format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

YITP-00-48 solv-int/0008030

Inhomogeneous Six-Vertex Model with Domain Wall Boundary Conditions and Bethe Ansatz

V. Korepin and P. Zinn-Justin

C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics

State University of New York at Stony Brook

Stony Brook, NY 11794–3840, USA

In this note, we consider the six-vertex model with domain wall boundary conditions, defined on a $`M\times M`$ lattice, in the inhomogeneous case where the partition function depends on $`2M`$ inhomogeneities $`\lambda _j`$ and $`\mu _k`$. For a particular choice of the set of $`\lambda _j`$ we find a new determinant representation for the partition function, which allows evaluation of the bulk free energy in the thermodynamic limit. This provides a new connection between two types of determinant formulae. We also show in a special case that spin correlations on the horizontal line going through the center coincide with the ones for periodic boundary conditions.

08/2000

1. Introduction

The six-vertex model was first introduced in . It was solved exactly by E. Lieb  and B. Sutherland  in 1967 by means of Bethe Ansatz for periodic boundary conditions (PBC). Later the six-vertex model was studied for different boundary conditions ,,. Domain wall boundary conditions were introduced in 1982 . These boundary conditions are interesting because they allow to derive determinant representations for correlation functions  and the same boundary conditions help to enumerate alternating sign matrices , . Recently the bulk free energy was calculated for these boundary conditions .

In this paper we show that for special choices of inhomogeneities, one can compute the free energy and some correlation functions of the system. This observation might be useful because we expect some properties of the model to be independent of the inhomogeneities i.e. to depend only on the anisotropy parameter. In the simplest situation, the correlation functions coincide with the ones for periodic boundary conditions.

2. Inhomogeneities and Bethe Ansatz

In this section we define the inhomogeneous six-vertex model with domain wall boundary conditions and choose the spectral parameters (inhomogeneities) to satisfy Bethe Ansatz equations; this will imply special properties of the partition function.

We now introduce the notations. Given a $`M\times M`$ square lattice with spectral parameters $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\mu _k`$ attached to the lines and columns, one defines the usual Boltzmann weights $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ to be

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a(\lambda ,\mu )& =\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda \mu +i/2))\hfill \\ \hfill b(\lambda ,\mu )& =\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda \mu i/2))\hfill \\ \hfill c(\lambda ,\mu )& =\mathrm{sinh}(i\gamma )\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\gamma `$ is the anisotropy. We have fixed boundary conditions for the external edges: horizontal (resp. vertical) external edges are outgoing (resp. incoming). The partition function is denoted by $`Z_M(\{\lambda _j\},\{\mu _k\})`$. Using recursion relations satisfied by the $`Z_M`$, one can show that the following determinant formula holds , :

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Z_M(\{\lambda _j\},\{\mu _k\})=& \frac{\underset{1j,kM}{}\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda _j\mu _k+i/2))\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda _j\mu _ki/2))}{_{1j<j^{}M}\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda _j\lambda _j^{}))_{1k<k^{}M}\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\mu _k\mu _k^{}))}\hfill \\ & \underset{1j,kM}{det}\left[\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(i\gamma )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda _j\mu _k+i/2))\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda _j\mu _ki/2))}\right]\hfill \end{array}$$

In the homogeneous case this represention was used in order to evaluate the bulk free energy in the thermodynamic limit . In a special inhomogeneous case we shall use another determinant represention to evaluate the bulk free energy in the thermodynamic limit. Let us define our special case. We choose the spectral parameters in relation to the Bethe Ansatz. In order to do that it is convenient to introduce the formalism of the Algebraic Bethe Ansatz. The Boltmann weights are encoded into the $`L`$-matrix

$$L(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a(\lambda )& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& b(\lambda )& c(\lambda )& 0\\ 0& c(\lambda )& b(\lambda )& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& a(\lambda )\end{array}\right)$$

We next introduce the monodromy matrix $`T(\lambda )`$ which is an operator acting on $`^{2^M}^2`$ (physical space times auxiliary space) defined by

$$T(\lambda ;\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)=L(\lambda \mu _M)L(\lambda \mu _{M1})\mathrm{}L(\lambda \mu _1)$$

where $`L(\lambda \mu _k)`$ acts on the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ factor of the tensor product in the physical space, and the auxiliary space. As an operator on the two-dimensional auxiliary space, $`T(\lambda )`$ can be written as

$$T(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝐀(\lambda )& 𝐁(\lambda )\\ 𝐂(\lambda )& 𝐃(\lambda )\end{array}\right)$$

where $`𝐀`$, $`𝐁`$, $`𝐂`$, $`𝐃`$ are operators on the physical space $`^{2^M}`$. The usual transfer matrix corresponding to periodic boundary conditions is defined as

$$𝐓(\lambda )=𝐀(\lambda )+𝐃(\lambda )$$

We shall make use of this operator later. Here, our fixed boundary conditions imply the following formal expression for the partition function :

$$Z_M(\{\lambda _j\},\{\mu _k\})=<\left|𝐁(\lambda _1;\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)\mathrm{}𝐁(\lambda _M;\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)\right|>$$

where $`|>\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)^M`$ (resp. $`|>\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)^M`$) is the state with all spins up (resp. down).

Let us specify inhomogeneities. We choose the $`\{\lambda _j\}`$ to be divided into two sets $`\{\lambda _j^1=\lambda _j,j=1,\mathrm{},m^1\}`$ and $`\{\lambda _j^2=\lambda _{j+m^1},j=1,\mathrm{},m^2\}`$ which each satisfy the Bethe Ansatz Equations:

$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j^{}=1}{j^{}j}}{\overset{m^\alpha }{}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda _j^\alpha \lambda _j^{}^\alpha +i))}{\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda _j^\alpha \lambda _j^{}^\alpha i))}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda _j^\alpha \mu _k+i/2))}{\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda _j^\alpha \mu _ki/2))}$$

with $`\alpha =1,2`$. We define the left and right states

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill <1|& =<|𝐂(\lambda _1^1)\mathrm{}𝐂(\lambda _{m^1}^1)\hfill \\ \hfill |2>& =𝐁(\lambda _1^2)\mathrm{}𝐁(\lambda _{m^2}^2)|>\hfill \end{array}$$

and the flip operator $`𝐑`$ to be the operator on the physical space that flips all arrows: in terms of the usual Pauli matrices, $`𝐑=_{k=1}^M\sigma _k^x`$. Now using the overall invariance of the monodromy matrix under flip: $`[T(\lambda ),𝐑\sigma ^x]=0`$ (where the additional $`\sigma ^x`$ acts on the auxiliary space), one finds that $`𝐑𝐁(\lambda )𝐑=𝐂(\lambda )`$ and therefore we can rewrite formula (2.1) in terms of the states we have defined:

$$Z_M(\{\lambda _j\},\{\mu _k\})=<1\left|𝐑\right|2>$$

We now consider the situation where $`M`$ is even and $`m^1=m^2=M/2`$. As proven in the appendix (A.3), the Bethe state $`|2>`$ is an eigenstate of $`𝐑`$ (with eigenvalue $`\pm 1`$). At this point we use orthogonality of Bethe states (A.2) to conclude that

$$Z_M(\{\lambda _j\},\{\mu _k\})=\pm \delta _{\{\lambda _j^1\},\{\lambda _j^2\}}<1|2>$$

The non-zero scalar product (square of the norm) is given by the following formula , dropping the superscripts:

$$<1|1>=(\mathrm{sin}\gamma )^{M/2}\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{M/2}{}}\mathrm{a}(\lambda _j)\mathrm{d}(\lambda _j)\right]\left[\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j,j^{}=1}{jj^{}}}{\overset{M/2}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda _j\lambda _j^{}+i))}{\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda _j\lambda _j^{}))}\right]\underset{1j,j^{}M/2}{det}\left[\frac{\phi _j}{\lambda _j^{}}\right]$$

with the following definitions: $`\mathrm{a}(\lambda )`$ and $`\mathrm{d}(\lambda )`$ are the eigenvalues of $`𝐀(\lambda )`$ and $`𝐃(\lambda )`$ acting on $`|>`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{a}(\lambda )& =\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda \mu _k+i/2))\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{d}(\lambda )& =\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda \mu _ki/2))\hfill \end{array}$$

and the $`\phi _j`$ are the logarithms of the B.A.E. (2.1):

$$\phi _j=i\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{a}(\lambda _j)/\mathrm{d}(\lambda _j))+i\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j^{}=1}{j^{}j}}{\overset{M/2}{}}\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda _j\lambda _j^{}+i))}{\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda _j\lambda _j^{}i))}$$

Note that the general determinant formula (2.1), in the case of 2 identical sets $`\{\lambda _j^1\}=\{\lambda _j^2\}`$, becomes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill Z_M(\{\lambda _j\},\{\mu _k\})=& \frac{\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1jM/2}{1kM}}{}\mathrm{sinh}^2(\gamma (\lambda _j\mu _k+i/2))\mathrm{sinh}^2(\gamma (\lambda _j\mu _ki/2))}{_{1j<j^{}M/2}\mathrm{sinh}^2(\gamma (\lambda _j\lambda _j^{}))_{1k<k^{}M}\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\mu _k\mu _k^{}))}\hfill & \\ & \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1jM/2}{1kM}}{det}[\varphi (\lambda _j\mu _k),\psi (\lambda _j\mu _k)]\hfill & (2.1)\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`\varphi (\lambda )\mathrm{sinh}(i\gamma )/(\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda +i/2))\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda i/2)))`$ and $`\psi (\lambda )=\frac{1}{\gamma }\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\lambda }\varphi (\lambda )`$. Our new determinant representation (2.1) is quite different from Eq. (2.1); it is in particular much easier to study its thermodynamic limit.

3. Correlation functions

We have studied so far the function partition of the system; what about correlation functions?

It is unfortunately not possible to find such a simple expression for an arbitrary correlation function; however, if we restrict ourselves to the case of special correlations which lie on a fixed horizontal line, then one can again derive determinant formulae for them.

To be specific, let us assume again that the $`\{\lambda _j\}`$ consist of two identical sets $`\{\lambda _j,j=1\mathrm{}M/2\}`$. Then the probability that all arrows located at columns $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_n`$ and between lines $`M/2`$ and $`M/2+1`$ are up, is given by

$$\pi _{k_1}\mathrm{}\pi _{k_n}\frac{<\left|𝐁(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}𝐁(\lambda _{M/2})\pi _{k_1}\mathrm{}\pi _{k_n}𝐁(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}𝐁(\lambda _{M/2})\right|>}{<\left|𝐁(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}𝐁(\lambda _{M/2})𝐁(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}𝐁(\lambda _{M/2})\right|>}$$

where $`\pi _k\frac{1}{2}(1+\sigma _k^z)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{0}\right)`$ acts on the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ space.

