format: text

text:
# Influence of damping on the vanishing of the electro-optic effect in chiral isotropic media

## Abstract

Using first principles, it is demonstrated that radiative damping alone cannot lead to a nonvanishing electro-optic effect in a chiral isotropic medium. This conclusion is in contrast with that obtained by a calculation in which damping effects are included using the standard phenomenological model. We show that these predictions differ because the phenomenological damping equations are valid only in regions where the frequencies of the applied electromagnetic fields are nearly resonant with the atomic transitions. We also show that collisional damping can lead to a nonvanishing electrooptic effect, but with a strength sufficiently weak that it is unlikely to be observable under realistic laboratory conditions.

Several recent papers  have discussed the question of properly taking into account various relaxation processes while calculating the nonlinear response of an optical system. Even the existence of certain nonlinear optical processes is thought to be closely linked to the existence of a damping mechanism . In this connection, it is especially important to incorporate in a consistent manner the effects of relaxation processes. Very often the nonlinear response  is calculated by modifying the equation for the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix (coherences) by introducing phenomenological relaxation terms as follows:

$$\frac{\rho _{ij}}{t}=i\omega _{ij}\rho _{ij}+\mathrm{field}\mathrm{terms}$$
(1)
$$\frac{\rho _{ij}}{t}=i\omega _{ij}\rho _{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}\rho _{ij}+\mathrm{different}\mathrm{field}\mathrm{terms}.$$
(2)
The equations for the populations are also modified appropriately. Such modifications have been extensively used in nonlinear optics and even have led to the prediction of new effects such as collision-induced resonances which have been subsequently been observved experimentally . Kauranen and Persoons  have recently presented a theoretical argument that predicts the existence of a linear electro-optic effect (EOE) in chiral isotropic media provided material damping is taken into account. Their result follows by using (2). However, it is not clear a priori if Eq. (2) can be used to describe the linear electro-optic effect. In order to see the origin of this uncertainty, let us examine the expression for the nonlinear susceptibility describing the electro-optic effect in a chiral isotropic medium. The derivation given in Ref.  is based on the standard phenomenological equations (2) which take into account various damping processes in the medium. The nonlinear susceptibility is shown to have contributions of the form

$$X\frac{2i\gamma _{ng}}{(\omega _{ng}i\gamma _{ng})(\omega _{ng}+i\gamma _{ng})(\omega _{mg}+\omega +i\gamma _{mg})}.$$
(3)
The authors of ref.  have suggested that this damping-dependent contribution is the one which can lead to a nonvanishing electro-optic effect in a chiral isotropic medium. Let us examine this contribution further. We note first that the usual expression for the second-order susceptibility consists of two energy denominators whereas the above contribution consists of three. Clearly such a term arises from the combination of two contributions as $`X`$ can be written as

$$X=\frac{1}{(\omega _{mg}+\omega +i\gamma _{mg})}\left[\frac{1}{\omega _{ng}i\gamma _{ng}}\frac{1}{\omega _{ng}+i\gamma _{ng}}\right].$$
(4)
We note also that denominators such as $`(\omega _{ng}i\gamma _{ng})`$ do not have an optical frequency contribution. Such denominators arise from the interaction of the system with a zero-frequency field. We show below that in a correct treatment of radiative damping, the denominator should be replaced by ones that involve frequency-dependent damping coefficients. Thus a first-principles treatment would lead to

$$X\frac{1}{(\omega _{mg}+\omega +i\gamma _{mg}(\omega ))}\left[\frac{1}{(\omega _{ng}i\gamma _{ng}(0))}\frac{1}{(\omega _{ng}+i\gamma _{ng}(0))}\right].$$
(5)
Note that the frequency dependence of $`\gamma `$ in each denominator depends on the frequency component of the electromagnetic field responsible for such a denominator. Thus the denominators corresponding to the static field have dampings evaluated at zero frequency. As discussed below, for the case of radiative damping $`\gamma _{ng}(0)`$ vanishes identically, which implies that $`X=0`$. Thus a first principles (and correct) treatment of radiative damping does not lead to any electro-optic effect in a chiral isotropic medium. We also show below that $`X`$ is at most very small for the case of collisional damping. The nonvanishing of the EOE effect reported earlier is due to inappropriate use of equations which are not valid for the calculation of the EOE effect. Thus, when using the modification (2) in the calculation of the nonlinear optical response, one has to keep in view the conditions under which (2) has been derived. This need necessitates an examination of the microscopic theory leading to the derivation of the result (2). It may also be noted that, in recent times, one has discovered a number of other interesting situations which cannot be described by equations like (2). For example, there are situations under which the coherences get coupled to the populations, and this situation has led to considerable work on quantum interferences . In addition, there is the subject of inhibited spontaneous emission where the modifications of (2) due to strong external fields play an important role .

In order to uncover the role of relaxation mechanisms on the response to external fields and to determine how relaxation depends on the frequency of the applied field, we consider first a very simple model. This model brings out the salient features of the problem and enables us to establish that the form of the damping operator depends on the various frequency scales in the system. We consider the case in which the medium can be described by a one-dimensional harmonic oscillator with displacement $`x`$ and with frequency $`\omega _o`$. Let the medium interact with an external electromagnetic field of frequency $`\omega `$ described by

$$E=e^{i\omega t}+^{}e^{i\omega t}.$$
(6)
The equation of motion with a phenomenological damping constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is

$$\ddot{x}+\mathrm{\Gamma }\dot{x}+\omega _0^2x=\frac{e}{m}e^{i\omega t}+\text{ c.c.}.$$
(7)
The response of the medium can then be expressed as

$$ex(t)=\chi (\omega )e^{i\omega t}+\text{c.c.},$$
(8)
$$\chi (\omega )=\frac{e^2}{m(\omega _0^2\omega ^2i\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }).}$$
(9)
In this manner one obtains the familiar response function. We would like to examine whether the response $`\chi (\omega )`$ as given by Eq. (9) is valid for all frequencies. Thus we would like to understand if the introduction of a frequency-independent damping constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in Eq. (7) is justified for all frequencies of the applied electromagnetic field. For this purpose we start from first principles. Let us consider the interaction of the system oscillator with a bath. The bath will be responsible for the relaxation processes described phenomenologically by the damping parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in Eq. (7). As usual we model the bath by a set of harmonic oscillators. The Hamiltonian for the system oscillator interacting with a bath is given by

$$H=\frac{p^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}m\omega _0^2x^2ex(t)xF(t),$$
(10)
where $``$(t) is the time-dependent electromagnetic field and F(t) represents the effect of the bath terms

$$F(t)=\underset{j}{}(g_ja_je^{i\omega _jt}+\text{h}.c.).$$
(11)
Here $`\omega _j(>0)`$ are the frequencies of the bath oscillators $`a_j`$ and $`g_j`$ are the coupling constants of the system oscillator with the bath oscillators. The Heisenberg equations can be easily derived from (10):

$`\dot{x}`$ $`=`$ $`p/m,\dot{p}=m\omega _0^2x+e(t)+F(t),`$ (12)
$`\dot{a}_j`$ $`=`$ $`ig_j^{}e^{i\omega _jt}x(t).`$ (13)
We integrate formally the equation for $`a_j`$ and substitute it into the equation for $`p`$ to obtain

$$\dot{p}=m\omega _0^2x+e(t)+F_0(t)+_0^tK(t\tau )x(\tau )𝑑\tau ,$$
(14)
where

$$F_0(t)=\underset{j}{}g_ja_j(0)e^{i\omega _jt}+\text{h}.c.,$$
(15)
$$K(t\tau )=(i\underset{j}{}|g_j|^2e^{i\omega _j(t\tau )}+\text{c.c.}).$$
(16)
Note that Eq. (13) is derived without any approximation. The further simplification will depend on the values of $`|g_j|,\omega _j,\omega `$ etc. Let us examine the average response for the case in which $`(t)=e^{i\omega t}+\text{c.c.}`$ Note that the mean value of the operator $`a_j(0)`$ is zero and hence $`F_o(t)=0`$. It should be borne in mind that $`\omega `$ is positive. Using Eqs. (13) and (14), taking quantum mechanical expectation values and the long-time limit $`t\mathrm{},`$ we obtain

$$x=\frac{ee^{i\omega t}}{m(\omega _0^2\omega ^2)K(\omega )}+\text{c.c.},$$
(17)
where

$`K(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|g_j|^2i\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ+i(\omega _j\omega )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵi(\omega _j+\omega )}}\right\}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`K^{^{}}(\omega )+iK^{^{\prime \prime }}(\omega ),`$ (19)
$$K^{^{\prime \prime }}(\omega )=\underset{j}{}|g_j|^2\pi \delta (\omega _j\omega ).$$
(20)
The exact result (16) has the same structure as (9) except for the important difference that $`\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is replaced by a function $`K^{^{\prime \prime }}(\omega )`$ which is dependent on the frequency $`\omega `$ of the applied electro-magnetic field. In addition there is a dispersive contribution Re K$`(\omega ).`$ Note further that very often one replaces (18) by

$$K^{^{\prime \prime }}(\omega )\underset{j}{}|g_j|^2\pi \delta (\omega _j\omega _0).$$
(21)
Clearly this can be done if the frequency $`\omega _0`$ of the system oscillator is very close to the applied frequency, i.e., essentially in the resonance region. If the frequency $`\omega `$ happens to be far away from a resonance frequency, then the phenomenological equation (7) should not be used. This is the real reason why usage of equations like (2) and (7) can give rise to incorrect nonlinear optical response for applied frequencies far away from the transition frequencies. We also find from (18) that for static response

$$\underset{\omega 0}{lim}K^{^{\prime \prime }}(\omega )\pi |g_j|^2|_{\omega _j=0}0,$$
(22)
for the usual radiative coupling. Thus the static response functions would be independent of the damping term. More generally no damping term can appear in the static response as long as the bath does not have a characteristic static frequency.

The features discussed above are valid rather generally. To see this we consider the dynamical equations for a two-level system undergoing, say, radiative damping. The case of a two-level system is more involved because of the intrinsic nonlinearity of the two level system. However the salient features can be uncovered by using the wavefunction approach. Let us write the interaction Hamiltonian of a two level system interacting with the field and undergoing radiative damping, as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega _0|ee|\mathrm{}[G(t)|eg|+\text{h.c.}]\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(g_ka_ke^{i\omega _kt}|eg|+\text{h.c.}),`$ (23)
where we sum over all field modes labelled by the index $`k`$ and where,

$`G(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{d}.\stackrel{}{E}(t)/\mathrm{}.`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`G_0e^{i\omega t}+\text{c.c.}.`$ (25)
The last term in (21) is responsible for the radiative decay of the atom. The coupling to the mode $`k`$ with frequency $`\omega _k`$ of the electromagnetic field is represented by $`g_k`$; $`a_k`$ is the photon annihilation operator. The wavefunction of the whole system can be expressed as

$$|\psi =\psi _e|e,\{0\}+\psi _g|g,\{0\}+\underset{k}{}\psi _k|g,\{k\},$$
(26)
where $`\{0\}(\{k\})`$ represents the vacuum (one photon in mode $`k`$) state of the field. The Schrödinger equation leads to

$`\dot{\psi }_g`$ $`=`$ $`iG^{}(t)\psi _e,`$ (27)
$`\dot{\psi }_e`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega _0\psi _e+iG(t)\psi _g+i{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}g_ke^{i\omega _kt}\psi _k,`$ (28)
$`\dot{\psi }_k`$ $`=`$ $`ig_k^{}\psi _ee^{i\omega _kt}.`$ (29)
The initial conditions are $`\psi _e=\psi _k=0,\psi _g=1.`$ The induced polarization is to be obtained from the off-diagonal element $`\rho _{eg}=\psi _e\psi _g^{}`$. Note that to first order in the applied electromagnetic field, $`\rho _{eg}`$ is

