text:
# Stripe Ansatzs from Exactly Solved Models

## I Introduction

Low dimensional spin systems constitute one of the most active areas in Condensed Matter Physics due to the experimental findings and the associated theoretical activity. These systems are strongly correlated with very rich phase diagrams studied by means of a miscellanea of analytical and numerical techniques, among which the study of simplified variational ansatzs for the ground state (GS) and excitations have played a significant role.

In 1D there is a plethora of variational ansatzs: the AKLT states aklt , the finitely correlated ansatzs fannes , the Matrix Product Ansatzs (MPA) klumper ; ostlund ; roman , the Recurrent Variational Ansatz (RVA) rva , etc. All these ansatzs have a common structure for the GS wave function which is given by the sum, over some auxiliary variables, of products of amplitudes that also depend on the spin variables at the sites. The basic quantity here is the “matrix product amplitude” $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }[m_i]`$ where $`m_i`$ is the spin at the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ site and $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are auxiliary variables, which can be associated to the links meeting at the site. For a spin chain with $`N`$ sites and periodic boundary conditions the corresponding state can be written as ostlund

$$|\psi _{\mathrm{MPA}}=\underset{m_i^{}s}{}\mathrm{Tr}(A[m_1]\mathrm{}A[m_N])|m_1\mathrm{}|m_N$$
(1)
where the trace is over the auxiliary variables $`\alpha `$. Some MPA states, such as the AKLT ones, are exact ground states of a Hamiltonian, which is given by the sum of projectors between nearest neighbours sites aklt . In other cases the MPA states are used as variational ansatzs for a given Hamiltonian, with the MPA amplitudes $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }[m]`$ playing the role of variational parameters. Within the latter category fall the DMRG states white  (for a review on the DMRG see dresden ; karen ), which are in fact MPA states with open boundary conditions and position dependent amplitudes ( i.e. inhomogenous MPA’s) ostlund ; dukelsky ; tasaki . In the DMRG the auxiliary variables label the states kept in the blocks.

The MPA states can be generalized in a natural way to 2D systems, replacing the matrix amplitudes $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }[m]`$ by “tensor product” amplitudes $`A_{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _z}[m]`$, where $`z`$ is given by the coordination number of the lattice, i.e. $`z=3`$ for an hexagonal lattice, $`z=4`$ for a square lattice and so on so forth niggemann97 ; nishino98 ; niggemann98 ; faro ; dziurzik99 ; hieida ; nishino00a ; nishino00b ; vdma . By analogy with Statistical Mechanics (SM) these states can be called Tensor Product Vertex Ansatzs (TPVA) because the auxiliary variables $`\alpha _i`$ are associated to the links of the lattice, while the amplitudes are associated to the vertices baxter . Another class of 2D ansatzs is formed by the Tensor Product Face Ansatzs (TPFA), where the amplitudes are associated to the faces of a square lattice as in the Face or Interaction Around a Face (IRF) models in Statistical Mechanics faro ; okunishi99 . The 2D generalizations of the AKLT states for spins 3/2, 2 and higher belong to the TPVA class. The recipy to construct TPA’s is as in equation (1), where the contraction of the auxiliary variables follows the pattern of the underlying vertex or face models.

Most of the TPA’s studied in the literature are isotropic, meaning that their properties are largely independent of the spatial direction. However in 2D and 3D there are physical systems, like some high-temperature superconductors highTc , quantum Hall systems hall , or manganites manganites , which exhibit strongly anisotropic properties due to the existence of stripes. These objects are static or dynamic charge inhomogeneities, which are linear in 2D or planar in 3D. One may wonder whether these systems can be modelled with simple TPA’s, just as Haldane spin chains can be easily described as valence-bond states. In this work we shall not address directly this question, but the results we have obtained suggest the possibility of a simple description of stripes in terms of TPA’s. More precisely, in this paper we shall investigate a class of TPA’s based on classical exactly solvable 2D vertex models with strong anisotropic properties reminiscent to the stripe systems investigated in reference emery00 ; carpentier . Any classical SM 2D vertex model, not necessarily integrable, defined by its Boltzmann weights, give rise to an Anisotopic Tensor Product Ansatz (ATPA). If, in addition, the SM model is exactly solvable, then the corresponding ATPA becomes quasi exactly solvable. The latter term is borrowed from the theory of spectral problems associated to the Schrödinger equation qes  meaning, in our context, that some quantities, as the norm of the ATPA’s and some expectation values, can be computed exactly in the thermodynamic limit.

To illustrate our proposal we have choosen the well known 6 vertex model, whose 1D quantum mechanical counterpart is the XXZ model or the 1D spinless fermion baxter . We shall show that the corresponding ATPA has some similarities with the striped states of 2D spinless fermions studied in the literature emery00 ; carpentier .

The organization of this paper is as follows. First of all we review briefly the basic ingredients of vertex models in Statistical Mechanics ( section II) and the tensor product vertex ansatzs ( section III). In section IV we introduce the ATPA’s based on SM vertex models and study their general properties. The ATPA associated to the six-vertex model is used in section V as a trial ground state for an anisotropic Hamiltonian closely related to the XXZ spin chain Hamiltonian, and derive the phase diagram. In section VI we briefly comment on the eigh-vertex ATPA model. The possible connections between the six and eight-vertex ATPA is explored in section VII and finally in section VIII we state our conclusions. In Appendices A and B we collect some technical results.

## II Vertex Models in Statistical Mechanics

Throughout this paper we shall follow closely Baxter’s book baxter . Let us consider a rectangular lattice with $`N`$ rows and $`L`$ columns. Throughout these paper we shall also use the term “legs” for the rows and “rungs” for the columns. In a vertex model there is a local state variable $`\alpha `$ associated to every link and a Boltzmann weight associated to every vertex $``$, which depends on the four link variables meeting at it. We shall represent the Boltzmann weight as

$$W_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\beta ,\eta }=\begin{array}{ccccc}& & \eta & & \\ & & |& & \\ \alpha & & & & \beta \\ & & |& & \\ & & \xi & & \end{array}$$
(2)
The statistical weight of a global configuration is given by the product of the Boltzmann weights of all the vertices. The partition function $`Z`$ is the sum of these weights over all the link configurations, which can also be expressed using transfer matrices. The row-to-row and column-to-column transfer matrices are defined as,

$`T_{𝜼,𝝃}^{\mathrm{row}}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}s}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}}W_{\alpha _i,\xi _i}^{\alpha _{i+1},\eta _i}`$ (3)
$`T_{𝜶,𝜷}^{\mathrm{col}}={\displaystyle \underset{\xi ^{}s}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}W_{\alpha _i,\xi _i}^{\beta _i,\xi _{i+1}}`$
where $`𝝃=(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _L)`$, $`𝜶=(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N)`$, etc and the periodic boundary conditions are assumed along both directions. Using (3) the partition function $`Z`$ reads,

$$Z=\mathrm{Tr}T_{\mathrm{row}}^N=\mathrm{Tr}T_{\mathrm{col}}^L$$
(4)
As an example we display in table 1 the Boltzmann weights for the allowed vertex configurations of the six-vertex model. The link variables take on two values, say 0 and 1, which in the standard notation correspond to the right and up pointing ( for $`\alpha =0`$), and left and down pointing (for $`\alpha =1`$). The allowed configurations satisfy the ice rule $`\alpha +\xi =\beta +\eta `$, and the Boltzmann weights are invariant under the reversal of all arrows, which leaves three independent ones, called $`a,b`$ and $`c`$. The 6-vertex model is integrable: there is a uniparametric family of transfer matrices $`T(u)`$ commuting among themselves. This is guaranteed by the Yang-Baxter equation satisfied by the Boltzmann weights.

| weight | $`a`$ | $`b`$ | $`c`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\begin{array}{ccc}& \eta & \\ \alpha & & \beta \\ & \xi & \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{ccc}& 0& \\ 0& & 0\\ & 0& \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{ccc}& 0& \\ 1& & 1\\ & 0& \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{ccc}& 0& \\ 0& & 1\\ & 1& \end{array}`$ |
|  | $`\begin{array}{ccc}& 1& \\ 1& & 1\\ & 1& \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{ccc}& 1& \\ 0& & 0\\ & 1& \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{ccc}& 1& \\ 1& & 0\\ & 0& \end{array}`$ |

Table 1. Boltzmann weights of the six-vertex model

## III Tensor Product Vertex Ansatzs

As in the previous section we shall consider a lattice with $`N`$ legs of length $`L`$. In the quantum spin model there is a spin degree of freedom $`m`$ at each vertex of the lattice. To construct a TPA we shall associate an auxiliary variable $`\alpha `$ to each link, as in the SM models. The TPA amplitudes will be denoted as

$$A_{\alpha \xi }^{\beta \eta }[m]=\begin{array}{ccccc}& & \eta & & \\ & & |& & \\ \alpha & & m& & \beta \\ & & |& & \\ & & \xi & & \end{array}$$
(5)
By analogy with SM we shall define the row-to-row and column-to-colum transfer matrix amplitudes

$`A_{𝜼,𝝃}^{\mathrm{row}}[𝐦]={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}s}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}}A_{\alpha _i,\xi _i}^{\alpha _{i+1},\eta _i}[m_i]`$ (6)
$`A_{𝜶,𝜷}^{\mathrm{col}}[𝐦]={\displaystyle \underset{\xi ^{}s}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}A_{\alpha _i,\xi _i}^{\beta _i,\xi _{i+1}}[m_i]`$
where $`𝐦=(m_1,\mathrm{},m_L)`$ for $`A^{\mathrm{row}}`$ while $`𝐦=(m_1,\mathrm{},m_N)`$ for $`A^{\mathrm{col}}`$. Using eqs.(6) the TPA can be written in two alternative ways, i.e.

$`|\psi _{\mathrm{row}}={\displaystyle \underset{𝐦^{}s}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(A^{\mathrm{row}}[𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏}]\mathrm{}A^{\mathrm{row}}[𝐦_𝐍]\right)|𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{},𝐦_𝐍_{\mathrm{row}}`$ (7)
$`|\psi _{\mathrm{col}}={\displaystyle \underset{𝐦^{}s}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(A^{\mathrm{col}}[𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏}]\mathrm{}A^{\mathrm{col}}[𝐦_𝐋]\right)|𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{},𝐦_𝐋_{\mathrm{col}}`$
These equations are identical to eq.(1), which implies that the TPA can be regarded as a MPA through the legs or the rungs. The norm of the TPA is given by,

$$\psi |\psi =\mathrm{Tr}𝒯_{\mathrm{row}}^N=\mathrm{Tr}𝒯_{\mathrm{col}}^L$$
(8)
where

$`𝒯_{𝜼𝜼^{},𝝃𝝃^{}}^{\mathrm{row}}={\displaystyle \underset{𝐦}{}}A_{𝜼,𝝃}^{\mathrm{row}}[𝐦]A_{𝜼^{},𝝃^{}}^{\mathrm{row}}[𝐦]`$ (9)
$`𝒯_{𝜶𝜶^{},𝜷𝜷^{}}^{\mathrm{col}}={\displaystyle \underset{𝐦}{}}A_{𝜶,𝜷}^{\mathrm{col}}[𝐦]A_{𝜶^{},𝜷^{}}^{\mathrm{col}}[𝐦]`$
Thus the computation of the norm (8) amounts to that of the partition function of a classical SM vertex model where the link variables are twice those of the quantum mechanical model.

