2)\eta _2(1x_0)\eta _1`$ (72)
Define finally $`U(1)=\{w,w\text{ bosonic },ww^{}=1\}`$. Since the parametrization of (71) is invariant under $`(a,b,\eta )(wa,wb,w\eta )`$, this proves the statement.

Of course, the two spaces $`UOSP(1/2)/U(1)`$ and $`S^{2,2}`$ are not topologically equivalent: the fibration just discussed is in fact a ‘superextension’ of the Dirac monopole .


text:
# Fluctuating order parameter in doped cuprate superconductors

## I  Introduction

Recently, a new piece emerged that physicists should insert into the puzzle of high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity (HTSC) in metal-oxide materials. The advances in STM techniques permitted to obtain nanoscopic resolution of their electronic structure, revealing a non-uniform pattern of local density of states and of superconducting (SC) d-wave gap.1 ,2  For instance, in underdoped Bi2Sr2CaCuO8+x the islands of $`3`$ nm size of almost saturated SC order (sharp coherence peaks in the density of states) are surrounded by undersaturated areas (low peaks); the pattern also remains non-uniform in the optimally doped material but with undersaturated islands over the saturated background.2  This evidence is corroborated by the results of precision STM experiments on HTSC in the mixed state under applied magnetic field $`HH_{c2}`$, where no common lattice order for Abrikosov vortices was found.3 ,4  This experimental challenge invoked a massive theoretical response,5 -10  in particular, the scenario of two distinct (and competing) SC phases was set forth,1 ,5 -7  supposing segregation of an undersaturated $`\beta `$-phase from the saturated $`\alpha `$-phase and associating it with nucleation of the pseudogap state or the so-called d-density wave state.11  However, this way of reasoning seems to lead to even harder problems with microscopic mechanisms for such strong and irregular non-uniformity and it is in odds with the concept of stripe phases (another piece of the HTSC puzzle 12 ,13 )

Perhaps the most realistic approach to the problem is that based on the evident attraction of charge carriers in HTSC to each other and to the ionized dopants.8 -10 ,14 ,15  These two factors are competitive: the SC coupling $`V`$ leads to formation of uniform states of correlated pairs of charge carriers, while the impurity potential $`V_i`$ leads to formation of localized states of single carriers and to local reduction of pairing amplitude.15 ,16  Taking into account that the number of ionized dopants equals the number of carriers, the ”impurity” effect can be well competitive with the pairing for all the levels of doping. Below we use the method of Green functions to estimate the impurity effect on SC properties of doped metal-oxides, especially the amplitude and spatial correlations of fluctuations of the d-wave order parameter.

## II  Green functions and single-particle properties

We start from the model Hamiltonian:

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\psi _𝐤^{}(\xi _𝐤\widehat{\tau }_3+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\widehat{\tau }_1)\psi _𝐤`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{V_i}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐩}{}}\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐤𝐤^{})𝐩}\psi _𝐤^{}\widehat{\tau }_3\psi _𝐤^{},`$ (1)
where the Nambu spinors $`\psi _𝐤^{}=(a_{𝐤,},a_{𝐤,}^{})`$ include fermion operators of normal quaisparticles with the 2D dispersion law $`\xi _𝐤=2t(2\mathrm{cos}ak_x\mathrm{cos}ak_y)\mu `$, the bandwidth $`W=8t`$, and the chemical potential $`\mu `$; and $`\widehat{\tau }_i`$ are the Pauli matrices. The gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _𝐤\theta (\epsilon _D^2\xi _𝐤^2)`$ includes the BCS-shell restriction by the ”Debye energy” $`\epsilon _D`$, and the d-wave factor $`\gamma _𝐤=\mathrm{cos}ak_x\mathrm{cos}ak_y`$. In the long-wave limit: $`\gamma _𝐤1/2(ak)^2\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _𝐤`$ ($`\varphi _𝐤`$ is the azimuthal angle in $`k`$-plane), hence the observable coherence peak should lie at $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{obs}\pi \mu \rho _0\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\rho _0=4/(\pi W)`$ is the constant density of states of normal metal in this limit. The impurity perturbation $`V_i`$ produces scattering of quasiparticles at lattice points $`𝐩`$ randomly distributed with the doping concentration $`c`$. The true electronic spectrum follows from the Fourier transform of two-time fermion Green functions (GF’s)

