format: text

text:
# Spectral functions in a magnetic field as a probe of spin-charge separation in a Luttinger liquid

\[

## Abstract

We show that the single-particle spectral functions in a magnetic field can be used to probe spin-charge separation of a Luttinger liquid. Away from the Fermi momentum, the magnetic field splits both the spinon peak and holon peak; here the spin-charge separation nature is reflected in the different magnitude of the two splittings. At the Fermi momentum, the magnetic field splits the zero-field peak into four peaks. The feasibility of experimentally studying this effect is discussed.

\]

Spin-charge separation is a clear-cut example of what could happen in a non-Fermi liquid metal. The defining characteristics of spin-charge separation are two-fold. First, there are more than one type of elementary excitations. Second, and equally important, one kind of excitations carries spin quantum number only while the other carries charge quantum number only. Theoretically, this phenomenon is well-established in one dimension. Whether, and how, it occurs in two dimensions remains an active topic of current studies.

Our goal in this work is to seek for experimental manifestations of spin-charge separation. We demonstrate that the single-particle spectral functions in a magnetic field can be used to probe spin-charge separation. For concreteness, we will focus on the one-dimensional Luttinger liquid. In general, the single-particle spectral function of a Luttinger liquid is expected to contain two dispersive peaks, at the spinon and holon energies respectively. Phenomenologically, to establish that the dispersive features of the spectral function indeed correspond to spinon and holon peaks instead of, say, simply two ordinary electron bands, it is necessary to determine the quantum numbers of these excitations. In this paper, we show that a Zeeman coupling can be used for this purpose.

The natural language to describe the Luttinger model is the bosonization of the electronic degrees of freedom. We write the boson representation of the fermion fields as follows,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{r\sigma }(x)=\underset{a0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{irk_Fx}}{\sqrt{2\pi a}}}F_{r\sigma }e^{ir\mathrm{\Phi }_{r\sigma }(x)}`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{r\sigma }`$ describes fermions with spin $`\sigma =,`$ on two branches ($`r=\pm 1`$) with linear dispersion \[$`\epsilon _r(k)=v_F(rkk_F)`$\] about the two Fermi points $`\pm k_F`$.The boson field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ is defined as:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{r\sigma }(x)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi x}{L}}N_{r\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{q>0}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{qL}}}(ib_{qr\sigma }^{}e^{iqx}`$ (3)
$`+ib_{qr\sigma }e^{iqx})e^{qa/2}`$
where the Tomonaga bosons are related to the original electron operators by $`b_{qr\sigma }=\sqrt{2\pi /qL}_k\mathrm{\Psi }_{kr\sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{k+qr\sigma }`$, and $`x[L/2,L/2]`$. $`N_{r\sigma }`$ and $`F_{r\sigma }`$ represent the zero modes: $`N_{r\sigma }`$ is the deviation of the conduction electron occupation number from the chosen reference state value, while the Klein factor $`F_{r\sigma }^{}`$ ($`F_{r\sigma }`$) raises (lowers) $`N_{r\sigma }`$ by one.

In terms of the boson variables $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{c,s}=1/\sqrt{2}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\pm \mathrm{\Phi }_{})`$, the zero field Luttinger Hamiltonian assumes the simple charge-spin separated form:

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{\nu =c,s}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_\nu }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left(K_\nu (_x\theta _\nu )^2+\frac{1}{K_\nu }(_x\varphi _\nu )^2\right)},`$ (4)
with $`\theta _\nu ,\varphi _\nu `$ defined through $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{r,\nu }=\varphi _\nu +r\theta _\nu `$. The charge and spin velocities are given in terms of the original Fermi velocity and the interaction strengths $`g_{ic,s}`$

$$v_{c,s}=\sqrt{\left(v_F+\frac{g_{4c,s}}{\pi }\right)^2\left(\frac{g_{2c,s}}{\pi }\right)^2}.$$
(5)
The stiffness constants $`K_{c,s}`$ are given by

$$K_{c,s}=\sqrt{\frac{\pi v_F+g_{4c,s}g_{2c,s}}{\pi v_F+g_{4c,s}+g_{2c,s}}}.$$
(6)
Here $`g_{ic,s}=\frac{1}{2}(g_i\pm g_i)`$, for i=2,4 are interactions between density fluctuations at the same or opposite Fermi points respectively and $`,`$ refer to parallel or anti-parallel spins. We have here assumed a simplified model where the couplings $`g_i`$ are momentum independent. For a spin-rotationally invariant system at the fixed point, $`K_s^{}`$ is equal to unity and the backscattering term is renormalized to zero. Additional terms induced by the curvature of the band dispersion are not included in Eq. (4), since they are irrelevant in the renormalization group (RG) sense.

We now turn a magnetic field on by adding a Zeeman term to the Hamiltonian,

$$H_h=h\underset{r,\sigma }{}\sigma N_{r\sigma }.$$
(7)
For small fields, the renormalized parameter

$$K_s^{}1+\frac{1}{2ln(h_c/h)},$$
(8)
with $`h_cv_sk_F`$ being the critical field that spin polarizes the sample. Eq. (8) agrees with the Bethe-Ansatz results for the 1D positive U Hubbard model in a magnetic field  . The magnetic field affects the single particle spectrum through the zero modes. The first effect is through the time dependence of the Klein factors,

$`F_{r\sigma }(t)=`$ $`=`$ $`F_{r\sigma }(0)exp(i\sigma \{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi v_s}{2L}}[K_s(N_{r,s}N_{r,s})`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K_s}}(N_{r,s}+N_{r,s})]h\}t).`$
However, to the linear order in $`h`$, the expectation value of $`N_{r,s}=N_rN_r`$ is just equal to $`L\chi h/2`$, with $`\chi =2K_s(\pi v_s)^1`$. So when computing Green’s functions of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ we can set $`F_{r\sigma }`$ to be time independent,

$$F_{r\sigma }(t)=F_{r\sigma }(0).$$
(11)
The remaining effect is that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{r\sigma }(x)`$ acquires the ground state expectation value, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{r\sigma }(x)=\sigma x\frac{K_s}{v_s}h\sigma x\frac{h}{v_s}`$. This in turn corresponds to a splitting in $`k_F`$

$$k_{F\sigma }=k_F+\sigma \frac{h}{v_s}.$$
(12)
We can now discuss the fate of spin-charge separation in a magnetic field. For models with a quadratic dispersion, $`v_Fv_F`$. To the linear order in $`h`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v_F=v_Fv_F=2v_F\frac{h}{h_c}$$
(13)
This leads to a mixing of spin and charge variables,

$$H_{mix}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }v_F}{2\pi }𝑑x\left(_x\theta _c_x\theta _s+_x\varphi _c_x\varphi _s\right)$$
(14)
For all relevant fields and band fillings $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_F`$ is very small. We can diagonalize $`H`$ by going to new variables $`(\varphi _{c,s}^{},\theta _{c,s}^{})`$. The new velocities $`v_c^{}`$ and $`v_s^{}`$ differ from $`v_c`$ and $`v_s`$ respectively only to order $`(\mathrm{\Delta }v_F)^2`$. Namely, to the linear order in $`h`$, $`v_c^{}=v_c`$ and $`v_s^{}=v_s`$; the mixing will be visible only as a correction to the critical exponents in correlation functions (see below). In this sense, spin-charge separation is preserved to the linear order in $`h`$.

The survival of spin-charge separation allows us to understand the physical meaning of Eqs. (11,12). By introducing Klein factors for spinon and holon, we can see that to the linear order in $`h`$ the spinon “Fermi momentum” is shifted to $`k_F+\sigma h/v_s`$ while the holon “Fermi momentum” remains at $`2k_F`$. The Fermi energy is also unaffected to this order.

We now calculate the total single-electron spectral function:

$`A(q,\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}A_\sigma (q,\omega )`$ (15)
We will measure momentum with respect to the zero-field Fermi momentum ($`qkk_F`$) and energy with respect to the (field-independent) Fermi energy $`E_F`$. $`A_\sigma (q,\omega )`$ is determined by the imaginary part of the Fourier transform of the retarded electron Green’s function:

$`G_{r,\sigma }^R(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta (t)0|\{\mathrm{\Psi }_{r,\sigma }(x,t),\mathrm{\Psi }_{r,\sigma }^{}(0,0)\}|0`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\theta (t){\displaystyle \frac{e^{irk_{F\sigma }}}{2\pi i}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =c,s}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{(a+iv_\nu t)^2+x^2}}\right)^{2\beta _\nu ^\sigma \gamma _\nu }`$ (18)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[a+i(v_\nu trx)]^{\beta _\nu ^\sigma }}}+(x,tx,t)\},`$
where to linear order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_F<<v_cv_s`$ the exponents are

$$\beta _{c,s}^\sigma =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \sigma \frac{v_c(K_c+K_c^1)+v_s(K_s+K_s^1)}{2(v_c^2v_s^2)}\mathrm{\Delta }v_F)$$
(20)
and

$$\gamma _\nu =\frac{1}{8}(K_\nu +\frac{1}{K_\nu }2).$$
(21)
We first consider the Luttinger model with only $`g_40`$, which corresponds to the one-branch Luttinger model where there is no communication between right and left movers but still is spin-charge separated with corresponding velocities $`v_{c,s}=v_F\pm g_4/2\pi `$. Although this is a simplified model it captures the basic physics of the electron decay into charge and spin collective excitations. (For zero field case see .) We restrict our attention to the $`r=+`$ branch, and to the electron injection process:

$`A(q,\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle _{\sigma h/v_s}^q}𝑑k_s{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\omega \epsilon _c(qk_s)\epsilon _s(k_s)+\sigma h)}{|\epsilon _c(qk_s)|^{\beta _c^\sigma }|\epsilon _s(k_s)\sigma h|^{\beta _s^\sigma }}},`$ (22)
At $`h=0`$ the spectral function has a continuum with well defined edges and power law singularities (Fig.1). The edges trace out the spin and charge dispersion relation, $`\epsilon _{c,s}(q)v_{c,s}k`$. The lower (spinon) edge corresponds to where all the electron momentum is carried by the spinon and the upper (holon) edge where the anti-holon carries all q.

When $`h0`$ the region of nonzero spectral weight is in between the frequencies $`v_s(kk_F)<\omega <v_c(kk_F)`$ $`(v_c>v_s)`$. We assume a small $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_F`$ and keep the exponents of both singularities close to $`1/2`$. The spin and charge edges are respectively split by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _s`$ $`=`$ $`2h`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _c`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{v_c}{v_s}}h.`$ (25)
The resulting energy distribution curve (EDC) is shown in Fig. 1. That the holon peak is also split by a magnetic field, while surprising at the first sight, can be understood as follows: As a holon is knocked out it is always accompanied by a spinon whose energy is shifted. What is not obvious is that the holon peak is split by a magnitude different from that of the splitting of the spinon peak. This is due to the fact that the splitting by the magnetic field takes place in $`k`$space: The magnetic field splits the “spinon Fermi surface” by $`\mathrm{\Delta }k_{s,\sigma }=\sigma h/v_s`$, without changing the “holon Fermi surface”. Since the single-electron Green’s function is a convolution of the spinon and holon Green’s functions, the energy change for the spinon peak is then $`v_s\mathrm{\Delta }k_{s,\sigma }`$, while that for the holon peak is $`v_c\mathrm{\Delta }k_{s,\sigma }`$.