## IV Anisotropic Tensor Product Ansatzs

### IV.1 Generic Case

Let us suppose we are given a vertex model with Boltzmann weights $`W_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\beta ,\eta }`$. Using them, we shall define a ATPA model by the equation:

$$A_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\beta ,\eta }[m]=\delta _{m,\eta }W_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\beta ,\eta }$$
(10)
where the spin variable at each site, i.e. $`m`$, is identified with the link variable $`\eta `$. In the case of the six-vertex model the shall adopt the convention that $`m=0`$ corresponds to spin $`1/2`$ and $`m=1`$ to spin $`1/2`$. For the six-vertex model the corresponding TPA amplitudes are given in table 2.

| Amplitude | $`a`$ | $`b`$ | $`c`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\begin{array}{ccc}& \eta & \\ \alpha & m& \beta \\ & \xi & \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{ccc}& 0& \\ 0& +& 0\\ & 0& \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{ccc}& 0& \\ 1& +& 1\\ & 0& \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{ccc}& 0& \\ 0& +& 1\\ & 1& \end{array}`$ |
|  | $`\begin{array}{ccc}& 1& \\ 1& & 1\\ & 1& \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{ccc}& 1& \\ 0& & 0\\ & 1& \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{ccc}& 1& \\ 1& & 0\\ & 0& \end{array}`$ |

Table 2. Six-vertex TPA amplitudes

The choice (10) is extremely anisotropic since it treats on a very different footing the vertical and horizontal directions of the lattice. This is the main reason to consider both the row-to-row and column-to-column transfer matrices, which give rice to complementary descriptions of the ansatz. In SM models where the leg and rung variables run over different sets, one can obtain two inequivalent ATPA’s, not related by a 90 degrees rotation. In the rest of the paper we shall suppose that the link variables are of the same type in both directions.

Eq.(10) implies a simple relationship between the row-to-row TPA amplitude (6) and the row-to-row transfer matrix (3) of the underlying SM model, namely

$$A_{𝜼,𝝃}^{\mathrm{row}}[𝐦]=\delta _{𝐦,𝜼}T_{𝜼,𝝃}^{\mathrm{row}}$$
(11)
which leads to the following row representation of the ATPA state (7),

$$|\psi _{\mathrm{row}}=\underset{𝐦^{}s}{}T_{𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐}}^{\mathrm{row}}T_{𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟑}}^{\mathrm{row}}\mathrm{}T_{𝐦_𝐍,𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏}}^{\mathrm{row}}|𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{},𝐦_𝐍_{\mathrm{row}}$$
(12)
where $`T_{𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐}}^{\mathrm{row}}`$ is the row-to-row transfer matrix (3) built up from the SM Boltzmann weights $`W_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\beta ,\eta }`$ defining the ATPA ( eq.(10)). The structure of this state is similar to the Kramers-Wannier variational state, first proposed for the GS of the Ising model kramers ; nishino98 , where the analogue of $`T^{\mathrm{row}}`$ is played by $`2\times 2`$ matrices. The ATPA built from the choice (10) can be seen as a superposition of leg states connected through the row-to-row transfer matrix of the SM model. For example, in the antiferroelectric phase of the six-vertex model, the state along the legs will be mostly of Neel type and correlated antiferromagnetically with their nearest neighbours legs. In the spinless fermion picture the latter state is a Wigner crystal with CDW order.

The norm of (12) is given simply by

$$\psi |\psi _{\mathrm{row}}=\underset{𝐦^{}s}{}(T_{𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐}}^{\mathrm{row}})^2(T_{𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟑}}^{\mathrm{row}})^2\mathrm{}(T_{𝐦_𝐍,𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏}}^{\mathrm{row}})^2$$
(13)
It is important to notice that (13) is not the partition function of the SM model defined with Boltzmann weights $`W_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\beta ,\eta }`$ or their square. The reason being that in general,

$$(T_{𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐}}^{\mathrm{row}})^2(T_{\mathrm{row}}^2)_{𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐}}$$
(14)
where the LHS of this equation is the square of the element $`T_{𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐}}^{\mathrm{row}}`$ of the row-to-row transfer matrix, while the RHS is the entry $`(𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ of the square of the row-to-row transfer matrix. In any case, the computation of (13) requires much less effort than eqs.(8) because the matrices involved contain half of the indices of those of the general case. In other words, the ATPA does not lead to a doubling of indices in the row representation.

The situation improves even further in the column representation. Using eqs.(6) and (10) we see that the column ATPA amplitudes are given by the product of the Boltzmann weights on a column, i.e.

$$A_{𝜶,𝜷}^{\mathrm{col}}[𝐦]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}W_{\alpha _i,m_{i1}}^{\beta _i,m_i}$$
(15)
where $`m_0=m_N`$. Consequently the column-to-column ATPA transfer matrix (9) becomes

$$𝒯_{𝜶𝜶^{},𝜷𝜷^{}}^{\mathrm{col}}=\underset{𝐦}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}W_{\alpha _i,m_{i1}}^{\beta _i,m_i}W_{\alpha _i^{},m_{i1}}^{\beta _i^{},m_i}$$
(16)
Let us suppose for a moment that we restrict ourselves to the “diagonal” sector of $`𝒯^{\mathrm{col}}`$, which is defined by the choices $`𝜶=𝜶^{}`$ and $`𝜷=𝜷^{}`$. Then (16) becomes a column-to-column transfer matrix (3) with Boltmann weights being the square of $`W_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\beta ,\eta }`$, namely

$$𝒯_{𝜶𝜶,𝜷𝜷}^{\mathrm{col}}=\underset{𝐦}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(W_{\alpha _i,m_{i1}}^{\beta _i,m_i}\right)^2=T_{𝜶,𝜷}^{\mathrm{col}}(W^2)$$
(17)
For a generic TPA this diagonal truncation may be a good approximation in certain regions of the parameter space, as has been shown by Niggemann et al. in a TPA for a spin 3/2 system on a hexagonal latice niggemann97 .

We shall show below that for a subclass of ATPA’s, this diagonal truncation is in fact exact, which has important consequences.

### IV.2 Ansatzs with conserved quantum numbers

Let us assume that the Boltmann weights $`W_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\beta ,\eta }`$ satisfy a conservation law of the type,

$$W_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\beta ,\eta }=0\mathrm{unless}\alpha +\xi =\beta +\eta $$
(18)
where the link variables label the basis of an irreducible representation (irrep) of a Lie group $`𝒢`$. The six-vertex model corresponds to the spin 1/2 irrep of the group $`𝒢=SU(2)`$, with the convention $`\alpha =0`$ (resp. 1) for the $`s_z=1/2`$ ( resp. $`s_z=1/2)`$. For a general Lie group the link variables will be given by the weights of the corresponding irrep.

The immediate consequence of (18) is that the non vanishing terms of (16) must satisfy

$`\alpha _i+m_{i1}=\beta _i+m_i,i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ (19)
$`\alpha _i^{}+m_{i1}=\beta _i^{}+m_i`$
which implies

$$\alpha _i^{}\alpha _i=\beta _i^{}\beta _i=Q_i$$
(20)
where $`Q_i=1,0,1`$ for the six-vertex model. In the general case $`Q_i`$, being the difference of two weights of irreps, is either zero or a root of the Lie group $`𝒢`$.

Defining the Boltzmann weights $`W^Q`$ as

$$(W^Q)_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\beta ,\eta }=W_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\beta ,\eta }W_{\alpha +Q,\xi }^{\beta +Q,\eta }$$
(21)
we see from (16) and (20) that $`𝒯^{\mathrm{col}}`$ breaks into block transfer matrices $`T^𝐐`$ labelled by the vector $`𝐐=(Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_N)`$, whose entries are given by

$$T_{𝜶,𝜷}^𝐐𝒯_{𝜶𝜶+𝐐,𝜷𝜷+𝐐}^{\mathrm{col}}=\underset{𝐦}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(W^{Q_i})_{\alpha _i,m_{i1}}^{\beta _i,m_i}$$
(22)
The case $`𝐐=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ corresponds to the matrix (17), and hence the truncation of the model to the “diagonal” sector is not an approximation, but an exact result. This fact greatly simplifies the computation of the norm of the ATPA in the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, which is given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}^L`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the biggest of all largest eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^𝐐`$ of the matrices $`T^𝐐`$. In appendix A we show that this eigenvalue belongs to the $`𝐐=0`$ sector and thus,

$$\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi |\psi _{\mathrm{col}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}^L,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{𝐐=\mathrm{𝟎}}$$
(23)
This is quite a useful result for it implies that if the SM model defined by the Boltzmann weights $`W^0=(W)^2`$ (21) is integrable then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ can be computed exactly, at least in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. In the case of the ATPA based on the six-vertex model, the Boltzmann weights $`W^0`$ are simply the square of the original ones, i.e.

$$W^0(a,b,c)=W(a^2,b^2,c^2)$$
(24)
and hence the norm of the ATPA can be computed exactly in the thermodynamic limit.

There is yet another important consequence of the conservation law (18). As it is well known in the theory of transfer matrices, eq.(18) implies that the row-to-row transfer matrix preserves the sum of all quantum numbers of every row, i.e.

$$T_{𝐦,𝐦^{}}^{\mathrm{row}}=0\mathrm{unless}\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}m_i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}m_i^{}$$
(25)
Hence all the terms appearing in the sum (12), giving $`|\psi _{\mathrm{row}}`$, must have the same value of “angular momenta” per leg. In the six-vertex model this implies the vanishing of all correlators between raising and lowering spin operators among different rows/legs, i.e.

$$S_{i,a}^+S_{j,b}^{}=0,\mathrm{if}ij$$
(26)
where $`S_{i,a}^\pm `$ is the raising (lowering) spin operator on the $`a^{\mathrm{th}}`$ site of the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ leg. In other words, the quantum fluctuations across the legs of the ATPA are strictly forbidden. In the six vertex model the spins may only fluctuate along the legs. Using the spinless fermion terminology, the only allowed charge fluctuations occur inside the legs. As mentioned in the introduction, this lack of quantum fluctuations across the legs is reminiscent to that occurring in some models of high-$`T_c`$ superconductors ( see section VII).

The previous considerations give us a hint on what sort of Hamiltonians the ATPA’s may become approximate ground states. After all, we want to use the ATPA as variational ansatzs for physically interesting systems. We postpone this question until next section after a discussion on correlators and density matrices for ATPA’s.

### IV.3 Correlators and density matrices

Let $`𝒪_{i,i+1}^\mathrm{d}`$ be a diagonal operator acting between the legs $`i`$ and $`i+1`$ that do not change their states and with matrix element $`\widehat{𝒪}_{𝐦_𝐢,𝐦_{𝐢+\mathrm{𝟏}}}^\mathrm{d}`$. A typical example in the six-vertex model is provided by the Ising term $`\sigma _{i,a}^z\sigma _{i+1,a}^z`$. The expectation value of $`𝒪_{i,i+1}^\mathrm{d}`$ in the ATPA is be given by,

$`\psi |𝒪_{i,i+1}^\mathrm{d}|\psi _{\mathrm{row}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐦^{}s}{}}(T_{𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐}}^{\mathrm{row}})^2(T_{𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟑}}^{\mathrm{row}})^2`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{}(T_{𝐦_𝐍,𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏}}^{\mathrm{row}})^2\widehat{𝒪}_{𝐦_𝐢,𝐦_{𝐢+\mathrm{𝟏}}}^\mathrm{d}`$
It can be shown that the square of the row-to-row transfer matrix can be written as ( recall eqs.(20) and (21))

$$(T_{𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐}}^{\mathrm{row}})^2=\underset{Q}{}T(W^Q)_{𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐}}$$
(28)
and hence the sum (27) becomes

$`\psi |𝒪_{i,i+1}^\mathrm{d}|\psi _{\mathrm{row}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐦^{}s}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_N}{}}T(W^{Q_1})_{𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ (29)
$`\mathrm{}T(W^{Q_N})_{𝐦_𝐍,𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏}}\widehat{𝒪}_{𝐦_𝐢,𝐦_{𝐢+\mathrm{𝟏}}}^\mathrm{d}`$
In the thermodynamic limit this sum will be dominated by the term $`Q_1=\mathrm{}=Q_N=0`$, just as in the computation of the norm of the state and hence the expectation value of $`𝒪_{i,i+1}^\mathrm{d}`$ reduces to an expectation value in the SM model with Boltzmann weights $`W^0`$. This is a property of all diagonal operators which allow their exact evaluation, provided they are known in the underlying exactly solved model.

