format: text

text:
# A Determinant Formula for a Class of Rational Solutions of Painlevé V Equation

## 1 Introduction and Main Result

It is known that six Painlevé equations are in general irreducible, namely, their solutions cannot be expressed by “classical functions” in the sense of Umemura . However, it is also known that they admit classical solutions for special values of parameters except for PI. Much effort have been made for the investigation of classical solutions. As a result, it has been recognized that there are two classes of classical solutions. One is transcendental classical solutions expressible in terms of functions of hypergeometric type. Another one is algebraic or rational solutions. It is also known that the Painlevé equations (except for PI) admit action of the affine Weyl groups as groups of the Bäcklund transformations. It is remarkable that such classical solutions are located on special places from a point of view of symmetry in the parameter spaces . For example, PII, PIII and PIV, whose symmetry is described by the affine Weyl group of type $`A_1^{(1)}`$, $`A_1^{(1)}\times A_1^{(1)}`$ and $`A_2^{(1)}`$, respectively, admit transcendental classical solutions on the reflection hyperplanes, and rational solutions on the barycenters of Weyl chambers of the corresponding affine Weyl group.

Umemura et al have investigated the class of solutions on the barycenters of Weyl chambers and found that (1) these solutions are expressed by some characteristic polynomials generated by the Toda type bilinear equations, (2) the coefficients of such polynomials admit mysterious combinatorial properties . These special polynomials are sometimes referred as Yablonskii-Vorob’ev polynomials for PII , Okamoto polynomials for PIV , Umemura polynomials for PIII, PV and PVI.

One important aspect among such polynomials is that they are expressed as special cases of the Schur functions. As is well known, the Schur functions are characters of the irreducible polynomial representations of $`GL(n)`$ and arise as $`\tau `$-functions of the KP hierarchy . For example, it is known that the special polynomials for PII and PIII are expressible by 2-reduced Schur functions, and those for PIV by 3-reduced Schur functions .

In this paper, we consider PV,

$$\frac{d^2y}{dt^2}=\left(\frac{1}{2y}+\frac{1}{y1}\right)\left(\frac{dy}{dt}\right)^2\frac{1}{t}\frac{dy}{dt}+\frac{(y1)^2}{2t^2}\left(\kappa _{\mathrm{}}^2y\frac{\kappa _0^2}{y}\right)(\theta +1)\frac{y}{t}\frac{y(y+1)}{2(y1)},$$
(1.1)
with parameters $`\kappa _{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\kappa _0`$ and $`\theta `$, whose symmetry is described by the affine Weyl group $`W(A_3^{(1)})`$. The aim of this paper is to investigate a class of rational solutions on the barycenters of Weyl chambers and to present an explicit formula for them.

By the analogy from the known cases, it is naively expected that they are expressed in terms of 4-reduced Schur functions. However, our formula is expressed by a generalization of Schur functions, which is called the universal characters and defined as follows .

###### Definition 1.1

Let $`p_k=p_k(t^{(1)})`$ and $`q_k=q_k(t^{(2)})`$ , $`k`$, be two families of polynomials defined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_k\eta ^k=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t_j^{(1)}\eta ^j\right),p_k=0\text{for}k<0,\hfill & \\ \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q_k\eta ^k=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t_j^{(2)}\eta ^j\right),q_k=0\text{for}k<0,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(1.2)
where $`t^{(1)}=(t_1^{(1)},t_2^{(1)},\mathrm{})`$ and $`t^{(2)}=(t_1^{(2)},t_2^{(2)},\mathrm{})`$ are the sets of infinite numbers of variables. For any partitions $`\lambda ^{(1)}=(\lambda _1^{(1)},\lambda _2^{(1)},\mathrm{},\lambda _n^{(1)})`$ and $`\lambda ^{(2)}=(\lambda _1^{(2)},\lambda _2^{(2)},\mathrm{},\lambda _m^{(2)})`$, the universal character $`S_{\lambda ^{(1)},\lambda ^{(2)}}(t^{(1)},t^{(2)})`$ is defined as

$$S_{\lambda ^{(1)},\lambda ^{(2)}}(t^{(1)},t^{(2)})=det{}_{}{}^{t}(q_{\lambda _m^{(2)}}^{},q_{\lambda _{m1}^{(2)}+1}^{},\mathrm{},q_{\lambda _1^{(2)}+m1}^{},p_{\lambda _1^{(1)}m}^+,p_{\lambda _2^{(1)}m1}^+,\mathrm{},p_{\lambda _n^{(1)}mn+1}^+),$$
(1.3)
where

$$p_j^+={}_{}{}^{t}(p_j,p_{j+1},\mathrm{},p_{j+m+n1}),q_j^{}={}_{}{}^{t}(q_j,q_{j1},\mathrm{},q_{jmn+1}).$$
(1.4)
Our main result is stated as follows.

###### Theorem 1.2

For $`m,n_0`$, we define a family of polynomials $`S_{m,n}=S_{m,n}(t,s)`$ by specializing $`S_{\lambda ^{(1)},\lambda ^{(2)}}(t^{(1)},t^{(2)})`$ as

$$\lambda ^{(1)}=(n,n1,\mathrm{},2,1),\lambda ^{(2)}=(m,m1,\mathrm{},2,1),$$
(1.5)
$$t_j^{(1)}=\frac{t}{2}+\frac{2sm+n}{j},t_j^{(2)}=\frac{t}{2}+\frac{2sm+n}{j},$$
(1.6)
where $`s`$ is a parameter. For $`m,n_{<0}`$, we define $`S_{m,n}`$ through

$$\begin{array}{cc}S_{m,n}(t,s)=(1)^{m(m+1)/2}S_{m1,n}(t,sm1/2),\hfill & \\ S_{m,n}(t,s)=(1)^{n(n+1)/2}S_{m,n1}(t,sn1/2).\hfill & \end{array}$$
(1.7)
Then,

$$y=\frac{S_{m,n1}(t,s)S_{m1,n}(t,s)}{S_{m1,n}(t,s1)S_{m,n1}(t,s+1)},$$
(1.8)
gives the rational solutions of PV (1.1) with the parameters

$$\kappa _{\mathrm{}}=s,\kappa _0=sm+n,\theta =m+n1,$$
(1.9)
and

$$\kappa _{\mathrm{}}=s,\kappa _0=sm+n,\theta =m+n1.$$
(1.10)
Similarly,

$$y=\frac{2n+1}{2m+1}\frac{S_{m,n1}(t,s+1/2)S_{m,n+1}(t,s1/2)}{S_{m1,n}(t,s1/2)S_{m+1,n}(t,s+1/2)},$$
(1.11)
gives the rational solutions of PV (1.1) with the parameters

$$\kappa _{\mathrm{}}=m+1/2,\kappa _0=n+1/2,\theta =2smn1.$$
(1.12)
This result covers all the rational solutions obtained by applying the Bäcklund transformations on the particular solution of PV (1.1),

$$y=1,\kappa _{\mathrm{}}=s,\kappa _0=s,\theta =1.$$
(1.13)
Remark. In ref. , Kitaev et al gave a complete classification of rational solutions for PV. Our result covers all the rational solutions of the cases (III) and (IV) in their classification. The first half corresponds to the case (III) and the other does to (IV). Also, Noumi and Yamada presented a determinant formula for a class of rational solutions of PV in terms of 2-reduced Schur functions . Our result includes their formula as a special case, which is explained in Appendix A.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give a brief review for the theory of symmetric form of PV , which provides us with a clear description of symmetry structure and $`\tau `$-functions for PV. In Section 3, we construct the rational solutions of PV by using the theory of symmetric form. Proof of our result is given in Section 4. We mention on the relationship between our result and Yamada’s general determinant formula of Jacobi-Trudi type in Section 5.

## 2 Symmetric Form of Painlevé V Equation

By using the theory of symmetric form for PV, it is possible to describe the structure of Bäcklund transformations in a unified manner and to construct particular solutions systematically. In this section, we summarize the symmetric form of PV following refs. , and derive bilinear equations satisfied by $`\tau `$-functions.

### 2.1 Symmetric Form of PV

PV (1.1) is equivalent to the Hamilton system

$$q^{}=\frac{H}{p},p^{}=\frac{H}{q},^{}=t\frac{d}{dt},$$
(2.1)
with the Hamiltonian

$$H=p(p+t)q(q1)+\alpha _2qt\alpha _3pq\alpha _1p(q1).$$
(2.2)
In fact, putting

$$\kappa _{\mathrm{}}=\alpha _1,\kappa _0=\alpha _3,\theta =\alpha _2\alpha _01,$$
(2.3)
with

$$\alpha _0=1\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3,$$
(2.4)
we see that equation for $`y=11/q`$ is nothing but PV (1.1). Setting

$$f_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}(t+p),f_1=\sqrt{t}q,f_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}p,f_3=\sqrt{t}(1q),$$
(2.5)
we obtain the symmetric form of PV

$$\begin{array}{cc}f_0^{}=f_0f_2(f_1f_3)+\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha _2\right)f_0+\alpha _0f_2,\hfill & \\ f_1^{}=f_1f_3(f_2f_0)+\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha _3\right)f_1+\alpha _1f_3,\hfill & \\ f_2^{}=f_2f_0(f_3f_1)+\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0\right)f_2+\alpha _2f_0,\hfill & \\ f_3^{}=f_3f_1(f_0f_2)+\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1\right)f_3+\alpha _3f_1.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2.6)
We note that the original dependent variable $`y`$ of PV is expressed as

$$y=\frac{f_3}{f_1}.$$
(2.7)
In terms of variables $`f_i`$ and $`\alpha _i`$, the Bäcklund transformations of PV are described by a simple form,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}s_i(\alpha _i)=\alpha _i,\hfill & s_i(\alpha _j)=\alpha _j+\alpha _i(j=i\pm 1),\hfill & s_i(\alpha _j)=\alpha _j(ji,i\pm 1),\hfill \\ s_i(f_i)=f_i,\hfill & s_i(f_j)=f_j\pm \frac{\alpha _i}{f_i}(j=i\pm 1),\hfill & s_i(f_j)=f_j(ji,i\pm 1),\hfill \\ \pi (\alpha _j)=\alpha _{j+1},\hfill & \pi (f_j)=f_{j+1},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2.8)
where the subscripts $`i=0,1,2,3`$ are understood as elements of $`/4`$. These transformations commute with derivation  and satisfy the fundamental relations

$$\begin{array}{c}s_i^2=1,s_is_j=s_js_i(ji,i\pm 1),s_is_js_i=s_js_is_j(j=i\pm 1),\\ \pi ^4=1,\pi s_j=s_{j+1}\pi ,\end{array}$$
(2.9)
which means that transformations $`s_i`$ $`(i=0,1,2,3)`$ generate the affine Weyl group $`W(A_3^{(1)})`$, and $`s_i`$ and $`\pi `$ generate its extension including the Dynkin diagram automorphisms.

### 2.2 $`\tau `$-Functions and Bilinear Equations

In order to obtain simpler transformation properties, we add a correction term which depends only on $`t`$ to the Hamiltonian (2.2). The corrected Hamiltonian $`h_0`$ is introduced as

$$\begin{array}{cc}h_0=f_0f_1f_2f_3+\frac{\alpha _1+2\alpha _2\alpha _3}{4}f_0f_1+\frac{\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+3\alpha _3}{4}f_1f_2\hfill & \\ \frac{3\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+\alpha _3}{4}f_2f_3+\frac{\alpha _12\alpha _2\alpha _3}{4}f_3f_0+\frac{(\alpha _1+\alpha _3)^2}{4},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2.10)
and we put $`h_j=\pi ^j(h_0)`$. Then, we have

$$s_i(h_j)=h_j(ij),s_i(h_i)=h_i+\sqrt{t}\frac{\alpha _i}{f_i},\pi (h_i)=h_{i+1}.$$
(2.11)
We also introduce $`\tau `$-functions $`\tau _i`$($`i=0,1,2,3`$) by

$$h_i=\frac{\tau _i^{}}{\tau _i}.$$
(2.12)
Then, defining the action of $`s_i`$($`i=0,1,2,3`$) and $`\pi `$ on the $`\tau `$-functions by

$$s_i(\tau _j)=\tau _j(ij),s_i(\tau _i)=f_i\frac{\tau _{i1}\tau _{i+1}}{\tau _i},\pi (\tau _i)=\tau _{i+1},$$
(2.13)
we see that the fundamental relations (2.9) are preserved, which implies that the Bäcklund transformations can be lifted to the level of $`\tau `$-functions. It should be remarked that we have from (2.7) and (2.13)

