text:
# Infrared conductivity of a one-dimensional charge-ordered state: quantum lattice effects

## I Model and ZFA variational approach

In this paper we deal with the $`1D`$ spinless Holstein model  at half-filling.

The Holstein Hamiltonian is

$`H=t{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}c_i^{}c_j+\omega _0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}a_i^{}a_i+g\omega _0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_i^{}c_i\left(a_i+a_i^{}\right)\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_i^{}c_i.`$ (1)
Here $`t`$ is the electron transfer integral between nearest neighbor ($`nn`$) sites $`<i,j>`$, $`c_i^{}\left(c_i\right)`$ creates (destroys) an electron at the $`i`$-th site and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. In the second term of eq.(1) $`a_i^{}\left(a_i\right)`$ is the creation (annihilation) phonon operator at the site i, $`\omega _0`$ denotes the frequency of the optical phonon mode and the parameter $`g`$ represents the coupling constant between electrons and phonons. The dimensionless parameter $`\lambda `$

$$\lambda =\frac{g^2\omega _0}{2t},$$
(2)
indicating the ratio between the small polaron binding energy and the energy gain of an itinerant electron on a rigid lattice, is useful to measure the strength of the $`elph`$ interaction in the adiabatic regime. We consider spinless electrons since they, even if at a very rough level, mimic the action of an on-site Coulomb repulsion preventing the formation of local pairs. Actually, for one dimensional systems in the limit of infinite local repulsion $`U`$, the charge sector of the Hubbard model maps onto a spinless model, therefore the spinless Holstein model can be considered as a reliable model for typical one-dimensional systems.

The hopping of electrons is supposed to take place between the equivalent $`nn`$ sites of a $`1D`$ lattice separated by the distance $`a`$. The units are such that the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and the lattice parameter $`a`$=1.

As stressed in the original $`ZFA`$ paper,  the starting point of the approach is the consideration that the strong coupling and infinite phonon frequency limit of the model are described by polarons. The $`ZFA`$ approach extends the polaron formation to intermediate regimes recovering the mean-field solution of the zero phonon frequency limit. Following the $`ZFA`$ variational scheme, three successive canonical transformations are performed in order to treat the electron-phonon interaction variationally and to introduce the charge-ordering solution.

The first transformation is the variational Lang-Firsov unitary one

$$U_1=\mathrm{exp}\left[g\underset{j}{}\left(fc_j^{}c_j+\mathrm{\Delta }_j\right)\left(a_ja_j^{}\right)\right],$$
(3)
where $`f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ are variational parameters. The quantity $`f`$ controls the degree of the antiadiabatic polaronic effect since the lattice deformation is allowed to follow instantaneously the electrons. Moreover $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ denotes a displacement field describing lattice distortions due to the average electron motion. At half-filling the charge-ordered solution is obtained by assuming

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{CO}e^{iQR_i},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ represents the lattice distortion unaffected by the instantaneous position of electrons and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{CO}`$ the additional local lattice distortion due to the Peierls dimerization with $`Q=\pi `$.

The second transformation is

$$U_2=\mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha \underset{j}{}\left(a_j^{}a_j^{}a_ja_j\right)\right],$$
(5)
where the variational parameter $`\alpha `$ determines a phonon frequency renormalization.

The transformed Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}=U_2^1U_1^1HU_1U_2`$ is

$`\stackrel{~}{H}=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}X_i^{}X_jc_i^{}c_j+\overline{\omega }_0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}a_i^{}a_i+L\omega _0\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(2\alpha \right)+g^2\omega _0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_i^2`$ (8)
$`+\omega _0\mathrm{sinh}\left(2\alpha \right)\mathrm{cosh}\left(2\alpha \right){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(a_i^{}a_i^{}+a_ia_i\right)g\omega _0e^{2\alpha }{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_i\left(a_i+a_i^{}\right)`$
$`+g\omega _0\left(1f\right)e^{2\alpha }{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_i^{}c_i\left(a_i+a_i^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_i^{}c_i\left(\eta _i\mu \right),`$
where we have introduced the phonon operator $`X_i`$

$$X_i=\mathrm{exp}\left[gfe^{2\alpha }\left(a_ia_i^{}\right)\right],$$
(9)
the renormalized phonon frequency $`\overline{\omega }_0=\omega _0\mathrm{cosh}(4\alpha )`$, the number of lattice sites $`L`$ and the quantity $`\eta _i`$

$$\eta _i=g^2\omega _0f\left(f2\right)+2g^2\omega _0\left(f1\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_i.$$
(10)
In the $`ZFA`$ approach the energy is deduced introducing a test Hamiltonian characterized by non interacting electron and phonon degrees of freedom such that $`\stackrel{~}{H}H_{test}_t=0`$, where $`<>_t`$ indicates the mean value obtained by using the ground state of $`H_{test}`$. The test Hamiltonian is given by

$`H_{test}`$ $`=`$ $`t_{eff}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}c_i^{}c_j+\overline{\omega }_0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}a_i^{}a_i+L\omega _0\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(2\alpha \right)+Lg^2\omega _0\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{CO}^2\right)`$ (12)
$`2g^2\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }_{CO}\left(1f\right){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e^{iQR_i}c_i^{}c_i\mu _0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_i^{}c_i,`$
where the subsidiary chemical potential $`\mu _0`$ is

$$\mu _0=\mu g^2\omega _0f\left(f2\right)+2g^2\omega _0\left(f1\right)\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(13)
The quantity $`t_{eff}=te^S`$ denotes the effective transfer integral, where the quantity

$$S=g^2f^2e^{4\alpha }$$
(14)
controls the band renormalization due to the nonadiabatic polaron effect. The electronic part of the test Hamiltonian is diagonalized by a third canonical Bogoliubov transformation  yielding

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{test}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{kϵNZ}{}}\left(\xi _k^{(+)}\mu _0\right)d_k^{}d_k+{\displaystyle \underset{kϵNZ}{}}\left(\xi _k^{()}\mu _0\right)p_k^{}p_k+\overline{\omega }_0{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}a_q^{}a_q+`$ (16)
$`+L\omega _0\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(2\alpha \right)+Lg^2\omega _0\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{CO}^2\right),`$
where $`d_k^{}\left(d_k\right)`$ creates (destroys) a quasi-particle in the upper band $`\xi _k^{(+)}=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k^2+E^2}`$ , $`p_k^{}\left(p_k\right)`$ creates (destroys) a quasi-particle in the lower band $`\xi _k^{()}=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k^2+E^2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k`$ is the polaronic band. We note that $`NZ`$ indicates the New (Brillouin) Zone defined by the condition $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k0`$. In the $`CO`$ phase a gap opens between the upper and lower bands in the quasi-particle spectrum and it is twice the quantity

$$E=2g^2\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }_{CO}\left(1f\right).$$
(17)
Within the variational approach the kinetic energy mean value $`\overline{E}_{kin}`$ is

$$\overline{E}_{kin}=<\widehat{T}>=_{\stackrel{~}{W}}^0𝑑ϵg(ϵ)\frac{ϵ^2}{\sqrt{ϵ^2+E^2}},$$
(18)
where $`\stackrel{~}{W}=2t_{eff}`$ is the renormalized band half-width, $`g\left(ϵ\right)`$ the $`1D`$ density of states, and the electron order parameter $`m_e`$ is given by

$$m_e=\left(\frac{1}{L}\right)\underset{i}{}e^{i\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{R_i}}c_i^{}c_i=E_{\stackrel{~}{W}}^0𝑑ϵ\frac{g(ϵ)}{\sqrt{ϵ^2+E^2}}.$$
(19)
The $`CO`$ phase is characterized by the order parameter different from zero.

In Fig.1 we report the phase diagram  derived within the $`ZFA`$ approach in the thermodynamic limit. The ordered state is separated with a transition line by the $`A`$ phase that represents the disordered phase ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{CO}=0`$). Previous studies  have pointed out that the normal state has the properties of a Luttinger liquid. This has been verified also by using the $`ZFA`$ wave-function and making a finite-size scaling analysis.  In the inset of Fig.1, there is the comparison between the transition lines calculated in a mean-field approach (white squares), $`ZFA`$ approach (white circles) and $`DMRG`$ approach  (black squares). Here mean-field approach means that we are neglecting the effect of polaron formation ($`f=0`$, $`\alpha =0`$). In the ranges of parameters relevant for quasi one-dimensional materials, the ZFA approach improves the mean-field solution since the $`CO`$ phase is stable for larger values of the $`elph`$ couplings. However the lattice fluctuation effects introduced by this approach are not sufficient to obtain transition lines comparable with those of $`DMRG`$ approach. This indicates that quantum fluctuation effects beyond the $`ZFA`$ scheme are not negligible and can play a role also in the calculation of the dynamical properties of the model.

## II Spectral properties within ZFA approach

In this section we calculate the spectral properties within the $`ZFA`$ approach. They are discussed in order to characterize the gap in the quasi-particle spectrum.

The electron retarded Green’s function can be disentangled into electronic and phononic terms  by using the test Hamiltonian (12), hence

$`G_{ret}(k,t)=`$ $`e^SG_{ret}^{(co)}(k,t)+e^S\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(Se^{i\overline{\omega }_0t}\right)1\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1ϵNZ}{}}G_{ret}^{(+)}(k_1,t)+`$ (21)
$`e^S\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(Se^{i\overline{\omega }_0t}\right)1\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1ϵNZ}{}}G_{ret}^{()}(k_1,t).`$
In equation (21) $`G_{ret}^{(co)}(k,t)`$ is

$$G_{ret}^{(co)}(k,t)=u_k^2G_{ret}^{(+)}(k,t)+v_k^2G_{ret}^{()}(k,t),$$
(22)
where $`G_{ret}^{(+)}(k,t)`$ and $`G_{ret}^{()}(k,t)`$ are the Green’s functions associated to the quasi-particles of the upper and the lower bands, respectively, with $`u_k^2`$ given by

$$u_k^2=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k^2+E^2}}\right]$$
(23)
and $`v_k^2`$ by

$$v_k^2=\frac{1}{2}\left[1\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k^2+E^2}}\right].$$
(24)
One obtains the spectral function

$`A(k,\omega )=2\mathrm{}G_{ret}(k,\omega )=`$ $`2\pi e^S\left[u_k^2\delta \left(\omega \xi _k^{(+)}\right)+v_k^2\delta \left(\omega \xi _k^{(+)}\right)\right]+`$ (26)
$`2\pi e^S{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{S^n}{n!}}\left[H(\omega n\overline{\omega }_0)+H(\omega n\overline{\omega }_0)\right],`$
where the function $`H(\omega )`$ is

$$H(\omega )=\frac{g\left(\sqrt{\omega ^2E^2}\right)}{\sqrt{1\frac{E^2}{\omega ^2}}}\theta \left(\omega E\right)\theta \left(\sqrt{E^2+W^2}\omega \right),$$
(27)
with $`\theta (x)`$ Heaviside function. Two physically distinct terms  appear in eq.(26): the coherent and incoherent one. The first derives from the coherent motion of charge carriers and their surrounding phonon cloud. In the normal phase it represents the purely polaronic band contribution and shows a delta behavior. In the $`CO`$ phase, this term is equal to the result of the mean-field approach when one neglects the renormalization of the upper and lower band due to the polaron effect. The incoherent term in eq.(26) is due to processes changing the number of phonons during the hopping of the charges. and provides a contribution spreading over a wide energy range.