In the case of the operator $`\sigma _{i,a}^z\sigma _{i+1,a}^z`$, its correlator is equivalent to the SM expectation value

$$P\sigma _{i,a}^z\sigma _{i+1,a}^z_{\mathrm{ATPA}}=s_{i,a}s_{i+1,a}_{6\mathrm{vertex}}$$
(30)
where $`s=1,1`$ is related to the link variable $`\alpha =0,1`$ by the equation $`s=12\alpha `$. In appendix B we shall compute this quantity using the exact solution of the six-vertex model.

Let us next consider an off-diagonal operator $`𝒪_i^{\mathrm{od}}`$ acting on the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ leg with matrix elements $`\widehat{𝒪}_{𝐦_𝐢,𝐦_𝐢^{}}^{\mathrm{od}}=𝐦_𝐢|𝒪_i^{\mathrm{od}}|𝐦_𝐢^{}`$. Its expectation value will be given by,

$$𝒪_i^{\mathrm{od}}=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\rho _i\widehat{𝒪}^{\mathrm{od}}\right)$$
(31)
where $`\rho _i`$ is the density matrix of the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ leg whose entries are,

$`\rho _{𝐦_𝐢,𝐦_𝐢^{}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\psi |\psi }}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐦^{}s𝐦_𝐢\mathrm{or}𝐦_𝐢^{}}{}}(T_{𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐦_\mathrm{𝟐}}^{\mathrm{row}})^2\mathrm{}`$ (32)
$`T_{𝐦_{𝐢\mathrm{𝟏}},𝐦_𝐢}^{\mathrm{row}}T_{𝐦_{𝐢\mathrm{𝟏}},𝐦_𝐢^{}}^{\mathrm{row}}T_{𝐦_𝐢,𝐦_{𝐢+\mathrm{𝟏}}}^{\mathrm{row}}T_{𝐦_𝐢^{},𝐦_{𝐢+\mathrm{𝟏}}}^{\mathrm{row}}\mathrm{}(T_{𝐦_𝐍,𝐦_\mathrm{𝟏}}^{\mathrm{row}})^2`$
Using again eq.(28) in the thermodynamic limit we can write $`\rho _i`$ as

$`\rho _{𝐦_𝐢,𝐦_𝐢^{}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐦_{𝐢\mathrm{𝟏}},𝐦_{𝐢+\mathrm{𝟏}}}{}}v_{𝐦_{𝐢\mathrm{𝟏}}}^lT_{𝐦_{𝐢\mathrm{𝟏}},𝐦_𝐢}^{\mathrm{row}}T_{𝐦_{𝐢\mathrm{𝟏}},𝐦_𝐢^{}}^{\mathrm{row}}`$ (33)
$`T_{𝐦_𝐢,𝐦_{𝐢+\mathrm{𝟏}}}^{\mathrm{row}}T_{𝐦_𝐢^{},𝐦_{𝐢+\mathrm{𝟏}}}^{\mathrm{row}}v_{𝐦_{𝐢+\mathrm{𝟏}}}^r`$
where $`v_𝐦^{l/r}`$ are the left and right eigenvectors with highest eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ of the transfer matrix $`T(W^0)`$. Eq.(33) shows that the regions located above or below of a given leg behave as if they were in a single coherent state, which in some cases can be identified with the ground state of the underlying quantum mechanical model. This is indeed the case if we assume that $`T(W^0)`$ is a symmetric matrix, which is achieved in the six-vertex model if the Boltzmann weights $`a`$ and $`b`$ are equal. From now on we shall assume the latter condition which implies that $`v_𝐦^l=v_𝐦^r=v_𝐦`$.

The computation of (31) is in general quite difficult depending on the operator in question. An approximation can however be made using the following result. If $`𝒪_i^{\mathrm{od}}`$ is a positive definite operator then

$$𝒪_i^{\mathrm{od}}v|\widehat{𝒪}^{\mathrm{od}}|v$$
(34)
The proof of (34) uses the Perron-Frobenius theorem and the Schwarz inequality and it is similar to the one given in Appendix A to prove eq.(23). For diagonal operators acting on a leg, eq.(34) becomes an equality.

## V The six-vertex ATPA

The considerations made above suggest that an ATPA based on the six-vertex model should be a reasonable approximation to the ground state of the following Hamiltonian:

$`H=H_{\mathrm{leg}}+H_{\mathrm{rung}}`$ (35)
$`H_{\mathrm{leg}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\left(\sigma _{i,a}^x\sigma _{i,a+1}^x+\sigma _{i,a}^y\sigma _{i,a+1}^y+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\sigma _{i,a}^z\sigma _{i,a+1}^z\right)`$
$`H_{\mathrm{rung}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\sigma _{i,a}^z\sigma _{i+1,a}^z`$
which is a combination of the XXZ Hamiltonian along the legs and an Ising one along the rungs. The latter choice is motivated by the absence of quantum fluctuations across the legs. This model has also been studied in reference jose  using bosonization techniques. Using the Hellman-Feynman theorem and eqs.(30) and (34), one can find the following lower bound of the energy per site of the ATPA

$$E(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }_0,J^{})=E_0(\mathrm{\Delta })+(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta })\frac{E_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\frac{1}{2}J^{}P(\mathrm{\Delta })$$
(36)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the anisotropy parameter associated to the Boltzmann weights $`W^0`$, i.e.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{a_0^2+b_0^2c_0^2}{2a_0b_0}}`$ (37)
$`a_0=a^2,b_0=b^2,c_0=c^2`$
$`P(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the expectation value defined in eq.(30), and $`E_0(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the GS energy per site of the XXZ model with anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The problem is: fixing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`J^{}`$, find the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that minimizes the total energy (36), i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }_0,J^{})$$
(38)
It is easy to see that if $`J^{}=0`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$.

In the antiferromanetic region ($`AF`$) of the XXZ model, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$, the parametrization of the Boltzmann weights is given by baxter ,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{cosh}\lambda ,\lambda >0`$
$`a_0=\rho \mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda v}{2}}`$ (39)
$`b_0=\rho \mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +v}{2}}`$
$`c_0=\rho \mathrm{sinh}\lambda `$
where $`\rho `$ is an overall factor and $`v`$ is the spectral parameter that is set to zero in order to have a symmetric transfer matrix.

The total energy and its derivative in the $`AF`$ region can be found from the Bethe ansatz solution and they read baxter ,

$`E_0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cosh}\lambda \mathrm{sinh}\lambda 4\mathrm{sinh}\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{2m\lambda }+1}}`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tanh}\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mathrm{tanh}\lambda }}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{2m\lambda }+1}}`$ (41)
$`8{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m\mathrm{e}^{2m\lambda }}{(\mathrm{e}^{2m\lambda }+1)^2}}`$
The matrix element $`P`$ in this region is derived in Appendix B and it reads,

$$P=1\frac{2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\lambda /2)}+\frac{4}{\mathrm{tanh}(\lambda /2)}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}m\lambda }{\mathrm{cosh}^2m\lambda }$$
(42)
In the critical region ($`C`$), i.e. $`1<\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$, the parametrization of the Boltzmann weights is given by baxter ,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{cos}\mu ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}<\mu <\pi `$
$`a_0=\rho \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu v}{2}}`$ (43)
$`b_0=\rho \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu +v}{2}}`$
$`c_0=\rho \mathrm{sin}\mu `$
The GS energy per site and its derivative read baxter

$`E_0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\mu }{\mu }}\left[2\mathrm{log2}2\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{cosh}\mu x}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\pi x}}\right]`$ (44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mu }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x\mathrm{tanh}\mu x}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\pi x}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu \mathrm{tan}\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu ^2}}\right)`$ (45)
$`\times \left[2\mathrm{log2}+2\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{cosh}\mu x}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\pi x}}\right]`$
and $`P`$ is given by ( see Appendix B),

$$P=1\frac{4\pi }{\mu \mathrm{tan}(\mu /2)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2\mu x}{\mathrm{cosh}\mu x\mathrm{sinh}^2\pi x}$$
(46)
Figure 1 shows the phase diagram of the Hamiltonian (35) obtained by minimization of the energy (36). We recall that (36) is a lower bound of the energy of the ATPA, and hence does not yield an upper bound of the exact GS energy of (35).

The region denoted $`AF`$ in fig. 1 corresponds to the cases where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }_0,J^{})`$ lies inside the antiferromagnetic regime $`\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$. The region $`C`$ describes the critical regime, i.e. $`1<\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$, while the region $`F`$ denotes the cases where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$. The phase boundaries between these regions have different properties. The $`AF/C`$ boundary line $`\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$, and hence the transition between the $`AF`$ and $`C`$ phases seems to be continuous. Below the point $`𝐚`$ the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, near the line $`AF/F`$ but on the $`AF`$ side, is smaller than $`1`$, indicating that the $`AF/F`$ boundary is discontinuous. The $`C/F`$ line $`\mathrm{𝐚𝐝}`$ is also discontinuous, meaning that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ jumps across it. Finally, there is no discontinuities across the $`C/F`$ boundary above the point $`𝐝`$.

In reference jose  the Hamiltonian (35) was studied using bosonization, mean field and renormalization group (RG) methods. Disregarding the inter-leg forward scattering and umklapp terms, that arise upon bosonization, the main conclusion of reference jose  is the existence of an AF region whenever $`|J^{}|>2\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ (mean field result) or $`|J^{}|>4\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ ( RG result). Furthermore, the inter-chain forward scattering terms can be taken into account sierra  using the sliding Luttinger liquid approach of references emery00 ; carpentier . In sierra  it was shown that the effect of the inter-chain forward scattering is to modify the phase boundaries separating the AF and C regions in an asymmetric way. Indeed the AF region appears when $`J^{}>C_+\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ ( if $`J^{}>0`$) and $`J^{}>C_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ ( if $`J^{}<0`$), with $`C_+C_{}`$. Hence the results of references jose ; sierra , which should be valid in the weak coupling regime $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_0|,|J^{}|<<1`$, suggest that the system should be in an AF phase whenever the legs are antiferromagnetic, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0<0`$. This is in contradiction with the ATPA result where there exist critical region with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0<0`$. On the other hand the ATPA agrees with the aforementioned works on the existence of large regions in the phase diagram where the system is critical, which we identify with the sliding or smectic Luttinger liquid fixed points of emery00 ; carpentier .

## VI The eight-vertex ATPA

An ATPA closely related to the six-vertex one can be built from the Baxter’s eight-vertex model, whose Boltzmann weights are those of the six-vertex model plus two new weights $`W_{00}^{11}=W_{11}^{00}=d`$ baxter . The conservation law (18) now becomes,

$$W_{\alpha ,\xi }^{\beta ,\eta }=0\mathrm{unless}\alpha +\xi =\beta +\eta ,(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})$$
(47)
The transfer matrix $`𝒯^{\mathrm{col}}`$ also breaks into block matrices $`T^𝐐`$ with the difference that $`Q_i`$ only takes two values 0 and 1, since $`Q_i=1=1(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})`$.

The eight-vertex ATPA can be taken as the an ansazt for the GS of the following Hamiltonian:

$`H=H_{\mathrm{leg}}+H_{\mathrm{rung}}`$ (48)
$`H_{\mathrm{leg}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,a}{}}\left(J_x\sigma _{i,a}^x\sigma _{i,a+1}^x+J_y\sigma _{i,a}^y\sigma _{i,a+1}^y+J_z\sigma _{i,a}^z\sigma _{i,a+1}^z\right)`$
$`H_{\mathrm{rung}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i,a}{}}\sigma _{i,a}^z\sigma _{i+1,a}^z`$
The phase diagram of this model can be worked out using the Baxter’s exact solution of the eight-vertex model, as we did for the six-vertex one in the previous section. The results will be presented elsewhere.

