format: text

text:
# Excited TBA Equations II: Massless Flow from Tricritical to Critical Ising Model

## 1 Introduction

In integrable Quantum Field Theory (QFT), the Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz (TBA)  continues to be an important method for the study of massive and massless Renormalization Group (RG) flows including the study of excited states . Moreover the Tricritical Ising Model (TIM), which is the simplest member $`(4,5)`$ of the unitary minimal series  beyond the critical Ising model $`(3,4)`$, remains a rich example for studying both thermal and boundary flows .

In Part I of this series (hereafter referred to as PCAI ) we considered the massive tricritical Ising model $`(4,5)`$ perturbed by the thermal operator $`\phi _{1,3}`$ in a cylindrical geometry and systematically derived the TBA equations for all excitations by using a lattice approach. More specifically this was achieved by solving, in the continuum scaling limit, the TBA functional equation satisfied by the double-row transfer matrices of the $`A_4`$ lattice model of Andrews, Baxter and Forrester (ABF) in Regime III . In this paper we turn our attention to the massless tricritical Ising model which is obtained as the continuum scaling limit of the $`A_4`$ lattice model in Regime IV. Our goal is to systematically derive and study the massless TBA equations which describe the renormalization group (RG) flow from the tricritical $`(4,5)`$ to critical $`(3,4)`$ Ising model. We apply the methods developed in PCAI and use the concepts and notations introduced in that paper without further elaboration.

The layout of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we discuss the classification of excitations using $`(𝒎,𝒏)`$ systems including a description of the three mechanisms by which the string contents change along the flow. In Section 3 we derive in detail the massless TBA equations in the $`(r,s)=(1,1)`$ vacuum sector. We do not discuss the very similar derivation of the TBA equations in the other 5 sectors. The numerical solution of the TBA equations to yield continuous flows is discussed in Section 4. We finish in Section 5 with a brief discussion.

## 2 Classification of Excitations and Flows

For small perturbations, the scaling limit of the excitations in Regime IV of the $`A_4`$ lattice model are classified by precisely the same $`(𝒎,𝒏)`$ systems  as at the conformal critical point  and throughout the massive Regime III . Unlike the massive case, however, we find that in the massless regime the string content can change by one of three mechanisms along the flow. This was first observed empirically by direct numerical diagonalization of a sequence of finite-size transfer matrices approaching the scaling limit

$$\mu =\frac{mR}{4}=\underset{N\mathrm{},t0}{lim}N|t|^\nu ,\nu =5/4$$
(2.1)
for modest values of the system size $`N`$ and $`0mR<5`$ and is confirmed by our numerical solutions of the TBA equations. Here $`\mu `$ measures the perturbation strength and $`t`$ is the departure-from-criticality variable. The mass $`m`$ and continuum length scale $`R`$ usually occur in the single combination $`mR`$. Notice that in the finite-size scaling we use the Regime III correlation length exponent $`\nu =5/4`$ even though the actual  correlation length exponent in Regime IV is $`\nu ^{}=5/2`$.

Let us consider the vacuum sector with boundary condition $`(r,s)=(1,1)`$. The excitation energies are given by the scaling limit of the eigenvalues of the double-row transfer matrix $`𝑫(u)`$, or equivalently the normalized transfer matrix $`𝒕(u)`$, where $`u`$ is the spectral parameter. The two relevant analyticity strips in the complex $`u`$-plane are respectively

$$\frac{\lambda }{2}<\text{Re}(u)<\frac{3\lambda }{2},2\lambda <\text{Re}(u)<4\lambda $$
(2.2)
where $`\lambda =\pi /5`$ is the crossing parameter. The excitations are classified by their string contents

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill m_i& =\text{{number of }1\text{-strings in strip }i=1,2\text{}}\hfill \\ \hfill n_i& =\text{{number of }2\text{-strings in strip }i=1,2\text{}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.3)
At the conformal critical point ($`mR=0`$) the string contents satisfy the $`(𝒎,𝒏)`$ system

$$𝒎+𝒏=\frac{1}{2}(N𝒆_1+𝒎)$$
(2.4)
where $`m_1,m_2`$ and $`N`$ are even, $`𝒎=(m_1,m_2)`$, $`𝒏=(n_1,n_2)`$, $`𝒆_1=(1,0)`$, and $``$ is the $`\mathrm{A}_2`$ incidence matrix with entries $`_{j,k}=\delta _{|jk|,1}`$. For the leading excitations $`m_1,m_2,n_2`$ are finite but $`n_1N/2`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$.

As explained in PCAI, an excitation with string content $`(𝒎,𝒏)`$ is uniquely labelled by a set of quantum numbers

$$I=(I^{(1)}|I^{(2)})=(I_1^{(1)},I_2^{(1)},\mathrm{},I_{m_1}^{(1)}|I_1^{(2)},I_2^{(2)},\mathrm{},I_{m_2}^{(2)})$$
(2.5)
where the integers $`I_j^{(i)}\{0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ with $`i=1,2`$ give the number of 2-strings whose imaginary parts $`w_k^{(i)}`$ are greater than that of the given 1-string $`v_j^{(i)}`$. The 1-strings $`v_1^{(i)}`$ and 2-strings $`w_1^{(i)}`$ labelled by $`1`$ are closest to the real axis. The quantum numbers $`I_j^{(i)}`$ satisfy

$$n_iI_1^{(i)}I_2^{(i)}\mathrm{}I_{m_i}^{(i)}0,i=1,2.$$
(2.6)
For given string content $`(𝒎,𝒏)`$, the lowest excitation occurs when all of the 1-strings are further out from the real axis than all of the 2-strings. In this case all of the quantum numbers vanish $`I_j^{(i)}=0`$. Bringing the location of a 1-string closer to the real axis by interchanging the location of the 1-string with a 2-string increments its quantum number by one unit and increases the energy.

Although we do not make use of it here, we mention in passing that, for the tricritical Ising model, there exists a bijection  between the patterns of 1- and 2-strings classifying the eigenvalues of the double-row transfer eigenvalues and RSOS paths on $`A_4`$. This has as a consequence that the finitized partition functions (Virasoro characters) satisfy the same recursions  as the one-dimensional configurational sums of the Corner Transfer Matrices (CTMs).

### 2.1 Three mechanisms for changing string content

Let $`𝒕(u)`$ be the normalized double row transfer matrix as in PCAI. In Regime IV the eigenvalues $`t(u)`$ of $`𝒕(u)`$ are doubly periodic meromorphic functions in the period rectangle

$$\text{period rectangle}=(\frac{\lambda }{2},\frac{9\lambda }{2})\times (\pi i\epsilon ,\pi i\epsilon )$$
(2.7)
where $`\epsilon `$ is related to the departure-from-criticality variable $`t`$ by

$$t=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \epsilon ).$$
(2.8)
However, in Regime IV the $`A_4`$ lattice model also admits the symmetry

$$t(u\pm \pi /2+\pi i\epsilon )=t(u)$$
(2.9)
so we can restrict ourselves further to the rectangle $`(\frac{\lambda }{2},2\lambda )\times (\pi i\epsilon ,\pi i\epsilon )`$. In particular, this means that for $`mR>0`$ the distinction between the two strips effectively disappears — the two are joined along the scaling edge at $`\text{Im}(u)=\pi \epsilon /2`$ in the scaling limit (2.1). This allows zeros to move between the putative strips 1 and 2 by crossing the scaling edge. The combination of strips 1 and 2 in the upper half plane into one extended strip is shown in Figure 1. There is a complex conjugation symmetry between the upper and lower half planes. Note that this is consistent with the picture at the conformal point since in the limit $`mR0`$ the zeros are infinitely far below (strip 1) or infinitely far above (strip 2) the scaling edge as $`\epsilon \mathrm{}`$.

Let us consider the extended analyticity strip $`\frac{\lambda }{2}\text{Re}(u)\frac{3\lambda }{2}`$. Empirically, we find that as $`mR`$ is increased from $`0`$ the strip 1 zeros approach the scaling edge at $`\text{Im}(u)=\pi \epsilon /2`$ from below while the strip 2 zeros approach the scaling edge from above. Potentially, this allows zeros to collide or migrate from one strip to the other. In fact we find that the zero patterns change by one of the following three mechanisms which occur at the scaling edge:

1. If 1-strings are closest to the scaling edge in both strips 1 and 2 then these 1-strings collide and move symmetrically in opposite directions parallel to the scaling edge until they reach $`\text{Re}(u)=0,\lambda `$. At this point the two zeros no longer contribute and they can be removed from the analyticity strip. This mechanism applies if $`I_{m_1}^{(1)}=I_{m_2}^{(2)}=0`$.
2. If a 2-string is closest to the scaling edge in strip 2 and a 1-string is closest to the scaling edge in strip 1 then the 2-string moves to the scaling edge and leaves the analyticity strip. This mechanism applies if $`I_{m_1}^{(1)}=0`$ and $`I_{m_2}^{(2)}>0`$.
3. Otherwise, if a 2-string is closest to the scaling edge in strip 1, then this 2-string moves to the scaling edge and leaves the analyticity strip. This mechanism applies if $`I_{m_1}^{(1)}>0`$.

