text:
# Crossover from Diffusive to Ballistic Transport in Periodic Quantum Maps

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that the quantum properties of classically chaotic systems differ considerably from their classical versions . The quantum dynamics of a classically chaotic system with a finite number of degrees of freedom is considerably more regular than its classical counterpart, as indicated by the structures developed by Wigner distributions in phase space for simple systems, and the fact that almost all definitions of the quantum mechanical version of the Kolmogorov-Sinai rate of entropy production give the value zero for finite quantum systems that are classically chaotic with positive Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy . Furthermore, it is often difficult to describe the behavior of quantum systems for both long times and for small values of Planck’s constant, i.e. in the semi-classical regime. This difficulty is related to the fact that the long time limit and the limit of small Planck constant do not commute, in addition to analytical problems that often make explicit solutions of the equations for quantum systems difficult. Therefore it is of some interest to study simple models where both the quantum and classical properties are accessible to analytic and simple numerical studies, and where the two limits can be studied in detail. One example is the baker map. The classical version of this map is tractable analytically , and the quantum version is less so , but easily studied using numerical methods.

It is even more challenging to study transport problems in detail. In recent years some attention has been devoted to connecting macroscopic transport properties with microscopic chaos, see e.g.  and other contributions to this volume. We find it of interest to study the quantum signatures of these relations and look for their appearance in the semi-classical regime. To gain intuition about the change in the character of transport properties from quantum to classical regime a convenient system to study is the uniform, periodic multi-baker map. Our interest in this map is stimulated by the fact that the classical version is a chaotic system with transport, in this case, diffusion, so it provides a model where one can study transport in the context of chaotic dynamics.

Both the classical  and quantum  versions of the multi-baker map are based upon the baker map, which in its classical version is an area preserving, expanding and contracting transformation of the 2-torus onto itself. The multi-baker map is obtained by considering a two dimensional strip of unit height in the $`y`$-direction and a segment of the real $`x`$-axis, either of infinite length in both directions or of finite length with specified boundary conditions . The multi-baker transformation is a combination of the baker map with a translation of points in each unit interval to corresponding points in the nearest intervals to the right or left according to a well defined prescription, to be given below. The quantum versions of these maps are obtained by means of a simple quantization where the $`x`$-axis is taken to correspond to position space, and the $`y`$-direction is taken to correspond to momentum space . The quantum mechanics is obtained by requiring that there be an integral number of quantum states in a unit interval, and that the time development of these states correspond to the expanding and contracting properties of the classical map. Balazs and Voros , and Saraceno  were able to show that these requirements can be satisfied by means of a unitary operation on the quantum states, provided Planck’s constant is taken to be the inverse of the number of quantum states in the unit square. Our work has been devoted to extending this quantum baker map to a quantum multi-baker map and examining the transport properties of this quantum map . Other quantizations of multibaker maps as well as the Kapral-Elskens coupled baker model have been studied in

In this paper we focus on the calculation of the mean square displacement (MSD) of a particle whose dynamics is described by a quantum multi-baker map. This quantity is of importance for the description of the average motion of a particle, since the time dependence of this quantity can distinguish between sub-diffusive, diffusive, and super-diffusive motion. A particular example of super-diffusive motion is, of course, ballistic motion characteristic of the motion of a free particle.

In the classical multi-baker, the MSD grows linearly in time, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2=t`$, characteristic of diffusion, for all times greater than some microscopic time. The quantum version shows an asymptotic ballistic, $`t^2`$, growth for what we will call uniform maps, which are translationally invariant. This is essentially the same as one finds in models of electron transport in periodic solids, such as the Krönig-Penney model . One can find examples of non-translationally invariant multi-bakers where the particle is localized with no asymptotic growth of the MSD with time. Here we consider only translationally invariant models, and leave the large class of non-translationally invariant models for future work.

The classical multi-baker map  is a simple model for deterministic diffusion along a one-dimensional lattice. It can easily be constructed to be isomorphic to a random walk with any given probabilities for jumping to the right and to the left along the lattice. The quantum multi-baker map  is also an example of a random walk, but in this case, the walk is quantum mechanical and has very different properties from the classical map due to the interference of probability amplitudes for possible paths. The subject of quantum random walks has developed a literature over the past few years. Here we will also discuss the connection of the quantum multi-baker with other models of quantum walks. We mention now that most of the previous studies by other authors have been devoted to the so-called Hadamard walk , which is a special case of the quantum multi-baker for the largest allowed value of Planck’s constant. Thus the multi-baker map studied here represents a generalization of the Hadamard walk to all allowed values of Planck’s constant.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In Section 2 we present the basic equations defining the quantum multi-baker map and compare it to the classical version. In Section 3 we discuss the MSD for the quantum map, and in Section 4 show how random matrix theory may be used to evaluate the MSD for small values of Planck’s constant, leaving some technical details for a longer paper . In Section 5 we compare the results of random matrix theory with numerical studies of the map, which shows that random matrix theory is quite effective in reproducing the numerical results and in providing an expression showing the crossover from diffusive to ballistic motion for fixed, non-zero values of Planck’s constant as the time becomes large. In Section 6 we discuss the connection between the multi-baker map and other models of quantum random walks. We conclude with a summary of results, and a discussion of the possible implications and extensions of this work.

## 2 The quantum multi-baker map

We begin with the classical multi-baker map . It is a two-dimensional lattice system where the phase space at each lattice site is a square and the dynamics is a combination of transport of the phase space densities to neighboring cells, which models the free flight, followed by a local baker map evolution within a square, which models a collision with a fixed scatterer. That is, the multi-baker map, $`M`$, is a composition of two maps $`M=BT`$: transport, $`T`$, of phase points to neighboring cells, given by

$$T(n,x,y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(n+1,x,y),\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}x<1/2,\hfill \\ (n1,x,y),\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/2x<1,\hfill \end{array}$$

and the baker map, $`B`$, which acts on the $`x,y`$ coordinates of each cell, $`n`$, separately, according to

$$B(n,x,y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(n,2x,y/2),\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}x<1/2,\hfill \\ (n,2x1,(1+y)/2),\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/2x<1.\hfill \end{array}$$

The combination of these two maps is the multi-baker map which is a time-reversible, measure preserving, chaotic transformation, with evolution law

$$M(n,x,y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(n+1,2x,y/2),\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}x<1/2,\hfill \\ (n1,2x1,(1+y)/2),\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/2x<1.\hfill \end{array}$$

As mentioned above, this classical map represents a simple area-preserving model of simple random walk. It can also be considered a simplified Bernoulli map for the motion of light weakly interacting particles in a gas of heavy scatterers on regular lattice (periodic Lorentz gas).

The quantization of the multi-baker map is based upon the known quantization of the baker map on the unit square, carried out by Balazs and Voros, and by Saraceno . We form the quantum multi-baker by transporting some of the quantum states to the next cell on the right and the others to the next cell on the left, based upon the way the transformed points are moved to neighboring cells in the classical multi-baker, and then model the scattering by the quantum baker map $`B`$ acting in every single cell.

To quantize the baker map, we regard the horizontal direction of the torus $`[0,1)^2`$ as the position axis, while vertical axis corresponds to the momentum direction. To obtain the Hilbert space we take the subspace of the wave functions on a line whose probability densities, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(x)|^2,|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(p)|^2`$ are periodic in both position and momentum representations, respectively: $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x+1)=\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi \phi _q)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(p+1)=\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi \phi _p)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(p)`$, where $`\phi _q,\phi _p[0,1)`$ are phases parameterizing quantization. The quantization of the baker map requires the phase space volume to be an integer multiple of the quantum of action . Therefore the effective Planck constant is $`h=1/N`$, for a baker map on a unit torus, where $`N`$, an integer, is the dimension of the Hilbert space. The space and momentum representations are connected by a discrete Fourier transform $`p_k|q_l=[G_N(\phi _q,\phi _p)]_{k,l}:=N^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi Np_kq_l)`$. The discrete positions and momenta are $`q_l=(l+\phi _q)/N`$, $`p_k=(k+\phi _p)/N`$, respectively. We take $`N`$ to be an even integer and label the quantum states in coordinate space by $`j`$, where $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$. The states $`j=0,\mathrm{}N/21`$ are called the “left” states, with collective wave function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$, while the remaining states, $`j=N/2,\mathrm{},N1`$ are called the “right” states, with wave function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$. One may think of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{R,L}`$ as $`N/2`$ component vectors.

Having constructed the Hilbert space, one looks for a family of unitary propagators parameterized by $`N=1/h`$ which approach the classical map in semi-classical limit. The quantum baker map  is then given by a combination of two operations. The first operation takes the $`N/2`$ “left” states into momentum states labeled $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},N/21`$, called “bottom” momentum states, by means of the $`N/2\times N/2`$ Fourier transform matrix $`G_{N/2}(\phi _q,\phi _p)`$. The “right” coordinate states are transformed to “top” momentum states in the same way. Now one has transformed $`N`$ spatial states into $`N`$ momentum states in a way that mimics the classical baker’s map. The final step is to express the $`N`$ new states in coordinate representation by means of the $`N\times N`$ matrix, $`G_N^1`$, which takes $`N`$ states in the momentum representation to their coordinate representation. The full baker transformation, $`𝐁`$, on the torus is then given by the unitary transformation

$$𝐁:=G_N^1\left[\begin{array}{cc}G_{N/2}& 0\\ 0& G_{N/2}\end{array}\right]$$
(1)
for even $`N`$. Other examples and discussions of issues concerning the quantization of area-preserving maps can be found for instance in .

Using this transformation as a template we can easily express the quantum multi-baker map as a transformation of right and left quantum states in unit squares labeled by $`n\pm 1`$ to right and left states in the unit square labeled by $`n`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{R,L}(n)`$. That is, in the position representation the evolution of the wave function in the quantum multi-baker is given by the equations111Note that the construction we use here differs slightly from the one we studied in our previous work . We change it to make the construction consistent with the general picture that we now have as well as to make model clearer. The properties of the two versions of random model should be the same, and the periodic model is unaffected.