The field effect on the momentum distribution curve (MDC) is very different. When the reference point of the spinon momentum changes, both edges respond equally in the MDC. As a result, both peaks are split by the same amount $`2h/v_s`$, as illustrated in Fig. 2.

The difference in the splitting of the spinon and holon edges in the EDC provides a means to determine the spin quantum number of the two excitations. Suppose we divide the Zeeman energy between the holon and spinon in a parametrized fashion, i.e. $`(1\lambda )h`$ for the spinon and $`\lambda h`$ for the anti-holon with $`\lambda [0,1]`$, from (22) we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _c}{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_c}{v_s}}`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _c\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _s`$ $`=`$ $`2({\displaystyle \frac{v_c}{v_s}}1)(1\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{v_s}{v_c}}\lambda )h.`$ (27)
That tells us that if the edge splittings (24) and (25) are observed then $`\lambda =0`$ and all the magnetic coupling is carried by the spinon.

Let’s now turn to more realistic models. A finite $`\gamma _c`$ couples left to right movers and this introduces anomalous fermion exponents for the edge singularities and generates spectral weight in Fig. 1 for frequencies above the $`v_cq`$ edge and a small cusp below $`\epsilon _c(q)`$ . The calculation of the spectral function in this case is rather involved but the power law behavior at the spinon and holon edges can be extracted easily by power counting:

$`A_\sigma (q,\omega \epsilon _s(q))`$ $``$ $`|\omega \epsilon _s(q)+\sigma h|^{\alpha _s^\sigma }`$ (28)
$`A_\sigma (q,\omega \epsilon _c(q))`$ $``$ $`|\omega \epsilon _c(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{v_c}{v_s}}\sigma h|^{\alpha _c^\sigma }`$ (29)
Where $`\alpha _s^\sigma =\beta _c^\sigma 2\gamma _c^\sigma \gamma _s^\sigma `$, $`\alpha _c^\sigma =\beta _s^\sigma 2\gamma _s^\sigma \gamma _c^\sigma `$, with $`\gamma _\nu ^\sigma =2\beta _c^\sigma \gamma _\nu `$. The peak structure for both EDC at $`q0`$ and MDC at $`\omega 0`$ remains essentially unchanged from Figs. 1 and 2.

Consider now the EDC at the Fermi momentum $`k=k_F`$. For the zero field case it has a power law singularity determined by the anomalous exponent $`\gamma _c`$ and no sign of spin-charge separation can be seen. Turning on a finite $`h`$ now splits this peak into four peaks, as seen in Fig. 3. Here even at $`k_F`$ and fairly strong coupling ($`\gamma _c=0.2`$, $`\gamma _s0`$) the sign of spin-charge separation is still visible as the Zeeman lines are split into contributions coming from the spinon and holon edges. As $`\gamma _c`$ increases we enter the strong coupling regime and the edge singularities are more and more obscured as the anomalous exponent dominates over the spin-charge separated character of the single particle spectrum.

This splitting of one peak at Fermi momentum into four represents the most dramatic and direct manifestation of electron fractionalization. It unambiguously shows that the initial electron peak is in fact a composite of two different elementary excitations.

We turn next to MDC at the Fermi energy $`E_F`$. In the $`h=0`$ case it is, for $`\gamma _c=0`$, just the delta function $`\delta (q)`$. For $`h0`$ it is easy to verify, from the Lehmann representation of $`A(q,\omega )`$ and the properties of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{r,\sigma }(x)`$ zero modes in a magnetic field, that

$$A(q,0)\underset{\sigma }{}\delta (q\sigma \frac{h}{v_s}).$$
(30)
The only interaction effect that remains in this MDC is the renormalization of $`v_F`$ to $`v_s`$ in the Zeeman splitting of the Fermi momentum. (A finite $`\gamma _c`$ would turn each delta function into a peak whose width and height depend on temperature in a power-law fashion.)

We stress that the contrasting behavior of the Zeeman-splittings in EDC and MDC reflects a generic feature of spin-charge separation. Namely, the main effect of the magnetic field is to split the spinon Fermi momentum.

Finally, the integrated spectral weight $`N(\omega )|\omega |^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha =2(\gamma _c^\sigma +\gamma _s^\sigma )`$. Here aside from the exponents the magnetic field has no other effect.

In several quasi-one-dimensoinal materials, ARPES experiments have seen two dispersive peaks. One interpretation is that these two peaks correspond to dispersing spinon and holon modes respectively. In the high $`T_c`$ cuprates, with fastly improving resolution in both energy and momentum, ARPES is now providing both EDC and MDC. The theoretical interpretation of the lineshapes is actively being pursued. Our results imply that studying the Zeeman effect on the spectral functions can provide valuable information about the quantum numbers of the elementary excitations.

We conclude with a few remarks concerning the experimental implementations. The Zeeman effects can in principle be studied using ARPES in a magnetic field. For 1D systems, an alternative technique to study the magnetic field effect is the momentum-resolved tunneling. We illustrate the quantitative effects of the magnetic field on the exponents by using seminconductor quantum wires as an example. We take $`K_c0.7`$ and $`E_F20meV`$. For a vanishing field, $`\alpha _s^\sigma 0.47`$ and $`\alpha _c^\sigma 0.48`$. For a field of, say, $`10`$ T, and using $`g0.4`$ for GaAs, we estimate the corrections to $`\alpha _s^\sigma `$ and $`\alpha _c^\sigma `$ to be small, of the order of $`\pm 0.05`$. The experiments have to be done at temperatures below the Zeeman splitting, which are relatively easy to access. We also note that the situation would be even better for materials with high $`g`$ factors, such as InSb for which $`g50`$ .

We would like to thank G. Aeppli, N. Andrei, P.-A. Bares, S. A. Grigera, A. J. Schofield, and especially R. Gatt, for useful discussions. This work has been supported by the Robert A. Welch Foundation, NSF Grant NSF Grant No. DMR-0090071, and TCSUH.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent work has revealed unexpected connections between the functional relations and Bethe ansatz (BA) equations arising in integrable quantum field theory, and the behaviour of certain ordinary differential equations (ODEs) . In this paper we extend these links to cover a whole class of BA systems associated with the $`SU(n)`$ Lie algebras. The papers just cited, and earlier work such as , should be consulted for the background to these developments, but we begin with a brief review of the main points.

The first example to be found concerned $`SU(2)`$ BA systems at a specific value of the twist parameter, and associated them with certain Schrödinger equations . The generalisation to arbitrary twist turned out to require the addition of an angular-momentum term to the ODE . In studies of the Bethe ansatz, a functional equation found by Baxter, the T-Q relation, is known to encode the BA equations in a particularly neat way; the place of this relation in the differential equations side of the story was found in . After this, the question of generalisations to $`SU(n)`$ with $`n>2`$ was addressed in . In , a reasonably complete mapping of the $`SU(3)`$ case onto third-order ODEs was found, and it was suggested that higher-order equations would be the appropriate setting to search for the more general case. Independent work by Suzuki  provided some more concrete support for this idea. However, this latter paper did not treat the completely general case (both the deformation parameter and the twists were restricted) and the role of a particularly important generalisation of the T-Q relation, sometimes called the ‘dressed vacuum form’, was not elucidated. For this reason, we return to the topic here, and show how the approach of  can be extended to general $`n`$. One of the main new features is a way of incorporating angular-momentum type terms into the higher-order ODEs which encodes the BA twists in a particularly neat way. This simplifies the discussion considerably, and even streamlines aspects of the $`SU(3)`$ case treated in . We also derive nonlinear integral equations (NLIEs) for the associated spectral problems, and discuss duality properties.

## 2 The ordinary differential equation

The initial ODE that one might consider has the form

$$\left((1)^{n+1}\frac{d^n}{dx^n}+P(x,E)\right)\psi (x)=0,P(x,E)=x^{nM}E$$
(2.1)
with $`M`$ a positive real number, related to the deformation parameter. For $`n=3`$ this is the first of the equations studied in , while the general-$`n`$ case, but with $`nM`$ restricted to integer values, was the subject of . For each $`n`$, (2.1) has only one free parameter, namely $`M`$, and so it is clear that this equation cannot hope to incorporate $`SU(n)`$ BA systems at general values of the twists. The results of  would tend to suggest that these twists should be associated with the addition of terms homogeneous with $`\frac{d^n}{dx^n}`$, of the form $`A_kx^k\frac{d^{nk}}{dx^{nk}}`$, $`k=2\mathrm{}n`$. (It will be convenient to assume that the term with $`k=1`$ has been eliminated by a suitable redefinition of $`\psi `$.) This gives $`n1`$ further free parameters, exactly matching the number of twists in an $`SU(n)`$ BA system. However, the variables $`\{A_k\}`$ turn out to be rather inconvenient, and it is better to take a slightly more indirect route.

First, define a general homogeneous differential operator of degree one by setting

$$D(g)=\left(\frac{d}{dx}\frac{g}{x}\right).$$
(2.2)
Useful properties of this operator are

$$D(g)^{}=D(g),$$
(2.3)
$$D(g_21)D(g_1)=D(g_11)D(g_2).$$
(2.4)
The first of these relates the operator to its adjoint, while the second expresses a form of commutativity. Now, given a vector $`𝐠=(g_0,g_1,\mathrm{}g_{n1})`$, set

$$D(𝐠)=D(g_{n1}(n1))D(g_{n2}(n2))\mathrm{}D(g_11)D(g_0).$$
(2.5)
This is a homogeneous differential operator of order $`n`$; by the ‘commutativity’ property it depends on the components $`\{g_0\mathrm{}g_{n1}\}`$ of $`𝐠`$ in a symmetrical manner. From now on we also impose

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}g_i=\frac{n(n1)}{2}$$
(2.6)
to ensure the vanishing of the term in $`D(𝐠)`$ proportional to $`x^1\frac{d^{n1}}{dx^{n1}}`$. Finally, we record one more property of $`D(𝐠)`$ which will be useful later: its indicial polynomial (see for example ) is

$$f(\lambda )=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}(\lambda g_i).$$
(2.7)
With these ingredients in place, the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ order ODE that we propose to study is obtained simply by replacing the operator $`\frac{d^n}{dx^n}`$ in (2.1) by $`D(𝐠)`$:

$$\left((1)^{n+1}D(𝐠)+P(x,E)\right)\psi (x)=0,P(x,E)=x^{nM}E.$$
(2.8)
## 3 The fundamental system of solutions

As in  we take our cue from the approach of  to second-order ODEs. We claim that (2.8) has a solution $`y(x,E,𝐠)`$ such that:

$``$ $`y(x,E,𝐠)`$ is an entire function of $`(x,E,𝐠)`$, modulo a possible branch point at the origin of the complex $`x`$ plane.