$$a|b_\epsilon =i_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{e}^{i(\epsilon +i0)t}\{a(t),b(0)\}𝑑t,$$
(2)
(where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the quantum statistical average with the Hamiltonian 1 and $`\{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$ is the anticommutator of Heisenberg operators), through the spectral formula:

$$ab=\frac{1}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\epsilon \mathrm{Im}b|a_\epsilon }{\mathrm{e}^{(\epsilon \mu )/T}+1}.$$
(3)
Thus, the Nambu matrix $`\widehat{G}_𝐤=\psi _𝐤|\psi _𝐤^{}`$ of momentum-diagonal single-particle GF’s and its local value $`\widehat{G}=N^1_𝐤\widehat{G}_𝐤`$ enter the two coupled equations17

$`c=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\mu }𝑑\epsilon \mathrm{ImTr}\widehat{G}\widehat{\tau }_3,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{V}{2\pi N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\gamma _𝐤{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\mu }𝑑\epsilon \mathrm{ImTr}\widehat{G}_𝐤\widehat{\tau }_1,`$ (4)
which define the chemical potential $`\mu `$ and the gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in function of the doping level $`c`$ and of the parameters $`V`$, $`V_i`$. The standard analysis14  gives $`\widehat{G}_𝐤=(\epsilon \mu \xi _𝐤\widehat{\tau }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\widehat{\tau }_1\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_𝐤)^1`$, where the self-energy matrix can be approximated in the self-consistent t-matrix form $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_𝐤c\widehat{V}(1\widehat{G}\widehat{V})^1`$ with $`\widehat{V}=V_i\widehat{\tau }_3`$, then the integrals in Eq. 4 yield in the approximate analytic formulae:

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{cc_{met}}{\rho _0}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{obs}{\displaystyle \frac{2\epsilon _D}{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\pi \mu \rho _0)^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{V\rho _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \epsilon _D\rho _0}{2}}\right)^2\right]\right\}.`$ (5)
In fact, the first formula in Eq. 5 only applies for doping levels $`c`$ well above the metallization threshold $`c_{met}\epsilon _0\rho _0/2`$, where $`\epsilon _0=\{\rho _0[\mathrm{exp}(1/V_i\rho _0)1]\}^1`$ is the binding energy of impurity localized state. For $`c<c_{met}`$, the system is insulating (so non-superconducting) but the chemical potential remains positive, vanishing as $`c/[\rho _0\mathrm{ln}(c_{met}/c)]`$ at $`c0`$. The second formula strictly applies at $`c>\epsilon _D\rho _0`$, while at $`c`$ below this value the pre-exponential factor should be changed for $`2\sqrt{\epsilon _D\mu }/\pi `$. A more detailed discussion of the averaged single-particle spectrum will be given elsewhere.

## III Two-particle properties and fluctuations of SC order

The non-uniform SC order can be described, using the operator of local d-wave order on $`𝐧`$th lattice site: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐧=(V/N)_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}\gamma _𝐤\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐤𝐤)𝐧}a_{𝐤,}a_{𝐤^{},}`$, with the average value $`N^1_𝐧\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐧=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Its squared dispersion $`\delta ^2=N^1_𝐧(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐧^2\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐧^2)`$ is written from Eq. 3 as:

$`\delta ^2={\displaystyle \frac{V^2}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪}{}}\gamma _𝐤\gamma _𝐤^{}\times `$
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\mu }d\epsilon \mathrm{Im}a_{𝐤,}a_{𝐤^{},}|a_{𝐤^{}+𝐪,}a_{𝐤𝐪,}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\mu }d\epsilon \mathrm{Im}a_{𝐤,}|a_{𝐤^{},}\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\mu }d\epsilon \mathrm{Im}a_{𝐤^{}+𝐪,}|a_{𝐤𝐪,}).`$ (6)
It is zero in the doped but uniform crystal (at $`c>0`$ but $`V_i=0`$), whereas the non-zero contribution to Eq. 6 in the lowest order in $`V_i`$ comes from two successive scatterings: $`𝐤𝐤+𝐪`$, $`𝐤^{}𝐤^{}𝐪`$, involved into the equations of motion for the momentum non-diagonal two-particle (anomalous) GF’s. In this approximation, we have

