text:
# Anomalous scaling in depinning transitions

\[

## Abstract

It is demonstrated that the renormalization group (RG) flows of depinning transitions do not depend on whether the driving force or the system velocity is kept constant. This allows for a comparison between RG results and corresponding self-organized critical models. However, close to the critical point, scaling functions cross over to forms that can have singular behavior not seen in equilibrium thermal phase transitions. These can be different for the constant force and constant velocity driving modes, leading to different apparent critical exponents. This is illustrated by comparing extremal dynamics for interface depinning with RG results, deriving the change in apparent exponents. Thus care has to be exercised in such comparisons.

\]

Driven dynamics of disordered systems have been studied extensively from two different approaches. As the external driving force is increased, a system undergoes a depinning transition from a macroscopically static state (with transient motion) to a moving steady state. This transition has been successfully described as a dynamical second order phase transition , and analyzed within the framework of the renormalization group (RG), originally for charge-density waves  and subsequently for interfaces  and a variety of other systems . This approach obtains the scaling behavior near the transition where the system starts to move. On the other hand, the concept of self-organized criticality (SOC), in the original sandpile model  and descendants thereof  has been used to obtain the behavior of systems that are forced to stay at the depinning transition.

One would expect there to be connections between these two viewpoints ; indeed, it is possible to map automaton models for CDWs to the original SOC model , and 1+1 dimensional moving interface to a slightly different SOC model . The connections between the two have been exploited to obtain the dynamical critical exponent $`z`$ for CDWs by borrowing from exact results for SOC sandpiles . However, it has been pointed out  that one has to be careful whether the depinning transition is approached with a time independent external driving force, tuned to its critical value, or with a time independent (infinitesimal) velocity. In the latter case, one envisages a feedback loop that adjusts the external force in a time-dependent way, so as to ensure that the rate at which the system moves (averaged over its entire spatial extent) is strictly time independent. It has been suggested  that the critical behavior at the depinning transition could be different for these two driving modes. As an extreme example of constant current driving, there is the class of “extremal models” , where at every (discrete) time step, there is activity only at one lattice site in the system.

For constant force driving, there are fluctuations in the (spatially averaged) velocity of the system, while for constant velocity driving there are fluctuations in the external force. In either case, at a non-zero driving rate, the fluctuations are small for sufficiently large systems, and thus the two driving mechanisms should be equivalent. However, the large system limit is problematic at the critical point. For instance, with constant force driving, the mean square fluctuations in the velocity of a large system are $`(\delta v)^2v^2(\xi /L)^d,`$ where $`v`$ is the mean velocity, $`\xi `$ is the correlation length at velocity $`v`$ (defined through the velocity autocorrelation function or other methods), $`L`$ is the linear extent of the system, and $`d`$ is its dimensionality. One would expect that holding the velocity constant by adjusting the force will make a qualitative difference to the dynamics when the velocity fluctuations are a significant fraction of the mean velocity, i.e. $`\xi L.`$ Heuristically, for a fixed $`v`$ and $`L\mathrm{},`$ imposing a constant velocity does not affect the dynamics, since the total ‘activity’ at every time step is $`vL^d,`$ so that avalanches etc. are free to unfold with their own internal timescales. On the other hand, for fixed $`L`$ as $`v0,`$ imposing a constant velocity ‘chokes off’ the dynamics: avalanches proceed sequentially, with internal dynamics determined by the velocity constraint.

In this paper, we show that (to the extent that continuum descriptions are appropriate) both constant force and constant velocity driving actually have the same scaling under the renormalization group. However, scaling functions for various quantities, which can have different behavior in the limits $`\xi <<L`$ and $`\xi >>L,`$ are often different in the $`\xi >>L`$ regime for the two driving modes. It is standard for scaling functions in equilibrium critical phenomena to behave differently when their arguments are small and large, but as will be discussed later, dynamical critical points have even more freedom in how scaling functions can behave. It is this freedom that allows identical RG flows to still yield different scaling functions for the two driving modes in the $`\xi >>L`$ regime.

We demonstrate this by focusing on a particular system, that of a interface with short range internal elastic interactions that is driven through a disordered medium under the influence of an external force. Due to the disorder, different parts of the interface experience different random pinning forces as they move forward. Using the RG relationship between the interface velocity and the correlation length  $`v\xi ^{\zeta z},`$ we see that the crossover to $`\xi >L`$ occurs at $`vL^{\zeta z}.`$ Note that extremal dynamics for a $`d+1`$ dimensional interface corresponds to $`vL^d,`$ and $`z\zeta <d`$ in all dimensions, so that $`\xi >>L`$ for large $`L`$.

It has been pointed out  that in extremal models for the motion of pinned interfaces, the roughness of the interface can scale anomalously. Thus for an 1+1 dimensional interface in a system of size $`L`$ in steady state , if $`h(x,t)`$ is the interface position as a function of the transverse coordinate $`x`$ and the time $`t`$, the roughness $`w(t)=[\{h(x,t+t_0)\overline{h}(t+t_0)h(x,t_0)+\overline{h}(t_0)\}^2]^{1/2}`$ (all averages are spatial averages) has the scaling form

$$w(t)=t_v^\beta L^{1/2}\phi \left(\frac{L}{t^{1/z_v}}\right).$$
(1)
(The subscripts on $`\beta `$ and $`z`$ denote constant velocity driving.) It can be shown  that the scaling function $`\phi `$ goes to a constant for large values of its argument. The explicit $`L`$ dependence that remains is anomalous, contrary to the normal expectation of a well defined $`L\mathrm{}`$ limit. As a consequence of this, if the long time (steady state) roughness scales as $`w(t\mathrm{})L^\zeta ,`$ then the conventional relation $`\zeta =z\beta `$ is replaced with

$$\zeta =z_v\beta _v\frac{1}{2}.$$
(2)
With the additional result

$$z_v=1+\zeta $$
(3)
one can obtain $`\beta _v`$ in terms of $`\zeta .`$ Both Eq.(2) and Eq.(3) differ from renormalization group (RG) results  for an interface driven with a constant applied force. In particular, the RG analysis yields no simple relation between the dynamic exponent $`z`$ and the roughness exponent $`\zeta ,`$ unlike Eq.(3). Nor is there any reason to expect the anomalous scaling form of Eq.(1), and therefore $`\zeta =z\beta `$ should hold instead of Eq.(2).

