text:
# Optical activity of neutrinos and antineutrinos

## I Introduction

The elastic neutrino-photon scattering process, $`\nu \gamma \nu \gamma `$, and the corresponding crossed channels have been the subject of numerous investigations related to astrophysical applications cm ; mjl ; ls ; cy ; dr93 ; liu ; addr99 ; adr01 ; ar01 . When the center of mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ is much less than the $`W`$-boson mass $`m_W`$, the amplitudes for these processes have a relatively simple form. In particular, the forward helicity non-flip amplitudes for the elastic processes $`\nu \gamma \nu \gamma `$ and $`\overline{\nu }\gamma \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ with massless neutrinos can be expanded in powers of $`s/m_W^2`$ by making use of unitarityar01 . The series are of leading order $`s^2/m_W^4`$, and the inclusion of higher powers of $`s`$, such as $`s^3/m_W^6`$, enables us to use the forward elastic scattering amplitudes for $`\nu \gamma \nu \gamma `$ and $`\overline{\nu }\gamma \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ to study the optical activity of a sea of neutrinos and antineutrinos. This property of a neutrino sea was recognized by Nieves and Pal np  and studied by Mohanty, Nieves, and Pal mnp  in the case where the photons move in a plasma and therefore experience dispersion. Dispersive effects give rise to mass dependent of terms of the form $`k^2/m_e^2`$ ($`k^\mu `$ denoting the photon momentum and $`m_e`$ the electron mass), which vanish in the vacuum. Here, we treat the vacuum case where $`k^\mu `$ satisfies $`k^2=0`$, and find a rather different dependence on $`m_W`$ and $`m_e`$ kn .

In the next section, using the results of Ref. ar01 , we write the forward helicity amplitudes for the elastic scattering $`\nu \gamma \nu \gamma `$ and $`\overline{\nu }\gamma \overline{\nu }\gamma `$. We then present a calculation for the index of refraction and the rotary power for a sea of neutrinos and antineutrinos as a function of the energy of an incident photon, the temperature of the sea, and the neutrino degeneracy parameter $`\xi \mu /T_\nu `$, where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential for neutrinos and $`T_\nu `$ is the temperature of the sea.

## II Optical activity

Using the Eqs. (24)–(26) of the Ref. ar01 , the helicity non-flip amplitudes, $`𝒜_{\lambda \lambda }^{\nu \gamma \nu \gamma }(s)`$, for the forward elastic scattering of a photon with helicity $`\lambda `$ and an electron neutrino when $`\sqrt{s}m_W`$, can be written as

$`𝒜_{++}^{\nu \gamma \nu \gamma }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2s^2}{8m_W^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}h(s),`$ (1)
$`𝒜_{}^{\nu \gamma \nu \gamma }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2s^2}{8m_W^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}h(s),`$ (2)
where

$`h(s)`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{m_e^2}}\right)`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2}{m_W^2}}[({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_e^2}})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{m_e^2}}\right)`$
$`10+{\displaystyle \frac{64}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_e^2}}].`$
Here, $`\theta _W`$ is the weak mixing angle, $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, and we have neglected higher powers of $`m_e^2/m_W^2`$ and $`s/m_W^2`$. Using the Eq. (12) of the Ref. ar01 , the helicity non-flip amplitudes, $`𝒜_{\lambda \lambda }^{\overline{\nu }\gamma \overline{\nu }\gamma }(s)`$, for forward elastic scattering of a photon of helicity $`\lambda `$ and an antineutrino, can be expressed as

$`𝒜_{\lambda \lambda }^{\overline{\nu }\gamma \overline{\nu }\gamma }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_{\lambda \lambda }^{\nu \gamma \nu \gamma }(s),`$ (4)
which is a consequence of $`CPT`$ invariance.

To calculate the optical activity of a neutrino-antineutrino sea, we consider a photon of helicity $`\lambda `$ and energy $`\omega `$ traversing a bath of neutrinos and antineutrinos that are in thermal equilibrium at the temperature $`T_\nu `$. To give an order of magnitude estimate of the index of refraction $`n_\lambda `$ of this sea, we write ll ; gw

$`n_\lambda 1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑N_\nu f_{\lambda \lambda }^{\nu \gamma \nu \gamma }(0)}`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑N_{\overline{\nu }}f_{\lambda \lambda }^{\overline{\nu }\gamma \overline{\nu }\gamma }(0)},`$
which is a generalization of the Eq. (57) of the Ref. ar01 . The forward-scattering amplitudes $`f_{\lambda \lambda }^{\nu \gamma \nu \gamma }(0)`$ and $`f_{\lambda \lambda }^{\overline{\nu }\gamma \overline{\nu }\gamma }(0)`$, from the Eq. (58) of the Ref. ar01 , are

$`f_{\lambda \lambda }^{\nu \gamma \nu \gamma }(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{4\pi s}}𝒜_{\lambda \lambda }^{\nu \gamma \nu \gamma }(s),`$ (6)
$`f_{\lambda \lambda }^{\overline{\nu }\gamma \overline{\nu }\gamma }(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{4\pi s}}𝒜_{\lambda \lambda }^{\overline{\nu }\gamma \overline{\nu }\gamma }(s),`$ (7)
and $`dN_\nu `$ and $`dN_{\overline{\nu }}`$ are the usual Fermi-Dirac distributions,

$`dN_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_\nu }{e^{(E_\nu \mu )/T_\nu }+1}},`$ (8)
$`dN_{\overline{\nu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_{\overline{\nu }}}{e^{(E_{\overline{\nu }}+\mu )/T_\nu }+1}}.`$ (9)
Here, $`T_\nu `$ is the temperature of the neutrino-antineutrino sea, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential for the neutrinos p93 , $`\stackrel{}{p}_\nu `$ and $`E_\nu `$ are the momentum and energy of a neutrino, and $`s=4\omega E_\nu \mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{\nu \gamma }/2)`$, where $`\theta _{\nu \gamma }`$ is the angle between the incoming photon and the incoming neutrino (with similar definitions for the antineutrino). From Eqs. (5)–(7) we obtain

$`n_\lambda 1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_\nu }{2\omega s}𝒜_{\lambda \lambda }^{\nu \gamma \nu \gamma }(s)}`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{\overline{\nu }}}{2\omega s}𝒜_{\lambda \lambda }^{\overline{\nu }\gamma \overline{\nu }\gamma }(s)}.`$
Due to the apparent baryon asymmetry in the universe, it is natural to consider the possibility of the lepton asymmetry. To study this possibility, and for numerical calculations of the index of refraction and the rotary power, it is convenient to introduce the following ratios

$`L_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_\nu N_{\overline{\nu }}}{N_\nu +N_{\overline{\nu }}}},`$ (11)
$`L_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{11\zeta (3)}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_\nu N_{\overline{\nu }}}{T_\nu ^3}},`$ (12)
where $`N_\nu `$ and $`N_{\overline{\nu }}`$ are the number densities for the neutrino and antineutrino, respectively, and $`\zeta (x)`$ is the Riemann zeta function. From the Eqs. (8), (9), (11), and (12), we find

$`L_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^3+\pi ^2\xi }{I(\xi )\xi ^3+2\mathrm{ln}2\xi ^2+3\zeta (3)}},`$ (13)
$`L_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{33\zeta (3)}}\left(\xi ^3+\pi ^2\xi \right),`$ (14)
where

$$I(\xi )=_0^1(1x)^2\frac{e^{\xi x}1}{e^{\xi x}+1}𝑑x,$$
(15)
and $`\xi \mu /T_\nu `$ is the neutrino degeneracy parameter. As it is clear from the Eqs. (13) – (15), the parameters $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are solely functions of $`\xi `$. These neutrino asymmetry parameters $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are defined such that for $`|\xi |1`$ they coincide with the customary definition of the neutrino asymmetry parameter $`L_\nu `$ lp  for a sea of relic neutrino-antineutrino that decoupled from photons in the early universe

$`L_1L_2L_\nu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_\nu N_{\overline{\nu }}}{N_\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\xi }{33\zeta (3)}}.`$ (16)
Here, $`N_\gamma `$ is the photon number density

$$N_\gamma =\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{2d^3\stackrel{}{p}_\gamma }{e^{E_\gamma /T_\gamma }1}=\frac{2\zeta (3)T_\gamma ^3}{\pi ^2},$$
(17)
and the relation $`T_\nu /T_\gamma =(4/11)^{1/3}`$, which holds for the present day temperatures of the relic neutrinos and photons, is used. When $`\xi `$ is large, $`L_1`$ approaches a finite value, while $`L_2`$ increases. In the Fig. 1 $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are plotted as functions of $`\xi `$. As it is clear from this figure, for $`\xi 3`$, $`L_1`$ is close to its maximum value of $`3/11`$.