Similar mechanisms are also observed  in the boundary flows of the tricritical Ising model. If $`m_2=0`$ only Mechanisms B and C apply according to whether $`I_{m_1}^{(1)}=0`$ or $`I_{m_1}^{(1)}>0`$. If $`m_1=m_2=0`$ then Mechanism C applies. In each of the three mechanisms exactly two zeros are removed from the extended analyticity strip. These three mechanisms are shown schematically in Figure 2. They are confirmed by the numerics discussed in Section 4.

### 2.2 Operator flow

Remarkably, as we explain in this subsection, the empirical rules giving the three mechanisms A,B,C for changing string contents under the flow suffice to determine a map in each sector $`(r,s)`$ between finitized characters for the UV ($`mR=0`$, $`c=7/10`$) and IR ($`mR=\mathrm{}`$, $`c=1/2`$) fixed points. Since two zeros leave the analyticity strip under the flow, this map from the UV to IR takes the form

$$\chi _{r,s}^{4,N+2}(q)\chi _{r^{},s^{}}^{3,N}(q),1r^{}2,1s^{},r3,1s4.$$
(2.10)
We find that the primary operators $`(r,s)`$ of the tricritical Ising model flow to the primary operators $`(r^{},s^{})`$ of the critical Ising model as shown in Table 1. This pattern of flows is consistent with the flow of operators observed with periodic boundaries but, in the presence of a boundary, the flow is always to the primary operator not to an associated descendant as can occur in the periodic case.

### 2.3 RG flow from $`\chi _{1,1}^4(q)`$ to $`\chi _{1,1}^3(q)`$

In the vacuum sector $`(r,s)=(1,1)`$ the $`A_4`$ $`(𝒎,𝒏)_{N+2}`$ system of the tricritical Ising model is

$$m_1+n_1=\frac{1}{2}(N+2+m_2),m_2+n_2=\frac{1}{2}m_1$$
(2.11)
and these relations determine $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ in terms of $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$. Similarly, let $`m`$ and $`n`$ be the number of 1- and 2-strings of the critical Ising model in the vacuum $`(r,s)=(1,1)`$ sector satisfying the $`A_3`$ $`(𝒎,𝒏)_N`$ system

$$m+n=\frac{1}{2}(N+m)\text{or}n=\frac{1}{2}(Nm).$$
(2.12)
Then $`m`$ and $`n`$ are given by the total number of 1-strings and 2-strings in the extended strip in the IR limit

$$m=\{\begin{array}{cc}m_1+m_22,\hfill & \text{A}\hfill \\ m_1+m_2,\hfill & \text{B,C}\hfill \end{array}n=\{\begin{array}{cc}n_1+n_2,\hfill & \text{A}\hfill \\ n_1+n_21,\hfill & \text{B,C}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.13)
The mechanisms A, B, C determine which energy level flows to which energy level under the RG flow. As explained in  and PCAI, the energies at a conformal point are determined by the string content $`𝒎`$ and the patterns of zeros in the complex $`u`$-plane. In terms of quantum numbers the precise mapping of energy levels under the flow is given by

$`I=(I_1^{(1)},I_2^{(1)},\mathrm{},I_{m_1}^{(1)}|I_1^{(2)},I_2^{(2)},\mathrm{},I_{m_2}^{(2)})I^{}=(I_1^{},I_2^{},\mathrm{},I_m^{})`$ (2.14)
where

A:,C $`\{\begin{array}{cc}I_j^{}=n_2+I_j^{(1)},\hfill & j=1,2,\mathrm{},m_11\hfill \\ I_{m_11+k}^{}=n_2I_{m_2k}^{(2)},\hfill & k=1,2,\mathrm{},m_21\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.15)
B,C: $`\{\begin{array}{cc}I_j^{}=n_21+I_j^{(1)},\hfill & j=1,2,\mathrm{},m_1\hfill \\ I_{m_1+k}^{}=n_2I_{m_2+1k}^{(2)},\hfill & k=1,2,\mathrm{},m_2\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.16)
Details of this mapping for the first 15 energy levels in the $`(r,s)=(1,1)`$ sector are shown in Table 2. For given string content $`𝒎`$, the base energy level $`E_m`$ is determined by the Cartan matrix $`C`$

$$q^{E_m}=q^{\frac{1}{4}𝒎C𝒎}=\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{\frac{1}{2}(m_1^2m_1m_2+m_2^2)},\hfill & A_4\hfill \\ q^{\frac{1}{2}m^2},\hfill & A_3.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.17)
The base energy occurs when the location of all of the 1-strings are further from the real axis than the locations of all of the 2-strings. Additional excitation energy is generated by permuting the order of 1-strings and 2-strings in each strip as dictated by the sum of quantum numbers $`I_j`$ in each strip and is given by the Gaussian polynomials or $`q`$-binomials

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+n}{m}\right]=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+n}{m}\right]_q=\underset{I_1=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{I_2=0}{\overset{I_1}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{I_m=0}{\overset{I_{m1}}{}}q^{I_1+\mathrm{}+I_m}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(q)_{m+n}}{(q)_m(q)_n},\hfill & m,n0\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.18)
with the $`q`$-factorials $`(q)_m=(1q)\mathrm{}(1q^m)`$ for $`m1`$ and $`(q)_0=1`$. The energy $`E`$ is increased by one unit each time a 1-string is brought closer to the real axis by interchanging its location with the location of an adjacent 2-string. The product of two $`q`$-binomials is the generating function for the conformal spectra with given string content in each strip. The $`q`$-binomials satisfy the properties

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{nm}\right]=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{m1}\right]+q^m\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{m}\right],\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+n}{m}\right]_q=q^{mn}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+n}{m}\right]_{\frac{1}{q}}.$$
(2.19)
The character $`\chi _{1,1}^4(q)`$ is the generating function for the tricritical Ising conformal spectra in the $`(1,1)`$ sector. Explicitly, using the recursion (2.19), we decompose it into three terms

$`\chi _{1,1}^{4,N+2}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{\frac{7}{240}}{\displaystyle \underset{(𝒎,𝒏)_{N+2}}{}}q^{\frac{1}{4}𝒎C𝒎}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1+n_1}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_2+n_2}{m_2}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`q^{\frac{7}{240}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1\text{,}m_2\text{ even}}{}}q^{\frac{1}{2}(m_1^2m_1m_2+m_2^2)}\{\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1+n_11}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_2+n_21}{m_21}\right]`$
$`+q^{m_2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1+n_11}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_2+n_21}{m_2}\right]+q^{m_1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1+n_11}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_2+n_2}{m_2}\right]\}`$
These three terms correspond precisely to the energy levels effected by mechanisms A, B and C respectively. So simply reading off the conformal energies from the respective zero patterns after applying each mechanism we find the following mapping between finitized characters

$`\chi _{1,1}^{4,N+2}(q)`$ $``$ $`q^{\frac{1}{48}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1\text{,}m_2\text{ even}}{}}q^{\frac{1}{2}m^2}\{q^{n_2(m_11)+n_2(m_21)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1+n_11}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_2+n_21}{m_21}\right]_{\frac{1}{q}}`$
$`+q^{(n_21)m_1+(n_21)m_2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1+n_11}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_2+n_21}{m_2}\right]_{\frac{1}{q}}+q^{n_2m_1+n_2m_2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1+n_11}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_2+n_2}{m_2}\right]_{\frac{1}{q}}\}`$
$`=`$ $`q^{\frac{1}{48}}{\displaystyle \underset{m\text{ even}}{}}q^{\frac{1}{2}m^2}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1\text{ even}}{}}\{q^{n_2(m_11)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1+n_11}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_2+n_21}{m_21}\right]`$
$`+q^{(n_21)m_1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1+n_11}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_2+n_21}{m_2}\right]+q^{n_2m_1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1+n_11}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_2+n_2}{m_2}\right]\}`$
$`=`$ $`q^{\frac{1}{48}}{\displaystyle \underset{m\text{ even}}{}}q^{\frac{1}{2}m^2}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1\text{ even}}{}}q^{\frac{3}{2}m_1^2mm_1}\{q^{m\frac{7}{2}m_1+2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{N+mm_1+2}{2}}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{m_12}{2}}{mm_1+1}\right]`$
$`+q^{m_1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{N+mm_1}{2}}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{m_12}{2}}{mm_1}\right]+\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{N+mm_1}{2}}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{m_1}{2}}{mm_1}\right]\}`$
$`=`$ $`q^{\frac{1}{48}}{\displaystyle \underset{m\text{ even}}{}}q^{\frac{1}{2}m^2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{N+m}{2}}{m}\right]=\chi _{1,1}^{3,N}(q)`$
Notice that, after the mapping, the $`q`$-binomials of strip 2 are with respect to $`1/q`$. This is because strip 2 is turned upside down when it is placed on top of strip 1 to form the extended strip. These $`q`$-binomials are naturally replaced by $`q`$-binomials in $`q`$ using (2.19). All integers are then eliminated in favour of $`m`$ and $`m_1`$ using the appropriate relations which apply to the mechanism corresponding to each of the three terms. The final equality holds because of the remarkable generalized $`q`$-Vandermonde identity which is proved in the Appendix