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_L(n,t+1)\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_R(n,t+1)\end{array}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`G_N^1(n)\left[\begin{array}{cc}G_{N/2}(n)& 0\\ 0& G_{N/2}(n)\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_L(n1,t)\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_R(n+1,t)\end{array}\right]`$ (8)
where $`G_N(n)`$ is the discrete Fourier transform

$$(G_N(n))_{kj}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}e^{2\pi i(k+\phi _p(n))(j+\phi _q(n))/N}.$$
(9)
In principle, the Fourier transformation matrix $`G_N(n)`$ can depend upon the cell index $`n`$. Here we will consider the case where this matrix is independent of the cell index, so that the system of equations is translationally invariant from cell to cell. We restrict our attention here to finite systems of length $`L`$ with periodic boundary conditions. This condition induces Bloch states and an eventual ballistic motion of particles through the chain. We associate $`L`$-dimensional Hilbert space with the lattice, and since the internal space is $`^N`$, the Hilbert space of the system is the tensor product $`^L^N`$. We will work with the basis defined by $`|n,\pm ,i`$, where $`n`$ is the lattice site, $`\pm `$ denotes left/right half of the square, and $`i=0,\mathrm{},N/21`$ denotes the state in given half in the position representation. Since the states associated with the left half of the cell go one step to the right we write $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$, accordingly $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$. Then the general wave function for the multi-baker chain can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{n}{}\underset{\epsilon =\pm }{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\epsilon (n),$$
(10)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\epsilon (n):=P_\epsilon (n)|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`P_\epsilon (n):=_i|n,\epsilon ,in,\epsilon ,i|`$ is orthogonal projection of the state vector onto the “left” or “right” subspace at site $`n`$. Thus the inner product takes form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Psi }:=\underset{n}{}\underset{\epsilon =\pm }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon (n)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\epsilon (n).$$
(11)
We may think of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\epsilon (n)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\epsilon (n)|`$ as corresponding to $`N/2`$-component column and row vectors, respectively, while $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ corresponds to an $`NL`$-component vector. Since we work mostly in position basis, we use $`N/2`$ dimensional vectors $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\epsilon (n)`$, whose $`i`$-th components are $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm (n,i)=n,\pm ,i|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, where the index $`n`$ denotes the lattice site of the cell under consideration, as above, the notation $`\pm `$ denotes the particular half of the unit square under consideration, the left half indicated by $`+`$ moves to the cell to the right, and the right half, denoted by $``$, moves to the cell to the left. The index $`i`$ denotes a particular quantum state in the right or left half of the unit cell, specified by $`\pm `$ and $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},N/21.`$ The action of the quantum multi-baker map on the total wave function will be written as the action of an operator $`𝐌`$ defined by Eq. (8), as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=𝐌|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(12)
The operator $`𝐌`$ is the Floquet operator for the multi-baker map and will be used to determine the time dependence of various observables for this system, as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(t)=𝐌^t\mathrm{\Omega }𝐌^t,$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is any observable of the system.

The complete specification of the model requires values for the phases $`\phi _q,\phi _p`$. There is a considerable amount of freedom for choosing these phases. As mentioned above, one may choose them to vary from cell to cell. A random variation of phases from cell to cell produces a disordered multi-baker map, while requiring that the phases have constant values throughout the lattice produces a regular, or uniform multi-baker map which is translationally invariant from one cell to the next. Many other choices are possible and can be of interest. Here we consider only the translationally invariant case. In numerical calculations we use the values for the phases chosen by Balazs and Voros  with $`\phi _q=\phi _p=0`$; those used by Saraceno  $`\phi _q=\phi _p=1/2`$, which lead to survival of additional classical symmetry in the model, as well as more generic values. We will see below that the Saraceno phases lead to a non-generic behavior for the MSD.

Let us consider now the structure of eigenstates of the unitary operator $`𝐌`$. Since we consider periodic boundary conditions every eigenstate corresponding to the eigenvalue $`\lambda =e^{i\kappa }`$ has a Bloch form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,\pm )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\kappa n)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\pm /\sqrt{L}`$ (14)
where $`\left[\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_+\\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{}\end{array}\right]`$ is the normalized eigenstate of a modified quantum baker operator

$$G_N^1\left[\begin{array}{cc}G_{N/2}e^{i\kappa }& 0\\ 0& G_{N/2}e^{i\kappa }\end{array}\right].$$
(15)
Periodic boundary conditions imply $`e^{i\kappa L}=1`$, thus we have $`\kappa _k=2\pi k/L,k=0,1,\mathrm{},L1`$. For every $`\kappa _k`$ we have $`N`$ eigenstates. We will enumerate the eigenstates of $`M`$ by $`k,n`$, with $`n=0,\mathrm{},N1`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n^k`$ is the eigenstate given by the ansatz (14) with $`\kappa _k=2\pi k/L`$, corresponding to the eigenvalue $`e^{i\phi _n^k}`$, where phases $`\phi _n^k`$ are counted for a given $`k`$ from 0 (including) to $`2\pi `$, i.e. $`0\phi _n^k\phi _{n+1}^k<2\pi `$.

## 3 The mean square displacement (MSD) in the uniform multi-baker map

In order to formulate our calculation of the MSD for the uniform multi-baker map in the most convenient way, we introduce two operators, $`r,v`$, which represent a coarse position operator and a coarse velocity operator, respectively. These operators are coarse in the sense that $`r`$ simply gives the lattice site associated with a particular quantum state, and the coarse grained velocity $`v`$ is given by $`v=𝐌^{}r𝐌r`$. We argue elsewhere , that for a translationally invariant system $`v`$ has a very simple form with values $`\pm 1`$, given by the change in cell index for each quantum state. Thus

$`r|n,\pm ,i`$ $`=`$ $`n|n,\pm ,i`$
$`v|n,\pm ,i`$ $`=`$ $`\pm |n,\pm ,i,`$ (16)
so that explicit expressions for the operators $`r,v`$ are

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,\epsilon ,i}{}}n|n,\epsilon ,in,i,\epsilon |,`$
$`v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,\epsilon ,i}{}}\epsilon |n,\epsilon ,in,\epsilon ,i|.`$ (17)
Suppose we prepare the system in a pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Then the mean square displacement of the particle starting in this state is given by

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)_\mathrm{\Psi }=(𝐌^tr𝐌^tr)^2_\mathrm{\Psi }=({\displaystyle \underset{\tau =0}{\overset{t1}{}}}v_\tau )^2_\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \underset{\tau _1,\tau _2=0}{\overset{t1}{}}}v_{\tau _1}v_{\tau _2}_\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (18)
where $`A_\mathrm{\Psi }:=\mathrm{\Psi }|A|\mathrm{\Psi }=\text{Tr}(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|A)`$. Depending on the original state we have a distribution of possible results. To characterize it we can calculate its average over all the possible initial states, and the root mean square deviation from the average, which quantifies the spread of the results, or the quality of the prediction based on the average. In this Section we find the expressions for both the equilibrium MSD as well as for the equilibrium fluctuations of this function. In the next section we approximate the average results using random matrix theory, and then we compare them with numerical evaluation of the exact formulas.

Since the average over all the possible pure states gives the most incoherent mixture, we obtain a simple expression for the equilibrium MSD as

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)={\displaystyle \underset{\tau _1,\tau _2=0}{\overset{t1}{}}}v_{\tau _1}v_{\tau _2},`$ (19)
where

$$A:=\text{Tr}(\varrho _{\mathrm{eq}}A)=\frac{1}{LN}\text{Tr}(A),$$
(20)
$`L`$ is the length of the chain (assume periodic boundary conditions), and $`N`$ is the dimension of the Hilbert space for a single cell. Clearly, $`\varrho _{\mathrm{eq}}=1_{NL}/(LN)`$ is the equilibrium state for all the QMB, that is, it is time invariant

$$𝐌\varrho _{\mathrm{eq}}𝐌^{}=\varrho _{\mathrm{eq}}$$
(21)
and it maximizes the entropy $`S=\text{Tr}(\varrho \mathrm{ln}\varrho )`$. Time invariance implies that the velocity autocorrelation function

$$C_{\tau _1,\tau _2}:=v_{\tau _1}v_{\tau _2}=𝐌^{\tau _1}v𝐌^{\tau _1}𝐌^{\tau _2}v𝐌^{\tau _2}$$
(22)
satisfies $`C_{\tau _1,\tau _2}=C_{\tau _1\tau _2,0}=C_{0,\tau _1\tau _2}C_{\tau _1\tau _2}.`$ Thus we can write

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\tau =0}{\overset{t1}{}}}C_0+2{\displaystyle \underset{\tau _1>\tau _2=0}{\overset{t1}{}}}C_{\tau _1\tau _2}=C_0t+2{\displaystyle \underset{\tau =1}{\overset{t1}{}}}(t\tau )C_\tau .`$ (23)
This leads to a Green-Kubo like formula for the diffusion coefficient

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_0+{\displaystyle \underset{\tau =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_\tau ={\displaystyle \underset{\tau =0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_0,`$
paralleling the classical case. However, here the diffusion coefficient turns out to be infinite.

Thus the MSD is written as the sum of time correlations of the velocity, just as in the classical case, but the difference in mechanics will lead to important differences in the time development of the MSD.

The translational invariance of the system, together with the uniform equilibrium density, imply that instead of summing over all the $`N`$ quantum states in the $`L`$ cells, we can sum only over the $`N`$ quantum states in one cell, see Ref. . Thus we can write

$`C_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{LN}}\text{Tr}[𝐌^\tau v𝐌^\tau v]`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,\epsilon =\pm }{}}n=0,\epsilon ,i|𝐌^\tau v𝐌^\tau v|n=0,\epsilon ,i`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,\epsilon =\pm }{}}\epsilon n=0,\epsilon ,i|𝐌^\tau v𝐌^\tau |n=0,\epsilon ,i.`$
Thus we have to sum, with appropriate signs, over all the possible cyclic paths starting in a fixed cell. The next simplification provided by the translational invariance of the model is that we can replace the unitary operator $`𝐌`$ for the full multi-baker in Eq. (24) by the operator $`𝐁`$ acting within a unit cell. This replacement follows from the observation that the velocity operator is diagonal in the representation based on the states in the cells, with a block structure that is identical from one cell to the next 222This would not be the case for the disordered multi-baker maps where the quantization phases vary from one cell to the next.. Therefore, the velocity operator at time step $`t`$ takes on the same value in all of quantum states that are periodic images of any state in a fixed cell. Thus we can express the velocity correlation function, $`C_\tau `$, as

$$C_\tau =\frac{1}{N}\text{Tr}[𝐁^\tau \mathrm{𝐉𝐁}^\tau 𝐉]$$
(25)
where the matrix $`𝐉`$ is the velocity operator restricted to a single cell, in position representation given by

$$𝐉=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1_{N/2}& 0\\ 0& 1_{N/2}\end{array}\right].$$
(26)
Here $`1_{N/2}`$ is the $`N/2\times N/2`$ unit operator.