After using Eqs. (8) and (9) for $`dN_\nu `$ and $`dN_{\overline{\nu }}`$, Eqs. (1)–(4) for the amplitudes $`𝒜_{\lambda \lambda }^{\nu \gamma \nu \gamma }(s)`$ and $`𝒜_{\lambda \lambda }^{\overline{\nu }\gamma \overline{\nu }\gamma }(s)`$, and performing integrations in the Eq. (10), we obtain

$`n_+1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_\nu ^4}{m_W^4}}c_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega T_\nu ^5}{m_W^6}}c_1,`$ (18)
$`n_{}1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_\nu ^4}{m_W^4}}c_0{\displaystyle \frac{\omega T_\nu ^5}{m_W^6}}c_1,`$ (19)
where (for $`\alpha =1/137`$)

$`c_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{3\pi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{m_e^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\right]`$ (20)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\xi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}\xi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi ^4}{60}}\right)`$
$``$ $`1.9\times 10^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\xi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}\xi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi ^4}{60}}\right),`$
$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha ^2}{9\pi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{m_e^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\right]`$ (21)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}\xi ^5+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3}}\xi ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi ^4}{15}}\xi \right)`$
$``$ $`2.2\times 10^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}\xi ^5+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3}}\xi ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi ^4}{15}}\xi \right).`$
Notice that the $`\xi `$–dependent parts of the $`L_2`$, $`c_0`$, and $`c_1`$ are related as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}\xi ^5+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3}}\xi ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi ^4}{15}}\xi \right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\xi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}\xi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi ^4}{60}},`$ (22)
$$\frac{}{\xi }\left(\frac{1}{4}\xi ^4+\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\xi ^2+\frac{7\pi ^4}{60}\right)=\xi ^3+\pi ^2\xi .$$
(23)
In the Figs. 24 the coefficients $`c_0`$ and $`c_1`$ are plotted as functions of $`\xi `$, $`L_1`$, and $`L_2`$, respectively.

The range of the validity of the Eqs. (18)–(21), as far as energy is concerned, is related to that of the Eqs. (1)–(3), which is $`s=4\omega E_\nu \mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{\nu \gamma }/2)m_W^2`$. In the Eq. (10), if we change the upper limits of the integrations on $`E_\nu `$ and $`E_{\overline{\nu }}`$ from the infinity to $`fT_\nu `$, the contributions of these integrals to $`c_0`$ and $`c_1`$ in the Eqs. (18) and (19) change, at most, by 9% and 18%, respectively, if we use $`f=\sqrt{7^2+\xi ^2}`$ (for $`f=\sqrt{8^2+\xi ^2}`$, the corresponding changes are at most 5% and 10%). Here, we set the following criterion:

$$4\omega fT_\nu m_W^2,$$
(24)
which for $`f=\sqrt{7^2+\xi ^2}`$ is

$$\omega T_\nu \sqrt{7^2+\xi ^2}2\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{K},$$
(25)
where $`\omega `$ is the photon energy in GeV, and $`T_\nu `$ is the neutrino temperature in Kelvin.

From Eqs. (18) and (19), we have

$`n_+n_{}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega T_\nu ^5}{m_W^6}}c_1`$ (26)
$``$ $`3.5\times 10^{77}c_1\omega T_\nu ^5,`$
and the following approximate relation:

$`n_+1n_{}1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_\nu ^4}{m_W^4}}c_0`$ (27)
$``$ $`1.3\times 10^{60}c_0T_\nu ^4.`$
Equation (27) implies that the leading term of the index of refraction is independent of the helicity and the energy of the incident photon, as long as Eq. (25) is satisfied.

When linearly polarized light propagates through a medium that has different indices of refraction for positive and negative helicities ($`n_+n_{}`$), the plane of polarization of the light rotates by an angle $`\varphi `$, which is b

$$\varphi =\frac{\pi }{\lambda _\gamma }(n_+n_{})l=\frac{\omega }{2}(n_+n_{})l,$$
(28)
where $`\omega `$ and $`\lambda _\gamma =2\pi /\omega `$ are the energy and wavelength of the photon and $`l`$ is the distance travelled by photons in the medium. To estimate the specific rotary power, $`\varphi /l`$, for a sea of neutrinos and antineutrinos, we use Eqs. (26) and (28) to obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2T_\nu ^5}{m_W^6}}c_1`$ (29)
$``$ $`8.9\times 10^{62}c_1\omega ^2T_\nu ^5\mathrm{rad}/\mathrm{m},`$
where, again, $`\omega `$ is in GeV and $`T_\nu `$ is in Kelvin. A positive angle of rotation, $`\varphi >0`$, that is $`n_+>n_{}`$, corresponds to a clockwise rotation (dextrorotation) of the plane of polarization of the linearly polarized incident photons, as viewed by an observer that is detecting the forward-scattered light. Thus, the optical activity of a neutrino-antineutrino sea with $`N_\nu >N_{\overline{\nu }}`$ is that of a dextrorotary medium. In addition, it is clear from Eq. (29) that the rotary power, $`\varphi /l`$, varies as $`1/\lambda _\gamma ^2`$, which is the same as that of quartz and most transparent substances for visible light.

To get a rough estimate of rotation angle $`\varphi `$ for linearly polarized photons propagating through the relic neutrino and antineutrino sea (with $`\xi =0.01`$), we use Eq. (29) with $`l=ct`$, $`c=3\times 10^8`$ m/s, $`t15\times 10^9`$ years, $`T_\nu 2`$ K, and $`\omega 10^{20}`$ eV, and we find

$$\varphi 4\times 10^{16}\mathrm{rad},$$
(30)
which is exceedingly small. The dependence of $`\varphi `$ on $`\xi `$ is shown in Fig. 5. It should be noted that recent studies which include neutrino oscillation effects in the derivation of cosmological bounds on $`\xi `$ conclude that $`|\xi |0.1`$ Dolgov:2002ab ; Abazajian:2002qx ; Wong:2002fa .

## III Conclusions

In conclusion, we note that using Eqs. (12), (14), (21), and (29), for the neutrino degeneracy parameter $`|\xi |1`$, the specific rotary power, $`\varphi /l`$, for a sea of neutrinos and antineutrinos is

$$\frac{\varphi }{l}=\frac{112\pi G_F\alpha }{45\sqrt{2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_W^2}{m_e^2}\right)\frac{8}{3}\right]\frac{\omega ^2T_\nu ^2}{m_W^4}(N_\nu N_{\overline{\nu }}).$$
(31)
This equation differs in several respects from the corresponding result in Ref. mnp ,

$$\frac{\varphi }{l}=\frac{G_F\alpha }{3\sqrt{2}\pi }(N_\nu N_{\overline{\nu }})\frac{\omega _P^2}{m_e^2},$$
(32)
where, in the non-relativistic limit, the plasma frequency $`\omega _P`$ is related to the electron number density $`n_e`$ as,

$$\omega _P^2=\frac{4\pi \alpha n_e}{m_e}.$$
(33)
From Eqs. (31) and (32), it is clear that the mass scales for the case of photon dispersion versus no dispersion are very different and this favors the dispersive regime. The size of specific rotary power in the dispersive case is independent of the frequency of the propagating photons and, apart from a dependence on the lepton asymmetry parameter $`L_\nu N_\nu N_{\overline{\nu }}`$ shared by both expressions, is controlled by the electron number density $`n_e`$. In addition, the non-dispersive case depends on frequency and temperature. These differences clearly indicate that Eqs. (29) and (32) represent complementary limits in the treatment of the optical activity of a neutrino-antineutrino sea.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank Duane Dicus for numerous helpful discussions. One of us (A.A.) wishes to thank the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Michigan State University for its hospitality and computer resources. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-0070443.


format: text

text:
# Search for Large Extra Dimensions in the Monojet + "E/"_𝑇 Channel at DØ

## Abstract

We present a search for large extra dimensions (ED) in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 1.8 TeV using data collected by the DØ detector at the Fermilab Tevatron in 1994-1996. Data corresponding to 78.8 $`\pm `$ 3.9 pb-1 are examined for events with large missing transverse energy, one high-pT jet, and no isolated muons. There is no excess observed beyond expectation from the standard model, and we place lower limits on the fundamental Planck scale of 1.0 TeV and 0.6 TeV for 2 and 7 ED, respectively.

The standard model (SM) of particle physics is a spectacular scientific achievement, with nearly every prediction confirmed to a high degree of precision. Nevertheless, the SM still has unresolved and unappealing characteristics, including the problem of a large hierarchy in the gauge forces, with gravity being a factor of $`10^{33}`$$`10^{38}`$ weaker than the other three. A new framework for addressing the hierarchy problem was proposed recently by Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos, and Dvali add , through the introduction of large compactified extra spatial dimensions in which only gravitons propagate. In the presence of $`n`$ of these extra dimensions, the fundamental Planck scale in $`4+n`$ dimensions can be lowered to the TeV range, i.e., to a value comparable to the scale that characterizes the other three forces, thereby eliminating the puzzling hierarchy.

The radius ($`R`$) of the compactified extra dimensions can be expressed as a function of a fundamental Planck scale, $`M_D1`$ TeV, the number of extra dimensions $`n`$, and the usual Planck scale $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=1/\sqrt{G_N}`$. Assuming compactification on a torus, the relationship is giudice :

$$R=\frac{1}{\sqrt[n]{8\pi }M_D}(M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/M_D)^{2/n}\text{.}$$

The value $`n=1`$ is ruled out by the $`1/r^2`$ dependence of the gravitational force at large distances. The current limits from tests of gravity at short distances adelwash , as well as from stringent astrophysical and cosmological bounds astro , have significantly constrained the case of two extra dimensions. For $`n>`$ 2, the constraints from direct gravitational measurements and cosmological observations are relatively weak. However, high-energy colliders can provide effective ways to test such models of large ED blackhole .