$`\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{N+m}{2}}{m}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1\text{ even}}{}}q^{\frac{3}{2}m_1^2mm_1}\{q^{m\frac{7}{2}m_1+2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{N+mm_1+2}{2}}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{m_12}{2}}{mm_1+1}\right]`$
$`+q^{m_1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{N+mm_1}{2}}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{m_12}{2}}{mm_1}\right]+\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{N+mm_1}{2}}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{m_1}{2}}{mm_1}\right]\}.`$
The finitized Ising character $`\chi _{1,1}^{3,N}(q)`$ is not the usual finitized character. In the limit $`q1`$ it gives the correct $`A_4`$ counting

$$\underset{q1}{lim}\chi _{1,1}^{3,N}(q)=\underset{m\text{ even}}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{N+m}{2}}{m}\right)=\left[A_4^{N+2}\right]_{1,1}$$
(2.23)
whereas the usual finitized Ising character gives $`A_3`$ counting

$$\underset{q1}{lim}q^{\frac{1}{48}}\underset{m\text{ even}}{}q^{\frac{1}{2}m^2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{N}{2}}{m}\right]=\underset{m\text{ even}}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{N}{2}}{m}\right)=\left[A_3^N\right]_{1,1}$$
(2.24)
where $`A_4`$ and $`A_3`$ denote the adjacency matrices.

### 2.4 RG flow in other sectors

The analysis of the flow using the three mechanisms A, B and C can be extended to each of the sectors $`(r,s)`$ with $`r=1,2`$, $`s=1,2,3`$. In this way we obtain six generalized $`q`$-Vandermonde identities as follows:

$`\chi _{1,1}N\text{even},m\text{even:}`$
$`\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+m\right)/2}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{m_1\text{even}}{}}q^{3m_1^2/2mm_1}\{\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_1\right)/2}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1/2}{mm_1}\right]`$ (2.25)
$`+q^{m_1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_1\right)/2}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(m_12\right)/2}{mm_1}\right]+q^{m7m_1/2+2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_1+2\right)/2}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(m_12\right)/2}{mm_1+1}\right]\}`$
$`\chi _{3,1}N\text{even},m\text{odd:}`$
$`\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+m+1\right)/2}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{m_1\text{even}}{}}q^{3m_1^2/2mm_1}\{\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_1+1\right)/2}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1/2}{mm_1}\right]`$ (2.26)
$`+q^{m_1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_1+1\right)/2}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(m_12\right)/2}{mm_1}\right]+q^{m7m_1/2+2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_1+3\right)/2}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(m_12\right)/2}{mm_1+1}\right]\}`$
$`\chi _{2,2}N\text{even},m\text{even:}`$
$`\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+m\right)/2}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{m_1\text{even}}{}}q^{3m_1^2/2mm_1}\{\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_1\right)/2}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1/2}{mm_1}\right]`$ (2.27)
$`+q^{m+5m_1/2+1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_12\right)/2}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1/2}{mm_11}\right]+q^{m5m_1/2+1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_1\right)/2}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1/2}{mm_1+1}\right]\}`$
$`\chi _{2,1}N\text{odd},m\text{even:}`$
$`\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+m1\right)/2}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{m_1\text{odd}}{}}q^{3m_1^2/2mm_1}\{q^{m_1/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_12\right)/2}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(m_1+1\right)/2}{mm_1}\right]`$ (2.28)
$`+q^{m_1/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_12\right)/2}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(m_11\right)/2}{mm_1}\right]+q^{m3m_1+3/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_1\right)/2}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(m_11\right)/2}{mm_1+1}\right]\}`$
$`\chi _{1,2}N\text{odd},m\text{even:}`$
$`\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+m1\right)/2}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{m_1\text{odd}}{}}q^{3m_1^2/2mm_1}\{q^{m3m_1+3/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_1\right)/2}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(m_11\right)/2}{mm_1+1}\right]`$ (2.29)
$`+q^{m+2m_1+1/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_12\right)/2}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(m_11\right)/2}{mm_11}\right]+q^{m_1/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_1\right)/2}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(m_11\right)/2}{mm_1}\right]\}`$
$`\chi _{3,2}N\text{odd},m\text{odd:}`$
$`\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+m\right)/2}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{m_1\text{odd}}{}}q^{3m_1^2/2mm_1}\{q^{m3m_1+3/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_1+1\right)/2}{m_11}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(m_11\right)/2}{mm_1+1}\right]`$ (2.30)
$`+q^{m+2m_1+1/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_11\right)/2}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(m_11\right)/2}{mm_11}\right]+q^{m_1/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(N+mm_1+1\right)/2}{m_1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(m_11\right)/2}{mm_1}\right]\}`$
These identities are simplified and proved in the Appendix.

## 3 TBA Equations in Regime IV

Recall from PCAI that the normalized double row transfer matrix is defined by

$$𝒕(u)=S_{r,s}(u)S(u)\left[i\frac{\vartheta _1(u+2\lambda ,p)\vartheta _1(\lambda ,p)}{\vartheta _1(u+3\lambda ,p)\vartheta _1(u+\lambda ,p)}\right]^{2N}𝑫(u)$$
(3.1)
where

$$S(u)=\frac{\vartheta _1(2u\lambda ,p)^2}{\vartheta _1(2u3\lambda ,p)\vartheta _1(2u+\lambda ,p)}$$
(3.2)
and

$$S_{r,s}(u)=(1)^sh_r(u\xi _L)h_r(u+\xi _L)\overline{h}_s(u\xi _R)\overline{h}_s(u+\xi _R)$$
(3.3)
with

$`h_r(u)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _1(\lambda ,p)\vartheta _1(u+(3r)\lambda ,p)\vartheta _1(u+(1r)\lambda ,p)}{\vartheta _1(u,p)\vartheta _1(u\lambda ,p)\vartheta _1(u+2\lambda ,p)}}`$ (3.4)
$`\overline{h}_s(u)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _4(\lambda ,p)\vartheta _4(u+(3s)\lambda ,p)\vartheta _4(u+(1s)\lambda ,p)}{\vartheta _4(u,p)\vartheta _4(u\lambda ,p)\vartheta _4(u+2\lambda ,p)}}.`$ (3.5)
Moreover, the normalized transfer matrix satisfies  the universal TBA functional equation

$$𝒕(u)𝒕(u+\lambda )=𝑰+𝒕(u+3\lambda )$$
(3.6)
independent of the boundary condition $`(r,s)`$. For Regime IV, the nome is pure imaginary with $`p=ie^{\pi ϵ}`$.

### 3.1 UV Massless TBA: $`(r,s)=(1,1)`$

In this section we derive the TBA equations for the $`(r,s)=(1,1)`$ boundary by solving the TBA functional equations in the scaling limit for even $`N`$. We follow closely the derivations in  and PCAI . The derivation for other boundary conditions is similar. We begin by factorizing the eigenvalue $`t(u)`$ of $`𝒕(u)`$ for large $`N`$ as

$$t(u)=f(u)g(u)l(u)$$
(3.7)
where $`f(u)`$ accounts for the bulk order-$`N`$ behaviour, $`g(u)`$ the order-$`1`$ boundary contributions and $`l(u)`$ is the order-$`1/N`$ finite-size correction. We will solve for $`f(u)`$, $`g(u)`$ and then $`l(u)`$ sequentially.

For the order-$`N`$ behaviour the second term on the RHS of the TBA functional equation (3.6) can be neglected giving the inversion relation

$$f(u)f(u+\lambda )=1.$$
(3.8)
In the physical strip 1, the solution  with the required analyticity is

$$f(u)=\left[\frac{\vartheta _4(\frac{\pi }{4}\frac{5u}{2},|t|^{5/2})}{\vartheta _4(\frac{\pi }{4}+\frac{5u}{2},|t|^{5/2})}\right]^{2N}.$$
(3.9)
The solution in strip 2 satisfies the same inversion relation and is given by the symmetry (2.9).