In Fig.2 we report the renormalized density of states $`N(\omega )`$ calculated in the $`ZFA`$ approach (solid line) and mean-field (dashed line) at a fixed value of the $`elph`$ coupling and $`t=5\omega _0`$. In the $`CO`$ phase, a gap opens in the quasi-particle spectrum and it is larger for the mean-field solution than the $`ZFA`$ one. We note that, at the energies corresponding to the gap, the inverse square-root singularity occurs for both approaches. The other sharp feature in the density of states derived in the $`ZFA`$ approach is due to one-phonon processes in the upper and lower bands that are relevant in the intermediate $`elph`$ coupling regime.

## III Optical properties within ZFA approach

In this section we focus our attention on the optical properties within the $`ZFA`$ approach. Since we are primarily interested to the absorption spectra in the $`CO`$ phase, we evaluate the conductivity for the frequency $`\omega `$ different from zero.

In a regime of linear response the real part of the conductivity is given by the current-current correlation function

$$\mathrm{}\sigma (\omega )=\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\frac{1e^{\beta \omega }}{2\omega L}\right)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\omega t}j^{}(t)j(0),$$
(28)
where $`\beta `$ is the inverse of the temperature and $`j`$ the current operator. Performing the two canonical transformations (3,5) and making the decoupling of the correlation function in the electron and phonon terms through the introduction of $`H_{test}`$ (12), we get

$$j^{}(t)j(0)=\underset{i,\delta }{}\underset{i^{},\delta ^{}}{}(\delta \delta ^{})\mathrm{\Phi }(i,i^{},\delta ,\delta ^{},t)\mathrm{\Delta }(i,i^{},\delta ,\delta ^{},t),$$
(29)
where the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(i,i^{},\delta ,\delta ^{},t)`$ denotes the electron correlation function

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(i,i^{},\delta ,\delta ^{},t)=c_i^{}(t)c_{i+\delta }(t)c_{i^{}+\delta ^{}}^{}c_i^{}_t$$
(30)
and the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(i,i^{},\delta ,\delta ^{},t)`$ the phonon correlation function

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(i,i^{},\delta ,\delta ^{},t)=X_i^{}(t)X_{i+\delta }(t)X_{i^{}+\delta ^{}}^{}X_i^{}_t.$$
(31)
In order to simplify the analysis of our results, we separate $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ into two contributions

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(i,i^{},\delta ,\delta ^{},t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[X_i^{}X_{i+\delta \widehat{\alpha }}_t\right]^2\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }(i,i^{},\delta ,\delta ^{},t)\left[X_i^{}X_{i+\delta \widehat{\alpha }}_t\right]^2\right\}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`e^{2S}+\left[\mathrm{\Phi }(i,i^{},\delta ,\delta ^{},t)e^{2S}\right],`$ (33)
where $`S`$ is given by eq.(14).

Considering eq.(33), the conductivity can be expressed as a sum of two terms

$$\mathrm{}\sigma (\omega )=\mathrm{}\sigma ^{(coh)}(\omega )+\mathrm{}\sigma ^{(incoh)}(\omega ).$$
(34)
As in the spectral properties, the appearance of two physically distinct contributions, the coherent and incoherent one, occurs. Actually the first term $`\mathrm{}\sigma ^{(coh)}`$ is due to the charge transfer affected by the interactions with the lattice but not accompanied by processes changing the number of phonons. On the other hand, the incoherent term $`\mathrm{}\sigma ^{(incoh)}`$ derives from inelastic scattering processes of emission and absorption of phonons. Both terms of the conductivity can be expressed in terms of the Green’s function $`G_{ret}^{(co)}(k,t)`$ given in eq.(22).

The coherent conductivity is derived as

$$\mathrm{}\sigma ^{(coh)}(\omega )=\left(\frac{4\pi e^2t^2}{\omega }\right)E^2e^{2S}_{\stackrel{~}{W}}^0𝑑ϵ\frac{g(ϵ)}{(\xi ^{(+)})^2}\left(1\frac{ϵ^2}{\stackrel{~}{W}^2}\right)\delta \left(\omega 2\xi ^{(+)}\right),$$
(35)
with $`\xi ^{(+)}=\sqrt{ϵ^2+E^2}`$. We note that this term gives contribution to the conductivity only in the $`CO`$ phase since it directly depends on the semi-gap $`E`$. Furthermore it is equal to the mean-field conductivity  when the renormalization of the upper and lower bands due to the polaron effect is neglected.

The incoherent term of the conductivity can be divided into two components:

$$\mathrm{}\sigma ^{(incoh)}(\omega )=\mathrm{}\sigma _1^{(incoh)}(\omega )+\mathrm{}\sigma _2^{(incoh)}(\omega ).$$
(36)
The quantity $`\mathrm{}\sigma _1^{(incoh)}(\omega )`$ is due to the multi-phonon emission by the charge carriers in the lower band $`\xi _k^{()}`$ that does not change the electron momentum. This first term reads

$$\mathrm{}\sigma _1^{(incoh)}(\omega )=\frac{2\pi e^2t^2}{\omega }e^{2S}\left[\frac{1}{L}\underset{kϵNZ}{}\mathrm{cos}(k)(v_k^2u_k^2)\right]^2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2S)^n}{n!}\delta (\omega n\overline{\omega }_0),$$
(37)
that, making the envelope of the delta functions (procedure exact in the limit $`\omega _00`$), becomes

$$\mathrm{}\sigma _1^{(incoh)}(\omega )=\frac{\pi e^2}{2\omega \overline{\omega }_0}\overline{E}_{kin}^2\frac{(2S)^{\omega /\overline{\omega }_0}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\omega /\overline{\omega }_0)}\theta (\omega \overline{\omega }_0),$$
(38)
where $`\overline{E}_{kin}`$ is the mean value of the kinetic energy equal to eq.(18) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ is the gamma function.

In eq.(36), $`\mathrm{}\sigma _2^{(incoh)}(\omega )`$ takes into account the interband transitions accompanied by multi-phonon scattering. This second term is given by

$$\mathrm{}\sigma _2^{(incoh)}(\omega )=\frac{2\pi e^2t^2}{\omega }e^{2S}\frac{1}{L}\underset{k_1,k_2ϵNZ}{}(1+4v_{k_1}u_{k_1}v_{k_2}u_{k_2})\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2S)^n}{n!}\delta (\omega n\overline{\omega }_0+\xi _{k_1}^{()}\xi _{k_2}^{(+)}),$$
(39)
that, enveloping the delta functions, can be transformed as

$`\mathrm{}\sigma _2^{(incoh)}(\omega )=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi e^2t^2}{\omega \overline{\omega }_0}}\right)e^{2S}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{T_1}}^0}dϵ_1{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{T_2}}^0}dϵ_2{\displaystyle \frac{(2S)^y}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+y)}}g(ϵ_1)g(ϵ_2)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{E^2}{4\xi _1^{(+)}\xi _2^{(+)}}})\times `$ (41)
$`\times \theta (\omega \overline{\omega }_02E)`$
where $`T_1=\mathrm{min}(\stackrel{~}{W},\sqrt{(\omega \overline{\omega }_0E)^2E^2})`$, $`T_2=\mathrm{min}(\stackrel{~}{W},\sqrt{(\omega \overline{\omega }_0\xi _1^{(+)})^2E^2})`$, $`\xi _i^{(+)}`$ is defined as

$$\xi _i^{(+)}=\sqrt{ϵ_i^2+E^2},$$
(42)
with $`i=1,2`$, and $`y=(\omega \xi _1^{(+)}\xi _2^{(+)})/\overline{\omega }_0`$.

We have checked that the sum rule

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{}\sigma (\omega )=\frac{\pi }{2}e^2\overline{E}_{kin}$$
(43)
is verified by the calculated conductivity spectra in the $`CO`$ phase, where $`\overline{E}_{kin}`$ is given by eq.(18).

In Fig.3a we report the different contributions to the conductivity spectrum derived within the $`ZFA`$ approach for $`t=5\omega _0`$ and $`g=2.4`$: the coherent term (dashed line), the incoherent term due to multi-phonon emissions (dotted line) and the incoherent term in correspondence with interband transitions (dash-dotted line). For this value of the $`elph`$ coupling, the gap is larger than the phonon frequency, that represents the absorption threshold of the first incoherent term. The incoherent term at $`\omega _0`$ reaches the largest values in the intermediate coupling regime where the nonadiabatic polaron formation is more effective. This contribution is still present for large $`elph`$ couplings giving rise to a subgap absorption band. The second term of the incoherent conductivity spreads for a wide range of frequencies above the energy gap following the coherent interband absorption band.

In Fig.3b the conductivity spectra within $`ZFA`$ (solid line) and mean-field (dashed line) approach at $`t=5\omega _0`$ and $`g=2.4`$ are compared. Not only the optical gap within $`ZFA`$ is smaller than mean-field one, but the two incoherent terms due to lattice fluctuation effects are able to provide a non negligible contribution below and above the gap (the arrow in figure indicates this last contribution). This suggests that a better treatment of the lattice fluctuations allows to capture features of the optical conductivities that are found in experimental spectra.  In the next section we will see that lattice fluctuation effects beyond the $`ZFA`$ approach give rise in the conductivity to an actual subgap tail in good agreement with experimental data.

With rising the $`elph`$ coupling, a transfer of spectral weight from low to high energies takes place and the optical gap broadens. The optical response within $`ZFA`$ approach is strongly dependent on adiabaticity ratio since the incoherent terms acquire increasing spectral weight compared with that of the coherent interband term as the ratio $`t/\omega _0`$ decreases. Actually the spectral weight can be measured through the $`\omega `$-integrated function

$$S(\omega )=_0^\omega 𝑑\omega ^{}\mathrm{}\sigma (\omega ^{}),$$
(44)
whose value $`S_m`$ in the limit of infinite frequency is given by eq.(43).

## IV Fluctuations beyond ZFA approach

In this section we deal with quantum lattice fluctuation effects beyond the $`ZFA`$ approach. We first determine the scattering rate of the quasi-particles of the upper and lower bands. Next we will analyze the effect of the self-energy insertions on the infrared conductivity that is the main aim of this paper. This is performed following the lines of our previous works.