In the framework of large ED, at high energies, the strength of gravity in four dimensions is enhanced through a large number of graviton excitations, or Kaluza-Klein modes $`(G_{\mathrm{KK}})`$ kk . This leads to new phenomena predicted for collisions at high energy giudice ; colliders : virtual graviton exchange and direct graviton emission. Virtual graviton exchange leads to anomalous difermion and diboson production, and searches for these effects have been pursued at the Tevatron ledfermi , LEP ledlep , and HERA ledhera . For real graviton emission, since the graviton escapes detection, the signature involves large missing transverse energy $`E\text{/}_T`$, accompanying a single jet or a vector boson at large transverse momentum. LEP experiments ledlep  and the CDF collaboration ledcdf  have recently set limits on $`M_D`$ based on $`\gamma +G_{\mathrm{KK}}`$ production.

In this Letter, we report results of the first search for large ED in the jet + $`E\text{/}_T`$ channel. The advantage of this channel is its relatively large cross section, with the tradeoff of large background. Besides $`Z(\nu \overline{\nu })+`$jets, which is the irreducible background, there are instrumental backgrounds from mismeasurement of, e.g., jet $`E_T`$, vertex position, undetected leptons, cosmic rays, etc. The data used for this search were collected in 1994 – 1996 by the DØ collaboration d0  at the Fermilab Tevatron, using proton-antiproton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 1.8 TeV. This sample, representing an integrated luminosity of 78.8 $`\pm `$ 3.9 pb-1, was obtained using $`E\text{/}_T`$ triggers with thresholds between 35 and 50 GeV.

The DØ detector d0  consists of three major components: an inner detector for tracking charged particles, a uranium/liquid-argon calorimeter for measuring electromagnetic and hadronic showers, and a muon spectrometer consisting of magnetized iron toroids and three layers of drift tubes. Jets are measured with an energy resolution of approximately $`\sigma (E)/E`$ = 0.8/$`\sqrt{E}`$ ($`E`$ in GeV). $`E\text{/}_T`$ is measured with a resolution of $`\sigma (E\text{/}_T)`$ = $`a+b\times S_T+c\times S_T^2`$, where $`S_T`$ is the scalar sum of transverse energies in all calorimenter cells, $`a`$ = 1.89 $`\pm `$ 0.05 GeV, $`b`$ = (6.7 $`\pm `$ 0.7) $`\times `$ 10-3, and $`c`$ = (9.9 $`\pm `$ 2.1) $`\times `$ 10-6 GeV-1 metreso .

After eliminating events of poor quality (e.g., containing hot cells in the calorimeter), events with one central (detector pseudorapidity $`|\eta _d|1.0`$ etad ) high-$`E_T`$ jet ($`j_1`$) and large $`E\text{/}_T`$, with $`E_T(j_1)>150`$ GeV and $`E\text{/}_T>150`$ GeV, were selected for further study. Since signal can contain initial or final-state radiation (ISR or FSR), additional jets can also be present in such interactions. To improve signal efficiency, we therefore allow additional jets in the event, but require the second jet ($`j_2`$) to have $`E_T(j_2)<50`$ GeV, which reduces the background from dijet production, while retaining most of the signal containing ISR or FSR. To suppress $`W`$ or $`Z`$ production with a muon in the final state, as well as to reduce the background from cosmic rays, we reject events with isolated muons, that is, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`(j_1,\mu )>0.5`$, based mainly on information from the muon system (referred to at DØ as Isolated Muon Veto 1), and based on information from the calorimeter (Isolated Muon Veto 2), to suppress $`W`$ or $`Z`$ production with a muon in the final state as well as to reduce the background from cosmic rays. (The separation between objects is defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ = $`\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^2}`$, where $`\eta `$ is the pseudorapidity and $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle.) Backgrounds with isolated electrons are expected to be small, and we therefore do not use any special criteria to suppress electrons. We also require $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (j_2,E\text{/}_T)>15^{}`$, to reduce the background from mismeasured jets in multijet (“QCD”) events. An additional source of background is from hard bremsstrahlung of cosmic-ray muons that pass through the DØ calorimeter. For any showers induced by photons radiated in the hadronic layers of the calorimeter, the resulting “jets” usually contain only a handful of cells with significant energy deposition, and such jets therefore fail our quality criteria. However, for bremsstrahlung that occurs in the EM section of the calorimeter, the shower is usually reconstructed as an EM object, and not as a jet. Thus, most of the background arises from showers that originate near the regions of confusion at the interface of the EM and hadronic calorimeters. To reduce this background, we remove events with such “jets”, as well as events that contain “tracks” of minimum energy deposition, which are typical of muons observed in the finely segmented DØ calorimeters. Jet “pointing”, based on tracking information in the leading jet ($`j_1`$), is used to confirm the longitudinal position of the primary vertex by requiring that $`\mathrm{\Delta }z(j_1`$-vertex, primary-vertex$`)10`$ cm. This suppresses background from cosmic rays as well as from events with incorrectly reconstructed primary vertexes. The requirements on $`\eta _d`$ of the leading jet and on the event primary vertex confirmation are chosen to maximize the significance of signal relative to background. A total of 38 events remain in the data sample after applying all selections, as shown in Table 1.

The PYTHIA Monte Carlo (MC) generator pythia , with implementation of the ED signal via Ref. matchev , including the parton-level subprocesses $`qgqG_{\mathrm{KK}},`$ $`q\overline{q}gG_{\mathrm{KK}},`$ and $`gggG_{\mathrm{KK}}`$, is used to generate signal events. This is followed by processing through DØ fast-detector simulation QSIM routinesqsim3587 . The signal is simulated for $`n`$ = 2 to $`n`$ = 7 extra dimensions, with $`M_D`$ ranging from 600 GeV to 1400 GeV in 200 GeV steps. The acceptance for signal varies from about 5$`\%`$ to 8$`\%`$, depending on the values of $`n`$ and $`M_D`$. The 13$`\%`$ contribution to the uncertainty on the overal acceptance is due to the limited size of the MC samples, and is of the same order as the contributions from the jet-energy scale jes  (5–12$`\%`$) and the choice of parton distribution functions (PDFs) (3–5$`\%`$). (The CTEQ3M set of parton distribution functions (PDFs) pdf  was used as a default choice in the analysis.)

The SM background from $`W`$ and $`Z`$-boson production is also modeled by PYTHIA, followed by QSIM detector simulation. We normalize the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ production cross sections to the published DØ measurements in the electron channel crosssection . The sources of background are detailed in Table 2. With our event selection, the contribution from backgrounds other than $`Z(\nu \overline{\nu })+`$ jets is small, and the background from all $`W`$ and $`Z`$ sources is estimated to be $`30.2\pm 6.4`$ events. The dominant uncertainty on the estimate of $`Z(\nu \overline{\nu })+`$ jets is from the uncertainty of the jet-energy scale. The residual background from mismeasured multijet events and cosmic muons is estimated from data, using the uncorrelated $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ variables described above: we define four data samples, depending on whether the events pass or fail the above criteria; we then normalize the events that fail event vertex confirmation to the candidate sample, using the ratio of the number of events in the two data samples with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (j_2,E\text{/}_T)15^{}`$; the background from QCD and cosmic rays in the candidate sample is thereby estimated as:

$$N_{\mathrm{QCD}+\mathrm{cosmics}}=N_{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi >15^{}}^{\mathrm{\Delta }z>10}\times N_{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 15^{}}^{\mathrm{\Delta }z10}/N_{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 15^{}}^{\mathrm{\Delta }z>10}.$$

This yields $`7.8\pm 7.1`$ events. The uncertainty is due primarily to the low statistics of the data samples. The total background estimate is $`38\pm 10`$ events.

As shown in Fig. 1, the $`E\text{/}_T`$ distribution in the data is consistent with that expected from background. Examination of the event with $`E\text{/}_T`$ near 450 GeV reveals that the energy deposited by the jet is concentrated in only three calorimeter layers, typical of Bremsstrahlung from a cosmic muon, rather than from a true jet. Nevertheless, the event is kept in the candidate sample, as it passes all a priori selection criteria. From extrapolation, we expect about 0.2 $`\pm `$ 0.2 background events for $`E\text{/}_T>`$ 300 GeV.

As a cross check of our background estimate, we define a data sample with less stringent requirements, while maintaining roughly the same $`E_T(j_1)/E_T(j_2)`$ ratio: $`E_T(j_1)>115`$ GeV, $`E\text{/}_T>115`$ GeV, and $`E_T(j_2)<40`$ GeV. We estimate the background in this sample using the same techniques as described above. This yields an expectation of 105 $`\pm `$ 16 $`W/Z+`$jets events and 16 $`\pm `$ 9 QCD and cosmic ray events, consistent with the 127 events observed in this data sample. The $`E\text{/}_T`$ distributions for this sample and for the expected background are shown in Fig. 1.