We first demonstrate that, despite appearances, the RG flows are unaffected by going from a constant force driving mode to a constant velocity driving mode. The standard equation for zero-temperature driven dynamics of an interface is

$$_th(x,t)=^2h(x,t)+Y(h(x,t);x)+F.$$
(4)
Here $`^2h(x,t)`$ comes from the (short-ranged) elastic energy of the interface, $`Y(h;x)`$ is a pinning force that comes from a random (impurity) potential, and $`F`$ is the external driving force. (Of course, it is not necessary that all lattice growth models —e.g. the Sneppen model —can be mapped to this or any continuum equation.) We have neglected KPZ like terms . Using the Martin Siggia Rose method  and introducing an auxiliary field $`\widehat{h}(x,t),`$ one can construct  a generating functional $`Z`$ which can be written as

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[dh][d\widehat{h}]\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle }d^dxdt`$ (6)
$`i\widehat{h}(x,t)\{_th^2hFY(h;x)\}]`$
where integrating out the auxiliary field yields a product of $`\delta `$-functions that imposes Eq.(4). If instead the interface is driven at constant velocity, Eq.(6) is replaced with

$`Z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[dF][d\mu ][dh][d\widehat{h}]\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle }d^dxdt`$ (9)
$`i\widehat{h}(x,t)\{_th^2hF(t)Y(h;x)\}]`$
$`+i\mu (t)\{v_th\}.`$
This extension is actually not difficult to understand: at any time $`t,`$ by first integrating over $`\mu (t)`$ and $`\widehat{h}(x,t),`$ we obtain $`\delta `$-function constraints that impose $`_th=v`$ (the average here is a spatial average) and Eq.(6) with a (as yet unknown) driving force $`F(t).`$ Now performing the integral over $`F,`$ the integral together with the first constraint sets $`F(t)`$ to be whatever it has to be for $`_th`$ to be equal to $`v.`$ One is left with the second constraint, i.e. Eq.(4), with $`F(t)`$ adjusted to ensure constant velocity. Even though $`F(t)`$ is now a dynamical variable instead of a parameter, since it is not a field, i.e. it has no spatial dependence (nor has $`\mu (t)`$), when short distance fluctuations are eliminated under renormalization there are no extra loop corrections in $`Z^{}`$ compared to $`Z.`$

As mentioned earlier, even though the RG fixed point is the same for constant force and constant velocity driving, the behavior of scaling functions are different for the two driving modes in the $`\xi >>L`$ regime. To illustrate this, we first consider the scaling of the duration of an avalanche as a function of its linear size. This has the general scaling form

$$t(l,L,\xi )=l^zT(l/L,\xi /L).$$
(10)
Here $`l`$ is the linear extent of the avalanche (in the $`d`$ transverse directions; in the direction the interface moves, the extent is $`l^\zeta `$), $`L`$ is the linear size of the system, $`\xi `$ is the correlation length, and $`z`$ is the non-trivial dynamical exponent from the RG. For a fixed $`l`$ and $`\xi ,`$ as $`L\mathrm{},`$ the avalanche duration should be independent of $`L`$ since the system is uncorrelated on length scales much bigger than $`\xi `$ . It should also be independent of $`\xi ,`$ since requiring a total growth rate of $`vL^d`$ for the system does not affect any individual avalanche from proceeding with its own intrinsic timescale. Thus $`T(0,0)`$ is some non-zero constant.

In the other regime of $`\xi >>L,`$ i.e. if the $`v0`$ limit is taken before $`L\mathrm{},`$ the avalanches are non-overlapping in time. In the constant velocity driving mode, where the velocity constraint is imposed, any single avalanche proceeds at a fixed rate. Therefore for the constant velocity driving mode, $`t(l,L,\xi )`$ must be inversely proportional to the rate at which the avalanche is allowed to proceed, which is $`vL^d.`$ Requiring that $`t`$ should have such a dependence on $`v`$ and $`L,`$ using the result  $`v\xi ^{\zeta z},`$ it is straightforward to verify that

$$\underset{\xi /L\mathrm{}}{lim}t(l,L,\xi )l^{\zeta +d}/(vL^d).$$
(11)
This yields an apparent dynamical exponent of $`z_v=\zeta +d,`$ which is the $`d+1`$ dimensional generalization of Eq.(3). Note that there is no change in the apparent dynamical exponent in the $`\xi >>L`$ regime for constant force driving, where an avalanche is allowed to proceed at its intrinsic rate (through parallel updating of lattice sites). This is why the RG estimate for $`z`$ for two dimensional CDWs agrees with the exact result for Abelian sandpiles .