$``$ as $`|x|\mathrm{}`$ in the sector $`|\mathrm{arg}x|<(n+1)\pi /n(M+1)`$ ,

$$\frac{d^py}{dx^p}(1)^p\frac{x^{(1n+2p)M/2}}{i_{}^{(n1)/2}\sqrt{n}}\mathrm{exp}(x^{M+1}/(M+1))$$
(3.1)
for $`p=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ . This holds if $`M>1/(n1)`$; more generally the WKB-like formula $`yP(x,E)^{(n1)/2n}\mathrm{exp}\left(^xP(t,E)^{1/n}𝑑t\right)`$ can be used in the way explained, for $`n=2`$, in the appendix of . The normalisation of $`y`$ has been chosen for later convenience.

$``$ $`y`$ is uniquely characterised by the asymptotic (3.1) for $`p=0`$ and $`x`$ real.

For $`n=2`$, $`nM`$, and $`D(𝐠)=\frac{d^2}{dx^2}`$, these properties were proved in . We have not attempted a proof for the more general case; however, see  for a related discussion.

To construct further solutions, we set***Note that since $`\omega ^{n(M+1)}=1`$, the shift in $`E`$ in the definition of $`y_k`$ could equally have been written as $`\omega ^{nk}`$, so long as $`k`$ remains an integer. This would have been more in line with , and emphasises the fact that in the ‘semiclassical’ limit $`M\mathrm{}`$, the shifts tend to $`1`$. Here we retain the conventions of , since this makes the transition to BA equations in standard form a little simpler, and also appears to be the most natural choice when half integer values of $`k`$ come to be discussed, in §7 below.

$$y_k(x,E,𝐠)=\omega ^{(n1)k/2}y(\omega ^kx,\omega ^{nMk}E,𝐠),\omega =e^{2\pi i/n(M+1)}.$$
(3.2)
For $`k`$, it is easily checked that $`y_k`$ solves (2.8). If sectors $`𝒮_k`$ are defined as

$$𝒮_k:|\mathrm{arg}x\frac{2k\pi }{n(M+1)}|<\frac{\pi }{n(M+1)},$$
(3.3)
then as $`x\mathrm{}`$ in $`𝒮_{k\frac{n}{2}}𝒮_{k\frac{n}{2}+1}\mathrm{}𝒮_{k+\frac{n}{2}}`$ , (3.1) implies that

$$\frac{d^py_k}{dx^p}(1)^p\omega _{}^{k(1n+2p)(M+1)/2}\frac{x^{(1n+2p)M/2}}{i_{}^{(n1)/2}\sqrt{n}}\mathrm{exp}(\omega ^{k(M+1)}x^{M+1}/(M+1)).$$
(3.4)
We call subdominant a solution which tends to zero fastest in a given sector; up to a constant multiple, $`y_k`$ is the unique solution to (2.8) which is subdominant in $`𝒮_k`$.

Wronskians between these solutions will be important in the following, so we define

$$W_{k_1,k_2,\mathrm{}k_m}^{(m)}=W^{(m)}[y_{k_1},y_{k_2},\mathrm{}y_{k_m}],$$
(3.5)
where

$$W^{(m)}[f_1,f_2,\mathrm{}f_m]=\text{Det}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}f_1& f_2& \mathrm{}& f_m\\ f_1^{}& f_2^{}& \mathrm{}& f_m^{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ f_1^{[m1]}& f_2^{[m1]}& \mathrm{}& f_m^{[m1]}\end{array}\right]$$
(3.6)
and $`f_i^{[p]}(x)=\frac{d^p}{dx^p}f_i(x)`$. We will give a special status to those Wronskians whose arguments are successive integers, and in preparation for this we set

$$W_k^{(m)}=W_{k,k+1,k+2,\mathrm{}k+m1}^{(m)}.$$
(3.7)
Note that $`W_k^{(1)}=y_k`$, and that (generalising (3.2))

$$W_{k_1+k,k_2+k,\mathrm{}k_m+k}^{(m)}(x,E,𝐠)=\omega ^{m(nm)k/2}W_{k_1,k_2,\mathrm{}k_m}^{(m)}(\omega ^kx,\omega ^{nMk}E,𝐠).$$
(3.8)
For an $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ order ODE with vanishing $`(n1)^{\mathrm{th}}`$ order term, as is true of our case by (2.6), it is standard that all $`n`$-fold Wronskians $`W^{(n)}[f_1,\mathrm{}f_n]`$ are independent of $`x`$, and vanish if and only if the solutions $`f_1,\mathrm{}f_n`$ are linearly dependent. In particular, (3.4) can be used as $`|x|\mathrm{}`$ in $`𝒮_{k1/2}𝒮_{k+1/2}`$ to show that $`W_k^{(n)}=1`$, and so, for each $`k`$, the functions $`\{y_k,y_{k+1},\mathrm{},y_{k+n1}\}`$ are linearly independent, and furnish a basis of solutions to (2.8).

## 4 Stokes multipliers and functional relations

We next establish a basic functional relation. Expanding $`y_0`$ in the basis provided by $`\{y_1,y_2,\mathrm{},y_n\}`$, it must be possible to write

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^kC^{(k)}(E,𝐠)y_k(x,E)=0,$$
(4.1)
where $`C^{(0)}(E,𝐠)=1`$ and the Stokes multipliers $`C^{(k)}(E,𝐠)`$, $`k>0`$ are analytic functions of $`E`$ and $`𝐠`$. (The formal similarity between this equation and equation (5.50) of  should be noted.) Given that $`W_1^{(n)}=1`$, we have the simple relation

$$C^{(k)}(E,𝐠)=W_{01\mathrm{}\widehat{k}\mathrm{}n}^{(n)}(E,𝐠)$$
(4.2)
with the hat ($`\widehat{k}`$) indicating that the corresponding index is to be omitted. Clearly, $`C^{(n)}=W_0^{(n)}=1`$. To treat the other Stokes multipliers, we first relate them to the ‘privileged’ Wronskians $`W_k^{(m)}`$. We will only need $`C^{(1)}`$ here, but the discussion can be generalised to the other cases. For general $`p`$, consider the determinants

$$0=\text{Det}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}y_0^{[i]}& y_1^{[i]}& \mathrm{}& y_p^{[i]}\\ y_0& y_1& \mathrm{}& y_p\\ y_0^{}& y_1^{}& \mathrm{}& y_p^{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ y_0^{[p1]}& y_1^{[p1]}& \mathrm{}& y_p^{[p1]}\end{array}\right]$$
(4.3)
with $`i=0,1,\mathrm{}p2`$. Expanding the first row of each using Cramer’s rule, we have

$$0=\underset{k=0}{\overset{p}{}}(1)^k\left[\begin{array}{c}y_k\\ y_k^{}\\ \mathrm{}\\ y_k^{[p2]}\end{array}\right]W_{01\mathrm{}\widehat{k}\mathrm{}p1}^{(p)}.$$
(4.4)
Now form a $`(p1)\times (p1)`$ matrix with the RHS of (4.4) as the first column, and the vectors $`𝐯_j=[y_j,y_j^{},\mathrm{}y_j^{[p2]}]^t`$, $`j=2,3\mathrm{}p1`$ as the remainder. Taking its determinant yields the following Plucker-type relation:

$$0=W_{02\mathrm{}p1}^{(p1)}W_{12\mathrm{}p}^{(p)}W_{12\mathrm{}p1}^{(p1)}W_{02\mathrm{}p}^{(p)}+(1)^pW_{p2\mathrm{}p1}^{(p1)}W_{01\mathrm{}p1}^{(p)}.$$
(4.5)
Rearranging, and supplementing the notation (3.7) with the convention $`W_k^{(0)}=1`$ $`k`$,

$$\frac{W_{02\mathrm{}p}^{(p)}}{W_1^{(p)}}=\frac{W_{02\mathrm{}p1}^{(p1)}}{W_1^{(p1)}}+\frac{W_2^{(p1)}}{W_1^{(p1)}}\frac{W_0^{(p)}}{W_1^{(p)}}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{p1}{}}\frac{W_2^{(m)}}{W_1^{(m)}}\frac{W_0^{(m+1)}}{W_1^{(m+1)}},$$
(4.6)
the second equality being obtained by repeated substitution. This is the result we need. Since $`C^{(1)}=W_{02\mathrm{}n}^{(n)}`$, we can set $`p=n`$ and multiply (4.6) through by $`_{j=0}^nW_1^{(j)}`$ to find

$$C^{(1)}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}W_1^{(j)}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{m1}{}}W_1^{(j)}\right)W_2^{(m)}W_0^{(m+1)}\left(\underset{j=m+2}{\overset{n}{}}W_1^{(j)}\right).$$
(4.7)
## 5 Bethe ansatz equations

As it stands, equation (4.7) involves $`x`$ as well as $`E`$ and $`𝐠`$, and so is not quite ready to be mapped onto a standard set of BA equations. The simplest idea, simply to set $`x`$ to zero, only works at exceptional values of the $`g_i`$, since in general the differential operator $`D(𝐠)`$ has a (regular) singularity at $`x=0`$. Instead, motivated by the treatments of , we expand $`y(x,E,𝐠)`$ as

$$y(x,E,𝐠)=W_0^{(1)}(x,E,𝐠)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}D_{[i]}^{(1)}(E,𝐠)\chi _i(x,E,𝐠)$$
(5.1)
where the $`\chi _i`$ form an alternative basis of solutions to (2.1), fixed by the demand that they have the simplest possible behaviours near the origin:

$$\chi _ix^{g_i}+O(x^{g_i+n}),x0.$$
(5.2)
(Recall that the $`g_i`$ are the roots of the indicial polynomial (2.7).) Strictly speaking the asymptotic (5.2) does not always suffice to pin down all of the $`\chi _i`$. Assume, until further notice, that the $`g_i`$’s are ordered as

$$\mathrm{}e(g_0)<\mathrm{}e(g_1)<\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}e(g_{n1}).$$
(5.3)
Then $`\chi _0`$ is certainly uniquely determined by (5.2), and the $`\chi _{i>0}^{}`$ can be defined by a process of analytic continuation from this solution, just as is done for the radially-symmetric Schrödinger equation when passing between the so-called regular and irregular solutions. This will be used in §8 below.

