text:
# A Unified Algebraic Approach to Few and Many-Body Correlated Systems

## I Introduction

The Calogero-Sutherland model (CSM), Sutherland model (SM) and their generalizations have found physical applications in various fields such as the universal conductance fluctuations in mesoscopic systems, quantum Hall effect, wave propagation in stratified fields, random matrix theory, chaos, fractional statistics, gravity, anyons and gauge theories. This class of many-body systems with long-range interactions have been studied quite extensively in the current literature. Ref.\[\] is a classic review; newer developments have been covered in Refs.\[\]. Interestingly, CSM and SM type long-range interactions have also manifested in models dealing with pairing interactions and phase transitions.

The increasing appearance of correlated systems in diverse physical phenomena makes these exactly solvable models, with in-built correlation due to the presence of the Jastrow factor in the eigenfunctions, an ideal testing ground, for ideas ranging from Haldane statistics to black hole physics. In recent times, several new mathematical structures like $`S_N`$-extended Heisenberg algebra, Yangians and deformed algebras have been employed for unravelling the precise structure of the Hilbert space of these systems. The linearity of the eigen spectra of the CSM and the fact that interaction only modifies the ground-state has led Calogero to conjecture the existence of an exact mapping between the CSM and decoupled oscillators. The $`S_N`$-extended Heisenberg algebra, with its oscillator like creation and annihilation operators, partially achieved the above objective, although the oscillators were not decoupled and consequently, the members of the Hilbert space, although linearly independent, were not orthogonal. Recently, we have been able to show the precise equivalence of the CSM to decoupled oscillators, without involving any additional mathematical construct. The formal appearance of a new inner product in Ref. \[\] has been explicated recently, as also the successful application of our procedure  to supersymmetric CSM, the scattering Hamiltonian and other related models. The method also applies to Hamiltonians, containing other competing long-range interactions. However, the subtleties involved in extending the present procedure to models based on root systems other than $`A_{N1}`$, as also to higher dimensions, still remains to be explored. Furthermore, it can be seen that the above mentioned method to diagonalize the CSM is inadequate for the diagonalization of SM and its generalizations. Unlike the CSM, the eigen spectra of SM is quadratic in nature, where the interaction modifies the ground state as well as the excited states. The present article intends to deal with the various generalizations of the CSM and makes use of a novel method of solving linear differential equations for diagonalizing the SM and finding its connection with free particles on a circle.

The paper is organized as follows. Sec. II is devoted to a brief summary of the results obtained in Ref. \[\]. The $`B_N`$-type CSM and a recently proposed four particle model in one-dimension are then studied in detail. In the case of $`B_N`$ model, it is found that the underlying spectrum generating algebra is $`SU(1,1)`$, unlike the $`A_{N1}`$ CSM, where it was the Heisenberg algebra. This also leads to the straightforward construction of the linear $`W_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebra. The eigenfunctions and commuting constants of motion, behind the quantum integrability, are presented. We point out in Sec. III, how this method can be used to construct more general interacting models of the CSM type. Sec. IV deals with the inadequacies of the procedure used for diagonalization of the CSM and illustrates a new method of solving linear differential equations, which can be employed for the diagonalization of both CSM and SM. Through this approach we establish the precise connection between free particles on a circle and interacting particles in SM. In the process, we obtain a novel expression for the Jack polynomials in terms of the monomial symmetric functions. In Sec. V, we analyze a two-dimensional interacting Hamiltonian for electrons under the influence of both electromagnetic and Chern-Simons gauge fields. This model has Laughlin wave function as the ground-state and is also relevant for implementing the Jain picture of the fractional quantum Hall effect. We explicitly show the connection of this interacting model with non-interacting harmonic oscillators, and point out the intricacies involved in extending the present procedure to higher dimensions. In this process the underlying linear $`W_{1+\mathrm{}}`$ symmetry algebra with the Laughlin wave function as the highest weight vector of this algebra is brought out in a transparent manner. We conclude in the last section after pointing out several areas, where the present procedure can be profitably employed.

## II Diagonalizing Calogero-Sutherland Type Interacting Model

In this section, we outline the procedure employed in Phys. Rev. B 59, R2490 (1999) to diagonalize the CSM and map it to a set of free harmonic oscillators. This equivalence provides an elegant and straightforward method to construct the complete set of eigenstates of the CSM, starting from the symmetrized form of the eigenstates of the harmonic oscillators we first employ the same procedure to diagonalize the $`B_N`$-type Calogero model and estabhlish the precise connection between the Hilbert spaces of CSM and the present model. A large class of CSM type models in one and higher dimensions can also be solved in an analogous manner.

The mapping of the CSM to decoupled oscillators involves a series of similarity transformations (ST). The CSM Hamiltonian, in the units, $`\mathrm{}=\omega =m=1`$ (we will use these units throughout the text, unless specified otherwise) is given by

$$H_{CSM}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}_{x_i}^2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}x_i^2+\frac{g^2}{2}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i,j}{ij}}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{(x_ix_j)^2},$$
(1)
where, $`_{x_i}/x_i`$ and $`g^2>1/4`$.

The above N-body quantum problem is first solved in one sector of the configuration space such that $`x_1<x_2\mathrm{}<x_N`$. The solutions are then analytically continued to other sectors of the Hilbert space. This is possible in one dimension, because the repulsive potential in CSM does not allow the particles to overtake each other. The many-body system can also be quantized either as bosons or fermions, without loss of generality. We list the following definitions for the sake of later convenience:

$`Z`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{i<j}(x_ix_j)^\beta ,`$
$`\widehat{A}(\beta )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}_{x_i}^2+\beta {\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x_ix_j)}}_{x_i},`$
$`\widehat{E}(\beta )`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{A}(\beta )/2\},`$
$`G`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_i^2\right\}.`$
Combining the above three transformations, we find that the operator,

$`\widehat{T}ZG\widehat{E}(\beta )`$ (2)
diagonalizes the original $`H_{CSM}`$ (with $`\beta (\beta 1)=g^2)`$:

$$\widehat{T}^1H_{CSM}\widehat{T}=\underset{i}{}x_i_{x_i}+E_0H_{CSM}^{}.$$
(3)
Here $`E_0=N/2+N(N1)/2\beta `$ is the ground state energy. The above equation has also been obtained by Sogo in an entirely different context.

Eq. (3) reveals that, starting from a symmetric polynomial basis one can construct the eigenfunctions of the CSM by an inverse similarity transformation. The CSM can also be mapped to the decoupled oscillators using another inverse similarity transformation:

$$G\widehat{E}(0)H_{CSM}^{}\widehat{E}^1(0)G^1=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}_{x_i}^2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}x_i^2+(E_0\frac{1}{2}N)=H_{\mathrm{free}}.$$
(4)
These results can be succintly written as

$`\widehat{O}^1H_{CSM}\widehat{O}=H_{\mathrm{oscillator}}+E_0{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}},`$ (5)
where, $`\widehat{O}\widehat{T}E^1(0)G^1`$. As anticipated by Calogero and indicated by the structure of the eigenspectrum, the CSM Hamiltonian can be mapped to $`N`$ free oscillators, apart from the coupling dependent overall shift of the energy eigenvalues. Hence, it follows that, the excited energy levels and the degeneracy structure of both these systems are identical, a fact known since the original solution of the interacting model.