$$y=\frac{\tau _3s_3(\tau _3)}{\tau _1s_1(\tau _1)}.$$
(2.14)
By (2.13), the Bäcklund transformations (2.8) are lead to a set of bilinear equations for $`\tau `$-functions,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\tau _0s_0s_1(\tau _1)=s_0(\tau _0)s_1(\tau _1)+\alpha _0\tau _2\tau _3,\hfill & \\ \tau _1s_1s_0(\tau _0)=s_0(\tau _0)s_1(\tau _1)\alpha _1\tau _2\tau _3,\hfill & \\ \tau _1s_1s_2(\tau _2)=s_1(\tau _1)s_2(\tau _2)+\alpha _1\tau _3\tau _0,\hfill & \\ \tau _2s_2s_1(\tau _1)=s_1(\tau _1)s_2(\tau _2)\alpha _2\tau _3\tau _0,\hfill & \\ \tau _2s_2s_3(\tau _3)=s_2(\tau _2)s_3(\tau _3)+\alpha _2\tau _0\tau _1,\hfill & \\ \tau _3s_3s_2(\tau _2)=s_2(\tau _2)s_3(\tau _3)\alpha _3\tau _0\tau _1,\hfill & \\ \tau _3s_3s_0(\tau _0)=s_3(\tau _3)s_0(\tau _0)+\alpha _3\tau _1\tau _2,\hfill & \\ \tau _0s_0s_3(\tau _3)=s_3(\tau _3)s_0(\tau _0)\alpha _0\tau _1\tau _2.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2.15)
Let us define the translation operators $`T_i(i=0,1,2,3)`$ by

$$T_1=\pi s_3s_2s_1,T_2=s_1\pi s_3s_2,T_3=s_2s_1\pi s_3,T_0=s_3s_2s_1\pi ,$$
(2.16)
which commute with each other and satisfy $`T_1T_2T_3T_0=1`$. These operators act on parameters $`\alpha _i`$ as

$$T_i(\alpha _{i1})=\alpha _{i1}+1,T_i(\alpha _i)=\alpha _i1,T_i(\alpha _j)=\alpha _j(ji1,i),$$
(2.17)
and generate the weight lattice of $`A_3^{(1)}`$. In terms of $`T_i`$, $`\tau `$-functions in (2.15) are expressed as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\tau _1=T_1(\tau _0),\hfill & \tau _2=T_1T_2(\tau _0),\hfill & \tau _3=T_0^1(\tau _0),\hfill \\ s_0(\tau _0)=T_0^1T_1(\tau _0),\hfill & s_1(\tau _1)=T_2(\tau _0),\hfill & s_2(\tau _2)=T_1T_3(\tau _0),\hfill \\ s_3(\tau _3)=T_3^1(\tau _0),\hfill & s_0s_1(\tau _1)=T_1T_2T_0^1(\tau _0),\hfill & s_1s_0(\tau _0)=T_2T_0^1(\tau _0),\hfill \\ s_1s_2(\tau _2)=T_2T_3(\tau _0),\hfill & s_2s_1(\tau _1)=T_3(\tau _0),\hfill & s_2s_3(\tau _3)=T_2^1(\tau _0),\hfill \\ s_3s_2(\tau _2)=T_1T_0(\tau _0),\hfill & s_3s_0(\tau _0)=T_1T_3^1(\tau _0),\hfill & s_0s_3(\tau _3)=T_1T_3^1T_0^1(\tau _0).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.18)
Furthermore, we can derive bilinear equations of Toda type.

###### Proposition 2.1

We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}T_1(\tau _0)T_1^1(\tau _0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(\frac{1}{2}D_T^2+\frac{3\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+\alpha _3}{4}t\right)\tau _0\tau _0,\hfill & \\ T_2(\tau _0)T_2^1(\tau _0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(\frac{1}{2}D_T^2\frac{\alpha _12\alpha _2\alpha _3}{4}t\right)\tau _0\tau _0,\hfill & \\ T_3(\tau _0)T_3^1(\tau _0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(\frac{1}{2}D_T^2\frac{\alpha _1+2\alpha _2\alpha _3}{4}t\right)\tau _0\tau _0,\hfill & \\ T_0(\tau _0)T_0^1(\tau _0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(\frac{1}{2}D_T^2\frac{\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+3\alpha _3}{4}t\right)\tau _0\tau _0,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2.19)
where $`D_T`$ is the Hirota’s differential operator defined by

$$D_T^mfg=\left(\frac{d}{dT}\frac{d}{dT^{}}\right)^mf(T)g(T^{})|_{T=T^{}},$$
(2.20)
and $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dT}}=t{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$.

Proof. Using (2.8),(2.13) and (2.16), we have

$$T_1(\tau _0)T_1^1(\tau _0)=[f_1f_2f_3+(\alpha _1+\alpha _2)f_1+\alpha _1f_3]\tau _0^2.$$
(2.21)
Noticing that

$$h_0^{}=\sqrt{t}\left(f_1f_2f_3+\frac{\alpha _1+2\alpha _2\alpha _3}{4}f_1+\frac{\alpha _12\alpha _2\alpha _1}{4}f_3\right),$$
(2.22)
and $`f_1+f_3=\sqrt{t}`$, we get the first equation in (2.19). The other equations are obtained in similar way.

Remark. Bilinear equations (2.15) and (2.19) are overdetermined systems when they are regarded as equations to determine the $`\tau `$-functions. However, by construction, the consistency of these equations is guaranteed.

### 2.3 $`\tau `$-Cocycles

For simplicity, we introduce a notation,

$$\tau _{k,l,m,n}=T_1^kT_2^lT_3^mT_0^n(\tau _0).$$
(2.23)
For small $`k,l,m,n`$, we observe that $`\tau _{k,l,m,n}`$ are factorized as

$$\tau _{k,l,m,n}=\varphi _{k,l,m,n}\tau _0\left(\frac{\tau _1}{\tau _0}\right)^k\left(\frac{\tau _2}{\tau _1}\right)^l\left(\frac{\tau _3}{\tau _2}\right)^m\left(\frac{\tau _0}{\tau _3}\right)^n,$$
(2.24)
where $`\varphi _{k,l,m,n}`$ are some functions of $`f_i`$ and $`\alpha _i`$. Conversely, if we define $`\varphi _{k,l,m,n}`$ by (2.24), it is shown that $`\varphi _{k,l,m,n}`$’s are polynomials in $`f_i`$ and $`\alpha _i`$ for any $`k,l,m,n`$ . The functions $`\varphi _{k,l,m,n}`$ are called the $`\tau `$-cocycles.

It is easy to see from (2.14), (2.18), (2.23) and (2.24) that we have

$$T_1^kT_2^lT_3^mT_0^n(y)=\frac{\varphi _{k,l,m,n1}\varphi _{k,l,m1,n}}{\varphi _{k+1,l,m,n}\varphi _{k,l+1,m,n}},\text{for}k,l,m,n.$$
(2.25)
Moreover, it follows from (2.13), (2.16), (2.23) and (2.24) that $`\varphi _{k,l,m,n}`$ are determined by the recurrence relations,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _{k+1,l,m,n}=T_1(\varphi _{k,l,m,n})[f_2f_3f_0(\alpha _3+\alpha _0)f_0\alpha _0f_2]^{kl}(f_3f_0\alpha _0)^{lm}f_0^{mn},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{k,l+1,m,n}=T_2(\varphi _{k,l,m,n})[f_3f_0f_1(\alpha _0+\alpha _1)f_1\alpha _1f_3]^{lm}(f_0f_1\alpha _1)^{mn}f_1^{1+nk},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{k,l,m+1,n}=T_3(\varphi _{k,l,m,n})[f_0f_1f_2(\alpha _1+\alpha _2)f_2\alpha _2f_0]^{mn}(f_1f_2\alpha _2)^{1+nk}f_2^{kl},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{k,l,m,n+1}=T_0(\varphi _{k,l,m,n})[f_1f_2f_3(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)f_3\alpha _3f_1]^{1+nk}(f_2f_3\alpha _3)^{kl}f_3^{lm},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2.26)
with $`\varphi _{0,0,0,0}=1`$.

It is possible to write down the bilinear equations for $`\varphi _{k,l,m,n}`$. From (2.18),(2.23) and (2.24), bilinear Bäcklund transformations (2.15) yield to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _{k,l,m,n}\varphi _{k+1,l+1,m,n1}=\varphi _{k+1,l,m,n1}\varphi _{k,l+1,m,n}+(\alpha _0n+k)\varphi _{k+1,l+1,m,n}\varphi _{k,l,m,n1},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{k+1,l,m,n}\varphi _{k,l+1,m,n1}=\varphi _{k+1,l,m,n1}\varphi _{k,l+1,m,n}(\alpha _1k+l)\varphi _{k+1,l+1,m,n}\varphi _{k,l,m,n1},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{k+1,l,m,n}\varphi _{k,l+1,m+1,n}=\varphi _{k,l+1,m,n}\varphi _{k+1,l,m+1,n}+(\alpha _1k+l)\varphi _{k,l,m,n1}\varphi _{k,l,m,n},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{k+1,l+1,m,n}\varphi _{k,l,m+1,n}=\varphi _{k,l+1,m,n}\varphi _{k+1,l,m+1,n}(\alpha _2l+m)\varphi _{k,l,m,n1}\varphi _{k,l,m,n},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{k+1,l+1,m,n}\varphi _{k,l1,m,n}=\varphi _{k+1,l,m+1,n}\varphi _{k,l,m1,n}+(\alpha _2l+m)\varphi _{k,l,m,n}\varphi _{k+1,l,m,n},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{k,l,m,n1}\varphi _{k+1,l,m,n+1}=\varphi _{k+1,l,m+1,n}\varphi _{k,l,m1,n}(\alpha _3m+n)\varphi _{k,l,m,n}\varphi _{k+1,l,m,n},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{k,l,m,n1}\varphi _{k+1,l,m1,n}=\varphi _{k,l,m1,n}\varphi _{k+1,l,m,n1}+(\alpha _3m+n)\varphi _{k+1,l,m,n}\varphi _{k+1,l+1,m,n},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{k,l,m,n}\varphi _{k+1,l,m1,n1}=\varphi _{k,l,m1,n}\varphi _{k+1,l,m,n1}(\alpha _0n+k)\varphi _{k+1,l,m,n}\varphi _{k+1,l+1,m,n}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2.27)
Similarly, the last two equations in (2.19) are lead to

$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi _{k,l,m+1,n}\varphi _{k,l,m1,n}\hfill \\ =\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(\frac{1}{2}D_T^2+\omega _{k,l,m,n}\frac{\alpha _1+2\alpha _2\alpha _3kl+3mn}{4}t\right)\varphi _{k,l,m,n}\varphi _{k,l,m,n},\hfill \\ \varphi _{k,l,m,n+1}\varphi _{k,l,m,n1}\hfill \\ =\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(\frac{1}{2}D_T^2+\omega _{k,l,m,n}\frac{\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+3\alpha _3klm+3n}{4}t\right)\varphi _{k,l,m,n}\varphi _{k,l,m,n},\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.28)
with

$$\omega _{k,l,m,n}=(\mathrm{log}\tau _0)^{\prime \prime }+k\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\tau _1}{\tau _0}\right)^{\prime \prime }+l\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\tau _2}{\tau _1}\right)^{\prime \prime }+m\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\tau _3}{\tau _2}\right)^{\prime \prime }+n\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\tau _0}{\tau _3}\right)^{\prime \prime }.$$
(2.29)
## 3 Construction of Rational Solutions

In this section, we construct the rational solutions of PV by using the results in the previous section.

It is obvious that the symmetric form of PV (2.6) with (2.4) has a solution,

$$(\alpha _0,\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3)=(\frac{1}{2}s,s,\frac{1}{2}s,s),f_i=\frac{\sqrt{t}}{2}\text{for}i=0,1,2,3,$$
(3.1)
which is on the fixed points with respect to the transformation $`\pi ^2`$ and is equivalent to the following solution of PV,

$$y=1,\kappa _{\mathrm{}}=s,\kappa _0=s,\theta =1.$$
(3.2)
This is the unique rational solution in the fundamental region of the affine Weyl group $`W(A_3^{(1)})`$ in the parameter space, except for the special cases of transcendental classical solutions . Applying Bäcklund transformations to the seed solution (3.1), we obtain the family of rational solutions of PV. Note that we have

$$T_2^lT_0^l(\alpha _0,\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3)=(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{s},\stackrel{~}{s},\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{s},\stackrel{~}{s}),\stackrel{~}{s}=s+l,l,$$
(3.3)
under the specialization (3.1). Comparing (3.3) with (3.1), we see that the effect of $`T_2`$ is absorbed by that of $`T_0^1`$ and shift of the parameter $`s`$. Then, we do not need to consider the Bäcklund transformation $`T_2`$ for constructing the family of rational solutions of PV. Taking the initial condition (3.1) into account, we consider the bilinear Bäcklund transformations in terms of the $`\tau `$-cocycles (2.27). Denoting $`\varphi _{0,l,m,n}=\varphi _{l,m,n}`$ in view of the relation $`T_1T_2T_3T_0=1`$, it is easy to derive the following.

