text:
# Exact Mesonic Vacua From Matrix Models

## 1 Introduction

Dijkgraaf and Vafa recently showed that an effective superpotential of $`N=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory is obtained from a hermitian matrix integral over a tree level superpotential . This observation is originally formulated by using a string theoretical realization of gauge theory, but even apart from string theory the Dijkgraaf-Vafa (DV) procedure itself produces field theoretically a powerful principle to calculate the effective glueball superpotential. After their works, a lot of papers, which discuss from various point of view, have rapidly appeared in .

The model discussed in  is mainly the $`N=1`$ gauge theory coupled to adjoint chiral superfields with a general superpotential of a polynomial. And also $`N=1^{}`$ and Leigh-Strassler deformed theory from $`N=4`$ theory are discussed in detail by . On the other hand, theory with chiral fields in a fundamental representation, which is the so-called supersymmetric QCD (SQCD) theory, has much interesting dynamics like a generation of the Affleck-Dine-Seiberg (ADS) superpotential , Seiberg duality , etc. So we expect that the matrix model technique sheds new light on the non-perturbative dynamics of $`N=1`$ SQCD and phenomenologically realistic models.

A breakthrough in the calculation of matrix models with flavors has been achieved by . They find that for $`U(N_c)`$ gauge theory with $`N_f`$ flavors in the fundamental representation, the matrix integral is completely performed and infinite series in a perturbative expansion could be represented by a single analytic function. Using their results, a generation of ADS superpotential is discussed in . However, these matrix model calculation has a discrepancy in a sense of the number of supersymmetric vacua (Witten index) compared with results of  except for the case of $`N_f=1`$ . This implies that we overlook some information in the matrix model calculation.

Moreover, the generation of the ADS superpotential is discussed in a different way  by insertion of a matrix valued delta function, which is called as the Wishart integral in the mathematical literature . However, the relationship between these two different methods is still unclear. If we naively use the result from the Wishart integral for the $`N_c<N_f`$ case, the matrix integral indicates an existence of the Seiberg duality . But we need more careful analysis for this attractive problem.

The purpose of this paper is to resolve the discrepancy of the Witten index between the effective mesonic field theory and matrix model calculation, and to find an exact correspondence between the perturbative series expansion and the direct matrix integration with insertion of the delta function. The former is just done by perceiving ambiguity of the functional representation in a perturbative infinite series. The latter can be found by refining the arguments in  from the first principle of the matrix integral. In our argument, we obtain the exact ADS superpotential without the shift of the mass term for the meson field.

The paper is organized as follows. In the subsequent section, we extend the analysis of the effective mesonic vacua which is discussed in  for the $`SU(N_c)`$ case. This analysis tells us a disagreement of the Witten index with the previous matrix model calculation. We reproduce the matrix integration for a general mass matrix in section 3 and we show one to one correspondence between the vacua of the meson and glueball effective theory. In section 4, we discuss in detail the relationship between the results of the perturbative sum of the matrix integration and one from the direct matrix integration. We will give a meaning of the mesonic effective theory in terms of the matrix models.

## 2 Vacuum structure of effective meson theory

We consider $`U(N_c)`$ gauge theory with $`N_f`$ flavors in the fundamental representation in the following. The tree level superpotential of this theory is obtained by a flow from $`N=2`$ SQCD theory with fundamental flavors $`Q_i^a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^a`$ by adding a mass $`\mu `$ for the adjoint scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a^b`$ in $`N=2`$ vector multiplet

$$W_{\mathrm{tree}}(\mathrm{\Phi },Q,\stackrel{~}{Q})=\mu \mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^a\mathrm{\Phi }_a^bQ_b^i+m_i\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^aQ_a^i,$$
(1)
where $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N_f`$ stand for the flavor indices and $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},N_c`$ stand for the color indices.

If we integrate out $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ first, we expect the effective superpotential for mesons from the principle of holomorphy and dimensional counting as follows

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}(M)=\frac{1}{2\mu }\mathrm{Tr}M^2+\mathrm{Tr}(mM)+W_{\mathrm{ADS}},$$
(2)
where we define the gauge singlet meson variable by $`M_i^jQ_i^a\stackrel{~}{Q}_a^j`$ and $`W_{\mathrm{ADS}}`$ is an instanton induced effective ADS superpotential proposed by

$$W_{\mathrm{ADS}}=(N_cN_f)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{3N_cN_f}}{detM}\right)^{\frac{1}{N_cN_f}},$$
(3)
with the scale of the $`N=1`$ SQCD theory $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$. The vacuum structure of this effective theory is carefully analyzed in  for $`SU(N_c)`$ theory. We follow their arguments below for the $`U(N_c)`$ gauge group.

Using the $`U(N_f)`$ global symmetry, we can diagonalize $`M`$ as

$$M=\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N_f}).$$
(4)
Substituting the diagonalized $`M`$ into the effective superpotential (2), we have the vacuum equations for each $`\lambda _i`$

$$\frac{1}{\mu }\lambda _i+m_i\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{(3N_cN_f)/(N_cN_f)}}{(_j\lambda _j)^{1/(N_cN_f)}}\lambda _i^1=0,$$
(5)
and equivalently this reduces to a quadratic equations

$$\lambda _i^2\mu m_i\lambda _i+\mu X=0,$$
(6)
where we define

$$X\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{(3N_cN_f)/(N_cN_f)}(\underset{j}{}\lambda _j)^{1/(N_fN_c)}.$$
(7)
These quadratic equations have two different solutions for each $`\lambda _i`$. We now introduce two indices $`i`$ and $`i^{}`$ which run for solutions with negative and positive signs, respectively, within $`N_f`$ indices (this choice is for later convenience), that is, we choose

$`\lambda _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu m_i}{2}}\left(1\sqrt{14\alpha _iX}\right),i\text{ runs for }r\text{ within }N_f`$ (8)
$`\lambda _i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu m_i^{}}{2}}\left(1+\sqrt{14\alpha _i^{}X}\right),i^{}\text{ runs for }N_fr\text{ within }N_f,`$ (9)
where $`r`$ is the number of the solutions with negative signature and we define $`\alpha _i\frac{1}{\mu m_i^2}`$.

We now recall that $`X`$ is defined in (7) in terms of $`\lambda _i`$’s. So putting (8) and (9) into the definition of $`X`$, we obtain the following equation for each fixed $`r`$

$$X=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{\frac{3N_cN_f}{N_cN_f}}\left(det\left(\frac{\mu m}{2}\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{N_fN_c}}\underset{i}{}\left(1\sqrt{14\alpha _iX}\right)^{\frac{1}{N_fN_c}}\underset{i^{}}{}\left(1+\sqrt{14\alpha _i^{}X}\right)^{\frac{1}{N_fN_c}},$$
(10)
and reduce to

$$X^{N_c}=\frac{1}{2^{N_f}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_c}\underset{i}{}\left(1+\sqrt{14\alpha _iX}\right)\underset{i^{}}{}\left(1\sqrt{14\alpha _iX}\right),$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_c}(detm)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{3N_cN_f}`$ is a dynamical scale of the pure $`U(N_c)`$ gauge theory.

We consider in the following the case that the mass matrix is proportional to an identity in order to see the explicit structure of solutions in eq. (11). In this simple case, the general solution of the eigenvalues preserves a global $`U(r)\times U(N_fr)`$ symmetry and eq. (11) becomes

$$X^{N_c}=\frac{1}{2^{N_f}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_c}\left(1+\sqrt{14\alpha X}\right)^r\left(1\sqrt{14\alpha X}\right)^{N_fr},$$
(12)
where all $`\alpha _i`$’s are identical to $`\alpha `$ now. If we assume $`r>N_fr`$ without loss of generality, we can rewrite the vacuum equation into

$$Y^{N_cr}(1Y)^{N_cN_f+r}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_c}\alpha ^{N_c},$$
(13)
where we define $`Y(1+\sqrt{14\alpha X})/2`$.