We now proceed to the $`B_N`$ model and first point out the fact that, while applying the various similarity transformations one needs to ensure that the resulting eigenfunctions are members of the Hilbert space. This is the origin of differences in the spectrum generating algebras of various CSM type models. It will be shown that for the $`B_N`$ case the underlying algebra is not the Heisenberg one as in the CSM but the $`SU(1,1)`$ algebra. The $`B_N`$-type CSM (BnCSM) Hamiltonian is given by,

$$H_{B_N}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{x_i}^2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}x_i^2+\frac{1}{2}g^2\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i,j=1}{ij}}{\overset{N}{}}\left\{\frac{1}{(x_ix_j)^2}+\frac{1}{(x_i+x_j)^2}\right\}+\frac{1}{2}g_1^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{x_i^2},$$
(6)
where, $`g^2`$ and $`g_1^2`$ are two independent coupling constants. Since, the ground-state wave function of $`H_{B_N}`$, when the system is quantized as bosons, is given by

$$\psi _0=\underset{1j<kN}{}|x_ix_j|^\lambda |x_i+x_j|^\lambda \underset{k}{\overset{N}{}}|x_k|^{\lambda _1}\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}x_i^2\},$$
(7)
one can make the following ST, after confining oneself in one sector of the configuration space :

$$\stackrel{~}{H}\psi _0^1H\psi _0=\underset{i}{}x_i_{x_i}+E_0^{}+\widehat{F}.$$
(8)
Here,

$`\widehat{F}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}_{x_i}^2+\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x_i^2x_j^2)}}(x_i_{x_i}x_j_{x_j})+\lambda _1{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_i}}_{x_i}\right),`$
$`g^2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda (\lambda 1),`$
$`g_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1(\lambda _11),`$
and the ground-state energy $`E_0^{}`$ is given by

$$E_0^{}=N(\frac{1}{2}+(N1)\lambda +\lambda _1).$$

As in the case of the CSM, the eigenfunctions of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ must be totally symmetric with respect to the exchange of any two particle coordinates. One can easily establish the following commutation relation;

$$[\underset{i}{}x_i_{x_i},\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{F}/2\}]=\widehat{F}\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{F}/2\}.$$
(9)
Making use of Eq. (9) in Eq. (8), one gets

$$\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{F}/2\}\stackrel{~}{H}_{B_N}\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{F}/2\}=\underset{i}{}x_i_{x_i}+E_0^{}.$$
(10)
The above two results are identical to the CSM case; this is due the fact that the Euler operator is only sensitive to the degree of the operator $`\widehat{F}`$. Hence, the ST by the operator $`\widehat{S}\psi _0\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{F}/2\}`$ diagonalizes $`H_{B_N}`$ i.e.,

$`\widehat{S}^1H_{B_N}\widehat{S}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_i_{x_i}+E_0^{}.`$ (11)
Furthermore, the following similarity transformation on Eq. (10) makes the connection of the BnCSM with the decoupled oscillators explicit:

$$G\widehat{E}(0)\widehat{S}^1H_{B_N}\widehat{S}\widehat{E}^1(0)G^1=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}\frac{^2}{x_i^2}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}x_i^2+(E_0^{}\frac{1}{2}N),$$
(12)
where, $`\widehat{E}(0)`$ and $`G`$ are as defined earlier.

### A Mapping between the CSM and BnCSM

It is interesting to note that, $`H_{B_N}`$ can also be made equivalent to the CSM as follows;

$$\widehat{T}\widehat{S}^1H_{B_N}\widehat{S}\widehat{T}^1=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}_{x_i}^2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}x_i^2+\underset{i<j}{}\frac{\beta (\beta 1)}{(x_ix_j)^2}+(E_0^{}E_0),$$
(13)
where, $`E_0`$ is the ground-state energy of the CSM. One needs to check the spaces of functions on which all the above ST’s are well defined. This point will be elaborated more after finding out the Hilbert space of the $`B_N`$ model. This will also lead to the precise relationship between the respective eigenspaces of $`H_{CSM}`$ and $`H_{B_N}`$.

### B Hilbert space of BnCSM

We can make use of Eq. (10) for the explicit construction of the eigenfunctions of Eq. (6). It is easy to see that an arbitrary homogeneous symmetric function of $`x_i`$’s  is an eigenfunction of $`_ix_i_{x_i}`$; however, unlike the case of CSM, only the homogeneous symmetric functions of the square of the particle co-ordinates are the ones on which the action of $`\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{F}/2\}`$ gives a polynomial solution. At this moment, it is also worth noting that if $`\lambda =1`$, then Eq. (8) reduces to the differential equation, in $`y_i=x_i^2`$ variables for the multivariate Lagurre polynomials. This is the basic reason why, the action of the operator $`\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{F}/2\}`$ on the homogeneous symmetric functions of the square of the particle co-ordinates gives a polynomial solution. For the sake of illustration, we choose here the power sum basis $`P_l_i(x_i^2)^l`$. The eigenfunctions and the energy eigenvalues are respectively given by

$$\psi _n=\psi _0\left[\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{F}/2\}\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}P_l^{n_l}\right],$$
(14)
and

$$E_n=2\underset{l}{\overset{N}{}}ln_l+E_0;n=\underset{l}{}ln_l.$$
(15)
Note that, $`\widehat{S}\widehat{T}^1`$ maps all eigenfunctions of BnCSM to the even sector of CSM and hence the connection mentioned earlier between the CSM and BnCSM is valid only in the even sector.

### C Underlying algebraic structure of the BnCSM

Akin to the CSM case, one can obtain the creation and annihilation operators for the BnCSM from Eq. (10);

$$b_i^+=\widehat{S}x_i\widehat{S}^1,$$

and

$$b_i^{}=\widehat{}_{x_i}\widehat{S}^1,$$

such that, the symmetrized form of the operators,

$`K_i^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2},`$ (16)
acts on the ground-state obtained from

$$b_i^{}|0>=0;i=1,2,\mathrm{},N$$

and creates the eigenstates of the BnCSM. In terms of the creation and annihilation operators, the BNCSM Hamiltonian can be written as

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}H_i+(E_0N/2),`$ (17)
where,

$$H_ib_i^+b_i^{}+\frac{1}{2}.$$

It can be easily checked that, the commutation relations

$`[K_i^{},K_j^+]=\delta _{ij}H_i,`$ (18)
and

$`[H_i,K_j^\pm ]=\pm 2\delta _{ij}K_i^\pm ,`$ (19)
generate $`N`$ copies of $`SU(1,1)`$ algebra; here,

$$K_i^{}=\frac{1}{2}b_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.$$

It is worth noticing that these, $`N`$, commuting $`SU(1,1)`$ generators act on the even sector of the harmonic oscillator basis and hence generate a complete set of eigenfunctions. Thus, we conclude that, the underlying algebraic structure of the BnCSM is $`SU(1,1)`$. In comparision, the eigenfunctions of the CSM contain both the even and odd sectors of the oscillator basis.

With the generators of the above mentioned $`SU(1,1)`$ algebras of BnCSM, one can define a linear $`W_{\mathrm{}}`$ algebra for which there exist several basis sets.