Similarly to what was done for the partition function, one can transform Eq. (3.1) using the flip operator $`𝐑`$ and find:

$$\pi _{k_1}\mathrm{}\pi _{k_n}=\frac{<1\left|\pi _{k_1}\mathrm{}\pi _{k_n}\right|1>}{<1|1>}$$

In other words this is simply the usual correlation functions of the spin operators $`\frac{1}{2}(1+\sigma ^z)`$ for the corresponding spin chain. The computation of these averages is a well-known problem, and the general strategy to perform it is by now well understood . One must use the solution of the quantum inverse scattering problem for these operators \[15,,16\]:

$$\pi _k=\underset{l=1}{\overset{k1}{}}𝐓(\mu _l+i/2)𝐀(\mu _k+i/2)\underset{l=k+1}{\overset{M}{}}𝐓(\mu _l+i/2)$$

and then use the fact that our state $`|1>`$ is an eigenstate of the $`𝐓(\lambda )`$, as well as the commutation relations satisfied by the $`𝐀(\lambda )`$ and $`𝐁(\lambda )`$. In this way we can reduce Eq. (3.1) (resp. Eq. (3.1)) to a sum of expressions of the type $`<\left|𝐁(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1)\mathrm{}𝐁(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{M/2})𝐁(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}𝐁(\lambda _{M/2})\right|>`$ (resp. $`<\left|𝐂(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1)\mathrm{}𝐂(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{M/2})𝐁(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}𝐁(\lambda _{M/2})\right|>`$). These can finally be expressed as determinants either using Eq. (2.1), or according to the general formula for scalar products (p. 237 of ).

The case $`n=1`$ is trivial: $`|1>`$ is an eigenstate of $`𝐑`$, and therefore $`\pi _k=1/2`$. The simplest higher correlation function is the emptiness formation probability where all $`k_i`$ are nearest neighbors, in which case we obtain immediately

$$\pi _{k+1}\mathrm{}\pi _{k+n}=\underset{l=k+1}{\overset{k+n}{}}\left[\mathrm{a}(\mu _l+i/2)\underset{j=1}{\overset{M/2}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\mu _l\lambda _j+i/2))}{\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\mu _l\lambda _ji/2))}\right]<1\left|\underset{l=k+1}{\overset{k+n}{}}𝐀(\mu _l+i/2)\right|1>$$

We shall give the thermodynamic limit of this expression in a particular case.

4. Thermodynamic limit

We shall show in a particular example how to take the thermodynamic limit in formulae (2.1) and (3.1). We set all $`\mu _k`$ to $`0`$ and consider the critical regime i.e. $`\gamma `$ real. We specify the state $`|1>`$ to be the ground state of the transfer matrices $`𝐓(\lambda )`$ (or of the Hamiltonian of the corresponding $`XXZ`$ spin chain). In the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$ the $`\lambda _j`$ form a continuous distribution on the real axis determined by its density $`\rho (\lambda )=1/(2\mathrm{cosh}(\pi \lambda ))`$.

Let us first consider the free energy. One can show that the undetermined sign in Eq. (2.1) is $`+`$, and therefore we have $`F=\mathrm{log}<1|1>`$. We now analyze Eq. (2.1) in the large $`M`$ limit. We see that we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill FM^2[& \frac{1}{2}d\lambda \rho (\lambda )\mathrm{log}[\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda i/2))\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda +i/2))]\hfill & (4.1)\hfill \\ \hfill +& \frac{1}{4}\mathrm{d}\lambda \rho (\lambda )\mathrm{d}\lambda ^{}\rho (\lambda ^{})\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda \lambda ^{}+i))}{\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda \lambda ^{}))}]+M\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{sin}\gamma +\mathrm{log}detD\hfill & \end{array}$$

The terms of order $`M^2`$ form the bulk free energy. In order to go further we have to analyze the behavior of the determinant. It is easy to see that the determinant of the matrix $`D\left[\frac{\phi _j}{\lambda _j^{}}\right]`$ is dominated by its diagonal elements; the latter are, by definition of $`\rho (\lambda )`$,

$$\frac{\phi _j}{\lambda _j}=2\pi \frac{M}{2}\rho (\lambda _j)$$

and therefore

$$\mathrm{log}detD\frac{M}{2}\mathrm{log}(\pi M)+\frac{M}{2}d\lambda \rho (\lambda )\mathrm{log}\rho (\lambda )$$

This gives us the expansion of the free energy up to linear terms in the size $`M`$. Note that similar expressions (with different densities $`\rho (\lambda )`$) can be found for other states, as long as they have a proper $`M\mathrm{}`$ limit.

As to the correlation functions, it is known that there is a general multiple integral representation for correlation functions in the thermodynamic limit  (see also , ). We shall not repeat the derivation here; let us simply mention that starting for example from (3.1), one can prove the following formula \[15,,20\]:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \pi _{k+1}\mathrm{}\pi _{k+n}=2^n\left(\frac{\pi }{\zeta }\right)^{n(n1)/2}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}& \mathrm{d}\rho _1\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}\rho _n\underset{j<k}{}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\pi (\rho _j\rho _k)}{\mathrm{sinh}\gamma (\rho _j\rho _ki)}\hfill & (4.2)\hfill \\ & \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^{j1}\gamma (\rho _ji/2)\mathrm{sinh}^{mj}\gamma (\rho _j+i/2)}{\mathrm{cosh}^m\pi \rho _j}\hfill & \end{array}$$

This result is identical to the correlation functions of the 6-vertex model with periodic boundary conditions.

Appendix A. A non-degeneracy property

We assume in this appendix that $`q\mathrm{e}^{i\gamma }`$ is generic (i.e. not a root of unity, except the isotropic case $`q=1`$). We also assume that the spectral parameters $`\{\mu _k\}`$ do not form any “strings” (i.e. $`Im(\mu _k\mu _l)1k,l`$). We consider two Bethe states $`|1>`$ and $`|2>`$ characterized by two sets $`\{\lambda _j^1,j=1,\mathrm{},m^1\}`$ and $`\{\lambda _j^2,j=1,\mathrm{},m^2\}`$. Bethe states are eigenstates of the set of commuting transfer matrices $`𝐓(\lambda )`$, with corresponding eigenvalue

$$𝐓(\lambda )|\alpha >=\left[\frac{\mathrm{Q}^\alpha (\lambda i)}{\mathrm{Q}^\alpha (\lambda )}\mathrm{a}(\lambda )+\frac{\mathrm{Q}^\alpha (\lambda +i)}{\mathrm{Q}^\alpha (\lambda )}\mathrm{d}(\lambda )\right]|\alpha >$$

where $`\mathrm{a}(\lambda )`$ and $`\mathrm{d}(\lambda )`$ are given by Eq. (2.1) and are independent of the state, whereas $`\mathrm{Q}^\alpha `$ characterizes the $`\{\lambda _j^\alpha \}`$:

$$\mathrm{Q}^\alpha (\lambda )=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m^\alpha }{}}\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma (\lambda \lambda _j^\alpha ))$$

Note that the Bethe Ansatz Equations are simply the equations which ensure pole cancellation in the eigenvalue of $`𝐓(\lambda )`$: $`\mathrm{Res}𝐓(\lambda )|\alpha >_{|\lambda =\lambda _j^\alpha }=0`$.

Because of the symmetry of the transfer matrices $`𝐓(\lambda )`$ under the flip operator $`𝐑`$, we are only considering states with $`m^\alpha M/2`$.

We now assume that $`|1>`$ and $`|2>`$ have the same eigenvalue, that is

$$\frac{\mathrm{Q}^1(\lambda +i)}{\mathrm{Q}^1(\lambda )}\mathrm{a}(\lambda )+\frac{\mathrm{Q}^1(\lambda i)}{\mathrm{Q}^1(\lambda )}\mathrm{d}(\lambda )=\frac{\mathrm{Q}^2(\lambda +i)}{\mathrm{Q}^2(\lambda )}\mathrm{a}(\lambda )+\frac{\mathrm{Q}^2(\lambda i)}{\mathrm{Q}^2(\lambda )}\mathrm{d}(\lambda )\lambda $$

We rewrite this as

$$\mathrm{a}(\lambda )\left[\mathrm{Q}^1(\lambda +i)\mathrm{Q}^2(\lambda )\mathrm{Q}^2(\lambda +i)\mathrm{Q}^1(\lambda )\right]=\mathrm{d}(\lambda )\left[\mathrm{Q}^2(\lambda i)\mathrm{Q}^1(\lambda )\mathrm{Q}^1(\lambda i)\mathrm{Q}^2(\lambda )\right]$$

Up to an overall prefactor $`\mathrm{e}^{2(M+m^1+m^2)\gamma \lambda }`$, both left and right hand sides are polynomials in $`\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma \lambda }`$ of degree at most $`M+m^1+m^2`$. Furthermore they have the following $`2M`$ known zeroes: $`\lambda =\mu _k\pm i/2`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},M`$. If some $`\mu _k`$ coincide the zeroes have a multiplicity; however note that a $`\mu _k+i/2`$ cannot coincide with a $`\mu _li/2`$ (since the $`\mu _k`$ are not allowed to form strings). There are now two situations:

1) $`m^1+m^2<M`$. In this case we conclude directly that both sides of Eq. (A.1) are zero.

2) $`m^1+m^2=M`$. Since $`m^1M/2`$ and $`m^2M/2`$, this can only happen if $`m^1=m^2=M/2`$. However in this case direct computation of the highest degree terms of the polynomials in Eq. (A.1) shows that they are zero, and therefore they are in fact of degree at most $`2M1`$. Again this means that both sides of the equation are zero.

In either case, we finally find

$$\frac{\mathrm{Q}^1(\lambda +i)}{\mathrm{Q}^1(\lambda )}=\frac{\mathrm{Q}^2(\lambda +i)}{\mathrm{Q}^2(\lambda )}\lambda $$

If $`q`$ is not a root of unity, this implies immediately that $`\{\lambda _j^1\}=\{\lambda _j^2\}`$. What we have proven is the following result:

A.1. Two Bethe states with $`mM/2`$ (i.e. $`S^z0`$) correspond to the same eigenvalues of the $`𝐓(\lambda )`$ (for all $`\lambda `$) if and only if they are identical.

This has the following two immediate corollaries:

A.2. Two distinct Bethe states are orthogonal to each other.

A.3. A Bethe state with $`m=M/2`$ (i.e. $`S^z=0`$) is an eigenstate of the flip operator $`𝐑`$.

Remark: the situation is much more subtle if $`q`$ is a root of unity. One way to see this is to consider Eq. (A.1), and assume now that $`q^{2N}=1`$. One can add an extra “full string” of the form $`\lambda _i=\lambda _0+ij`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$ to one of the sets without modifying the corresponding $`\mathrm{Q}`$ function. This suggests extra degeneracy can appear when $`q`$ is a root of unity between states with $`\mathrm{\Delta }S^z=N`$, which is precisely the phenomenon observed in .