###### Lemma 3.1

Under the specialization (3.1), bilinear Bäcklund transformations (2.27) are reduced to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _{0,m,n}\varphi _{0,m1,n2}=\varphi _{1,m1,n2}\varphi _{1,m,n}+(1/2sn)\varphi _{0,m1,n1}\varphi _{0,m,n1},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{1,m1,n1}\varphi _{1,m,n1}=\varphi _{1,m1,n2}\varphi _{1,m,n}s\varphi _{0,m1,n1}\varphi _{0,m,n1},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{1,m1,n1}\varphi _{1,m+1,n}=\varphi _{1,m,n}\varphi _{1,m,n1}+s\varphi _{0,m,n1}\varphi _{0,m,n},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{0,m1,n1}\varphi _{0,m+1,n}=\varphi _{1,m,n}\varphi _{1,m,n1}(1/2s+m)\varphi _{0,m,n1}\varphi _{0,m,n},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{0,m1,n1}\varphi _{1,m,n}=\varphi _{1,m,n1}\varphi _{0,m1,n}+(1/2s+m)\varphi _{0,m,n}\varphi _{1,m1,n1},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{0,m,n1}\varphi _{1,m1,n}=\varphi _{1,m,n1}\varphi _{0,m1,n}(sm+n)\varphi _{0,m,n}\varphi _{1,m1,n1},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{0,m,n1}\varphi _{1,m2,n1}=\varphi _{0,m1,n}\varphi _{1,m1,n2}+(sm+n)\varphi _{1,m1,n1}\varphi _{0,m1,n1},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{0,m,n}\varphi _{1,m2,n2}=\varphi _{0,m1,n}\varphi _{1,m1,n2}(1/2sn)\varphi _{1,m1,n1}\varphi _{0,m1,n1}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3.4)
Moreover, from (2.25), the function

$$y=\frac{\varphi _{0,m,n1}\varphi _{0,m1,n}}{\varphi _{1,m1,n1}\varphi _{1,m,n}},$$
(3.5)
solves PV (1.1) with parameters

$$\kappa _{\mathrm{}}=s,\kappa _0=sm+n,\theta =m+n1.$$
(3.6)
From the recurrence relations (2.26), we observe that $`\varphi _{l,m,n}`$ for small $`l,m,n`$ are expressed as

$$\varphi _{l,m,n}=\left(\frac{\sqrt{t}}{2}\right)^{(mnl1)(mnl)/2}U_{l,m,n},$$
(3.7)
where $`U_{l,m,n}`$ are some polynomials in $`t`$ and $`s`$. Therefore, we next rewrite (3.4) in terms of $`U`$. The polynomials $`U_{l,m,n}`$ have symmetry described by the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.2

The polynomials $`U_{l,m,n}`$ defined by (3.7) satisfy

$$U_{1,m,n}(t,s)=U_{0,m,n1}(t,s+1),U_{1,m,n}(t,s)=U_{0,m,n+1}(t,s1).$$
(3.8)
Proof. Lemma 3.2 is proved by considering the Toda type equation for $`\tau `$-cocycles. Under the specialization (3.1), the Hamiltonians and $`\tau `$-functions are calculated as

$$h_0=h_2=\frac{t^2}{16}+s^2,h_1=h_3=\frac{t^2}{16}+\left(\frac{1}{2}s\right)^2,$$
(3.9)
and

$$\tau _0=\tau _2=t^{s^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{t^2}{32}\right),\tau _1=\tau _3=t^{(1/2s)^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{t^2}{32}\right),$$
(3.10)
up to the multiplication by some constants, respectively. Then, Toda type bilinear equations (2.28) yield to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _{l,m+1,n}\varphi _{l,m1,n}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(\frac{1}{2}D_T^2+\frac{t^2}{8}\frac{2s+1l+3mn}{4}t\right)\varphi _{l,m,n}\varphi _{l,m,n},\hfill & \\ \varphi _{l,m,n+1}\varphi _{l,m,n1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(\frac{1}{2}D_T^2+\frac{t^2}{8}\frac{2s+1lm+3n}{4}t\right)\varphi _{l,m,n}\varphi _{l,m,n}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3.11)
Substituting (3.7) into (3.11), we obtain Toda type bilinear equations to be satisfied by $`U_{m,n}=U_{0,m,n}(t,s)`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}U_{m+1,n}U_{m1,n}=\hfill & \\ 2t\left[\left(\frac{d^2U_{m,n}}{dt^2}\right)U_{m,n}\left(\frac{dU_{m,n}}{dt}\right)^2\right]+2\frac{dU_{m,n}}{dt}U_{m,n}+\left(\frac{t}{4}\frac{2s+1+3mn}{2}\right)U_{m,n}^2,\hfill & \\ U_{m,n+1}U_{m,n1}=\hfill & \\ 2t\left[\left(\frac{d^2U_{m,n}}{dt^2}\right)U_{m,n}\left(\frac{dU_{m,n}}{dt}\right)^2\right]+2\frac{dU_{m,n}}{dt}U_{m,n}+\left(\frac{t}{4}\frac{2s+1m+3n}{2}\right)U_{m,n}^2,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3.12)
with initial conditions

$$U_{1,1}=U_{1,0}=U_{0,1}=U_{0,0}=1.$$
(3.13)
The functions $`U_{m,n}=U_{m,n}(t,s)`$ are uniquely determined by Toda equations (3.12) from the initial conditions (3.13) for any $`m,n`$. Moreover, we see that $`U_{\pm 1,m,n}(t,s)`$ satisfy the same Toda equations as $`U_{0,m,n1}(t,s\pm 1)`$, respectively, by the similar calculation. Since the initial conditions for $`U_{1,m,n}`$ and $`U_{1,m,n}`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}U_{1,1,0}=U_{1,0,0}=U_{1,1,1}=U_{1,0,1}=1,\\ U_{1,1,2}=U_{1,1,1}=U_{1,0,2}=U_{1,0,1}=1,\end{array}$$
(3.14)
the lemma is proved.

From Lemma 3.2, bilinear Bäcklund transformations (3.4) are rewritten in terms of $`U`$.

###### Proposition 3.3

Let $`U_{m,n}=U_{m,n}(t,s)(m,n)`$ be polynomials which satisfy the bilinear equations,

$$\begin{array}{cc}4U_{m,n+1}U_{m1,n1}=tU_{m1,n}^{}U_{m,n}^+2(2s+2n+1)U_{m1,n}U_{m,n},\hfill & \\ 4U_{m1,n+1}^{}U_{m,n1}^+=tU_{m1,n}^{}U_{m,n}^+4sU_{m1,n}U_{m,n},\hfill & \\ 4U_{m1,n}^{}U_{m+1,n1}^+=tU_{m,n1}^+U_{m,n}^{}+4sU_{m,n1}U_{m,n},\hfill & \\ 4U_{m1,n1}U_{m+1,n}=tU_{m,n1}^+U_{m,n}^{}+2(2s2m1)U_{m,n1}U_{m,n},\hfill & \\ 4U_{m1,n1}U_{m,n+1}^{}=tU_{m,n}^{}U_{m1,n}2(2s2m1)U_{m,n}U_{m1,n}^{},\hfill & \\ 4U_{m,n1}U_{m1,n+1}^{}=tU_{m,n}^{}U_{m1,n}4(sm+n)U_{m,n}U_{m1,n}^{},\hfill & \\ 4U_{m+1,n1}U_{m1,n}^{}=tU_{m,n}U_{m,n1}^{}+4(sm+n1)U_{m,n}^{}U_{m,n1},\hfill & \\ 4U_{m+1,n}U_{m1,n1}^{}=tU_{m,n}U_{m,n1}^{}+2(2s+2n1)U_{m,n}^{}U_{m,n1},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3.15)
with

$$U_{1,1}=U_{1,0}=U_{0,1}=U_{0,0}=1,$$
(3.16)
where we denote $`U_{m,n}^\pm =U_{m,n}(t,s\pm 1)`$. Then,

$$y=\frac{U_{m,n1}(t,s)U_{m1,n}(t,s)}{U_{m1,n}(t,s1)U_{m,n1}(t,s+1)},$$
(3.17)
gives the rational solutions of PV (1.1) with parameters

$$\kappa _{\mathrm{}}=s,\kappa _0=sm+n,\theta =m+n1.$$
(3.18)
## 4 Proof of Theorem 1.2

In this section, we give the proof for Theorem 1.2.

###### Definition 4.1

Let $`p_k^{(r)}=p_k^{(r)}(x)`$ and $`q_k^{(r)}=q_k^{(r)}(x)`$ be polynomials defined by

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_k^{(r)}\eta ^k=(1\eta )^r\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x\eta }{1\eta }\right),p_k^{(r)}=0\text{for}k<0,$$
(4.1)
$$q_k^{(r)}(x)=p_k^{(r)}(x),$$
(4.2)
respectively. For $`m,n_0`$, we define a family of polynomials $`R_{m,n}^{(r)}=R_{m,n}^{(r)}(x)`$ by

$$R_{m,n}^{(r)}(x)=\left|\begin{array}{cccccccc}q_1^{(r)}& q_0^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_{m+2}^{(r)}& q_{m+1}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+3}^{(r)}& q_{mn+2}^{(r)}\\ q_3^{(r)}& q_2^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_{m+4}^{(r)}& q_{m+3}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+5}^{(r)}& q_{mn+4}^{(r)}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ q_{2m1}^{(r)}& q_{2m2}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_m^{(r)}& q_{m1}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+1}^{(r)}& q_{mn}^{(r)}\\ p_{nm}^{(r)}& p_{nm+1}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_{n1}^{(r)}& p_n^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_{2n2}^{(r)}& p_{2n1}^{(r)}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ p_{nm+4}^{(r)}& p_{nm+5}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_{n+3}^{(r)}& p_{n+4}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_2^{(r)}& p_3^{(r)}\\ p_{nm+2}^{(r)}& p_{nm+3}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_{n+1}^{(r)}& p_{n+2}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_0^{(r)}& p_1^{(r)}\end{array}\right|.$$
(4.3)
For $`m,n_{<0}`$, we define $`R_{m,n}^{(r)}`$ through

$$R_{m,n}^{(r)}=(1)^{m(m+1)/2}R_{m1,n}^{(r)},R_{m,n}^{(r)}=(1)^{n(n+1)/2}R_{m,n1}^{(r)}.$$
(4.4)
Remark. The polynomials $`p_k`$ and $`q_k`$ $`(k0)`$ are essentially the Laguerre polynomials, namely, $`p_k^{(r)}(x)=L_k^{(r1)}(x)`$. Moreover, $`R_{m,n}^{(r)}`$ is related to $`S_{m,n}`$ in Theorem 1.2 as

$$R_{m,n}^{(r)}(x)=S_{m,n}(t,s),x=\frac{t}{2},r=2sm+n.$$
(4.5)
###### Proposition 4.2

For $`m,n`$, $`R_{m,n}^{(r)}`$ satisfy the following bilinear equations.

$$\begin{array}{cc}(2n+1)R_{m,n+1}^{(r+1)}R_{m1,n1}^{(r)}=xR_{m1,n}^{(r1)}R_{m,n}^{(r+2)}(r+m+n+1)R_{m1,n}^{(r+1)}R_{m,n}^{(r)},\hfill & \\ (2n+1)R_{m1,n+1}^{(r)}R_{m,n1}^{(r+1)}=xR_{m1,n}^{(r1)}R_{m,n}^{(r+2)}(r+mn)R_{m1,n}^{(r+1)}R_{m,n}^{(r)},\hfill & \\ (2m+1)R_{m1,n}^{(r1)}R_{m+1,n1}^{(r)}=xR_{m,n1}^{(r+1)}R_{m,n}^{(r2)}+(r+mn)R_{m,n1}^{(r1)}R_{m,n}^{(r)},\hfill & \\ (2m+1)R_{m1,n1}^{(r)}R_{m+1,n}^{(r1)}=xR_{m,n1}^{(r+1)}R_{m,n}^{(r2)}+(rmn1)R_{m,n1}^{(r1)}R_{m,n}^{(r)},\hfill & \\ (2n+1)R_{m1,n1}^{(r)}R_{m,n+1}^{(r1)}=xR_{m,n}^{(r2)}R_{m1,n}^{(r+1)}(rmn1)R_{m,n}^{(r)}R_{m1,n}^{(r1)},\hfill & \\ (2n+1)R_{m,n1}^{(r1)}R_{m1,n+1}^{(r)}=xR_{m,n}^{(r2)}R_{m1,n}^{(r+1)}(rm+n)R_{m,n}^{(r)}R_{m1,n}^{(r1)},\hfill & \\ (2m+1)R_{m+1,n1}^{(r2)}R_{m1,n}^{(r1)}=xR_{m,n}^{(r)}R_{m,n1}^{(r3)}+(rm+n2)R_{m,n}^{(r2)}R_{m,n1}^{(r1)},\hfill & \\ (2m+1)R_{m+1,n}^{(r1)}R_{m1,n1}^{(r2)}=xR_{m,n}^{(r)}R_{m,n1}^{(r3)}+(r+m+n1)R_{m,n}^{(r2)}R_{m,n1}^{(r1)}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(4.6)
Comparing (4.6) with (3.15), we obtain an explicit formula for $`U_{m,n}=U_{m,n}(t,s)`$ in Proposition 3.3.