Now we consider the actual transformed Hamiltonian of the system in eq.(8) as a perturbation of the test Hamiltonian in eq.(12). At the second order of the perturbation theory the retarded self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ret}^{(2)}(k,\omega )`$ can be derived.  If only the dominant autocorrelation terms are retained, the self-energy is local and provides the scattering rates of the quasi-particles of the upper and lower bands

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm (k)=2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ret}^{(2)}\left(\omega =\xi _k^{(\pm )}\right).$$
(45)
These two quantities turn out to be equal, so we have only one scattering rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(k)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(k).$$
(46)
The scattering rate can be decomposed as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\xi _k^{(+)})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1phon}(\xi _k^{(+)})+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{multiphon}(\xi _k^{(+)}),$$
(47)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1phon}`$ is the contribution due to single phonon processes only

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1phon}(\xi _k^{(+)})=`$ $`2Zt^2e^{2S}g^2f^2e^{4\alpha }g_{1,l=1}(\xi _k^{(+)})+g^2\omega _0^2e^{4\alpha }(1f)^2g_2(\xi _k^{(+)}),`$ (48)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{multiphon}`$ represents the scattering rate by multiphonon processes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{multiphon}(\xi _k^{(+)})=Zt^2e^{2S}\underset{l=2}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(2g^2f^2e^{4\alpha }\right)^l}{l!}g_{1,l}(\xi _k^{(+)}).$$
(49)
In the previous equations the function $`g_{1,l}(\xi _k^{(+)})`$ reads

$`g_{1,l}(\xi _k^{(+)})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[n_F(\xi _k^{(+)}+l\overline{\omega }_0)\right]K(\xi _k^{(+)}+l\overline{\omega }_0)`$ (50)
$`+`$ $`\left[1n_F(\xi _k^{(+)}l\overline{\omega }_0)\right]K(\xi _k^{(+)}l\overline{\omega }_0)`$ (51)
and $`g_2(\xi _𝐤^{(+)})`$

$$g_2(\xi _𝐤^{(+)})=\left[n_F(\xi _k^{(+)}+\overline{\omega }_0)\right]B(\xi _𝐤^{(+)}+\overline{\omega }_0)+\left[1n_F(\xi _k^{(+)}\overline{\omega }_0)\right]B(\xi _k^{(+)}\overline{\omega }_0),$$
(52)
where $`B(x)=2\pi [H(x)+H(x)]`$, with $`H(x)`$ given in eq.(27). In the $`CO`$ phase the scattering rate has a gap due to the dimerization and the process of phonon spontaneous emission by the quasi-particles.

The role of the scattering rate is important not only to improve the approximations of calculation of the spectral properties, but also the optical properties. Through the scattering rate, we can consider the new Green’s function $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{ret}^{(co)}(k,t)`$

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{ret}^{(co)}(k,t)=u_k^2\stackrel{~}{G}_{ret}^{(+)}(k,t)+v_k^2\stackrel{~}{G}_{ret}^{()}(k,t),$$
(53)
that substitutes the function $`G_{ret}^{(co)}(k,t)`$ given in eq.(22). In eq.(53) the Green’ functions $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{ret}^{(\nu )}(k,t)`$ are

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{ret}^{(\nu )}(k,t)=i\theta (t)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\xi _k^{(\nu )}t\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(t\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)/2\right),$$
(54)
with $`\nu `$ standing for $`+`$ or $``$. Therefore it is possible to derive a new spectral function and density of states that include lattice fluctuation effects beyond the $`ZFA`$ approach. A pseudogap as precursor of the actual gap at stronger $`elph`$ couplings is found in the density of states.

The inclusion of the scattering rate is able to affect the features of the infrared absorption. As in the $`ZFA`$ approach, the conductivity is decomposed into a coherent and an incoherent term:

$$\mathrm{}\sigma _{Fluct}(\omega )=\mathrm{}\sigma _{Fluct}^{(coh)}(\omega )+\mathrm{}\sigma _{Fluct}^{(incoh)}(\omega ).$$
(55)
The coherent conductivity is given by

$$\mathrm{}\sigma _{Fluct}^{(coh)}(\omega )=\left(\frac{4e^2t^2}{\omega }\right)e^{2S}\underset{\nu _1,\nu _2}{}_{\stackrel{~}{W}}^0𝑑ϵ[n_F(\xi ^{(\nu _1)}\omega )n_F(\xi ^{(\nu _1)})]\stackrel{~}{C}^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,\omega )h(ϵ)A^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ),$$
(56)
where $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,\omega )`$ is

$$\stackrel{~}{C}^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(ϵ)+\left(\xi ^{(\nu _2)}\xi ^{(\nu _1)}+\omega \right)^2},$$
(57)
$`h(ϵ)=g\left(ϵ\right)\left(1\frac{ϵ^2}{4t_{eff}^2}\right)`$, with $`g(ϵ)`$ bare density of states, and the function $`A^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ)`$ is expressed by

$$A^{(+,+)}(ϵ)=A^{(,)}(ϵ)=\frac{ϵ^2}{ϵ^2+E^2}$$
(58)
with

$$A^{(+,)}(ϵ)=A^{(,+)}(ϵ)=\frac{E^2}{ϵ^2+E^2}.$$
(59)
The latter term of the conductivity becomes

$`\mathrm{}\sigma _{Fluct}^{(incoh)}(\omega )=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2e^2t^2}{\omega }}\right)e^{2S_T}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _1,\nu _2}{}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{W}}^0}𝑑ϵ{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{W}}^0}𝑑ϵ_1g(ϵ)g(ϵ_1)R^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,ϵ_1,\omega ),`$ (60)
where the function $`R^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,ϵ_1,\omega )`$ is given by

$$R^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,ϵ_1,\omega )=\underset{l=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(2g^2f^2e^{4\alpha }\right)^l}{l!}\left[J_l^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,ϵ_1,\omega )+H_l^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,ϵ_1,\omega )\right],$$
(61)
$`C^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,ϵ_1,x)`$ is

$$C^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,ϵ_1,x)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ_1)]}{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ_1)]^2/4+(\xi ^{(\nu _1)}\xi _1^{(\nu _2)}+x)^2}$$
(62)
and

$$\xi _i^{(\nu _j)}=\nu _j\sqrt{ϵ_i^2+E^2}.$$
(63)
In eq.(60) the functions $`J_l^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,ϵ_1,\omega )`$

$`J_l^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,ϵ_1,\omega )=C^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,ϵ_1,\omega +l\overline{\omega }_0)[n_F(\xi _1^{(\nu _2)}l\overline{\omega }_0\omega )n_F(\xi _1^{(\nu _2)}l\overline{\omega }_0)]n_F(\xi _1^{(\nu _2)})`$ (64)
and $`H_l^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,ϵ_1,\omega )`$

$`H_l^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,ϵ_1,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`C^{(\nu _1,\nu _2)}(ϵ,ϵ_1,\omega l\overline{\omega }_0)[n_F(\xi _1^{(\nu _2)}+l\overline{\omega }_0\omega )n_F(\xi _1^{(\nu _2)}+l\overline{\omega }_0)]\times `$ (66)
$`\times \left[1n_F(\xi _1^{(\nu _2)})\right]`$
describe phonon scattering processes.

In Fig.4 we show the conductivity at $`t=10\omega _0`$ and $`\lambda =0.45`$: the solid line represents the quantity obtained adding fluctuations over $`ZFA`$, the dashed line that derived within $`ZFA`$ and dotted line that of the mean-field approach. The values of the parameters have been chosen such that they are appropriate for quasi $`1D`$ inorganic metals. First we observe that the inverse square-root singularity obtained in the mean-field and $`ZFA`$ approach is reduced. Then, due to quantum lattice fluctuations, the new conductivity not only shows a long subgap tail but presents anomalies also over the gap when compared with the mean-field spectrum. Therefore it strengthens the tendencies already shown by the $`ZFA`$ conductivity and it is in good agreement with the experimental spectra.

As stressed in the introduction, an analytical variational approach,  valid in the weak $`elph`$ coupling regime and based on a similar procedure of calculation, has been developed to study the optical conductivity. In order to emphasize the different physical results between the present work and the previous one, in Fig.5 we compare the conductivity $`\mathrm{}\sigma _{Fluct}`$ (solid line) with the corresponding quantity (dashed line) obtained within the preceding approach  for $`t=10\omega _0`$ and $`\lambda =1`$. This last conductivity is extrapolated from the weak coupling limit and, as already noted by the authors of the work, it shows a maximum that does not coincide with their energy gap (see dashed arrow in the figure). This feature is not consistent with experimental spectra  that, at $`T=0`$, show the maximum of the infrared optical conductivity generally near to the gap determined by other experimental measurements such as the low-temperature resistivity, the temperature dependence of the susceptibility and neutron and Raman scattering.  As clearly shown in Fig.5, our approach is not affected by this problem (the gap in our approach is indicated by the solid arrow). While in the previous work,  the presence of a tail below the peak should be due to usual interband transitions, in our approach the peak in the conductivity corresponds to the gap in the quasi-particle spectrum and is well above a real subgap tail determined by lattice fluctuations.

In the inset of Fig.5 we report the ratio (solid line) between $`S(\omega )`$, the spectral weight of the conductivity calculated in this section, and $`S_m`$, the same quantity in the limit of infinite frequency. This ratio is compared with that (dashed line) obtained by means of exact diagonalizations of the Hamiltonian for a system of six sites.  Our approach captures the correct onset of the optical response, even if it presents sharper features. This could be due to the fact that we are not considering a small cluster but we are performing the thermodynamic limit, and, furthermore, that higher order self-energy insertions should be included in order to improve the approach.

The optical response shows similar features at lower values of the adiabaticity ratio $`t/\omega _0`$. In the regime of near electronic and phononic energy scales the effects due to lattice fluctuations are enhanced and the contributions below and above the gap subtract a larger spectral weight to the interband gap term. This regime is typically important for inorganic linear chain compounds, for example, the compound $`TTFTCNQ`$, that is a narrow-band one-dimensional metal with a relatively strong $`elph`$ coupling.

## V Conclusions

We have discussed the optical properties of the half-filled spinless Holstein model in the $`1D`$ case at zero temperature within the $`ZFA`$ approach. We have observed that, with increasing the $`elph`$ coupling, the ordered phase affects the conductivity spectra inducing a transfer of spectral weight from low to high energies and a broadening of the optical interband gap. The quantum lattice fluctuations considered in the $`ZFA`$ approach are able to affect the optical response of the system that shows bands below and above the gap. When fluctuation effects beyond the $`ZFA`$ approach are included, the optical conductivities are profoundly changed since they are characterized by a subgap tail and a wide band above the interband optical gap term that is smoothed when compared with the mean-field result. Therefore the inelastic scattering processes influence the low-frequency and high-frequency features of the conductivity in agreement with experimental spectra.  Our results make clear that a treatment of the lattice fluctuations beyond the $`ZFA`$ approach is required to obtain a consistent agreement with experimental data.

In this paper lattice fluctuation effects beyond the $`ZFA`$ approach are included calculating perturbatively the scattering rate of the polarons that form the ordered state. A second-order perturbation calculation on the $`ZFA`$ solution reproduces the integrated spectral weights obtained by exact numerical approaches suggesting that the employed approach can capture the infrared response of the model. Finally we note that our approach is valid in the infrared range of frequencies where the interband absorption typically takes place. Thus it is not able to reveal the structures attributed to collective excitation modes arising from the $`CDW`$ condensate.

## Figure captions

F1 The phase diagram of the system. The line separates the $`CO`$ from the $`A`$ phase, that represents the disordered normal state. In the inset, the transition line between the $`CO`$ and the disordered $`A`$ phase calculated in the mean-field (white squares), $`ZFA`$ (white circles) and $`DMRG`$ approach (black squares).