To proceed further we must now use specific properties of the quantum baker map $`𝐁`$, and in particular, its spectral properties. Since $`𝐁`$ is a unitary operator, its eigenvalues lie on the unit circle and define a set of $`N`$ phases, $`\phi _j`$ or quasi-energies. We will denote the corresponding eigenstates by the Dirac kets $`|j`$. Thus the spectral problem for the operator $`𝐁`$ is

$$𝐁|j=e^{i\phi _j}|j.$$
(27)
Then we can express the velocity correlation function $`C_\tau `$ as

$`C_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}e^{i\phi _k\tau }k|𝐉|je^{i\phi _j\tau }j|𝐉|k`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}|𝐉_{jk}|^2e^{i(\phi _j\phi _k)\tau }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}[{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|𝐉_{jj}|^2+2{\displaystyle \underset{j>k}{}}|𝐉_{jk}|^2\mathrm{cos}(\phi _j\phi _k)\tau ].`$
The matrix elements of $`𝐉`$ satisfy

$$\underset{j,k}{}|𝐉_{jk}|^2=\text{Tr}𝐉^2=N=\underset{j}{}|𝐉_{jj}|^2+\underset{j>k}{}2|𝐉_{jk}|^2.$$
(29)
Therefore

$`C_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left[N+{\displaystyle \underset{j>k}{}}|𝐉_{jk}|^2(e^{i(\phi _j\phi _k)\tau }+e^{i(\phi _j\phi _k)\tau }2)\right]`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j>k}{}}|𝐉_{jk}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\phi _j\phi _k)\tau }{2}}`$
We can now substitute these results into Eq. (23) for the mean square displacement to obtain

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`t+{\displaystyle \underset{\tau =1}{\overset{t1}{}}}(t\tau )C_\tau `$ (31)
$`=`$ $`t+t(t1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|𝐉_{jj}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j>k}{}}|𝐉_{jk}|^2{\displaystyle \underset{\tau =1}{\overset{t1}{}}}\tau \mathrm{}e^{i(\phi _j\phi _k)(t\tau )}`$
The last expression is particularly useful for averaging and will be used in the next section.

The sums over the intermediate times $`\tau `$ in Eq. (31) can easily be carried out. We assume now that there is no degeneracy in the spectrum of quasi-energies and, after some algebra, we obtain an expression for the MSD as

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`t^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|𝐉_{jj}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j>k}{}}|𝐉_{jk}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{(\phi _j\phi _k)t}{2}}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\phi _j\phi _k}{2}}}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}|𝐉_{jk}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{(\phi _j\phi _k)t}{2}}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\phi _j\phi _k}{2}}}.`$ (33)
Whenever two eigenphases $`\phi _j,\phi _k`$ are equal, the contribution to the sum $`\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{(\phi _j\phi _k)t}{2}}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\phi _j\phi _k}{2}}`$ must be replaced by $`t^2`$.

We see that there is typically a ballistic contribution coming from diagonal and possibly some degenerate terms. The other contributions are oscillatory and usually negligible in the long time limit. It can happen, however, that the ballistic contribution disappears altogether and we have only oscillations which means that the particle is localized. An example is provided in Section 5 and an explanation in more general context is given in the final Section. It is interesting, that the obtained result is completely independent of the length of the system. This is not true for the fluctuations of the MSD.

It is not easy to evaluate this expression, Eq. (33), analytically. Therefore in section 4 we present an approximation based on the random matrix theory, and in Section 5 we evaluate it numerically for some particular choices of parameters, and compare it with the RMT averages.

### 3.1 Fluctuations in the MSD

We have computed the MSD as an equilibrium average where all eigenstates have the same weight. One might ask about the dependence of the average square displacement for an individual quantum state. In order to say something about the fluctuations of the average square displacement from one state to the next, we now consider, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Psi }r^2(t)`$ the average square displacement for the quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Psi }r^2(t)=\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Delta }r^2(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. We will try to characterize the fluctuations of the square displacement among various quantum states by calculating, in so far as it is possible, the mean square fluctuation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Psi }r^2(t)`$, which we denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(t)`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2(t)=\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Psi }r^2(t)\mathrm{\Delta }r^2(t)\right]^2_\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(34)
The average $`A(\mathrm{\Psi })_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is defined as follows: if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$ is an arbitrary orthonormal basis and $`b_\alpha :=\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are the complex coefficients of expansion of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in this basis then

$$A(\mathrm{\Psi })_\mathrm{\Psi }:=\frac{d^2b_1\mathrm{}d^2b_{LN}\delta (1_{\alpha =1}^{NL}|b_\alpha |^2)A(\mathrm{\Psi })}{d^2b_1\mathrm{}d^2b_{LN}\delta (1_{\alpha =1}^{NL}|b_\alpha |^2)}=\frac{𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{2LN}A(\mathrm{\Psi })}{𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{2LN}}.$$
(35)
Thus it is an average over $`2LN`$-dimensional sphere.

Before we calculate the right hand side of Eq. (34), we note that the equilibrium mean square displacement can be written in a very similar way as an average over the space of all the states

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }r(t))^2(t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Psi }r^2(t)_\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(36)
Indeed, using Eq. (35) we obtain

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }r(t))^2(t)=\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}b_\alpha ^{}b_\beta \psi _\alpha |\mathrm{\Delta }r^2(t)|\psi _\beta $$
(37)
Only contributions from $`\alpha =\beta `$ survive due to phase averaging, and the diagonal terms carry the same contribution, therefore $`b_\alpha ^{}b_\beta _\mathrm{\Psi }=\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }/(NL).`$ If we insert this relation into the right hand side of Eq. (37), we recover Eq. (20) with the quantity $`A=\mathrm{\Delta }r^2(t)`$.

Returning to Eq. (34), we see that the right hand side can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,m,k,l=0}{\overset{t1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta =1}{\overset{LN}{}}}b_\alpha ^{}b_\beta b_\gamma ^{}b_\delta _\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |v_nv_m|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma |v_kv_l|\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$ (38)
$`\left[\mathrm{\Delta }r^2(t)\right]^2.`$
Observe that if at least one phase, or equivalently one subscript, is unpaired, the average $`b_\alpha ^{}b_\beta b_\gamma ^{}b_\delta `$ will be zero. Therefore the average of the four coefficients is non-zero only if the indices are paired. This can be arranged in three ways, so that

$$b_\alpha ^{}b_\beta b_\gamma ^{}b_\delta =c_1\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\gamma \delta }(1\delta _{\beta \gamma })+c_1\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\gamma \beta }(1\delta _{\alpha \beta })+c_2\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\gamma \delta }\delta _{\alpha \gamma },$$
(39)
where

$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`|b_1|^2|b_2|^2`$ (40)
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`|b_1|^4`$ (41)
Let $`A=_{m,n=0}^{t1}v_mv_n`$. Then

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |A|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_\beta |A|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta +c_1{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |A|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_\beta |A|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$ (42)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}c_2\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |A|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |A|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{NL}}\text{Tr}A\right]^2`$
$`=`$ $`c_1(\text{Tr}A)^2+c_1\text{Tr}A^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}(c_22c_1)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |A|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{NL}}\text{Tr}A\right]^2.`$
Since the term $`_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |A|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |^2`$ is basis dependent we must have $`c_2=2c_1`$. Also,

$$\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}|b_\alpha |^2|b_\beta |^2=\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}|b_\alpha |^2|b_\beta |^2=1.$$
(43)
Since there are $`LN`$ quantum states, this reduces to

$$c_2LN+c_1LN(LN1)=1,$$
(44)
therefore

$$c_1=\frac{1}{LN(LN+1)}c_2=\frac{2}{LN(LN+1)}.$$
(45)
To proceed further we need to use the results obtained earlier following Eq. (15) for the eigenstates and eigenphases of the multi-baker operator. The eigenstates have the form of periodic Bloch states and the eigenphases appear in $`L`$ sets of $`N`$ eigenphases. After some lengthy, but straightforward, calculations one finds the final result for the fluctuations of the average square deviations as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1[(\text{Tr}A)^2+\text{Tr}A^2]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2N^2}}(\text{Tr}A)^2`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`c_1\left[\text{Tr}A^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{LN}}(\text{Tr}A)^2\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L+1/N}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}[{\displaystyle \underset{p,s=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}|{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}J_{pr}^aJ_{rs}^a{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{(\phi _p^a\phi _r^a)t}{2}}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi _p^a\phi _r^a}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{(\phi _r^a\phi _s^a)t}{2}}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi _r^a\phi _s^a}{2}}}|^2_a`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}({\displaystyle \underset{m,n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}|J_{nm}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{(\phi _n\phi _m)t}{2}}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\phi _n\phi _m}{2}}})^2]`$
The main source for the system size, $`L`$, dependence of this fluctuation result is the factor of $`L^1`$ in front of the whole expression. This provides the usual $`L^{1/2}`$ decay of the root mean square fluctuation which suggests that in the large systems the equilibrium average is typical for almost every initial, pure state. The eigenphases $`\phi _j^a`$ also depend on the system size, so that in the absence of a further evaluation of the sums, one cannot precisely determine the size dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(t)`$, however, it is reasonable to expect that the contributions for different Bloch vectors are of the same order. Numerical results suggest that this expectation is correct for the quantum multi-bakers, and the final result for the right hand side of Eq. (46) decays inversely with $`L`$. This is shown in Figure 1. The left picture shows the time and size dependence of the relative fluctuations $`\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2(t)}}{\mathrm{\Delta }r^2(t)}`$ on a log-log plot. The right picture shows the same data with each curve multiplied by square root of $`L`$. The scaling is remarkable. Plots were obtained through numerical evaluation of exact formula (46) for $`N=50,\phi _q=\phi _p=0`$.

Using the methods of random matrix theory discussed in the next section, in the limit of large $`N`$, one can replace the average over the Bloch states, labeled by the subscript $`a`$, by averages over random matrix ensembles. We have not yet done this and leave it for future work.

## 4 Random matrix theory for the mean square displacement

To proceed further we need to know the quasi-energies and eigenvectors of the operator $`𝐁`$. For large $`N`$ it is not possible to determine these quantities by analytical means. Instead one uses numerical methods to diagonalize $`𝐁`$. The results obtained this way will be discussed in the next section. Here we will show how random matrix theory  may be used to evaluate the approximate value of the MSD. In a sense, the use of random matrix theory must be considered to be a kind of uncontrolled approximation method since there are no theorems indicating that the distributions of quasi-energies are described by any of the three random matrix ensembles, and there are no similar results for the eigenvectors. However, since the classical baker map is an example of a strongly chaotic system, we can expect that one of the two ensembles, the circular orthogonal ensemble, COE, or the circular unitary ensemble, CUE, might provide a very good approximation when it is used to evaluate the right hand sides of Eq. (33), see ref. . The results obtained this way will, of course, be averages over the ensemble of random matrices, and not characteristic of any one matrix in the ensemble, and perhaps not of the baker map itself. We will see shortly that the numerical results for the baker map are in very good agreement with the results of random matrix theory, so the connection between the use of random matrix methods for classically chaotic systems is supported by this work.