We can see that eq. (13) is a polynomial of degree $`2N_cN_f`$ in $`Y`$. So we expect that eq. (12) has $`2N_cN_f`$ solutions for each fixed $`r`$ as well as eq. (13). The number of ways for choosing $`r`$ negative signature is given by $`{}_{N_f}{}^{}C_{r}^{}`$, but if we note that the polynomial (13) is invariant under exchanging the signs of $`r`$ positive roots with $`N_fr`$ negative ones in eq. (12)111There is no symmetry like this for the general mass matrix., the essential number of choice is a half of these. So we can count, in terms of $`X`$, the total number of vacua (Witten index) as

$`\mathrm{Tr}(1)^F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2N_cN_f){\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{N_f}{}}}{}_{N_f}{}^{}C_{r}^{}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`(2N_cN_f)2^{N_f1}.`$
In comparison with the results in , there exists a discrepancy of the Witten index with the factor of $`2^{N_f1}`$ except for the $`N_f=1`$ case . We will refine the matrix model calculation in the next section to resolve this discrepancy.

## 3 Matrix integral over flavors

We will discuss the derivation of the glueball effective theory from the matrix model procedure given by . We here extend the diagrammatic calculation with flavors in  to a general mass matrix.

As conjectured in , only the diagram with one flavor index loop contributes to the effective superpotential. A topology of this diagram is a disk with one boundary and we have to sum up all other color index holes. We can insert $`S=\mathrm{Tr}\lambda ^2`$ into each color index holes except for one index loop in order to cancel fermionic zero modes. In the diagram which contains only the color index loop, we can choose one hole in which no $`S`$ operator is inserted among total $`h`$ holes. Therefore, the contribution to the superpotential is proportional to $`N_chS^{h1}`$, see Fig. 1, where $`h`$ in the prefactor is the number of choices of no operator inserted loop and the factor $`N_c`$ comes from the trace of Chan-Paton color index. This means that the contribution to the effective superpotential from the free energy of the matrix model is $`N_c\frac{_{\chi =2}(S)}{S}`$, where $`_{\chi =2}(S)`$ is a sum of the planar diagram with the Euler number $`\chi =2`$, or the genus zero.

On the other hand, if we consider the diagrams with one flavor index loop (boundary), we can not insert the operator $`S`$ into the flavor loop. So we must insert into $`h1`$ color indexed holes and there is no other choice of the insertion. This gives just the contribution of $`S^h^{}`$ to the superpotential, where $`h^{}=h1`$. So the contribution to the superpotential directly comes from a sum of the diagram with one boundary $`_{\chi =1}(S)`$ instead of the derivative of the free energy. We finally take a trace over the flavor index. This leads to the factor $`N_f`$ if the system possesses a $`U(N_f)`$ global symmetry, but it becomes a sum over the different function with each flavor indices in general, namely $`_{i=1}^{N_f}_{\chi =1}^{(i)}(S)`$, where each function depends on some parameters, which break the global symmetry, like different masses.

As mentioned above, if we use a mass matrix which is proportional to an identity matrix and preserves an $`U(N_f)`$ global symmetry, we have only the contribution from the diagrams with one boundary is always proportional to $`N_f`$. This hides the detailed vacuum structure from the matrix model calculation. So we extend the calculation of  to the general mass matrix, which is diagonalized by the global symmetry at least, to compare with the field theoretical results in the previous section.

Now let us consider the matrix integral with the tree level superpotential (1) to evaluate the contribution from the diagrams with one boundary,

$$Z=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(U(N_c))}[d\mathrm{\Phi }][dQ][d\stackrel{~}{Q}]\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{N_c}{S}W_{\mathrm{tree}}(\mathrm{\Phi },Q,\stackrel{~}{Q})\right\},$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{Vol}(U(N_c))`$ is a volume of the gauge group $`U(N_c)`$. We regard the quadratic terms of the matrices in $`W_{\mathrm{tree}}(\mathrm{\Phi },Q,\stackrel{~}{Q})`$ as a kinetic term and the Yukawa interaction term as an interaction of the perturbative expansion. We find two point correlators (propagators) from the tree level superpotential as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_a^b\mathrm{\Phi }_c^d=\frac{1}{2\mu }\frac{S}{N_c}\delta _a^d\delta _c^b,Q_i^a\stackrel{~}{Q}_b^j=\frac{1}{m_i}\frac{S}{N_c}\delta _b^a\delta _i^j.$$
(16)
The contribution to $`_{\chi =2}(S)`$ comes only from the volume factor and the measure of a gaussian integral of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ since $`W_{\mathrm{tree}}`$ does not include any self-interacting part of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. So the matrix integral (15) has the following series expansion with ignoring the volume factor

$$Z=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(2k)!}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}N_c}{S}\right)^{2k}(\stackrel{~}{Q}\mathrm{\Phi }Q)_1(\stackrel{~}{Q}\mathrm{\Phi }Q)_2\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{Q}\mathrm{\Phi }Q)_{2k}.$$
(17)
Using the Feynman rules obtained from the superpotential, we can find weights of the connected diagrams with one boundary and contract each two point correlators, thus we get

$$\frac{N_c}{S}_{\chi =1}(S,\mu ,m_i)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2k1)!}{(k+1)!k!}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}N_c}{S}\right)^{2k}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}\left(\frac{1}{m_i}\frac{S}{N_c}\right)^{2k}\right)\left(\frac{S}{2\mu N_c}\right)^kN_c^{k+1}.$$
(18)
Exchanging an order of the summation, we finally obtain

$$_{\chi =1}(S,\alpha _i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2k1)!}{(k+1)!k!}\alpha _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}S^{k+1},$$
(19)
where $`\alpha _i`$ is the same one defined in the previous section.

We now consider the series in (19) which is written by a generalized hypergeometric function and has a branch cut discontinuity running from $`\frac{1}{4}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ in the complex plane. This hypergeometric series could be represented by a standard function as

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2k1)!}{(k+1)!k!}x^k=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2f^{(\pm )}(x)}\mathrm{log}f^{(\pm )}(x),$$
(20)
where $`f^{(\pm )}(x)`$ are two solutions of the quadratic equation $`f^2f+x=0`$, namely, defined by

$$f^{(\pm )}(x)\frac{1\pm \sqrt{14x}}{2}.$$
(21)
The sign of $`f^{(\pm )}(x)`$ depends on which branch $`x`$ exists.

If we use the above functional representation of the series (20), we obtain the free energy from the connected diagrams with one boundary

$$_{\chi =1}(S,\alpha _i)=S\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2f^{(\pm )}(\alpha _iS)}\mathrm{log}f^{(\pm )}(\alpha _iS)\right),$$
(22)
where the signs are suitably chosen for each $`i`$. We notice that the vacuum of  represents only the case that all signs are the same, namely the $`r=0`$ case. This structure of vacua is preserved even though the mass matrix is proportional to the identity matrix.

Therefore finally we obtain the effective superpotential from the above matrix integration in terms of the glueball field

$`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S)`$ $`=`$ $`N_c{\displaystyle \frac{_{\chi =2}(S)}{S}}2\pi i\tau _0S+_{\chi =1}(S)`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`S\left[N_c(1\mathrm{log}(S/\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f^{(\pm )}(\alpha _iS)}}\mathrm{log}f^{(\pm )}(\alpha _iS)\right)\right].`$
The F-flatness equation with respect to $`S`$ gives

$$S^{N_c}=\frac{1}{2^{N_f}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_c}\underset{i}{}\left(1+\sqrt{14\alpha _iS}\right)\underset{i^{}}{}\left(1\sqrt{14\alpha _i^{}S}\right),$$
(24)
where $`i`$ and $`i^{}`$ run for index of the positive and negative roots, respectively.