The direct substitution of (5.1) into (3.5) yields an expansion for $`W_0^{(m)}(x,E,𝐠)`$ in which the functions $`\chi _i(\omega ^kx,\omega ^{nMk}E,𝐠)`$ appear as well as the $`\chi _i(x,E,𝐠)`$. However, all of these functions are solutions to the initial ODE, and by considering their behaviour near $`x=0`$ one finds

$$\chi _i(\omega ^kx,\omega ^{nMk}E,𝐠)=\omega ^{kg_i}\chi _i(x,E,𝐠).$$
(5.4)
Therefore the $`m`$-fold Wronskians $`W_0^{(m)}`$ have expansions of the form

$$W_0^{(m)}(x,E,𝐠)=\underset{0j_1<j_2<\mathrm{}<j_mn1}{}D_{[j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_m]}^{(m)}(E,𝐠)W^{(m)}[\chi _{j_1},\chi _{j_2}\mathrm{}\chi _{j_m}](x,E,𝐠).$$
(5.5)
Using (5.4), (5.1) and (3.5), the coefficients $`D_{[j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_m]}^{(m)}(E,𝐠)`$ can be expressed as sums of products of the $`D_{[i]}^{(1)}(\omega ^{nMk}E,𝐠)`$. This leads to relations which generalise the ‘quantum Wronskians’ of . However, for current purposes it is better to treat the coefficients with different values of $`m`$ as independent functions, and so we will leave further discussion of this point to another occasion.

We will initially focus on the dominant terms of the expansions (5.5). With the ordering (5.3), these are

$$W_0^{(m)}(x,E,𝐠)D_{[01\mathrm{}m1]}^{(m)}(E,𝐠)x^{\beta _m+m(nm)/2},x0$$
(5.6)
where in order to simplify subsequent calculations we set

$$\beta _m=\underset{j=0}{\overset{m1}{}}g_jm(n1)/2.$$
(5.7)
Substituting (5.5) into (4.7), an $`x`$-independent equation is found by extracting the coefficient of the leading power $`x^\alpha `$, $`\alpha =_{j=0}^n(\beta _j+j(nj)/2)`$. Shifting $`E`$ to $`\omega ^{nM}E`$ and setting

$`D^{(m)}(E,𝐠)=D_{[01\mathrm{}m1]}^{(m)}(E,𝐠),D_k^{(m)}(E,𝐠)=D^{(m)}(\omega ^{nMk}E,𝐠),`$
$`T^{(1)}(E,𝐠)=C^{(1)}(\omega ^{nM}E,𝐠),`$ (5.8)
the final result can be written as

$$T^{(1)}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}D_0^{(j)}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{m1}{}}D_0^{(j)}\right)\omega ^{\beta _m}D_1^{(m)}\omega ^{\beta _{m+1}}D_1^{(m+1)}\left(\underset{j=m+2}{\overset{n}{}}D_0^{(j)}\right).$$
(5.9)
This is a generalised T-Q relation, with the $`D^{(j)}`$ playing the role of the eigenvalues of the $`Q`$ (or $`A`$ in ) operators. In the language of integrable lattice models relations of this type are known as the dressed vacuum form for the transfer matrix eigenvalues (see for example ).

We can now derive an initial set of BA equations. Suppose that the zeroes of $`D^{(m)}(E)`$ are at $`E=F_k^{(m)}`$, $`k=1,2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. (For the next few equations we will leave the dependence of all functions on $`𝐠`$ implicit.) Setting $`E=F_k^{(m)}`$ in (5.9), the LHS vanishes, as do all but two terms in the sum on the RHS. Assuming, as will generically be the case, that there are no further vanishings, this gives us the following set of coupled equations for the $`\{F_k^{(m)}\}`$:

$$\frac{D^{(m1)}(\omega ^{nM}F_k^{(m)})}{D^{(m1)}(F_k^{(m)})}\frac{D^{(m)}(\omega ^{nM}F_k^{(m)})}{D^{(m)}(\omega ^{nM}F_k^{(m)})}\frac{D^{(m+1)}(F_k^{(m)})}{D^{(m+1)}(\omega ^{nM}F_k^{(m)})}=\omega _{}^{2\beta _m+\beta _{m1}+\beta _{m+1}}.$$
(5.10)
These form a system of Bethe Ansatz equations (BAE) of $`SU(n)`$ type (see, for example, equation (3.32) of ). However the reality properties are not very transparent when the equations are given in this form, and it is useful to make one more definition, setting

$$D^{(m)}(E,𝐠)=A^{(m)}(\omega ^{nM(m1)/2}E,𝐠),F_k^{(m)}=\omega ^{nM(m1)/2}E_k^{(m)}.$$
(5.11)
Then the BAE (5.10) become

$$\frac{A^{(m1)}(\omega ^{nM/2}E_k^{(m)})}{A^{(m1)}(\omega ^{nM/2}E_k^{(m)})}\frac{A^{(m)}(\omega ^{nM}E_k^{(m)})}{A^{(m)}(\omega ^{nM}E_k^{(m)})}\frac{A^{(m+1)}(\omega ^{nM/2}E_k^{(m)})}{A^{(m+1)}(\omega ^{nM/2}E_k^{(m)})}=\omega _{}^{2\beta _m+\beta _{m1}+\beta _{m+1}}.$$
(5.12)
These can also be written using the Cartan matrix $`C_{mt}`$ of the $`SU(n)`$ Dynkin diagram:

$$\underset{t=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\omega _{}^{C_{mt}\beta _t}\frac{A^{(t)}(\omega ^{\frac{nM}{2}C_{mt}}E_k^{(m)})}{A^{(t)}(\omega ^{\frac{nM}{2}C_{mt}}E_k^{(m)})}=1,k=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(5.13)
Finally, the BAE can be given a factorised form once the growth properties of the functions involved have been established. A WKB treatment along the lines of  shows that the function $`A^{(1)}(E,𝐠)=D_{[0]}^{(1)}(E,𝐠)`$ has the large $`|E|`$ asymptotic

$$\mathrm{ln}A^{(1)}(E,𝐠)\kappa (nM,n)(E)^\mu ,|E|\mathrm{},|\mathrm{arg}(E)|<\pi ,$$
(5.14)
where

$$\mu =\frac{(M+1)}{nM},\kappa (a,b)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{1}{a})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{1}{b})\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{b})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b})\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{b}+\frac{\pi }{a})}.$$
(5.15)
The asymptotics for the remaining $`\mathrm{ln}A^{(m)}(E,𝐠)`$ are more tricky. So long as it is assumed that the other functions $`D_{[i]}^{(1)}`$ share the asymptotic (5.14), then the quantum Wronskian-like relations mentioned just after (5.5) can be used to show that all of the $`A^{(m)}(E,𝐠)`$ are of the same order, namely $`\mu `$. For this section this suffices, but for the NLIE a more precise result will be required. Unfortunately, cancellations of leading terms seem to be at work inside the quantum Wronskians in almost all directions in the complex $`E`$ plane, making a direct calculation rather difficult. However, indirect evidence suggests the following:

$$\mathrm{ln}A^{(m)}(E,𝐠)\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi m/n)}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi /n)}\kappa (nM,n)(E)^\mu ,|\mathrm{arg}(E)|<\pi .$$
(5.16)
Note that this claim matches the $`_2`$ symmetry property of the spectral determinants discussed in §7 below, and its implications are in agreement with the numerical checks for the “soluble” $`M=1/n`$ cases reported in §8.

For $`M>1/(n1)`$ the order $`\mu `$ of the functions $`A^{(m)}(E,𝐠)`$ is less than one, so the Hadamard factorization theorem implies

$$A^{(m)}(E,𝐠)=A^{(m)}(0,𝐠)\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1\frac{E}{E_j^{(m)}}\right).$$
(5.17)
This finally allows (5.13) to be written as

$$\underset{t=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\omega ^{C_{mt}\beta _t}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{E_j^{(t)}\omega ^{\frac{nM}{2}C_{mt}}E_k^{(m)}}{E_j^{(t)}\omega ^{\frac{nM}{2}C_{mt}}E_k^{(m)}}\right)=1,k=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(5.18)
## 6 The nonlinear integral equation

Next we derive a set of coupled nonlinear integral equations. Define

$$a^{(m)}(E,𝐠)=\underset{t=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\omega ^{C_{mt}\beta _t}\frac{A^{(t)}(\omega ^{\frac{nM}{2}C_{mt}}E,𝐠)}{A^{(t)}(\omega ^{\frac{nM}{2}C_{mt}}E,𝐠)}$$
(6.1)
so that $`a^{(m)}(E_k^{(m)},𝐠)=1`$ by (5.13). We will follow the ideas of  (another approach can be found in ). The product representation (5.17) allows $`\mathrm{ln}a^{(m)}`$ to be written as an infinite sum over the zeroes $`E_k^{(m)}`$ of $`A^{(m)}`$. We now make two important assumptions: that all of the $`E_k^{(m)}`$ lie on the positive real axis of the complex $`E`$ plane, and that these are the only points in some narrow strip about this axis at which $`a^{(m)}(E,𝐠)`$ is equal to $`1`$. We expect that these will hold for some range of the parameters $`𝐠`$. Cauchy’s theorem can then be used to replace the sum by an integral along a contour $`𝒞`$ which runs from $`+\mathrm{}`$ to $`0`$ above the real axis, encircles the origin and returns to $`\mathrm{}`$ below the real axis:

$$\mathrm{ln}a^{(m)}(E,𝐠)=\frac{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi i}{n(M+1)}\underset{t=1}{\overset{n1}{}}C_{mt}\beta _t+\underset{t=1}{\overset{n1}{}}_𝒞\frac{dE^{}}{2\pi i}F_{mt}(E/E^{})_E^{}\mathrm{ln}(1+a^{(t)}(E^{},𝐠))$$
(6.2)
where

$$F_{mt}(E)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{1\omega ^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{nM}{2}}C_{mt}}E}{1\omega ^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{nM}{2}}C_{mt}}E}.$$
(6.3)
After a variable change $`E=\mathrm{exp}(\theta /\mu )`$, we define (with a mild abuse of notation) $`\mathrm{ln}a^{(m)}(\theta )\mathrm{ln}a^{(m)}(e^{\theta /\mu },𝐠)`$, integrate by parts and use the property $`[a^{(m)}(\theta )]^{}=a^{(m)}(\theta ^{})^1`$ to find

$`\mathrm{ln}a^{(m)}(\theta ){\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\theta ^{}R_{mt}(\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{ln}a^{(t)}(\theta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{n(M+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}C_{mt}\beta _t`$
$`2i{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\theta ^{}R_{mt}(\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{}m\mathrm{ln}(1+a^{(t)}(\theta ^{}i0)).`$
Here $`R_{mt}(\theta )=\frac{i}{2\pi }_\theta F_{mt}(e^{\theta /\mu })`$. We now take the Fourier transform of this equation, setting