References

relax J.C. Slater, Journ. Chem. Phys. v 9 (1941), 16. relax E. Lieb, Phys. Rev. 162 (1967), 162. relax B. Sutherland, PRL 19 (1967), 103. relax M.T. Batchelor, R.J. Baxter, M.J. O’Rourke and C.M. Yung, J. Phys. A28 (1995), 2759. relax R.J. Baxter and A.L. Owczarek, J. Phys. A22 (1989), 1141. relax K. Eloranta, J. Stat. Phys. Vol 96, 5/6 (1999), 1091. relax V.E. Korepin, Commun. Math. Phys 86 (1982), 391. relax V. Korepin, N. Bogoliubov, A. Izergin, Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correlation Functions (Cambridge University Press, 1993). relax G. Kuperberg, Internat. Math. Res. Notices 3 (1996), 139 (preprint math.CO/9712207). relax D.M. Bressoud, Proofs and Confirmations: The Story of the Alternating Sign Matrix Conjecture (Cambridge University Press, 1999) relax V. Korepin and P. Zinn-Justin, preprint cond-mat/0004250. relax A.G. Izergin, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 32 (1987), 878. relax A.G. Izergin, D.A. Coker and V.E. Korepin, J. Phys. A 25 (1992), 4315. relax J.M. Maillet and V. Terras, Nucl. Phys. B575 (2000), 627. relax N. Kitanine, J.M. Maillet and V. Terras, preprint math-ph/9907019. relax F. Göhmann and V. Korepin, J. Phys. A33 (2000), 1. relax M. Jimbo, K. Miki, T. Miwa and A. Nakayashiki, Phys. Lett. A166 (1992), 256. relax S. Lukyanov, preprint cond-mat/9809254. relax I. Affleck, preprint cond-mat/9802045. relax V. Korepin, A. Izergin, F. Essler and D. Uglov, Phys. Lett. A190 (1994), 182. relax T. Deguchi, K. Fabricius and B. McCoy, preprint cond-mat/9912141.


text:
# References

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a very simple trick for determining the dependence of abelian gauge theories on the gauge fixing parameter. It is true that important physics lies only in the gauge independent part of the theory, and anything dependent on the gauge fixing parameter is unphysical. Nevertheless, perturbation theory of the manifestly renormalizable gauge theories cannot be formulated in a gauge invariant way, and it is important to have a total control over the gauge dependence of the correlation functions.

The gauge dependence of QED was discussed long ago by Landau and Khalatnikov . The familiar lagrangian of QED with electrons is given by

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^2+\frac{1}{2\xi }\left(_\mu A_\mu \right)^2+\overline{\psi }\left(\frac{1}{i}\text{/}eA\text{/}+iM\right)\psi $$
(1)
where $`\xi `$ is a gauge fixing parameter.111We will use the euclidean metric throughout the paper. The action $`S`$ is the integral of the lagrangian density $``$ over 4-dimensional euclidean space, and the weight of functional integration is given by $`\mathrm{e}^S`$. Landau and Khalatnikov stated that the correlation functions in two different gauges $`\xi ,\xi ^{}`$ are related by222Actually they gave a result applicable to any gauge fixing function of $`_\mu A_\mu `$.

$$A_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\psi \mathrm{}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{}_\xi ^{}=(A_{\mu _1}+_{\mu _1}\varphi )\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}^{ie\varphi }\psi \mathrm{}\mathrm{e}^{ie\varphi }\overline{\psi }\mathrm{}_\xi $$
(2)
where $`\varphi `$ is a free real scalar field whose propagator is given by

$$\varphi (x)\varphi (0)(\xi ^{}\xi )_k\frac{\mathrm{e}^{ikx}}{(k^2)^2}$$
(3)
This implies physically the free field nature of the longitudinal mode of the photon. Landau and Khalatnikov justified their result by showing its consistency with the Ward identities. The specific cases for the two- and three-point functions were also verified by the method of generating functionals in refs. .333In ref. , only the gauge parameter dependence of the electron propagator was given explicitly although the arguments there can be generalized. In ref.  the change of the generating functional under an arbitrary infinitesimal change of the gauge fixing function was given, and Eq. (2), with $`\varphi `$ contracted, was obtained explicitly for the electron propagator and the vertex function.

The aim of this paper is to rederive Eq. (2) in an illuminating way. By introducing a Stückelberg field, we will derive Eq. (2) as a simple consequence of the BRST invariance. We will first prove the generalization of Eq. (2) for the massive QED. Then, the result for QED with massless photons can be obtained by taking the massless limit.

Let us consider the following lagrangian for the massive QED:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_\mu \phi mA_\mu \right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}\left(_\mu A_\mu \xi m\phi \right)^2`$ (4)
$`+\overline{\psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\text{/}eA\text{/}+iM\right)\psi +_\mu \overline{c}_\mu c+\xi m^2\overline{c}c`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}(A)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}A_\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\left(_\mu \phi \right)^2+\xi m^2\phi ^2\right)`$
$`+\overline{\psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\text{/}eA\text{/}+iM\right)\psi +_\mu \overline{c}_\mu c+\xi m^2\overline{c}c`$
The real scalar field $`\phi `$, known as the Stückelberg field, is the Goldstone boson field which gives a mass $`m`$ to the photon. The exponentiated field $`\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{e}{m}\phi }`$ is a charged scalar with its magnitude frozen. We have chosen the $`R_\xi `$ gauge so that $`\phi `$ becomes a free massive field of squared mass $`\xi m^2`$. Ignoring the $`\phi `$ and the anticommuting Faddeev-Popov (FP) ghost fields $`c,\overline{c}`$ (or equivalently integrating them out), the lagrangian reduces to the standard lagrangian for the massive QED with electrons in the covariant gauge.

The lagrangian (4) is invariant under the following BRST transformation:

$`\delta _ϵA_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\mu c,\delta _ϵ\phi =mϵc`$
$`\delta _ϵ\psi `$ $`=`$ $`ieϵc\psi ,\delta _ϵ\overline{\psi }=ieϵc\overline{\psi }`$
$`\delta _ϵc`$ $`=`$ $`0,\delta _ϵ\overline{c}=ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}\left(A\xi m\phi \right)`$ (5)
where $`ϵ`$ is an arbitrary anticommuting constant. Out of the four fields $`A_\mu ,\psi ,\overline{\psi }`$, and $`\phi `$ we can construct three gauge and BRST invariant fields:

$`A_\mu ^{}`$ $``$ $`A_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}_\mu \phi `$ (6)
$`\psi ^{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{e}{m}\phi }\psi ,\overline{\psi }^{}\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{e}{m}\phi }\overline{\psi }`$ (7)
It is easy to compute the $`\xi `$ dependence of the lagrangian:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi ^2}}(A)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\phi ^2+m^2\overline{c}c`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\delta _ϵ\left[\overline{c}\left(A+\xi m\phi \right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}\overline{c}(^2+\xi m^2)c`$
This implies that the correlations of BRST invariant fields that are independent of the FP ghosts do not depend on the gauge fixing parameter $`\xi `$. Therefore, the correlation functions of $`A_\mu ^{},\psi ^{},\overline{\psi }^{}`$ are independent of $`\xi `$:

$$A_{\mu _1}^{}\mathrm{}\psi ^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }^{}\mathrm{}_\xi ^{}=A_{\mu _1}^{}\mathrm{}\psi ^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }^{}\mathrm{}_\xi $$
(9)
The explicit gauge dependence of the correlation functions can be obtained by contracting the free scalar $`\phi `$ in this formula.

We now wish to derive the Landau-Khalatnikov result (2) for the massive QED:

$$A_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\psi \mathrm{}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{}_\xi ^{}=\left(A_{\mu _1}+_{\mu _1}\varphi \right)\mathrm{}\psi \mathrm{e}^{ie\varphi }\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{e}^{ie\varphi }\mathrm{}_\xi $$
(10)
where the propagator of the free scalar field $`\varphi `$ is given by

$`\varphi (x)\varphi (0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}{\displaystyle _k}\mathrm{e}^{ikx}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2+\xi m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2+\xi ^{}m^2}}\right)`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`(\xi ^{}\xi ){\displaystyle _k}\mathrm{e}^{ikx}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2+\xi m^2)(k^2+\xi ^{}m^2)}}`$
Instead of proving Eq. (10) directly, we prove the following equivalent relation that is obtained by substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (9):

$`\left(A_{\mu _1}+_{\mu _1}\left(\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\phi _\xi ^{}\right)\right)\mathrm{}\psi \mathrm{e}^{ie\left(\varphi \frac{1}{m}\phi _\xi ^{}\right)}\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{e}^{ie\left(\varphi \frac{1}{m}\phi _\xi ^{}\right)}\mathrm{}_\xi `$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\left(A_{\mu _1}_{\mu _1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\phi _\xi \right)\mathrm{}\psi \mathrm{e}^{i\frac{e}{m}\phi _\xi }\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{e}{m}\phi _\xi }\mathrm{}_\xi `$
where $`\phi _\xi `$ is the Stückelberg field for the gauge fixing parameter $`\xi `$ with the propagator

$$\phi _\xi (x)\phi _\xi (0)=\mathrm{\Delta }(xy;\xi m^2)_k\frac{\mathrm{e}^{ikx}}{k^2+\xi m^2}$$
(13)
Eq. (12) is valid if and only if

$$\mathrm{e}^{ie\left(\varphi \frac{1}{m}\phi _\xi ^{}\right)}\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}^{ie\left(\varphi \frac{1}{m}\phi _\xi ^{}\right)}\mathrm{}=\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{e}{m}\phi _\xi }\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{e}{m}\phi _\xi }\mathrm{}$$
(14)
But this is equivalent to

$$\varphi \varphi =\frac{1}{m^2}\left(\phi _\xi \phi _\xi \phi _\xi ^{}\phi _\xi ^{}\right),$$
(15)
which is precisely the definition of the propagator of $`\varphi `$ given in Eq. (11). This concludes the proof of Eq. (10).444Eq. (12.9.21) of ref.  gives the $`\xi `$ derivative of arbitrary correlation functions. By integrating the equation over $`\xi `$, Eqs. (10) of the main text can be obtained in principle. The propagator of $`\varphi `$ is the difference of the propagators of the Stückelberg fields in two gauges.

The original result (2) for QED with massless photons can be derived from Eq. (10) simply by taking the limit $`m0`$; in the limit we get the massless propagator (3) from the massive propagator (11). However, the proof itself does not go through for $`m=0`$. With $`m=0`$ the BRST invariant lagrangian (4) still makes sense, but the definitions (6,7) suffer from the diverging factor $`\frac{1}{m}\mathrm{}`$. A slight modification is necessary for the proof. We introduce the following lagrangian:

$$=\frac{1}{4}F^2+\frac{1}{2\xi }(A)^2\frac{1}{2\xi }\left(^2\phi \right)^2+\overline{\psi }\left(\frac{1}{i}\text{/}eA\text{/}+iM\right)\psi +_\mu \overline{c}_\mu c$$
(16)
This is invariant under the BRST transformation:

$`\delta _ϵA_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\mu c,\delta _ϵ\phi =ϵc`$
$`\delta _ϵ\psi `$ $`=`$ $`ieϵc\psi ,\delta _ϵ\overline{\psi }=ieϵc\overline{\psi }`$
$`\delta _ϵc`$ $`=`$ $`0,\delta _ϵ\overline{c}=ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}\left(A^2\phi \right)`$ (17)
This transformation is strictly nilpotent. From the BRST invariance of the redefined fields

$`A_\mu ^{}`$ $``$ $`A_\mu _\mu \phi `$
$`\psi ^{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{e}^{ie\phi }\psi ,\overline{\psi }^{}\mathrm{e}^{ie\phi }\overline{\psi },`$ (18)
the rest of the proof follows exactly the same way.