## VII The ATPA and stripes

An interesting feature of the six and the eight-vertex ATPA’s is their possible connection with the stripes in high $`T_c`$ superconductors, specially when regarded as electronic liquid crystals kivelson98 ; emery00 ; carpentier . In this section we shall briefly explore this issue which deserves a more detailed study in the future.

The first observation is that the eight-vertex Hamiltonian (48) ( and similarly the six-vertex one (35) ) can be Jordan-Wigner transformed onto the following spinless fermion Hamiltonian,

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,a}{}}`$ $`[(J_x+J_y)(\psi _{i,a}^{}\psi _{i+1,a}+h.c.)`$ (49)
$`+(J_yJ_x)(\psi _{i,a}\psi _{i+1,a}+h.c.)`$
$`+2J_z(n_{i,a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})(n_{i+1,a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$
$`2J^{}(n_{i,a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})(n_{i,a+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})]`$
which describes the motion of holons along the legs of a 2D lattice ( term $`(J_x+J_y)`$), which are coupled by density-density interactions ( term $`J^{}`$), together with pair tunneling between the legs and the environment ( term $`(J_xJ_y)`$) emery97 . Upon bosonization eq.(49) has a structure similar, but not identical, to the “smectic” Hamiltonian in the spin gap case considered in reference emery00  and the spinless sliding Luttinger model of reference carpentier . Indeed, the smectic symmetry $`\varphi _a\varphi _a+\alpha _a`$ emery00 , where $`\varphi _a`$ is the boson field of the $`a^{\mathrm{th}}`$ leg, is the dual version of the standard $`U(1)`$ symmetry of the six-vertex model, which corresponds to $`\theta _a\theta _a+\alpha _a`$, where $`\theta _a`$ is the dual boson affleck . The CDW coupling among the stripes in emery00 ; carpentier  corresponds to the term $`J^{}`$, while the Josephson tunneling is somehow reflected by the pair creation and annihilation terms. Assuming these correspondences it is quite natural to conjecture a relationship between the smectic phases of references emery00 ; carpentier  and the corresponding phases of the eight-vertex model. The stripe crystal phase should correspond to the antiferromagnetic phase, the smectic superconducting phase should correspond to the disordered phase and finally, the smectic metal should be associated to the critical phase, which is the one of the six-vertex model when $`1<\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$.

## VIII Conclusions

In this paper we have proposed a new class of Anisotropic Tensor Product Ansatzs (ATPA) using the Boltzmann weights of classical Statistical Mechanics vertex models.

We have shown that the computation of the norm and some observables simplifies enormously, becoming exact whenever the underlying SM model is exactly solvable.

The strong anisotropy of the ATPA’s is reflected in the absence of quantum fluctuations across the legs of the 2D lattice, a property which suggests a possible connection with some current models of stripes.

We have studied the ATPA based on the six-vertex model, as a trial state for the ground state of a Hamiltonian given by the sum of XXZ Hamiltonians along the legs of a 2D lattice, which are coupled by an Ising term. Using the exact solution of the six-vertex model we have proposed the phase diagram of this model and compared it with the one obtain with other methods jose ; sierra .

We have suggested a connection between the six-vertex and eight-vertex ATPA’s, and their associated 2D Hamiltonians, with the smectic stripe phases considered in references emery00 ; carpentier .

Let us finally comment on the relation between the ATPA and the DMRG. As we explained in section IV, the link variables along the legs and the rungs of the SM vertex model can be of different type. For example we can choose the rung variables $`\xi ,\eta `$ to take only two values, say 0 and 1, as in the six vertex model, while the legs variables $`\alpha ,\beta `$ can take a large number of values, say $`1,2,\mathrm{},m`$, as in the DMRG. The ATPA so constructed would have a spin 1/2 at each site with strong correlations along the legs. This state would be a sort of anisotropic DMRG state with a stripe like structure built in. The problem is to device an algorithm to update the local weights.

### Acknowledgments

We would like to thank T. Nishino for conversations. This work has been partially supported by the Spanish grant PB98-0685.

## Appendix A: Highest eigenvalue of $`T^𝐐`$

In this appendix we shall give a proof of eq.(23) under the condition that all the TPA amplitudes are non negative. Let us call $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^𝐐`$ the largest eigenvalue of the transfer matrix $`T^𝐐`$ defined in eq.(22). The statement is that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^𝐐\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{𝐐=0},𝐐$$
(50)
Choosing two vectors $`\chi `$ and $`\varphi `$, with positive entries and scalar product equal to 1,

$`\chi |\varphi =1`$ (51)
$`\chi _𝜶=u_𝜶^2,\varphi _𝜶=v_𝜶^2,u_𝜶,v_𝜶>0`$
one has by the definition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^𝐐`$,

$$\chi |T^𝐐|\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }_0^𝐐$$
(52)
where the equality holds whenever $`\chi `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the left and right eigenvectors of $`T^𝐐`$ respectively (recall that, by the Perron-Frobenius theorem, the eigenvector of $`T^𝐐`$, with highest eigenvalue, has all its entries positive).

Using (9) and (22) we can write the LHS of (52) as

$`\chi |T^𝐐|\varphi `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}x_I^\mathrm{𝟎}x_I^𝐐`$ (53)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝜶,𝜷,𝐦}{}}u_𝜶^2v_𝜷^2A_{𝜶,𝜷}^{\mathrm{col}}[𝐦]A_{𝜶+𝐐,𝜷+𝐐}^{\mathrm{col}}[𝐦]`$
where $`I`$ denotes the triple $`(𝜶,𝜷,𝐦)`$ and $`x_I^𝐐`$ stands for

$`x_I^𝐐=u_𝜶v_𝜷A_{𝜶+𝐐,𝜷+𝐐}^{\mathrm{col}}[𝐦]`$ (54)
it turns out that

$$\underset{I}{}\left(x_I^𝐐\right)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^\mathrm{𝟎},𝐐$$
(55)
On the other hand, the Schwarz inequality

$$|\underset{I}{}x_I^\mathrm{𝟎}x_I^𝐐|\sqrt{\left(\underset{I}{}x_I^\mathrm{𝟎}x_I^\mathrm{𝟎}\right)\left(\underset{J}{}x_J^𝐐x_J^𝐐\right)}$$
(56)
implies

$$|\chi |T^𝐐|\varphi |\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^\mathrm{𝟎}$$
(57)
Hence, choosing $`\chi `$ and $`\varphi `$ the left and right eigenvectors of $`T^𝐐`$ one derives the desired result (50).

## Appendix B: The two point correlator $`P(\mathrm{\Delta })`$

In this appendix we indicate how to compute the expectation value

$$P=s_{i,a}s_{i+1,a}_{6\mathrm{vertex}}$$
(58)
in the six-vertex model with Boltzmann weights $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ when $`a=b`$, which is the case under study. This quantity is similar, but not identical, to the polarizability $`P_0=\alpha _1`$ defined by Baxter baxter .

The partition function of the six-vertex model can be expanded as

$$Z=a^{n_1+n_2}b^{n_3+n_4}c^{n_5+n_6}$$
(59)
where $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ are the number of vertices with Boltzmann weight $`a`$, etc. The weights $`a`$ and $`b`$ contribute to $`P`$ with $`+1`$ while $`c`$ does it with $`1`$, hence $`P`$ is given by the formula,

$`P=\underset{N,L\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{NL}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}\left(a{\displaystyle \frac{}{a}}+b{\displaystyle \frac{}{b}}c{\displaystyle \frac{}{c}}\right)Z`$ (60)
$`=\left(a{\displaystyle \frac{}{a}}+b{\displaystyle \frac{}{b}}c{\displaystyle \frac{}{c}}\right)f`$
where $`f`$ is the free energy per site in the units $`k_BT=1`$. It is important to realize that the derivatives in (60) are performed keeping the remaining ones unchanged. Eq.(60) assumes that $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ are independent quantities, however if $`a=b`$ the formula for $`P`$ becomes,

$`P_{a=b}=\left(a{\displaystyle \frac{}{a}}c{\displaystyle \frac{}{c}}\right)f`$ (61)
In the $`AF`$ region the free energy $`f`$ is given, in the parametrization (39), by baxter ,

$`f=\mathrm{log}a+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +v}{2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{m\lambda }\mathrm{sinh}m(\lambda +v)}{m\mathrm{cosh}m\lambda }}`$ (62)
while in the critical region one has, in the parametrization (43) baxter

$`f=\mathrm{log}a+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +v)x\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \mu )x}{\mathrm{sinh}\pi x\mathrm{cosh}\mu x}}`$ (63)
Using eqs.(61), (62) , (63), (39) and (43), with $`v`$ set equal to zero, one can derive eqs.(42) and (46) yielding $`P(\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

In figure 2 we plot $`P(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ in the $`AF`$ and $`C`$ regions. In the $`AF`$ region one has $`1<P<1/3`$, while in the $`C`$ region $`1/3<P<1`$. At the isotropic point $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ one finds $`P=1/3`$, while in the XY model, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, the result is $`P=0`$. In all the ferromagnetic ($`F`$) region, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$, one has $`P=1`$.


format: text

text:
# Induced Lorentz- and CPT-violating Chern-Simons term in QED: Fock-Schwinger proper time method

## Abstract

Using the Fock-Schwinger proper time method, we calculate the induced Chern-Simons term arising from the Lorentz- and CPT-violating sector of quantum electrodynamics with a $`b_\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\psi `$ term. Our result to all orders in $`b`$ coincides with a recent linear-in-$`b`$ calculation by Chaichian et al. \[hep-th/0010129 v2\]. The coincidence was pointed out by Chung \[Phys. Lett. B461 (1999) 138\] and Pérez-Victoria \[Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 2518\] in the standard Feynman diagram calculation with the nonperturbative-in-$`b`$ propagator.

The Lorentz- and CPT-violating Chern-Simons modification to the Maxwell theory was first proposed a decade ago . An important feature of the Chern-Simons term  is that Lagrange density is not gauge invariant, but the action and equations of motion are gauge invariant. In their Lorentz violating extension of the standard model, Colladay and Kostelecký posed the question whether such a term is induced when the Lorentz- and CPT-violating term $`\overline{\psi }b/\gamma _5\psi `$ ($`b_\mu `$ is a constant four vector) is added to the conventional Lagrangian of QED .

Recently, several calculations have been carried out to determine the radiatively induced Chern-Simons term from the Lorentz- and CPT-violating fermion sector :

$`=\overline{\psi }(i/eA/\gamma _5b/m)\psi .`$ (1)
Jackiw and Kostelecký clarified that the induced Chern-Simons term is not uniquely determined . It depends on whether one uses a nonperturbative definition or a perturbative definition of the theory defined by Eq. (1);In the nonperturbative definition, we use the $`b`$-exact propagator $`S(p)=\frac{i}{p/m\gamma _5b/}`$ for the standard perturbation calculation. (See the work of Colladay and Kostelecký  for detailed analysis of the extended Dirac theory with this propagator.) In the perturbative definition, the propagator has the $`b`$-independent form $`S(p)=\frac{i}{p/m}`$ and $`\gamma _5b/`$ is considered as an interaction vertex. In a nonperturbative formalism, radiative corrections induce a definite nonzero Chern-Simons term, while when a perturbative formalism is used, radiative corrections are finite but undetermined. The regularization scheme one chooses to adopt can generate further ambiguity in both nonperturbative and perturbative formalisms.