###### Proposition 4.3

We have

$$U_{m,n}(t,s)=c_md_nS_{m,n}(t,s),m,n,$$
(4.7)
where $`c_m`$ and $`d_n`$ are constants determined by

$$\begin{array}{c}c_{m+1}c_{m1}=\left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right)c_m^2,c_1=c_0=1,\\ d_{n+1}d_{n1}=\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)d_n^2,d_1=d_0=1.\end{array}$$
(4.8)
Proof. Putting

$$U_{m,n}(t,s)=c_md_nR_{m,n}^{(r)}(x),$$
(4.9)
with

$$x=\frac{t}{2},r=2sm+n,$$
(4.10)
we find that the bilinear relations (4.6) become (3.15). Taking (4.5) into account, we obtain Proposition 4.3.

Applying $`s_1`$ to the solutions (1.8) with (1.9), we get the solutions (1.8) with (1.10). Then, the first half of Theorem 1.2 is a direct consequence of Proposition 3.3 and 4.3. It is easy to find that the latter half of Theorem 1.2 is obtained by applying $`\pi s_1`$ to the solutions (1.8) with (1.9). Therefore, now the proof of Theorem 1.2 is reduced to that of Proposition 4.2.

It is possible to reduce the number of bilinear equations to be proved in (4.6) by the following symmetry of $`R_{m,n}^{(r)}(x)`$.

###### Lemma 4.4

We have the relations for $`m,n_0`$

$$R_{n,m}^{(r)}(x)=R_{m,n}^{(r)}(x),$$
(4.11)
$$R_{n,m}^{(r)}(x)=(1)^{m(m+1)/2+n(n+1)/2}R_{m,n}^{(r)}(x).$$
(4.12)
Proof. The first relation (4.11) is easily obtained from (4.3). To verify the second relation (4.12), we introduce polynomials $`\overline{q}_k^{(r)}=\overline{q}_k^{(r)}(x)`$ by

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\overline{q}_k^{(r)}\eta ^k=(1+\eta )^r\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x\eta }{1+\eta }\right),\overline{q}_k^{(r)}=0\text{for}k<0.$$
(4.13)
Comparing the generating function for $`q_k`$ with that for $`\overline{q}_k`$, we see that each $`\overline{q}_k^{(r)}(x)`$ is a linear combination of $`q_j^{(r)}(x),j=k,k2,k4,\mathrm{}`$. Therefore we can express $`R_{m,n}^{(r)}`$ for $`m,n_0`$ in terms of $`p_k`$ and $`\overline{q}_k`$ as

$$R_{m,n}^{(r)}(x)=\left|\begin{array}{cccccccc}\overline{q}_1^{(r)}& \overline{q}_0^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& \overline{q}_{m+2}^{(r)}& \overline{q}_{m+1}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& \overline{q}_{mn+3}^{(r)}& \overline{q}_{mn+2}^{(r)}\\ \overline{q}_3^{(r)}& \overline{q}_2^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& \overline{q}_{m+4}^{(r)}& \overline{q}_{m+3}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& \overline{q}_{mn+5}^{(r)}& \overline{q}_{mn+4}^{(r)}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \overline{q}_{2m1}^{(r)}& \overline{q}_{2m2}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& \overline{q}_m^{(r)}& \overline{q}_{m1}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& \overline{q}_{mn+1}^{(r)}& \overline{q}_{mn}^{(r)}\\ p_{nm}^{(r)}& p_{nm+1}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_{n1}^{(r)}& p_n^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_{2n2}^{(r)}& p_{2n1}^{(r)}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ p_{nm+4}^{(r)}& p_{nm+5}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_{n+3}^{(r)}& p_{n+4}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_2^{(r)}& p_3^{(r)}\\ p_{nm+2}^{(r)}& p_{nm+3}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_{n+1}^{(r)}& p_{n+2}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_0^{(r)}& p_1^{(r)}\end{array}\right|.$$
(4.14)
Noticing that $`\overline{q}_k`$ and $`p_k`$ are related as

$$\overline{q}_k^{(r)}(x)=(1)^kp_k^{(r)}(x),$$
(4.15)
we obtain the relation (4.12).

From the symmetries of $`R_{m,n}^{(r)}(x)`$ described by (4.4) and Lemma 4.4, it is sufficient to prove the first two equations in (4.6) for $`m,n_0`$, which are equivalent to

$$R_{m1,n+1}^{(r)}R_{m,n1}^{(r+1)}R_{m,n+1}^{(r+1)}R_{m1,n1}^{(r)}R_{m1,n}^{(r+1)}R_{m,n}^{(r)}=0,$$
(4.16)
$$(2n+1)R_{m1,n+1}^{(r)}R_{m,n1}^{(r+1)}=xR_{m1,n}^{(r1)}R_{m,n}^{(r+2)}(r+mn)R_{m1,n}^{(r+1)}R_{m,n}^{(r)}.$$
(4.17)
In the following, we show that these bilinear equations are reduced to Jacobi’s identity of determinants. Let $`D`$ be an $`(m+n+1)\times (m+n+1)`$ determinant and $`D\left[\begin{array}{cccc}i_1& i_2& \mathrm{}& i_k\\ j_1& j_2& \mathrm{}& j_k\end{array}\right]`$ the minor which are obtained by deleting the rows with indices $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_k`$ and the columns with indices $`j_1,\mathrm{},j_k`$. Then we have Jacobi’s identity

$$DD\left[\begin{array}{cc}m& m+1\\ 1& m+n+1\end{array}\right]=D\left[\begin{array}{c}m\\ 1\end{array}\right]D\left[\begin{array}{c}m+1\\ m+n+1\end{array}\right]D\left[\begin{array}{c}m+1\\ 1\end{array}\right]D\left[\begin{array}{c}m\\ m+n+1\end{array}\right].$$
(4.18)
We first choose proper determinants as $`D`$ ($`D`$ itself should be expressed in terms of $`R_{m,n}^{(r)}`$). Secondly, we construct such formulas that express the minor determinants by $`R_{m,n}^{(r)}`$. Then, Jacobi’s identity yields bilinear equations for $`R_{m,n}^{(r)}`$ which are nothing but (4.16) and (4.17).

We have the following lemmas.

###### Lemma 4.5

We put

$$D\left|\begin{array}{cccccc}q_1^{(r+1)}& q_1^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+3}^{(r)}& q_{mn+2}^{(r)}& \\ q_3^{(r+1)}& q_3^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+5}^{(r)}& q_{mn+4}^{(r)}& \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ q_{2m1}^{(r+1)}& q_{2m1}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+1}^{(r)}& q_{mn}^{(r)}& \\ p_{nm+1}^{(r+1)}& p_{nm+2}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_{2n}^{(r)}& p_{2n+1}^{(r)}& \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ p_{nm+3}^{(r+1)}& p_{nm+4}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_2^{(r)}& p_3^{(r)}& \\ p_{nm+1}^{(r+1)}& p_{nm+2}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_0^{(r)}& p_1^{(r)}& \end{array}\right|.$$
(4.19)
Then, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}D=(1)^mR_{m,n+1}^{(r+1)},D\left[\begin{array}{c}m\\ 1\end{array}\right]=R_{m1,n+1}^{(r)},\hfill & \\ D\left[\begin{array}{c}m+1\\ 1\end{array}\right]=R_{m,n}^{(r)},D\left[\begin{array}{c}m\\ m+n+1\end{array}\right]=(1)^{m1}R_{m1,n}^{(r+1)},\hfill & \\ D\left[\begin{array}{c}m+1\\ m+n+1\end{array}\right]=(1)^mR_{m,n1}^{(r+1)},D\left[\begin{array}{cc}m& m+1\\ 1& m+n+1\end{array}\right]=R_{m1,n1}^{(r)}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(4.20)
###### Lemma 4.6

We put

$$D\left|\begin{array}{ccccc}\stackrel{~}{q}_1^{(rmn+2)}& q_1^{(rmn+1)}& q_0^{(rmn+2)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+2}^{(r)}\\ \stackrel{~}{q}_3^{(rmn+2)}& q_3^{(rmn+1)}& q_2^{(rmn+2)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+4}^{(r)}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \stackrel{~}{q}_{2m1}^{(rmn+2)}& q_{2m1}^{(rmn+1)}& q_{2m2}^{(rmn+2)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn}^{(r)}\\ (1)^{m+n}\widehat{p}_{2n}^{(rmn+2)}& (1)^{m+n}p_{2n+1}^{(rmn+1)}& (1)^{m+n1}p_{2n+1}^{(rmn+2)}& \mathrm{}& (1)^1p_{2n+1}^{(r)}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ (1)^{m+n}\widehat{p}_2^{(rmn+2)}& (1)^{m+n}p_3^{(rmn+1)}& (1)^{m+n1}p_3^{(rmn+2)}& \mathrm{}& (1)^1p_3^{(r)}\\ (1)^{m+n}\widehat{p}_0^{(rmn+2)}& (1)^{m+n}p_1^{(rmn+1)}& (1)^{m+n1}p_1^{(rmn+2)}& \mathrm{}& (1)^1p_1^{(r)}\end{array}\right|,$$
(4.21)
where $`\widehat{p}_{2k}^{(r)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_{2k1}^{(r)}`$ are defined by

$$\widehat{p}_{2k}^{(r)}=\frac{p_{2k}^{(r)}}{2k+1},\stackrel{~}{q}_{2k1}^{(r)}=\frac{q_{2k1}^{(r)}}{r+2k2}.$$
(4.22)
Then, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}D=\frac{x^{m+n}}{{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(2j+1){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}}(rmn+2k)}R_{m,n}^{(r+2)},\hfill & \\ D\left[\begin{array}{c}m\\ 1\end{array}\right]=(1)^{n+1}R_{m1,n+1}^{(r)},D\left[\begin{array}{c}m+1\\ 1\end{array}\right]=(1)^nR_{m,n}^{(r)},\hfill & \\ D\left[\begin{array}{c}m\\ m+n+1\end{array}\right]=(1)^{n+1}\frac{x^{m+n1}}{{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(2j+1){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m1}{}}}(rmn+2k)}R_{m1,n}^{(r+1)},\hfill & \\ D\left[\begin{array}{c}m+1\\ m+n+1\end{array}\right]=(1)^n\frac{x^{m+n1}}{{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(2j+1){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}}(rmn+2k)}R_{m,n1}^{(r+1)},\hfill & \\ D\left[\begin{array}{cc}m& m+1\\ 1& m+n+1\end{array}\right]=R_{m1,n}^{(r1)}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(4.23)
It is easy to see that the bilinear relations (4.16) and (4.17) follow immediately from Jacobi’s identity (4.18) by using Lemmas 4.5 and 4.6, respectively. We give the proof of Lemmas 4.5 and 4.6 in Appendix B. This completes the proof of Proposition 4.2 and thus our main result Theorem 1.2.

## 5 Discussion

As we mentioned in Section 2.3, the $`\tau `$\- cocycles $`\varphi _{k,l,m,n}`$ are polynomials in $`\alpha _i`$ and $`f_i`$ and admit a determinant expression in terms of a generalized Jacobi-Trudi formula . When specialized to the seed solution (3.1), we obtain a determinant formula for $`\varphi _{0,0,m,n}=\varphi _{m,n}`$, which are given as follows.