This equation is exactly equivalent to eq. (11) identifying $`X`$ with $`S`$. So these theories have obviously the same structure of the vacuum solutions. If we especially consider the case that all $`\alpha _i`$’s are identical, the vacuum equation has $`2N_cN_f`$ solutions with each fixed choice of the signs and the number of the independent way to choose the signs is $`2^{N_f1}`$ for the same reason mentioned in the previous section. So we conclude that the Witten index of this theory is

$$\mathrm{Tr}(1)^F=(2N_cN_f)2^{N_f1},$$
(25)
which agrees with (14).

We note here that the above vacuum structure still holds in the limit of $`m_i0`$ and $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ with $`\alpha _i`$ fixed, namely we can take a massless limit of quarks without the adjoint scalar fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in $`N=1`$ theory. However if take the limit of $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ first, which corresponds to $`\alpha _i0`$, then the vacuum equation reduces to (no more choice of the signs)

$$S^{N_c}=(detm)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{3N_cN_f},$$
(26)
which gives only $`N_c`$ vacua as well as the pure $`U(N_c)`$ case. We must be careful that these limits are not commutable.

## 4 Complete derivation of the ADS superpotential from matrix model

In this section, we will see more explicit correspondence between the effective meson theory and the direct matrix model calculation with a complete proof. We again begin with the matrix integral

$$Z=\frac{𝒩_Q}{\mathrm{Vol}(U(N_c))}[d\mathrm{\Phi }][dQ][d\stackrel{~}{Q}]\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{g_s}W_{\mathrm{tree}}(\mathrm{\Phi },Q,\stackrel{~}{Q})\right\},$$
(27)
where $`𝒩_Q\left(det(m/2\pi g_s)\right)^{N_c}`$ is a normalization constant which is determined by the gaussian integral over $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$.

To compare with the effective theory written by the mesonic variables $`M_i^j=Q_i^a\stackrel{~}{Q}_a^j`$, we consider a change of variables in the superpotential by insertion of a matrix valued delta function

$$e^{\frac{1}{g_s}W_{\mathrm{tree}}(\mathrm{\Phi },Q,\stackrel{~}{Q})}=[dM]\delta (MQ\stackrel{~}{Q})e^{\frac{1}{g_s}W_{\mathrm{tree}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},M)},$$
(28)
where

$$W_{\mathrm{tree}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},M)=\mu \mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2\frac{1}{2\mu }\mathrm{Tr}M^2+\mathrm{Tr}(mM),$$
(29)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_a^b\mathrm{\Phi }_a^b+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\mu }\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^bQ_a^i`$. The matrix valued delta function is defined by

$$\delta (MQ\stackrel{~}{Q})=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{N_f^2}}[dT]\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\mathrm{Tr}T(MQ\stackrel{~}{Q})\right\},$$
(30)
where $`T`$ is an $`N_f\times N_f`$ matrix. Note that this variable change is valid for $`N_c>N_f`$ since each matrices have the same degrees of freedom. If $`N_cN_f`$, then we have to introduce more constraints of variables like baryons.

Substituting (28) into (27) and integrating gaussian integrals of $`Q`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we find

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩_Q}{(2\pi )^{N_f^2}\mathrm{Vol}(U(N_c))}}{\displaystyle [d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}][dQ][d\stackrel{~}{Q}][dM][dT]\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{g_s}W_{\mathrm{tree}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},M)+i\mathrm{Tr}T(MQ\stackrel{~}{Q})\right\}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒩_Q\left(\frac{2\pi g_s}{\mu }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}N_c^2}}{(2\pi )^{N_f^2N_cN_f}\mathrm{Vol}(U(N_c))}}{\displaystyle [dM][dT]\left(det(iT)\right)^{N_c}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{g_s}W_{\mathrm{tree}}(M)+i\mathrm{Tr}TM\right\}},`$
where $`W_{\mathrm{tree}}(M)=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2\mu }M^2+mM\right)`$ is the tree superpotential of the mesonic part only.

Let us consider the following integration over $`T`$ first. We define an integral

$$I_{N_c,N_f}(M)[dT]\left(det(iT)\right)^{N_c}e^{i\mathrm{Tr}TM}.$$
(32)
To perform this integral, we decompose the matrices $`T`$ and $`M`$ into smaller parts

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\tau & 𝒕^{}\\ 𝒕& T^{}\end{array}\right),M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\rho & 𝒗^{}\\ 𝒗& M^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(33)
where $`\tau `$ and $`\rho `$ are scalars, $`𝒕`$ and $`𝒗`$ are $`N_f1`$ vectors and $`T^{}`$ and $`M^{}`$ are $`(N_f1)\times (N_f1)`$ matrices. This decomposition leads to the decomposition of the determinant of $`iT`$

$$det(iT)=\left(i\tau +𝒕^{}(iT^{})^1𝒕\right)det(iT^{}).$$
(34)
Now we can integrate over the real scalar $`\tau `$ by a residue integral

$`I_{N_c,N_f}(M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_c)}}\rho ^{N_c1}{\displaystyle [dT^{}]\left(det(iT^{})\right)^{N_c}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\mathrm{Tr}T^{}M^{}\right\}}`$ (35)
$`\times {\displaystyle }d𝒕d𝒕^{}\mathrm{exp}\{\rho (𝒕^{}+𝒂^{})(iT^{})^1(𝒕+𝒂){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}𝒗^{}(iT^{})𝒗\},`$
where $`𝒂=\frac{i}{\rho }(iT^{})𝒗`$. Next if we notice that the integration over $`𝒕`$ and $`𝒕^{}`$ is a gaussian integral with a constant shift, we obtain the following recursive relation

$`I_{N_c,N_f}(M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^{\frac{1}{2}(N_f+1)}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_c)}}\rho ^{N_cN_f}{\displaystyle [dT^{}]\left(det(iT^{})\right)^{N_c1}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\mathrm{Tr}T^{}\left(M^{}\frac{1}{\rho }𝒗𝒗^{}\right)\right\}}`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^{\frac{1}{2}(N_f+1)}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_c)}}\rho ^{N_cN_f}I_{N_c1,N_f1}\left(M^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}𝒗𝒗^{}\right).`$
We can easily solve the above recursive relation from the initial condition $`I_{N_cN_f+1,1}(\rho )=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_cN_f+1)}\rho ^{N_cN_f}`$ if and only if $`N_c>N_f`$. So we find

$`I_{N_c,N_f}(M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^{\frac{1}{2}N_f^2+\frac{1}{2}N_f}}{_{j=1}^{N_f}\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_cj+1)}}\left(detM\right)^{N_cN_f}`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`(2\pi )^{\frac{1}{2}N_f^2+\frac{1}{2}N_f}{\displaystyle \frac{G_2(N_cN_f+1)}{G_2(N_c+1)}}\left(detM\right)^{N_cN_f},`$
where $`G_2(z)`$ is the Barnes function defined by

$$G_2(z+1)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)G_2(z),G_2(1)=1,$$
(38)
and which has an asymptotic expansion at the large $`z`$

$$\mathrm{log}G_2(z+1)\frac{z^2}{2}\left(\mathrm{log}z\frac{3}{2}\right)+\frac{z}{2}\mathrm{log}2\pi \frac{1}{12}\mathrm{log}z.$$
(39)
We would like to emphasize here that the formula (37) does not contain a term $`e^{\mathrm{Tr}M}`$ in contrast with the discussion in . This term has a difficulty in a field theoretical sense since it is proportional to a mass term of the meson field and shifts the meson mass. However, there is no problem in our arguments.