In the standard Feynman diagram calculation with the nonperturbative-in-$`b`$ propagator, Chung  and Pérez-Victoria  demonstrated that the result to all orders in $`b`$ coincides with the previous linear-in-$`b`$ calculation by Chung and Oh  as well as Jackiw and Kostelecký . More recently, nonstandard approaches were employed also in the calculation of the induced Chern-Simons term. Chan  and Chaichian et al., used the covariant derivative expansion  and the Fock-Schwinger proper time method , respectively, to obtain the induced Chern-Simons term. The common feature in these two nonstandard approaches is to develop a series of local effective Lagrangian in powers of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu =i_\mu eA_\mu `$, rather than in powers of $`i_\mu `$ and $`A_\mu `$ separately.

The purpose of this work is to calculate, using the Fock-Schwinger proper time method, the induced Chern-Simons term arising from the Lorentz- and CPT-violating sector of QED with a $`\overline{\psi }b/\gamma _5\psi `$ term keeping the full $`b`$ dependence in order to see whether the coincidence of all-order-in-$`b`$ result with linear-in-$`b`$ calculation takes place in this nonstandard approach.

The effective action, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, of the theory defined by Eq. (1) is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}=i\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle }𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi \mathrm{e}^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x}}\right)=i\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}(i/eA/\gamma _5b/m),`$ (2)
where the trace “Tr” is taken over both spinor indices (of any combinations of $`4\times 4`$ Dirac matrices) and space-time coordinates.

Let us decompose the trace in Eq. (2) in the following manner, as was done in Eq. (3) of Ref. :

$`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}(i/eA/\gamma _5b/m)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}(i/eA/m)`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle _0^1}dz\mathrm{Tr}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i/+eA/+z\gamma _5b/+m}}\gamma _5b/).`$
Then, the effective action can be written down as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)},`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}(i/eA/m),`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^1}dz\mathrm{Tr}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i/+eA/+z\gamma _5b/+m}}\gamma _5b/).`$ (6)
The induced Chern-Simons term is contained in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}`$. By neglecting the dependence of $`b`$ in the denominator of the trace in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}`$, the authors of Ref.  obtained the undetermined induced Chern-Simons action§§§This undeterminicity arises from an intrinsic ambiguity in the limit $`lim_{x0}x_\mu x_\nu /x^2`$. (See Eq. (73) below.) This limit has directional dependence in a strict mathematical sense as emphasized in Ref. .

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{CS}}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{ce^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^4xϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }b_\mu A_\nu F_{\lambda \rho }}.(c\text{ being an arbitrary contant})`$
If one keeps the full dependence of $`b`$ in the calculation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}`$ for extracting the induced Chern-Simons term, one expects that the induced Chern-Simons action would take the following form:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{CS}}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{ce^2}{4\pi ^2}}\left[1+f\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{m^2}}\right)\right]{\displaystyle d^4xϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }b_\mu A_\nu F_{\lambda \rho }},`$ (7)
where $`f(b^2/m^2)`$ is some function of a single argument $`b^2/m^2`$. In what follows, we are to show by explicit calculation that this function $`f(b^2/m^2)`$, indeed, vanishes.

Now, let us introduce a (fermionic) Green’s function $`G(x,x^{})`$ as the inverse of the operator $`i/+eA/(x)+z\gamma _5b/+m`$, i.e., let us assume that $`G(x,x^{})`$ satisfies the following inhomogeneous differential equation

$`[i/+eA/(x)+z\gamma _5b/+m]G(x,x^{})=\delta ^4(xx^{}).`$ (8)
Then, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}`$ of Eq. (6) can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}={\displaystyle }d^4x_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}=i{\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle _0^1}dz\mathrm{tr}[G(x,x^{})\gamma _5b/]_{x^{}x}.`$ (9)
The trace “tr” in this equation is taken over the spinor indices only and the limit $`x^{}x`$ is taken by averaging the forms obtained by letting $`x^{}`$ approach from the future and from the past . Further, if one introduces a (bosonic) Green’s function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as follows:

$`G(x,x^{})=[i/eA/(x)z\gamma _5b/+m]\mathrm{\Delta }(x,x^{}),`$ (10)
or, equivalently,

$`G(x,x^{})=[i_\mu ^{}eA_\mu (x^{})]\mathrm{\Delta }(x,x^{})\gamma ^\mu +\mathrm{\Delta }(x,x^{})[z\gamma _5b/+m],`$ (11)
then, one finds that Eq. (8) becomes

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(x,x^{})=\delta ^4(xx^{}),`$ (12)
where $``$ is defined as

$`=\mathrm{\Pi }^2+m^2+z^2b^2+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+2iz\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu b_\nu \gamma _5,`$ (13)
with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu i_\mu eA_\mu `$. Borrowing the quantum mechanical matrix element notation, the Green’s function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })`$ can be expressed as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })=x^{}|^1|x^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑sx^{}|e^{is}|x^{\prime \prime }.`$ (14)
In the $`s`$ integration, a convergence factor $`iϵ`$ ($`ϵ>0`$) in $``$ is understood. The idea of the Fock-Schwinger proper time method is to consider $``$ in Eqs. (12) and (13) as a Hamiltonian that governs the evolution in “time” $`s`$ of a hypothetical quantum mechanical system. Then the integrand in Eq. (14) becomes a transition amplitude $`x^{}(s)|x^{\prime \prime }(0)`$. Thus, the solution $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })`$ can be written, in terms of this transition amplitude, as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })=i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑sx^{}(s)|x^{\prime \prime }(0).`$ (15)
Now, let us evaluate the transition amplitude $`x^{}(s)|x^{\prime \prime }(0)`$. It satisfies the evolution equation

$`i_sx^{}(s)|x^{\prime \prime }(0)=x^{}(s)|\mathbf{(}x(s),\mathrm{\Pi }(s)\mathbf{)}|x^{\prime \prime }(0),`$ (16)
with the boundary condition

$`x^{}(s)|x^{\prime \prime }(0)_{s0}=\delta ^4(x^{}x^{\prime \prime }).`$ (17)
In order to obtain the Hamiltonian in the Heisenberg representation, $`\mathbf{(}x(s),\mathrm{\Pi }(s)\mathbf{)}`$, one first has to know the evolutions of $`x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Using the commutation relations

$`[x^\mu ,\mathrm{\Pi }^\nu ]=ig^{\mu \nu },[\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu ,\mathrm{\Pi }^\nu ]=ieF^{\mu \nu },`$
one can obtain the equations of motion for the operators $`x(s)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(s)`$:

$`\dot{x}_\mu =i[,x_\mu ]`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu 2iz\sigma _{\mu \nu }b^\nu \gamma _5,`$ (18)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\mu =i[,\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ]`$ $`=`$ $`2eF_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }^\nu +ie^\nu F_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}_\mu F_{\rho \nu }\sigma ^{\rho \nu }2izeF_{\mu \rho }\sigma ^{\rho \nu }b_\nu \gamma _5.`$ (19)
In the constant $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ approximation, these equations are solved, in matrix notation, as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{2eFs}(\mathrm{\Pi }(0)iz\sigma b\gamma _5)+iz\sigma b\gamma _5,`$ (20)
$`x(s)`$ $`=`$ $`x(0)+(eF)^1\left(\mathrm{e}^{2eFs}1\right)(\mathrm{\Pi }(0)iz\sigma b\gamma _5).`$ (21)
From these two relations, one can find

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}eF\mathrm{e}^{eFs}[\mathrm{sinh}(eFs)]^1[x(s)x(0)]+iz\sigma b\gamma _5,`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}eF\mathrm{e}^{eFs}[\mathrm{sinh}(eFs)]^1[x(s)x(0)]+iz\sigma b\gamma _5,`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^2(s)`$ $`=`$ $`[x(s)x(0)]K[x(s)x(0)]`$ (25)
$`+ize[x(s)x(0)]\mathrm{e}^{eFs}[\mathrm{sinh}(eFs)]^1F\sigma b\gamma _53z^2b^2,`$
where

$`K={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^2F^2[\mathrm{sinh}(eFs)]^2.`$
Further, using the commutation relation

$`[x_\mu (s),x_\nu (0)]=i\left[(eF)^1(\mathrm{e}^{2eFs}1)\right]_{\mu \nu },`$
one can findThe trace denoted by “TR” extends over Lorentz indices only: $`\mathrm{TR}(AB)=A_{\mu \nu }B^{\nu \mu }`$. In particular, note that the expression $`\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)=\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\nu \mu }`$ is still a matrix valued quantity because each $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ is a $`4\times 4`$ matrix.

$`x(0)Kx(s)=x(s)Kx(0){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{TR}[eF\mathrm{coth}(eFs)].`$ (26)
From Eqs. (13), (25), and (26), one finally obtains

$`\mathbf{(}x(s),\mathrm{\Pi }(s)\mathbf{)}`$ $`=`$ $`x(s)Kx(s)+2x(s)Kx(0)x(0)Kx(0)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{TR}[eF\mathrm{coth}(eFs)]{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)+m^22z^2b^2.`$
Therefore, Eq. (16) becomes

$`i_sx^{}(s)|x^{\prime \prime }(0)`$ $`=`$ $`[(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })K(x^{}x^{\prime \prime }){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{TR}[eF\mathrm{coth}(eFs)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)+m^22z^2b^2]x^{}(s)|x^{\prime \prime }(0),`$
whose solution is

$`x^{}(s)|x^{\prime \prime }(0)`$ $`=`$ $`C(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })s^2\mathrm{e}^{L(s)}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })eF\mathrm{coth}(eFs)(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2}}\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)si(m^22z^2b^2)s],`$
where

$`L(s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{TR}\mathrm{ln}[(eFs)^1\mathrm{sinh}(eFs)].`$
From the definition of the operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and the first two relations in Eq. (25), one can find

$`[i^{}eA(x^{})]x^{}(s)|x^{\prime \prime }(0)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}eF[\mathrm{coth}(eFs)+1](x^{}x^{\prime \prime })+iz\sigma b\gamma _5\right)x^{}(s)|x^{\prime \prime }(0),`$ (29)
$`[i^{\prime \prime }eA(x^{\prime \prime })]x^{}(s)|x^{\prime \prime }(0)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}eF[\mathrm{coth}(eFs)1](x^{}x^{\prime \prime })+iz\sigma b\gamma _5\right)x^{}(s)|x^{\prime \prime }(0),`$ (30)
from which, in conjunction with Eq. (28), the differential equations for $`C(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })`$ are obtained:

$`\left[i^{}eA(x^{}){\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}F(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })iz\sigma b\gamma _5\right]C(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\left[i^{\prime \prime }eA(x^{\prime \prime })+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}F(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })iz\sigma b\gamma _5\right]C(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Two forms of the solution for $`C(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })`$ are obtained:

$`C(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })`$ $`=`$ $`C_1(x^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{exp}\left[z(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })\sigma b\gamma _5ie{\displaystyle _{x^{\prime \prime }}^x^{}}𝑑x^\mu \left(A(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F(xx^{\prime \prime })\right)_\mu \right],`$ (31)
$`C(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })`$ $`=`$ $`C_2(x^{})\mathrm{exp}\left[z(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })\sigma b\gamma _5+ie{\displaystyle _x^{}^{x^{\prime \prime }}}𝑑x^\mu \left(A(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F(xx^{})\right)_\mu \right],`$ (32)
Since both integrals in Eqs. (31) and (32) are independent of the integration path due to the Stokes’ theorem, one may choose the integration path to be a straight line connecting $`x^{}`$ and $`x^{\prime \prime }`$, i.e., $`x=x^{\prime \prime }+t(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })`$. Then, it is readily shown that