There is a more straightforward way of deriving the gauge parameter dependence (10). Before proceeding with the derivation, however, let us work out a few concrete consequences of the Landau-Khalatnikov equation (10) for completeness of the paper. We first consider the electron propagator. Eq. (10) implies

$$\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)_\xi =\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\xi e^2}{(4\pi )^2}\left(𝒟(0;\xi m^2)+𝒟(xy;\xi m^2)\right)\right]\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)_{\xi =0}$$
(19)
where

$$\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}𝒟(x;\xi m^2)\frac{1}{\xi m^2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(x;0)\mathrm{\Delta }(x;\xi m^2)\right)=_k\frac{\mathrm{e}^{ikx}}{k^2(k^2+\xi m^2)}$$
(20)
The value of $`𝒟(0;\xi m^2)`$ is ultraviolet (UV) divergent, and in the dimensional regularization it is calculated as

$$\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}𝒟(0;\xi m^2)=\mu ^ϵ\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{1}{k^2(k^2+\xi m^2)}=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}\left(\frac{2}{ϵ}+1\mathrm{ln}\frac{\xi m^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}\right)$$
(21)
where $`D4ϵ`$, and $`\overline{\mu }^24\pi \mu ^2\mathrm{e}^\gamma `$ ($`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant). Let us introduce renormalization constants as follows:

$`A_{\mu ,r}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{Z_3}}}A_\mu ,\psi _r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{Z_2(\xi )}}}\psi `$
$`e_r^2`$ $``$ $`Z_3e^2,m_r^2Z_3m^2,\xi _r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_3}}\xi `$ (22)
where $`Z_3`$ is independent of $`\xi `$. Eqs. (19, 20, 21) imply that, in the minimal subtraction (MS) scheme, the wave function renormalization constant depends on the gauge fixing parameter as

$$Z_2(\xi )=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}\frac{2}{ϵ}\right]Z_2(0).$$
(23)
This relation was first obtained by Johnson and Zumino .555A large regulator mass was used as a UV cutoff in . The calculation with the dimensional regularization was first made by Collins  and Lautrup . After renormalization, Eq. (19) gives 666See also ref.  for a derivation using the functional method.

$`\psi _r(y)\overline{\psi }_r(z)_{\xi _r}/\psi _r(y)\overline{\psi }_r(z)_{\xi _r=0}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _rm_r^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}1+𝒟(yz;\xi _rm_r^2)\right)\right]`$
where $`𝒟`$, which is UV finite for non-vanishing arguments, is defined by Eq. (20).

We next consider the three-point function. Eq. (10) gives, after renormalization,

$`A_{\mu ,r}(x)\psi _r(y)\overline{\psi }_r(z)_{\xi _r}=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _rm_r^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}1+𝒟(yz;\xi _rm_r^2)\right)\right]`$
$`\times [A_{\mu ,r}(x)\psi _r(y)\overline{\psi }_r(z)_0`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi _re_r}{(4\pi )^2}}(_\mu 𝒟(xy;\xi _rm_r^2)_\mu 𝒟(xz;\xi _rm_r^2))\psi _r(y)\overline{\psi }_r(z)_0]`$
This was obtained in refs.  for $`m_r^2=0`$.

For arbitrary correlation functions in the MS scheme, we find

$`A_{\mu ,r}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}\psi _r(y_1)\mathrm{}\psi _r(y_F)\overline{\psi }_r(z_1)\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }_r(z_F)_{\xi _r}/A_{\mu ,r}\mathrm{}\psi _r\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }_r\mathrm{}_0`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}}\{F(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _rm_r^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}1)+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}𝒟(y_iz_j;\xi _rm_r^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(𝒟(y_iy_j;\xi _rm_r^2)+𝒟(z_iz_j;\xi _rm_r^2))\}]`$
where only the transverse part

$$A_\mu ^{\prime \prime }A_\mu _\mu \frac{1}{^2}A$$
(27)
has been considered for simplicity. Eq. (26) implies that the correlation functions of the elementary fields at large distances are independent of the gauge fixing parameter. This would imply the gauge independence of the S-matrix elements in the Minkowski space.

Now, let us proceed with the second derivation of Eq. (10). We start with the following lagrangian for the massive QED:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2A_\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}(A)^2+\overline{\psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\text{/}eA\text{/}+iM\right)\psi `$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(\xi ^{}\xi )}}\varphi (^2+\xi m^2)(^2+\xi ^{}m^2)\varphi `$
where we have added a non-interacting scalar field $`\varphi `$, which is the same field that appears in Eq. (10). Since $`\varphi `$ is decoupled, we can integrate it out to get the standard lagrangian for the massive QED with the gauge fixing parameter $`\xi `$. We introduce a change of variables

$$A_\mu ^{}=A_\mu +_\mu \varphi ,\psi ^{}=\mathrm{e}^{ie\varphi }\psi ,\overline{\psi }^{}=\mathrm{e}^{ie\varphi }\overline{\psi }$$
(29)
This is nothing but a gauge transformation with the gauge function $`\varphi `$. Note that the right-hand side of Eq. (10) is the correlation of $`A_\mu ^{},\psi ^{},\overline{\psi }^{}`$ using the above lagrangian (28). In terms of the redefined fields, we can rewrite the lagrangian as

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\left(A_\mu ^{}_\mu \varphi \right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}\left(A^{}^2\varphi \right)^2`$ (30)
$`+\overline{\psi }^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\text{/}eA\text{/}^{}+iM\right)\psi ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(\xi ^{}\xi )}}\varphi (^2+\xi m^2)(^2+\xi ^{}m^2)\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}(A^{})^2+\overline{\psi ^{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\text{/}eA\text{/}^{}+iM\right)\psi ^{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}\varphi \left(^2+\xi m^2\right)A^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^{}}{2\xi (\xi ^{}\xi )}}\varphi \left(^2+\xi m^2\right)^2\varphi `$
Integrating out $`\varphi `$, we get

$$^{}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}m^2A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{1}{2\xi ^{}}(A^{})^2+\overline{\psi ^{}}\left(\frac{1}{i}\text{/}eA\text{/}^{}+iM\right)\psi ^{},$$
(31)
which is a lagrangian with a new gauge fixing parameter $`\xi ^{}`$. This implies that the correlation of $`A_\mu ^{},\psi ^{},\overline{\psi }^{}`$ using the lagrangian (28) is the same as the correlation of the same fields using the lagrangian (31). Hence, we obtain Eq. (10).

We wish to apply the techniques developed above to the gauge dependence of the abelian Higgs theory both in the covariant gauge and in the $`R_\xi `$ gauge. In the covariant gauge the theory is defined by the lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^2+\frac{1}{2\xi }(A)^2+|(_\mu ieA_\mu )\varphi |^2+M^2|\varphi |^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}|\varphi |^4$$
(32)
The $`\xi `$ dependence of the correlation functions of $`A_\mu ,\varphi ,\varphi ^{}`$ can be obtained in the same way as for the QED with electrons. Let us consider the implications of the $`\xi `$ dependence thus obtained. In the Higgs phase the correlation function

$$A_\mu \mathrm{}\varphi (y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (y_B)\varphi ^{}(z_1)\mathrm{}\varphi ^{}(z_{\overline{B}})$$

is non-vanishing even if $`B\overline{B}`$. The correlation functions for $`B\overline{B}`$ have $`\xi `$ dependent infrared (IR) divergences. For example, we find, after UV renormalization, that

$$\varphi _r_{\xi _r}=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}\frac{1}{ϵ}}\varphi _r_0$$
(33)
For the two-point functions, we obtain

$`2\mathrm{}\varphi _r(x)\mathrm{}\varphi _r(y)_{\xi _r}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\pi \mathrm{e}^\gamma \mu ^2(xy)^2\right)^{\frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}}\varphi (x)\varphi ^{}(y)_0`$
$`+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}\frac{4}{ϵ}}\left(\pi \mathrm{e}^\gamma \mu ^2(xy)^2\right)^{\frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}}\varphi (x)\varphi (y)_0`$
$`2\mathrm{}\varphi _r(x)\mathrm{}\varphi _r(y)_{\xi _r}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\pi \mathrm{e}^\gamma \mu ^2(xy)^2\right)^{\frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}}\varphi (x)\varphi ^{}(y)_0`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}\frac{4}{ϵ}}\left(\pi \mathrm{e}^\gamma \mu ^2(xy)^2\right)^{\frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}}\varphi (x)\varphi (y)_0`$
The second terms on the right-hand sides are IR divergent for non-vanishing $`\xi _r`$. All IR divergences in the covariant gauge depend on $`\xi _r`$, and they can be determined explicitly.

Finally, we consider the Higgs theory in the $`R_\xi `$ gauge . In this case the fictitious Goldstone boson does not decouple for the massive photon, and we cannot obtain the $`\xi `$ dependence of the correlations of elementary fields. The lagrangian in the $`R_\xi `$ gauge is given by

$`_{R_\xi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}\left(A\xi ev\chi \right)^2`$
$`+|(_\mu ieA_\mu )\varphi |^2+M^2|\varphi |^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}|\varphi |^4+_\mu \overline{c}_\mu c+\xi e^2v\rho \overline{c}c`$ (36)
where $`\rho ,\chi `$ are the real and imaginary parts of $`\varphi `$:

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\rho +i\chi \right)$$
(37)
The mass parameter $`v`$ has been introduced to remove the tree-level mixing between $`\chi `$ and $`A`$. A Stückelberg field can be introduced as

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_\mu \phi mA_\mu \right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}\left(A\xi ev\chi \xi m\phi \right)^2`$
$`+|(_\mu ieA_\mu )\varphi |^2+M^2|\varphi |^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}|\varphi |^4`$
$`+_\mu \overline{c}_\mu c+\xi \left(e^2v\rho +m^2\right)\overline{c}c`$
The $`\phi `$ field is not free anymore; it couples to $`\chi `$ through the term $`\xi evm\phi \chi `$. Regarding the field $`\chi `$ as a source, $`\phi `$ can be integrated out. In the massless limit $`m0`$, the field $`\phi `$ decouples from $`\chi `$, and the lagrangian (S0.Ex27) reduces to (36). But, as we will see shortly, the effect of the coupling of $`\phi `$ with $`\chi `$ remains even in the massless limit.