Now if we recall the volume of the $`U(N)`$ gauge group is given by

$$\mathrm{Vol}(U(N))=\frac{(2\pi )^{\frac{1}{2}N^2+\frac{1}{2}N}}{G_2(N+1)},$$
(40)
plugging back the formula (37) into eq. (LABEL:MM+TM), we obtain

$$Z=\frac{𝒩_Q\left(\frac{2\pi g_s}{\mu }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}N_c^2}}{\mathrm{Vol}(U(N_cN_f))}[dM]\left(detM\right)^{N_cN_f}e^{\frac{1}{g_s}W_{\mathrm{tree}}(M)}.$$
(41)
The volume factor is changed from $`U(N_c)`$ to $`U(N_cN_f)`$. This means that the Veneziano-Yankielowicz term is modified to $`(N_cN_f)S\mathrm{log}S`$ due to the matter contribution.

We first consider to complete the above integration over $`M`$. In the large $`N_c`$, $`N_f`$ limit with $`N_f/N_c`$ fixed, the above integration over $`M`$ can be evaluated by the saddle point approximation. If we again diagonalize $`M`$ like (4)222This does not bring about the Vandermonde determinant since $`M`$ is always diagonalized by the fixed $`U(N_f)`$ global symmetry., the integral of $`M`$ is dominated at the solution of the saddle point equations

$$\frac{1}{\mu }\lambda _i+m_iS\lambda _i^1=0.$$
(42)
This quadratic equations has two solutions for each $`\lambda _i`$

$$\lambda _i^{(\pm )}=\mu m_i\left(\frac{1\pm \sqrt{14\alpha _iS}}{2}\right).$$
(43)
Picking terms proportional to $`1/g_s`$ from the approximated $`M`$ integral part and the volume factor in $`\mathrm{log}Z`$, we find exactly

$$_{\chi =1}(S,\alpha _i)=S\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2f^{(\pm )}(\alpha _iS)}\mathrm{log}f^{(\pm )}(\alpha _iS)\right),$$
(44)
where $`f^{(\pm )}(x)`$ are defined in (21) and signs are properly chosen for each $`i`$. This final result, of course, is the same as (22) in the previous section since we have just performed the matrix integration over all variables in the alternative way.

We have here integrated all matrix variables to the end, so we have skipped the intermediate mesonic effective theory with the ADS superpotential. To obtain the ADS superpotential from this matrix integral, we have to forget temporally the integral over $`M`$ in (41) and use the DV procedure before the integral of $`M`$. We can justify this procedure since the size of $`M`$ depends only on $`N_f`$ and the $`M`$ integral does not contribute to the function of $`S`$. We find the expansion of the free energy from $`\mathrm{log}Z`$ and get

$`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S,M)`$ $`=`$ $`N_c{\displaystyle \frac{_{\chi =2}(S)}{S}}2\pi i\tau _0S+_{\chi =1}(S)`$
$`=`$ $`S\left[N_c(1\mathrm{log}(S/\mathrm{\Lambda }^3))N_f(1\mathrm{log}S)\mathrm{log}\left(det(mM)\right)\right]+W_{\mathrm{tree}}(M).`$
Next we consider the minimaizing of $`S`$, namely if we solve the F-flatness condition with respect to $`S`$ and substitute into the solution to (LABEL:W(S,M)), we obtain the effective meson theory

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}(M)=W_{\mathrm{tree}}(M)+W_{\mathrm{ADS}}(M),$$
(46)
where $`W_{\mathrm{ADS}}`$ is exactly the same as (3) with the identification of the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{3N_cN_f}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_c}/detm`$. If we minimize the superpotential (46), we apparently see the same vacuum structure as the case where all matrix variables are integrated since we just minimize with respect to $`M`$ and $`S`$ in each case.

Now we consider the special case of $`N_c=N_f`$. We are able to use the above argument for $`N_c=N_f`$ excluding the baryons, $`B=detQ`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}=det\stackrel{~}{Q}`$. All logarithmic functions of $`S`$ disappear from eq. (LABEL:W(S,M)) in this case. Then we have

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S,M)=S\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{2N_c}}{detM}\right)+W_{\mathrm{tree}}.$$
(47)
From the F-flatness equation of $`S`$, we obtain the following equation without any gluino condensation

$$detM=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{2N_c}.$$
(48)
Therefore we obtain a quantum modification of the classical moduli space from the matrix model  when $`B=0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{B}=0`$.

Finally we note that the integration of the delta function exchanges the volume factor of $`U(N_c)`$ for one of $`U(N_cN_f)`$. If we naively apply the formula (37) to the case of $`N_c<N_f`$, we can rewrite eq. (41) up to some constants as

$$Z\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(U(N_fN_c))}[dM][dq][d\stackrel{~}{q}]e^{\frac{1}{g_s}\left(W_{\mathrm{tree}}(M)+\stackrel{~}{q}Mq\right)},$$
(49)
where $`q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ are $`(N_fN_c)\times N_f`$ matrices, namely, which represent the fundamental flavors of $`U(N_fN_c)`$ gauge theory. This fact strongly suggests the appearance of the Seiberg duality from the matrix models . Moreover, we comment that the above rough derivation of Seiberg duality is valid even without any mass deformation. However, the degrees of freedom of the quark matrices $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ can not be replaced by only the mesonic variables for $`N_cN_f`$. So we should need more careful analysis with some constraints or baryon matrices .

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank N. Dorey, T. J. Hollowood, S. P. Kumar, P. de Madeiros, H. Suzuki and T .Yokono for useful discussions and comments. This work is supported in part by PPARC for Research into Applications of Quantum Theory to Problems in Fundamental Physics.


format: text

text:
# Fermion-Boson Interactions and Quantum Algebras

## I Introduction

Group-theoretical methods have contributed significantly to the study of the nuclear quantum-many-body problem. Classical examples are the Lipkin model r1 , the Elliot SU(3) model r2 , the various realizations of Arima and Iachello Interacting Boson Model (IBM) r3 , the Schütte and Da Providencia model r4 , and the bi-fermion algebraic model of Geyer et al. r5 , among other important contributions. We refer the reader to the review article of Klein and Marshalek r6 , for a comprehensive presentation of the problem.

Models based on the coupling between bi-fermions and bosons have been introduced long ago r7 ; r8 . These models are particularly suitable to describe condensation phenomena and transitions from fermionic to bosonic phases. In particular, the model proposed by Da Providencia and Schütte (DPS) is a solvable model which exhibits a phase transition between nucleonic and pionic condensates r4 . Similar ideas have been applied to mock-up the fundamentals of the non-perturbative, low energy, regime of QCD r9 ; r10 . Recently, an extension of the Lipkin (LE) model was proposed to take into account the interaction of pairs of bi-fermions (quark-antiquark pairs) with external bosons (gluon pairs) r11 . These constructions may help, as toy models, to understand interactions between fermions and bosons in hadron physics r13 . All these models share the non-perturbative nature of the approximations r14 .

In addition to the conventional group theoretical approach, the literature is rich in different realizations of deformed algebras (q-algebras) whose mathematical foundations can be found, i.e., in CP ; r15 ; r16 ; GS . Applications of concepts related to q-algebras to some selected quantum mechanical examples can be found in r17 . Recently published works on q-algebras, in connection with quantum-many-body Hamiltonians r18 ; r19 , have shown the suitability of the concept.

Several $`q`$-deformed versions of different schematic nuclear models have been previously introduced through the substitution of the symmetries of the original models by their $`q`$-analogues (see r17  and references therein). An example of this “direct $`q`$-deformation” approach for a quantum optical fermion-boson Hamiltonian was given in r20 . The phonon spectrum in $`{}_{}{}^{4}\text{He}`$ has been also described by using a $`q`$-analogue of a $`N`$-oscillator Hamiltonian in He4 .

Although the mathematical meaning of the deformation parameter (q) which characterizes the commutation (anti-commutation) relations between the generators of a given algebraic structure is self-evident CP ; r15 ; r16 ; GS , the physical meaning of it is less known. We recall that the exact $`q`$-deformed $`su(2)`$ symmetry underlies the complete integrability of quantum systems like the XXZ Heisenberg chain GS ; r25 ; r26 ; r27  and Bloch electrons in a magnetic field r28 . In nuclear models, except for the quantum harmonic oscillator and the quantum rotor r17  where $`q`$ may be interpreted as a stretching parameter of the corresponding spectra, little is known about the potentiality of q-algebras in more realistic cases.