### D New innerproduct

In parallel to the case of CSM, one can also define $`<<0|S_n(\{\frac{1}{2}b_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\})=<<n|`$ and $`S_n(\{\frac{1}{2}b_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}\})|0>=|n>`$ as the bra and ket vectors; $`S_n`$ is a symmetric homogeneous function of degree $`n`$ and $`<<0|\frac{1}{2}b_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}b_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}|0>=0`$. Since all the $`N`$ $`SU(1,1)`$ algebras are decoupled, the inner product between these bra and ket vectors proves that any ket $`|n>`$, with a given partition of $`n`$, is orthogonal to all the bra vectors, with different $`n`$ and also to those with different partitions of the same $`n`$. The normalization for any state $`|n>`$ can also be found out from the ground state normalization, which is known.

### E Quantum integrability

The quantum integrability of the BnCSM and the identification of the constants of motion become transparent after establishing its equivalence to free oscillators. It is easy to verify that $`[H,H_k]=[H_i,H_j]=0`$ for $`i,j,k=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. Therefore, the set $`\{H_1,H_2,\mathrm{},H_N\}`$ provides the $`N`$ conserved quantities. One can construct linearly independent symmetric conserved quantities analogous to that of CSM. Here, we would like to point out that, the present proof is entirely different from earlier works.

### F The Haschke-Rühl model

Now, we analyse a one-dimensional model of four identical particles, with both two-body and four-body inverse-square interactions given by the Hamiltonian,

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}_{x_i}^2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}x_i^2+g_1\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i,j}{ij}}{}(x_ix_j)^2+g_2\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}}{\mathrm{terms}}}{}(x_i+x_jx_kx_l)^2.$$
(20)
The correlated bosonic ground-state of $`H`$ is given by

$$\psi _0=\underset{i<j}{}|x_ix_j|^\alpha \underset{3\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{p}.\mathrm{terms}}{}(x_i+x_jx_kx_l)^\beta \mathrm{exp}\{\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}x_i^2\},$$

where, $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{1+4g_1})`$ and $`\beta =\frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{1+2g_2})`$. By performing a ST on $`H`$ with respect to $`\psi _0`$, one gets

$$\psi _0^1H\psi _0\stackrel{~}{H}=\underset{i}{}x_i_{x_i}\widehat{D}+E_0,$$
(21)
where,

$$\widehat{D}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}_{x_i}^2+\alpha \underset{ij}{}\frac{1}{x_ix_j}_{x_i}+\beta \underset{3\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{p}.\mathrm{terms}}{}\frac{1}{(x_i+x_jx_kx_l)}(_{x_i}+_{x_j}_{x_k}_{x_l})$$

and $`E_0=2+6\alpha +3\beta `$. Another ST by $`\widehat{I}=\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{D}/2\}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ diagonalizes it completely:

$$\widehat{I}^1\stackrel{~}{H}\widehat{I}\overline{H}=\underset{i}{}x_i_{x_i}+E_0.$$
(22)
The explicit connection of $`H`$ with the decoupled oscillators can be obtained by one more ST on $`\overline{H}`$

$$\widehat{T}^1\overline{H}\widehat{T}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}_{x_i}^2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}x_i^2+E_02,$$
(23)
where, $`\widehat{T}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}_{i=1}^4x_i^2)\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{4}_{i=1}^4_{x_i}^2)`$.

Eigenfunctions for this model can be constructed straightforwardly following the previous examples.

## III Method for Construction of new solvable models

More general interacting models of the CSM type, which can be mapped to decoupled oscillators, can be constructed in the following manner.

One starts with a general Hamiltonian of the type

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{x_i}^2+V(x_1,x_2,x_3,\mathrm{},x_N),$$
(24)
having $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ as the ground-state wave function and

$$V(x)=ϵ_0+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{x_i}^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0,$$

where, $`ϵ_0`$ is the ground-state energy. In order to bring $`H`$ to the following form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0^1H\mathrm{\Phi }_0\stackrel{~}{H}=\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}x_i_{x_i}\widehat{A}+ϵ_0,$$
(25)
the ground-state wave function must be of the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=GJ`$; where,

$$\widehat{A}\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{x_i}^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{x_i}(\mathrm{ln}J)_{x_i},$$

and $`J`$ is so far an arbitrary function.

$`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ can be mapped to the Euler operator by another ST

$$\widehat{S}^1\stackrel{~}{H}\widehat{S}\overline{H}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}x_i_{x_i}+ϵ_0,$$
(26)
provided, the following equation holds,

$$[\stackrel{~}{H},\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{A}/2\}]=[\underset{i}{}x_i_{x_i},\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{A}/2\}]=\widehat{A}\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{A}/2\}.$$
(27)
The above condition restricts $`J`$ to be a homogeneous function of the particle coordinates.

Now, it is easy to see that, the Hamiltonian in Eq.(24) can be mapped to free oscillators by a series of STs,

$$G\widehat{E}(0)\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{A}/2\}\mathrm{\Phi }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}H\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{A}/2\}\widehat{E}^1(0)G^1=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}_{x_i}^2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}x_i^2+(ϵ_0\frac{1}{2}N).$$
(28)
However, as mentioned earlier, it is important to check that, the action of $`\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{A}/2\}`$ on an appropriate linear combination of the eigenstates of $`_{i=1}^Nx_i_{x_i}`$, yields solutions which are normalizable with respect to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2`$ as the weight function. Appropriate choices of $`J`$ will yield new solvable models having linear spectra. This can also be generalized to the higher-dimensional interacting models,  provided one is careful about the intricacies arising in higher dimensions.

## IV A New technique to solve linear differential equations and diagonalization of the Sutherland model

In the previous section, we have dealt with a class of many-body Hamiltonians, which, after a similarity transformation separate into a part containing the Euler operator and a constant and another operator $`\widehat{A}`$ having a definite degree. These Hamiltonians were then diagonalized, taking advantage of the fact that $`[_ix_i_{x_i},e^{\widehat{A}/d}]=\widehat{A}e^{\widehat{A}/d}`$, where d is the degree of the operator $`\widehat{A}`$, i.e., $`[_ix_i_{x_i},\widehat{A}]=d\widehat{A}`$. We notice that the above procedure fails in the cases, where the similarity transformed Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ contains an operator $`\widehat{F}`$ possessing the following properties.

Case i: When $`\widehat{F}=_{k=1}^s\widehat{F}_k`$, where, $`s`$ is an arbitrary integer and $`\widehat{F}_k`$’s are operators with different degrees and $`[\widehat{F}_k,F_l]0`$; for $`k,l=1,2,\mathrm{}s`$.

Case ii: When the degree, $`d`$, of the opertor $`\widehat{F}`$ is zero.

Case iii: When $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ contains operators like $`_i(x_i_{x_i})^n`$, with $`n2`$.

As will be shown below, one needs a method which works for the second and third cases mentioned above, in order to diagonalize the Sutherland model and to show its equivalence to free particles on a circle.

A recently proposed method  is illustrated below which overcomes all the difficulties mentioned above and achieves the goal of connecting the solutions of differential equations to monomials.