The analysis of the interface roughness for a system of linear size L, $`w(t,L),`$ proceeds in a similar manner. At a velocity $`v,`$ the interface roughness has the scaling form

$$w(t,L,\xi )=L^\zeta W(t/L^z;\xi /L).$$
(12)
For fixed $`t`$ and $`\xi `$, the roughness must have a well defined $`L\mathrm{}`$ limit:

$$\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}w(t,L,\xi )=\xi ^\zeta W_1(t/\xi ^z).$$
(13)
For large $`t,`$ the roughness saturates to the steady state form $`w\xi ^\zeta .`$ For $`\xi \mathrm{}`$ (the large $`L`$ limit has been taken first), or equivalently for small $`t,`$ the roughness is $`\xi `$ independent, i.e. $`wt^{\zeta /z}.`$

In the other regime of $`\xi >>L,`$ the apparent exponents are once again different for constant velocity driving. In this case, the dynamics are controlled by the imposed velocity, i.e. the $`v`$ and $`t`$ dependence of Eq.(12) occurs only in the combination $`\tau =vL^dt.`$ Using $`v\xi ^{\zeta z},`$ this implies

$$\underset{\xi /L\mathrm{}}{lim}w(t,L,\xi )=L^\zeta W_2(\tau /L^{\zeta +d}).$$
(14)
(With extremal dynamics, where one site moves forward at every time step, $`\tau =t.`$) In the large time limit, the roughness approaches the steady state form $`wL^\zeta ,`$ i.e. $`W_2(\mathrm{})`$ is a constant. It is not obvious how to extract the behavior of the function $`W_2`$ when its argument is small, but physical arguments supported by numerical results  show that $`w(\tau ,L)`$ must have a residual $`L^{d/2}`$ dependence. Therefore

$$w(vL^dt)^{\beta _v}/L^{d/2}$$
(15)
with

$$\beta _v=\frac{\zeta +d/2}{\zeta +d}$$
(16)
which is the same as Eq.(10) of Ref. (generalized to $`d`$ dimensions).

Eqs.(11) and (15) give the $`v0`$ scaling behavior of avalanche durations and interface roughness respectively for constant velocity driving. We note once again that these are for $`\xi >>L,`$ i.e. $`v0`$ before $`L\mathrm{}.`$ As mentioned before, even in critical phenomena for equilibrium phase transitions, as one approaches the transition for a fixed system size, one sees a change in the scaling form of dynamical variables. However, it is generally possible to obtain the behavior in this regime by requiring that there should be no dependence on (say) the reduced temperature $`t`$ for the behavior of a finite size system. This requirement comes from the fact that there are no thermodynamic singularities for a finite sized system: it is possible to go smoothly from one side of the phase transition to another. No such requirement exists for dynamical phase transitions, and one must be careful about possible $`v`$-dependence even in the $`v0`$ regime.

There are other mechanisms as well that can make the connection between RG exponents and apparent scaling difficult. For instance, for CDWs below the depinning threshold, the periodicity of the dynamical variable (the CDW phase) prevents it from advancing by more than $`2\pi `$ anywhere in a single avalanche, but the same periodicity makes a region that has just avalanched susceptible to an imminent ‘retriggering’ of a fresh avalanche . The low frequency dynamics thus sees a non-trivial analog of the roughness exponent, and the distribution of avalanche sizes is singular as $`v0.`$ Another example is for interface roughness itself, where the steady state roughness over a subsystem of size $`x`$ in a system with size $`L`$ scales as $`w^2(x;L)x^2L^{2\zeta 2}`$ when $`\zeta >1`$ . This is because the Fourier transform of the steady state roughness must be well behaved as $`L\mathrm{},`$ and for $`\zeta >1`$ $`w^2(x;L)`$ is dominated by long wavelength modes with $`q1/L.`$

In this paper we have shown that the renormalization group flows for depinning transitions are the same whether the system is driven with a constant force or a constant velocity. However, in the critical regime, the apparent scaling behavior of physical quantities can be different for the two driving modes. This is because scaling functions can depend on the system velocity in a singular manner as the transition is approached. This is unlike what is seen in equilibrium critical phenomena, and seems to be more common in the constant velocity driving mode. Despite this caveat, it is possible to obtain results for one driving mode from the other.

I thank Anne Tanguy and Maya Paczuski for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

Recent works by many authors suggest that the pure Yang–Mills theory in two dimensions is equivalent to a string theory \[1–7\]. The reason to investigate such a simple theory in such great detail is partly to shed light on the strong–coupling limit of pure QCD in four dimensions. The string picture of the two–dimensional Yang–Mills (YM2) is also interesting on its own, as an example for nonperturbative analysis of a quantum field theory.

The starting point for making the correspondence of YM2 with string theory is the study the large–$`N`$ limit of YM2. For example, as it is shown in , , and , a gauge theory based on SU($`N`$) is split at large $`N`$ into two copies of a chiral theory, which encapsulate the geometry of the string maps. The chiral theory associated to the Yang–Mills theory on a two–manifold $``$ is a summation over maps from the two–dimensional world sheet (of arbitrary genus) to the manifold $``$. This leads to a $`1/N`$ expansion for the partition function and observables that is convergent for all of the values of area$`\times `$coupling constant on the target space $``$, if the genus is one or greater.

It is well known that YM2 is defined by the Lagrangian tr$`(F^2/4)`$ on a Riemann surface, where $`F`$ is the field–strength tensor. This theory is equivalent to the so–called $`B`$$`F`$ theory, characterized by the Lagrangian $`i`$tr$`(BF)+`$tr($`B^2)`$, integrated over the auxiliary field $`B`$. This theory is essentially characterized by two important properties: the lack of propagating degrees of freedom, and invariance under area–preserving diffeomorphisms. This theory, however, is not unique in possessing these two characteristics. These properties are also shared by a large class of theories, called the generalized two–dimensional Yang–Mills (gYM2) theories. These theories are defined by replacing the term tr($`B^2`$) in the YM2 Lagrangian by an arbitrary class function of $`B`$ .

