text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Relationships between entanglement distillation and quantum error correction have been discussed by Bennett et al. . Especially, they argued that achievable information rates for quantum error correction, i.e., those at which quantum error-correcting codes (quantum codes) reliably, are also achievable as rates for one-way entanglement distillation. More precisely, they associate with an arbitrary bipartite mixed state a map called a teleportation channel, which represents the change suffered by a teleported state when the bipartite mixed state is used for teleportation  in place of the ideal maximally entangled state. Then, they argued that an achievable rate for quantum codes on the teleportation channel is also achievable as the asymptotic yield of distillation schemes for the bipartite state. A concrete expression for the teleportation channel using $`(/d)^2`$ was given afterwards , which complements the above argument on transformation of achievable rates. Recently, this author gave exponential lower bounds on the highest fidelity and those on the largest information rates that can be attained by standard algebraic quantum codes  not only on discrete memoryless quantum channels but also on channels with certain correlation . This work was motivated by interest in exploring implications of these results  on entanglement distillation, especially in the presence of correlation among the bipartite states, along the lines of .

In what follows, we will do the next three things. (i) To deal with correlated states, the formula for the teleportation channel using $`(/d)^2`$  is generalized to that for teleportation using Weyl’s projective unitary representation of $`(/d)^{2n}`$, which allows any correlation among the $`n`$ mixed states shared by two parties, and proved in such a way that the role of (characters of) the underlying group $`(/d)^{2n}`$ becomes clear. (ii) We refine Bennett et al.’s observation . Namely, while they have discussed only asymptotically achievable rates, we will directly work with fidelity, and show that trade-offs between the fidelity and rates of quantum codes can be transformed into those between the fidelity and rates of one-way distillation protocols. (iii) We apply these arguments to the known results on quantum codes . Namely, we present exponential lower bounds on the largest fidelity that can be attained by one-way distillation protocols using the generalized formula in (i) and transformations in (ii). For example, reliable distillation with a positive asymptotic rate and exponential decay of unity minus fidelity is shown to be possible of a sequence of Bell states $`|00\pm |11,|01\pm |10`$ which occur according to the probability measure of a Markov chain.

## 2 Notation and Basic Notions

### 2.1 Entanglement Distillation

The set of all linear operators on a Hilbert space $``$ is denoted by $`()`$. As usual, states are represented as unit-trace positive semidefinite element of $`()`$ or sometimes, when they are pure, normal vectors in $``$. For a trace-preserving completely positive (TPCP) linear map $`:()()`$, we write $`\{M_i\}_{i𝒴}`$ if $`(\sigma )=_{i𝒴}M_i\sigma M_i^{}`$ (an operator-sum representation). The identity in $`()`$ is denoted by $`I`$ while the identity map from $`()`$ onto $`()`$ is denoted by $``$. We distinguish $`I`$ (or $``$) for different Hilbert spaces, say $`_\mathrm{A}`$, $`_{n,\mathrm{R}}`$, $`_\mathrm{T}^n_\mathrm{A}^n`$, etc., (by a rather loose notation) using subscripts, say, A, R, TA, etc., as in $`I_{\mathrm{TA}}`$.

Let $`_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`_\mathrm{B}`$ be Hilbert spaces of finite dimensions. Without loss of generality, we assume $`dim_\mathrm{A}=dim_\mathrm{B}`$ ($`=d`$). Our purpose is to distill a bipartite mixed state $`\rho _n`$ in $`(_\mathrm{A}^n_\mathrm{B}^n)`$ into a maximally entangled state

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{A},_\mathrm{B}}=\frac{1}{K}\underset{0j<K}{}|j_\mathrm{A}|j_\mathrm{B},$$
(1)
with some Hilbert spaces $`_{n,\mathrm{A}},_{n,\mathrm{B}}`$, and orthonormal systems $`_\mathrm{A}=\{|j_\mathrm{A}\}_{n,\mathrm{A}},_\mathrm{B}=\{|j_\mathrm{B}\}_{n,\mathrm{B}}`$ by a TPCP linear map

$$𝒟_n:(_\mathrm{A}^n_\mathrm{B}^n)(_{n,\mathrm{A}}_{n,\mathrm{B}}),$$

where $`𝒟_n`$ is in some presupposed class $`C`$ of distillation protocols. For any such pair $`(_\mathrm{A},_\mathrm{B})`$, we say $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{A},_\mathrm{B}}`$ is distillable or $`C`$-distillable from $`\rho _n`$ with fidelity

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{A},_\mathrm{B}}|𝒟_n(\rho _n)|\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{A},_\mathrm{B}}.$$

We want both fidelity and $`|_\mathrm{A}|=|_\mathrm{B}|`$ to be as large as possible, but there is a trade-off between them, which have been investigated from an information theoretic interest . Thus, we will estimate

$`F^{}(\rho _n,K)`$ $`=`$ $`F_C^{}(\rho _n,K)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`sup\left\{F\right|\begin{array}{c}\text{a state }|\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{A},_\mathrm{B}}\text{ with }|_\mathrm{A}|=|_\mathrm{B}|K\text{ is}\hfill \\ C\text{-distillable from }\rho _n\text{ with fidelity }F\hfill \end{array}\}`$
for a state $`\rho _n(_\mathrm{A}^n_\mathrm{B}^n)`$, where $`0<Kd^n`$ is a real number.

Our protocol using quantum codes to be discussed below is a simple one-way distillation protocol, which consists of one measurement on the (possibly locally enlarged) site A, and a local quantum operation (TPCP linear map) on the site B that may be chosen according to the measurement result on the site A. We may suppose $`C`$ denotes the class of such protocols, but we assume $`C`$ is the slightly more general class $`C_1`$ of 1-local operations following Rains’ lucid classification . Namely, unless otherwise mentioned, $`C=C_1`$ is assumed throughout and the subscript $`C`$ in $`F_C^{}(\rho _n,K)`$ or similar quantities will be suppressed.

It is remarked that requiring $`_{n,\mathrm{A}}=\mathrm{𝗌𝗉𝖺𝗇}_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`_{n,\mathrm{B}}=\mathrm{𝗌𝗉𝖺𝗇}_\mathrm{B}`$ in defining ‘$`C`$-distillable’, as in , does not change the above quantity $`F^{}(\rho _n,K)`$ when local measurements are allowed as in the present case where $`C=C_1`$. We will not enter into details of classification of distillation protocols, but only mention that $`C=C_1`$ represents the class of what we call one-way distillation protocols, $`C`$ is contained in (but significantly differs in capability  from) the class of two-way protocols, they are separable and hence positive partial transpose (PPT) ones .

### 2.2 Quantum Error Correction

Hereafter throughout the paper, $``$ is a Hilbert space with dimension $`d2`$. We will consider the situation where quantum states are transmitted through a quantum channel with input-output Hilbert space $``$, which is a sequence of TPCP linear maps $`\{𝒜_n\}`$ with

$$𝒜_n:(^n)(^n).$$

The map $`𝒜_n`$ with fixed $`n`$ is sometimes called a channel also. A quantum code is a pair $`(𝒞_n,_n)`$ that consists of a subspace $`𝒞_n^n`$ and a decoder, which is a TPCP linear map,

$`_n:(^n)(^n).`$
The subspace $`𝒞_n`$ alone is also called a quantum code.aaaWhereas we treat this class of coding schemes for simplicity, Theorem 1 below holds true if a more general class (those with encoding maps) are allowed as in , which will be clear from the proof.  While there are two fidelity measures often used for evaluating quantum codes, i.e., entanglement fidelity and minimum pure-state fidelity (minimum fidelity), we will mostly work with the entanglement fidelity since, as its name and definition suggest, it is directly related to entanglement distillation. Entanglement fidelity is defined as follows . Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒞`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞`$ denote the projection onto $`𝒞`$ and its normalization $`(dim𝒞)^1\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒞,`$ respectively. Then, given a quantum code as above with $`dim𝒞_n=K`$, we prepare a $`K`$-dimensional Hilbert space $`_{n,\mathrm{R}}`$, and a maximally entangled state

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{R},}=\frac{1}{K}\underset{0j<K}{}|j_\mathrm{R}|j,$$

where $`_\mathrm{R}=\{|j_\mathrm{R}\}_{0j<K}_{n,\mathrm{R}}`$ and $`=\{|j\}_{0j<K}^n`$ are systems of orthonormal vectors, and define the entanglement fidelity $`F_\mathrm{e}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞,)`$ for the state $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞`$ and a general TPCP map $``$ by

$$F_\mathrm{e}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞,)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{R},}|[_\mathrm{R}](|\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{R},}\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{R},}|)|\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{R},}.$$

The entanglement fidelity $`F_\mathrm{e}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞,)`$ does not depend on the choice of the purification $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{R},}`$ of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞`$ . Trade-offs between $`F_\mathrm{e}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞,𝒜_n)`$ and $`dim𝒞`$ have been investigated in the literature. Namely, the quantity of interest has been

$$F_{\mathrm{ch}}^{}(𝒜_n,K)=sup\left\{F\right|\begin{array}{c}\text{a quantum code }(𝒞,)\text{ exists with}\hfill \\ F_\mathrm{e}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞,𝒜_n)=F\text{ and }dim𝒞K\hfill \end{array}\}.$$
(5)
### 2.3 Capacity, Reliability Function and Their Analogues for Distillation

Given a channel $`\{𝒜_n\}`$, a number $`R0`$ is said to be an achievable rate on $`\{𝒜_n\}`$ if it satisfies

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}F_{\mathrm{ch}}^{}(𝒜_n,d^{Rn})=1.$$

The supremum of achievable rates on $`\{𝒜_n\}`$ is called the quantum capacity of $`\{𝒜_n\}`$ and denoted by $`𝖰(\{𝒜_n\})`$. A function $`E(R)0`$ is said to be an attainable (or achievable) error exponent if it satisfies

$$1F_{\mathrm{ch}}^{}(𝒜_n,d^{Rn})\mathrm{exp}_d[nE(R)+o(n)]$$

and the pointwise supremum of attainable exponents on $`\{𝒜_n\}`$ is called the reliability function (the optimum error exponent) of $`\{𝒜_n\}`$ and denoted by $`𝖤(R,\{𝒜_n\})`$.