$$\delta ^2\frac{cV_i^2V^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2}\underset{𝐤,𝐤^{}}{}\gamma _𝐤^2\gamma _𝐤^{}^2\frac{\theta (E_𝐤E𝐤^{})}{E_𝐤E_𝐤^{}^3}\frac{cV_i^2V\rho _0}{4}.$$
(7)
Accordingly to the written in Sec. II, the dispersion of the observable gap is $`\delta _{obs}=\pi \mu \rho _0\delta (\pi /2)\sqrt{V\rho _0}(cc_{met})^{3/2}V_i`$, and comparing it with Eq. 5, we conclude that this dispersion turns comparable with the average gap and can bring the SC order to collapse at $`c(\epsilon _D/V_i)^{2/3}(V\rho _0)^{1/3}\mathrm{exp}(\pi ^4V\epsilon _D\rho _0^2/12)`$.

Finally, we can estimate the spatial correlation between the above mentioned fluctuations, alike Ref. 10 , from the analysis of the random function $`f(𝐧)=_𝐦c_𝐦\mathrm{exp}[(𝐦𝐧)^2/\xi _0^2]`$, where $`c_𝐦=1`$ for dopant perturbed sites, $`𝐦=𝐩`$, otherwise $`c_𝐦=0`$, and $`\xi _0`$ is the BCS coherence length. Then the spatial decay of the correlator of fluctuations $`f(𝐧)f(𝐧)f(𝐧)f(𝐧)c(1c)\mathrm{exp}[(𝐦𝐧)^2/2\xi _0^2]`$ defines their correlation length $`\xi _c\sqrt{2}\xi _0`$. This implies an estimate for the average pinning force due to such non-uniform SC structure $`F_p\rho _0\delta _{obs}\mathrm{\Delta }_{obs}(\xi _0/a)^2/\xi _c`$. Comparison of this and other predictions with the available experimental data will be the subject of forthcoming studies.

## Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial support from Swiss Science Foundation under the Project SCOPES 7UKPJ062150.00/1 (V.M.L.) and from Portuguese Fundação de Ciência e Tecnologia under the Projects POCTI/1999/CTM/36489 (Yu.G.P.) anf FJ08 (V.M.T.).


text:
# A simulation study of localization of electromagnetic waves in two-dimensional random dipolar systems

## I Introduction

The concept of localization was originally introduced by AndersonAnderson  for electrons in a crystal. In the case of a perfectly periodic lattice, except in the gaps all the electronic states are extended and are represented by Bloch states. When a sufficient amount of disorders is added to the lattice, for example in the form of random potentials, the electrons may become spatially localized due to the multiple scattering by the disorders. In such a case, the eigenstates are exponentially confined in the spaceLee . The inception of the localization concept has opened a new era for the study of electrons in disordered systems, and stimulated a tremendous research. The concept of localization has also rendered a great development in many other fields such as seismologySeis , oceanologyocean , and random lasersLaser , to name just a few. The great efforts have been summarized in a number of excellent reviews (e. g. Lee ; Thouless ; John ; Sheng ; Lagen ; Rossum ; Van ; loc ).

Over the past two decades, localization of classical waves has been under intensive investigations, leading to a very large body of literature(e. g. John ; Sheng ; Lagen ; HW ; Kirk1 ; He ; Condat ; Sor ; Genack ; McCall ; McCall2 ; Marian ; Sigalas ; AAA ; Ye1 ; Wiersma ; weak ; AAC ). Such a localization phenomenon has been characterized by two levels. One is the weak localization associated with the enhanced backscattering. That is, waves which propagate in the two opposite directions along a loop will obtain the same phase and interfere constructively at the emission site, thus enhancing the backscattering. The second is the strong localization, without confusion often just termed as localization, in which a significant inhibition of transmission appears and the energy is mostly confined spatially in the vicinity of the emission site.