Consider first the general, single variable linear differential equation,

$`\left(F(D)+\widehat{P}\right)y(x)=0,`$ (29)
where, $`Dx\frac{d}{dx}`$ and $`F(D)=_{n=\mathrm{}}^{n=\mathrm{}}a_nD^n`$, is a diagonal operator in the space of monomials. $`\widehat{P}`$ can be an arbitrary operator, having a well-defined action in the space spanned by $`x^n`$. Here, $`a_n`$’s are some parameters.

The solution of Eq. (29) is given by

$`y(x)`$ $`=`$ $`C_\lambda \left\{{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^m\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(D)}}\widehat{P}\right]^m\right\}x^\lambda `$ (30)
$``$ $`C_\lambda \widehat{G}_\lambda x^\lambda ,`$ (31)
provided, $`F(D)x^\lambda =0`$ and the coefficient of $`x^\lambda `$ in $`y(x)C_\lambda x^\lambda `$ is zero (no summation over $`\lambda `$); here, $`C_\lambda `$ is a constant. The latter condition guarantees that, the solutions, $`y(x)`$’s, are non-singular. The proof is straightforward and follows by direct substitution.  Note that, the detailed properties of $`\widehat{P}`$ are not needed to prove that $`y(x)`$ in Eq. (30) is a solution of Eq. (29). However, naturally, these are required while constructing the explicit solutions of any given linear differential equation. This procedure gives novel expression for the solutions of known differential equations and brings out the properties of the orthogonal polynomials and functions in a natural way.

Eq. (30), which connects the solutions of a differential equation to the monomials, can be generalized to many-variables as follows.

Consider,

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_n({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}D_i^n)+\widehat{A}\right)Q_\lambda (x)=B_\lambda (x),`$ (32)
where, $`b_n`$’s are some parameters, $`D_ix_i_{x_i}`$; $`\widehat{A}`$ can be a function of $`x_i`$, $`_{x_i}`$ and also some other well-defined composite operators and $`B_\lambda (x)`$ is a source term. Solutions of Eq. (32) can be obtained for different cases.

Case (i): When $`B_\lambda (x)=0`$ and $`\widehat{A}m_\lambda =ϵ_\lambda m_\lambda +_{\mu <\lambda }C_{\mu \lambda }m_\mu `$; where, $`m_\lambda `$’s are the monomial symmetric functions  and $`ϵ_\lambda `$ and $`C_{\lambda \mu }`$ are some coefficients.

Using Eq. (30), the solution can be obtained as,

$`Q_\lambda (x)={\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^r\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{((_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}b_n(_iD_i^n)(_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}b_n(_i\lambda _i^n))}}(\widehat{A}ϵ_\lambda )\right]^rm_\lambda (x)`$ (33)
with, $`_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}b_n(_i\lambda _i^n)+ϵ_\lambda =0`$.

Case (ii): When $`B_\lambda (x)0`$.

$`Q_\lambda (x)={\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^r\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{((_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}b_n(_iD_i^n)(_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}b_n(_i\lambda _i^n))}}\widehat{A}\right]^r`$ (34)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{((_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}b_n(_iD_i^n)(_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}b_n(_i\lambda _i^n))}}\right]B_\lambda (x),`$ (35)
provided, the coefficient of the divergent part in the right hand side of the above equation is zero. As will be soon seen in the context of the SM, this requirement yields the eigenvalues for the Hamiltonians, with which the above differential equations are associated.

We now proceed to use the above mentioned method to diagonalize the SM and establish a precise connection between the Hilbert space of SM and that of free particles on a circle. The Schrödinger equation is,

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_i^2}}+2\beta (\beta 1){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2[\pi (x_ix_j)/L]}}E_\lambda \right)\psi _\lambda (\{x_i\})=0.`$ (36)
Choosing, $`z_j=e^{2\pi ix_j/L}`$ and writing $`\psi _\lambda (\{z_i\})=_iz_i^{(N1)\beta /2}_{i<j}(z_iz_j)^\beta J_\lambda (\{z_i\})`$, the above equation becomes,

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}D_i^2+\beta {\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i+z_j}{z_iz_j}}(D_iD_j)+\stackrel{~}{E}_0\stackrel{~}{E}_\lambda \right)J_\lambda (\{z_i\})=0,`$ (37)
where, $`D_iz_i\frac{}{z_i}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E_\lambda }(\frac{L}{2\pi })^2E_\lambda `$, $`\stackrel{~}{E_0}(\frac{L}{2\pi })^2E_0`$ and $`E_0=\frac{1}{3}(\frac{\pi }{L})^2\beta ^2N(N^21)`$, is the ground-state energy. Here, $`J_\lambda (\{z_i\})`$’s are known as the Jack polynomials. $`_iD_i^2`$ is a diagonal operator in the space spanned by the monomial symmetric functions, $`m_{\{\lambda \}}`$, with eigenvalues $`_{i=1}^N\lambda _i^2`$. Rewriting Eq. (37) in the form,

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(D_i^2\lambda _i^2)+\beta {\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i+z_j}{z_iz_j}}(D_iD_j)+\stackrel{~}{E}_0+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i^2\stackrel{~}{E}_\lambda \right)J_\lambda (\{z_i\})=0,`$ (38)
and using Eq. (33), one can immediately show that,

$`J_\lambda (\{z_i\})`$ $`=`$ $`C_\lambda \left\{{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_i(D_i^2\lambda _i^2)}}(\beta {\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i+z_j}{z_iz_j}}(D_iD_j)+\stackrel{~}{E}_0+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i^2\stackrel{~}{E}_\lambda )\right]^n\right\}`$ (40)
$`\times m_\lambda (\{z_i\})`$
$``$ $`C_\lambda \widehat{G}_\lambda m_\lambda (\{z_i\}).`$ (41)
It can be checked that, $`\widehat{G}_\lambda `$ maps the SM to free particles on a circle, i.e.,

$`(\psi _0\widehat{G}_\lambda )^1H_S(\psi _0\widehat{G}_\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}D_i^2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i^2+\stackrel{~}{E}_\lambda \right)`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_i^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i^2+E_\lambda ,`$ (43)
where, $`H_S`$ is the SM Hamiltonian and $`\psi _0`$ is its ground-state wave function. For the sake of convenience, we define

$`\widehat{S}`$ $``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_i(D_i^2\lambda _i^2)}}\widehat{Z}\right],`$ (44)
$`\text{and}\widehat{Z}`$ $``$ $`\beta {\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i+z_j}{z_iz_j}}(D_iD_j)+\stackrel{~}{E}_0+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i^2\stackrel{~}{E}_\lambda .`$ (45)
The action of $`\widehat{S}`$ on $`m_\lambda (\{z_i\})`$ yields singularities, unless one chooses the coefficient of $`m_\lambda `$ in $`\widehat{Z}m_\lambda (\{z_i\})`$ to be zero; this condition yields the well-known eigenspectrum of the Sutherland model:

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_\lambda =\stackrel{~}{E}_0+\underset{i}{}(\lambda _i^2+\beta [N+12i]\lambda _i).$$

Using the above, one can write down a novel expression for the Jack polynomials as,

$`J_\lambda (\{z_i\})={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\beta )^n\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_i(D_i^2\lambda _i^2)}}({\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i+z_j}{z_iz_j}}(D_iD_j){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(N+12i)\lambda _i)\right]^n`$ (46)
$`\times m_\lambda (\{x_i\}).`$ (47)
This procedure for constructing the Jack polynomials does not involve additional mathematical tools like Dunkl derivatives and $`S_N`$ extended Heisenberg algebra. The implications of the just established connection between SM wave functions and free particles are currently under investigation. In particular, its relevance to generalized statistics is of deep interest. The connection of Jack polynomials with the monomial symmetric functions can be used for constructing ladder operators, since at the level of the monomials, the construction of the ladder operators is straightforward. Currently, these operators have been constructed only for a few particle system. We are also studying the symmetry properties of the Jack and other multivariate polynomials, using the above technique. It is worth pointing out that Jack polynomial and its supersymmetric generalizations are being studied extensively, for their relevance to multi-variate statistics and mathematical physics. It is easy to see that, the method presented above generalizes to other Sutherland type models. The straightforwardness of this approach should be contrasted with an earlier approach to these models by the present authors, through $`S_N`$ extended Heisenberg algebra and operators related to them.