In the absence of evidence for large ED, we calculate upper limits on the cross section for such processes. These limits can be interpreted as lower bounds on the fundamental Planck scale $`M_D`$ for different integer values of $`n`$, as listed in Table 3. Using a Bayesian approach limit , we set limits on $`n`$ and $`M_D`$ using the leading-order cross sections, as well as approximate estimates of next-to-leading-order (NLO) corrections via a constant $`K`$-factor of 1.34, typical of processes at the Tevatron energies, e.g., Drell-Yan kfactor1  or direct photon production. As there are no NLO calculations of direct graviton emission to date, the limits with the $`K`$-factor should be regarded with caution, as purely a measure of sensitivity to the (unknown) NLO effects. The exclusion contours at 95$`\%`$ confidence, and a comparison with limits from LEP and CDF for the single-photon channel ledlep ; ledcdf , are shown in Fig. 2. While the DØ limits are worse than those from LEP at low values of $`n`$, the sensitivity of the monojet search exceeds the LEP sensitivity at large $`n`$, due to the higher center-of-mass energy at the Tevatron. The limits correspond to compactification radii ranging from $`R<0.6`$ mm ($`n=2`$) to $`R<9`$ fm ($`n=7`$), without correcting for the $`K`$-factor, and $`R<0.5`$ mm ($`n=2`$) to $`R<9`$ fm ($`n=7`$) with approximate NLO effects taken into account. For all $`n`$, the sensitivity in the single-photon channel at the Tevatron is not as high as in the monojet channel, as the comparison with the CDF limits in Fig. 2 demonstrates.

In summary, we have performed the first search for large extra dimensions in the monojet channel. No evidence for large extra dimensions is observed. We set 95$`\%`$ confidence-level lower limits on the fundamental Planck scale between 0.6 and 1.0 TeV, depending on the number of extra dimensions. Our limits are complementary to those obtained at LEP in the single photon channel, and are most restrictive to date for $`n>5`$.

We thank Konstantin Matchev for providing us with the PYTHIA code for simulation of signal, and for many helpful discussions. We also thank the staffs at Fermilab and collaborating institutions, and acknowledge support from the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation (USA), Commissariat à L’Energie Atomique and CNRS/Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), Ministry for Science and Technology and Ministry for Atomic Energy (Russia), CAPES and CNPq (Brazil), Departments of Atomic Energy and Science and Education (India), Colciencias (Colombia), CONACyT (Mexico), Ministry of Education and KOSEF (Korea), CONICET and UBACyT (Argentina), The Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (The Netherlands), PPARC (United Kingdom), Ministry of Education (Czech Republic), A.P. Sloan Foundation, and the Research Corporation.


text:
# Finite temperature structure factor in the Haldane-Shastry spin chain

## I Introduction

Low-dimensional systems constitute fertile breeding grounds for exotic types of physical excitations. Fractionalization of quantum numbers like charge and spin is known to take place respectively in one-dimensional interacting electron liquids and spin chains: in cases such as these, one must forget about weakly coupled particles, and instead adopt a whole new starting point for the description of the strongly coupled physics. Obviously, the identification and proper description of this new starting point is often a very involved and risk-prone process.

In this respect, quasi-one-dimensional spin systems have provided one of the sturdiest arenas. Experimental realizations of systems with fractionalized excitations are numerous and well-documented. Probably the clearest and best studied signature comes from neutron scattering experiments on effectively one-dimensional antiferromagnetic spin-1/2 chains Tennant et al. . The excitations seen are not the naively expected spin-1 spin waves, but rather gapless “spinons”, which one could losely present as spin-1/2 spin waves. Among many remarkable properties of these excitations are their fractional statistics, intermediate between fermions and bosons, making such a system markedly different from one obeying convential rules.

On the theoretical side, strongly-coupled systems like spin chains have in the last few decades presented extreme, if not seemingly insurmountable difficulties. The simplest way of explaining this fact might be to say that quantum fluctuations are very strong in one-d, and cannot be tamed by perturbative approaches. Instead, excitations are strongly nonlinear, and one is faced with the seemingly impossible challenge of either providing an exact solution or risking to miss out completely on the correct physics.

The quantity of interest to experimentalists (thinking about neutron scattering experiments) is the dynamical spin structure factor (DSSF). For a chain of $`N`$ spins at sites $`R_i`$, this is defined as

$$S^{\alpha \beta }(𝐪,\omega ;T)=\frac{1}{2\pi N}\underset{i,j}{}e^{i𝐪(𝐑_j𝐑_i)}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\omega t}S_i^\alpha (0)S_j^\beta (t)_T$$
(1)
where the angular brackets denote a thermal average.

The model of choice for the description of the spin dynamics depends of course on the specifics of the experimental setup one wishes to describe. The XXZ Heisenberg model Heisenberg (1928) often fits the bill remarkably well, at least for very low energies. The Bethe Ansatz method Bethe (1931) could provide most of its thermodynamic properties, but little about its dynamics. Approximate methods have thus been used to address the computation of the DSSF. The Müller Ansatz Müller et al. (1981) is the best conjecture for the zero temperature structure factor based on exact results and numerics. Finite temperature low-energy features were obtained by Schultz using bosonization Schultz (1986).

To go beyond the field theory limit requires tackling the nonlinear nature of the original model. Considerable insight in this direction was provided by the Algebraic Bethe Ansatz method Jimbo and Miwa (1995) and the quantum inverse scattering theory Korepin et al. (1993). Bougourzi *et al.* used results from the algebraic analysis to compute the exact two-spinon contribution to the DSSF of the one-dimensional Heisenberg model Bougourzi et al. (1996); Karbach et al. (1997); Bougourzi et al. (1998). More recently, Maillet *et al* proved multiple integral representations of elementary blocks of the correlation functions Kitanine et al. (2002). Nevertheless, all these approaches restrict to zero temperature and no exact thermodynamic limit is known. The computation of the DSSF at finite temperature requires a lot of further efforts.

However, one of the properties of the Heisenberg model is that the spinons, though deconfined, still suffer from a residual interaction. The spinons are thus not truly free excitations obeying fractional statistics. There exists on the other hand a very convenient alternative approach based on the Haldane-Shastry model, whose Hamiltonian is Haldane (1988a); Shastry (1988)

$$H_{HS}=J\underset{i<j}{}\frac{1}{[d(ij)]^2}\text{S}_i\text{S}_j$$
(2)
where $`d(i)=\frac{N}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi i}{N}`$. It is in the same universality class as the Heisenberg model, and the long-distance (decaying as $`1/R^2`$ for large distances) interaction in fact simplifies things considerably: the spinons form an ideal gas Haldane (1988b) of particles obeying fractional exclusion statistics Haldane (1991). The DSSF at $`T=0`$ can in fact be calculated exactly, and is given in the thermodynamic limit by Haldane and Zirnbauer (1993)

$`S_{HS}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{\alpha \beta }}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega _2(q_{})\omega )\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega \omega _1(q_{}))\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega \omega _{1+}(q_{}))}{\sqrt{(\omega \omega _1(q_{}))(\omega \omega _{1+}(q_{}))}}},`$
$`\omega _1(q_{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}q_{}(\pi q_{}),\omega _{1+}(q_{})={\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}(q_{}\pi )(2\pi q_{}),\omega _2(q_{})={\displaystyle \frac{J}{4}}q_{}(2\pi q_{}).`$ (3)
This $`T=0`$ formula is made up only of contributions from the two-spinon channel: all higher channels have vanishing contributions in the zero-temperature limit.

One of the very nice features of the Haldane-Shastry model is that its dynamics turn out to be much more easily tractable than those of the Heisenberg chain. The Haldane-Shastry model is but the first representative in a wider class of solvable models dubbed the SU(N) Haldane-Shastry chains. These are in turn obtainable as a particular limit of spin Calogero-Sutherland models, for which an impressive number of exact results are known in the mathematical literature. In particular, there exists a Yangian symmetry leading to the identification of a set of eigenvectors constructed from $`𝔤𝔩_N`$ Jack polynomials Uglov (1998). In short, the whole set of expectation values and transition matrix elements one might want to calculate in the Haldane-Shastry model turn out to have a correspondence in terms of Jack polynomials. More details on this will be provided in the bulk of the paper.

Thus, this opens the way to the computation of the DSSF (1) at nonzero temperatures for the Haldane-Shastry model. Our strategy will be to make use of the technology contained in Uglov (1998) to compute the form factors involved in the spin-spin correlation function needed for the DSSF. This approach has already been used for $`T=0`$ dynamical properties of the Haldane-Shastry spin chain Yamamoto et al. (2000b, a) and related models (spin Calogero-Sutherland model Yamamoto and Arikawa (1999), supersymmetric $`tJ`$ model Arikawa et al. (1999, 2001)). The present work is the first to address finite temperature dynamics.

However for a generic quantum field theory divergences appear when developping a correlation function on the Hilbert space. In the context of integrable field theories (ITF), it has been proposed that it could be rewritten as a sum free of divergences. The resulting formula, called a ’form factor expansion’ (FFE), can be evaluated using the scattering data of the ITF. There is still on ongoing discussion about how precisely the FFE can be implemented in ITFs LeClair and Mussardo (1999); Delfino (2001); Mussardo (2001); Konik ; Saleur (2000); Castro-Alvaredo and Fring (2002). For the case of conformal field theory (CFT), there has been a similar but independent proposal for writing finite-temperature correlators in a FFE van Elburg and Schoutens (2000). It is based on the fractional statistics of the quasiparticles building the Hilbert space. Evidence was put forward that it converges quickly to the exact (known) result in terms of the number of excited quasi-particles van Elburg and Schoutens (2000); Peysson and Schoutens (2002). We will prove in the paper that the latter approach applies in the case of the Haldane-Shastry spin chain.