While the weak localization, regarded as a precursor to the strong localization, has been well studied both theoretically (e. g. the monographSheng ) and experimentally (e. g. weak ), observation of strong localization of classical waves for higher than one dimension remains a subject of debateWiersma ; AAC ; debate , primarily because a suitable system is hard to find and the observation is often obscured by such effects as the residual absorptiondebate  and scattering attenuation. Asides from few exceptionsMcCall , most experiments are based on observations of the exponential decay of waves as they propagate through disordered media. This was pointed out in Ref. AAC . According to Chen2002 , this type of experiments is not sufficient to discern whether the medium really only has localized states. Unwanted effects of non-localization origin can also contribute to the exponential decay, making data interpretation possibly ambiguous. In a conclusion, Sigalas et al. Sigalas  pointed out that there is no conclusive experimental evidence for localization of electromagnetic waves (EM) in two dimensions (2D). We mention that there was a report of the observation of microwave localization in two dimensions when a transmitting source is inside disordered mediaMcCall .

The difficulties in observing localization of EM waves mainly lie in a couple of problems. First, wave localization only appears for strongly scattering media, and such a medium is often hard to find. Second, localization effects are often entangled with other effects such as dissipation, wave deflection, or boundary effectsloc , making data interpretation often ambiguous. In a recent communication, a simple but seemingly realistic model system has been proposed to study EM localization in 2D random mediaYLS . This model originated from the previous study of the radiative effects of the electric dipoles embedded in structured cavitiesErdogan . It was shown that EM localization is possible in such a disordered system. When localization occurs, a coherent behavior appears and is revealed as a unique property differentiating localization from either the residual absorption or the attenuation effects.

With the present paper, we wish to explore further the localization properties of the system outlined in YLS . We will investigate the dependence of localization behavior on a numbers of parameters including frequency, filling factor, scattering strength, damping effect, and two different ways of measuring localization. Additionally, the spatial behaviors of the total, coherent and diffusive wave intensities will be studied, and are shown to comply with a simple physical intuition.

## II The system and theoretical formulation

### II.1 The system

Following Erdogan et al.Erdogan , we consider 2D dipoles as an ensemble of harmonically bound charge elements. In this way, each 2D dipole is regarded as a single dipole line, characterized by the charge and dipole moment per unit length. Assume that $`N`$ parallel dipole lines, aligned along the $`z`$-axis, are embedded in a uniform dielectric medium and randomly located at $`\stackrel{}{r}_i(i=1,2,\mathrm{},N)`$. The averaged distance between dipoles is $`d`$. A stimulating dipole line source is located at $`\stackrel{}{r}_s`$, transmitting a continuous wave of angular frequency $`\omega `$. By the geometrical symmetry of the system, we only need to consider the $`z`$ component of the electrical waves. The conceptual layout of the system is illustrated by Fig. 1.

Here it is shown that a line source is located at the origin, and the receiver is located at some distance from the source. After multiply scattered, the transmitted waves reach at the receiver.

### II.2 The formulation

Although much of the following materials can be referred to in YLS , we repeat the important parts here for the sake of convenience and completeness.

Upon stimulation, each dipole will radiate EM waves. The radiated waves will then repeatedly interact with the dipoles, forming a process of multiple scattering. The equation of motion for the $`i`$-th dipole is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dt^2}}p_i+\omega _{0,i}^2p_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q_i^2}{m_i}}E_z(\stackrel{}{r}_i)b_{0,i}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}p_i,`$ (1)
$`\text{for}i=1,2,\mathrm{},N.`$
where $`\omega _{0,i}`$ is the resonance (natural) frequency, $`p_i`$, $`q_i`$ and $`m_i`$ the dipole moment, charge and effective mass per unit length of the $`i`$-th dipole respectively. $`E_z(\stackrel{}{r}_i)`$ is the total electrical field acting on dipole $`p_i`$, which includes the radiated field from other dipoles and also the directly field from the source. The factor $`b_{0,i}`$ denotes the damping due to energy loss and radiation, and can be determined by energy conservation. Without energy loss (to such as heat), $`b_{0,i}`$ can be determined from the balance between the radiative and vibrational energies, and is given asErdogan

$$b_{0,i}=\frac{q_i^2\omega _{0,i}}{4ϵm_ic^2},$$
(2)
with $`ϵ`$ being the constant permittivity and $`c`$ the speed of light in the medium separately.

Equation (1) is virtually the same as Eq. (1) in Erdogan . The only difference is that in Erdogan , $`E_z`$ is the reflected field at the dipole due to the presence of reflecting surrounding structures, while in the present case the field is from the stimulating source and the radiation from all other dipoles.