In the two analyticity strips labelled by $`j=1,2`$ we define generically for the functions $`h=t,f,g,l`$ the notations

$`h_1(x)`$ $`=h({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ix}{5}}),|\text{Im}(x)|<\pi `$ (3.10a)
$`h_2(x)`$ $`=h(3\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{ix}{5}}),|\text{Im}(x)|<\pi `$ (3.10b)
$`H_1(x)=`$ $`1+h_1(x),H_2(x)=1+h_2(x).`$ (3.10c)
and we assume the relevant functions have the scaling form

$$\widehat{h}_i(x)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}h(x+\mathrm{log}N)$$
(3.11)
For example, we see that

$$\mathrm{log}\widehat{f}_1(x)=4\mu ^2e^x$$
(3.12)
As in Regime III, we next have to solve by Fourier series the inversion relations for the order-1 boundary terms

$`g_1(xi{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})g_1(x+i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})`$ $`=1`$ (3.13a)
$`g_2(xi{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})g_2(x+i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})`$ $`=G_1(x).`$ (3.13b)
To find $`g_i(x)`$ we need to consider the zeros and poles introduced by the prefactor in (3.1). We find the order-1 zeros of $`D(u)`$ cancel exactly the poles of $`S_{1,1}(u)`$. Taking into account periodicity, the prefactor exhibits poles at $`u=\frac{\lambda }{2}+\sigma i\pi ϵ`$, $`\frac{3\lambda }{2}+\sigma i\pi ϵ`$, $`2\lambda +\sigma i\pi ϵ`$, $`4\lambda +\sigma i\pi ϵ`$, $`\frac{\lambda }{4}\pm i\frac{\pi ϵ}{2}`$, $`\frac{3\lambda }{4}\pm i\frac{\pi ϵ}{2}`$, $`\frac{11\lambda }{4}\pm i\frac{\pi ϵ}{2}`$, $`\frac{13\lambda }{4}\pm i\frac{\pi ϵ}{2}`$ and double zeros at $`u=\frac{\lambda }{2}+i\sigma \pi ϵ`$, $`3\lambda +i\sigma \pi ϵ`$, $`\frac{7\lambda }{4}\pm i\frac{\pi ϵ}{2}`$, $`\frac{17\lambda }{4}\pm i\frac{\pi ϵ}{2}`$ where $`\sigma =0,\pm 1`$. The solution for $`g_1(x)`$ with this analyticity but restricted to the strip $`|\text{Im}(x)|<3\pi /4`$ is

$$g_1(x)=\frac{\vartheta _3(\frac{ix}{2}\frac{\pi }{8},|t|^{5/4})\vartheta _3(\frac{ix}{2}+\frac{\pi }{8},|t|^{5/4})}{\vartheta _4(\frac{ix}{2}\frac{\pi }{8},|t|^{5/4})\vartheta _4(\frac{ix}{2}+\frac{\pi }{8},|t|^{5/4})}\left[\frac{\vartheta _1(\frac{ix}{2},|t|^{5/4})}{\vartheta _2(\frac{ix}{2},|t|^{5/4})}\right]^2.$$
(3.14)
By comparing the expected pattern of zeros and poles of $`g_2(xi\pi /2)g_2(x+i\pi /2)`$ with the analyticity of $`G_1(x)`$, we find that this functional relation is satisfied inside the strip $`|\text{Im}(x)|<\frac{3\pi }{4}`$. We observe that $`g_2(x)/g_1(x)`$ is free of zeros and poles in this strip. Similarly $`G_1(x)`$ is analytic and nonzero, but only inside a narrower strip $`|\text{Im}(x)|<\frac{\pi }{4}`$. Hence in this smaller strip

$$\mathrm{log}g_2(x)=\mathrm{log}g_1(x)+\epsilon \mathrm{log}G_1(x)$$
(3.15)
where the kernel in Regime IV is given by

$$\epsilon (x)=\frac{\vartheta _2(0,|t|^5)\vartheta _3(0,|t|^5)\vartheta _3(ix,|t|^5)}{2\pi \vartheta _2(ix,|t|^5)}.$$
(3.16)
Note that the signs of $`g_i(x)`$ are choosen to match the corresponding expressions  in the tricritical limit $`t0`$. They can be determined numerically from the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix with real $`u`$ in the physical range $`0<u<\lambda /2`$.

The functional equations for the finite-size corrections

$`l_1(x{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}})l_1(x+{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}})`$ $`=T_2(x)`$ (3.17a)
$`l_2(x{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}})l_2(x+{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{T_1(x)}{G_1(x)}}`$ (3.17b)
can be converted to Nonlinear Integral Equations (NLIE) by standard techniques  where the key input is the analyticity determined by the patterns of zeros. Suppose that 1-strings are located in the upper half plane in the extended strip 1 at $`\{\lambda /2+iv_1,\mathrm{},\lambda /2+iv_{m_1}\}`$ below the scaling edge and at $`\{\lambda /2+iw_1,\mathrm{},\lambda /2+iw_{m_2}\}`$ above the scaling edge. Then the zeros in strip 2 are determined by the symmetry (2.9) and occur at $`\{3\lambda +i(\pi \epsilon v_1),\mathrm{},3\lambda +i(\pi \epsilon v_{m_1})\}`$ and $`\{3\lambda +i(\pi \epsilon w_1),\mathrm{},3\lambda +i(\pi \epsilon w_{m_2})\}`$. To account for these zeros, we note that the functions

$`l_1(x){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _2(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _2(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}{\vartheta _1(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _1(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m_2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _2(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _2(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}{\vartheta _1(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _1(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}}`$ (3.18)
$`l_2(x){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _3(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _3(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}{\vartheta _4(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _4(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m_2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _3(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _3(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}{\vartheta _4(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _4(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}}`$ (3.19)
are free of zeros and poles inside their respective analyticity strips. The products of elliptic functions satisfy the inversion relations $`l_i(x\frac{i\pi }{2})l_i(x+\frac{i\pi }{2})=1`$, $`i=1,2`$ and are doubly-periodic.

It follows that

$`\mathrm{log}t_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}f_1(x)+\mathrm{log}g_1(x)+\epsilon \mathrm{log}T_2(x)+C_1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m_1}{}}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _1(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _1(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}{\vartheta _2(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _2(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m_2}{}}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _1(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _1(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}{\vartheta _2(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _2(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}}`$
$`\mathrm{log}t_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}f_2(x)+\mathrm{log}g_2(x)+\epsilon \mathrm{log}T_1(x)\epsilon \mathrm{log}G_1(x)+C_2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m_1}{}}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _4(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _4(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}{\vartheta _3(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _3(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5v_j}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m_2}{}}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _4(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _4(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}{\vartheta _3(i\frac{x}{2}i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})\vartheta _3(i\frac{x}{2}+i\frac{5w_k}{2},|t|^{\frac{5}{2}})}}`$
where $`\epsilon (x)`$ is the kernel (3.16). As in , the integration constants $`C_i`$ vanish. So now taking the scaling limit yields

$`\mathrm{log}\widehat{t}_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`4\mu ^2e^x+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu e^x+\sqrt{2}+\mu ^1e^x}{\mu e^x\sqrt{2}+\mu ^1e^x}}+k\mathrm{log}\widehat{T}_2(x)`$ (3.22)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m_1}{}}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tanh}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta _j^{(1)}x\mathrm{log}\mu )\right]+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m_2}{}}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tanh}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta _k^{(2)}x\mathrm{log}\mu )\right]`$
$`\mathrm{log}\widehat{t}_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`4e^x+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu e^x+\sqrt{2}+\mu ^1e^x}{\mu e^x\sqrt{2}+\mu ^1e^x}}+k\mathrm{log}\widehat{T}_1(x)`$ (3.23)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m_1}{}}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tanh}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta _j^{(1)}+x+\mathrm{log}\mu )\right]+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m_2}{}}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tanh}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta _j^{(2)}+x+\mathrm{log}\mu )\right]`$
where the kernel is

$$k(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{cosh}x}.$$
(3.24)
In deriving this result we have assumed that the zeros scale as

$`v_j`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}|t|}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _j^{(1)}}{5}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \epsilon }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _j^{(1)}}{5}}`$ (3.25)
$`w_k`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}|t|}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _k^{(2)}}{5}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \epsilon }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _k^{(2)}}{5}}`$ (3.26)
or, more precisely, the scaled locations of the zeros are defined by

$`\beta _j^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{N\mathrm{},t0}{lim}\left(5v_j+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}\mathrm{log}|t|\right)=\underset{N\mathrm{},t0}{lim}\left(5v_j+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{N}}\right)`$ (3.27)
$`\beta _k^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{N\mathrm{},t0}{lim}\left(5w_k+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}\mathrm{log}|t|\right)=\underset{N\mathrm{},t0}{lim}\left(5w_k+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{N}}\right)`$ (3.28)
Close to the UV fixed point, when $`mR`$ is small, we must have $`\beta _j^{(1)}<0`$ and $`\beta _k^{(2)}>0`$.