The lagrangian (S0.Ex27) is invariant under the following BRST transformation:

$`\delta _ϵA_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_\mu c,\delta _ϵ\phi =mϵc`$
$`\delta _ϵ\rho `$ $`=`$ $`eϵc\chi ,\delta _ϵ\chi =eϵc\rho `$
$`\delta _ϵc`$ $`=`$ $`0,\delta _ϵ\overline{c}=ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}\left(A\xi ev\chi \xi m\phi \right)`$ (39)
and the BRST invariant fields are defined by

$`A_\mu ^{\prime \prime }`$ $``$ $`A_\mu _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{^2}}A`$ (40)
$`\varphi ^{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{e}{m}\phi }\varphi ,\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{e}{m}\phi }\varphi ^{}`$ (41)
Using the $`\xi `$ independence of the correlation of $`A_\mu ^{\prime \prime },\varphi ^{},\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, we obtain

$`A_\mu ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}\varphi (y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (y_B)\varphi ^{}(z_1)\mathrm{}\varphi ^{}(z_{\overline{B}})`$ (42)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi ^2e^2v^2m^2{\displaystyle _{r,r^{}}}\chi (r)\mathrm{\Delta }(rr^{};\xi m^2)\chi (r^{})`$
$`+i\xi e^2v{\displaystyle _r}\chi (r)({\displaystyle \underset{1iB}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }(ry_i;\xi m^2){\displaystyle \underset{1i\overline{B}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }(rz_i;\xi m^2))]_\xi `$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi e^2}{(4\pi )^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(B+\overline{B})𝒟(0;\xi m^2)+{\displaystyle \underset{iB,j\overline{B}}{}}𝒟(y_iz_j;\xi m^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i<jB}{}}𝒟(y_iy_j;\xi m^2)+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j\overline{B}}{}}𝒟(z_iz_j;\xi m^2))]`$
$`\times A_\mu \mathrm{}\varphi (y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (y_B)\varphi ^{}(z_1)\mathrm{}\varphi ^{}(z_{\overline{B}})_0`$
where the correlation is evaluated with the lagrangian (36) in the $`R_\xi `$ gauge. We observe that on the left-hand side, the source terms quadratic in $`\chi `$ vanish in the limit $`m0`$, but not the terms linear in $`\chi `$. Hence, even in the massless limit, the above formula does not give the $`\xi `$ dependence of the correlation of elementary fields alone. In the limit $`m0`$, we obtain the following $`\xi `$ dependence after renormalization in the MS scheme:

$`A_{\mu ,r}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}\varphi _r(y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _r^{}(z_1)\mathrm{}`$ (43)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i\xi _re_r^2v_r{\displaystyle _r}\chi _r(r)({\displaystyle \underset{1iB}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }(y_ir;0){\displaystyle \underset{1i\overline{B}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }(z_ir;0))\right]_{\xi _r}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}\frac{1}{ϵ}(B\overline{B})^2}\times \mathrm{\Pi }_{i,j}\left(\pi \mathrm{e}^\gamma \mu ^2(y_iz_j)^2\right)^{\frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Pi }_{i<jB}\left(\pi \mathrm{e}^\gamma \mu ^2(y_iy_j)^2\right)^{\frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}}\times \mathrm{\Pi }_{i<j\overline{B}}\left(\pi \mathrm{e}^\gamma \mu ^2(z_iz_j)^2\right)^{\frac{\xi _re_r^2}{(4\pi )^2}}`$
$`\times A_{\mu ,r}\mathrm{}\varphi _r(y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _r^{}(z_1)\mathrm{}_0`$
Note that the IR divergence in the first factor on the right-hand side is due to the long-range source term coupled to $`\chi _r`$.777In the $`R_\xi `$ gauge there is no IR divergence in the correlations of elementary fields. Here the IR divergences arise due to the long range function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x;0)=\mathrm{O}(1/x^2)`$ in the source term.

In this paper we have given two new proofs of the result of Landau and Khalatnikov on the exact gauge dependence of the correlation functions of the elementary fields for the abelian gauge theories in the covariant gauge. The trick of the Stückelberg field can be introduced also to the non-abelian gauge theories, but due to the coupling of the Stückelberg field to the gauge and FP ghost fields, no simple formulas can be obtained.

I thank the referee for an appropriate suggestion for revision. The first version of the paper was written during a visit to the particle theory group of Hokkaido University. I would like to thank Prof. Noboru Kawamoto and the other members of the group for hospitality. This work was supported in part by the Grant-In-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, Japan (#11640279).


text:
# 1 Confinement in Super Yang-Mills Theory

## 1 Confinement in Super Yang-Mills Theory

The correspondence? between type IIB string theory in anti-de Sitter space and certain conformal field theories has allowed us to study those gauge theories in regimes that were previously intractable. In this paper, we review some thermodynamic aspects of this duality when the conformal field theory is four-dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills with gauge group SU(N) for large rank N.

The duality is holographic; it relates a CFT on the boundary to bulk manifolds with the right symmetries. For the $`𝒩=4`$ SU(N) theory, there are at least two such geometries: $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and a spacetime in which the $`AdS_5`$ is replaced with a Hawking-Page black hole (an uncharged black hole in an anti-de Sitter background). These two solutions correspond respectively to the confined and unconfined phases in the gauge theory,? as we shall see. Our aim is to use the correspondence to study the confinement-deconfinement transition in the gauge theory.aaaThis review overlaps with the paper hep-th/0002031, by the author and D. Berman.?

The gauge theory action is

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{4g^2}F^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(D\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2+\frac{1}{12}R\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\overline{\psi }/D\psi \right).$$
(1)
All fields are in the adjoint representation of $`SU(N)`$. The six scalars, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, transform under $`SO(6)`$ R-symmetry, while the four Weyl fermions, $`\psi `$, transform under $`SU(4)`$, the spin cover of $`SO(6)`$. The scalars are conformally coupled; otherwise, all fields are massless.

This theory is conformal at the quantum level. In order to induce interesting phase behavior one has to break conformality. We can do this by considering the theory at nonzero temperature, $`T`$, on a finite volume three-sphere of radius $`r_0`$. Then conformal invariance dictates that thermodynamic properties can depend only on the dimensionless quantity $`Tr_0`$ or, in the microcanonical version, $`Ur_0`$ where $`U`$ is the energy of the system. This implies in particular that the infinite volume limit is equivalent to the infinite temperature limit; on $`R^3`$ the theory is always in its high temperature phase. Hence to study the confined phase we consider the theory on a finite sphere.

However, “confinement” on $`S^3`$ is slightly tricky. One cannot envision a single quark on $`S^3`$ as there is nowhere for the flux to go (because $`\pi _2(S^3\{0\})0`$). Instead, we can try to express confinement in terms of temporal Wilson loops (Polyakov loops). A temporal loop, $`C`$, traces one end of an open string, whose other end terminates on the stack of $`N`$ D3-branes, that is, in the bulk. So we should consider all string worldsheets that extend from a timelike circle on the boundary into the bulk. The expectation value over these tube-shaped surfaces serves as an order parameter for the spontaneous breaking of the $`Z_N`$ center of $`SU(N)`$:

$$W[C]=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{Tr}P\mathrm{exp}_CAe^{\beta F},$$
(2)
where $`P`$ denotes path-ordering, $`A`$ is the gauge field, and the trace is in the fundamental representation (to be precise, one should also include the fermions and scalars). The expectation value is taken with respect to the action, Eq. (1). Here we have written it in terms of the free energy. Loosely speaking, adding a Wilson loop is like adding a quark;?,? then since a zero expectation value costs an infinite amount of free energy, it corresponds to confinement. Now the topology of the black hole is $`B^2\times S^3`$, while the topology of thermal AdS space is $`S^1\times B^4`$. Then the argument goes that, since $`C`$ belongs to a nontrivial first homology class for the thermal AdS spacetime, it cannot be the boundary of a worldsheet. Hence the expectation value of the Wilson loop is zero and so thermal AdS corresponds to the confined phase. By contrast, for the black hole topology, $`C`$ could be one boundary of a string worldsheet so in general the Wilson loop has nonzero expectation value. However, there is a subtlety, first noted by Witten.? IIB string theory has an NS-NS two-form that, with vanishing field strength, can be added to the background at no cost in energy. Thus the Wilson loop acquires a periodic phase factor, and summing over all values of the phase gives an expectation value of zero for the black hole geometry too. So Wilson loops do not seem to characterize the phase of the gauge theory on $`S^3`$.

To check that the different gravitational backgrounds indeed correspond to different phases of the gauge theory one could look for other evidence, for example by comparing thermodynamic quantities computed on either side of the correspondence. Unfortunately, at present it is only possible to do direct calculations in the gauge theory at weak coupling. Consider then the free field limit of super Yang-Mills. In the high-energy regime which dominates the state counting, the spectrum of free fields on a sphere is essentially that of blackbody radiation in flat space, with $`8N^2`$ bosonic ($`2N^2`$ for the gauge bosons, and $`6N^2`$ for the scalars) and $`8N^2`$ fermionic degrees of freedom. The entropy is therefore

$$S_{\mathrm{CFT}}=\frac{2}{3}\pi ^2N^2V_{\mathrm{CFT}}T_{\mathrm{CFT}}^3.$$
(3)
Since the fields have been taken to be noninteracting, this is obviously the unconfined phase. In the next section, we shall see that anti-de Sitter black holes have almost exactly the same thermodynamics.

## 2 AdS Black Holes

The line element of the dual “Schwarzschild” black hole? in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ is

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2MG_5}{r^2}+r^2l^2\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{2MG_5}{r^2}+r^2l^2\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+l^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2,$$
(4)
where $`G_5`$ is the five-dimensional Newton constant, and $`l`$ is the inverse radius of both the five-sphere and AdS, so that the five-dimensional cosmological constant is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=6l^2`$. The geometry has a Ricci tensor proportional to the metric and a nonvanishing Weyl tensor.

The black hole horizon is at $`r=r_+`$ where

$$r_+^2=\frac{1}{2l^2}\left(1+\sqrt{1+8MG_5l^2}\right).$$
(5)
When $`r_+l1`$, the black hole could become unstable to localization on the $`S^5`$ by an analog of the Gregory-Laflamme mechanism.? A necessary condition? for instability is that the entropy of the localized black hole be larger than the entropy of a black hole uniformly spread over the five-sphere. A straightforward computation then shows that a localization instability could exist for very small black holes with $`r_+l1`$. Here we shall work with stable black holes that have $`r_+l>1`$.

To study the black hole’s thermodynamics, we Euclideanize the metric. The substitution $`\tau =it`$ makes the metric positive definite and, by the usual removal of the conical singularity at $`r_+`$, yields an inverse temperature of the black hole given by the period of $`\tau `$:

$$\beta _{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{2\pi r_+}{1+2r_+^2l^2}.$$
(6)
The entropy is

$$S_{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{A}{4G_5}=\frac{\pi ^2r_+^3}{2G_5},$$
(7)
where $`A`$ is the “area” (that is, three-volume) of the horizon. The mass above the anti-de Sitter background is

$$U_{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{3\pi }{4}M=\frac{3\pi }{8G_5}r_+^2\left(1+r_+^2l^2\right).$$
(8)
This is the AdS equivalent of the ADM mass, or energy at infinity. (Actually if the black hole is to be considered at thermal equilibrium it should properly be regarded as being surrounded by a thermal envelope of Hawking particles. Because of the infinite blueshift at the horizon, this envelope contributes a formally infinite energy. Here we shall neglect this infinite energy as unphysical, absorbed perhaps by a renormalization of the Newton constant. But there could be finite regularization-scheme-dependent corrections of order zero in $`G_5`$.)

We can now also write down the free energy:

$$F_{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{\pi r_+^2}{8G_5}\left(1r_+^2l^2\right).$$
(9)
Eqs. (6-9) satisfy the first law of thermodynamics. It is interesting to note that, by formally dividing both the free energy and the mass by an arbitrary volume, one obtains an equation of state:

$$p=\frac{1}{3}\frac{r_+^2l^21}{r_+^2l^2+1}\rho ,$$
(10)
where $`p=F/V`$ is the pressure, and $`\rho `$ is the energy density. In the limit $`r_+l1`$ this equation becomes

$$p=\frac{1}{3}\rho ,$$
(11)
as is appropriate for the equation of state of a conformal theory. This suggests that if a conformal field theory is to reproduce the thermodynamic properties of this gravitational solution, it has to be in the $`r_+l1`$ limit.