The transmitted electrical field from the continuous line source is determined by the Maxwell equationsErdogan

$$\left(^2\frac{^2}{c^2t^2}\right)G_0(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_s)=4\mu _0\omega ^2p_0\pi \delta ^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_s)e^{i\omega t},$$
(3)
where $`\omega `$ is the radiation frequency, and $`p_0`$ is the source strength and is set to be unit. The solution of Eq. (3) is clearly

$$G_0(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r_s})=(\mu _0\omega ^2p_0)i\pi H_0^{(1)}(k|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_s|)e^{i\omega t},$$
(4)
with $`k=\omega /c`$, and $`H_0^{(1)}`$ being the zero-th order Hankel function of the first kind.

Similarly, the radiated field from the $`i`$-th dipole is given by

$$\left(^2\frac{^2}{c^2t^2}\right)G_i(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_i)=\mu _0\frac{d^2}{dt^2}p_i\delta ^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_i).$$
(5)
The field arriving at the $`i`$-th dipole is composed of the direct field from the source and the radiation from all other dipoles, and thus is given as

$$E_z(\stackrel{}{r}_i)=G_0(\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_s)+\underset{j=1,ji}{\overset{N}{}}G_j(\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j).$$
(6)
Substituting Eqs. (4), (5), and (6) into Eq. (1), and writing $`p_i=p_ie^{i\omega t}`$, we arrive at

$`(\omega ^2+\omega _{0,i}^2i\omega b_{0,i})p_i=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{q_i^2}{m_i}}\left[G_0(\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_s)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,ji}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0\omega ^2}{4}}iH_0^{(1)}(k|\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j|)p_i\right].`$ (7)
This set of linear equations can be solved numerically for $`p_i`$. After $`p_i`$ are obtained, the total field at any space point can be readily calculated from

$$E_z(\stackrel{}{r})=G_0(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_s)+\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}G_j(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_j).$$
(8)
In the standard approach to wave localization, waves are said to be localized when the square modulus of the field $`|E(\stackrel{}{r})|^2`$, representing the wave energy, is spatially localized after the trivial cylindrically spreading effect is eliminated. Obviously, this is equivalent to say that the further away is the dipole from the source, the smaller its oscillation amplitude, expected to follow an exponentially decreasing pattern.

To this end, it is instructive to point out that an alternative two dimensional dipole model was devised previously by Rusek and OrlowskiMarian . The authors derived a set of linear algebraic equations, which is similar in form to the above Eq. (6). However, there are some fundamental discrepancies between the two models. In Marian , the interaction between dipoles and the external field is derived by the energy conservation, while in the present case the coupling is determined without ambiguity by the Newton’s second law. The former leads to an undetermined phase factor. According to, e. g. Refs. Erdogan ; ccw , the energy conservation can only give the radiation factor in Eq. (2). We would also like to point out that the set of couple equations in Eq. (7) is similar in spirit to the tight-binding model used to study the electronic localizationAnderson ; Zallen .

There are several ways to introduce randomness to Eq. (7). For example, the disorder may be introduced by randomly varying such properties of individual dipoles as the charge, the mass or the two combined. This is the most common way that the disorder is introduced into the tight-binding model for electronic wavesZallen . In the present study, the disorder is brought in by the random distribution of the dipoles.

For simplicity yet without losing generality, assume that all the dipoles are identical and they are randomly distributed within a square area. The source is located at the center (set to be the origin) of this area. For convenience, we make Eq. (7) non-dimensional by scaling the frequency by the resonance frequency of a single dipole $`\omega _0`$. This will lead to two independent non-dimensional parameters $`b=\frac{q^2\mu _0}{4m}`$ and $`b_0^{}=\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\left(\frac{b_0}{\omega _0}\right)`$. Both parameters may be adjusted in the experiment. For example, the factor $`b_0`$ can be modified by coating layered structures around the dipolesErdogan . Then Eq. (7) becomes simply

$`(f^2+1ib_0^{})p_i=`$
$`ibf^2\left[p_0H_0^{(1)}(k|\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_s|)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,ji}{\overset{N}{}}}p_iH_0^{(1)}(k|\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j|)\right]`$ $`)`$ (9)
with $`f=\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}`$. Eq. (9) is self-consistent and can be solved numerically for $`p_i`$ and then the total field is obtained through Eqs. (3), (5) and (8).