$`\rho _{eg}^{(1)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _e^{(1)}(t)\psi _g^{(0)}(t)+\psi _e^{(0)}(t)\psi _g^{(1)}(t)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`\psi _e^{(1)}(t)`$ (31)
$$\stackrel{t\mathrm{}}{}\psi ^{(+)}e^{i\omega t}+\psi ^{()}e^{i\omega t}.$$
(32)
To obtain the steady state response we combine last two equations in (24)

$$\dot{\psi _e}=i\omega _0\psi _e+iG(t)\psi _g\underset{k}{}|g_k|^2_0^te^{i\omega _k(t\tau )}\psi _e(\tau )𝑑\tau ,$$
(33)
and thus to first order in the external electromagnetic field we obtain

$$\dot{\psi }_e^{(1)}=i\omega _0\psi _e^{(1)}+iG(t)\underset{k}{}|g_k|^2_0^te^{i\omega _k(t\tau )}\psi _e^{(1)}(\tau )𝑑\tau .$$
(34)
In terms of Laplace transforms we have the result

$$\widehat{\psi }_e^{(1)}(z)=\left\{z+i\omega _0+\underset{k}{}|g_k|^2(z+i\omega _k)^1\right\}^1i\left\{G_0(z+i\omega )^1+G_0^{}(zi\omega )^1\right\},$$
(35)
where we have used the explicit form (22) From (29) we get the response in the long time limit

$`\psi ^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(i(\omega _0\omega )+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|g_k|^2(i\omega _ki\omega )^1\right)^1G_0,`$ (36)
$`\psi ^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(i(\omega _0+\omega )+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|g_k|^2(i\omega _k+i\omega )^1\right)^1G_0^{}.`$ (37)
The induced polarization can now be calculated

$`\stackrel{}{p}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(\rho _{eg}\stackrel{}{d}_{eg}^{}+\text{c.c.})`$ (38)
$``$ $`\stackrel{}{p}_0e^{i\omega t}+c.c.,`$ (39)
where $`\stackrel{}{p}_0`$ is calculated using Eq. (30) as

$$\stackrel{}{p}_0=\psi ^{(+)}\stackrel{}{d}_{eg}^{}+\psi _e^{()}\stackrel{}{d}_{eg}.$$
(40)
This is the most general result for the linear response. No assumption has been made regarding the nature of the bath. It should be borne in mind that all frequencies in (30) are positive. The radiative corrections enter the response function through the quantity

$$K(z)=\underset{k}{}|g_k|^2(z+i\omega _k)^1.$$
(41)
It should be noted that the actual radiative correction terms depend on the frequencies of the applied fields rather than the atomic frequencies. It is only when the applied frequency is close to the atomic frequency that we can use the approximate replacement $`\omega \omega _0`$ in $`\psi ^{(+)}`$ (this cannot be done in $`\psi ^{()})`$. We thus find that the counter-rotating contribution $`\psi ^{()}`$ in Eq. (32) does not depend on the radiative damping . The rotating-wave contribution depends on the radiative damping; however the radiative damping is to be evaluated at the applied frequency. If such an applied frequency is very far from the atomic transition, as for example for dc fields, then no radiative damping term appears in the response. Thus the full quantum mechanical calculation also leads to the same conclusion as we derived for the simple oscillator model. Further the above analysis can be easily extended to the multilevel systems and to the calculation of second-order and higher-order response. We find similar conclusions regarding the various denominators which appear in response functions. The argument given in the context of Eqs. (4) and (5) is correct and we rule out the possibility of the occurence of electro-optics effect due to radiative damping.

A pertinent question could be: can other damping mechanisms, such as phase changing collisions, possibly lead to the nonvanishing of the EOE in isotropic chiral medium? This question has to be examined by considering a detailed microscopic model for the collisional process. However, a simple model calculation outlined below suggests that even if the effect is non-vanishing it must be extremely small; in particular it must exponentially small in a large quantity.

Consider the equation for the optical coherence $`\sigma \rho _{eg}`$. Let $`f(t)`$ be a stochestic source which represents the effect of phase changing collisions. We model $`f(t)`$ to be a Gaussian stochastic process with correlations given by

$$f(t)=0,f(t)f(\tau )=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }|t\tau |}f_0^2.$$
(42)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ is the magnitude of the collision time. The equation for the optical coherence can be written in the form

$$\dot{\sigma }=i\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma if(t)\sigma +iG,$$
(43)
where $`G`$ represents the external field. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ is the smallest time scale in the problem, then one can show using the standard methods  that

$$\sigma =\left(\frac{f_0^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+i\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^1(iG).$$
(44)
Thus one recovers the result of the phenomenological theory. However, for the response to a static field, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is of the order of the optical frequency whereas typical collisional process take place over a scale which is of the order of psec or larger. Thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ is no longer the smallest time in the problem. The smallest time scale will instead be $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$. In such a case one can show that in the long-time limit

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`iG{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{f_0^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\left(\tau {\displaystyle \frac{(1e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau )}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\right)\right\}`$ (45)
$``$ $`iG{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }e^{\frac{1}{2}f_0^2\tau ^2}.`$ (46)
Note that the square bracket in Eq. (4) is just the real part of $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _{ng}\tau \gamma _{ng}\tau }`$, and thus if we had treated the damping properly it has to be replaced by

$`[]`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Real}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _{ng}\tau \frac{1}{2}f_{ng}^2\tau ^2}`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2f_{ng}^2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{ng}^2}{2f_{ng}^2}}\right).`$ (48)
Thus collisional damping can make the EOE in chiral isotropic medium nonzero. However it would be extremely small unless the strength of collisions is comparable to $`\omega _{ng}`$ i.e., $`\omega _{ng}f_{ng}`$.

In conclusion, we have shown that radiative damping cannot lead to a nonvanishing EOE in a chiral isotropic material. For the case of collisional damping, a nonvanishing EOE is predicted, but the magnitude of this effect is expected to be so small that it is unlikely that this effect could be observed experimentally. These results are in contrast with recent suggestions that relaxation effects can lead to an EOE in chiral isotropic materials, with potentially important practical implications. More generally, we have shown that in general it is not adequate to use a frequency-independent damping parameter in treating relaxation processes within the context of density matrix calculations.

The authors gratefully acknowkledge useful discussions with M. Kauranen and with P. W. Milonni. G. S. Agarwal thanks the National Science Foundation grant no. INT-9605072 which made this collaboration possible. R. W. Boyd gratefully acknowlwedges support by the Office of Naval Research, the Army Research Office, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.


text:
# 1 Expected rates for 𝛾+jet and annotated{𝜋₀}(→2𝛾)+jet channels in one month of Pb-Pb beams.

Among with other proposed signals of jet quenching, the $`P_T`$-imbalance between a produced jet with a gauge boson in $`\gamma +`$jet  and $`Z+`$jet  production has been identified as being observable in heavy ion collisions at the LHC . The dominant leading order diagrams for high transverse momentum $`\gamma `$ \+ jet production are shown in figure 2. Contrary to the gluon-dominated jet pair production where one could investigate jet quenching due to mostly gluon energy loss in dense matter, $`\gamma +`$jet channel gives a possibility to study quark energy loss. The main background here is hard jet pair production when one of the jet in an event is misidentified as a photon. The leading $`\pi ^0`$ in the jet is a main source of the misidentification. Table 1 presents the event rates for signal and background processes in one month of Pb$``$Pb beams (a half of the time is supposed to be devoted to data taking), $`R=1.2\times 10^6`$ s, assuming luminosity $`L=5\times 10^{26}`$cm-2s-1 to that

$$N(events)=R\sigma _{AA}^hL,$$

where production cross section in minimum bias nucleus-nucleus collisions were obtained from those in $`pp`$ interactions at the same energy ($`\sqrt{s}=5.5`$ TeV) using simple parameterization $`\sigma _{AA}^h=A^2\sigma _{pp}^h`$. The pseudorapidity acceptance of CMS experiment is considered. The cross section in $`pp`$ collisions were evaluated using the PYTHIA\_$`6.1`$ Monte-Carlo generator  with the CTEQ5L parton distribution function. Note that the influence of nuclear shadowing is practically negligible for the region of sufficiently hard $`\gamma +`$jet production, $`x_{1,2}\sqrt{\widehat{s}/s}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.2`$. However, large theoretical uncertainties in absolute rates in $`pp`$ collisions come from choice of the parton distribution functions, next-to-leading corrections, etc. It means that measurements in $`pp`$ or $`dd`$ collisions at the same or similar energies per nucleon as in the heavy ion runs are strongly desirable to determine the baseline rate precisely.

One can see that even for events with $`E_T>100`$ GeV the background is still dominant. Signal-to-background ratio becames close to $`1`$ only above $`200`$ GeV. The identification of the influence of the dense medium formation on signal spectra requires the reduction of the background. One of the possibilities is to apply some kind of the photon isolation, so called ”zero suppression criteria”, which requiers no energy above a given threshold around photon (see section ”Photon detection at CMS” for details). In this case signal-to-background ratio at $`E_T>100`$ GeV can be improved by factor about 2.3 by the price of $`14\%`$ of the signal reduction. Other possibility is to apply some kinematical cuts, which do not have influence on the $`P_T`$-imbalance of the process (i.e. not result in shift of maximal value of $`E_T^\gamma E_T^{jet}`$ distribution).

The possibility to observe the medium-induced energy loss of quark-initiated jet using photon-jet correlation in heavy ion collisions with CMS detector has been investigated in . It has been found that initial state gluon radiation and finite jet energy resolution (which is much larger than photon energy resolution) result in significant smearing of distribution of differences in transverse energies between the photon and jet. But it is still symmetric: $`E_T^\gamma =E_T^{jet}`$ only in average (not for each given event). The non-symmetric shape of the distribution appears if a jet loses energy: the maximal value of the distribution is equal to the average energy loss of the quark-initiated jet at given energy detection threshold, $`E_T^{jet}100`$ GeV in CMS case. Note that we are not measuring energy loss of a leading quark by such a way, but getting total loss of quark-initiated jet outside the given jet cone.

In order to test the sensitivity of $`\gamma `$+jet production to jet quenching, it was considered three scenarios with average collisional energy loss of a jet: $`<\mathrm{\Delta }E_q>0`$, $`4`$ and $`8`$ GeV respectively ($`<\mathrm{\Delta }E_g>=9/4<\mathrm{\Delta }E_q>`$). The jet energy resolution at mid-rapidity obtained for $`PbPb`$ collisions has also been used to smear the energy of the recoiling parton, as well as the jet rejection factor and signal efficiency . Figure 2 shows the distributions of differences in transverse energy between the photon and jet with $`E_T^{\gamma ,jet}>120`$ GeV in one month of Pb$``$Pb beams without and with ($`\pi ^0`$ \+ jet) background in the pseudorapidity region $`\eta ^{\gamma ,jet}<1.5`$ for different values of jet energy loss. In this case luminosity $`L=10^{27}`$cm-2s-1 was assumed and PYTHIA\_$`5.7`$ version with the default CTEQ2L pdf choice was used. The jet energy resolution leads to a difference between the input values $`<\mathrm{\Delta }E_q>`$ and the ones obtained from the spectra. The background of $`\pi ^0`$-contamination results in non-zero negative values of the final distributions (figure 2b) already in the case without jet energy loss. However one can see on that shape of the distribution is well distinguish for the scenarios considered. For the region of $`(E_T^\gamma E_T^{jet})>0`$ there is a difference for almost every bin greater than $`1`$ standard deviation for the rather small jet energy loss $`8`$ GeV and even for the loss $`4`$ GeV. In the real experiment it would be possible to estimate the number of background events using the region without the signal ($`E_T^\gamma E_T^{jet})<100`$ GeV/c and background shape from Monte-Carlo simulation and (or) from $`pp`$ data. Significant difference in the shape of $`E_T^\gamma E_T^{jet}`$ distribution can allow to optimize extraction of the signal from the experimental spectra.