$`{\displaystyle _{x^{\prime \prime }}^x^{}}𝑑x^\mu \left(F(xx^{\prime \prime })\right)_\mu ={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })F(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle _x^{}^{x^{\prime \prime }}}𝑑x^\mu \left(F(xx^{})\right)_\mu ={\displaystyle _1^0}𝑑t(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })F(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })(1t)=0.`$
With these vanishing integrals in mind, the comparison of two expressions for $`C(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })`$ in Eqs. (31) and (32) leads us to the following conclusion: $`C_1(x^{\prime \prime })=C_2(x^{})=𝒞`$ (constant). The constant $`𝒞`$ is finally determined by Eq. (17) as

$`𝒞={\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}.`$
Therefore, the complete form of the transition amplitude is given as

$`x^{}(s)|x^{\prime \prime }(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })s^2\mathrm{e}^{L(s)}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })eF\mathrm{coth}(eFs)(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })`$ (34)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2}}\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)si(m^22z^2b^2)s],`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })=\mathrm{exp}\left[z(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })\sigma b\gamma _5ie{\displaystyle _{x^{\prime \prime }}^x^{}}𝑑x^\mu A_\mu (x)\right].`$ (35)
Now, let us compute $`\mathrm{tr}[G(x,x^{})\gamma _5b/]`$ in Eq. (9). From Eqs. (10), (11), and (15), we obtain

$`\mathrm{tr}[G(x,x^{})\gamma _5b/]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}\left[(i\gamma _5b^\mu \gamma _5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }b_\nu ){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑sx(s)|\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu (s)|x^{}(0)\right]`$
$`+izb^2\mathrm{tr}\left[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑sx(s)|x^{}(0)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}\left[(i\gamma _5b^\mu \gamma _5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }b_\nu ){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑sx(s)|\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu (0)|x^{}(0)\right]`$
$`+izb^2\mathrm{tr}\left[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑sx(s)|x^{}(0)\right].`$
Averaging these two equivalent expressions gives

$`\mathrm{tr}[G(x,x^{})\gamma _5b/]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ib^\mu }{2}}\mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma _5{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑sx(s)|[\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu (s)\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu (0)]|x^{}(0)\right]`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{b_\nu }{2}}\mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma _5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑sx(s)|[\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu (s)+\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu (0)]|x^{}(0)\right]`$
$`+izb^2\mathrm{tr}\left[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑sx(s)|x^{}(0)\right].`$
From the first two relations in Eq. (25), we have

$`x(s)|\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu (s)\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu (0)|x^{}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`[eF(xx^{})]_\mu x(s)|x^{}(0),`$ (39)
$`x(s)|\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu (s)+\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu (0)|x^{}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`[eF\mathrm{coth}(eFs)(xx^{})+iz\sigma b\gamma _5]_\mu x(s)|x^{}(0).`$ (40)
Using Eqs. (34) and (40), we finally rewrite Eq. (38) as follows:

$`\mathrm{tr}[G(x,x^{})\gamma _5b/]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x,x^{}){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^2}}\mathrm{e}^{i(m^22z^2b^2)s}\mathrm{e}^{L(s)}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i}{4}(xx^{})eF\mathrm{coth}(eFs)(xx^{})}`$ (44)
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}eF_{\mu \nu }(xx^{})^\nu b^\mu \mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma _5\mathrm{e}^{z(xx^{})\sigma b}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{ie}{2}\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)s}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2}}F_{\mu \alpha }[\mathrm{coth}(eFs)]^{\alpha \beta }(xx^{})_\beta b_\nu \mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma _5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{e}^{z(xx^{})\sigma b}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{ie}{2}\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)s}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}b^2\mathrm{tr}\left[\mathrm{e}^{z(xx^{})\sigma b}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{ie}{2}\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)s}\right]\},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x,x^{})`$ is the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,x^{})`$ in Eq. (35) at $`z=0`$.

The vacuum current vector $`J_\mu (x)`$ associated with $`b`$ is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}`$ by variation of $`A^\mu (x)`$:

$`J_\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}}{\delta A^\mu (x)}}.`$ (45)
Thus, from Eqs. (9) and (44), we have, after deforming the integration path of $`is`$ to the positive real axis,

$`J_\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{(4\pi )^2}}(xx^{})_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_0(x,x^{}){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^2}}`$ (50)
$`\times \mathrm{e}^{(m^22z^2b^2)s}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{}(s)}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{4}(xx^{})eF\mathrm{cot}(eFs)(xx^{})}`$
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}eF_{\rho \nu }(xx^{})^\nu b^\rho \mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma _5\mathrm{e}^{z(xx^{})\sigma b\gamma _5}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{e}{2}\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)s}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}F_{\rho \alpha }[\mathrm{cot}(eFs)]^{\alpha \beta }(xx^{})_\beta b_\nu \mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma _5\sigma ^{\rho \nu }\mathrm{e}^{z(xx^{})\sigma b\gamma _5}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{e}{2}\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)s}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}b^2\mathrm{tr}\left[\mathrm{e}^{z(xx^{})\sigma b\gamma _5}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{e}{2}\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)s}\right]\}_{x^{}x},`$
where

$`\mathrm{}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{TR}\mathrm{ln}[(eFs)^1\mathrm{sin}(eFs)].`$
Using the eigenvalue technique , $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{}(s)}`$ is determined as

$`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{}(s)}={\displaystyle \frac{(es)^2𝒢}{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{cosh}(esX)}},`$ (51)
where

$`X=\sqrt{2(+i𝒢)},={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\text{E}^2\text{B}^2),𝒢={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=\text{E}\text{B}`$
with $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }F_{\lambda \rho }`$. From the matrix decomposition formulas

$`\mathrm{e}^{z(xx^{})\sigma b\gamma _5}=a_1+a_2(xx^{})\sigma b\gamma _5,`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{e}{2}\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)s}=c_1+c_2\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)+ic_3\gamma _5+ic_4\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)\gamma _5,`$
where

$`a_1={\displaystyle \underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^{2N}}{(2N)!}}[(xx^{})^2b^2\mathbf{(}(xx^{})b\mathbf{)}^2]^N,`$
$`a_2={\displaystyle \underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^{2N+1}}{(2N+1)!}}[(xx^{})^2b^2\mathbf{(}(xx^{})b\mathbf{)}^2]^N,`$
$`c_1=\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{cosh}(esX),c_2=\mathrm{Re}[\mathrm{sinh}(esX)/(2X)],`$
$`c_3=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{cosh}(esX),c_4=\mathrm{Im}[\mathrm{sinh}(esX)/(2X)],`$
the trace quantities in the integrand of Eq. (50) are evaluated as follows:

$`\mathrm{tr}\left[\mathrm{e}^{z(xx^{})\sigma b\gamma _5}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{e}{2}\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)s}\right]=4a_1c_18ia_2c_2(xx^{})\stackrel{~}{F}b8ia_2c_4(xx^{})Fb,`$ (52)
$`\mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma _5\mathrm{e}^{z(xx^{})\sigma b\gamma _5}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{e}{2}\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)s}\right]=4ia_1c_38a_2c_2(xx^{})Fb+8a_2c_4(xx^{})\stackrel{~}{F}b,`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma _5\sigma ^{\rho \nu }\mathrm{e}^{z(xx^{})\sigma b\gamma _5}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{e}{2}\mathrm{TR}(\sigma F)s}\right]=8ia_1\left(c_2\stackrel{~}{F}^{\rho \nu }+c_4F^{\rho \nu }\right)`$ (54)
$`+4a_2\left(c_1[(xx^{})^\rho b^\nu (xx^{})^\nu b^\rho ]+ic_3(xx^{})_\alpha b_\beta ϵ^{\alpha \beta \rho \nu }\right)`$ (55)
$`+8ia_2(c_2[b^\rho \mathbf{(}(xx^{})F\mathbf{)}^\nu b^\nu \mathbf{(}(xx^{})F\mathbf{)}^\rho `$ (56)
$`+(xx^{})^\nu (bF)^\rho (xx^{})^\rho (bF)^\nu ]`$ (57)
$`+4ic_4[ϵ^{\rho \nu \alpha \beta }(xx^{})_\alpha (bF)_\beta ϵ^{\rho \nu \alpha \beta }b_\alpha \mathbf{(}(xx^{})F\mathbf{)}_\beta `$ (58)
$`b^\rho \mathbf{(}(xx^{})\stackrel{~}{F}\mathbf{)}^\nu +b^\nu \mathbf{(}(xx^{})\stackrel{~}{F}\mathbf{)}^\rho `$ (59)
$`+(xx^{})^\rho (b\stackrel{~}{F})^\nu (xx^{})^\nu (b\stackrel{~}{F})^\rho ]).`$ (60)
Now substituting Eqs. (51) and (60) into Eq. (50) and discarding terms that do not contribute to the Chern-simons current, we obtain

$`J_\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^3𝒢}{4\pi ^2}}(xx^{})_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_0(x,x^{}){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{cosh}(esX)}}`$ (63)
$`\times \mathrm{e}^{(m^22z^2b^2)s}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{4}(xx^{})eF\mathrm{coth}(eFs)(xx^{})}`$
$`\times \left\{a_1c_2eF_{\rho \alpha }[\mathrm{cot}(eFs)]^{\alpha \beta }(xx^{})_\beta b_\nu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\rho \nu }+a_2c_2zb^2(xx^{})_\rho \stackrel{~}{F}^{\rho \nu }b_\nu \right\}_{x^{}x}.`$
Thus, the current $`J_\mu (x)`$ of Eq. (63) is cast, in the leading order approximation in the coupling constant $`e`$, to the following form:This approximation matches with the conventional Feynman diagram calculation of the one-loop vacuum polarization tensor.

$`J_\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dz[(xx^{})_\mu (xx^{})_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }_0(x,x^{})\stackrel{~}{F}^{\rho \nu }b_\nu `$ (65)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}ds({\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{s^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2zb^2}{s}})\mathrm{e}^{(m^22z^2b^2)s+(xx^{})^2/(4s)}]_{x^{}x}.`$
In the light of $`b`$-perturbation theory, the insertions of $`b/\gamma _5`$ are revealed best via the expansion of the factor $`\mathrm{e}^{2z^2b^2s}`$ \[in Eq. (65)\] in powers of its exponent. Then using an integration formula

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ss^{n2}\mathrm{e}^{sy1/s}=2y^{(1n)/2}K_{n1}\left(2y^{1/2}\right),`$
with $`K_n(x)`$ being the modified Bessel function of order $`n`$, the Chern-Simons current $`J_\mu (x)`$ in Eq. (65) is evaluated as follows:

$`J_\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dz[\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x,x^{}){\displaystyle \frac{(xx^{})_\mu (xx^{})_\rho }{(xx^{})^2}}b_\nu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\rho \nu }`$ (69)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^{2N}}{(2N)!}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{2N+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{m^2}}[m^2(xx^{})^2]^{1/2})`$
$`\times \left\{(xx^{})^2b^2{\displaystyle \frac{(xx^{})_\alpha (xx^{})_\beta }{(xx^{})^2}}(xx^{})^2b^\alpha b^\beta \right\}^N`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^{2n}}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{m^2}}\right)^n[m^2(xx^{})^2]^{(n+1)/2}K_{n1}\left([m^2(xx^{})^2]^{1/2}\right)]_{x^{}x}.`$
Using the following formulas

$`\underset{x^{}x}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x,x^{})=1,`$ (70)
$`\underset{x^{}x}{lim}[m^2(xx^{})^2]^{1/2}K_1\left([m^2(xx^{})^2]^{1/2}\right)=1,`$ (71)
$`\underset{x^{}x}{lim}[m^2(xx^{})^2]^{(n+1)/2}K_{n1}\left([m^2(xx^{})^2]^{1/2}\right)=0,n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ (72)
$`\underset{x^{}x}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{(xx^{})_\mu (xx^{})_\nu }{(xx^{})^2}}=cg_{\mu \nu },(c\text{ being an arbitrary contant})`$ (73)
it is not difficult to see that each higher order term separately vanishes. Thus, we finally arrive at

$`J_\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ce^2}{2\pi ^2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }b^\nu {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z,`$
and equivalently

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{CS}}={\displaystyle \frac{ce^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^4xϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }b_\mu A_\nu F_{\lambda \rho }_0^1𝑑z},`$
which means that the all-order-in-$`b`$ calculation does not alter the linear-in-$`b`$ result and thus the functiom $`f(b^2/m^2)`$ in Eq. (7) vanishes. This complete our calculation.