F2 The renormalized density of states derived in the $`ZFA`$ (solid line) and mean-field approach (dashed line) at $`t=5\omega _0`$ and $`g=2.2`$ as a function of the energy (in units of $`\omega _0`$).

F3 (a) The conductivity at $`t=5\omega _0`$ and $`g=2.4`$ as a function of the frequency (in units of $`\omega _0`$) decomposed into its different components: coherent term (dashed line), first incoherent term (dotted line) and second incoherent term (dash-dotted line).

(b) The conductivity spectra derived in the $`ZFA`$ (solid line) and mean-field approach (dashed line) at $`t=5\omega _0`$ and $`g=2.4`$ as a function of the frequency (in units of $`\omega _0`$).

The conductivities are expressed in units of $`\frac{e^2\rho }{mt}`$, with $`m=\frac{1}{2t}`$.

F4 The conductivity (in units of $`\frac{e^2\rho }{mt}`$, with $`m=\frac{1}{2t}`$) obtained including fluctuations beyond the $`ZFA`$ (solid line), derived in the $`ZFA`$ (dashed line) and in the mean-field approach (dotted line) up to 14 $`\omega _0`$ at $`t=10\omega _0`$ and $`\lambda =0.45`$.

F5 The conductivity of the present approach (solid line) in comparison with that (dashed line) calculated in a previous paper  at $`t=10\omega _0`$ and $`\lambda =1.0`$. The solid arrow indicates the gap in our approach and the dashed arrow that obtained in a previous work.  In the inset the ratio between the spectral weight $`S(\omega )`$ and $`S_m`$ calculated in the present approach (solid line) compared with the same quantity (dashed line) derived from exact numerical diagonalizations.


format: text

text:
# Girsanov’s transformation for SLE(𝜅,𝜌) processes, intersection exponents and hiding exponents

## 1 Introduction

The value of the intersection exponents between planar Brownian motions has been derived in the series of papers  using the relationship with the exponents for the Schramm-Loewner Evolution process with parameter 6 (in short SLE6) that can be computed directly. For instance, if $`B^1,\mathrm{},B^p`$ denote $`p`$ independent planar Brownian motions started from $`p`$ fixed different points on the unit circle, the probability that the $`p`$ traces $`B^1[0,t],\mathrm{},B^p[0,t]`$ remain disjoint and all stay in the same (fixed) half-plane decays like $`t^{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_p/2}`$ as $`t`$ tends to infinity. The exponent $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_p`$ is called the half-space intersection exponent between $`p`$ Brownian motions and it is proved in  that $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_p=p(2p+1)/3`$, as conjectured in .

Before SLE allowed to determine the value of these exponents, it was shown in  that in order to understand these Brownian exponents, it is convenient to introduce “generalized” Brownian exponents $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_p(a_1,\mathrm{},a_p)`$ that correspond (in the case where all $`a_i`$’s are integers) to the decay of the probability of the non-intersection between $`p`$ unions of planar Brownian motions in a half-plane containing respectively $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_p`$ paths. For instance $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_p(1,\mathrm{},1)=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_p`$. In particular, one can define the function

$$U(a)=\underset{p\mathrm{}}{lim}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_p(a,a,\mathrm{},a)/p^2}$$

and show (this is not mysterious, it is basically a consequence of conformal invariance of planar Brownian motion) that

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }_p(a_1,\mathrm{},a_p)=U^1(U(a_1)+\mathrm{}+U(a_p)).$$
(1)
This, combined with the conjectures by Duplantier-Kwon  for $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_p`$ allowed to predict the value of $`U`$ and of the generalized exponents $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$. Duplantier  then observed that this type of equation can also be viewed as coming from the quantum gravity formalism, which provided yet another way to predict the exact form of the function $`U`$.

In the paper , the relation between the Brownian exponents and the exponents for self-avoiding walks and critical percolation was pointed out. More precisely, a “universality” argument was presented that showed that all conformally invariant models that possess a certain locality condition must basically have the same exponents i.e. the same function $`U`$. This allowed to recover the predictions (see  and the references therein) for the critical exponents for self-avoiding walks or critical percolation from the above-mentioned prediction for $`U`$, and conversely to show that the value of the Brownian exponents would follow from the computation of the exponents for any other local conformally invariant object. This is the strategy that was successfully used in : Show that SLE6 is local, and compute its exponents. The derivation of the SLE6 exponents (in the half-plane) is in fact a computation related to the (real) Bessel flow. This gave the rigorous proof of the fact that indeed $`U(x)=\sqrt{x+1/24}\sqrt{1/24}`$ as predicted in .

In the recent paper , the same basic idea was developed in a (slightly but essentially) different setting. There, the family of random sets satisfying the so-called conformal restriction property is fully described and classified (the corresponding probability measures are called “restriction measures”). This leads  to the precise conjecture that SLE8/3 is the scaling limit of the half-plane self-avoiding walk. It also proves  that the boundary of planar Brownian motion, the boundary of the scaling limit of critical percolation cluster interfaces (that Smirnov  proved to be indeed corresponding to SLE6) and the (conjectured) scaling limit of the self-avoiding walk, do not only have the same exponents but are in fact the same random object. The family of restriction measures is parametrized by a positive real parameter $`a`$ that can be interpreted as the number of planar Brownian motions that this restriction measure is equivalent to. More precisely, when $`a`$ is a positive integer, one can construct the restriction measure with exponent $`a`$ by considering the union of $`a`$ independent Brownian excursions (i.e. in the half-plane, Brownian motions started from the origin that are “conditioned” to stay forever in the upper half-plane). This shows that the half-plane intersection exponents $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ correspond to intersection exponents between restriction measure samples. Note (but this will not be directly relevant here even if it provides one additional motivation, since one would wish to also understand the relation with the intersection exponents) that the restriction measures are closely related to highest-weight representations of some infinite-dimensional Lie algebras (see ).

As shown in , the restriction measures (more precisely, their outer boundary) can be described via variants of SLE8/3 called SLE($`8/3,\rho `$) (each $`\rho `$ corresponds to a value of $`a`$). As we shall briefly recall in the next section, SLE($`8/3,\rho `$) is defined as SLE8/3 except that the driving Brownian motion is replaced by a (multiple of) a Bessel process (actually, it is a little bit more complicated than that). We shall see in the present paper that with this SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) approach, the computation of the intersection exponents can be interpreted as the standard absolute continuity relations between Bessel processes of different dimensions (following from Girsanov’s theorem).

This provides the value of various new exponents, some of which describe probabilities of events that are associated to planar Brownian motions: For instance, consider $`n+m`$ independent Brownian motions in the complex plane that are started from $`i`$, and stopped at their first hitting of the line $`\{\mathrm{}(z)=R\}`$. What is the probability that they all stay in the upper half-plane and that none of the $`n`$ first Brownian motions contributes to the “right-hand” boundary of the union of the $`n+m`$ paths restricted to the strip $`\{\mathrm{}(z)[1,R]\}`$ (i.e. the $`n`$ paths are hidden from $`+\mathrm{}`$ by the $`m`$ other paths – note that this does not imply non-intersection between the paths). When $`R\mathrm{}`$, the probability that this happens decays like a negative power of $`R`$ and the corresponding exponent is

$$n+m+\frac{1}{4}\left(\sqrt{24n+(\sqrt{1+24m}3)^2}(\sqrt{1+24m}3)\right)$$

(the $`n+m`$ part is just corresponding to the fact that the $`n+m`$ paths remain in the upper half-plane). Let us comment that just as for the generalized intersection exponents, the values of these “hiding” exponents are rational only for exceptional values of $`n,m`$. For instance, even the exponent for $`m=n=1`$ is the irrational number $`(3+\sqrt{7})/2`$. However, for $`m=1`$ and $`n=4`$, the exponent is $`7`$. These “hiding” exponents do not seem to have appeared before in the theoretical physics literature.

The fact that such exponents can be determined can seem somewhat surprising. It is due to the fact that the SLE($`8/3,\rho `$) approach makes it possible to separate the information given by the boundary of the random sets (i.e. the law of the exterior boundary of a union of Brownian paths) from what happens “in the inside”. An example of such facts is the symmetry of the Brownian frontier as described in .

Last but not least, this description not only provides the values of the intersection exponents, but it gives directly the law of the paths that are conditioned not to intersect. Of course, all this is very closely related to the computations of the exponents in  as principal eigenvalues of some differential operators, and to the corresponding eigenfunction (and the underlying stationary diffusion, for instance the diffusion conditioned to never hit the boundary of the domain), but is simply formulated in terms of these SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) processes.

The results are not restricted to the $`\kappa =8/3`$ case. Hence, one obtains also “hiding/intersection exponents” in the general case. In particular, a non-intersection exponent between $`p`$ SLEκ’s (with some Brownian loops added in a proper way) turns out to be simply $`p(p1)/\kappa `$. Recall from , SLEκ for all $`\kappa [4,8]`$ are supposed to correspond to the scaling limit of two-dimensional critical statistical physics models, and that they are conjectured (see ) to be closely related to the SLE($`16/\kappa ,\rho `$) processes, so that the exponents are relevant in the study of two-dimensional critical systems.

As explained at the end of the paper, it also gives a new and simple interpretation of the “quantum gravity function” from  predicted by Knizhnik, Polyakov and Zamolodchikov that has been used in various forms to predict the values of exponents of two-dimensional critical systems by theoretical physicists (see e.g.  and the references therein). Loosely speaking, the “quantum gravity exponent” (conjectured to correspond to the same system but on a random lattice) is just the value $`\rho `$ that appears in the SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$).

When writing up this paper, I had basically the choice between on the one hand being sloppy at times, but with reasonable heuristic intuition, or giving precise complete statements and proofs that would hide the intuition behind stochastic calculus considerations and technical setups. I deliberately chose the first option, since I believe that the gaps left are reasonable.

Acknowledgements. I would like to express my deepest gratitude toward Greg Lawler and Oded Schramm. This paper can be viewed as an addendum to our joint papers, and it could have been (co)-authored by them as well. I have also benefited from stimulating and enlightening discussions with Julien Dubédat.

## 2 Background

### 2.1 (One-sided) restriction

We now recall some facts and notation from . Define the family $`𝒜`$ of closed subsets $`A`$ of the closed upper half-plane $`\overline{}`$ such that

1. $`A`$ is simply connected.
2. $`A`$ is bounded and bounded away from the negative half-line.

To each such $`A`$, associate the conformal mapping $`\varphi _A`$ from $`A`$ onto $``$ such that $`\varphi _A(0)=0`$ and $`\varphi _A(z)z`$ when $`z\mathrm{}`$.

We say that a closed set $`K\overline{}`$ is left-filled if

* $`K`$ and $`K`$ are both simply connected and unbounded
* $`K=_{}`$

We say that a random left-filled set satisfies one-sided restriction if for all $`A𝒜`$, the law of $`K`$ is identical to that of $`\varphi _A(K)`$ given the event $`\{KA=\mathrm{}\}`$. It is not very difficult (see ) to prove that this implies that for some positive constant $`\alpha `$, one has for all $`A`$,

$$𝐏[KA=\mathrm{}]=\varphi _A^{}(0)^\alpha .$$
(2)
Conversely (see ), for each $`\alpha >0`$, there exists a unique random right-filled set satisfying this identity. Its law is called the one-sided restriction measure with exponent $`\alpha `$. It can be explicitly constructed using the SLE($`8/3,\rho `$) processes that will be described below.