To express the CFT parameters $`N`$, $`T_{\mathrm{CFT}}`$, and $`V_{\mathrm{CFT}}`$ in terms of black hole quantities, we implement holography by taking the physical data for the CFT from the boundary of the black hole spacetime. At fixed $`rr_0r_+`$, the boundary line element tends to

$$ds^2r_0^2\left[l^2dt^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right],$$
(12)
which has a spatial volume of

$$V_{\mathrm{CFT}}=2\pi ^2r_0^3.$$
(13)
The conformal field theory temperature is the physical temperature at the boundary:

$$T_{\mathrm{CFT}}=\frac{T_{\mathrm{BH}}}{\sqrt{g_{tt}}}\frac{1}{lr_0}\frac{1+2r_+^2l^2}{2\pi r_+}.$$
(14)
To obtain an expression for $`N`$, we invoke the AdS/CFT correspondence. This relates $`N`$ to the radius of $`S^5`$ and the cosmological constant:

$$R_{S^5}^2=\sqrt{4\pi g_s\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}N}=\frac{1}{l^2}.$$
(15)
Then, since

$$(2\pi )^7g_s^2\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}=16\pi G_{10}=16\frac{\pi ^4}{l^5}G_5,$$
(16)
we have

$$N^2=\frac{\pi }{2l^3G_5}.$$
(17)
With these substitutions, we see that the CFT entropy in the unconfined phase, Eq. (3), is (almost) the same as the black hole entropy, Eq. (7), in the limit $`r_+l1`$:

$$S_{\mathrm{CFT}}\frac{4}{3}S_{\mathrm{BH}}.$$
(18)
Similarly, the red-shifted energy of the conformal field theory matches the black hole mass, modulo a coefficient:

$$U_{\mathrm{CFT}}^{\mathrm{}}=\sqrt{g_{tt}}\frac{\pi ^2}{2}N^2V_{\mathrm{CFT}}T_{\mathrm{CFT}}^4\frac{\pi }{2}r_+^4l^2\frac{4}{3}U_{\mathrm{BH}},$$
(19)
where $`U_{\mathrm{CFT}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the conformal field theory energy red-shifted to infinity, and we have again taken the $`r_+l1`$ limit. At this level, the correspondence only goes through in this high temperature limit. Since the only two scales in the thermal conformal field theory are $`r_0`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{CFT}}`$, high temperature means that $`T_{\mathrm{CFT}}1/r_0`$, allowing us to neglect finite-size effects.

The mysterious $`4/3`$ discrepancy in Eqs. (18) and (19) is usually construed to be an artifact of having calculated the gauge theory entropy in the free field limit rather than in the limit of strong ’t Hooft coupling, $`\lambda 1`$, as required by the correspondence; intuitively, one expects the free energy to decrease when the coupling increases. The $`4/3`$ factor was first noticed in the context of D3-brane thermodynamics.? The thermodynamic matching has been extended to rotating black holes?,?,? and their field theory duals, Yang-Mills with angular momentum for which, interestingly, the tantalizing $`4/3`$ factor remains unchanged.?

For our present purposes, the most interesting aspect is the N-dependence of the result. The dependence on $`N^2`$ indicates that the conformal field theory is in its unconfined phase; the $`N^2`$ species of free gluons make independent contributions to the free energy. We shall see in the next section that the thermodynamics of the confined phase is rather different.

## 3 A Hot Bath in AdS

Now consider a gas of thermal radiation in anti-de Sitter space. This is dual to the confined phase of super Yang-Mills. (Curiously, attempts to formulate confinement in terms of anti-de Sitter space date back at least to the 1970’s.?) The thermal gas is necessary to ensure that the energy measured with respect to the AdS background is nonzero. The energy eigenstates of $`AdS_5`$ are:?

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\omega jmn}(r,t,\theta ,\varphi ,\psi )=N_{\omega j}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega lt\right)\mathrm{sin}^j\rho C_{\omega j1}^{j+1}(\mathrm{cos}\rho )Y_j^{mn}(\theta ,\varphi ,\psi ),$$
(20)
where $`C_q^p(x)`$ are Gegenbauer polynomials, $`Y_j^{mn}(\theta ,\varphi ,\psi )`$ are the spherical harmonics in five-dimensional spacetime (with total angular momentum number $`j`$), and $`\rho \mathrm{arctan}(rl)`$. Here $`\omega `$ is an integer satisfying the condition $`\omega 1j|m|,|n|`$. Hence the spectrum is quantized in units of $`l`$, the inverse radius of AdS. Since this is also the quantum of excitations of the five-sphere, we should consider thermodynamics over the full ten-dimensional space. The appropriate line element is therefore

$$ds^2=\left(1+r^2l^2\right)dt^2+\left(1+r^2l^2\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+l^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2.$$
(21)
To obtain a thermal field theory, we again Euclideanize the metric. The periodicity of $`\tau =it`$ is then the inverse (asymptotic) temperature, $`T_{\mathrm{AdS}}^1`$, of the theory; the absence of a horizon means that $`T_{\mathrm{AdS}}`$ is an arbitrary parameter. However, the relevant temperature for thermodynamics in the bulk is not $`T_{\mathrm{AdS}}`$, but the local, redshifted, temperature:

$$T_{\mathrm{local}}=\frac{T_{\mathrm{AdS}}}{\sqrt{g_{tt}}}=\frac{T_{\mathrm{AdS}}}{\sqrt{1+r^2l^2}}.$$
(22)
To calculate thermodynamic quantities we foliate spacetime into (timelike) slices of constant local temperature. Extensive thermodynamic quantities are then computed by adding the contribution of each such hypersurface.

The local energy density of the thermal gas of radiation is

$$\rho _{\mathrm{local}}=\sigma T_{\mathrm{local}}^{10},$$
(23)
where we have neglected infrared effects due to curvature or nonconformality. (This assumes a thermodynamic limit; an exact statistical mechanical computation would be preferable.) Here $`\sigma `$ is the ten-dimensional supersymmetric generalization of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, which is approximated by its flat space value:

$$\sigma =\frac{62}{105}\pi ^5,$$
(24)
where we have included a factor of 128, the number of massless bosonic physical degrees of freedom of IIB supergravity.

The total “ADM” energy-at-infinity of a gas contained in a ball of radius $`r_0`$ is then

$$U_{\mathrm{gas}}^{\mathrm{}}=\sigma \frac{2\pi ^5}{l^5}_0^{r_0}T_{\mathrm{local}}^{10}\sqrt{g_{tt}}\sqrt{g_{rr}}r^3𝑑r\sigma V_{\mathrm{eff}}(r_0)T_{\mathrm{AdS}}^{10}.$$
(25)
Here the additional blueshift factor of $`\sqrt{g_{tt}}`$ converts the local (fiducial) energy into an ADM-type energy, comparable to Eq. (8). We have also defined an effective volume,

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}(r_0)=\frac{2\pi ^5}{l^9}\left(\frac{2}{3}\frac{2+3(r_0l)^2}{3\left(1+(r_0l)^2\right)^{3/2}}\right),$$
(26)
which, as $`r_0\mathrm{}`$, approaches

$$\frac{4\pi ^5}{3l^9}.$$
(27)
Thermodynamically, anti-de Sitter space behaves as if it had a finite volume.

Similarly, the other thermodynamic quantities of the thermal bath are

$$F=\frac{\sigma }{9}V_{\mathrm{eff}}T_{\mathrm{AdS}}^{10},S=\frac{10}{9}\sigma V_{\mathrm{eff}}T_{\mathrm{AdS}}^9,$$
(28)
consistent with the first law of thermodynamics. The absence of a $`G_5`$ in the free energy indicates, from the CFT point of view, that the free energy is of order $`N^0`$. This is the confined phase of the theory – the free energy is of order $`N^0`$ because the $`N^2`$ species of gluons have condensed into hadronic color singlets.

Rewritten in CFT quantities, Eq. (28) implies that $`S_{\mathrm{CFT}}r_0^9T_{\mathrm{CFT}}^9`$ since $`T_{\mathrm{CFT}}T_{\mathrm{AdS}}/(lr_0)`$. The nine-dimensional volume is somewhat puzzling for a three-dimensional gauge theory. It reflects the fact that the QCD (SYM) string is really a type IIB string which naturally lives in nine spatial dimensions. It has been suggested that the extra dimensions in which the open string worldsheet bounded by a Wilson loop can extend are akin to Liouville dimensions.?,?,?,?

## 4 The Crossover

In the microcanonical approach that we shall now pursue, the contributions to the partition function come from both the black hole and the gas in AdS where the energy of the gas and black hole are taken to be the same. Which of these two thermodynamic phases the system is found in is determined, in the saddle point approximation, by the relative values of the respective Euclidean classical actions:

$$Z(U)=e^{I_{\mathrm{BH}}(U)}+e^{I_{\mathrm{gas}}(U)}.$$
(29)
The action of the black hole is simply the Einstein-Hilbert action with a negative cosmological constant. This is proportional to the proper volume of spacetime and so needs to be regulated. We will refer to Euclideanized anti-de Sitter space as thermally-identified AdS, to distinguish it from thermal AdS with a gas of radiation. Thermally-identified AdS was chosen as the zero of energy in the black hole mass formula, Eq. (8). We choose it also as the zero of action. A finite black hole action is obtained by subtracting the (also infinite) action for thermally-identified anti-de Sitter space in which the hypersurface at a constant large radius has the same intrinsic geometry as a hypersurface at the same radius in the black hole background.?,? The resultant regularized black hole action is

$$I_{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{1}{16\pi G_5}d^5x\sqrt{g}\left(R+12l^2\right)=\frac{\pi ^2r_+^3}{4G_5}\frac{1r_+^2l^2}{1+2r_+^2l^2}.$$
(30)
The comparable value of the action for the thermal gas in AdS is just the action of the gas itself, namely $`F/T`$:

$$I_{\mathrm{gas}}=\frac{1}{9}\sigma V_{\mathrm{eff}}T_{\mathrm{AdS}}^9.$$
(31)
The qualitative thermodynamic behavior of the system is determined by the phase whose action dominates the partition function Eq. (29). The system can change phase by tunneling. This is not a phase transition in the Landau sense of a singularity in the free energy; in general, such mathematically strict phase transitions are not possible in finite volume because the partition function is then a finite sum which is therefore analytic in all couplings. Rather, the changes in phase are smooth crossovers that occur with a probability

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }I)=\mathrm{exp}(𝒪\left(N^2\right)),$$
(32)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ is the difference in the Euclidean action between the two phases. As $`N`$ goes to infinity the crossover does not occur. At the crossover between the two phases, the action for the gas and the black hole are the same. Moreover, energy must be conserved. Thus at the crossover, we have

$$U_{\mathrm{gas}}^{\mathrm{local}}=U_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{local}},I_{\mathrm{gas}}=I_{\mathrm{BH}}.$$
(33)
Note that, since the two phases cannot be in physical contact, the physical temperature is not required to be the same for the two phases.