We begin the application of random matrix theory by determining the average values of the moduli of the matrix elements $`𝐉_{jk}=j|𝐉|k`$ where $`|j,|k`$ indicate eigenvectors of the unitary baker operator $`𝐁`$. We begin with the diagonal elements, which we first express in the position representation of the $`N`$ quantum states defined in the baker cell. That is, we write

$$|J_{jj}|^2=|j|J|j|^2=\left(\underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{N/21}{}}|\alpha |j|^2\underset{\alpha =N/2}{\overset{N1}{}}|\alpha |j|^2\right)^2,$$
(47)
where the kets $`|\alpha `$ are basis vectors in position space. Since the eigenkets are normalized, that is, $`_{\alpha =0}^{N1}|\alpha |j|^2=1`$, we may set $`s_j=_{\alpha =0}^{N/21}|\alpha |j|^2`$ to obtain

$$|J_{jj}|^2=(2s_j1)^2=4s_j^24s_j+1.$$
(48)
To get the random matrix theory average value, we observe that the joint probability of single eigenstate components in the CUE and COE ensembles are given by

$$P(\{\mathrm{\Psi }\})=c\delta (1|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2)=c\delta (1\underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{2M1}{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |^2).$$
(49)
In the COE ensemble the eigenstates can be chosen real which implies that $`P(\{\mathrm{\Psi }\})`$ is a uniform distribution on $`N`$-dimensional unit sphere, and $`M=N/2`$. In CUE ensemble the eigenstates are complex implying that $`P(\{\mathrm{\Psi }\})`$ is uniform on a $`2N`$-dimensional unit sphere $`(|\mathrm{\Psi }_j|^2=(\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_j)^2+(\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_j)^2)`$, and $`M=N`$. These averages can be calculated in straightforward ways and one obtains $`s=1/2`$ for both ensembles. However the averages $`s^2`$ differ in the two ensembles. We obtain

$$s^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{M}{2}+2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{M}{2})}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(M)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(M+2)}=\frac{M+2}{4(M+1)},$$
(50)
where $`M=N/k`$ with $`k=2`$ for the COE and $`k=1`$ for the CUE. This leads to an evaluation of the averages needed for the diagonal terms, with the result that

$$|J_{jj}|^2=\frac{k}{N+k}.$$
(51)
To get the average of the off-diagonal terms, we use (29) which, after averaging, leads to

$$|J_{jk}|^2=\frac{N}{(N1)(N+k)},$$
(52)
with $`k`$ given above.

### 4.1 The MSD in the CUE ensemble

Next we calculate the average of $`e^{i(\phi _1\phi _2)\tau }`$ in CUE ensemble. To do this we need an expression for the pair correlation function, $`R(\phi _j,\phi _k)`$ of two angles in this ensemble. This is calculated in some detail by Mehta , and we use the expression given there.

$`e^{i(\phi _1\phi _2)\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi _2e^{i(\phi _1\phi _2)\tau }{\displaystyle \frac{R(\phi _j,\phi _k)}{N(N1)}}`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi _2e^{i(\phi _1\phi _2)\tau }{\displaystyle \frac{N}{4\pi ^2(N1)}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{N(\phi _j\phi _k)}{2}}{N^2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{(\phi _j\phi _k)}{2}}}\right].`$
At $`\tau =0`$ the first term is $`N/(N1)`$, and it vanishes for $`\tau >0`$. We calculate the second term by converting the angular integral to one in the complex plane. By changing the variables to $`u=\phi _1\phi _2,v=\phi _2`$, and then setting $`z=e^{iu},dz=izdu`$, we obtain, for $`\tau >0`$,

$`e^{i(\phi _1\phi _2)\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi N(N1)}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑ue^{iu\tau }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{Nu}{2}}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{u}{2}}}`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi iN(N1)}}{\displaystyle 𝑑zz^{\tau N}g(z)},`$ (55)
where

$$g(z)=\underset{p}{}a_pz^p=(\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}z^k)^2=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}(k+1)z^k+\underset{k=N}{\overset{2N2}{}}(2Nk1)z^k.$$
(56)
Since $`g(z)`$ is analytic, then $`\mathrm{exp}[i(\phi _1\phi _2)\tau ]=0`$ if $`\tau N0`$. Otherwise, we can write

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑zz^{\tau N}g(z)=\frac{1}{p!}g^{(p)}(0),$$
(57)
where $`p=N\tau 1`$, and $`g^{(p)}`$ is the $`p`$-th derivative of $`g`$, and obtain

$$e^{i(\phi _1\phi _2)\tau }=\frac{a_p}{N(N1)}.$$
(58)
Thus, including the contribution from the first term at $`\tau =0`$, we obtain

$$e^{[i(\phi _j\phi _k)\tau ]}_{CUE}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \mathrm{for}\tau =0\hfill \\ \frac{\tau N}{N(N1)}\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}<\tau <N,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{for}\tau N.\hfill \end{array}$$
(59)
We now substitute the results, Eqs. (51), (52), and (59) into the expression Eq. (31) the for mean square displacement. This leads to

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2`$ $`=`$ $`t+t(t1)|J_{jj}|^2+(N1)|J_{jk}|^2{\displaystyle \underset{\tau =1}{\overset{t1}{}}}(t\tau )e^{i\alpha \tau }+e^{i\alpha \tau }`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N+1}}t(t1)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(N+1)(N1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau =1}{\overset{M1}{}}}(t\tau )(\tau N)`$
where $`M=t`$ for $`t<N`$, and $`M=N`$ for $`tN`$. Carrying out the required sums we obtain the final result for the MSD in the CUE ensemble:

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}t+\frac{t(t1)}{N+1}\left[\frac{t2}{3(N1)}\right]\hfill & \mathrm{for}tN,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{N+1}t^2+\frac{N}{3}\hfill & \mathrm{for}t>N.\hfill \end{array}$$

### 4.2 The MSD in the COE ensemble

The calculation of the MSD in the circular orthogonal ensemble proceeds in very much the same way as in the CUE, the only difference being in the pair correlation function for the quasi-energies, $`\phi _j`$. For the COE the two-point correlation function is \[see Mehta, Eq.(6.2.4), Eq.(10.3.41)\]

$`R_2(\vartheta ,\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`det\left[\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _N(0)& \sigma _N(\vartheta \phi )\\ \sigma _N(\phi \vartheta )& \sigma _N(0)\end{array}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`[(\sigma _N(0))^2]^{(0)}[(\sigma _N(\vartheta \phi ))^2]^{(0)}.`$
Here, $`\sigma _N`$ is a quaternion, and $`det`$ is the quaternion determinant, with

$$[(\sigma _N(\vartheta \phi ))^2]^{(0)}=(S_N(\vartheta \phi ))^2+DS_N(\vartheta \phi )JS_N(\vartheta \phi ).$$
(62)
These quantities are given by Mehta as

$`S_N(\vartheta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{N\vartheta }{2}}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\vartheta }{2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}e^{ip_k\vartheta }`$
$`DS_N(\vartheta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}ip_ke^{ip_k\vartheta }={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\vartheta }}S_N(\vartheta )`$
$`JS_N(\vartheta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}e^{iq\vartheta },`$ (63)
where $`p_k=\frac{1}{2}\frac{N}{2}+k,k=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$, and $`q=\pm \frac{1}{2}(N+1),\pm \frac{1}{2}(N+3),\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$e^{i(\vartheta \phi )\tau }_{COE}=\frac{1}{N(N1)}[S_1(\tau )+S_2(\tau )+S_3(\tau )],$$
(64)
where

$`S_1(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\vartheta 𝑑\phi e^{i(\vartheta \phi )\tau }\frac{N^2}{4\pi ^2}},`$
$`S_2(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\vartheta 𝑑\phi e^{i(\vartheta \phi )\tau }\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\underset{k,l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}e^{i(p_k+p_l)(\vartheta \phi )}},`$
$`S_3(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\vartheta 𝑑\phi e^{i(\vartheta \phi )\tau }\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\underset{p,q}{}\frac{p}{q}e^{i(p+q)(\vartheta \phi )}}.`$ (65)
The evaluation of these sums and integrals is relatively straightforward, and leads to

$$e^{[i\alpha \tau ]}_{COE}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \mathrm{for}\tau =0\hfill \\ \frac{1}{N(N1)}[N+2\tau [f(\frac{N}{2}+\tau )f(\frac{N}{2})]]\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}<\tau <N,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{N(N1)}[N+2\tau [f(\frac{N}{2}+\tau )f(\tau \frac{N}{2})]]\hfill & \mathrm{for}\tau N.\hfill \end{array}$$
(66)
Here $`f(T)`$ is defined by

$$f(T):=\underset{k=1}{\overset{T}{}}\frac{1}{2k1}=1+\frac{1}{3}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2T1}.$$
(67)
This function has at most a logarithmic dependence on its upper limit for large $`T`$. For the MSD in the COE we then obtain

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}t+\frac{t(t1)}{N+2}\left[1+\frac{t2}{3(N1)}\right]+\delta _<\hfill & \mathrm{for}tN,\hfill \\ \frac{2}{N+2}t^2+\frac{N}{3}\frac{N}{3(N+2)}+\delta _>\hfill & \mathrm{for}t>N.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`\delta _{<,>}`$ are small corrections to the explicit formulae that have to be evaluated numerically. Note that the explicit results given here for both ensembles can be combined into the single expression

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}t+\frac{t(t1)}{N+k}\left[k1+\frac{t2}{3(N1)}\right]+(k1)\delta _<\hfill & \mathrm{for}tN,\hfill \\ \frac{k}{N+k}t^2+\frac{N}{3}\frac{N(k1)}{3(N+k)}+(k1)\delta _>\hfill & \mathrm{for}t>N.\hfill \end{array}$$
(68)
Those results are shown in Figure 2 for $`N=200`$. The COE results are two close curves, where the higher is the result given in Eq. (68) for $`k=2`$, while in the lower curve the corrections $`\delta _{<,>}`$ have been neglected. Three asymptotic estimates $`t,t^2/N,2t^2/N`$ are also plotted. Inset shows the region $`t=100`$ to $`t=300`$ where the differences between the two COE results are most pronounced.