Our paper is organized as follows. First, we recall all the necessary aspects of the computation of form factors for the Haldane-Shastry model using Jack polynomials. We then set out to calculate the form factors themselves, in increasing complexity of spinon channels. The form factor expansion is then introduced and proved. We finally put the results together to provide an expression for the finite-temperature static and dynamical spin structure factors. Discussions and conclusions are amassed at the end.

## II Jack polynomial technology for the spin Calogero-Sutherland model

Using the freezing trick Polychronakos (1993) the SU(2) Haldane-Shastry model is obtained by the strong coupling limit of the SU(2) spin Calogero-Sutherland model Ha and Haldane (1992). The latter describes $`N`$ particles with coordinates $`\{x_i,i=1\mathrm{}N\}`$ moving on a circle of length $`N`$ with the Hamiltonian

$$H_{spinCS}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{^2}{x_i^2}+\frac{\pi ^2}{2N^2}\underset{ij}{}\frac{\beta (\beta +P_{ij})}{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\pi }{N}(x_ix_j)\right)}$$
(4)
where $`P_{ij}`$ is the SU(2) exchange between particles $`i`$ and $`j`$. Within the freezing trick, the interaction parameter $`\beta `$ is taken to infinity. The particles are therefore pinned at $`x_i=i`$ and interact *via* the SU(2) spin exchange.

The spin Calogero-Sutherland model is more tractable than the Haldane-Shastry model since it is continuous and all his eigenfunctions have been explicitely constructed. We recall in the following the Uglov construction Uglov (1998) in terms of $`𝔤𝔩_2`$ Jack polynomials. The mathematical technology they provide to compute transition matrix elements is then introduced.

### II.1 Yangian Gelfand-Zetlin basis

We consider the case $`N`$ even and $`N/2`$ odd, so that the ground state is unique. Uglov determined the so-called Yangian Gelfand-Zetlin basis of this model, orthogonal through the Yangian action. They are labelled by the strictly-decreasing sequences $`k=\{k_i,i=1\mathrm{}N\}`$, $`k^0=\{N/2+2i,i=1\mathrm{}N\}`$ corresponding to the ground state. $`k`$ contains information on both momentum and spin of the excitation. Writing $`k_i=2\overline{k_i}+\underset{¯}{k_i}`$, $`\overline{k_i}𝒁`$ represents momentum and $`\underset{¯}{k_i}\{1,2\}`$ color111We use here a notation different than Uglov. In fact, this corresponds to the dual representation, called $``$ in his paper. Results are not altered, as one has to sum both representations to obtain physical quantities. Our choice for this representation is mostly practical, leading to states with positive momentum when $`\sigma _i`$ is positive.. More precisely, the momentum, the energy and spin of a state described by $`k`$ are

$`P_k`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\overline{k_i}`$ (5)
$`E_k`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[\overline{k_i}+\beta (N+12i)/2]^2`$ (6)
$`S_k`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[\delta _{\underset{¯}{k_i},2}\delta _{\underset{¯}{k_i},1}]`$ (7)
For physical applications it is more convenient to work with excitations over the ground state. One identifies the state $`k`$ with the pair

$$k\left(\lambda =(k_ik_N+iN,i=1\mathrm{}N1),r=k_Nk_N^0\right).$$
(8)
It consists of a zero mode $`r`$ and a partition $`\lambda `$ (non-increasing sequence of positive integers) of length $`N1`$. The Hilbert space is spanned by all possible pairs. We refer the reader to Uglov (1998) for the expressions of the physical properties in terms of $`(\lambda ,r)`$. They will be specified in the next section for the specific case of the Haldane-Shastry spin chain.

### II.2 Uglov’s isomorphism

Uglov determined an isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ between the Yangian Gelfand-Zetlin basis and the $`𝔤𝔩_2`$ Jack Polynomials defined through

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(k)=(x_1\mathrm{}x_n)^rP_\lambda ^{(2\beta +1,2)}(\{x_i\})$$
(9)
where the Jack polynomial $`P_\lambda ^{(\gamma ,2)}`$ is the limit $`q=p`$, $`t=p^\gamma `$, $`p1`$ of the Macdonald polynomial $`P_\lambda (q,t)`$. Then one has

$$(k,l)_{(\beta ,2)}=\mathrm{\Omega }(k),\mathrm{\Omega }(l)_{(\beta ,2)}.$$
(10)
$`(.,.)_{(\beta ,2)}`$ is the Yangian scalar product (see Uglov (1998) for a definition) , and $`.,._{\beta ,2}`$ is the following scalar product in the space of symmetric Laurent polynomials

$$f(\{x_i\}),g(\{x_i\})_{\beta ,2}=\frac{1}{N!}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{dx_j}{2i\pi x_j}\overline{f(\{x_i\})}\left[\underset{1klN}{}(1x_k^2x_l^2)^\beta (1x_kx_l^1)\right]g(\{x_i\}).$$
(11)
The physical quantity we study in this work is the action of the spin operator. Using Uglov’s isomorphism, it is given by (we dropped the scalar product indices for convenience)

$$(\lambda ,r|s^\pm |\mu ,r^{})=\frac{1}{N}\underset{s𝒁}{}\lambda ,r|p_{2s+1}|\mu ,r^{}\delta (S_\lambda S_\mu =\pm 1),$$
(12)
where $`p_m=_{i=1}^Nx_i^m`$ is the power sum symmetric function. One can identify $`s^\pm `$ with $`(s^++s^{})/2`$ and replace the $`\delta `$ by $`1/2\delta (|S_\lambda S_\mu |=1)`$. In this paper we only study form factors which satisfy this selction rule. By symmetry between the contributions of $`p_m`$ and $`p_m`$ (or equivalently the duality relation (see Uglov (1998)), one may finally only consider the form factors

$$(\lambda ,r|s^\pm |\mu ,r^{})\frac{1}{N}\underset{s𝒁^+}{}\lambda |p_{2s+1}|\mu \delta _{r,r^{}}\delta (|S_\lambda S_\mu |=1).$$
(13)
### II.3 $`𝔤𝔩_2`$ Jack technology

To compute transition matrix elements such as (13), we need some results from the mathematical literature on Macdonald polynomials Macdonald (1995).

We consider a generic partition as on Fig. 1. It is a tableau made of cases $`s`$ labeled by their row number $`i`$ and their column number $`j`$. The length (the number of cases) of the row $`i`$ is $`\lambda _i`$ and the length of the column $`j`$ is $`\lambda _j^{}`$. One then defines

:
Length: $`l(\lambda )=\text{max}(\lambda _j^{})`$;
Cardinal: $`|\lambda |=\lambda _i`$ and we note $`\lambda |\lambda |`$;
Arm-length: $`a(s)=\lambda _ij`$;
Leg-length: $`l(s)=\lambda _j^{}i`$;
Arm-colength: $`a^{}(s)=j1`$;
Leg-colength: $`l^{}(s)=i1`$;
Content: $`c(s)=a^{}(s)l^{}(s)`$;
Hook-length: $`h(s)=a(s)+l(s)+1`$;
$`C(\lambda )=\{s\lambda |c(s)0\text{ mod }2\}`$;
$`H(\lambda )=\{s\lambda |h(s)0\text{ mod }2\}`$.

The quantities of interest in the present work are the norm of a given state, the expansion of power sums on Jack polynomials (thus on physical states), and finally the Pieri formula. The latter gives the development on Jack polynomials of the product of a Jack polynomial and an elementary function $`e_r=P_{1^r}^{(\gamma ,2)}`$. This is the only formula available to compute form factors in the space of symmetric polynomials.

They read

$$P_\lambda ^{(\gamma ,2)}|P_\lambda ^{(\gamma ,2)}=1|1\underset{C(\lambda )}{}\frac{a^{}(s)+\gamma (Nl^{}(s))}{a^{}(s)+1+\gamma (Nl^{}(s)1)}\underset{H(\lambda )}{}\frac{a(s)+1+\gamma l(s)}{a(s)+\gamma (l(s)+1)}$$
(14)
$`p_{2s+1}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda 2s+1}{}}\chi _\lambda P_\lambda ^{(\gamma ,2)},`$ (15)
$`\chi _\lambda `$ $`=()^{n(\lambda )}{\displaystyle \frac{_{C(\lambda )\backslash (1,1)}(a^{}(s)\gamma l^{}(s)}{_{H(\lambda )}a(s)+1+\gamma l(s)}}\text{ for }|C(\lambda )|=|H(\lambda )|+1`$ (16)
$`P_\mu ^{(\gamma ,2)}e_r`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}\psi _{\lambda /\mu }^{}P_\lambda ^{(\gamma ,2)},`$ (17)
$`\psi _{\lambda /\mu }^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{C_{\lambda /\mu }\backslash R_{\lambda /\mu }}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_\lambda (s)}{b_\mu (s)}},`$ (18)
$`b_\lambda `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{a(s)+\gamma (l(s)+1)}{a(s)+1+\gamma l(s)}}\text{ if }sH(\lambda )\text{, 1 otherwise},`$ (19)
with $`\lambda \mu `$ being a vertical $`r`$-strip (at maximum 1 box per row, for a total of $`r`$), $`C_{\lambda /\mu }`$ (resp. $`R_{\lambda /\mu }`$) being the union of columns (resp. rows) that intersect $`\lambda \mu `$.