If we define the rapidity $`\vartheta `$ and pseudo-energies $`ϵ_i(\vartheta )`$ by

$$e^{ϵ_i(\vartheta )}=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}t_i\left(\vartheta \mathrm{log}\frac{\mu }{N}\right)=\widehat{t}_i(\vartheta \mathrm{log}\mu ),i=1,2$$
(3.29)
where $`\mu =mR/4`$ we obtain the TBA equations

$`ϵ_1(\vartheta )`$ $`=`$ $`mRe^\vartheta \mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{e^\vartheta +\sqrt{2}+e^\vartheta }{e^\vartheta \sqrt{2}+e^\vartheta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\vartheta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(1+e^{ϵ_2(\vartheta ^{})})}{\mathrm{cosh}(\vartheta \vartheta ^{})}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m_1}{}}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _j^{(1)}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m_2}{}}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _k^{(2)}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\right)`$
$`ϵ_2(\vartheta )`$ $`=`$ $`mRe^\vartheta \mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{e^\vartheta +\sqrt{2}+e^\vartheta }{e^\vartheta \sqrt{2}+e^\vartheta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\vartheta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(1+e^{ϵ_1(\vartheta ^{})})}{\mathrm{cosh}(\vartheta \vartheta ^{})}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m_1}{}}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _j^{(1)}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m_2}{}}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _k^{(2)}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\right)`$
To find the locations $`\beta _j^{(1)}`$, $`\beta _k^{(2)}`$ of the 1-strings consider the functional equations

$`t_1(xi{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})t_1(x+i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`1+t_2(x)`$
$`t_2(xi{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})t_2(x+i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`1+t_1(x)`$ (3.31)
at $`x=\pi i/2+5v_j`$, $`x=\pi i/2+5w_k`$ respectively. Since the right-hand sides vanish, in the scaling limit this implies

$`\widehat{t}_2(\beta _j^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}}\mathrm{log}\mu )=1=e^{n_j^{(1)}\pi i},j=1,2,\mathrm{},m_1`$
$`\widehat{t}_1(\beta _k^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}}\mathrm{log}\mu )=1=e^{n_k^{(2)}\pi i},k=1,2,\mathrm{},m_2`$ (3.32)
or

$`ϵ_2(\beta _j^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`n_j^{(1)}\pi i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},m_1`$
$`ϵ_1(\beta _k^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`n_k^{(2)}\pi i,k=1,2,\mathrm{},m_2`$ (3.33)
where $`n_j^{(1)}`$, $`n_k^{(2)}`$ are odd integers. These integers are given by their values  in the UV limit as determined by winding numbers

$`n_j^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`2(m_1j)m_2+1+2I_j^{(1)},j=1,2,\mathrm{},m_1`$
$`n_k^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`2(m_2k)m_1+1+2I_k^{(2)},k=1,2,\mathrm{},m_2`$ (3.34)
where $`I=(I_1^{(1)},\mathrm{},I_{m_1}^{(1)}|I_1^{(2)},\mathrm{},I_{m_2}^{(2)})`$ are the quantum numbers (2.5). These integers $`n_{\mathrm{}}^{(i)}`$ can change during the flow due to winding of phases. For numerical purposes, a more useful form of these auxiliary equations is obtained by replacing $`\vartheta `$ with $`\beta _{\mathrm{}}^{(i)}\frac{\pi i}{2}`$ in the TBA equations (3.1). Similar equations can obtained for the locations of the 2-strings.

Repeating the same calculation as in Regime III, we find the finite-size corrections to the scaled energies in Regime IV are

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}D_1(x)=\frac{RE(R)\mathrm{cosh}x}{2N}+o(\frac{1}{N})$$
(3.35)
with

$$RE(R)=mR[\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_1}{}}e^{\beta _j^{(1)}}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{m_2}{}}e^{\beta _k^{(2)}}]\frac{mR}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\vartheta e^\vartheta \mathrm{log}(1+e^{ϵ_1(\vartheta )})$$
(3.36)
In the UV limit $`mR0`$ we recover the critical TBA equations of . Explicitly, setting $`\vartheta =x+\mathrm{log}\mu `$, we find that as $`\mu 0`$ the location of the 1-strings scale as

$`\beta _j^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`y_j^{(1)}+\mathrm{log}\mu ,j=1,2,\mathrm{},m_1`$
$`\beta _k^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`y_k^{(2)}\mathrm{log}\mu ,k=1,2,\mathrm{},m_2`$ (3.37)
It follows that in the limit $`mR0`$ the finite-size corrections to the scaled energies are given exactly by

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}D_1(u)=\frac{2\pi }{N}\mathrm{sin}5u\left[\frac{7}{240}\frac{1}{4}𝒎C𝒎\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_i}{}}I_j^{(i)}\right]$$
(3.38)
with the finitized partition function

$$Z_N(q)=q^{7/240}\underset{m_1,m_2\text{even}}{}q^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{4}}𝒎C𝒎}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{m_1+n_1}{m_1}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{m_2+n_2}{m_2}\right]_q$$
(3.39)
where the modular parameter is $`q=\mathrm{exp}(\pi \mathrm{sin}5uM/N)`$ for $`M`$ double rows.

We have chosen to write the TBA equations in terms of both strips 1 and 2. However, in accord with the existence of a single extended strip, the set of TBA equations (3.1), (3.33), (3.34) and (3.36) can be written in terms of a single strip by using the symmetry $`ϵ_2(\vartheta )=ϵ_1(\vartheta )`$. Explicitly, extending strip 1, we obtain the TBA equations

$`ϵ_1(\vartheta )`$ $`=`$ $`mRe^\vartheta \mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{e^\vartheta +\sqrt{2}+e^\vartheta }{e^\vartheta \sqrt{2}+e^\vartheta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\vartheta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(1+e^{ϵ_1(\vartheta ^{})})}{\mathrm{cosh}(\vartheta +\vartheta ^{})}}`$ (3.40)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\right)`$
$`RE(R)`$ $`=`$ $`mR{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{m}{}}}e^{\beta _{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{mR}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\vartheta e^\vartheta \mathrm{log}(1+e^{ϵ_1(\vartheta )})`$ (3.41)
where $`m=m_1+m_2`$ and

$`\beta _{m+1k}^{(1)}=\beta _k^{(2)},k=1,2,\mathrm{},m_2`$ (3.42)
The auxiliary equations become

$`ϵ_1({\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}}\beta _{\mathrm{}}^{(1)})=n_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}\pi i,\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},m`$ (3.43)
where

$`n_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}=m2\mathrm{}+1+2\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},m`$ (3.44)
and the quantum numbers $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the extended strip are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}n_2+I_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)},\hfill & \mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},m_1\hfill \\ n_2I_{m+1\mathrm{}}^{(1)},\hfill & \mathrm{}=m_1+1,m_1+2,\mathrm{},m\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.45)
with $`n_2=m_1/2m_2`$. This symmetry between strips 1 and 2 is manifestly broken in the UV limit $`mR0`$ and the IR limit $`mR\mathrm{}`$. Also these TBA equations need to be modified in the intermediate regime for Mechanism A levels after collision of the 1-strings.

### 3.2 IR Massless TBA: $`(r,s)=(1,1)`$

For large $`mR`$ we work with the extended strip 1. In this regime the total number of 1-strings is either $`m=m_1+m_2`$ for Mechanism B, C or $`m=m_1+m_22`$ for Mechanism A with quantum numbers $`I^{}=(I_1^{},I_2^{},\mathrm{},I_m^{})`$ given by (2.14) to (2.16). Setting

$$ϵ^{}(\vartheta )=ϵ_1(\vartheta )+m\pi i=ϵ_2(\vartheta )+m\pi i$$
(3.46)
we now obtain the single TBA equation

$`ϵ^{}(\vartheta )`$ $`=`$ $`mRe^\vartheta \mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{e^\vartheta +\sqrt{2}+e^\vartheta }{e^\vartheta \sqrt{2}+e^\vartheta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\vartheta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(1+e^{ϵ^{}(\vartheta ^{})})}{\mathrm{cosh}(\vartheta +\vartheta ^{})}}`$ (3.47)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{\mathrm{}}^{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\right)`$
with scaling energies

$$RE(R)=mR\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{m}{}}e^\beta _{\mathrm{}}^{}\frac{mR}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\vartheta e^\vartheta \mathrm{log}(1+e^{ϵ^{}(\vartheta )})$$
(3.48)
The auxiliary equations are

$`ϵ^{}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}}\beta _{\mathrm{}}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`n_{\mathrm{}}^{}\pi i,\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},m`$ (3.49)
where

$`n_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2(m\mathrm{})+1+2I_{\mathrm{}}^{},\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},m`$ (3.50)
The difference between this equation and (3.44), as reflected in (3.46), arises because of the $`m\pi i`$ winding between the previous position of the scaling edge at $`\pi i\epsilon /2`$ (reference point for $`\vartheta =0`$) and the new position of the scaling edge at $`\pi i\epsilon `$.