Solving these equations yields $`N^2`$ as a function of the dimensionless quantity $`xr_+l`$ at the crossover:

$$N^2=\frac{31}{2^53^{13}57}\frac{(1+x^2)^9(1+2x^2)^{10}}{(x^21)^{10}x^{12}}.$$
(34)
This is the equation we want.? For given $`N`$, it determines the value of $`x`$ at which the phase changes. Using Eq. (14), we see that $`x`$ is related to the dimensionless quantity $`T_{\mathrm{CFT}}r_0`$ (or better, to $`U_{\mathrm{CFT}}r_0`$) as predicted from conformal invariance. Before discussing the crossover curve, we comment on some of the underlying approximations.

In using Eq. (21), we have omitted the back-reaction of the gas on the metric. Back-reaction can reliably be neglected when the matter term in the parenthesis is smaller than the cosmological term. For an energy density given by Eq. (23) and a total energy matched to that of the black hole phase, Eq. (8), the condition $`G_5\rho <|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ in the $`tt`$ Einstein equation amounts to

$$\frac{9\pi }{32}x^2(1+x^2)l^2<6l^2,$$
(35)
and we see that the matter term becomes dominant at large $`x`$, and is not entirely negligible even near $`x=1`$. At high temperature, therefore, Eq. (34) becomes unreliable. The exact form of Eq. (34) would also be modified by including the correct Stefan-Boltzmann constant for anti-de Sitter space. More importantly, since the temperature can be of the order of the ground state energy, we need a statistical mechanical derivation of the energy density. And finally, when $`N`$ is small, the supergravity approximation itself breaks down.

Despite these caveats, Eq. (34) seems to capture the correct qualitative behavior. In Fig. 1, we plot $`N`$ near the crossover for $`x1`$. The region below the crossover curve is dominated by the confined or AdS gas phase, whereas the region above is dominated by the unconfined or black hole phase. As the temperature increases, the graph confirms our expectation that the gauge theory recovers conformality. As $`N`$ goes to infinity, we recover the result of Witten,? that the transition occurs at $`r_+l=1`$. We see that in fact this is a very good approximation for finite (but large) N.

## 5 Conclusion and Outlook

We have determined the N-dependent curve that separates the confined and unconfined phases of thermal super Yang-Mills theory on a three-sphere, by making use of the AdS/CFT correspondence. A direct derivation of such a phase diagram would have been difficult.

Plenty of work remains to be done. There are several technical assumptions that need to be tightened: the effect of the backreaction of the gas on the metric (if not exactly, then at linear order in $`G_5`$), a statistical mechanical (as opposed to thermodynamic) expression for the energy of the gas in AdS, the AdS value of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, finite one-loop corrections (perhaps using zeta-function regularization) to the black hole background, etc. These technical improvements are important because some of the approximations made here are vulnerable precisely in the regime of greatest interest. The inclusion of other parameters such as rotation or R-charge? are obvious generalizations; these more complicated solutions might have phase diagrams with interesting properties. One could also study what happens with different boundaries, or in different dimensions. For $`AdS_3`$, much is known about the corresponding conformal theory; perhaps, this could serve as a test.

The most interesting – if not most promising – direction is to ask whether there are any implications for real multicolor (large N) QCD. Super Yang-Mills differs from ordinary QCD in several ways: it is supersymmetric, of course, also conformal and has extra spin zero and spin one-half adjoint fields. One possible approach to QCD is as follows.? Consider the six-dimensional conformal theory with $`(0,2)`$ supersymmetry that is dual to $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ (which is the near-horizon geometry of N parallel coincident M5-branes). Now compactify on an $`S^1`$ with supersymmetry-breaking anti-periodic boundary conditions for the fermions; since the fermions have no zero modes, they acquire a mass at tree level proportional to the inverse radius of the circle. The mass of the scalars is not protected by any symmetry, so in general we expect them to acquire a mass at one-loop. Compactifying on a second circle then gives ordinary large N pure glue QCD at zero temperature. Unfortunately, the glueballs in this theory typically have an excitation energy of the same order as the Kaluza-Klein modes, suggesting that real QCD may remain out of reach.

It would be interesting to see if our analysis could be pursued in some of these directions.

Acknowledgment

The author is supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).

References


text:
# Product Bases in Quantum Information Theory

## 1. Introduction

Quantum information theory is concerned with the applications of quantum mechanics in information theory. One of the striking features of quantum mechanics is the capacity of quantum states to be entangled, that is, a pure state $`|\psi =_A_B`$ need not be of the form $`|\psi =|\psi _A|\psi _B`$.

Entanglement has turned out to play a role as a resource in quantum information theory; sharing an entangled state enables parties $`A`$ and $`B`$ (Alice and Bob) to transmit quantum information to each other by merely sending classical bits, via the protocol of quantum teleportation \[BBC+93\]. It is however not only quantum entanglement which marks quantum mechanics as a theory with fundamentally different features than classical mechanics. The fact that quantum mechanics is concerned with noncommutative objects is reflected in further applications of quantum mechanics in information theory. An early example is the idea of quantum cryptography \[BB84\], which is based on the disturbance versus information gain trade-off in quantum states. A more recent development concerns the local distinguishability of sets of mutually orthogonal unentangled (or ’product’) states, which we call product bases \[BDF+99\]. The idea is the following.

Given is set $`S`$ of product states $`\{|\alpha _i|\beta _i\}_{i=1}^{|S|}`$ in a bipartite Hilbert space $`=_A_B`$. The states have the property that they are mutually orthogonal. When any of these states is presented to an Alice and Bob pair with the question which of the states is given, then the Alice and Bob pair will be able to answer the question by simply carrying out a quantum measurement distinguishing the orthogonal states from each other. However, we may constrain Alice and Bob in their actions in such a way that Alice is only allowed to operate on space $`_A`$ and Bob on space $`_B`$. Furthermore, we do allow them to (classically) communicate their results of measurements and other local actions. Then we ask again; are they able to tell the states in the product bases apart? In \[BDF+99\] it was rigorously proved that, for a certain set of orthogonal product states, the answer is no.

The lack of local distinguishability is tied up with the fact that the projectors on a set of orthogonal product states need not be locally commuting. This feature of nonlocality has been useful in several contexts: it has permitted an extension of Gleason’s theorem to multipartite systems\[Wal\]; it is also involved in a class of product bases which were introduced in \[BDM+99\], the unextendible product bases (UPB), which we will discuss further here. Let us give the definition of an unextendible product basis in a bipartite Hilbert space (the definition is analogous in multipartite spaces):

###### Definition 1.

Let $``$ be a finite dimensional Hilbert space of the form $`_A_B`$. A partial product basis is a set $`\mathrm{S}`$ of mutually orthonormal pure product states spanning a proper subspace $`_\mathrm{S}`$ of $``$. An unextendible product basis is a partial product basis whose complementary subspace $`_\mathrm{S}^{}`$ contains no product state.

Unextendible product bases have proved to be extremely rich mathematical objects. It was shown in \[BDM+99\] and \[DMS+\], that aside from features of local indistinguishability, these product bases relate to the phenomenon of bound entanglement \[HHH98\]. Furthermore, via the connection with bound entanglement, it was shown in \[Ter\] that from every unextendible product basis one can construct an indecomposable positive linear map. Also, in \[AL\] a graph theoretic construction of unextendible product bases with minimal size in arbitrary dimensions and parties was presented. In all, we believe that it would be highly desirable to develop a systematic theory of product bases, unextendible, uncompletable, or complete but ‘frustrated’, see Section 3.

In this paper we prove two conjectures which were made in \[DMS+\], namely the existence of two sets of bipartite unextendible product bases, in arbitrary dimensions. In Section 3 we address some questions related to complete product bases. Let us first recall the definition of these two sets of candidate UPBs.

$`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐓𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬𝟏}`$ is a bipartite product basis in $`_n_n`$ where $`n`$ is even, where $`_n`$ denotes a $`n`$-dimensional Hilbert space. These states have a tile structure which in the case of $`_6_6`$ is shown in Fig. 1a. The general construction goes as follows: We label a set of $`n`$ orthonormal states as $`|0,\mathrm{},|n1`$. We define the set of ‘vertical tile’ states

$`|V_{mk}=|k|\omega _{m,k+1}=|k{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n/21}{}}}\omega ^{jm}|j+k+1modn,`$
(1) $`m=1,\mathrm{},n/21,k=0,\mathrm{},n1,`$
where $`\omega =e^{i4\pi /n}`$. Similarly, we define the set of ‘horizontal tile’ states:

(2)
$$|H_{mk}=|\omega _{m,k}|k,m=1,\mathrm{},n/21,k=0,\mathrm{},n1.$$

Finally we add a ‘stopper’ state

(3)
$$|F=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}|i|j.$$

The stopper state is not depicted in Fig. 1; as a tile it would cover the whole $`6`$ by $`6`$ square. The representation of the set as an arrangement of tiles informs us about the orthogonalities among some of its members.

The second set is called GenTiles2. It is a construction made in dimensions $`_m_n`$ for $`n>3`$, $`m3`$ and $`nm`$. The construction is illustrated in Fig. 2a. The small tiles which cover two squares are given by

(4)
$$|S_j=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|j|j+1modm)|j,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}jm1.$$

These short tiles are mutually orthogonal on Bob’s side. The long tiles (in general not contiguous) that stretch out in the vertical direction in Fig. 2a are given by

$`|L_{jk}=|j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n2}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{m3}{}}}\omega ^{ik}|i+j+1modm+{\displaystyle \underset{i=m2}{\overset{n3}{}}}\omega ^{ik}|i+2\right),`$
(5) $`0jm1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}kn3,`$
with $`\omega =e^{i\frac{2\pi }{n2}}`$. Lastly we add a ‘stopper’ state

(6)
$$|F=\frac{1}{\sqrt{nm}}\underset{i=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}|i|j.$$

The total number of states is $`mn2m+1`$.

## 2. Two Theorems

###### Theorem 1.

The set of states GenTiles1 forms a UPB on $`_n_n`$ for all even $`n4`$.

###### Proof.

We proceed by assuming that another product state $`|\xi `$ orthogonal to all these exists, and showing that a contradiction results. Expanded in the basis above, $`|\xi `$ must have at least one non-zero term, which we will call $`|ij`$. That is

(7)
$$|\xi =a|ij+\mathrm{},$$

with $`a0`$. Now, since simultaneous cyclic permutations of the $`A`$ and $`B`$ Hilbert space leaves GenTiles1 invariant, we can always relabel things:

(8)
$$|\xi =a|ij,0+\mathrm{},$$

where $`ij`$ is understood to be mod $`n`$. If $`ij<n/2`$ this is the form we will proceed with. Otherwise, we transform instead to $`|\xi =a|0,ji+\mathrm{}`$, then we interchange $`A`$ and $`B`$ with a shift of 1 (another symmetry of this tile set) to obtain $`|\xi =a|ji1,0+\mathrm{}`$. In either case the state is written as

(9)
$$|\xi =a|s,0+\mathrm{}$$

with $`0sn/21`$. Now the real work will consist of narrowing down what the … can consist of, given that this state must be orthogonal to all the states in the set GenTiles1, and must be a product state.