Turning to entanglement distillation, for a sequence of states $`\{\rho _n\}`$, we can define the counterparts of $`𝖰(\{𝒜_n\})`$ and $`𝖤(R,\{𝒜_n\})`$, which this paper is concerned with. For example, the capacity analogue $`𝖣(\{\rho _n\})`$ is defined as the supremum of $`R`$ such that $`F^{}(\rho _n,d^{nR})=1`$. In the literature, $`𝖣(\{\rho ^n\})`$ is sometimes called the distillable entanglement of $`\rho `$.

### 2.4 Algebraic Structure Underlying Teleportation and Symplectic Codes

Algebraic structures underlie quantum mechanical phenomena  as well as schemes for quantum information processing such as teleportation protocols and symplectic (stabilizer) codes . In such quantum operations, the structure of $`_d=/d`$ is exploited, and its link to familiar Hilbert spaces is given by a projective (ray) representation $`N:uN_u`$ of $`_d\times _d`$, which is defined as follows . Fix an orthonormal basis $`\{|0,\mathrm{},|d1\}`$ of $``$, put $`𝒳=_d\times _d`$, and

$$N_{(i,j)}=X^iZ^j,(i,j)𝒳,$$

where $`X,Z()`$ are defined by

$$X|j=|j1,Z|j=\omega ^j|j,j_d$$
(6)
with $`\omega `$ being a primitive $`d`$-th root of unity. When $`d=2`$, this representation is essentially the same as the system of Pauli matrices with identity.

To deal with the larger system of $`^n`$, we put

$$N_y=N_{y_1}\mathrm{}N_{y_n}$$
(7)
for $`y=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_n)𝒳^n`$. We identify $`𝒳^n`$ with $`_d^{2n}`$ via the trivial correspondence

$$((x_1,z_1),\mathrm{},(x_n,z_n))(x_1,z_1,\mathrm{},x_n,z_n).$$

Observe the commutation relation

$$N_yN_y^{}=\omega ^{(y,y^{})_{\mathrm{sp}}}N_y^{}N_y,$$
(8)
where

$$(y,y^{})_{\mathrm{sp}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_iz_i^{}z_ix_i^{}$$
(9)
for $`y=(x_1,z_1,\mathrm{},x_n,z_n)`$ and $`y^{}=(x_1^{},z_1^{},\mathrm{},x_n^{},z_n^{})_d^{2n}`$.

## 3 Teleportation Channel

It is known that for every unitary basis of $`()`$ which is orthonormal with respect to the normalized Hilbert-Schmidt inner product, there exists a teleportation protocol using it . Since Weyl’s basis $`\{N_y\}_{y𝒳^n}`$ is such a unitary basis , we have a teleportation protocol using it that teleports states in $`^n`$. Note that

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_y=\frac{1}{d^{n/2}}\underset{l_d^n}{}|lN_y|l,y_d^{2n},$$

and

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_x^{}=\frac{1}{d^{n/2}}\underset{l_d^n}{}N_x|l|l,x_d^{2n},$$

where $`|(l_1,\mathrm{},l_n)=|l_1\mathrm{}|l_n`$, form orthonormal bases of $`^n^n`$ .

We will present a concrete expression of the teleportation channel for Weyl’s basis $`\{N_y\}_{y𝒳^n}`$, which allows us to treat correlated states. We will prove this in a simple manner using a property of the underlying additive group $`_d^{2n}`$ for arbitrary integers $`d2,n1`$.

To describe the protocol, we prepare $`_\mathrm{A}^n`$, $`_\mathrm{B}^n`$ and $`_\mathrm{T}^n`$, where the Hilbert spaces $`_\mathrm{A}`$, $`_\mathrm{B}`$ and $`_\mathrm{T}`$ have the same dimension $`d`$ (see Fig. 3 ignoring $`_{n,\mathrm{R}}`$ and $``$).

We will often identify $`_\mathrm{A}`$, $`_\mathrm{B}`$ and $`_\mathrm{T}`$ with $``$ having a basis $`\{|j\}_{j_d}`$. Given a bipartite state $`\rho _n`$ in $`(_\mathrm{A}^n_\mathrm{B}^n)`$, sender A teleports a state in $`_\mathrm{T}^n`$ to receiver B. The entire process of the teleportation on the systems of A, B and T can be represented by an operator-sum representation

$$𝒯(\sigma \rho _n)=\underset{x_d^{2n}}{}T_x(\sigma \rho _n)T_x^{}$$
(10)
where $`\sigma (_\mathrm{T}^n)`$ is the state to be teleported, and

$$T_x=(I_{\mathrm{TA}}N_x)(|\mathrm{\Psi }_x^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_x^{}|I_\mathrm{B})=|\mathrm{\Psi }_x^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_x^{}|N_x.$$
(11)
It is natural to ask how $`\sigma `$ changes during the teleportation for arbitrary bipartite mixed states $`\rho _n`$. This state change, which is of course a TPCP linear map, will be denoted by $`\chi _{\rho _n}`$ and called a teleportation channel. The next lemma answers the question.

###### Lemma 1

The teleportation channel $`\chi _{\rho _n}`$ for the above protocol is given by

$$\chi _{\rho _n}(\sigma )=\underset{x_d^{2n}}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_x|\rho _n|\mathrm{\Psi }_xN_x\sigma N_x^{}.$$

Proof. It is enough to calculate (10) for $`\sigma =|uv|`$, $`u,v_d^n`$. Write $`\rho _n`$ as

$$\rho _n=\underset{y,z_d^{2n}}{}\alpha _{y,z}|\mathrm{\Psi }_y\mathrm{\Psi }_z|,$$
(12)
and note that by (6),

$$N_x|l=\omega ^{bl}|la$$
(13)
for $`x=(a_1,b_1,\mathrm{},a_n,b_n)`$, $`a=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$, $`b=(b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$, $`l=(l_1,\mathrm{},l_n)`$, and

$$bl=\underset{i}{}b_il_i.$$

Then, (11) can be rewritten as

$$T_x=\frac{1}{d^n}\underset{l,m}{}\omega ^{b(lm)}|lama||lm|N_x,$$
(14)
with which the summand in (10) can be calculated as

$`T_x(|uv|\rho _n)T_x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^{3n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l,l^{}}{}}\omega ^{b(lul^{}+v)}|lal^{}a|`$
$`|ll^{}|{\displaystyle \underset{y,z}{}}\alpha _{y,z}N_xN_y|u+av+a|N_z^{}N_x^{}.`$
Using (8) and (13), we then have

$$T_x(|uv|\rho _n)T_x^{}=\frac{1}{d^{2n}}\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }_x^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_x^{}|\underset{y,z}{}\alpha _{y,z}\omega ^{(x,yz)_{\mathrm{sp}}}N_y|uv|N_z^{}\right).$$
(15)
We take partial trace of the both sides of (15) over the systems of T and A, and sum them over $`x_d^{2n}`$ noting that

$$\underset{x_d^{2n}}{}\omega ^{(x,yz)_{\mathrm{sp}}}=0\text{whenever}yz,$$
(16)
which holds because $`f_{yz}:x\omega ^{(x,yz)_{\mathrm{sp}}}`$ is a character of $`_d^{2n}`$ (see the next paragraph). Thus, we find the teleportation channel $`\chi _{\rho _n}`$ is

$$\chi _{\rho _n}(\sigma )=\underset{y_d^{2n}}{}\alpha _{y,y}N_y\sigma N_y^{},$$

as claimed. $`\mathrm{}`$

We include a short proof of (16), though it is merely a property of characters of groups. Put $`f(x)=f_a(x)=\omega ^{(x,a)_{\mathrm{sp}}}`$, $`a_d^{2n}`$. Then, for any $`x^{}`$,

$$f(x^{})\underset{x_d^{2n}}{}f(x)=\underset{x_d^{2n}}{}f(x^{}+x)=\underset{x_d^{2n}}{}f(x).$$

Hence, if $`f(x^{})1`$ for some $`x^{}_d^{2n}`$, which is true for $`a0`$, we have $`_{x_d^{2n}}f(x)=0`$, as desired.