## V Laughlin wave function and decoupled harmonic oscillators

In this section, we study a planar many-body Hamiltonian relevant for the description of the quantum Hall effect. This Hamiltonian describes electrons in a magnetic field, with two-body and three-body inverse-square interactions arising due to the Chern-Simons gauge field and have Laughlin wave function as the ground-state. We explicitly prove that, these models can be exactly mapped to a set of free harmonic oscillators on the plane. As a consequence, the existence of linear $`W_{1+\mathrm{}}`$ algebra with Laughlin wave function as its highest weight vector, is pointed out, in a rather elegant and straightforward manner. This study also brings out the potential difficulties one can face in more than one dimension.

We start with the Hamiltonian:

$`H=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(4_{\overline{z}_i}_{z_i}+z_i_{z_i}\overline{z}_i_{\overline{z}_i}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{z}_iz_i)+2\eta {\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i=1}{ij}}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(z_iz_j)}}(_{\overline{z}_i}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}z_i)`$ (48)
$``$ $`2\eta {\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i=1}{ij}}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\overline{z_i}\overline{z_j})}}(_{z_i}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{z_i})+2\eta ^2{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i,j,k=1}{ij;ik}}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(z_iz_j)(\overline{z}_i\overline{z}_k)}}.`$ (49)
The ground-state of this model was found to be of Laughlin form,

$$\psi _0=\underset{i<j}{}(z_iz_j)^\eta \mathrm{exp}\{\frac{1}{4}\underset{i}{}\overline{z}_iz_i\}.$$

By performing a ST, one gets

$`\psi _0^1H\psi _0\stackrel{~}{H}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}z_i_{z_i}\widehat{A}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N,`$ (50)
where,

$$\widehat{A}2\underset{i}{}_{\overline{z}_i}_{z_i}+2\eta \underset{ij}{}(\frac{1}{\overline{z_i}\overline{z_j}}_{z_i}\frac{1}{z_iz_j}_{\overline{z}_i}).$$

It is easy to check that

$$[\underset{i}{}z_i_{z_i},\widehat{A}]=\widehat{A}+4\pi \eta \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i,j}{ij}}{}(z_iz_j)\delta ^2(z_iz_j)_{z_i}.$$
(51)
In view of the identity i.e., $`x\delta (x)=0`$, the above equation reduces to

$$[\underset{i}{}z_i_{z_i},\widehat{A}]=\widehat{A}.$$
(52)
Performing a ST by $`\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{A}\}`$, Eq. (50) becomes

$`\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{A}\}\stackrel{~}{H}\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{A}\}\overline{H}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}z_i_{z_i}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N.`$ (53)
Finally, the following ST by $`\widehat{W}\mathrm{exp}\{2_i_{\overline{z}_i}_{z_i}\}\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{1}{4}_i\overline{z}_iz_i\}`$ brings the above Hamiltonian to a Hamiltonian of $`N`$ free harmonic oscillators,

$$\widehat{W}^1H\widehat{W}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(4_{\overline{z}_i}_{z_i}+z_i_{z_i}\overline{z}_i_{\overline{z}_i}+\frac{1}{4}\overline{z}_iz_i).$$
(54)
By defining $`a_i^+=\widehat{S}^1z_i\widehat{S}`$ and $`a_i^{}=\widehat{S}^1_{z_i}\widehat{S}`$; where $`\widehat{S}=\psi _0\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{A}\}`$, and making use of Eq. (53), one can rewrite Eq. (48) as

$$H=\underset{i}{}H_i+\frac{1}{2}N=\underset{i}{}a_i^+a_i^{}+\frac{1}{2}N$$
(55)
where, $`H_ia_i^+a_i^{}`$, such that

$$[a_i^{},a_j^+]=\delta _{ij},$$

and

$$[H_i,a_j^\pm ]=\pm a_j^\pm \delta _{ij}.$$

These $`N`$ quantities $`H_i`$ serve as the conserved quantities and are in involution, i.e., $`[H_i,H_j]=0`$.

Since $`a_i^{}`$ and $`a_i^+`$ obey non-interacting oscillator algebra, one can make use of this fact to define a linear $`W_{1+\mathrm{}}`$ algebra, making use of the basis given in Ref. \[\]. The highest weight vector obtained from $`L_{m,n}\psi _0=0`$ for $`n>m1`$ is nothing but the Laughlin wave function.

## VI Conclusions and Discussions

In conclusion, we have extended the procedure for the exact diagonalization of the N-particle Calogero-Sutherland model to a host of related models and have demonstrated the precise correspondence between these models and free oscillators. The underlying spectrum generating algebras, the construction of the excited state eigenfunctions and the conserved quantities responsible for the quantum integrability were also explicated. Although, we have worked out only the $`A_{N1}`$ and $`B_N`$ type models, for the sake of brevity, it is evident that our method generalizes to other root systems. In light of the fact that, the eigenvectors of the CSM have correspondence with the singular vectors of the $`W_N`$ algebras, it is worth studying in greater detail, the properties of our exact expressions for the excited state eigenvectors. This will throw more light on the emergence of conformal field theory results from the CSM in various limiting conditions. The construction of the coherent states for these correlated systems is now straightforward, starting from the known coherent states of the oscillator systems. In the two particle case, it is known that, the interaction brings in interesting behaviour in the coherent states. Hence, the N-particle case needs further investigation. The method elaborated here can also be applied to other models involving nearest and next-to-nearest neighbour interactions. These models are related to pseudo-integrable systems, which are currently attracting considerable attention in connection with physical systems like metal-insulator transitions. The procedure for diagonalizing the CSM has been found inadequate for dealing with SM and its generalizations. A recently developed method was used for mapping the SM to free particles on a circle, which also yielded a novel connection between the Jack polynomial and monomial symmetric functions. The precise relationship between the wave functions of SM and the free particle eigenfunctions is currently under study, in light of its relevance to generalized statistics as also the problem of finding ladder operators for the SM.