Define now the family $`𝒜_t`$ just as $`𝒜`$ except that condition 2. is replaced by the condition that $`A`$ is bounded and bounded away from $`0`$. This immediately to “two-sided” restriction properties (see ) that we shall also use in the present paper. These are the random sets such that for all $`A𝒜_t`$, the law of $`K`$ is is identical to that of $`\varphi _A(K)`$ conditionally on $`\{KA=\mathrm{}\}`$. Again, (2) has to hold for all $`A𝒜_t`$ and some fixed $`\alpha `$. It is proved in  that this can be realized if and only if $`\alpha 5/8`$. Furthermore, the only random simple path that satisfies the two-sided restriction property is SLE8/3 for which the corresponding exponent is $`\alpha =5/8`$.

### 2.2 Absolute continuity relation between Bessel processes

Suppose that $`(X_t,t0)`$ is a Bessel process of dimension $`d1`$ started from $`x>0`$ i.e. (see e.g.  for more details on the content of this subsection). In other words,

$$X_t=x+B_t+_0^t\frac{d1}{2X_s}𝑑s$$

where $`(B_t,t0)`$ is a standard one-dimensional Brownian motion started from $`0`$. As customary, we will also use the index $`\nu `$ related to the dimension $`d`$ by

$$d=2+2\nu .$$

Recall that $`X`$ is hits the origin if and only if $`d<2`$.

Suppose for a moment that $`d=2`$ and $`\mu 0`$. Then Itô’s formula shows immediately that

$$\mathrm{log}X_t=\mathrm{log}x+_0^t\frac{dB_s}{X_s}$$

is a local martingale. It is then possible to apply Girsanov’s theorem to understand (for each fixed $`t>0`$) the behavior of $`X`$ under the new probability measure $`Q_t`$ defined by

$$dQ_t/dP=(X_t/x)^\mu \mathrm{exp}\left(\mu ^2_0^t\frac{ds}{2X_s^2}\right)$$

(it is standard to check that in this particular case, the exponential martingale $`\mathrm{exp}(\mu \mathrm{log}X_t\mu ^2\mathrm{log}X_t/2)`$ is a plain martingale): Under this new probability measure,

$$\stackrel{~}{B}_s:=B_s\mu _0^s\frac{ds}{X_s}$$

for $`s[0,t]`$ is a Brownian motion. In other words, as

$$X_s=x+\stackrel{~}{B}_s+(1/2+\mu )_0^t\frac{ds}{X_s}$$

it follows that under this new probability measure, $`(X_s,s[0,t])`$ is a Bessel process of dimension $`d^{}=2+2\mu `$ i.e. of index $`\mu `$.

Note that the probability measures $`Q_t`$ are compatible in the sense that the $`Q_T`$ probability of any $`\sigma (B_s,s[0,t])`$ measurable set is independent of $`T>t`$. Hence, one can in fact define a probability measure $`Q`$ that coincides with $`Q_t`$ on $`\sigma (B_s,s[0,t])`$ for all $`t`$. Under this probability measure $`Q`$, the process $`(X_s,s0)`$ is a Bessel process of index $`\mu `$.

Conversely, suppose now that $`d>2`$ (i.e. $`\nu >0`$) and define

$$dQ_t/dP=(X_t/x)^\nu \mathrm{exp}\left(\nu ^2_0^t\frac{ds}{2X_s^2}\right).$$

Then, under the new probability measure $`Q`$, the process $`X`$ is a two-dimensional Bessel process.

Plugging in these two facts together shows that if $`X`$ is a Bessel process of dimension $`2+2\nu 2`$, then under the probability measure $`Q`$ that is induced by the probability measures $`Q_t`$ defined by

$$dQ_t/dP=(X_t/x)^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}\left((\mu ^2\nu ^2)_0^t\frac{ds}{2X_s^2}\right),$$

the process $`X`$ is a Bessel process of index $`\mu `$ (instead of $`\nu `$) started from $`a`$. As we shall see, this relation between $`\mu \nu `$ and the exponent $`\mu ^2\nu ^2`$ will basically be the reason for the particular form of the critical exponents (i.e. for the function $`U`$) in our two-dimensional context.

Note that (unless $`\mu =\nu `$), $`Q`$ is not absolutely continuous with respect to $`P`$ (the limiting behavior of $`X`$ when $`t\mathrm{}`$ depends on its dimension). Similarly, one can let $`a`$ go to zero, and interpret heuristically the result as the relation between Bessel processes of different dimension that are started from zero. This is not formally true since $`dQ_t/dP`$ is not well-defined anymore ($`Q_t`$ is singular with respect to $`P`$ because the almost sure behavior of $`X`$ at time $`0+`$ depends on its dimension).

### 2.3 The SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) processes

We now recall the definition of the SLE ($`\kappa ,\rho `$) processes. Suppose that $`\kappa >0`$ and $`\rho >2`$. Let $`X`$ denote a Bessel process of dimension

$$d=1+\frac{2(\rho +2)}{\kappa }$$

that is started from $`X_0=x:=a/\sqrt{\kappa }0`$.

Define $`Y=\sqrt{\kappa }X`$ and

$$O_t=_0^t\frac{2ds}{Y_s},$$

and also

$$W_t=Y_t+O_t$$

so that

$$W_t=a+\sqrt{\kappa }B_t+_0^t\frac{\rho ds}{W_sO_s}.$$

Then, one defines the Loewner chain $`g_t`$ with driving function $`W_t`$ i.e. for all $`t0`$ and $`z`$ in the closed upper half-plane $`\overline{}`$,

$$_tg_t(z)=\frac{2}{g_t(z)W_t}$$
(3)
(as long as $`g_t(z)`$ does not hit $`W_t`$). For each $`t`$, $`g_t`$ is a conformal map from a domain $`H_t`$ onto $``$, where $`H_t`$ is the set of points $`z`$ such that $`|g_s(z)W_s|>0`$ for $`s[0,t]`$. We call this process SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$). When $`\rho =0`$, this is the (usual) chordal SLEκ process.

We will for the time being assume that $`d2`$ (so that $`X`$ does not hit $`0`$). This means that

$$\rho 2+\frac{\kappa }{2}.$$

When $`\rho =0`$, this corresponds to the fact that $`\kappa 4`$.

Suppose that $`Y_0=a>0`$. Then, for all fixed $`t>0`$, the law of $`W[0,t]`$ is absolutely continuous (even if the density may not be bounded) with respect to that of $`\sqrt{\kappa }B_t`$, and therefore the law of the Loewner chain up to time $`t`$ is absolutely continuous with respect to that of SLEκ. In particular, it is generated by a continuous curve (see ). If $`Y_0=0`$, then this does not hold directly, but one can apply the same reasoning to the chains $`g_{t_0+t}g_{t_0}^1`$ to deduce that SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) is generated by a continuous curve, that we shall denote by $`\gamma `$. In other words, $`g_t`$ is the conformal map from the unbounded connected component of $`\gamma [0,t]`$ onto $``$ that is normalized at infinity by $`g_t(z)=z+o(1)`$. This curve is simple if and only if $`\kappa 4`$ ().

The process

$$O_t=_0^t\frac{2ds}{W_sO_s}$$

should be understood as the left-image of the origin under $`g_t`$ (when $`Y_0=0`$, then $`0`$ can correspond to two prime ends in $`g_t^1()`$). The fact the $`d2`$ ensures that the left-image of $`0`$ is never “swallowed” by the SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) curve, i.e. that the curve never hits the negative half-line. On the other hand, the SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) hits the positive half-line if $`\kappa >4`$.

The intuition behind the drift term when $`\rho 0`$ is the following: It is a repulsion from the origin if $`\rho >0`$ or an attractive force toward the origin if $`\rho <0`$. The fact that $`d2`$ ensures that the repulsion/attraction is such that the SLE curve never hits the negative half-line: For instance, when $`\kappa =6`$, the repulsion has to be sufficiently strong so that the SLE does not swallow the origin (i.e. one must have $`\rho 1`$). When $`\kappa =8/3`$, the process can be attracted toward zero (i.e. all the values $`\rho 2/3`$ work) without swallowing it.

Here since $`O_0=0`$ and $`W_0=a`$, we say that the SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) process is started from $`(0,a)`$. Similarly, for any $`ow`$, one can define an SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) started from $`(o,w)`$ by translating the SLE started from $`(0,wo)`$ by $`o`$.

Note that the SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) curve is obtained deterministically (via the Loewner chain) from the process $`Y`$ (or $`X`$).

### 2.4 Restriction and SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) processes

In , it is proved that the boundary of the sample of a one-sided restriction measure of exponent $`\eta `$ is an SLE($`8/3,\rho `$) process where

$$\eta =\overline{\eta }(8/3,\rho )=\frac{(\rho +2)(3\rho +10)}{32}$$

(here and in the sequel, we will use the bars to indicate that this is a function and not a parameter). It is also shown that if one adds (or decorates) an SLEκ curve with parameter $`\kappa 8/3`$ with a Poisson cloud of Brownian loops with intensity $`\lambda `$, where

$$\lambda =\lambda _\kappa =\overline{\lambda }(\kappa )=\frac{(83\kappa )(6\kappa )}{12\kappa }$$
(4)
(of course, this depends on the actual normalizing factor in the definition of the loop soup), and then “left-fills” the obtained set, one obtains a sample of a (one-sided) restriction measure of exponent

$$\overline{\eta }(\kappa ,0)=\frac{6\kappa }{2\kappa }.$$

The same argument is generalized in , where it is shown that for all $`\kappa 8/3`$, one can decorate the SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) curve with a Poisson cloud of Brownian loops of intensity $`\lambda _\kappa `$ and obtain a one-sided restriction measure sample with exponent

$$\overline{\eta }(\kappa ,\rho )=\frac{(\rho +2)(\rho +6\kappa )}{4\kappa }$$
(5)
We refer to  for further details.

The Brownian loop decoration procedure can be roughly summarized as follows: There exists an infinite measure $`M`$ supported on (unrooted) Brownian loops in the half-plane. A realization of the Brownian loop-soup with intensity $`\lambda `$ is a Poisson point process with intensity $`\lambda M`$. A sample of the loop-soup is therefore an infinite countable collection of Brownian loops in the upper half-plane. One decorates a curve with the loop-soup by adding to the curve all the loops of the loop-soup that it intersects. See  for more details. When $`\kappa =2`$, this is also closely related to the fact that SLE2 is the scaling limit of loop-erased random walk as proved in .