$`\stackrel{~}{f}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[f\right](k)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}f(\theta )e^{i\theta k}d\theta ,`$ (6.5)
$`f(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`^1[\stackrel{~}{f}](\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{f}(k)e^{i\theta k}𝑑k.`$ (6.6)
The transformed equations can be written in a compact form as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}(\delta _{mt}\stackrel{~}{R}_{mt}(k))[\mathrm{ln}a^{(t)}](k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4i\pi ^2\delta (k)}{n(M+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}C_{mt}\beta _t`$ (6.7)
$`2i{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\stackrel{~}{R}_{mt}(k)\mathrm{}m[\mathrm{ln}(1+a^{(t)})](k),`$
where the non-vanishing entries of $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{mt}(k)`$ are

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{<mt>}(k)=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{n}\xi k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{n}(1+\xi )k)},\stackrel{~}{R}_{mm}(k)=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{n}(1\xi )k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{n}(1+\xi )k)},(\xi =\frac{1}{M})$$
(6.8)
the notation $`<mt>`$ implying that the nodes $`m`$ and $`t`$ are connected on the Dynkin diagram of $`SU(n)`$. Applying the inverse matrix $`(11\stackrel{~}{R}(k))^1`$, transforming back and rewriting the imaginary parts in terms of values above and below the real axis, we obtain a set of coupled NLIEs for the functions $`a^{(m)}(\theta )`$, $`m=1,\mathrm{},n1`$ , considered along contours $`𝒞_1`$ and $`𝒞_2`$ which run from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$, just below and just above the real $`\theta `$-axis:

$`\mathrm{ln}a^{(m)}(\theta )=i\pi \alpha _m(𝐠)ib_0M_me^\theta `$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle _{𝒞_1}}𝑑\theta ^{}\phi _{mt}(\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{ln}(1+a^{(t)}(\theta ^{})){\displaystyle _{𝒞_2}}𝑑\theta ^{}\phi _{mt}(\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^{(t)}(\theta ^{})}})\right).`$ (6.9)
The driving terms $`ib_0M_ne^\theta `$ arise from zero modes, which can be traced to the poles of $`(11\stackrel{~}{R}(k))^1`$ at $`k=i`$, and their magnitudes

$$b_0=2\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mu )\kappa (nM,n),M_m=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi m/n)}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi /n)}$$
(6.10)
are fixed by imposing the asymptotic (5.16). The kernel and twist factors are, respectively,

$`\phi _{mt}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`^1\left[\left(11(11\stackrel{~}{R}(k))^1\right)_{mt}\right](\theta ),`$ (6.11)
$`\alpha _r(𝐠)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{n(M+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{t,m=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(11\stackrel{~}{R}(0)\right)_{rm}^1C_{mt}\beta _t.`$ (6.12)
These can be written more explicitly with the help of the deformed Cartan matrix

$$C_{mt}(k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\hfill & m=t,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi k}{n})}\hfill & <mt>\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.13)
and its inverse

$$C_{tm}^1(k)=C_{mt}^1(k)=\frac{\mathrm{coth}(\frac{\pi }{n}k)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{n}(nm)k)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{n}tk)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\pi k)}(mt).$$
(6.14)
By (6.8), the non-vanishing off-diagonal and diagonal elements of $`\stackrel{~}{R}(k)`$ are related by $`2\stackrel{~}{R}_{<mt>}(k)=(1\stackrel{~}{R}_{mm}(k))/\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi k}{n})`$, and so

$$\delta _{mt}\stackrel{~}{R}_{mt}(k)=\frac{1}{2}C_{mt}(k)(1\stackrel{~}{R}_{mm}(k)),$$
(6.15)
where

$$1\stackrel{~}{R}_{mm}(k)=\frac{2\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{n}\xi k)\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{n}k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{n}(1+\xi )k)}.$$
(6.16)
Plugging relations (6.15) and (6.16) into (6.12) and (6.11) we obtain

$`\phi _{mt}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}e^{ik\theta }\left(\delta _{mt}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{n}(1+\xi )k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{n}\xi k)\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{n}k)}}C_{mt}^1(k)\right),`$
$`\alpha _m(𝐠)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}\beta _m,`$ (6.17)
with $`\xi =1/M`$. The final NLIEs exactly match the massless versions of the equations found in  in a completely different context.

## 7 Symmetry properties

The $`SU(n)`$ Dynkin diagram has an evident $`_2`$ symmetry, swapping nodes $`m`$ and $`nm`$. This symmetry is also respected by the BAE so long as the twists are transformed at the same time. We would expect to see signs of this symmetry in the differential equation, but quite how is not immediately obvious. For example, the first node of the Dynkin diagram is associated with the basic solution $`y(x,E,𝐠)`$ while its partner, the $`(n1)^{\mathrm{th}}`$ node, is associated with an $`(n1)`$-fold Wronskian $`W_0^{(n1)}(x,E,𝐠)`$. The answer to this puzzle is provided by the fact that taking the Wronskian of $`n1`$ solutions to an $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ order ODE automatically provides a solution to the adjoint equation. For $`n=3`$ this observation can be found in , and was related to the current context in . For general $`n`$, the result can be established as follows. It is easiest not to use the factorised form (2.5) of $`D(𝐠)`$ for the differential operator, but rather to suppose that (2.8) has been rewritten as

$$\frac{d^n}{dx^n}\psi +B_2(x)\frac{d^{n2}}{dx^{n2}}\psi +B_3(x)\frac{d^{n3}}{dx^{n3}}\psi +\mathrm{}+(1)^{n+1}P(x,E)\psi =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(7.1)
(For the differential operators discussed in §2, $`B_k(x)=(1)^{n+1}A_kx^k`$, but neither this nor the explicit relation between the $`A_k`$’s and the $`g_i`$’s will be needed for the argument.) Now consider $`n1`$ solutions to this equation, gathered together into a vector as $`𝐟=(f_1,f_2,\mathrm{}f_{n1})`$. We denote by $`V[a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}a_{n1}]`$ the determinant of the matrix whose rows are the derivatives $`𝐟^{[a_1]},𝐟^{[a_1]},\mathrm{}𝐟^{[a_{n1}]}`$, so that the Wronskian of $`f_1,f_2\mathrm{}f_{n1}`$ is

$$W^{(n1)}[f_1,f_2,\mathrm{}f_{n1}](x,E,𝐠)=V[0,1,\mathrm{},n2].$$
(7.2)
Differentiating once, and using the general property that the differential of a determinant is equal to a sum of determinants in which each row has been differentiated,

$$\frac{d}{dx}V[a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}a_{n1}]=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}V[a_1,\mathrm{}a_{k1},a_k+1,a_{k+1},\mathrm{}a_{n1}],$$
(7.3)
we have

$$\frac{d}{dx}W^{(n1)}=V[0,1,\mathrm{}n4,n3,n1],$$
(7.4)
all other terms vanishing by antisymmetry. Differentiating again,

$$\frac{d^2}{dx^2}W^{(n1)}=V[0,1,\mathrm{}n4,n2,n1]+V[0,1,\mathrm{}n4,n3,n].$$
(7.5)
The last term can be rewritten using (7.1) to substitute for $`𝐟^{[n]}`$:

$$V[0,1,\mathrm{}n4,n3,n]=B_2(x)V[0,1,\mathrm{}n4,n3,n2]=B_2(x)W^{(n1)}.$$
(7.6)
(Again, all other terms vanish by antisymmetry.) Thus

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+B_2(x)\right)W^{(n1)}=V[0,1,\mathrm{}n4,n2,n1].$$
(7.7)
The pattern should now be clear. Differentiating both sides of (7.7) will again result in two terms on the RHS. The second of these can be rewritten using (7.1), but this time yields $`B_3(x)W^{(n1)}`$ instead of $`B_2(x)W^{(n1)}`$ as the one non-vanishing contribution. Taking this over onto the LHS and continuing to differentiate, one finally finds that $`W^{(n1)}`$ satisfies

$$\left(\frac{d^n}{dx^n}+\frac{d^{n2}}{dx^{n2}}B_2(x)\frac{d^{n3}}{dx^{n3}}B_3(x)+\mathrm{}P(x,E)\right)W^{(n1)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(7.8)
which is indeed (up to an overall sign) the equation adjoint to (7.1). Now we can return to the factorised form of $`D(𝐠)`$, take its adjoint using (2.3), and rewrite (7.8) as:

$$\left((1)^{n+1}D(𝐠^{})+(1)^nP(x,E)\right)W^{(n1)}(x,E,𝐠)=0,P(x,E)=x^{nM}E,$$
(7.9)
with

$$𝐠^{}=(g_0^{},g_1^{},\mathrm{}g_{n1}^{}),g_j^{}=n1g_{n1j}^{}.$$
(7.10)
For $`n`$ even this is the original ODE (2.8), modulo the swap to the ‘conjugate’ set of parameters $`𝐠^{}`$. For $`n`$ odd, the term $`P(x,E)`$ has been replaced by $`P(x,E)`$. However, the conventions adopted in the definition (3.2) mean that the ‘half-shifted’ functions $`y_{k+1/2}(x,E,𝐠)`$ ($`k`$) themselves solve (2.8) with $`P`$ replaced by $`P`$. Taking an $`(n1)`$-fold Wronskian of these functions and repeating the above discussion, the minus signs cancel. In particular, this means that whether $`n`$ is even or odd we have

$$\left((1)^{n+1}D(𝐠^{})+P(x,E)\right)W_{1n/2}^{(n1)}(x,E,𝐠)=0.$$
(7.11)
This is exactly the equation solved by the $`y_k(x,E,𝐠^{})`$. Comparing asymptotics as $`|x|\mathrm{}`$ in $`𝒮_0`$, we finally establish the formula

$$W_{1n/2}^{(n1)}(x,E,𝐠)=y(x,E,𝐠^{}).$$
(7.12)
This shows that the $`(n1)`$-fold Wronskian is (up to a shift in its arguments) just a basic solution to another ODE, and thus demonstrates that the relation between the first and last nodes is indeed reflected in the properties of the differential equation. The spectral functions corresponding to the remaining nodes on the Dynkin diagram can now be obtained either as $`m`$-fold Wronskians of the $`W_{k+1/2}^{(n1)}`$, or as $`(nm)`$-fold Wronskians of the $`y_k`$, and the diagram symmetry should be reflected in the equality of the results of the two calculations. Keeping the normalisation of the $`y`$’s as in (3.4), the necessary identity is the following:

$$W_{m1}^{(nm)}=W^{(m)}[W_0^{(n1)},W_1^{(n1)},\mathrm{},W_{m1}^{(n1)}].$$
(7.13)
While we do not have a general proof, for $`m=2`$ this result follows from the Jacobi identity (cf. for example equation (2.20) of ) and the fact that $`W^{(n)}=1`$. This case is also equivalent to a formula due to Frobenius , more recently reviewed in .