To our delight, RMT average lends classical diffusion as the short-time prediction in both cases, the CUE average being “more classical”. It is worth emphasizing that the classical behavior persists up to the Heisenberg times $`h^1=N`$ rather than the Ehrenfest time $`\mathrm{ln}h^1=\mathrm{ln}N`$. On the other hand, for times longer than the Heisenberg time we observe ballistic motion. The ballistic coefficient is proportional to the effective Planck constant therefore it disappears in semi-classical limit.

In other words, fixing the time and performing semi-classical limit ($`h0N\mathrm{}`$) we obtain $`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)=t`$, which is the classical result relevant for both the classical multi-baker and the 1D random walk, which is modeled by the classical system. Fixing the Planck constant ($`N=const`$) and performing long time limit we observe $`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)=kt^2/N`$, which is reflection of the crystal-like structure of the system.

### 4.3 Extremal properties of the MSD

To get another perspective on the above results consider a more general class of quantum multiplexer maps  where the local dynamics is given by a different map $`B`$, e.g a cat map, standard map, or other, replacing the baker map. Then the formula (33) is still valid, however the eigenvalues and eigenvectors are those of the new map $`B`$.

Using formula (33) it is easy to see that the time-dependent mean square displacement for any quantum multiplexer map has to satisfy

1. $`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(0)=0`$
2. $`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(1)=1`$
3. $`0(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)t^2`$

In fact, those results are true in both the quantum and the classical case. Moreover, it is possible to find local dynamics which realize both of the extremal cases.

To see it, take as the local map a right-left exchange operator, defined classically by

$$B(n,x,y):=\{\begin{array}{cc}(n,x+1/2,y),\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}x<1/2,\hfill \\ (n,x1/2,y),\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/2x<1.\hfill \end{array}$$

and quantum mechanically by

$$𝐁:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right]$$

(using the context of Section 2). The dynamics is obvious: the particle jumps between two neighboring sites, leading to the mean square displacement having values 0 for even and 1 for odd times.

On the other hand, taking identity as the local dynamics, we induce ballistic motion: particle starting in the state going initially to the right will keep on going to the right, leading to the ballistic transport:

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)=t^2$$

Therefore, we see that translational invariance of the coupling operator $`T`$ allows, in principle, for large asymptotic freedom:

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)t^\alpha ,$$

where $`0\alpha 2`$ 333A more precise statement is: there exists a constant $`\alpha [0,2]`$ such that $`lim_t\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)/t^\beta =\mathrm{}`$ for $`\beta <\alpha `$, and $`lim_t\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2(t)/t^\beta =0`$ for $`\alpha <\beta `$. An interesting question is, what can be realized in practice. While no constraints seem to be imposed on the classical level, the structure of the quantum mean square displacement, Eq. (32) suggests that for fixed $`\mathrm{}`$ only $`\alpha =0`$ or $`\alpha =2`$ are viable. One of the questions it raises is what conditions need to be imposed on the internal dynamics so that the semi-classical limit leads to anomalous diffusion $`\alpha 1`$. We interpret our RMT result as follows: internal fully chaotic dynamics (mixing) of the classical map implies generically diffusion. We are thus led to believe, that anomalous diffusion can arise in semi-classical limit in systems with partially chaotic, partially integrable internal dynamics. Similar observations were made often before in the context of different types of systems and transport in phase space as opposed to the transport in real space, which we discuss here. More precise results require further study.

## 5 Comparison of numerical results with random matrix theory predictions

We have studied numerically a number of cases of quantum multi-bakers as well as some more general systems . Here we present some of those results to show the quality of prediction afforded by the random matrix theory.

Our numerical evaluation of the formula (33) shows that generically, almost every choice of phases defining the quantization (9) leads to results between the COE and CUE results.

Figure 3 shows results obtained for the quantum multi-baker (8) with phases $`\phi _q=0.73,\phi _p=0.11`$. We show the mean square displacement as a function of time for $`N=200`$ and for $`N=2000`$ on log-log plot. There is a clear crossover between the diffusive and ballistic behavior on both plots. Figure (3.c) compares the values of $`\frac{1}{N}_j|J_{jj}|^2`$ calculated for the same quantum multi-baker for various values of $`N`$ with the predictions of random matrix theory (51). We see that for $`N>50`$ the results lie between the analytic values for COE and CUE ensembles.

In cases when the two phases add up to one $`\phi _q+\phi _p=1`$, we find from our numerical work that the ballistic coefficient $`\frac{1}{N}_j|J_{jj}|^2`$ vanishes. Therefore, only the oscillating contribution remains in the expansion (32). We still observe diffusive behavior up to Heisenberg time, although not as clearly as for generic systems. After this transient the particle localizes and the mean square displacement oscillates irregularly around some average value. Figure 4 shows the mean square displacement for quantum multi-baker with phases $`\phi _q=\phi _p=1/2`$  for $`N=50`$ (top row) and $`N=200`$ (bottom row). In both cases the left plot shows the short time behavior on the log-log scale. We see the same diffusive behavior as in the generic case. The right plots are normal scale and show the oscillations encountered on the long scale. All the plots are numerical evaluations of the exact formula (32). We suspect that this non-generic, localized behavior will be seen whenever the phases $`\phi _q,\phi _p`$ sum to unity, but both the proof and a physical understanding remain to be developed.

## 6 Multi-baker maps and quantum random walks

We conclude this discussion of the quantum multi-baker maps by establishing connections between our work and some other research on quantum random walks. We restrict ourselves to discrete quantum walks on line. Continuous quantum random walks  and discrete quantum walks on graphs  are less connected to our work.

A popular model of a quantum random walk, known today as the Hadamard walk, was described some ten years ago by S. Godoy and S. Fujita . It was obtained through approximating the evolution of some special wave packets in Krönig-Penney type potential. A similar model was discussed by D. Aharonov, et al. , who considered the motion of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles in one dimension, and proposed experimental realization of the walk in the framework of quantum optics. Further, D. Meyer studied quantum cellular automata for their possible applications to quantum computing. In section 5 of , Meyer obtained a quantum random walk model closely related to the Hadamard walk, discussed later by A. Ambainis et al. .

Looking for an analytically tractable model of quantum transport, we quantized  the classical multi-baker map, a deterministic model of classical random walk, obtaining a family of quantum random walk models, the simplest case being the Hadamard walk. We studied both the translationally invariant and random versions of the system.

Since then a number of other papers appeared on the topics, e.g. . Of particular interest for our work is the work of Brun et al.  who also studied the transition to classical behavior, but instead of considering semi-classical limit they assume interaction with environment implemented in decoherent coins.

Much of the work on discrete quantum random walks can easily be reformulated as a special case of the multi-baker maps (or multiplexer maps, see ref. ) in particular, the map with the largest possible value of Planck’s constant, $`h=1/2`$, or equivalently, $`N=2`$. In order to make this connection we review, very briefly, the structure of quantum random walks as described by much of the literature.

The simplest quantum random walk described in the literature is the Hadamard walk. Here one considers a collection of quantum states, which we will denote as $`|n,d`$. The parameter $`n`$ will take on all integer values within a prescribed range, and here we take the range to be $`𝐙`$, all integers, positive and negative. The parameter $`d=r,l`$ denotes a direction, to the right or to the left, respectively. Next, one defines an elementary quantum transformation, $`𝐇`$, which takes $`|n,d`$ into symmetric and anti-symmetric combinations, as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}|n,r^{}\\ |n,l^{}\end{array}\right)=𝐇\left(\begin{array}{c}|n,r\\ |n,l\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}|n,r\\ |n,l\end{array}\right).$$
(69)
This step is now coupled to a translation, $`𝐓`$ of $`|n,r^{}`$ one unit to the right and, similarly, $`|n,l^{}`$ one unit to the left, as

$`𝐓|n,r`$ $`=`$ $`|n+1,r`$
$`𝐓|n,l`$ $`=`$ $`|n1,l`$ (70)
$`H`$ is called the Hadamard gate in quantum computing literature , which gives rise to the name Hadamard walk. Finally the two operations are combined to form the operator $`𝐓𝐇=𝐖`$, which describes one step of the Hadamard walk,

$`|n,r,t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[|n1,r,t1+|n+1,l,t1\right]`$
$`|n,l,t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[|n1,r,t1|n+1,l,t1\right].`$ (71)
This is identical to Eq. (8) for $`N=2`$ for the special case that the Balazs-Voros phases , $`\phi _q=\phi _p=0`$, are used. Therefore, the multi-baker map and the Hadamard walk are identical, for the Balazs-Voros phases and $`N=2`$. The Hadamard equations have been solved in detail for various boundary conditions . Similarly, the $`N=2`$ multi-baker map has been solved for a variety of phases and boundary conditions . It should be appreciated that the multi-baker maps represent generalizations of quantum random walks in a number of respects. The inclusion of phases in the transformation equations allows one to treat a variety of maps including uniform, periodic, quasi-periodic, and random systems, something typically not considered in the theory of quantum random walks. Thus one can find a range of phenomena in quantum multi-baker ranging from localization to ballistic motion. Such phenomena show up in many condensed matter systems. Further, the use of a variable Planck constant allows for several channels of motion to be taking place at once, and allows us to treat semi-classical as well as strong quantum versions of these maps. This is what makes the multi-baker maps so appealing for studying exact transport properties of condensed quantum systems.

One common feature of different quantum random walks and quantum multi-baker maps is the ability to include various models of decoherence processes. In the multi-baker maps one should distinguish between quenched disorder and annealed disorder. In quenched disorder the phases $`\phi _q,\phi _p`$ vary randomly for cell to cell, but once values are given for each cell, the phases keep those values for all time steps. This allows some memory to be generated by the dynamics and results in localization . For annealed disorder, the phases are chosen randomly for each cell and at each time step. The phases also may be specified up to some additive noise contribution. These processes represent the effects of random external noise and result in some degree of decoherence . Further, in both quantum random walk models and multi-baker maps one can produce decoherence by replacing the unitary matrix describing the time evolution by a completely positive super-operator. This allows for both dissipation and decoherence. As this topic requires a separate discussion, we will not pursue it here, but leave the discussion of decoherence for further publications.

## 7 Discussion of the results and other comments

This paper described calculations of important properties of the quantum multi-baker map, a simple model for transport in quantum systems. This map is the quantum version of a well known, classically chaotic system. In particular we were able to show, using random matrix theory, that it is possible to obtain an analytic expression for the equilibrium mean square displacement of a particle whose motion is governed by this quantum map. This expression is of particular importance for an understanding of transport in quantum systems because it allows us to carefully examine the particle’s average motion both for finite times and for non-zero values of Planck’s constant. Thus we can see how the two non-commuting limits, $`t\mathrm{}`$ or $`\mathrm{}0`$, interact with each other. While our results are not surprising, in the sense that we already knew qualitatively the limiting forms, we did not have a general expression for the mean square displacement even for simple quantum systems before this work was carried out. Moreover, the results from random matrix theory agreed very well with careful numerical evaluations of the mean square displacement for the multi-baker map. This agreement is also very important because random matrix theory does not really apply to any individual system, as far as one knows, but rather to the average behavior of an ensemble of similar systems. Thus in the absence of a rigorous justification of the use of random matrix methods, their predictions must always be checked by comparisons with numerical studies.