Setting $`\vartheta =x+\mathrm{log}\mu `$ in the IR limit $`mR\mathrm{}`$, the locations of the 1-strings scale as

$$\beta _{\mathrm{}}^{}=y_{\mathrm{}}^{}+\mathrm{log}\mu ,\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},m$$
(3.51)
and the above equations reduce to the TBA equations of the critical Ising model. Indeed, the pseudo energies $`ϵ_i(\vartheta )`$ decouple giving the energy of the usual massless free fermions

$$ϵ^{}(\vartheta )mRe^\vartheta $$
(3.52)
so that the auxilliary equations (3.49) become

$$4e^y_{\mathrm{}}^{}=[2(m\mathrm{})+1+2I_{\mathrm{}}^{}]\pi $$
(3.53)
In this limit the finite size corrections for the scaled energies are

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}D_1(x)=\frac{\pi \mathrm{cosh}x}{N}\left[\frac{1}{48}+E^{}\right],E^{}=\frac{m^2}{2}+\underset{\mathrm{}}{}I_{\mathrm{}}^{}$$
(3.54)
with the partition function

$$Z_{1,1}^{Ising}(q)=q^{1/48}\underset{meven}{}q^{\frac{m^2}{2}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\frac{N+m2}{2}}{m}\right]_q.$$
(3.55)
## 4 Massless Numerics

The TBA equations of the previous section can be solved numerically by an iterative procedure. There are, however, some subtleties. The process starts with initial guesses for the pseudoenergies $`ϵ_i(\vartheta )`$ and 1-string locations, close to the UV or IR fixed points. The flow is followed by progressively incrementing or decrementing $`mR`$. At each value of $`mR`$, the TBA equations are used to update the pseudoenergies $`ϵ_i(\vartheta )`$ and then these are used in the auxiliary equations to update the locations of the 1-strings, and so on, until a stable solution is reached. Typically, the UV form of the equations is stable for small values of $`mR`$, the IR form is stable for large values of $`mR`$ and there is an intermediate range of values of $`mR`$ for which both forms are stable and converge (with a precision of five decimals places) to the same values for the scaled energies and the locations of each of the 1-strings. In all cases these numerical flows confirm the three mechanisms A, B, C.

One numerical difficulty is related to the determination of the location of the 1-strings in strip 2. This problem arises because in the UV form of the equations $`\beta _k^{(2)}`$ cannot be obtained by direct iteration of the auxiliary equation. This problem is solved by inverting the phases

$$\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\beta _j^{(1)}\beta _k^{(2)}}{2}+\frac{\pi i}{4}\right)$$
(4.1)
A more serious problem relates to Mechanism A cases for which two 1-strings collide to form a (short) 2-string with complex coordinates

$$\beta _{m_1}^{(1)},\beta _{m_2}^{(2)}\beta \pm i\gamma $$
(4.2)
For these cases there is an intermediate range of values of $`mR`$ which requires a modification of the TBA equations. Such short 2-strings were studied  in the context of the Yang-Lee scaling theory. Unfortunately, due to instabilities in our equations, we have been unable to numerically solve the Mechanism A equations throughout the intermediate region.

We present some typical numerical results in a series of figures. In Figure 3, we compare the groundstate scaling energy in the $`(r,s)=(1,1)`$ sector with the scaling energy for periodic boundary conditions. In Figures 4 and 9 we show the flow of scaling energies in the sectors $`(r,s)=(1,1)`$ and $`(r,s)=(3,1)`$ respectively. A dashed curve is used to guide the eye in the intermediate regime of the Mechanism A level. In Figures 5 and 6, we show the flow of the scaling energy and 1-strings for the Mechanism A level in this sector with string contents $`(m_1,m_2)=(4,2)`$ and UV quantum numbers $`I=(0,0,0,0|0,0)`$. The dashed curves in the intermediate regime are schematic and have not been calculated from the solution of the TBA equations. For comparison, we show in Figures 7 and 8, the flow of the scaling energy and 1-strings for the Mechanism B level with string contents $`(m_1,m_2)=(6,2)`$ and quantum numbers $`I=(0,0,0,0,0,0|1,1)`$. The flow of the scaling energies and 1-strings for arbitrary Mechanism B and C levels can be calculated throughout the flow by numerical solution of the TBA equations. The mechanism A levels can be calculated right up to the point where the two 1-strings collide. Note the linear regimes in the UV and IR for the flows of 1-strings. This corresponds to the assumed limiting scaling of the locations of these 1-strings.

## 5 Discussion

In this paper we have used a lattice approach to derive TBA equations for all excitations in the massless renormalization group flow from the tricritical to critical Ising model. The excitations are classified according to string content which changes by one of three mechanisms A,B,C along the flow and leads to a mapping between finitized Virasoro characters. With the exception of the intermediate regime for Mechanism A flows, the TBA equations can be solved numerically by iteration. It would be of interest to compare our results with the results of the Truncated Conformal Space Approximation.

Although, the tricritical Ising model is superconformal, the boundary conditions applied in this paper break the superconformal symmetry. It would be of interest to investigate the pattern of the superconformal flows between fixed points corresponding to superconformal boundary conditions . It would also be of interest to extend the analysis of this paper to the complete flow for periodic boundary conditions.

## Appendix

In this Appendix we prove the generalized $`q`$-Vandermonde identities of Section 2.4. We simplify the identities to show they are special cases of general identities obtained by Bender . We then give an elementary proof of these identities using induction.

To simplify the identities of Section 2.4 we set $`m_1=2k`$ or $`m_1=2k+1`$ depending on the parity of $`m_1`$ and set $`n=(N+m)/2`$ or $`n=(N+m\pm 1)/2`$ as appropriate. This reduces the six identities to four identities

$`\chi _{1,1}/\chi _{3,1}:\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}q^{6k^22km}\{\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{2k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{m2k}\right]`$ (A.1)
$`+q^{2k}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{2k1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k1}{m2k}\right]+q^{m7k+2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk+1}{2k1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k1}{m2k+1}\right]\}`$
$`\chi _{2,2}:\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}q^{6k^22km}\{\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{2k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{m2k}\right]`$ (A.2)
$`+q^{m+5k+1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk1}{2k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{m2k1}\right]+q^{m5k+1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{2k1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{m2k+1}\right]\}`$
$`\chi _{2,1}:\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}q^{6k^22kmm+6k+3/2}\{q^{k+1/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk1}{2k+1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+1}{m2k1}\right]`$ (A.3)
$`+q^{k1/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk1}{2k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{m2k1}\right]+q^{m6k3/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{2k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{m2k}\right]\}`$
$`\chi _{1,2}/\chi _{3,2}:\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}q^{6k^22kmm+6k+3/2}\{q^{m6k3/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{2k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{m2k}\right]`$ (A.4)
$`+q^{m+4k+5/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk1}{2k+1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{m2k2}\right]+q^{k1/2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{2k+1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{m2k1}\right]\}`$
After some recasting, a surprising mod 3 property emerges in the terms of these identities

$`\chi _{1,1}/\chi _{3,1}:\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}q^{6k^22km}\{\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{n3k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{3km}\right]`$ (A.5)
$`+q^{2k}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{n3k+1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k1}{3k1m}\right]+q^{m7k+2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk+1}{n3k+2}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k1}{3k2m}\right]\}`$
$`\chi _{2,2}:\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}q^{6k^22km}\{\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{n3k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{3km}\right]`$ (A.6)
$`+q^{m+5k+1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk1}{n3k1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{3k+1m}\right]+q^{m5k+1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{n3k+1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{3k1m}\right]\}`$
$`\chi _{2,1}:\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}q^{6k^22km}\{q^{m+7k+2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk1}{n3k2}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+1}{3k+2m}\right]`$ (A.7)
$`+q^{m+5k+1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk1}{n3k1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{3k+1m}\right]+\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{n3k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{3km}\right]\}`$
$`\chi _{1,2}/\chi _{3,2}:\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}q^{6k^22km}\{\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{n3k}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{3km}\right]`$ (A.8)
$`+q^{2m+10k+4}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk1}{n3k2}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{3k+2m}\right]+q^{m+5k+1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{n3k1}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{3k+1m}\right]\}`$
Setting $`\mathrm{}=3k,3k+1,3k+2`$ mod 3 reduces the four identities to just two identities