In two dimensions, the consequences of the linear $`W_{1+\mathrm{}}`$ symmetry algebra, the realization of the Laughlin wave function as the highest weight vector and the oscillator connection of the Chern-Simons Hamiltonians need further exhaustive study. Apart from the deep interest of the lowest Landau level physics, the aforementioned Hamiltonians involving Chern-Simons gauge fields, also provide realizations of the Jain picture. It is worth mentioning that, the lowest Landau level physics can be mapped to a one dimensional quantum mechanical system of the Calogero-Sutherland type. Hence, the results of this paper for one dimensional models may find relevance for electrons in a strong magnetic field. Further investigations, along the above lines are currently under progress and will be reported elsewhere. Recently, Calogero-Sutherland type models are also being extended to non-commutative spaces, which has relevance to lowest Landau level physics. Hence, extending the present approach to the noncommutative space is also an interesting area to explore.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The propagators of the fundamental fields play important role in the understanding of the physical structure of any quantum field theory. The gluon propagator in QCD is well known in perturbation theory, i.e. at large momenta. On the other hand its form in the infrared region has not been fixed so far although it has been intensively studied both analytically and numerically using lattice regularization. Analytical results range from the infrared divergent  to infrared vanishing  propagator (see also recent review ). The recent lattice investigations  excluded the infrared divergent behavior leaving open the possibility of the infrared vanishing propagator. Another recent study  – made in the Laplacian gauge which is free of Gribov copies – provided some support to the form of the propagator with dynamically generated gauge invariant mass proposed in .

It is widely believed that the knowledge of the infrared behavior of the gluon propagator is crucial for understanding of the confinement problem. At present there are two competing scenarios of confinement: condensation of monopoles  or center vortices . The Maximally Abelian (MA) gauge is the most convenient for demonstration of the dual superconductor nature of the gluodynamics vacuum (see, e.g. for a review). The first study of the MA gauge gluon propagator in the coordinate space was made in . It was found that the propagator of the off-diagonal gluons is exponentially suppressed at large distances by the effective mass about $`1.2`$ GeV. Thus the findings of  support the Abelian dominance in gluodynamics . The mass gap generation for the off-diagonal gluons was further studied analytically in Ref. .

In this paper we consider the propagators in the momentum space which allows a detailed investigation of their infrared properties compared to the coordinate space. Our preliminary results were published in . We describe the gauge fixing and present definition of propagators in Sections 2 and 3. Section 4 is devoted to discussion of numerical results and the last Section contains our conclusions. In Appendix we discuss the quality of the gauge fixing procedure, Gribov copies and finite volume effects.

## 2 Gauge Fixing

We use the standard parameterization of $`SU(2)`$ link matrices $`U_{11}=\mathrm{cos}\phi e^{i\theta }`$ and $`U_{12}=\mathrm{sin}\phi e^{i\chi }`$. The gauge fields are defined as follows

$$\frac{1}{2}A_\mu ^a(x)\sigma ^a=\frac{1}{2i}(U_\mu (x)U_\mu ^{}(x)),$$

where $`\sigma ^a`$ are the Pauli matrices. In terms of the link angles one gets111Note that in Ref.  the definition of the field $`A`$ differs from Eq. (1) by the factor of $`2`$.:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_\mu ^1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _\mu (x)\mathrm{sin}\chi _\mu (x),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_\mu ^2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _\mu (x)\mathrm{cos}\chi _\mu (x),`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_\mu ^3(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\phi _\mu (x)\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mu (x).`$
We call $`A_\mu ^3(x)`$ the diagonal gluon field, and $`A_\mu ^i(x),i=1,2`$, the off-diagonal gluon field.

The MA gauge condition in a differential form is :

$`\left[_\mu iA_\mu ^3(x)\right]A_\mu ^\pm (x)=0,A_\mu ^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(A_\mu ^1\pm iA_\mu ^2).`$ (2)
Note that here and below we are using the same notations for lattice and continuum fields. A nonperturbative fixing of this gauge amounts to the minimization of the functional

$$F_{\mathrm{MAG}}^{\mathrm{cont}}[A]=d^4x\left\{[A_\mu ^1(x)]^2+[A_\mu ^2(x)]^2\right\},$$

which has the following lattice counterpart:

$`F_{\mathrm{MAG}}^{\mathrm{latt}}[A]={\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}\mathrm{cos}2\phi _\mu (x).`$ (3)
The MA gauge condition (2) leaves $`U(1)`$ degrees of freedom unfixed. To complete the gauge fixing we use a $`U(1)`$ Landau gauge. In continuum the Landau gauge condition is

$$_\mu A_\mu ^3(x)=0.$$
(4)
In previous lattice studies  to fix $`U(1)`$ Landau gauge the following lattice functional

$`F_{\mathrm{Land}}^{\mathrm{latt}}[\theta ,\phi ]={\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu (x),`$ (5)
was maximized with respect to $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations, $`\theta _\mu (x)\theta _\mu (x)+_\mu \omega (x)`$.

In this paper we implement the following generalization of the $`U(1)`$ gauge fixing functional (5)

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mathrm{Land}}^{\mathrm{latt}}[\theta ,\phi ]=\underset{x,\mu }{}\mathrm{cos}\phi _\mu (x)\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu (x),$$
(6)
which is consistent with the definition of $`A_\mu ^3`$ in (1). Contrary to the definition in Eq.(5) this condition implies that $`A_\mu ^3`$ is transverse for any lattice spacing. In the continuum limit definitions (5) and (6) coincide with each other.

## 3 Propagators

We calculate the diagonal propagator

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{diag}}(p)=𝒜_\mu ^3(k)𝒜_\nu ^3(k),$$
(7)
and the off-diagonal propagator

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{offdiag}}(p)=𝒜_\mu ^+(k)𝒜_\nu ^{}(k),$$
(8)
where the Fourier transformed field, $`𝒜_\mu ^i(k)`$, is defined as follows:

$`𝒜_\mu ^i(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{L^4}}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}e^{ik_\nu x_\nu \frac{i}{2}k_\mu }A_\mu ^i(x),k_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi n_\mu }{aL_\mu }},n_\mu =0,\mathrm{},L_\mu 1.`$ (9)
The standard variables are

$$p_\mu =\frac{2}{a}\mathrm{sin}\frac{ak_\mu }{2},$$

in terms of which lattice propagator of a free massive scalar particle in momentum space has a familiar form, $`D(p)1/(p^2+m^2)`$. Moreover, in the lattice momentum space the gauge condition (4) becomes:

$$p_\mu 𝒜_\mu ^3=0.$$
(10)
The most general structure of both diagonal and off-diagonal propagators is

$$D_{\mu \nu }(p)=\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right)D_t(p^2)+\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}D_l(p^2),$$
(11)
where $`D_{t,l}`$ are the scalar functions. They are related to the formfactors $`D_{\mu \nu }(p)`$ as follows:

$`D_l(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}D_{\mu \nu }(p),D_t(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(D_{\mu \mu }(p)D_l(p^2)\right).`$ (12)
It follows from (10) that the longitudinal part of the propagator of the diagonal gluon, $`D_l^{diag}`$, is zero. Thus we have three formfactors $`D_t^{\mathrm{diag}}`$ and $`D_{t,l}^{\mathrm{offdiag}}`$.