###### Proposition 5.1

Let $`g_k^{(l)}(k,l)`$ be functions defined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}g_{2k}^{(2l)}=\frac{(1)^k}{\xi _k}L_k^{(2s1)}(t/2),g_{2k+1}^{(2l)}=\frac{\sqrt{t}}{2}\frac{(1)^k}{\xi _{k+1}^{}}L_k^{(2s^{})}(t/2),\hfill & \\ g_{2k}^{(2l+1)}=\frac{(1)^k}{\xi _k^{}}L_k^{(2s^{}1)}(t/2),g_{2k+1}^{(2l+1)}=\frac{\sqrt{t}}{2}\frac{(1)^k}{\xi _{k+1}}L_k^{(2s)}(t/2),\hfill & \end{array}$$
(5.1)
with

$$\xi _k=\xi _k(s)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\left(s+\frac{j1}{2}\right),\xi _k^{}=\xi _k(s^{}),$$
(5.2)
where $`L_k^{(r)}(x)`$ are the Laguerre polynomials and $`s^{}=1/2s`$. Then, $`\varphi _{m,n}`$ under the specialization (3.1) are given by

$$\varphi _{m,n}=N_{m,n}det\left(g_{\lambda _jj+i}^{(m+n+1i)}\right)_{i,j=1}^{m+n},$$
(5.3)
where the partition $`\lambda `$ and the normalization factor $`N_{m,n}`$ are given by

$$\lambda =\{\begin{array}{cc}(3mn1,3mn4,\mathrm{},2n+5,2n+2,2n,2n,\mathrm{},4,4,2,2),(m>n),\hfill & \\ (3nm,3nm3,\mathrm{},2m+3,2m,2m,\mathrm{},4,4,2,2),(mn),\hfill & \end{array}$$
(5.4)
and

$$N_{m,n}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{n(n+1)/2}c_md_n\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\widehat{\zeta }_k\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}\zeta _k^{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{mn1}{}}\widehat{\zeta }_k^{}(m>n),\hfill & \\ (1)^{n(n+1)/2}c_md_n\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\widehat{\zeta }_k\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}\zeta _k^{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{nm}{}}\zeta _k,(mn),\hfill & \end{array}$$
(5.5)
with

$$\zeta _k=\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}(s+j1),\widehat{\zeta }_k=\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\left(s+\frac{2j1}{2}\right),$$
(5.6)
respectively.

This gives a different expression for the rational solutions discussed in this paper. Studying the relationship between this formula and our result might be an interesting problem.

Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank Prof. S. Okada for leading their attention to the universal characters. They also thank Prof. M. Noumi, Prof. Y. Yamada and Prof. H. Watanabe for useful suggestions and discussions.

## Appendix A Determinant Formula for the Umemura Polynomials

In , Noumi and Yamada gave a determinant formula of Jacobi-Trudi type for the Umemura polynomials in terms of 2-reduced Schur functions. In this appendix, we give a brief review on this determinant formula, and show that it is recovered as a special case of our formula.

We normalize the polynomials $`U_{m,n}`$ in Section 3 as

$$U_{m,n}=2^{m(m+1)/2+n(n+1)/2}T_{m,n}.$$
(A.1)
Then we find that the functions $`T_n=T_{0,n}(t,s)`$ are monic polynomials generated by the Toda equation

$$T_{n+1}T_{n1}=t\left[\left(\frac{d^2T_n}{dt^2}\right)T_n\left(\frac{dT_n}{dt}\right)^2\right]+\frac{dT_n}{dt}T_n+\left(\frac{t}{8}\frac{2s+1+3n}{4}\right)T_n^2,$$
(A.2)
with initial conditions $`T_1=T_0=1`$. The polynomials $`T_n`$ are called Umemura polynomials. It is easy to see that we have

$$T_{1,n}(t,s)=T_{0,n}(t,s+1/2).$$
(A.3)
Introducing $`\widehat{T}_n(t,s)`$ by $`\widehat{T}_n(t,s)=T_n(t,s)`$, we have the following proposition.

###### Proposition A.1

Let $`\widehat{T}_n=\widehat{T}_n(t,s)`$ be a sequence of polynomials in $`t`$ and $`s`$ defined through the Toda equation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{T}_{n+1}\widehat{T}_{n1}=t\left[\left(\frac{d^2\widehat{T}_n}{dt^2}\right)\widehat{T}_n\left(\frac{d\widehat{T}_n}{dt}\right)^2\right]+\frac{d\widehat{T}_n}{dt}\widehat{T}_n+\left[\frac{t}{8}\frac{1}{2}\left(s+\frac{1}{2}\right)+\frac{3}{4}n\right]\widehat{T}_n^2,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(A.4)
with initial conditions $`\widehat{T}_0=\widehat{T}_1=1`$. Then, the rational function

$$y=\frac{\widehat{T}_{n+1}(t,s)\widehat{T}_n(t,s+1/2)}{\widehat{T}_{n+1}(t,s+1)\widehat{T}_n(t,s1/2)},$$
(A.5)
solves PV with the parameters

$$\kappa _{\mathrm{}}=s,\kappa _0=sn,\theta =n1.$$
(A.6)
The explicit formula for $`\widehat{T}_n`$ was given by Noumi and Yamada, which is expressed in terms of the 2-reduced Schur functions.

###### Proposition A.2

Let $`S_n=S_n(t_1,t_2,\mathrm{})`$ for $`n0`$ be the Schur function associated with a partition $`\lambda =(n,n1,\mathrm{},2,1)`$. Then, we have

$$\widehat{T}_{n+1}(t,s)=N_nS_n$$
(A.7)
with

$$\begin{array}{c}N_n=2^{n(n+1)}(2n1)!!(2n3)!!\mathrm{}3!!1!!,\\ t_j=\frac{t}{2}+\frac{2s+n+1}{j}.\end{array}$$
(A.8)
It is easy to verify that Proposition A.2 is recovered by putting $`m=0`$ for the solutions (1.8) with (1.9) in Theorem 1.2.

## Appendix B Proof of Lemmas 4.5 and 4.6

We first note that the following contiguity relations hold by definition,

$$p_k^{(r)}p_{k1}^{(r)}=p_k^{(r1)},q_k^{(r)}q_{k1}^{(r)}=q_k^{(r1)},$$
(B.1)
and

$$(k+1)p_{k+1}^{(r)}=rp_k^{(r+1)}xp_k^{(r+2)},(k+1)q_{k+1}^{(r)}=rq_k^{(r+1)}+xq_k^{(r+2)}.$$
(B.2)
Let us prove Lemma 4.5. Noticing that $`p_1^{(r)}=1`$ and $`p_k^{(r)}=0`$ for $`k<0`$, we see that $`R_{m,n}^{(r)}`$ can be rewritten as

$$R_{m,n}^{(r)}=\left|\begin{array}{cccccc}q_1^{(r)}& q_0^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+3}^{(r)}& q_{mn+2}^{(r)}& q_{mn+1}^{(r)}\\ q_3^{(r)}& q_2^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+5}^{(r)}& q_{mn+4}^{(r)}& q_{mn+3}^{(r)}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ q_{2m1}^{(r)}& q_{2m2}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+1}^{(r)}& q_{mn}^{(r)}& q_{mn1}^{(r)}\\ p_{nm}^{(r)}& p_{nm+1}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_{2n2}^{(r)}& p_{2n1}^{(r)}& p_{2n}^{(r)}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ p_{nm+4}^{(r)}& p_{nm+5}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_2^{(r)}& p_3^{(r)}& p_4^{(r)}\\ p_{nm+2}^{(r)}& p_{nm+3}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_0^{(r)}& p_1^{(r)}& p_2^{(r)}\\ p_{nm}^{(r)}& p_{nm+1}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_2^{(r)}& p_1^{(r)}& p_0^{(r)}\end{array}\right|.$$
(B.3)
Subtracting the $`(j1)`$-st column from the $`j`$-th column of $`R_{m,n}^{(r+1)}`$ for $`(j=m+n,m+n1,\mathrm{},2)`$ and using (B.1), we get

$$R_{m,n}^{(r+1)}=(1)^m\left|\begin{array}{cccccc}q_1^{(r+1)}& q_1^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+4}^{(r)}& q_{mn+3}^{(r)}& \\ q_3^{(r+1)}& q_3^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+6}^{(r)}& q_{mn+5}^{(r)}& \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ q_{2m1}^{(r+1)}& q_{2m1}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+2}^{(r)}& q_{mn+1}^{(r)}& \\ p_{nm}^{(r+1)}& p_{nm+1}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_{2n2}^{(r)}& p_{2n1}^{(r)}& \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ p_{nm+4}^{(r+1)}& p_{nm+5}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_2^{(r)}& p_3^{(r)}& \\ p_{nm+2}^{(r+1)}& p_{nm+3}^{(r)}& \mathrm{}& p_0^{(r)}& p_1^{(r)}& \end{array}\right|.$$
(B.4)
From (B.3) and (B.4), we obtain Lemma 4.5.

We next prove Lemma 4.6. Subtracting the $`(i+1)`$-st column from the $`i`$-th column of $`R_{m,n}^{(r)}`$ for $`(i=1,2,\mathrm{},j,j=m+n1,m+n2,\mathrm{},1)`$ and using (B.1), we get

$$R_{m,n}^{(r)}=\left|\begin{array}{ccccc}q_1^{(rmn+1)}& q_0^{(rmn+2)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+3}^{(r1)}& q_{mn+2}^{(r)}\\ q_3^{(rmn+1)}& q_2^{(rmn+2)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+5}^{(r1)}& q_{mn+4}^{(r)}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ q_{2m1}^{(rmn+1)}& q_{2m2}^{(rmn+2)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+1}^{(r1)}& q_{mn}^{(r)}\\ (1)^{m+n1}p_{2n1}^{(rmn+1)}& (1)^{m+n2}p_{2n1}^{(rmn+2)}& \mathrm{}& (1)^1p_{2n1}^{(r1)}& (1)^0p_{2n1}^{(r)}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ (1)^{m+n1}p_3^{(rmn+1)}& (1)^{m+n2}p_3^{(rmn+2)}& \mathrm{}& (1)^1p_3^{(r1)}& (1)^0p_3^{(r)}\\ (1)^{m+n1}p_1^{(rmn+1)}& (1)^{m+n2}p_1^{(rmn+2)}& \mathrm{}& (1)^1p_1^{(r1)}& (1)^0p_1^{(r)}\end{array}\right|.$$
(B.5)
Noticing that $`p_0^{(r)}=1`$ and $`p_k^{(r)}=0`$ for $`k<0`$, we see that $`R_{m,n}^{(r)}`$ can be rewritten as

$$R_{m,n}^{(r)}=\left|\begin{array}{ccccc}q_1^{(rmn)}& q_0^{(rmn+1)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+2}^{(r1)}& q_{mn+1}^{(r)}\\ q_3^{(rmn)}& q_2^{(rmn+1)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+4}^{(r1)}& q_{mn+3}^{(r)}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ q_{2m1}^{(rmn)}& q_{2m2}^{(rmn+1)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn}^{(r1)}& q_{mn1}^{(r)}\\ (1)^{m+n}p_{2n}^{(rmn)}& (1)^{m+n1}p_{2n}^{(rmn+1)}& \mathrm{}& (1)^1p_{2n}^{(r1)}& (1)^0p_{2n}^{(r)}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ (1)^{m+n}p_2^{(rmn)}& (1)^{m+n1}p_2^{(rmn+1)}& \mathrm{}& (1)^1p_2^{(r1)}& (1)^0p_2^{(r)}\\ (1)^{m+n}p_0^{(rmn)}& (1)^{m+n1}p_0^{(rmn+1)}& \mathrm{}& (1)^1p_0^{(r1)}& (1)^0p_0^{(r)}\end{array}\right|.$$
(B.6)
We add the $`j`$-th column multiplied by $`(r2+m+nj)/x`$ to the $`(j+1)`$-st column of (B.6) for $`(j=m+n,m+n1,\mathrm{},1)`$. Then using (B.1) and (B.2), we obtain

$`R_{m,n}^{(r)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(2j+1){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}}(rmn+2k2)x^{(m+n)}`$ (B.15)
$`\times `$ $`\left|\begin{array}{ccccc}\stackrel{~}{q}_1^{(rmn)}& q_1^{(rmn1)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+3}^{(r3)}& q_{mn+2}^{(r2)}\\ \stackrel{~}{q}_3^{(rmn)}& q_3^{(rmn1)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+5}^{(r3)}& q_{mn+4}^{(r2)}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \stackrel{~}{q}_{2m1}^{(rmn)}& q_{2m1}^{(rmn1)}& \mathrm{}& q_{mn+1}^{(r3)}& q_{mn}^{(r2)}\\ (1)^{m+n}\widehat{p}_{2n}^{(rmn)}& (1)^{m+n}p_{2n+1}^{(rmn1)}& \mathrm{}& (1)^2p_{2n+1}^{(r3)}& (1)^1p_{2n+1}^{(r2)}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ (1)^{m+n}\widehat{p}_2^{(rmn)}& (1)^{m+n}p_3^{(rmn1)}& \mathrm{}& (1)^2p_3^{(r3)}& (1)^1p_3^{(r2)}\\ (1)^{m+n}\widehat{p}_0^{(rmn)}& (1)^{m+n}p_1^{(rmn1)}& \mathrm{}& (1)^2p_1^{(r3)}& (1)^1p_1^{(r2)}\end{array}\right|.`$
Lemma 4.6 follows from (B.5),(B.6) and (B.15).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The intriguing phenomenon of high $`T_c`$ superconductivity has inspired several models, consisting mostly of elaborations of a doped version of the Hubbard model. The model presented in  claims the generation of superconductivity through a “mixed Chern-Simons term” without the need to introduce a local gauge symmetry breaking condensate. The model invokes the idea of electron substructure (spin-charge separation) considering the low-energy excitations of the system to be bosonic degrees of freedom called spinons and fermionic ones called holons. The role of the phonon interactions crucial to the formation of Cooper Pairs in BCS superconductors is now played by a “statistical” gauge field, which arises from the underlying dynamics of the holons hopping between lattice sites. More specifically, the model is based on a so-called $`\tau _3`$-U(1) interaction of the fermions with the gauge field.