## III The results and discussion

### III.1 Two numerical measuring scenarios

In the following computation, we will consider two scenarios. They are illustrated in Fig. 2 with the coordinates being shown. In both cases, the sample takes a fixed rectangular shape of which the size may vary. The dipoles, denoted by the small circles, are placed within the rectangle in a complete randomness. The receiver, denoted by the filled black circle, is placed on the $`x`$-axis.

In case (A), the sample size is fixed. The receiver is placed along $`x`$-axis to measure the signal at various positions, yielding the result of the transmission signal versus the distance between the source and the receiver, termed as the travelling distance in the paper. This scenario complies with the original conjecture of observation of localizationLee . In case (B), the receiver is placed at a very small distance outside the sample. While the sample size varies, this method is to measure the transmission through the sample of various sizes, yielding the result of the transmission signal versus the sample size.

### III.2 General discussion of localization

Before moving to solve Eq. (7) for the phenomenon of localization of EM waves, we discuss some general properties of wave localization.

The coherence in localization Although some parts of the following discussion has been reported earlier, we repeat here for the sake of convenience and importance. The energy flow of EM waves is $`\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{E}\times \stackrel{}{H}`$. By invoking the Maxwell equations to relate the electrical and magnetic fields, we can derive that the time averaged energy flow is

$$<\stackrel{}{J}>_t\frac{1}{T}_0^T𝑑t\stackrel{}{J}|\stackrel{}{E}|^2\theta ,$$
(10)
where the electrical field is written as $`\stackrel{}{E}=\stackrel{}{e}_E|\stackrel{}{E}|e^{i\theta }`$, with $`\stackrel{}{e}_E`$ denoting the direction, $`|\stackrel{}{E}|`$ and $`\theta `$ being the amplitude and the phase respectively. It is clear from Eq. (10) that when $`\theta `$ is constant, at least by spatial domains, while $`|\stackrel{}{E}|0`$, the flow would come to a stop and the energy will be localized or stored in the space. In the localized state, a source can no longer radiate energies. Alternatively, we can write the oscillation of the dipoles as $`p_i=|p_i|e^{i\theta _i}`$. By studying the square modulus of $`p_i`$ in the form of $`|\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_s||p_i|^2`$, and its phase $`\theta _i`$, we can also investigate the localization of EM waves. Note here that the factor $`|\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_s|`$ is to eliminate the cylindrical spreading effect in 2D as can be seen from the expansion of the Hankel function $`|H_0^{(1)}(x)|^2\frac{1}{x}`$. That the phase $`\theta `$ is constant implies that a coherence behavior appears in the system, i. e. the localized state is a phase-coherent state, as previously discussedYe2 . It is a unique feature of wave localization, and has also been shown to be related to electronic localization (e. g. Ref. Gurtvitz ).

Spatial behavior of localized waves Following 3D , a general consideration of the spatial behavior of localized waves is possible. Consider a wave transmitted in a random medium. The transport equation for the total energy intensity $`I`$, i. e. $`<|E|^2>`$, may be intuitively written as

$$\frac{dI}{dx}=\alpha I,$$
(11)
where $`\alpha `$ represents decay along the path traversed. After penetrating into the random medium, the wave will be scattered by random inhomogeneities. As a result, the wave coherence starts to decrease, yielding the way to incoherence. Extinction of the coherent intensity $`I_C`$, i. e. $`|<E>|^2`$, is described by

$$\frac{dI_C}{dx}=\gamma I_C,$$
(12)
with the attenuation constant $`\gamma `$. Eqs. (11) and (12) lead to the exponential solutions

$$I(x)=I(0)e^{\alpha x},\text{and}I_C(x)=I(0)e^{\gamma x}.$$
(13)
In deriving these equations, the boundary condition was used; it states that $`I(0)=I_C(0)`$ as no scattering has been incurred yet at the interface. According to energy conservation, the incoherent intensity $`I_D`$ (diffusive) is thus

$$I_D(x)=I(x)I_C(x).$$
(14)
When there is no absorption, the decay constant $`\alpha `$ is expected to vanish and the total intensity will then be constant along the propagation path. Then, the coherent energy gradually decreases due to random scattering and transforms to the diffusive energy, while the sum of the two forms of energy remains a constant. This scenario, however, changes when localization occurs. Even without absorption, the total intensity can be localized near the interface due to multiple scattering. When this happens, $`\alpha `$ does not vanish. The transport of the total intensity may be still described by Eq. (11), and the inverse of $`\alpha `$ would then refer to the localization length.