It should be mentioned that there is an inverse process that associate a bipartite mixed state with a channel (TPCP map) . The map is

$$𝖬(𝒜)=[𝒜](|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\mathrm{\Psi }_0|).$$
(17)
Its matrix is Choi’s matrix divided by $`d^n`$ . Note that when $`\rho _n`$ is written in the form (12), we have $`𝖬(\chi _{\rho _n})=\rho _n`$ if and only if $`(\alpha _{y,z})`$ is diagonal.

It may be worth mentioning that another more straightforward calculation using (16) gives a formula for a discrete ‘twirling’, which is effectively known \[1, Appendix A\], \[19, Sec. II.B\]:

$$\frac{1}{d^{2n}}\underset{x_d^{2n}}{}(\overline{N_x}N_x)\rho _n(\overline{N_x}N_x)^{}=\underset{y_d^{2n}}{}\alpha _{y,y}|\mathrm{\Psi }_y\mathrm{\Psi }_y|$$
(18)
for $`\rho _n`$ in (12), where $`l|\overline{N_x}|m`$ is the complex conjugate of $`l|N_x|m`$, $`l,m_d^n`$. In general, the resultant states are less disordered (i.e., have less entropy) than those obtained with the continuous or full twirling .

## 4 Using Quantum Codes for Entanglement Distillation

Bennett et al. \[1, p.3840, Sec. V.C\] argued that an achievable rate for a quantum channel by quantum codes is also achievable as a distillation rate for the corresponding bipartite states by one-way distillation protocols. In this section, we refine this argument working directly with fidelity rather than achievable rates.

Bennett et al.’s distillation process \[1, Fig.14\] using a quantum code with no encoding map can be visualized as in Figure 3. Suppose we are given a quantum code $`(𝒞^n,)`$ with $`dim𝒞=K`$, which works on the teleportation channel $`\chi _{\rho _n}`$, a $`K`$-dimensional Hilbert space $`_{n,\mathrm{R}}`$ and $`n`$ copies of $`_\mathrm{T}`$ on site A, and a purification of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞`$, i.e., a maximally entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{R},_\mathrm{T}}`$ where $`_\mathrm{R}=\{|j_\mathrm{R}\}_{0j<K}_{n,\mathrm{R}}`$ and $`_\mathrm{T}=\{|j\}_{0j<K}𝒞_\mathrm{T}^n`$ are orthonormal systems. Here we identify $`_\mathrm{T}^n`$ and $`_\mathrm{B}^n`$ with $`^n`$ via isomorphisms. We perform the teleportation protocol in Section 3 with the bipartite state $`\rho _n(_\mathrm{A}^n_\mathrm{B}^n)`$ leaving the system of $`_{n,\mathrm{R}}`$ untouched, and then the recovery operation $``$ on the site B. The role of the code $`(𝒞^n,)`$ is to transmit entanglement shared with the system of $`_{n,\mathrm{R}}`$ from $`_\mathrm{T}^n`$ to $`_\mathrm{B}^n`$, and we see by the definition of entanglement fidelity, the fidelity of this distillation protocol is given by that of the code $`(𝒞,)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{R},_\mathrm{B}}|𝒟_n(\rho _n)|\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{R},_\mathrm{B}}=F_\mathrm{e}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞,\chi _{\rho _n}),$$
(19)
where $`𝒟_n(\rho _n)=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒦[(_{\mathrm{RTA}})(_\mathrm{R}𝒯)](|\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{R},_\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{_\mathrm{R},_\mathrm{T}}|\rho _n)`$, $`𝒦=_\mathrm{T}^n_\mathrm{A}^n`$, and $`_\mathrm{B}`$ is the image of $`_\mathrm{T}`$ under the isomorphism. We summarize the above argument in the following statement.

###### Theorem 1

Let $``$ be a finite-dimensional Hilbert space. Whenever a quantum code $`(𝒞^n,:(^n)(^n))`$ with $`K=dim𝒞`$ exists, we have

$$F^{}(\rho _n,K)F_\mathrm{e}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞,\chi _{\rho _n})$$

for any state $`\rho _n(^n^n)`$. In other words,

$$F^{}(\rho _n,K)F_{\mathrm{ch}}^{}(\chi _{\rho _n},K)$$

for any $`0<Kd^n`$.

This implies for any $`\{\rho _n\}`$,

$$𝖰(\{\chi _{\rho _n}\})𝖣(\{\rho _n\}),$$
(20)
which was known for $`\rho _n=\rho ^n`$ . Clearly, Theorem 1 as well as (20) is true for an arbitrary teleportation scheme  or any other operation that defines a map $`\chi _{\rho _n}`$ similarly and is allowed in the presupposed class $`C`$ of distillation protocols, though concrete expressions for $`\chi _{\rho _n}`$ seem unknown except for the teleportation with $`\{N_y\}_{y_d^{2n}}`$.

The bounds  on $`1F_\mathrm{e}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞,𝒜_n)`$ to be used in the next section were originally claimed in terms of minimum (pure-state) fidelity in place of entanglement fidelity $`F_\mathrm{e}`$. However, we have the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2

\[13, Theorem 2\] For any TPCP linear map $``$,

$$1\underset{|\phi 𝒞}{\mathrm{min}}\phi |(|\phi \phi |)|\phi G,$$

where $`|\phi `$ is normalized, implies

$$1F_\mathrm{e}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞,)\frac{3}{2}G.$$

In most asymptotic settings, the factor $`\frac{3}{2}`$ is negligible. Using Lemma 1 and 2, we obtain the following corollary to Theorem 1 where $`N_J=\{N_xxJ\}`$ for $`J𝒳^n`$ and the term ‘$`N_J`$-correcting’ is in the sense of Knill and Laflamme .

###### Corollary 1

Let $`(𝒞,)`$ be an $`N_J`$-correcting code with $`K=dim𝒞`$. Then,

$$1F^{}(\rho _n,K)\frac{3}{2}\underset{x_d^{2n}:xJ}{}P_n(x)$$

for a bipartite state $`\rho _n(^n^n)`$, where $`P_n(x)`$ is given by

$$P_n(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }_x|\rho _n|\mathrm{\Psi }_x,x_d^{2n}.$$

Note that this corollary allows any correlation in $`\rho _n`$ among the $`2n`$ factor systems. Note also that widely investigated symplectic codes  have enough flexibility to cope with such general states $`\rho _n`$ in principle. To see this, recall that a symplectic code is obtained from a subspace $`L_d^{2n}`$ that are contained in the symplectic dual $`L^{}`$ of $`L`$. If we choose a vector $`\widehat{x}(s)`$ from each coset $`s`$ of $`L^{}`$ in $`_d^{2n}`$, and denote the set of coset representatives $`\widehat{x}(s)`$ by $`J_0`$, we have $`N_J`$-correcting symplectic codes $`(𝒞,)`$ where $`J=J_0+L`$ (see  for a self-contained exposition). A natural choice for $`\{\widehat{x}(s)\}`$ is one that, at least nearly, maximizes $`P_n(J)=_{xJ}P_n(x)`$. In fact, the bounds on $`F_{\mathrm{ch}}^{}(𝒜_n,d^{Rn})`$ in Section 5 below were proved with such choices. Observe that nothing was assumed here on the probability distribution $`P_n`$ or on the state $`\rho _n`$ to be distilled. It is remarked that if $`𝒞`$ is a symplectic code, the factor $`\frac{3}{2}`$ in the bound in Corollary 1 can be removed since $`F_\mathrm{e}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞,\chi _{\rho _n})=P_n(J)`$ for the above set $`J`$ and the corresponding codes $`(𝒞,)`$.

## 5 Known Results on Quantum Codes and Their Implications

In this section, we give more concrete exponential lower bounds on the fidelity of distillation and those on $`𝖣(\{\rho _n\})`$ assuming $`d`$ is a prime.

### 5.1 Distillation of Independent Mixed States

We begin with the easy case in which $`\rho _n`$ are the tensor power $`\rho ^n`$ of a state $`\rho (_\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{B})`$. By Lemma 1, the teleportation channel $`\chi _{\rho _n}`$ can be written as $`\chi _\rho ^n`$ with $`\chi _\rho \{\sqrt{P(u)}N_u\}_{u𝒳}`$, where $`P=P_\rho `$ is the probability distribution on $`𝒳`$ given by

$$P_\rho (u)=\mathrm{\Psi }_u|\rho |\mathrm{\Psi }_u,u𝒳=_d^2.$$

A known exponential bound for the channel $`\{\chi _\rho ^n\}`$ has the form

$$1F_{\mathrm{ch}}^{}(\chi _\rho ^n,d^{Rn})\mathrm{exp}_d[n\underset{L}{sup}\widehat{E}_L(R,P_\rho )+o(n)],$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{exp}_dx=d^x`$ and the supremum is taken over all self-orthogonal even-length subspaces $`L`$ of $`_d^{2n}`$ with $`d`$ prime . We will not give the specifications of $`\widehat{E}_L(R,P)`$ here but only recall that when $`L`$ consists solely of the zero vector, $`\widehat{E}_L(R,P)`$ is the same as the simple one $`E(R,P)=\mathrm{min}_Q[D(Q||P)+|1H(Q)R|^+]`$ (see  for the details), which still gives the best numerical lower bound known for most channels.