## 3 Absolute continuity between SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$)’s

We are now going to combine the previous considerations. Consider an SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) with $`\nu 0`$ that is started from $`(0,a)`$ as before, where $`a>0`$. Recall that

$$\nu =\frac{\rho +2}{\kappa }\frac{1}{2}$$

i.e.,

$$\rho =\kappa (\nu +\frac{1}{2})2.$$

Define for $`\mu \nu `$, the probability measure $`Q`$ induced by the measures $`Q_t`$ as before i.e. for all $`t>0`$

$`dQ_t/dP`$ $`=`$ $`(X_t/x)^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2\mu ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{X_s^2}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`(Y_t/a)^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa (\nu ^2\mu ^2)}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{Y_s^2}}\right)`$
where

$$X_s=\frac{Y_t}{\sqrt{\kappa }}=\frac{W_tO_t}{\sqrt{\kappa }}.$$

Then, under the probability measure $`Q`$, the process $`X`$ is a Bessel process of dimension $`2+2\mu `$ (instead of $`2+2\nu `$) started from $`x=a/\sqrt{\kappa }`$. Hence, under this new probability measure, the Loewner chain $`g_t`$ corresponds to that of an SLE($`\kappa ,\overline{\rho }`$), where

$$\overline{\rho }=\kappa (\mu +\frac{1}{2})2.$$

Recall that

$$_tg_t^{}(z)=\frac{2g_t^{}(z)}{(g_t(z)W_t)^2}$$

(this formally follows from the differentiation of (3) with respect to $`z`$). Therefore,

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\nu ^2\mu ^2}{2}_0^t\frac{ds}{X_s^2}\right)=g_t^{}(0)^{(\mu ^2\nu ^2)\kappa /4}.$$

Hence, one can interpret this quantity as the probability that a sample $`K`$ of a one-sided restriction measure of exponent

$$\alpha =\frac{(\mu ^2\nu ^2)\kappa }{4}$$

avoids $`\gamma [0,t]`$. This shows in particular that

$$𝐏[K\gamma [0,t]=\mathrm{}]=E[g_t^{}(0)^\alpha ]=E_{Q_t}[(x/X_t)^{(\mu \nu )}]=E[(x/\stackrel{~}{X}_t)^{(\mu \nu )}]$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is a Bessel process of dimension $`2+2\mu `$ started from $`x`$. Let us stress that this is an exact formula and not just an asymptotic expansion.

We now let $`a0`$ for fixed $`t`$. The previous formula shows readily that

$$𝐏[K\gamma [0,t]=\mathrm{}]ca^{\mu \nu },$$

where

$$c=E[(\sqrt{\kappa }\stackrel{~}{X}_t)^{\nu \mu }]=(\kappa t)^{(\nu \mu )/2}E[\stackrel{~}{X}_1^{\nu \mu }]$$

with $`\stackrel{~}{X}_0=0`$ (the density of $`\stackrel{~}{X}_1`$ near $`0`$ behaves like $`y^{1+2\mu }`$ so that this expectation is finite).

One can therefore interpret the probability measure $`Q`$ as follows: One “conditions” $`\gamma `$ not to intersect a sample of the one-sided restriction measure of parameter $`\alpha `$. In the same sense as before, this change of measure is singular if $`\mu \nu `$, and should be understood in the $`t\mathrm{}`$ (and/or $`a0`$) limit. Furthermore, the law of this conditioned SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) is that of SLE($`\kappa ,\overline{\rho }`$).

To avoid notational confusion and for future reference, let us sum up the relation between the exponents, $`\rho `$’s, $`\alpha `$’s etc.

* An SLEκ conditioned to avoid a sample of a one-sided restriction measure of exponent $`\alpha `$ is an SLE($`\kappa ,\overline{\rho }`$) where

$$\overline{\rho }=\overline{\rho }(\kappa ,0,\alpha ):=\kappa \sqrt{\frac{4\alpha }{\kappa }+\left(\frac{2}{\kappa }\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}+\frac{\kappa }{2}2.$$
(7)
Conversely, an SLE ($`\kappa ,\rho `$) can be viewed as an SLEκ conditioned not to intersect a one-sided restriction sample of exponent

$$\overline{\alpha }=\overline{\alpha }(\kappa ,\rho ):=\frac{\rho (\rho +4\kappa )}{4\kappa }.$$
(8)
* An SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) conditioned to avoid a one-sided restriction sample of exponent $`\alpha `$ is an SLE($`\kappa ,\overline{\rho }`$) where

$$\overline{\rho }=\overline{\rho }(\kappa ,\rho ,\alpha )=\kappa \sqrt{\frac{4\alpha }{\kappa }+\left(\frac{\rho +2}{\kappa }\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}+\frac{\kappa }{2}2.$$
(9)
* The exponent associated to the non-intersection event between an SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) and a one-sided restriction sample of exponent $`\alpha `$ is

$$\overline{\sigma }=\overline{\sigma }(\kappa ,\rho ,\alpha )=\sqrt{\frac{4\alpha }{\kappa }+\left(\frac{\rho +2}{\kappa }\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}\left(\frac{\rho +2}{\kappa }\frac{1}{2}\right).$$
(10)
More precisely, if an SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) is started from $`a>0`$ and runs up to time 1, the probability that it does not intersect the one-sided restriction sample of exponent $`\alpha `$ decays like a constant times $`a^\sigma `$ when $`a0`$.

Note that

$$\overline{\rho }(\kappa ,\rho ,\beta )=\overline{\rho }(\kappa ,0,\beta +\overline{\alpha }(\kappa ,\rho )),$$

which is not surprising: Conditioning the SLE to avoid a restriction sample of exponent $`\alpha `$ and then to avoid a restriction sample of exponent $`\beta `$ is the same as conditioning to avoid a restriction sample of exponent $`\alpha +\beta `$.

Let us briefly insist on the following fact: Here, we focus only on the right-boundaries of the domains. For instance, we consider an SLE conditioned not to intersect a one-sided restriction sample, but then we focus only on the conditioned SLE and forget about the restriction sample. However, the restriction property shows easily how to get the law of the restriction sample conditioned not to intersect that SLE. More precisely, consider an SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) as before. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ be the connected component of $`\gamma `$ which has the negative half-line on its boundary. Define also a conformal map $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ from $``$ onto $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ that fixes both the origin and infinity, and let $`K`$ denote an independent sample of the one-sided restriction measure of exponent $`\overline{\alpha }(\kappa ,\rho )`$. Then, the joint law of a restriction measure sample conditioned not to intersect an SLEκ (in the sense described above) is just that of $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(K),\gamma )`$.

## 4 Exponents

This implies a variety of results concerning the value of critical exponents. To illustrate this, we now briefly describe some of them, leaving details and further exponents for the interested reader.

### 4.1 Hiding exponents between one-sided restriction measures

Let us first focus on the case $`\kappa =8/3`$. In this case, SLE($`8/3,\rho `$) is itself the right-boundary of a one-sided restriction sample of exponent $`\eta =\overline{\eta }(8/3,\rho )`$. Suppose that $`d2`$ i.e. $`\eta 1/3`$ and $`\rho 2/3`$. Then, the intersection exponent between this right-boundary and another one-sided restriction sample of exponent $`\beta `$ is

$`\sigma =\sigma (\eta \text{ hides }\beta )=\overline{\sigma }(8/3,\rho ,\beta )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\sqrt{10+24\eta +24\beta 6\sqrt{1+24\eta }}\sqrt{10+24\eta 6\sqrt{1+24\eta }}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\sqrt{24\beta +(\sqrt{1+24\eta }3)^2}(\sqrt{1+24\eta }3)\right).`$
This can be interpreted as a hiding exponent between one-sided restriction measures of exponents $`\eta `$ and $`\beta `$: Consider two independent samples $`K_\eta `$ and $`K_\beta `$ of one-sided restriction measures with respective exponents $`\eta 1/3`$ and $`\beta 0`$. Consider the probability that the right-boundary of $`K_\eta K_\beta `$ in the strip $`\{\mathrm{}(z)[1,R]\}`$ consists only of points in $`K_\eta `$. This probability decays like $`R^\sigma `$ as $`R\mathrm{}`$.

In the special case where $`\eta =5/8`$, the right-boundary of the restriction measure sample is the SLE8/3 curve itself. Hence, non-intersection between the right-boundary of $`K_{5/8}`$ and $`K_\beta `$ is just non-intersection between $`K_\beta `$ and the SLE curve, so that the exponent $`\sigma `$ in this case is the same as the non-intersection exponent $`\widehat{\xi }(5/8,\beta )=\stackrel{~}{\xi }(5/8,\beta )5/8\beta `$ between restriction measures. This gives another way (if one combines the obtained value of $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }(5/8,\beta )`$ with the cascade formula (1)) to recover the Brownian half-plane exponents that were derived in  using computations involving the SLE6 processes.

In the very special case where $`\eta =\beta =5/8`$, one gets a description of the right-boundary of the union of two Brownian excursions in terms of one SLE8/3 conditioned not to intersect another independent one. We will come back to this is the two-sided case.

When $`\eta >5/8`$, the hiding exponent $`\sigma `$ is smaller than $`\widehat{\xi }(\eta ,\beta )`$, which is not surprising since the corresponding events are larger.

Note again, that for the values of $`\eta `$ such that $`1+24\eta `$ is a perfect square (for instance $`\eta =1`$ and $`\eta =2`$ corresponding to one or to the union of two Brownian excursion), the obtained exponents are simpler.

Let us insist on the fact that this is valid for all $`\beta 0`$, and $`\eta 1/3`$ (corresponding to the $`d2`$ assumption) but that it a priori not holds for $`\eta <1/3`$; we shall see in the next subsection what to do in this case. Recall that $`\eta =1/3`$ corresponds to the scaling limit of conditioned percolation cluster boundaries (see ). The exponent $`\sigma `$ is in this special case equal to $`\sqrt{3\beta /2}`$.

There exist various alternative ways to formulate the “hiding events” since restriction measures can be described in terms of Brownian excursions or conditioned SLE6’s (see ). For example, one way to phrase this in terms of planar Brownian motions is described at the end of the introduction. The proof is a consequence of the previous considerations, and of the relation between exponents for Brownian excursions and for Brownian motions as developed for instance in .

Note that the existence of these hiding exponents itself is a non-trivial fact (sub-multiplicativity does not simply hold as it does for non-intersection events).

### 4.2 When $`\eta <1/3`$

As we have just mentioned, the previous expression for the hiding exponent $`\sigma `$ is not valid when $`\eta <1/3`$. One way to circumvent the difficulty is to first condition the boundary of the one-sided restriction sample of exponent $`\eta `$ not to hit the negative half-line (it cannot hide another restriction measure if it hits the negative half-line). Recall that a Bessel process $`X`$ of dimension $`d<2`$ started from $`x[0,1]`$ hits $`1`$ before $`0`$ with probability $`x^{2d}`$ (because $`X^{2d}`$ is a local martingale), and that the process “conditioned” not to intersect $`0`$ is a Bessel process of dimension $`4d`$.