We understand  the identity of the lowest-order calculation with the all-order calculation by following an argument of Coleman and Glashow . Since in the expansion of the $`b`$-dependent vacuum polarization amplitude in powers of $`b`$ ($`b`$-perturbation theory), all except the first order are free of linear divergences. Hence there is no ambiguity in evaluating higher order graphs. Momentarily let each of the two photons carry different momenta, say $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ (this means that the chiral inserions of $`b/\gamma _5`$ carry non-zero momentum); Applying the Ward identity to this vacuum polarization amplitude, one finds that the amplitude is $`O(p_1)`$ and $`O(p_2)`$ at the same time, i.e., it is $`O(p_1p_2)`$; now go to equal momenta, $`p_1=p_2=p`$, and observe that the amplitude must be $`O(p^2)`$. The Chern-Simons term one is seeking is $`O(p)`$; hence all these higher-order graphs do not contribute.

In summary, we have used the the Fock-Schwinger proper time method to calculate the induced Chern-Simons term arising from the Lorentz- and CPT-violating sector of quantum electrodynamics with a $`b_\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\psi `$ term. Although there is an ambiguity in the calculation as mentioned in footnote 2, our all-order-in-$`b`$ result coincides, independently of this ambiguity, with the linear-in-$`b`$ result.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by a Korea Research Foundation grant (KRF-2000-015-DP0066).


text:
# The Search for Anomalous 𝑊⁺𝑊⁻𝑡𝑡̄ Couplings at the LCTalk contributed to the Linear Collider Workshop 2000 (LCWS2000), 24-28 October 2000, Fermilab, Batavia, Illinois, USA.

ANL-HEP-CP-01-006 hep-ph/0101253

## Abstract

We study production of $`t\overline{t}`$ via $`W^+W^{}`$-fusion, including the relevant backgrounds at the proposed Linear Collider (an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider with $`\sqrt{S}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.5}`$ TeV) in the context of a Higssless Standard Model (HSM), i.e. a nonlinear SU(2$`)_L\times `$ U(1$`)_Y`$ chiral Lagrangian, including dimension five $`W^+W^{}t\overline{t}`$ interactions. Deviation from the HSM predictions can be used to constrain the coefficients of these operators to an order of $`10^1`$ (divided by the cut-off scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3.1`$TeV) with a $`95\%`$ C.L..

One of the deep mysteries with which we are confronted today in particle physics is the mechanism of the electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB). While the fundamental Higgs mechanism postulated by the Standard Model (SM) currently provides an excellent description of all experimental data, the Higgs itself has defied discovery. This leads us to explore other probes of the EWSB sector, such as deviations in the couplings of known particles from SM predictions, induced by the underlying EWSB physics.

The top quark, as the only quark whose mass is of the same order as the EWSB scale, $`v246`$ GeV, provides a natural laboratory in which to search for these nonstandard effects. In fact, the large top mass may be a clue that top plays an essential role in the EWSB, and a detailed study of its properties may prove to be the only way to unravel the true nature of the EWSB dynamics. It is important that these interactions be studied exhaustively and model-independently, since without a deep understanding of the underlying physics it is impossible to know what to expect.

In this talk we address how one can use the process $`W^+W^{}t\overline{t}`$ at a high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collider (which we assume to have center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{S}=1.5`$ TeV with a data sample of 200 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$) to probe several parameters of a generic effective theory in which the electroweak symmetry is broken, but no assumptions about how the breaking occurs are imposed. We show that non-standard interactions of $`𝒪(10^1)`$ are tested by this process wwtt . Our model-independent results, in the context of a nonlinear realization of the electroweak (EW) gauge symmetry nonlinear  are complimentary to studies based on specific models wwtt2 , upon parameterizations with linear realizations of the EW symmetry wwtt3 , studies which include generic scalar bosons wwtt4 , as well as to studies at hadron colliders based on single top production singlet . If there is new physics associated with the EWSB present in this channel, it could be discovered in this way, and we would know what some of the properties an underlying theory would have to possess in order to explain the observed deviation. Similarly, if no effect is discovered, we effectively constrain any theory of new physics which contributes to this process.

Our dimension five interactions are part of the electroweak chiral Lagrangian, which realizes the EW gauge symmetry nonlinearly. This parameterization is most appropriate for a theory in which the underlying EWSB dynamics is strong, and there is effectively no Higgs boson at low energies, and thus our setting can be thought of as the Higgsless Standard Model (HSM). As was studied in Ref. top5 , there are fourteen dimension five operators which contribute to $`W^+W^{}t\overline{t}`$ scattering in this context, however only seven of them contribute to the leading behavior in $`E`$, the energy of the $`t\overline{t}`$ system. These seven operators may be further classified by their Lorentz structure as either scalar operators, contributing only to S-wave $`W_L^+W_L^{}t\overline{t}`$ scattering, as tensor operators contributing to P-wave scattering, and one operator which contains both structures. Thus, without loss of generality, we restrict our attention to one dimension 5 operator of each type, contributing at leading order in $`E`$,

$`_{eff}^5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\overline{t}tW_\mu ^+W^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}i\overline{t}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }tW_\mu ^+W_\nu ^{},`$ (1)
where $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ parameterize the strength of the S-wave and P-wave operators, respectively, and are expected from naive dimensional analysis to be order 1 when the cut-off of the theory is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=4\pi v=3.1`$ TeV georgi . In our discussion below, we set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3.1`$ TeV and discuss how well one may constrain $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ for this assumed value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

We perform detailed Monte Carlo simulations of the process $`e^+e^{}\nu _e\overline{\nu }_et\overline{t}`$, including the exact $`24`$ tree level matrix elements. The HSM contains 19 Feynman diagrams for this process, and our new physics that we wish to probe contributes up to two extra diagrams, as shown in Fig. 1, one for each operator under study. Assuming that the new physics contributions are small compared to the HSM rates, our dominant signal will arise from the interference between the HSM graphs, and ones containing the new physics operators in Eq. 1.

Our experimental signature is taken to be a $`t\overline{t}`$ pair, and missing transverse energy ($`E_T`$) from the neutrinos in the final state. We also consider the dominant background to this process, $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}\gamma `$, where the photon is missed because it falls outside of the detector coverage (assumed to be 0.15 rad about the beam axis), thus faking missing $`E_T`$. We impose the restriction that the $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ each have transverse momentum $`p_T20`$ GeV and rapidity $`|y|2`$ in order to be observable. In addition, we find that we can suppress the fake background by requiring the $`p_T`$ of the $`t\overline{t}`$ pair to also be larger than 20 GeV, because the fake rate produces photons which tend to be collinear with the incoming electrons. After imposing these cuts, we are left with cross sections of 4 fb (assuming $`a_1=a_2=0`$) for $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and 1.8 fb for $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}\gamma `$. The fake background may be further reduced, by polarizing the $`e^{}`$ and/or $`e^+`$ beam, because in the signal $`W^+W^{}t\overline{t}`$ process the $`W`$ bosons only couple to left- (right-handed) fermions (anti-fermions), whereas the fake process is dominated by initial state radiation which couples to both polarizations.

We now allow $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ to be non-zero, and derive 95% confidence level (C.L.) constraints on these parameters. The simplest thing one can do is to count the number of $`W^+W^{}t\overline{t}`$ events. The dependence on $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ is shown in Fig. 2. Note that because the primary influence of the new physics operators is through an interference effect, the event rate can actually be smaller than the HSM prediction. Requiring that no 95% C.L. deviation is observed restricts $`0.13a_10.18`$ and $`0.9a_20.2`$.

One may improve these constraints by noting that the new physics operators result in modified kinematic distributions for the produced top quarks. In particular, we have found that both the rapidity of the $`t\overline{t}`$ system, $`y_{t\overline{t}}`$, and the rapidity gap between the $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$, $`y_ty_{\overline{t}}`$, are sensitive to the presence of the anomalous $`W^+W^{}t\overline{t}`$ operators. In particular, the tensor operator ($`a_2`$) tends to shift the $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ rapidities in the opposite directions from the HSM predictions, and thus the rapidity gap distribution is especially effective at revealing the presence of such a P-wave new physics effect. We quantify the deviation of a given measured distribution compared to the HSM prediction by the $`\chi ^2`$ deviation,

$`\chi ^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j=1}^K{\displaystyle \frac{(N_j^AN_j^{HSM})^2}{N_j^{HSM}}},`$ (2)
and find that for an integrated luminosity of $`L=200\mathrm{fb}^1`$, it is optimal to use 3 equally sized bins in the region $`0.6y_{t\overline{t}}0.6`$, and 4 bins for the $`y_ty_{\overline{t}}`$ analysis (in the region $`0y_ty_{\overline{t}}2`$). Applying the $`\chi ^2`$ analysis improves the constraints to $`0.10a_10.12`$ from $`\chi ^2(y_{t\overline{t}})`$ and $`0.3a_20.2`$ from $`\chi ^2(y_ty_{\overline{t}})`$. The fact that the two operators are more evident in two different distributions could also be used to disentangle one from the other, should a deviation in the total rate be observed. We have also examined the polarizations of the $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ and found that some improvement in sensitivity is possible if these polarizations are also measured wwtt .

In conclusion, we have found that in models in which the EWSB is a result of underlying strong dynamics, the process $`W^+W^{}t\overline{t}`$ at a high energy linear collider is a powerful test of several operators which may be present in the low energy effective theory, and may provide useful information in divining the true nature of the EWSB.

This work was supported in part by Conacyt and the NSF under grant PHY-980256-4. Research at Argonne National Lab is funded by the DOE under contract W-31-109-ENG-38.


text:
# An Inclusive Cross Section for the Nucleus - Nucleus Interaction at RHIC Energies

##

For heavy ion collisions at high energy, saturation of the parton density is predicted both in high density QCD  and in a Pomeron approach . The goal of this letter is to estimate the value of the inclusive cross section for the case of nucleus-nucleus interactions in a Pomeron approach, as this will be the background for any interesting signal of new physics such as the saturation of the gluon density , or the creation of a quark-gluon plasma at RHIC . The physical picture, behind our Pomeron approach, is the old fashioned parton model , which was and can still be used as a guide in strong interaction physics at large distances (”soft” physics). In spite of the simple physics described by Pomeron exchanges, the Pomeron approach is technically rather complicated, and this problem has not yet been solved for hadron-hadron interactions. However, for inclusive production in ion-ion collisions there are two significant simplifications which enable one to develop a self consistent theoretical description in our Pomeron approach:

1. For a heavy nucleus the vertex of the Pomeron-nucleus interaction $`g_{PA}(b_t)=A^{\frac{1}{3}}g_{PN}(b_t=0)S_A(b_t)`$ where $`g_{PN}(b_t=0)`$, is the vertex of the Pomeron - nucleon interaction at $`b_t=0`$, and $`S_A(b_t)`$ is the nucleus profile function normalized so that $`d^2b_tS_A(b_t)=1`$. Due to $`A^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ enhancement of Pomeron-nucleus interaction we can develop a theoretical approach  considering $`G_{3P}g_{PA}(b_t=0)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ while $`G_{3P}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. Here, $`G_{3P}`$ is the triple Pomeron vertex (see Fig. 1 ). In this approach one can neglect the loop Pomeron diagrams in comparison with the ”tree” diagrams of Fig.1.
2. Using the AGK-cutting rules , all Pomeron diagrams in which more then two Pomerons cross the rapidity level $`y_c`$ cancel in the inclusive cross section. Therefore, only Mueller diagrams, shown in Fig.1, survive.