These bounds are applicable to entanglement distillation through Theorem 1:

$`1F^{}(\rho ^n,d^{nR})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}_d[n\underset{L}{sup}\widehat{E}_L(R,P_\rho )+o(n)]`$ (22)
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}_d[nE(R,P_\rho )+o(n)].`$ (23)
The lower bounds on $`𝖣(\{\rho ^n\})`$ that directly follow from these bounds are

$`𝖣(\{\rho ^n\})`$ $``$ $`\underset{m>0}{sup}\underset{𝒞:\mathrm{symplectic}\mathrm{code}^m}{sup}I_\mathrm{c}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞,\chi _\rho ^m)/m`$ (24)
$``$ $`I_\mathrm{c}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{},\chi _\rho )=1H(P_\rho ),`$ (25)
where $`I_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`H`$ denote coherent information and entropy, respectively, the bound in (25) follows from (23) and that $`E(R,P_\rho )>0`$ whenever $`R<1H(P_\rho )`$ , and (24) follows from (22) similarly . In (24), the supremum is taken over all symplectic codes designed with the same basis $`\{N_x\}_{x𝒳}`$ as we use for the teleportation protocol.

### 5.2 Distillation of Mixed States with Classical Markovian Correlation

In this subsection, we consider a sequence of states $`\{\rho _n\}`$ with certain correlation. For a motivation, imagine, by means of a Gedankenexperiment, we were given a sequence of states $`\{\rho _n\}`$ and could perform the bipartite measurement

$$\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_x\mathrm{\Psi }_x|\}_{x_d^{2n}},$$

i.e., $`n`$ trials of the bipartite measurement $`\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_u\mathrm{\Psi }_u|\}_{u_d^2}`$. Then, we would obtain, as measurement results, random variables $`𝖷_1,\mathrm{},𝖷_n`$ taking values in $`_d^2`$ such that $`\mathrm{Pr}\{(𝖷_1,\mathrm{},𝖷_n)=x\}=\mathrm{\Psi }_x|\rho _n|\mathrm{\Psi }_x=P_n(x)`$. This distribution is exactly the same as that appearing in the expression for $`\chi _{\rho _n}`$ in Lemma 1. Those $`\{\rho _n\}`$ for which $`𝖷_1,\mathrm{},𝖷_n`$ are independent identically distributed random variables, viz., $`P_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_2)=P(x_1)\mathrm{}P(x_n)`$, have been treated in the previous subsection. We will consider a more general case, where $`𝖷_1,𝖷_2,\mathrm{},`$ form a homogeneous (first-order) Markov chain, viz.,

$$P_n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=p(x_1)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}P(x_{j+1}|x_j)$$
(26)
for some transition probabilities $`P(v|u)`$, $`u,v𝒳`$, and some initial distribution $`p`$. If the Markov chain is irreducible, then by Theorem 1 and the known bound on $`𝖰(\{\chi _{\rho _n}\})`$ , we have

$$𝖣(\{\rho _n\})1H(P|q)$$
(27)
where $`H(P|q)`$ is the entropy of $`P(|)`$ conditional on the unique stationary distribution $`q`$ of the Markov chain. For an attainable error exponent, see .

Example 1. Let us assume $`d=2`$ and define $`P(v|u)`$ by

$$P((0,0)|u)=1\epsilon _u\text{and}P(v|u)=\epsilon _u/3\text{ for }v(0,0),$$

$`0<\epsilon _u<1`$, $`u𝒳`$. Then, (27) becomes

$$𝖣(\{\rho _n\})1\underset{u𝒳}{}q(u)[h(\epsilon _u)+\epsilon _u\mathrm{log}_23],$$

where $`h(z)=z\mathrm{log}_2z(1z)\mathrm{log}_2(1z)`$. Note that when $`\epsilon _u`$ is independent of $`u`$, $`\{\rho _n\}`$ is a sequence of identical isotropic states, and the bound becomes the known one . $`\mathrm{}`$

The bound in (27) is also true when the support of the initial distribution $`p`$ is contained in an equivalence class $`𝒳^{}𝒳`$, where the equivalence relation holds between $`u`$ and $`v𝒳`$ if $`u`$ and $`v`$ lead to each other, i.e., if $`P^{(n)}(v|u)>0`$ and $`P^{(m)}(u|v)>0`$ for some positive integers $`n`$ and $`m`$ with $`[P^{(n)}(v|u)]`$ being the $`n`$-th power of the matrix $`[P(v|u)]`$ ; in this case, $`q`$ is to be understood as the unique stationary distribution $`q`$ whose support is $`𝒳^{}`$. To see this, it is enough to notice that the probability of occurrence of any $`x𝒳^{}`$ vanishes, so that we can safely replace $`𝒳`$ by $`𝒳^{}`$ in deriving the bound .

Example 2. Let us assume $`\rho _n`$ can be written in the form

$$\rho _n=\underset{x𝒳^n}{}P_n(x)|\mathrm{\Psi }_x\mathrm{\Psi }_x|$$

with (26), there exists an equivalence class $`𝒳^{}`$ which is contained in $`\{(0,v)v_d\}`$, and the initial distribution $`p`$ is the stationary one $`q`$ whose support is $`𝒳^{}`$. (The corresponding channel $`\chi _{\rho _n}`$ is a probabilistic mixture of conjugation actions of tensor products of several $`Z`$ and $`I`$.) Then, the bound (27) is tight for this sequence of states (even in the wider class of PPT distillation protocols), which has been known for the special case where the Markov chain is a sequence of independent, identically distributed random variables . This can be shown by examining the derivation of Rains’ upper bound . As a byproduct, $`𝖰(\{\chi _{\rho _n}\})=1H(P|q)`$ is concluded by (20) for this example. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6 Concluding Remarks

We have presented an explicit formula of the teleportation channel $`\chi _{\rho _n}`$ using Weyl’s projective representation of $`(/d)^{2n}`$, and have seen that the optimum fidelity $`F^{}(\rho _n,K)`$ of a one-way distillation scheme is lower-bounded by that of quantum codes $`F_{\mathrm{ch}}^{}(\chi _{\rho _n},K)`$. An application of these results has shown that reliable distillation from correlated mixed states is possible.

Symplectic codes can be used for entanglement distillation in another way, as argued by Shor and Preskill in a security proof for quantum key distribution . Using this scheme and (18), we can reproduce the lower bounds on $`F^{}(\rho _n,K)`$ in Section 5, though the derivation applies only to a restricted class of codes and hence does not imply Theorem 1 or (20).

The problem of determining the optimum achievable rates is not yet settled even for distillation from identical copies of bipartite states, whether the allowed protocols are one-way or two-way (or seemingly more tractable PPT ones), and further investigation is awaited (e.g., ). Recently, P. Shor announced that the known upper bound on the quantum capacity written with coherent information  is actually the quantum capacity (MSRI Workshop, MSRI, Berkeley, California, Nov. 2002). This implies $`𝖣(\{\rho ^n\})`$
$`sup_{m>0}sup_{\sigma (^m):\mathrm{state}}`$ $`I_\mathrm{c}(\sigma ,\chi _\rho ^m)/m=sup_{m>0}sup_{𝒞:\mathrm{subspace}\mathrm{of}^m}I_\mathrm{c}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_𝒞,\chi _\rho ^m)/m`$,
where the equality is due to Lemma 1 of  (also ). It is not known if this bound is strictly greater than that in (24).

## Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank D. W. Leung for a useful conversation on a discrete twirling. He is grateful to K. Matsumoto and H. Imai of the QCI project for support.

## References


format: text

text:
# Universal Ratios and Correlation Functions11footnote 1 Talk presented by G. Mussardo.

## 1 Introduction

One of the most important successes of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) in recent years is the quantitative analysis of the universality classes of two–dimensional statistical mechanical models near their second order phase transition points. This has been possible, in particular, thanks to new developments in the methods of computing off–critical correlation functions. The aim of this talk is to review some of the recent results relative to these two important subjects. Our discussion is divided in two parts: in the first part, we shall see how correlation functions can be used to extract useful numbers (the so–called universal ratios) that can be directly compared with experiments. In the second part, we shall concentrate on a particularly interesting class of models, those of fermionic and bosonic theories with a $`Z_n`$ symmetry, for which there is an elegant approach to derive differential equations satisfied by the two–point functions of their disorder operators.