## 8 Analytic continuation and the linear potential

Thus far, we have restricted attention to the dominant terms in the expansions (5.5). However, quite which term is dominant depends on the ordering (5.3) of the $`g_i`$’s. While the ODE (2.8) is insensitive to this ordering (as remarked earlier, it depends on the $`g_i`$ in a symmetrical manner), the same is not true of the NLIE (6.9), since it sees not the parameters $`𝐠`$ but rather the BA twists $`\alpha (𝐠)`$. By analytic continuation, it should be possible to move between different twists corresponding to the same ODE, thereby accessing the other terms in the expansions. In this section we will test this idea by means of a simple example. This also serves as a rather strong check on the various conjectures that have been made above.

In the expansion of $`y`$ given by (5.1), the coefficients $`D_{[i]}^{(1)}`$ are explicitly

$$D_{[i]}^{(1)}(E,𝐠)=(1)^i\frac{W^{(n)}[W_0^{(1)}(x,E,𝐠),\chi _0,\mathrm{}\chi _{i1},\chi _{i+1},\mathrm{}\chi _{n1}]}{W^{(n)}[\chi _0,\mathrm{}\chi _{n1}]}$$
(8.1)
where

$$W^{(n)}[\chi _0,\mathrm{}\chi _{n1}]=\underset{j=0,i=j+1}{\overset{n1}{}}(g_jg_i).$$
(8.2)
Thus, for example, continuation of the parameters from $`𝐠=(g_0,\mathrm{}g_i,\mathrm{}g_j,\mathrm{}g_{n1})`$ to $`𝐠^{}=(g_0,\mathrm{}g_j,\mathrm{}g_i,\mathrm{}g_{n1})`$ has the following effect

$$D_{[i]}^{(1)}(E,𝐠^{})=D_{[j]}^{(1)}(E,𝐠),D_{[j]}^{(1)}(E,𝐠^{})=D_{[i]}^{(1)}(E,𝐠),$$
(8.3)
with the other $`D_{[k]}^{(1)}(E,𝐠)`$ remaining unchanged. So long as the property (2.6) is preserved at all points of the continuation, the NLIE will hold throughout. At the end of the continuation, the ODE will have returned to its original form, but the NLIE will have undergone a nontrivial monodromy, since the twists will have changed. Explicitly, an NLIE describing $`D_{[i]}^{(1)}(E,𝐠)`$ can be found by continuing the twist parameter $`\alpha `$ to $`\alpha ^{}`$ via the transformation $`g_0g_i`$, with the remaining $`g_k`$ being allowed to permute amongst themselves. In fact, a number of different NLIEs can be obtained, depending on the permutation chosen.

A set of special choices for the vector $`𝐠`$ provides a simple illustration of all this. We use the notation $`\widehat{𝐠}`$ to indicate a vector with distinct components $`g_j`$ taking values in the set $`\{0,1,\mathrm{}(n1)\}`$. There are $`n!`$ different $`\widehat{𝐠}`$, but for each choice the resulting differential operator $`D(\widehat{𝐠})`$ is equal to $`\frac{d^n}{dx^n}`$. We will use $`\widehat{𝐠}_i`$ to indicate $`g_0`$ has been fixed to be equal to $`i`$. In this particularly simple case, the functions (8.1) become

$$D_{[i]}^{(1)}(E,\widehat{𝐠}_i)=\frac{1}{i!}\frac{d^i}{dx^i}y(0,E,\widehat{𝐠}).$$
(8.4)
(Since the function $`y(x,E,\widehat{𝐠})`$ does not depend on the ordering of the components of $`\widehat{𝐠}`$, we omit the subscript $`i`$ on the RHS of this equation.) The direct treatment of previous sections only allowed us to discuss $`D_{[0]}^{(1)}=y(0,E,\widehat{𝐠})`$, but according to the continuation idea just described, the NLIEs should also encode information about the higher derivatives $`y^{[i]}`$.

To make a numerical check, we set $`M=1/n`$, so that $`P(x,E)=xE`$ and the ODE is solvable by a complex Fourier transform, as in  for $`n=3`$. This lies outside the range $`M>1/(n1)`$, but, just as in previous examples , we assume that the final NLIE continues to hold. If we write $`y(x,E,\widehat{𝐠}_i)=𝒜(xE)`$, then the ODE becomes

$$(1)^{n+1}\frac{d^n𝒜(x)}{dx^n}+x𝒜(x)=0$$
(8.5)
and has the normalised solution

$$𝒜(x)=\frac{1}{i^{(n1)/2}\sqrt{2\pi }}_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑pe^{ipx+\frac{(ip)^{n+1}}{n+1}}.$$
(8.6)
The contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ follows a path in the lower half complex plane that starts at $`|x|=\mathrm{}`$ along the ray $`\mathrm{arg}(x)=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\pi }{n+1}`$ and ends along $`\mathrm{arg}(x)=\frac{\pi }{2}+\frac{\pi }{n+1}`$ (for $`n=3`$ this is illustrated in figure 2 of ). Evaluating (8.6) numerically for $`n=3,4`$ and $`5`$, we achieved good agreement with results obtained via the numerical treatment of (6.9), not only for the zeroes of the functions $`y(0,E,\widehat{𝐠})`$ but also, after analytic continuation from $`𝐠_0`$ to $`𝐠_1`$, $`𝐠_2`$ and so on, of $`y^{}(0,E,\widehat{𝐠}),\mathrm{},y^{[n1]}(0,E,\widehat{𝐠})`$. The accuracy obtained was typically to $`12`$ digits, and could doubtless be improved with longer computing runs. Occasionally, the NLIE (6.9) breaks down, and in particular attempts to solve it by numerical iteration fail to converge. Generally this happens whenever there is a breakdown in one or other of the two assumptions necessary for the derivation of the NLIE in its simplest form, mentioned at the beginning of §6 above. For the continuations between the different $`\widehat{𝐠}_i`$ it seems to be the second assumption which sometimes fails, with points appearing on the positive real axis of the complex $`E`$ plane, not in the set $`\{E_k^{(m)}\}`$, at which the functions $`a^{(m)}`$ take the value $`1`$. (For $`n=2`$ these points are zeroes of $`T(E)`$, and the necessary modification of the NLIE was discussed in .) In most cases we found that by altering the choice of $`\widehat{𝐠}_i`$ the problem could anyway be avoided. One exceptional case is $`n=3`$. The two choices for $`\widehat{𝐠}_1`$ are $`(1,0,2)`$ and $`(1,2,0)`$, and for neither of these did iteration of the basic NLIE converge. Despite this fact, an extrapolation allowed a comparison with the results of the complex Fourier transform to be made, and we found that the zeroes of $`y^{}(0,E,\widehat{𝐠})`$ were indeed reproduced. Note that in this case the zeroes of $`y(0,E,\widehat{𝐠})`$ and $`y^{\prime \prime }(0,E,\widehat{𝐠})`$ can be found from an NLIE which respects the $`SU(3)`$ diagram symmetry , but that to find the zeroes of $`y^{}(0,E,\widehat{𝐠})`$, we are forced to use an integral equation which breaks this symmetry.

## 9 Duality

As in , a duality transformation can be defined which relates solutions of the ODEs with $`M>0`$ with solutions of ODEs of the same form but with $`1<M<0`$. For $`n=2`$, the case of the Schrödinger equation, this relates a confining potential to a singular potential. The first step is to implement a (generalised) Langer  transformation

$$z=\mathrm{ln}x,y(x)=e^{(n1)z/2}u(z).$$
(9.1)
The use of the operators $`D(g)`$ and $`D(𝐠)`$ makes this task very simple, since the relation

$$\left(\frac{d}{dx}\frac{g}{x}\right)e^{\frac{p1}{2}z(x)}f(z(x))=e^{\frac{p3}{2}z}\left(\frac{d}{dz}+\frac{p1}{2}g\right)f(z)$$
(9.2)
allows exponentials of $`z`$ to be passed successively through the factors of $`D(𝐠)`$, resulting in the transformed equation

$$\left[(1)^{n+1}\left(\frac{d}{dz}\gamma _{n1}\right)\mathrm{}\left(\frac{d}{dz}\gamma _1\right)\left(\frac{d}{dz}\gamma _0\right)+e^{n(1+M)z}Ee^{nz}\right]u(z)=0$$
(9.3)
where $`\gamma _i=g_i(n1)/2`$. The exponentials can now be exchanged via $`z\frac{z}{M+1}+\mathrm{ln}\frac{M+1}{E^{1/n}}`$ to obtain

$$\left[(1)^{n+1}\left(\frac{d}{dz}\frac{\gamma _{n1}}{M+1}\right)\mathrm{}\left(\frac{d}{dz}\frac{\gamma _1}{M+1}\right)\left(\frac{d}{dz}\frac{\gamma _0}{M+1}\right)\stackrel{~}{E}e^{nz}e^{\frac{nz}{M+1}}\right]u(z)=0,$$
(9.4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{E}=(M+1)^{nM}E^{(M+1)}`$. Applying the inverse transformation, (2.8) becomes

$$\left((1)^{n+1}D(\stackrel{~}{𝐠})+P(x,\stackrel{~}{E})\right)y(x)=0,P(x,\stackrel{~}{E})=x^{n\stackrel{~}{M}}\stackrel{~}{E},$$
(9.5)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=\frac{M}{M+1},\stackrel{~}{𝐠}=\{\stackrel{~}{g}_0,\stackrel{~}{g}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{g}_{n1}\},\stackrel{~}{g}_i=\frac{g_i+M(n1)/2}{M+1}.$$
(9.6)
(Observe that the property (2.6) is preserved by the transformation of $`𝐠`$.) This, the dual equation, is the same as the original ODE (2.8) apart from the reversed sign in front of the ‘potential’ term $`x^{n\stackrel{~}{M}}`$, and the fact that the parameters $`(M,𝐠)`$ have been replaced by $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{𝐠})`$. Thus the equation transforms very simply under duality.

## 10 Conclusions

In this paper we have found a hidden $`SU(n)`$ structure inside certain $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$-order differential equations. This has enabled a large set of Bethe Ansatz systems, and their associated nonlinear integral equations, to be related directly to spectral problems.

One aspect that we did not discuss relates to the truncations of the functional relations which can occur at special values of the parameters $`M`$ and $`𝐠`$. These can provide a link to equations arising in the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz, a subject of much independent interest. The earlier analysis of , which should be considered as complementary to our work, was much closer to this approach, and it would be interesting to develop it further.

The correspondence between Bethe ansatz systems and ordinary differential equations has various potential applications. From the point of view of integrable systems, results such as duality properties are made much more apparent by the mapping into a differential equation, a fact which has already been exploited, for $`n=2`$, in . In fact, at least for $`n=2`$, the $`T`$ and $`Q`$-functions are coming to have an increasingly important role to play in the general study of integrable quantum field theories with boundaries , and this makes it likely that the new perspective on these functions provided by their reinterpretation as spectral determinants will prove of broader relevance. (This subject is even starting to find applications in string theory .) To give one example, in the study of boundary flows direct relations between the $`T`$’s and the $`g`$-functions of Affleck and Ludwig  have been found in certain cases .