Using the approach, developed in Refs., we obtain the following closed expression for the diagrams shown in Fig.1 ( see Fig.1 for notation )

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (A_1+A_2)}{dy_c}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2b_td^2b_t^{}a_P^PR_{A_1}(Yy_c,b_t)R_{A_2}(y_c,b_t^{})}=`$
$`=`$ $`a_P^P{\displaystyle d^2b_td^2b_t^{}\frac{g_{PA_1}(b_t)g_{PA_2}(b_t^{})e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y}}{\left(g_{PA_1}(b_t)\gamma \left(e^{\mathrm{\Delta }(Yy_c)}1\right)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\right)\left(g_{PA_2}(b_t^{})\gamma \left(e^{\mathrm{\Delta }y_c}1\right)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\right)}}`$
here $`\gamma =G_{3P}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`G_{3P}`$ is the vertex of the triple Pomeron interaction, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\alpha _P(0)1`$ where $`\alpha _P(0)`$ is the Pomeron’s intercept, $`a_P^P`$ is the particle emission vertex and $`Y=\mathrm{ln}\left(s/1GeV^2\right)`$ is the total rapidity interval for $`A_1A_2`$ collision. $`R_A(Y,b_t)`$ is the sum of ”tree” diagrams and is given in .

Eq.( An Inclusive Cross Section for the  Nucleus - Nucleus Interaction at RHIC Energies) predicts saturation of the density of produced particles which can be defined as

$$\rho \left(y_c\right)=\frac{dN(y_c)}{dy_c}=\frac{\frac{d\sigma (A_1+A_2)}{dy_c}}{\sigma _{tot}(A_1+A_2)},$$
(2)
where $`N(y_c)`$ denotes the multiplicity of particles with rapidity $`y_c`$.

Eq.( An Inclusive Cross Section for the  Nucleus - Nucleus Interaction at RHIC Energies) leads to a constant density $`\rho (y_c)`$ at high energies. To show this, we note that using a simplified Wood-Saxon type $`b_t`$ distribution for the density of a nucleus, namely,

$$S_A\left(b_t\right)=\frac{1}{\pi R_A^2}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(R_Ab_t\right),$$
(3)
the total cross section ( for $`A_1>A_2`$ ) is

$$\sigma _{tot}=2\pi R_{A_1}^2.$$
(4)
Integrating over $`b_t`$ and $`b_t^{}`$ in Eq.( An Inclusive Cross Section for the  Nucleus - Nucleus Interaction at RHIC Energies) we have

$$\rho (y_c)|_{Yy_c1}a_P^P\frac{R_{A_2}^2}{2\pi \gamma ^2},$$
(5)
where at high energy (see Fig.1)

$$a_P^P=\frac{\frac{d\sigma (N+N)}{dy_c}}{\sigma _{tot}(N+N)}$$

Eq.( 5) suggests that the particle density is independent of the energy and of the atomic number of the heaviest nucleus. It is instructive to compare this prediction with the density obtained in the Glauber-Gribov approach  where

$$\rho (y_c)|_{y1}a_P^PA_2A_1^{\frac{1}{3}}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y}.$$
(6)
Eq.( 6) predicts a different behaviour for the particle density than does Eq.( 5), with a clear dependence on energy and on $`A_1`$. Eq. (An Inclusive Cross Section for the  Nucleus - Nucleus Interaction at RHIC Energies) also contains a very simple prediction for the particle density in the fragmentation regions. Assume that $`y_c0`$ and $`y_cY`$ correspond to the fragmentation regions for lightest and heaviest nucleus, respectively. From Eq. (An Inclusive Cross Section for the  Nucleus - Nucleus Interaction at RHIC Energies) it follows that

$`\rho (y_c)|_{y_c0}`$ $`=`$ $`A_2{\displaystyle \frac{g_{PN}\gamma }{2\pi }};`$ (7)
$`\rho (y_c)|_{y_cY}`$ $`=`$ $`A_2^{\frac{2}{3}}A_1^{\frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{PN}\gamma }{2\pi }}.`$ (8)
Fig. 2 illustrates our prediction for particle density.

The physics that Eq. (5) is based on, is the same saturation of the parton density that has been discussed over the past decade in the framework of high density QCD . Namely, due to the emission of partons, the parton density increases at high energies but, simultaneously, the probability of the interaction of two partons increases as well. Since, two interacting partons can annihilate into one, such interactions diminish the number of partons in the parton cascade. Finally, competition between the emission and the annihilation leads to an equilibrium state with a definite value for the parton density. We call this phenomenon, saturation of the parton density. The high density QCD approach leads to the following $`AA`$ dependence of the process :

$$<N_{A_1A_2}>=Q_s^2(s,A_1)A_2^{\frac{2}{3}}<N_{NN}>,$$

here $`A_2<A_1`$, $`Q_s^2(s,A_1)`$ is the saturation scale, which increases with $`A`$, and the energy squared $`s`$, $`<N>`$ is the density of the produced hadrons in the $`A_1A_2`$ or the $`NN`$ interactions. $`Q_s^2(s,A)`$ grows with $`A`$ ( at least $`Q_s^2A^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ , but it could even be proportional to $`A^{\frac{2}{3}}`$  ), and therefore high density QCD predicts

$$<N_{A_1A_2}>A_2^{\frac{2}{3}}\left(A_1^{\frac{1}{3}}÷A_1^{\frac{2}{3}}\right),$$
(9)
where $`A_2<A_1`$. Eq. (5) can be rewritten as:

$$<N_{A_1A_2}>=A_2^{\frac{2}{3}}<N_{NN}>,$$
(10)
where $`A_2<A_1`$.

Eq. (10) leads to different predictions than those of both the Glauber approach (see Eq. (6) ) and the high density QCD approach ( see Eq. (9) ).

To calculate the particle density at RHIC energies we need to specify how to calculate the total cross section. It turns out that even in our approach for nucleus-nucleus scattering, the problem of determining the total cross section is rather complicated, but it has been solved in Ref. . We use the following expression for $`\sigma _{tot}`$:

$`\sigma _{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle d^2b_t\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(s,b_t)}{2}\right)\right)}.`$ (11)
Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }(s,b_t)`$ the opacity is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(s,b_t)=d^2b_t^{}F(Y,b_t^{},|\stackrel{}{b}_t\stackrel{}{b^{}}_t|),$$
(13)
and $`F(Y,b_t^{},|\stackrel{}{b}_t\stackrel{}{b^{}}_t|)`$ is the amplitude of the nucleus-nucleus interaction . Since the RHIC energies are not very high ( $`Y=\mathrm{ln}(s/1GeV^2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}`$ we can use a simple formula for $`F`$ ( see Ref.  for details ):

$`F(Y,b_t,b_t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{PA_1}(b_tb_t^{})g_{PA_2}(b_t^{})e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y}}{\left(g_{PA_1}(b_tb_t^{})+g_{PA_2}(b_t^{})\right)\gamma \left(e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y}1\right)+1}}.`$ (14)
We assume the Wood-Saxon parametrization  for profile function $`S_A(b_t)`$.

$$S_A(b_t)=\frac{\rho }{1+e^{\frac{rR_A}{h}}};$$
(15)
where $`R_A`$ is the nucleus radius $`R_A=1.4A^{\frac{1}{3}}fm`$ and $`h`$ the surface thickness $`h1fm`$. For a numerical estimate we used the parameters of Eq. (15) given in Ref. .

It is even easier to calculate the particle density for central A-A collisions which has been measured at RICH. The observable can be written as a ratio of the inclusive cross section to the cross section at fixed $`b_t=0`$.

$$\rho _{central}\left(y_c\right)=\frac{d^2b_t^{}a_P^PR_{A_1}(Yy_c,b_t^{})R_{A_2}(y_c,b_t^{})}{2\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(s,b_t=0)}{2}\right)\right)}$$
(16)
$$d^2b_t^{}\frac{g_{PA_1}(b_t^{})g_{PA_2}(b_t^{})e^{\mathrm{\Delta }Y}}{\left(g_{PA_1}(b_t^{})\gamma \left(e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(Yy_c\right)}1\right)+1\right)\left(g_{PA_2}(b_t^{})\gamma \left(e^{\mathrm{\Delta }y_c}1\right)+1\right)}$$
(17)
since $`\mathrm{\Omega }(s,b_t=0)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ for A-A scattering.

We calculate the particle density, defined be Eq. (2), for Au-Mo, Au-Ne and Ne-Mo scattering at the RHIC energies, $`W=56GeV`$ ( $`Y=\mathrm{ln}\left(s/1GeV^2\right)=8`$ ) and $`W=156GeV`$ ( $`Y=\mathrm{ln}\left(s/1GeV^2\right)=10`$) . For proton-proton scattering we use the following parameters, which fit the experimental data quite well ( see Ref.  for details ):

| $`\gamma =1.19GeV^1`$ | $`g_{PN}=8.4GeV^1`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.07`$ | $`a_P^P=2`$. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

Fig. 3 shows that we find a particle density which is $`2÷3`$ times smaller than in the Glauber approach. The contrast is even more impressive when compared with the prediction of the gluon saturation approaches or/and for quark-gluon plasma production ( see Refs. and  for example ). The physics is very simple and is the same as for the gluon saturation approach: the interactions between partons diminish their number, but in contrast to gluon saturation the interaction only occurs when the partons have low transverse momenta.

Comparison with the experimental data111 The experimental data at lowest energy ( $`\sqrt{s}=24GeV`$ ) were recalculated from lead - lead collision to gold-gold one , using our formulae. is given in Fig.4. We plot three different theoretical curves in Fig.4: the upper one is the calculation of the hadron density for a central collision, calculated using Eq. (16) with $`b_t=0`$; the middle curve is calculated , assuming that centrality of the nucleus interaction was fixed with an accuracy $`b_t\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}fm`$ 222 We integrated both the numerator and the denominator in Eq. (16) over $`b_t\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}fm`$.; and the lowest curve is the inclusive density of Eq. (2). One can see that the agreement both in value and in the energy dependence is rather good, but it depends strongly on the accuracy with which the centrality of the experimental interaction was determined. However, it is very difficult to distinguish our prediction for gold-gold collisions from those based on the saturation approach at high density QCD, when the saturation scale is low (approximately $`1÷1.5GeV`$ ) as was suggested in Ref. . For this case both approaches describe the same physics at RHIC energies and we need more data on different nuclei to differentiate between these two approaches.

Our conclusions are simple. We show that the RHIC data on the rapidity multiplicity in the central A-A collision can be used to test the different models . We predict that at RHIC, densities will be rather small ( 400-500 particles per unit of rapidity for gold-gold interaction, see Fig.4 ) and these data support the saturation hypothesis, at least for sufficiently small transverse momenta for which our Pomeron approach is valid. Secondly, our calculations should be considered as a background for a signal of new physics such as saturation of the gluon density in high energy QCD or/and quark-gluon plasma production. Fig.3 shows that the measurement of A-dependence will be very decisive in distinguishing between the saturation due to the Pomeron interaction and the high density QCD approach.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Larry McLerran, Dima Kharzeev, Yuri Kovchegov and Al Mueller, for many informative and encouraging discussions.

This research was supported in part by the BSF grant $`\mathrm{\#}`$ 9800276, by the GIF grant $`\mathrm{\#}`$ I-620-22.14/1999 and by Israeli Science Foundation, founded by the Israeli Academy of Science and Humanities.