## 2 Universal Amplitude Ratios

Consider a statistical model with $`n`$ relevant fields $`\phi _i(x)`$ at criticality. Near the critical point, its action can be parameterised as

$$𝒜=𝒜_{CFT}+g_i\phi _i(x)d^Dx,$$
(1)
where $`𝒜_{CFT}`$ is the action which encodes the data of the Conformal Field Theory of the critical point. The short–distance behaviour of the two–point functions is given by

$$\phi _i(x)\phi _i(0)\frac{1}{|x|^{4\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}$$

for $`|x|0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is the conformal dimension of the operator $`\phi _i`$. Hence, their conjugate coupling constants $`g_i`$ behave as $`g_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_i},`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a mass scale. Away from criticality there will be generally a finite correlation length $`\xi `$ which in the thermodynamical limit scales as $`\xi a(K_ig_i)^{\frac{1}{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}},`$ where $`a\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ may be regarded as a microscopic length scale. The dimensionless quantities $`K_i`$ are non–universal metric factors specific of the system representing the universality class and depending on the units chosen for measuring the external sources $`g_i`$. If there are several deformations of the conformal action, the most general expression for the scaling form of the correlation length may be written as

$$\xi =\xi _ia(K_ig_i)^{\frac{1}{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}_i\left(\frac{K_jg_j}{(K_ig_i)^{\varphi _{ji}}}\right),$$
(2)
where $`\varphi _{ji}\frac{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}`$ are the so–called crossover exponents whereas $`_i`$ are universal homogeneous scaling functions of the ratios $`\frac{K_jg_j}{(K_ig_i)^{\varphi _{ji}}}`$. There are of course several (but equivalent) ways of expressing these scaling forms, depending on which coupling constant is selected as a prefactor. In the limit where $`g_l0`$ ($`li`$) but $`g_i0`$, equation (2) becomes

$$\xi _i=a\xi _i^0g_i^{\frac{1}{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}},\xi _i^0K_i^{\frac{1}{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}.$$
(3)
Let us consider now the free–energy $`\widehat{f}[g_1,\mathrm{},g_n]`$, a dimensionless quantity defined by

$$e^{\widehat{f}(g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)}=𝒟\varphi e^{\left[𝒜_{CFT}+_{i=1}^ng_i{\scriptscriptstyle \phi _i(x)d^Dx}\right]}.$$
(4)
Under the hypothesis of hyperscaling, its singular part (per unit of volume) $`f[g_1,\mathrm{},g_n]`$ is proportional, in the thermodynamical limit, to the $`D`$-th power of the correlation length. Depending on the scaling form adopted for the correlation length, we have correspondingly several (but equivalent) ways of parameterizing this quantity

$$f_i[g_1,\mathrm{},g_n]\left(K_ig_i\right)^{\frac{D}{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}_i\left(\frac{K_jg_j}{(K_ig_i)^{\varphi _{ji}}}\right).$$
(5)
The functions $`_i`$ are universal homogeneous scaling functions of the ratios $`\frac{K_jg_j}{(K_ig_i)^{\varphi _{ji}}}`$.

From the above expression we can derive the expectation values of several quantities. We will use the notation $`\mathrm{}_i`$ to denote expectation values computed in the off–critical theory obtained by keeping (at the end) only the coupling constant $`g_i`$ different from zero. Basic quantities are the vacuum expectation values (VEV) of the fields $`\phi _j`$ which can be parameterized as

$$\phi _j_i=\frac{f_i}{g_j}|_{g_l=0}B_{ji}g_i^{\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}},$$
(6)
with

$$B_{ji}K_jK_i^{\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}.$$
(7)
The above relations can be equivalently expressed as

$$g_i=D_{ij}\left(\phi _j_i\right)^{\frac{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}},$$
(8)
with

$$D_{ij}\frac{1}{K_iK_j^{\frac{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}}}.$$
(9)
The generalized susceptibilities of the model are defined by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^i=\frac{}{g_k}\phi _j_i=\frac{^2f_i}{g_kg_j}|_{g_l=0}.$$
(10)
They are obviously symmetrical in the two lower indices. By extracting their dependence on the coupling constant $`g_i`$, they can be expressed as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^ig_i^{\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_j+2\mathrm{\Delta }_kD}{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}},$$
(11)
with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^iK_jK_kK_i^{\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_j+2\mathrm{\Delta }_kD}{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}.$$
(12)
The various quantities obtained by taking the derivatives of the free–energy obviously contain the quantities $`K_i`$ which make their values not universal. However, it is easy and always possible to consider special combinations thereof in such a way to cancel out all metric factors. Universal Ratios usually considered in the literature are those given below

$$(R_c)_{jk}^i=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ii}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i}{B_{ji}B_{ki}};$$
(13)
$$(R_\chi )_j^i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj}^iD_{jj}B_{ji}^{\frac{D4\mathrm{\Delta }_j}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}};$$
(14)
$$R_\xi ^i=\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ii}^i\right)^{1/D}\xi _i^0;$$
(15)
$$(R_A)_j^i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj}^iD_{ii}^{\frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }_j+2\mathrm{\Delta }_i2D}{D2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}B_{ij}^{\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_jD}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}};$$
(16)
$$(Q_2)_{jk}^i=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj}^i}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj}^k}\left(\frac{\xi _k^0}{\xi _j^0}\right)^{D4\mathrm{\Delta }_j}.$$
(17)
From their definition, these quantities are pure numbers attached to the universality classes and therefore they can be used to characterize them. Contrary to the critical exponents (which are characteristic of the critical point) they carry information about the scaling region. Moreover, the amplitude ratios are numbers which typically present significant variations between different classes of universality, whereas the critical exponents usually assume small values which only vary by a small percent when changing the universality class. Hence the universal ratios may be ideal marks of the critical scaling regime . It is also worth emphasizing that, from an experimental point of view, it should be simpler to measure universal amplitude ratios rather than critical exponents: to determine the former quantities one needs to perform several measurements at a single, fixed value of the coupling which drives the system away from criticality whereas to determine the latter, one needs to make measurements over several decades along the axes of the off–critical couplings. Moreover, although not all of them are independent, the universal ratios are a larger set of numbers than the critical exponents and therefore permit a more precise determination of the class of universality.

## 3 Quantum Field Theory Approach

It is interesting to see how in two dimensions Quantum Field Theory provides a powerful approach to compute the Universal Ratios of a given class of universality in a non-perturbative way. In the following we concentrate mostly our attention on the off–critical models obtained as deformations of the so–called Minimal Models of two–dimensional Conformal Field Theory .

As we have seen before, each coupling constant $`g_i`$ relative to the relevant operator $`\phi _i(x)`$ of the model under investigation is a dimensional quantity which can be related to the lowest mass–gap $`m_i=\xi _i^1`$ of the off–critical theory according to the formula

$$m_i=𝒞_ig_i^{\frac{1}{22\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}.$$
(18)
When the QFT associated to the action (1) is integrable, the pure number $`𝒞_i`$ can be exactly determined by means of the Thermodynamical Bethe Ansatz . When the theory is not integrable, the constant $`𝒞_i`$ can be nevertheless determined by a numerical method, based on the so–called Truncated Conformal Space Approach . In conclusion, for all individual deformations of a given model, we are able to completely set the relationship which links the coupling constant to the mass–gap of the theory and therefore to switch freely between these two variables.

Additional quantities which can be determined by QFT are the matrix elements of the order parameters, the simplest ones being the vacuum expectation values (VEV). They are parameterised as

$$\phi _j_i=B_{ji}g_i^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}{1\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}.$$
(19)
When the theory is integrable, the constant $`B_{ji}`$ can be fixed exactly, thanks to the results of a remarkable series of papers . When it is not integrable, the constant $`B_{ji}`$ can be nevertheless estimated by means of a numerical approach, as firstly shown in . Hence, we are able to determine completely also these quantities. Moreover, as shown in , a generalization of the numerical approach of ref.  often leads to a reasonable estimate of the matrix elements of the order parameters between the vacuum states and some of the excited states, as for instance $`0|\phi _j|A_k_i`$ where $`A_k`$ is a one–particle state of mass $`M_k`$. These quantities turn out to be useful for obtaining sensible approximation of the large–distance behavior of several correlators.

Another important and useful piece of information on the off–critical models can be obtained by exploiting the properties of the stress–energy tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }(x)`$. In the presence of the perturbing field $`\phi _i`$, the trace of the stress–energy tensor is given by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=2\pi g_i(22\mathrm{\Delta }_i)\phi _i.$$
(20)
It enters a useful sum rule, the so called $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$–theorem

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_j=\frac{1}{4\pi \phi _j_i}d^2x\mathrm{\Theta }(x)\phi _j(0)_i^c,$$
(21)
which relates the conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ of the field $`\phi _j`$ to its VEV and to the integral of its connected off–critical correlator with $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$. It is easy to see that the above formula simply expresses the content of the fluctuation–dissipation theorem and when the above integral diverges, so does the VEV in the denominator, in such a way that eq. (21) always keeps its validity .