## III Transition matrix elements in the Haldane-Shastry model

We now specify this mathematical background to the case of the Haldane-Shastry spin chain. The $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ limit simplifies a great deal the algebra. The eigenstates described above can be interpreted as multi-spinon states. We give their physical properties in the following. Then a general expression for the matrix elements of the spin operator is presented along with closed analytical result in the case of few-spinon states.

### III.1 Spinon interpretation

In the Haldane-Shatry framework, all physical quantities rewrite in terms of sums over the columns $`\lambda _j^{}`$ of the partition $`\lambda `$:

$`P_\sigma `$ $`=\pi r+\pi {\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2w_j}{N}}`$ (20)
$`E_\sigma `$ $`=\pi ^2\left[(1()^j/N){\displaystyle \frac{2w_j}{N}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2w_j}{N}}\right)^2+(1()^r)/2N\right]`$ (21)
$`S_\sigma `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[\lambda _j^{}2w_j]`$ (22)
$`w_j`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\lambda _j^{}}{2}\hfill & \text{for }j+r\text{ even}\hfill \\ \frac{\lambda _j^{}}{2}\hfill & \text{for }j+r\text{ odd}\hfill \end{array}`$ (25)
At the thermodynamic limit (which only is of interest), distinctions between even and odd disappear for the momentum and the energy. Defining $`x_j=\pi \lambda _j^{}/N[0,\pi ]`$, they are

$`P_\sigma `$ $`=\pi r+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}x_j`$ (26)
$`E_\sigma `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}x_j(\pi x_j)`$ (27)
One recognizes the dispersion relation of spinons. An excitation can then be described by a zero mode $`r`$ and a set of particles called spinon defined by each column of a tableau $`\lambda `$. We will for the sake of simplicity write such a state $`\{m_j=\lambda _j^{}\}_r`$. $`r`$ can be discarded in most of the physical applications.

Now we can express all the Jack polynomial technology in terms of the spinons’ quantum numbers $`m_j`$. We will use the short cut notations

$`\gamma _{\text{even}}(m)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m/2+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m/2+1/2)}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Nx}{2}}}`$ (28)
$`\gamma _{\text{odd}}(m)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\gamma _{\text{even}}(m)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Nx}{2}}}`$ (29)
The norm is

$$N_{\{m_j,j=1\mathrm{}n\}}\frac{P_{\{m_j\}}|P_{\{m_j\}}}{1|1}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\gamma _{i+1}(N)}{\gamma _{i+1}(Nm_i)}\underset{1ijn}{}\frac{\gamma _{ij}(m_im_j)}{\gamma _{ij}(m_im_{j+1})}\underset{i}{}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{NE_i}}$$
(30)
One shows that the power sum operators decompose into 2-spinon states $`(m_1,m_2)`$ such that $`m_1+m_2=2s+1`$ with

$$\chi _{(m_1,m_2)}=()^{m_2}\gamma _0(m_1m_2).$$
(31)
Specifying the Pieri formula to $`\mu (m_1,\mathrm{},m_n)`$, $`\lambda (p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n+1})`$ — with possibly $`p_{n+1}=0`$ — it gives

$$\psi _{\lambda /\mu }^{}=\underset{1ijn}{}\frac{\gamma _{ij}(p_ip_{j+1})\gamma _{ij}(m_im_j)}{\gamma _{ij}(p_im_j)\gamma _{ij}(m_ip_{j+1})}$$
(32)
### III.2 Matrix elements

Different strategies apply to the evaluation of the transition matrix elements $`\lambda |p_{2s+1}|\mu `$. The first one is to write $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ into elementary functions $`e`$ by inversion of the Pieri formula (17), use the decomposition (15), and apply the Pieri formula successively on the multi-$`e`$ state. This solution is quite unpractical, because inverting the Pieri formula becomes increasingly difficult with the number of spinons considered. It is trivial for 1 spinon, and leads to a rather cumbersome expression already for 2 spinons. Still, we can use it to rewrite the power sums as a sum of 2-$`e`$ states. The result is interestingly simple

$$p_{2s+1}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{r=0}{\overset{s}{}}()^{s+r+1}(2r+1)e_{s+r+1}e_{sr}$$
(33)
To prove it, one uses (17) on (33), it leads to (31) thanks to the equality

$$1=\frac{1}{2}\underset{r=0}{\overset{s}{}}\frac{1}{\gamma _0(r)\gamma _0(sr)}$$
(34)
It gives way to a generic strategy: use decomposition (33) and use the Pieri formula twice. The result is (with normalized states)

$$\lambda |p_{2s+1}|\mu =\frac{1}{2}\underset{\nu }{}()^{|\lambda ||\nu |}(|\mu |+|\lambda |2|\nu |)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda \backslash \nu }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\nu \backslash \mu }^{}\sqrt{\frac{N_\lambda }{N_\mu }}$$
(35)
with $`|\lambda ||\mu |=2s+1`$.

We will now evaluate the contribution of several channels. Eq. (35) doesn’t give a closed analytic expression for the form factors. Only in a few cases can it be so reduced. The results may be conjectural, then confirmed through the following sum rule

$$\underset{m>0}{}\mu |p_mp_m|\mu \underset{N\mathrm{}}{\overset{}{}}|\mu |$$
(36)
which can be proved by simple Jack polynomials’ algebra.

This is the only channel present at zero temperature. It has been conjectured by Haldane, then proved using the simplectic ensemble Haldane and Zirnbauer (1993), and finally Yamamato *et al.* Yamamoto et al. (2000a) obtained it using Uglov’s technology.

We recall the result and give the thermodynamic limit

$$(m_1,m_2)|p_{m_1+m_2}|0=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma _0(m_1m_2)\gamma _1(m_1m_2)\gamma _0[N]\gamma _1[N]}{\gamma _1(m_1)\gamma _0(Nm_1)\gamma _0(m_2)\gamma _1(Nm_2)}}\sqrt{\frac{\pi (x_1x_2)}{\sqrt{E(m_1)E(m_2)}}}$$
(37)
$$(m^{})|p_{m^{}m}|(m)=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma _0(m^{})\gamma _0(Nm)}{\gamma _0(m)\gamma _0(Nm^{})}}\left(\frac{x^{}(\pi x)}{x(\pi x^{})}\right)^{1/4}$$
(38)
$`(m_1^{},m_2^{})|p_m|(m_1,m_2)`$ $`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0(m_2^{})\gamma _1(m_1^{})\gamma _0(Nm_1)\gamma _1(Nm_2)}{\gamma _0(m_2)\gamma _1(m_1)\gamma _0(Nm_1^{})\gamma _1(Nm_2^{})}}}`$
$`\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\frac{\gamma _0(k)\gamma _1(k^{})}{\gamma _0(k^{})\gamma _1(k)}}\hfill & \text{if }m_1^{}=m_1,\hfill \\ \sqrt{\frac{\gamma _0(k^{})\gamma _1(k)}{\gamma _0(k)\gamma _1(k^{})}}\hfill & \text{if }m_2^{}=m_2,\hfill \\ \sqrt{\frac{\gamma _0(k^{})\gamma _1(k)}{\gamma _0(k)\gamma _1(k^{})}}G(m,l=m_2^{}m_2,k,k^{})\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (39)
$`G(m,l,k,k^{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}()^{i(k+l+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1(i)}{\gamma _0(i)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{ml+i}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{ml}{2}+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{l}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{li}{2}+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{ki}{2}+\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{k}{2}+\frac{1}{2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{k^{}}{2}+\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{k^{}+i}{2}+\frac{1}{2})}}`$ (40)
with $`m=m_1^{}+m_2^{}m_1m_2`$, $`k=m_1m_2`$, $`k^{}=m_1^{}m_2^{}`$. This can be interpreted as an SU(2) generalization of result (28) of Peysson and Schoutens (2002) for $`g=1/2`$ quasiparticles.

It is generally not possible to obtain a closed analytical expression for the other channels, except in a few cases. Such are, for example, $`[(m_1)(m_1,n,n^{})]`$ and $`[(m_1)(n,n^{},m_1)]`$ which equal $`[0(n,n^{})]`$. Nevertheless, formula (35) can be used to give exact numerical results. Getting the thermodynamic limit directly is a challenging but fruitful work. We leave it as an open question.

## IV Correlation functions at finite temperature

Before addressing the computation of the DSSF, general considerations on finite-temperature correlation functions are needed. For a local operator $`𝒪`$, it is

$$𝒪_T=\frac{_n_{\lambda _n}\lambda _n|𝒪|\lambda _n\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_{\lambda _n})}{_n_{\lambda _n}\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_{\lambda _n})}$$
(41)
where $`n`$ is the number of quasiparticles, and $`\lambda _n`$ a state with $`n`$ quasiparticles.

As recalled in the introduction, divergences appear in the correlators of the right-hand side that need to be resummed. For ITFs, LeClair and Mussardo proposed such a resummation as a form factor expansion on the basis of the asymptotic particle states in the zero-temperature theory LeClair and Mussardo (1999)

$$𝒪_T=\underset{n}{}\underset{\lambda _n}{}\lambda _n|𝒪|\lambda _n_{\text{irr}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{n}_T(E_{\lambda _i})$$
(42)
The irreducible form factor $`\lambda _n|𝒪|\lambda _n_{\text{irr}}`$ is obtained thanks to the Form Factor Bootstrap (FFB), and $`\overline{n}_T(E)`$ is the filling factor determined by the Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz (TBA).