With the above motivation in mind, and as a complementary tool to standard non-perturbative many-body techniques r14 , in this paper we propose the use of quantum algebras in the construction of effective Hamiltonians. We shall show that the quantum algebra $`su_q(2)`$ r23  can be used to define, in a natural way, new effective Hamiltonians which reproduce the same ground state properties and the spectrum of the ones based on fermion-boson interactions. Advances in the same direction have been achieved in quantum optics, where the interaction term of the Dicke model has been described through a $`su_q(2)`$ effective Hamiltonian r24 .

We would like to stress that such a quantum algebra approach introduces a remarkable simplification of the models without any significant loss of physical content. Explicitly, we shall show how the DPS and LE Hamiltonians, originally defined on a $`su(2)h_3`$ Lie algebra, where $`su(2)`$ is the algebra of quasi-spin fermion operators and the Heisenberg algebra $`h_3`$ accounts for the boson degrees of freedom, can be defined on the $`su_q(2)`$ algebra alone. It is found that the new effective $`su_q(2)`$-Hamiltonians reproduce accurately the physical properties of the $`su(2)h_3`$ models, provided the deformation parameter $`q`$ is suitably fitted in terms of physical constraints.

We are confident that the present treatment can be successfully applied to describe other physical systems, where the effective motion is determined by the interaction between elementary fermion and boson degrees of freedom. The correspondence between the spectra of interacting fermion-boson systems and effective q-deformed purely fermionic systems, which we demonstrate in this work for some selected examples, may be a general feature common to other fermion $``$ boson systems. Such is the case, for example, of nucleons interacting strongly via nuclear $`\lambda `$-pole fields, which may also be represented as free nucleons moving in a deformed central potential BMV2 . Similarly, the non-perturbative domain of QCD, which is the theory of the interactions between quark and gluons, may be viewed as an effective theory of confined fermions r11 ; r13 , without gluons. To summarize, this paper is devoted to the study of the equivalence between systems of interacting fermions and bosons and systems of q-deformed fermions. Clearly, we shall not deal with the transformation of a given Hamiltonian onto a q-deformed space, since this procedure leads, in general, to a completely different Hamiltonian.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II we present the basic aspects of the fermion-boson interaction models considered in the work, and construct the associated deformed effective Hamiltonians. In section III we discuss the behavior of the exact solutions obtained for the different Hamiltonians. Conclusions are drawn in section IV.

## II Formalism

In this section we shall briefly review the essentials of the DPS and LE schematic models and discuss their realizations in the framework of deformed algebras (hereon referred to as q-algebras).

### II.1 The DPS model.

The DPS model r4  consists of $`N=2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ fermions moving in two single-shells. Each shell has a degeneracy $`2\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and its substates are labelled by the index $`l=1,\mathrm{},2\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The energy-difference between shells is fixed by the energy scale $`\omega _f`$. The creation and annihilation operators of particles belonging to the upper level, are denoted by $`a_l^{}`$ and $`a_l`$, respectively, while in the lower level, the creation and annihilation operators for holes are denoted by $`b_l^{}`$ and $`b_l`$. The fermions are coupled to an external boson field represented by the creation (annihilation) operators $`B^{}`$ ($`B`$) and by the energy $`\omega _b`$, respectively. The DPS model Hamiltonian can be interpreted as the one describing a system of $`N`$ fermions (either nucleons or quarks), belonging to an isospin-(flavor)-multiplet and $`N`$ spin projections (colors) in interaction with bosons (either pions or gluons), in a hadron (QCD) scenario. The DPS Hamiltonian reads r4

$`H=\omega _f(T_0+\mathrm{\Omega })+\omega _bB^{}B+G(T_+B^{}+T_{}B),`$ (1)
where $`G`$ is the strength of the interaction in the particle-hole channel.

The particle ($`\nu `$) and hole ($`\overline{\nu }`$) number operators are given by

$$\nu =\underset{l}{}a_l^{}a_l,\overline{\nu }=\underset{l}{}b_l^{}b_l,$$
(2)
and the following bi-linear combinations of fermion operators

$`T_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}a_l^{}b_l^{},T_{}=(T_+)^{},`$
$`T_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\nu +\overline{\nu })\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (3)
are the generators of the $`su(2)`$ algebra:

$$[T_0,T_+]=T_+,[T_0,T_{}]=T_{},[T_+,T_{}]=2T_0.$$
(4)
The Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) commutes with the operator

$$P=B^{}B\frac{1}{2}(\nu +\overline{\nu })=B^{}B(T_0+\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(5)
Therefore, the matrix elements of $`H`$ can be calculated in a basis labelled by the eigenvalues of the number operators for bosons and fermions, as shown in r4 ,

$$|m_\mathrm{\Omega },n=\sqrt{\frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }m_\mathrm{\Omega })!}{(m_\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega })!(2\mathrm{\Omega })!n!}}T_+^{\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }}(B^{})^n|0.$$
(6)
In this basis the eigenvalues of $`P`$ are given by

$$P|m_\mathrm{\Omega },n=(nm_\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })|m_\mathrm{\Omega },n.$$
(7)
In particular, we shall diagonalize $`H`$ in the subspace spanned by the states $`|m_\mathrm{\Omega },L+m_\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }|m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which have a fixed eigenvalue $`L`$ of $`P`$

$$P|m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }=L|m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(8)
In this subspace, the non-zero matrix elements of $`H`$ are

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }|H|m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }=\hfill & \\ & \omega _bL+(\omega _f+\omega _b)(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }),\hfill & (9.\mathrm{a})\hfill \\ & m_\mathrm{\Omega }+1;L,\mathrm{\Omega }|H|m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }=\hfill & \\ & G\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }+1)(\mathrm{\Omega }m_\mathrm{\Omega })(L+\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }+1)}.\hfill & (9.\mathrm{b})\hfill \end{array}`$
The dimension of the finite-dimensional subspace associated to each fixed eigenvalue $`L`$, varies depending on the positive or the negative character of $`L`$. For $`L0`$ the quantum number $`m_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can take the values

$`m_\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }+1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (10)
and the Hilbert’s subspace has dimension $`2\mathrm{\Omega }+1`$. In the case $`L<0`$, the values that $`m_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can take are

$`m_\mathrm{\Omega }=L\mathrm{\Omega },L\mathrm{\Omega }+1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (11)
and accordingly, the dimension of the Hilbert’s subspace is $`2\mathrm{\Omega }+L+1`$.

#### II.1.1 The DPS and effective $`su_q(2)`$ Hamiltonians

The quantum algebra $`su_q(2)`$ is a Hopf algebra deformation of $`su(2)`$ r23  whose generators are $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\pm `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_0`$, and obey the commutation rules

$$[\stackrel{~}{T}_0,\stackrel{~}{T}_\pm ]=\pm \stackrel{~}{T}_\pm ,[\stackrel{~}{T}_+,\stackrel{~}{T}_{}]=[2\stackrel{~}{T}_0]_q.$$
(12)
Here the $`q`$-analogue $`[x]_q`$ of a given object $`x`$ (either a c-number or an operator) is defined by

$$[x]_q=\frac{q^xq^x}{qq^1}=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(zx)}{\mathrm{sinh}(z)}.$$
(13)
Throughout the paper we shall use alternatively $`q`$ and $`z`$ (where $`q=\mathrm{e}^z`$) as the deformation parameter, furthermore we shall assume that $`q`$ is real. Recall that the $`su(2)`$ algebra of Eq. (4) is recovered from Eq. (12) in the limit $`q1`$ ($`z0`$).