As discussed above, basic quantities entering the universal ratios are the generalized susceptibilities $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$. By using the fluctuation–dissipation theorem, they are given by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^i=d^2x\phi _j(x)\phi _k(0)_i^c.$$
(22)
By extracting their dependence on the coupling constant $`g_i`$, we have $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^ig_i^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_j+\mathrm{\Delta }_k1}{1\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}`$ with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i=𝒞_i^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_j+2\mathrm{\Delta }_k2}𝑑\tau \frac{1}{\tau ^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_j+2\mathrm{\Delta }_k}}Q_{jk}(\tau ).$$
(23)
Some of the above susceptibilities can be determined exactly, such as the components $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^i`$, whose values are provided by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$–theorem sum rule

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^i=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_k}{1\mathrm{\Delta }_k}B_{ki}.$$
(24)
In all other cases, when an exact formula is not available, the strategy to evaluate the generalized susceptibilities relies on two different possible representations of the correlators. As we will see, these representations have the advantage of converging very rapidly in two distinct regions and to smoothly join in between.

The first representation is based on Conformal Perturbation Theory (with the use of the non–analytic expression of the VEV) . In this approach the two–point correlators are expressed as

$$\phi _i(x)\phi _j(0)=\underset{p}{}C_{ij}^p(g;x)A_p(0)$$
(25)
where the structure functions $`C_{jk}^p(g;x)`$ admit the expansion

$$C_{ij}^p(g;x)=r^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }_p\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{\Delta }_j)}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_{i,j}^{p(n)}(gr^{22\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }})^n,$$
(26)
($`r=x`$) and can be computed perturbatively in $`g`$, the coupling conjugated to the perturbing operator $`\phi `$. For instance, the first order correction to the conformal structure constant $`C_{i,j}^{p(0)}`$ is determined by

$$C_{i,j}^{p(1)}=^{}d^2wA^p(\mathrm{})\phi (w)\phi _i(1)\phi _j(0)_{CFT},$$
(27)
where the prime indicates a suitable infrared (large distance) regularization of the integral. This representation allows a very efficient estimate of the correlation function in its short distance regime $`r\xi `$.

The second representation is based on the Form Factors (which will be discussed in more detail below) and allows an efficient control of the large distance behavior, i.e. when $`r\xi `$. In this second representation, one makes use of the knowledge of the off–critical mass spectrum of the theory to express the correlators as

$$\phi _i(x)\phi _j(0)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_{i,j}^{(n)}(r),$$
(28)
where

$`g_{i,j}^{(n)}(r)={\displaystyle _{\theta _1>\theta _2\mathrm{}>\theta _n}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta _1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta _n}{2\pi }}e^{r_{k=1}^nm_k\mathrm{cosh}\theta _k}`$
$`\times 0|\phi _i(0)|\mathrm{}A_{a_n}(\theta _n)\mathrm{}A_{a_n}(\theta _n)|\phi _j(0)|0.`$
$`|A_{a_1}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}A_{a_n}(\theta _n)`$ are the multi–particle states relative to the excitations of mass $`m_k`$, with relativistic dispersion relations given by $`E=m_k\mathrm{cosh}\theta `$, $`p=m_k\mathrm{sinh}\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the rapidity variable. The spectral representation (3) is an expansion in the parameter $`e^{\frac{r}{\xi }}`$, where $`\xi ^1=m_1`$ is the lowest mass–gap.

Basic quantities of the large distance approach are the Form Factors (FF), i.e. the matrix elements of the operators $`\phi _i`$ on the physical asymptotic states

$$F_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n}^{\phi _i}(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n)=0|\phi _i(0)|A_{a_1}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}A_{a_n}(\theta _n).$$
(29)
For scalar operators, relativistic invariance requires that the FF only depend on the rapidity differences $`\theta _i\theta _j`$. In integrable quantum field theories the FF are solutions of some functional equations  which will be recalled in the next section. It is worth to stress that for most of the operators, it is sufficient to insert into the spectral representations only their one–particle and two–particle FF in order to reach a very reasonable estimate of the correlators.

In conclusion, both the expansions (25) and (28) converge very rapidly in their domain (see, for instance ) and therefore it is possible to estimate the integral (22) by following this procedure:

1. Express the integral in polar coordinates as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^i=2\pi _0^+\mathrm{}𝑑rr\phi _j(r)\phi _k(0)_c^i,$$
(30)
and split the radial integral into two pieces as

$`I={\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑rr\phi _j(r)\phi _k(0)_c^i`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^R}𝑑rr\mathrm{}_c^i+{\displaystyle _R^+\mathrm{}}𝑑rr\mathrm{}_c^i`$
$`I_1(R)+I_2(R).`$ (31)
2. Use the best available short–distance representation of the correlator to evaluate $`I_1(R)`$ as well as the best available estimate of its large–distance representation to evaluate $`I_2(R)`$.
3. Optimize the choice of the parameter $`R`$ in such a way to obtain the best evaluation of the whole integral. In practice, this means looking at that value of $`R`$ for which a plateau is obtained for the sum of $`I_1(R)`$ and $`I_2(R)`$. Said in another way, $`R`$ belongs to that interval where there is an overlap between the short–distance and the long–distance expansion of the correlator.

The above methods have been applied to compute universal ratios of several interesting universality classes, such as the one of the Ising model , the Tricritical Ising Model , the Self–Avoiding Walks, the $`q`$–state Potts model and percolation , to quote few. These field theoretical results have been confirmed through direct lattice estimates (see Refs. ).

## 4 Disorder Operator and Fermion-Boson Correspondence

From the above discussion, we have seen that a great deal of information can be extracted for the scaling region of a model also in the absence of an exact expression of the correlation functions. It is however an important theoretical problem to see whether it is possible to obtain a closed and exact formula for these quantities. It goes without saying that, in general, this is quite a difficult problem, partially solved only for few models. In the second part of this talk, we shall discuss a particularly interesting example of such a computation, which leads to a differential equation ruling the correlators. Our presentation is based on the results presented in the paper .

In order to start our discussion, let us consider the (euclidean) action

$$𝒜=d^2x[_\mu \varphi ^{}^\mu \varphi +m^2\varphi ^{}\varphi +W(\varphi ^{},\varphi )],$$
(32)
where the potential $`W`$ is invariant under the $`Z_N`$ transformation $`\varphi e^{2i\pi /N}\varphi `$, $`\varphi ^{}e^{2i\pi /N}\varphi ^{}`$. Let $`|0_j`$, $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$, be the $`N`$ vacuua of the broken phase of this theory, with $`\mu _k(x)`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},N1`$, the disorder operators which create the excitations (kink states) interpolating between the vacua $`|0_j`$ and $`|0_{j+k(modN)}`$. These operators carry $`k`$ units of topological charge and satisfy the conjugation relation $`\mu _k^{}(x)=\mu _{Nk}(x)`$. The mutual non-locality between the order and disorder operators gives rise to a phase factor when they go around each other in the euclidean plane ($`z=x_1+ix_2`$, $`\overline{z}=x_1ix_2`$) :

$`\varphi (ze^{2i\pi },\overline{z}e^{2i\pi })\mu _k(0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{2i\pi k}{N}}\varphi (z,\overline{z})\mu _k(0,0),`$
$`\varphi ^{}(ze^{2i\pi },\overline{z}e^{2i\pi })\mu _k(0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{2i\pi k}{N}}\varphi ^{}(z,\overline{z})\mu _k(0,0).`$
These relations are valid along any $`Z_N`$-invariant renormalization group trajectory flowing out of the phase transition point and characterise the operators $`\mu _k(x)`$ beyond their initial role of kink creation operators in the broken phase. The theory (32) with $`W=0`$ is a particularly simple example of such a trajectory for which, as we will see, the correlation functions of disorder operators remain non-trivial due to the non-locality with respect to the boson.

The correlation functions of non-local operators in two-dimensional free massive theories were extensively studied from the point of view of the isomonodromy theory of differential equations in Ref.  and a series of related papers. Several works (see for instance Refs.) have been devoted afterwards to dealing with this problem through more direct and general methods of quantum field theory. As we have seen above, an important approach to compute the correlation functions is the one based on the form factors, in which the correlators are expressed as sums over multiparticle asymptotic states. In our example this series can be explicitly resummed and the correlators are given in terms of solutions of non-linear differential equations. Moreover, there is a simple unified treatment of the bosonic and fermionic cases, with the final result expressed by the correspondence222We use the notation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }(x)/\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_j(x)\stackrel{~}{\mu }_k(0)=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{V}_{j/N}(x)\stackrel{~}{V}_{k/N}(0)},$$
(33)
where the correlators on the l.h.s. are computed in the theory (32) with $`W=0`$, and those on the r.h.s. refer to the operators $`V_\alpha (x)=\mathrm{exp}[i\sqrt{4\pi }\alpha \phi (x)]`$ in the sine-Gordon theory

$$𝒜_{sG}=d^2x\left[\frac{1}{2}_\nu \phi ^\nu \phi \mu \mathrm{cos}\beta \phi \right],$$
(34)
with $`\beta =\sqrt{4\pi }`$ and $`\mu `$ a suitably chosen mass scale. The theory (34) with $`\beta =\sqrt{4\pi }`$ is in fact a free fermionic theory . For generic values of $`\beta `$ the elementary excitations are the solitons and antisolitons interpolating between adjacent vacua of the periodic potential. Their interaction is attractive as long as $`\beta <\sqrt{4\pi }`$ and they form topologically neutral bound states, the lightest one being the particle interpolated by the bosonic field in the action (34). These neutral particles are absent from the spectrum of asymptotic states in the repulsive region $`\beta >\sqrt{4\pi }`$, and at the point $`\beta =\sqrt{4\pi }`$ where the solitons behave as free Dirac fermions.