An alternative form of the model has been proposed in . The model is meant to represent the naïve continuum limit of the effective low-energy Hamiltonian of the large-$`U`$, doped Hubbard model. The action of the model reads:

$$=\frac{1}{4}(F_{\mu \nu })^2\frac{1}{4}\text{tr}(𝒢_{\mu \nu })^2+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}D_\mu \gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }$$
(1)
where $`D_\mu =_\mu ig_1A_\mu ^Sig_2\tau ^aW_{a,\mu }i\frac{e}{c}A_\mu ^{ext}`$, with $`A_\mu ^S`$ the statistical U(1)S gauge field, $`W_\mu ^a`$ is the gauge potential of a local SU(2) group, and $`𝒢_{\mu \nu }^a`$ the corresponding field strength. The $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ fields are two-component spinors. The difference from the previous model lies in the fact that now the full gauge symmetry is $`\text{U}(1)_S\text{SU}(2),`$ where we have denoted by U(1)S the abelian part of the symmetry. We call it a “statistical” gauge field since from the physical point of view it describes statistical properties of the model, such as the doping, and not real electromagnetism.

The strongly-coupled U(1)S interaction promotes the spontaneous generation of a fermion – anti-fermion condensate resulting in a mass gap. Arguments based on energetics prohibit the generation of a parity-violating but SU(2) gauge invariant term , in favour of a parity-conserving condensate, which necessarily breaks the SU(2) group down to a $`\tau _3`$-U(1) sector . The mass gap thus breaks the SU(2) part down to an abelian sub-group which is the analog of the $`\tau _3`$-U(1) in the model of . The symmetry breaking pattern here follows the scheme: $`\text{U(1)}_S\text{SU}(2)\text{U(1)}_S\text{U}(1)_{\tau _3}.`$

In equation (1) we have also allowed for an additional U(1)em coupling, which describes the coupling to an external electromagnetic field $`A_\mu ^{ext}`$. Actual superconductivity is obtained upon coupling the system to such external electromagnetic potentials. We now discuss the superconducting consequences of the above dynamical breaking patterns of the SU(2) group. Upon the opening of a mass gap in the fermion (hole) spectrum, one obtains a non-trivial result for the following Feynman matrix element: $`𝒮^a=W_\mu ^a|J_\nu |0,a=1,2,3`$, with $`J_\mu =\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }`$ the fermion-number current. Due to the colour-group structure, only the massless $`W_\mu ^3`$ gauge boson of the SU(2) group, corresponding to the $`\tau _3`$ generator in two-component notation, contributes to the matrix element. The non-trivial result for the matrix element $`𝒮^3`$ arises from an anomalous one-loop graph, and is given by :

$$𝒮^3=W_\mu ^3|J_\nu |0=(\mathrm{sgn}M)ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }\frac{p_\rho }{\sqrt{p_0}}$$
(2)
where $`M`$ is the parity-conserving fermion mass generated dynamically by the U(1)S group. As with other Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomalous graphs in gauge theories, the one-loop result (2) is exact and receives no contributions from higher loops . This unconventional symmetry breaking (2), does not have a local order parameter  since its formation is inhibited by strong phase fluctuations, thereby resembling the Kosterlitz-Thouless mode of symmetry breaking. The massless gauge boson $`W_\mu ^3`$ of the unbroken $`\tau _3`$-U(1) subgroup of SU(2) is responsible for the appearance of a massless pole in the electric current-current correlator, which is the characteristic feature of any superconducting theory. As discussed in ref. , all the standard properties of a superconductor, such as the Meissner effect, infinite conductivity, flux quantization, the London limit of the action etc. are recovered in such a case. The field $`W_\mu ^3`$, or rather its dual $`\varphi `$ defined by $`_\mu \varphi ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu W_\rho ^3`$, can be identified with the Goldstone boson of the broken U(1)em electromagnetic symmetry .

If an external magnetic field is coupled to the charged excitations about the superconducting state then new phenomena appear. In refs.  it is argued that an external magnetic field in this (2+1)-dimensional system induces the opening of a second superconducting gap at the nodes of the $`d`$-wave gap, in agreement with recent experimental results on the behaviour of the thermal conductivity of high-temperature cuprates under the influence of strong external magnetic fields .

In this work we will study the phenomenon of the enhancement of the fermion condensate in the presence of an external magnetic field. In this respect it is not important to gauge the SU(2) group. We study QED3, a model which in the continuum has a local U(1) symmetry and a global SU(2) symmetry. However, the lattice discretization we employ in order to perform non-perurbative calculations restricts the global symmetry to a U(1) “chiral” symmetry, which in turn is totally broken by the fermion – anti-fermion condensate $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The question of whether this symmetry is spontaneously broken in QED3, ie. whether $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }0`$ in the chiral limit bare fermion mass $`m0`$ and the continuum (weak coupling) limit $`g0`$, has been an important issue in non-perturbative field theory for many years. Initial studies based on Schwinger-Dyson (SD) studies using the photon propagator derived from the leading order $`1/N_f`$ expansion, where $`N_f`$ is the number of fermion flavors, suggested that for $`N_f`$ less than some critical value $`N_{fc}`$ the answer is positive , with $`N_{fc}3.2`$. The model in the limit $`N_fN_{fc}`$ is supposed to undergo an infinite-order phase transition . Other studies taking non-trivial vertex corrections into account predicted chiral symmetry breaking for arbitrary $`N_f`$ . More recent studies which treat the vertex consistently in both numerator and denominator of the SD equations have found $`N_{fc}<\mathrm{}`$, with a value either in agreement with the original study , or slightly higher $`N_{fc}4.3`$ . Finally a recent argument based on a thermodynamic inequality has predicted $`N_{fc}\frac{3}{2}`$ .

There have also been numerical attempts to resolve the issue via simulations of non-compact lattice QED3. Once again, opinions have divided on whether $`N_{fc}`$ is finite and $`3`$ , or whether chiral symmetry is broken for all $`N_f`$ . The principal obstruction to a definitive answer has been large finite volume effects resulting from the presence of a massless photon in the spectrum, which prevent a reliable extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit. In this context it is also worth mentioning the three-dimensional Thirring model, which has a current-current interaction mediated in the UV limit by a propagator of identical form in the large-$`N_f`$ limit to that of QED3; moreover chiral symmetry breaking for small $`N_f`$ is predicted by the same set of SD equations as those of QED3 . This time, however, the critical behaviour is governed by a UV-stable fixed point rather than an IR one, and numerical studies are more controlable, yielding values of $`N_{fc}5`$ .

The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we outline the formulation of continuum QED3 in Euclidean metric, and identify its global symmetries. In section 3 we do the same for the lattice version of the model. We also review the formulation of a homogeneous background magnetic field $`B`$ in abelian lattice gauge theory. Our numerical results are presented in section 4. First for $`B=0`$, we attempt an extrapolation to both continuum and chiral limits, and observe evidence for a non-vanishing (though unexpectedly small) dimensionless chiral condensate, suggesting $`N_{fc}>2`$. We are also able to estimate the combination of lattice sizes and bare masses required for quantitative accuracy in further work. This work is described in section 4.1. In section 4.2 we turn to non-zero magnetic field $`B`$, and study the resulting enhancement of the condensate. This is the first lattice simulation of QED3 with $`B0`$ using dynamical fermions; the problem has previously been studied in the quenched approximation . In particular we compare the behaviours of quenched versus dynamical fermions and calculate the condensate as a function of the magnetic field, and find different behaviours both in the strong and the weak field regimes, and in strong and weak U(1)S coupling regimes. We conclude with a study of the dependence of the condensate in the strength of the statistical gauge interaction in the chiral limit, and uncover an important finite volume effect.

## 2 The model in the continuum and its symmetries

The three-dimensional continuum Lagrangian describing QED3 is given (in Euclidean metric, which we use hereafter) by ,

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^2+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_iD_\mu \gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_i+m\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i$$
(3)
where $`D_\mu =_\mu igA_\mu ^SieA_\mu ^{ext}`$, and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, $`𝒢_{\mu \nu }`$ are the corresponding field strengths for an abelian U(1)S statistical gauge field $`A_\mu ^S`$ and a background U(1)em gauge field $`A_\mu ^{ext}`$, respectively. The fermions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N_f`$, are now four-component spinors. We note that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ may be written in terms of the two-component spinors used in section 1 as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{i1}\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_{i2}\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
A convenient representation for the $`\gamma _\mu `$, $`\mu =0,1,2`$, matrices is the reducible $`4\times 4`$ representation of the Dirac algebra in three dimensions  (in Euclidean metric we choose hermitian Dirac matrices):

$$\gamma ^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _3& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \sigma _3\end{array}\right);\gamma ^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _1& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \sigma _1\end{array}\right);\gamma ^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _2& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \sigma _2\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
where $`\sigma _i`$ are $`2\times 2`$ Pauli matrices. Then the Lagrangian (3) decomposes into two parts, one for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i1}`$ and one for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i2},`$ which will be called “fermion species” in the sequel. The presence of an even number of fermion species allows us to define chiral symmetry and parity in three dimensions , which we discuss below. The bare mass $`m`$ term is parity conserving and has been added by hand in the Lagrangian (3). This term is generated dynamically anyway via the formation of the fermion condensate $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by the strong U(1)S coupling. Here we include such a term explicitly, since it is necessary from the technical point of view.

As is well known  there exist two $`4\times 4`$ matrices which anticommute with $`\gamma _\mu `$, $`\mu =0,1,2`$:

$$\gamma _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}\\ \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right),\gamma _5=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}\\ \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
where the substructures are $`2\times 2`$ matrices. These are the generators of the ‘chiral’ symmetry for the massless fermion theory:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \gamma _3)\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \gamma _3);`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(i\omega \gamma _5)\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega \gamma _5).`$
Note that these transformations do not exist in the two-component representation of the three-dimensional Dirac algebra, and therefore the above symmetry is valid for theories with even numbers of fermion species only.

For later use we note that the Dirac algebra in $`(2+1)`$ dimensions satisfies the identities:

$`\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu =\delta ^{\mu \nu }\tau _3ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }\gamma ^\lambda ;\tau _3i\gamma _3\gamma _5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right)`$ (8)
$`\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\lambda \gamma ^\mu =\gamma ^\lambda `$
$`\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^0\gamma ^\rho \gamma ^\sigma \gamma ^\mu =\delta ^{\rho \sigma }\gamma ^03\tau _3ϵ^{\rho \sigma }`$
$`\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\rho \gamma ^\sigma \gamma ^\mu =3\delta ^{\rho \sigma }\tau _3\gamma ^0ϵ^{\rho \sigma }`$
$`\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\sigma \gamma ^\rho \gamma ^\tau \gamma ^\mu =\delta ^{\rho \sigma }\gamma ^\tau \delta ^{\rho \tau }\gamma ^\sigma +\delta ^{\sigma \tau }\gamma ^\rho `$
which are specific to three dimensions. Here the Greek letters are spacetime indices, and repetition implies summation.

Parity in this formalism is defined as the transformation:

$`P:\mathrm{\Psi }(x^0,x^1,x^2)`$ $``$ $`i\gamma _3\gamma _1\mathrm{\Psi }(x^0,x^1,x^2);`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x^0,x^1,x^2)`$ $``$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x^0,x^1,x^2)i\gamma _1\gamma _3,`$ (9)
and it is easy to see that the parity-invariant mass term $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ corresponds to the species having masses with opposite signs , whilst a parity-violating one $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\tau _3\mathrm{\Psi }`$ corresponds to masses of the same sign.