Many of the physical features of gYM2 have been studied. Several aspects of the partition function of these theories has been discussed in \[8–10\]. The generating functional of the field strength for arbitrary two–dimensional orientable and non–orientable surfaces has been calculated in  (and in  for the YM2’s). In all of these calculations, the solutions appear as some infinite summations over the irreducible representations of the gauge group U($`N`$) (or SU($`N`$)). In the large–$`N`$ limit, however, these summations are replaced by suitable path integrals over continuous parameters characterizing the Young tableaux, and a saddle–point analysis shows that the only significant representation is the classical one, which maximizes some effective action.

The continuous function characterizing the representation is a constrained function, as the length of the rows of the Yang tableau is nonincreasing. This means that the problem of minimizing the effective action is a constrained one, and in fact the constraint is a nonholonomic one. For small values of the surface area, the classical solution satisfies the constraint; for large values of the surface area, it does not, and the dominating representation is not the one which minimizes the effective action. This introduces a phase transition between these two regions, which has been studied in (for example)  for YM2. This same problem has been studied for some special cases of gYM2’s . In , the density function $`\rho `$ has been obtained for an arbitrary gYM2 in the weak–coupling region. $`\rho `$ is essentially the density function of the length of the rows of the Young tableau, and by weak–field region it is meant that the surface area $`A`$ is less than some critical area $`A_c`$. Moreover, calculating $`\rho `$ in the strong region $`A>A_c`$ (near the critical point $`A_c`$), it is shown that the phase transition of the theory corresponding to the interaction $`_j(n_jj+N)^4`$ is of the third order, the same behavior seen for YM2. Finally in , the phase transition of $`_j(n_jj+N)^6`$ and $`_j(n_jj+N)^2+g(n_jj+N)^4`$ (for $`g<<1`$) has been proved to be of the third order. In all of these works, the procedure of investigating the phase transition is based on the direct calculation of $`\rho _s`$ (the density function in the strong region $`A>A_c`$). The form of this function is complicated and obtaining a closed form for it, for arbitrary gYM2’s, is not easy, even near the critical point.

In this paper we are going to investigate the order of the phase transition for a typical gYM2, by a different method. In this method, only the behavior of $`\rho _w`$ (the density function in the weak–coupling region) is needed, and in fact this behavior is needed only near the critical point. In this way, one finds the phase transition of almost all of gYM2’s is of the third order. Nontypical gYM2’s are also investigated and the criteria for a theory to be typical, that is its phase transition be of the third order are also studied. It is shown that if the second derivative of the weak–region density function is negative at its absolute maximum for $`A=A_c`$, and if its first derivative with respect to $`A`$ is positive at the same point, then the theory exhibits third order phase transition. It is further shown that theories with monomial interactions satisfy these criteria. It is also shown that if the second criterion is violated, then the order of transition will be an integer times 3. Finally, a theory with quadratic as well as quartic interaction is analyzed and it is shown that it is typical except for a specific value of the coupling constant, where it exhibits a transition of the order $`5/2`$.

Let us investigate this nontypical behavior more closely. It was stated that if, at the critical point, the first derivative of the absolute maximum of the density function with respect to $`A`$ is positive, and the second derivative of the density function at its absolute maximum is negative, then the theory is typical, that is the order of the transition is $`3`$. What is known, is that at the critical point the absolute maximum of the density function is an increasing function of $`A`$. The reason is that for $`A<A_c`$, this absolute maximum is less than one, as the system is in the weak region. For $`A>A_c`$, this absolute maximum should be greater than one. So it should pass one at $`A=A_c`$. This shows that the first derivative of this absolute maximum is nonnegative, but it may be zero at $`A=A_c`$. Theories for which this derivative is zero exactly at $`A=A_c`$, are fine tuned. Normally, this derivative is positive. The second criterion for a theory to be typical can also be discussed the same way. At the absolute maximum of the density function, the first derivative of the density function is, of course, zero. The second derivative should be nonpositive. Theories for which this second derivative is zero exactly at the transition point, are fine tuned. Other theories are typical and exhibit a third order phase transition. In fact, in the example which shows a transition of the order (i.e. exponent) $`5/2`$, exactly this criterion is violated. The parameters of a theory are tuned so that at the critical point, the second derivative of the density function is zero, and the first nonzero derivative of that function is the fourth derivative.

The scheme of the paper is the following. In section 2, after a review of gYM2’s, the criteria for the existence of the third order phase transition is studied and the order of the transition for nontypical theories is also studied. In section 3, it is shown that theories with monomial interaction are typical. In section 4, a theory with a quadratic and quartic interaction is studied, and it is shown that it exhibits third order phase transition except for a specific value of the coupling constant. It is shown that for this value, the order of the transition is $`5/2`$. Finally, in section 5 the standard technique is used to investigate the critical behavior of this theory, and again it is checked that the order of the transition is $`5/2`$ at this specific value of the coupling constant.

## 2  Typical gYM2 theories

The partition function of the gYM2 on a sphere is

$$Z=\underset{r}{}d_r^2e^{A\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)},$$
(1)
where $`r`$’s label the irreducible representations of the gauge group, $`d_r`$ is the dimension of the representation $`r`$, $`A`$ is the area of the sphere, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$ is :

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{a_k}{N^{k1}}C_k(r),$$
(2)
in which $`C_k`$ is the $`k`$’th Casimir of group, and $`a_k`$’s are arbitrary constants. Now consider the gauge group U$`(N)`$ and parameterize its representation by the integers $`n_1n_2\mathrm{}n_N`$. It is found that

$`d_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1i<jN}{}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{n_in_j}{ji}}\right),`$ (3)
$`C_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}[(n_i+Ni)^k(Ni)^k].`$ (4)
For the partition function (1) to be convergent, it is necessary that $`p`$ in (2) be even and $`a_p`$ be positive.