Since the solitons are non-local in terms of the field $`\phi (x)`$, the evaluation of both sides of Eq. (33) amounts to computing correlation functions of operators which are non-local with respect to non-interacting particles, bosons for the l.h.s. and fermions for the r.h.s. The different statistics of the two particles is responsible for the inversion in Eq. (33).

Consider then a theory of free, charge conjugated particles $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ with mass $`m`$, and denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (x)`$ a scalar operator having a non-locality phase $`e^{2i\pi \alpha }`$ ($`e^{2i\pi \alpha }`$) with respect to (the field which interpolates) the particle $`A`$ ($`\overline{A}`$). Acting on the vacuum state $`|0`$, such an operator produces neutral states consisting of pairs $`A(\theta )\overline{A}(\beta )`$. The equations satisfied by the form factors of these theories

$`f_n^\alpha (\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n,\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n)=`$ (35)
$`=0|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha (0)|A(\theta _1),\mathrm{},A(\theta _n),\overline{A}(\beta _1),\mathrm{},\overline{A}(\beta _n)`$
are a particular case of those holding for generic integrable theories (see e.g. )

$`f_n^\alpha (\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _i,\theta _{i+1},\mathrm{},\theta _n,\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n)=`$
$`=Sf_n^\alpha (\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _{i+1},\theta _i,\mathrm{},\theta _n,\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n),`$
$`f_n^\alpha (\theta _1+2i\pi ,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _n,\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n)=`$
$`=Se^{2i\pi \alpha }f_n^\alpha (\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n,\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n),`$
$`\text{Res}_{\theta _1\beta _1=i\pi }f_n^\alpha (\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n,\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n)=`$
$`=iS^{n1}(1e^{2i\pi \alpha })f_{n1}^\alpha (\theta _2,..,\theta _n,\beta _2,..,\beta _n),`$
where

$$S=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& \text{for free bosons}\hfill \\ 1& \text{for free fermions}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
It is easy to check that the solution of the above system of equations is given by

$`f_n^\alpha (\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n,\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n)=S^{n(n+2)/2}(\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha )^n`$
$`\times e^{\left(\alpha \frac{1}{2}\delta _{S,1}\right)_{i=1}^n(\theta _i\beta _i)}\left|A_n\right|_{(S)},`$ (37)
where $`A_n`$ is a $`n\times n`$ matrix ($`A_01`$) with entries

$$A_{ij}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\theta _i\beta _j}{2}},$$
(38)
and $`\left|A_n\right|_{(S)}`$ denotes the permanent333The permanent of a matrix differs from the determinant by the omission of the alternating sign factors $`(1)^{i+j}`$. of $`A_n`$ for $`S=1`$ and the determinant of $`A_n`$ for $`S=1`$.

The two-point correlators are then given by

$`G_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}^{(S)}(t)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha (x)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha ^{}(0)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n!)^2(2\pi )^{2n}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta _1\mathrm{}𝑑\theta _n𝑑\beta _1\mathrm{}𝑑\beta _ng_n^{(\alpha ,\alpha ^{})}(t|\theta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n)},`$
where

$`g_n^{(\alpha ,\alpha ^{})}(t)=f_n^\alpha (\theta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n)f_n^\alpha ^{}(\beta _n,\mathrm{},\theta _1)e^{te_n}`$
$`=`$ $`(S\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha \mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha ^{})^ne^{(\alpha \alpha ^{})_{i=1}^n(\theta _i\beta _i)}`$
$`\times \left|A_n\right|_{(S)}^2e^{te_n},`$
and

$$t=m|x|,e_n=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\mathrm{cosh}\theta _k+\mathrm{cosh}\beta _k).$$

Analogously to the procedure followed in , we define a new $`n\times n`$ matrix $`M_n`$ with entries

$`M_{ij}M(\theta _i,\beta _j)=(\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha \mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha ^{})^{1/2}e^{\frac{t}{2}\mathrm{cosh}\theta _i}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{h(\theta _i)h^1(\beta _j)}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\theta _i\beta _j}{2}}}e^{\frac{t}{2}\mathrm{cosh}\beta _j},`$ (40)
where

$$h(\theta )=e^{(\alpha \alpha ^{})\theta /2},$$

and rewrite $`g^{(\alpha ,\alpha ^{})}`$ as

$$g_n^{(\alpha ,\alpha ^{})}=S^n\left|M_n\right|_{(S)}^2=\left|\begin{array}{cc}0& M_n\\ M_n^T& 0\end{array}\right|_{(S)}.$$
(41)
Finally we symmetrise with respect to the two sets of rapidities by introducing a charge index $`\epsilon `$ which is $`1`$ for a particle $`A`$ and $`1`$ for $`\overline{A}`$, so that we express the correlation functions as

$`G_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}^{(S)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L!(2\pi )^L}}{\displaystyle \underset{ϵ_1\mathrm{}ϵ_L}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta _1\mathrm{}𝑑\theta _L}`$ (42)
$`\times `$ $`\left|K_{ϵ_iϵ_j}(\theta _i,\theta _j)\right|_{(S)},`$
where we have introduced the $`L\times L`$ matrices with entries

$`K_+(\theta ,\beta )=M(\theta ,\beta ),`$
$`K_+(\theta ,\beta )=M(\beta ,\theta ),`$ (43)
$`K_{++}(\theta ,\beta )=K_{}(\theta ,\beta )=0.`$
The last equation in (43) ensures that only the terms with $`L=2n`$ occur in (42). Notice that the dependence on the statistics in (42) only reduces to taking the permanent or the determinant of the same matrix. According to the theory of Fredholm integral operators (see e.g. ) the above expression is equal to

$$G_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}^{(S)}(t)=\text{Det}(1+2\pi 𝐊)^S,$$
(44)
so that the correlators of operators having the same non-locality phase in the free fermion and free boson theories are the inverse of each other. This conclusion was first obtained in  studying the deformation theory of differential equations. The result (33) follows from the fact that the operators $`V_\alpha (x)`$ have a non-locality phase $`e^{2i\pi \alpha }`$ around the solitons at the sine-Gordon free fermion point (see e.g. ), so that $`\mu _j(x)`$ and $`V_{j/N}(x)`$ have the same non-locality with respect to the corresponding particles. Since $`j`$ runs between $`1`$ and $`N1`$, we are actually working with $`0<\alpha =j/N<1`$.

Once Eq. (33) has been obtained by using the large distance expansion of the correlators, it is an interesting check to see how this inversion relation between the two correlators works in the short distance limit. Both in the bosonic and fermionic case the operators $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (x)`$ satisfy the OPE

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (x)\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{}(0)|x|^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}^{(S)}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha +\alpha ^{}}+\mathrm{},$$
(45)
with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}^{(S)}=X_\alpha ^{(S)}+X_\alpha ^{}^{(S)}X_{\alpha +\alpha ^{}}^{(S)},$$
(46)
$`X_\alpha ^{(S)}`$ being the scaling dimensions. In the bosonic case the index $`\alpha +\alpha ^{}`$ is taken modulo $`1`$. The scaling dimensions can be computed through the formula

$$X_\alpha ^{(S)}=\frac{1}{2\pi }d^2x\mathrm{\Theta }(x)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha (0)_{connected},$$
(47)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. Since the only non-zero form factor of this operator in the free theories is

$$0|\mathrm{\Theta }(0)|A(\theta )\overline{A}(\beta )=2\pi m^2\left[i\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\theta \beta }{2}\right]^{\delta _{S,1}},$$
(48)
one easily finds

$$X_\alpha ^{(S)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha (1\alpha ),\hfill & S=1\hfill \\ \alpha ^2,\hfill & S=1\hfill \end{array}$$
(49)
in agreement with the conjugation properties $`\mu _j^{}=\mu _{Nj}`$ and $`V_\alpha ^{}=V_\alpha `$. These results coincide with those of conformal field theory with ‘twist’ fields (see ). It follows

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}^{()}=2\alpha \alpha ^{},$$
(50)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}^{(+)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\alpha \alpha ^{},\hfill & \alpha +\alpha ^{}<1\hfill \\ 2[\alpha \alpha ^{}+1(\alpha +\alpha ^{})],\hfill & \alpha +\alpha ^{}>1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
The agreement for $`1<\alpha +\alpha ^{}<2`$ is obtained by observing that in this range of $`\alpha +\alpha ^{}`$, the leading short distance term in the fermionic case is not the one in (45) but the first off-critical contribution

$$\mu /2d^2yV_\alpha (x)V_\alpha (0)[V_1(y)+V_1(y)]_{\mu =0},$$
(52)
which indeed behaves as $`|x|^{2[\alpha \alpha ^{}+1(\alpha +\alpha ^{})]}`$ when $`x0`$.