## 4 Numerical Results

We calculate the propagators (7), (8) on the symmetric lattices $`V=L^4`$ with $`L=16,24,32`$ using 50, 138 and 30 configurations, respectively. Simulations are done at $`\beta =2.40`$ which corresponds to the lattice spacing $`a=(1.66\mathrm{GeV})^1`$  if one fixes the physical scale $`\sqrt{\sigma }=440`$ MeV. The details of the numerical gauge fixing procedure are given in the Appendix.

We show all non-zero formfactors as functions of $`p^2`$ in Figure 1(a) (in all Figures of this paper we depict the data obtained on $`32^4`$ lattice unless stated otherwise).

One can see that all formfactors seem to tend to finite values as momentum goes to zero i.e. none of them is divergent or vanishing. The diagonal formfactor is dominating over the off–diagonal formfactors.

In Figure 1(b) the gluon dressing function, $`p^2D(p^2)`$, is depicted. The diagonal (transverse) dressing function has a relatively narrow maximum at non–zero momentum $`p_0^{\mathrm{diag}}0.7\mathrm{GeV}`$. Its behavior at small momenta is qualitatively very similar to the behavior of the gluon propagator in the Landau gauge (see e.g. ). The off-diagonal longitudinal dressing function has a wide maximum at $`p_0^{\mathrm{offdiag}}2\mathrm{GeV}`$, while for the transverse off-diagonal dressing function formfactor it is a monotonically rising function for all available momenta.

One can compare the propagators obtained with the $`U(1)`$ gauge conditions (5) and (6). The first condition was implemented in Ref.  while the last one is adopted in the present paper. The comparison shows that the transverse diagonal propagators for these two gauge conditions coincide with each other at large momenta. At small momenta the formfactor obtained with Eq. (5) is slightly larger then the one calculated with Eq. (6). The difference at momentum $`p=430\mathrm{MeV}`$ is about 15%. The formfactors for the off-diagonal gluons coincide with each other for all available momenta.

It is seen from Figure 1 that at $`p6`$ GeV dressing function $`p^2D_{t,l}^{diag,offdiag}3`$ and differ much from the free from $`1/p^2`$. The large renormalization of the formfactors in Landau gauge is discussed in Ref. . There it has been shown that even three-loop corrections do not describe the behavior of the lattice gluon propagator at $`p6`$ GeV.

From Figures 1(a,b) it is clear that the off-diagonal gluon propagator is suppressed in comparison with the diagonal one. In Figure 2(a) we plot the ratio

$`R(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{D_t^{\mathrm{diag}}(p^2)}{D_t^{\mathrm{offdiag}}(p^2)}}.`$ (13)
It is seen that the suppression of the off-diagonal propagator increases as the momentum decreases. This may be considered as an indication that in the MA gauge the diagonal gluons are responsible for physics in the infrared region.

From Figures 1(a,b) one may also notice that the formfactors $`D_t^{\mathrm{offdiag}}(p^2)`$ and $`D_l^{\mathrm{offdiag}}(p^2)`$ coincide at small momenta. In Figure 2(b) we plot the ratio

$`R_{\mathrm{offdiag}}(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{D_t^{\mathrm{offdiag}}(p^2)D_l^{\mathrm{offdiag}}(p^2)}{D_t^{\mathrm{offdiag}}(p^2)}}.`$ (14)
One can see that $`R_{\mathrm{offdiag}}`$ decreases with decreasing momentum and vanishes at $`p1`$ GeV. This implies that in the IR region the off–diagonal propagator has the form

$`D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{offdiag}}(p)\delta _{\mu \nu }D_t^{\mathrm{offdiag}}(p^2),p^21\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (15)
In order to characterize the propagators quantitatively we have fitted the formfactors in the infrared region by the following functions:

$`D(p^2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Zm^{2\alpha }}{(p^2+m^2)^{1+\alpha }}},`$ $`\text{(fit 1)},`$ (16)
$`D(p^2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Zm^{2\alpha }}{p^{2(1+\alpha )}+m^{2(1+\alpha )}}},`$ $`\text{(fit 2)},`$ (17)
$`D(p^2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{p^2+m^2}},`$ $`\text{(Yukawa fit)},`$ (18)
$`D(p^2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{m^2+p^2+\kappa p^4/m^2}},`$ $`\text{(Yukawa 2 fit)},`$ (19)
$`D(p^2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Zp^2}{p^4+m^4}},`$ $`\text{(Gribov fit)}.`$ (20)
where $`Z`$, $`\alpha `$ , $`m`$ and $`\kappa `$ are fitting parameters. The fitting functions (16), (17), (20) – after being modified to agree at large momenta with a known perturbation theory result – were used to fit the gluon propagator in Landau gauge . It was concluded that function (17) provided the best fit. The fitting function (17) was also used in the compact U(1) theory and compact Abelian Higgs model  in three dimensions.

The Yukawa fitting function, eq. (18), is introduced in order to compare our results with results of Refs. , where such behavior was assumed for off-diagonal propagators. Another interesting possibility is to consider the momentum dependent mass in eq. (18), $`m^2m^2(p^2)`$. Keeping only the lowest order of $`p^2`$ in $`m^2(p^2)`$ expansion we get the fitting function (19) where $`\kappa `$ is an additional dimensionless parameter. Finally, we fit the data by the function (20) inspired by the Gribov proposal  for the Landau gauge.

The quality of the fitting result depends on the interval of momentum used in fitting. In this paper we restrict ourselves to the infrared region. We have chosen the interval starting from $`p_{\mathrm{min}}=2\pi /(32a)=0.325\mathrm{GeV}`$ and ending at a variable value $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$. For every fit we determine $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ as the highest momentum at which the data points corresponding to the lowest momenta are still consistent with the given fit. In other words, when momenta $`p>p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ are included in the fit the fitting curves go off the error bars of the lowest momenta data points. We employ this procedure for the diagonal propagator only, because the statistical weight of the infrared data points is low222Therefore the $`\chi ^2`$–criterion can not be used for the definition of $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$. while the significance of these points is high. In the case of the off-diagonal propagators we have limited the region of fit by highest momentum $`p_{\mathrm{max}}=1.7\mathrm{GeV}`$. The fits are shown in Figures 3(a-c) and the best fit parameters are presented in Table 1.

First we discuss the fits of the diagonal propagator. The three parameter fits (16,17,19) are working well and the corresponding curves are almost indistinguishable from each other, Figure 3(a). However, the fitting function (17) gives twice smaller value of $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ than the other functions, indicating that fit (17) works in a narrower region than the other fits. The mass parameters for these fits do not coincide, and the difference between them is about $`30\%`$.

We have also applied the two-parameter fits given by Yukawa (18) and Gribov (20) functions. The Gribov fit is working well for the diagonal propagator. One can see from Figure 3(a) that in order to discriminate the Gribov fitting function from the others we need the data at momenta smaller than available in our study. The Yukawa fit of the diagonal propagator does not work at all (we get $`\chi ^2/d.o.f.6`$ for fits in $`p_{\mathrm{max}}<1\mathrm{GeV}`$ region).