Suppose now that $`\rho (2,2/3)`$, so that $`d<2`$. The probability that an SLE($`8/3,\rho `$) started from $`(0,a)`$ does not intersect the negative half-line before its capacity (the Loewner time-parametrization) reaches one, decays like a constant times $`a^{2d}=a^{1/23\rho /4}`$ when $`a0`$. Furthermore, the conditioned process is an SLE$`(8/3,\rho ^{}`$) where

$$\rho ^{}=\kappa 4\rho =\frac{4}{3}\rho $$

(see  for a similar facts). The corresponding exponents $`\eta =\overline{\eta }(8/3,\rho )`$ and $`\eta ^{}=\overline{\eta }(8/3,\rho ^{})`$ satisfy

$$\sqrt{1+24\eta }+\sqrt{1+24\eta ^{}}=6.$$

Straightforward computations then show that for all $`\beta >0`$ and $`\eta (0,1/3]`$,

$`\sigma (\eta \text{ hides }\beta )`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{\sigma }(\overline{\eta }(8/3,\rho ^{})\text{ hides }\beta )+2d`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\sqrt{24\beta +(3\sqrt{1+24\eta })^2}(3\sqrt{1+24\eta })+(62\sqrt{1+24\eta })\right).`$
Hence, one can sum up things by saying that the formula

$$\sigma (\eta \text{ hides }\beta )=\frac{1}{4}\left(\sqrt{24\beta +(3\sqrt{1+24\eta })^2}+(3\sqrt{1+24\eta })\right)$$
(11)
in fact holds for all $`\eta >0`$ and $`\beta >0`$. Let us note that when $`\eta 0_+`$, one gets a non-trivial limit:

$$\sigma (0_+\text{ hides }\beta )=\frac{1+\sqrt{1+6\beta }}{2},$$

which is somewhat surprising (one might have guessed at first sight that the exponent should blow up when $`\eta 0_+`$). Indeed, for each fixed large $`R`$, the probability that $`K_{1/N}`$ hides $`K_1`$ (with obvious notation) in the strip $`\{\mathrm{}(z)[1,R]\}`$ is anyway smaller that $`1/(N+1)`$. This is due to the fact that a restriction measure of exponent $`(N+1)/N`$ can be viewed as the union of $`N+1`$ independent copies of $`K_{1/N}`$, so that the probability that $`K_{1/N}`$ hides all $`N`$ others is no larger than $`1/(N+1)`$. However, when $`\eta 0_+`$ (i.e. $`N\mathrm{}`$), even if the probabilities (for fixed $`R`$) go to zero, this does not affect the exponents (only the “multiplicative constants” vanish).

### 4.3 Iterations

The description of conditioned SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) as another SLE($`\kappa ,\overline{\rho }`$) allows to iterate the procedure, and to obtain exponents describing the joint behavior of more than two restriction measures. For instance, in the simplest case where $`\kappa =8/3`$, one gets readily the exponents describing the non-intersection between $`p`$ SLE8/3’s (these are the exponents corresponding  to the non-intersection of self-avoiding walks in a half-plane):

For each positive integer $`p`$, consider $`p`$ independent SLE8/3’s that are conditioned not to intersect (appropriately defined). Define $`\eta _p`$ the exponent of the obtained restriction measure, and define $`\rho _p`$ such that the right-most SLE is an SLE($`8/3,\rho _p`$). Clearly, $`\eta _p=\overline{\eta }(8/3,\rho _p)`$. Furthermore, for each $`p0`$,

$$\rho _{p+1}=\overline{\rho }(8/3,0,\eta _p)=\overline{\rho }(8/3,0,\overline{\eta }(8/3,\rho _p))$$

(where $`\rho _1=0`$). This shows readily that

$$\rho _p=2(p1)$$
(12)
and

$$\eta _p=\frac{p(3p+2)}{8}.$$
(13)
Hence, the exponent describing the probability that $`p`$ independent chordal SLE8/3 (up to time $`1`$) started at distance $`a`$ of each other are mutually avoiding is

$$\eta _pp\frac{5}{8}=\frac{3p(p1)}{8}.$$

This result is not new since (in the notation of ) $`\eta _p=\stackrel{~}{\xi }_p(5/8,\mathrm{},5/8)`$; these exponents also correspond to those conjectured in  for self-avoiding walks (see  for the conjectured relation between self-avoiding walks and SLE8/3).

### 4.4 Other $`\kappa `$’s

One can easily generalize the iterative procedure for other $`\kappa `$’s. Suppose for instance that we consider the conditioned measure for $`p`$ SLEκ’s for $`\kappa <8/3`$ that are conditioned to mutually avoid each other and by the event that no Brownian loop in the Brownian loop-soup with intensity $`\lambda _\kappa `$ intersects two different paths. The right-most path is then an SLE($`\kappa ,\rho _p`$) for some $`\rho _p`$ that a priori depends on $`\kappa `$, but it turns out that

$$\rho _p=2(p1).$$

If one adds another independent Brownian loop-soup with intensity $`\lambda _\kappa `$ to this right-most path and looks at the obtained right-most boundary, one obtains a restriction measure with exponent

$$\eta _p(\kappa )=\overline{\eta }(\kappa ,\rho _p)=p\frac{(2p+4\kappa )}{2\kappa }.$$
(14)
For $`\kappa =2`$, the exponents correspond to those for loop-erased random walks derived by Kenyon  and Fomin  (previously conjectured in ). This is not surprising since loop-erased random walks converge to SLE2 in the scaling limit (see ).

One equivalent way to describe the corresponding event goes as follows: Run $`p`$ independent chordal SLEκ’s $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_p`$ started from nearby points (for instance from the points $`a`$, $`2a`$, …, $`pa`$) up to time one. Consider $`p`$ independent Brownian loop-soups of intensity $`\lambda _\kappa `$, and define for each $`jp`$, the union $`𝒮_j`$ of the loops in the $`j`$-th soup that intersect $`S_j`$. Consider now the event that for $`j=2`$ up to $`j=p`$,

$$S_j(S_{j1}𝒮_{j1})=\mathrm{}.$$

Then, the probability of this event decays like $`a^\sigma `$ when $`a0`$, where

$$\sigma =\eta _p(\kappa )p\overline{\eta }(\kappa ,0)=\frac{p(p1)}{\kappa }.$$
(15)
In the special case $`\kappa =2`$ that we just mentioned, the relation between SLE2 and loop-erased random walks  and Wilson’s algorithm  gives to this event a natural interpretation in terms of uniform spanning trees.

For $`\kappa 8/3`$, the previous description does not make much sense (the density of the loop-soup is negative), and it raises the interesting problem to find a simple geometric way to interpret the exponent in terms of a physical model.

### 4.5 The “quantum gravity” function

As the formulas show, $`\overline{\rho }(\kappa ,0,\alpha )`$ is in fact the same as the quantum gravity function $`U`$ (this actually also holds for $`\kappa 8/3`$), if one compares with the KPZ equation  used e.g. in Duplantier . Hence, the SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) approach does give another interpretation of the “quantum gravity equations,” and also permits (using the relation with restriction measures) to identify precisely what exponents (i.e. what events) are given by this formalism (see Duplantier’s ). When $`\kappa 8/3`$, this was not so obvious.

On a rigorous level, since the exponents computed via SLE (for instance in the present paper) are rigorously derived, while the KPZ relation is not, one may view the SLE derivation of the exponents as a derivation of the KPZ relation (modulo the assumption that the critical exponents for statistical mechanics systems on a random planar graph exist and are universal).

### 4.6 Negative $`\alpha `$’s

In fact (but we prefer to emphasize it in this separate paragraph), the absolute continuity relation and the derivation of the hiding exponents also apply for (some) negative $`\alpha `$. In order for the absolute continuity between Bessel processes to hold, the condition is that both have a dimension not smaller than $`2`$. In other words, if one starts with an SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) such that

$$\rho 2+\frac{\kappa }{2}$$

then, the arguments developed in Section 3 go through except that there is no interpretation of the weighting as a non-intersection probability (the weighting is here an unbounded function of the path). The constraint that the obtained conditioned Bessel process has dimension at least 2 means that

$$\alpha \frac{(4\kappa )^2}{16\kappa }$$

(note that this does not depend on $`\rho `$). Loosely speaking, when $`\alpha `$ is too negative, then the SLE is not able to compensate the weighting (so that $`Q`$ is still a probability measure). This basically shows that - as one might have expected from the formulas - that the hiding exponents make sense on the interval of values of $`\alpha `$ for which it can be extended analytically (as a function of $`\alpha `$).

In the special case where $`\kappa =8/3`$, the lower bound on $`\alpha `$ is $`1/24`$. In the special case $`\rho =0`$, the hiding exponent is the intersection exponent $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }(5/8,\alpha )5/8\alpha `$. We have just argued that $`a`$ to this power describes indeed the asymptotic behavior of the quantity $`E[g_1^{}(0)^\alpha ]`$ for an SLE8/3 started from $`a`$ as $`a`$ vanishes, for all values of $`\alpha 1/24`$.

If one then applies the cascade ideas, as developed in  say, it is then simple to see that this for instance enables to deduce that exponents $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }(1,\alpha )1\alpha `$ for instance describe the asymptotic behavior of $`E[g_1^{}(0)^\alpha ]`$ when $`g_1`$ corresponds this time to the conformal map associated to a Brownian excursion started from $`a`$, up to time $`1`$, when $`a0`$. Recall that

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }(u,\alpha )=\frac{(\sqrt{24u+1}+\sqrt{24\alpha +1}1)^21}{24}.$$

In particular,

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }(1,1/24)=5/8\text{ and }\stackrel{~}{\xi }(5/8,1/24)=1/3.$$

## 5 The two-sided picture

### 5.1 The SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) martingales

Before turning our attention to the two-sided picture, let us point out the following by-product of the description of the SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$)’s as an SLEκ conditioned not to intersect a one-sided restriction sample of exponent $`\alpha (\rho )`$. It is a simple heuristic explanation to the (useful) martingales associated to SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$) derived and used in . Let us first focus on the $`\kappa =8/3`$ case studied in .

Let $`A𝒜`$. Consider the event that the SLE($`8/3,\rho `$) does avoid $`A`$. Let us now focus on the conditional probability of this event given the path up to time $`t`$. This is a function of $`W_t`$, $`O_t`$ and of the image of $`A`$ under $`g_t`$. Define as in  the conformal map $`h_t`$ from $`g_t(A)`$ onto $``$ that is normalized by $`h_t(z)=z+o(1)`$ when $`z\mathrm{}`$ (this is just a real shift of $`\varphi _{g_t(A)}`$ as defined in the preliminary section). If one views the SLE($`8/3,\rho `$) as an SLE8/3 conditioned to avoid a restriction sample $`K`$, the conditional probability can be decomposed as follows. First, the SLE8/3 started from $`W_t`$ has to avoid $`g_t(A)`$: This event has probability $`h_t^{}(W_t)^{5/8}`$. Second, the restriction sample has to avoid the set $`g_t(A)`$ as well. This occurs with probability $`h_t^{}(O_t)^\alpha `$. Conditionally on these two events, the image under $`h_t`$ of the SLE8/3 is an SLE8/3 in $``$ started from $`h_t(W_t)`$ and the image of the restriction measure sample is a restriction measure sample in $``$ started from $`h_t(O_t)`$. The “probability” of non-intersection between these two sets is going to be affected by the scaling factor given by the non-intersection exponent $`\nu 1/4=\rho /\kappa `$ i.e.

$$\left(\frac{h_t(W_t)h_t(O_t)}{W_tO_t}\right)^{3\rho /8}.$$

Hence, the quantity

$$M_t=h_t^{}(O_t)^\alpha h_t^{}(W_t)^{5/8}\left(\frac{h_t(W_t)h_t(O_t)}{W_tO_t}\right)^{3\rho /8}$$

is a martingale. This is proved analytically in .