In general, the two–point functions we are dealing with can be expressed as

$$G_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}^{(S)}(t)=e^{S\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}(t)}.$$
(53)
where $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}(t)`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{t/2}^{\mathrm{}}}\rho d\rho \times `$ (54)
$`\times \left[(_\rho \chi )^24\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi {\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \alpha ^{})^2}{\rho ^2}}\mathrm{tanh}\chi \right],`$
with $`\chi (\rho )`$ satisfying the differential equation

$$_\rho ^2\chi +\frac{1}{\rho }_\rho \chi =2\mathrm{sinh}2\chi +\frac{(\alpha \alpha ^{})^2}{\rho ^2}\mathrm{tanh}\chi (1\mathrm{tanh}^2\chi )$$
(55)
with suitable boundary conditions. The short distance behaviour for $`\alpha +\alpha ^{}<1`$ is given by

$$\underset{t0}{lim}G_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}^{(S)}(t)=\left(C_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}t^{2\alpha \alpha ^{}}\right)^S,$$
(56)
with an amplitude that can be deduced from the work of Ref.  on vacuum expectation values in the sine-Gordon model:

$`C_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}=2^{2\alpha \alpha ^{}}\times `$ (57)
$`\mathrm{exp}\{2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\alpha t\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha +\alpha ^{})t\mathrm{sinh}\alpha ^{}t}{\mathrm{sinh}^2t}}+`$
$`\alpha \alpha ^{}e^{2t}]\}.`$
Finally, let us discuss the case in which we have a $`Z_2`$ symmetry. This is somehow special since a broken phase with two degenerate vacua can be realised in terms of a neutral boson. In fact, a disorder operator with non-locality factor $`1`$ is present also in the theory of a neutral bosonic free particle. It is easy to check that, for $`S=1`$ and $`\alpha =1/2`$, the form factors (37) imply the factorisation

$$\mu _1=\mu _{(1)}\times \mu _{(2)},N=2$$
(58)
where $`\mu _{(j)}`$ is the disorder operator with scaling dimension $`X_{1/2}^{(+)}/2=1/8`$ associated to the neutral boson $`A_j`$ entering the decomposition $`A=(A_1+iA_2)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`\overline{A}=(A_1iA_2)/\sqrt{2}`$.

The fermion-boson correspondence observed above for charged particles has an analogue in the neutral case, and the correlation function

$$G(t)=\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{(j)}(x)\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{(j)}(0)=\left[G_{1/2,1/2}^{(+)}(t)\right]^{1/2}$$
(59)
can be related to correlators computed in the theory of a free neutral fermion, i.e. in the Ising field theory without magnetic field. To see this, let us recall that the correlators of the spin and disorder operators in the unbroken phase of the scaling Ising model can be written as

$`\tau _\pm (t)\stackrel{~}{\mu }(x)\stackrel{~}{\mu }(0)\pm \sigma (x)\sigma (0)=`$ (60)
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left[\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi (t/2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{1/2,1/2}(t)\right],`$
where the functions $`\chi `$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ are those of Eqs. (54), (55). Hence, it follows from (53) and (59) that

$$G(t)=[\tau _+(t)\tau _{}(t)]^{1/2}.$$
(61)
Concerning the short distance behaviour of this correlator, the power law (56) acquires in this case a logarithmic correction due to the ‘resonance’ with the leading off-critical contribution (52). Such a contribution to the correlator $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\alpha (x)\stackrel{~}{V}_\alpha (0)`$ behaves as $`C_{\alpha ,\alpha }t^{1/2}[1+(24\alpha )\mathrm{ln}t]`$ in the limit $`\alpha 1/2`$, so that

$$\underset{t0}{lim}G_{1/2,1/2}^{()}(t)=\underset{t0}{lim}G^2(t)=t^{1/2}\mathrm{ln}(1/t),$$
(62)
with

$$=4\text{Res}_{\alpha =1/2}C_{\alpha ,\alpha }=0.588353...$$
(63)
and this amplitude coincides with that of the product $`\tau _+(t)\tau _{}(t)`$ in the Ising model.

The considerations of this section have recently been extended to the case of massive ghost theories . In all these cases the correlation functions of disorder operators can be computed exactly for free theories and are related to the same differential equation (55). In absence of interaction, the correlators are non-trivial due to the non-locality between the operators and the particles. The resummation of the spectral series for interacting theories remains a challanging task even in presence of integrability.

## 5 Non-integrable Deformations

The free bosonic and fermionic theories discussed above can also be regarded as describing phases of spontaneously broken $`Z_N`$ symmetry. In this dual vision, the excitations are free kinks $`|K_{j,j\pm 1}(\theta )`$ interpolating between two adjacent vacua $`|0_j`$ and $`|0_{j\pm 1}`$ (the indices are taken modulo $`N`$). Let us denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{k/N}`$, $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$, the operators we are interested in. They correspond to the exponential operators $`V_{k/N}`$ in the fermionic case444In this case the N degenerate vacua can be identified with those of the periodic potential in (34) identified modulo N., and to the operators $`\sigma _k`$, dual to the disorder operators $`\mu _k`$, in the bosonic case. These operators create multikink excitations with zero topologic charge, i.e. starting and ending in the same vacuum state. Form factors on kink states were discussed in . Consider for the sake of simplicity the two-kink matrix elements

$$F_{j,k}^\pm (\theta _1\theta _2)0_j|\mathrm{\Phi }_{k/N}(0)|K_{j,j\pm 1}(\theta _1)K_{j\pm 1,j}(\theta _2),$$
(64)
satisfying the equations

$`F_{j,k}^\pm (\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`SF_{j,k}^{}(\theta ),`$
$`F_{j,k}^\pm (\theta +2i\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`F_{j\pm 1,k}^{}(\theta ),`$
$`\text{Res}_{\theta =i\pi }F_{j,k}^\pm (\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`i[0_j|\mathrm{\Phi }_{k/N}|0_j+`$
$`0_{j\pm 1}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{k/N}|0_{j\pm 1}].`$
Since the generator $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`Z_N`$ transformations ($`\mathrm{\Omega }^N=1`$) acts on states and operators as ($`\omega e^{2i\pi /N}`$)

$`\mathrm{\Omega }|K_{j,j+1}(\theta _1)K_{j+1,j+2}(\theta _2)\mathrm{}=`$
$`=|K_{j+1,j+2}(\theta _1)K_{j+2,j+3}(\theta _2)\mathrm{},`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Phi }_{k/N}(x)\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega ^k\mathrm{\Phi }_{k/N}(x),`$
the above form factor equations can be rewritten as

$`F_{j,k}^\pm (\theta +2i\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`S\omega ^{\pm k}F_{j,k}^\pm (\theta ),`$
$`\text{Res}_{\theta =i\pi }F_{j,k}^\pm (\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`i(1\omega ^{\pm k})0_j|\mathrm{\Phi }_{k/N}|0_j.`$
Once the identifications $`AK_{i,i+1}`$, $`\overline{A}K_{i,i1}`$ are made, these relations are equivalent to the previous equations for the Form Factors with $`n=1`$. This correspondence is easily extended to all values of $`n`$ and leads to the same form factors and correlation functions discussed for the unbroken phase.

The introduction of a ‘magnetic field’ pointing in the $`k`$ direction and breaking explicitely the $`Z_N`$ symmetry corresponds to adding to the free action a term

$$hd^2x\mathrm{\Psi }_k(x),$$
(65)
where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_k(x)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\omega ^{kl}\mathrm{\Phi }_{l/N}(x).$$
(66)
The first order corrections to the energy density $`\epsilon _j`$ of the vacuum state $`|0_j`$ and to the mass $`m_{j,j\pm 1}`$ of the kink $`K_{j,j\pm 1}`$ can be computed according to the Form Factor Perturbation Theory proposed in

$`\delta \epsilon _jh0_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_k|0_j=hv\delta _{j,k},`$
$`\delta m_{j,j\pm 1}^2h0_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_k(0)|K_{j,j\pm 1}(i\pi )K_{j\pm 1,j}(0).`$
It follows from the residue equation written above that

$`\text{Res}_{\theta =i\pi }0_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_k(0)|K_{j,j\pm 1}(\theta )K_{j\pm 1,j}(0)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{iv}{N}}\left(\delta _{j,k}\delta _{j,k1}\right),`$ (67)
This formula implies that the correction to the mass of the kinks interpolating between the vacua $`|0_k`$ and $`|0_{k\pm 1}`$ is infinite. This divergence simply reflects the fact that these kinks become unstable because the magnetic field removes the degeneracy of the vacuum $`|0_k`$ with the two adjacent vacua. These kinks are then confined in pairs $`K_{k,k\pm 1}K_{k\pm 1,k}`$ and the confinement gives rise to a string of bound states with zero topologic charge, as discussed in more details in .

###### Acknowledgments.

This work was supported by the TMR Network ”EUCLID. Integrable models and applications: from strings to condensed matter”, contract number HPRN-CT-2002-00325.