It is pleasure to thank P. Aurenche, M. Bedjidian, D. Denegri, L.I. Sarycheva and U. Wiedemann for encouraging and interest to the work. Discussions with R. Kvatadze, P. Levai, A.M. Snigirev and I.N. Vardanian are gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Nonlinear integral equations for thermodynamics of the 𝑠𝑙(𝑟+1) Uimin-Sutherland model

## 1 Introduction

Thermodynamic Bethe ansatz (TBA) equations have been used to investigate thermodynamics of various kind of solvable lattice models (see for example ). Traditionally, TBA equations have been derived by the string-hyposesis . Several years ago, TBA equations for the supersymmetric $`tJ`$ model and the supersymmetric extended Hubbard model were derived  from the $`T`$-system (a system of functional relations among transfer matrices) for the quantum transfer matrix (QTM) , which is independent of the string hypothesis. Later on, TBA equations for the $`XXZ`$-model in the regime $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|<1`$ , the $`osp(1|2)`$ model , the $`osp(1|2s)`$ model  were derived by the similar procedures in . In addition, the TBA equation in  was analytically continued  to the one for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|1`$. These TBA equations contain an infinite (or finitely many) number of unknown functions, and thus are not always easily treated. It is significant to simplify the TBA equations to tractable integral equations which contain only a finite number of unknown functions.

In the context of the QTM method, for models related to algebras of rank one or two, nonlinear integral equations (NLIE) with finite numbers of unknown functions were derived by Klümper and his collaborators . Although their NLIE give the same free energy as TBA equations, the derivations need trial and error for each model, which prevents their extension to higher rank case.

Another type of NLIE with only one unknown function was proposed for the $`XXZ`$ spin chain by Takahashi  recently. One can also derive  Takahashi’s NLIE from the $`T`$-system  of the QTM. In view of this fact, we have derived  NLIE with a finite number of unknown functions from our $`T`$-system  for the $`osp(1|2s)`$ model for arbitrary rank $`s`$. In this paper, we shall further derive NLIE for the $`sl(r+1)`$ Uimin-Sutherland model  with only a finite number (the number of rank $`r`$) of unknown functions from the $`T`$-system . This is the first explicit derivation of this type of NLIE for a vertex model associated with $`sl(r+1)`$ for arbitrary rank $`r`$

In section 2, we introduce the $`sl(r+1)`$ Uimin-Sutherland model, and define the QTM and the $`T`$-system  related to this model. In section 3, we derive traditional TBA equations from the $`T`$-system defined in section 2 without using the string hypothesis. In section 4, we derive the NLIE (4.6), (4.7), which are our main results. The normalized fused QTM $`\{𝒯_m^{(a)}(v)\}`$ ($`a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}`$; $`m_1`$: the fusion degree of the model) in the Trotter limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ defined in section 2 play the role of the unknown functions of these NLIE. The traditional TBA equations (3.11), (3.13), (3) are integral equations on the variables $`\{Y_m^{(a)}(v)\}`$, which connects with the ones $`\{𝒯_m^{(a)}(v)\}`$ for our new NLIE (4.6) through the relation (3.1) (cf. $`𝒯_m^{(a)}(v)=lim_N\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v)`$). In this sense, we may viewed our new NLIE (4.6) as TBA equations on the variables $`\{𝒯_m^{(a)}(v)\}`$. For the evaluation of the free energy, we need only the fundamental one $`𝒯_1^{(1)}(v)`$. Therefore adopting an infinite number of fused QTM $`\{𝒯_m^{(a)}(v)\}`$ as unkown functions seems to be superfluous. In fact we see that these NLIE (4.6) for $`m=1`$ form a closed set of equations (4.7), which contains only a finite number of unknown functions $`\{𝒯_1^{(a)}(v)\}_{1ar}`$. For $`r=1`$, this set of NLIE (4.7) reduces to Takahashi’s NLIE  for the $`XXX`$ spin chain. On the other hand, NLIE (4.6) for $`m2`$ have never been considered before, and then they are new equations even in the case $`r=1`$. Using our new NLIE (4.7), we calculate the high temperature expansion of the free energy in section 5. Section 6 are devoted to concluding remarks. Many calculations in this paper are parallel with the ones for the $`osp(1|2s)`$ case ; but we will describe calculations concisely, not so much for reader’s convenience, but for basic importance of the Uimin-Sutherland model.

## 2 $`T`$-system and QTM method

We shall introduce the $`sl(r+1)`$ Uimin-Sutherland model , and define the QTM  and the $`T`$-system  for this model. QTM analyses of the Uimin-Sutherland model can be found in . The classical counter part of the $`sl(r+1)`$ Uimin-Sutherland model is a special case of the Perk-Schultz model, whose $`R`$-matrix is given as

$`R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(v)=v\delta _{ab}\delta _{\mu \nu }+\delta _{a\nu }\delta _{\mu b},`$ (2.1)
where $`v`$; $`a,b,\nu ,\mu \{1,2,\mathrm{},r+1\}`$. We define the QTM $`t_1^{(1)}(v)=((t_1^{(1)})_{\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N\}}^{\{\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _N\}}(v))`$ as

$`(t_1^{(1)})_{\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N\}}^{\{\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _N\}}(v)={\displaystyle \underset{\{\nu _k\}}{}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{\nu _1}}{T}}){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\frac{N}{2}}{}}}R_{\alpha _{2k1},\beta _{2k1}}^{\nu _{2k1},\nu _{2k}}(u+iv)\stackrel{~}{R}_{\alpha _{2k},\beta _{2k}}^{\nu _{2k},\nu _{2k+1}}(uiv),`$ (2.2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{\alpha ,\beta }^{\mu ,\nu }(v)=R_{\mu ,\nu }^{\beta ,\alpha }(v)`$; $`N`$ is the Trotter number and assumed to be even; $`u=\frac{J}{TN}`$ ($`T`$ is a temperature; $`J`$ is a coupling constant, where $`J>0`$ (resp. $`J<0`$) corresponds to the anti-ferromagnetic (resp. ferromagnetic) regime); $`\{\mu _a\}`$ are chemical potentials; the Boltzmann constant is set to $`1`$. The free energy per site is expressed in terms of the largest eigenvalue $`T_1^{(1)}(0)`$ of the QTM (2.2) at $`v=0`$:

$`f=T\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{log}T_1^{(1)}(0).`$ (2.3)
The eigenvalue formula $`T_1^{(1)}(v)`$ of the QTM (2.2) is imbedded into the one $`T_m^{(a)}(v)`$ for a fusion hierarchy of the QTM (cf. Bazhanov-Reshetikhin formula in ):

$`T_m^{(a)}(v)={\displaystyle \underset{\{d_{j,k}\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{a}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}}z(d_{j,k};v{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(am2j+2k)),`$ (2.4)
where the summation is taken over $`d_{j,k}\{1,2,\mathrm{},r+1\}`$ such that $`d_{j,k}d_{j+1,k}`$ and $`d_{j,k}d_{j,k+1}`$ ($`12\mathrm{}r+1`$). The functions $`\{z(a;v)\}`$ are defined as

$`z(a;v)=\psi _a(v){\displaystyle \frac{Q_{a1}(v\frac{i}{2}(a+1))Q_a(v\frac{i}{2}(a2))}{Q_{a1}(v\frac{i}{2}(a1))Q_a(v\frac{i}{2}a)}}`$
$`\text{for}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r+1\},`$ (2.5)
where $`Q_a(v)=_{k=1}^{M_a}(vv_k^{(a)})`$; $`M_a_0`$; $`Q_0(v)=Q_{r+1}(v)=1`$. The vacuum parts are given as follows

$`\psi _a(v)=e^{\frac{\mu _a}{T}}\varphi _+(v+i\delta _{a,r+1})\varphi _{}(vi\delta _{a,1})\text{for}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r+1\},`$ (2.6)
where $`\varphi _\pm (v)=(v\pm iu)^{\frac{N}{2}}`$. $`\{v_k^{(a)}\}`$ is a solution of the Bethe ansatz equation (BAE)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _a(v_k^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2}a)}{\psi _{a+1}(v_k^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2}a)}}={\displaystyle \frac{Q_{a1}(v_k^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2})Q_a(v_k^{(a)}i)Q_{a+1}(v_k^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2})}{Q_{a1}(v_k^{(a)}\frac{i}{2})Q_a(v_k^{(a)}+i)Q_{a+1}(v_k^{(a)}\frac{i}{2})}}`$ (2.7)
$`\text{for}k\{1,2,\mathrm{},M_a\}\text{and}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}.`$
We can rewrite (2.7) as the Reshetikhin and Wiegmann’s BAE  in terms of the representation theoretical data.

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_k^{(a)}\frac{i}{2}b_j^{(a)}w_j^{(a)}}{v_k^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2}b_j^{(a)}w_j^{(a)}}}\right)=\zeta _a{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_b(v_k^{(a)}\frac{i}{2}(\alpha _a|\alpha _b))}{Q_b(v_k^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2}(\alpha _a|\alpha _b))}}`$ (2.8)
$`\text{for}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\},`$
where $`(\alpha _a|\alpha _b)=2\delta _{a,b}\delta _{a,b+1}\delta _{a,b1}`$ is the Cartan matrix of $`sl(r+1)`$; $`\{b_j^{(a)}\}`$ are the Dynkin labels which characterize the quantum space: $`[b_{2j}^{(1)},b_{2j}^{(2)},\mathrm{},b_{2j}^{(r)}]=[0,0,\mathrm{},1]`$, $`[b_{2j1}^{(1)},b_{2j1}^{(2)},\mathrm{},b_{2j1}^{(r)}]=[1,0,\mathrm{},0]`$; $`\{w_j^{(a)}\}`$ are inhomogeneity parameters: $`w_{2j1}^{(a)}=\delta _{a,1}iu`$, $`w_{2j}^{(a)}=\delta _{a,r}i(u+\frac{1}{2}g)`$; $`g=r+1`$ (the dual Coxeter number); $`\zeta _a=e^{\frac{\mu _a\mu _{a+1}}{T}}`$. Note that the Dynkin labels for the even site and the odd site are the ones for conjugate representations each other. The non-negative integers $`\{M_a\}`$ should satisfy the condition: $`_{j=1}^Nb_j^{(a)}_{b=1}^rM_b(\alpha _b|\alpha _a)=\frac{N}{2}(\delta _{a,1}+\delta _{a,r})+M_{a1}2M_a+M_{a+1}_0`$, where $`M_0=M_{r+1}=0`$. For the row-to-row transfer matrix, the above parameters take the values: $`[b_j^{(1)},b_j^{(2)},\mathrm{},b_j^{(r)}]=[1,0,\mathrm{},0]`$; $`w_j^{(a)}=0`$; $`\zeta _a=1`$.

For $`a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}`$ and $`m_1`$, we shall normalize (2.4) as $`\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v)=T_m^{(a)}(v)/\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_m^{(a)}(v)`$, where

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_m^{(a)}(v)={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{}(v\frac{a+m}{2}i)\varphi _+(v+\frac{a+m}{2}i)}{\varphi _{}(v\frac{am}{2}i)\varphi _+(v+\frac{am}{2}i)}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{a}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\varphi _{}(v{\displaystyle \frac{am2j+2k}{2}}i)\varphi _+(v{\displaystyle \frac{am2j+2k}{2}}i).`$ (2.9)
Note that the poles of $`\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v)`$ from the functions $`\{Q_b(v)\}`$ (dress part) are spurious under the BAE (2.7). One can show that $`\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v)`$ satisfies the following functional relation.

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}})\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}})=\stackrel{~}{T}_{m+1}^{(a)}(v)\stackrel{~}{T}_{m1}^{(a)}(v)+\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a1)}(v)\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a+1)}(v),`$ (2.10)
$`\mathrm{for}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}\mathrm{and}m_1,`$
where

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_0^{(a)}(v)=1\mathrm{for}a_1,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(0)}(v)={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{}(v+\frac{m}{2}i)\varphi _+(v\frac{m}{2}i)}{\varphi _{}(v\frac{m}{2}i)\varphi _+(v+\frac{m}{2}i)}}\mathrm{for}m_1,`$ (2.11)
$`\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(r+1)}(v)=e^{\frac{m(\mu _1+\mu _2+\mathrm{}+\mu _{r+1})}{T}}\mathrm{for}m_1.`$
Except for the vacuum part (the part made from the function (2.6)), this equation has the same form as the $`sl(r+1)`$ $`T`$-system in .

## 3 Traditional TBA equations

In this section, we will transform the $`T`$-system (2.10) into the traditional TBA equations by the standard procedure . Similar argument in relation to Stokes multipliers can be found in section 5 in .