The above perceptual description may be illustrated by Fig. 3. Without or with little absorption and with no localization, the energy propagation is anticipated to follow the behavior depicted in (A). When the localization comes in function, the wave will be trapped within an $`e`$-folding distance from the penetration, as prescribed by (B). In the non-localization case, the diffusive intensity increases steadily as more and more scattering occurs, complying with the Milne diffusion. In the localized state, the diffusion energy increases initially. It will be eventually stopped by the interference of multiple scattering waves. Issues may be raised with respect to whether this apprehended image is supported by actual situations. In the rest, we will inspect this problem.

Comparing Fig. 3 (A) and (B), we know that one of the key differences between non-localization and localization features lies in the difference in the behavior of the diffusive waves. However, the eventual task of inferring localization is to find whether the total energy decays with the sample size.

### III.3 Numerical results

Unless otherwise noted, the following parameters are used in the numerical simulation: the non-dimensional damping rate, $`b_0/\omega _0=0.001`$ and the interaction coupling, $`b=0.001`$. The filling factor ($`\beta `$) varies from 2.25 to 25; the filling factor is defined as the number of dipoles per unit area. But without notification, the filling factor is taken as 6.25. The number of random configurations for averaging is taken in such a way that the convergency is assured. In the calculation, we scale all lengths by a length $`D`$ such that $`k_0D=1`$, and frequency by $`\omega _0`$. In this way, the frequency always enters as $`k/k`$. We find that all the results shown below are only dependent on parameters $`b`$, $`b_0/\omega _0`$, and the ratio $`\omega /\omega _0`$ or equivalently $`k/k_0`$. Such a simple scaling property may facilitate designing experiments. In the numerical computation, we take $`c=1`$ for convenience. The total wave at a spatial point is scaled as $`T(\stackrel{}{r})E(\stackrel{}{r})/E_0(\stackrel{}{r})`$, with $`E_0`$ being the direct wave from the source, so that the trivial geometric spreading effect is naturally removed.

First, we plot the frequency response of the transmission in the scenario (B) of Fig. 2. The results are shown in Fig. 4. Here we see that there is a narrow window within which the transmission is highly inhibited, implying a strong localization effect. It is also clear that when the sample size is increased, the inhibition increases. Comparing the results for the two filling factors, we know that the strong inhibition regime increases with filling factor. In the next computations, we will focus on frequencies within the strong inhibition region.

Now we consider the phase and the spatial distribution of energy of the system. To describe the phase behavior of the system, we assign a unit phase vector, $`\stackrel{}{u}_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i\stackrel{}{e}_x+\mathrm{sin}\theta _i\stackrel{}{e}_y`$ to the oscillation phase $`\theta _i`$ of the dipoles. Here $`\stackrel{}{e}_x`$ and $`\stackrel{}{e}_y`$ are unit vectors in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions respectively. These phase vectors are represented by a phase diagram in the $`xy`$ plane with the phase vector $`\stackrel{}{u}_i`$ being located at the dipole to which the phase $`\theta _i`$ is associated. The results are depicted for three frequencies by Fig. 5.

Here we see clearly shown that for the three frequencies within the strong inhibition region, the energy is spatially confined near the transmitting source, and, as expected, the energy seems to decrease nearly exponentially along any radial direction. Meanwhile, the system reveals an in-phase phenomenon: nearly all the phase vectors of the dipoles point to the same direction, exactly opposite to the phase vector of the source which is denoted by the black arrow. The picture represented by Fig. 5 fully complies with the general description of the coherence in localization stated above.

We also note from Fig. 5 that near the sample boundary, the phase vectors start to point to different directions. This is because the numerical simulation is carried out for a finite sample size. For a finite system, the energy can leak out at the boundary, resulting in disorientation of the phase vectors. When enlarging the sample size by adding more dipoles while keeping the averaged distance between dipoles fixed, the area showing the phase coherence will increase accordingly.