In the following, we show that the FFE apply also for the Haldane-Shastry spin chain in the thermodynamic limit. First we obtain the thermodynamic properties of the spinons, then give the expression of the irreducible form factor.

### IV.1 Exclusion statistics

A form factor expansion similar to (42) was proposed for CFTs van Elburg and Schoutens (2000). It led to identify a two-body S-matrix for the CFT in the thermodynamic limit

$$𝑺=\mathrm{exp}[2i\pi (𝜹𝑲)\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta )]$$
(43)
where $`𝑲`$ is the exclusion statistics’ matrix of the quasi-particles of the theory (which play the role of asymptotic states).

Fractional exclusion statistics is a tool introduced by Haldane Haldane (1991) for the analysis of strongly correlated many-body systems. It is only based on the assumption that the Hilbert space is finite-dimensionnal and extensive, i.e. particles are excitations of the considered condensed matter system, so it is a very generic concept. The statistics are encoded in a matrix $`𝑲=(K_{ij})`$ correponding to the reduction of the available Hilbert space for particle of type $`i`$ by filling a one-particle state by a particle of type $`j`$. This is then a generalization of the Pauli principle.

For spin-1/2 spinons with species $`i=\pm `$, the statistical matrix is Bouwknegt and Schoutens (1999)

$$𝑲=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right)$$
(44)
As such, their 1-particule distribution functions generalize the familiar Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein ones. They are derived from 1-particle grand canonical partition functions $`G_i`$ given by the IOW equations Isakov (1994); Dasnières de Veigy and Ouvry (1994); Wu (1994)

$$\left(\frac{G_i1}{G_i}\right)\underset{j}{}G_j^{𝑲_{ij}}=z_i$$
(45)
where $`G_i`$ depends on the generalized fugacities $`z_j=e^{\beta (\mu _j\epsilon )}`$. The one-particule distribution functions are obtained through

$$n_i(\epsilon )=z_i\frac{}{z_i}\mathrm{log}\underset{j}{}G_j$$
(46)
In our case, where species are $`i=(+,)`$, we obtain

$$n_\pm (\epsilon )=\frac{z_\pm }{\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{z_+z_{}}{2}\right)^2}}\frac{\pm \left(\frac{z_+z_{}}{2}\right)+\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{z_+z_{}}{2}\right)^2}}{\left(\frac{z_++z_{}}{2}\right)+\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{z_+z_{}}{2}\right)^2}}\stackrel{\mu ^+=\mu ^{}}{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta E)+1}$$
(47)
from which one deduces that at zero magnetic field, these distributions match the Fermi-Dirac distribution function. It means that spinons can be considered as having fermionic statistics. This is indeed what is done when they are labeled by ordered numbers within partitions, the spin degree of freedom is hidden. The norm formula (30) shows that for a multi-spinon state, the labels have to be strictly decreasing, as for spinless fermions.

### IV.2 Irreducible form factors

For ITFs, the definition of the irreducible form factors comes *a priori* from the FFB. Within our framework (based on van Elburg and Schoutens (2000)) it is not even necessary. Their definition is

$$\lambda _n|𝒪|\lambda _n=\lambda _n|𝒪|\lambda _n_{\text{irr}}+\underset{\overline{\lambda _n}}{}\overline{\lambda _n}|𝒪|\overline{\lambda _n}_{\text{irr}}$$
(48)
with $`\overline{\lambda _n}`$ being a sub-state of $`\lambda _n`$ (a substate being a state where some of the spinons have been taken out). Nonetheless, the FFB insures that irreducible form factors don’t carry divergences, which we can’t prove here. This calls for further understanding of form factors in fractional statistics’ theories.

Here follows a sketch of the proof that the irreducible form factors (48) give the correct FFE (42). It only uses the fact that the colorless spinons are free fermions, which shows up by the strict ordering of their quantum numbers within a multi-spinon state. As such, the proof is similar to LeClair et al. (1996), but in the discrete case.

We first remark that $`0|𝒪|0_{\text{irr}}`$ trivially comes with the factor 1. Let us consider the factor of $`D(m)=(m)|𝒪|(m)_{\text{irr}}`$. The contribution $`C_n`$ from $`n`$ quasi-particles is obtained recursively, isolating the spinons whose label match with $`m`$:

$`C_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1>\mathrm{}>m_n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}D(m_i){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_{m_i})`$ (49)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1>\mathrm{}>m_{n1}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}e^{\beta E_{m_i}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}D(m)e^{\beta E_m}(1{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\delta _{m,m_i})`$ (50)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}[{\displaystyle \underset{m_1>\mathrm{}>m_{n1}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}e^{\beta E_{m_i}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}D(m)e^{\beta E_m}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1>\mathrm{}>m_{n2}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}e^{\beta E_{m_i}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}D(m)e^{2\beta E_m}(1{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}\delta _{m,m_i})]`$ (51)
$`=\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{_mD(m)e^{\beta E_m}_{i=0}^{n1}()^iz_{n1i}e^{i\beta E_m}}{_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}z_i}}`$ (52)
$`z_i`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m_1>\mathrm{}>m_i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{i}{}}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_{m_j}).`$ (53)
Then summing over $`n`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}D(m)e^{\beta E_m}{\displaystyle \frac{_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}_{i=0}^{n1}()^iz_{n1i}e^{i\beta E_m}}{_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}z_i}}`$ (54)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}D(m)e^{\beta E_m}{\displaystyle \frac{_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}()^ie^{i\beta E_m}_{n=i+1}^{\mathrm{}}z_{n1i}}{_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}z_i}}`$ (55)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}D(m)e^{\beta E_m}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}()^ie^{i\beta E_m}`$ (56)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}D(m){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_m)+1}}`$ (57)
The demonstration follows the same lines for the higher form factors. Eq. 42 is quite convenient. Indeed, the denominator is suppressed, so it can be seen as a perturbative series, provided that it’s converging. It also has a clear physical interpretation with quasi-particles and filling-factors. Now it can be applied to the particular case of the dynamical spin structure factor (DSSF).

## V Finite-temperature spin structure factor

Now having all the methodological ingredients we address the main subjet of our paper: the computation of the finite-temperature spin structure factor of the Haldane-Shastry spin chain. We first recall the zero-temperature result. It was first obtained by Haldane and Zirnbauer Haldane and Zirnbauer (1993) using the supermatrix method. It can also be accessed with $`𝔤𝔩_2`$ Jack polynomials Yamamoto et al. (2000b, a). Only the $`[02]`$ channel contributes so it is straightforwardly

$$S_0(q,\omega )=_0^\pi 𝑑x_1_0^\pi 𝑑x_2\frac{\pi |x_1x_2|}{\sqrt{E(x_1)E(x_2)}}\delta (x_1+x_2q)\delta \left(E(x_1)+E(x_2)\omega \right)$$
(58)
At finite temperature, all channels contribute, one needs to sum them all through a FFE. We detail in the following the static structure factor $`S_T(q)=𝑑\omega S_T(q,\omega )`$ and the DSSF.

### V.1 Static structure factor

The static spin-spin correlator can be described by a one-point function

$$S_T(q=2\pi s/N)=\frac{1}{N}p_{(2s+1)}p_{(2s+1)}_T$$
(59)
(this is not the exact one, but equal at the thermodynamic limit) To compute it, we use the 1-point FFE and the transition matrix elements obtained before.

Due to the complexity of the form factor and the lack of FFB, it is hardly impossible to obtain analytical results on the correlation functions. The only point for which we could obtain the correlator exactly is $`q=0`$. We compute it as the thermodynamic limit ($`N\mathrm{}`$) of (59) at $`s=0`$. The FFE is

$`p_1p_1_T`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}n_F(E_\mu )\mu |p_1p_1|\mu _{\text{irr}}`$ (60)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}F_n`$ (61)
$`F_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m_1>\mathrm{}>m_n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}n_F(E_{m_i})\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n\}|p_1p_1|\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n\}_{\text{irr}}`$ (62)
In the appendix we show that

$$F_n=_0^\pi 𝑑x[n_F(E(x))]^n$$
(63)
from which we conclude

$`S_T(q=0)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑x\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta E(x))+1}}\right)^n`$ (64)
$`={\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑xe^{\beta E(x)}`$ (65)
This result brings strong evidence of the power of the FFE to obtain finite-temperature correlation functions. This is the main achievement of the paper. Let us remark here that $`F_n`$ is the contribution of the $`n`$-spinon states in the FFE. They appear to be of the same order in temperature, meaning that the FFE is not a low-temperature expansion222This would have been expected on the ground that more thermal energy is needed to excite more particles. This is not true anymore for massless particles.. It really is a perturbative expansion, in the sense that the different contributions decrease exponentially with the number of spinons involved.

Nonetheless, $`S_T(q=0)`$ is a low-energy feature of the theory that can be obtained with a bosonization approach. As in Peysson and Schoutens (2002), we observe that the FFE is mostly powerful in regimes where other simpler methods apply. To calculate the whole static structure factor, we then rely on numerics. We work in the infinite-temperature regime to compare the FFE with the expected result. In this limit, correlations are only local and we expect the static structure factor not to depend on the momentum and have the value $`S_{T=\mathrm{}}(q=0)=1`$.