$`\chi _{1,1}/\chi _{3,1}/\chi _{1,2}/\chi _{3,2}:\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}/3)(\mathrm{}m)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\left(\mathrm{}+1\right)/3}{n\mathrm{}}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}/3}{\mathrm{}m}\right]`$ (A.9)
$`\chi _{2,2}/\chi _{2,1}:\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{(\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)/3)(\mathrm{}m)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\left(\mathrm{}+2\right)/3}{n\mathrm{}}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(\mathrm{}+1\right)/3}{\mathrm{}m}\right]`$ (A.10)
For $`(n,m)(0,0)`$ there is an additional identity

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]=\underset{\mathrm{}}{}q^{(\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+2)/3)(\mathrm{}m)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\left(\mathrm{}+3\right)/3}{n\mathrm{}}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(\mathrm{}+2\right)/3}{\mathrm{}m}\right]$$
(A.11)
These are in fact special cases<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4We thank George Andrews for pointing this out to us. of identities due to Bender .

Generalized $`q`$-Vandermonde Identities:

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]=\underset{\mathrm{}}{}q^{(2\mathrm{}+2a)/3(\mathrm{}m)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\left(\mathrm{}+1+a\right)/3}{n\mathrm{}}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(\mathrm{}+a\right)/3}{\mathrm{}m}\right],ma2n+1$$
(A.12)
Proof:  For $`n=m`$ we have $`\mathrm{}=m`$ so $`\text{LHS}=\text{RHS}=1`$ for $`ma2m+1`$. We now proceed by induction on $`n`$. Suppose that $`ma2n+1`$ and $`(m1)a+12n+1`$, that is, $`ma2n`$. Then

$`\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{m}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]+q^{nm+1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m1}\right]=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]+q^{(n\mathrm{})+(\mathrm{}m+1)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m1}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{(2\mathrm{}+2a)/3(\mathrm{}m)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\left(\mathrm{}+1+a\right)/3}{n\mathrm{}}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(\mathrm{}+a\right)/3}{\mathrm{}m}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{((2\mathrm{}+1a)/3+1)(\mathrm{}m+1)}q^n\mathrm{}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\left(\mathrm{}+2+a\right)/3}{n\mathrm{}}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(\mathrm{}+1+a\right)/3}{\mathrm{}m+1}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{(2\mathrm{}+2a)/3(\mathrm{}m)}\left\{\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\left(\mathrm{}+1+a\right)/3}{n\mathrm{}}\right]+q^{n\mathrm{}+1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\left(\mathrm{}+1+a\right)/3}{n\mathrm{}+1}\right]\right\}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(\mathrm{}+a\right)/3}{\mathrm{}m}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{(2\mathrm{}+2a)/3(\mathrm{}m)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1\left(\mathrm{}+1+a\right)/3}{n+1\mathrm{}}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(\mathrm{}+a\right)/3}{\mathrm{}m}\right]`$
Now suppose that $`a=2n+1`$. Then only the terms $`\mathrm{}=n`$ and $`\mathrm{}=n+1`$ survive on the RHS and

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{(2\mathrm{}+2a)/3(\mathrm{}m)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1\left(\mathrm{}+1+a\right)/3}{n+1\mathrm{}}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(\mathrm{}+a\right)/3}{\mathrm{}m}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{(2\mathrm{}2n+1)/3(\mathrm{}m)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1\left(\mathrm{}+2n+2\right)/3}{n+1\mathrm{}}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left(\mathrm{}+2n+1\right)/3}{\mathrm{}m}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right]+q^{nm+1}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m1}\right]=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{m}\right]`$
## Acknowledgements

PAP is supported by the Australian Research Council and thanks the Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics for support to visit Seoul. CA is supported in part by Korea Research Foundation 2002-070-C00025, KOSEF 1999-00018. We thank Giuseppe Mussardo for discussions.


text:
# Near-threshold production of the multi-strange Ξ⁻ hyperon

## Abstract

The yield for the multi-strange $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ hyperon has been measured in 6 AGeV Au+Au collisions via reconstruction of its decay products $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the latter also being reconstructed from its daughter tracks of $`\pi ^{}`$ and p. The measurement is rather close to the threshold for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ production and therefore provides an important test of model predictions. The measured yield for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are compared for several centralities. In central collisions the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ yield is found to be in excellent agreement with statistical and transport model predictions, suggesting that multi-strange hadron production approaches chemical equilibrium in high baryon density nuclear matter.

Many years ago, it was proposed that strange particle yields could serve as an indicator for the formation of the quark-gluon plasma (QGP). For a partonic system with partially restored chiral symmetry, strangeness is expected to be readily produced due to the lower energy threshold for $`s\overline{s}`$ quark pair production. The production of strangeness may be further increased for significant baryon densities where the chemical potential associated with the production of light quarks is raised. For these reasons it is expected that the QGP phase should reflect a high strange (anti)quark density. Due to their strange quark content, multi-strange baryons \[and anti-baryons\] are expected to be a more sensitive probe of this phase than hadrons which contain only one strange valence quark.

Interest in strangeness and especially in the yield of multi-strange hadrons has grown enormously. The observation of “strangeness enhancement” in the production of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ ($`dss`$) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ ($`sss`$) in heavy ion collisions compared to pp or pA collisions has contributed to the excitement .

A comparison of experimental and calculated yields indicates two distinct features: (i) Statistical models, with input of temperature and chemical potential, are in fair or good agreement with the yields reported from the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) , the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS)  and from recent experiments performed at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) . Using a canonical description this approach is successful even for beam energies of $``$ 1 AGeV . They can even explain the observed enhancement between pA and Pb+Pb collisions. (ii) Transport-model calculations based on hadronic interactions are currently unable to account for the measured yields of multi-strange particles at SPS energies (158 AGeV). The success of the statistical model is surprising and raises the question as to whether or not this success holds true for near-threshold multi-strange particle production.

This letter reports on the production of the singly-strange $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon and the doubly-strange $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ hyperon in 6 AGeV Au+Au collisions. Preliminary reports on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon production have been given elsewhere . The $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ measurement reported here is unique in that it represents the lowest incident energy for which such a measurement has been made in heavy ion collisions (the laboratory energy threshold for direct production in $`NN`$ collisions is 3.74 GeV). The production of multi-strange hadrons is arguably most interesting close to the production threshold due to the suppression of multistep processes (the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ particle is mainly produced from the strangeness-exchange reactions ($`\overline{K}(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma })\mathrm{\Xi }(\pi ,\eta )`$). Collisions of 6 AGeV Au + Au are expected to produce nuclear matter with high baryon density and relatively low chemical freeze-out temperature. Thus, marked changes in the model predictions are expected for multi-strange particle yields.

The experiment has been performed with the EOS TPC at the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). Details on the detector and its setup have been reported earlier. The data presented here benefit from the excellent coverage, continuous 3D-tracking, and particle identification capabilities of the TPC. These features are crucial for the efficient detection and reconstruction of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$.

Several studies have demonstrated the viability of vertex and trajectory reconstruction for V0’s, i.e. from a track pair resulting from two charged daughter particles . However, a signature for the doubly-strange $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ must be demonstrated by finding the two consecutive decays: $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^{}`$ followed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$. This requires locating three correlated tracks and is considerably more difficult, especially for low yields near the threshold. The upper and lower panels of Fig. 1 show signature peaks in the invariant mass spectra for primary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s and for the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ respectively. The $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ mass peak is well centered at its rest mass of 1.32 GeV. The width of the distribution for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ (FWHM) is 10 MeV compared to 6 MeV for the width of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as can be expected from the resolution of the TPC.

A description for the reconstruction of primary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s is given in Refs. . $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ reconstruction proceeded via a combination of two distinct steps. In the first, primary and secondary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-hyperons were reconstructed from the daughters of their charged particle decay, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p+\pi ^{}`$ (branching ratio $``$ 64%) following essentially the procedure outlined in Refs.  and , except that the training (see below) was different for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s that do not originate directly from the primary vertex (secondary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s). All TPC tracks in an event were reconstructed followed by the calculation of an overall event vertex. Thereafter, each $`p\pi ^{}`$ pair was considered and their point of closest approach obtained. Pairs whose member trajectories intersect (with fairly loose criteria such as decay distance from the event vertex $`>`$ 0.5 cm ) at a point other than the main event vertex were assigned as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ candidates (primary and secondary) and evaluated to yield an invariant mass and associated momentum. These $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ candidates were then passed to a fully connected feed-forward multilayered neural network trained to separate “true” secondary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s from the combinatoric background. The network was trained from a set consisting of “true” secondary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s and a set consisting of a combinatoric background. “True” secondary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s were generated by tagging and embedding simulated $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s (created from the decay of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ particles from RQMD calculations) in raw data events in a detailed GEANT simulation of the TPC. The combinatoric background or “fake” $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s were generated via a mixed event procedure in which the daughter particles of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`p\pi ^{}`$) were chosen from different data events.