In the large–$`N`$ limit, the above summation is replaced by a path integration over the continuous function

$$\varphi (x):=n(x)1+x,$$
(5)
where

$$0x:=i/N1\mathrm{and}n(x):=n_i/N.$$
(6)
The partition function (1) then becomes

$$Z=\underset{0x1}{}d\varphi (x)e^{S[\varphi (x)]},$$
(7)
where

$$S(\varphi )=N^2\left\{A_0^1𝑑xG[\varphi (x)]+_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑y\mathrm{log}|\varphi (x)\varphi (y)|\right\},$$
(8)
apart from an unimportant constant, and

$$G(\varphi )=\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}(1)^ka_k\varphi ^k.$$
(9)
Introducing the density function

$$\rho [\varphi (x)]=\frac{dx}{d\varphi (x)},$$
(10)
it is seen that it satisfies

$$_b^a\rho (z)𝑑z=1,$$
(11)
where $`[b,a]`$ is the interval corresponding to the values of $`\varphi `$. If $`G(\varphi )`$, and therefore $`\rho (z)`$, is even, then $`b=a`$. The condition $`n_1n_2\mathrm{}n_N`$ demands

$$\rho (z)1.$$
(12)
As $`N\mathrm{}`$, only that representation contributes to the partition function (7) which maximizes $`S`$. This representation is found to be specified by the solution of the following integral equation .

$$g(z)=\mathrm{P}_b^a\frac{\rho (z^{})dz^{}}{zz^{}},$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{P}`$ indicates the principal value of the integral, and

$$g(z):=\frac{A}{2}G^{}(z).$$
(14)
The free energy of the theory is defined through

$$F:=\frac{1}{N^2}\mathrm{ln}Z,$$
(15)
from which we have

$$F^{}(A)=_b^a𝑑zG(z)\rho (z).$$
(16)
Using the standard method of solving the integral equation (13), the density function $`\rho (z)`$ is obtained in terms of the two parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ themselves must be calculated by solving two other equations . If $`G`$ is even, the results are

$$\rho (z)=\frac{\sqrt{a^2z^2}}{\pi }\underset{n,q=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2n1)!!}{2^nn!(2n+q+1)!}a^{2n}z^qg^{(2n+q+1)}(0),$$
(17)
and

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2n1)!!}{2^nn!(2n1)!}a^{2n}g^{(2n1)}(0)=1,$$
(18)
where $`g^{(n)}`$ is the $`n`$th derivative of $`g(z)`$. As it is seen from (18), one cannot find the closed form of $`a`$ for arbitrary gYM2’s (that is, for arbitrary $`G`$’s).

The function $`\rho (z)`$ found from (17), obviously depends on the area $`A`$. Its absolute maximum is an increasing function of $`A`$. But the constraint (12) tells that this maximum must not exceed 1. So, the function $`\rho (z)`$ obtained from (17) is valid only for $`A`$ less than some critical value $`A_c`$. $`A_c`$ is the value of $`A`$ at which the maximum of $`\rho `$ becomes 1. The region $`A<A_c`$ is called the weak–coupling region. In the region $`A>A_c`$ (the strong–coupling region), the following ansatz for $`\rho (z)`$ is used .

$$\rho _s(z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & zL^{}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\rho }_s(z),\hfill & zL,\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
where $`L^{}`$ is some interval containing the point (or points) maximizing $`\rho `$. The form of $`\rho _s`$ is usually found to consist of some integrals not expressible in terms of elementary functions. In special cases, it has been calculated perturbatively for areas slightly more than the critical area ( for example). Having obtained $`\rho _s`$, the difference between the free energies in strong and weak regimes ($`F_sF_w`$), for areas slightly more than the critical area is calculated to obtain the order of the transition.

Consider this same problem of phase transition from a different point of view. Denote by $`\rho _w(z)`$ the weak–region density function, and by $`\rho _s(z)`$ the density function (19). Suppose that $`\rho _w(z)`$ attains its (absolute) maximum at $`z=z_0`$. We have

$$\rho _w(z)=\rho _w(z_0)+\frac{1}{2}\rho _w^{\prime \prime }(z_0)(zz_0)^2+\mathrm{},$$
(20)
in which $`\rho _w^{\prime \prime }(z_0)`$ is assumed to be nonzero. For $`A`$ slightly more than $`A_c`$, $`\rho _w(z_0)`$ is slightly more than 1. We want to find the points $`z_1`$ satisfying $`\rho _w(z_1)=1`$. It is easy to see that

$$|z_1z_0|\sqrt{2[1\rho _w(z_0)]/\rho _w^{\prime \prime }(z_0)}\alpha ^{1/2},$$
(21)
where $`\alpha :=\rho _w(z_0)1`$. Next, consider $`F_sF_w`$:

$`F[\rho _s]F[\rho _w]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left[\frac{\delta F}{\delta \rho (z)}\right]_{\rho _w}[\rho _s(z)\rho _w(z)]𝑑z}`$ (24)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \left[\frac{\delta ^2F}{\delta \rho (z)\delta \rho (z^{})}\right]_{\rho _w}[\rho _s(z)\rho _w(z)]}`$
$`\times [\rho _s(z^{})\rho _w(z^{})]dzdz^{}+\mathrm{}.`$
As $`\rho _w`$ is the classical solution, it satisfies

$$\left(\frac{\delta S}{\delta \rho }\right)_{\rho _w}=\lambda ,$$
(25)
where $`\lambda `$ is the Lagrange–multiplier used to introduce the condition (11) in the action $`S`$. So the first term of the right–hand side of (24) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \left[\frac{\delta F}{\delta \rho (z)}\right]_{\rho _w}[\rho _s(z)\rho _w(z)]𝑑z}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{N^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \rho _s(z)𝑑z}{\displaystyle \rho _w(z)𝑑z}\right]`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`0,`$ (27)
in which we have used the fact that $`\rho _w`$ and $`\rho _s`$, both satisfy (11) —perhaps with different integration regions, but it is not important, as one may define $`\rho `$ to be zero outside the integration region and then extend the integration region to the whole real line. Next, consider the second term of (24). One can divide the integration region into three parts:
$`R_1`$: $`z,z^{}L_s`$,
$`R_2`$: $`z,z^{}L_w`$,
$`R_3`$: $`zL_s`$ and $`z^{}L_w`$ or visa versa,
where $`L_s`$ is the region in which $`\rho _w>1`$, and $`L_w`$ is the remaining region. We have

$$\rho _w(z)\rho _s(z)\alpha ,zL_s.$$
(28)
From this, it is seen that

$$_{L_w}[\rho _w(z)\rho _s(z)]𝑑z\alpha ^{3/2},$$
(29)
as the width of the region $`L_s`$ is of the order $`\alpha ^{1/2}`$ (21). Using (11) for $`\rho _s`$ and $`\rho _w`$, it is seen that

$$_{L_w}[\rho _s(z)\rho _w(z)]𝑑z\alpha ^{3/2}.$$
(30)
The width of $`L_w`$ is of the order $`\alpha ^0`$. This shows that on the average,

$$\rho _s(z)\rho _w(z)\alpha ^{3/2},zL_w.$$
(31)
Using these, it is seen that in $`R_1`$, the integrand in the second term of (24) is of the order $`\alpha ^2`$, while the area of the integration region is of the order $`\alpha `$. So the integral in this region is of the order $`\alpha ^3`$. In $`R_2`$, the integrand is of the order $`\alpha \times \alpha ^{3/2}`$, and the area of $`R_2`$ is of the order $`\alpha ^{1/2}`$. So the integral in this region too is of the order $`\alpha ^3`$. Finally, in $`R_3`$, the integrand is of the order $`\alpha ^{3/2}\times \alpha ^{3/2}`$, while th area of $`R_3`$ is of the order $`\alpha ^0`$. So, the integral in this region is of the order $`\alpha ^3`$ as well. One therefor deduces

$$F_sF_w\alpha ^3.$$
(32)
Here we have used $`\rho _w^{\prime \prime }(z_0)0`$.

To find the critical behavior of the system, we must obtain $`F_sF_w`$ as a function of $`AA_c`$. To do so, consider $`\alpha `$ as a function of $`A`$ and expand it around $`A=A_c`$:

$$\alpha (A)=\alpha (A_c)+\alpha ^{}(A_c)(AA_c)+\mathrm{}.$$
(33)
But $`\alpha (A_c)=0`$. So if $`\alpha ^{}(A_c)0`$, we have

$$\alpha (AA_c),$$
(34)
and from this

$$F_sF_w(AA_c)^3,$$
(35)
that is, the model has a third–order phase transition. What we have proved, is that if $`\rho _w^{\prime \prime }(z_0)0`$ and $`\alpha ^{}(A_c)0`$, then the order of the phase transition is 3. In fact, to prove this we have made an implicit assumption that (31) holds not only on the average, but at almost every point in $`L_w`$. There might be very special cases where the difference between $`\rho _s`$ and $`\rho _w`$ is larger than $`\alpha ^3`$ but changes sign exactly in a such a manner that the integral of this difference is of the order $`\alpha ^{3/2}`$. Also note that the whole reasoning is independent of the number of points at them $`\rho _w`$ attains its absolute maximum.

Continuing to make this assumption, let’s see what happens if either $`\rho _w^{\prime \prime }(z_0)`$ or $`\alpha ^{}(A_c)`$ is zero. As $`z_0`$ is the point which maximizes $`\rho _w`$, the first nonzero derivative of $`\rho _w`$ at this point should be an even derivative. Let it be the $`(2m)`$-th derivative. Also, $`\alpha `$ should be increasing with respect to $`A`$ at $`A_c`$. This shows that its first nonzero derivative should be on odd derivative. Let it be the $`(2l1)`$-th derivative. It follows that the width of $`L_s`$ is of the order $`\alpha ^{1/(2m)}`$, and from this

$$F_sF_w\alpha ^{2+(1/m)}.$$
(36)
One also has

$$\alpha (AA_c)^{2l1}.$$
(37)
Combining these two, one arrives at

$$F_sF_w(AA_c)^{(2l1)[2+(1/m)]},$$
(38)
where $`m`$ and $`l`$ are positive integers.