When $`q`$ is not a root of unity, the irreducible representations of $`su_q(2)`$ are obtained as a straightforward generalization of those of $`su(2)`$ CP ; GS . Namely,

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_0|j,m=m|j,m,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{T}_+|j,m=\sqrt{[j+m+1]_q[jm]_q}|j,m+1,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{}|j,m=\sqrt{[jm+1]_q[j+m]_q}|j,m1.`$ (14)
The matrix elements of Eq. (9) correspond to a tridiagonal finite dimensional matrix. Let us consider an effective Hamiltonian, sharing the same property, which is defined as the following function of the $`su_q(2)`$ generators

$$H_q=\omega _bL+(\omega _b+\omega _f)(\stackrel{~}{T}_0+\mathrm{\Omega })+\chi (q)q^{\frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_0}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{T}_++\stackrel{~}{T}_{})q^{\frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_0}{2}}$$
(15)
where $`\chi (q)`$ is a scalar function and $`H_q`$ will be realized in a $`su_q(2)`$ irreducible representation with the same dimension as the subspace spanned by $`|m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (therefore, with $`j=j(\mathrm{\Omega },L)`$). From Eq. (14), the non-vanishing matrix elements of Eq. (15) read

$`j,m|H_q|j,m=\omega _bL+(\omega _f+\omega _b)(m+\mathrm{\Omega }),(16.a)`$
$`j,m+1|H_q|j,m=`$
$`\chi (q)q^{(m+\frac{1}{2})}\sqrt{[j+m+1]_q[jm]_q}.(16.b)`$
In order to fit the dimensions, in the previous equations we take $`j=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`m=m_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for the effective $`L0`$ model, while for $`L<0`$, $`j=\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{L}{2}`$ and $`m=m_\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{L}{2}`$.

Note that, apparently, the Hamiltonians $`H`$ of Eq. (1) and $`H_q`$ of Eq. (15) seem to be quite different, since the latter has no bosonic degrees of freedom. In fact, the non-deformed limit $`q1`$ of Eq. (15), is the non-deformed $`su(2)`$ Hamiltonian

$$H=\omega _bL+(\omega _b+\omega _f)(T_0+\mathrm{\Omega })+\chi (1)(T_++T_{}).$$
(17)
which cannot be obtained from Eq. (1) through any transformation. The main result of this procedure is that the bosonic degrees of freedom included in Eq. (1) may be absorbed by the $`q`$-deformation in Eq. (15) provided that $`q`$ is defined as an appropriate function of both $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`L`$, a trade-off leading to the purely fermionic structure of Eq. (15). In this way it is possible to regard $`H_q`$ as an effective Hamiltonian with physical properties similar to those of $`H`$. In particular, we shall determine numerically the optimal values of the deformation parameter $`q`$ by imposing that the spectrum of the $`q`$-Hamiltonian of Eq. (15) be as close as possible to that of Eq. (1). In so doing, the function $`\chi (q)`$ has been chosen as

$$\chi (q)=\frac{G\sqrt{L+\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0+1}\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0+1)(\mathrm{\Omega }m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0)}}{q^{(m^0+\frac{1}{2})}\sqrt{[j+m^0+1]_q[jm^0]_q}},$$
(18)
where $`m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ is the value of $`m_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that maximizes the matrix element of Eq. (9.b), and $`m^0=m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ for $`L0`$, while $`m^0=m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0+\frac{L}{2}`$ for $`L<0`$. This choice ensures that the maximum values of the interaction terms of the Hamiltonians $`H`$ and $`H_q`$ coincide (see r24 ), as it is shown in Section III.

The main role of the exponentials $`q^{\frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_0}{2}}`$ in Eq. (15) is to break the $`mm`$ symmetry of the effective model, since this is one of the main effects of the nonlinearity introduced by the fermion-boson coupling in Eq. (1). This effect could be reproduced, also, through functions others than exponentials of the $`\stackrel{~}{T}_0`$ operator. The effective fermionic Hamiltonian could also be defined by using more involved functions on the non-deformed $`su(2)`$ algebra, since the main constrain is the block-structure of Eq. (1). Nevertheless, we would like to stress that the essential advantage of using both the $`su_q(2)`$ operators of Eq. (14) and the exponential form of the effective Hamiltonian of Eq. (15) is that the eigenvalues of the interaction term

$$H_q^{\text{int}}=q^{\frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_0}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{T}_++\stackrel{~}{T}_{})q^{\frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_0}{2}}$$
(19)
are just the $`q`$-numbers $`[2m]_q`$ ($`m=j,\mathrm{},+j`$), and its eigenvectors are known in analytic form. They are related to $`q`$-Krawtchouk polynomials r24 . Therefore, the results here presented seem to indicate that certain interactions between fermions and bosons can be accurately described by using $`q`$-fermions as quasiparticles (i.e; effective fermionic degrees of freedom) under the exactly solvable interaction given by the Hamiltonian $`H_q^{\text{int}}`$.

### II.2 Extended Lipkin models.

As a second example of Hamiltonians including fermionic and bosonic degrees of freedom, let us introduce the Lipkin-type Hamiltonian

$`H=\omega _f(T_0+\mathrm{\Omega })+\omega _bB^{}B+G(T_+^2B+T_{}^2B^{}).`$ (20)
The fermion sector of the model is described by two levels, with energies $`\pm \frac{\omega _f}{2}`$ and degeneracies $`2\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The fermions interact with bosons of energy $`\omega _b`$.

The Hamiltonian of Eq. (20) commutes with the operator twobosons

$$P_{(+)}=B^{}B+\frac{1}{2}(T_0+\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(21)
therefore, the matrix elements of $`H`$ can be calculated in a basis labelled by the eigenvalues of $`P`$.

If we consider the basis of Eq. (6), we find that the eigenvalues of $`P_{(+)}`$ are given by

$$P_{(+)}|m_\mathrm{\Omega },n=(n+\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }))|m_\mathrm{\Omega },n,$$
(22)
we shall consider the subspace spanned by the states with $`L`$ fixed $`|m_\mathrm{\Omega },L\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega })|m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Hence the non-zero matrix elements of $`H`$ read

$`m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }|H|m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega _bL+(\omega _f{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _b)(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }),`$
$`(23.a)`$
$`m_\mathrm{\Omega }+2;L,\mathrm{\Omega }|H|m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }=G\sqrt{L{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega })}\times `$
$`\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }+2)(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }+1)(\mathrm{\Omega }m_\mathrm{\Omega })(\mathrm{\Omega }m_\mathrm{\Omega }1)},`$
$`(23.b)`$
with

$`L\mathrm{\Omega },L\mathrm{integer},m_\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }=0,2,\mathrm{},2\mathrm{\Omega },`$
$`L>\mathrm{\Omega },L\mathrm{half}\mathrm{integer},`$
$`m_\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }=1,3,\mathrm{},2\mathrm{\Omega }1,`$
$`L<\mathrm{\Omega },L\mathrm{integer},m_\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }=0,2,\mathrm{},2L,`$
$`L<\mathrm{\Omega },L\mathrm{half}\mathrm{integer},`$
$`m_\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }=0,2,\mathrm{},2L1.`$
(24)
The Hamiltonian

$`H=\omega _f(T_0+\mathrm{\Omega })+\omega _bB^{}B+G(T_+^2B^{}+T_{}^2B),`$ (25)
is another Lipkin-type Hamiltonian, which differs from Eq. (20) in the ground state correlations r11 . Since it commutes with the operator

$$P_{()}=B^{}B\frac{1}{2}(T_0+\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(26)
its matrix elements can be calculated in a basis labelled by the eigenvalues of $`P_{()}`$. Once again this basis is just Eq. (6), where the eigenvalues of $`P_{()}`$ read

$$P_{()}|m_\mathrm{\Omega },n=(n\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }))|m_\mathrm{\Omega },n,$$
(27)
and we shall compute the matrix elements in the subspace spanned by the states $`|m_\mathrm{\Omega },L+\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega })|m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The non-zero matrix elements of $`H`$ are given by