It will be interesting to find other signatures of classical behavior in the quantum multi-baker map that are more closely connected to the chaotic behavior of the classical map than the mean square displacement. For example, is there any trace of the classical, hyperbolic dynamical behavior in the quantum version of the map? One prominent feature of the classical multi-baker model is the formation of fractal structures on arbitrarily fine scales as an initial non-equilibrium distribution of points relaxes to a final uniform equilibrium. This fractal structure can, in turn, be related to a positive entropy production typical of the approach to equilibrium of a macroscopic system. The quantum version of this phenomenon is largely unexplored and is of considerable interest to us.

Further work will also be devoted to exploring the consequences of the freedom one has in choosing phases of the unitary operators. This freedom allows us to consider random, quasi-random, and periodic systems, each with its own interesting physical properties. The quenched random system has been explored to some extent , and provides a simple model of localization in one-dimensional disordered systems. Here the classical limit is expected to be recovered through a phenomenon where the localization length grows infinitely large as Planck’s constant approaches zero, such that almost normal diffusion takes place within each localized region. This picture needs to be verified, and further systems still need to be explored.

We also began to establish connections between this work on quantum multi-baker maps and a body of related work on quantum random walk processes. Much of that literature is, in fact, devoted to the simplest multi-baker model, although this connection has not been recognized in the random walk literature. Here we showed that the $`N=2`$ quantum multi-baker process is identical to the Hadamard walk of random walk theory. Although quantum computing is still far from being realized , it is possible that the theory of quantum random walks may be of some value for constructing algorithms based on quantum walks that will be faster than current classical random walk algorithms . Future work will be devoted to expanding the connections between the quantum random walks and multi-baker processes for a variety of model systems.

## 8 Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank R. Blume-Kohout and Profs. S. Fishman, P. Gaspard, M. Kuś, S. Tasaki, J. Vollmer, W. Żurek, and K. Życzkowski for helpful comments. DKW is grateful to the Institute for Physical Science and Technology, University of Maryland, where most of this work has been done, for support during his postdoctoral stay; and to the Center for Nonlinear Science, School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology for support as a Joseph Ford Fellow. He also thanks the organizing committee of the International Workshop and Seminar on Microscopic Chaos and Transport in Many-Particle Systems, Dresden, 2002 for giving him the opportunity to present this work. JRD acknowledges support from the national Science Foundation under Grant PHY-98-20824.


format: text

text:
# On the equivalence between the Boltzmann equation and classical field theory at large occupation numbers

## I Introduction

It is believed that in the very early stages after a heavy ion collision, gluon occupation numbers are as large as $`1/\alpha `$, $`f_g1/\alpha `$ nuc1 ; nuc2 ; nuc3 ; nuc4 ; nuc5 . As the QCD quark-gluon plasma evolves toward equilibrium, occupation numbers decrease until $`f_g1`$ at equlibrium. Understanding the evolution of dense quark-gluon matter toward equilibrium is both practically important and theoretically challenging. So long as $`f_g1/\alpha `$ the Boltzmann equation, with elastic and inelastic collision terms and quantum-statistical factors, should furnish a systematic theoretical framework for this problem BMSS , although this equation cannot be expected to be useful at the earliest times after the collision when $`f_g1/\alpha `$. On the other hand, when occupation numbers are large one can expect classical field theory to apply, and there is currently an interesting program studying the early stages after a heavy ion collision using classical Yang-Mills equations with an initial condition fixed by the McLerran-Venugopalan saturation model KV1 ; KV2 . Thus one might expect that classical field theory should be a good theoretical framework for studying a dense gluon system up to times just before equilibration occurs. It would seem then that classical field theory and the Boltzmann equation are equivalent frameworks for studying dense non-equilibrium QCD in the period where $`1f_g1/\alpha `$ holds for the important phase space region of the system.

While this equivalence have been studied previously, most notably in connection with wave turbulence ZLF , it is less familiar in the context of the early stages of heavy ion collision. We thus explore this equivalence in detail in this paper. To simplify the discussion we deal with a $`\varphi ^4`$ field theory rather than with QCD, but we believe our argumentation should work equally well for Yang-Mills theories. Our goal is to derive the collision term in the Boltzmann equation using only classical field theory, and we do this explicitly at lowest order in the coupling for the elastic-scattering part of the collision term. This part of the collision term, illustrated in Fig. (5) below, has a contribution cubic in the occupation number and a contribution which is quadratic. Perhaps surprisingly we are able to reproduce both of these parts from the classical theory, and the reasons for this are discusssed briefly at the end of Sec. IV. For inelastic parts of the collision term the classical field description cannot be expected to give the complete answer, even at the lowest nontrivial term in the coupling, but it should give these portions having the maximum and maximum minus one powers of the occupation number.

In Sec. II we review the description of a non-equilibrium system, described by a $`\varphi ^4`$ field theory including the usual doubling of the number of fields. When the fields are large we show how a classical field theory naturally replaces the quantum field theory description of the system, and we introduce combinations of the field variables to make the classical description transparent.

In Sec. III we introduce Green’s functions in the classical field theory and write equations of motions for the Green’s functions. If the medium does not vary too rapidly we show how a Boltzmann-like equation emerges with a “collision term” given by Green’s functions of the classical theory, depending of course on the initial ensemble defining the system.

In Sec. IV we identify the “collision” term derived in the classical theory with the usual collision term given by elastic scattering. The identification is done by explicit calculation at lowest nontrivial order in perturbation theory.

Our whole discussion is carried out under conditions where the occupation number $`f`$ is large ($`f1`$) while $`\lambda f`$ is small ($`\lambda f1`$) where $`\lambda `$ is the usual $`\varphi ^4`$ coupling constant. We believe that higher order corrections in $`\lambda f`$ can be done in the classical theory, but higher order in $`\lambda `$ will, in general, be quantum.

## II Describing a dense non-equilibrium system

The system which concerns us here is made up of excitations of a neutral scalar field of mass $`m`$ and with interactions described by a $`\frac{\lambda }{4!}\varphi ^4`$ interaction term in the Lagrangian density. Suppose at time $`t`$ we wish to determine the expectation of some observable, $`O`$, made of of field $`\varphi `$. For example, $`O`$ might be $`\varphi ^2(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$, $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x}_1,t)\varphi (\stackrel{}{x}_2,t)`$, $`\varphi ^2(\stackrel{}{x}_1,t)\varphi ^2(\stackrel{}{x}_2,t)`$ etc. We may write

$$O=𝒟[\varphi ]O[\varphi ]𝒟[\varphi _0]\rho [\varphi _0]U^{}[\varphi ,\varphi _0,tt_0]U[\varphi ,\varphi _0,tt_0]$$
(1)
with

$$U[\varphi ,\varphi _0,tt_0]=𝒟[\varphi (\tau )]e^{i_{t_0}^tL[\varphi (\tau )]𝑑\tau }$$
(2)
where the functional integral on the right hand side of Eq. (2) goes between fields $`\varphi _0(\stackrel{}{x})`$ at $`t_0`$ and $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ at $`t`$. The functional $`\rho [\varphi _0]`$ gives the initial ensemble defining the system. We make no assumption of an equilibrium or near-equilibrium ensemble. Later on we shall state some general assumptions on $`\rho `$.

The separate functional integrals between $`t_0`$ and $`t`$ in $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ is characteristic of any real-time formalism describing the time evolution of a statistical system LeBellac . Rather than viewing $`U^{}U`$ as determined by two separate functional integrals over the single field $`\varphi `$ one can introduce two fields, $`\varphi _{}`$ and $`\varphi _+`$, with Lagrangian

$$=\left[\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \varphi _{})^2\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi _{}^2\frac{\lambda }{4!}\varphi _{}^4\right]\left[\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \varphi _+)^2\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi _+^2\frac{\lambda }{4!}\varphi _+^4\right]$$
(3)
Now

$$U^{}U=𝒟[\varphi _{}]𝒟[\varphi _+]e^{i_{t_0}^tL[\varphi _{},\varphi _+]𝑑\tau }$$
(4)
with both $`\varphi _{}`$ and $`\varphi _+`$ taking on values $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ at $`t`$ and $`\varphi _0(\stackrel{}{x})`$ at $`t_0`$.

It is convenient to rewrite $``$ in Eq. (3) in terms of new variables $`\varphi `$ and $`\pi `$ defined by ra

$`\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi _{}+\varphi _+),\pi =\varphi _{}\varphi _+,`$ (5)
$`\varphi _{}=\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\varphi _+=\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}.`$ (6)
One easily finds

$$=_\mu \varphi _\mu \pi m^2\varphi \pi \frac{\lambda }{3!}\left(\varphi ^3\pi +\frac{1}{4}\pi ^3\varphi \right)$$
(7)
where one should be careful not to confuse the $`\varphi `$ in Eqs. (5)–(7) with the original field appearing in Eqs. (1)–(2). In what follows $`\varphi `$ will always denote the variable defined in Eq. (5). Noting that $`\pi =0`$ at times $`t_0`$ and $`t`$, one can rewrite Eq. (1) as

$$O=𝒟[\varphi ]O[\varphi ]𝒟[\varphi _0]\rho [\varphi _0]𝒟[\varphi (\tau )]𝒟[\pi (\tau )]e^{i_{t_0}^tL[\varphi ,\pi ]𝑑\tau },$$
(8)
with

$$L[\varphi ,\pi ]=d^3x[\varphi ,\pi ].$$
(9)
Our focus is on systems where $`\varphi _{}`$ and $`\varphi _+`$ are large. As we shall see, $`\varphi `$ is naturally large while $`\pi `$ is small, thus one can neglect the $`\pi ^3\varphi `$ term in Eq. (7), which gives

$$_c=_\mu \varphi _\mu \pi m^2\varphi \pi \frac{\lambda }{3!}\pi \varphi ^3$$
(10)
But now $`\pi `$ is simply a variable of constraint so that the functional integral over $`\pi `$ in Eq. (8), with $`L`$ replaced by $`L_c`$, gives