To observe the FFE perturbative power, we studied the contribution from 2- and (2+4)-multispinon states. What we understand here as 2-spinons is the sum of the contributions of the $`[02]`$ and $`[11]`$ channels, and as 4-spinons the $`[13]`$ and $`[22]`$ channels. Results are gathered on figure 2.

At first we observe the convergence to be rather good. This strongly supports our approach. Still problems arise in the vicinity of $`q=\pi `$. Finite-size effects starts appearing at the level of 4-spinons contributions, and increase with a higher number of spinons. The only way to tackle them is to have an enormous computing time. We admit this is the most important weakness of the approach. This emphasizes the need for a direct thermodynamic limit computation.

### V.2 Dynamic structure factor

We show on figure 3 the sum of the contributions from 2- and 4-spinons to the infinite-temperature DSSF.

As in the previous paragraph, finite-size effetcs clearly appear around $`q=\pi `$. This makes the comparison to experiments hardly possible. We still note that some basic features, like the double arch shape, agree qualitatively. This feature, already present at zero temperature, comes from form factors where the spin operator acts on only one of the spinon in a multi-spinon excitation, leading to the spinon dispersion relation. We leave more comments to the concluding section.

## VI Conclusion

In this paper we studied the finite-temperature spin-spin correlation function of the Haldane-Shastry spin chain. We used the multi-spinon basis obtained as the infinite coupling limit of the Yangian basis of the spin Calogero-Sutherland model. Form factors of the spin operators were computed thanks to the $`𝔤𝔩_2`$ Jack polynomial technology. These form factors were gathered within a form factor expansion of finite-temperature correlation functions to give physical quantities directly comparable with the experiments. Though the Haldane-Shastry is not a quantitatively appropriate model to describe real spin chains such as KCuF3, it should at the qualitative level. As any finite-temperature properties for the Heisenberg model are yet beyond reach, serious theoretical insights are brought by the Haldane-Shastry model. We recall that it is simpler due to the $`1/r^2`$ interaction responsible for the thermodynamic freedom of the spinons.

Our main analytical results are: the formal expression of any form factor of the theory, a closed analytical expression for the simplest of them, the proof of the finite-temperature FFE, and the value at zero-momentum of the static structure factor. Along with numerical results, they make evidence of the FFE technique to approximate finite-temperature correlations. As a drawback, it demands huge computation power. This calls for further theoretical refinement.

Work is on progress to provide the Haldane-Shastry model with integrability features such as the FFB. Within such a description, thermodynamic irreducible form factors would be obtained much easier using scattering properties. Problems to develop this approach come from the intrinsic discrete nature of the Haldane-Shastry spinons. But necessary effort has to be made to gather comprehensively ITFs and CFTs in a common framework. Further understanding is also needed in the link between the Haldane-Shastry model and the symplectic random matrix ensemble used in Haldane and Zirnbauer (1993). The analysis performed at zero temperature could be extented at finite temperature. It would also be interesting to treat the finite-temperature dynamics of other inverse-square interaction models and compare it to their zero-temperature exact result Yamamoto and Arikawa (1999); Arikawa et al. (2001). It comes as a simple generalization of the method used in the present paper.

At the numerical level, finite size calculations can be performed. For sufficiently small sizes, the exact correlation functions are accessible using the analytical results of this paper. The FFE can not be used, for it is based on the thermodynamic limit, rather direct application of (41) is necessary. Using directly the Yangian multiplets is another solution, as in Talstra and Haldane (1994) for zero temperature.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thanks K. Schoutens and J.-S. Caux for fruitful discussions.

*

## Appendix A Zero-momentum limit of the static structure factor

In this section we show that

$$F_n=\underset{m_1>\mathrm{}>m_n}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}n_F(E_{m_i})\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n\}|p_1p_1|\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n\}_{\text{irr}}=_0^\pi 𝑑x[n_F(E(x))]^n$$
(66)
It is clear from the conservation laws that the intermediate states for each form factor is only different from the initial state by an increase of 1 of one of the spinons’ $`m`$. Quite generally, we thus need

$`|`$ $`\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_k+1,\mathrm{},m_n\}|p_1|m_1,\mathrm{},m_k,\mathrm{},m_n\}|^2{\displaystyle }_{ik}\alpha ^{\text{sgn}(ik)}_{()^{ik}}(m_km_i)`$ (67)
$`\alpha _\pm ^+(m)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0(m)\gamma _1(m+1)}{\gamma _1(m)\gamma _0(m+1)}}\right)^\pm `$ (68)
$`\alpha _\pm ^{}(m)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1(m)\gamma _0(m1)}{\gamma _0(m)\gamma _1(m1)}}\right)^\pm `$ (69)
Explicitly developing the irreducible form factors and separating different affected $`m`$’s, we obtain

$`F_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m_1>\mathrm{}>m_n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}n_F(E_{m_i}){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}F_n^k`$ (70)
$`F_n^k`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{J\{1,\mathrm{},k1,k+1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}}()^{n1|J|}{\displaystyle \underset{iJ}{}}\alpha _{()^{d_J(k,i)}}^{\text{sgn}(ik)}(m_km_i)`$ (71)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{J^>\{k+1,\mathrm{},n\}}{}}()^{nk|J^>|}{\displaystyle \underset{iJ^>}{}}\alpha _{()^{d_J^>(k,i)}}^+(m_km_i){\displaystyle \underset{J^<\{1,\mathrm{},k1\}}{}}()^{k1|J^<|}{\displaystyle \underset{iJ^<}{}}\alpha _{()^{d_J^<(k,i)}}^{}(m_im_k)`$ (72)
with $`d_J(k,i)`$ the distance between $`k`$ and $`i`$ in the subset $`J`$. Thus we can write $`F_n^k=F_n^{k>}F_n^{k<}`$.

We will know obtain $`_{\{m_{i>k}\}}F_n^{k>}`$ in a recursive way (the proof for $`F_n^{k>}`$ follows the same lines), putting $`k=1`$ without loss of generality. We first perform the sum over $`m_n`$. Writing $`I=\{2,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, one separates the ensemble of $`J`$ as

$$\{JI\{n\}\}=\{J+J\{n\},JI\}=\{J+J\{n\},JI,|J|\text{ even}\}\{J+J\{n\},JI,|J|\text{ odd}\}.$$

In the first (resp. second) subset, the distance in J between 1 and $`n`$ is odd (resp. even). This proves that

$$F_n^{1>}=(\alpha _{}^+(m_1m_n)1)F_{n1}^{1>\text{even}}+(\alpha _+^+(m_1m_n)1)F_{n1}^{1>\text{odd}}$$
(73)
where the superscripts even and odd corresponds to restrictions of the expression of $`F_{n1}^{1>}`$ to $`J`$ subsets with even or odd cardinal. Repeating this recursion one ends up with

$$\begin{array}{c}F_n^{1>}=F_{n2}^{1>\text{even}}[(\alpha _+(m_1m_n)1)\alpha _{}^+(m_1m_{n1})+1\alpha _{}^+(m_1m_n)]\hfill \\ \hfill +F_{n2}^{1>\text{odd}}[(\alpha _{}^+(m_1m_n)1)\alpha _+^+(m_1m_{n1})+1\alpha _+^+(m_1m_n)]\end{array}$$
(74)
Then one easily shows that

$`[(\alpha _+^+(m_1m_n)1)\alpha _{}^+(m_1m_{n1})+1\alpha _{}^+(m_1m_n)]`$ $`\alpha _{}^+(m_1m_n)\delta _{m_nm_{n1}}`$ (75)
$`[(\alpha _{}^+(m_1m_n)1)\alpha _+^+(m_1m_{n1})+1\alpha _+^+(m_1m_n)]`$ $`\alpha _+^+(m_1m_n)\delta _{m_nm_{n1}}`$ (76)
thus proving the recursion

$$F_n^{1>}=F_{n1}^{1>}\delta _{m_nm_{n1}}$$
(77)
As this is true only for $`n>1`$, we obtain for $`F_n^k`$ the following

$`F_n^1`$ $`=(\alpha _{}^+(m_1m_2)1)\delta _{m_2,\mathrm{},m_n}`$ (78)
$`F_n^{k1,n}`$ $`=(\alpha _{}^+(m_km_{k+1})1)(\alpha _+^{}(m_km_{k1})1)\delta _{m_1,\mathrm{},m_{k1}}\delta _{m_{k+1},\mathrm{},m_n}`$ (79)
$`F_n^n`$ $`=(\alpha _+^{}(m_nm_{n1})1)\delta _{m_1,\mathrm{},m_{n1}}`$ (80)
Now, one has $`\alpha _{}^+(m_km_{k+1})1\delta _{m_k,m_{k+1}}`$ and $`\alpha _+^{}(m_km_{k1})10`$ so that

$$F_n^k=\delta _{k,1}\delta _{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}$$
(81)
Finally

$$F_n=\underset{m=1}{\overset{N1}{}}[n_F(E(m))]^n=_0^\pi 𝑑x[n_F(E(x))]^n$$
(82)
which ends our proof.