For $`m_1`$ and $`a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}`$, we define functions:

$`Y_m^{(a)}(v)={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_{m+1}^{(a)}(v)\stackrel{~}{T}_{m1}^{(a)}(v)}{\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a1)}(v)\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a+1)}(v)}}={\displaystyle \frac{T_{m+1}^{(a)}(v)T_{m1}^{(a)}(v)}{T_m^{(a1)}(v)T_m^{(a+1)}(v)}}.`$ (3.1)
By using the $`T`$-system (2.10), we can show that (3.1) satisfy the following $`Y`$-system:

$`Y_m^{(a)}(v+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}})Y_m^{(a)}(v{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}})={\displaystyle \frac{(1+Y_{m+1}^{(a)}(v))(1+Y_{m1}^{(a)}(v))}{_{b=1}^r(1+(Y_m^{(b)}(v))^1)^{I_{ab}}}}`$ (3.2)
$`\text{for}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}\text{and}m_1,`$
where $`I_{ab}=\delta _{a,b+1}+\delta _{a,b1}`$, $`Y_0^{(a)}(v)=0`$.

From a numerical analysis for finite $`N,u,r`$, we expect that a one-string solution (for every color) in the sector $`\frac{N}{2}=M_1=M_2=\mathrm{}=M_r`$ of the BAE (2.7) provides the largest eigenvalue of the QTM (2.2) at $`v=0`$ at least for the case: $`\mu _1=\mu _2=\mathrm{}=\mu _{r+1}=0`$ (cf. Figure 1). Hereafter we will consider only this one-string solution.

The following conjecture will be valid for this one-string solution (cf. Figures 2, 3).

###### Conjecture 3.1.

For small $`u`$ ($`|u|1`$), $`a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}`$ and $`m_1`$, every zero $`\{\stackrel{~}{z}_m^{(a)}\}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v)`$ is located near the lines $`\mathrm{I}mv=\pm \frac{m+a}{2}`$ at least for the case: $`\mu _1=\mu _2=\mathrm{}=\mu _{r+1}=0`$.

Based on this conjecture, we will establish the ANZC property (Analytic, NonZero and Constant asymptotics in the limit $`|v|\mathrm{}`$) in some domain for the functions (3.1). We find that $`Y_m^{(a)}(v)`$ has a constant asymptotics:

$`\underset{|v|\mathrm{}}{lim}Y_m^{(a)}(v)={\displaystyle \frac{Q_{m1}^{(a)}Q_{m+1}^{(a)}}{Q_m^{(a1)}Q_m^{(a+1)}}},`$ (3.3)
where $`\{Q_m^{(a)}\}`$ is given by (2.4) with a formal setting $`Q_a(v)=\varphi _\pm (v)=1`$. $`\{Q_m^{(a)}\}`$ is also characterized as a solution of the $`Q`$-system :

$`(Q_m^{(a)})^2=Q_{m1}^{(a)}Q_{m+1}^{(a)}+Q_m^{(a1)}Q_m^{(a+1)}\mathrm{for}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}\text{and}m_1,`$ (3.4)
where $`Q_0^{(a)}=Q_m^{(0)}=1`$; $`Q_m^{(r+1)}=e^{\frac{m(\mu _1+\mu _2+\mathrm{}+\mu _{r+1})}{T}}`$. Note that $`Q_m^{(a)}`$ coincides with the character of $`m`$-th symmetric $`a`$-th anti-symmetric tensor representation $`V(m\mathrm{\Lambda }_a)`$ of $`gl(r+1)`$ if we set $`\frac{\mu _a}{T}ϵ_a`$, where $`\{ϵ_a\}`$ are orthonormal basis of the dual space of the Cartan subalgebra. In particular, for $`\mu _1=\mu _2=\mathrm{}=\mu _{r+1}=0`$ case, $`Q_m^{(a)}`$ is given by

$`Q_m^{(a)}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{(m+g)!m!}{(m+a)!(m+ga)!}}\right)^m{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(k+a)(k+ga)}{k(k+g)}}\right\}^k,`$ (3.5)
and (3.3) has the form

$`\underset{|v|\mathrm{}}{lim}Y_m^{(a)}(v)={\displaystyle \frac{m(g+m)}{a(ga)}}.`$ (3.6)
(3.5) is the dimension of $`V(m\mathrm{\Lambda }_a)`$. Based on the conjecture 3.1 and (3.3), one can see that the functions $`1+Y_m^{(a)}(v)`$, $`1+(Y_m^{(a)}(v))^1`$ in the domain $`\mathrm{Im}v[\delta ,\delta ]`$ ($`0<\delta 1`$) and $`Y_m^{(a)}(v)`$ for $`(a,m)(1,1)`$ in the domain $`\mathrm{Im}v[\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]`$ (physical strip) have the ANZC property at least for the case $`\mu _1=\mathrm{}=\mu _{r+1}=0`$; while $`Y_1^{(1)}(v)`$ has zeros of order $`N/2`$ at $`\pm i(\frac{1}{2}+u)`$ if $`u<0`$ ($`J>0`$), poles of order $`N/2`$ at $`\pm i(\frac{1}{2}u)`$ if $`u>0`$ ($`J<0`$) in the physical strip. Thus one should modify $`Y_m^{(a)}(v)`$ as

$`\stackrel{~}{Y}_m^{(a)}(v)=Y_m^{(a)}(v)\left\{\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}(v+i({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pm u))\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}(vi({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pm u))\right\}^{\frac{N\delta _{a,1}\delta _{m,1}}{2}},`$ (3.7)
where the sign $`\pm `$ is equal to that of $`u`$. By using the relation

$`\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}(v+i)\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}(vi)=1,`$ (3.8)
we shall modify the lhs of the $`Y`$-system (3.2) as

$`\stackrel{~}{Y}_m^{(a)}(v{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}})\stackrel{~}{Y}_m^{(a)}(v+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}})={\displaystyle \frac{(1+Y_{m+1}^{(a)}(v))(1+Y_{m1}^{(a)}(v))}{_{b=1}^r(1+(Y_m^{(b)}(v))^1)^{I_{ab}}}},`$ (3.9)
$`\mathrm{for}m_1\mathrm{and}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}.`$
This modified $`Y`$-system has the ANZC property. Then one can transform (3.9) into nonlinear integral equations by a standard procedure.

$`\mathrm{log}Y_m^{(a)}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{N\delta _{a1}\delta _{m1}}{2}}\mathrm{log}\left\{\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}(v+i({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pm u))\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}(vi({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pm u))\right\}`$
$`+K\mathrm{log}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1+Y_{m1}^{(a)})(1+Y_{m+1}^{(a)})}{_{b=1}^r(1+(Y_m^{(b)})^1)^{I_{ab}}}}\right\}(v)`$
$`\text{for}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}\text{and}m_1,`$
where $`Y_0^{(a)}(v)=0`$ and $``$ is the convolution. After the Trotter limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ with $`u=\frac{J}{NT}`$, we obtain a TBA equation

$`\mathrm{log}Y_m^{(a)}(v)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi J\delta _{a1}\delta _{m1}}{T\mathrm{cosh}\pi v}}+K\mathrm{log}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1+Y_{m1}^{(a)})(1+Y_{m+1}^{(a)})}{_{b=1}^r(1+(Y_m^{(b)})^1)^{I_{ab}}}}\right\}(v)`$ (3.11)
$`\text{for}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}\text{and}m_1,`$
where $`Y_0^{(a)}(v):=0`$ and the kernel is

$`K(v)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{cosh}\pi v}}.`$ (3.12)
One can also rewrite (3.11) as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi J\delta _{a1}\delta _{m1}}{T\mathrm{cosh}\pi v}}={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}K^{m,n}\mathrm{log}(1+Y_n^{(a)})(v)`$ (3.13)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}J_{a,b}^{m,n}\mathrm{log}(1+(Y_n^{(b)})^1)(v),`$
where

$`K^{m,n}(v)=\delta _{m,n}\delta (v)(\delta _{m,n1}+\delta _{m,n+1})K(v),`$
$`J_{a,b}^{n,k}(v)=(\delta _{a,b}\delta (v)(\delta _{a,b1}+\delta _{a,b+1})K(v))\delta _{n,k}.`$ (3.14)
We find that the TBA equation (3.13) coincides with the one from the string hypothesis in  after suitable modification. By using the following relations

$`A^{a,d}(v)={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(a,d)}{}}}G_{|ad|+2l1}(v),`$
$`G_a(v)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{(ga)\pi }{g}}{\mathrm{cos}\frac{(ga)\pi }{g}+\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\pi v}{g}}},`$
$`\widehat{A}^{a,d}(k)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dvA^{a,d}(v)e^{ikv}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\mathrm{min}(a,d)}{2}k\right)\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{g\mathrm{min}(a,d)}{2}k\right)}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{g}{2}k\right)}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{r}{}}}\widehat{A}^{m,l}(k)\widehat{K}^{l,n}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{m,n}}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{k}{2})}},`$ (3.15)
$`\widehat{K}^{m,n}(k)=\delta _{m,n}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{m,n1}+\delta _{m,n+1}}{2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{k}{2}}},`$
we can also rewrite the TBA equation (3.11) as

$`\mathrm{log}Y_m^{(a)}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi J\delta _{m,1}}{T}}G_a(v)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{r}{}}}A^{a,b}\mathrm{log}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1+Y_{m1}^{(b)})(1+Y_{m+1}^{(b)})}{_{d=1}^r(1+Y_m^{(d)})^{I_{bd}}}}\right\}(v)`$
$`\text{for}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}\text{and}m_1,`$
where $`Y_0^{(a)}(v)=0`$. This TBA equation (3) does not contain $`(Y_m^{(a)})^1`$, which contrasts with (3.11),(3.13). We can derive the following relation from (2.10), (3.1) and (3.15).

$`\mathrm{log}\stackrel{~}{T}_1^{(1)}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{r}{}}}G_b\mathrm{log}(1+Y_1^{(b)})(v)`$ (3.17)
$`2N{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dk{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}k}\mathrm{sinh}(ku)\mathrm{cos}(kv)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{g1}{2}k)}{k\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{g}{2}k)}}.`$
After the Trotter limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ with $`u=\frac{J}{NT}`$, we have the free energy per site.

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`T\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{log}T_1^{(1)}(0)=JT\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{log}\stackrel{~}{T}_1^{(1)}(0)`$
$`=`$ $`J\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{g}}\left(\gamma +\psi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}})\right)+1\right\}T{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dvG_a(v)\mathrm{log}(1+Y_1^{(a)}(v)),`$
where $`\psi (z)`$ is the digamma function

$`\psi (z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Gamma }(z),\gamma =\psi (1).`$ (3.19)
## 4 New nonlinear integral equations

It was pointed out  that Takahashi’s NLIE for the $`XXZ`$-model  can be rederived from the $`T`$-system of the QTM. In this section, we shall derive our new NLIE (4.6) and (4.7) from the $`T`$-system (2.10).

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v)`$ has poles only at $`\pm \stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}`$: $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}=\frac{m+a}{2}i+iu`$. These poles are of order $`N/2`$ at most. In addition, $`lim_{|v|\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v)=Q_m^{(a)}`$ is a finite number (cf. (3.5)). Thus we must put

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v)=Q_m^{(a)}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\frac{N}{2}}{}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{b_{m,j}^{(a)}}{(v\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)})^j}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{b}_{m,j}^{(a)}}{(v+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)})^j}}\right\},`$ (4.1)
where the coefficients $`b_{m,j}^{(a)},\overline{b}_{m,j}^{(a)}`$ are given as follows.