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{x},\tau }{}2\pi \delta \left[(\mathrm{}+m^2)\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},\tau )+\frac{\lambda }{3!}\varphi ^3(\stackrel{}{x},\tau )\right],$$
(11)
which means that only fields satisfying the classical equations of motion

$$(\mathrm{}+m^2)\varphi =\frac{\lambda }{3!}\varphi ^3$$
(12)
contribute to the functional integral in Eq. (8). In other words, if one defines the evolution kernel

$$K[\varphi ,\varphi _0,tt_0]=𝒟[\varphi (\tau )]𝒟[\pi (\tau )]e^{i_{t_0}^tL_c[\varphi ,\pi ]𝑑\tau },$$
(13)
where, as usual, $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\varphi `$ are the fields between which the functional integral is taken, then $`K`$ is nonzero only for $`\varphi `$ statisfying the field equation with the initial condition $`\varphi (t_0,\stackrel{}{x})=\varphi _0(\stackrel{}{x})`$, i.e.,

$$\left[(\mathrm{}+m^2)\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t)+\frac{\lambda }{3!}\varphi ^3(\stackrel{}{x},t)\right]K[\varphi ,\varphi _0,tt_0]=0,$$
(14)
and

$$\underset{tt_0}{lim}K[\varphi ,\varphi _0,tt_0]=\underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{}\delta [\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})\varphi _0(\stackrel{}{x})],$$
(15)
The classical nature of $`K`$ is manifested in Eqs. (14) and (15). In terms of $`K`$ one can write $`O`$ as

$$O=𝒟[\varphi ]𝒟[\varphi _0]O[\varphi ]K[\varphi ,\varphi _0,tt_0]\rho [\varphi _0].$$
(16)
In fact, the functional integral (13) with the Lagrangian of the type (10) provides a convenient starting point to a diagrammatic approach for classical statistical systems MSR .

## III Equations for the Green’s functions

In this section we derive equations for the Green’s functions of a system with Lagrangian given by Eq. (10). We begin our discussion with the Green’s functions (propagators) of the free theory corresponding to

$$_0=_\mu \varphi _\mu \pi m^2\varphi \pi ,$$
(17)
then we go on to the equations for the full (classical) theory governed by the Lagrangian (10). We limit ourselves in this section to vacuum propagators, leaving the generalization to the medium case to Sec. IV.

### III.1 The free propagators

Perhaps the easiest way to get the propagators for the Lagrangian (17) is to go back to the $`\varphi _{}`$ and $`\varphi _+`$ variables, in which case

$$_0=\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \varphi _{})^2\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi _{}^2\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \varphi _+)^2+\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi _+^2$$
(18)
where $`\varphi _{}`$, $`\varphi _+`$, $`\varphi `$, and $`\pi `$ are related according to Eqs. (5) and (6). Then

$$G_{}^{(0)}(x)=0|T\varphi _{}(x)\varphi _{}(0)|0=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{i}{k^2m^2+iϵ}e^{ikx}$$
(19)
is the usual Feynman propagator. In momentum space

$$G_{}^{(0)}(p)=\frac{i}{p^2m^2+iϵ}.$$
(20)
The propagator for the $`\varphi _+`$ field is given by

$$G_{++}^{(0)}(p)=\frac{i}{p^2m^2iϵ},$$
(21)
with the $`iϵ`$ choice reflecting the fact that the $`\varphi _+`$ originally come from complex conjugate amplitudes. While the Lagrangian (18) does not by itself require a $`G_+^{(0)}`$ or a $`G_+^{(0)}`$ propagator, the functional integral does naturally give such propagators because of our identification $`\varphi _+=\varphi _{}`$ at the largest time to which we evolve the system. Such propagators also naturally occur as Feynman lines which pass from an amplitude to a complex conjugate amplitude in the two-time formulation of a calculation of an expectation value or transition probability. Clearly,

$`G_+^{(0)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \theta (p_0)\delta (p^2m^2),`$ (22a)
$`G_+^{(0)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \theta (p_0)\delta (p^2m^2).`$ (22b)
Now it is straightforward to go to propagators in terms of $`\varphi `$ and $`\pi `$ fields. For example,

$$G_{11}^{(0)}=G_{\varphi \varphi }^{(0)}=\frac{1}{4}\left[G_{}^{(0)}+G_{++}^{(0)}+G_+^{(0)}+G_+^{(0)}\right]$$
(23a)
and
$$G_{12}^{(0)}=G_{\varphi \pi }^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2}\left[G_{}^{(0)}G_{++}^{(0)}G_+^{(0)}+G_+^{(0)}\right]$$
(23b)
etc. One easily finds

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G_{11}^{(0)}(p)& =\pi \delta (p^2m^2),G_{22}^{(0)}(p)=0,\hfill \\ \hfill G_{12}^{(0)}(p)& =\frac{i}{p^2m^2+iϵp_0},G_{21}^{(0)}(p)=\frac{i}{p^2m^2iϵp_0}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
### III.2 Equations for the full propagators

It will be useful to have a pictorial notation for the various propagators. For the free propagators this notation is given in Fig. 1. For the full propagators our pictorial notation is given in Fig. 2. $`G_{22}=0`$ even in the presence of radiative corrections because of the fact that $`G_{12}`$ and $`G_{21}`$ are causal and anticausal, respectively. (More precisely, one can follow a $`G_{21}^{(0)}`$ propagator through a graph much as one can follow an electron through a graph in QED. In $`G_{22}`$ we can follow $`G_{21}^{(0)}`$ propagators through the graph and they must form at least one closed loop which is impossible because of the anticausal property.)

One can write equations for $`G`$ in terms of one-particle-irreducible parts, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s, which are useful in applying perturbation theory and in deriving a Boltzmann equation. For $`G_{11}`$ this equation takes either the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G_{11}(x,y)=i𝑑w𝑑z& \{G_{11}^{(0)}(x,w)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}(w,z)G_{21}(z,y)+G_{12}^{(0)}(x,w)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}(w,z)G_{21}(z,y)\hfill \\ & +G_{12}^{(0)}(x,w)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}(w,z)G_{11}(z,y)\}+G^{(0)}_{11}(x,y)\hfill \end{array}$$
(25a)
or
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G_{11}(x,y)=i𝑑w𝑑z& \{G_{12}(x,w)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}(w,z)G_{11}^{(0)}(z,y)+G_{12}(x,w)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}(w,z)G_{21}^{(0)}(z,y)\hfill \\ & +G_{11}(x,w)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}(w,z)G_{21}^{(0)}(z,y)\}+G^{(0)}_{11}(x,y)\hfill \end{array}$$
(25b)
as illustrated in Figs. 3a and Fig. 3b, respectively.

The $`i`$ in Eqs. (25) reflects the usual convention that $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the sum of one-particle irreducible graphs. Applying $`\mathrm{}_x+m^2`$ to Eq. (25a), $`\mathrm{}_y+m^2`$ to Eq. (25b) and substracting, one obtains

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\mathrm{}_x\mathrm{}_y)G_{11}(x,y)=𝑑z& \{G_{11}(x,z)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}(z,y)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}(x,z)G_{11}(z,y)\hfill \\ & +G_{12}(x,z)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}(z,y)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}(x,z)G_{21}(z,y)\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
Now it is convenient to write

$$G(x,y)=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}G(\frac{x+y}{2},p)e^{ip(xy)}$$
(27)
with similar formalae for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x,y)`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\frac{x+y}{2},p)`$. We now assume that the dependence of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $`\frac{x+y}{2}`$ is slow enough that one can replace $`\frac{x+y}{2}`$ by $`x`$ in Eq. (27). Then using

$$\mathrm{}_x\mathrm{}_y=\frac{}{\left(\frac{xy}{2}\right)}\frac{}{\left(\frac{x+y}{2}\right)},$$
(28)
one gets from Eq. (26)

$$2ip\frac{}{x}G_{11}(x,p)=G_{11}(x,p)[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}(x,p)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}(x,p)]+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}(x,p)[G_{21}(x,p)G_{12}(x,p)].$$
(29)
It is important to emphasize that Eq. (29) is an equation for a classical field theory. We are dealing with the Lagrangian (10) which is classical. In the quantum case, with $`L`$ given by Eq. (7), $`G_{22}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}`$ are still zero, but when using the equations derived in this section one must verify that $`G_{11}G_{12},G_{21}`$ so that the approximation $`\varphi \pi `$ which leads to the classical theory is valid. This will, of course, depend on the initial ensemble, the $`\rho `$ in Eq. (16), as well as on how far from the initial ensemble the system has evolved. In particular we suppose the initial ensemble, $`\rho `$, is dominated by large $`\varphi _0`$ contributions. Of course a system near kinetic equilibrium cannot be described by a classical field theory.

Turn now to $`G_{12}`$. Analogously to Eqs. (25) one may write

$$G_{12}(x,y)=idwdzG_{12}^{(0)}(x,w)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}(w.z)G_{12}(z,x)+G_{12}^{(0)}(x,y)$$
(30a)
and
$$G_{12}(x,y)=idwdzG_{12}(x,w)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}(w.z)G_{12}^{(0)}(z,x)+G_{12}^{(0)}(x,y)$$
(30b)
illustrated in Fig. 4. It is now straightforward to get

$$2ip\frac{}{x}G_{12}(x,p)=0$$
(31)
with an identical equation for $`G_{21}`$. Equation (31) does not mean that the graphs shown in Fig. 4 do not change $`G_{12}`$ from the value given in Eq. (24) for $`G_{12}^{(0)}`$, but it does mean that the evolution of the system toward equilibrium is controlled by the equation for $`G_{11}`$ where the right hand side of Eq. (29) will shortly be identified with the Boltzmann collision term.

## IV Equivalence between the Boltzmann equation and classical field equations

We now turn to the task of showing that the right hand side of Eq. (29) is exactly the Boltzmann collision term. We do this explicitly only at lowest order in perturbation theory for the collision term, after which the higher order corrections should be straightforward. We begin by identifying a part of $`G_{11}`$ with the Boltzmann phase space particle density.