## 3 $`G(\varphi )=\varphi ^{2k}`$ gYM2’s

For $`G(\varphi )=\varphi ^{2k}`$ ($`k`$ an integer greater than 1), it has been shown that the density function $`\rho _w(z)`$, (17), has a minimum at $`z=0`$ and two symmetric maxima at points $`z_0=\pm a_k\sqrt{y_k}`$, . $`a_k`$ is the parameter appearing in (17), and can be evaluated from (18):

$$a_k=\left[\frac{2^k(k1)!}{A(2k1)!!}\right]^{\frac{1}{2k}}.$$
(39)
$`y_k`$ is independent of $`a_k`$ and is determined from

$$1+\underset{n=0}{\overset{k2}{}}\frac{(2n1)!!}{2^{n+1}(n+1)!}y_k^{(n+1)}=0.$$
(40)
Now it is possible to find the $`A`$–dependence of $`\rho (z_0)`$. Using (17),

$$\rho _w(z)=\frac{kA}{\pi }\sqrt{a_k^2z^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\frac{(2n1)!!}{2^nn!}a_k^{2n}z^{2k2n2}.$$
(41)
From this,

$`\rho _w(z_0)`$ $`=`$ $`A^{\frac{1}{2k}}{\displaystyle \frac{k\sqrt{1y_k}}{\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2^k(k1)!}{(2k1)!!}}\right]^{\frac{2k1}{2k}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{k1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2n1)!!}{2^nn!}}y_k^{kn1}`$ (42)
$`=:`$ $`A^{\frac{1}{2k}}f(k),`$ (43)
where $`f(k)`$ is independent of $`A`$. $`A_c`$ is determined by $`\rho _k(z_0)=1`$, which yields

$$A_c=\frac{1}{[f(k)]^{2k}}.$$
(44)
From this,

$$\alpha (A)=\left(\frac{A}{A_c}\right)^{\frac{1}{2k}}1,$$
(45)
which shows that the derivative of $`\alpha `$ with respect to $`A`$ never vanishes. It is also easy to check that the $`\rho _w^{\prime \prime }(z_0)`$ doesn’t vanish either. Using $`\rho _w^{}(z_0)=0`$, it is seen that

$`\rho _w^{\prime \prime }(z_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kAa^{2k3}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{(2k1)u}{\sqrt{1u^2}}}\left[(2k1)u^{2k3}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{k2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2n1)!!}{2^{n+1}(n+1)!}}u^{2k2n5}\right]`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kAa^{2k3}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2k1}{\sqrt{1u^2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{k2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2n1)!!}{2^nn!}}u^{2k2n4},`$ (47)
which is clearly negative. Here

$$u:=\frac{z_0}{a},$$
(48)
and (40) has been used. We conclude all gYM2’s with $`G(\varphi )=\varphi ^{2k}`$ gYM2’s exhibit third–order phase transition.

## 4 The model $`G(\varphi )=\varphi ^2+g\varphi ^4`$

We now consider $`G(\varphi )=\varphi ^2+g\varphi ^4`$, with $`g>0`$ so that in this $`G`$ has a minimum. Using (17), we have

$$\rho _w(z)=\frac{A}{\pi }\sqrt{a^2z^2}(1+ga^2+2gz^2),$$
(49)
and from (18),

$$\frac{1}{2}Aa^2+\frac{3}{4}gAa^4=1.$$
(50)
The shape of $`\rho _w(z)`$ depends on $`A`$. For $`3ga^2<1`$, or $`A>4g`$ using (50), $`\rho _w(z)`$ has only one maximum at $`z=0`$. For $`A<4g`$, it has a minimum at $`z=0`$ and two maxima at $`\pm z_0`$. We consider three distinct cases.

### 4.1 $`g<A_c/4`$

In this case, $`\rho _w`$ has two maxima for small areas. However, if the area exceeds $`4g<A_c`$, $`\rho _w`$ will have only one maximum. As this happens before the critical area, the phase transition properties are governed by a one–maximum density function. The maximum of this function occurs at $`z=0`$. Evaluating $`a`$ from (50), we arrive at

$$\rho _w(0)=\frac{A}{2\pi }\left(2+\sqrt{1+12\frac{g}{A}}\right)\sqrt{\frac{3}{g}\left(1+\sqrt{1+12\frac{g}{A}}\right)},$$
(51)
and from this

$$\alpha ^{}(A_c)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{27\pi ^2g}}\frac{(3g/A_c)1+\sqrt{1+12g/A_c}}{\sqrt{1+\sqrt{1+12g/A_c}}}>0.$$
(52)
It is also seen that

$$\rho _w^{\prime \prime }(0)=\frac{A}{\pi a}(3ga^21)<0.$$
(53)
So the order of the transition is 3.

### 4.2 $`g>A_c/4`$

In this case, for areas up to $`4g>A_c`$, the density function has two maxima at $`\pm z_0`$:

$$z_0=\sqrt{\frac{1}{6g}\left(2+\sqrt{1+12\frac{g}{A}}\right)},$$
(54)
From this, one obtains $`\rho _w(z_0)`$, and then

$$\alpha ^{}(A_c)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{27g\pi ^2}}\frac{1+3g/A_c}{(1+12g/A_c)^{1/4}}>0.$$
(55)
It is also not difficult to check that $`\rho _w^{\prime \prime }(z_0)`$ is negative. So in this case too, the order of the phase–transition is 3.