Concerning the transverse and longitudinal parts of the off-diagonal propagator one can make a few observations. First we notice, that the Gribov fitting function (20) is clearly not applicable for fitting of these propagators. Second, one can see that the formfactors for transverse and longitudinal parts almost coincide with each other at small momenta. The last fact implies that the best fit parameters for each particular type of the fits (16-19) must coincide as well,

$$m_t^{\mathrm{offdiag}}m_l^{\mathrm{offdiag}},Z_t^{\mathrm{offdiag}}Z_l^{\mathrm{offdiag}},\alpha _t^{\mathrm{offdiag}}\alpha _l^{\mathrm{offdiag}},\kappa _t^{\mathrm{offdiag}}\kappa _l^{\mathrm{offdiag}},$$

in agreement with Table (1).

We have also found that the mass parameters in the off-diagonal gluon fits are approximately two times bigger then the corresponding parameters in the diagonal fit propagators:

$$m_{t,l}^{\mathrm{offdiag}}2m_t^{\mathrm{diag}}.$$

Thus, the off-diagonal propagator is clearly short–ranged compared to the diagonal one.

In Ref.  the off-diagonal propagator was successfully fitted in the infrared region of coordinate space by the Yukawa propagator. Our results (with respect to the off–diagonal propagator) indicate, that other fitting functions can also be used to describe this propagator.

Summarizing, we can say that the diagonal propagator can be fitted almost equally well with any of the three-parameter fits (16), (17) and (19). The same is true for the off-diagonal propagator. Among the two-parameter fits (20) is superior for the diagonal propagator while (18) is better for the off-diagonal one.

At smallest available momentum (325 MeV) the off-diagonal propagator is suppressed by the factor about 50 with respect to the diagonal one. Note that this suppression is only partially due to larger values of the mass parameter $`m`$ while equally or even more important role is played by smaller values of the parameter $`Z`$. We expect that the similar suppression exists also in the continuum theory because at our lattice spacing the renormalization effects for the $`Z`$–parameter are already quite small (according to Figure 1(a) the transverse diagonal and off–diagonal formfactors almost coincide with each other at largest available momentum).

## 5 Conclusions

Our results obtained in the Maximally Abelian gauge of $`SU(2)`$ gluodynamics clearly show that at low momenta the propagator of the diagonal gluon is much larger than the propagator of the off-diagonal gluons. This suggests that the colored objects at large distances interact mainly due to exchange by the diagonal gluons in agreement with the Abelian dominance property established in numerical studies of the MA gauge  for fundamental test charges333As for adjoint charges see discussion in Ref. ..

The propagators do not show indications that they are either vanishing or divergent when $`p0`$. To provide a quantitative description of the propagators at low momenta we fit the propagator formfactors using various functions. All infrared fits for both diagonal and off-diagonal propagators contain massive parameters, which are non-zero for both propagators. When the same fitting function is applied to the diagonal and off-diagonal formfactors the mass parameter for off-diagonal formfactor is more than twice bigger than that for the diagonal one. This is in a qualitative agreement with findings of Ref. . But our more detailed analysis revealed that the difference in values of the mass parameters is not the only reason of the off-diagonal propagator suppression, the other reason is small values of parameter $`Z`$.

We have found that the diagonal propagator has qualitatively the same momentum dependence as the gluon propagator in Landau gauge while the off-diagonal propagator is very different. At small momenta the off-diagonal propagator is diagonal with respect to the space indices and thus defined by a single scalar function since its transverse and longitudinal formfactors become equal within error bars.

## Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to A. Schiller, E.–M. Ilgenfritz, G. Schierholz and V.I. Zakharov for interesting discussions, and to K.–I. Kondo for useful suggestions. M. I. P is partially supported by grants RFBR 02-02-17308, RFBR 01-02-17456, RFBR 00-15-96-786, INTAS-00-00111, and CRDF award RPI-2364-MO-02. S. M. is partially supported by grants RFBR 02-02-17308 and CRDF award MO-011-0. F. V. G. is supported by grant RFBR 03-02-16-941. M. N. Ch. is supported by the JSPS Fellowship P01023.

## Appendix

The Maximally Abelian and the Abelian Landau gauges are defined as global maxima of the functionals (3) and (6), respectively. The global maxima is difficult to reach numerically and usually one finds several field configurations corresponding to local maxima of the gauge fixing functional and then the configuration with the highest value of the functional is chosen. The choice of the correct maximum, known as a Gribov problem , is crucial for the observables both in the MA gauge of $`SU(2)`$ gauge model  and in the Landau gauge of the U(1) gauge model .

Gauge fixing of the MA gauge with a careful treatment of the Gribov ambiguity was studied in Ref. . In our investigation we follow this paper using the Simulated Annealing algorithm with 10 randomly generated gauge copies. The MA gauge fixing procedure is described in , and the Abelian Landau gauge fixing algorithm is briefly considered below.

To maximize the functional (6) we use the local over-relaxation algorithm with $`\omega =1.8`$, see, e.g., Ref. , with 20 randomly generated gauge copies. For the local gauge fixing we choose the following convergence criterion:

$$𝒢(x)=|\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{4}{}}\mathrm{cos}\phi _\mu (x)\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mu (x)\mathrm{cos}\phi _\mu (x+\mu )\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mu (x+\mu )|\epsilon ,$$
(A1)
where $`\epsilon `$ is a small parameter. Note, that this condition must be satisfied at each site $`x`$ of the lattice.

To study the effects of the incomplete gauge fixing we chose the longitudinal part of the propagator of the diagonal gluon $`D_l^{\mathrm{diag}}`$ because it is most sensitive to the details of the gauge fixing procedure. According to the local gauge condition (4), $`D_l^{\mathrm{diag}}`$ must be zero when perfect numerical procedure is used. Its dependence on the convergence parameter $`\epsilon `$ is presented in Figure 4(a). The propagator significantly depends on $`\epsilon `$, especially in the region of small momenta. In our simulations we choose $`\epsilon =10^6`$.

We have also checked the dependence of $`D_t^{\mathrm{diag}}`$ on the number of gauge copies, $`(N_{gc})`$, used both in the MA and in the Abelian Landau gauge fixings. This check has been done using set of 30 configurations on $`L=24`$ lattice. Within error bars we have observed no dependence on the number of the MA gauge Gribov copies and we have found only very mild dependence on the number of the Abelian Landau gauge copies.

To check the finite volume effects we have calculated the propagators on different lattices at the same $`\beta =2.40`$. The transverse formfactors at zero momentum $`D_t^{diag,offdiag}(0)`$ were calculated as follows:

$$D_t^{diag,offdiag}(0)=\frac{1}{3}D_{\mu \mu }^{diag,offdiag}(0).$$
(A2)
We find that within error bars the values of the zero-momentum propagator are independent of the lattice volume, as can be seen from Figure 4(b).

We have also studied the volume dependence of the transverse part of the diagonal propagator at non–zero momenta. Since the finite volume affects mainly the low momentum region we have concentrated on the propagator at $`p<1.5`$ GeV. In Figure 5 we plot the transverse part of the diagonal propagator calculated on $`24^4`$ and $`32^4`$ lattices. It is seen that the volume dependence is very weak, it is within the error bars. The position of the maximum of $`p^2D(p^2)`$ is the same for both lattices. The fit of the data for the propagator on $`24^4`$ lattice gives parameters which differs less than by $`4\%`$ from that given in Table 1 for $`32^4`$ lattice. Thus we estimate the systematic error induced by the finite volume effects to be less than $`4\%`$.