### IV.1 The phase space density

The generalization of Eqs. (21)–(22b) to a medium is straightforward. The results are, in form, exactly like those familiar finite temperature field thoery. One has

$`G_{}(x,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{p^2m^2+iϵ}}+2\pi \delta (p^2m^2)f,\text{}`$ (32a)
$`G_{++}(x,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{p^2m^2iϵ}}+2\pi \delta (p^2m^2)f,\text{}`$ (32b)
$`G_+(x,p)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \delta (p^2m^2)[\theta (p_0)+f],\text{}`$ (32c)
$`G_{}(x,p)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \delta (p^2m^2)[\theta (p_0)+f],`$ (32d)
but in contrast to finite temperature field theory $`f`$ is not the thermal phase space distribution but rather
$$f=f(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{p},t)$$
(32e)
is a time-dependent phase space density of particles characterizing the medium. Equations (32) are appropriate to free particles with a phase space density given by $`f`$. They are not compatible *in detail* with Eqs. (25) and (30). For example, space and momentum dependent mass effects are not included. Nevertheless, when $`f1/\lambda `$ the one-loop correction to the mass square is small compared to either the bare mass square or the square of the typical particle momentum. Hence we believe Eqs. (32) are adequate for our purposes of demonstrating the equivalence between classical field theory and the Boltzmann equation and match well with the level of accuracy of our Boltzmann equations, Eqs. (35) and (36).111For quantities sensitive to soft modes, like the bulk viscosity, medium corrections to the mass are important JeonYaffe .

Using equations identical to Eqs. (23a), (23b) etc., one easily finds

$`G_{11}(x,p)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \delta (p^2m^2)\left[f+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right],\text{}`$ (33a)
$`G_{12}(x,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{p^2m^2+iϵp_0}},\text{}`$ (33b)
$`G_{21}(x,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{p^2m^2iϵp_0}},\text{}`$ (33c)
$`G_{22}(x,p)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (33d)
and we note that only $`G_{11}`$ has changed from Eq. (24). When $`f`$ is large only $`G_{11}`$ is large, which means that $`\varphi `$ is large while $`\pi `$ is small, as we have assumed in the discussion before Eq. (10). Now that we have found the relationship between the phase space density of particles, $`f`$, and $`G_{11}`$, we can view Eq. (29) as an equation for $`f`$. Indeed we can rewrite Eq. (29) as

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{}\right)f(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{p},t)=\frac{i}{2\omega (p)}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12})\left(f+\frac{1}{2}\right)+\frac{i}{2\omega (p)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22},$$
(34)
where $`p_0=\omega (p)=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^2+m^2}`$ is to be taken in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s in Eq. (34). Equation (34) has the form of a Boltzmann equation. Our task now is to show that the right hand side of Eq. (34) agrees with the collision term in $`\varphi ^4`$ theory, at least when $`f1`$.

### IV.2 The collision term in $`\varphi ^4`$ theory

We are now going to give the lowest order contrubution to the collision term calculated directly from the elastic scattering cross section from the graph shown in Fig. 5. The first term on the right hand side of Fig. 5 is the gain term for a particle of momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ while the second term is the loss term. With the notation

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{}\right)f(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{p},t)=C(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{p},t)$$
(35)
one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill C& =\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\delta [\omega (pk)+\omega (P)\omega (p)\omega (Pk)]\frac{d^3Pd^3k}{(2\pi )^52\omega (pk)2\omega (P)2\omega (p)2\omega (Pk)}\times \text{}\hfill \\ & \times \left\{f(pk)f(P)[1+f(p)][1+f(Pk)]f(p)f(Pk)[1+f(pk)][1+f(P)]\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
The first factor on the right hand side of Eq. (36), the $`\frac{1}{2}`$, is a symmetry factor. The term quartic in the $`f`$’s cancels in Eq. (36) and one is left with cubic and quadratic terms. The cubic term is

$$\{\}_3=f(pk)f(P)[f(p)+f(Pk)]f(p)f(Pk)[f(pk)+f(P)]$$
(37)
with the first two terms on the right hand side of Eq. (37) coming from the gain term and the second two terms coming from the loss term. The quadratic term is

$$\{\}_2=f(pk)f(P)f(p)f(Pk)$$
(38)
We shall see that the classical field evolution reproduces the $`\{\}_3`$ part of the collision term and, perhaps surprisingly, even the $`\{\}_2`$ part.

### IV.3 Evaluating the collision term from classical field theory

Now we turn to evaluating the right hand side of Eq. (34) at lowest order, order $`\lambda ^2`$, in perturbation theory. We begin with the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}`$-term whose lowest order contribution is illustrated in Fig. 6. One has

$$\frac{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}}{2\omega (p)}=\frac{i}{2\omega (p)}i\frac{(i\lambda )^2}{3!}\frac{d^4k_1d^4k_2d^4k_3}{(2\pi )^8}\delta ^4(k_1+k_2+k_3p)G_{11}(k_1)G_{11}(k_2)G_{11}(k_3),$$
(39)
where the second factor of $`i`$ on the right hand side of Eq. (39) comes because $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}`$ is given by the usual Feynman rules, and the $`1/3!`$ is the symmetry factor for the graph. In one of the three factors of $`G_{11}`$ we take $`k_0<0`$ while in the remaining two factors $`k_0>0`$. (This is the only way to satisfy the $`\delta `$-function constraint. The choice of one of the lines to have $`k_0<0`$ also introduces a counting factor of 3.) Using Eq. (33a), it is now straightforward to get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}}{2\omega (p)}=\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}& \delta [\omega (pk)+\omega (P)\omega (p)\omega (Pk)]\frac{d^3Pd^3k}{(2\pi )^52\omega (pk)2\omega (P)2\omega (Pk)2\omega (p)}\hfill \\ & \left[f(pk)+\frac{1}{2}\right]\left[f(P)+\frac{1}{2}\right]\left[f(Pk)+\frac{1}{2}\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
where we have chosen, say, $`k_1=P`$, $`k_2=pk`$, $`k_3=(Pk)`$, to match the picture of incoming and outgoing lines in Fig. 5. One easily sees that the cubic term in $`f`$ agrees with one of the gain terms in Eq. (36).

Now we turn to the remaining term on the right hand side of Eq. (34), with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}`$ illustrated in Fig. 7, at order $`\lambda ^2`$. One has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{i}{2\omega (p)}\left[f(p)+\frac{1}{2}\right](\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12})& =\frac{i}{2\omega (p)}i\frac{(i\lambda )^2}{2}\frac{d^4k_1d^4k_2d^4k_3}{(2\pi )^8}\delta ^4(k_1+k_2+k_3p)\hfill \\ & 2\pi ϵ(k_{30})\delta (k_3^2m^2)G_{11}(k_1)G_{11}(k_2)\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
When $`k_{30}>0`$ there are two (identical) terms, one having $`k_{10}>0`$ and $`k_{20}<0`$ and the other having $`k_{10}<0`$ and $`k_{20}>0`$. When $`k_{30}<0`$ it is necessary that $`k_{10}`$ and $`k_{20}`$ both be positive. Thus one finds

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{i}{2\omega (p)}[f(p)+\frac{1}{2}](\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{12})=\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}\delta [\omega (Pk)+\omega (P)\omega (p)\omega (Pk)]\hfill \\ & \frac{d^3Pd^3k}{(2\pi )^52\omega (p)2\omega (pk)2\omega (P)2\omega (Pk)}[f(p)+\frac{1}{2}]\times \hfill \\ & \times \left\{2\left[f(Pk)+\frac{1}{2}\right]\left[f(P)+\frac{1}{2}\right]\left[f(pk)+\frac{1}{2}\right]\left[f(P)+\frac{1}{2}\right]\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
where in the first term in $`\{\}`$ in Eq. (42) we have taken $`k_3=pk`$, $`k_1=(Pk)`$, $`k_2=P`$ along with $`k_1k_2`$, while in the second term we have taken $`k_1=(pk)`$, $`k_2=P`$, and $`k_3=(Pk)`$ so that the variables match those in Eq. (37). We note that the two loss terms in Eq. (37) are in fact identical.

Now, taking the terms cubic in $`f`$ in Eqs. (40) and (41) exactly reproduces the cubic term, (37), in Eq. (36). For the quadratic terms we find, from Eqs. (40) and (42), the result that replaces $`\{\}_2`$ in Eq. (38) is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \{\}_2^{}=\frac{1}{2}\{& f(pk)f(P)+f(pk)f(Pk)+f(P)f(Pk)2f(p)f(Pk)\hfill \\ & 2f(p)f(P)2f(Pk)f(P)+f(p)f(pk)+f(p)f(P)+f(pk)f(P)\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
Using the fact that $`f(pk)f(Pk)`$ and $`f(P)f(Pk)`$ are equivalent expressions, after integration in Eq. (40) or (42), as are $`f(p)f(P)`$ and $`f(p)f(pk)`$ one finds $`\{\}_2^{}=\{\}_2`$. Finally there are the linear terms in the $`f`$’s coming from Eqs. (40) and (42) for which there are no counterparts in Eq. (36). In fact the linear terms do not cancel in Eq. (40) and (42) so that the classical field theory does not *exactly* reproduce the Boltzmann collision term.

Finally, a comment on the level of accuracy at which one can expect the classical field theory to reproduce the Boltzmann equation. We always suppose that $`f1`$ but that $`\lambda f1`$ so that a perturbative discussion makes sense. The size of our fields then are $`\varphi \sqrt{f}`$ while $`\pi 1/\sqrt{f}`$. In going from the full Lagrangian, given in Eq. (7), to the classical Lagrangian, given in Eq. (10), we have dropped a term $`\frac{\lambda }{3!}\pi ^3\varphi `$ compared to the interaction term $`\frac{\lambda }{3!}\pi \varphi ^3`$ which has been kept. Now an estimate of the size of these two terms is

$$\lambda \pi \varphi ^3\lambda f$$
(44)
and

$$\lambda \pi ^3\varphi \frac{\lambda }{f}$$
(45)
Thus, the quantum corrections are naturally down by a factor of $`1/f^2`$ as compared to a classical evaluation at a corresponding order of $`\lambda `$. Since the maximal possible terms in the collision term are of size $`\lambda ^2f^3`$, one expects quantum corrections to occur at a level of $`\lambda ^2f`$ leaving the $`\lambda ^2f^2`$ terms still in the classical field theory domain. So in retrospect, our ability to get both the $`\lambda ^2f^3`$ and $`\lambda ^2f^2`$ terms in Eq. (36) correctly was to be expected. This means that the $`22`$ parts of a collision term can be obtained from a classical theory calculation. This cannot be expected to be the case for $`24`$ processes where terms of size $`\lambda ^4f^5`$, $`\lambda ^4f^4`$, $`\lambda ^4f^3`$, and $`\lambda ^4f^2`$ in the collision terms will occur at leading order in $`\lambda `$. One can here expect to get the $`\lambda ^4f^5`$ and $`\lambda ^4f^4`$ terms correctly in a classical field theory, but not the $`\lambda ^4f^3`$ and $`\lambda ^4f^2`$ terms.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Dietrich Bödeker for encouraging us to write up this paper. The work of A.H.M. is supported, in part, by a DOE grant. D.T.S. is supported, in part, by DOE grant No. DOE-ER-41132 and by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.