The set of generators

$$𝒢=\{\mathrm{𝟏},\gamma _3,\gamma _5,\tau _3\}$$
(10)
form  a global U(2) $``$ SU(2)$``$U(1) symmetry. To see this define $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\tau _3`$. The U(2) symmetry is then

$$\mathrm{\Psi }U\mathrm{\Psi }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}U^{}U\text{U(2)}.$$
(11)
The identity matrix 1 generates the U(1) subgroup, while the other three form the SU(2) part of the group. The currents corresponding to the SU(2) transformations are:

$$J_\mu ^\mathrm{\Gamma }=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _3,\gamma _5,\tau _3$$
(12)
and are conserved in the absence of a fermionic mass term. It can be readily verified that the corresponding charges $`Q_\mathrm{\Gamma }d^2x\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _0\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ lead to an SU(2) algebra :

$$[Q_3,Q_5]=2iQ_{\tau _3},[Q_5,Q_{\tau _3}]=2iQ_3,[Q_{\tau _3},Q_3]=2iQ_5.$$
(13)
In the presence of a mass term, these currents are not all conserved:

$$^\mu J_\mu ^\mathrm{\Gamma }=2m\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(14)
for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\gamma _3,\gamma _5\}`$, while the currents corresponding to $`\{\mathrm{𝟏},\tau _3\}`$ are always  conserved, even in the presence of a fermion mass. The situation parallels the treatment of the SU(2)$``$SU(2) chiral symmetry breaking in low-energy QCD and the partial conservation of axial current (PCAC). The bilinears

$`𝒜_1\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _3\mathrm{\Psi },𝒜_2\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi },𝒜_3\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (15)
$`B_{1\mu }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \gamma _3\mathrm{\Psi },B_{2\mu }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi },B_{3\mu }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \tau _3\mathrm{\Psi },\mu =0,1,2`$
transform as triplets under SU(2). The SU(2) singlets are

$$𝒜_4\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\tau _3\mathrm{\Psi },B_{4,\mu }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }$$
(16)
i.e. the singlets are the parity-violating mass term, and the four-component fermion current.

We now notice that in the case where the fermion condensate $`𝒜_3`$ is generated dynamically, energetics prohibit the generation of a parity-violating SU(2)-invariant term , and so a parity-conserving mass term necessarily breaks  the $`U_S(1)`$SU(2) group down to a $`U_S(1)`$U(1)$`_{\tau _3}`$ group .

Finally, we note that were the global symmetries described here to be promoted to local ones, as they are in both the $`\tau _3`$-U(1) model of  and the $`U_S(1)`$SU(2) model of , then the measure of the Euclidean functional integral (i.e. the fermion determinant) would not be positive definite. Positivity of the theory defined by (3) follows because there exist matrices $`\gamma _3`$, $`\gamma _5`$ which anticommute with $`D_\mu \gamma _\mu `$; hence the imaginary eigenvalues of this antihermitian operator necessarily occur in conjugate pairs. This property no longer holds once, e.g., the U(1)$`_{\tau _3}`$ symmetry is gauged. Thus this class of models suffer from a ‘sign problem’ in Euclidean metric, a feature shared with other potentially superconducting systems such as QCD at high baryon number density .

## 3 Lattice formulation

We now proceed with a description of the lattice formulation of the problem. The lattice action using staggered lattice fermion fields $`\chi ,\overline{\chi }`$ is given by the formulæ below:

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _G}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu <\nu }{}}F_{\mu \nu }(x)F^{\mu \nu }(x)+{\displaystyle \underset{x,x^{}}{}}\overline{\chi }(x)Q(x,x^{})\chi (x^{})`$ (17)
$$F_{\mu \nu }(x)\alpha _\mu ^S(x)+\alpha _\nu ^S(x+\widehat{\mu })\alpha _\mu ^S(x+\widehat{\nu })\alpha _\nu ^S(x)$$

$$Q(x,x^{})m\delta _{x,x^{}}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu }{}\eta _\mu (x)[\delta _{x^{},x+\widehat{\mu }}U_{x\mu }V_{x\mu }\delta _{x^{},x\widehat{\mu }}U_{x\widehat{\mu },\mu }^{}V_{x\widehat{\mu },\mu }^{}].$$

The indices $`x,x^{}`$ consist of three integers $`(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ labelling the lattice sites, where the timelike direction is now considered as the third. Since the gauge action $`F^2`$ is unbounded from above, (17) defines the non-compact formulation of lattice QED. The $`\eta _\mu (x)`$ are Kawamoto-Smit phases $`(1)^{x_1+\mathrm{}+x_{\mu 1}}`$ designed to ensure relativistic covariance in the continuum limit. For the fermion fields antiperiodic boundary conditions are used in the timelike direction and periodic boundary conditions in the spatial directions. The phase factors in the fermion bilinear are defined by $`U_{x\mu }\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha _{x\mu }^S),V_{x\mu }\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha _{x\mu }^{ext})`$, where $`\alpha _{x\mu }^S`$ represents the statistical gauge potential and $`\alpha _{x\mu }^{ext}`$ the external electromagnetic potential. In terms of continuum quantities, $`\alpha _{x\mu }^S=agA_\mu ^S(x)`$, the coupling $`\beta _G\frac{1}{g^2a}`$, and $`\alpha _{x\mu }^{ext}=aeA_\mu ^{ext}(x)`$, where $`a`$ is the physical lattice spacing. The coupling $`e`$ to the external electromagnetic field is dimensionless.

The numerical results in this paper were obtained by simulating the action (17) using a standard Hybrid Monte Carlo (HMC) algorithm. The form of (17) permits an even-odd partitioning, which means that a single flavor of staggered fermion can be simulated. In the long wavelength limit, this can be shown to correspond to $`N_f=2`$ flavors of the four-component fermions $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ considered in section 2 . Chiral condensation $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }0`$ would then result in a pattern $`\text{U}(2N_f)\text{U}(N_f)\text{U}(N_f)_{\tau _3}`$. For non-zero lattice spacing $`a`$, however, the global symmetries for $`m=0`$ are only partially realised . In this case the symmetry is

$`\overline{\chi }_o\overline{\chi }_oe^{i\alpha }`$ $`\chi _ee^{i\alpha }\chi _e`$
$`\overline{\chi }_e\overline{\chi }_ee^{i\beta }`$ $`\chi _oe^{i\beta }\chi _o,`$ (18)
where $`\chi _{o/e}`$ denotes the field on odd (i.e. $`\epsilon (x)(1)^{x_1+x_2+x_3}=1`$) and even sublattices respectively. Chiral symmetry breaking characterised by $`\overline{\chi }\chi 0`$ now has the pattern $`\text{U}(N)\text{U}(N)\text{U}(N)`$ for $`N`$ flavors of staggered fermion.

We should now construct a lattice version of the homogeneous magnetic field. This has already been done before in  in connection with the abelian Higgs model. We follow a slightly different prescription, which we describe below , and which is closely related to a prescription for introducing a uniform topological charge density in two dimensions .

Since we would like to impose an external homogeneous magnetic field $`𝐁=\times \alpha ^{ext}`$ in the (missing) $`z`$ direction, we choose the external gauge potential in such a way that the plaquettes in the $`x_1x_2`$ plane equal $`B`$, while all other plaquettes equal zero. One way in which this can be achieved is through the choice: $`\alpha _3^{ext}(x_1,x_2,x_3)=0,\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}x_1,x_2,x_3,`$ and

$`\alpha _1^{ext}(x_1,x_2,x_3)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{B}{2}(x_21),\hfill & x_1N\text{;}\hfill \\ \frac{B}{2}(N+1)(x_21),\hfill & x_1=N\text{:}\hfill \end{array}`$ (19)
$`\alpha _2^{ext}(x_1,x_2,x_3)=\{\begin{array}{cc}+\frac{B}{2}(x_11),\hfill & x_2N\text{;}\hfill \\ +\frac{B}{2}(N+1)(x_11),\hfill & x_2=N\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$
The lattice extent is assumed to be $`N\times N`$ in the $`x_1x_2`$ plane. It is trivial to check that all plaquettes starting at $`(x_1,x_2,x_3),`$ with the exception of the one starting at $`(N,N,x_3),`$ equal $`B`$. The latter plaquette equals $`(1N^2)B=B(N^2B).`$ One may say that the flux is homogeneous over the entire $`x_1x_2`$ cross section of the lattice and equals $`B.`$ The additional flux of $`(N^2B)`$ can be understood by the fact that the lattice is a torus, that is a closed surface, and the Maxwell equation $`𝐁=0`$ implies that the total magnetic flux through the $`x_1x_2`$ plane should vanish. This means that, if periodic boundary conditions are used for the gauge field, the total flux of any configuration should be zero, so the (positive, say) flux $`B,`$ penetrating the majority of the plaquettes will be accompanied by a compensating negative flux $`(N^2B)`$ located on a single plaquette. This compensating flux should be “invisible”, that is it should have no observable physical effects. This is the case if the flux is an integer multiple of $`2\pi :N^2B=n2\pi B=n\frac{2\pi }{N^2},`$ where $`n`$ is an integer. Thus we may say (disregarding the invisible flux) that the magnetic field is homogeneous over the entire cross section of the lattice.111To check this translational invariance we measured the fermion condensate at every point in the $`x_1x_2`$ plane. The results were the same at all points within the error bars, confirming homogeneity. The integer $`n`$ may be chosen to lie in the interval $`[0,\frac{N^2}{2}],`$ since the model with integers between $`\frac{N^2}{2}`$ and $`N^2`$ is equivalent to that with integers taking on the values $`N^2n`$. It follows that the magnetic field strength $`B`$ in lattice units lies between 0 and $`\pi .`$

The question of how to identify the continuum magnetic field strength $`B_{phys}`$ requires careful discussion. In the physical problem we wish to address the magnetic field is actually the $`z`$ component of a four-dimensional vector field, implying a relation $`B=ea|\times 𝐀^{ext}|=ea^2B_{phys},`$ where $`e`$ is the electronic charge and is dimensionless. Therefore the combination $`\beta _G^2B`$ is dimensionless. The physical field may go to infinity letting the lattice spacing $`a`$ go to zero, while $`B`$ is kept constant.

On the lattice the magnetic field is determined by the number $`n,`$ but the allowed values of this number depend on the lattice size $`N.`$ On the contrary, the parameter $`B`$ does not depend much on the details of the discretization, so it is natural to choose it as the most natural lattice unit for the magnetic field. In figure 1 we show the fermion condensate versus $`n.`$ The solid squares represent the condensate for a $`12^3`$ lattice for several values of $`n.`$ We observe that the condensate increases substantially with $`n,`$ since different $`n`$ yield different values for $`B.`$ The triangles represent data produced by taking each $`n`$ with an appropriate volume, such that $`B`$ remains almost constant; the resulting $`(n,N^3)`$ pairs turn out to be: $`(3,8^3),(7,12^3),(12,16^3),(19,20^3).`$ It is obvious that in this way we get essentially the same condensate for all $`n.`$

An important remark is that the magnetic field should not be allowed to grow too big in lattice units, since then the perturbative expansion of the expansions $`\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha _{x\mu }^{ext})`$ would yield significant $`B^2,B^3,\mathrm{}`$ contributions with the accompanying vertices, in addition to the desired terms which are linear in $`B.`$ A trivial estimate of the critical field strength is obtained from the demand that the cyclotron radius corresponding to a given magnetic field should not be less than (say) two lattice spacings. This calculation yields $`B<\frac{\pi }{8}.`$ Of course the above limitations apply strictly only to the case where the statistical gauge field has been turned off; in the interacting case, one does not really know whether there exists a critical magnetic field after which discretization effects are important. With this remark in mind, we depict in the figures of the following sections the results for the whole range of the magnetic field, from 0 to $`\pi .`$

## 4 Simulation results

### 4.1 $`B=0`$

It is instructive to begin by studying the case $`B=0`$. We have performed simulations on $`12^3`$ and $`16^3`$ lattices for a range of gauge couplings $`\beta _G[0.5,0.8]`$ and bare fermion masses $`m[0.01,0.05]`$. For each parameter set we accumulated $`O(2000)`$ HMC trajectories of mean length 0.9, with timesteps ranging from $`d\tau =0.05`$ on $`12^3`$ with $`m=0.05`$ to $`d\tau =0.025`$ on $`16^3`$ with $`m=0.01`$. The chiral condensate $`\overline{\chi }\chi `$ was estimated by stochastic means using 10 noise vectors every two trajectories. Our data is shown in Fig. 3. It is clear that finite volume effects are significant; this can be attributed to the presence of a massless particle, the photon, in the spectrum of the theory. Large finite volume effects are the main source of difficulty in numerical studies of QED3 . We will not attempt to extrapolate to the thermodynamic limit, but instead focus on the $`16^3`$ results.

Note that in Fig. 3 we have chosen to plot the dimensionless combination $`\beta _G^2\overline{\chi }\chi `$. Since QED3 is an asymptotically-free theory (recall $`g`$ has positive mass dimension), its continuum limit lies in the limit $`\beta _G\mathrm{}`$. To see whether lattice data taken with $`a0`$ are characteristic of the continuum limit, it is helpful to plot dimensionless quantities against each other; results from different $`\beta _G`$ should fall on a universal curve if continuum physics is being probed. We show a plot of $`\beta _G^2\overline{\chi }\chi `$ vs. $`\beta _Gm`$ in Fig. 3. The data do indeed fall approximately on a straight line, the main departures being at the strongest coupling $`\beta _G=0.5`$, and the smallest mass $`m=0.01`$, which might plausibly be attributed respectively to lattice artifacts and finite volume effects. If we exclude these points, a straight line fit of the form $`\beta _G^2\overline{\chi }\chi =0.00327(15)+1.454(6)\beta _Gm`$ is achieved (if the equivalent points from $`12^3`$ are used, the fitted line is $`0.00140(16)+1.436\beta _Gm`$).