On the other hand, it is also rather remarkable that one can obtain information about spectral determinants for quantum mechanical problems, and more general ODEs, using conformal field theory techniques such as the truncated conformal space approach  and perturbation theory . Our treatment also entailed some rather strong conjectures about the reality and positivity properties of spectral problems associated with the ordinary differential equations under consideration. These conjectures were well-supported by numerical work, but proofs are still lacking. Previous examples of spectral problems which, despite having no obvious hermiticity, still exhibit real spectra include the $`𝒞𝒫`$ symmetric quantum mechanics of . (This was briefly discussed from the point of view of functional relations and T-Q systems in .) It appears that a much larger set of problems sharing similar properties is being uncovered, and it would be very rewarding to understand this behaviour at a deeper level.

Acknowledgements – We would like to thank John Cardy, David dei Cont, Philippe di Francesco, Jan de Gier, Bernard Nienhuis, André Voros, Ole Warnaar and Jean-Bernard Zuber for useful conversations and help. PED and TCD thank SPhT Saclay, and PED thanks the Departamento de Física de Partículas, USC (Santiago de Compostela), for hospitality. RT thanks the Universiteit van Amsterdam for a post-doctoral fellowship, and PED and TCD thank the EPSRC for an Advanced Fellowship and a Research Studentship respectively. The work was supported in part by a TMR grant of the European Commission, reference ERBFMRXCT960012.

Note added – After this paper was finished we were informed by J. Suzuki that he has also been working on this topic, with results which partially overlap those reported here. We also thank J. Suzuki for suggesting some improvements in our terminology.


text:
# References

The mechanism of color confinement in Yang-Mills theory is known to be one of most difficult problems in theoretical physics. A qualitative explanation to this problem is provided by the monopole condensation that causes the confinement of color through the dual Meissner effect . It is conjectured that an Abelian projection of the Yang-Mills theory to its maximal Abelian subgroup is responsible for the dynamics of the dual Meissner effect. That is to say, in the infrared limit the degrees of freedom of a non-Abelian theory are dominated by those of its maximal Abelian subgroup . However, a quantitative understanding on how the monopole condenses in the low energy limit, starting from the fundamental Yang-Mills theory is still absent and awaits to be explored.

Recently Faddeev and Niemi had proposed an Abelian decomposition of the four-dimensional $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills connection $`A_\mu ^a`$ . The decomposed theory, which is appropriate for describing the Yang-Mills theory in its infrared limit, involves an Abelian gauge field $`C_\mu `$, a complex scalar field $`\varphi =\rho +i\sigma `$, and a three component unit vector field $`n^a`$. It is an on-shell decomposition because the variations of the decomposed theory with respect to the fields $`(C_\mu ,\varphi ,n^a)`$ reproduce the equations of motion of the original $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills theory. It is shown, on one hand, that if the fields $`(C_\mu ,\varphi )`$ are properly integrated out, the resultant theory supports string-like knotted solution, which describes at large distance the dynamics of extended, massive knotlike solitons . These solitonic configurations can be regarded as the natural candidates for describing glueballs. On the other hand, if the vector field $`n^a`$ is averaged over first, the multiplet $`(C_\mu ,\varphi )`$ transforms as the fields in the Abelian Higgs model.

The method of Abelian decomposition based on $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills theory is readily generalized to the general case of four-dimensional $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory . It is found that the $`SU(N)`$ connection decomposes according to irreducible representations of $`SO(N1)`$ and that the low energy limit of the decomposed theory may describe stable, soliton-like configurations with nontrivial topological numbers . The first principle derivation on the effective action that describes the Yang-Mills theories in the infrared limit can be found in .

In this letter, we extend the Abelian decomposition of four-dimensional $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills connection to the case of $`SO(2N)`$ gauge theory. We shall construct the $`N`$ mutually orthogonal Lie-algebra valued vector fields $`m_i`$ with unit length so that they describe $`2N(N1)`$ independent variables. Then we use the fields $`m_i`$ to construct several special $`SO(2N)`$ covariant one-forms, that are orthogonal to $`m_i`$ and determine a basis of roots in $`SO(2N)`$. Consequently, the combination of the fields $`m_i`$ and the covariant one-forms constructed from $`m_i`$ yields a complete basis states for $`SO(2N)`$ Lie algebra. All together, they will be used to decompose the generic $`SO(2N)`$ connections. In the concluding part of the letter, we discuss the generalization of Abelian decomposition for $`SO(2N+1)`$ Yang-Mills theory. It is straightforward provided the decomposition of $`SO(2N)`$ theory has been established.

The $`SO(2N)`$ Lie group is rank $`N`$ and its Lie algebra has $`N(2N1)`$ generators. We denote them by $`T_{a,b}`$ with antisymmetric property, i.e., $`T_{a,b}=T_{b,a}`$ for $`a,b=1\mathrm{to}2N`$. The generators are chosen in the defining representation as follows,

$$\left[T_{a,b}\right]_{c,d}=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\delta _{ac}\delta _{bd}\delta _{bc}\delta _{ad}\right).$$
(1)
Here, we have normalized the generators such that $`\mathrm{Tr}(T_{a,b}T_{c,d})=\delta _{ac}\delta _{bd}\delta _{ad}\delta _{bc}`$. The commutation relations among the generators (1) are easily obtained

$$[T_{a,b},T_{c,d}]=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\delta _{ac}T_{b,d}+\delta _{bd}T_{a,c}\delta _{ad}T_{b,c}+\delta _{bc}T_{a,d}\right).$$
(2)
This is the form for the rotational generators in a $`2N`$ dimensional real vector space.

We designate the basis of the commuting generators in the Cartan subalgebra as

$$H_{2i1,2i}=T_{2i1,2i},$$
(3)
where $`i=1\mathrm{to}N`$. Note that $`[H_{2i1,2i},H_{2j1,2j}]=0`$. In terms of the generators $`T_{a,b}`$, a generic Lie-algebra element $`v`$ has the expansion $`v=\frac{1}{2}v^{a,b}T_{a,b}`$. The factor one-half is needed to avoid double counting in the contraction summation.

Following , we now conjugate the elements of Cartan subalgebra $`H_{2i1,2i}`$ (3) by a generic element $`gSO(2N)`$. This gives $`N`$ Lie-algebra valued vector fields. They are

$$m_i=gH_{2i1,2i}g^1=\frac{1}{2}m_i^{a,b}T_{a,b}.$$
(4)
Note that the fields $`m_i`$ remain invariant if $`g`$ transforms by a right diagonal factor $`ggh`$, with $`h`$ belongs to the maximal Abelian subgroup of $`SO(2N)`$. In this way, $`m_i`$ produce an over-determined set of coordinates on the orbit $`SO(2N)/U(1)^N`$ and depend on only $`2N(N1)`$ independent variables. In addition, they are orthonormal

$$(m_i,m_j)\mathrm{Tr}\left(m_im_j\right)=\frac{1}{2}m_i^{a,b}m_j^{a,b}=\delta _{ij}.$$
(5)
Using (4), it is straightforward to verify that

$`[m_i,m_j]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\left(m_idm_j\right)`$ $`=`$ $`(m_i,dm_j)=0,`$ (7)
where $`dm_j=_\mu m_jdx^\mu `$.

Next, we proceed to consider an arbitrary Lie-algebra element $`v`$ under an infinitesimal adjoint action on the fields $`m_i`$. We define this action by

$$\delta ^iv=[v,m_i].$$
(8)
Applying the action $`\delta ^i`$ twice and summing over the index $`i`$, we obtain a projection operator to a subspace which is orthogonal to the maximal torus and is spanned by the Lie-algebra valued fields $`m_i`$,

$$(\delta ^i)^2v=vm_i(m_i,v).$$
(9)
Note that the subspace in which (9) projects corresponds to the space $`SO(2N)/U(1)^N`$, i.e., the roots of $`SO(2N)`$. To derive (9), we make use of (2), (5), and this equation

$$\underset{i}{}[[\stackrel{~}{v},H_{2i1,2i}],H_{2i1,2i}]=\stackrel{~}{v}\stackrel{~}{v}^{2i1,2i}H_{2i1,2i},$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{v}=g^1vg`$.

Having presented the basic formulas needed, we hope to generalize the method of Abelian decomposition for $`SO(2N)`$ Yang-Mills theory. Introducing the matrix notation for the $`SO(2N)`$ connection one-form

$$A=A_\mu dx^\mu =\frac{1}{2}A_\mu ^{a,b}T_{a,b}dx^\mu ,$$
(10)
we parameterize this connection one-form $`A`$ into the following expression

$$A=C^im_i+\frac{1}{i}[dm_i,m_i]+(\mathrm{covariant}\mathrm{part}).$$
(11)
The combination of the first two terms on the right-hand-side of (11) is the so-called Cho connection, which was first introduced as a consistent truncation of the full four-dimensional connection . It can be shown that, under $`N`$ independent gauge transformations generated by the Lie-algebra elements $`\alpha ^im_i`$, the Cho connection retains the full non-Abelian gauge degrees of freedom, while the one-forms $`C^i`$ transform as $`U(1)`$ connections, $`C^iC^i+d\alpha ^i`$. Hence, the remaining part on the right-hand-side of (11) (covariant part) must transform covariantly under gauge transformations and by construction must be orthogonal to the fields $`m_i`$.

Because the decomposition method introduced by Faddeev and Niemi is on-shell complete, the number of field multiplets that appear in the decomposed connection (11) have to be equal to that of physically relevant field degrees carried by the original $`SO(2N)`$ connection. It is known that the $`SO(2N)`$ Yang-Mills connection (10) contains $`2N(2N1)`$ physical components. On the contrary, the Cho connection in (11) introduces $`N`$ $`U(1)`$ connections $`C^i`$ and $`N`$ vector fields $`m_i`$. The former contributes $`2N`$ physical degrees of freedom, while the later describes $`2N(N1)`$ independent variables. Adding both contributions up gives $`2N^2`$. As a result, the difference in degrees of freedom between both connections is

$$2N(2N1)2N^2=2N(N1).$$
(12)
This is the number of independent variables held exactly by the (covariant part) of (11). So, the space of (covariant part) is $`2N(N1)`$ dimensional. Moreover, according to the definition the fields appearing in the (covariant part) of (11) are orthogonal to the fields $`m_i`$. We thus deduce that the space of the (covariant part) coincides with the subspace to which the operator (9) projects, the orbit $`SO(2N)/U(1)^N`$.