$`m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }|H|m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega _bL+(\omega _f+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _b)(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }),`$
$`(28.a)`$
$`m_\mathrm{\Omega }+2;L,\mathrm{\Omega }|H|m_\mathrm{\Omega };L,\mathrm{\Omega }=G\sqrt{L+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega })+1}\times `$
$`\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }+2)(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }+1)(\mathrm{\Omega }m_\mathrm{\Omega })(\mathrm{\Omega }m_\mathrm{\Omega }1)},`$
$`(28.b)`$
where the dimension of the subspace depends on $`L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the form

$`L0,L\mathrm{integer},m_\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }=0,2,\mathrm{},2\mathrm{\Omega },`$
$`L>0,L\mathrm{half}\mathrm{integer},`$
$`m_\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }=1,3,\mathrm{},2\mathrm{\Omega }1,`$
$`L<0,L\mathrm{integer},m_\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }=2L,2L+2,\mathrm{},2\mathrm{\Omega },`$
$`L<0,L\mathrm{half}\mathrm{integer},`$
$`m_\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }=2L,2L+2,\mathrm{},2\mathrm{\Omega }1.`$
(29)
#### II.2.1 The extended Lipkin and $`su_q(2)`$ effective Hamiltonians.

As for the case of the DPS model, we introduce an effective Hamiltonian for Eq. (20), which is again defined on the $`su_q(2)`$ generators,

$$H_q=\omega _bL+(\omega _f\frac{1}{2}\omega _b)(\stackrel{~}{T}_0+\mathrm{\Omega })+\chi (q)q^{\stackrel{~}{T}_0}(\stackrel{~}{T}_+^2+\stackrel{~}{T}_{}^2)q^{\stackrel{~}{T}_0}.$$
(30)
This Hamiltonian has the following non-vanishing matrix elements

$`j,m|H_q|j,m=\omega _bL+(\omega _f{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _b)(\mathrm{\Omega }+m),`$
$`(31.a)`$
$`j,m+2|H_q|j,m=\chi (q)\mathrm{q}^{2(m+1)}\times `$
$`\sqrt{[j+m+2]_q[j+m+1]_q[jm]_q[jm1]_q}.`$
$`(31.b)`$
As a the first step in order to fit the dimensions of Eq. (20) and of Eq. (30) we have to find the appropriate relation $`j=j(\mathrm{\Omega },L)`$ and, as a consequence, $`m=m(m_\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega },L)`$. Afterwards, we consider as the effective Hamiltonian the restriction of the matrix elements of Eq. (31) to the invariant subspace spanned by $`|j,m`$ with $`m=j,j+2,\mathrm{},j2,j`$. In this way we obtain the effective matrix elements

$$j,m+2|H_q|j,m=\chi (q)h(L,\mathrm{\Omega },m_\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(32)
For values of $`L\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ($`L`$ integer), we find $`j=\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`m=m_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the function $`h(L,\mathrm{\Omega },m_\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is

$`h(L,\mathrm{\Omega },m_\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{q}^{2(m_\mathrm{\Omega }+1)}\times `$
$`\sqrt{[\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }+2]_q[\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }+1]_q[\mathrm{\Omega }m_\mathrm{\Omega }]_q[\mathrm{\Omega }m_\mathrm{\Omega }1]_q}.`$
When $`L<\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ($`L`$ integer), we have that $`j=L+\frac{1}{2}`$, $`m=m_\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }L\frac{1}{2}`$ and

$`h(L,\mathrm{\Omega },m_\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{q}^{2(m_\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }L+\frac{1}{2})}\times `$
$`\sqrt{[\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }2L]_q[\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }2L1]_q}\times `$
$`\sqrt{[\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }+1]_q[\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }+2]_q}.`$
(34)
The function $`\chi (q)`$ is defined by

$`\chi (q)=G\sqrt{L{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0)}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0+2)(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0+1)(\mathrm{\Omega }m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0)(\mathrm{\Omega }m_\mathrm{\Omega }^01)}}{h(L,\mathrm{\Omega },m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0)}},`$
(35)
where $`m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ is chosen as the value of $`m_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that maximizes Eq. (23.b). Following the arguments presented in subsection A we shall search for values of the $`q`$-dependent coupling (of Eq. (30), Eq. (35)) which may absorb bosonic degrees of freedom of Eq. (20) and yields a comparable spectrum for the purely fermionic q-deformed Hamiltonian of Eq. (30).

Similarly, for the Hamiltonian of Eq. (25), we can write the effective $`su_q(2)`$ coupling

$$H_q=\omega _bL+(\omega _f+\frac{1}{2}\omega _b)(\stackrel{~}{T}_0+\mathrm{\Omega })+\chi (q)q^{\stackrel{~}{T}_0}(\stackrel{~}{T}_+^2+\stackrel{~}{T}_{}^2)q^{\stackrel{~}{T}_0}.$$
(36)
Now the matrix elements of $`H_q`$ are given by

$`j,m|H_q|j,m=\omega _bL+(\omega _f+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _b)(\mathrm{\Omega }+m),`$
$`(37.a)`$
$`j,m+2|H_q|j,m=\chi (q)\mathrm{q}^{2(m+1)}\times `$
$`\sqrt{[j+m+2]_q[j+m+1]_q[jm]_q[jm1]_q}.`$
$`(37.b)`$
Note that, the Hamiltonians of Eq. (30) and Eq. (36) differ in the unperturbed sector, and that once again we have to fit the dimension of the $`su_q(2)`$ operator through the appropriate choice of the quantum numbers $`j`$ and $`m`$. For values of $`L0`$ ($`L`$ integer), we find $`j=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`m=m_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In the case $`L<0`$ ($`L`$ integer), we have $`j=L+\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`m=m_\mathrm{\Omega }+L+\frac{1}{2}`$. We recall that the effective $`su_q(2)`$ matrix is given by the matrix elements of Eq. (37) computed within the subspace spanned by $`|j,m`$ where $`m=j,j+2,\mathrm{},j2,j`$.

Finally, the adopted expression for $`\chi (q)`$, in Eq. (36) is

$`\chi (q)=G\mathrm{q}^{2(m^0+1)}\sqrt{L+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0)+1}\times `$
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0+2)(\mathrm{\Omega }+m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0+1)(\mathrm{\Omega }m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0)(\mathrm{\Omega }m_\mathrm{\Omega }^01)}{[j+m^0+2]_q[j+m^0+1]_q[jm^0]_q[jm^01]_q}}},`$
(38)
and $`m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ is chosen as the value of $`m_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that maximizes Eq. (28.b), accordingly, $`m^0=m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ for $`L0`$, and $`m^0=m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0+L+\frac{1}{2}`$ for $`L<0`$.

Before ending with this section, we shall summarize the main steps of the above formalism. We have written, for different fermion $``$ boson Hamiltonians, q-deformed purely-fermionic Hamiltonians where the information about boson degrees of freedom is absorbed in the definition of the q-dependent strength $`\chi (q)`$. The actual value of $`\chi (q)`$ depends on the deformation parameter, which may be determined from the comparison between the spectra of the fermion $``$ boson and q-deformed fermion Hamiltonians. We shall discuss the feasibility of this procedure in the next section III.