In step 2, the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ particle was reconstructed from its weak decay: $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^{}`$ (branching ratio = 100$`\%`$; c$`\tau =`$ 4.9 cm), using the secondary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s found in step 1. To do this, each $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^{}`$ pair was evaluated to assign $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ candidates \[and their associated invariant mass and momentum\] which were passed to a fully connected feed forward multilayered neural network trained to separate “true” $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$’s from the combinatoric background. For this latter step, the network was trained from a set consisting of “true” $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$’s and a set consisting of a combinatoric background following a procedure similar to that described earlier for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s.

For the four centrality selections (central to peripheral) presented here 71656, 140706, 154542 and 57236 events were processed to yield 78, 118, 100 and 16 $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$’s respectively. The corresponding number of primary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s are 21526, 37090, 30973 and 6994 respectively. Relatively good phase space coverage was achieved for both the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$’s ($`0<p_T<1.2`$ GeV/c, $`0.5<y_n<0.5`$) and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s ($`0<p_T<1.2`$ GeV/c, $`0.7<y_n<0.6`$). Here, $`y_n`$ is the normalized rapidity. The detection efficiency for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ ranged from $`5.4\pm 0.4\times 10^3`$ to $`23.5\pm 0.5\times 10^3`$. Similar efficiencies for primary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s ranged from $`2.3\pm 0.2\times 10^2`$ to $`6.8\pm 0.2\times 10^2`$.

The neural network optimizes (during training) and then applies (during reconstruction) a multidimensional cut on topological variables or input neurons, to distinguish true $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$’s. In addition, several $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$hard cuts” (e.g. $`dca_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\pi }`$, where $`dca`$ is the distance of closest approach of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\pi `$ to the event vertex) were employed to investigate and minimize systematic uncertainties. Figure 1 shows the results obtained with such restrictions. In general, tighter $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$hard cuts” led to improvements in the signal-to-background ratio, but with significant reductions in the raw yield due to poorer detection efficiencies. Nevertheless, the efficiency corrected yields showed essentially no dependence on these cuts.

For the different cut conditions there are, of course, different efficiencies for track finding and thus for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reconstruction. These efficiencies have been determined by simulations that involve embedding $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ particles from RQMD calculations into events from the data sample and running this modified data set through the neural network. Subsequently the ratio of reconstructed $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ particles in the real data divided by the simulated efficiency has been studied for a large variety of cut conditions. This method allows us to minimize systematic errors for the applied hard cut and thus we expect that statistical errors predominate. As a further test of this efficiency determination method, a model-independent integration over $`p_T`$ and rapidity was made for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s. The result was in very good agreement with the method used here for both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$’s.

Several centrality cuts have been made in order to examine the variation of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ multiplicity on impact parameter and the number of participating nucleons Apart. For each centrality cut, an impact parameter range was assigned via its respective fraction of the minimum bias cross section as described in Ref.. The corresponding values for Apart were obtained via the Glauber model. Figures 2a and b show the respective centrality (Apart) dependence of the multiplicity for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$) as the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ yield includes feed-down contributions from the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$. The ratio $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$/($`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$) is shown as a function of Apart in Fig. 2c. Figures 2a and b indicate a relatively strong increase in the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$) multiplicities with increasing Apart. However, this dependence is greater for the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ as can be seen in Fig. 2c. An extrapolation \[with the fit function $`multiplicity`$ = const $`\times `$ A$`{}_{\mathrm{part}}{}^{}_{}^{\alpha }`$\] to the data shown in Fig. 2c leads to the ratio $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$/($`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$) of $`0.017\pm 0.005`$ for most central collisions ($`b`$=0 fm or A$`{}_{\mathrm{part}}{}^{}`$ 370).

Figure 2 also shows the results of calculations from the transport model RQMD as indicated. For the single-strange hyperons $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, the model prediction of an increase in multiplicity with increasing centrality follows the trend of the data rather well. A similarly good agreement is apparent for the doubly-strange $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ hyperon. This rather striking agreement between data and theory is in direct contrast to the observation that transport models are unable to describe the measured yields for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ at SPS energies . Next we compare the ratio $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$/($`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$) to that obtained at higher incident energies and to statistical model predictions as shown in Fig. 3.

The statistical model makes predictions for this ratio as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ . The general freeze-out curve  taken together with the values of the chemical freeze-out temperature $`T`$ and baryochemical potential $`\mu _B`$ as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$  define all of the particle ratios. The dotted line in Fig. 3 indicates the ratio $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}/(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)`$ calculated for central collisions. It exhibits a pronounced rise in the AGS/SPS energy regime and then flattens off toward the RHIC domain of $`\sqrt{s}>`$ 100 GeV. Parameters for the statistical model are determined from the systematics of fits to experimental data, and hence have finite uncertainties. Therefore, the curve in Fig. 3 should in principle be replaced by a band. Evaluation of these uncertainties as a function of energy is beyond the scope of this work.

The rise up to SPS energies results from two primary effects. The first is an increase in temperature, from $``$ 50 MeV (SIS, GSI) up to $``$ 170 MeV (SPS/RHIC). The second effect originates from the fact that one needs to use a canonical description at the lower incident energies. For central collisions at SPS energies, the number of multi-strange particles is high and a grand-canonical description (global strangeness conservation) is sufficient. At lower incident energies, this number is much smaller requiring a canonical treatment (local strangeness conservation) which leads to an additional suppression towards the lower incident energies . Above top SPS energies the temperature is roughly constant, while $`\mu _B`$ decreases. Since the ratio $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}/(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)`$ is independent of $`\mu _B`$, it saturates (neglecting higher resonances which are taken into account in the model calculations)to the limit $`g_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}/(g_\mathrm{\Lambda }+g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0})exp[(E_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}+\mu _SE_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }^0})/T]`$ with $`g_i`$ the degeneracy, $`\mu _S`$ the strangeness chemical potential and $`E_i`$ the energy of particle $`i`$. Detailed calculations for the centrality dependence are not yet available.

Data for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ production are indeed scarce. Results obtained at SPS from NA49  and very recently at RHIC  for central collisions of Pb+Pb/Au+Au are shown as filled symbols in Fig. 3. The RHIC point \[for midrapidity only\] agrees (well) with the statistical model. The SPS point for the $`4\pi `$ integrated yield is below the statistical-model curve. At the highest AGS energy a data point (open circle) is shown for a Si+Au measurement performed at slightly forward rapidities (y =1.4-2.9) . This data point exceeds the curve, but is within two standard deviations even neglecting the systematic uncertainty in the statistical model calculations. The filled star in Fig. 3 indicates our new $`4\pi `$ integrated result for central Au+Au collisions at 6 AGeV. This value is in good agreement with the statistical model prediction .

This data point is also in good agreement with the predictions of the RQMD model (cf. Fig. 2c). Thus, we conjecture that hadronic processes are able to explain the measured yields. This is in agreement with recent UrQMD calculations  which give a detailed account of the channels responsible for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ production. Since the statistical model predictions also give a good representation of the data, the question is raised as to how far transport model calculations are from chemical equilibrium. Additional theoretical work is clearly needed to answer this question and to unravel the production mechanism/s for multistrange hadrons from energies close to threshold up to the SPS \[where current calculations fail to reproduce the measured yields by hadronic processes alone\].

In conclusion, we have presented the first measurement for the doubly strange hyperon $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ in near-threshold Au+Au collisions. The multiplicity of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ is observed to increase more rapidly with centrality than the multiplicity of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, but the measured ratio $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}/(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$) for central collisions agrees well with both statistical and transport model predictions. This agreement may be an indication that despite the rather short reaction times at AGS energies, the available phase space for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ is essentially filled.

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grants DE-FG02-87ER40331, DE-FG02-89ER40531, DE-FG02-88ER40408, DE-FG02-87ER40324, and contract DE-AC03-76SF00098; by the US National Science Foundation under Grants PHY-98-04672, PHY-9722653, PHY-96-05207,PHY-9601271, and INT-9225096; by the University of Auckland Research Committee, NZ/USA Cooperative Science Programme CSP 95/33; and by the National Natural Science Foundation of P.R. China under grant 19875012.