The main result of these fits is that the value of $`\beta _G^2\overline{\chi }\chi `$ extrapolated to the chiral limit is unusually small, but significantly different from zero. If the linear form really does characterise the continuum limit, then this result is robust even on our admittedly small volumes. The implication is that chiral symmetry is broken in the the IR limit for $`N_f=2`$ flavors of fermion in QED3, and hence $`N_{fc}>2`$. This is consistent with the findings of most studies using the gap equation, but contradicts a recent bound $`N_{fc}\frac{3}{2}`$ derived by counting massless degrees of freedom via the absolute value of the thermodynamic free energy $`f`$ in both IR and UV limits , and demanding

$$f_{IR}f_{UV}.$$
(20)
A possible resolution follows from the discussion below eqn. (18); the global symmetry of the lattice model is smaller than that of continuum QED3, resulting in a smaller number of Goldstone bosons in the chirally broken phase. For $`N`$ flavors of staggered fermion, there are $`8N=4N_f`$ fermionic degrees of freedom in the UV limit, and $`N^2`$ Goldstone boson degrees of freedom in the IR. Following the argument of , we arrive at the bound $`N_c6`$ for the lattice model, which clearly is not threatened by our results. To substantiate this it will be necessary to show that the strongly-coupled dynamics of the IR limit is governed by the symmetries of the lattice model rather than the continuum one .

Next we discuss longitudinal and transverse susceptibilities, defined respectively as the integrated propagators in scalar and pseudoscalar meson channels:

$$\chi _l=\underset{x}{}\overline{\chi }\chi (0)\overline{\chi }\chi (x);\chi _t=\underset{x}{}\overline{\chi }\epsilon \chi (0)\overline{\chi }\epsilon \chi (x).$$
(21)
The longitudinal susceptibility $`\chi _l`$ has contributions from diagrams with both connected and disconnected fermion lines ; we find that the connected contribution is overwhelmingly dominant throughout our parameter space. The transverse susceptibility is most conveniently calculated via the axial Ward identity $`\chi _t=\overline{\chi }\chi /m`$. The results are plotted using dimensionless quantities in Fig. 4. We see that the evidence for universal scaling behaviour in the dimensionless plots is much less convincing, particularly for $`\chi _l`$ for $`\beta _Gm0.01`$. At the smallest $`m`$ values the two susceptibilities even coincide within errors, suggesting that chiral symmetry is unbroken. This is probably because the data from different $`\beta _G`$ are taken on different physical volumes, and two-point functions (21) are prone to finite volume effects, particularly since a Goldstone boson is anticipated in the transverse channel as $`m0`$. We can observe a tendency for $`\chi _t`$ to increase as this limit is approached. Bearing in mind the linear fit to the data of Fig. 3, however, we might expect to have to go to mass values as small as $`\beta _Gm0.002`$ before the divergence in $`\chi _t`$ due to a Goldstone pole becomes dominant. Results in this regime in both continuum and thermodynamic limits will be required for universal statements about the nature of the IR limit to become feasible.

### 4.2 $`B0`$

In this subsection we present the behaviour of fermionic matter under the combined action of the external magnetic field and the quantum gauge field. Before going on with the specific features of these results, let us remark that to facilitate comparison with the analytic results  we measured the magnetic field in units of its maximal value: thus we used the parameter $`b[0,1]`$ defined by $`bB/B_{max}=B/\pi `$.

A comparison of the dynamical and the quenched results is made in figure 5. A $`16^3`$ lattice has been used for the calculation, while the external magnetic field has been set to $`b=0.094,`$ a typical value. Measurements have been done at several values of the bare mass $`m`$ and what we show in figure 5 is the extrapolation to the $`m0`$ limit. The method of extrapolation will be explained in more detail in the discussion of figure 10 below. The volume dependence is not very big in the quenched case . We observe that the values for the condensate in the quenched case are rather large for the relatively large value $`\beta _G=1.0`$ for the gauge coupling. In principle the condensate should vanish for $`\beta _G\mathrm{},`$ since the system moves to the “free” case, and the lattice volume is fixed. Presumably, even the quenched condensate will vanish, but the figure suggests that this will require a much bigger value of $`\beta _G.`$

The fact that the full condensate for dynamical fermions is smaller than the corresponding quantity for quenched fermions has presumably to do with Pauli repulsion, which has clearly an effect in the dynamical fermion case.

The next set consists of measurements of the fermion condensate versus the magnetic field for a $`16^3`$ lattice at a fixed, strong coupling for the statistical gauge field $`(\beta _G=0.10)`$, for five values of the bare mass (figure 7).

For all five masses the plot consists of two parts with different behaviour. For relatively small $`b`$ we find a dependence of the condensate on the external magnetic field which is nearly linear. For relatively big magnetic fields we find points that have a qualitatively different behaviour. The two regions merge smoothly. The “linear” part of the graph appears to extend in a wider interval of $`b`$ for decreasing mass. It should be stressed that the mass dependence of the condensate is in sharp disagreement with the corresponding result in , where quenched fermions have been used. The condensate increases with the bare mass for all values of the magnetic field strength, whereas in the quenched case it was decreasing. The $`m0`$ extrapolation of the results lies probably under the lowest curve, however at this stage our statistics are not good enough to get reliable numbers for the limiting values of the condensate.

It is interesting to know what happens as one moves towards weaker couplings. Based on the results of the quenched case  we expect that the almost linear part referred to previously would be restricted to very small magnetic fields and eventually disappear. In figure 7 we show the results for the coupling $`\beta _G=0.40.`$ The linear part has indeed been restricted to the region $`b<0.2.`$ Moreover, we show the bare mass dependence along with the $`m0`$ limit of the condensate versus $`b.`$ It is interesting to note that the data for each particular mass give a monotonic dependence, while the $`m0`$ limit starts having a local minimum at $`b0.5`$, which is characteristic of the free case, ie. with the statistical gauge field turned off, to which we now turn.

The free case was studied in , where it was found that for big enough $`b`$ the condensate stopped being monotonic and started showing local maxima and minima. It developed the first local minimum at $`b=0.5`$ and then it had a succession of maxima and minima, up to $`b=1.`$ Moreover, there was a spectacular volume dependence. One expects, of course, that this free case will be reached for big enough $`\beta _G.`$

We have seen this kind of approach to the free model in the quenched fermion case . In figure 8 we show the results for $`\beta _G=0.40`$, 0.50 and 1.00 for two volumes, $`8^3`$ and $`16^3.`$ The coupling $`\beta _G=0.50`$ is the point where the curve shows the first sign of non-monotonous behaviour. At $`\beta _G=1.00`$ the successive maxima and minima are clear. These features are shared with the quenched case. However, in the quenched calculation the volume dependence was not visible, while in this case, one can see the volume dependence at all values of the parameters. In the intermediate coupling regime ($`\beta _G=0.40`$ and $`\beta _G=0.50`$) the volume dependence, although clear, is rather small; at $`\beta _G=1.00`$ the volume dependence is comparable with that of the free case. In view of this behaviour we may be confident that, at this large $`\beta _G,`$ the limit of switching the gauge field off can be reached if one uses dynamical fermions, in contradistinction with the quenched calculation . One should remark that in the free case the role of the bare mass is very important, since it is eventually the only source of mass generation. This is at the root of the large volume dependence showing up in the free case: at fixed volume the condensate goes over to zero for vanishing bare mass. In the quenched interacting model, though, the interaction with the gauge field generates a dynamical mass, independently from the value of the bare mass. The volume dependence is thus small, permitting a smooth transition to the thermodynamic, as well as to the massless, limit . In the present case with the dynamical fermions, the dynamically generated mass is suppressed, presumably due to the Pauli repulsion which is in full operation here, so the value of $`\beta _G`$ for which we have the transition to the free case is rather small compared to the quenched calculation.

Now we are going to explain in some detail the procedure we followed to obtain the $`m0`$ limit. The simulations have been done at non-zero values of the bare mass; the massless limit has been taken by extrapolating the results for several bare masses to the limit $`m0.`$ Figure 10 shows the process of this extrapolation for $`\beta _G=0.33`$ and the external magnetic field $`b`$ set equal to 0.094. The general behaviour is similar to that of the quenched case, in the sense that in the strong coupling region this curve is an almost straight line with a small slope and in the weak gauge coupling a second order polynomial proves necessary to perform the fit. At strong coupling the mass dependence is not very big, because it is the strong gauge coupling which dominates in the formation of the condensate. The error bars appear to be smaller here as compared to the gauge couplings of similar magnitude in the quenched case .

Figure 10 contains the zero mass limit of the condensate (obtained through the procedure illustrated in figure 10) versus $`\beta _G`$ for $`b=0`$ and $`b=0.094.`$ In the former case the bulk of the results come from $`8^3`$ lattice, however we also present some results from $`16^3,`$ just to get some feeling about the volume dependence. We observe that in the strong coupling region the $`b`$-dependence of the condensate is rather weak; on the contrary, at weak coupling, the external field is the main generator of the condensate, and we find an increasingly big $`b`$-dependence as we move to large $`\beta _G.`$ In particular for zero external field the result is very small for $`\beta _G>0.5,`$ while the external field at these values of the gauge coupling still generates a relatively big condensate.

The volume dependence of the condensate at $`b=0.094`$ for a wide range of $`\beta _G`$ is shown in figure 12. For the smallest volume $`8^3`$ the data exhibit a rather big cusp at $`\beta _G0.30.`$ For the two bigger volumes $`16^3`$ and $`20^3`$ the slopes are discontinuous at $`\beta _G0.53`$ and $`\beta _G0.60`$ respectively, but the discontinuity is smaller. It appears to be a finite size effect, possibly a shadow of the deconfining transition for each volume at weak coupling. The dynamically generated mass is smaller for the model with dynamical fermions as compared to the quenched model for the same value of the gauge coupling; so the finite size effects become more manifest.

In figure 12 we rescale the axes of figure 12, such that we get dimensionless units. In particular, we use $`\beta _G^2BeB_{phys}/g^4`$ for the $`x`$ axis and $`\beta _G^2\overline{\chi }\chi \overline{\chi }\chi |_{phys}/g^4`$ for the $`y`$ axis. What was a cusp in figure 12 has been transformed into a maximum in dimensionless units. The condensate starts increasing with the external magnetic field, now that it is properly rescaled, but finally the finite size effects take over and the condensate starts decreasing. The value of the magnetic field where this happens increases with the lattice volume and presumably tends to infinity in the thermodynamic limit.

## 5 Summary

After reviewing and contrasting the formulation and global symmetries of QED3 in continuum field theory and on the lattice, we have presented numerical results from a Monte Carlo simulation study using dynamical fermions. For $`B=0`$ our calculations used the largest system sizes studied to date to our knowledge; for $`B0`$ this is the first such study. Our principal results are as follows:

* For $`B=0`$ we have evidence, on the assumption of a linear scaling relation, for spontaneously broken chiral symmetry in the chiral and thermodynamic limits for $`N_f=2`$ flavors of four-component fermion. The condensate $`\overline{\chi }\chi `$ has an unusually small value, $`O(10^3)`$ in natural units, which perhaps explains why this issue has proved a “difficult” problem in non-perturbative field theory. Our results should inform future studies on the system sizes needed in order for universal statements about the continuum theory to be possible.
* We have studied the response of the condensate to an external magnetic field in the regimes of strong, intermediate and weak U(1)S coupling. In all cases $`\overline{\chi }\chi `$ is smaller than that found in comparable quenched simulations. As in the quenched case, for strong and intermediate coupling regimes the condensate increases monotonically with $`B`$, but the behaviour becomes non-monotonic at weaker coupling. In the weak coupling limit contact with the behaviour of free fermions including volume dependence is recovered, in contrast with the quenched model.
* We have used our results in the chiral limit to make a plot of condensate against external field in dimensionless units (Fig. 12), which enables a significant finite volume effect to be identified. The condensate increases as a smooth monotonic function of $`\beta _G^2B`$ with negative curvature. Future studies with different values of the lattice magnetic field parameter $`b`$ will help to establish whether this behaviour is universal, and hence characterises the continuum limit. We note that in the Schwinger-Dyson approach  the regime of small magnetic fields could not be efficiently treated, while this is feasible with the Monte Carlo approach.

## Acknowledgements

This work has been done within the TMR project “Finite temperature phase transitions in particle physics”, EU contract number: FMRX-CT97-0122. The authors would like to acknowledge financial support from the TMR project, and S.J.H. also from the Leverhulme Trust. G.K. would like to thank P. Dimopoulos for help with the graphics, and S.J.H. Ian Aitchison for helpful discussions.