## III Results and Discussion

We have calculated the spectra of the Hamiltonians introduced in the previous section. The calculations have been performed by fixing the following set of parameters: $`\omega _f=\omega _b=1`$, in arbitrary units of energy, and for $`N=2\mathrm{\Omega }=30`$ particles, unless stated. The parameter $`x=G\sqrt{\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega _f\omega _b}}`$, was taken as the dimensionless coupling between fermions and bosons, for the case of Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), and it is defined as $`x=G\frac{4\mathrm{\Omega }}{\sqrt{\omega _f\omega _b}}`$, for the case of the Hamiltonians of Eqs. (20) and (25). As we shall discuss later on, actual values of $`x`$ are indicative of the phase preferred by the system (in the sense of the dominance of the fermionic or bosonic degrees of freedom on the structure of the ground state) twobosons . In general, we shall talk of a normal phase, of any of the fermion $``$ boson Hamiltonians of the previous section, when the correlated ground state is the eigenstate of the symmetry operator $`P`$ with the eigenvalue $`L=0`$. The denomination deformed phase will be assigned to cases where the correlated ground state is an eigenstate of $`P`$ with eigenvalue $`L0`$. The bosonic or fermionic structure of the deformed phase is determined by the sign of $`L`$, following the corresponding definition of $`P`$.

Let us start with the DPS model. The coupling $`x=0.5`$ yields a normal solution of the DPS Hamiltonian. The value $`x=1.5`$ is consistent with a deformed solution of it. Figure 1, cases (a) and (c), shows the evolution of the ground state upon $`L`$. In the same figure we present the results of the $`q`$-deformed Hamiltonian corresponding to the DPS Hamiltonian. Figure 1, cases (b) and (d), shows the behavior of the deformed parameter $`z=\mathrm{ln}(q)`$, as a function of $`L`$, which reproduces the ground state energies of the insets (a) and (c). The values of $`z`$ have been chosen so that the ground states energies of the DPS model and the ones of the $`su_q(2)`$ effective model of Eq. (15) differ in less than $`1\%`$. Figure 2 shows the evolution of the values of $`L`$, $`z`$ and $`\chi (q)`$, at the absolute ground state, for different values of the coupling constant $`x`$. Two different phases can be identified, depending on the value of $`x`$. The normal phase corresponds to values of $`x1`$, with $`L=0`$ and $`z`$ almost constant, and the deformed phase corresponds to values of $`x>1`$, with values of $`L>0`$ and decreasing values of $`z`$.

Figure 3 displays the comparison between the matrix elements of the DPS model and the ones obtained with the effective hamiltonian of Eq. (15). The scaling of Eq. (18) was performed as indicated in the text. These results support nicely the adopted procedure, since the agreement between both set of matrix elements is rather acceptable.

Figure 4 shows the results of the integrated hamiltonian energy-density, corresponding to the hamiltonias of Eq. (1) and Eq. (15). Again in this case the agreement between both set of results was verified within the computer accuracy.

The above results, shown in Figures (1)-(4), demonstrate that both the ground state energy and the spectrum of the DPS model can be represented by the effective $`su_q(2)`$ Hamiltonian of Eq. (15), by fixing the value of $`z(q)`$, which is the parameter related with the q-deformation.

A similar analysis can be performed for the LE models of subsection II.B. Figure 5 represents the ground state energy of the fermion $``$ boson Hamiltonian of Eq. (20), and the behavior of the parameter $`z`$ of the corresponding q-deformed version, Eq. (30). Also, in the same figure, the ground state energy of the q-deformed Hamiltonian (Eq. (30)) is given as a function of $`L`$. The insets (a) and (b), of Figure 5, show the results corresponding to $`x=0.5`$ (normal phase), while insets (c) and (d) show the results obtained with $`x=1.5`$ (deformed phase). As for the case of the DPS model, we have chosen $`z`$ so that the ground state energy of the hamiltonian of Eq. (20) and that of Eq. (30) coincide within $`1\%`$, for each value of $`L`$.

Figure 6 displays the behavior of $`L`$, $`z`$ and $`\chi (q)`$, at the absolute ground state energy, for different values of the coupling constant $`x`$, for the Hamiltonians of Eqs. (20) and (30). As for the case of the DPS model, the results shown in this figure correspond to two different phases, which can be identified by the value of $`x`$. Similarly to the case of Figure 2, the normal phase corresponds to $`x1`$, $`L=0`$ and $`z(q)`$ nearly constant. The deformed phase corresponds to $`x>1`$, $`L0`$ and increasing values of $`z(q)`$.

Figure 7 displays the comparison between the spectrum of the Hamiltonian of Eq. (20) and the spectrum of the effective Hamiltonian of Eq. (30). As done for the cases of Eq. (1) and Eq.(15) (see Figure 4) we have calculated the integrated hamiltonian energy-density (number of eigenvalues per unit energy-interval). Also in this case, the scaling procedure yields almost identical results, within computer accuracy, as compared to the original hamiltonian.

Finally, the ground state energies, the q-deformation parameter, the q-depending coupling, and the comparison between the spectra, for the case of the Hamiltonians of Eqs. (25) and (36) are shown in Figures 8-10, respectively. From the results shown in Figure 8, cases (b) and (d), it is seen that there is a particular value of $`L`$, for which $`z(q)0`$. It means that, for this particular value of $`z(q)`$, the $`su(2)`$ symmetry is dynamically restored. Figure 9 shows the behavior of $`L`$ (inset (a)), $`z(q)`$ (inset (b)) and $`\chi (q)`$ (inset (c)), taken at the absolute ground state energy, as a function of $`x`$. Figure 10 displays the comparison between the spectrum of the Hamiltonian of Eq. (25) and the one obtained with the effective hamiltonian of Eq. (36), with $`z=0.00440`$.

A systematic feature emerges from the above discussed series of results and it is related with the replacement of the boson degrees of freedom, which are present in the considered initial Hamiltonians, by the effective q-dependent coupling. In the three cases, which we have considered, the spectrum of the fermion $``$ boson system and the spectrum of the q-deformed purely fermionic system agree, for certain non-trivial values of the q-deformation parameter $`z(q)`$. The procedure works reasonably, for the rotor-like structure of the DPS Hamiltonian, as well as for the vibrational-like structure of the LE Hamiltonians. There is a trend in the dependence of $`z(q)`$ upon $`L`$, which is the parameter associated to the symmetry in the fermion $``$ boson space. It is symmetric for the case of the DPS Hamiltonian and almost asymmetric for the case of the Lipkin Hamiltonians. Also, $`z(q)`$ resembles more the behavior of an order parameter, for the case of the Lipkin Hamiltonians, than for the DPS one. Concerning relatives values of $`z(q)`$, the q-deformed versions of the Hamiltonians of Eqs. (1) and (20), required values of $`z(q)`$ ($`0.03`$) which are larger than the value of $`z(q)`$ corresponding to the q-deformed version of Hamiltonian of Eq. (25). This result shows the sensitivity of the chosen value of $`z`$ upon the vibrational or rotational-like character of the fermion $``$ boson picture.

## IV Conclusions

In this work we have shown that effective $`su_q(2)`$ Hamiltonians can be introduced in order to reproduce the ground state properties and the spectrum of different interacting fermion-boson Hamiltonians. In this respect, the bosonic part of the interactions can be effectively embedded as an appropriate q-deformation of the $`su(2)`$ fermionic algebra.

The results presented at this work show the existence of a close relation between the deformation parameter, $`z(q)`$, which fixes the strength $`\chi (q)`$ of the purely fermionic q-deformed Hamiltonians, and the eigenvalue, $`L`$, of the symmetry operator $`P`$, associated to the fermion $``$ boson Hamiltonians. Both $`z(q)`$, in the case of the $`su_q(2)`$ effective models, and $`L`$, for the fermion-boson interactions, display a critical behavior as a function of the coupling constant $`x`$.

Because of the relevance of the DPS model in the description of hadronic systems bes  and the nice agreement obtained with the q-deformed version of it, we are confident about the potentiality of q-deformed representations in more involved physical scenarios.

Work is in progress concerning the extension of the presented formalism to non-perturbative QCD.

## Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (España) under Project BFM2000-1055 and by the CONICET (Argentina). M.R. is grateful to the Universidad de Burgos for hospitality. (M.R.) acknowledge financial support of the Fundacion Antorchas and of Universidad de Burgos (Invited Professors Program).