$`b_{m,j}^{(a)}={\displaystyle _{C_m^{(a)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}v}{2\pi i}}\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v)(v\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)})^{j1},`$
$`\overline{b}_{m,j}^{(a)}={\displaystyle _{\overline{C}_m^{(a)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}v}{2\pi i}}\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v)(v+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)})^{j1},`$ (4.2)
where the contour $`C_m^{(a)}`$ is a counterclockwise closed loop around $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}`$ which does not surround $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}`$; the contour $`\overline{C}_m^{(a)}`$ is a counterclockwise closed loop around $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}`$ which does not surround $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}`$. Using the $`T`$-system (2.10), one can modify (4.2) as

$`b_{m,j}^{(a)}={\displaystyle _{C_m^{(a)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}v}{2\pi i}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_{m1}^{(a)}(v\frac{i}{2})\stackrel{~}{T}_{m+1}^{(a)}(v\frac{i}{2})}{\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(vi)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a1)}(v\frac{i}{2})\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a+1)}(v\frac{i}{2})}{\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(vi)}}\}(v\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)})^{j1},`$
$`\overline{b}_{m,j}^{(a)}={\displaystyle _{\overline{C}_m^{(a)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}v}{2\pi i}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_{m1}^{(a)}(v+\frac{i}{2})\stackrel{~}{T}_{m+1}^{(a)}(v+\frac{i}{2})}{\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v+i)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a1)}(v+\frac{i}{2})\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a+1)}(v+\frac{i}{2})}{\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v+i)}}\}(v+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)})^{j1}.`$ (4.3)
Substituting (4.3) into (4.1), we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v)=Q_m^{(a)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{C_m^{(a)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\left(\frac{y}{v\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}}\right)^{\frac{N}{2}}}{vy\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_{m1}^{(a)}(y+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}\frac{i}{2})\stackrel{~}{T}_{m+1}^{(a)}(y+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}\frac{i}{2})}{\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(y+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}i)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a1)}(y+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}\frac{i}{2})\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a+1)}(y+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}\frac{i}{2})}{\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(y+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}i)}}\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\overline{C}_m^{(a)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\left(\frac{y}{v+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}}\right)^{\frac{N}{2}}}{vy+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_{m1}^{(a)}(y\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2})\stackrel{~}{T}_{m+1}^{(a)}(y\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2})}{\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(y\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}+i)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a1)}(y\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2})\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a+1)}(y\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2})}{\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(y\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}+i)}}\},`$
$`\mathrm{for}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}\mathrm{and}m_1,`$ (4.4)
where the contour $`C_m^{(a)}`$ (resp. $`\overline{C}_m^{(a)}`$) is a counterclockwise closed loop around $`0`$ which does not surround $`2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}`$ (resp. $`2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}`$). The first term and the second term in the first bracket $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ in (4.4) have a common singularity at $`0`$; while for $`m=1`$, this singularity from the first term disappears since $`\stackrel{~}{T}_0^{(a)}(y)=1`$. Thus for $`m=1`$, the contribution to the contour integral from the first term in the first bracket $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ in (4.4) vanishes if the contour $`C_1^{(a)}`$ does not surround the singularity at $`\stackrel{~}{z}_1^{(a)}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}+i`$ (cf. Conjecture 3.1). This is also the case with the second bracket $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ in (4.4). Therefore for $`m=1`$, (4.4) reduces to

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_1^{(a)}(v)=Q_1^{(a)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{C_1^{(a)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\left(\frac{y}{v\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}}\right)^{\frac{N}{2}}}{vy\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_1^{(a1)}(y+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}\frac{i}{2})\stackrel{~}{T}_1^{(a+1)}(y+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}\frac{i}{2})}{\stackrel{~}{T}_1^{(a)}(y+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}i)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\overline{C}_1^{(a)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\left(\frac{y}{v+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}}\right)^{\frac{N}{2}}}{vy+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_1^{(a1)}(y\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2})\stackrel{~}{T}_1^{(a+1)}(y\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2})}{\stackrel{~}{T}_1^{(a)}(y\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}+i)}}`$
$`\mathrm{for}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\},`$ (4.5)
where the contour $`C_1^{(a)}`$ (resp. $`\overline{C}_1^{(a)}`$) is a counterclockwise closed loop around $`0`$ which does not surround $`\stackrel{~}{z}_1^{(a)}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}+i`$, $`2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{z}_1^{(a)}+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}i`$, $`2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{(a)}`$). Now we shall take the Trotter limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ in (4.4).

$`𝒯_m^{(a)}(v)=Q_m^{(a)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{C_m^{(a)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{vy\beta _m^{(a)}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯_{m1}^{(a)}(y+\beta _m^{(a)}\frac{i}{2})𝒯_{m+1}^{(a)}(y+\beta _m^{(a)}\frac{i}{2})}{𝒯_m^{(a)}(y+\beta _m^{(a)}i)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯_m^{(a1)}(y+\beta _m^{(a)}\frac{i}{2})𝒯_m^{(a+1)}(y+\beta _m^{(a)}\frac{i}{2})}{𝒯_m^{(a)}(y+\beta _m^{(a)}i)}}\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\overline{C}_m^{(a)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{vy+\beta _m^{(a)}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯_{m1}^{(a)}(y\beta _m^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2})𝒯_{m+1}^{(a)}(y\beta _m^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2})}{𝒯_m^{(a)}(y\beta _m^{(a)}+i)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯_m^{(a1)}(y\beta _m^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2})𝒯_m^{(a+1)}(y\beta _m^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2})}{𝒯_m^{(a)}(y\beta _m^{(a)}+i)}}\}`$
$`\mathrm{for}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}\mathrm{and}m_1,`$ (4.6)
where $`𝒯_m^{(a)}(v):=lim_N\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{T}_m^{(a)}(v)`$; $`\beta _m^{(a)}:=lim_N\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m^{(a)}=\frac{m+a}{2}i`$; $`𝒯_m^{(r+1)}(v)=e^{\frac{m(\mu _1+\mathrm{}+\mu _{r+1})}{T}}`$; $`𝒯_0^{(a)}(v)=1`$; $`𝒯_m^{(0)}(v)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{mJ}{(v^2+\frac{m^2}{4})T}\right)`$; the contour $`C_m^{(a)}`$ (resp. $`\overline{C}_m^{(a)}`$) is a counterclockwise closed loop around $`0`$ which satisfies the condition $`|y|<|v\beta _m^{(a)}|`$ (resp. $`|y|<|v+\beta _m^{(a)}|`$) and does not surround $`2\beta _m^{(a)}`$ (resp. $`2\beta _m^{(a)}`$). In particular for $`m=1`$, we obtain a system of NLIE, which contains only a finite number of unknown functions $`\{𝒯_1^{(a)}(v)\}_{1ar}`$:

$`𝒯_1^{(a)}(v)=Q_1^{(a)}`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_1^{(a)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯_1^{(a1)}(y+\beta _1^{(a)}\frac{i}{2})𝒯_1^{(a+1)}(y+\beta _1^{(a)}\frac{i}{2})}{(vy\beta _1^{(a)})𝒯_1^{(a)}(y+\beta _1^{(a)}i)}}`$ (4.7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\overline{C}_1^{(a)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯_1^{(a1)}(y\beta _1^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2})𝒯_1^{(a+1)}(y\beta _1^{(a)}+\frac{i}{2})}{(vy+\beta _1^{(a)})𝒯_1^{(a)}(y\beta _1^{(a)}+i)}}`$
$`\mathrm{for}a\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\},`$
where $`𝒯_1^{(r+1)}(v)=e^{\frac{\mu _1+\mathrm{}+\mu _{r+1}}{T}}`$; the contour $`C_1^{(a)}`$ (resp. $`\overline{C}_1^{(a)}`$) is a counterclockwise closed loop around $`0`$ which satisfies the condition $`|y|<|v\beta _1^{(a)}|`$ (resp. $`|y|<|v+\beta _1^{(a)}|`$) and does not surround $`z_1^{(a)}\beta _1^{(a)}+i`$, $`2\beta _1^{(a)}`$ (resp. $`z_1^{(a)}+\beta _1^{(a)}i`$, $`2\beta _1^{(a)}`$); $`z_1^{(a)}=lim_N\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{z}_1^{(a)}`$. One can calculate the free energy per site $`f`$ by using (4.7) and the relation

$`f=JT\mathrm{log}𝒯_1^{(1)}(0).`$ (4.8)
We need not use (4.6) (for $`m_2`$) to obtain the free energy per site. In addition, $`\{𝒯_m^{(a)}(v)\}_{1ar;m_1}`$ is given in terms of the solution of (4.7) $`\{𝒯_1^{(a)}(v)\}_{1ar}`$ based on a Jacobi-Trudi formula . However, (4.6) has theoretical significance since it manifests the relation between our new NLIE and the traditional TBA equations (3.11), (3.13), (3). In fact, (4.6) and (4.7) are related to the traditional TBA equations (3.11), (3.13), (3) through the relation (3.1) in the Trotter limit.

## 5 High temperature expansion

In this section, we shall calculate the high temperature expansion of the free energy (4.8) for $`r=1,2,3`$ by our new NLIE (4.7). As for the $`XXX`$-model case, the high temperature expansion of the free energy is calculated  by Takahashi’s NLIE up to order 100. We assume the following expansion for large $`T`$:

$`𝒯_1^{(a)}(v)=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_n^{(a)}(v)({\displaystyle \frac{J}{T}})^n\right).`$ (5.1)
In contrasts with the $`XXX`$-model case , we need further assumption

$`b_n^{(a)}(v)={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{n,j}^{(a)}v^{2j}}{(v^2+\frac{(a+1)^2}{4})^n}},`$ (5.2)
where $`c_{n,j}^{(a)}`$. Substituting (5.1) into (4.7), we can obtain the coefficients $`\{b_n^{(a)}(v)\}`$. Here we just enumerate first few of them. $`b_0^{(a)}(v)`$ has the form $`b_0^{(a)}(v)=\mathrm{log}Q_1^{(a)}`$. Other coefficients are given as follows.
$`sl(2)`$ case:

$`c_{1,0}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{2Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}},`$
$`c_{2,0}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{3Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{6Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}},`$
$`c_{2,1}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}},`$
$`c_{3,0}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{10Q_1^{(2)}}{3Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{18Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{80Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{3}}{3Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{6}}},`$
$`c_{3,1}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{3Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{22Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{40Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{3}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{6}}},`$
$`c_{3,2}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{8Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{3}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{6}}}.`$ (5.3)
$`sl(3)`$ case:

$`c_{1,0}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{2Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}},`$
$`c_{2,0}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{3Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{6Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}},`$
$`c_{2,1}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}},`$
$`c_{3,0}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{10Q_1^{(2)}}{3Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{18Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{80Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{3}}{3Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{6}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{24Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}}},`$
$`c_{3,1}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{3Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{22Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{40Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{3}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{6}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{13Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{42Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}}},`$
$`c_{3,2}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{8Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{3}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{6}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{18Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}}},`$
$`c_{1,0}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{3Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(2)}}},`$
$`c_{2,0}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{27Q_1^{(3)}}{2Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(2)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{9Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}},`$
$`c_{2,1}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{6Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(2)}}},`$
$`c_{3,0}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1377Q_1^{(3)}}{16Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{171Q_1^{(3)}}{8Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(2)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{243Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(3)}}{2Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}}}{\displaystyle \frac{27Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{81Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{16Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}Q_1^{(2)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{3}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{3}}},`$
$`c_{3,1}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{135Q_1^{(3)}}{2Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{12Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(2)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{108Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}}}{\displaystyle \frac{6Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{45Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}Q_1^{(2)}}},`$
$`c_{3,2}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{13Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(2)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{24Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}}}{\displaystyle \frac{9Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}Q_1^{(2)}}}.`$
$`sl(4)`$ case:

$`c_{1,0}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{2Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}},`$
$`c_{2,0}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{3Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{6Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}},`$
$`c_{2,1}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}},`$
$`c_{3,0}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{10Q_1^{(2)}}{3Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{18Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{80Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{3}}{3Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{6}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{24Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}},`$
$`c_{3,1}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{3Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{22Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{40Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{3}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{6}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{13Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{42Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}},`$
$`c_{3,2}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{Q_1^{(2)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{8Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{3}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{6}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{18Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}},`$
$`c_{1,0}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{3Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(2)}}},`$
$`c_{2,0}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{27Q_1^{(3)}}{2Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(2)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{9Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_1^{(2)}}},`$
$`c_{2,1}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{6Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(2)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_1^{(2)}}},`$
$`c_{3,0}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1377Q_1^{(3)}}{16Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{171Q_1^{(3)}}{8Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(2)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{243Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(3)}}{2Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}}}{\displaystyle \frac{27Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{81Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{16Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}Q_1^{(2)}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{9Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{3}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{81Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{783Q_1^{(4)}}{16Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_1^{(2)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{27Q_1^{(3)}Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}},`$
$`c_{3,1}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{135Q_1^{(3)}}{2Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{12Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(2)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{108Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}}}{\displaystyle \frac{6Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{45Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}Q_1^{(2)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{72Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{75Q_1^{(4)}}{2Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_1^{(2)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{12Q_1^{(3)}Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}}},`$
$`c_{3,2}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{13Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(2)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{24Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(3)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}}}{\displaystyle \frac{9Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}Q_1^{(2)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{16Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_1^{(2)}}},`$
$`c_{1,0}^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{4Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(3)}}},`$
$`c_{2,0}^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{20Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(3)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{32Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}Q_1^{(3)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{8Q_{1}^{(4)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}},`$
$`c_{2,1}^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{3Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(3)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{8Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}Q_1^{(3)}}},`$
$`c_{3,0}^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{192Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{248Q_1^{(4)}}{3Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(3)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{352Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}Q_1^{(3)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{512Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}Q_1^{(3)}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{80Q_{1}^{(4)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{128Q_1^{(2)}Q_{1}^{(4)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{64Q_{1}^{(4)}{}_{}{}^{3}}{3Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{3}}},`$
$`c_{3,1}^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{96Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{30Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(3)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{160Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}Q_1^{(3)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{256Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}Q_1^{(3)}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{12Q_{1}^{(4)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{32Q_1^{(2)}Q_{1}^{(4)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}Q_{1}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{2}}},`$
$`c_{3,2}^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{12Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_1^{(1)}Q_1^{(3)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{18Q_1^{(2)}Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{3}Q_1^{(3)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{32Q_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{2}Q_1^{(4)}}{Q_{1}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{5}Q_1^{(3)}}}.`$
When $`Q_1^{(a)}`$ are suitably chosen, (5.3) recover the known results. One see that these coefficients are expressed in terms of the solutions of the $`Q`$-system (3.4). And thus a solution of the $`T`$-system is given in terms of solutions of the $`Q`$-system. The $`T`$-system is a Yang-Baxterization of the $`Q`$-system. Thus one may say that the degree of the expansion expresses the degree of a Yang-Baxterization. Using $`\{b_n^{(a)}(0)\}`$, we can calculate the free energy (4.8) and the specific heat $`C=T\frac{^2f}{T^2}`$. We have plotted the high temperature expansion of the specific heat for $`sl(3)`$ in figure 4. For large $`T`$, this agrees with the result from another NLIE by Fujii and Klümper (Fig.4 in ). This indicates the validity of our new NLIE (4.7). We note that the high temperature expansion for the $`SU(n)`$ Heisenberg model is briefly reported in the letter  based on a completely different method.

## 6 Concluding remarks

In this paper, we have derived a system of NLIE with a finite number of unknown functions, which describes thermodynamics of the $`sl(r+1)`$ Uimin-Sutherland model. This type of NLIE for $`sl(r+1)`$ of arbitrary rank $`r`$ is derived for the first time. In particular for $`r=1`$, our new NLIE (4.7) reduces to Takahashi’s NLIE  for the $`XXX`$ spin chain. A relation between our new NLIE (4.6), (4.7) and the traditional TBA equations (3.11),(3.13), (3) which are also derived from the $`T`$-system is clarified. The high temperature expansion of the free energy is discussed, in which a solution of the $`T`$-system is given in terms of solutions of the $`Q`$-system. We expect that we can extend these results to other algebras by using the $`T`$-systems in .

In , fugacity expansion formulae of the free energy for the $`XXX`$ spin chain up to an infinite order is derived from the string center equation, and Takahashi’s NLIE  is rederived from this formulae. This work may be viewed in part as a kind of Yang-Baxterization of the results in  where power series formulae related to a formal completeness of the Bethe ansatz are derived from the string center equation. We can also generally recover  the results in  from the $`Q`$-system. Starting from our new NLIE (4.7), we may derive expansion formulae similar to the ones in  for $`sl(r+1)`$ of arbitrary rank $`r`$, from which an idea toward a Yang-Baxterization of the results in  may be given since our new NLIE is based on the $`T`$-system which is a Yang-Baxterization of the $`Q`$-system.

There are different types of NLIE with finite numbers of unknown functions for algebras of arbitrary rank in rather different contexts . Their origin are related to Destri and de Vega’s NLIE . To derive analogous NLIE from the QTM method and to study the relation to our new NLIE deserve investigation.

## Acknowledgments

The author is financially supported by Inoue Foundation for Science.


text:
# What is a Hilbert 𝐶^∗-module?

## 1. Introduction

The notion of a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module is a generalization of the notion of a Hilbert space. The first use of such objects was made by I. Kaplansky . The research on Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules began in the 70’s in the work of the induced representations of $`C^{}`$-algebras by M. A. Rieffel  and the doctoral dissertation of W. L. Paschke . It is also used to study Morita equivalence of $`C^{}`$-algebras, KK-theory of $`C^{}`$-algebras, operator K-theory, $`C^{}`$-algebra quantum group and theory of operator spaces.In this paper we shall view fundamentals of the theory of Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module and discuss on some its aspects.

## 2. Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module

###### Definition 2.1.

A pre-Hilbert module over a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ is a comlex linear space $`𝒳`$ which is an algebraic right $`𝒜`$-module equipped with an $`𝒜`$-valued inner product $`<.,.>:𝒳\times 𝒳𝒜`$ satisfying

(i) $`<x,x>0,\text{ and }<x,x>=0\text{ iff }x=0`$;

ii) $`<x,y+\lambda z>=<x,y>+\lambda <x,z>`$;

(iii) $`<x,ya>=<x,y>a`$;

(iv) $`<y,x>=<x,y>^{}`$

for each $`x,y,z𝒳,\lambda ,a𝒜.`$

###### Remark 2.2.

Left pre-Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules are defined similarly.

###### Example 2.3.

(i) Every inner product space is a left pre-Hilbert module over $``$.

(ii) If $`I`$ is a (closed) right ideal of $`𝒜`$, then $`I`$ is a pre-Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module if we define $`<a,b>=a^{}b`$; in particular $`𝒜`$ is a pre-Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module.

(iii) Let $`\{𝒳_i\}_{1im}`$ be a finite family of pre-Hilbert $`𝒜`$-modules. Then the vector space direct sum $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}𝒳_i`$ is a pre-Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module if we define

$$(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m)a=(x_1a,\mathrm{},x_ma),<(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m),(y_1,\mathrm{}y_m)>=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}<x_i,y_i>$$

(iv) If $``$ is a Hilbert space, then algebraic (vector space) tensor product $`_{alg}𝒜`$ is a pre-Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module under

$$(\xi a).b=\xi (ab),<\xi a,\eta b>=<\xi ,\eta >a^{}b$$

Let $`t=<{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\xi _ia_i,{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\xi _ia_i>`$ and let $`\{ϵ_k\}_{1km}`$ be an orthogonal basis for the finite dimensional subspace of $``$ spanned by the $`\xi _i`$. If $`\xi _i={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\lambda _{ik}ϵ_k`$ , then

$$t=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _{ik}a_i)^{}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _{ik}a_i)0.$$

If $`t=0`$, then $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\lambda _{ik}a_i=0\text{ for  all }k`$, from which

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\xi _ia_i=\underset{i}{}(\underset{k}{}\lambda _{ik}ϵ_k)a_i=\underset{i}{}\underset{k}{}ϵ_k\lambda _{ik}a_i=\underset{k}{}ϵ_k(\underset{i}{}\lambda _{ik}a_i)=0$$

###### Theorem 2.4.

If $`𝒳`$ is a Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module and $`x,y𝒳`$, then

$$<y,x><x,y><x,x><y,y>.$$

###### Proof.

Suppose $`<x,x>=1`$. For $`a𝒜`$,we have $`0<xay,xay>=a^{}<x,x>a<y,x>aa^{}<x,y>+<y,y>a^{}a<y,x>aa^{}<x,y>+<y,y>`$ (since if c is a positive element of $`𝒜`$, then $`a^{}caca^{}a\text{ for  all }a𝒜`$; \[1, Corollary I.4.6\]) Now put $`a=<x,y>`$ to get $`a^{}a<y,y>`$. ∎

For $`x𝒳`$, Put

$$x=<x,x>^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

Then $`<x,y>^2=<x,y>^{}<x,y>=<y,x><x,y><x,x><y,y>=x^2y^2`$. Hence

$$<x,y>xy$$

It follows that $`<.,.>:𝒳\times 𝒳𝒜`$ is continuous. Obviously $`.`$ is a norm on $`𝒳`$.

###### Definition 2.5.

A pre-Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module $`𝒳`$ is called a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module if $`𝒳`$ equipped with the above norm is complete. Note that a Banach space completion of a pre-Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module, is a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module.

We have $`0<xa,xa>=a^{}<x,x>aa^{}x^2a`$. Taking norm we get $`<xa,xa>a^{}x^2a`$ $`xa^2x^2a^2\text{ or}xaxa`$. Hence $`𝒳`$ is a normed $`𝒜`$-module. There is also an $`𝒜`$-valued norm $`.`$ on $`𝒳`$ given by $`x=<x,x>^{1/2}`$.

###### Example 2.6.

Let $`\{𝒳_n\}`$ be a sequence of Hilbert $`𝒜`$-modules. Then $`_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}_n=\{\{x_n\}x_n𝒳_n,_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}<x_n,x_n>\text{ converges in}𝒜\}`$ with operations $`\{x_n\}+\lambda \{y_n\}=\{x_n+\lambda y_n\},\{x_n\}a=\{x_na\},<\{x_n\},\{y_n\}>={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}<x_n,y_n>`$ is a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module. Note that in $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=p}{\overset{q}{}}}𝒳_n`$ we have

$$\underset{n=p}{\overset{q}{}}<x_n,y_n>\underset{n=p}{\overset{q}{}}<x_n,x_n>\underset{n=p}{\overset{q}{}}<y_n,y_n>.$$

Hence $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}<x_n,y_n>`$ converges, by the Cauchy criterion. For completeness, Let $`\{u_k\}_k`$ be a Cauchy sequence in $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝒳_n`$ and for all $`k,u_k=\{x_{n,k}\}_n`$. Applying $`x_{n,k}x_{n,l}=<x_{n,k}x_{n,l},x_{n,k}x_{n,l}>{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}<x_{n,k}x_{n,l},x_{n,k}x_{n,l}>=u_ku_l^2`$, we conclude that $`\{x_{n,k}\}_k`$ is Cauchy, for each $`nN`$. Hence for each $`n`$, there exists $`v_n`$ such that $`lim_kx_{n,k}=v_n`$. Now put $`v=\{v_n\}.\text{ Then }lim_ku_k=v.`$

Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules behave like Hilbert spaces in some way, for example:

$$x=sup\{<x,y>;y𝒳,y1\}$$

But there is one fundamental way in which Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules differ from Hilbert spaces: Given a closed submodule $``$ of a Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module $`𝒳`$, define

$$^{}=\{y𝒳<x,y>=0,x\}.$$

Then $`^{}`$ is a closed submodule. But usually $`𝒳+^{},^{}.`$

###### Example 2.7.

Take $`𝒜=C([0,1])`$, $`𝒳=𝒜`$ and $`=\{f𝒜f(1/2)=0\}`$. Then $`^{}=\{0\}`$. $`(g^{};g(t)t1/2=0.\text{Hence}g0`$ by continuity) Pythagoras’ equality stating $`\xi ,\eta `$ and $`\xi \eta `$ imply $`\xi +\eta ^2=\xi ^2+\eta ^2`$, does not hold, in general, for Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules. For example consider $`𝒜=C([0,1][2,3])`$ as a Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module,

$$f(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& x[0,1]\\ 0& x[2,3]\end{array}\text{ and }g(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0& x[0,1]\\ 1& x[2,3]\end{array}$$

Then

$$<f,g>=fg=0,f+g=1,\text{ and }f=g=1$$

###### Definition 2.8.

A closed submodule $``$ of a Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module $`𝒳`$ is topologically complementable if there is a closed submodule $`𝒢`$ such that $`+𝒢=𝒳`$ and $`𝒢=\{0\}`$. $``$ is called orthogonally complemented if we have the further condition $`𝒢`$.