### 4.3 $`g=A_c/4`$

In this case, for $`A<4g=A_c`$ the function $`\rho _w(z)`$ has two maxima at $`\pm z_0`$ and one minimum at $`z=0`$. As $`A`$ is increased, the difference $`\rho _w(z_0)\rho _w(0)`$ becomes smaller, and at $`A=A_c`$ it becomes zero. For $`A>A_c`$, $`\rho _w(z)`$ has only one maximum at $`z=0`$. At $`A=A_c`$, the maximum of the density function becomes 1 (and occurs at $`z=0`$). Using this, the form of $`\rho _w`$ from (49), and (50), it is seen that

$$A_c=\frac{27}{64}\pi ^2,$$
(56)
$$g_0=\frac{A_c}{4}=\frac{27}{256}\pi ^2,$$
(57)
and

$$a_c=\frac{16}{9\pi }.$$
(58)
The interesting point for $`g=g_0`$ is that $`\rho _w^{\prime \prime }(0)|_{A=A_c}=0`$. In fact, one can see that

$`\rho _w^{\prime \prime }(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3g_0Aa(a+a_c)}{\pi }}(aa_c)`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3\pi }}(AA_c)+\mathrm{},`$ (60)
while $`\rho _w^{(4)}(0)`$ is negative. So for $`z_1`$, satisfying $`\rho _w(z_1)=1`$, or

$$\frac{1}{2!}\rho _w^{\prime \prime }(0)z_1^2+\frac{1}{4!}\rho _w^{(4)}(0)z_1^4=1\rho _w(0),$$
(61)
one obtains

$$|z_1|\alpha ^{1/4}.$$
(62)
One also has

$$\alpha =\frac{28}{27\pi ^2}(AA_c)+\mathrm{},$$
(63)
from which it is seen that

$$|z_1|(AA_c)^{1/4}.$$
(64)
This is an example of the case $`m=2`$ and $`l=1`$, discussed at the end of section 2. It follows then that

$$F_sF_w(AA_c)^{5/2}.$$
(65)
The model $`G(\varphi )=\varphi ^2+(27\pi ^2/64)\varphi ^4`$ exhibits thus a phase transition of order 5/2.

## 5 Explicit evaluation of the order of the phase transition of the model $`G(\varphi )=\varphi ^2+\frac{27\pi ^2}{64}\varphi ^4`$

We now try to study the phase transition of the model $`G(\varphi )=\varphi ^2+g_0\varphi ^4`$ explicitly ($`g_0=27\pi ^2/64`$). Using (16) and (49), one finds that in the weak region

$$F_w^{}(A)=\frac{1}{8}a^4A+\frac{5}{16}g_0a^6A+\frac{9}{64}g_0^2a^8A,$$
(66)
where $`a`$ can be found from (50). In the strong region, one uses the following ansatz for $`\rho _s(z)`$

$$\rho _s(z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & z[b,b]\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\rho }_s(z),\hfill & z[a,b][b,a],\hfill \end{array}$$
(67)
(as $`\rho _w(z)`$ has only one maximum for $`A>A_c`$). Using the standard method of solving the integral equations obtained (see  for more details) one arrives at

$`F_s^{}(A)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}M^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N\right){\displaystyle _b^b}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{U(\lambda )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M{\displaystyle _b^b}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2d\lambda }{U(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle _b^b}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^4d\lambda }{U(\lambda )}}`$ (73)
$`+g_0[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}MN+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}M^3){\displaystyle _b^b}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{U(\lambda )}}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}M^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N\right){\displaystyle _b^b}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2d\lambda }{U(\lambda )}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M{\displaystyle _b^b}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^4d\lambda }{U(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle _b^b}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^6d\lambda }{U(\lambda )}}]`$
$`2g_0A\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}MN{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}M^3\right)`$
$`2g_0^2A\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}N^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}M^2N{\displaystyle \frac{5}{128}}M^4\right),`$
in which

$`U(\lambda )`$ $`:=`$ $`\sqrt{(a^2\lambda ^2)(b^2\lambda ^2)},`$ (74)
$`M`$ $`:=`$ $`a^2+b^2,`$ (75)
$`N`$ $`:=`$ $`a^2b^2.`$ (76)
The parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ are determined from following relations.

$$A+g_0AM_b^b\frac{d\lambda }{U(\lambda )}=0,$$
(77)
and

$$\frac{1}{2}MA+g_0A\left(\frac{3}{4}M^2N\right)_b^b\frac{\lambda ^2d\lambda }{U(\lambda )}=1.$$
(78)
As we are interested in phase transition, it is sufficient to look at the solutions for $`A`$ slightly greater than $`A_c`$, which we obtain perturbatively.

To do so, we use the following change of variables

$$a=:a_c(1h),$$
(79)
and

$$(b/a)^2=:v,$$
(80)
in which $`a_c`$ is given by (58). Eliminating $`A`$ from (77) and (78), and solving the result for $`h`$, one obtains

$$h=\frac{27}{224}v^2+\frac{131}{6272}v^3+\mathrm{},$$
(81)
from this, and (77), one obtains $`A`$ in terms of $`v`$:

$$\frac{AA_c}{A_c}=\frac{9}{28}v^2+\frac{109}{784}v^3+\mathrm{}.$$
(82)
Note that $`AA_c`$ is proportional to $`b^4`$ (in the leading order), as expected. Substituting these in (73), one obtains $`F_s^{}`$:

$$F_s^{}=\frac{1}{35721\pi ^2}(3684810836v^2+6289v^3+\mathrm{}).$$
(83)
From (50), one obtains $`a`$ in terms of $`A`$. Substituting this in (66), and using (82) as a definition for $`v`$, one obtains

$$F_w^{}=\frac{1}{35721\pi ^2}(3684810836v^24687v^3+\mathrm{}),$$
(84)
from which

$$F_s^{}(A)F_w^{}(A)=\frac{224}{729\pi ^2}v^3+\mathrm{}.$$
(85)
Using (82), one can write this as

$$F_s^{}(A)F_w^{}(A)=\frac{196\sqrt{7}}{729A_c}\left(\frac{AA_c}{A_c}\right)^{3/2}+\mathrm{}.$$
(86)
which proves that the order of the phase transition is 5/2, in agreement with (65).

Acknowledgement

M. Alimohammadi would like to thank the research council of the University of Tehran, for partial financial support. The authors would also like to thank Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics for partial financial support.