The same argument can be used for the local martingales associated to SLE($`\kappa ,\rho `$)’s for $`\kappa 8/3`$ as derived in  (with an additional “loop-soup term”).

### 5.2 The two-sided case

In fact, $`M_t`$ is a martingale also in the two-sided case. More precisely, suppose that $`A`$ is the symmetric image with respect to the imaginary line of a set in $`𝒜`$ (i.e. it is attached to the negative half-line). We will suppose in this subsection that $`\kappa =8/3`$ and $`\rho >0`$. Then, $`M_t`$ is still a bounded martingale (this is proved in ), that is well-defined up to the (possibly infinite) time $`T`$ at which the SLE curve hits $`A`$. Just as when $`A𝒜`$ (see ):

* If $`T`$ is finite, then there exists sequence $`t_nT`$ such that $`lim_n\mathrm{}M_{t_n}=0`$.
* If $`T`$ is infinite, then there exists an unbounded sequence $`t_n`$ such that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}h_{t_n}^{}(W_{t_n})=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{h_{t_n}(W_{t_n})h_{t_n}(O_{t_n})}{W_{t_n}O_{t_n}}=1.$$

This is basically due to the fact that $`g_t(A)`$ becomes smaller and smaller, so that $`h_t`$ becomes closer to the identity.

However, the term $`h_t^{}(O_t)`$ does not tend to one, because even if $`g_t(A)`$ becomes smaller, $`O_t`$ gets closer and closer to $`g_t(A)`$. But since the SLE path is transient, the term $`h_t^{}(O_t)`$ has a (non-trivial) limit when $`t\mathrm{}`$ (if $`T=\mathrm{}`$) that can be interpreted as follows:

The SLE($`8/3,\rho `$) is a simple curve $`\gamma `$ that separates the upper half-plane into two connected components $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ (defined in such a way that the negative half-line is on the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$). We now focus on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ denote a anti-conformal map (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(\overline{z})`$ is analytic) from $``$ onto $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(0)=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(x+iy)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(x+iy)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ is as before). In particular, the image of the positive half-line is the negative half-line, and the image of the negative half-line is the curve $`\gamma `$. Consider a sample $`K`$ of a one-sided restriction measure of exponent $`\alpha `$ that is independent of the SLE $`\gamma `$. Define

$$𝒦=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(K)}.$$

Note that the set $`𝒦`$ consists of $`\gamma `$ and of a subset of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. In particular, its “right-boundary” is $`\gamma `$. Since, $`K`$ is scale-invariant, the actual choice of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ does not change the law of $`𝒦`$. Then, the claim is that when $`T=\mathrm{}`$,

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}h_t^{}(O_t)^\alpha =𝐏[\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(K)A=\mathrm{}|\gamma ].$$

In particular, this implies that almost surely,

$$\underset{tT}{lim}M_t=1_{T=\mathrm{}}𝐏[𝒦A=\mathrm{}|\gamma ].$$

Since the martingale is bounded (by one), the optional stopping theorem shows that

$$𝐏[𝒦A=\mathrm{}]=𝐄[M_T]=𝐄[M_0]=h_0^{}(0)^\eta =\varphi _A^{}(0)^\eta .$$

But, since $`\gamma `$ satisfies one-sided restriction with exponent $`\eta `$, it follows that in fact

$$𝐏[𝒦A=\mathrm{}]=\varphi _A^{}(0)^\eta $$

for all $`A𝒜_t`$. In other words, $`𝒦`$ is a sample of the two-sided restriction measure of exponent $`\eta `$.

In the special case where $`\eta =2`$, we see that the restriction measure with exponent 2 corresponds to two SLE8/3’s conditioned not to intersect. This is closely related to the predictions concerning the scaling limits of self-avoiding polygons .

### 5.3 Two-sided exponents

Two-sided hiding. This description of the two-sided restriction measures leads naturally to the following hiding exponents: Consider two independent two-sided restriction measure samples $`K_\eta `$ and $`K_\beta `$ of respective exponents $`\eta `$ and $`\beta `$ (where $`\eta >5/8`$ and $`\beta 5/8`$) and focus on the event that

$$K_\beta \{\mathrm{}(z)[1,R]\}K_\eta .$$

Its probability decays like $`R^\tau `$ as $`R\mathrm{}`$, where

$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\tau (\eta \text{ hides }\beta )`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }(5/8,\sigma (\alpha \text{ hides }\beta )+\beta +\alpha )\eta \beta ,`$
and the conditional law of $`K_\eta `$ is the restriction measure of exponent $`\tau +\eta +\beta `$. A simple computation yields

$$\tau (\eta \text{ hides }\beta )=\frac{\sqrt{24\beta +(\sqrt{1+24\eta }6)^2}(\sqrt{1+24\eta }6)}{2}.$$
(16)
Note in particular that

$$\tau (1\text{ hides }1)=3\text{ and }\tau (2\text{ hides }1)=2.$$
(17)
In particular, in both these cases, the exponent of the conditioned restriction measure is $`5`$.

No cut-points. A by-product of these calculations is the exponent that describes the decay of the probability that a two-sided restriction measure of exponent $`\eta >5/8`$ has no cut-point. More precisely, when $`\eta (5/8,35/24)`$, the probability that a sample $`K_\eta `$ of the two-sided restriction sample of exponent $`\eta `$ has no cut-point inside the strip $`\{\mathrm{}(z)[1,R]\}`$ decays like $`R^{\delta (\eta )}`$ when $`R\mathrm{}`$, where

$$\delta (\eta )=6\sqrt{1+24\eta }.$$
(18)
Furthermore, the conditional law is that of the two-sided restriction measure with exponent

$$\eta ^{}=\eta +\delta (\eta )=\eta +6\sqrt{1+24\eta }.$$
(19)
In other words,

$$\sqrt{1+24\eta }+\sqrt{1+24\eta ^{}}=12.$$
(20)
The computation goes as follows: The conditioned restriction exponent is

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }(5/8,\overline{\eta }(8/3,4/3\rho ))$$

where $`\rho `$ is chosen so that $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }(5/8,\overline{\eta }(8/3,\rho ))=\eta `$.

When $`\eta 35/24`$, the restriction measure sample has a.s. no cut-point, so that the problem is not relevant. When $`\eta <5/8`$, the two-sided restriction measure does not exist. When $`\eta =5/8`$, then $`K_\eta `$ is almost surely a simple path, so that the probability that it has no cut point in an annulus is $`0`$. However, when $`\eta 5/8+`$, one sees that $`\delta `$ tends to 2, and that the conditional law “tends” to that of a restriction measure of exponent $`21/8`$, that can therefore be viewed as the filling of an SLE8/3 conditioned to have no cut-point! Of course, since SLE8/3 is a.s. a simple curve, this depends a lot on the limiting procedure used to define this conditioned object (here: first replace SLE8/3 by a restriction measure of exponent $`5/8+ϵ`$, then condition it to have no cut point (in larger and larger annuli), and finally let $`ϵ`$ tend to zero).

It is worthwhile stressing the special case where $`\eta =1`$. The exponent $`\delta `$ is equal to $`1`$ and it is related to Bálint Virág’s Brownian beads . It gives a description of the restriction measure of parameter $`\eta ^{}=2`$ as the filling of one single path. More precisely: “The filling of a Brownian excursion conditioned to have no cut point has the same law as the filling of the union of two Brownian excursions.” It raises the question whether this conditioned Brownian excursion has something to do with the path that is obtained by considering the appropriate SLEκ to which one chronologically attaches Brownian loops as in  in order to construct a restriction measure sample of exponent $`2`$.

Note also that the two-sided measure obtained if one conditions $`K_\eta `$ to hide $`K_\beta `$, is the same as the one obtained if one conditions $`K_\eta ^{}`$ to hide $`K_\beta `$. This is not surprising: One first conditions $`K_\eta `$ to have no cut point, and then weights it by the “space” it leaves in its inside.

Mixed two-sided hiding. One can also define exponents associated to “mixed” two-sided hiding: Consider the exponent $`\widehat{\tau }(\eta ,\beta )`$ that is associated to the fact that the left-boundary of $`K_\eta K_\beta `$ consists only of points in $`K_\eta `$ while the right-boundary consists of points in $`K_\beta `$. This time

$$\widehat{\tau }=\stackrel{~}{\xi }(5/8,\sigma (\beta \text{ hides }\alpha )+\alpha +\beta )\eta \beta ,$$

where as before $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }(5/8,\alpha )=\eta `$. This leads to

$$\widehat{\tau }(\eta ,\beta )=\frac{9BE+2\sqrt{(B3)^2+(E3)^21}}{4}$$
(21)
where $`B=\sqrt{1+24\beta }`$ and $`E=\sqrt{1+24\eta }`$. For instance $`\widehat{\tau }(1,1)=(2\sqrt{7}1)/4`$.

Radial hiding. All two-sided hiding exponents yield readily the corresponding exponent in the radial setting, using the mapping described for example in  and the disconnection exponents computed in  (see also ).

For instance, consider $`n+p`$ independent Brownian motions started from the origin and stopped when they hit the unit circle. Consider the event that the union of these $`n+p`$ paths do not disconnect the circle of radius $`r`$ from $`1`$, and that the boundary of the connected component of $`𝕌(B^1\mathrm{}B^{n+p})`$ that contains $`1`$ contains no point of $`B^{n+1}\mathrm{}B^{n+p}`$. Then, the probability of this event decays like $`r^\rho `$ when $`r0`$, where

$$\rho =\rho (n\text{ hides }p)=\frac{\left(\sqrt{24p+(\sqrt{1+24n}6)^2}+5\right)^24}{48}$$
(22)
Again, note that $`\rho (\eta \text{hides}\beta )=\rho (\eta ^{}\text{ hides }\beta )`$. Note also that when $`n=2`$ or $`n=1`$, the hiding exponent is just

$$\rho (2\text{ hides }\beta )=\rho (1\text{ hides }\beta )=\xi (2,\beta )$$

(in the notation of ), which is not surprising because of the inside/outside symmetry of the Brownian frontier pointed out in . The inside/outside symmetry of the Brownian frontier also shows that a single Brownian motion started from the origin, “conditioned not to disconnect the origin from infinity and to have no cut point” also separates the plane into the “inside” $`I`$ and the “outside” $`O`$ in such a way that $`(I,O)`$ and $`(O,I)`$ have the same law.

When the half-plane exponent is $`5`$, then the radial exponent is $`2`$. For instance, $`\rho (1\text{ hides }1)=2`$, so that the corresponding existence problem is “critical”: Are there points $`B_T`$ on the outer boundary of a planar Brownian path $`(B_t,t[0,1])`$ such that (locally) the outer boundary consists only of the future after $`B_T`$ (or only of the past before $`B_T`$)?

——————

Laboratoire de Mathématiques

Université Paris-Sud

91405 Orsay cedex, France

wendelin.werner@math.u-psud.fr