Not every topologically complemented is orthogonally complemented as the following example shows.

###### Example 2.9.

Let $`𝒜=C([0,1]),J=\{f𝒜f(0)=0\}C_0((0,1])`$ and $`𝒳=𝒜J`$ as a Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module. If $`=\{(f,f)fJ\}`$, then $`^{}=\{(g,g)gJ\},+^{}=J+J𝒳`$ and $`𝒢=\{(f,0)f𝒜\}`$ is a topological complement for $``$.

## 3. Full Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules

Let $`𝒳`$ be a Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module and let $`\{e_\lambda \}`$ be an approximate unit for $`𝒜`$. For $`x,<xxe_\lambda ,xxe_\lambda >=<x,x>e_\lambda <x,x><x,x>e_\lambda +e_\lambda <x,x>e_\lambda \stackrel{\lambda }{}0`$ Hence $`lim_\lambda xe_\lambda =x`$. It follows that $`𝒳𝒜`$ which is defined to be the linear span of $`\{xax𝒳,a𝒜\}`$ is dense in $`𝒳`$ and if $`𝒜`$ is unital, then $`x.1=x`$. Clearly $`<𝒳,𝒳>=\text{ span}\{<x,y>x,y𝒳\}`$ is a $``$-bi-ideal of $`𝒜`$.

###### Definition 3.1.

If $`<𝒳,𝒳>`$ is dense in $`𝒜`$, then $`𝒳`$ is called full. For example $`𝒜`$ as an $`𝒜`$-module is full.

## 4. Adjoinable Maps between Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules

Suppose that $`𝒳`$ and $``$ are Hilbert $`𝒜`$-modules and

$$L(𝒳,)=\{t:𝒳t^{}:𝒳;<tx,y>=<x,t^{}y>\}$$

$`t`$ must be $`𝒜`$-linear, since $`<t(xa),y>=<xa,t^{}y>=a^{}<x,t^{}y>=a^{}<tx,y>=<(tx)a,y>`$ for all $`y`$. So $`<t(xa)(tx)a,y>=0`$ and hence $`<t(xa)(tx)a,t(xa)(tx)a>=0`$. It follows that $`t(xa)(tx)a=0`$ Similarly; $`t(\lambda x+y)=\lambda tx+ty`$ t must be bounded since For each $`x`$ in the unit ball of $`𝒳`$, define $`f_x:𝒜`$ by $`f_x(y)=<tx,y>=<x,t^{}y>`$. Then $`f_x(y)xt^{}yt^{}y`$. So $`\{f_x;x𝒳_1\}`$ is bounded. This and $`tx=\underset{y_1}{sup}<tx,y>=\underset{y_1}{sup}f_x(y)=f_x`$ show that t is bounded. $`L(𝒳,)`$ is called the space of adjointable maps and we put $`L(𝒳)=L(𝒳,𝒳)`$.

A bounded $`𝒜`$-linear map need not be adjointable:

###### Example 4.1.

Let $`=𝒜=C([0,1]),𝒳=\{f𝒜;f(1/2)=0\}`$ and $`i:𝒳,ff`$ be the inclusion map. If $`i`$ were adjointable and $`1`$ denote the identity element of $`𝒜`$, then for all $`x𝒳;<x,i^{}(1)>=<i(x),1>=<x,1>`$. Hence $`i^{}(1)=1.`$ But $`1`$ and so $`i`$ cannot be adjointable. (Collate this with Hilbert spaces.)

## 5. $`L(𝒳)`$ as a $`C^{}`$-algebra

If $`tL(𝒳,)`$, then $`t^{}L(,𝒳)`$. If $`𝒢`$ is a Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module and $`sL(,𝒢)`$, then $`stL(𝒳,𝒢)`$. Hence $`L(𝒳)`$ is a $``$-algebra. If $`t_nt`$ then

$`t_n^{}yt_m^{}y`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{x𝒳_1}{sup}<x,(t_n^{}t_m^{})y>`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{x𝒳_1}{sup}<(t_nt_m)x,y>`$
$``$ $`\underset{x𝒳_1}{sup}(t_nt_m)xy`$
$``$ $`t_nt_my.`$
It follows that $`\{t_n^{}y\}`$ converges to, say, $`sy`$. Hence

$$<tx,y>=\underset{n}{lim}<t_nx,y>=<x,\underset{n}{lim}t_n^{}y>=<x,sy>.$$

Thus $`tL(𝒳)`$. Thus $`L(𝒳)`$ is a closed subset of

$$B(𝒳)=\{T:𝒳𝒳T\text{ is  linear  and  bounded}\}.$$

Hence $`L(𝒳)`$ is a Banach algebra. Moreover,

$`t^2`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{x𝒳_1}{sup}tx^2`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{x𝒳_1}{sup}<tx,tx>`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{x𝒳_1}{sup}<t^{}tx,x>`$
$``$ $`t^{}t`$
$``$ $`t^{}t`$
$``$ $`t^2.`$
Hence $`t^2=t^{}t`$. Thus $`L(𝒳)`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra.

## 6. “Compact” operators

Let $`𝒳`$ and $``$ be Hilbert $`𝒜`$-modules. For $`x𝒳`$ and $`y`$ define $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{x,y}:𝒳`$ by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{x,y}(z)=x<y,z>`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{x,y}^{}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{y,x}\mathrm{\Theta }_{x,y}\mathrm{\Theta }_{u,v}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{x<y,u>,v},t\mathrm{\Theta }_{x,y}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{tx,y}`$. Let $`K(,𝒳)`$, the set of “compact” operators, be the closed linear span of $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }_{x,y}x𝒳,y\}`$. It is straightforward to show that $`K(𝒳)=K(,𝒳)`$ is a closed bi-ideal of $`L(𝒳)`$.

###### Example 6.1.

In the case $`𝒳=𝒜`$, we have $`K(𝒳)𝒜`$ given by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{a,b}ab^{}`$; cf. \[6, Page 10\]. If $`𝒜`$ is unital, then $`K(𝒜)=L(𝒜)`$. In fact if $`tL(𝒜)`$, then $`tx=t(1.x)=t(1)x=\mathrm{\Theta }_{t(1),1}(x)`$ and so $`t=\mathrm{\Theta }_{t(1),1}K(𝒜)`$. If $`𝒜`$ is not unital, $`K(𝒜)𝒜`$ and $`L(𝒜)M(𝒜)`$ , the multiplier of $`𝒜`$ , the maximal $`C^{}`$-algebra containing $`𝒜`$ as an essential ideal.

###### Theorem 6.2.

If $`𝒳`$ is a Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module, then $`M(K(𝒳))L(𝒳)`$; cf. \[11, Theorem 15.2.12\]

## 7. Dual of a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module

For a pre-Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module $`𝒳`$, let $`𝒳^\mathrm{\#}`$, the dual of $`𝒳`$, be the set of all bounded $`𝒜`$-linear maps $`𝒳`$ into $`𝒜`$. $`𝒳^\mathrm{\#}`$ is a linear space and a right $`𝒜`$-module under $`(\alpha +\beta )(x)=\alpha (x)+\beta (x),(\lambda \alpha )(x)=\lambda \alpha (x),(\alpha .a)(x)=a^{}\alpha (x),(a𝒜,\lambda ,x`$.

$`\psi :𝒳𝒳^\mathrm{\#},x\widehat{x}`$ , where $`\widehat{x}:𝒳𝒜,\widehat{x}(y)=<x,y>`$ is an isometric $`𝒜`$-linear map. Identify $`𝒳`$ with $`\widehat{𝒳}=\{\widehat{x};x𝒳\}`$ as an submodule of $`𝒳^\mathrm{\#}`$.

###### Problem 7.1.

Could $`<.,.>`$ on $`𝒳`$ be extended to an $`𝒜`$-valued inner product on $`𝒳^\mathrm{\#}`$? W. L. Paschke showed that it can be done if $`𝒜`$ is a von Neumann algebra .

## 8. Self-dual Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules

###### Definition 8.1.

$`𝒳`$ is called self dual if $`\widehat{𝒳}=𝒳^\mathrm{\#}`$.

###### Theorem 8.2.

$`𝒜`$ as a Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module is self-dual iff $`𝒜`$ is unital.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒜`$ be unital with unit $`1`$ and let $`t𝒜^\mathrm{\#}`$. Then for all $`a𝒜`$;

$$t(a)=t(1.a)=t(1).a=<t(1)^{},a>=(t(1)^{})^{}(a).$$

Hence $`t=(t(1)^{})^{}\widehat{𝒜}𝒜^\mathrm{\#}`$. If $`\widehat{𝒜}=𝒜^\mathrm{\#}`$ , then $`i:𝒜𝒜,i(x)=x`$ being bounded $`𝒜`$-linear is of the form $`\widehat{a}`$ for some $`a𝒜`$. Hence for all $`x𝒜,x=i(x)=\widehat{a}(x)=<a,x>=a^{}x`$. So $`a^{}`$ is the unit of $`𝒜.\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 8.3.

If $``$ is a self-dual closed $`𝒜`$-submodule of a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒳`$, then $``$ is orthogonally complementable.

###### Proof.

For each $`e𝒳`$ there exists some $`f`$ such that $`<e,.>=<f,.>`$ on $``$. So $`<ef,.>=0`$ on $``$. Hence $`ef^{}`$. Since $`e=(ef)+f`$, $``$ is orthogonally complementable. ∎

Saworotnow showed that every Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module over a finite dimensional $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ is self-dual . If $`𝒳`$ is a Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module and $`𝒜`$ is unital, definie $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}`$ to be the set of all bounded $`𝒜`$-module maps from $``$ to $`𝒜^{}`$. Clearly $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}`$ is right $`𝒜^{}`$-module. and the map $`x\widehat{x}`$ is an embedding of $`𝒳`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}`$. As Paschke demonstrate, there is an extension of the inner product of $`𝒳`$ to an $`𝒜^{}`$-valued inner product of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}`$ for which $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}^\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{𝒳}`$; . Thus every Hilbert module can be embedded in a self-dual Hilbert module.

## 9. $`C^{}`$-reflexivity

Denote by $`𝒳^{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\#}}`$ the $`𝒜`$\- module of all bounded $`𝒜`$\- module maps from $`𝒳^\mathrm{\#}`$ into $`𝒜`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the module map $`\mathrm{\Omega }:𝒳^{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\#}},\mathrm{\Omega }(x)(\tau )=\tau (x)^{};x𝒳,\tau 𝒳^\mathrm{\#}`$.

###### Definition 9.1.

A Hilbert $`𝒜`$\- module $`𝒳`$ is called $`C^{}`$-reflexive , if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a module isomorphism. In the Hilbert $`W^{}`$-module setting, $`C^{}`$-reflexivity is equivalent to the self-duality;

## 10. Riesz Theorem for Hilbert $`C^{}`$\- modules

Let $`𝒳`$ be a Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module and $`x𝒳`$.

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{a,z}(y)=a<z,y>=<za^{},y>=(za^{})^{}(y)()$$

and so $`\widehat{x}K(𝒳,𝒜)`$, whenever $`x`$ is of the form $`za^{}`$. Since $`𝒳𝒜`$ is dense in $`𝒳`$ for each $`x𝒳`$ there is a sequence $`\{x_n\}`$ in $`𝒳𝒜`$ such that $`\underset{n}{lim}x_n=x`$ . But $`𝒳L(,𝒜),x\widehat{x}`$ is comtinuous (isometry). Hence $`\widehat{x}=\underset{n}{lim}\widehat{x}_nK(𝒳,𝒜)`$, since $`K(𝒳,𝒜)`$ is closed in $`L(𝒳,𝒜)`$.

(\*) shows that every element of $`K(𝒳,𝒜)`$ is of the from $`\widehat{x}=<x,.>`$ for some $`x𝒳`$, a Riesz theorem for Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules.