In the following paragraphs, we shall use the fields $`m_i`$ to construct certain special Lie-algebra valued one-forms, which determine the local basis of the (covariant part) space. What are these Lie-algebra valued one-forms? They can be gotten by repeatedly using the adjoint action (8). For instance, we first learn from (7) that the Lie-algebra valued one-forms $`dm_i`$ are orthogonal to $`m_k`$. Let’s denote $`dm_i`$ by $`X_i`$ for the purpose of later convenience and identify the one-forms $`X_i`$ as one subset of the basis states of the (covariant part) space. Next, we apply the adjoint action (8) on $`X_i`$ to obtain another one-forms $`Z_{ij}`$,

$$Z_{ij}\delta ^jX_i=[X_i,m_j].$$
(13)
It is not difficult to see that, by utilizing (6), the one-forms $`Z_{ij}`$ are orthogonal to $`m_k`$, too. Hence, the one-forms $`Z_{ij}`$ can also be used to parameterize the basis of the (covariant part) space. Consequently, we continue to find the remaining one-forms that span the (covariant part) space by recurrent applying the adjoint action (8) on the latest generated one-forms. After a little manipulation, we have

$`\delta ^kZ_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{ij}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta _{ik}+\delta _{jk}\right)X_k+V_{ik}+V_{jk}\right]+\delta _{ik}V_{kj}+\delta _{jk}V_{ki},`$ (14)
$`\delta ^kV_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{ik}Z_{kj}\delta _{jk}U_{ki},`$ (15)
$`\delta ^kU_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta _{ij}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta _{ik}+\delta _{jk}\right)X_k+V_{ik}+V_{jk}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta _{ik}V_{jk}+\delta _{jk}V_{ik}\right).`$ (16)
It turns out that we get four subsets of Lie-algebra valued one-forms $`(X_i,Z_{ij},V_{ij},U_{ij})`$ in total, which form a closed algebra under the adjoint action (8). The details of these one-forms are separately given in the Appendix.

The one-forms $`(X_i,Z_{ij},V_{ij},U_{ij})`$ possess definite properties under $`SO(N)`$ symmetries, for $`N`$ specifies the rank of $`SO(2N)`$. See the Appendix for details. For example, the one-forms $`X_i`$ yield the $`SO(N)`$ vector representation, $`V_{ij}`$ the $`SO(N)`$ rank-two tensor representation, and $`Z_{ij}`$ and $`U_{ij}`$ the $`SO(N)`$ symmetric tensor representations. However, not all of the components in the one-forms $`V_{ij}`$ and $`U_{ij}`$ are independent. It is shown, in the Appendix, that the rank-two tensor $`V_{ij}`$ satisfies two sets of constraints: $`_iV_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}X_j`$ and $`V_{ii}=0`$ (no summation), and that the symmetric tensor $`U_{ij}`$ obeys also two sets of constraints: $`_iU_{ij}=0`$ and $`U_{ii}=\frac{1}{2}Z_{ii}`$ (no summation).

After all, this enables us to count the number of independent components possessed by each one-forms $`X_i`$, $`Z_{ij}`$, $`V_{ij}`$, and $`U_{ij}`$. The dimension of the vector $`X_i`$ is $`N`$ and the dimension of the symmetric tensor $`Z_{ij}`$ is $`\frac{1}{2}N(N+1)`$. Analogously, after taking the constraint equations into account, the dimension of the second rank tensor $`V_{ij}`$ is $`N^22N`$ and the dimension of the other symmetric tensor $`U_{ij}`$ is $`\frac{1}{2}N(N+1)2N`$. The sum of these four numbers is $`2N(N1)`$, which as expect coincides with the dimension of the space $`SO(2N)/U(1)^N`$.

As a result, $`(m_i,X_i,Z_{ij},V_{ij},U_{ij})`$ yields a complete set of basis states for the $`SO(2N)`$ Lie algebra, and can be used to decompose generic $`SO(2N)`$ connections. To complete the decomposition, we need appropriate dual variables that appear as coefficients. We observe that the Yang-Mills connection $`A`$ in (10) is an $`SO(2N)`$ Lie-algebra valued one-form and transforms in the scalar representation of the $`SO(N)`$ group. Accordingly, the variables that are dual to the one-forms $`(X_i,Z_{ij},V_{ij},U_{ij})`$ are undoubtedly zero-forms. Let us denote them by $`(\varphi ^i,\psi ^{ij},\sigma ^{ij},\rho ^{ij})`$, respectively. These dual variables must transform in the same $`SO(N)`$ representations as the associated one-forms in order to form invariant combinations.111 The $`U(1)`$ connection one-forms $`C^i`$ in (11) are the dual variables to the zero-forms $`m_i`$. Thus, the $`SO(N)`$ group acts on the combination $`C^im_i`$ trivially.

We therefore conclude that the following decomposition of the four-dimensional $`SO(2N)`$ connection contains the correct number of independent variables, which are appropriate for describing the theory in the low-energy limit,

$$A=C^im_i+\frac{1}{i}[dm_i,m_i]+\varphi ^iX_i+\psi ^{ij}Z_{ij}+\sigma ^{ij}V_{ij}+\rho ^{ij}U_{ij}.$$
(17)
According to the discussion of the Appendix, (17) can also be expressed in a gauge equivalent form

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=\left(C^i\frac{1}{i}R^{2i1,2i}\right)H_{2i1,2i}+\varphi ^ix_i+\psi ^{ij}z_{ij}+\sigma ^{ij}v_{ij}+\rho ^{ij}u_{ij},$$
(18)
where $`(x_i,z_{ij},v_{ij},u_{ij})`$ = $`g^1(X_i,Z_{ij},V_{ij},U_{ij})g`$.

The Wilsonian renormalization group argument suggests that, in terms of the field variables of the decomposed connection (17), the infrared $`SO(2N)`$ Yang-Mills theory takes the form

$$S(m_i)=d^4x\left[\left(_\mu m_i\right)^2+\frac{1}{e_i^2}\left([_\mu m_i,_\nu m_i]\right)^2\right].$$
(19)
The action (19) is in the same universality class as that obtained in  and is expected to describe stable, soliton-like configurations with nontrivial topological numbers . It is interesting to investigate the detailed structures of the action.

In conclusion, we briefly summarize how the method of Abelian decomposition generalizes for $`SO(2N+1)`$ Yang-Mills connection. The $`SO(2N+1)`$ Lie algebra is rank $`N`$ and has $`N(2N+1)`$ generators. As usual, we denote the generators by $`T_{a,b}`$ for $`a,b`$ = $`1`$ to $`N+1`$. The $`N`$ Lie-algebra valued vector fields $`m_i`$ are constructed similar to (4) except that they depend on $`2N^2`$ independent variables. The $`SO(2N+1)`$ connection one-form can still be parameterized by (11), but the dimension of the space of the (covariant part) is $`2N^2`$. Needless to say, the (covariant part) space is identical to the space $`SO(2N+1)/U(1)^N`$. The set of Lie-algebra one-forms, which determine the local basis of the space $`SO(2N+1)/U(1)^N`$, are found to be $`(X_i,Z_{ij},V_{ij},U_{ij})`$. At this time, one-forms $`V_{ij}`$ fulfill one set of constraint instead of two. It is $`V_{ii}=0`$ (no summation). As regards the one-form $`U_{ij}`$, the set of constraint satisfied by it is $`U_{ii}=\frac{1}{2}Z_{ii}`$ (no summation). It ends up that the number of independent variables carried by the set of one-forms $`(X_i,Z_{ij},V_{ij},U_{ij})`$ is $`2N^2`$, matching the dimension of the (covariant part) space. Therefore, the expression (17) for the connection one-form is perfectly applicable to the decomposition of $`SO(2N+1)`$ Yang-Mills theory.

The author is grateful to C. R. Lee for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by Taiwan’s National Science Council Grant No. 89-2112-M-194-003.

Appendix

We explicitly give the Lie-algebra valued one-forms $`X_i`$, $`Z_{ij}`$, $`V_{ij}`$, and $`U_{ij}`$, expanded in terms of the generators $`T_{a,b}`$ (1). In (17), these one-forms are used to parameterize the local basis of the orbit $`SO(2N)/U(1)^N`$.

To begin with, we introduce the Maurer-Cartan one-forms

$$L=dgg^1\mathrm{and}R=g^1dg,$$
(20)
then use (4) and (20) to rewrite

$`dm_i`$ $`=`$ $`[L,m_i]=g[R,H_{2i1,2i}]g^1,`$ (21)
$`[dm_i,m_i]`$ $`=`$ $`g\left(RR^{2i1,2i}H_{2i1,2i}\right)g^1=Lg\left(R^{2i1,2i}H_{2i1,2i}\right)g^1.`$ (22)
Because the (covariant part) of (11) transforms covariantly under gauge transformation, we further represent the connection one-form (11) in a form of manifestly gauge equivalent expression

$$A=g[(C^i\frac{1}{i}R^{2i1,2i})H_{2i1,2i}+(\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{p}.)]g^1+\frac{1}{i}dgg^1,$$
(23)
where $`(\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{p}.)=g^1(\mathrm{covariant}\mathrm{part})g`$. Similar to what we have shown on the local basis of the (covariant part) space in (11), the space of (c.p.) in (23) is likewise spanned by four Lie-algebra one-forms $`(x_i,z_{ij},v_{ij},u_{ij})`$. They are related to the one-forms $`(X_i,Z_{ij},V_{ij},U_{ij})`$ of the (covariant part) as follows.

The $`SO(N)`$ vector one-form $`x_i`$ is defined by $`x_i=g^1X_ig`$, with

$$x_i=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left(R^{2i,a}T_{2i1,a}R^{2i1,a}T_{2i,a}\right).$$
(24)
Similarly, after introducing the set of identity $`(z_{ij},v_{ij},u_{ij})`$ = $`g^1(Z_{ij},V_{ij},U_{ij})g`$, we have

$`z_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\delta _{ij}(R^{2i,a}T_{2j,a}+R^{2i1,a}T_{2j1,a})`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`R^{2i,2j1}T_{2i1,2j}+R^{2i1,2j}T_{2i,2j1}R^{2i,2j}T_{2i1,2j1}R^{2i1,2j1}T_{2i,2j}],`$
$`v_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\sqrt{2}}}(R^{2i,2j}T_{2i,2j1}+R^{2i1,2j}T_{2i1,2j1}`$ (26)
$``$ $`R^{2i,2j1}T_{2i,2j}R^{2i1,2j1}T_{2i1,2j}),`$
$`u_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[\delta _{ij}(R^{2i,a}T_{2j,a}+R^{2i1,a}T_{2j1,a})`$ (27)
$``$ $`R^{2i,2j}T_{2i,2j}R^{2i,2j1}T_{2i,2j1}R^{2i1,2j}T_{2i1,2j}R^{2i1,2j1}T_{2i1,2j1}].`$
It is apparent from (26) and (27) that not all the components of $`v_{ij}`$ and $`u_{ij}`$ are independent. $`v_{ij}`$ (26) satisfies

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}v_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_j,`$ (28)
$`v_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`0(\mathrm{no}\mathrm{summation}).`$ (29)
In the same vein, in (27) we find two sets of constraints fulfilled by $`u_{ij}`$,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}u_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (30)
$`u_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z_{ii}(\mathrm{no}\mathrm{summation}).`$ (31)