In order for $`|\xi `$ to be orthogonal to all the $`|H_{m0}`$ states, it must be of the form

(10)
$$|\xi =a\underset{s=0}{\overset{s=n/21}{}}|s,0+\mathrm{}$$

The state $`|\xi `$ must have terms other than the ones shown, since otherwise it could not be orthogonal to $`|F`$. We consider two cases: The easy case is

1. B only has support on $`|0`$. In this case we can write

(11)
$$|\xi =a\underset{s=0}{\overset{s=n/21}{}}|s,0+b|t,0+\mathrm{}$$

for some $`t`$, $`n/2t<n`$, and some $`b0`$. But now $`|V_{1t}|\xi |=|b|0`$. So this case is ruled out; the other case involves considerably more work:

2. B has support beyond $`|0`$. In this case we can write $`|\xi `$ as

(12)
$$|\xi =a\underset{s=0}{\overset{s=n/21}{}}|s,0+b|t,r+\mathrm{}$$

for some $`r0`$, $`b0`$ and $`t<n/2`$ (if there were only terms with $`tn/2`$, $`|\xi `$ would not be a product state). In fact, since for a product state the $`A`$ state must be independent of the result of a projection by $`B`$ onto his basis, the state must therefore have the form

(13)
$$|\xi =a\underset{s=0}{\overset{s=n/21}{}}|s,0+b\underset{s=0}{\overset{s=n/21}{}}|s,r+\mathrm{}$$

Fig. 1a gives a graphical depiction of this state for $`r=4`$ and $`n=6`$. The rest of the argument is easiest to follow using this series of pictures. Fig. 1b shows the additional constraints on the state arising from the orthogonality with the set of states $`|V_{m,n/21}`$ (if $`r`$ had been $`r<n/2`$, we would have used orthogonality with $`|V_{m,0}`$ to proceed instead). In symbols, this state is

(14)
$$|\xi =a\underset{s=0}{\overset{s=n/21}{}}|s,0+b\underset{s=0}{\overset{s=n/21}{}}|s,r+b\underset{q=n/2,qr}{\overset{q=n1}{}}|n/21,q+\mathrm{},$$

but at this point it is much easier to understand graphically. Next we again impose the constraint that the state have a product form; graphically this requirement can be explained by saying that all the columns and rows have to be proportional to one another. Thus we “fill out the rectangle” with $`b`$s as in Fig. 1c. In symbols, the state now has the description

(15)
$$|\xi =a\underset{s=0}{\overset{s=n/21}{}}|s,0+b\underset{s=0}{\overset{s=n/21}{}}\underset{q=n/2}{\overset{s=n1}{}}|s,q+\mathrm{}$$

We now invoke orthogonality with $`|V_{m,0}`$ to fill in the additional $`b`$s in Fig. 1d. (We will now dispense with the algebraic expressions altogether.) Then again requiring a product state gives Fig. 1e. To arrive at Fig. 1f we invoke the orthogonality for $`|H_{mk}`$, $`1kn1`$, except $`kn/2`$. Requiring the product form brings us to Fig. 1g. Now by enforcing orthogonality for $`|V_{m,n/2}`$ we find that $`a=b`$, so the entire state is constrained as in Fig. 1h. But this state is just $`|F`$, so it fails to be orthogonal to all the states. Therefore, an additional product state does not exist, and GenTiles1 is a UPB. ∎

###### Theorem 2.

The set of states GenTiles2 forms a UPB on $`_m_n`$ for $`n>3`$, $`m3`$, and $`nm`$.

###### Proof.

We show that this set is a UPB, for all $`m`$ and $`n`$, by the same methods as before. Since GenTiles2 has less symmetry than GenTiles1 we will have to examine more cases, but the methods will be the same. We will number the following paragraphs to indicate the structure of the cases being considered.

In all cases we begin by assuming that there is an additional product state $`|\xi `$ with nonzero amplitude on some basis state $`|ij`$; we will examine all possible values of $`i`$ and $`j`$.

1. Small-tile case. Suppose that $`i=j=0`$, so that the state is

(16)
$$|\xi =a|00+\mathrm{}$$

Orthogonality with $`|S_0`$ gives

(17)
$$|\xi =a(|00+|10)+\mathrm{}$$

Note that the outcome would have been the same if we had started with assuming that the amplitude of $`|10`$ was nonzero. By relabeling of the Hilbert space, this case will cover any initial $`|ij`$ which lies in a small tile.

1a. Consider the case where the $`B`$ part of the product state is $`|0`$. Orthogonality with $`|F`$ requires that Eq. (17) have other nonzero terms:

(18)
$$|\xi =a(|00+|10)+b|r,0+\mathrm{}$$

But then $`|L_{r1}|\xi |=|b|0`$, so this case is excluded.

1b. Consider the case where the $`B`$ part of the product state is not just $`|0`$. Then we know that

(19)
$$|\xi =a(|00+|10)+b|r,t+\mathrm{}$$

Here $`r`$ is 0 or 1, and $`t>0`$. We now go down to two other subcases, depending on whether the additional term is in a small or a large tile.

1b1. $`|r,t`$ is in a small tile (Fig. 2a illustrates the case $`r=0`$, $`t=m1`$). Orthogonality with respect to $`|S_{m1}`$ gives Fig. 2b; then the product constraint, which requires rows 0 and $`m1`$ to be proportional in the example shown, gives Fig. 2c. Orthogonality with respect to $`|L_{1k}`$ and $`|L_{m1,k}`$ gives Fig. 2d. The product state condition, which requires rows $`m2`$ and $`m1`$ to be proportional, gives $`a=b`$ and brings us to Fig. 2e. Orthogonality with $`|S_1`$ takes us to Fig. 2f, another application of the product state condition gives Fig. 2g. Finally, repeated application of orthogonality with $`|S_i`$, $`2im2`$, and the product-state condition, fills in the whole state with $`b`$s as in Fig. 2h. But this is just $`|F`$, so $`|\xi `$ cannot be orthogonal to all of GenTiles2 in this case.

1b2. $`|r,t`$ is in a large tile. Fig. 3a shows the case $`r=0`$, $`t=2`$, it will be easy to see that all cases are equivalent. Orthogonality with $`|L_{0k}`$ gives Fig. 3b. The product state condition brings us to Fig. 3c. Orthogonality with $`|S_1`$ and $`|L_{1k}`$ gives Fig. 3d, and the product state condition gives Fig. 3e. Now, orthogonality with $`|L_{2k}`$ requires $`a=b`$. The remainder of the reasoning follows the same track from Fig. 2g; this case is excluded.

2. Large-tile case. That is, we assume that $`|\xi `$ has at least one non-zero element, and it is in a large tile. All large tiles are equivalent by relabeling of the Hilbert space, so we can pick one, say $`i=0`$, $`j=2`$. Then by orthogonality to $`|L_{0k}`$ we get Fig. 4a. There have to be more non-zero entries since $`|\xi `$ must be orthogonal to $`|F`$. We consider different subcases corresponding to which other entry is nonzero.

2a. Component in $`|S_0`$ or $`|S_{m1}`$. This immediately brings us back to Fig. 3b.

2b. Component in another short tile $`|S_r`$. This is illustrated for $`r=2`$ in Fig. 4b, using the orthogonality to $`|S_r`$. Invoking the product state condition gives Fig. 4c; invoking orthogonality to $`|L_{rk}`$ (not shown) brings us back to the situation of Fig. 3b.

2c. Component in another long tile; we illustrate this for $`r=2`$, invoking orthogonality to $`|L_{rk}`$, in Fig. 4d. The product state condition brings us to Fig. 4e; invoking orthogonality to $`|S_0`$ (not shown), we again return to Fig. 3b.

This covers all cases; all methods of constructing the product state $`|\xi `$ lead to a contradiction. Thus, GenTiles2 is a UPB. ∎

## 3. Open questions

Let us consider some questions related to complete product bases, that is, a set of orthonormal product states in some multipartite Hilbert space $``$ which span the full space. The simplest basis for a bipartite space $`=_A_B`$ is the ‘Cartesian’ basis $`\{|i|j\}`$, where $`\{|i\}_{i=1}^{dim_A}`$ and $`\{|j\}_{j=1}^{dim_B}`$ are orthonormal bases for $`_A`$ and $`_B`$ resp. The Cartesian basis has the simple property that the projectors on the local parts of the product states commute. In general one would like to characterize the local noncommutative structure, or the level of ’frustration’, of a complete product basis; this structure relates to the question of whether members of a product basis for example are distinguishable by local quantum operations and classical communication, see \[BDF+99\]. In order to explore this structure we believe that it is interesting to introduce the following notion of ‘winding’:

###### Definition 2.

Let $``$ be a Cartesian basis for $`_A_B`$. The procedure of winding is the repeated application of the following two steps:
1. Choose a subspace $`_A^{}_B^{}_A_B`$ such that for every state $`|a|b`$ either (1) $`|a|b_A^{}_B^{}`$ or (2) $`|a|b(_A^{}_B^{})^{}`$.
2. Apply a local unitary transformation $`U_AU_BB(_A^{}_B^{})`$ (only supported on $`_A^{}_B^{}`$) on the set $``$. Call the new set of partially rotated states $`^{}`$.

We refer to the reverse procedure as ‘unwinding’. We note that with this winding procedure $`^{}\mathrm{}_{end}`$, the states in each $``$-set remain orthogonal product states spanning $`_A_B`$. The definition is analogous for complete product bases in multipartite spaces.

By a procedure of winding we can create a complete product basis that has a certain level of local noncommutativity which may be characterized by the number of winding moves. The question whether winding is a good characterization of the local structure of the basis relates to the question whether, say, all bipartite complete product bases can be generated in this manner, i.e.

Question: Are all bipartite complete product bases unwindable?

We have not been able to answer this question in general, but we do know that the answer is yes for all complete product bases in $`_3_3`$, and $`_2_n`$ for all $`n=2,3,\mathrm{}`$. Furthermore we note that it is possible to prove that every complete product basis that is distinguishable by local quantum operations and classical communication \[BDF+99\] is unwindable.

Our question becomes more interesting for multipartite spaces. We have shown that all bases in $`_2_2_2`$ are unwindable. However, there is a surprise: there exists an example of a complete product basis in a 10-partite Hilbert space ($`_2^{10}`$) that can be proved to be not unwindable \[Sho\]. This basis emerged from work of Lagarias and Shor \[LS92, LS94\] that disproved the Keller conjecture of tiling theory in 10 dimensions. In fact, it is the features of this construction that make it a good counterexample to the Keller conjecture that also make it fail to conform to Definition 2: the failure of the ‘face-to-face’ tiling property of Keller corresponds to there being no pair of states confined to a subspace $`_2_1^9`$; and the fact that the Lagarias-Shor construction contains no smaller-dimensional counterexamples to the Keller conjecture implies that there are no sets of four states confined to a subspace $`_2^2_1^9`$, no sets of eight states confined to $`_2^3_1^8`$, etc. These are all the possible subspaces in Definition 2, so no winding moves are possible for this basis. Perhaps further remarkable connections will emerge in the future with tiling theory that will permit further progress to be made on our Question.