The results of Fig. 5 are encouraging, as they are a strong indication of localization. In the following, we will further explore the features of localization. In Fig. 6, we compare the transmission results for the two scenarios from Fig. 2. Here is shown that although there is a slight difference in the transmitted strength, overall speaking the spatial decay features are nearly identical, signified by the match of the decaying slopes indicated in the figure. Though suspected to be true previously, such a match is important, and to the best of our knowledge this is the first that has been ever shown for EM waves. It supports directly that the scenario (B) can also be used to infer localization effects, facilitating measurements of localization; in the original conjecture, it was scenario (A) that has been suggested for discerning localization. In the rest of simulation, we will adopt scenario (B) in Fig. 2.

The bottom panel of Fig. 6 indicates that the level of spatial localization of energy varies for the three frequencies. To quantify the localization in Fig. 6, we plot the total energy as a function of the sample size. The results are presented by Fig. 7. Here, the numerical data are fitted with the least squares method and the fitted curves are shown by the solid lines; the unnoticeable deviation from the lines reflects the fluctuation due to the random distribution. Two ways of averaging are adopted. One is the traditional way in which the logged total transmission is averaged, while the other is to take log of the averaged total energy. These can be referred to from the y-axis labels. It shows that after removing the spreading factor, the data can be fitted by $`e^{r/\xi }`$. From the slope of the solid lines, the localization lengths $`\xi `$, which are the inverse of the slopes can be estimated. Here is shown that the decaying slopes from the two averaging methods are very close, an encouraging fact. It is also indicated by the decreasing slopes with frequency that the localization effect decreases as the frequency increases.

With the fixed filling factor of 6.25, we have also investigated the spatial variations of the total, coherent and the diffusive energies for three frequencies discussed. The results are presented in Fig. 8. Here we see that the results are in accordance with the previous general consideration of localization. Due to scattering and localization, the coherent waves decrease with the sample size. The diffusive wave increases initially as more and more scattering occurs, then reaches a peak and starts to decay due to the localization effect, in agreement with the description of Fig. 3(B). The results show that in the present system, the diffusive portion in the total energy is much smaller than the coherent portion, indicating that the mean free path is very small. When plotted in the log scale, we have found that the total and coherent energies decays exponentially with the distance, while the diffusive energy increases initially, then starts to decay exponentially. It is worth noting that for the three frequencies considered, the total energy does not reveal any behavior similar to the diffusive waves, in contrast to the previous theoretical conjectureSheng . The theory predicts that the total energy would follow the behavior of diffusive waves until when the sample size is larger than the localization length. One explanation is that in the present system, the scattering is too significant so that the diffusive portion never dominates. A search for the possible match between the simulation and theory in certain conditions is still undergoing.

In Fig. 9, we plot the localization length versus frequency and filling factor separately. It is shown that with the fixed filling factor, referring to Fig. 9(A), the localization length increases with frequency within the frequency regime considered. With a fixed frequency, the localization length tends to decreases, meaning increasing localization effects, as the filling factor increases.

Fig. 10 shows the transmission versus frequency for various coupling constants and damping rates. From this figure, we observe the following. (1) The increasing coupling strength leads to a wider strong inhibition region, but shallower localization valley. (2) When increasing the coupling strength, a prominent resonance peak appears below the natural frequency $`\omega _0`$. And the peak moves toward lower frequencies as the strength increases, a feature also appears in the acoustic systemYe1 . (3) Overall speaking, the increasing damping rate degrades the localization level, and tends to abolish the resonance peak. Also it seems to widen the strong localization region at the lower frequency side.

## IV Summary

In this article, the localization features in a simple electromagnetic system are investigated in detail. Some general properties of the localization phenomenon are elaborated. For certain ranges of frequencies, strongly localized electromagnetic waves have been observed in such a simple but realistic disordered system. It is shown that the localization depends on a number of parameters including frequency, filling factor, and damping rate. The spatial behavior of the total, coherent and diffusive waves is also explored, and found to comply with a physical intuitive picture. A phase diagram characterizing localization is presented, in agreement with previous investigations on other systemsYe2 .

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the National Science Council of Republic of China and Department of Physics at NCU.