## 11. Linking Algebra

Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{x,y}`$ be denoted by $`[x,y]`$. Suppose $`𝒳`$ is a Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module. Then $`[.,.]`$ is an $`L()`$-valued inner product on $`𝒳`$, for which $``$ becomes a left Hilbert $`L(𝒳)`$-module. A Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module $`𝒳`$ can be embedded into a certain $`C^{}`$-algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒳)`$:

Denote by $`=𝒳𝒜`$, the direct sum of Hilbert $`𝒜`$-modules $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒜`$. Recall $`<(x_1,a_1),(x_2,a_2)>=<x_1,x_2>+a_1^{}a_2`$. Identify each $`x𝒳`$ with $`𝒜,axa`$. The adjoint of this map is $`x^{}(y)=<x,y>`$, (indeed $`x^{}=\widehat{x}`$). Put

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒳)=\{\left[\begin{array}{cc}b& x\\ y^{}& a\end{array}\right]a𝒜,x,y𝒳,bL(𝒳)\}.$$

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒳)`$ is a $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $`L()`$, called the linking algebra of $`𝒳`$. Then $`𝒳\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 𝒳\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right],𝒜\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 𝒜\end{array}\right]`$ and $`L(𝒳)\left[\begin{array}{cc}L(𝒳)& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]`$. Furthermore,$`<x,y>`$ of $`𝒳`$ becomes the product $`x^{}y`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒳)`$ and the module multiplication $`\times 𝒜𝒳`$ becomes a part of the internal multiplication of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒳)`$. Suppose now that $`\pi :\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒳)B()`$ is a faithful representation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒳)`$. Then by restriction, $`\pi `$ gives maps $`\varphi =\pi _𝒜`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\pi _𝒳`$ such that $`\varphi (<x,y>)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x)^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(y)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(xa)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\varphi (a),(x,y𝒳,a𝒜)`$ Hence $`𝒳`$ can be isometrically embedded into $`B()`$ via $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Therefore $`𝒳`$ can be regarded as an operator space; i.e. a closed subspace of $`B()`$ for some Hilbert space $``$.


text:
# Multiplicity of Limit Cycle Attractors in Coupled Heteroclinic Cycles

## Abstract

A square lattice distribution of coupled oscillators that have heteroclinic cycle attractors is studied. In this system, we find a novel type of patterns that is spatially disordered and periodic in time. These patterns are limit cycle attractors in the ambient phase space (i.e. not chaotic) and many limit cycles exist dividing the phase space as their basins. The patterns are constructed with a local law of difference of phases between the oscillators. The number of patterns grows exponentially with increasing of the number of oscillators.

In the recent decades, coupled oscillators have attracted much attention. They are adopted as models for rhythmic or chaotic behaver of biological and other complex systems. Moreover, coupled oscillators themselves are thought as the important classes to investigate in high dimensional dynamical systems. For the analytical simplicity, limit cycles of a normal form type or phase oscillators have been frequently studied to replace detailed dynamics. While they have led to much development in understanding of high dimensional dynamical systems, there still remains rich phenomena that cannot be described with such typical oscillators.

Now, we present a new class of coupled oscillators in which each oscillator has a heteroclinic cycle attractor instead of a limit cycle or a phase oscillator. Being different from those typical oscillators, an oscillator with a heteroclinic cycle attractor has no characteristic time scale by the following reason. A heteroclinic cycle is constructed with some saddle fixed points and heteroclinic orbits that connect the fixed points cyclically. When an orbit approaches to a heteroclinic cycle attractor, it stays long in the neighborhood of fixed points and moves along with heteroclinic orbits quickly. The length of the staying time grows exponentially for each oscillation while the moving speed between fixed points has little change. Then the period of oscillation gets exponentially longer and the system has no characteristic time scale. This property of heteroclinic cycles can bring quite complex structures such as the coexistence of infinitely many attractors. Comparing with other oscillators with natural frequencies, this class of systems will give another plentiful phenomena and make our understandings of high dimensional dynamical systems richer.

In a general dynamical systems, heteroclinic cycles are always structurally unstable. However, if a system has certain constraints or symmetries, they can make invariant sets in the phase space and a robust heteroclinic cycle can exist in the invariant sets. As a system with such constraints, we adopt a replicator system for each oscillator, given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx_i}{dt}}=x_i({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}a_{ij}x_j{\displaystyle \underset{j,k=1}{\overset{4}{}}}a_{jk}x_jx_k),i=1,\mathrm{},4`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}x_i=1,0x_i1`$ (2)
with the parameter matrix

$`\left(a_{ij}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 2& 1& 1\\ 1& 0& 2& 1\\ 1& 1& 0& 2\\ 2& 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (7)
With the constraints (2), the phase space of the replicator system with 4 components is restricted in a tetrahedron with $`𝒙=(1,0,0,0),(0,1,0,0),(0,0,1,0),(0,0,0,1)`$ for the vertices(Fig.1). Vertices, edges ($`\left\{𝒙\right|x_i+x_j=1,x_k=x_l=0\}`$) and surfaces ($`\left\{𝒙\right|x_i+x_j+x_k=1,x_l=0\}`$) of the tetrahedron become invariant sets. In particular, vertices are always fixed points with any parameter matrix. Using the parameter matrix (7), an attracting heteroclinic cycle is constructed with the 4 vertices as saddle fixed points and the cyclically connecting edges as heteroclinic orbits(Fig.1).

In our model, the replicator systems are distributed on a square lattice and coupled between nearest neighbors diffusively. The equations are given as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx_i}{dt}}^{(u,v)}`$ $`=`$ $`x_i^{(u,v)}({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}a_{ij}x_j^{(u,v)}{\displaystyle \underset{j,k=1}{\overset{4}{}}}a_{jk}x_j^{(u,v)}x_k^{(u,v)})`$
$`+`$ $`D\left(x_i^{(u1,v)}+x_i^{(u,v1)}+x_i^{(u+1,v)}+x_i^{(u,v+1)}4x_i^{(u,v)}\right),`$
$`i=1,\mathrm{},4.`$
where $`(u,v)`$ is a site index that stands for a location of an oscillator and $`D`$ is a diffusion constant between adjoining sites. Free boundary condition is employed. Since there is no non-diagonal diffusion term in the coupling method and the diffusion constant of each component has the same positive value, the spatially uniform oscillation never become unstable.

A replicator system is a model for a ecological system or a chemical reaction network of self-catalyzing molecules. Therefore the situation of our system can occur in a spotted ecological system with diffusion (ex. a system on trees of an orchard) or a population dynamics of self-catalyzing proteins in cells.

Before we state our main results for a system on 2-dimensional arrays we mention briefly about our preliminary results on systems with 1-dimensional lattices for comparison. If we choose free boundary condition for 1-dimensional systems (number of oscillators $`2`$) all replicators are synchronized and only the spatially uniform oscillation become the attractor. Since all replicators are not chaotic and we choose the simple diffusive coupling as the interactions between oscillators mentioned above, this result is easily acceptable. If a system has periodic boundary (number of oscillators $`3`$) with a certain small diffusion constant, traveling waves as well as the spatially uniform oscillation become attractors.

In this letter, we report the discovery of a novel class of patterns that are spatially disordered but periodic in time (Fig.2,3). From different initial conditions, a large variety of patterns are observed (Fig.2). Fig.3 shows that these disordered patterns are stable limit cycle attractors in the ambient phase space. Hence, these patterns are exactly recurrent and not chaotic. The different patterns correspond to the different limit cycles and they divide the phase space as their basins. After a system approaches sufficiently close to an attractor, frequency of each oscillator synchronizes with the limit cycle(Fig.3). This means that the frequencies of all oscillators are entrained while the phases of oscillations keep difference. The disordered patterns are observed in the weak coupling range ($`D0.01`$), while rotating spiral patterns of a well known type are seen with a certain large diffusion constant ($`D0.1`$).

To Understand the structures of the disordered patterns, we note the local phase differences among oscillators. One can project the phase space of each replicator system on a 2-dimensional plane ($`\alpha `$-$`\beta `$ plane),

$`\begin{array}{c}\alpha ^{(u,v)}=x_1^{(u,v)}x_3^{(u,v)}\hfill \\ \beta ^{(u,v)}=x_2^{(u,v)}x_4^{(u,v)}\hfill \end{array}.`$ (11)
The vertices are projected on $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(1,0),(0,1),(1,0),(0,1)`$ respectively. We plot orbit-points ($`𝒙^{(u,v)}(t)`$) of all oscillators on the $`\alpha `$-$`\beta `$ plane and connect between coupled oscillators with lines.

Typical snapshots after systems approach sufficiently close to attractors are shown in Fig.4. Comparing with Fig.4-a with a large $`D`$ , Fig.4-b displays 2 features as local laws among oscillators. First, all orbit-points stay close to the heteroclinic cycle. Second, distances between coupling lines and the origin of the $`\alpha `$-$`\beta `$ plane are not smaller than a certain positive value. They are observed in every single step of numerical integrations. Therefore, the relation on locations of orbit-points for every two neighboring oscillators never become anti-phase. Considering these features, we conclude that the orbit-point arrangement of every set of the 4 oscillators that makes a unit square of the lattice (represented by dual-lattice point) is classified into 2 types; orbit-points of 4 oscillators surround the center (type-A) or not (type-B). Fig.5 shows configurations of the types.

To investigate the difference of the types in detail, let us consider a system within $`2\times 2`$ oscillators as the simplest case. This system is thought as a system with 4 oscillators on 1-dimensional periodic array. Therefore, the situation of type-A corresponds to the traveling wave solution. It is an attractor when the diffusion constant is smaller than about 0.01. Because phases of oscillators are different from each other, the diffusion effect prevents the orbit-points approaching to the heteroclinic cycle and the system keeps an uniform frequency. In contrast, if the system is arranged in type-B as the initial condition, oscillators are synchronized each other and the uniform oscillation approaches to the heteroclinic cycle. Therefore this system need to be arranged as type-A for the oscillation with an uniform frequency.

Returning to consider a large system, we note only on the type-As which generate oscillation with an uniform frequency. In such system, the type-As distributed on dual-lattice points can be regarded as another type of vortices whose properties are different from those of the spiral pattern in Fig.4-a. Therefore the disordered patterns are understood as coexistences of many vortices and the distributions of vortices on dual-lattice points would be important on characterization of the patterns.

To make our characterization of the patterns clearer and more systematic, we note another property of this system. As mentioned above, the diffusion effect keep orbit-points from approaching to heteroclinic cycle. Thus smaller diffusion constant makes orbit-points stay closer to the heteroclinic cycle and longer in neighborhoods of fixed points. Therefore, the time in a orbit-point passing along with a heteroclinic orbit become negligible and we see all orbit-points stay neighborhoods of the fixed points in typical snap-shots. With such small diffusion constant, we can systematically generate all possible snap-shots as initial conditions by choosing all orbit-points of replicators in neighborhoods of any fixed points.

Now, we choose the procedure for algorithmic generation of possible patterns as follows (i) distribute vortices (type-As) on the dual-lattice points without conflicts, (ii) select a initial condition orbit-points of oscillators from neighborhoods of 4 fixed points to satisfy condition (i). We check all possible patterns for $`3\times 3`$ and $`4\times 4`$ oscillators systems numerically and find that every candidate which satisfies condition (i) have at least one corresponding attractor and most of them have only one attractor. It means that almost all patterns are uniquely characterized by the distributions of vortices. Therefore we can estimate the number of attracting patterns with condition (i). Fig.6 shows the estimate that is algorithmically counted by computer. Since the condition (i) is a combination problem, the number of patterns grows exponentially with the increase of the number of oscillators.

In this letter, we have reported spatially disordered oscillating patterns in the coupled heteroclinic cycles. They have been shown periodic in time and not chaotic. The local law of differences of oscillators in the patterns and the estimation of the number of stable patterns have been also reported. In our forthcoming paper, we will analyze periods and stability of the patterns in detail.

Remarkable point of this system is that there is no obvious effect for violations from spatially uniform oscillation such as chaotic nature of each oscillator, variety of frequencies or anomalous coupling. Therefore the uniform oscillation is always an attractor. Nevertheless, disordered patterns can exist as coexistence of vortices which structure is different from the well-known spiral pattern. This type of disordered oscillating patterns has not been found in any other coupled oscillators. However, other types of spatially disordered stable patterns have been reported in some class of dynamical systems. The relations among these patterns and ours will be discussed in the paper.

I would like to thank T. Konishi, H. Yamada, and S. Sasa for discussions and useful advises.